Russian Navy vs Japanese Navy

Big cruiser can last 50 years. If NATO comes up with a laser that can destroy the zirkon the 8 or 16 cells armed frigates will be useless and they won't be able to overwhelm opposing forces.

And if they do come up with a big laser for shooting down missiles... so what... it is going to happen eventually and Russia needs to work out solutions for such problems... of course knowing HATO that laser will be able to fire two shots every 20 minutes and cost 100 million dollars per shot so most navies will have never fired theirs more than 3-4 times, so in a real conflict when they fire number 9th shot the whole thing explodes...

But what I really want to ask is why you think Russian Frigates should be able to wipe out all of HATO with impunity to have any value.

What if HATO never comes up with a laser that can reliably take down anti ship missiles more effectively than a SAM could... what then?

Russia cannot waste time trying to make its Frigates more powerful than US cruisers... it is like demanding their infantrymen achieve accuracy standards their snipers can't match over much greater distances... it wont have any real value.

Not against low flying missiles.

We have been over this... a Corvette wont be operating alone... it is part of a network that will include a range of information sources including Ka-31 helicopters and aircraft and ground based long range radar... just like a corvette launching a 2,500km range cruise missile against an ISIS ammo bunker doens't need to see the bunker from where they launch the missile it does not need to see incoming missiles to engage them with active radar homing SAMs...

That's why they need a new destroyer build around many VLS.

I agree, but the need is not critical and it is not urgent enough to rush and make something that might turn out to be a dog... like the US attempt at a new carrier, like the US attempt at a frigate replacement, like the US attempt at a new destroyer class...  it is clearly pretty easy to let the technology become the focus and more missiles or special guns or whatever get in the way of what needs to be done.

It's a frigate. It is an exemple that far away from home, once it launches its first salvo of missiles they are left with not much to protect themselves. That's why they need something like project 21956 for long range patrol that could be reinforced by one or two Gorshkov if tensions rise.

It is a modification of a cold war frigate whose main armament was four anti sub missiles. Having a single 8 tube launcher able to carry Onyx supersonic anti ship missiles, or 2,500km range land attack missiles is actually a bit of a step up, but it was a coast guard vessel used by the MVD originally and hardly reflects the new vessels being built.

For european ships it's even worse they have nothing to attack, pretty low range antiship missiles and their high price means low numbers.

So what you are saying is... not great, but better than most HATO alternatives... I would agree, but don't understand why you think it is a problem.

Those HATO frigates are not going to wipe out the Russian Navy on their own... why would you expect an upgraded cold war Soviet frigate to achieve the same?

If NATO can do this then ultimately they have the doomsday Torpedo as their last security measure. But lasers will require targeting which is subject to countermeasures. Hypersonic weapons will operate in a cloud of plasma so targeting will be very difficult, they can release decoys and are already by definition extremely resistant to heat. Perhaps the first stage of the attack is a bunch of conventional smokescreen missiles to create haze in the direction of the attack.

It is bare minimum 3 ton missile... I rather suspect the front 60mm could be made of some ceramic crap that likes to be heated to enormous temperatures... it probably already needs that for normal operations...

Most of their ships will be able to carry Zircons and land based launchers would be cheap... it would not be a big deal if HATO could shoot these missiles down because on paper every missile can be shot down anyway... the point is the trillions of dollars they are going to spend and by the time they have something ready the Russians will have something else too... and probably a better laser that will do the job much better than the western one.

Job of Russian Navy is to look for submarines and keep enemy fleets away from Russia

The job of the RuN is to protect Russian interests and it is in the unique position that the sea gives it access to a large portion of the planet for extended periods of time. Over time Russian interests will increase around the world and Russia cannot rely on the western navies to keep the international sea lanes open for them.

This is accomplished by a having more ships not by having fewer large ships who can only cover small area

Corvettes and Frigates can manage the sea around Russia and places where their subs will operate.... the destroyers and cruisers will operate for longer periods further away or nearby as needed... a Frigate or corvette could go with a group of larger ships on longer ranged voyages if required, but big ships are needed for full deployment independence from land based resources and air power.

Who knows..so many options to counter just about any super weapon.

For every weapon there is a countermeasure, but for every measure there are counter measures and counter counter measures... it is a dance that never ends.

Em...guys?! A small corvette can't acquire the data to hit a target far away. Remember Yankees are a bit crazy and sometimes weird, but not complete amateurs and losers! Expect heavy electronic warfare and maybe no possibilty to send target data to corvettes. And additional...smaller ships lacks in nearly everything...radar, endurance, defense, multirole etc.

You might be confusing a modern corvette with the old corvettes which are essentially a power boat with a torpedo or big gun. The new corvettes and frigates and other ships are tied in to a network via satellite and datalink systems. Have not heard of any case of it being jammed successfully, but the process of trying to jam such a network would leave the jammer vulnerable to attack... even from this tiny corvette...

You can't replace a Kirov cruiser with 4 corvettes or something like that! It's impossible. And Tsirkon only matters for first strike, but not in a longer conflict...subs can take out corvette after corvette, a complete battlegroup can launch saturation attacks easy overwhelming the defense of smaller ships.

Corvettes are essential, but 20 corvettes are not the equivalent of a cruiser even if they carry the same number of UKSK launch tubes... as you say, it is bigger sensors and better sensors and more complete systems and enough weapons to persist away from port for extended periods.

It would be like suggesting you don't need strategic bombers... some F-35s with lots of inflight refuelling tankers could do the same job... 10,000 F-35s would be much harder to shoot down than 100 B-52s...

I understand the quitting of Lider-class...but why Super-Gorshkov???

Nobody is quitting anything.

It is likely a question of making sure all the technologies going in to the new destroyers and cruisers are fully ready to go... perhaps the 152mm gun needs some final improvements to ammo, or the enormous AESA arrays need an improved cooling system for use on a real ship... maybe the shipyard to build them is busy right now with something else so they will use this time to prepare the various bits and pieces... maybe the production of millions of AESA radar elements is going to take a while to sort out... they probably want the newest models...

What will happen if Japan tries to take Kurile Islands back? Nuke the whole country and killing 120 million people for rocks, a few trees and dirt? Russia would be Pariah for next 1000 years.

Russia is a pariah in the west and not much will change that, but they aren't stupid... Japan attacks Russian territory they will obliterate the Japanese force used for the attack with missiles and also attack the Japanese military HQ... with conventional warheads... they have no reason to use nukes.

Nuking Japan can be plan B if the Japs don't pull their heads in and behave.

A conventional war will be conventional for sure, only if the country's survival is at risk nuclear weapons will be used! And Russia should be prepared in naval warfare too!

There is no point in having enormous resources if you can't trade with other countries. The west will try to force Russia to trade through them so they can profit, but Russias future is trading with the rest of the world and bypassing the west... the west wont take that lying down... Russia needs to be able to impose its will via its army its air force and its navy...

Because they know that when dealing with numerically superior opponent you can't rely on tiny number of large ships, you need large number of small ships for distributed lethality and flexibility

Ask any chess master and they will say the best master can beat an idiot with just one or two pieces left, but most of the time playing with a full set of pieces gives you more options and choices and makes you a much stronger opponent.

The west fights the third world because the third world has kings and lots of pawns. Distribution of Su-35s and S-400s means they are getting other pieces now too so it is not so easy playing ten games at a time...

Japanese can't attack Kurils without getting obliterated by Russian Air Force, coastal missiles, ballistic missiles, ships and submarines because they are ALL in close proximity

X2... there is no need for nukes on Russias part... they realise the threat and have been improving defences and training...

Russia has almost no "nodes" in south america for exemple.

Their satellites go round the planet and are accessable from places other than the northern hemisphere.

Also a corvette going to south america would go with other vessels which would provide support and extra info... (including subs).

The discussion is about destroyer/cruisers for long range operations. So most of the time they will be alone or with 1 or 2 other ship and will have to rely on their own sensors. A Gorshkov will make a bubble of 200km while a Gorshkov M with L band radar would make a bubble of 600km and have more weapons.

Any helicopter carrying vessel could carry a Ka-31 which will improve low altitude detection out to 250km or so... but I agree and that is why I suggest bigger vessels and eventually aircraft carriers to support such operations to make them more effective.

1st world militaries have some tools to destroy those nodes also. Then they will rely even more on their own ship's capacities.

Jamming communications for any network is an aggressive act, but something that will be anticipated... they will have procedures and capabilities to deal with such interference... procedures and capabilities for peace time and for war time...

Russian far east underarmed. Japanese navy is not weak. Russian advantage are the long range aviation and missiles. Japan has a better navy and air force/ air cover there.

Japan has nothing that will stop land launched Onyx or air launched Kh-32... if Japan is trying to take back the islands that means big soft juicy troop transports and landing ships... it would be a dangerous time for anything with a japanese flag on it...

For example... Arleigh Burke-destroyer (really fugly ship, but with good electronic systems) have a passive OTH radar with the possibilitie to detect enemy ships at a range of 950 km (if the enemy communicates).

Yeah, put a radio on two fishing boats and have them discuss attack strategies referring to each other as Kirov and Slava class cruisers and from 950km they wont be able to tell...

To negate the limitations the Super Gorshkov-class was planned and now cancelled. And at least to say that nearly no russian corvette ist tasked against subs, Karakurt-class has simply no sonar.

It is the navy not a computer game... surface ships don't hunt submarines on their own.... they do it in groups... now tell me.... what would be the effect of 20 different ships with 20 different sonar systems pinging for a sub do to sonar performance in that region of water?

Any corvette with UKSK launch tubes can carry 40km range ballistic mach 2 rockets that deliver a torpedo to a target area in minutes with zero warning for the target... they can get target coordinates from helicopters with dipping sonars or the various sea bed sonar arrays around Russian waters...

But NO operation far outside of Russia is possible, no power projection, no guarding of trade routes and only restricted support for allies. This is not malice, but the reality!

Big ships are expensive and fundamental problems might not be able to be fixed, so they have to get it right. There is no hurry... even if they laid down a new cruiser it would take 6-7 years to make it and get it in to the water... another couple of years testing so it will be a decade before it can be operational...

A Destroyer is smaller and lighter but has scaling issues and the question of whether they should be nuclear powered or not...

Their plans to scale the frigate design up to make a destroyer is interesting, but I think the scaling concept would work better from destroyer to cruiser because they have more in common regarding longer patrols and more electronics and indeed the amount of unmanned vehicles it will be operating... underwater, sea surface and aerial drones will become a major component of these ships designs...

Yes! That is true. But bigger ships provide the umbrella for smaller ships! In a group with bigger ships smaller ships become really deadly by a huge factor.

That is important too... tiny ships are not useless... as part of a team a mass attack on a bigger boat would have the defence coordinated between any nearby vessels so while a corvette might not detect targets over the horizon a destroyer could launch a large drone or Ka-31 type helicopter and provide excellent detection range for low flying and stealthy targets to enable corvettes to use their SAMs and anti ship weapons and 100mm guns and 130mm guns much more effectively and play a role in protecting other vessels around them as well as themselves.

On land an Igla-S battery could shoot down cruise missiles very effectively if given enough warning and preparation time. Tying them in to the IADS network that includes local large SAM batteries and aircraft provides that and they could take down dozens of cruise missiles that the other SAM batteries around don't need to worry about any more...

But don't forget...I think that hypersonic missile will have a low accuracy hitting the target, because the plasma is the biggest problem for sensors.

I would think it is a given that Zircon can detect its targets... would be pretty useless if it couldn't...

That means that a single Tsirkon means not a 100 % mission kill. Maybe you will need 2 or 3 Tsirkon launched.

Zircon will be launched in numbers to attack any target... they just wont need to launch them in enormous numbers for most targets...

The only advantage of a large ship is higher antenna masts.
But this is utterly irrelevant for modern ship warfare.  

Not strictly true... larger vessels will have much larger much more powerful sensors and will be able to carry a range of extra systems that simply wont fit on smaller ships. Having more than one helicopter means you can carry a Ka-31 as well as an anti sub model.

Bigger vessels also expand the IADS where they have the missile capacity to defend the group of ships around them as well as defending themselves, whereas most frigate and corvette sized ships are defending themselves only... destroyer and cruiser sized ships can carry rather more weapons... and more types of weapons and sensors making them more complete multirole vessels.

They DON'T want to patrol far away

Then why have they not scrapped the Kuznetsov and Kirovs already?

The radars onboard the Gorshkov are far better then the ones mounted on Peter the Great.

But a new large vessel can have even larger and more powerful radar sets... sets that wont fit on a Gorshkov.

Drones will soon match that and Buyan will be able to launch and retrieve these.

A Buyan would never operate outside Russian land based air power and radar coverage so it would not need the extra range... but if it did what are you going to give up in terms of fire power to carry and operate a drone big enough to carry a decent radar.... the Ka-31 is 12 tons...

A bigger ship with bigger sensors can operate further from Russian land based support... it is not invincible, and it can't take on the entire US fleet on its own, but it does not need to.

If japan anhilate russian pacific fleet it will be easy. And Japanese mainland is as close to the islands as russian.

A Japanese attack on the Kuriles would be defeated pretty quickly... troop ships and landing ships are horribly vulnerable to land based anti ship missiles... which now are not required to have less than 500km flight range to meet the terms of the INF treaty.

The Japanese trying to stop the Russians by attacking the Pacific fleet would be a clear act of war... Japanese ports and all naval and air assets would be fair game and Japan couldn't take the losses...

Japan is a paper tiger... Like Saudi Arabia... they wont do much and expect the US to fight in their place...

Venezuela has SU-30s and Cuba Mig 29s, you don't think Russia cannot send them drones? Both Venezuela and Cuba have navies that can relay info to Russia.

Networkcentric warfare can relay any intelligence not just sensors as long as it is timely and accurate.

More to the point... Russia is not going to send a corvette to Venezuela on its own in times of heightened tensions where war could possibly break out...

Those HATO frigates are not going to wipe out the Russian Navy on their own... why would you expect an upgraded cold war Soviet frigate to achieve the same?

That's what I'm saying. Frigates are not enough for operating far away and they need destroyers or cruiser with more VLS.

With VLS there is no need for a 2.0 Kiriv of 25 000t.

A Japanese attack on the Kuriles would be defeated pretty quickly... troop ships and landing ships are horribly vulnerable to land based anti ship missiles... which now are not required to have less than 500km flight range to meet the terms of the INF treaty.

Japan would make a no fly zone pretty quickly and destroy  all the ground launcher in kurils pretty quickly. They have 250 f15, 100 f16, and soon 100 f35. Russia has some flankers but most of its aviation is facing nato.

Its navy could install a blocus and not allow the RuN to go out of its waters.

The only thing they couldn't face is the long range missiles and  tupolevs. But you cab't win a war with only that.

Russia is a piper tiger when it comes to power projection and rely on its nuks to forbid the other nation to touch its soldiers. Without them all its forces in Syria, Lybia, cebtral Africa would have been destroyed.

Venezuela has SU-30s and Cuba Mig 29s, you don't think Russia cannot send them drones? Both Venezuela and Cuba have navies that can relay info to Russia.

Networkcentric warfare can relay any intelligence not just sensors as long as it is timely and accurate.

They are not connected to Russian systems. The best they could do is use the radio. Networkcentric warfare is systems exchanging in real time btw themselves so that if your plane sees something then your ships see that too. In the best case they can use that for missike targeting.

Exactly the only strength of Russia is strategic nuclear weapon. The US has 180 F-22 and another 500F 35. More NATO countries are buying F-35. Russia does not even have a single serial Su-57. He will buy 76 pieces in big bulbs for the next 10 years.

Pacific fleet is rust. Japan navy is way more powerfull. Japanese air force is huge and could deal with russian east forces. If they destroy pacific fleets landing ships russia will be left with nothing to take them back.

What saved Assad are the russian nuks. If Russia didn't had nuks its syrian base would have been destroyed easily. Actually they wouldn't have had any bases there and Russia would have been cut into pieces since the 50s.

Arrow wrote:Exactly the only strength of Russia is strategic nuclear weapon.  The US has 180 F-22 and another 500F 35. More NATO countries are buying F-35. Russia does not even have a single serial Su-57. He will buy 76 pieces in big bulbs for the next 10 years.

But Russia has nukes, and Russia will be having nukes. So yeah, go ahead and buy a million more F-35, they don't matter shit.

owais.usmani wrote:

Arrow wrote:Exactly the only strength of Russia is strategic nuclear weapon.  The US has 180 F-22 and another 500F 35. More NATO countries are buying F-35. Russia does not even have a single serial Su-57. He will buy 76 pieces in big bulbs for the next 10 years.

But Russia has nukes, and Russia will be having nukes. So yeah, go ahead and buy a million more F-35, they don't matter shit.

Japan has everything to make its own nuks. If US leave Japan they will be alone against three nuclear armed countries and it wouldn't take them long to think about starting their own program.

So as lsos writes, Russia is just a nuclear power and nothing else.

Arrow wrote:So as lsos writes, Russia is just a nuclear power and nothing else.

Don't put your shit into my mouth. Thanks.

PapaDragon wrote:

Isos wrote:What saved Assad are the russian nuks. If Russia didn't had nuks its syrian base would have been destroyed easily. Actually they wouldn't have had any bases there and Russia would have been cut into pieces since the 50s.

Are you trying to say that nukes are technologically inferior? Obsolete? Not effective? Cheap? Simple to manufacture and maintain?

Because history has disproven you time and time again

But you did just made excellent argument in favor of Russia dropping conventional military and fully switching to nuclear (something I have been advocating since forever)

They are not usable. With no conventional forces Syria would have been impossible for Russia... with no nuks nuclear armed US would have attacked Russia long time ago.

AlfaT8 wrote:

Tsavo Lion wrote:Why the Navy refused to build super destroyers

For the price of 1 Leader they can build several smaller FF/DD/CGs- the time for white elephants is over. Even China with more $ & longer SLOCs to defend in ice-free waters doesn't plan to build similar class of ships.
https://regnum.ru/news/it/2922231.html

I would like to see a proper model of the Super Gorshkov before making any White Elephant claims about the Leader, after all, if its an elephant then what the hell is the Kirov?

Kirov is a class of 4 ship that exist.