Project 22350: Admiral Sergei Gorshkov #2

Their new frigates are much more capable than previous generation frigates and I suspect they might be thinking they don't want a lot of frigates which are essentially just really big coastal corvettes with better armament.

I think they will seriously upgrade the design of the Gorshkov and treat it like a destroyer and put that into large scale production instead because it will be more useful in the long term than a Gorshkov frigate design.

Maybe some Chinese style re-education camps will help, since the Chinese destroyers seem to be built and be working just fine

How do you know they are fine until they start to get used for the jobs they were built for?

Throwing money at a problem and making lots of ships is not a good indication of how good or useful those ships actually are.

limb wrote:Maybe some Chinese style re-education camps will help, since the Chinese destroyers seem to be built and be working just fine

That works just fine because they consider a big serial production.
Type 056 is a 70+ series.
Type 054 is running steady, full speed ahead for 50 ...
Ruskies are ding just the same, as long as it pays off - 22800 is an ideal example.

lancelot wrote:The Krivak frigates were produced at several shipyards no?
It is not like there isn't a precedent.

But of course.
It was planned to build approx. 50 pcs of the type, in a relatively short time period.

As some of you already mentioned, Russian shipbuilding was practically destroyed in the 90s.
Plus, which is not a piece of common knowledge, they were never fully independent.
Tons of other shipyards along the soviet block worked for them.
Thousands of workers in Poland worked for w soviet yards for years.
Poland used to deliver tons of stuff, GDR was doing just the same.
There was a specialization among SEW (not sure about the English acronym for that).
When SEW ceased to exist, the cooperation net was simply crashed&broken.
That ended up with trouble years for all shipbuilding across ex-communist block, and actually, it never recovered in its original shape.
Poland, which used to have a very competitive marine sector, lost most of its competence as well. A country that owned three modern and big shipyards, several experienced repair & maintenance ones, delivered the biggest bulk carriers build in the entire Baltic basin, is able to make a crawler now ...
To be honest, the reincarnation of modern Russian shipbuilding is nothing else than impressive...

Thanks for the explanation. I wonder if in the future they plan to use more than one shipyard to build ships if the demand is there by training the crew.

Anyway, more gorshkovs are needed.

miketheterrible wrote:Thanks for the explanation.  I wonder if in the future they plan to use more than one shipyard to build ships if the demand is there by training the crew.

Anyway, more gorshkovs are needed.

Consider it from another angle.
In Russia, all 22800, 22160 and 21631 are being built at multiple facilities.
22800 is the best example because it is implemented for production at 5 yards if I am not mistaken.
So there is no point in discussing Russian planning from can/can't perspective, because it is clear that they can do that if needed.
Seems that decision-makers do not find crucial the urgent need to float dozens of 22350.
Competence is visibly rising, for the whole Russian marine sector.
That will bring continuous changes and improvements all over the branch.
2014 was a devastating blow for the sector, and no matter how much cash you can burn - it would not help.
What was needed, was a time. Time to build up the sector bottom up. To establish a cooperative chain of supply. To gain, implement and master some skills, that was hardly existing in whole Russia prior to the date.
If one would say, that they will start to make a full spectrum of marine engines after 5 years of evaluation, I would call him a jocker any time before that.
I am not sure about steel sheet delivery, but when I was in the business, that was almost 20 years ago, a visible share of marine steel was melted at Donbas. As long as we have not seen bright & shiny Ukrainian shipbuilding at all, my educated guess is that some share of that steel was ordered by Russia, right?
To make a significant steel production capacity, it took three 5-years plans of Soviet Union, and thousands of lives thrown into the fire for that ...
22350 running at a steady peak of 2 per year for 3rd year in a row.
What stability means for this business, is enough to see the 636 story.
In the last 20 years, they made about 30 pcs of it
Show me the country other than China, able to make 1.5 subs a year ... keeping in mind that they are launching atomic subs at, same time...
It is a matter of need, not ability.
That's my point.

And definitely a valid point and I agree.

This is very good ship. Pacific fleet can use one to counter Japan's upcoming Mogami frigate. If the third ship can be commissioned in 2022 it should be sent to Pacific fleet to counter Mogami which Japan plans to commission 2 next year.

Rodion_Romanovic wrote:Yantar is a good choice, as it has recent experience in building frigates (taiwar and grigorovic, e.g. krivak IV) and in soviet time it used to build also the Udaloy class anti-submarine frigates (together with Zhdanov shipyard in Leningrad/Saint Petersburg, which was renamed Severnaya verf in 1989).

So maybe Yantar could also build later 22350M frigates/ destroyers, which should have similar size and displacement as the Udaloy class.

Yantar has been neglected since fall of USSR. It will require billions in investment to be rebuilt to be able to build frigate.

Rodion_Romanovic wrote:Yantar is a good choice, as it has recent experience in building frigates (taiwar and grigorovic, e.g. krivak IV) and in soviet time it used to build also the Udaloy class anti-submarine frigates (together with Zhdanov shipyard in Leningrad/Saint Petersburg, which was renamed Severnaya verf in 1989).

So maybe Yantar could also build later 22350M frigates/ destroyers, which should have similar size and displacement as the Udaloy class.

Yantar is awful choice but beggars can't be choosers

Throw some frigates their way but make sure that they focus on Ivan Gren 2 ships, that's the priority project there

Those rats have been trying to get their filthy hands on Karakurt contract because they see it as chance to scam the state out of some more quick money and have been pulling strings to slander Pella in order to do so, fortunately they were told to f*ck off

As for 22350M Yantar will not even be making scale model of it let alone anything related to the real thing

limb wrote:

kvs wrote:

Training of skilled workers is one of the most painful aspects about any production line.   But people think it is
of little importance and that only money and directives matter.   There is a real gap between naive theorizing
and physical reality.    So transitioning some shipyard into a Gorshkov production line is not an activity that
occurs in a few months.   Russia will be recovering from the 1990s for decades.

Maybe some Chinese style re-education camps will help, since the Chinese destroyers seem to be built and be working just fine

Russians do not have the mentality of Chinese. And such details are show stoppers and not something to ignore. Russians are
not going to skill up in any re-education camps. That sounds like cheeseball NATzO propaganda. Russians go through skilling up
the way that western ubermenschen do. Education in real academic institutions and on the job training.

This takes time and not finger snapping.

kvs wrote:

This takes time and not finger snapping.

The real problem is, that folks who comment that, sometimes have zero real-life experience in anything connected to the production.
And it is not an insult, just a pure observation.
We run a production-free society.
Most of the countries, worldwide, transferred real production capacity to China long time ago, creating a situation when people do not get the fact, that things will not just magically emerge when you throw some cash on it.
The supply chain is something you build for years, and it is a quite delicate bird.
Deindustrialization is a fact.
Effects of these crazy ideas are already obvious, too ...

Funny, I remember talking to a guy in the early 2000s... it turned out he was from South Korea and had never been out of the city he was born in and we were talking about a first person shooting computer game.... I think it was Operation Flashpoint and we were discussing a video that had been posted of a mountain unit of Russian troops operating with ropes in the mountains and he said it was silly and stupid and a total waste of time to use ropes to move from place to place in the mountains... too vulnerable to enemy fire and all that sort of stuff.

I pointed out that these guys carry heavy packs and lots of gear they need to move with them so getting one guy to strip down to just his uniform and boots to climb down and up a ravine with a rope that can be secured on the opposite side while his mates keep watch and the when he gets there to string the rope up and rope everyone and their gear across is actually much faster and easier and safer than everyone in full gear climbing down and then climbing up again and he just really didn't understand.

His experience was from video games like OpFP where you can run with full gear and never fall over or have problems with a huge pack.

I mentioned that walking through bush is slow work and it is very easy to fall over carrying a pack (hunting pack... was never in the armed forces myself) and he basically said I was mad and that he would never fall over in long grass or the bush.... it was then that I found out he had never been outside of a city let alone on uneven ground...

Different people certainly have different experiences in the world and it pays to listen to those who have actual experience.... or who have just talked and listened to those that do...

Some people say that smart people learn from experience... but smart people learn from the experience of others most of the time...

The definition of a fool is someone that does not learn from experience at all and keeps repeating the same mistakes over and over.

GarryB wrote:Funny, I remember talking to a guy in the early 2000s... it turned out he was from South Korea and had never been out of the city he was born in and we were talking about a first person shooting computer game....

An armchair Alpha operator
A couch SAS officer
A wc SEAL commander
A threesome of most experienced and talkative internet warriors

Rodion_Romanovic wrote:...Jeremy, papadragon, what would be then your solution for Yantar then?...

Pack Yantar with orders for LPDs and logistics ships (also have them finish that Neustrashimi overhaul already)

Move production of corvettes to Amur in the Pacific to free up Severnaya and Baltic

Start ordering frigates en masse from Severnaya and Baltic (see if Zelenodolsk in Tatarstan can do something as well)

PapaDragon wrote:

Rodion_Romanovic wrote:...Jeremy, papadragon, what would be then your solution for Yantar then?...

Pack Yantar with orders for LPDs and logistics ships (also have them finish that Neustrashimi overhaul already)

Move production of corvettes to Amur in the Pacific to free up Severnaya and Baltic

Start ordering frigates en masse from Severnaya and Baltic (see if Zelenodolsk in Tatarstan can do something as well)

Gorshkov is pretty expensive. As far as Russia's defense budget goes, Gorshkov can only be built 1 at a time, even if multiple yards are available to build it. Russia simply does not have the economic might to build multiple Gorshkov at the same time.

JeremySun wrote:...Gorshkov is pretty expensive. As far as Russia's defense budget goes, Gorshkov can only be built 1 at a time, even if multiple yards are available to build it. Russia simply does not have the economic might to build multiple Gorshkov at the same time.

What?

Gorshkov is well under 200 million bucks probably as low as 150, that’s the price of half a dozen decent fighter jets  

It's dirt cheap in naval terms

Yasen sub is 1 billion bucks and they build those no problem

Check your stuff, man

GarryB wrote:Funny, I remember talking to a guy in the early 2000s... it turned out he was from South Korea and had never been out of the city he was born in and we were talking about a first person shooting computer game.... I think it was Operation Flashpoint and we were discussing a video that had been posted of a mountain unit of Russian troops operating with ropes in the mountains and he said it was silly and stupid and a total waste of time to use ropes to move from place to place in the mountains... too vulnerable to enemy fire and all that sort of stuff.

I pointed out that these guys carry heavy packs and lots of gear they need to move with them so getting one guy to strip down to just his uniform and boots to climb down and up a ravine with a rope that can be secured on the opposite side while his mates keep watch and the when he gets there to string the rope up and rope everyone and their gear across is actually much faster and easier and safer than everyone in full gear climbing down and then climbing up again and he just really didn't understand.

His experience was from video games like OpFP where you can run with full gear and never fall over or have problems with a huge pack.

I mentioned that walking through bush is slow work and it is very easy to fall over carrying a pack (hunting pack... was never in the armed forces myself) and he basically said I was mad and that he would never fall over in long grass or the bush.... it was then that I found out he had never been outside of a city let alone on uneven ground...

Different people certainly have different experiences in the world and it pays to listen to those who have actual experience.... or who have just talked and listened to those that do...

Some people say that smart people learn from experience... but smart people learn from the experience of others most of the time...

The definition of a fool is someone that does not learn from experience at all and keeps repeating the same mistakes over and over.

Oh, my God. I did not serve in the army, I am an ordinary civilian. But at the same time:
- I participated in sports tourism competitions with elements of orienteering and mountaineering (about two months of preliminary training and two trips to the competition).
- I spent a two-week vacation, rafting on the Karelian rivers as part of a group of tourists.
- I have something like six months of experience in the caving section with mountaineering training.
- I, like most students in Russia, have been trained in basic maintenance of the AK-74 and PCM,the basics of civil defense and emergency operations.

..and I absolutely can't imagine that there are people somewhere who are familiar with such things only from video games, without ever leaving the city district.

JeremySun wrote:Gorshkov is pretty expensive. As far as Russia's defense budget goes, Gorshkov can only be built 1 at a time, even if multiple yards are available to build it. Russia simply does not have the economic might to build multiple Gorshkov at the same time.

Wut?

Ignoring the Goloko that is currently fitting out, there are currently 5x Pr.22350s under construction at Severnaya Verf - Admirals Isakov, Ameilko, Chicagov, Yumashev, Spiridonov plus another 2 on order but yet to be laid down.

May I suggest you do at least some preliminary checking before posting such nonsense??

..and I absolutely can't imagine that there are people somewhere who are familiar with such things only from video games, without ever leaving the city district.

It is frightening isn't it.... such people could rise to office and make decisions that effect people...

I think what was the most frightening is that he would not listen to anyone else who posted that he was wrong either.... he seemed to think he was some sort of ninja and that rough ground, wet grass, loose shingle or gravel... he would never fall over...

A threesome of most experienced and talkative internet warriors

Could previously only be found at your nearest watering hole... and would tell you their life story if you buy them a drink...

Back on topic... the more shipyards they have producing Corvettes and Frigates at the moment means getting them into service faster and is good preparation for building bigger ships or parts of bigger ships which is also going to be useful if they keep building civilian ships at the rate they seem to be doing now... they will need a navy with better reach than they have now.

GarryB wrote:
Back on topic... the more shipyards they have producing Corvettes and Frigates at the moment means getting them into service faster and is good preparation for building bigger ships or parts of bigger ships which is also going to be useful if they keep building civilian ships at the rate they seem to be doing now... they will need a navy with better reach than they have now.

As far I was not participating in the discussion for years, I was reading them with big interest.
So I have a general idea about your opinions to that matter - I mean all the folks here who were active disputants.
Well, enough to say that I do admit some of them valid, and some don't
For me, it is quite obvious that WMF is of secondary importance for Russia, and has two goals only. One is to defend the nuclear triad component, while the other is entrance denial. Those two combine themselves in some areas.
We will not see any massive buildup of the Russian Navy in a way some of the folks here want to see.
In all those years, one crucial point concerning the Russian Navy disputes was missing to me.
Ruskies has always the same disadvantage, no matter how powerful its navy actually was. It was separated and divided, so could not match mighty opponents on the same level. Trying to build a fleet capable of winning general battles with the mightiest opponents was a delusion. Still, the fleet was capable of sea denial strategy and winning secondary powers like Sweden or Turkey.
Now, the composition of the modern Russian Navy, and its expansion, is very logical and pragmatic - this is what differs my point of view from some of you, folks
They ceased to pretend, that will be able to sink the whole USN in big battles along the Pacific or Atlantic. Or put any actual naval superpower in place of "USN".
It was always a delusion leading to Tsushima.
But for the first time in the Russian fleet being, we are witnessing growing abilities to concentrate a real force, in one fist.
It is archived with small USKS carriers.
All 21631, 22800, 21600 etc, are actually ... riverboats.
Those can easily relocate via waste Russian river canals - practically undetected and completely safe. It allows concentrating the desired firepower in the desired area, mostly unnoticed. In a few days, the Russian Navy can accumulate lots of missile carriers, with decent missile capacity. And that applies to most of the theatres, even more as we see a massive military build-up of the Russian Arctic.
Hell, they can even park up in Caspian, totally safe, and just pump the Calibres all over the Middle East...
This is why those small corvettes are of real importance. Those give them attributes they never had, in the whole history.
So if one asks, if we will see big Russian Navy ships anytime soon, I would say yes, but only in limited numbers.
Those are needed to show the flag, some relief missions ... And it is being done.
No need to pump the cash into 50 destroyers, because there is no point in it.
Russia is a land power, that needs to protect its boomers, economic zone and north sea route.
An 800dwt missile carrier hidden in a fjord, is much better for this job than a supercarrier

PapaDragon wrote:

JeremySun wrote:...Gorshkov is pretty expensive. As far as Russia's defense budget goes, Gorshkov can only be built 1 at a time, even if multiple yards are available to build it. Russia simply does not have the economic might to build multiple Gorshkov at the same time.

What?

Gorshkov is well under 200 million bucks probably as low as 150, that’s the price of half a dozen decent fighter jets  

It's dirt cheap in naval terms

Yasen sub is 1 billion bucks and they build those no problem

Check your stuff, man

Gorshkov for 150m dollars? seriously? do you have a source for those numbers? I would assume Gorshkov to cost at least 400 million $, even the 20385 would be well above 200 million.

For me, it is quite obvious that WMF is of secondary importance for Russia, and has two goals only.

The VMF in the past has been of secondary or even tertiary importance to Russia, but looking forward it is pretty clear there is no stable development or growth trading with the west because the west does not tolerate other countries developing past their level... they have been showing it for a good period against Russia and are showing it now against China too.

If Russia can't trade with the west then they need to trade with the rest of the world, but as we have also seen that the West is happy to crush other countries and regime change them if they show any trade links or even interest in trade with Russia or China... or any other country that is not the west.

This means that Russia not only has to be able to trade with other countries but also needs a navy that will allow her to actually do so without interference from the west who will actively sabotage and interfere every chance they get.

We will not see any massive buildup of the Russian Navy in a way some of the folks here want to see.

They have laid down two 40K ton helicopter landing craft... that alone means they expect to operate anywhere in the world and will need other ships to support them... frigates and Corvettes can barely defend themselves let alone other ships so they will need destroyers and cruisers for that job.

They are not going to build the US Fleet and they certainly wont do it overnight... it will be a steady build up over the next few decades, but it is inevidable.

Unless they think the USN will suddenly start to impartially police the worlds oceans and will ignore its own interests for the greater good...


HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA...

Or maybe the British or French Navies might help them...

HAHAHAHAHAHAAHHAHAAHHAAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHHHAHAHAHAAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHHHHAHAHHHAHHAHHHAHAHA...

Ruskies has always the same disadvantage, no matter how powerful its navy actually was. It was separated and divided, so could not match mighty opponents on the same level.

Oh please... when they have some destroyers and cruisers with the IADS of their level on a ship along with aircraft carriers with Su-57s operating from them... who exactly should they be worried about?

Their Corvettes are better equipped than most countries destroyers... the exception being the USN, but what other navy is going to challenge Russia?

Especially not knowing what might be under the water supporting those ships...

Trying to build a fleet capable of winning general battles with the mightiest opponents was a delusion. Still, the fleet was capable of sea denial strategy and winning secondary powers like Sweden or Turkey.

Russia does not need a fleet to sink all other fleets, they don't need to invade every country on the planet... most of the time one destroyer will be enough to tell most navies on the planet to **** off.

If they escalate and try more than a little arse play then they should be able to get enough muscle there to get the result they desire.

Usually this sort of shit does not just fall from the sky... there are hints and suggestions... a US court order to seize Russian property leads to a Canadian ship trying to board a Russian transport ship... well one Russian corvette is all that is needed to say no you cannot board.

When they notice other Russian ships in the region start converging on that location they will get the point not to escalate... that corvette can defend itself long enough to launch an attack powerful enough to sink half a US carrier group before it goes down, and who knows what is on its way above and below the water line?

A decent navy does not need to be thousands of ships, but modern and multirole and they seem to be smashing that so far.

It will have little to no value in WWIII, but during peace time it will ensure trade for both Russia and its potential trading partners... who is going to trade with Russia if Russia has corvettes and Frigates and nothing else and a US carrier group parks offshore and regime change is part of the medias first comments...

Russia has to be a viable alternative to the west in terms of both presence but also selling military products... they already can achieve the latter...

They ceased to pretend, that will be able to sink the whole USN in big battles along the Pacific or Atlantic. Or put any actual naval superpower in place of "USN".

With Zircon entering service they are closer to achieving that than ever before, but it was mostly via submarines like the Oscars that they were expecting to achieve that.

The rest of their ships were always defensively orientated... something the west will never admit publicly... if they were going to invade Europe as the HATO bullshit suggests then they lacked the logistics to do so and would have run out of steam well before reaching the English Channel.

But for the first time in the Russian fleet being, we are witnessing growing abilities to concentrate a real force, in one fist.
It is archived with small USKS carriers.

The problem of the anti carrier weapons was that they were so big that only the biggest ships and subs could carry them in useful numbers, but with scramjet propulsion the new missiles are much smaller and can be carried by anything in significant numbers. Those same launchers can also carry a variety of other useful weapons too making them fully multirole too.

The biggest problem for the Soviets was their single use designs... the Sovremmeny destroyers were surface ship hunters with only secondary anti sub capability, while their Udaloy class destroyers were anti sub with only minor anti surface ship capabilities.

A modern equivalent can do either job at the same time and other jobs as well so instead of balancing your forces with this or that ship you can decide for each mission what threats you will deal with... much better... because instead of making x number of one and y number of the other you can make x + y of one ship that can do both jobs... much cheaper and more efficient.

Those can easily relocate via waste Russian river canals - practically undetected and completely safe. It allows concentrating the desired firepower in the desired area, mostly unnoticed. In a few days, the Russian Navy can accumulate lots of missile carriers, with decent missile capacity. And that applies to most of the theatres, even more as we see a massive military build-up of the Russian Arctic.

Which is fantastic for self defence during WWIII, but does not contribute to the economy like a naval force that can go to other countries and exercise and promote Russian ties and Russian weapons sales abroad to protect them from predatory western commerce practises.

Hell, they can even park up in Caspian, totally safe, and just pump the Calibres all over the Middle East...
This is why those small corvettes are of real importance. Those give them attributes they never had, in the whole history.

Indeed, but once they have built 30-40 or more Corvettes and a few Frigates which are essentially long range corvettes or long endurance corvettes they are going to have to look at operations further afield beyond the reach of ground based aircraft and air defence, perhaps near some of their foreign bases or allies around the world... they don't need 40K ton helicopter carriers to support their corvettes launching long range cruise missile attacks.

40K ton helicopter carriers provide a humanitarian capability around the world... floods or earthquakes happen in countries the west does not get on with... being able to assist while maintaining a capability to intervene around the world is a useful thing.

Hell... even promoting there floating nuclear power stations they could send these things to third world countries to provide reliable electrical power supply and fresh water... island nations of the Pacific.... countries in Africa and central and south america... even places in Asia could use such things.

No need to pump the cash into 50 destroyers, because there is no point in it.

They don't need 50 destroyers... 24 or so would be fine... along with 8-12 new cruisers... using all the same weapons as the corvettes and frigates but in larger numbers and of course S-500 based missiles and perhaps longer ranged cruise missiles too, as well as the bigger radar and sonar systems to more effectively use such systems.

Russia is a land power, that needs to protect its boomers, economic zone and north sea route.

Russia was a land power, but needs a global reach if it is to grow and develop further without the west trying to isolate and restrict it like it does with every other country.

The easiest way to become a global power is by sea and global warming means opening the arctic along with icebreakers improving access to the world.

An 800dwt missile carrier hidden in a fjord, is much better for this job than a supercarrier

When it comes to aircraft carriers bigger generally is better because size means capacity and endurance and potential, but Russia is not planning 120K ton super carriers in a penis measuring contest with the US, they have plenty of their own experience with aircraft carriers and they have openly said they plan new carriers in the 70-90K ton weight range... which is no surprise... after experience with the Charles De Gaul they are talking about a 75K ton nuclear powered carrier with catapults too...

Russian aircraft carriers are air defence... the Russian Navy not having CVNs or CVs is a bit like suggesting that the Russian Army air defence forces don't need the Aerospace Defence forces with their airfields and fighters and AWACS platforms etc... sure big airfields are big targets, but the air defences around Russian airfield or a Russian carrier will be formidable and not something trivial to defeat.

Having a carrier will mean aircraft able to detect enemy threats from further away and being able to fly out to meet those threats instead of having to wait for them to come to you.

In peace time they offer a chance for solid situational awareness... a blip on the screen can be investigated quickly and effectively... islands that create radar shadows where targets could be hiding can be negated with AWACS aircraft that fly at altitude and can see over islands... removing those shadows and making things visible again.

Russia learned its lesson in 2008 that even when it is totally in the wrong the US will back an ally to the hilt even if they don't actually lift a finger to help them... like they did in the Georgian invasion of South Ossetia. It was then that they realised they had to spend money on their military forces because no one else is going to fight for them or even give them a break.

If Japan had invaded the Kurils the level of the Russian military in the Far East at that time and the situation with the Japanese Navy they might not have been able to stop them... there were very few Russian forces in the region... it would be like the Argentinian invasion of the Falklands Islands... except it would have been with US support... trying to take them back would have been a nightmare... and it is part of the reason why they wanted Mistrals.... no point in having and funding a Naval Infantry force of mobile and powerful fighters if they have no platform to move them around on.

I rather suspect their new 40K ton helicopter carriers will be covered in S-350 Redut and probably TOR SAM defence systems to defend itself from enemy missiles...

GarryB wrote:
This means that Russia not only has to be able to trade with other countries but also needs a navy that will allow her to actually do so without interference from the west who will actively sabotage and interfere every chance they get.

Take a look at a map centered at Caspian.
You have a friendly Iran, Iraq, and vassal de facto Syria.
You have all the North Africa coast, that is friendly.
You have all way long down Africa, which is mostly friendly.
To the east, you have friendly Pakistan, friendly India, friendly Myanmar, Malesia ... hell, there is no point of quote them all.
Sometimes I see that we are losing common sense and logic, confronted with overwhelming western propaganda.
Russia's political status is actually better than it was for SU.
They have created interaction with other countries not bribing them but keeping common goals&interests.
Don't bother their trade. There is plenty of space for it and ways to do so. Navy is nice, but with no navy, there would be no problem either.

GarryB wrote:
They are not going to build the US Fleet and they certainly wont do it overnight... it will be a steady build up over the next few decades, but it is inevidable.

Sure they will.
But there is no hurry, and no serious need for that to be in a rush.
That is what differs me from naysayers, who would like everything, right here, right now, and more of everything.
It will be a well-tailored fleet, capable to present a flag, fulfill humanitarian operations, that equals to the landing, guarded by a bunch of modern universal ships for protection.
It will make any landing operation on Russian soil impossible when combined with the coastal defense and air assets involved.
And capable of turning all the closed/semi open sea a no-go zone, where a strike group of "potential enemy" will have a chance somehow equal to a snowman visiting hell.

Enough to check the projects in line. They build more ships than the whole of Europe combined.
With 1/4 of its theoretical "economic power". That raises some questions, right?

GarryB wrote:
who exactly should they be worried about?

Maybe a fast fact check, that they are outnumbered 1 to 5 or so? Bot who would bother ...

GarryB wrote:
A decent navy does not need to be thousands of ships, but modern and multirole and they seem to be smashing that so far.

Agree. And this is happening, right? While the armchair admirals yapping?

GarryB wrote:
With Zircon entering service they are closer to achieving that than ever before, but it was mostly via submarines like the Oscars that they were expecting to achieve that.

You are probably right, but as already Muricas navy chief stated in a face of Congress, that they have no option against Russian hypersonics other than nuclear deterrence, how dedicated you are to check that?

GarryB wrote:
The biggest problem for the Soviets was their single use designs... the Sovremmeny destroyers were surface ship hunters with only secondary anti sub capability, while their Udaloy class destroyers were anti sub with only minor anti surface ship capabilities.

Obvious things are obvious, no need to discuss them among the adults

GarryB wrote:
Which is fantastic for self defence during WWIII, but does not contribute to the economy like a naval force that can go to other countries and exercise and promote Russian ties and Russian weapons sales abroad to protect them from predatory western commerce practises.

Well, yes and no.
We must consider the structure of Russias export first. In 20+ years ahead. I am not qualified enough, sorry.

GarryB wrote:
They don't need 50 destroyers... 24 or so would be fine... along with 8-12 new cruisers...

Sure, sure.
Let a country with 6th the planet's GDP invest in not needed marine assets more, the other 3 above it, combined.
Let them hunt a rabbit.
It must work!

GarryB wrote:
Russia was a land power, but needs a global reach if it is to grow and develop further without the west trying to isolate and restrict it like it does with every other country.

And they do.
Just take a look at a map.
There is no way to isolate Russia.
They are simply too big.

You have a friendly Iran, Iraq, and vassal de facto Syria.

I would not say Iran is friendly with Russia... they are not buddies or allies.

Russia often sides with them but only because it is the right thing to do because the US or Israel or Saudi Arabia is normally totally in the wrong and everyone can see that.

They have shared interests and respect for human life, which the US and the west lacks... they don't want Syria to collapse into chaos the way Libya has for instance, they do not create power vacuums for fun to see what comes out of it.

A map centred at the Caspian Sea you have the Caspian sea countries... Russia, Azerbaijan, Iran, Turkmenistan, and Kazakhstan.

You have all the North Africa coast, that is friendly.

From Russian access to the Caspian Sea you would have to invade Iran and Iraq to get to Syria to then reach the Med...

Also the northern Med is the HATO organisation that has rather more ships than Africa and they are all hostile to Russian presence in what they will see as their backyard... but to get there you would need to go via the Black Sea... which can't include aircraft carriers.

They could base the Kuznetsov at Tartus now that it has been expanded but it is more likely to be based in the Northern Fleet till two CVNs can replace it... then move it to Tartus. The Bosphorus straights agreements means it would need to go to the Northern Fleet for repairs and upgrades. so it is not ideal for long term basing there.

You have all way long down Africa, which is mostly friendly.

They could cover the Med with Tu-22M3s in Syria and a few frigates in Tartus...

To the east, you have friendly Pakistan, friendly India, friendly Myanmar, Malesia ... hell, there is no point of quote them all.

And those are countries Russia will trade with and hopefully grow and develop their economies as well as Russia, but there is enormous potential to cut Russian access even to those regions... Erdogan is not going to be there foreever and his replacement might be a US tool.

Sometimes I see that we are losing common sense and logic, confronted with overwhelming western propaganda.

Western propaganda is the problem the navies of western countries are not benevolent forces there to keep the peace in a strictly neutral way... there to do what is right even if it is against their own interests...

Russia's political status is actually better than it was for SU.

Not in the slightest... most Americans probably think Putin is a CZAR and was appointed by Yeltsin and no voting has taken place over the last 21 years.

They have created interaction with other countries not bribing them but keeping common goals&interests.

Hahahaha... you don't even know how to describe it... they treat other countries with respect and don't care if they are the same religion or support the same sports teams... they are not converting them to any new religion or political form of governances... they just want to trade... to buy and sell stuff in a fair and open way. Something that is no doubt baffling for countries used to being ordered to change this or that law and nationalise this or that industry so foreign multi nationals can come in and buy up everything of value.

Don't bother their trade. There is plenty of space for it and ways to do so. Navy is nice, but with no navy, there would be no problem either.

Had that advice before... Russia does not need an army or navy or air force, and it does not need to make anything... you have oil and gas so just sell that and use that money to buy everything you need.

Till oil prices collapse during attempts to damage the Russian economy.

The west wants Russia to isolate itself and remain within its land borders so they can make easy money being an intermediary selling stuff on in both directions, and handling all the shipping trade.

But there is no hurry, and no serious need for that to be in a rush.

Ironically they are not Russian (pun intended)... they are taking the time to get everything right, and doing everything in a careful planned way so they don't end up spending too much money.

As their oil and gas tanker fleet expand however they will need more ships to support them in the dangerous places of the world.

Enough to check the projects in line. They build more ships than the whole of Europe combined.
With 1/4 of its theoretical "economic power". That raises some questions, right?

They have completely revamped their military with all new C4IR being developed and implemented already, plus state of the art training facilities being built and in use, together with their own super soldier programmes improving personal kit... their third iteration enters service in 2025, and they are in the process of completely replacing all Soviet era equipment and weapons.... something the west could only dream of and for 10% of what the US has been spending alone.

Of course most US money goes into bribes and corruption, so lets ignore that problem...

Maybe a fast fact check, that they are outnumbered 1 to 5 or so? Bot who would bother ...

Except that they have the quality now, so 5 HATO corvettes meet one Russian Corvette as the Russian corvette is leaving port which force is actually in trouble...

Especially as the land based OTH radar detected those corvettes when they left their port so a flight of 8 MiG-31Ks are in the air with Kinzhal, and perhaps a couple of Tu-22M3M with three Kh-32 missiles loaded.

Agree. And this is happening, right? While the armchair admirals yapping?

Yup. A couple of different Corvette types are going ahead because Corvettes are not big enough to be really fully multirole so different conditions in five different fleets means you might need this type of corvette here and here but this other one would be more use here and here... so a couple of different Corvette types should be built, but frigates are big enough to be fully multirole so make one, get it working and then make some... use the design to work out an efficient scale up to make a destroyer sized boat and then a cruiser sized boat and just make them.

36 or 48 corvettes would allow half a dozen or more at each fleet, while you might want one frigate in the Caspian Sea and perhaps 1 or two in each of the other fleets, and then destroyers in the black sea and baltic sea and northern and pacific fleets... 4 to 6 in each fleet so about 24 destroyers, while the Northern and Pacific fleet could have 3-4 cruisers each... maybe 8-12.

Together with probably 4 total helicopter carriers (40K) and perhaps a half dozen Ivan Gren type lighter helicopter carriers and support ships....

You are probably right, but as already Muricas navy chief stated in a face of Congress, that they have no option against Russian hypersonics other than nuclear deterrence, how dedicated you are to check that?

But that is the point... if they want to treat something non nuclear and something that requires a nuclear response that moves the threshold of things they wont do and things they will back away from.

It means that previously the only ships with that level of missile was their cruisers, so they would respect their cruisers and nothing less... but in this case it means even Corvettes can carry those weapons so they will not try to provoke them in the same way they walk on egg shells around cruisers.

For the Russians that is a good thing.

Well, yes and no.
We must consider the structure of Russias export first. In 20+ years ahead. I am not qualified enough, sorry.

Having a decent navy to allow contact and sea lines of communication means Russia can trade with a much wider variety of countries than it could otherwise manage right now.

Sure, sure.
Let a country with 6th the planet's GDP invest in not needed marine assets more, the other 3 above it, combined.
Let them hunt a rabbit.
It must work!

They don't need their navy to be all ready tomorrow... the costs can be spread over decades and changes can be made as needed.

And they do.
Just take a look at a map.
There is no way to isolate Russia.
They are simply too big.

And yet they continue to try by destroying the economies of countries on a whim that try to trade with Russia.

Russia needs a method of defending its trade access that does not require the use of nuclear weapons.