Russian special military operation in Ukraine #50

Arrow wrote:
Japan is an island that needs a navy, Korea is a peninsula. Russia stretches from Europe to Asia all the way to Japan and Korea. To the south, it reaches the Caspian Sea from where it has access to the Middle East through Iran, etc. It controls the entire northern sea route. It can trade with Europe and Asia by land. It can transfer large amounts of raw materials to Asia via pipelines. It may use the northern route, which is under the umbrella of their air force and Bastion ground systems in the future Tsirkon. They only need the Blue Navy to protect their interests in South America. They will handle the rest by land and with a small navy in small seas such as the Caspian, etc. Their interests in South America are not that extensive. Likewise Southern Africa.

Now I know that the current SMO has everyone in a bit of a knot but this what the newly adopted naval doctrine has to say:

The doctrine outlines six strategic priority regions for the Russian Navy, including the Arctic, Pacific, Atlantic (which includes the Baltic, Azov, Black and Mediterranean Seas under its domain), the Caspian Sea, the Indian Ocean and the Antarctic Sea directions. In each area, priorities include the strengthening of the Navy’s capabilities, parrying threats to national security, improving command and control, and, where relevant, creating specialized fleets –including icebreakers, and search and rescue forces.
The Atlantic direction pays particular attention to the threats to Russian security posed by the NATO alliance – particularly its plans to push military infrastructure up to Russia’s borders and attempts to assign the alliance “global functions.” Here, the Navy’s goals are said to include preserving national security and “creating the conditions for stable economic cooperation with foreign governments.”
In the Indian Oceanic strategic direction, priority is paid to the development of the “strategic” naval partnership with India, as well as cooperation with Iran, Iraq, and other regional states, plus a general increase in Russian maritime presence in the region. Similar goals are mentioned in the Pacific, among them the need to expand the Russian Navy’s accessibility to regional ports, and cooperation with regional powers and groups of states in the interests of preserving strategic stability.

Arrow wrote:

Japan is an island that needs a navy, Korea is a peninsula. Russia stretches from Europe to Asia all the way to Japan and Korea. To the south, it reaches the Caspian Sea from where it has access to the Middle East through Iran, etc. It controls the entire northern sea route. It can trade with Europe and Asia by land. It can transfer large amounts of raw materials to Asia via pipelines. It may use the northern route, which is under the umbrella of their air force and Bastion ground systems in the future Tsirkon. They only need the Blue Navy to protect their interests in South America. They will handle the rest by land and with a small navy in small seas such as the Caspian, etc. Their interests in South America are not that extensive. Likewise Southern Africa.

No, Russia would need to go west at that point it hits nato and Nuclear war starts and everyone dies, if they have no navy, all of their over seas assist in the future, relations etc are in grave danger. Also, we could just blockade them from the east via the sea and more.

Russia needs a capable blue water fleet and they know this, they want one but they are having so many problems with their ship building industry and then add the war which is taking resources away from the navy.

This is a simpleton view of how matters work if you think, Russia only needs land access.

Arkanghelsk wrote:All Russian landing ships ended being hit by projectiles, missiles, mines, so many threats exist that it deterred the VMF entirely from prosecuting any kind of littoral combat, even though the entire fleet is composed of these littoral platforms like buyan/karakurt/nanuchka/tarantul etc.
All this would be repeated in the baltic sea, or sea of Okhotsk, generally any closed or semi closed body of water where there are littoral states that can field coastal missiles
The survivability of said ship is nil
...
You don't need "small missile ships" for littoral combat, you will lose your whole navy in any of those seas
Furthermore, if these ships are useless sitting in Novorossiysk,  because they are in danger at Port in Sevastopol,  and this against Ukraine
Imagine a war where Turkey closes the bosphorus? The entire fleet would have nowhere to go, the Black Sea is an oval turkey shoot for any navy

So what if they are in Novorossiysk? These ships can fire Kalibr missiles with 2500 km range. And eventually the Kalibr-M with 4500 km range. They don't need to be in Crimea to hit targets in Ukraine in the first place. They could hit Ukraine from the Caspian Sea even.

These ships can also use the Russian canal system to go from the Black Sea to the Caspian Sea, White Sea, or the Baltic Sea. So they are pretty survivable. Unlike the frigates or the large corvettes which need to do longwinded trips via NATO controlled chokepoints to reinforce each other.

Also, you can pretty much tell by the caliber of the guns on these ships that the Karakurt isn't meant to support land assaults. Maybe the Buyan series of corvettes was like that but not this one.

Arkanghelsk wrote:I for sure agree, if there's one thing SMO has shown

It's that Russia should focus on a blue water navy

The green/brown water myth is not convincing at all

"Focus" is the right word because the reality is there is almost nothing left in the Russian navy that can constitute a blue water navy. This thing will have to be build from the bottom up - and it will have to be like a horny rabbit on steroids!

Not hundreds of ships but enough to have an adequate presence throughout the world's oceans.

Plenty of times russian airbases were successfully hit by ukro drones with many aircraft and choppers destroyed.

Bullshit. The amount of effort they have gone to for the pathetic level of successful results and you can just discount it as a nuisance.

Even when they are successful a 600 gramme bomb on a Ka-52 is not going to defeat the Russian military.

An ATACMS attack that damages three helicopters... I mean it is bloody pathetic and has not been repeated.

I would say the performance so far suggest the opposite of what you are claiming, that forward airfields can be defended and now the threat of small drones has been proven beyond doubt and lots of resources are being put together to deal with the problem that very soon air defence vehicles that can knock down drones will not be far away.

You can commit enormous resources to overwhelm any defence but the level of planning and preparation... not to mention all the resources you are going to lose in the endeavour, quite often in real practise it is not going to be worth while, and the loss of troops sent in to deliver the blow often get taken out too which compounds the stupidity of the entire propaganda attack.

Hole wrote:

Ukrainian troops shoot Kiev mercs

Looks as if the mercs were used as "guards" to keep the soldiers from retreating.

they were American mercs, you can tell by there accents

I for sure agree that Russia needs blue water permanence. Just look at what is happening in the Mideast. If Russia had a greater blue water presence it could show it's presence more amongst our ships in the eastern med and red sea. But with Russia's coastline it makes sense to have a serious green water presence and the kilos plus karakurt it does this. Also the karakurts and buyan m vessels have been extensively used to yeet the kalibr cruise missiles in Ukraine and Syria. They can snuggle up in parts of the black and especially the Caspian seas to do their work.

Ah yes the miraculous accounting errors. ffs

The Navy is not a huge priority in the current situation, but moving forward when this conflict is over and all bridges to the west are burned and Russia has to trade with the rest of the world then the Navy are going to be so much more important than they are now or previously.

The mine plough at the front worked really great with those modified Leopards.

Yeah, the problem with those specialised mine plough vehicles is that they are there is relatively small numbers which makes them a target worth hitting, so attack helicopters with LMUR missiles or Vikhrs will see them as being as worthy to hit and destroy as an air defence vehicle or an air defence vehicle...

So, were there any damage to the shipyard or the ships in construction there?
Apart from the announcements from the Ukrainian side I was not able to understand if those 2 missiles caused substantial damage or not.

It pays to wait to see what the Russians say. Comments from Kiev are always lies because they need wins at all costs.

I think from this moment on we have to consider that NATO won't let go of Western Ukraine easily,

Russia knows it can't trust HATO or Kiev... their only option is the destruction of the Ukrainian army and when it collapses they will likely send in "peacekeeping forces" over the entire territory to keep the peace till referendums can be organised and stability can be created.

The west wont be negotiating anything.

Are smaller missile ships such as these, redundant in the face of collapsed arms control for intermediate range missiles?

Small ships in the Russian navy have more jobs to do than just destroying HATO with cruise missiles and shooting down all their aircraft with SAMs.

Those countries are in dire need of external sources for ressources.
Russia is self-sufficient.

If Russia wants to trade with the rest of the world it needs access to the rest of the world and the vast majority of world trade moves by ship.

More importantly as countries join BRICS and become rather more independent and want to resist the colonial violence from colonial naval fleets they are going to want ships and ship designs that serve their own purposes too...

AUKUS is selling SSNs to Australia, so I am sure many countries around the world will want to buy the ships and subs they need to deal with such threats too and the west wont sell to those that need them most.

It can trade with Europe and Asia by land.

Europe wont trade with it and it should not be trading with most of Europe.

Europe wants trade on its terms which normally means Europe buys cheap resources from Russia and produces expensive goods it sells to Russia and the rest of the world.

Russia does not benefit in that arrangement.

They only need the Blue Navy to protect their interests in South America. They will handle the rest by land and with a small navy in small seas such as the Caspian, etc. Their interests in South America are not that extensive. Likewise Southern Africa.

Most heavy trade goes by sea and Africa and Central and South America are enormous markets that Russia can make a lot of money in and those markets will benefit greatly with an alternative to western trade because Russian trade will be positive and support growth and development in those regions to build them up and help them.

Can these pr. 22800/21631 do that? No, they carry only 8 per ship, and there are much less ships than bombers as we speak

You do understand that the 8 missiles it will be carrying most of the time will be anti sub and anti ship missiles and that land attack cruise missiles would be a waste of a tube for a navy ship most of the time.

It's that Russia should focus on a blue water navy

The green/brown water myth is not convincing at all

Russia needs corvettes and frigates as well as a blue water fleet. There are plenty of things a navy does close in to its own shores that a MiG-31K can't do with a Kinzhal missile.

Not hundreds of ships but enough to have an adequate presence throughout the world's oceans.

Yes, there wont be 12 carrier battlegroups defending all the worlds oceans... it is the Russian navy, not star trek.

But again, what can 22800 do, that a mobile launcher cannot?

It can be a corvette that patrols Russian waterways and destroy submarines and enemy ships and aircraft...

Unlike a coastal launcher it IS an intel gathering platform that can better defend itself than most coastal launchers.

But it can also be used for other duties and roles that a navy has to perform every day and every week.

Those 8 launch tubes can carry a range of different missiles including anti sub missile and land attack missiles and anti ship missiles.

The development of mini guided anti drone missiles for land forces can be translated to ships as well with the main gun getting guided airburst rounds that allow it to engage all sorts of targets quickly and effectively.

If you think they shouldn't have something because it might get lost during a war, well that is a bit naive, but even if you do don't you realise that weapons have to be useful in peace time and drones and MiG-31Ks with Kinzhals can't patrol Russian waters making sure ships follow the rules.

Against most civilian ships using a frigate or a destroyer for that is a horrible waste of resources and time.

A small ship with 8 knockout missiles is useless now? Quick, Somebody call the USN; they're needlessly shitting themselves dead worrying about this non-threat.

But seriously, how can you compare a missile truck with a missile corvette? I don't even.

One is land-based while the other can access both inland and open waters - only 3/4 of the Earth's surface, btw. There is no comparison. You get both because they each fulfill their own set of tasks.

🪖 Russian Lancet loitering munition destroys Ukrainian communications station

https://t.me/geopolitics_live/9256

Arkanghelsk wrote:The latest reports from NBC show that Ukrainian manpower is now fully depleted

All major US propaganda news sources from TIME, NBC, ABC, PBS are all going against Zelensky

Even France24 said Ukraine is out of manpower and they should make peace

I see US is taking sides with Arestovich and Zaluzhny to try to push a Minsk 3 deal

There are those in Moscow who would jump at the opportunity

Right now there should be the utmost done to preserve Zelenskys life, and to keep the war going

The west is going to want to get rid of him and freeze the war, Russia should not allow them to impose conditions especially when it is they who have lost the war

The results on the battlefield have yet to reflect what you said. I will probably take an interest again in this thread if Russia gains new territory they haven't gained before or some F-16s get shot down.

Arkanghelsk wrote:The latest reports from NBC show that Ukrainian manpower is now fully depleted

All major US propaganda news sources from TIME, NBC, ABC, PBS are all going against Zelensky

Even France24 said Ukraine is out of manpower and they should make peace

I see US is taking sides with Arestovich and Zaluzhny to try to push a Minsk 3 deal

There are those in Moscow who would jump at the opportunity

Right now there should be the utmost done to preserve Zelenskys life, and to keep the war going

The west is going to want to get rid of him and freeze the war, Russia should not allow them to impose conditions especially when it is they who have lost the war

I have no idea where you are getting your information from but the sources are bad, no one within any real position of power in the US Gov is calling for a Minsk 3, I would know if they are

Ukraine's manpower is not depleted

thegopnik wrote:The results on the battlefield have yet to reflect what you said. I will probably take an interest again in this thread if Russia gains new territory they haven't gained before or some F-16s get shot down.

Why would Russia look to advance on a large scale? Attrition is working wonderfully, and for it to continue all they need do is maintain the pressure on the Ukrofilth to fix their forces in place and give them no pause to recover. Slowly increase the heat in those fronts where Russia has the advantage and can protect her manpower, and thereby force the Banderascum to commit the last of their competent reserves. Grind those b'stards into fertiliser without mercy.