Russian Navy: Status and News #5

flamming_python wrote:.....

PapaDragon wrote:
If they want good surface fleet vanilla Gorshkovs are more than enough

Na

They can do without the Liders this decade, but they really do need Super Gorshkovs.
In terms of capital ships, Russia is not going to cut it with its Kuznetsov constantly in maintanance, 2 Kirovs one of which will go into modernization this decade as soon as the other is ready, 3 outdated Slavas approaching the ends of their lives, and modernized Udaloys

Such a force would be sufficient for 1 fleet, but not spread across 2/3

Kuznetzov is a floating monument to failure and was never really a factor in any Naval matters (other than tying down resources, manpower and aircraft)

Kirovs are nice to have but not exactly something a pair of frigates can't fill in for

Vanilla Gorshkov easily replaces Udaloi and those latest Gorshkovs with expanded LACMs can do the job for Slavas no problem

Problem is construction speed and considering that even Gorshkov takes ages to build commiting to Super Gorshkov is even more wasteful and is definitely pointless

Better to fix problems for what you already have (Gorshkov) than to create even more problems by chasing some ego-trip boondoggle in the making (Super Gorshkov)

By the time first Super Gorshkov is launched all Soviet era ships will be rusted away and existing Gorshkovs will need Shaposhnikov-level overhaul just to remain partially useful and fleet will be back to square one only this time 70% smaller

PapaDragon wrote:

flamming_python wrote:.....

PapaDragon wrote:
If they want good surface fleet vanilla Gorshkovs are more than enough

Na

They can do without the Liders this decade, but they really do need Super Gorshkovs.
In terms of capital ships, Russia is not going to cut it with its Kuznetsov constantly in maintanance, 2 Kirovs one of which will go into modernization this decade as soon as the other is ready, 3 outdated Slavas approaching the ends of their lives, and modernized Udaloys

Such a force would be sufficient for 1 fleet, but not spread across 2/3

Kuznetzov is a floating monument to failure and was never really a factor in any Naval matters (other than tying down resources, manpower and aircraft)

Kirovs are nice to have but not exactly something a pair of frigates can't fill in for

Vanilla Gorshkov easily replaces Udaloi and those latest Gorshkovs with expanded LACMs can do the job for Slavas no problem

Problem is construction speed and considering that even Gorshkov takes ages to build commiting to Super Gorshkov is even more wasteful and is definitely pointless

Better to fix problems for what you already have (Gorshkov) than to create even more problems by chasing some ego-trip boondoggle in the making (Super Gorshkov)

By the time first Super Gorshkov is launched all Soviet era ships will be rusted away and existing Gorshkovs will need Shaposhnikov-level overhaul just to remain partially useful and fleet will be back to square one only this time 70% smaller

Point is to have a credible force by the time the current fleet rusts away. Which will start happening by the beginning of the next decade or even the end of the current one, with the retirement of the Slavas, and then not long after the Udaloys.

You can' substitute a nuclear battlecruiser with a frigate, no matter how modern it is. You can't even substitute the Slavas with them; not enough endurance and lesser AA capabilities to keep up with the Kuznetsov, nor to intercept enemy naval groups in the ocean. Which I agree is a hulk but it looks like they're set on keeping it so might as well put it to use.

The shipyards need to get their act together, there's no other way out of this predicament.

The Russians aren't building a flotilla to go all around the world; they're building a navy that can protect them against their adversaries. The vast majority of the trade-routes en-use by Russia are going to be coastal.

That is why, primarily, they are focusing on building Gorshkov's (15 planned), Grigorovich's (7 planned), Buyan-M's (15 planned), Steregushchiy's (24 planned), Gremyashchiy's (6 planned), Karakurt's (16 planned) & Project 20386's (10 planned). None of them are fit to embark on long-distance patrols.

A total of 93 surface ships.

They also seemed to have scrapped the idea of nuclear attack submarines, probably for the same reason they're mostly focused on building coastal defense ships. They're currently planning: Project 885's (10 planned - nuclear cruise), Project 545 (Unknown - nuclear cruise), Project 636.3's (13 planned - attack), Project 677 (12 planned, attack), something from ЦКБ "Рубин" (unknown - attack), Project 955(A) (10 planned - nuclear ballistic).

A total of 45 submarines.

It should be noted that they're also planning to build quite a few nuclear icebreakers: Project 22220's (5 planned), Project 10510 (3 planned) to complement the currently operational 2x Arktika's & 2x Taymyr's. That'll increase their fleet twice, btw.

And there's absolutely no reason for them to build large destroyers or aircraft carriers. They will never see actual use as the Russians remain to be a more land oriented military power (due to the threats they face). Not to mention that the vast majority of US Navy ships will be focused predominantly on the Chinese, given this is their short-term plan (including currently operational newly built ships):

• Type 55 - 16 planned, destroyer/cruiser
  
• Type 52D - 25 planned, destroyer
  
• Type 52C - 6 planned, destroyer
  
• Type 52B - 2 planned, destroyer
  
• Type 51C - 2 planned, destroyer
  
• Type 54A - 50 planned, frigate
  
• Type 54 - 2 planned, frigate
  
• Type 53 (all) - 20 planned, frigate
  
• Type 56 - 72 planned, corvette
  
• Total destroyers: 51
  
• Total frigate's & corvettes' : 144
  
• Total: 192
  

The Chinese are actually building carrier escort groups and a deep water navy. In addition to a huge amount of coastal ships that will guard their shipping routes. They've already surpassed the US navy in terms of surface ships and they will not stop doing this as their manufacturing capability is only set to increase.

You need only compare the above to what the Australians, French, Americans, Germans and the English have (I've even added the Japanese for extra credit, due to their racism against the Chinese):

• US destroyers: 97
  
• Japanese destroyers: 36
  
• UK destroyers: 12
  
• French destroyers: 11
  
• Australian destroyer: 3
  
• US frigates: 35
  
• UK frigates: 13
  
• French frigates: 11
  
• Germany frigates: 10
  
• Australian frigates: 10
  
• Germany corvettes: 5
  
• Total destroyers: 159
  
• Total frigates: 79
  
• Total: 243
  

The Germans are barely able to keep their fleet functional. The French and UK have actually failed to launch numerous missiles from their frigates/destroyers. The Australians are basically a joke. The Japanese are under various treaties to not include land-attack missiles in their navy arsenals. The only real adversary that the Chinese and Russians are facing is the United States. A navy who's so split all over the world that their force projection in the Chinese/Russian region is completely pathetic.

The Chinese will continue to build up their destroyers and frigates at a pace of about 10 / year. Comparing that to the pace of the United States (2 / year) is a joke. In just a decade they'll have complete superiority over the United States in their coastal ships and blue water navy... by the looks of how their air-force is growing, I dare say they'll have superiority over the Americans in about the same time too.

It seems people have their opinion and nothing of what VMF says or does can change it... They are indeed planing to have an ocean going fleet, but of course those bigger and more expensive ships for power projection come last, both for reasons of industrial development after the fall of the USSR and also because the more pressing priorities lay closer to the Russian territory. They are not giving up their blue water fleet, the relevant documents are available for anyone wanting to check them.

LMFS wrote:It seems people have their opinion and nothing of what VMF says or does can change it... They are indeed planing to have an ocean going fleet, but of course those bigger and more expensive ships for power projection come last, both for reasons of industrial development after the fall of the USSR and also because the more pressing priorities lay closer to the Russian territory. They are not giving up their blue water fleet, the relevant documents are available for anyone wanting to check them.

That does not correspond to the reality of where the current design is focused. Project 23560's are still out by at least a decade or so; whilst the carrier project they've been mulling over is likely going to get the shelf.

I've described my reasoning in the post above yours; though answer me this:

With the advent of long-range standoff missiles that can be launched from ship, aircraft or land (remember that the treaty banning land-based cruise missiles is gone) where will the Russian navy make use of their destroyer fleet? Where do they currently use them primarily?

nero wrote:That does not correspond to the reality of where the current design is focused.

But what I said above is the explicitly stated strategy of Russia and the current situation corresponds, step by step, with the corresponding development roadmap. You need to walk before running and VMF / USC need to start small and get things right before ramping up ambitions. There is no need to read Russia's thoughts or turn into future tellers when VMF have clearly said what they will do and when.

Project 23560's are still out by at least a decade or so; whilst the carrier project they've been mulling over is likely going to get the shelf.

Yet they invest very big in the Nakhimov and the Kuzentsov, that means such vessels are considered a top priority. Russia cannot intervene in many areas of the glove that are more than ready to cooperate with them, because their navay could not sustain operations opposed by the USN, that is the simple reality. An that is costing Russia lots of money and lots of opportunities to grow.

With the advent of long-range standoff missiles that can be launched from ship, aircraft or land (remember that the treaty banning land-based cruise missiles is gone) where will the Russian navy make use of their destroyer fleet? Where do they currently use them primarily?

They will be mainly used against other navies in the world ocean, not against land forces, with a deterring role. So, if the enemy has such advanced missiles (by now it is Russia that is ahead both in AShM and in the required AD to stop them), then they will be also threatened by similar weapons operated by the VMF and will normally refrain from attacking

flamming_python wrote:....You can' substitute a nuclear battlecruiser with a frigate, no matter how modern it is. You can't even substitute the Slavas with them; not enough endurance and lesser AA capabilities

Really?

Several Gorshkovs can easily replace 2 or 3 cruisers, time and technology moved on

Cold War is over, Russia will not be doing anything anywhere where frigate can't reach

flamming_python wrote:....to keep up with the Kuznetsov, nor to intercept enemy naval groups in the ocean. Which I agree is a hulk but it looks like they're set on keeping it so might as well put it to use.

Canoe can keep up with Kuznetzov for what little time it will be around

LMFS wrote:...Yet they invest very big in the Nakhimov and the Kuzentsov, that means such vessels are considered a top priority.

They are investing in Nakhimov because it's still not fallen apart that's all there is to it, same goes for Udalois

As for Kuznetsov it's just a phantom pain of a dead empire that old idiots still in charge can't let go of

In reality it's a monument to the most pathetic nation to ever exist, a country that claimed to be better than their enemies but who in practice always dreamed of being exactly like those same enemies and having what they have without having the balls to admit it to themselves

They said they did not want what Americans had but not so deep down they desired all of it, they longed for it, they craved it, they needed it and had to have it even if it meant killing off their own parents and children which they eventually did

That is what Kuznetsov is: embodiment of pathetic insecurity and jealousy that serves no other purpose than as a monument to self-hate and failure

But time spares nothing and soon this abomination will meet it's inevitable end and when that happens it will free up money, men and resources that will finally be put to good use instead of being slaved to a floating prison

Just imagine the misery of men who are forced to serve on that testament to failure? Few things could be more degrading than that

LMFS wrote:...Russia cannot intervene in many areas of the glove that are more than ready to cooperate with them, because their navay could not sustain operations opposed by the USN, that is the simple reality. An that is costing Russia lots of money and lots of opportunities to grow...

Russia can barely intervene next door, what do you think they would do halfway across the fucking planet?

You think Brazil will be happy to see them?

LMFS wrote:...They are not giving up their blue water fleet, the relevant documents are available for anyone wanting to check them.

There are not just documents but also drawings too

I have no doubt that soon we will have not only low-poli CGI images but maybe even scale models as well

But what there will not be are real life physical ships

PapaDragon wrote:Several Gorshkovs can easily replace 2 or 3 cruisers, time and technology moved on

Obviously not. Endurance, range, magazine, max size of carried missiles, height of the radars and therefore radar horizon, power and range of sensors, sea keeping incl. capability to use weapons in rough seas, there are many characteristics of a cruiser that no amount of frigates can replace.

Cold War is over, Russia will not be doing anything anywhere where frigate can't reach

Gorshkov did a circumnavigation, there is no place farther in this planet than that.

Just imagine the misery of men who are forced to serve on that testament to failure? Few things could be more degrading than that

Yes, serving in Russia's capital ship must be a complete dishonour for them

Russia can barely intervene next door, what do you think they would do halfway across the fucking planet?

Last time I checked they were a military superpower whose capabilities are growing substantially faster than those of their rivals. What do you think any naval group in this world can do, today, against a Russian battle group armed with Tsirkon, SSGNs and ships like the Groshkovs and the Nakhimov? Keep safe distance, that's all.

LMFS wrote:Obviously not. Endurance, range, magazine, max size of carried missiles, height of the radars and therefore radar horizon, power and range of sensors, sea keeping incl. capability to use weapons in rough seas, there are many characteristics of a cruiser that no amount of frigates can replace....

Vanilla Gorshkov has the same amount of missiles (superior ones) to Slava-class

Tweaked new ones will have double the amount

As for other stuff welcome to the 21st century, grandpa

Or are you one those people who still think that searchlights are vital part of AA defense?

LMFS wrote:Gorshkov did a circumnavigation, there is no place farther in this planet than that....

So why do they need cruisers, again?

LMFS wrote:Yes, serving in Russia's capital ship must be a complete dishonour for them...

Only in fantasies of bottom of the barrel level Russia fanboys is it considered "capital ship"

Everyone else knows it's just partially floating barge with a big number painted on the side and nothing else

LMFS wrote:Russian battle group armed with Tsirkon...

There is no such thing as Russian battle group because Russia hasn't got enough hulls to put one together

As for Zircons only surface ship capable of carrying any significant number of them further than a littoral zone is barely managing to reach double digit number

PapaDragon wrote:

LMFS wrote:Obviously not. Endurance, range, magazine, max size of carried missiles, height of the radars and therefore radar horizon, power and range of sensors, sea keeping incl. capability to use weapons in rough seas, there are many characteristics of a cruiser that no amount of frigates can replace....

Vanilla Gorshkov has the same amount of missiles (superior ones) to Slava-class
Tweaked new ones will have double the amount
As for other stuff welcome to the 21st century, grandpa
Or are you one those people who still think that searchlights are vital part of AA defense?

The Slava class missile destroyers have a lot more anti-air cells than an Admiral Gorshkov.
I agree that they should build more frigates, and they should be doing it in at least two shipyards.
But some destroyers will be necessary. Most of the US Navy is composed of destroyers and they have a lot more cells than you can put on a frigate.

@PD: Keep barking, writing drivel in provocative ways does not turn you in the expert and the VMF in the amateurs.

Kuznetzov is a floating monument to failure and was never really a factor in any Naval matters (other than tying down resources, manpower and aircraft)

Kuznetsov will be completing upgrades and a scheduled overhaul interrupted by operations in Syria and will become operational in the Northern Fleet protecting trade from American devils who will likely play the same freedom of navigation bullshit games they play on India and most other countries.

Two 40K ton helicopter carriers will be in the water in 6-7 years time and will also need something better than a Frigate to operate with them and support them.

Kirovs are nice to have but not exactly something a pair of frigates can't fill in for

Kirovs are cruisers, which means they can provide area defence coordination over a group of ships... something no Frigate can do.

Vanilla Gorshkov easily replaces Udaloi and those latest Gorshkovs with expanded LACMs can do the job for Slavas no problem

Gorshkovs are Frigates... they wont be sailing around the world or supporting landing operations in Alaska...

Problem is construction speed and considering that even Gorshkov takes ages to build commiting to Super Gorshkov is even more wasteful and is definitely pointless

They have not been producing them because they needed to get the design right and tested before committing to making any more let alone scaling them up.

Better to fix problems for what you already have (Gorshkov) than to create even more problems by chasing some ego-trip boondoggle in the making (Super Gorshkov)

There don't seem to be any problems with Gorshkov Frigates, and a scaled up more efficient and better armed model should be no problem.

Point is to have a credible force by the time the current fleet rusts away.

Point is that when talking to PD you can't have a rational discussion about the Russian Navy or Rogozin... it would be like talking to Vann about Putin or the coronovirus.

Which will start happening by the beginning of the next decade or even the end of the current one, with the retirement of the Slavas, and then not long after the Udaloys.

If they only wanted frigates then convert more Udaloys and forget the Kirovs and Slavas... and the Kuznetsovs and of course any 40K ton landing ships they might have recently laid down.

Which I agree is a hulk but it looks like they're set on keeping it so might as well put it to use.

By 2025 they could have Su-57s on it... plus they are upgrading their Su-30s to Su-35 level, so a similar upgrade for their Su-33s could make them much more potent aircraft...

The shipyards need to get their act together, there's no other way out of this predicament.

What are you talking about.... what the **** would Russia do with 24 brand new state of the art Destroyers and 8 brand new state of the art Cruisers right now?

The problem with internet warriors is that they spend all day waiting for that announcement for new shit, and when most of the time it is Chinese they get pissy... they don't realise that China lacks military might and has all the money it needs or wants, so of course it is going to spend money on ship building programmes and all sorts of other shit... so what... it is directed at bullies... and even if it was all aimed directly at Russia are you suggesting the solution for Russia is to join the mindless arms race that already bankrupted the Soviet Union.

Russia does not need the US Navy... it needs to be smarter and much better equipped and right now with MiG-31Ks and Kinzhal missiles there are no navies on the planet that threaten Russia... even all of them combined the world will run out of ships before Russia runs out of missiles.

The Russian Navy is not for the defence of Russia now... it is to project power but also project trade so the west can't suffocate Russia and regime change potential customers and trade partners... and so Russia needs some Corvettes of a few different types for their different fleets... maybe 36 or so, plus maybe 16 frigates, which would be four per four major fleets, and they will hang around Russian waters doing the business of spines on a porcupine, while 24 destroyers... 6 per fleet should provide good solid protection and also a ready to go force that could sail anywhere, and 8-12 cruisers with 4-6 in the Northern Fleet and Pacific Fleet that would form the core of a carrier group with helicopter carriers and fixed wing carriers and destroyers... a carrier group might consist of two cruisers and four destroyers from the fleet it is operating from with perhaps a couple of destroyers from another fleet to support, plus a helicopter landing ship with naval infantry and one with helicopters and drones to support any operations...

The Russians aren't building a flotilla to go all around the world; they're building a navy that can protect them against their adversaries. The vast majority of the trade-routes en-use by Russia are going to be coastal.

To protect their coast they have MiG-31Ks with Kinzhal missiles.

No ship could react as quickly, operate as cheaply and attack with more deadly force as a flight of MiGs.

For everything else Corvettes and Frigates are plenty.

They are not giving up their blue water fleet, the relevant documents are available for anyone wanting to check them.

If they were giving up a blue water fleet there would be no purpose in upgrading the Kuznetsov or the Slava class cruisers or the Kirov class cruisers... waste of time and money... unless they plan for a blue water navy in which case they need to get their support infrastructure in place, support ships in service, and of course home waters defended fully because their technology is modular and scalable... they have UKSK launchers working, they have Redut SAMS working, and their small calibre guns are working and apart from bigger sonars and bigger radars the bigger ships are just going to be carrying more UKSK bins and more Redut tubes... they are almost through the hardest stuff and you guys are pissing all over their hard work.

They could half arse it... they can make 100K ton carriers that don't work, ... Maybe Ford was the hint... a ford is a shallow part of a river or stream where land vehicles can move safely across... or they could make 7 billion dollar Zumwalt destroyers that are bloody useless... they could build three of them of the 32 they were going to build... or perhaps even invent a whole new class of vessels... littoral coastal ships.... which turn out to be useless dogs that they can't fix.... maybe the Ukraine could make some gearboxes that would work... but eventually they ended up buying ships from Italy... Ships not a lot different from Gorshkov frigates strangely enough... who are the idiots who don't know what they are doing?

Russian ships are taking time because they are doing it right and not skipping through tests it fails to get it into service and production, because the Navy are going to test them and if they don't work they are not going to accept them.

Russia lives in the real world and can't rely on the American dream of corruption and bribery to get them through...

With the advent of long-range standoff missiles that can be launched from ship, aircraft or land (remember that the treaty banning land-based cruise missiles is gone) where will the Russian navy make use of their destroyer fleet? Where do they currently use them primarily?

With the EU and US being a bunch of childish how do you think Russia will trade with the rest of the world... we know they are happy imposing sanctions on Russia and anyone who trades with Russia... including countries that are rather more important to the west than Russia is like Turkey and India...

How do you expect the west to react to really good trade relations between Russia and the rest of the world... especially if they only have Corvettes and Frigates?

Russia needs a navy for teh same reason China needs a navy... not to take on the US or EU... they would hardly be spending billions on silk routes from Asia to the EU if they thought the west was their enemy... but the fact is that the rest of the world is out there and wanting free and fair trade... something they are clearly not getting from the west. Russia doesn't care if Africa and central and south america and asia get rich on trade with Russia... as long as Russia gets rich too. Russia doesn't care if China gets rich too... good for China.

That is what a multipolar world is... a world where everyone gets to live like rich fucking white people.... sounds great... especially to the poor white people who hear they oppress the world with their white skin colour but have not yet enjoyed the actual benefits of being rich yet.

There is no need to read Russia's thoughts or turn into future tellers when VMF have clearly said what they will do and when.

Indeed... now is not the time to circle the wagons and limit herself to what the EU will trade with them... the rest of the world is there.

Several Gorshkovs can easily replace 2 or 3 cruisers, time and technology moved on

A group of Gorshkovs could defend each other, but not from a full scale attack.

A modern Cruiser has a lot more SAMs and air defence systems to defend itself and the ships it is operating with.

That is why it has to be so big and to carry so many missiles.

Cold War is over, Russia will not be doing anything anywhere where frigate can't reach

Of course... Russia should isolate itself and not trade with anyone except the EU... how can the EU pinch all the new Russian technologies if they bypass the west and trade directly with what the west calls the third world.

Canoe can keep up with Kuznetzov for what little time it will be around

If you are not capable of rational discussion don't bother with such flamebaiting.

They are investing in Nakhimov because it's still not fallen apart that's all there is to it, same goes for Udalois

But why... if there are no future plans for Cruisers then there would be little use for them now... scrapping them would free up lots of money and space...

As for Kuznetsov it's just a phantom pain of a dead empire that old idiots still in charge can't let go of

It does not fit with your view so it must just be that they are idiots.

Except if you are wrong and then it makes perfect sense that they upgrade it so it can be used for a decade or two while other ships are getting into the water...

That is what Kuznetsov is: embodiment of pathetic insecurity and jealousy that serves no other purpose than as a monument to self-hate and failure

But you are not bitter...

What an angry little man you are.

Just imagine the misery of men who are forced to serve on that testament to failure? Few things could be more degrading than that

Wonder where they will find crews then...

Russia can barely intervene next door, what do you think they would do halfway across the fucking planet?

Get your head out of your arse mate... there is a huge difference between being able to do something and choosing other solutions first.

I realise you love America so everything is 100K super carriers and regime change... but settle down with the temper tantrum.

You think Brazil will be happy to see them?

No, Brazil probably loves being controlled by Washington... I am sure having their people die because the Americans want to sell vaccines and don't want Russia to sell any makes them feel super proud... what choice do they get?

If they make the wrong move the west will economically crush them... what was that famous note in that meeting in Washington about a country not doing as it was told... make their economy scream... but it is not accountants that scream, nor economists.... it is women and children because there is no food no money no jobs... because the US is mad and their government... again...

Gorshkov did a circumnavigation, there is no place farther in this planet than that.

And Corvettes did too, but they are not ideal for such missions.... in fact very much token trips a one off sort of deal.

Vanilla Gorshkov has the same amount of missiles (superior ones) to Slava-class

Which just shows that Slava class ships are no longer adequately armed and need to be upgraded and then replaced.

As for other stuff welcome to the 21st century, grandpa

Or are you one those people who still think that searchlights are vital part of AA defense?

Even without hypersonic anti ship missiles the west would not care too much about a Frigate... its SAMs reach 150km... so from 200km they will start launching Harpoons and they have thousands of those... how many SAMs does a frigate have?

So why do they need cruisers, again?

That was a ferry range voyage.... actually going somewhere to actually do something for more than a day requires a much bigger ship.

As for Zircons only surface ship capable of carrying any significant number of them further than a littoral zone is barely managing to reach double digit number

That is OK, they wont need many.

@PD: Keep barking, writing drivel in provocative ways does not turn you in the expert and the VMF in the amateurs.

His butt hurt is embarrassing...

LMFS wrote:@PD: Keep barking, writing drivel in provocative ways does not turn you in the expert and the VMF in the amateurs.

Yes, yes, amateur

Meanwhile we have a guy here claiming that by 2025 they will have Su-57 stationed on Kuznetzov

That's 4 years from now and at that point Kuznetzov will be in precisely the same location as it is now (providing it doesn't sink again but that would also qualify as the same location only longer term than now so it's all good )

Who in his right mind would attach priority project on that fire hazzard?

GarryB wrote:Kuznetsov will be completing upgrades......

- Daddy, were you in the Navy?

- Yes I was

- Did you sail anywhere?

- Ehhh, kinda... no... not exactly... but...

- What ship did you serve on?

- Fu¢k you!!! Go to your room you little shit!!!

Wait who said they will station a navalized SU-57 on the Kuz by 2025?

PapaDragon wrote:

- Daddy, were you in the Navy?

- Yes I was

- Did you sail anywhere?

- Ehhh, kinda... no... not exactly... but...

- What ship did you serve on?

- Fu¢k you!!! Go to your room you little shit!!!

They were probably hoping for it to sink when that dock disaster occured.....its the typical Russian indifference when it comes to somethings.....they did the gorshokov, so they have the experience which means this ship is not priority and does not fit in medium to long term strategy until they laydown a carrier keel at which point we can realign our opinions.

I count 7 plus 1. Would make quite a Syrian Express convoy, if there was room in Tartous for them that is

Granger
@GrangerE04117
·
1 May
The congregation of landing ships at Sevastopol on Worker's Day, May 1st.

Photo: A. Balabin

GarryB wrote:They have not been producing them because they needed to get the design right and tested before committing to making any more let alone scaling them up.

Obviously they need to commission and test the Golovko with the first domestic engine and then they can go for the 22350M, in parallel they need to finish development of the new GTs for them, which will take some years too. They need to follow the sequence step by step, cutting corners is not going to work.

Point is that when talking to PD you can't have a rational discussion about the Russian Navy or Rogozin... it would be like talking to Vann about Putin or the coronovirus.

Pretty much the same kind of militant ignorance... the rationale behind those statements is incomprehensible and against the doctrine of ALL navies in this world and all documents and statements both Russian and foreign.

By 2025 they could have Su-57s on it... plus they are upgrading their Su-30s to Su-35 level, so a similar upgrade for their Su-33s could make them much more potent aircraft...

I can imagine that after the M version of Su-57 being deployed predictably in 2024, they should start working seriously in the possible naval version. A world beating aircraft which is already STOL is a no-brainer starting point for a naval plane, specially for Russia that needs to compensate for a severe numerical inferiority vs. USN. As to the Su-33, I see no technical reason why they cannot receive the same kind of upgrades planned for the rest of the Flankers. Probably the only question delaying such decision is to define the concrete roadmap for naval aviation / development of PAK-KA based on Su-57 or not. If the development is immediate, then investing money on such planes may not be expedient. But being realistic, it will take maybe more than ten years to get the PAK-KA deployed and in the numbers needed, and the Su-33 would need to be upgraded to cover the gap until then, together with the MiG-29K.

The Russian Navy is not for the defence of Russia now... it is to project power but also project trade

I would just add the blue water navy is to project power, of course the units that operate close to Russia do work to protect Russia. But I agree the land based assets are head and shoulders above the existing threats for the time being.

If they were giving up a blue water fleet there would be no purpose in upgrading the Kuznetsov or the Slava class cruisers or the Kirov class cruisers... waste of time and money... unless they plan for a blue water navy in which case they need to get their support infrastructure in place, support ships in service, and of course home waters defended fully because their technology is modular and scalable... they have UKSK launchers working, they have Redut SAMS working, and their small calibre guns are working and apart from bigger sonars and bigger radars the bigger ships are just going to be carrying more UKSK bins and more Redut tubes... they are almost through the hardest stuff and you guys are pissing all over their hard work.

Exactly, they are working the way work needs to be done, starting with the basic elements and building blocks (systems & weapons, industrial capabilities, doctrine) and only then growing on the basis of reliable building blocks, before making things much more expensive and complex, that this is the only sensible approach is really obvious. Crybabies can get lost, they do not help and they do not understand shit.

who are the idiots who don't know what they are doing?

We in the West have our heads so deep up our asses that we do not understand anymore what is proper development work and what is negligent embezzlement. Russians are just doing it right, I challenge anyone to dispute that based on actual program management policies and best practices. No professional can defend US MIC procurement practices vs Russian ones with a straight face.

Russia lives in the real world and can't rely on the American dream of corruption and bribery to get them through...

Pretty much

How do you expect the west to react to really good trade relations between Russia and the rest of the world... especially if they only have Corvettes and Frigates?

It is very obvious where Russia engages militarily and where they do not dare doing it, and that is already costing a lot of money. US/UK/Israel are engaged in full blown piracy already, the process is just going to intensify unless Russia and China significantly grow their naval capabilities. Maybe joint convoys by VMF and PLAN protecting commercial vessels are not going to take long to start being necessary.

Indeed... now is not the time to circle the wagons and limit herself to what the EU will trade with them... the rest of the world is there.

Agree, Sputnik-V is a good example of their drive to expand their trade and ties with other countries.

That is why it has to be so big and to carry so many missiles.

Nah, naval professionals are all ego maniacs and they just want to have the biggest ship beyond any technical reason  

And Corvettes did too, but they are not ideal for such missions.... in fact very much token trips a one off sort of deal.

For sure, small vessels cannot sustain operations far from their shores and are limited in so many ways. This is not even up for discussion in any serious venue.

Even without hypersonic anti ship missiles the west would not care too much about a Frigate... its SAMs reach 150km... so from 200km they will start launching Harpoons and they have thousands of those... how many SAMs does a frigate have?

VMF has the Tsirkon to allow for a surface fleet without air power to have a decent deterring power even vs. USN., because their fighters are challenged operating at big distances from their carriers, their AD is not up to the task of stopping hypersonic missiles and their AShM suck. But if pushed to try, they will find the way or simply deploy enough forces to overwhelm Russian naval assets. That is where you need extremely deep magazines and extended radar horizon like you have with the Orlans. A Gorshkov is nice when part of a detachment, alone is just asking USN to sink it.

His butt hurt is embarrassing...

Good posts in many other threads, but these VMF related meltdowns are simply irrational. Russia would surely wish to have their fleet composed just with brand new ships of the latest technology instead of the current salad of models and versions, and not need to deal with the consequences of the fall of the USSR, but it does not mean Slvas, Orlans or Kuznetsov have no military value, that is certified BS.

SeigSoloyvov wrote:Wait who said they will station a navalized SU-57 on the Kuz by 2025?

https://www.russiadefence.net/t7858p625-russian-navy-status-and-news-5#323576

GarryB wrote:By 2025 they could have Su-57s on it...

Take a guess...

PapaDragon wrote:

SeigSoloyvov wrote:Wait who said they will station a navalized SU-57 on the Kuz by 2025?

https://www.russiadefence.net/t7858p625-russian-navy-status-and-news-5#323576

GarryB wrote:By 2025 they could have Su-57s on it...

Take a guess...

Oh, I should have known.

Well, remember Garry lives in la-la-land where Russia is a perfect place with no problems. Hell according to Garry, Russia doesn't use mercs or produce propaganda.

Even tho they don't live there....or ever went there but you know they read stuff on the internet, never served in a military, never worked in any capacity in military R&D, production, or anything else...so that makes them a highly qualified expert.

Why the Russians haven't hired this mastermind is beyond my understanding....

Sarcasm aside, not saying that to be mean or rude just that they have no experience.

Aircraft carriers may be obsolete but submarines still have huge potential – what the Russian fleet will look like in the future, by Mikhail Khodarenok, military commentator for RT.com. He is a retired colonel. He served as an officer at the main operational directorate of the General Staff of the Russian Armed Forces.

There is an ongoing dispute in the Russian expert community about the future of the Russian fleet. So far, one thing is clear: the state needs a robust merchant fleet as much as it needs a strong navy.

Normally, the planning horizon in the shipbuilding industry can’t be less than 30 years into the future – everyone seems to be in agreement on that. Right now, Russia has a program for the development of the industry until 2050, which seems fine. However, since it was formulated and approved some time ago, the expert opinion is that it may well be outdated and in need of adjustment.

In terms of global trends, modern shipbuilders aim for increased maneuverability and efficiency at a decreased displacement. Present-day analysts agree that aircraft carriers are useful only if you don’t plan on invading a nation any stronger than a banana republic. In a naval standoff between equal powers, they’d be taken out first because they’re easy targets for guided missiles. It’s really hard to imagine this type of ships making a safe approach to the Russian shores under any circumstances.

Both nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarines and attack submarines, in general, however, are set to stay with us for the foreseeable future. It’s not very clear yet what will replace the diesel-electric submarine – that is, Project 636 and subs of the same class. Russia still sees air-independent propulsion power systems for diesel-electric submarines as a priority, but they’re the least important component when it comes to overall efficiency. If, or rather when, rechargeable batteries are developed that could power a submarine’s operation at a speed of five knots for 15 days, air-independent propulsion will likely become a thing of the past.

On the acoustic front, present-day submarines need to be as quiet – or, rather, as ‘noisy’ – as the ocean itself. That’s what the new generation of subs is trying to achieve: to become truly acoustically invisible in water.

As for long-running major projects, such as upgrading the Udaloy II-class submarine destroyer Admiral Chabanenko, Kresta II-class guided missile cruiser Admiral Nakhimov and some of the Oscar II-class cruise missile subs, there appears to be a need for more practical solutions.

To start with, every system and component of a ship has a life cycle, just like the ship itself. Once the vessel nears the end of its cycle, it would seem a sound solution to just send it in for an upgrade.

At first glance, such an approach makes complete sense and promises to save a lot of precious funding. Metaphorically speaking, it translates to putting a new heart and lungs into an old body (in this case, an old hull). But in reality, once you open Pandora’s box, the projected costs will start to increase exponentially. In for a penny, in for a pound.

It does seem, therefore, that a new approach is in order: once the life cycle is over, do not resuscitate. It would be more practical to break up an old ship and build a new one from scratch.

This is why all the talk about upgrading the Kirov-class battlecruiser Pyotr Velikiy doesn’t really cut it. Let’s begin with a very simple question: whether or not the Russian Navy needs a 28-ton ship at all. Today, most open-ocean vessels globally do not exceed 14 tons (full load), which is two times less.

As for the merchant fleet, it might have some bright prospects with more inland routes developing. The only limitation one would face with the inland merchant fleet is the size of the ships. To sail down Russian rivers, they must not exceed 140 meters by 16 meters, so certain cargo batches may need to be downsized. However, the delivery time would save a great deal more money and resources, so this is definitely the type of project worth exploring and banking on.

There has been a lot of debate recently about using nuclear propulsion in civilian ships – not only ice breakers, but also various types of container ship, lighter barges, roll-on/roll-off vessels, tankers, etc.). On the one hand, nuclear-powered ships have to deal with the serious limitations imposed by many seaports, because the Fukushima nuclear disaster has really made people suspicious of the technology.

On the other, the Soviet Union/Russia and the United States – Westinghouse Electric Company LLC, in particular – have so far produced more nuclear submarines than any other country in the world. Russia has vast experience in producing, maintaining, and upgrading nuclear propulsion systems, and is leagues ahead of other nations in that respect. This experience is marketable, which is something worth trying to explore.

Not many welcome the idea of using unconventional energy sources in marine vessels. Of course, ships could use wind and solar energy, but such energy sources are not entirely reliable. Wind comes and goes. The same goes for the sun – one moment it’s out, and then it’s gone for who knows how long. Having an onboard nuclear reactor, however, would provide a fully controllable source of uninterrupted power supply.

Russia has also developed a floating nuclear power station – the Akademik Lomonosov barge. The Fukushima plant was destroyed by an earthquake, as we know, and then a tsunami spread radioactive particles around, contaminating the environment. Compared to that, a floating nuclear power plant is much less problematic because it can be easily transported to a safe haven nearby, if required – all it takes is a tugboat.

In just five to seven years’ time, we might be looking at a market in serious need of diversifying its nuclear power production. And Russia, with its unique potential and resources, must seize the opportunity.

https://www.rt.com/op-ed/522803-russian-fleet-navy-submarine/

Good for linking news and that, but this paragraph:

Present-day analysts agree that aircraft carriers are useful only if you don’t plan on invading a nation any stronger than a banana republic. In a naval standoff between equal powers, they’d be taken out first because they’re easy targets for guided missiles. It’s really hard to imagine this type of ships making a safe approach to the Russian shores under any circumstances.

sends the whole analysis to the trash bin. Navies, much less carriers, are not suitable for attacking land forces. Present day analysis my arse, that is pure military illiteracy.

LMFS wrote:Good for linking news and that, but this paragraph:

Present-day analysts agree that aircraft carriers are useful only if you don’t plan on invading a nation any stronger than a banana republic. In a naval standoff between equal powers, they’d be taken out first because they’re easy targets for guided missiles. It’s really hard to imagine this type of ships making a safe approach to the Russian shores under any circumstances.

sends the whole analysis to the trash bin. Navies, much less carriers, are not suitable for attacking land forces. Present day analysis my arse, that is pure military illiteracy.

That's totally correct.

Nowadays land based systems that can attack carriers like missiles or aircraft have much more range so even in the middle of the oceans carriers are not safe and will be destroy pretty fast.

Subs have proven multiple times to be able to sneak in the carrier formation and sink it. Even during USSR when subs were 60-70s tech and much louder than a modern Yasen.


Their only safe place is to be used around your shores far away from the enemy.

Isos wrote:

That's totally correct.

Nowadays land based systems that can attack carriers like missiles or aircraft have much more range so even in the middle of the oceans carriers are not safe and will be destroy pretty fast.

Subs have proven multiple times to be able to sneak in the carrier formation and sink it. Even during USSR when subs were 60-70s tech and much louder than a modern Yasen.


Their only safe place is to be used around your shores far away from the enemy.

Totally simpleton take....so surface navies are obsolete and airforces are obsolete because there are AD's and what else? If there is a threat that makes it vulnerable then any planner will work on strategies in taking out those threats first, in this case missiles and then bring in the navy. I guess we will see everyone stop building surface navies. If war is unavoidable then loses will occur and someone will try to go on offensive and some on defensive....navies are as necessary as ever because the one that does not have one is more vulnerable and carries less options as simple as that

Isos wrote:That's totally correct.

What is totally correct?

Nowadays land based systems that can attack carriers like missiles or aircraft have much more range so even in the middle of the oceans carriers are not safe and will be destroy pretty fast.

Wake me up when surface fleets are disbanded. People keep repeating the mantra of the anti ship missiles as if AD remains static, it is absurd and completely denied by reality as proven every day by all navies in this world.

Subs have proven multiple times to be able to sneak in the carrier formation and sink it. Even during USSR when subs were 60-70s tech and much louder than a modern Yasen.

You seem to forget that submarine forces require surface fleets to protect them from enemy ASW.

Their only safe place is to be used around your shores far away from the enemy.

... where they are totally unnecessary BTW

And what makes them safe near you shores if those unlimited range AShM you talk about are unstoppable?

I am at a loss to understand certain arguments that look rather like tabloid headlines. In the real world all navies keep developing both their surface and submarine fleets, both offensive and defensive means. Only in internet we have this community of illuminati that have determined the end of all navies and carriers. It is nothing but cheap talking points.

I don't think carriers will become obsolete. They might change, but the fact that you can use air power to project further away from the ship itself won't change.
Missiles are expensive. Throwing away jet engines like you do when you launch a cruise missile isn't particularly cheap.
Aircraft enable you to enlarge the offensive, defensive, or sensor bubble around a ship.

Also, the idea that you can just build submarines is kind of pointless. You can't use submarines to patrol the oceans or protect the merchant fleet. Attack submarines are a weapon for sea denial basically.

Another thing which this news ignores is the major issues with upgrading a complex system like the Kirov-class or the Oscar II-class which was built in Soviet times. The manufacturers of the original system are likely gone, and the schematics, if they were kept, aren't digitized. But once you upgrade one of these boats you can use that knowledge to upgrade the next one. I think it is better if we call this refurbishment than upgrading though.

Future boats shouldn't have nearly this problem because the ships will be digitized and the supplies won't come from all over a nation which no longer exists. The know-how was scattered to the seven winds basically.

LMFS wrote:Obviously they need to commission and test the Golovko with the first domestic engine and then they can go for the 22350M, in parallel they need to finish development of the new GTs for them, which will take some years too. They need to follow the sequence step by step, cutting corners is not going to work.

Which new gas turbines? The Admiral Gorshkov uses two diesel engines and two gas turbines in a CODAG configuration. A destroyer could use four gas turbines in two pairs in a CODAG configuration. You don't need to develop new engines. They can use the same gas turbines in the Golovko. What you would need would be to develop the rest of the propulsion system around them.