Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Russian Navy Thread 2.

Collapse
X
Collapse
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 3 (0 members and 3 guests)
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • FBW
    FBW
    Rank 5 Registered User
    • Dec 2011
    • 3294

    Thanks TR1, interesting. Didn't really consider the fact they haven't seen frequent deployment, or the differences between gas turbines vs steam for the 956. Much smaller hole needs to be cut in the hull to replace gas turbines (or removal of the trunking, not sure how Russia does it).
    Last edited by FBW; 24th August 2017, 02:26.

    Comment

    • TR1
      TR1
      http://tiny.cc/tp8kd
      • Oct 2010
      • 9826

      The situation with personnel and facilities to repair and put the boilers back together is the limiting factor AFAIK..

      Just a great pic of Gorshkov:

      sigpic

      Comment

      • stealthflanker
        Rank 5 Registered User
        • Sep 2015
        • 1026

        need more Gorshkov.

        Comment

        • verbatim
          Rank 5 Registered User
          • Aug 2010
          • 261

          Originally posted by JangBoGo View Post
          1155/1 modernisation indeed going to happen is a very pleasant surprise. I always felt the 1155/1 were lightly armed for its size but had good growth potential with a proper modernisation. Same goes for 956, I wish they carry out a modernisation for 956 as well.



          I don't know if there is a need for Kalibr on all ships. I would rather have the bigges like 1155/1, 956 and 11356 to have an increased load of AD missiles in addition to the ASW and anti-ship assets. Its better to have 4-6 x 21631 deputed to any of the above combatants to do the long range shots under its protective cover. That would be like 32-48 Kalibrs at the disposal.
          The amount of weapons on a vessel is in no way a sign of his usefulness.

          Nor a weapon has always a rationale on a vessel, even if easily accomodated.

          Projet 1155 has been a really successfull project.

          Shame is, it was not exploited in last years to launch a few new built vessels adapted to AAW warfare, the most critical weak point of the russian Fleet.

          About pr. 21631 and the likes, they are nothing more than modern FAC, are you seriously suggesting to deploy them in open sea?

          FAC have always proved to be a total failure when just few miles away from shore.

          There is no trick to escape the need for a superb Electric suite, full fledged CIWS and SHORAD, only to HOPE to survive the encounter with an opponent in open sea.

          Nothing short of, maybe, a pr. 20380 could survive on open sea, nor should under any circumstances join major combatants.

          21631 are just very mobile launching platform, doomed to move always and only under a strong air support (AWACS, interceptors and so on).

          Their meaning is distributed letality, i.e. multiple and dispersed on home waters cuise missile launching platforms, not being a shortcut to capabilities that only fregates and destroyers could provide.

          Not to speak of the not existent endurance of boats the size of a fishing one.
          Last edited by verbatim; 24th August 2017, 13:05.

          Comment

          • soyuz1917
            Rank 5 Registered User
            • Oct 2005
            • 651

            The 21631s are zero day platforms. They are a strategic capability on a 950 ton hull. Comparing them to FACs which historically have never even had a beyond the horizon capability is rather disingenuous intellectually. These hulls in a shooting war with NATO will fire their missiles most likely without ever leaving port and be scuttled 5 minutes later. A saying that the the Russians like to misuse "a capability with no analogue in the West" is actually quite fitting when applied to them because this capability does not exist in the West. It may be asymmetric and feel almost like a cheat to those who spend a billion and a half per hull but it is a brilliant response to a non-parity in capability elsewhere. Their pre-designated targets are going to be air bases in Europe. They will likely never shoot at ships -- ever -- and if they do shoot at naval bases it will be pretty exclusively at nuclear submarine pens as the Russians would not waste precious cruise missiles on parked NATO surface combatants which in the Eurasian land war that would begin about 30 second later would have almost zero strategic impact.

            Comment

            • Trident
              Rank 5 Registered User
              • May 2004
              • 3970

              If THAT's the intention, why not save yourself the effort of even a 950ton hull and just buy more Iskander-Ks or (if for some reason the limited sea-going ability is considered essential) containerized Club, to be mounted on hulls of opportunity?
              sigpic

              Comment

              • soyuz1917
                Rank 5 Registered User
                • Oct 2005
                • 651

                Treaties is why. The Russians are not allowed ground based long range cruise missiles with a range over 600km by treaty. Iskanker-K is not a ground based Kaliber. It's a much shorter ranged "tactical" platform. Russia and the US can only deploy long range cruise missiles on naval hulls and bombers. Of course how long this will remain true is an open question given that the US accuses Russia of violating the INF treaty by sticking some kind of new long ranged missile on a ground based TEL. The Russians deny doing this. And of course the Chinese are not treaty bound to do anything and have been sticking CJ-10 long ranged cruise missiles on ground based TELS to their hearts content which will inevitably force a US and Russian response at some point....

                Ships are just platforms for carrying missiles. For Russia the truth is even if they had unlimited funds there is little reason to build huge numbers of blue water combatants because they are geographically trapped in bastions no matter their capability. The Russkies just by reasons of geography are screwed in a straight out fleet v. fleet action even if you give them parity otherwise. Sticking Kalibers on anything that floats however makes all the sense in the world given their reality.

                Containerized Klub in a long range cruise missile config likely would violate the INF treaty as it would be based on land 99% of the time and would almost certainly be land fireable. My understanding is they only built anti-ship or short ranged versions in containers.
                Last edited by soyuz1917; 28th August 2017, 00:48.

                Comment

                • Austin
                  Rank 5 Registered User
                  • Oct 2003
                  • 6506

                  little reason to build huge numbers of blue water combatants because they are geographically trapped in bastions no matter their capability.
                  The Pacific and Northern fleet have direct access to sea , only the baltic is like a bastion and caspian sea

                  But bastion is like a two way street if it does not help you it does not help your enemy either.
                  "A map does you no good if you don't know where you are"

                  Comment

                  • JSR
                    JSR
                    Rank 5 Registered User
                    • Aug 2011
                    • 4982

                    If THAT's the intention, why not save yourself the effort of even a 950ton hull and just buy more Iskander-Ks or (if for some reason the limited sea-going ability is considered essential) containerized Club, to be mounted on hulls of opportunity
                    do you realize Yak-130 is smaller than Flanker? At some point the missile and electronics technology will be advanced enough (aka compact, global net centric) that usefulness of 950 ton hull will increase.
                    Last edited by JSR; 28th August 2017, 07:47.

                    Comment

                    • verbatim
                      Rank 5 Registered User
                      • Aug 2010
                      • 261

                      Originally posted by Austin View Post
                      The Pacific and Northern fleet have direct access to sea , only the baltic is like a bastion and caspian sea

                      But bastion is like a two way street if it does not help you it does not help your enemy either.
                      In case of open war between NATO and Russia, the Pacific Fleet would have zero chances confronting the VII Fleet and Japanese Navy. Actually the japanese Navy would suffice to blockade the russian pacific bases.

                      Almost the same is valid for the Northern Fleet, it has a better chance because with ice melting and northern route opening, it will have a greater freedom of movement.

                      Black Sea Fleet is two time locked, first inside Black Sea, the inside the Mediterranean Sea.

                      It is not only a matters of vessels and technology, its a matter of bases and free routes.

                      A german Admiral said post WWII: in the first World War we had the Navy (i.e. one on par with opponents) and had not bases. In the second World War we had the bases but we had no Navy.

                      So clearly 21631 and the likes are what Soyuz wrote.

                      My reference to FAC was not related to their intended role, but to the viability of their deployment on open seas.

                      About the usefullness of a russian blu water's Navy, I am of the opposite opinion: short of an open war, NATO can not blockade russian bases.

                      Having a strong blu water's Navy would enable Russia to play a relevant security broker role worldwide.

                      From control of boundaries and resources disputes, to assistance on training and capability's building, up to direct protection of allies.

                      Comment

                      • Scar
                        Senior Member
                        • Nov 2015
                        • 682

                        Didn't know Japan is a NATO member, LOL.))

                        Comment

                        • soyuz1917
                          Rank 5 Registered User
                          • Oct 2005
                          • 651

                          Take a look at the path the Kuz took to get to the Med on its way to Syria. It was basically forced by good old god and geography to never be far from the shores of a NATO country. The Russian fleets are ALL FUBARED by geography before specs and numbers even come into play. This has always been the case hence why they fought the Crimean war in the first place. They took 500,000!!! dead to try to change that dynamic. Their naval planners understand all this hence why no tears were actually shed in naval circles over the unneeded and useless Mistrals and why they prioritize submarines over surface ships and why they over-gun all their combatants at the price of rough sea handling and why the Russians look on at the Chinese building a political navy with basically a lot of indifference if not outright joy because every new Chinese destroyer is that many fewer Chinese J-11s and Type 99s.

                          Comment

                          • verbatim
                            Rank 5 Registered User
                            • Aug 2010
                            • 261

                            Originally posted by Scar View Post
                            Didn't know Japan is a NATO member, LOL.))
                            In the hypothesis of a war between Russia and NATO, given the bases and weapons the USA has on the japanese islands, given the role as SSBN's bastion played by Okhotsk Sea and the likes, how many hours long would Japan stand still and neutral?

                            Better to say: How long couldJapan be able to mantain his neutrality, provided but not granted it would have any will at all to stay neutral?

                            Comment

                            • Scar
                              Senior Member
                              • Nov 2015
                              • 682

                              how many hours long would Japan stand still and neutral?
                              As long as it wouldn't like to become a target for the full-scale nuclear strike. Anyway, Japan isn't a NATO member...

                              Comment

                              • swerve
                                Rank 5 Registered User
                                • Jun 2005
                                • 13612

                                The Pacific and Northern fleet have direct access to sea , only the baltic is like a bastion and caspian sea

                                But bastion is like a two way street if it does not help you it does not help your enemy either.
                                The Baltic. Hmm. Not much of a bastion when NATO controls the entrance, so its ships can come & go at will, almost all the southern coast & half the eastern coast.
                                Juris praecepta sunt haec: honeste vivere, alterum non laedere, suum cuique tribuere.
                                Justinian

                                Comment

                                • JSR
                                  JSR
                                  Rank 5 Registered User
                                  • Aug 2011
                                  • 4982

                                  In the hypothesis of a war between Russia and NATO, given the bases and weapons the USA has on the japanese islands, given the role as SSBN's bastion played by Okhotsk Sea and the likes, how many hours long would Japan stand still and neutral?

                                  Better to say: How long couldJapan be able to mantain his neutrality, provided but not granted it would have any will at all to stay neutral?
                                  Japan and Korea will stay neutral or start leaning towards Russia. its the economic. scientific, resource exploitation, climatic and demographic changes.

                                  https://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/tec...19_235581.html
                                  http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/tech...93_234983.html

                                  Comment

                                  • TR1
                                    TR1
                                    http://tiny.cc/tp8kd
                                    • Oct 2010
                                    • 9826

                                    So the rumors are true, the long struggling 22600 icebreaker has left Baltisky for Admirality to be finished.

                                    sigpic

                                    Comment

                                    • TR1
                                      TR1
                                      http://tiny.cc/tp8kd
                                      • Oct 2010
                                      • 9826

                                      Pics of the BSF's new 636.6 submarines being loaded with Kalibr missiles- and Fizik torpedoes in the last pic.

                                      https://dambiev.livejournal.com/972481.html
                                      sigpic

                                      Comment

                                      • Austin
                                        Rank 5 Registered User
                                        • Oct 2003
                                        • 6506

                                        The Russian Navy in modern times

                                        "A map does you no good if you don't know where you are"

                                        Comment

                                        • TR1
                                          TR1
                                          http://tiny.cc/tp8kd
                                          • Oct 2010
                                          • 9826

                                          Nice sight- BSF's rebuilt submarine force.

                                          sigpic

                                          Comment

                                          Unconfigured Ad Widget

                                          Collapse

                                           

                                          Working...
                                          X