Russia wants to dismantle nuclear subs by 2010

[Galrahn]

Also, what about the story about them building a fleet of new carriers by 2020?, Was it seven? How realistic is that, them building seven carriers in 12 years?

This current deployment is in my opinion an hasty operation, because they do not have an SSN or a proper ship with SAM capabillity. The Udaloys are Anti-Submarine Destroyers, and only have SA-N-9 and SA-N-11 SAM's. Why do they not deploy with the Kirov or the Slava class guided missile cruisers?

I read a lot of Russian press and observe the propaganda as well, like sailing the worlds oceans. It isn't as bad as it used to be though.

As spacearrow noted, the Moskva is a Slava class cruiser. It isn't like the Russian task force is going to need air defense though, this isn't the cold war and they aren't exactly going to war here.

As for submarines, we assume a lot to believe there won't be any submarines involved. Russia doesn't advertise submarine deployments, ever, and they have been more active over the last few years than the surface fleet. Russia has had at least 2 different Akula class submarines spotted off Africa or South Asia over the past few years, so it is entirely possible a submarine will be involved with this deployment.

I completely disagree that this deployment is hastily put together, in fact I see no evidence of that at all. From as early as July this year it appeared they were putting together a deployment of some kind, and the choice of the Med shouldn't surprise anyone either. After all, that was where the Russian Navy was headed back in 2000 right before the Kursk sank. Putin has always had an obsession with Naval deployments to the Med, he is a cold war guy, so it isn't surprising that would be his choice.

 

[kilo]

oh no, you don't want to use R-27s against cruise missiles. The performance of these missiles are not that great (that's putting it mildly). I'm not sure you want to use your main ASW assets as decoys.

What other option do they have? I know this is all purely speculative but what would you do to protect the group against air attack? the maximum range of their SAMs is only 7.5 miles.

Also as for using the Ka-27's as decoys i was thinking of 2-3 of them flying slow, low, and in close proximity so that they appeared as a ship to a missile and the when the missile approach they would split apart and accelerate. I don't think an ASM would be able to track a flying target. I'm not sure if that would work though

 

[funtz]

What attack? and that too in the med. , no chance.

- Who on earth will be willing to wake up the Russians, well i guess if they decided to go over tel aviv to take a few snaps with out actually bothering to tell them of a friendly visit it might get rough (as mentioned in the thread above).

This cold war type naval manuevers is new for us (not exactly the cold war generation). Interesting, as long as they dont bring us to the brink of a cold nuclear winter.
AH Mr. Putin + a few billion petro dollars can go a long way.

 

[kilo]

What attack? and that too in the med. , no chance.

- Who on earth will be willing to wake up the Russians, well i guess if they decided to go over tel aviv to take a few snaps with out actually bothering to tell them of a friendly visit it might get rough (as mentioned in the thread above).

This cold war type naval manuevers is new for us (not exactly the cold war generation). Interesting, as long as they dont bring us to the brink of a cold nuclear winter.
AH Mr. Putin + a few billion petro dollars can go a long way.

Did i not say this was purely speculative?

 

[tphuang]

What other option do they have? I know this is all purely speculative but what would you do to protect the group against air attack? the maximum range of their SAMs is only 7.5 miles.

Also as for using the Ka-27's as decoys i was thinking of 2-3 of them flying slow, low, and in close proximity so that they appeared as a ship to a missile and the when the missile approach they would split apart and accelerate. I don't think an ASM would be able to track a flying target. I'm not sure if that would work though

well, their SAMs in the form of rif (I'm not sure if it's still in use with Kutznetsov) should have over 100 km in range. But what other options do they have? just because you want to have AD, that doesn't mean R-27s can achieve that task. If you are wondering about air cover for the Russian task force, I would say it's not too impressive.

as for your idea about ka-27 as decoys, I would say decoy launchers and ESM would be far more important.

 

[kilo]

as for your idea about ka-27 as decoys, I would say decoy launchers and ESM would be far more important.

Chaff would just send the missile over to the next ship. Also I would gues the RCS of the Kustenov is too large to be overcome by chaff. This wouldn't be the first time helicopters have been used as decoys the British did the same thing in the Falklands war. I'm not saying this plan will work only that I think it's the best solution.

 

[Firehorse]

Yes, they most certainly have/will have subs in the Med., possibly including an SSGN.
http://www.defencejournal.com/dec98/russian-navy.htm
And they can build smaller carriers, and in larger numbers, in about a decade.

..Not long ago, in early 2004, Russia's Defense Ministry prepared a blueprint for building up the navy until 2040-2050. The main planks of the blueprint were giving up the "ocean" aspect of protecting the country's interests and instead focusing on small-class vessels operating within a 300-mile zone of territorial waters.
"We are now abandoning the large-class ships we have or inherited from the Soviet era, and are moving to multi-purpose vessels," said Admiral of the Fleet Vladimir Kuroyedov, commander in chief of the navy.
According to him, "Russia will have its own frigates and corvettes unmatched by anything else in the world."
He said, "Aircraft carriers belong to the next decade, and to speak of them now is a bit too soon." But, he said, Russia's only aircraft carrier "Admiral Kuznetsov" would remain. No one, he said, was going to write it off or sell it. "We have not even given that any thought," Kuroyedov said.
http://www.spacewar.com/reports/Russian_Carrier_Plans_Part_One_999.html

Senior admirals have also said they want to re-establish a permanent naval presence in the Mediterranean Sea, something Moscow has not had since the Soviet collapse.
http://www.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idUSL1946867320070819

..Speaking at a Kremlin meeting with President Vladimir Putin, Serdyukov said an aircraft carrier, two anti-submarine ships, a guided missile cruiser along with refueling ships from Russia's Northern and Black Sea fleets and 47 aircraft would be part of the group in the Mediterranean.
He said the group would conduct three tactical exercises with real and simulated launches of sea- and air-based missiles and make nearly a dozen port calls.
"The expedition is aimed at ensuring a naval presence and establishing conditions for secure Russian navigation," Serdyukov said in televised comments.
Earlier this year, the Russian naval chief, Admoral Vladimir Masorin, called for restoring a permanent Russian presence in the Mediterranean, saying it was a strategically important zone for the Black Sea Fleet.
Soviet navy ships used to be based at Syria's Mediterranean port of Tartus, and Russia still maintains a technical base there.
Analysts have said it made no sense militarily for Russia to have a presence in the Mediterranean. Others have suggested that Russia might seek to relocate part of its Black Sea Fleet there if it fails to get an extension of its agreement with Ukraine on leasing the Sevastopol port when the agreement expires in 2017. .. http://www.iht.com/bin/printfriendly.php?id=8601095

 

[Bearcat]

I completely disagree that this deployment is hastily put together, in fact I see no evidence of that at all. From as early as July this year it appeared they were putting together a deployment of some kind, and the choice of the Med shouldn't surprise anyone either. After all, that was where the Russian Navy was headed back in 2000 right before the Kursk sank. Putin has always had an obsession with Naval deployments to the Med, he is a cold war guy, so it isn't surprising that would be his choice.

I don't mean hastily as in time, but in assets. Compare this deployment to the two run-ups in 2004 and 2005, where the CVBG concisted of a hell of a lot more ships and capabillity than the current deployment. So why exercise with more assets than what you deploy with? What's what puzzles me...

 

[Bearcat]

Reposting this here where it belongs, and not in "the norwegian responce" thread, sorry.

Just saw on the news that the russians are carriyng out flight operations in the north sea, in the middle of all the oil rigs, thus hampering helicopter traffic from the mainland to the rigs. After either pressure, or simply a request, they will stand down tomorrow.

This could mean two things:
1. They are stupid.
2. They are very smart.

Stupid because I don't recall a carrier has been doing flight operations in an area as congested as in the area they are now, with oil rigs, supply ships and helicopter traffic. It's obvious that they will disturb "business" in the area, and that is in my opinion a stupid move.

Then why smart? Because they get attention, serious attention. Media coverage right now is high, and should be notet even in russia. They come in, do a bit of flight opereration in a sensitive area, and must know this will get noticed.

Take your pick, what do you think?

 

[Galrahn]

Russia's gas company is partnered with that Norweigen company if I'm not mistaken. (Going off memory so could be wrong). They might just be waving the flag, Putin style.

I still say this is one giant parade for PR purposes with hope sailors get some time at sea in the process.

 

[alexsa]

it's not going to have longer range or payload than any hornets if it's taking off from STOBAR vs catapult. No amount of Russian boasting will convince me otherwise.

Thank you for that, saved me from saying it. In fact I would be very interested in what the max TOW of the SU33 as a STOBAR launch and whether the SU33 has a buddy tanker capability. If yuou ahve to buddy tank to get decent legs it would appear to have a major impact on operational tempo.

 

[kato]

max TOW of the SU33 as a STOBAR launch

Scramble says 30,000 kg STOBAR vs 33,000 kg CTOL MTOW.

And that it can carry a buddy refueling pack on the centerline.

 

[RA1911]

http://www.dagbladet.no/nyheter/2007/12/11/520894.html

Picture was taken from one of the Gullfaks oilrigs outside Bergen in Norway.

The norwegian ambassador in Moscow has given a formal protest to the russian government as helikopter trafic to the oil rigs in the area had to be stopped.

 

[kilo]

Russia will move on pretty quick they already got their news story. They might have also wanted training the in a congested environment with radar contacts all over the place.

 

[Systems Adict]

...They might have also wanted training the in a congested environment with radar contacts all over the place.

Are they coming right down the East coast of UK ??

I thought at the start of the thread it said they were heading West of Ireland.

Either way, they would get plenty of traffic.

East Coast has most of the UK bombing ranges (which we share with our allies...), giving them access to Eurofighter, Tornado, F-15 / F-18(??) a few other American A/C, possibly Gripens too, as well as Hawks. Add that to anything else that anyone from the Nordic regions, all the way thru the lowlands, to the French coast wants to put in the air for "Training". Makes for a "Target" rich Environment !!

Also there is all the commercial traffic, with Heathrow being one of the main European hubs.

I know that even if they did opt for the west of Ireland, it still gives them all the Trans-Atlantic routes.

This "transit" by a Russian CBG may even give the T45 Project in Portsmouth something "Interesting" to scan, especially if the Russians are doing flight ops off the carrier...

But then again, maybe we're all just a little too paranoid & creating a Forrest fire from a few puffs of smoke......?? :ar15


Systems Adict

:russia

 

[Firehorse]

Russian Mediterranean Naval Build-Up Challenges NATO Sixth Fleet Domination

Another aspect of the new Russian Med deployment is intelligence. Israeli electronic warfare experts warn that the presence of a strong Russian naval force, most likely based in the Syrian port of Tartus, would represent a significant strengthening of Russian intelligence gathering capabilities in the region. The Russian navy is considered to have high-quality electronic equipment capable of observing new weapons systems and intercepting communications, which could become high-value assets to Syria and Iran.

Next time Israel (or anyone else, for that matter) tries to bomb Syria or Iran, it will have to blind Russian naval radars as well. To continiue selling their AD & other wares in the ME, they must be improved first- thus the intell. is essential.

 

[StingrayOZ]

This is Russia.

It could be the first real decent group they have put out for a while. They certainly need the training. Maybe some EU opponents will be tempted to size em up, again, something the russians would be keen on.

Too bad the CDG isn't online. I would imagine the French and the russians could have had a really good war game.

After all America has its hands full in Iraq, Iran and posturing off China's coast. As mentioned the French are offline and UK would be hard pressed to form something to test them.

While daddy is away the children play. Putin proberly has the most powerful ships in the region at the moment. Im suring this will get him the good press he needs. If Russia surges its naval resources to coincide with US over commitments, they can certainly rattle some cages.

 

[harryriedl]

This is Russia.

It could be the first real decent group they have put out for a while. They certainly need the training. Maybe some EU opponents will be tempted to size em up, again, something the russians would be keen on.

Too bad the CDG isn't online. I would imagine the French and the russians could have had a really good war game.

After all America has its hands full in Iraq, Iran and posturing off China's coast. As mentioned the French are offline and UK would be hard pressed to form something to test them.

While daddy is away the children play. Putin proberly has the most powerful ships in the region at the moment. Im suring this will get him the good press he needs. If Russia surges its naval resources to coincide with US over commitments, they can certainly rattle some cages.

are you sure AKu can last the trip the last couple of time Kusnestove when to sea it had to be towed back and had lots of very long refits. add the questionable skills of the sailors who haven't been to sea for a long while.

it isn't just the facts and figers there is the human factor as well.

 

[alexsa]

Scramble says 30,000 kg STOBAR vs 33,000 kg CTOL MTOW.

And that it can carry a buddy refueling pack on the centerline.

Assuming scramble is correct they drop three metric tonnes (or 9.1%) off the MTOW for STOBAR. This is directly off weapons and/or fuel given the empty weight is constant (I believe it is 18400 kg) so it equates to an actual loss of 20.5% of its uplift in fuel and weapons (not forgetting the pilot is also part of this figure).

That is a pretty big drop taking the aircraft from 14600 kg to 11600 kg.

I understand the F-18E has an empty weight in the order of 13500kg to 13800kg with a MTOW of 29932kg giving an uplift of about 16132kg (It has been suggested to me that 15000kg may be more realistic). I am a seafarer so do not pretend to be and expert in aerodyanmic efficiency but given the F-18E MTOW is very close to the STOBAR Su33 givne in scramble but the empty weight is quite a bit lighter and so it would appear it is ahead in this area by a reasonable margin.

However, I am proably off topic so will drop it there.

 

[Chrom]

Assuming scramble is correct they drop three metric tonnes (or 9.1%) off the MTOW for STOBAR. This is directly off weapons and/or fuel given the empty weight is constant (I believe it is 18400 kg) so it equates to an actual loss of 20.5% of its uplift in fuel and weapons (not forgetting the pilot is also part of this figure).

That is a pretty big drop taking the aircraft from 14600 kg to 11600 kg.

I understand the F-18E has an empty weight in the order of 13500kg to 13800kg with a MTOW of 29932kg giving an uplift of about 16132kg (It has been suggested to me that 15000kg may be more realistic). I am a seafarer so do not pretend to be and expert in aerodyanmic efficiency but given the F-18E MTOW is very close to the STOBAR Su33 givne in scramble but the empty weight is quite a bit lighter and so it would appear it is ahead in this area by a reasonable margin.

However, I am proably off topic so will drop it there.

There are 2 take-off lines on Kuznezov carrier - short and long.
Su-33 with full fuel load can take off only from long deck, taking-off from short is only possible with half normal fuel load.