Russian Navy Discussions and Updates

Feanor said:
I think it's quite realistic, but it requires making some hard obvious choices about not designing and building 1348763287 different types of smaller surface combatants and focusing on a few vessel types but building them in numbers, benefitting from economics of scale, and saving money from the constant OKRs. To put it into perspective, over the past 20 years Russia has had development programs for the 21631, 22800, 22160, 20385, and 20386, all state funded. Only one of those is really necessary. (the 20385, and then only if you really need those Kalibrs ASAP). To be honest, you could even say that none are necessary, and instead simply aggressive fund the 20380 production, with incremental upgrades to the type including a light anti-submarine missile that can be launched from X-35 tubes. The cash they spent on the 20386 alone is staggering.

A long time ago the VMF had a neat little plan: corvette (20380) frigate (22350) destroyer (21956? but eventually OKR Lider) aircraft carried (TBD). Had they mostly stuck to this (with maybe some landing ships thrown in) for surface combatants and there would probably be money for a carrier program.
Click to expand...

Russia don't have much use for a carrier. They don't have island territories that are far from mainland. Whereas Falklands, Reunion, Guam are more than 10,000 km from British mainland, French mainland, US mainland, all Russian islands are within 2000 km from Russian mainland. So carrier is not necessarily.
 
Commissioning of the first Thundering class corvette which is undoubtedly the most advanced corvette in the world, the first corvette equipped with AESA and strictly VLS without any canister launcher.

 
Last edited:
RoyZZConnor said:
Russia don't have much use for a carrier. They don't have island territories that are far from mainland. Whereas Falklands, Reunion, Guam are more than 10,000 km from British mainland, French mainland, US mainland, all Russian islands are within 2000 km from Russian mainland. So carrier is not necessarily.
Click to expand...
That's a defensive mindset about CBGs and CBGs are best utilised as offensive assets or for deterrence. The object of a CBG is sea control and to attack land targets from the sea. It isn't global or even regional sea control, but local sea control and that forces your enemy to do things differently.

If the USSR / Russia didn't have a requirement for a CV it wouldn't have built and operated them, as it has done. However as @Feanor has said it requires a VMF force restructuring to enable it to acquire and operate a fleet of 3 CVN. Personally I would have gone with 5 - 6 CV with 2 - 3 each in the Northern and Pacific Fleets. A Russian Pacific Fleet CBG would certainly cause USN, JMSDF, ROKN, and allied naval planners some consternation, especially if Russia and the PRC were ever to form a military alliance.
 
I am sure Russia would love to, but I doubt China is capable of forming an equal-footing military alliance with anyone. Russia might find it easier to use/manipulate China than to ally with them.
 
SolarWind said:
I am sure Russia would love to, but I doubt China is capable of forming a military alliance with anyone.
Click to expand...

The powerful Chinese navy is also crucial to the defense of the Southern Kurils, should Japan decide to attack ala Argentine British war in 1982 at Falklands. Hopefully cool heads prevail and it won't come to that.
 
ngatimozart said:
That's a defensive mindset about CBGs and CBGs are best utilised as offensive assets or for deterrence. The object of a CBG is sea control and to attack land targets from the sea. It isn't global or even regional sea control, but local sea control and that forces your enemy to do things differently.

If the USSR / Russia didn't have a requirement for a CV it wouldn't have built and operated them, as it has done. However as @Feanor has said it requires a VMF force restructuring to enable it to acquire and operate a fleet of 3 CVN. Personally I would have gone with 5 - 6 CV with 2 - 3 each in the Northern and Pacific Fleets. A Russian Pacific Fleet CBG would certainly cause USN, JMSDF, ROKN, and allied naval planners some consternation, especially if Russia and the PRC were ever to form a military alliance.
Click to expand...

Depends on personal opinion. Some people prefer carriers, some people prefer big gun battleships, so to speak. Deterrence depends on the weapons of the ships, be they aircraft or missiles, rather than on how big the ships are.
 
RoyZZConnor said:
Latest photos show Mercury class corvette is barely under construction despite laid down years ago.

17-93910.jpg


17-93911.jpg
Click to expand...
Still like this? Laid down in 2016 and it seems that in February 2019 the technical readiness of the lead vessel reached just 12%. Reading Feanors posts this whole 20386 project is a waste of money, maybe at this state its better to convert it in a 20385, at this point it still should be possible.
 
SolarWind said:
I am sure Russia would love to, but I doubt China is capable of forming an equal-footing military alliance with anyone. Russia might find it easier to use/manipulate China than to ally with them.
Click to expand...

Russia and China are basically the modern equivalent of Germany and Japan in the 30s. Both considering they deserve a place under the sun. Also because both have beef with Japan regarding territorial disputes at Southern Kurils and Diaoyu island, respectively.
 
RoyZZConnor said:
Depends on personal opinion. Some people prefer carriers, some people prefer big gun battleships, so to speak. Deterrence depends on the weapons of the ships, be they aircraft or missiles, rather than on how big the ships are.
Click to expand...
It has to be informed opinion based upon facts and information beyond just the basic platform data. What are the CONOPS, strategy, political imperatives, capability requirements etc.? All of that and much more has to be taken into account.
 
ngatimozart said:
That's a defensive mindset about CBGs and CBGs are best utilised as offensive assets or for deterrence. The object of a CBG is sea control and to attack land targets from the sea. It isn't global or even regional sea control, but local sea control and that forces your enemy to do things differently.

If the USSR / Russia didn't have a requirement for a CV it wouldn't have built and operated them, as it has done. However as @Feanor has said it requires a VMF force restructuring to enable it to acquire and operate a fleet of 3 CVN. Personally I would have gone with 5 - 6 CV with 2 - 3 each in the Northern and Pacific Fleets. A Russian Pacific Fleet CBG would certainly cause USN, JMSDF, ROKN, and allied naval planners some consternation, especially if Russia and the PRC were ever to form a military alliance.
Click to expand...

For naval forces an offensive mindset can often be beneficial even to the weaker side, provided they structure their forces well. A smaller force of capable and faster ships can do quite a lot by operating aggressively at sea. Sitting at port or operating defensively can actually be a disadvantage as the ships are potentially easier to find, and consequently sink. Task forces of larger warships can also be a tougher nut to crack, meaning that once found you have to throw more at them. The emphasis here is of course on task forces, lone dinosaurs, no matter how capable, are still quite vulnerable.

Also, I agree, 5-6 ships would be ideal but it would require a much larger and more successful Russian economy to back. Realistically 3 ships is optimistic already. And I'm not inclined to be optimistic. Russia has yet to present a credible destroyer, or whatever we want to call a multirole (balance of ASW, AAW, and AShM loadout) 7-10 thousand tonn vessel with 45+ days endurance. The 22350M has been discussed in public and some images have surfaced but we have yet to even see a plastic model of the finished product, and design work is only planned for completion in iirc 2022? So maybe the first ship laid down around '22-'23? In service date around ~2030-2035? And they're still (hypothetically) planning to proceed with the project 23560 nuclear battlecruiser... I'm hoping that program gets shut down. Russia had major problems with a 5500 tonn frigate.
 
As I said before, Russian navy's priority is guarding Crimea from Ukraine and guarding Southern Kurils from Japan. Carriers is not priority for Russian navy. Frigates, corvettes, LHD, land based AWAC and ASW is priority. Ukraine recently signed contract for 4 Milgem corvettes from Turkey. This will significantly boost Ukrainian navy's capability and force Black Sea Fleet to field better frigates than Admiral Grigorovich class to counter the emerging Ukrainian threat in the west, and with Japan building multiple aircraft carriers it will force the Pacific Fleet to field Yasen SSGN and Gorshkov frigates and Thundering corvettes to counter the emerging Japanese threat in the east. I wouldn't be surprised if Russian navy does away with aircraft carrier altogether by the mid 2020s.
 
Last edited:
RoyZZConnor said:
Russia don't have much use for a carrier. They don't have island territories that are far from mainland. Whereas Falklands, Reunion, Guam are more than 10,000 km from British mainland, French mainland, US mainland, all Russian islands are within 2000 km from Russian mainland. So carrier is not necessarily.
Click to expand...

If Russia wants to fight for the Kurils, Russia has to be able to engage the Japanese at sea, not just curl up into a spiky ball like a hedgehog. That requires robust anti-submarine capabilities, the ability to put together at least a couple of taskforces of large surface combatants (at the same time). A large carrier with several fighter squadrons and fixed wing AEW would go a long way towards improving on that (a modern MPA would too). Alternatively Russia may be faced with the unfortunate situation of either having to resort to nuclear options or face a conventional defeat. On the flip side Japan does not currently seem aggressively inclined. This could always change, but it would be a quite different world, and a move like that by Japan would set all kinds of precedents and open all kinds of doors for other countries to act aggressively including China. And while Russia and China are certainly not formal allies, nor do I think China would go to war with Japan over the Kurils, China might see this as a good time to make their own moves.

RoyZZConnor said:
As I said before, Russian navy's priority is guarding Crimea from Ukraine and guarding Southern Kurils from Japan. Carriers is not priority for Russian navy. Frigates, corvettes, LHD, land based AWAC and AEW is priority. Ukraine recently signed contract for 4 Milgem corvettes from Turkey. This will surely boost Ukrainian navy's capability and force Black Sea Fleet to field better frigates than Admiral Grigorivich class to counter the emerging Ukrainian threat in the west, and with Japan building multiple aircraft carriers it will also force the Pacific Fleet to introduce Yasen SSGN and Gorshkov frigates to counter the emerging Japanese threat in the east. I wouldn't be surprised if Russian navy does away with aircraft carrier altogether by the mid 2020s.
Click to expand...

Ukraine signed a whole bucket of naval contracts for small missile boats, patrol boats, and now corvettes. Is there money for all of this? Somehow I have my doubts. And while some countries may be generous with defense loans to Ukraine for political reasons, I'm not sold that the Turks will be. The Ukrainian navy today is a sad joke, hardly worthy of the name "navy". If they somehow fund this giant re-armament and field the ships, there's still the question of operating costs. We shall see what happens, but I suspect the Black Sea Fleet will gets its first 22350 before Ukraine gets its first Turkish corvette.

As for "countering" the Japanese naval threat, the Pacific Fleet isn't up to it, and won't be for a long time (possibly ever). Japan has one of the most capable navies on the planet if not in numbers, certainly technologically speaking. And their navy is mostly all in once place, not split between 5 theaters with wildly different requirements and threats. The Pacific Fleet definitely needs SSGNs and frigates, but current plans have them receiving 4 22350s. Even if they get all 4 by the end of the decade, as well as 10 total 20380s, and 3-4 Yasens, I still doubt they will be able to outfight the Japanese at sea. And again, those are optimistic plans.
 
Feanor said:
If Russia wants to fight for the Kurils, Russia has to be able to engage the Japanese at sea, not just curl up into a spiky ball like a hedgehog. That requires robust anti-submarine capabilities, the ability to put together at least a couple of taskforces of large surface combatants (at the same time). A large carrier with several fighter squadrons and fixed wing AEW would go a long way towards improving on that (a modern MPA would too). Alternatively Russia may be faced with the unfortunate situation of either having to resort to nuclear options or face a conventional defeat. On the flip side Japan does not currently seem aggressively inclined. This could always change, but it would be a quite different world, and a move like that by Japan would set all kinds of precedents and open all kinds of doors for other countries to act aggressively including China. And while Russia and China are certainly not formal allies, nor do I think China would go to war with Japan over the Kurils, China might see this as a good time to make their own moves.



Ukraine signed a whole bucket of naval contracts for small missile boats, patrol boats, and now corvettes. Is there money for all of this? Somehow I have my doubts. And while some countries may be generous with defense loans to Ukraine for political reasons, I'm not sold that the Turks will be. The Ukrainian navy today is a sad joke, hardly worthy of the name "navy". If they somehow fund this giant re-armament and field the ships, there's still the question of operating costs. We shall see what happens, but I suspect the Black Sea Fleet will gets its first 22350 before Ukraine gets its first Turkish corvette.

As for "countering" the Japanese naval threat, the Pacific Fleet isn't up to it, and won't be for a long time (possibly ever). Japan has one of the most capable navies on the planet if not in numbers, certainly technologically speaking. And their navy is mostly all in once place, not split between 5 theaters with wildly different requirements and threats. The Pacific Fleet definitely needs SSGNs and frigates, but current plans have them receiving 4 22350s. Even if they get all 4 by the end of the decade, as well as 10 total 20380s, and 3-4 Yasens, I still doubt they will be able to outfight the Japanese at sea. And again, those are optimistic plans.
Click to expand...

Japan is an island nation skilled in the art of sea battle. Russia won't fight Japan at sea the way it did in the 1904 war which ended badly for Russia. Instead, Russia will use Tu-22M3M anti ship strategic bombers based at the Petropavlovsk-Kamchatsky airport to fight Japanese ships at Southern Kurils. These bombers can strike ships from beyond 600 km away using Kh-32, outside the engagement envelope of F-35B and Aegis destroyers. While Japan can expect early success, it is unlikely Japan can hold onto Southern Kurils. It would be very similar to how the Falklands war unfolded. China will mostly likely stay neutral and go after Taiwan while everyone else is distracted.
 
Last edited:
I agree that Russian Ministry of Defense can handle Japanese navy without relying on warships. This close to their shores, they are able to engage any navy with aircraft-launched missiles. And technically, they are still at war with Japan, the war which Japan started, the war which Japan lost, the war where the nuclear weapons were used for the first and only time.
 
SolarWind said:
I agree that Russian Ministry of Defense can handle Japanese navy without relying on warships. This close to their shores, they are able to engage any navy with aircraft-launched missiles. And technically, they are still at war with Japan, the war which Japan started, the war which Japan lost, the war where the nuclear weapons were used for the first and only time.
Click to expand...

Incorrect to say Russia and Japan are at war. While it is true they haven't signed a symbolic peace treaty, war was officially ended in 1956 treaty.

 
Last edited:
SolarWind said:
I take it back then. But if Japan decided to take the islands by force, would they be starting a war with Russia?
Click to expand...

It could be undeclared war like 1982 Argentina Britain war. Battle but not officially war. These days countries hardly ever declare war like they used to.
 
RoyZZConnor said:
Japan is an island nation skilled in the art of sea battle. Russia won't fight Japan at sea the way it did in the 1904 war which ended badly for Russia. Instead, Russia will use Tu-22M3M anti ship strategic bombers based at the Petropavlovsk-Kamchatsky airport to fight Japanese ships at Southern Kurils. These bombers can strike ships from beyond 600 km away using Kh-32, outside the engagement envelope of F-35B and Aegis destroyers. While Japan can expect early success, it is unlikely Japan can hold onto Southern Kurils. It would be very similar to how the Falklands war unfolded. China will mostly likely stay neutral and go after Taiwan while everyone else is distracted.
Click to expand...
RoyZZConnor said:
Incorrect to say Russia and Japan are at war. While it is true they haven't signed a symbolic peace treaty, war was officially ended in 1956 treaty.

en.wikipedia.org

Soviet–Japanese Joint Declaration of 1956 - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org
Click to expand...
Wikipedia isn't a valid reliable source. A peace treaty is not symbolic at all. It is a legal document in international law which stipulates that the participating parties have agreed to ended the state of wwar that has existed between them.

You have made multiple posts in the last 24 hours and have repeatedly broken therules of the Forum. Two Moderators have asked you to correct your mistakes AND to READ THE RULES. It is obvious that you have failed to take that advice. Any further transgressions by you will result in possible sanctions against you by the Moderator team. This is your second warning. Two in a single arvo. That doesn't bode well for your continued future on here.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top