Russian Navy Discussions and Updates

[Feanor]

I thought that under Putin the navy is supposed to be a lot better maintained than under Yeltsin! Have there been any improvements at all?

Yes. Before the readiness rates were even worse.

Its pretty clear the Russians are struggling with readiness on various older navy units. I wonder if their main problem is to facilitate and train enough qualified personel?

Just as we are clear, here in Norway we bought 5 new frigates. got the last in mid 00 decade. We have never been able to operate more than two of them at any given time. Barely Two is operative at all times, third is a school navy ship for training, thus is not equipped with all systems. The last two fregates is kanibalisert for spare parts.

All in all, that is well under 50% of our mighty fregate fleet sailing at any given time.
Our main problem has allways been lack of funding(thus personel). As many defence DoD love to do, is making requirements, order big new toys. But has failed to tell our Goverment just how expensive it is to service them

That's not quite what we're talking about. Out of operational ships currently in service, what percentage is ready to go out to sea and perform combat duties at any given moment. If two ships were cannibalized for spares, they're no longer in service. And if we count out the training ship, you have two active frigates. If the order comes out tomorrow, how long will it take to get the first frigate out to sea for combat ops, and how long for the second. How many (1 or 2) can be maintained in combat readiness on a medium/long-term basis?

Prime example. Russia can cobble together a CVBG. At peak strength it was a carrier, a heavy cruiser, two anti-sub destroyers, two frigates, a missile boat, and 2-3 subs (1-2 nukes and a kilo the rumors have it). However Russia can not deploy a CVBG for any more then a few months after which the ships have to go back for maintenance and resupply. Because there is only one carrier and the time it takes to run the maintenance and resupply is long, Russia can only deploy a CVBG once in a blue moon. On a permanent basis Russia has managed to keep one major surface combatant plus one minor surface combatant in the Mediterranean, with appropriate supply ships.

 

[Tsavo Lion]

To update what I wrote a few posts back,

"..treat the carrier as a joint system in its own right - its is then part of a task force which is another version of a joint system.."- Exactly right! For the most part, the RFN, IN, & PLAN carriers will work .. in conjunction with land-based aviation, etc, so their individual sub parity with USN CVNs ..isn't going to be hugely detrimental to their overall utility.

They won't be using carriers with the same emphasis on power projection ashore as the USN. Here is another quote:

China’s naval and air force training exercises have steadily progressed from a handful of vessels to multi-fleet (i.e., elements from all three of China’s fleets) to combined operations with submarines, drones and long-range bombers.

I'm certain the RFN & IN done some of that already. Russia & India have TU-142 ASW/Anti Surface Warfare Tu-95 bomber derivative & other land based assets.

an AL version of the Klub is being developed for the Russian & Indian Tu-142 MPA .

Edit: New coastal defense units being formed. The jury is still out on Il-114MP – Maritime patrol/strike version of the Il-114-300, as Ilyushin design bureau will also upgrade Il-114 for performing flights in the Arctic Region.

 

[gf0012-aust]

been covered before by shops such as Barent Observer, but now being picked up by commercial industry as well

Russia in Biggest Arctic Military Push Since Soviet Fall – gCaptain

 

[STURM]

On a permanent basis Russia has managed to keep one major surface combatant plus one minor surface combatant in the Mediterranean, with appropriate supply ships.

I'm curious as to how often do Russian ships make a presence in South East Asian waters or whether there's even a single ship in the area at any given time. I doubt it though; I would expect that priority is to maintain a presence further north; close to the waters surrounding the Koreas, China and Japan.

One the ships that docked at Manila a few weeks ago was the Admiral Tributs. I first saw her back in 1990 when she attended the International Fleet review in Penang.

Last month's Air Forces Monthly had an article on Russian Naval Aviation. All the units and the aircraft operated were dealt with.

 

[Tsavo Lion]

Their ships are not there on a permanent basis, but subs may be (or most of the time), like in the Cold War years. As more surface ships get inducted into the Pac. Fleet, I bet their deployments to SE Asia will only increase. Also, the Pac. Fleet ships do deploy to Indian Ocean & recently to Med. Sea, so in the future, even with the numbers they have, they'll be regularly transiting SE Asian waters while on their way to/from those areas of the World Ocean. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jYVhJyy-bkE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hcVspUqICio

 

[gf0012-aust]

The Moskva is up for modernisation and installation of new weaponry at the Zvezdochka yard in Severodvinsk.

Seems to be a faster turnaround than normally taken

https://thebarentsobserver.com/en/s...-sea-destroyer-will-get-upgrade-russian-north

 

[Feanor]

The Moskva is up for modernisation and installation of new weaponry at the Zvezdochka yard in Severodvinsk.

Seems to be a faster turnaround than normally taken

https://thebarentsobserver.com/en/s...-sea-destroyer-will-get-upgrade-russian-north

Nah. The previous 1164 cruiser took 5 years and the entire modernization was the electronics. The new weapons are more of a rumor then a confirmed fact for the Moskva as well. It's the Kirovs that are getting serious upgrades to the weapons.

Interestingly enough the article calls it a destroyer even though in the Russian Navy it's considered a cruiser. The definition of a destroyer has become rather fungible these days (the 6000 tonn Australian destroyer and the 14000 tonn Zummwalt).

 

[Volkodav]

Nah. The previous 1164 cruiser took 5 years and the entire modernization was the electronics. The new weapons are more of a rumor then a confirmed fact for the Moskva as well. It's the Kirovs that are getting serious upgrades to the weapons.

Interestingly enough the article calls it a destroyer even though in the Russian Navy it's considered a cruiser. The definition of a destroyer has become rather fungible these days (the 6000 tonn Australian destroyer and the 14000 tonn Zummwalt).

Don't forget the Japanese helicopter carrier destroyers, the DDHs of the Hyuga and Izumo classes. Then again if you translate it as Escort instead of destroyer it makes more sense. Also if you look at roles and capabilities it could be claimed that modern frigates are actually more like traditional cruisers than anything else.

 

[Feanor]

Don't forget the Japanese helicopter carrier destroyers, the DDHs of the Hyuga and Izumo classes. Then again if you translate it as Escort instead of destroyer it makes more sense. Also if you look at roles and capabilities it could be claimed that modern frigates are actually more like traditional cruisers than anything else.

Only a handful of countries can even afford what is labeled a "destroyer" these days. Interestingly enough Russia started out with plans for a new destroyer but after evaluating their requirements, they ended up with two variants - one ~14-15 thousand tons, the other 17.5 thousand tons. Then they reclassified the project as a "ocean combat ship". Though personally I feel like there is a nice for the 6000-10000 class of ships that ought to be considered destroyers, and the 11000-15000 be called a cruiser?

Otherwise you end up with the monstrous Zummwalt and the humble Hobart in the same category.

 

[John Fedup]

Considering the displacement overlap between frigates, destroyers, and even cruisers, the term "ocean combat ship" with a small, medium, or large prefix could make more sense these days.

 

[Todjaeger]

Considering the displacement overlap between frigates, destroyers, and even cruisers, the term "ocean combat ship" with a small, medium, or large prefix could make more sense these days.

Not really. Or at least not when speaking about current cruisers. The major difference between a cruiser and a destroyer (at least for modern Western navies) is the command role. Cruisers have space for an admiral and associated staff, where as a destroyer would not

 

[John Fedup]

Other than the USN, no western navy has a cruiser. Most Western navies would assign the command role to the largest ship available which varies considerably. The RCN's tribal class and occasionally HMCS Protectur used to act as command ships. The former was really to small for this role. The RAN and RN have LHDs as does France, Spain, Australia, and Italy which can be used for command. The Zumwalt is suited for command, not a cruiser, just a massive 14,000 ton super destroyer which could be called a cruiser or "large ocean combat ship".

 

[Feanor]

Not really. Or at least not when speaking about current cruisers. The major difference between a cruiser and a destroyer (at least for modern Western navies) is the command role. Cruisers have space for an admiral and associated staff, where as a destroyer would not

This seems rather silly. So a destroyer and a cruiser are the same size? This is rather silly. I would argue that the US is the only country where that rule would really hold true. So instead of using it as the benchmark I think it would be more accurate to say that US destroyers are actually light cruisers, and the Zumwalt is a heavy cruiser or a battle cruiser. I would posit that the US doesn't bother with actual destroyers (vessels similar to the Hobart or the Daring class). I would also argue that the Russian OKR Leader started out as a plan for a destroyer, but due to the high requirements placed upon it the design evolved into a cruiser, maybe even a heavy cruiser (depending on just how large the final version will be). Russia's 21956 project is more along the lines of a real destroyer.

And what of the Hatakaze-class destroyers? At a mere 6000 tonns they nonetheless have the space for command staff intentionally built in. Do they suddenly become tiny cruisers?

 

[Todjaeger]

Other than the USN, no western navy has a cruiser. Most Western navies would assign the command role to the largest ship available which varies considerably. The RCN's tribal class and occasionally HMCS Protectur used to act as command ships. The former was really to small for this role. The RAN and RN have LHDs as does France, Spain, Australia, and Italy which can be used for command. The Zumwalt is suited for command, not a cruiser, just a massive 14,000 ton super destroyer which could be called a cruiser or "large ocean combat ship".

We are straying somewhat from the Russian navy, but not entirely true. In the USN, the AB DDG's are larger than the Tico CG's, but the Tico is a cruiser, and has space in areas like the CIC for additional embarked command staff. The same is not true for the larger AB DDG, where having extra.personnel on the CIC can be a problem.

As I understand it, the fundamental difference is whether there is space and kit for the command staff to manage external assets, without reducing the efficiency or effectiveness of the host vessel. If there are not enough systems and workstations for the vessel's captain to issue orders to the crew and track a situation at the same time an onboard TF commander is tracking the status of the TF and issuing any needed orders then the vessel is not appropriate for a command role. This would be the case regardless of how large (or small) a vessel is. What sometimes happens is that a vessel might be able to accomodate additional command personnel, but at reduced efficiencies. Terminals can be re-tasked, or provide.split functionality, etc. But due to numbers and spacing, not to the same effectiveness as a dedicated space.

 

[gf0012-aust]

This seems rather silly. So a destroyer and a cruiser are the same size? This is rather silly. I would argue that the US is the only country where that rule would really hold true. So instead of using it as the benchmark I think it would be more accurate to say that US destroyers are actually light cruisers, and the Zumwalt is a heavy cruiser or a battle cruiser. I would posit that the US doesn't bother with actual destroyers (vessels similar to the Hobart or the Daring class). I would also argue that the Russian OKR Leader started out as a plan for a destroyer, but due to the high requirements placed upon it the design evolved into a cruiser, maybe even a heavy cruiser (depending on just how large the final version will be). Russia's 21956 project is more along the lines of a real destroyer.

And what of the Hatakaze-class destroyers? At a mere 6000 tonns they nonetheless have the space for command staff intentionally built in. Do they suddenly become tiny cruisers?

its a historical thing and a host structure issue

cruisers were the next vessel down which could become flag vessels
in contemp terms any vessel can be flag, but it still hinges around broader command capability

some frigates of today are more capable than some cruisers of the Reagan era
the definitions applied to fleet classes from the cold war have almost zero relevance now in actual capability terms, but from a command structure level, in some navies they'd still apply

 

[AegisFC]

We are straying somewhat from the Russian navy, but not entirely true. In the USN, the AB DDG's are larger than the Tico CG's, but the Tico is a cruiser, and has space in areas like the CIC for additional embarked command staff. The same is not true for the larger AB DDG, where having extra.personnel on the CIC can be a problem.

Nope the Tico is physically larger and heavier. As you said, it also has the space, equipment and comms gear for an embarked staff. Just putting DESRON on a Burke is a... cramped affair. Even a Spru-can was more effective than a Burke at embarking a staff.
One thing to remember is the Tico's started life as DDG's but were reclassified for partly practical (their role) and partly political (the so-called "cruiser gap") and partly because the ship they were designed to be the low end component of was cancelled.

This seems rather silly. So a destroyer and a cruiser are the same size? This is rather silly. I would argue that the US is the only country where that rule would really hold true. So instead of using it as the benchmark I think it would be more accurate to say that US destroyers are actually light cruisers, and the Zumwalt is a heavy cruiser or a battle cruiser. I would posit that the US doesn't bother with actual destroyers (vessels similar to the Hobart or the Daring class). I would also argue that the Russian OKR Leader started out as a plan for a destroyer, but due to the high requirements placed upon it the design evolved into a cruiser, maybe even a heavy cruiser (depending on just how large the final version will be). Russia's 21956 project is more along the lines of a real destroyer.

And what of the Hatakaze-class destroyers? At a mere 6000 tonns they nonetheless have the space for command staff intentionally built in. Do they suddenly become tiny cruisers?

You are missing a LOT of historical context. Go look at the first destroyers from about 100 years ago. They look an awfully lot like LCS, fast, lightly armed and designed to protect the battle line from gun-boats and then subs, AAW was added later when that became a primary threat, along the way offensive firepower was added through anti-ship torpedoes then missiles. Each generation got bigger as the required equipment got bigger and heavier and the threat became more complex. Then there are certain design factors in USN ships that require a larger ship (range, endurance and DC requirements among others). The AB's are very much the next step in DD evolution that can be traced all the way back.
To point at a Burke and declare it is nearly the size and weight of a WW2 cruiser misses the point. That same WW2 light cruiser is nearly the size and weight of a Battleship from 40 or 50 years before that.
As for the Zumwalt it is very much a replacement for the Spruance class, it has two guns, has about the same number of VLS cells, no real area AAW system, it is focus on land attack (as were the Spruances in the end). Both a Burke and a Tico have more cells than a DDG-1000 and both have more sensors.

The Hatakaze-class would of been called a "Destroyer Leader" back in the 60's. The Japanese also pretty much call everything they have "Destroyers" due to political reasons. I will note that their Aegis ships also have expanded flag facilities and all that entail.

 

[Feanor]

Thank you for the detailed reply. This is very informative.

This having been said, evolution on this scale and scope seems to produce something that's actually different in role and function from the original vessel, sufficiently so to require a separate classification. I think a combination of size and capabilities are the key elements to determining what kind of ship we're dealing with.

 

[Todjaeger]

Nope the Tico is physically larger and heavier. As you said, it also has the space, equipment and comms gear for an embarked staff. Just putting DESRON on a Burke is a... cramped affair. Even a Spru-can was more effective than a Burke at embarking a staff.
One thing to remember is the Tico's started life as DDG's but were reclassified for partly practical (their role) and partly political (the so-called "cruiser gap") and partly because the ship they were designed to be the low end component of was cancelled.

Well, now you see what happens when I go from memory without double checking my facts...

It does look though like the Flight III's will have the same displacement as the Ticonderoga-class.

 

[Tsavo Lion]

The Admiral Kuznetsov’s return reveals problems in Russian naval aviation Valuable lessons were learned off Syria, now there'll be plenty of time during overhaul to train more pilots & improve mission readiness. I won't be surprised if some aviators are sent to practice flight ops on the Liaoning! Russian Pacific Fleet’s resurgence sets off alarm bells in Washington The USN & JMSDF will be busy dealing with Chinese for years to come, so for the RF isn't pressed for time here. The Kurils can be defended well enough with the present force levels.

 

[Volkodav]

Destroyers were torpedo boat destroyers, designed specifically to destroy torpedo boats that were a difficult to counter threat to the battle line that lacked both the ability to manoeuvre and the rapid fire guns to adequately defend themselves against them. Torpedo boat destroyers then started carrying torpedos and became capable of attacking the enemy battleline in the same fashion as the smaller torpedo boats and with their greater range and seaworthiness were able to accompany the battle fleet to conduct both their original defensive and their new offensive roles.

A difficulty arose in the control of large number of torpedo boat destroyers due to their high speed, low silhouettes and lack of space. The fact that torpedo boat destroyers were now conducting torpedo attacks also meant that the original destroyers had to be able to engage and destroy/disable much larger, more powerful torpedo boat destroyers. This led to generally larger and more powerful destroyers and larger again destroyer leaders which also merged with the separate Scouts, while a new class of Fleet Cruiser evolved to serve as a Destroyer Leader, Destroyer Killer and Fleet Scout. This destroyer leading/killing cruiser is best seen in the WWI C and D classes as well as the Arethusa and Didos of WWII.

This new cruiser is probably closest to the large destroyers / small cruisers we see today, which were evolved from the post war DL/DLG of the USN and large destroyers/frigates elsewhere. Even the RNs County class was a DDG evolved in part from an aborted Cruiser/Destroyer concept.

Traditional cruisers were different from the destroyer evolved, destroyer killers, they were literally designed to cruise the worlds oceans, hence the name. They were by design the smallest ships capable of independent operations away from the fleet or a major base. They had significant capabilities to self repair without the need of a tender, had a designed excess of crew to provide flexibility for landing and boarding parties (as well as the boats to deploy them) and had sufficient space to carry required detachments and flag officers as required for trade protection, colonial policing and diplomatic missions as required.

To a degree the Sloop, which this century was seen as a slow destroyer because of their armament and sensor fit, was actually a smaller slower cruiser able to conduct the same sort of roles but in more permissive environments, i.e. a second rate capability in all areas. Frigates / Destroyer Escorts and Corvettes, were more single purpose ships, i.e. 1st rate at one role, 2nd or 3rd rate at all others, usually specialising in ASW or anti air with minimal capability in other areas.

While it is temping to classify ships by size it is their capability that should define them. Outstanding performance across the board and capable of independent ops and embarking a command staff as required seems to still be the prime characteristic of a cruiser, even if they do spend most their time escorting valuable targets. Good general purpose capability across the board that may approach that of a cruiser in one or more areas seems to fit the modern destroyer. Outstanding capability in one area and some capability in others seems to define the frigate.