The Decline of the Russian Navy

Discussion of current events
User avatar
cassowary
Posts: 2539
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 11:30 pm

The Decline of the Russian Navy

Post by cassowary » Fri Dec 21, 2018 7:54 am

Why the Russian Navy could be in serious trouble
The sinking of the Russian navy's biggest drydock could spell trouble, and change, for the world's third-biggest navy.
Why? Read on:
It could take years for the Kremlin to make up for PD-50's loss. In the meantime, the Russian fleet will lack a floating repair facility for the 60,000-ton-displacement Kuznetsov and potentially other large warships of Cold War-vintage.
Even before PD-50's sinking, the Russian fleet was slowly replacing big, old ships with much smaller new ones that can't sail as far or carry as much weaponry, but which are cheaper and easier to operate and repair than the old vessels are.
You need money to be a superpower.
The main problem is money. The Kremlin was already struggling with the cost of modernizing its fleet even before PD-50 sank. "It remains unclear whether Russia's economy will be able to sustain more than a short-term, piecemeal modernization long into the future," Wertheim said.
Remember, Russia's GDP is about that of Canada's.

T
he Russian navy was already becoming a "green-water" force optimized for near-shore missions in support of ground operations along Russia's periphery, as opposed to a "blue-water" force like the U.S. and Chinese navies are.
With the price of oil and gas going down, Russia's budget will shrink. Trump's plan to drill for more oil and gas will see to that.

In the big picture, Trump is right to pull out of Syria. Let Russia be sucked dry trying to prop up Assad. Putin hankers for a port in Syria when its navy is getting weaker.

User avatar
Sertorio
Posts: 2038
Joined: Fri Dec 16, 2016 3:12 am

Re: The Decline of the Russian Navy

Post by Sertorio » Fri Dec 21, 2018 8:20 am

cassowary wrote:
Fri Dec 21, 2018 7:54 am
Why the Russian Navy could be in serious trouble
The sinking of the Russian navy's biggest drydock could spell trouble, and change, for the world's third-biggest navy.
Why? Read on:
It could take years for the Kremlin to make up for PD-50's loss. In the meantime, the Russian fleet will lack a floating repair facility for the 60,000-ton-displacement Kuznetsov and potentially other large warships of Cold War-vintage.
Even before PD-50's sinking, the Russian fleet was slowly replacing big, old ships with much smaller new ones that can't sail as far or carry as much weaponry, but which are cheaper and easier to operate and repair than the old vessels are.
You need money to be a superpower.
The main problem is money. The Kremlin was already struggling with the cost of modernizing its fleet even before PD-50 sank. "It remains unclear whether Russia's economy will be able to sustain more than a short-term, piecemeal modernization long into the future," Wertheim said.
Remember, Russia's GDP is about that of Canada's.

T
he Russian navy was already becoming a "green-water" force optimized for near-shore missions in support of ground operations along Russia's periphery, as opposed to a "blue-water" force like the U.S. and Chinese navies are.
With the price of oil and gas going down, Russia's budget will shrink. Trump's plan to drill for more oil and gas will see to that.

In the big picture, Trump is right to pull out of Syria. Let Russia be sucked dry trying to prop up Assad. Putin hankers for a port in Syria when its navy is getting weaker.
You really live in a make believe world...
Meet the 5 Deadliest Warships from the Russian Navy
by Mark Episkopos

The Russian Federation inherited a substantial naval force from its Soviet predecessor, particularly from the decades following the Cuban Missile Crisis that saw a spurt in Soviet naval investment. But large swathes of these vessels fell into disrepair over the 1990’s from a lack of maintenance and resources.

Several of Russia’s hottest current conflict zones, including the Baltic region and more recently the Azov Sea , are naval in nature. The Kremlin has therefore become increasingly focused on modernizing its navy with cost-effective, export-driven innovation on the one hand and iterative adaptation of present technologies on the other.

The result are flagships and first-class vessels that, while not without their technical challenges, can possess significant naval threat capabilities. Here are five of the most dangerous.

Petr Velikiy, Kirov-class battlecruiser:

Commissioned in 1998 and still the largest surface combatant ship in the world , Petr Velikiy serves as the flagship of Russia’s Northern Fleet. Fast for their size, the primary design purpose of Kirov heavy missile cruisers—sometimes referred to battlecruisers—is to pursue and neutralize American aircraft carriers.

For this purpose, Petr Velikiy is equipped with a wide range of anti-ship armaments including twenty formidable SS-N-19 "Shipwreck" missiles. Petr Velikiy also sports several installations of the sea-based variant of the S-300 anti-aircraft missile system, the S-300F.

The Russian Navy is planning to outfit Petr Velikiy and the only other operational Kirov-class battlecruiser, Admiral Nakhimov , with the newer S-400 for increased threat capability against fifth-generation stealth fighters like the F-35. Meanwhile, the Russian Navy is testing hypersonic 3M22 Zircon missiles as an even more deadly anti-ship solution than “Shipwreck.”

Moskva, Slava-class missile cruiser:

Not to be confused with the similarly named Moskva-class helicopter carrier, Moskva is a Slava-class missile cruiser. Commissioned in 1982, it was designed with the same “ carrier killer ” philosophy as the Kirov-class but with a greater focus on cost-effectiveness.

While possessing little in the way of ground-attack capability, its sixteen P-500 Bazalt anti-ship missiles and S-300F made the Moskva a potent flagship of Russia’s Mediterranean fleet. Deployed from Latakia in 2015, Moskva was a key part of the Russian effort to deter Turkish maritime intervention into the Syrian Civil War during a tense period in Moscow-Ankara relations.

Soobrazitelnyy, Steregushiy-class corvette:

The second of thirteen Steregushchy-class corvettes to be commissioned by 2021, Soobrazitelnyy employs a modular anti-submarine/anti-torpedo weapon. This system, called Paket-E/NK, has no global parallel in that it allows anti-submarine MTT torpedoes and heat-seeking M-15 anti-torpedoes to be loaded onto and fired from the same launcher through an integrated command system.

The system also includes a hydroacoustic station for sonar target detection. Its technical capabilities aside, Paket’s multipurpose nature is threatening in that it muddles the distinction between offense and defense.

Nastoychivyy, Sovremenny-class destroyer:

One of the last Sovremenny-class destroyers to be commissioned, Nastoychivyy is the flagship of Russia’s Baltic fleet. Nastoychivyy’s formidable SS-N-22 “Sunburn” anti-ship missiles are complemented by the anti-submarine Neustrashimyy-class frigates that accompany it in the 128th Surface ship Brigade

Nastoychivyy is a prominent naval showpiece for the Russian city of Kaliningrad , spearheading what is by far the largest and most powerful fleet permanently stationed in the Baltic Sea. The Baltic Fleet’s recurring and increasingly ambitious military exercises contribute to the ongoing spiral of Russia-NATO naval tensions in the Baltic Sea.

Admiral Kuznetsov, Kuznetsov-class aircraft carrier:

Admiral Kuznetsov is Russia’s only aircraft carrier, a title that it will likely retain through 2025 as the navy lays the groundwork for its “ Lider-Class” successor.

Admiral Kuznetsov is, to be sure, not without its technical issues. However, it remains a serious threat for the Kremlin’s competitors in that it gives Russia many more ways to project its air power around the world. It houses, among other aircraft, eighteen Su-33 fighters and around half a dozen MiG 29K’s, and facilitated 420 Northern Fleet combat missions in Syria.

But with an impressive twelve hypersonic “Shipwreck” anti-ship missiles and 128 3K95 Kinzhal surface-to-air missiles, Admiral Kuznetsov packs a heavy punch in onboard armaments alone. This offensive capability is why the Russian military classifies Admiral Kuznetsov as an “heavy aircraft-carrying cruiser” rather than as an aircraft carrier.

https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/ ... navy-37427
Russian Navy 2018:

http://russianships.info/eng/today/

That's 287 ships of all classes.

Let's not forget that Russia's strategical objectives are quite different from those of the US. Russia does not want to project power far from its territory, and certainly not through a large blue water fleet. For action far from its shores, all Russia needs it's a submarine fleet. And Russia has presently 70 submarines, many of which are equipped with strategic nuclear weapons. And a few more are planned for the near future. That should be enough to assure Russia's defense against any attack. On the other hand, you see the US depending on its 11 aircraft carriers, all of which could be expected to be sunk in the early stages of any war against Russia. What could the US do then, once its aircraft carriers have been destroyed?

User avatar
SteveFoerster
Posts: 1779
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 7:17 pm
Location: Northern Virginia, USA and Dominica, West Indies
Contact:

Re: The Decline of the Russian Navy

Post by SteveFoerster » Fri Dec 21, 2018 8:56 am

Sertorio wrote:
Fri Dec 21, 2018 8:20 am
Let's not forget that Russia's strategical objectives are quite different from those of the US. Russia does not want to project power far from its territory, and certainly not through a large blue water fleet. For action far from its shores, all Russia needs it's a submarine fleet. And Russia has presently 70 submarines, many of which are equipped with strategic nuclear weapons. And a few more are planned for the near future. That should be enough to assure Russia's defense against any attack.
So far, I agree. Attacking any country that has nuclear ICBMs, including Russia, would be patently insane. Russia may not be able to match the U.S. in this regard, but they don't have to.
Sertorio wrote:
Fri Dec 21, 2018 8:20 am
On the other hand, you see the US depending on its 11 aircraft carriers, all of which could be expected to be sunk in the early stages of any war against Russia. What could the US do then, once its aircraft carriers have been destroyed?
The suggestion that the U.S. Navy has no ability to detect and neutralise Russian submarines is, at best, your own equal and opposite flight of fancy.

And since we're all citing the same site, here's an article about that:

https://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-b ... sink-17318
Writer, technologist, educator, gadfly.
President of New World University: http://newworld.ac

User avatar
Milo
Posts: 1576
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 10:14 pm

Re: The Decline of the Russian Navy

Post by Milo » Fri Dec 21, 2018 10:03 am

The difference between Russia and the US here is that Russia is free to lie and exaggerate to absurdity.


User avatar
Sertorio
Posts: 2038
Joined: Fri Dec 16, 2016 3:12 am

Re: The Decline of the Russian Navy

Post by Sertorio » Fri Dec 21, 2018 11:39 am

Milo wrote:
Fri Dec 21, 2018 10:03 am
The difference between Russia and the US here is that Russia is free to lie and exaggerate to absurdity.

Russia does not need aircraft carriers. They are all sitting ducks, anyway. Russia is a continental power which is only concerned about defending its territory. Empire building for Russia was always done through expansion of its borders, not through conquest overseas. Russians even sold Alaska, because it was useless to them.

User avatar
Sertorio
Posts: 2038
Joined: Fri Dec 16, 2016 3:12 am

Re: The Decline of the Russian Navy

Post by Sertorio » Fri Dec 21, 2018 11:42 am

SteveFoerster wrote:
Fri Dec 21, 2018 8:56 am
Sertorio wrote:
Fri Dec 21, 2018 8:20 am
On the other hand, you see the US depending on its 11 aircraft carriers, all of which could be expected to be sunk in the early stages of any war against Russia. What could the US do then, once its aircraft carriers have been destroyed?
The suggestion that the U.S. Navy has no ability to detect and neutralise Russian submarines is, at best, your own equal and opposite flight of fancy.

And since we're all citing the same site, here's an article about that:

https://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-b ... sink-17318
US aircraft carriers wouldn't be sunk by Russian submarines, but by long range, hypersonic, cruise missiles.

neverfail
Posts: 2858
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2016 3:47 am

Re: The Decline of the Russian Navy

Post by neverfail » Fri Dec 21, 2018 5:30 pm

The decline of the Russian navy - so what?

Russia is, has always been and probably always will be a terrestrial, not a maritime power. It has a very long international frontier with umpteen different neighboring states and most of its long coastline is useless.

Arguably, their navy is a luxury indulgence maintained for the sake of a bogus prestige and opportunistic interventions abroad. Only their army and air force is relevant to their national defence..

User avatar
SteveFoerster
Posts: 1779
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 7:17 pm
Location: Northern Virginia, USA and Dominica, West Indies
Contact:

Re: The Decline of the Russian Navy

Post by SteveFoerster » Fri Dec 21, 2018 7:12 pm

Sertorio wrote:
Fri Dec 21, 2018 11:42 am
SteveFoerster wrote:
Fri Dec 21, 2018 8:56 am
Sertorio wrote:
Fri Dec 21, 2018 8:20 am
On the other hand, you see the US depending on its 11 aircraft carriers, all of which could be expected to be sunk in the early stages of any war against Russia. What could the US do then, once its aircraft carriers have been destroyed?
The suggestion that the U.S. Navy has no ability to detect and neutralise Russian submarines is, at best, your own equal and opposite flight of fancy.

And since we're all citing the same site, here's an article about that:

https://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-b ... sink-17318
US aircraft carriers wouldn't be sunk by Russian submarines, but by long range, hypersonic, cruise missiles.
All this proves is that you didn't read the article.
Writer, technologist, educator, gadfly.
President of New World University: http://newworld.ac

User avatar
Sertorio
Posts: 2038
Joined: Fri Dec 16, 2016 3:12 am

Re: The Decline of the Russian Navy

Post by Sertorio » Sat Dec 22, 2018 3:26 am

SteveFoerster wrote:
Fri Dec 21, 2018 7:12 pm
Sertorio wrote:
Fri Dec 21, 2018 11:42 am
SteveFoerster wrote:
Fri Dec 21, 2018 8:56 am
Sertorio wrote:
Fri Dec 21, 2018 8:20 am
On the other hand, you see the US depending on its 11 aircraft carriers, all of which could be expected to be sunk in the early stages of any war against Russia. What could the US do then, once its aircraft carriers have been destroyed?
The suggestion that the U.S. Navy has no ability to detect and neutralise Russian submarines is, at best, your own equal and opposite flight of fancy.

And since we're all citing the same site, here's an article about that:

https://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-b ... sink-17318
US aircraft carriers wouldn't be sunk by Russian submarines, but by long range, hypersonic, cruise missiles.
All this proves is that you didn't read the article.
I did. And it showed that they were not aware of the most recent Russian weapons. Weapons that no existing US defenses can stop.

User avatar
Sertorio
Posts: 2038
Joined: Fri Dec 16, 2016 3:12 am

Re: The Decline of the Russian Navy

Post by Sertorio » Sat Dec 22, 2018 4:13 am

RUSSIA TESTS MISSILES THAT U.S. HAS NO DEFENSE FAST ENOUGH TO STOP
BY TOM O'CONNOR ON 12/21/18 AT 3:27 PM

Russia has reportedly tested a missile too fast to be intercepted by any defense platform in the United States—or the world.

The Russian navy has launched more than 10 3M22 Tsirkon anti-ship hypersonic cruise missiles, known to the U.S.-led NATO Western military alliance as SS-N-33, "against targets at sea at a distance of several hundred kilometers" since beginning test trials about four years, according to a defense industry source cited Friday by the state-run Tass Russian News Agency. The source said that the weapons "repeatedly destroyed designated naval targets at the hypersonic speed."

One day earlier, CNBC cited two individuals familiar with a U.S. intelligence report as saying that the Russian navy performed its most recent Tsirkon launch on December 10, when the missile reached Mach 8 speed, meaning eight times the speed of sound or about two miles per second.

"What we are seeing with this particular weapon is that the Russians designed it to have a dual-purpose capability, meaning, it can be used against a target on land as well as a vessel at sea," one of the sources told the outlet. "Last week’s successful test showed that the Russians were able to achieve sustained flight, a feat that is crucial in the development of hypersonic weapons."

The U.S. intelligence report allegedly concluded that the Tsirkon missile would begin production in 2021 and could be deployed as early as 2022. CNBC cited the sources as saying that Russia had only performed five total tests of the anti-ship weapon. Such weapons have raised concerns as they were said capable of thwarting modern defense systems with their unprecedented speeds.

"China and Russia are pursuing hypersonic weapons because their speed, altitude, and maneuverability may defeat most missile defense systems, and they may be used to improve long-range conventional and nuclear strike capabilities. There are no existing countermeasures," the Government Accountability Office wrote in its threat assessment report published earlier this month.

(...)

https://www.newsweek.com/russia-tests-m ... se-1269076
Image

Post Reply