Russia wants to dismantle nuclear subs by 2010

[mysterious]

Russia wants to dismantle nuclear subs by 2010

MOSCOW: Russia plans to dismantle all of its decommissioned nuclear submarines by 2010 with the help of international aid, an official with the federal nuclear energy agency said Monday. “We hope to regulate the problem of dismantling the nuclear submarines by 2010 with the help of our international partners,� a spokesman for the agency told AFP. Russia has about 100 decommissioned nuclear subs waiting to be dismantled and 70 of these still have nuclear reactors aboard, the spokesman said. The agency estimates it will need nearly four billion dollars to dismantle the subs, which pose an environmental threat to seas around the vast country. Some 192 Soviet-era and Russian submarines are thought to have been decommissioned since the 1980s, of which 89 have been dismantled. AFP

http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=story_22-6-2004_pg4_9

Ummm, does this have anything to do with the cash strapped position of the Russian armed forces Gary? :roll

[gf0012-aust]

Ummm, does this have anything to do with the cash strapped position of the Russian armed forces Gary? :roll

It's estimated that up to 80% of the penanted russian fleet is incapable of deployment. Of the 20% available, there are very few that are blue water capable in an "atlantic" sense.

In addition, 90% of their ports in the west are regarded as almost uninhabitable due to spillage, radiation leaks etc...

Russia, is in a mess. Take away their nukes and China could almost take them on at the moment..

I suspect that they will be hoping that the US will bankroll some of the clean-up again. The US pumped $6 billion into Russia a few years back to clean up some of their sites. Russia doesn't have the technology or the capability to do it themselves at this stage.

I can see the US and Germany stepping up to the plate to help out - again. Sweden would also get involved as they copped a bit of the rubbish from Chernobyl, and no one in Europe wants to see that happen again.

[mysterious]

So now I see that Russians have been {NO Trash} around and creating a mess for everybody else to pick it up and do the cleaning up! Tsk tsk tsk. :P

[corsair7772]

Its good to see the Russians are finally trashing all the stuff they dont need instead of sticking to the belief that they can become a superpower again by just mere possession. This would free up resources for more better use.

[mysterious]

Oh well if you ask me, I'd say, they 'do need' them but cant afford to keep such stuff anymore. They lack funding majorly and so, half of their stuff has got to go to the scrap yard as lying idle, it would only harm the environment and have other detrimental effects! :smokingc:

[Pathfinder-X]

Russian government is cash strapped at the moment, they can't even maintain their Kirov class cruiser. According to a Russian admiral the ship is a bomb waiting to explode. And through 1992 until now, only about 7 vessels enter service with the russian navy itself, others are made for export. The war in Chechnya is also creating a huge burden on their military, the level of resistance in Chenchyna is alot greater than Iraq.

[gf0012-aust]

This thread is for news on progress being made for dismantling their old
nuclear submarine fleet.

Its for Moderator modification and amendments only.

[gf0012-aust]

Russian yard scraps Victor-class nuclear sub with Canadian funds
5/19/2006 (for personal use only)

The Zvezdochka dockyard federal state unitary enterprise in Severodvinsk has begun scrapping the K-38 multirole atomic submarine, which was the lead vessel in the project-671 series (the "Yersh", or in NATO parlance "Victor-1").

The sub is currently in a floating dock, where preparations are starting for removal of the reactor's active zones, the yard's press office told Interfax.

The K-38 multirole submarine was built at the Admiralty yard in Leningrad in 1966 and was officially handed over to the navy on 5 November 1967. Christened "50 Years of the USSR", she went on to serve with the Northern Fleet. (Passage omitted)

The K-38 will be the fifth submarine to be scrapped at Zvezdochka with Canadian funding. (Passage omitted)

[gf0012-aust]

Volgograd sub cannibalized in Severodvinsk using Canadian funds
Russia & CIS Military Newswire 5/17/2006 (for personal use only)

Cannibalization of the B-502 Belgorod multi-role nuclear-powered submarine has ended at the docking chamber of the Zvyozdochka shipyard in Severodvinsk, Yelena Korostel, official of the shipyard's press service, said on Wednesday.

It is the fourth of the 12 submarines that Zvyozdochka plans to scrap under an accord with Canada, Korostel told Interfax.

Three submarines of Project 671 RTM (Shchuka, NATO designation Viktor III) and Project 671 (Yorsh, NATO designation Viktor I) were scrapped before.

The B-502 was laid down at the Admiralteiskiye Verfi shipyard in 1979 and commissioned by the Navy in 1981.

It was written off from the Northern Fleet in 2000.

Korostel recalled that Zvyozdochka cooperates with the Canadian Foreign Affairs and International Trade Ministry in the framework of the Global Partnership program, aimed at limiting proliferation of weapons and materials of mass destruction.

Canada announced at the G-8 summit in 2002 that it was ready to assign about $750 million for this purpose over the next decade.

Zvyozdochka has so far received about $8 million from the Canadian Foreign Affairs and International Trade Ministry for the scrapping activity that was already carried out.

edit note: Canadian financial figures adjusted pending confirmation from source. Russian article states "billion" but in all likelihood is "million". I've edited it in anticipation of confirmation about the original typo.

[gf0012-aust]

Russia getting rid of floating Chernobyls
Viktor Litovkin RIA Novosti 5/16/2006 (for personal use only)

I'd like to start with some figures. During the Cold War, the Soviet Union built more nuclear-powered ships than any other country - about 250 nuclear missile submarines, five surface ships, including several heavy missile cruises of the Admiral Ushakov class, eight ice-breakers, the most famous of which bore Lenin's name, and one lighter carrier ship Sevmorput.

But no infrastructure was built for scrapping these ships after decommissioning. There was no system for the storage and disposal of liquid and solid spent fuel and other radioactive waste.

As a result, Russia has inherited a huge problem of cleaning its territorial waters and lands of what people have dubbed the "floating Chernobyls." The sinking of any decommissioned submarine with nuclear fuel may trigger a major ecological disaster.

The spent fuel of all nuclear submarines amounts to 25 million curies. The aggregate weight of all radioactive construction materials slated for disposal exceeds 150,000 tons, and that of metal, about 1.5 million tons. A special "atomic train" will have to make a hundred trips to get this spent fuel from the Northern and Pacific fleets, and take it to the Mayak waste treatment plant in the southern Urals. However, it can make 10-15 such trips annually.

And one more figure, which is indispensable for understanding the scale of the problem - $4 billion will have to be spent on nuclear waste disposal and recovery of contaminated territories.

Russia has been dealing with the scrapping of nuclear submarines and surface ships for many years. Its annual spending for the purpose stands at about 2 billion budget rubles (about $70 million) per year. Substantial help is coming from the United States under the Cooperative Threat Reduction Program. Before 2001, the U.S. earmarked $40 million a year for the purpose. Now that the disposal of the decommissioned strategic nuclear submarines has almost been completed, this assistance has been reduced to $20 million. But other countries have increased their help under the Global Partnership program. In 2004, the relevant figure was $74 million. This comprehensive effort has allowed Russia to scrap 133 nuclear submarines, including 90 subs in its Northern Fleet and 43 in its Pacific Fleet.

Deputy head of the Federal Agency for Nuclear Power Sergei Antipov, the number one domestic expert on submarine dismantling, believes that although by 2012 Russia will have disposed of its submarines, it will still have to remove spent fuel from coastal storage facilities, and recover contaminated territories. These tasks will be very time-consuming.

The problem is not limited to the shortage of funds allocated by donor countries, even though it is part of it. After the approval of the Global Partnership program in Kananaskis, Canada, the G8 promised to earmark $2 billion for this purpose. But only $438.5 million worth of working contracts have been concluded up to now. A mere $313.48 million have been received by disposal facilities. Meanwhile, Russia has been increasing its contribution to submarine utilization every year and has already spent at least $400 million to this end, including $290 million since Kananaskis. It is planning to bring its share in the Global Partnership to $850 million by the year 2012.

But the main headache is the enormous scale of what still has to be done. Moreover, it is also essential to ensure the safety of the disposal effort.

Today, Germany is helping Russia to build coastal storage platforms for reactor compartments, on the Kola Peninsular, Saida Bay. It should be ready by 2010. A total of 120 compartments with submarine nuclear reactors will be kept on open grounds, losing their radioactivity.

A floating dock will also have to be built for delivering these compartments to the platforms from the Nerpa Shipyard near Murmansk, which dismantles submarines. Railway carts are a must for transporting compartments, which weigh 1,600 tons. There should also be premises for repairing reactor compartments and coating them with anti-corrosion materials. Houses for the service personnel will have to be assembled as well.

The pot is kept boiling. The Germans have already spent half of the allotted sum of 300 million euros, and the first platform for 40 compartments was supposed to be opened this summer. But Federal Agency for Nuclear Power officials asked their German colleagues to expand the storage area for another 30 compartments in order to keep 150 compartments instead of 120 in the Saida Bay. The Germans have accepted the proposal, and, hence, the construction of the platforms will be somewhat delayed.

Britain and Norway are greatly helping the northwest of Russia in dismantling submarines and ensuring safe storage of spent nuclear fuel. Their money was used to dispose of two Project 949 Granite submarines and two Project 671 Shchuka submarines. The Andreyev Bay is being decontaminated. It contains one of the world's biggest storage facilities for more than 20,000 reactor clusters. Italy is also joining the effort. It will allot 360 million euros to build a facility for the procession and storage of radioactive waste in the Andreyev Bay, and special containers for the removal of fuel from the village of Gremikha, located some 350 km from the Kola Gulf.

In the past, this village housed a big base of nuclear submarines, which left about 800 contaminated reactor clusters with 1.5 tons of radioactive materials. Gremikha is not connected with Murmansk by a land road - only by air or sea. This makes it impossible to transport clusters to the Mayak plant by railway.

Transportation of submarines from storage facilities to disposal plants is also a problem, which is slowing down their scrapping. In the north the distance is no more than 500 km, but in the Far East, the distance from the Kamchatka Peninsular, where submarines are kept, to processing plants in Primorye Territory is 2,500 km. Unlike the Polar Circle, in the Far East the only way is to ship submarines by sea. The journey of one submarine costs no less than $1 million.

This is the reason why the Far East is somewhat behind the north in implementing the submarine disposal schedule. In the Arctic, only 30 out of 120 have not been dismantled, whereas in the Far East, the relevant figures are 34 and 77.

Tokyo has promised to precipitate submarine disposal in the Far East. In the 1990s Japan helped to build a ship for the storage and procession of liquid radioactive waste, and funded the disposal of one submarine in 2004. After Vladimir Putin's visit to Japan, Tokyo paid for the scrapping of another five submarines. Although, some people in Japan claim that Russia is spending the money of the Japanese taxpayers not only to get rid Russia of the old submarines, which spell ecological disaster for the ocean and its fish, but also to develop more modern combat ships. This has nothing to do with reality, but is always hard to prove.

For all its difficulties, Russia is abiding by its commitments in good faith, said Sergei Antipov. When this article is posted, maybe Russia will get rid of another floating Chernobyl.

[gf0012-aust]

NUCLEAR SUBMARINE BEING SCRAPPED AT RUSSIA'S NORTHERN SHIPYARD
BBC Monitoring International Reports/Interfax-AVN 5/15/2006 (for personal use only)

The disposal of the ballistic missile submarine TK-12 has begun at a base of the Sevmashpredpriyatiye (SMP) and Zvezdochka shipyards in Severodvinsk, in northwest Russia, Interfax was told.

"The support systems of the submarine were reinitiated to secure the removal of spent nuclear fuel. The corresponding dismantling operations were then conducted," Aleksandr Kobko of SMP's repair and disposal department said.

The submarine is now at berth of Zvezdochka's special-purpose shore facility, where spent nuclear fuel is being unloaded, he noted. This facility was built at Zvezdochka under the US Congress' Cooperative Threat Reduction (CTR) programme.

The facility consists of a specialized berth equipped with a bridge crane and radiation control systems, as well as roofed pads for temporary storage of spent nuclear fuel containers, and approach railways. The unloaded fuel is later put in special containers that are accumulated at roofed pads until there are enough of them to fill a railway car. After that the containers are shipped to spent nuclear fuel processing plants in special cars.

"The operation should end in June. After that, equipment will be removed from the submarine and its hull will be dismantled. In compliance with safety requirements, the section with reactor units will be sealed off, launched and transported to the storage facility at Sayda Bay on the Kola peninsula," Kobko said.

The TK-12 heavy nuclear-powered strategic submarine (Project 941 Akula/Typhoon) was laid down at SMP on 19 January 1980, set afloat on 17 December 1983 and added to the Northern Fleet inventory on 15 January 1985.

The submarine was written off in 1998 and transferred from the permanent stationing base to Severodvinsk for scrapping in summer last year.

The TK-12 is the second of the navy's Akula (Typhoon) class submarines to be decommissioned and assigned for disposal. In 2005, SMP scrapped the TK-202 submarine of the same class.

The scrapping is being carried out in the framework of the CTR programme, also known as Nunn-Lugar programme.

CTR was adopted in 1991 at the initiative of US Congress. Its main objectives are the destruction of carrier rockets, their launchers and chemical weapons, and control over nuclear weapons and their components on the territory of the former USSR.

US Congress has assigned over 3.1bn dollars for this programme.

[gf0012-aust]

Russia disposes of 61 nuke-powered subs since 2002

5/26/2006 (for personal use only)

Russia has disposed of 61 nuclear-powered submarines since 2002, including 17 with international assistance, Director of the Foreign Ministry's Security and Disarmament Department Anatoly Antonov told Itar-Tass.

Being the G8 chairman, Russia carries on the Global Partnership against the Spread of Weapons and Materials of Mass Destruction, which was launched at the Kananaskis summit in 2002, he said.

It is a matter of allocating $20 billion within ten years for cooperation priorities, including the disposal of decommissioned nuclear-powered submarines, chemical weapons and fissile materials, and the employment of former weapon-makers, he said.

G8 financial commitments until 2012 include $2 billion of Russia, $10 billion of the United States, 1.5 billion euros of Germany, one billion euros of the European Union, one billion euros of Italy, 750 million euros of Italy, $750 million of the United Kingdom, $650 million of Canada, and $200 million of Japan.

The Global Partnership has brought results for Russia, Antonov said. Russia has received $313.48 million for the disposal of decommissioned submarines and $373.69 million for chemical disarmament since 2002. Partners have helped Russia to commission two chemical disarmament facilities in Gorny in the Saratov region and Kambarka in Udmurtia. Another chemical disarmament facility is being built in Shchuchye in the Kurgan region. Further assistance is possible, the diplomat said.

The Russian budget has assigned over $1 billion for chemical disarmament since 2002, he said.

Source: OSINT Sidenote. Australia has provided funds for the dismantling of one sub via teh auspices of the Japanese delegation. ie Japan accepts the Australian funds and then then work is distributed under their terms with the Russians.

[gf0012-aust]

Russian nuclear submarine sent for scrap instead of refit

6/27/2006 (for personal use only)

The B-292 Perm multirole nuclear submarine has moored at berth No 9 of the Zvezdochka shipyard in Severodvinsk for scrapping.

Zvezdochka told Interfax-Military News Agency that the B-292 would be the eighth multirole nuclear submarine whose scrapping has been funded by Canada.

The active reactor zone will be dismantled in autumn 2006, and the submarine proper will be scrapped in 2007, the year of the submarine's 20th anniversary

The submarine was shipped from the Arctic to Severodvinsk by a Zvezdochka crew headed by Capt First Rank (Ret'd) Mikhail Vasilyev. The submarine was escorted by the Sadko, a diesel-electric motor vessel belonging to the yard.

The B-292 nuclear submarine (Project 671RTM, code-name Shchuka, Victor-III under NATO classification) is the flagship submarine of its series. It was built at the Admiralty Yard in St Petersburg in March 1987. In November 1987 it came into service with the 33rd Division of the Northern Fleet, based in Zapadnaya Litsa, and then with the 7th Nuclear Submarine Division, based in Vidyayevo, when the 33rd Division was disbanded.

The submarine has a length of 106.1 metres, beam of 10.8 metres, a full displacement of 7,225 cubic metres, a maximum dive of 600 metres, and endurance of 80 days.

On 26 July 2002, at the initiative of the Perm administration, the submarine was named after the city.

The submarine was to have undergone a two-year overhaul starting in 2004 and served for eight to ten more years. However, due to lack of money it was decided to scrap it.

[XaNDeR]

The Russian fleet is to receive six full-fledged aircraft-carrying attack groups within the next twenty years with additional forces and one aircraft-carrier in each, the Russian Fleet’s Commander-in-Chief Admiral Vladimir Masorin told reporters on Tuesday.
Three attack groups are to be based in the Northern Fleet with three others in the Pacific Fleet. This number of ships will make it possible to keep two aircraft-carrying vessels on duty and two more in alertness while two others can undergo repair and modernization works.

The new vessels will exceed the number of aircraft-carriers of the Soviet fleet in the late 1980s with four heavy carriers, Kiev, Minsk, Novorossiysk and Baku.

The construction of the first new aircraft-carrying ship for the fleet is to start in the next decade. Until then, Russian is going to start using a new series of surface battleships to accompany the aircraft-carriers, fight planes and submarines. Russia is also going to build a flight simulator for pilots of seaborne aircrafts to replace an old one situated in Ukraine.

The reform will raise the fleet to 300 battleships. The share of vessels in the ocean zone will grow dramatically.

www.kommersant.com



Holy f*ck is this even possible ,they have planned 6 aircraft carriers and 300 big surface combatants till 2020 , i somehow see this as a imposible scenario ,300 big ships and 6 carriers in 20 years , and with russian economy at the current state I just can't see this happening.
And why would they want to build " battleships "

[kato]

And why would they want to build " battleships "

Common translation problem - they mean "warships".

[XaNDeR]

What do you think , 300 warships in 20 years , where are they gonna get money from :vamp

[Jon K]

What do you think , 300 warships in 20 years , where are they gonna get money from :vamp

Well, they won't get any money. As one Russian defence analyst said: The fiscal and military authorities in Russia live in parallel realities...

[Neutral Zone]

Probably just a pipe dream.

However, if they were able to build 6 new CV's, would they be an update of the Kuznetsov design, or would it make more sense to go with a all new ship probably smaller and more affordable than the Kuznetsov?

[Tasman]

I can't see any way Russia could build and operate anywhere near this number of warships. If they can and they actually begin to put such a program into effect it will start a new naval arms race.

Re the 300 "battleships", I imagine the Fleet Commander is talking about a mix of warships, ranging from small vessels such as fast attack craft and corvettes to larger units such as cruisers, destroyers and frigates to accompany the carriers.

Cheers

[kato]

Re the 300 "battleships", I imagine the Fleet Commander is talking about a mix of warships, ranging from small vessels such as fast attack craft and corvettes to larger units such as cruisers, destroyers and frigates to accompany the carriers.
They usually start counting around the 500-ton mark. No FPBs, FACs, landing craft, harbour tugs etc.

[XaNDeR]

Well with the current production and rate of economy I can't see Ruskies pulling this off in 20 years time , but Financial Times predicted in 5 years development of Mexican and Russian oil field will not be able to sustain increasing demand which will surely lead to increase in oil price by a huge amount and this could just be the thing that could be vital in this plan to be able to succed.

[Tasman]

They usually start counting around the 500-ton mark. No FPBs, FACs, landing craft, harbour tugs etc.

In which case he is talking of combat vessels from corvette (and perhaps the larger mine warfare vessels) up.

Cheers

[EnigmaNZ]

Also nothing is said about 300 new warships, it said the fleet would be built up to 300 from whatever size it is now. Prosumably a lot will be cheap to build corvettes and frigates. Here is a list of current Russian warships. About 540 naval vessels of all types. So a 300 unit navy in 2020 is a possiblitiy, though a lot of the minor ships are well into there life span and will be due for retiring before 2020. Counting just the offensive ships down to the Turantul 3s and the submarines at the end, the fiqure is 150+ warships, and 390 support ships.

Taken from http://www.warfare.ru/?linkid=1720&catid=243

State of the Russian Navy

Table 2. Total number: Type/class #
CV Admiral Kuznetsov 1
BCGN Kirov 2
CG Kara 1
CG Slava 3
DDG Sovremenny 5
DDG Udaloy 6
DDG Udaloy II 1
FFG Gepard 1
FFG Krivak I 1
FFG Krivak II 2
FFG Neustrashimy 1
21630 Buyan 1
FFL Grisha I 1
FFL Grisha II 6
FFL Grisha V 16
FFL Parchim II 8
FSG Nanuchka I 5
FSG Nanuchka III 10
FSG Nanuchka IV 1
FSG Tarantul 2
FSG Tarantul II 5
FSG Tarantul III 21
PCF Pauk 1
PGGF Dergach 2
PTH Turya 5
904 Orlan 2
ACV Polnochny I 3
ACV Pomornic I 2
ACV Pomornic II 2
LPD Ivan Rogov 1
LST Alligator Type I/II/III/IV 4
LST Ropucha I 2
LST Ropucha II 10
LST Ropucha III 3
SMNS Paltus 1
SMNS Uniform 3
SMNS X-Ray 3
SSN Yankee Notch 3
MHC Lida 7
MHO Gorya 2
MSC Sonya 27
MSO Natya I 10
MSO Natya II 2
MSO Natya III 2
AGE Yug 11
AGI Alpinist 4
AGI Lira 1
AGI Moma 4
AGI Vishnaya 7
AGOR Vinograd 2
AGS Biya 9
AGS Finik 21
AGS Kamenka 7
AGS Moma 7
AGS Sibiryakov 2
AGS Onega 15
HSV Onega 1
AEM AMGA 1
AEM Sadko 1
AGS Amguema 1
AK Neon Antonov 2
AK Vytegrales 1
AK Yuniy Partizan 2
AOS Luza 3
AOS Vala 5
AR Amur II 2
Muna 6
ABU Sura 5
AGB Dobrynya Nikitich 5
AGB Ivan Susanin 1
AH Ob' 3
ARC Emba 1
ARC EMBA II 1
ARC Klazma 5
ASR Kashtan 6
AX Smol'nyy 2
AOL Alyay 6
AOL Dubna 3
AOR Chilikin 5
AORL Kaliningradneft 1
AR Amur 12
AR Oskol 6
AS Malina 3
AS Urga 2
DDS Pelym 4
YDG Bereza 16
YDG Pelym 16
ARS Pionier Moskvyy 4
ASR El'brus 1
ASR Kashtan 1
ASR Kommuna 1
ASR Prut 2
ATA Goliat 18
ATA Goryn 8
ATA Sorum 15
ATS Ingul 4
ATS Katun-I 1
ATS Katun-I 7
ATS Katun-II 2
ATS MB-330 1
ATS Neftegaz 3
ATS Sliva 3
FPC Iva 4
SSBN Delta III 5
SSBN Delta IV 5
SSBN Typhoon 3
SSGN Oscar II 6
SSN Akula 9
SSN Alfa 1
SSN Sierra I 1
SSN Sierra II 2
SSN Victor III 4
SSK Kilo 16
SSK Lada 1

[Galrahn]

This thread reflects many stereotypes about the Russian economy that simply isn't true.

First, the Russian economy growth has nothing to do with military sales OR oil, in fact neither have yet to make any significant impact on the GDP growth in Russia despite assumptions otherwise. There isn't enough oil investment in Russia yet for Russia to reap the rewards of their oil revenue potential, and everyone knows (or should know) that military sales really aren't big profits in teh grand scheme, otherwise major exporters like North Korea would be wealthy instead of starving.

I think this plan will happen for a number of reasons. First, people are ignoring (or may be ignorant of) the changes on the commercial side of Russia's Maritime industry, and its current modernization plan to be completed in 2009 for surface vessels. Second, people are ignoring (or may be ignorant of) the actual state of the Russian economy over the last 3 years, about its future, and why the 7-8% growth has nothing to do with oil or military sales. Third, people are ignoring (or again ignorant to) how Russia has been moving forward without money in their submarine industry, basically trading deployment funds for R&D on the only aspect of the Russian shipbuilding community that is functioning effectively (submarines) with virtually all funding invested in R&D for SSBNs, SSNs, and SSKs. That isn't a small thing, this investment plus overseas sales has kept the most expensive and technically challenging shipbuilding industry afloat. Finally, people are ignoring how the Navy has secured a full 25%+ of the total military budget, where in the USSR days it was at the bottom of the funding food chain.

Finally, the 6 ships are not aircraft carriers. As a child of the cold war some of us Americans learned to read Russian, which meant nothing to most of during the cold war but is nice today thanks to the internet. While I haven't found many of the details in English yet, details of the 6 ships is in the Russian media. They will be around 50,000 tons, support 30 planes and helicopters, and be nuclear powered. Most importantly, they are not aircraft carriers, rather described as aviation platforms in Russian, which means they are more likely to resemble the Kiev class than the Nimitz class.

Also look at the source. This isn't the usual low level admiral making statements, this is Masorin, who wouldn't make this announcement unless the political support already existed. He is too high level to go out on a limb like other admirals have in the past.

For details about why I think this plan will probably be executed effectively, including sources for my statements above, you can check out my further detailed and source thoughts here (http://informationdissemination.blogspot.com/2007/07/details-on-future-russian-navy.html).

[Tasman]

This thread reflects many stereotypes about the Russian economy that simply isn't true.

First, the Russian economy growth has nothing to do with military sales OR oil, in fact neither have yet to make any significant impact on the GDP growth in Russia despite assumptions otherwise. There isn't enough oil investment in Russia yet for Russia to reap the rewards of their oil revenue potential, and everyone knows (or should know) that military sales really aren't big profits in teh grand scheme, otherwise major exporters like North Korea would be wealthy instead of starving.

I think this plan will happen for a number of reasons. First, people are ignoring (or may be ignorant of) the changes on the commercial side of Russia's Maritime industry, and its current modernization plan to be completed in 2009 for surface vessels. Second, people are ignoring (or may be ignorant of) the actual state of the Russian economy over the last 3 years, about its future, and why the 7-8% growth has nothing to do with oil or military sales. Third, people are ignoring (or again ignorant to) how Russia has been moving forward without money in their submarine industry, basically trading deployment funds for R&D on the only aspect of the Russian shipbuilding community that is functioning effectively (submarines) with virtually all funding invested in R&D for SSBNs, SSNs, and SSKs. That isn't a small thing, this investment plus overseas sales has kept the most expensive and technically challenging shipbuilding industry afloat. Finally, people are ignoring how the Navy has secured a full 25%+ of the total military budget, where in the USSR days it was at the bottom of the funding food chain.

Finally, the 6 ships are not aircraft carriers. As a child of the cold war some of us Americans learned to read Russian, which meant nothing to most of during the cold war but is nice today thanks to the internet. While I haven't found many of the details in English yet, details of the 6 ships is in the Russian media. They will be around 50,000 tons, support 30 planes and helicopters, and be nuclear powered. Most importantly, they are not aircraft carriers, rather described as aviation platforms in Russian, which means they are more likely to resemble the Kiev class than the Nimitz class.

Also look at the source. This isn't the usual low level admiral making statements, this is Masorin, who wouldn't make this announcement unless the political support already existed. He is too high level to go out on a limb like other admirals have in the past.

For details about why I think this plan will probably be executed effectively, including sources for my statements above, you can check out my further detailed and source thoughts here (http://informationdissemination.blogspot.com/2007/07/details-on-future-russian-navy.html).

I thought this was an excellent post Galrahn. Thanks also for the link to your blog.

The Russian navy is certainly in need of modernisation but this plan goes way beyond getting the existing navy into shape or replacing worn out ships with new on a one for one basis. For the first time since the days of the USSR the new plan will, if carried out, result in Russia becoming a first class naval power, second only to the USA. It has, IMO, huge implications for Western navies, most of which, including the USN, have been steadily shrinking. There will be huge pressure on the USN to arrest its decline in numbers and huge pressure on European navies to rebuild. In the Pacific and Indian Oceans, I think a naval arms race has already begun, led by India, China, Japan and South Korea in particular, which all have navies that are growing in both quantity and in quality.

I'm away from home and will have very limited internet access for the next few weeks but I'll be interested to follow developments in this thread, as much as possible.

Cheers

[kinggodzilla87]

I thought this was an excellent post Galrahn. Thanks also for the link to your blog.

The Russian navy is certainly in need of modernisation but this plan goes way beyond getting the existing navy into shape or replacing worn out ships with new on a one for one basis. For the first time since the days of the USSR the new plan will, if carried out, result in Russia becoming a first class naval power, second only to the USA. It has, IMO, huge implications for Western navies, most of which, including the USN, have been steadily shrinking. There will be huge pressure on the USN to arrest its decline in numbers and huge pressure on European navies to rebuild. In the Pacific and Indian Oceans, I think a naval arms race has already begun, led by India, China, Japan and South Korea in particular, which all have navies that are growing in both quantity and in quality.

I'm away from home and will have very limited internet access for the next few weeks but I'll be interested to follow developments in this thread, as much as possible.

Cheers

You may be rigth about that but the usa is growing in quality ie the new CGX

any way I thing this big news European , USN , and China, India navies

[tphuang]

This thread reflects many stereotypes about the Russian economy that simply isn't true.

First, the Russian economy growth has nothing to do with military sales OR oil, in fact neither have yet to make any significant impact on the GDP growth in Russia despite assumptions otherwise. There isn't enough oil investment in Russia yet for Russia to reap the rewards of their oil revenue potential, and everyone knows (or should know) that military sales really aren't big profits in teh grand scheme, otherwise major exporters like North Korea would be wealthy instead of starving.

I think this plan will happen for a number of reasons. First, people are ignoring (or may be ignorant of) the changes on the commercial side of Russia's Maritime industry, and its current modernization plan to be completed in 2009 for surface vessels. Second, people are ignoring (or may be ignorant of) the actual state of the Russian economy over the last 3 years, about its future, and why the 7-8% growth has nothing to do with oil or military sales. Third, people are ignoring (or again ignorant to) how Russia has been moving forward without money in their submarine industry, basically trading deployment funds for R&D on the only aspect of the Russian shipbuilding community that is functioning effectively (submarines) with virtually all funding invested in R&D for SSBNs, SSNs, and SSKs. That isn't a small thing, this investment plus overseas sales has kept the most expensive and technically challenging shipbuilding industry afloat. Finally, people are ignoring how the Navy has secured a full 25%+ of the total military budget, where in the USSR days it was at the bottom of the funding food chain.

Finally, the 6 ships are not aircraft carriers. As a child of the cold war some of us Americans learned to read Russian, which meant nothing to most of during the cold war but is nice today thanks to the internet. While I haven't found many of the details in English yet, details of the 6 ships is in the Russian media. They will be around 50,000 tons, support 30 planes and helicopters, and be nuclear powered. Most importantly, they are not aircraft carriers, rather described as aviation platforms in Russian, which means they are more likely to resemble the Kiev class than the Nimitz class.

Also look at the source. This isn't the usual low level admiral making statements, this is Masorin, who wouldn't make this announcement unless the political support already existed. He is too high level to go out on a limb like other admirals have in the past.

For details about why I think this plan will probably be executed effectively, including sources for my statements above, you can check out my further detailed and source thoughts here (http://informationdissemination.blogspot.com/2007/07/details-on-future-russian-navy.html).
really nice post. Although I think even 6 aviation capable ship at this point is impossible for the Russians. I read a JDW article a while back on the current nature of Russian military. Thinking about how long it took them to even get a corvette launched, I'd be impressed if they get 1 new aviation capable ship in service by 2015.

[qwerty223]

I guess the most important statement lies here:” keep two aircraft-carrying vessels on duty and two more in alertness while two others can undergo repair and modernization works."
In the so call 20years length, probably first pair are refreshing hulls, will then see them actively roaming across the world oceans in the near future. The second pair of new hulls will start construction at around the 5th year and finalize sea trials at around 10th year. At about the 15th year elite crew will transfer to new pairs of CV and take over jobs while the refreshed hulls will undergo another refresh. The third pair will only lay their keel in late of the 20 years time length. Until the picture is fully painted, it should be about 30~35years after the 1st step taken.
In the case of warships, they will need to replace/refresh anyways. Just that now they will be reorganizes to fit in to aircraft-carrying attack groups, that’s all.

[Galrahn]

really nice post. Although I think even 6 aviation capable ship at this point is impossible for the Russians. I read a JDW article a while back on the current nature of Russian military. Thinking about how long it took them to even get a corvette launched, I'd be impressed if they get 1 new aviation capable ship in service by 2015.

Have you seen pictures of the yard the corvette was built in? I am surprised that thing floats. The corvette program pretty much guaranteed Russia won't build any new large surface combatants until after 2009, and focus on modernization and commercial ships until then.

[nero]

What do you think , 300 warships in 20 years , where are they gonna get money from :vamp

.
by selling hi-tech stuff to china, russia would have accumulated enough money

also dont forget the oil-power of russia . people tend to forget that Russia is a big energy super-power.

As energy resources become scarce, russia would benefit immensely.

.

[Super Nimrod]

As nero says Oil.............and gas and minerals. They are coining it in at the moment at a higher rate than for many decades.

[mexsoldier]

the russian economy has growth a lot since the economic meltdown in the 90's , but since that the foreign debt has becoming a important issue, the economy could growbut we don't know if the huge debt could begin to damage that growing rate, remember argentina in 2000's., russia should start paying that debt instead of invest in something that cant give them food, if russia succsess in the economy thing, russia can succsess in the military.

[Akinci-Raider]

.
by selling hi-tech stuff to china, russia would have accumulated enough money

also dont forget the oil-power of russia . people tend to forget that Russia is a big energy super-power.

As energy resources become scarce, russia would benefit immensely.

.We are talkin big money....can they afford it?

[swerve]

the russian economy has growth a lot since the economic meltdown in the 90's , but since that the foreign debt has becoming a important issue, the economy could growbut we don't know if the huge debt could begin to damage that growing rate, remember argentina in 2000's., russia should start paying that debt instead of invest in something that cant give them food, if russia succsess in the economy thing, russia can succsess in the military.

Russias foreign debts are far less than Russian foreign assets. Russia is a large net creditor these days, not a debtor.

[contedicavour]

Russia may have a strong economy again (sorry to disagree with some previous posts, but a heck of a lot of this growth comes from natural resources, natural gas and minerals such as aluminium even more than oil) but there are too many obstacles in my opinion to such a development of the Russian navy :
(i) current state (financial & industrial) of the shipyards, most of which are bankrupt or are kept alive indirectly by the government but haven't built any big surface vessel since the early '90s.
(ii) confusion over future ships : there is a big bunch of prototypes around, from Gepard to Neustrashimy to Udaloy II ... all single ship classes. Sure, some classes such as 22380 look promising enough for the future, but it'll take more than 13 years to build them in sufficient numbers
(iii) mass obsolescence of current navy : Krivaks, Karas, Grishas are all obsolete. The remaining Sovremennys and Udaloys would require massive modernization to be credible vs contemporary US and European DDGs and FFGs. Even in subs, where Russia is strong, you still need to replace Viktor IIIs and the earlier Kilos, not to mention the Delta III SSBNs. I see the new Dolgoruki SSBNs building, but no news on the SSNs and the Lada/Amurs aren't exactly building in numbers...
(iv) why on Earth should Russia build aviation support ships comparable to the '80s Kievs if there is no Russian equivalent to Harriers/F35Bs since the end of the VSTOL Yakovlevs ? Russia has one good naval fighter, the navalized SU27. It requires ships at least as big as the Kutznetsov to make sense. Building from scratch a new Kutznetsov right now would take at least 8 years. Russia has no active shipyards to build such a big carrier, though it certainly could develop one. It could hardly build more than 2 simultaneously though. So by 2020 at the very best it could have 2 and another 2 building.

cheers

[XaNDeR]

Russia may have a strong economy again (sorry to disagree with some previous posts, but a heck of a lot of this growth comes from natural resources, natural gas and minerals such as aluminium even more than oil) but there are too many obstacles in my opinion to such a development of the Russian navy :
(i) current state (financial & industrial) of the shipyards, most of which are bankrupt or are kept alive indirectly by the government but haven't built any big surface vessel since the early '90s.
(ii) confusion over future ships : there is a big bunch of prototypes around, from Gepard to Neustrashimy to Udaloy II ... all single ship classes. Sure, some classes such as 22380 look promising enough for the future, but it'll take more than 13 years to build them in sufficient numbers
(iii) mass obsolescence of current navy : Krivaks, Karas, Grishas are all obsolete. The remaining Sovremennys and Udaloys would require massive modernization to be credible vs contemporary US and European DDGs and FFGs. Even in subs, where Russia is strong, you still need to replace Viktor IIIs and the earlier Kilos, not to mention the Delta III SSBNs. I see the new Dolgoruki SSBNs building, but no news on the SSNs and the Lada/Amurs aren't exactly building in numbers...
(iv) why on Earth should Russia build aviation support ships comparable to the '80s Kievs if there is no Russian equivalent to Harriers/F35Bs since the end of the VSTOL Yakovlevs ? Russia has one good naval fighter, the navalized SU27. It requires ships at least as big as the Kutznetsov to make sense. Building from scratch a new Kutznetsov right now would take at least 8 years. Russia has no active shipyards to build such a big carrier, though it certainly could develop one. It could hardly build more than 2 simultaneously though. So by 2020 at the very best it could have 2 and another 2 building.

cheers

You seem to not get the point , what does the fact that Udaloys and Sovermeny class are not new , have to do with russia building more ships?
And infact , Tico's and Alreigh Burkes are old ships too , i don't remember any new destroyers beeing commisioned after 90's ?
Not that it has anything to do with it :)
For your IV point : Maybe because Pak-Fa will be in 2 versions , naval and airforce?

[Galrahn]

(i) current state (financial & industrial) of the shipyards, most of which are bankrupt or are kept alive indirectly by the government but haven't built any big surface vessel since the early '90s.

Exactly right, until the modernization occurs for the shipyards happens any surface fleet from the Russians is an exercise in Powerpoint. That modernization comes from the private sector and government, not the military though, which actually makes it more likely to happen.

(ii) confusion over future ships : there is a big bunch of prototypes around, from Gepard to Neustrashimy to Udaloy II ... all single ship classes. Sure, some classes such as 22380 look promising enough for the future, but it'll take more than 13 years to build them in sufficient numbers

This is a mixed bag. I actually think this is a good sign and not a bad one, and in many ways hope the US Navy takes this approach for about the next 8 years. In many ways, the US took a substantial lead in naval capabilities because of prototypes, examples include the USS Enterprise, USS Long Beach, and USS Bainbridge, each of which represented a ton of unqiue changes for the US Navy from missile driven design to nuclear propulsion, among many others. A pair of DDG-1000s for the US Navy (instead of a whole class) could represent some prototypes for the US to move the US Navy into energy weapons, UCAVs, advanced electric engineering, and stealth to name a few technologies. Prototypes are excellent ways to bridge peacetime gaps for Navies, and there is little question Russia has been in a gap since the end of the cold war.

Prototypes keeps the R&D base funded, which is more important than keeping the industrial base supplied. I would rather stay at the tip of innovation than the tip of production, because production is much easier to rebuild than innovation. China is a good example.

(iii) mass obsolescence of current navy : Krivaks, Karas, Grishas are all obsolete. The remaining Sovremennys and Udaloys would require massive modernization to be credible vs contemporary US and European DDGs and FFGs. Even in subs, where Russia is strong, you still need to replace Viktor IIIs and the earlier Kilos, not to mention the Delta III SSBNs. I see the new Dolgoruki SSBNs building, but no news on the SSNs and the Lada/Amurs aren't exactly building in numbers...

True, but remember, Russia's government has an advantage over the west, it doesn't have gigantic social programs draining the budget. Russia's economy is ranked 9th in the world just barely behind Italy and France in GDP purchasing power, except Italy and France put a large percentage of government spending on social programs and health care.

(iv) why on Earth should Russia build aviation support ships comparable to the '80s Kievs if there is no Russian equivalent to Harriers/F35Bs since the end of the VSTOL Yakovlevs ? Russia has one good naval fighter, the navalized SU27. It requires ships at least as big as the Kutznetsov to make sense. Building from scratch a new Kutznetsov right now would take at least 8 years. Russia has no active shipyards to build such a big carrier, though it certainly could develop one. It could hardly build more than 2 simultaneously though. So by 2020 at the very best it could have 2 and another 2 building.

Depending upon which article you read, the dates are different. I get the impression the construction would begin in 2015 with a new ship every 2 and half years completing them by 2030. That would presumably put the first ship in commission by 2020.

[tphuang]

Have you seen pictures of the yard the corvette was built in? I am surprised that thing floats. The corvette program pretty much guaranteed Russia won't build any new large surface combatants until after 2009, and focus on modernization and commercial ships until then.
no, but your points just reinforces my shock that the Russians are planning so many "aviation ships".

[crobato]

i) current state (financial & industrial) of the shipyards, most of which are bankrupt or are kept alive indirectly by the government but haven't built any big surface vessel since the early '90s.

That's not really true. The last two 956EM Sovs sold to China are in fact, brand new vessels.

Still it was quite a political mess how they were built, and China itself doubted the Sovs may ever be completed. Many of the parts were built in places that are now separated Republics. The relocation of all the parts and manufacturing back to Russia had undoubtedly made the ship quite expensive for a rather modernized Cold War design. Accidents, delays, political and media circus added to the annoyance of the customer.

But nonetheless they are done and delivered. The PLAN seems generally happy about the Sovs, both the old and the new pair, which is a lot to say about it since the PLA itself has been less than happy with other Russian products before. The Sovs seem more straightforward to operate than some of the more advanced (and complicated) Chinese ship designs, and probably may have been in a shopping list once again, but that prospect of buying new Sovs is not very likely now.

Nonetheless the experience and mistakes in building these ships could provide a rally ground for the Russian ship industry to reform itself. The experience is valuable, certainly for the Russians, knowing at least they can still build ships as big as a Sov.

[riksavage]

One critical factor will be man-power. Where is Russia going to get the crews for such an expansion? The number of Russian males refusing or avoiding the draft is on the increase. If Russia wants to build a credible modern Navy it will have to move to an all volunteer force made up of well motivated well educated officers and OR's. This will prove a major hurdle unless they greatly improve conditions of service, pay and prospects.

[qwerty223]

That's not really true. The last two 956EM Sovs sold to China are in fact, brand new vessels.

Still it was quite a political mess how they were built, and China itself doubted the Sovs may ever be completed. Many of the parts were built in places that are now separated Republics. The relocation of all the parts and manufacturing back to Russia had undoubtedly made the ship quite expensive for a rather modernized Cold War design. Accidents, delays, political and media circus added to the annoyance of the customer.

But nonetheless they are done and delivered. The PLAN seems generally happy about the Sovs, both the old and the new pair, which is a lot to say about it since the PLA itself has been less than happy with other Russian products before. The Sovs seem more straightforward to operate than some of the more advanced (and complicated) Chinese ship designs, and probably may have been in a shopping list once again, but that prospect of buying new Sovs is not very likely now.

Nonetheless the experience and mistakes in building these ships could provide a rally ground for the Russian ship industry to reform itself. The experience is valuable, certainly for the Russians, knowing at least they can still build ships as big as a Sov.
Those vessels where delivered before date, and construction duration is short too.

[harryriedl]

That's not really true. The last two 956EM Sovs sold to China are in fact, brand new vessels.

Still it was quite a political mess how they were built, and China itself doubted the Sovs may ever be completed. Many of the parts were built in places that are now separated Republics. The relocation of all the parts and manufacturing back to Russia had undoubtedly made the ship quite expensive for a rather modernized Cold War design. Accidents, delays, political and media circus added to the annoyance of the customer.

But nonetheless they are done and delivered. The PLAN seems generally happy about the Sovs, both the old and the new pair, which is a lot to say about it since the PLA itself has been less than happy with other Russian products before. The Sovs seem more straightforward to operate than some of the more advanced (and complicated) Chinese ship designs, and probably may have been in a shopping list once again, but that prospect of buying new Sovs is not very likely now.

Nonetheless the experience and mistakes in building these ships could provide a rally ground for the Russian ship industry to reform itself. The experience is valuable, certainly for the Russians, knowing at least they can still build ships as big as a Sov.

Its a huge gulf between building a Sovermany class and building new Kiev class aviation cruisers and the largest dry dock in Russia has Gorskov refitting for India.

[contedicavour]

You seem to not get the point , what does the fact that Udaloys and Sovermeny class are not new , have to do with russia building more ships?
And infact , Tico's and Alreigh Burkes are old ships too , i don't remember any new destroyers beeing commisioned after 90's ?
Not that it has anything to do with it :)
For your IV point : Maybe because Pak-Fa will be in 2 versions , naval and airforce?

Nooo only about 20 new Burke DDGs have been built since the '90s ;)
The point with so many obsolescent Sovremenny and Udaloy is that if the Russian navy wants to reach the 300-ship strength soon then a lot of thenew construction will have to be used to replace 1980s vintage ships that have been very badly maintained.

cheers

[Truculent]

A Russian website has accidentally released details of a new project.
http://www.kommersant.com/p803553/military_technology/

[Truculent]

More on this can be read here:
http://www.sarov.cc/4086.html

[oxforduniversit]

I am reading some of the comments about Russia here and had to reply.
Someone stating that Russia is not a Superpower is clearly wrong. There
are several US agencies that have announced Russia as a Superpower again (G8 meeting Russia 2006) and the US is no longer the sole Superpower but a leading Superpower but that will change in the future.

Washington Acknowledges Russia as Superpower
kommersant.com/page.asp?id=768929

A Former Superpower Rises Again
spiegel.de/international/spiegel/0,1518,426393,00.html
spiegel.de/international/spiegel/0,1518,druck-426393,00.html

Russia: A superpower rises again
POSTED: 1203 GMT (2003 HKT), December 13, 2006
Says Russia was always a Superpower
edition.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/europe/12/12/russia.oil/index.html

[oxforduniversit]

Russia is a Superpower because they have the economics, the wealth, the diplomatic power, ideological, technological advances than any other country besides the US; they have the cultural level of a Superpower and let’s not forget their military forces (they are leading as the world’s largest military industry supplier building ships, subs, aircrafts weapon arsenals and etc for International countries, that doesn’t mean better it just means they are supplying a huge sale of military equipment where the US has it advantages in what is sells to International countries as well, the bottom line though is Russia is selling a leading number). Also Russia has the largest nuclear arsenal of weapons which 10 times greater than the US (I learned that from a couple of retire US commanders who were based in Eastern Europe who admitted Russia’s nuclear weapon arsenal and Russian forces if anybody has a disagreement in this comment).

[oxforduniversit]

If any of you heard the News on CoasttoCoast radio last night with George Noory, NASA is going bankrupt and does not have the funds to complete the International Space Station as Russia was suppose to complete 40% of the station as they are planning their moon space station for 2015 on top of that. They may either need to help complete the station or the station will go into limbo without the Russian’s to fix the US contract to finish it. The US Space shuttle is an outdated program that even the X-43 program went bankrupt and the US shuttle is just too expensive. A shuttle that takes a crew of 5 people to operate where the Russia space shuttle can fly unmanned and also dismantle its wings in space and attaching into the space station as a counterpart to the station. The Russians have flow more manned space missions that the numbers are impossible to beat that even the current Soyuz rocket has an 95% prefect record (has flown more than 520 missions). I just find it interesting when Russia was in the down in the 90’s but they still preformed their space missions and building nuclear arsenals but now they regained their superpower status again officially when it is expensive to improve military capability and continue space flights, how did they do it?

[oxforduniversit]

The US is on an economic plunge as many of us can admit this, not just housing, high gas prices and bad inflation rates but our country is falling where Russia is greatly improving. You see our problems with immigrations and corporations continuing to outsource for cheaper labor overseas because the US labor is too expensive, we can’t even afford to fix our immigration problems not just the borders but the internal problems. What is unique about Russia, they don’t have an immigration problem at all, everyone who is not a Russian citizen has to have an entry visa, everyone and anything. The US is broken in so many ways it is just a complete joke.

I also wanted to state Russia is completely debt free as they cleared all their past deficits:
english.pravda.ru/russia/economics/22-08-2006/84038-paris-club-0

[oxforduniversit]

Isn’t the US supposed to be the supreme richest superpower? I am not trying to make Russia as the greatest country on earth but understand what is going on with Russia now. It is astonishing and to see their military bases as I have seen our military bases, I am impressed with Russia’s military forces completely. They have so many military advances over there that they are just different than the US when nitpick who is better than who.

Anyway I don’t want to start any argument; just my point that Russia is a Superpower. Also the countries of Ukraine and Kazakhstan as so heavily close to Russia as allies that they are considered connected to Russia even though they are separate post Soviet countries now. It is not known if these countries will enjoin together again but it has been discussed most often as much as what China now wants from Russia. We don’t know or even Russia & China ties are together as they are so against NATO there is no answer what they will do in the future.

[oxforduniversit]

Also Russia is an energy super giant of the world as well.
thefirstpost.co.uk/index.php?storyID=4883

Is the Space Station a Money Pit? Russia to for fill Space Station completion contract for US:
time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1632890,00.html

NASA a ticking collapse
coasttocoastam.com/shows/2007/10/09.html

[Gripenator]

Energy Superpower maybe, but when alternative energy sources (ethanol, hydrogen/nuclear, diesal composites etc.) come online in the coming decades Russia's rather late economic boom will come to an end and Putin and Co. might find themselves out of a job as the revenues from the current resources boom (US$125bn/yr) simply have been spent largely on pensions, salaries for government officials and the strategic missile forces of all things (24bn-90% of the entire naval budget went into the construction of the four massively over budget Borei SSBNs!) instead of building up infrastructure and education ie. investing in the future and human capital.

This partly explains why Russia's once famed scientific reputation is declining and why Russia has overtaken Japan as the nation with the highest suicidal rate.

Which brings me to my next point-a nation's superpower status is determined by its people above all-the quality and quantity as well as force projection capabilities. Unfortunately, the current demographic trends are not in Russia's favor and as for power projection, I could almost die of laughter.

You may ask, why do I have the authority to say this?

The answer is that in the above two respects, the Sweden Empire in the
17th and 18th centuries was in exactly the same situation (discounting the suicide factor) leading to its collapse and partially explaining why we are a damn welfare state today.

[Galrahn]

The US is on an economic plunge as many of us can admit this, not just housing, high gas prices and bad inflation rates but our country is falling where Russia is greatly improving. You see our problems with immigrations and corporations continuing to outsource for cheaper labor overseas because the US labor is too expensive, we can’t even afford to fix our immigration problems not just the borders but the internal problems.

I largely disagree with your zero sum game approach to economics in this discussion, but I tend to agree with some of your specific points on Russia.

The US is hardly in economic plunge, if the US economic growth is a plunge, then the recent growth in Europe which is about half the rate of the US would be described as economic suicide. I reject both. Yes I am accounting for housing. Sorry, but you went a bit overboard on the hyperbole.

The US and Europe are not in decline, both simply aren't on the same accellerated economic growth path of Russia or China. Both of those countries had a lot of room to grow though, China started from a very low starting position only a few decades ago, and Russia is rebuilding after falling to rock bottom following the cold war.

Russia's old military equipment is in disrepair, particularly their Navy. They managed their fall from a military perspective better than expected though, foreign contracts kept thier industrial base from disappearing and R&D was maintained thanks to foreign sales and investment. Russia maintained a decent number of modern naval platforms, but they went mostly without the updates unlike western nations.

So the approach in Russia is to do a slight modernization on equipment that is still relevant, and build new, starting with strategic submarines. A full 70% of this years and last years shipbuilding budget is being spent on SSBNs and related tech. This is a smart approach, get the expensive stuff out of the way, then they can build quantity on the cheap as revenue increases.

The problem is disposal of old. Gary is right on, they want the west to fund the messy stuff, and while the west probably shouldn't, the west probably will contribute. The problem with contributing to disposal is that western nations remove the responsibility that comes with building nuclear tech, a lesson the West needs to let Russia learn on its own since they are building new stuff that will recreate the problem in the future.

[Bearcat]

I see some news agencies are reporting that the russian navy have deployed to the Med. The ships in question are the carrier Admiral Kuznetsov og two anti-submarine ships. Must be of the Udaloy class then.

These ships belong to the northern fleet and will sail along the norwegian coast, west of the UK, and in the Gib. straight.

Find it strange that a submarine is not along for the trip, or the Kirov and Slava class. The Udaloys to not have the SAM capabillity that you would expect from a CVBG.

Any thoughts on this?

[Chrom]

I see some new agencies are reporting that the russian navy have deployed to the Med. The ships in question are the carrier Admiral Kuznetsov og two anti-submarine ships. Must be of the Udaloy class then.

These ships belong to the northern fleet and will sail along the norwegian coast, west of the UK, and in the Gib. straight.

Find it strange that a submarine is not along for the trip, or the Kirov and Slava class. The Udaloys to not have the SAM capabillity that you would expect from a CVBG.

Any thoughts on this? Pretty show, also training. Besides, Kuznezov itself have quite capable SAM's. SSN or SSBN might well follow the order without public attention...
All in all, i wouldnt take it serious and draw any conclusion. It is not military operation, just crew training.

[Firehorse]

Not just exercises:
According to a Kremlin transcript, Mr Serdyukov told Mr Putin on Wednesday that the "aim of the sorties is to ensure a naval presence in tactically important regions of the world's oceans".
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7129545.stm

[Galrahn]

Any thoughts on this?

I have a few (http://informationdissemination.blogspot.com/2007/12/russian-navy-deploying-cvbg-to.html), the Russian media has been calling for forward deployments, it appears Putin was listening.

[jennery587]

I see some new agencies are reporting that the russian navy have deployed to the Med. The ships in question are the carrier Admiral Kuznetsov og two anti-submarine ships. Must be of the Udaloy class then.

These ships belong to the northern fleet and will sail along the norwegian coast, west of the UK, and in the Gib. straight.

Find it strange that a submarine is not along for the trip, or the Kirov and Slava class. The Udaloys to not have the SAM capabillity that you would expect from a CVBG.

Any thoughts on this?



THEY ARE RUSSIAN NEVER TRUST THEM,:unknown YOU JUST DONT KNOW

Mod edit: Do not write in call caps, it is considered shouting and is rude. Also, when posting, post more than a single so that members understand the response, otherwise nothing is added to a discussion. Lastly, do not make negative comments about other countries or cultures, that is the playground of a bigot and is not appreciated here.

[Galrahn]

When you look at the details of this, it really highlights the exercise as a political gamble, apparently with big risk, but I'm assuming someone in Moscow also sees a big reward.

[Jon K]

When you look at the details of this, it really highlights the exercise as a political gamble, apparently with big risk, but I'm assuming someone in Moscow also sees a big reward.

I don't know enough about recent Russian Navy operations, but wouldn't it be prudent to check out capabilities for prolonged deployment in home waters before actually committing Russian Navy units for a missions which could well bring shame against very minor rewards?

I mean, what is the reward, really? Quite small European navies are able to deploy four warships somewhere for a training cruise. But of course the most important battle for Russian Navy will be the Battle over Budget fought in Kremlin...

[Firehorse]

Russia is also looking forward to expanding its navy action zones, begun with an Aug. 3 project to establish naval bases in the Mediterranean, especially in Syria.
http://washingtontimes.com/article/20071206/COMMENTARY/112060012/1012
Russia launches first naval power build-up in the Mediterranean
President Vladimir Putin and defense minister Anatoly Serdyukov decided to send a sortie of six Russian warships, led by the Admiral Kuznetsov aircraft carrier and the Moskva guided missile cruiser, to the Mediterranean. This will be the first prolonged stay of a Russian carrier to the eastern Mediterranean vicinity of Israel’s shores and waters patrolled by the US Sixth Fleet. On its decks are 47 warplanes and 10 helicopters. The Moskva is the Russian Navy’s Black Sea flagship.
According to our Moscow sources, the Kremlin is determined not to be left lagging behind the new Bush administration’s steps towards an accommodation with Iran, which were signaled by the US National Intelligence Estimate absolving Tehran of running a military nuclear program from 2003.
DEBKAfile’s military sources report that the Russian fleet, which has already set out for its new mission from the North and Black Seas, will have the use of naval facilities at Syria’s Tartous port. Its presence for several months will be a complication for the Israel navy’s operations opposite the Lebanese and Syrian coasts, especially if the Russians are joined at Tartous by Iranian submarines or warships.
The Kremlin also decided to send a sortie of ships to the northeastern Atlantic. http://www.debka.com/headline.php?hid=4839

IMO, the fleet will be there to monitor E.Med. Sea- it left port prior to the latest NIE regarding Iran.

[Galrahn]

Jon,

Hopefully this will answer some your questions (http://informationdissemination.blogspot.com/2007/12/brief-analysis-of-russian-mediterranean.html).

Firehorse, I find naval analysis from DEBKA about as useful as sandpaper as a substitute for toilet paper.

Any analysis that doesn't highlight the CVBG including the Nikolai Chiker is probably being made from a political partisan, not a naval analyst. It is the most noteworthy aspect of this entire deployment.

[Patzek]

I sure do remember the last time the Russian aircraft carrier was here -1996.
It almost ended in a shot down of a Su-33 that was directed to Israel and did not listen to the warnings.

The strange thing was, that after the first one flew back to the ship, few days later, another one came the exact same way.
4 F-16 and several Ground-Air batteries were locked on it, yet it just did aerobatics and try to out-maunever the F-16, which were locked on it the whole time.

This incident called in Israel " Meetings from the russian kind ", it was published in the IAF magazine.

This was in the times before 9\11, nowdays it would get shut down long before

[Firehorse]

I haven't heard of this incident, -can you post some links? But, there were also close calls involving, as I recall, Germans and Israelis in Lebanon.
Russian navy to start sorties in Mediterranean
Wed Dec 5, 2007 4:16pm EST
By Guy Faulconbridge

MOSCOW (Reuters) - Russia said on Wednesday it would start the first major navy sortie into the Mediterranean since Soviet times, the latest move by an increasingly assertive Moscow to demonstrate its military might.

"The aim of the sorties is to ensure a naval presence in tactically important regions of the world ocean," Defense Minister Anatoly Serdyukov told President Vladimir Putin, who wished the sailors well. The rest of the meeting was closed.

Serdyukov said 11 ships, including an aircraft carrier, would take part in the sortie and be backed up by 47 aircraft -- including strategic bombers.

Buoyed by huge oil revenues, Russia under Putin has been boosting military spending while at the same time using diplomacy to broaden Moscow's influence.

Earlier this year Putin announced that long-range strategic bombers would resume patrols around the world and Russia's long-range nuclear forces have test-fired new missiles.

But analysts say the navy, once the focus of national pride and symbol of the Soviet Union's military might, is still reeling from more than a decade of underfunding.

A series of accidents -- such as the sinking of the Kursk nuclear submarine in 2000 -- have hurt the Russian navy's reputation at home and abroad.

Serdyukov said the navy's flagship aircraft carrier, the Admiral Kuznetsov, and anti-submarine ships had set out for the Mediterranean on Wednesday from the Northern Fleet's base in Severomorsk, in the Arctic Circle.

Black Sea fleet ships and aircraft support would meet them in the Mediterranean. He said military exercises would be held during the sorties and that the group would visit six foreign states. He did not name them.

He also said Northern Fleet would make sorties into the northern Atlantic.
Russia has long been talking about reviving a permanent naval base in the Mediterranean. During the Cold War, the Soviet navy had a permanent presence on the Mediterranean, using the Syrian port of Tartus as a supply point.
http://www.reuters.com/articlePrint?articleId=USL0518563620071205

[XaNDeR]

I sure do remember the last time the Russian aircraft carrier was here -1996.
It almost ended in a shot down of a Su-33 that was directed to Israel and did not listen to the warnings.

The strange thing was, that after the first one flew back to the ship, few days later, another one came the exact same way.
4 F-16 and several Ground-Air batteries were locked on it, yet it just did aerobatics and try to out-maunever the F-16, which were locked on it the whole time.

This incident called in Israel " Meetings from the russian kind ", it was published in the IAF magazine.

This was in the times before 911, nowdays it would get shut down long before


1st of all Russians proovoked IAF back then and im sure nobody in the world is that stupid too fly into soverin airspace on a normal flight path not even close too flying low , well inside the other country's air cover and " THINK " that he isn't locked on or that he can outmanouver the ground air defence ?
That was simply a provocation and you even claim in this post that Su-33 is a bad aircraft , thats what I sensed from you ... hmmmmmmmmm......... Lets see im wondering what naval aircraft on a aircraft carrier has better capability's than Su-33? hmmmmmm .... Last time I checked even Super bugs were lacking behind , im not feeling alot of comprehension from your behalf.

[Chrom]

1st of all Russians proovoked IAF back then and im sure nobody in the world is that stupid too fly into soverin airspace on a normal flight path not even close too flying low , well inside the other country's air cover and " THINK " that he isn't locked on or that he can outmanouver the ground air defence ?
That was simply a provocation and you even claim in this post that Su-33 is a bad aircraft , thats what I sensed from you ... hmmmmmmmmm......... Lets see im wondering what naval aircraft on a aircraft carrier has better capability's than Su-33? hmmmmmm .... Last time I checked even Super bugs were lacking behind , im not feeling alot of comprehension from your behalf.

While i generally like russian aircrafts... but here i couldnt agree. F-18 was definitly better than Su-33. Su-33 have better airframe, but otherwise it fall short on avionic and weapon loadout. Upgraded Su-33 is different matter, but russians still use old ones.

[Grand Danois]

I haven't heard of this incident, -can you post some links? But, there were also close calls involving, as I recall, Germans and Israelis in Lebanon."The aim of the sorties is to ensure a naval presence in tactically important regions of the world ocean," Defense Minister Anatoly Serdyukov told President Vladimir Putin, who wished the sailors well. The rest of the meeting was closed.

http://www.reuters.com/articlePrint?articleId=USL0518563620071205


I certainly hope the Russian defmin knows the difference between tactical and strategic...

I agree with Galrahn that the purpose of this cruise is for the Russians to get some confidence in their ability to deploy plus the assoc training. (Nice spot wrt the fleet tugs, btw)

Flagwaving is also a motif.

As to the geostrategic impact? Small, if not zero. Consider ops tempo of the USN or even the RN carriers and notice how they cover all parameters 'round the year.

Vs a two month cruise.

This is not presence.

[XaNDeR]

While i generally like russian aircrafts... but here i couldnt agree. F-18 was definitly better than Su-33. Su-33 have better airframe, but otherwise it fall short on avionic and weapon loadout. Upgraded Su-33 is different matter, but russians still use old ones.

Agree with you Chrome , the new Su-33 is still not used , rather they use old version , but I heard they will replace them.
Btw the old Su-33 is still very good and comparable ,though it does have limited carry capability ( only limited weapons ) and only decent avionics .. but the max takeoff weight is still bigger than super bug , bigger range , service celling .. and for that id rate it as a very effective aircraft for attacking lang targets.

[Bearcat]

The russian military talks big and backs it up with whispers. I suspect most of what has been said in the russian media, is designed to boost domestic morale. What they call "deployments", the western military call "local naval exercises". But the average russian does not know where their navy is operating, so they think "russia is flexing it's mucles again", and the morale boost is acomplished.

I'm not talking about the current deployment, because it's real. But for the past few years the northern fleet has been operating in the Barents sea, hardly crossing into the northern atlantic, and in the russian media we can read about them "sailing the world seas".

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?

In 2004 and 2005 they did deploy for a month in the north atlantic. If my memory serves me right, in 2004 Kuznetsov trailed a 10 mile long oil slick and on 2005 the same ship left a SU-27 Flanker D on the bottom of the ocean, as a wire snapped when the 27 landed. But the carrier did have proper escort both times. But not now. Why? Is Putin so desperate to have a carrier deployment to the med under his presidency, that he orders it even though the navy is not prepared for it?

On another note. I see that the situation in Kosovo might be heating up. Kosovo is prepared to declare it's independence from Serbia, and most of the NATO countries will accept this. But the russians will only accept this if the serbs do. I see dark clouds on the Balkan horizon, and this time, the russians might have a large naval presence there...

[XaNDeR]

The russian military talks big and backs it up with whispers. I suspect most of what has been said in the russian media, is designed to boost domestic morale. What they call "deployments", the western military call "local naval exercises". But the average russian does not know where their navy is operating, so they think "russia is flexing it's mucles again", and the morale boost is acomplished.

I'm not talking about the current deployment, because it's real. But for the past few years the northern fleet has been operating in the Barents sea, hardly crossing into the northern atlantic, and in the russian media we can read about them "sailing the world seas".

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?

In 2004 and 2005 they did deploy for a month in the north atlantic. If my memory serves me right, in 2004 Kuznetsov trailed a 10 mile long oil slick and on 2005 the same ship left a SU-27 Flanker D on the bottom of the ocean, as a wire snapped when the 27 landed. But the carrier did have proper escort both times. But not now. Why? Is Putin so desperate to have a carrier deployment to the med under his presidency, that he orders it even though the navy is not prepared for it?

On another note. I see that the situation in Kosovo might be heating up. Kosovo is prepared to declare it's independence from Serbia, and most of the NATO countries will accept this. But the russians will only accept this if the serbs do. I see dark clouds on the Balkan horizon, and this time, the russians might have a large naval presence there...


Of course they can't build 7 carriers in 12 years , I doubt that even USA can , that was just too optimistic.

About not putting Slava or Kirovs .. well .. Kuznetsov has such a defence its like 4 escorts , the Kuznetsov is also a huge cruiser besides beeing a aircraft carrier , its protection is very powerfull... :D

[andrei]

Russian navy is in the Med because of the Kosovo situation. Russia and the west oppose on this issue, Russia supports the Serb view, that Kosovo should be autonomous but not independent while the US and most of the Eu seem likely to recognise the independence of the province and the albanian grievences as they did in 1999.
If Kosovo secedes from Serbia, one can expect the Serbian north of Kosovo - where most of Serbs live - to procclaim their independence and maybe even the Bosnian Serb republic - the serb part of Bosnia - to seek to rejoin Serbia. If one is allowed to redraw maps based on ethnic majority (i.e. Kosovo), why not the others ?
Serbia is too weak to support these movements, officially at least but some irregulars and weapons delivery may take place. So the Russian navy is there to ensure that there will be no other bombing of Serbia by Nato , no EU /US Goliath showing off in force against the small Serbia. I cannot imagine Russia with Putin now allowing NATO to bomb Serbian towns.

[tphuang]

Agree with you Chrome , the new Su-33 is still not used , rather they use old version , but I heard they will replace them.
Btw the old Su-33 is still very good and comparable ,though it does have limited carry capability ( only limited weapons ) and only decent avionics .. but the max takeoff weight is still bigger than super bug , bigger range , service celling .. and for that id rate it as a very effective aircraft for attacking lang targets.
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.

[Bearcat]

Of course they can't build 7 carriers in 12 years , I doubt that even USA can , that was just too optimistic.

About not putting Slava or Kirovs .. well .. Kuznetsov has such a defence its like 4 escorts , the Kuznetsov is also a huge cruiser besides beeing a aircraft carrier , its protection is very powerfull... :D

4 escorts? What will Nikolai Chiker and Sergei Osipov contribute to the defence of the CVBG? Admiral Chabanenko and Admiral Levchenko do bring about some defences but not as much SAM capabillity as you see from a NATO CVBG. The SA-N-9 and SA-N-11 does not have sufficient range. Far as I know, the Kuznetsov does not have any better SAMs aboard. But it does pack a mean punch with it's 12 SS-N-19 Shipwrecks, but as the name suggests, this is not a surface to air missile...

The lack of a proper escort and the fact that a tug is included on this deployment, suggest that this voyage is taken with a fair amount of risk.

[Spacearrow99]

The Moskva is a Slava class cruiser

[XaNDeR]

4 escorts? What will Nikolai Chiker and Sergei Osipov contribute to the defence of the CVBG? Admiral Chabanenko and Admiral Levchenko do bring about some defences but not as much SAM capabillity as you see from a NATO CVBG. The SA-N-9 and SA-N-11 does not have sufficient range. Far as I know, the Kuznetsov does not have any better SAMs aboard. But it does pack a mean punch with it's 12 SS-N-19 Shipwrecks, but as the name suggests, this is not a surface to air missile...

The lack of a proper escort and the fact that a tug is included on this deployment, suggest that this voyage is taken with a fair amount of risk.

Besides having a fighter wing the Kuznetsov also has Granit Anti ship missiles , VLS system with 192 SA missiles , 24 ASW helicopters , ASW rocket launchers , 8 Kashtans that have 256 combined missiles , and 8 further AA guns , if thats not amazing amarment then I have no clue what is a amazing aircraft carrier amarment.

[XaNDeR]

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.

I can't answer that question , I have no clue how limited the fuel or payload capacity of the Su-33 is when they are taking off from STOBAR but the original payload and range are superior too the hornet , that was my point , as an aircraft , if the USN would use it on their carriers it would have superior range and payload capacity.

[rickusn]

"The lack of a proper escort and the fact that a tug is included on this deployment, suggest that this voyage is taken with a fair amount of risk."

Too much is made of the tug.

The USN always has one close by and/or shore bases/ports/facilities/ repair/towing assets available for contingenices and emergencies its only a prudent measure.

And tells me the Russian Navy is still a very professional force despite the challenges it faces and some detrimental hisory that colors its operations.

You just dont hear about the USN tugs because those ships are too slow to be included in the battlegroup per se and they are manned by the civilian MSC force. But again I assure you they are close by.

Same holds for the majority of the USN replenishment force( Only the four AOEs normally deploy with a battle group as they are fast enough).

As for the escorts, the Udaloys, those are the best the Russian Navy has to offer at the moment and have been the workhorses of this navy for at least a decade.

[kilo]

The SU-33 can add to the air defense of the carrier group. They could use their R-27EM missiles against cruise missiles. I think the biggest problem for this group would be detecting threats without giving away their position.

In my opinion the best solution would be to have a standing combat air patrol of 4-6 SU-33 armed for cruise missile/air defense guided by 1 or both of the carrier's Ka-31 AEW helos. In addition the group could use it's 19 Ka-27 ASW helos as decoys. The only thing emitting should be the helos.

[tphuang]

The SU-33 can add to the air defense of the carrier group. They could use their R-27EM missiles against cruise missiles. I think the biggest problem for this group would be detecting threats without giving away their position.

In my opinion the best solution would be to have a standing combat air patrol of 4-6 SU-33 armed for cruise missile/air defense guided by 1 or both of the carrier's Ka-31 AEW helos. In addition the group could use it's 19 Ka-27 ASW helos as decoys. The only thing emitting should be the helos.
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.

[funtz]

The SU-33 can add to the air defense of the carrier group. They could use their R-27EM missiles against cruise missiles. I think the biggest problem for this group would be detecting threats without giving away their position.

In my opinion the best solution would be to have a standing combat air patrol of 4-6 SU-33 armed for cruise missile/air defense guided by 1 or both of the carrier's Ka-31 AEW helos. In addition the group could use it's 19 Ka-27 ASW helos as decoys. The only thing emitting should be the helos.

Will that be required, who in the region will launch a weapon at these Russian vessle, I think going there and coming back will be all that they will do.

If the Russians are going to expand the navy, in the way they say they will, might as well roam around a bit to see if they have still got it. Otherwise why bother having these vessels operational.

Few media clips showing a couple of Su 33 and other aircrafts taking off and landing on the carrier will be nice, may be some of the super duper maneuverability and a couple of flares.

[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 (http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/gi_0199-6691604/RUSSIA-FUTURE-CARRIER-TO-BE.html), 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 (http://www.scramble.nl/wiki/index.php?title=Sukhoi_Su-33#Su-33) 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 (http://www.defense-update.com/analysis/analysis_091207_navy.htm)
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 (http://www.upi.com/International_Security/Industry/Analysis/2007/12/10/defense_focus_why_buy_russian_--_part_1/7500/) 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 (http://www.scramble.nl/wiki/index.php?title=Sukhoi_Su-33#Su-33) 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.