Russian Navy Discussions and Updates

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Some more info on the Project 10831 Losharik submarine. Also the Kremlin have released details on the crew who have died.

There are no flowers on a sailor’s grave
No lilies on an ocean wave
The only tribute is the seagulls sweep
And the tears upon a loved one’s cheek
Fear not for those who go down to the sea in ships
For as sunset draws near and dawn breaks afar
We remember those who have crossed the bar.

 

Feanor

Super Moderator
Staff member
A comparison of the current 11711 BDK and the new 11711s laid down. It shows just how much larger they are.

В сравнении

The Amur shipbuilding plant has laid down two 22800 small missile ships for the Pacific fleet. It looks like the future of the Pacific fleet is going to be small. 6 20380/385 corvettes, 6 636.3 subs, and 6 22800 small missile ships.

На Амурском судостроительном заводе заложены малые ракетные корабли «Ржев» и «Удомля» проекта 22800

Two new 677 Lada subs were contracted at Army-2019. It looks like they've finalized some format for the type, and the 636.3 for the Pacific fleet are probably the last for the VMF.

Контракт на две подводные лодки проекта 677 для ВМФ России

The Omsk, a project 949A submarine has returned to service after a lengthy overhaul, while work continues on upgrading other subs of the type.

"Омск": плюс 3,5
 

Feanor

Super Moderator
Staff member
Details have surfaced regarding the accident on the Losharik deepwater nuke station. Apparently the cause of the explosion was a new lithium-ion battery installed during a recent refit. Apparently the Losharik's official number is AS-31 not AS-12 as originally reported. It also appears that the DNS was docked to it's carrier submarine at the time, which explains why it was so important to prevent the fire from spreading. The other crew sealed the central section, exited to the carrier sub, and flooded the DNS with seawater.

Литий-ионная аккумуляторная батарея стала причиной пожара на атомной глубоководной станции АС-31
 

ASSAIL

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
A comparison of the current 11711 BDK and the new 11711s laid down. It shows just how much larger they are.

В сравнении

The Amur shipbuilding plant has laid down two 22800 small missile ships for the Pacific fleet. It looks like the future of the Pacific fleet is going to be small. 6 20380/385 corvettes, 6 636.3 subs, and 6 22800 small missile ships.

На Амурском судостроительном заводе заложены малые ракетные корабли «Ржев» и «Удомля» проекта 22800

Two new 677 Lada subs were contracted at Army-2019. It looks like they've finalized some format for the type, and the 636.3 for the Pacific fleet are probably the last for the VMF.

Контракт на две подводные лодки проекта 677 для ВМФ России

The Omsk, a project 949A submarine has returned to service after a lengthy overhaul, while work continues on upgrading other subs of the type.

"Омск": плюс 3,5
Why the attachment to a bow door? I would have thought that docks and a variety of beaching craft are well within their capability.
Their cooperation with the French, even though aborted, would indicate they wanted to go down that path.
 

Feanor

Super Moderator
Staff member
Some modification, it's a complete redesign, effectively a new ship.
And the largest newbuilt warship the VMF is receiving. Although the recent display at the arms show in St. Petersburg is rather ridiculous, claiming it can take up to 12 helos (10 transport and 2 search and rescue). It also claims the type can take 6 45 tonn landing boats and 6 small assault boats. I strongly suspect that an airgroup of 12 helos and 6 landing boats are mutually exclusive, at best. And either loadout seems far too large to maintain normal operations. It really remains to be see what these ships really turn out to be. Even the weapons are unclear, the display claims two Duet AA stations and a 76mm gun, while the sideways projection shows one Duet AA station, and that's it.

12 селёдок в стакане "Кайман" от "Невского"

Why the attachment to a bow door? I would have thought that docks and a variety of beaching craft are well within their capability.
Their cooperation with the French, even though aborted, would indicate they wanted to go down that path.
Yeah I can't really answer that, but they seem committed to having the ability to drop a ramp on to a beach.
 

Stampede

Well-Known Member
Some thoughts on a recent article I read in the latest Australian Warship magazine

Titled Russia's Carrier Dilemma, it highlights the many challenges ahead for this aging Carrier.
Recently the Admiral Kuznetsov went in for a long awaited major overhaul. The ship has for many years had reliability problems and as the sole aircraft carrier of the Russian navy, it has been a challenge for that service to both hold onto, and have some sort of deployable carrier capacity.
Things have been made worst by a major accident to the ship, when a large crane fell and damaged the ship while in refit in the PD-50 floating dock holding the vessel. The resulting 5 metre hole may have being the bridge too far for the ships future in Russian service.
Apparently their is now some serious questioning as to the viability of refitting the Admiral Kuznetsov and weather money would be better spent else where on other naval programs.

So where to now.
A lot will depend on the condition of the ship.
If it still has some years left in it, but is beyond the judgement of the Russian defence force to keep it, then there is the real possibility it will be sold as a naval asset and not just scrap metal.
This may very well happen, as there are better fits for Russia's navy than a large fleet carrier.
The failed attempt at acquiring four Mistral Class LHD's would be one.
So who would be interested in a large 29 year old Aircraft Carrier that needs some love.

The only two counties that could carry it off would be India and China.
Both have Aircraft carriers with a ramp for take-off and arrestor gears for landing.
Both have the interest and capability to build and crew such a ship. Both want to grow the numbers of such a ship within their fleet.
The challenge for India is their seemingly slow and inefficient ship building capacity.
I'd suggest they have enough on their plate dealing with current ship building projects, so that leaves just one candidate.........................China.

China already has the sister ship of the Admiral Kuznetsov, in the now named Type 001, Liaoning.
While the Liaoning has had a massive rebuild, it does share much of the Kutnetsov's attributes.
Depending on the Russian ships condition, it may very well be an attractive purchase for the PLAN.
If the ship is redeemable with some investment in repairs, it would provide a relatively quick addition to China's aspiration of growing it's carrier force.
Even if it provides just a training capability only;freeing up Chin'a first carrier Liaoning to perform a more robust Aircraft Carrier role, then that would be something.

Both China and Russia have a respectable relationship these days so politically it may work.

Russia may need a ego check of having a large Aircraft carrier balanced against the reality check of what they can really do with this old ship.
China has the skill base ,desire and capacity to do a much better job at refitting the Admiral Kutnetsov.
Potentially they may be able to have FOUR working Aircraft Carriers by the mid 2020's

These ships may not be a Ford Class Aircraft Carrier, but it would certainly give the PLAN some significant naval posturing in both her neighbourhood and beyond.

A very interesting situation.

Thoughts and regards Stampede
 

Ranger25

Active Member
Staff member
Even given the blue water aspirations of the Russian fleet I don’t see a strategic imperative to own a carrier for them. They have an airbase now in Latkia and plenty of bases for long range patrol and strike aircraft domestically. Generally the same thoughts can apply to the PLAN especially now with all the new island airfields in the SCS. Given the proliferation of ASHM and perceived vulnerabilities of a CSG why bother other than wanting to be a part of the CV Club.
 

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Even given the blue water aspirations of the Russian fleet I don’t see a strategic imperative to own a carrier for them. They have an airbase now in Latkia and plenty of bases for long range patrol and strike aircraft domestically. Generally the same thoughts can apply to the PLAN especially now with all the new island airfields in the SCS. Given the proliferation of ASHM and perceived vulnerabilities of a CSG why bother other than wanting to be a part of the CV Club.
Same reasons why the US, UK, France, India and some other nations have CVs. Plus the fact that the Chicoms intend to project global force.
 

Stampede

Well-Known Member
Even given the blue water aspirations of the Russian fleet I don’t see a strategic imperative to own a carrier for them. They have an airbase now in Latkia and plenty of bases for long range patrol and strike aircraft domestically. Generally the same thoughts can apply to the PLAN especially now with all the new island airfields in the SCS. Given the proliferation of ASHM and perceived vulnerabilities of a CSG why bother other than wanting to be a part of the CV Club.

Hi Ranger 25

I agree Russia would be better off not pursuing the refit and continuation of a heavy Aircraft carrier within her fleet, and would be much better off allocating money and training elsewhere.
As to the CV club; my view is that for those large maritime nations that can afford this capability, it still has a relevance for both now and into the future.
A carrier and it's escorts have both attribute's and limitations!
Going forward navy planners with much better knowledge than myself, have deemed this capability necessary, and this is reflected not only in the number of aircraft carriers today, but also reflected in the over all increase in the number of Carriers for the future.
This trend does not include the interesting growth in V/stol carriers / LHD type ships which are also on the increase.
Time will tell if the above investment is correct.
As to China,the PLAN certainly do aspire to the capability and this is reflected in their fast pasted Carrier Build program.
This will give China a robust long distance maritime force not seen by them for some 600 years.
This is for a capability beyond her "Island Aircraft Carriers."
So the question is?
Would they take up the opportunity to get the Admiral Kuznetsov if it's to be disposed of and yet be good enough to refit.

Regards S
 
The Russian 2018-2027 state armament program does not include an aircraft carrier.

Вице-премьер Борисов считает спорным вопрос о необходимости создания нового авианосца -.

Rob Lee on Twitter

The fourth icebreaker is the lk-40 lng icebreaker. The old plan was to build universal nuclear icebreakers, (project 10570) after the 22220 were built. But the lk-40 cost about $1 billion for all four, so 10570 were dropped.



All major shipyard that can build carriers will be booked with orders until atleast 2025 (probably longer with delays). Novatek wants all of lk-40 built by 2024.
 
Last edited:

Ananda

The Bunker Group
IMDS 2019: Lamantin-class aircraft carrier possible electromagnetic catapult

This is not a new article, but looking to the model of this Lamantin class CV, I just wondering why if they can already put EMALS on the design, then why still keep elevated bow/ Sky Jump for STOBAR. This design of combination of STOBAR and CATOBAR, I don't know..I just don't get it.

As for Shipyard, found this video on the work for Zvezda Shipyard in Far East part of Russia. Seems they are now try to follow Chinese steps on building large commercial Shipyard with can also used for Naval development like what Shanghai has.

 
Last edited:

KiwiRob

Well-Known Member
The Russian 2018-2027 state armament program does not include an aircraft carrier.

Вице-премьер Борисов считает спорным вопрос о необходимости создания нового авианосца -.

Rob Lee on Twitter

The fourth icebreaker is the lk-40 lng icebreaker. The old plan was to build universal nuclear icebreakers, (project 10570) after the 22220 were built. But the lk-40 cost about $1 billion for all four, so 10570 were dropped.



All major shipyard that can build carriers will be booked with orders until atleast 2025 (probably longer with delays). Novatek wants all of lk-40 built by 2024.
What do you mean by all the major shipyards that can built carriers? There are no shipyards at the moment who could build one, the yards that bid build them are in Ukraine. There's also a big difference in having a yard that can build one and actually building one. Zvezda will have the ability once the new drydock is built but do they have the skilled workers in place to put it together? I'd say no is the answer.
 

Feanor

Super Moderator
Staff member
What do you mean by all the major shipyards that can built carriers? There are no shipyards at the moment who could build one, the yards that bid build them are in Ukraine. There's also a big difference in having a yard that can build one and actually building one. Zvezda will have the ability once the new drydock is built but do they have the skilled workers in place to put it together? I'd say no is the answer.
I think he means "all even remotely possible candidates". Obviously Russia is not ready to begin construction now or any time soon, what with there not even being an approved design.
 
JSC Zvezda Shipyard (part of USC) submarine repair yard and DMSE Zvezda shipyard (controlled by Gazprom and Rosneft) are two separate companies. The second Goliath crane has been raised into position and the drydock is scheduled to be completed in 2020. Rosneft and Gazprom are not under sanctions, so South Koreans are still helping to Russians with the new mega yard.

На судоверфи «Звезда» смонтирован второй кран «Голиаф»

Путин дал старт строительству первого мегатанкера на заводе «Звезда»

After the construction of lng and nuclear icebreakers, Baltic could then start building carriers for Russian Navy.
 

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Coming into this late and Feanor may be able to answer this:
  1. Is there any political will in Russia at the moment to build CVs?
  2. Considering funding requirements for the modernisation and re-equipping of all of the Russian military forces - that is naval ground, air and rocket, would new CVs be regarded as priority expenditure?
  3. Does Russia consider the VMF surface fleet as a regional or global force?
Think that about covers it. I believe those are the questions that need answering before any talk of new Russian CVs gets into the nitty gritty of shipyards etc.
 

Feanor

Super Moderator
Staff member
Coming into this late and Feanor may be able to answer this:
  1. Is there any political will in Russia at the moment to build CVs?
In principle, yes. However, whether this leads to an actual project is unclear.

  1. Considering funding requirements for the modernisation and re-equipping of all of the Russian military forces - that is naval ground, air and rocket, would new CVs be regarded as priority expenditure?
Hypothetically, yes, if the decision is made, they could be a priority. However the VMF has been cursed with a series of less then impressive commanders leading to utter chaos in planning and development. A long time ago (early 2000s) there was a clear though somewhat questionable image of the VMF's future; corvette - project 20380, frigate - project 22350, large landing ships - project 11711, destroyer - OKR "Leader", aircraft carrier of unknown design at a future date. This vision got sidetracked when 1) shipyards ended up massively delaying production of corvettes and frigates 2) a report in 2010 clearly showed that the Black Sea Fleet would be reduced to a green water flotilla + a single cruiser by 2020 if emergency actions weren't taken and 3) the requirements for the 22350 frigates and OKR Leader destroyers didn't get out of hand. With the 22350 this merely delayed the development cycle due to an over-ambitious SAM design (as well some troubles with Ukrainian engines both before and after the 2014 crisis) but with OKR Leader poor planning really destroyed the project. It started out as a requirement for a destroyer, something that looked like it would turn out in the 8000-10000 tonn range but was quickly saddled with requirements for ASAT and a massive missile load, compounded by the lack of a viable conventional powerplant in production, and the result was a proposed nuclear-powered cruiser whose construction keeps getting pushed back. Meanwhile various VMF heads introduced pet projects like the 22160 patrol boats (better suited to the FSB Coast Guard fleet then the VMF, and in fact the FSB operates ships very similar to these), the Mistral purchase, the mass production of small missile ships as cruise missile platforms, etc. Some of these side projects are arguably a good idea and some of them fit with the original idea of the future VMF (though not the same ones :rolleyes:) but the end result has been that 22350 production is in the toilet, with only 2 produced and only 4 more under construction, the 677 subs delayed beyond all reason, and a new destroyer or heavy frigate based around the 22350M project, while the OKR Leader continues to plug away at meeting all of the VMF requirements with proposed production allegedly now scaled down to merely 8 units and this is before any metal has even been cut.

Buried within this giant mess are 3 catastrophic problems, areas in which the VMF is deficient beyond all reason; namely 1) ASW 2) minesweeping and 3) torpedoes. ASW is currently stuck in the late 70s, technologically speaking with less then 10 Il-38N aircraft offering anything beyond that, with the very limited Novella complex (nothing anywhere near the capabilities of the USN, or the Japanese for example). Minesweeping is even worse off, it's not only stuck in the late 70s but there's also no end in sight. There is a production run of new minesweepers going with a French USV being tested for them, but it physically doesn't fit on the ships, and their own organic gear is sub-par. Basically a whole program will have to be run to equip these ships, and to the best of my knowledge it's not even begun. With torpedoes the situation is marginally better as the relatively modern Fizik torpedoes have finally began to arrive in VMF arsenals. However the VMF subs badly lack training with torpedoes, and even these new torpedoes have an antiquated control system. In this area Russian industry does offer better solutions but it appears that lobbying along with notorious levels of corruption have led to the funny but sad situation where Russia exported torpedoes with better controls to China in the early 2000s then what the VMF is purchasing for its own use now.

On top of this the 11711s have been redesigned to the point where what they're producing on the 3rd and 4th hulls are essentially whole new ships with some similarities, the project for upgrading Soviet era nuke subs, or even keeping them operational through overhauls, has hit production delays on par with the corvette and frigate programs back in the 2000s, and there is now an ongoing program for upgrading the Soviet 1155 destroyers with modern missile systems, due to the lack of a new destroyer.

Unfortunately the answer to your question is a qualified yes. While, in my opinion, a new CV should not be a priority project, it's entirely possible, likely even, that if a decision is made by yet another VMF head, and gets enough publicity/visibility from political leadership, then it would become a priority, to the detraction of other programs. It would likely take forever to build, have maintenance issues like its predecessor, and would likely be a single vessels, maybe two if the economy does well, and the politicians push hard. The same way that OKR Leader has morphed into a Kirov battlecruiser replacement, against all sense and reason.

  1. Does Russia consider the VMF surface fleet as a regional or global force?
Think that about covers it. I believe those are the questions that need answering before any talk of new Russian CVs gets into the nitty gritty of shipyards etc.
Global. Definitely global. Though their ability to meet this consideration is questionable.

The reason the shipyard question matters is because of what I wrote above. If a VMF chief gets it into their head that they must have a carrier to replace the Kuznetsov, and there is a yard that (wanting the work and the money) says "we can do this" and can at least plausibly show that they might be able to do it, the project could get a green light at the very top, and end up as a priority for the next 15 years, eating huge resources that are badly needed elsewhere.
 

KiwiRob

Well-Known Member
JSC Zvezda Shipyard (part of USC) submarine repair yard and DMSE Zvezda shipyard (controlled by Gazprom and Rosneft) are two separate companies. The second Goliath crane has been raised into position and the drydock is scheduled to be completed in 2020. Rosneft and Gazprom are not under sanctions, so South Koreans are still helping to Russians with the new mega yard.

На судоверфи «Звезда» смонтирован второй кран «Голиаф»

Путин дал старт строительству первого мегатанкера на заводе «Звезда»

After the construction of lng and nuclear icebreakers, Baltic could then start building carriers for Russian Navy.
Rosneft and Gasprom are under USFC Sanctions, I know this from first hand experience. Baltic couldn't build a carrier, they don't have the facilities for a vessel that size, if they did then the Navy wouldn't have any problem finding a facility to refit Kuznetsov, they could use Baltic.
 
Top