Russian Navy Discussions and Updates

Feanor

Super Moderator
Staff member
The An-148 partnership was made at a time Russia when was willing to invest in Ukrainian military-industrial complex. Russians at the time could have instead invested in their own, which is what they have done since 2014. This deal has had many critics, as Russia has had its own domestic project in the same category as the An-148.
Sorry, just so we're clear, I'm not defending the decision to purchase the An-148 for the Russian military. And in fact the military didn't want the aircraft, and didn't pay for it. The purchase was made from a separate federal program to support domestic aircraft manufacturing. With a separate fund paying for the purchase, the MinDef accepted the aircraft. As for a competing project domestically, do you mean the SSJ? Because it has too many American components that could be subject to sanctions. Or do you mean the Tu-334? Which is dead, and should stay that way.
 

SolarWind

Member
Sorry, just so we're clear, I'm not defending the decision to purchase the An-148 for the Russian military. And in fact the military didn't want the aircraft, and didn't pay for it. The purchase was made from a separate federal program to support domestic aircraft manufacturing. With a separate fund paying for the purchase, the MinDef accepted the aircraft. As for a competing project domestically, do you mean the SSJ? Because it has too many American components that could be subject to sanctions. Or do you mean the Tu-334? Which is dead, and should stay that way.
This is kind of off-topic and I am not an expert in this subject, but I will try to respond. The Tu-334 and An-148 do seem to have a roughly similar project timeline, with decision to discontinue Tu-334 for good coming close to the time that first serial An-148 manufactured at VASO in Voronezh flew for the first time. The fact that Tu-334 has not been picked up after 2014 does seem to further suggest that the Russian military may simply not need this class of aircraft as much and that the An-148 partnership was a means to support the Ukrainian industry. I could be wrong since I am getting this off of Wikipedia, and I am not sure how important this really is, but I am just trying to respond to Feanor's question.

Edit: My main point is that Ukraine has seemed to continue to partner with Russia on projects that benefit Ukraine more than they benefit Russia, and these projects also do not seem as important for the Russian military. Such as the Be-200 and An-148.
 
Last edited:

Feanor

Super Moderator
Staff member
This is kind of off-topic and I am not an expert in this subject, but I will try to respond. The Tu-334 and An-148 do seem to have a roughly similar project timeline, with decision to discontinue Tu-334 for good coming close to the time that first serial An-148 manufactured at VASO in Voronezh flew for the first time. The fact that Tu-334 has not been picked up after 2014 does seem to further suggest that the Russian military may simply not need this class of aircraft as much and that the An-148 partnership was a means to support the Ukrainian industry. I could be wrong since I am getting this off of Wikipedia, and I am not sure how important this really is, but I am just trying to respond to Feanor's question.

Edit: My main point is that Ukraine has seemed to continue to partner with Russia on projects that benefit Ukraine more than they benefit Russia, and these projects also do not seem as important for the Russian military. Such as the Be-200 and An-148.
The Tu-334 died because the factory didn't want to produce it, and the airline that was going to order it decided not to. Nobody wanted that airplane. It's an outdated aircraft, with unimpressive performance. The An-148 was chosen as the closest "domestic" alternative to be produced by the same factory (VASO) and for the same airline (Rossiya). Neither project was primarily or initially aimed at the military.

And yes you're correct in your main point.
 

Feanor

Super Moderator
Staff member
Update.

9 new ships were just laid down, including the first two large LHDs (project 23900), the 7th and 8th 22350s, two more 885Ms (the 7th and 8th), two more 23550 patrol icebreakers, and one more 12700 mine sweeper.

The LHDs are supposed to have 25 000 t displacement, have one A-190 100mm gun turret, 3 Palash CIWS gun-missile systems, and 2 Pantsyr-ME systems. They are supposed to have 320 crew, up to 1000 marines on board, with 6 landing boats, and up to 20 helos in the airwing.

The two 22350s are going to be the modified version with 24 UKSK cells, and otherwise identical to the 5th and 6th ships. It's possible that there are other changes between the first 4 and the second 4 ships, but we will likely have to wait to find out.


The Admiral Kasatonov, the second 22350, has entered service.


Initially it was thought that the Moskva underwent limited repairs, and would slowly be removed from service, but now other sources are claiming that the repairs were much more significant and the ship will serve another 20 years.


The Admiral Nakhimov is now expecting handover in 2022.


The Knyaz Vladimir Borey-A has also entered service with the VMF.


Ukrainian sources are accusing Russia of using their Black Sea pipelines to mount monitoring devices that can detect submarines. Similar projects were discussed in the past, usually surrounding the SLBM bastions, but it would make sense that this would be done in the Black Sea as well.

'

The Russian government is making plans to purchase a new set of hospital ships for the VMF. They currently operate 3, one in the Northern, Pacific, and Black Sea Fleets, all built in Poland during the Soviet days.


The 7th 20380 corvette is being transported down river towards Vladivostok to complete construction and join the Pacific Fleet.

 

Sandhi Yudha

Well-Known Member
1. It seems that the first 2 vessels of the new Project 23900 LHD class are getting the same name as the Ivan Rogov class : Ivan Rogov and Mitrofan Moskalenko.


A remarkable step to give the first of class the same name as the first of the old Project 1174 Nosorog class. This can lead to misunderstandings.

2. About the 22350, that means that the plan for the construction of the enlarged 22350M is still moved back. So no real replacements for the 956 the coming 10 years.

3. So with keeping the Moskwa active until 2040, it means that also the old P-1000 Vulkan missiles stay active and operationable until 2040?
 
Last edited:

Feanor

Super Moderator
Staff member
1. It seems that the first 2 vessels of the new Project 23900 LHD class are getting the same name as the Ivan Rogov class : Ivan Rogov and Mitrofan Moskalenko.


A remarkable step to give the first of class the same name as the first of the old Project 1174 Nosorog class. This can lead to misunderstandings.

2. About the 22350, that means that the plan for the construction of the enlarged 22350M is still moved back. So no real replacements for the 956 the coming 10 years.

3
I've come across suggestions that the 22350 and 22350M will be built side by side. Despite the classification confusion, the 22350M appears to really be more of a destroyer than a frigate. The information we have suggests that the 22350M is in the 8000 t range, and has significant greater endurance and combat load. I'm not sure Russia can produce them in sufficient quantities to fill the frigate slot. While it's entirely possible that the 22350M will mean the end of the 22350 line, I certainly hope not. Russia can produce 15-18 22350s, but likely only a dozen or so 22350Ms. Cutting the former in favor of the latter will give us a marginal increase in quantity.
 

Sandhi Yudha

Well-Known Member
The 4th Project 22800 Tsiklon has recently been launched.

The keel of the 8th Project 12700 Alexandrit class minehunter has been layed. So the production goes quite fast and smoothly.
However, Feanor recently told us that much of the MCM-equipment are not delivered/produced yet or something. Are there still problems with the equipment?

 

Feanor

Super Moderator
Staff member
The 4th Project 22800 Tsiklon has recently been launched.

The keel of the 8th Project 12700 Alexandrit class minehunter has been layed. So the production goes quite fast and smoothly.
However, Feanor recently told us that much of the MCM-equipment are not delivered/produced yet or something. Are there still problems with the equipment?

Iirc the 8th or 9th ship is supposed to be larger and feature a new mine-sweeping gear. The current ships were suggested to have French gear but that got bogged down. Instead they have a domestic one that isn't very good. But can apparently be delivered on time and with reasonable cost overruns. They're basically good for finding mines but not good for removing them.
 

Sandhi Yudha

Well-Known Member
Iirc the 8th or 9th ship is supposed to be larger and feature a new mine-sweeping gear. The current ships were suggested to have French gear but that got bogged down. Instead they have a domestic one that isn't very good. But can apparently be delivered on time and with reasonable cost overruns. They're basically good for finding mines but not good for removing them.
Thank you!


Interesting
Had the old Ivan Rogov class, Project 1174, also a (secondary) command ship function?
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Feanor

Super Moderator
Staff member
Interesting
Had the old Ivan Rogov class, Project 1174, also a (secondary) command ship function?
I don't know enough to answer that, but these ships are basically a Russian Mistral-equivalent, with similar design and purpose. And the Mistral definitely features command functions.
 

Feanor

Super Moderator
Staff member
Recently spotted by a RAF P-8 at the Northsea.
Remarkable, that the Vasily Bykov, a Project 22160 large patrol boat, is spotted in the North-Sea. I thought it was part of the Black Sea Fleet.
It's not that surprising. First off the VMF is notorious for running small ships over large distances. Even the flat-bottomed (relatively) 21631s sailed from the Black Sea to the Baltic, all around Europe. Second off the 22160 is a weird project, with an endurance of 60 days, comparable to Soviet destroyers, but the tonnage of a small corvette. The type is design for extended voyages.
 

Feanor

Super Moderator
Staff member
Update.

The third 22160 patrol ship has begun factory trials.


A 22800 small missile ship has been launched in Crimea.


The 8th 12700 minesweeper has been laid down. From the 9th hull onward, the type is supposed to grow in size and get a new unmanned minesweeper.


The first link shows some testing on a new integrated mast with presumably AESA radars. This looks a lot like the masts on the 22800s that are supposed to carry the Pantsyr. The second is land trials for the navalized Pantsyr.


The 11356 frigate Adminral Essen has conducted joint exercises with the Utes AShM system launching a missile, and the frigate intercepting it. Exercises like this are relatively rare in the VMF but have been more common over the past few years.


A European satellite has apparently recorded a Kinzhal launched from a ship in the Barents sea, note this is the SAM, not the air-launched ballistic missile. It was apparently part of a two-way exercise with a near-by submarine.


The 4th 22800 has been laid down at the Amur yards. As a reminder, the Pacific Fleets current renewal plan includes 4 new 20380 corvettes (with a possible follow-on contract for as many as 10 more, though current sources talk about 6 more for a total of 10) 6 636.3 submarines, and 6 22800 small missile ships. Also, most likely, 3 of the 1155s are going to get the Shaposhnikov treatment to 1155M standard. Also in the works are 3 22350 frigates. This gives us the following projected 2030 ORBAT for the Pacific Fleet;

1 1164 cruiser
3 1155M "frigates"
3 22350 frigates
4-? 20380 corvettes
6 22800 small missile ships
6 636.3 diesel-electric subs

Outside of this are the plans for the nuclear submarine fleet, as well as upgrade plans for a number of Soviet small missile ships to receive the X-35.


Footage from the trials of the third 22800, the first to carry the navalized Pantsyr.


The Vepr project 971 nuclear submarine is back from a long overhaul, to the Northern Fleet.


The third 20380 for the Pacific Fleet is undergoing de-gaussing.

 

Feanor

Super Moderator
Staff member
This is a reviewed piece that i was able to publish to the public domain, it denotes the Russian navy today in a simplified format.

Welcome to defencetalk Kapitan. First off, please read the rules Forum Rules

Second off, please read some of the existing threads, so you can post in the appropriate topic. Quite often the topic you wish to discuss already has a thread dedicated to it. One of our moderators has moved your post here, to the appropriate thread.

Third off, please note that simply posting links to your own material comes across as advertisement rather then an attempt to start discussion. Advertising without the approval of the site owner is against the rules.

Now to deal with the topic at hand. Your article is a decent summary of major ships of the VMF, but it ignores much of the nuance. The biggest weak spots of the Russian Navy aren't listed in it. They are, in no particular order, anti-submarine warfare both shipbourne and airbourne (the AVMF is in particularly sad shape), mine-laying and mine-sweeping (though this is somewhat improving with the new 12700 trawlers, the VMF needs a better unmanned mineclearer and the 9th hull of the 12700 is supposed to carry it), and modern torpedoes both in terms of practice of employment and actual hardware. These are the kinds of nuances that could make a huge difference. For example you discuss the abilities of the Baltic Fleet in comparison to the Baltic States and the Finns, but the Finns are more then capable of deploying large quantities of sea mines and the VMF has a good chance of losing ships to them, and an even better chance of having their operations significantly disrupted by Finnish sea mines.
 

Kapitan

New Member
Welcome to defencetalk Kapitan. First off, please read the rules Forum Rules

Second off, please read some of the existing threads, so you can post in the appropriate topic. Quite often the topic you wish to discuss already has a thread dedicated to it. One of our moderators has moved your post here, to the appropriate thread.

Third off, please note that simply posting links to your own material comes across as advertisement rather then an attempt to start discussion. Advertising without the approval of the site owner is against the rules.

Now to deal with the topic at hand. Your article is a decent summary of major ships of the VMF, but it ignores much of the nuance. The biggest weak spots of the Russian Navy aren't listed in it. They are, in no particular order, anti-submarine warfare both shipbourne and airbourne (the AVMF is in particularly sad shape), mine-laying and mine-sweeping (though this is somewhat improving with the new 12700 trawlers, the VMF needs a better unmanned mineclearer and the 9th hull of the 12700 is supposed to carry it), and modern torpedoes both in terms of practice of employment and actual hardware. These are the kinds of nuances that could make a huge difference. For example you discuss the abilities of the Baltic Fleet in comparison to the Baltic States and the Finns, but the Finns are more then capable of deploying large quantities of sea mines and the VMF has a good chance of losing ships to them, and an even better chance of having their operations significantly disrupted by Finnish sea mines.
1st off thankyou for the welcome

2nd i did read some of the threads admittedly could have done a better job that i did on this

3rd off this part of the report is some of my work the whole thing is 175 pages in length and it is put together by multiple people, its not as an advert for the NGB or anything of the sorts just sharing what im allowed to.

4th it does ignore some topics as the brief we recieved when writing was to focus mainly on a fleet overview and operational capabilities and stratergy the entire report which is not present focuses predominantly on logistics (havent got permission to release that yet) the focus is squarly on capabilities and not capabilities v opposition its more of what they can do unhindered by NATO.

Indeed there is a big swathe of problems in the fleet along with the long range aviation arm with regards to ASW and in some instances as well ASuW, while the Finns and Poles can certain ruin their day the Russians are expanding mine warfare vessels the Alexandrit class to be exact, however in the case of the baltic my view is they wont venture out too far beyond the range of their air force thus they would be trapped by their own tactics rather than our mines.

I also dont see a major fleet deployment beyond the limits of the North Cape nor beyond the Kamchatka peninsular in time of war simply because they rely heavily on land based aircraft.
But thats just my view but i agree a lot of things need addressing and right now i think its under way.

Indeed i could have done a better job on the initial post something i will consider for future reference.
 
1st off thankyou for the welcome

2nd i did read some of the threads admittedly could have done a better job that i did on this

3rd off this part of the report is some of my work the whole thing is 175 pages in length and it is put together by multiple people, its not as an advert for the NGB or anything of the sorts just sharing what im allowed to.

4th it does ignore some topics as the brief we recieved when writing was to focus mainly on a fleet overview and operational capabilities and stratergy the entire report which is not present focuses predominantly on logistics (havent got permission to release that yet) the focus is squarly on capabilities and not capabilities v opposition its more of what they can do unhindered by NATO.

Indeed there is a big swathe of problems in the fleet along with the long range aviation arm with regards to ASW and in some instances as well ASuW, while the Finns and Poles can certain ruin their day the Russians are expanding mine warfare vessels the Alexandrit class to be exact, however in the case of the baltic my view is they wont venture out too far beyond the range of their air force thus they would be trapped by their own tactics rather than our mines.

I also dont see a major fleet deployment beyond the limits of the North Cape nor beyond the Kamchatka peninsular in time of war simply because they rely heavily on land based aircraft.
But thats just my view but i agree a lot of things need addressing and right now i think its under way.

Indeed i could have done a better job on the initial post something i will consider for future reference.
 


Here's a pic front section of 20386. The redut vls will almost spand the beam of the ship. That means it will have 32 redut 20386 frigate uksk model. We will have to see if uksk launchers are installed, but the low redut vls was my main problem with this ship.


They are procuring be-200 aircraft, but reports about making MPA out of tu-204/214 and il-114 have been published in the last few years.
 
Last edited:
Top