Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Russia Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: Russian Navy in XXI century
roadcop    2/9/2004 5:12:03 AM
Last week Admiral Kuroyedov, commander-in-chief of Russian Navy, informed public that Russia reconciders its military shipbuilding programs. This century Russia will not build large surface combatants (full-sized carriers, missile cruisers), large landing ships and 20,000-ton subs. Its future Navy will consist mainly of frigates, corvettes, large hovercrafts, 8,000-12,000 SSNs and land-based planes. I think thats a very big mistake, to willingly surrender Russian current positions.
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: PREV  1 2 3   NEXT
sentinel28a    RE:Future Russian Armed Forces concept   3/8/2004 5:45:45 PM
I understand the Soviet Army had trouble with its hovertanks--skittering around when they fired large caliber weapons from them. But they did have some excellent hovertank designs--though it should be mentioned that the US had its own hovertank about the same time. That would be the PACV, or "Qai Vot" (The Monster) as the VC called it. I think Yamato is definitely on the right track. I was talking to my dad about this a few days ago, and he was in the USN playing tag with Soviet surface action units. He says it's kind of a shame to see a once proud navy slowly rusting away--an ode to an honorable opponent, if you like.
 
Quote    Reply

roadcop    RE:Future Russian Armed Forces concept   3/8/2004 5:59:17 PM
About hovertanks. US PACV was a light hovercraft with some areas armored and several light guns (actually - 10 tons full weight, full speed 60 knots, 4 machine-guns, 2 40mm Mk19 Grenade Launchers, 6-man crew). More patrol boat than armored vehicle. And series was only 3 craft (at least what Janes says). USSR had much more of such craft (hundreds of them). Soviet hovertank was built in 1960s, and it was intensively tested. It was a full-armored vehicle with turret, armed with cannon. (Think of it as PT-76 mod). Main problem was its bad mobility (or none at all) at difficult terrain. But this problems could be solved. (New plenum design, may be?) Eventually, design was rejected. In those years many good designs were discontinued. Why? Khrushev hated conventional weapons. He was a rocket and nuclear weapon fan. So, in our Soviet system (almos dictatorship) one man easily destroyed decades od weapon development.
 
Quote    Reply

sentinel28a    RE:Future Russian Armed Forces concept   3/9/2004 2:03:42 PM
At least he didn't go as far as to scrap all manned aircraft, like the Brits and Canadians practically did in the late 50s. The hovercraft were impressive. Weren't they called Lebeds or KvPs?
 
Quote    Reply

roadcop    RE:Future Russian Armed Forces concept   3/9/2004 5:21:19 PM
Lebed is Landing Craft for marines (like later Zubr, Jeyran and such). KVP stands for Hovercraft in Russian. I have tried to find some more info about hovertanks in Internet and in books. But there is no any additional info. It was only TV-film about this hovertank, and some notes about its cancellation in books. I dont even have hovertanks photos. Does anybody have?
 
Quote    Reply

sentinel28a    RE:Future Russian Armed Forces concept   3/10/2004 2:31:01 PM
I have some hovercraft drawings, but they're from an old post-nuclear war game called Twilight: 2000...so I have no idea how accurate they are.
 
Quote    Reply

Thomas    RE:Future Russian Armed Forces concept   4/21/2004 3:46:34 AM
To Yamato: Coastal defence - of WHAT coast: 1. The Black Sea, that is more or less Ukrainian. 2. The Baltic,¨Königsberg and Petersburg can be corked up with a sub each place. 3. White sea: Ringed in on all sides. 4. Pacific: Admitted a lot of coastline, with nothing behind it to defend.
 
Quote    Reply

Scorpene    Perhaps not....   7/1/2004 9:49:07 PM
Russia has three choices-- one, build a large blue water navy centered around carrier task forces for extended distant operations, two, build a couple of these for short-term distant operations, or three, build a primarily coastal force. The first is clearly impractical. The second would be practical if Russia needed a sea based force for action in distant regions; hence, it really is not. Russian problems are in it's border regions. It has plenty of oil and resources, and no one is going to cut it's sea lanes with the US. It also borders Europe. That leaves three. Russia's naval needs are coastal-- ie. port defense, the Sakhalins, and some good SSNs can provide a survivable force that is capable of limited long distance strike, so the third option is the sensible one. Russia would do much better with a few well crewed, well trained, and well supplied ships than twice or three times as many with lackluster characteristics. This is particularly true in the SSN department. A 12,000 ton SSN is a big sub that can really hurt someone. But, you have to be quiet enough to get within range, sharp enough to get your firing solution, and then be able to get away-- it ain't over once the tubes flood. Even if Russia had TWO submarines that were qualitatively on par with the Seawolf with a great crew and a force structure that would actually support them properly, they would be way ahead.
 
Quote    Reply

roadcop    RE:Perhaps not....   7/2/2004 2:16:05 AM
In any case, Russia needs at least destroyer-size surface combatants for protecting of overseas interests and merchant shipping. And because such force usually need some air cover, Russia should build some carriers, may be SCS-sized with VTOLs. Russia should deploy some destroyer/frigate task groups on regular basis in some regions of economic/political interests. For example, in Persian Gulf, Indian Ocean, near West African Coast, in Northern Atlantic and in Northern Pacific.
 
Quote    Reply

Scorpene    RE:Air cover and surface forces   7/2/2004 4:15:18 PM
If Russia has to build some carriers, they'd best not build VTOL carriers. Russia doesn't have a good VTOL air system-- your two best planes are the Fulcrum and the Flanker in their newest variants. Well flown, they will match anything Russia is likely to face, and if you do get into a fight, you need the overload power of the Crane or the MiG-29. Paired with good situational awareness systems- ie. newer, smarter radars to vector them, they could even get their noses on stealthy targets. Of course, that's another topic. Put them together with some Akulas (I think you all call them Shukas, your 971 series attack subs) that are equally well handled and you should be on your way. Some surface combatants the size of your Sovremmney class would do wonders. Your navy will be all right, in time-- partnering with the US on operations would also be an experience boost for your crews and if Russia and the US can successfully build together on their common interests there will be a lot of other benefits for both nations.
 
Quote    Reply

Kadett    A cheap way to get a CBG   7/2/2004 5:02:41 PM
Perhaps Russia would be interested in purchasing the USS Enterprise in 2013 when it is replaced by CVN-68. That would give them a reliable conventional launch carrier for a good deal less than it would cost to build one themself. They may even be able to get some F-35C's if they need a naval fighter.
 
Quote    Reply
PREV  1 2 3   NEXT



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics