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: 1 2 3   NEXT
sentinel28a    RE:Russian Navy in XXI century   2/9/2004 5:42:03 PM
He may be saying what Russia can have and maintain, rather than what Russia would like to have. If it's true though, that means Russia is more or less abandoning blue-water operations and returning to its old, pre-19th Century roots as a coastal defense force. Gorshkov would be spinning in his grave--but maybe it's best for Russia to do that, for now. However, I notice that the AV-MF (or the new equivalent thereof) just completed a series of long-range naval aviation/strategic bomber unit exercises with the Indian Navy. Hmm.
Quote    Reply

roadcop    RE:Russian Navy in XXI century   2/9/2004 11:04:59 PM
Russia can maintain combat-ready Navy of 3-4 Carrier Battle Groups. Or, should we say, Russia must maintain such Forces. And Russia should deploy destroyer and frigate patrols in distant areas to protect fishing ships and cargo shipping (near African coast, in South-Western Asia). And, by the way, what you think? Should Russia and Western Countries actively fight piracy in Asian waters? "Backfires" cant protect shipping. Only ocean-going warships can. It is a shame, when some Nigerian patrolboat seizes Russian fisherman in open sea. And no "Sovremenny" nearby to prevent it.
Quote    Reply

displacedjim    RE:Russian Navy in XXI century   2/23/2004 5:05:03 PM
If you think the Russian Navy should maintain 3 or 4 combat ready carrier battle groups, then first the Russian Navy will have to build, train, maintain, and supply 3 or 4 combat ready carrier battle groups, because right now they have none. Russia can't possibly afford that goal, regardless of whether it's necessary or not. Displacedjim
Quote    Reply

wait.wat?    RE:Russian Navy in XXI century   2/24/2004 3:07:47 PM
uh... even third world countries can afford this... why do you think Russia can not? Because you are an idiot.
Quote    Reply

displacedjim    RE:Russian Navy in XXI century   2/24/2004 7:03:18 PM
uh... name one. Displacedjim
Quote    Reply

Yamato    RE:Russian Navy in XXI century   2/25/2004 11:04:46 PM
I agree with sentinel28a. Also, the 21st century is just starting. And, Russia needs first to recover, to rebuild strong bases, before to enlarge when it will be possible...or vital. Maybe, that the navy will be more "light" during the first quater of the century (for example), but after more large units will probably be produced. Also, I suppose that even more light, the Russian Navy will be able to challenge any navy of European powers. Finally, during this period, the Russian navy will maybe not able to challenge the US Navy in the Blue Water (excepted maybe in asymetric warfare),...but the Scandinavian countries, especially Sweden, have prooved that to focus on a strong coastal defense could be very efficiant, even against aircraft carrier and amphibious groups.However, this light navy will not be able to challenge overseas the navy of the other major powers, especially because, at the opposite of Russia, the navies of China, India and Japan are strengthening.
Quote    Reply

sentinel28a    RE:Russian Navy in XXI century   2/26/2004 4:58:59 PM
Jim's right--the Russian Navy at the moment has no carriers. I'm not even sure if the Kiev and the Minsk are still in service. The only way I might be mistaken is if the Russians still have the Kuznetsov. Then they could field one viable CBG, and two essentially ASW groups centered on the Kiev and the Minsk. Given that the Forger is out of service--something which I think the AV-MF is very glad of--the latter would have nothing but helos. I think Russia could, within five years (and assuming their economy keeps growing), field a navy roughly equal to France's. Backed by a powerful land-based naval aviation force (which Russia still has), that would be more than sufficient to keep Russia in the game.
Quote    Reply

roadcop    RE:Russian Navy in XXI century (to Sentinel28a)   3/4/2004 4:04:24 PM
Sad facts: Minsk sold for scrap in 1993 (along with Novorossiisk). Kiev is slowly rusting at Kola Bay. Gorshkov is prepared for sale to India. Kuznetsov is active. But. Russia can afford 3-4 CBGs if such need will be aknowledged by President and Government. Russia can build even more carriers if we shift from fleet CVs to SCS projects (but we have no VTOL fighter for them...). Our Admirals are simply submarine lovers. Thats why we continue to produce SSBNs and SSNs which are not cheaper than carrier. Just imagine cost of Oscar-class or Typhoon-class sub. We have money for Subs, Strategic Rocket Forces and new nukes. This money are lost for "normal" troops which are fighting real wars in real life. SSBNs, nukes and such will be never used (I hope). So, this weapons is impractical loss of money. All we need is around 60 heavy ICBMs in super-protected silos, may be 3-5 SSBNs and some nukes on bombers. But our Government continue to prepare for "Big War" (which is impossible)...
Quote    Reply

Yamato    RE:Russian Navy in XXI century (to Sentinel28a)   3/5/2004 11:52:57 PM
I agree with roadcop. The best for Russia will be to focus more on conventional forces which need less expensive and more usefull platforms. Moreover, the conventional deterrence also exist, and could even be more efficient than the nuclear deterrence, because a enemy knows that a country will certainly less hesitate to use his conventinal forces than the nuclear forces. I think that the size of nuclear forces that Roadcop suggests is something good. And, all this money saved could be use for more important things. (1)increase the quality of life and service of the Russian soldiers. (2)to give more training to the troops. (3)to increase the mobility of the troops to be able to do more quickly intervention in any area of the country...Russian territory is too big. (4) to modernize AWACs, radars and C4I systems,...but without loosing the rusticity of the Russian soldier which is an advantage for surviving, and even wining. (5)to modernize the combat aviation which has maybe the platforms the most needing to be modernize. Why not to replace all the old air fighters by Su-30?! It could be possible if Russia do this priority.I think like Roadcop that just a few strategic bombers are necessary. (6) to buy Black Eagle MBTs (for an armoured cavalry corps made only of T-80, T-90, and Black Eagle), and new BTR able to increase the mobility. (7)to reorganize the divisions and brigades with more modularity. To integrate the army aviation in the division support units. To divided the army between rapid deployment force and mobile armoured force (heavy troops with heavy armoured vehicles).The rapid deployment troops will will possess the airborne divisions, the special operations units, the naval troops (which must become more light and similar to the Royal Marines), and to creat light armoured brigades similar to the concept of striker brigades in the US Army. These force will do containment of the invasion forces and establish a gate for the arriving of the heavy armoured forces. The heavy armoured forces are necessary for the chock and to destroy the threat. A third category of troops will be made of garrison units established in the borders and sensitive area. These garrisons will mixt volunteers of cossacks units integrated in the army as regular elite units, and units mixing local conscripts and ready reservists.The garrison troops will include the border-guards. (8) to establish a BMD. (9) to reduce the military capacity of the MVD. It is not necessary for the MVD to possess heavy military capacities, if the army already exist. Moreover, this power of the MVD creat revalry with the army which is no good for the efficiency of the command and the armed forces. Then, I think that the MVD troops must be limited to normal light paramilitary police forces. The MVD troops, in my plan, could be light and mobile security forces, like the French gendarmerie (including some special operations and anti-terrorist units). And, the elite of the MVD could be (police, Militia) cossack units. The MVD troops will cooperate will the garrison of the army, but will never have more heavy capacity and doing interference into the command structure of the army during the operations. (11) the navy will possess a large force of attack submarines (also able to do reconnaissance and special operations), but more light than the current SSNs, and maybe with a new kind of propulsion than the nuclear powered of the SSNs. For their own air defense, these attack submarines will have their own UAVs and UCAVs on board. Also, the SSBNs force will be reduce to one squadron regroup in the North Fleet. These new attack submarines will be the spearhead of the navy, and qualified as rapid deployment force. And, like in the army the second wave is made of armoured forces, in the navy, the second wave will be made of surface major combat ships. These surface ships will be limited to 3 classes. One class of destroyers with escort missions and made to fight against other ships. One class of destroyers made for land attack (because of its land attack mission, these destroyers can be called cruisers, but with the same tons than the destroyers). And, one class of fregates made for being the scout and the light cavalry of the sea.The navy will have no more expensive,and not necessarely efficient, heavy cruisers. The navy will also possess a naval aviation of air fighters supported by similar aircrafts to the P-3C and E-2C of the US Navy, and also air refuellers able to increase the range of the air fighters.The navy will organize some ARGs wit amphibious ships, and marines. This amphibious ships will have UCAVs (and maybe SVTOLs from the naval aviation, if the budget makes it possible) for the air defense of the ARGs. Finally, the navy will have a coastal defense force including some mobile brigades of Coastal artillery (with also engineers and marines in support) similar to the Swedish coastal artillery, patrol boats and corvets armed with anti
Quote    Reply

roadcop    RE:Future Russian Armed Forces concept   3/7/2004 3:08:26 PM
I am agree with Yamato in many points. He is especially right about oversized and overgunned MVD Internal Forces. Their fully equipped divisions and brigades currently are the same as Army Motorized Rifle Divisions (and brigades). They have armor, IFVs, choppers, heavy AT and AA weaponry. Also, MVD Forces are somehow better trained than Army (esp. in urban warfare). By the way, I think that Russia should exploit its technological achievements. Hey, we've had combat-ready HOVERTANKS back in 1960s (dont know why those works were discontinued). I think, Russia even have some secret prototypes of plasma weapons, railguns, combat lasers (thats certain). And if we'll make enough money - we'll be the first on Earth to deploy new-generation 3-rd millenium Army. Well, may be I am reading too many sci-fi books :-).
Quote    Reply
1 2 3   NEXT