• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

The Russian Military Merged Thread- Navy

xena said:
I always get confused by this.  Are they talking about the subs NATO calls "Akula", or the subs the Russians call "Akula"?

Schuchka (or "Pike" in English) class submarine - NATO Reporting Name "Akula" (which is Russian for 'shark').

Akula class submarine - NATO Reporting Name "Typhoon".
Are you really confused?

I mean, do you really believe that the Russians would use a SSBN, commonly referred to as a "Typhoon," to shadow a British submarine, when an SSN such as the "Akula" (again, commonly understood nomenclature) would be the obvious choice?



ps - you also misspelled the transliteration of "Shchuchka" -- it does start with the letter "Щ" after all.  ;)
 
Okay.  I kinda figured it was the hunter/killer they were talking about too, but I just wish they'd be more clear when there's that kind of overlap in the names.  But, as for the "commonly referred to" bit, it depends on what part of the world you hang out in.  In Russia, they are "commonly referred to" by different names than their NATO reporting names, and since the end of the Cold War, and the names of the submarine classes were made public knowledge, someone just might occasionally make the effort to be accurate and use the actual name of the subs.

Sorry about the spelling.  I don't read or write Russian - I only know a couple of phrases in Slavonic (which is hardly modern Russian).  :)
 
xena said:
and since the end of the Cold War, and the names of the submarine classes were made public knowledge, someone just might occasionally make the effort to be accurate and use the actual name of the subs.

I hunt subs for a living......we all use the NATO reporting names. No reason for anyone else to do otherwise since in the west, what is understood is NATO names.
 
... yeah, that's likely.  >:D 

Okay, it's obviously just me fixating about the sub class/reporting names.  I just wasn't sure if the NATO names were still SOP for the English speaking civilian world - it apparently is.  I'll be quiet now.  Thanks guys!  Now, where did I put my meds?...  :)

But, subs have been doing this all along.  The end of the Cold War hasn't stopped anything in the sub-surface world - so, I'm not sure this is all that startling.  I mean, yes, it's rare that it gets leaked, to the point that it's in a book or newspaper, but this isn't really unusual behaviour for a Russian sub, is it?
 
Isn't this kinda like going to your local park and having someone playing ball on the diamond tell you you can't sit in the bleachers and watch them?
 
Journeyman said:
ps - you also misspelled the transliteration of "Shchuchka" -- it does start with the letter "Щ" after all.  ;)
Good catch, comrade!  8)

Dolphin_Hunter said:
All the while the Akula was probably shadowed by a LA. 
and the LA was shadowed by what we in the west call a Kilo....

I can see it now: fifty subs in the North Atlantic all chasing each other. 

;D
 
After the medias reporting recently of encounter by the Canadian Aviation
of Russian airplane near our Arctic border, I'm wondering if there is elections
soon in Russia (as there might be a politician who want to appear rolling
his muscles in front of his citizens) or if there is a slight sift in the military
commands...

(If I appear out of my water, it's because I am, I'm a civil...)
 
I would not read too much into this from the Russian side anyway.

Anybody heard just how "bad" their economy is lately? No, and that is the explanation. Their economy is doing well and far better than 10 years ago when they were just learning how capitalism works. So there is more money for the  government and the big boys are going back to playing more often with their floating, diving and flying toys. They play in the only way  they remember.

I suppose, just in case, we could dust off the PK boards.

More likely here, the RN is "strategically leaking" facts that have been ongoing for a while and do not overly concern them in reality because the new government is doing a huge strategic review and the boys at the RN want to ensure that their pet project to update the Vanguards or replace them does not go the way of the Dodo.

Just MHO.
 
PK Boards.

During the cold war, we carried ASW ops as a permanent coordinated NATO effort. We tried to track all soviet subs as soon as they entered the Atlantic and then keep tabs on them until they returned home.

As a result, the shore Op centres kept up boards that indicated the probable kills, we hoped to achieve in any time period after start of hostilities.

PK1 indicated how many we expected to kill in the first hour, PK12 in the first half day PK24, in a day, etc.

By looking at how many russian subs were at sea vice how many were on the PK boards, you got an idea of the number of potential "leakers". It was always a sobering figure for the escorts.
 
Defence Talk link


Russia set to build nuclear-powered destroyer by 2016

By RIA Novosti on Friday, July 1st, 2011
Russia will finish in 2016 the construction of a new class destroyer, which will most likely be nuclear powered, commander of the Russian Navy Adm. Vladimir Vysotsky said on Thursday.

"A prototype of an ocean-going class destroyer will be built in 2016 for the country's Navy," Vysotsky said at the 5th International Maritime Defense Show, IMDS-2011, in St. Petersburg.

The admiral added there was a 90 percent probability that the warship would be equipped with a nuclear-powered engine.

President of Russia's United Shipbuilding Corporation Roman Trotsenko said earlier on Thursday that his company would start designing a new-generation, nuclear-powered destroyer for the Russian Navy this fall.

He said the design phase will take up to two years.
 
Russia set to build nuclear-powered destroyer by 2016

I have to admit I'm not a nuclear physicist or a nuclear engineer. Most of what I know about nuke power plants in ships comes from reading Tom Clancy novels.

I have read that Russian nuke plants are poorly shielded and not as reliable as Western (US) ones.

Does this still hold true?
 
http://english.pravda.ru/russia/politics/01-08-2012/121804-russia_army_base-0/

"The Russian government intends to restore the military-technical support of their ships at the former military base in Cam Ranh (Vietnam), Lourdes (Cuba) and the Seychelles. So far, this is not about plans for a military presence, but rather the restoration of the crew resources. However, a solid contractual basis should be developed for these plans.

The intentions were announced on July 27 by the Russian Navy Commander Vice Admiral Viktor Chirkov. "At the international level, the creation of logistics points in Cuba, the Seychelles and Vietnam is being worked out,"  Chirkov was quoted by the media. The issue was specifically discussed at the meeting with the leaders of all countries. President of Vietnam Truong Tan Sang has recently held talks with Prime Minister Dmitri Medvedev in Moscow and President Putin in Sochi. Cuban leader Raul Castro met with Putin in Moscow earlier this month. A little earlier the President of the Republic of Seychelles, James Michel made an unequivocal statement.

"We will give Russia the benefits in Cam Ranh, including the development of military cooperation," the President of Vietnam told the media. Cuba that has an American military base in Guantanamo Bay and is protesting against the deployment of new U.S. bases in Colombia, of course, wants to acquire an ally in Russia to be able to contain the United States. Seychelles in the Indian Ocean has always been in the zone of Soviet influence. In 1981, the Soviet Navy helped the government to prevent the military coup and before the collapse of the USSR the Soviets had a constant presence in the area. In June of 2012, at the opening of an Orthodox church in the capital city of Victoria, James Michel spoke of Russia's role in combating piracy and supported the Russian idea to build a pier in the port of Victoria, designed for the reception of the Navy warships of Russian Federation.

Following the statement by Vice-Admiral, Russian Foreign Ministry and Defense Ministry made it clear that they were talking about rest and replenishment of the crews after the campaign in the area and not military bases. It is clear, however, that Russian warships could do both without special arrangements, given the good attitudes of the leaders of these countries toward Russia. It can be assumed that the Russian Admiral unwittingly gave away far-reaching plans of the Russian leadership. That would be great, because from the time of Peter the Great, Russia had a strong fleet and army. In addition, it is worth mentioning Putin's statement at the G20 meeting in June. After the meeting with U.S. President Barack Obama, Putin made a sudden harsh statement to the press. 

"In 2001 I, as the President of the Russian Federation and the supreme commander, deemed it advantageous to withdraw the radio-electronic center Lourdes from Cuba. In exchange for this, George Bush, the then U.S. president, has assured me that this decision would become the final confirmation that the Cold War was over and both of our states, getting rid of the relics of the Cold War, will start building a new relationship based on cooperation and transparency. In particular, Bush has convinced me that the U.S. missile defense system will never be deployed in Eastern Europe.

The Russian Federation has fulfilled all terms of the agreement. And even more. I shut down not only the Cuban Lourdes but also Kamran in Vietnam. I shut them down because I gave my word of honor. I, like a man, has kept my word. What have the Americans done? The Americans are not responsible for their own words. It is no secret that in recent years, the U.S. created a buffer zone around Russia, involving in this process not only the countries of Central Europe, but also the Baltic states, Ukraine and the Caucasus. The only response to this could be an asymmetric expansion of the Russian military presence abroad, particularly in Cuba. In Cuba, there are convenient bays for our reconnaissance and warships, a network of the so-called "jump airfields." With the full consent of the Cuban leadership, on May 11 of this year, our country has not only resumed work in the electronic center of Lourdes, but also placed the latest mobile strategic nuclear missiles "Oak" on the island. They did not want to do it the amicable way, now let them deal with this," Putin said.

It is obvious that Russia will not stop simply at "resting" their sailors in the area. Now back to the statement of Chirkov. Americans have not officially resented it. For example, the Pentagon spokesman George Little said that Russia had the right to enter into military agreements and relationships with other countries, as does the United States, according to France Press Agency. The reason is simple: American analysts believe that Russia now cannot afford to create its own military bases.

The Americans talk about Russia's lack of influence, money and the actual fleet. Western media quoted an "independent expert on the defense" in Moscow Paul Fengelgauer. He said that Russia does not have the necessary naval resources to provide constant presence outside its territorial waters, as it has only 30 major warships that serve five fleets. Therefore, the possibility of placing an additional station does not mean the expansion of sea power in Russia. This is largely an objective assessment. But since the crisis in the West in 2008, Russia began to recover part of its navy. The loss was not that great - about a quarter of the Soviet reserve. Another thing is that we should talk about the modernization of the fleet. There is much to maintain. On Thursday, Chirkov said that this year Russia's naval forces can be replenished with another 10-15 warships, including destroyers and nuclear submarines.

As for the influence, judging by the words of the Russian President, Russia is also actively growing in this regard, although work in this direction has only begun. As we can see, Pacific, Atlantic and Indian Oceans are involved. This is due not only to geopolitical reasons, but the growing economic presence of Russia in the regions. For example, "Gazprom" is actively working on offshore Vietnam. In the Caribbean, it also participates in the construction of Meso-American pipeline and field development in Venezuela. An ammunition plant is under construction in Cuba.

However, one should start with a solid contractual basis. Take, for example, agreements on mutual defense that the U.S. has with the Philippines, Japan, Colombia, and Mexico. In the presence of such agreements military bases cannot be challenged as a military expansion. Russia has room to grow - of the 16 operating in the Soviet era military bases today there is only one left - Tartus in Syria, or two, if we consider the base in Sevastopol.

Lyuba Lulko

Pravda.Ru "


Does anyone have another source that could confirm that?
 
Russian navy will reintroduce Soviet practice and make it more complicated for possible enemies to identify the submarines sailing in surface position.

<snipped>

The huge and highly visible emblems in the front on the submarines towers make it too easy to figure out which of them sailing or not, believes the main command of the Russian Navy.

Now, the order is given to paint over the emblems and numbers on the submarine hulls.

Source: barentsobserver.com
 
Please note the other thread concerning the Russian acquisition of French-made Mistral class assault ships.

Russia Announces a Naval Buildup in the Pacific
By  Zachary Keck
July 22, 2013

In an interview on Russia TV, Rear Admiral Sergei Avakyants, Commander of the Pacific Fleet, said that his fleet would begin receiving new warships next year for the first time since the collapse of the Soviet Union.
(...)

According to Reuters, the Mistral-class ships can carry up to 16 helicopters as well as deliver troops, tanks and armored vehicles onto shore. Real Admiral Avakyants did not specify when the Mistral-class vessels would be arriving.

He did however say that “several” Project 20380 Steregushchy-class corvettes were being built for his fleet, with deliveries expected to begin as early as next year. Steregushchy-class corvettes are large multirole vessels that will replace the Grisha Class corvettes. With a length of 105 meters, width of 13 m, draft of 3.7 m, and full displacement load of 2,200 tons, they are classified as frigates by NATO.


<snipped>


The Commander of Russia’s Pacific Fleet also said that one of the first Borey-class ballistic missile submarines would be given the fleet after they are first commissioned at the end of this year. The Borey-class is Russia’s fourth-generation nuclear-powered missile submarine and the first submarine to be built since the Soviet era. Russia intends to eventually build eight of them to serve as the core of its sea-based strategic deterrent, replace the aging Typhoon and Delta-III and Delta-IV class submarines.

(...)

“Rather large-scale deliveries of new equipment, new warships to the Pacific Fleet will start in 2014..."

Source: thediplomat.com
 
The Russians better do more than beef up the Pacific fleet.They run the risk of losing Siberia entirely to PRC encroachment.
 
Defense News link

Russian Warships Dock In Cuba On 'Friendly Visit'

HAVANA, HAVANA PROVINCE — Three Russian warships led by the missile cruiser Moskva arrived Saturday in Cuba on a “friendly visit” to the communist-run island, the first such trip in four years.

The ships were greeted by an artillery salute, a naval band and a few hundred onlookers as they arrived in the Bay of Havana.

Cuba’s government has said the ships are here on a “friendly visit” and that tourists will be able to visit the Moskva on Monday.

The two countries were close allies during the Cold War, when the Soviet Union largely propped up Cuba’s state-run economy as the United States maintained a trade embargo on the island.

But oil-rich Venezuela has more recently assumed the role of Cuba’s main benefactor, particularly during the 14-year reign of leftist leader Hugo Chavez, who died of cancer in March.

(...)
 
More about the Russian task force in the Med. Sea, close to Syria:

RT link

Russia's Rusting Task Force
September 16, 2013
Paul Pryce - CIMSEC


Much has been made in the media of the Russian naval presence in the eastern Mediterranean. With tensions rising over the Syrian conflict, the notion that Russian forces are staring down their American and British counterparts at sea fits the popular narrative of mutual antagonism. But is the Russian Navy's Mediterranean task force all that unusual? Does it present a challenge or even a threat to the United States' interests in the region, as some reports would suggest?

First of all, it is important to note that a Russian naval presence in the eastern Mediterranean is not unprecedented. From 1967 until its collapse, the Soviet Union maintained a task force of considerable size in the region, consisting of some 30 warships and an undetermined number of additional support vessels. Furthermore, Russia's naval facility in Tartus, Syria was established in 1971, regularly providing repairs and maintenance for Soviet and later Russian ships.

In contrast, the Russian presence newly formed in the eastern Mediterranean is quite limited in its size and capabilities. The task force currently consists of twelve vessels: two destroyers, one frigate, two amphibious assault ships, three salvage tugs, a repair ship, and three re-fueling tankers.

Despite the relatively small size of the Mediterranean task force, the Russian Navy reportedly struggled to find the resources to deploy a task force at all. When the United States Navy has deployed task forces on various operations, the vessels employed are usually drawn from the same fleet. But the Russian Navy's Mediterranean task force is drawn from four of the country's five fleets: Baltic, Northern, Black Sea, and Pacific. Only the Caspian Flotilla - a small contingent itself - did not contribute to the Mediterranean force. Had the Russian Navy followed the American practice of drawing from a single fleet, it would have left one of its fleets dangerously under-strength. This is a testament to how limited Russia's naval capabilities have become in recent years.

Another important point regarding the Mediterranean task force is how dated some of the vessels are. The two Ropucha-class landing ships provided by the Baltic Fleet were originally commissioned for the Soviet Navy in 1975.

Rather than seeking to intimidate "the West", the deployment of the eastern Mediterranean task force seems to be more a gesture for domestic audiences in Russia. The formation of a new task force allows Russian policymakers to feign progress on this front and assert that Russia is reclaiming "past glories", deflecting criticism from the government's procurement problems. But this fresh coat of paint won't long conceal all that rust. A more realistic plan for the development of the Russian Navy is desperately needed.


link: Center for International Maritime Security
 
Back
Top