Excellent pics UAZ, thanks for posting.

BREZHNEV,

There is a lot of contradicting information, speculations and rumors about the Russian Navy. We are hearing about plans for aircraft carriers, large destroyers etc. These are hard to confirm at the moment (some of it may be intentional disinformation)…

However one thing is true: Russia’s naval forces are rebuilding thanks to a revived economy.

The stereotype of Russian warships rusting in their ports is no longer valid.

-New classes of warships and submarines are being built/introduced (e.g. Steregushy, Adm. Gorshkov, Severodvinsk, Yury Dolgoruky, St. Petersburg, Astrakhan etc.)

– Units that had their construction suspended are being completed now, such as the second Neustrashymy frigate (Yaroslav Murdy), the Novik frigate (being completed as a training ship) etc.

– Many Russian ships that were retired or placed in reserve are being modernized and brought back to service (including Kirov, Udaloy, Sovremenny and Kara class vessels).

Thanks to hard evidence such as photos from various sources (internet, publications, shipspotters etc.) I can confirm that a lot is happening.

Quite often, I come across fresh photos of warships that have been “written off” by many “respected” sources, yet the ships appear fully operational, under way and with a fresh coat of paint (I call these units “Phantom ships”). I also notice subtle differences, additions and modifications to various units (e.g. new guns, missiles, electronics etc.)

I intend to post photos of these ships on this thread. I am sure you and other Russian navy enthusiast will appreciate them.

As an example, here is the Tarantul class corvette R-60 (hull number 955)who has traded its two rear AK-630 gatling guns for the more modern PALACH gun/missile system. Photo was taken in Sevastopol, July 19th 2007.

Source of photo http://flot.sevastopol.info/

I have never heard of PALACH, do you have more information on it?:confused:

Correct me if I am wrong but wasnt the suggestion that they might need to defend oilfields mine? If they have assets around the place then they need to be able to defend their interests IMHO. The Royal Navy of old and the USN is not just for show. People take you more seriously if you can put a naval presence off their shores, either to threaten them or as a show of support against a third party.

Has the USN never attack an oil platform? … I am pretty sure they have.

Besides this is not about defending Russian oil platforms from the US navy. ICBMs will suffice in that role. Defending from Chinese or French or British or whoever else is much more likely, not to mention Pirates depending upon where the particular assets are located.

Of those countries only Israel has no nuclear weapons, so you could exclude Israel from the list and ask why Russia needs nuclear weapons… unless such a question is irrelevant. What Denmark thinks it needs to defend its assets relates in no way to what Russia might or might not want to defend its assets.

What GarryB says is law, I mentioned they might need aircraft carriers to defend future assets beyond its borders and that the best way to project power beyond your borders is to use naval forces that include surface, subsurface and air based and space based assets. Those future assets might include oil installations, but then because I didn’t mention other assets then the Russians may only use their carriers in close proximity to oil rigs because as we all know what I say is reality…

Or you could get a grip and realise I dont right Russian foreign policy and am not part of the Russian Navy heirarchy and mentioning oil instalations as potential future offshore assets does not limit them to said future assets.
😉

An oil rig is a difficult thing to destroy or take over and would require a relatively large vessel to attack it to have a chance of destroying it or hold it hostage. Having a sub lurking around would be enough to stop most nations from interfering with oil platforms in the first place.

I didn’t say these carriers were going to be 129m long, the quote states they will be longer than 100m, and I mentioned that current Russian frigates are longer than 100m… the example I gave was 129m long.

Their current conventional carrier has a straight launch position at the front for fighters and another postion mid deck for a longer takeoff for heavily loaded or larger aircraft. At the rear is an angled deck for landing aircraft.
The short takeoff runs are not 100m long so the current aircraft operating off the Kuznetsov should be able to operate from a 100m long vessel if there is no space at the rear used for an angled deck. Equally if it has a catamaran like hull with the equivelent of two main decks one side could be used for takeoffs and the other angled slightly outwards could be used for recovery simultaneously.
He states it will have nuclear propulsion, so it is probably safe to assume that is what it will have in the current plans.

Who said “just over” 100m? This dock is for building large ships… tankers… perhaps even supertankers. If it is just over 100m long perhaps it is a double hulled catamaran type hull. As I said Russia has frigates longer than 100m so the over 100m tells us little.

If they are to be small carriers and operate heavy AEW they will have no alternative to catapaults. But no, you guys must be right… when he talks about nuclear propulsion and 30 FIXED WING and rotary wing aircraft he must of course be talking about a modifed british frigate with two Harriers on board… but tell me when did the Russians invent the Harrier and how long have they had it flying… and of course how can 30 aircraft of fixed and rotary wing types fit on such a vessel? 😮

But of course… the only carrier is a nimitz carrier and no other types can be allowed to exist…:rolleyes:

Seems we are still not getting it…

The Russians have identified the need to have airpower they can deploy globally to support their navy. Not it invade other countries with otherwise… 30 aircraft would probably break down to two flights of fighters with 8-10 aircraft each (flankers) plus maybe 4 trainer aircraft (two seat Su-25 trainers) and 6-10 helicopters including plane guard helos to recover downed plane crews and a transport helo plus a few anti sub helos as well.
The purpose is not to be able to invade Iraq but to support naval operations around the world.

Who said anything about a Nimitz?:rolleyes: Frankly your little plan for a carrier sounds like a fantasy you dreamt up when you realised the absurdity of your comments. Unless this ships are 200m + the only things they will be operating will be helicopters.

I read the economist article last night and it is pretty well balanced with what I see as the correct conclusion. A lot of progress has been made but there is still a long way to go. If anybody else is interested in this subject I will recommend a couple of good books that provide a lot more detail as to the motivations and structures behind Chinese military development and reasonable efforts as to where it might lead.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Chinese-Military-Modernisation-C-N-Kapur/dp/8170491592/ref=sr_1_2/202-3123802-8675018?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1186248734&sr=1-2

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Chinese-Strategy-Maritime-Policy-History/dp/0714652822/ref=sr_1_4/202-3123802-8675018?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1186248866&sr=1-4

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Chinas-Security-New-Roles-Military/dp/1555874347/ref=sr_1_1/202-3123802-8675018?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1186249155&sr=1-1

Add to that list:
– Mig-29K, a plane that only the IN will operate in only tens of numbers

This Gorshkov and associated planes is a recipe for a money sink. This ship will put the IN in a budgetary straight jacket for some time to come. This delay cost escalation is just the begining. Next up is the Mig-29K delivery. Let’s see if delays and cost escalation occurs there as well.

The more one looks at this deal, the more it looks like a Mig and Sevmash welfare program than an Indian power projection program.

I am actually quite supportive of the Mig-29K purchase. At the time the selection was made, and even now it was far and away the best choice. The only other realistic option was the Rafale and whilst some here will protest that it could operate without catapults I am less than convinced. For obvious reasons india does not want to rely on US catapults. The Mig also holds significant commonality with the existing Fulcrum fleet and even if India does order the Mig-35 the technology developed for it should offer a good long term upgrade path.

Well, the U.S. already uses a wide variety of weapons systems big and small that started life as a non-U.S. product.

So lets say Storm did win a competition. They would most likely be teamed up with a U.S. company to build the U.S. variants.

I never said it didnt. My point was that it might be a good idea for Lockmart and others to get a real kick in the teeth and lose a big contract like this overseas.

I think I will sit on the sidelines and keep my powder dry; just in case around about 2015 the RN are forced to announce a similar delay to the CVF’s, due their “recent inexperience of building large warships and various issues of integration of its complex systems” ………….:diablo: I don’t think we could quite live that one down 😉 🙁

But at least any RN predicament would be the product of an advanced new build new design ship rather than a renovated two decade old hulk.;)

GPS Issue Latest In History Of JASSM Problems

At least eight components of the Lockheed Martin Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missile (JASSM) have caused problems during the stealthy cruise missile’s troubled past, contributing to the missile’s 42 percent failure rate in recent months.

All of the issues are being addressed and some of the involved systems are being fixed or replaced (see chart p. 2). The steady stream of issues, though, demonstrates a pattern of failures that traces back to the first lot of deliveries.

As part of a get-well plan for the $5.8 billion program, the U.S. Air Force is adding flight-tests at a cost of $68 million. Though Lockheed Martin earlier rejected shared funding for the plan, the company now has agreed to pay $38 million toward the testing. The company also has changed its management, bringing in Steve Barnoske, who led the tactical missiles branch of Lockheed Martin, as director of the JASSM program.

The problems, most recently with a Global Positioning System-dropout that caused missiles to impact more than 100 feet from their targets (DAILY, May 10), contributed to a decision by House appropriators to reject the Air Force’s plan to continue to ramp up funding in fiscal 2008, and the defense appropriations subcommittee proposes to trim $34 million from the USAF request of $201.1 million. Validation of the fix to the GPS dropout problem will come in November, with flight-tests to follow.

The Air Force also is planning to issue a request for information (RFI) to industry to explore alternatives by mid-September. The RFI will include stealthy cruise missile capabilities similar to the 200-mile range JASSM and 500-mile JASSM-extended range variant.

There is reluctance in Congress to abandon JASSM, according to one staffer there, combined with concern about turning to a European solution – either the MBDA Storm Shadow or Taurus KEPD 350 – and pulling money out of the U.S. industrial base. The system’s design is “sound,” the staffer says, and “it is largely suppliers” that are causing problems.

At least 16 flight-tests have been added to the program as well as up to 17 ground tests to demonstrate fixes for the GPS dropout problem. Production of the missile is expected to slow and stretch out as a result of the guidance issue, according to a briefing provided to Capitol Hill from USAF Maj. Gen. Mark Shackelford, the service’s director of global power program acquisition. The government plans to pick up the tab for the lengthened production run.

The Air Force reported a major JASSM cost overrun to Congress earlier this year, and the Pentagon has taken the unusual step of deferring a decision on whether to move ahead with the program or terminate it. That decision will come in spring 2008, a full year after the overrun was reported to Congress. At that time a new cost estimate will be formed, though the missile is expected to have doubled in unit cost from its original estimate of $400,000 per missile to more than $800,000.

Shoddy components have been a major factor in JASSM’s low reliability. According to a briefing Shackelford provided to lawmakers, the problems range from the missile’s electrical systems, warhead, and power system to its guidance kit and engine components. Seven of the issues are in various stages of repair or replacement. One industry expert says this is a “stunning list” of historical problems for the JASSM program (see chart below).

Sounds like its time for Lockmart to get a serious beat down.:mad: