Hmm, thanks for the correction, I forgot Nakhimov had a mixed battery.
Osa was to cover Kinzhal not being ready IIRC. Actually a pretty damn good system for the time, still relevant today if completely outdated compared to the latest Russian offerings.

It was there for over-layered air defense; SA-N-6>SA-N-4->SA-N-9->SA-N-11->SA-N-12 I don’t think they would redesign a ship for a delay in one of its systems; some Udaloys entered service without SA-N-9, operated as such for 10 years then got the SA-N-9 later. Perhaps presence of Osa lifted their dependence of SA-N-9 and they were not prioritized? Just spaculating..

Ochakov has not been in service for years btw, and is now half sunk.

It was theoratically in service until 2010; that was my point to JSR. Half sunk: I would call a bad decision, they should have left Smetlivy to rust, and kept Ochakov operational. It should have been Smetliviy in place of her as a blockship

Persist rumors that we might see 20385 or 22350 ships down there as well, though I would rather just see the 6 11356Ms and supporting smaller vessels.
6 new subs + Alrosa is excessive too IMO, they can get away with 3 + Alrosa.

It would all come to production capabilities of Russian shipyards. If some of those ships are sent to BSF, what will replace Sovremennys and Udaloys?

EDIT: Now it is curious what will happen to Ukrainian ships in Sevastopol. Not sure there is anything of particular value to the BSF however.

They had a Krivak III IIRC? With helipad and SS-N-15 compitability, they would make a sufficient ASW platform IMHO.

Less silly than comparing the entire Russian Navy to the Turkish Navy I think. It’s all about what is deployed where. We all know Russia has generally unfavourable* naval geography, and of course what happened the last time a Russian fleet sailed halfway around the world to give battle…

True, on a paper comparison about tactical capabilities, its silly, and no-one is doing that. Though I never compared both Navies in such comparion, we could do so with respect to naval geography; We all know to reach Black Sea ships has to pass through two straits; Back in 1915, allies tried to force Galipoli straits with 34 battleships 50 cruisers and destroyers, 14 submarines and 50 other support ships. On ottoman side there were mines laid by a single minelayer ship, along with 3 battleships, few smaller ships and coastal artilleries waiting for ambush. Of the 18 Allied lines of battle, 3 completely sank, 3 had heavy casualties. Of the 14 submarines operating seperately from the fleet, 8 sunk, before allies withdrew from the straits

For such scenario today; Turkey has 10 times as many ships, 20 times as many minelayers, has numerous submarines which could preposition themselves and wait in the straits dead quiet. In order to reach Black Sea, one has to cross two straits, not one. History tells us, if Turkey closes the straights, entire Russian Navy (or any Navy for that matter) is not enough to force their way through.

Ahem, the BSF is getting THE biggest priority of all Russian surface fleets right now- a clear policy since its ships are generally the oldest in the navy. Looks like all 6 11356 frigates will be joining the fleet, as well as 6 new subs. Compared to the state the fleet has been in for the past 15 years, that is a serious rise in capability. Add to that smaller ships like 21631s, and of course the nearby corvettes of the Caspian Flotilla.

I know first 3 frigates and 3 subs are to join BSF, but hast the rest been confirmed? Serious rise indeed, but relative to Turkish Navy which is also modernizing and growing, is that so? For example, 20 year period of 2000 and 2020, 6 Grigorovich frigates will replace 2 Kara cruisers, 1 Kashin destroyer and two krivak frigates; That is actually less displacement, and BSF Surface fleet can be said to shrink in size; they simply follow world trend of building more flexible designs. In similar comparison, TuN is comissioning 6 subs and decomissioning 4, comissioning 8 corvettes and decomissioning none; So I will -for now- hold my statement BSF will not have 1/3 capabilites of TuN in a forseeable future.

Peter the Great never was going to get Osa. It had Kinzhal from the start, though the forward battery was never completed.

No, Frunze Kalinin and Andropov was supposed to have both SA-N-4 and SA-N-9 together from the start, they are not mutually exclusive replacements; I will exemplify using Cruiser Frunze with rather crude paint drawings:eagerness:;

Those are the exact positions Andropov has its Kinzhal installed;
[ATTACH=CONFIG]226485[/ATTACH]

Those are the forward positions present on all ships, however unistalled;
[ATTACH=CONFIG]226486[/ATTACH]
If you look at Kalinin and you will see both the same present positions, and how SA-N-4 launchers were supposed to be installed on Petr Veliky;

SA-N-4 could have been put on Andropov, but Russians intentionally didn’t, only explaination remains is they are too old and irrelevant to be put on a modern warship.

As for the BSF being laughable, well, I don’t find the prospect of two dozen Moskits being launched at me laughable, but that is just me 😉 .
Oh and its staying in its home now, hurray.

Well, “laughable” was simply too much anti- for too much pro-. However, I still think this is the case for major surface vessels, which looks they are only there for carrying the Russian Flag. Kara-class is one of the most fearsome looking vessels ever (IMHO), but without upgrades, they are relics that should have been long gone, alond with Smetlivy. Having said that, I think Russians should upgraded Kara classes with Redut VLSs and UKSK VLSs in place of SA-N-3s and their FC radars and kept them in service; not in BSF but in northern or pacific fleets; they DO need large vessels there and don’t have enough of them.

Just ignore JSR, he won’t back down ever. Comparing one of the many Russian fleets to the entire Turkish Navy is silly, simply a matter of budgets.

Will do.

November 2009 says wiki, and commissioned in april 2012; took approx 2 years 5 months. Last Talwar laid down in May 2011 and comissioned in june 2013, took around 2 years 1 month.

I believe its possible, since first ship took 4 years to launch; assuming a) 6 ships working in paralel instead of 3, b) ships needing same man hours for completion, c) shipyard has same construction capability as in year 2012; its understandable that 1st ship took 4 years to launch (6/3*2,5 years = 5 years to comissioning) . 2nd may also take similar amount time, but following ships are likely to be launched and completed more quickly, as manpower will be intensified on lessening number of ships, 2016 is maybe a little optimistic but 2017 sounds pretty achievable to me.

Regarding the TVC: @Andrax
Cos(Alpha<10)>0.95 😉

If Z is the direction of engine axis, X is the vertical, Y is the horizontal axis of aircraft; and R is the magnitude of thrust vector;
we can say “φ” is the angle of 2D thrust vectoring and amount of vertical component of thrust can be found by R*sinφ, in this case R*sin15
When we “tilt” the both engines by “θ” amount with respect to vertical axis, net vertical amount in direction of X axis is (R*sinφ)*cosθ, for each engine. If θ = 45 degrees, it means 30% reduction in vertical component of vectored thrust. Engines are tilted in a mirrored fasion to eliminate Y component, but waste their thrust doing so.

Speaking of TVC, this image explains what I wrote better. MKI style nozzles have no means of changing “θ” angle. They are pre-given a θ so they have Y component, doesnt mean they can define any (r,θ,φ) coordinates, so they are more like “2D” than “3D”.

Red Flag?

Anatolian Eagle is very similar to Red Flag, and actually imitates/borrows the same scenarios but with differences;
1- AE also includes electronic warfare exercises, so its more of hybrid of Red Flag and Green Flag.
2- AE encompasses a much larger area compared to Red Flag; Its 200nm west to east and 160nm North to South, compared to 60nm x 100nm of Red Flag.
3- ACM trainings are made at “Salt Area”, which has no deck; It can be used from ground level to 50k feet. Which may sound dangerous, but its more realistic than putting altitude limitations.

However as a disadvantage, aggressors are usually F-16s and sometimes F-5s and F-4Es, compared to “better” F-15/16 combination of Red Flag.

http://www.anadolukartali.tsk.tr/default.asp?loc=en&p=tarihce <- a short info about it.

Theoratically, a full 3D nozzle could also provide roll control at post stall. However I haven’t see OVT practicing it.

first you cannot change the fact that you are budget is $10b only. you cannot possible train and maintain such large navy with so small budget. Procurment budget is slow to disburse and most of things are inducted pre 2003 which are obsolete if they are not upgraded by now.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures

Have fun :very_drunk: We have around 1/5 budget of Russia Even today; Speaking of 2003;
[ATTACH]226353[/ATTACH]
In 2003; We had 10 billion budget vs Russia’s 18 billion. :stupid:

Since you are idiodically comparing Turkey with Israel; Turkey always had equal or better military budget than Israel.

Irrelevant of what you THINK what can be done; We, in REALITY;
1)modified “short hull” 8 ex O.H Perry’s to G class, and under ASIST program they can now accomodate S-70B Seahawks. From 2007 to 2011 all 8 gone through GENESIS upgrade program in which they;
-recieved domestic integrated combat module that control all ships weapons, provides sensor fusion, and ability to track 1000 targets at once.
-Link-16/22 integration which original O.H Perry lacked
-Open architecture for new domestic weapons
-8 cell Mk-41 VLS for ESSM, and an upgraded version of Mk-92 firecontrol system
-New Smart-S MK2 3d air search radar
-New sonar array.
2) Our older Meko 200 TN Track IIA ships had box launchers for Sea sparrow, they are now replaced with Mk41 VLS cells, and recieved firecontrol upgrades for ESSM capability.
3) All Type 209 1200 submarines recieved upgrades in 2001 Last two Type 209 1200 submarines recieved additional upgrades in 2011. They recieved Zeiss made periscopes, Raytheon made INS, Aseslan made ESM systems. and torpedo tubes will be replaced to be able to use most recent Mod6 variants of ADCAP torpedoes.
4) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MILGEM_project
5) 4 Type-209 1400 were commissioned AFTER 2003; They are labeled T.2 1400 due to significant modifications, they are regarded as different class (Gür Class) from older 4 Type-209 1400 class submarines (Preveze class) present in Turkish Navy.

I bothered to write this again, since you seem to be incapable of getting it the first time. If reality is different then what you believe, its your personal psycological problem. Greece has 1/3 of our military budget, and they have no problems operating 8 submarines as well.

Israeli airforce in general has older planes and less powerfull engines. but it will smash any Arab or Turkish airforce in no time not matter how much is numerical quantity difference. Its all software, semiconductors and training difference.

Largest and, most comprehensive tactical and cac excercise for Israeli Airforce was Anatolian Eagle, conducted in Turkey, in collabration with TuAF. Israel doesn’t have enough land to conduct excercises of that magnitude.

have developed 636.3 that Turkey cannot develop in its dreams.

We have currently 2 AIP submarine laid down at Gölcük shipyard, with all machinery and imported materials are already bought for all 6 in 2011. What’s the state of Lada, the Russian AIP submarine? It has fallen short of requirements and Russians still trying to patch it up to be usable. RIGHT!!. Without AIP, 636.3 is pretty comperable to 8 Type-209 1400 submarines in anyway you compare.

8 planes is not overreaction but sense of insecurity. as those planes have lower top speed/altitude/weaker single engines/less range AAMs/less staying power so you need more of them at same time they must have seen some thing behind the survellence plane.

F-16’s feel a sense of insecurity… Yep with such big propellers -and four of them- immense speed and altitude and maneuverability will put F-16 to a shame. It doesn’t need AAMs, it looks are enough to bring F-16s down. It WAS a lone Il-20. At least make a google search of what I am posting. You wont pass as smart after such idiocy you posted, but at least you will look less stupid. Even if it was a Su-27, so close to Turkish borders its really not a threat to anything.

Ruaf is now totally twin engine force with longest range AAMs and biggest electronic pods.

:sleeping: I gave up.

I don’t think anyone said you were. As far as JSR. Ignore him ..like most of us do. Also, I would like to hear why you think Kuznetsov is the most effective carrier design ever.

Well; it would be very off topic but;

First, lets start with hangar capacity;
To compare it with US Nimitz class; Nimitz has 206,5×33 meter hangar bay where Kuznetsov has 153×26 meters. As area; its 6814,5 m2 vs 3978 m2. Kuznetsov 59% hangar capacity at 64% displacement. So if we judge accordingly to its size, Kuznetsov’s hangar capacity is not small at all. Even ignoring ships’ displacements; Kuznetsov’s internal hangar area is same as (much newer) Charles de Gaulle, and larger than anything else. With wider and longer flight deck, it could carry more aircraft than French Carrier, and obviously anything else (excluding the nimitz class of course).

Secondly the Kuznetsov is really heavily armed;
For air defence, it has 192x SA-N-9 and 256x SA-N-11 SAMs, totaling out at 448 SAMs, not counting the two double SA-N-10 launchers. Considering a Ticonderoga has 122 VLS cells or Argleigh burke has 90, this is a very good number of missiles. Also, Kuznetsov has 4x MR-360 firecontrol radars for SA-N-9, each can direct two missiles to two different targets. Plus 8x 3P37 firecontrol systems, each can direct two SA-N-11 missiles (one via radar, other via electro optics), or direct one SA-N-11 missile and also direct the 30mm guns of the Kashtan module. So Kuznetsov can direct 24 missiles to 24 different targets at once, or direct 16 missiles to 16 different targets, and still be able to utilise all CIWS stations. In comparison a Ticonderoga cruiser has 4 AN/SPG-62 illumination radars, and Arleigh Burke destroyer has 3. While AEGIS can use mid course updates so illumination radars are used on terminal stage, this is not the case for missile defense; which happens at LOS and at short ranges. So for defensive firepower, Tico can direct its missiles againist only 4 different targets, and Burke can do so againist only 3. One may rightfully say those AEGIS ships provide much greater ADGM umbrella for fleet, but that is irrelevant; SAMs on Kuznetsov is only required to defend the ship itself, whereas Tico or Burke need to protect entire CVBG. In addition; Kuznetsov has 14 CIWS stations. Even excluding their individual capabilities (larger caliber, higher rate of fire) this 7-folds a Ticonderoga cruiser with two Phalanx stations, or 14-folds more than half of the Burke fleet with single Phalanx (or none).

Combining guns and missiles; Kuznetsov can engage 30 air targets at the same time; Assuming 25-30 seconds LOS time for a Harpoon missile(or similar subsonic missiles), and considering 4,8 seconds response time and 0,9 Pk from SA-N-9 and 3-6 seconds response time from Kashtan-M and 0,96-0,99 Pk, Kuznetsov can really take on anti-shipping firepower of entire Navies or Air Forces; and hold its own unscratched. Since topic is black sea etc, lets compare this with CSG-2 of US Navy, which consists of Carrier George H.W Bush, and Ticonderoga class cruiser Phillipine Sea, and Arleigh Burke class destroyers Arleigh Burke, Roosevelt and Truxtun. George H.W Bush has two Sea Sparrow box launchers and two RAM launchers; an ability to engage 4 targets at same time. Crudely adding all ships will give us 4+6+5+5+5 = 25 air targets can be attacked at the same time. So for a saturation missile attack, entire Carrier Strike Group-2 of US Navy actually has less defense than Kuznetsov alone. That is if all 5 ships of CSG-2 work in perfect coordination; which is already achieved by Kuznetsov since both Kashtan and Klinok systems can work in fully automatic mode, and they are linked through the combat information system.

For antishipping; Kuznetsov has twelve 7 ton, supersonic sea skimming missiles. Considering long range, huge warhead, mass, speed and very low LOS time of 8-10 seconds of individual missiles, I believe a salvo fire from Kuznetsov can sink any single ship with ease, from 625km away; (excluding itself and maybe Kirovs) This is not a capability to be taken lightly; other than slavas and kirovs, I don’t think any other ship can claim this. Even if we include airwings, I don’t see how any single carrier/cruiser/destroyer come on top of Kuznetsov in any ship-vs-ship scenario.

Kuznetsov also has anti-torpedo rockets should it be attacked from undersea.

Thirdly crew; again comparing with Nimitz class; it needs 46% crew to operate.

Why most efficient? 1-Kuznetsov weighs 64% of Nimitz, provide 59% airwing, defend itself as well as a US CVBG, yet require less than half crew of Nimitz alone to operate. <- this is efficient. 2- Kuznetsov provides antishipping capabilities of two squadrons of F-18s. So given a modern airwing, Kuznetsov can provide same air superiority as Nimitz, as its airwing won’t be divided for fleet protection or antishipping. <- This is efficient, as it can perform some of its tasks just as 56% heavier Nimitz class. 3- For a combined land strike; Kuznetsov can provide same aviation facilites as Charles De Gaule, plus defensive firepower equivalent to one thirds of the entire French Navy’s line of destroyers and frigates. <- Providing so much capabilities and still be cheaper to build and operate (when compared to Charles de Gaulle) is efficient.

That is my opinion though, anyone can feel free to disagree.