Russian Military News, Reports, Data, etc.

2handedswordsman

2handedswordsman

Junior Member
Registered Member
HighGround said:
@Gloire_bb

Putin isn't personally hand stamping ship orders... But sure, the failure of the Russian MIC and its military leadership to provide a solution to Ukraine's Black Sea drone fleet is notable, but that's not to say that they won't eventually create one.

Though I'm not quite clear about why you're so critical of Russia's naval strategy. The Russian Navy is largely trapped. It's main priority is to protect a critical part of its nuclear triad, with all other roles being a functional luxury. It is making notable progress in regards to larger surface combatants and helicopter carriers (which are probably what it actually needs rather than actual carriers), but it is also limited by its own industry.

Development of new and larger radars, better sonars, better armaments are necessary to produce a larger warship. This happens regularly in China, but Russia is a much smaller country than China with a much smaller economy and it's still producing a respectable number of warship designs (and actual warships) relative to its size.

Quite frankly, it's significantly outperforming in MIC relative to its economy. Most nation-states simply cannot support an MIC this large and advanced. Compare it to the UK, which does need blue water assets to contribute to its fight and does have a large economy, large population, and market access to anything it could need. It's fleet isn't that much more impressive than the Russian fleet, and its other branches are woeful by comparison. The state of their MIC is also pitiful.

I suppose a better example would be RoK, who does have a very well managed fleet, other armed branches, and respectable MIC, but it's also much more modest in size with significantly less coastline and land to defend.

I don't think you can really say this is gross mis-management. Taking all the various factors into account, the current status and near-future prospects of the Russian Navy are fairly logical and respectable.
Click to expand...
Yup. I recently was checking the Russian navy and my conclusion is nearly what you said. As @Gloire_bb mentioned, they put a real effort on subs, counting probably on the masses of soviet overarmed corvettes. But the battlefield is evolving day by day. Sadly, and luckily for the target we never witnessed a wartime P500 launch by the Moskva
 
Tomboy

Tomboy

Junior Member
Registered Member
P

pmc

Colonel
Registered Member
gelgoog said:
The Russians also pulled back their ground attack aviation after significant airframe losses in the first year of the war. Then they came up with the UMPK and now their aviation is active again.
Click to expand...
I dont think there were significant losses nor attack aviation ever withdrawn. infact based on RT Arabic it kept increasing as i already posted about Su-57 from Saudi commentary referencing Summer of 2002. Aviation was keep increasing. just today regarding Mi-28NM is double tweet. and than RT website live there is whole Programmes about ukraine that has different context than what is in the tweets. you can bet that most sorties are by attack choppers by order of magnitude.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1949119240268623904
https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1949115725504709032
1753618971289.png
 
S

Soldier30

Captain
Registered Member
The new Russian Shturm project robotic assault tank and control vehicle have been spotted near Uralvagonzavod. The Shturm project consists of remotely controlled tanks and control vehicles developed on the basis of the T-72 and T-90 tank chassis. The Shturm project robotic tank is equipped with a shortened 125 or 152 mm gun designed for use in urban areas. The tank should be equipped with active protection and a bulldozer blade. There is no exact data on the project. Unmanned tanks and control vehicles are supposed to be made as autonomous as possible

 
Lethe

Lethe

Captain
Gloire_bb said:
They don't lack money.

They're building boomers and alternative boomers (status deterrence submarines, cruise missile submarines with clear secondar deterrence role) like they have a fever, despite lacking basic means to protect them (like what's the point of deep acoustic stealth, if blue submarine can just stick to you from base and/or other point?).

1-2 such submarines all cost like building a carrier, not just repairing it.
Click to expand...

I think that Russia has been correct to prioritise its submarine inventory in recent decades. Even there, the returns have been only adequate at best, there is no superfluity of modern submarines in the Russian Navy. Your point about the lack of supporting ASW assets is well taken, but I don't see how maintaining Kuznetsov in service helps to address that either.

There is undoubtedly a certain value in maintaining a carrier that already exists and thereby maintaining perishable skills. But the ultimate question is: to what end? If Liaoning was as far as the Chinese carrier program was ever going to go, her acquisition and refurbishment would correctly be regarded as a wasteful and pointless endeavour, because a single carrier is not a militarily useful asset except in the most fortuitous of circumstances and against the most obliging of adversaries. It's a training aid.

The problem with Admiral Kuznetsov is not Admiral Kuznetsov, but rather that the Russian carrier program evidently has no future. The UK can get away with two carriers as a minimum threshold capability (and then only by operating foreign aircraft and cutting the rest of the fleet to the bone). The equivalent minimum threshold for Russia, given its more challenging strategic geography, would be three carriers. Four or five would be more comfortable. And unlike the Royal Navy, which has had the luxury of (a) facing no peer threats and (b) leveraging the US Navy to cover for its own weaknesses, those Russian carriers would also have to be accompanied by robust escort and support inventories and entirely indigenous airwings. There is no prospect of achieving this and that has been evident for a long while now. The undignified fate of Moskva has undoubtedly underlined to Putin and others the folly of maintaining hollow forces for the sake of appearances.
 
Last edited:
A

Anlsvrthng

Captain
Registered Member
Russian, chinese,usa and uk carrier usage targets and strategies completly different.

Chinese carriers needs to protect the trade and ballistic subs in the Chinese sea, contested area with lot of dangers, and minimal control from China over the seabed and areas.
Anti subs aircrafts and enemy subs can by in the sea, so they need airpower.

Russia, other hand, most likelly just finished the installation of nuclear reactor poweered acoustic sensor network in the arctic ocean.

Combine it with long range torpedo/missile/torpedo systems from diesel subs and long range drones these systems makes the Kuz purposeless.

I don't want to comment on the purpose USA/UK carriers, because I can't find a reason for they existence beyond corruption .
 
P

pmc

Colonel
Registered Member
Lethe said:
I think that Russia has been correct to prioritise its submarine inventory in recent decades. Even there, the returns have been only adequate at best, there is no superfluity of modern submarines in the Russian Navy. Your point about the lack of supporting ASW assets is well taken, but I don't see how maintaining Kuznetsov in service helps to address that either.

There is undoubtedly a certain value in maintaining a carrier that already exists and thereby maintaining perishable skills. But the ultimate question is: to what end? If Liaoning was as far as the Chinese carrier program was ever going to go, her acquisition and refurbishment would correctly be regarded as a wasteful and pointless endeavour, because a single carrier is not a militarily useful asset except in the most fortuitous of circumstances and against the most obliging of adversaries. It's a training aid.

The problem with Admiral Kuznetsov is not Admiral Kuznetsov, but rather that the Russian carrier program evidently has no future. The UK can get away with two carriers as a minimum threshold capability (and then only by operating foreign aircraft and cutting the rest of the fleet to the bone). The equivalent minimum threshold for Russia, given its more challenging strategic geography, would be three carriers. Four or five would be more comfortable. And unlike the Royal Navy, which has had the luxury of (a) facing no peer threats and (b) leveraging the US Navy to cover for its own weaknesses, those Russian carriers would also have to be accompanied by robust escort and support inventories and entirely indigenous airwings. There is no prospect of achieving this and that has been evident for a long while now. The undignified fate of Moskva has undoubtedly underlined to Putin and others the folly of maintaining hollow forces for the sake of appearances.
Click to expand...
Moskova was never upgraded and not realistically maintained either . There is no place for Aircraft carriers in 21st century peer conflict Certain things need to be visibly fail to make the kind of change that Putin wanted to do.
Russian Navy is only one that the longest range and highest speed missiles.
you can just look at some videos of Russian Onyx missile. there is no missile that accelerate like this one at low altitude and Ukrainian has hardly any claim about its intercept. Russian version has much larger warhead than Brahmos.
When i said 21st century i mean 6G radars and AAMs. try to use a MPA to find a sub when bombers will be launching AAMs against it. Its basically all around Radar coverage with most powerfull systems. This is the direction of technology. They are going much beyond anything they are showing currently in AAMs.
Who else knows about Air defense except Russians after this Ukraine experience. Just this RT Arabic coverage alone give you idea that attack chopper is the most important element of surveillance and air defense. when ever there is transport chopper in picture there are also attack choppers and these attack choppers are widely distributed.
fighter planes are not suitable for these small drones flying at lower altitude and Ukranians were not as stealthy as Russian can make there own. neither is Strom Shadow/ ATACMs the most difficult combination as they are outdated tech and saturation ability of Ukraine simply not there. so imagine a peer competitor will do to navy that provide big targets like aircraft carrier and its support bases.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Russian engineers have turned the legendary "White Swan" Tu-160M2 into a flying fortress​

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
25.07.2025
It has become known that the modernized Tu-160M2 of new construction has become the world's first strategic bomber-missile carrier that can hit air targets in the rear hemisphere.
Click to expand...

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
At the same time, the updated "White Swan" will be able to independently carry out electronic warfare thanks to the new complex developed by KRET. When creating the electronic warfare system for the Tu-160M2, the developments of the Himalayas complex, which is equipped with the Russian fifth-generation fighter T-50 (PAK FA), are used, Zvezda TV reports.

Even before the modernization, the Tu-160 is considered the largest strategic missile carrier in the world, it is capable of carrying 54 tons of weapons, accelerating to 2,300 km / h (corresponding to the most modern fighters) and covering almost 14 thousand kilometers. Western military experts and publications (for example, National Interest) have repeatedly called the Tu-160 the most powerful aircraft in the history of military aviation.
Click to expand...
 
P

pmc

Colonel
Registered Member
This huge transformation within few years. A company that was known for fighter jet engines is now associated with every modern Civil engines by name. There is flight display for this firm.
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
18.07.202503:40

Ufa enterprise ODK-UMPO awarded the Order of Alexander Nevsky​

Today, UEC-UMPO employs over 26,000 highly qualified specialists. The company's main products are intended for aircraft of the Su and MiG families. UEC-UMPO is involved in key projects of the United Engine Corporation for the production of engines for civil aviation - PD-14, PD-8, PD-35 and for helicopters - VK-650V, VK-1600V. Another relevant area of work is industrial engines for the fuel and energy complex of Russia.
Click to expand...

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top