Russian Military News, Reports, Data, etc.

A

Anlsvrthng

Captain
Registered Member
gelgoog said:
From what I understand the Steregushchiy corvettes (20380) and the Admiral Grigorovich frigates (11356Р/М) were basically meant as a low tech replacement for their older ships until more modern alternatives like the Gremyashchiy corvettes (20385) and the Admiral Gorshkov frigates (22350) became available. So they were never meant to be in production for a long time.

The Russians seem to have taken an excruciatingly long time to debug the more modern AESA radars and digital combat systems on the new ship classes. Add to that the issue with lack of engines from Ukraine and Germany due to sanctions. Both these factors basically put the kibosh on any chances those programs could proceed at a decent pace. The engine issue is especially clear in ship classes like the Buyan corvettes (21630/21631), or the Admiral Grigorovich frigates (11356Р/М) which suffered long delays. The modern combat systems delays are particularly evident in the Gremyashchiy corvettes (20385) and the Admiral Gorshkov frigates (22350).

Still, I agree with you that it is unbelievable how slowly Russia's shipyards can produce some ships. I mean just compare the time needed to produce a Gepard class frigate and a Steregushchiy corvette. Both ships have a similar displacement and more or less similar weapon system level. Yet the Steregushchiys take twice as long to build. It seems to be a popular idea among Russian media to attribute the delays to corruption. But personally I think the delays are because the ship designs are simply not adequate for rapid production. Particularly the Steregushchiy/Gremyashchiy corvettes. Too many blocks and parts. There are also delays because of funding issues. I mean sometimes ship construction stalls 1-2 years waiting for funding to come. This is no way to run a business. The government should do block purchases of ship types. At least they seem to be starting to do this with the nuclear submarine program. Also they probably should have focused their purchases on less shipyards. By only giving a couple of orders to each of several yards to keep them all afloat you never get economies of scale from mass production.

I think right now the issues with the combat systems are basically fixed. But the issues with propulsion still remain. Russia simply does not have enough naval engine production but even worse it seems they can't even adequately produce reduction gear and transmissions.

Anyway, the Russian naval industry looks like a basket case. I think the Admiral Gorshkov design is now adequate and they should produce it at another site to increase production rate. They also need to figure out some way to speed up corvette construction and like you said design and manufacture cruiser ships.

Personally I think the Project 20386 corvettes and Project 22160 patrol ships are a bad idea. The Project 22160 at least is being built reasonably quickly, but the equipment level of these ships is just too atrocious. These ships are LCSskies. The ships are basically a hull with a dinky little gun and little else. They provide really poor combat capabilities.
Click to expand...
Issue with ship manufacturing ability could be only secondary.

That could gives month rather years to the schedule .

It is more likely issue with the supply chain, probably many cases they have to make companies from nothing to manufacture parts.

That can increase the lead time and cost by magnitude(s).

And the naval stuff could be fourth priority compared to strategic / land and air forces.
 
TerraN_EmpirE

TerraN_EmpirE

Tyrant King
Gloire_bb said:
According to TASS, it made first "jump"(not a flight yet!) exactly today.
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


Fun thing, technically okhotnik is a volation of INF.
But good friend will always provide a timely help.
Click to expand...
Drones is disputed. The Russians argued that they were violations of the treaty the US argued otherwise.
I favor the US on this as unless it’s a suicide drone it’s not a missile it’s a aircraft. Like a fighter bomber, and INF doesn’t restrict Sea or Air launched weapons in this class hence Naval Tomahawk or B52 launched cruise missiles are not touched. Because the Drone launches the weapons it employs its an aircraft.

Other areas are less clear.
The US points to the SSC8 Satain 2 missile as a violation and the RS26 as Russian violations.
The Russians retorted that the Hera Target missile, Drones and the Aegis ashore batteries are violations. The Hera as it sits in the range. And Aegis because they claim that it could be armed with Tomahawk naval cruise missiles. The US states that the system was knocked down to prevent that.
 
Gloire_bb

Gloire_bb

Captain
Registered Member
TerraN_EmpirE said:
Drones is disputed. The Russians argued that they were violations of the treaty the US argued otherwise.
I favor the US on this as unless it’s a suicide drone it’s not a missile it’s a aircraft. Like a fighter bomber, and INF doesn’t restrict Sea or Air launched weapons in this class hence Naval Tomahawk or B52 launched cruise missiles are not touched. Because the Drone launches the weapons it employs its an aircraft.
Click to expand...
It required definition in a treaty, because it still was against its letter. (and, honestly, in theory was exploitable:just add a wheel to cruise missile and it's a drone...it's just so poorely designed what it never really comes back).
And any such definition brought a risk of restrictions. US side always walked away from it, partially, because drones were their exclusive toy.
TerraN_EmpirE said:
The US states that the system was knocked down to prevent that.
Click to expand...
The US side claimed it wasn't coded to accept tomahawks: launchers are the same.
If not laughable enough (uploading new program isn't exactly a hard or noticeable from the oustide), no russian inspections were permitted(great irony here is, it wasn't even US position, it was a veto from... Poland).
From that point on, any russian weapon development apologist shows this, every time, and he is basically unretortable.
"No secret cia reports or "reliable sources say", just open google maps and see yourself, how evil yankees threaten a naive apologist who is you."
 
Last edited:
A

anzha

Captain
Registered Member
Gloire_bb said:
The US side claimed it wasn't coded to accept tomahawks: launchers are the same.
If not laughable enough (uploading new program isn't exactly a hard or noticeable from the oustide), no russian inspections were permitted(great irony here is, it wasn't even US position, it was a veto from... Poland).
Click to expand...

IIRC, the US did invite Russia to inspect the Romanian Aegis Ashore.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 
TerraN_EmpirE

TerraN_EmpirE

Tyrant King
Gloire_bb said:
It required definition in a treaty, because it still was against its letter. (and, honestly, in theory was exploitable:just add a wheel to cruise missile and it's a drone...it's just so poorely designed what it never really comes back).
And any such definition brought a risk of restrictions. US side always walked away from it, partially, because drones were their exclusive toy.
Click to expand...
Not just the US but Any drone making nation. Any MALE drone would fit that interpretation of a the system even if it doesn’t fly NAP of the earth. And no adding landing gear wouldn’t change a missile to a drone. The key difference was that one had a warhead the other didn’t.
The US was suing recon drones with INF ranges before the treaty and after to.
Then came Predators with missiles but the missile still makes the kill. Again like an aircraft. If we go by the interpretation set of them as INF missiles then fighter bombers and bombers and armed helicopters are all manned GLCM.
 
G

gelgoog

Lieutenant General
Registered Member
TerraN_EmpirE said:
Not just the US but Any drone making nation. Any MALE drone would fit that interpretation of a the system even if it doesn’t fly NAP of the earth. And no adding landing gear wouldn’t change a missile to a drone. The key difference was that one had a warhead the other didn’t.
The US was suing recon drones with INF ranges before the treaty and after to.
Then came Predators with missiles but the missile still makes the kill. Again like an aircraft. If we go by the interpretation set of them as INF missiles then fighter bombers and bombers and armed helicopters are all manned GLCM.
Click to expand...

Drones back then were used for reconnaissance or target practice purposes only. They were not armed.

I would argue that an unmanned armed drone platform is not that different from a cruise missile. If the argument is that a warhead is in a separate vehicle, what to say about multi-stage cruise missiles then? Where is the line?

What the US could claim is that the drones can't carry nuclear payloads yet. But given modern drone platforms I wouldn't bet on that being the case anymore.
Still while you could argue about the drones there is no argument with regards to AEGIS ashore.
The software changes aren't verifiable without an intrusive inspection scheme which I doubt the US would be amenable to.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top