Russian Navy Thread 2.

Read the forum code of contact

One of them (the biggest by far, affecting several airframes) I'm sure you can guess, and this is not the place to discuss it ;) For all its good looks and excellent strike performance, I also consider the Su-34 redundant (Su-30/35 and upgraded Tu-22M could have filled the same niche sooner, for less money and with no appreciable compromise in capability). Another, on a smaller scale, was retiring the far more flexible Kh-15 in favour of an updated version of the bulky Kh-22M.

Member for

16 years 11 months

Posts: 402

Like ?

Do you really have to ask him that :highly_amused: Finally, I for sure know that our dear Trident is an Antonov employee :dev2:

I'll try to become serious now :p

Do we finally know which defensive weapons will be placed on the Vladivostok and the Sevastopol?

Member for

20 years 4 months

Posts: 6,186

One of them (the biggest by far, affecting several airframes) I'm sure you can guess, and this is not the place to discuss it ;) For all its good looks and excellent strike performance, I also consider the Su-34 redundant (Su-30/35 and upgraded Tu-22M could have filled the same niche sooner, for less money and with no appreciable compromise in capability). Another, on a smaller scale, was retiring the far more flexible Kh-15 in favour of an updated version of the bulky Kh-22M.

By your logic i see even Su-35 redundant , why spend 4+ years flight testing it if all they wanted is powerful engine and a new PESA radar they could have done on Su-30 frame ....the point is if you need niche performance that can give you tactical advantage you end up developing specialise type Su-35 and Su-34 are those niche type just drilled to do specialised task while Su-30 types still remain a jack of all trade type.

Tu-22 is a different bird and the logistics foot print and the turn around time means it cant be a substitute for Su-34.

Not to drag this too far off-topic, but...

By your logic i see even Su-35 redundant , why spend 4+ years flight testing it if all they wanted is powerful engine and a new PESA radar they could have done on Su-30 frame

Actually if you want to be purist, that does indeed follow from my thinking, *ideally* what is now the Su-35S and Su-30SM (with substantial differences in many respects) should have been conceived from the outset as single- and twin-seat variants of the same basic aircraft.

... the point is if you need niche performance that can give you tactical advantage you end up developing specialise type Su-35 and Su-34 are those niche type just drilled to do specialised task while Su-30 types still remain a jack of all trade type.

Tu-22 is a different bird and the logistics foot print and the turn around time means it cant be a substitute for Su-34.

Neither the Su-35/30 nor the Tu-22M (upgraded) can, individually, do everything the Su-34 does with the same ability, but in combination they most assuredly can - and then some! So for the price of a few additional Su-35/30s (some 140+ of which will now be procured anyway) and a thorough upgrade to part of the *existing* Backfire fleet (which is planned to be upgraded with at least a new radar as is), they could have had the same end result, probably years earlier too.

Don't get me wrong, unlike that other aircraft procurement mistake which must not be named, the Su-34 will at least do a good job, but it still took more time and money than necessary to get there (hell, they still keep changing stuff even now).

Member for

13 years 5 months

Posts: 9,579

And THAT, more than anything else, is what this project is all about. I would have preferred it if they had gone for the larger BPC250 version and added a decent defensive weapons fit so that they got more military utility into the bargain, but there are worse mistakes in current Russian procurement.

We will see how much of a "learning" experience this really ends up being.
So far the portion of the ship built @ Baltisky is tiny compared to what is being done in France.
And it's not like Russian shipyards ever had a a bad issue building steel ship sections on time, assuming funding was stable.

Member for

20 years 4 months

Posts: 6,186

Actually if you want to be purist, that does indeed follow from my thinking, *ideally* what is now the Su-35S and Su-30SM (with substantial differences in many respects) should have been conceived from the outset as single- and twin-seat variants of the same basic aircraft.

There is pretty much a decade of difference between Su-35 and Su-30SM aka Russianised MKI , The latter is cheaper and is available but Su-35 took some time to come up infact long time , it probably had 3-4 years of flight testing program.

Neither the Su-35/30 nor the Tu-22M (upgraded) can, individually, do everything the Su-34 does with the same ability, but in combination they most assuredly can - and then some! So for the price of a few additional Su-35/30s (some 140+ of which will now be procured anyway) and a thorough upgrade to part of the *existing* Backfire fleet (which is planned to be upgraded with at least a new radar as is), they could have had the same end result, probably years earlier too.

Don't get me wrong, unlike that other aircraft procurement mistake which must not be named, the Su-34 will at least do a good job, but it still took more time and money than necessary to get there (hell, they still keep changing stuff even now)

From the side we can pretty much argue upon what could and should have been done but then we dont have to manage an airforce or dont really fully know the implication of buying specialised an generalised type and how it fits in the big jigsaw puzzle of Tactical , Strategic and Financial requirement that RuAF foresees say 10-20 years from now.

Time is the best answer may be when we come back to the debate 15 years from now we will get a good picture on where things stand and what were the pluses and minuses of the purchases done 2 decades earlier.

Member for

13 years 1 month

Posts: 241

Recent pic of Admiral Gorshkov.

Attachments

Member for

13 years 1 month

Posts: 241

Recent pic of vladivostok.

Attachments

Member for

13 years 1 month

Posts: 241

Marshal Ustinov in preparation for launch.

Attachments

Member for

13 years 1 month

Posts: 1,482

http://www.balancer.ru/sites/i/c/ic....65944_1000.jpg

Nice photo of the mighty Severodvinsk!


Beautiful!

Still didn't sink huh? Those Australian "experts" have some serious thinking to do... :D

How dare you question the Aussies shouting from bottom of the earth? Cant you see the sub is already 2/3rd sunk. The rest of it sank after the photo session was over. :D

Here a good one from Sevmash. Pr.955 & Pr.885
http://sevmash.livejournal.com/

http://www.sevmash.ru/rus/images/stories/kund2243p.jpg

Member for

13 years 1 month

Posts: 1,482

And THAT, more than anything else, is what this project is all about. I would have preferred it if they had gone for the larger BPC250 version and added a decent defensive weapons fit so that they got more military utility into the bargain, but there are worse mistakes in current Russian procurement.

No, the rate at which the hull have been built cant be credited to anyone.

But I agree, I would have preferred the bigger one, more preferably, the Jaun Carlos without the ramp. But at the table, the French military cooperation weighed in more than the Spanish offer and probably some under deck hand shake for the top guys made the mistrals a reality.

Member for

20 years 4 months

Posts: 6,186

That would make two Kirov class Peter the Great and Nakhimov , what about the third one ?

Member for

17 years 11 months

Posts: 1,010

Lazarev and Ushakov are older thank Nakhimov and may not be modernized. Peter and Nakhimov are more than enough of emotional money splurge for show that a cool headed admiral and secretary of defense would be against, anyway.

Member for

13 years 5 months

Posts: 9,579

How is it a money splurge? And who is against it exactly?
One of these guys is much more effective in terms of surface battle group synergy than a couple of 22350s.
Retiring AKulas and bringing back Nakhimov is the right idea. Peter the Great is not enough on its own.
Lazarev and Ushakov are in much worse shape, forget about them.

Member for

13 years 1 month

Posts: 3

Kirov Class builders of Australia

Well on what happens in Russia with all the Kirov Class Ships there will always be a few here down under in Australia.
There are 3-4 Kirovs being built here at scale 1/72

One in Western Australia
The Kallanin
[ATTACH=CONFIG]217621[/ATTACH]

One in Tumut N.S.W.
The Frunze alongside the model of the USS Long Beach
[ATTACH=CONFIG]217622[/ATTACH]

In Brisbane QLD
The Admiral Erwin (Based on a Kirov class renamed after his dad)
and I have heard of one in Canberra ACT.

Mick
Tumut Australia

Attachments

Member for

18 years 2 months

Posts: 452

Russia Moves Mistral Stern Construction to France

(Source: RIA Novosti; published June 18, 2013)

Illustrating the risk to capabilities when defense spending is cut too far, Russia is moving construction of the Mistral-class LPD to France because its own shipyard cannot meet contract terms. (FR MoD)

LE BOURGET, France --- The construction of the stern for the first Mistral helicopter carrier being built for the Russian Navy will be finished in France because a Russian shipyard cannot meet the deadline specified in the contract, a senior Russian defense official said Tuesday.

“We will have the whole stern made there [in France], we won't take risks so as not to delay the contract,” Deputy Defense Minister Yury Borisov told reporters on the sidelines of the Paris Air Show in Le Bourget.

Borisov said the decision had been made as it became evident that the Severnaya Verf shipyard in St. Petersburg, subcontacted to build the stern for the ship, was not going to meet the deadline.

Russia and France signed a contract for two French-built Mistral-class helicopter carriers in June 2011. The first, the Vladivostok, is being built at the DCNS shipyard in Saint-Nazaire and is due to be delivered in 2014, while the second, the Sevastopol, is scheduled for delivery in 2015.

Borisov said the Vladivostok may be moved as early as in October from France to Russia where Russian armaments, communications systems and other equipment would be installed.

He also said the Sevastopol helicopter carrier was laid down at an official ceremony in Saint-Nazaire on Tuesday.

Russia has put back plans to build two additional Mistral-class ships under French license to 2016, citing the need to assess the ships’ performance, role and status as part of the Russian Navy.

The Mistral deal came under fire from senior Russian officials in January, following the dismissal of former Defense Minister Anatoly Serdyukov, had who actively lobbied for their purchase.

-ends-

http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articles-view/release/3/145962/russia-moves-mistral-construction-to-france.html