Russian Navy Capability

>>31984212

They still have a long way to go before they can get back to where the Soviet navy was.

>>31984212
Well equipped they are not.

Professional vs non professional depends on the vessel.

The equipment itself is obsolete, if huge (thus still a threat), at best, absolutely decrepit at worst

that shitty aircraft carrier could 1v1 any other aircraft carrier in the world.

And now you understand why WoWS was such a bad game.

>>31984243
explain

File: 1478984584679.jpg (63KB, 1200x848px) Image search: [Google]

63KB, 1200x848px

>>31984243

>that shitty aircraft carrier could 1v1 any other aircraft carrier in the world.

The delusion is real, folks.

>>31984247
Its got a shitload of missiles under its flight deck.
It could overwhelm an enemy carrier with out the protection of its carrier group with missile spam.

>>31984248
That smoke is compression artifacts from the camera

>>31984248
is.. is that an oilslick behind it?

File: 1478984792894.jpg (142KB, 800x600px) Image search: [Google]

142KB, 800x600px

>>31984283
>>31984287

It can be seen from SPACE.

File: lLzlwlE.jpg (231KB, 1280x852px) Image search: [Google]

231KB, 1280x852px

Thing is, the Russians have a different doctrine when it comes to navies. First, let's exclude missile launching submarines, which are a part of nuclear deterrence and not naval combat doctrine.

NATO - and especially the USA and France - believe in a large blue water navy, made to project forces and protect them with a massive naval air force. This is why they have a huge boner for aircraft carriers and landing/assault/carrier ships like the USS Wasp class.

Then the Russian navy is built around a brown/grey water navy to protect the coastline, and then powerful attack submarines and lots of ship mounted AShMs to fuck up approaching carrier groups. They don't want to control the seas neither to maintain a huge naval aviation. Why? Because unlike the USA which is politically an island (no threats on the borders), every potential enemy for Russia is on its borders. Europe, China, the Middle East... So, they don't need to project forces on the sea, so they don't need a navy and air force to transport task forces and support their attacks, so the Soviet - and later Russian navy has one goal, defending the coastline, with small ships spread everywhere, and some battlegroups built around AShM capability, to fuck up any incoming enemy task force. Because if the USA is a potential enemy, they need either to land forces in Europe or South Korea first, because if you can operate a landing and its support accross the British Channel, even the USA can't do it accross the Pacific Ocean.

So, no need to control the seas for Russia. So, no huge numbers of aircraft carriers. They have the navy they want and need. Of course most of it is rusting since the 90s, but it can still fulfill its mission, which is not to contest the Pacific Ocean against the US Navy.

Everyone says "lol poorfags, only one aircraft carrier", but if the Russians felt cheeki, they could answer "lol dumb fucks, they don't have a single missile battlecruiser or small corvettes with heavy AShMs".

>>31984298
thats not smoke, its a fog of chaos

>>31984264
Fighters can engage said missiles.

>>31984287
Its the deep sea horizon spill, not that difficult to reverse image search.

>>31984323
You can launch missiles faster than you can launch fighters All the missiles will be incoming when the match starts before a single fighter is even in the air

>>31984302
>They have the navy they want and need.

They have neither, in the russian navys current state.

>>31984330
CAP is a thing, with awacs giving a 400 mile radius of detection.

Furthermore, naval planes carry more than one missile.

>>31984302
This is why, for example, Russia's quite large Naval Aviation is mostly (and when I say mostly, it's 90%) land-based, and actually has lots, lots of bombers. Its job is to protect the coastline against NATO task forces with super heavy AShMs in large numbers.

Look at the Soviet aircraft carriers, both Kiev and Kuznetsov classes. The carrier air group is quite small compared to other carriers of similar tonnage, but which Western carrier is a heavily armed missile cruiser as well? And the first Soviet aviation carrier, the Moskva class, was designed with anti submarine warfare in mind, carrying only ASW and search and rescue/recon helicopters.

This is why, as well, every single Soviet/Russian carrier has diesel engines instead of a nuclear core. They're meant to operate close to Russian shores, and to provide some local air superiority (Su-33, MiG-29K) and CAS (Yak-38) in case of a small Naval Infantry attack, or to be a threat to US aircraft in case of a confrontation.

Of course, most of it is rusting and suffers from limited training, but the doctrine makes sense if you look at Russia/the USSR, a land power that doesn't have a direct need neither the financial resources to maintain an oceanic superiority navy. Cheap, and does the job.

>>31984302

How many functional Kirov cruisers remain? 1? That's not nearly enough. There should be at least a dozen of them, updated with state-of-the-art technology.

>>31984302
Certainly their combat doctrine seems to be to fill the air with as many missiles as possible and assume a couple will hit. Naval warfare is interesting when you think that the standard combatant is insanely expensive, and at the same time can be taken out by 1 or 2 hits.

Big ships will be the last thing to be replaced. Submarines and smaller ships have the priority.

>>31984363
>>31984333
Doctrine guy reporting. Of course, in practice, they have some rusty ships, and some operational ones, but even with a huge overhauling campaign, they'd be only a shadow of the Soviet VMF at the top of its might. Which was, at the top of its might, able to defend the Soviet coastline against NATO task forces and prove to be a tough defensive nut to crack, but not to go much further, seriously threatening Japan would already be the highest extent of its offensive power, and that's in favourable conditions.

>>31984363
One, yes. They've been talking about overhauling a second one, but it's just talk.

The Russian navy is the poorest branch of the Russian Armed Forces, it has always been and is likely to always be. Because Russia is a land power, and the navy is secondary.

>>31984212

~ 2000 tonnes - Corvette
~ 4000 tonnes - Frigate
~ 8000 tonnes - Destroyer
>16000 tonnes - Cruiser

They don't have Zumwalt so they suck

>>31984399
>tonnes
Buyan-M is 1000 tons

>>31984397
Yeah, doctrine does not equal their practice right now. They are not toothless, but could they stop a determined US naval attack? No.

File: CxFk-ubXEAE9Pwc.jpg (84KB, 886x1200px) Image search: [Google]

84KB, 886x1200px

>>31984248

That pic is fake.

This one is real though and yes you CAN see its smoketrail from space.

>>31984338

Every fucking time.

It's the simplest fucking scenario, 1 ship vs 1 ship. Then the fatnik starts backpedalling.

Buddyboy, what if Russia also has AWACS. What if their fighters launch awacs-killers? What if they get extra Kalibr support from a bunch of russian frigates? What if some submarine torpedoes the shit out of something? What if what if what.

Just stick to 1v1, you'll backpedal out of your cuckshed if you don't.

>>31984264
>Its got a shitload of missiles under its flight deck.

>It could overwhelm an enemy carrier with out the protection of its carrier group with missile spam.

It has 12. They could be shot down by a single CAP.

File: Untitled44.png (826KB, 1565x883px) Image search: [Google]

826KB, 1565x883px

When they recently started deploying their Kalibr cruise-missiles, their Navy got a major power spike, because allegedly they can be put on all their ships including corvettes.

Also they're upgrading their subs.

I don't think Russia's some rando pushover.

>>31984212
They are beat in total tonnage, their fleet has huge maintainence issues and they don't have enough naval air power.

On paper they can still put together very hardy battlegroups and hold their territorial waters.

>>31985651
If it manages to launch a surprise attack (before the target carrier launches its CAP) then yes it could overwhelm a carrier in a 1 v 1 scenario, which is what we're discussing here.

Recent footage

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3yWByAs8B30

>>31985697
>recent
>footages from army 2016 and Caucasus exercises

Wut

>>31985688
You don't seem to understand a CAP is always up. That's why it's called a patrol.

>>31985853
Stop moving the goalposts, fatnik. That's not the scenario we're discussing here.

>>31985860
No, you just got caught out because you didn't know a CAP is always on station. Now you're trying to say I'm changing the goalposts after you've just argued the point and lost.

File: A-10s can now kill carriers.gif (824KB, 180x135px) Image search: [Google]

824KB, 180x135px

>>31984212
According to Ace Combat and other vidya, a fleet of Warthogs and Floggers can take down the entire Russian navy with no support

>>31984212#:

Admirar Kuznetsov is one of the best carriers out there, honest. Their frigates have gotten a hell of an update in recent years too...
Besides, russky automated AA defenses can best phalanx any day .
NATO fleets don't stand a chance

File: 14570300189015675.jpg (21KB, 522x346px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 522x346px

>aircraft carrier
>barely carries aircraft

>>31985630

...By AWACS, they obviously mean the AEW&C of the carrier based E2C, not a land-based E3. It is incredibly

Assuming this isn't a first strike scenario, where war has not been declared, it is highly unlikely that any other surface ship will get the drop on a USN supercarrier, even without a supporting fleet.

File: project 1160.png (245KB, 1024x558px) Image search: [Google]

245KB, 1024x558px

>>31984302
>They have the navy they want and need.
no, back in the day they did want a viable navy of force projection, and they did have a true blue water navy in the 70s and 80s. The thing that REALLY fucked them up was Ustinov -minister of Defence of the USSR- the retard. He allowed himself to be influenced by ALL the wrong people/design bureos.
It was his fault that the USSR did not start to develop a nuclear carrier.
>ever found it funny how the Soviets had a fucking Nuclear Missile Cruiser but the Admiral Kuznetsov has conventional propulsion? Thats because the Kirovs became a thing before Ustinov, and the Adm. Kuz. only came in the 80s, after he got his filthy hands in the business.

He was influenced by Yakovlev who lobbied for their shitty vertical takeoff designs on Soviet aircraft carriers. This is why ski jumps are a thing. If it wasn't for Ustinov, the Soviets would probably have had 2-3 nuclear super carriers ready by the late 80s.

He is also the reason why T-80 tanks got gas turbines instead of diesels, but thats an entirely different story...

>>31985892

They're also testing a bunch of stuff in Syria atm. Ka52s and other helos.

>>31985892
Aircraft cruiser. Aircraft CRUISER. I'm not defending it for mother Russia. It's just a totally unique ship used for a unique purpose and doctrine. That it has never been used for it's unique role is why there is only one. At the very least it can be used in a battlegroup and use it's aircraft for fleet awareness. Not engagement.

>>31984212
The Chink navy is far superior than the Russian navy.

That is how bad they are right now.

>>31985860
>CAP is an eternal presence
>STOP MOVING THE GOALPOSTS
top kek, stay mad that we can track your shitty carrier via smoke plume alone, from fucking space no less.

>tfw tomcats literally were a hard counter to the entire backbone of the slavshit navy
enjoy having all your missiles taken out by interceptors alone

>>31986004
Please tell the story. History of Russia is both fascinating and amusing.

>>31986994
I think we can take the attempt to build the Ulyanovsk as a sign that, at some level, people in the USSR recognized how handicapped they were without real aircraft carriers.

>>31988436
Plus the fact that the Shtorm design is a more traditional aircraft carrier, and they're planning to take the Granits off the Kuz in it's next refit. It's design is an interesting concept, but the Russians themselves don't seem confident in it anymore.

>>31984397
>just talk

The second one is in dock now getting overhauled.

3rd and 4th were determined to be too far gone to bother repairing, and are being decommissioned.

So it's just two (once it's out of dry dock) Kirovs left.

File: do it for her T80.jpg (74KB, 481x356px) Image search: [Google]

74KB, 481x356px

>>31988375
If you mean the story of the T-80, it is not so complicated.

>The Obiekt 219 might have been retired as another failed experiment but
for Grechko's death in April 1976 and the appointment of Dmitriy Ustinov
in his place. Ustinov was a break in Soviet tradition: not a field con:unander,
but chief of the Soviet defense industries since World War II. He had been
one of the most ardent advocates of the conversion to gas-turbine propulsion
since the mid-1960s, and Obiekt 219 had been one of his pet projects.
As a result, on August 6, 1976, the Obiekt 219,was suddenly accepted for
production under the army designation of T-80. The numerous teething
problems uncovered during recent trials were brushed aside, to be settled
during the course of serial production.
Nevertheless, there was continuing interest in the
Soviet Army to replace the turbine on the T-80 due to its high procurement
and operating costs. For example, in the 1980s the V-46 diesel engine on the
T-n cost only R9,600 while the GTD-1 000 turbine was more than ten times
more expensive at R104,000. Furthermore, the turbine had a shorter running
life, consumed more fuel, and was complicated and expensive to maintain
and repair.
Ustinov's views were not universally shared within the Soviet Army and
a Defense Ministry study in 1984 concluded that for the next five-year plan,
the Soviet Army could purchase 2,500 tanks and 6,000 6TD diesel engines,
or 1,500 tanks and 2,000 GTD-1250 turbine engines. Ustinov's death in
December 1984, followed by that of Leningrad party-boss Romanov in July
1985, removed the two most prominent supporters of the Leningrad turbine
tank and cleared the way for a return to diesel tanks

File: 0_85215_4b0840d_XXL.jpg (145KB, 1024x680px) Image search: [Google]

145KB, 1024x680px

>>31984212
Not too good at conventional warfare (as if it is a thing) right now. Adequate as nuclear deterrent. In 10 years? Don`t know, we`ll see as the time comes.

Do the Russians have anything like our Amphibious Assault Ships?

File: «Мордовия»_и_«Евгений_Кочешков».jpg (269KB, 900x600px) Image search: [Google]

269KB, 900x600px

>>31988929
They have THE Amphibious Assault Ships. Best ones.

>>31988929
Not really, they use fuckhuge LCACs instead.

>>31984243
>>31984247
>>31984248
Not him but I think he means it's built-in anti-ship armament vastly outmatches that of any other carrier, which makes sense since the Kuznetsov is really an aircraft-carrying cruiser rather than a dedicated carrier. Of course, this is a pretty contrived argument to begin with, because even if both sides were somehow barred from using aircraft, a carrier would always be accompanied by escorts anyways.

>>31985890
>Admirar Kuznetsov is one of the best carriers out there, honest.
Are you seriously saying it's in the same class as the Nimitz? It's a decent ship for a low-end defensive navy that wants some air support, but it does not have the speed, endurance, or capacity of the Nimitz class. And yeah, it does obviously beat the Nimitz in integral anti-ship capability, but that's really not an argument in its favor - a first rate navy like the USN can have dedicated carriers, with escort cruisers providing the missile capability. The Kuznetsov is basically stuck doing both roles, since they couldn't afford to have both another cruiser and a proper carrier.

>>31985853
Except they would never attack a CAG with just the Kuznetsov. You would have a coordinated attack from the Kuz, it's air group, a Kirov, multiple SSN's and maybe even an SSGN, bombers carrying AShM and EWAR aircraft in support. They would perhaps have to deal with a hundred missiles.

>>31984243
tomorrow you get extra potato in your ration, comrade

File: TSUSHIMA.png (886KB, 1837x2153px) Image search: [Google]

886KB, 1837x2153px

But let's not kid ourselves about the Russian navy; it knows better than to try and control the seas, apart from doing Germany-style submarine warfare. You just need to read up on the battle of Tsushima to know why.
>still a fan of the RuN

>>31989029
Primarily LSTs (19 active) and various LCI/LCMs, there are only two LSAC in service.

Russian doesn't have a great naval history and for the most part they never needed a strong navy since most of their objectives have been easily accessible via land routes.

>>31984212
Their fleet that just sailed to the med had 4 Ships, the Kutz, their only floating Kirov class and two purpose built Deep Sea Tugs. They have a long way to go.

>>31984212
Veteran 1N2C here

They're nothing compared to China.

>>31989902
You might want to check your numbers.
The fleet that left Severomorsk was Kuznetsov, Peter the Great, two Udaloys, two oilers and a tug.
Counting ships they picked up along they way and ships already there, its 12+ warships and 10+ auxiliaries and landing ships, varying every couple of days.

>>31984248
Holy fuck. Look at the oil slick that thing leaves behind. It's literally burning oil while its dumping it at the same time.

>>31990187
It's a tactic in order to neutralize US Navy dolphins. By killing all wildlife in a 1 mile radius it's safe from sabotage.

>>31984248
it may be a hunk of junk, but it's got a fuckload of perfectly serviceable anti ship missiles.
Its a hybrid cruiser/carrier. Designed to go solo if needs be, so has less planes and more anti ship weaponry

>>31990221
>By killing all wildlife in a 1 mile radius it's safe from sabotage.
It killed more than that. Hundreds of thousands of birds, sea mammals and turtles, and literally billions of fish and crustaceans. According to the US govt.

>>31990249
>Fuckload
>12 missiles

Yeaaaaah no. 12 rounds is chicken shit, even if they're big scary P-series.

>>31990249
>but it's got a fuckload of perfectly serviceable anti ship missiles.

I never understand this argument. The large amount of SAMs it has is an advantage, and shows what sort of role it's supposed to have, but the Granits don't matter. You know planes can also launch missiles right?