/k/ memes aside, is Russia's navy in as poor condition as

>>33614417
Russia isn't even on China's level.

File: 1453799343769.jpg (1MB, 2893x2006px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2893x2006px

>>33614417
Yes, after the fall of the SU they literally had no money and their surface fleet was never a priority leading to most of the funding going towards missile development and non-military things.

>>33614417
their present maritime capability equates to shilling on Hawaiian Supply Chain Discussion Boards about the capability of their equipment (most of which doesn't exist or was only made as a prototype) until the enemy just stops trying entirely

>>33614454
Shit, not even on a technological level? Isn't military technology the one aspect in which Russia overtops every country not named USA?
>>33614457
Wow, there's something a bit depressing about seeing something once so great go to complete shit so quickly.

The Russians do have some impressive looking air defense ships. I believe the Russian Navy had a fairly large presence off the coast of Syria but they mostly departed with the Kuznetsov a few months ago. It would be interesting to see how Pyotr Velikiy or Varyag/Moskva would have done against 59 Tomahawks.

File: 1465395555478.jpg (669KB, 4592x3056px) Image search: [Google]

669KB, 4592x3056px

>>33614506
Technologically they are similar; but China, being surrounded by water, put a big priority on a maritime force. Russian interests are very close, and they have to spend wisely with such a limited budget so their navy (other than subs) generally gets least funding.
Russia really got fucked during the collapse.

>>33614417
It's always British people who get butthurt because they grew up hearing "Britannia rules the waves", so whenever they're reminded Russian submarine fleet could make quick work of the Royal Navy they get butthurt and start screaming "REMEMBER THE KURSK! YASEN CLASS IS A PIECE OF JUNK! VANGUARD CLASS IS THE BEST IN THE WORLD!

>>33614707
I'm from Canada you underevolved vatnik. Go shitpost elsewhere
>>33614668
>Russian interests are very close
Do you mean geographically?

File: Kirov.jpg (133KB, 1024x768px) Image search: [Google]

133KB, 1024x768px

>>33614417

Russia once had the strongest surface combatants in the world. It wasn't missiles or cannonfire that killed them, but rust and neglect.

>>33614796
>Russia once had the strongest surface combatants in the world

when?

>>33615060
Before the Japanese kicked their ass in the Battle of Tsushima.

Soviet naval strength, 1991
>Carriers: 7 (1 Kuznetsov, 4 Kiev, 2 Moskva)
>Cruisers: 31 (3 Kirov, 3 Slava, 7 Kara, 18 Kresta-I/II)
>Destroyers: 40 (12 Sovremenny, 11 Udaloy, 17 Kashin)
>Frigates: 33 (1 Neustrashimy, 1 Koni, 32 Krivak)
>Corvettes: 158 (1 Bora, 12 Parchim, 60 Grisha, 39 Petya, 18 Mirka, 28 Riga)
>Missile Boats: 152 (38 Tarantul, 33 Nanuchka, 16 Matka, 65 Osa)
>ASW Boats: 80 (30 Pauk, 50 Poti)
>Torpedo Boats: 30 (Turya)
>Patrol Boats: 120 (9 T-58, 5 Vosh, 5 Pivyaka, 80 Shmel, 20 Yaz, 1 SSV-10)

>SSBN: 63 (42 Delta, 6 Typhoon, 14 Yankee, 1 Hoel)
>SSGN: 66 (3 Yankee-Sidecar, 6 Oscar, 16 Charlie, 26 Echo, 1 Papa, 14 non-nuclear Juliet
>SSN: 89 (6 Akula, 3 Sierra, 5 Alfa, 48 Victor, 14 Yankee-Notch, 3 EchoSN, 5 HotelSN, 5 November)
>SSK: 84 (19 Kilo, 15 Tango, 40 Foxtrot, 10 Whiskey)

>Large Landing Ships: 3 (Ivan Rogov)
>Landing Ships: 80 (25 Ropucha, 14 Alligator, 37 Polnochny, 4 MP-4)
>Landing Craft/Hovercraft: 111 (16 Vydra, 16 Ondatra, 3 Zubr, 2 Utenok, 4 Tsaplya, 20 Lebed, 20 Aist, 30 Gust)

>Mine Warfare: 271 (2 Pelikan, 3 Alesha, 4 Olya, 1 Gorya, 41 Yurka, 35 Natya, 1 Andrushia, 1 Baltika, 8 K-8, 48 Yevgenya, 65 Vanya, 2 Zhenya, 60 Sonya)

>Fighter Aircraft: 482 (12 MiG-29, 20 Su-27, 100 Su-24, 50 MiG-27, 150 Su-17, 20 Su-7, 80 Yak-38, 50 Su-25)
>Bombers: 330 (145 Tu-16, 160 Tu-22M, 25 Tu-22)
>ASW/Patrol Aircraft: 205 (45 Il-38, 70 Tu-142, 90 Be-12)
>Recon/EW Aircraft: 270 (130 Tu-16RM, 10 Tu-22R, 45 Tu-95RT, 14 Il-20RT, 6 An-12PP, 25 Su-24MP, 40 Su-7)
>Helicopters: 400 (50 Mi-24, 50 Mi-8/17, 125 Ka-25, 75 Ka-27, 100 Mi-14)

>>33615143
Current Russian Naval Strength:
>Carriers: 1 (Kuznetsov, barely operational at that)
>Cruisers: 4 (1 Kirov, 3 Slava)
>Destroyers: 16 (1 Kashin, 9 Udaloy, 6 Sovremenny)
>Frigates: 6 (2 Krivak, 2 Neustrashimy, 2 Grigorvich)
>Corvettes: 35 (4 Stereguschy, 2 Gepard, 2 Bora, 20 Grisha, 7 Parchim)
>Missile Boats: 43 (5 Buyan, 13 Nanuchka, 25 Tarantul)
>Patrol Boats: 18 (12 Grachonok, 2 BK-16, 4 Shmel)

>SSBN: 12 (2 Borei, 9 Delta, 1 Typhoon)
>SSGN: 7 (Oscar)
>SSN: 17 (1 Yasen, 10 Akula, 3 Sierra, 3 Victor)
>SSK: 21 (20 Kilo, 1 Lada)

>Landing Ships: 19 (4 Alligator, 15 Ropucha)
>Landing Craft/Hovercraft: (2 Zubr, 12 Ondatra, 10 Serna, 5 Dyugon)

>Mine Warfare: 45 (11 Natya, 22 Sonya, 2 Gorya, 9 Lida, 1 Alexandrit)

>Fighter Aircraft: 70 (3 Su-30, 4 MiG-29, 17 Su-33, 18 Su-27, 24 Su-24, 4 Su-25)
>Recon/EW Aircraft: 14 (3 Il-20, 8 Su-24MR, 3 An-12PS)
>ASW/Patrol Aircraf: 46 (19 Il-38, 24 Tu-142, 3 Be-12)

And this massive loss of strength doesn't even take into account being behind in maintainence, infrastructure, EW, C&C, ship design, etc.. Russia needed French designed-helicopter carriers, Italian AIP for next gen subs, and their next-gen frigate needed EU-designed engines. Its lost both of those in sanctions, taking a big blow to naval rearmament

>>33614755
>Do you mean geographically?
Yep

>>33615143
>>33615165
I swear i saw a chart somewhere that showed this same exact data graphically but I've forgotten. Anyway, it's shocking just how greatly their navy has shrunk.

>>33615165
>Russia needed French designed-helicopter carriers, Italian AIP for next gen subs, and their next-gen frigate needed EU-designed engines. Its lost both of those in sanctions, taking a big blow to naval rearmament
Didn't know that the sanctions cucked them this hard

>>33616102
The sanctions also made russia's economy tank. Putin is acting strong but is in a desperate situation

>>33616286
What if the Russians do something really dire because they're feeling cornered?

>>33617461
Then they can enjoy getting blown to bits

>>33617461

You mean, like looking past the US acting against them and attempting to appeal to the West?

>>33617461
You mean holding hands and dancing with us?

>>33615165

It gets worse once you learn that they're considering home builds of Chinese frigates.

>>33614454
even UK can beat the shit out of China

>>33618203
except they cant.

with what anti ship missile?

>>33614417
They're barely China tier and that's because of their nuke subs from the Soviet Union.

Their surface fleet has now missed three modernization and maintenance cycles and their logistics capabilities are in serious question after their excursion to Syria where they needed to refuel before entering the Med. the competence of their carrier aviation is also severely wanting after they managed to lose more than 10% of their craft in landing and takeoff accidents when trying to fuck around in Syria.

Modern Russia isn't even a shadow of what the Soviet Union was.

>>33618740
Harpoon missiles?

What rock are you living under?

>>33618795
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/11/15/royal-navy-to-lose-anti-ship-missiles-and-be-left-only-with-guns/

And Harpoons are shit and easily intercepted by even the worst of Chinese naval SAM.

>>33614417

Russia's surface fleet is not really blue-water, it's a fleet-in-being meant to dissuade enemies from approaching the coast.

File: muh british logistic.png (113KB, 880x1098px) Image search: [Google]

113KB, 880x1098px

>>33614417
>/k/ memes aside, is Russia's navy in as poor condition as is often claimed everywhere in the media?
Yes
>What are their present maritime capabilities?
They still can beat the shit out of any country's navy except US

>Are they anywhere near as complete a blue water navy as the Yanks and Frogs or are they China tier?
Right now their carrier is heading to long repairs\modernization, so for a few years they lost some capabilities. Their fleet had several purposes - to protect subs, to protect coast and to hunt for US carriers. "Meme projection" was not on the list, because it's aggressive imperialistic policy e.t.c.

Soviets had biggest fleet on planet, even it's shadow is enough to send Brits to bottom of ocean.

>>33615085
Not to mention snakes, mechanical breakdown, dysentery, mutiny, friendly fire and british fishing trawlers fighting them all the way down

File: Carrier destroyed.webm (1MB, 640x266px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 640x266px

They still have the power to destroy american carriers, though. No other country could field enough planes to destroy a carrier. Well, maybe China could.

Honestly it only takes one missile to destroy a carrier. Anyone could do it with a zerg rush.

>>33618802
>And Harpoons are shit and easily intercepted by even the worst of Chinese naval SAM.

proofs?

Not to mention, the RN actively uses their Astute and Trafalgar class subs. The last actual military vessel to have been sunk by another military vessel was by a royal navy Submarine during the Falklands.

When has an ASM actually been used in combat, let alone actually sunk a ship?

File: HHQ-9 engages sea-skimmer.webm (168KB, 852x480px) Image search: [Google]

168KB, 852x480px

>>33618837
Subsonic missiles like Harpoons are accurately simulated by target drones and intercepted successfully during training. Intercepting them is not too hard.

And yes, submarines are always the bigger threat to surface ships than missiles are. But on the flip side, the subs also need to get close and expose themselves to danger, especially when facing naval ships that have a modern suite of ASW weapons and sensors.

The least risky way to sink enemy ships still remains long range anti ship missiles. They might be intercepted, but you will not lose a ship or a sub if your attack failed.

File: 15qq134[1].jpg (94KB, 840x600px) Image search: [Google]

94KB, 840x600px

>>33618837
>When has an ASM actually been used in combat, let alone actually sunk a ship?
Successfully? 6 month ago.

>>33618859
a ship that lacks
>any countermeasures
>any weapons
>isn't designed for combat
>still didn't sink
>all but 2 crew survived
>arabs could still take apart what was aboard without fear of it sinking

ASM's are sure effective goy pls buy them i need to get my kid through college

>>33618807
Has it ever really TRULY been blue water? Even during Soviet times?

>>33618827
What movie is this?

>>33618942
What is truly blue water navy anyway?

>>33618969
>Blue Water definitio:
>Hurrdurrr only murrica and their allies!!!11

>>33618957

The Sums of All Fears.

>>33618818

You're being misleading with that image.

What percentage of those belonging to the Russian fleet are blue water logistics ships? You could write off 80% of that fleet as patrol, hyrographic, intelligence or tugs.

>>33614796

Pyotr Velikiy is still around and another Kirov is currently undergoing a rebuild. Those things carry an insane amount of SAMs and cruise missiles.

>>33618969

Basically having enough of a logistics arm that you can resupply at sea.

Surprisingly uncommon given that it's not REALLY that hard since you just need tankers with cranes and hoses to do it.

If you need to return to a naval port to resupply every time you run out then you aren't really a blue water navy.

Obviously it's still better to do so but the idea is that if you need to keep a navy in a certain area without constantly changing your fleet deployment so people can go back to port then you are a blue water navy.

>>33618969

Wikipedia shows several academic definitions.

Around the tail end of the cold war, a particular admiral was working towards turning the Russian navy into blue water navy. Of course, by the time had won the political battle for it, the USSR was over.

>>33618989
Thanks

>>33617461
You mean like drinking more potatoes?

>>33618837
>when has an ASM actually been used in combat?
At least once a year going from now all the way back to the Falklands.
>let alone actually sunk a ship?
2010, Brit RN Harpoon'd a ~100ft ghetto gunboat off the coast of Somalia. If you mean "large, purpose-built warship" then during the Falklands, which is also the last time anybody fought anyone other than African pirates and sandniggers.

File: USNavy.jpg (2MB, 4800x3200px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 4800x3200px

>>33615060
>>33615085
>>33618819

The ship in >>33614796 is a Kirov Class battlecruiser, the last surface combatant cap ships designed and built in the world. They were built from the ground up as guided missile battlecruisers, the only ships of that sort ever builts and the specific intention with them was to counter American and British Gun based battleships from beyond their effective range. However, like all other heavy surface combatants the total dominance of Aircraft carriers in naval warfare rendered them obsolete before they were even built, and the concentration of all that firepower into a single hull means they would have been the very first surface ships to die in any naval action. They were however objectively the most powerful single surface ships ever built, one Kirov could have gutted for example the entire WW2 German High Seas Fleet, assuming they lack aircover and submarines, but the world changed and soviet naval doctrine hadn't yet, and the Kirovs were Naval superweapons designed to fight and kill a threat that no longer exists.

On top of that the dominance of Surface to Surface and Air to Surface Missiles in Naval combat Means that a smaller more easily concealed and less costly ship can engage and destroy something like Kirov while itself being less of a risk to build and deploy. Kirovs are massive, expensive and very valuable, they are too valuable too risk, and nothing about them makes them safe in the modern naval world, no ship is. Better to do what the USN has done
and disperse your STS missile systems on dozens of smaller vessels, achieving the same level of striking power but distributing the risk and potential losses among dozens of smaller, cheaper, faster, more concealable hulls that must be hunted down and killed individually.

>>33614417
There is one area where the Russian Navy excels in all respects, and that is in cold water winter scenarios where the oceans begin to freeze over.

Russia has a formidable fleet of modern (relative to the US at least) icebreakers deployed to keep shipping and navel channels open. The US only has two old pieces of shit last time I checked.

>>33619008
>Surprisingly uncommon given that it's not REALLY that hard since you just need tankers with cranes and hoses to do it.

You also need at lot of experience doing it. UNREPs are really dangerous for obvious reasons. It is surprisingly easy for a 40 000 ton ship to cleave right through a 8 000 one.

>>33619021
That's kinda pointless for the US to have though.
>our large fleet of modern subs can (and do) simply go under the ice
>our carrier air assets can stay in open water and hit anywhere on the planet

>>33619031
Not at all.

Alaska has been begging for a new ice breaker to be commissioned for decades. They're regularly plagued with shipping problems when the government isn't able to clear the shipping lanes, and as a result we have to rely on the Russian "generosity" for our commerce during winter months.

>>33619037
Probably cheaper to have private Russian ice breakers do the work over the US commissioning a state funded one.

>>33614417
Even China could bootyblast the Russian navy, just like the Japanese did in 1905

>>33619041
There are no private Ice Breakers.

This shit is very expensive. And Russia's ice breakers are nuclear powered.

Its the only place I truly believe Russia is ahead of us in something.

>>33614506
You want depressing read up on the fate of the Kriegsmarine after WW2. Half sunk as blockships, by air raids or in one sided Naval slaughters, the other half taken by the soviets and used for gunnery practice or scrapped. Some of the most technologically advanced ships of their time.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_battleship_Gneisenau
Most of it reads about like that.

>>33619019
>specific intention with them was to counter American and British Gun based battleships from beyond their effective range

Uh, you sure about that buddy? Given the Iowas were only reactivated after the Kirovs started coming into service and the British had one AAW crusier.

File: RussianNavyChopped.jpg (1MB, 2992x3272px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2992x3272px

>>33619068
They were designed before they were built. Like I said, they're a floating, missiles launching monument to the lag in soviet naval doctrine. Just because we weren't sailing our BBs around the world didn't mean we didn't have them. And their existence was a serious mismatch in Naval force. In a limited, non nuclear war, or proxy war the Russians had no answer at all to NATO naval supremacy, the Kirovs were an attempt to balance the sheet somewhat, Pic unrelated.

>>33614417
>>33614417
>>33614454
>>33614457
>>33614506
Red Is the 1990 Red Fleet.
Blue is the Russian Navy Today, and they're not building new ships but losing more to age and wear each year.

>>33619110
>they're not building new ships
You're terribly misinformed.

>>33619117
Right, they're buying them from France.

>>33619011
At the tail end of the Cold War it would have been the Soviet Navy.

>>33619110
how did they lose so much navy?

>>33619160
You have no idea what 90th were for Russia and why they are so mad about "democracy", "liberals" and "free market".

>>33619110

Sorry, but you're wrong and your argument makes no sense. Designing and building super expensive ships to fight ships that were obsolete and in reserve? Lol no.

They weren't designed to compete with BBs. They were designed as ASW ships which were later merged with another design and made into a multipurpose antisubmarine cruiser.

Stop making shit up and do some basic googling.

>>33619125

Tried and failed from France.

They are producing ships, just not in any quantity. Jesus, not even vatnik. Do some basic fact checking.

>>33619130

Thank you for stating the obvious.

File: maxresdefault.jpg (128KB, 1824x940px) Image search: [Google]

128KB, 1824x940px

>>33619196
Looks like they cut navy funds again.

Fuck, i wanted to see new destroyer and carrier.

http://www.janes.com/article/68766/russia-announces-deepest-defence-budget-cuts-since-1990s

>>33619248

Their entire armed forces budget will be cut by 33% iirc.

>>33614417
They're pretty trash.

The Kuz deployment demonstrated the failures in Russian carrier aviation. There is actually a saying in the Russian Navy: "if you screw up, you get sent to the kuz"

They have one operational Kirov and another in a permanent dry-dock, which is extremely painful to see.

They've invested heavily in their ballistic submarine force, but in terms of the surface fleet they're not that powerful.

>>33619183
Soviet economy was tanking well before the 90s or Glasnost.

File: 1485148153519.jpg (9KB, 301x167px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 301x167px

>>33619248
I cant feel my navy, amerikansky

>>33614417
US >>>> China > Russia (roughly =) Frogs, etc.

Rafale M > Su-33

>>33619388
>ramps

>>33619336
Imagine that in one day Detroit turns into Somali. It had "tanking economy" but still better than having no economy at all.

>>33619388
>>33619458
ALL 12 PAK-FA! ON ONE BOAT!

>>33619576
Weren't PAK FA going to have VTOL capability, or am I misremembering shit

>>33619699
Definitely misremembering. Yak's post-Yak-141 concepts were never intended to be PAK FA contenders.

>>33618827
Which missile has a range longer than the range of a fighter launched from a carrier?

File: 23000_ARMIY-2015_02.jpg (274KB, 1417x570px) Image search: [Google]

274KB, 1417x570px

>>33619388
Carrier for ants?

>>33619892
Burya, Vulkan, Granit.

>>33618827
iirc in the Tom Clancy universe that carrier was only crippled and was toyed back to a NATO yard to be repaired/refit.

>>33620003
I think Super Hornet's range is greater than Vulkan and Granit. The point I was trying to make is that the carrier strike group will not get close to anything that can launch missiles at them without sending out aircraft first. And even if their range is greater than carrier bound fighters, it's still shorter than the range of carrier bound fighter carrying a harpoon.

I don't know about intercontinental missiles though. They might be an issue.

File: Tsushima.jpg (416KB, 1807x1384px) Image search: [Google]

416KB, 1807x1384px

>>33618819

>>33618802

So basically your own source confirms they still have them. Good job, Sputnik!

Not to mention there is an interim missile program already underway in addition to the future FAS/CM program.

>>33618852

>especially when facing naval ships that have a modern suite of ASW weapons and sensors.

Now if only Russia had any...

[Insert HMS Conqueror humiliating Russian ASW "technology" forever reminder here]

>>33620137
>tfw 6-28
Good laugh fucking kek

>>33619425
Indians be all
>INDIA BEST NAVE CARRIER NUCLEAR BOMB PAKI DROWN INDIA>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>US >>>> China > Russia

>>33619046
I've seen some documentary about it. They truly are impressives ships.

>>33620082
Harpoons are shit. There are submarines in service armed with heavy anti-ship missiles.

Russians dont belong on the water
If land ships were a thing, then they would have a worthy navy. But there is no such thing.
They dont have nearly enough ports.

>>33619018
I think it was the Iranian frigate Sahand that gets that claim to fame in operation praying mantis.

File: latest-2.jpg (22KB, 496x304px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 496x304px

>>33621654
Did someone say land ships?

>>33614417
Russia has never had a competitive navy in its entire history

>>33622506
Actually to be fair I forgot about the subs of the SU
Still though, very poor naval history

>>33622312
Those units are op in whatever game.
Sea-land units should be bannable in any game including Supreme Commander.

>>33619014

Don't thank him. The movie is a steaming pile of shit, Ben Affleck is a horrible actor and the book is quite literally 100 times better.

>>33618827
Play command: Air and Sea

See how many missiles ships can take before sinking.

The USS Iowa took 18 Exocet hits in one game and was still able to fight.

>>33618827
Nope, you need more than one missile to sink a Nimitz.

>>33619125
WTF? In the recent years Russia have built:
3 x Grigorovich class frigates + 3 under construction
2 x Gorshkov class frigates + 2 under construction
5 x 20380 corvettes + 8 under construction
3 x Buyan class corvettes
6 x Buyan-M class corvettes
1 x Yasen class sumbarine + 2 under construction
3 x Borey class submarines + 5 under construction
6 x Varshavyanka (Improved Kilo) class sumbarines

Note that almost all russian corvettes and frigates have Kalibr-NK (Sizzler) long-range cruise missiles!

I've missed an improvement of soviet Orlan class "Admiral Nakhimov" missile cruiser and new classes of ships like "Karakurt" corvette etc.

All russian shipyards are busy now, that's why Russia needs buying ships in foreign countries.

>>33622748
Don't compare lightweight Exocets and seven-tons supersonic Granits which are on russian cruisers

>>33623116
True, Exocet and harpoons have actually sunk ships.

>>33623116
Don't think some bloated anti-ship missile made by Slavs in the 80s and 90s would ever reach an American boat.

>>33622938
the 3 grigorovich class corvettes are cancelled, the hulls are being sent to India, Not enough spare parts + no more engines from Ukraine

>>33618859

I thought it was hit by shoulder fired rockets when it was close to shore.

>>33623276

Wait no, nevermind. Disregard.