My view on the russian navy ad its capibilitys

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

Originally Posted by Kapitan

Well this is what i think and know roughly this comes from a 53 page report i made last year and thsi is just a very short brief.

Can you throw said report into my delivery - I'd pay extra if need be. Thanks.

The kirov realy no longer has a purpose to the russian navy i think it is now just there to lok good and look good she does i have seen peter the great in st petersburg when she has come for the fleet review, it look good it feels good and its a big crowd puller, however it lacks what is now esentialy the "law" of the seas which is to limit your RADAR signature cross section.

Well, they could try painting it in RAMs, but beyond that there is no getting around its 70s-80s design.

The kirov can easily be blinded by taking out her masts as this is where the RADARS and communications equipment are and once this is destroyed then the kirov will be blind and realy soley on input from other ships,

Isn't the vulnerability of masts almost universal? The other alternative is simply not to extend them and leave them on the hull, but they can still be blinded there, and their effectiveness at low altitude would be reduced.

The sovremennys and udaloys could all do with the VLS systems this has been implemented on the Udaloy III design and so far one ship has made it out of full construction but the rest have been haulted.

If the Sovremenny and udaloys were lengthend and fitted with a VLS system for the SS-N-22 or SS-N-19 or SS-N-27 then these ships could be the "burke class" of the russian navy, again it would need a massive improvment on design and sensor placement and also stealth design.

What about defense systems. A "Massive improvement" on design means a new ship class.

4 CV's 2 for each fleet giving it good redundancy, good overall power projection and a bigger bite.

More realistically, I'd put most of any TAKRs and the long-range vessels (including phibs) I manage to build in the Pacific. Russian politics won't let me, really, but Pacific is really a better deployment. The larger ocean and correlation of forces is more favorable to a power-projection force. I'd have to deal with ~40% of the US Navy, Japan, Korea and maybe China, but it looks like a much better deal than ~60% of the USN and the bulk of NATO. I'd leave Kuznetsov there to make faces at the Europeans.

Conversely, I'd make the Northern Fleet a sea-denial and defensive force - which means medium-range bombers, Su-34 MPAs and subs.

26 -30 as 44 SSN's are too much i think at least 30 or even 26 could be enough as they will be costly to crew and maintain.

Depends. I'd go for 26 SSNs, but with Blue and Gold crews so I can have 2/3rds of them at sea instead of 1/3rd. 26 SSNs with 1 crew each means about 8 working at a time - 4 per fleet which won't even cover the escorts for the carriers you planned.

The AS-11 and 12 were carried on the back of the india class untill thier final disposal in 1995 which ment that either a warship or specialy fitted barge or auxilary would have to carry it.

I'd modify a pair of obsolescent Typhoons or Oscar Is for the carrying task (use the missile bay?) - there are advantages to this submerged DSRV capability. You can get very close to the wreck, and your rescue operation (read: embarassment) is more covert. Also, fewer weather problems because you are deep.

[AG124]

Kapitan, what did you think of the cancelled Ulyanovsk class and the potential capabilities of that carrier? Do you think it would have been to Russia's advantage to have completed that project if it had been at all possible?

Also, I won't hickack this thread, but I would be interested in hearing a brief assessment from you on the Canadian navy in a separate thread.:hmm:

[Kapitan]

The ulyonsk was re designed 3 times they were to be bigger than the nimitz at one time and then they cut the size down it at first was to hold 110 aircraft then the number went down to around 60 (funds) there was a total of 6 planned none were ever built.

If the USSR had built these carriers then it could have been the yesterdays america because i think if they had the money and manpower the would have carried on making them till they hit some rediculous number like 16 or more (they had planned for 24 typhoons and 12 kirovs)

But along came the kuznetsov design it was much cheaper had roughly the same capibilitys was a tad smaller so they went for that instead again some 6 were planned but only 4 were ever built.

The ulyonsk if it had stuck to its origional design 110 aircraft and they had built huge numbers then america wouldnt be the carrier super power but there is one issue and thats russia has never used ctapults on its carriers.

As for the canadian navy what i know about the canadian navy you could write on one square of toilette paper all i know realy is that the upholders / victorias are old and well real out of date and i think that the canadians should have gone for the type 214 when they were offerd it.