Frigate Admiral Makarov To Join Russian Naval Group In Eastern Mediterranean

Donate

Frigate Admiral Makarov To Join Russian Naval Group In Eastern Mediterranean

IMAGE: The Russian Navy

The Project 11356P/M-class frigate Admiral Makarov will join the Russian naval group in the eastern Mediterranean, the press service of the Russian Navy’s Black Sea Fleet announced on November 5. The frigate left the port city of Sevastopol earlier on the same day.

The Admiral Makarov is a third warship in the class. The frigate was laid down at the Yantar Shipyard in February 2012 and commissioned in December 2017. She is capable of launching Kalibr multipurpose cruise missiles and P-800 Oniks supersonic anti-ship cruise missiles.

The the lead ship of the Project 11356P/M-class is the Admiral Grigorovich:

Frigate Admiral Makarov To Join Russian Naval Group In Eastern Mediterranean

Click to see the full-size image

Donate

SouthFront

Do you like this content? Consider helping us!

  • RichardD

    It wouldn’t surprise me if it has nukes on board and that it’s one of the reasons that the evil baby rapers have stopped attacking Syria. Because they know that this is one set of circumstances where they’re not going to be able to get the US or Saudi Arabia to do their dirty work for them. And that if they get into a dust up with the Russians over one or more of their vast multitude of UN resolution and international law violations. That their canned BS excuses aren’t going to cut the mustard, and that it will end badly for them.

    • Jesus

      It does not have nukes on board, it’s conventional arsenal could do quite a bit of damage, without the need of nuclear weapons. Israel stopped attacking Syria because the Russian MOD has credible assets in the area to crush Israel, and has armed Syria with effective weapons to tilt the balance of power in favor of the defense.
      Israeli Air Force is not any better than US Air Force, they pick on defenseless targets to assert their superiority, when facing a strong peer power their supposed “superiority” dissipates.

      • zman

        Yes, Israeli and US ‘superiority’ is a product of western propaganda. It is ‘real’ only when facing unarmed women, children and old men. Their superiority at this moment is due to successful imaginary attacks on Syria that only Israel knows about. The US (predictably) have seen ISIS grow in strength in their area of dominance in Syria. It is their only reason for being there, hence ISIS will stage a resurgence. The US will keep their edge though, there are enough SAA for them to target. One day a US/NATO jet will be downed and then the crying will begin and the emperors clothes will be seen to be quite non-existent.

        • Jesus

          Israeli and US military are over rated and relying on gimmicks and fake news to make them feel relevant, ISIS’ apparent resurgence is taking place in territories controlled by the US/SDF, a lot of weapon deliveries/exchanges and proper air cover supposedly will reinvigorate ISIS, in case the SDF tries to cut their own deal apart from the US.

          • beypuutyina

            but this overrated army defeated ruskies in afghanistan, cold war and in all ME wars.

        • beypuutyina

          interesting, that also now stupped russia in syria

      • RichardD

        Russia isn’t going to crush a nuclear power with conventional weapons without a deterrent to Israeli nukes. The same goes for NATO.

        • Jesus

          I think that is rather obsolete thinking, you looses a conventional war and accept the consequences or get anihhilated by going nuclear.
          I think Israelis would exchange 1000 Merkavas destroyed and a few thousand dead, in exchange for total annihilation. Human nature of self preservation.

          • RichardD

            Israel was very close to using nukes in 73 according to what appear to be credible reports and FOI releases. Russia doesn’t have to use strategic nukes and totally anialate Israel if the circumstances don’t warrant it. They may use tactical nukes. And that ship may have one or both on board as a deterrent to both Israel and NATO interference and intimidation attempts.

          • Jesus

            Russia has a wide variety of delivery options, one or two nukes in case of a strike may not be enough.
            In 1973 Israel was fighting Egypt and Syria, had they used nuclear weapons it would have been a desperation move they could have gotten away with, since Russia was fed up with Sadat’s ineptitude and neediness.

          • RichardD

            That region is full of NATO and Israeli nukes. I doubt that Russia is sending large warships into the region without them in case they’re needed, at a minimum as a deterrent, as well as actually using them if they have to.

          • Jesus

            I do not know where you get the idea that NATO has nukes around Syria, US has a handful of old B61 gravity bombs deployed in several locations in Europe, that are being currently modernized and the closest proximity of those weapons to Syria was Incirlik air base many years ago when US-Turkish relations were cordial. As far as France or England, they have some pathetic SOF groupings, and having tactical nuclear weapons outside of their countries is highly unlikely.
            As far as naval deployment of nuclear weapons, yes, most likely on a flagship which is normally a capital ship leading a task force of smaller ships, and submarines.

          • RichardD

            If you don’t think that NATO and Israel have nukes throughout the middle east, then you’re very mistaken. NATO battle groups are throughout the region on a regular basis, there are land based nukes in at least 4 locations in the Mediterranean alone, including Italy, France, Turkey and Israel. And what aircraft have them is anybody’s guess.

            One of the primary functions of an advanced Russian missile frigate operating in a nuclear theater is to provide nuclear capabilities. The current conflict in Syria meets all of the criteria for a ship like this to have nukes on board.

          • Jesus

            You are entitled to your opinions, my position is that Russia has ample standoff capabilities to deliver nuclear weapons anywhere in the Mediterranean basin, above water and below water, with ease and efficiency without the need to burden a conventional frigate with nuclear weapons.

          • RichardD

            First you foolishly denied that Israel and NATO had a lot of nukes in the area. And when I disproved that you try to imply that this ship is a conventional, not a nuclear weapons platform, when obviously it’s both. It’s not a conventional frigate. It’s a state of the art ship built around dual use conventional and nuclear weapons missiles. And it’s no less of a stand off platform than other systems in theater.

          • Jesus

            “””First you foolishly denied that Israel and NATO had a lot of nukes in the area.”””

            Your assessments are foolish, I know Israel has nukes within Israel proper, as far as Europe, go read my posts, please tell me what locations is the B61 gravity nuclear bomb are stored?
            How do you know what nuclear weapons the US, France and U.K. have in the area?
            The number of tactical nuclear weapons for France and U.K. is rather limited, US’s stockpile was reduced and old. The only nuclear warheads on US weapons deployed in the area is on the Tomahawk and some B61 bombs.

            “””A project 11356 frigate is truly multipurpose and capable of accomplishing almost any combat task in its operational theater.”””

            Accomplishing almost any combat task pertains being able to engage any peer class ships
            of similar tonnage or higher and defeat it; with Kalibr missiles it can engage ground targets . The Grigorovich and Gorshkov class frigates are intended to engage Arleigh Burke destroyers and defeat them. Conventional weapons are designated for conventional purposes, Soviet doctrine of attacking US carrier task forces with nuclear weapons entailed use of bombers with long range standoff weapons.

          • RichardD

            My assessments aren’t foolish, your’s are. You’re the one who doesn’t know what types of nukes are deployed in the area. The fact is that at least 4 permanent land based locations in the Mediterranean alone, Italy, France, Turkey and Israel, and there may be more that have nukes. When you add in naval, including carriers and subs, and aircraft. It’s clear that there a lot of nukes in the area.

            “Five non-nuclear NATO countries (Belgium, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, and Turkey) still host U.S. nuclear weapons”

            – Estimated Nuclear Weapons Locations –

            https://fas.org/blogs/security/2009/11/locations/

            As far as the frigate goes, I’m sure that it’s designed to carry nukes on as an needed basis. Because the missiles that it’s carrying are nuke capable. And it was designed from it’s inception as a multi role land, sea and air weapons platform. As the article that I quoted and others clearly illustrate.

            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/9022166464e7db1f2b9df96d4b7526d4f3cd4103531f3909eb9ffc859b7b1042.png

            – 3M-54 Kalibr –

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3M-54_Kalibr

          • Jesus

            I am aware of what tactical nukes US navy possesses, they are on Tomahawk cruise missiles and older Asroc anti submarine missile. Nothing else.
            The B61 bombs store in Europe are for NATO use, in Europe not ME.
            Yes I make an intelligent assumption saying the French and U.K. tactical nuclear weapons are in secure locations within their country.
            The frigate in question is a ship to counter other frigates and destroyers for brown or blue water engagements, it is a conventional weapon designed for a conventional use.
            Yes it carries Kalibr that can carry a nuclear warhead, however, tactical nuclear weapons are not front line deployments, they are positioned in an echeloned depth within a secure defense perimeter.

          • RichardD

            Maybe you should familiarize yourself with Russian nuclear doctrine and capabilities as it relates to the Syrian conflict:

            “Its current military strategy, published in December 2014, says that Russia “shall reserve for itself the right to employ nuclear weapons in response to the use against it and/or its allies of nuclear and other kinds of weapons of mass destruction, as well as in the case of aggression against the Russian Federation with use of conventional weapons when the state’s very existence has been threatened” …

            We estimate that Russia has a little over 1,800 non-strategic nuclear warheads assigned for delivery by air, naval, ground, and various defensive forces.9
            9. Russia is also adding conventional cruise missiles to its bomber fleet, a capability that was showcased in September 2015 when Tu-160 and Tu-95MS bombers launched several long-range conventional kh-555 and kh-101 cruise missiles against targets in Syria. New storage facilities have been added to Russia’s bomber bases over the past few years that might be related to the introduction of conventional cruise missiles.
            View all notes
            This estimate, and the categories of Russian weapons we have been describing in the Nuclear Notebook for years, were confirmed by the Nuclear Posture Review, which stated:

            “Russia is modernizing an active stockpile of up to 2,000 non-strategic nuclear weapons, including those employable by ships, planes, and ground forces. These include air-to-surface missiles, short range ballistic missiles, gravity bombs, and depth charges for medium-range bombers, tactical bombers, and naval aviation, as well as anti-ship, anti-submarine, and anti-aircraft missiles and torpedoes for surface ships and submarines, a nuclear ground-launched cruise missile in violation of the 1987 INF Treaty, and Moscow’s antiballistic missile system” (US Defense Department 2018 US Defense Department, Office of the Secretary of Defense, Nuclear Posture Review. Accessed February 2018.
            https://media.defense.gov/2018/Feb/02/2001872886/-1/-1/1/2018-NUCLEAR-POSTURE-REVIEW-FINAL-REPORT.PDF
            [Google Scholar]
            , 53).

            The Nuclear Posture Review also says:

            “Russia possesses significant advantages in its nuclear weapons production capacity and in non-strategic nuclear forces over the U.S. and allies. It is also building a large, diverse, and modern set of non-strategic systems that are dual-capable (may be armed with nuclear or conventional weapons). These theater- and tactical-range systems are not accountable under the New START Treaty and Russia’s non-strategic nuclear weapons modernization is increasing the total number of such weapons in its arsenal, while significantly improving its delivery capabilities. This includes the production, possession, and flight testing of a ground-launched cruise missile in violation of the INF Treaty. Moscow believes these systems may provide useful options for escalation advantage. Finally, despite Moscow’s frequent criticism of U.S. missile defense, Russia is also modernizing its long-standing nuclear-armed ballistic missile defense system and designing a new ballistic missile defense interceptor” (US Defense Department 2018 US Defense Department, Office of the Secretary of Defense, Nuclear Posture Review. Accessed February 2018.
            https://media.defense.gov/2018/Feb/02/2001872886/-1/-1/1/2018-NUCLEAR-POSTURE-REVIEW-FINAL-REPORT.PDF
            [Google Scholar]
            , 9).”

            – Russian nuclear forces, 2018 –

          • Jesus

            I am familiar with the Russian nuclear doctrine, it is valid only for direct agreesion of any kind against Russia, especially tailored against NATO’s eastward expansion.

          • RichardD

            What I’ve quoted doesn’t support that, or your other contentions, and it comes directly from Russian government policy statements.

          • John Brown

            Israel has no sampson option as they are all cowards. If they all die they would no longer have the pleasure of all their Goyim slaves.

      • John Brown

        They all have at least a few nukes aboard as part of the Russian strategic triad. During times of nuclear tension they will have more. Even Russian mine sweepers, larger fishing trawlers and even commercial and cargo ships should or will have at least 2 to 4 kalibers with nuke warheads again as part of the strategic triad making many more launchers thus making it harder to target them all at once.

        I would include large converted commercial ships with the same payload as a Russian SLBM nuke sub with an S-500 system etc. for defence from ICBM attack long enough to launch. They would stay in Russian waters for protection but really any surface ship is a sitting duck and has to fire its nukes fast. In a nuclear war you can be a big surface target and have success with redundancy, when you only need survive 10 to 30 minutes to launch 20 missiles with 10 warheads each. Such ships are much cheaper then regular military vessels. As they are large they could also carry their own drone subs for underwater defense. Then some could be sent to antartic waters for patrol. Spreading out some fire power all over the planet makes it much harder to have a successful sneak first strike.

        • beypuutyina

          look at less animated bullshits

        • Jesus

          The New Start Treaty places a cap on the total number of strategic warheads at approx. 1700, if ships carry tactical nuclear weapons for whatever purpose, so be it.
          I do not think Russia is breaking the treaty, US is thinking of abandoning that treaty as they did INF, in which case Russia can deploy more Sarmats since they have plenty of silos or Bulavas.

          • John Brown

            Russia should never have destroyed its old nuclear warheads as the Zio USSA has broken every treaty it has ever signed. This is why there is such a great chance of Jewish initiated nuclear war today as the Zio USSA thinks they can intercept or destroy on the ground 1700 nuclear warheads. Russia needs to get back to at least 30,000 warheads (better to go over 50,000 again), then let the racist supremacist Jewish Nazis try to intercept that many nuclear warheads.

          • John Brown

            Ships should carry medium range, intercontinental and tactical nuclear weapons. Russia needs to deploy its nukes in Syria, Venezuela, Cuba, Nicaragua etc., and in the southern oceans, basically all over the planet, then no Zio first strike.

          • Jesus

            The Zios at present do not have a first strike capability with a triad that is old and overrated. Their ability to launch a first strike attack is going to diminish even more as Russia will deploy the S500 and the Nudol antiballistic defense systems, that will intercept a lot of SLBMs at their early launch stage and ICBMs at their terminal stages.
            These anti ballistic missiles will be complemented by over 1400 S400 launchers deployed all over Russia capable of intercepting MIRVS at their terminal stages.

            I am sure the US military is aware of these realities, and if the zio arm chair warriors want to start a nuclear war to satisfy their delusions, the military would in my opinion refuse to implement the strike that will lead to national suicide.

            Russia does not need to deploy weapons in the Western Hemisphere or elsewhere, they have the weapons and technology that gives them a distinct advantage over any enemy from within Russia.

          • John Brown

            Its better not to go with the bear minimum for defense. Nukes are cheap compared to large non nuclear forces. The more nukes can be spread around in large numbers the less the chance of any stupid first strike attempt.

  • Jesus

    Production of Grigorovich and Gorshkov class frigates is ramping up, recent ship deliveries indicate that the domestic replacement of gas turbine power plants and the Poliment Redut long range missile issues have been resolved and the rest of the ships in the class will see completion within reasonable time frame.

    • beypuutyina

      frigats are nothing. the keel if modern miltary fleet are destroyers.

  • beypuutyina

    still old junk

    so much uncovered radars, etc. easy target for enemy radars.

    • Jesus

      What are the weapons enemy ships would use against the Makarov? Harpoon?
      Makarov can use Oniks with a 600 kms range, and Kalibr with over 2000kms range.

      • beypuutyina

        it is enough sipmle torpedo

        • jorge

          Blocked, too stupid to read it. Go see if outside is raining.

        • Jesus

          From 600 kms?