Russian Navy: Problems With Soviet Ship Upgrades

Donate

Russian Navy: Problems With Soviet Ship Upgrades

Admiral Nakhimov

Written by Alexandr Shishkin; Originally appeared at Vzglyad; Translated by AlexD exclusively for SouthFront

A few years ago, the Navy actively pushed the concept of “new ship in the old body”, a radical reconstruction of Soviet-built ships with new armaments and electronics. A whole group of ships was sent for upgrades, but now we can say that all these plans failed completely. How did it happen and who should be held accountable?

At the beginning of the 2010s advances in the Russian military steel construction caused a kind of euphoria.  Its typical manifestations were, for example, ideas of resuming the production of missile trains, ekranoplans, hovercrafts and an almost universal deep modernisation of the main ship composition, inherited from the USSR.

A technical project was approved in 2012, providing for the tripling of ammunition of the nuclear submarines of Project 949A for the replacement of the complex “Granit” for “Onyx” and “Kalibr”. According to some reports, all five ships of the Pacific Fleet were to be upgraded. In 2013, in the “Star” shipyard work began on the nuclear submarine “Irkutsk”, the following year “Chelyabinks” was pulled up, third, “Tver” was next. It would seem that the process had begun.

With regard to the cruising submarines of Project 971, the plans were even broader; it was about the whole series of 10 boats. In 2011, the “Leopard”, set to become the leading ship of Project 971M, came to the “Little Star” shipyard. The planned terms of modernisation were about three years, and although at the end of 2013 there were already delays on the “Leopard”, it was believed to be all good, especially since in 2014 the boats “Wolf”, “Samara” and “Bratsk” arrived at the “Little Star” shipyard.

With surface ships, the situation was no less rosy. “Little Star” received for intermediate repairs the missile cruiser “Marshal Ustinov” of Project 1164, which was supposed to return to duty in 2014, treading a path for same class “Moscow” and “Variag”. In 2013, a state contract was signed with Sevmash for intermediate repairs and modernisation of the heavy battlecruiser “Admiral Nakhimov” of Project 11442M, the first of two maintainable “Eagles”, with the completion date in 2018. In the same 2013, the Murmansk 35th shipyard received for intermediate repairs (until 2016) the large anti-submarine ship “Admiral Chabanenko” of Project 11551. It was presumed that all seven destroyers of Project 956 were to be repaired and all eight large anti-submarine ships of Project 1155 were to be modernised.

Collapse of an attractive Concept

By the end of last year it was crystal clear that the concept of “new ship in the old body”, the essence of which is the rapid and inexpensive renewal of the main ship’s structure through intermediate repairs with the modernisation of Soviet projects, was a total failure.

The serial submarines of Project 949AM, after some hesitation, settled at 4 units. The term of transfer of “Irkutsk” to the fleet (and subsequently “Chelyabinsk”) increased by 4 years, from 2017 to 2021, and the duration of the repair increased to 8 years (despite the fact that it was built twice as fast). In this regard, the Deputy Minister of Defense’s statement that 2021 is a real timeframe for when the Fleet can get the four ships back (while on the “Tver” and “Tomsk” work has not even begun) raises questions.

The situation develops miserably with the nuclear-powered submarines of Project 971M, the series from which “the whole series” was cut to six, and then to four units. The deadline to return “Leopard” was moved from 2016 to 2019; however, a source at the “Star” considers even a four-year delay too optimistic. In case of unexpected work acceleration by 1.5 to twice faster on the other three boats, the Navy will receive the latest 971M around 2023-2024 – simultaneously with the latest “Yasens” or even after them, making the modernisation programme of “Pike-B” if not meaningless, then highly questionable.

1. Mistakes in planning

Even under the Soviet regime, with its penchant for voluntaristic decisions, decisions in the field of military construction were made by taking into account the opinions and capabilities of the parties involved. Now and even more so, the state armament programmes undergo careful coordination with all participants of the process. Nevertheless, because of bad faith or negligence of some contractors, the agreed upon and adopted programmes are beginning to lag from the schedule and fall apart in front of the eyes. The nuclear submarines Project 971M is an example of this history.

There is no doubt that the decisions on the complete modernisation of the series of submarines of Project 971 were taken collectively – the Ministry of Defence, the Navy, the United Shipbuilding Corporation (USC), the Saint Petersburg Maritime Bureau of Mechanical Engineering “Malachite” and the shipyard “Little Star”, with the result that it was agreed on the scheduled period of work for one order “for about three years”. The sailors and designers have no complaints, the Navy was “happy to be deceived” and the “Malachite” could hardly present in detail the possibilities to the shipyard. However the leadership of the shipyard knew them well, and its consent meant at best incompetence, at worst, cheating (understatement of the actual terms of two-three times more in order to obtain a profitable contract).

The embarrassment with the 971M programme is merely a particular case. Judging by the fact that the rescheduling to 4 more years (or by 6 years) has already become a kind of norm, the risk assessment in the planning of repairs is amateurish or not conducted at all, and deadlines are assigned according to the principle of “believe in the word of the contractor”, interested in concluding the government contract. The best remedy for intentionally understating the terms would probably be a technical audit not only on the potential main contractors, but of sub-contractors to ascertain the possibility of their performance of the state defence work orders.

It is possible that if the Ministry of Defence and Navy command knew the true and not the fictitious terms, plans would have been adjusted to accelerate the restoration of the technical readiness according to the original project with the most minimal modifications (e.g. installation of the complex “Kalibr-PL” on the “Shchuka-B”s). The boats of both projects cannot be called hopelessly out-dated, and they could well provide a decent number and high efficiency of nuclear submarine forces before the arrival of the fourth generation of nuclear submarines.

2. Mutual Responsibility

In one of his recent interviews, the head of the USC stated: “If previously the implementation percentage of state defence order (GOZ) the [Corporation] fluctuated between 47 to 67%, then in [2017] we come to a stable 85-90%”. Knowing about the systematic increases of terms of work completion on GOZ, it is hard to believe what has been said. We must assume that the high percentage is obtained through a simple trick.

When the deadline for completion of the state contract approaches, and the technical readiness of the order is almost as far from 100% as the time of its placement for repairs, the representatives of the customer and the contractor conclude an amicable supplementary agreement to the contract, extending the period by one or two years. After a year or two the procedure is repeated. As a result, the fact that the contractor violates its obligations has no more importance, penalties are not applied, and the implementation of the GOZ at the end of the years reaches 85-90%.

The military is easy to understand, they have to go on about the contractors. Nevertheless, with the vicious practice of such “circular bail”, it is also time to stop it. It would be unfair to punish workers, engineers, junior and middle managers or imposing fines on the enterprise as a whole. The strictest personal responsibility should be borne by the general director of the shipyard and the president of the USC”

3. Orders on the Left

If Russian military ship repairs flourished, delivering Navy ships upgraded on time, but not fully booked, there would be nothing wrong in the orders taken “on the side”. But now, in the conditions of a severe industry crisis, any non-core activities that load the shipyards only add to the crisis and harm the readiness of the Navy.

It is well known that the specialisation of the shipyard “Little Star” is the repair of nuclear submarines. However, despite the long queue of multi-purpose submarines waiting repairs (8-9 units), and slow repairs on four more, “academics” are being actively trained at the “Little Star”, support vessels on the basis of Project 20180. The press services of the repair centre refers to the extent of damages to the main issue of the enterprise, according to which, on completion of only one of the two being built at the same time, about 500 specialists were involved, in effect, isolated from the modernisation of Project 971 submarines.

A ridiculous situation emerged from the higher ups and at the “Nerpa” shipyard, a second shipyard in the Russian North. After the triumphant end of 2015 (delivery of 2 submarines), the next two years for “Nerpa” were wasted, although “Vepr” and “Tambov” are there for repairs. The reasons articulated by the director of the shipyard A. Oganyan are discouraging. It turns out that with the unfinished heat generator of the two submarines, the plant worked under a contract with the northwestern centre for radioactive waste management and under six contracts of Rosatom, including the dismantling and unloading of the steam-generating unit of the recycled icebreaker “Siberia”, although, according to Oganyan, “there is someone [except for “Nerpa”] to repair and service nuclear icebreakers”.

And this is not all: another additional load at the Snezhnogorsky repair centre, the only one on the Kola Peninsula, that mastered the Projects 971 and 945 boat repairs in full, was the conversion of the first domestic Project 627 submarine K-3 for further conversion into a museum-ship (by the way, “Yantar” is engaged in the same in relation to the decommissioned destroyer, while the formation “Neustrashny” was stuck there in repairs for 6 long years).

A little bit of honey in a barrel of tar

It cannot be said that in recent years our shipyards worked for nothing on the medium-size repairs and generators. However, it should be noted that most of the orders are either state priorities or long-term construction.

The first group includes strategic missiles and anti-aircraft group APCR Project 949A. The breach of contractual obligations on priority orders does not bode well for contractors of the Ministry of Defence, and they understand it perfectly well. Thus, three strategic missile submarine cruisers (“Ekaterinburg”, “Tula”, “Ryazan”) and three nuclear submarines with cruise missiles (“Smolensk”, “Orel”, “Tomsk”), handed over to the “Little Star” and to the “Star” in 2013-2017 are not indicative from the point of view of efficiency of ship repairs, work on them were carried out, in fact, “with a gun to the head” (which did not prevent “Ryazan” and “Tomsk” to drag the repairs for six years).

The nuclear-powered submarine “Kuzbass”, submarines “Kaluga”, “Vladikavkaz”, “Komsomolsk-on-Amur”, the missile cruiser “Marshal Ustinov”, the large landing ship “Orsk”, had undeniably long-term construction (not necessarily the shipyard’s fault), were handed over at the same time after standing in repair for a long time (from 5 and a half to 14 years). The average number of past repairs (nuclear power generators) in a reasonably short time (2-4 years) were the anti-submarine bombers “Pskov” and “Obninsk”, the large submarines “Vyborg” and “Dmitrov”, the landing ship “Admiral Tributs”, the large landing ships “King” and “Oslyabya”, a total of seven ships for five years.

Fewer claims to dock, inter-route navigational repairs, thanks to which the combat surface ships of the Russian Navy were able to provide a hyperactive demonstration of the flag on the oceans, as previously written by the newspaper Vzglad. In this sense, the Dalzavod, the 35th, 13th shipyards and several other shipyards are commendable.

Unfortunately, this is clearly not enough to admit that the work of the military ship repairs is satisfactory. We will hope that changes for the better will take place in the near future.

Donate

SouthFront

Do you like this content? Consider helping us!

  • 1691

    In reality it looks like Russia has enough operational ships, quite efficient too. No matter what the author of the article is trying to say I still remember when the Russian air carrier passed by UK. The brits were quite impressed I remember. And the navy did a great job from the Caspian sea and the Mediterranean.

    • Ilies Bekhtaoui

      nobody is saying that the russian navy sucks . for there limited budget they did no just a impressive work but what we can call a miracle . we are judging there capabilities as a first world power . a power that can stand to the whole nato fleet . something that even the ussr wasn’t able to achieve . the road is long . and i appreciate how much the Russians love criticism and learn from there mistakes and keep going forward . of course they made mistakes . perfection doesn’t exist .

      • Rhetorius

        “for there limited budget they did no just a impressive work but what we
        can call a miracle . we are judging there capabilities as a first world
        power” It’s THEIR, not THERE, educate yourself on the difference in meaning between these words. Russian fleet doesn’t need to confront the US/NATO fleet with the same or approximate number of its own ships, you dumbass, that’s why they’ve developed superb hyper-sonic anti-ship missiles which render NATO aircraft carriers obsolete, not to mention all the other types of vessels.

        • Ilies Bekhtaoui

          i speak 5 languages and english is my 4th while talking about dumbass look at your self . second be a ground up and let’s discuss this in a mature and civilized manner with respect . 3-i know that no nato fleet can penetrate the russian defenses I’m not talking about a defensive scenario i’m more talking about a power projection and worldwide fast reaction capabilities that russia lacks because it was never meant to be this way

          • Eskandar Black

            He was calling your a dumbass based on your simplistic military analysis, not your propensity to study abroad, and pick up spanish/french girls at the riviera

          • Rhetorius

            Why would Russia need “power projection and worldwide fast reaction capabilities” at all? You seem to be unable to realize that Russians don’t think “American” and that there are other ways to look at things than American! Please try to shatter these mental shackles…and try your best to improve the grammar of your “4th” foreign language (LOL, I was expecting such an “argument”) it’s pretty embarrassing to read such blunders on the basic grammar level.

        • Tommy Jensen

          The Russian Navy sucks.
          But up to now they have been able to keep NATO at bay with dummies.
          The question is how many times NATO can be fooled before they discover the truth.
          Dummy tanks, Dummy Navy, etc.
          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uZWPyy8Nfj4

          • HighLord Gaz

            I hope the NATOstani leadership thinks the same as you. If they ever try something monumentally stupid, their ships will be resting on the sea bed and their sailors will be floating around like so much flotsam…

          • John Whitehot

            another one that spreads truth by one single idiotic video.

            are you in bed with velociraptor by any chance?

          • Rhetorius

            Please take your medication on time. With such dummies, the Serbian army was able to fool the NATO during 1999. bombing campaign – they thought they destroyed the entire fighting force in Kosovo, only to discover that they’ve managed to survive almost intact – please find the video of their retreat from Kosovo, the columns of tanks and artillery….enjoy. Military tactics, you moron. You will discover soon enough about the “dummies”, just keep on living in denial.

        • Justin

          agree!

        • Concrete Mike

          Oh turn off the grammar police most of us aren’t native English speaking.

      • Justin

        I see this as disinformation! There is no need for huge ships anymore! Gone are the needs of a battle ship! frigates or smaller ships are now capable of carrying cruise missiles which can be armed with nukes or conventional warheads capable of striking land and sea targets! Russia can build these ships very fast and can build many of them! In the last 2 years so many Russian ships have been completed and more are in the pipeline!

        • Vitex

          I agree – battleships were always a large and expensive liability. The Germans learned the vulnerability of “superships” to their cost early in WWII. I think the Russians would be well advised to adopt the flexible and mobile systems they have for missiles, to ships – along the lines of the Scandinavian navies. A small, low radar-signature ship that goes at about 100km/h and carries capable antiship missiles could scare the pants off a carrier battle group….

          • velociraptor

            you booth did not understand this article. it is about that fact, that russians have chosen a cheap version, AND they are not either able to realize this cheap version without batleships, carriers. that is the point!

          • Justin

            AND…. we said it was disinformation!
            everyone knows russia is steering away from aircraft carriers and huge battle ships!
            One aircraft carrier is still seen as a waste! There is a lot of of support to NOT build an aircraft carrier now! Russia does not care for conventional regional wars that gains hegemony!
            They are a Defensive military and they can simply support a proxy (such as Syrian forces) using internal airbases!
            Thats why this is disinformation!

          • ilme

            Aircraft carriers are important not so much for a full out war but for power projection and politics to strengthen the own economy in peace time.

            This is the reason why China wants to build some. In Syria Russia is lucky to have it’s bases there. In Southeast Asia and Afrika the situation is very different. China is already pushing heavy into Africa going head on against the European influence. Maybe Russia doesn’t need to have influence there at all as it has much resources in it’s own country but if this is ever needed then a big carrier is very useful for that task.

          • Sinbad2

            You speak like an American, or Britan, the idea of pushing, invading a country is how the US/UK has made a living for hundreds of years.
            They are going to be so shocked when they have to get a real job and actually work.
            China isn’t pushing, it’s enticing, China is building the roads that Britain could not build even after pillaging Africa for 200 years.

          • ilme

            China is doing it smarter yes, but the goal is the same. And when Europa and the US wake up and see what’s going on the US will do what they always do: send a carrier fleet and try to pressure the local governments with power projection, try to destabilise the country and install a puppet government.
            It is way easier to counter that when one has it’s own equal fleet. If Russia didn’t have it’s base in Syria already it had been so much harder to help there. A carrier can close the gap that is needed to setup a land base.

          • John Whitehot

            “It is way easier to counter that when one has it’s own equal fleet”

            absolutely not.

            Asymmetry is the key. Having an equal fleet only means destroying the economy of own country, just like the US has done.

          • Sinbad2

            Perhaps you should read up on the battle of Jutland?
            Using carriers to bomb third world countries into submission is an American improvement of the British method of shelling a third world country into submission. It works against the weak and helpless, but try that on a nation with long range missiles, and the ships soon get sunk.

          • velociraptor

            hahaha!

            this is only shitty frigate

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qzn5L-82GdE

            russia has not enough missiles and torpedos to destroy single one fleet of yanks. and they have several.

          • John Whitehot

            and you haven’t got a clue as usual, as you seem to honestly believe that you can say whatever bullshit you want and make it true because you put a shitty video along.

          • Sinbad2

            So you think Russia doesn’t have 430 missiles?
            Or do you think the US has tens of thousands of ships?

          • velociraptor

            destroyer need 20+, aegis 100+, carrier 300 missiles.

          • Justin

            Why are u so dumb? were u dropped on ur head as child?
            Inside this ship is No FUEL, no weapons, no people, no oil! its literally a tin can! So if I shoot a hole through an empty tin can do u think the tin can is still ok?

            What if the tin can was full of gas, fuel, explosives! What happens to the tin can?

            THINK u moron, THINK!

            What if this video is just target practice? What makes u think a ship is not dead after it is hit only one time? If a ships incapacitated it is DEAD!

            U think u are smart but u are showing how dumb u are every time u try to show how smart u are!

            U should be embarrassed!

            U may as well just show a youtube video of YOURSELF telling us how dumb u are! It will be just as obvious!

          • velociraptor

            these are facts. russia has not enough conventional weapons against EU, far not against usa aor wjhole nato. also thze warsaw pact had not. i as officer that time, i know, what about am i talking. therefore the only hope for rusikes were always the nuclear weapons.

          • Justin

            Yet I see many experts say that Russia can take ukraine in a matter of days and that NATO could not stop Russia from taking Europe! So who am I to believe? YOU?

            Also Russia has stated that any attack on its homeland that is a threat to the state will be replied with nuclear weapons!

            Russia does not intend to take over Europe although they may takeover ukraine (or at least half of it) one day soon!

            “russia has not enough conventional weapons against EU”!

            Russia has 3 times more tanks than the USA which are mostly based in the USA! Russia has plenty enough tanks, missiles, aircraft and military personnel to make an attack on Europe! So stop talking bullshit!

            No country has more aircraft than Russia other than the USA
            No country has more tanks!!!! (And yes hey are upgrading all of them)
            No country has as advanced attack and defensive missile systems!
            No country has as nay missiles!!!!
            No country has as many Howitzers!!!!
            No country in Europe has as big an army that is ready to fight (not including the FACT all Russians have completed 2 years national service)
            No country has more ships or subs than russia other than he USA!

            You are full of shit!
            You know nothing!
            Russia has changed dramatically in the last 15 years!
            Russia has allies!
            Belarussia, russian speaking Ukraine, Kazakstan, Syria, Iran, China, Armenia, Kyrgyzstan, Turkmenistan, Tajikistan, Serbia, North Korea, Transnistria
            Also,if russia attacked Europe, what makes u think their weapons wouldn’t defeat EU armies? EU is a small place compared to Russia! Russia only needs to knock out bases there and can dominate the skies! Russia’s bases are spread out deep into Russia! They would need to fly over mainland russia where they can be shot down! I dont think u know what russia has or is capable of!

          • velociraptor

            This all is sooooo poor, that i will not waste my time for you.

            TZhink over only 1 thing. USSR had from everything 3-8x more then now russia. And lost.

          • Justin

            3 to 8 times what? military assets?
            So which is it? 3or 8? that is a big difference!
            it Would make more sense if u said 3 to 4 or 7 to 8!
            But u say 3 to 8 and u want to be taken seriously?
            are u high?

            The USSR collapsed under its own financial burdens! The straw that broke the camels back was the Ukrainian nuclear plant melt down!

            What makes u think the USSR was unsuccessful?
            They had half the worlds land mass! They joined all of Eastern Europe and most of Central Asia!

            Russia, with sanctions and low oil prices still manages to have a military that is a threat to the entire world combined!

            Are u telling me they dont have advanced weapons?
            Are u telling me the USA doesn’t respect them when russia says “grave consequences”?

            If I remember correctly, Russia (the ussr) saved Europe from Hitler and Napolean!

            Which universe do u live in?

            do u realise which country is the richest in the world? DO YOU KNOW?
            Be careful what u answer and make sure u do your home work!

            How many wars has Russia been in and how many have they lost? How did their country become soo large especially when compared to Europe! Dont forget they owned Alaska and 1/3 of the USA at one point!

            Why do u think there is a saying “never wake a sleeping bear” when they talk about Russia?

            Read more kid! U have a lot to learn!

          • velociraptor

            So which is it? 3or 8? that is a big difference!

            different arms

          • velociraptor

            they have not enough modern weapons. navy is old, the best ship os worse tnem the best western and korean, japan shops. the best 4th gen planes are equal to western 4th generation planes, but not to 5th gen. moreover, they have cca. 150 pieces of modern 4th gen planes. t-90 is not better then western tanks, armata will come after 2020. the infantry is underequipped. old transporters, few firepower. the toops has few personal equipment for nigth vison etc. tanks also. few helicopters with old electronics. 900 000 troops are not enough for defend of such big country.

            You losers live in past. ussr survived ww2 thanks 2 coldest winters in 20th century in 42 and 43. today there is no such help for them. and survived so, that lost 30 000 000 citizens. until todya is not recovered from this “victory”.

            russia is not the richest counbtry. russian are parasites. 140 000 000 inhabitants and gdp on level of italy. if ruskies were only on the level of “crazy”, underestimated italians, shoud have almost 3x more gdp. without oil and gas. if russian were capable people, russia would be as rich as whole western europe. intsead of this russia is a poor country, unable to produce something but some weapons. which is not great thing. you are passed out from 2-3 types of sukhoys, but to make good engine is no privilidge, if the country has good background industry. look at western europe, how many firms are able to produce plane engines! ruskies were able to develope new engine for pak so, that they payed terrible tax: closed civil plane industry. the country which produced good IL, TU planes today produces no large civil transporters. shame! this is decline of civilisation in russia.
            russia ended with several industrial productions but began with nothing new. russia is sinking, falling. in 1 decade will be a servant of china. or EU.

            look at putin. he is thinking about future of russia :)))
            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/f59f5d7ec2dab271f2cf3114dd571aa95a4df26b2e7eb58300735324b410a5c6.png

          • Charlie rad

            you’re an idiot

          • velociraptor

            i know. mentally retarded people call idiot the normals :DDD

          • Charlie rad

            BURP

          • John Whitehot

            well said.

          • wwinsti

            The era of the antiship missile is upon us and has been since the 1970s. This situation will only become much worse with hypersonic weapons. A carrier’s fire power is massive, and because of this it has left a deep psychological impression on you, me and even the most rabid anti carrier person. Remember though, it is *purely* psychological. Those who happen to have a profession involving large ships of any type are all aware of this purely mental/cultural factor. The day any massive ship, even an LNG tanker, is slashed open and left to burn off in the open ocean is the day even neocons will admit that dependence on large ships for fighting needs is a mistake. How many of those silly To m Clancy novels have been turned into movies?, a dozen? Why not Red Storm rising, a story about the US defeating the USSR, that has more action scenes then any of the others, so why not? Because it depicts a large, well defended carrier getting blasted out of the water, and that’s something the pentagrandma won’t pay for, and would issue a PR statement insuring the public about how safe carriers are if someone did depict such a scene.

          • ilme

            There is one huge misunderstanding many people fall for:
            Anti ship missiles while extremely potent are like the nuclear option. You can not use them unless there is a full war. They are useless for power projection. When you fight for influence in another country the war is not about sinking the other nations fleet because that would lead to a full out war between both nations, leaving both nations in ruins. Nobody wants that. But it is like in Syria 2 developed Nations supporting local fighters hoping that the group one supports is winning so one gains control ofter the land.
            This is the wars we are experiencing at the moment and very likely will do a lot in the future as well. So an army has to have both capabilities: fight a war against an equal opponent and also support troops at conflicts far away from home so the country doesn’t get isolated.
            The US for sure will not stop trying to further isolate Russia and they also will try to do the same with China once they realise what’s going on although by then it might be too late for the US already.

          • John Whitehot

            Power projection is for neocolonialist countries. Russia isn’t among those.

            entire fleets of carriers are for supporting “Marine Corps” invasions of other countries, Russia doesn’t have a Marine Corps, it has Naval Infantry that operates at smaller operational levels, and it was never made to invade countries on its own, but rather to open flanks on contested shore areas or take ports and other beachheads to support larger army operations.

            Stop using the expression “Force projection”, its pentagon bullshit to hide the real purpose of their amphibious forces.

          • ilme

            Please read more careful what I write. It doesn’t take 10 carrier fleets and a marine corps, all that is needed is one aircraft carrier in operational condition to support ground operations.
            No country can survive completely isolated, it has a reason that the US is pushing hard against allies of Russia and Europe trying to isolate the EU towards the US, and isolate Russia completely so their 2 main competitors are out. Although they are totally blind for China at the moment.
            It is not about being imperialistic in the case of russia it is about being able to defend the trade routes and economy. It doesn’t even take a war to do that just knowing that it is too costly to try to overthrow another government might be enough to stop the US from trying.

            Maybe Russia doesn’t need an carrier at all for that as it has many land borders but in theory that is what carriers are needed for and that is why the US have them, not for purpose of war but to make sure their economy keeps going.

          • John Whitehot

            “all that is needed is one aircraft carrier in operational condition to support ground operations”

            Do you really believe you can invade Russia or China with one carrier and a marine corps? In the end, even if you manage to pass through a screen of hundreds of ASMs and Torpedos from subs, planes, other ships and land installations you will be nuked the second you place boots on the ground.

            “It is not about being imperialistic in the case of russia it is about being able to defend the trade routes and economy”

            Again. Russia is not another United States. the US existence DEPENDS on sea lanes. Russia’s existence does not. Since you are talking about existential threats, your reasoning does not apply.

            “No country can survive completely isolated, it has a reason that the US is pushing hard..”

            They have always done that, the EU is perhaps starting to realize it now, although one would rather think that its leaders are simply traitors who have been rather bought out or threatened into submission.

            In the case of Russia and its allies, the US can push all it wants, these countries are AWARE of the grand-plan mostly outlined by the Wolfovitz doctrine, and are not going to be “divided and conquered”, because they know for sure that their independence and well being depends on not acting on US desires.

          • ilme

            Please learn how to read, you constantly reply without even remotely understanding what I have written. If the topic is too complex for you that’s ok you can ask how things were meant instead of and writing a novel of assumptions as a reply.

          • John Whitehot

            yawn yawn.

          • Justin

            Not sure how much u read! but look at basic geography! USA is on a completely different continent surrounded by water! For them to project power they need Aircraft carriers to l aunch attacks upon nations with lesser capabilities! Then read up on Russian / soviet wars! they have always used the size of their nation to easily defeat enemies by attacking their logistic lines and letting winter and starvation do the rest! Even Israel were able to do this against Egypt in the much smaller Sinai desert!

            Look, Russia’s scared the F-ck out of the USA not just with their cruise missiles but the fact they can be launched by small frigates even corvettes! These corvettes are able to traverse certain rivers that allow them transit from the Caspian Sea to the Black Sea and wherever they wish! The massive gain from this is that they were not included in the missile treaty because that was purely for land base missiles yet these corvettes were thin the rivers of the land! therefore not limited to 500km yet could launch up to 2000km!

            Russians have just as many subs as the US does. subs might be hard to destroy but ships are not! If a sub can launch cruise missiles OR torpedos whilst still below water whilst at the same timbering able to destroy a 13 billion dollar craft with 70 aircraft on board, this would make the sub a very dangerous asset! Especially when the major tach of the sub is silence which russia is known for!

            Smaller capable corvettes that can launch 6 cruise missiles(that accelerate to mach 5 before impact) and subs do the job! We are passed aircraft carries just like we are past battle ships! Missiles are way make the difference! And if smaller boats can launch them then 10 of these instead of one big one is far more dangers! Because they can traverse rivers, harder to hit, faster and easier to produce, 10 targets instead 1 target! lower radar signature! etc etc

            I am telling u that russia isa master of disinformation! They have said they are leaving Syria twice now and instead have laced even more hardware after saying it! They have a model of an aircraft carrier! but they all not produce 2,3,4 because they are already the richest nation in the world in terms resources! It is much cheaper for Russia to act as a defensive military than offensive!

            They are close to the Middle East! They mainly only need a strategic offensive force (nukes) for the bigger countries! They are close to everywhere because they are so big!

            Much cheaper for them to have only 1air craft carrier, a few missile cruisers but I wouldn’t be surprised if Russia just ends up commissioning most cruisers and just ends up having only smaller missile carrying boats!

            Look at the S-300system, it has now been replaced by the S-350 which can carry 6missiles instead 4 and s far smaller than the S-300 which needed trucks to carry it! The s-350 is the size of a Buk system, so much smaller!

            Missiles are becoming smaller and travel further and faster hence the reason why smaller boats are the way to go! A small boat which can carry 6 ship killers from a safe distance! and if it loses then it was a small loss!

            Its so simple and logical to understand!
            Russia is not wasting money on older ships! Its disinformation! They are building mall and fast stealthy missile corvettes and Subs! thats it!

          • Romulus

            Exactly, my thoughts aswell. Its much more about having power projection, respect, traditions, & politics ofc..

            And China is not going the military influence way in Africa, its going for win – win agrements, insteed of destroying countries infrastructure China wants and have built it insteed.. Much more likely to have a long term success for all parts!

          • velociraptor

            of course, the reality is disinformation :DDDDD

            visit one good psychiatrist :DDD

          • Vitex

            Relax, bro, this is an o p i n i o n…..

          • velociraptor

            relaxed all right. :)

          • Vanessa Russ

            Google offering every one 98 US dollars hourly to complete easy work from the comfort of home . Do work Some just few hours in a whole day and stay more time with your family … Anyone can also benefit this offer!!!on Friday I got a great Lotus Elan after just earning $9097 this-past/month .it looks the best work however you won’t forgive yourself if you don’t go to this.!wx071w:>> http://GoogleSitesOnlineJobsWorkFromHome/get/pay/98$/everyhour ♥♥♥w♥♥t♥♥♥c♥♥t♥i♥r♥♥♥o♥g♥♥♥v♥♥j♥♥♥e♥v♥♥q♥♥♥s♥c♥♥j♥♥k♥s♥♥k♥♥♥w♥♥m♥♥♥o♥♥♥r♥♥♥v♥♥♥w:::!hx813o:ze

          • Vitex

            Thank you Vanessa, I’ve always wanted to work for Google.

        • Sinbad2

          True, I served on the last Australian aircraft carrier, and subs were always taking us out during exercises. Australian subs also took out American carriers.
          That was before the time of satellites and airborn anti ship missiles.
          Today, all the US carriers outside of the US would be sunk in days.

    • Graeme Rymill
      • HighLord Gaz

        You mean like a LCS or the Zumwalt class? Fool…

        • Graeme Rymill

          My dear chap I was not criticizing your beloved Russian Navy! I was merely pointing to the absurdity of 1691’s comment: ” I still remember when the Russian air carrier passed by UK. The brits were quite impressed I remember.”

          • John Whitehot

            oh but the british press is so technically prepared.

            they seem to even have forgotten that stacks of smoke matter little when there are radars around ,and they even invented radar.

          • Graeme Rymill

            oh but John Whitehot is so technically prepared.

            he seems to even have forgotten what colour the grass is at Khmeimim Air Base in Syria in December after rain

          • John Whitehot

            “oh but John Whitehot is so technically prepared”

            More than the brit press, that’s for sure.

    • You can call me Al

      Stop grabbing at straws …the UK laughed at it and called it a rust bucket – just remember it broke down as well, I think on it’s way back.

      Russia has some fantastic equipment but aircraft carriers are not one of them.

      • Brad Isherwood

        The Carrier to Syria show was for me the WTF are you doing Putin…moment.
        Syria’s borders were wide open ….they needed Attack Helicopters, Lift helicopters with better TAC air assets…like Su 25 vs the junk yard bodge aircraft they were using to bomb.
        The Carrier group was large expenditure with 2 airframes lost,…add to this…Russian Navy caught a black eye.
        So ya….Money directed to other more rational defence assets for Syria was needed vs the show.
        Putin recently stated ISUS defeated in Syria with withdraw Russian forces hash tag.
        WTF….ISUS is…..Israel,US and Saudi operations in Syria,…which continue today.
        Who is he kidding here with this Bush 43 Mission Accomplished Iraq TV tour.

        The Kalibr missile package is awesome…
        How many mod ship/sub appear with Kalibr is ??? For the future now that the main article candidly states things are FUBAR.

        Russia test like 200 weapons systems in Syria…
        Some military equipment has been impressive.
        At least Russia did not waste $$Billions on crap like F 35 or the comical Zumwalt stealth destroyer.
        So ya Putin……finish off your Vodka and tomorrow fix the door.

        • James

          Regardless if the carrier broke down and lost a couple of planes, it still was a strong deterrent to the enemy and proved it could make a long voyage. What Russia could gain from this is that it still can be used to a limited capacity effectively, but probably closer to home during wartime. If I recall, it has a huge offensive missile capability which would be handy in Syria against a number of military targets if they got out of line. I think this was the true purpose of sending it there.

        • You can call me Al

          Fair play and I totally agree with you.

        • John Whitehot

          you’re just the stuff that gets removed with a toothpick after eating a pharaonic meat.

          • Brad Isherwood

            >>At least Russia did not waste $$Billions on crap like F 35 or the comical Zumwalt stealth destroyer.

            Hey…..I complimented Putin/Russia……kicked sand on Uncle Shlomo’s Lox and Bagel.

          • John Whitehot

            i dont give a shit about compliments.

            jews can’t think to get anything with adulation from me.

    • AM Hants

      Must admit, I did not understand what he was trying to say, owing to Russia and the new build submarines, Yassen, Boreii II and the electro-diesels. The old submarines are being decommissioned, as the newbies, roll off the conveyor belt. Also, like you say, look at the little Corvettes?

  • Phạm Trung

    Just image those idiots, who worship Russia like a god, read the recent series written by author “Andrey from Chelyabinsk” on topwar and saw how they defence the absolute fucked up state of VMF )))

    • Rhetorius

      Learn to write in English properly, please….

      • velociraptor

        Yes, you animals, never argue, only attack! You deserve to die! You take only oxygen from betters.

        • Bob

          Animals? Attack? Your avatar name is literally named after a predatory attack animal. Lol/Fail.

          • velociraptor

            and you are bob and not english policeman. rofl.

          • Bob

            As ever, your response attempts remain sub-par. A British police officer is traditionally known by the slang term of a ‘bobby’, not Bob.

          • velociraptor

            i block you, animal. you are stupid and childesh.

          • Bob

            What, you got butt hurt – just because of your own incompetence and ignorance?

          • Phạm Trung

            Are you two done?

          • Bob

            Evidently – velociraptor seemingly went into self exile.

      • Phạm Trung

        Thank you for remind me. I already know my English writing skill is suck and I need more training. But that not the main point here isn’t it?

        • Tommy Jensen

          If arguments lacks, gramma attacks ;-).

    • Bob

      If trying to make a point – and is difficult to ascertain yours, but assume is about Russian military use of Variable Message Format – paste an actual link to relevant articles, otherwise your comment is waste of time and space.

      • Phạm Trung

        VMF/ВМФ is the acronym of Russian Navy in russian, Военно-Морской Флот, and if my comment is waste your time, so why did you reply in the first place

        • velociraptor

          dont waste time for: bob, florian geyer, jesus, tudor miron, al, whitecock. these are the worst.

          • Bob

            ‘velo’, you really need to instruct and shepard your noobs with far more duty and care.

          • You can call me Al

            What about me you k.nob ?

          • Bob

            Please join our esteemed company, we are very inclusive.

          • You can call me Al

            lol

          • velociraptor

            you are there: al ;)

          • You can call me Al

            Cheers for that, I was feeling left out for a mo.

          • 1691

            You haven’t been missed. I guess you are No 5 in the introduction list. Troll solomon whatever, polish jew is introducing the society to a newcomer. soly has a support group. Wow. More fun to come! Enjoy!

          • dontlietome

            …………….Hey Al, he’s not that good…………. A knob is useful, something you can’t say about that halfacunt.

          • You can call me Al

            LOL, probably so.

          • dontlietome

            Hey you for forgot me too Mr Velocicraptor. !

        • Bob

          Then specify it and add relevant links – or wasting your own and everyone else’s time.

      • velociraptor

        you anlsilanguagephynaitc bob, who is not bob, look for in gogle. you are sitting before monitor, you have time..

        diversing are you with such bullshit comments.

        i am sure you are not able to put here a relevant comment.

        • Bob

          ‘gogle’ translate – it doesn’t work…

        • Bob

          ‘anlsilanguagephynaitc’ ?

          • Phạm Trung

            What is anlsilanguagephynaitc? Really, what is it? I can’t get it

          • velociraptor

            me too :)

            my typical misrtypes.

            after decifering: englishlanguagephanatic – he always slams others, who don´t have english as mother tongue.

    • Phạm Trung

      It’s quite hilarious to see whole comment section is just nothing more than attacking each other’s grammar :))

      • Bob

        Actually your original post lacked clarity for an English language media platform – VMF has alternate military meanings in English language – and you failed to paste any URL links to your relevant article claims – ie basic source credibility.

        • Phạm Trung

          Actually if you search for VMF on wikipedia, this thing show off
          “Transliterated from Russian: “ВМФ” is the Russian-language acronym for Военно-Морской Флот (Voenno-Morskoy Flot) – “Military Maritime Fleet”. It may refer to either:
          1. the Soviet Navy (before 1991) or
          2. the Russian Navy (before 1917 and 1991 onwards).”
          I always use VMF to mention about Russian Navy, it’s a lot easier than typing a whole “Russian Navy” term.
          And if you ask for original article i mention in the first comment, this is the latest article in this multi-part series: https://topwar.ru/137567-voennyy-flot-rossii-grustnyy-vzgld-v-buduschee-fregaty.html. This series named “Russian Navy: Sad look into the future” from “Andrey from Chelyabinsk”, a well-known author on topwar.ru, you can use google translate to read it. There are 10 parts so far, each part is about one aspect of the navy:destroyer, frigate, corvette, SSBN, SSN, diesel submarine, etc… This is (in my opinion) an excellent in-deft analysis about current state of VMF RF, clearly showing that VMF is really in a deep shit, and if they don’t have any solution soon, the VMF is doom and it will create a serious threat to Russian national security.
          However if you are a blindly pro-russian guy, who always thinks that Russia is super strong, super rich, always right in everything, i think you should not read it

          • Bob

            Then simply link such URL’s to your future forum comments. Nobody is here to chase after your claims. Live and learn.

          • Phạm Trung

            Sorry. My bad. Seeing someone said “Russia has enough operational ships” really trigger me

          • Bob

            Be good dude – we all live and learn.

          • Bob

            Be good dude.

          • velociraptor

            thanks for link.

          • Jesus

            Who is “Andrey from Chelyabinsk? Does he have a last name, instead the name of the city? Why don’t you translate what he had to say in English, so we can read and analyze his statements.

          • velociraptor

            sure classes better then you, nobody!

          • velociraptor

            i see, came the worst, jesus, the absolute fanatic :))

        • Phạm Trung

          I am a russophile, I love Russia, but I really hate those pro-russian guy who always worship russian like a superior race, that Russia is always right and always strong and rich and Russia can kick US ass anytime she want.

          • Bob

            Interesting to know – but be very wary of the likes of ‘velocirator’ who immediately latch onto, and blow up, anything remotely anti-Russian, even if based on any realistic or objective critiques of current Russian operational hardware systems. ‘velociraptor’ is a consistent anti-Syrian and anti-Russian based rhetorical presence on this website’s forum – a daily multi-posting troll.

    • John Whitehot

      and who the fuck is andrey from cheliabinsk? it’s not even a port city, the nearest port is like 2000 Kms away.

  • velociraptor

    This article must be an icecold douche for jesus, florian, tudor and their comrades.

    Yup, towarishtches, cheap soup contains only water. Perhaps sometimes urtica.

    here is the end of tales, that is possible to build up and keep running modern army with few money. The nuclear weapons maitenance is extremly expensive. If Russia has 45 billions USD military budget, nice piece of this cockie will be used for this purpuse. Russia needs 1.5-2 million large army for complete dfend of the lagest country of the world, situated in two continents. With huge amount of transporting capacity to relocate divisions in short time. This needs 120-180 billion dollar budget. And this is “zero ground”.

    So, the russian military industry is anemic. Due to lack of money is dying. The same situation is everywhere, not only in navy.

    “The T-14 Armata (Russian: Т-14 «Армата»; industrial designation “Ob’yekt 148″) is a 4th Generation Russian main battle tank based on the Armata Universal Combat Platform. It is the first series-produced next generation tank.[13] The Russian Army
    planned to acquire 2,300 T-14s in the period 2015–2020 but production
    and fiscal shortfalls will restrict the number built to just 100 by
    2020.[14][15][16] The first batch of T-14 Armata tanks will be deployed to the Taman division after 2020; tanks will be transferred only after the completion of all state tests”

    Uralvagonzavod was in such financial mysery, that russian army had to order severalnot fully dveleoped, preliminary pieces of T-14s, otherwise came collaps.

    PAK is developed only thanks indian money. because russians do not want give technological advabces to india (which was agreed in contract before!!!), india stopped giving miney. So, this project is also delayed and extremly restricted.

    But! The MAIN PROBLEM is in the structure of whole rusian industry. For example merceds has 30 000 (thirty thousand!) contractors. Lada Niva should have comparable contractors. In such big country like Russia should be 100-200 000 litlte manufacturer in electronics, machine industra and so on. Plus thousand and more R&D firms. This background is able to form enough (both number and quality) contractors for military industry. Than the key big producers can focus on the moste sensitive parts of production and use cheaper and high quality materials from contractors.

    Until this network of firms, manufacturers, scientists will not build up, there wil be again the same problems as were in ussr. Cyclically.

    Russians were always think out interesting things, but never able toproudce in large amount in high quality. The chinese are wise. They understood, first economy, after military. They built up huge and modern industry with higher capacity as needed and now slowly, butt sure modernize the army. The background with huge net of firms allows enough production and the incom of civil economy allows pay for weapons. Other way does not exist.

    • AJ

      Hypersonic missiles make forward carrier groups sitting ducks anyway – they are only good for force projection against weak countries. Russia would be wasting its time trying to compete with the US in this area.

      • velociraptor

        and who has sucjh missiles in service? are you completely idiot?? this article is just about fact, russian military industry is not able to keep time schedule.

        • Daniel Miller

          your statment is very stupid Russia ordered 100 armata tanks back in 2016 most have already arrived,that means that another 100 will arrive by 2020 that means a total of ~220 tanks will be in service.
          Also Russia has amazing R&D suites how od you think they developed evrything.
          Also Production is not a problem for the land forces nether is for the airforces.
          The only problem is naval shipyards witch most are not up to date and are not large enoth.

          • velociraptor

            i wrote the same. ordered mot fully developed. the reason was to save the firm befor bancrupcy.

            the final developed version will be in 2020 (maybe) AND ONLY these will be in service. the xisting experimental pieces sure will send back to finalize. in how wrong conditions are the existing tanks show you the blamage on red square.

          • Daniel Miller

            ……the T14 was under state testing in 2013 the T14 you see now is the final version (possably will adopt the 152mm 2A83M1 gun soon tho) already 100 have been made the order has been ufiiled and if the MoD say 100 more by 2020 that means a total of about 200 finalised tanks + the ~20 pilot batch form 2015.
            so a total of 220 T14’s will be in service by then as well as most if not all T90A’s will be upgraded to T90M standards as well as brand new T90M’s will be made by then and ofc all T72B’s will be upgraded to T72B3M standards and ofc lets not forget the 1200 T80B’s witch will be upgraded to T80BVM standars by then.
            The T14 is revolutionary but its overkill its a whole generation + ahead of its competitiors and the T90M is more then enoth to counter them form the time beeing that means the T14’s 220 numbre is small in comparason to the others but its by no means small.
            Also Zirkon is a missile made by NPO they have more then enoth production faciletys to manufacture the 3M22.

          • velociraptor

            possably will adopt the 152mm 2A83M1 gun soon tho

            sure not, because such cannon must be longer. the turret is not good for that caliber.

          • Daniel Miller

            again you show your massive ignorance of weapons technology,the T14’s turret was made to acomadate both the 125mm and the 152mm guns. Have you seen how large the turret is? While yes it dose have alot of armor on all sides it still has enoth room to acomedate the 152mm breach as well since the tank gun breach is not really any larger then the 125mm breach. Also the lenghth of the barrel wont change a thing.

          • velociraptor

            i bet with you, that in 2023 will be some xperimental pieces only, not regular tanks.

            i know lot of about tanks and i am absolutely sure, you will not have. this is question of physics, not misha and masha tales.

          • Daniel Miller

            wtf has physics have to do with the T14 getting the 2A83? The 2A83 has been around since the mid 1990’s. Ammo and missiles have already been developed for it. You make 0 sence…

          • velociraptor

            i knew, that somebody comes wit this shit. yes, there were, mainly in arab armies. and nicely lost them. ruskies understood quickly, this is no way. what do you think, why didnot use decades, if (according to you!) was such good solution?

          • sepheronx

            Actually, it didn’t save the company from bankruptcy. What happened is they agreed to the demands and it was sold out to Rostec, which is now creating a “armored Company” by also combining the assets of Omsk plant and Kurganmashzavod. But they cannot do so until the financial restructure of Kurganmashzavod is completed.

            There really was no issues, even on “red square”. 1 out of various broke down due to engine fault mostly because the driver stalled the engine multiple times. Since then, there wasn’t any issues at all.

          • Nexusfast123

            They are also upgrading the older versions of tanks with pretty significant improvements.

        • Daniel Miller

          Also P.S Russia’s Zircon is ready for service.

          • velociraptor

            O.K.

            How many pieces are ably to produce monthly?

          • Bob

            Zircon – an anti shipping hyper-sonic cruise missile. So real question is how many capital aircraft carriers can NATO produce, by your own designated time-frame qualifier – of monthly – to replace the losses?

        • Bob

          Because, as ever, you are now an insider in the Russian military industrial complex, well aware of the most highly confidential missile program database and testing, and online schedule time-frames.

        • sepheronx

          Kinzhal is actually in service with southern military district. Thats hypersonic.

          • velociraptor

            Putin told, there was a successfuly test. test. not production.

          • Nexusfast123

            Actually they have done over 250 tests as I understand from the articles I’ve read and its operational.

          • velociraptor

            even if this were the 251. test, still is test, not productoion. only development.

        • Nexusfast123

          Russia has a whole generation of super and hypersonic missiles in service. You obviously don’t read or understand much stuck in your mom’s basement. US missiles are dog slow and ancient. The US appears to be well behind the eight ball. I guess you are going to tell me (us) that the F-35 is a wonder of the air.

    • Redadmiral

      You copy and paste an awful lot and by not accrediting the source of your material you are claiming it as your own. So, scoot off to an on-set cage in Jurassic Park , it is where you belong you slow-witted dinosaur.

      • dontlietome

        OH THAT “VELOCICRAPTOR” MORON HAS JUST BEEN SO OWNED…………. NICE ONE RED !

    • HighLord Gaz

      Wow, you handler must have offered you a bonus this morning… or were you simply behind on your KPIs and needed to put in more effort?

      It must suck when you can’t get a real job and need to puke BS all day to people who despise you and simply don’t care to read your daily output.

    • Jesus

      Your obserations are rather pathetic, your claim that Russia does not have money for weapons is rather naive. Have you looked at their foreign reserves, in spite of all the economic sanctions imposed on them? Actually the economic sanctions are causing the Russians to become self sufficient, their scientific and manufacturing base is unparalleled, given the latest weapon developments; they get good value for every dollar they spend on defense. They develop their new weapons on successful platforms, unlike US that tries to reinvent the wheel, spending hundreds of billions on meaningless R&D without coming with a viable platform. How does US foreign reserves compare to Russia’s? Does US have a trade surplus of 100-200 billion every year?

      • velociraptor

        boy, foreign reserve is no for military budget. you dont know the elementary vocabulary of economics. go away, false prophet!

        • Nexusfast123

          Nor do you given your comments. On a GDP ‘PPP’ basis the Russian economy is the 5th or 6th largest economy in the world according to the IMF, World Bank and the CIA economic year book. The one thing that matters is what your currency buys inside you own economy as the other commentator suggests. Also the dimwitted sanctions have done Russia a favour buy increasing industrial and agricultural utilisation inside the Russian. Something that might only be achieved with tariffs.

          • velociraptor

            And? these numbers dont say anything about development level of country. in case of france this level is 70% of russian, but frane is by liht years before russia. show me your roads, ruskie. immediately you will see, where is your place. nearby ruanda. show me your villages. we can compare with french ones. or polish, czech, etc. your country is high and dry. if would be developed, this number would be on top. thje greedy tsars stole huge land with oil, gas and other resourcer. how do you utilize this herity??? yiu are idiots like people, who sell out piece by piece the herited furnniture, money, and do not produce nothing new. your lifstyle is parasitism. put here original russian technical innovation, medicament from last 50 years! you copy west, steal the results of their work. also the reforms in army are made after americans. and so was also in socialism. my life is living history, so you cen not bluff me with stupidities. your community here is the incarnated Idiocracy!

        • Jesus

          Foreign reserves are the savings the country has to show for, It can be used for anything, if there is a need for it. What are the US foreign reserves?

          • velociraptor

            yes, this is for financial stability. not for military budget. all countries have lot of money in this reserve. espacially if their currency is not accepted everywhere.

    • sepheronx

      Serious question – Do you have any facts with evidence to back your claims up? I mean, seriously, I read a lot of the shit you said but its rather sad.

      BTW, PAK FA didn’t get a kopek from India, it was FGFA which isn’t materializing so the money has to go back. Out of the $10B the program, how much did India give? When did they give it? etc etc etc. We need facts, not speculations and diatribe.

      I should remind you that in PPP terms, Russias defense budget is roughly $80B simply because in Ruble terms, it is exactly just the same as it was prior to the devaluation of the Ruble. So the budget of 3T rubles is the same. Which is very sufficient for a large military and military products.

      • velociraptor

        i put several times links. alsa about pak. look for infois in google. you will find. everything i wrote you find. also in russian official sources.

  • You can call me Al

    Why don’t they build one or two new shipyards – 1 in Crimea for instance , another 1 in China ?.

    • velociraptor

      in china??? the worst idea.

      new shipyard needs money. which is not.

      • You can call me Al

        China will invest in it.

        • velociraptor

          Russia can not put its shipyard in china. China seals everything. If you are young, you will see the war between russia and china. one time already was a big cooperation between russians and chinese. it ended with war. the history repeats itself.

  • wwinsti

    The role of surface ships is shrinking dramatically as missile range and targeting get better and better. Remember what happened to the battle ship by 1943? All surface ships save for the fastest Corvettes, and troop/supply ships are obsolete. Subs still have a big future, but that’s it. Drones and missiles with unlimited range have changed the game, the military mind has yet to catch-up.

    • velociraptor

      so, therefore is china producing so much?

      • Nexusfast123

        They are interlinked missile platforms that create an area of denial when combined with other assets.

    • Nexusfast123

      Carriers are sitting ducks and probably cannot do their job of projecting air power when up against advanced capabilities. Troop and supply ships although increasingly vulnerable will still be needed.

  • Jesus

    The criticism is directed mainly at submarine remodernization propgrams, the Soviets has a submarine fleet of 300 units. Not all cruiser and large destroyers were slated for modernization, some large displacement ships of the Orlan class were definitely needed to be remodernized, since they are nuclear powered large missile platforms able to project blue water capabilities. Russia at present is developing corvettes (1000 tons) and frigates (4000 tons) capable of offensive and defensive capabilities; it seems likely that doubling the tonnage of the corvettes and frigates will enable the vessels to increase their armamnment capacity and overall capabilities.

    • velociraptor

      typically, you did not understand anything from article.

      • HighLord Gaz

        typically, you waste our time with endless shitposting and Russophobe diatribes.

      • Jesus

        I do my own reading and have my own opinions.

        • velociraptor

          I know. you have opinions, we facts :)

          good night!

          • Jesus

            You have no facts, you are spouting BS proaganda minimizing russian arms capability.
            The best weapons in the Soviet navy were in the submarine fleet, modernizing older subs were not economical, and the introduction of Yassen class subs fewer subs offered far greater capability than the older soviet subs. At present Russia maintains a submarine force of slightly over 60 units.

          • velociraptor

            read carefully this article. also that 10 articles, what suggested pham trung. you are stupid nothin knower, who closes the eyes before reality.

          • Jesus

            Make your point, or have Pham trung make it for you.

          • John Whitehot

            hater, the article you read 10 times in hecstasy and over you probably jerked off, is in regard of one small work segment of a single shipyard.

            i know that in your dimension it means that the Russian Navy lost, but that only holds there. Outside, the Russian navy is more than able to perform its mission of protecting its shores and its ballistic missile subs.

            which means that jewnazis like you aren’t going to put their stank hands over Russia anytime soon.

      • RichardD

        Typically you lie continuously to flood these threads with your toxin.

  • HighLord Gaz

    This author is an Atlantacist cunt…. wow, schedules are slipping to the right and budget overruns occur… welcome to the real fucking world.

    Who is paying this prick to write this shit? Why is it that there is always a Russian somewhere who will happily take a handful of Judas coins from the NWO shekel-grubbers in order to shitcan his nation?

    • Brad Isherwood

      A few online sources list out the remove from service for this level mod, list out weapons, radar etc with timeline complete,
      Then the new Gen builds.
      I agree that the main article is slamming Russian MOD,Yard builders, engineer/design bureau etc…..and Government.
      Still it’s benefit to know things have gone wrong.
      Revised Yard mod completion,
      New program completion. ..
      List of cancellation in the future.
      I suspect the bottom line is money with poor oversight of ongoing programs.

      Russia’s Navy lists 5 Submarine classes fit out for Kalibr
      3 Frigate class….3 Corvette class.

      Demonstration by use in Syria by these classes gives Russia a quality Navy with operations experience to afford reduced time on new Gen builds and mod of older frames.
      Russia does build modular frame via Plasma CNC .
      I used to run a Cryogenic Nitrogen CNC plasma gantry /underwater cut for oil nat/gas process systems….huge scale…50 ton remote control cranes during my 2 decades + career.
      Russia has the tech to achieve project goals,
      Money is probably the key drawback.
      Putin has kicked @ss’s when embarrassed by State official/programs who were investigated.

    • Harry Smith

      Vzglyad newspaper is related with government. The article in this news outlet means Russian govt. knows the issue and top managers have a great opportunity to fix the issue by themselves, or govt. will fix the issue with the inefficient management. Anyway this situation does not influence the ability of Russia to burn NATO countries with it’s nukes.

  • Vitex

    Hmmm…. Russian oligarchs….running shipyards…. copy of the talmud in the back pocket…. what could possibly go wrong?

    • goingbrokes

      LOL!

    • velociraptor

      PEFECT! :)

  • คงศักดิ์ วงศ์ชูศรี

    When US used 60 year old battleship during Ragan government they said very powerfull ship. ,when russian Refits their 20year old ship they say it is a broblem.lol

    • velociraptor

      russia is not able to refit. that is the problem. about this is the article.

      • Obi Juan

        You are right! Russia has not the economic base to become a world power.

  • Barba_Papa

    So….., American defense contractor behavior has now entered Russia as well? Promise a kick ass military system, fall back on delivery, keep promising to deliver, meanwhile fleece the government for every penny (or in this case rubble) that its worth?

    • velociraptor

      Barba oaoam simeime you are sooo childish. You know nothing abou socialism, ussr, russia. In russia were ALWAYS giant problems with contractors. look at film k-19, the widowmaker. try to read about chelyabinsk and russian nuclear developeing plants. read about radiating lakes, thousands of km2s of radioactive soil, etc. Russia is bantustan.

  • goingbrokes

    Even Napoleon had problems with defence contractors. The problem is as old as the industrial army (that is, an army that cannot function without specific industrial output). It is how the real world works, and every country has their own version of it. Those that don’t are in denial.

  • John Whitehot

    Respectfully, AlexD seems to be searching for the 1 article in 100 in all Russian military press that talks about failures and then translate it particularly for Southfront.

  • DenLilleAbe

    What a horrible translation, is it a Google translation ?
    Fire the translator, it is not appropriate to turn up for work drunk!