Feanor

I don;t think even the Russian High Command knows exactly how many of our subs are in operation capable condition. There was an issue recently with ythe Admiral Kuzentsov nuclear battlecruiser. A random inspection revealed that teh nuclear reactor was in such bad shape that it could explode at any moment, and the ship was taken out of the fleet for long-term repairs.

EDIT: My bad. The nuclear battleship that I was refering to is the Pyotr Velikiy, a Kirov class battleship. The Admiral Kuznetsov is an aircraft carrier.

rickusn

LOL

Feanor your post isnt documentation and it is also mostly untrue.

"Commander-in-Chief of the Navy Admiral Kuroyedov earlier made a scandalous statement the sense of which boiled down to the idea that the Pyotr Veliky can blow up at any moment. The Commander-in-Chief later stated, however, that he had been misunderstood. "

See link below for quote source.

Not to mention the incident you apparently know nothing about happened over THREE YEARS AGO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Below are examples of my simple efforts to provide documentation on your feeble, piss poor excuse of a post.

If you have more accurate or up-to-date information I AGAIN ask you to provide it as Im most interested.

LOL

I really cant believe you have conned me into defending the Russian Navy. And in particular a KIROV class Cruiser.

LOL

Whod have ever thought?!?!?!?!?!?!


State of the Russian Navy | Russian Arms, Military Technology, Analysis of Russia's Military Forces

"183 PETR VELIKIY #189 Baltiiskyy SSZ 1996 NOR
(until 1992 known as Yury Andropov). Keel laid down on April 25, 1986. Launched on April 25, 1989, and first sea trial completed in autumn 1995. The battle cruiser is scheduled to be transferred to the Pacific Fleet. Undergoing sea trials Northern Fleet, Kirov-4. 1999 twice took part in military exercises. 2003 took part in military exercises. Took part in military exercises on Feb 17-18, 2004. 08.2005 took part in military exersises on Northern fleet with President Putin aboard."

Kirov Class - Project 1144

"On 23 March 2004 Russia's navy chief reportedly said that the nuclear-powered Peter the Great missile cruiser, was in such dire condition that it could "explode at any moment" - only to backtrack on his statement a few hours later. Admiral Vladimir Kuroyedov said the massive cruiser had been badly maintained and could "explode any moment", adding that "it's especially dangerous because it has a nuclear reactor". Just three hours later, however, Kuroyedov retracted his ominous statement, saying he had been misunderstood by the media. "There is no threat whatsoever to the ship's nuclear safety," he said in a statement. "The ship's nuclear safety is fully guaranteed in line with existing norms." He added that some flaws in maintaining the cruiser's living quarters would be fixed within three weeks, after which the ship would become fully combat-ready.

The Petr Veliki cruiser docked for repair at Roslyakovo starting on 19 April 2004. The ship repairers will clean and paint the submarine part of the ship, repair the armature and examine the steering system. The floating dock PD-50, where the Admiral Kuznetsov had been repaired, was prepared for the flagship of the navy. As of July 2004 the flagship of the Northern Fleet, the Pyotr Veliky, heavy nuclear guided-missile cruiser, fresh from repair, was carrying out missions so as to be in what is called "first-line" readiness in the second half of August 2004."


Russian Navy Problems - CDI RW 2 April 2004

"The Pyotr Veliky, by all accounts, is a cut above the average. Navy insiders reckon that Kuroyedov singled out the Northern Fleet flagship to settle a score with retired Admiral Igor Kasatonov, whose nephew Vladimir Kasatonov just happens to be the ship's commander.

Beyond Russia few realized that Kuroyedov was exaggerating the hazard posed by the Pyotr Veliky. In the West, when the head of the Navy announces that his largest warship could explode, this usually signals immediate danger. Britain and Scandinavia were particularly upset, probably bracing themselves for a sky full of nuclear fallout.

When Kuroyedov realized what a commotion he had created, he began to back off his original statement. The Navy announced that the admiral's remarks were off the record, that the ship's reactors were in good shape and that the only mess on the Pyotr Veliky was in the sailors' living quarters. Kuroyedov told journalists of the explosion threat in a restroom at the Defense Ministry that doubles as a smoking lounge during high-level meetings. He apparently did not realize the impact his words would have.

Kuroyedov has been caught telling tales to the press in the past. After the Kursk sank in 2000, the admiral told reporters that the Navy had proof that a U.S. submarine had sunk the vessel. In the end it was established that Russian negligence, not a U.S. submarine, had sunk the Kursk.

In 2001 a number of admirals were fired because of the Kursk disaster, but not Kuroyedov. President Vladimir Putin seems to have a soft spot for the admiral and chooses not to call him to account for his public misstatements.

This is one of the biggest problems in Putin's Russia. As long as an official is loyal to the president, he can lie and steal without fear of retribution. "

Pravda.RU Pyotr Veliky cruiser to lie up for preventive maintenance

Pyotr Veliky cruiser to lie up for preventive maintenance

14:14 2004-04-20
The check made by the Main Staff of the Navy of Russia revealed a number of substantial shortcomings on the flagship of the Northern Fleet, the Pyotr Veliky heavy nuclear-powered missile-carrying cruiser, a source in the Northern Fleet's Staff said on Monday.

"A week ago a commission of the Main Staff of the Navy under deputy commander of the Navy Mikhail Zakharenko made a check on the Pyotr Veliky to do away with the defects earlier noted by the Navy's Commander-in-Chief. Substantial shortcomings were revealed in the ship organization," the agency's source said.

He noted that the defects concern the organization of service on the ship and of special training. Furthermore, quite a number of the ship's spaces are maintained with a gross violation of the Navy Regulations, the daily routine is upset, and the action stations and service spaces do not meet the requirements set.

The source emphasized that the reactor compartment is the only space to be maintained up to standard.

"The Pyotr Veliky is currently undergoing a dock operation and is to lie up for one month for preventive maintenance," the source said.

According to him, in the course of the preventive maintenance the ship's commanders will have time to establish elementary order in the questions of the duty-watch service and of compliance with the Navy rules.

In the Northern Fleet's Staff they stressed that the flagship must meet the highest requirements.

Commander-in-Chief of the Navy Admiral Kuroyedov earlier made a scandalous statement the sense of which boiled down to the idea that the Pyotr Veliky can blow up at any moment. The Commander-in-Chief later stated, however, that he had been misunderstood.

Feanor

Was he really making a random scandalous statement? Or did he accidentally say more then he was supposed to, and then officials quickly rushed in to cover up his mistake? Also with admirals that have so little responsibility (or maybe understanding of naval technology?) once more the condition of the Russian Navy is completely atrocious.

And finally "revealed a number of substantial shortcomings on the flagship of the Northern Fleet, the Pyotr Veliky". Just because the reactor room wasn't about to explode, like the admiral claimed, doesn't mean the ship was in combat-ready conditions. The same applies to most of the Russian fleet.

rickusn

You again bring nothing to the table but your ignorant,uninformed, pre & ill conceived opinions.

Apparently you can neither read thoroughly or intelligently digest what you do read.

You know nothing about navies or ships nor are you willing to learn.

You have absolutely no credibility.

So this will be my last post directed to you until you bring something of substance to the table. Which I wont hold my breath waiting for because if you had the courtesy and wherewithall to do so you would have already.

Which part of this did you not understand:


"Navy insiders reckon that Kuroyedov singled out the Northern Fleet flagship to settle a score with retired Admiral Igor Kasatonov, whose nephew Vladimir Kasatonov just happens to be the ship's commander. "

OR THIS

"Kuroyedov has been caught telling tales to the press in the past. After the Kursk sank in 2000, the admiral told reporters that the Navy had proof that a U.S. submarine had sunk the vessel. In the end it was established that Russian negligence, not a U.S. submarine, had sunk the Kursk.

In 2001 a number of admirals were fired because of the Kursk disaster, but not Kuroyedov. President Vladimir Putin seems to have a soft spot for the admiral and chooses not to call him to account for his public misstatements.

This is one of the biggest problems in Putin's Russia. As long as an official is loyal to the president, he can lie and steal without fear of retribution. "

OR THIS:

"1999 twice took part in military exercises. 2003 took part in military exercises. Took part in military exercises on Feb 17-18, 2004. 08.2005 took part in military exersises on Northern fleet with President Putin aboard."

Feanor

This thread isn't about the Pyotr Velikiy it's about the state of navies around the world. The point I was making is that the Russian Navy is in horrible condition.

"A few key concepts place Russian naval readiness in perspective. On the national level, electoral uncertainties seem to indicate a period of rough sailing ahead. Accelerating inflation and an overall decline of some 40-60% in gross national product have seriously eroded necessities of life. Electric power, fuel, food, clothing, spare parts, etc., are all in short supply. This is particularly acute for the armed services and has produced significant and rapid drawdowns of naval forces, ship scrapping, personnel and manning problems, and repair and maintenance shortfalls. While Russia is attempting to operate a viable navy, the economic and political problems present serious obstacles to such efforts.

Overall Russian forces now stand at approximately 60% of manning levels; sailor acquisition in some Far East units stand at 10% or less; approximately 50% of Pacific Fleet sailors have not completed secondary school and some 20% of them sport previous criminal convictions or have been arrested by the militia; advancement opportunities are essentially closed and advanced training is almost non-existent, especially given the loss of the Baku and Sevastopol naval schools; and electricians, radar operators, and ship physicians are among the scarcest of all specialists.

Most ships are frozen at their docks; Northern Fleet ships and submarines are being removed from service well before their time; ships receive less than 22% of necessary repairs; crews are seriously overworked and rarely paid; and most SSBNs are no longer fully operational. It is apparent from these statistics that the Russian navy faces severe constraints and is obviously a reduced threat."

Morskoyo Flota ( Naval Force)

Global security quote. I think it suports my statement about teh horrible condition of the Russian Navy. Giving the lack of proper crews for the ships realistically it is indeed impossible to say how many submarines can be deployed in the event of a war.

Stan

wow rickusn sorry that I got it wrong. Im a normal person that has an interest in naval warfare,

youve got some serious attitude towards people who are just trying to have some sort of debate discussion.

anyways its nice to know how many subs are out there and a little worrying as well.


I wonder if the trend will be for greater investment by emerging nations in diesel powered while only the few will develop nuclear...

Stan

I missed a sentence wow man. I have never been arrogant on these forums or proffessed to know anything really. I just for a second thought the numbers were wrong. hey ho i'll live

Galrahn

After doublechecking the numbers in this months proceedings, they appear dead on target.

Does someone have a specific case in the numbers where it would appear inaccurate? Example, the Russian numbers jive with what those silly russians over at periscope have been saying, including those kilo's in reserve. The 1 Sierra I and 1 Sierra II also looks right, as well as the 2 + 1 damaged Victor. Agreed it is tougher to track Russian stuff but there are sources online if you know where to look, speciifcally some of the professional sub forums where pics are bi-monthly and details are amazing (it is almost like they have their own spy ring).

Feanor

Can you give links to forums that accurately track naval, and if possible, ground forces in terms of amount and types of equipment employed? I would be very grateful.

rickusn

Feanor:

First of all the Globalsecurity blurb you posted and linked was written in 2000.

Much has changed.

So it proves nothing.

Second I know what this thread is about because I started it.

Stan:

I take umbrage with people who say something is wrong when its not.

What debate?

You, Feanor and Firepower brought nothing to the table except a desire to state that the data I provided was inaccurate, wrong or false.

Not one of you have brought any facts or documentation to back up your statements.

You cant debate w/o facts and documnetation.

None of which you provided.

Well apparently you, Feanor and Firepower can.

LOL

Feanor

What has changed in the Russian Navy since 2000? Do you want to tell me that we went through some major naval restructuring that drastically increased the fighting capabilities of our navy? Or that a whole series of new warships and subs packed with up-to-date electronics have been put into service? Or that the completely worthless conscription system has been replaced by a professional standing army?

gf0012-aust

Got my copy 2 days ago. I did question RAN data and sent off an email to USNI vis AD BakerIII re how data was collated.

it may be an issue of semantics - but the definition of Collins not being fully operational is not entirely correct.

All of the subs that are at sea are regarded as being "war" ready. Where there is a greying of defintion is that the BYG-1 upgrades have only happened on 1 boat, and others are being staged through on their refit and upgrade cycles. so the balance (at sea) are operational - but not at the upgraded BYG-1 stage.

If we consider the BYG-1 upgrade to be the end capability stage - then yes, only one boat has completed and is still cycling through assessment and sign off. 2009 is the (nominal) end of the BYG-1 and ancilliary toys upgrade cycle. (based on prev RAN/Vendor cycles, I'd argue that being on time on a major refit is also optimistic)

IIRC Adm Shalders has indicated in Senate Estimates that the boats that are at sea are regarded as battle ready and fully operational.

rickusn

LOL

Yep thats the kind data, facts and documentation Ive come to expect.

Your the expert on all things Russian.

I will now defer to your expertise.

Although youve provided absolutely nothing to back-up your contentions.

Youve convinced me.

AD Baker III ,while a world renowed naval analyst, is wrong and you are right.

I just emailed him with the news.

Im sure he will print a quite public retraction of his analysis of operational Russian submarines to placate you.

ROTFLMAO

I hope NAVAL AFFAIRS devotees enjoy their new found, self-proclaimed expert on the Russian Navy the ALMIGHTY FEANOR.

But I doubt it as Ive asked repeatedly for data, facts and documentation and nothing has been forthcoming.

Feanor

Perhaps because, as I already once stated, the data is simply not available?

TopHatter

OK, everybody take 2 steps back.

Guys, if you want to start your own discussion on the topic, take it to another thread.

Feanor, on this board there are a couple dozen military professional quoting hard facts and citing reliable sources. As you can see, it tends to get a bit heated when us amateurs show up with our uninformed opinions. You might want to steer clear if one of them isn't responding positively to your posts, OK?

Rick, I know that you're trying to create threads with accurate figures and data, but ease up a bit please?