I have to correct you on amphibious landing ships. 2 of Project 23900 ALS were laid down in Crimea in July of 2020. A single project 23900 ship displaces 30-40 thousand tons, carries up to 1000 marines, up to 75 vehicles and up to 16 Ka-52 helicopters.
Thank you sir. I'm aware the Russian navy is building new amphibious warfare ships, but from my understanding these two wouldn't be commissioned into the Russian Navy in 2022. It would be difficult to even finish these two the next year. Is that correct?
@@EurasiaNaval Yes, it is totally impossible to complete such a ship in 2 years, even for the most advanced navy shipyards in the world. Project 23900 are set to be completed in 2026-2027 and to pass all the state trials and be inducted into service by 2028-2029. My statement was in response to 17:22 mark in your video, where you say, that Russia has no need in such ships. It obviously does. The 23900 project is an ending to a "Mistral" purchase story, when Russia had payed France in 2011 to build 2 ships, but later France refused to hand them to Russia due to 2014 Ukrainian debacle. So Russia has sued France for breach of contract and not only got it`s money back, but also a bunch of technologies for building amphibious landing ships.
@@EurasiaNaval Also a comment on 5:16 in the video. Right now there is a 500 meter long drydock nearing completion or already complete in Russian Far East at "Zvezda" shipyard. In april 2020 bathoport for the drydock has been installed. Right now there are no orders for military vehicles to be built at "Zvezda", but with such capabilities we could eventually see an order to build a full scale supercarrier there - like project 23000 "Storm", or something similar.
Granted in actuality before the war it was 2.5 Slava cruisers, as the Moskva was barely able to move under its own power and had almost none of its systems operational.
Russia has done the right thing by building submarines instead of wasting money on aircraft carriers, also the development of state of the art missiles, enables their corvettes and frigates, to do the job of larger vessels in other navy's.
I would not say Russia doesn't have requirement for large landing ship, they do which is why they try to buy Mistral, they just failed to acquire them.
Cruisers are an outdated type of ship. The frigates currently under construction are much more capable. As for the cruiser Moscow, it would never have been sunk without foreign help, so do not attribute this to Ukraine, this is the merit of NATO.
Russia should never have invaded Ukraine. Losing the Flagship of the Black Sea fleet, the ‘Moscow’, is without doubt a humiliation in the eyes of the world.
US should have never interfered in the Ukrainian politics in 2014. Ukraine shouldn't has any Nazis in the parliament and other sectors, there should be no discrimination and killing of civilians in Ukraine since 2014. There should be no biological weapon labs in Ukraine. There shouldn't have been any provocation for this war from Ukrainian side. US should have never invaded Iraq, Syria, Iraq, Libya, conducted interventions in Nicaragua and Yemen. NATO should not exist since it was created to oppose Soviet regime and USSR is no more. There should be no warmongers who earn billions on pentagon deals. But unfortunately those are not the cases. I can continue forever...
Subs : All Typhoons are now decomissioned including the Dmitri Donskoi which was used as a test plateform. All Delta 3 are waiting for scrap. The Delta 4 are in a very poor shape, maybe half operational. Two or three Oscar 2 are up for refit. Sierra 2, three of them restored to combat ready state (they are full titanium and incredibly expensive). No more Victor III are operational. They are scrapped with occidental money from Europe ans USA (funds are frozen but the subs are junk anyway). Many Akulas are totally outdated and there are no funds to refit them (when there were funds, they have been stolen by oligarcs, mafia or high ranked officers). The Kilos were potent but are now outdated and the Lada, meant to replace the Kilos and to be available for export are totally unreliable and suffer from several design errors (AIP, Batteries, etc...).
As a matter of fact, Sevmash has never been able to shape the blades of their subs properly. Even after smuggling some Toshiba CNC machines from Japan when they were under Intl. Embargo.
@@EurasiaNaval you've seen the number of auxiliary fleet in both active & reserve just moored to the bay for years, lying unused, rusting away . . . especially US Navy . . . nearly €2.0 Bn approx is spent fixing them & then putting them back in reserve or as they say on standby to rust . . . ain't their own wallet, everyone loves to spend the tax payers money except the tax payers themselves who has to think before spending even $1
4:21 All of these soviet jump carriers had their Anti ship missiles removed to make more room in the hanger bay (PLAN never had them) and these are actually Ukrainian designed and built.
Very good vid. The highlight is that russian navy is mostly for self defense and with the great majority of assets for coastal use. Not many vessels for projection of force and going to attack other countries all over the world. Of course in time the oldest soviet era units will be replaced with the new higly effective small units. They are doing a great job in packing a lot of weapons in small ship that can be produced in a higher quantity at a lower price.
Is it true that Russia doesn't call its carrier an aircraft carrier, but some type of cruiser for international legal reasons? And, when you say that the Carrier is in Ukraine for refit, does that mean it's ported somewhere in Crimea which legally belongs to Ukraine, but is under control of Russia at present?
On first question: Russia classified, or at least used to classify (unsure if it still does), their aircraft carriers as 'aircraft-carrying cruisers' because the Montreux Convention that regulates the passage of warships through the Turkish straits into the Black Sea forbid aircraft carriers of greater than 15,000 tons, which basically covers all the aircraft carriers in service. But there are no restrictions on other capital ships (e.g. cruisers) belonging to other countries with coastline to the Black Sea. So, by calling its aicraft carriers 'aircraft-carrying cruisers', Russia can enter/exit Black Sea with them, which was particularly important back in USSR times because all of their carriers were built in the Mykolaiv Shipyard now in modern Ukraine (Ukraine might have renamed the city). To justify the cruiser designation, the Russians used to have offensive weapons (cruise missiles) installed on their carriers. No other signatories to the Montreux Convention have objected to Russia's designation, mainly because they know this is an important issue for Russia. On the second question: I don't think I said the Kuznetsov carrier is refitting in Ukraine - I just said it is refitting somewhere. I did say it and the Liaoning carrier were built in Ukraine. Maybe there's a mix-up, and perhaps the audio wasn't great which didn't help.
@@MlLKMAN 'I can't prove you wrong because I'm too stupid, so i'll just tell you to prove yourself wrong, and that'll prove me right.' That's gotta be the most pathetic thing I have ever expected to hear from a NAFO bot. It really says a lot about your intelligence level -- or rather, your stupidity level.
One carrier unfit for sea. Just as well since carriers are big targets. US has spent too much on them . China making the same mistake. Russia has nuclear subs but not much else
I think Russia wants to try to build two first, but they still haven't completed the design. At this stage, it's not certain if construction will move ahead.
This didn’t age well after Ukraine defeated them handily. The most weak undisciplined navy in the world. I have seen pictures of their ship bathroom the filthiest thing I have ever seen.
As filthy as the sooty, black filth that Proud! (😂) Admiral Kuznetsov belches from its tarry, black bowels when excited? 😂😂 That image-conscious Russia allows that embarrassment to sputter around the seven seas says a lot about the state of their navy and their ability/willingness to invest in modernization. I mean, come on. It's essentially a coal fired carrier. (I know. Not really coal. "Mazut" is technically cleaner than coal. I think. BUT, technology-wise.....)
Apparently losing hundreds of square kilometers of territory (on the defending side by the way) is considered winning by the west. Shows how pathetic they are. Cope harder, mate.
The real question is why they bother with a battle fleet at all? For a huge country they are quite land locked. And what coastline they do have is frozen much of each year and almost all Russian foreign trading partners and military allies they can reach by land.
plenty of use in ukraine, and you wouldnt throw away the massive navy you inherited from the USSR. Iran barely has a navy and they arent super close with china so russia still needs to have some power in the ocean
There are many options here. Europe does not actually have its own combat-ready army, relying entirely on the United States. In the event of a conflict, Russia will need to cut supply routes from the United States to Europe. Further, if you look at the new NATO members Sweden and Finland, they also have no military significance without supplies by sea. And there is also a huge network of US military bases in the Pacific region.
The thing here is when you compare Russia to America, you also need to count the British, Scandinavian, French, and Itaiian. This channel mentions ships Russia does not have. The number of operational subs is much lower, this reeks of Russian propaganda.
@@definitelyfrank9341 Actually...Bulgaria, Romania, Georgia, Turkey and Ukraine would disagree. If the Russians hadn't lost their capital ship they might have an edge over the Turks...but not now. So, the answer is "No, Russia no longer owns the Black Sea".
@@definitelyfrank9341 Frank...maybe you missed the entire Cold War, I didn't. From the mid-1930's until the collapse of the Soviet Union and the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact, the Black Sea was a "Russian Lake". There's a relevant notion from Old English Law that states "possession is nine points of the law". Once the Soviet Union broke up, things started going South for the Russians. Now things are not just going South but sideways as well.
Russia can control the Black Sea. And sink everything that floats there without leaving the port. But this will mean war with NATO. So far, Russia is not interested in a direct war with NATO, although if I were NATO, I would not hope that they would be able to win.
#2 army is being devastated by a 3rd rate army and the #3 navy has had at least 6 ships sunk, including a heavy cruiser by a country that has no navy. I think everyone has far overrated the Russian armed services. Corruption and lack of training can't be made up for by equipment. If you don't know how to use it or it does work do to neglect then the equipment is nothing more than a target or heavy shit to drag around. I'm not criticizing you I'm sure these things could have been more deadly but no expert knew they'd be so ineffective.
Let's hope all of them have a nice Kursk case scenario on the assembly line on their merry trip to Tartarus, hopefully, we can get the black box to hear their lamentations, as their start killing off one another trying to survive, may they sink ell and feed the fishes,
That's what I had been saying why don't they build another aircraft carrier Russia should get his s*** together it's really funny China is ahead of them I find that hard to believe
@@professorx2607 And building a carrier means you're building the entire task group? a carrier alone might cost 2-3 billion in Russia but you also need to build 3-5 destroyers and frigates and support ships and navel support ports and drydocks and crews.... that's not something on the priority list right now.
They don't need aircraft carrier because they are not trying to project power around the world. It's cheaper to build missiles that can sink them than it is to build them.
