Comments on: Should we panic about Russian naval modernization?

By: Saturday Morning Linkage » Duck of Minerva

Saturday Morning Linkage » Duck of Minerva — Sat, 12 Jan 2013 15:18:16 +0000

[...] Gorenburg evaluates Russian naval [...]

By: caitlyna

caitlyna — Sat, 12 Jan 2013 01:16:54 +0000

Russia does have three next-generation ice breakers under construction to replace both the big dual reactor ice breakers that serve the Northern Sea Route and the heavy polar ice and the two single reactor ships that are able to clear ice part way up the Yenisei and Ob rivers. The three new icebreakers are designed with adjustable draft so they can replace both current classes and with more power than the current deep draft ice breakers. In addition, there are many smaller ice breaking tugs for ports, small icebreakers for at-sea structures and will be rescue ships along the NSR . But nothing seems to be in the works to replace the old patrol icebreakers in the navy and border guard.

New construction for the security forces might come later, but the quiet on this in Russia is a contrast with the loud and sometimes belligerent statements in Canada over building 6 ice breaking patrol boats for the Canadian Navy (not the coast guard).

I understand that when Russia builds their component of the planned arctic search and rescue centers in line with the binding agreement on arctic search and rescue, that Russia is likely to base security detachments in the same locations. Given the cost of building and maintaining stations on the Arctic coast, this co-location is entirely sensible.

By: Dmitry Gorenburg

Dmitry Gorenburg — Fri, 11 Jan 2013 19:56:46 +0000

I thought I saw something about new icebreakers being built, but not necessarily for the military. There has been talk of new ground forces units in the Arctic, but you’re right that there hasn’t been much discussion about increasing naval forces. In fact, there has been discussion of a shift from Northern Fleet to Pacific Fleet in the last couple of years.

By: caitlyna

caitlyna — Fri, 11 Jan 2013 19:52:16 +0000

I would also suggest that given the opening of the Russian Arctic, with seasonal loss of ice cover that had kept foreigners away from the northern coast for decades, Russia should be equipping its naval and, more to the point, its coastal border guard for increased monitoring, inspection and enforcement tasks similar to that of the US Coast Guard off our more temperate coasts. I’ve been surprised not to see at least a new class of patrol icebreaker or at least ice hardened corvettes announced to deal with the seasonal opening of the Laptev, East siberian and Chukchi Seas. I expect some of the tasks will be undertaken by aircraft, but enforcement of regulations in the 200 mile EEZ will require ships whose engine gear is designed for ice infested water and whose hulls are more protected than ships designed for ice-free environments.

Dmitry, if you have heard of any maritime security developing in this area, please let me know. Off all the arctic states, Russia arguably has the strongest reasons for beefing up its maritime security presence, but aside from a couple exercises, it doesn’t seem to be doing much.

By: caitlyna

caitlyna — Fri, 11 Jan 2013 19:25:34 +0000

In today’s US Navy, a destroyer is about the displacement and dimensions of a heavy cruiser of Reagan’s day, its armament is far superior, and its data networking and communications suites multiply the power of individual ships.

Our major decline has been in the frigate/destroyer escort class. Had we the large numbers of frigates and smaller and less effective destroyers of Reagan’s fleet, would might not have needed an international coalition to deal with piracy off Somalia, but having our allies, and even Russia, sharing the costs of that activities is a plus, not a minus.

Even regarding aircraft carriers, numbers of carriers belie the increase in platforms as F-35s and Ospreys begin to operate off of the new classes of amphibious warfare ships.

I don’t think anyone would trade our 280+ fleet of larger, better armed and networked warships of today for 600 smaller, less powerful ships that comprised our fleet of the past. And at nearly $1 billion for procurement alone, and several times that for life time operations, it would be hard to see going back to a much larger fleet without a very compelling argument that the folks at Heritage just don’t make.

By: Ray C. Finch III

Ray C. Finch III — Fri, 11 Jan 2013 17:51:08 +0000

I don’t have solid intel, but I’ve read/heard that the Dolgoruky was launched with 16 empty missile containers (see commentary by V. Baranetz at Komsomolskaya Pravda). Without the Bulava SLBM, this new submarine is no more than a tourist attraction, a floating Potemkin village. Given the level of corruption within the Russian system, increased armament spending does not always equal increased military capability.

By: Dale Herspring

Dale Herspring — Fri, 11 Jan 2013 17:41:41 +0000

Excellent essay.

No, I do not think so as long as we permit the US Navy to keep up with modern technology. They are building a number of vessels, but if one follows things closely, they admit they are about ten years behind. I have been on some of their current, old ships (e.g. Peter the Great, when it ran by another name). They were using first generation computers at a time when we were using third. I realize that much has changed, but just the fact that they are launching newer ships does not make them better.
I want to wait and watch. Frankly, I am more concerned about the Chinese Navy.