May be 8 SSBN. It seems more logical (5 Dolphins + 3 Boreys). We know that Tovarich Ivanov loves confusing statements (being this intentional or not).

Not 8 SSBNs, but "up to 8 newly commissioned". Anyone who's read Viktor Nekrasov knows that "up to" in the Russian military can mean anything, including zero.

How much does Borey's class SSBN cost?

according to "www.mosnews.com/news/2007/02/07/moremissiles.shtml"
rocket forces will receive 34 silo based and 50 mobile topol m.
But, according to "www.arms-tass.su/?page=article&aid=36159&cid=25"
navy will get up to eight project 955(borey class) submarines.
That is not so unrealistic, if defense budget continue to grow at rate 23%. In soviet times navy get 6 nuclear submarines each year. I am only confused about Project 885 Graney (Yasen) class submarines, because I read that only two submarines would be commissioned by 2015, in comparison with ten US Virginia class by 2015.

In RIAN they say 66 road mobile Topol-Ms and 34 silo based ones, warfare.ru says that there were 43 silo based Topols at the end of 2005 considering the three silo based that were added in 06 it gives us a total of (66 + 3) mobile Topol-Ms and (46 +34) : 149 Topol-Ms.
http://www.rian.ru/analytics/20070207/60339119.html

Yes, I've seen the reports about 34-66 missiles. I just don't know if they are credible.

Eight 955 subs by 2015...yeah right. Its taking them over 10 years and the first boat hasnt been commissioned yet. No I would say no moore then 4-5 at most. Two years per unit sounds moore realistic. If they can get the Baluva working in 07/08 that is.

About the strategic bombers, any news about any new Tu-160? It would be great if they could build 1-2 planes a year and maybe have 25-30 of them in 2015. I mean they cant have the Tu-95 and Tu-22M3 flying forever.

As I understand, there are no plans to build new Tu-160 after the 16th aircarft enters service later this year.

Not long ago I read on Ria Novosti online that Russian AF was to receive two new strategic bombers every three years for a total of 6 a/c. I assumed this would not be su-34, for those numbers would really be pathetic. So, unless production of tu-22m or tu-95m is re-started I can't see how this can be anything other than "new" tu-160's.

No, there is no plan to build two new Tu-160 a year. The bombers, however, are expected to undergo modernization. Which is probably what the RIA report actually mentioned.

Thats just the typical russian way. "the airforce will recive two new strategic bombers in next years". Its just that they forgett to say that it is the same planes that have been in service before....just been out of service for a couple of months. I mean if the americans have some of their planes out of servies for a couple of months, they dont say that they will recive new planes. New planes is just what it sounds like...brand new.

Pavel I did not say AF will get two bombers every year, but two strategic bombers every three years. This does not seem to coincide with totally refitting a/c, I would think upgrading a/c would take less time than building brand new from scratch. A little of topic, Ivanov also mentions that Russia is looking for place to start building new aircraft carrier(s) with construction of said vessels to start sometime around 2015. May I vent? They managed to(the Russians) survive without aircraft carriers for all this decades to now sucumb to this fallacy? Why? There's barely enough money for strategic bombers, ssbn, ssgn, and not to mention the navy itself is now embarked on re-building the fleet with small corvettes and frigates, there isn't any heavy cruiser or detroyer on their drawing plans. I would not have said so 10 years ago(the fact that 10 years ago Russia was monetarily strapped is IMO irrelevant)but I would be just like Ustinov back in the day and scrap any plans for aircraft carries. How many disagree with me?

Boris Buliak:

Recently, it took the 37th Air Army over three years to get only one Tu-160 (Blackjack) bomber refurbished and rebuilt with the avionics updated so that conventional strike missions could be carried out. I personally believe the, so called, new 16th Tu-160 was rebuilt from an existing test airframe and does not really signify a new construction program for the Blackjack. Why would you want to build a 1980s airplane today? I farther suspect the schedule that has been mentioned for “new” strategic bombers is the “rebuilding project” for the Tu-160 fleet and no more. Don’t despair. The Tu-160 is a world-class aircraft and this work will ensure many more years of faithful service with even greater operational flexibility.

Before Russia can build an aircraft carrier that rivals even the current Rs. Kuznetsov, a new shipyard to build such a vessel would need to be constructed. This is an incredibly expensive proposition. To what gain?

I suspect Sergey Ivanov is running for President. His comments sound more like political campaign slogans and less like Russian military policy every day.

Frank Shuler
USA

Frank Shuler:

I don't despair, indeed I guess we are in agreement aircraft carriers are more political than strategic. That alone would make it a Medvedev and Ivanov race.(I believe Russian media is hyping up Medvedev) But, even if Russia decided to build(I would sugest Vladi/or neighborhood) an aircraft carrier if it is gonna be like the late Orel project I don't believe they could build more than 2, and that would just be for show. There are so many things wrong with current Russian aircraft carrier design that I will just mention them if someone asks.
BTW did anyone actually read the article I mentioned, I just went to RIAN to refresh my memory but website was temporarilly out.
A healthy dose of Slava follow-ups would make the US Navy respect Russian Navy more than it does now.

Please help translate following comment from Army General Vladimir Mikhailov:
"We will be receiving two (strategic) aircraft every three years, and we are satisfied with that" Army General Vladimir Mikhailov said, adding that the upgraded fleet will include both new and modernized Tu-160 Blackjack, Tu-22 Blinders, Tu-95 Bears.
The part I need help with is were it says "both new and modernized" Anybody?
Earlier I wrote about a total of 6 planes and the articule upon freshly reading it does not say anything about a total.

Re: Tu-160
This is from Tupolev's website.
"To-day from 33 aircraft(Tu-160) that were manufactured in experimental and serial production only 20(not 15-16, but 20) are left in Russia, furthermore manufacturing of three more serial aircraft is not completed yet."
Tupolevs website is at least as current as late 2006. Also, Tu-160 performed maiden flight 18 December 1981, but did not start entering operations until 1987. That's 20 years and for a bomber that's a baby. Some earlier crafts may be ellectronically, avionics and armaments outdated but that is fixable. One more quote from site:
"National safety assurance and vital Russian interests defence is not possible without advanced heavy combat a/c therefore it will be further developed continuously."

Boris: The problem is that one can never trust what Russian officials are saying, let alone what Russian news agencies report they are saying. So, I wouldn't rely too much on Mikhailov's words.

A carrier will be an enormous waste of time and resources. Better to concentrate funds on a modern submarine fleet. Furthermore, in 20 years a Nimitz class vessel will be as useful as the Bismarck. The trend is against the construction and use of these enormous monsters just for boasting and “show the flag” purposes.
Cruise missiles can do the same job.

It is not necessary to upgrade tu-160 with new avionics to enable them conventional strike missions. Take for example US B-52 or b1-b. It is only necessary to arm aircraft with new missiles (kh-101 or kh-555). These missiles would probable have satellite guidance together with TV(optical) homing head. This allow these missiles to attack any target with high precision.
But it is necessary to make some basic modification to allow bombers(tu-95ms tu-160) to carry these missiles.
But installing new avionics operators would get new possibilities like:
see what missile TV head see, and this will allow operator to redirect missile to another target.

A little pic of the new LPAR near St. Pete

http://img61.imageshack.us/img61/2953/35mu2.jpg

They are going to build a new yard capable of building 100,000 tons ships no matter what, that's because they BADLY need such a yard whether they are going to build carriers or not. Russian shipyards are trying (rather poorly) to break into the super-tanker/large tonnage market dominated by asian yards. Right now relatively small tonnage craft dominate the order books at all the Russian shipbuilders. Plans for the new yard were finalized last year.

The question they will then face is whether they want to occupy the slipway with a warship or with commercial ships. If they actually get commercial orders they will probably NOT build a carrier. If the investment fails to get them commercial orders I suspect they will lay down a carrier and spend 10-15 years marginally funding its completion just to keep the yard marginally busy. This sort of subsidy is now common place in Russian shipbuilding anyway. They build warships to give the yards busy work more than anything else.

I direct you all to go search shipbuilding.ru's news archive for a more detailed analysis.

Nedim:

It seems to me more than “basic modifications” would be necessary to integrate a new conventional cruise missile to the Tu-160 witnessed by the long delay on having the fleet so equipped. There are fire-control and guidance avionics to be integrated and tested. I remember it took over two years for the American B-2 bomber to gain certification to carry two different types of nuclear bomb ordinance, the B-83 and the B-61, in the same payload package. It just seems like a slow process.

Doesn’t seem logical to have optical-TV guidance controls on a cruise missile designed to strike targets hundreds and hundreds of miles away. GPS and radar-mapping for sure, a data link for retargeting would be the ultimate but I’m not sure on optical. Any idea if the Kh-101 would be so guided? Just curious.

Frank Shuler
USA

Mike B:

Is this new 100,000 dwt capacity shipyard for Kaliningrad? If so, I suspect this will be a completely commercial facility as this is being done as a joint venture with other European builders especially if those foreign builders have inspection rights. However, this is just my opinion. Do we have any published reports that the Russian Navy might plan construction there? It would make sense given Minister Sergey Ivanov’s comments.

Frank Shuler
USA

Kolokol:

Completely agree on your “carrier” position; huge investment better spend by the Russian Navy somewhere else. The United States Navy has eleven aircraft carriers in the Fleet; with one always in multi-year dry-dock maintenance for nuclear refueling and such. Of the ten available carriers, usually only three are on deployment at any given time. Russia would have to build four carriers to have one always ready at sea. What seems to be little understood is that the cost of carrier naval aviation goes far beyond the cost of the carrier ship itself. The constant training necessary to develop the air crews, the develop of capable carrier aircraft, the study and application of tactics, and the fleet integration necessary to provide supporting warships to the carrier itself, takes a generation to build and develop. If you’re not going to make that commitment, you wind up like the French. The Fs. “Charles de Gaulle” is a magnificent warship but available to the French Navy for only a couple months a year at best. It’s just a very expensive way for the French to show off the “Tri-Colors”. The Russian Navy needs to do what it does best, build submarines.

Frank Shuler
USA

Frank
Some additional comments:
- The American defence budget is many times bigger than the Russian one.
- The geopolitical location of USA is very different of the Russian position. USA is something like an “island” respect to Eurasia whit global interests and then is forced to have a powerful navy. On the contrary, Russia is a enormous “land nation” located more or less in the heart of Eurasia with interests in the near abroad and at best in the medium abroad. So the navy should never be as important as the Army, except for negation of sea-lines to a potential enemy. So… submarines are better.
- In the long term even for USA and even with current budget levels, a carrier-fleet will be a burden and American will start to find another cheaper ways of “power projection”. They are beautiful ships, no doubt, but large battleships like the Bismarck, the Hood and so on also were beautiful. I think carriers will share the same fate.

Just an opinion.

Kolokol:

I share you opinion; the strategic security situation is far different between Russia and the United States as per your conclusions. Russia will always need a strong, mobile army to defend its borders and a navy designed to protect its coast. There are many capabilities that make the US Navy unique in the world today, our fleet of aircraft carriers being only one. Naval warfare today is fought in four dimensions; air, surface, sub-surface, and space. For any fleet action to be successful, all four dimensions must be dominated. I suspect the aircraft carrier will continue to be useful, beyond its expense, until its role is superseded by some space-based asset in the distant future. The US Army and Air Force are about winning wars. The US Marine Corp is about keeping small wars from growing into big wars. The US Navy, used properly, is about preventing wars. Make no mistake, maritime diplomacy is a powerful tool in shaping “international opinions”.

I would disagree on one point you made. The successor to the American aircraft carrier, this new space-based weapon system, will come at a huge price. It’ll make the $10 billion dollar price tag for the new carrier, the “USS Gerald R. Ford”, look like a bargain. It seems like the United States can’t ever find “a cheaper way”! (smile)

Frank Shuler
USA

Us Army(and just about all branches of the military) have a tendency to disregard cheaper effective weapons systems and have a real hard on for gadgety and expensive systems. Unfortunately Russia which use to be very pragmatic in this aspect seems to be joining the club. The B-52's and Tu-95's are proof of that, heck if one build a brand new Catalina and put it out on patrol over the oceans I'm pretty sure it would still kill submarines. If the price of the two systems is compared the disparity will become self-evident. I guess what I'm trying to say is new isn't always better.

Boris Buliak:

Also, never doubt the influence of the American “Military Industrial Complex”. It’s the defense industry, and the jobs it creates, that keeps coming up with the new gadgets the US Military can’t seem to do without. Agreed. New isn’t always better but change is inevitable.

Frank Shuler
USA

"Furthermore, in 20 years a Nimitz class vessel will be as useful as the Bismarck. The trend is against the construction and use of these enormous monsters just for boasting and “show the flag” purposes.
Cruise missiles can do the same job."

This is the same sort of flawed theoretical thinking that considered nuclear weapons the be end all of warfare in the 50's or led to the overestimation of missiles in the 60's.
Aircraft carriers are not going to go away anytime soon because they are extremely flexible weapon systems: an aircraft carrier, by means of its airwing, can do things ranging from evacuating an embassy staff to dropping nukes on a country and everything in between, like providing radar surveillance, ASW and a million of other things. Cruise missiles on the other hand are pretty much one trick ponies with well defined tactical niches.
As for any supposed "trend" against the aircraft carrier I might note that the Varyag is not being completed as a Casino, India is committed to aircraft carriers and so are the UK, Italy and pretty much all the current carrier operators.

http://www.rian.ru/analytics/20070220/60990986.html

Nedim:
I share your confusion regarding project 885 Granay. On its weapons specs it refers to the Yakhont/Onyx system, yet a Lada I belive could support the Sampson. Even if Lada were not able to do so I KNOW Akulas do for a fact carry Sampsons. Unless I'm wrong the Sampson is the sea-based variant of the Kh-55, furthermore, I believe production of all versions of the Kh-55 other than the air launched was stopped. If the Russians were waiting for a newly produced sea-launched version of the Kh-55 to install on Granay it would make sense of the delays. After all, the first of class has been laid up for quite a while now even though most weaponry is available. Another wild card could be delays related to the subs propulsion unit, but I doubt it. I'm not advocating installing nuclear warheads on SLCM(La Russaphobe hysterical comments notwithstanding) But I advocate having a longer reach system any day, thats called strategic.

Does any one knows what exactly will be the modernization of "Admiral Nakhimov" missile cruiser?? Adding Granat land attack missiles?? Will russian navy starts to built new similsr to Arleigh Burge missile destroyers??