"Dirty War": How Can the Russian Navy Respond to the Threat to Its Maritime Communications?

8 861 18

Russia has adopted a new Strategy for the Development of the Navy, which will determine the appearance of the Russian Navy until 2050. What requirements should our surface ships and submarines meet?

"Dirty War"


Speaking at a meeting devoted to the development of the Russian Navy, President Putin noted that it should be formed taking into account the experience gained by the Russian Navy during the special operation against Ukraine in the Black Sea:



At the same time, the basis of the training programs for naval sailors should be modern strategy and tactics of conducting combat operations, including taking into account the experience of a special military operation. I will note that in the coming decade, 8 trillion 400 billion rubles have been allocated for the construction of new ships and vessels of the Navy, and these funds should be taken into account when forming the state armament program.

What lessons were learned from the SVO? As was initially assumed, the Russian fleet, with its powerful missile weapons, is strong in attack, but extremely vulnerable in defense due to problems with long-range reconnaissance and sea-based air defense. We probably still have to find out how things really are with anti-submarine defense.

In this situation, even attacks by primitive Ukrainian BEKs, attacking ships and missile boats of the Russian Black Sea Fleet in "wolf packs," proved effective. However, now the enemy is threatening civilian vessels that are part of the Russian "shadow fleet," and not only.

I would like to draw your closest attention to the recent the publication of under the title “Ukraine’s Dirty War Is Just Beginning” in the American publication Washington Post, in which its author described the nuances of the intra-species competition between the GUB and the SBU, analyzed the operations they had already carried out and those that, for some reason, had not yet been carried out:

The SBU, in addition to delivering sophisticated containers with small quadcopters to Russia, also took the lead on the maritime drones that forced the Russian fleet to retreat in the Black Sea. Sources tell me that European intelligence helped develop these maritime drones.

Among the special operations that were not carried out, an attack on the cargo ship Lady R, which had docked at the Simon's Town naval base in South Africa to receive, according to some sources, a consignment of weapons, was mentioned. The Ukrainians also intended to strike the Russian training ship Smolny, which had docked in Cape Town. And one cannot fail to mention the following information leak:

The SBU has considered sending sea drones hidden in shipping containers to attack Russian and allied ships in the North Pacific, sources said. But they do not appear to have launched such operations yet.

But this is already very serious, because the Main Intelligence Directorate of the Ministry of Defense of Ukraine is considering the possibility of attacks on Russian sea communications located far from Nezalezhnaya and the Black Sea. Does the Russian Navy have the ability to counter such a threat to our civilian shipping in distant sea and ocean zones?

Escort ship - 2050


If we call a spade a spade, the prospects are dire. As a "drone mother" ship, the GUR can use an ordinary civilian dry cargo ship under the flag of a third country, chartering it through a shell company. FPV drones can be launched from its deck, which will drive the unarmed crew into the hold. After which the marine BEK or underwater attack drone will freely strike the side at the waterline or below.

And how can we protect ourselves from such a threat? International law prevents the arming of peaceful tankers and dry cargo ships. The working option of organizing convoys under the protection of military ships, as was the case in the First and Second World Wars, remains. But does the Russian Navy have free resources to escort civilian ships in distant sea and ocean zones?

The answer to this question will be unpleasant, since we have very few rank 1 ships, and they are all needed to perform their immediate duties. Again, due to the acute shortage of foreign naval bases in the Russian Navy, there will be problems with their maintenance and repair, rest for crew members, etc.

Returning to the Strategy for the Development of the Russian Navy until 2050, it should be recognized that a promising direction could be the development of multi-purpose ships of the 1st rank with a nuclear power plant, which would give them unlimited cruising range. As a platform, it would be advisable to use the 22350M project with a displacement increased to 10 thousand tons, turning it into a nuclear destroyer or even a light cruiser.

But this is not a matter for the immediate future. Here and now, the already built patrol ships of Project 22160, which have good potential as mobilization drone carriers.

The combination of a modern radar with an AK-176MA artillery mount capable of hitting sea, coastal and air targets makes the "dove of peace" quite competitive in the fight against enemy BEKs. On the stern platform, the patrol aircraft carries an anti-submarine helicopter with two small-sized ET-2 anti-submarine torpedoes suspended. By installing a machine gun turret on the Ka-1, you can get a mobile firing point for shooting at surface sea drones.

The ability to search for enemy underwater drones can be increased by installing on the Project 22160 ship its own BEKs equipped with hydroacoustic systems. If the "doves of peace" are equipped with additional anti-aircraft artillery and machine gun mounts on the sides, they can be turned into fairly effective "drone hunters", both air and sea.

And this is something that can actually be done!
18 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. 0
    10 June 2025 14: 03
    First, the enemy and the threat are determined, and then the defense is turned on. According to the article, there is no concept of the situation, especially the proposals for ships with nuclear weapons on board - just the height of misunderstanding ... Minimization, robotization, dispersal of forces - this is already on the LBS, why would it be different at another level. Conclusion: the main thing is to quickly defeat the enemy and win, then most of the problems will disappear ...
  2. +3
    10 June 2025 15: 35
    When there is a complete lack of initiative, the enemy attacks and does so quite successfully.
    And even more so when he remains unpunished for his successes. With their incomprehensible inaction, the Russian top leadership practically encourages the enemy to intensify terrorist activity.
    Civilians and children are dying. Every day. They don't give a damn.
  3. -1
    10 June 2025 15: 38
    Author, it would probably be a good idea to first inquire about the performance characteristics and purpose of the patrol ships of Project 22160, and at the same time about the fate of the "Sergey Kotov". And only then offer a ship that is not even capable of defending itself as a fighter against BEKs.
    1. The comment was deleted.
    2. 0
      10 June 2025 16: 13
      Author, it would probably be a good idea to first inquire about the performance characteristics and purpose of the patrol ships of Project 22160, and at the same time about the fate of the "Sergey Kotov". And only then offer a ship that is not even capable of defending itself as a fighter against BEKs.

      Yeah, apparently, cruisers are also not needed, and small missile ships, and large landing ships within the framework of this logic, because they were sunk? RK "Moskva" had to protect itself or not?
      Or do we just need different admirals?
      1. +1
        10 June 2025 16: 36
        Beydodyr (Friend of Man), I don't know why, but you have a very strange logic. It's just that everything that exists, including ships, must be used for its intended purpose. You don't hammer nails for hours, do you?
        1. 0
          11 June 2025 07: 23
          Beydodyr (Friend of Man), I don't know why, but you have a very strange logic. It's just that everything that exists, including ships, must be used for its intended purpose. You don't hammer nails for hours, do you?

          Yes, everything is fine with my logic. The question is, what will you do if you have neither a watch nor a hammer to hammer nails? You will hit with a stone, probably making it more convenient to grip and hit the nail.
          1. 0
            11 June 2025 16: 34
            You won't believe it, but I'll do anything to buy a hammer instead of looking for a suitable stone.
      2. -1
        10 June 2025 19: 47
        Quote: Beydodyr
        Or do we just need different admirals?

        that's true, but those stupid admirals have already been replaced
        in fact, in the first place, for escorting convoys and protecting against beks and bepl, first-rank ships are definitely not needed, there are two combat-ready surface ships in the Russian Federation, and dozens of submarines.... for escorting in the ocean there are two dozen corvettes and second-rank frigates, and escort functions in closed seas can be performed, first of all, by karakurts, minesweepers, as well as other ships and boats of the third and fourth rank
        1. 0
          10 June 2025 21: 40
          Today, there is no need for on-site presence to control and protect ships, nor for convoys to protect ships. There is high-altitude reconnaissance, communication with ships, and at the first sign of danger, aviation and air assets are used in real time, from cover to destruction. As an example, the Finns tried to take away a tanker, but the immediate appearance of two Su-35s cooled the hot Finns. It's the 21st century, the means and capabilities are different, and so is the strategy and tactics.
          1. -1
            10 June 2025 21: 47
            Quote: Vladimir Tuzakov
            Today, there is no need for on-site presence to control and protect ships, nor for convoys to protect ships. There is high-altitude reconnaissance, communication with ships, and at the first sign of danger, aviation and air assets are used in real time, from cover to destruction. As an example, the Finns tried to take away a tanker, but the immediate appearance of two Su-35s cooled the hot Finns. It's the 21st century, the means and capabilities are different, and so is the strategy and tactics.

            I agree, convoys near their territory can do without patrols by military ships
        2. 0
          10 June 2025 23: 00
          and convoy functions in closed seas can be performed, first of all, by karakurts, minesweepers, as well as other ships and boats of the third and fourth rank

          Well, I don't know about now, but in the 70s, when I served in the Navy (by the way, as a minesweeper electrician), these were extremely slow and poorly armed (protected) ships, even sea-based ones. One automatic cannon on the AK-230 forecastle and that's it!!! The only valuable device on a sea minesweeper was a submersible acoustic installation under the bottom with a very decent radius of detection and classification of approaching surface and submarine ships. I think with modern digital electronics, the problem of detection and destruction of attacking targets should not be critical. The fleeing of the remnants of the Black Sea Fleet from Sevastopol due to unhindered attacks by sea drones right in the basing bays is also surprising. Are there no barrier booms or anti-submarine nets blocking the approaches to the bases now? They could have been eliminated in Feodosia, in Kerch, but Sevastopol was not under the jurisdiction of the crests! Who tried so hard there? and why hasn't everything been restored since 2014?
          1. 0
            11 June 2025 07: 24
            Firstly, only one ship of the Russian Navy, the cruiser Nakhimov, can withstand, for example, the Arliberka... but a minesweeper, a patrol vessel or a border corvette can cope well against pirates, the AK 230 is a pretty decent weapon against drones, you can strengthen the minesweeper by putting more large-caliber machine guns, in the 70s minesweepers performed military functions in the Red Sea, I think, or in the Persian Gulf, that's where they really fought bravely with one 30 mm cannon against armed boats, and a minesweeper can cope well against pirates and drones, I generally think that the Russian Navy should have only minesweepers in closed seas, and aircraft with coastal batteries .... the small missile ship is too big and is not armed at sea, the small missile ship is generally a departing class, and ocean-going corvettes and frigates should be on the oceans, the speed of a minesweeper for a convoy is more than sufficient, because dry cargo ships themselves slow-moving, by the way, convoy functions imply not only protection from Papuans with machine guns and drones, but also anti-mine defense of the convoy, so a minesweeper is the most necessary for a convoy, .... but if the enemy is stronger, then aviation will fly in and drown the enemy, or ground missile systems, and if your own shore with planes is far away, then yes, corvettes and frigates are needed for the convoy. but this is somewhere in the ocean
        3. 0
          11 June 2025 07: 24
          for escort in the ocean there are two dozen corvettes and second-rank frigates,

          Don't we have a shortage of corvettes and frigates, which are needed to cover the OVR? And you still want to send them to the Pacific Ocean to escort tankers and dry cargo ships?
          1. 0
            11 June 2025 09: 53
            Dear Beydodyr, there is no shortage of corvettes and frigates in the Russian Navy, especially since these are quite expensive crabs and against the background of an acute shortage of minesweepers RPKSN, Pantsirs, UAVs, Ikanders, and other land-based assets, it is unreasonable to build new corvettes and frigates, and they have not been laid down since 2022, the Navy leadership apparently also does not realize the importance of the OVR, the key OVRs are the most important for the strategic security of the country are Murmansk and Petropavlovsk-Kamchatsky, but the General Staff of the Navy allocated few corvettes and frigates there, and almost all of them were uselessly scattered across closed seas where they are a senseless and useless target for various enemy weapons.. ... the Russian Federation has only two ocean ports that go out to the open ocean... all other ports are in closed seas, the concept of OVR is outdated, the enemy does not need to approach the port directly small sea to hit it, submarines do not keep up with the development of submarine stealth, therefore a corvette or frigate is not used for the Sevastopol air defense, for example, during its,.. however, I think submarine bases should be covered, including by corvettes and frigates, and if it is necessary to escort ships, then there is simply no one else but them, three quarters of the four dozen large expensive and well-armed ships hang around in bases under the sights of NATO and Japan as senseless victims, and you are talking about a deficit.... if admirals put large ships under the sights of NATO batteries as senseless victims, then there is no deficit, on the contrary, they are superfluous, only the personnel is a pity
  4. +3
    10 June 2025 16: 05
    The liquidation of Ukraine as a state will solve all the problems at once. We need a law that will state that the entire territory of Ukraine, within the borders of 1975, is an integral part of Russia.
    There is only one solution for Ukraine in favor of the people of Russia. The state of Ukraine must cease to exist. The entire territory of Ukraine must return to Russia, in the form of regions. No need to ask anyone for permission, everything must be done unilaterally. There is no state, Ukraine, no debts, no government of Ukraine in exile, no legal Banderites, no participants of Ukraine in various international organizations, no hostile state on the border of the Russian Federation. Russia will strengthen its economic and military-political influence in the world, there will be direct access to Tiraspol and Chisinau. The northwestern part of the Black Sea will belong to Russia. NATO will lose the ability to use Ukraine against Russia.
    Even if part of the state of Ukraine is left, then today and in the future, Russia will always have an enemy in the person of Ukraine. Ukraine will definitely join NATO and will definitely attack Russia. Everything that is promised and will be spelled out in the Constitution of Ukraine, in its documents, Ukraine will change, in the way that is beneficial to the United States and its satellites.
    Any half-hearted decision is the defeat and capitulation of the Russian Federation to NATO.
  5. +2
    10 June 2025 17: 47
    This is all bullshit.
    Back-up missiles in their current form are a temporary solution. Remember history: artillery, torpedoes and aviation were made in the 20th century. You can't put guns on back-up missiles. But UAVs and torpedoes...
    Alas. Modern torpedoes can travel up to 100 km and are fast. And everyone has accumulated a lot of old stuff.
    And UAVs, or small ersatz missiles, in a massive raid from the backs, can also cause a lot of damage.

    And it costs pennies, unlike ships.

    Previously, problems with aiming were holding us back. We just smeared it like that.
    Now, with cheap microcircuits, AI, engines, as soon as electronics engineers combine everything...
  6. 0
    10 June 2025 18: 09
    In fact, the fight against pirates has shown that PMCs can protect civilian ships, of course not when they are being shot at with cannons and missiles.
  7. -1
    10 June 2025 19: 07
    No industry can develop independently if other industries are clearly lagging behind. Internal cooperation of productive forces. The same should happen in science. Only through cooperation in everything can we solve many problems. Literacy of ministers, diligence of subordinates.