Jump to content

Talk:Russian Navy

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Source Issue

[edit]

The source article "Ukrainian Sea Drones Sink Russian Patrol Ship Off (of) Crimea" is linked from an news aggregator (Yahoo! News). Should this perhaps be updated to the original publication?

- https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2024/03/05/ukrainian-sea-drones-sink-russian-patrol-ship-off-crimea/

FlagCourier (talk) 23:23, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Russian Naval Strategy

[edit]

Where would it be best to explore the organization of the Russian Navy, i.e. primarily a submarine navy, and that it does not make the same use of naval aviation as the US Navy?L Hamm 17:21, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Acronyms

[edit]

I think it would make for a far more readable article if the acronyms under 'current strength' were either expalined or replaced with their complete phrases Davepealing 20:10, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Soviet navy

[edit]

Please sync with main article, now it looks more like a cold war propaganda cited by dumb schoolboy.

Ekranoplan

[edit]

'The Caspian Sea Monster' should be somehow introduced in this article for its uniqueness. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.95.216.123 (talk) 14:32, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So there is a aircraft carrier Varyag (sold to China) and a cruiser Varyag?

[edit]

Shouldn't this be noted somewhere? There isn't even an article for the aircraft carrier or the cruiser 66.99.96.10 (talk) 17:35, 7 December 2007 (UTC)=/[reply]

There is an article for the carrier at Soviet aircraft carrier Varyag, but only an article for the class of cruiser the other Varyag belongs to at Slava class cruiser. There really isn't enough information available to write an article on the cruiser, unless you want to hunt some down! Buckshot06 (talk) 22:14, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Now there's an article for the cruiser - Russian cruiser Varyag (1983). Buckshot06 (talk) 22:52, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hazing

[edit]

so dose дедовщина(sevre bullying, sometimes leading to death and suicide) occur in the navy on the same level as it dose in the army? Starzaz (talk) 20:05, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You mean dedovshchina? I don't know. Buckshot06 (talk) 22:51, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I know (i didn't served niter Regular Troops nor Navy) dedovschina did not occur the same level in the Navy as in ground forces. That is because of long sailings where people have to serve near each other from day to day. But I didn't sayed that there is no serve bullying at all. As almost in every army newcommers do hard jobs for the first time of service, but i didn't heard any rumors about too cruel and useless traetment in the Navy.

Record high naval activity

[edit]

With the the article Stability 2008 and the news report "Record number of Russian war ships sailing" perhaps the present article could be updated with respect to this apparent increased naval activity? __meco (talk) 13:53, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is apparent the Russia government is adding on the naval activity, Russia has purchased 6 brand new aircraft carriers from France and they are building 8 more in Russia which production has

already started this year and will gone until 2018 to 2020. It is astonishing that the government can do this which seems they have the money to do so. Out of their recession the Russian navy continues to hold the 2nd largest Navy in the world under the US will indeed be number as the largest and modernized Navy by 2020. I believe this to be quite true according to BBC last month aired the story in Britain. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.205.229.251 (talk) 21:57, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

About the Tartus port

[edit]

"Additionally, a cursory review of photography of the port of Tartus clearly shows that there is no room available for the basing of the Russian Black Sea Fleet and that 10 Russian warships could not possibly have been docked in the port on 19 September 2008."

I don't know whose idea is this but its really amusing. If you just look at the Tartus port in google earth, there are already more than 50 ships in the port (some of them are larger than 200m) and an additional 100 ships can dock there side by side. I think the statement should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.224.194.99 (talk) 20:11, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking a bit more precisely. the Russian use portion of the otherwise dominantly COMMERCIAL port of Tartus is ONE 100m floating pier on the inside of the east-west oriented northern breakwater. Recent Russian media have announced that Russia will soon re-install a second floating pier. This is a very modest improvement and certainly is insufficient to accommodate a large naval force.Fedoroff (talk) 15:30, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Russian Navy facing 'irreversible collapse' 10-Jul-2009

[edit]

Jane's Defence Weekly, Reuben F Johnson JDW Correspondent, Kiev

  • A drought of orders since the 1990s has left the Russian naval shipbuilding industry in a state of near collapse, according to a recent report
  • The Navy's commander-in-chief has said he would not exclude the possibility of buying naval vessels from abroad

The Russian Navy is currently on the verge of 'irreversible collapse', according to a recent analysis published by the authoritative Moscow-based weekly - the Independent Military Review .

The report, entitled 'BMF RF [Naval Military Fleet of the Russian Federation] on Foreign Warships', says the main cause for the 'collapse' is the state of the Russian shipbuilding industry, which is "incapable of producing warships in either the quantity or at the level of quality that their navy customer requires" for the future.

According to the analysis, the navy's leadership "understands that this is a hopeless situation and are looking for a way out by considering the purchase of naval vessels from abroad".

The issue was raised during the International Military Naval Exposition (MVMS) that took place in the last week of June in St Petersburg.

The Commander-in-Chief of the Russian Navy, Admiral Vladimir Vysotsky, outlined the problem when he said: "Our [challenge] is how to significantly improve the condition of our fleet without destroying the economic activity in the country. I also consider the idea of spending billions to repair and upgrade our old ships to be meaningless because they have only 10 years of service left in them. The new ships we would need, it is estimated, must be in service for a minimum of 40-50 years."

When asked if this meant the Russian Navy would consider purchasing naval vessels from abroad, Adm Vystosky replied: "I will tell you plainly that we do not exclude that possibility."

According to Russian industry sources, navy officials held talks with both France's Direction des Constructions Navales Services (DCNS), which was exhibiting at the Russian naval expo for the first time, and European systems house Thales. Russia's naval leadership is attempting to negotiate a set of co-operative arrangements that would have the navy engaged in:

- the joint production of a variant of the Mistral and Tonnerre BPC (Bâtiment de Projection et de Commandement) ships equipped with a heavy helicopter flight deck and potentially a hovercraft dock for rapid amphibious assault operations;

- a Franco-Russian project to design and build a series of nuclear-powered aircraft carriers for both countries' navies. it has not been decided if these ships could be constructed to be fitted with either ski-ramp take-off decks required to operate the Russian Navy's Sukhoi Su-33s or the catapult launcher required by France's Dassault Rafale M.

The Russian Navy is also reportedly looking to procure some types of submarine from Germany.

Russia's shipbuilding industry suffered more than other segments of the defence industry during a drought of orders since the 1990s. Additionally, the only shipyards that were capable of building an aircraft carrier during Soviet times are located in Ukraine, with which Moscow has had strained relations for the past several years.

Authoritative Sources

[edit]
  • Recently I had a back-forth over information cited from a seemingly amateur Russian website. Why should anyone consider authoritative a website that cannot even correctly spell Russian ship names (either in the original or in transliteration)? Just because information can be footnoted does not mean that it is correct.Moryak (talk) 21:11, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Order of battle numbers

[edit]
  • Engaging in unreferenced tits and tats on numbers is unproductive. In reverting the Russian SSBN count to 10 rather than 9 units I specified what was being counted. Counted were: 1 Typhoon - DMITRY DONSKOY; 6 Delta IV - VERKHOTURYE, EKATERINBURG, TULA, BRYANSK, KARELIYA, NOVOMOSKOVSK; and 3 DELTA III. This equals 10 units. The foregoing listing is confirmed by authoritative Russian sources, e.g. www.navy.ru. Recon.Army continues to insist there are only 9. Could Recon.Army please substantiate the number 9 and cite an authoritative source or sources?Moryak (talk) 18:34, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Source, 1 Typhoon, 5 Delta IV, 3 Delta III, that's 9. Please Moryak provide a direct link to the source navy.ru which gives a total of 10 SSBN's. Simply providing www.navy.ru is useless. Recon.Army (talk) 18:47, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Our apparent discrepancy is a single DELTA IV 667BDRM SSBN. I have listed the six currently in the Russian Navy order of battle. If you, Recon.Army, using your cite source insist there are only five, please be so kind as to tell me which one - by name - is no longer in the order of battle.Федоров (talk) 02:53, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I can confirm Ekaterinburg, Kareliya, Tula, Bryansk and Verkhoturye. Obviously then, Novomoskovsk is the SSBN not present. I have provided the source once before, but for your benefit will give the source once again. Both Moryak and Федоров cannot provide any direct source to confirm 6 SSBNs, please to hasten this discussion provide a direct source to confirm 6 SSBNs. Recon.Army (talk) 18:35, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Moryak, if you can provide a direct source from www.navy.ru that shows there are 6 Delta IV SSBNs in the Russian navy then I will be more than happy to agree with you. www.navy.ru is a much better and more reliable source than www.warfare.ru, but currently www.warfare.ru is the only source available and provides a complete list of Russian navy ships in active service. As of yet you fail to provide a direct link to www.navy.ru to confirm 6 Delta IV SSBNs, thus www.warfare,ru is the most reliable Wikipedia:reliable source available. Thank you. Recon.Army (talk) 19:11, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you can confirm VERKHOTURYE, EKATERINBURG, TULA, BRYANSK, KARELIYA, then I can tell you that NOVOMOSKOVSK is currently undergoing overhaul at the "Zvezdochka" shipyard in Severodvinsk. In support of this I could cite several Russian language news sources. (I don't know whether you, Recon.Army, can read Russian. My point is that a Navy's order of battle comprises all ships and submarines that are considered to be commissioned. It does not matter whether these ships and submarines are on alert, undergoing overhaul, or are in some other in between status - they are still counted as part of the order of battle. According to this standard practice of the world's navies, Russia has six (not five) Delta IV Class submarines and, therefore, the table you have inserted and insist on citing is incorrect and should read 10 and not 9 Delta IV submarines.Moryak (talk) 21:38, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yet Moryak, why are you still not providing any sources? Please cite these sources so I can look through them. Do you have any official sources? or is it just "Russian language news sources"? Yes I can under-stand Russian quite easy, my entire family on my father's side is Russian Jew. Recon.Army (talk) 23:19, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll help Moryak here. The Russian Delta IV NOVOMOSKOVSK is alive and well. SOURCE: Murmansk Murman GTRK Online in Russian 19 Mar 10.

Aleksandr Glushkov, strategic nuclear submarine cruiser Novomoskovsk captain, is keeping a watchful eye on the crew's performance. He expects commitment, which is the only thing that can turn service into a religion. And this is why submariners are recognized all over Russia, even when they are wearing civilian clothes. [Aleksandr Glushkov, strategic nuclear submarine cruiser Novomoskovsk captain] The hardships of military service are compensated for by the deep respect among the ordinary people, who understand that the people serving here in the north must be ready to defend them at a moment's notice. We are on the frontline here.Федоров (talk) 12:35, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How about another. SOURCE: Moscow ITAR-TASS 1342 GMT 18 Mar 10. ARKHANGELSK, March 18 (Itar-Tass) - The K-407 strategic nuclear submarine Novomoskovsk belonging to the Northern fleet will be back on line in November after it undergoes moderate overhaul and modernization at Zvezdochka ship repair center in Severodvinsk, the press service of the Severodvinsk ship repair center told Itar-Tass on Thursday. The Severodvinsk ship builders have been completing modernization of the whole batch of the project 677 BDRM missile submarines. The Novomoskovsk is the sixth nuclear submarine of this series that undergoes modernization at Zvesdochka after similar modernization of K-51 Verkhoturye (1999), K-84 Yekaterinburg (2003), K-114 Tula (2006) , K-117 Bryansk (2008) and K-18 Karelia (2010). As a result of the modernization the service life of these submarines was extended by ten years.Федоров (talk) 12:40, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Can you Федоров provide any links? I don't see any available link to those sources. Please provide a link and source so I can check over the information. Then we can make the edit to 10 SSBNs. Recon.Army (talk) 15:10, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I and others have provided sources, specific citation of ITAR-TASS and Murmansk GTRK. Lack of links does not equate to lack of sources. Those that care to know can look up the cited sources, just as is the case in any number of Wikipedia entries.Федоров (talk) 01:31, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please WP:AGF and provide links when you quote sections. It's common courtesy. Buckshot06 (talk) 07:58, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stealth Destroyer

[edit]

http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2011/10/15/new-stealth-destroyer-from-russia-no-game-changer-expert-says/

Which project is this? Hcobb (talk) 04:33, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Russian Navy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 18:56, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Russian Navy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 22:43, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

160,000 soldiers unaccounted for

[edit]

If we add the total number of troops in the branches of the infobox, 160,000 soldiers are missing. Where are they. Are the numbers for the ground forces too low? DJokerNr1 (talk) 20:57, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Russian Navy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:37, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Russian Navy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:02, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 22 July 2023

[edit]

I should make this proper rendition for the output in {{lang-ru}} parameter at the lead section:

Russian: Военно-морской флот (ВМФ), romanized: Voyenno-morskoy flot (VMF), lit. 'Military Maritime Fleet'

2001:4451:824F:B700:541B:9433:F4CB:52ED (talk) 22:05, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made.  Note: this same IP made an incorrect request at Talk:Kyiv#Extended-confirmed-protected_edit_request_on_22_July_2023. Xan747 (talk) 02:21, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 16 September 2023

[edit]

Please change the link of the Bora class in the Black Sea Fleet section to the proper target - Bora-class corvette (the article was moved). This will also remove the necessity for a piped link. Madoqua kirkii (talk) 10:59, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Done ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me! 17:32, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 15 November 2023

[edit]

Please remove three remaining flags at "commanders" section infobox per MOS:INFOBOXFLAG. 38.156.74.100 (talk) 09:52, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Done ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me! 20:49, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 24 February 2024

[edit]

Please remove references to militarywatchmagazine.com, it's a disinformation source posing as a US source, but it is targeted to Russia, and according to similarweb and other similar websites it only drives traffic. 94.26.60.30 (talk) 23:22, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit extended-protected}} template. M.Bitton (talk) 00:08, 25 February 2024 (UTC) see explanation below. M.Bitton (talk) 15:22, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@M.Bitton: There was RSN discussion about reliability of this source in August 2023, and it seems to conclude that militarywatchmagazine.com is not reliable sources. Ckfasdf (talk) 02:31, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Ckfasdf: thanks for letting me know. My search for "militarywatchmagazine.com" on RSN yielded no results. I have now marked the edit request as unanswered. M.Bitton (talk) 15:19, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done; Per discussion above, and the cited information also have other source. Ckfasdf (talk) 02:10, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 June 2024

[edit]

-incorrect conjugation of the verb "fly"

Within the "June 2021" subheading of the "Combined-fleet exercises" section, first sentence of the sixth paragraph:

"On 24 June, the final day of the exercise, three Tu-95 bombers, several Tu-22M bombers, escorted by interceptors MiG-31BM and two Il-78 tankers flied to the central Pacific Ocean as well."

change "flied" to "flew". "flied" is usually only used in the context of baseball or softball. Tdsnyder (talk) 03:10, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Done '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 03:17, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 25 June 2024

[edit]

commnader = commander 2603:8000:D300:3650:2810:CA2F:BB22:D291 (talk) 07:27, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Done MadGuy7023 (talk) 07:44, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dagestan war

[edit]

The russian navy fought or assisted Russia during the War in Dagestan (1999). It should be added as one of the navy's engagements. Naval infantry, which are a part of the russian navy, participated in the war. CrazyFruitBat911 (talk) 08:00, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, what references do you suggest using? TylerBurden (talk) 15:25, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So I have spent about a day looking for a source to back this up and after a long time of searching I cannot find anything. I thought this since it said in one article online but after an examination turns out I can't find a concrete source. Thanks for your time and sorry for the confusion CrazyFruitBat911 (talk) 14:56, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, if you are able to find some sources about it you can post them here. TylerBurden (talk) 19:31, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
will do, thanks. CrazyFruitBat911 (talk) 19:36, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Russian_Navy&oldid=1251169628"