Talk:List of active Russian Navy ships/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Number of ships

According to these figures the Russian navy has a total of 553 ships. The United States navy has only 280. I think random editors have been adding to these figures over time. Signsolid (talk) 22:33, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Battlecruisers?

Although large in comparison with present US cruisers (e g Ticonderoga-class), the Kirov is not a battlecruiser. No battlecruisers has existed since the end of WW2. Battleships and battlecruisers were esentially identical in armament and size - only the amount of armour set them apart. The british battleships Nelson, Rodney and Hood were "downgraded" to battlecruisers when a large amount of armour was removed from the ships in order to reduce displacement as a way to increase speed. Although battlecruisers had less armour than a battleship, they still had a lot more than any modern surface combatant - including the Kirov. Apart from armour, a modern cruiser must also carry heavy artillery (more than 8"/203 mm) as its main armament. No modern surface combatant (cruiser, destroyer, frigates, etc) uses artillery as its main armament. Today, missiles are the main armament of almost all surface combatants (and has been so for over 40 years).

I admit it's easy to consider the Kirov as a battlecruiser, especially compared with the small cruisers of the Ticonderoga class (yes, they ARE small being cruisers). Both the US and Japan have destroyers as large as these cruisers - and with the same armament. The only difference is that the Ticonderoga-cruisers has a 25 mm layer of armour on the deck. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.160.191.152 (talk) 19:34, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Russian navy ships

Ok, so the list is done, this list looks way better and is more accurate than the one before.Rademire (talk) 12:21, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I had to correct some mistakes you made. You'r numbers were slightly inaccurate and some vessels were missing completly. I have fixed these, and all of the information I corrected can be varified. user: Russian-Reaper

The only class of ship I did not include was the Admiral Sergei Gorshkov class frigate as only 1 has been built, and 1 is in construction, NONE are in active service. and please can you provide a link for reserve ships? thank-youRademire (talk) 18:44, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Acceptance of multiple sources

Right guys, slow down and consider things. I've merged the 'active ships' page, which is a WP:CFORK. As you will see from the AN/I thread note I posted, both Russian and Western navies have different ideas about whether a ship is actually in service or not. Recon.Army, warfare.ru is just another source - we cannot accept it as superior to Jane's or whatever else is being used. The proper route is to add the status-disputed ships you want to add to List of ships of the Russian Navy and to list explicitly there which source says so. Then readers get a flavour of the difficulties involved in counting operational ships - I doubt Headquarters Northern Fleet's assessment would match what U.S. Naval Intelligence would list or what Jane's would list; they all have different standards!! I advise you both to use this talk page to work out problem issues. I know the Russian Navy's status reasonably well - I've published articles on it - and am quite happy to help you two work out areas where your two sources of information may contradict each other. Golden rule: list both sets of information, with the source attached, and let the reader figure it out - they're intelligent enough to know we may not all have a full picture. Buckshot06 (talk) 21:19, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
I accept multiple sources, its just Hornet fails to provide any sources to confirm those ships are actualy commisioned and in reserve! Currently only the active ships are listed and sourced. Hornets reserve ships still need a ref. (only the 3 battle cruisers have a Ref).
However I accept Hornets addition of reserve ships as long as they are not listed along side the active ships.
I have moved the reserve ships into a seperate section towards the end of the article. Recon.Army (talk) 23:35, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
Right. That's your final accusation. Any further accusations will result in blocks. I will give user Hornet24 one final chance to accuse you of something on this talkpage, and then that's it; anything further from him will result in blocks.
If you attempt to impose conditions that are not negotiable ('I accept Hornet's additions of reserve ships as long.. etc) and you do not engage in good-faith negotiation, you will also be risking a block. You see, if you think about it, you have subtly raised the presented operational status of the navy with your recent edits by making all the 'planned' ships operational. Now, I could demand that both 'planned' and 'reserve' ships stay in separate lists. But for the moment, I'm going to wait for Hornet24 to wake up and take a look at the changes, and then see what changes he makes.
I remind you both; discuss your changes here, WP:Assume Good Faith, and REFERENCE YOUR CHANGES!! Otherwise you may be blocked. Buckshot06 (talk) 00:10, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
On first: Sorry for my Engligh - isn´t well for this kind of conversation. Buckshot06, if you consent i don´t do changes now, but i do them later, if you agree with them - in first time i try add some reffers, but in some event it was be very hard - some is little old information (max. 5 years), which i have in my own paper-form list, but i never see more information for next time (this is case of reserve Kilo´s).
I´d like to make changes in some case - if ship is not in reserve, but is in overhaul (not lack of funding case) i think this ship should be move to upper main list (same case is US Navy Carriers, Cruisers, Subs or others - if they are in dry dock, they are still active ships) - I mean Delta IV overhaul...
In case of Admiral Ushakov - if i have true information srapping never started and is planned to be active in 2020. For example this ref [1]
In case of Dmitry Donskoy - what to say... What citation is needed? Where i found it? Dmitry IS testbed for Bulava, who from little informed peoples don´t know it!? I think - I need big help with to prove it!
And about warfare.ru - this server is not much relevant for me - is weak updated, with much mistakes (for example: In warfare is decommisioning date that date in which is ship delivered to Russian Navy - that is only sign of acceptance certificate, not commissioning! See this ref: [2]
Only one change which i do is readded link to ship list to homepage od Russian Navy.--Hornet24 (talk) 13:46, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
Please sign you comments Hornet? Buckshot who have I accused? And of what? Also when did I make all the planned ships as operational ships? Maybe you have got mixed up, I removed all the planned ships from this article and put them on the main Russian Navy article under the title 'modernization'. I guess you did get mixed up.
As for the reserve ships I put them in a separate section below the active ships. I welcome adding reserve ships but as they are not active I would suggest putting the reserve ships in a separate section. I.E one list for active ships and one list for reserve ships.
Also I don’t think Hornet has accused me of anything. Recon.Army (talk) 09:51, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
Forgive me Recon.Army, my attempt to calm the waters just caused confusion. When I said you'd 'accused' Hornet24, I meant about the lack of sources, in your first response. Hornet indeed has not accused you of anything. Please accept my apologies. Also yes I did get mixed up, though I noted the planned ships section on the main Russian Navy page. Please, now that it has been moved, convert in into text and add appropriate references, or remove it. That page is in a good state and does not need large unreferenced chunks.
Hornet24; I'm not worried about your English at all; this is what WP:Assume Good Faith is about. Two requests for clarity (1) sign your posts with four ~~~~s and (2) do not use refs in this page. Simply use the bare links, or [http://www.example.com Example] arrangement.
I was hoping that you had some very good sources if you were making significant changes. If you have not, we need to work from solid sources; that's what WP:V is all about. Now yes, everybody who watches the VMF knows well that Dmitri Donskoi is the Bulava test bed. No matter, with WP:V we need to provide a source, and especially in this type of situation. Good credible sources are the best measure I have for your good faith.
Now, let me make you both a proposal. Really, it doesn't matter too much which ship is in what section. Everybody can scroll through the document, especially if there is a clear contents section. But right now, we have (1) very few references and (2) no consistent definition of what repair/refit or reserve etc means. What I want you both to do is focus on adding clear references which explain the individual status of a ship or class of ships - online, deadtree, whatever, just as long as they're credible - and allow the article to stabilise. I would especially really value sourced descriptions of what 'reserve' means for the Voennei Morskoi Flot, forgive my spelling. I will continue watching this article and both your contribution histories closely, and reassess the situation in two or three days. Before then I want to see at least five references added about the status of individual ships or classes of ships; for example, have the two Neustrashimy class frigates been moved to the Black Sea Fleet yet? This will build the ability of you two to work constructively together, and that's what I most want to see, not arguing about definitions of what exactly is what without providing sources. Buckshot06 (talk) 10:36, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
Just to jump in, one option would be to include a 'reported status' for each ship and then identify what each of the differing references say for that particular ship. Nick-D (talk) 10:55, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

This source has alot of infomation on 'In-service' ships of the Russian Navy. Is this source regarded as good? Recon.Army (talk) 11:11, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Go ahead and use it for the moment. I note that it does not list the second or third vessels of the Steregushchy-class frigate class, so I'm not sure how updated it is. But Hornet24 actually listed it on his list of sites, so, pending anything where it's shown to be wrong, go ahead.. Buckshot06 (talk) 12:02, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Is it the formatting of the headings or it it the small text thats the problem? I found the small text works better, shortens the article and dosent overpower the sub headings. Recon.Army (talk) 12:11, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry... My mistake - i sometimes forgot to sing me...
I think planned ship list is better below Actice and Reserve lists, not in Russian Navy page.
I know about using Dmytry Donskoy only as test bed, but dont know where found ref for it. Maybe in history was somewhere wrote about it, but i dont know where it is. But i think is better if is that information on page without ref till is it there like as only operational
If you see for example to page of
Main article: United States Navy ships
- you see all aircraft carriers in operational status, and min. one is now in drydock! Thats, why i think some ships is better to heve in active list not in reserve list. Pls think about it!
Ships in reserve is now out of service due to lack of funds and maybe will be refited or decommissioned. But it is not clear which way will be choose.
I havn´t much time now, but in few days I add some reffers and new data which i have. --Hornet24 (talk) 13:46, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
Hornet I have added the ref for D-Donskoy as a test bed. Recon.Army (talk) 15:41, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
OK, time to move this along a little. Recon.Army, I may have not been fully clear about why citations were needed. We do not need a citation attached to every ship to prove her existence; that's relatively clear. What would be much better are citations that indicate exactly the status, location, or details regarding the ship at a particular time. For example, ships change pennant numbers when moving between fleets. If you listed a change in pennant number, including both the old and new numbers, and referenced it, that would be good. Or, if you found a note on the exact condition of a certain ship at a particular date, that's good as well (that's why I was looking for the citation on Dmitri Donskoi as the SLBM testbed.) Do you understand what I am saying? Cheers from Aotearoa New Zealand, Buckshot06 (talk) 10:35, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
I maked some changes in Delta III fleet (and in theyr page) - due to some personal problem i havn´t time to fix more. Someone please readd planned ships to end of this list. Thx--Hornet24 (talk) 15:26, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Methodological problems

With all due respect for everybody involved and the dialogue as it has played out until now, then I believe there is a major problem in this article. I have read all the comments but it really does not adress the basic problems as follows:

1) The russians have a very peculiar and unique way of registrering what ships are active or for that matter seaworthy not to mention battle ready. This I accept as a soviet and now russian way of doing things. However that does not really rectify or adress the problem that this makes the articles data all but useless as what would be considered hulks or writeoffs in other navies seem active by flying the russian ensign. A symbolic gesture which hardly makes the ship a part of an active fleet. No matter what then that makes it impossible to compare relative strengths to that of other navies. I purposely write relative as it is impossible to compare absolutes as a frigate does not equal a frigate - there are dozens of parameters in judging this. I do not claim to have the ultimate answer nor do I attempt to attack the russians. I merely point out that there is a problem, and a problem which does not seem to be present in the description of any other navy.

2) The intro does not really describe this problem nor does it adress the historic background of this Soviet/russian way of doing things. That makes the intro polemic and hard to understand. Its a problem in a WiKiPedia article that so many ifs and buts are needed in a preface to keep all parties happy.

3) For those ships whose seaworthyness are in doubt then this ambiguity should be adressed in the article - ie. both positions should be represented so that the reader can make an informed decision on wheter they believ the "russian" position or the "other" position. Again omitting tjis will cast doubts on the validity of the whole article.

4) If this argument warrants such debate then perhaps it should be transposed to the discussion pages of ALL the navies. Because most major naval powers have several ships in varying states of readiness - and there should be a consensus on how to represent this.
5) In summary and building on what I wrote above, then I find it very problematic that almost ALL the cited references are russian - I would very much like to see other and intrenational sources, including Jane´s

Nick-bang (talk) 21:14, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Nick-bang, thank you for your comments. Most of them are valid, but the situation at the moment does not mean they can be instantly addressed. Right now I am in the process of forcing all contributors who have an interest in this article to work constructively together, using the talk page and the WP:BRD cycle. Once this immediate conflict management issue is over, using the references all parties have added, we can move to a more textured analysis of individual ship status, using the latest available information, available to whichever party. As you will have read above, I told Recon.Army and Hornet24 I would wait two to three days and then reassess progress. I would anticipate that four to six of these 2-3 day cycles will go past before we can hope to move to the level of detail that we would all prefer. Nothing can be done instantly. Meanwhile, I would suggest you raise your concerns at the Maritime Warfare task force, which is the proper place and where many more people will see it. Buckshot06 (talk) 01:07, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
Due to lack of money the Russian Navy has been forced to operate in such a unique way. Russian ships that are old, need repairs or overhauls largely find them self’s sitting inactive in reserve often for years with much of their systems removed and little or no crews. I.E one ship in the reserve list of this artistically is soon to begin active service after 18 years of rusting away in some naval yard in Russia.
When a western warship needs an overhaul its 99% done right away has a fully active and training crew and can be brought out to sea in relatively short time if needed. Same cannot be said for Russia.Recon.Army (talk) 08:23, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
I respect and accept the guidelines for continued debate and work on this articles as outlined by Buckshot06. And at any rate then my purpose was NOT to start a polemic discussin which could degrade into a verbal(written)catfight. However with that having been said, then with all due respect for Recon.Army, I feel compelled to adress just a few of the points that was raised. Not to win a discussion, but rather to start a fruitfull, academic and Kulturnyi debate which hopefully will bring us closer to a consensus. Recon.Army states that is is budgetary reasons that have forced the Soviet Union/Russian federation into this from a western perspective very strange and somewhat irrational practice. This nobody denies - so that at least is something we can agree on.
Further he/she? (no insult intended but your username are non-descriptive regarding your sex Recon.Army) states, that: "Russian ships that are old, need repairs or overhauls largely find them self’s sitting inactive in reserve often for years with much of their systems removed and little or no crews. I.E one ship in the reserve list of this artistically is soon to begin active service after 18 years of rusting away in some naval yard in Russia.". And here is perhaps the rub of the matter: NO ship or any other complex machine can survive being completely idle for up to 18 years. Not even if the russians are famous for building their tools of war very solid and resistant to the lements. Its not a question - its stating a fact. If a ship has to enter active service after being exposed to a corrosive environment for years - like say .. the saltwater of the ocean - then it would have to be completely overhauled including: having its electrics rewired, its engine reworked, its propellar sharpened and polished, having all mechanical and electrical systems cleaned, replaced and/or oiled as needed. Now THAT is a major proposition - if you add to that that some of the systems are +30 years old, then its becomes almost impossible and at very least extremely difficult. Hence i would raise VERY big questions regardning the seaworthyness of ANY ship in such a state of extended hibernation. A good comparison is the lengths that USA had to go through to ensure that their surviving Battleships were kept in a working state even though they TEMPORARILY have been made into museum ships: EVERY fluid was drained, all metal surfaces were coated with an anti-corrosive paint and the entire ship dried out... and this was the EASY parts.
SO Recon.Army: I dont doubt the fact that this is the policy of Russia BUT since the russian reserve fleet are in absolute no state to fight at all then they should NOT be counted in - alternatively the US Navies reserve fleet including the Iowa Class Battleships should be counted as part of the active fleet: You see the metodological problem in that?Nick-bang (talk) 09:53, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ http://rusnavy.com/news/navy/index.php?ELEMENT_ID=9917
  2. ^ http://rusnavy.com/news/navy/index.php?ELEMENT_ID=9416

Transliteration

Fedorov, I think Alexandr is much better transliteration then Aleksandr. All Rusian webs which is available in English used name Alexandr. I know - for Russia is better use "ks" but if you like transliterate Russian name only to Latin characters, you must write something as Aleksandr Nevskij, Dmitrij Donskoj, etc. Last thing what i like it Renaming war. Pls response! thx --Hornet24 (talk) 23:26, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Transliteration

Fedorov, I think Alexandr is much better transliteration then Aleksandr. All Rusian webs which is available in English used name Alexandr. I know - for Russia is better use "ks" but if you like transliterate Russian name only to Latin characters, you must write something as Aleksandr Nevskij, Dmitrij Donskoj, etc. Last thing what i like is Renaming war. Pls response! thx --Hornet24 (talk) 23:27, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I do not propose a "renaming war" but what we need is a CONSISTENT way to transliterate Russian into English. There is a CONSISTENT convention for Russian-English transliteration and that is what I have used. Yes, there are other approaches used in Russian sources attempting transliteration into English but both their attempts at transliteration and sometimes translation are merely expedient or ill-informed rather than thought out and consistent. The actual transliteration examples you cite are good ones. That transliteration convention uses either "j" or "y" for "й". The consistent use of such a convention makes transliteration predictable and, therefore, confidently searchable using keywords. Лучще следовать последовательным путём чем произвольным.Федоров (talk) 15:14, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi guys. User:Ezhiki told me this 'WP:RUS: We don't have approved spellings, we have romanization guidelines :) For each individual person from your list, you should be using the spelling which is the most common in the English-language sources you are going to use. If you only have Russian sources, then use the WP:RUS default romanization. If the English-language sources use different spellings inconsistently, then pick one that's closest to the WP:RUS default variant.'
This was on a completely different case, but may be of some help to you. I would advise you to seek his advice if necessary. Cheers and Merry (Western) Christmas! Buckshot06 (talk) 20:56, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
  • The problem with following this variable guidance is that it causes a widely varying set of transliterations that inevitably somebody tries to standardize. This guidance does not really help anyone who chooses to use a Russian language source and do the transliteration themselves. There are many common English-language sources that do foreign languages badly. Copying their lead makes little sense if anybody cares about quality in the Wikipedia world. Then there is the point that it makes Wiki articles look like they're a hodge-podge of less than accurate or authoritative sources. Of course, there are many Wiki articles that are precisely such messes.Федоров (talk) 22:49, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
Hi, i was be offline due to holydays... I havnt problem with "j" or "y" for "й" - i think its good transliteration, but i still think is better "x" then "ks" for "кс" - i never see ks-transliteration anywhere and think it is unlogic if x-character is possible... If you agree I change all "Aleksandr"s to "Alexandr"s :) --Hornet24 (talk) 10:33, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
  • If you wish to be logical then you transliterate Александр as Aleksandr. That is a functional letter for letter transliteration. Using the "x" makes it neither a transliteration nor a translation which would be "Alexander". I do not think that Wiki articles would render the name Bogdan as either Feodor or Theodore.Федоров (talk) 11:11, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
I think we both have good idea - Aleksandr is really logic for letter by letter transliteration... I try to go by "reverse" way - English same as most of languages (but not Russian) have letter "x". If you transliterate this "x" to Russian language, you have "кс" - thats why i prefer use "x" and dont see any problem with its use in languages which have it. Translation isnt good way in this treme, thats why i used Alexandr not Alexander. --Hornet24 (talk) 11:34, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
  • The issue is not that there is a "problem". The issue is that it is always useful to have a CONSISTENT method for transliteration from one language into another. Also, we are not discussing a variety of languages, only English and Russian. In the examples we are using the ship name "Aleksandr Nevskiy" does not originally exist in English. The original name is in Russian - Александр Невский. Therefore, it follows to consistently transliterate it from the Russian into English. Alternately, I would accept a translation - "Alexander of the Neva" - which comes across badly in English usage and would be seen as extremely awkward by those familiar with Russian history. Were I to put your Wiki signature into Russian would you prefer "Горнет", "Хорнет" or "Шершень"?Федоров (talk) 04:25, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
But you here dont do here whole transliterate (Aleksandr Nevskij) - you transliterate Russian names and "re-create" them for "easy" Russian pronunciation by English speak persons, and in this case is "x" possible and CONSISTENT with other pages. Here is worst and unconsistent problem with using (for example) Nevski, Nevsky, Nevskii, Nevskiy and maybe more transmutation of ship names - and I am scared by new unique "ks" situation.
I think in some cases, is consistent method un-usefull - but not in this case - in ideal status will be ships names in all pages standardise with other media and web pages, but in transliteraration and not in translation. --Hornet24 (talk) 21:57, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Only warships use the appelation "ship"

Can I know where you found this "information"??? --Hornet24 (talk) 12:23, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

In Reserve or not In Reserve

Notwithstanding what I have said immediately below, the tendency of this page is to use Jane's criteria. Therefore, by this criteria, units that are in overhaul and are reasonably expected to return to active service should continue to be listed as active rather than "in reserve". A thorough correction of entries in compliance with this approach will move a number of units back to where they belong and thereby provide a more accurate picture of the status of the Russian Navy.Федоров (talk) 13:39, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

NOT a copy of Jane's

This page should NOT be a copy of Jane's. Further, Jane's does not always get facts right. There is a delay in their publishing cycle and its editors are human with limitations and personal opinions. Also, this listing and the specific class page should remove the archaic term "battlecruiser" since the page that defines what a "battlecruiser" is actually starts by saying that the term refers to warships of the beginning of the 20th century. The Kirov class is not from the beginning of the 20th century and does not fit that definition. That same article also notes toward its end that its only the Kirov class' size that approximates the earlier definition - this should not be enough to justify the use of the term. Finally, Jane's is not the only source and certainly the ultimate authoritative source, may other authoritative references refer to the Kirov class as "cruisers".Федоров (talk) 17:14, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Active corvettes

Where has gone the data about the corvettes active in the Russian Navy?Raskiy (talk) 18:31, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

They are still there. The "Minesweeper" heading jumped to the top instead of being just above the NATYA section. I don't know how to fix it.Федоров (talk) 20:24, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

File:Akula class submarine.JPG Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Akula class submarine.JPG, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests January 2012
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 13:59, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Article is getting too long

This article is getting too long and needs cutting down. Readers would be put off by the length of the article and the complexity of it. Planned ships or ships under construction could be moved to a new page, for example Future of the Russian Navy. That would be a start.TalkWoe90i 14:46, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

  • It was a normal article, but there are always those who seem something wrong ... — Preceding unsigned comment added by AktiNo (talk • contribs) 22:28, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
  • So sorry Woe90i, but I must say that.... This is total degradation of whole article! I like (in ironic!) if you are first time on this page (i don´t see ANY update of this section from you) and you make general changes of article which evidently don´t say you something... Till end of this week the page will be undo to previous version if any REAL argument isn´t be added here from you or others.... Main reasons for this undo:
    • List of Russian ships was be remodelled about one year ago from unactual version. It´s design was be selected as like as List of United States ships page which is much larger and nobody said nothing about it
    • Uncomplexity of your update is flagrant - Sorting diferent clases to one class is unacceptable, sorting by "american style" by class names isn´t correct in Russian Navy and isn´t accurate, added of new column and follow-up transfer important notes to bottom of page is unpractical and chaotic, and masterpiece of your update is total destruction of "In constuction and planned ships" section and compensate it with few universal lines of text on "new page" copyed from Russian Navy main page...
  • So sorry, you are maybe good updater of others sections, but this change was be big disappointment...Hornet24 (talk) 23:31, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Absolutely object to your reasoning. The article was previously far too long and lets face it, looked in very bad/poor form. The article needed to be brought up-to standard. It is general practice in Wikipedia to keep articles concise, and not overly long and over bearing for the reader. I had two main issues with this article. Firstly there was no need for a separate list of "reserve ships" as those ships are still part of the force structure and secondly the section dealing with ships under construction or planned was in a total mess and wasn't needed at-all. I moved information regarding the future ships of the Russian Navy to Future of the Russian Navy (in-line with other articles such as Future of the Royal Navy) and am currently in the process of improving that article. This was to avoid the unnecessary duplication of the same information and the long messy inane list of future ships on this article.
This is English Wikipedia, therefore there is nothing wrong with using American terms. As most readers of this article would speak English as their first language it is common practice to use terms they would recognise.
I believe it would be against Wikipedia's policy's and guidelines to simply revert my edits as they do not fall under any category of Vandalism. I will seek another editors opinion on the matter. TalkWoe90i 00:33, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
Hi Woe90i, Hornet24, Woe90i invited me to comment. Long articles are not a problem in wikipedia at all, unless they go over around 60kb with pictures extra. Check some of the featured articles (my one, Military of the Democratic Republic of the Congo is the one I know best, but there are lots of others) that are long. I disagree that there is a general practice to keep articles concise, and in this particular case, 'reserve ships' are a near-unique feature of the present Russian Navy. They sit in harbour, with, it seems according to Jane's Fighting Ships, only a skeleton crew aboard and flying an ensign solely so the crews can be paid (cavert: this was about the 2000-2001 edition of JFS). So the reserve ships need to be accounted separately, in the current navy ships article; for example, Ochakov in the Black Sea Fleet, which by any normal measure should have been decommissioned years ago, but is not. As to the future ships, I have no point of view on this one. Hope my opinions on this are clear; please don't hesitate to clarify with me. Please also do not edit-war on this page; I might advise neither of you making any further edits to the article until you have throughly discussed the edits on the talkpage. Remember that the article's current state does not endorse any particular version. Kind regards to both of you, Buckshot06 (talk) 05:39, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
Thank you Buckshot06 for clarification on this matter. This is exactly why I like to invite the opinion of a veteran Wikipedian as soon as possible, especially in a situation where its two editors on opposite sides of a dispute. Hornet24, I invite you to edit my sandbox as-well if needed. Taking on-board what has been said, I agree 'reserve ships' should be separated from ships that are active. I still propose that the section for planned or speculative ships was unnecessary, very messy and shouldn't be re-added. This is a list of ships that are serving in the Russian Navy after all.TalkWoe90i 10:21, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
OK... Revert of "reserve ships" section was agreed.... Whats next... If you think about poor article I must stop you - in last year and half page was be reincarnated from about 10 years old data to fully actual and design was be in 75% of page upgraded to functional and transparent version - lists of other navy ships are in more worse form as this - bringing others page to standard which was here is more useful then degrading this list... Yep, this is English wikipedia, but about Russian Navy - and if you don´t like be barbarian you must accept some differences in ships classification especially in case if American classification was included too... I think last thing of controversy: Ships in construction and planned ship was included because RN awarded them (not all - of course) and its status of completion is important part of navy´s future... Because ships in construction same as planned ships is unarguable part of lists of other nations list (for example: List of current ships of the United States Navy ) I don´t see any reason why they shouldn´t be included here... As I say - previous version was be most accurate and comprehensive article and is better revert this new changes to previous status... Main problem of this section is sometimes very hard access to status of current ships and here is only about five peoples who can contribute to most actual status of this theme - i think unneeded and degrading changes is problem which nobody want here - if you like to be useful here we can talk about it (for example here was be last unredesigned section of reserve ships; here is lot of missing pictures or silhouettes; I have prepared in construction section redesign and I think auxiliary vessels section transfer to new list will be need to be discuss) and for last lot of relatively new information which was here is missing on ships class pages... Future of the Russian Navy page is needed, but that is better if it is text version of future of navy with link to this page with list of future ships... Now kill me with arguments please :) Hornet24 (talk) 12:35, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
A compromise, I have decided to restore the previous (supported) revision of this article, including the Ships under-construction and planned section. However Hornet24, I would very much like it if you help me to improve and redesign that section of the article.
I have made some minor modifications to the tables to improve the overall presentation.TalkWoe90i 20:27, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
Just to point out, the Cruise missile submarine Tomsk is not in reserve and I have added it to the active fleet. The destroyer Admiral Kharlamov has been in reserve since 2001 and has been placed into the reserve list. Cheers.TalkWoe90i 20:37, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
Hi again, I´m so sorry, but I havn´t much time for "full-time" working on wikipedia at this moment... Woe90i thanks for partly revert your changes, but lets go to talk about notes - I think they are more transparent in previous version - now you must finding all notes in bottom of list - i know previous version isn´t ideal, but best what I can create for more transparent list of ships (see version old about two years)... Next thing is K-150 Tomsk status - I have about half year old info about it, which say, submarine is still in workshop and works will be finished not earlier then 2nd half of 2012, then sail tests after repair is needed... By this reason I must ask from where is your unreferred change... I try to ask for update Tomsk newer status... Because I havn´t some information about Admiral Kharlamov is it same situation - pls refer it...
I see here big mishmash in actualization (duplicate info, unreferred changes, changes of referred dates - i know, is old, but if isn´t newer, is old better then user projection) i prepare "undo" of page core to about two week old version and implement all referred changes... Heading of page will be keep without changes... Estimated time of change: Today in 18:00 UTC... Other changes we can talk here and implement later... Hornet24 (talk) 14:29, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
You dont own a monopoly on the article and cannot simply "undo" days/weeks of mine and other editors revisions. Who are you to dictate such?
Every change I made is supported by a WP:RS, please go back and review the list/changes/citations. Tomsk was never placed into reserve and is merely undergoing an overhaul. I would therefore like to see a citation that clearly says she was placed into reserve before we place the submarine in the reserve list. Likewise, the citation given for Admiral Kharlamov says the ships status as "in reserve" and not been put to sea since 2001. Again I would like to see a citation that clearly says Admiral Kharlamov is active before we add it to the list of active ships. If you have alternate sources please provide them.
Lastly, the new notes/comments format is cleaner and more presentable. Each note is linked in a similar way to the list of references and there is no harm in using this structure, especially if it cleans up the table. Previously most of the lists notes were either unnecessary, unsourced or written in very poor English.TalkWoe90i 15:34, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Thats not about you and your revision - as I say I like to discuss them and if they are usefull I like to implement them!
  • If you like rules - here is about fiveteen changes in few days which are unreferred and liquidate credibility of whole theme - first is I think your changing of defign in which is few missing things - for example Buckshot06 readded one of them or your deleting two for theme important section... Next is change of status to active of submarine which is still in longterm repair (it is out of active service and need to be recommissioned, and main reason for that is change of broken steam generator not relatively ordinary overhaul which is make due to long stay on ground due to previous)... Next is unreferred cancelation of constructed ship which status of completation was be (i know isn´t much) unknown, but nowhere is information about stop of construction... And then is here lot of date changes which are unreferred and maybe is user speculation.... As I say all new referred changes will be preserved!
  • You ask who I am - I am person who is interested in this branch for many years and have some sources thanks to which I can before about one and half year remake this page to actual, more comprehensive and well arranged page... Subsequenty I am person which have limited time to check any unreffered change at same speed with which are that changes maked here at last weeks...
  • Here is two option - first is undid all unreferred revisions by the rules and maintain quality of section or here is second, I stop correct this page because I rally havn´t time to fight with efort of some users to do lot of changes of unclear reason (maybe it is really good idea but worse execution, or atempt have lot of actualization and merits - I really don´t need know reasons)...
  • About notes on bottom of lists - here is hard access to notes which are now separated from its holder - If is somebody really interested and like to be informed about whole fleet, he must 38times (for this moment, more then 20 other notes is in "in built" section) look at the bottom... Yes, if you need to see harmfull and less functional version is it now good... If problem is poor English - why you change design and still don´t change that very poor English??? This your reason strenghten my idea about your need to be merited for redesigning of that what dot need it... Now I go work for restore the list Hornet24 (talk) 17:50, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
Tomsk was never placed into reserve! I would like to see a citation to support that first. I never deleted any information regarding the Bulava missile status, Buckshot06 undid an IP edit not mine as I didn't remove the information. You said: "If problem is poor English - why you change design and still don´t change that very poor English???", eh, well, that argument is unfounded and false, as I did correct numerous cases of very poor English in this article. If your only problem is the "difficulty" using the note format then that is an easy fix, just remove the tags(?) at the start and end of each note.
As I said above I want to see some sources to support Tomsk being in reserve. For example, when a NATO submarine is in-need of an overhaul or refit the submarine isn't put into reserve - even if its a long overhaul. Some French SSNs have taken upto 4 years in overhaul! The Reserve ships section of this article is for ships that were officially placed into reserve, decommissioned and placed in reserve or ships that are still in commission but have no realistic combat capabilties or haven't been put to sea for years (as per the Janes statement in the lead).TalkWoe90i 19:01, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
  • I never say something about K-150 in reserve - I only say it is out of active service at "unique" repair... Same case is K-152 it isn´t in reserve - but long term (5 respectively 10 years of repairs respectively lease to India) no-active status need to be take into consideration... For example Project 667BDRM subs are in regular overhauls/modifications and are still at "active" section... Reason is I don´t like create new "in repair/overhaul/modernization" section... OK... We can discuss it, but this is very controversial theme... About English - your numerous changes of corrections of English is unfindable due to redesigning on same actualization - I would be like if you make changes in grammar of notes or text, because my English isn´t good, but I like if that changes are visible at history list... Total mishmash in whole list is undisputed fact as I wrote earlier (most of that changes isn´t your work) and due to it I insist on restoration two week old version and implement all referred and useful changes... About Admiral Kharlamov - I don´t know if from 2001, but fact is he is really at reserve (thank you for change of status) and I receive info about he´s planned modernization in near future.... Last - "notes" - I can´t restore notes easily because you change proportion of tables - thats reason why announced changes wasn´t implemented yesterday (I really havn´t time)... I hope we find common way to improve this page... Hornet24 (talk) 13:03, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Hornet24....wtf ??? Again on page mess ... why make the abolition of edits

example Laid down corvette 20380 "Gromki" February 17, why he canceled? Landing craft Ataman Platov not under costruction - active ! Tomsk has completed repairs. K-442 Chelyabinsk in the reserve, why is it removed? Burevestnik canceled and dismantled, and he was again added ADMIRAL MAKAROV - Will be laid down in autumn 2011 ? ))) now 2012 ! 22350 Admiral Yumashev - will be laid down in summer 2012, why canceled ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by AktiNo (talk • contribs) 16:41, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

  • Aktino - if you read editation message "Restoration due to design changes and lot of un-referred changes... All intervening changes will be checked and referred will be added in near time" you know why...
  • If edits reffered will be back today - if not I try to find newest info about it and alternatively readded them...
  • For example: Ataman Platov - duplicite now (in both section - will be fixed) - my mistake... Tomsk - I have info he is still on repairs...
    • I hope now it is all... It´s early morning here and I work whole night... I must check it all once again... I have some misgiving about status of some submarines and ships... Hornet24 (talk) 02:36, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Thank you for understanding

I can learn something about your friends connected with the fleet — Preceding unsigned comment added by AktiNo (talk • contribs) 10:54, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Unreferenced changes

Hi, This page have problems with lot of unreferenced changes which at last time grew here like grass after rain - some is useful but lot of them is unverifiable or in worst case obsolete and in this time totally misleading and invalid... Please put into all your edits references of reliable sources!!! If you havn´t them, you can add that item into () - brackets(?) with [citation needed] mark or into NOTE column with same mark, but don´t change reliable data on page, THX Hornet24 (talk) 13:29, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Career editor ending

I'm sorry, but due to lack of options to prevent flooding this site by unverifiable informations, lack of my time to check them and the unwillingness of some Wikipedia editors accept the rules, I decided after two years, to complete my efforts on keeping this site up to date, including confirmation and proof reliable resources where they were missing. Become a regular user, using Wikipedia as a source of basic information used to determine gross for me to view unknown topics. Those rule-abiding thank you for your help and I wish you more success Hornet24 (talk) 06:27, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Very interesting and useful page, like a man who has a lot of friends is associated to the fleet, I will try to do only valid changes and check for other possible changes. Good luck to you. Aktino. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AktiNo (talk • contribs) 07:05, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Messy

Hello to everyone who follows this page :) I just wanted to suggest a couple things:

1) Can the tables be standardized? Im talking font (bold & italic) and columns, especially FLEET

2) Can we attempt to add missing images? I am not very familiar with copyright etc.


OR another thought i have is to make it just like US Navy style ship list page, few images but a very clean layout. Then have a second page created just for list of ship classes with their images, listing number of ships in each class (planned, under construction, commissioned, retired, reserve) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hammer5000 (talk • contribs) 16:26, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Anyone else please also suggest/discuss and I am sure that many readers will appreciate everyone's contribution, as will I :)

My feelings on this are that maybe we try not to make any drastic changes to layout, just make it more clean/neat and standardized. Hammer5000 (talk) 11:20, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

@Hammer5000, so your suggestion is to use the List of current ships of the United States Navy as a template for this article? AktiNo what do you think? Antiochus the Great (talk) 17:42, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
Antiochus the Great, I think the list of US Navy ships more informative, but also present a list of the Russian Navy is not so bad.(talk)
Yep I think that layout is very neat and table structure well setup, if people dont mind loosing images for every single class of ship that is. So keep this page as a list of all ships in neat format and then we can have another page that lists classes (only! unlike my previous suggestion) with images for those who like to see a gallery with brief information. I am just thinking of different ideas as the current page as i said look messy. Hammer5000 (talk) 18:03, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
Hi Hammer5000. I left a comment at WT:SHIPS and WT:MILHIST on this, in the hope of getting more opinions here, maybe a consensus/decision on how to address the issues you raised. Antiochus the Great (talk) 18:51, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
Think this page should retain it's current layout. It's effective and quite common among the ship/list pages of other navies. The US is an obvious exception but only because there are about a bah-zillion different USN ship list pages (too many AFAIC). - theWOLFchild 18:56, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
The basic layout seems OK, at least for the Active and Reserve sections (though the field widths could be standardised to some degree to make it neater). But the Planned/Construction section is unnecessarily lengthy - for example Project 'Leader' destroyers could be reduced to two lines from 12, or even one.
The there is the long section of Planned/Construction auxiliaries, yet there is no table for those in the active fleet (just a heading). That missing material will be very lengthy, so suggest that a separate List of active Russian Navy auxiliary ships article is developed. Davidships (talk) 22:46, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Okay, thanks Davidships and Thewolfchild. So keep existing style and formatting, but just tidy it up a little etc... sounds good. What about the planned ships section? Would that not be better integrated into the Future of the Russian Navy article? Antiochus the Great (talk) 14:27, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Suggest keep where it is for the moment - it aids updating if both tables are on the same page, and gives a better overview. I suggest first sort the formatting issues and slim down the Panned/Under Construction section (every possible future unit does not need its own row), consider whether there are too many photos (I don't have a particular view on this aspect, though it could be argued that none are needed since they are always only one click away in the relevant article) - and decide about Auxiliaries. Then see how the page looks. Davidships (talk) 14:48, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
Agree with David. Also, a small suggestion... get rid of all the question marks ("???") - they look terrible in an encyclopaedia. It would be better to use tbd (letters 't', 'b' and 'd' in lower case, in italics for "to be determined"). This is commonly used in other articles. - theWOLFchild 15:29, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

So as I can see we are leaning on keeping as is just slimming/trimming/formatting! I dont mind if the photos remain, but since a lot of them are missing and many photos for new vessels are being deleted due to copyright, maybe we can take the photos out? Hammer5000 (talk) 16:20, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Maybe a small image gallery at the end of each section? Similar to List of active Royal Navy ships. Taking images out of the table tends to greatly aid in table neatness. Antiochus the Great (talk) 16:28, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
SUPPORT - sounds good to me, anyone else? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hammer5000 (talk • contribs) 16:30, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
Yep, I like Antiochus the Great's idea as well. - theWOLFchild 03:16, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
Me too. Meticulo (talk) 01:50, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

See my Sandbox for an example of the proposed changes. Suggestions welcome. Antiochus the Great (talk) 16:06, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

SUPPORT - Yep that looks great. Awesome job Hammer5000 (talk) 12:55, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
Sorry for the delay chaps, almost a month since this discussion. I've finally made a start incorporating the new tidier tables into the article. Will continue to overhaul the entire article. Cheers. Antiochus the Great (talk) 15:12, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
That look great! Thanks for taking this on. Hammer5000 (talk) 15:54, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Inactive vessel on list

Russian ship Liman sank today, so it needs removing from the list. I can't see how to achieve this without mucking up the table. Mjroots (talk) 20:04, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Commons files used on this page have been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page have been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 02:04, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Russian submarine Losharik

Should Russian submarine Losharik be added to the list or is it too secretive to be properly WP:RS'd? Richard-of-Earth (talk) 18:08, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

The infobox at Russian submarine Losharik, says that it is "Laid up". (I have briefly looked at that article, and feel that the the submarine can be described as "Unknown status".--Sources in that article say that there was a fire, and there were many deaths. Not sure if there are sources that tell about any significant repair work done on that sub, later. 89.8.93.212 (talk) 20:09, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 11:18, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

What support ships does Russia have?

This section https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_active_Russian_Navy_ships#Ships_and_submarines_in_service doesn't mention any support ships like tankers or replenishment ships. What does Russia have in this regard? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.147.5.172 (talk) 11:47, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_active_Russian_Navy_ships/Archive_1&oldid=1134952383"