I have read several articles that Russian naval ships are not very high quality or very reliable. True or not? There is a Russian fleet visiting Venezuela and I wondered how many will drop out during the long trip.

They'll probably send the ones that can make the trip.

One of them is the largest warship in the world. It is also fairly modern. (built in 1999 IIRC) I would think that they will make it just fine.

Althought the Russian Federation has cut expenses on his military that doesn´t mean that they do not maintain their best pieces of equipment in good shape.
Former Soviet and now Russian vehicles/ships/equipment/etc are known for its reliability and easy maintenance (if the money and spare parts are aviable of course).

Since the las years the Russians have started to upgrade their military into what we could call weastern standars and thats something to keep an eye on. They might be moving slowly but they are moving.

Consider this, the trip of the Russian Armada to Venezuela was a proof of might, certainly they would send their best in order to impress the right people, dont you think?

Best regards

Originally Posted by Ex-Navy cobra

One of them is the largest warship in the world. It is also fairly modern. (built in 1999 IIRC) I would think that they will make it just fine.

What is it? Do you have pictures?

Originally Posted by Herr_Alvaro

Althought the Russian Federation has cut expenses on his military that doesn´t mean that they do not maintain their best pieces of equipment in good shape.
Former Soviet and now Russian vehicles/ships/equipment/etc are known for its reliability and easy maintenance (if the money and spare parts are aviable of course).

Since the las years the Russians have started to upgrade their military into what we could call weastern standars and thats something to keep an eye on. They might be moving slowly but they are moving.

Consider this, the trip of the Russian Armada to Venezuela was a proof of might, certainly they would send their best in order to impress the right people, dont you think? Best regards

Sure they are sending their "best", whatever that would be. After all, these ships have to make the trip over (and get back, eventually).

I fundamentally disagree with your assesment of Russian equipment. Certain weapon systems and equipment is well designed (AK series of rifles, most of their artillery and certain other things), but not most of it.

Russian equipment may be known for reliability and easy maintenance in some places, but I think you are overlooking their quality control issues, poor safety record (anyone remember the Kursk?) and truly awful maintenance standards (spare parts? preventive maintenance?).

Please help me understand what you are talking about.

Well before anything... regarding the KURSK incident, please keep this in mind:

The Scorpion - 1968 (SSN-589) sank in the middle of the Atlantic Ocean

The Thresher - 1963 (SSN-593) suffered what her crew first informed surface ships was "minor difficulties, have positive up-angle, attempting to blow,” but moments later broke apart and sank 200 miles off the coast of Cape Cod.

Russians have or used to have a policy of "is better MORE than GOOD", this is why we all see flaws on RUSSIAN constructs but not all are like this. Some are so good that impress even the US.
The main problem they have is that they dont have the money to repair, whats wrong and poorly made, nor to maintain all thats working and is good.

Now Russia is investing on a higher level into their military and thats why we need to keep an eye on their equipment. Soon their standards will start rising.

My point is that they have sent their best to impress those who live on the west and believe me they have accomplished that... some believe they didnt have ships that could make the trip
But they did...

Best regards

I don't see the point in referring to accidents that happened 41+ years ago - note I referred to the Kursk, not the Novorossysk (1955), the K-19 (1961, 1972), the Lenin (1965), the K-27 (1968), the K-8 (1970), the K429 (1983) or the K-219 (1986) (all of these were accidents involving poor training, maintenance, design or manufacturing). Nor have I mentioned the numerous accidents ashore or collisions with other Soviet and Chinese ships that resulted in loss of life (collisions with US or British ships not considered here either as those were adversarial and usually did not result in loss of life).

If you don’t believe me, read K-19, The Widowmaker, by Peter Hutchausen and Nikolai Zateyev or Blind Man’s Bluff by Sherry Sontag and Christopher Drew.

I think it's more important to compare recent safety records and let's face it, the Russian's loose hands down. The reasons you cite are only the start. Remember that the Kursk accident happened in 2000. Recall also that the "leadership" of the Russian Navy LIED extensively about what really happened and refused outside help until it was too late to save anyone.

No lack of money excuses poor maintenance or training. Not while training in home waters and certainly not while on the high seas. The Sea is an unforgiving mistress - ask any sailor of any nation and he (or she) will tell you that.

The Russians made it, but it most likely took a large effort and most of their ability to project a small flotilla to Venezuela, so I am not all that impressed. I do not underestimate the Russians as adversaries, but their other skills are lacking.

I find it interesting that the Soviet/Russian Navy places so much emphasis on reserve buoyancy in the design of their submarines and so little damage control in their ships, surface ships in particular.
The US designs their subs with little reserve buoyancy but, a lot of effort on damage control on both surface ships and subs.