Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    Project 22350: Admiral Sergei Gorshkov

    Share
    avatar
    The-thing-next-door

    Posts : 222
    Points : 254
    Join date : 2017-09-18
    Location : Soviet Interdimentional Command

    Re: Project 22350: Admiral Sergei Gorshkov

    Post  The-thing-next-door on Wed Dec 27, 2017 9:55 pm

    AlfaT8 wrote: considering Western ego alone, the loss of some base may be considered similar to the loss of a Carrier

    Wait would the americans be so stupid as to lose their entire country and every country in nato if Russia were to sink a few of their carriers?

    Peŕrier

    Posts : 137
    Points : 139
    Join date : 2017-10-15

    Re: Project 22350: Admiral Sergei Gorshkov

    Post  Peŕrier on Wed Dec 27, 2017 11:46 pm

    The point is not if Russia facing an invasion of its own territory would resort to some tactical nuke against the invading force, be it land or sea based.

    The point is what if in a proxy war you are not able to support adequately your alleys without resorting to nuclear armaments.

    It is the same as with McArthur in 1949 asking to nuke the chinese forces in Korea. Are you really going to opt for such an option?

    Note, in Korea it was mainly US forces fighting on the ground and suffering losses and time to time even defeats.

    It was the very credibility of the US military power at stake, with the most advanced army and air force, supported by the stronger navy in the world, suffering against a little country still with an agricultural economy supported by a giant itself still recovering from the damages of second world war plus civil war.

    At last Inchon saved the war for the US forces, but the lesson is nonetheless valid: you could always suffer a devastating defeat without getting to a point where use of nuclear armaments could be in any way justified or motivated.

    The more taking into account that in 1949 there was no chance for a chinese retaliation, the debate about a nuclear option was based on moral grounds only.

    Today, you should ask yourself if to avoid a defeat suffered abroad can justify before your own people suffering a retaliation because you opted to use nuclear weapons.

    In the long run, a little defeat after another one, you will end being brought on your knees without having never reached a point where the nuclear deterrence could play a role.

    Your opponents don't always need to destroy you, sometimes making you irrelevant and helpless is more than enough to force you to surrender.
    avatar
    PapaDragon

    Posts : 5920
    Points : 6024
    Join date : 2015-04-26
    Location : Fort Evil, Serbia

    Re: Project 22350: Admiral Sergei Gorshkov

    Post  PapaDragon on Thu Dec 28, 2017 12:42 am

    ...Today, you should ask yourself if to avoid a defeat suffered abroad can justify before your own people suffering a retaliation because you opted to use nuclear weapons...

    Retaliation from who and for what? Couple of nukes going off on some East European clowns who volunteered for it?

    Get real, best generation of USA was unwilling to trade Boston for Bonn in 20th century, I doubt that millennials of today would trade Boston for Bratislava (no offense to Slovaks intended, I just needed city that starts with a B)

    Probably it would be something barely bigger than a village. It's just about showing the pretty mushroom cloud to the twittersphere back on the mainland to get the point across.
    avatar
    Militarov

    Posts : 5639
    Points : 5680
    Join date : 2015-09-02
    Location : Serbia

    Re: Project 22350: Admiral Sergei Gorshkov

    Post  Militarov on Thu Dec 28, 2017 12:46 am

    GarryB wrote:Well all these butthurt fanbois will have to delay their Russias navy is the best crusade for another summer campaign... who gives a fuck.

    Get over it.

    The Russian navy is growing and getting better, if you want to make yourselves look like whiny little girls moaning because it is not to your satisfaction in terms of speed go right ahead and get your panties in a bunch.

    Name one NATO country that can do in Syria what Russian Corvettes did in Syria... any country for that matter... but somehow because they don't pump out useless weakly armed ships like the chinese or South Koreans they are somehow incompetent... blah blah blah.

    Sejong the Great is "weakly armed"? Suspect

    Peŕrier

    Posts : 137
    Points : 139
    Join date : 2017-10-15

    Re: Project 22350: Admiral Sergei Gorshkov

    Post  Peŕrier on Thu Dec 28, 2017 1:05 am

    PapaDragon wrote:
    ...Today, you should ask yourself if to avoid a defeat suffered abroad can justify before your own people suffering a retaliation because you opted to use nuclear weapons...

    Retaliation from who and for what? Couple of nukes going off on some East European clowns who volunteered for it?

    Get real, best generation of USA was unwilling to trade Boston for Bonn in 20th century, I doubt that millennials of today would trade Boston for Bratislava (no offense to Slovaks intended, I just needed city that starts with a B)

    Probably it would be something barely bigger than a village. It's just about showing the pretty mushroom cloud to the twittersphere back on the mainland to get the point across.

    Retaliation for having resorted to nuclear weapons. Wasn't it clear enough?

    And was some russian/soviet generation ready to trade Leningrad for Warsaw or Prague in the 20th Century?

    The point is exactly that: while after somebody start to launch nukes, escalation is all to easy and probable, opting for the first use is not, at all.

    The more so when you are not defending your own territory, but your status on the global stage.
    avatar
    GunshipDemocracy

    Posts : 1883
    Points : 1925
    Join date : 2015-05-17
    Age : 76
    Location : fishin on Stalin´s Strait between Mexico and Canada

    Re: Project 22350: Admiral Sergei Gorshkov

    Post  GunshipDemocracy on Thu Dec 28, 2017 2:20 am

    Peŕrier wrote:

    The more taking into account that in 1949 there was no chance for a chinese retaliation, the debate about a nuclear option was based on moral grounds only.
    are you serious? and other fairy tales you also believe in? Soviet Union had nuke since august 49, this bloodthirsty moron MacArthur wanted to bomb China in nd of 50 not in 49.. Genocide for him was no problem. Luckily Truman was much smarter knowing that USSR is alsopart of game.

    Moral grounds? For US? or generally West? clown clown clown
    where were moral grounds in Hiroshima and Nagasaki? burning alive 100,000 people in Dresden? 5milions killed in vitnam? mainly civilians using with broad generosity napalm and chemical weapons?
    avatar
    GunshipDemocracy

    Posts : 1883
    Points : 1925
    Join date : 2015-05-17
    Age : 76
    Location : fishin on Stalin´s Strait between Mexico and Canada

    Re: Project 22350: Admiral Sergei Gorshkov

    Post  GunshipDemocracy on Thu Dec 28, 2017 2:24 am

    PapaDragon wrote:
    ...Today, you should ask yourself if to avoid a defeat suffered abroad can justify before your own people suffering a retaliation because you opted to use nuclear weapons...

    Get real, best generation of USA was unwilling to trade Boston for Bonn in 20th century, I doubt that millennials of today would trade Boston for Bratislava (no offense to Slovaks intended, I just needed city that starts with a B)
    .

    Belgrade? Razz Razz Razz
    avatar
    Big_Gazza

    Posts : 937
    Points : 955
    Join date : 2014-08-25
    Location : Melbourne, Australia

    Re: Project 22350: Admiral Sergei Gorshkov

    Post  Big_Gazza on Thu Dec 28, 2017 2:42 am

    KomissarBojanchev wrote:MUH CORVETTES MUH CORVETTES. If it takes 20 years to commission 1 frigate and there are no destroyers left you'll still derail the point by mentioning corvettes. Russia has no aircraft carrier replacement. MUH 6 BUYANS!!!!!! Northern and Pacific fleets have no destroyers left? MUH 6 BUYANS!!!!

    Give me a break.

    20 years for 1 frigate?  Dafuq are you talking about?  Grow up kid and stop peeing your pants, cease the childish hysteria, and we might start to take you seriously.
    avatar
    PapaDragon

    Posts : 5920
    Points : 6024
    Join date : 2015-04-26
    Location : Fort Evil, Serbia

    Re: Project 22350: Admiral Sergei Gorshkov

    Post  PapaDragon on Thu Dec 28, 2017 3:18 am

    GunshipDemocracy wrote:
    PapaDragon wrote:
    ...Today, you should ask yourself if to avoid a defeat suffered abroad can justify before your own people suffering a retaliation because you opted to use nuclear weapons...

    Get real, best generation of USA was unwilling to trade Boston for Bonn in 20th century, I doubt that millennials of today would trade Boston for Bratislava (no offense to Slovaks intended, I just needed city that starts with a B)
    .

    Belgrade? Razz Razz Razz

    Dude, who (other than us locals, maybe) would want to trade anything for Belgrade?

    I would undermine my whole argument with that example... lol1
    avatar
    GunshipDemocracy

    Posts : 1883
    Points : 1925
    Join date : 2015-05-17
    Age : 76
    Location : fishin on Stalin´s Strait between Mexico and Canada

    Re: Project 22350: Admiral Sergei Gorshkov

    Post  GunshipDemocracy on Thu Dec 28, 2017 3:59 am

    PapaDragon wrote:
    GunshipDemocracy wrote:
    PapaDragon wrote:
    ...Today, you should ask yourself if to avoid a defeat suffered abroad can justify before your own people suffering a retaliation because you opted to use nuclear weapons...

    Get real, best generation of USA was unwilling to trade Boston for Bonn in 20th century, I doubt that millennials of today would trade Boston for Bratislava (no offense to Slovaks intended, I just needed city that starts with a B)
    .

    Belgrade? Razz Razz Razz

    Dude, who (other than us locals, maybe) would want to trade anything for Belgrade?  

    I would undermine my whole argument with that example... lol1

    Touche then, BTW Belgrade is the city where Chinese embassy is not on maps? respekt respekt respekt
    avatar
    GunshipDemocracy

    Posts : 1883
    Points : 1925
    Join date : 2015-05-17
    Age : 76
    Location : fishin on Stalin´s Strait between Mexico and Canada

    Re: Project 22350: Admiral Sergei Gorshkov

    Post  GunshipDemocracy on Thu Dec 28, 2017 4:03 am

    Big_Gazza wrote:

    20 years for 1 frigate?  Dafuq are you talking about?  



    avatar
    SeigSoloyvov

    Posts : 775
    Points : 779
    Join date : 2016-04-08

    Re: Project 22350: Admiral Sergei Gorshkov

    Post  SeigSoloyvov on Thu Dec 28, 2017 4:56 am

    Militarov wrote:
    GarryB wrote:Well all these butthurt fanbois will have to delay their Russias navy is the best crusade for another summer campaign... who gives a fuck.

    Get over it.

    The Russian navy is growing and getting better, if you want to make yourselves look like whiny little girls moaning because it is not to your satisfaction in terms of speed go right ahead and get your panties in a bunch.

    Name one NATO country that can do in Syria what Russian Corvettes did in Syria... any country for that matter... but somehow because they don't pump out useless weakly armed ships like the chinese or South Koreans they are somehow incompetent... blah blah blah.

    Sejong the Great is "weakly armed"? Suspect

    Garry is biased you should know this by now, guy will refuse to see a problem on the russian side and make excuses for it.

    SK Navy would wreck the Russians in a surface engagement.

    Sub Russia would win.

    Saying the SK ships are weakly armed is just showing how desperate he is for an excuse he isn't stupid so he should know better.
    avatar
    AlfaT8

    Posts : 1468
    Points : 1469
    Join date : 2013-02-02

    Re: Project 22350: Admiral Sergei Gorshkov

    Post  AlfaT8 on Thu Dec 28, 2017 5:18 am

    The-thing-next-door wrote:
    AlfaT8 wrote: considering Western ego alone, the loss of some base may be considered similar to the loss of a Carrier

    Wait would the americans be so stupid as to lose their entire country and every country in nato if Russia were to sink a few of their carriers?

    Yea, except they don't need to use nukes, they have more then enough conventional assets.
    avatar
    KomissarBojanchev

    Posts : 1280
    Points : 1445
    Join date : 2012-08-05
    Age : 20
    Location : Varna, Bulgaria

    Re: Project 22350: Admiral Sergei Gorshkov

    Post  KomissarBojanchev on Thu Dec 28, 2017 5:38 am

    Big_Gazza wrote:
    KomissarBojanchev wrote:MUH CORVETTES MUH CORVETTES. If it takes 20 years to commission 1 frigate and there are no destroyers left you'll still derail the point by mentioning corvettes. Russia has no aircraft carrier replacement. MUH 6 BUYANS!!!!!! Northern and Pacific fleets have no destroyers left? MUH 6 BUYANS!!!!

    Give me a break.

    20 years for 1 frigate?  Dafuq are you talking about?  Grow up kid and stop peeing your pants, cease the childish hysteria, and we might start to take you seriously.
    It was an exagerration, but the point still stands that if gorshkov commisioning continues at this rate, once the Krivaks and Udaloys are decomissioned there will be almost nothing to replace them with.
    avatar
    Big_Gazza

    Posts : 937
    Points : 955
    Join date : 2014-08-25
    Location : Melbourne, Australia

    Re: Project 22350: Admiral Sergei Gorshkov

    Post  Big_Gazza on Thu Dec 28, 2017 9:03 am

    KomissarBojanchev wrote:
    Big_Gazza wrote:
    KomissarBojanchev wrote:MUH CORVETTES MUH CORVETTES. If it takes 20 years to commission 1 frigate and there are no destroyers left you'll still derail the point by mentioning corvettes. Russia has no aircraft carrier replacement. MUH 6 BUYANS!!!!!! Northern and Pacific fleets have no destroyers left? MUH 6 BUYANS!!!!

    Give me a break.

    20 years for 1 frigate?  Dafuq are you talking about?  Grow up kid and stop peeing your pants, cease the childish hysteria, and we might start to take you seriously.
    It was an exagerration, but the point still stands that if gorshkov commisioning continues at this rate, once the Krivaks and Udaloys are decomissioned there will be almost nothing to replace them with.

    Give me strength....

    OK, look at it this way.  If the Gorshkov was a LCS, it would have been in service for 3 years already.  It wouldn't have been tested, it would have systems that weren't operating as specified, and would be subject to below-par performance on some systems and would be in and out of the yard to receives fixes and patches, but it would of been operational... sort of...  enough for the manufacturer to get paid and then keep extracting more funds for each tweak and corrective action....  cuz thats how the US for-profit MIC works.

    Russia doesn't work the same.  Ruskie ship-builders are expected to deliver what they promised, and the military doesn't accept something until its ready and passes all necessary state-witnessed testing.  Gorshkov has issues with Poliment-Redut long range missiles?  Russian military says "Fix it" or we don't accept.

    Gorshkov is the first of her line with all new equipment, weapons & sensors, and her build has been protracted due to a general lack of fund and priority (subs come first).  Engine issues have caused a 4-year hiatus for the 4-vessel batch and the Navy has shifted priority.  The Navy wants the bugs fixed before she is accepted, and they are prepared to wait as there is no real driver to the schedule (unlike SSBNs/SSNs).   Severnaya needs to debug the design & build issues and fix them to avoid the same on the Kasanatov.

    I'd say the Gorshkov has actually been combat ready for the last 2 years, but due process must be observed.

    BTW there are only 4x Krivaks in Russian service (and don't appear to be receiving upgrades), while the Udaloys will be upgraded with UKSK and Uran launchers. I don't worry about them not being replaced.
    avatar
    Big_Gazza

    Posts : 937
    Points : 955
    Join date : 2014-08-25
    Location : Melbourne, Australia

    Re: Project 22350: Admiral Sergei Gorshkov

    Post  Big_Gazza on Thu Dec 28, 2017 9:24 am

    GunshipDemocracy wrote:Touche then, BTW Belgrade is the city where Chinese embassy is not on maps?  respekt respekt respekt

    The Chinese haven't even begun to take revenge for that despicable cowardly cunt act. attack

    The Belgrade embassy war-crime is a classic example of what is wrong with Muricans. They act without thinking, then expect that others won't care, or even remember...

    Peŕrier

    Posts : 137
    Points : 139
    Join date : 2017-10-15

    Re: Project 22350: Admiral Sergei Gorshkov

    Post  Peŕrier on Thu Dec 28, 2017 11:21 am

    GunshipDemocracy wrote:
    Peŕrier wrote:

    The more taking into account that in 1949 there was no chance for a chinese retaliation, the debate about a nuclear option was based on moral grounds only.
    are you serious? and other fairy tales you also believe in? Soviet Union had nuke since august 49,  this bloodthirsty moron MacArthur wanted to bomb China in nd of 50 not in 49.. Genocide for him was no problem.  Luckily Truman was much smarter knowing that USSR is alsopart of game.

    Moral grounds?  For US? or generally West? clown  clown  clown
    where were moral grounds in Hiroshima and Nagasaki? burning alive 100,000 people in Dresden? 5milions killed in vitnam? mainly civilians using with broad generosity napalm and chemical weapons?

    I'm serious, while I doubt you are at all.

    In 1949 Soviet Union had zero capabilities to deliver a nuclear weapon at all if not by truck, let alone to deliver it thousands of km from its territory.

    And China had no nuclear weapons at all, so would have the us opted for a nuclear strike along the chinese-koeean border, there was zero danger of a nuclear retaliation in any world's region at all.

    But justifying such a move with own population, and more with allies populations was just a too long shot to be credible.

    They simply judged the loss of moral standing too great, and instead opted to send in more troops and more weapons, even if that course of action increased both losses and expenditures, while on the same time leaving open the chance for a defeat that would have blunted severely the US military power credibility.

    The same repeated itself in Vietnam, and in the opposite side happened with Soviet Union related to Afghanistan: the Soviets didn't considered nuking the Pakistan or at least it's tribal area, even if it was Pakistan the real logistical and training hub of Mujaheeddins and some nuclear strikes would have brought almost to zero the viability of the Pakistani hub.
    avatar
    The-thing-next-door

    Posts : 222
    Points : 254
    Join date : 2017-09-18
    Location : Soviet Interdimentional Command

    Re: Project 22350: Admiral Sergei Gorshkov

    Post  The-thing-next-door on Thu Dec 28, 2017 11:50 am

    No its because the west is stupid and never takes such opotunities they could have stopped the Nazis before they had a massive army of modern weapons they could have stopped North Korea before they developed ICBMs the list goes on.

    And it seems that they are going to sit back while Russia and China gain vast superiority in conventional and for Russia nuclear capabilities although you could say it is already too late to act as both Russia and China have nuclear weapons and the capability to deliver them.

    Hitler did not hesatate to invade the Soviet Union and he got very far if he had waited Stalin would have comleted
    his reforms and the Red Armay would have pushed him strait back to Berlin.

    T-34s and KV-1s were bad enough for the Weremacht KV-4s with thier 180mm of armor,107mm guns and suported by a properly organized logistics chain aswell as properly trained crews would be a difforent story entierly.

    Peŕrier

    Posts : 137
    Points : 139
    Join date : 2017-10-15

    Re: Project 22350: Admiral Sergei Gorshkov

    Post  Peŕrier on Thu Dec 28, 2017 2:21 pm

    Ok, very last off topic post.

    Moral grounds are and have always been central in the world's history.

    Particularly at maintaining hegemony, you could acquire hegemony by force only, but in the long run you won't maintain it by force only.

    Being accepted as the better, or the less worst dominant player, gives a huge boost to the chances of maintaining hegemony.

    By the way, Hitler did his fatal error attacking Soviet Union in 1941 with the worst winter in decades coming in a few months.

    One or two years of rearmament would have done little to nothing to Red army, its weakness being in the official's cadre that survived Stalin's purges.

    Most of the material and human losses suffered the first months of war were caused by sheer incompetence amid medium and high rank official's, Budyonny being the first in the line, and caused by direct engagement against the Germans.

    Of the hundreds of thousands of Pow and the tens of thousands of vehicles captured or destroyed, most were caused by encirclements, and would have suffered the same fate even if equipped with JS-2 tanks, Zis-3 guns and so on.

    At the very same way, VVS would have suffered tremendous losses on the ground and on the air because or poor crew's training, leaving all the front exposed to the Luftwaffe air superiority.

    To get different results, it would have taken some thousands better trained officers, that unfortunately had disappeared in the purges.
    avatar
    The-thing-next-door

    Posts : 222
    Points : 254
    Join date : 2017-09-18
    Location : Soviet Interdimentional Command

    Re: Project 22350: Admiral Sergei Gorshkov

    Post  The-thing-next-door on Thu Dec 28, 2017 3:25 pm

    Peŕrier wrote:Ok, very last off topic post.

    Moral grounds are and have always been central in the world's history.

    Particularly at maintaining hegemony, you could acquire hegemony by force only, but in the long run you won't maintain it by force only.

    Being accepted as the better, or the less worst dominant  player, gives a huge boost to the chances of maintaining hegemony.

    By the way, Hitler did his fatal error attacking Soviet Union in 1941 with the worst winter in decades coming in a few months.

    One or two years of rearmament would have done little to nothing to Red army, its weakness being in the official's cadre that survived Stalin's purges.

    Most of the material and human losses suffered the first months of war were caused by sheer incompetence amid medium and high rank official's, Budyonny being the first in the line, and caused by direct engagement against the Germans.

    Of the hundreds of thousands of Pow and the tens of thousands of vehicles captured or destroyed, most were caused by encirclements, and would have suffered the same fate even if equipped with JS-2 tanks, Zis-3 guns and so on.

    At the very same way, VVS would have suffered tremendous losses on the ground and on the air because or poor crew's training, leaving all the front exposed to the Luftwaffe air superiority.

    To get different results, it would have taken some thousands better trained officers, that unfortunately had disappeared in the purges.

    My point is about technology In the begining the Red Army did not have enough T-34s ank KV-1s to stop the Nazi advance witch led to encirclements. If the Red Army had enough T-34s KV-1s and some KV-4s they would probably have won do you realy think the Weremacht could continue its offensive after losing all of its tanks?

    Also that "the winter caused the Nazi defeat" crap is just made up by western retards that don't want to admit that the Soviets won the war.

    And since when was the Zis-3 any kind of amazing AT gun its just a normal 76.2mm medium velocity gun.


    Back to the navy would the americans realy be stupid enough to loose their entire country in a nuclear war if Russia were to sink a few of ther carrier groups?

    Peŕrier

    Posts : 137
    Points : 139
    Join date : 2017-10-15

    Re: Project 22350: Admiral Sergei Gorshkov

    Post  Peŕrier on Thu Dec 28, 2017 6:31 pm

    Military competence comes always before technical quality of the weapons.

    The Soviet officers' corp of the summer/autumn 1941 would have made the same wrong moves as you just support, i.e. do not retreat at full speed any time the germans accomplished local penetration of soviet lines, with the consequent disarray of the nearby troops and at last division and corps surrounded.

    It was only when the soviet officers resumed to a flexible defense that the germans lost the option to destroy large forces just moving around them and cutting them down from their logistical bases.

    Relying on the false sense of security given by superior tanks would have only leaded to the same defeats over and over.

    When Hitler decided to start Barbarossa in 1941, he made two mistakes, one easily foreseen the other not to be expected, both related to meteorological conditions.

    In 1941 spring was one of the most raining, forcing OKW to delay until late June the offensive to wait for fields and dirt roads to dry up, this way losing two months in the available timeframe before autumn rains would bog down again operations.

    Second, because the whole operation plan had as main focus the fall of the soviet regime within few months, there was in the plan itself an insane rush to conquer Moscow, both for the blow to Stalin's personal prestige and because Moscow was the key logistical hub before the Urals, and its fall would have forced the Red Army to retreat east of the Urals themselves leaving to the germans most of the soviet population, most of the infrastructure's network and most of the agricultural land. This forced the OKW to not stop the operations in late autumn, when time was actually reap for a tactical retreat and reorganization before the imminent winter.

    Instead as the cold freezed the soil enough to grant again movement to mechanized forces, they pushed forward exhausted forces that already had 5 months of fighting behind them, in an ever more rigid climate, until in full winter they were left with no option than to retreat nonetheless, only without any winter quartiers available.

    In the weeks after the offensive on Moscow was called off, the Wehrmacht lost more than 200.000 mens to illness and frostbites alone, without any need for enemy actions.

    Just around the amount of losses it would suffer one year later in the fall of Stalingrad's pocket.

    Having postponed Barbarossa to the following year, with a more dry Spring, would have granted around two months more of useful operations, and the battle for Moscow, an hopeless offensive anyway, would have been called off when winter was not still there giving time to arrange for the incoming winter and saving most of those 200.000 men, all experienced soldiers, NCO and officers.

    It's not the winter that defeated the germans, it was the STAVKA starting to operate both elastic defense operations and concentrating offensive thrust in a lesser number of key points instead to launch a multitude of small scale senseless offensive operations as they tried in the first months of war.

    But the timeline followed by the germans leaved them with no option but to try a desperate thrust to Moscow or admit their operational plan had failed, and specific climate's conditions of 1941 were very instrumental in forcing the germans in such a position.
    avatar
    The-thing-next-door

    Posts : 222
    Points : 254
    Join date : 2017-09-18
    Location : Soviet Interdimentional Command

    Re: Project 22350: Admiral Sergei Gorshkov

    Post  The-thing-next-door on Thu Dec 28, 2017 10:09 pm

    That just shows why you should be prepared to fight in all weather conditions.

    Just how many tanks do you think would be left in the Wermacht if they had to fight a force of vastly superior vehicles every step of the way.

    In the early part of world war 2 the Soviets mainly used old T-26s,BT-7s and T-28s as there were not enough T-34s and KV-1s.

    And my original point was that the west never takes opotunities to defeat its enemies in times of vaulnrability and would rather wait until they are facing a force they cannot defeat. Case in point the Nazis.

    Now can we get back to naval warfare

    avatar
    KomissarBojanchev

    Posts : 1280
    Points : 1445
    Join date : 2012-08-05
    Age : 20
    Location : Varna, Bulgaria

    Re: Project 22350: Admiral Sergei Gorshkov

    Post  KomissarBojanchev on Fri Dec 29, 2017 2:47 am




    all new equipment, weapons & sensors,
    Palash is already tested
    UKSK is already tested
    Furke is already tested
    Zarya is operational
    A-130 is already fixed quickly and is a development of the old AK-130

    The only all new weapon exclusive to the Gorshkov for now is redut.


    I'd say the Gorshkov has actually been combat ready for the last 2 years, but due process must be observed.
    At least thats true. Then they should've sent it to launch cruise missiles in syria.

    while the Udaloys will be upgraded with UKSK and Uran launchers. I don't worry about them not being replaced.
    Only the Shaposhnikov as far as we know and there are no known plans to upgrade any more.
    avatar
    Big_Gazza

    Posts : 937
    Points : 955
    Join date : 2014-08-25
    Location : Melbourne, Australia

    Re: Project 22350: Admiral Sergei Gorshkov

    Post  Big_Gazza on Fri Dec 29, 2017 1:41 pm


    Palash is already tested
    UKSK is already tested
    Furke is already tested
    Zarya is operational
    A-130 is already fixed quickly and is a development of the old AK-130

    The only all new weapon exclusive to the Gorshkov for now is redut.

    Yes, and when the Gorshkov was first laid down, all of these systems were new.  Fitting-out and integrating all of these new systems necessitated a lengthy program.  Redut is the last piece and has dragged on because of issues with the 120km missile version.

    Then they should've sent it to launch cruise missiles in syria.

    Contractually and legally near-impossible, and would probably need a Presidential decree. Why send the Gorshkov and delay her shakedown/troubleshooting when the Pr 11356 frigates and Pr 636 SSKs are available?

    while the Udaloys will be upgraded with UKSK and Uran launchers. I don't worry about them not being replaced.
    Only the Shaposhnikov as far as we know and there are no known plans to upgrade any more.

    AFAIK it was planned that a total of 5 Udaloys would be modernised.  Best source I have right now is Navy to modernise five Udaloys by 2022

    Five Project 1155 large anti-submarine warfare (ASW) destroyers (Udaloy-class) will be upgraded and modernized by 2022 as their radio-electronic warfare and life support systems are to be overhauled, Russian Navy spokesman Igor Dygalo told reporters.

    "By 2022 five big antisubmarine warships of project 1155 of the Northern and Pacific fleets will be refurbished and modernized at shipyards in the North and the Far East," he said. Dygalo said the ships "will undergo a major overhaul of their life support and radio-electronic warfare systems."

    In the summer of 2015 Admiral Viktor Chirkov who was Russian Navy commander-in-chief at the time said the big antisubmarine ships of project 1155 were included in the Navy modernization program and will receive modern missile complexes. He added the first warship will be rearmed with Onix and Caliber missiles in 2017. In 2016 Vice President of the United Shipbuilding Corporation for military construction Igor Ponomarev told TASS the shipyards have not received full tactical and technical assignments and the work "has not been launched in full volume".


    Subsequently, Shaposhnikov to receive Kalibres details the refit of the 1st upgraded unit and states:

    In January, it was reported that five Project 1155 large ASW ships of the Northern and Pacific fleets would be repaired and upgraded at the shipbuilding enterprises of North and Far East through 2022. A huge amount of work to update life support systems and radio-technical equipment of the ships will be fulfilled.

    Upgrading the Udaloys makes a lot of sense and will hugely enhance their combat capability for ASW and anti-surface, though lack of a potent medium range SAM will prevent them from being a true multi-purpose destroyer.
    avatar
    GunshipDemocracy

    Posts : 1883
    Points : 1925
    Join date : 2015-05-17
    Age : 76
    Location : fishin on Stalin´s Strait between Mexico and Canada

    Re: Project 22350: Admiral Sergei Gorshkov

    Post  GunshipDemocracy on Sat Dec 30, 2017 5:57 am

    Big_Gazza wrote:

    Palash is already tested
    UKSK is already tested
    Furke is already tested
    Zarya is operational
    A-130 is already fixed quickly and is a development of the old AK-130

    The only all new weapon exclusive to the Gorshkov for now is redut.

    Yes, and when the Gorshkov was first laid down, all of these systems were new.  Fitting-out and integrating all of these new systems necessitated a lengthy program.  Redut is the last piece and has dragged on because of issues with the 120km missile version.

    Then they should've sent it to launch cruise missiles in syria.

    Contractually and legally near-impossible, and would probably need a Presidential decree. Why send the Gorshkov and delay her shakedown/troubleshooting when the Pr 11356 frigates and Pr 636 SSKs are available?

    while the Udaloys will be upgraded with UKSK and Uran launchers. I don't worry about them not being replaced.
    Only the Shaposhnikov as far as we know and there are no known plans to upgrade any more.

    AFAIK it was planned that a total of 5 Udaloys would be modernised.  Best source I have right now is Navy to modernise five Udaloys by 2022

    Five Project 1155 large anti-submarine warfare (ASW) destroyers (Udaloy-class) will be upgraded and modernized by 2022 as their radio-electronic warfare and life support systems are to be overhauled, Russian Navy spokesman Igor Dygalo told reporters.

    "By 2022 five big antisubmarine warships of project 1155 of the Northern and Pacific fleets will be refurbished and modernized at shipyards in the North and the Far East," he said. Dygalo said the ships "will undergo a major overhaul of their life support and radio-electronic warfare systems."

    In the summer of 2015 Admiral Viktor Chirkov who was Russian Navy commander-in-chief at the time said the big antisubmarine ships of project 1155 were included in the Navy modernization program and will receive modern missile complexes. He added the first warship will be rearmed with Onix and Caliber missiles in 2017. In 2016 Vice President of the United Shipbuilding Corporation for military construction Igor Ponomarev told TASS the shipyards have not received full tactical and technical assignments and the work "has not been launched in full volume".


    Subsequently, Shaposhnikov to receive Kalibres details the refit of the 1st upgraded unit and states:

    In January, it was reported that five Project 1155 large ASW ships of the Northern and Pacific fleets would be repaired and upgraded at the shipbuilding enterprises of North and Far East through 2022. A huge amount of work to update life support systems and radio-technical equipment of the ships will be fulfilled.

    Upgrading the Udaloys makes a lot of sense and will hugely enhance their combat capability for ASW and anti-surface, though lack of a potent medium range SAM will prevent them from being a true multi-purpose destroyer.

    Excellent news. 5 big ships till 2022? they never would be able to build 5 new frigates in such short  time.
    Another source, list of planned procurement plan for 2017 for Dalzovod in Vladivostok  (although form 2015)

    http://nortwolf-sam.livejournal.com/1996073.html

    There will be both:
    Urans (Kh-35U if you prefer) and 2x8 Calibrs.

    No info there about new AAD system but I would be surprised if RuN lets so big ship to be used for 30 more years had no decentAAD.
    I'd guess that 4x AK-630 will be replaced by Palash/Pantsir and 4x8 kindhal by 2x12 Shtil (or in place of TA 550mm something as well)


    Sponsored content

    Re: Project 22350: Admiral Sergei Gorshkov

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Thu Jan 18, 2018 10:28 am