Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    Udaloy and Sovremennyy destroyers

    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 20866
    Points : 21420
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Udaloy and Sovremennyy destroyers - Page 8 Empty Re: Udaloy and Sovremennyy destroyers

    Post  GarryB on Thu Apr 04, 2019 7:46 am

    But they won't replace all of the K boilers with new ones. And it's a capital ship with no replacement.

    The Kuznetsov is a big ship and big ships can last half a century if there is a need... hell when the US wanted shore bombardment capability they took their Iowa class battleships out of mothballs and used them... air support is more important that fire support.

    Sov can be replaced by Gorshkovs and are not capital ships as other ships can do their job like Grigorovitch or even Steregoushchy corvettes.

    Not really, Sovs are destroyers... blue water ships with more endurance than a frigate like the gorshkov.

    The Sovs don't need to be upgraded to the point where they are Liders, all they need is a reasonable improvement that allows them to use new SAMs and new main armament missiles... they had over 500 shell ammo racks for each gun... I think they had 1,000 shells per gun but it was a while ago when I read about it... either way the western experts were impressed with its armament, if less impressed with the reliability of its propulsion.

    It is not REPLACING new ships, but it is a size that will give it an advantage over current new ships for a few years... plus it is a chance to put new AESA radars and sensors on board that would also be going on board new larger ships so they can get that into production and service earlier and work out any bugs and have it more mature when new larger boats hit the water.

    The truth is that they will never upgrade them. Old design, old engines, old weaponery (no VLS, single launcher for shtill ...)

    Are the army doing the same with the T-72s?

    It will be 5-10 years before any brand new destroyer or larger ship is in service with the Russian Navy... 5-10 years with Frigates and Corvettes?

    The companies that do the upgrades are ship yards... this is good work and good experience. the companies making the parts for the upgrades are also making parts for the new bigger ships, so you can have them working on upgraded ships now or twiddling their thumbs with prototypes for the next 5-10 years wondering if they will actually work in a real ship.

    By the time the new ships are in the water is a long time to start beta testing their equipment... especially if they upgrade now and have had 5 years of operational experience with the systems... it might even lead to improvements in the new designed ships to install them better... and save costly mistakes...

    In terms of life condition for the crew it is also older standards, same for weapons systems. Not as connected as a Gorshkov.

    It might not be as ergonomic or automated as a brand new design, but newer systems could use real world operational experience before they are put in brand new larger vessels in 5-10 years time... I say again... an upgraded Sov does not need to be a Lider substitute... there are a lot of jobs it will be more suited to do than a smaller newer frigate... even just a ship that chases around any Kirov classes when they get back in the water or the K when it is available again in 3-4 years time... it will look silly with the Kuznetsov sailing with four Gorshkovs and a single Orlan class vessel... having some Sovs and Udaloys makes sense.


    Too many things to do to upgrade it at not even the level of Gorshkov which is only 135m long but has 120km redut system, stealth design, 16 uksk cells, integreted battle management systems, newest radars, less crew ...

    A bigger ship with more space is much better for longer trips... and part of the upgrade would be the integrated BMS and new sensors and systems... hell they could even replace one of the 130mm guns with a 152mm gun for testing...

    Keep one as museum and sell the other to vietnam, pakistan or Angola or even algeria for 100 million each. Iran would be interested too, they could pay tge chinese for a quick upgrade.

    A bit short sighted isn't it?

    They don't have many large ships and they have in production Frigates and Corvettes and wont be starting making bigger ships for a few years yet, but you think they should sell off the larger ships they do have for a little bit of money... what use is a little bit of extra money?

    It wont speed up production of bigger ships... what is the point?


    Ships are tools and destroyer sized vessels... even if poorly armed are still destroyers. A simple and fairly quick upgrade and they can be much more useful and offer better compatibility with other in service systems and systems coming on line shortly...

    The saying is "Don't throw out the Baby with the bath water."

    Russia does not need to match production with either the US or China or anyone else for that matter... the country with the most ships is not the winner.

    In fact the country that builds up its fleet the fastest needs to finance that fleet and keep it painted and supported, which will be expensive just for upkeep.... why spend a fortune to get a lot of ships and then just keep the ships at their piers... manning them and keeping them operational would be even more expensive.

    Russia would never need thousands of ships and subs... it does need more frigates and more corvettes but it could also do with Destroyers and for the next 5-10 years their only option in that regard is the ones they inherited from the Soviet Union.

    The Sovremmeny is not a bad vessel. It had some propulsion issues but they can be solved. Its Moskit missiles are still very potent weapons... there are not many other mach 2.2 low flying anti ship missiles around, and replacing them with angled UKSK tubes for Onyx means about 12-16 Onyx mach 5 800km range missiles which is very impressive actually. The single armed launchers for Shtil could be removed and its under deck rotary reloading system taken out and replaced with vertical Shtil systems front and back and new radar and controls systems. Replace the front 130mm gun with a 152mm gun and the rear gun system with 3-4 UKSK launcher for even more missiles... that is a pretty powerfully armed ship.

    Even if the Moskits can't be replaced with angled UKSK launch tubes you could take them out and put two quad launchers for Kh-35s on each side for a total of 16 anti ship missiles that also can have land attack capability too, plus 3-4 UKSK launchers in place of the rear gun and its ammo magazine.

    Modern electronics and communications systems, and it already has a helo... the UKSK launchers can carry land attack, anti ship, and anti sub weapons.
    Isos
    Isos

    Posts : 3421
    Points : 3417
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Udaloy and Sovremennyy destroyers - Page 8 Empty Re: Udaloy and Sovremennyy destroyers

    Post  Isos on Thu Apr 04, 2019 8:49 am

    The Kuznetsov is a big ship and big ships can last half a century if there is a need... hell when the US wanted shore bombardment capability they took their Iowa class battleships out of mothballs and used them... air support is more important that fire support.

    Then upgrade it as it deserves not a half modernization.

    They don't have many large ships and they have in production Frigates and Corvettes and wont be starting making bigger ships for a few years yet, but you think they should sell off the larger ships they do have for a little bit of money... what use is a little bit of extra money?

    It will oblige the government to spend more and order faster Gorshkov-M.

    Agree with the rest you said, upgrading such a big ship with huge conons would make it dangerous. But still they don't plan to upgrade them (udaloys will be) and the replacement (Gorshkov M) is coming slowly. They are barely in use. Most long deployment are made by slavas or udaloys while the 3 or 4 sovs still in service are rusting. One of them in the baltic ... not really used for blue water ops...
    PapaDragon
    PapaDragon

    Posts : 8013
    Points : 8101
    Join date : 2015-04-26
    Location : Fort Evil, Serbia

    Udaloy and Sovremennyy destroyers - Page 8 Empty Re: Udaloy and Sovremennyy destroyers

    Post  PapaDragon on Thu Apr 04, 2019 2:01 pm

    Sovremenis are all past expiration date and are all getting scrapped

    Government went bon record about it, one has already been converted to museum ship

    Over a decade ago they might have gotten upgrade but now it's way past late

    Not even all Udalois are getting upgrade and some will be getting scrapped due to poor condition
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 20866
    Points : 21420
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Udaloy and Sovremennyy destroyers - Page 8 Empty Re: Udaloy and Sovremennyy destroyers

    Post  GarryB on Fri Apr 05, 2019 1:51 am

    It will oblige the government to spend more and order faster Gorshkov-M.

    Stop gaps normally make sense because there is no practical way to fast track the real solution without making it an expensive mistake like putting something into service that is not ready and ending up with more problems than if you just kept using what you have been using till its replacement is actually ready.
    Isos
    Isos

    Posts : 3421
    Points : 3417
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Udaloy and Sovremennyy destroyers - Page 8 Empty Re: Udaloy and Sovremennyy destroyers

    Post  Isos on Fri Apr 05, 2019 8:37 am

    GarryB wrote:
    It will oblige the government to spend more and order faster Gorshkov-M.

    Stop gaps normally make sense because there is no practical way to fast track the real solution without making it an expensive mistake like putting something into service that is not ready and ending up with more problems than if you just kept using what you have been using till its replacement is actually ready.

    No the tests will be done if they start building them in 2019 or 2027. It's only a matter of money. And spending billions on ships that are so old and have nothing that other ships can't do is useless.

    Nakhimov for exemple is a nuclear powered cruiser with hundreds of VLS. It is worth puting money on its modernization. Sov, if modernized will be less armed than a normal Gorshkov. Range is useless if the only blue water ships you have are armed with shtill and 8 uksk.
    avatar
    southpark

    Posts : 95
    Points : 95
    Join date : 2019-03-31

    Udaloy and Sovremennyy destroyers - Page 8 Empty Re: Udaloy and Sovremennyy destroyers

    Post  southpark on Sat Apr 06, 2019 2:11 am

    No the tests will be done if they start building them in 2019 or 2027. It's only a matter of money. And spending billions on ships that are so old and have nothing that other ships can't do is useless.

    Nakhimov for exemple is a nuclear powered cruiser with hundreds of VLS. It is worth puting money on its modernization. Sov, if modernized will be less armed than a normal Gorshkov. Range is useless if the only blue water ships you have are armed with shtill and 8 uksk.

    If the price is right, they are not going to throw away young and decent hulls anymore....not 90's.
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 20866
    Points : 21420
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Udaloy and Sovremennyy destroyers - Page 8 Empty Re: Udaloy and Sovremennyy destroyers

    Post  GarryB on Sat Apr 06, 2019 4:46 pm

    Nakhimov for exemple is a nuclear powered cruiser with hundreds of VLS. It is worth puting money on its modernization. Sov, if modernized will be less armed than a normal Gorshkov. Range is useless if the only blue water ships you have are armed with shtill and 8 uksk.

    But the Sovs are not bad ships if you can get the propulsion going properly, they were originally reasonably armed and a moderate upgrade could make them well armed even if they don't have the seriously potent power of a brand new from scratch design.

    If you put UKSK launchers in angled position where the Moskit currently is located for 16 missiles (2 x 8 launch tubes), and you fit a 36 missile launcher in place of each single arm launcher of the SA-N-7, that means 72 Shtil vertical launch SAMs ready to fire, and the rear gun replaced with 3-4 UKSK launchers it is a very well armed ship even if a scratch build ship will have even better armament.

    A 130mm gun at the front, a 36 launch tube Shtil system, two UKSK launchers for 16 missiles of anti ship or land attack or anti sub missiles, and then another 36 tube Shtil SAM system and then 24-32 more launch tubes for anti ship or anti sub or land attack missiles in 3-4 UKSK launch tubes replacing the rear 130mm gun mount is plenty of fire power... that is 40- 48 missiles from anti ship to land attack to anti sub in any combination you like, plus 72 Shtil SAMs, and a twin mount 130mm gun... that is plenty of fire power in a ship large enough for long voyages in heavy seas if needed.

    In 10 years time they could probably build a new ship that is much better armed, but for the next few years such a large ship could be very useful.
    Isos
    Isos

    Posts : 3421
    Points : 3417
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Udaloy and Sovremennyy destroyers - Page 8 Empty Re: Udaloy and Sovremennyy destroyers

    Post  Isos on Sat Apr 06, 2019 5:37 pm

    Then you need to change all the electric cables for that, also the radars as threats are not the same as in 1980, and the battle management system to operate with newer gorshkovs and steregouchys and new nakhimov and yassens and karakurts.

    So you need to cut the entire ship. Which means pay to cut it, pay for the new systems, pay for raw materials and pay to rebuild it and refurbish it... for 16 new uksk and shtills ? Not worth it.

    I would also add that what you describ sounds good on paper. But replacing a gun with 10m VLS may not be possible, specially at the end where the ship is small in height. Center of gravity needs also to stay at the same place or you get the same surprise as germans and their frigate that is almost upside down.
    SeigSoloyvov
    SeigSoloyvov

    Posts : 1347
    Points : 1345
    Join date : 2016-04-08

    Udaloy and Sovremennyy destroyers - Page 8 Empty Re: Udaloy and Sovremennyy destroyers

    Post  SeigSoloyvov on Sat Apr 06, 2019 7:09 pm

    Isos wrote:Then you need to change all the electric cables for that, also the radars as threats are not the same as in 1980, and the battle management system to operate with newer gorshkovs and steregouchys and new nakhimov and yassens and karakurts.

    So you need to cut the entire ship. Which means pay to cut it, pay for the new systems, pay for raw materials and pay to rebuild it and refurbish it... for 16 new uksk and shtills ? Not worth it.

    I would also add that what you describ sounds good on paper. But replacing a gun with 10m VLS may not be possible, specially at the end where the ship is small in height. Center of gravity needs also to stay at the same place or you get the same surprise as germans and their frigate that is almost upside down.

    How correct you are, why people think refitting those ships is a good idea. I don't know, they are bad ships by today's standards. It's a dead design, why waste such money and time when they could build a better-armed ship in equal the time.
    PapaDragon
    PapaDragon

    Posts : 8013
    Points : 8101
    Join date : 2015-04-26
    Location : Fort Evil, Serbia

    Udaloy and Sovremennyy destroyers - Page 8 Empty Re: Udaloy and Sovremennyy destroyers

    Post  PapaDragon on Sat Apr 06, 2019 7:37 pm


    Like I mentioned it before one Sovremeni is already converted to museum ship and there are maybe several of them left at most

    They ain't coming back, time to move on
    avatar
    southpark

    Posts : 95
    Points : 95
    Join date : 2019-03-31

    Udaloy and Sovremennyy destroyers - Page 8 Empty Re: Udaloy and Sovremennyy destroyers

    Post  southpark on Sat Apr 06, 2019 7:43 pm

    SeigSoloyvov wrote:
    How correct you are, why people think refitting those ships is a good idea. I don't know, they are bad ships by today's standards. It's a dead design, why waste such money and time when they could build a better-armed ship in equal the time.
    I am not so sure...they are commissioned around 1980 kinda old but they carry ka antisub helos and other stuff....that alone makes it valuable as they have their own upgrade cycles...
    There are more variables involved than we know of such as current repair yard capacities, future workloads and ofcourse price to benefit ratio for modernization e.t.c but if the price is right and the ships are already in working condition they are perfectly fine in a potential war with 97% of worlds countries especially acting as a deterrent, showing flag in Africa e.t.c and freeing up other ships with kalibr complexes in roasting the vermin from the planet missions. These missions do not need to have full integration with all their fleet...

    Big_Gazza
    Big_Gazza

    Posts : 1543
    Points : 1545
    Join date : 2014-08-25
    Location : Melbourne, Australia

    Udaloy and Sovremennyy destroyers - Page 8 Empty Re: Udaloy and Sovremennyy destroyers

    Post  Big_Gazza on Sun Apr 07, 2019 1:54 am

    SeigSoloyvov wrote: It's a dead design, why waste such money and time when they could build a better-armed ship in equal the time

    'cept currently they can't build better in equal time. RuN needs a core number of combat ships heavier than 4k tonnes, and upgrades to the better preserved 1155 Udaloys is sensible. They will fill the gap until more 22350s and 22350Ms join the fleet.

    SeigSoloyvov wrote: I don't know, they are bad ships by today's standards. It's a dead design

    Any why is that? Because they are not "stealthy"? Pfftt... I don't suppose you have a degree in marine architecture and can substantiate your bumper-sticker-level opinions?
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 20866
    Points : 21420
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Udaloy and Sovremennyy destroyers - Page 8 Empty Re: Udaloy and Sovremennyy destroyers

    Post  GarryB on Sun Apr 07, 2019 5:28 am

    There is nothing at all wrong with them in terms of combat capabilities, western experts actually admired their balance of fire power at the time.

    Of course it would not be free to replace all the components... why would it be free... do you think the new parts and upgrades for T-72s is free too?

    The point is that they are not developing new design stuff to upgrade it... they are upgrading it with material and systems and equipment that new ships would be fitted with, so it is making that stuff cheaper and getting it into service faster so more testing and experience can be acquired with it before the new boats get into production.

    But of course they could follow US examples and just make their new vessels totally revolutionary with all new stuff like the Ford class CVNs currently sailing around the place showing off their new prowess, or the Zumwalts or the the LCS ships... they all came out a treat didn't they?

    avatar
    southpark

    Posts : 95
    Points : 95
    Join date : 2019-03-31

    Udaloy and Sovremennyy destroyers - Page 8 Empty Re: Udaloy and Sovremennyy destroyers

    Post  southpark on Sun Apr 07, 2019 3:48 pm

    GarryB wrote:
    But of course they could follow US examples and just make their new vessels totally revolutionary with all new stuff like the Ford class CVNs currently sailing around the place showing off their new prowess, or the Zumwalts or the the LCS ships... they all came out a treat didn't they?

    Since you do not seem to miss a chance to take cheap shot's without a solid idea behind it...I thought I should respond to your comment, US is an offensive power and it relies on precisely the edge that others do not have with respect to capabilities vs time dimension. Sure we have our defense contractors by the balls but even then idea remains the same. It works sometime and it does not other times. This is nothing new...you want me to point out how many USSR experimented?
    SeigSoloyvov
    SeigSoloyvov

    Posts : 1347
    Points : 1345
    Join date : 2016-04-08

    Udaloy and Sovremennyy destroyers - Page 8 Empty Re: Udaloy and Sovremennyy destroyers

    Post  SeigSoloyvov on Sun Apr 07, 2019 4:41 pm

    Big_Gazza wrote:
    SeigSoloyvov wrote: It's a dead design, why waste such money and time when they could build a better-armed ship in equal the time

    'cept currently they can't build better in equal time.  RuN needs a core number of combat ships heavier than 4k tonnes, and upgrades to the better preserved 1155 Udaloys is sensible. They will fill the gap until more 22350s and 22350Ms join the fleet.

    SeigSoloyvov wrote: I don't know, they are bad ships by today's standards. It's a dead design

    Any why is that?  Because they are not "stealthy"? Pfftt...  I don't suppose you have a degree in marine architecture and can substantiate your bumper-sticker-level opinions?

    No because you could hardly fit any USUK on it, the hull wasn't designed for those types of weapons, all the money and effort it would take you could just get a Karakut with the same amount of USUK for cheaper the price.

    Stealth for ships is a Myth.

    You realize russia would need to gut the entire hull, rebuild the hull around one USUK launcher? that would take considerable time and profit again they can get just frigates and corvettes much better bang for their bucks.

    The Sov's are a dead class get over it.
    SeigSoloyvov
    SeigSoloyvov

    Posts : 1347
    Points : 1345
    Join date : 2016-04-08

    Udaloy and Sovremennyy destroyers - Page 8 Empty Re: Udaloy and Sovremennyy destroyers

    Post  SeigSoloyvov on Sun Apr 07, 2019 4:42 pm

    southpark wrote:
    GarryB wrote:
    But of course they could follow US examples and just make their new vessels totally revolutionary with all new stuff like the Ford class CVNs currently sailing around the place showing off their new prowess, or the Zumwalts or the the LCS ships... they all came out a treat didn't they?

    Since you do not seem to miss a chance to take cheap shot's without a solid idea behind it...I thought I should respond to your comment, US is an offensive power and it relies on precisely the edge that others do not have with respect to capabilities vs time dimension. Sure we have our defense contractors by the balls but even then idea remains the same. It works sometime and it does not other times. This is nothing new...you want me to point out how many USSR experimented?

    Get used to that, it's how Garry is.
    Big_Gazza
    Big_Gazza

    Posts : 1543
    Points : 1545
    Join date : 2014-08-25
    Location : Melbourne, Australia

    Udaloy and Sovremennyy destroyers - Page 8 Empty Re: Udaloy and Sovremennyy destroyers

    Post  Big_Gazza on Mon Apr 08, 2019 12:30 am

    SeigSoloyvov wrote:No because you could hardly fit any USUK on it, the hull wasn't designed for those types of weapons, all the money and effort it would take you could just get a Karakut with the same amount of USUK for cheaper the price.

    Stealth for ships is a Myth.

    You realize russia would need to gut the entire hull, rebuild the hull around one USUK launcher? that would take considerable time and profit again they can get just frigates and corvettes much better bang for their bucks.

    The Sov's are a dead class get over it.

    I didn't mention the Sovs. Reading comprehensive ain't yer thang, is it?

    The Shaposhnikov is being given a comprehensive refit. She loses her No2 100mm gun battery and it looks like a UKSK (or two) goes in its place. Rastrub/Silex launchers go as well, apparently to be replaced with Uran packs.

    No gutting the entire hull. No rebuilding. Just removal of artillery and its underdeck loader and shell storage.

    Only an idiot of the first magnitude would think that a modernised 1155 could be equalled with a Karakurt. Shaposhnikov will be a useful addition to the fleet, at a farction of the price for a new vessel (which Russia isn't tooled up to make at the moment).

    Udaloy and Sovremennyy destroyers - Page 8 Dh5tkZ8XkAAdlOU
    kvs
    kvs

    Posts : 4308
    Points : 4421
    Join date : 2014-09-11
    Location : Canuckistan

    Udaloy and Sovremennyy destroyers - Page 8 Empty Re: Udaloy and Sovremennyy destroyers

    Post  kvs on Mon Apr 08, 2019 2:18 am

    The theme that comes out of all these navy threads is that Russia "can't build ships". This is superficial analysis at best, and BS
    at worst. If it was such a high priority to crank out ships like there is no tomorrow, then it would happen. There are enough
    qualified people and money to both build the ships and the ship yards. That there is no indication of any such drive over the last 20 years
    says everything that needs to be known. Ship building ain't a priority and any manpower shortage could have been addressed in 20 years.
    There is a reason for this and that is because we live in the ICBM era and not 1930. Aside from policing operations like Syria, Russia has
    no immediate need for dozens of new ships and fleets sailing every sea 24/7.

    If one paid attention over the last few years, then it would look like NATO was actually expecting to fight a conventional war on
    Russia. They thought they had gained nuclear primacy with their Mickey Mouse ABM and assumed that Russia was rotting out
    like Ukraine. But by early 2018 they got the shock of their history of existence. MAD was alive and well thanks to Russian
    technology. Now those big NATO plans for a pre-emptive nuclear strike to "decapitate" Russia and then send in some conventional
    occupation force to mop up any residual resistance are indefinitely on hold. NATO is even whining about having the UN ban
    hypersonic weapons.

    In light of the above, no amount of ship building by Russia would have stopped NATO's "drang nach osten". But investing in nuclear
    and hypersonic technology has delivered and a lot. What is more, if Russia keeps it up, the deliveries will keep on coming and the
    NATO hyenas will be kept at bay. Russia is not like the USSR with internal issues that give its enemies a propaganda edge. So
    it is not living on borrowed time. By contrast, NATO and its debt Ponzi economies are living on borrowed time and is becoming
    increasingly irrelevant by the year. (Back in the 1970s, the "west" had over 70% of the world's GDP, today it is less than 50%
    and sliding fast).
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 20866
    Points : 21420
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Udaloy and Sovremennyy destroyers - Page 8 Empty Re: Udaloy and Sovremennyy destroyers

    Post  GarryB on Mon Apr 08, 2019 7:48 am

    Since you do not seem to miss a chance to take cheap shot's without a solid idea behind it...I thought I should respond to your comment, US is an offensive power and it relies on precisely the edge that others do not have with respect to capabilities vs time dimension. Sure we have our defense contractors by the balls but even then idea remains the same. It works sometime and it does not other times. This is nothing new...you want me to point out how many USSR experimented?

    Hahahahahaha... a few comments in return... first of all you comment about the US being offensive is perfectly accurate, but the stuff about the defence contractors being controlled is amusing... pentagon officials expect high paying jobs in those defence contractors after they retire from their crappy military jobs... it is where they will become millionaires and billionaires when they retire for doing very very little... or do you think US military pensions make them rich?

    The US military and pentagon feeds US taxpayers money into their own retirement system... anywhere else it would be called corruption... or at least a conflict of interests.... but not in the land of the free.

    No because you could hardly fit any USUK on it, the hull wasn't designed for those types of weapons, all the money and effort it would take you could just get a Karakut with the same amount of USUK for cheaper the price.

    They are pretty set of small ships right now, they just need to get them into serial production and service, what we are talking about is bigger longer range long duration ships that they don't have plenty of, so it is worth upgrading them with more modern and more capable systems.

    It does not matter if they can't carry as many weapons as a Russian frigate... a Russian frigate is already currently better armed than some western cruisers, what they want is a reasonable stopgap ship to use for the next decade of so while they get bigger ships laid down and working... it does not need to be a super ship.

    Stealth for ships is a Myth.

    British naval officers described the Kirov class ships as having a rather small radar return... often they recognised them for what they were based on the size of the wake they left behind at speed as they appeared to be rather smaller than they were... but I agree going all out for stealth is a waste of time.

    You realize russia would need to gut the entire hull, rebuild the hull around one USUK launcher? that would take considerable time and profit again they can get just frigates and corvettes much better bang for their bucks.

    What are you talking about? They have tested angled UKSK launchers on light missile corvettes and they could just as easily just replace the existing Shtil single arm missile launchers and their under deck reloading system for modern fixed Shtil launchers front and back and replace the rear 130mm gun mount and its 500 round magazine for 3-4 UKSK launchers without doing much more.

    The Moskit missile positions... if they can't get angled UKSK launchers there they could easily put two quad Kh-35 launchers on each side for a total of 16 missiles which on its own is not a bad weapon load.

    The theme that comes out of all these navy threads is that Russia "can't build ships". This is superficial analysis at best, and BS
    at worst. If it was such a high priority to crank out ships like there is no tomorrow, then it would happen. There are enough
    qualified people and money to both build the ships and the ship yards.

    They need to replace their entire fleet of ships basically and they are starting at the bottom and working up with Corvettes and Frigates first as well as support ships also being built... but with a total budget of 44 billion for the entire military forces of Russia they can't really afford to do everything right now and even if they could build all the ships they needed they couldn't build all the support infrastructure and of course the manning levels needed to operate a fully re-equipped fleet anyway.

    It is of course a western mentality to immediately throw away anything that is not brand new, which is of course terribly wasteful... they will either learn or fade away like the declining society they are.
    Hole
    Hole

    Posts : 2099
    Points : 2099
    Join date : 2018-03-24
    Age : 43
    Location : Merkelland

    Udaloy and Sovremennyy destroyers - Page 8 Empty Re: Udaloy and Sovremennyy destroyers

    Post  Hole on Mon Apr 08, 2019 12:21 pm

    Currently Russia is building exactly the ships it needs to defend itself - small missile carriers like Buyan-M and Karakurt and some coastal defence ships (with ASW) like Pr. 20380 and so on.

    The main problem in the last years weren´t the shipyards. It were the suppliers of engines, gearboxes, systems and electronics, even furniture. Because a lot of this suppliers were located outside the current borders of Russia. The Navy, the yards and these "outside" suppliers had a relationship for 70+ years, that´t why they still got contracts. After 2014 the yards had to search for new companies tu supply them with all the stuff that is needed to turn a pile of metal into an functioning ship. If a company can´t deliver the equipment for the galley in time then there isn´t much a yard can do. Just wait.
    avatar
    southpark

    Posts : 95
    Points : 95
    Join date : 2019-03-31

    Udaloy and Sovremennyy destroyers - Page 8 Empty Re: Udaloy and Sovremennyy destroyers

    Post  southpark on Mon Apr 08, 2019 2:13 pm

    GarryB wrote:

    Hahahahahaha... a few comments in return... first of all you comment about the US being offensive is perfectly accurate, but the stuff about the defence contractors being controlled is amusing... pentagon officials expect high paying jobs in those defence contractors after they retire from their crappy military jobs... it is where they will become millionaires and billionaires when they retire for doing very very little... or do you think US military pensions make them rich?

    The US military and pentagon feeds US taxpayers money into their own retirement system... anywhere else it would be called corruption... or at least a conflict of interests.... but not in the land of the free.


    You need to get off your binary way of looking at the world....it is much more complex than on or off. Picking the correct base number system and/or coordinate system will make the problem that much easier to understand....try it sometime. So, just because there is corruption does not mean one should pack up and leave, real people will work through it....the system will rightfully collapse if it is not capable...I have no two qualms about it regardless of whose it is. I am glad that people in real world are not easy quitters as you sound like. No progress will come with that kinda of thinking. If everyone in Russia was thinking like you then their country would have collapsed further than it did...except they don't.
    SeigSoloyvov
    SeigSoloyvov

    Posts : 1347
    Points : 1345
    Join date : 2016-04-08

    Udaloy and Sovremennyy destroyers - Page 8 Empty Re: Udaloy and Sovremennyy destroyers

    Post  SeigSoloyvov on Mon Apr 08, 2019 7:43 pm

    Big_Gazza wrote:
    SeigSoloyvov wrote:No because you could hardly fit any USUK on it, the hull wasn't designed for those types of weapons, all the money and effort it would take you could just get a Karakut with the same amount of USUK for cheaper the price.

    Stealth for ships is a Myth.

    You realize russia would need to gut the entire hull, rebuild the hull around one USUK launcher? that would take considerable time and profit again they can get just frigates and corvettes much better bang for their bucks.

    The Sov's are a dead class get over it.

    I didn't mention the Sovs.  Reading comprehensive ain't yer thang, is it?

    The Shaposhnikov is being given a comprehensive refit. She loses her No2 100mm gun battery and it looks like a UKSK (or two) goes in its place.  Rastrub/Silex launchers go as well, apparently to be replaced with Uran packs.

    No gutting the entire hull. No rebuilding.  Just removal of artillery and its underdeck loader and shell storage.  

    Only an idiot of the first magnitude would think that a modernised 1155 could be equalled with a Karakurt. Shaposhnikov will be a useful addition to the fleet, at a farction of the price for a new vessel (which Russia isn't tooled up to make at the moment).

    Udaloy and Sovremennyy destroyers - Page 8 Dh5tkZ8XkAAdlOU

    Then why did you reply to me....I was clearly talking about those ships. Before insulting someone have the mind to atleast talk about the same topi they are referring to.

    Also that ship isn't getting UKSK but you can pretend it is if you want?.

    That ship is getting Uran Launchers with KH-35's but hey call someone an idiot when you don't even know what they are putting on the hull, if you need to call someone an idiot look in the mirror.

    And yes genius they are gutting the hull to do this, you see those things called holes in the ship?. Geez I wonder why they are there lol!
    kvs
    kvs

    Posts : 4308
    Points : 4421
    Join date : 2014-09-11
    Location : Canuckistan

    Udaloy and Sovremennyy destroyers - Page 8 Empty Re: Udaloy and Sovremennyy destroyers

    Post  kvs on Mon Apr 08, 2019 10:58 pm

    Hole wrote:Currently Russia is building exactly the ships it needs to defend itself - small missile carriers like Buyan-M and Karakurt and some coastal defence ships (with ASW) like Pr. 20380 and so on.

    The main problem in the last years weren´t the shipyards. It were the suppliers of engines, gearboxes, systems and electronics, even furniture. Because a lot of this suppliers were located outside the current borders of Russia. The Navy, the yards and these "outside" suppliers had a relationship for 70+ years, that´t why they still got contracts. After 2014 the yards had to search for new companies tu supply them with all the stuff that is needed to turn a pile of metal into an functioning ship. If a company can´t deliver the equipment for the galley in time then there isn´t much a yard can do. Just wait.

    Russia chose to take these supply problems at its leisure. If there was some immediate need for these parts, then there would have been crash programs
    to replace them. In fact, Russia would have cut off Ukraine a long time ago since Ukraine was always a risk. People see this leisurely pace of building
    and import substitution (actually not all that leisurely in the case of the gas turbines and gearboxes) and assume it doesn't have the resources. The
    Russian nominal dollar defense budget means precisely nothing. A good estimate of the PPP adjustment factor for this budget is 6 so that the
    real budget is 264 billion US dollars. Since Russia does not maintain 800 bases around the world its budget makes it fully competitive with the USA.
    And just like with the USA, Russia does not lump all of its defense expenses in a way that makes it easy for NATO to see. Russia has been low balling
    both its GDP and military expenditures for the last 20 years.
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 20866
    Points : 21420
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Udaloy and Sovremennyy destroyers - Page 8 Empty Re: Udaloy and Sovremennyy destroyers

    Post  GarryB on Tue Apr 09, 2019 1:58 am

    Currently Russia is building exactly the ships it needs to defend itself - small missile carriers like Buyan-M and Karakurt and some coastal defence ships (with ASW) like Pr. 20380 and so on.

    Not really... in a full scale war these little ships will not play a huge role... Kinzhals on MiG-31s and Kh-32s on Tu-22M3s will remove any threat of western landings and MiG-31s with AAMs will stop incoming cruise missiles and attack aircraft.

    Any navy needs larger ships to improve reach and endurance, but it takes time and it is quicker and easier to get the smaller ships working and in service first, because the bigger ships need smaller ships to operate with, and if the choice is either three big ships or 10 small ships.... if you build the big ships and want to go on a long trip you will send away those three big ships and have nothing at home for normal duties like sinking NATO boats forcing their way into the Azov sea for instance.

    If you build 10 small ships it means you can retire probably 15-20 old small ships and still get the local jobs done... if you desperately want to go on a long trip then existing old model ships can do that... just pick the most reliable and send proper support ships with it too.

    If a company can´t deliver the equipment for the galley in time then there isn´t much a yard can do. Just wait.

    This is also true.

    But of course the real question is that if the Russian MIC built four CVNs and the port infrastructure to base them and of course 6-8 20K ton plus cruiser/destroyers... right now... what are they supposed to do with them? What would they actually be doing? And how much would it cost to have them chasing NATO and US ships around the place... why should Russian tax payers be stumping up money for that right now?

    In few years time when trade ties grow, and you want to support an ally or trade partner, or there is a flood or natural disaster somewhere where the US is not on friendly terms, being able to send a Mistral type carrier would be helpful to the locals and good marketing for the Russians... sell them some stuff...

    You need to get off your binary way of looking at the world....it is much more complex than on or off. Picking the correct base number system and/or coordinate system will make the problem that much easier to understand....try it sometime. So, just because there is corruption does not mean one should pack up and leave, real people will work through it....the system will rightfully collapse if it is not capable...I have no two qualms about it regardless of whose it is. I am glad that people in real world are not easy quitters as you sound like. No progress will come with that kinda of thinking. If everyone in Russia was thinking like you then their country would have collapsed further than it did...except they don't.

    Since when did pointing out your system of procurement and military production is corrupt to the core become me being a quitter.

    I am happy about the situation and think you should continue to ignore the problem... leaches survive best by not killing the host outright... but the chemicals they pump into your blood so you don't feel it seem rather sophisticated... instead of an anti coagulant that keeps the money flowing and an anaesthetic so you don't notice the pain, it seems they have added some oxycotton or LSD or something... you are hooked...

    Not sure why you think the system will collapse... the people in the Pentagon don't want it to collapse because that is their future retirement programme... they get to be super rich... and the companies encourage this state of affairs... they get government money thrown at them and the accountability requirements are pathetic... you really can't even call them requirements... more guidelines...

    And yes genius they are gutting the hull to do this, you see those things called holes in the ship?. Geez I wonder why they are there

    Interesting you are suggesting he is wrong... you are saying that upgrading old ships is a total waste of time and money and brand new ships should be made... did you forget that?
    SeigSoloyvov
    SeigSoloyvov

    Posts : 1347
    Points : 1345
    Join date : 2016-04-08

    Udaloy and Sovremennyy destroyers - Page 8 Empty Re: Udaloy and Sovremennyy destroyers

    Post  SeigSoloyvov on Tue Apr 09, 2019 2:25 am

    @GarryB

    Did you hit your head today? because you made a stupid remark just now.

    Putting UKSK on an old Udaloy is a waste of time and they aren't doing, The Uran launchers are going on the outside, but they still had to dig into the deck some for support reasons.

    Also what the flying F are you talking about? are you suggesting the remark I made to him goes against what I said prior?. Are you trying to manipulate my words that bad? grow up.

    You are by far one of the worst keyboard warriors, I have seen when it comes to taking someone ones words out of context and attempting to us eit to justify one of your amusingly dumb arguments.

    It is a waste to upgrade old ships with UKSK and they aren't doing that, they are however putting some Uran launchers on the ship which requires them to put holes into the vessel to do because they need to go and redo the internals some.

    That would be far worse if it was UKSK.

    So no Garry nothing I said is out of place or contradicts my statments, I did not bring up The Udaloy, they did I merely responded.

    if you have nothing productive to say but try and add veiled insults and being a manipulative asshat then do not talk to me, kapeesh?.

    Sponsored content

    Udaloy and Sovremennyy destroyers - Page 8 Empty Re: Udaloy and Sovremennyy destroyers

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Wed Jun 26, 2019 3:00 am