Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    Project 20836 Derzkii-class Corvette/Frigate

    Share
    avatar
    Isos

    Posts : 1953
    Points : 1947
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Re: Project 20836 Derzkii-class Corvette/Frigate

    Post  Isos on Thu Feb 22, 2018 9:34 am

    and the Gowind class is much better weapons wise. 1 76mm, 2 CIWS, 16AA missiles, eight anti ship, 2 triple torp tubes plus one chopper.

    The derk is also 1.1k times EMPTY displacement then it will be over 1.5 when they fully loaded the Derk out.

    So the ship you stated is better weapons wise while being smaller. The dark cannot have all it's weapon it must pick and choose. I consider ships about over 3k tons frigates, I would still consider the Gowind a corvette a big one yes but still a corvette

    The mica are point defence. Redut with 9M96 is way better. Urans are always on derzki if I'm not wrong so they are as good as gowind for antiship capabilities with land attack possibilities.

    2 CIWS ? The 20 guns are for you CIWS ? You would try to intervept an oniks with a 20mm gun ? Seriously ? Even the 30mm on the derzki would have hard time with oniks.

    You can add a container with 4 more kalibr missiles or something else. It is better than a gowind which has only space for helicopter.

    What I wanted to say is just if you compare systems, compare them with their equivalents. Not derzki against smaller frigates but the equivalent like a gowind or other NATO or Chinese 100m corvettes. You will then see they are better armed than nato equivalent ships.
    avatar
    SeigSoloyvov

    Posts : 996
    Points : 996
    Join date : 2016-04-08

    Re: Project 20836 Derzkii-class Corvette/Frigate

    Post  SeigSoloyvov on Thu Feb 22, 2018 1:44 pm

    Isos wrote:
    and the Gowind class is much better weapons wise. 1 76mm, 2 CIWS, 16AA missiles, eight anti ship, 2 triple torp tubes plus one chopper.

    The derk is also 1.1k times EMPTY displacement then it will be over 1.5 when they fully loaded the Derk out.

    So the ship you stated is better weapons wise while being smaller. The dark cannot have all it's weapon it must pick and choose. I consider ships about over 3k tons frigates, I would still consider the Gowind a corvette a big one yes but still a corvette

    The mica are point defence. Redut with 9M96 is way better. Urans are always on derzki if I'm not wrong so they are as good as gowind for antiship capabilities with land attack possibilities.

    2 CIWS ? The 20 guns are for you CIWS ? You would try to intervept an oniks with a 20mm gun ? Seriously ? Even the 30mm on the derzki would have hard time with oniks.

    You can add a container with 4 more kalibr missiles or something else. It is better than a gowind which has only space for helicopter.

    What I wanted to say is just if you compare systems, compare them with their equivalents. Not derzki against smaller frigates but the equivalent like a gowind or other NATO or Chinese 100m corvettes. You will then see they are better armed than nato equivalent ships.

    Gowind is not the same, it's fully loaded it is like 2.5 the Derk will be over 4 fully loaded, that is NOT the same, sure you can add that container but then you gotta remove something else for it.

    the Type 056 corvette has about 1 76mm gun, 2 30cm ciws, 4 anti ship missiles, 8 anti air missiles and 2 triple barrel torps plus space for one chopper,

    That ship is also 1.5km Fully loaded.

    You are trying to compare a ship that will be over 4k to ones that are under 3, I don't know how you think that makes sense, that Chinese corvettes despite being under half the derk's weight is better equipped because it has all of it's weapons fixed and doesn't need to give someone up to get another.

    So yeah keep trying to peddle this myth that the derk is evenly armed for it's class because it ain't.

    No the derk does not always have oniks on it, you don't even know how the ship is armed but you are trying to lecture me? think we done here dude until you educate yourself.
    avatar
    Isos

    Posts : 1953
    Points : 1947
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Re: Project 20836 Derzkii-class Corvette/Frigate

    Post  Isos on Thu Feb 22, 2018 2:02 pm

    They are all around 105 m and the derzki is the best armed. It's not because it weights more that it has to have much more weapons. VLS are limited by the size of the ship not its weight. By the way they could add 16 VLS in that hangar for anti air missile in a container if they wanted it to be anti air instead of kakibr, it is easy to adapt a VLS into a container for them. They already did that with kalibr.

    You quoted me. Can you at least read what I say ? I never said it has oniks always on it ...

    Remove what for the container ? I never saw the real caracteristic for the hangar where it is supposed to be actually. It's empty. You put what you want in it. It is an advantage. Load depends on the mission.

    the Type 056 corvette has about 1 76mm gun, 2 30cm ciws, 4 anti ship missiles, 8 anti air missiles and 2 triple barrel torps plus space for one chopper,

    More like 1 gun, 3 ciws, 4 anti ship missiles. Russian molnya which is under 1kt has 16 urans, 1x76 mm gun and iglas. It's a fact that russian ships are better armed.
    avatar
    SeigSoloyvov

    Posts : 996
    Points : 996
    Join date : 2016-04-08

    Re: Project 20836 Derzkii-class Corvette/Frigate

    Post  SeigSoloyvov on Thu Feb 22, 2018 2:08 pm

    Isos wrote:They are all around 105 m and the derzki is the best armed. It's not because it weights more that it has to have much more weapons. VLS are limited by the size of the ship not its weight. By the way they could add 16 VLS in that hangar for anti air missile in a container if they wanted it to be anti air instead of kakibr, it is easy to adapt a VLS into a container for them. They already did that with kalibr.

    You quoted me. Can you at least read what I say ? I never said it has oniks always on it ...

    Remove what for the container ? I never saw the real caracteristic for the hangar where it is supposed to be actually. It's empty. You put what you want in it. It is an advantage. Load depends on the mission.

    the Type 056 corvette has about 1 76mm gun, 2 30cm ciws, 4 anti ship missiles, 8 anti air missiles and 2 triple barrel torps plus space for one chopper,

    More like 1 gun, 3 ciws, 4 anti ship missiles. Russian molnya which is under 1kt has 16 urans, 1x76 mm gun and iglas. It's a fact that russian ships are better armed.


    https://www.naval-technology.com/projects/jiangdao-class-type-056-corvette/

    Read that and I will expect you to be saying "I was wrong"

    You don't even know how the Type 56 is armed.

    My mistake you said urans not Onik's but that doesn't change anything.
    avatar
    Isos

    Posts : 1953
    Points : 1947
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Re: Project 20836 Derzkii-class Corvette/Frigate

    Post  Isos on Thu Feb 22, 2018 2:22 pm

    SeigSoloyvov wrote:
    Isos wrote:They are all around 105 m and the derzki is the best armed. It's not because it weights more that it has to have much more weapons. VLS are limited by the size of the ship not its weight. By the way they could add 16 VLS in that hangar for anti air missile in a container if they wanted it to be anti air instead of kakibr, it is easy to adapt a VLS into a container for them. They already did that with kalibr.

    You quoted me. Can you at least read what I say ? I never said it has oniks always on it ...

    Remove what for the container ? I never saw the real caracteristic for the hangar where it is supposed to be actually. It's empty. You put what you want in it. It is an advantage. Load depends on the mission.

    the Type 056 corvette has about 1 76mm gun, 2 30cm ciws, 4 anti ship missiles, 8 anti air missiles and 2 triple barrel torps plus space for one chopper,

    More like 1 gun, 3 ciws, 4 anti ship missiles. Russian molnya which is under 1kt has 16 urans, 1x76 mm gun and iglas. It's a fact that russian ships are better armed.


    https://www.naval-technology.com/projects/jiangdao-class-type-056-corvette/

    Read that and I will expect you to be saying "I was wrong"

    You don't even know how the Type 56 is armed.

    My mistake you said urans not Onik's but that doesn't change anything.

    It''s smaller than I though but it doesn't change the fact that it is not armed very well. Its missiles which are ciws are not in the structure and its antiship missile is the same they are not in vls. The helipad support only light helicopter without hangar. Actually it is just a bad design not good for anything. Russia wouldn't develop such corvette.

    Peŕrier

    Posts : 291
    Points : 291
    Join date : 2017-10-15

    Re: Project 20836 Derzkii-class Corvette/Frigate

    Post  Peŕrier on Thu Feb 22, 2018 8:08 pm

    SeigSoloyvov wrote:


    Gowind is not the same, it's fully loaded it is like 2.5 the Derk will be over 4 fully loaded, that is NOT the same, sure you can add that container but then you gotta remove something else for it.

    the Type 056 corvette has about 1 76mm gun, 2 30cm ciws, 4 anti ship missiles, 8 anti air missiles and 2 triple barrel torps plus space for one chopper,

    That ship is also 1.5km Fully loaded.

    You are trying to compare a ship that will be over 4k to ones that are under 3, I don't know how you think that makes sense, that Chinese corvettes despite being under half the derk's weight is better equipped because it has all of it's weapons fixed and doesn't need to give someone up to get another.

    So yeah keep trying to peddle this myth that the derk is evenly armed for it's class because it ain't.

    No the derk does not always have oniks on it, you don't even know how the ship is armed but you are trying to lecture me? think we done here dude until you educate yourself.

    No, no, again no.

    Stated full load displacement if honestly stated, is the maximum allowed displacement for a vessel.

    Exceeding it will rapidly degrade seaworthiness, speed, endurance, floating capabilities when damaged.

    So if 20386s are declared as having 3.400 tonnes displacement at full load, they shall never exceed it, and usually even with a full load of weapons and stores will displace lesser than that.

    Moreover, 3400 tonnes displacement means 3400 cubic meters of submerged hull, this is the definition of displacement.

    It's already hard to understand how an hull just 109 meters long, with a maximum beam of 13 meters and a typical naval (i.e. for military combatant vessels) keel and bow could have up to 3400 cubic meters submerged, over 4000 cubic meters is something likely never seen before in naval engineering.

    And of course, comparing a 20386 with a type 056 is useless, the latter being short range patrol vessels, while the 20386s are long range with focus on special mssions ones.

    The Gowind are only a little better, being still short on endurance and having systematically lighter weapon systems than a 20386 AShM apart and almost no special missions facilities.
    avatar
    SeigSoloyvov

    Posts : 996
    Points : 996
    Join date : 2016-04-08

    Re: Project 20836 Derzkii-class Corvette/Frigate

    Post  SeigSoloyvov on Thu Feb 22, 2018 8:20 pm

    Peŕrier wrote:
    SeigSoloyvov wrote:


    Gowind is not the same, it's fully loaded it is like 2.5 the Derk will be over 4 fully loaded, that is NOT the same, sure you can add that container but then you gotta remove something else for it.

    the Type 056 corvette has about 1 76mm gun, 2 30cm ciws, 4 anti ship missiles, 8 anti air missiles and 2 triple barrel torps plus space for one chopper,

    That ship is also 1.5km Fully loaded.

    You are trying to compare a ship that will be over 4k to ones that are under 3, I don't know how you think that makes sense, that Chinese corvettes despite being under half the derk's weight is better equipped because it has all of it's weapons fixed and doesn't need to give someone up to get another.

    So yeah keep trying to peddle this myth that the derk is evenly armed for it's class because it ain't.

    No the derk does not always have oniks on it, you don't even know how the ship is armed but you are trying to lecture me? think we done here dude until you educate yourself.

    No, no, again  no.

    Stated full load displacement if honestly stated, is the maximum allowed displacement for a vessel.

    Exceeding it will rapidly degrade seaworthiness, speed, endurance, floating capabilities when damaged.

    So if 20386s are declared as having 3.400 tonnes displacement at full load, they shall never exceed it, and usually even with a full load of weapons and stores will displace lesser than that.

    Moreover, 3400 tonnes displacement means 3400 cubic meters of submerged hull, this is the definition of displacement.

    It's already hard to understand how an hull just 109 meters long, with a maximum beam of 13 meters and a typical naval (i.e. for military combatant vessels) keel and bow could have up to 3400 cubic meters submerged, over 4000 cubic meters is something likely never seen before in naval engineering.

    And of course, comparing a 20386 with a type 056 is useless, the latter being short range patrol vessels, while the 20386s are long range with focus on special  mssions ones.

    The Gowind are only a little better, being still short on endurance and having systematically lighter weapon systems than a 20386 AShM apart  and almost no special missions facilities.

    I will make your entire point redundant with one statement.

    Show me where the Russians have stated that 3.4k is the full load.

    so your next post better contain a statement directly from them with words "With a FULL Displacement of 3400 Tons".

    If your post doesn't I am going to brush it off.

    I am quite aware of what the Derk is meant to do, I have stated it's strong point is utility not it's limited arsenal, it is weakly armed for a ship that will go over the stated tonnage, that is fact I have compared it to ships both abit bigger and much smaller than it and they all outclass it weapon wise.

    The point of the derk is it's utility not it's weapon however the weakly armed part isn't wrong if you cannot understand this, then there is nothing else to say now is there

    Peŕrier

    Posts : 291
    Points : 291
    Join date : 2017-10-15

    Re: Project 20836 Derzkii-class Corvette/Frigate

    Post  Peŕrier on Thu Feb 22, 2018 8:40 pm

    The existing public sources have stated that displacement.

    But anyway, try to name any existing naval vessel with around those external sizes displacing even more than 3400 tonnes at full displacement.

    I am just curious to meet one such vessel.

    hoom

    Posts : 963
    Points : 955
    Join date : 2016-05-06

    Re: Project 20836 Derzkii-class Corvette/Frigate

    Post  hoom on Fri Feb 23, 2018 2:07 am

    The source for 3400ton is a poster at the laying down ceremony. (post 32)
    It also listed dimensions in line with 20380 though.


    People over at Balancer forum made a CAD model of the hull based on pics of display model & the cross-section visible at laying down & calculated the volume.
    Either the dimensions are correct & its ~2400ton -> 3400 is a typo or scaled to 3400ton it matches the dimensions given at waterline with overall dimensions close to 11356.
    Normally they quote overall dimensions though, which is true we don't know until/unless Russian Govt clarifies.

    I think comparison of the Ka-27 on the model does lean on 3400ton end though.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 17865
    Points : 18427
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Project 20836 Derzkii-class Corvette/Frigate

    Post  GarryB on Fri Feb 23, 2018 4:27 am

    Something that should be added is the the extra space in the rear is flexible space that could potentially be used for all sorts of things.

    Cargo containers with land attack or anti ship missiles have been mentioned... but equally they could carry vehicles like TOR or Pantsir or a range of other vehicles too... Imagine TOPOL-M or simply Sineva launchers that could be dropped off the rear of the vessel in the darkness off the coast of the US in the middle of the Pacific...
    avatar
    SeigSoloyvov

    Posts : 996
    Points : 996
    Join date : 2016-04-08

    Re: Project 20836 Derzkii-class Corvette/Frigate

    Post  SeigSoloyvov on Fri Feb 23, 2018 12:26 pm

    Only way you will know the dimensions if when they put it in the water not until then, 3400 is what was given it was never said if 3400 was it full load empty or what.

    I believe 3400 is not the full, simply because shipbuilders calculate the empty weight when they lay the ships down, has the supports need to be capable of holding that weight and what not.

    the full displacement typically only comes once it's in the water fully kitted out
    avatar
    TheArmenian

    Posts : 1814
    Points : 1965
    Join date : 2011-09-14

    Re: Project 20836 Derzkii-class Corvette/Frigate

    Post  TheArmenian on Fri Feb 23, 2018 1:06 pm

    SeigSoloyvov wrote:Only way you will know the dimensions if when they put it in the water not until then, 3400 is what was given it was never said if 3400 was it full load empty or what.

    I believe 3400 is not the full, simply because shipbuilders calculate the empty weight when they lay the ships down, has the supports need to be capable of holding that weight and what not.

    the full displacement typically only comes once it's in the water fully kitted out

    No matter which way you want to look at it, the dimensions (length, width, etc.) of the Dersky are smaller than the 4000T (full load displacement) of the Grigorovich. You do the math.

    Many knowledgeable people from Russian Naval forum still believe that the 3400T is an error. They argue that the standard displacementof the Derzky is 2400 T and that the full load is somewhere around 3000T.

    Further debate on this subject is a waste of internet space until more information comes out.
    avatar
    SeigSoloyvov

    Posts : 996
    Points : 996
    Join date : 2016-04-08

    Re: Project 20836 Derzkii-class Corvette/Frigate

    Post  SeigSoloyvov on Fri Feb 23, 2018 6:19 pm

    TheArmenian wrote:
    SeigSoloyvov wrote:Only way you will know the dimensions if when they put it in the water not until then, 3400 is what was given it was never said if 3400 was it full load empty or what.

    I believe 3400 is not the full, simply because shipbuilders calculate the empty weight when they lay the ships down, has the supports need to be capable of holding that weight and what not.

    the full displacement typically only comes once it's in the water fully kitted out

    No matter which way you want to look at it, the dimensions (length, width, etc.) of the Dersky are smaller than the 4000T (full load displacement) of the Grigorovich. You do the math.

    Many knowledgeable people from Russian Naval forum still believe that the 3400T is an error. They argue that the standard displacementof the Derzky is 2400 T and that the full load is somewhere around 3000T.

    Further debate on this subject is a waste of internet space until more information comes out.

    If the true weight is 2000 then it's armament would be much more sensible towards its size.

    Peŕrier

    Posts : 291
    Points : 291
    Join date : 2017-10-15

    Re: Project 20836 Derzkii-class Corvette/Frigate

    Post  Peŕrier on Sat Feb 24, 2018 1:37 am

    There is one and one only meaningful definition for military ships, and that is full load displacement.

    Id est, the maximum mass the ship could have before coming short of the design requirements.

    Definitions like standard displacement are just deceptions: it does not exist a standard displacement because a ship would load fuel, stores, accessory parts and items in the quantities required by the single mission it is tasked to perform on that single sortie within the limits dictated by its full load displacement.

    It is a common practice to lie about a ship's real full load displacement, to hide its true potential, still given lenghtm beam and draught of the hull, only minor variations of the full load displacement could be given.

    Coming back to 20386, given the imposing and tall superstructure, I would say the engineers opted for a deeper than usual draught to grant floating and stability at the same time, and it could explain the stated large displacement for its phisical size.

    It just doesn't seem consistent with the published renderings and 3D models, but they could be not enough true to the real project.
    avatar
    GunshipDemocracy

    Posts : 2674
    Points : 2714
    Join date : 2015-05-17
    Age : 76
    Location : fishin on Stalin´s Strait between Mexico and Canada

    Re: Project 20836 Derzkii-class Corvette/Frigate

    Post  GunshipDemocracy on Sat Feb 24, 2018 1:15 pm

    TheArmenian wrote:

    Further debate on this subject is a waste of internet space until more information comes out.
    Well you also can think straight I can see Smile

    BTW do you think UKSK-M can eventually be installed instead of current VLS? this would improvement in number of AAD missiles like 4x amI correct?
    avatar
    SeigSoloyvov

    Posts : 996
    Points : 996
    Join date : 2016-04-08

    Re: Project 20836 Derzkii-class Corvette/Frigate

    Post  SeigSoloyvov on Sat Feb 24, 2018 3:25 pm

    Peŕrier wrote:There is one and one only meaningful definition for military ships, and that is full load displacement.

    Id est, the maximum mass the ship could have before coming short of the design requirements.

    Definitions like standard displacement are just deceptions: it does not exist a standard displacement because a ship would load fuel, stores, accessory parts and items in the quantities required by the single mission it is tasked to perform on that single sortie within the limits dictated by its full load displacement.

    It is a common practice to lie about a ship's real full load displacement, to hide its true potential, still given lenghtm beam and draught of the hull, only minor variations of the full load displacement could be given.

    Coming back to 20386, given the imposing and tall superstructure, I would say the engineers opted for a deeper than usual draught to grant floating and stability at the same time, and it could explain the stated large displacement for its phisical size.

    It just doesn't seem consistent with the published renderings and 3D models,  but they could be not enough true to the real project.

    "There is one and one only meaningful definition for military ships"

    Lawls. Are you serious? you clearly have not spent an ounce of time around shipbuilding or a navy.

    Armchair experts never cease to amuse me.

    "It is a common practice to lie about a ship's real full load displacement, to hide its true potential"

    you have watched too many movies, you cannot hide the displacement of a ship.

    "Definitions like standard displacement are just deceptions"

    Oui dude, you don't know what the hell you are talking about here clearly stop while you are ahead

    Peŕrier

    Posts : 291
    Points : 291
    Join date : 2017-10-15

    Re: Project 20836 Derzkii-class Corvette/Frigate

    Post  Peŕrier on Sat Feb 24, 2018 11:20 pm

    I'm serious enough.
    But please, give a meaningful definition of standard displacement.

    Full load displacement provide a precise measurement of a hull, from which estimate its potential in terms of fuel load, future upgrades capabilities and some more.

    And it is unlikely any decent navy would actually declare real full load displacement of its ships.

    Single systems' characteristics are usually known: size, weight, power requirements are mostly known for artillery as for desalinations facilities or climatizations gear.

    But putting all togheter to estimate what the real range and endurance of a ship are, how much more systems it could embark along its life, it's hard if not impossible without a good estimate of the full load displacement.

    And it is not that easy to know it, because it requires to know with very good approssimation submerged hull's shape and dimensions.

    hoom

    Posts : 963
    Points : 955
    Join date : 2016-05-06

    Re: Project 20836 Derzkii-class Corvette/Frigate

    Post  hoom on Sun Feb 25, 2018 3:37 am

    BTW do you think UKSK-M can eventually be installed instead of current VLS?
    Maybe but maybe not, currently we only know the name UKSK-M.
    Probably there isn't enough vertical space for full length UKSK in the bow so there wouldn't be a big advantage to it.

    Sponsored content

    Re: Project 20836 Derzkii-class Corvette/Frigate

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Thu Aug 16, 2018 12:55 pm