Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    Talking bollocks thread #2

    Big_Gazza
    Big_Gazza

    Posts : 1586
    Points : 1588
    Join date : 2014-08-25
    Location : Melbourne, Australia

    Talking bollocks thread #2 - Page 5 Empty Re: Talking bollocks thread #2

    Post  Big_Gazza on Sat Mar 10, 2018 1:34 pm

    SeigSoloyvov wrote: No they weren't they were designed to protect submarines, they had to few weapons and aircraft to be offensive, they are not multi-role.

    The Kiev class were most DEFINITELY intended to protect submarines.

    While they mostly relied on land-based aviation to defeat enemy CVNs, they were designed to be able to defeat a lone CVN if needed using mass salvo of P-500 Bazalt, or a number of smaller surface combatants.  They had a heavy AA complement for self-defense and protecting their escorts, and carried helo for ASW duty in conjunction with their large & powerful sonar suite.

    While the Kiev didn't carry ASW missiles, their escorts carried SS-N-14 Silex/RPK-3 Metel.  It was obviously a design choice to load the Kievs with the heavy anti-CVN ordnance and let the escorts carry the supplementary ASW capabilities.

    Fixed wing Yak-36 Forgers were not intended to fight USN fighters (they would have been slaughtered if they had) or to perform surface/land attack, but to provide a long-range AA capability against enemy ASW aircraft attempting to target the vital SSBNs. They didn't need powerful radars or heavy missile loads, just be able fly under GCI and fire off a pair of short range AAMs at a sedate subsonic target.

    Muricans always have this hang-up in comparing Kiev Class (and the Kuznetsov) to the USN style attack carriers.  They may looks similar on a superficial level, but they are designed for TOTALLY DIFFERENT missions.  The fact that Muricans don't get this says a lot more about their arrogant closed-mindedness than it does any conceptual short-comings of the 1143s.
    GunshipDemocracy
    GunshipDemocracy

    Posts : 4913
    Points : 4943
    Join date : 2015-05-17
    Age : 77
    Location : fishin on Stalin´s Strait between Mexico and Canada

    Talking bollocks thread #2 - Page 5 Empty Re: Talking bollocks thread #2

    Post  GunshipDemocracy on Sat Mar 10, 2018 9:05 pm

    Big_Gazza wrote:

    While the Kiev didn't carry ASW missiles, their escorts carried SS-N-14 Silex/RPK-3 Metel.  It was obviously a design choice to load the Kievs with the heavy anti-CVN ordnance and let the escorts carry the supplementary ASW capabilities.

    Fixed wing Yak-36 Forgers were not intended to fight USN fighters (they would have been slaughtered if they had) or to perform surface/land attack, but to provide a long-range AA capability against enemy ASW aircraft attempting to target the vital SSBNs.


    They carried (depending on source) 12-20 Ka27 , were armed with 10x533 torpedo tubes and either RBU or RPK-1 Vikhr nuked rocked torpedoes
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SUW-N-1
    PapaDragon
    PapaDragon

    Posts : 8235
    Points : 8319
    Join date : 2015-04-26
    Location : Fort Evil, Serbia

    Talking bollocks thread #2 - Page 5 Empty Re: Talking bollocks thread #2

    Post  PapaDragon on Sat Mar 10, 2018 9:16 pm


    Guys we are flying way off topic here

    I just suggested that those couple of oldest Deltas that are due for decommissioning solely due to noise should be converted to arsenal ships and stay in service

    We should move this to Delta SSBN tread
    Isos
    Isos

    Posts : 3748
    Points : 3736
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Talking bollocks thread #2 - Page 5 Empty Re: Talking bollocks thread #2

    Post  Isos on Sat Mar 10, 2018 10:43 pm

    PapaDragon wrote:
    Guys we are flying way off topic here

    I just suggested that those couple of oldest Deltas that are due for decommissioning solely due to noise should be converted to arsenal ships and stay in service

    We should move this to Delta SSBN tread

    New borei should be better suited for such role. We saw with Nakhimov that upgrading big ships cost as much as new ones so better go with a borei as it is already build and the design proved to be very good.
    Big_Gazza
    Big_Gazza

    Posts : 1586
    Points : 1588
    Join date : 2014-08-25
    Location : Melbourne, Australia

    Talking bollocks thread #2 - Page 5 Empty Re: Talking bollocks thread #2

    Post  Big_Gazza on Sun Mar 11, 2018 12:08 am

    Isos wrote:New borei should be better suited for such role. We saw with Nakhimov that upgrading big ships cost as much as new ones so better go with a borei as it is already build and the design proved to be very good.

    Except that Nahkimov had been laid up for ~15 years. whereas the Delta III/Kalmar are still in active service.  The question really is whether the Kalmar hull, reactor & machinery have sufficient useful life to make it a worthwhile exercise.  Logic suggests not, and that the Delta-IV/Delfin will be a better option when they start to be retired.

    A Borei would be better, but it's all about extracting useful services from existing hulls and saving money for other worthy pursuits.
    Isos
    Isos

    Posts : 3748
    Points : 3736
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Talking bollocks thread #2 - Page 5 Empty Re: Talking bollocks thread #2

    Post  Isos on Sun Mar 11, 2018 1:19 am

    Big_Gazza wrote:
    Isos wrote:New borei should be better suited for such role. We saw with Nakhimov that upgrading big ships cost as much as new ones so better go with a borei as it is already build and the design proved to be very good.

    Except that Nahkimov had been laid up for ~15 years. whereas the Delta III/Kalmar are still in active service.  The question really is whether the Kalmar hull, reactor & machinery have sufficient useful life to make it a worthwhile exercise.  Logic suggests not, and that the Delta-IV/Delfin will be a better option when they start to be retired.

    A Borei would be better, but it's all about extracting useful services from existing hulls and saving money for other worthy pursuits.

    Well, spending less for something that won't be as good as a new thing is not a good investment. The upgrade will take at least 5 years which is bad for a ship already old. It is not enough to upgrade just reactors and weapons. Sensor, interior crew living space, hull ... need also upgrades.

    With a borei you can be sure to use it very well for the next 20 years. Upgrading a delta to use it for another 20 years isn't easy. Russians know very well what they can do because they operate new boreis and upgraded soviet subs so they can compare and know what they can do.
    PapaDragon
    PapaDragon

    Posts : 8235
    Points : 8319
    Join date : 2015-04-26
    Location : Fort Evil, Serbia

    Talking bollocks thread #2 - Page 5 Empty Re: Talking bollocks thread #2

    Post  PapaDragon on Sun Mar 11, 2018 2:37 am

    Isos wrote:
    New borei should be better suited for such role. We saw with Nakhimov that upgrading big ships cost as much as new ones so better go with a borei as it is already build and the design proved to be very good.

    Boreis are needed elsewhere and are not available

    And I never mentioned upgrade, this would be pretty much downgrade, nothing changes except for missiles

    Whole point would be to keep using existing ship on the cheap and to keep it in service because technically it's still in good shape
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 21728
    Points : 22274
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Talking bollocks thread #2 - Page 5 Empty Re: Talking bollocks thread #2

    Post  GarryB on Sun Mar 11, 2018 9:27 am

    The Kiev class also could not land troops, it did not have a very big internal to allow for troops and support facilities like medical etc.

    No, they were built for the specific purpose of dealing with western SSBNs, but became redundant when SLBM missiles got much longer ranges...

    You are using a piss poor example to justify what is a stupid idea. The kiev on paper sounded good but it had so little anti-ship ability it was virtually pointless.

    If the range of SLBMs had gotten longer faster then there is no reason to think the Kiev class might not have come out more like the Mistral class... a class the Russians were clearly interested in buying.

    Having quite a few supersonic anti ship missiles is hardly weak anti ship capability...

    Russia isn't going to make a ship like that and you have no sense of naval warfare if you think they would and that is a "good idea".

    They wanted to buy the Mistral class carriers...

    No they weren't they were designed to protect submarines, they had to few weapons and aircraft to be offensive, they are not multi-role. You do not know what you are talking about. all Soviet aircraft carrying cruisers where built to fulfill these objectives

    They were originally intended to hunt western SSBNs, but became unable to do so because the range of SLBMs rendered them useless... they then reverted to protecting Soviet SSBNs within the air cover of the mainland Soviet Union.

    anti-aircraft defense of a ship and (or) a group of ships accompanied by it;
    ensuring the security of strategic submarine cruisers in combat patrol areas;
    search and destruction of enemy submarines as part of an anti-submarine group;
    detection, guidance and destruction of the enemy's surface forces;
    assurance of amphibious landing.

    So clearly multi role... if a little weak in some areas.

    anti-aircraft defense of a ship and (or) a group of ships accompanied by it;

    Its air defence capability centred around SAMs already carried on other surface ships, plus very very weak VSTOL fighters that might be useful against MPAs like Orions and atlantiques, but not much else. but that was OK because Soviet carrier groups pretty much either hunted NATO subs or defended Soviet SSBNs.

    ensuring the security of strategic submarine cruisers in combat patrol areas;

    Keeping away SSNs, and MPAs but not amazing at either role... though certainly good enough.

    search and destruction of enemy submarines as part of an anti-submarine group;

    As above.

    detection, guidance and destruction of the enemy's surface forces;

    Many of the early large anti ship missiles required long range radar detection of targets and the helicopters on board the Kievs could supply that information so in a battle between carrier groups the Kievs helos could allow the US ships to be better engaged, but their fighters were no match at all, so defensively they would rely on SAMs...

    assurance of amphibious landing.

    Ground support performance of the Yaks was pitiful... as was its air defence capabilities against anything that is not really a commercial airliner.


    When they get around to making them we will see what they put on them because looking at the specs for their current landing ships they don't have any of the shit you claim they will, so yeah.

    The Ivan Gren is an enlarged river boat. The only landing ship they have shown any real interest in and spent real money on were two Mistral class carriers which pretty much does show that they are interested in multirole vessels... your blindness to this fact notwithstanding.

    Better go with 2 vessels, one moskva class heli carrier for ASW and one kuznetsov style carrier for air defence and air support that will assist landing ships. It's more expensive but much more usefull.

    I suspect they will go with a CVN slightly larger than the K and do both missions with one vessel.

    The facts are that having a vessel able to carry large numbers of missile in an arsenal type role is interesting and a good use for an old hull that might not be useful in its original role but would still be perfectly adequate for an arsenal ship role.

    It would be a huge waste of a Borei hull to use it for this sort of mission... with a late model Delta or any other late model SSBN the space is there.

    Hopefully they can rebuild a half dozen subs for these sorts of roles... arsenal ship is just one, but a vessel with UAVs could do all sorts of things including air defence, or even be filled with special sonar equipment and unmanned drones for all sorts of sneaky stuff... remember 2/3rds of the worlds surface is water...
    SeigSoloyvov
    SeigSoloyvov

    Posts : 1475
    Points : 1467
    Join date : 2016-04-08

    Talking bollocks thread #2 - Page 5 Empty Re: Talking bollocks thread #2

    Post  SeigSoloyvov on Sun Mar 11, 2018 12:09 pm

    Sure they wanted the Mistral but the mistral's did not have Anti ship, Anti-air or Anti- sub missiles and it could only launch choppers because at this time Russian does not have a functional VTOL to put on it.

    And again not really multi-role, they could not really kill surface ships, they could not use their aircraft offensively well, the best thing the Kiev could do was have the planes pot shot at the Carrier group. The Kiev's planes had no airbrone radar they would have been slaughtered by a Carriers fighters which would have had more than enough time to sortie them against the Yak's of that era. They had a couple of Anti ship missiles not enough to threaten anything really that had AA defenses.

    The Kiev was built to protect the subs and act has air cover.


    Yes you are right the Kiev had no real way to ensure landing the Yak's could not properly act has bombers and the Kiev had no Land attack ability to speak of, it's just was to cover the ships that would ensure the landing in that situation.

    Multi-role vessel does not mean strapping everything under the sun onto ONE SHIP. You are blind, I am talking in facts and I am trying to be nice and educate you, that the design you propose will not work, again you CANNOT strap everything onto one hull and expect it to work well they would have to make the helio carriers hull MASSIVe to accommodate for all of that we are talking well excess of 80k tons and then nevermind all the mechanical issues it would suffer.

    The Gorsh frigate is considered Multi-role for them THAT is a multi-role ship, one that can attack land, sea, air, subs and other ships.





    avatar
    Peŕrier

    Posts : 281
    Points : 279
    Join date : 2017-10-15

    Talking bollocks thread #2 - Page 5 Empty Re: Talking bollocks thread #2

    Post  Peŕrier on Sun Mar 11, 2018 1:51 pm

    Big_Gazza wrote:
    Isos wrote:New borei should be better suited for such role. We saw with Nakhimov that upgrading big ships cost as much as new ones so better go with a borei as it is already build and the design proved to be very good.

    Except that Nahkimov had been laid up for ~15 years. whereas the Delta III/Kalmar are still in active service.  The question really is whether the Kalmar hull, reactor & machinery have sufficient useful life to make it a worthwhile exercise.  Logic suggests not, and that the Delta-IV/Delfin will be a better option when they start to be retired.

    A Borei would be better, but it's all about extracting useful services from existing hulls and saving money for other worthy pursuits.

    Delta IIIs are almost definitely out of any chance to be converted to the SSGNs role.

    Yasen are purpose built SSGNs, there is no rationale converting old, relatively noisy and with little to no life spared in the hulls like the Deltas to such a role.

    A single Delta IV, as a bench test, could be converted when and if being phased out there shall still life left in the hull.

    Most definitely, if a requirement exist, the first two or three Borey could within a decade being candidates to such a conversion when first 955 B will start entering service.

    That assuming SSBNs total numbers won't need to be increased by then.
    Isos
    Isos

    Posts : 3748
    Points : 3736
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Talking bollocks thread #2 - Page 5 Empty Re: Talking bollocks thread #2

    Post  Isos on Sun Mar 11, 2018 2:03 pm

    Yasen are purpose built SSGNs, there is no rationale converting old, relatively noisy and with little to no life spared in the hulls like the Deltas to such a role.

    How you call them doesn't matter. A SSGN made on the basis of a SSBN will be able to have hundreds of missile and will cost far less than a Yasen.

    Yasen even if it has VLS is an expensive sub designed to hunt nato subs and carriers. You can't send them full of land attack cruise missiles. They need to be always armed with antiship missiles and torpedos.

    Oscar on the other hand are SSGN designed to attack carriers with salvos of missiles. Again they are designed for anti ship role.

    SSGN made from a SSBN would be something new in russian navy and they would be used as arsenal ship to destroy a lot of targets in one massive lunch of missile ans get the fuck out of the area where they are. Having 1 in each fleet with 200 kalibr would be already amazing and a game changer against any country with fixed land targets.
    avatar
    Peŕrier

    Posts : 281
    Points : 279
    Join date : 2017-10-15

    Talking bollocks thread #2 - Page 5 Empty Re: Talking bollocks thread #2

    Post  Peŕrier on Sun Mar 11, 2018 2:22 pm

    And when such SSBN will have less than a decade left of life in its hull, and would be helplessly outdated, it will be a waste of time and money.

    A singke Delta IV could act as a testbed ans proof of concept, but Delta IIIs are already obsolete and will become trash within few years.

    The whole of Delta IVs won't be far better than the IIIs: it would be good to pick one to experiment with it, but such a conversion needs modern hulls, modern equipment, a long lasting logistic support.

    As soo Deltas, all of them, will stop serving as SSBNs, their logistic support chain will disappear in a hurry.

    Cannibalizing hulls, it would be possible to get one operational a little longer as an experimental unit, but even that won't last as much as a permanent conversion would require.
    Isos
    Isos

    Posts : 3748
    Points : 3736
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Talking bollocks thread #2 - Page 5 Empty Re: Talking bollocks thread #2

    Post  Isos on Sun Mar 11, 2018 2:29 pm

    Peŕrier wrote:And when such SSBN will have less than a decade left of life in its hull, and would be helplessly outdated, it will be a waste of time and money.

    A singke Delta IV could act as a testbed ans proof of concept, but Delta IIIs  are already obsolete and will become trash within few years.

    The whole of Delta IVs won't be far better than the IIIs: it would be good to pick one to experiment with it, but such a conversion needs modern hulls, modern equipment, a long lasting logistic support.

    As soo  Deltas, all of them, will stop serving as SSBNs, their logistic support chain will disappear in a hurry.

    Cannibalizing hulls, it would be possible to get one operational a little longer as an experimental unit, but even that won't last as  much as a permanent conversion would require.

    That's what I said. If they want to do that they should build a new Borei.
    avatar
    Peŕrier

    Posts : 281
    Points : 279
    Join date : 2017-10-15

    Talking bollocks thread #2 - Page 5 Empty Re: Talking bollocks thread #2

    Post  Peŕrier on Sun Mar 11, 2018 2:40 pm

    No, unless SSGNs become more relevant than SSBNs as strategic deterrence.

    If that won't the case, the best and most modern resources will be earmarked for the SSBNs fleet, and if budget allows it, the first 955 hulls being built to a transitional standard could be good candidates to be converted, being replaced by new built and more modern 955 B in the SSBNs fleet.
    PapaDragon
    PapaDragon

    Posts : 8235
    Points : 8319
    Join date : 2015-04-26
    Location : Fort Evil, Serbia

    Talking bollocks thread #2 - Page 5 Empty Re: Talking bollocks thread #2

    Post  PapaDragon on Sun Mar 11, 2018 2:47 pm

    Isos wrote:......
    SSGN made from a SSBN would be something new in russian navy and they would be used as arsenal ship to destroy a lot of targets in one massive lunch of missile ans get the fuck out of the area where they are. Having 1 in each fleet with 200 kalibr would be already amazing and a game changer against any country with fixed land targets.

    This is precisely what I'm saying

    Those subs don't need to be quiet because they will be tailing surface ships and act as giant missile storage rack

    And hulls are fine, navy chief said as much, only reason for decommission them is noise, that's it

    But noise is not problem for arsenal ships

    Also, without nuclear missiles and with simplified role these subs would be able to operate with fraction of the usual crew, and with reduced weight (no SLBMs) machinery would probably be dealing with reduced workload as well
    Isos
    Isos

    Posts : 3748
    Points : 3736
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Talking bollocks thread #2 - Page 5 Empty Re: Talking bollocks thread #2

    Post  Isos on Sun Mar 11, 2018 2:51 pm

    Peŕrier wrote:No, unless SSGNs become more relevant than SSBNs as strategic deterrence.

    If that won't the case, the best and most modern resources will be earmarked for the SSBNs fleet, and if budget allows it, the first 955 hulls being built to a transitional standard could be good candidates to be converted, being replaced by new built and more modern 955 B in the SSBNs fleet.

    I think you should go check the news about russian navy. VLS put everywhere that are able to lunch kalibr/oniks/zirkon are the new strategy of russian navy. SSBN are good for deterence but SSGN are really used in conflicts. They are not meant to replace SSBN.

    If it is your argument for non exploiting this type of ships why should they then order tanks, guns, frigates if they have ballistic missiles and ssbn ??

    The need to attack some US bases in the golf could be needed tmr without going full nuclear. They are not operating subs to fight ISIS.
    Isos
    Isos

    Posts : 3748
    Points : 3736
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Talking bollocks thread #2 - Page 5 Empty Re: Talking bollocks thread #2

    Post  Isos on Sun Mar 11, 2018 2:54 pm

    PapaDragon wrote:
    Isos wrote:......
    SSGN made from a SSBN would be something new in russian navy and they would be used as arsenal ship to destroy a lot of targets in one massive lunch of missile ans get the fuck out of the area where they are. Having 1 in each fleet with 200 kalibr would be already amazing and a game changer against any country with fixed land targets.

    This is precisely what I'm saying

    Those subs don't need to be quiet because they will be tailing surface ships and act as giant missile storage rack

    And hulls are fine, navy chief said as much, only reason for decommission them is noise, that's it

    But noise is not problem for arsenal ships

    Also, without nuclear missiles and with simplified role these subs would be able to operate with fraction of the usual crew, and with reduced weight (no SLBMs) machinery would probably be dealing with reduced workload as well

    Noise is a problem if you want to send them attack land targets because limited range of cruise missile will mean you need to send them near the shores alone.

    If you want an arsenal ship in a task force better go with a big container ship with lot of uksk. Far more cheaper and easier to operate.
    avatar
    Peŕrier

    Posts : 281
    Points : 279
    Join date : 2017-10-15

    Talking bollocks thread #2 - Page 5 Empty Re: Talking bollocks thread #2

    Post  Peŕrier on Sun Mar 11, 2018 2:55 pm

    Until now, nobody in the world, and in History, has ever favoured SSGNs over SSBNs.

    Nobody never.

    I would put my money on forst Boreys being, if ever it would be the case, coverted to a SSGN role only because being replaced by more modern and updated Borey B in the SSBN role.

    Period.
    PapaDragon
    PapaDragon

    Posts : 8235
    Points : 8319
    Join date : 2015-04-26
    Location : Fort Evil, Serbia

    Talking bollocks thread #2 - Page 5 Empty Re: Talking bollocks thread #2

    Post  PapaDragon on Sun Mar 11, 2018 3:05 pm

    Isos wrote:....
    Noise is a problem if you want to send them attack land targets because limited range of cruise missile will mean you need to send them near the shores alone.

    If you want an arsenal ship in a task force better go with a big container ship with lot of uksk. Far more cheaper and easier to operate.

    Noise would not be a problem because they would be sticking close to surface vessels, they would never operate alone, that's a job for SSGNs

    And I am definitely talk about useing them as arsenal ship, unlike new ships these submarines are already built and readily available



    Peŕrier wrote:Until now, nobody in the world, and in History, has ever favoured SSGNs over SSBNs.
    Nobody never.
    I would put my money on forst Boreys being, if ever it would be the case, coverted to a SSGN role only because being replaced by more modern and updated Borey B in the SSBN role.

    Period.

    And nobody here is talking​ about converting them into SSGNs

    I am taking about using them as arsenal ships, big difference
    avatar
    Peŕrier

    Posts : 281
    Points : 279
    Join date : 2017-10-15

    Talking bollocks thread #2 - Page 5 Empty Re: Talking bollocks thread #2

    Post  Peŕrier on Sun Mar 11, 2018 3:56 pm

    There is no "arsenal ship". Particularly a submergible one.

    If somebody needs a nuclear powered sub to deliver tens of cruise missiles, it is because operating into a not accessible environment.

    Otherwise it would be enough and cheaper to send surface ships only. It won't take rocket science to fill some hull with tens of VLS when there is no opposing force expected.

    If deploying subs is required, it is because at least theoretically the opposing force could retaliate or even defy surface ships, and that usually means even the subs should stay as quiet as possible.

    There is no place for old decrepite subs that got far past over their time.

    Not to mention the absurd costs to keep operating nuclear subs designed half a century before, to outdated standards and with equipment mostly no longer sericeable by the industry because discontinued.

    The US converted four Ohio, they never conceived to pick up some rusty Benjam Franklin.

    It has simply no rationale , no operational usefulness/advantage, no economic basis keeping old crap in service to perform roles it was not even designed to do.
    Isos
    Isos

    Posts : 3748
    Points : 3736
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Talking bollocks thread #2 - Page 5 Empty Re: Talking bollocks thread #2

    Post  Isos on Sun Mar 11, 2018 5:15 pm

    And nobody here is talking​ about converting them into SSGNs

    I am taking about using them as arsenal ships, big difference

    What is the difference ? If I had a sub with 200 kalibr I would like it to be stealth to be able to lunch massive attack by its own. Not to send with it an armada that will be detected far away.m an attacked before the sub is in range to attack.

    Until now, nobody in the world, and in History, has ever favoured SSGNs over SSBNs.

    Nobody never.

    I would put my money on forst Boreys being, if ever it would be the case, coverted to a SSGN role only because being replaced by more modern and updated Borey B in the SSBN role.

    No one said it will be ssgn instead of ssbn. Borei will be build and they already have enough of them with the deltas. A delta under the ice is undetectable. And most of their missilles are in range of all nato countroes from their homeport.

    The particularity of the borei is that it is cheaper than SSN. Without all the statr of art tools inside it is even cheaper. Because 1 ssgn needs only VLS, good communication systems and some torpedos for self defence. You won't hunt virginias with it. Just send it undetected from an enemy country.
    avatar
    Peŕrier

    Posts : 281
    Points : 279
    Join date : 2017-10-15

    Talking bollocks thread #2 - Page 5 Empty Re: Talking bollocks thread #2

    Post  Peŕrier on Sun Mar 11, 2018 8:19 pm

    If you modify a SSBN into a SSGN, it will become a SSGN, period.

    But the point is not about the single hull, it is related to the connected costs.

    Keeping operational an old nuclear boat has costs close or even larger than those of a new boat.

    Does it offer any advantage to spend money to modify and operate an old SSBN into a SSGN, over either build a brand new SSGN or a SSBN, depending what is more needed between the two types?

    99% of times, the answer is quite easy and straightforward: no.
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 21728
    Points : 22274
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Talking bollocks thread #2 - Page 5 Empty Re: Talking bollocks thread #2

    Post  GarryB on Tue Mar 13, 2018 11:37 am

    Sure they wanted the Mistral but the mistral's did not have Anti ship, Anti-air or Anti- sub missiles and it could only launch choppers because at this time Russian does not have a functional VTOL to put on it.

    They didn't design the Mistral... if they did it would have had a UKSK launcher and probably much more substantial anti air/sub/ship capabilities. (note UKSK launchers allow land attack, anti ship, and anti sub options in one launcher).

    It was a helicopter carrier and was never intended for STOVL use... at 20,000 tons it was never intended as a fixed wing aircraft carrier.

    And again not really multi-role, they could not really kill surface ships, they could not use their aircraft offensively well, the best thing the Kiev could do was have the planes pot shot at the Carrier group. The Kiev's planes had no airbrone radar they would have been slaughtered by a Carriers fighters which would have had more than enough time to sortie them against the Yak's of that era. They had a couple of Anti ship missiles not enough to threaten anything really that had AA defenses.

    The last Kiev class ship had 16 Supersonic Shipwreck anti ship missiles which would have seriously challenged the defences of any 1970s carrier group.

    I mean in 1982 exocet was sinking british ships armed with seawolf and sea dart... on paper both of those were able to defeat subsonic anti ship missiles... when an American AEGIS class cruiser shot down a civilian airliner from Iranian waters it took them 90 seconds to launch their STANDARD SAM because of a fault... if it had been a real aggressor... just one... they would have been in serious trouble.

    The Kiev was built to protect the subs and act has air cover.

    Same as the Kuznetsov and the new CVN they are talking about.

    Mistral is a landing vessel for humanitarian disaster relief and also landing operations... it would operate with a fixed wing carrier supporting it like the Kuznetsov.

    Multi-role vessel does not mean strapping everything under the sun onto ONE SHIP. You are blind, I am talking in facts and I am trying to be nice and educate you, that the design you propose will not work, again you CANNOT strap everything onto one hull and expect it to work well they would have to make the helio carriers hull MASSIVe to accommodate for all of that we are talking well excess of 80k tons and then nevermind all the mechanical issues it would suffer.

    Perhaps you should listen more and preach less then.

    I am not suggesting making the Mistral a super multirole do everything... I am suggesting that a Mistral class vessel has lots of sensors and helicopters and is a command centre but could also perform humanitarian missions with its 200 bed hospital and its transport helos and land vehicles (trucks and the like) as well as the landing vessels to deliver said trucks and vehicles... it would be handy in island groups like Indonesia or Fiji or coastal africa, asia, or central or south america.

    A converted Delta class SSBN with 150 tubes of cruise missiles and another Delta class SSBN with 150 tubes for large SAMs able to carry quad or larger loads of smaller missiles in each tube, could operate with that helicopter carrier... the helicopter carrier provides the sensors and command and communications role, while the two subs provide the fire power for both attack and defence... for hundreds of anti aircraft missiles and hundreds of land attack cruise missiles or anti ship missiles or anti sub missiles...


    The Gorsh frigate is considered Multi-role for them THAT is a multi-role ship, one that can attack land, sea, air, subs and other ships.

    It is merely the presence of UKSK launchers and medium and long range SAM launch tubes that makes it so... the combination of sonar on the subs and radar on the Mistral means all it needs is to remove those SLBMs and replace them with UKSK and SAMs to get something multirole and mobile.

    Yasen are purpose built SSGNs, there is no rationale converting old, relatively noisy and with little to no life spared in the hulls like the Deltas to such a role.

    The Delta IVs are hardly old boats... and who cares if they are noisy... in land attack mode you could launch 150 x 5,500km range land attack cruise missiles from the south atlantic at Europe or the US... or from the south pacific with 150 x nuclear powered unlimited range cruise missiles...

    A single Delta IV, as a bench test, could be converted when and if being phased out there shall still life left in the hull.

    Why just a single hull?

    This is a new thing... but it does not need an expensive new super quiet sub to base it around... hell you could probably do it to a Sierra sub or an Oscar if you wanted.


    That assuming SSBNs total numbers won't need to be increased by then.

    8 x SSBNs are plenty... they wont need any more for a while unless they want to massively increase their warhead numbers.

    The new start treaty doesn't last forever and so when it has expired they can have as many warheads as they want... I suspect they will expand their arsenal, but only to try to force the US to include all nuclear armed powers in the limitations agreement.

    And when such SSBN will have less than a decade left of life in its hull, and would be helplessly outdated, it will be a waste of time and money.

    The alteration costs will be minimal... it will be useless as an SSBN, but perfectly adequate for an SSGN with the mission of land attack.

    Soviet and Russian SSGNs in the past were purely anti carrier, and nothing else... by having a few arsenal ships they can retain that anti ship focus... perhaps with a couple of land attack missiles just for shits and giggles.

    The whole of Delta IVs won't be far better than the IIIs: it would be good to pick one to experiment with it, but such a conversion needs modern hulls, modern equipment, a long lasting logistic support.

    What are you talking about?

    All they need is lots of room... check
    Lots of endurance... check
    the ability to sail off to far away places and lurk for long periods... check
    communications systems to receive orders for launch at a moments notice... check

    The vertical launch tubes are sealed and would not need maintainence or attention during the voyage so they would need less crew than an SLBM.

    It would be a case of "go to this area" and Lurk for 2 months and then go here and lurk for another 2 months and then go here for 2 more months and then come home and change the crew...

    For the west it will be a nightmare trying to keep tabs on where they are at any given time and keeping forces that can track them tracking them all the time... most western anti sub forces are not all nuclear powered so they can't continuously follow something for 6 months without break into the southern oceans... it will cost the west a fortune in new anti sub vessels and monitoring... ironically for Russia the western arsenal ships/subs just means they have to keep more of a look out for low flying subsonic cruise missiles in larger bunches... they don't need to care about the southern oceans because SLCMs couldn't reach them from there... the new nuclear powered cruise missiles the Russians now have can...

    As soo Deltas, all of them, will stop serving as SSBNs, their logistic support chain will disappear in a hurry.

    Cannibalizing hulls, it would be possible to get one operational a little longer as an experimental unit, but even that won't last as much as a permanent conversion would require.

    Except that is wrong... the Delta IIIs are not gone... they have one that was adapted into a mother ship for small submarines.

    Delta IVs could remain operational for decades to come... they would not be that effective as SSBNs but in the arsenal role they are not being used as SSBNs.

    You could argue that if the Delta IV is too old and crappy for continued use then the Ohio class are worse... and of course they are not.

    And hulls are fine, navy chief said as much, only reason for decommission them is noise, that's it

    More specifically their noise makes them no use as SSBNs... as arsenal ships they are fine as you point out in your next comment. Smile

    Noise is a problem if you want to send them attack land targets because limited range of cruise missile will mean you need to send them near the shores alone.

    their longest range conventional cruise missile is the Kh-101/102 series with a 5,500km range, which should be plenty... draw a 5,500km radius around the target and most of the time there is either plenty of sea to hide in, or a country between the target and the sea which would be even better... as long as that country doesn't notice your missile.


    If you want an arsenal ship in a task force better go with a big container ship with lot of uksk. Far more cheaper and easier to operate.

    Sort of gives away the fact that you are about to launch lots of missiles... and probably not that much cheaper because who will let you refuel in their port... certainly not any EU or NATO port because obviously you are killing freedom fighters with those missiles...

    Until now, nobody in the world, and in History, has ever favoured SSGNs over SSBNs.

    Nobody never.

    Russia never had precision land attack capability before from a naval missile that was not nuclear armed...

    Now that they do are they going to change all their SSGNs from the anti carrier role to the land attack role?

    And most of the SSGNs only have 32 launch tubes... not bad if they are armed with mach 8 Zircon anti ship missiles, but not great if the targets are all over the place in some African country... corvettes in Syria launched groups of up to 26 missiles at once... if that was a SSGN it would have to head home to reload after that one attack...

    The conflict in Syria has shown Russia what a useful weapon a land attack cruise missile is, but it also shows it in some cases it will need quite a lot concentrated in one place to be useful... as more ships and subs enter service and all of them have UKSK tubes the problem will become less, but there will always be use for an arsenal ship to support attacks in a conflict especially a long way from Russia.

    If they are already built in the form of an SSBN all the better because such vessels are already designed for long period missions and with reduced crew they will probably eat better too.

    SSBNs no good as SSBNs anymore can be arsenal ships in peace time and in times of tension they can be loaded up with unlimited range revenge cruise missiles to greatly complicate the problems the west has... it is funny... NATO has closed in on Russias borders and Russia is half encircled, but an arsenal sub or 4 in the south pacific or south atlantic or indian ocean threatens the under belly of the west... US and Europe... and not in an expensive way either...

    I would put my money on forst Boreys being, if ever it would be the case, coverted to a SSGN role only because being replaced by more modern and updated Borey B in the SSBN role.

    They already have SSGNs... what they need are arsenal subs... which is not the same thing... arsenal ships are primarily loaded with land attack cruise missiles, not anti carrier missiles.

    The SSGNs will be largely equipped with anti ship and anti sub missiles... with 72 missiles an upgraded oscar might have a couple of land attack missiles, but most will be anti carrier Zircons.

    The US converted four Ohio, they never conceived to pick up some rusty Benjam Franklin.

    Seems you don't know much about subs... Delta IVs are from the same period as Ohios... the Delta IVs built from 1981 to 1992... the Ohios... the first boat finished testing in october 1981...

    If you modify a SSBN into a SSGN, it will become a SSGN, period.

    Not in Russian service, because in Russian service an SSGN hunts US carrier groups and NATO surface action groups with or without carrier support.

    A modified Russian SSBN fitted and loaded with land attack cruise missiles would be designated an SSGN but would be used for rather different missions with different weapon loadouts as mentioned above.

    Keeping operational an old nuclear boat has costs close or even larger than those of a new boat.

    Bullshit... if that were true how can they possibly afford to keep one Akula Class (Typhoon) for testing SLBMs, plus several Delta III, plus about 6 Delta IVs in service right now in addition to the Boreis as they enter service?

    SSBNs are designed to operate for very long periods but improvements in technology mean they have to be replaced because the ability to hear them improves faster than the ability to upgrade them to make them quieter and eventually you have to start again with a new quieter design... hense version 4 of the Delta needs to be replaced by Borei number one and soon two.

    That does not apply if you have a use for them that values their large size and long operational deployment design and does not care about a little extra noise... they could run around the planet at 20 knots making all sorts of noise for 6 months... what western ASW group could manage to keep up with that?

    When it is needed... where ever... it will get a coded signal and then slow down and manouver to the place it needs to be and perform its mission... who knows where...

    Does it offer any advantage to spend money to modify and operate an old SSBN into a SSGN, over either build a brand new SSGN or a SSBN, depending what is more needed between the two types?

    99% of times, the answer is quite easy and straightforward: no.

    A new SSBN is more use as an SSBN than as an Arsenal sub... and modern SSGNs don't really have the capacity to carry enough missiles to be really considered an arsenal sub... the only exception would be the Oscar and Oscar II classes... 72 missiles is a useful amount, but the deltas could carry rather more... ironically the oscars entered service in the early 1980s so your argument that the Delta IVs are too old should apply to the Oscars too I guess.
    SeigSoloyvov
    SeigSoloyvov

    Posts : 1475
    Points : 1467
    Join date : 2016-04-08

    Talking bollocks thread #2 - Page 5 Empty Re: Talking bollocks thread #2

    Post  SeigSoloyvov on Tue Mar 13, 2018 7:00 pm

    Oh Garry you and that nasty habit of putting words in peoples mouth trying to make yourself seem right by doing it.

    Did I say russia designed the Mistral? I said no such thing All I said was it didn't have certain weapons when you brought it up.

    16 missiles no it had 12 you don't even know the specs but you are arguing with me priceless, Soviet missiles of that era were also inaccurate really. They relied upon Salvo's from many ships to penetrate an AC Group and hit, 12 missiles alone would have done jack shit.

    you can pretend soviet Anti-ship missiles had the precision of lasers but they didn't back then no country US and Russia included had a missile that had a high hit rate.

    When you fired them you expected.

    1. Some will miss.
    2. Some will be intercepted.
    3. Some will manage to penetrate the AA defenses of the group and strike their target.

    Stop smoking would ya man,

    The kuz more built to be a proper AC the planes were made especially so it could carry out carrier ops albeit limited. Yes it's main job was to protect surface groups with it's aircraft but if needed it would perform in a strike situation.

    the kuz was also meant to serve as a stop gap until they finished their first true carrier.


    "I am not suggesting making the Mistral a super multirole do everything... I am suggesting that a Mistral class vessel has lots of sensors and helicopters and is a command centre but could also perform humanitarian missions with its 200 bed hospital and its transport helos and land vehicles (trucks and the like) as well as the landing vessels to deliver said trucks and vehicles... it would be handy in island groups like Indonesia or Fiji or coastal africa, asia, or central or south america."

    You do realize....that's what the French built them for right? wut......? that is literally the entire point of those ships and that's not what you said do not like. You stated Russia should buil da mistral with all those weapons but hey that's okay pretend you didn't.


    avatar
    Peŕrier

    Posts : 281
    Points : 279
    Join date : 2017-10-15

    Talking bollocks thread #2 - Page 5 Empty Re: Talking bollocks thread #2

    Post  Peŕrier on Tue Mar 13, 2018 8:06 pm

    Delta IV are the last iteration of a project born in the 60ies, I would not compare it to the Ohio.

    Just like a Grigorovich could not actually be compared to a Gorshkov.

    And if are sending a SSGN loaded with over 100 cruise missiles, maybe even nuclear tipped, to target USA and Europe, you will be better being very very quiet.

    Are you aware that the NATO's SSN fleet is made of over 50 US SSN, 7 UK SSN and 6 french SSN?

    Even commiting only 50% of those to counter russian SSBNs and SSGNs, it would make 2 SSNs chasing any single russian SSBN or SSGN.

    For the very same reason, I doubt Russia will stop to 8 SSBNs, it will be better and safer to have some additional boomer on patrol, even with single nuclear warhead missiles, for the sake of resiliency against enemy's hunt for them.

    A Delta IV is today barely enough as a SSBN, in a decade it will become useless, and there is no point to further SLEP a small fleet of Delta IVs to convert them in SSGNs.

    The youngest Delta IV is already 28 years old, in a decade it would be useful at most as an experimental boat, nothing more.

    Sponsored content

    Talking bollocks thread #2 - Page 5 Empty Re: Talking bollocks thread #2

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Mon Sep 16, 2019 1:57 pm