Briz-class corvette

KiloGolf wrote:meanwhile the frigate and destroyer program's induction rates are running at turtle-fast pace

KiloGolf wrote:

miketheterrible wrote:Admiral grigorovich is actually within reason of 3 years. I don't know why they just don't build more of those.

Agreed.

If you ask me, they should have concentrated on them only. Just build them Grigorovich boats, for all major fleets, in big numbers. The Gorshkov seems too big and too complicated for Russia, they don't seem to be able to get the missiles right anyway.

kvs wrote:Engine testing should be done before the middle of 2018 with serial production to follow.   This is very plausible and
consistent with various statements.    So by the middle of 2018, the whole Ukrainian supply issue will be absolute
history.  

KomissarBojanchev wrote:With the fiasco the lack of Ukrainian components is causing, i'm wondering why doesn't russia simply invade Ukraine and partition it, or at least stage a counter color revolution. The western leaders are convinced Russia has invaded Ukraine, so whats the point not to? There won't be any worse repercussions.

Even if the disruption of the engine supply caused more damage to the Ukrainian economy, it hasn't helped destabilize the junta and with raw oppression, the galician scum aren't leaving kiev soon.

KomissarBojanchev wrote:With the fiasco the lack of Ukrainian components is causing, i'm wondering why doesn't russia simply invade Ukraine and partition it, or at least stage a counter color revolution. The western leaders are convinced Russia has invaded Ukraine, so whats the point not to? There won't be any worse repercussions.

Even if the disruption of the engine supply caused more damage to the Ukrainian economy, it hasn't helped destabilize the junta and with raw oppression, the galician scum aren't leaving kiev soon.

Also, what's this???
Trimaran Stealth Corvette?

miketheterrible wrote:

AlfaT8 wrote:

kvs wrote:Engine testing should be done before the middle of 2018 with serial production to follow.   This is very plausible and
consistent with various statements.    So by the middle of 2018, the whole Ukrainian supply issue will be absolute
history.  

I would honestly bet money that there will be further delays after that.

Then do it.

KiloGolf wrote:

Isos wrote:Against your carrier, kilo subs are enough.

Hypothetical.

Day 0. Regime change/Maidan in Venezuela. A USN task force comprising of one CV and two LPHs, plus half a dozen escorts (not of the Colombian type, rather ABs and Ticos) is sailing and operating just outside Venezuelan waters. Helos are flying off of them carriers supporting the regime change.

.........

T-47 wrote:

miketheterrible wrote:Newer models seem to be rather fine. Earlier models not so much, going by Franco said. Predominantly, things didn't start to fix in production of Yak-130 till around 2011, and that was before Ukraine debacle. Really, Yak-130 is great, except for fact that it now requires total import substitution for it. They should have expected this at least since it was obvious even then how West treated Russia then, and how problematic Ukraine was then too (2004 should have been a wake up call for many in Russia, but I guess they needed a rehash 10 years later to get that cold water in the face).

Wrong thread mikey

Isos wrote:They don't want too many corvettes. They are also keeping money for bigger ships and for upgrading facilities .. new port in black sea, upgrading tartous, upgrading shipyards ... It doesn t matter that they are cheap corvettes, if you buy lot of them it will cost lot.

Most of US fanboys think that the theorical calculs they do with the anti air capabilities of the aegis will work aagainst true anti ship missiles ... the fact is that it won't. Remember when there were two missiles shot at them in Yemen ? Their anti air missiles failed and needed to use EW (or vis versa ?) While lunching 2 missiles at each subsonic target. Imagine now a more capable supetsonic missile that can home on jam and use evasive actions with chaffs ???  No matter if it is a corvettes or a destroyer who lunch the oniks, the missile is the same. And Russia hs enough assests to know where american ships are, at least near its homeland. They don't care about open ocean fights. They just need a navy capable of defending the borders for now and for the near future.

Against your carrier, kilo subs are enough. They can produce esily 4 of them in one year if they want. Once they destroy them your navy is done. You harpoons are easy targets for modern defences and jammers while russian missile will be hard target for your egis. And if the fight occurs near russia you will face sukhois armed with kh31/35 with EW equipement.

Its been more than 70 years that soviet and russian ships and subs follow your carriers and ships and know exactly what to do if they face them.

GarryB wrote:

which is still pathetic for a 500 ton ship.

Without context how can you possibly comment?

If they have a contract then there will be time stipulations and penalties.

There is no point in building a boat in 6 months if your shipyard then has to wait 2 and a half years for the next contract.

Also lets be serious.... this little boat can kill terrorist bases 2,500km away with land attack cruise missiles... which NATO boat can do the same?

If there is nothing in the west that can do the same except a destroyer or cruiser sized vessel then I would expect construction to take a little longer than comparable vessels in the west.

Russia has problems with shipbuilding and that is quite proven with all the delays and long ass build times they have. I do not need to argue this with you the Russian ship building industry has a whole proves this for me.

Give us a full list of all the ships the Russian Navy wants and is willing to fully fund and all the Russian Shipyards... their capacity and actual performance and their future schedule for the next 15 years.

Then we can discuss their performance to make new ships.

Can we also discuss how these new corvettes seem to have vastly better performance than most of NATOs Destroyers let alone their cruisers... how many non US cruisers are there in NATO? How many non US vessels in NATO can launch 2,500km range land attack cruise missiles?

"FULL DISPLACEMENT" do you KNOW what that means it means thats how much it weighs one all the supplies and everything else has been loaded INTO the ship.

Also I wasn't talking about those ships, Yantar plus Pelia are the only two capable shipyards in Russia all the others are shit. They delay after delay and they take so long to build something they shouldn't

Actually especially for smaller vessels the difference between normal and max weight is not usually that big... it is not like an aircraft where an aircraft wing pylon might have something very light like an AAM or something very heavy like a large fuel tank... the UKSK launch tubes would be loaded in normal weight, as would all the other missile tubes and the contents of those missile tubes doesn't change at all between operational weight and max weight.

My concern is what to do about critical operating spares for Gorshkov and Kasanatov? Clearly turbine spares cannot be purchased from Zorya-Mashproekt, but what about the rest of the drivetrain? What about electrical & instrumentation & control systems? Is the turbine control cabinet based on Ukropi-supply electronic components? Can spares be procured, or should Russia plan on a complete control system replacement? What about eventual replacement of the Ukropi turbine? Hopefully the major interfaces and overall form factors of the domestic machinery have been specified to be compatible and will allow for a relatively inexpensive changeout?

The Ukrainian components were not from Star Trek... they were mostly Soviet era materials and systems, so Russia should not have huge problems not just substituting these components but upgrading them to a much higher level with domestically produced parts.

It will certainly take time, but there is no hurry at the moment... Russia simply does not need a powerful navy.... having a powerful navy is something they can defer until their economy is running smoothly again and they can trade with most of the rest of the world as partners.

Not to mention that over a dozen of AB destroyers (or better cruisers) were inducted by the USN in the same time frame.

You mean ones that can't see cargo ships in the dark... yeah, they need lots of those.

With the fiasco the lack of Ukrainian components is causing, i'm wondering why doesn't russia simply invade Ukraine and partition it, or at least stage a counter color revolution. The western leaders are convinced Russia has invaded Ukraine, so whats the point not to? There won't be any worse repercussions.

Even if the disruption of the engine supply caused more damage to the Ukrainian economy, it hasn't helped destabilize the junta and with raw oppression, the galician scum aren't leaving kiev soon.

A better question to ask is why Russia needs to be producing ships like the US and China combined... WTF would they do with all these new ships?

Just because a few ass hats here are whining like little girls about the current production rate is no reason to do anything.

I am sure all those US cruisers are great for defending freedom around the world... they were certainly pivotal in separating the Serbs from Kosovo and did nothing to protect the Arabs from ISIS until the Russians started kicking arse in Syria.

the contribution of lots of ships to the US military budget is hard to justify, but i guess it will lead to the collapse a bit quicker.... so bring it on.

Trimaran Stealth Corvette?

Just using your eyes will tell you it is not a stealth anything.

The Russian navy has no shortage of ships, what it has is a shortage of brand new ships, but what it also has is a lack of a need for a huge number of new ships.

the support vessels are being built... which is priority number one. In the back ground other systems and upgrades are going into effect... and Saturn producing replacement engines and propulsion systems is just step one.... they also need to expand production to produce the new systems as well as all the stuff they were producing before.

I was coming to this forum to tell you all to behave but I pretty much think the verbal abuse is fully justified... though Mike please tone it down, however I can see why you are calling idiots idiots lowering yourself to their level just makes you look bad.

garry wrote:Also lets be serious.... this little boat can kill terrorist bases 2,500km away with land attack cruise missiles... which NATO boat can do the same?