Project 1164 Atlant: Slava Class cruiser

Mir wrote:

marat wrote:
Is it so hard to admit that this is a disaster and that all excuses are just plain bullshit?

Yes totally! Even a hard core Russian supporter like me thinks this is a disaster. FFS this is the flagship of the BSF!

You seemed to have missed this part above but anyway thousands of Americans have died in the countless wars since WWII (100 000+ and counting).  All the three wars the Soviets and Russian were involved in since WWII pales in comparison. However you yankees sure do know how to slaughter civilians! Literally millions have suffered this fate.

This is probably the first thing in which you are right, the USA did lose more soldiers in wars after WW2 than the USSR/Russia, but also they had so many more wars and successes in them.
But this could be changed very soon with this war in Ukraine, we know that Russia suffered thousands of Kia so far. About 500 KIA in the first week alone. And it is unclear if that number included MIA. And even in this category, Russia is "better" in the last 50 years, as if you exclude Vietnam and Korea, Russia had 15K in Afghanistan, more than 10K Kia in Chechenia and USA lost far less in the same period.
But "land wars" have nothing to do with Slava class so I will stop here.

mnztr wrote:

marat wrote:

mnztr wrote:

limb wrote:

mnztr wrote:

limb wrote:

mnztr wrote:It was 90 km off the coast of Odessa, for land based missiles this is essentially point blank range. Yes the Ukrainians are getting all kinds of intel from the US. But at 90 km this is well within the capabilities of the Ukrainians with their Neptune missile. I guess the Russians were asleep at the switch and felt they were invulnerable when not in sight of land.

Don't all Russian warships have shifts, with their sensors on?

It says the weather was stormy. Detecting a sea skimming missile has never been easy and never will be.. especially in high sea states.

Then what hope does the Russian navy have against NATO missiles?

Honestly I have been skeptical that any surface ship can survive an attack from multiple anti-ship missiles.  In the history of ashm's surface ships have not done great against them.

Not true. Izrael did a great job against Syrian and Egipt ASM, USA managed to defend their ships against Harpoon fired from Iran ships, Brits used EC measures successfully in one attack on their Carrier by Argentinian Exocet (same missiles that were lurked away from the carrier, then hit and sunk Atlantic Conveyor).

The cases above were single uses by Silkworm missiles in calm seas. Chaff and ECM is useful for sure, but modern missile have IR cameras as well for terminal guidance.  Exocet is ancient and the Argies only had 6 of them. How is anyone gonna deal with 30 KH-32s inbound?

I didn't even mention Silkworm missiles, if you referring to the Izrael Arab war, Izrael defended successfully against Soviet-made SSN2 ASM launched in volleys. Do you know anything about naval operations in 1973? If you don't my recommendation is that you explore naval operations in that war with some good books, unfortunately, i can give you a recommendation only on some Yugoslav books.


I do not understand your point, you have claimed that ships were not successful in defending against ASM, i posted that that is not true and i gave examples for several wars or situations in which ships ( of competent navies) defended themself against ASM.
Now you post that new missiles are better??? Of course, they are, but antimissile defense and ECM are also better, at least in some competent navies of course.

Is there any news on attempts to raise the Moskva?

Also what will they replace it with?

The-thing-next-door wrote:Is there any news on attempts to raise the Moskva?

Also what will they replace it with?

Hopefully yes. There is a non finished slava in Nikolaiev shipyard that could be taken if they take the city.

Then bring it to Crimea and start modernizing it asap.

George1 wrote:

too old hull. No interest to modernize it. My opinion is that they should proceed with  Project 23560 Lider

That would be the best option yes, but I doubt they have the necessary components for the Lider class yet.

I would also imagine that raising the Moskva for use as a museum ship would boost morale.

Isos wrote:

The-thing-next-door wrote:Is there any news on attempts to raise the Moskva?

Also what will they replace it with?

Hopefully yes. There is a non finished slava in Nikolaiev shipyard that could be taken if they take the city.

Then bring it to Crimea and start modernizing it asap.

I don't think that any new Slava will be put in operation ever again.

They need new ships not old ones.

Big ships are becoming useless. Big frigates is what they need. New classes of cruiser shouldn't be started. Gorshkov and super gorshkov is enough.

The slava hull in nikolaiev should be ok and they can put just new stuff on it with new mast and new RAM coating.

Advantage of big ship in the past was the use of bigger weapons. But now they all use the same weapons so it's better to have two normal frigate than one huge destroyer that can be destroyed the same way as those frigates because it uses the same weapons.

Isos wrote:Big ships are becoming useless. Big frigates is what they need. New classes of cruiser shouldn't be started. Gorshkov and super gorshkov is enough.

Bigger ships can fit more systems and it is more economical to operate 1 big ship than two small ones.

The-thing-next-door wrote:

Isos wrote:Big ships are becoming useless. Big frigates is what they need. New classes of cruiser shouldn't be started. Gorshkov and super gorshkov is enough.

Bigger ships can fit more systems and it is more economical to operate 1 big ship than two small ones.

But once you loose it you are left with no ship. Having two ships means having two ships, you can send them patrol on different zones covering more space and if you need the power of a cruiser, just send them togather.

I fucking hate the ridiculous cope going here. The loss of the Moskva is like the Americans losing a Ticonderoga to the Iranians or syrians. The Ukrainians had no navy. Period. They had afew subsonic missiles which forum goers we're assuring that Russian ships from the 70s were very well equipped to deal with, with all of the CIWS and short ranged SAMs.

I hope the Moskva was lost because of an accident or mine. It being hit by missiles would be a bigger embarrassment.

Btw because of this shitty anticommunist system Russia has, oligarchs can spend more money on yachts than the state navy can spend on procuring and maintaining ships.

Isos wrote:

The-thing-next-door wrote:

Isos wrote:Big ships are becoming useless. Big frigates is what they need. New classes of cruiser shouldn't be started. Gorshkov and super gorshkov is enough.

Bigger ships can fit more systems and it is more economical to operate 1 big ship than two small ones.

But once you loose it you are left with no ship. Having two ships means having two ships, you can send them patrol on different zones covering more space and if you need the power of a cruiser, just send them togather.

Then don't be a retard and don't lose it to a nonexistent navy.

Isos wrote:

Bigger ships can fit more systems and it is more economical to operate 1 big ship than two small ones.

But once you loose it you are left with no ship. Having two ships means having two ships, you can send them patrol on different zones covering more space and if you need the power of a cruiser, just send them togather. [/quote]

Yet neither ship can carry large radar arrays or power large EW systems. That and unless they are nuclear they will have worse endurance.

Modern radars don't need to be huge and what matter is the close proximity to defend against sea skiming missiles like seen with the Moskva.

Gorshkov radars are far better than Moskva's. Range isn't the only parameter.

Endurance is always a problem unless you have bases around the world. That means they just need more support ships.

Isos wrote:Modern radars don't need to be huge and what matter is the close proximity to defend against sea skiming missiles like seen with the Moskva.

Gorshkov radars are far better than Moskva's. Range isn't the only parameter.

Without range you cannot see the enemy, I would imagine that is an important characteristic.

Endurance is always a problem unless you have bases around the world. That means they just need more support ships.

Or instead of all of those bases and support ships draining your economy you could have nuclear cruisers.

Isos wrote:

marat wrote:

Isos wrote:You can't because no navy that was involved in a war used cruisers or destroyers.

Those who had them and used them got some hits.

Not true, US navy had intensively used them in many wars after the Falkland war.

Fighting broken countries or guerillas isn't relevent here...

In any war involving good capabilities and weaponery on both side there was losses.

hmm i thought that Ukraina is broken country? country 404?

You know Iraq actually had much better anti-ship assets than Ukraina, and Iran too, Iran used Harpoon against USN ships 40 years ago, but US navy managed to defend their ship.

At this point we don't know exactly how the Moskva was sunk so speculating on it, while interesting, isn't very useful.  

IMHO, Russia's problem isn't incompetence, it is that they are running a superpower military on a medium power budget. I admire this ability, but it does mean money is tight everywhere, with delayed and minimal production of Armadas, Kurganets, Boomerangs, SU-57's etc.  Spending on Russia's surface fleet seems to be at the bottom of the priority list, and rightfully so, with the army, air force, nuclear forces, air defense and submarines all more vital.

It's exactly systemic incompetence. An attitude of slacking off, lack of discipline, lack of alertness and risk prevention measures  and not giving a shit  in general.

The fact they the Moskva was alone, just 90km from missile launch sights, speaks to this.

marat wrote:

Isos wrote:

marat wrote:

Isos wrote:You can't because no navy that was involved in a war used cruisers or destroyers.

Those who had them and used them got some hits.

Not true, US navy had intensively used them in many wars after the Falkland war.

Fighting broken countries or guerillas isn't relevent here...

In any war involving good capabilities and weaponery on both side there was losses.

hmm i thought that Ukraina is broken country? country 404?

You know Iraq actually had much better anti-ship assets than Ukraina, and Iran too, Iran used Harpoon against USN ships 40 years ago, but US navy managed to defend their ship.

Another dumbass on this forum...

Ukraine is a shitty economy and coubtry but still had good soldiers and very good systems and is receiving intel from US.

US attacked Iraq first in 91 with a coalition of 50 countries and something like 3000 fighters and plenty of other planes. Then they attacked another time in 2004 that same broken iraq that suffered years of embargo.

Without range you cannot see the enemy, I would imagine that is an important characteristic.

Ever heard of radar horizon. 300km away you can see only planes flying above 10km or so in altitude. The further you go the higher that altitude is.

If you really want to see far away you need AWACS or OTH.

Gorshkov's radar has already a range of 300-400km which is the limit of usefulness. Slava's radar aren't seeing any further.

Isos wrote:You can't because no navy that was involved in a war used cruisers or destroyers.

Those who had them and used them got some hits.

Ehh what? The US has been using cruiser for every war since the 1940s.

But they never been so stupid that they actualy used them alone like coast guard ships in range of the enemies missiles.

walle83 wrote:

Isos wrote:You can't because no navy that was involved in a war used cruisers or destroyers.

Those who had them and used them got some hits.

Ehh what? The US has been using cruiser for every war since the 1940s.

But they never been so stupid that they actualy used them alone like coast guard ships in range of the enemies missiles.

And the only war they fought a real enemy was in 1940 and they lost lot of big destroyers and cruisers. Get real modern age war is deadly for everyone. Even groups like hezbollah and houtis have antiship missiles and long range cruise missiles. UK also experienced it the hard way in Malvinas.

In future wars Russia will supply any US enemy with ATGM and missiles like kh-35.m or pantsir/sosna-r. You will see many US losses just like Russia is taking losses in Ukraine.

Even worse, all the countries with decent indistry have project for local cruise missiles.

I just want to say that anyone blaming the sinking on the Moskva's technologies, sensors, design etc is insulting the memory of Soviet naval engineers who created some of the deadliest warships of their time for the protection of the USSR and Russia. It's also absolving blame from the pot bellied nepotistic monkeys which apparently are what the Russian naval command consists of.

marat wrote:

mnztr wrote:

marat wrote:

mnztr wrote:

limb wrote:

mnztr wrote:

limb wrote:

mnztr wrote:It was 90 km off the coast of Odessa, for land based missiles this is essentially point blank range. Yes the Ukrainians are getting all kinds of intel from the US. But at 90 km this is well within the capabilities of the Ukrainians with their Neptune missile. I guess the Russians were asleep at the switch and felt they were invulnerable when not in sight of land.

Don't all Russian warships have shifts, with their sensors on?

It says the weather was stormy. Detecting a sea skimming missile has never been easy and never will be.. especially in high sea states.

Then what hope does the Russian navy have against NATO missiles?

Honestly I have been skeptical that any surface ship can survive an attack from multiple anti-ship missiles.  In the history of ashm's surface ships have not done great against them.

Not true. Izrael did a great job against Syrian and Egipt ASM, USA managed to defend their ships against Harpoon fired from Iran ships, Brits used EC measures successfully in one attack on their Carrier by Argentinian Exocet (same missiles that were lurked away from the carrier, then hit and sunk Atlantic Conveyor).

The cases above were single uses by Silkworm missiles in calm seas. Chaff and ECM is useful for sure, but modern missile have IR cameras as well for terminal guidance.  Exocet is ancient and the Argies only had 6 of them. How is anyone gonna deal with 30 KH-32s inbound?

I didn't even mention Silkworm missiles, if you referring to the Izrael Arab war, Izrael defended successfully against Soviet-made SSN2 ASM launched in volleys. Do you know anything about naval operations in 1973? If you don't my recommendation is that you explore naval operations in that war with some good books, unfortunately, i can give you a recommendation only on some Yugoslav books.


I do not understand your point, you have claimed that ships were not successful in defending against ASM, i posted that that is not true and i gave examples for several wars or situations in which ships ( of competent navies) defended themself against ASM.
Now you post that new missiles are better??? Of course, they are, but antimissile defense and ECM are also better, at least in some competent navies of course.

That was 5 years after they sank the Eilat, you think your adversary is not gonna be ready when you come for them. Most were decoyed by chaff, which will not work on multisensor seekers .And it sounds more like the Egyptians were firing them sequentially vs ripple firing them for saturation. Yes ECM can bee effective, as can anti-missile, which is why you need saturation or surprise. Shooting down a few subsonic missiles on a clear day should not be difficult with todays tech.

Isos wrote:

walle83 wrote:

Isos wrote:You can't because no navy that was involved in a war used cruisers or destroyers.

Those who had them and used them got some hits.

Ehh what? The US has been using cruiser for every war since the 1940s.

But they never been so stupid that they actualy used them alone like coast guard ships in range of the enemies missiles.

And the only war they fought a real enemy was in 1940 and they lost lot of big destroyers and cruisers. Get real modern age war is deadly for everyone. Even groups like hezbollah and houtis have antiship missiles and long range cruise missiles. UK also experienced it the hard way in Malvinas.

In future wars Russia will supply any US enemy with ATGM and missiles like kh-35.m or pantsir/sosna-r. You will see many US losses just like Russia is taking losses in Ukraine.

Even worse, all the countries with decent indistry have project for local cruise missiles.

Aha yeah sure. 
If the Slava cruiser now was hit by Ukraine missiles it shows how incomptent the Russian military is.
"Yes here we place the cruiser, 90km from shore with no back up. Yeah we now the enemy has missiles that can reach us but never mind, and hey lets not use any of our defence system to protect either."

Moskva's loss is an embarrassment. When the full story comes out it'll either mitigate the embarrassment somewhat or increase it exponentially. I'm hoping it was a mine or some sort of serious malfunction for prestige's sake. It is unadulterated cope to pretend the ship's age makes its loss any less of a travesty.

I will however make the flimsy excuse that in the intelligence sphere, the Ukrainians have it pretty good due to Western intel sharing. They would have known exactly where the ship was and the optimum time to hit it... If any credence can be put into their version of the story, that is.