

zg18 wrote:Okay, first ship of series Project 20836 "Derzkiy" (bold, daring - eng.) will be laid down on Oct. 28
AlfaT8 wrote:zg18 wrote:Okay, first ship of series Project 20836 "Derzkiy" (bold, daring - eng.) will be laid down on Oct. 28
What the hell, granted it looks good, but where's the Paket, Kashtan, are those UKSKs or Shtil vls and what's behind the AK-630s an APS??
AlfaT8 wrote:zg18 wrote:Okay, first ship of series Project 20836 "Derzkiy" (bold, daring - eng.) will be laid down on Oct. 28
.....
What the hell, granted it looks good, but where's the Paket, Kashtan, are those UKSKs or Shtil vls and what's behind the AK-630s an APS??
Project 20380 "corvettes" are well underestimated ships. I purposely say "corvettes", because they are in fact light frigates by its fire power, just called corvette for political reasons.SeigSoloyvov wrote:They don't even have the 20380 series done yet though is that really wise. (some would argue the 20380 are wastes of money doesn't it just require the redoubt missiles?)
SeigSoloyvov wrote:They don't even have the 20380 series done yet though is that really wise. (some would argue the 20380 are wastes of money doesn't it just require the redoubt missiles?)
Well more Light Frigates for the Russian Navy I guess.
zg18 wrote:Okay, first ship of series Project 20836 "Derzkiy" (bold, daring - eng.) will be laid down on Oct. 28
hoom wrote:Yes, the radars are the squares built into the corners of the superstructure a-la Burkes.
Presumably is the same set that's supposed to be going on 20385.
I'm in the 'but why?' crowd on this.
It doesn't seem to bring anything that 20380/20385 don't bring, has some quite odd design choices.
hoom wrote:Yes, the radars are the squares built into the corners of the superstructure a-la Burkes.
Presumably is the same set that's supposed to be going on 20385.
I'm in the 'but why?' crowd on this.
It doesn't seem to bring anything that 20380/20385 don't bring, has some quite odd design choices.
TheArmenian wrote:hoom wrote:Yes, the radars are the squares built into the corners of the superstructure a-la Burkes.
Presumably is the same set that's supposed to be going on 20385.
I'm in the 'but why?' crowd on this.
It doesn't seem to bring anything that 20380/20385 don't bring, has some quite odd design choices.
From the photos:
1. It has a lower radar signature (as Papadragon said)
2. It has better internal arrangements (as the dragon said as well)
3. It has everything that 20380 has plus Kalibr
4. It has better speed boat launching abilities (for special operations)
5. It has newer generation radar and other electronics
6. It is probably easier to build
7. It looks less top heavy (with helicopter and other heavy stuff like torpedoes moved lower), hence better seaworthiness
GunshipDemocracy wrote:...............
1) but no 8xKh35 and 8 Kalibrs? or I am wrong?
GunshipDemocracy wrote:2) why but why again 100mm if Russia already is using 76mm and 57mm on light ships?
GunshipDemocracy wrote:3) so no navalized Pantsir foreseen?
TheArmenian wrote:Look carefully. Project 20386 has:
.Redut up-front (in front of gun)
.Kh-35 amid ship
.Kalibr containers in the rear
TheArmenian wrote:Look carefully. Project 20386 has:
.Redut up-front (in front of gun)
.Kh-35 amid ship
.Kalibr containers in the rear
PapaDragon wrote:TheArmenian wrote:Look carefully. Project 20386 has:
.Redut up-front (in front of gun)
.Kh-35 amid ship
.Kalibr containers in the rear
I know that. But not having UKSK launchers on ships being built today is frankly idiotic. 20830 was ditched in part because of that. And I still think that ship that will be laid down will have totally different armament than one in the picture.
When you launch missile from container you first have to open deck hatches, erect launcher from container, open launcher covers and then launch. Idiotic waste of time when in modern naval combat every second counts. And UKSK carries 8 missiles, cargo container only 4. Also, since it shares space with helicopter, readiness is reduced even further.
Launching from containers makes sense for LACMs because time is less of an issue, but not for AShMs.
Only way setup with Kh-35 would make sense is if Navy expects to develop supersonic version of that missile (range of Uran is still half that of Onix) or if primary purpose of this class is anti-sub warfare (which defeats the whole point of investing in ''multirole vessel'').
TheArmenian wrote:PapaDragon wrote:TheArmenian wrote:Look carefully. Project 20386 has:
.Redut up-front (in front of gun)
.Kh-35 amid ship
.Kalibr containers in the rear
I know that. But not having UKSK launchers on ships being built today is frankly idiotic. 20830 was ditched in part because of that. And I still think that ship that will be laid down will have totally different armament than one in the picture.
When you launch missile from container you first have to open deck hatches, erect launcher from container, open launcher covers and then launch. Idiotic waste of time when in modern naval combat every second counts. And UKSK carries 8 missiles, cargo container only 4. Also, since it shares space with helicopter, readiness is reduced even further.
Launching from containers makes sense for LACMs because time is less of an issue, but not for AShMs.
Only way setup with Kh-35 would make sense is if Navy expects to develop supersonic version of that missile (range of Uran is still half that of Onix) or if primary purpose of this class is anti-sub warfare (which defeats the whole point of investing in ''multirole vessel'').
Indeed,
Project 20380 corvettes (small frigates really) are multipurpose ships with an emphasis on anti-submarine warfare (helicopter + Packet + large sonar).
Project 20385 version has an emphasis on anti-ship warfare. That is done by replacing the Kh-35 launchers with Onyx carrying UKSKs. They are intended for the North Sea Fleet.
Project 20386 goes back to anti-submarine emphasis but adds land-attack capability with Kalibr.
Nothing wrong with having multipurpose design, especially if you are operating on a tight budget. It is also quite possible that you are right and the 20386 will end up having UKSKs instead of Kh-35.
The Kh-35 is no slouch, the range of the latest version is 270 km. Quite sufficient for the Baltic. Note that the coastal batteries are still acquiring the Kh-35 based BAL system together with the Onyx based BASTION system.
The main ship killers of the Baltic Fleet will be the Karakurt class boats and the Buyans (two of which are sailing there as we speak).
GarryB wrote:
2) why but why again 100mm if Russia already is using 76mm and 57mm on light ships?
100mm guns offer far more in terms of range and effect on target and are useful against a much wider range of targets than any 76mm gun.
In terms of ammo you can have a much wider variety of rounds for the larger calibre... including EMP rounds and guided rounds and air burst rounds to defeat incoming Anti ship missiles and other threats.
An EMP round would be a useful way of dealing with a large number of incoming subsonic anti ship missiles for instance.
GunshipDemocracy wrote:...............GunshipDemocracy wrote:2) why but why again 100mm if Russia already is using 76mm and 57mm on light ships?
100mm is overkill for this class. It also takes a lot of weight.
PapaDragon wrote:GunshipDemocracy wrote:3) so no navalized Pantsir foreseen?
Again, we don't know but twin Palash should be enough.
This image is for export version.
GunshipDemocracy wrote:
Well if this is true that new Pantisr is gonna have 40km range then redut launcher for small ships makes not much sense to me.
I do not think Palash will be used anymore once Pantsir enters production.
hoom wrote:Via Balancers forum Dersky laid down (should this stuff be in 20380 thread?)
.........
Reduced to a single AK630 & with even worse traverse
No place to add/retrofit Pantsir-M.
Has anyone seen the AA missile system named?
The lack of specifying Redut or Stihl-1 (or other? Naval Tor?) is pretty odd I feel.
PapaDragon wrote:GunshipDemocracy wrote:
Well if this is true that new Pantisr is gonna have 40km range then redut launcher for small ships makes not much sense to me.
I do not think Palash will be used anymore once Pantsir enters production.
Apples and oranges. Pantsir is SHORAD, Palash is dedicated CIWS.hoom wrote:Via Balancers forum Dersky laid down (should this stuff be in 20380 thread?)
.........
Reduced to a single AK630 & with even worse traverse
No place to add/retrofit Pantsir-M.
Has anyone seen the AA missile system named?
The lack of specifying Redut or Stihl-1 (or other? Naval Tor?) is pretty odd I feel.
Wow, this thing better be super cheap and fast to build because, as it stands now, it's super weak...
Although in all honesty it is just one CIWS less than 20380 so maybe they are just tweaking that model?