Russian Naval Construction Plans and Statistics Update

Vladimir79 wrote:

marat wrote:

That could be done by another aircraft  from bigger distance far away from reach of S300, and in same time attacking aircrafts could be under radar horizont and safe.

And another ship or aircraft could relay data to the Moskva, it goes both ways.  

Could S 300 be guided via proxy? Or Moskva would have to guide them? For ASM just location of Moskva should be send.

I think the point is that it is not so easy.

On paper the Exocet should not have been any where near as successful as it was in the Falklands war... both the Sea Dart and the Sea Wolf should have been perfectly capable of shooting them down in numbers, but for various reasons they failed to be 100% effective.

BTW the Moskva... if she wanted to, could carry a Ka-31 as one of her helicopters and therefore have excellent over the horizon detection of aircraft and surface ships via radar.

The S-300 system is a vertical launch system... if you cut that out of the deck you should be able to fit rather a lot of vertical SAM launchers in its place because the original system had a lot of internal space so the missile tubes could be accessed from beneath deck and also clusters of them rotated into position beneath a launch hatch. Those mechanisms and all that free space is redundant with the new missiles so you could pack a lot more launch tubes in the available space.

The main problem with the upgrade of the Slava class ships is that the main armament is angled and external so standard UKSK launchers which are vertical and installed under the deck would be an issue... except on the roe.ru web page it mentions the launchers in question can be angled or vertical and can have any number of launch tubes from 2, 4, 6, or 8 missiles either fixed angled or elevating... it can launch the standard Club missiles including the Calibr land attack missile and the Club subsonic anti ship missile and the combined subsonic supersonic Club anti ship missile too.

Here is the export page for it:

http://roe.ru/eng/catalog/naval-systems/shipborne-weapons/klab-u/

Just replacing the Vulcan missiles with Calibrs or Clubs, and the Rif missiles with modern S-350s would seriously improve performance without much modification at all.

Of course it makes sense to replace the electronics anyway... just for the new systems being so much more superior.... otherwise the single gun turret 30mm weapons could be replaced with Duets and improved radars and EO systems, and of course the short range missile Klintok can be replaced with new model TOR missiles (twice as many in the same space with much better range, ceiling, and accuracy).

Would probably replace the old gun with a 152mm gun turret... getting these things in to service in an upgrade would be much quicker than waiting for new builds, but would not be too expensive and offer serious performance improvements and large boat capabilities that the frigates and corvettes built so far just can't manage... no matter how impressive their armament is.

Could S 300 be guided via proxy? Or Moskva would have to guide them? For ASM just location of Moskva should be send.

The new Sigma battle management system shares data across the navy so any aircraft or satellites or subs nearby as well as any ships will share information about nearby threats or targets.

The helicopter the Moskva carries has a radar (even the Ka-27 has an air and surface search radar) and high flying radar platforms that would be detecting the Moskva could be detected by Moskvas own radars too... with that information shared to other Russian platforms in the area.

Note the ship pictured in that link I posted regarding upgrading older ships showed a Udaloy class ship that retains its 100mm gun but adds a front deck mounted 8 tube launcher, plus two 6 tube angled launchers replace the previous quad angled launchers for SS-N-14, but it also has two quad launchers amid ships angled like they angle Kh-35 launchers with four pointed out each side... that would be 8+8+12 missiles, which is a pretty good upgrade for that ship even without any other changes.

The Vulcan tubes on the Slava class are bigger so could probably have 8 angled tubes for each two Vulkans, so that would be 64 launch tubes fairly easily mounted on the ship. I can't see the electronics for the new system being bigger or heavier than the electronics for the Vulcans... these tubes are specifically designed to upgrade older ships...

BTW here is a photo from below the deck of a Rif naval SAM missile system (basically S-300).
As you can see there is a lot of wasted space there... in the volume taken up by 96 odd missiles you should be able to fit quite a few launch tubes in a VLS that is more efficient of space:

marat wrote:
Could S 300 be guided via proxy? Or Moskva would have to guide them? For ASM just location of Moskva should be send.

It is a terminal command to active SARH guidance.  As long as a radar is painting the target in the same frequency it can detect it as long as it is within LOS of the seeker.  The bottom line is a NATO fighter launching either Harpoons or Exocets are in danger of being shot down.  That would make them think twice about launching an attack.  The Slava class could shoot down volleys of Harpoons all day.  It is only a saturation attack that would overwhelm her defences.

You have only one slava per fleet. Your other ships have weak long range defences. It will operate alone and no other ship have the radar of s-300 to be used for terminal SARH. Saturation would come very quickly. 1 f-18 can carry 4 harpoons.

The Slava class could shoot down volleys of Harpoons all day.

Go on youtube and search for "s-300 missile fails". With such an old ship and system it will happen for sure during massive launches.

What you need is more Gorshkovs.

Steregouchshy also have 12-16 redut. Having a group of 4 means 48 SAMs and 4 ships with smaller rcs to deal with for the same price as one Gorshkov. That's a harder target for US navy than a single Slava or even a single Gorshkov.

Karakurts have pantsir which can deal with harpoons just just as good as a slava for cheaper.

From your own words, a Us carrier is 40 f-18.

1 gorshkov, 4 steregushchy with 80 Redut to keep aviation away and 12 karakurts around them with 12×8. = 96 ready to fire pantsirs missiles to  destroy any incoming missile, can destroy a carrier group. In total it is 144 uksk for 600km range oniks.

You are underestimating small ships. They can now carry tte same weapons as big one for much smaller price, smaller rcs and higher speed. Bad point is less endurence and less weapons but you can buy more of them which kinda counter that.

Isos wrote:You have only one slava per fleet. Your other ships have weak long range defences. It will operate alone and no other ship have the radar of s-300 to be used for terminal SARH. Saturation would come very quickly. 1 f-18 can carry 4 harpoons.

What does that have to do with what Moskva did in Syria?  First it provided AAW coverage for the northern half of our forces, second it provided 16 "carrier-killing" missiles to keep NATO at bay, and lastly it made sure to keep Turkish air power on their side of the border.

The Slava class could shoot down volleys of Harpoons all day.

Go on youtube and search for "s-300 missile fails". With such an old ship and system it will happen for sure during massive launches.

Do you know how many batteries of CIWS are on that ship?  6X AK-630s, not to mention a twin OSA launcher on top of its S-300F system.  That ship can defend itself.

What you need is more Gorshkovs.

Since we aren't getting any cruisers then that is the best we can get.

Steregouchshy also have 12-16 redut. Having a group of 4 means 48 SAMs and 4 ships with smaller rcs to deal with for the same price as one Gorshkov. That's a harder target for US navy than a single Slava or even a single Gorshkov.

None of our "stealth" ships are actually stealthy.  There are far too many accouterments on it much less keeping up with the RAM coat before it rusts and peels.  12 redut doesn't equal 64 5V55RM.  When you can buy two Gorshkovs for the price of four Steregushchiy, corvettes looks like a huge waste.  

1 gorshkov, 4 steregushchy with 80 Redut to keep aviation away and 12 karakurts around them with 12×8. = 96 ready to fire pantsirs missiles to  destroy any incoming missile, can destroy a carrier group. In total it is 144 uksk for 600km range oniks.

I don't know what you are arguing, of course Moskva is out of date and headed for scrap, but it is what we had.  The ship we have worth buying are Gorshkovs.  

You are underestimating small ships. They can now carry tte same weapons as big one for much smaller price, smaller rcs and higher speed. Bad point is less endurence and less weapons but you can buy more of them which kinda counter that.

Your problem is you don't understand how much Steregushchiy costs, fully armed it is 10 billion RUB.

Vladimir79 wrote:
Your problem is you don't understand how much Steregushchiy costs, fully armed it is 10 billion RUB.

And what is cost of Gorshkov? Or Mercury? Generaly where I could find price of Russian ships?

Eh iso you are wrong there, Yes on paper smaller ships are cheaper to produce but when you need to group tons of them to equal the firepower of a single frigate it suddenly becomes much more expensive.

1 ship is easier to manage in the sea then several.

Also smaller ships aren't effective in a major naval battle, you seem to forget the Escorts with the carrier will be able to overwhelm any AA defense the corvettes have due to simply having much more weapons on board.

Between the Planes and the carrier's escorts, sorry a fleet of corvettes is nothing but a joke, good at taking a pot shot here and there sure, and good at defending the coast but bad in the blue sea.

marat wrote:

Vladimir79 wrote:
Your problem is you don't understand how much Steregushchiy costs, fully armed it is 10 billion RUB.

And what is cost of Gorshkov? Or Mercury? Generaly where I could find price of Russian ships?

Around 250m fully loaded out for a Gorshkov.

Vladimir79 wrote:

None of our "stealth" ships are actually stealthy.  There are far too many accouterments on it much less keeping up with the RAM coat before it rusts and peels.  12 redut doesn't equal 64 5V55RM.  When you can buy two Gorshkovs for the price of four Steregushchiy, corvettes looks like a huge waste.  

1 gorshkov, 4 steregushchy with 80 Redut to keep aviation away and 12 karakurts around them with 12×8. = 96 ready to fire pantsirs missiles to  destroy any incoming missile, can destroy a carrier group. In total it is 144 uksk for 600km range oniks.

I don't know what you are arguing, of course Moskva is out of date and headed for scrap, but it is what we had.  The ship we have worth buying are Gorshkovs.  

You are underestimating small ships. They can now carry tte same weapons as big one for much smaller price, smaller rcs and higher speed. Bad point is less endurence and less weapons but you can buy more of them which kinda counter that.

Your problem is you don't understand how much Steregushchiy costs, fully armed it is 10 billion RUB.

One of the biggest part of cost of a modern military ship are the weapon systems, the sensors and the electronics.

That's why a Steregushchiy corvette cost more than a grigorovich frigate.

They are nice ships and they were also the only modern multipurpose ship that Russia could build without ukrainian engines before Saturn and Zvezda completed the import substitution work for gas turbine and reduction gear for the gorshkov class frigates.

However, if now the issue with the engine is solved, and they are able to produce enough engines for the hulls that they will be building, it would be very important to build modern frigates in all navy shipyards that are big enough for the task and leave corvettes for the smaller shipyards (e.g. zelenodovsk in tatarstan and vostochnaya verf in Vladivostok (Pella and Feodosia probably can only build ships up to around 800 tons instead).

Yantar, Zaliv (Kerch) and Amur shipyards should all be capable of building Gorshkov (and even Gorshkov-M) class frigates.

What does that have to do with what Moskva did in Syria? First it provided AAW coverage for the northern half of our forces, second it provided 16 "carrier-killing" missiles to keep NATO at bay, and lastly it made sure to keep Turkish air power on their side of the border.

Your nuks kept NATO at bay. Not 16 old missiles. Aster proved to be able to deal with mach 3 antiship missiles since long ago.

Coverage was made by s-400. Moskva couldn't do anything with 90km missiles. Only protects itself.

1 ship in the middle of Mediteraneab with all nato navies and airforces around her won't affraid anyone. Neither won't last in a battle more than 1/2 a day.

I'm not saying it is a bad ship.

None of our "stealth" ships are actually stealthy. There are far too many accouterments on it much less keeping up with the RAM coat before it rusts and peels. 12 redut doesn't equal 64 5V55RM. When you can buy two Gorshkovs for the price of four Steregushchiy, corvettes looks like a huge waste.

Well compare to a slava or a kirov they are stealth. RAM can be applied when tension appear.

Since we aren't getting any cruisers then that is the best we can get.

....

Your problem is you don't understand how much Steregushchiy costs, fully armed it is 10 billion RUB.

If a steregouchshy is too expensive, just forget the cruisers. They use the same weapons but in bigger number, they are bigger, they have much bigger and more powerfull radars, engines are much bigger. And the price too.

For the same price you will have either (randome numbers but should match the reality):

4 gorshkov or 2 supergorshkov or 12 steregouchshy.

I would chosse a mix anyday.

I don't know what you are arguing, of course Moskva is out of date and headed for scrap, but it is what we had. The ship we have worth buying are Gorshkovs.

I'm saying that a mixed force of some lighter ships with medium ships in bigger number is better than a force of only "some" big ships. Just like I think two smaller carriers is better than one big. UK think the same as they could have bought a nimitz to US directly for the same price as the two QE.

"Some" meaning that you can get much more smaller ships for one big ship but with same weapons.

With more ships you control more space. That's what russia needs as no one can't even attack you while you have a rusted navy.

If you need a supercarrier to defend Venezuela then send two smaller carrier. That's the same but with more flexibility and more survavibility than only one.

Numbers have always played a big role in military doctrines. Very big ships are expensive to buy and to maintain (just look at yours).

Isos wrote:
Your nuks kept NATO at bay. Not 16 old missiles. Aster proved to be able to deal with mach 3 antiship missiles since long ago.

Coverage was made by s-400. Moskva couldn't do anything with 90km missiles. Only protects itself.

1 ship in the middle of Mediteraneab with all nato navies and airforces around her won't affraid anyone. Neither won't last in a battle more than 1/2 a day.

I'm not saying it is a bad ship.

At the time, Turkey was not so friendly just having shot down one of our planes. Moskva was there to keep Turkey in check.  

S-400 did not have its 400km missile, it was just an S-300PMU2.  

It was more than enough to scare Turkey off.  

Well compare to a slava or a kirov they are stealth. RAM can be applied when tension appear..

Even a true stealth ship like a La Fayette still have the RCS of a fishing trawler.  They will be picked up but you want to ID them before you start shooting at ghosts.

If a steregouchshy is too expensive, just forget the cruisers. They use the same weapons but in bigger number, they are bigger, they have much bigger and more powerfull radars, engines are much bigger. And the price too.

For the same price you will have either (randome numbers but should match the reality):

4 gorshkov or 2 supergorshkov or 12 steregouchshy.

I would chosse a mix anyday.

The bigger the hull the bigger the cost savings per tonne.  The cost is in the sensors and weapon systems.  Putting high end weapons and sensors on a little ship that can't carry very much or go very far is not economical.  That is why we need more Gorshkovs and far fewer corvettes.      

I'm saying that a mixed force of some lighter ships with medium ships in bigger number is better than a force of only "some" big ships. Just like I think two smaller carriers is better than one big. UK think the same as they could have bought a nimitz to US directly for the same price as the two QE.

"Some" meaning that you can get much more smaller ships for one big ship but with same weapons.

With more ships you control more space. That's what russia needs as no one can't even attack you while you have a rusted navy.

If you need a supercarrier to defend Venezuela then send two smaller carrier. That's the same but with more flexibility and more survavibility than only one.

Numbers have always played a big role in military doctrines. Very big ships are expensive to buy and to maintain (just look at yours).

You get more bang for buck with Gorshkovs.  I care less about having hull numbers as opposed to actual combat capabilities of the ships.  Without a carrier they would still be formed up into a surface action group to protect one another.    Two Gorshkovs could handle themselves better than one frigate and three corvettes and still costs less money to build, operate and maintain.  Not to mention that is two blue water vessels opposed to one with three useless corvettes in open ocean.  

The space they control is based on the capabilities of the ships.  A Gorshkov can control more space than two corvettes of the same cost.  They have higher end radar, better sonars making their radius of control bigger than two smaller circles of control that would have gaps in them.  The Gorshkov can handle higher threat levels thanks to its larger VLS count.

As I was stating before, smaller doesn't mean cheaper.  Having a small carrier is not cheaper and the cost efficiency is in making the larger carrier with more carrying capability.  You would still have to put the same equipment on both hulls, and making a bigger hull is not the expensive part.  

Cost efficiency and logistics are what enables a military to operate.  If you can't afford to operate it then it sits rusting away.

Your nuks kept NATO at bay. Not 16 old missiles. Aster proved to be able to deal with mach 3 antiship missiles since long ago.

Hahaha... yeah... funny thing isn't it... the Mach 3 SR-71 was safe and invincible, but mach 2.5 anti ship missiles are easy targets...

Coverage was made by s-400. Moskva couldn't do anything with 90km missiles. Only protects itself.

That is a circle 180kms across...

And that is how IADS work... each node adds depth, information, and capability to the whole.

I'm not saying it is a bad ship.

She might not last a day, but how many NATO ships and towns will she take with her?

If you need a supercarrier to defend Venezuela then send two smaller carrier. That's the same but with more flexibility and more survavibility than only one.

Bigger ships are more survivable... no big ship is invincible, but smaller ships are easier to destroy than a bigger ship even if they have the same weapons... simply having bigger sensors on the bigger ship makes it better able to use its weapons than the smaller ship...

BTW look forward to you using the same argument in other threads regarding MiG-35s being smaller and cheaper than Su-35s so they can have more of them that will offer better coverage and they use the same weapons so performance of two MiG-35s and one Su-35 is the same... right?

Numbers have always played a big role in military doctrines. Very big ships are expensive to buy and to maintain (just look at yours).

How many corvettes does the US use in the Middle East?

The space they control is based on the capabilities of the ships. A Gorshkov can control more space than two corvettes of the same cost. They have higher end radar, better sonars making their radius of control bigger than two smaller circles of control that would have gaps in them. The Gorshkov can handle higher threat levels thanks to its larger VLS count.

Corvettes can perform the roles of Frigates and destroyers inside and near Russian waters, but if you want to move beyond Russian waters and trade globally you need bigger ships with more endurance and more weapons to support operations for longer periods and of course bigger better sensors.

If things go to plan they will have AWACS support so air coverage will be handled by other platforms, but AWACS is not 24/7... sometimes they have to land or rotate them, meaning gaps in coverage... but other aircraft like fighters in the air can also detect low flying threats... or helicopters for that matter.

The Russian Navy of the future wont be huge but will need some big ships to make it a global force... opening up the North Sea Route means transits from teh Northern Fleet to the Pacific fleet will become routine, so access down through into the pacific and atlantic will become normal and easy.

If Russia has a Moskva class ship in the Med and it is threatened by NATO forces then subs and air launched missiles like Kinzhal can support its defensive retreat back to safer waters... it might make it or it might not... if it does not then I would expect WWIII has just started so it does not really matter for the region...

Russia still needs to prioritize subs,frigates and corvettes. Blue waters can wait till 2030s. You need at least 2-3 carriers (1 operational while one in maintenance). Thats 2-3 super carriers, ugh.

The critical thing is that Russia wants multirole ships and it is much easier to make a bigger ship Effectively multirole than a smaller ship.

With smaller ships you can group them together in groups of 4 or more and they become effective in a range of roles, while a much bigger ships can be effective in a range of roles on its own... with its capability expanded as you add more ships of any size... bigger ships are better, but small ships are useful too... some roles don't need a big ship so having small ships frees up the bigger ships for tasks that require more capability.

Tingsay wrote:

Why compare 3 Steregs to 1 Gorshkovs? You forget that Grishas, Parchims and Neustrashimy need  replacements. Karakurts and Buyans cant be that as they are helpless against submarines.
Steregs and Grems are supposed to be mulitirole but primarily anti-sub  ships near the shores basically replacements for the large numbers of Soviet legacy corvettes.
What corvette you should be comparing 1 Gorshkov to is 2 or 3 Derzkys.
I think these 2 have the same rangeand endurance iirc. Derzks are supposed to be a compromise between true frigates and true corvettes. A ship that is primarily near shore missions while having the ability to join missions on the high seas. Steregs travelled to the English channel to , ugh.

Grisha were nice small antisub corvettes. Parchim were much less capable ships and bought only to.subsidize eastern Germany. Stereg are multirole vessel (quite adapt for antisub role) about 2.5 times the size of the grisha and much more expensive. I do not believe it is possibile to replace all of the grisha and parchim 1by 1 with steregs.


Maybe they could develop a.modern antisub corvette on the basis of karakurt corvette or 22160 patrol ship, with a towed.array sonar and packet antitorpedo/antisub torpedoes.

Well they have small shipyards that can't make anything bigger than a corvette, so it they do make a few it is not the end of the world... in many ways their current corvette designs have the fire power of cold war destroyers... remember Krivak class Frigates had quad launchers for missiles on the front and 100mm calibre guns... destroyers like Sovremmeny and Udaloy had 8 ready to fire main missiles and 100mm and 130mm guns, so a corvette with a single UKSK launch system can carry the equivalent main missile load to either destroyer and twice the load of the Krivak class frigate... more importantly that load of 8 missiles is much more flexible... it can carry any combination of anti ship, anti sub, and land attack missiles, and the new weapons are significantly more powerful and effective... Onyx is much faster and much longer ranged than Moskit on the Sovs, and the 91RE1 is much faster and more effective than the SS-N-14 of the Udaloy and Krivak... and the 2,500km range calibr has no cold war equivalent... and pretty soon 4,500km range land attack missiles, and 1,000km plus range mach 9 Zircon missiles are going to be an option...

But Corvettes lack range and capacity to operate for long periods or sustained combat anywhere except close to base with reloads... new frigates and destroyers will expand this improvement in performance and capability to the point where perhaps cruisers as such are not even needed... 20K ton destroyers with nuke propulsion and massive weapon capacity makes them almost arsenal ships on their own...

GarryB wrote:Well they have small shipyards that can't make anything bigger than a corvette, so it they do make a few it is not the end of the world... in many ways their current corvette designs have the fire power of cold war destroyers... remember Krivak class Frigates had quad launchers for missiles on the front and 100mm calibre guns... destroyers like Sovremmeny and Udaloy had 8 ready to fire main missiles and 100mm and 130mm guns, so a corvette with a single UKSK launch system can carry the equivalent main missile load to either destroyer and twice the load of the Krivak class frigate... more importantly that load of 8 missiles is much more flexible... it can carry any combination of anti ship, anti sub, and land attack missiles, and the new weapons are significantly more powerful and effective... Onyx is much faster and much longer ranged than Moskit on the Sovs, and the 91RE1 is much faster and more effective than the SS-N-14 of the Udaloy and Krivak... and the 2,500km range calibr has no cold war equivalent... and pretty soon 4,500km range land attack missiles, and 1,000km plus range mach 9 Zircon missiles are going to be an option...

But Corvettes lack range and capacity to operate for long periods or sustained combat anywhere except close to base with reloads... new frigates and destroyers will expand this improvement in performance and capability to the point where perhaps cruisers as such are not even needed... 20K ton destroyers with nuke propulsion and massive weapon capacity makes them almost arsenal ships on their own...

Exactly, and apparently the middle neva shipyard that is building the Alexandrit class minesweepers (800) has been upgraded and should be now capable of building larger corvettes.

https://ru.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Средне-Невский_судостроительный_завод wrote:

Since 2016, the plant has been carrying out works on the reconstruction of the slip - a structure used for raising and launching ships and vessels; the reconstruction is scheduled for March 2018 [3] . After the completion of the reconstruction, the plant will have a closed shed with slipways, which allow to place ships and ships with a maximum length of 80 meters (open up to 100 meters) and a launching complex, which allows the ship to be delivered with a launch weight of up to 2,700 tons to any free position as a slipway, and open stocks .

There are several small shipyards that need also orders.
And they should be capable to help rebuild Russia's mosquito fleet. I like that they are distributing the orders for the 22800 missile ship to 4 or 5 shipyards. They could do the same for a new modern antisub corvette.

For this reason I would like to see the larger shipyards (like Zaliv in Kerch and Amur shipyard busy with frigates and destroyers (Gorshkov-m) instead of corvettes and patrol ships.

Possibiy it was also an issue of rebuilding the shipyards' own capabilities with smaller projects after years of neglect, before being "promoted" to larger ships...

Well when they haven't made much of anything for some time making corvettes will allow them to get their skill set up... the larger vessels use much the same elements but in larger numbers and the main sensors and propulsion is scaled up... which is not to say the transition from working on smaller ships to bigger ships will be easy, it should be achievable, and once the process is started it should get much faster pretty quickly.

Ironically it is the really big boats with nuclear propulsion that should be easier as that is an area they don't have a lot of problems regarding AFAIK...

GarryB wrote:
Ironically it is the really big boats with nuclear propulsion that should be easier as that is an area they don't have a lot of problems regarding AFAIK...

Well, the Kirov battlecruisers were all built at the Baltic shipyard in Saint Petersburg, the same shipyard that is building the large nuclear Icebreakers.

I do not know if the plan is to build the new nuclear powered destroyers there or in Severnaya Verf (that should already have its hands full with Gorshkov class, gorshkov M and with the plans for the Priboy amphibious ship).

Another place that could build them is Zvezda, that has also already an order for the huge nuclear icebreaker lider class.

USSR with its huge resources managed to produce only 4 kirov. When they saw how costly they were they started Slavas.

Hope for them they won't make the same mistake. If they want arsenal ships with hundreds of VLS go for sub. They don't need helicopters and air def systems.

Anything more than 200m is waste of time.

Isos wrote:USSR with its huge resources managed to produce only 4 kirov. When they saw how costly they were they started Slavas.

Hope for them they won't make the same mistake. If they want arsenal ships with hundreds of VLS go for sub. They don't need helicopters and air def systems.

Anything more than 200m is waste of time.

One only has to look at where the modernisation efforts are going to know the priority.  It is not to Slava cruisers. With the 3S14 universal VLS the Admiral Nakhimov will be the most powerful vessel in the fleet.  The Slavas just get an engine cleaning and a new coat of paint.  It is Peter the Great that goes on six month deployments all over the world.  

Decision for 19k ton Lider over 14k ton one also indicates this.

Isos wrote:USSR with its huge resources managed to produce only 4 kirov. When they saw how costly they were they started Slavas.

Hope for them they won't make the same mistake. If they want arsenal ships with hundreds of VLS go for sub. They don't need helicopters and air def systems.

Anything more than 200m is waste of time.

Slavas were built at the same time as the Kirovs.

Why did they build Slavas then ? Kirov is much better.

One only has to look at where the modernisation efforts are going to know the priority.  It is not to Slava cruisers. With the 3S14 universal VLS the Admiral Nakhimov will be the most powerful vessel in the fleet.  The Slavas just get an engine cleaning and a new coat of paint.  It is Peter the Great that goes on six month deployments all over the world.  

I'm not talking about capicities of the ship but capacities to get new ships.

You also need to look how your new ships are financed. There are always delays because they can't give the money at time. And most of the time it is more expensive than they think.

Nakhimov needs 10 years for an upgrade and it was a new and unused ship. PtG will need even more.

Decision for 19k ton Lider over 14k ton one also indicates this

As long as they don't start building them, it's only words and drawings.

As long as they don't start building them, it's only words and drawings.

Putin has repeatedly stated that Russia needs a blue water navy, most recently in his annual nation address in February. For Liders, time schedule was given. Construction has to start in early 2020s with commissioning in the late 2020s. Next stage is technical design. Deputy Navy commander Bursuk said that it will begin in 2019-2020 and will be finished by 2022. Every normal person would expect delays and timelines shifted right, but the project is overall progressing.