TR1 wrote:Problem is, what is the use? There are no plans, and no reality for any new submarines in the Ukrainian navy in this decade at least. The Zaparozhye is useless in learning contemporary submarine operation, and won't last until new subs arrive (if they ever do). They could simply train on modern Russian subs when the time comes in any case (like they did for the Zaparozhye)
Realistically though, what sensors and weapons are gonna be tested on it? I would bet none.
That's their plan. While they're still struggling to procure tanks in the single digits - then sure it can seem unrealistic; but its good to have ambition and I see plenty of signs that the Ukrainian economy will take off this decade.
As for Russian subs - I guess they just don't want to be dependent on Russia too much - it seems like our co-operation on any single project with them is strictly dependent on our relations and subject to change at any time. In comparison, even our relations with the US are far more mature; no matter how much we disagree on missile defense and NATO and so on - we co-operate heavily in space. And of course this whole situation leads to both the Ukraine and Russia frantically looking for alternatives to each other in every single field.
And it was a correct response IMO. No need to hand out Ukraine freebies for a rusting old cruiser.
The calculation is that such a project, together with others, could 'bind' our relations with them closer, and in time make such relations and military co-operation, much more stable.
But do we even know the actual terms that Ukraine was offering? I don't know what price they wanted, and if they demanded that Ukranian companies would benefit in the overhaul/completion of the ship
No idea, but the demand for Ukrainian companies to be involved in its overhaul and completion would be quite reasonable IMO; and in fact it could probably save the Russian MoD money too, by getting the Ukrainians involved the MoD would have another avenue of pressure on Russian domestic defense companies.
Much better to just upright order more ships from Russian shipyards IMO. No need for freebies to Ukraine, recycle the money completely in Russia, and build a ship with more combat value and resource for the future.
Nikolayev is a very valuable resource to have, seeing as its got the largest capacities of any shipyard in the ex-USSR. Since the Ukrainians sure as hell aren't planning any big naval ships of their own - it would be very much in their interests to clear obstacles for Russian orders to Nikolayev, even if in other areas our co-operation will never rise above a certain level
To make the cruiser usefull at all, it would have to be completely gutted and re-equiped, even if the hull is in an ok state.
No doubt, we should plan modestly. If it costs too much or would take too long - shelve it. There is only a narrow window of oppurtunity left to make something usefull out of this hulk. But given that other such revival projects are progressing concurrently and we are somewhat lacking in large surface combat ships (with the questionable ability to produce any at all for another decade or so); it might just be a good oppurtunity. The same parts that are being bought for the modernisation/resurrection of other Slavas and Kirovs can be used for this one, and it would lead to better value for money.
I just don't see how this is a benefit to Russia. Everything that can be done in Ukraine, at this point, can be done at Russia. They intend to build large destroyers, and carriers, eventually in Russia. No point in the Nikolayev yard as far as Russia is concerned.Ukraine itself isn't ordering anything worthwhile in the near future, so the yard would have to be propped up by RUssia.
Yes but there is nothing inherently wrong with that. We will need a lot of capacity over the next 10 years, and there are projects to expand Sevmash and so on; but it will end up very expensive, especially with the high wages, infastructure, material and upkeep costs in the far north. Why invest all this money if we can secure a deal with our neighbours instead? Russia is not the USSR, it's not possible for us to have the capacity to build everything and anything; and even its possible, it would be far from desirable from a market economy perspective. Let's say our order for large ships did dry up again. Would you rather have a huge out-of-work shipyard as a Russian problem, or as a Ukrainian one?
IMO, better to just continue expanding existing shipyards and new ones in Russia, as they are doing right now. Ukraine is not a stable ally, and having something so critical to national security in a foreign country is unacceptable.
Yes certainly a valid point, and quite right. But it could be that the opportunities outweigh the risks.
I think they will be scaled up 22350s essentially, but we will see
Except with nuclear reactors, much more powerful radars/sensors and quite possibly the S-500 platform
However there are plenty of opportunities that an existing big-platform can fulfill better than a more compact, but smaller platform.
No doubt, size does matter. But cost effectiveness is important too, this is where the cruiser is pointless.
The Slava can be outfitted with better electronics, bigger radars.
If the cruiser was taken today, into the RuNavy, it would need complete electronic overhaul, weapon installation, the works. That requires huge, expensive modification, as well as testing, for a ONE off ship. That is just not worth the input required, and in terms of length and expense, I doubt it would be significantly cheaper than a new frigate.
Well it seems here you are suggesting instead of a radical modernization, it could be simply completed in the best possible, but conservative manner.
Anything that will be undertaken on it should have as much commonality as possible with the programs for the other cruisers, in order to keep the costs low. And yes, conservatism is a must, we certainly don't need to build an uber-ship on top of a 25-30 year old platform that has been rusting in port most of its years. But what we do need; is surface firepower and stopgaps that will be able to serve another couple decades, until the new Russian ships enter the navy in numbers. Right now we have both a deficit of large surface ships (an acute deficit), and smaller support ships, but at least the later are being built in increasing numbers and better time frames. But still, given that even a lowly Steregushchiy corvette can take 5 years to make FFS; I'm not at all optimistic in terms of seeing large nuclear-powered destroyers in service (at least in significant numbers) until the 2030s or so; which is why until then - we need the Slavas.
Problem is, it is 2012, and accepting such a fundamentally outdated ship would be a bad spending of resource, IMO. It is big on manpower, big on operation/dock expenses, yearly overhauls, what not, it is simply time to move on. The other side of the problem is half of the systems needed to complete the ship in its current state are not even produced anymore. You can't just stick in some old, some new, some extra systems and hope it works- the process of integration is long and often painful, even with simpler ships, like 20380s, let alone a modern 1164.
Yes very good points, it may be these considerations over all else will win out. I'd add that the manpower demands alone are very heavy; given the huge cutting down on conscript forces that have taken place just over the last year. I remember when I was in service; from my draft some +500 conscripts were assigned to a naval base in the Northern fleet for crewing some ships there. By the time I left - from the draft that replaced me - do you know how many people were assigned to that same place? Something like 14. But this is a very extreme example.