Russian Navy: Status & News #4

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I don't know what you are arguing, of course Moskva is out of date and headed for scrap, but it is what we had.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

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.

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.

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.

I don't know what you are arguing, of course Moskva is out of date and headed for scrap, but it is what we had.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

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.

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

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'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).

Vladimir79 wrote:

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.

Isos wrote:Seals being trained for submarine operations.    

https://mobile.twitter.com/Capt_Navy/status/1122872896915947521

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.

George1 wrote:

Isos wrote:Seals being trained for submarine operations.    

https://mobile.twitter.com/Capt_Navy/status/1122872896915947521

i know that in USSR dolphins were trained to destroy ships

verkhoturye51 wrote:Surprise visit to Istanbul by Admiral Essen, today

George1 wrote:

Isos wrote:Seals being trained for submarine operations.    

https://mobile.twitter.com/Capt_Navy/status/1122872896915947521

i know that in USSR dolphins were trained to destroy ships

It is for an military exposition. Get some orders from Arab state would be nice for them. The market is huge as most of gulf states have rather small navies and Grigorovitch provides Klub missiles with 300km range that could be interesting for them.

Gorshkov should have participated too or made visits during her trip.

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...

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 .