Project 22350: Admiral Sergei Gorshkov #2

Arrow wrote:So Admiral Amelko, Admiral Chichagov will be 24 VLS USKS and Admiral Yumashev, Admiral Spiridonov will be 32 VLS USKS If they leave 32 VLS for SAM for that, it will total 64 VLS.This is the same as the Chinese Type 052 destroyer, which is almost twice as large.

Isos wrote:They can always make them 5m longer to fit another 2 uksk.

135m is way too small.

Maybe they will use the 1x4 UKSK at mid ship where there is some place left and unused.

LMFS wrote:Not so fast, we don't know whether they can place the UKSK differently and reduce the clearances a bit and get 4 in the place of 2, it is not like the previous arrangement was very compressed. It has always looked like there was space for more, and we don't really know what is below the deck and what the constraints are. For example:

GarryB wrote:
The problem is that such bases are much more expensive than any carrier group and subject to change of ownership either from war or simply a coup.

GarryB wrote:
And even then having a friendly port you can operate from means nothing if you only have corvettes to operate there.... who is going to build you a port for Frigates and Corvettes?

GarryB wrote:
They do but that is part of their world police complex... and economically it is killing them.

The situation in Georgia told the Russians that they cannot rely on the international community to help... even when they are clearly right...  and also the support the US provided to Georgia... a country they took as cannon fodder to Afghanistan and Iraq... was pathetic and useless because their navy could not reach... now they could have sent army forces or air power via Turkey which is right next door... but it seems their best option was still their navy because it would be a more complete and useful force... the Georgian conflict left the US in the same boat so to speak as the Russians found themselves in Serbia/Kosovo.... just words and not force.

You don't become a world power and then build a navy.... it happens the other way around.

GarryB wrote:
Of course you can mount sustained ops without bases... it is just easier if you do have local support... They have support tankers as shown in the Auxiliary Ships thread that carry fuel and food and fresh water to maintain other ships on location for long periods... such vessels could also support oil and gas tanker operations delivering energy around the world too.

Russian troops in Syria still have a job to do so having air and naval bases makes sense. They have a new base in Sudan but I don't know of any Russian base in Vietnam that is currently being used, nor in Venezuela or Cuba at the moment.

The price paid by Cuba was for saying no to the US... not for saying yes to the Soviet Union... Iran is not best friends with Russia or the Soviet Union and it gets the same treatment essentially... as does North Korea...

The price Cuba pays and is still paying reflects more on the US than anyone else.

mnztr wrote:I guess it depends whats really under there. Maybe less ammo storage for the gun? If this is to scale then it looks ike there is room for even more!!! Heck add another 16. What is the all up weight of a cell + missile? About 3.5 tons?

LMFS wrote:

mnztr wrote:I guess it depends whats really under there. Maybe less ammo storage for the gun? If this is to scale then it looks ike there is room for even more!!! Heck add another 16. What is the all up weight of a cell + missile? About 3.5 tons?

There are corridors at the sides and you need some maintenance access to the mechanisms, apart from other constraints I am not aware of, but they say 4 UKSK and I don't think it is that crazy. We will see, but that is the kind of number of VLS cells you want in a universal launcher to be really flexible, they can carry LACM, Tsirkons, ASW rockets and still with reasonable salvos for each of them. Maybe even some long range SAM of the S-300/400 family is compatible with that, you could have one full UKSK loaded with ASW/AAW/AShM/LACM for instance

mnztr wrote:Most missiles are shipped in a sealed container with pressureised inert gas. They have a shelf life and all you do is drop it in and connect the wiring harness. Typically they fire a few off from each batch every year to make sure they are good and at the end of the shelf life they are taken out of the can, refurbed and then resealed.

I am pretty sure to access the missile you can only do so when it is removed from the vls tube

Singular_Transform wrote:

mnztr wrote:Most missiles are shipped in a sealed container with pressureised inert gas. They have a shelf life and all you do is drop it in and connect the wiring harness. Typically they fire a few off from each batch every year to make sure they are good and at the end of the shelf life they are taken out of the can, refurbed and then resealed.

I am pretty sure to access the missile you can only do so when it is removed from the vls tube

They can load dozens of different missine, with wide variety.


It is enought to have only one type of missile that needs maintanance to keep the side access

GarryB wrote:

A foreign country is not going to allow Russia to take over their main port unless they promised serious upgrades.

With the Syrian government on side it was made difficult but terrorist groups in a large portion of the country are still being supported by American mercenaries drawing wages as US soldiers.

I would say neither are until their navies show they can operate beyond their borders on their own.

The west continues to try to contain both countries as regional powers with nuclear weapons.

The Russian Navy wont be invading countries or Island hopping... it would be more like the Falklands war, except protecting the locals from an evil colonial power...

Except it wont be a line... it will be a group of support ships that will need escorts from Russia or the nearest friendly country to the conflict area and back.

The best way to prevent ships being lost will be good quality modern ships in numbers that are useful.

If the UK had a real full sized fixed wing carrier with decent fighters they probably would not have lost any ships at all.

Russia has the added advantage of having quite a few submarines they could send and operate near the conflict zone for both defence and attack if needed.

Why do you think the west has a problem with the Russian Navy expanding and operating world wide... we know they care about Russia and want what is best for the Russian people right?

Or is it more a case of containment and isolation... something they drive for to keep Russia from growing and developing... and also the countries Russia trades with....

It also reflects the failure of Russia to mitigate the impact of US sanctions.

The price for being a good little bitch is that you end up changing you laws to suit them.... which is secret code for opening yourself up to the worlds biggest and richest families to buy everything of value and dominate your economy like they do in the west so they can make even more money... what is not to love?

mnztr wrote:

Singular_Transform wrote:

mnztr wrote:Most missiles are shipped in a sealed container with pressureised inert gas. They have a shelf life and all you do is drop it in and connect the wiring harness. Typically they fire a few off from each batch every year to make sure they are good and at the end of the shelf life they are taken out of the can, refurbed and then resealed.

I am pretty sure to access the missile you can only do so when it is removed from the vls tube

They can load dozens of different missine, with wide variety.


It is enought to have only one type of missile that needs maintanance to keep the side access

I think to be USKS compatible each missile needs to be in a standarized container that is then loaded in from the top, I don't think the missiles are servicable at sea. They have to be offloaded for any work.

GarryB wrote:

Example the hypersonic air breathing missiles could have fuel that needs periodic replacement .

The rocket fuel in the ICBMs and SLBMs remains in the weapons for the life of the weapons. Harpoon and Tomahawk cruise missiles are not fuelled before launch... they are kept permanently fuelled and ready and in the Mk-41 launchers on AEGIS cruisers...

It could means the Russian ones can get warhead change on sea, example nuclear package installation.

The UKSK launch tubes are sealed... they might have nuclear armed missiles as options but they will be loaded at the pier normally, or perhaps reloaded at sea from a support ship.

The-thing-next-door wrote:If thier corvettes outmatch enemy frigates and frigates humiliate enemy destroyers then I look forward to seeing what thier heavy nuclear cruisers will look like, I am guessing they will have the ability to wipe out countries single handedly.

marcellogo wrote:

The-thing-next-door wrote:If thier corvettes outmatch enemy frigates and frigates humiliate enemy destroyers then I look forward to seeing what thier heavy nuclear cruisers will look like, I am guessing they will have the ability to wipe out countries single handedly.

Are they?
It's the main radar of a Gorskhov better than the one of a Daring DDG or even of a Bergamini FFG (Aquitaine is too an easy bet)?
Can they stay on sea the same time? How much helos can they host? Can it carry a detachement of marine infantry? Will they have the possibility to take the command a task force (something that a Maestrale class can but a much larger Burke not)?

Try to understand: I really like them, same can say about Steregushchiy, Gremyashchiy and Karakurt (as we italian build similarly well armed ships) but just counting VSL without looking at the whole capability of a class of ship. is IMHO an inane exercise.

marcellogo wrote:

The-thing-next-door wrote:If thier corvettes outmatch enemy frigates and frigates humiliate enemy destroyers then I look forward to seeing what thier heavy nuclear cruisers will look like, I am guessing they will have the ability to wipe out countries single handedly.

Try to understand: I really like them, same can say about Steregushchiy, Gremyashchiy and Karakurt (as we italian build similarly well armed ships) but just counting VSL without looking at the whole capability of a class of ship. is IMHO an inane exercise.

Singular_Transform wrote:Don't forget the kitchen, the audiovisual entertraintment , the quality of bedding, size of pillows as well.

The-thing-next-door wrote:

marcellogo wrote:

Try to understand: I really like them, same can say about Steregushchiy, Gremyashchiy and Karakurt (as we italian build similarly well armed ships) but just counting VSL without looking at the whole capability of a class of ship. is IMHO an inane exercise.

Most western vessels do not have nearly enough offensive capacity to defeat other warships and even when they do thier missiles are vastly inferior to Russian ones. It does not matter how many accessories your warship has if it does not have enough firepower to win a fight.


Last time I checked Russian warships were generally more luxurious than thier western counterparts.