Russia Defence Forum

Would you like to react to this message? Create an account in a few clicks or log in to continue.

Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


+74
LMFS
hoom
calripson
Isos
PapaDragon
Mir
owais.usmani
lyle6
Dima
AMCXXL
limb
ChineseTiger
Dorfmeister
Scorpius
JeremySun
lancelot
ALAMO
bren_tann
Lurk83
franco
marcellogo
Backman
Singular_Transform
The_Observer
Kiko
Rasisuki Nebia
walle83
Sujoy
medo
x_54_u43
Tai Hai Chen
Begome
Cyberspec
AJ-47
Viktor
jhelb
TheArmenian
ultimatewarrior
The-thing-next-door
mnztr
littlerabbit
JohninMK
ATLASCUB
ult
PhSt
Gazputin
Admin
MiamiMachineShop
GarryB
Arrow
Rodion_Romanovic
SeigSoloyvov
Hole
william.boutros
marat
Tsavo Lion
flamming_python
kvs
xeno
Tingsay
magnumcromagnon
Austin
dino00
GunshipDemocracy
AlfaT8
kumbor
Labrador
miketheterrible
Big_Gazza
Nibiru
miroslav
verkhoturye51
Stealthflanker
George1
78 posters

    Project 22350: Admiral Sergei Gorshkov #2

    GarryB
    GarryB


    Posts : 38881
    Points : 39377
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Project 22350: Admiral Sergei Gorshkov #2 - Page 28 Empty Re: Project 22350: Admiral Sergei Gorshkov #2

    Post  GarryB Tue Feb 16, 2021 6:52 am

    I don't thing having this type of task force is realistic. If anyone is worth helping they need to provide a base for Russia.

    The US built a nice base in Cam Rahn Bay in Vietnam... but then their side lost and the Soviet Navy went in to use it... much like if Russia had done nothing in the Crimea then HATO and the US would probably have moved their ships in to Sevastopol...

    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.

    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?

    The US has a massive network of bases to sustain operations, and that is really only because no one of significance has tried to oppose them.

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

    Interference with Russian commercial business is more effetively done by sanctions, if they actually start to interdict Russian ships, Russia can do a lot of its own interdiction.

    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.

    It would be cheaper and more useful (more mobile and independent) to build destroyers and cruisers and aircraft carriers... than to try to pick some countries and either build new ports for them or ask them to upgrade ports for you... with the promise of future protection.

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

    You cannot mount sustained ops without bases and you cannot have bases without a navy.

    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.

    This is why Russia now has overseas naval bases in Syria, Vietnam and now Sudan (I think this one is quite new) I suspect they will have one in either Cuba or Venezulela again

    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.

    Of course they don't need Actual bases... just good relations with countries would be good enough where they can go in to port and receive fuel and water and food supplies and maybe fly in a replacement crew perhaps...

    But if you look at the economic ramifications of being in Russias orbit, the price paid by Cuba is really appalling.

    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.

    I wonder if it will be longer or if they will replace some of the SAMs.

    Maybe they have shifted a few other things around to fit more in essentially the same space.

    Big_Gazza, slasher and LMFS like this post

    avatar
    Arrow


    Posts : 2693
    Points : 2685
    Join date : 2012-02-12

    Project 22350: Admiral Sergei Gorshkov #2 - Page 28 Empty Re: Project 22350: Admiral Sergei Gorshkov #2

    Post  Arrow Tue Feb 16, 2021 8:58 am

    So Admiral Amelko, Admiral Chichagov will be 24 VLS USKS and Admiral Yumashev, Admiral Spiridonov will be 32 VLS USKS Shocked 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.
    marcellogo
    marcellogo


    Posts : 633
    Points : 639
    Join date : 2012-08-02
    Age : 55
    Location : Italy

    Project 22350: Admiral Sergei Gorshkov #2 - Page 28 Empty Re: Project 22350: Admiral Sergei Gorshkov #2

    Post  marcellogo Tue Feb 16, 2021 9:42 am

    Arrow wrote:So Admiral Amelko, Admiral Chichagov will be 24 VLS USKS and Admiral Yumashev, Admiral Spiridonov will be 32 VLS USKS Shocked 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.

    Yes but it not the age of Sail anymore in which category of a military ship is determined by the number of guns then and VLS now.

    A modern surface combatant ship is a complex system, encompassing electronics, sensors and Helicopters.
    You can put same modules on a Karakurt, a Gorshkov and on Nakhimov, obviously in different numbersbut not same sensors but also same live spaces
    Isos
    Isos


    Posts : 11288
    Points : 11258
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Project 22350: Admiral Sergei Gorshkov #2 - Page 28 Empty Re: Project 22350: Admiral Sergei Gorshkov #2

    Post  Isos Tue Feb 16, 2021 10:09 am

    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.
    The-thing-next-door
    The-thing-next-door


    Posts : 1273
    Points : 1329
    Join date : 2017-09-18
    Location : Uranus

    Project 22350: Admiral Sergei Gorshkov #2 - Page 28 Empty Re: Project 22350: Admiral Sergei Gorshkov #2

    Post  The-thing-next-door Tue Feb 16, 2021 11:14 am

    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.
    Rodion_Romanovic
    Rodion_Romanovic


    Posts : 2406
    Points : 2573
    Join date : 2015-12-30
    Location : Merkelland

    Project 22350: Admiral Sergei Gorshkov #2 - Page 28 Empty Re: Project 22350: Admiral Sergei Gorshkov #2

    Post  Rodion_Romanovic Tue Feb 16, 2021 11:46 am

    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.
    It is interesting....but...
    Well, but does it make sense? It almost seems like scope and armament creep, where every year they try to change something.... hopefully that will not compromise too much other parameters, like endurance, speed or damage control and ease of refurbishment/ access.

    Furthermore the gorshov class is a multirole ship, not one focused only on cruise missiles...


    Unless the first ships were really underarmed in comparison to the space/displacement available (but it doesn't seem so if you compare with foreign ship of similar class, even of greater displacement) and they try to optimise now the use of the space


    Anyway they are already working on an enlarged version of the gorshov class that will be about 30m longer (probably between 160m and 165m and with an increased displacement, and for that they were talking of 48 UKSK VLS cells (8 modules). Having 32 cells without changing displacement and size seems unrealistic

    PapaDragon
    PapaDragon


    Posts : 13262
    Points : 13304
    Join date : 2015-04-26
    Location : Fort Evil, Serbia

    Project 22350: Admiral Sergei Gorshkov #2 - Page 28 Empty Re: Project 22350: Admiral Sergei Gorshkov #2

    Post  PapaDragon Tue Feb 16, 2021 3:02 pm


    32 UKSK will leave almost no room for AA cells, stupid move if they decide to sacrifice ship's protection just to stuff one more UKSK set especially if they are really making Super-Gorshkov

    There is a possibile solution if they replace main gun with something smaller

    Having 76mm gun instead of 120mm one would free up enough space to fit that extra UKSK without compromising ship's main defenses

    LMFS
    LMFS


    Posts : 5100
    Points : 5096
    Join date : 2018-03-03

    Project 22350: Admiral Sergei Gorshkov #2 - Page 28 Empty Re: Project 22350: Admiral Sergei Gorshkov #2

    Post  LMFS Tue Feb 16, 2021 3:13 pm

    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:

    Project 22350: Admiral Sergei Gorshkov #2 - Page 28 4xuksk10

    mnztr likes this post

    AlfaT8
    AlfaT8


    Posts : 2459
    Points : 2450
    Join date : 2013-02-02

    Project 22350: Admiral Sergei Gorshkov #2 - Page 28 Empty Re: Project 22350: Admiral Sergei Gorshkov #2

    Post  AlfaT8 Tue Feb 16, 2021 5:11 pm

    Ok, let's get this straight, from what i recall Russia is intending to make 3 Gorshkov variants.
    The vanilla Gorshkov with 2xUKSK
    The upcoming expanded Gorshkov with 4xUKSK
    The Super Gorshkov with an unknown number of UKSK cells (minimal 6)

    In the expanded GS, it was made clear that only the UKSK cell will be increased, everything else will stay vanilla.
    I don't believe at all that they are gonna lose AA cells on a newly designed ship.

    dino00 likes this post

    avatar
    mnztr


    Posts : 2757
    Points : 2795
    Join date : 2018-01-21

    Project 22350: Admiral Sergei Gorshkov #2 - Page 28 Empty Re: Project 22350: Admiral Sergei Gorshkov #2

    Post  mnztr Tue Feb 16, 2021 7:33 pm

    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:

    Project 22350: Admiral Sergei Gorshkov #2 - Page 28 4xuksk10

    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?
    avatar
    mnztr


    Posts : 2757
    Points : 2795
    Join date : 2018-01-21

    Project 22350: Admiral Sergei Gorshkov #2 - Page 28 Empty Re: Project 22350: Admiral Sergei Gorshkov #2

    Post  mnztr Tue Feb 16, 2021 8:07 pm

    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.

    They are not more expensive unless they are really massive.
    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?

    Lots of people looking for security guarantees. Also an airbase will also be there.


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

    Is it? I don't see much evidence of that yet.



    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.

    The USN was not of much use in Syria. Once Russia was there all the US could do was glower disapprovingly.





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

    China would question that. Russia is a world power today already.


    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.

    Not with any intensity. Even in WWII the USA had to capture bases to use as logistics centers for the pacific campaign. If you are fighting, and you have long supply chain, it can be disrupted. if Russia was fighing a massive war with a remote fleet, how easy would it be to sink a few supply ships and upend the campaign.




    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.

    Russia has bases in Vietnam and Venezuela, they do not park a significant military presence there to avoid political issues.



    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.


    It also reflects the failure of Russia to mitigate the impact of US sanctions. The price for opposing the USA is very high and often the benefits for not opposing are quite good. There is not much incentive, except for some pariah states, to be be in Russias orbit. That is the reality.


    Last edited by mnztr on Tue Feb 16, 2021 11:19 pm; edited 2 times in total
    LMFS
    LMFS


    Posts : 5100
    Points : 5096
    Join date : 2018-03-03

    Project 22350: Admiral Sergei Gorshkov #2 - Page 28 Empty Re: Project 22350: Admiral Sergei Gorshkov #2

    Post  LMFS Tue Feb 16, 2021 10:53 pm

    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
    Singular_Transform
    Singular_Transform


    Posts : 1032
    Points : 1014
    Join date : 2016-11-13

    Project 22350: Admiral Sergei Gorshkov #2 - Page 28 Empty Re: Project 22350: Admiral Sergei Gorshkov #2

    Post  Singular_Transform Tue Feb 16, 2021 11:02 pm

    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

    Many missile require maintanace.

    MEans on sea they need access to the launch container.
    avatar
    mnztr


    Posts : 2757
    Points : 2795
    Join date : 2018-01-21

    Project 22350: Admiral Sergei Gorshkov #2 - Page 28 Empty Re: Project 22350: Admiral Sergei Gorshkov #2

    Post  mnztr Tue Feb 16, 2021 11:16 pm

    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

    GarryB likes this post

    Singular_Transform
    Singular_Transform


    Posts : 1032
    Points : 1014
    Join date : 2016-11-13

    Project 22350: Admiral Sergei Gorshkov #2 - Page 28 Empty Re: Project 22350: Admiral Sergei Gorshkov #2

    Post  Singular_Transform Tue Feb 16, 2021 11:30 pm

    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
    GarryB


    Posts : 38881
    Points : 39377
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Project 22350: Admiral Sergei Gorshkov #2 - Page 28 Empty Re: Project 22350: Admiral Sergei Gorshkov #2

    Post  GarryB Wed Feb 17, 2021 10:57 am

    They are not more expensive unless they are really massive.

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

    Building a new port from scratch wont be cheap either... and could all be taken away in a single vote.

    Is it? I don't see much evidence of that yet.

    Gaps are appearing in what was once impenetrable armour... ships catching fire... obsolete platforms continue to be used or on teh verge of being put back into production because their new replacement is shit.

    The USN was not of much use in Syria. Once Russia was there all the US could do was glower disapprovingly.

    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.

    China would question that. Russia is a world power today already.

    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.

    Not with any intensity. Even in WWII the USA had to capture bases to use as logistics centers for the pacific campaign.

    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...

    If you are fighting, and you have long supply chain, it can be disrupted.

    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.

    if Russia was fighing a massive war with a remote fleet, how easy would it be to sink a few supply ships and upend the campaign.

    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.

    Russia has bases in Vietnam and Venezuela, they do not park a significant military presence there to avoid political issues.

    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.

    Matches the failure of the EU to mitigate the Ukraines own sanctions on Russia... it is not easy to just start buying products from a country to support its economy...

    The price for opposing the USA is very high and often the benefits for not opposing are quite good.

    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?

    I am sure the Cuban people secretly desire a future where they can either work for peanuts in a sugar plantation, pick cotton, or serve drinks to fat ugly ignorant white foreign people at hotels and casinos owned by the American mob.

    There is not much incentive, except for some pariah states, to be be in Russias orbit. That is the reality.

    That is the game the west plays and it is what they want you to believe is your only choice... that is why Putin scares them so much because BRICS will break that dream... if it survives.

    Many missile require maintanace.

    MEans on sea they need access to the launch container.

    Old ones... yes... new ones no.

    They will be buried in their cell array so the inside ones wont be reachable manually from below deck but they will be all electronically monitored, and will not require fueling or maintenance for the voyage.

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

    Not very practical because on the bigger ships they will be packing them side by side.

    Old systems had rotary internal mounts to rotate missiles into line with launch hatches... new missiles get their own hatch and no need to rotate or move them meaning far more efficient storage.

    The SS-N-19 was fixed but angled and with no under deck access. Rif and Rif-M and also naval TOR had rotary launchers and had under deck access, but the new ones likely wont.
    avatar
    mnztr


    Posts : 2757
    Points : 2795
    Join date : 2018-01-21

    Project 22350: Admiral Sergei Gorshkov #2 - Page 28 Empty Re: Project 22350: Admiral Sergei Gorshkov #2

    Post  mnztr Thu Feb 18, 2021 1:39 am

    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.
    avatar
    mnztr


    Posts : 2757
    Points : 2795
    Join date : 2018-01-21

    Project 22350: Admiral Sergei Gorshkov #2 - Page 28 Empty Re: Project 22350: Admiral Sergei Gorshkov #2

    Post  mnztr Thu Feb 18, 2021 1:58 am

    GarryB wrote:

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

    No need to take over, just a section. They will provide it if they value the protection of Russian power and yes, of course there will be construction.






    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.

    Well Russia should not really intervene if these conditions are not present. They can airlift a massive amount of men and materiel to even Venezuela if necessary.



    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.

    I think you place too much value on Naval power. There are many ways to diffuse it or bypass naval power.



    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...

    Russia is really not that far off from being able to pull of a Falkland type operation. If it is defence, they will have access to bases. Land 20-30 SU-30 and 34 there and you have massive air power. If there is an insurgency, a dozen SU-25.



    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.

    Russia can do that today. If the USN sinks a Russian supply ship it will be a pretty serious escalation.

    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.

    Or they may have lost the carrier.


    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....

    Yes they do its all about greed.

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

    Matches the failure of the EU to mitigate the Ukraines own sanctions on Russia... it is not easy to just start buying products from a country to support its economy...



    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?

    It depends, until Russia can provide a high standard of living for its own people (it is a crazy rich country) it will not be a very enticing candidate for world leadership. Yes of course the USA trys to sabotage and Russia tries to sabotage back etc etc, it is an age old game that will never end,

    I am sure the Cuban people secretly desire a future where they can either work for peanuts in a sugar plantation, pick cotton, or serve drinks to fat ugly ignorant white foreign people at hotels and casinos owned by the American mob.

    Singular_Transform
    Singular_Transform


    Posts : 1032
    Points : 1014
    Join date : 2016-11-13

    Project 22350: Admiral Sergei Gorshkov #2 - Page 28 Empty Re: Project 22350: Admiral Sergei Gorshkov #2

    Post  Singular_Transform Thu Feb 18, 2021 11:21 am

    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.

    We have no clue.

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

    Defnitivly , the USA system build around the non serviceablity on sea, the Russian is about the option to be able to service the units on sea.


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

    GarryB
    GarryB


    Posts : 38881
    Points : 39377
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Project 22350: Admiral Sergei Gorshkov #2 - Page 28 Empty Re: Project 22350: Admiral Sergei Gorshkov #2

    Post  GarryB Thu Feb 18, 2021 11:30 am

    No need to take over, just a section. They will provide it if they value the protection of Russian power and yes, of course there will be construction.

    There were plenty of friendly ports they could stop off at in the 1970s and 1980s, yet the Soviets continued with their aircraft carrier programmes... building and planning bigger and bigger carriers... like most carrier operators...

    Well Russia should not really intervene if these conditions are not present. They can airlift a massive amount of men and materiel to even Venezuela if necessary.

    The problem there is that an airplane full of troops is much more vulnerable than ships full of soldiers because those ships will be well armed and supported.

    Sending men by plane is just risky.


    I think you place too much value on Naval power. There are many ways to diffuse it or bypass naval power.

    I suspect you don't appreciate the importance of naval power and just how much of world trade goes by ship... it is actually how most goods are transported.


    Russia is really not that far off from being able to pull of a Falkland type operation. If it is defence, they will have access to bases

    With their intervention in Syria their access to all EU ports was cancelled overnight... who knows what pressure might be put on so called friendly nations in difficult times.

    Land 20-30 SU-30 and 34 there and you have massive air power. If there is an insurgency, a dozen SU-25.

    Flying that number of aircraft anywhere could lead to major airports in the country you are going to getting attacked.... and sending 20-30 fighter planes is one thing but what about all the bits you need... spare engines and enormous amounts of fuel and ordinance... that would have to go by sea...

    Not to mention the equipment and systems to protect the airfield... the radar and SAM systems and ground troops etc etc... it just isn't something you can fly in... it would need to be shipped...

    Russia can do that today. If the USN sinks a Russian supply ship it will be a pretty serious escalation.

    I doubt they would pick that sort of fight... except if those support ships are supporting a group of Corvettes operating in Venezuela... if they are supporting cruisers and destroyers then they will likely get rather more respect.

    Or they may have lost the carrier.

    I doubt it... with a proper AWACS platform giving a excellent air and surface picture, and with Phantoms and Buccaneers those Argentine aircraft would have seriously struggled, and with Buccs the ground campaign would have been much quicker too... being able to sweep the enemy forces away much more efficiently... the Harriers are simply too vulnerable to MANPADS... against high speed low flying Buccs the Argentinians probably would not have known what was hitting them...

    Have a lot of respect for the argentinian pilots... they showed real skill and class... coming in low and fast behind the radar shadow of the islands to attack landing ships with iron bombs takes serious balls and serious skill, but I rather suspect with a fixed wing full size carrier they could operate much closer to the islands with an AWACS aircraft operating above the landing forces and would detect those attacking aircraft early and they could be intercepted well before they got to their release locations... UK SSNs kept the Argentinian fleet at home... helicopters dealt with one SSK with a small new missile, and the SSN with the Belgrano...

    Yes they do its all about greed.

    They don't want to share the worlds resources with Russia, and they don't want countries trading with Russia and China earning money and developing and growing and becoming rivals to their world hegemony too...

       
    It depends, until Russia can provide a high standard of living for its own people (it is a crazy rich country) it will not be a very enticing candidate for world leadership

    Russia doesn't want to rule the world.... it just wants to be left alone to develop in ways it sees fit that fit its culture and its views... just like most other countries on the planet. It is a western dream to become the US and in doing so make the whole world like the US... the clear problem is that if everyone becomes an empty husk and just consumes and gets fat the world is screwed because it couldn't support 350 million Americans super sizing everything... there is no way it will support 600 million europeans and 1.5 billion Chinese and 1.2 billion Indians doing the same thing.

    Russias navy will have two CVNs and the current CV to ensure its interests are respected anywhere in the world... they don't need 10 CVNs to dominate all the worlds oceans at once...

    Yes of course the USA trys to sabotage and Russia tries to sabotage back etc etc, it is an age old game that will never end,

    Russia tries to sabotage back?  When did that happen?

    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.
    Singular_Transform
    Singular_Transform


    Posts : 1032
    Points : 1014
    Join date : 2016-11-13

    Project 22350: Admiral Sergei Gorshkov #2 - Page 28 Empty Re: Project 22350: Admiral Sergei Gorshkov #2

    Post  Singular_Transform Thu Feb 18, 2021 11:58 am

    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.

    We have no clue.

    An ICBM or similar has wide range of available fuel, as the specificatione/requirement go up into extreme the available materials/fuels get restricted.

    So, in an ICBM it is possible to choose the fuel based on operational characteristic, in a hypersonic air breathing engine it is not neccessary . - But ,again, we have no clue .

    And if they don't want to get access to the tubes on sea why the space between them is so big ?
    marcellogo
    marcellogo


    Posts : 633
    Points : 639
    Join date : 2012-08-02
    Age : 55
    Location : Italy

    Project 22350: Admiral Sergei Gorshkov #2 - Page 28 Empty Re: Project 22350: Admiral Sergei Gorshkov #2

    Post  marcellogo Thu Feb 18, 2021 12:17 pm

    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.
    Singular_Transform
    Singular_Transform


    Posts : 1032
    Points : 1014
    Join date : 2016-11-13

    Project 22350: Admiral Sergei Gorshkov #2 - Page 28 Empty Re: Project 22350: Admiral Sergei Gorshkov #2

    Post  Singular_Transform Thu Feb 18, 2021 7:21 pm

    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.

    Don't forget the kitchen, the audiovisual entertraintment , the quality of bedding, size of pillows as well.
    The-thing-next-door
    The-thing-next-door


    Posts : 1273
    Points : 1329
    Join date : 2017-09-18
    Location : Uranus

    Project 22350: Admiral Sergei Gorshkov #2 - Page 28 Empty Re: Project 22350: Admiral Sergei Gorshkov #2

    Post  The-thing-next-door Thu Feb 18, 2021 8:37 pm

    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.

    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.



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

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


    Posts : 633
    Points : 639
    Join date : 2012-08-02
    Age : 55
    Location : Italy

    Project 22350: Admiral Sergei Gorshkov #2 - Page 28 Empty Re: Project 22350: Admiral Sergei Gorshkov #2

    Post  marcellogo Fri Feb 19, 2021 12:04 am

    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.

    Certainly, most are not enough armed (above all when it come to ASM) but again, you will need sensors to use weapons, you need endurance at sea to escort convoy, you need comfortable lodging for both crew than marine infantry if you want to use your ships in an year long anti-piracy mission off somali coast.

    I think my own navy have made a very good job on balancing off both firepower than sea worthiness (above constructive and security standards, sorry for others but it is just a no contest) of our own ships above all in comparison to Uk and France and their delusions of remaining a world power by building loads of cheap ships. And they had to admit it. Wink Wink Wink

    And I think also Russia is doing a damn fine job a.t.m, despite BIG DIFFICULTIES, just keep on into balancing ambitions with realism (i.e. avoid jingoism) and we would end on laughing together at our respective competitor's expense.
    We already do. Twisted Evil

    Sponsored content


    Project 22350: Admiral Sergei Gorshkov #2 - Page 28 Empty Re: Project 22350: Admiral Sergei Gorshkov #2

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Sat Apr 13, 2024 11:33 pm