Project 22350: Admiral Sergei Gorshkov #2

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

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

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:

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.

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:

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?

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.

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

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.

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

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

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.

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:

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.

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.

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.

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 ?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

marcellogo wrote:

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.    

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.

Exactly.

The design requirements are different , the Russian ships designed for home defense/wages life and death war, the Western ones to keep the colonial empire humming.

GarryB wrote:

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?

Just of the top of my head I would say Vietnam, Donald Trump, Brexit....just to name a few.

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

But no matter what the chemical combination they all have to react violently in what can only be described as a controlled explosion to lift the weapon and carry it thousands of kilometres away in a few minutes.

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 .

All engines require fuel, and air breathing engines have vastly more dense fuel content than rockets that must generate an oxygen rich environment for the fuel to burn... the petrol in your car... if heated to thousands of degrees C and exposed to air would explode violently.... a solid rocket engine has fuel that mixed with material to rapidly generate free oxygen to burn the fuel rapidly... a jet powered missile just carries the fuel and a solid rocket component to get it moving.

Either way volatile chemicals and oxygen generating material in an enclosed space.

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

Because the centre part of the ship goes down 4-5 decks and they probably don't want to seal the front of the ship off from the rear of the ship by blocking it with missiles.

The SS-N-19 missiles on the Kirov class ships were all mounted side by side in a five by four grid array... which means the five across the front and five across the rear and the four up either side could be accessed, but the 6 missiles in the centre of the grid simply can't be reached at all... and if they can't be reached then why would you need to reach the other 14 missiles around the outside?

The missiles in a TOR SAM system on land can't be reached and manually checked on the ground... you would have to lift them out of their tubes to do so...

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)?

Individually probably not, but tied in to their dedicated naval satellite network then yes...

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.

You are quite right... anyone suggesting Russia could simply forego a real navy and just make hundreds of corvettes does not understand the navy or how things work in the real world... however having said that it is hard to ignore the ability to load into a launch tube a missile that can fly over 1,000km at more than mach 9 and sink most ships most of the time...

Most western vessels do not have nearly enough offensive capacity

The politicians directing their use are often offensive enough.

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.

Most HATO navies don't expect to be fighting most of the rest of the world on their own with no chance of help.

[quote]
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./quote]

You can see the danger in the upgrade the old Kirovs thread... some think having too many missile tubes is not actually possible and that it is actually a goal they should be trying to achieve...

the Russian ships designed for home defense/wages life and death war, the Western ones to keep the colonial empire humming.

The Russian ships will be defending themselves and their allies where they can... facing an alliance of useful idiots... the western navies just need to pick and choose which alliance of idiots they join... safety in numbers and all that... perhaps the plan is to look so weak as to not be worth a missile...

Singular_Transform wrote:

marcellogo wrote:

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.    

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.

Exactly.

The design requirements are different , the Russian ships designed for home defense/wages life and death war, the Western ones to keep the colonial empire humming.

Hence because our own ships, having us a colonial empire no more (and it was not big anyway either then) and having no delusion of retain a Great Power status, tend to be just damn fine, being both well armed and able to keep the sea for a long time.

We obviously achieved it through time but decisive choice was taken almost at the beginning: NO COMPROMISE ON QUALITY, as lowering constructive standards kill sailors in war and fleets in peacetime.

Just of the top of my head I would say Vietnam, Donald Trump, Brexit....just to name a few.

WTF?

Afghanistan was clearly revenge against Russia regarding US experience with Vietnam they admitted as much themselves ...but neither Russia nor the Soviet Union made America invade a sovereign country and try to force its values and electoral system on the local people.

The Vietnamese after suffering under French colonial rule didn't need the Soviets to tell them the Americans would be worse and now is as good a time to get rid of those   .

If you have any evidence that Russia had anything to do with Trump getting elected...by all means please post it.... so far all claims of influencing the election were proven to be bullshit... Russian advertising during the election was found to be a tiny percent of any other advertising and its content was shown to not favour any particular candidate.... in fact Google offered them million dollar packages which they didn't take up. Claims Russia got Trump elected is Hillary Butthurt Clinton explaining why she lost the election to a fucking moron. A large portion of Trump voters probably voted for him as the lessor of two evils to the devils sister Hillary. I would say more than a few Bernie Sanders supporters also voted Trump in revenge for her screwing him out of the election.

I honestly think Bernie could have beaten Trump, but Hillary had no chance.


And Brexit?

The UK did that to themselves... Russia was not involved... the Brits never even suggested that the Russians were involved AFAIK.

Well the BBC probably blames the Russians but then they make shit up all the time and blame Russia for it... that is their job and why they get called big black cocksuckers...