Home
Latest images
Register
Log in
IsosBig_Gazza wrote:At least I have a Bachelor of Engineering and a 30-year career behind me. My opinion carries at least some weight. You?
Well you're an australian engineer...
(jocking don't take it personnaly). +61
JohninMK
PhSt
dino00
verkhoturye51
x_54_u43
Hole
Rodion_Romanovic
Nibiru
kumbor
Gibraltar
Tsavo Lion
LMFS
The-thing-next-door
Singular_Transform
miketheterrible
Benya
marat
hoom
AlfaT8
TheRealist
Zivo
Isos
PapaDragon
Dima
eehnie
SeigSoloyvov
Rmf
Project Canada
Triod
chicken
max steel
Flanky
jhelb
Cyberspec
Kyo
sepheronx
franco
TheArmenian
GunshipDemocracy
mack8
Tyloe
Werewolf
Big_Gazza
kvs
collegeboy16
Austin
wilhelm
Stealthflanker
xeno
flamming_python
runaway
Firebird
Viktor
KomissarBojanchev
Vann7
Flyingdutchman
GarryB
TR1
Mike E
magnumcromagnon
George1
65 posters
Promising destroyer "Lider-class"
Isos- Posts : 11602
Points : 11570
Join date : 2015-11-06
Well you're an australian engineer...
(jocking don't take it personnaly). 
GarryB- Posts : 40548
Points : 41050
Join date : 2010-03-30
Location : New Zealand
Because it is concrete filled you can also use it for dredging shallow harbours and waterways...
Personally I think the shape looks silly and impractical... I thought the whole point of stealth is to reduce corners... not increase their numbers...
It is clear that they need a specific angle to make it stealthy and the use of multiple steps show that the angle they need does not allow enough internal volume for what they need so hense the multi steps to increase internal volume...
The Kirov class ships had a rather low RCS for their size... the British actually mentioned they could determine it was a Kirov by the wake it left rather than the radar return of the superstructure.
They are showing plastic models now but we have no idea if this is an intended design or just a place holder because they don't want to show the real thing... during the cold war they often showed the weapon that failed to get in to service with the view that some foreign partner might see it and fund its development... the Mi-28A was revealed to the public about 4 years before the Hokum for that very reason... the Hokum was the helo they were building but they showed the Havoc in case someone wanted to fund its development too. Of course in that case it turned out the shift in requirements for night operations made two seat helos compulsory so the Havoc was selected too.
The whole concept behind their new multi-role modular ship design is to make scaling the ships up easier... the fundamental difference between a new corvette and a new cruiser is that while they will generally have the same weapons, the weapons on the cruiser will be more numerous and bigger where practical... so bigger calibre guns and lots more missiles and sensors like radar and sonar will be bigger and of course the cruiser will carry helicopters and drones in larger numbers too.
Because of this I wouldn't expect the destroyers and cruisers to be radically different from the frigates and corvettes though there would be some differences in smaller boats for different roles...
He lives in Oz but I got the impression he was an ex-brit...
Personally I think the shape looks silly and impractical... I thought the whole point of stealth is to reduce corners... not increase their numbers...
It is clear that they need a specific angle to make it stealthy and the use of multiple steps show that the angle they need does not allow enough internal volume for what they need so hense the multi steps to increase internal volume...
The Kirov class ships had a rather low RCS for their size... the British actually mentioned they could determine it was a Kirov by the wake it left rather than the radar return of the superstructure.
They are showing plastic models now but we have no idea if this is an intended design or just a place holder because they don't want to show the real thing... during the cold war they often showed the weapon that failed to get in to service with the view that some foreign partner might see it and fund its development... the Mi-28A was revealed to the public about 4 years before the Hokum for that very reason... the Hokum was the helo they were building but they showed the Havoc in case someone wanted to fund its development too. Of course in that case it turned out the shift in requirements for night operations made two seat helos compulsory so the Havoc was selected too.
The whole concept behind their new multi-role modular ship design is to make scaling the ships up easier... the fundamental difference between a new corvette and a new cruiser is that while they will generally have the same weapons, the weapons on the cruiser will be more numerous and bigger where practical... so bigger calibre guns and lots more missiles and sensors like radar and sonar will be bigger and of course the cruiser will carry helicopters and drones in larger numbers too.
Because of this I wouldn't expect the destroyers and cruisers to be radically different from the frigates and corvettes though there would be some differences in smaller boats for different roles...
Well you're an australian engineer... lol1 (jocking don't take it personnaly).
He lives in Oz but I got the impression he was an ex-brit...
Big_Gazza- Posts : 4901
Points : 4891
Join date : 2014-08-25
Location : Melbourne, Australia
Isos wrote:Big_Gazza wrote:At least I have a Bachelor of Engineering and a 30-year career behind me. My opinion carries at least some weight. You?
Well you're an australian engineer...
It's all good
and yes, I'm an ex-Brit but have tried hard to lose my speech impediments and fit in with the ankle-janglers down here (Aussies are basically convict stock, the criminal trash of the Old Country).
Arrow- Posts : 3492
Points : 3482
Join date : 2012-02-12
Work on the destroyer Leader was suspended due to lack of funds.
Rodion_Romanovic- Posts : 2654
Points : 2823
Join date : 2015-12-30
Location : Merkelland
Arrow wrote:Work on the destroyer Leader was suspended due to lack of funds.
Probably they want to concentrate on other programs, especially now that they saw that the 22350 frigates are very good, and they decided to go for 22350M frigates/destroyers for main ship of the far sea zone.
By the way, there will be at least 8 22350 frigates (additional 2 with be laid down this year), possibly more if they include also some for the black sea and baltic fleets.. and ideally at least 8 22350M, that should start to be build after 2022.
Leader class is a very interesting but expensive concept, but it is not the priority, especially now that they have solved the marine gas turbine problems.
Azi- Posts : 803
Points : 793
Join date : 2016-04-05
Source???Arrow wrote:Work on the destroyer Leader was suspended due to lack of funds.
Rodion_Romanovic- Posts : 2654
Points : 2823
Join date : 2015-12-30
Location : Merkelland
https://flotprom.ru/2020/%D0%9E%D0%B1%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%BD%D0%BA%D0%B03/Azi wrote:Source???Arrow wrote:Work on the destroyer Leader was suspended due to lack of funds.
The destroyer Leader recorded as an outsider
February 6, 2020 at 13:48 Theme: Industry
The design work to create the look of a promising nuclear destroyer for the Russian Navy has actually been stopped due to lack of funds and postponement of the project completion deadlines to the right. About this Mil.Press FlotProm told two informed sources at the naval research institutes and design bureaus. Meanwhile, the only destroyer of project 956, the Fast, remained in the combat structure of the Russian fleet. In total, 17 of them were built for the Navy. The second and last ship of the same type at the disposal of the Navy, Admiral Ushakov, is undergoing repairs.
“So far, neither the Northern Design Bureau, nor the Krylov State Scientific Center have allocated substantial funds for the creation of the destroyer. However, enterprises continue to carry out certain work on an initiative basis,” another source said.
At the same time, the KSCC creates a promising conceptual appearance of the ship, taking into account the achievements of naval science, and the SPKB creates a more “concrete” destroyer (still at the outline design level), tied to the capabilities of weapons developers and a construction plant. Several versions of models of the future destroyer were tested in the basins of the Krylovsk center. At the same time, only old models tested in the first half of the 2010s were publicly demonstrated.
A promising atomic destroyer is not even being discussed now, this is a distant future, added industry source Mil.Press FlotProm. “Now the design is de facto suspended, the corresponding decision has been made by the Navy’s shipbuilding department. They plan to return to work later so as not to jump from frigates (such as Admiral Gorshkov - ed.) With a displacement of 5400 tons to destroyers with a displacement of 19,000 tons,” he summed up he.
The intermediate link between the serial frigates of the project 22350 and the destroyers created within the framework of the Leader-1 will be the Super Gorshkovs, frigates of increased displacement of the project 22350M. Sketch design of the "grown up" frigate at the end of last year successfully completed SPKB. The head of the United Shipbuilding Corporation, Alexei Rakhmanov, in December 2019 said that they plan to complete (technical and working - ed.) The design of the project 22350M ship by 2022. After that, you can expect bookmarks.
In size and displacement, the Super-Gorshkov roughly corresponds to the destroyer of project 956. “In the future, ships of the project 22350M can be reclassified - following the example of the BOD of project 1155, which after modernization will become frigates ,” an expert from one of the naval research institutes told the publication. NATO classification the BOD - anti-submarine destroyers while the old Soviet classification is adjacent to the new one, which added class multipurpose ships with subclasses "corvette" and "frigate" and in the future -. and "destroyer".
Bookmark the prospects Thus, the new Leader nuclear atomic destroyer will be implemented at best in the second half of the 2020s.
kvs- Posts : 15858
Points : 15993
Join date : 2014-09-11
Location : Turdope's Kanada
WWII era battleship concepts are not viable today. When ship classes that were basically useless 75 years ago can be potent
today thanks to missiles, that shifts the budgeting and design. Sinking vast resources into a single egg basket because of
some "cool" factor is moronic. Build several ships instead with each packing more punch than any of the previous destroyers.
Destroyers are boutique items like the Bismarck and Yamato which are complete disasters to lose. Today it is even easier to
sink such ships. The only solution is more targets and more scatter which dilutes enemy resources. This applies to the
dinosaur carrier groups that are like some frozen in time relic of WWII. They are a concentrated sitting target that is totally
obsolete in its concept against today's anti-ship missiles. During WWII there were no ship missiles and propeller attack
planes doing bombing runs or submarine torpedoes against destroyers were the only game in town.
The only reason the US has been using these antiques is because it is facing 3rd world "enemies" with WWII era military
technology. Even coastal anti-ship missile systems are rare today and you can see the US doing a delicate dance around
countries which have them installed (North Korea, Iran).
today thanks to missiles, that shifts the budgeting and design. Sinking vast resources into a single egg basket because of
some "cool" factor is moronic. Build several ships instead with each packing more punch than any of the previous destroyers.
Destroyers are boutique items like the Bismarck and Yamato which are complete disasters to lose. Today it is even easier to
sink such ships. The only solution is more targets and more scatter which dilutes enemy resources. This applies to the
dinosaur carrier groups that are like some frozen in time relic of WWII. They are a concentrated sitting target that is totally
obsolete in its concept against today's anti-ship missiles. During WWII there were no ship missiles and propeller attack
planes doing bombing runs or submarine torpedoes against destroyers were the only game in town.
The only reason the US has been using these antiques is because it is facing 3rd world "enemies" with WWII era military
technology. Even coastal anti-ship missile systems are rare today and you can see the US doing a delicate dance around
countries which have them installed (North Korea, Iran).
magnumcromagnon- Posts : 8138
Points : 8273
Join date : 2013-12-05
Location : Pindos ave., Pindosville, Pindosylvania, Pindostan
It's undergoing a redesign.
Isos- Posts : 11602
Points : 11570
Join date : 2015-11-06
today thanks to missiles, that shifts the budgeting and design. Sinking vast resources into a single egg basket because of
some "cool" factor is moronic. Build several ships instead with each packing more punch than any of the previous destroyers.
Today the main factor is the number of VLS installed and how many ground attack ctuise missiles they carry.
With missile ranges increasing, it is hard to destroy the ships even with air force since missile are getting ranges up to 2500km and soon even 4000km. They don't even need to destroy enemy ships, only big critical infrastructures like oil depot, biggest companies, power plants to destroy a country. Like we saw in Aramco attack.
Ironically we are back to the gunboat diplomacy ...
TheArmenian- Posts : 1880
Points : 2025
Join date : 2011-09-14
I knew the Leader class ship would not be ordered the moment they announced that 2 large helicopter carriers will be built in Zaliv (Kerch, Crimea).
The Glavkomand does not want any more uber-armed battlecruisers. The 2 Kirov and 3 Slava class ships are sufficient. As always the bulk of the fight against US/NATO fleets on the high seas or in distant waters will be carried out by the Yasen and Oscar class nuclear subs.
The Glavkomand believes that large amphibious ships will be needed for the types of strategic and tactical objectives that the Kremlin foresees for the future.
The Glavkomand does not want any more uber-armed battlecruisers. The 2 Kirov and 3 Slava class ships are sufficient. As always the bulk of the fight against US/NATO fleets on the high seas or in distant waters will be carried out by the Yasen and Oscar class nuclear subs.
The Glavkomand believes that large amphibious ships will be needed for the types of strategic and tactical objectives that the Kremlin foresees for the future.
Big_Gazza- Posts : 4901
Points : 4891
Join date : 2014-08-25
Location : Melbourne, Australia
kvs wrote:During WWII there were no ship missiles and propeller attack
planes doing bombing runs or submarine torpedoes against destroyers were the only game in town
A brief
if I may.... 
Yes, but not 100% correct as the Germans were using 'Fritz-X' glide-bombs against Allied shipping using the Dornier Do 217 as a medium range naval strike fighter. They were quite effective, sinking the Italian BB Roma with two hits and crippling her sister Italia. In a separate engagement they crippled the USS Savannah.
The Fritz X is generally accredited as being the 1st example of the use of guided munitions in naval warfare.
Azi- Posts : 803
Points : 793
Join date : 2016-04-05
Thanks for the source! 
Why all guys think cruisers and destroyers are obsolet and dead??? That's bullshit! You can have 1000 Karakurt corvettes and sink not a single carrier!!! Only starting from destroyer you can generate enough electric power for a powerful radar. And only above 80 VLS you have the versatility to strike and defend at once, both combined. Only from a destroyer beginning you can put naval S-500 on it. I don't want to read the bullshit again that destroyers and cruiser are destroyable with 1 missile, they were always in history sunkable with 1 hit...a cannon shell, a bomb...whatever.
And please I don't want to read that...bla, bla, bla... we have satellites. Yeah, Serbian Army was able to move a complete tank army through the whole country in Kosovo War, complete undetected by NATO. Real track and target data can only be acquired by ships and planes...before you fire Tsirkon or Kinzhal you need target location. Maybe drones could do the job, but for this you need a drone carrier and big and powerful drones, not a quadrocopter from supermarket. So it's not that easy how people always think and classical concept in naval warfare is still valid!
Cruisers and destroyers by the way are not only for defending homeland, Tu-22M3M can do this job very good. They are for power projection, because defending homeland begins at the shores of the enemy! Defending allies, carrying out missions deep in enemy ocean zones etc. No corvette could do this job!!! Before USA thinks of attacking russian troops outside of Russia, because it's sooo far away (both Russia and whatever scenario maybe)...a cruiser gives them the psychological "f*ck you"...200 miles away from New York or another coastal city. That's a only psychological factor, but a important factor for our primitive primate brain. If you can see a threat you beginn to realize it, 7000 nukes is only abstract for most brainwashed idiotic western politicians.
Okay, back to topic...
I heard the project 22350M is not only a stretched project 22350 with more VLS, it is heavy modified with powerful radar. From the stats and the displacement it's a destroyer. And it's needed now to replace older ships. For Lider there is enough time, because the 2 cruisers now will serve well for the next years. And Lider was not mentioned to be build soon. I think it's more like magnumcromagnon wrote, a complete redesign of the concept.
Papa Dragon was right...the "anime destroyer" will in this form never be build!
Let's see how the redesign will look.
Why all guys think cruisers and destroyers are obsolet and dead??? That's bullshit! You can have 1000 Karakurt corvettes and sink not a single carrier!!! Only starting from destroyer you can generate enough electric power for a powerful radar. And only above 80 VLS you have the versatility to strike and defend at once, both combined. Only from a destroyer beginning you can put naval S-500 on it. I don't want to read the bullshit again that destroyers and cruiser are destroyable with 1 missile, they were always in history sunkable with 1 hit...a cannon shell, a bomb...whatever.
And please I don't want to read that...bla, bla, bla... we have satellites. Yeah, Serbian Army was able to move a complete tank army through the whole country in Kosovo War, complete undetected by NATO. Real track and target data can only be acquired by ships and planes...before you fire Tsirkon or Kinzhal you need target location. Maybe drones could do the job, but for this you need a drone carrier and big and powerful drones, not a quadrocopter from supermarket. So it's not that easy how people always think and classical concept in naval warfare is still valid!
Cruisers and destroyers by the way are not only for defending homeland, Tu-22M3M can do this job very good. They are for power projection, because defending homeland begins at the shores of the enemy! Defending allies, carrying out missions deep in enemy ocean zones etc. No corvette could do this job!!! Before USA thinks of attacking russian troops outside of Russia, because it's sooo far away (both Russia and whatever scenario maybe)...a cruiser gives them the psychological "f*ck you"...200 miles away from New York or another coastal city. That's a only psychological factor, but a important factor for our primitive primate brain. If you can see a threat you beginn to realize it, 7000 nukes is only abstract for most brainwashed idiotic western politicians.
Okay, back to topic...
I heard the project 22350M is not only a stretched project 22350 with more VLS, it is heavy modified with powerful radar. From the stats and the displacement it's a destroyer. And it's needed now to replace older ships. For Lider there is enough time, because the 2 cruisers now will serve well for the next years. And Lider was not mentioned to be build soon. I think it's more like magnumcromagnon wrote, a complete redesign of the concept.
Papa Dragon was right...the "anime destroyer" will in this form never be build!
Let's see how the redesign will look.
GarryB- Posts : 40548
Points : 41050
Join date : 2010-03-30
Location : New Zealand
If you think of ships as land based air defence forces, then an old corvette is basically a Verba team... relatively vulnerable to most air attacks though certainly not useless, but a modern corvette is the equivalent of a Pantsir battery... it could be overwhelmed but likely wont be operating alone anyway.
A Frigate is like an old S-300 battery with a few Pantsir batteries to help defend it and a Destroyer is an S-400 battery with a couple of TOR or Pantsir batteries to support it.
They don't need all cruisers but they do need some because a cruiser is not just a big vulnerable target it is much better armed and equipped than smaller vessels to operate away from Russian shores and has the fire power to defend itself from rather heavier attacks than smaller vessels.
An aircraft carrier is adding an airfield to defence which greatly expands your capacity to defend yourself and to also get the job done.
With any team, the more players you have and the better they coordinate and work together the harder it is to defeat them.
With their new technology every platform contributes information to the system so all the elements know what all the other elements know...
The whole point of modular design was that once you had a corvette you could scale it up to Frigate and Destroyer and Cruiser, with increased weapons and sensors and capacity and endurance... you have to specialise the smaller boats because a Corvette of one design might not be ideal for every role... whether it is arctic or pacific or black sea or baltic sea or caspian sea use, possibly frigates too, but larger vessels should be big enough to carry everything they need to be properly multirole...
A Frigate is like an old S-300 battery with a few Pantsir batteries to help defend it and a Destroyer is an S-400 battery with a couple of TOR or Pantsir batteries to support it.
They don't need all cruisers but they do need some because a cruiser is not just a big vulnerable target it is much better armed and equipped than smaller vessels to operate away from Russian shores and has the fire power to defend itself from rather heavier attacks than smaller vessels.
An aircraft carrier is adding an airfield to defence which greatly expands your capacity to defend yourself and to also get the job done.
With any team, the more players you have and the better they coordinate and work together the harder it is to defeat them.
With their new technology every platform contributes information to the system so all the elements know what all the other elements know...
The whole point of modular design was that once you had a corvette you could scale it up to Frigate and Destroyer and Cruiser, with increased weapons and sensors and capacity and endurance... you have to specialise the smaller boats because a Corvette of one design might not be ideal for every role... whether it is arctic or pacific or black sea or baltic sea or caspian sea use, possibly frigates too, but larger vessels should be big enough to carry everything they need to be properly multirole...
The-thing-next-door- Posts : 1393
Points : 1449
Join date : 2017-09-18
Location : Uranus
Most likely the delay is because by the time they have a couple of super Gorshkovs the current design will not include the advancements made in naval technology while they were waiting for funding and space to build it.
They will also probably want to incorporate experience gained from the construction and operation of super Gorshkovs.
It is unlikely that the Russian navy will jump straight from corvettes to heavy missile cruisers.
Their plan probably goes Gorshkov>Super Gorshkov>Leader>missile cruisers
>aircraft carriers
They will also probably want to incorporate experience gained from the construction and operation of super Gorshkovs.
It is unlikely that the Russian navy will jump straight from corvettes to heavy missile cruisers.
Their plan probably goes Gorshkov>Super Gorshkov>Leader>missile cruisers
>aircraft carriers
Arrow- Posts : 3492
Points : 3482
Join date : 2012-02-12
Russia is a long way to go with the navy. China is far ahead of them. They build rocket cruisers, , aircraft carriers. And the destroyers compare to 22350M are already produce in dozens. We will probably see the first 22350M after 2030. Lider class maybe after 2040.
Azi- Posts : 803
Points : 793
Join date : 2016-04-05
Word up! Good posting!!!GarryB wrote:If you think of ships as land based air defence forces, then an old corvette is basically a Verba team... relatively vulnerable to most air attacks though certainly not useless, but a modern corvette is the equivalent of a Pantsir battery... it could be overwhelmed but likely wont be operating alone anyway.
A Frigate is like an old S-300 battery with a few Pantsir batteries to help defend it and a Destroyer is an S-400 battery with a couple of TOR or Pantsir batteries to support it.
They don't need all cruisers but they do need some because a cruiser is not just a big vulnerable target it is much better armed and equipped than smaller vessels to operate away from Russian shores and has the fire power to defend itself from rather heavier attacks than smaller vessels.
An aircraft carrier is adding an airfield to defence which greatly expands your capacity to defend yourself and to also get the job done.
With any team, the more players you have and the better they coordinate and work together the harder it is to defeat them.
With their new technology every platform contributes information to the system so all the elements know what all the other elements know...
The whole point of modular design was that once you had a corvette you could scale it up to Frigate and Destroyer and Cruiser, with increased weapons and sensors and capacity and endurance... you have to specialise the smaller boats because a Corvette of one design might not be ideal for every role... whether it is arctic or pacific or black sea or baltic sea or caspian sea use, possibly frigates too, but larger vessels should be big enough to carry everything they need to be properly multirole...
What long way to go? Project 22350M will have more firepower than Arleigh Burke-destroyer and and a bit under Type 055 destroyer. And I really doubt China has the same experience and quality in missiles as Russia has. Why project 22350 after 2030? They have experience in buildung the most parts now and only the hull is no problem. And don't forget the most heavily armed ships in world are the Kirov battlecruiser.Arrow wrote:Russia is a long way to go with the navy. China is far ahead of them. They build rocket cruisers, , aircraft carriers. And the destroyers compare to 22350M are already produce in dozens. We will probably see the first 22350M after 2030. Lider class maybe after 2040.
Arrow- Posts : 3492
Points : 3482
Join date : 2012-02-12
hat long way to go? Project 22350M will have more firepower than Arleigh Burke-destroyer and and a bit under Type 055 destroyer. wrote:
AB has 96 VLS. Project 22350M has 48 VLS + 32 VLS air defence system? AB is a total of 62 ships plus Ticonderoga more then 20 ships with 120 VLS. The 22350M frigate is zero and will be zero for the next 10 years. Now Russia has only two modern frigate 22350. There is nothing to compare with US NAVY because it is a chasm. Russia has one Kirov in service plus another under renovation.
Azi- Posts : 803
Points : 793
Join date : 2016-04-05
The 32 VLS AD are fillable with Quad-launcher packs, to a total of 128 AD missiles + 48 VLS! In reality would be more like 24 short range missiles, 20 long range missiles and 48 VLS...to a total sum of 92 missiles, maybe a bit more or less. The VLS are ready for Tsirkon, Kalibr or Oniks.Arrow wrote:
AB has 96 VLS. Project 22350M has 48 VLS + 32 VLS air defence system? AB is a total of 62 ships plus Ticonderoga more then 20 ships with 120 VLS. The 22350M frigate is zero and will be zero for the next 10 years. Now Russia has only two modern frigate 22350. There is nothing to compare with US NAVY because it is a chasm. Russia has one Kirov in service plus another under renovation.
As I wrote...more firepower, than an AB destroyer! And even the quality of firepower is better, you can't compare Tsirkon with Tomahawk or Harpoon.
Last edited by Azi on Sun Feb 09, 2020 7:22 pm; edited 2 times in total
PapaDragon- Posts : 13472
Points : 13512
Join date : 2015-04-26
Location : Fort Evil, Serbia
Could mods lock this tread until we get actual confirmation that this mythical class of ship will ever be seriously considered for design phase?
We have two LHD ships in brand new class being confirmed for laying down in couple of months without a separate tread of their own and yet this tread about non-existent vaporware is still clogging the forum.
Rodion_Romanovic- Posts : 2654
Points : 2823
Join date : 2015-12-30
Location : Merkelland
how do you know how many air defence VLS will 22350M? It is entirely possible that the number will increase in comparison with 22350.Arrow wrote:
AB has 96 VLS. Project 22350M has 48 VLS + 32 VLS air defence system? AB is a total of 62 ships plus Ticonderoga more then 20 ships with 120 VLS. The 22350M frigate is zero and will be zero for the next 10 years. Now Russia has only two modern frigate 22350. There is nothing to compare with US NAVY because it is a chasm. Russia has one Kirov in service plus another under renovation.
Anyway, how many supersonic and hypersonic missiles does the US navy have? No one. From what i remember, the only real antiship missiles are the new AGM-158C LRASM (Long Range Anti-Ship Missile), that is a subsonic missile with a range of about 500 km and the old harpoons in the ships build before last batch of burke destroyers.
The same missiles are available for airplane launch.
There is also the possibility to use tomahawks as antiship missiles but as far as I understand that is more like as a last resource, since they are not ideal in such role.
In comparison Russia has the supersonic Onyx (the russian domestic version of the famous Bramhos missile), with the hypersonic Zyrcon coming soon and there is also the antiship version of the kalibr (subsonic, but with supersonic terminal phase).
Some of the large Soviet era ships also carry the large and still capable p700 granit and p1000 (both of them
In additon there are the airlaunched supersonic Kh-22 and its successor Kh-32 (hypersonic).
And i believe you remember the king of this group, the Kh-47M2 Kinzhal ("dagger") an air-launched ballistic missile (ALBM) with a range of more than 2,000 km (1,200 mi), Mach 10 speed, and an ability to perform evasive maneuvers at every stage of its flight.
Note:there are also a couple of interesting subsonic missiles:
The subsonic extra long range air launched kh55 and the Kh-35, roughly equivalent to the harpoon, to be launched from some of the smallest ships or from helicopters or aircrafts.
So the US missiles will be effective only in a very high number, since they will be normally be stopped by the antiair defence in Russian ships, and they can get an hit only with saturation attacks, while the russian missiles are designed to beat their enemy anti missile defence (and they will be launched in large number anyway).
Edit: corrected a mistake
Last edited by Rodion_Romanovic on Sun Feb 09, 2020 9:40 pm; edited 1 time in total
Isos- Posts : 11602
Points : 11570
Join date : 2015-11-06
Those US Arleigh Burkes will be spending 150% of their time monitoring China.
China has build the last 15 years a huge fleet and they just annouced they will switch production for bigger ships only, like WTF, they already build a shiton of big ships with plenty of VLS. In 15 years they will be 2x bigger than US navy.
Russia doesn't need any big navy. They will be free to do anything since the two big fights. Putin saud it right " There is a chinese saying that says that the smart monkey on its tree watch the two tigers fighting one versu the other". At the end the winner will be europeans, Russia and Japan (which is a bigger threat to Russia with Abe at power than USA focusing maily on China).
China has build the last 15 years a huge fleet and they just annouced they will switch production for bigger ships only, like WTF, they already build a shiton of big ships with plenty of VLS. In 15 years they will be 2x bigger than US navy.
Russia doesn't need any big navy. They will be free to do anything since the two big fights. Putin saud it right " There is a chinese saying that says that the smart monkey on its tree watch the two tigers fighting one versu the other". At the end the winner will be europeans, Russia and Japan (which is a bigger threat to Russia with Abe at power than USA focusing maily on China).
Last edited by Isos on Sun Feb 09, 2020 9:51 pm; edited 1 time in total
Hole- Posts : 11122
Points : 11100
Join date : 2018-03-24
Age : 48
Location : Scholzistan
P-700 and P-1000 are supersonic.
Rodion_Romanovic- Posts : 2654
Points : 2823
Join date : 2015-12-30
Location : Merkelland
i know I wanted to write supersonic, but i made a mistake. Fixing it now in the textHole wrote:P-700 and P-1000 are supersonic.
GarryB- Posts : 40548
Points : 41050
Join date : 2010-03-30
Location : New Zealand
AB has 96 VLS. Project 22350M has 48 VLS + 32 VLS air defence system? AB is a total of 62 ships plus Ticonderoga more then 20 ships with 120 VLS. The 22350M frigate is zero and will be zero for the next 10 years. Now Russia has only two modern frigate 22350. There is nothing to compare with US NAVY because it is a chasm. Russia has one Kirov in service plus another under renovation.
The fact that you think the ship with the most launch tubes is the best says everything about you Arrow.
And by the way an AB with 96 tubes means what? Will it have Harpoon or SAMs in those tubes? Either way it doesn't matter because no amount of Harpoons is going to be a problem for Russian ships, subsonic low flying missiles are not a threat even in large numbers because the whole point if an IADS is to deal with numbers and they do that well.
Even a Russian Corvette with 8x Mach 2.5 Onyx missiles could obliterate the US fleet... losing 8 ships to a single corvette would be devastating to the US fleet and would result in its immediate withdrawal from the region and the initiation of nuclear retaliation most likely... but it is even better than that... they can't stop Onyx, but improved double speed Onyx is due soon if not already here, and the four times faster Zircon is on the way.
Russian Naval SAMs are being developed from land based models of Pantsir, TOR, BUK, S-350, S-400, and S-500, and even if they are not as good as their land based equivalents they will be tremendously effective and capable...
Russia doesn't need a force to defeat the US Navy... in ten years time when they are expanding to support their international commercial interests the US Navy will be a shell... a hollow shell... the cost of the ships they currently operate is enormous and is crippling the US economy and it is broken... their new Frigates are crap, their new destroyers are crap and their new carrier is a helicopter barge and all three are the most expensive ships they have ever developed... till their replacements are ready which will cost even more. It is the US that is in trouble here... and just printing more money to pay for everything wont continue to work forever... pretty soon other countries are going to demand debt be paid in gold or something that cannot be printed off cheaply and easily and therefore has no real value.
The bubble is about to burst... that is the nature of such things... America dictates terms to other countries and created this situation itself... now it has to live with the consequences...
Maybe they need a new computer game... Someone should suggest to Putin that funding should be put aside for a Russian computer game set in the US when their economy collapses... Russian special forces teams could go in there and take resources and assets the way the US did during the Russian civil war after WWI... it would be very amusing...