Project 2038.0: Steregushchy Corvette

marcellogo wrote:It seems me that all the discussions about 2038 start from a colossal misjudgement/forgetfullness of the basics  of modern naval warfare.

Just compare the average quantity of weapons carried by a typical Green water Navy (to cut it short: YOUR'S and MINE's own) in theCold War era when compared to the others, Blue and Brown water alike.

There is a reason because ours FREMM cost 30% more than a French one.

The same reasons behind that fact that our and yours naval artillery and CIWS systems are orders of magnitude better than anything else in the world (and Thank to God, they were sold accordingly well).
Our navies, being green water ones really need them to just operate in their own environment, not "just in case".

A blue water ship can see enemy incoming from afar, a blue water ships is usually not alone but it is part of a fully fledged fleet almost always disposed in an optimal formation, a blue water ship in its environment could just be targeted by large and capable systems.

A green water navy has none of this luxuries, menaces pop ups all of a sudden and can be of any type, a pocket submarine, a sea skimming missile launched by a coastal defence system, explosive motor boats coming by a nearby island , even coastal artillery pieces or mine fields.
Even if part of a fleet, they would be engaged in choke points, so no way relying on a system carried on a nearby ships.

Only total suckers in this type of warfare could have developed the colossal fiasco that LCS were, relying on stealth and speed, two things almost useless in such an environment or better said in the tactical posture that green water is.

Green water ones needs an hundred of things more.

MiamiMachineShop wrote:20380 is a great ship

As for engines, the Russians designed M90FR, M70FR-2, M70FRU, as analogues of UGT16000,UGT15000R, and other turbines. They are great engines, but the Russians want a 15% + efficiency rating over Zorya mashproekt counterparts, as stated by UEC. This is why they are taking so long, not because they are "shitty" engines,

MiamiMachineShop wrote:Noone else mastered MGT except for General Electric, Royce, and Zorya. There is no one else dude. MTU is a diesel engine, its glowplugs, diesel pump, stuff that is not marine gas turbine. Caterpillar, Wartsila, all make diesels for Russia and Russia has plenty of diesels it can experiment in marine. But Marine Gas Turbine is a whole other deal, the free power turbines they are making that are slower RPM can also be used at the compressor stations throughout the Russian oil network. Its not a small issue, or even a science, at that level it becomes an art. Improving the fabrication process and getting that 15% efficiency will be worth it when they have MGT's to rival General Electric when its all said and done. The knowledge could be considered divine in a modern sense

Vladimir79 wrote:
The production of MGT is not a high profit industry.  As you can see ours are not profitable.  Even France got out of the business after the most successful export MGT ever produced at SEMT Pielstick. The license production of it is the backbone of the Chinese Navy and several others.  They still make engines for their own use but it is under the MTU brand.  If you can't break even on it then the industry will die.  It is the total lack of investment in these industries for the commercial sector that has driven this downturn.  Military use is not even 10% of the market.

Hole wrote:The yards that built Gorschkovs and Steregs. today are the same that build the Sov. and Udaloy classes in the 80´s (average 2 destroyers a year, at the end of the 80´s even 3). No problem with building capacity, only personnel. This can be fixed if the Navy would decide to order larger numbers for a given timeframe = the Yards could plan ahead and employ more workers.

Hole wrote:The yards that built Gorschkovs and Steregs. today are the same that build the Sov. and Udaloy classes in the 80´s (average 2 destroyers a year, at the end of the 80´s even 3). No problem with building capacity, only personnel. This can be fixed if the Navy would decide to order larger numbers for a given timeframe = the Yards could plan ahead and employ more workers.

Vladimir79 wrote:

Hole wrote:The yards that built Gorschkovs and Steregs. today are the same that build the Sov. and Udaloy classes in the 80´s (average 2 destroyers a year, at the end of the 80´s even 3). No problem with building capacity, only personnel. This can be fixed if the Navy would decide to order larger numbers for a given timeframe = the Yards could plan ahead and employ more workers.

Sure, and it is the same equipment that was used to build ships twenty years before that.  The modernisation of the Northern Shipyards will not be completed until 2022 and the building capacity is down until it is completed.  

Vladimir79 wrote:

The basics of a Navy is it being able to go where you need it.  Brown water ships cannot travel in rough waters which is very bad when most of our coast touches the Arctic.

The weapons are of little use if they cannot reach a target.

The French have 32 VLS, yours only have 16.  Why would Italians cost 30% more?  I never did understand why you would build a large ship and not put enough weapons on it.

Naval artillery will always have its place but the role for CIWS is becoming obsolete.  Most of the navies have switched to missiles and soon the point defence weapon will be lasers.

A blue water ship traveling with other blue water ships usually has a strong multi-layer defence.  Brown water vessels would be easily picked off.

You don't think NATO has the capability to spot all of those little pop ups long before they have a chance to "pop up"? The last country who tried this was Iran and the US wiped them out in Op Praying Mantis.  Missile boats are only effective if you maintain air superiority over them.  If you are spending the money on fleets of fighters to keep that air dominance you might as well arm them with ASMs which makes the brown water boats redundant. 

Which is another example of why brown water centric is a waste of money.

All the more reason not to waste money on them.

marcellogo wrote:

Vladimir 79, seriously , who has ever said anything about Brown water navy?

Green Water Navy is a way different thing from both Blue than Brown. And it's the one that have the most compelling task between the three.

The weapons are of little use if they cannot reach a target.
Ant THATis what make the Green waters (Adriatic, Red Sea, Persian Gulf, Baltic, Black Sea,  Aegean)  a most compelling environment than Oceans.When a fleet enter in such spaces it puts itself in the condition of being targeted by a greater array of menaces of the ones that would face in the Oceans.
And this will became worst as time go by as actual range of sea skimming missiles keep on growing.

WHAT? French Fremm has only 16 A43 launchers than can just employ Aster 15, only the two FREDA (still to be consigned) would have A50 launchers.
Italian FREMM has an high performance AESA radar, French ones has a way weaker Heracles PESA radar, Italian FREMM has hangars for two helicopters not one, Italian FREMM has a 127mm and a 76 mm or two 76mm guns, not just one. Italian ASW variant carry MILAS ASW missiles and both OTOMAT i.e.the most capable anti-ship missile in Nato inventory.
Our onboard command and control system, not just in FREMM but in almost all the fleet, is of federated type meaning single weapon system can still operate independently even if the main control room is blown off.
Above all, every military ship we built from sixties onward is made along a proprietary standard, way more stringent of the standard Nato one for what it come to damage and fire control, hull resistance and possibility to operate whan damaged.
And no, we don't like to have silver-plated items, we just consider this as just the minimum to be able to operate in our usual, green water environment.

I think this is a problem of denomination, not of substance.
May I remember you that while the 57mm Boford of the LCS is considered as their naval artillery piece, our actual CIWS system is made of a(lmost one, usually more) 76mm OTO Melara Super Rapido with STRALES guided shells (and russian actual ones are Kasthans and Pantsirs)? How I have said earlier, a clear proof of how much the USN is such a total sucker in what comes to littoral and green water operations.

There is not specific Green Water vessels, as opposed to brown water ones.
We consider all our fleet from Minerva to  the same Cavour as built in order to operate mainly in a Green Water Environment: we cannot put our main ones in the right middle of Tyrrhenian sea i.e. the only place of our national waters in which they could assume a typical blue sea defensive position while the rest of fleet operates in the Adriatic or in the Strait of Sicily. Same problem would arise in Baltic and Black Sea.
So our Carriers/ASW cruiser has more artillery, short range missiles and CIWS systems onboard than a Nimitz (in the case of Vittorio Veneto and Garibaldi we put even OTOMAT lauchers on them, Leningrad and Kiev did the same).

No, in many cases they don't have such capability, most of such systems are elusive and the increment of ASM ranges is actually making things much more complicated. Almost all of Persian Gulf and of Strait of Hormutz could be covered by land launched missiles.

A brown water navy is one having almost no ships, just fast patrol boats, coastal submarines or minelayer/minesweppers. Think to the Swedish or Finn ones

20380 carry an anti-air system with a range equal if not superior to the ASTER30 + a full sized helicopter, nothing to do with a Brown water Navy.

So nothing between Leaders and Karakurts then?

It should be nothing but Gorshkovs. We have enough corvettes and missile boats.

Isos wrote:
Missile boat are very good when you have Kalibr family to launch from. Under the treaties with US they couldn't be launch from ground so it was either more bomber which production was stop or naval missile boats which are easy and cheap to build.

Frigate building was a problem since fall of USSR. But now they are geting them. They got 3 Grigorovitch, 3 more waiting for engines, 2 Gorshkov finished and 4 more in production (which should accelerate). Nakhimov should come back in a year or two.

Steregoushchy and variants are big corvettes more armed than NATO frigates. Fremms like you said carries only 16 aster for 3 times the displacement. In terms of anti shipping kalibr >>> subsonic old antiship missile in nato.

In 1 vs 1 in can take on any ship from nato as most of them have 8 antiship missiles and 76mm gun.

You compare it to a carrier group which is stupid. No ship in the world can fight a carrier group. To destroy a carrier group you either use SSGNs or aviation. No one would sebd a corvette to fight alone.

Guess what, that is how NATO operates... overwhelming firepower.

Isos wrote:Everything you said is wrong.

Missile boat will operate near the shores where the patrol missions are made by the coast guard being reequiped with new ships. They will only go intercept and destroy intruders. They also have air force to patrol around there. They will be covered by sukhoi in the air and kilo under the sea.

Gorshkov patrols will be further away. For that I agree they need them and bigger ships. But smaller corvette were bought to secure coast not to fight in the pacific.

Aster is just as capable as redut missiles. Go check data. And they can't even intercept BM which are becoming anti ship missiles. 12 redut will intercept any exocet and they also have ak 630. Gowind is just as good as la fayette. Totally useleess. Destroyers with 32 missiles are a jock. Su-34 can carry 6 anti ship missiles. A group of 10 will carry 60. 20 of them will carry 120. French carrier without US support couldn't last long against an oponent that has sukhoi, kilo subs and some awacs. If it get destroyed France can't keep territories with few tanker and 4 rafales. We have nothing to replace it.

Putting all our eggs in one carrier is a bad strategy. It could even have an accident a sink like the nato frigate some months ago.

Against libya maybe. They overwhelming force was a total disaster when they attacked Syria 1 grigorovitch and two kilo chased away british nuclear sub and french FREMMs.
US missiles were destroyed by old syrian air defence forces...

To destroy a carrier group you need an air force of at least 50 su-35, 24 su-34 with big jamers, 2 or 3 il-38NM, 2 awacs and a navy of 12 steregoushchy and 2 or 3 gorshkov plus 8 or 10 kilo.

Argentinian even almost torpeded the british carrier in Malvinas but the torpedo failed because it wasn't properly used. British didn't even detected the launch.

Carriers are just one big base moving at 30km/h. Once you know where it is and where its escort ships are you only need good pilots which knows the caracteristics of enemies missiles and the job is done. Air defence system are always affected by radar horizon. Amramm won't help in a jammed environement and they can intercept theorically more than 40 jet since they only have 40 of them onboard. In reality they can't launch 40 jet like that.

You will have Super Hornets, Rafales, F-35s or whatever it may be shooting down the Sukhois and bombing the shit out of defenceless patrol boats.   The carriers will be launching air strikes so far away you will never be able to engage them accept by Backfires. With Aster and Standard missiles qualified to shoot down super sonic sea skimmers, shooting down Radugas is child's play.  You have to keep them under the S-400 umbrella and without the 400km missile, it is not very far from shore.  

Smaller corvettes are just targets.  

Aster is actually the most capable SAM ever produced.  Thanks to its pif-paf system it has an accuracy unmatched by anything before it.  Our SAMs are not as accurate so carry larger blast frag warheads to try to get the kill.  Aster will hit the target dead on.

How would a strike package of Su-34 fair against Rafale Ms equipped with Meteor?   They would not fair very well.  If they got through that they would have to penetrate a barrier of Aster 30 missiles.  Not likely to get through that either.   Aster is more than capable of shooting down their missiles if they managed to get them off not to mention MICA of any Rafale flying CAP over the fleet.  That is why a carrier strike group is so powerful, it has multiple layers of defences and can take out the threat before it becomes a threat.  

That didn't stop the French from launching their Scalps undetected...

I don't see the value of 20380s or Kilos in that orbat.  The Kilo is not fast enough to intercept a CSG and with the downrated engines, neither is the 20380.

The damage to the Royal Navy was caused by Exocets, the French fleet has hundreds of them and being launched at 20380s would not take much to sink it.  The Gorshkov is the one with the missiles to shoot down the aircraft before they can launch it.  

Vladimir79 wrote:

MiamiMachineShop wrote:Noone else mastered MGT except for General Electric, Royce, and Zorya. There is no one else dude. MTU is a diesel engine, its glowplugs, diesel pump, stuff that is not marine gas turbine. Caterpillar, Wartsila, all make diesels for Russia and Russia has plenty of diesels it can experiment in marine. But Marine Gas Turbine is a whole other deal, the free power turbines they are making that are slower RPM can also be used at the compressor stations throughout the Russian oil network. Its not a small issue, or even a science, at that level it becomes an art. Improving the fabrication process and getting that 15% efficiency will be worth it when they have MGT's to rival General Electric when its all said and done. The knowledge could be considered divine in a modern sense

The production of MGT is not a high profit industry.  As you can see ours are not profitable.  Even France got out of the business after the most successful export MGT ever produced at SEMT Pielstick. The license production of it is the backbone of the Chinese Navy and several others.  They still make engines for their own use but it is under the MTU brand.  If you can't break even on it then the industry will die.  It is the total lack of investment in these industries for the commercial sector that has driven this downturn.  Military use is not even 10% of the market.

Isos wrote:

Well wong again. Their ranges are pathetic especially when full loaded with cruise missiles and bombs and missiles. Mostly it will be under 1000km and buddy to buddy refueling won't help as they would need all their fighters to attack. And lets not forget that they can't launch all the fighters at once so the first ones will spend their fuel waiting the others.

New anti ship missiles are getting their range increased and the su-34 has much more range tan f-18.

When houtis launched 2 iranian anti ship missiles at US cruiser they needed in total 2 sm-2 and 1 ESSM and jaming to counter that. Which means SM-2 missed. Against an iranian missile ...

Not if they are covered by the air force and have enough to destroy 10 or so antiship missile by their own each. Even less if they can carry 8 nuclear kalibr to destroy the carrier or even the fighter formation coming at her.

Does that mean other air defence can't intercept exocet. No.

I was talking about overwhelming attacks. Kh-35U is a unified missile that can be launched from any plateform with a range of 260km. Aster is 120km range max. They carry small amount of them and they are much more expensive than kh35. Even with a range of 130km, half of what official data say, a su-34 will be free to launch them all day. Intercepting a formation of 10 su 34 at 130km away is not easy. They are not old tu-22 bomber but fighter bombers that will know when they are targeted and can evade and jam any missiles launched them.

Aster and meteor rely on their own radars which are small and not powerfull at all. A good powerful jammer will affect them. They don't even have aesa seakers.

And once they use all their missile they are easy targets too.

30 rafale M. 2 catapults. Good luck intercepting a package of douzens of sukhoi 34 which will come with a douzen of su-35 and a bunch of tu22. Asters will first need to deal with the hundreds of missiles targeting the carrier. E-2 awacs would need to be very close to battlefront to see the missiles so in range of su-35 armed with r-37.

Kilo should be used either to launch massive kalibr salvo or to wait for the carrier to pass by. A good tactic would be the kilo sailing in big 8 path and once the carrier detected they go at him and launch their torpedoes.

Steregoushchy have 12-16 redut and can intercept missiles. Carriers are not carrying such a large amount of missiles inside as you pretend. Uksk will allow use of kalibr or oniks to destroy ships at 700-800km away.

Range of anti ship missile is increasing. Air def system will mostly need to intercept missiles. Forget about shooting jets. If we say CdG has 100 exocet which I doubt, it would mean 10 exocet per steregouchshy if you have ten of them. With 12-16 redut plus ak-630 plus ak176 which is very good at shooting missiles btw there is a big chance they hit nothing. It also means 80 uksk to fire at the carrier. As they are low flying frigates too far used as radar picket can't see them.

Numbers play for Russia. Get over it. Carrier are totally useless if you have the right tools to destroy them and a trained army to operate them.

PapaDragon wrote:

So if Aster is so awesome why aren't Chinese, Indians, Turks and God knows who else buying them?

I don't think any of them is short on cash so why waste time on overpriced inferior junk they are buying currently?