Project 20836 Derzkiy-class modular Corvette

Isos wrote:

and the Gowind class is much better weapons wise. 1 76mm, 2 CIWS, 16AA missiles, eight anti ship, 2 triple torp tubes plus one chopper.

The derk is also 1.1k times EMPTY displacement then it will be over 1.5 when they fully loaded the Derk out.

So the ship you stated is better weapons wise while being smaller. The dark cannot have all it's weapon it must pick and choose. I consider ships about over 3k tons frigates, I would still consider the Gowind a corvette a big one yes but still a corvette

The mica are point defence. Redut with 9M96 is way better. Urans are always on derzki if I'm not wrong so they are as good as gowind for antiship capabilities with land attack possibilities.

2 CIWS ? The 20 guns are for you CIWS ? You would try to intervept an oniks with a 20mm gun ? Seriously ? Even the 30mm on the derzki would have hard time with oniks.

You can add a container with 4 more kalibr missiles or something else. It is better than a gowind which has only space for helicopter.

What I wanted to say is just if you compare systems, compare them with their equivalents. Not derzki against smaller frigates but the equivalent like a gowind or other NATO or Chinese 100m corvettes. You will then see they are better armed than nato equivalent ships.

Isos wrote:They are all around 105 m and the derzki is the best armed. It's not because it weights more that it has to have much more weapons. VLS are limited by the size of the ship not its weight. By the way they could add 16 VLS in that hangar for anti air missile in a container if they wanted it to be anti air instead of kakibr, it is easy to adapt a VLS into a container for them. They already did that with kalibr.

You quoted me. Can you at least read what I say ? I never said it has oniks always on it ...

Remove what for the container ? I never saw the real caracteristic for the hangar where it is supposed to be actually. It's empty. You put what you want in it. It is an advantage. Load depends on the mission.

the Type 056 corvette has about 1 76mm gun, 2 30cm ciws, 4 anti ship missiles, 8 anti air missiles and 2 triple barrel torps plus space for one chopper,

More like 1 gun, 3 ciws, 4 anti ship missiles. Russian molnya which is under 1kt has 16 urans, 1x76 mm gun and iglas. It's a fact that russian ships are better armed.

Peŕrier wrote:

SeigSoloyvov wrote:


Gowind is not the same, it's fully loaded it is like 2.5 the Derk will be over 4 fully loaded, that is NOT the same, sure you can add that container but then you gotta remove something else for it.

the Type 056 corvette has about 1 76mm gun, 2 30cm ciws, 4 anti ship missiles, 8 anti air missiles and 2 triple barrel torps plus space for one chopper,

That ship is also 1.5km Fully loaded.

You are trying to compare a ship that will be over 4k to ones that are under 3, I don't know how you think that makes sense, that Chinese corvettes despite being under half the derk's weight is better equipped because it has all of it's weapons fixed and doesn't need to give someone up to get another.

So yeah keep trying to peddle this myth that the derk is evenly armed for it's class because it ain't.

No the derk does not always have oniks on it, you don't even know how the ship is armed but you are trying to lecture me? think we done here dude until you educate yourself.

No, no, again  no.

Stated full load displacement if honestly stated, is the maximum allowed displacement for a vessel.

Exceeding it will rapidly degrade seaworthiness, speed, endurance, floating capabilities when damaged.

So if 20386s are declared as having 3.400 tonnes displacement at full load, they shall never exceed it, and usually even with a full load of weapons and stores will displace lesser than that.

Moreover, 3400 tonnes displacement means 3400 cubic meters of submerged hull, this is the definition of displacement.

It's already hard to understand how an hull just 109 meters long, with a maximum beam of 13 meters and a typical naval (i.e. for military combatant vessels) keel and bow could have up to 3400 cubic meters submerged, over 4000 cubic meters is something likely never seen before in naval engineering.

And of course, comparing a 20386 with a type 056 is useless, the latter being short range patrol vessels, while the 20386s are long range with focus on special  mssions ones.

The Gowind are only a little better, being still short on endurance and having systematically lighter weapon systems than a 20386 AShM apart  and almost no special missions facilities.

TheArmenian wrote:

SeigSoloyvov wrote:Only way you will know the dimensions if when they put it in the water not until then, 3400 is what was given it was never said if 3400 was it full load empty or what.

I believe 3400 is not the full, simply because shipbuilders calculate the empty weight when they lay the ships down, has the supports need to be capable of holding that weight and what not.

the full displacement typically only comes once it's in the water fully kitted out

No matter which way you want to look at it, the dimensions (length, width, etc.) of the Dersky are smaller than the 4000T (full load displacement) of the Grigorovich. You do the math.

Many knowledgeable people from Russian Naval forum still believe that the 3400T is an error. They argue that the standard displacementof the Derzky is 2400 T and that the full load is somewhere around 3000T.

Further debate on this subject is a waste of internet space until more information comes out.

Peŕrier wrote:There is one and one only meaningful definition for military ships, and that is full load displacement.

Id est, the maximum mass the ship could have before coming short of the design requirements.

Definitions like standard displacement are just deceptions: it does not exist a standard displacement because a ship would load fuel, stores, accessory parts and items in the quantities required by the single mission it is tasked to perform on that single sortie within the limits dictated by its full load displacement.

It is a common practice to lie about a ship's real full load displacement, to hide its true potential, still given lenghtm beam and draught of the hull, only minor variations of the full load displacement could be given.

Coming back to 20386, given the imposing and tall superstructure, I would say the engineers opted for a deeper than usual draught to grant floating and stability at the same time, and it could explain the stated large displacement for its phisical size.

It just doesn't seem consistent with the published renderings and 3D models,  but they could be not enough true to the real project.