Project 20836 Derzkiy-class modular Corvette

SeigSoloyvov wrote:

Isos wrote:

SeigSoloyvov wrote:

Isos wrote:The good thing is that they could stop this expensive useless class and use the hull for a normal Steregushchy ship.

The class isn't useless.

As expensive as a Gorshkov. Totally useless.

I believe an admin said it best towards you Something about a very simplistic mindset with naval operations.

If you think this class is useless you really don't know as much as you think you do.

For the Record

Gorsh - 260M

Merc - 230M

Hey genius, 260 ~= 230. But Gorshkov has two times more missiles. 2 times better radars. And is probably 10 times better to have it instead of this shitty expensive and useless corvette.

They are so mature they will soon be obsolete

SAM system is Shtil which was pretty much bare basic when ships were built and time will not be improving it's prospects

And there is never fundamental truth that remains unchanged and one that killed the whole class at 3 hulls: THERE ARE NO ENGINES FOR IT (and never will be)

Buk has newer missile today. It's not the same system as on the soviet Sovs destroyers. They even have the buk-M3 active radar missile with 70km range. They also pack more missiles than redut for the same space.

They are good ships but I agree when you have the Gorshkov and no engine for it, you don't choose to build more of it.

GarryB wrote:perhaps they are dealing with problems they need to solve before they can complete the ship

The same happened with Poliment-Redut,or with the domestic gas turbines and so on. Most countries are simply no able to develop them, and Russians are being actually pretty fast plugging such gaps, but still it takes many years to develop and debug such systems. The really important things are done by sustained effort, so it is the frustration of these years that will allow to have a functional shipbuilding industry in the future.

PapaDragon wrote:Back to Mercury: dose anyone else think that the hole for VLS installation on the ship is much larger than the official model would imply? Could they have made some changes on the go?

Well it is true that the well is quite big, maybe it is necessary to do it so, in order to install all the equipment? There was a modification of the 20386 but it had an extended hull and UKSK between the artillery mount and the bridge




That being said, I can imagine they need to do many internal changes or leave hull parts unfinished, waiting for the necessary detail plans. They are recently laying ships down for which they AFAIK don't have the final project (11711M, 23900), I guess in 20386 this may be the case too.

SeigSoloyvov wrote:Hey genius those price tags don't include the missiles....

You really do have a simple understanding of naval operations at sea alright.

You think Russia will go bankrupt for 16 more AD missiles and 8 more kalibr ?

The Gorshkov can even take the same amount as this useless corvette and do better because it is a better ship.

SeigSoloyvov wrote:

Isos wrote:

SeigSoloyvov wrote:Hey genius those price tags don't include the missiles....

You really do have a simple understanding of naval operations at sea alright.

You think Russia will go bankrupt for 16 more AD missiles and 8 more kalibr ?

The Gorshkov can even take the same amount as this useless corvette and do better because it is a better ship.

I am going to say this once for you, there is more to a navy. Then how many missiles you can pack on a ship, a navy has more than one job and mission it must do and many f those jobs cannot and will not be solved by "PUT ALL THE MISSILES INSIDE THE HULL"

Mercs aren't frontline combat ships they are universal support platforms designed to carry out and execute a wide range of operations in service to the navy, state and russian security interests at sea.

They while they have missiles the missiles are a secondary function, not a primary function. I hope this helps you understand.

So, let's made a recap: what exactly the Mercury offer that Gorshkov didn't and vice versa?

For the rest is the same that saying that the new american frigate is better armed than the italian Freem because it will have 16 VLS more, sacrificing a 127 mm and a 76 mm multipurpose gun system, both able to use long range AG and AA guided shells in meanwhile, so making it a poor's man version of the Burke's instead of the ship that they themselves called for.

I am going to say this once for you, there is more to a navy. Then how many missiles you can pack on a ship, a navy has more than one job and mission it must do and many f those jobs cannot and will not be solved by "PUT ALL THE MISSILES INSIDE THE HULL"

Mercs aren't frontline combat ships they are universal support platforms designed to carry out and execute a wide range of operations in service to the navy, state and russian security interests at sea.

They while they have missiles the missiles are a secondary function, not a primary function. I hope this helps you understand

I know it's not a ship designed to do the job of a Gorshkov. That doesn't change the fact it's an expensive and useless class. They have Steregoushchy and Bykov classes that do the work very well

For its price they could have bought another Gorshkov WHICH can do the work done by this ship and more. Or they could have bought a Steregouchshy and another small units.

marcellogo wrote:So, let's made a recap: what exactly the Mercury offer that Gorshkov didn't and vice versa?...

Wrong question

We should ask what does it offer that Steregushi doesn't

Accept Merc can do the job of both those ships and more jobs and better, thus its cheaper, in the long run, to make since you are making more operating costs by building different ships...

Just because you think its a useless class doesn't make it so. Its a good class for what its designed for and you cannot understand that enjoy living under your rock.

Yeah we see how good it is doing its missions from the shipyard . What mission exactly ? Carrying one container that Steregoushchy can't carry is a reason to pay as much as a Gorshkov ?

Accept Gorshkov can do its job and better for the same cost and it would give another nice frigate to the russian navy instead of this expensive useless ship.

Isos wrote:...Accept Gorshkov can do its job and better for the same cost and it would give another nice frigate to the russian navy instead of this expensive useless ship.  

No it won't

Engines don't exist, remember?

No engines = no ship

PapaDragon wrote:

Isos wrote:...Accept Gorshkov can do its job and better for the same cost and it would give another nice frigate to the russian navy instead of this expensive useless ship.  

No it won't

Engines don't exist, remember?

No engines = no ship

They have/had no engine for any of their ships. They are solving the problem slowly.

Has anyone asked about when the photo was taken?

SeigSoloyvov wrote:

marcellogo wrote:

SeigSoloyvov wrote:

Isos wrote:

SeigSoloyvov wrote:Hey genius those price tags don't include the missiles....

You really do have a simple understanding of naval operations at sea alright.

You think Russia will go bankrupt for 16 more AD missiles and 8 more kalibr ?

The Gorshkov can even take the same amount as this useless corvette and do better because it is a better ship.

I am going to say this once for you, there is more to a navy. Then how many missiles you can pack on a ship, a navy has more than one job and mission it must do and many f those jobs cannot and will not be solved by "PUT ALL THE MISSILES INSIDE THE HULL"

Mercs aren't frontline combat ships they are universal support platforms designed to carry out and execute a wide range of operations in service to the navy, state and russian security interests at sea.

They while they have missiles the missiles are a secondary function, not a primary function. I hope this helps you understand.

So, let's made a recap: what exactly the Mercury offer that Gorshkov didn't and vice versa?

For the rest is the same that saying that the new american frigate is better armed than the italian Freem because it will have 16 VLS more, sacrificing a 127 mm and a 76 mm multipurpose gun system, both able to use long range AG and AA guided shells in meanwhile, so making it a poor's man version of the Burke's instead of the ship that they themselves called for.

the FFGX is a heavy frigate...dunno why you are comparing it to destroyers..

completely incorrect comparison.

The FFGX is an heavy frigate exactly like the FrEMM, of which it is a derivation, are: fact is that while the former, in their different versions, French and Italian, are equipped according to their own mission/role, the FFGX, according to the anticipation they sent forth, have been shifted toward being a smaller version of Burke destroyers, sacrificing most of the strong points, flexibility and multirole capability of FrEEM (above all compared to the Italian GP version at which I as referring to) in order to gain 16 launch tubes more.
Hence my referral to them as a Poor man's Burke, like Perry and Knox were poor man's destroyers escort renamed frigates but lacking the key features of frigates (almost in the sense that we in Western Europe but also Soviet Union with Krivak gave them)

Same would be valid for Mercury, that's is started as a Steregushij on a larger hull to be used in Blue water environments instead of a Green water one.
Infact, original corvettes were send to Baltic and Black Sea fleet, Gremiashichij will to Pacific and Merkury to Northern fleet.

they are working on solving problems and getting technology to work the way it is supposed to before they build the ship it goes in

What problems?
UKSK -in service no development needed
Redut -in service no development needed
Zaslon -there are I think 3 ships with this on the water already, no word on how well its going & may well need a lot of development but that work should be completed with the ships on the water before first 20386 is ready.
AK-630 -definitely no development needed
Modular equipment/weapons -by their nature should be largely developed off-ship without affecting the building of the hull & superstructure, a lot of the ship-integration/testing should be doable on the several 22160 already in service.
Helicopters -in service no development needed
Engines -is the only major development needed & yes probably does need to be well advanced before progressing the hull.

The last goes to this point:

THERE ARE NO ENGINES FOR IT

There are no engines for 20386 either.
Whats easier: bringing up domestic production of a well understood, existing gas-turbine & gearbox or creating an all-new drive-train of a type thats never been done domestically before?

SAM system is Shtil which was pretty much bare basic when ships were built and time will not be improving it's prospects

As Isos pointed out its the new-gen missile just going into service with BuK-M3 & with soft-launch on VLS.
The search radars & fire-control are not new but are decent-performing, mature tech running with newer software/combat system.


For ~the same price you get nearly all the headline advantages of 20386 but simultaneously unlike 20386 & its a hull thats been proven to be capable of pushing out quite quickly.


Russia desperately needs a decent production run of a standard model frigate.
Having already built 3*11356 IMO it makes sense to expand the order to 9 or 12 to justify the engine/gearbox development & helping out the logistics for the existing 3*. (easier to justify production of spare-parts, missiles etc)
If they can ramp-up 22350 production I'm fine with that, its more capable than both.
With 20386 languishing barely making progress its definitely not going to be this class.

Grigorovitch has only 1 uksk and they are not good with that because even the 2 uksk on Gorshkov are not enough since they ask for 3 on new ships.

Also Gorshkov with 10m longer and 1000t more has the same crew.

However, the 3 grigorovitch are the most used in Syria and shows that the 4 fleets can't really help each other. The protection of Hmeimim is done by Black sea fleet with very little help from the other ones.

Maybe with uksk instead of rbu, paket nk instead of 533mm torpedo and 76mm gun it could be an interesting option. But the best is Gorshkov.

SeigSoloyvov wrote:The FGGX isn't designed to be a type of ship the Merc is.

The FGGX is designed to simply be a frontline frigate, for a traditional frigate roll the class will function just fine.

It's going to fulfill the same role in the US navy as the Gorsh does for Russia.

Now, it's you that are comparing different categories of ship: FFGX and FrEEM are (heavy) frigates, Merc has always classified as a corvette (although modular).

In our actual military literature it would be called a "Corvettone".

I have still many doubt on FFGX but I absolutely agree that it is a frigate, being a direct derivation of the best one around.

It's just that i'm foreseeing it going to be ruined by a Navy that have neither had a real one of them and that had designed its last working littoral ships during the Secession War...

Grigorovitch has only 1 uksk and they are not good with that because even the 2 uksk on Gorshkov are not enough since they ask for 3 on new ships.

20386 as designed has 0 built-in UKSK (possibly only 4 containerised missiles & when carrying that no chopper), only 16 cells of Redut but on practically the same displacement as Grigorovich.

hoom wrote:

Grigorovitch has only 1 uksk and they are not good with that because even the 2 uksk on Gorshkov are not enough since they ask for 3 on new ships.

20386 as designed has 0 built-in UKSK (possibly only 4 containerised missiles & when carrying that no chopper), only 16 cells of Redut but on practically the same displacement as Grigorovich.

I wasn't comparing it to the 20386 but just talking about it as a frigate for RuN and it needs to be compared with Gorshkov or at least take into acount xhat the admirals want. Right now they want lot of UKSK on everything. So with 1 uksk for almost the same size as gorshkov it is very unlikely they buy any more.

hoom wrote:

THERE ARE NO ENGINES FOR IT

There are no engines for 20386 either.
Whats easier: bringing up domestic production of a well understood, existing gas-turbine & gearbox or creating an all-new drive-train of a type thats never been done domestically before?

That all new drive-train will be used on every single new Russian ship down the road

And they are already bringing up domestic production of a well understood, existing gas-turbine & gearbox, one for Gorshkov-frigates

It's pointless and wasteful to do the same for another one in parallel, especially one which would be used on inferior vessel

hoom wrote:Russia desperately needs a decent production run of a standard model frigate.

Yes they do, that's why they need to double down on Gorshkovs instead of spreading resources thin on redundant class

I wasn't comparing it to the 20386

I was though since this is the 20386 thread and I'm arguing that it'd be better to spend the $ & effort on more 11356es &/or 22350s.