VMF vs. USN scenarios

Isos wrote:US anti ship capabilities are the harpoons carried by Super-Hornets. It's far the best way to attack ships. They have longer range than anti-ship missiles alone as they have missile + Aircraft range. They can spot big cruiser or destroyers at 200km at least and lunch their missiles at the same range. They can destroy helicopters easily and reaload missiles easily too. Their isn't any anti air defence systeme that can threat them at these ranges and in the middle of the ocean they won't be attacked by an air force.

It's just impossible for Russia to win a naval war far away from its Mainland against US navy. Close to the shores Russia can interceped the Hornets with is own Sukhoi. And that the strategy of Russia, they don't need much as their interest is to protect the borders, not to attack the US. They could lunch their long range missiles in an ocean battle but they won't be able to reload like you reload and F-18.

I very much agree here. The US doctrine spreads the risk much better, be it in open waters or near their opponent's waters. The Hornet capability is very much real and enhanced with the upcoming AGM-158C, with over 350 km effective range. Also B-1B bombers can come out and play with this one and the weapon is designed to fit Mk 41 VLS, although not fielded yet.

If one combines this with AEW&C assets and data fusion from other flying assets (e.g. MH-60R), well shows how the US side is being smarter by spreading the risk, keeping all the big assets (destroyers and cruisers) well out of harms way. If such ASM strikes are combined with saturation attacks by Tomahawks and even SM-6s, then there's a distinct advantage that no last-moment CIWS or naval SHORADS can overcome.

So it's not about wonder-weapons, e.g. marvelous supersonic one-time shooters, as the US did not invest in them. It's about playing the long game, playing to win. Brown water corvettes or frigates (the core of the Russian Navy right now and for the next decade) have zero chances in such threat environment, even near home waters. The inherent lack of numbers, launch tubes and reload capability simply lets them down.

AlfaT8 wrote:I don't know, Gorshvok is good, but i feel that it should have more firepower preferably double the UKSKs it currently has

Take it this way, about the AG, it's half the ship an AB is and thus has half the number of VLS cells. It's a heavy frigate really and for its size is alright. Expecting to pack more punch is unrealistic. It's small and will never match the capabilities of the big boys.

AlfaT8 wrote: they should at least make sure to pack as much firepower to even the smallest ship.
The mainstay of the U.S navy are the Arleigh Burkes and the Ticonderoga-class, there  are 62 ABs each with around 96 missiles cells and there are 22 Tc's each with around 122 missile cells, there is no two ways around this.

As I said, it really is impossible to match the firepower of what is essentially is a 10,000 ton cruiser to a glorified corvette or frigate.

AlfaT8 wrote:IMO, i would recommend that for the future Russian fleet, Corvettes should have a minimal of 16 UKSKs (2x8cells), Frigates should have a minimal of 32 UKSKs, Destroyers a minimal of 64 UKSKs and Cruisers and/or B-cruisers should have a minimal of 128 UKSKs, although i know the U.S puts AA missiles in there VLS as well, with the number of ships they have they can have those dedicated to AD and those dedicated for anti-ship, Russia doesn't have that luxury so every ship must be well armed.

What do you guys think, ....to ambitious?

No, it's not ambitious to seek for the best solutions. I agree. For me more realistic would be for Russia to figure out how to build large combat ships -again-. Settle on a heavy frigate/light destroyer, building on the AG experience, in the 4,000 to 6,000 ton range (sure 64 VLS sounds alright) and start ship-building like there's no tomorrow. I.e. get the numbers in (plan say over 30 vessels in 2 decades), keep people busy, projects running and have a proper Navy as a result.

AlfaT8 wrote:I don't know, Gorshvok is good, but i feel that it should have more firepower preferably double the UKSKs it currently has, as for the Karakurt it's decent, but seems redundant since we already have Buyan and Steregushchiy, unless there's something i don't know, and i am guessing reskii is dreaski or project 20386, which is a ship i am kinda disappointed at since it looks like it can hold 2x8cell UKSKs, but instead uses 2x4cell Uran luanchers.

...................

Gorshkov is excellent multirole platform. 16 VLS is OK but once you load Zirkon missiles into down the road it becomes something else entirely. And it is a good platform for further modifications without designing new ships from scratch.

Karakurt is not redundant, it's improved Buyan (stealth, endurance, seaworthiness). You can't use modified river design forever. If used as dedicated land attack platform it frees up frigates for anti-ship/sub work even further.

20386 or Drskii (THX for correction) is good corvette platform. Previous ones packed a punch, yes, but they were also overstuffed. There are size limitations that is all. This is good, balanced design.  

Keep making these and RU Navy should be in a good place soon. When Lider class enters equation later on it will be even better. Current designs maintain navy's capabilities. Lider expands them.

KiloGolf wrote:The US doctrine spreads the risk much better, be it in open waters or near their opponent's waters.

The target of every military is that.

It is the reason why China making carriers, and this will be the reason why Russia making long range nuclear torpedos, and stealth planes with aircraft carriers.


As soon as any other country has attack capability that can reach US mainland USA will have to rebalance the military outlay, cutting back the size of navy, or going down on the road of the CCCP.


At least this is the plan of russia/china/india : )

KiloGolf wrote:

kvs wrote:Gatling guns will work against this wunderwaffe.   It is clearly subsonic.

Sure that works on a usual day. Although saturation attack of say.. 50-60 of them by one or a handful of Burke's will present a problem.
Like major problem. Ergo gets the job done fine and keeps the launching platforms well away from problems. 1000 nm is just unparalleled stuff.

If you think that 50-60 subsonic tomahawk can overwhelm a destroyer's defence, then how many supersonic missile needed to overwhelm similar defence?


Additional, the AB class main job is to protect the carriers/ambitious ships. not so many left for other tasks.


The big attack capability require a lot of other assets.

KiloGolf wrote:

AlfaT8 wrote:I don't know, Gorshvok is good, but i feel that it should have more firepower preferably double the UKSKs it currently has

Take it this way, about the AG, it's half the ship an AB is and thus has half the number of VLS cells. It's a heavy frigate really and for its size is alright. Expecting to pack more punch is unrealistic. It's small and will never match the capabilities of the big boys.

It's not about being a match, it's about having at least half the firepower of a destroyer, shouldn't be to much to ask for in an improved Gorshvok-M.

KiloGolf wrote:

AlfaT8 wrote: they should at least make sure to pack as much firepower to even the smallest ship.
The mainstay of the U.S navy are the Arleigh Burkes and the Ticonderoga-class, there  are 62 ABs each with around 96 missiles cells and there are 22 Tc's each with around 122 missile cells, there is no two ways around this.

As I said, it really is impossible to match the firepower of what is essentially is a 10,000 ton cruiser to a glorified corvette or frigate.

Maybe, but it doesn't mean you shouldn't give it your all.

KiloGolf wrote:

AlfaT8 wrote:IMO, i would recommend that for the future Russian fleet, Corvettes should have a minimal of 16 UKSKs (2x8cells), Frigates should have a minimal of 32 UKSKs, Destroyers a minimal of 64 UKSKs and Cruisers and/or B-cruisers should have a minimal of 128 UKSKs, although i know the U.S puts AA missiles in there VLS as well, with the number of ships they have they can have those dedicated to AD and those dedicated for anti-ship, Russia doesn't have that luxury so every ship must be well armed.

What do you guys think, ....to ambitious?

No, it's not ambitious to seek for the best solutions. I agree. For me more realistic would be for Russia to figure out how to build large combat ships -again-. Settle on a heavy frigate/light destroyer, building on the AG experience, in the 4,000 to 6,000 ton range (sure 64 VLS sounds alright) and start ship-building like there's no tomorrow. I.e. get the numbers in (plan say over 30 vessels in 2 decades), keep people busy, projects running and have a proper Navy as a result.

I am not sure whether you're being sarcastic, but yea something like that.
Also whats AG??...

PapaDragon wrote:

AlfaT8 wrote:I don't know, Gorshvok is good, but i feel that it should have more firepower preferably double the UKSKs it currently has, as for the Karakurt it's decent, but seems redundant since we already have Buyan and Steregushchiy, unless there's something i don't know, and i am guessing reskii is dreaski or project 20386, which is a ship i am kinda disappointed at since it looks like it can hold 2x8cell UKSKs, but instead uses 2x4cell Uran luanchers.

...................

Gorshkov is excellent multirole platform. 16 VLS is OK but once you load Zirkon missiles into down the road it becomes something else entirely. And it is a good platform for further modifications without designing new ships from scratch.

Karakurt is not redundant, it's improved Buyan (stealth, endurance, seaworthiness). You can't use modified river design forever. If used as dedicated land attack platform it frees up frigates for anti-ship/sub work even further.

20386 or Drskii (THX for correction) is good corvette platform. Previous ones packed a punch, yes, but they were also overstuffed. There are size limitations that is all. This is good, balanced design.  

Keep making these and RU Navy should be in a good place soon. When Lider class enters equation later on it will be even better. Current designs maintain navy's capabilities. Lider expands them.

Not saying Gorshvok is bad, just saying it could use more teeth considering what it'll be up against, Zircon or not.

Are you sure?.... i remember the Buyan having no problems when it went from the med to the Baltic or Northern base.
Wouldn't it be the same if you just made more of what already there?

I also like the new design, although like i said it's lacking some teeth.

They have to be able to make them first, i hope to god Amur isn't put in charge of the Lider.
Have they been able to classify the Lider yet, is it a Destroyer or a B-cruiser??

Up against its own missile? Why would it be up against its own missile? I don't think you thought through your post very well.

As a reminder to others - the bigger it is, the harder it falls.

In other words, these big ships may have a lot but all it takes is 1 good hit and its disabled, and all of its arsenal. Since it is going to be busy trying to defend itself or its aircraft carrier groups, Russia's ships are aimed directly to striking it and land targets. So there is an operational difference. A few zircon missiles will have no problem and then goodbye ship. It may be able to launch some of its missiles at Russian ships and if the subsonic missiles reach their target successfully, then it also sinks. But the biggest loss would be the AB. Regardless what the NATO wankers think.

I am looking forward to Zircon entering service. Already Tu-22M launched one recently as a test.

AlfaT8 wrote:I am not sure whether you're being sarcastic, but yea something like that.
Also whats AG??...

Once maturing a given destroyer project it's not unrealistic to ramp up production of up to 30 spread in 2 decades. I'd take that deal.

PS. AG = Admiral Gorshkov, sorry

miketheterrible wrote:Up against its own missile?  Why would it be up against its own missile?  I don't think you thought through your post very well.

As a reminder to others - the bigger it is, the harder it falls.

In other words, these big ships may have a lot but all it takes is 1 good hit and its disabled, and all of its arsenal.  Since it is going to be busy trying to defend itself or its aircraft carrier groups, Russia's ships are aimed directly to striking it and land targets.  So there is an operational difference.  A few zircon missiles will have no problem and then goodbye ship.  It may be able to launch some of its missiles at Russian ships and if the subsonic missiles reach their target successfully, then it also sinks.  But the biggest loss would be the AB.  Regardless what the NATO wankers think.

I am looking forward to Zircon entering service.  Already Tu-22M launched one recently as a test.

When you have 63 vessels like that, operational, loosing a few is not a problem. Say you deploy a squadron of 6-8, loose 1-2 and you still complete the mission with what's left. In fact those big fckers can absorb hits quite well. Add a carrier group in the mix, E-2D, air-launched AGM-158C and so on. And there's a clear winner right there.

The US Navy has reached a lever of maturity and sophistication, that coupled with sheer numbers, makes it quite untouchable. Yes it can take losses but they will still come out on top. This is what the whole 90s and 00s head-start did after all. China is the only serious contender so far, strictly near their waters of course. Russia on the other hand, well.. lets just say that their ports and sea lanes are quite vulnerable to good ol' air sea warfare.

Man you are beyond help.

You think the Russian vessels would operate alone as well? First you said 1 on 1 and then you go on to change that after you realized you sounded ridiculous.  Stick with the topic here.  Russian ships can take out more than 1 or 2 as you would think.  If a ship has 8 missiles, guaranteed they can hit far more if they just salvo launch as well.

So get bent.  Suck off the American NATO group all you want.  The rest of us are not retarded.  A shame such people learned to even use a computer to post.  There is a reason why Russian MoD is aiming at making more smaller ships with the ability to hit hard and fast.  Supersonic and soon hypersonic.  I think they can make far more than 65 missiles for far cheaper + longer ranges as well (300+).

Had to end up blocking you cause your filling of the threads with absolute garbage was eye watering.

miketheterrible wrote:Man you are beyond help.

You think the Russian vessels would operate alone as well? First you said 1 on 1 and then you go on to change that after you realized you sounded ridiculous.  Stick with the topic here.  Russian ships can take out more than 1 or 2 as you would think.  If a ship has 8 missiles, guaranteed they can hit far more if they just salvo launch as well.

So get bent.  Suck off the American NATO group all you want.  The rest of us are not retarded.  A shame such people learned to even use a computer to post.

Define alone. There's not many Russian vessels to begin with. Given the sheer size of the world's (or Russia's) seas, yes those 3 cruisers, 10 or 20 destroyers and some few frigates are quite "alone". Also I'm not into 1 on 1 comparisons as this is beyond the point. You can get a Tarantul potentially wasting an AB. Hell as Yemen incident has shown it takes even less than that. My point (against those that dismiss the AB as a big fat target) address doctrine, deployed numbers and capability.

The US Navy is on a whole different league here.

KiloGolf wrote:

miketheterrible wrote:Man you are beyond help.

You think the Russian vessels would operate alone as well? First you said 1 on 1 and then you go on to change that after you realized you sounded ridiculous.  Stick with the topic here.  Russian ships can take out more than 1 or 2 as you would think.  If a ship has 8 missiles, guaranteed they can hit far more if they just salvo launch as well.

So get bent.  Suck off the American NATO group all you want.  The rest of us are not retarded.  A shame such people learned to even use a computer to post.

Define alone. There's not many Russian vessels to begin with. Given the sheer size of the world's (or Russia's) seas, yes those 3 cruisers, 10 or 20 destroyers and some few frigates are quite "alone". Also I'm not into 1 on 1 comparisons as this is beyond the point. You can get a Tarantul potentially wasting an AB. Hell as Yemen incident has shown it takes even less than that. My point (against those that dismiss the AB as a big fat target) address doctrine, deployed numbers and capability.

The US Navy is on a whole different league here.

Get your facts straight.  First you said 1 on 1 and then after we pointed out how shit the antiship missiles are and not much of a threat and how a well placed shot from a single antiship missile could deal with it, then you changed to to battle groups.  First off, Russia has plenty of subs and other support ships.  Second, navy jets that can also launch anti ship missiles, land based antiship missiles, so on so fourth.

The AB is a big fat monstrosity with a bunch of outdated weapons that fly shit ass slow compared to competition. Yeah, the salvo trick can work both ways. Harder for it when the anti ship missiles coming at it are supersonic or hypersonic.

miketheterrible wrote:Get your facts straight.  First you said 1 on 1

No sorry. I stressed that there are over 60 ABs from the beginning.

miketheterrible wrote:Second, navy jets that can also launch anti ship missiles, land based antiship missiles, so on so fourth.

Only the AB friendlies have carrier-borne jets to begin with. I'd treat the Kuz as being disabled most of the time.

miketheterrible wrote:The AB is a big fat monstrosity with a bunch of outdated weapons that fly shit ass slow compared to competition.  Yeah, the salvo trick can work both ways.  Harder for it when the anti ship missiles coming at it are supersonic or hypersonic.

How can the salvo trick work both ways when one side has very few vessels to begin with?
What happens after the salvo? You are contradicting yourself here.

AlfaT8 wrote:.......

Not saying Gorshvok is bad, just saying it could use more teeth considering what it'll be up against, Zircon or not.

Are you sure?.... i remember the Buyan having no problems when it went from the med to the Baltic or Northern base.
Wouldn't it be the same if you just made more of what already there?

I also like the new design, although like i said it's lacking some teeth.

They have to be able to make them first, i hope to god Amur isn't put in charge of the Lider.
Have they been able to classify the Lider yet, is it a Destroyer or a B-cruiser??

What we need to keep in mind here is what are duties of Russian Navy and they come down to 2 things:

1) Provide cover/decoy for nuclear subs

2) Protect territorial waters/coast

Everything else is irrelevant in overall scheme of things. Even current Syrian party is just one very rare exception to firmly established rule.

So that being said:

Gorshkov frigates have plenty of teeth for their size. 16 VLS cells are not that few when you remember that they also have full AA and anti-sub package. They are called multirole ships for a reason.

It is important to remember that despite being called frigates, they are intended to replace all Soviet era destroyers ( Sovremeni, Udaloy, etc..) They were never intended to go after Arley Burk destroyers head to head. Their job, like their predecessor's, is to act as decoys so nuke subs could do their thing during nuclear exchange.

They might expand them into something bigger down the road but they need to put dozen of them into service first.

Drskii corvettes may seem underarmed but that is result of their intended role which is anti-sub and patrol duties. Those Uran launchers are there for self defence.

Steregushi class have same amount of firepower but those ships have reached end of their upgrade potential. High price is also big problem, something that probably factored into Drskii design.

Steregushi were/are good ships but they simply fell victim to financial disaster of the 90's that is all. Time and technology moved on. That being said, there is still possibility that Gremashi class will be still produced for North Fleet since they seem to have specific requirements but that is still up in the air.

Buyans have same issue as Steregushi corvettes: nearing the end of upgrade potential. They started as river artillery boats. They evolved into masterpiece but this is as good as it gets.

They can sail from Med to Baltic. They can probably cross the Atlantic easy but it would be pain in the ass for the crews and it would be pointless unnecessary risk. Think of them as proof of concept. Concept works so now they should build full package and that is Karakurt.

These three classes ensure implementation of Russian Naval doctrine. If you want to go head to head with Burks then that is where Lider destroyers will be coming into play although I doubt that it would be their intended role.

A few Leader-class, mixed with a good sprinkling of Gorshkovs will be extremely potent. Top that off with sensor fusion allowing smaller "glorified" corvettes to utilise the firepower of the big boys, not just any firepower, but hypersonic weaponry that the US at current and in the forseeable future will not have a reliable counter to... As well as Su-34s because Russia would not engage outside of their own territorial waters... I know what I'd put my money on, even if the Russian fleet is by then still only half the size of the US. The reality is that Zircon and Onyx are not wunderwaffes in any sense of the term, but rather potent and so far untouchable and in the case of Onyx, already in service.  

Also, Russia is far more adept at cold climate warfare, which applies to naval operations as well, they're not just a "brown water" navy...

Mindstorm wrote:

This very heavy reliance and dependence on air wing for naval operations (a legacy of WWII experience) is potentially the greatest liability of US Navy

Primarily for airborne EW warfare. I can't think of any other Navy that has better airborne EW capabilities compared to the US Navy

Mindstorm wrote:anyhow the most powerful Navy at world, that has never found a true alternative -above all under a strict technological point of view - in the US post-war planning.        

That's not true. US Navy's cruise missiles need not have to be guided by ship borne radars because they navigate through pre-determined waypoints & have their own terminal seeker.

OminousSpudd wrote:A few Leader-class, mixed with a good sprinkling of Gorshkovs will be extremely potent. Top that off with sensor fusion allowing smaller "glorified" corvettes to utilise the firepower of the big boys, not just any firepower, but hypersonic weaponry that the US at current and in the forseeable future will not have a reliable counter to... As well as Su-34s because Russia would not engage outside of their own territorial waters... I know what I'd put my money on, even if the Russian fleet is by then still only half the size of the US. The reality is that Zircon and Onyx are not wunderwaffes in any sense of the term, but rather potent and so far untouchable and in the case of Onyx, already in service.  

Also, Russia is far more adept at cold climate warfare, which applies to naval operations as well, they're not just a "brown water" navy...

Number of real blue water ships in RuNaV can only shrink next 10 years. And atm its far, far below level they would want to have.

USN does not need to be in your teritorial waters to perform operations however, they have little interest in bringing asssets into someones teritorial waters, purely in terms of naval operations.

miketheterrible wrote:

KiloGolf wrote:

miketheterrible wrote:Man you are beyond help.

You think the Russian vessels would operate alone as well? First you said 1 on 1 and then you go on to change that after you realized you sounded ridiculous.  Stick with the topic here.  Russian ships can take out more than 1 or 2 as you would think.  If a ship has 8 missiles, guaranteed they can hit far more if they just salvo launch as well.

So get bent.  Suck off the American NATO group all you want.  The rest of us are not retarded.  A shame such people learned to even use a computer to post.

Define alone. There's not many Russian vessels to begin with. Given the sheer size of the world's (or Russia's) seas, yes those 3 cruisers, 10 or 20 destroyers and some few frigates are quite "alone". Also I'm not into 1 on 1 comparisons as this is beyond the point. You can get a Tarantul potentially wasting an AB. Hell as Yemen incident has shown it takes even less than that. My point (against those that dismiss the AB as a big fat target) address doctrine, deployed numbers and capability.

The US Navy is on a whole different league here.

Get your facts straight.  First you said 1 on 1 and then after we pointed out how shit the antiship missiles are and not much of a threat and how a well placed shot from a single antiship missile could deal with it, then you changed to to battle groups.  First off, Russia has plenty of subs and other support ships.  Second, navy jets that can also launch anti ship missiles, land based antiship missiles, so on so fourth.

The AB is a big fat monstrosity with a bunch of outdated weapons that fly shit ass slow compared to competition.  Yeah, the salvo trick can work both ways.  Harder for it when the anti ship missiles coming at it are supersonic or hypersonic.

AB weapons are outdated? Okay, then which Russian destroyer is atm armed then with "modern" warload? Also let me remind you that "modern" to you and modern to the navy are two different dimensions.

Militarov wrote:AB weapons are outdated? Okay, then which Russian destroyer is atm armed then with "modern" warload? Also let me remind you that "modern" to you and modern to the navy are two different dimensions.

There are a few operational Soviet/Soviet-designed destroyers out there, serving in Russia (Sov and Udaloy) and China (Sov). No proper Russian ones though as of yet. I've also heard the Chinese are a step away from dumping the Sovs, could be wrong . But they have been seen sitting nicely in a port, all four of them, doing nothing.

KiloGolf wrote:

Militarov wrote:AB weapons are outdated? Okay, then which Russian destroyer is atm armed then with "modern" warload? Also let me remind you that "modern" to you and modern to the navy are two different dimensions.

There are a few operational Soviet/Soviet-designed destroyers out there, serving in Russia (Sov and Udaloy) and China (Sov). No proper Russian ones though as of yet. I've also heard the Chinese are a step away from dumping the Sovs, could be wrong . But they have been seen sitting nicely in a port, all four of them, doing nothing.

I ment in Russia ofc.

Chinese however seems to have been performing refits on them to replace Russian weapons and subsystems.

Militarov wrote:I ment in Russia ofc.

Chinese however seems to have been performing refits on them to replace Russian weapons and subsystems.

I see. I guess they paid precious cash for them, recently enough, so they'll try and work things out.
How's the boiler situation on those?

KiloGolf wrote:

Militarov wrote:I ment in Russia ofc.

Chinese however seems to have been performing refits on them to replace Russian weapons and subsystems.

I see. I guess they paid precious cash for them, recently enough, so they'll try and work things out.
How's the boiler situation on those?

Well they run, so i guess its in adequate condition.

Militarov wrote:Well they also have good amount of attack submarines and you shouldnt discard Tomahawk and Harpoon like that, those are capable weapons.

Sincerely Militarov i would had found very surprising if a similar opinion would had not shared by over-ocean insiders too.

Militarov do you see, being aware of how just today in over-ocean Institutes are busy in adapting weapon systems designed around completely different CONOPS , such as BGM-109 TLAM and AGM-154, (for remain silent of the true "acrobatic thinking" of US Navy developers around the design of the possible perspective US ship-borne anti-submarine weapon) only to attempt to comply with next decade problems expected in anti surface operations , not render my assertion dismissive of theirs scientifical potential in this technological segment ,but simply realistic.  

You will surely forgive me if i fail to remain impressed not merely by today AShM weapon selection available to US Navy at the origin of what is widely seen as the greater shortfall of US Navy anti-surface operations, but also by theirs planned replacement.

Those are the words of the former Special Assistant to the Chief of Naval Operations and Director of his Commander’s Action Group Bryan Clark :


"The surface fleet’s most important shortfall, as noted above, is its current range disadvantage against the anti-ship missiles most likely to be employed against U.S. forces.
This range disadvantage means U.S. ships today can conduct only defensive AAW, ASW, and SUW; they will already be inside the ASCM range of the enemy and will be compelled to respond to attacks rather than go on offense and engage the enemy from outside his reach. The Navy is addressing this shortfall as it develops the SM-6 interceptor, LRASM, and Next Generation Land Attack Weapon (NGLAW) to replace, respectively, the Cold War-era SM-2, Harpoon, and Tomahawk. These new weapons are intended to enable offensive operations, but they will not necessarily increase the VLS capacity of surface combatants."


http://csbaonline.org/uploads/documents/CSBA6106_Surface_Warfare_FINAL-hires.pdf

What is even more worrisome in reading similar analytic works produced by an individual that have had a direct role in writing modern US Navy's strategy is the sincerely embarassing level of OPFOR's intelligence on which them are conceived (i believe that a simple glance at Fig.1 will produce more than a chilling shiver long the spine of western readers).

In substance even the replacements  for those US Navy weapon systems in the anti-ship/land attack and anti-submarine role, today widely outclassed by competitors counterparts, will remain well below the performance level of 3М-54 series.

Mindstorm wrote:

Militarov wrote:Well they also have good amount of attack submarines and you shouldnt discard Tomahawk and Harpoon like that, those are capable weapons.

Sincerely Militarov i would had found very surprising if a similar opinion would had not shared by over-ocean insiders too.

Militarov do you see, being aware of how just today in over-ocean Institutes are busy in adapting weapon systems designed around completely different CONOPS , such as BGM-109 TLAM and AGM-154, (for remain silent of the true "acrobatic thinking" of US Navy developers around the design of the possible perspective US ship-borne anti-submarine weapon) only to attempt to comply with next decade problems expected in anti surface operations , not render my assertion dismissive of theirs scientifical potential in this technological segment ,but simply realistic.  

You will surely forgive me if i fail to remain impressed not merely by today AShM weapon selection available to US Navy at the origin of what is widely seen as the greater shortfall of US Navy anti-surface operations, but also by theirs planned replacement.

Those are the words of the former Special Assistant to the Chief of Naval Operations and Director of his Commander’s Action Group Bryan Clark :


"The surface fleet’s most important shortfall, as noted above, is its current range disadvantage against the anti-ship missiles most likely to be employed against U.S. forces.
This range disadvantage means U.S. ships today can conduct only defensive AAW, ASW, and SUW; they will already be inside the ASCM range of the enemy and will be compelled to respond to attacks rather than go on offense and engage the enemy from outside his reach. The Navy is addressing this shortfall as it develops the SM-6 interceptor, LRASM, and Next Generation Land Attack Weapon (NGLAW) to replace, respectively, the Cold War-era SM-2, Harpoon, and Tomahawk. These new weapons are intended to enable offensive operations, but they will not necessarily increase the VLS capacity of surface combatants."


http://csbaonline.org/uploads/documents/CSBA6106_Surface_Warfare_FINAL-hires.pdf

What is even more worrisome in reading similar analytic works produced by an individual that have had a direct role in writing modern US Navy's strategy is the sincerely embarassing level of OPFOR's intelligence on which them are conceived (i believe that a simple glance at Fig.1 will produce more than a chilling shiver long the spine of western readers).

In substance even the replacements  for those US Navy weapon systems in the anti-ship/land attack and anti-submarine role, today widely outclassed by competitors counterparts, will remain well below the performance level of 3М-54 series.

Every system has advantages and shortcomings, i am not anyones advocate, i just do not think discarting like no threat Harpoon and Tomahawk is wise. Those are capable assets. While Harpoon truly has been recently outmatched by some Russian and EU designs, its still adequate, and still has few advantages like cost as it became dirt cheap though decades of production and its extremly versatile as it was integrated on subs, ships, aircraft, land launch platforms... which Russians are trying to do atm on larger scale. Also it entered full scale service in like... 1979?

And ofc Clark wrote that, they write one like that about every single item in the inventory so they get more funds, they have been doing it for decades. There was famous rant about how "only 10 carriers remains", then how they need more subs, then how fleet is shrinking and they need to order 20 more destroyers etc, etc lists are endless. That is how they raise more funds, by crying.

Also LRASM looks quite promising.

PapaDragon wrote:

AlfaT8 wrote:.......

Not saying Gorshvok is bad, just saying it could use more teeth considering what it'll be up against, Zircon or not.

Are you sure?.... i remember the Buyan having no problems when it went from the med to the Baltic or Northern base.
Wouldn't it be the same if you just made more of what already there?

I also like the new design, although like i said it's lacking some teeth.

They have to be able to make them first, i hope to god Amur isn't put in charge of the Lider.
Have they been able to classify the Lider yet, is it a Destroyer or a B-cruiser??

What we need to keep in mind here is what are duties of Russian Navy and they come down to 2 things:

1) Provide cover/decoy for nuclear subs

2) Protect territorial waters/coast

Everything else is irrelevant in overall scheme of things. Even current Syrian party is just one very rare exception to firmly established rule.

So that being said:

Gorshkov frigates have plenty of teeth for their size. 16 VLS cells are not that few when you remember that they also have full AA and anti-sub package. They are called multirole ships for a reason.

It is important to remember that despite being called frigates, they are intended to replace all Soviet era destroyers ( Sovremeni, Udaloy, etc..) They were never intended to go after Arley Burk destroyers head to head. Their job, like their predecessor's, is to act as decoys so nuke subs could do their thing during nuclear exchange.

They might expand them into something bigger down the road but they need to put dozen of them into service first.

Drskii corvettes may seem underarmed but that is result of their intended role which is anti-sub and patrol duties. Those Uran launchers are there for self defence.

Steregushi class have same amount of firepower but those ships have reached end of their upgrade potential. High price is also big problem, something that probably factored into Drskii design.

Steregushi were/are good ships but they simply fell victim to financial disaster of the 90's that is all. Time and technology moved on. That being said, there is still possibility that Gremashi class will be still produced for North Fleet since they seem to have specific requirements but that is still up in the air.

Buyans have same issue as Steregushi corvettes: nearing the end of upgrade potential. They started as river artillery boats. They evolved into masterpiece but this is as good as it gets.

They can sail from Med to Baltic. They can probably cross the Atlantic easy but it would be pain in the ass for the crews and it would be pointless unnecessary risk. Think of them as proof of concept. Concept works so now they should build full package and that is Karakurt.

These three classes ensure implementation of Russian Naval doctrine. If you want to go head to head with Burks then that is where Lider destroyers will be coming into play although I doubt that it would be their intended role.

I do grasp there duties and i know Russia will not seek naval dominance, yet one must not ignore the other parties capabilities.

Yes, the Gorshvok is an excellent ship and 16 UKSKs is a decent war load, but hear me out, if a frigate is suppose to be a step down from a destroyer, than why not make sure that that Frigate has almost half the firepower as a Destroyer.
Dozens??... maybe, like the Buyan and the Steregushi, before they added the UKSK's, i can see that happening.

Yes, the Uran is a good system, but right now the Ru.navy is focused on making multirole ships and the UKSK's are very critical to that, i know they will add it later, just as they did with the Buyan and the Steregushi, but i just don't grasp this 2 step approach they're using.

Actually, when i mention Steregushi, i was mostly talking about Gremyashchiy, i will use the latter from now on.

Well if it's easier for them to build Karakurts instead of Buyans, then why not.

Yea, that's another thing, whether the Lider is a Destroyer or not, it's firepower is definitely of destroyer caliber, but it's sheer size (especially that tall tower) tells me that it's more a B-Cruiser, this ship confuses me, and then we have Project 21956, not much info on this one.