Talking bollocks thread #2

So I started reading a thread about Russian military support for the Syrian war on terrorism and instead found a lot of bollocks... so it is moved here... where bullshit belongs.

We have threads on aviation accidents but as the thread wandered from why Russia is a third world country with nukes, it is all Putins fault, and where do I apply to become a pilot because russia seems to have really low standards for pilots I decided it belongs here and any of you pissy western faggots who think paved roads make people civilised or not can continue the discussion here.

BTW I would add that just after Desert Storm two F-15s with AWACS support shot down two US Army Black Hawk helicopters with lots of officials on board because they thought they might be Hinds...

Of course what can you expect from a country so civilised as the US... when a navy captain entered Iranian waters and shot down an airliner full of civilians he didn't get fired... they gave him a medal and told him how brave he was.

The US pilot that broke the rules and flew low in the mountains in the mountains and killed 20 people when he flew into the support cables holding the cable car up didn't get a medal, but he didn't get prosecuted either after he destroyed the evidence from his video camera of the fun they had...

But then when US Navy sub captains sink Japanese training fishing boats and murder 9 of the crew... four of which are teenagers in training he didn't get a medal... he just got to retire with full honours.

What do these stories have in common?

Where possible the US covers its own arse and does not care about anyone else.

US military personal care about their careers first and nothing else...

How fucking civilised they are... lets all be more like them.

As to all the shit... the pilot made a mistake... brand new aircraft, a different culture of being boring safety first cunts, or replacing Putin with anyone you fucking like will not change that.

Why are you such pussies... people died and that is sad and they are to be respected for what they were trying to do, which was get rid of some ragheads in a foriegn country who are making life in Syria rather bad... whining that the An-26 needs to be replaced right now, and Putin should take responsibility and shoot himself, and why aren't all Russians as nice and cuddly and civilised like Finnish people...

Finnish people can be cunts too.

We have seen civilised Americans who kept their kids chained up and we have seen civilised Europeans do the same... and we have also seen civilised Europeans rape the known planet of resources where ever and when ever they could... Adolph Hitler wasn't some African tribesman... he was very fucking civilised.

The US basically wants to treat resource rich Russia exactly the way Hitler wanted to treat the Soviet Union... I hope it ends the same way, but with a more balanced score sheet in terms of megadeaths... with these new weapons they should at least manage parity and possibly do even better in a shooting war, and in peace time the cost to the US economy to cover the whole planet will bankrupt those fuckers soon enough.

GarryB wrote:So I started reading a thread about Russian military support for the Syrian war on terrorism and instead found a lot of bollocks... so it is moved here... where bullshit belongs.

We have threads on aviation accidents but as the thread wandered from why Russia is a third world country with nukes, it is all Putins fault, and where do I apply to become a pilot because russia seems to have really low standards for pilots I decided it belongs here and any of you pissy western faggots who think paved roads make people civilised or not can continue the discussion here.

+1

onwiththewar wrote:True they did better than Russia but not by much,  consider Russian army had maybe less than 10% of fundings and in 2017

Sorry, but this triggers me every time. Russia's budget is not more than 10 times smaller. Shouldn't that be... like extremely obvious at this point? The Russian military doesn't spend dollars + the devaluation had no effect (in 2013 roubles the Russian military budget would be more than $80 billion today, which in itself is misleading). Russia's PPP GDP is almost 3 times bigger than its nominal GDP. So the difference is closer to something like 3-5x, not more than 10x or something even more ridiculous.

Hey Garry, you forgot so many other examples such as:

-US Destroyers that tend to crash themselves with tragic loss of life.
-Submarine (USS Miami) that had to be decommissioned because they allowed to have on board a sailor (with problems in his gray matter) who started a fire on board.
-Airplanes and helicopters who tend to loose parts when flying over Japanese cities.
-etc.
-etc.

By the way, thanks for bringing these garbage discussions to the Bollocks thread. In my opinion, it should be done quicker.

Personally, I would also like to see some warnings and bans applied to trolls, haters, provocateurs and drama queens. They are very much succeeding in degrading the quality of this forum. We lost many quality posters because of that.
Perhaps you should discuss the matter with the forum Administrator.

So you deploy in one month three or more corvettes to do the job of a single destroyer, spending far more to accomplish far less.

Let's say the area is located at 1000 NM from a reference russian Navy's base.

A corvette will have to sail those 1000 NM just to reach its area of operations, at a typical cruise speed of 15 Knots it would account for almost three days to get there, in a ship having 15 days endurance. After 10 days at most, a replacement will have to relieve the first corvette, and so on.

You will have three corvettes that in a month sailed a whooping 6000 NM only to get to the area of operations and to come back from there.

And you will have let's say around 270 men deployed, all of these to perform the job of a single destroyer.

Obviously, a corvette is plain shit under any conceivable parameter when compared to a destroyer.

Corvettes exist for a reason and a reason only: to relieve big ships from domestic duties.

They are not, never intended to be deployed far from home waters.

To put things in the right prospective, 1000 NM are nothing when speaking of naval deployments.

It means sending ships from Sebastopol to Tripoli.

Reaching from Sebastopol the Gulf of Aden would already mean over 2000 NM one way.

Russia needs ocean going warships, and nothing short of a 7000 tons destroyer, with 30 to 40 days endurance would do the job.

And it would be even cheaper to operate when performing long range missions, in addition to being 10 X more effective.

Peŕrier wrote:So you deploy in one month three or more corvettes to do the job of a single destroyer, spending far more to accomplish far less.......

Fine, send one Udaloi destroyer

Same thing one way or another, someone in the Middle East is getting triple digit number of LACMs up their asses courtesy of one ship

Just because is old ,does not means it needs to crash.. being old is not the problem.. poor quality controls ,
poor Maintenance ,Poor Supervision ,IS the problem.

If it is such a fundamental issue how could an aircraft last long enough to be old?

I mean if they don't know how to fly the damn things safely, and don't spend any money keeping them operational, they don't maintain them properly, have poor quality control making them... how could they even fly in the first place let alone remain in service for years and get old?

Or are you just a little whiny bitch...

Russia's PPP GDP is almost 3 times bigger than its nominal GDP. So the difference is closer to something like 3-5x, not more than 10x or something even more ridiculous.

The last figures I saw were 700 billion for the US and 46 billion for Russia... both in US dollars, so we are actually talking about 15 times more.

By the way, thanks for bringing these garbage discussions to the Bollocks thread. In my opinion, it should be done quicker.

Sorry, I live on the other side of the planet to most of you guys, so often things happen while I am asleep or unable to spend time on the internet.

Personally, I would also like to see some warnings and bans applied to trolls, haters, provocateurs and drama queens.

Not to mention Finns and Poles... and I would say Brits, but their media and upper classes seem so much more Russiaphobic than the average Brit.

The problem is that a forum without haters and trolls and provocateurs and especially drama queens does not exist... we don't have a rule against being an asshole and even if we did it would be too subjective to actually ban someone for it... I can occasionally be a bit of an asshole myself...

We lost many quality posters because of that.

I would say there are 10 different reasons for each quality poster leaving for every 10 quality posters leaving... but if they left because they couldn't take some russophobic BS then they have probably stopped looking at the internet completely and given up print and tv based media.

It is annoying, but it is not the root of all evil either.

This forum is like Russia itself... lots of problems and selfish pricks only thinking of their own interests, and lots of positive things and people too... what I like most about Putin is that he is serving Russias interests rather than his own... he could easily boot lick the west and sign off everything they want and be a good bitch, but he knows the west will just use and then discard Russia just like it does with other countries. Russia has to find its own way and become strong enough to keep making its own choices... in the next 20 odd years that will mean building up their navy to support global trade and good international relations that don't go through the west to other countries... the west is not Russias friend and Russia needs to be able to bypass the west and its structures and with the help of other nonwestern countries build up international structures that the west does not dominate and control...

It does not hurt to hear the stupid stereotypes about Russians occasionally, but it is also important to move them to the talking bollocks thread where they belong too.

BTW I was surfing Youtube looking for videos on the Mosin 3 line rifle and found a 40+ minute video on which Mosins are the most valuable and the guy spent most of his time talking about Finnish ripoffs... it was so disappointing.


Rant off.

Nobody says this Deltas would have to follow just one ship, they can rotate while Delta sticks around.

Of course the Delta would not really need a specifically allocated support ship as the Russian Navy has global communications and could use a range of platforms to detect targets for attack, but a useful pairing would be beneficial in the sense that they compliment each other in terms of sensors and weapons.

Having said that the pairing could be construed that the presence of the ship implies the presence of a sub... which might or might not be useful.

Certainly the presence of the ship in the med or persian gulf might suggest to ISIS a threat but there would be very little they could actually do about it... and the satellite communications means the sub could be operating thousands of kms away anyway...

You could use that to your advantage and send a ship to an area of interest and let your enemies assume there is a sub there... a sub they don't seem to be able to find... how frustrating...

As for that larger ship that could do it long term, I'd say that a good helicopter carrier would fit that role perfectly. Big, long range and endurance, plenty of room for sensors and aircraft.

Indeed... another good idea... a nuclear powered Russian Mistral with better self defence weapons from air threats... perhaps even an air defence sub as well as a land attack/antiship/antisub sub... ie one with UKSK launchers and one with Redut and S-500 launch tubes...

So you deploy in one month three or more corvettes to do the job of a single destroyer, spending far more to accomplish far less.......

Don't throw the good idea out just because it was not properly thrashed out...

Fine, send one Udaloi destroyer

Same thing one way or another, someone in the Middle East is getting triple digit number of LACMs up their asses courtesy of one ship

Actually I like the idea of a helicopter carrier... especially if it is a nuclear propelled vessel... vastly more flexible... it can act as a landing vessel, an anti piracy patrol vessel, it can do humanitarian work in the third world with its 200 bed hospital and state of the art equipment, it can be used for disaster relief, it is a command centre.

Making a Helio carrier with anti sub, anti air, anti ship and land attack plus the choppers and transport it carries, plus all the other facilities.

That is an idiotic idea, ships like that aren't made for a reason because they do not work. Because you cannot strap all of that shit onto a ship and expect it to be half decent.


A destroyer can also remain at sea much longer than a couple corvettes, corvettes no matter how good aren't designed to far range sea patrol.

SeigSoloyvov wrote:Making a Helio carrier with anti sub, anti air, anti ship and land attack plus the choppers and transport it carries, plus all the other facilities.

That is an idiotic idea, ships like that aren't made for a reason because they do not work.

Soviet Union did

GunshipDemocracy wrote:

SeigSoloyvov wrote:Making a Helio carrier with anti sub, anti air, anti ship and land attack plus the choppers and transport it carries, plus all the other facilities.

That is an idiotic idea, ships like that aren't made for a reason because they do not work.

Soviet Union did

What class are you talking about? because he is talking about an amphibious assault ship with all of that which the USSR never did create the closest thing would have been the Ivan Rogov-class

Making a Helio carrier with anti sub, anti air, anti ship and land attack plus the choppers and transport it carries, plus all the other facilities.

That is an idiotic idea, ships like that aren't made for a reason because they do not work. Because you cannot strap all of that shit onto a ship and expect it to be half decent.

Actually it is more likely now, but even in Soviet times they tried to make their carriers multirole.

Kiev class had anti ship missiles and anti aircraft missiles for self defence, and it also had anti sub missiles... the only thing it lacked was land attack capability and during a landing its Yaks would likely have provided air support.

The Mistral carrier the Russians bought but never received is fitted out to carry troop transport helos (Ka-29) and attack helos (KA-52), and one would expect anti sub and general transport types could also be operated from the vessel, and of course it was fitted out as a landing ship... that is what they wanted.

The new systems like UKSK launchers make multirole easier, not harder.

They already used the Kievs as command vessels for carrier groups.

Because they are now building them themselves I would expect they will likely add Poliment redut air defence systems and of course Pantsir...

What class are you talking about? because he is talking about an amphibious assault ship with all of that which the USSR never did create the closest thing would have been the Ivan Rogov-class

All soviet carriers were multirole.

They weren't actually landing vessels, but they pretty much covered everything else for self defence purposes...

Their new landing ships will likely also have decent air defence and land attack and anti ship and anti sub capability.

Their new CVNs will likely even have S-500 launchers too.

GarryB wrote:

Making a Helio carrier with anti sub, anti air, anti ship and land attack plus the choppers and transport it carries, plus all the other facilities.

That is an idiotic idea, ships like that aren't made for a reason because they do not work. Because you cannot strap all of that shit onto a ship and expect it to be half decent.

Actually it is more likely now, but even in Soviet times they tried to make their carriers multirole.

Kiev class had anti ship missiles and anti aircraft missiles for self defence, and it also had anti sub missiles... the only thing it lacked was land attack capability and during a landing its Yaks would likely have provided air support.

The Mistral carrier the Russians bought but never received is fitted out to carry troop transport helos (Ka-29) and attack helos (KA-52), and one would expect anti sub and general transport types could also be operated from the vessel, and of course it was fitted out as a landing ship... that is what they wanted.

The new systems like UKSK launchers make multirole easier, not harder.

They already used the Kievs as command vessels for carrier groups.

Because they are now building them themselves I would expect they will likely add Poliment redut air defence systems and of course Pantsir...

What class are you talking about? because he is talking about an amphibious assault ship with all of that which the USSR never did create the closest thing would have been the Ivan Rogov-class

All soviet carriers were multirole.

They weren't actually landing vessels, but they pretty much covered everything else for self defence purposes...

Their new landing ships will likely also have decent air defence and land attack and anti ship and anti sub capability.

Their new CVNs will likely even have S-500 launchers too.

The Kiev class also could not land troops, it did not have a very big internal to allow for troops and support facilities like medical etc.

You are using a piss poor example to justify what is a stupid idea. The kiev on paper sounded good but it had so little anti-ship ability it was virtually pointless.

Russia isn't going to make a ship like that and you have no sense of naval warfare if you think they would and that is a "good idea".


No they weren't they were designed to protect submarines, they had to few weapons and aircraft to be offensive, they are not multi-role. You do not know what you are talking about.  all Soviet aircraft carrying cruisers where built to fulfill these objectives

anti-aircraft defense of a ship and (or) a group of ships accompanied by it;
ensuring the security of strategic submarine cruisers in combat patrol areas;
search and destruction of enemy submarines as part of an anti-submarine group;
detection, guidance and destruction of the enemy's surface forces;
assurance of amphibious landing.


When they get around to making them we will see what they put on them because looking at the specs for their current landing ships they don't have any of the shit you claim they will, so yeah.

Kiev class had anti ship missiles and anti aircraft missiles for self defence, and it also had anti sub missiles... the only thing it lacked was land attack capability and during a landing its Yaks would likely have provided air support.

Air support with 2 bombs ... ka-52 with 16 atgm is far more usefull.

Kiev class style ships are useless.

Better go with 2 vessels, one moskva class heli carrier for ASW and one kuznetsov style carrier for air defence and air support that will assist landing ships. It's more expensive but much more usefull.

Kiev class style ships will be needed in big numbers to compete that so the price should be the same but the capabilities would be worse than if you yave real carriers.

Isos wrote:Kiev class style ships are useless.

It depends what your mission is.... For the Soviet-era missions of defense of the SSBN bastions from interdiction by US surface vessels and SSNs they would have worked well. They would have operated under the envelope of heavy land-based aviation strike forces to target US CVNs and neutralise their carrier based strike aircraft, so Kievs could concentrate on ASW operations with her helo assets, and use her anti-surface and AA for defending her self and her escorts.

Don't channel US/NATO propaganda BS. The Kiev class were designed with a purpose in mind. They weren't some mindless hare-brained collection of whatever odd systems the cave-men Russian peasants could beg, borrow or steal in a failed attempt to emulate the Exceptional Ones from the Shining City across the sea.....

SeigSoloyvov wrote: No they weren't they were designed to protect submarines, they had to few weapons and aircraft to be offensive, they are not multi-role.

The Kiev class were most DEFINITELY intended to protect submarines.

While they mostly relied on land-based aviation to defeat enemy CVNs, they were designed to be able to defeat a lone CVN if needed using mass salvo of P-500 Bazalt, or a number of smaller surface combatants.  They had a heavy AA complement for self-defense and protecting their escorts, and carried helo for ASW duty in conjunction with their large & powerful sonar suite.

While the Kiev didn't carry ASW missiles, their escorts carried SS-N-14 Silex/RPK-3 Metel.  It was obviously a design choice to load the Kievs with the heavy anti-CVN ordnance and let the escorts carry the supplementary ASW capabilities.

Fixed wing Yak-36 Forgers were not intended to fight USN fighters (they would have been slaughtered if they had) or to perform surface/land attack, but to provide a long-range AA capability against enemy ASW aircraft attempting to target the vital SSBNs. They didn't need powerful radars or heavy missile loads, just be able fly under GCI and fire off a pair of short range AAMs at a sedate subsonic target.

Muricans always have this hang-up in comparing Kiev Class (and the Kuznetsov) to the USN style attack carriers.  They may looks similar on a superficial level, but they are designed for TOTALLY DIFFERENT missions.  The fact that Muricans don't get this says a lot more about their arrogant closed-mindedness than it does any conceptual short-comings of the 1143s.

Big_Gazza wrote:

While the Kiev didn't carry ASW missiles, their escorts carried SS-N-14 Silex/RPK-3 Metel.  It was obviously a design choice to load the Kievs with the heavy anti-CVN ordnance and let the escorts carry the supplementary ASW capabilities.

Fixed wing Yak-36 Forgers were not intended to fight USN fighters (they would have been slaughtered if they had) or to perform surface/land attack, but to provide a long-range AA capability against enemy ASW aircraft attempting to target the vital SSBNs.

They carried (depending on source) 12-20 Ka27 , were armed with 10x533 torpedo tubes and either RBU or RPK-1 Vikhr nuked rocked torpedoes
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SUW-N-1

Guys we are flying way off topic here

I just suggested that those couple of oldest Deltas that are due for decommissioning solely due to noise should be converted to arsenal ships and stay in service

We should move this to Delta SSBN tread

PapaDragon wrote:
Guys we are flying way off topic here

I just suggested that those couple of oldest Deltas that are due for decommissioning solely due to noise should be converted to arsenal ships and stay in service

We should move this to Delta SSBN tread

New borei should be better suited for such role. We saw with Nakhimov that upgrading big ships cost as much as new ones so better go with a borei as it is already build and the design proved to be very good.

Isos wrote:New borei should be better suited for such role. We saw with Nakhimov that upgrading big ships cost as much as new ones so better go with a borei as it is already build and the design proved to be very good.

Except that Nahkimov had been laid up for ~15 years. whereas the Delta III/Kalmar are still in active service.  The question really is whether the Kalmar hull, reactor & machinery have sufficient useful life to make it a worthwhile exercise.  Logic suggests not, and that the Delta-IV/Delfin will be a better option when they start to be retired.

A Borei would be better, but it's all about extracting useful services from existing hulls and saving money for other worthy pursuits.

Big_Gazza wrote:

Isos wrote:New borei should be better suited for such role. We saw with Nakhimov that upgrading big ships cost as much as new ones so better go with a borei as it is already build and the design proved to be very good.

Except that Nahkimov had been laid up for ~15 years. whereas the Delta III/Kalmar are still in active service.  The question really is whether the Kalmar hull, reactor & machinery have sufficient useful life to make it a worthwhile exercise.  Logic suggests not, and that the Delta-IV/Delfin will be a better option when they start to be retired.

A Borei would be better, but it's all about extracting useful services from existing hulls and saving money for other worthy pursuits.

Well, spending less for something that won't be as good as a new thing is not a good investment. The upgrade will take at least 5 years which is bad for a ship already old. It is not enough to upgrade just reactors and weapons. Sensor, interior crew living space, hull ... need also upgrades.

With a borei you can be sure to use it very well for the next 20 years. Upgrading a delta to use it for another 20 years isn't easy. Russians know very well what they can do because they operate new boreis and upgraded soviet subs so they can compare and know what they can do.

Isos wrote:
New borei should be better suited for such role. We saw with Nakhimov that upgrading big ships cost as much as new ones so better go with a borei as it is already build and the design proved to be very good.

Boreis are needed elsewhere and are not available

And I never mentioned upgrade, this would be pretty much downgrade, nothing changes except for missiles

Whole point would be to keep using existing ship on the cheap and to keep it in service because technically it's still in good shape

The Kiev class also could not land troops, it did not have a very big internal to allow for troops and support facilities like medical etc.

No, they were built for the specific purpose of dealing with western SSBNs, but became redundant when SLBM missiles got much longer ranges...

You are using a piss poor example to justify what is a stupid idea. The kiev on paper sounded good but it had so little anti-ship ability it was virtually pointless.

If the range of SLBMs had gotten longer faster then there is no reason to think the Kiev class might not have come out more like the Mistral class... a class the Russians were clearly interested in buying.

Having quite a few supersonic anti ship missiles is hardly weak anti ship capability...

Russia isn't going to make a ship like that and you have no sense of naval warfare if you think they would and that is a "good idea".

They wanted to buy the Mistral class carriers...

No they weren't they were designed to protect submarines, they had to few weapons and aircraft to be offensive, they are not multi-role. You do not know what you are talking about. all Soviet aircraft carrying cruisers where built to fulfill these objectives

They were originally intended to hunt western SSBNs, but became unable to do so because the range of SLBMs rendered them useless... they then reverted to protecting Soviet SSBNs within the air cover of the mainland Soviet Union.

anti-aircraft defense of a ship and (or) a group of ships accompanied by it;
ensuring the security of strategic submarine cruisers in combat patrol areas;
search and destruction of enemy submarines as part of an anti-submarine group;
detection, guidance and destruction of the enemy's surface forces;
assurance of amphibious landing.

So clearly multi role... if a little weak in some areas.

anti-aircraft defense of a ship and (or) a group of ships accompanied by it;

Its air defence capability centred around SAMs already carried on other surface ships, plus very very weak VSTOL fighters that might be useful against MPAs like Orions and atlantiques, but not much else. but that was OK because Soviet carrier groups pretty much either hunted NATO subs or defended Soviet SSBNs.

ensuring the security of strategic submarine cruisers in combat patrol areas;

Keeping away SSNs, and MPAs but not amazing at either role... though certainly good enough.

search and destruction of enemy submarines as part of an anti-submarine group;

As above.

detection, guidance and destruction of the enemy's surface forces;

Many of the early large anti ship missiles required long range radar detection of targets and the helicopters on board the Kievs could supply that information so in a battle between carrier groups the Kievs helos could allow the US ships to be better engaged, but their fighters were no match at all, so defensively they would rely on SAMs...

assurance of amphibious landing.

Ground support performance of the Yaks was pitiful... as was its air defence capabilities against anything that is not really a commercial airliner.

When they get around to making them we will see what they put on them because looking at the specs for their current landing ships they don't have any of the shit you claim they will, so yeah.

The Ivan Gren is an enlarged river boat. The only landing ship they have shown any real interest in and spent real money on were two Mistral class carriers which pretty much does show that they are interested in multirole vessels... your blindness to this fact notwithstanding.

Better go with 2 vessels, one moskva class heli carrier for ASW and one kuznetsov style carrier for air defence and air support that will assist landing ships. It's more expensive but much more usefull.

I suspect they will go with a CVN slightly larger than the K and do both missions with one vessel.

The facts are that having a vessel able to carry large numbers of missile in an arsenal type role is interesting and a good use for an old hull that might not be useful in its original role but would still be perfectly adequate for an arsenal ship role.

It would be a huge waste of a Borei hull to use it for this sort of mission... with a late model Delta or any other late model SSBN the space is there.

Hopefully they can rebuild a half dozen subs for these sorts of roles... arsenal ship is just one, but a vessel with UAVs could do all sorts of things including air defence, or even be filled with special sonar equipment and unmanned drones for all sorts of sneaky stuff... remember 2/3rds of the worlds surface is water...

Sure they wanted the Mistral but the mistral's did not have Anti ship, Anti-air or Anti- sub missiles and it could only launch choppers because at this time Russian does not have a functional VTOL to put on it.

And again not really multi-role, they could not really kill surface ships, they could not use their aircraft offensively well, the best thing the Kiev could do was have the planes pot shot at the Carrier group. The Kiev's planes had no airbrone radar they would have been slaughtered by a Carriers fighters which would have had more than enough time to sortie them against the Yak's of that era. They had a couple of Anti ship missiles not enough to threaten anything really that had AA defenses.

The Kiev was built to protect the subs and act has air cover.


Yes you are right the Kiev had no real way to ensure landing the Yak's could not properly act has bombers and the Kiev had no Land attack ability to speak of, it's just was to cover the ships that would ensure the landing in that situation.

Multi-role vessel does not mean strapping everything under the sun onto ONE SHIP. You are blind, I am talking in facts and I am trying to be nice and educate you, that the design you propose will not work, again you CANNOT strap everything onto one hull and expect it to work well they would have to make the helio carriers hull MASSIVe to accommodate for all of that we are talking well excess of 80k tons and then nevermind all the mechanical issues it would suffer.

The Gorsh frigate is considered Multi-role for them THAT is a multi-role ship, one that can attack land, sea, air, subs and other ships.

Big_Gazza wrote:

Isos wrote:New borei should be better suited for such role. We saw with Nakhimov that upgrading big ships cost as much as new ones so better go with a borei as it is already build and the design proved to be very good.

Except that Nahkimov had been laid up for ~15 years. whereas the Delta III/Kalmar are still in active service.  The question really is whether the Kalmar hull, reactor & machinery have sufficient useful life to make it a worthwhile exercise.  Logic suggests not, and that the Delta-IV/Delfin will be a better option when they start to be retired.

A Borei would be better, but it's all about extracting useful services from existing hulls and saving money for other worthy pursuits.

Delta IIIs are almost definitely out of any chance to be converted to the SSGNs role.

Yasen are purpose built SSGNs, there is no rationale converting old, relatively noisy and with little to no life spared in the hulls like the Deltas to such a role.

A single Delta IV, as a bench test, could be converted when and if being phased out there shall still life left in the hull.

Most definitely, if a requirement exist, the first two or three Borey could within a decade being candidates to such a conversion when first 955 B will start entering service.

That assuming SSBNs total numbers won't need to be increased by then.