Hole wrote:Nice pics.
St Petersberg in June and dark at night?
Hole wrote:Nice pics.
hoom wrote:.....
Also apparently they may be renaming to Mytischi, Sovetsk, Odintsovo, and Kozelsk
I really liked the storm names
Hole wrote:Are there just 20 towns in Russia?
PapaDragon wrote:hoom wrote:.....
Also apparently they may be renaming to Mytischi, Sovetsk, Odintsovo, and Kozelsk
I really liked the storm names
Isn't it considered bad luck to change names of ships without really good reason?
Also, fact that tiny ships like these will be named after actual towns indicates that there will be much fewer ships built for Navy than even most pessimistic estimates predicted.
Thats where the Pantsir-M is going on the 3rd+.When i see the empty space between the AK630´s i think that they could have easily fit a Redut system into it.
Hole wrote:When i see the empty space between the AK630´s i think that they could have easily fit a Redut system into it.
miroslav wrote:Hole wrote:When i see the empty space between the AK630´s i think that they could have easily fit a Redut system into it.
You cant just put stuff because there seams to be enough room on the surface. On the third ship, the Pantsir-M system needed to raised on an additional platform because of the missiles in the hull itself.
The missiles alone for the Pantnsir are 3.2m long, not counting the mounts and other machinery that holds them, the length of the 9M96E missiles is 4.75 m, that's a lot higher than the back of the structure where the AK-630 are placed, at least by another 1.5 m.
I think there are a lot of tactical and financial reasons why building a small ship with sophisticated long range AD is not a good idea event if it can be technically done, things like: survivability, range/endurance, seaworthiness.
Generally, if you want a ship that can effectively deal with all 3 main types of threats, surface, sub-suface and air, you need at least a large corvette/small frigate, 105m in length minimum, which is exactly what you can see in practical examples of ships.