Project 22350: Admiral Sergei Gorshkov #2

Big_Gazza wrote:There's quite a lot of (surface) rust on that ship... more than i would have expected.  

They are more spaced than on US VLS.

There's quite a lot of (surface) rust on that ship... more than i would have expected.

Arrow wrote:

hoom wrote:
But its become the norm over the last 20 years of forever wars & power projection.
Constant forward deployment = high wear & tear, high crew turnover, deferred maintenance.
On top of that under-investment in shipyards + high workload from the increased wear & tear = they've got an increasing number of ships tied up for multiple years waiting on 'regular' maintenance work, from recollection they were up to something like 10yrs of backlog work to get back to '90s standard if they stopped all the forever war idiocy before covid.

But they are building another new modernized Arleigh Burke. There are plans for 20 more ship. Mananother of the ships are quite young. AB's fleet of destroyers is impressive 68 units also heavily armed, which can function as ABM systems.

But they are building another new modernized Arleigh Burke. There are plans for 20 more ship. Mananother of the ships are quite young. AB's fleet of destroyers is impressive 68 units also heavily armed, which can function as ABM systems.

GarryB wrote:




Yes, but even within 2,000km of any Russian airfield there is most of the rest of the planet to consider. Also the fact that aircraft can't land on the water and board a ship they suspect of smuggling or illegally fishing.

Russia is looking to open up a North Sea Route for ships sailing from Asia to the EU and back... they need to be able to police that which means ships and aircraft.

Russia needs to be able to interact with the whole world if it wants to grow and flourish... the west will keep it cornered and try to isolate it and they will get away with that if they can bully countries around the world not to trade with Russia or China.

Russian land based air power would be of little use in Venezuela if Trump had decided to send in the Marines, but Russia having a destroyer and a few other ships visit do you think those Marines would get the green light to go?

I am not suggesting Russia use its ships to fight the US... I am suggesting Russia being a global power able to send decent forces anywhere within a few days will prevent the US from doing as it pleases and choking Russia from international trade.

Small countries around the world have a choice who to trade with... as long as that choice is the US because otherwise the big bully America will impose sanctions and cut them off from the world in a way they fail to do with Russia. Having a Russia with a real global navy (I don't mean 10 carriers groups and can fight in every ocean at one time to dominate the planet like the US tries to) but a navy that can sail anywhere they please and support allies with their presence.

Small countries will feel safer trading with Russia and for that matter China, if those countries have modern capable navies that can show up to deter the bullies from marking their territory with piss.

mnztr wrote:They cannot go toe to toe with the USN in a conventional sense

GarryB wrote:Course they can, but I agree they wont

LMFS wrote:They can't, but they will. Why on earth do you think they are creating ocean going ships, the 22350M , restoring the Nakhimov and the rest of the fleet? Tsirkon is the enabler, further down the road a fleet will be created to be able to deter USN anywhere. They are not so defeatist not to even try, because of USN.

PapaDragon wrote:Further down the road

But not now as Garry claims

mnztr wrote:Ok I say Russia does not need a vast navy because it has airpower, and when I say Russia cannot "conventionally" (meaning ship for ship)  match the USN in size and scope powerwise, your first retort on how they can defeat carrier task forces is air power. That is what I mean!! geez louise. The cost for Russia to build a navy the size of the USN does not make sense.

As for growth by trading with Russia, many countries have done so and not progressed. While many nations like Japan, Taiwan, S. Korea, etc etc HAVE benfitted from trading with the West and advanced nicely. The BIGGEST problem with Russian is that even its own people largely want to leave. You cannot advance your nation when your young people most dream of moving away. Russia has had very little success in manufacturing commercial goods, you cannot build an economy on the MIC. MIC and Oil, that is pretty much the Russian economy. Which I have always found very puzzling when you have such a highly cultured and brilliant population.

GarryB wrote:By whom?

I have seen lots of photos of Russian ships sailing past UK waters but no information about anyone being stomped.

I would think any ships or subs that left Russian waters would not go alone nor with their eyes closed... I am sure there would be plenty who would like to take a swing but Russian ships tend to be able to defend themselves from the weak subsonic anti ship weapons the west tends to use, but how would they go receiving the response?

.....

Russian ships leave Russian ports quite often and have never been stomped AFAIK....

LMFS wrote:

The issue is to avoid the "preventive suicide" for which some advocate here, of not developing the VMF because, come on, there is a USN you will never match, so why even bother, better stay within your borders and not mess with the big boys. VMF may not be ready to take on the USN at any place of the world ocean today, but the USN is also not ready to defend the Tsirkon in a couple of years from now, so this decade a tense balance will develop in which the former modernizes many crucial ships and develops the ocean fleet full speed, while the later scrambles to find an answer to Russian hypersonic weapons. The deterring effort the USN exerts on the development of competitors by their mere existence is their trump card and something the VMF should constantly try undermine, not reinforce.

GarryB wrote:

They need complete mobile forces that can operate anywhere independently of Russia for periods of months at a time. Thousands of Corvettes just wont cut it... in the same way that just having thousands of pistols will be cheaper and simpler than having pistols and SMGs and rifles and machine guns and rocket launchers.

An Oscar class with Granit missiles could take on a CBG now with 24 Tsirkons a single Gorshkov can do this. The bigger the USN gets the more targets for Russian equalizing weapons.

Yeah, but the role has changed from defeating the west and imposing communism on the rest of the world, to making the west really not want to tangle with or interfere with Russian business globally using military force, while supporting Russian and allied countries commercial shipping and trade around the world.

mnztr wrote:I don't thing having this type of task force is realistic. If anyone is worth helping they need to provide a base for Russia. The US has a massive network of bases to sustain operations, and that is really only because no one of significance has tried to oppose them.

Interference with Russian commercial business is more effetively done by sanctions, if they actually start to interdict Russian ships, Russia can do a lot of its own interdiction.

LMFS wrote:

mnztr wrote:I don't thing having this type of task force is realistic. If anyone is worth helping they need to provide a base for Russia. The US has a massive network of bases to sustain operations, and that is really only because no one of significance has tried to oppose them.

Interference with Russian commercial business is more effetively done by sanctions, if they actually start to interdict Russian ships, Russia can do a lot of its own interdiction.

To sustain those bases you need the navy in the first place...