What does /k/ think of missile barges?
What comes to mind are Russian corvettes like Buyan-M and Steregushchy.
Pic related. Steregsushis of the Baltic.
>Carry missiles rated for 120-150km range
>Radar only with 70-90km detection range
>Illumination/Targeting is carried out by Detection Radar.
>Literally needs a Gorshkov frigate to provide Radar data.
They operate like SeaBuKs. Like BuKs under an S-300/S-400 umbrella, they probably don't even turn their radars on, and only turns it on when the target passes over them for a Tail chase engagement.
Or fires a missile and let the Gorshkov provide the missile with data via SIGMA, they just carry it for the frigate.
>>30495263
An inelegant solution to not having blue water air launched AShM capability.
>>30495263
>Carry SAM rated for 120-150km range
Anti Air 9M96M is tested against surface targets as well
They're gonna put a better radar on those, right? Because that seems stupid to me otherwise.
>>30495263
>barges
Coming from a country that builds laughable piece of shit LCS, lol.
>Carry missiles rated for 120-150km range
260-300km.
>Radar only with 70-90km detection range
I am going to need at least one reliable source on the range of Monument-A radar.
>>30495329
They have blue water air-launched AShM capability. These corvettes have nothing to do with this role.
>>30495926
>They have blue water air-launched AShM capability.
They have one decrepit carrier that can barely get an AShM-armed Sukoi in the air with almost no combat radius. And they don't have the shipyards or industrial base to crank out another one.
If you're talking about land-based naval aviation like a Backfire regiment (which is also pretty heavily downgraded capability wise these days) that does not fall under blue-water capability. Blue water capability is what you can bring to the middle of an ocean halfway around the world (or just the Atlantic or middle and south Pacific in Russia's case) and execute.
>>30495926
>I am going to need at least one reliable source on the range of Monument-A radar.
You are aware that radar horizon is even closer than OP's suggestion, right? That they can't see through the fucking sea, right?
>>30495329
>An inelegant solution to not having blue water air launched AShM capability.
If there is anything that is inelegant its the carrier with its airwing complement plus the attendant surface ship and sub escorts. Those easily cost the whole government budget of small nations while these corvettes cost a fighter a piece.
>>30495969
>They have one decrepit carrier that can barely get an AShM-armed Sukoi in the air with almost no combat radius
Nice pile of bullshit you got there.
>And they don't have the shipyards or industrial base to crank out another one.
They do.
>>30496023
>while these corvettes cost a fighter a piece.
kek. gotta love Vatnik math.
>>30496032
>Nice pile of bullshit you got there.
what, no counter argument? shitpost away, my fine vodka addled friend.
>They do.
Then you can name it, yes?
>>30496032
>>And they don't have the shipyards or industrial base to crank out another one.
They seriously don't. There's a reason they needed France to build their LHD's.
>>30496062
No argument on the first place, fatnik imbecile, only bullshit. Su-33 has more range than Super Hornet. By far. They do have blue water air-launched AShM capability. Deal with it and fuck off, retard.
>Then you can name it, yes?
Baltic Shipyard.
>>30496062
>kek. gotta love Vatnik math.
US$120-150m (est. for Tigr/aka export variant Steregrushchy so it has tidy profits included) - about a Raptor at its high end price est.
common core math everyone!
>>30496089
Not this guy >>30496032
But I thought /k/ was having a discussion on Russias naval yard capacity, and one anon brought up a bunch of new infrastructure projects that Putin started.
Such as their new space launch center, in the list was either a new ship yard or a large expansion to one happening now.
So while Russia doesn't have the ability now, it is in the works.
That poor budget. So many things being built all at the same time, no wonder they are getting new taxes up the wazoo.
>>30496089
The reason they bought French LHD's is that the French calmed yropoors down back in 2008 when Russia forced peace on Georgia. As expected of an American retard, you apparently didn't know Russia built half of these ships and the subsequent ships were expected to be fully Russian-built.
>>30496108
>Su-33 has more range than Super Hornet
Tell me, did you bother to do the math on what that range becomes on a ski-ramp carrier launch while loaded with AShMs on the hard points plus two bags? Nope. Didn't think you did. Tell you what, junior, how bout you go look up what the Su-33s MTOW would be off the Kuznetsov. Get back to us on that.
>Baltic Shipyard.
The admiralty side of that yard builds diesel electric subs. They haven't built a combat surface vessel since the Soviet days, and the last large surface vessel they built was the Arktika class. Try again.
>US$120-150m (est. for Tigr/aka export variant Steregrushchy so it has tidy profits included) - about a Raptor at its high end price est.
You totally remembered to account for the operating costs, plus crewing costs for the 90 sailors aboard, right? Right? You definetely remembered to account for how many you would need to put in the water to equal the four bug squadrons on a single carrier right? Then you definitely remembered to account for the fact that bugs can reload and be back twice a day, whereas those corvettes can't, right?
>>30496089
>They seriously don't. There's a reason they needed France to build their LHD's.
They needed to absorb France's best practices on making boats of that size, but they do have the facilities to build one. Heck they built half of that Egyptian Mistral if you don't remember.
>>30496140
>So while Russia doesn't have the ability now, it is in the works.
It's been in the works since the early '00s. Once you lose the capacity and all your skilled workers have moved to other yards in other countries or retired, it takes decades to get it back. Russia currently can't even build a 10kton destroyer.
>>30496180
Do you know what does "combat" in "combat radius" stand for, fatnik imbecile?
>Try again.
Indeed. Try again, this time not shitting yourself making claims that get disproved in a couple of posts.
>>30496192
>Russia currently can't even build a 10kton destroyer.
Nice, even more bullshit from a fatnik imbecile. Did Slavs bully you again, Eugene, so that you came to /k to shitpost?
>>30496159
>fully Russian-built.
With French skilled labour. And French managers. And French advisers. And French best-practice build planners. Etc. You should probably read those agreements. They're very interesting.
>>30496216
>Do you know what does "combat" in "combat radius" stand for, fatnik imbecile?
Oh, I'm sorry. Are you so braindead that you believe the combat radius for a ground launch with an air to air armament would be the same as an AShM strike loadout? The difference holds for ship launch, too, genius.
For instance: the F-35A has a 625nmi combat radius for an interdiction mission, but 760nmi combat radius for A2A, all on internal fuel.
>>30496234
What ships over 7,000 tons are the Russians currently building?
>>30496236
American planes besides maybe stealth bombers are irrelevant, the Fat-35 can easily be shot down with even last gen Russian missiles. Enjoy spending a couple trillion on shitty planes while a combo land/ ocean missile shield prevents you from ever using air power,
>>30495263
It's what you buy if you lack the $$$ for a bluewater navy
>>30496234
They haven't built a ship over 4,035 tons (Grigorovich class) since 1994 with the 7,940 ton Admiral Ushakov (the last Sovremennyy). Wait, I forgot. There was that last Kirov they managed to finish in 1998, but that had already been started in 1989, and only needed fitting out.
>>30496274
That you know of, faggot.
>>30496274
>a ship
*combat ship
since I know a Vatnik will sperg out with a cargo ship
>>30496280
Really? Fucking hilarious.
Let the delusion continue.
>>30496294
See >>30496281 the cargo ships being built have a very specific purpose of being easily converted to war if need be.
>>30496306
Are you fucking kidding me right now? How high are you right now?
>>30496310
I honestly just came into the thread, saw a flamewar and decided to make vatnicks look as stupid as possible. Usually I can get the retards to actually agree with me despite what I say being obvious bullshit but I'm never sure weather they're fellow trolls.
This is actually the reason why it's near impossible to talk about russian hardware on this board.
>>30496180
>You totally remembered to account for the operating costs, plus crewing costs for the 90 sailors aboard, right? Right?
Meanwhile the carrier group that shat out those bugs easily has 10,000 dudes to pay for.
>You definetely remembered to account for how many you would need to put in the water to equal the four bug squadrons on a single carrier right?
4 squadrons * 12 bugs * 4 harpoons = 192 missiles
4 9m100(assuming it takes two missile to inflict kills with high certainty; very likely the case since harpoon is meant to spam defences instead of tackling them) * 12 Redut cells * 4 Steregrushchy = 192.
So 4(5 to be safe), and they didn't even cost half the squadron.
>Then you definitely remembered to account for the fact that bugs can reload and be back twice a day, whereas those corvettes can't, right?
You have a point here but its very unlikely you will find corvettes out of land SAM coverage- its meant for the littorals afterall.
>>30495926
OP here
120-150km is for 9M96 variation SAM
Air Search Radar (Furke) is shit and has a shorter range than the missiles it carry.
>slav comes to /k/
>wants to be fed nothing but nice little lies about how super strong Russia is
>Someone points out that the solution provided by Russia is not optimal
>This does not conform with vatnik view
>Cue immediate defensive reaction and cries of MUH FATNIK
Every
Fucking
Time
These threads are just boring at this point.
>>30496236
You should probably stop spewing bullshit out before you drown in your own crap. The ships were to be fully Russian-built. Your claim that they had to buy them from France because they didn't have a shipyard big enough is nothing but a pile of stinky fatnik crap.
>Oh, I'm sorry.
You should be for shitposting this much, fatnik imbecile. A2A warload of Su-33 is as much weight as 3 to 4 AShM.
>>30496243
Project 22220. Show me a single proof they can't build a destroyer. "B-but mommy, they aren't building destroyers right now" is not a proof.
>>30496243
Nuclear Ice Breakers
>>30496343
>4 9m100(assuming it takes two missile to inflict kills with high certainty; very likely the case since harpoon is meant to spam defences instead of tackling them) * 12 Redut cells * 4 Steregrushchy = 192.
>So 4(5 to be safe), and they didn't even cost half the squadron.
Fuck, whoops, make that *2 btw. so 8(10) steregrushcys. If its only to absorb the missile barrages, but likely you'd have smaller missile loads with the longer range missiles. If its close to the shore they can get longer range radar assets sitting on say hilltops to provide targeting for those missiles and the steregrushcy's take out the archers instead of the arrows.
>>30496274
Project 955 is 24000 tonnes. Eat shit, faggot fatnik.
>>30496337
>and decided to make vatnicks look as stupid as possible
So far you are only shitting yourself with every new post, retard.
>>30495906
They're missile barges.
They carry anti air missiles for the bigger ships. on its own it has a gimped radar but if it is with other ships like a Gorshkov or a Lider then it can just use those radars for its missiles.
>>30496357
>Fatnik comes to /k
>Shits himself making bullshit claims
>Gets upset when confronted with facts
Lol, mad fatnik faggot.
>>30496343
>Meanwhile the carrier group that shat out those bugs easily has 10,000 dudes to pay for.
Along with full ASW capabilities, UNREP including air, full AA cover, full EW support, rotary wings along with a shit ton of other capabilities a bunch of corvettes lack.
>4 9m100(assuming it takes two missile to inflict kills with high certainty; very likely the case since harpoon is meant to spam defences instead of tackling them)
The USN allocates 3 SAMs per incoming AShM across all range systems. A USN CSG carries roughly 137 SM-6/SM-2ER, 548 ESSM (137 cells quad packed), plus at least 100+ SeaRAM, and still have 135 VLS cells left over for Tomahawks. Obviously the VLS mix is variable (200 SM-6/SM-2ER and 296 ESSM, etc). That means you'd need about 262 AShMs (3 per SAM) to overwhelm current USN AShM game planning and be sure of delivering a crippling blow to a CSG. That's 22 total Steregrushchys to launch that strike, because we're not using a fucking 9m100 SAM as a Harpoon/LRASM analogue. It has a 40km range (point blank in naval combat context), and an F-18E + Harpoon has a 465+nmi range.
>>30496371
>Project 22220
So a nuclear powered icebreaker is the same thing as a front line combat destroyer in shipbuilding terms? All my fucking keks.
See >>30496274
You idiots haven't laid the keel on something larger than a Frigate since the fall of the Soviet Union.
>A2A warload of Su-33 is as much weight as 3 to 4 AShM.
Are you retarded? Can you do basic arithmetic?
>>30496373
Those are not front line combat vessels. If there weren't a difference, Russia would have built something larger than a Frigate since 1994.
>>30496387
>Project 955 is 24000 tonnes. Eat shit, faggot fatnik.
Fair enough. The lead sub also took 17 years to build from keel laying to commissioning. Even the latest one took 8 years. Now find me a single surface combat vessel over 5,000 tons.
>>30496481
>>30496468
>>30496465
>moving the goalposts this hard
Keep being butthurt fatnick
>>30496449
>That means you'd need about 262 AShMs (3 per SAM) to overwhelm current USN AShM game planning and be sure of delivering a crippling blow to a CSG.
That's not even accounting for EW, AMRAAMs launched by CAP or Phalanx systems.
>>30496487
>>moving the goalposts this hard
The question was whether Russia could build a Destroyer much less a Carrier. So far, proofs have yet to be delivered that they can.
>>30496465
>What ships over 7,000 tons are the Russians currently building?
>Gets his shit pushed in
>Lies, it doesn't count!
Typical fatnik behaviour. See a couple of posts above for a warship, imbecile.
>Can you do basic arithmetic?
Apparently you can't, imbecile. 6× R-27 is 1518kg, 4× R-73 is 420 kg. Together that is 1938kg. Three Kh-31A are 1830kg. Four Kh-35U are 2080kg. Eat shit, faggot fatnik.
>>30496481
>Lies, doesn't count!
Lol, mad fatnik is mad.
>>30496449
He was talking about the bug squadrons and I took it to mean how much corvettes are needed to equal their firepower. Since you can't seperate teh air wings from their flat tops you have to include the costs with those assets as well, same has to be said about supporting assets for the corvettes though, so my mistake.
If we talk about the planes alone then 60 pilots and hundreds of maintenance dudes plus very maintenance hungry and fuel hunggry planes could very well cost more than operations and upkeep of those corvettes.
>>30496481
That shit carrier they built for the poo in loos count right?
>>30496533
Remember that carrier wings can't launch all in once, they need time for gathering, refueling, etc. Corvettes can.
>>30496493
>>Gets his shit pushed in
How so? A non-combat icebreaker? A single SSBN class? How does either of these prove that Russia can build a surface warfare vessel larger than a Frigate?
It's a fair question, since they haven't commissioned one since 1998.
>>30496493
>Apparently you can't, imbecile. 6× R-27 is 1518kg, 4× R-73 is 420 kg. Together that is 1938kg. Three Kh-31A are 1830kg. Four Kh-35U are 2080kg. Eat shit, faggot fatnik.
I'd love for you to find me a single picture of an Su-33 operating off the Kuznetsov with any of those four loads. Pro-tip: you can't, because all of those are over MTOW with a reasonable fuel load off the ski jump. I've never seen a photo of an Su-33 operating off the Kuznetsov with more than 4 A2A missiles. Prove me wrong.
>>30496551
>Remember that carrier wings can't launch all in once, they need time for gathering, refueling, etc. Corvettes can.
Remember that a carrier air wing can come back twice a day, every day for as long as the munitions bunker on the carrier lasts. Three times a day in a surge. Corvettes have to return to port after ONE salvo.
>>30496546
Built in the 1980s.
So much vatnik asspain ITT over the simple fact that they can't build large surface combat vessels any more.
Warms my black little heart.
>>30496493
>an ice breaker and a submarine
>this displays russian blue water dominance
First of all I don't know a single person that would include submarines into the realm of a 'ship' and second I would love to see an icebreaker go up against anything heavier than a patrol boat. Hell a patrol boat can probably wreck it's shit becasue in the context of being used for anything other than breaking fucking ice the ships are shit. Almost like they aren't designed with the intention of actually doing anything other than that.
>>30496563
A corvette wouldn't release all their missiles in one slavo though, you fucking retard.
>>30496583
It's nuts to think that in the 18 years since the Russians stopped building large surface ships, the USN has been pushing out 2 Burkes a year, one Nimitz/Ford every 5 years, an LHD/LHA every 5 years, and a bunch of LPDs and other combat auxiliaries. I think we've actually built more than the equivalent of the entire Russian Navy since 1998.
>>30496606
Then they can expect an even lower pK. Are you completely unaware of AA saturation and how it works with modern AShM attacks?
>>30496554
You didn't specify "combat" until lated when you dot your shit pushed in and started to move goalposts. And then you got your shit pushed in even more.
>A single SSBN class?
Dumb fucking faggot imbecile.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yasen-class_submarine
>Not a single fact to back up his claims so far
>"I've never seen"
>Keeps posting
Hahahah, oh my got, what a huge faggot. Get the fuck out before you drown in your own shit, retard.
>>30496625
Corvettes travel in groups, specifically to avoid magazine depletion, Saturation is more than just pouring everything at once, it's waiting for the right time to do so.
>>30496563
As if that somehow refutes my point. As if anyone will just let them anyway on the first place, lol.
>>30496571
>Built in the 1980s.
AFAIK only the hull remained from the original, and even then that was heavily modified from its original design to incorporate a ramp.
>>30496584
>second I would love to see an icebreaker go up against anything heavier than a patrol boat
Easy. just put up a couple Klub containers in teh helo pad, you probably have to modify the radar to transmit targeting data to the missiles though.
>>30496628
>talking about warfighting surface combatants all fucking thread
>"HURR U DIDNT SPECIFY COMBAT"
Autisim speaks
>>30496628
>You didn't specify "combat" until lated when you dot your shit pushed in and started to move goalposts
see >>30495969
>They have one decrepit carrier that can barely get an AShM-armed Sukoi in the air with almost no combat radius. And they don't have the shipyards or industrial base to crank out another one.
which started this whole discussion. It was always about combat carriers and then destroyers (see >>30496180 >>30496192).
It wasn't until this anon >>30496243 opened it up without clarifying that he meant surface combat vessels that it could have possibly become about anything else.
Kindly go fuck yourself.
>>30496628
Nigga, we're on /k/, why the fuck would icebreakers be at all relevant in a discussion of missile ships?
>>30496583
Nice projections, fatnik faggot.
>>30496584
>Russians don't have blue water air-launched AShM capability
>Gets his shit pushed in
>Russians can't build large ships
>Gets his shit pushed in
>Russians can't build large warships
>Gets his shit pushed in
>Lies, it doesn't count!
Fatnik damage control ITT.
>>30496628
>Dumb fucking faggot imbecile.
Yes, that's an SSN, dipshit.
Why do Russians even bother building those boats with shit endurance and sensors. It's a waste of money since Russians cant contest USA outside its sea so they might as well just spam land variants of their anti ship missiles.
>>30496662
Keep saying it. Maybe that'll make it true.
>>30496655
gotta love how Vatniks always seem to forget that the shit they write in a thread doesn't just magically disappear.
>>30496663
The size of a cruiser, retard.
>>30496673
Keep trying, fatnik.
>>30496655
>What ships over 7,000 tons are the Russians currently building?
>Gets his shit pushed in
>Lies, it doesn't count!
Lol, try harder, faggot.
>>30496691
>subs are the same thing as surface warships
>we can totally build surface warships larger than a frigate guys, we just don't want to!
>>30496697
>Lies, it doesn't count!
Lol, try harder, faggot.
>>30496665
They are for patrolling its vast coastlines.
They add another layer of defences any attacking navy has to get through.
And they are a handy way to get around INF.
>>30496658
Technically speaking, Ilya Muromets is capable of delivering 4 Klub missiles.
http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/naval/2016/06/11/russia-unveils-new-navy-icebreaker-arctic-military-focus/85747556/
>>30496691
Christ, m8. I think the concept of the corvette has upsides, my country certainly has enough to call itself Chrysler but constantly saying that an american is getting his shit pushed in after you mention an icebreaker is embarrassing.
Russia probably could construct larger ships if pressed, there's little reason to think they couldn't but the issue at hand isn't what they can do right now.
>inb4 fatnik
no
>>30496788
You could feasibly strap missiles to a fishing vessel, it doesn't make it much good for anything but defense against particularly saucy patrol vessels.
Though the policy to strap missiles to everything you can is a solid one that I would be all for.
>>30496813
Embarrassing for a fatnik.
>Russia probably could construct larger ships
>probably
Keep trying to ignore reality.
>>30496855
>calling a korean, with proof, a fatnik
That, folks, is how you know you are dealing with paid shit posters working from a script.
Remove Vatnik
>>30497002
It was a reference to a fatnik, not you, retard.
>>30497014
Oh yes, a direct quote from a korean is "referenceing" somebody else.
Another clear indication you are dealing with a paid shitposter is a complete inability to admit fault. (Kind of hard to get paid if you admit you were wrong)
Watch.
>>30497014
He's not me, I'm me. You might be John Wayne
>>30497025
I think I get what he meant but it's poorly worded, doesn't change that he is kind of butthurt over nothing. So Russia doesn't have the same navy it did when spending was freely spent, corvettes are a solid and cheap way to patrol coastlines and aren't as wimpy as dedicated patrol vessels. Russia's main objective is no longer to defeat the US in a head on fight and that's fine.
>>30497025
>saying that an american is getting his shit pushed in after you mention an icebreaker is embarrassing.
>Embarrassing for a fatnik.
You have some problems understanding English in general or just simple references?
>>30496665
Because it corresponds with designated naval doctrine? The purpose of Russian navy for the next 25+ years is coastal defense and nuclear deterrence in the bluewater zone. Logically, the vessels they're building for that are strike function frigates/corvettes with anti-submarine capability, diesel-electric boats and ballistic/attack subs.
Whereas China and US absolutely depend on large oceanic fleets for economic and military expansion, Russia is content enough with cotrol over her immediate surroundings and unrivaled dominance in the Arctic.
>>30496351
>120-150km is for 9M96 variation SAM
AA.
They still have got classic AS-20 or new fancy Sizzler missiles as strike weapon.
>>30497126
>unrivaled dominance in the Arctic.
kek
Alaska and the USN's SSN fleet says hi.
>>30497224
>AA.
9M96 variation SAM
9M96E2
9M96D
9M96M
A surface to air missile that has 120km or 150km range depending on source. It uses either the S-300F launchers on older ships such as the Peter the Great or uses the Redut VLS that is installed on the Steregsushi corvette and Gorshkov frigate.
Buyan-M
>Caspian Flotilla
>Waters is infested by Iranian midget submarines
>Buyan-M does not even have sonar, only anti-underwater deterrent has a 500 feet range.
>Anti-air is literally MANPADS and a twin barreled CIWS. Oh and it's main gun too.
Literally a fishing boat with containers for land attack, anti ship or anti sub missile.
Steregushchy-class corvette (20381)
>Air Search radar is upgraded from export radar to India
>Only 12 anti air missiles with 120 - 150 km range.
>Air Search Radar even has a shorter range.
>Uses Uran subsonic missiles with only 240km range
To be fair, although it is only as a patrol boat, it has good anti-sub capabilities. They say Stoikiy found a Virginia loitering around the place where they were undergoing state testing for an Improved Kilo and its Kalibr launches.
>>30497406
>Buyan-M
For those that fail to grasp - the purpose of Buyan-M is to be a cruise missile launcher, nothing more nothing less. It's basically a way to get around the ban on land based cruise missiles.
Also, this is the exact reason why Russian's don't wanna see Aegis ashore - since technically, it can launch cruise missiles.
>>30497406
>Buyan-M
You don't seem to grasp the idea.
>>30497432
>For those that fail to grasp - the purpose of Buyan-M is to be a cruise missile launcher
>Thread is literally about Missile Barges
>>30497458
I don't think you grasp the idea of that post.
>>30496584
>>30496647
Icebreakers have a shallow draft and are not very seaworthy.
>>30496357
Amerifats are exactly the same as vatniks in this respect though.
