Miragedriver
Brigadier
Particularly interesting is Mi26M cockpit
new
old
new
old
Russian Military News, Reports, Data, etc.
- Thread starter tphuang
- Start date
Jura The idiot
General
related to
"a Russian navy ship": )
is this:Yesterday at 4:37 PM
now Xinhua 2016-09-12 16:33:54:
China, Russia ready for joint navy drill in South China Sea
source:
(I'll put more pictures from inside of one of the Udaloys participating into Russian Military News in a second)
(let me identify
"a Russian navy ship": )
Jura The idiot
General
my point of view is, well, the opposite:
many Western designs are LUDICROUSLY under-armed, to the point one wonders if they're meant to be WARship at all; my rants (I quote the last one
and if you cared, you could try go backwards from it) against- USN LCS: https://www.sinodefenceforum.com/littoral-combat-ships-lcs.t3993/page-147#post-414841
- Bundesmarine Type 125: https://www.sinodefenceforum.com/european-military-news-reports-data-etc.t4395/page-85#post-406624
- UK Type 31: https://www.sinodefenceforum.com/uk-military-news-reports-data-etc.t2437/page-187#post-412518
(back to the Molnias ... they just use their hull for weaponry, not for "optional modules which had not been funded, but might be as a part of future upgrades"
Problem is, many modern russian designs combine not only weapon&sensor suite of heavier combatants, but also price with overcrampedness and worse-than-could-be endurance and seaworthiness, corresponding to their own size at best.
There are no wonders.
Also, continious desire to get star destroyer in every single class, as well as sudden waves like current kalibr euphoria doesn't change urgeness to replace aging ships with worthy replacement in any positive direction.
project 22160 as good example of good packedness.
Jura The idiot
General
I've heard this line many times before, stuff about poor ergonomics or something ... it partly works with warships, but is generally used by Western vendors; I recall my comment on this:
Feb 28, 2016
...
I used to buy a Czech military journal and there're contributions by Russians (probably defectors
Russian infantry fighting vehicles are criticized in the West for "poor ergonomics of the interior" so in the article describing them the Russian author has said something like: while the ride is less comfortable than in an IVECO, it's not the point, as the soldiers are driven to the fight, where it's likely much worse things await them than bumping off the wall inside because of a missing handle!
no, they're not, and I follow Russian sources to learn about Russian Navy troubles; for example
- I posted about the engines problem as early as
May 17, 2015
https://www.sinodefenceforum.com/russian-military-news-reports-data-etc.t1545/page-194#post-341565 - posted about how the Redut blew the tests this Summer https://www.sinodefenceforum.com/russian-military-news-reports-data-etc.t1545/page-359#post-407683
LOL! that's a counter-strike, which doesn't help the Western projects I criticized above, though
pardon me?project 22160 as good example of good packedness.
1300-1800
displacement range (according to Russian wiki; now I checked at yandex.ru and
mentions "estimated displacement of 1300 tons" in the blog about the third ship which has been laid down), and:
(I thought you tried to be sarcastic ... but you picked up a packed ship, yes)
There is system in this madness. Western ships are modelled on US ones and the main purpose of US ships is to patrol the World Oceans and impress the neutrals and the allies. Some ships are based for years outside the US and to keep the crews happy they need space and comfort. Russian and Chinese ships are all based at home, send occasionally to the Gulf of Aden, from the Northern Fleet through the Indian Ocean to the Far East Fleet or back. In case of war they would be much less numerous than USN ships and its allies so these fleets sacrifice space and comfort for more weapons.
You saw something similar with the ships of the Home Fleet and the Hochseeflotte a century ago.
Last edited:
Jura The idiot
General
(based on and what I read elsewhere)
briefly the Russian Navy issue promised in the above post:
currently there's no planning, at the Headquarters level, for coordinated operations "in the World Oceans"; for example
(I'll use one from the times of the USSR so that nobody considers it war-mongering OK hopefully):
the appropriate units of the Soviet Baltic Fleet, on the order from the Moscow Headquarters and with the operation plans made in the Moscow Headquarters (by the way the HQ are in S. Petersburg now), could've been moved to the North Sea before an outbreak of the war, to "keep busy" NATO Navies (I think mainly the Dutch Navy, sorry delft would've been sent to engage) there, so that they can't interfere with a Soviet invasion of Norway, during which the Soviet Northern Fleet would've acted as "a screen", with the operations again directed from Moscow, against the other NATO Navies (mostly the RN, I guess)
now there's no Department even considering the actions at the HQ level, and all five Fleets have independent "operational strategies" (to me this basically means they're reduced to coastal protection; you may tell me about the Surface Group off Syria, but, to me, that's also coastal protection)
briefly the Russian Navy issue promised in the above post:
currently there's no planning, at the Headquarters level, for coordinated operations "in the World Oceans"; for example
(I'll use one from the times of the USSR so that nobody considers it war-mongering
OK hopefully):the appropriate units of the Soviet Baltic Fleet, on the order from the Moscow Headquarters and with the operation plans made in the Moscow Headquarters (by the way the HQ are in S. Petersburg now), could've been moved to the North Sea before an outbreak of the war, to "keep busy" NATO Navies (I think mainly the Dutch Navy, sorry delft
would've been sent to engage) there, so that they can't interfere with a Soviet invasion of Norway, during which the Soviet Northern Fleet would've acted as "a screen", with the operations again directed from Moscow, against the other NATO Navies (mostly the RN, I guess)now there's no Department even considering the actions at the HQ level, and all five Fleets have independent "operational strategies" (to me this basically means they're reduced to coastal protection; you may tell me about the Surface Group off Syria, but, to me, that's also coastal protection)
You just end up with tired soldiers instead of fully ready ones. :-(
Task of IFV isn't carry certain amount of bodies and weapons from point A to point B, task is to bring soldiers as safely and as readily as possible and justifiable within current mission profile.
And new generation of russian wheeled and tracked IFVs ended up being among the most spacious around.
But it's on land, where it'll at least somehow fight. On sea it's easy to end up incapable of fighting at all.
But enemy won't wait for weather to please you.
I just tend to dislike russian navys' inability to maintain crucial capabilities.
Spanish graphics... good but no.
(1)There is nothing but "mission space" there. In RU navy version - helipad is there(i.e. aft of shown disposition). Sure, mission space allows this to be first russian navy ship with adequate RiB facilities, but kind of small compensation for toothlessness.
Club containers are pure export as of now, and iirc nothing more than proposal.
Making such self contained&independentrly deployable system is complicated task, which won't appear till financed.
(2)Shtil-1 is same, i.e. Bykov is going to have nothing more than shiny deck here, only space for SAM launchers and equipment is reserved.
Now you've got her currently known armament.
Jura The idiot
General
You just end up with tired soldiers instead of fully ready ones. :-(
Task of IFV isn't carry certain amount of bodies and weapons from point A to point B, task is to bring soldiers as safely and as readily as possible and justifiable within current mission profile.
And new generation of russian wheeled and tracked IFVs ended up being among the most spacious around.
But it's on land, where it'll at least somehow fight. On sea it's easy to end up incapable of fighting at all.
But enemy won't wait for weather to please you.
I just tend to dislike russian navys' inability to maintain crucial capabilities.
Spanish graphics... good but no.
(1)There is nothing but "mission space" there. In RU navy version - helipad is there(i.e. aft of shown disposition). Sure, mission space allows this to be first russian navy ship with adequate RiB facilities, but kind of small compensation for toothlessness.
Club containers are pure export as of now, and iirc nothing more than proposal.
Making such self contained&independentrly deployable system is complicated task, which won't appear till financed.
(2)Shtil-1 is same, i.e. Bykov is going to have nothing more than shiny deck here, only space for SAM launchers and equipment is reserved.
Now you've got her currently known armament.
oh man ... I'll leave it to our Readers; thanks for arguing