Russian Military News, Reports, Data, etc.

S

Skywatcher

Captain
Tirdent said:
The same could've been said about China or South Korea what feels like yesterday, and unlike Turkey or India the Russians DO have recent experience *designing* large warships.

Fact of the matter is that the PLAN build-up came on the back of a large and healthy civilian yard infrastructure, so it is not clear to me why improvements to the same in Russia would not have similar benefits (if they are funded and realized). And while the Russians did go on a *construction* holiday (as you correctly said) due to ship yard problems, the design bureaus certainly kept on designing them.

So the crux of the issue apparently lies with the yards, and that is precisely where the planned civilian investments will help (the notion that you can't build to military standards in a yard originally created for civilian purposes is risible).
Click to expand...
You can build to build to military standards in a civilian origin shipyard... but the first couple results aren't going to be, um ideal (and Soviet era surface ship build quality can... leave a lot to be desired), and first you have to be able to build civilian ships competently, on time and reasonably on projected cost (all of which Russia has trouble doing right now). That's going to take at least a decade, in the best of circumstances, to gain that institutional experience.

Frankly, unless you build the design into an actual warship, that's all the design is every going to be: napkinwaffe.

Russian civilian shipyards aren't globally competitive as Chinese or South Korea shipyards were 15-20 years ago, which means that first they'll have to learn how to build civilian ships right, and then they'll have to take on the learning curve of properly building large surface combatants.
 
A

Anlsvrthng

Captain
Registered Member
You mean if a shipyard can make a nuclear icebreaker (or a 10000 + nuclear submarine ) then it can not make a cruiser?
Why ?
 
T

Tirdent

Junior Member
Registered Member
Skywatcher said:
Russian civilian shipyards aren't globally competitive as Chinese or South Korea shipyards were 15-20 years ago, which means that first they'll have to learn how to build civilian ships right, and then they'll have to take on the learning curve of properly building large surface combatants.
Click to expand...

US and British shipyards aren't either, yet they are reasonably successful at building large warships. The benefit China derives from their leadership in this field is cost and capacity, but it's not an absolute necessity for a decent destroyer/cruiser - Russia won't be looking at dozens of them (at least they shouldn't, given their financial means and military requirements).
 
S

Skywatcher

Captain
Anlsvrthng said:
You mean if a shipyard can make a nuclear icebreaker (or a 10000 + nuclear submarine ) then it can not make a cruiser?
Why ?
Click to expand...
Because with a cruiser, you have to integrate all those weapons, sensors, computers and such, as well as building it to military standards (i.e. so it can take some level of damage) that the nuclear icebreaker comes with.

As for submarine, often metal alloys different from that of surface ships are used in the hull, for starters.
 
A

Anlsvrthng

Captain
Registered Member
Skywatcher said:
Because with a cruiser, you have to integrate all those weapons, sensors, computers and such, as well as building it to military standards (i.e. so it can take some level of damage) that the nuclear icebreaker comes with.

As for submarine, often metal alloys different from that of surface ships are used in the hull, for starters.
Click to expand...
The integration has no business at all with the civilian shipbuilding.

And generally, the characteristics that you mention doesn't affect the capability of the warship to sail, participate training and launch missiles against inferior enemy.

So, we don't know even if the USA is capable to do the above stuff.

All that we know is from the three NATO warship collision one sunk , and two survived with loss of main sensor and weapon systems, and with need of main repair at manufacturer site ( means in wartime they would be considered as total write off, because they would use up the space required for manufacturing of new warships)

The Ford , littoral combat ship, zumwalt are not reached the level described by you.


So, by your definition Russia should be able to pump out warships in unlimited number.
 
S

Skywatcher

Captain
Anlsvrthng said:
The integration has no business at all with the civilian shipbuilding.

And generally, the characteristics that you mention doesn't affect the capability of the warship to sail, participate training and launch missiles against inferior enemy.

So, we don't know even if the USA is capable to do the above stuff.

All that we know is from the three NATO warship collision one sunk , and two survived with loss of main sensor and weapon systems, and with need of main repair at manufacturer site ( means in wartime they would be considered as total write off, because they would use up the space required for manufacturing of new warships)

The Ford , littoral combat ship, zumwalt are not reached the level described by you.


So, by your definition Russia should be able to pump out warships in unlimited number.
Click to expand...
Ummm, what nonsense did I just read? Are you sure you're using the right English words (seriously)?
 
Jura The idiot

Jura The idiot

General
Skywatcher said:
Ummm, what nonsense did I just read? Are you sure you're using the right English words (seriously)?
Click to expand...
Anlsvrthng
is a star, if you want to have some fun, check
#9749 Anlsvrthng, Dec 23, 2018
inside there's:
Anlsvrthng said:
(82.7122e12*0.444-74.3585e12*0.388)/1e8=8.8731*1e4=88 731
Click to expand...
and the correct result is 78731, not 88731

(from what I figured, in the course of a discussion s/he needed that number to be bigger, so s/he had LOL
and no, s/he didn't claim a typo after I had called it out)

that's what s/he pulled while, ehm, defending his/her gibberish originally in
#9691 Anlsvrthng, Dec 20, 2018
Anlsvrthng said:
Consumer spending = income-saving+loans ______Agree?

Saving rate falling , consumer debt increasing YOY 4.somtehing% ._______Agree?
Inflation : 2.5% , GDP growth 6.5% __ __Agree?
Spending growth-loans growth+saving growth = income growth(decrease)____Agree?
9%-(debt growth 4.4%)+(saving growth negative saving growth -)= close to 0 income growth _____Agree? ->this is the critical part.

Have you ever had to solve process/machine/material/quality/business problems using statistical tools ever?
Click to expand...

the point is to caution SDF members against discussing with
Anlsvrthng
I mean if you're interested in a rational discussion, not in unsubstantiated claims, shifting goal posts, diversions, ... all over

personally I was curious how far s/he would go LOL
 
A

Anlsvrthng

Captain
Registered Member
Skywatcher said:
Ummm, what nonsense did I just read? Are you sure you're using the right English words (seriously)?
Click to expand...
Ok, I reword it.

1. We don't know the capabilities of warships by your metric. Actually, 95% of NAVY personnel has no objective picture about his ship's capabilities, and 99% has no clue about the enemy capabilities. ( maybe it is underestimate, and less person has usable information) . Now ,outside of military we have less information. (apart same unintended leak, like accident, huge waste of money like Ford and so on.)

2. Because of point 1. you,me or anyone else can not distinguish between a non-capable and capable warship. All that we can see is the ship sail, train, doing missions against inferior enemies.

3. Russia can make warship that can fool you, me and everyone on this forum. Actually, any country can do that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top