What is wrong with the electronics in the Constellation class?
Nothing. You're talking to a covert narcissist engaging in grandiose fantasies as a maladaptive coping mechanism. You may as well talk to a LLM that is hallucinating.
Unfortunately at present this is the dominant personality type among frequent SDF users so it doesn't stand out as a pathology when most are like this. It also provides excessive number of clicks and posts so engagement metrics go up but the quality of website goes down immediately because such people seek attention and self-validation, not knowledge. It's like talking to a wall (of text) consisting exclusively of gibberish. Again, if most are like this then nobody notices that something is wrong. And there are so many others like that...
Anyway...
Here's an example of
hallucinating knowledge:
So we keep hearing. But the Admiral Gorshkov did a 175 day round trip voyage around the globe successfully. I would say that means it has more than enough seakeeping qualities.
Except the Admiral Gorshkov wasn't originally meant to be such a thing. There were plans to make destroyers and cruisers as well. But because of financial cutbacks due to economic reasons (2009-2010 financial crisis, oil price collapse in the 2010s, etc) and technical difficulties putting ships in service (also loss of naval gas turbine and diesel engine imports from Ukraine and Germany) the destroyers (Project 22350M) and cruisers (Leader class) never happened.
Facts:
Project 22350/Gorshkov was approved in 2003 as a frigate (formerly: Сторожевой корабль) and replacement of 1135/Burevestnik (Krivak) and 1154/Yastrub (Neustrashimy) frigates both of which have 30 days' autonomy so by definition it was designed as a blue-water vessel. The primary role of this type of vessel is ASW but due to falling ship numbers AAW was included as well.
Russia continued Soviet typology of warships and their roles so they wouldn't design a 5400t/30d vessel for coastal duties when they already had a 2200t/15d corvette design approved (20380/Steregushchy) with the first ship in class already under construction!
The 22350M/Mod. Gorshkov is just an expansion of the baseline design. It is still classified as a frigate of 1st rank i.e. a ship with displacement over 5000t. The differences are relatively small, it's just an updated design to better resolve the problems that became apparent in the baseline design.
Lider was a destroyer (Эскадренный миноносец) and not a cruiser (Ракетный крейсер) which is a different type/role in Soviet/Russian doctrine. This is why many "cruisers" and "destroyers" in Soviet navy were classified as large anti-submarine ship (Большой противолодочный корабль) because that's how US/NATO intelligence classified them.
Lider was unrealistic because it was proposed as a nuclear-powered warship. Nuclear power was the only high-power propulsion solution available domestically at the time which proved economically prohibitive regardless of oil price levels. The only reason why nuclear submarines, carriers and icebreakers exist is because they provide capabilities that balance their enormous cost. No other surface vessel does which is why neither the US nor the USSR could afford nuclear cruisers after 1991. USN retired theirs in 1993-1999 and Russia retired three out of four Kirovs in 1999. Now it plans to keep two in service as flagships and cruise missile platforms with 80 missiles each. It would make more sense to refit Udaloys but Udaloys have limited space for VLS because Soviet missiles were so large due to tactical requirements and technology that only Kirovs had all of them under the deck, and Slavas had only SAM in VLS.
Another example of hallucination:
The "frigate" was supposed to be the LCS program.
Facts:
USN frigates can perform blue-water escort missions. LCS can't, at least not by the book. It's a coastal ship so the closest standard classification is a corvette.
And another:
Except the DDGs are also obsolete. Even with upgrades the Arleigh Burke has only middling performance. It is behind Chinese and Japanese cruiser designs at the same time the US is going to scrap its only cruisers. Still it is better than nothing. At least they have a huge amount of such ships.
Facts:
Japan doesn't have cruisers only destroyers (DDH, DDG, DD) and the newest Maya-class DDG is inferior to Burke Fl.III due to its primary radar being AN/SPY-1D.
All Arleigh Burke Flight IIA are upgraded with AN/SPY-6(V)4 with 27RMAs per array instead of 37 as in AN/SPY-6(V)1 for Flight III. This is sufficient to outclass any AN/SPY-1 ship.
Ticonderoga-class has a role as cruiser due to flag facilities which allow them to be used as flagships of task forces commanded by admirals. Those human factors play a fundamental role in military hierarchy that uses the ships. This is why USN retains outdated command ships of Blue Ridge-class. Half of Ticonderogas are being retired to extend service of the class by 10 years so that all CSGs have one cruiser until a replacement is available.
Most of these require little more than a Wikipedia check.
Instead pages and pages and pages and pages of delusional nonsense. As if one's interest in Russian military couldn't be utilised constructively. It absolutely can but takes effort and you have to
want to be constructive in the first place. But why bother if you can post this... and in some threads even get many likes for it?
Positive/negative feedback cycles etc etc
Depending on how things play out, the USN could be producing a good number of ships per year near the end of the decade. I think the best possible output case for them would look something like this:
- 4 Frigates per year
- 4 Destroyers (Arliegh Burke or whatever the successor is) per year
- 3 Virginia SSN (2 without AUKUS) per year
- 1 Columbia SSBN per year
All Flight IIA are being upgraded and the oldest entered service in 2000 so it has until 2035 minimum.
Flight III has to replace Flight I and II which is 28 ships commissioned 1991-1999. With retirement at 35 it will be 2026-2034 which is 9 years for 28 ships so 3 destroyers per year to maintain current number of 73.
Flight IIA/III have 323 crew while Constellation has 200 - 3 FFGs per 2 DDGs. Freedom has 65, Independence has 40.
Not a lot of room for more DDGs made and recent shipbuilding plans suggest a progressive decrease in number offset by more FFGs. How that will be resolved between contractors remains to be seen.
Did American naval yards had trouble building two Burkes a year?
Ingalls is always slower than Bath by 6-12 months.
Overall the shipyards had to cut investment and staffing and were affected by sequestration in 2013 as well so when they were ordered to pick up speed before 2020 they admitted that without additional investment it's no longer possible. They have to deal with upgrades and repairs as well and the fleet is in increasingly poor condition. Redirecting labour to new ships slows down repairs which already have a backlog. It's a major problem with submarines.
Even an absolute priority program like Columbia is facing potential delays.
Constellation is being built by a separate shipyard as means of expanding the industrial base.
--------
Anyway... this is 300 so I suppose
this is Sparta.
I'm going to take a break now. Good luck you guys. Try not to turn this website entirely into inverse reddit. You're awfully close to succeeding.
See you out there.
