Go Back   DefenceTalk Forum - Military & Defense Forums > Global Defense & Military > Navy & Maritime
Forgot Password? Join Us! Its's free!

Defense News
Land, Air & Naval Forces






Military Photos
Latest Military Pictures

MEDR_10_33_20_AM_10_33_20_AM_10_33_20_AM.jpg

Yuma_17_MV-22_6234-1.jpg

Yuma_17_AV-8B_6417-1.jpg

Yuma_17_F-35B_6266-1.jpg
Defense Reports
Aerospace & Defence







Russian Navy Discussions and Updates

This is a discussion on Russian Navy Discussions and Updates within the Navy & Maritime forum, part of the Global Defense & Military category; Originally Posted by Volkodav Don't forget the Japanese helicopter carrier destroyers, the DDHs of the Hyuga and Izumo classes. Then ...


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rating: Thread Rating: 5 votes, 4.40 average.
Old February 11th, 2017   #1126
Super Moderator
General
Feanor's Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Under your bed. No seriously, take a look.
Posts: 14,852
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Volkodav View Post
Don't forget the Japanese helicopter carrier destroyers, the DDHs of the Hyuga and Izumo classes. Then again if you translate it as Escort instead of destroyer it makes more sense. Also if you look at roles and capabilities it could be claimed that modern frigates are actually more like traditional cruisers than anything else.
Only a handful of countries can even afford what is labeled a "destroyer" these days. Interestingly enough Russia started out with plans for a new destroyer but after evaluating their requirements, they ended up with two variants - one ~14-15 thousand tons, the other 17.5 thousand tons. Then they reclassified the project as a "ocean combat ship". Though personally I feel like there is a nice for the 6000-10000 class of ships that ought to be considered destroyers, and the 11000-15000 be called a cruiser?

Otherwise you end up with the monstrous Zummwalt and the humble Hobart in the same category.
Feanor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 11th, 2017   #1127
Senior Member
Brigadier General
John Fedup's Avatar
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 1,836
Threads:
Considering the displacement overlap between frigates, destroyers, and even cruisers, the term "ocean combat ship" with a small, medium, or large prefix could make more sense these days.
John Fedup is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 11th, 2017   #1128
Potstirrer
General
Todjaeger's Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: New England
Posts: 3,687
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Fedup View Post
Considering the displacement overlap between frigates, destroyers, and even cruisers, the term "ocean combat ship" with a small, medium, or large prefix could make more sense these days.
Not really. Or at least not when speaking about current cruisers. The major difference between a cruiser and a destroyer (at least for modern Western navies) is the command role. Cruisers have space for an admiral and associated staff, where as a destroyer would not
________________
Beware of Mr. Grumpy...
Todjaeger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 11th, 2017   #1129
Senior Member
Brigadier General
John Fedup's Avatar
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 1,836
Threads:
Other than the USN, no western navy has a cruiser. Most Western navies would assign the command role to the largest ship available which varies considerably. The RCN's tribal class and occasionally HMCS Protectur used to act as command ships. The former was really to small for this role. The RAN and RN have LHDs as does France, Spain, Australia, and Italy which can be used for command. The Zumwalt is suited for command, not a cruiser, just a massive 14,000 ton super destroyer which could be called a cruiser or "large ocean combat ship".
John Fedup is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 11th, 2017   #1130
Super Moderator
General
Feanor's Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Under your bed. No seriously, take a look.
Posts: 14,852
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Todjaeger View Post
Not really. Or at least not when speaking about current cruisers. The major difference between a cruiser and a destroyer (at least for modern Western navies) is the command role. Cruisers have space for an admiral and associated staff, where as a destroyer would not
This seems rather silly. So a destroyer and a cruiser are the same size? This is rather silly. I would argue that the US is the only country where that rule would really hold true. So instead of using it as the benchmark I think it would be more accurate to say that US destroyers are actually light cruisers, and the Zumwalt is a heavy cruiser or a battle cruiser. I would posit that the US doesn't bother with actual destroyers (vessels similar to the Hobart or the Daring class). I would also argue that the Russian OKR Leader started out as a plan for a destroyer, but due to the high requirements placed upon it the design evolved into a cruiser, maybe even a heavy cruiser (depending on just how large the final version will be). Russia's 21956 project is more along the lines of a real destroyer.

And what of the Hatakaze-class destroyers? At a mere 6000 tonns they nonetheless have the space for command staff intentionally built in. Do they suddenly become tiny cruisers?
Feanor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 11th, 2017   #1131
Potstirrer
General
Todjaeger's Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: New England
Posts: 3,687
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Fedup View Post
Other than the USN, no western navy has a cruiser. Most Western navies would assign the command role to the largest ship available which varies considerably. The RCN's tribal class and occasionally HMCS Protectur used to act as command ships. The former was really to small for this role. The RAN and RN have LHDs as does France, Spain, Australia, and Italy which can be used for command. The Zumwalt is suited for command, not a cruiser, just a massive 14,000 ton super destroyer which could be called a cruiser or "large ocean combat ship".
We are straying somewhat from the Russian navy, but not entirely true. In the USN, the AB DDG's are larger than the Tico CG's, but the Tico is a cruiser, and has space in areas like the CIC for additional embarked command staff. The same is not true for the larger AB DDG, where having extra.personnel on the CIC can be a problem.

As I understand it, the fundamental difference is whether there is space and kit for the command staff to manage external assets, without reducing the efficiency or effectiveness of the host vessel. If there are not enough systems and workstations for the vessel's captain to issue orders to the crew and track a situation at the same time an onboard TF commander is tracking the status of the TF and issuing any needed orders then the vessel is not appropriate for a command role. This would be the case regardless of how large (or small) a vessel is. What sometimes happens is that a vessel might be able to accomodate additional command personnel, but at reduced efficiencies. Terminals can be re-tasked, or provide.split functionality, etc. But due to numbers and spacing, not to the same effectiveness as a dedicated space.
________________
Beware of Mr. Grumpy...
Todjaeger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 11th, 2017   #1132
Grumpy Old Man
General
gf0012-aust's Avatar
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 17,813
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Feanor View Post
This seems rather silly. So a destroyer and a cruiser are the same size? This is rather silly. I would argue that the US is the only country where that rule would really hold true. So instead of using it as the benchmark I think it would be more accurate to say that US destroyers are actually light cruisers, and the Zumwalt is a heavy cruiser or a battle cruiser. I would posit that the US doesn't bother with actual destroyers (vessels similar to the Hobart or the Daring class). I would also argue that the Russian OKR Leader started out as a plan for a destroyer, but due to the high requirements placed upon it the design evolved into a cruiser, maybe even a heavy cruiser (depending on just how large the final version will be). Russia's 21956 project is more along the lines of a real destroyer.

And what of the Hatakaze-class destroyers? At a mere 6000 tonns they nonetheless have the space for command staff intentionally built in. Do they suddenly become tiny cruisers?
its a historical thing and a host structure issue

cruisers were the next vessel down which could become flag vessels
in contemp terms any vessel can be flag, but it still hinges around broader command capability

some frigates of today are more capable than some cruisers of the Reagan era
the definitions applied to fleet classes from the cold war have almost zero relevance now in actual capability terms, but from a command structure level, in some navies they'd still apply
________________
A corollary of Finagle's Law, similar to Occam's Razor, says:

"Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity"
http://au.linkedin.com/pub/gary-fairlie/1/28a/2a2
http://cofda.wordpress.com/

gf a.k.a. ROBOPIMP T5C
gf0012-aust is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 12th, 2017   #1133
Super Moderator
Brigadier General
AegisFC's Avatar
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Virginia
Posts: 1,995
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Todjaeger View Post
We are straying somewhat from the Russian navy, but not entirely true. In the USN, the AB DDG's are larger than the Tico CG's, but the Tico is a cruiser, and has space in areas like the CIC for additional embarked command staff. The same is not true for the larger AB DDG, where having extra.personnel on the CIC can be a problem.
Nope the Tico is physically larger and heavier. As you said, it also has the space, equipment and comms gear for an embarked staff. Just putting DESRON on a Burke is a... cramped affair. Even a Spru-can was more effective than a Burke at embarking a staff.
One thing to remember is the Tico's started life as DDG's but were reclassified for partly practical (their role) and partly political (the so-called "cruiser gap") and partly because the ship they were designed to be the low end component of was cancelled.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Feanor View Post
This seems rather silly. So a destroyer and a cruiser are the same size? This is rather silly. I would argue that the US is the only country where that rule would really hold true. So instead of using it as the benchmark I think it would be more accurate to say that US destroyers are actually light cruisers, and the Zumwalt is a heavy cruiser or a battle cruiser. I would posit that the US doesn't bother with actual destroyers (vessels similar to the Hobart or the Daring class). I would also argue that the Russian OKR Leader started out as a plan for a destroyer, but due to the high requirements placed upon it the design evolved into a cruiser, maybe even a heavy cruiser (depending on just how large the final version will be). Russia's 21956 project is more along the lines of a real destroyer.

And what of the Hatakaze-class destroyers? At a mere 6000 tonns they nonetheless have the space for command staff intentionally built in. Do they suddenly become tiny cruisers?
You are missing a LOT of historical context. Go look at the first destroyers from about 100 years ago. They look an awfully lot like LCS, fast, lightly armed and designed to protect the battle line from gun-boats and then subs, AAW was added later when that became a primary threat, along the way offensive firepower was added through anti-ship torpedoes then missiles. Each generation got bigger as the required equipment got bigger and heavier and the threat became more complex. Then there are certain design factors in USN ships that require a larger ship (range, endurance and DC requirements among others). The AB's are very much the next step in DD evolution that can be traced all the way back.
To point at a Burke and declare it is nearly the size and weight of a WW2 cruiser misses the point. That same WW2 light cruiser is nearly the size and weight of a Battleship from 40 or 50 years before that.
As for the Zumwalt it is very much a replacement for the Spruance class, it has two guns, has about the same number of VLS cells, no real area AAW system, it is focus on land attack (as were the Spruances in the end). Both a Burke and a Tico have more cells than a DDG-1000 and both have more sensors.

The Hatakaze-class would of been called a "Destroyer Leader" back in the 60's. The Japanese also pretty much call everything they have "Destroyers" due to political reasons. I will note that their Aegis ships also have expanded flag facilities and all that entail.
________________
"The beatings will continue until morale improves."
Forum rules, read them!
AegisFC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 12th, 2017   #1134
Super Moderator
General
Feanor's Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Under your bed. No seriously, take a look.
Posts: 14,852
Threads:
Thank you for the detailed reply. This is very informative.

This having been said, evolution on this scale and scope seems to produce something that's actually different in role and function from the original vessel, sufficiently so to require a separate classification. I think a combination of size and capabilities are the key elements to determining what kind of ship we're dealing with.
Feanor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 12th, 2017   #1135
Potstirrer
General
Todjaeger's Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: New England
Posts: 3,687
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by AegisFC View Post
Nope the Tico is physically larger and heavier. As you said, it also has the space, equipment and comms gear for an embarked staff. Just putting DESRON on a Burke is a... cramped affair. Even a Spru-can was more effective than a Burke at embarking a staff.
One thing to remember is the Tico's started life as DDG's but were reclassified for partly practical (their role) and partly political (the so-called "cruiser gap") and partly because the ship they were designed to be the low end component of was cancelled.
Well, now you see what happens when I go from memory without double checking my facts...

It does look though like the Flight III's will have the same displacement as the Ticonderoga-class.
________________
Beware of Mr. Grumpy...
Todjaeger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 14th, 2017   #1136
Banned Member
Corporal
Tsavo Lion's Avatar
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: Arizona
Posts: 138
Threads:
The Admiral Kuznetsov’s return reveals problems in Russian naval aviation Valuable lessons were learned off Syria, now there'll be plenty of time during overhaul to train more pilots & improve mission readiness. I won't be surprised if some aviators are sent to practice flight ops on the Liaoning! Russian Pacific Fleet’s resurgence sets off alarm bells in Washington The USN & JMSDF will be busy dealing with Chinese for years to come, so for the RF isn't pressed for time here. The Kurils can be defended well enough with the present force levels.

Last edited by Tsavo Lion; February 16th, 2017 at 05:10 PM. Reason: add a link
Tsavo Lion is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 19th, 2017   #1137
Defense Professional / Analyst
General
No Avatar
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 5,284
Threads:
Destroyers were torpedo boat destroyers, designed specifically to destroy torpedo boats that were a difficult to counter threat to the battle line that lacked both the ability to manoeuvre and the rapid fire guns to adequately defend themselves against them. Torpedo boat destroyers then started carrying torpedos and became capable of attacking the enemy battleline in the same fashion as the smaller torpedo boats and with their greater range and seaworthiness were able to accompany the battle fleet to conduct both their original defensive and their new offensive roles.

A difficulty arose in the control of large number of torpedo boat destroyers due to their high speed, low silhouettes and lack of space. The fact that torpedo boat destroyers were now conducting torpedo attacks also meant that the original destroyers had to be able to engage and destroy/disable much larger, more powerful torpedo boat destroyers. This led to generally larger and more powerful destroyers and larger again destroyer leaders which also merged with the separate Scouts, while a new class of Fleet Cruiser evolved to serve as a Destroyer Leader, Destroyer Killer and Fleet Scout. This destroyer leading/killing cruiser is best seen in the WWI C and D classes as well as the Arethusa and Didos of WWII.

This new cruiser is probably closest to the large destroyers / small cruisers we see today, which were evolved from the post war DL/DLG of the USN and large destroyers/frigates elsewhere. Even the RNs County class was a DDG evolved in part from an aborted Cruiser/Destroyer concept.

Traditional cruisers were different from the destroyer evolved, destroyer killers, they were literally designed to cruise the worlds oceans, hence the name. They were by design the smallest ships capable of independent operations away from the fleet or a major base. They had significant capabilities to self repair without the need of a tender, had a designed excess of crew to provide flexibility for landing and boarding parties (as well as the boats to deploy them) and had sufficient space to carry required detachments and flag officers as required for trade protection, colonial policing and diplomatic missions as required.

To a degree the Sloop, which this century was seen as a slow destroyer because of their armament and sensor fit, was actually a smaller slower cruiser able to conduct the same sort of roles but in more permissive environments, i.e. a second rate capability in all areas. Frigates / Destroyer Escorts and Corvettes, were more single purpose ships, i.e. 1st rate at one role, 2nd or 3rd rate at all others, usually specialising in ASW or anti air with minimal capability in other areas.

While it is temping to classify ships by size it is their capability that should define them. Outstanding performance across the board and capable of independent ops and embarking a command staff as required seems to still be the prime characteristic of a cruiser, even if they do spend most their time escorting valuable targets. Good general purpose capability across the board that may approach that of a cruiser in one or more areas seems to fit the modern destroyer. Outstanding capability in one area and some capability in others seems to define the frigate.
Volkodav is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 19th, 2017   #1138
Super Moderator
General
Feanor's Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Under your bed. No seriously, take a look.
Posts: 14,852
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Volkodav View Post
While it is temping to classify ships by size it is their capability that should define them.
I think this can only hold true when we're talking about ships within a relatively small time period. Otherwise we end up with modern corvettes that are far more capable then WWI era cruisers. Also capabilities and size are related. You can only fit so man VLS cells into a given hull and with the increasingly universal nature of these launch tubes, they become an ultimate limit on your ability to perform function A vs function B. The USN in many ways dodges the issue entirely by deploying a fleet composed mainly of very large destroyers and light cruisers with nothing particularly smaller or larger, making classification less relevant.

However when looking at other navies, be they French, British, Australian, or Russian, we have to consider that while the 22350 frigate carries 16 cells, it doesn't mean they consistently have 16 AShMs available. Size matters and an 8000 tonn destroyer with 32-48 cells of UKSK, plus a navalized S-400 would bring more then just double the size. It would bring the ability to conduct sustained strikes against land targets while maintaining an AShM arsenal.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Volkodav View Post
Outstanding capability in one area and some capability in others seems to define the frigate.
How would this apply to Russia's 22350 frigates? They seem to have all round capabilities without anything being outstanding or lacking. Or am I missing something? They carry a SAM comparable to British destroyers, an AShM loadout that's smaller then that of destroyers but more capable then most frigates, and while anti-submarine warfare isn't my forte, they're pretty much the most modern asset Russia has in that department as well. Given the shortage of actual destroyers, we may well see the type fill the role of destroyers in future VMF deployments, escorting the Kuznetsov or future LHDs in place of the aging 1155s.
Feanor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 19th, 2017   #1139
Defense Professional / Analyst
General
No Avatar
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 5,284
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Feanor View Post
I think this can only hold true when we're talking about ships within a relatively small time period. Otherwise we end up with modern corvettes that are far more capable then WWI era cruisers. Also capabilities and size are related. You can only fit so man VLS cells into a given hull and with the increasingly universal nature of these launch tubes, they become an ultimate limit on your ability to perform function A vs function B. The USN in many ways dodges the issue entirely by deploying a fleet composed mainly of very large destroyers and light cruisers with nothing particularly smaller or larger, making classification less relevant.

However when looking at other navies, be they French, British, Australian, or Russian, we have to consider that while the 22350 frigate carries 16 cells, it doesn't mean they consistently have 16 AShMs available. Size matters and an 8000 tonn destroyer with 32-48 cells of UKSK, plus a navalized S-400 would bring more then just double the size. It would bring the ability to conduct sustained strikes against land targets while maintaining an AShM arsenal.



How would this apply to Russia's 22350 frigates? They seem to have all round capabilities without anything being outstanding or lacking. Or am I missing something? They carry a SAM comparable to British destroyers, an AShM loadout that's smaller then that of destroyers but more capable then most frigates, and while anti-submarine warfare isn't my forte, they're pretty much the most modern asset Russia has in that department as well. Given the shortage of actual destroyers, we may well see the type fill the role of destroyers in future VMF deployments, escorting the Kuznetsov or future LHDs in place of the aging 1155s.
There is no hard and fast rule and to be honest a navy could decide to call a frigate a destroyer, or either a cruiser, or even a corvette. Size counts but designed role and the actual level of designed in capability matters more. The Spanish call their F100 frigates, Australia calls theirs destroyers, when the USN reclassified their frigates most became cruisers while some became destroyers and when the Mitschner class DLs received a guided missile conversion they became DDGs. The Batch III Type 22 in the RN was called a frigate, even though its general purpose outfit gave it very different capabilities to the earlier batches.

This can be debated without ever coming to a consensus but I do believe reference should be made to the origins of the classification as well as its capabilities. Iran calls its copies of their old VT light frigates, destroyers, Australia's new frigates will be among the largest and most powerful and versatile ships the RAN has ever operated yet will likely still be called frigates and even though Japan would call an identical ship a destroyer.
Volkodav is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 3 Weeks Ago   #1140
Grumpy Old Man
General
gf0012-aust's Avatar
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 17,813
Threads:
no pump-jet propulsion on this baby.....

Rogozin floats out new attack submarine

https://thebarentsobserver.com/en/se...tack-submarine
________________
A corollary of Finagle's Law, similar to Occam's Razor, says:

"Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity"
http://au.linkedin.com/pub/gary-fairlie/1/28a/2a2
http://cofda.wordpress.com/

gf a.k.a. ROBOPIMP T5C
gf0012-aust is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 03:32 PM.