[tanknut]

What is the latest news on the 4 Slava class cruisers? I heard China was going to buy the fourth incomplete one from Ukraine, is that deal still viable?

[Josh]

tanknut, on Fri 11 Jan 2008 0247, said:

What is the latest news on the 4 Slava class cruisers? I heard China was going to buy the fourth incomplete one from Ukraine, is that deal still viable?

I thought 1-2 were still marginally opperational. I can't see China buying one though; seems to be a waste. Its an old design that I think would be ill suited to their needs.

[atst]

2 Slava Cruisers are full operational within russian navy, 1 partly operational, the incomplete fourth is rusting in Ukraine. If the design gets newest versions of their naval S-300 and gets it's Sandbox SSM exchanged for Yakhont it can be a pretty powerful surface combatant, but it's not demanded by any country.

[jakec]

Its hard to imagine PLA still wanting Slava after all this time, and they don't tend to buy complete platforms from the Ukranians anyway (possible exception - Varyag). Rather they play an extremely clever game, buying systems from the Russians but turning to Ukr/Belarus for spares/support/upgrades. They remember 1961...

[DesertFox]

What Role was the Slava class envisioned for?
Would they operate alone or would they operate with groups and how large?

[pdoktar]

DesertFox, on Sat 12 Jan 2008 1318, said:

What Role was the Slava class envisioned for?
Would they operate alone or would they operate with groups and how large?

I think Slava was a conservative version of a heavy missile cruiser, utilizing older proven technology, made incase the Kirov-design would be a bit of a failure. So basicly the two classes are heavy surface combatants operating as flagships of large surface fleets.

This post has been edited by pdoktar: 12 January 2008 - 0751 AM

[Daan]

DesertFox said:

What Role was the Slava class envisioned for?

The ship is commonly mentioned to be a less expensive alternative to the Kirov-class with limited AA and ASW capabilities (and reportedly poor damage control facilities and lots of flammable materials). They served as flagships of several surface groups. In fact, the ship seems some sort of really large missile-FAC, being fitted with 16 powerful and long-range P-500 missiles and having only long range AA coverage in the rear hemisphere by its S-300F missiles. Perhaps its designers envisioned going in fast, lobbing its missiles at the enemy and then turn around and speed away at 32 knots disturbing pursuing US aircraft with its rear hemisphere AA missiles.

BTW, a year ago a Russian daily reported this:

Russia, Ukraine to Sell Soviet Missile Cruiser

Russia and Ukraine will sell a missile cruiser constructed in time of the former Soviet Union, Interfax-Ukraine reported.
Construction of Admiral Lobov cruiser of Project 1164 was launched in 1984 at Nikolaev shipyard but stalled at the final stage (the 90-percent readiness) in late 1980s due to the sharp reduction in military costs.

The cruiser was renamed to Ukraina after 1992. The government of Ukraine first intended to complete construction to have the cruiser in its own Navy but thought better afterwards.

Today’s plans are that Russia and Ukraine will jointly complete construction, as most of the cruiser’s equipment is produced in Russia, and look for a foreign buyer – India or China most probably.

Ukraina’s full displacement is 11,500 tons, its length is 186.4 meters, the beam is 20.8 meters, the draft – 8.4 meters. It has the sailing rate of 32 knots and cruising endurance of 7,400 miles. The cruisers of Project 1164 are armed with Bazalt or Vulkan heavy missiles. Russia has three similar cruisers in the fleet.
http://www.kommersan..._cruiser_sell_/

This post has been edited by Daan: 12 January 2008 - 0902 AM

[tanknut]

And this arviel as well mentioned, granted it was a few years ago...but still...it raises some interesting questions and would certianly come in handy for them when it comes to stopping a US aircraft carrier battle group steaming to the Straights to rescue Taiwan in a PRC assault/blockade. http://findarticles....405/ai_n9345809

[FITZ]

tanknut, on Sat 12 Jan 2008 2203, said:

And this arviel as well mentioned, granted it was a few years ago...but still...it raises some interesting questions and would certianly come in handy for them when it comes to stopping a US aircraft carrier battle group steaming to the Straights to rescue Taiwan in a PRC assault/blockade. http://findarticles....405/ai_n9345809

Except that, like the destroyers China already purchases from Russia, this ship would be hopelessly incompatible with the rest of the fleet, which uses combat data systems and links of French origin. A big white elephant is what it would be.

[Garth]

FITZ, on Sat 12 Jan 2008 1937, said:

Except that, like the destroyers China already purchases from Russia, this ship would be hopelessly incompatible with the rest of the fleet, which uses combat data systems and links of French origin. A big white elephant is what it would be.

Wouldn't that depend on how the ChiComs intend to use it?

I mean, if the ship is considered to be expendable, with the purpose of steaming out and then dying in a blaze of retaliatory glory after salvoing its missiles at a CSG or the Kidds, why would it really need to be integrated with the non-Russian elements of the PLAN?

--Garth

[demosthenes]

Well seeing as how this ship is from the 80s and would presumably need to be totally modernized anyway, integration probably wouldn't be too big of a deal. It seems to me that they're just getting a good deal on a hull.

[DesertFox]

The US built one type of cruiser and then switched to a destroyer design during the Eighties.
They also built one class of frigates.

How many different classes were the Russians trying to build at the same time?
As well, would have concentrating on fewer designs created less stress on the military budget?

[Yama]

DesertFox, on Mon 14 Jan 2008 0557, said:

The US built one type of cruiser and then switched to a destroyer design during the Eighties.
They also built one class of frigates.

How many different classes were the Russians trying to build at the same time?

It depends what you classify as "cruiser". Answer might be anything between two and five.

[FITZ]

Garth, on Sun 13 Jan 2008 1540, said:

Wouldn't that depend on how the ChiComs intend to use it?

I mean, if the ship is considered to be expendable, with the purpose of steaming out and then dying in a blaze of retaliatory glory after salvoing its missiles at a CSG or the Kidds, why would it really need to be integrated with the non-Russian elements of the PLAN?

--Garth

That seems a bit silly.

Integration is of course a nice way to know what it is you are supposed to be shooting at and where you might find it.

[DesertFox]

Yama, on Mon 14 Jan 2008 1234, said:

It depends what you classify as "cruiser". Answer might be anything between two and five.

Explain please?

[Yama]

DesertFox, on Tue 15 Jan 2008 1819, said:

Explain please?

Well, there were Slava & Kirov classes; then aircraft carriers were classified as cruisers too (and had cruiser armament and sensors), so that adds Kiev/Gorshkov and Tbilisi. Udaloy is traditionally classed as destroyer, but had similar size and armament and same designation than previous Kara class, so no reason why it could not be called cruiser as well. Might make Sovremenny as cruiser as well when you're at it, but it was designated as destroyer by Soviets.

[DesertFox]

Yama, on Tue 15 Jan 2008 1851, said:

Well, there were Slava & Kirov classes; then aircraft carriers were classified as cruisers too (and had cruiser armament and sensors), so that adds Kiev/Gorshkov and Tbilisi. Udaloy is traditionally classed as destroyer, but had similar size and armament and same designation than previous Kara class, so no reason why it could not be called cruiser as well. Might make Sovremenny as cruiser as well when you're at it, but it was designated as destroyer by Soviets.

I was combining Cruiser / Destroyer into one category as being of similar size. After all, the Ticonderoga class cruisers are basically just modified destroyers. The Perry class frigate are definitely something different.

It seems to me that the Soviet navy was trying to go in too many different directions at once instead of trying to concentrate on a smaller number of designs. For example, how about using one hull for the Sovremenny and Udaloy roles / weapon suite.

[Josh]

DesertFox, on Tue 15 Jan 2008 2133, said:

It seems to me that the Soviet navy was trying to go in too many different directions at once instead of trying to concentrate on a smaller number of designs. For example, how about using one hull for the Sovremenny and Udaloy roles / weapon suite.

Would not fit. First thing that sticks out in my mine, the SSMs of the Sov and the standoff ASW of the Uda would take up roughly the same space on both ships, and its a fair amount of space.

[DesertFox]

jua, on Tue 15 Jan 2008 2211, said:

Would not fit. First thing that sticks out in my mine, the SSMs of the Sov and the standoff ASW of the Uda would take up roughly the same space on both ships, and its a fair amount of space.

One version carries the Udaloy suite while the other carries the Sovremenny suite like how the Kidd and Spruance shared the same basic hull.

[Gunguy]

Chinas plans are pretty well thought out. I can't see them buying a piece of junk that they can't use. They are moving forward with measured, seemingly well thought plans. An oddball ship shouldn't be part of it. Plus, they are an American Ally and don't have to worry about facing the US Navy which is in a downward spiral anyway. (fiscal crisis) The only reason we have so many people pushing China versus America in the US ,is it helps justify huge Naval and Air Force budgets. Heck in a few years (decade?) they might be able to just rent the US Navy for anything they might need. They could afford it! :blink: