Video: New Russian Karakurt-class Missile Corvette Goes For Sailing Tests

Donate

Video: New Russian Karakurt-class Missile Corvette Goes For Sailing Tests

A screenshot from the video

A news Russian missile corvette, Uragan, has been deployed to Lake Ladoga for sailing tests before joining Russia’s Baltic Fleet, the Russian Defense Ministry said on May 19 releasing a video.

The Uragan is the maiden vessel of the project 22800 Karakurt-class missile corvettes. It’s capable of carrying Kalibr cruise missiles and Onyx anti-ship missiles. It’s also equipped with modern artillery systems as well as advanced radio-technical weapons. Future karakurt-class missile corvettes are also expected to receive Pantsir-M anti-aircraft defense systems.

According to reports, the main advantages of Karakurt-class warships are their high maneuverability, increased seaworthiness, as well as the architecture of the superstructures and hulls, made using low reflectivity technologies.

Donate

SouthFront

Do you like this content? Consider helping us!

  • Sephy

    Russia needs to build large destroyers. These corvettes can only carry 8 kalibr which is nothing when compared to a destroyer. I don’t know what happened to their plans to build Leader class destroyers.

    • paul ( original )

      Yes but there can be many of these ships. Also if one is sunk this does not represent such a big loss. Eight kalibr or p-800 missiles is still quite a salvo, coupled with high speed and manoeuvrability offers a good offensive package.

      • Wegan

        Totally agree. These big ships are so big you don’t even need sophisticated tech with high accuracy to sink them.
        Russia was thinking about making the biggest aircraft carrier in the world but changed their mind when realizing that the tech to sink those big ships is in within reach of almost everybody now. Mainly with weak defence systems like the US have.

        • paul ( original )

          There was a time when the bigger the battleship the bigger the guns. So if you only have 12 inch guns and you are facing someone with 16 inch guns then we all know where to put our money. But nowadays any modest platform with a missile can sink the biggest ship afloat . I actually do think things like massive aircraft carriers can be a bit of a liability. That is not to say they are not formidable and dangerous, but they do require quite a protective screen, which put another way they offer a dense concentration of targets.

          • frankly

            Any Chinese junk with a tactical nuke can take out the whole taskforce, except subs, maybe.

          • Dr. Pro Liv

            very well explained…..

          • Jesus

            Modest platforms have to come into proximity of the carrier task force, modest platforms do not have the endurance or the armaments to swarm a carrier task force.
            A carrier is protected by Agesis cruisers and destroyers that have hundreds of defensive missiles at their disposal.

          • frankly

            So they make money selling useless defensive missiles. A fifty year old diesel boat can sink a carrier. Can they find it? Once it shoots, yeah. But then it’s too late, torpedo in the water. So 50 guys die to kill 5000 not a bad days work.

          • Jesus

            Aegis and it’s defensive armament is not useless, it is old and has not been proven against a peer power. Maybe you can be specific how a diesel sub can get close to a carrier task force and keep up with its speed?
            Diesel subs are good in coastal waters and are ideal for ambush attacks, I don’t think a carrier task force would get too close to the coast line that is defended by diesel subs.
            That was the case with the N. Korean subs waiting in ambush for the US carrier task forces. Of course the N. Korean subs are old and not very sophisticated, however, they still fire torpedoes.

          • frankly

            They sit in the mud and wait.

        • frankly

          The headlines make 9/11 look like a mellow day. Carrier sunk, 5000 missing and presumed dead.

      • Sephy

        I understand what you are saying, but think about a destroyer armed with 100s of s400, s500, zircon, kalibr missiles.

        • paul ( original )

          True these ships do not have s-400 or s-500 ( or ever s-300). In a sense you might say it is better to have a lot of destroyers. But cost is a factor. The thing is a country can defeat itself by bankrupting its budget with never ending military expense. I think as far as I can tell Russia is taking a prudent course. But I must stress I am not any better informed than anyone else. Indeed other are probably better informed. There is no dogma in anything I say on these matters.

          • velociraptor

            paul, from corvettes you will not build up fleet.

          • Mike

            Yeah take military advise from a loser Israeli spambot troll. Again don’t think highly of yourself shlomo solomon.

        • frankly

          They only shoot off so many missiles before they are sunk.

          • Dr. Pro Liv

            4 corvettes with salvo of 32 SUPER-sonic Onix missiles can sink any US destroyer.

          • frankly

            Seems to me one corvette one round, destroyer gone. My point is around carrying a whole bunch of missiles, once you start shooting them your position is compromised and retaliation is on its way.

          • Dr. Pro Liv

            Those corvettes are tiny! Under 900 tons !
            And they are built to be stealthy as well so target them from Oniks range (that goes up to 600 km) and hit them WITH WHAT?!
            See please US-NATO ranges for anti-ship missiles that doesn’t go further than 150 -160 km I think…
            In other words Russians can shoot at US ships but US ships can NOT shoot back !
            Because targets (even if they can find them on radar) are OUT of their RANGE !

          • frankly

            Oh don’t know about missile ranges. Just saying your position is known once you shoot. I guess retribution depends on what’s around. I just like the concept of small cheap delivery vehicles sinking big cannon fodder haulers. All the ships are essentially obsolete in an arena with such powerful (and smart) missiles and torpedoes.

            They will not say that outright. The crew are indoctrinated to believe they are not vulnerable, who needs a demoralized crew? A lot of money is spent on systems that do not do the job, except under controlled situations. The bottom line is get out there, launch your weapons and then pray you are not at the top of the targeting list. The bigger they are the harder they fall!

            It must be very hard for the Russian subs to sit there when F.uk.us and friends launch, they are right there, but no order to shoot, very frustrating!

            The strange thing now, is that a tiny old ship can carry and launch a weapon that is absolutely deadly. It’s like showing up in medieval times with an AK, you are gonna do a lot of damage. They might kill you but they are gonna pay.

          • Dr. Pro Liv

            You sum it up all so nicely…
            “who needs a demoralized crew?”
            I agree with you.
            Yeah your conclusion brings me back in memory of English troops winning the battle against French.
            Only because they were capable to shoot arrows from the greater distance….
            One could have practiced for years to be perfect swordsman and got killed from distance without even taking sword out ……
            Now that is very frustrating…

          • frankly

            It’s fascinating and interesting but ultimately we need a better way to settle differences. All this money to figure out better ways to destroy each other. It’s insanity.

            Now we move into the new paradigm with unmanned vehicles. Why can’t we just turn the Olympics into our way to figure out disagreements.

            Steroids, sure, no rules just a contest and winner gets 1% extra exchange rate. Why kill one million civilians so your company stays profitable, that’s evil. Nobody would vote to kill a million but we do?

          • Dr. Pro Liv

            “Why can’t we just turn the Olympics into our way to figure out disagreements”
            You tell me?
            I am convinced like every normal person that nice people have no specific nationality
            The same goes for very bad people.
            Yet this world is dominated with fear and not very high moral standards.
            So tribalism is our destiny.
            We are all hostages of our own inhibitions and after that of everything else
            that surrounds us.
            In our duality somehow bad prevails over good in majority of the people.
            So we just go along with all that.
            I do not think that US will ever give up on being Empire in peaceful manner.
            On the contrary.

          • frankly

            Agreed, but would list the psychopaths as the main instigators of all this misery. According to experts there are a lot of them. Also they are over represented in the upper management class so they do not commission studies to analyze the influence of psychopaths. Truly the definition of a vicious circle.
            To me the money games have led us to this. Crime does pay, entirely too well.

          • Sephy

            :)

        • Dr. Pro Liv
          • Sephy

            That’s really impressive.

        • Dr. Pro Liv

          Kirov-class battlecruisers ; Admiral Nakhimov and Peter the Great will literally be capable to carry hundreds of S-400 and S-500 once overhauled, upgraded
          Admiral Nakhimov is arriving next year with S-400 and Zircon missiles

          174 main vertical launch cells for medium and long-range surface-to-air missiles
          80 anti-ship missiles

          https://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/russias-kirov-class-battlecruiser-fleet-is-expanding-an-1763392754

      • frankly

        Ship costs less than the missile they will need to sink it. Wise investment. Not a show boat, a go boat.

    • Dr. Pro Liv

      You are wrong.
      See how many (cruise missiles, anti-ship) missiles can carry US frigates and you’ll understand.
      Russia needs plenty of corvettes like this because Russia has by far the biggest shoreline on the planet.They have to be protected….corvettes like this are ideal for that job.
      Group of these tiny stealthy corvettes can sink any of US Arleigh Burke-class destroyer that are about 8-9000 tons (10 times bigger than Karakurt) with no problem…..

      Also these corvettes can go to Est Mediterranean sea (because of increased seaworthiness), to protect Russian military bases and hit any target in few thousand kilometers in range around them.

      • Sephy

        Yeah, I agree, but russia already has 80+ corvettes and lacks modern destroyers which is great to project power around the world. I hope they will reconsider the destroyer project.

        Think about it. A leader class destroyer can host tens of s400, s500, zircon, kalibr with far greater range.

        The SAMs that are used in a corvette have very short range.

        • MikeH

          You stated the important observation of power projection.

          Russia doesn’t need to do that because of the expense involved but you are right, you can’t project power with corvettes. You can defend a vast coastline with them though.

          • frankly

            Bullies need to project power, true warriors just win the fight.

          • MikeH

            I would add that they win he fights that matter vs every fight that comes along

          • FlorianGeyer

            You make a very astute comment.

            Whereas the US seeks to fight the world , including her vassals.

          • frankly

            Agreed, they only fight when necessary!

        • Dr. Pro Liv

          Not new generation modern corvettes with deadly Kalibr and Onix anti-ship missiles and Pantsir M for AA self defense with seaworthiness that is long enough to go to Mediteranian sea.
          Those corvettes can go to the patrols with bigger ships in East Mediterranean sea to protect their bases in Syria and make presence against US-NATO fleet in the region.

          Old USSR corvettes even wen much bigger do not have those capabilities.
          Shorter seaworthiness.
          They are not multipurpose(no Kalibr,no Onix ) they have no decent AA defenses comparing to the Pantsir M (short to medium) AA system.

        • Dr. Pro Liv

          “Think about it. A leader class destroyer can host tens of s400, s500, zircon, kalibr with far greater range.”

          Admiral Gorshkov-class frigate
          Project 22350M – Modernized version will go up to 8000 tons which is size of any US destroyer and it will pack much more fire power than US destroyer -It will be like US cruisers in fire power yet smaller.

          Russians have opted for that option because much CHEAPER than Leader class destroyer !
          No worries they’ll all have naval S-500 and Zircon hyper-sonic missiles and will be deadlier than any US cruisers.

          • Sephy

            32 reduts ? That’s great. 16 kalibr/onix(more would have been better).

          • Dr. Pro Liv

            This is frigate.
            Compare spedand range of missiles.
            Tomahawk – 890 km/h – 2,500 km range
            with
            Kalibr – 2.5-2.9 Mach – 2.500 km range
            and
            Harpoon – 864 km/h -124 km range !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
            with
            Onix- Mach 2.5 – 600 km !!!

            US Arleigh Burke-class destroyer are DOUBLE in size

          • Jesus

            Kalibr terminal stage has a speed of almost Mach 3. Prior to that it has a subsonic speed to preserve fuel.

        • SnowCatzor

          Destroyers are a waste of money IMO, they cost too much for escort vessels. Frigates should be the largest surface combatants today (excluding carriers/amphibs).

          Better to have 20 small Corvettes and/or Frigates with 250 long-range missiles than 6 – 8 destroyers with more or less the same amount. As the former is much harder to destroy.

          • Joe Dirt

            Russia will play the numbers game….but doesn’t they are superior by any means… the AK-47, the only good thing the Russians produced in large numbers.

      • Jesus

        The US navy will not deploy any surface ships in the Arctic, the eastern coast line is protected by the Pacific fleet, yes corvettes are great for coastal defenses and have limited endurance, however, with the remodernization of Kirov class battle cruisers you need some modern ships to accompany them, ships other than frigates, ships that can deploy hundreds of various missiles.
        The super Gorshkov’s will not have the missile capacity the Lidder destroyer would have.

        These blue water ships would be the first naval echelon to engage any approaching enemy in conjunction with air assets deploying long range hypersonic missiles-before they get anywhere close to the coast line.

        • frankly

          The eastern coast line is protected by the Pacific fleet? No more Nofuck? Our nickname for Norfolk.

          Other than power projection I see no real world use for large surface ships other than eliminating the need for the burial of large quantities of dead people. Assuming the sharks get there before the recovery vessels.

          Of course they are probably pound for pound the most profitable devices sold to us by the MIC so they will keep selling what we buy. I for one don’t buy it.

          • Jesus

            I was referring to the Pacific fleet guarding the Far East coastline, and the Northern fleet guarding Murmansk and the northern arctic coastline.

            Russia is spending billions in upgrading 2 nuclear powered 28,000 tons battle cruisers, so, they want big ships: Kuznetsov is undergoing a remodernization as well. The Lidder class destroyer would be larger than any US cruiser or destroyer having hundreds of weapons for different tasks.
            These ships with proper offensive, defensive and ASW capabilities would be difficult to sink; with their advanced weaponry they can serve as anti ballistic platforms, fulfilling a strategic role as well.

            Some US cruisers and destroyers are equipped with Standard 3 missiles for anti ballistic capabilities as well, the problem with the US fleet is that it lacks capable offensive surface to surface and anti ship weapons, while the range of their carrier borne aircraft is exceeded by Russian and Chinese anti ship and hypersonic missiles.

    • velociraptor

      money, dyengi, geld
      lack of all

      • Sephy

        I don’t think so. If they really wanted them, they would have pumped money into the projects.

        • velociraptor

          from where? russia stopped lot of military projects due to lack of money. for navy they have no kopeyka.

          • Mike

            Because it doesn’t need to blow its money on pork projects like your Yankee sugar daddy, boy solomon your zion brain is marvel of stupidity.

      • Mike

        That bitter at you defeat in Syria, you Israelis are pathetic bunch, I guess that’s why your back to killing unarmed Palestinians.

  • PZIVJ

    Nice looking corvette.
    Small ships and subs is the way to go for the Russian navy.

    • Dr. Pro Liv

      Well subs “smaller” not “small” immediately… 5th Gen Husky-Class Stealth Nuke Subs.
      Versatility is the word for these subs made on same platform.
      The attack subs (SSGN) armed with 3M22 Zircon hyper-sonic missiles (will be smaller than Yasen class attack)
      And ballistic missile subs (SSBN) armed with Bulava2(?) missiles,..Sarmat? (will be smaller than Borei class )

      • PZIVJ

        Good info.
        Actually I did not mean to imply small subs.
        The diesel subs are still useful for coastal waters?

        • velociraptor

          no

          • Dr. Pro Liv

            “NO” because US doesn’t have them at all ! :-)))))

            Actually new generation “AIP” diesel-electric stealth submarines are much more lethal than nuke subs because totally inaudible (no cooling pumps like nuke subs) and use electric-motor to get near the targets and can stay under the water for 45 DAYS without going to the surface.
            Sweedish “Gothland” “AIP” diesel-electric have “sinked” US aircraft-carrier in naval exercise without anybody noticing that sub was there at all !
            The only limit to the nuke subs is range… nuke subs can go very far and stay in the sea much longer.

          • frankly

            Interesting Russia builds diesel subs, US only nukes, far as I have read. Diesel has some advantages, biggest would be cost! Some tech gains in last 20 years have extended the diesel power incredibly.

            Everyone talks about missiles getting carriers, my bet would be on a torpedo taking care of them and yeah probably only take one. Carriers don’t go anywhere without their little friends following along.

          • Dr. Pro Liv

            US only nukes
            It is…..It was logical….in way…US was patrolling the seas not much worried about their coastal defenses (diesel-elec. subs)
            So they didn’t care about small diesel-elec. subs. Now with AIP tech when small diesel-elec. sub can stay 45 days it makes sense for US to have cheaper subs for hunting nuke subs in US waters…. But US for some reason sticks with nuke subs…

            Yeah torpedoes….and famous “On the sea, there are subs… and there are targets”
            Famous “Shkval” torpedo “high-speed supercavitating rocket-propelled torpedo” is maneuverable now.
            It is very dangerous (because of his speed) for very big ships like aircraft carriers.

            “The solid-rocket propelled torpedo achieves a high velocity of 230 mph (386 kmh)”
            One can hear it but one can’t outmaneuver it….
            https://www.militaryperiscope.com/mdb-smpl/weapons/minetorp/torpedo/w0004768.shtml

          • frankly

            Would have to go find it but read somewhere the Russians are turning out diesel subs and have more of them than nukes now? Will see if I can find that story and put the link here.

          • Dr. Pro Liv

            Well that is not surprise.
            Nuke subs are budget problem…
            Russians are slow in building nuke subs because they are very big and expensive
            “Kazan” (cheaper and upgraded Yasen M class ) attack sub is still very expensive despite effort to make them cheaper….
            “Borei” are cheaper than attack nuke subs but still expensive. So Russia is building quite few modernized version of “Kilo”
            diesel-electric known also under name “Black hole” because very cheap and useful for coastal defenses and chasing away NATO nuke subs .
            Only for the Black Sea they have built 6 new ones not counting other new ones for every fleet…

          • frankly

            black hole=no noise, not chasers, killers. They see you not vice versa.

          • PZIVJ

            Was the Kursk sub lost from experimenting with these torpedoes?
            A sad loss indeed. After Kursk battle Germany was put on the defensive, also because of developments in Italy.

          • Jesus

            The battle of Kursk was a boneheaded idea after the initial offensive was delayed and provided the Russians ample time to reinforce the bulge making it almost impregnable.
            Heck with the Panthers, they were not worth waiting for, they were rushed into action before they have worked out it’s transmission problems.
            The offensive should have started in early May when Russian front lines were fluid and prone to be pierced and have the bulge eliminated.
            I don’t think the two Panzer Corps would have changed the course of the battle, given the fact the Germans were fixated on a narrow front line that was reinforced with adequate strategic depth. You do not mass tanks on a narrow front line that generates significant defensive firepower.

          • PZIVJ

            Your take on the battle is great.
            Russia had time to build up the shoulders of Kursk bulge
            Also German Tigers and Elephants had problems.
            1st and 2nd SS Corps had much punch if not worn down in battle.
            Relocated to Italy, and then to west coast?
            I think there were some elements near Arrnheim, a bridge to far.

          • Jesus

            I feel bad how elite German forces were wasted in battles that were contrary to the German plan of fighting intelligently using armour effectively in conjunction with air power.

          • PZIVJ

            I do not fill bad for the Axis group.
            After winter of 1941 they were short 1 miliion replacements.
            And the destruction of Army Group Center will follow in time.

          • Jesus

            They could have used flexible defense strategy withdrawing hundreds of kms and shortening their front length.
            Moscow, Stalingrad and Kursk were grave mistakes on Hitlers part.
            In 1941, when the weather got bad, they should have halted their advance, developed defensive positions and got ready for the winter.
            Lessons from Napoleon’s campaign in regards to weather and scorched earth policy used by the Russians would have been useful in late fall of 1941.

          • frankly

            I feel bad that honest, hard working, innocent folks both civilian and military, get killed and maimed, in pointless wars, so Evil, powerful rich assholes can get even more so.

          • Jesus

            The case with Germany was a little different, Germany did not start the war so a few German assholes would get rich, it was more of an ideology that imbued the German society that made them think they were better than others, plus the paybacks they wanted to inflict on their enemies from WW1. Their stunning early successes against the British at Dunkirk, and the fall of France in a short period of time, made them reckless.

          • frankly

            Follow the money then get back to me. Try Henry Ford, Walt Disney and George Bush senior’s Dad. Presscot Walker Bush? Nah look it up.
            You believe their propaganda, not surprising most people do.

          • Jesus

            Your reasoning is simple, those mentioned invested money in the German reconstruction effort, and what was their return when Germany was completely in ruins? Did they get repaid?
            Germany used every possible avenue for financial help when the world was in a depression, however, the German slogan of Deutschland uber alles was the crux of their ideology. The war started by Germany was to prove the world that Deutschland uber alles was a reality…….instead of making some individuals super rich.
            Sometimes ideology runs deeper than money, consider the Chinese as well under Mao.

          • frankly

            According to what I read they were supporters of Hitler before and during the war. Bush’s father’s bank was shut down during the war for aiding and abetting the enemy. Your romantic take on the ongoing need for the oligarchs to profit from human misery is typical result of Hollywood movie version of things. It lends nothing to solutions.

          • Jesus

            “”Your romantic take on the ongoing need for the oligarchs to profit from human misery is a typical result of the Hollywood movie version of things. It lends nothing to solutions.””

            I never said or implied anything to that effect. We were talking about Germany, and German assholes that profited from the war effort. I said, the war started by Hitler was based on ideology of the superior German race, not the desire to enrich a handful of oligarchs. The war effort was a national effort, not based on the whims of industrialists that betrayed Germany during WW1.
            Maybe Ford, Walt Disney and Bush grandfather saw certain qualities in Hitler that they could relate to, and supported him.

            “””I think the morality or ideology is irrelevant to psychopaths, money and power drives them. They would have no ethical problem supporting both sides of any particular conflict.””

            The depravity of mankind has degenerated as time advanced, the parameters of a psychopath 70-80 years ago were more limited than today’s parameters.
            Just consider the American society in the 30-40’s and today.

          • frankly

            Krursk may have tangled with US or Brit sub. Don’t understand being submerged in such shallow water! Very unbelievable stories. Fishy

          • Dr. Pro Liv

            “Shkval”?
            I never heard that USSR or Russians had problems of that kind with them. Kursk is mystery ….or maybe secret well hidden by the Russians…

          • Kell McBanned

            Australia has also.
            https://youtu.be/nqFVOL7mLd4

          • Dr. Pro Liv

            Good for you Aussie.

          • Mike

            Yes, still angry at Kievian Russ are we solomon the khazrian.

        • frankly

          Typically a diesel is at home in shallow waters, a nuke is not.

    • velociraptor

      lake navy

      • PZIVJ

        A group of corvettes is useful in coastal waters.
        They can even hide behind small islands.
        Where raptorhead will have trouble spotting them.
        Your country has a lake navy of heavy row boats? :D

        • velociraptor

          exactly, in coastal. so, for nothing. ruskies send them to mediterranean sea, in pacific, etc. this is false way.

          • Mike

            Your Russophobia anger is showing there solomon.

          • PZIVJ

            I also call him Soloraptor or Lizardhead. :)

          • frankly

            Craptor

      • Mike

        Nah that is the definition of your shitty Israeli navy.

    • Joe Dirt

      looks more like a row bow :D

  • lSlS

    “Risen from knees” Russian empire tried to impress the world with its military power by sending its sole aircraft carrier Admiral Kuznetsov to al-Sham. The world was indeed impressed and laughed out loud. It is not clear what this piece of rusted junk is running on – diesel or wood.
    https://youtu.be/Mq-MDp9ImyU

    • velociraptor

      on coal

      • frankly

        Showing true colors eh craptor, teaming up with ISIS!

        • Dr. Pro Liv

          ha ha ha ha ha
          good one !

          • Mike

            That you are waste of sub-human animal skin there solomon kupec.

          • Dr. Pro Liv

            What?
            What are you talking you US retard?!!?
            I have old account with almost 8000 posts !!
            What “solomon” you fucking idiot ?!

        • velociraptor

          thanks, a blocked him already.

          • Mike

            We need you blocked, so that you can go find real job, ie jihadi toilet cleaner.

        • Mike

          His real name is solomon kupec, this is pathetic attempt at hiding his previous trolling and spamming for the Israeli government. He is also very bitter that Russia has destroyed his rouge regime plan in Syria.

      • Mike

        Stupid shlomo solomon kupec, unemployable Israeli animal whose lives in his mothers basement, pulling in a minimum wage job trolling for the Israeli government.

    • frankly

      It is not ships that you can see that an enemy need worry about, the ones you can’t see have the worst bite. Of course if pretty pictures win a war than Russia is sunk. If submarines prevail, they have the last laugh.

    • Dr. Pro Liv

      Israel+CIA = ISIS

      Jihad for JEWS !

    • Mike

      Your ass is finished wahhabi, and you can thank Russia for that salafist animal.

  • velociraptor

    ccCCooor vett …. next time boats? THIS IS NOT FLEET, this is toypark!!!!

    destroyers, destroyers, larg destroyers, heavy destroyers! this is the only way!

    and from russia, with thechnology of perpetuum mobile rocket engine, i await at least star destroyers!

    • Mike

      Hey before you claim to know anything about the military why don’t you formulate a sentence, you stupid Israeli monkey.

  • frankly

    Small target, small casualties, small price, deadly weapons. When you start firing weapons you become a target. Carrying more weapons than you will be able to quickly launch is pointless. Aircraft launched from carriers will have no where to land, if they are ever launched. Big target, big casualties, big price, weapons sunk with ship. The US wins the media war, once they start really shooting, the proud fleet turns to fish food.

    • FlorianGeyer

      These have always been my thoughts as well. :)

      • frankly

        You were right, my experience confirms my post. The ocean is a big place and ultimately there is no where or way to hide forever.

    • SnowCatzor

      Exactly, all surface ships are just targets anyway. Submarines rule the waves, which is why I’m glad to see most Russian naval investment going into them.

      • velociraptor

        Boys, you are soooo stupid. In age of precise missile, whoc hit +-0.5m the targer the size of ship plays no role. BUT! as larger, es mor hit is needed to destroy. such toyboats like this russian one you destroy with 1-2 missiles. for destroyer you need more the dozen ………… hits.

        • Mike

          Yeah listen to the loser Israeli troll who thinks he is military expert, again fuck off solomon, the bitter khazarian.

        • S Melanson

          I think the argument is one of numbers and cost effectiveness. If the trade off is to build one carrier or build 30 corvettes, you need one to two missiles times 30 to take out corvettes. As for the carrier, a couple of missiles could render the flight deck inoperable, requiring months of repair. In fact, this is the case in a Russian attack on a carrier in the movie Sum of All Fears. I think the portrayal of the attack and outcome is reasonably realistic.

          • velociraptor

            i grew up on these cost efectivness bullshits. and saw the split-up of warsaw pact, ussr. this is bullshit propaganda. few money, no army.

        • Manuel Flores Escobar

          Just one onyx is able to take out of service one US destroyer…remember Malvinas war where a single exocet sunk a British destroyer!

        • SnowCatzor

          No dude, you have it completely wrong. Accuracy is not the issue, the ability to remain hidden for longer and minimize losses is. No warship is going to successfully intercept a large volley of modern super/hypersonic missiles, so you might as well spread your firepower out.

          Any surface combatant (from corvette to destroyer) is going to get blown in half (or at least severely damaged) if even one or two missiles hit it, so it doesn’t matter how big the ship is. Modern warships don’t even have armour because of this fact.

          • velociraptor

            checkt the radar cross of this russian “miracle” :DDD

      • frankly

        Agreed, intelligent use of funds. Never mind safety of combatants.

    • Joe Dirt

      10 retards and counting….lol

    • Morehungrythanever

      History however proves this wrong. Targets big and small are hit with today’s highly accurate weapons. Many warplanes take out many targets

      • Terra Cotta Woolpuller

        That is patently false stop listening to the Industrial salesman on hyping up the accuracy of these weapons especially in the west, have seen how many rounds are used to take out targets and it doesn’t look good. Have seen old 1968 Electronic radar guided artillery more accurate and cause more damage than today’s arty. Missiles today are easily played with electronically making them not as effective and just fancy toys. Hype on Western munitions is so bad and it’s so funny how everyone believes it.

        • frankly

          Yeah amazing when you can rebuild for a third the cost of the missiles that destroyed the target. War has long been more about profit than logic.

      • frankly

        Are you making my point or disagreeing, poorly argued. Warplanes don’t float. But even if they did the salt would melt the magnesium housing and that would be that.

        Guess which target is at the top of the list? Do you think a destroyer escort can intercept a modern torpedo as they did in WW II? Do you think a torpedo can find a carrier in a whole fleet of ships? Do you think?

  • Joe Dirt

    In WW2 the Japanese had the largest and biggest ships in the world…The US did not defeat the Japanese Navy with little boats…

    Russia still lagging behind on superior hardware and poise no threat …

    • PZIVJ
    • frankly

      Rule #1 if the US demonizes you, they feel threatened by you. As to your argument, try and stay with the tour.

      ” During World War II, submarines comprised less than two percent of the U.S. Navy, but sank more than 30 percent of Japan’s navy, including eight aircraft carriers. More important, American submarines contributed to the indirect decapitation of the Japanese economy by sinking almost five million tons of shipping — more than 60 percent of the Japanese merchant marine. ”

      So yes the US did defeat the Japanese Navy with little boats!

      http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h1710.html

      • frankly

        US subs of that time were greatly handicapped by shitty detonators on the torpedoes, often instead of a boom all they heard was a bonk sound. Duds, or the numbers would have been significantly higher.

      • Joe Dirt

        USS Enterprise…puts your whole submarine argument to rest

        • frankly

          Not even close. However that was then and this is now. Having a serious discussion with you is like going to sea on an aircraft carrier. Pointless!

          • Joe Dirt

            Frankly you are arrogant and can not handle the truth but…you keep sucking pootin and maybe he won’t send you to rehabilitation camp

          • frankly

            Actually I would rather go to sea on an aircraft carrier than continue this discussion. It would certainly be a learning experience. You have only reinforced what I already knew, you’re not very bright.

          • Joe Dirt

            You make no sense and complete reject facts…block you…you stupid bitch

          • frankly

            I must say getting blocked by Joe feels like a victory. Not big but satisfying.