Russia, Ukraine to sell Slava Class Cruiser

[Jeff Head]

Russia, Ukraine to Sell Soviet Missile Cruiser (http://www.kommersant.com/p-10051/missile_cruiser_sell_/)
http://www.kommersant.com/p-10051/missile_cruiser_sell_/

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.kommersant.com/photo/300/News/2007/02/07//02172001.jpg

The Slava class cruisers are very powerful surface combatants, both in anti-surface and in anti-air warfare. It will be very interesting to see who bids on this vessel. My guess is that Russia and the Ukraine would not go to the expense of completing her without a seller already in hand.


http://img266.imageshack.us/img266/2926/slavadnsc9400156lo3.jpg

[Scratch]

Interesting, another capable warship to sail the seas.

I wonder what changes they might make to the original design. I somehow don't think it will come with the original weapons suit. Mainly the SS-N-12 might be outdated. The SS-N-19 seems to be partially similar to it, but wich potential buyer has it?
This is perhaps the main reason why I think they might already have a customer at hand. Maybe it will be outfitted for sunburn or YJ-62 if China will get it.
Or the BraMhos if it goes to India. Similar, (though perhaps not that imminant) with the SAMs.
But if it goes to China, I don't really think it may stop after one vessel. Perhaps with India, too.

[Jeff Head]

Interesting, another capable warship to sail the seas.

I wonder what changes they might make to the original design. I somehow don't think it will come with the original weapons suit. Mainly the SS-N-12 might be outdated. The SS-N-19 seems to be partially similar to it, but wich potential buyer has it?
This is perhaps the main reason why I think they might already have a customer at hand. Maybe it will be outfitted for sunburn or YJ-62 if China will get it.
Or the BraMhos if it goes to India. Similar, (though perhaps not that imminant) with the SAMs.
But if it goes to China, I don't really think it may stop after one vessel. Perhaps with India, too.Well, the Russians have three other units, two operational (though not highly) and one in reduced manning which is, interestingly enough, named the Varyag. If the PLAN gets the one from Ukraine/Russia, I could see the Chinese perhaps acquiring one more from the Russians as well.

[Scratch]

... If the PLAN gets the one from Ukraine/Russia, I could see the Chinese perhaps acquiring one more from the Russians as well.

Makes sense. I could imagine them to then reverse engeneer it to make their own yards build cruisers as well. Besides, I believe they might want to cange the weapons suite to chinese systems anyway.
At least at that point they will have all types of vessels to make up a real CSG.

Of course India is not out of the game. They don't have cruisers either, and with that military/technology cooperation contracts signed lately while Putin was in India ...

It an exciting guessing game.

[Jeff Head]

Makes sense. I could imagine them to then reverse engeneer it to make their own yards build cruisers as well. Besides, I believe they might want to cange the weapons suite to chinese systems anyway.
At least at that point they will have all types of vessels to make up a real CSG.

Of course India is not out of the game. They don't have cruisers either, and with that military/technology cooperation contracts signed lately while Putin was in India ...

It an exciting guessing game.Yes it is exciting...und auch, sehr interessant und wichtig.

The Indians could equally well end up with two of these vessels if it goes their way. Either Navy (PLAN or INS) would be significantly enhanced with a pair of such vessels. The Slava class vessels displaces over 11,000 tons and carry a lot of weapons (or have the room for a lot of weapons if the Chinese or Indians fit their own).

[BLUEJACKET]

I'm glad that there is now a separate tread about Slava CG! I first mentioned this offer in post #78 (http://www.sinodefenceforum.com/showthread.php?t=2686&page=6)1 Week Ago, but since I edited and older posting noone has caught it and/or bothered to reply to it. Certainly it sounds like a bargain for either India or China! IMO PLAN will get that ship since the IN already bought Talwar,Trishul (http://www.indiadefence.com/TwoTs.htm) and Tabar (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/india/d-talwar.htm) frigates.

[Jeff Head]

I'm glad that there is now a separate tread about Slava CG! I first mentioned this offer in post #78 (http://www.sinodefenceforum.com/showthread.php?t=2686&page=6)1 Week Ago, but since I edited and older posting noone has caught it and/or bothered to reply to it. Certainly it sounds like a bargain for either India or China! IMO PLAN will get that ship since the IN already bought Talwar,Trishul (http://www.indiadefence.com/TwoTs.htm) and Tabar (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/india/d-talwar.htm) frigates.I tend to agree...but we shall see. Either nation would benefit from it, particularly in conjunction with AAW defense of their carriers, or as a heavy hitter for any SAG.

Knowing how the Russians are outfitting it weapon wise would give us a huge hint (of course) as to who it is intended for. Perhaps as time goes on that info will become available.

[tphuang]

I personally think the only way that PLAN will buy for this ship is that if it's not outrageously expensive. Which means that it has to be less than the $700 million that they paid for each improved Sov, what a waste of money that was. Another thing is that Ukraine would have to allow China to install its own Control system, sensors, ECM/ESM and missile. I'm thinking mainly of putting 16 YJ-62 on it. I personally think that IN wouldn't be able to afford something like this after Project 17 and the rfp they sent out for 7 Project 17A (which carries an outrageous per unit price). Who else would be interested? I really don't know. I think unless they sell it at some bargain price, it's not going to be sold.

[Pointblank]

Current estimated value of the ship in 2004 as is was about $500 million dollars:
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3738/is_200405/ai_n9345809

[tphuang]

Current estimated value of the ship in 2004 as is was about $500 million dollars:
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3738/is_200405/ai_n9345809

well, the listed price for Sov was supposed to be $425 million, but they still paid $700 million for it last time. I think at this point, Chinese shipbuilding industry is at a stage that they don't need to get ship designing ideas from the Russians and their own combat system, sensors and missiles are also good enough that they don't need Russian or Ukrainian ones.

[Ryz05]

The cruiser might be targeted for the India Navy, which needs to replace its rapidly aging fleet. China doesn't need a cruiser after getting the Sovs. Destroyers are enough. I think the Sov's 700mln price tag included additional missiles and other packagings.

[Jeff Head]

I personally think that IN wouldn't be able to afford something like this after Project 17 and the rfp they sent out for 7 Project 17A (which carries an outrageous per unit price). Who else would be interested? I really don't know. I think unless they sell it at some bargain price, it's not going to be sold.You may very well be right...except if that were the case I do not think they would go through the expense of finishing her. I believe they already have a very likely buyer and have probably agreed in principle on a price, but that it just hasn't been announced yet. Time will tell...but it's an interesting development in any case.

[Pointblank]

The Chinese are apparently were poking around, making noises that they were interested in her. I would place the Chinese first as the likely customer, followed by India.

[bd popeye]

What good would a single class ship be? The cost to modernize the ship would be well over $500 million USD. Does the PRC want to spend that kind of cash on a single ship? I wouldn't. Any warship that has been idle for as long as this one is prone to have big problems. Not necessairly with electronics but with simple things such as plumbing, electrical systems corrosion in the hull.

If I were in charge of the PLAN I would say "thanks but no thanks!!

[Scratch]

The news-article Jeff quoted in the first post says it was 90% completed before being stalled. What does that actually mean, how much is 90%?
I think mainly the hull. You wouldn't have to modernize too much if sensors, electronics, weapon systems and perhaps even propulsion weren't installed at all.

[bd popeye]

The biggest problem I for see if the PLAN does purchase this ship is corrosion(rust) and magnetism.

Corrosion from the ship more than likely sitting around untended. I've seen how the Russian do not preserve ships. They don't. I see no de-humidfier coils or de-magnetism coils on Russian ships in storage. After sitting so long unattended that rust would be inside and out. That whole hull needs to be x-rayed to check the depths of corrosion. If it's not to bad it can be easily treated.

Magnetism? That's right. This is not as big a problem as the firts. a ship that size can be de-magnetfied on a day or two. If it is not de-magnetfied ..well some of the electronics will go haywire.(Malfunction)

[Jeff Head]

What good would a single class ship be? The cost to modernize the ship would be well over $500 million USD. Does the PRC want to spend that kind of cash on a single ship? I wouldn't. Any warship that has been idle for as long as this one is prone to have big problems. Not necessairly with electronics but with simple things such as plumbing, electrical systems corrosion in the hull.

If I were in charge of the PLAN I would say "thanks but no thanks!!.My own guess? The Russians have three of these babies but can barely afford to operate two. I bet they give a sweetheart deal to get this first one from the Ukraine in exchange for a more lucrative deal to also get a second one from Russia. Sort of like the deal they made on the Indian carrier. The Indians got the carrier for free...but paid normal prices for the aircraft and all the upgrades.

Anyhow, I do not believe it will be a one-off deal, I believe that the third Slava that the Russians have minimally manned and that is inactive will end up being part of the deal. But that is just a gues...perhaps even a WAG!

If these ships are brought up to speed with a nation that can afford to operate them, they can be fairly formidable...even more so that the Sovs IMHO.

[BLUEJACKET]

bd popeye sais:The biggest problem I for see if the PLAN does purchase this ship is corrosion(rust) and magnetism.
These problems you mention are certainly not bigger than those on the Varyag.
In any case, I strongly suspect that the ship was well maintained/mothballed by the Ukrainians as they hoped at first to use her themselves and/or later sell her to either Russia or China. The PLAN will get a good deal and already was reported being interested in buying her; I also agree that the Russians may also sell other Slava CGs (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/russia/1164.htm)later as the Kuznetsov rarely deploys anyway. We all agree that currently China doesn't have enough (http://www.sinodefence.com/navy/surface/default.asp)CV escorts (just 47 major surface combatants is a small # for 2-3 CBGs and other missions) and if there is one almost complete CG available it will make a lot of sense to get it to speed up the growth of PLAN's blue water capabilities,- and it won't matter what class it is- the same as with their SSKs, which are of many different classes/mods, both domestic and foreign built.

[tphuang]

I did a little thinking. The Ukrina was actually mentionned to sell to China as early as September of 2005 after peace mission 2005. At that time, it was mentionned that one other possible buyer is USN. Don't laugh, the rationale is that USN would buy it, so that it would not end up in China's hand.

As for the 1 ship class, it could be a problem, but PLAN does have a habit of having only 1-2 ship classes, so it might not be that big of a concern to China.

Another thing to consider is that it has the same SAM as the two 051Cs. It could be considered a plus/negative. Plus is quite obvious. Negative is that China already has two more modern hull that packs comparable air defense capability into a much smaller hull.

[Pointblank]

I did a little thinking. The Ukrina was actually mentionned to sell to China as early as September of 2005 after peace mission 2005. At that time, it was mentionned that one other possible buyer is USN. Don't laugh, the rationale is that USN would buy it, so that it would not end up in China's hand.

As for the 1 ship class, it could be a problem, but PLAN does have a habit of having only 1-2 ship classes, so it might not be that big of a concern to China.

Another thing to consider is that it has the same SAM as the two 051Cs. It could be considered a plus/negative. Plus is quite obvious. Negative is that China already has two more modern hull that packs comparable air defense capability into a much smaller hull.

I think the Chinese are seeking a ship with a long range surface attack capability, to project force over much longer distances. Watching the Americans attack targets with the Tomahawk cruise missiles that are launched from the Burkes and Tico's is a hint.

[Undead Yogurt]

I did a little thinking. The Ukrina was actually mentionned to sell to China as early as September of 2005 after peace mission 2005. At that time, it was mentionned that one other possible buyer is USN. Don't laugh, the rationale is that USN would buy it, so that it would not end up in China's hand.


How can we not laugh? Going by that logic, the Russians can just start building any random large warship and have a guaranteed buyer. :D In any case, can someone link to an actual source that says the PLAN is "interested"? (Please... India... take this one...)

[Gollevainen]

Let the old girl rest in the pages of naval annuals...

The orginal ship was a bit of oddity when it came out, posessing mix of generations in it systems and suffering from compromises made to it systems.
The ship is so big becouse it has so big armament, which is only due the fact that the Soviet Seccond generation long range SSM fit took so much space. The whole project is nothing more than reinvented project 934 (What the Kresta class was orginally supposed to be) made as a cheaper back up for Kirovs with out the flag ship function.
The ship suffers from desing faults as it SAM suite can really fire only to the rear section and there are allegded Top-weigth issues.

Also the weapon fit of the Slavas as well as their overal concept is too deeply intergrated to the Old Soviet Fleet and provides little to the navies operating with different doctrine and philoshophy. Same task can be provided with lot more smaller ships using newer generation of SSMs and the suggestions to build it in the license would mean that China would have to build obsolete Bazalts (wich were 60's thecnology) and that simply doesent make any sense. Conversion it to an other role migth be another thing, but after all, it has been laid down in 1984, so after it would theorethically be ready to sail in Chinese flag, it would be almoust near of its retirement age.

[BLUEJACKET]

The hull life is calculated according to the time it spends both at sea & inport, not just inport- so even after all these years in drydock/pierside this ship can be fitted out to whatever primary mission suits the customer best and have a long sailing history.
I first posted quotes & links about PLAN's interest in Ukraina in #78 (http://www.sinodefenceforum.com/showthread.php?t=2686&page=6).

[Pointblank]

The hull life is calculated according to the time it spends both at sea & inport, not just inport- so even after all these years in drydock/pierside this ship can be fitted out to whatever primary mission suits the customer best and have a long sailing history.
I first posted quotes & links about PLAN's interest in Ukraina in #78 (http://www.sinodefenceforum.com/showthread.php?t=2686&page=6).

Ships can also last a very long time if they are well cared for. I think there are still a few ships sailing around for various third-world navies saw service in World War II if I am not mistaken.

[Gollevainen]

Ships can also last a very long time if they are well cared for. I think there are still a few ships sailing around for various third-world navies saw service in World War II if I am not mistaken.

Yeas but i see no logic there to support an emerging naval manufacturer like China to invest obsolete machines.

If there would be really a need for ship of this kind in PLAN, they should build it domestically. Otherwise, no way! PLAN isent anymore desperate need of (relatively speaking) modern ships, and one ship wouldnt make any difference in any case, exept burdening the logistical factor with yet another set of odd weaponry, machinery and eletronics to be maintained.

[Pointblank]

Yeas but i see no logic there to support an emerging naval manufacturer like China to invest obsolete machines.

If there would be really a need for ship of this kind in PLAN, they should build it domestically. Otherwise, no way! PLAN isent anymore desperate need of (relatively speaking) modern ships, and one ship wouldnt make any difference in any case, exept burdening the logistical factor with yet another set of odd weaponry, machinery and eletronics to be maintained.

The Slava will be fairly familiar in terms of some of the equipment fitted onboard. The SA-N-6 SAM is familiar to the Chinese, as so is the Top Dome fire control radar. The Kite Screech gun control radar is the same as fitted to the Sovremenny's, as is the AK-630 CIWS and the associated Brass Tilt fire control radar, and the PK10 decoy launcher. The Top Plate radar found on the Ukraina is used in some Chinese warships as well. The Slava also operates the Ka-27 'Helix' chopper, a chopper that is used by PLAN warships as well.

The Russians, as mentioned earlier, might also be willing to part with the Varyag (hull number 011) as well. The Varyag is of a slightly different subclass of the Slava's, which also includes the Ukrayina as well, due to slight differences in the electronics fit between the Varyag subclass and the Moskva subclass. Due to the differences, she is the odd man out of the class in Russian service, and that may account for why she is in low manning readiness. As such, the Russians get to part with the oddball of the class in Russian service (and get some cash in the process), and the Chinese get a pair of warships that are identical.

[BLUEJACKET]

Yes, and also by having & operating Slava class they may reverse engineer the hull design and build something similar. The missile launchers/radars, etc. can be changed to accomodate ASMs the PLAN will intend to use. If the price is right it will make good sense to get it- why waste time building 1-2 Slava-like ships if they can be had in a fraction of the time & cost?
This is Slava-
http://www.aeronautics.ru/archive/fleet/russian/surface/slava-missile-cruiser-pr1164-01.jpg

http://www.aeronautics.ru/archive/fleet/russian/surface/slava-missile-cruiser-pr1164-02.jpg

http://www.aeronautics.ru/archive/fleet/russian/surface/ustinov-missile-cruiser-1164-02.jpg

and Varyag-

http://www.aeronautics.ru/archive/fleet/russian/surface/varyag-missile-cruiser-1164-01.jpg

http://www.aeronautics.ru/archive/fleet/russian/surface/varyag-missile-cruiser-1164-03.jpg

[Gollevainen]

The Slava will be fairly familiar in terms of some of the equipment fitted onboard. The SA-N-6 SAM is familiar to the Chinese, as so is the Top Dome fire control radar. The Kite Screech gun control radar is the same as fitted to the Sovremenny's, as is the AK-630 CIWS and the associated Brass Tilt fire control radar, and the PK10 decoy launcher. The Top Plate radar found on the Ukraina is used in some Chinese warships as well. The Slava also operates the Ka-27 'Helix' chopper, a chopper that is used by PLAN warships as well.

There is alot more inside the ship than showed to outside...;) I mainly ment that as china is now in the process of building and designing it's own indegenious major surface combatants, its altogether not wise to buy a huge ship which is based on entirely different philosofy.

Yes, and also by having & operating Slava class they may reverse engineer the hull design and build something similar.

Well like I said, the hull design of Slava is noway near succesfull or by any logic exept the one applied to soviet naval doctrines. The hull is so big as the SSMs onboard are so big. PLAN has no need for ship of that size or purpose and to try to use that hull design as a basics of something indegenious, its mere madness. You can have a similar role ship with the same (or even improved) capabilities with far smaller, more effective and cheaper hull. Slavas are just too...well soviet to be taken to any succesfull use in navies that doesen't follow the soviet naval doctrines (read any other navy in the world)

Ships can also last a very long time if they are well cared for. I think there are still a few ships sailing around for various third-world navies saw service in World War II if I am not mistaken

As harsh as it sounds, lying decades in former soviet unions dockyard, and being build in former soviet union unequals good service life and well maintenance;)

[bd popeye]

As harsh as it sounds, lying decades in former soviet unions dockyard, and being build in former soviet union unequals good service life and well maintenance;)

I agree with Golly. I've seen pictures of Russian ships laid up in total disrepair.

This article is three years old, however it gives a good account of the condition of the Russian Navy in 2004. For the Russians sake I hope things have improved by now.

http://www.cdi.org/russia/300-12.cfm

12 - RW 4-2-04 - RW Home
Moscow Times
March 30, 2004
A Fleet of Disposable Ships
By Pavel Felgenhauer

Last week the commander of the Russian Navy, Admiral Vladimir Kuroyedov, made waves worldwide when he told journalists that the nuclear-powered flagship of the Northern Fleet, the Pyotr Veliky, was in such bad shape that it could explode "at any moment." Kuroyedov added that the ship's two nuclear reactors were at risk.

Kuroyedov announced that after personally inspecting the Pyotr Veliky he had ordered the ship docked for three weeks for repairs. The ship's crew took a 30 percent pay cut and the ship was removed from the list of Russia's "battle-ready" warships, the admiral said.

In Russia, the news aroused only limited interest. Too many nuclear submarines, important public buildings, schools and the like have sunk, burned or exploded in recent years, often with catastrophic loss of life.

In Russian, such disasters are referred to as "technogenic catastrophes," a politically correct phrase that most often masks the real cause: negligence, mismanagement, greed or corruption. Such catastrophes are so frequent these days that even when the head of the Navy says that a 19,000-ton warship could blow up at any moment, the public is not overly concerned. If the ship were to explode, we would probably be horrified. But the mere possibility of disaster is not enough to create panic.

If the German or Swedish brass, for example, were to inspect most any Russian warship or submarine, they would almost surely find that it didn't pass muster. The current Russian Navy was built up in a great rush in the 1970s and 1980s to take on NATO and the United States in an all-out nuclear war. The notion was that all of our surface ships would be knocked out within 15 minutes to one hour of the start of hostilities.

Our warships were therefore built to be used once. Their decks were covered with enormous tubes housing nuclear-tipped cruise missiles, but no adequate reloading facilities were built in since reloading wasn't regarded as a feasible option. A mighty fleet was built for a single task: to fire a single volley and sink to the bottom as heroes.

The Third World War never happened, however, and now we are stuck with a huge inventory of low-quality warships that are supposed to serve the needs of a peacetime Navy. Onshore naval infrastructure is inadequate and maintenance is often nonexistent. Ships' crews are poorly trained -- not just the conscripts, but the officers as well.

Rather than receiving professional training, most sailors merely struggle to survive in hostile conditions. After more than a decade of utter neglect, many of the officers who remain on active duty are simply those who can't get a better job anywhere else or who are marking time until they finally get a free apartment from the government.

The Pyotr Veliky, by all accounts, is a cut above the average. Navy insiders reckon that Kuroyedov singled out the Northern Fleet flagship to settle a score with retired Admiral Igor Kasatonov, whose nephew Vladimir Kasatonov just happens to be the ship's commander.

Beyond Russia few realized that Kuroyedov was exaggerating the hazard posed by the Pyotr Veliky. In the West, when the head of the Navy announces that his largest warship could explode, this usually signals immediate danger. Britain and Scandinavia were particularly upset, probably bracing themselves for a sky full of nuclear fallout.

When Kuroyedov realized what a commotion he had created, he began to back off his original statement. The Navy announced that the admiral's remarks were off the record, that the ship's reactors were in good shape and that the only mess on the Pyotr Veliky was in the sailors' living quarters. Kuroyedov told journalists of the explosion threat in a restroom at the Defense Ministry that doubles as a smoking lounge during high-level meetings. He apparently did not realize the impact his words would have.

Kuroyedov has been caught telling tales to the press in the past. After the Kursk sank in 2000, the admiral told reporters that the Navy had proof that a U.S. submarine had sunk the vessel. In the end it was established that Russian negligence, not a U.S. submarine, had sunk the Kursk.

In 2001 a number of admirals were fired because of the Kursk disaster, but not Kuroyedov. President Vladimir Putin seems to have a soft spot for the admiral and chooses not to call him to account for his public misstatements.

This is one of the biggest problems in Putin's Russia. As long as an official is loyal to the president, he can lie and steal without fear of retribution.

Pavel Felgenhauer is an independent defense analyst.

[Totoro]

Doctrinally, such a ship (or ships) would be a waste to PLAN. I do hope, for their own good, they do not purchase them.

Even a brand new ship of that size, custom made for subsystems and crew size of 21st century technology, would be a waste right now. Huge missile cruisers are just not cost effective - they're way too pricey and they put way too many eggs in one basket. It is better to have 2-3 smaller destroyers than one such gargantuan ship.

Baby steps are important. PLAN has come along a long way, but it still has more to do to achieve true blue water status. Mimicking old USSR's navy's doctrine would be a weight around its neck and a grave mistake. In my opinion, russians had to use it, cause they didn't have other options, technologically. But modern day sea warfare accentuates dispersion of units which are then combined into a potent force with networking. With further computeratization i expect even the US supper carriers to give way to larger number of smaller carriers in the next 50-100 years.

[BLUEJACKET]

Just since some Russian ships are covered with rust, it doesn't mean all of them plus the Ukrainian ones are in bad shape.
Are you saying that cruisers are absolete concept?
The Slava-class cruisers carry an advanced version with an improved sophisticated guidance system, an autopilot that can be programmed for mid-course maneuvers, and an enhanced engine. The P-700 Granat [SSN-19 Shipwreck] was developed as a more successful turbojet alternative to the SSN-12 Sandbox (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/russia/ss-n-12.htm), from which it was derived.
Some of those ASM tubes can be removed and/or the ship can be used as LACM/ ASW/long range AD/UAV/TBMD platform with different tubes. Since the PLAN (which currently doesn't have any cruiser (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/china/navy.htm)) is to use the seabastion stategy for its SSBNs, the Slavas can be adopted for the role of defending them, in adition to other tasks. And I completely agree with the next post. Also, while naval doctrines change the older designs can be adopted to new requirements. In WWII, USN battleships (http://www.chinfo.navy.mil/navpalib/ships/battleships/bbhistory.html)were mainly used as air defence screens for convoys and carriers.
The nature of the war in the Pacific altered the battleship’s role forever. The Battle of Midway showed that it was no longer necessary for battlewagons to stand toe-to-toe and slug it out in the contest for supremacy at sea. But battleships performed a number of vital tasks during World War II: from escorting convoys to providing anti-air defense to providing necessary gunfire support to troops ashore.
..USS New Jersey (BB 62). was brought back into service in 1968 and served as a gun platform off the coast of Vietnam. Her nine 16-inch guns could throw a 2,700-pound projectile more than 20 miles. The ship was again decommissioned in 1969, but was recommissioned in 1982. The invasion of neighboring Kuwait by Iraqi dictator Sadam Hussein in February 1991 postponed the fate of USS Missouri (BB 63) and USS Wisconsin (BB 64). The big guns of the two battleships hammered at land targets in Kuwait in support of the Allied ground offensive..
And some of the USN CG-47 Ticonderoga-class are going to be upgraded (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ship/cg-47-mod.htm), while still being a Cold War era design! (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ship/cg-47-design.htm).
Do you know what frequent storms in S.China & Philippine Sea or Indian Ocean can do to smaller DDGs?

[Jeff Head]

But modern day sea warfare accentuates dispersion of units which are then combined into a potent force with networking. With further computeratization i expect even the US supper carriers to give way to larger number of smaller carriers in the next 50-100 years.This is true up to a point. The Slava class were a good interim solution between the large battle cruisers and the DDGs. They are formidable ships and they are not that huge...not too much larger than a Tico fully loaded and on par with the newer Japanese AEGIS destroyers (really cruisers) currently being built. They have very effective AAW and ASW capabilities that are an increase to the Sov class vessels which the PLAN has already bought four of.

While it may certainly not be the long term solution or direction, buying a couple of these, particularly if they come at a good price and are in good condition, would be an immediate and effective interim measure to complement the Sovs and bolster overall fleet capabilities, particularly in terms of more vessels capable of effective area defense for any PLAN CSG, SAG or Amphib group.

Just my opinion.

[Gollevainen]

Just since some Russian ships are covered with rust, it doesn't mean all of them plus the Ukrainian ones are in bad shape.
Are you saying that cruisers are absolete concept?

I hate generalization but in this case it's too often true. Yeas, a ship laid down in the mid eighties and have then being layinmg iddle in Nikolajev shipyard for over twenty years and in those years soviet union broke down and Ukraina gained independence. So pretty much its true in this situation, the ship is in bad shape.

Cruisers have been obsolent since the end of WWII. There's just new naval doctrines being developted and for example soviet docrtines required a big tradditional cruiser-size hulls and in western generalisation these ships are being called cruisers. But thats the case with every other warship classes as well. Destroyers are nothing what they used to be, not to mention frigates.

Slava doctrine and concept has been outdated since 1991 and even back then it was completely unsuitable for any other navy. Today it's useless asit's main weapon system is outdated and no longer in production. The huge size was only becouse of its massive size weapons. As they are no longer availble, there is no justification for such a large, expensive and crumble ship.

Some of those ASM tubes can be removed and/or the ship can be used as LACM/ ASW/long range AD/UAV/TBMD platform with different tubes. Since the PLAN (which currently doesn't have any cruiser) is to use the seabastion stategy for its SSBNs, the Slavas can be adopted for the role of defending them, in adition to other tasks. And I completely agree with the next post. Also, while naval doctrines change the older designs can be adopted to new requirements. In WWII, USN battleships were mainly used as air defence screens for convoys and carriers.

A 052C size ship with improved VLS can do all the reasonable suggestion that you made for the Slava. And the USN BB are quite lame eaxmaple. It's the same as to use tanks with their 12.7mm AA mg as a mobile airdefence battery. The BB were kept afloat only becouse none dared to scrab such big, symbolic and expensive ships after such a short service life. To buy already old, bad shape and completely obcolent ship is nothing else than madness

[BLUEJACKET]

Then following your premise the Varyag and Gorshkov are also absolete for China and India, respectively! And yet both ships been bought and now being refurbished for use in the 21st cetury. BBs had big guns for fire support and had room for Harpoons/Tomahawks -that's why they were recomissined and kept in service. Some even now advocate (http://www.ntis.gov/search/product.asp?ABBR=ADA367903&starDB=GRAHIST) their return (http://www.warships1.com/US/BB61stats/index-BB1-GAO1.htm)!
http://www.worldaffairsboard.com/battleships-forum/289-bringing-back-our-battleships-5.html

If the navies of the world started to decomission their ships as soon as doctrines/international environment change, they would all go bankrupt with no means to build any new up-to-date ships! Also, big ships act as "political massage" carriers, even if they are not well optimised - that's why Russia keeps the Kuznetsov, even though it may not be as capable as the RN brass wants to.
IMO Slavas can be reconfigured as multipurpose ships for blue water ops the PLAN will be conducting with increased frequency from now on, and may prove useful in confronting USN, IN and JMSDF (or any other navy, for that matter!).

[IDonT]

Then following your premise the Varyag and Gorshkov are also absolete for China and India, respectively! And yet both ships been bought and now being refurbished for use in the 21st cetury. BBs had big guns for fire support and had room for Harpoons/Tomahawks -that's why they were recommissined and kept in service. Some even now

Varyag and Gorshkov are carriers not surface combatants. Totally different animal. There are not a lot of large displacement flattops vessels for sale ay more. What they bring in firepower more than justifies the cost. Slava on the other hand is more of a liability by sucking out a disproportionate number of funds vs. capabilities.

Military procurement is about economics. You can't have every thing...though it would be nice. Getting one piece of equipment means that you have to take it out on another (Unless you are the U.S.- this includes battleship proponents)

[BLUEJACKET]

Slava on the other hand is more of a liability by sucking out a disproportionate number of funds vs. capabilities.
Slava class is more capable than any other DDG/FFG currently in PLAN's inventory, including the 4 Sovremenny (http://www.sinodefence.com/navy/surface/sovremenny.asp) class DDGs. Also, larger ship carry more fuel and stores giving it more endurance, cutting down on the # of port calls/ underway replenishments. This is very important for blue water ops.Despite having less ASW capability than the Russian Udaloy-class, and less strike capability than the Slava-class, the Sovremenny-class (http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ship/row/plan/sovremenny.htm)provides China with a balanced platform that vastly exceeds the capabilities of domestic designs. ..
China Eyes Ukrainian Slava-Class Cruiser [May 2004]
Ukrainian Defense Minster Oleksandr Olinyk announced March 2 that the Slava-class cruiser Ukraina will be offered for sale on the international market. He said China most likely will be the buyer of the warship, which, despite lengthy construction delays, is 96 percent complete...
The Slava-class cruiser, however, adds the new dimension of long-range surface-strike capability with 16 P-500 Bazalt surface-to-surface missiles with a range of 297 nautical miles. [about 2x firepower of the Sovremenny]
This capability would give the Chinese Navy a standoff capability against large air-capable combatants such as aircraft carriers, amphibious ships and other large surface combatants.
If China accepts the cruiser as is, it likely will transfer the vessel to China for completion and outfitting, since it will be able to finish the work at significantly less cost than if completed in the Ukraine. Current estimated value of the Ukraina is $500 million. http://www.navyleague.org/sea_power/may_04_50.php

Acquisition by the PLA Navy of a SLAVA class cruiser would add a very potent new surface attack and air defense capability. The large size of this cruiser would additionally serve to raise the profile of the PLA in Asia, and regional fears of its growth. In a sense, the SLAVA is the surface analogue to the OSCAR class SSGN..The SLAVA would also be useful to PLA Naval forces in that its RIF-M anti-aircraft system is the naval version of the very effective S-300 land-based SAM system. ..Its SS-N-12 missiles have a high flight profile which eases detection by U.S. ship defenses, but then dives down fast which complicates interception. A PLAN SLAVA class cruiser would present a significant threat to the U.S. and its allies Asian navies, in addition to the possibility of using its missiles to attack land targets.
http://www.uscc.gov/researchpapers/2004/04fisher_report/8navysystems.htm

[Scratch]

Being rational is a difuse thing and clearly depends on the viewpoint.

As was stated by several members the ship seems to be outdated for PLAN needs. But are perhaps other considerations more importand to PLAN leadership?
How about the military shipbuilding capacity? Could it be that China wants to "mass produce" it's own designs and has therefore not the ability to build a cruiser class vesel additionally to the ships being build right now?
Civil ship-building will increase in the coming years, there is of course potential, but maybe China doesn't want to compromise that capacities for military usage. Plus there are other components to put in the ship wich would have to be produced.

Is it possible that a cruiser capability like vessel was envisioned by PLAN admirals for a future CBG? And with Varyag going on rather fast they might want a cruiser class rather fast for training evaluation. But aren't capable of building one on short notice for the reasons I stated above.
Showing off a hole CBG might be even more impressive.

The strike capacitiy of a slava is big, you could put many more modern, therefore smaller missiles in it than originally envisioned. If not part of a CBG, it could have a strike capacity coming relativly close to a CVW, though with limited range. So one gets two strike capable groups with having only one carrier.

And finally, when it comes to international recognition and respect a strong navy and airforce are much more importand than a modern army.
Because utilizing a good army in places where it would be needed (outside of perhaps Tibet) like i.e. Taiwan will require a strong navy anyway.

[celtic-dragon]

Makes sense. I could imagine them to then reverse engeneer it to make their own yards build cruisers as well. Besides, I believe they might want to cange the weapons suite to chinese systems anyway.
At least at that point they will have all types of vessels to make up a real CSG.

Of course India is not out of the game. They don't have cruisers either, and with that military/technology cooperation contracts signed lately while Putin was in India ...

It an exciting guessing game.
I'm betting on the Indian Navy, considering the other purchases from Russia that have occurred. The Admiral Gorshkov was an important milestone, and India is looking at working toward becoming a global power. A Slava class cruiser would bookend the new aircraft carrier quite nicely, as well as provide a valuble part of any battlegroup.

[BLUEJACKET]

Being rational is a difuse thing and clearly depends on the viewpoint.

As was stated by several members the ship seems to be outdated for PLAN needs. But are perhaps other considerations more importand to PLAN leadership?
How about the military shipbuilding capacity? Could it be that China wants to "mass produce" it's own designs and has therefore not the ability to build a cruiser class vesel additionally to the ships being build right now?
Civil ship-building will increase in the coming years, there is of course potential, but maybe China doesn't want to compromise that capacities for military usage. Plus there are other components to put in the ship wich would have to be produced.
Is it possible that a cruiser capability like vessel was envisioned by PLAN admirals for a future CBG? And with Varyag going on rather fast they might want a cruiser class rather fast for training evaluation. But aren't capable of building one on short notice for the reasons I stated above.
Showing off a hole CBG might be even more impressive.
The strike capacitiy of a slava is big, you could put many more modern, therefore smaller missiles in it than originally envisioned. If not part of a CBG, it could have a strike capacity coming relativly close to a CVW, though with limited range. So one gets two strike capable groups with having only one carrier.
And finally, when it comes to international recognition and respect a strong navy and airforce are much more importand than a modern army.
Because utilizing a good army in places where it would be needed (outside of perhaps Tibet) like i.e. Taiwan will require a strong navy anyway.

These are all good points! Any "blue water" navy must have cruisers as well, and I think China will get there first, having direct access to Pacific. India, on the other hand, is too preocupied with Pakistan and other neighbors and has no real purpose beyond the Straits of Malakka & S.China Sea- it must first become regional economic superpower before aspiring to become global one, and I doubt they would want to be such anyway- their potential adversaries are much closer and don't need to be deterred with ICBMs.
Strategic Interests Pull Japan and India Together (http://www.pinr.com/report.php?ac=view_printable&report_id=618&language_id=1)

[celtic-dragon]

I hate generalization but in this case it's too often true. Yeas, a ship laid down in the mid eighties and have then being layinmg iddle in Nikolajev shipyard for over twenty years and in those years soviet union broke down and Ukraina gained independence. So pretty much its true in this situation, the ship is in bad shape.

Cruisers have been obsolent since the end of WWII. There's just new naval doctrines being developted and for example soviet docrtines required a big tradditional cruiser-size hulls and in western generalisation these ships are being called cruisers. But thats the case with every other warship classes as well. Destroyers are nothing what they used to be, not to mention frigates.

Slava doctrine and concept has been outdated since 1991 and even back then it was completely unsuitable for any other navy. Today it's useless asit's main weapon system is outdated and no longer in production. The huge size was only becouse of its massive size weapons. As they are no longer availble, there is no justification for such a large, expensive and crumble ship.



A 052C size ship with improved VLS can do all the reasonable suggestion that you made for the Slava. And the USN BB are quite lame eaxmaple. It's the same as to use tanks with their 12.7mm AA mg as a mobile airdefence battery. The BB were kept afloat only becouse none dared to scrab such big, symbolic and expensive ships after such a short service life. To buy already old, bad shape and completely obcolent ship is nothing else than madness
Why in the world would you say cruisers are obsolescent? While destroyers and frigates/escorts are the most common surface combatents today, Jeff Head correctly points out that some Japanese (and British!) "destroyers" are destroyers in name only, since they have the size, displacement and armament of a cruiser! Apparently, there is still a place for larger warships with greater range, duration and capability. Nobody thought that the Kirov was obsolete at the time, even though battle cruisers had been considered operationally extinct since the sinking of the Scharnhorst. If your naval stratagy calls for a cruiser to fulfill certain mission requirements REALISTICALLY, then the "cruiser" is relevant. The Slava in question falls into the niche left by the lack of Kirov battlecruisers and Kiev-class carriers, in that it can complement a carrier battlegroup, or as the Kievs were designed to do, guard a SSBN bastion. it has flexibility that a destroyer would be hard-put to match. just my opinion.

[tphuang]

Why in the world would you say cruisers are obsolescent? While destroyers and frigates/escorts are the most common surface combatents today, Jeff Head correctly points out that some Japanese (and British!) "destroyers" are destroyers in name only, since they have the size, displacement and armament of a cruiser! Apparently, there is still a place for larger warships with greater range, duration and capability. Nobody thought that the Kirov was obsolete at the time, even though battle cruisers had been considered operationally extinct since the sinking of the Scharnhorst. If your naval stratagy calls for a cruiser to fulfill certain mission requirements REALISTICALLY, then the "cruiser" is relevant. The Slava in question falls into the niche left by the lack of Kirov battlecruisers and Kiev-class carriers, in that it can complement a carrier battlegroup, or as the Kievs were designed to do, guard a SSBN bastion. it has flexibility that a destroyer would be hard-put to match. just my opinion.

not really, kongo class is 7500 ton in standard load and 9500 ton in full load. Not that much larger than DDG-51. Type 45 is actually in the weight class of 052C. Whereas when you are talking about Slava class is 12500 tonne in full load. So, it's much larger. It seems to me that PLAN is trying to copy what USN does, which means it's going for something in the weight class of DDG-51 (so around 8000 to 9000 ton in full load). And as I mentionned before, Slava doesn't have that much better air defense than 051C (which is inferior to 052C) and its strike capability can be well compensated by a few datalinked type 22s.

[Jeff Head]

not really, kongo class is 7500 ton in standard load and 9500 ton in full load. Not that much larger than DDG-51. Type 45 is actually in the weight class of 052C. Whereas when you are talking about Slava class is 12500 tonne in full load. So, it's much larger. It seems to me that PLAN is trying to copy what USN does, which means it's going for something in the weight class of DDG-51 (so around 8000 to 9000 ton in full load). And as I mentionned before, Slava doesn't have that much better air defense than 051C (which is inferior to 052C) and its strike capability can be well compensated by a few datalinked type 22s.
Full load displacement of similar vessels are as follows:

RUS Slava Class CG - 11,200-12,500 tons (3)
USS Ticonderoga Class CG - 9,957 tons (20)
JMSDF Kongo Class DDG - 9,500 tons (6)
USS Arleigh Burke (IIA) DDG - 9,217 tons (50)
RUS Sovremenny DDG - 7,940 (9)
PLAN Habgzhou (Sov) DDG - 7,625 tons (4)

I would say that the newer (larger) Kongo type vessels of the JMSDFN, the Tico Cruisers of the USN, and the Flight IIA Burkes of the USN all have similar roles and are all comparable to the Slava in terms of displacement when you consider the 16 large SSM of the Slava which add considerable weight and account for a large portion of the difference (including the room to accomodate them).

I would also say that the 64 SA-6 Grumble missiles on the Slava, have very strong AAW range and performance capability. They are also capable as a SSM. When you add the 44 SA-4 Gecko missiles, which are still an effective mid-range deterrent even today, you end up with 108 long and medium ranged AAW missiles. Add the CADS-N-1 CIWS missiles installed on the Ukrainian vessel and you have a very effective, full range coverage AAW platform....which is more than equal to either the Sov or the 52C in terms of AAW range and effectiveness IMHO.

IMHO, the major problem in this regard with the Slava is that there is only one Top Dome radar for the Grumbles so there is not 360 degree coverage for the missiles and the ship has to align itself accordingly to the major threat axis...which is something an attacking enemy would know and take advantage of by attacking simultaneously from fairly widely divergent axis. Of course, that would be countered by strategically placement of other capable ships in the group.

I would also say that data linked Type 22s cannot make up for the difference in surface strike capability between the Slava and the Sov, particularly when you consider the SSM capability of the Grumble missiles. It may be true to a point and applicable in littoral waters if you add several of the FACs...but out to sea, where the Type 22s will not have the range or endurance to reach, in other words, well out in the blue waters, you will need to Sovs to account for one Slava.

The Slava class is a basically good design if you want a heavy vessel, and would, IMHO, be a good compliment for the PLAN carrier strike group, or any large SAG...complimenting both the Hangzhou and the 052Cs and 052bs. The PLAN would just have to determine if they wanted that heavy a platform with that much capability wrapped up into a single vessel.

Anyhow, that is just my opinion.

[celtic-dragon]

not really, kongo class is 7500 ton in standard load and 9500 ton in full load. Not that much larger than DDG-51. Type 45 is actually in the weight class of 052C. Whereas when you are talking about Slava class is 12500 tonne in full load. So, it's much larger. It seems to me that PLAN is trying to copy what USN does, which means it's going for something in the weight class of DDG-51 (so around 8000 to 9000 ton in full load). And as I mentionned before, Slava doesn't have that much better air defense than 051C (which is inferior to 052C) and its strike capability can be well compensated by a few datalinked type 22s.
Yes, the Slava-class is substantially larger. still, compare the Kongo-class at a length of 449.4 feet and 9,485 tonnes full displacement against Japanese WW II cruisers. The Nachi/Takao classes of heavy cruisers averaged some 668.5 feet length and 10,000 tonnes displacement. The Mogami light cruiser was 661 feet long and displaced 8,500 standard and 10,993 tonnes full load. Other modern Japanese destroyers such as the Asagiri and the Murasmae come in at a similar length to the Kongo, but only 4,200 tonnes displacement and 5,200 tonnes respectively. The Kongo is comparable in size to many WW II cruisers, and twice the displacement of sister destroyer classes. The only reason the class are reffered to as "destroyers" is to placate political sensibilities. The British "County" class destroyers are similar in some respects, in that it was easier to procure funding for "destroyers", then "cruisers", even though the County class could be called cruisers with a displacement of 6,800 tonnes (again, as large or larger then a number of WW II cruisers). *sigh* Semantics. :coffee:

[Gollevainen]

Why in the world would you say cruisers are obsolescent? While destroyers and frigates/escorts are the most common surface combatents today, Jeff Head correctly points out that some Japanese (and British!) "destroyers" are destroyers in name only, since they have the size, displacement and armament of a cruiser! Apparently, there is still a place for larger warships with greater range, duration and capability. Nobody thought that the Kirov was obsolete at the time, even though battle cruisers had been considered operationally extinct since the sinking of the Scharnhorst. If your naval stratagy calls for a cruiser to fulfill certain mission requirements REALISTICALLY, then the "cruiser" is relevant. The Slava in question falls into the niche left by the lack of Kirov battlecruisers and Kiev-class carriers, in that it can complement a carrier battlegroup, or as the Kievs were designed to do, guard a SSBN bastion. it has flexibility that a destroyer would be hard-put to match. just my opinion.


Cruisers are obsolete. :D Or can you name any navy fielding ships thats purpose is to cruise alone, do commercial raiding or screen Battleship lines for enemy torbedo-destroyer flotillas;)

We should all realize that the current naming and warship classing is simply due the romantics of the past glory, or fool politicans as the traditional names produces images in their head, labeled with price tag....

....but there isent hardly anything to do with the actuall purpose of the ships. USN had some sense during the early parts of the Cold war, as did the Russian fleet whole the time, and in US sense, cruisers are just large enough hulls to accomondate bulk load of SAMs to Escort aircraft carriers. Cruisers have never been mented to be escorts. Soviets in other hand invented the idea of placing big ships with big SSMs and in sense these ships were mented to operate solely (the heavy SAM fit) so there is some basis for them to be called RKR or missile-cruisers.

Their big size also allowed in the late 70's - when the idea of sea led task forces entered to the soviet thinking- to become a flagships of smaller missile destroyers (Sovromenyees) (or more properly classification would have Missile ship as was with the Krupnyy class...but again, romantics came to play). Analog to them could be seen the Kresta and Slava classes, wich were never classed as cruisers in Soviet Navy, but large ASW ships.

So in theorethically Slava fits nice into big fleet, if you are building it to look nice on model board or some video game, but in reality, Slava fits only for navy that has a weird passion to challenge enemy Aircraft carriers with mass consentration of BIG, and I say again with BIG SSM salvoes...China nor does India has any place for this in their naval doctrines.
So let the old junk rust in peace


And what comes to the idea of using data-linked Type 22 for substitute Bulk launching is simply a silly and childish idea. Those tiny gnats are only for calm weather coastal defence and to integrate them to the chinese Destroyer fleet would be taking steps bact to the 1930's Soviet coastal defence doctrines.

[celtic-dragon]

Cruisers are obsolete. :D Or can you name any navy fielding ships thats purpose is to cruise alone, do commercial raiding or screen Battleship lines for enemy torbedo-destroyer flotillas;)

We should all realize that the current naming and warship classing is simply due the romantics of the past glory, or fool politicans as the traditional names produces images in their head, labeled with price tag....

....but there isent hardly anything to do with the actuall purpose of the ships. USN had some sense during the early parts of the Cold war, as did the Russian fleet whole the time, and in US sense, cruisers are just large enough hulls to accomondate bulk load of SAMs to Escort aircraft carriers. Cruisers have never been mented to be escorts. Soviets in other hand invented the idea of placing big ships with big SSMs and in sense these ships were mented to operate solely (the heavy SAM fit) so there is some basis for them to be called RKR or missile-cruisers.

Their big size also allowed in the late 70's - when the idea of sea led task forces entered to the soviet thinking- to become a flagships of smaller missile destroyers (Sovromenyees) (or more properly classification would have Missile ship as was with the Krupnyy class...but again, romantics came to play). Analog to them could be seen the Kresta and Slava classes, wich were never classed as cruisers in Soviet Navy, but large ASW ships.

So in theorethically Slava fits nice into big fleet, if you are building it to look nice on model board or some video game, but in reality, Slava fits only for navy that has a weird passion to challenge enemy Aircraft carriers with mass consentration of BIG, and I say again with BIG SSM salvoes...China nor does India has any place for this in their naval doctrines.
So let the old junk rust in peace


And what comes to the idea of using data-linked Type 22 for substitute Bulk launching is simply a silly and childish idea. Those tiny gnats are only for calm weather coastal defence and to integrate them to the chinese Destroyer fleet would be taking steps bact to the 1930's Soviet coastal defence doctrines.
Fair enough. I think you are classifying cruisers by an operationally obsolete model, but I'm no expert in this field. I was army aviation, so there you have it. The refference material I have tends to group ships more by displacement and capability, hence, larger ships with more stuff tends to fall into a nebulous 'cruiser" catagory. Politics and national prestige work into this, also. Having a Slava-class cruiser may not be a part of either India's or China's naval doctrine, in your opinion. But, SOMEBODY is going to buy the Slava and MAKE IT part of their naval doctine. My money still rides on India, as the Slava would be an excellent counterpart to the radically refitted Admiral Gorshkov that India takes delivery on next year. India would join the US, France, Russia and Great Britain in being able to deploy a full scale carrier battlegroup. Never underestimate the power of ego and national prestige. India is joining the big leagues, and nothing quite says it like a full size carrier battlegroup. Again, just an opinion.

[tphuang]

Full load displacement of similar vessels are as follows:

RUS Slava Class CG - 11,200-12,500 tons (3)
USS Ticonderoga Class CG - 9,957 tons (20)
JMSDF Kongo Class DDG - 9,500 tons (6)
USS Arleigh Burke (IIA) DDG - 9,217 tons (50)
RUS Sovremenny DDG - 7,940 (9)
PLAN Habgzhou (Sov) DDG - 7,625 tons (4)

I would say that the newer (larger) Kongo type vessels of the JMSDFN, the Tico Cruisers of the USN, and the Flight IIA Burkes of the USN all have similar roles and are all comparable to the Slava in terms of displacement when you consider the 16 large SSM of the Slava which add considerable weight and account for a large portion of the difference (including the room to accomodate them).

I would also say that the 64 SA-6 Grumble missiles on the Slava, have very strong AAW range and performance capability. They are also capable as a SSM. When you add the 44 SA-4 Gecko missiles, which are still an effective mid-range deterrent even today, you end up with 108 long and medium ranged AAW missiles. Add the CADS-N-1 CIWS missiles installed on the Ukrainian vessel and you have a very effective, full range coverage AAW platform....which is more than equal to either the Sov or the 52C in terms of AAW range and effectiveness IMHO.

IMHO, the major problem in this regard with the Slava is that there is only one Top Dome radar for the Grumbles so there is not 360 degree coverage for the missiles and the ship has to align itself accordingly to the major threat axis...which is something an attacking enemy would know and take advantage of by attacking simultaneously from fairly widely divergent axis. Of course, that would be countered by strategically placement of other capable ships in the group.

Jeff, I think you mistook me here. I was replying to the thoughts that PLAN could mass produce cruisers based on Slava design. I was thinking basically what you said. That you can achieve Slava's armament with a lighter hull in line with DDG-51 and Kongo. And on top of the one top dome problem, older version of rif is also in capable of engaging missiles (actually, even 051C's rif system still have that limitation).


And what comes to the idea of using data-linked Type 22 for substitute Bulk launching is simply a silly and childish idea. Those tiny gnats are only for calm weather coastal defence and to integrate them to the chinese Destroyer fleet would be taking steps bact to the 1930's Soviet coastal defence doctrines.

they are of no help for power projection, but if you consider where PLAN needs the capability to launch mass attack against an opposing fleet, Taiwan is still the most likely conflict.

[Scratch]

With Russia's plan to spend billions on upgrading their military they might come up using it themselves. ;)
The size of the ship and it's impact on observers might be of more value to the possible buyer than the pure capabilities/ naval needs.
And I still think one can somewhat change the Slava's original config. Making it a huge SAM truck for fleet/CBG defence, or a massive strike platform. Perhaps even with several helos, though I think this might be a little fat fetched.
Time will tell ...

[Gollevainen]

Fair enough. I think you are classifying cruisers by an operationally obsolete model, but I'm no expert in this field. I was army aviation, so there you have it. The refference material I have tends to group ships more by displacement and capability, hence, larger ships with more stuff tends to fall into a nebulous 'cruiser" catagory. Politics and national prestige work into this, also. Having a Slava-class cruiser may not be a part of either India's or China's naval doctrine, in your opinion. But, SOMEBODY is going to buy the Slava and MAKE IT part of their naval doctine. My money still rides on India, as the Slava would be an excellent counterpart to the radically refitted Admiral Gorshkov that India takes delivery on next year. India would join the US, France, Russia and Great Britain in being able to deploy a full scale carrier battlegroup. Never underestimate the power of ego and national prestige. India is joining the big leagues, and nothing quite says it like a full size carrier battlegroup. Again, just an opinion.

Some one has launched a rumour that Ukranian Slava class migth get be sold, but national pride isent strong motivator in people over 18 years old that they would actually consider of buying completely odd and useless hull to burden their economies. The Gorskov is different becouse Aircraft carriers are different ships than any other war ships and market of them is extremely silent one. In that category, every hull floating is worth of any penny that has been asked from it, but modern missile cruiser doesent have that level of prestige that would justify such purchase.

Unless completely unfamiliar politics gets completely fooled by the Ukranian hawkers....Then it would come as one of the most potent screwups in naval history.

they are of no help for power projection, but if you consider where PLAN needs the capability to launch mass attack against an opposing fleet, Taiwan is still the most likely conflict.

Perhaps in the Quemoy area, but even the Taiwan strait posess consideraple open sea that small catamarans become to vunerable to operate in the area. If the Destroyers are tied to defend the hordes of Missile Facs, they cannot operate elsewhere and that would tie all PLANs still limited forces into really restricted area and gives way too much moving space for the enemy. It simply would be tactically unwise move, and I think PLAN planners knows this.

[Jeff Head]

My money still rides on India, as the Slava would be an excellent counterpart to the radically refitted Admiral Gorshkov that India takes delivery on next year. India would join the US, France, Russia and Great Britain in being able to deploy a full scale carrier battlegroup. Never underestimate the power of ego and national prestige. India is joining the big leagues, and nothing quite says it like a full size carrier battlegroup. Again, just an opinion..
Same arguement could be made for the PLAN and the Varyag...another Russian carrier, and the same class that they use.

I will say again, with her large full coverage AAW capability, a Slava woud be a good addition and compliment to 052Cs or 051Cs, and Sovs, for duty with a PLAN carrier battle group. With 108 long and medium ranged AAW missiles (64 Grumble, 44 Gecko) she already carriers numerically more than any other vessel except the AEGIS cruisers and the Kirov class. If you add in four CADS-N-1 systems, then add another 32 close in Grisom missiles and you end up with 140 missiles.

Anyhow, time will tell who, if anyone, buys this vessel. It is just my opinion that the Russians and Ukrainians would not announce such a deal and be spending the money unless they already had a buyer.

[celtic-dragon]

Same arguement could be made for the PLAN and the Varyag...another Russian carrier, and the same class that they use.

I will say again, with her large full coverage AAW capability, a Slava woud be a good addition and compliment to 052Cs or 051Cs, and Sovs, for duty with a PLAN carrier battle group. With 108 long and medium ranged AAW missiles (64 Grumble, 44 Gecko) she already carriers numerically more than any other vessel except the AEGIS cruisers and the Kirov class. If you add in four CADS-N-1 systems, then add another 32 close in Grisom missiles and you end up with 140 missiles.

Anyhow, time will tell who, if anyone, buys this vessel. It is just my opinion that the Russians and Ukrainians would not announce such a deal and be spending the money unless they already had a buyer.
The Varyag is still just a hulk sitting in drydock, and no agreement seems to have been reached in the PLAN about whether China should even bother with a CV, much less whether it is worthwhile to refit the Varyag. Check out this paper from the War College review.

http://www.nwc.navy.mil/press/Review/2006/autumn/art1-a06.htm

I think China will eventually go for a carrier of some sort, but it is a HUGE leap from having no experience at all to operating a full size fleet carrier like the Varyag. India has operated a carrier force for years, and has considerable experience. Japan is working upwards from helicopter carriers. Thailand, on the other hand, bought an outfitted small carrier and ran into problems immediately. China may sit this out for a bit to see what is the best route to go. Varyag isn't going anywhere for now, but even refitting her would take years. China may well deside to start small with an indiginous design and go from there.

[Jeff Head]

The Varyag is still just a hulk sitting in drydock, and no agreement seems to have been reached in the PLAN about whether China should even bother with a CV, much less whether it is worthwhile to refit the Varyag. China may sit this out for a bit to see what is the best route to go. Varyag isn't going anywhere for now, but even refitting her would take years. China may well deside to start small with an indiginous design and go from there.
Actually, irrespective of what the think-tankers say, the Varyag is not a hulk sitting in dry dock. It has been out of dry dock for some period, has already been worked on for years, has been completely repainted in official PLAN colors, had the zinc chromate primer put on which is the undercoat and primer for the non-skid surface on the fligfht deck, and that has now been painted over with what appears to be the non-skid surface itself. All indications that the PLAN is doing a lot more than just "thinking about it" as these pictures attest:

http://www.freewebs.com/jeffhead/worldwideaircraftcarriers/varyag13.jpg

http://www.freewebs.com/jeffhead/worldwideaircraftcarriers/varyag12.jpg

http://image2.sina.com.cn/jc/p/2007-02-17/U1335P27T1D431825F3DT20070217083158.jpg

http://image2.sina.com.cn/jc/upload/120/5170/20061019/2472/494557/494558.jpg

I suspect (and it is just my opinion) we will see the Varyag launched as a PLAN carrier, perhaps as soon as the 2008 Olympics, or in 2009. It will take them several years to make her fully operational, but the PLAN has alreay cut a deal with the Russians to buy SU-33s, the only question is how many.

[Gollevainen]

well size of the carrier itself isent the one factor dooming chinese first carrier step. All is due what the Varyag would be used and some think that it would eventually come engineless training hulk for aircraft operations.

I agree with Starting small steps, crawl-walk-run method but it posess some proplems. A ASW helicopter carrier seems to be a relic of the cold war, as in concept it poses too big ship and sopisthication towards relatively narrow operational use, and only USN of Chinese potent opponents posess a subfleet sizeble enough to justify concept of ASW helicopter carrier.
Also, the next logical step from the ASW helo carrier, a VSTOL carrier is also bit unrealistic to the China, as there isent any VSTOL planes to field it.
The two navies, Soviet and UK wich first fielded the VSTOL planes did it becouse there was allready existing VSTOL planes to be considered for naval use and in both occasions, it proven to be more politically acceptable solution than full borne carrier aviation element.

But china has now a theorethical change to go straigth foward to true conventional aviation capacity (well, limited by the skijump oddity) and all devolpments in this field would not go waste. It doesent mean that once first Su-33 takes of from Varyag, China will have full power projection capacity, but that they have finally begun the path that other navies took in the 1920's.

[celtic-dragon]

Actually, irrespective of what the think-tankers say, the Varyag is not a hulk sitting in dry dock. It has been out of dry dock for some period, has already been worked on for years, has been completely repainted in official PLAN colors, had the zinc chromate primer put on which is the undercoat and primer for the non-skid surface on the fligfht deck, and that has now been painted over with what appears to be the non-skid surface itself. All indications that the PLAN is doing a lot more than just "thinking about it" as these pictures attest:

http://www.freewebs.com/jeffhead/worldwideaircraftcarriers/varyag13.jpg

http://www.freewebs.com/jeffhead/worldwideaircraftcarriers/varyag12.jpg

http://image2.sina.com.cn/jc/p/2007-02-17/U1335P27T1D431825F3DT20070217083158.jpg

http://image2.sina.com.cn/jc/upload/120/5170/20061019/2472/494557/494558.jpg

I suspect (and it is just my opinion) we will see the Varyag launched as a PLAN carrier, perhaps as soon as the 2008 Olympics, or in 2009. It will take them several years to make her fully operational, but the PLAN has alreay cut a deal with the Russians to buy SU-33s, the only question is how many.
Okay, they painted the ship. I think that the paper mentions that, although I was unaware she had been refloated. Painting the ship means little. The deal for SU-33 fighters is far more indicative, however. If they really plan on making the Varyag operational, then the PLAN has an incredibly steep learning curve. As Gollevainen points out: they are doing now what other navies did in the 1920's. I still think that India is going to try and get that Slava! ;)

[Jeff Head]

Okay, they painted the ship. I think that the paper mentions that, although I was unaware she had been refloated. Painting the ship means little. The deal for SU-33 fighters is far more indicative, however. If they really plan on making the Varyag operational, then the PLAN has an incredibly steep learning curve. As Gollevainen points out: they are doing now what other navies did in the 1920's. I still think that India is going to try and get that Slava! ;)
It is more than painting the ship...adding the non-skid primer, and then what appears to be the non-skid surface, coupled with the SU-33 deal, all adds up to pretty clear indications. As I said, they then have years of training, doctrine development, etc. before they are proficient...but if they intend to be, then they have to start somewhere.

India could very well be the customer for the Slava, I do not doubt or discount that. It is a natural for them in many ways and they alredy have, as you have indicated, a significant investment in Russian technology. It would not surprise me at all if they indended up being the customer.

I just believe that the other potential party is the PLAN. They also have a stiff investment in Russian-built technology, and with four Sovs already in their inventory, and a Kuznetsov class carrier being outfitted, one or two Slavas would not be that surprising IMHO, that's all.

[celtic-dragon]

It is more than painting the ship...adding the non-skid primer, and then what appears to be the non-skid surface, coupled with the SU-33 deal, all adds up to pretty clear indications. As I said, they then have years of training, doctrine development, etc. before they are proficient...but if they intend to be, then they have to start somewhere.

India could very well be the customer for the Slava, I do not doubt or discount that. It is a natural for them in many ways and they alredy have, as you have indicated, a significant investment in Russian technology. It would not surprise me at all if they indended up being the customer.

I just believe that the other potential party is the PLAN. They also have a stiff investment in Russian-built technology, and with four Sovs already in their inventory, and a Kuznetsov class carrier being outfitted, one or two Slavas would not be that surprising IMHO, that's all.
Good points. I wonder if the Russians would actually part with any of the other three Slavas, though. Probably not.

[BLUEJACKET]

Having a Slava-class cruiser may not be a part of either India's or China's naval doctrine, in your opinion. But, SOMEBODY is going to buy the Slava and MAKE IT part of their naval doctine.
Actually, the PLAN's current doctrine, at least as I understand it, calls for preventing/challenging USN carriers involvement in Taiwan's defense.
The PLAN seeks to push its maritime defense perimeter further seaward. This change in operations will require newer, more modern warships and submarines capable of operating out to the Ryukyu Islands and into the South China Sea. At these extended ranges, the platforms will have to be better armed to enable defense from all methods of attack. The Navy has been conducting research and acquiring foreign technology in an effort to improve the broad range of naval warfare capabilities; it also is acquiring new classes of ships that will be better suited for operations out to the limits of the East and South China Seas. http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/china/plan-overview.htm

The Navy is working to build itself into a modern maritime force of operation consisting of combined arms with both nuclear and conventional means of operations. Taking informationization as the goal and strategic focus in its modernization drive, the Navy gives high priority to the development of maritime information systems, and new-generation weaponry and equipment. http://www.china.org.cn/english/features/book/194482.htm

China is also modernizing its force of surface warships. The current fleet of approximately two dozen relatively modern guided missile-equipped frigates and destroyers are all powered by modern engineering plants and are equipped with potent surface-to-surface cruise missiles. This force remains significantly limited, however, in the crucial areas of anti-submarine (ASW) and anti-air (AAW) warfare. It is only since the 2004 commissioning of three new classes of destroyers—the Luyang I, the Luyang II and the Luzhou—that the PLAN seems to have deployed ships capable of “area AAW”. This important capability enables a single ship to provide anti-aircraft defense not just for itself, but also for a formation of ships. This capability is crucial to fleet operations at sea, whether against a U.S. naval task force or for escorting an amphibious task force against Taiwan.. ..In the maritime arena, the 2004 White Paper reiterated the navy’s responsibility “for safeguarding China's maritime security and maintaining the sovereignty of its territorial seas along with its maritime rights and interests.” It went on to emphasize the importance of conducting operations well offshore, timely “preparation for [the] maritime battlefield,” enhanced “integrated combat capabilities” and the ability to conduct “nuclear counter-attacks.” It further charged the PLAN with the importance of “building maritime combat forces, especially amphibious combat forces…[and] updating its weaponry and equipment,” to include “long-range precision strike capability…joint exercises…and integrated maritime support capabilities”.
China’s modernizing navy is already capable of carrying out many missions in defense of maritime security interests, including those involved in Taiwan’s status. While it certainly poses a thought-provoking challenge to possible U.S. naval intervention in such a scenario, the PLAN is not yet able to pose a significant threat to open-ocean naval operations by the U.S., Japanese or Indian navies, either in the East China Sea or over the long SLOCs that run from the Indian Ocean to the Middle East. Hence, China’s maritime strategy is very much a work in progress, with its most likely direction to be an expanded view of post-Taiwan missions involving the high seas of the Pacific and Indian Oceans.
http://jamestown.org/publications_details.php?volume_id=415&issue_id=3900&article_id=2371576

Weapons do not determine doctrine, but they do signify priorities in Chinese doctrinal thinking. Notable among the recently obtained weapons for the PLA are the heavy missile destroyers (the 2-4 Sovremenny-class DDGs) and advanced diesel submarines (the 4-12 Kilo-class SSKs), both imported from Russia. Both of these are systems that seem designed to penetrate the defenses of carrier battle groups that the Aegis missile defense platforms provide (Arleigh Burke-class DDGs and Ticonderoga-class CGs). Similar points might be made regarding the SU-30 fighters (long range strike fighters aimed to hold at risk American carrier-based air assets) and the substantial modernization (including accuracy improvements) and build up of ballistic missiles (e.g., hundreds of M-9/11 missiles that can be used to threaten Taiwan; MaRV systems aimed to defeat American NMD systems; etc.)
All of these systems would be used in a relatively tactically offensive manner, attacking what are perceived to be key centers of gravity for America (and in some cases Taiwan). In most cases, the use of such systems would have to be conceived of in coercive terms: the threat of their existence will lead to their utility in deterring U.S. involvement. http://www.ccc.nps.navy.mil/si/2005/Oct/twomeyOct05.asp

So, there is more going for Ukraina and perhaps Varyag in the PLAN than against it! If any of those ships are sold to India, however, China will get very upset with Russia; on the other hand the Indians know that Slavas will be operating mainly in the W.Pac and China Seas anyway- there is no need for PLAN to deploy huge surface armada to the Indian Ocean when there is allied Pakistani (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/pakistan/navy.htm), Bangladeshi (http://www.***************/main/military/sea/navy/ships/surface/navy_surface.htm), and perhaps Malaysian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Malaysian_Navy#Current_Assets) navies always willing to help!

[celtic-dragon]

Good information in that post. I'm going to follow up on the links. I disagree that Pakistan would ally with India against China. Pakistan and China have a close historical relationaship militarily, while China and India have been adversarial. The other naval forces you mention are too small and underfunded to be of any threat, and why would they take part in a row between India and China?

[BLUEJACKET]

I meant help the PLAN, not IN with patrols should they send CBG there. Even if they don't take active part in any engagements, the intel/operational data could be shared with the Chinese.

[Pointblank]

Good points. I wonder if the Russians would actually part with any of the other three Slavas, though. Probably not.

They probably will. They have one (Varyag) in reduced manning, indicating that the Russians don't have much of a use for this ship. As mentioned before, it is an orphan ship in terms of electronics fit (Ukraina is the sister ship of Varyag in terms of electronics fit), and the Russians would probably like to sell this ship off to raise funds for the Kirov class battlecruiser Admiral Lazarev (ex. Frunze) overhaul. Right now, they have a cruiser and a battlecruiser inoperable at the moment, and such a sale of two Slava's (one in Ukrainian hands, the other Russian) could gather enough funds to get Admiral Lazarev's overhaul done.

[BLUEJACKET]

I offer a compomise: Russia and Ukraine may sell their Slavas to both India and China to keep them happy!
Possibly “Ukraine” will follow the fate of the aircraft carrier Varyag, which was sold unfinished by Ukraine.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/ukraine/vms-hist.htm
China's modern destroyer force will be small, consisting of twelve modern vessels by 2010. The American Pacific Fleet has nearly twice as many comparable destroyers at present, and additional ships will be joining the fleet. The Pacific Fleet also has eleven Ticonderoga-class cruisers, compared to no comparable vessels for China. http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htwin/articles/20070215.aspx

That's a very compelling argument to buy the Slavas!
Notice Varyag CG in the background!-

http://www.moscowtimes.ru/photos/large/2005_08/2005_08_19/china_2.jpg

http://www.moscowtimes.ru/stories/2005/08/19/012.html

[Jeff Head]

China's modern destroyer force will be small, consisting of twelve modern vessels by 2010.Well, if you include from the Type 052 on, the PLAN already has 13 relatively-to-very modern destroyers.

2 - Type 052C Lanzhou
2 - Type 051C Shenyang
2 - Type 052B Guangzhou
4 - Project 956 Hangzhou
1 - Type 051 B Luhai
2 - Type 052 Luhu

I expect we will see more added over the next three years, maybe three to five more, which will mean that by 2010 the PLAN will have 16-18 modern DDGs.

IMHO, by the 2010 time frame, it will be clear that the PLAN is developing into a very potent, modern naval force.
Not as many as the US for sure, but I also believe by then there may will be 12 or more very modern Type 054(A) FFGs as well. (There are already four built and two more building now). In three years they could easily build six more, if not more.

[planeman]

Venezuela, Cuba, Iran, Syria, Evilaxisastan, Austria, Finland? Why do you discount these evil regimes with their world domination agendas from the bidding war.

Oddly enough the only countries to currently operate cruisers are USA, France, Russia and Peru... yep Peru!

[Obi Wan Russell]

I agree a single ship class would not make much sense to either India or China, but if it is a lead in to further aquisitions (ie selling some or all of the other three Slavas, or building new units) then the deal becomes more realistic. My money is on the latter scenario, and I agree that a buyer has already most likely been found and a deal done.

[articblast]

Has anybody heard anything new lately?
Plus what ship yard are they using to outfit them?
Maybe satelite pictures of the yard would be nice.

[Scratch]

The "latest" in a somewhat forgotten story. It may hint to russian interest, that Rosoboronexport top official even sais they have. But there's no firm decission as of now. I wonder how those recent tensions between the two countries affect this.

http://finchannel.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=22337&Itemid=56

Russia denies talks on purchase of missile cruiser from Ukraine

The FINANCIAL -- Russia is currently not involved in talks with Ukraine over the purchase of an unfinished missile cruiser for the Russian Navy, Russia`s state arms exporter Rosoboronexport said on October 21, according to RIA Novosti.
The Ukrainian government ordered Ukrspetsexport, the state-owned arms trader, to look for potential buyers of the Slava-class Ukraina missile cruiser back in 2005. Ukrainian Defense Minister Yuriy Yekhanurov mentioned the potential purchase of the vessel by Russia in June this year.
"Rosoboronexport has no instructions to buy the cruiser [from Ukraine ], although I cannot deny that we were interested in this ship," said Ivan Goncharenko, Rosoboronexport`s first deputy general director. ...