Russia, Ukraine to sell Slava Class Cruiser

celtic-dragon said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

tphuang said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

tphuang said:

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.

Click to expand...

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:

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.

Click to expand...

Cruisers are obsolete. 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.

Gollevainen said:

Cruisers are obsolete. 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.

Click to expand...

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.

Jeff Head said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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 ...

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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.

celtic-dragon said:

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..

Click to expand...

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.

Jeff Head said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.



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.