Let's ignore the fact that Russia will never be able to

>>33031524
Are they bringing back pagoda masts?

It is hard to judge it when all we have is a model and vague specs.

>>33031524

I like the look of it, but I like the look of Russias incongruous ship design overall.

>>33031580

What about the very concept of a nuclear-powered destroyer?

Half of Russia's fleet is in mothballs because it lacks a clear mission or even the funding to fuel their ships. There's no way in hell Russia is building any new ships for a long time, and when they do, it'll probably just be coastal defense type shit.

Russia's naval doctrine has never centered much on surface combatants anyways. They recognized they could never hope to actually compete with the US Navy, let alone all of NATO's naval forces. That's why their submarine force is so large, proportionally speaking. That was and still is their navy's future, not pipe dreams of some grand fleet which would be confined to the Baltic and Black Sea anyways because of bottlenecks in the North Sea and the Dardanelles.

File: 56d59562c36188f54a8b45ab.jpg (119KB, 900x500px) Image search: [Google]

119KB, 900x500px

>>33031524

>Let's ignore the fact that Russia will never be able to actually afford this. Is it even a good design?

I'm going to expand the question to cover this thing as well. Is is even a good design, ignoring the fact that Russia can't actually build it?

>>33031622
>>33031524
And yeah I know you said let's ignore if they can afford it but fuck you, they can't. And it's stupid anyways because as I said, they really can't compete at a surface combatant level. They're better off with just some type of littoral combat ships.

>>33031622
>which would be confined to the Baltic and Black Sea
Thats probably why the BF and BSF are the two smallest.

>>33031626
>ramps
>ramps
>ramps
>2017
>new design
>ramps
>ramps
>ramps
>ramps

Cyka blyat, Jesus Christ. It's the fucking CURRENT YEAR

>>33031626
Its just a model to trick the Indians with.

>>33031647

This

They will construct a handful for themselves and sell the others for export and sell the rights to manufacture as well.

>>33031647

Yeah, I know. But is it actually a good design? Is there any advantage to having cats and ramps on the same carrier?

>>33031636
Even their Pacific Fleet is a joke. The United States & Friends own the Pacific. Again, they don't stand a snowball's chance in hell of competing with us in surface warfare. Submarines have always been the Soviet/Russian Navy's strength. I see no reason for them to abandon it now.

>>33031686
Not really, its just to look cool or whatever.

>>33031702

>Submarines have always been the Soviet/Russian Navy's strength. I see no reason for them to abandon it now.

Doesn't it take them like 4 years to produce 1 SSN now?

>>33031736

Does it take less than several years for anyone to build any nuclear subs?

>>33031524
It's not an official design, it's just some firm's take on what they can offer to the government if the project was given to them.

>>33031736
So what? It's better than wasting money on surface ships. Also, last time I checked, most of their subs are still in pretty decent shape. I think they're starting to roll out a new class now but I could be mistaken.

Tbh I'd like to see Russia develop some coastal diesel-electric subs for defense like the Swedes or Germans have. Like I said, Russia's days at projecting power across the oceans and shit is over. Their navy's primary purpose is no longer to be able to launch nukes at the US. They're a continental power and their navy's first and foremost concern should be coastal defense and some regional power projection.

>>33031784

I thought the US pumped out 1 per year?

File: MFI_RLS_BK_ru.jpg (86KB, 929x506px) Image search: [Google]

86KB, 929x506px

Here's they're take on the upgrade on the Gorshkov, since it is a 20 year old design. Seems the Poliment is not enough so they either want the whole Vityaz sensors or some equivalent. Look likes Big Bird.

>>33031887
They start one every year. It takes several years to complete but there is one finishing every year because they start the next before the first is finished

>>33031639
Ramps are an efficient use of space
is that why they trigger amerilards?

>>33031639
You need catapult to launch AWACS and other heavy planes. For fighters ramp is better.

>>33033741
>For fighters ramp is better.
Yeah, half fuel load and partial weapons is so great.

File: 1469707213813.jpg (283KB, 1200x800px) Image search: [Google]

283KB, 1200x800px

>>33033754
Which is total bullshit and implying that F\A-18 can do missions without external fuel tanks. Suchoi launched from ramp will always has more missiles than Hornet launched by catapult.

>>33033491
No, because countries where the average income is more than $300 dollars a month don't need ramps

>>33031599

It's been done before.

>>33031599
That "destroyer" projected to be bigger than Slava-class cruiser and Virginia class cruiser.

>>33033754
>>33033803
>DING DING

Let's get it ON!

>>33031524
The bilge keel is worthless, and the fact that it's seemingly single screw with no thrusters is laughable. The VCG also seems absurd and they must have a terrible GM. Otherwise I don't know much about military design.

>t. naval arch student

>>33031924

they run upgrades on that ship constantly. the shit you got on that picture is already replaced by next level shit. additionally they most program right now is evolving on creating litoral fleet. the blue navy is out of option right now due russians just go all nuclear subs. which understandble due making surface fleet is fucking suicide shit since 1990.