| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
XanderF
Joined: 20 Jun 2003
Posts: 238
Location: Portland, OR
|
 Posted: Sat Nov 06, 2004 12:51 am Post subject: |
 |
|
No, I think the Neustrasshimy is much closer to the US Spruance-class than anything.
It's really the Krivaks we'd be looking at. Like the Perry - not designed for use as major fleet elements, but a hell of an ASW escort. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Heppuli
Joined: 05 Nov 2004
Posts: 31
Location: Finland
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 06, 2004 3:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
No problem.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TLAM Strike
Joined: 30 Apr 2002
Posts: 4866
Location: Rochester, New York
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 06, 2004 4:14 am Post subject: |
|
|
| XanderF wrote: | No, I think the Neustrasshimy is much closer to the US Spruance-class than anything.
It's really the Krivaks we'd be looking at. Like the Perry - not designed for use as major fleet elements, but a hell of an ASW escort. |
Yea the Krivaks are probaly going to be it. The best game play load out will be with the Krivak I or II IMHO. The III dosn't have the SS-N-14 Silex missiles which I don't like, but does have a helo.
But with SS-N-14s, 8 tubes, 2 ASW Mortars, and VDS its going to be one heck of a platform to drive.
The III just won't have the stand off capablity I want but I'm probaly going to be stuck with unless SA combined the 3+ types in too one unit. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
XanderF
Joined: 20 Jun 2003
Posts: 238
Location: Portland, OR
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 07, 2004 6:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
| TLAM Strike wrote: | | XanderF wrote: | No, I think the Neustrasshimy is much closer to the US Spruance-class than anything.
It's really the Krivaks we'd be looking at. Like the Perry - not designed for use as major fleet elements, but a hell of an ASW escort. |
The III just won't have the stand off capablity I want but I'm probaly going to be stuck with unless SA combined the 3+ types in too one unit. |
Well, it really comes down to questionable design decisions by the Soviets.
The SS-N-14 is nice and all, but I'm not sure how effective it actually would have been in nailing an enemy sub.
As to the Krivak-III...isn't that just a KGB ship? Maritime border guard? References to the helo it carries "one utility helicopter" doesn't exactly inspire confidence. Doesn't sound like we are talking LAMPS III here, does it?
Supposedly, it could carry a Helix....but I'm skeptical. Hormone, sure. If it COULD carry a Helix....well, that's not a bad ASW helicopter. Course, it can only carry ONE, so....
Course, you don't see two helos on a Russian platform until the full-sized Udaloy-class destroyer. WOULD be pretty sweet to have that one, though... There is, of course, the upside of their being a LOT of units in this class (for a Soviet surface ship, anyway).
Unless....*rubs hands sinisterly together*....we got a MOSKVA. Aw, yeah, 14 ASW helos. f33t my l33t ASW sk!lz |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TLAM Strike
Joined: 30 Apr 2002
Posts: 4866
Location: Rochester, New York
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 07, 2004 4:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The Krivak III was origionaly built for the KGB Maritime Border Guard but were tranferd to the Russian Navy at some point.
The Helo is a Helix.
I think the SS-N-14 has a better chance of sinking a sub once its been detected than a standard torpedo since the weapon arives at the target much sooner than a standard torp.
Moskva, errrrr don't think that would be a good platform for the game. Would you want to be in one in a multi-player game? All its got is a SAM system, a ASW missile launcher, some AA guns and torpedoes (in a pre 1980's configeration.) Its too much of a target. A Kirov would be a better choice if SA went for a ship that big. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
