or the mainstream media is very exaggerated

Or what or where you getting your information is propagandized.

True

Yes

Bat petar Veliki and admiral Nahimov are bigest ship's in the world today

@@gagi1165 with modern systems and energy hungry sensors and requirement for long deployments we may see a return of CGNs in the USN It was the USN that built the first CGNs in the world

@@gagi1165 false

@@gagi1165 to be specific.. Largest surface combat non-carrier ship... Its not the largest ship in the world, as many Cargo ships can easily be bigger than even an Aircraft Carrier..

Yup, how reliable are such ships remains kind of dubious however.

Russian ships may be more armed than other ships of other country’s but that comes at a cost of dry dock repairs and rearm and refit time as it’ll take longer to get add on to the ship due to the tightly packed weapons and sensors.

Because Russian ships lose edge on numbers, the quality of materials, high tech electronic and also also shipbuilding skills are lagging behind of those on western world. So they can't compete using same So they have to focus on slightly different doctrine, where they can use more ground/aviation tools like big auto-cannons, missiles (which Russia is good at and has capability to produce in sheer numbers). It's also about US and UK having a strong naval tradition that have passed from generations to generations. Russian sailors never really proved themselves in battles and never made name for themselves. The only CV Russia have is literally stuck in never ending loop of fires + dock collapsing and etc. Lot's guns means lot's of ammo and electric wiring spread all over ship and which is not really very safe. Also in cases if ship takes battle damage ... like a rocket lands on deck... there is high chance that guns packed tightly and not protected with thick armor will suffer damage as well. Not to mention that many guns also requires more crew, which increases other problems like not "enough man to fight fires" or help with repairs. If Russia reduces the number of guns... Then they won't be able to engage that many allied ships.

A lot of weapons are also hidden dangers, one malfunction may kill everyone and sunk these ship or 1 hit to one of these weapon may cause total destruction to the ship.

@@cesaravegah3787 since last week we know , albeit it was a different type of warship , that Russia s navy is not that impressive . Sunk by missiles or on board explosion …. Not much difference

25Km SAM, that's a big issue.

Did not know that Ireland was part of USSR.

@@T02myRu 🤣🤣😂😂😂🤣🤣

Well sir in the 80's & 90's their economy was in a terrible condition so the concept of servicing was thrown to the wind due to which the Soviets & later Russian Navy had many issues and accidents think you know that

@@shoubhikvarman3228 Makes you wonder about the state of the weapons systems also. Also with all those weapons and the men required to maintain and operate them, that doesn't leave much room for the crew. Then again, crew comfort was always low priority for the Soviet/Russian military.

@@johnknapp952 I was an Oliver Hazard Perry sailor and I can tell you surprisingly the soviet ships were actually better and more comfortable for the crew , none of this 64 guys sharing 3 toilets and 2 doorless showers like the frigates I served on

@@mosesgoldbergshekelstien1520 So how many Russian ships have you been aboard? I've served aboard my share of ships (with LAMPS Detachments) and know the good and bad of them. But the Soviet military has never been know for crew comfort. Just ask any tankman or infantry that had to squeeze into a BMP. And with all the weapons that they throw onto their ships doesn't leave a lot of room for the crew. Also Russian sailor says "You had showers!!" 😂

@@johnknapp952 Don't forget that the Typhoon submarines have a sauna and even a fucking swimming pool inside.

What an idea, this would definitely prolong the life of these legends, but the problem is that the shipyards are too busy modernizing other ships.

the guns are good for use as shore bombardment

Russian weapons in general are hugely overrated propaganda assets.

Then they must really like the 11 American Super Carriers.

@@victoreous626 russian cruisers food are those 11 Super Carriers. Those cruisers were developed to destroy u.s carriers

Soviet surface fleet was mostly small corvettes, fast attack craft and frigates Norman Polmars books on the soviet navy go into detail , off the top of my head I’m pretty sure Soviets had 2700 ships in the early 80s but side by side comparison with the USN the US had more tonnage

No, they're updating the Udaloys

Modernized udaloy has total 24x missiles

they don't. They scrap a lot of ships or let systems unused. Packing that many weapons on a ship is awful for reliability, rearmament, and a security hazard, because if a fire happens on one of these ships, its basically a write-off

The problem of NATO & US is always they underestimate the Russian Army.

The thing is do you think you can get so close to such a warship for an emp attack? its defenses can spot you hundred of kms away

Emp attack is the last thing that a ship has to worry about, AShM launched from other warships, subs an jets are a much bigger threat

You talk about a country that can destroy the whole world 100 times with his Nukes.

You totally wrong Russia has one of best radars. If it comes to a war between Nato&US then is over for mankind. They will destroy eachother. So many Nukes and a Chain Reaction of wars world wide.

that goes down if its hit by basically anything and has an incredible chance of failure. One little fire and you can scrap the ship

40 years old.

i think they would be in a fleet with replenisment ships with food and extra munitions also the russian navy is to protect the shores not to really go out far in the ocean

Each AK 630 has 2000 rounds. with 8 belts of 2000 rounds stored internally in the ship for reloading the turrets. Each AK 130 has 340 rounds Each RBU-1000 has 24 rockets. It's more than enough.

@@Nothing_._Here Totally fascinating N.H. Thanks.

@@Nothing_._Here i wish that NATO warship capable of hunting submarine also equipped with similar ASW mortar as good as RBU-6000, but apparently most NATO ASW ships relies mostly to ASROC..

General Kenobi

What do you mean?

In fact, the Chinese navy has upgraded the Sovremenny destroyers it has by installing the YJ-12 with a 250km range instead of the 120km Moskit like the original Russian.

That’s the surface variant the naval variant is just over 30km ( still piss poor ) This destroyer isn’t an AA ship its design was more so an ASUW ship with a strong NGS capability for amphibious operations , their Self defence systems are really good but they’re definitely not an air warfare platform , I hope this helps with your question

There are also 4 ciws system..

@@pikapikacool which are old and unreliable, and their ability to shoot down modern missiles is doubted a lot. Gun based CIWS is far worse than things like Rim-116

@@gamm8939 still better than nothing.. and how gun based ciws works, they don't need good accuracy, they just need to create screen of bullets to protect the ship..

@@pikapikacool which is a highly debated tactic. what do they do if they fly in low? It doesn't seem like they can shoot that low. If you come from the front or the back it's literally impossible for them to shoot down the missile. A RIM-116 and Seas Sparrows in VLS are far more capable, and the west is far closer on laser CIWS than Russia. Also, you guys are missing my point. My point is that packing that many different systems on a ship like in a sandbox game makes the ship unreliable, hard to work on and dangerous

Well get to work making your own video and talk about it all you want.... It takes a special kinda whineyass person to complain about a completely free video that you watched on a completely free app... 😭

@@Military-TV Better to ignore criticism if you can't receive it graciously. You see, I took his critique as being constructive, albeit crude in delivery. PEACE

Great video. But now I gotta convert kilometers and kilograms into pounds and feet so I can have better context to the many sizes and weights I love learning new things. Thanks for the vid.

@@victoreous626 The problem is that 3 replies of greatly explained and elaborated criticism... they did disappear.

@@worldoftancraft But of course. Welcome to 2021 censored communications. Perhaps I should have kept out of the comms here.

PLA-Navy has better destroyers now compared to this Soviet relic.

8 total

@@enhancedutility266 no air defence system?

@@isakhanofbengal5936 it does the SA-8 gadfly

@@enhancedutility266 range?

8 x AShMs ( normal for a destroyer ) 2 x GMLS with a magazine total of 48 SAM missiles 2 x 130mm dual main guns 4 x CIWs ( most destroyers of 80s only had 1 CIWs ) It’s a heavily armed ship for that size

It dosent exist