As an IT guy in the middle of nowhere in Canada, I know more than the average neighbor about naval warfare hardware and stories thanks to you. Love the stuff, even 2000 miles from the ocean.
11:25 ish. The Goalkeeper CIWS is from the Netherlands. The RN no longer uses it, we switched to Phalanx which will probably hang around until it is eventually replaced by Dragonfire.
I was stationed in Norfolk on CG-17 when one of these ties up next to us. We had just acquired it and the Navy was translating things and analyzing analyzing its capabilities. Still had the SSN -2 series missiles.
@@Hiram1000 Seeing as several countries operating them later went over and joined NATO, a lot of Soviet era hardware (including ships) ended up in NATO hands and was thoroughly studied.
Actually, the smaller combatants are the warships that the USN has engaged in battle rather than destroyers and cruisers. The battles against the Libyan Navy, IRIN, and the Iraqi Navy involved mostly smaller surface combatants. The Libyan NANUCHKA Class PGG was sunk using air-delivered munitions. The IRIN units lost in Operation PRAYING MANTIS were sunk using air-delivered weapons but others were damaged severely. While in Operation CORPORATE, the RN did sink a cruiser and a submarine. Interestingly, an Argentine corvette was badly damaged by Royal Marines in South Georgia using infantry weapons. The Argentine Naval Air Arm and Air Force scored heavily against the RN which was an expensive lesson. An interesting sidebar of the Falklands War was the expenditure of large numbers of lightweight torpedoes against perceived subsurface threats that were not there. The Argentine submarine sunk by the RN was knocked out using antitank guided missiles from shipboard helicopters.
Royal Navy no longer has goalkeeper, as far as I know. The last ship I noticed it on was HMS illustrious, my old ship. Note it’s 30mm, not 20mm like the phalanx, too. Just a minor note, happy to see surface ships here!
The difference btw Tarantul I and II is the fire control system not the missiles. The radars can guide and support the missiles over a longer distance.
Had a chance to poke around in the Hiddensee at Battleship Cove while I was in the area for a job back when I was a traveling electrician. Very, very cool experience.
Great Video abut small vessels. But you have a mistake, she got 4 Tubins 2 × M 75 with 2x 3677 KW for crusing and 2 × M 70 with 2x 8826 KW for high speed. And Hull Nr 1241.2 ex Rudof Eglhofer was transfed in tue the US Navy as Nr 185NS9201 USS Hiddensee for testing. It saild with a mixt ex GDR and US Crew an is now a museumship at the USS Messachusetts Memorial, River Fall.
There is an ex-DDR Tarantul 1 in Peenemunde (where the V2 rockets were developed) as a museum ship. It is very interesting to wander round and see just how big the missile launchers are. Interestingly the guns were trained and elevated manually similar to the WWII Bofors mounts.
I’m no expert, but it sounds like this and the Pauk class are the ships the LCS wishes it was. Though, if we’re anthropomorphising a ship and attributing desires, I imagine most LCS’s would settle for being a rowboat.
Basically it's the ASuW package the US Navy thought the LCS would get, yes. Pauk is mostly not so much ASW (though it has some depth charge launchers) as a coastal patrol vessel for the KGB (now FSD) for fishery patrol and anti-smuggling operations.
My dad served as an engine mechanic on one of these while he was in the Bulgarian Navy. Said they broke down all the time and most of the systems kept failing
Yes. Romanian navy has 3 of those, bought new in early 90s. They are reliable as long as used and maintained properly. This ship is not a corvette. Corvettes have anti submarine capabilities while this class has none. The correct nomination would be fast attack missile boat. In Romanian Navy it is called NPR (Navă Purtătoare de Rachete). Meaning Missile Carrying Ship.
@@rexanguis214 Modern ASW relies on more complex assets. The newest Russian Navy small missile ship Buyan class has some defensive anti submarine systems. A corvette is capable to search, discover and attack submarines. And to do that usually a hull and a towed array sonars are needed, combined with ASW helicopter, which can deploy magneto-hydro-acustic buoys, dip sonar and launch torpedoes. These buoys are essential passive means able to detect a submarine. Also, the data from these buoys ensure the classificaton fo the contact, as much as depth, heading, speed, and even the type of the submarine. All these are performed by a group of ships, with these capabilities, called SAG, Submarine Attack Group, and with the help of ASW MPAs, aircraft like P3 Orion or newer P8 Poseidon. These have the capability to detect the anomalies in the environmental magnetic field, caused by an underway immersed submarine. That reduces the search area. Also, these aircraft are capable to deploy the alrwady mentioned buoys, can do the clasification of the contact and even engage the submarine with torpedoes. So, a sonar and some torpedoes put on a boat are not really making it anti submarine capable.
Can you do a video on the Ambassador 3 class? When I was at NAS Pensacola, they were there training the Egyptians on operating them and sea trials prior to being sent to Egypt.
14:50 vietnam and india are two user of it , vietnam buy 2 from russia and acquire license to built 6 at our shipyard , india not sure how many of this class they acquire but they also built them domestic under license
In 1967 Egyptian Styx missiles fired from Komar class boats sank the Israeli destroyer Eilat. The first successful use of sea launched cruise missiles. The Israelis soon improved their radar jamming equipment and the threat was eliminated.
What amazed me about the *Ivanovets* (Tarantul III) sinking (Feb 2nd 2024) was that some of the naval drones could stick around and record it sinking. You’re really owning the defenses of this ship and the Russian Navy, especially as this took place on a patrol of the open sea outside the entrance to a coastal lagoon. Its amazing not only did this ship’s small boat defences turn out not to exist, but knowing this it had no cover from other vessels. Just an all-round failure focused on big ship kills and wide-open to remote one-shot missile boats. *Jeune École* tactics turned against a ship made in that very philosophy. Edit - correcting the sinking date and location based on star angle location data from the drone footage.
well these smaller ships have short range so it is really for coastal defense. They expend all their missiles and return to port to rearm. They arent expected to hold and fight
Goalkeeper CIWS is Dutch and is used (or was) by NATO navies. It is a 30mm system based on GE GAU-8 (from A-10) 7 barrel cannon firing either depleted uranium or tungsten core rounds. US Phalanx CIWS uses GE M61A1 20mm gun.
Even as an extremely proud American, I can honestly say that is a pretty gnarly looking ship! It reminds me of a lifted short bed pick up LOL it may not be the biggest chassis in the world, but she's got some meat to her where it counts haha
Imagine coming at this with one of the Ukrainian jetski-based USVs. Once you get close up it'll be pretty much defenceless because depending on how much depression you can get from those CIWS at the back the low profile of the USV means it can sneak in under the guns even if it's spotted. I guess it'd come down to whether the EW suite can disable the drone. (probably)
@@jhonbus Yea, it would be funny if a Ukrainian USV went in the back and reamed her out. 🤣 I wonder what the Soviet doctrine was that produced this design. Maybe, like an Alfa SSN, they were supposed to sprint out, engage and fire off their missiles? After that, they could race back to port, relying on their CIWS and high speed evasive maneuvers to protect them from any return fire.
I don’t know how good they are, but Russian boats and IFVs look like GI Joe Cobra vehicles from the 80s, with all the missiles and rockets and auto cannons stuck all over them. So they win on style points in my book.
There is a Tarantula 1 boat, former East German Navy at Battleship Cove in Fall River, Ma @ Battleship Cove, USS MASSACHUSETTS MUSEUM ships DD 851, J P KENNEDY & PT boat & ww2 Sub also. I wasn’t impressed with it at all would crush like a soda can.
I think it's impressive for what it is, and for it's speed, but it's a different type of ship and smaller and less impressive than the surrounding ships at battleship cove so it's easy to be dismissive of it, but it's made to be a super light fast ship killer, same role as the pt boats, and one of the roles of destroyers, it's an interesting vessel if anything.
I’m not comparing it to the other exhibits. I looked at with the experience of a former U.S. Navy sailor. For a PT type attack craft it has its merits: speed, offensive weaponry etc. but the question is how reliable is it. The Gearing class destroyer like the J.P. Kennedy was (reliable) & besides politics probably why it was kept around for 30+ years on average. It became limited by its size being unable to accommodate modern weapons systems & electronics & air conditioning that went with them. The bottom line is you take it out before it can do you harm.
I imagine it would be easy for example for an Arleigh Burke to take out, but what if there are 5 of them, that's a lot of targets to take out, and a lot of missiles too, its like a pt boat, fast, lightly armed and no armor whatsoever, but it does carry one weapon that if used well and with a bit of luck can cause a lot of damage, just one or two anti ship missiles getting through is all it takes. I think for what it is its pretty impressive, it has a lot of firepower for what would otherwise be a large patrol boat. You have to keep in mind the doctrine the vessel was made for. I think in a shooting war based on what we've seen of the Russian navy in the past.... over a century... of mediocrity its not gonna get that hit off, but in capable hands it could do some damage before getting crushed
The Russians operate in the same fashion as the US in certain aspects, the Boat would have been entirely capable of firing an 80km Missile in wartime. Should the Russians agree that they deserve them and/or need them. It also forces the Egyptian, Yemen, polish navies to keep relations with them in order to keep the capabilities open. Egypt, Syria and a lot of places don’t have good kit. But the stuff they need would be brought over in the thousands if they needed them. Which allows Russia to also go to the U.S. and NATO and say “hey what will you give us for not supplying manpads, anti ship missiles, tanks and air defences to this country” And they find the path where they get stuff from everyone.
Aron, love your work, god bless.........why do you think the Coast guard doesn't operate submarines..........perhaps even a cheap AIP sub............god bless
@@ferky123 false...........the cg even had cruisers in wwii and helped the marines with land bombardement..........there is no reason why cg shouldn't have some subs to guard the coast
Sorry but could you do a video on maybe speculating on ways to remake/fix the LCS ships especially the independence class ships. could you maybe fill in the deployment bay and turn the entire flight deck/ after deck into a truly massive VLS system mounting like 3 or 400 missiles for fleet defense or maybe launching malds or something.
The LCS program is beyond salvation, especially the Independence version A single full length 8 cell VLS module weighs 33000 lbs empty and without associated equipment You're looking at 750 tons for 400 cells - empty If it breaks down, you're also 400 cells short ...
How the hell has not a single billionaire bought like three or five of these things and sell them as a badass wolf pack to the Catalina wine mixer just because you can LMAOO
Here's something I wonder: I assume that if you shoot a big missile from one side of your vessel that it will cause a force that rocks the ship. So do you just shoot one missile from each side or do you just tell everyone to hang on to something? Personally, it almost makes me seasick to think of it, although I have always found that I don't get so seasick when I understand why a ship is moving the way that it is moving, which is why I went to sea in a fishing boat and was fine but the boat to Catalina made me terribly seasick since I could see the waves coming to upset the fishing boat so I could mentally prepare.
Tarantul V obviously quadruples the number of missiles, from 4 to 16 Meaning it carries more Harpoonski's than most western surface ships carry Harpoons
If I am not mistaken, these Tarantuls also had anti-submarine warfare capabilities. They certainly would be bait for western submarines stealing into Russian waters. Doubtlessly they would be blown to bits by any torpedo carried by a western submarine given their small size and light construction. One of these vessels HAS sunk an Israeli warship with a Styx missile.
Well, a Mark 48 would literally loft the vessel out of the water, but it'd give that torpedo a run for its money if it actually moved at its rated speed.
It's very small target for a torpedo and difficult to hit and probably costs about the same as big sophisticated torpedo. And it's not sumbarine hunter, and probably will be covered by anti submarine ships in case of operating and possible danger from subs.
@@AlexanderTch 56 meters long, not that difficult to be effectively targeted by a torpedo. Especially given many anti-ship torpedoes detonate 2 meters or more beneath the keel or directly behind the screws. Under the keel breaks the ship's back, splitting it in half and behind the screws blows the propeller shaft seals, causing massive flooding.
The sinking of the INS EILAT was achieved by the Egyptian Navy in 1968 off Port Said by KOMAR PTGs while using moored freighters as a screen. It was a good use of shipping to complicate the defense of the EILAT which was patrolling off Port Said. Four STYX missile hits were scored by the KOMARs on EILAT. HARPOON was originally intended to address the threat posed by SHADDOCK-armed submarines of the Soviet Navy. SHADDOCK was a long-range antiship cruise missile (ASCM) which could only be launched from a surfaced position. The radar-guided HARPOON was meant to provide P-3 ORION MPAs with an ability to quickly engage a surface target emitting the related fire control signals associated with the SHADDOCK. The USN employed STANDARD missiles fitted with antiradiation seeker heads as a stopgap measure until HARPOON would arrive. These weapons were called the Interim Surface-to-Surface Missile (ISSM) and could be fired from shipboard SAM launchers, ASROC “pepperbox” launchers, and the launchers fitted board the PGGs once used by the USN.
@1:07 isn't that a bit misleading? Yes Bulgaria is on the European continent. But it was also part of the Eastern block and a soviet country. It seems a bit of a werid statement given that you could just as well say that a north American country purchased soviet arms while talking about cuba. Its probably nit picking. But as this is an educational video, i figure its worth considering.
Maybe they built two prototypes on the principle of "measure twice, cut once." However, I once watch a Russian TH-camr who built things and he said that the Russian expression is "measure seven times, cut once." The principle is basically the same though and building seven would certainly be ridiculously expensive. And that is probably half of my knowledge of anything Russian, excepting this video and the last one I watched about the ships that they have. Imagine how awesome the technology might be for the world if we decided to not fight other countries or each other...
Sure, but not very far. They have food storage for 10 days for entire crew and fuel tanks enough to go 1500 miles on speed 12 knots. So, it can cruise in blue waters but not too far unless it's accompanied by fuel tanker and food refrigerator.
Aron, hey buddy love your work, god bless you............why do you think the USA doesn't have any guided missile boats, under 1,000 tons...............and why don't most guided missile boats have a small weatherized tied down like either small anti sub helicopter or even this day in age a mq-8c, god bless
same reason the F-15C is the F-15C and not an F-15A. Enough differences to warrant the different designation. Mind don't KNOW whether the Soviets use different class designations for them, but we do to distinguish the capabilities.
My dude, this thing can keep up with a torpedo unless the torpedo is fired at close range. It's a tiny little corvette anyway, you wouldn't want to use a torpedo on this if you didn't have to. Not that it wouldn't work, a standard torpedo will blow any sub 1000 ton ship in half, but the torpedo is too expensive.
Very happy to see the channel not being afraid to branch off to surface warships as well. Love the content and keep up the amazing work!
I toured one of these, the Hiddensee, at Battleship Cove in Fall River, MA. Very interesting ship!
'How many weapons do you want on our new corvette, comrade?'
'All of them, Dimitri. _All_ of them.'
Ended in huge explosion
With submarine capabilities, Sasha?😂
With the exception of the weapon that can stop a small explosive packed drone hey ?
As an IT guy in the middle of nowhere in Canada, I know more than the average neighbor about naval warfare hardware and stories thanks to you. Love the stuff, even 2000 miles from the ocean.
11:25 ish. The Goalkeeper CIWS is from the Netherlands. The RN no longer uses it, we switched to Phalanx which will probably hang around until it is eventually replaced by Dragonfire.
I was stationed in Norfolk on CG-17 when one of these ties up next to us. We had just acquired it and the Navy was translating things and analyzing analyzing its capabilities. Still had the SSN -2 series missiles.
Acquired it?
Sure. Lol.
@@Hiram1000 Seeing as several countries operating them later went over and joined NATO, a lot of Soviet era hardware (including ships) ended up in NATO hands and was thoroughly studied.
Came from German Navy after retirement on their end for studies (Hiddensee currently a museum ship in Fall River, U.S.A)
You can tour that ship in Mass at Battleship cove. They call it the 'Hiddensee' now.
@@Hiram1000We bought it from the unified Germans.
Look forward to every video Mr Jive! Thank you
A great design: after a slow start it’s really exploded on the naval scene this year! Hope to see more of the same.
I really like that you’re going over smaller boats that the general public is even less likely to know about or ever hear about.
Actually, the smaller combatants are the warships that the USN has engaged in battle rather than destroyers and cruisers. The battles against the Libyan Navy, IRIN, and the Iraqi Navy involved mostly smaller surface combatants. The Libyan NANUCHKA Class PGG was sunk using air-delivered munitions. The IRIN units lost in Operation PRAYING MANTIS were sunk using air-delivered weapons but others were damaged severely. While in Operation CORPORATE, the RN did sink a cruiser and a submarine. Interestingly, an Argentine corvette was badly damaged by Royal Marines in South Georgia using infantry weapons. The Argentine Naval Air Arm and Air Force scored heavily against the RN which was an expensive lesson. An interesting sidebar of the Falklands War was the expenditure of large numbers of lightweight torpedoes against perceived subsurface threats that were not there. The Argentine submarine sunk by the RN was knocked out using antitank guided missiles from shipboard helicopters.
I appreciate these documentaries/briefs. Thanks, man!
Having those missile launchers on the side make a hell of an explosion when hit by a drone boat. Ivanovets sure went down quick.
Royal Navy no longer has goalkeeper, as far as I know. The last ship I noticed it on was HMS illustrious, my old ship. Note it’s 30mm, not 20mm like the phalanx, too. Just a minor note, happy to see surface ships here!
The difference btw Tarantul I and II is the fire control system not the missiles. The radars can guide and support the missiles over a longer distance.
That's a fair point and something I should have mentioned. My explanation is simplified so technically wrong.
@SubBrief sometimes you have to simplify things for a video!
But it is nice for somebody in the comments to add more detail.
Can they shoot down a jet ski packing a punch though me harty
Thanks!
No problem!
Had a chance to poke around in the Hiddensee at Battleship Cove while I was in the area for a job back when I was a traveling electrician. Very, very cool experience.
Thanks for all the videos m8, very informative and detailed.
Great Video abut small vessels. But you have a mistake, she got 4 Tubins 2 × M 75 with 2x 3677 KW for crusing and 2 × M 70 with 2x 8826 KW for high speed. And Hull Nr 1241.2 ex Rudof Eglhofer was transfed in tue the US Navy as Nr 185NS9201 USS Hiddensee for testing. It saild with a mixt ex GDR and US Crew an is now a museumship at the USS Messachusetts Memorial, River Fall.
These smaller vessels always fascinated me, small crew, hefty punches, they are staff of romantic war stories, so much potential...
Amazing content!
There is an ex-DDR Tarantul 1 in Peenemunde (where the V2 rockets were developed) as a museum ship. It is very interesting to wander round and see just how big the missile launchers are.
Interestingly the guns were trained and elevated manually similar to the WWII Bofors mounts.
Battleship Cove in Massachusetts (home of the USS Massachusetts) has the Hiddensee, a Tarantul I you can go see RIGHT NOW
I’m no expert, but it sounds like this and the Pauk class are the ships the LCS wishes it was. Though, if we’re anthropomorphising a ship and attributing desires, I imagine most LCS’s would settle for being a rowboat.
With just one oar missing.
Basically it's the ASuW package the US Navy thought the LCS would get, yes.
Pauk is mostly not so much ASW (though it has some depth charge launchers) as a coastal patrol vessel for the KGB (now FSD) for fishery patrol and anti-smuggling operations.
Neat little ship. It's better armed than some older Frigates. Quite a dangerous little unit.
Even better now it’s underwater
Cool video on a subject not normally covered.
RIP TARANTUL, PROMOTED TO SUBMARINE 😂😂😂😂
My dad served as an engine mechanic on one of these while he was in the Bulgarian Navy. Said they broke down all the time and most of the systems kept failing
LMAO
Yes. Romanian navy has 3 of those, bought new in early 90s. They are reliable as long as used and maintained properly.
This ship is not a corvette. Corvettes have anti submarine capabilities while this class has none. The correct nomination would be fast attack missile boat. In Romanian Navy it is called NPR (Navă Purtătoare de Rachete). Meaning Missile Carrying Ship.
@@1zanglang An american boat could be plenty reliable...............sonars and light torpedos would not take up much space
@@rexanguis214 Did you miss that we just had to decommission an entire class of brand new ships?
@@rexanguis214 Modern ASW relies on more complex assets. The newest Russian Navy small missile ship Buyan class has some defensive anti submarine systems.
A corvette is capable to search, discover and attack submarines. And to do that usually a hull and a towed array sonars are needed, combined with ASW helicopter, which can deploy magneto-hydro-acustic buoys, dip sonar and launch torpedoes. These buoys are essential passive means able to detect a submarine. Also, the data from these buoys ensure the classificaton fo the contact, as much as depth, heading, speed, and even the type of the submarine. All these are performed by a group of ships, with these capabilities, called SAG, Submarine Attack Group, and with the help of ASW MPAs, aircraft like P3 Orion or newer P8 Poseidon. These have the capability to detect the anomalies in the environmental magnetic field, caused by an underway immersed submarine. That reduces the search area. Also, these aircraft are capable to deploy the alrwady mentioned buoys, can do the clasification of the contact and even engage the submarine with torpedoes.
So, a sonar and some torpedoes put on a boat are not really making it anti submarine capable.
Any updates?
Can you do a video on the Ambassador 3 class? When I was at NAS Pensacola, they were there training the Egyptians on operating them and sea trials prior to being sent to Egypt.
14:50 vietnam and india are two user of it , vietnam buy 2 from russia and acquire license to built 6 at our shipyard , india not sure how many of this class they acquire but they also built them domestic under license
Oh dear this ship is now a submarine.
Now the tarantul has been promoted as a submarine
Its a fish apartment now
In 1967 Egyptian Styx missiles fired from Komar class boats sank the Israeli destroyer Eilat. The first successful use of sea launched cruise missiles. The Israelis soon improved their radar jamming equipment and the threat was eliminated.
The threat was never eliminiated, because soviet anti ship missiles also improved.
but noise jamming from the target can't deny the weapon bearing and elevation information, only range information
Eliminated ? Sure...
@@Красиваясоветскаядевушка that's why Soviet anti ship missiles were improved because the weapon became obsolete once a counter measure was found.
Can you name me another Israeli warship to be attacked/destroyed in this way, and with the same weapon system.
What amazed me about the *Ivanovets* (Tarantul III) sinking (Feb 2nd 2024) was that some of the naval drones could stick around and record it sinking. You’re really owning the defenses of this ship and the Russian Navy, especially as this took place on a patrol of the open sea outside the entrance to a coastal lagoon. Its amazing not only did this ship’s small boat defences turn out not to exist, but knowing this it had no cover from other vessels. Just an all-round failure focused on big ship kills and wide-open to remote one-shot missile boats. *Jeune École* tactics turned against a ship made in that very philosophy.
Edit - correcting the sinking date and location based on star angle location data from the drone footage.
Soviet surface fleet doctrine summed up - “Glass Cannons”… kinda dig it
well these smaller ships have short range so it is really for coastal defense. They expend all their missiles and return to port to rearm. They arent expected to hold and fight
I always have a soft spot for small missile boat.
Goalkeeper CIWS is Dutch and is used (or was) by NATO navies. It is a 30mm system based on GE GAU-8 (from A-10) 7 barrel cannon firing either depleted uranium or tungsten core rounds. US Phalanx CIWS uses GE M61A1 20mm gun.
Perhaps the small 76mm Magazine only contains AA shells, therefore the AA designation for the gun?🤔
It's not the size of the ship; it's the integrity + discipline of the crew 😉
Great video! You did a brief a few years back where you described all the divisions on and the crew on a boat? What was it called? Thanks.
Thanks Jive!
Even as an extremely proud American, I can honestly say that is a pretty gnarly looking ship! It reminds me of a lifted short bed pick up LOL it may not be the biggest chassis in the world, but she's got some meat to her where it counts haha
Harpoon henry fade out had me chuckling.
Interesting fact, the boat that usa got from germany in 97 for testing was able to hit 52 knots. Now it is in the new jersey's museum.
Seems like an early, but actually effective version of, the LCS ;-)
Interesting CIWS placement. Kind of like a porcupine? Show the enemy the stern and scuttle away at 42 knots? Anyway, good video. 👍
Imagine coming at this with one of the Ukrainian jetski-based USVs. Once you get close up it'll be pretty much defenceless because depending on how much depression you can get from those CIWS at the back the low profile of the USV means it can sneak in under the guns even if it's spotted. I guess it'd come down to whether the EW suite can disable the drone. (probably)
@@jhonbus
Yea, it would be funny if a Ukrainian USV went in the back and reamed her out. 🤣
I wonder what the Soviet doctrine was that produced this design. Maybe, like an Alfa SSN, they were supposed to sprint out, engage and fire off their missiles? After that, they could race back to port, relying on their CIWS and high speed evasive maneuvers to protect them from any return fire.
I don’t know how good they are, but Russian boats and IFVs look like GI Joe Cobra vehicles from the 80s, with all the missiles and rockets and auto cannons stuck all over them. So they win on style points in my book.
Last night, you got your answer 😄
It is a fish apartment now.
Indian navy had a very successfull run with the Styx missiles and the small missile boats. Operation Trident and Python in 1971 war.
According to WSJ…Russia and China Sent Large Naval Patrol Near Alaska. This might be a good one to discuss on this format! Thanks
What happened to the video about the Reis-class submarines that you said you were going to release weeks ago?
There is a Tarantula 1 boat, former East German Navy at Battleship Cove in Fall River, Ma @ Battleship Cove, USS MASSACHUSETTS MUSEUM ships DD 851, J P KENNEDY & PT boat & ww2 Sub also. I wasn’t impressed with it at all would crush like a soda can.
I think it's impressive for what it is, and for it's speed, but it's a different type of ship and smaller and less impressive than the surrounding ships at battleship cove so it's easy to be dismissive of it, but it's made to be a super light fast ship killer, same role as the pt boats, and one of the roles of destroyers, it's an interesting vessel if anything.
I’m not comparing it to the other exhibits. I looked at with the experience of a former U.S. Navy sailor. For a PT type attack craft it has its merits: speed, offensive weaponry etc. but the question is how reliable is it. The Gearing class destroyer like the J.P. Kennedy was (reliable) & besides politics probably why it was kept around for 30+ years on average. It became limited by its size being unable to accommodate modern weapons systems & electronics & air conditioning that went with them. The bottom line is you take it out before it can do you harm.
I imagine it would be easy for example for an Arleigh Burke to take out, but what if there are 5 of them, that's a lot of targets to take out, and a lot of missiles too, its like a pt boat, fast, lightly armed and no armor whatsoever, but it does carry one weapon that if used well and with a bit of luck can cause a lot of damage, just one or two anti ship missiles getting through is all it takes. I think for what it is its pretty impressive, it has a lot of firepower for what would otherwise be a large patrol boat. You have to keep in mind the doctrine the vessel was made for. I think in a shooting war based on what we've seen of the Russian navy in the past.... over a century... of mediocrity its not gonna get that hit off, but in capable hands it could do some damage before getting crushed
Arlight Burks radar can track 200 targets and engage over 40 at once. So 5 of these missile boats and 35 air targets in one volley.
The Russians operate in the same fashion as the US in certain aspects, the Boat would have been entirely capable of firing an 80km Missile in wartime. Should the Russians agree that they deserve them and/or need them.
It also forces the Egyptian, Yemen, polish navies to keep relations with them in order to keep the capabilities open.
Egypt, Syria and a lot of places don’t have good kit. But the stuff they need would be brought over in the thousands if they needed them.
Which allows Russia to also go to the U.S. and NATO and say “hey what will you give us for not supplying manpads, anti ship missiles, tanks and air defences to this country”
And they find the path where they get stuff from everyone.
Thanks
Aron, love your work, god bless.........why do you think the Coast guard doesn't operate submarines..........perhaps even a cheap AIP sub............god bless
Because the role of the Coast Guard is search and rescue around the coast not playing with the big boys.
@@ferky123 false...........the cg even had cruisers in wwii and helped the marines with land bombardement..........there is no reason why cg shouldn't have some subs to guard the coast
Sorry but could you do a video on maybe speculating on ways to remake/fix the LCS ships especially the independence class ships. could you maybe fill in the deployment bay and turn the entire flight deck/ after deck into a truly massive VLS system mounting like 3 or 400 missiles for fleet defense or maybe launching malds or something.
The LCS program is beyond salvation, especially the Independence version
A single full length 8 cell VLS module weighs 33000 lbs empty and without associated equipment
You're looking at 750 tons for 400 cells - empty
If it breaks down, you're also 400 cells short ...
Useful submarine.
How the hell has not a single billionaire bought like three or five of these things and sell them as a badass wolf pack to the Catalina wine mixer just because you can LMAOO
Here's something I wonder: I assume that if you shoot a big missile from one side of your vessel that it will cause a force that rocks the ship. So do you just shoot one missile from each side or do you just tell everyone to hang on to something? Personally, it almost makes me seasick to think of it, although I have always found that I don't get so seasick when I understand why a ship is moving the way that it is moving, which is why I went to sea in a fishing boat and was fine but the boat to Catalina made me terribly seasick since I could see the waves coming to upset the fishing boat so I could mentally prepare.
It’s a missile, it propels itself, it’s not like a gun where you have conservation of momentum
Cool little ship
Dude I just looked at your Playlist, you like parkway drive as well????????? That's awesome have you ever seen them in concert
Tarantul V obviously quadruples the number of missiles, from 4 to 16
Meaning it carries more Harpoonski's than most western surface ships carry Harpoons
AVL Group is trying to pitch bulgarian corvettes to Australia. Whats your yhoughts on those?
Goalkeeper (Dutch, exported to many countries) uses a 30mm cannon, not 20mm like Phalanx.
missile load of fighter jet or truck is not exactly cost effective for coastal defence i think
If I am not mistaken, these Tarantuls also had anti-submarine warfare capabilities. They certainly would be bait for western submarines stealing into Russian waters. Doubtlessly they would be blown to bits by any torpedo carried by a western submarine given their small size and light construction. One of these vessels HAS sunk an Israeli warship with a Styx missile.
Was that sinking the one that pushed the USN into its accelerated development of Harpoon? I know there was such an incident.
Well, a Mark 48 would literally loft the vessel out of the water, but it'd give that torpedo a run for its money if it actually moved at its rated speed.
It's very small target for a torpedo and difficult to hit and probably costs about the same as big sophisticated torpedo. And it's not sumbarine hunter, and probably will be covered by anti submarine ships in case of operating and possible danger from subs.
@@AlexanderTch 56 meters long, not that difficult to be effectively targeted by a torpedo. Especially given many anti-ship torpedoes detonate 2 meters or more beneath the keel or directly behind the screws. Under the keel breaks the ship's back, splitting it in half and behind the screws blows the propeller shaft seals, causing massive flooding.
The sinking of the INS EILAT was achieved by the Egyptian Navy in 1968 off Port Said by KOMAR PTGs while using moored freighters as a screen. It was a good use of shipping to complicate the defense of the EILAT which was patrolling off Port Said. Four STYX missile hits were scored by the KOMARs on EILAT.
HARPOON was originally intended to address the threat posed by SHADDOCK-armed submarines of the Soviet Navy. SHADDOCK was a long-range antiship cruise missile (ASCM) which could only be launched from a surfaced position. The radar-guided HARPOON was meant to provide P-3 ORION MPAs with an ability to quickly engage a surface target emitting the related fire control signals associated with the SHADDOCK. The USN employed STANDARD missiles fitted with antiradiation seeker heads as a stopgap measure until HARPOON would arrive. These weapons were called the Interim Surface-to-Surface Missile (ISSM) and could be fired from shipboard SAM launchers, ASROC “pepperbox” launchers, and the launchers fitted board the PGGs once used by the USN.
More small boats please.
Hi Sub, The Rustkies just love putting missiles outside their ships.
@1:07 isn't that a bit misleading? Yes Bulgaria is on the European continent. But it was also part of the Eastern block and a soviet country.
It seems a bit of a werid statement given that you could just as well say that a north American country purchased soviet arms while talking about cuba.
Its probably nit picking. But as this is an educational video, i figure its worth considering.
Maybe they built two prototypes on the principle of "measure twice, cut once." However, I once watch a Russian TH-camr who built things and he said that the Russian expression is "measure seven times, cut once." The principle is basically the same though and building seven would certainly be ridiculously expensive. And that is probably half of my knowledge of anything Russian, excepting this video and the last one I watched about the ships that they have. Imagine how awesome the technology might be for the world if we decided to not fight other countries or each other...
I think Battleship Cover in MA has one of these.
like yemen?
What's the difference of the Nanuchka class? They look identical
I think we have a Nanuchka brief as well around here somewhere...
Do they have anti-splody-jetski systems?
Slobber Ukraine much, LMAO!
They're called CIWS.
Can these ships cruise with a blue water, open ocean fleet?
Sure, but not very far. They have food storage for 10 days for entire crew and fuel tanks enough to go 1500 miles on speed 12 knots. So, it can cruise in blue waters but not too far unless it's accompanied by fuel tanker and food refrigerator.
Is the pentagon concerned about Russian Missile and electronic warfare tech? I would think so.
Some call the KH-35 (NATO SS-N-25) Harpoonski.
Very nice brief
Aron, hey buddy love your work, god bless you............why do you think the USA doesn't have any guided missile boats, under 1,000 tons...............and why don't most guided missile boats have a small weatherized tied down like either small anti sub helicopter or even this day in age a mq-8c, god bless
Because we don't need them. Canada is an ally and we could kick Mexico's ass if we needed to.
It doesn't fit the way the USN operates or thinks (like: big)
Besides, its allies have them where they make sense
-1 of these last night
Just a small correction. Yemen is not in Africa. It's close, but it is on the Arabian peninsula.
Why does it make a whole new ship variant just because you change to a different missile?
different applications/different sensors/electronics/personel. also could be for financial reasons budget allocations. is my guess
same reason the F-15C is the F-15C and not an F-15A. Enough differences to warrant the different designation.
Mind don't KNOW whether the Soviets use different class designations for them, but we do to distinguish the capabilities.
That initial picture is wild. Its as if they are just backblasting thier own bridge when they fire thier anti ship missile lol wtf
The SS-N-25....It's the Harpoonski
Uh... Yemen isn't in Africa, it's in the middle east. it's directly south of Saudi Arabia, which is definitely not in Africa...
everyone goes to war (like no allies)
which country one on one is standing right up to the US and duking it out in terms of naval+air assets?
China is the only possibility and of course they only stand a chance if they gank most of our supers relativley quickly.
One of your counterparts released a brief on the chinese type 054 today, the CCP trolls were pounding their chests loudly
Don't really know the Russian people in general know this missile boat. but, a lot of Indian people surely does.
Я служил на таком, что ты хотел сказать
Looks like a baby Slava class ship minus the SAM systems.
-1
Now underwater research project
Its not Tar-AAAAAAn-TAAAAAAL
Its Tah-rah-n-tul...like tarantula...which is what it means.
🙂🇦🇺
Mmm looks like drone bait.
Yemen is technically an Asian country.
Not technically it is
Yemen is an Asian nation not African.
Russia makes such heavily armed ships and yet Ukraine still manages to hit them.
"the US manages to sink it",
(fixed your statement for you)
All the more reason for carrier CAP to take it out before it gets within range.
Если твой гребаный авианосец сам себя не уничтожит, как Форрестол🤣
Crabs are waiting, they think its ruskis crew is tasty.
Крабы давно подсели на немецких подводников, да и английских с американскими слопали побольше русских, умник
I just see a very explosive torpedo target.
My dude, this thing can keep up with a torpedo unless the torpedo is fired at close range. It's a tiny little corvette anyway, you wouldn't want to use a torpedo on this if you didn't have to. Not that it wouldn't work, a standard torpedo will blow any sub 1000 ton ship in half, but the torpedo is too expensive.
Yemen is Asia