A modern frigate?

Arjen said:
You'd just need to line up a largish number of corvettes. Which aren't free. I won't pin you down on SSgtC's 100 corvettes, but at some point, a largish number of corvettes will cost rather more, AND will take longer to build, than a Burke.
Click to expand...
Eventually sure but 100 corvettes can project power in more places at one time than 1 burke can.

If a fleet has more smaller ships they can assert localized sea control forcing the fleet with fewer large ships to try and play a game of whack-a-mole to try maintain freedom of movement.

Where as the smaller fleet can swarm the the larger ship where it is if it’s in a place where sea control is absolutely critical.
 
Jimmo952 said:
No. The LCS disable the Bueke but did not sink it.

They were on the same side of the war game.

The LCS nroke down and the Burke was falling too close behind. The Burke was estimated to have taken some damage in the collision.
Click to expand...
Considering I got my info from an officer involved in going to need you to provide a source for those claims.

But doesn’t matter disabled or sunk, disabled burke probably isn’t making it home during wartime regardless.
 
Scott Kenny said:
I look at a frigate as a convoy escort and ASW-heavy escort for the carriers. General convoy escorting requires a decent air defense capability. I don't know that Aegis is required, but you will want a pretty good Air defense system regardless. SM-2s, not just ESSMs.

Aegis means a large hull so that the big air search radars are stable, but I think that would be necessary for any convoy air defense radar and missile system.

ASW-heavy means rafted propulsion and other hull silencing methods designed into the hull from the beginning, plus a couple different towed array sonars.

I don't think you can build a cheap-and-quick hull with everything required for that job. IF the USN contractually guaranteed no design changes during construction, they might be able to get the Great Lakes ship builders to make a bunch of them. Still talking about a 6500-7500 ton ship, though, due to the radar stability requirements.
Click to expand...
I bet if you split 4 arrays between fwd and aft superstructures you probably wouldn’t need that large of a ship.

I have no clue what the costs of other radar systems are, but I very much bet you could build an FFG around 5k tons and around $1b that could provide long range air defense and good ASW capability.
 
johnpjones1775 said:
I bet if you split 4 arrays between fwd and aft superstructures you probably wouldn’t need that large of a ship.

I have no clue what the costs of other radar systems are, but I very much bet you could build an FFG around 5k tons and around $1b that could provide long range air defense and good ASW capability.
Click to expand...
$1 billion, sure. 5000 tons, I doubt it. Even the Russian Gorshkovs are above that and they're stuffed to the gills.

It would cost very little, maybe $60 million, to just make the frigate a 6000-tonner.
 
johnpjones1775 said:
Considering I got my info from an officer involved in going to need you to provide a source for those claims.

But doesn’t matter disabled or sunk, disabled burke probably isn’t making it home during wartime regardless.
Click to expand...

I'm just teasing you.

The Navy though has proclaimed the LCS to be unsurvivable in a modern Naval war. The Navy wants to retire them. All of them.

That should tell you something.
 
Last edited:
Naval engagements between major units has not taken place since World War 2.

The Royal Navy came closest with its sinking of the cruiser Belgrano (not contested by the cruiser) and sinking an Egyptian ship in 1956 I think.

Various Iranian, Iraqi and Libyan minor units have been sunk and Israel lost the war built destroyer Eilat to a missile attack. The US has had ships damaged by small units and terrorists.

Most of the time warships act more like police than soldiers. Their helicopters are often useful in this role but most of the rest of their costly weapons see little use.

This can sometimes even be embarassing as in the incident when a high end British frigate had some of its crew surrender to the Iranians.

The Cold War made life easier as both sides had an "enemy fleet in being" to arm themselves against. Mercifully we never found out which side had made the better choices.

So we have either to look back some 80 years to the engagements in WW2 or use the as yet untested Chinese Navy as our measure of threat.

We have of course been here before. The Russians and Japanese fleets who met at the opening of the 20th Century were untried. It is not hard to guess, however, that the modern Japanese might inflict a similar beating on Russia or China.

The carrier battle group is still a US monopoly.. No other country can deploy such a well trained and equipped force. But counters to that force are being devised by China and Russia which might prove one day as effective as aircraft with torpedoes and bombs were against battleships.

The humble frigate will have to be ready for both environments. The daily grind of policing and training and that possibly short combat in a war.
 
CV12Hornet said:
$1 billion, sure. 5000 tons, I doubt it. Even the Russian Gorshkovs are above that and they're stuffed to the gills.

It would cost very little, maybe $60 million, to just make the frigate a 6000-tonner.
Click to expand...
Smaller ships can be made in more yards.
 
Jimmo952 said:
I'm just teasing you.

The Navy though has proclaimed the LCS to be unsurvivable in a modern Naval war. The Navy wants to retire them. All of them.

That should tell you something.
Click to expand...
All ships are ‘unsurvivable’ these days.

No the navy doesn’t want to retire them, that’s misinformation.

5th and 7th fleets can’t get enough of them, and are fighting over who get them.

One option they’re looking at to alleviate the issue is a new class of MCM (hopefully the city class MCM being adopted by some European navies.) if not just building more LCSes, which is again unlikely because the ships are politically poisoned.


www.defensenews.com

Navy considers non-LCS option for mine countermeasures in 5th Fleet

The Navy is considering forward-deploying LCSs to Bahrain or relying on expeditionary mine countermeasures companies to conduct some of the mission.
www.defensenews.com www.defensenews.com
 
uk 75 said:
Naval engagements between major units has not taken place since World War 2.

The Royal Navy came closest with its sinking of the cruiser Belgrano (not contested by the cruiser) and sinking an Egyptian ship in 1956 I think.

Various Iranian, Iraqi and Libyan minor units have been sunk and Israel lost the war built destroyer Eilat to a missile attack. The US has had ships damaged by small units and terrorists.

Most of the time warships act more like police than soldiers. Their helicopters are often useful in this role but most of the rest of their costly weapons see little use.

This can sometimes even be embarassing as in the incident when a high end British frigate had some of its crew surrender to the Iranians.

The Cold War made life easier as both sides had an "enemy fleet in being" to arm themselves against. Mercifully we never found out which side had made the better choices.

So we have either to look back some 80 years to the engagements in WW2 or use the as yet untested Chinese Navy as our measure of threat.

We have of course been here before. The Russians and Japanese fleets who met at the opening of the 20th Century were untried. It is not hard to guess, however, that the modern Japanese might inflict a similar beating on Russia or China.

The carrier battle group is still a US monopoly.. No other country can deploy such a well trained and equipped force. But counters to that force are being devised by China and Russia which might prove one day as effective as aircraft with torpedoes and bombs were against battleships.

The humble frigate will have to be ready for both environments. The daily grind of policing and training and that possibly short combat in a war.
Click to expand...
I believe heavily in the idea of a heavy OPV/light corvette to do the majority of a nation’s peacetime naval missions.

Something cheap to build, but can actually do something if it sees something while on patrol. Literally just the modern equivalent to a PT boat.
I think the city class MCM would be an excellent platform to base such a ship on.

I’d then reserve FFGs for more gunboat diplomacy/show the flag missions, and DDGs and CGs(if they’ll even exist in 20 years) for escorting big decks in volatile regions for more serious shows of force.
 
CV12Hornet said:
Lack of shipyards is so far down the list of problems with ramping up ship production it's not even funny.
Click to expand...
Not really.
We’re more or less maxed out on yards that can produce Burkes and similarly sized ships, and likely Connies.

More ship yards active can put out more ships. Smaller ships can be built in smaller yards and repaired in smaller dry docks.
Smaller ships can also be put out faster, which again will be very important for quickly replenishing fleet numbers after a conflict.

Though the idea that a war would be over before new ships could be built to replace losses might not be accurate.

Ukraine had to scuttle their flagship an old FFG, but might be bringing a new more capable corvette into the fleet before their war is over.(it was admittedly already being built when the war started).

www.navalnews.com

Turkish shipyard launches Ukraine's 1st MILGEM corvette - Naval News

Turkish shipyard RMK Marine launched Ukraine's first MILGEM-class corvette, Hetman Ivan Mazepa (F-211), in Istanbul on October 2, 2022.
www.navalnews.com www.navalnews.com
 
johnpjones1775 said:
Not really.
We’re more or less maxed out on yards that can produce Burkes and similarly sized ships, and likely Connies.

More ship yards active can put out more ships. Smaller ships can be built in smaller yards and repaired in smaller dry docks.
Smaller ships can also be put out faster, which again will be very important for quickly replenishing fleet numbers after a conflict.

Though the idea that a war would be over before new ships could be built to replace losses might not be accurate.

Ukraine had to scuttle their flagship an old FFG, but might be bringing a new more capable corvette into the fleet before their war is over.(it was admittedly already being built when the war started).
Click to expand...
At the same time, though, Bath Iron Works and HII can and have built more destroyers than they currently are just with those two yards. Their problem isn't space, it's workforce and upstream suppliers.

Also, while theoretically smaller ships can be put out faster in practice it hasn't really worked out that way throughout the Cold War, certainly not when we're talking 5000 versus 6000-ton frigates.

And above all, smaller ships are a false economy unless they can actually handle themselves in a fight - one of the lessons of the Falklands. And since I seriously doubt you can fit the proper capabilities in a 5000-ton hull...
 
CV12Hornet said:
At the same time, though, Bath Iron Works and HII can and have built more destroyers than they currently are just with those two yards. Their problem isn't space, it's workforce and upstream suppliers.

Also, while theoretically smaller ships can be put out faster in practice it hasn't really worked out that way throughout the Cold War, certainly not when we're talking 5000 versus 6000-ton frigates.

And above all, smaller ships are a false economy unless they can actually handle themselves in a fight - one of the lessons of the Falklands. And since I seriously doubt you can fit the proper capabilities in a 5000-ton hull...
Click to expand...
You can fit plenty of capabilities on a 5000ton ship. I’d bet you can fit SAMPSON and S1850M on a 5k ton ship without much of any issue.

Falklands the RN was still largely operating under a WWII mind set for AAW of attacking the delivery craft rather than intercepting the ordinance.
 
Last edited:
johnpjones1775 said:
You can fit plenty of capabilities on a 5000ton ship.
Falklands the RN was still largely operating under a WWII mind set for AAW of attacking the delivery craft rather than intercepting the ordinance.
Click to expand...
Reminder that we're talking about long-range air defense with credible ASW.

The one modern frigate I can think of that can do that on less than 5000 tons is the allegedly 3200-ton Formidables. Besides the fact that I'm fairly sure that number is a lie - the stock La Fayettes are 3800 tons with less kit aboard - a sample size of one is not terribly convincing.
 
johnpjones1775 said:
All ships are ‘unsurvivable’ these days.

No the navy doesn’t want to retire them, that’s misinformation.

5th and 7th fleets can’t get enough of them, and are fighting over who get them.

One option they’re looking at to alleviate the issue is a new class of MCM (hopefully the city class MCM being adopted by some European navies.) if not just building more LCSes, which is again unlikely because the ships are politically poisoned.


www.defensenews.com

Navy considers non-LCS option for mine countermeasures in 5th Fleet

The Navy is considering forward-deploying LCSs to Bahrain or relying on expeditionary mine countermeasures companies to conduct some of the mission.
www.defensenews.com www.defensenews.com
Click to expand...

Your information is behind the times. The Navy wants to retire them. Congress won't let the Navy do it. At least not all of them.

The current plan is to keep six Freedoms with the surface warfare package permanently installed.

These will be used as Cyclone replacements.

15 Independence class ships will be kept with the MIW package permanently installed.

These will replace the Avengers.

Nobody is pretending anymore that these ships will rule the Pacific.

The ships that are being kept are being kept not because the Navy wants them but because Congress will not give the Navy permission to retire them.

Once again, your information is a bit behind.
 
johnpjones1775 said:
I believe heavily in the idea of a heavy OPV/light corvette to do the majority of a nation’s peacetime naval missions.

Something cheap to build, but can actually do something if it sees something while on patrol. Literally just the modern equivalent to a PT boat.
I think the city class MCM would be an excellent platform to base such a ship on.

I’d then reserve FFGs for more gunboat diplomacy/show the flag missions, and DDGs and CGs(if they’ll even exist in 20 years) for escorting big decks in volatile regions for more serious shows of force.
Click to expand...
Then the ships that are useful in combat don't get any sea time.

Yes, the bare minimum of showing the flag means a flight deck and a couple helos, a marine detachment of roughly platoon strength and all their gear, plus sonars for ASR and radars and missiles capable for area defense.

If anything, the Constellation class needs another 32 missile cells in their design, because only 32 cells means 4 cells of ESSMs, 6-8 VL-ASROCs, and then you have 20-22 cells left for SM2s/6s and any Tomahawks. And yes, Tomahawks are part of the "Showing the Flag" part of the mission. Or rather, showing the "You have Displeased the United States" part of the mission.
 
Scott Kenny said:
Then the ships that are useful in combat don't get any sea time.

Yes, the bare minimum of showing the flag means a flight deck and a couple helos, a marine detachment of roughly platoon strength and all their gear, plus sonars for ASR and radars and missiles capable for area defense.

If anything, the Constellation class needs another 32 missile cells in their design, because only 32 cells means 4 cells of ESSMs, 6-8 VL-ASROCs, and then you have 20-22 cells left for SM2s/6s and any Tomahawks. And yes, Tomahawks are part of the "Showing the Flag" part of the mission. Or rather, showing the "You have Displeased the United States" part of the mission.
Click to expand...

If the Constellation class is not a debacle, we will most likely see unarmed Flight IIs.

Congress ordered the Navy to study increasing the number of VLS from 32 to 48.

They also ordered the Navy to make sure SM6 and Tomahawk were supported.

The Navy responded it was too late to increase the VLS count for these initial ships.

You can see where this is going though. We will inevitably see more heavily armed versions of the Constellations.
 
CV12Hornet said:
Reminder that we're talking about long-range air defense with credible ASW.

The one modern frigate I can think of that can do that on less than 5000 tons is the allegedly 3200-ton Formidables. Besides the fact that I'm fairly sure that number is a lie - the stock La Fayettes are 3800 tons with less kit aboard - a sample size of one is not terribly convincing.
Click to expand...
Singapore’s and SA’s formidables pack aster-15 not sure what their max range is but I’d bet they could carry and operate the 30s as well.
Jimmo952 said:
Your information is behind the times. The Navy wants to retire them. Congress won't let the Navy do it. At least not all of them.

The current plan is to keep six Freedoms with the surface warfare package permanently installed.

These will be used as Cyclone replacements.

15 Independence class ships will be kept with the MIW package permanently installed.

These will replace the Avengers.

Nobody is pretending anymore that these ships will rule the Pacific.

The ships that are being kept are being kept not because the Navy wants them but because Congress will not give the Navy permission to retire them.

Once again, your information is a bit behind.
Click to expand...
bro my information is less than 6 months old.
People have been claiming the USN wants to decom them all for years with no evidence to support those claims.

But yeah I’m sure suddenly the admirals decided that the LCSes didn’t ‘own’ the South China Sea in the last 2 years for…reasons…
 
Jimmo952 said:
If the Constellation class is not a debacle, we will most likely see unarmed Flight IIs.

Congress ordered the Navy to study increasing the number of VLS from 32 to 48.

They also ordered the Navy to make sure SM6 and Tomahawk were supported.

The Navy responded it was too late to increase the VLS count for these initial ships.

You can see where this is going though. We will inevitably see more heavily armed versions of the Constellations.
Click to expand...
The constellations are not a debacle YET. ;)
 
Jimmo952 said:
If the Constellation class is not a debacle, we will most likely see unarmed Flight IIs.

Congress ordered the Navy to study increasing the number of VLS from 32 to 48.

They also ordered the Navy to make sure SM6 and Tomahawk were supported.

The Navy responded it was too late to increase the VLS count for these initial ships.

You can see where this is going though. We will inevitably see more heavily armed versions of the Constellations.
Click to expand...
I think autocorrupt got you... pretty sure you mean "uparmed Flight IIs."
 
Scott Kenny said:
Then the ships that are useful in combat don't get any sea time.

Yes, the bare minimum of showing the flag means a flight deck and a couple helos, a marine detachment of roughly platoon strength and all their gear, plus sonars for ASR and radars and missiles capable for area defense.

If anything, the Constellation class needs another 32 missile cells in their design, because only 32 cells means 4 cells of ESSMs, 6-8 VL-ASROCs, and then you have 20-22 cells left for SM2s/6s and any Tomahawks. And yes, Tomahawks are part of the "Showing the Flag" part of the mission. Or rather, showing the "You have Displeased the United States" part of the mission.
Click to expand...
Wait so the most expensive high end ships get little wear and tear on their machinery extending their service lives because they’re not constantly putting miles on them to do absolutely nothing?
Wow that would be so horrible…
 
johnpjones1775 said:
Wait so the most expensive high end ships get little wear and tear on their machinery extending their service lives because they’re not constantly putting miles on them to do absolutely nothing?
Wow that would be so horrible…
Click to expand...
Yes, it would, because the crews would be untrained and untested. Or poorly trained and poorly tested, as case may be.

Compare the performance of the French Navy and the British Royal Navy during the Napoleonic era. The French Navy mostly stayed in port. The RN was mostly at sea. Their ships were sufficiently equal that any ship captured was repaired and put into service in the capturing fleet.

But the UKRN consistently outsailed the French Navy, doing things that the French Navy considered impossible, like sailing up the St. Lawrence river. The UKRN considered it much easier than sailing up the Thames.
 
Scott Kenny said:
Yes, it would, because the crews would be untrained and untested. Or poorly trained and poorly tested, as case may be.

Compare the performance of the French Navy and the British Royal Navy during the Napoleonic era. The French Navy mostly stayed in port. The RN was mostly at sea. Their ships were sufficiently equal that any ship captured was repaired and put into service in the capturing fleet.

But the UKRN consistently outsailed the French Navy, doing things that the French Navy considered impossible, like sailing up the St. Lawrence river. The UKRN considered it much easier than sailing up the Thames.
Click to expand...
Our crews are currently untested.
Just because a ship isn’t deployed for 6-9 months of steaming circles doesn’t mean they won’t be training.

A burke isn’t well trained or ‘tested’ because it does counter piracy ops for 3 months out of 9 month deployment.

We have 1 ship that had a crew that can be considered tested in battle, and none of them are on that ship any more, and many of them are likely out of the navy completely by now.

Also this isn’t the 19th century any more, we have systems that can run drills and simulations within them, so a ship can remain pier side and still conduct all sorts of training.
 
johnpjones1775 said:
Our crews are currently untested.
Just because a ship isn’t deployed for 6-9 months of steaming circles doesn’t mean they won’t be training.

A burke isn’t well trained or ‘tested’ because it does counter piracy ops for 3 months out of 9 month deployment.

We have 1 ship that had a crew that can be considered tested in battle, and none of them are on that ship any more, and many of them are likely out of the navy completely by now.

Also this isn’t the 19th century any more, we have systems that can run drills and simulations within them, so a ship can remain pier side and still conduct all sorts of training.
Click to expand...
Except the useful things like physically driving the ship. Just ask Seventh Fleet about how important it is to stay current about that. Unless you like hearing about people killed when someone plays bumper boats?

Refueling at sea (happens every Sunday afternoon). Second most dangerous evolution the USN regularly does.

The most dangerous evolution is landing on a carrier.

Physically exercising all the systems on a regular basis so that you can say, "Hey, sir? we're getting water in the people tank from these valves. I don't like that." Been there, done that, had water leaking past the EMBT Blow valves, spent a week in PH while they rebuilt the valve seats and replaced the valve guts.
 
Arjen said:
You'd just need to line up a largish number of corvettes. Which aren't free. I won't pin you down on SSgtC's 100 corvettes, but at some point, a largish number of corvettes will cost rather more, AND will take longer to build, than a Burke.
Click to expand...
That's not actually what I was saying. What I was saying is, if you ran a war game 100 times (1xBurke vs 1xLCS), I wouldn't be shocked to learn that the Burke won 100 times. But if you told me that on the 101st time the war game was run, the LCS got lucky and won, I wouldn't be shocked at that either. But that doesn't mean I suddenly seize on that single example and decide to make my entire fleet low end ships because "an LCS beat a Burke in a war game."
 
SSgtC said:
That's not actually what I was saying. What I was saying is, if you ran a war game 100 times (1xBurke vs 1xLCS), I wouldn't be shocked to learn that the Burke won 100 times. But if you told me that on the 101st time the war game was run, the LCS got lucky and won, I wouldn't be shocked at that either. But that doesn't mean I suddenly seize on that single example and decide to make my entire fleet low end ships because "an LCS beat a Burke in a war game."
Click to expand...
Who wins, a burke or a dhingy with some dudes in it?
 
Scott Kenny said:
Yes, it would, because the crews would be untrained and untested. Or poorly trained and poorly tested, as case may be.

Compare the performance of the French Navy and the British Royal Navy during the Napoleonic era. The French Navy mostly stayed in port. The RN was mostly at sea. Their ships were sufficiently equal that any ship captured was repaired and put into service in the capturing fleet.

But the UKRN consistently outsailed the French Navy, doing things that the French Navy considered impossible, like sailing up the St. Lawrence river. The UKRN considered it much easier than sailing up the Thames.
Click to expand...
Be fair the RN hanged admirals if they didn't prosecute action with due vigour. They viewed personnel losses as inevitable and thus holding back for the safety of the crew was insufficient excuse.
 
Jimmo952 said:
Let's hope they will not be a debacle. I don't think they will be because the Navy is taking a conservative approach with this program.
Click to expand...
I agree the fact they chose an off the self proven hull design is a good early indicator, but we’ve been so terrible lately at doing things right I have little faith.
 
Scott Kenny said:
USS Cole says the dinghy won.


Oh, that's fighting dirty! I like those guys, could almost make submariners out of them!
Click to expand...
That’s my point.
In a vacuum without any context asking which would win a fight seems like a silly and stupid idea that a single tiny boat could cripple a burke.

From what I am hearing the sailors who have crewed LCSes in the last 8+ years love them, and the brass had to move away from the burke mind set, when devising how to use them, which has also recently begun happening as officers with first hand experience have moved into key decision making and advisory roles.

So yeah, 1 LCS defeated 2 Burkes.
No wonder why the Chinese felt it was important to triple team one in the SCS.

And if iirc Detroit is a freedom class to boot.

I think the LCS haters will be surprised by the success of the Saudi MMSCes when they come into service.

People need to remember the OHPs were not universally loved or acclaimed in the first half of their career, and about a dozen of them were decommed with 16 or fewer years of service.
So far the LCS isn’t on a horribly different path.

I started out as an LCS fan when they first announced them and their capabilities, then became a hater as the problems and set backs piled up, but now they’re in the fleet and operational I like the ships themselves.
 
Last edited:
johnpjones1775 said:
I agree the fact they chose an off the self proven hull design is a good early indicator, but we’ve been so terrible lately at doing things right I have little faith.
Click to expand...

They are being conservative with most of their technology choices. Mk41 VLS, CMS same as the Burkes, 57mm gun, ... mostly systems that are well proven.

There shouldn't be too many surprises with this design.
 
uk 75 said:
Interesting review of one of the navies whose frigates have seen action.

View: https://youtu.be/YrgCPsock6w
Click to expand...
This I think kind of highlights why I support large numbers of cheaper low end ships.

Russia lost one of their highest end vessels, and have reduced their number of operations and where they operate in the Black Sea as a result.

If they’d lost a corvette or something and had many more available, maybe they’d be more willing to operate in those areas still…but in the end it really comes down to, don’t bet something you can’t afford to lose, or that you’re unwilling to lose.

In war you have to make those bets with something or it’s not even a war, so do you risk a burke or Tico, or do you risk an LCS or similar ship?
 
johnpjones1775 said:
This I think kind of highlights why I support large numbers of cheaper low end ships.

Russia lost one of their highest end vessels, and have reduced their number of operations and where they operate in the Black Sea as a result.

If they’d lost a corvette or something and had many more available, maybe they’d be more willing to operate in those areas still…but in the end it really comes down to, don’t bet something you can’t afford to lose, or that you’re unwilling to lose.

In war you have to make those bets with something or it’s not even a war, so do you risk a burke or Tico, or do you risk an LCS or similar ship
Click to expand...
At the same time, those corvettes couldn't do what Moskva did, which is throw up an area SAM bubble around the frigates conducting land-attack missile strikes.

You're overfocusing on spherical cow missile duels, which yes a bunch of cheap corvettes are better for, but that's not the sum total of modern naval combat.
 
johnpjones1775 said:
Russia lost one of their highest end vessels,
Click to expand...
In theory it was high end. Want to know why they couldn't stop the Harpoon? Because of all the missile systems they had on the ship, only one was operational. And to even have that one functioning, the rest had to be cannibalize to provide parts. On top of that, their systems are so beyond screwed due to corruption preventing proper maintenance, if they used any of their radars, it fucked up their radios, and vice versa. Moskva could have either comms or radar, not both at the same time. This isn't the example you think it is. If anything, it's just an example of how incompetent the Russian Navy has become
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom