It sank at pier. There were no explosions or obvious damage. Ukraine claims they scuttled it....which seems plausible given there were no explosions or obvious damage.
It's greatest military value/achievement may actually be 'blocking dock space'.
Take a look at the armament. It had essentially no military value. But they were spending $millions per year crewing and maintaining it. A couple of small missile boats would have been more practical.
Sounds about right. Several years ago we had an Admiral that demonstrated the same thing with the US navy. AUS battle group going up against hundreds of small watercraft would actually lose a fight. There would be a lot of casualties but the small craft would actually prevail.
As I recall the Admiral was removed from any commanding duties because they said he broke the rules of the war game.
Regardless, he demonstrated a real truth, whether they wanted to hear it or not was irrelevant.
Crew of 193....call it $1m/yr right there just to staff it (at $5k/head).
Weaponry:
-1 100mm cannon
-8 21" torpedo tubes
-1 anti-submarine helicopter
-2 point-defense CIWS
Now compare that to a small missile boat....maybe a Saar V
Crew of 74 (and 1/3 the tonnage)
Weaponry:
-8 Harpoon missiles in deck tubes
-32 cell VLS launcher for anti-aircraft missiles
-1 multi-purpose helicopter
-3 point-defense CIWS
It was a 'prestige hull'.....biggest hull they could afford to crew....but decades obsolete, and with no military value.
That used to be a lot more common in the 60s-80s, when the US was giving away WWII cruisers. "A lot of ship".....on paper. But with HUGE staffing demands, lots of maintenance required......and COMPLETELY outgunned/outranged by modern missile-equipped ships and aircraft.
Like most 'prestige hull' operators ..... all they got out of it was a money sink.
With the exception (when they scuttled it) of denying some Russian ship dock space.
They sunk it? It wasn't sunk by Russians first and they're trying to save face by claiming it in the end?
It sank at pier. There were no explosions or obvious damage. Ukraine claims they scuttled it....which seems plausible given there were no explosions or obvious damage.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukrainian_frigate_Hetman_Sahaidachny
It's greatest military value/achievement may actually be 'blocking dock space'.
Take a look at the armament. It had essentially no military value. But they were spending $millions per year crewing and maintaining it. A couple of small missile boats would have been more practical.
Sounds about right. Several years ago we had an Admiral that demonstrated the same thing with the US navy. AUS battle group going up against hundreds of small watercraft would actually lose a fight. There would be a lot of casualties but the small craft would actually prevail.
As I recall the Admiral was removed from any commanding duties because they said he broke the rules of the war game. Regardless, he demonstrated a real truth, whether they wanted to hear it or not was irrelevant.
This case was particularly egregious.
Crew of 193....call it $1m/yr right there just to staff it (at $5k/head). Weaponry: -1 100mm cannon -8 21" torpedo tubes -1 anti-submarine helicopter -2 point-defense CIWS
Now compare that to a small missile boat....maybe a Saar V Crew of 74 (and 1/3 the tonnage) Weaponry: -8 Harpoon missiles in deck tubes -32 cell VLS launcher for anti-aircraft missiles -1 multi-purpose helicopter -3 point-defense CIWS
It was a 'prestige hull'.....biggest hull they could afford to crew....but decades obsolete, and with no military value.
That used to be a lot more common in the 60s-80s, when the US was giving away WWII cruisers. "A lot of ship".....on paper. But with HUGE staffing demands, lots of maintenance required......and COMPLETELY outgunned/outranged by modern missile-equipped ships and aircraft.
Like most 'prestige hull' operators ..... all they got out of it was a money sink. With the exception (when they scuttled it) of denying some Russian ship dock space.
Complete waste.