Frigate "Marasesti", Ex-destroyer

Compare the specifications of an average US destroyer with the Marasesti ex-destroyer.

Dragos, I think there’s no point in comparing a US “Arleigh Burke” class (or even “Spruance” class) destroyer with Marasesti. The differences between the two countries' political geography, military (and especially naval) power, navy doctrine, possible use and missions for the ships are so many that they completely obscure any similarities, which in my opinion resumes to their common NATO membership.

As we all know, being an island/continent USA needs a very powerful “blue sea/deep sea” navy in order to project its military might, and this fact its also emphasized by its (single, yet) superpower status.

If we take a look on the map and compare that with the proportion represented by the Romanian maritime frontier in the total length of its frontiers, with the fact that the Black Sea is semi-“closed” sea, with the preponderant (and traditional) defensive role of the Romanian navy (coastal defense, maintaining open communication routes) and we also take a look to its maritime neighbors I think we could decide that a more “fine tuned” comparison is needed.

Of course that Marasesti destroyer was built according to our geo-strategic position and capabilities, but you asked why it has been re-classified as a frigate, and since we are part of an alliance in which the average class of destroyer is much powerful than ours, for standardization it was re-classified.

Agarici, you are right! Is a borring region.... We don't need to defend from nobody... yeah...

And about classification: "Marasesti" was a light cruiser not under a NATO standard, at that time. "Kashin" class (Poland had 2) were destroyers and were aproximatelly at a half of tonnage of the US Navy destroyers, and more recent russian ones (Udaloy, Sovremenny). China had Type 052B at 6500 tonnes, whoi si not at US Navy modern destroyers weight. Etc. Etc. - Even France had destroyers at aproximatelly half of the weight of the US Navy ones.

Maybe he was a light cruiser in romanian vision. Like "Elisabeta" cruiser from 1888/86 (?), who was more like ... "crucisator - canoniera", even if "Koreet" russian "canoniera" had 3 cannons of 203 m.m. , and our cruiser had 4 cannons of 150/152 m.m.

Romania don't have the need to make power projection, but our navy is just like China's concept. You see.. not so much air defence, not even much SSN's. etc. Oor frigates were so romanian naturals, but so underpowered...


Iama

The ship has been classified according to the Nato standard. It is logical once we are part of the alliance, and the area of operations is not restricted to the Black Sea, but wherever the alliance needs it.

I agree with you here. In theory, according to the Northern Atlantic Treaty stipulations and to their technical consequences the interoperability, (even from this point of view) in essential. But let’s not forget another point, essential from two perspective: Romania is not “by nature” (meaning its political geography) prone to be a naval power, and it would not be the interest of nor the Romanian Government and taxpayers neither the NATO to waste the country’s resources in forcing the things in order to became one.
- Because the military uses valuable resources, which eventually are put to use only during security crisis situations (and unfortunately these budgetary resources are still rather scarce for Romania) from the Romanian citizens perspective there will be absolutely no comfort in the idea that their navy could operate in Western Mediterranean, Atlantic Ocean on Northern Sea
- Also from NATO point of view, a good resource management would be consistent with the (already in use) principle of specialization, according to each country “vocation”. From this point of view, another two requirements are essential, for each country: ( a ) maintaining a military power strong enough to meet its basic security needs, and ( b ) cultivating/developing its “strong points” - those military abilities and particularities in which the country tends to excel and which are also useful for the Alliance. For Romania, until now, among the later type of characteristics were listed the existence of a force of well-trained mountain troops and its strategic transport capacity.

Also, I think that with its participation in Afghanistan and Iraq Romania did more then paying the dues for its admission and proving to be loyal member. Let’s simply compare our participation and engagements of further remaining involved in the operation theatres with the actions of the other new members. Now they should give us a break with these “true blue navy” capabilities on which the Government should spend the taxpayers' money, because in my opinion they are not the first priority for the country’s defense. So as you see, I’m among those who ask of what need are the two frigates for us… Weren’t the Tetals enough for the coastal defense job?

By the way, shouldn’t they have better repaired and upgraded the Kilo sub?

This post has been edited by Agarici on July 26, 2005 09:49 am

OK, here I entirely agree with you. Thank you.

Apparently in our previous posts we were referring to different aspects of the problem...

Kilo can be named in all ways, but a deffensive tool, Agarici. This "new" frigates are offensive too, but imagine something like Iraq blockade in 1990. Allyed countryes will participate at this operation with what they have more capable. Romania send his two frigates and a submarine in Persian Gulf. What a participation from a poor country!!!! But, in that region allyed task force act not only against Iraq and blockade runner ships, but also they are with opened eyes to neighbour countrys who are not in good relations with them - Iran, in thsi iphotese.. Iran who also have Kilos. Quit hard... Remember an example from Desert Storm, when french Mirage F1 acted just in presence of Mirage 2000 to not attract friendly fire, because iraqis had on theyr side some F1s.

Tetal? Why do you consider that? Tech. speeking.

Iama

Iama, you sound... logical .

It's interesting nteresting that we had the same love for impressive designations in the past. If I remember well, Elisabeta was designed as "crucisator-cuirasat"... and she was a ship with "zbaturi".

Seriously now, I think they used the term with the meaning of "aromred" cruiser (the existence of a cuirass), not in today's sense of "cruiser-battleship". And I agree that she was rather a "crucisator-canoniera". In the end (around WW1), if I'm right, she was relegated to the coastal defense role.

Not so real...

That ship was retreat always... Her guns were used as coastal defence artillery, in one or two battery.

She not have "zbaturi"... and was not "crucisator - cuirasat"...




Her only war action was not a war like. "Elisabeta" and a torpedo ship were acting in a mission against "Kneaz Potemkin Tavricevski" rebel russian ship. In "Potemkin" incident, "Elisabeta" shoot some projectiles as avertisments, etc.

Iama

Anyway,

You ow me an answer...


Iama

About the Tetal type frigates, I don't know, I was just asking...

As for the other aspect: to reiterate what I’ve said in my previous post, since in my opinion Romania is not by its geographical positioning prone to be a naval power (or to need a really powerful, “deep sea” navy for its defense) I don’t think that any participation in a conflict as that suggested by you would be anything but symbolical. I find difficult to think that the NATO naval operations planners would, to any degree, rely on Romanian navy for this task. So my alternative scenario for that would be that Romania takes no part in the naval blockade but instead gets involved in the terrestrial/aerial operations, with military capacities developed conforming to its security needs. We’ve already done a favor to the NATO guys by developing a strategic transport capacity (useful, but not essential for our security needs). They really should give us a break now.

It is true that the Marasesti is presently better armed than the the two Type 22s, because it has anti-ship missles, even though they are outdated. Hopefully new systems will be fitted to the new frigates in Romanian shipyards.

Regarding its modernization, I really don't know what to say. From what I read there was a lot of money spent to bring it to NATO standards (or at least close to it), but without considerable success. Maybe if we knew someone in the navy for better up-close info. The military press and the clivilian press can be pretty one-sided when it comes to military expenses. It seems that new communication system on the Marasesti is good, but there are still problems. For instance, at a regular exercise with a Turkish firgate, a Romanian boarding party had to search a "suspicious ship" and they had to use the Turkish boat, as the Marasesti doesn't have a boarding boat, because it lacks the means to launch it at sea (the boat apparently exists in port).

The Marasesti was an ambitious project and it was completed, with all the drawbacks it had. There aren't that many countries in the world who build military ships. However, given the smaller experience and the technology available to the Romania designers, it isn't in the same class as the Type 22s. I remember that when the Regele Ferdinand sailed for Romania, a journalist asked the commander if there are big differences from the Marasesti. The answer was that onboard the Marasesti they had hot water once a week. Now they have it all the time and he believed that that said it all.

This aquisition will allow to permanently have a frigate on duty, one in reserve and one in repairs. Previously we only had one such ship. Romania isn't a naval power and should not try to become one, but we need a navy that could better protect our interets. The Delfinul submarine would indeed be an asset, simply through its existence (ship in being).

Well-well, here comes the heavy artillery …

In Pascu, S., Ceausescu, I., Musat M.., Ardeleanu I. (coord.) - Istoria militara a poporului roman, Editura Militara, Bucuresti, 1989, vol. V, p. 119 there are two pictures (top of the page). The side explanation reads: “Nave din inzestrarea marinei militare romane: a ) canoniera “Grivita” (1882); b ) crucisatorul cuirasat “Elisabeta” (1888)”. So if there’s a mistake is theirs, not mine…
Now the phots are of poor quality and I cannot see if the ship has “zbaturi” or not. But from what I can see she could have...

I also remember that in an older “Tehnium” magazine edition from 1970s’ (which included a “models” section, before the “Modelism” magazine itself started to be printed) I saw a plan of “Elisabeta”. If I remember well she had an interesting (for me, an absolute amateur) propulsion system: both “zbaturi” and a propeller. I cannot bet for that, but I also incline to think that they too used the designation "crucisator cuirasat".

By the way, which is the English term for “zbaturi”?

This post has been edited by Agarici on July 26, 2005 10:45 am

Indeed, like the first “Delfinul” sub once was.

What is starnger is that Marasesti wasn't launched as a Destroyer
The hull was designed first for a Liner Ship, then launched as Cruiser Muntenia , then renamed Marasesti Destroyer and frigate now.

It has Antiship missiles , but no Anti Air missiles. Actually except the Strela Shoulder launched one , the navy don't have Sol-Air Missiles.

Bulgarian navy had aquired 2 ex-Belgian Ships. Smaller than Type 22, but still better armed. They have Exocet SSM and SeaSparow SAM missiles. Plus 100mm gun. Quite Powerfull for 2200 tone ships. http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/wor...e/wielingen.htm

The biggest ship Ukraine has in function is a Krivak 3 class ship. The Slava class Cruiser is still in construction( for about 15 years).

This post has been edited by tomcat1974 on July 26, 2005 11:10 am

Padwheels