Project 11356: Admiral Grigorovich

Of course you can say a single frigate is not well armed and that an enemy air force could overwhelm it.

The point is that this single frigate will never operate on its own... it is part of the Sigma defence network that includes satellite radar data and the data from other Russian navy platforms.

A bit like saying two BUK batteries are vulnerable to enemy air power.

They certainly are, but they are also able to defend themselves from any weapon fired at them, which means the resources needed to defeat them greatly exceed the amount of resources any country except the US could mobilise to attack them.

Modern Airforce today no longer need to fight at visual distance. Harpoon today have a range of 120km which is not a lot but for sure much better range than the defenses of this new frigate.

The Frigate will be operating with destroyers and perhaps cruisers which will both be able to engage planes before they can launch weapons... meanwhile the Frigate can shoot down Harpoons all day long.

Just 10 x cheap F-16s armed with up to 4 antiships missiles Penguin/Harpoons with 60km to 120km range will be enough to overwhelm the defenses of this Project 11356. and leave the place without a single scratch on its paint.since the warship engagement range is very small and very limited. It will be required another warShip with Better Air defenses to engage the combat planes attacking this frigate. Not very impressive.

IT IS A FRIGATE. Next you will be complaining that their Corvettes are not safe from third world air forces either.

Please tell us which western FRIGATE design is better armed?

Most of them have even less impressive air defence capability... many don't even have a large calibre gun.

Do you not appreciate the concept... not every rifleman is a sniper. Sometimes you just need riflemen.

So the warship not just sit like a duck ,just defending from missiles and instead fight back the combat planes..

A sitting duck is unable to defend itself. I don't know of any Russian vessels not able to defend themselves.

It is like you are complaining that MANPADS can't kill targets above 10K metres altitude... the purpose of a frigate is not to turn back an enemy air force, just like the purpose of Igla is not to bring down B-2s and AWACS aircraft.

As I know, Grigorovich will have Shtil VLS and I think in VLS will be Buk-M3 missiles, which have range of 70 km. And having UKSK with Kalibr and Oniks cruise missiles, this frigate is still very potent ship.

GarryB wrote:
IT IS A FRIGATE. Next you will be complaining that their Corvettes are not safe from third world air forces either.

Please tell us which western FRIGATE design is better armed?

Most of them have even less impressive air defence capability... many don't even have a large calibre gun.

NATO Frigates sucks indeed..
But they can afford that luxury ,since US aircraft carriers with an airforce defend them. Russia only aircraft carrier or Kirov class
cannot be in every place. With the Project 22350 the frigate could have a bit more freedom to travel without a Bigger Ship .

Hate they didn't went for a much stronger Admiral Gorshkov-class frigate.
and to make things worse they planning 6 Project 11356M frigates..  and only 4 Gorshkov class.   


Anyway..
What is there any information on Project 22350 about the missiles the Sam defenses Gorhkov class will support?
The info i have seen shows 9m96D missiles with 120k range.. Wondering if there any information released
if  Redut VLS cells in that frigate could be equipped with 40N6 very long range 400km missiles ,48N6DM with 250km range
or any similar..and whether if the naval version of those very long range missiles exist at all.

But they can afford that luxury ,since US aircraft carriers with an airforce defend them. Russia only aircraft carrier or Kirov class

Russian Navy uses Sigma... every vessel is part of the network using information to make decisions and contributing data and weapons... it is better than a carrier. A Frigate will rarely leave Russian waters so will have Su-35s, Mig-35s, and PAK FAs in support most of the time.

Hate they didn't went for a much stronger Admiral Gorshkov-class frigate.
and to make things worse they planning 6 Project 11356M frigates.. and only 4 Gorshkov class.

It is exactly the same as with the Lada vs Kilo situation... they are producing the tried and tested easy to produce model while still producing the more expensive and more capable models. It gives them more breathing space and reduces the pressure on the more capable vessel as the new easy to produce models are still very good and capable vessels and the Russian Navy needs them in service because they are far better than nothing.

The point is that if they went for the new vessels only they will likely have 5 Gorshkov vessels or 4 Ladas in service by 2020. The way they are doing this means they will have rather more vessels in service rather quicker than if they only built the new expensive vessels.

if Redut VLS cells in that frigate could be equipped with 40N6 very long range 400km missiles ,48N6DM with 250km range
or any similar..and whether if the naval version of those very long range missiles exist at all.

Do you think they will have 2,500km range cruise missiles and 120km range SAMs on their upgraded Kirovs?

The UKSK launchers are standard and the Redut launchers will also be standard too. What you load them with is up to the platform itself and the mission, but the whole point of standardisation is that they are all the same from corvette to carrier. Otherwise it doesn't make sense.

The Gorshkov is much better than the Grigorovich, that is clear, but like Garry said not only quality counts for the Russians but also quantity.

At this moment the Grigorovich class has the most advanced equipment on board (of surface ships), only the Gorshkov has better.
All other, older but still great russian ships have obsolete electronics. The Grigorovich is an important modernization step for the RuNavy.

With the Grigorovich the Russians will have 10 to 11 new modern frigates by 2020. Just like the Su-30SM, because of big orders (Su-30MKI/MKA/MKM) and little bit older equipment, is much cheaper than the Su-35S, the Grigorovich (6 Talwar ordered by India) is much cheaper than the Gorshkov.

Why all the fuss?   

Compared to Gorshkov, Grigorovich frigates are expected to have the same SSM capability, and, likely, the same ASW capability. The only disadvantages would be weaker SAM battery (still comparable to all new NATO frigates) and COGAG propulsion instead of more modern CODAG. Stealth features are similar, and internal spaces are probably similar too.
So, again, why dismiss this frigate so quickly? I think that actually this is an excellent ship

Grigorovich frigates are enough for black sea fleet. Their only opposition force are old O.Hazard Perry frigates of turkish navy.

George1 wrote:Grigorovich frigates are enough for black sea fleet. Their only opposition force are old O.Hazard Perry frigates of turkish navy.

Yes, but only black sea. If it'd be deployed in the baltic, it could be destroyed in no time by our mighty minesweeping battleships of doom.  

etaepsilonk wrote:Why all the fuss?   

Compared to Gorshkov, Grigorovich frigates are expected to have the same SSM capability, and, likely, the same ASW capability. The only disadvantages would be weaker SAM battery (still comparable to all new NATO frigates) and COGAG propulsion instead of more modern CODAG. Stealth features are similar, and internal spaces are probably similar too.
So, again, why dismiss this frigate so quickly? I think that actually this is an excellent ship

ASW is certainly inferior.

Gorshkov has huge, 1155 sized sonar bulb, and Paket.

Regarding UKSK, 22350 has 16 tubes, Grigorovich might only have 8.

Gorshkov seems to have much more emphasis on stealth shaping, certainly designers mentioned it was part of planning (never heard anything like that for 11356).

As long as 11356 has VLS Shtil I will be content though.

TR1 wrote:

etaepsilonk wrote:Why all the fuss?   

Compared to Gorshkov, Grigorovich frigates are expected to have the same SSM capability, and, likely, the same ASW capability. The only disadvantages would be weaker SAM battery (still comparable to all new NATO frigates) and COGAG propulsion instead of more modern CODAG. Stealth features are similar, and internal spaces are probably similar too.
So, again, why dismiss this frigate so quickly? I think that actually this is an excellent ship

ASW is certainly inferior.

Gorshkov has huge, 1155 sized sonar bulb, and Paket.

Regarding UKSK, 22350 has 16 tubes, Grigorovich might only have 8.

Gorshkov seems to have much more emphasis on stealth shaping, certainly designers mentioned it was part of planning (never heard anything like that for 11356).

As long as 11356 has VLS Shtil I will be content though.

How? 1155 sonar would sink it quicker than drunk sailors could   
Go weighs 4500tonnes. Gr weighs 4000tonnes, so it's fair to assume that sonar apertures may be the same. And until Lomonosov's ghost develops AESA sonar, there's not much you can do about sensitivity either   

And about Uksk. I'd already mentioned that version with two launchers was developed.

Just compare size...also I read confirmation on forums, the sonar is essentially a modern variant of the 1155's set.

Two UKSK modules was rumored, but far from confirmed. Last photos from ship plaques indicate it will probably only have 1.

TR1 wrote:Just compare size...also I read confirmation on forums, the sonar is essentially a modern variant of the 1155's set.

Two UKSK modules was rumored, but far from confirmed. Last photos from ship plaques indicate it will probably only have 1.

So, you say that "gr" is inferior to "go" in size. That's just rude   

1uksk is possible indeed, but what's the point of mounting rbu? i mean, not a single new ship has them.

Hehe, well just look @ that massive bulb:

http://img.ntv.ru/home/news/20101029/fregat.jpg

Size isn't everything, but it DOES matter . I am trying to find specifics of the post I mentioned, but ofc I can't right now.

Speaking of bulb sizes, 20380 also has a very hefty installation for the size of the ship.

From the Indian ships, the bulb is much less prominent than the 22350s. Of course construction choices weigh in, you can make a unit more flush with the hull, but I maintain the 22350 has a much more serious unit.

Honestly I am a fan of RBU, especially with guided rounds, but Paket would be better. Whole point of these ships is minimal modification from Talwar, so there you go I guess.
Also why I am afraid first batch will have regular Shtil.

To TR1:
Well, I am not able to make the exact comparison, probably you're right.
Talwar or something before launch:
http://en.ria.ru/images/17605/32/176053299.jpg
Also:
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_o_no4M2xEPY/TCMb90yG7HI/AAAAAAAAKtE/Z1o6OokuD70/s1600/Photo%2B2-735034.jpg
About RBU, I was under the impression, that it's solely for coastal environments, coz early torps were too dumb for that.
But new ones are much more sophisticated, so operating there shouldn't be a problem anymore. Hence. rbu is not needed anymore, IMO.


And about BUKs, I'd doubt that russkies would sell monkey models for themselves. That's like driving F-1 car and go to NASCAR. Everybody will just make fun of you.

Besides, there's plenty of experience designing all kinds of VLS, from Tor, to Redut. Unless the R/D department is run by Anna Chapman, creating vertical buk should be pretty easy.

etaepsilonk wrote:Why all the fuss?   

Compared to Gorshkov, Grigorovich frigates are expected to have the same SSM capability, and, likely, the same ASW capability. The only disadvantages would be weaker SAM battery (still comparable to all new NATO frigates) and COGAG propulsion instead of more modern CODAG. Stealth features are similar, and internal spaces are probably similar too.
So, again, why dismiss this frigate so quickly? I think that actually this is an excellent ship

I don't have a clue about ships. Why CODAG is supposed to be more modern than COGAG? Cruising engines of 11356 seem more powerful (ratio with displacement) than the diesel of 22350 and should provide a better cruising speed. Or not?  

Also why I am afraid first batch will have regular Shtil.

Regular Shtil should actually be more expensive to install and maintain and operate than the new vertical launch Shtil-1 as the latter only has roof hatches for moving parts.

In comparison the Shtil has a fully articulated arm launcher and several rotary magazines below decks to align the missiles in storage with the lifts to raise the missiles to the arm launcher.

The Kirov has had vertical launch tubes for decades so it should actually be easier to install the Shtil-1 than the standard Shtil.

The combination of Kashtan-M and Shtil-1 makes it probably one of the best defended Frigates available today.

Two Kashtans means 4 gatlings and 64 missiles, plus 36 70km range SAMs in the Shtil-1 system. The 100mm gun would also be useful with proximity fused ammo against low and slow flying threats.

What Frigate is better armed than that?

I think they will use the 9M317M Shtil-1 (SA-N-12B Grizzly) missile, which has an range of 50 km.
The 70 km range missile is the 9M317M3 Buk-M3 (SA-17C Grizzly).
Maybe, and I hope, they will use the 9M317M3 missile!

To zino:
Yes, turbines are more powerful but for cruising engines power is not needed, so at usual speeds efficiency is better with codag propulsion, while max speed is pretty much the same anyway.

i insist that Gorshkov class is between frigate and destroyer

Any recent picture of Grigorovich?

No one have said Frigates are not useful. even a patrol boat can be useful ,if you had some knowledge in tactics you will understand.

Aren't you the one saying Russia should not have a navy and should just make hypersonic bombers instead...

All im saying is that those Grigorovich will be very limited frigates in their use for purely defensive mode. cannot fight back an Airfoce..

They can't shoot down meteors either... which is also not their job...

and Gorshkov frigate can. NATO do not have such limitations ,even if their frigates are inferior because they have aircraft carriers always
helping in the defense.

The Gorshkov cannot always fight off an air force, and NATO frigates don't always operate with carrier support.

easy to understand but but you insist on arguments just for the sake of arguments. to make it look
you have a point. when you not.

Frigates will never be able to defeat enemy air forces... they might be able to defend themselves but any airforce will change tactics after 30% are shot down.

The point is
gorshkov frigates can allow the Russian Navy to fight back an Airforce and allow more flexibility to the Russian Navy how to deploy
their warships and the Grigorovish can only defend.

And what you seem to not know or ignore is that no frigate around the world would be used to defeat an enemy powers air force so that country can be invaded. The Grigorovich can perform 98% of all the missions the Gorshkov can perform and do it rather more cheaply. When I say 2% of jobs can't be done odds are those 2% of jobs will never need doing by a Russian navy vessel... so the performance difference is meaningless.

Because they have very few and most not prepared to Fight back against an attacking Air-force..

What attacking air force? Why would Russian Frigates be operating outside the range of land based friendly fighters?

Russia have only 1 kirov cruiser and 1 aircraft carrier that can help defend their warships against a long range Sniping Airforce that can launch their missiles beyond 100km ranges.

Only the US Navy has the budget to afford the thousands of missiles needed to reliably defeat a group of Russian navy ships... which are all very well protected from anti ship missiles... supersonic and subsonic.

If the US Navy initiated an attack on Russian Navy vessels the result would be irrelevant as it will be ICBMs and SLBMs deciding the result... which will always be both sides lose so neither side will start.

An effective air defense needs to have the capability to be the one to Fire first and not allow the possibility to any enemy airforce to even try. The best defense is offense and giving a chance to your enemy to keep trying is a mistake.. thats why.. next question?

Read and understand the MAD principle... it makes offense the worst option as it gets both sides killed.

Russia needs warships NOW not in 2020 or more.

Why?

Not long ago you claimed they didn't need a Navy and could use the money saved making a hypersonic bomber.

Those BUks SAMS defenses were NEVER intended to be used alone.. you need long range Sams to keep away any airforce.

There are plenty of western vessels that don't even have a SAM as powerful as Shtil-1.

The land version have a big network of trucks with Radars ,Command Center and other stuff ,that i don't see how they are going to fit it on the Stealth Frigate.. specially the Nebo radars. You need more than one Radar for different kind of targets . and as you know stealth Frigate cannot have a lot of surface outside the boat or there will be no point for them to be stealth. The info have seen only points to the 9m96d missiles with 120k range. which will be not bad against old antiship missiles but not good enough for F-35 300km anti-missiles.

The new MARS AESA array being developed for S-400/S-500 has a range of about 2,500km... would that be good enough?

The Sigma battle management system being fitted to all Russian vessels includes datalinks to all platforms and satellites and land based sensors and under sea based sensors... what were you saying about a Russian Frigate on its own?

all those missiles outrange S-300F of the Kirov.

Assuming they are still able to get a radar lock on their target... an old frigate might have a rcs of 200m and be detectable from 400km, but a modern stealthy frigate might not be that easy to find...

In Falklands war A-4 skyhawks were attacking British warships with GRAVITY BOMBS and still managed to get away most of the time.

Not ships in the open ocean... they came in from the land side of ships that had moved close to shore either to provide naval gun fire support or to land forces.

If the British had fixed wing carrier based AWACS the result would have been rather different with far fewer ships lost.

Of course if the Argentines had prepared properly and, say bought Mig-23s with BVR missiles then the result might have been even more different.

The Grigorovich is a well balanced Frigate that will be very useful, and i expect more orders will be placed.

It is the frigate equivalent of the Mistral... available proven design that is ready for fairly rapid production with the bugs ironed out and a vast step up from existing vessels which do need replacing.

So, Grigorovich will supposedly be launched on the 28th of next month.

Hope it enters service within a year of launch. Oh well, I am well used to dates slipping.

I don't see much problems for Grigorovich to be build in time as it is serial ship and 6 ships of this class were being build for India. It is not completely new to build as Gorshkov.

the should lease 2-3 back from india   

The real momentum for the Russian Navy will be the period from 2015 to 2025. In these 10 years we'll see 4 to 5 new large warships (DDGN, FFG, SSBN, SSN) each year.