Project 22350: Admiral Sergei Gorshkov

That is what I figured, thanks for the info!

Does anyone have an answer to my original question? I hate to sound persistent, but it has been bugging me for the last couple days!

Mike E wrote:That is what I figured, thanks for the info!

Does anyone have an answer to my original question? I hate to sound persistent, but it has been bugging me for the last couple days!

I should point out that proekt 1144, Orlan followed exactly that principle. In that design the long-range missiles in vertical launch systems were grouped forward of the bridge.

Of course, the positioning and the field of fire of some weapons necessitate their positioning abaft the bridge. There is also the interaction between various sensors, weapons, and machinery that have to be taken into consideration. There are other factors too.

Thank you replying yet again.

Of course (like many things in life, not trying to sound awkward) there are many factors/variables to think of.

The Kirovs, though they are similar to my "design", are much larger than a frigate for example. I see the design being much more beneficial on a smaller craft, such as the Gorshkov.

Imagine something like that, but 1/2 or 1/3 the size, with guns. This is close to the "far back bridge" design.

Mike E wrote:Imagine something like that, but 1/2 or 1/3 the size, with guns. This is close to the "far back bridge" design.

I think, there is a tendency for a larger ship to be more conducive to a design like this, hence the case with proekt 1144, for example.

My line of reasoning is that there are a number of subsystems of a warship that should preferably be positioned abaft the bridge, like the helipad/hanger, towed sonar array, VDS, and some other subsystems; the length of these subsystems doesn't scale linearly with the ship size; so, they occupy a relatively larger length of smaller ships.

This may be a strange question to some of you, but why are the bridges of modern ships still in the middle/front of the ship itself?

Visibility over the Bow AFAIK...

Would not it be more efficient to "push it back" leaving all the weapons on/in the bow?

Most missile systems are now vertical launch so fit better in the centre of the ship where the depth is greatest and longer tubes can be fitted.

Weapons that are useful on the front of the ship are mainly guns with weapons positioned well forward offering the best arc of fire.

If you are having a hard time visualizing this, think of a typical cargo ship.

The main traditional reason for putting the bridge at the rear is so that it is above the rudder and gearing for the engines.

As shown on new carrier designs that seem to have two bridges... there is an advantage in having the ships bridge forward to sail the ship, but there is an advantage to having the bridge to manage the air component to the rear, so separating the bridges is good for both tasks.

The Kirovs, though they are similar to my "design", are much larger than a frigate for example. I see the design being much more beneficial on a smaller craft, such as the Gorshkov.

Tradition also plays a part, but with truly vertical launch weapons (unlike the Granit in the Kirovs whose 20 tubes were angled forward) it doesn't matter where they are placed on the ship.

Imagine something like that, but 1/2 or 1/3 the size, with guns. This is close to the "far back bridge" design.

To sail in rough seas you will need a fairly high prow and positioning the bridge to the very rear means actually limiting forward view in close to the ship... not a good thing... for no obvious advantage either...

Thank you for replying, it looks like a trade off.

I really do not understand Russia logic in building a Frigate with such limited range using 9m96E  (40k range) missiles.  
IN case of combat any plane from NATO airforces /navies have the capabilities to launch anti-ship missiles like harpoons
from 120k or more range. So unless the Gorshov is confirmed to come with more larger range sams at least the 9m96e2 with 120km range.
The all i see the newest Russian best frigates in navy as purely defensive ships ,while the enemy airforces from black sea or norther sea can easily snipe the Gorshov from short distance.

The Arleigh Burke-class destroyers can have 90 cells x RIM-66 with 170km range , the ROyal navy Type 45 destroyer with about 48 cell x Asters anti air missiles with up to 120km range.  So i don't see the excitement of the new Frigates if will be limited to near Visual range combat when it comes to planes.  Purely defensive Sams in the navy makes more sense in smaller ships like Corvettes. but not in Frigate.

Yes, Gorshkov has the long ranged 9M96-reputed to have 150+ km range in the domestic version.

TR1 wrote:Yes, Gorshkov has the long ranged 9M96-reputed to have 150+ km range in the domestic version.

I though the 9M96 has range of 125 km what is your source for 150 km+

Austin wrote:

TR1 wrote:Yes, Gorshkov has the long ranged 9M96-reputed to have 150+ km range in the domestic version.

I though the 9M96 has range of 125 km what is your source for 150 km+

Some AA (or Military testing, I don't remember) announcement about either Vityaz or Redut, but I distinctly recall them saying the complex (it was one that certainly uses (9M96) had 150km range.
I'll post if i find it.

The Arleigh Burke-class destroyers can have 90 cells x RIM-66 with 170km range , the ROyal navy Type 45 destroyer with about 48 cell x Asters anti air missiles with up to 120km range. So i don't see the excitement of the new Frigates if will be limited to near Visual range combat when it comes to planes. Purely defensive Sams in the navy makes more sense in smaller ships like Corvettes. but not in Frigate.

So your objection to new Russian Frigates is that they are out ranged in fire power by NATO Destroyers and US 10,000 ton cruisers... interesting...

Some AA (or Military testing, I don't remember) announcement about either Vityaz or Redut, but I distinctly recall them saying the complex (it was one that certainly uses (9M96) had 150km range.
I'll post if i find it.

I distinctly remember when they were first revealed as part of the S-400 system and shown publicly the figures were 40km range for the smaller missile and 120km for the larger missile.

When Vityaz was being further remember they spoke about domestic models with ranges of 60km and 150km respectively.

GarryB wrote:

The Arleigh Burke-class destroyers can have 90 cells x RIM-66 with 170km range , the ROyal navy Type 45 destroyer with about 48 cell x Asters anti air missiles with up to 120km range.  So i don't see the excitement of the new Frigates if will be limited to near Visual range combat when it comes to planes.  Purely defensive Sams in the navy makes more sense in smaller ships like Corvettes. but not in Frigate.

So your objection to new Russian Frigates is that they are out ranged in fire power by NATO Destroyers and US 10,000 ton cruisers... interesting...

No kidding Arleigh Burke literally has twice the displacement in tons of weight compared to Gorshkov's (which has half the displacement). So this is really just comparing apples and oranges, they're simply not in the same class of ship.

GarryB wrote:

The Arleigh Burke-class destroyers can have 90 cells x RIM-66 with 170km range , the ROyal navy Type 45 destroyer with about 48 cell x Asters anti air missiles with up to 120km range.  So i don't see the excitement of the new Frigates if will be limited to near Visual range combat when it comes to planes.  Purely defensive Sams in the navy makes more sense in smaller ships like Corvettes. but not in Frigate.

So your objection to new Russian Frigates is that they are out ranged in fire power by NATO Destroyers and US 10,000 ton cruisers... interesting...

Some AA (or Military testing, I don't remember) announcement about either Vityaz or Redut, but I distinctly recall them saying the complex (it was one that certainly uses (9M96) had 150km range.
I'll post if i find it.

I distinctly remember when they were first revealed as part of the S-400 system and shown publicly the figures were 40km range for the smaller missile and 120km for the larger missile.

When Vityaz was being further remember they spoke about domestic models with ranges of 60km and 150km respectively.

The comparison is fair because is not a Fairness contest. Of which have the best frigate. In case of War ,NATO will not say..lets bring Frigates and corvettes only because Russia is at disadvantage.. So is totally Fair to compare what will represent the backbone of Russia navy ,the one they plan to build more versus the more common warships that Russia will have to face. But if their SAM defenses range is 125k to 150k ,that changes things for sure..  So hopefully is true..  40km range Sams will be good in small and cheap warships.


The only question left i guess is how many 125k+ range 9m96e missiles the Gorshov Class will have domestic version? 128 too ?

Vann7 wrote:

GarryB wrote:

The Arleigh Burke-class destroyers can have 90 cells x RIM-66 with 170km range , the ROyal navy Type 45 destroyer with about 48 cell x Asters anti air missiles with up to 120km range.  So i don't see the excitement of the new Frigates if will be limited to near Visual range combat when it comes to planes.  Purely defensive Sams in the navy makes more sense in smaller ships like Corvettes. but not in Frigate.

So your objection to new Russian Frigates is that they are out ranged in fire power by NATO Destroyers and US 10,000 ton cruisers... interesting...

Some AA (or Military testing, I don't remember) announcement about either Vityaz or Redut, but I distinctly recall them saying the complex (it was one that certainly uses (9M96) had 150km range.
I'll post if i find it.

I distinctly remember when they were first revealed as part of the S-400 system and shown publicly the figures were 40km range for the smaller missile and 120km for the larger missile.

When Vityaz was being further remember they spoke about domestic models with ranges of 60km and 150km respectively.

The comparison is fair because is not a Fairness contest. Of which have the best frigate. In case of War ,NATO will not say..lets bring Frigates and corvettes only because Russia is at disadvantage.. So is totally Fair to compare what will represent the backbone of Russia navy ,the one they plan to build more versus the more common warships that Russia will have to face. But if their SAM defenses range is 125k to 150k ,that changes things for sure..  So hopefully is true..  40km range Sams will be good in small and cheap warships.


The only question left i guess is how many 125k+ range 9m96e missiles the Gorshov Class will have domestic version?  128 too ?

The building of Gorskhov har been painfully slow. This is the hard reality. The number Russia was looking at a few years back, which were 30 to begin with was clearly just a fantasy. Then the number of Gorshkov frigates was reduced to between 15 and 20.

Today, in July 2014, it is definitely clear that Russia is lucky if they even produce 8 Gorskhovs by 2020.

Almost the same problems with Admiral Grigorivich too, but Gorshkov is really being slowly built. So it's a real let down. And it's not even close to modern destroyers out there such as Arleigh Burkes, Type 052D, Atago-class, Sejong the Great and Type 45.

The U.S. already has 62 Arleigh Burkes + more Burkes on the way and 3 Zumwalts, which is pretty sick. No 6-8 Gorshkovs can stop that, ever, in any way.

T055 wrote:

Vann7 wrote:

GarryB wrote:

The Arleigh Burke-class destroyers can have 90 cells x RIM-66 with 170km range , the ROyal navy Type 45 destroyer with about 48 cell x Asters anti air missiles with up to 120km range.  So i don't see the excitement of the new Frigates if will be limited to near Visual range combat when it comes to planes.  Purely defensive Sams in the navy makes more sense in smaller ships like Corvettes. but not in Frigate.

So your objection to new Russian Frigates is that they are out ranged in fire power by NATO Destroyers and US 10,000 ton cruisers... interesting...

Some AA (or Military testing, I don't remember) announcement about either Vityaz or Redut, but I distinctly recall them saying the complex (it was one that certainly uses (9M96) had 150km range.
I'll post if i find it.

I distinctly remember when they were first revealed as part of the S-400 system and shown publicly the figures were 40km range for the smaller missile and 120km for the larger missile.

When Vityaz was being further remember they spoke about domestic models with ranges of 60km and 150km respectively.

The comparison is fair because is not a Fairness contest. Of which have the best frigate. In case of War ,NATO will not say..lets bring Frigates and corvettes only because Russia is at disadvantage.. So is totally Fair to compare what will represent the backbone of Russia navy ,the one they plan to build more versus the more common warships that Russia will have to face. But if their SAM defenses range is 125k to 150k ,that changes things for sure..  So hopefully is true..  40km range Sams will be good in small and cheap warships.


The only question left i guess is how many 125k+ range 9m96e missiles the Gorshov Class will have domestic version?  128 too ?

The building of Gorskhov har been painfully slow. This is the hard reality. The number Russia was looking at a few years back, which were 30 to begin with was clearly just a fantasy. Then the number of Gorshkov frigates was reduced to between 15 and 20.

Today, in July 2014, it is definitely clear that Russia is lucky if they even produce 8 Gorskhovs by 2020.

Almost the same problems with Admiral Grigorivich too, but Gorshkov is really being slowly built. So it's a real let down. And it's not even close to modern destroyers out there such as Arleigh Burkes, Type 052D, Atago-class, Sejong the Great and Type 45.

The U.S. already has 62 Arleigh Burkes + more Burkes on the way and 3 Zumwalts, which is pretty sick. No 6-8 Gorshkovs can stop that, ever, in any way.

You cant compare it The Gorshkov is a totally new design The Russians need to get familiar with all the new systems and stuff like that, after the first two, three Gorshkovs are ready it will go alot faster.

The Gerald R Ford class is delayed several times too.

Vann7 wrote:

GarryB wrote:

The Arleigh Burke-class destroyers can have 90 cells x RIM-66 with 170km range , the ROyal navy Type 45 destroyer with about 48 cell x Asters anti air missiles with up to 120km range.  So i don't see the excitement of the new Frigates if will be limited to near Visual range combat when it comes to planes.  Purely defensive Sams in the navy makes more sense in smaller ships like Corvettes. but not in Frigate.

So your objection to new Russian Frigates is that they are out ranged in fire power by NATO Destroyers and US 10,000 ton cruisers... interesting...

Some AA (or Military testing, I don't remember) announcement about either Vityaz or Redut, but I distinctly recall them saying the complex (it was one that certainly uses (9M96) had 150km range.
I'll post if i find it.

I distinctly remember when they were first revealed as part of the S-400 system and shown publicly the figures were 40km range for the smaller missile and 120km for the larger missile.

When Vityaz was being further remember they spoke about domestic models with ranges of 60km and 150km respectively.

The comparison is fair because is not a Fairness contest. Of which have the best frigate. In case of War ,NATO will not say..lets bring Frigates and corvettes only because Russia is at disadvantage.. So is totally Fair to compare what will represent the backbone of Russia navy ,the one they plan to build more versus the more common warships that Russia will have to face. But if their SAM defenses range is 125k to 150k ,that changes things for sure..  So hopefully is true..  40km range Sams will be good in small and cheap warships.


The only question left i guess is how many 125k+ range 9m96e missiles the Gorshov Class will have domestic version?  128 too ?

Can we bury the "4 9M96 per cell" myth already? One missile per cell. The same cells are used on 20380 and 22350. The first has 12 cells, the second has 32.
32 long-range SAMs (not including point defense ones that are increasingly impessive in range themselves) is very good for the displacement.

T055 wrote:

Vann7 wrote:

GarryB wrote:

The Arleigh Burke-class destroyers can have 90 cells x RIM-66 with 170km range , the ROyal navy Type 45 destroyer with about 48 cell x Asters anti air missiles with up to 120km range.  So i don't see the excitement of the new Frigates if will be limited to near Visual range combat when it comes to planes.  Purely defensive Sams in the navy makes more sense in smaller ships like Corvettes. but not in Frigate.

So your objection to new Russian Frigates is that they are out ranged in fire power by NATO Destroyers and US 10,000 ton cruisers... interesting...

Some AA (or Military testing, I don't remember) announcement about either Vityaz or Redut, but I distinctly recall them saying the complex (it was one that certainly uses (9M96) had 150km range.
I'll post if i find it.

I distinctly remember when they were first revealed as part of the S-400 system and shown publicly the figures were 40km range for the smaller missile and 120km for the larger missile.

When Vityaz was being further remember they spoke about domestic models with ranges of 60km and 150km respectively.

The comparison is fair because is not a Fairness contest. Of which have the best frigate. In case of War ,NATO will not say..lets bring Frigates and corvettes only because Russia is at disadvantage.. So is totally Fair to compare what will represent the backbone of Russia navy ,the one they plan to build more versus the more common warships that Russia will have to face. But if their SAM defenses range is 125k to 150k ,that changes things for sure..  So hopefully is true..  40km range Sams will be good in small and cheap warships.


The only question left i guess is how many 125k+ range 9m96e missiles the Gorshov Class will have domestic version?  128 too ?

The building of Gorskhov har been painfully slow. This is the hard reality. The number Russia was looking at a few years back, which were 30 to begin with was clearly just a fantasy. Then the number of Gorshkov frigates was reduced to between 15 and 20.

Today, in July 2014, it is definitely clear that Russia is lucky if they even produce 8 Gorskhovs by 2020.

Almost the same problems with Admiral Grigorivich too, but Gorshkov is really being slowly built. So it's a real let down. And it's not even close to modern destroyers out there such as Arleigh Burkes, Type 052D, Atago-class, Sejong the Great and Type 45.

The U.S. already has 62 Arleigh Burkes + more Burkes on the way and 3 Zumwalts, which is pretty sick. No 6-8 Gorshkovs can stop that, ever, in any way.

Russia does not rely on its frigates to fight enemy destroyers, so it is an irrelevant comparison at best.


Nobody was looking at 30 Gorshkovs by 2020 a few years back. That is the total planned for the class in the long term.

The funny thing is it has the potency of a destroyer, on a much smaller chassis. Just with generally less weapons, but the performance corresponds to much larger ships.

So how many 9M96e missiles the Gorshkov frigate will have with 125km-150km range... ?

128 ?

I ask because the lenght of different versions of 9m96 change.. the longer range ones no idea if fit on the warship in
numbers of 4 per cell.

Vann7 wrote:
So how many 9M96e  missiles the Gorshkov frigate will have with 125km-150km range... ?  

128  ?

I ask because the lenght of different versions of 9m96 change.. the longer range ones no idea if fit on the warship in
numbers of 4 per cell.

32.
There is one short range or long range 9M96 missile per cell. No more, no less.
They differ in length, not width

when Gorshkov will be delivered at last? it reminds me Ivan Gren ship

George1 wrote:when Gorshkov will be delivered at last? it reminds me Ivan Gren ship

Navy doesn't want Ivan Gren, but it very much wants Gorshkov.

TR1 wrote:

George1 wrote:when Gorshkov will be delivered at last? it reminds me Ivan Gren ship

Navy doesn't want Ivan Gren, but it very much wants Gorshkov.

if it wanted gorshkov it wouldnt take as much time as an entire cruiser for just a single ship to be built. Measly italian navy builds 2 7000 ton destroyers for the same time.
However unlike tr1 Im an optimist and I belive well see russias problems sorted out and well see at least 50 frigates of all types by 2025

Hey I am an optimist, just within the realm of reality.

Gorshkov is taking so long because funding was absent (or irregular) in the 2000s, plus the ship is chock full of new systems. These take time to create and test.
The subcontractors were money starved for years, suddenly throwing cash at them does not produce instant results.

Compared to Gorshkov, Ivan Gren is a simple tub. Not nearly the same amount of new and cutting edge weapons and sensors.

I am most interested in how long Admiral Golovko takes to commission. Gorshkov and Kasatonov suffered from the hull being way ahead of the systems.