Project 22350: Admiral Sergei Gorshkov

It is only a frigate... S-400 based missiles would be overkill.

I would expect a mix of the naval versions of Vityaz and Morphei as per the ground based equivalent.

It's one of the newest ships the VMS is gonna mass produce any time soon. When they do decide to make a new Cruiser/Destroyer, it'll be interesting to see what version of the S-400 they install on it, or if they just go for S-500s.

In any case, weight of the 40N6 would still be appreciated :V

40N6 or Big Missile of S-400 series is still a classified project and very little info is known , it was suppose to end state trials end of this year before going for serial production.

A good write up on S-400 missile can be found here http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-S-400-Triumf.html

This just in - Gorshkov's full AESA suite will be delivered to the shipbuilder in May. Info from Almaz-Antey empolyee..

UPD: He added that this design was rejected, and only 2 first ships (or even one)shall have this AESA. The next one are getting new design.

Interesting I was under doubt those 4 faced blocks were AESA or PESA not it confirms.

The first 2 ships are actually test platforms to validate all the new technologies and new design that went into Gorshkov , the actual production will start after 2015.

Hopefully by that time if they come up with a Ga/N module for AESA then it should double the power available and consequently range. I am certain the present module is Ga/A like all new Russian AESA radar

They invested the money in AESA and now it is getting in to service.

A Frigate with an AESA array... Still a surprise to me.

GarryB wrote:They invested the money in AESA and now it is getting in to service.

A Frigate with an AESA array... Still a surprise to me.

Surprise ? Whats a big deal about it , couple of Western ships do have AESA for long time now.

Its just a natural evolution.

Sorry, I am a child of the 1970s and AESA equipped ships for me are AEGIS cruisers... nicknamed robocruisers in the gulf.

Would be like America having 406mm gun turrets of the Iowa class battleships fitted to a frigate...

I am not knocking it and now I think it is pretty clear that most major new build or upgraded large Russian ships like any Kirovs that get upgrades will likely have AESAs too.

The more they make the cheaper the AESA modules will become and it is clear they will need to make billions for land based SAM and radar systems, Naval systems and aircraft radar. This is all good.

Well yes , I have been vouching for AESA for some time now and its good to see they are there , but I should point out that Russians have a very mature PESA radar development in the world and its second to none in performance figures and capabilities ,so a advanced 3rd or 4th Gen PESA is much better then 1st gen not so mature AESA , but they need to go on AESA bandwagon some day and this is a good start.

The future AESA i am looking at from Russian and I know this is where they are working on ,to opt for next gen T/R module which is Ga/N this will help in increasing the power output to twice that of Ga/A module, i have seen figures of 40W for Ga/N module which will have bearing on this range and go for dual band AESA module like X/L band , this would give an advantage of a single PAR working on different frequencies and will reduce the types of radar that a ship operates.

Some information on the new AESA being developed for Gorshkov frigate

Model Radar AFAR

GarryB i have a question for you.
In the last weeks we have obtained from IMDS 2011 two good pics of Pr 22350 frigate's VLS number arrangement and size .
Moreover,from Almaz Antey annual 2010 report,has been confirmed that 9M100 is not only alive but even in production.

From a quick analysis of the size of the new naval standardized VLS and arrangement of missiles also in land-based launchers,appear almost sure that 4 9M96 will be hosted in each of those 28 VLS in the same way of tubes hosting 48N6 series exchangeable with 4 9M96 tubes.

Some sources (like warfare.ru )go even further suggesting that the VLS of Redut AD system could allow to host a 4 packed smaller missile like 9M100 for each 9M96 offering an even greater flexibility in missile's customization.

Do you have any information on this subject ? Thanks.

In the last weeks we have obtained from IMDS 2011 two good pics of Pr 22350 frigate's VLS number arrangement and size .
Moreover,from Almaz Antey annual 2010 report,has been confirmed that 9M100 is not only alive but even in production.

From a quick analysis of the size of the new naval standardized VLS and arrangement of missiles also in land-based launchers,appear almost sure that 4 9M96 will be hosted in each of those 28 VLS in the same way of tubes hosting 48N6 series exchangeable with 4 9M96 tubes.

Some sources (like warfare.ru )go even further suggesting that the VLS of Redut AD system could allow to host a 4 packed smaller missile like 9M100 for each 9M96 offering an even greater flexibility in missile's customization.

Do you have any information on this subject ? Thanks.

I was under the impression that the Redut launchers were 16 tube bins, so with two that would make 32 launch tubes for full sized S-400 type missiles. I have heard that the smaller 9M96 type missiles can be loaded 4 to a bin but I rather doubt each of those missiles could be replaced by 4 9M100 missiles.

For a Frigate I would suspect a normal load of perhaps 64 x 10km range 9M100 missiles for short range defence in conjunction with CIWS, plus probably a balance of perhaps 20 x 120km range larger 9M96 missiles and 44 x 40km range smaller 9M96 missiles.

Remember this is a Frigate!!!

I was under the impression that the Redut launchers were 16 tube bins, so with two that would make 32 launch tubes

The image of Pr. 22350 model from the last IMDS 2011 at which i refer show a bined 14 VL tube formation (for a grand total of 28 ) on the bow and other 8 tubes bined (for a total of 16 more)in a more recessed position, likely UKSK tubes for AShM.  

http://balancer.ru/forum/punbb/attachment.php?item=231441



What surely hit the eyes is that the overall appearance of the 28 VLS of Redut AD and the 16 3R-14UKSK is pratically identical letting we to speculate only on a possible difference in deepness (3R-14UKSK is 9.58 meters deep for allow the hosting of Oniks or BrahMos).

Excuse my ignorance but in this photo of a model:

http://balancer.ru/forum/punbb/attachment.php?item=231441

I see the two sets of launcher bins for Brahmos and Club in the centre with 8 hatches each, but I don't see the 14 tube Redut launcher tubes.
The two blank areas above and below the Brahmos and Klub launchers in the photo include 3 separate tubs or boxes... unless they each hold a different number of missiles each I would suggest that these are the Redut launchers and that with them grouped in threes that 14 will not likely be their capacity unless each of the three bins that make up each group of launchers holds 4.6666 missiles.
I suspect that a more sensible load for each bin would be 4, which makes the capacity of three bins 12 missiles and the two forward groups of bins 24 missile capacity.

Assuming there are no other launchers elsewhere on the vessel that means 16 land attack, anti sub and anti ship missiles and 24 SAM launchers for up to 24 x 4 = 96 SAMs.

That would likely result in a load of perhaps 64 Morfei short range IIR missiles for close in defence plus perhaps 24 x 40km range 9M96 missiles, which would leave 8 x 120km range 9M96 missiles.

I see the two sets of launcher bins for Brahmos and Club in the centre with 8 hatches each, but I don't see the 14 tube Redut launcher tubes.

GarryB go at the bottom of the pic's page and scroll the page to the right and you will see the two series of 14 Redut AD launchers (the pic is very big therefore you see at the beginning only the left part )

Assuming there are no other launchers elsewhere on the vessel that means 16 land attack, anti sub and anti ship missiles and 24 SAM launchers for up to 24 x 4 = 96 SAMs.

Because are present 28 Redut launchers the correct count is 28 x 4 = 112 SAM of the 9M96 type.

That would likely result in a load of perhaps 64 Morfei short range IIR missiles for close in defence plus perhaps 24 x 40km range 9M96 missiles, which would leave 8 x 120km range 9M96 missiles.

But my previous question remain : we know that 4 9M96,with a diameter of 25 cm ,fit the space of a big 48N6 ,with a diameter of 50 cm .
We have the 9M100 missile with a diameter just of 12,5 cm (do you note the pattern in the diameter measure ?); do you belive that 9M100 will replace the space of 9M96 on a one to one basis ? ...I highly doubt that ;at the contrary i believe that the same reason behind the design of the short range 9M100 ,is to gain an highly effective mean against large scale saturating attacks.

When I open the picture there is no horizontal scroll bar so I can see the blanked launcher bins for Redut.

Because the picture is side on the Redut launchers are above and below the front UKSK launcher and seem to consist of three bins each with no clearly defined hatches so their capacity is hard to determine directly from the model.

Because are present 28 Redut launchers the correct count is 28 x 4 = 112 SAM of the 9M96 type.

If we can establish there are 28 launch tubes then I agree on the count of 112 SAMs.

But my previous question remain : we know that 4 9M96,with a diameter of 25 cm ,fit the space of a big 48N6 ,with a diameter of 50 cm .
We have the 9M100 missile with a diameter just of 12,5 cm (do you note the pattern in the diameter measure ?); do you belive that 9M100 will replace the space of 9M96 on a one to one basis ? ...I highly doubt that ;at the contrary i believe that the same reason behind the design of the short range 9M100 ,is to gain an highly effective mean against large scale saturating attacks.

I can't give you hard answers, but we can use a bit of logic and try to work out what would make sense.

First of all the purpose of the Redut system is similar to the UKSK system in that it is to be a unified launcher that can be loaded with a variety of weapons.
It makes sense to build a system that can be applied from small corvettes right up to carriers... especially because unlike other types of launchers it is stealthy in that it mounts flush to the deck and is not limited in terms of firing rate in that all the missiles in the tubes are actually ready to fire... they don't need to be handled or moved to a firing position.

Having all the launch systems the same makes a lot of sense in terms of standardisation of systems and handling and maintainence, though there is something to be said for having long and short models where the long models are fitted to the bigger ships and allow full sized 400km range S-400 and full sized Rif-M missiles to be loaded, while for smaller ships a shorter launcher that can take the shorter S-400 missiles could be used.

If it is the case of the latter then fitting the tiny 9M100 missile into the enormous tubes... even if you fit them in quad packs is a little inefficient.

If you look at this photo you can see even though the two smaller 9M96 missiles are much slimmer, they are not actually that much shorter than the full sized missiles:



However the 9M100 missiles will likely be much shorter weapons, so even including a cold launch catapult system to throw them up into the air and get them started even if you couldn't pack 4 in the area of one 9M96 missile (which I doubt), you could probably stack two lots on top of each other with the smaller missile so each launch tube could carry one full sized long range missile, or 4 9M96 missiles of 120km or 40km range, or you could put a double pack of 9M100 missiles that has 8 missiles which consist of two stacks of four missiles in each tube.

My apologies... I now see the scroll bar on the web page itself, and yes... it appears there are two large bins each with 14 hatches which are presumably the Redut launchers.

Makes me wonder what the blanked out bins either side of the UKSK launchers are.

Keep in mind this is a frigate yet it has the potential to have up to 16 Brahmos missiles and 112 SAMs.

In fact on most pictures I have seen of the vessel it has Kashtan systems at the rear corners, so with the Pantsir-S1 upgrade that means 64 missiles with 20km range able to hit targets at 2m above the water up to 15km altitude and engage 4 targets each at one time... and that is for the export models of Pantsir-S1.

This is a very well armed frigate... in fact it is better armed than the Sovremmeny Destroyers which were considered well armed vessels.

Makes me wonder what the blanked out bins either side of the UKSK launchers are.

My hypothesis,founded on the point that UKSK are placed in that position just to "gain" the 1,5 / 2 meters of deepness necessary to host Oniks, is that those hatches are built but not with capacity to host future integration of long range navalized very long range AD / or cruise missiles.
Likely the purpose for this will be,thanks to the synergistic resultant of the ship's reduced radar signature and even only the most basic noise/selective jamming,to leave also future airborne attacking menaces well within engagement envelop of the ship (implementable) Long Range Air Defence systems.

Keep in mind this is a frigate yet it has the potential to have up to 16 Brahmos missiles and 112 SAMs.......so with the Pantsir-S1 upgrade that means 64 missiles with 20km range able to hit targets at 2m above the water up to 15km altitude and engage 4 targets each at one time... and that is for the export models of Pantsir-S1.

GarryB,all the data at our dispaosal,give to me the distinct feeling that project 20350 will execute -at least until first unities of new generation destroyer will be laid down-several roles assigned,in other Navies around the world, at ships in totally different size categories.
If the informations on the true range of internal versions of Klub not subject to MTCR (likely the subsonic land attack version with the 400 kg warhead http://rusnavy.com/news/navy/index.php?ELEMENT_ID=11768 ) can be an hint , we can easily infer that the engagement range of Russian Oniks,not subject to MTRC, lie in the region of 800-900 km .
That mean that a pair of those "frigates" would be capable ,at second of the missile configuration, attack and destroy several high paying land based targets :C4 sites, radar installations, airfields hangars etc.., from ranges well outside the possibilities of any conventional version -Block III and Block IV TLAM - of BGM-109 http://www.navy.mil/navydata/fact_display.asp?cid=2200&tid=1300&ct=2 ; or engage an enemy naval formation with a salvo of high supersonic and manoeuvrable missiles in the class of Oniks/3M54 Klub from well outside the engagement range of any AShM operative in any other Navy worldwide.

On the missile defence sector we have that each Pr 20350,leaving out any employement of the space now reserved to the technological hatches of which we have talked previously,will mount : 1) Redut AD VL tubes with 112 9M96 missiles with range of 120 / 40 km (or in my opinion,more likely, 90 9M96 missiles and 88 9M100 missile with about 10 km of engagement range for close defence) with the crucial capability to engage incoming missile in a saturating salvo not in the closing order but from the "interior" of theirs formation so to offer to the most internal layers of AD not only targets much easier to designate and neutralize but also enough time between menaces for re-engagement of missiles not destroyed, 2) 64 23Ya6 missile of Pantsyr-M with range superior to 20 km (likely in the 30 km region), 3) A-192 130 mm gun in the 22 km region 4)On board jamming systems in the 13-14 km range 5) 9M100 fire and forget missiles in the 10 km range,likely shooted in salvo of 2-3 to each evenual survivng missile 6)Chaff/Flare delivered by both in borad systems and KA-28 helicopter 7) Two Twinned 30mm gun of Pantsyr-M with range of 4 km.

On the ASW departement we have (ecluding Klub 91RE1/2 mounted purposely for the task) that the Pr. 20350 is equiped with a new generation sonar ,2 quadruple Medvedka 2 sytems and the only hard kill anti-torpedo active defence system ,at now,operative worldwide the Paket-E/Nk.

....Those aren't precisely the capabilities of a typical frigate ship......

Project 22350 Admiral Sergei Gorshkov is referred as frigate. But my pinion is that concerning the number of missiles that will carries, it is more a multirole ship/small destroyer

It should be a very capable vessel, and that is saying a lot because the standard of "capable" has moved orders of magnitude higher over the years.

In the 1980s to find a ship with similar capability you had to go for an AEGIS class cruiser that weighed 10K tons.

The USS Ticonderoga for example had 8 Harpoons, 20 ASROC, and 68 SM-2 SAMs on a 9.5K ton ship.

Well assuming the figures in the first post are correct, the Gorshkov carries 8 Yakhont supersonic cruise anti ship missiles, Medvedka has 12 ready to launch ASROC type missiles.
The question of course is about Roberts post on the first page of this thread... two UKSK bins and 32 Shtil/Redut launch bins, could mean 16 Yakhonts and up to 128 x 120km or 40km range 9M96s, or 32 Shtil-1 missiles.

Conservatively, going from the specs given in the news reports... 8 x Oniks, 12 Medvedka, and 24 improved SA-N-7 (vertical launched BUK missiles), plus self defence systems like Kashtan-M and of course a 130mm twin gun.

This is comparable to a 1980s cruiser... in some aspects inferior, and in others superior.

Looks like a very capable vessel that will be very useful if they can get the numbers they want.

Keel laid down in 2006. 6 years from that time. How much time we must wait to see a russian warship at sea? A decade?

The first vessel of a class often takes a little longer to put together... especially if the components are all new and it has been 20 years since the components makers have been selling products to anyone.

After it hits the water and completes tests then the follow on vessels should be much faster... 6-8 years for the first vessel is pretty understandable considering they they really only actually started funding military programs after 2008 when they suddenly realised the unexpected can and does happen.

Look at the Falklands Islands war in 1982... if the Argentines had waited 5 years the Brits would almost certainly have cut funding for their carriers and all British hopes of retaking the Islands would have been pretty slim.

GarryB wrote:The first vessel of a class often takes a little longer to put together... especially if the components are all new and it has been 20 years since the components makers have been selling products to anyone.

After it hits the water and completes tests then the follow on vessels should be much faster... 6-8 years for the first vessel is pretty understandable considering they they really only actually started funding military programs after 2008 when they suddenly realised the unexpected can and does happen.

Hell yes, the second one, laid down in 2009 Fleet Admiral Kasatonov, is expected to be comissioned 2012. Thus 3 years.

The first serial ship – Admiral Flota Kasatonov – was laid down in 2009 and will be commissioned in 2012.

Although i think it will be comissioned in 2013-14, the verf have orders for another six, and the build time for these will likely decrease to 3-4 years.
Now they need numbers, the rumors say 20-30 such ships.

Now they need numbers, the rumors say 20-30 such ships.

The advantage of these ships is that they don't have a fixed armament.

The UKSK launchers mean that these vessels can be loaded for a range of different roles, so instead of building 5 dedicated to anti sub work and 5 dedicated to anti ship work and 5 dedicated to land attack, they can build 15 and change their loads depending on the mission at hand.

The mass production of these frigates will be very useful in getting the shipyards up to speed, because the next step is going to be a mix of Destroyer sized vessels, and upgrades of much larger vessels.

GarryB wrote:

Now they need numbers, the rumors say 20-30 such ships.

The advantage of these ships is that they don't have a fixed armament.

The UKSK launchers mean that these vessels can be loaded for a range of different roles, so instead of building 5 dedicated to anti sub work and 5 dedicated to anti ship work and 5 dedicated to land attack, they can build 15 and change their loads depending on the mission at hand.

The mass production of these frigates will be very useful in getting the shipyards up to speed, because the next step is going to be a mix of Destroyer sized vessels, and upgrades of much larger vessels.

Do we know how many cells will be in the UKSK launcher? 16?