Project 22350: Admiral Sergei Gorshkov

Yeah you are right. Some drawing that does not exist in reality is more valuable than clear, light as day evidence that in no universe will 9M96 tubes be quadpacked in those cells.

TR1 wrote:Yeah you are right. Some drawing that does not exist in reality is more valuable than clear, light as day evidence that in no universe will 9M96 tubes be quadpacked in those cells.

Give me a break... Your eyes must be sore.

These are way more revealing than a friggin crap video of an open cell that doesn't prove a thing.

TR1 wrote:Yeah you are right. Some drawing that does not exist in reality is more valuable than clear, light as day evidence that in no universe will 9M96 tubes be quadpacked in those cells.

No. This is it I have no doubt in it now.

But use logic TR1. Do you really believe that RN with its brand new 4550t ship oof new generation will have air defense of much lower characteristics than lower weight

older generation (3850t) Grigorovic? I dont think so.

Second those two launchers (20380 and 22350) are certainly not the same in size. Take a look at 20380 and 20385 (you will notice that UKSK launchers are naturaly much bigger than

Redut ones but in 22350 Redut and UKSK are roughly the same in size meaning more missiles will fit in) more as in the patent shown above

But even with one 9M96 per cell, it is not weaker than Grigorovich. 36 Shtil is not better than 32 9M96, not by a long shot, especially when considering the system as a hole.

That model, the 22350 one is wrong. For one, it has an incorrect number of cells:
http://i33.fastpic.ru/big/2014/0316/7d/bc0e64705d06576673b3ab42e7b0967d.jpg

We know this is the actual layout.

Nothing I have seen in actual photos of the ships suggest the cells size is different on 20380 and 22350. And in that video it is completely clear only one 9M96 fits.

Finally, even if we look closely @ the size differences of the UKSK and SAM cells on the incorrect 22350 model, the UKSK cells are noticeably wider. I think if an accurate measurement was taken, it would account for, the seeming size difference on the two 20380/20385 models.

We will see soon enough as Gorshkov will do weapons trials, but I guarantee you, it is 1 missile per cell.
The size would have to be MUCH bigger to accommodate 4 tubes per cell, if we take the size of the tube in that launching video as a measure.

Diameter of 9M96 is 24cm ... thats not much

and has been proven before it can. Now you just have more evidence. But like you said we will see for ourselves pretty soon.

I don't like a lot the Gorshkov design..   is not ugly but neither is impressive.. And is not stealthy either ..

compare the Russian Frigate with the French La Fayette..  frech warship is far better in radar signature than the Russian frigate..



I just hope Russian navy stop being lame and push elegance in their designs.. Perception is also important..
Is fucking annoying every time Russia release a new warship or a plane people automatically label it as old junk but how it looks..  It doesn't matter if its wrong what they say.. The fact is that Military technology not only needs to be powerful , but needs to create also needs to give the impression of being very advanced... The only warships that Russia have that looks very modern are not made by Russia but france mistral.

Compare the frontal part.. of both warships.. Russian one is designed in a more classical older way..and a moderate touch of stealth.



Aside that no idea the goal of the Big Cannons , they are not needed in modern warfare that in a real fights will be much farther than 30km distance.. remove the cannon and you will have more space for more missiles.


Maybe the leader destroyer will do it right..
The early models looks more forward looking





Is not the end of the world.. LOL   but it sucks that Russia is so lame and do not get it ever right.. in surprising anyone with their next generation military stuff. Their Pak-Fa was a total disaster for russia in terms of power projection , everyone was talking the first monts not of its features but on how badly designed was their stealth features and how superior was US designing stealth planes. Pak-Fa looks like an unfinished plane and that sucks.. IF Russia have any intention to project power in the world someone explain them how important is the appearance of the things they have plans to sell.. highly disappointed with Russia designers.  Soviet designers were far better.. look at how amazing the Tu-160 still looks today.. whenever i see a video in youtube people comments are usually like..
"well its old but looks great ".. i also thing the Tu-22M is a master piece its design...

Why are you turning in to such ****? That is possibly the most nonsense I've ever seen in a RMF comment.

The ships look doesn't mean a thing, it is as stealthy as it needs to be.

Lame? Did Navyfield and T055 get into your head?

Like Mike said, ship design is only a partial concept.  The fact that Gorshkov is more advanced in terms of weapons is a heck of a lot more important than some sort of "sleek" design (that is actually based upon each individual) and "stealth" is kinda a joke in terms of a large ship as it will still get spotted hundreds of KM away.

And I don't even understand your position on PAK FA. Are you basing off of so called experts who seen photos? Yeah, it is supposed to have intake shielding. At that point, it makes it VLO design.

Vann, take a vacation or something. Or at least educate yourself a bit more.

Vann7 wrote:

Aside that no idea the goal of the Big Cannons , they are not needed in modern warfare that in a real fights will be much farther than 30km distance.. remove the cannon and you will have more space for more missiles.

I believe the Osa class boats were designed as such, and they encountered problems against same sized boats that had big guns. They were 'replaced' by the Tarantul which has a deck gun.

Van's ship knowledge is about as good as his tank identification skill.

On the subject of looks I have seen only overwhelming love for the 22350- and rightfully so. It is a phenomenal looking ship, a great mix of classic and modern lines.

TR1 wrote:On the subject of looks I have seen only overwhelming love for the 22350- and rightfully so. It is a phenomenal looking ship, a great mix of classic and modern lines.

Agree, i think the La Fayette looks bad in comparison with Gorshkov. Looks it not everything but i have to cite: "A beautiful looking ship is often a great ship"

project 22350 looks just incredible and its firepower unmatched

Video of Gorshkov sailing

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=d13_1416824385&utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

compare the Russian Frigate with the French La Fayette.. frech warship is far better in radar signature than the Russian frigate..

Just a glance and I can say you are wrong... there is no rail around the french boats deck, which is an enormous hazard to any crew on deck... the rail on the Russian vessel forms a radar barrier shielding items on the deck from radar... a radar a long way away will see the Russian vessel from a shallow angle so the solid railing will conceal the base of the main gun position at the front and any items on the deck over a wide range of angles.

I just hope Russian navy stop being lame and push elegance in their designs.. Perception is also important..

Of course... style over substance... didn't really work for the German Army during WWII though did it? Those scruffy Soviets in their better fitting warm uniforms didn't suffer nearly as bad as those well dressed Nazis.

Is fucking annoying every time Russia release a new warship or a plane people automatically label it as old junk but how it looks.. It doesn't matter if its wrong what they say..

So the solution is for the Russians to start making their equipment to appeal to their critics?

People who label PAK FA or Armata as old junk are morons who clearly think if it isn't western then it is not sophisticated. You are being an idiot to care what they think or say.

The fact is that Military technology not only needs to be powerful , but needs to create also needs to give the impression of being very advanced... The only warships that Russia have that looks very modern are not made by Russia but france mistral.

WTF are you talking about... Mistral is about as stealthy and modern as my left testicle... the French version isn't even as well defended and the helos the french use are BORING.

The Russian Mistral is WAY COOLER than any French version because of better weapons and better aircraft.

Aside that no idea the goal of the Big Cannons , they are not needed in modern warfare that in a real fights will be much farther than 30km distance.. remove the cannon and you will have more space for more missiles.

It is a Frigate. If you don't mount a decent gun on a Frigate how is it going to signal its intention without destroying a target?

How do you indicate to a fishing vessel to stop running? How do you deal with small high speed boats?

How do you deal with targets on a beach?

Million dollar cruise or anti ship missile?

Or $500 130mm shell?

Maybe the leader destroyer will do it right..
The early models looks more forward looking

Ummm... DUH... Van... the line drawing you posted shows the same layout as the Gorshkov you berated... gun in front with vertical launch systems and a bridge...

Which is the same layout as the French design you seem to think is so wonderful.

Their Pak-Fa was a total disaster for russia in terms of power projection

Good... unlike the F-22 an F-35 the PAK FA is not for invading other countries and imposing a foreign will on people... it is to defend Russian air space and shoot down F-22s and F-35s.

Pak-Fa looks like an unfinished plane and that sucks..

Bullshit.

Soviet designers were far better.. look at how amazing the Tu-160 still looks today.. whenever i see a video in youtube people comments are usually like..
"well its old but looks great ".

That is funny because those US Strong idiots, whose opinions you seem to hold so dear probably like the tu-160 because it basically looks like what the B-1A was supposed to look like till they crippled it and made it into a Backfire class aircraft (B-1B).

Agree, i think the La Fayette looks bad in comparison with Gorshkov. Looks it not everything but i have to cite: "A beautiful looking ship is often a great ship"

From a practical perspective the French boat could not have any crew on the foredeck... especially in icy conditions as without a rail it would just be too dangerous.

But of course for a Russian boat how common would icy conditions be....

kvs wrote:Most of the impact on the appearance is from having the "stealth" shell.  It makes the design look boxy and plain.   That is the price you pay
for this feature.  Look at all the other such stealthy ships and see the same effect.

Yes almost every new design looks the same, but i still think Gorshkov is beautiful for a stealth design. In sweden we have Visby class corvettes and they are ugly as hell, but the stealth signature is probably very good.

Vann7 wrote:I don't like a lot the Gorshkov design..   is not ugly but neither is impressive.. And is not stealthy either ..

compare the Russian Frigate with the French La Fayette..

I just hope Russian navy stop being lame and push elegance in their designs.. Perception is also important..
Is fucking annoying every time Russia release a new warship or a plane people automatically label it as old junk but how it looks..  It doesn't matter if its wrong what they say.. The fact is that Military technology not only needs to be powerful , but needs to create also needs to give the impression of being very advanced... The only warships that Russia have that looks very modern are not made by Russia but france mistral.

Compare the frontal part.. of both warships.. Russian one is designed in a more classical older way..and a moderate touch of stealth.

Aside that no idea the goal of the Big Cannons , they are not needed in modern warfare that in a real fights will be much farther than 30km distance.. remove the cannon and you will have more space for more missiles.

Is not the end of the world.. LOL   but it sucks that Russia is so lame and do not get it ever right.. in surprising  anyone with their next generation military stuff. Their Pak-Fa was a total disaster for russia in terms of power projection , everyone was talking the first monts not of its features but on how badly designed was their stealth features and how superior was US designing stealth planes. Pak-Fa looks like an unfinished plane and that sucks.. IF Russia have any intention to project power in the world someone explain them how important is the appearance of the things they have plans to sell.. highly disappointed with Russia designers.  Soviet designers were far better.. look at how amazing the Tu-160 still looks today.. whenever i see a video in youtube people comments are usually like..
"well its old but looks great "..  i also thing the Tu-22M is a master piece its design...

The hell..?

Those Gorshkov-class frigates are packed with more firepower than half the current crop of the world's destroyer-classes

Not impressive!? They're armed to the teeth!!

Several range-classes of air-defense missiles (including the lower-end S-400 missiles), supersonic ASMs & cruise missiles, anti-torpedo torpedoes & decoys, missile-launched torpedos and depth-charges, advanced gun-missile CIWS, armed ASW helicopter, quick-firing 130mm cannon, etc... dude, you wouldn't want to be around.

Can some one tell me if the 4 Faced Radar on Gorshkov is AESA or a PESA ?

We were having a discussion on mp.net and they said it was a PESA ?

Austin wrote:Can some one tell me if the 4 Faced Radar on Gorshkov is AESA or a PESA ?

We were having a discussion on mp.net and they said it was a PESA ?

Paralay.com says

http://www.paralay.com/22350.html

В комплекс будет входить четыре фазированные антенные решетки (АФАР) «Полимент»

The complex will have 4 AESA radar "Poliment".

Austin wrote:We were having a discussion on mp.net and ...

Thanks for the news that for the first time there has been a "discussion" on the mp.ret.

Nothing against you personally, Austin, but I don't believe that there was a "discussion" on the mp.ret, of course. I thought a "discussion" required a minimum IQ.

Morpheus Eberhardt wrote:

Austin wrote:We were having a discussion on mp.net and ...

Thanks for the news that for the first time there has been a "discussion" on the mp.ret. Nothing against you personally Austin, but I don't believe it, of course.

I thought a "discussion" required a minimum IQ.

No kidding, those guys actually believe that the U.S. military can defeat the Russian, Chinese, and Indian military all simultaneously, blindfolded with their arms tied behind their back. I mean where talking about the same crowd who thought there were WMD's in Iraq.

Can some one tell me if the 4 Faced Radar on Gorshkov is AESA or a PESA ?

If it was only a PESA it wouldn't be taking this long...

Before any read... MY OBSERVATIONS HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH COMBAT CAPABILITIES OF THE Gorshkov FRIGATE.  ZERO..  Only discussing the power Perception of Russian defense industry ,about the quality of its hardware.. its conditions and design .That is always seen as inferior to the west..

GarryB wrote:
Just a glance and I can say you are wrong... there is no rail around the french boats deck, which is an enormous hazard to any crew on deck... the rail on the Russian vessel forms a radar barrier shielding items on the deck from radar... a radar a long way away will see the Russian vessel from a shallow angle so the solid railing will conceal the base of the main gun position at the front and any items on the deck over a wide range of angles.

The Russian newest warships have so many things in the outside exposed to be captured by Radar signals.. things are not covered like it happens in latest NATO warship.

So the solution is for the Russians to start making their equipment to appeal to their critics?
People who label PAK FA or Armata as old junk are morons who clearly think if it isn't western then it is not sophisticated. You are being an idiot to care what they think or say.

Because the appearance of things is also important. ,specially for hardware that cost billions..
There is something called psychological impact of your military projection..That also helps , perhaps you will not understand this because your mosquito brain.. but is a fact that the first appearance matters.. so far the first appearance of Russian hardware is always cause jokes.. people laugh at the rusty warships or the un-stealthy things.. I have yet to see a single plane or warship that Russia makes that people consider it modern.. Is a fact that people judge things for the way it look..then why not have your newest hardware to not only perform very well but looks perfect?

Go and look the real Gorshkov in close shot.. and see if you notice the rusty parts here and there ,discolored other parts and poorly painted in a warships that is supposed to represent Greatness of Russian Navy  ?

http://edge.liveleak.com/80281E/ll_a_s/2014/Nov/24/LiveLeak-dot-com-d13_1416824385-attachmentphp_1416824279.jpg?d5e8cc8eccfb6039332f41f6249e92b06c91b4db65f5e99818bdd6914f46ddd0655c&ec_rate=230

If your next generation warship or Submarine is revealed to the world with poor quality conditions..
it will create the opposite effect of what Russia intended to create.. instead of impress their competition.
it will create jokes and disrespect .  

RUssia have a huge problem of poor quality projection in their military industry.. everyone consider them the quality of everything they make inferior whether is Cars or warships or planes.. This is terrible from business point of view..


Im not talking about Combat performance , ,but about military power perception..
Brazil and Argentina both PRO Russian nations prefer to buy European Planes than Russian ones(that are way superior).. the reason is always the same.. Russia is not really good in projecting European standards in quality of their equipment.

It is a Frigate. If you don't mount a decent gun on a Frigate how is it going to signal its intention without destroying a target?  

There are millions of ways to deal with pirates and small boats without sacrificing a warship space for weapons that will never see use against NATO warships since they will never fight at visual distance. Patrol Boats , or Corvettes Escorts for example.. Also much lower caliber guns..  they will save a lot of space that can be used for more Missile power .

How do you indicate to a fishing vessel to stop running? How do you deal with small high speed boats?

See above.. lower caliber guns can do that.. Coast Guard boats can do that.. without a fucking big Gun that again will be useless against any potential conflict against NATO..

Maybe the leader destroyer will do it right..
The early models looks more forward looking

Ummm... DUH... Van... the line drawing you posted shows the same layout as the Gorshkov you berated... gun in front with vertical launch systems and a bridge...
Which is the same layout as the French design you seem to think is so wonderful.

[/quote]

Not really , the leader have most things hide in the foredeck .. Gorshov have the classical design in the fore-deck with hundreds of things outside not covered.. so shows it will be stronger its radar signal.

Good... unlike the F-22 an F-35 the PAK FA is not for invading other countries and imposing a foreign will on people... it is to defend Russian air space and shoot down F-22s and F-35s.

Any SU-27 upgraded can equally defend Russian airspace.. Is not like Russia needs a stealth plane to defend their airspace.. S-400s can do that. Pak-FA is more about power projection.. and so far its first debut are anything but impressive in projecting power.. everyone else only talks about how un-stealthy is. Go and read Air power Australia Review of Pak-FA it was ok but not as good as F-22.  

Pak-Fa looks like an unfinished plane and that sucks..

Bullshit .  

yes it does.. It is missing the cover of their rear engines .. if you do an stealth plane you do it right or not do it at all.

From a practical perspective the French boat could not have any crew on the foredeck...

And thats because they wanted the warship to be more forward looking its design more stealthy. Is not an ice breaker it was never meant to do that.. Russia use icebreakers to move in the front of their warships when they travel the artic when a need exist.


Again for the people that cannot read,my observations Have nothing to do with combat capabilities of the Gorshkov..    my observations is about Russia power projection , what image they project.. showing rusty planes or warships you are not going to impress anyone.. only show you are careless of the quality of your hardware Either in design or in quality conditions or both ..They do a plane or a warship and always project that its quality is behind the western designs standards ,specially europeans ones.  The Gorshov is no question the best frigate ..of all.. but its physical design is not as forward looking as western next generation warships. I really think Russia can do better.. and more than anything there is no excuse for a new warship soon to enter service to already show signs of being rusty. It just give a bad impression about the quality of their hardware. what in business people call second thoughts. IF anyone mad for me wanting Russia to seek perfection in their designs ,because they can do it.. Their Space Rockets industry fortunately does not have those problem of looking inferior to what the west can do ,is actually the opposite.. Russia finally have show their quality in space industry is better.. but thats not enough they need to do the same thing in the entire industry. specially in military hardware that is supposed to represent the best you can do.

The Russian newest warships have so many things in the outside exposed to be captured by Radar signals.. things are not covered like it happens in latest NATO warship.

They are not supposed to be invisible to radar... those big four faced radar antennas built into the main mast will be operating a lot of the time.

the Gorshkov is more like a Rafale... a LO ship not a stealth ship.

Have said it before... will say it again... law of diminished returns... make a ship low observable and it will cost $100 million... all the changes needed to make it stealthy will cost $100 billion. Neither the western or Russian vessels will be stealthy in all radar frequencies... long wave radar stealth just doesn't exist.

Because the appearance of things is also important. ,specially for hardware that cost billions..

Bullshit. No one won a war because their uniforms looked pretty.

Nobody bought equipment because it looked pretty.

There is something called psychological impact of your military projection..

There is... and it has nothing to do with what your weapon platforms look like because most enemies will never see them in real combat. the mental impact of mach 3 anti ship missiles penetrating those pretty shiny angled NATO ships will have all the mental effect Russia wants.

That also helps , perhaps you will not understand this because your mosquito brain.. but is a fact that the first appearance matters.. so far the first appearance of Russian hardware is always cause jokes.. people laugh at the rusty warships or the un-stealthy things.. I have yet to see a single plane or warship that Russia makes that people consider it modern.. Is a fact that people judge things for the way it look..then why not have your newest hardware to not only perform very well but looks perfect?

Those people are idiots.

Immerse a large metal object in salt water and it rusts. Look at a close up photo of any ship that has been in sea water.

Keep the personal abuse to yourself. Just because you don't understand that salt water + time equals rust...  

Go and look the real Gorshkov in close shot.. and see if you notice the rusty parts here and there ,discolored other parts and poorly painted in a warships that is supposed to represent Greatness of Russian Navy  ?

What are you smoking? Who said the Gorshkov is supposed to represent the greatness of the Russian Navy? Why would a frigate represent the greatness of any navy?

If your next generation warship or Submarine is revealed to the world with poor quality conditions..
it will create the opposite effect of what Russia intended to create.. instead of impress their competition.
it will create jokes and disrespect .

Maybe they want to be underestimated? Maybe it is all just a plan to lull NATO into a false sense of security so the complete rearmament of the Russian military does not cause NATO to do the same so Russia will be ready and NATO wont...

they are building a frigate that has comparable or better capabilities to destroyers and cruisers and you are getting pissy because they don't paint it enough?

RUssia have a huge problem of poor quality projection in their military industry.. everyone consider them the quality of everything they make inferior whether is Cars or warships or planes.. This is terrible from business point of view..

The world is split into will and wont.... part of the world will buy Russian stuff and a few spots of rust on a ship wont make fuck all difference to them. Part of the world wont and those that wont will act like everything they are trying to sell is on fire or radio active.... it is clearly the latter you are talking about and who gives a fuck what they think?

Really who cares if the US Navy wont buy Su-33s for their carriers, or Australia wont buy Su-35s to replace F-18s and Su-34s to replace F-111s? It is not lost money if they never had any intention of buying them in the first place.

Brazil and Argentina both PRO Russian nations prefer to buy European Planes than Russian ones(that are way superior).. the reason is always the same.. Russia is not really good in projecting European standards in quality of their equipment.

Bullshit. It has more to do with US and western pressure... ask France how easy it is to deal with Russia... and not Russias fault either.

There are millions of ways to deal with pirates and small boats without sacrificing a warship space for weapons that will never see use against NATO warships since they will never fight at visual distance. Patrol Boats , or Corvettes Escorts for example.. Also much lower caliber guns..  they will save a lot of space that can be used for more Missile power .

So why does the french frigate have a gun? Why do fighter planes still have guns?

You say Russian ships should be focused on fighting NATO? Why? They are 1000% more likely to deal with pirates and smugglers and illegal fishermen than NATO... which version of Onyx would you suggest for use against a medium sized container ship?

See above.. lower caliber guns can do that.. Coast Guard boats can do that.. without a fucking big Gun that again will be useless against any potential conflict against NATO..

And troops just landed on a beach coming under fire call in coordinates... do you fire a laser guided 130mm shell costing $600 or a 2,500km range land attack cruise missile costing a million dollars?

Not really , the leader have most things hide in the foredeck .. Gorshov have the classical design in the fore-deck with hundreds of things outside not covered.. so shows it will be stronger its radar signal.

Seen from the high angle the photo is taken from the radar will be close enough to be detected and engaged. From a shallower angle from further away the things on the deck will be hidden by the railing and therefore radar invisible.

Any SU-27 upgraded can equally defend Russian airspace.. Is not like Russia needs a stealth plane to defend their airspace..

No it can't. Being difficult for NATO to spot using airborne fighter radar and AWACs, it will be rather easier for PAK FA to "surprise" NATO aircraft inside and outside Russian airspace and it will be much harder to target by NATO air forces. With only Meteor and AMRAAM long range missiles in the UK and US armoury all PAK FA needs to do is be an invisible target for those missile radar seekers and they are safe from long range attack by UK and US aircraft... which means the combination of PAK FA and Su-35 and MiG-35 will be a very potent force indeed... and much more capable than with just upgraded Su-27s alone.

Go and read Air power Australia Review of Pak-FA it was ok but not as good as F-22.  

Hahahahaha... and Air Power Australia will also tell you the Su-34 is a nice strike aircraft but still not as good as the F-111...  

Perhaps if that review was from personal experience in developing both aircraft it might have valid conclusions, but they haven't even tested the serial aircraft for the PAK FA so we don't even know what the final aircraft will look like exactly.

yes it does.. It is missing the cover of their rear engines .. if you do an stealth plane you do it right or not do it at all.

F-35 is not stealthy from the rear either...

And thats because they wanted the warship to be more forward looking its design more stealthy. Is not an ice breaker it was never meant to do that.. Russia use icebreakers to move in the front of their warships when they travel the artic when a need exist.

So it can't operate in the north sea because any ice that forms on the front main gun can't be removed because it would not be safe to send any crew onto the front deck as there are no safety rails.

Heavy ice on the front could cause the boat to capsize.

Again for the people that cannot read,my observations Have nothing to do with combat capabilities of the Gorshkov..    my observations is about Russia power projection , what image they project.. showing rusty planes or warships you are not going to impress anyone..

Yes... I understand... you are getting bitchy because the new Russian stuff isn't as pretty as western stuff.. but look at this picture... sorry it is so small, but you can see the rust around the anchor and a couple of rust spots further down the side and this is a Gerald R. Ford–class aircraft carrier... pride of the US Navy...



They spend half a trillion dollars a year on defence surely they can afford a bit of paint for the pride of their navy... their flagship... what will foreign countries think seeing this old rust bucket limping into view?