Project 22350: Admiral Sergei Gorshkov

I was comparing Admiral Gorshkov to the Halifax class frigate yesterday and I was surprised when I saw that Halifax class has almost twice the range of Gorshkov (Gorshkov = 4500 nmi vs Halifax = 9500 nmi). any explanation for this?

Halifax is clearly optimised for peacetime patrol and its armament is less impressive than the tiny Pauk fast attack boats... at least it has a 76mm gun...

GarryB wrote:

I was comparing Admiral Gorshkov to the Halifax class frigate yesterday and I was surprised when I saw that Halifax class has almost twice the range of Gorshkov (Gorshkov = 4500 nmi vs Halifax = 9500 nmi). any explanation for this?

Halifax is clearly optimised for peacetime patrol and its armament is less impressive than the tiny Pauk fast attack boats... at least it has a 76mm gun...

As the Russian navy have main task of defending homewaters, 4500 nmi is sufficent. If they get into a situation as the brittish with Falklands conflict, where the brittish ships suffered much from short endurance, Gorshkovs will also suffer. However, as they are building new tankers for the fleet that small chans problem can be solved.

To put in perspective, the US Oliver perry class frigate, which is used buy nine navies, including australia, also have 4500 nmi endurance.

Well lets look at the numbers... 9500 NM, would be at a speed of about 14KNTs, so that means 9500 divided by 14 = about 678 hours, which is about 28 days of continuous running... the obvious problem there is that they will likely run out of food before they run out of fuel, and in a combat situation they might be able to stay on station for more than 28 days in terms of fuel, but after their first or second engagement with the enemy they will have to return to port to rearm.

Sounds to me like a serious waste of space... they should have used the extra space used for extra fuel to raise the gun calibre from 57mm to either a 76mm gun or a light 100mm gun.

George1 wrote:If someone translates this article, it says "... Armed with a versatile missile system "Caliber-NK" with ammunition of 32 missiles "Onyx" and "Caliber" with the possibility of destruction of marine and coastal targets..."

So we have 32 launchers not 16 as we thought?

http://www.flotprom.ru/2015/181926/

You could probably fit 2 533mm Calibers on 1 900mm UKSK diagonally, but I doubt they would.

chicken wrote:

George1 wrote:If someone translates this article, it says "... Armed with a versatile missile system "Caliber-NK" with ammunition of 32 missiles "Onyx" and "Caliber" with the possibility of destruction of marine and coastal targets..."

So we have 32 launchers not 16 as we thought?

http://www.flotprom.ru/2015/181926/

You could probably fit 2 533mm Calibers on 1 900mm UKSK diagonally, but I doubt they would.

If UKSK is 900mm in diameter, than technically Iskander-M missiles can fit in it correct? The interesting thing about the INF treaty is that it only pertains to land launched ballistic missiles, not air or sea launched, so a much greater ranged naval variant Iskander missile could be placed one per tube with 1500km, 2500km, and if possible 3500km, 4500km range with higher performance propellants and some design modifications. You could technically stockpile IRBM Iskander missiles, and claim they're only UKSK compatible.

magnumcromagnon wrote:

chicken wrote:

George1 wrote:If someone translates this article, it says "... Armed with a versatile missile system "Caliber-NK" with ammunition of 32 missiles "Onyx" and "Caliber" with the possibility of destruction of marine and coastal targets..."

So we have 32 launchers not 16 as we thought?

http://www.flotprom.ru/2015/181926/

You could probably fit 2 533mm Calibers on 1 900mm UKSK diagonally, but I doubt they would.

If UKSK is 900mm in diameter, than technically Iskander-M missiles can fit in it correct? The interesting thing about the INF treaty is that it only pertains to land launched ballistic missiles, not air or sea launched, so a much greater ranged naval variant Iskander missile could be placed one per tube with 1500km, 2500km, and if possible 3500km, 4500km range with higher performance propellants and some design modifications. You could technically stockpile IRBM Iskander missiles, and claim they're only UKSK compatible.

The Iskander-K's R-500 missile really looks like the Caliber 3M14, or probably derived from the same Granat missile. If the INF gets cancelled, they could probably ungimp the R-500's range from 500km to 2500km easily. Or just use the stockpiled 3M14 on Iskander-K launchers. I'd be wary of launching any ballistic missiles though.

Admiral Kasatonov

Any newys about Gorshkov testing? Is it going according to plan or there will be delays?

Another delay, it seems. I'm not surprised at all. Unfortunately, I think 2016 is more realistic.

I guess we'll see in November 2015.

A good summary about the Russian Navy can be found here; the article has been updated on January 14th, 2015.

It mentions Gorskhovs too; the estimated number of Gorskhov ships in 2020 will be either 5 or 6.

Source: RussiaMil Wordpress

A blog isnt entirely news worthy, but I would like to know the reason for the delay.

sepheronx wrote:A blog isnt entirely news worthy, but I would like to know the reason for the delay.

I would like to know why his estimates are "wrong", according to you? How many Gorskhov ships do you expect to be in
active service in 2020 ? He said 5 or 6 and I think that's correct.

He does have a blog, but he is a PhD researcher on this matter and he works at Harvard University - so it's not "just a blog".

He does have a blog, but he is a PhD researcher on this matter and he works at Harvard University - so it's not "just a blog".

Like the Yale of joke who wrote that Russian economy will collapse in next few months. It does not matter where he is or what degree he has, political statements are political statements for pushing agendas or satisfying the client like a good prostitution has to do, same case with David Axe.

Werewolf wrote:

.

Like the Yale of joke who wrote that Russian economy will collapse in next few months. It does not matter where he is or what degree he has, political statements are political statements for pushing agendas or satisfying the client like a good prostitution has to do, same case with David Axe.

As I said earlier, it would be nice if you or the other guy from Canada, could tell how many Gorskhov ships you're expecting to be in active service, in 2020?

I just can't see what's wrong about the assesment mentioning between 5 to 6 active units.

I do agree that "Axe" guy does in many cases talk BS, but this is good evaluation where the Russian Navy procurement plans stands as of now.

The closer we are to 2020, the higher chance of estimates being correct in this particular matter.

It would be nice to know what you disagree with, regarding speed of construction and estimates for 2020, based on the facts that are now available.

Which facts? You are getting awefully defensive about this. And last I checked, Harvard isnt in Russia and it isnt a shipyard or a military official. So go give yourself a handy and settle down.

Saying what a blogger from USA says about ships being built in another country they dont live or opperate in, doesnt make much sence to say "facts". Facts would indicate something like pictures and statements from both military officials and shipyard management.

And just because they went to a university in US known for churning out self important numpties who are from a wealthy family, means f all in this. So try again.

I will personally be happy if 6 are commissioned and in service by 2020, but I doubt it.

The 5-6 estimate isn't new by any means either.

Guess we need to wait till 2020. 5 more years to go.

sepheronx wrote:Guess we need to wait till 2020. 5 more years to go.

That is 5 years (less at this point) to lay down, float out, test and commission two more 22350 frigates.
Tight schedule. Not impossible, but tight.

It would be nice to know what you disagree with, regarding speed of construction and estimates for 2020, based on the facts that are now available.

Getting Russian gas turbine engines into production is one thing... getting them to the point where they are reliable and robust is something else.

That is 5 years (less at this point) to lay down, float out, test and commission two more 22350 frigates.
Tight schedule. Not impossible, but tight.

6 in the water by 2020 is good enough... they don't need thousands and they are not stopping production in 2020.

I realize the full load displacement of a 22350 must be above 5000 mts, probably 5100-5200 mts instead of 4500 mts which is widely quoted on the Internet, as per this official page on project 22356 http://www.severnoe.com/proposals/naval/22356/

The hulls of 22356 and 22350 are exactly the same, so a normal displacement of 4550 mts will natruall lead to a 5000+ mts full load displacement, of course unless the technical guy and IT guy who prepared this web page were drunk and got things wrong...

TR1 wrote:I will personally be happy if 6 are commissioned and in service by 2020, but I doubt it.

The 5-6 estimate isn't new by any means either.

I agree. I think 5 is resonable.

GarryB wrote:

It would be nice to know what you disagree with, regarding speed of construction and estimates for 2020, based on the facts that are now available.

6 in the water by 2020 is good enough... they don't need thousands and they are not stopping production in 2020.

It's not about whether the production is going to stop or not. It's about whether or not the official estimates by the Russian officials were realistic back in 2010/11.
Now that we have entered 2015, we can see that many of those estimates were wrong. Therefore target of 50-70% of what was estimated a few years earlier, is more realistic now.

So the engine issue is not relevant here. What's relevant is to see how the Russian officials where hyping up their "production numbers", which won't be met by 2020.

While I do understand that technical problems might occur underway, it's interesting to see how much all procurements are delayed and by how much.

By the way, an additional analysis has been posted on RussiaMil today. It's a good read.

PutZin wrote:

GarryB wrote:

It would be nice to know what you disagree with, regarding speed of construction and estimates for 2020, based on the facts that are now available.

6 in the water by 2020 is good enough... they don't need thousands and they are not stopping production in 2020.

It's not about whether the production is going to stop or not. It's about whether or not the official estimates by the Russian officials were realistic back in 2010/11.
Now that we have entered 2015, we can see that many of those estimates were wrong. Therefore target of 50-70% of what was estimated a few years earlier, is more realistic now.

So the engine issue is not relevant here. What's relevant is to see how the Russian officials where hyping up their "production numbers", which won't be met by 2020.

While I do understand that technical problems might occur underway, it's interesting to see how much all procurements are delayed and by how much.

By the way, an additional analysis has been posted on RussiaMil today. It's a good read.

Russia's rearmament program has done quite well over the last 5 years and hit most of its targets. Some it's even achieved ahead of schedule.

Can you please be more specific with the estimates that you are refering to? And what do you think won't be completed by 2020 and on what basis do you believe so?

flamming_python wrote:

PutZin wrote:

GarryB wrote:

It would be nice to know what you disagree with, regarding speed of construction and estimates for 2020, based on the facts that are now available.

6 in the water by 2020 is good enough... they don't need thousands and they are not stopping production in 2020.

It's not about whether the production is going to stop or not. It's about whether or not the official estimates by the Russian officials were realistic back in 2010/11.
Now that we have entered 2015, we can see that many of those estimates were wrong. Therefore target of 50-70% of what was estimated a few years earlier, is more realistic now.

So the engine issue is not relevant here. What's relevant is to see how the Russian officials where hyping up their "production numbers", which won't be met by 2020.

While I do understand that technical problems might occur underway, it's interesting to see how much all procurements are delayed and by how much.

By the way, an additional analysis has been posted on RussiaMil today. It's a good read.

Russia's rearmament program has done quite well over the last 5 years and hit most of its targets. Some it's even achieved ahead of schedule.

Can you please be more specific with the estimates that you are refering to? And what do you think won't be completed by 2020 and on what basis do you believe so?

Can't post links yet. You can read the article on RussiaMil from January 14th, 2015. It's a good summary of where things stand as of now.

You and I both know that Russia wanted way more than 5 or 6 Gorskhovs in 2020. This is not the only project that has been delayed either.

Anything regarding aircraft carriers, destroyers or "cruisers" is not realistic for a very long time; it will take at least another ten or twelve years.

I do not wish to discuss other delayed projects in this threat, but even Grigorovich "light frigate" has been somewhat delayed, mostly due to the fact that Russia rather wanted to build them for India, instead for themselves.

Current aircraft carrier should have been refurbished long time ago, but it still isn't.

Mistral LPDs won't be delivered, unless Marine Le Pen wins French elections in 2017.

So I do agree with the conclusion, which is that Russian Navy will be more focused on local, smaller enemies and "coastal defence" in general - at least for the next ten years.