Project 22350: Admiral Sergei Gorshkov

artjomh wrote:That's not Gorshkov-M, Austin.

Just a promotional collage.

May be you are right , I was more interested in their Multiband Radar which Agat seems to be working , also the new L band radar on ships with its range of 1500 km is simply superb.

The future development on Naval Radar front is quite comprehensive and much on par with any thing out there

Russia's New Frigate Enters Atlantic Ocean on Route to Trials

The Admiral Gorshkov frigate, the lead ship of its class, has entered the north-eastern region of the Atlantic Ocean, spokesman for the Russian Baltic Fleet Capt. 2nd Rank Vladimir Matveev said Thursday.

MOSCOW (Sputnik) — The Admiral Gorshkov is the first in a series of six Project 22350 frigates to be produced by Severnaya Verf shipyard in St. Petersburg under contract for the Russian Defense Ministry.

"At the moment the frigate, bound for state tests at the Northern Fleet's maritime target range, has passed the straits… connecting the Baltic Sea and the North Sea and entered the north-eastern part of the Atlantic," Matveev said in a statement.

The statement added that while passing the straits the crew tested the warship's navigation, communication and radar systems.

The frigate is expected to join the Russian Navy before the year is out.

The Admiral Gorshkov-class frigates have a displacement of 4,500 tons, a top speed of 29 knots, a range of 4,000 nautical miles at 14 knots, and can go for up to 15 days without resupplying.

It has a crew of 210 and an assortment of weaponry, including a 130-mm A-192 gun, the Oniks 3M55 (SS-N-26) anti-ship missiles and the Poliment-Redut shipborne air defense system.

Read more: http://sputniknews.com/military/20150924/1027471814/russian-new-frigate-on-trials.html#ixzz3mh9deVls

Is it you artjomh?

yes

Admiral Gorshkov

quick question.

We know that Gorshkov carry 32 missiles for its Redut system, and it use 9M96. I wonder what 9M96 variant utilized.. the shorter range 9M96 or longer range 9M96DM ? and Is there any differences between 9M96 used by redut with the one used in Vityaz ?

thanks :3

Stealthflanker wrote:quick question.

We know that Gorshkov carry 32 missiles for its Redut system, and it use 9M96.  I wonder what 9M96 variant utilized.. the shorter range 9M96 or longer range 9M96DM ? and Is there any differences between 9M96 used by redut with the one used in Vityaz ?

thanks :3

Instead of 9M96DM, isn't it 48N6DM 'Dal'Naya'?

The newest frigate "Admiral Gorshkov" did cruise missile trials in the White Sea.




Source: http://tass.ru/armiya-i-opk/2471826
Translated: https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=sr&sl=ru&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Ftass.ru%2Farmiya-i-opk%2F2471826

They should have design a naval system of the t-14's Afghanit againt anti-ship missiles. It would be used if the canons don't shoot the missile in the last 50 m by sending a 30 kg bomb in the direction of the missile, no need to pursuit it on radars if the bomb is big enough to have a blast radiuis of 30 m.

What do you tink ?

Isos wrote:They should have design a naval system of the t-14's Afghanit againt anti-ship missiles. It would be used if the canons don't shoot the missile in the last 50 m by sending a 30 kg bomb in the direction of the missile, no need to pursuit it on radars if the bomb is big enough to have a blast radiuis of 30 m.

What do you tink ?

Not really very important if the ship already has capable anti-air weaponry. Gorshkov has many, many AA missiles, and multiple CIWS systems (which also use missiles).

The safety distance for a decent anti ship cruise missile is more like 300m... not 30m.

Yes but the missiles can be jammed. If it's an isolated attack on a patoling Gorshkov by aircrafts that appears 40km away in low altitude and ships it will be not enough.
Moreover, it has just one CIWS on each side, so if there is a malfunction on one side they lose 50% of their defence capabilities.

GarryB wrote:The safety distance for a decent anti ship cruise missile is more like 300m... not 30m.

It's better to blow up the missile 30m away from the ship than let it comes in

Isos wrote:Yes but the missiles can be jammed. If it's an isolated attack on a patoling Gorshkov by aircrafts that appears 40km away in low altitude and ships it will be not enough.
Moreover, it has just one CIWS on each side, so if there is a malfunction on one side they lose 50% of their defence capabilities.

GarryB wrote:The safety distance for a decent anti ship cruise missile is more like 300m... not 30m.

It's better to blow up the missile 30m away from the ship than let it comes in  

Would you be ready to invest 1 mill usd for device which will made that 152mm shell which fly to your face explode 30 cm away from your face instead on it? And would you acctualy carry that device ( 30kg heavy ) with you in battle? Or you would buy better rifle and night vision device heavy 3kg and which cost 10000 usd?

System that you are advocating is not praticaly as ship would be badly damaged even if system work well. And system would be costly ( money -weight-space-crew-energy).

marat wrote:

Isos wrote:Yes but the missiles can be jammed. If it's an isolated attack on a patoling Gorshkov by aircrafts that appears 40km away in low altitude and ships it will be not enough.
Moreover, it has just one CIWS on each side, so if there is a malfunction on one side they lose 50% of their defence capabilities.

GarryB wrote:The safety distance for a decent anti ship cruise missile is more like 300m... not 30m.

It's better to blow up the missile 30m away from the ship than let it comes in  

Would you be ready to invest 1 mill usd for device which will made that 152mm shell which fly to your face explode 30 cm away from your face instead on it? And would you acctualy carry that device ( 30kg heavy ) with you in battle? Or you would buy better rifle and night vision device heavy 3kg and which cost 10000 usd?

System that you are advocating is not praticaly as ship would be badly damaged even if system work well. And system would be costly ( money -weight-space-crew-energy).

That's what I'm saying. You use it if all other defence system failed to intercept the missile.
Even if it does'nt work well, it's better to damage the missile before the impact than let it explode in the ship. If you're lucky it could explode in the water. Moreovere, if you are facing a harpoon it could be very succesfull as it it's a really small missile.

Not really costly. A 20-30kg bomb lunched by a little rocket and unguided ( uses the radar of the ship or optics to locate the missile and determine when it will be close to the ships by a simple algorithm) is not expansive, it can work in an automatic mode.
If you put it in small lunchers in the style of a very small RBU, it's even more cheaper as russian have a lot of experience in rocket lunchers.

The rocket with a 30kg (or more 50kg if you want) warhead and range of 30m ( 50-75m if you want ) is cheaper than a tor or buk missile.

Put 4 luncher with one or two rockets each on the ship and you can cover 360°.

Yes but the missiles can be jammed. If it's an isolated attack on a patoling Gorshkov by aircrafts that appears 40km away in low altitude and ships it will be not enough.

Missiles can certainly be jammed, but it is not reliable enough to expect that to be your main line of defence... in the Falklands war in 1982 several anti ship missiles were defeated by jamming but after being jammed acquired a lock on another vessel and hit that ship including transport ships that didn't have jammers.

More importantly the more sophisticated Russian/Soviet anti ship missiles have home on jam capability and alternative sensors to still hit targets while under severe EW conditions.

Moreover, it has just one CIWS on each side, so if there is a malfunction on one side they lose 50% of their defence capabilities.

It is a small ship... it wont be taking on NATO on its own. If it is operating on its own it wont be dealing with hundreds or even dozens of anti ship missiles. If it is dealing with dozens of missiles it will likely not be operating alone and will be coordinating its defence with other platforms.

It's better to blow up the missile 30m away from the ship than let it comes in

Well if the enemy has ex soviet missiles hitting a serious Anti Ship missile at 30m and making it explode would likely kill half the ships crew and disable it and make it no longer able to contribute to the fight until it has made it back to port.

I do agree that it would be better than letting the weapon hit the ship which would likely sink it.

The only AShM I can think of that would not cause serious damage at that range would be Hellfires... even a Sea Skua would do some serious damage if detonated at 30m distance with its 50kg warhead...

(sensors and optics and even portholes would be smashed/destroyed).

The rocket with a 30kg (or more 50kg if you want) warhead and range of 30m ( 50-75m if you want ) is cheaper than a tor or buk missile.

Put 4 luncher with one or two rockets each on the ship and you can cover 360°.

the problem is that 30m is too close... it makes rather more sense to develop a guided shell in the 100mm calibre and 57mm calibre and 76.2mm calibre that would allow the main gun to shoot down missiles with a single shot or two round burst. the gun is carried anyway and the autoloader could be designed to have a few guided rounds ready to fire all the time with guided shells.

Threats don't just suddenly appear 30m away.

I understand what you are saying a simple cheap all or nothing layer that adds to the other layers, but what I am saying to you is that a guided heavy calibre shell would not only be useful for the role but also useful in a range of other roles as well and actually much more effective to hit a target incoming anti ship missile at 8km with a 100mm shell.

Isos wrote:
That's what I'm saying. You use it if all other defence system failed to intercept the missile.
Even if it does'nt work well, it's better to damage the missile before the impact than let it explode in the ship. If you're lucky it could explode in the water. Moreovere, if you are facing a harpoon it could be very succesfull as it it's a really small missile.

Not really costly. A 20-30kg bomb lunched by a little rocket and unguided ( uses the radar of the ship or optics to locate the missile and determine when it will be close to the ships by a simple algorithm) is not expansive, it can work in an automatic mode.
If you put it in small lunchers in the style of a very small RBU, it's even more cheaper as russian have a lot of experience in rocket lunchers.

The rocket with a 30kg (or more 50kg if you want) warhead and range of 30m ( 50-75m if you want ) is cheaper than a tor or buk missile.

Put 4 luncher with one or two rockets each on the ship and you can cover 360°.

There are Russian systems just like what you are suggesting. One of them is called Trezubets and is designed to primarily fire 220 mm very high-speed unguided rockets with 60 kg warheads. The system and its rockets have lots of interesting features that I cannot describe now, but here is a drawing.

Morpheus Eberhardt wrote:

Isos wrote:
That's what I'm saying. You use it if all other defence system failed to intercept the missile.
Even if it does'nt work well, it's better to damage the missile before the impact than let it explode in the ship. If you're lucky it could explode in the water. Moreovere, if you are facing a harpoon it could be very succesfull as it it's a really small missile.

Not really costly. A 20-30kg bomb lunched by a little rocket and unguided ( uses the radar of the ship or optics to locate the missile and determine when it will be close to the ships by a simple algorithm) is not expansive, it can work in an automatic mode.
If you put it in small lunchers in the style of a very small RBU, it's even more cheaper as russian have a lot of experience in rocket lunchers.

The rocket with a 30kg (or more 50kg if you want) warhead and range of 30m ( 50-75m if you want ) is cheaper than a tor or buk missile.

Put 4 luncher with one or two rockets each on the ship and you can cover 360°.

There are Russian systems just like what you are suggesting. One of them is called Trezubets and is designed to primarily fire 220 mm very high-speed unguided rockets with 60 kg warheads. The system and its rockets have lots of interesting features that I cannot describe now, but here is a drawing.

Yes I was thinking about a system like this one.



GarryB, you are right about what you said.

But I was thinking of a really, really last defence system that will able the ship to survive, even with hard damage. It was just an idea.

Just a correction, when I was talking about jamming missiles I was saying you can jam the radar of the ship (as it happend for the donad cook) and his anti-air missiles become useless.
In this case you have just last defence systems and I think ships need more than canons. Canons and CIWS work with radars that can be jammed too , I don't kwow if the manual mode is good againt an anti-ship missile, but I think (it' just my opinion) it's not enough.

You can see some video on YouTube how argentina's fighter attacked royal navy's ship flying 50m from it and their canons were not effective to counter them. They shoot some figters with missiles however.

If argentina had some jammer, they could have sank a lot of their ships. And lost just a few aircraft.

Anyway, it was just an idea that I had and wanted to share.

There are Russian systems just like what you are suggesting. One of them is called Trezubets and is designed to primarily fire 220 mm very high-speed unguided rockets with 60 kg warheads. The system and its rockets have lots of interesting features that I cannot describe now, but here is a drawing.

Interesting... looks like it would be related to APS technology from the 1980s... Drozd/2 and ARENA...

I just think that it would lack effective range against heavier missiles.

Sort of like the argument against having 20 guns on you in a fire fight... at the end of the day it makes more sense just to have perhaps two weapons that are reliable and instead of carrying 8 other weapons you carry extra ammo for your primary and secondary weapon...

What I am saying is that lots of layers of defence is good from 30mm gatlings, medium range guns, long range guns, short range SAMs, medium range SAMs, lnog range SAMs, plus aircraft, plus of course electronic jammers and decoys to defend against incoming missiles. I think it would be more beneficial to add a 57mm gun with guided shells as that would be a multipurpose weapon, whereas this system would just be a simple short range claymore type weapon.

But I was thinking of a really, really last defence system that will able the ship to survive, even with hard damage. It was just an idea.

I understand what you are saying but it reminds me of those that claim the A-10 can survive with an engine completely shot out... once that engine is gone the next hit will be a kill so effectively it is leaving the battlefield one way or another... equally when it is know you are armoured to stop 30mm cannon shells (like the A-10) then most enemies will use SA-8s with 50kg HE warheads that no aircraft could survive... no matter how well spaced the engines are or how heavy the armour is.

Just a correction, when I was talking about jamming missiles I was saying you can jam the radar of the ship (as it happend for the donad cook) and his anti-air missiles become useless.
In this case you have just last defence systems and I think ships need more than canons. Canons and CIWS work with radars that can be jammed too , I don't kwow if the manual mode is good againt an anti-ship missile, but I think (it' just my opinion) it's not enough.

If the enemy are so close they have jamming equipment that can jam the main radars on a ship then they are close enough that that jammer aircraft should be shot down.

equally most naval SAMs and gun systems have optical backups.

More to the point if the main radar and SAM radars are jammed then likely the short range interceptors radar will be jammed too.

Laser guided shells from a 57mm, 76.2mm, 100mm, or 130mm gun should remain effective as they will be laser guided.

Considering the Argentines had the exocet and the Sea Dart and Sea Slug missiles in service they knew the limitations of those systems and used them very effectively.

Conversely the British had the Exocet in service and rather underestimated it repeatedly.

BTW Thanks for posting that info Morpheus...

BTW LSOS I don't think your idea is silly, but I think it does have a few flaws... if they can minimise those issues then they might create a useful system... I mean look at PAKET anti torpedo system... very clever.

ult wrote:

Beat me to it, just wanted to post it

Guys a question from a noob:

I noticed a lot of "empty" space on both sides of those Kalibr launchers. What is that space used for?

PapaDragon wrote:
Guys a question from a noob:

I noticed a lot of "empty" space on both sides of those Kalibr launchers. What is that space used for?

Maintenance access