Project 22350: Admiral Sergei Gorshkov

GarryB wrote:
At the end of the day all the Russian Navy needs is one articulated river barge a few kilometres long that can carry UKSK launch tubes for 500 Kalibrs and perhaps a similar number of Redut launch tubes... plus come corvette sized vessels to maintain their fisheries areas and clamp down on smugglers.

Well there a serious issue of anti submarine warfare to support it's SSBN, so Russia needs good number of SS and SSN and some serous anti-sub ships to operate in bad weather of Arctic and North Pacific, but as for all other tasks, yes corvettes (or if one really wants to go cheep barges) is by far most optimal choice for Russia.

At the end of the day all the Russian Navy needs is one articulated river barge a few kilometres long that can carry UKSK launch tubes for 500 Kalibrs and perhaps a similar number of Redut launch tubes

No, you'd want more like 20-30 normal sized barges with 16-32 UKSK each.
Can concentrate a bunch of them at one point if need to make a big throw but generally distributed along the length of the system & frequently moving to ensure they are a hard target.

hoom wrote:

In all honesty Russia should prioritise construction of ships with shallow enough draft to be able to transit Unified Deep Water System because that would help unify Russian Northern, Baltic, Black and Caspian fleet in to one force deployable in any of those sectors at need.

Would be my primary effort too.
But above that there is a clear need for a bunch of Frigates & if/when 22350 actually works properly it'll be a very good Frigate.

Rather than a 'coast-guard mentality' as the reason that there aren't more 22350s being built, its incredibly obvious that the program has suffered extreme concurrency hell, compounded by the Ukraine/Engine issue, absolutely nothing to do with lack of intent.

That's a fair point, still I cannot understand the lack of priority for an AAW destroyer.

Whatever kind of ships you build, and whatever the missions you plan to perform with them, the aircraft is always and by far the most relevant threat.

It's true even if you plan your ships very close to home water, and become more relevant the more you sail offshore.

By far, it's more dangerous to go on open sea without good AAW destroyers than without good frigates.

About propulsion, lack of russian made gas turbines has been a serious drawback, but some serious funds has to be invested in related technologies, starting with variable pitch propeller, going through integrated electric propulsion and a new generation of modern, competitive and scalable medium speed diesel engines.

Integrated electric propulsion is a particularly promising solution, it permits to get rid with reduction gears, the most critical component of any propulsion system, and makes engines' running regimes partially independent from ship's own speeds and demand for acceleration or deceleration, enabling thermal engines to be far less stressed and to run at most efficient regimes. Moreover, it permits to have a fully distributed power generation thermal engines (and gas turbines as well) being turned of electrical generation sets only, without any mechanical link with propellers and their transmission axis.

By the way, such an approach would have made less troublesome the Kolomna diesel engines used by Pr. 20380, that by statements made public suffer quick changes of speed and loose efficiency quite remarkably when not running on optimal revs speeds.

Peŕrier wrote:

About propulsion, lack of russian made gas turbines has been a serious drawback, but some serious funds has to be invested in related technologies, starting with variable pitch propeller, going through integrated electric propulsion and a new generation of modern, competitive and scalable medium speed diesel engines.

Integrated electric propulsion is a particularly promising solution, it permits to get rid with reduction gears, the most critical component of any propulsion system, and makes engines' running regimes partially independent from ship's own speeds and demand for acceleration or deceleration, enabling thermal engines to be far less stressed and to run at most efficient regimes. Moreover, it permits to have a fully distributed power generation thermal engines (and gas turbines as well) being turned of electrical generation sets only, without any mechanical link with propellers and their transmission axis.

By the way, such an approach would have made less troublesome the Kolomna diesel engines used by Pr. 20380, that by statements made public suffer quick changes of speed and loose efficiency quite remarkably when not running  on optimal revs speeds.

That works well on railways, over the rail locomotive needs huge ballast weight anyway.

But on the ship the weight of gear set waaay lower than the weight of generator+motor, even if the stator is superconductor.
The US military actually invested a lot of money into superconductor winded generator/motor sets, to permit the operation of them on ships.


I think that the generator/motor sets will pay themselves only if the ships can start to use laser/rail guns , and if these systems weight will be lower than the same conventional system with ammunition/armoured protection.

But considering that a rail gun won't be capable to do the same thing like a missile I have strong doubts about it.

Singular_Transform wrote:
That works well on railways, over the rail locomotive needs huge ballast weight anyway.

But on the ship the weight of gear set waaay lower than the weight of generator+motor, even if the stator is superconductor.
The US military actually invested a lot of money into superconductor winded generator/motor sets, to permit the operation of them on ships.


I think that the generator/motor sets will pay themselves only if the ships can start to use laser/rail guns , and if these systems weight will be lower than the same conventional system with ammunition/armoured protection.

But considering that a rail gun won't be capable to do the same thing like a missile I have strong doubts about it.

Masses and sizes of reduction gear have nothing to do with the advantages to get rid of them.

It's about mechanical complexities and scalability: the reduction gear is by far the most complex and critical part of any naval power train, and as applied power and torque on single axis increase, it become exponentially more challenging to develop a suitable reduction gear.

The very deceleration properties of a vessel are mainly function of its reduction gear ability to withstand the enormous stresses related to inversion of motus.

Again, classical power trains have to be mandatory arranged in a row: powerplant, main axis, reduction gear, final axis, screw.

It puts a severe constraint to internal arrangements.

Then, whatever the power requirements of the vessel, it translates to power outputs required to the engines, and again any acceleration translates in rapid revs changes for the engines, with loss of efficiency.

An integrated electric propulsion system get rid of all of those drawbacks and constraints.

You have only electric motors, axis and screw arranged in a row. Thermal engines can be accomodated wherever reputed the best option. Power transmission from thermal engines to electric ones is through electric lines, way cheaper than transmission axis, and could be doubled or tripled the same way flight-by-wire lines are on aircrafts, making them more damage resistant. Electric motors have enormous torque, without any mechanical challenges connected neither with net power nor with torque generated, and they act both as motors, as brakes and as electrical power generator, depending on what is required from them in that specific second.

Using a batteries buffer, as in SSK, between thermal engines and electric ones, any quick change in power requirement (acceleration) could be attained draining at start part of the additional electric power required from the batteries' buffer, giving thermal engines time to gain revs speed and power output on a more gentle way, in turn extending their service life, reducing the chances of faults and generally consuming less fuel.

In an ASW vessel, it could even be possible to switch for a while to all electric propulsion, using batteries only or just a small and highly sound insulated generation set, to perform very discreet slow speed chases of enemy's sub.

Actually electric integrated propulsion opens a whole new world of opportunities.

The citation of trains' engines is really good, just it works on the other way: Kolomna is specialized mainly on trains' diesel engines, requiring very slow accelerations only, and the power sets developed for Pr. 20380 seem to be not up the task, because they miss the flexible running characteristic of naval medium speed diesel engines.

Making them work as electric power generators would have give them a far better reputation.

Peŕrier wrote:

You have only electric motors, axis and screw arranged in a row. Thermal engines can be accomodated wherever reputed the best option. Power transmission from thermal engines to electric ones is through electric lines, way cheaper than transmission axis, and could be doubled or tripled the same way flight-by-wire lines are on aircrafts, making them more damage resistant. Electric motors have enormous torque, without any mechanical challenges connected neither with net power nor with torque generated, and they act both as motors, as brakes and as electrical power generator, depending on what is required from them in that specific second.

Using a batteries buffer, as in SSK, between thermal engines and electric ones, any quick change in power requirement (acceleration) could be attained draining at start part of the additional electric power required from the batteries' buffer, giving thermal engines time to gain revs speed and power output on a more gentle way, in turn extending their service life, reducing the chances of faults and generally consuming less fuel.

In an ASW vessel, it could even be possible to switch for a while to all electric propulsion, using batteries only or just a small and highly sound insulated generation set, to perform very discreet slow speed chases of enemy's sub.

Actually electric integrated propulsion opens a whole new world of opportunities.

The citation of trains' engines is really good, just it works on the other way: Kolomna is specialized mainly on trains' diesel engines, requiring very slow accelerations only, and the power sets developed for Pr. 20380 seem to be not up the task, because they miss the flexible running characteristic of naval medium speed diesel engines.

Making them work as electric power generators would have give them a far better reputation.

Everything is about weight on the ships, isn't it?
A 200 tons motor has 240 MVA power on 3600 rpm.
On 100 RPM ( ship propeller speed) it has only 7 MVA.
an 10000 tons destroyer needs 80 MW shaft torque.

8 MW azipods ha 150T weights without screw.

Generator side is OK, a 40 MWe turbine/generator weight is around 250 ton.
It is easy to calculate the requirements for say a 9000 T destroyer, with 8MW shaft power.

Well it looks like Gorshkov won't be commissioned this year.

Tingsay wrote:Well it looks like Gorshkov won't be commissioned this year.

Color me shocked, that was sarcasm btw

PapaDragon wrote:

Tingsay wrote:Well it looks like Gorshkov won't be commissioned this year.

Once they eventually get it commissioned it will be one awkward ceremony... although nowhere near as awkward as one for Ivan Gren...

After all these years of testing it will need an upgrade the second day of service and won t be disponible for at least 10 years

Isos wrote:

PapaDragon wrote:

Tingsay wrote:Well it looks like Gorshkov won't be commissioned this year.

Once they eventually get it commissioned it will be one awkward ceremony... although nowhere near as awkward as one for Ivan Gren...

After all these years of testing it will need an upgrade the second day of service and won t be disponible for at least 10 years

Frigate Adm. Gorshkov is now officially competing with Ivan Gren for "Platinum JSF/F-35 award of the high seas".

KiloGolf wrote:

Isos wrote:

PapaDragon wrote:

Tingsay wrote:Well it looks like Gorshkov won't be commissioned this year.

Once they eventually get it commissioned it will be one awkward ceremony... although nowhere near as awkward as one for Ivan Gren...

After all these years of testing it will need an upgrade the second day of service and won t be disponible for at least 10 years

Frigate Adm. Gorshkov is now officially competing with Ivan Gren for "Platinum JSF/F-35 award of the high seas".

Wait for the 100kt carrier. He will be a dangerous challenger

George1 wrote:Recent images of the 2nd Pr.22350 #frigate Admiral Kasatonov with Kamov-27PL variant on its helo deck at Severnaya Verf Shipyard. (Can someone ID this "bortless" Ka-27PL variant?)

Three years after launch, jesus.
China has launched and commissioned about 10 destroyers at the same time period.

walle83 wrote:

Three years after launch, jesus.
China has launched and commissioned about 10 destroyers at the time period.

It is still better than the Ford carrier.

Singular_Transform wrote:

walle83 wrote:

Three years after launch, jesus.
China has launched and commissioned about 10 destroyers at the time period.

It is still better than the Ford carrier.

Its a bit differens betwen a supercarrier and a frigate.

Singular_Transform wrote:

walle83 wrote:

Three years after launch, jesus.
China has launched and commissioned about 10 destroyers at the time period.

It is still better than the Ford carrier.

Not so sure about that. Much like PLAN, the USN inducted 14 heavy destroyers in the past decade (on top of that a super heavy carrier with a dash of some few heavy LPDs and LHDs here and there).

Meanwhile, RuN inducted to its offensive surface fleet... 3 light frigates, a dozen or so corvettes and some small, missile/patrol boats. Did I miss something?

That puts Russia below the likes of France and the UK, possibly competing in the same level as Italy in that department.

PS. and Ivan Grenn LST

walle83 wrote:

Singular_Transform wrote:

walle83 wrote:

Three years after launch, jesus.
China has launched and commissioned about 10 destroyers at the time period.

It is still better than the Ford carrier.

Its a bit differens betwen a supercarrier and a frigate.

Yes, the Ford is one-two magnitude bigger screw up.


The Ford issues on its own wasted more money as the whole surface fleet delivery issues in the RuN.

KiloGolf wrote:

Singular_Transform wrote:

walle83 wrote:

Three years after launch, jesus.
China has launched and commissioned about 10 destroyers at the time period.

It is still better than the Ford carrier.

Not so sure about that. Much like PLAN, the USN inducted 14 heavy destroyers in the past decade (on top of that a super heavy carrier with a dash of some few heavy LPDs and LHDs here and there).

Meanwhile, RuN inducted to its offensive surface fleet... 3 light frigates, a dozen or so corvettes and some small, missile/patrol boats. Did I miss something?

That puts Russia below the likes of France and the UK, possibly competing in the same level as Italy in that department.

PS. and Ivan Grenn LST

Prior of 2014 the fleet wasn't big priority for Russia.

It was bigger between 2008-2014, but not as big priority since 2014.

KiloGolf wrote:

Not so sure about that. Much like PLAN, the USN inducted 14 heavy destroyers in the past decade (on top of that a super heavy carrier with a dash of some few heavy LPDs and LHDs here and there).

Meanwhile, RuN inducted to its offensive surface fleet... 3 light frigates, a dozen or so corvettes and some small, missile/patrol boats. Did I miss something?

That puts Russia below the likes of France and the UK, possibly competing in the same level as Italy in that department.

PS. and Ivan Grenn LST

I know you're a NATO fanboi twat, but what are you smoking?

US puts emphasis on its navy as its the power projection force for global hegemony. For Russia, the navy is a distant 3rd after land and air power.

How many ICBMs has the US commissioned in the last 10 years? None, so they must be utterly pathetic compared to Russia that is building Topol-M and Yars and soon Rubezh and Sarmat.
How many OTH strategic radars has the US commissioned in the last 10 years? None, so they must be utterly pathetic compared to Russia that has built at Lekhtusi, Armavir, Dunayevka, Mishelevka, Yeniseysk, Barnaul & Orsk and is building at Vorjkuta, Olenegorsk and now Sevastopol.

See how that works?... Russia is rebuilding it's armed forces after near 15 years of utter neglect, and people whinge that a continental land power that straddles Eurasia isn't building a large blue-water navy to compete in a cock-pulling exercise with Washington? What the fuck is wrong with you?

Now, once again for the slow learners... Gorshkov is clearly not a priority (nor is the Gren). Minimal resources have been allocated, enough to complete the Gorshkovs commissioning/testing and get Makarov finished, and the remaining two hulls will simply wait until the MGTs are good and ready. Navy priority is SUBMARINES, always has been, always will be. 8x Borei and 7x Yasen. You think France or the UK is building anything like the new Russian submarine fleet?

Plans change. Russia is wisely concentrating on rebuilding her ship building industries from the ground (seabed?) up. Corvettes and missile boats, plus light frigates. Deep modernisations of a select number of Soviet-era destroyers and cruisers. A limited series of new heavy frigates to develop technologies and re-establish yard capabilities. Sounds like a good plan to me considering limited funds for surface units and systemic issues with shipyards and engine supply.

It's also fair to say that the Russians are still trying to figure out exactly what their future Navy should look like and what capabilities it should have. New weapons like hypersonic stand-off missiles threaten to be game-changers and render existing AA defense obsolete. Its not unreasonable to state that hypersonics could well make supercarriers obsolete in the sense that their vulnerability in peer-to-peer engagements will make them to risky to deploy, so why develop them? Littoral defense vessels won't become obsolete, so it makes sense to concentrate on those elements, and leave decisions about major surface units until the performance of prospective hypersonic weapons can be better analysed.

Finally, is it a little frustrating that Russia won't have a nice fleet of 10x shiny new Gorshkovs by 2020? Sure, but that's life, and Russia has more pressing concerns.

Priority or not, Russia seems to have large problems with its shipbuilding. They seem very found of laying down ship after ship but nothing ever gets ready. When it takes over five years to complete corvette then something is really wrong. Im gessing a combination of lack of funds to complete projects and technical isuices with new systems.

Singular_Transform wrote:
Everything is about weight on the ships, isn't it?
A 200 tons motor has 240 MVA power on 3600 rpm.
On 100 RPM ( ship propeller speed) it has only  7 MVA.
an 10000 tons destroyer needs 80 MW shaft torque.

8 MW azipods ha 150T weights without screw.

Generator side is OK, a 40 MWe turbine/generator weight is around 250 ton.
It is easy to calculate the requirements for say a 9000 T destroyer, with 8MW shaft power.

No, and again no.

Modern electric motors don't even near those masses.

An azipod is not just "an electric motor", it is a comprehensive system comprising of electric motor, casing, rotating axis and secondary electric motor to provide azipod's itself rotation.

It absolves the function both of steering and propulsion.

It has to be compared with the masses and sizes of reduction gears, primary transmission axis, rudder, rudder's actuators and accessory parts.

A modern, not even state of the art, electric motor in itself has a weight-to-power ratio averaging 10Kg/KW, and usually as the power increase the ratio goes a little down.

Even at 10Kg/KW, an 8MW electric motor would weight around 80 tons, actually less than that. A reduction gear able to transmit that amount of power won't weight far less, and it will take even more space.

By the way, available space in a ship is always far scarcer than available masses.

To give an idea of what a modern naval propulsion electrical engine weight, the Rolls Royce permanent magnet thruster model TT PM 2000, rated at 1600 KW and 229 KN of thrust, weight around 18 tons dry, comprising even a 2 meters propeller. It makes around 8,4 Kg/KW ratio, but taking in account again casing and propeller too, with only the engine net weight the ratio would be lower by a fair amount.