Project 22160 Bykov-class patrol ship

ALAMO wrote:This is something much, much bigger than 22160. Check the ka-52 size and scale it.

I wouldn't say so, look at the area of ​​that part of the ship.

ALAMO wrote:Hm. You are right, my eyes puzzle me

It doesn't matter if I'm right, in any case, these ships need to be rearmed.  
1. Bow of the ship; The area behind the main cannon does not seem "convincingly" large for the accommodation of the UKSK, although the Redut air defense system, with at least one eight-barrel launcher, could certainly be located in that area.
2. UKSK; Maybe that helicopter hangar should be moved all the way to the take-off and landing part of the ship, so that the place behind the mast is freed for UKSK. The same was done with small rocket ships of projects 21631 and 22800.
3. Following the example of 20385 corvettes, the Redut air defense system could be at the stern of the ship, with another 4 cells at each side of the ship.
Although the surface of the rear part of the ship is quite large, there is enough "empty" space for a lot of things. However, the propulsion unit of the ship is not very convincing.
4. A cheaper option would be to install H-35 missiles. The PAKET-NK anti-submarine system must be included.
5. 6. Universality; anti-ship, anti-submarine and air defense weapons.

According to this, the Sergei Kotov has now entered the Navy.
This is the 4th ship in its class (2 more are building).

https://t.me/kchf_ru/364

Good photo of PAVEL DERZHAVIN

Full resolution: https://2022.f.a0z.ru/06/04-10815261-fhr95wq623c81.jpg

VASSILY BYKOV with TOR-MKM on the helicopter pad.

All the corvettes need to get the Pantsir-M or something similar like Palma or Sosna-R to handle drones. This one included.

I consider the lack of UKSK VLS less urgent. These ships are not meant to do long distance surface attacks in the first place.

If they put AESA arrays on the mast that could be used as search and tracking arrays for the naval TOR missiles as well as missile control/guidance then they could just fit TOR launchers to the deck of the ship... perhaps behind the gun and either side of the helicopter pad and down each side of the boat for large numbers of missiles.

If you look in that photo the turret ring is half the width of the turret and contains all 16 ready to launch missiles on that chassis so you can see that 16 missiles could fit in a very compact space as long as it is tall enough... assuming the floor below the deck is about 2.5 metres then the missile tubes taking up that floor below and sticking up out of the deck perhaps half a metre would be all the space it needs for missiles... being very compact they could easily carry very large numbers of missiles that are cheap and simple and very effective.

With large AESA radars as used by other patrol boats their range and accuracy should be excellent making the ship and ships around this ship safe from sea skimming anti ship missiles assuming the AESA radars are operating.

(Note if they standardise the AESA elements then the more they produce the cheaper they will become, meaning putting them on everything will massively reduce their prices while massively improving performance over mechanically scanned arrays.)

I consider the lack of UKSK VLS less urgent. These ships are not meant to do long distance surface attacks in the first place.

I agree... their new enlarged frigates will have lots of missile tubes and their future destroyers and cruisers even more as well as their new subs... if they need such missiles on these boats then two side by side containers tied down on the helicopter pad would be fine.

Air defence on the other hand is always useful as the threat of drones and sea skimming threats seems to be the most urgent issues for any ship.

Adding naval TOR would be the easiest option I think and the testing of that system suggests they are testing that too.

Isos wrote:For its defence it isn't designed to fight wars... and it has no air defence capabilities nor any attack capabilities other than its small gun. Russians are dumb on this if true.

A Russian defense industry source tells TASS that Russia will not purchase an additional 6 Project 22160 patrol ships as planned because of their poor performance during the war, including issues with seaworthiness, armor, engines, and air defenses.https://t.co/pWGeI90Zxb pic.twitter.com/iSY1AxpMBM

— Rob Lee (@RALee85) June 15, 2022

Correct, this is the dumbest thing I heard in a long while

It's offshore patrol vessel not a warship

You'd think that Navy would be aware of this little fact but then again this is the same gang that managed to lose a whole cruiser to some Ukrainian apes with knockoff subsonic missiles

These ships are long-range patrol ships that can be equipped with containers with different stuff in them,
from additional supplies to diving equipment to drones or even cruise missiles. In this war they performed patrol
missions in the Black Sea (keeping civilian ships away) but they were neither used for artillery support or guarding
amphibious vessels or something like that.

This tweet is complete BS. Armor? Not a single ship was hit. Air defence? Was opted out by the Navy because of the
role of these ships.

Unnamed source. Sure.

Hole wrote:These ships are long-range patrol ships that can be equipped with containers with different stuff in them,
from additional supplies to diving equipment to drones or even cruise missiles. In this war they performed patrol
missions in the Black Sea (keeping civilian ships away) but they were neither used for artillery support or guarding
amphibious vessels or something like that.

This tweet is complete BS. Armor? Not a single ship was hit. Air defence? Was opted out by the Navy because of the
role of these ships.

Unnamed source. Sure.

We'll see. TASS is pretty reliable usually regardless if source is public or anonymous. These ships were used in war operation, because there's no others. 

https://tass.ru/armiya-i-opk/14908939

Look at the design. The way the container system works is not amenable to put the air defenses in the container.
And if you did you would lose use of the helicopter landing pad while it is online.

Even the Karakurt has better air defense at like half the displacement.
Using MANPADS as air defense, as on this ship, is basically impossible against 8-10km range missiles launched by drones.

I have been telling that this ship design, modular shit like this and Project 20386, is pointless for a long time and it seems the Russian Navy finally agrees.

Isos wrote:Some things are hard to know like its seaworthiness or armor like they say, but the design seems good and stealthy.

Weapons can always be installed if needed. Plenty of space for some missiles on the front without the need to turn it into a cruiser. Tor take very low space but then you need powerful radars and more people onboard.

However if the seaworthiness is shitty then just don't buy anymore. A ship like this need to be able to patrol anytime even more in bad weather when someone can take advantage of the bad weather for illegal activities.

It's strange that engine and sea worthiness were mentioned only now. Bykov is in service for about 4 years already.

If they think it has problems it does not make sense to keep buying it... revise the design and fix the problems and issues and get that into production and service.

The gap behind the gun is for a vertical launch system if UKSK launchers are intended that means a 10m deep space for a launcher so any other missile system they have will fit there too including Redut, which with a single 12 tube launcher carry 48 9M100 self defence ARH missiles if required, or 4 x 60/150km range 9M96 plus 36 x 9m100 missiles.

If they have another design in mind it makes sense to apply what they learned from this design and apply it to that and see if that works out better.

It does not make sense to carry on making something with problems...

Maybe they should transfer them to the FSB.

The "problem" is that the ship was not designed to take part in any invasion. Its a patrol ship, basicly an overglorified coastguard vessel with some extras.

Use it for what it was designed for and not for air defence or other bs and it will work just fine.

They have introduced a laser anti drone system into the Ukrainian conflict... I presume it is vehicle based... such a system should be adapted to naval use and be fitted to all military ships for self defence from drone attack.

Producing and deploying it widely will make it cheaper and aide is its development and improvement over time.

But if this ship design is not what they want, then they need to come up with better designs if this design can't be adapted to the role.

There is a modification of the Gorshkov being built that is bigger and better armed... they said at the time they weren't building more Gorshkovs and everyone said they were cancelled... perhaps there is a Bykov-M design they have planned... just like the Buyan-M improved its air defence...

project 22160 is 94m long
if you enlarge it
you end up with .... a project 20380 size boat which is 104m long

but if you look at that 22160 - it looks really sleek - but why is the helicopter hangar so far forward ?

me I'd just extend the hangar structure further back and convert that "old hangar" space into your SAM battery ...
its empty already .... no big redesign needed

then you'd end with central vertical missile setup like the Karakurt 22800 has ...

Gazputin wrote:project 22160 is 94m long
if you enlarge it
you end up with .... a project 20380 size boat which is 104m long

Then just order more 20380s insted.

The whole point of the 22160 was to create a medium sized vessel that could free up larger vessels from pirate fighting and sea patroling.

walle83 wrote:

Then just order more 20380s insted.

The whole point of the 22160 was to create a medium sized vessel that could free up larger vessels from pirate fighting and sea patroling.

Exactly. If you add VLS cells and Tor, it is not a patrol ship anymore.