Project 22350: Admiral Sergei Gorshkov #2

design a ship with twice the displacement

I'll also add that 7,000ton is a lot less than double Gorshkov, its more like +50% & maybe only 33% depending on what numbers you believe for Gorshkov which means much less leeway for huge weaponry increase.

[quote="PapaDragon"]

GunshipDemocracy wrote:...
Range of 130mm gun is just 23km at best, not 120.

They have no need for this gun on this type of ship, it's a waste of space.

with old ammo not with new one

I can imagine Lider/Orlan  + 2-3 22350-M + auxiliary + UDK/BDK + CV(N)? + 2xHusky/Kazan

For interventions on a smaller scale, that Russians are likely to fight, patrolling in a nearby sea with few ships at the time should be enough. They'd only need to bring supplies to allies, launch limited strikes and deter foreign powers from involving.

BTW Ushakhov is dead only 2 Orlans are left.

They've named Ushakov a project 956 destroyer.

They expressed a need for 20-30 Gorshkov.

By mid 2020s I expect 6 Gorshkov ships in commission, allowing them to start a limited distant foreign intervention. Afterwards this ability could increase.

Huge auxiliary ships are also needed if you want such task force. Not the small tankers we mostly see. I doubt they have it.

Look at the ocean-going tanker, tug and supply ship, that are with Gorshkov now.

Gorshkov's squadron is obviously not stopping in Tartus and is headed straight towards Suez canal. Frigate's endurance of 30 days will come to an end on 26th March, because it hasn't stopped since it set sail. The fact that there it's accompanied by a tanker and a supply ship (with food) could have extended endurance though.



There's now an additional unknown ship in the squadron. It's somewhat bigger than the rest, so it's probably safe to assume it's Severomorsk.

GunshipDemocracy wrote:

PapaDragon wrote:

GunshipDemocracy wrote:...
Range of 130mm gun is just 23km at best, not 120.

They have no need for this gun on this type of ship, it's a waste of space.

with old ammo not with new one

120 km is still less than half the range of lowest grade missile the have available. Not worth it.

hoom wrote:

I doubt they would design a ship with twice the displacement in that case

As I pointed out a while back the point would be decompressing excessively densely packed equipment which may increase reliability or at least serviceability & increasing autonomy/range, both of which would be useful for a ship intended for long range expeditionary voyages ie carrier escort.

I'm inclined to the more densely armed version but I wouldn't be too surprised to see lesser armament increase for above reasons.

This new Gorshkov would sit between Asahi-class destroyer (5100 tonnes standard, 6800 tonnes full load, 151 m) and early version of Arleigh Burke-class ( 8184 tonnes, 154m)




Closest thing I was able to find at 7000 tonnes is Kidd-class destroyer:

7200 tonnes, 172 meters

Looks like a Gorshkov class will be the first vessel to test-fire the Zirkon

http://www.navyrecognition.com/index.php/news/defence-news/2019/march/6903-russia-to-test-launch-zircon-missile-from-a-frigate-at-the-end-of-2019.html

Russia to test-launch Zircon missile from a frigate at the end of 2019

Monday, 18 March 2019 10:14

"Trials of launching a missile from a naval vessel are planned to start at the end of the year. The Admiral Gorshkov-class frigate, also known as Project 22350, from the Northern Fleet will be used," the source said, adding that earlier trials included launching Zircon missiles from land. TASS does not have an official confirmation of this information.

As a reminder, the Zircon missile is an hypersonic weapon that differs from previous generations by a bigger ability to destroy aircraft carriers, thanks to low vulnerability, bigger payload and flight speed. The blast is scheduled to even sink big displacement ships.

Hypersonic speed makes the Zirkon less vulnerable than the previous missile generations. All R&D is classified, but open sources said the missile can accelerate to Mach 5-10 speed and destroy targets at distances of 300-500 km. The antiship missiles can be engaged in a group as a single self-coordinated swarm. It makes it impossible to repel the strike.

The antiship missiles can also hit ground targets with known coordinates. Such a possibility is specifically important in coastal areas where corvettes and submarines have to both fight the adversary and back the ground forces.

After 4 Gorshkovs, next frigates will be bigger:
http://bastion-karpenko.ru/22350m-skr/

http://www.ng.ru/news/642574.html?print=Y

It'd be far short of a Burke but still a comparable armament to the better of the similar size Euro-frigates/Destroyers.

When you say short of a Burke... how many Onyx or Zircon missiles can Burke carry?

120 km is still less than half the range of lowest grade missile the have available. Not worth it.

Of course, they are going to upgrade all their missiles and sensors and propulsion, but arm their destroyers and cruisers with the same gun they fit to their frigates... that makes sense... because when it comes to artillery the Russians are well known for being shit... just look at any of their vessels and there are no guns at all... they hate 30mm cannon and avoid mounting them on any type of ship they deploy...

When you say short of a Burke... how many Onyx or Zircon missiles can Burke carry?

I was meaning in terms of total VLS cell count, I kinda think of the lack of anti-ship missiles as a given. (until LRASM/NSM come online, then we're talking anything up to 96)


Via Balancer a possibility I was forgetting about that can make for a neat tie-in of several bits of info/rumors we've previously seen without resorting to a crazy-huge VLS cell count: The rumored possibility of UKSK-M quad-packing 9M96.

If so then 'only' 48 cells would allow 'upto 48* Kalibr/Zirkon' as well as a 'typical loadout' with 24* cells allocated for Kalibr/Zirkon, fitting in with recent 24* Kalibr rumor and with the other half containing a still very respectable 96* 9M96 missiles.

As well as the previously discussed rumor of not expecting a cell-count increase, the old concept with big pyramid mast (if its actually more than just a 'futuristic promo') hasn't depicted an increase in VLS which could be seen to also support 48* UKSK-M.


Could be completely wrong but I really like how it neatly ties-in so many of the bits of info/rumors we have


Edit:

Closest thing I was able to find at 7000 tonnes is Kidd-class destroyer:

FREMM, Horizon, Type 26, Type 45, Álvaro de Bazán, De Zeven Provinciën, Fridtjof Nansen, Sachsen are all in that range between Gorshkov & Burke.
The upper end of them have 48* VLS & many have less. (some do have quad-pack ESSM &/or RAM launchers as well, though also 22350M can fairly reasonably expect 2*Pantsir-M too)

The upper end of them have 48* VLS & many have less. (some do have quad-pack ESSM &/or RAM launchers as well, though also 22350M can fairly reasonably expect 2*Pantsir-M too)

Ground launcher of 48n6 can be replaced by 4x9m96.

So if uksk-m can fit one 48N6 then you can quad-pack 9m96 or 16x the small one with 15km range. So even 4 uksk-m would mean 32x 48N6 or 128x 9m96.

Actually if they replace redut on gorshkov with uksk-m it would be a huge power up.

@hoom: what about this?

Already discussed plenty.
IMO despite being styled like Gorshkov its either pure nonsense or a Lider concept.

That thing is MASSIVE.
Look at how tiny the 130mm & the Palma are compared to that hull, they're pretty big relative to the hull on 22350.

The missile counts are insane & vastly undercounted in that pic.

Bow to stern we have:
4*3*8 = 96* probably Redut
3*5*8 = 120* probably UKSK
6*4*8 = 192* what can only be naval Tor

Thats the armament of something a hell of a lot bigger than 7000ton.

I wonder how the crew can go on the foreward of the ship as the uksk and pantsir reload system are taking all the internal space at midship.

If the thing on the back is tor, they really need to make a new lighter VLS system for it. It is huge for nothing.

Btw, they already can't make a shtill vls with 3x12 cells let alone place 120 UKSK cells in such way.

hoom wrote:That thing is MASSIVE.

You are right, looks like a cruiser

Those CIWS are Pantsir not Palma.

BTW not sure if you know what Palma here means?

Palash = broadsword
Palma = Siberian polearm nothing to do with palm tree

I was meaning in terms of total VLS cell count, I kinda think of the lack of anti-ship missiles as a given. (until LRASM/NSM come online, then we're talking anything up to 96)

But Burkes vertical launch system is for anti ship missiles and SAMs... even if they have 96 tubes available they would never go to sea with no SAMs to defend themselves from anything...

When talking about UKSK then they can only carry anti ship, land attack, or anti sub missiles... they can't carry SAMs... SAMs would be extra... carried in another launcher system.

The current Russian record holder is the Oscar class sub with 24 Granits... even Kirov class ships carry only 20 Granits... in comparison these new vessels with 64 Zircons or upgraded Kirovs with up to 80 Zircons blow those burkes away...

So if uksk-m can fit one 48N6 then you can quad-pack 9m96 or 16x the small one with 15km range. So even 4 uksk-m would mean 32x 48N6 or 128x 9m96.

Actually if they replace redut on gorshkov with uksk-m it would be a huge power up.

If you could only get one SAM into each UKSK-M tube then it simply does not make sense to carry any SAMs in it at all... it could be like putting a hunting rifle in place of the 30mm gatling on the A-10...

If the UKSK-M is supposed to be fully universal they will need to design it so smaller weapons can be packed inside not only in greater numbers per tube, but also in layers... a tiny 9M100 missile would need 6-8 missiles per tube width but also stacked in layers 3-4 deep... so each tube could hold up to 32 small short range IIR guided SAMs. For the bigger 9M96 missiles are slim and short too... for the short 60km range model you should be able to get four layers with 6 missiles per layer... so 24 missiles per tube, and with the longer 150km range model the same width so 6 missiles per layer with perhaps two layers of 12 missiles per tube.

I would expect standard full sized missiles of the S-400 family you should be able to get three missiles per tube, but likely only one layer, and S-500 you might only get one per tube but it would be worth it.

(note the 9M96 and 9M100 equate to the land based S-350 system).

Also BTW, the SP-10E Universal radar fire control system for ship mounted guns controls guns of calibres from 25mm up to 305mm... it is for export to upgrade old ships or to put on new ships..

GarryB wrote:

So if uksk-m can fit one 48N6.

If you could only get one SAM into each UKSK-M tube then it simply does not make sense to carry any SAMs in it at all... it could be like putting a hunting rifle in place of the 30mm gatling on the A-10...
{}

I would expect standard full sized missiles of the S-400 family you should be able to get three missiles per tube, but likely only one layer, and S-500 you might only get one per tube but it would be worth it.

48N6 container\s size is 7,8mx1m, weights 2,6tons where 1,8t is missile alone. Now tell me how you gonna to fit 3 in in one UKSK?

LMFS wrote:

\"GunshipDemocracy wrote:48 UKSK-M  -> frigate
112 UKSK-M ->destroyer

now better ?  

Yeah, your destroyer is actually a cruiser hahaha

no Slavas had 16 Vulcans only      

hoom wrote:Already discussed plenty.
IMO despite being styled like Gorshkov its either pure nonsense or a Lider concept.

That thing is MASSIVE.
Look at how tiny the 130mm & the Palma are compared to that hull, they're pretty big relative to the hull on 22350.

The missile counts are insane & vastly undercounted in that pic.

Bow to stern we have:
4*3*8 = 96* probably Redut
3*5*8 = 120* probably UKSK
6*4*8 = 192* what can only be naval Tor

Thats the armament of something a hell of a lot bigger than 7000ton.

I remember them saying that the new frigates would be something like 12,000 tons, basically larger than yester-years destroyers, just like the new destroyers are basically the new cruisers.....I bet the new cruisers would be the size of helicopter carriers, and the new battle-cruisers would be large freight ships with large amounts of 'shipping containers.' [/tongueincheek]

Tsavo Lion wrote:After 4 Gorshkovs, next frigates will be bigger:
http://bastion-karpenko.ru/22350m-skr/

http://www.ng.ru/news/642574.html?print=Y

Gorskhov-M I wonder what comes into real figate place?

GunshipDemocracy wrote:

Tsavo Lion wrote:After 4 Gorshkovs, next frigates will be bigger:
http://bastion-karpenko.ru/22350m-skr/

http://www.ng.ru/news/642574.html?print=Y

Gorskhov-M I wonder what comes into real figate place?

Probably the new corvettes would probably take the place of the old frigates, while drone-boats would probably take the place of old corvettes. I'm thinking drone-boats, with no crew space could be built 50% smaller than conventional corvettes, but with the same armament and could be towed and controlled by bigger ships to give them extra fire-power.

Those CIWS are Pantsir not Palma.

No radars, only optical module on it -> Palash/Palma as has been noted on the pic.
Which btw means they don't have the reload stuff under them -> way forward for crew.

BTW not sure if you know what Palma here means?

Palash = broadsword
Palma = Siberian polearm nothing to do with palm tree

Did not know that, interesting thanks

https://mobile.twitter.com/RALee85/status/1104772926170120193

So its basically naval Shtora.

hoom wrote:So its basically naval Shtora.

A little bit bigger .

Would be good on tor and s-400 against optical guided bombs.

magnumcromagnon wrote:

GunshipDemocracy wrote:

Tsavo Lion wrote:After 4 Gorshkovs, next frigates will be bigger:
http://bastion-karpenko.ru/22350m-skr/

http://www.ng.ru/news/642574.html?print=Y

Gorskhov-M I wonder what comes into real figate place?

Probably the new corvettes would probably take the place of the old frigates, while drone-boats would probably take the place of old corvettes. I'm thinking drone-boats, with no crew space could be built 50% smaller than conventional corvettes, but with the same armament and could be towed and controlled by bigger ships to give them extra fire-power.

drone corvettes or rather missile boats make sense but IMHO still 10-15 years we need to wait until they get operational.
As for "corvette- frigate" now 20386 seems to be not the best candidate IMHO bvut i dont see anything else.