Project 22350: Admiral Sergei Gorshkov #2

verkhoturye51 wrote:

GarryB wrote:

Why? Tor M2KM has a range of 15 km, while Pantsir M 20 km.

Tor is vertical launch and therefore the launcher is stealthy... plus does not need the launcher turned in the direction of the target before launch... and the missiles are single stage and much smaller and likely cheaper command guided missiles.

So why not put Tor instead of Pantsir also on Karakurts and other ships? There shouldn't be that much difference in price and size.

Because Pantsir is a gun/missile CIWS that represents an evolutionary upgrade to the older Kashtan/Klintoks. Pantsir-M is is the marinised Pantsir gun, missiles and radars from land forces mounted onto a Kashtan launcher.

Tor doesn't include a gun.

Russian/Soviet capital ships use both as part of a layered defense. Tor for all-aspect coverage, Kashtan for specific arcs as point-defense.

Apparently success with test launches https://bmpd.livejournal.com/3365386.html

Googletranslate wrote:Admiral of the Fleet of the Soviet Union Gorshkov” [project 22350], performing scheduled tasks of a combat training course in the Barents Sea, successfully conducted a series of practical shooting anti-aircraft missile system of the sea-based vertical launch "Polyment-Redut".

The crew of the ship three times successfully hit air targets at various altitudes and distances with anti-aircraft missiles. Also noted accurate hit on a sea shield, simulating a small surface target.

Could be just a confirmation of existing capabilities rather than success in stuff its failed at previously.
Hopefully the latter though

multiple altitudes is a dead give away.

Short, medium and high altitude. 3 targets. Makes sense.

hoom wrote:Apparently success with test launches https://bmpd.livejournal.com/3365386.html

Googletranslate wrote:Admiral of the Fleet of the Soviet Union Gorshkov” [project 22350], performing scheduled tasks of a combat training course in the Barents Sea, successfully conducted a series of practical shooting anti-aircraft missile system of the sea-based vertical launch "Polyment-Redut".

The crew of the ship three times successfully hit air targets at various altitudes and distances with anti-aircraft missiles. Also noted accurate hit on a sea shield, simulating a small surface target.

Could be just a confirmation of existing capabilities rather than success in stuff its failed at previously.
Hopefully the latter though

This is good news indeed

So why not put Tor instead of Pantsir also on Karakurts and other ships? There shouldn't be that much difference in price and size.

TOR... or the naval Klintok has traditionally not been fitted to small ships... it has generally been mounted on medium (Destroyer size... ie Udaloy) and really big ships like Kuznetsov and Kirov and Slava class carriers/cruisers as a point defence missile... normally in addition to Kashtan gun/missile systems.

The missiles are relatively cheap but the guidance and tracking systems are sophisticated expensive 3D systems... the ground based TOR is expensive, but relatively cheap to use and new models use smaller longer ranged missiles that are much more accurate... ideal systems to co-locate with large SAMs for defence from ARMS and other munitions...

The vertical launch also makes them rather more stealthy than external steerable mounts like Panstir or Kashtan or Palma.

Hence why it should be used instead imo.

Gorshkov and Kazan have conducted exercises in the Arctic ahead od NATO large scale exercises in south Norway.

GarryB wrote:

So why not put Tor instead of Pantsir also on Karakurts and other ships? There shouldn't be that much difference in price and size.

TOR... or the naval Klintok has traditionally not been fitted to small ships... it has generally been mounted on medium (Destroyer size... ie Udaloy) and really big ships like Kuznetsov and Kirov and Slava class carriers/cruisers as a point defence missile... normally in addition to Kashtan gun/missile systems.

The missiles are relatively cheap but the guidance and tracking systems are sophisticated expensive 3D systems... the ground based TOR is expensive, but relatively cheap to use and new models use smaller longer ranged missiles that are much more accurate... ideal systems to co-locate with large SAMs for defence from ARMS and other munitions...

The vertical launch also makes them rather more stealthy than external steerable mounts like Panstir or Kashtan or Palma.

This stealthiness makes Tor more suitable for modern missile corvettes than Pantsir. Small vessels' poor defensive capabilities require using as stealthy features as possible. Besides, those 3D systems are now developed and money already spent, so it makes sense to start mass production to bring cost per unit down. Except if I'm missing something and Pantsir's capabilities are more universal.

Tor in all its forms is produced in mass since the 80´s.

This stealthiness makes Tor more suitable for modern missile corvettes than Pantsir. Small vessels' poor defensive capabilities require using as stealthy features as possible. Besides, those 3D systems are now developed and money already spent, so it makes sense to start mass production to bring cost per unit down. Except if I'm missing something and Pantsir's capabilities are more universal.

TOR is a very good system, but don't underestimate the Pantsir/Kashtan system... it is more flexible and offers rather better EO systems so it would be rather good against a variety of targets...

Making a small boat slightly more stealthy might not be worth it.

Also keep in mind that the radar and sensor tower for the TOR in naval form is not exactly stealthy even if the missiles are.

Some of those small vessels are getting multiple AESA radar arrays mounted on their masts... I would suggest they are better equipped in terms of 3D radar coverage than any Soviet ship before them within 10K tons displacement...

Considering equivalent western ships would have MANPADS and perhaps a 50 cal HMG mount, I would say Pantsir is pretty good.

Kasatonov expected to start seatrials 2nd half of Nov
https://flotprom.ru/2018/%D0%A1%D0%B5%D0%B2%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%BD%D0%B0%D1%8F%D0%92%D0%B5%D1%80%D1%84%D1%8C50/

verkhoturye51 wrote:Gorshkov and Kazan have conducted exercises in the Arctic ahead od NATO large scale exercises in south Norway.

GarryB wrote:

So why not put Tor instead of Pantsir also on Karakurts and other ships? There shouldn't be that much difference in price and size.

TOR... or the naval Klintok has traditionally not been fitted to small ships... it has generally been mounted on medium (Destroyer size... ie Udaloy) and really big ships like Kuznetsov and Kirov and Slava class carriers/cruisers as a point defence missile... normally in addition to Kashtan gun/missile systems.

The missiles are relatively cheap but the guidance and tracking systems are sophisticated expensive 3D systems... the ground based TOR is expensive, but relatively cheap to use and new models use smaller longer ranged missiles that are much more accurate... ideal systems to co-locate with large SAMs for defence from ARMS and other munitions...

The vertical launch also makes them rather more stealthy than external steerable mounts like Panstir or Kashtan or Palma.

This stealthiness makes Tor more suitable for modern missile corvettes than Pantsir. Small vessels' poor defensive capabilities require using as stealthy features as possible. Besides, those 3D systems are now developed and money already spent, so it makes sense to start mass production to bring cost per unit down. Except if I'm missing something and Pantsir's capabilities are more universal.

Shipboard Klinok/Kinzhal is much heavier and bulkier than pantsir-M. Pantsir can be some 20 tons fully equipped, Klinok is more than 50 tons, so it can fit only in corvette/frigate sized ship. Tor-M is a vehicle based module put aboard, so, although lighter it must be specially modernised for shipboard use, and it packs less missiles.

kumbor wrote:

verkhoturye51 wrote:Gorshkov and Kazan have conducted exercises in the Arctic ahead od NATO large scale exercises in south Norway.

GarryB wrote:

So why not put Tor instead of Pantsir also on Karakurts and other ships? There shouldn't be that much difference in price and size.

TOR... or the naval Klintok has traditionally not been fitted to small ships... it has generally been mounted on medium (Destroyer size... ie Udaloy) and really big ships like Kuznetsov and Kirov and Slava class carriers/cruisers as a point defence missile... normally in addition to Kashtan gun/missile systems.

The missiles are relatively cheap but the guidance and tracking systems are sophisticated expensive 3D systems... the ground based TOR is expensive, but relatively cheap to use and new models use smaller longer ranged missiles that are much more accurate... ideal systems to co-locate with large SAMs for defence from ARMS and other munitions...

The vertical launch also makes them rather more stealthy than external steerable mounts like Panstir or Kashtan or Palma.

This stealthiness makes Tor more suitable for modern missile corvettes than Pantsir. Small vessels' poor defensive capabilities require using as stealthy features as possible. Besides, those 3D systems are now developed and money already spent, so it makes sense to start mass production to bring cost per unit down. Except if I'm missing something and Pantsir's capabilities are more universal.

Shipboard Klinok/Kinzhal is much heavier and bulkier than pantsir-M. Pantsir can be some 20 tons fully equipped, Klinok is more than 50 tons, so it can fit only in corvette/frigate sized ship. Tor-M is a vehicle based module put aboard, so, although lighter it must be specially modernised for shipboard use, and it packs less missiles.

So Pantsir M is lighter with longer range and Tor is more stealthy.

Perhaps we should see a fusion of very short and short range AAD systems that could offer all 3 advantages in one. This could enable a general shift in Russian armed forces from 4 layer to 3 layer AAD, consisting of Pantsir/Tor merge, Buk and S300/S500.

Actually I don't expect that to actually happen... air defence layers are good... the more the better.

Otherwise you would say S-500 is perfect and they don't need anything else because it should be able to stop everything from ICBM MIRVs down to cruise missiles and ARMs... except the S-500 will be big and expensive and not likely carried in large enough numbers to be used against everything a ship in combat will come up against in terms of numbers.

It is important to note the Russian Army also uses both TOR and Tunguska... they have a missile regiment for air defence which used to be equipped with OSA, that is in the slow process of being replaced by the far more capable TOR, while in the gun/missile regiment they used to have Shilka and first SA-9 and then the more capable SA-13, but now they have Tunguska, which will no doubt be replaced with something based on the upgraded Pantsir on a tracked chassis for mobility with tracked forces...

They are also introducing Pine... or SOSNA-R to pretty much replace the SA-13s in airborne use, but I also suspect in some areas of lower readiness they will also use them there to replace both ZU-23-2 and SA-13.

(BTW Pine is quite an interesting system... relatively small two stage missiles with high velocity acceleration and low drag second stage missiles with a range of 10km and laser beam riding guidance that is pretty difficult to jam or interfere with... so also rather cheap missiles with all the high tech EO in the launcher so it can be reused over and over again...)

They have mentioned two new versions of Pantsir for naval use, and I suspect one is for upgrades of old vessels and one is for new vessels... the latter being more stealthy I guess, though both would be more stealthy than the original.

This could enable a general shift in Russian armed forces from 4 layer to 3 layer AAD, consisting of Pantsir/Tor merge, Buk and S300/S500.

Actually things are only getting worse... Palma adds Sosna, or Pine, plus a new short range IIR guided missile called 9M100 or Morfei is being developed for the air force(air and space defence force), army and navy, and of course there is the Verba MANPAD...

So in terms of layers for the navy there will be Verba on deck mounts as well as hand held, Sosna-R on Palma mounts, Pantsir, Klintok (TOR), BUK, S-350, S-400, and S-500... so 8 layers, not including aircraft.

For the Army, that would be Verba, Morfei, Pine, TOR, Tunguska, BUK, S-300V4, and S-500, so 8 layers not including aircraft.

Aerospace forces would be Verba, Morfei(though this might be a short range AAM only in this force... but with ground launched models for the other services I will include it here), Pantsir, S-350, S-400, S-500, which is only 6 layers plus of course aircraft layers in greater numbers... you could probably add Nudol and other heavy ABM missiles in this category too however, and if the Pine system is as cheap as it seems they might use it as well... it looks like a rather good cheap low emission system that should also be rather effective.

It sounds complicated and expensive and extravagant... there are probably fewer system types in NATO, but it is like small arms... you could replace pistols and SMGs and rifles and even light machine guns with assault rifles, but sometimes it is better to have the right tool for the job...

Point taken, however, I hope they can achieve high modularity and find some common ground between all those weapon systems at least. Otherways it will be hard to produce and operate them effectively. One of the reasons why US can put 50 % of their commissioned ships at sea at any time and Russia 15 %, is that every Russian ship is so highly specialised and thus unique. This means that production, trials, maintainance, modernization is costly and takes time. All those fantastic weapon systems will be of little use if ship spends half of its duty in dock.

If there are no difference in combat capabilities between Tor and Pantsir, I think that they should work out those minor differences in stealth, range and weight.

Americans seem to have also acknowledged the advantage of having several destroyer and frigate classes in service at the same time. But still it's only two classes each. Extremes are never good.

Supposedly this should be 22350M?


http://bastion-karpenko.ru/army-2018-korabli-foto-1/

LMFS wrote:Supposedly this should be 22350M?


http://bastion-karpenko.ru/army-2018-korabli-foto-1/

Number of VLS looks weired. With the pantsirs on the front crew can't walk to the front. The vls on the back looks like old ones for s-300.

It seems to be commercial design with many weapons that will have nothing to do with the real one.

Gun looks rather small for the size of the ship too...

If there are no difference in combat capabilities between Tor and Pantsir, I think that they should work out those minor differences in stealth, range and weight.

Both use command guided missiles, but TOR is mostly focussed on anti munition use... ie shooting down incoming enemy threats... Hellfire missiles and the Apache helicopters that are launching them for example. It normally operates with armoured vehicles but when on a ship or located with a large SAM system its purpose is to defeat incoming HARMs, which would make it useful to have with an S-300V4 battery and also on board a ship.

Pantsir is also able to engage incoming missiles and weapons of all types, but also includes guns to deal with surface targets out to about 5km, and of course in the latest models the range is rather astounding... 40-50km.

Personally I would say if you can carry both then do so... the 3D search radar and AESA tracking radar system of the TOR could be replaced with the ships own organic AESA arrays, so the system could be fully integrated into the ships infrastructure...

Of course the EO systems and AESA radar could also be used with Pantsir, but I would keep the Pantsirs organic sensors as a useful addition to the systems already fitted to the ship.

The TOR missile is relatively short and very compact so you could put bin launchers all over the ship... unlike Redut and UKSK launchers which are 8-12 metres deep and need to be positioned near the centre of the vessel where the deck space is deepest.

In fact you could fit an extra deck level at the middle section of the ship and fill it with TOR launchers...

Pantsir is 3 in 1. CIWS, short and medium range sam with new missiles. Tor is very good but expensive and doesn't bbring much more in terms of capacities compare to pantsir.

Last version tested is a module that you put on a flat surface on the ship and works by itself. Which is very good on tanker, landing ships or carriers without increasig the ship's price. 1 tor for two ships.just put it on the one that is deployed and trasfert it on the other one when the first goes in its homebase.

Supposedly this should be 22350M?

Its the same model we saw previously in 2016 or 2017.

While its '22350 style' there is no way in hell its a serious representation of an 8000ton 22350M, could be a Lider concept.
The represented firepower would make even upgraded Nakhimov desperately start searching for ways to 'improve potency'.

Thats 96 cells of probably Redut then 120 UKSK cells and a further 192 cells of what looks like naval Tor aft, plus 64 Pantsir-M missiles & from recollection there are even more VLS aft of the hangar that we can't see from this angle.

GarryB wrote:Gun looks rather small for the size of the ship too...

If there are no difference in combat capabilities between Tor and Pantsir, I think that they should work out those minor differences in stealth, range and weight.

Both use command guided missiles, but TOR is mostly focussed on anti munition use... ie shooting down incoming enemy threats... Hellfire missiles and the Apache helicopters that are launching them for example. It normally operates with armoured vehicles but when on a ship or located with a large SAM system its purpose is to defeat incoming HARMs, which would make it useful to have with an S-300V4 battery and also on board a ship.

Pantsir is also able to engage incoming missiles and weapons of all types, but also includes guns to deal with surface targets out to about 5km, and of course in the latest models the range is rather astounding... 40-50km.

Personally I would say if you can carry both then do so... the 3D search radar and AESA tracking radar system of the TOR could be replaced with the ships own organic AESA arrays, so the system could be fully integrated into the ships infrastructure...

Of course the EO systems and AESA radar could also be used with Pantsir, but I would keep the Pantsirs organic sensors as a useful addition to the systems already fitted to the ship.

The TOR missile is relatively short and very compact so you could put bin launchers all over the ship... unlike Redut and UKSK launchers which are 8-12 metres deep and need to be positioned near the centre of the vessel where the deck space is deepest.

In fact you could fit an extra deck level at the middle section of the ship and fill it with TOR launchers...

So, UKSK & Redut don`t need as much "deck space" as they need more HULL DEPTH and HULL VOLUME. Deck space is linked with area - площадь, in square meters or square feet, while usable hull depth is more linked with height/length and volume in cubic meters or feet. These are two different measures - as we learn in the initial grades of elementary school, dear Garry B!

GarryB wrote:Both use command guided missiles, but TOR is mostly focussed on anti munition use

So this explains why Tor is used on larger ships, where missile defence is more important than CIWS. Using also Pantsir would be great on frigates that might engage in battles with other ships or coastal defence. Using only Tor would on the other hand make sense on CVNs, that are only likely to be engaged with missiles (and torpedoes).

So, UKSK & Redut don`t need as much "deck space" as they need more HULL DEPTH and HULL VOLUME. Deck space is linked with area - площадь, in square meters or square feet, while usable hull depth is more linked with height/length and volume in cubic meters or feet. These are two different measures - as we learn in the initial grades of elementary school, dear Garry B!

What you say is not totally true. UKSK takes more deck space than some other VLS because it weights more. Look US ships with VLS and compare to uksk and you will see they are much more compact than uksk.

New tor VLS with the new smaller missile would allow a great volume of missile for a small deck space. Something like two dozens instead of one uksk.

Russia had a shtill version with 24 tubes per vls but isn't build because of weight.

Isos wrote:

So, UKSK & Redut don`t need as much "deck space" as they need more HULL DEPTH and HULL VOLUME. Deck space is linked with area - площадь, in square meters or square feet, while usable hull depth is more linked with height/length and volume in cubic meters or feet. These are two different measures - as we learn in the initial grades of elementary school, dear Garry B!

What you say is not totally true. UKSK takes more deck space than some other VLS because it weights more. Look US ships with VLS and compare to uksk and you will see they are much more compact than uksk.

New tor VLS with the new smaller missile would allow a great volume of missile for a small deck space. Something like two dozens instead of one uksk.

Russia had a shtill version with 24 tubes per vls but isn't build because of weight.

I didn`t say that it does not need deck space, but that it doesn`t need as much. I`ve also noticed that UKSK is much bulkier than US VLS Mk.41 or equivalent. E.g. Kinzhal/Klinok as early soviet VLS has a drum for eight missiles. One firing unit normally comprises four such drums. Fully loaded it weighs some 50 tons - short range AA missile system of a substantial weight.