Project 22350: Admiral Sergei Gorshkov #2

You cannot have a one size fits all VLS tube.

That was the plan... they developed Onyx/Yakhont/Brahmos, and the Kalibr (Club) range and of course the anti sub 91ER1/2 missiles to fit the UKSK design.

They designed Redut for the S-300, S-350, S-400, and the 9M100 missiles.

The UKSK-M seems to allow bigger S-500 and therefore also the smaller S-400/350/300 and 9M100 missiles too, plus as most of the Kalibr and Club missiles were designed to be fired from torpedo tubes and are therefore 533mm calibre weapons, while the Onyx family are something like 750mm even in the old UKSK launcher there is enormous amounts of space to increase size and expand performance, but with the UKSK-M they will likely have even bigger tubes.

For the bigger vessels like destroyers and up then the bigger UKSK-M make sense, while smaller vessels can use the UKSK which is big enough for the missiles they will likely carry.

The US couldn't have a one size fits all VLS tube because they designed their missiles and then developed their tubes, so the ESSM.. essentially Sparrow AAMs, and Harpoon and Standard SAMs and Tomahawk cruise missiles and of course ASROC missiles are all widely different sizes and shapes which means they have different sized vertical launch tubes on different ships.

The Soviets would be in a much worse situation of course... Vulcan, and Granit and Grannat and Sunburn and all the other anti ship missiles they had in service alone would have been a nightmare to fit into a VLS system... so they started from scratch effectively.

Russia is really slow at building frigates.

According to this two Gorshkov frigates are to be laid down this year, does anyone know anything more about it?

https://navy-korabel.livejournal.com/226286.html

PapaDragon wrote:
According to this two Gorshkov frigates are to be laid down this year, does anyone know anything more about it?

https://navy-korabel.livejournal.com/226286.html

The information is from unnamed sources in the defense ministry:
https://tass.com/defense/1078861

Could be true. But there is no confirmation yet.

Russia is really slow at building frigates.

Russia has never had a lot of frigates... most of its Krivak class frigates were used by the MVD border patrol forces eventually.

Russia has ships, and while it has a shortage of modern ships it is solving those problems... they are getting the designs right and operationally tested before starting any large series production runs.

They don't have any pressing need for a very large navy at the moment... in 10-20 years time when they are expanding their trade base to a much broader group of partners that don't include their neighbours and the west then their navy will be more important... but of course by then they will have several solid designs they can mass produce to create the navy they want... it will never match the west in numbers... that just simply isn't realistic or practical.

The new Russian Navy will be rather smaller but also vastly more capable and power than the Soviet Navy ever was.

TheArmenian wrote:

PapaDragon wrote:
According to this two Gorshkov frigates are to be laid down this year, does anyone know anything more about it?

https://navy-korabel.livejournal.com/226286.html

The information is from unnamed sources in the defense ministry:
https://tass.com/defense/1078861

Could be true. But there is no confirmation yet.

I see that no name is given... maybe they could call them admiral Butakov and admiral istomin... the name that the 2 11356 frigates sold to India should have had.

GarryB wrote:

Russia is really slow at building frigates.

Russia has never had a lot of frigates... most of its Krivak class frigates were used by the MVD border patrol forces eventually.

Russia has ships, and while it has a shortage of modern ships it is solving those problems... they are getting the designs right and operationally tested before starting any large series production runs.

They don't have any pressing need for a very large navy at the moment... in 10-20 years time when they are expanding their trade base to a much broader group of partners that don't include their neighbours and the west then their navy will be more important... but of course by then they will have several solid designs they can mass produce to create the navy they want... it will never match the west in numbers... that just simply isn't realistic or practical.

The new Russian Navy will be rather smaller but also vastly more capable and power than the Soviet Navy ever was.

The time it takes Russia to build 1 frigate, China builds 20 destroyers, Britain or France builds 10 frigates. Granted, Russia does not need that many frigates considering Russia has nukes and ain't having a domination strategy. Nevertheless, Russia is extremely slow as far as shipbuilding goes.

The time it takes Russia to build 1 frigate, China builds 20 destroyers, Britain or France builds 10 frigates. Granted, Russia does not need that many frigates considering Russia has nukes and ain't having a domination strategy. Nevertheless, Russia is extremely slow as far as shipbuilding goes.

What British frigates?

A British frigate has less powerful armament than a Russian corvette... it is pathetic... barely one step up from an Iranian speed boat with a light cannon or rocket launcher fitted... and how many exactly are they making.... show us the figures to back up your claim.

China is building fast because all its old stuff is totally obsolete and as they expand economically they will need to expand their influence which means they need a navy to give them a global power base, but having lots of ships just means lots of targets against a capable enemy... it is cheaper for Russia to build anti ship missiles and MiG-31s and later MiG-41s than to try to match China and NATO in ship production... WTF would they do with 20 destroyers right now anyway?

The operational costs would use up their naval budget to provide a capability they really don't need right now.

They have a plan and they are following the plan.

Besides that 1 frigate Russia also build some corvettes (small missile ships, patrol ships and coastal guard ships in russian slang), nuclear powered subs with ICBM´s and ALCM´s, conventional subs and some auxiliary ships.

China needs a big navy because it is totaly dependend on the inflow of resources from Australia, South America, Middle East and Africa. Without a big Navy (and Russia) it would go the same way as Japan in a war.

Whatever need Russia have today they still are far behind in production. By now 12 new frigates should have been deliverd to the navy and so far they recived 4?
Also the Steregushchiy corvette is supose to be produced in 24-30 ships, since 2006, 14 years ago, they deliverd 6 vessels.

walle83 wrote:Whatever need Russia have today they still are far behind in production. By now 12 new frigates should have been deliverd to the navy and so far they recived 4?
Also the Steregushchiy corvette is supose to be produced in 24-30 ships, since 2006, 14 years ago, they deliverd 6 vessels.

Only partially correct. Numbers are true but the not mentioning the whole story behind that process leads to wrong conclusions. since 90 you have 25-30 years of non (in best case under) funding. You need to rebuild the whole USSR network of cooperation only within Russia. There are no Ukrainian turbines or missiles or electronics only Soviet designs which were produced in current Ukraine.


Timing of Us aggression in Ukraine is not really coincidental to Russian army/navy modernization efforts.

So lets say they were ahead of everybody by the same margin that you are suggesting they are behind... it would be rather expensive to generate that sort of production tempo... and by now they would probably have most of the ships they need along with a lot of older ships they would now need to retire and scrap... which also costs money...

But tell me what difference would it make to have all these new ships?

What are they going to be doing with all these new ships?

Apart from costing them a few tens of billions of dollars from their budget which means taking funding from other areas, what would be the benefit of having 24 Gorshkov frigates right now?

Also there is the factor that after making a few frigates they have decided to expand the design and improve its performance... so the first four might be the old design but the next 8 might be a much better more effective and potent design... if they were blindly pumping them out to get numbers they would have 12 of the older ships, but this way they get 8 better designs... there is no urgency... they have plans in place that all needs to be funded and possible... there is no point in producing 24 Corvettes if it means you have no capacity to build icebreakers which you also want...

Timing of Us aggression in Ukraine is not really coincidental to Russian army/navy modernization efforts.

Another important factor is that the west has actively sought to impose measures to limit Russian military and economic growth, so enormous funding in ship production is pointless... if they are only ever going to make 24 corvettes of a particular type then you don't get lots of shipyards to pump them out as fast as they can because when they are done there are no more and those shipyards will suddenly become idle. It is a feast famine model that is destructive to industry. Instead a more planned approach where they make corvettes but also make other ship types as well with a long term programme to keep them consistently working.

The expansion of the Chinese navy is impressive... but lets be honest it was shit and needed upgrades and replacements fairly urgently considering it is facing Japan and the US Navy...

And the construction program keeps a lot of chinese people at work.

Indeed... both the build the ships and to man them.

Universal long as the missile is compatible with the hardware and software.

You cannot have a one size fits all VLS tube.

Of course you can... if you design the tube first and then design all the missiles that will go in to it to fit the tube, in this case the UKSK tube was supposed to carry all anti ship and anti sub missiles that they had... most of which were 533mm calibre because they were designed to be launched from torpedo tubes, but the evolutions of the Granit and Moskit... the Onyx.. is 750mm calibre so the UKSK tubes could load 750mm missiles and 533mm calibre weapons too.

Then they decided they wanted to make it fully universal to carry SAMS as well which will ultimately include the S-500 and everything smaller.

We don't know how big the S-500 is... but they do. If it is less than 750mm then the UKSK-M might not be bigger than the UKSK at all, but it might be.

If they make it slightly bigger they might find they can radically increase the number of some types of missiles it can carry... for instance making it a 1.2m tube might mean four 533mm weapons per tube, one S-500, one Onyx/Zircon... but four S-400 big missiles and 8 9M96 missiles per tube and 16 9m100 missiles.

More importantly with a bigger tube they can scale up their weapons to suit the launcher... the current Kalibr missile is intended for torpedo tubes so it is a 533mm calibre weapon. Even with the current UKSK launcher they could make it a metre or two longer and scale its width up to 750mm for an enormous increase in internal volume extending range to 5,000km or more.

A 1.2m tube in a UKSK-M means they can scale the Onyx missile up and make it bigger with more fuel etc, while the Zircon could be made bigger too...

This means they could have three different versions of each weapon... the biggest 1.2m diameter longest range models for the UKSK-M launcher that is fitted to all ships destroyer sized and bigger... a 750mm diameter version for UKSK launchers on Corvettes and Frigates and some vessels that don't need extra long range weapons like icebreakers and helicopter carriers that will mostly be used for SAMs, and some 533mm models for torpedo tube launch...

New weapons can be designed to fit these launch tubes...

GarryB wrote:

Of course you can... if you design the tube first and then design all the missiles that will go in to it to fit the tube, in this case the UKSK tube was supposed to carry all anti ship and anti sub missiles that they had... most of which were 533mm calibre because they were designed to be launched from torpedo tubes, but the evolutions of the Granit and Moskit... the Onyx.. is 750mm calibre so the UKSK tubes could load 750mm missiles and 533mm calibre weapons too.

Onix diameter is actually 670mm. But we dont know how large is Kalibr-M and Zircon yet. But since they were designed to UKSK-M I guess there will be no problemos

The point is that when Onyx was designed it was intended to be carried in UKSK launch tubes... UKSK launch tubes were designed around them because they were the longest and widest load they intended to carry in those tubes... other missiles fit with lots of excess space so enlarged versions of those missiles could be developed with improved performance to fill out the tubes more efficiently.

It is like the S-300 on land... the missiles were a physical size... when they developed the large S-400 missiles they made them the same size but improved their performance... the two smaller S-400s... known now as S-350 were designed to be used on launchers designed for S-400/S-300 where four missiles were designed to fit in to each S-300/400 tube... that wasn't some accident... it was by design... and four 9M100 missiles fitting into the place of one S-350 missile is not a mistake either... it means you can have S-400 launchers that can carry 9M96 missiles or 9M100 missiles if it is expected the enemy might try to overwhelm the battery with numbers. It also means that you can have S-350 launchers that can also carry the smaller missiles too, and for naval systems you can have launchers compatible with all three missile sizes (calibres).

So while fitting 6 UKSK-M launchers to a helicopter carrier might sound a bit silly... if those tubes can carry anti sub missiles that could also be used against incoming torpedoes and also carry SAMs then it actually makes a lot of sense... if you were going out to attack a US carrier group you would not take a helicopter carrier... helicopter carriers are versatile and UKSK-M launchers are versatile too...

We have seen tiny corvettes use land attack cruise missiles hit land based targets in Syria from thousands of kms away... if some long range platform like container could detect a few F-35s flying around the projected flight route of the missiles that corvette... with UKSK-M launch tubes could also launch a 400km range S-400 to deal with them using data from a radar system thousands of kms away...

GarryB wrote:The point is that when Onyx was designed it was intended to be carried in UKSK launch tubes... UKSK launch tubes were designed around them because they were the longest and widest load they intended to carry in those tubes... other missiles fit with lots of excess space so enlarged versions of those missiles could be developed with improved performance to fill out the tubes more efficiently.

Attended a recent seminar in Brussels where MBDA gave a presentation on ship based SR-SAM Sea Ceptor. https://www.mbda-systems.com/product/sea-ceptor/

They said their soft launch mechanism for the Sea Ceptor that propels the Common Anti-Air Modular Missile (CAMM) missile out of its cannister and well into the air before the rocket motor triggers — a quality that reduces system mass, eases installation and simply makes firing the missile an affair that doesn’t the deck baked or swathed in smoke. This particular soft launch mechanism is unique, isn't it?

I hope Russian Navy comes up with a similar system for their ship based SAMs.

Will the second ship be commissioned this year?

ultimatewarrior wrote:Will the second ship be commissioned this year?

Read the topic, please, SIt down, I give you 2 - in Russia it is "unsatisfactory", corresponding to C or even D, or 0.

I hope Russian Navy comes up with a similar system for their ship based SAMs.

The Soviet Union invented cold launch  

Soviet era:
Naval S-300 is on the Kirov & Slava classes (launches from 1:08)


Kinzhal (naval Tor) is on Kirov, Kuznetsov, Udaloy & Neustrashimy classes. Edit: were also on Kiev class.
(Its a bit hard to find footage of them, couple of launches at 1:00)


Modern Tor temp mounted on a 11356 for tests, a properly navalised version may be being seen on modernised ships/new designs



On recent ships:
Shtil-1 (naval Buk-M3) on 11356


9M96 (naval S-350) on 20380, 22350, 20385, 20386, probably on upgraded Nakhimov

Rob Lee
@RALee85
·
14h
Severnaya Verf's General Director Igor Ponomarev said the first Project 22350 Admiral Gorshkov-class frigate with Russian-made engines, the Admiral Golovko, will be launched before July

Probably two more 22350s with 24 cells will be laid down in 2020.

https://flotprom.ru/2020/%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%8C3/

ult wrote:Probably two more 22350s with 24 cells will be laid down in 2020.

https://flotprom.ru/2020/%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%8C3/

Sensible decision.

Now let's see how the reduction gearbox built by Zvezda will perform in the tests.

That was probably the biggest obstacle, since Saturn already built and tested the gas turbines.