Project 22350: Admiral Sergei Gorshkov #3

Podlodka77 wrote:F I N A L L Y... !!!!!!!!!!  

November 14, 10:50,
updated November 14, 11:17

The frigate "Admiral Golovko" will enter the first stage of testing in the coming days

ST. PETERSBURG, November 14. /TASS/. The latest frigate "Admiral Golovko" project 22350 will enter the first stage of testing in the coming days. Igor Orlov, general director of Severnaya Verf, announced this to TASS on Monday.

I'm especially keen to see Golovko pass her trials as she is the first 22350 with an all-Russian power-train comprising MGT engines and speed-reduction gearboxes. A good result here and there will be no excuses for not accelerating the engine ang g/box production rates.

So from this article:

Orlov said that the enterprise laid down "a lot of its ships." "Now they are being actively built. If the previous two years have become a period of active laying, now the period of active delivery of ships is coming. Although this number - from one and a half to two dozen in different stages of construction - will remain," he noted.

So the last 2 years they have been laying down new ships and now they will be building them with one and a half dozen to two dozen... so 18 to 24 ships being built at one time... presumably as they complete ships they lay down new ships to keep the number of ships being worked on between 18 and 24...

That sounds pretty good.

The general director of Severnaya Verf also spoke about the continuation of the construction of a series of 14 ships. According to him, a new generation corvette "Daring" of project 20386 is currently being built. "We have a lot of work, it is very large-scale and serious," Orlov summed up.

So they are serial producing  Gorshkov frigates and have one enlarged Gorshkov frigate being built and they are also building 20386 corvettes in series as well...

That is a good thing too.

Now at the shipyard in different stages of testing and construction are six frigates of project 22350 and a modernized project under the same number. Two frigates were previously transferred to the Russian Navy.

Now the title said five frigates of the project 22350 series but this mentions 6 which I would take to mean they have 6 ships laid down, one being the first 22350M ship and the other five being serial 22350 ships.

Even is the 22350M ships are excellent the smaller lighter 22350 ships wont be useless so I think it makes sense to lay down an make a decent batch of them but after the project 22350M have been fully tested and evaluated, if they are good and not too expensive it might make sense to shift serial production to only the larger ships... the smaller ships already built as I mentioned could go to the Black and Baltic Sea fleets where bigger longer ranged frigates wont been critical... of course with support ships they could wander further but in the near future destroyers will be laid down with nuclear propulsion that makes their range effectively unlimited so using them for longer ranged missions just makes more sense.

Getting Frigates and a Corvette into serial production is excellent and a good move forward for them.[/quote]

GARRY, I'm bad at copywriting and I have to answer like this.
There are members of the Russian military forum (who may be right on this occasion) who write that the journalists just misunderstood the statement and that it is only about the further construction of 5 frigates whose keels have already been laid, while the sixth frigate "Golovko" is on the water and facing further tests, more precisely sea trials.

I have also read the text several times and it can be interpreted as a journalist's mistake, however, the contract for the 9th and 10th frigates has already been signed, although the construction has not yet started. Those two ships should be built by Severnaya Werf.

Be that as it may, it is already widely rumored that the Amur Shipyard is also planning to build project 22350 frigates, the number of which would surely reach at least 6 over time, that is, one division rearmed with frigates - probably for the Pacific Fleet.
Even if the journalists took everything out of context and that it is not about "laying the keels for 5 new frigates", there is no doubt that there will be laying of new keels. Frigates "Amelko" and "Chichagov" (5th and 6th) have been under construction for 3.5 years, while the seventh "Yumashev" and the eighth "Spiridonov" have been under construction for 2.5 years. All that matters is that "Golovko" successfully completes all sea trials because the gas turbine is the key to everything, while the electronic equipment and armament have already been tested on the first 2 ships. After that, the stampede can start in the construction...  

And a very important thing is the information at what speed the Amur Shipyard progressed, because the keels for 5 new corvettes were laid in that shipyard since August last year; 2 projects 20380 and 3 projects 20385.
1. corvette of project 20380 "Grozniy", keel laid on August 23, 2021.
2. corvette of project 20385 "Buiniy", keel laid on August 23, 2021,
3. corvette of project 20380 "Braviy", keel laid on September 29 2021,
4. corvette of project 20385 "Razumniy", keel laid on June 12, 2022,
5. corvette of project 20385 "Bystriy", keel laid on July 4, 2022.
According to the contract, only one more corvette project 20385 with the name "Razyashchiy" remained to be laid. And that's it, after that the Amur Shipyard has no contracts for new ships, which hints that frigates could be next.

Good for Amur shipyard. I am glad if they solved at least a part of their issues. It was important to have the frigates built in two different places. If I am not mistaken Amur shipyard has some size limitations in comparison to severnaya verf, so they will probably not be able to build the enlarged 22350M. 

But that is not a huge problem, the M version could be built  in severnaya or in yantar, while the base version in Amur...

Now folks lets put that into a proper perspective.
Considering the budget allocation and the complexity of the Russian rearment program, which includes strategic missile carriers, and satellite network de facto rebuilding - those numbers are shocking.
The Russian economy is 1/5-1/6th of the Chinese one. Russkie really have nothing to be ashamed of.

Rodion_Romanovic wrote:Good for Amur shipyard. I am glad if they solved at least a part of their issues. It was important to have the frigates built in two different places. If I am not mistaken Amur shipyard has some size limitations in comparison to severnaya verf, so they will probably not be able to build the enlarged 22350M. 

But that is not a huge problem, the M version could be built  in severnaya or in yantar, while the base version in Amur...

The Amur shipyard also built project 971 Schchuka-B nuclear attack submarines with a surface displacement of over 8,000 tons (which is much larger than the displacement of project 22350 frigates), and the last submarine built is "Nerpa", which has been completed and operational since 2009. The last built submarine of project 971 Schchuka-B (NATO; Akula) was built precisely at the Amur Shipyard.


During the Second World War, they also built cruisers of the "26-Bis" project, whose standard displacement was slightly over 8100 tons and full displacement over 9700 tons. That's on par with the latest Arleigh Burke class modifications in terms of full displacement, bearing in mind that those cruisers were significantly longer than those American destroyers with an overall length of 191 meters. The last two destroyers they built in the sixties of the last century are the destroyers "Gordiy" and "Hrabriy" belonging to the 57-Bis project; full displacement about 4500 tons and length over 138 meters.
No keel was laid in the Amur Shipyard for a surface warship since the time of the destroyer "Hrabriy" (project 57-Bis) in 1959 until the corvette "Soversheniy" (project 20380) in 2006. They were just building submarines at the Amur Shipyard.

ALAMO wrote:Now folks lets put that into a proper perspective.
Considering the budget allocation and the complexity of the Russian rearment program, which includes strategic missile carriers, and satellite network de facto rebuilding - those numbers are shocking.
The Russian economy is 1/5-1/6th of the Chinese one. Russkie really have nothing to be ashamed of.

To be honest with you, it has always been and remains the number one news about nuclear attack submarines or multipurpose nuclear submarines - Russian classification...
I prefer the news about the 885M project to all the other weapons systems of Russia; 8 silos with 4 to 5 tubes (depending on the type of missile) + torpedo section for another 30 torpedoes or missiles. A real beast, bro...

Sure those are, and the production process was being relatively high priority even in the sad "smuta" Yelts times.
That is what we are witnessing today - a steady, undisrupted production process dependent only on the cash flow.
Projects are matured, components are steadily improved, and the whole production&supply cluster is in its place already.
Sometimes people can't understand the complexity level of this production.
Shipbuilding is one of the most sophisticated, multispectral, and technological production processes existing. Added value is one of the highest in the production business either, maybe pharmaceuticals can be better. Shipbuilding influence on the whole industry is equal to aviation&space business - creates tons of highly paid working places and pushes technological progress steadily ahead.
The boats constructed now have everything made brand new. And I mean not the machines and aggregates, because that is surprisingly an easy part.
The hulls are made with new steel types and welded with new welding materials.
All the rubber coatings, sealings etc are made with a brand new materials.
That requires the reconstruction of several whole industrial branches, including petrochemical. It is not an accident, that finally, after miserable failures caused by the substandard rubber/sealings the Bulava project faced at the beginning, nothing like that is happening. Russia reconstructed the petrochemical industry, catching up the Soviet Union, and steadily moving forward for the last 15 years. This is a backspin of oil production and gas refining. New polymers and polyurethanes are being created that affect the whole economy. Including such trivial things as fridge insulation.
This thing is a bloody locomotive of the whole economy, and what we are watching is a clear Russkie revival that started from a trivial fishing crawler everybody laugh at 20 years ago.
Nobody does anymore.
Aside of the morons, we have a full cage here

Here is what I wanted to write for a long time:

Today's Destroyers, Frigates and large corvettes are what Battleships were during the WW2.
In other words: they are very vulnerable in an environment saturated with anti-ship missiles, hypersonic missiles, submarines, underwater drones, UCAVs etc. etc.

Examples :
- Current Ukraine conflict: Russia lost the cruiser Moskva
- Falklands conflict: Royal Navy lost Sheffield , Coventry, Ardent and Antelope. Argentina lost General Belgrano
- Gulf conflict: USS Stark hit by Iraqis

Surface warships look great in naval parades. They do good work in peacetime and can be valuable during conflicts against a weaker opponent.
In a major war against a peer enemy, they are magnets for the plethora of anti-ship assets I mentioned earlier. They will be sunk/damaged early on in the conflict.

Russia does not need too many Gorshkov and Steregushy class warships. That's why they are not building that many (to the lament of many members of this forum).
Russia needs more submarines (of all classes), small missile ships (Karakurt), minesweepers, underwater drones and UAVs. And those are exactly the fields they are focusing on.

In my opinion, the much criticized Vassily Bykov class (project 22160) is ideal for future naval operations: it can deploy underwater drones from her stern and UAVs/UCAVs from her helicopter deck. It has a long range/endurance and is not expensive to build and maintain. It does not even need to have Kalibr cruise missiles. Just load some Geran/Shahed/Dorrito on board and let it do the rest.

Krepost wrote:Here is what I wanted to write for a long time:

Today's Destroyers, Frigates and large corvettes are what Battleships were during the WW2.
In other words: they are very vulnerable in an environment saturated with anti-ship missiles, hypersonic missiles, submarines, underwater drones, UCAVs etc. etc.

Examples :
- Current Ukraine conflict: Russia lost the cruiser Moskva
- Falklands conflict: Royal Navy lost Sheffield , Coventry, Ardent and Antelope. Argentina lost General Belgrano
- Gulf conflict: USS Stark hit by Iraqis

Surface warships look great in naval parades. They do good work in peacetime and can be valuable during conflicts against a weaker opponent.
In a major war against a peer enemy, they are magnets for the plethora of anti-ship assets I mentioned earlier. They will be sunk/damaged early on in the conflict.

Russia does not need too many Gorshkov and Steregushy class warships. That's why they are not building that many (to the lament of many members of this forum).
Russia needs more submarines (of all classes), small missile ships (Karakurt), minesweepers, underwater drones and UAVs. And those are exactly the fields they are focusing on.

In my opinion, the much criticized Vassily Bykov class (project 22160) is ideal for future naval operations: it can deploy underwater drones from her stern and UAVs/UCAVs from her helicopter deck. It has a long range/endurance and is not expensive to build and maintain. It does not even need to have Kalibr cruise missiles. Just load some Geran/Shahed/Dorrito on board and let it do the rest.

I do not agree with one part of the text and I agree with another part of the text.
I agree that the loss of "Moscow" is a big red alert for all major surface warships in the world.
I think it is still necessary to have ships with solid air defense and anti-submarine defense. Don't forget that we don't know if submarines are also obsolete because there was no clash between two significant naval powers. After all, aviation is no longer as convincing as it was in the nineties.
Everything is debatable.

In my opinion, it would be desirable for Russia to build at least 18 to 24 project 22350 frigates; 6 to 9 for NF, 6 to 9 for PF, 3 for BF and 3 for the Black Sea Fleet (BSF). I think the Northern and Pacific fleets should get most of the larger displacement ships. I am of the opinion that both the Northern and Pacific fleets must have at least two divisions of 6 (total 12 to 13) ships of larger displacement, made up of frigates 22350/22350M and some future ships of larger displacement.
In short; 32 ships of larger displacement in total...
* Northern fleet; 13 frigates of project 22350/22350M and several destroyers. Approximately 9 frigates and 4 destroyers of large displacement.
* Pacific fleet; same as Northern fleet,
* Baltic fleet; 3 frigates of project 22350.
* Black sea fleet; 3 frigates of project 22350.

Krepost wrote:In my opinion, the much criticized Vassily Bykov class (project 22160) is ideal for future naval operations: it can deploy underwater drones from her stern and UAVs/UCAVs from her helicopter deck. It has a long range/endurance and is not expensive to build and maintain. It does not even need to have Kalibr cruise missiles. Just load some Geran/Shahed/Dorrito on board and let it do the rest.

People criticize Vassily Bikov with no real reason. That project was built as long range patrol ship and for anti piracy purposes, so they don't have to use capital ships, such as Marshal Vinogradov, for  that.
It was never meant for full blown military operations, like they used it during SMO.

Today's Destroyers, Frigates and large corvettes are what Battleships were during the WW2.
In other words: they are very vulnerable in an environment saturated with anti-ship missiles, hypersonic missiles, submarines, underwater drones, UCAVs etc. etc.

Examples :
- Current Ukraine conflict: Russia lost the cruiser Moskva
- Falklands conflict: Royal Navy lost Sheffield , Coventry, Ardent and Antelope. Argentina lost General Belgrano
- Gulf conflict: USS Stark hit by Iraqis

Actually small ships are more vulnerable to drones and anti ship missiles... even subsonic missiles because they lack the size and capacity for decent sonar equipment and also decent air defence equipment... most corvettes could be defeated by firing a half dozen anti ship missiles at them...

On land two TOR based vehicles could defeat an attack by 6 low flying subsonic missiles like that, but no corvette has the equivalent of two TOR vehicles defending them.

The Kuznetsov has the equivalent of 24 TOR vehicles on its decks with four separate TOR search and tracking radar antenna mounted on each corner of its island scanning for targets and directing missiles... that is 192 missiles ready to launch and those are the older larger missiles with 8 missiles per launch platform with a range of 12km... the current missiles are 16 to a launch platform with 15km range... and they are working on new missile types of half that size for use against drones and small fast targets.

The Russian Army has experienced being attacked by swarm attacks... not drones... artillery shells and artillery rockets... not HIMARS and not 155mm M777 shells... it was SMERCH and 152mm rounds in much larger numbers than they were able to launch those expensive western rounds.

Their solution will be enormous numbers of very small SAMs with very short range optimised to directly hit incoming targets using ARH and a 3kg HE warhead designed to destroy the target properly... they anticipate having a vehicle that can carry hundreds of these missiles at a time... vertical launch ready to fire any time in any direction to protect convoys and also presumably front line forces too... such missiles would be excellent for aircraft, both fighters and bombers... we have seen patents for vertical launch tubes on the spines of aircraft, such things would be ideal for self defence of aircraft defending from missile attack from any direction... and of course a ship could carry thousands of such missiles... in boxes on the deck or in vertical launch missile tubes in layers allowing thousands of missiles to be carried.

The point is that if you just carry thousands of small missiles the enemy can just keep attacking and attacking till they find a gap or you run out of missiles... so the solution isn't tiny ships with thousands of these small missiles... the answer is a bigger ship carrying weapons to fire back... to attack the enemy platforms launching the swarm weapons... a bigger ship able to carry lasers and nuclear power plants and long range SAMs to shoot down the C-130s or C-17s releasing the drone swarms instead of just facing drone after drone after drone...

Bigger ships can not only defend themselves but they can defend other ships they are operating with... if you translate the ship size with the SAM type and number they carry having only small ships means only having small SAMs in small numbers... ie having Iglas and Verbas and TORs and Pantsirs is good but depending on what your biggest missile is most enemies will simply find a standoff weapon and just shoot and shoot till you run out of missiles and then close in to kill you with drones or cheap artillery shells.

A bigger ship... and BTW using Moskva as an example is bullshit... its air defence is gun systems with old gun directors and OSA missiles... Saddams forces in Desert Storm had better air defences than the Moskva.

Equally there is no evidence that the Moskva was sunk by enemy action... no obvious explosion, though clearly an out of control fire... the most likely cause would not be a mine... to cause that level of fire damage it would probably be an S-300F missile failing and falling back onto the deck and bursting into flames and starting a fire on an old ship whose fire fighting systems were not up to the task.

The British ships in the Falklands war had pathetic air defence systems, most of which the Argentines had in service too and knew the performance parameters of.

Surface warships look great in naval parades. They do good work in peacetime and can be valuable during conflicts against a weaker opponent.
In a major war against a peer enemy, they are magnets for the plethora of anti-ship assets I mentioned earlier. They will be sunk/damaged early on in the conflict.

Well again you have countered your own argument... Russia does not need a navy to fight the US or HATO... they have kinzhal and Sarmat and Poseidon for that... the Russian Navy will be tasked with ensuring access to the worlds oceans for Russian civil vessels and the civil vessels of her trade partners.

Look at Saudi Arabia and HATO and Syria and the Ukraine... the only air defence worth a damn is ex Soviet stuff... everything else seems to be crap.

Large Russian vessels will be getting state of the art sonar and radar and Air defence systems... they wont be invincible but they will be better defended than anything else at sea, and anyone wanting to test that had better expect to lose quite a few ships and subs and aircraft in the process.

Russia does not need too many Gorshkov and Steregushy class warships. That's why they are not building that many (to the lament of many members of this forum).
Russia needs more submarines (of all classes), small missile ships (Karakurt), minesweepers, underwater drones and UAVs. And those are exactly the fields they are focusing on.

Most roles for a submarine are very limited... it was the threat of submarines in the Falklands war that effected the war the most... the Argentines kept their carrier and their fleet largely hidden in port to avoid being sunk by British SSNs and British carriers were rendered useless because the threat of Argentine SSKs made them hold back and perform intensive and continuous anti sub operations, which meant their protection of ships landing troops and equipment was poor and Argentine aircraft got through and sunk quite a few.

With more powerful carriers with decent anti sub capacity and decent fighter bomber that conflict would have been rather more one sided.

Talk of large ships being obsolete is like talk of small mobile effective air defence missiles like Igla and Verba making helicopters and CAS aircraft obsolete, or anti tank missiles like NLAW and Javelin making armour obsolete... we were told time and time again that Javelin will slaughter Russian armour... but it doesn't seem to have happened.

Counter tactics have been found and solutions found... because soldiers need mobility and fire power... BMPs provide mobility and fire power and tanks extend that fire power even further... attack helicopters and attack aircraft have enormous fire power and mobility and are necessary too.

None of it is invulnerable, but working together they can defeat an enemy force and get the job done... there is zero possibility of any poor small country investing in cheap small drones that could take on and defeat a super power like the US or HATO just with drones.

In my opinion, the much criticized Vassily Bykov class (project 22160) is ideal for future naval operations: it can deploy underwater drones from her stern and UAVs/UCAVs from her helicopter deck. It has a long range/endurance and is not expensive to build and maintain. It does not even need to have Kalibr cruise missiles. Just load some Geran/Shahed/Dorrito on board and let it do the rest.

The Bykov is a custom designed anti piracy ship... it is three times the weight of a Buyan corvette, it is intended for long endurance missions against an opponent with no air power or support from any other major force... it is good for policing waters and protecting from pirates... it means a smaller lighter cheaper ship can be used to do the job rather well without the cost of using a larger ship that would not do a better job but would tie up and larger crew and more expensive ship for a mission it was not suited to.

I agree that the loss of "Moscow" is a big red alert for all major surface warships in the world.

The lesson to be learned was that the money saved to not give it decent air defence and other upgrades was lost when the ship itself was lost because it had not been updated and upgraded.

If the ship had been sunk by Kiev they would have mounted further attacks on Russian ships at sea... which they didn't.

People criticize Vassily Bikov with no real reason. That project was built as long range patrol ship and for anti piracy purposes, so they don't have to use capital ships, such as Marshal Vinogradov, for that.
It was never meant for full blown military operations, like they used it during SMO.

It is also different enough to be complimentary when used together with other Corvette types in operations in and around Russia too.

Very small ships like Corvettes struggle to be fully multirole because of limited armament capacity... just as an example its 76mm gun would be smaller than the 100mm and even 130mm guns of other corvettes and frigates, but it probably had three to four times more ready to use gun ammo and could probably deal with air targets a bit better with a higher rate of fire.

Subs and big air force with a shitton of missiles is the way to go with a bunch of drones.

For their surface fleet Gorshkov and Steregoushchy in good numbers is enough.

I totally agree that surface ships are way to obsolate in modern age.

Isos wrote:Subs and big air force with a shitton of missiles is the way to go with a bunch of drones.

For their surface fleet Gorshkov and Steregoushchy in good numbers is enough.

I totally agree that surface ships are way to obsolate in modern age.

Isos, I can understand that you write that surface warships are "obsolete", but it is not clear to me that you do not see that aviation is also very vulnerable. Aviation is vulnerable at airports because it can be hit by long-range missiles, as well as against air defense systems when in the air. However, you can't guard the aircraft carrier "Charles De Gaulle" in the open sea with only "Rubis" or "Suffren" submarines - right ?

I have some ideas of what frigates with 3 UKSKs and 24 missiles in total might look like.
I think that one additional UKSK could be placed instead of two VLS for the 9K96 Redut, while those two launchers with 8 VLS each could be placed in the stern of the ship behind the helicopter hangar - like on project 20385.


20385 corvettes; 8 VLS each for 9K96 Redut in the aft part of the ship, that is 8 VLS on the left side and 8 VLS on the right side.
Therefore, two VLS for 9K96 with a total of 16 tubes would remain in the front part of the ship, while the 16 tubes in two VLS would be moved to the aft part of the ship.
However, I noticed that there is a free space between the chimney and the helicopter hangar on 22350 frigates, and maybe an increase of a few meters in the total length of the ship would be good to install a VLS in that part as well.



As a reminder, I will copy the text from the beginning of 2021, which also mentions 32 missiles, which is already 4 UKSK.

16 February 2021, 01:01
New equipment of the RF Armed Forces

Source: frigates of the upgraded project 22350 will be able to carry hypersonic weapons

According to the interlocutor of the agency, the frigates "Admiral Amelko" and "Admiral Chichagov" will be able to carry a total of 32 cruise missiles.

MOSCOW, 16 February. /TASS/. The frigates of the modernized project 22350 "Admiral Amelko" and "Admiral Chichagov" will become carriers of hypersonic weapons and will be capable of carrying a total of 32 cruise missiles. This was reported to TASS by a source in the shipbuilding industry.

"The pair [of frigates Admiral Amelko and Admiral Chichagov] will be able to perform the tasks that the "classic", serial ships of this project perform. They have increased ammunition load. It is possible to install hypersonic weapons," he said.

According to him, "according to the contract, they will have four universal ship firing systems (UKKS), and this series of ships will continue." Each UKKS is designed for eight Caliber-NK and/or Oniks cruise missiles, and in the future - Zircon. "Onyx" and "Zircon" are developed and produced by the Reutov NPO Mashinostroeniya.

TASS does not have official confirmation of this information.

Serial ships of the initial project 22350, built at Severnaya Verf (part of the United Shipbuilding Corporation) carry two UKKS. The lead ship of the project, the Admiral of the Fleet of the Soviet Union Gorshkov, is currently being used to test the Zircon.

The first firing of a hypersonic cruise missile from this frigate was carried out in early October 2020. Then the ship launched a missile from the White Sea, it hit a sea target in the Barents Sea. The maximum speed of the Zircon was eight speeds of sound, the flight altitude reached 28 km. After that, the shooting was carried out in November of the same year - the missile successfully hit a sea target at a distance of 450 km, the flight speed was more than 8 M.

https://tass.ru/armiya-i-opk/10707043

ARROW
Yes, the Type-052D could carry 64 anti-ship missiles or cruise missiles, but in practice, probably at least half of the arsenal is intended for air defense.
However, the first 4 frigates of the project 22350 (base variant) are still the best armed frigates in the world, while the next ones with 24 or even 32 missiles in 3 or 4 UKSK , plus 32 cells for 9K96 Redut, will only increase the difference in favor of the 22350 frigates.
As far as weapons are concerned, it is certain that they have no equal.

With 32 attack missiles in 4 UKSK and 32 barrels for 9K96 Redut frigates 22350 are on par with Type-052D. The frigates also have two four-barrel torpedo tubes for Paket-NK, while the Chinese destroyers have two three-tube torpedo tubes with Yu-7 (fish-7).
I'm also not sure if this is the total torpedo capacity (6 torpedoes) or if there is a spare torpedo rack on the Type-052D.
In any case, I would increase the anti-submarine protection on the 22350 project, although with the "Otvet" rocket-torpedoes that are launched from the UKSK, that problem will also be solved.

Igor Orlov, the head of Severnaya Verf, has stated to TASS that five more units of frigates will be laid down at Sevenaya Verf. I'd interpret that as units 9 & 10, as per recently signed contracts, plus another 3 more units.

That would bring the 22350 series to 13 units, plus whatever they are plannng to buld at Amur (if that goes ahead).

source

Subs and big air force with a shitton of missiles is the way to go with a bunch of drones.

For their surface fleet Gorshkov and Steregoushchy in good numbers is enough.

I totally agree that surface ships are way to obsolate in modern age.

But it is small ships that are obsolete... a single UK destroyer with 48 SAMs and how many subsonic anti ship missiles?

8 Naval Strike Anti ship missiles?

Pathetic.

The SAMs have a range of 120km so in the Black Sea it could be engaged by shore based Smerch rockets... a single battery of Smerch vehicles could fire 12 rockets per vehicle, so four launch vehicles would overwhelm the target ship out to 120km range off shore...

Scuttling around trying to evade fire from ground threats they would struggle to deal with because a Smerch vehicle per cruise missile is difficult to justify...

But then a Russian frigate would also struggle to a degree, though at least it could carry land attack missiles that could be used to punish the enemy launching the rockets at them by hitting their capital or a port with a few cruise missiles.

The point is that a proper cruiser with much better air defence and land attack capacity could actually do some damage to the enemy including perhaps launching drones to find the targets and locate them accurately and then launch munitions to strike those threats specifically... their new 152mm guns with 180km range guided shells might even allow them to fire on them from a safe distance and get accurate enough hits to deter further attacks.

A proper cruiser could have laser based air defences that allows swarm attacks to be engaged too... and of course with an aircraft carrier you could send manned or unmanned aircraft into enemy airspace and deal them a response that will make them think twice about testing you again...

The most vulnerable navies will be those that lack carriers and large ships with sonar and other anti sub equipment smaller ships have less capable versions of.

The first three Cs in C4IRSTAR are command and control and communication... it is simpler if you have one corvette, but vastly more effective if you have sub surface, surface and air assets all working together and coordinating their sensors and weapons against any enemy they detect.

Having big ships means carrying enough weapons to defend itself and other platforms at once so even your corvettes operating with a cruiser and destroyer will be safer than a corvette operating on its own.

However, you can't guard the aircraft carrier "Charles De Gaulle" in the open sea with only "Rubis" or "Suffren" submarines - right ?

And having only Corvettes and Frigates and Subs to defend your carrier means your carrier can go nowhere useful or it will be sunk.

You lose the air power the CdG provides but still have to pay the costs to operate it... how dumb is that?

The fact that the French are talking about a replacement for the CdG that will be about 75K ton and nuclear powered with EMALS cats suggests they want to keep their naval air power... even for a colonial power like France they know the only way to guarantee you have air power is to take it with you by ship.

G O L O V K O              

No. Expected to happen this year though.

Arrow Today at 11:52 am


In the next few months, we could expect the launch of "Admiral Isakov".
The name of the tenth frigate has been confirmed as "Admiral Vysotsky", while there is still nothing official about the ninth frigate. There is a name "Admiral Gromov" on the English version of wikipedia, but that is not correct.