Russian Navy: Status and News #5

miketheterrible wrote:

Big_Gazza wrote:

"In the form in which it was planned earlier, it will most likely not be implemented, at least not so quickly. But here everything depends on the decision of the customer - the Ministry of Defense," he said.

So I interpret this as meaning that the widely-ridiculed Krylov-designed stepped-pagoda stealth cruiser probably won't be built...  or at least not soon....   but its the Navy that will decide....  so by inference something different might be built soon...  but we can't know for sure....  because the Navy will decide....

Wow.. that settles the question I guess.  

I never saw Russia needing a cruiser or destroyer - their frigates are usually armed way better than most destroyers.  Now they can make the turbines for their frigates, why bother?

Probably going back to drawing board to find a cheaper alternative.  Priority will still be missile and Airforce while Navy will take the back burner till they figure out what the hell they want.

Rodion_Romanovic wrote:

miketheterrible wrote:

Big_Gazza wrote:

"In the form in which it was planned earlier, it will most likely not be implemented, at least not so quickly. But here everything depends on the decision of the customer - the Ministry of Defense," he said.

So I interpret this as meaning that the widely-ridiculed Krylov-designed stepped-pagoda stealth cruiser probably won't be built...  or at least not soon....   but its the Navy that will decide....  so by inference something different might be built soon...  but we can't know for sure....  because the Navy will decide....

Wow.. that settles the question I guess.  

I never saw Russia needing a cruiser or destroyer - their frigates are usually armed way better than most destroyers.  Now they can make the turbines for their frigates, why bother?

Probably going back to drawing board to find a cheaper alternative.  Priority will still be missile and Airforce while Navy will take the back burner till they figure out what the hell they want.

Well they probably need some destroyers in addition to frigates, as normally destroyers have greater endurance and range than frigates, as well as more space for sensors and weapon systems...

But 22350M will be destroyers, and quite capable ones too, even if Russia insists for calling them frigates.

thedrunkengeneral wrote:

22350M compared to 22350 is akin to 20385 compared to 20380. It shares the same hull.

Rodion_Romanovic wrote:

thedrunkengeneral wrote:

22350M compared to 22350 is akin to 20385 compared to 20380. It shares the same hull.

Maybe you are confounding them with the last "version" of 22350 (the last 4 ships that they started building in 2019 and in 2020), which has one additional UKSK module in the same hull.

22350M (super Gorshkov) should have 6 UKSK modules (for 48 UKSK VLS) +  an unspecified number of redut VLS (at least 32, but probably 48) and additional weapon systems for a total displacement of 8000 tons.  Normal 22350 is 5400 tons at full load.
It cannot be the same hull. They need also a different powerplant arrangement

thedrunkengeneral wrote:I doubt 22350M would be 8,000 tons. 22350M has the same dimensions as 22350 at 135 meters long. 22350 is 5,400 tons. 22350M should be about 5,800 tons. By comparison 20380 is 2,200 tons compared to 20385 which has the same dimensions as 20380 and 2,500 tons.

The hull must be same or else it wouldn't be called 22350M but rather something else.

lancelot wrote:To be honest I always found the design of the Leader destroyers kind of ridiculous.
You have a huge ship like that and it carries less missiles than a Ticonderoga cruiser with like half the displacement.

LMFS wrote:

thedrunkengeneral wrote:I doubt 22350M would be 8,000 tons. 22350M has the same dimensions as 22350 at 135 meters long. 22350 is 5,400 tons. 22350M should be about 5,800 tons. By comparison 20380 is 2,200 tons compared to 20385 which has the same dimensions as 20380 and 2,500 tons.

The hull must be same or else it wouldn't be called 22350M but rather something else.

Wow, do you have the blueprints already, amazing!

Now seriously, cut the crap. The design has been approved, not published. And the sources that are "leaked" in the official channels say it is 8kt, with twice the weapons load than the standard 22350. BTW the 20380 and 20385 have different dimensions and displacement, and 11711 and 11711M are completely different even in their layout...

If they can get layering to work it will allow enormous numbers of missiles to be carried... especially the very small missiles that are not very efficient in the big launch tubes designed for huge missiles...

PhSt wrote:
What is Russia's counterpart to the American Aegis Combat System? I have read a lot of commentary about how Russia excels in anti aircraft/ ballistic missile/ satellite systems, but I saw information about the US Standard Missile 3 which claims to have 1,200 km range and engage targets up to 1,050 km in altitude, when I compared it to Russia's S-400, it only has a maximum range of 400 km and 60 km altitude. And S-400 don't even seem to have a naval version. Am I comparing different systems for different roles? I checked information about Poliment-Redut but its range and altitude are even lower than the S-400.

PhSt wrote:
What is Russia's counterpart to the American Aegis Combat System? I have read a lot of commentary about how Russia excels in anti aircraft/ ballistic missile/ satellite systems, but I saw information about the US Standard Missile 3 which claims to have 1,200 km range and engage targets up to 1,050 km in altitude, when I compared it to Russia's S-400, it only has a maximum range of 400 km and 60 km altitude. And S-400 don't even seem to have a naval version. Am I comparing different systems for different roles? I checked information about Poliment-Redut but its range and altitude are even lower than the S-400.

LMFS wrote:

PhSt wrote:
What is Russia's counterpart to the American Aegis Combat System? I have read a lot of commentary about how Russia excels in anti aircraft/ ballistic missile/ satellite systems, but I saw information about the US Standard Missile 3 which claims to have 1,200 km range and engage targets up to 1,050 km in altitude, when I compared it to Russia's S-400, it only has a maximum range of 400 km and 60 km altitude. And S-400 don't even seem to have a naval version. Am I comparing different systems for different roles? I checked information about Poliment-Redut but its range and altitude are even lower than the S-400.

AEGIS is a naval weapons system, Russia has their equivalent but the exoatmospheric interceptor is missing in it, probably an eventual naval version of S-500 will fulfil that role. Redut / S-300 / S-400 are not even the same type of thing. Remember it was the US that withdrew from ABM treaty and planned to use their fleet as a mobile ABM shield, so they put the focus in that kind of weapon for their own reasons, while Russia had no big need for that. The actual kinematics of such interceptions put a heavy burden on the missile design, so that the SM-3 due to the VLS cells size is challenged to actually meet the needs of the mission. Russians will probably create a bigger VLS cell size for that kind of missiles, so that the interceptors are much harder to defeat.

Singular_Transform wrote:The VLS used by the Russian ships way bigger then the USA ones, to acocmodate supersonic missiles.

So there won't be issue to fit bigger missiles.

GarryB wrote:Funny you should say that but when they shot down an Iranian airliner which they mistook for being an F-14 there was a system error that delayed the launch of the SM-2 missile by 90 seconds... if they were being attacked they would have been dead by then I would think.

SM-3 would likely be unable to manouver to kill Zircon... it is optimised for ballistic targets that follow predictable paths, not any sort of manouvering targets like aircraft.

As far as I know the Mk 41 allows for canisters up to 7.7 m tall and the missiles inside seem to be 533 mm max. Mk 57 allows missiles up to three inches wider and 18 in longer. UKSK is almost 9 m tall and allows missiles up to 65-70 cm diameter from what I ahve seen, though it is difficult sometimes to be sure about canister and missile diameters in these cases. So similar sizes but it indeed seems the advantage is for the USKSK.

Isos wrote:
In that regard US system has an advantage and can carry any mix of missile it wants. Russians are more limited.

Singular_Transform wrote:

Isos wrote:
In that regard US system has an advantage and can carry any mix of missile it wants. Russians are more limited.

The Russian canisters way bigger then the USA oney, check the dimension of the tomahawk vs onyx.

Isos wrote:

Singular_Transform wrote:

Isos wrote:
In that regard US system has an advantage and can carry any mix of missile it wants. Russians are more limited.

The Russian canisters way bigger then the USA oney, check the dimension of the tomahawk vs onyx.

And ? It can't carry AD weapons. And redut can't carry cruise missiles.

US don't use oniks. They don't need to design their VLS to carry a missile they don't use.