Project 22350: Admiral Sergei Gorshkov

Russia to start sea trials of 2nd Admiral Gorshkov-class multirole frigate next summer

More:
http://tass.com/defense/974672

What's up with Gorshkov?! They said it will be commissioned in mid December...are there any news?

littlerabbit wrote:What's up with Gorshkov?!  They said it will be commissioned in mid December...are there any news?  

Forget commissioning, from what they said the other day they don't even plan to order any additional ones before at least 2021.

PapaDragon wrote:

littlerabbit wrote:What's up with Gorshkov?!  They said it will be commissioned in mid December...are there any news?  

Forget commissioning, from what they said the other day they don't even plan to order any additional ones before at least 2021.

Jesus... I don't get Russian Navy, at all.

littlerabbit wrote:

PapaDragon wrote:

littlerabbit wrote:What's up with Gorshkov?!  They said it will be commissioned in mid December...are there any news?  

Forget commissioning, from what they said the other day they don't even plan to order any additional ones before at least 2021.

Jesus... I don't get Russian Navy, at all.  

They seem to have a glorified coast guard mentality for anything on the surface with a dash of few cruise missile VLS cells here and there.
That's it till 2025 for RuN.

What's up with Gorshkov?! They said it will be commissioned in mid December...are there any news?dunno

No news I've seen since announcement of the final final final final tests in Nov.

There is this nice pic though

KiloGolf wrote:They seem to have a glorified coast guard mentality for anything on the surface with a dash of few cruise missile VLS cells here and there.
That's it till 2025 for RuN.

and what mentality they should have taking into account budget/intl situation/timing? I look forward to hearing your say.

Yes, of course they should lay down fifty of the damn things... of course the company in Russia that will now be making engines for them wont be able to get that number of engines together until 2040 but you can keep them in the slipways and block other ships from being built while you wait...

Ironically smaller vessels would have smaller propulsion systems easier to make, and bigger vessels will likely have nuke propulsion which is also OK...

GunshipDemocracy wrote:

KiloGolf wrote:They seem to have a glorified coast guard mentality for anything on the surface with a dash of few cruise missile VLS cells here and there.
That's it till 2025 for RuN.

and what mentality they should have taking into account budget/intl situation/timing?  I look forward to hearing your say.

The mentality to commission 2-3 ships of the class by 2021.

Strawman Maker wrote:block other ships from being built while you wait...

What other ships are being built within acceptable timeframes in the shitshow called severnaya verf?

There aren't even any more ships to be blocked because the naval ministry doesn't know WTF it wants.

In all honesty Russia should prioritise construction of ships with shallow enough draft to be able to transit Unified Deep Water System because that would help unify Russian Northern, Baltic, Black and Caspian fleet in to one force deployable in any of those sectors at need. They should also prioritise maintenance of that channel network as an issue of utmost strategic priority. This would contribute more to effectiveness of Russian fleets and Russian national security than any big displacement surface ships, carriers, cruisers and so on people here tend to obsess with.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unified_Deep_Water_System_of_European_Russia

I would speculate that is key factor why Russian is at this moment giving priority to construction of large number of smaller ships with draft of 4 m or less, like Karakurt class, instead of making larger surface ships. It is smart decision.
,
And for any new Russian ship first issue you should try to find out is it able to transit Unified Deep Water System because that is more important then it's weapons, speed, autonomy and so on.

KomissarBojanchev wrote:

GunshipDemocracy wrote:

KiloGolf wrote:They seem to have a glorified coast guard mentality for anything on the surface with a dash of few cruise missile VLS cells here and there.
That's it till 2025 for RuN.

and what mentality they should have taking into account budget/intl situation/timing?  I look forward to hearing your say.

The mentality to commission 2-3 ships of the class by 2021.

didn't you forget about budget and turbines factor right?

KomissarBojanchev wrote:

Strawman Maker wrote:block other ships from being built while you wait...

What other ships are being built within acceptable timeframes in the shitshow called severnaya verf?

There aren't even any more ships to be blocked because the naval ministry doesn't know WTF it wants.

Oh I am sure that MoD knows what it wants but there is also MoF which cuts most of proposals and intl situation changing. But I am interested in definition of "an acceptable time frame" ? and acceptable means what? how many months per which class? are you going to develop from scratch all modules of like in Spain assemble from ready foreign parts?

didn't you forget about budget and turbines factor right?

There are already turbines for the Gorshkov class.

Oh I am sure that MoD knows what it wants but there is also MoF which cuts most of proposals and intl situation changing. But I am interested in definition of "an acceptable time frame" ? and acceptable means what? how many months per which class? are you going to develop from scratch all modules of like in Spain assemble from ready foreign parts?

Then the MoF shouldn't be nosing around and instead almost completely stick to the 2020 armament program requirements.

Acceptable means 2-3 years build time for a frigate, max 8 months of testing.

1-2 years for a corvette, max 5 months of testing

7 months to 1 year for a minesweeper or missile boat, max 5 months of testing.

4 years for a destroyer max 2 years of testing.

In all honesty Russia should prioritise construction of ships with shallow enough draft to be able to transit Unified Deep Water System because that would help unify Russian Northern, Baltic, Black and Caspian fleet in to one force deployable in any of those sectors at need.

Would be my primary effort too.
But above that there is a clear need for a bunch of Frigates & if/when 22350 actually works properly it'll be a very good Frigate.

Rather than a 'coast-guard mentality' as the reason that there aren't more 22350s being built, its incredibly obvious that the program has suffered extreme concurrency hell, compounded by the Ukraine/Engine issue, absolutely nothing to do with lack of intent.

Then maybe what they actually need to do is redig those canals so they can take bigger ships.

At the end of the day all the Russian Navy needs is one articulated river barge a few kilometres long that can carry UKSK launch tubes for 500 Kalibrs and perhaps a similar number of Redut launch tubes... plus come corvette sized vessels to maintain their fisheries areas and clamp down on smugglers.

GarryB wrote:
At the end of the day all the Russian Navy needs is one articulated river barge a few kilometres long that can carry UKSK launch tubes for 500 Kalibrs and perhaps a similar number of Redut launch tubes... plus come corvette sized vessels to maintain their fisheries areas and clamp down on smugglers.

Well there a serious issue of anti submarine warfare to support it's SSBN, so Russia needs good number of SS and SSN and some serous anti-sub ships to operate in bad weather of Arctic and North Pacific, but as for all other tasks, yes corvettes (or if one really wants to go cheep barges) is by far most optimal choice for Russia.

At the end of the day all the Russian Navy needs is one articulated river barge a few kilometres long that can carry UKSK launch tubes for 500 Kalibrs and perhaps a similar number of Redut launch tubes

No, you'd want more like 20-30 normal sized barges with 16-32 UKSK each.
Can concentrate a bunch of them at one point if need to make a big throw but generally distributed along the length of the system & frequently moving to ensure they are a hard target.

hoom wrote:

In all honesty Russia should prioritise construction of ships with shallow enough draft to be able to transit Unified Deep Water System because that would help unify Russian Northern, Baltic, Black and Caspian fleet in to one force deployable in any of those sectors at need.

Would be my primary effort too.
But above that there is a clear need for a bunch of Frigates & if/when 22350 actually works properly it'll be a very good Frigate.

Rather than a 'coast-guard mentality' as the reason that there aren't more 22350s being built, its incredibly obvious that the program has suffered extreme concurrency hell, compounded by the Ukraine/Engine issue, absolutely nothing to do with lack of intent.

That's a fair point, still I cannot understand the lack of priority for an AAW destroyer.

Whatever kind of ships you build, and whatever the missions you plan to perform with them, the aircraft is always and by far the most relevant threat.

It's true even if you plan your ships very close to home water, and become more relevant the more you sail offshore.

By far, it's more dangerous to go on open sea without good AAW destroyers than without good frigates.

About propulsion, lack of russian made gas turbines has been a serious drawback, but some serious funds has to be invested in related technologies, starting with variable pitch propeller, going through integrated electric propulsion and a new generation of modern, competitive and scalable medium speed diesel engines.

Integrated electric propulsion is a particularly promising solution, it permits to get rid with reduction gears, the most critical component of any propulsion system, and makes engines' running regimes partially independent from ship's own speeds and demand for acceleration or deceleration, enabling thermal engines to be far less stressed and to run at most efficient regimes. Moreover, it permits to have a fully distributed power generation thermal engines (and gas turbines as well) being turned of electrical generation sets only, without any mechanical link with propellers and their transmission axis.

By the way, such an approach would have made less troublesome the Kolomna diesel engines used by Pr. 20380, that by statements made public suffer quick changes of speed and loose efficiency quite remarkably when not running on optimal revs speeds.

Peŕrier wrote:

About propulsion, lack of russian made gas turbines has been a serious drawback, but some serious funds has to be invested in related technologies, starting with variable pitch propeller, going through integrated electric propulsion and a new generation of modern, competitive and scalable medium speed diesel engines.

Integrated electric propulsion is a particularly promising solution, it permits to get rid with reduction gears, the most critical component of any propulsion system, and makes engines' running regimes partially independent from ship's own speeds and demand for acceleration or deceleration, enabling thermal engines to be far less stressed and to run at most efficient regimes. Moreover, it permits to have a fully distributed power generation thermal engines (and gas turbines as well) being turned of electrical generation sets only, without any mechanical link with propellers and their transmission axis.

By the way, such an approach would have made less troublesome the Kolomna diesel engines used by Pr. 20380, that by statements made public suffer quick changes of speed and loose efficiency quite remarkably when not running  on optimal revs speeds.

That works well on railways, over the rail locomotive needs huge ballast weight anyway.

But on the ship the weight of gear set waaay lower than the weight of generator+motor, even if the stator is superconductor.
The US military actually invested a lot of money into superconductor winded generator/motor sets, to permit the operation of them on ships.


I think that the generator/motor sets will pay themselves only if the ships can start to use laser/rail guns , and if these systems weight will be lower than the same conventional system with ammunition/armoured protection.

But considering that a rail gun won't be capable to do the same thing like a missile I have strong doubts about it.

Recent images of the 2nd Pr.22350 #frigate Admiral Kasatonov with Kamov-27PL variant on its helo deck at Severnaya Verf Shipyard. (Can someone ID this "bortless" Ka-27PL variant?)

George1 wrote:Recent images of the 2nd Pr.22350 #frigate Admiral Kasatonov with Kamov-27PL variant on its helo deck at Severnaya Verf Shipyard. (Can someone ID this "bortless" Ka-27PL variant?)

............

I thinks it's just weight simulator

Singular_Transform wrote:
That works well on railways, over the rail locomotive needs huge ballast weight anyway.

But on the ship the weight of gear set waaay lower than the weight of generator+motor, even if the stator is superconductor.
The US military actually invested a lot of money into superconductor winded generator/motor sets, to permit the operation of them on ships.


I think that the generator/motor sets will pay themselves only if the ships can start to use laser/rail guns , and if these systems weight will be lower than the same conventional system with ammunition/armoured protection.

But considering that a rail gun won't be capable to do the same thing like a missile I have strong doubts about it.

Masses and sizes of reduction gear have nothing to do with the advantages to get rid of them.

It's about mechanical complexities and scalability: the reduction gear is by far the most complex and critical part of any naval power train, and as applied power and torque on single axis increase, it become exponentially more challenging to develop a suitable reduction gear.

The very deceleration properties of a vessel are mainly function of its reduction gear ability to withstand the enormous stresses related to inversion of motus.

Again, classical power trains have to be mandatory arranged in a row: powerplant, main axis, reduction gear, final axis, screw.

It puts a severe constraint to internal arrangements.

Then, whatever the power requirements of the vessel, it translates to power outputs required to the engines, and again any acceleration translates in rapid revs changes for the engines, with loss of efficiency.

An integrated electric propulsion system get rid of all of those drawbacks and constraints.

You have only electric motors, axis and screw arranged in a row. Thermal engines can be accomodated wherever reputed the best option. Power transmission from thermal engines to electric ones is through electric lines, way cheaper than transmission axis, and could be doubled or tripled the same way flight-by-wire lines are on aircrafts, making them more damage resistant. Electric motors have enormous torque, without any mechanical challenges connected neither with net power nor with torque generated, and they act both as motors, as brakes and as electrical power generator, depending on what is required from them in that specific second.

Using a batteries buffer, as in SSK, between thermal engines and electric ones, any quick change in power requirement (acceleration) could be attained draining at start part of the additional electric power required from the batteries' buffer, giving thermal engines time to gain revs speed and power output on a more gentle way, in turn extending their service life, reducing the chances of faults and generally consuming less fuel.

In an ASW vessel, it could even be possible to switch for a while to all electric propulsion, using batteries only or just a small and highly sound insulated generation set, to perform very discreet slow speed chases of enemy's sub.

Actually electric integrated propulsion opens a whole new world of opportunities.

The citation of trains' engines is really good, just it works on the other way: Kolomna is specialized mainly on trains' diesel engines, requiring very slow accelerations only, and the power sets developed for Pr. 20380 seem to be not up the task, because they miss the flexible running characteristic of naval medium speed diesel engines.

Making them work as electric power generators would have give them a far better reputation.

Peŕrier wrote:

You have only electric motors, axis and screw arranged in a row. Thermal engines can be accomodated wherever reputed the best option. Power transmission from thermal engines to electric ones is through electric lines, way cheaper than transmission axis, and could be doubled or tripled the same way flight-by-wire lines are on aircrafts, making them more damage resistant. Electric motors have enormous torque, without any mechanical challenges connected neither with net power nor with torque generated, and they act both as motors, as brakes and as electrical power generator, depending on what is required from them in that specific second.

Using a batteries buffer, as in SSK, between thermal engines and electric ones, any quick change in power requirement (acceleration) could be attained draining at start part of the additional electric power required from the batteries' buffer, giving thermal engines time to gain revs speed and power output on a more gentle way, in turn extending their service life, reducing the chances of faults and generally consuming less fuel.

In an ASW vessel, it could even be possible to switch for a while to all electric propulsion, using batteries only or just a small and highly sound insulated generation set, to perform very discreet slow speed chases of enemy's sub.

Actually electric integrated propulsion opens a whole new world of opportunities.

The citation of trains' engines is really good, just it works on the other way: Kolomna is specialized mainly on trains' diesel engines, requiring very slow accelerations only, and the power sets developed for Pr. 20380 seem to be not up the task, because they miss the flexible running characteristic of naval medium speed diesel engines.

Making them work as electric power generators would have give them a far better reputation.

Everything is about weight on the ships, isn't it?
A 200 tons motor has 240 MVA power on 3600 rpm.
On 100 RPM ( ship propeller speed) it has only 7 MVA.
an 10000 tons destroyer needs 80 MW shaft torque.

8 MW azipods ha 150T weights without screw.

Generator side is OK, a 40 MWe turbine/generator weight is around 250 ton.
It is easy to calculate the requirements for say a 9000 T destroyer, with 8MW shaft power.

Tingsay wrote:Well it looks like Gorshkov won't be commissioned this year.

Once they eventually get it commissioned it will be one awkward ceremony... although nowhere near as awkward as one for Ivan Gren...