Udaloy and Sovremennyy destroyers

Was it not supposed to receive the Pantsir-M? Not seeing anything of that in the pictures... maybe the Shaposhnikov is a done deal and only further units may receive that upgrade?

There were also talks of installing Tor-M2KM:


BTW, the final solution has a bigger structure for the VLS than in scale models shown previously. In fact, it seems as if 3 VLS blocks could fit, but only two were installed.

That would allow to carry respectable salvos of land attack / AShM and anti-submarine missiles at the same time

What gas turbines do the Udaloy class use?
Or rather, who manufactured them, and who now supports them? Saturn?
Are they the same, or at least a version of, the gas turbines used in the Gorshkov class?
I've seen it stated the Udaloy class uses D090 gas turbines and the Gorshkov uses M90FR gas turbines.
Are these related engines?
Their power output seems very different different...am I getting confused by the "90" part of both engines designation?
From what I can gather, both these engines are listed under Saturn products?

Clearer view:        

She needs a new deck paint job. Dark red like in the old days.

LMFS wrote:...BTW, the final solution has a bigger structure for the VLS than in scale models shown previously. In fact, it seems as if 3 VLS blocks could fit, but only two were installed. ...

Maybe it's equipped for but not with?

It would be nice change if Russian Navy started planning long term with ships



What I am curious about are those 8 torpedo tubes in the middle

Would it be possible to take submarine torpedo tube Kalibr missile (like on Kilo subs) and launch it from there?

That way they could get 8 anti-ship and 8 anti-sub missiles in UKSK launchers and complement it with 8 land attack cruise missiles in the back without any extra hassle

PapaDragon wrote:Maybe it's equipped for but not with?

It would be nice change if Russian Navy started planning long term with ships

That's what I would hope for, modernization potential is always considered. But they placed the blast barrier just behind the last VLS cell and it would not be smart if a third cell is planned for the future.

What I am curious about are those 8 torpedo tubes in the middle

Would it be possible to take submarine torpedo tube Kalibr missile (like on Kilo subs) and launch it from there?

That way they could get 8 anti-ship and 8 anti-sub missiles in UKSK launchers and complement it with 8 land attack cruise missiles in the back without any extra hassle

Good point, in fact the 91R1 can also be launched from submarine, I had not considered that. So the short range anti-submarine weapon of the ship would be the Paket-NK while those torpedo tubes with the 91R1 could take care of the long range. They are multirole frigates now, so that ASW armament should be enough, and the 2 VLS blocks could be used for land attack and anti-ship roles.

LMFS wrote:That's what I would hope for, modernization potential is always considered. But they placed the blast barrier just behind the last VLS cell and it would not be smart if a third cell is planned for the future.

Removing blast barrier is simplest thing in the world (it's just piece of metal), in fact that whole area​ would be cut out if they decide to install more VLS cells anyway

And if you put blast barrier too far away from blast source it will not serve any purpose

Vids



Pretty interesting how quickly its finished off from looking very very incomplete not that long ago.

Bunch of new radar & EW/ECM stuff, Charly015 hasn't spotted the new EW/ECM domes on the sides of the hangar.
Anyone managed to find any info on 5p-30N2/Fregat-N2? Seems to be the first ship with this radar.
Seems fairly small aperture -> limited power but newer tech may bring significantly improved capabilities.

Somewhat suspicious that the 'new' Kinzhal firecontrol is a non-functional place-holder.

The 100mm looks quite comical there on its own but is the logical thing to do since original had 100mm.

Would it be possible to take submarine torpedo tube Kalibr missile (like on Kilo subs) and launch it from there?

Probably not but they can shoot the wacky Vodopad

Upgrade was about making it comparable with current generation of weapons, Udaloi's original missiles are no longer in production

16 UKSK are the main event, Urans are just something that they installed because there was empty space available

Exactly... this isn't about making an arsenal ship or super ship... just with 16 UKSK launch tubes it already doubles its fire power and gets access to anti ship and land attack missiles it could never carry before, and actually 8 Uran missiles is actually rather useful too...

Original gun was also 100mm, it was simply replaced with current model, installing oversized gun would have taken another year probably more and it would offer nothing in return

Actually the new 130mm guns are about the size and weight of the old 100mm guns so they probably could have gone to a bigger gun... they clearly decided it was not necessary or desirable.

As noted above they are contemplating fitting Pantsir to the ship so clearly the upgrade is fluid and over time their choices of armament might change as different options become available.

Certainly it looks like the old model Klintok is fitted in the bow area... certainly a new upgraded model could double or even quadruple the number of missiles carried with them all ready to fire unlike the old system...

Slanted Onyx doesn't exist

It was planned and has been shown in models showing an upgrade of this ship type on their export website. Whether it is actually developed and working is another question but it was actually fitted on and tested on a small ship...

In terms of space those tor launchers could have been also modified with VLS and increase by 3 or 4 times the numbers carried on the the front. With the new missile that is 2 times smaller they could then multiply by 2 the number carried.

Yes, the naval tor system called Klintok... with talk about adding Pantsir suggests to me that this is a basic upgrade and if it is working well they might follow up with further improvements... Pantsir and improved Klintok spring to mind... as things that could be worked in to the design... Pantsir needs a few decks for reload missiles so you can't just put it anywhere, while the naval Klintok would need a built in equivalent of what they seem to be doing with the deck mounted models.

The TOR is basically vertical launch from fixed cells on land, so that should not be too hard to translate to ship and with there not being and rotary equipment to move the missiles to the launch hatches it should be simpler and easier... should.

And I agree 16 uran would be better. 8 is not a threat for modern ships carrying decebt AD systems. Abd with 16 of them they can destroy more supply vessels without spending kalibr on them.

Catch any ship unawares and subsonic low flying anti ship missiles are a serious threat... for all we know they might intend for them to be cheap missiles to finish off or further damage ships that have already been hit by Zircons or Onyx missiles...

Remember this vessel is an anti sub ship primarily so anti ship is a secondary capability so after sinking 16 subs with missiles from the UKSK launcher and another 10 subs with the 533mm torpedo tubes, having 8 Urans to sink any ships that try to stop you heading back to base is probably enough.

If 8 aren't enough then 16 probably wont be either...

If 8 Urans can't do the job then neither will 16

These are bonus features, UKSK is the thing that would be used to fight ships not Urans

I just read what your wrote after writing something similar myself, but I would say that the UKSK is for fighting subs and ships and land targets where needed, but originally mostly subs, while the Uran would be back up self defence.

16 allows an overwhelming attack against a well armed vessel or they allow to destroy more secondary ships.

Against a well armed vessel a single Zircon should penetrate its defences and do some serious damage and a follow up Uran or two while it is burning will make sure it sinks.

UKSK carry many different missiles like anti sub, land attack or anti ship. The 16 cells will be split for all of them so the urans allow anti ship attack while the uksk carries the land attack. Not all operation need 16 Zirkon.

There are land attack Urans as well so there is a bit of flexibility all over... the original ships had 8 anti sub weapons that had back up anti ship capability... the missile was called Metel and the ASCC codename was SS-N-14 Silex.

If they wanted to they could have the SS-N-15 missile in the 10 533mm torpedo tubes for anti sub use and 8 Urans for anti ship use and that leaves 16 launch tubes for all sorts of weapon options.

The top view shows that its dimensions are perfect for a destroyer with two hangars. Too bad they didn't develop a new class on its basis with VLS and introduced it instead of Gorshkov.

The current Gorshkov is a frigate and the enlarged improved model might have two hangars...

Was it not supposed to receive the Pantsir-M? Not seeing anything of that in the pictures... maybe the Shaposhnikov is a done deal and only further units may receive that upgrade?

There were also talks of installing Tor-M2KM:

Perhaps this upgrade was testing new propulsion or other options to see if a decent upgrade is viable, while later upgrades will add improved Pantsir and naval TOR options...

Are they the same, or at least a version of, the gas turbines used in the Gorshkov class?

These old ships are much bigger than Gorshkov frigates...

Would it be possible to take submarine torpedo tube Kalibr missile (like on Kilo subs) and launch it from there?

Not Kalibre... more often the ballistic rocket SS-N-15 delivered anti sub torpedo...

Somewhat suspicious that the 'new' Kinzhal firecontrol is a non-functional place-holder.

Ironic because the Udaloy was the first class of ship to carry this system and spent its first few years of operational service carrying the missiles but not having this fire control tower actually fitted... The electronics are very complex for the TOR and very very capable... even today... it was designed from the outset to shoot down munitions including anti tank missiles... all with cheap command guided missiles.

I wonder if Morphei is getting close to being ready and they are trying to decide which way to go...

JohninMK wrote:Joseph Dempsey
@JosephHDempsey
·
10h
A quick visual guide to the weapon upgrades

On the bmpd side, we recall that the Marshal Shaposhnikov (the seventh ship of Project 1155, in service since 1985) has been undergoing average repairs and modernization at JSC Dalzavod Ship Repair Center in Vladivostok since 2016.

During the modernization of large anti-submarine ship "Marshal Shaposhnikov" (now reclassified to frigate), the URK-5 Rastrub-B launchers and both 100-mm AK-100 artillery launchers were dismantled on the ship, and two 8-charge vertical 3C14 vertical launchers of the UKSK complex with the possibility of using the Calibr-NK complex were installed in exchange ", two four-container launchers of the anti-ship missiles " Uran ", as well as one new 100-mm artillery mount A-190-01.

It is planned that the ship will be commissioned by the end of 2020.

https://bmpd.livejournal.com/4083245.html

So the only section where the ship's weapon systems didn't improved was anti-arcraft capability. I wonder if they could had put Redut also

GarryB wrote:

Slanted Onyx doesn't exist

It was planned and has been shown in models showing an upgrade of this ship type on their export website. Whether it is actually developed and working is another question but it was actually fitted on and tested on a small ship...

Slanted launchers are in service on the INS Rajput for Brahmos missiles (essentially an export-grade Yakhont with some Indian components). Interestingly all other Indian Navy vessels carrying Brahmos have adopted VLS, including the Rajputs sister ships INS Ranvir & Ranvijay, so this suggests that slant launchers introduce some disadvantages (probably require a customised missile that does away with the "flip-over" post-launch maneuver where the missile goes from vertical to horizontal before the main solid booster ignites.

Because of the length of these missiles angle launchers are easier to accomodate... the Slava class ships could be made smaller with essentially externally mounted angled launch tubes for 16 Vulcan missiles.

Of course with vertical launch tubes you can fit more missiles into a smaller area like the Oscar subs and Kirov and Kuznetsov ships... but I don't think there are any penalties other than that for an angled launcher... with ships like the Slava class ships where the existing missiles are angled launchers I would think using angle launchers to replace them would be the simplest and easiest option really...

The design plans shown on the export page show them using angled launcher on the upgraded Udaloy class ships...



I found this image above because they seem to have removed the image from the roe website.

This shows an early upgrade suggestion of one UKSK launcher replacing the rear 100mm gun and the original Metel quad launchers being replaced by angled 6 tube launchers for UKSK... essentially being 1.5 more launchers and at the rear in yellow you can see two 4 shot Uran launchers angled to fire sideways.

The old 100mm gun remains in use in this design.

The design above they put two UKSK launchers in place of the rear 100mm gun and replaced the forward gun with a modern 100mm gun which is much lighter and more compact than the old gun.... so presumably they will be able to have a lot more ammo for it or they dramatically reduced the weight in the front of the ship...

The two three quarters launchers are removed and replaced with Uran launchers... which means 4 less missiles but a much better balanced and looking design I think.

I don't think doing a roll would waste any energy at all... its wings are not deployed yet so apart from a tiny increase in drag from the roll I really don't think it would make any difference at all... in fact I think the rolling over from a vertical launch to a direction the missile will be heading would generate more of an influence on range assuming the angled launcher launches in the required direction. The vertical launcher requires a deep deck of at least 12m, but can be fired in any direction without needing to manouver the ship... but otherwise I doubt there is much difference.

As shown on their Corvettes and Frigates sometimes smaller ships don't have the hull depth to easily use vertical launch systems for some of their bigger missiles.

During hot launches vertically launched missiles can get damaged, and cold launch is complex for bigger missiles.

Of course Naval TOR had the advantage of always being vertical launch, but missiles like Granit have had angled launch on all the platforms that carry it... but the new universal launcher is a vertical system so new missiles need to get with the programme.

Most new missiles have fairly sophisticated guidance systems that can determine they are going straight up at launch and are smart enough to roll over in the direction of the target for a fairly normal engagement.

And again... the have shown doctored images like the one I posted above showing a vertical launch bin on a shallow angle so it must be possible... if a missile can launch vertically then it should be able to launch at any angle where it is not actually fired into the ground or sea... vertical launch means max power to weight ratio to get moving... you are opposing your total weight against gravity, whereas a shallower angle you get transitional lift from flight surfaces... with a jet like a Harrier a vertical launch is much harder than a rolling takeoff...

Isos wrote:The VLS launched version loose energy doing its 90° flips when the angked launched version will use all the fuel/power to go towards the target so it will have some km more in range.

Not true as the P-800 is essentially cold-launched out of the tube using a gas generator comprising a black-powder slow-burn charge. The booster has a slow-burn starter which kicks in when the missile is out of the tube, and it orientates itself to the horiz before its booster fires to high thrust.  No energy is wasted.

GarryB wrote:



I found this image above because they seem to have removed the image from the roe website.

'

Thoes tubes at the back are too big to be Uran they look like more Onkis.... damn this upgrade would have been so much better 28 Oniks. Though perhaps the anit submarine missiles are not compatible with the angled Oniks launcher but still I see no reason why they should not have used the Oniks launchers in the available space they have.

Anyway does anyone know what air defence missile systems are on a Fregat class?

UKSKs are heavy.
All you well-wishers who desire an additional UKSK, want to double the URAN missiles and upgrade the 100mm gun to a 130mm, should expect the bow to sit lower and as soon as the ship goes high speed, it will look more like a submarine diving.

UKSKs are heavy.
All you well-wishers who desire an additional UKSK, want to double the URAN missiles and upgrade the 100mm gun to a 130mm, should expect the bow to sit lower and as soon as the ship goes high speed, it will look more like a submarine diving.

More accurately it is pissing money away on something that is going to be a place holder...

For 10 or maybe 15 years they will be using upgraded large cruisers and destroyers, but they are going to be building destroyers soon, and then they will be moving on to new cruisers, but all this really does not come together until they have new CVNs.

Not every ship needs to be an arsenal ship filled to the brim with enormous numbers of missiles... certainly not in the first upgrades anyway.

Later on they might find ways of putting more systems in without breaking the design... they have already said they want to add naval Pantsir and do a few other things as well... the 100mm gun is a good gun and should do the job.

Having 16 tubes for missiles is plenty... 8 anti sub torpedo missiles and 8 Zircons is devastating fire power... with a further 8 Urans it is a very heavily armed vessel... especially with two five tube 533mm torpedo launchers there too which could carry anything from land attack cruise missiles and anti sub torpedoes through to Paket anti torpedo torpedoes....

And yes those rear mounted missiles are Uran missiles.... it was always supposed to get those because the idea of single purpose ships for the Russian Navy is over.

TheArmenian wrote:UKSKs  are heavy.
All you well-wishers who desire an additional UKSK, want to double the URAN missiles and upgrade the 100mm gun to a 130mm, should expect the bow to sit lower and as soon as the ship goes high speed, it will look more like a submarine diving.

Adding too much weight above the waterline can result in a top-heavy vessel, ie suffers a reduction of stability in heavy seas.  The Udaloys are oceanic vessels so need to be able to maintain an even keel in heavy sea states. Avoiding excessive ship motions is important not just for crew comfort but also sensor performance and aiming of artillery.

Image from charly015 showing how the space behind the 2nd exhaust stack has been made vacant by removal of a crane. Maybe this is to allow the deployment of containerised systems? Or possibly equipment yet to be fitted?