Russian Navy: Status & News #2

GarryB wrote:
Not all Russian subs are Ti hulled. Sierra, and Alpha spring to mind.

yes.

maybe i should rephrase "Someone there does not believe Russian have build titanium hulled sub"   

Anyway there's another one, the P-685 "Plavnik" Or "Mike" Also used titanium hull and perhaps the deepest diving attack submarine with test depth of 1000 m. Too bad that she's lost

Stealthflanker wrote:
that's unfortunate. Hmm and hey.. So Amur is really a single hull boat eh ? Seeing that the middle section of the hull have no external scantlings of frames. That's interesting because Russians always built double hull design submarine.

---
I Accidentally browse into strategypage forum.. It seems someone there does not believe Russian titanium hulled subs   

non-nuke propulsion and double hull dont really jive well. the extra surface area means you must have more power available to push the boat-
something non-nuke boats dont have much. a larger submarine is also a clumsier submarine- not good for littorals.

medo wrote:I think Russia will have only two, if all will go right, so they will have 16 Ka-52 helicopters on two Mistrals and 16 helicopters in reserve for training and for rotation on Mistrals to prolong their life time in the sea environment.

AMI International is the leading maritime consultancy firm in the world.

http://www.amiinter.com/

Even their research says that the Mistral cannot accommodate more than 5 Ka 52 helos .

Even their research says that the Mistral cannot accommodate more than 5 Ka 52 helos .

A standard Mistral cannot accommodate any Ka-52s... that is why the Russians had to change the design to allow a taller hangar deck. The standard Mistral can carry 16 medium sized helicopters... it can't carry any Ka-52s because of their rotor height, but the Russian Mistrals will have a higher ceiling in their hangars and with their wings and rotors folded the Ka-52K is actually rather more compact than many of the helos the French use in their carriers.

With this in mind I rather suspect 16 Ka-52Ks per ship is a potential load, but only unlikely for operational reasons... even on an anti piracy mission a few transports (Ka-29) and multirole helos (Ka-226T) would be worth more than having all Hokums.

[/quote]

You cant compare it The Gorshkov is a totally new design The Russians need to get familiar with all the new systems and stuff like that, after the first two, three Gorshkovs are ready it will go alot faster.

The Gerald R Ford class is delayed several times too.[/quote]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

My reply:

It's funny how I am getting neg rep already just because I am telling the truth. Among extremists, it seems that it's better to say "it's all fine", and then "good rep" comes along. I guess "hot air" does "produce frigates", or I don't think it does.

I know it's a totally new design. The point is, it doesn't excuse the fact that Gorskhov is waaaay behind the projected commission. It's just a fact.

We have to be rational here, and I think most people are very dissapoined about the speed of building regarding Gorskhov.

Russia won't be able to have more than 6 Gorshkovs by 2020 anyway. 8 would be "pure heaven", but that's not realistic.

Most likely 1st one commissioned next year (2015). 2nd in 2016. 3rd in 2017. 4th in 2018. 5th in 2019 and 6th in 2020.

I know that the U.S. is very late with their F-35 and Gerald Ford. However, the point I am trying to make is to compare the level where Russia is struggling compared to where the U.S. is struggling.

Russia is struggling with a "heavy" frigate while the U.S. is struggling with an 110.000 tonn AC that can be filled up with 90+ F-35s. So I hope you see the difference in the "level of struggle" between Russia and the U.S.

So I am just frustrated that Gorskhov has taken this long to build and wish it was built earlier and faster.

As you can see here, first projections in 2005 were to have at least 10 Gorskhovs around 2015. But reality now is there will be only 1, and not 10.


I quote from GlobalSecurity. I cannot post the link yet:

In early 2005 it was reported that the Russian Navy expected to commission 10 frigates in this class until 2015. In early 2006 it was reported that the Navy needed about 10-20 Project 22350 frigates by 2015.

You are not exposing anything new, sorry. Your posts have literally been rehashing of info well known everyone online.

The gorshkov's building rate is a reflection of the country's situation in the 2000s, and the situation it has inherited to this day.


EDIT: Although it is fair to say some posters here are obsessed with US failures to a weird degree. WHatcha gonna do.

So somehow because Gorshkov is being built slowly, has something to do with it competing against Destroyers? Yeah, you make little sense T055. If anything, you are grasping at straws. Yeah, it will be slow development. All at the same time, other projects for ships are in the making. So what? A shipyard in St.Pete is being upgraded to build much larger ships, as well, now they got another shipyard thanks to Crimea, to help upgrade the cruisers they currently have. These ships will be protecting Russian costs, along with various other ships it currently has, and submarines, aircrafts, etc etc etc. Things don't go one on one either.

sepheronx wrote:So somehow because Gorshkov is being built slowly, has something to do with it competing against Destroyers?  Yeah, you make little sense T055.  If anything, you are grasping at straws.  Yeah, it will be slow development.  All at the same time, other projects for ships are in the making.  So what?  A shipyard in St.Pete is being upgraded to build much larger ships, as well, now they got another shipyard thanks to Crimea, to help upgrade the cruisers they currently have.  These ships will be protecting Russian costs, along with various other ships it currently has, and submarines, aircrafts, etc etc etc.  Things don't go one on one either.

US destroyers have no anti-ship capability. They are used mainly as strike ships with Tomahawks or for Air Defense

George1 wrote:

sepheronx wrote:So somehow because Gorshkov is being built slowly, has something to do with it competing against Destroyers?  Yeah, you make little sense T055.  If anything, you are grasping at straws.  Yeah, it will be slow development.  All at the same time, other projects for ships are in the making.  So what?  A shipyard in St.Pete is being upgraded to build much larger ships, as well, now they got another shipyard thanks to Crimea, to help upgrade the cruisers they currently have.  These ships will be protecting Russian costs, along with various other ships it currently has, and submarines, aircrafts, etc etc etc.  Things don't go one on one either.

US destroyers have no anti-ship capability. They are used mainly as strike ships with Tomahawks or for Air Defense

So there it goes. Aleigh Burk has little antiship capabilities and is open to the Klub (which has very long range).

@T055

It's funny how I am getting neg rep already just because I am telling the truth. Among extremists, it seems that it's better to say "it's all fine", and then "good rep" comes along. I guess "hot air" does "produce frigates", or I don't think it does. I know it's a totally new design. The point is, it doesn't excuse the fact that Gorskhov is waaaay behind the projected commission. It's just a fact. We have to be rational here, and I think most people are very dissapoined about the speed of building regarding Gorskhov. Russia won't be able to have more than 6 Gorshkovs by 2020 anyway. 8 would be "pure heaven", but that's not realistic.

Its irrelevant your comparisons of 62 Arleigh Burke-class versus 8 Gorshov.. so what?   You can destroy those 62 warships with 30 planes launching yakhonts missiles from safe distance. Many arleigh class not even have anti-ship capability , so without that ,they will not destroy even a fishing boat. In the real world Wars are a combined Forces thing.  Not a fair duel.. of same units and the winners takes all.

IF you bring 500 x M1A3 sept tanks , Russia can defeat those with 500 Kornets-D anti tank missiles and from safe distance ,without losing a single men.. So your arguments are totally pointless and irrelevant. Aside that Harpoons range is ~130km range while RUssian antiship missiles like Yakhont or Kalibers go from 300km to 700km.  This means that Russia can wipe all those 62 destroyers without even have to
enter the destroyers combat range.  In fact in the black sea ,Russia not even need a navy to counter NATO ,since their land force can easily launch anti-ship missiles and contrary to warships.. Land doesn't sink.  

Take a look how a couple of dozen of simple containers on Russian land can defeat those 62 destroyers..
I bet no one told you about this..  



So whats the difference if Russia launch a Kalibr/Club missile from a Gorshkov class ,from a fishing boat or from a container ?  None.. the lethality will be the same.. What kills are the missiles. Warships are merely the transport system, but land have the advantage that it doesn't sink or crash like planes. Kalibrs missiles with 700km range can cover any part of the black sea from Crimea. So if NATO sends all their navies to the black sea ,it will be like killing fishes in a barrel with a shotgun. heck in the black sea will be even Far cheaper in a total war to just use a nuke and wipe all the NATO navies there with just 1 ICBM.  Russia can defend against ANY NATO navy ,airforce or tanks combined trying to invade Crimea.. easy as 1 2 3. In such scenario the Russian territory will become like a GIANT aircraft carrier , but that not only have planes but the entire Russian armed forces.     So 6-8 Gorshov Class will be fine to defend Russia territory . Big Navies use are more for projection of war , if you have plans to attack another nation far away. But Russia does not need a big navy for defending its Nation. Indeed Russia is not "weak" as you claim your simply misinformed about Russian modern technology and  armed forces capabilities.

GarryB wrote:It will have formidable firepower and capabilities... no previous Russian or Soviet surface ship has had the same performance potential... and yes I am including the Kirov class in this... with 4 UKSK tubes the Gorshkov could carry up to 32 Onyx missiles.. but it could also carry up to 32  x 2,500km range land attack missiles... which is something the Kirovs can't do... yet.

the electronics on board are AEGIS like in the form of SIGMA.

Im now confused.. Others say the Gorshkov have , 2 × 8 UKSK VLS cells fitted with 16 Club or Kalibr missiles. This is not the same
of Kirov that could carry 20.   On Sam defenses i dont think we can compare the 96x S-300's (150km range) with about ~170 other small range SAM defenses. ,vs ..........32x of the Gorshkov sam missiles

Gorshkov has clearly two UKSK modules, 16 cells in total.

The ship is very very potent for the size, but Peter the Great blows it out of the water in most roles.
However the Soviet Navy was very limited in surface to surface non nuclear precision strike, and only now with UKSK is that gap being filled.

TR1 wrote:
However the Soviet Navy was very limited in surface to surface non nuclear precision strike, and only now with UKSK is that gap being filled.

Not only the Soviet Navy, but the majority of the world's navies at the time had the same problem; the U.S. military has the potent GPS aiding in precision strikes against land targets and got the strategic capability surprise on the Soviet Union in the form of a "surprising" surprise (a term coined by the Defense Science Board under the watchful eye of Andrew Marshall of the Pentagon's Office of Net Assessment), but as far as anti-ship precision strike role goes it's one of the few areas the U.S. Navy is significantly lagging behind in. To my knowledge for some strange reason the U.S. Navy doesn't even employ one supersonic anti-ship missile in it's massive inventory, where as the navies of Russia, China, and India all do, and the Russian/Indian Brahmos missile in the Indian Navy's inventory most likely has superior accuracy over any version of the Harpoon missile.

True, the Gorskhovs are still very potent even with "only" two UKSK modules.

Though, in general, having more smaller ships seems to be a better defense than having a lesser amount of larger ships. - Which is one "possible" advantage of the Gorshkov class, and all the other frigates and corvettes RU is building.

As for the SAM situation, 32 missiles is also enough (if not plenty) for a ship of this size/class. I do have one question (which I feel has already been asked, but I can't be sure); Is it possible for the Redut cells to hold 40N6-like-missiles? I'm pretty sure they would need the space of 4 cells, but could the Gorshkovs still hold them?

Peter the Great is (as you know) much larger, which equates to a much larger target. - In which case Gorshkovs are nice to "have around".

UKSK is greatly helping to solve "fragmentation" problems within the RU Navy, hopefully they utilize their potential (Not as in use them in war, but continue to mount them on all new/"modernized" ships.) This ability is crucial, and (in my opinion) completely underrated. I can only hope all next-gen RU ASMs are built to the UKSK standard, which I believe (?) they are.

Any updates on the ships getting built? I would love to hear/see more about them!

magnumcromagnon wrote:

TR1 wrote:
However the Soviet Navy was very limited in surface to surface non nuclear precision strike, and only now with UKSK is that gap being filled.

Not only the Soviet Navy, but the majority of the world's navies at the time had the same problem; the U.S. military has the potent GPS aiding in precision strikes against land targets and got the strategic capability surprise on the Soviet Union in the form of a "surprising" surprise (a term coined by the Defense Science Board under the watchful eye of Andrew Marshall of the Pentagon's Office of Net Assessment), but as far as anti-ship precision strike role goes it's one of the few areas the U.S. Navy is significantly lagging behind in. To my knowledge for some strange reason the U.S. Navy doesn't even employ one supersonic anti-ship missile in it's massive inventory, where as the navies of Russia, China, and India all do, and the Russian/Indian Brahmos missile in the Indian Navy's inventory most likely has superior accuracy over any version of the Harpoon missile.

I should be clear- I don't mean anti ship, but specifically anti-land. AShM- USSR and Russia have no issues in that field. However  US navy proliferated massive amounts of Tomahawk missiles in the 80s, while the only Soviet Navy equivalent (the big AShMs could be used against land but were not really designed to be) was sub launched Granat, which is nuclear in any case. Until just a few years ago RuNavy had zero surface platforms that could launch precision cruise missiles at land based targets. Kalibr is the game changer.

Btw China to date AFAIK has only 4 supersonic missile equipped assets - the 956 destroyers sold by Russia. The rest (despite some wild claims) only use subsonic traditional missiles, and I have no proof that China has recieved the supersonic Klub. It is possible, but either way only subs in China use them. India only recently started widespread use of supersonic AShMs as well, though by now they should have more platforms than China with supersonic AShMs.

Mike E wrote:True, the Gorskhovs are still very potent even with "only" two UKSK modules.

Though, in general, having more smaller ships seems to be a better defense than having a lesser amount of larger ships. - Which is one "possible" advantage of the Gorshkov class, and all the other frigates and corvettes RU is building.

As for the SAM situation, 32 missiles is also enough (if not plenty) for a ship of this size/class. I do have one question (which I feel has already been asked, but I can't be sure); Is it possible for the Redut cells to hold 40N6-like-missiles? I'm pretty sure they would need the space of 4 cells, but could the Gorshkovs still hold them?

Peter the Great is (as you know) much larger, which equates to a much larger target. - In which case Gorshkovs are nice to "have around".

UKSK is greatly helping to solve "fragmentation" problems within the RU Navy, hopefully they utilize their potential (Not as in use them in war, but continue to mount them on all new/"modernized" ships.) This ability is crucial, and (in my opinion) completely underrated. I can only hope all next-gen RU ASMs are built to the UKSK standard, which I believe (?) they are.

Any updates on the ships getting built? I would love to hear/see more about them!

The recent photos showing the arrangement of the Redut cells make it pretty clear it is just designed for the 9M96. No 48N6 sized rounds- and we don't even know the size of 40N6.

Bummer, that would've been great.

The comparison is fair because is not a Fairness contest. Of which have the best frigate. In case of War ,NATO will not say..lets bring Frigates and corvettes only because Russia is at disadvantage.. So is totally Fair to compare what will represent the backbone of Russia navy ,the one they plan to build more versus the more common warships that Russia will have to face.

Do you think Russia would send Frigates and Corvettes to engage NATO cruisers?

If they did do you think the missiles they fire would be conventional HE or plutonium based?

What do you expect Russia to do... start building 4 carriers... and then building four cruisers to escort them and then build destroyers and then start with the Frigates and Corvettes?

With the new design paradigm of standardisation and multi purpose design it just makes sense to both start with the smallest sized ships and to work slowly to get it right and test it thoroughly... with every ship in the navy carrying UKSK bins they need to be properly tested now. Equally the Redut/Poliment system is complex and very capable... the naval guns being developed are also a case of a generational step... a 100mm gun the size and weight of a 76.2mm gun... a 130mm gun the size and weight of a 100mm gun etc etc you get a patrol boat with the gun fire power of a frigate and a frigate with the gun fire power of a destroyer etc.

The number Russia was looking at a few years back, which were 30 to begin with was clearly just a fantasy. Then the number of Gorshkov frigates was reduced to between 15 and 20.

I have never seen figures of 30 suggested, 15-20 would be a sensible number... compared with the Krivak frigate... of which there were about 40 built the Gorshkov has 4 times the main weapon fire power with two UKSK launchers carrying 16 ready to fire missiles. Compared with the Krivaks standard 4 SS-N-14 anti sub/anti ship missiles the goshkov could carry 4 anti sub missiles of a far more capable type and still have 12 tubes left for anti ship or land attack missiles.

Comparing it will the Soviet destroyers.. Sovremeny had 8 supersonic anti ship missiles... gorshkov could carry twice that number of much faster much longer ranged missiles... Onyx has a range of at least 500km compared with Moskits 120km range.

The Udaloy could carry 8 anti sub/anti ship SS-N-14s so in effect the Gorshkov could carry 8 anti sub missiles and 8 Onyx missiles and do the job of both the Sovremmeny AND the Udaloy. One Frigate able to perform the roles of two destroyers... yeah... sounds like crap. not.

Taking a bit longer to get into serial production... a fully multi role ship able to engage both surface, subsurface, land, and aerial targets... I wonder why that might take some extra time. But when it is ready they will be able to produce them like Kilos or Talwars...

Today, in July 2014, it is definitely clear that Russia is lucky if they even produce 8 Gorskhovs by 2020.

Based on what?

Do you think the first one will take longest or the last one?

BTW when was the last time the number planned to be built was actually built of anything?

Plans change... it is part of good planning practise.

And it's not even close to modern destroyers out there such as Arleigh Burkes,

Arleigh Burke entered service last century and is two and a half decades old... and is a cruiser.

The U.S. already has 62 Arleigh Burkes + more Burkes on the way and 3 Zumwalts, which is pretty sick. No 6-8 Gorshkovs can stop that, ever, in any way.

WTF are you talking about?

Perhaps I should say... what an enormous waste of money those NATO cruisers and destroyers are because they can't stop SS-18s and SS-29s.

The US is building large numbers of ships because it has a global empire to punish and police... only a moron would demand Russia build a navy to match NATO... you might as well demand Iran builds a naval fleet of Nimitz beating carriers, or North Korea build more than 2,700 light 5th gen stealth fighters because that is how many the US intended to make.

Who CARES how many ships NATO or the US has... it is totally irrelevant!

You don't fight wars with Frigates and Corvettes... they have other uses... which don't include pushing back NATO hordes. They will likely find eventually that 20 odd Frigates will be useful and that is how many they will build.

The Gerald R Ford class is delayed several times too.

Not to mention the ship that was supposed to replace the AB... Zumwalt... or is that a dirty word? wanting 30... but now thinking 3 is too many...

The funny thing is it has the potency of a destroyer, on a much smaller chassis. Just with generally less weapons, but the performance corresponds to much larger ships.

The fact that they have packed that sort of performance in such a low displacement vessel is ignored by so many.

In terms of electronics these vessels are also using the Sigma system... for those ignorant westerners who don't understand... Sigma=AEGIS except it is to be installed on all Russian vessels so they all share information/weapons/sensors.

I guess "hot air" does "produce frigates", or I don't think it does.

It took two decades to break their ship building industry do you think they should be out producing the US and NATO in 2020 or 2021?


... see the problem is that if they ever find themselves producing a navy that can take on all of NATO and win then I think Russia would be in bad economic shape.

I know it's a totally new design. The point is, it doesn't excuse the fact that Gorskhov is waaaay behind the projected commission. It's just a fact.

You mean in the same way that only four of the core new technologies the Zumwalt is supposed to have out of 12 are actually working?

Hmmm.. it seems that packing the firepower of two Soviet Destroyers into the hull of a Frigate is not as easy as it used to be when they weren't making any in the 1990s.

We have to be rational here, and I think most people are very dissapoined about the speed of building regarding Gorskhov.

I am sure a fanboi that expects Russia to defeat those evil backstabbing Americans might expect instant results, but modelling for ships is not the same as for other products... the first example produced is subject to very careful scrutiny and testing because it is really the only example and only sensible example for testing and evaluating to see if projections and estimates would be right or not... it is expensive and slow, but when you have it right then production becomes fairly straight forward... when you make a few of them you can actually work out different ways to do things faster and cheaper... but you have to ignore all the whiny fanbois who just want to brag on other forums anyway abut being the best... whatever that means.

Being the only superpower didn't help the US in Somalia... less of a badge and more of a target if you ask me.

Russia won't be able to have more than 6 Gorshkovs by 2020 anyway. 8 would be "pure heaven", but that's not realistic.

And how many do you think they will need?

Frigates are not long range vessels normally and will usually operate with shore based air support...

Most likely 1st one commissioned next year (2015). 2nd in 2016. 3rd in 2017. 4th in 2018. 5th in 2019 and 6th in 2020.

Assuming they lay down one a year and that production remains at the pace of the first boat. I would suggest that when the main gun is ready and the other systems are ready it will take rather less actual building time to make them and 2-3 per year could easily become a normal rate.

I know that the U.S. is very late with their F-35 and Gerald Ford. However, the point I am trying to make is to compare the level where Russia is struggling compared to where the U.S. is struggling.

Russia is struggling with a "heavy" frigate while the U.S. is struggling with an 110.000 tonn AC that can be filled up with 90+ F-35s. So I hope you see the difference in the "level of struggle" between Russia and the U.S.

AFAIK the Gorshkov is having problems with its main gun... once that is sorted out do you think other problems will slow them down?

A better question is after 20 years of no work and obsolete construction methods and tools and of course no money for pay or maintainence... WTF is Americas excuse?

The F-35 is struggling because it is trying to be an F-22 version of an F-16, F-18, Tornado, Rafale, Harrier, even talk of A-10 but I don't believe it.

So I am just frustrated that Gorskhov has taken this long to build and wish it was built earlier and faster.

Yeah, you are frustrated... but then what do you actually know about the situation?

For all we know it was ready 5 years ago but has been waiting for the main gun and the AESA radar for its SAM defence system. If that is the case then once those two problems have been sorted out you might find production increases dramatically... but that doesn't mean 72 Gorshkovs by 2020... they simply don't need that many.

EDIT: Although it is fair to say some posters here are obsessed with US failures to a weird degree. WHatcha gonna do.

Because they are largely ignored in the west, while the focus on anything to do with Russia is the failures.

there was a documentary on the Documentary channel a while back about secrets of sub warfare. the episode that mentioned Russia talked exclusively about the Kursk submarine sinking. the british one talked about mini sub raids on german ships and all sorts of exotic fun stuff, and of course the US segment, which was the majority of the programme was about the Virginia class SSN and how advanced and shiny and wonderful they are.

32.
There is one short range or long range 9M96 missile per cell. No more, no less.
They differ in length, not width

Perhaps the key is Redut is for Redut? Perhaps for larger vessels there will be larger launchers that can take full calibre 400km range and 250km range SAM missiles that can take 4 Redut missiles per tube?

This would allow larger ships to carry one type of SAM vertical launcher but mix up the load carried to meet the needs of the operation/theatre.

Im now confused.. Others say the Gorshkov have , 2 × 8 UKSK VLS cells fitted with 16 Club or Kalibr missiles. This is not the same
of Kirov that could carry 20.

My mistake. The new Russian destroyers are supposed to have 4 UKSK launchers.

On Sam defenses i dont think we can compare the 96x S-300's (150km range) with about ~170 other small range SAM defenses. ,vs ..........32x of the Gorshkov sam missiles

The original Rif missiles had a range of 90km. And also the 20 Granits had a range of 500-700km but could only attack ships. The 16 tubes on the frigate can carry 500km range supersonic anti ship missiles or 2,500km range land attack cruise missiles, or anti sub missiles... far more flexible if lacking in combat persistence.

Is it possible for the Redut cells to hold 40N6-like-missiles? I'm pretty sure they would need the space of 4 cells, but could the Gorshkovs still hold them?

That is a good question. I suspect no.

Peter the Great is (as you know) much larger, which equates to a much larger target. - In which case Gorshkovs are nice to "have around".

Think of it in terms of chess... you don't want all pawns, but then all bishops would be limiting too.

I can only hope all next-gen RU ASMs are built to the UKSK standard, which I believe (?) they are.

AFAIK zirconium will be UKSK compatible.

Bummer, that would've been great.

Well for a Corvette or Frigate the usefulness of 250km or 400km range SAMs would have been less than practical, but just because it has 32 tubes for Redut does not mean it will carry 32 missiles.

There will be 8 SOSNA-R missiles on the Palash CIWS and most likely if the 9M96 missiles use one tube each I would suspect the much smaller and lighter and slimmer 9M100 would allow rather more than 1 missile per tube.

the 9M100 is supposed to be a very compact small short range missile for all services so I would suspect quite a few could be packed into a 9M96 tube.

especially when the video shown seems to suggest quite a bit of wasted space around the redut missile for its launch tube. Perhaps one Redut tube can hold one 9M96 missile and 4 9M100 missiles... but if the tube is long enough for the long redut missile then perhaps two layers of 9M100 missiles could allow 8 missiles to be carried per tube?

This could allow loadings like 64 9M100 missiles for close in vessel protection (which would equate to two Kashtan-Ms, but without the two decks of space for missile reloads), and leave 24 tubes for the 9M96... perhaps 6 150km range and 18 60km range missiles.

GarryB wrote:What do you expect Russia to do... start building 4 carriers... and then building four cruisers to escort them and then build destroyers and then start with the Frigates and Corvettes?

Of course not .Trying to play the numbers things will be foolish , i was merely commenting that your comparisons were of Kirov Class vs Gorshkov class  (even though i welcome it) was incorrect because you said Gorshkov have more performance potential is not true ,The Kirov performance when it comes to air defenses is like 3x Gorshkov + Combined with about 6 corvettes .in air defenses at least. Kirovs are a real Naval Air defense battle station and we will not see such level performance again ,until a new destroyer if we are lucky. See your comment next..

GarryB wrote:It will have formidable firepower and capabilities...(Gorshkov Frigate) no previous Russian or Soviet surface ship has had the same performance potential... and yes I am including the Kirov class in this.

Not at all.. The flexibility of the Gorshkov is nice and its land attack capabilities too , using the new CLub missiles , but the lack of Land Attack cruise missiles in Kirovs should not be seen as a disadvantage , the cruiser was not simply designed for territorial offensive to other nations. But instead to counter small US navy battle groups. .and it does the job very well for that.  A gorshkov will not hold well against and air craft carrier formation, if the frigate is attacked first ,it will simply run out fast of Sam defenses with is 32 missiles. Russia will need like 4  Gorshkov frigates to have the similar SAM performance of a Ticonderoga class cruiser and about 10 x Gorshokov (that is 320 anti air missiles with 150km range) to really become an offensive power station and declare a no fly zone by sea on most EU/NATO nations.

Its a nice warship but not as impressive as a kirov . But im interested /hoping to see what will happen to the rumored Modernization of a second kirov class cruiser. Will be amazing if, just if , Russia had the vision to re-arm and modernize a Kirov with 96x S-500 Sam defenses (instead of S-300s missiles) and universal launchers for 30x or more   anti-ship/anti-land/anti-Submarine cruise missiles.  

Peter the Great will be modernized after Nakhimov, but you can forget about Lazarev or Kirov.

GarryB wrote:

Peter the Great is (as you know) much larger, which equates to a much larger target. - In which case Gorshkovs are nice to "have around".

Think of it in terms of chess... you don't want all pawns, but then all bishops would be limiting too.

I can only hope all next-gen RU ASMs are built to the UKSK standard, which I believe (?) they are.

AFAIK zirconium will be UKSK compatible.

Bummer, that would've been great.

Well for a Corvette or Frigate the usefulness of 250km or 400km range SAMs would have been less than practical, but just because it has 32 tubes for Redut does not mean it will carry 32 missiles.

There will be 8 SOSNA-R missiles on the Palash CIWS and most likely if the 9M96 missiles use one tube each I would suspect the much smaller and lighter and slimmer 9M100 would allow rather more than 1 missile per tube.

the 9M100 is supposed to be a very compact small short range missile for all services so I would suspect quite a few could be packed into a 9M96 tube.

especially when the video shown seems to suggest quite a bit of wasted space around the redut missile for its launch tube. Perhaps one Redut tube can hold one 9M96 missile and 4 9M100 missiles... but if the tube is long enough for the long redut missile then perhaps two layers of 9M100 missiles could allow 8 missiles to be carried per tube?

This could allow loadings like 64 9M100 missiles for close in vessel protection (which would equate to two Kashtan-Ms, but without the two decks of space for missile reloads), and leave 24 tubes for the 9M96... perhaps 6 150km range and 18 60km range missiles.

Obviously, it is better to have a well rounded navy vs. one without smaller vehicles (cough...US Navy...cough) (In my opinion).

That is great to hear, I can not wait to see hyper sonic missiles in action!

True, even without 400km air defense capability, the current armament is still sufficient. I meant it as "for all ships with the REDUT system" though. For instance, will the newer destroyers be able to hold 40N6-like-missiles?

True, even without 400km air defense capability, the current armament is still sufficient. I meant it as "for all ships with the REDUT system" though. For instance, will the newer destroyers be able to hold 40N6-like-missiles?

To be honest I thought I knew, but I suspected Redut was a universal SAM launcher that could take all the anticipated SAM types... so 9M100, 9M96, and then the big S-400 missiles and therefore likely also the S-500 missiles too, but the Redut system shown seems to contradict that.

perhaps corvettes and Frigates will have a Redut system for 9M96 and 9M100 missiles, while Destroyer and larger vessels will have a larger launcher able to take larger missiles with the radar needed to exploit the extra range of those SAMs.

Not at all.. The flexibility of the Gorshkov is nice and its land attack capabilities too , using the new CLub missiles , but the lack of Land Attack cruise missiles in Kirovs should not be seen as a disadvantage , the cruiser was not simply designed for territorial offensive to other nations. But instead to counter small US navy battle groups. .and it does the job very well for that.

You are missing my point... Kirov and all Soviet vessels were custom made single purpose vessels. Sovremmeny had depth charges and torpedoes, Udaloy had a switch to allow surface ships to be engaged in an emergency but the Sovs were anti ship and the Udaloys were anti Sub and the Kirovs were the centre of battlegroups intended to take on US carrier groups.

In comparison the Gorshkov can do all those things and more... it is not as powerful as the Kirov in certain regards, but it is fully multirole and rather more flexible.

Gorshkov does not replace Kirov... the unified weapon launchers and sensors and propulsion and systems can be applied to the Kirov as upgrades to make it every bit as multirole as the Gorshkov will be, yet it will offer better range with its new radar and more combat persistence with its larger capacity for weapons and onboard stores in terms of enemy engaged and of course distance from station it can operate and the time it can operate away from base.

I always suspected there might be more than one version of USUK and Redut launchers, and it isn't practical to have S-400 missiles in boats with small displacements such as corvettes due to the fact that they wouldn't have the corresponding radar. Bigger ships could have launcher cells that accepts 4 USUK tubes or one larger missile tube with the capability to use larger missiles built in the Soviet Union.

We will have to wait and see.

That is wait I've been thinking for a while now. Maybe the larger ships will have larger cells and vice-versa. Or, (this would be a down side)  they could use up 4 cells (space)?

Mike E wrote:We will have to wait and see.

That is wait I've been thinking for a while now. Maybe the larger ships will have larger cells and vice-versa. Or, (this would be a down side)  they could use up 4 cells (space)?

The new RUssian destroyer  project 21956 here ...

is Rumored that will have up to...

-from 7500 to 14,700 tons,
-from 160m to 200 meters long, either gas turbine CODAG or  nuclear propulsion,
- top speed of approximately 30 knots  
-Equipped with 2x2x152mm guns, 4 CIWS complexes,
-32 to 64 universal shipboard firing complexes (Kalibr/Oniks) and
-64 to 80 Redut shipboard missiles,
- 2 Paket-NK anti-submarine torpedo systems,
2 helicopters"

by looking how moderately strong their best frigates Gorshkov will be when it comes to Sam defenses ,
we could guess their destroyer SAMS will be also 150km range or 250km range. looks good but not impressive unless it can use
long range s-400 or s-500.