Project 22350: Admiral Sergei Gorshkov #2

PapaDragon wrote:

dino00 wrote:The draft design of "Super-Gorshkov" is completed
.............
It takes 12 to 18 months to complete the design of the frigate for Project 22350M, nicknamed "Super-Pots" in the industry. The construction of the lead ship of the new series will take 4-5 years...........

Another jewel of machine translation: Super Pots (Super Gorshkov)

But it will not dethrone the best one so far: Great Onions (Veliki Luki)

I didn't corrected because I thought was a new nickname that I never heard

Pack yes is good also.

But it's incredible that we can understand Russians newspapers, without doing anything, the page automatically converts to English. Better than going to the Moon.

Rodion_Romanovic wrote:........
In the meanwhile it would be worth to continue producing the "classic" 22350, maybe also in Yantar in Kaliningrad, that in the 80s built most of the 1155 Fregat (Udaloy class) destroyers and more recently the 11356 Grigorovich class frigates, and possibly also in Zvezda in the Far East, so that they get used to military shipbuilding before thinking about bigger ships (e.g destroyers, cruisers and aircraft carriers).

Vanilla Gorshkov absolutely must remain in production

Not only is it excellent ship that finally does the job that allows it to replace old Soviet frigates and destroyers but they finally managed to get production speed up to usable levels

This is the ship that is to be backbone of the fleet according to new doctrine, old doctrine mandated corvettes to do that job but times have changed

Missile ships and frigates are the new norm, corvettes are now niche segment

Concerning the ammunition load up to 100 missiles for the poliment result system in 22350M it may mean 48 redut VLS cells (instead of 32 in 22350), that could be loaded normally with 32 cells containing long and medium range missiles, and the last 16 with 4 packed short rang e missiles, for a total of 32 +64=96missiles in the typical load (but this is just a speculation from me).

I disagree. Gorshkov M is a destroyer of some 150-160m (the size of Arleigh burkes) so it may easily carry 96 cells (they come in 8 cells VLS so 100 is not possible) just like other modern destroyers.

Gorshkov is only 130m and carries 48 cells.

The only question is will those be a mix of redut and UKSK or just UKSK-M ? The later makes the ships much more powerful and useful and could 8 pack 9M100 and 4 pack 9M96 or carry 48N6 family that normal UKSK can't carry and is limited to only one 9m96.

With 96 UKSK-M they can have max 384 9m96 or 96 cruise missiles. In reality it would be something like 24 cruise missile/anti ship missiles, 24 48N6, 48 4×9M96.

9M100 is not needed if they have pantsirs.

If frigates will have 148 missiles then I wonder what how many a missile cruiser would carry.

Well that is the thing isn't it... if the UKSK-M can carry SAMs as well then instead of having say 48 UKSK tubes and say 32 Redut tubes... that would be 6 UKSK launchers and perhaps two Redut launchers, it might have space for 10 UKSK-M launchers to replace both the UKSK and the Redut systems, but because all the tubes can take any missile combination it means the vessel will be much more flexible in the load it can carry... when reloading at port you could load the ship up with any combination of missiles you like... the ship might be used as an air defence vessel with a few tubes loaded for self defence from ships and subs and some land attack missiles just in case and the rest SAMs...

Well that is the question... I personally think the only reason to make the UKSK-M able to carry SAMs is because the biggest SAMs they want to carry wont fit in the Redut launcher tubes... which are designed to carry the S-300 sized missiles (ie the big 250km and 400km ranged S-400 big missiles).

I would suspect that the S-500 will be bigger than that like the larger S-300V missiles.

The question therefore is... is the S-500 able to fit in the UKSK launch tube... I suspect not because otherwise why not just add extra UKSK launch bins to carry them as well... with the added bonus that if it is not expected to be WWIII and the intended opponents wont require S-500 missiles then you could carry extra land attack, anti sub, or anti ship missiles instead.

The thing is that with the SAMs in question.... we have the tiny 9M100 missiles as used in the S-350 land based system where either standard 9M96 missiles as used on the Redut can be used one per tube or 9M100 missiles can be used with four per tube... there are 12 launch tubes in the system so either 12 9M96 missiles in any combination of 50km and 150km range missiles, or four missiles per tube for the 9M100 in any combination... so 12 tubes could carry anything from 12 x 50km range missiles, 12 x 150km range missiles or up to a maximum of 48 x 9M100 missiles or any combination.... 3 x 150km range missiles + 3 x 50km range missiles and 24 9M100 missiles etc etc.

The thing is that the length of these new UKSK-M launch tubes is going to be at least 10m and possibly more for the S-500, so one launch tube has enormous volume in terms of width and depth so even if you assume that one UKSK-M tube that can hold a missile wider than the S-300 missiles, which means it should be able to hold 4 x 9M96 missiles and therefore also 16 9M100 missiles it is still a terrible waste of available space... and what value is there in carrying 4 of the 50km range 9M96 missiles in the tube when the 150km range missiles fit in the same tube.

Surely it makes sense to stack them... these are all designed from the outset to be vertical launch missiles, so having a separator that ejects itself with the last missile in that layer to expose a second or even third layer would improve efficiency and make the smaller missiles more practical and useful.

You might get only one S-500 missile in a single tube, but that is OK... how many satellites do you need to shoot down?
S-400 250km range and 400km range full sized missiles might only fit one to a tube as well, which is also OK because they will mainly be carried by Cruisers and Destroyers and Carriers to defend groups of ships rather than just the ship they are on.
The 9M96 however should allow four missiles per tube per layer and the bigger missile might allow two layers for 8 missiles per tube, while the shorter range missile might allow three layers per tube for 12 missiles per UKSK-M tube.
The 9M100 should therefore allow 16 missiles per layer per tube, with perhaps four layers per tube meaning 64 missiles per tube... which would be valuable for dealing with swarm attacks as these are IIR lock on after launch weapons for CIWS self defence...

These UKSK-M launchers might only be carried on Destroyer and Cruiser size and larger vessels, and I suspect because of the depth of deck needed for these launchers they might retain Redut launchers in shallower areas of the ship just to fill up some space and add capability.

They might integrate TOR type missiles and Shtil type missiles into the UKSK-M launcher and they might have a Redut-M launcher that does too perhaps.

For all we know the UKSK-M might add URAN and other weapons too... like Medvedev etc etc.

GarryB wrote:Well that is the question... I personally think the only reason to make the UKSK-M able to carry SAMs is because the biggest SAMs they want to carry wont fit in the Redut launcher tubes... which are designed to carry the S-300 sized missiles (ie the big 250km and 400km ranged S-400 big missiles).

I would suspect that the S-500 will be bigger than that like the larger S-300V missiles.

The question therefore is... is the S-500 able to fit in the UKSK launch tube... I suspect not because otherwise why not just add extra UKSK launch bins to carry them as well... with the added bonus that if it is not expected to be WWIII and the intended opponents wont require S-500 missiles then you could carry extra land attack, anti sub, or anti ship missiles instead.

The thing is that with the SAMs in question.... we have the tiny 9M100 missiles as used in the S-350 land based system where either standard 9M96 missiles as used on the Redut can be used one per tube or 9M100 missiles can be used with four per tube... there are 12 launch tubes in the system so either 12 9M96 missiles in any combination of 50km and 150km range missiles, or four missiles per tube for the 9M100 in any combination... so 12 tubes could carry anything from 12 x 50km range missiles, 12 x 150km range missiles or up to a maximum of 48 x 9M100 missiles or any combination.... 3 x 150km range missiles + 3 x 50km range missiles and 24 9M100 missiles etc etc.

The thing is that the length of these new UKSK-M launch tubes is going to be at least 10m and possibly more for the S-500, so one launch tube has enormous volume in terms of width and depth so even if you assume that one UKSK-M tube that can hold a missile wider than the S-300 missiles, which means it should be able to hold 4 x 9M96 missiles and therefore also 16 9M100 missiles it is still a terrible waste of available space... and what value is there in carrying 4 of the 50km range 9M96 missiles in the tube when the 150km range missiles fit in the same tube.

Surely it makes sense to stack them... these are all designed from the outset to be vertical launch missiles, so having a separator that ejects itself with the last missile in that layer to expose a second or even third layer would improve efficiency and make the smaller missiles more practical and useful.

You might get only one S-500 missile in a single tube, but that is OK... how many satellites do you need to shoot down?
S-400 250km range and 400km range full sized missiles might only fit one to a tube as well, which is also OK because they will mainly be carried by Cruisers and Destroyers and Carriers to defend groups of ships rather than just the ship they are on.
The 9M96 however should allow four missiles per tube per layer and the bigger missile might allow two layers for 8 missiles per tube, while the shorter range missile might allow three layers per tube for 12 missiles per UKSK-M tube.
The 9M100 should therefore allow 16 missiles per layer per tube, with perhaps four layers per tube meaning 64 missiles per tube... which would be valuable for dealing with swarm attacks as these are IIR lock on after launch weapons for CIWS self defence...

These UKSK-M launchers might only be carried on Destroyer and Cruiser size and larger vessels, and I suspect because of the depth of deck needed for these launchers they might retain Redut launchers in shallower areas of the ship just to fill up some space and add capability.

They might integrate TOR type missiles and Shtil type missiles into the UKSK-M launcher and they might have a Redut-M launcher that does too perhaps.

For all we know the UKSK-M might add URAN and other weapons too... like Medvedev etc etc.

Mean medvedka... I`m doubtful about that, for medvedka is a system for A/S torpedoes and not rocket/torpedoes as Vodopad etc... Medvedev Dmitry Anatolyevich is russian prime minister!

Medvedevka are just small 91RE1 and 91RE2 ballistic rockets delivering an anti sub torpedo payload via a supersonic ballistic rocket... just much smaller and shorter ranged... for fitting to much smaller ships AFAIK.

In Russia, prepared a technical project of enlarged frigates of the ocean zone

The head of the United Shipbuilding Corporation Alexei Rakhmanov said that the construction of the lead ship could begin as early as 2020, subject to adequate funding

SEVERODVINSK / Arkhangelsk region /, December 20. / TASS /. The Northern Design Bureau (PKB) has prepared a technical project for the construction of promising frigates of the ocean zone 22350M. This was reported by TASS on Friday the head of the United Shipbuilding Corporation (USC) Alexei Rakhmanov.

"The Northern Design Bureau prepared a technical project for the construction of promising frigates of the ocean zone of the improved project 22350M," he said.

According to him, the construction of the lead ship can begin as early as 2020, subject to adequate funding. "There will be money - we will start building in 2020," the head of USC said

https://tass.ru/ekonomika/7394063

Sooner the better. This contradicts other sources.

All the upgraded version is supposed to be is just a longer ship for more UKSK's, there should be no new systems that require testing.

SeigSoloyvov wrote:All the upgraded version is supposed to be is just a longer ship for more UKSK's, there should be no new systems that require testing.

Very unlikely. They have found out the limits of having uksk and redut with no capacity for long range air def missiles and are working on the UKSK-M.

That will oblige them to test everything again and delay the ship introduction.

The good point would be that Lider will be faster to make since it will have UKSK-M. Even s-500 could be introduced in that launcher.

Isos wrote:

SeigSoloyvov wrote:All the upgraded version is supposed to be is just a longer ship for more UKSK's, there should be no new systems that require testing.

Very unlikely. They have found out the limits of having uksk and redut with no capacity for long range air def missiles and are working on the UKSK-M.

That will oblige them to test everything again and delay the ship introduction.

The good point would be that Lider will be faster to make since it will have UKSK-M. Even s-500 could be introduced in that launcher.

UKSK M will not be ready by 2020, they will not lay the ship down if they plan to install that VLS.

The M version will require new electronics. They will also need to develop a single information system for the short and long-range missiles. This will mean changing up the FCS of the ships also.

There is more that would need to be done, all of this means giving Russia's proven and documented track record of delay after delay with even minor tech changes.

That if the ship is going down in 2020 there will be no UKSK-M on it period and to think otherwise is a pure fantasy, the shipyard isn't going to lay down a hull just to let it sit for a few years.

The launcher itself isn't an issue. It only needs new wiring to recognize what missile is loaded in which cell and be able to put coordinates inside the missile. Very easy to do.

The hard part will be integration of new radars because the ones in normal gorshkov are not enough for the 250km and 400km missiles. Also they will need an all new computer system that can allow the use of air defence missile as well as anti ship and cruise missiles. That's the thing that can delay the timeline.

If they want to keep the price low they can use uksk-m but with only weapons and radar of normal Gorshkov. They woukd only need new computers. All the radars and missiles are tested and work fine. That's much easier.

Isos wrote:The launcher itself isn't an issue. It only needs new wiring to recognize what missile is loaded in which cell and be able to put coordinates inside the missile. Very easy to do.

The hard part will be integration of new radars because the ones in normal gorshkov are not enough for the 250km and 400km missiles. Also they will need an all new computer system that can allow the use of air defence missile as well as anti ship and cruise missiles. That's the thing that can delay the timeline.

If they want to keep the price low they can use uksk-m but with only weapons and radar of normal Gorshkov. They woukd only need new computers. All the radars and missiles are tested and work fine. That's much easier.

Lol...No the launcher would need more then rewiring where the hell do you get your information.....VLS tubes have tons of moving parts that specially designed changing up even one missile size means you need to redesign the entire thing.

The launcher itself isn't an issue. It only needs new wiring to recognize what missile is loaded in which cell and be able to put coordinates inside the missile. Very easy to do.

It should be plug and play... which means existing hardware should be fine... it should be just a software upgrade... which they won't need until they start loading the new weapons that require the new software.

The hard part will be integration of new radars because the ones in normal gorshkov are not enough for the 250km and 400km missiles. Also they will need an all new computer system that can allow the use of air defence missile as well as anti ship and cruise missiles. That's the thing that can delay the timeline.

They are making AESA radars for their small ships... I suspect their bigger ships will just get bigger more capable AESA radars that are mounted higher above the sea. The computer systems for their corvettes running their AEGIS battle management and C4IR system allowed other platforms to provide target data so they could launch land attack missiles against targets thousands of kms away in Syria.... why do you think those Corvettes couldn't shoot down aircraft or target ships with their own sensors or be provided target information from other platforms?

The only real difference we are talking about is the UKSK-M launcher, which will likely be the standard replacement for UKSK and Redut and Shtil that will remain on smaller vessels. The electronics systems will be the same for the bigger ships... they will just have bigger boxes with more USB ports and more slots on the motherboard to add things or carry rather more of everything as well as bigger more effective sensors like radar and sonar and other systems like EO systems and probably lasers and perhaps even EM launchers for drones and perhaps even weapons.

If they want to keep the price low they can use uksk-m but with only weapons and radar of normal Gorshkov. They woukd only need new computers. All the radars and missiles are tested and work fine. That's much easier.

If they wanted to keep prices low they could just make 200 corvettes and not worry about any other ship type, but it seems they are prepared to develop new technology and also put it in service when it is ready. Cost means it is not all coming in service all at once, but that is OK, they couldn't afford to pay for it all at once... that is just silly.

Lol...No the launcher would need more then rewiring where the hell do you get your information.....VLS tubes have tons of moving parts that specially designed changing up even one missile size means you need to redesign the entire thing.

The US model is multiple different missiles with lots and lots of different VLS tube systems that can launch some but not all their missiles with special variant launchers for different subsets of missiles they use.

Conversely the Russians designed their missiles from the outset to be used in standard launchers... S-350 was designed to load four missiles to an S-300/S-400 large missile tube, and 9M100 was designed to fit four to an S-350 launch tube for a reason.

S-500 will be designed to operate from standard tubes too as was Zircon and Kalibr and Onyx and the other missiles they use.

The U in UKSK and UKSK-M means universal... for the former it means all anti sub and anti ship and land attack cruise missiles... in other words all primary attack naval missiles... the latter is likely to encompass SAMs as well... making it even more universal. It makes no sense to then make 20 different versions one for each type of ship that carries it that are different and not compatible and need special missiles to work...

https://thebarentsobserver.com/en/security/2019/12/testing-russias-newest-frigate-causes-radio-and-radar-disturbances-northernmost#.XfznXR-KYBc.twitter

Russia’s electronic warfare testing with new frigate causes radio- and radar disturbances in northernmost Norway

It is the Norwegian Intelligence Service that on Friday reports about the disturbances.

The radio- and radar disturbances seen in Finnmark are most likely not intended but a side effect of the Russian Northern Fleet’s testing of the radio-technical armament of its latest frigate currently going on in the Barents Sea, according to the Norwegian intelligence service, NTB reports.

No details are given on which Norwegian radar(s) are affected or on which frequencies radio signals are disturbed.

Per Eirik Heimdal with the Norwegian Communication Authority says to Aftenposten that the disturbances are measured near Kirkenes and are coming from 60 degrees to the northeast. From Kirkenes, that would be the Barents Sea north of and along the coast of the Kola Peninsula.

Heimdal says there are general noise “over a large frequency field”, but the agency has so far not been able to identify a clear picture of the radio disturbances.

He underlines that there are no reported trouble from aviation authorities or others that depend on GPS signals.

GarryB wrote:

Lol...No the launcher would need more then rewiring where the hell do you get your information.....VLS tubes have tons of moving parts that specially designed changing up even one missile size means you need to redesign the entire thing.

The US model is multiple different missiles with lots and lots of different VLS tube systems that can launch some but not all their missiles with special variant launchers for different subsets of missiles they use.

Conversely the Russians designed their missiles from the outset to be used in standard launchers... S-350 was designed to load four missiles to an S-300/S-400 large missile tube, and 9M100 was designed to fit four to an S-350 launch tube for a reason.

S-500 will be designed to operate from standard tubes too as was Zircon and Kalibr and Onyx and the other missiles they use.

The U in UKSK and UKSK-M means universal... for the former it means all anti sub and anti ship and land attack cruise missiles... in other words all primary attack naval missiles... the latter is likely to encompass SAMs as well... making it even more universal. It makes no sense to then make 20 different versions one for each type of ship that carries it that are different and not compatible and need special missiles to work...

Universal long as the missile is compatible with the hardware and software.

You cannot have a one size fits all VLS tube.

SeigSoloyvov wrote:

GarryB wrote:

Lol...No the launcher would need more then rewiring where the hell do you get your information.....VLS tubes have tons of moving parts that specially designed changing up even one missile size means you need to redesign the entire thing.

The US model is multiple different missiles with lots and lots of different VLS tube systems that can launch some but not all their missiles with special variant launchers for different subsets of missiles they use.

Conversely the Russians designed their missiles from the outset to be used in standard launchers... S-350 was designed to load four missiles to an S-300/S-400 large missile tube, and 9M100 was designed to fit four to an S-350 launch tube for a reason.

S-500 will be designed to operate from standard tubes too as was Zircon and Kalibr and Onyx and the other missiles they use.

The U in UKSK and UKSK-M means universal... for the former it means all anti sub and anti ship and land attack cruise missiles... in other words all primary attack naval missiles... the latter is likely to encompass SAMs as well... making it even more universal. It makes no sense to then make 20 different versions one for each type of ship that carries it that are different and not compatible and need special missiles to work...

Universal long as the missile is compatible with the hardware and software.

You cannot have a one size fits all VLS tube.

Sure it can. Both S-400 and S-350 have a wide range of missiles, ranging from small ones having about 20 km range to ones having more than 100 km range.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S-350E_Vityaz_50R6