Project 22350: Admiral Sergei Gorshkov #2

Isos wrote:
They need to rule around their coast. With Japan, Nato and China around them they need a lot of ship.

They have separeted fleets that can't really help each other. So if they buy 20 corvettes for exemple you need to send them at 4 different location. Which is a couple of them for smaller fleets and little bit more for the bigger ones.

The area they cover is also large. Black sea is always full of NATO ships. In the north they need to keep away Nato subs  away. In the pacific they need to watch on japanese and chinese and the area is huge.

Also that creates jobs. 100% russian money on 100% russian made ships.

Isn't Russia the largest aircraft carrier on the planet? With Russias air power anyone causing trouble within 2000 km of their coast can easily be dealt with no?

Aircraft can't be on station 24/7. And they can't be sent at the other side of the world easily.

They can't also protect sea routes if you need to or help your allies. For exemple syrian op would be impossible without the transport ships.

Ships are weak when facing aviation but they are very important.

Russia,thanks to its 5000 nuks, doesn't need any soldiers when it comes to protect only mainland.

dino00 wrote:64 is probably a journalist mistake.

This article also writes about 96 VLS on the new 22350M frigate.
https://rg.ru/2019/12/22/reg-szfo/chislo-raket-na-rossijskih-fregatah-vyrastet-vtroe.html

Why do they need so many ships? Russia does not need to rule the waves.

They will likely end up with rather more than 15 Gorshkov and Super Gorshkov types.... Gorshkov is essentially a Frigate and so they will want half a dozen or more of each at the Baltic Fleet, the Black Sea Fleet, the Northern Fleet, and the Pacific Fleet... maybe one or two in the Caspian depending on developments there.

The super Gorshkov is essentially a destroyer and so they will probably want 20-24 of those with 5-6 in the four main fleets.

64 cruise missile tubes?

That is a lot and makes Lider project officially redundant

I just wish they would release image already...

The UKSK launch tubes carry anti ship and land attack and anti sub weapons... it will almost never be loaded with just one type because that would leave it rather vulnerable to subs or ships.

And where far away from Russia would they need deploy? And for what reason?

Russia has essentially been rejected by the west as an equal partner, Russia has to look to the rest of the world for trade and growth and development.

Slava-class cruisers have no problems reaching South Africa, if they can handle that with some tankers then there's no reason to fiddle with handful of Liders

Would be nice to replace the Slavas and Kirovs with brand new ships that are fully modern and up to date and standardised with the rest of the fleet.

They could keep flying Su-35s too, but developing Su-57s makes sense doesn't it?

Russian Navy needs numbers right now and several nuclear vessels is not the solution to this problem

Priority for the moment will be Russian waters and near Russian areas, so now the plans for Corvettes and Frigates are decided then make one Destroyer based on an enlarged Frigate, but get the numbers by making Corvettes and Frigates while making one test destroyer.

It is not going to happen overnight but production of Corvettes and Frigates should be rather fast and relatively painless because of their modular designs and the fact that each one is not going to be different with different weapons and systems like they used to do.

The Liders would be able to carry S-500s

Case closed

Liders will be the core of any Russian carrier group... they will hopefully build between 6 and 10 of them, so they can split 3 or four between the Northern Fleet and the Pacific Fleet... with one resting or doing other things that means any carrier operation can have two Lider Cruisers and hopefully 3-5 Super Gorshkov Destroyers operating with it. Maybe a helicopter carrier or two... would be an awesome sight...

It is a heavily armed destroyer, not a fragate

Yes, a destroyer design based on their frigate design...

64 is probably a journalist mistake.

UKSK launchers are 8 tube systems so 8 UKSK launchers means 8 x 8 = 64 launch tubes.

Of course it will carry anti ship and land attack and anti sub weapons in those tubes, and probably will be expanded to carry other things too like EW and anti torpedo weapons as well.

IMO it will be 64 UKSK-M with some Tor launchers to increase number of AD missiles.

I would expect a ship this size would have Redut launchers as separate systems carrying extra missiles too.

New ships will substitute older ones, so modernization efforts will progressively decrease and freed up more funds for new construction. The worst is over for the VMF.

Also they have invested a lot of money and time into upgrading shipyards and new manufacturing techniques and systems and the new ships they are designing and building and testing will be standardised full multirole and modular... so they wont need three different types of destroyer for anti air and anti ship and anti sub because all their destroyers can do that job... they just build one type which uses modular pieces which should simplify and speed up production.

Isn't Russia the largest aircraft carrier on the planet? With Russias air power anyone causing trouble within 2000 km of their coast can easily be dealt with no?

Yes, but even within 2,000km of any Russian airfield there is most of the rest of the planet to consider. Also the fact that aircraft can't land on the water and board a ship they suspect of smuggling or illegally fishing.

Russia is looking to open up a North Sea Route for ships sailing from Asia to the EU and back... they need to be able to police that which means ships and aircraft.

Russia needs to be able to interact with the whole world if it wants to grow and flourish... the west will keep it cornered and try to isolate it and they will get away with that if they can bully countries around the world not to trade with Russia or China.

Anti Russian rhetoric over the Crimea, the invasion of South Ossetia by Georgia, Japanese claims on the Kuriles with US and western support, and western actions in Syria and Venezuela make it pretty clear that if Russias military can't reach to where their new trade partners are then the US will crush that deal and that relationship as soon as it can and without mercy.

Russian land based air power would be of little use in Venezuela if Trump had decided to send in the Marines, but Russia having a destroyer and a few other ships visit do you think those Marines would get the green light to go?

I am not suggesting Russia use its ships to fight the US... I am suggesting Russia being a global power able to send decent forces anywhere within a few days will prevent the US from doing as it pleases and choking Russia from international trade.

Small countries around the world have a choice who to trade with... as long as that choice is the US because otherwise the big bully America will impose sanctions and cut them off from the world in a way they fail to do with Russia. Having a Russia with a real global navy (I don't mean 10 carriers groups and can fight in every ocean at one time to dominate the planet like the US tries to) but a navy that can sail anywhere they please and support allies with their presence.

Small countries will feel safer trading with Russia and for that matter China, if those countries have modern capable navies that can show up to deter the bullies from marking their territory with piss.

This article also writes about 96 VLS on the new 22350M frigate.

That might be Redut or TOR as well as UKSK.

For an enlarged ship intended as a destroyer type then the 96 tubes is interesting.

We already know there are 64 tubes for UKSK, which leaves 32 tubes for SAMs... but is that standard Redut SAMs or bigger ones?

32 RIF tubes for S-300 missiles would be big enough to hold 128 9M96 missiles of 150km or 60km range, or 512 9M100 close in IIR short range self defence CIWS missiles.

Obviously just as the 64 cruise missile tubes wont carry all land attack cruise missiles or all anti sub or anti ship missiles, the SAM tubes might have a mix of perhaps 8 x 250km and 400km range S-400 missiles, perhaps 2 of the 400km range missiles and 6 of the 250km range missiles, while the remaining 24 tubes might have 16 tubes with 64 9M96 perhaps 24 of 150km range and 40 of 60km range, leaving 8 large tubes holding 128 9M100 missiles for close in defence... no doubt along with a few Pantsir or naval TOR systems and maybe 57mm guns for self defence perhaps...

GarryB wrote:For an enlarged ship intended as a destroyer type then the 96 tubes is interesting.

We already know there are 64 tubes for UKSK, which leaves 32 tubes for SAMs... but is that standard Redut SAMs or bigger ones?

32 RIF tubes for S-300 missiles would be big enough to hold 128 9M96 missiles of 150km or 60km range, or 512 9M100 close in IIR short range self defence CIWS missiles.

The modified 22350 frigate has 24 VLS UKSK and 32 VLS for the Redut system. A total of 56 VLS USKS and for the Redut system. Project 22350M has 64 USKS plus 32 SAM launchers? That's how I understand it. This gives a total of 96 VLS.

I remember reading in an article from last year that they were mentioning 48 UKSK VLS cells (6 launchers).
I doubt a higher number than that.


The number of redut cells was not mentioned,  but since vanilla 22350 has 32 redut cells, I believe they should be at least 48 cells, possibly more...

48 UKSK and 64 Redut cells would definitely be a lot

Arleigh burke with its 155m has 96 VLS cells.

Gorshkov-M is a bit longer IMO (160m). It may very well have more than 100 cells. But IMO they will take advantage to put also smaller Tor VLS that can fit where redut/uksk can't.

2 Pantsir will also add around 48 missiles.

Isos wrote:Aircraft can't be on station 24/7. And they can't be sent at the other side of the world easily.

They can't also protect sea routes if you need to or help your allies. For exemple syrian op would be impossible without the transport ships.

Yes but they don't need a lot of ships to send to the other side of the world, they only need 1-2 fully capable task forces.

For littoral waters or out to 1000 km they can use corvettes with drones, highly capable on their own with Kaliber and Tsirkon, as targeting platforms for Baston and airpower and Yassen, withering.

Imagine a corvette or 2 confronting a powerful western task force. With drones they can probably easily get 4-500 KM out. If the task force crosses a redline, targeting info is relayed via the corvette to subs, TU-22, KH-31 and SU-30. No ship can respond like airpower. The Corvette can keep its missiles for self defence while the calvery cleans up.

Yes but they don't need a lot of ships to send to the other side of the world, they only need 1-2 fully capable task forces.

If you want to have it 24/7 ready you need for each task force another 2 (1 training, 1 in maintenance).

If you don't you will be most of the time with no ships ready. That's why they have a need for 15 Gorshkov. It may sound a lot but it isn't. They will go half/half in North and Pacific which is 7 and 8. Then you will have 2-3 ready, 2-3 in training and the rest in maintenance and they will switch.

That"s quite low to show the flag in more than 1 place on earth at once.

Which is where Super-Gorshkov comes in

Super Gorshkov is a Destroyer at best... an enlarged Frigate really.

Slava and Kirov are cruisers...

Imagine a corvette or 2 confronting a powerful western task force.

The air defence capacity for the Corvettes is weak against more than one enemy ship or aircraft... you would never send out a single ship to do anything... not even a cruiser. Ships always work better together in groups integrating air defence and attack capacity.

Imagine a corvette or 2 confronting a powerful western task force. With drones they can probably easily get 4-500 KM out. If the task force crosses a redline, targeting info is relayed via the corvette to subs, TU-22, KH-31 and SU-30. No ship can respond like airpower. The Corvette can keep its missiles for self defence while the calvery cleans up.

Most of the time those corvettes will be doing normal patrol work and will never consider being a sitting duck spy looking for HATO ships and subs.

You have to get out of your head the idea that Russia needs to build up its fleet to confront and fight HATO and the US or China for that matter.

Russia has to build up its fleet to ensure its own access to international trade and to protect allies when needed.

That"s quite low to show the flag in more than 1 place on earth at once.

And if you want to send a group of ships somewhere then you take the guts out of the ships available in either port.

A lot of the work of the Corvettes and Frigates will be patrolling the North Sea Route...

A corvette might go with a destroyer to Pirate prone areas just to protect shipping...

Some might be doing exercises with allies anywhere in the world.

PapaDragon wrote:

I just wish they would release image already...

Charly has these pics on his blog, look quite close to what the actual ship would be........

That model has 15x8cell UKSKs totaling 120 offensive missiles alone, this thing makes even the modernised Orlan class look mild and the ticos a joke.

They had issues with weight for 3 rows of 12 cells for shtil on Grigorovitch class and had to go for only 2x12 instead.

I doubt they will put so many VLS. UKSK are heavier than shtil.

You can see on normal Gorshkov how far UKSK are spaced from one another.

Btw the ka-27 is 11.3m long. You can deduce this ship is way more than 220m.

From the picture it looks like each module has 4 cells, so it would be 60 uksk cells.in total.. it seems too many anyway.

From what i understand 22350M should have a very similar size and displacement as Udaloy Udaloy class,  around 163m and around 7500 tons full load.  

48 uksk cells should be a  more realistic amount, and as far as the redut, probably at least 48 as well

Basic 22350 has 16 (24 in the last 4 ships they laid down) UKSK cells and 32 redut cells.

Isos wrote:They had issues with weight for 3 rows of 12 cells for shtil on Grigorovitch class and had to go for only 2x12 instead.

I doubt they will put so many VLS. UKSK are heavier than shtil.

If the pindos can make destroyers with 120+ VLS cells then Russian designers should have no trouble creating a destroyer with 300+ VLS cells.

You can see on normal Gorshkov how far UKSK are spaced from one another.

They do not seem to be spaced very far apart to me.

They are more spaced than on US VLS. Even the redut is taking too much space than it should.

There's quite a lot of (surface) rust on that ship... more than i would have expected.

Big_Gazza wrote:There's quite a lot of (surface) rust on that ship... more than i would have expected.  

You can't say that is is surface rust.

All that you can say is there lot of rust visible on the surface : )

No one know that from the pictures if the rust affecting the internal components or not.

These missile tubes are deep so having a full width of three launch bins that take up the full wide of the deck might mean blocking access internally from the front and the rear of the ship down three four or five decks.

Having two launch bins means you can have a gap down the middle which makes internal access much better literally on so many levels...

They are more spaced than on US VLS.

The Russians seem to like having a 'crawlspace' around each unit for whatever inspection/maintenance they may need to do.

Its probably at least somewhat useful from a damage control point of view: aside from the question of access the extra gaps potentially makes less chance of any mis-fire/combat damage causing the whole magazine to detonate.

The limiting factor in how many cells can be fit on a given hull is almost always likely to be weight or $$$ though.

There's quite a lot of (surface) rust on that ship... more than i would have expected.

More than you would have expected from the '90s USN.

But its become the norm over the last 20 years of forever wars & power projection.
Constant forward deployment = high wear & tear, high crew turnover, deferred maintenance.
On top of that under-investment in shipyards + high workload from the increased wear & tear = they've got an increasing number of ships tied up for multiple years waiting on 'regular' maintenance work, from recollection they were up to something like 10yrs of backlog work to get back to '90s standard if they stopped all the forever war idiocy before covid.

hoom wrote:
But its become the norm over the last 20 years of forever wars & power projection.
Constant forward deployment = high wear & tear, high crew turnover, deferred maintenance.
On top of that under-investment in shipyards + high workload from the increased wear & tear = they've got an increasing number of ships tied up for multiple years waiting on 'regular' maintenance work, from recollection they were up to something like 10yrs of backlog work to get back to '90s standard if they stopped all the forever war idiocy before covid.

But they are building another new modernized Arleigh Burke. There are plans for 20 more ship. Mananother of the ships are quite young. AB's fleet of destroyers is impressive 68 units also heavily armed, which can function as ABM systems.

Arrow wrote:

hoom wrote:
But its become the norm over the last 20 years of forever wars & power projection.
Constant forward deployment = high wear & tear, high crew turnover, deferred maintenance.
On top of that under-investment in shipyards + high workload from the increased wear & tear = they've got an increasing number of ships tied up for multiple years waiting on 'regular' maintenance work, from recollection they were up to something like 10yrs of backlog work to get back to '90s standard if they stopped all the forever war idiocy before covid.

But they are building another new modernized Arleigh Burke. There are plans for 20 more ship. Mananother of the ships are quite young. AB's fleet of destroyers is impressive 68 units also heavily armed, which can function as ABM systems.

Building less ship than the ones reach retirement age.

Means everything stretched thin with overused ships, less ship than expected and so on.