Military Review

Russian Navy will receive three series of frigates of project 22350

131
Russian Navy will receive three series of frigates of project 22350

The Russian Navy will receive a total of three series of frigates based on project 22350. This was reported by Mil.Press FlotProm with reference to an informed source in the shipbuilding industry.


According to the source, in the first series the fleet will receive four frigates of the Admiral Gorshkov type with 16 universal vertical launch installations for missiles. Of these, the head "Admiral Gorshkov" in the Northern fleet, the first serial "Admiral Kasatonov" is preparing to join the Navy, two more are under construction.

The second series of frigates based on project 22350 with 24 vertical launch launchers will also consist of four frigates, two of which were laid last year, two more are planned to be laid in the near future.

And, finally, the third series will be made up of frigates of the modernized project 22350M with an increased displacement up to 8 thousand tons and 48 universal missile launchers. How many ships will be in the third series is not yet known, but we are talking about the construction of two to four modernized frigates.

The completion of the entire series of frigates based on project 22350 is planned in the early 2030s.

Meanwhile, it became known that the Northern PKB did not stop work on the development of frigates of project 22350M. Previously distributed information about the abolition of plans to create a ship is not true, said a senior naval source.

Now we are talking about the decision by the customer on the timing of the development of the technical project. The coordination of all documents and the subsequent allocation of funds takes some time. The situation is resolved in working order

- he said.
131 comment
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. CommanderDIVA
    CommanderDIVA 1 May 2020 16: 31 New
    -1
    It seems a logical solution, frigates of the second series with 24 UVP, on the stocks immediately re-profile under the third, with 48 UVP
    1. Sky strike fighter
      Sky strike fighter 1 May 2020 16: 33 New
      11
      Well, if only it will be so. Fish is said to be without fish and cancer. Work on the 22350M is already going well. Although 8000 tons, what kind of frigate is it? Destroyer. I wonder how things are going to develop domestic engines for the 22350M.
      Thus, the number of the first two series of ships of the project 22350 will be eight units.

      It is this figure (from 8 to 10 ships), according to the Commander-in-Chief of the Navy, Admiral Nikolai Evmenov, that is considered the lower threshold for serial production of modern corvettes and frigates. So he answered the question of the journalist of the publication about the needs of the fleet.

      It is planned to build another two to four ships according to project 22350M: this series, the third in a row, according to the source of the publication, will be smaller. Completion of the construction of all 12 frigates based on project 22350 is planned for the beginning-mid-2030s.

      https://flotprom.ru/2020/%D0%9E%D0%B1%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%BD%D0%BA%D0%B0100/
      1. Valery Valery
        Valery Valery 1 May 2020 16: 42 New
        -23
        The frigate is also a frigate, which is smaller in displacement of the destroyer.
        If you do not understand - do not write.
        1. Sky strike fighter
          Sky strike fighter 1 May 2020 16: 51 New
          22
          The destroyers of the British Daring and the American Arly Burke have a displacement of about 8000 tons, like the 22350M. What is the claim? Or do you think Daring and Arly Burke are not destroyers, but frigates? request
          1. Valery Valery
            Valery Valery 1 May 2020 17: 16 New
            -15
            Quote: Sky Strike fighter
            The destroyers of the British Daring and the American Arly Burke have a displacement of about 8000 tons, like the 22350M. What is the claim? Or do you think Daring and Arly Burke are not destroyers, but frigates? request

            Of course, destroyers, BUT from the frigate URO USA O.Kh. Perry - displacement of 4200, i.e. less than that of the destroyer.
            Learn mat.part.
            1. Sky strike fighter
              Sky strike fighter 1 May 2020 17: 27 New
              +9
              Well, what’s the claim then? I wrote about the 22350M, and not about the 22350. Quote.
              Work on the 22350M is already going well. Although 8000 tons, what kind of frigate is this? Destroyer.

              And you.
              Quote: Valery Valery
              The frigate is also a frigate, which is smaller in displacement of the destroyer.
              If you do not understand - do not write.


              And then.

              Quote: Valery Valery
              Quote: Sky Strike fighter
              The destroyers of the British Daring and the American Arly Burke have a displacement of about 8000 tons, like the 22350M. What is the claim? Or do you think Daring and Arly Burke are not destroyers, but frigates? request

              Of course, destroyers, BUT from the frigate URO USA O.Kh. Perry - displacement of 4200, i.e. less than that of the destroyer.
              Learn mat.part.

              request
              1. Valery Valery
                Valery Valery 1 May 2020 17: 34 New
                +1
                Perhaps you did not understand ..
                But it had to be like this: "This is ALREADY not a frigate, but a destroyer."
                And it turned out somehow derogatory. If it was wrong then sorry ...
                1. Sky strike fighter
                  Sky strike fighter 1 May 2020 17: 41 New
                  +1
                  Yes, everything is fine. good It seems that he did not write anything derogatory. what We drove through.
                2. Boa kaa
                  Boa kaa 1 May 2020 18: 56 New
                  +6
                  Quote: Valery Valery
                  "This is ALREADY not a frigate, but a destroyer."

                  Why argue?
                  Better look at the ship boards. They already write "multipurpose". Project 22350M "multipurpose frigate / ship" - and that's it!
                  And the classification, I am sure, will be soon corrected.
            2. Kathernik
              Kathernik 1 May 2020 18: 56 New
              -15
              - Nobody here understands you. All learn the mat. part. Classification takes place not by displacement, but by specialization. Frigates specialize in the fight against surface ships, mainly destroyers and URG frigates in the fight against submarines, and cruisers to strike communications.
              1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                Andrei from Chelyabinsk 1 May 2020 19: 23 New
                14
                Quote: Katernik
                Frigates specialize in the fight against surface ships, mainly destroyers and frigates of the URO in the fight against submarines

                Yeah. That's what the British destroyers are deprived of anti-submarine weapons, and, say, frigates like Linder - did not have anti-ship :)))
                Quote: Katernik
                and cruisers to strike communications

                I will not even ask which communications should have been struck by cruisers such as "Grozny" or "Ticonderoga". And how do you imagine the use of the Varyag missile defense system on enemy communications
                1. Kathernik
                  Kathernik 1 May 2020 19: 26 New
                  -4
                  - Initially, the specialization was just that. I read it in a book. Now the ships have become more versatile and new tasks have appeared, and the names have remained old.
                  1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                    Andrei from Chelyabinsk 1 May 2020 19: 37 New
                    12
                    Quote: Katernik
                    - Initially, the specialization was just that. I read it in a book.

                    Initially (if you do not take the sailing fleet, in which frigates acted as an analogue of cruisers), frigates were intended for convoy service, that is, for anti-aircraft defense / anti-aircraft defense of formations, and not in any way to fight ships. And the same applies to URO frigates - the same Oliver X Perry was supposed to cover convoys to Europe. Destroyers were originally intended to destroy surface ships, but the specialization of URO destroyers is already quite fortuitous. For example, the British Type 42 destroyers did not carry anti-ship missiles, and were intended primarily for air defense units of warships. The Americans made universal missile and artillery ships out of the Berks, but nevertheless considered them as a means of anti-aircraft missile defense / air defense of aircraft carriers. But our 956s retained their "anti-submarine" sharpening. Cruisers ... ours made of them a specialized means of destroying surface groupings of the enemy fleet, including AUG. In general ... who in what way.
                    1. Cympak
                      Cympak 2 May 2020 02: 12 New
                      0
                      8000 tons is the dimension of BOD pr.1155 and destroyers pr.956.
                      The 22350M project will surpass both types in terms of armaments, with the exception of artillery, which was 956 extremely powerful 2x2 130-mm guns
                      1. alexmach
                        alexmach 3 May 2020 20: 34 New
                        0
                        In terms of the armament complex, pr. 22350M will surpass both types, with the exception of artillery

                        and aviation :)
                2. Kathernik
                  Kathernik 1 May 2020 19: 51 New
                  0
                  Following your logic, a ship with a displacement less than the destroyer should be called a destroyer, and not a frigate at all. And then what is the difference between a URO frigate and a simple frigate? I would like to hear your authoritative opinion.
                  1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                    Andrei from Chelyabinsk 1 May 2020 20: 02 New
                    11
                    Quote: Katernik
                    Following your logic, a ship with a displacement less than the destroyer should be called a destroyer, and not a frigate at all.

                    Why? For example, in the second half of the 80s of the last century, destroyers of type 42 of the 1st and 2nd series with a total displacement of 4350 tons and frigates of type 23 with a total displacement of 4900 tons served in the KVMF;))))
                    Quote: Katernik
                    And then what is the difference between a URO frigate and a simple frigate?

                    The presence of guided missile weapons (URO) :))
                    Quote: Katernik
                    I would like to hear your authoritative opinion.

                    With your permission, the classification of warships is a very peculiar business. In different fleets, the same class of ships (for example, a destroyer) can refer to completely different ships that have different tasks. Well, the same Project 956 destroyer was intended to destroy surface ships, for which he was given supersonic Mosquitoes and to support the landing forces (!!) for which he had 2 turrets of 130-mm rapid-fire guns. And for the Berks, the destruction of NK was a purely auxiliary task, so, to finish shooting someone if he managed to penetrate through the deck aircraft. Subsequently, the United States stopped installing anti-ship missiles on them.
                    That is, it makes sense to consider the classification features only within the framework of the fleet of a particular country. But even there, the ship's belonging to a particular class may depend not only and not so much on the displacement or on the tasks to be solved, but on the traditions of this particular fleet ...
                    1. the most important
                      the most important 1 May 2020 23: 46 New
                      +1
                      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                      With your permission, the classification of warships is a very peculiar matter.

                      And what is your opinion on what should be the armament of a modern frigate, corvette, destroyer, cruiser in the Russian Navy? In my opinion, these should be universal ships and all of them should perfectly fight against enemy submarines, have a certain number of cruise missiles, in accordance with their displacement and an air defense system with long-range, medium, short-range intercept missiles as well, depending on the displacement. On the corvette, most likely, it is not necessary to put an analogue of the "Prometheus", but the analogue of the S-350 and "Pantsir" is necessary, and the number of air defense missiles should be significantly greater due to the increase in missiles for the "Pantsir". You can't run to a warehouse at sea to upgrade your ammunition.
              2. A009
                A009 1 May 2020 23: 15 New
                -1
                even I slammed a minus)
              3. Starshina
                Starshina 7 May 2020 20: 44 New
                0
                The ships are classified by rank; ships-1st; 2nd; 3rd; ranks
            3. avg
              avg 1 May 2020 21: 04 New
              +8
              Guys, the Japanese have destroyers for 19500 tons with a continuous runway up to 27 aircraft and they absolutely do not take a steam bath. So, at least call a pot. don't put it in the oven.
          2. Angry
            Angry 2 May 2020 13: 54 New
            +2
            Wrong article. Yes, the first subgroup of pr.22350 (16VPU) and the second pr.22350 (24VPU) are 1 kt more in terms of displacement - frigates. And pr.22350M is twice as much in terms of VI from the head one, this is already EM. And the project number there should be different. Type 22956. And 8 frigates, like quite a few .... they wanted 15 in my opinion? The eight frigates are only asking for the Pacific Fleet, and also for the Northern Fleet, and for the Black Sea Fleet at least a couple of those in return for those who have retired ... If they interrupt the series on 8 ships, it’s stupid. They still need as much, especially since the entire technological chain has been worked out, the construction time will be reduced, as well as their cost.
            1. Alex777
              Alex777 5 May 2020 18: 40 New
              0
              2 22350, which should be pledged in the near future, will go to the Black Sea Fleet.
              2 last year's at the Pacific Fleet. All with 3 UKKS. hi
              Of the 2 UDCs that should be pledged this year along with 22350, one will remain at the Black Sea Fleet, one will go to the Pacific Fleet.
        2. tihonmarine
          tihonmarine 1 May 2020 17: 05 New
          -1
          Quote: Valery Valery

          The frigate is also a frigate, which is smaller in displacement of the destroyer.

          Well, something like that, the categories are different.
        3. Sky strike fighter
          Sky strike fighter 1 May 2020 17: 05 New
          0
          Quote: Valery Valery
          The frigate is also a frigate, which is smaller in displacement of the destroyer.
          If you do not understand - do not write.


          Here you have the displacement of the destroyer Arly Burke.
          In addition to military successes and an interesting design, the Orly Burke destroyers are, in some ways, champions in the US Navy. The fact is that with a total displacement of about 8500 tons (series I), 9000 tons (series II) and 9650 (series IIA), the Orly Burke is the most massive American warship with a displacement of more than five thousand tons.

          https://topwar.ru/12154-esmincy-arli-berk-rekordsmeny-s-raketnym-vooruzheniem.html

          But the displacement of 22350M.
          the third series will comprise frigates of the modernized project 22350M with an increased displacement up to 8 thousand tons and 48 universal missile launchers.
          1. Doctor
            Doctor 1 May 2020 18: 05 New
            +4
            Here you have the displacement of the destroyer Arly Burke.

            Americans trendsetters. Burke 9000 destroyer. Perry 4200 frigate. Fletcher 2300 is also a destroyer.
            These classifications, depending on the displacement, have already lost their meaning.
            1. dvina71
              dvina71 1 May 2020 21: 59 New
              -1
              Quote: Arzt
              Burke 9000 destroyer.

              No ... not a destroyer ..
              in the original he is the Arleigh Burke class destroyer
              Fletcher too ... Destro.
              But Tikanderog already .. Ticonderoga-class of guided-missile cruisers .. nifiga not a cruiser ..
              This is what I am .. the argument is useless. Americans don’t know that Burke is a destroyer, and Tikanderog cruiser .. and they will be very surprised when they find out ..
              1. alexmach
                alexmach 1 May 2020 23: 52 New
                +2
                So the destroyer is in their opinion and is the destroyer.
                1. dvina71
                  dvina71 2 May 2020 00: 05 New
                  0
                  Quote: alexmach
                  So the destroyer is in their opinion and is the destroyer.

                  No .. the destructor is the destructor .. the destroyer is literally.
                  Destroyer - destroyer .. Do you feel the difference?
                  1. +5
                    +5 2 May 2020 09: 14 New
                    0
                    At the end of the 19th century destroyers appeared, tons of 600,800 which carried ... torpedoes. To combat them, they came up with destructors, those fighters that are the same destroyer, but a little bigger and more powerful. Then they grew further for action as part of the squadrons ... We were called them destroyers, and in the west they continued to call destroyers ... Therefore, there’s no difference
              2. +5
                +5 2 May 2020 09: 17 New
                0
                And Ksenia Andreevna, like, not Ksenia?
                How do you think the original Russian word cruiser is translated into the anti-Mongolian mov? And how do they translate from their mova into the language of birch cruiser?
            2. venik
              venik 1 May 2020 23: 57 New
              0
              Quote: Arzt
              These classifications, depending on the displacement, have already lost their meaning.

              ======
              Sorry, Yuri! I did not get to your comment, so I got in with "my 5 kopecks"! good drinks
        4. venik
          venik 1 May 2020 23: 55 New
          0
          Quote: Valery Valery
          The frigate is also a frigate, which is smaller in displacement of the destroyer.

          ======
          Are you sure? In fact, even today you can find "destroyers", less in displacement than frigates! Here the question is national classification systems. Alas, it is!
        5. TermNachTer
          TermNachTer 2 May 2020 08: 23 New
          +2
          In fact, the destroyer is a purely Russian definition of ships of this type. Anglo-Saxons themselves call this type of ship Destroters, i.e. - the destroyer. So everything is very relative
      2. venik
        venik 1 May 2020 23: 49 New
        0
        Quote: Sky Strike fighter
        Although 8000 tons, what kind of frigate is it? Destroyer.

        ========
        Maxim! What difference does it make in FIG as classify it? As for me, even if only corvette they’ll call him!
        What, from that him combat power will decrease? Or purpose how will that change?
        Vaughn "Kuzyu" was called a "heavy aircraft-carrying cruiser" .... So what? He from this aircraft carrier to be stopped? These are all semantic delights - and NO MORE!
    2. Cyril G ...
      Cyril G ... 1 May 2020 17: 41 New
      +2
      No. If according to rumors one more UCCS was pushed simply by compacting the layout, then with an increase in the number of UCCs to 6 (6x8 = 48), a new project is already required and what is worse is the development of a new GEM.
      1. Sky strike fighter
        Sky strike fighter 1 May 2020 18: 00 New
        +1
        Is a diesel engine with 8000 hp needed for the 22350M, as I understand it? Well, a completely new gas turbine or is it possible to create something suitable on the basis of the M90FR?
        1. Cyril G ...
          Cyril G ... 2 May 2020 00: 40 New
          0
          I repeat I need a new GEM
          1. Cympak
            Cympak 2 May 2020 02: 14 New
            0
            There will be a fully gas turbine ship on existing gas turbine engines
        2. venik
          venik 2 May 2020 00: 44 New
          0
          Quote: Sky Strike fighter
          Is a diesel engine with 8000 hp needed for the 22350M, as I understand it? Well, a completely new gas turbine or is it possible to create something suitable on the basis of the M90FR?

          =======
          Or maybe they just put one additional diesel engine and one additional turbine? That's just what will come out! Moreover, with the inevitable increase in size, just the place will appear, and the displacement / power ratio will just remain .....
          I don’t know, of course, HOW the designers will act, but I’m ready to bet on the EXACTLY SUCH decision!
          1. alexmach
            alexmach 3 May 2020 00: 18 New
            +1
            Well let's bet. I am for an assembly of two gas turbines. Especially with an increase in displacement and a place for additional fuel will appear.
            1. venik
              venik 3 May 2020 10: 54 New
              +1
              Quote: alexmach
              Well let's bet. I am for an assembly of two gas turbines. Especially with an increase in displacement and a place for additional fuel will appear.

              ========
              I am for! Let's get a look! Himself - interesting!
      2. alexmach
        alexmach 1 May 2020 19: 56 New
        +1
        and what’s worst is the development of a new GEM.

        That just might not be so bad.
    3. smart ass
      smart ass 1 May 2020 17: 56 New
      +1
      Well guys 16 cells it's not serious
      1. Boratsagdiev
        Boratsagdiev 1 May 2020 18: 48 New
        0
        Well, apparently to make a "sidebar" and just add something else (without changing the project) only in the submarine fleet. Though strange and sad.
        1. venik
          venik 1 May 2020 23: 37 New
          +2
          Quote: BoratSagdiev
          Well, apparently to make a "sidebar" and just add something else (without changing the project) only in the submarine fleet.

          ========
          good Absolutely right! The submarine does not experience such storm loads, as a surface ship (a bit, that went to the depth and that’s all), although there are problems there too ...
          But there are not so many cases of successful "insertion" in surface ships. In the USSR Navy I know only one - project 1164-B, but even there it was only "inserts" - it was not enough, in comparison with 1164-A, I had to increase the width, and make a serious rearrangement of the hull ..... But, nevertheless less, the project turned out successful!
      2. Boa kaa
        Boa kaa 1 May 2020 19: 04 New
        +4
        Quote: Clever man
        Well guys 16 cells it's not serious

        Well, why not seriously? Not everyone can attack. Someone needs to protect the warehouse.
        An anti-ship missile will be stuck in 4 holes, and 12-5 missiles will be loaded into the remaining 6 holes and will be guarded by 1144.2, or the same 1143.5 will be guarded as part of a warrant. Or put forward to the missile-hazardous direction. Also work is necessary. Because KRLD he is always "nuzhon". Here they will put the heart.
        AHA.
      3. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
        Andrei from Chelyabinsk 1 May 2020 19: 25 New
        +7
        Name the frigate capable of carrying 16 anti-ship missiles or PLUR please.
        1. Alexandra
          Alexandra 1 May 2020 22: 22 New
          +1
          Easier to show:



          1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
            Andrei from Chelyabinsk 1 May 2020 22: 43 New
            +7
            Quote: AlexanderA
            Easier to show

            And what did you show? A non-existent ship (concept) equipped with 16 launchers for light anti-ship missiles NSM, where PLUR can not be thrust in principle. Is it equal to 22350 with its 16 long-range anti-ship missiles or PLUR?
            1. Liam
              Liam 1 May 2020 23: 02 New
              +3
              Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
              Nonexistent ship

              On April 30, 2020, the U.S. Navy announced that it had chosen the American shipbuilding association Fincantieri, the American shipbuilding company Marinette Marine Corporation (MMC) in Marinette (Wisconsin), as a designer and builder of promising frigates for the US Navy under the FFG (X) program.

              Frigates of the FFG (X) type should be equipped with the new derivation of the AEGIS integrated multi-functional weapon system of the Baseline Ten (BL10) variant with the new Raytheon AN / SPY-6 (V) 3 Enterprise Air Surveillance Radar (EASR) multi-functional radar with three stationary antennas with AFAR and ASBU COMBATSS-21.

              The armament will comprise a 32-charge universal vertical launcher Mk 41 (with SAM Standard SM-2 Block IIIC, Standard SM-6 ERAM and ESSM Block 2), eight or 16 anti-ship missile launchers (apparently NSM), one or two 21 self-defense launchers Mk 49 SAM self-defense RAM Block 2, 57-mm universal artillery mount Mk 110, 324-mm torpedo tubes. In the hangar, the Sikorsky MH-60R Seahawk anti-submarine helicopter and the Northrop Grumman MQ-8C Firescout unmanned helicopters should be permanently based.

              Fincantieri-owned MMC received a $ 795,116 million (fiscal 2020 budget) contract for Detail Design and Construction (DD&C) for the U.S. Navy's lead frigate FFG 80 under the FFG (X) program, with an option to build more nine frigates. With the implementation of the option, the value of the contract will reach 5,5761 billion dollars.The implementation of the entire contract with the construction of all 10 frigates, taking into account the options, should be completed by May 2035
              1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                Andrei from Chelyabinsk 2 May 2020 09: 17 New
                0
                Quote: Liam
                The armament will be a 32-charge universal vertical launcher Mk 41

                The Project 22350 frigate has a 32-round Redoubt. Not as powerful missiles as the Mk41, but with a range of up to 150 km. It's enough for a frigate. Many experts consider the British destroyers Type 45 to be the best air defense ships in the world, although they only have Aster 30 with its 120 km range.
                Quote: Liam
                eight or 16 anti-ship missile launchers (apparently NSM)

                Against 16 calibers, onyx or zircons. Not okay.
                Quote: Liam
                one or two 21-charge launchers of Mk 49 SAM self-defense RAM Block 2

                AGAINST 2 ZRAK "Broadsword". The Russian version is at least not worse.
                Quote: Liam
                57 mm universal artillery mount Mk 110

                The 130 mm 22350 is significantly more versatile. From the American one can only fight back and shoot oneself, and from ours one can shoot down a damaged ship, if that.
                Quote: Liam
                324 mm torpedo tubes.

                The package will have the advantage of having anti-torpedoes.
                Total - the armament of frigate 22350 (which is) looks very interesting than the American frigate (which is not).
                And what was your post?
                1. Liam
                  Liam 2 May 2020 20: 25 New
                  -3
                  Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                  (which is not).

                  A person who knows, is aware that the FFG (X) project that Italians will now build for the USA is not some kind of non-existent ship that will not be known when it will be. It is a modified long-term built large FREMM series. Which has real gas turbines, real radars, real AEGIS, real firing anti-ship missiles and missiles. And not mythical Zircons, antediluvian broadswords, unfinished Reduts and nonexistent gas turbines.
                  However, it is difficult to expect anything else from you)
                  1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                    Andrei from Chelyabinsk 2 May 2020 21: 00 New
                    +3
                    Quote: Liam
                    A man who knows, is aware that the FFG (X) project that Italians will now build for the United States is not some kind of non-existent ship that is unknown when it will be.

                    This is a ship that is not there. Physically, no :))) When it is, then we’ll talk: you see, it often happens that a real ship doesn’t get a lot of what they planned to put on it. For example - LCS, Zamvolt.
                    Quote: Liam
                    And not mythical Zircons, antediluvian broadswords, unfinished Redoubts

                    (yawn) The redoubt has long been completed, the Americans can only envy the Broadsword, and the Caliber, armed with 22350, leaves behind practically all the missile weapons of the USA and the West, except for LRASM, but it, again, has not been delivered yet.
                    Quote: Liam
                    However, it is difficult to expect anything else from you)

                    Yes, I am objective, as usual. But it’s funny to watch how the Western apologist makes the classic mistake of the Russian cheer patriot: he praises a weapon that doesn’t have any analogue in the world, which does not yet exist. And yes, essentially you, as always, could not argue
                    1. Liam
                      Liam 2 May 2020 23: 22 New
                      -4
                      You should be careful .. but you risk numerous injuries from uncontrolled hypersonic caps with which you throw NATO fleets)
                      Let me remind you, just in case, that in real life (and not in your fantasies) all that "is" is -1 (one) Admiral Gorshkov, who has been a poor fellow for 15 years already puffing from one repair to another and from one shame to another with shipboard tests systems and weapons, and it will soon be written off)
                      1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                        Andrei from Chelyabinsk 2 May 2020 23: 57 New
                        +3
                        Quote: Liam
                        Let me remind you, just in case, that in real life (and not in your fantasies) all that "is" is -1 (one) Admiral Gorshkov who has been puffing from one repair to another for 15 years

                        Have you ever read about this frigate on the wiki. I don’t expect more from you. Gorshkov joined the fleet in 2018, how could he repair for 15 years? :)))
                      2. Liam
                        Liam 3 May 2020 00: 23 New
                        -2
                        )). The ship was laid down 14 years ago in 2006. So everything is right, it's the 15th year of his career. At the moment, again in the next repair. 4th or 5th already. In service, adopted in 2018, 12 years after the bookmark. The truth was adopted from hopelessness without Redoubt. When was Poliment Redoubt taken into service?)
                      3. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                        Andrei from Chelyabinsk 3 May 2020 01: 22 New
                        +3
                        Quote: Liam
                        The ship was laid down 14 years ago in 2006. So everything is right, the 15th year of his career is on.

                        And all these years, the frigate, while under construction, did not get out of repairs :)))) Isn't it funny to yourself?
                        Quote: Liam
                        When was Poliment Redoubt adopted?)

                        The successful completion of state tests was reported back in February 2019 :))))
                      4. Liam
                        Liam 3 May 2020 11: 47 New
                        -2
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        under construction, did not get out of repairs :))))

                        You begin to climb the walls). Although, Russian shipbuilders are not capable of this. Suffice it to be unhappy Gren to recall). For whatever they take it, it’s always an epic and soap opera.

                        According to the plan, the frigate was supposed to enter service in 2012 [4] ....
                        However, the plans of the Commander-in-Chief of the Russian Navy in 2012 to conduct state tests of the latest frigate Admiral Gorshkov were frustrated. The military department said that the frigate "is not yet ready for sea trials" ....
                        The next delay in sea trials is related to the unavailability of the A-192M "Armat" artillery mount ...

                        In January 2015, it became known that the frigate’s engine burned out due to a malfunction of the control system during the first stage of sea trials [11] ...
                        In July 2016, the media reported that, due to the failure of the state defense order by the Almaz-Antey concern on the project of the Poliment-Redut anti-aircraft missile system, designed to equip project 20380 corvettes and 22350 frigates, the deadline for the delivery of the frigate Admiral Gorshkov was threatened "By November 2016 ...

                        On November 1, the RIA Novosti news agency reported that the frigate had completed state trials and would be subject to revision of all mechanisms and systems .....

                        The frigate Admiral Gorshkov went for repairs to a base in the White Sea
                        15:00, April 2, 2020 | Murmansk region ...

                        Incomplete list if that)

                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        The successful completion of state tests was reported back in February 2019 :))))

                        Only after 16 years of the official start of the project, 13 after the start of construction and 9 years after launching))

                        Messages and announcements of Russian shipbuilders are a separate genre of literary creativity. But I'm not talking about promises, I'm talking about documents. When Polyment Redut accepted in service?)
                      5. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                        Andrei from Chelyabinsk 3 May 2020 12: 05 New
                        +3
                        Quote: Liam
                        Incomplete list if that)

                        Uh-huh. The ship was really built for a very long time, but what can you do - the collapse of the 90s and scanty funding in 2000-2010 were not in vain. But here's the bad luck - "Gorshkov", despite all the twists and turns, is still in the fleet. FFG X - no. What to talk about?:)))
                        You are diligently (but not seriously, in the style of "yourself stupid") trying to divert the conversation aside. You are comparing the American frigate, which does not exist, with the Russian one, which is, which is deeply mistaken. You write that Gorshkov took a long time to build. Yes, long and painful. But the United States at this time was building its own LCS, which in theory should have become wonderful ships, but in practice turned out to be stupid freaks. As a result, with a huge delay, the US Navy was forced to return to the concept of a classic frigate. At the same time, it is not known what they will succeed, because the latest US shipbuilding programs have a very dubious effectiveness. Here is the arch-dear Ford, whom they have not been able to bring to mind for many years, and Zamvolt, who, instead of the destroyer of the future, turned out to be an extremely stupid handicraft, and LCS ...
                        Therefore, the fact that the Americans showed a beautiful picture of the frigate does not guarantee its appearance at all - such as in the picture.
                        Quote: Liam
                        But I'm not talking about promises, I'm talking about documents.

                        What do I need to provide you with a scan of the document? :))) The complex has passed, what else is needed?
                        Quote: Liam
                        Messages and announcements of Russian shipbuilders

                        This was announced by the Commander-in-Chief of the Navy, if that :))))
                      6. Nosgoth
                        Nosgoth 6 May 2020 10: 53 New
                        0
                        But I still wonder why you persistently ignore the question:
                        "Is Polyment Redoubt adopted?)"

                        Of course, I am a patriot and always happy with the achievements of my country, but I am a realist and I don’t have any illusions (capricious), I am interested in facts (what is the situation in reality, and not in slogans), or the argument for their absence.
                      7. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                        Andrei from Chelyabinsk 6 May 2020 13: 13 New
                        +1
                        Quote: Nosgoth
                        But I still wonder why you persistently ignore the question:
                        "Is Polyment Redoubt adopted?)"

                        I answer again - "Polyment-Redut" has completed state tests, the commander-in-chief of the Navy reported about it. Whether it was adopted or not is unknown to me.
                        Quote: Nosgoth
                        I am interested in facts (what is the situation in reality, and not in slogans), or the argument for their absence.

                        The facts are that, for example, the state tests of the Su-35S were completed in 2019, when 60 such aircraft were already received by the aerospace forces and they were in full operation. And they adopted it back in 2017 :)))
                      8. Vladimir Rostovsky
                        Vladimir Rostovsky 6 May 2020 21: 47 New
                        -1
                        Andrey, such Andrey ...
                        O. - Andrey's opponent
                        A. - actually so clear

                        O. - When was Poliment Redoubt adopted?
                        A. - The successful completion of state tests was reported back in February 2019)))
                        O. - So is it adopted or not?
                        A. - Alas, I do not have such information, but ... blah, blah, blah.
                        O. - Gorshkov is already year after year, puffing from one repair to another.
                        A. - How does he not get out of repairs? He joined the fleet only in 2018, at least read the wiki about this frigate)))
                        O. - Well, it was launched in 2010 and could not be adopted for 8 years, it was constantly being completed and repaired.
                        A. - There was a difficult economic situation, but with the Americans, but in Ukraine it was so ... blah, blah, blah.
                        It may be worth introducing progressive taxation, as in many developed countries, and put corruption for 20 years without parole, with confiscation of all property - you look and the money would be found on the ships, oh yes, what am I talking about (
                      9. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                        Andrei from Chelyabinsk 7 May 2020 01: 29 New
                        +2
                        Quote: Vladimir Rostovsky
                        O. - When was Poliment Redoubt adopted?
                        A. - The successful completion of state tests was reported back in February 2019)))
                        O. - So is it adopted or not?
                        A. - Alas, I do not have such information

                        And what is incomprehensible?
                        Quote: Vladimir Rostovsky
                        A. - How does he not get out of repairs? He joined the fleet only in 2018, at least read the wiki about this frigate)))
                        O. - Well, it was launched in 2010 and could not be adopted for 8 years

                        So all the same, it doesn’t come out of repairs, or couldn’t it be adopted? :)
                        Quote: Vladimir Rostovsky
                        but in Ukraine it’s so ... blah, blah, blah.

                        Blah blah blah do you. Will there be any objections to the substance of the questions raised?
  • Cympak
    Cympak 2 May 2020 02: 16 New
    +2
    FFG (X) must have 32 Mk41 cells as required. You can put 4 ESSMs or 1 SM-2/6, 1 tomahawk or 1 ASROC PLUR in each
    1. +5
      +5 2 May 2020 09: 28 New
      0
      And they are definitely long, what axes will climb?
  • Alexandra
    Alexandra 2 May 2020 20: 11 New
    +1
    Those. the question is no longer about a frigate with 16 RCC or PLUR, but about a frigate with 16 long-range RCC or PLUR?

    South Korean KDX-II will suit you? Or will you object based on the fact that the ship with a total displacement of 5520 tons is listed in the native Navy as a destroyer, and that the anti-ship version of the Hyunmoo III CRBM does not exist?

    For the second point, then let it be 24 "or PLUR" Hong Sang Eo.
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      Andrei from Chelyabinsk 2 May 2020 21: 16 New
      +2
      Quote: AlexanderA
      Those. the question is no longer about a frigate with 16 RCC or PLUR, but about a frigate with 16 long-range RCC or PLUR?

      Why so? I asked to indicate a frigate capable of carrying RCC or PLUR. They showed me FFG (X), which is not there. And that is all. So, as we see, 16 PLURs or RCCs are very serious and a statement
      Quote: Clever man
      Well guys 16 cells it's not serious

      not true.
      Quote: AlexanderA
      South Korean KDX-II will suit you?

      Quite. Perhaps today it is the most armed ship of such a displacement. But even 22350 is clearly overloaded with weapons, and THIS .... Not for nothing that the KDX-2A project provided for an increase in displacement of up to 7500 tons.
      Quote: AlexanderA
      The Americans chose the wrong project.

      If you put 8 on a ship that can be armed with 10 guns, only 6 will work. So the Americans didn’t make a mistake
      1. Alexandra
        Alexandra 2 May 2020 22: 35 New
        0
        I asked to indicate a frigate capable of carrying RCC or PLUR.

        But then they specified that the anti-ship missiles should be long-range, which sharply reduced the number of options. You are obviously not happy with the frigate simply with the 16th RCC? :)

        Perhaps today it is the most armed ship of such a displacement. But even 22350 is clearly overloaded with weapons, and THIS

        They also have the KDX-III the most armed in the class of real destroyers. And the Jews, for example, are completing the Saar 6, the most armed in the class of corvettes. Those who in reality are preparing for a war with an adversary, strong in his opinion, "overload" their ships with weapons.
        If you put 8 on a ship that can be armed with 10 guns, only 6 will work. So the Americans didn’t make a mistake

        "... Only 2 heavy cruisers, Exeter and Houston, could respond to enemy fire. These cruisers had only 12 heavy guns, while 2 Japanese heavy cruisers had 20 such guns ..." - the outcome is known ...
        But we have been living for a long time in an era when the outcome is decided not by the quantity and quality of gun barrels, but by missiles. At the end of the Cold War, the Americans understood this:

        But after the "victory in the Cold War," they relaxed and still have not gathered. Apparently they won't get together.
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          Andrei from Chelyabinsk 3 May 2020 00: 01 New
          +2
          Quote: AlexanderA
          But then they specified that the anti-ship missiles should be long-range, which sharply reduced the number of options. You are obviously not happy with the frigate simply with the 16th RCC? :)

          Alexander, do you argue with anyone at all? :))) And what are you trying to prove?
          Quote: AlexanderA
          "... Only 2 heavy cruisers, Exeter and Houston, could respond to enemy fire. These cruisers had only 12 heavy guns, while 2 Japanese heavy cruisers had 20 such guns ..." - the outcome is known ...

          Exeter, as you know, had a standard displacement of the order of 8500 tons, and carried 6 203 mm guns, and Meco-type cruisers had 12 300 tons and 10 203 mm guns. So the example is incorrect - ships of not equal size fought.
          Quote: AlexanderA
          But we have long been living in an era when the outcome is not decided by the quantity and quality of the gun barrels, but by missiles.

          Absolutely wrong. In the years of WWII, it was decided by the OMS, nowadays aviation decides.
          1. Alexandra
            Alexandra 3 May 2020 01: 20 New
            +2
            Andrey, I don’t argue. I just responded to your proposal to name a frigate capable of carrying 16 anti-ship missiles or PLUR. After such a frigate was named, additional conditions surfaced, and an assessment was made for some of these ships "clearly overloaded with weapons."

            Actually: "You can't be too rich and too armed" (C) - especially in the rocket age.

            We can recall cases, at least from 1973, when one of the sides ran out of missiles. But can you remember the cases when the congestion with rocket weapons came out sideways? Even cruisers of the "Ticonderoga" class, the stability of which in the event of the flooding of the Mk.41 UVP, was critically reduced, it never came out sideways. But the underload of Zumvalt-type EM missiles practically buried them. The US military-industrial complex gave birth to three freaks, whom the US Navy now does not know how to use. But you could get good missile cruisers with at least 160 missile cells in the Mk.41 UVP modules, instead of 80 cells in the Mk.57 UVP modules.

            Our frigates of project 22350 were also initially under-equipped. Well, they’re trying to fix it on the next ones in the series.
            1. alexmach
              alexmach 3 May 2020 11: 17 New
              0
              Our frigates of project 22350 were also initially under-equipped. Well, they’re trying to fix it on the next ones in the series.

              Well, how can I say, Against the backdrop of 11356 they looked quite powerful, and if you recall 16 anti-ship missiles on Soviet missile cruisers. On the account that 24 is better than 16, in my opinion, no one was going to argue on the site, but as for me, the key for these ships should not be the number of anti-ship missiles but the number of ships themselves. They need as much as possible
            2. Alexandra
              Alexandra 4 May 2020 16: 56 New
              +1
              It was some kind of tracing paper from a completely modern Western approach, only even worse. On the same LPD-17, FREMM or "Fridtjof Nansen", during the design, space was allocated for additional UVP modules, but those were not installed. And at Gorshkov we didn't even have a place reserved, we had to change the project. What could be "save" there by reducing the number of UVP modules, I honestly do not understand.
          2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
            Andrei from Chelyabinsk 3 May 2020 11: 51 New
            +4
            Quote: AlexanderA
            Andrew, I do not argue. I simply responded to your offer to name a frigate capable of carrying 16 anti-ship missiles or PLUR. After such a frigate was named, additional conditions surfaced

            You understood me wrong. I discussed the sufficiency / insufficiency of the UKKS for 16 cells for a frigate class ship. As for me, this is more than enough for a frigate, so I asked my opponent to illustrate the thesis of the insufficiency of 16 RCC or PLUR. And it turned out that those frigates of other countries that have 16 anti-ship missiles are, firstly, few in number, and secondly, unlike Gorshkov, carry light anti-ship missiles, into the mines of which you will put PLUR.
            Quote: AlexanderA
            Actually: "You can't be too rich and too armed" (C) - especially in the rocket age.

            Very much even possible. Suffice it to recall the same Japanese ships of the interwar period - "Tomozuru" turned into a storm due to overload with weapons, after which the Japanese had to rebuild their newest ships (including the TKR). , with whom the British toiled throughout the war, since they turned out to be extremely unreliable technically and were constantly out of order, including in battle.
            A warship is a combination of many qualities, and not just weapons. And excessive enthusiasm for weapons leads to the fact that other important characteristics (structural strength, range, etc.) are sacrificed to additional ammunition.
            Quote: AlexanderA
            But the underload of Zumvalt-type EM missile weapons practically buried them.

            Zumwalt was not buried at all with disarmament.
            Quote: AlexanderA
            Our frigates of project 22350 were also initially under-equipped. Well, they’re trying to fix it on the next ones in the series.

            Our project 22350 frigates are an attempt to push the destroyer's weapons into the frigate's displacement. For the frigate, he is rearmament, for the destroyer - underarmed. That is why in the future, the project 22350M provides for growth in displacement and armament, that is, access to a normal destroyer.
          3. Alexandra
            Alexandra 4 May 2020 18: 12 New
            0
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            You understood me wrong. I discussed the sufficiency / insufficiency of the UKKS for 16 cells for a frigate class ship.

            Apparently I misunderstood you. The Navy today believes that the FR of pr. 22350 is not sufficiently armed. And if we compare it with the same Italian FREMMs (which look more decent than the French ones), because they have reserved space for the Sylver A70 UVP modules, but they are not corny installed. On avenue 22350 even the place was not reserved. To install an additional UKSK module, you need to modify the project. Who turned out to be wiser in this situation: the Koreans, who immediately installed the K-VLS UVP on 24 strike missiles on the KDX-II, the Italians, who reserved a place for the Sylver A70, but did not supply, or our customers with the designers just now "suddenly realized" that two modules UKSK "will not be enough"? My opinion is ours. For the modification of the project, they will receive more money from the state than they could have received if the place for the third module of the UKSK had been reserved immediately. "Nothing personal, just business" (C)

            According to modern and historical examples ...

            The Italians insert the MILAS PLUR exactly there, in the inclined PU for the "light" Otomat anti-ship missiles. It's just that such a thing as PLUR for European fleets is exotic.

            With the beginning of World War II, all the warring parties quickly realized that the existing warships were greatly under-equipped with anti-aircraft artillery, and, to the best of their strength and abilities, they began to shove additional anti-aircraft guns on the ships (and before the war, oddly enough, they did not guess about the anti-aircraft under-arms of ships, there were no prophets in the fatherland ), including damage to stability. I have already mentioned the potential, but never manifested damage to stability from overloading the "Ticonderogo" with two UVPs for 61 cells each. About the fact that the bet on cracked aluminum in their superstructures has gone sideways, I remember only now (and if it were not for the overload of missiles, the superstructures of these cruisers could have been made of steel).

            The problematic four-gun turrets of the battleships "King George V", the point is in the specific implementation. The French got four-gun turrets.

            Summing up examples and counterexamples. A battleship is of course a combination of many qualities, not just weapons. But are you ready to point out what qualities of the KDX-II and KDX-III suffered from their record-breaking armament? And what qualities will suffer from the record-breaking Saar 6 corvettes developed on the basis of much less armed corvettes of the Braunschweig type? But let's say the Saar 5 corvettes, they were also initially terribly armed for its displacement. Probably some qualities suffered? But which ones?

            Or maybe it's not KDX-II "overloaded with weapons", but all these FREMMs, yes "Fridtjof Nansens" with "Baden-Württemberg", on which space for additional weapons is reserved in the project, but it is not installed, corny under-armed?

            How can one generally determine which ship of a given class is "under-armed" (if a space for additional weapons is allocated in the project, but it is not established, then logic dictates that the ship is under-armed), and which one is "rearmed"?

            Let's say why, in your opinion, 24 cells of the UKSK are too many for a frigate? (Koreans obeyed you and classified them as KDX-II with 24 cells in K-VLS, plus 8 Harpoon anti-ship missiles in inclined launchers, like destroyers)
  • +5
    +5 2 May 2020 09: 26 New
    0
    This is a drawing for ovs based on FREMM of 5800 tons, it is also increased from 137 to 148 meters, those are 6500 standard, but in the source of armament it is much less .... A Pot of 4500 tons. Well, the price of lard bucks ... and this is only the voice acting before construction.
    1. Alexandra
      Alexandra 2 May 2020 20: 38 New
      0
      The full displacement of the "Pot" is 5400 tons. And 4500 tons is normal.
      The South Korean KDX-II has a total displacement of 5520 tons - and its armaments are: the Mk.41 ATR for 32 SM-2 Block IIIA missiles, the K-VLS ATR for 24 Hong Sang Eo missiles or Hyunmoo III, 8 Harpoon anti-ship missiles in inclined launchers, PU with 21 ready-to-fire SAM Block RAM I (and how much more spare), 127 mm AC Mk-45 Mod 4, 30 mm ZAK Goalkeeper, two Super Lynx helicopters. Yes, I forgot about TA 324 mm.
      The Americans chose the wrong project.
      1. +5
        +5 3 May 2020 09: 32 New
        0
        I VI indicated in comparable forms, those are everywhere standard.
        All Soviet ships, according to Western concepts, were rearmed.
        Koreans certainly wrote from the heart, in our opinion ...
        1. Alexandra
          Alexandra 4 May 2020 16: 49 New
          +1
          Western Naval Forces, they are ... there is now a standard approach, to leave space for an additional UVP, and not mount it. FREMM is also observed. If space for armament is allocated, but it is partially not established - according to "universal" concepts, the ship is under-armed. But yes, often even our people are guided by Western concepts.
          1. +5
            +5 4 May 2020 17: 10 New
            0
            No need to produce superfluous entities and come up with conspiracy theories for the usual lack of money. AMEROFREMM is quite normal (except for the absence of suitable anti-ship missiles in principle in the West) armed ... Already in comparison with the LCS toothless so the Death Star is direct
            1. Alexandra
              Alexandra 4 May 2020 18: 29 New
              +1
              It was about EuroFREMMs with under-installed UVPs. And 57 mm "fart" on the future AmeroFREMMe is still not normal.
              1. +5
                +5 4 May 2020 19: 14 New
                +1
                Ahhh .. Yes, with weapons they are not so hot.
                The AU on modern ships is like a bayonet-knife for an assault rifle, Schaub bulo ...... Although the 57 mm Monsoon in 88 seems to have gotten into training Termite beautifully (after being defeated by 2 Wasps), but this did not help ...
  • The comment was deleted.
  • 210ox
    210ox 1 May 2020 18: 03 New
    +2
    I understand that while there will be designing the third series and the second will be completed. Nevertheless, these are already different ships. Both in terms of armament and displacement.
    1. Boa kaa
      Boa kaa 1 May 2020 19: 06 New
      +2
      Quote: 210ox
      I understand that while there will be designing the third series and the second will be completed.

      Dmitry, you think well of our hands!
      According to the plan, they only submit a technical project by 2022 for consideration ...
      And you - "will build!"
      Oh, Morozova ....
  • Amin_vivec
    Amin_vivec 1 May 2020 22: 19 New
    +3
    restructuring and redevelopment leads to long-term construction. Russian shipbuilding suffers greatly from this when they suddenly decide to "improve" the almost completed ship. No need to turn into the Americans who designed the Bradley BMP.
  • venik
    venik 1 May 2020 22: 59 New
    +1
    Quote: CommanderDIVA
    It seems a logical solution, frigates of the second series with 24 UVP, on the stocks immediately re-profile under the third, with 48 UVP

    ==========
    Especially "it is logical"will be when the" overload "will come out and the metacentric height will shift! Do you really think that if it were possible WITHOUT a significant deterioration in seaworthiness and no less significant re-arrangement of the frigate, they (designers) would NOT DO it? Or you sowing SMARTER than them (constructors)?
    Up to 22350М then there not only the UKSK 3S14 will be increased to 48 units, but also the number of air defense units of the Polyment-Redut air defense system is planned to be increased. Hence the INEVITABLE growth of dimensions and displacement.
    I think I’m not much wrong, assuming that the uncertainty with the number of planned 22350 [b] M [/ b is due to the fact that it is still not known HOW this very serious modification will show itself (in terms of driving and operational qualities). Here they’ll build 1-2 pieces, they will test, drive… Then they will decide - HOW MUCH to build!
  • Private-K
    Private-K 2 May 2020 10: 13 New
    +2
    To the author of the article, probably, after all, perhaps, perhaps, it should be mentioned that we are talking about UVP for anti-ship missiles and SLCMs, and UVP for missiles are under a separate article. hi
    For a frigate class ship, the presence of already 16 strike missiles on board is very serious.
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      Andrei from Chelyabinsk 2 May 2020 10: 30 New
      +3
      Quote: Private-K
      The author of the article, perhaps, after all, perhaps, perhaps, it should be mentioned that we are talking about UVP for anti-ship missiles and SLCMs, and UVP for missiles go under a separate article

      Done right. We can only add that in addition to anti-ship missiles and SLCMs, it is also possible to install a PLUR based on "Caliber" in the UKSK, which is very cool.
      1. Angry
        Angry 3 May 2020 07: 49 New
        0
        There are never too many calibers! And we don't have Burke for a hundred cells yet. For us, each cell is dear, because it can become a "Caliber-M", and this is already 4500 km! Or even "Zircon". And PLURs should either stand on the launcher for the "Uran" anti-ship missile or, like "Waterfall", fly out of the TA.
  • Blackbeard
    Blackbeard 2 May 2020 18: 55 New
    0
    As I understand it, then from 16 to 24 UVP can be increased with a minimum alteration of the case. And 48 are already serious changes and in fact a different ship what There was some news that they were trying to survive a maximum of West under 24 UVP
  • Koval Sergey
    Koval Sergey 1 May 2020 16: 31 New
    -4
    The fact that in the end there will be three subseries everyone guessed for themselves. Look forward to yes
    1. Ross xnumx
      Ross xnumx 1 May 2020 18: 49 New
      +3
      Quote: Sergey Koval
      That in the end there will be three subseries everyone already guessed for themselves.

      I can assume that the three "sub-series" until 2030 the case will not end. And the bright hopes should leave the mortal body with the last breath.
  • alexmach
    alexmach 1 May 2020 16: 34 New
    +2
    So so news. Until the 22350M is ready for laying, it would be good to lay this "second series". But apparently, taking into account the two planned for laying, the maximum of what the ground can build has really been reached.
    1. Cympak
      Cympak 2 May 2020 02: 25 New
      +1
      It would be good to lay at least 2 new ships annually. But judging by the news, they will lay down 2 more buildings with 24 UKKS this year, and then everything. Until 2022 they will design 22350M. Then they will build 4 units. Total, 12 frigates of three series of 4 units are seen. Alas, this is not enough. We need 8-12 ships to the Northern and Pacific fleets and 3-4 to the Black Sea.
      1. alexmach
        alexmach 2 May 2020 10: 17 New
        0
        Exactly. In the last 2 years, the pace of bookmarking is just wonderful, they would have been kept for 10 years, but this is unfortunately a fairy tale. But while "M" is being designed and being prepared for laying, but the main one is being built, and it has long been clear that it will take time if at least one more pair were laid, in addition to the one planned for laying this year it would be just wonderful.
      2. Nemchinov Vl
        Nemchinov Vl 2 May 2020 11: 16 New
        +2
        Quote: Cympak
        Total, 12 frigates of three series of 4 units are seen.
        Yeah. Depressing ... but it is now ...
        And it seems to me alone (!)that we are bred worse than rabbits ...?! It seems like no more than three years ago, the same Borisov, spoke out loud about the plans for the order for the Navy 12-16 fr. 22350 (in the VI 5400 tons), and then what, they plan to add at least 8 more 22350M (in the VI 8000 tons) ?! And now, it looks as if there were no such plans ?!
        Later, we will be told that it is expensive (!), But now 127,6 billion. (cost of four francs. 22350 !!!), give (bind) for the contract of the atomic icebreaker "Leader" !!! And how much does the icebreaker fleet need ?! There it seems the Baltic plant churns them out on unbending (enough blocked such orders) ?! And now the power "Star" (in the Big Stone) ?! The Navy needs a dozen icebreakers ?! or one and a half two BNK of the first rank ?! I'm wondering why Zvezda does not receive orders from the Navy for the Pacific Fleet (for the same 22350.1) ?! Indeed, we really need it right now icebreaker "Leader", or the Pacific Fleet needs 4 frigates build until 2030 !!! Well, who thinks ? !!
        1. alexmach
          alexmach 2 May 2020 17: 24 New
          0
          And it seems to me alone (!) That we are bred, worse than rabbits

          It seems to me that there is nothing to take seriously each each of the statements of officials, then MO. If there are no 6 ships laid down for 10+ years, talking about building 12 is at least strange. In the same way, this statement, which we are now discussing, may well turn out to be a vicious misinformation.
        2. Private-K
          Private-K 3 May 2020 11: 02 New
          0
          Well, undoubtedly, the new frigates and destroyers of the Russian Navy need three dozen, no less ...
          But icebreakers are also needed. And the benefit from them is more obvious than from frigates (do not forget the brains of the current leaders burned by "financial efficiency") - control over the southern part of the Arctic Ocean. And this ocean, a kind of hat on the head of the Russian Federation, from which, in the near future, golden testicles will fall out. So you need to take it faster - whoever hits the pegs first, that and the site.
  • svp67
    svp67 1 May 2020 16: 36 New
    +7
    In the current conditions, I would be very glad that our military-industrial complex and the USC in its composition would become the "locomotive" that would pull our economy out of the crisis
  • 7,62h54
    7,62h54 1 May 2020 16: 37 New
    +8
    10 years .... yeah ... and there you look to the right the terms are moved, or they’ll come up with some more tsatsk.
    1. Sky strike fighter
      Sky strike fighter 1 May 2020 16: 56 New
      +3
      And so it is in the end and come out.
      22350M
      There is information that the preliminary design of the oceanic 22350M [6] was developed by the Northern Design Bureau by the end of autumn, and its approval should take place before the end of this year. (ref. 15). At a recent press conference at Interfax, the head of USC, as always, indistinctly announced that the modernized version of 22350 would be created by 2022 (link 16). If we understand by "creation" the approval of the technical project, and "by 2022" - "in 2022" (ie before the end of the named year), the laying of the lead ship should be expected in 2023. The duration of the construction of the first four, hopefully, will not be more than 8 years with a subsequent decline to 7 years.

      https://navy-korabel.livejournal.com/226046.html
      1. Aleksandr21
        Aleksandr21 1 May 2020 17: 11 New
        +1
        Quote: Sky Strike fighter
        And so it is in the end and come out.


        To write something prematurely on the 22350M, in the first place even a technical project was not developed (only the outline sketch was approved), and the fog was delayed by the timing ... 2023 if frankly a figure from the ceiling. First you need to make a technical project, approve it and most importantly (at this difficult time) to get the budget for the construction of the head frigate, and given that 4 more frigates 22350 are planned, it will not be easy to get money by 2023 (but this is my IMHO ), the fact that in the beginning of the 2030s the construction of the 22350M with delivery by 2040 will begin, this is a more realistic scenario and only if the crisis does not affect the plans for the delivery of ships.
    2. donavi49
      donavi49 1 May 2020 17: 04 New
      +3
      Well, just the Americans will accept the FREMM series, there similar characteristics will be:
      April 30, 2020 US Navy announced that they had chosen the American shipbuilding company Fincantieri, the American shipbuilding company Marinette Marine Corporation (MMC) in Marinette (Wisconsin), as the designer and builder of promising frigates for the US Navy under the FFG (X) program.

      Frigates of type FFG (X) should be equipped with a new derivation of an integrated multifunctional weapon system AEGIS Baseline Ten (BL10) c new Raytheon AN / SPY-6 (V) 3 Enterprise Air Surveillance Radar (EASR) multi-functional radar with three fixed antennas with AFAR and ASBU COMBATSS-21.

      Armament will be Mk 32 41-Charger Universal Vertical Launcher (with SAM types Standard SM-2 Block IIIC, Standard SM-6 ERAM and ESSM Block 2), eight or 16 anti-ship missile launchers (apparently NSM), one or two 21-Mk 49 Self-Defense SAM Launchers RAM Block 2, 57-mm universal artillery mount Mk 110, 324-mm torpedo tubes. In the hangar, the Sikorsky MH-60R Seahawk anti-submarine helicopter and the Northrop Grumman MQ-8C Firescout unmanned helicopters should be permanently based.

      MMC owned by Fincantieri received a contract worth 795,116 million (against the budget of 2020 fiscal year) for technical design and construction (Detail Design and Construction - DD&C) for the US Navy lead frigate Ffg 80 under the FFG (X) program, with an option to build another nine frigates. With the exercise of the option, the contract value will reach 5,5761 billion dollars. The implementation of the entire contract with the construction of all 10 frigates, taking into account optional ones, should be completed by May 2035.
      1. Liam
        Liam 1 May 2020 17: 09 New
        +2
        5,5- this is only Fincantieri and only for the construction of ships. Equipment-individual contracts. Total cost -19 billion
      2. Sky strike fighter
        Sky strike fighter 1 May 2020 17: 21 New
        +2
        No one wants to build cruisers in the future. Modern technology allows more compact ships to cost up to 8000 tons.

        The Italian Fincantieri proposed a project based on FREMM-class frigates for the competition. Austal USA (LCS-class modification), Bath Iron Works in partnership with Spanish Navantia (Alvaro de Bazan-class frigate) and Huntington Ingalls Industries (details of the project were not released) also presented their options.

        According to Naval News, Fincantieri has made significant adjustments to the FREMM project to meet US Navy requirements. The ship will be 151 meters long, 20 meters wide, and a total displacement of 7500 tons.

        The future frigate will be equipped with the AN / SPY-6 (V) 3 radar system from Raytheon and the Aegis combat information management system (AEGIS) Baseline 10 version.

        The ship is equipped with a 57-mm artillery system Mk.110 and a universal installation of vertical launch Mk.41 for 32 cells, designed for anti-aircraft missiles of the SM-2 and RIM-162 ESSM family, as well as ASROC anti-submarine missiles. In addition, NSM anti-ship missiles will be included in the arsenal of ships.

        The MH-60R Seahock helicopter and the MQ-8C Firescout unmanned aerial vehicle can be based on board the ship.

        https://flotprom.ru/2020/%D0%A1%D1%88%D0%B0127/
    3. tihonmarine
      tihonmarine 1 May 2020 17: 07 New
      +5
      Quote: 7,62x54
      10 years .... yeah ... and there you look to the right the terms are moved, or they’ll come up with some more tsatsk.

      Shipyards need to be pulled up to date.
  • Mouse
    Mouse 1 May 2020 16: 42 New
    +9
    It goes in its own way ... Everything goes as it should go ...
  • storm
    storm 1 May 2020 17: 17 New
    +2
    You need to build 18 units in parallel at several shipyards. 5 ct frigates, project 22350U with 24 launchers and 12 units 8ct frigate-destroyers pr. 22350 M.
    It's time to abandon the "little things" such as Buyan-M, etc. 22800, especially since the situation with the engines has reached a dead end.
    Overgrown corvette 20386 at the price of frigate 22350 is the same dead-born and useless ship waiting for the Russian Navy.
    Only in this way can you get away from the piece composition of the Navy and the wildest raznosortitsy.
    1. Cyril G ...
      Cyril G ... 1 May 2020 17: 44 New
      +2
      Decided to forget about OVR?
    2. Doccor18
      Doccor18 1 May 2020 19: 09 New
      +2
      Quote: assault
      You need to build 18 units in parallel at several shipyards. 5 ct frigates, project 22350U with 24 launchers and 12 units 8ct frigate-destroyers pr. 22350 M.
      It's time to abandon the "little things" such as Buyan-M, etc. 22800, especially since the situation with the engines has reached a dead end.
      Overgrown corvette 20386 at the price of frigate 22350 is the same dead-born and useless ship waiting for the Russian Navy.
      Only in this way can you get away from the piece composition of the Navy and the wildest raznosortitsy.

      I agree with you. However
      project 22350 with 24 kr is not very bad at it. Maybe on it
      bye and stop and do it
      until all the fleets are saturated. After all, a lot of them are needed, at least ten for each.
      And the rest I support.
      1. storm
        storm 1 May 2020 23: 35 New
        +1
        For good, you need 12 frigates, pr. 22350 - 24 for 3 fleets (Pacific Fleet, Northern Fleet and Black Sea Fleet) + 4 units. the first series of pr. 22350 -16 on the BF.
        TOTAL 40 units.
        For the oceanic zone of Pacific Pacific Fleet and SF 6 units. pr 22350 M into 48 cells.
  • Pvi1206
    Pvi1206 1 May 2020 17: 47 New
    0
    joyfully read such news ...
  • Mytholog
    Mytholog 1 May 2020 17: 48 New
    -3
    Plans for 10-12 frigates are good (albeit few).
    The question is, where to get the diesel on them? Without them, all these plans will endlessly "shift to the right."
    One thought warms the soul that 22350M with its 8 thousand - can already become atomic.
    1. alexmach
      alexmach 1 May 2020 20: 03 New
      -1
      The question is where to get diesel on them?

      M ... In Kolomna?
    2. Cyril G ...
      Cyril G ... 2 May 2020 10: 52 New
      +2
      The diesel engine is just a serial diesel type. Kolomna. So far, the gas turbine engine is in vain. And the gearbox is in question
  • Warrior MorePhoto
    Warrior MorePhoto 1 May 2020 18: 03 New
    -2
    Quote: assault
    You need to build 18 units in parallel at several shipyards. 5 ct frigates, project 22350U with 24 launchers and 12 units 8ct frigate-destroyers pr. 22350 M.
    It's time to abandon the "little things" such as Buyan-M, etc. 22800, especially since the situation with the engines has reached a dead end.
    Overgrown corvette 20386 at the price of frigate 22350 is the same dead-born and useless ship waiting for the Russian Navy.
    Only in this way can you get away from the piece composition of the Navy and the wildest raznosortitsy.


    Buyans as "river-seas" are needed, they do not go out into the ocean, but if they need to move from the Caspian to the Baltic, or until they enter Lake Ladoga.

    Karakurts as coastal, especially with armor are needed, as well as they will feel great off the coast of Syria.

    20386- not understandable ship, but maybe we do not know the idea, but at the moment the project is poor in terms of price-efficiency ratio
    Focus on the 20380 and 20385 series - with uranium and gauges.

    22350 and 22350M are also needed in the series (a series with 16 calibers / zircons is quite viable)

    Ideally, the Leader with the S-500, but if the end and the edge of the above are visible.

    Space with good PLO, finalize the project based on 20380 and 22350.


    PS
    Infa about trimaran (Rus) haunts, I don’t know how it will feel in winter (designers should “measure seven times ...” but if from their words “there will be no problems” the ideal version of a universal ship (such as a corvette) shock, air defense, flat.
    - in the shock version of 20 zircons + 16 air defense / or 16 air defense, 16 zircons, 2 Ka 52
    - in the air defense version 32 air defense + 4 zircons,
    - in PLO - two helicopters plos, 8 missile torpedoes, 8 zircons, 16 air defense or variations (24 air defense + 8 missile torpedoes)
  • Doccor18
    Doccor18 1 May 2020 18: 54 New
    +1
    Gradual improvement of frigate characteristics -
    it is logical and natural.
    Here are just 4 + 4 + 4 = 12 frigates
    three episodes. Not much honestly
    speaking into four fleets.
    1. NKT
      NKT 1 May 2020 22: 27 New
      +1
      Three, there is nothing to do in the Baltic. But even for three fleets it is not enough.
  • SLOUN
    SLOUN 1 May 2020 20: 19 New
    0
    Each time it is written: "The Navy will receive frigates ...." When will it be written received.
    A frigate is not such a complex ship that it can be built 10 ... 15 years.
    Really such a country as the Russian Federation can not accelerate the process.
    Maybe it's time to ask this question how to ask
    "builders". And there is no need to tell: no money, complex technologies,
    never built ...
  • Imperial Technocrat
    Imperial Technocrat 2 May 2020 02: 10 New
    +1
    22350M - not a frigate, but a destroyer
  • Ros 56
    Ros 56 2 May 2020 06: 09 New
    +1
    The good news is, most importantly, give them acceleration.
  • Cyril G ...
    Cyril G ... 2 May 2020 10: 49 New
    0
    Quote: Cympak
    There will be a fully gas turbine ship on existing gas turbine engines

    This is a new, new gearbox.
  • Cyril G ...
    Cyril G ... 2 May 2020 10: 58 New
    +1
    Overgrown corvette 20386 at the price of frigate 22350 is the same dead-born and useless ship waiting for the Russian Navy.


    I agree.

    Karakurts as coastal, especially with armor are needed, as well as they will feel great off the coast of Syria.

    Why do we need a coastal warship, which is easily and naturally slammed by any NAPL encountered.

    20386- not understandable ship, but maybe we do not know the idea, but at the moment the project is poor in terms of price-efficiency ratio
    Focus on the 20380 and 20385 series - with uranium and gauges.

    Lest we know, and the 386th is still fundamentally wretched, and prohibitively expensive. Therefore, our choice is 20380, but it still needs the necessary short PLUR in the dimensions of Uranus
    1. Angry
      Angry 3 May 2020 07: 37 New
      +2
      but he still needs the necessary short PLUR in the dimensions of Uranus! GOLD WORDS! I myself bothered with such a thought, why can't the Tactical Missile Armament Corporation cross the torpedo from the Packet with the X-35 missile unit? What's so complicated about it? It looks like someone should be in the "toilet soak"!
  • Whirlwind
    Whirlwind 2 May 2020 15: 02 New
    0
    8 thousand tons displacement, 48 missiles, and even if it is "Zircon" - it will naturally be a missile cruiser.
  • Voltsky
    Voltsky 2 May 2020 22: 34 New
    0
    in my opinion, I realized what the hell is going on here :) Russians, as always, decided to add gag.

    US - destroyer, Ru - Frigate; US - Fregatte, Ru - Corvette; US - Corvette, Ru - MRK

    a cruiser will probably be considered a floating missile arsenal
    1. Maverick78
      Maverick78 3 May 2020 10: 10 New
      0
      Destroyer corresponds to our term destroyer
      1. Voltsky
        Voltsky 3 May 2020 11: 03 New
        0
        who said that? :) Classification is a purely amateur thing, yesterday it’s a patrol ship and today it’s a frigate, and tomorrow they can call a drakar, well, or what's new :)

        Let it be known to you BOD for you BOD and for others "guided missile destroyer"
  • d4rkmesa
    d4rkmesa 3 May 2020 16: 54 New
    0
    Guys, the dispute about eight-thousanders frigates is pointless. The frigate is a typical product of its time. Who does not remember, the United States had nuclear "frigates", for example, half a century ago. Now it is - simply lighter than the destroyer-destroyer (earlier such a standard were URO cruisers), a ship with lighter weapons and simpler systems. A more economical and cheaper "hybrid" installation, since the progress over the past 3 decades has made it possible to increase the power by one and a half times, all other things being equal - accordingly, the displacement can be easily increased, the speed is lower - do not care, the frigate is not a nuclear aircraft carrier to catch up with tea (apparently, the Germans decided that eg). Half as many cells of the UVP and other weapons (or the lack of UVP, like the Germans), light artillery (for example, the 76-mm Oto Melara), simplified radars (although in new projects and in the F125, like destroyers, 4 AFAR grids each, but still simpler). And, of course, other tasks. Nobody sets goals, like to shoot down a satellite, for example, to frigates.
  • Looking for
    Looking for 3 May 2020 17: 00 New
    0
    THREE !!! frigate is the level of Spain. Bulgaria. but not the Russian Federation.
  • Alex Rossky
    Alex Rossky 3 May 2020 17: 08 New
    0
    It turns out interestingly.
    The standard displacement is 22350 4500 tons.
    Estimated displacement 22350M - 7000 tons. Standard?
    You don’t think that 2500 tons is too much to simply increase the frigate’s shock capabilities
    by increasing the 3C14U1 cells three times from 16 to 48? Even with the preservation of speeds economical, cruising and full speed, and cruising range?
    There are many opinions on the network about the modernization of the project, the same Andrey from Chelyabinsk in his article from
    On May 15, 2019, "On the frigates of project 22350M in the light of the latest news" suggested different options for modernization, and one was that the number of cells simply increased, without changing the electronic filling of the frigates.
    I think that to push 48 cells, you do not need to increase the displacement so much.
    Maybe we don’t know something, and don’t understand the plans of the Navy’s leadership?
    Maybe the leadership of the Navy should not put a shadow on the wattle fence, and you just need to say that they want to build real URO destroyers, ships of the 22350st rank, from the v. Art. from 1 tons, for example, project 7000XX of which)))?
    And here it becomes clear such a sharp increase in V.I., since the destroyer needs higher performance characteristics, higher cruising speed, cruising range at maximum speed, range of detection and defeat of the enemy. All TTX not increase without increasing VI
    If V.I. 22350M implies full, the standard will be in the region of 6000 tons, and then such an increase in tonnage is clear, without changing the electronic filling. How much will be used to increase the number of 3S14U1 cells, and the rest will preserve the range, cruising speed and maximum speed of frigates, namely frigates, for more powerful machines, or for a larger number of machines available to shipbuilders.