Photo of Novorosiisk hull sometime this year. The submarine is going to be launched before the end of the year.
The 4th boat will be laid down this year, and the yard is of course busy with the 6 submarines for Vietnam.
nearly 9 years and counting....yawn....
if they had put that money and time on Pr.1135.6, there would have been atleast 6 units in fleet.
Silly Indians who drool about private shipyard getting orders can learn some lessons on how not to do it in the future from this poorly managed project with a lone shipyard having the monopoly to built it. Severnaya is probably the only yard in the western side of Russia engaged in building primary surface combatant who is still building ships without the new modular approach. And it is very much showing on the hulls that have been completed.
By: Austin
- 6th April 2013 at 16:43Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The problem with Groshkov frigate is every thing is new about the Frigate be it weapons , electronics which has been the downfall , they should have managed the risk but creating a balance with proven system and selectively adding new system with block model approach.
The weapons and electronics/radar itself got delayed by many years leading to delay of the entire project. Blame it on Russian Naval top brass for trying to be ahead of time.
They should just build more Pr 1135.6 frigate for now , I dont see Groshkov frigate maturing before 2015
By: JangBoGo
- 6th April 2013 at 16:48Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The problem with Groshkov frigate is every thing is new about the Frigate be it weapons , electronics which has been the downfall , they should have managed the risk but creating a balance with proven system and selectively adding new system with block model approach.
The weapons and electronics/radar itself got delayed by many years leading to delay of the entire project. Blame it on Russian Naval top brass for trying to be ahead of time.
They should just build more Pr 1135.6 frigate for now , I dont see Groshkov frigate maturing before 2015
There can be problems with a new project as you mentioned. But I'm sure Yantar or even Baltisky yard would have done it better. This project is going to get more messier if this monopoly continues and a second line is not opened early enough.
By: TR1
- 29th April 2013 at 08:03Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Question- the Paket is a direct anti-torpedo system that intercepts torpedoes with its own rounds.
No other navy yet has dedicated anti-torpedo systems like Paket in service correct? I recall Rafale was working on an advanced decoy, but nothing that actually seeks out incoming torps. Germany had some system in development that would use supercavitating tops, but AFAIk that all went nowhere.
New
By: Anonymous
- 29th April 2013 at 09:59Permalink- Edited 22nd October 2019 at 22:31
Yes, AFAIK Paket is pretty much one of a kind right now, to date most Western so-called torpedo defence systems (SLAT, SSTD) are soft-kill only, performing a function not unlike UDAV-1 without the hard-kill barrage rounds. I believe some (including Germany, Italy and the US respectively) are/were looking at anti-torpedo-torpedo based hard-kill systems along the lines of Paket (though using sub-calibre rounds), but I don't think any of them has entered service yet. Then again, UDAV-1 was probably the first effective hard-kill system outright (and actually more simple and straight forward than Paket to my mind), so that Russia should be well-positioned in this field is not surprising.
By: Jonesy
- 29th April 2013 at 13:30Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I believe some (including Germany, Italy and the US respectively) are/were looking at anti-torpedo-torpedo based hard-kill systems along the lines of Paket (though using sub-calibre rounds), but I don't think any of them has entered service yet.
Eurotorp claim 'developed' anti-HWT capability for the HARDKILL variant of their MU90 LWT. The concept being that, perhaps, 1 tube in a triple LWT launcher would be a HARDKILL such that anti-torpedo capability would be an easy fit option. I dont know of any actual sales/deployments, but, had I bought that variant of the torpedo I might be keen to see that Eurotorp do their best to keep that information out of the public domain for obvious reasons.
Ship impact, with UDAV-1, looks a little on the high side when compared with SLAT etc, but, it does look a very impressive system and one I'd, personally, very much like to see an analogy of on RN carriers, amphibs and Auxilliaries.
New
By: Anonymous
- 29th April 2013 at 17:24Permalink- Edited 22nd October 2019 at 22:31
Thanks for that info! This would be pretty much a direct analogue to Paket, using a full-size ASW torpedo for the task.
UDAV-1 is a big unit for sure, but as you say it belongs on every high-value asset and that they are not fitting it to their Mistrals is one of my major gripes with that project.
By: TR1
- 29th April 2013 at 21:46Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I'm also a fan of Udav (and the RBU launchers in general), but since most of the new ships are moving on to Paket, presumably the same choice will be made for Mistral.
I am mildly shocked that it is 2013 and such systems are not more widespread, especially given how much of a threat submarines have been portrayed as for the past 50 years.
Seems like the Soviet Navy appreciated the defensive need from torpedoes earlier than most, similar to the early widespread use of CIWS.
Wow, the Vladivostok. Proper rate of construction!
New
By: Anonymous
- 3rd May 2013 at 13:04Permalink- Edited 22nd October 2019 at 22:31
Proper rate of construction!
And THAT, more than anything else, is what this project is all about. I would have preferred it if they had gone for the larger BPC250 version and added a decent defensive weapons fit so that they got more military utility into the bargain, but there are worse mistakes in current Russian procurement.
Posts: 9,579
By: TR1 - 4th April 2013 at 22:11 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
http://flotprom.ru/news/?ELEMENT_ID=142453&fromcategory=346
First metal cut @ Severnaya, for the second 20385 corvette.
Posts: 9,579
By: TR1 - 4th April 2013 at 23:34 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
http://militaryrussia.ru/i/284/722/SriEw.jpg
Photo of Novorosiisk hull sometime this year. The submarine is going to be launched before the end of the year.
The 4th boat will be laid down this year, and the yard is of course busy with the 6 submarines for Vietnam.
Posts: 1,482
By: JangBoGo - 6th April 2013 at 16:32 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
nearly 9 years and counting....yawn....
if they had put that money and time on Pr.1135.6, there would have been atleast 6 units in fleet.
Silly Indians who drool about private shipyard getting orders can learn some lessons on how not to do it in the future from this poorly managed project with a lone shipyard having the monopoly to built it. Severnaya is probably the only yard in the western side of Russia engaged in building primary surface combatant who is still building ships without the new modular approach. And it is very much showing on the hulls that have been completed.
Posts: 6,186
By: Austin - 6th April 2013 at 16:43 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The problem with Groshkov frigate is every thing is new about the Frigate be it weapons , electronics which has been the downfall , they should have managed the risk but creating a balance with proven system and selectively adding new system with block model approach.
The weapons and electronics/radar itself got delayed by many years leading to delay of the entire project. Blame it on Russian Naval top brass for trying to be ahead of time.
They should just build more Pr 1135.6 frigate for now , I dont see Groshkov frigate maturing before 2015
Posts: 1,482
By: JangBoGo - 6th April 2013 at 16:48 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
There can be problems with a new project as you mentioned. But I'm sure Yantar or even Baltisky yard would have done it better. This project is going to get more messier if this monopoly continues and a second line is not opened early enough.
Posts: 275
By: El_Indigo - 6th April 2013 at 17:21 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
As i've been saying lack of funding was more of a problem then anything else.
Posts: 9,579
By: TR1 - 12th April 2013 at 02:05 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
http://www.balancer.ru/forum/punbb/attachment.php?item=329384&download=2&type=.jpg
Cool! Last years Kalibr launch from the Severodvinsk.
Posts: 9,579
By: TR1 - 27th April 2013 at 23:51 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
http://www.balancer.ru/sites/i/m/img-fotki.yandex.ru/get/6402/123393917.39/0_839b8_e230223b_XXXL.jpg
Biggest sub, and biggest tug.
Posts: 9,579
By: TR1 - 29th April 2013 at 08:03 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Question- the Paket is a direct anti-torpedo system that intercepts torpedoes with its own rounds.
No other navy yet has dedicated anti-torpedo systems like Paket in service correct? I recall Rafale was working on an advanced decoy, but nothing that actually seeks out incoming torps. Germany had some system in development that would use supercavitating tops, but AFAIk that all went nowhere.
By: Anonymous - 29th April 2013 at 09:59 Permalink - Edited 22nd October 2019 at 22:31
Yes, AFAIK Paket is pretty much one of a kind right now, to date most Western so-called torpedo defence systems (SLAT, SSTD) are soft-kill only, performing a function not unlike UDAV-1 without the hard-kill barrage rounds. I believe some (including Germany, Italy and the US respectively) are/were looking at anti-torpedo-torpedo based hard-kill systems along the lines of Paket (though using sub-calibre rounds), but I don't think any of them has entered service yet. Then again, UDAV-1 was probably the first effective hard-kill system outright (and actually more simple and straight forward than Paket to my mind), so that Russia should be well-positioned in this field is not surprising.
Posts: 4,875
By: Jonesy - 29th April 2013 at 13:30 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Eurotorp claim 'developed' anti-HWT capability for the HARDKILL variant of their MU90 LWT. The concept being that, perhaps, 1 tube in a triple LWT launcher would be a HARDKILL such that anti-torpedo capability would be an easy fit option. I dont know of any actual sales/deployments, but, had I bought that variant of the torpedo I might be keen to see that Eurotorp do their best to keep that information out of the public domain for obvious reasons.
Ship impact, with UDAV-1, looks a little on the high side when compared with SLAT etc, but, it does look a very impressive system and one I'd, personally, very much like to see an analogy of on RN carriers, amphibs and Auxilliaries.
By: Anonymous - 29th April 2013 at 17:24 Permalink - Edited 22nd October 2019 at 22:31
Thanks for that info! This would be pretty much a direct analogue to Paket, using a full-size ASW torpedo for the task.
UDAV-1 is a big unit for sure, but as you say it belongs on every high-value asset and that they are not fitting it to their Mistrals is one of my major gripes with that project.
Posts: 6,186
By: Austin - 29th April 2013 at 18:42 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Military Parade on Borei SSBN commissioning
http://www.smizona.com/_files/small/Military%20Parade_2013_01.pdf
Posts: 9,579
By: TR1 - 29th April 2013 at 21:46 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I'm also a fan of Udav (and the RBU launchers in general), but since most of the new ships are moving on to Paket, presumably the same choice will be made for Mistral.
I am mildly shocked that it is 2013 and such systems are not more widespread, especially given how much of a threat submarines have been portrayed as for the past 50 years.
Seems like the Soviet Navy appreciated the defensive need from torpedoes earlier than most, similar to the early widespread use of CIWS.
Posts: 275
By: El_Indigo - 30th April 2013 at 01:49 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
There was an Isreali equivelent 90R rocket of the RBU-6000.
I'm a bit surprised why there isn't a sucessor for both of this systems. Why depend soley on Paket.
Posts: 6,186
By: Austin - 1st May 2013 at 06:11 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Russian shipbuilding
Posts: 9,579
By: TR1 - 2nd May 2013 at 07:56 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
http://i.imgur.com/eNsBF.jpg
Was it ever determined what the white installation next to the IRST was?
Posts: 9,579
By: TR1 - 3rd May 2013 at 07:04 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
http://kuleshovoleg.livejournal.com/169194.html
Wow, the Vladivostok. Proper rate of construction!
By: Anonymous - 3rd May 2013 at 13:04 Permalink - Edited 22nd October 2019 at 22:31
And THAT, more than anything else, is what this project is all about. I would have preferred it if they had gone for the larger BPC250 version and added a decent defensive weapons fit so that they got more military utility into the bargain, but there are worse mistakes in current Russian procurement.
Posts: 6,186
By: Austin - 3rd May 2013 at 13:16 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Like ?