Click to see full-size image
The first running tests of the Russian Navy’s Project 22800 Karakurt-class guided missile corvette “Sovetsk” were successfully passed in Lake Ladoga, Russian Navy spokesman Igor Dygalo told Interfax on May 28th.
“The crew and the test team fully carried out the program of the first test phase, which verified the ship’s performance and the functioning of a number of life support systems,” Dygalo said.
He noted that “Sovetsk” is intended for “carrying combat operations in the near-sea zone (green waters) and it can carry out tasks both in peacetime and wartime, independently and in cooperation with other vessels.”
According to reports, the Project 22800 Karakurt-class guided missile corvette is intended to be a more seaworthy, blue water complement to the Buyan-M class corvettes.
The Project 22800 corvette is 67 m long and 11 m wide and has a full displacement of approximately 860 t and a draught of 2.8 m. The ship is powered by two M-507D-1 diesel engines with a power output of 7,360 kWt each and an 8,830-kWt M70FRU gas-turbine powerplant. The corvette features a top speed of up to 35 knots, an economical speed of 12 knots, a cruising range of 2,500 nautical miles, and an endurance of 12 days.
The ship launches missile at Level 5 sea state (2.5 to 4 meters, rough) and has a Level 9 sea state (over 14 meters, phenomenal) seaworthiness. The ship`s armament suite comprises an AK-176MA 76 mm naval gun and a Pantsir-ME anti-aircraft gun-missile (AAGM) system.
The first two ships, the Uragan and Sovetsk are further fitted with two AK-630M close-in weapon systems each instead of the Pantsir-ME. Subsequent ships will have navalized Greyhound mounted on them.
The AAGM system features an ammunition load of 40 missiles, including eight ready-use on a launcher and 32 in an under-deck storage system.
The ship is also equipped with an eight-cell 3S-14 vertical launch system for the Kalibr (SS-N-27 Sizzler) cruise missile system, which is located in the platform`s superstructure.
It is also capable of carrying an Orlan-10 UAV, and features increased seaworthiness, high maneuverability, and low radar signature of its superstructure and hull.
The Sovetsk is expected to be delivered to the Baltic Fleet ready to be used by the end of 2019, Admiral Alexander Nosatov, the commander of the Baltic Fleet said.
The Sovetsk was initially called Taifun when construction started on it back in 2015. Initially, the engines for the ship were expected in 2017, but due to a deal for an undisclosed reason actually arrived in December 2018.
Most recently, the latest ship – the Tucha – was laid down at the Zelenodolsk Shipyard on February 26th, 2019.
The head of the Navy`s shipbuilding department Rear Admiral Vladimir Tryapichnikov said the service would get no fewer than 18 Project 22800 corvettes with a possible option for several more ships of the type. “These surface combatants will be constructed at the shipyards that are located in the Far East, the Republic of Tatarstan, and the Northwestern Region,” said Tryapichnikov. He added that personnel was already undergoing training on how to operate the Project 22800.
MORE ON THE TOPIC:
Nice looking ship. Russian navy is back.
I would hardly say that their navy is back, around 80% of the navy is from the 90’s or older. In 10 years time though around 70% of their navy will be modern.
Could be even less. The Russians don’t seem to be having much success building ships larger then frigates, and they’re going to have to replace their Soviet era destroyers and cruisers at some point.
Its not like US are any better at building big ships these days. Remeber that Zumwalt destroyers and Ford class aircraft carriers are full of problems. BTW new missiles make Russian frigates at least as powerfull as US destoryes or cruisers. Looking at defensive nature of Russian navy big number of frigates with modern capable missiles is actually the way to go.
The zumwalt is both a prototype and a new concept, two things together which spell doom under most circumstances. The USS Ford, as a prototype suffers from teething problems. I’m sure they will sort the Ford class out. They have plenty of money to throw at the problem. The Zumwalts, I reckon they will be slowly mothballed, or kept in surface without new additions being made.
And while I agree that Russian missile spam is a good thing if you want to battle the USN in the Barentz Sea, if you want to project power of large distances, at a cost effective way (as in bomb brown countries), then frigates and corvettes are not the way to do so. All these advanced missiles firing at a brown country cost a hell of a lot more money for the bang then some aircraft dropping iron bombs.
Russia does not fight brown counties, it fights the empire and it does it well since Putin came to be President.
Well the line between a frigate and a destroyer has become somewhat foggy in our days. Now every navy is calling a new class whatever it suits them, for instance the FREMM design, the Europeans call it frigate but its size and tonnage is that of a destroyer under the “navy textbook”, and under this textbook usually frigates are the ones between 3.000 and 5.000 tonnes, above that is destroyer, it seems to me only the British and the US navy seem to keep this terminology.
Now take a look of the new Admiral Gorshkov, the Russians called it frigate and judging by its tonnage(max 5.400t full load), you can consider it as such but has weaponry that far exceeds much larger ships like FREMM, Type 45 and many other heavies ships, it can even compete a Arleigh Burke destroyer in firepower to some extent which have 9.000t tonnage. So in other words, the lines are blur and and all modern navies seems to head to multi-purpose smaller ships in size (smaller than destroyers) that can do pretty much all tasks and are more cost effective, take for example again the russian frigate and also the new Belh@ra frigate that France is building.
” if you want to project power of large distances, at a cost effective way (as in bomb brown countries)” You do understand that this kind of acts is US policy only, right? Every single weapon system Russia made/upgraded says defense, not attack! Why on earth Russia would want to go half way around the world to bomb anybody?
Even funnier to me is when some EU countries start to whine about “Russian threat” or “invasion”!!!
I do realize that the Russian systems scream defense. That still doesn’t negate that it can be useful for Russia to have some offensive systems in order to project power abroad. Like Syria for instance? Or what if an insurgency breaks out in Venezuela? In which case its more cost effective to drop iron bombs on Jihadi’s then Kalibr missiles.
As for EU countries whining, that’s just the Baltics and Poland. If the EU was really that worried about Russia potentially attacking them they would actually spend some money on defense. Most countries can’t or won’t achieve the current NATO minimum of 2% GDP. And during the Cold War, when there actually was a giant Soviet army aimed towards Europe the NATO minimum was 3%. And even then most NATO countries didn’t achieve that minimum.
“Or what if an insurgency breaks out in Venezuela?”
What has that got to do with Russia? The only threat is the USA, if the USA was destroyed the need for most weapons would disappear, and the hungry could be fed.
Maybe Russia wants to come to Maduro’s aid in case a US sponsored insurgency breaks out? They do seem to want to keep him in power. In which case its useful for Russia to be able to use more then just expensive Kalibr missiles on these insurgents. Henceforth the need for power projection.
And if the US were to implode (destroy is such a harsh word as I have no hate whatsoever for ordinary Americans), there would still be a need for weapons. Maybe even more so as Israel and Saudi Arabia would go to war with Iran while they still had a functioning military. And China would immediately start flexing its muscles, making the rest of the world very nervous. Do not mistake China’s opposition to the US as altruism and humanitarianism. It has its own designs on the world. Historically whenever a major empire imploded it would cause a flurry of wars as other powers try to settle old scores or improve their positions, until a new hegemon would emerge.
Eu isn’t alowed to make stronger army, because in the case of significant boost of European military industry US MIC would lose big! European countries have more than enough potential to make high end systems and USA knows that! Moment EU starts with boosting the armies USA can pack their thing and leave! US can’t allow that! EU without USA would became Russia’s BFF.
Syria is of strategic importnance for Russia as a naval base in the warm seas. Another thing is, Syria is perfect proving ground for Russia’s new weapon systems! Third thing of importnance for Russia is possibility to kill as much of their citizens who joined daesh as possible. Russia will do their best to burry all of those scum terrorists coming from Russia in Syria’s sand!
Russia couldn’t do shit in Venezuela!
“as in bomb brown countries”
You hit the nail on the head. The US wants to rule the world, and so needs to be able to kill people anywhere on earth to make them submit to the empire.
Russia just wants to protect its country, and work on making money for the Russian people, without having to resort to stealing like the USA.
you are not very much of a military/navy common sense person are you?
“and they’re going to have to replace their Soviet era destroyers and cruisers at some point.”
Why? Warships are about firepower, back in the old days you needed big ships to carry the big guns. Even in my day a destroyer had more firepower than a WWII battleship. Small is cheap and if it can destroy a city, why build bigger.
Not really true. In the 90s capitalism made Russia so weak they were not really building any ships. So most of their ships are from Soviet times. Navy is one area where Russia needs to modernize urgently.
http://russianships.info/today/
Russia’s corvettes really freaked out the Americans when they launched Kalibr missiles into Syria, they have virtually abandoned the 5th fleet HQ at Bahrain. Shows you how good American intelligence is, they didn’t know?
Because these vessels can go up rivers and go from the Black Sea to the Caspian Sea they can cover much of Europe, the Middle East and Central Asia, without ever leaving Russian territory. Being able to hide in rivers makes them very difficult to find and target, and they are a very cost effective nuclear deterrent.
It passed initial tests ( it floats ) yippie , still Russian built and where is its personal tug boat .
The US borrowed it for their littoral ships.
Did you wrote all of this smart comment by yourself or did somebody helped you?
Even smaller ships, Buyan class are capable to do serious damage! US military was stunned when first Buyan fired Calibers. No one believed such a small vessels could fire cruise missiles! Talking about tugs, does Zumwalt class have stealth tugs with it or just regular ones?
Are they going to standardize the hull and have a multi purpose platform program of minesweeper/layer, fisheries protection/patrol and ASW type variants?
I remember the little grey corvette packing a punch, when sending her missiles to Syria, whilst positioned in the Caspian Sea. Left NATO member states in shock and awe. Wondering why they could not manage something so simple, yet, effective.
Talking of Russia, this headline made me smile. Looks like it will only be the Trump family, including the new Tony Blair wannabe Middle East Peace Envoy aka son-in-law, together with their friends over in Israel, plus no doubt Saudi, will send an audience.
China & Russia Jointly Boycott Trump’s “Deal Of The Century” Mideast Peace Conference…https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-05-28/china-russia-jointly-boycott-trumps-deal-century-mideast-peace-conference
Add a couple of torpedo launchers and the equivalent vessel in the R.A.N, runs at about 5000 – 7000 tonnes. Amazing punch in such a small platform.
Best feature to me is ability to navigate rivers. Nothing beats that!
Portable launch platforms become vulnerable when they launch as their position is revealed. 10 small targets have a good advantage over one big one. Not sure exactly but it seems you could build and man 100 of these beauties for the cost of one nuke aircraft carrier.
I am always more relaxed when the rhetoric runs hot with US aircraft carries deployed, all bark, no bite.
We had an old expression, “There are two ships in the Navy, submarines and targets”. The problem now becomes, too many targets for the empire and too juicy of a target for the dissidents.
But if the US launches a full scale attack on Iran, as Saker has often noted, she will have nothing to lose so no target will be too juicy, all bets are off. Israel, good neighbor that it isn’t, will be like a dart board with 200 guys shooting at it all at the same time, someone will hit the bulls eye!