MRK "Sarsar": does the Russian Navy need another "missile gunboat"?

16

The development of a new small missile ship in Russia, capable of carrying up to 20 "Kalibr" missiles, was recently announced. At the same time, "Sarsar", as this project was called, is not so small now, approaching a corvette in displacement. Is there a real need for ships of this class in the Russian Navy today?

"Buyan" with a new sauce


The fact that engineers at the Ak Bars shipbuilding corporation are developing a modernized version with increased displacement based on the Buyan-M project small missile ship was reported to the media by the corporation's general director Renat Mistakhov back in the fall of 2022:



We made a version based on the 21631 Buyan-M project (...) In addition to increasing the number of missiles, we made the ship's hull V-shaped, installed propellers instead of water jets, thus improving seaworthiness.

The other day he was on air on the program "Military Acceptance" on the TV channel "Zvezda" shared some details of the updated project 21635.5 "Sarsar" with an increased ammunition load of "Kalibr" cruise missiles:

This is still just a model, a development, but it already has some interesting things built in... an element of increasing the number of "Kalibrs" is built in. If before this we (placed) eight "Kalibrs", then here 16 have already been proposed, and it is possible to increase it to 20. This is a continuation of Project 21631, "Bolshoi Buyan". It already has one and a half thousand tons of displacement. We simply stretched it and supplemented it.

According to the top manager, the Buyan's hull was stretched, which allowed additional missile weapons to be placed on it. The displacement increased from 949 tons to about 1,5 thousand, and the water jets were replaced with conventional propellers, which should lead to an increase in the Sarsar's seaworthiness.

For comparison: the full displacement of the Project 22800 Karakurt small missile ship, created taking into account the operational experience of the Buyan-M project, is only 870 tons, while the standard is 800 tons. For the Steregushchiy-class corvettes of Project 20380, these figures are 2250 tons and 1800 tons, respectively. Thus, in Zelenodolsk, a ship of the size of a small or medium corvette is being developed, which, unfortunately, cannot perform the tasks assigned to corvettes.

The problem is that the small missile ships were created solely to circumvent the restrictions artificially imposed on Russia under the INF Treaty. Having several dozen small river-sea class ships capable of navigating inland waterways and carrying 8 guided missiles on board the Buyan-M or Karakurt seemed like a great idea. But the US unilaterally withdrew from the agreement, and now nothing binds domestic developers to install Kalibr or Tsirkon missiles on mobile land-based launchers.

It is much simpler, faster and cheaper than building and then servicing all these small missile ships. It is clear that they are far from useless, since they can be used for long-range strikes against terrorists in Syria and Ukraine. But this is probably their main real application. These small missile ships do not have anti-submarine defense systems, they have extremely weak air defense, which makes it impossible to safely use them in the waters of the Black Sea and, potentially, the Baltic Sea.

Rumors that at least the last MRK Stavropol could be equipped with the Pantsir-M air defense missile system have remained just rumors. Even a "wolf pack" of Ukrainian BEKs could prove to be a deadly threat to the Buyans. Then who needs larger "missile gunboats" with 20 "Kalibrs" and why?

"Caliber" n-needed?


Let's be honest, the main value of these ships is the Kalibr missiles, which domestic media and military experts have been running around with since their first use against militants in Syria. The general public then suddenly learned that we have our own analogue of the American Tomahawks, which allows us to carry out long-range strikes from submarines and small missile ships from somewhere in the Caspian Sea.

The presence of a certain number of missile ships of this class in the Baltic Fleet, based in the Kaliningrad Region, is considered a deterrent for the NATO bloc. True, there are risks that the ships of the Baltic Fleet in Baltiysk could be destroyed by a preventive missile and artillery strike from the territory of neighboring Poland right at the berths. That is why the Russian Defense Ministry has worked out the possibility of transferring small missile ships from the Baltic to Ladoga, where they can form a new flotilla, the Ladoga flotilla.

In fact, in the conditions of the prospect of a real direct clash with the North Atlantic Alliance, Lake Ladoga and the Caspian Sea remain a real refuge for these armed, but almost unprotected missile ships. The question is whether it is necessary to increase the displacement of the Sarsar to 1,5 tons and does the Russian Navy really need such a ship?

Here it would be appropriate to recall the fate of another ship from the Zelenodolsk Shipyard, namely Project 22160. For their weak armament and almost complete defenselessness against air attacks, these patrol ships were nicknamed "peace doves" by their ill-wishers. Unfortunately, this circumstance played a cruel joke on them after they had to actually fight against Ukraine in the Black Sea.

The fourth ship in the series, Sergey Kotov, which joined the Russian Navy only in 2022, was lost in the spring of 2024 after a massive attack by enemy BEKs. It would seem that the Russian Defense Ministry had lost interest in Project 22160, but the Ak Bars management decided to make a bold move by announcing a major rearmament of the patrol ship. In the summer of 2023, Renat Mistakhov, CEO of the shipbuilding corporation, made the following statement:

In accordance with the results of the construction of the "patrol", as well as with the proposals and requirements of potential customers, the designer modernized and updated a number of parameters and replaced some systems. The modernized version of the ship of Project 22160 is supplemented with guided missile weapons and a multi-channel anti-aircraft missile system "Resurs"... To promote this project, the security agencies needed the development and presentation of the appearance of the ship with a specific installation of weapons, systems and complexes on it.

Despite a number of design flaws in this project, the corporation is trying to give it a second life at the expense of the Kalibrs. Approximately the same thing is happening now with the Sarsar, which is being enlarged to turn it into a more powerful "missile gunboat". But wouldn't it be better if Zelenodolsk Shipyard directed its energy to developing a small anti-submarine ship based on the Buyan, as its competitors are doing with the Karakurt?
16 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. 0
    28 October 2024 11: 25
    Today, the main danger for the surface fleet is anti-ship missiles, unmanned aerial vehicles, and to build small missile ships for this task, where the main component is the detection and destruction of danger. Therefore, the air defense of small missile ships becomes a priority. With the disappearance of restrictions, long-range strike weapons (Caliber, etc.) should mainly be based on land-based carriers. Conclusion: new threats, new weapons become the basis for the construction of new ships.
    1. +1
      28 October 2024 23: 11
      If you sew eggs on a granny, she will become a grandfather. If you arm a small missile ship with air defense and anti-submarine warfare systems, it will no longer be a small missile ship, but a corvette.
  2. +2
    28 October 2024 11: 49
    Why do we need small missile ships - budget development. We don't know how to build a 1st rank ship, but we want money. In China, a boat has a displacement of 10000 tons.
  3. +2
    28 October 2024 12: 47
    16 "Kalibr" is not much, actually. Somehow the basic philosophy of using such ammunition has been forgotten - overcoming air defense by overloading it, each separate such missile does not present any difficulties for a developed air defense, and in large quantities it already does...
  4. -1
    28 October 2024 15: 05
    We already have patrol ships of project 22160 "Vasil Bykov" with a displacement of 1500 tons. Maybe it was worth adapting it, rather than designing it anew and, most importantly, building it anew at the plant?
    I wonder where they are going to use such mobile platforms for missiles. A lot depends on it. Including air defense.
  5. +1
    28 October 2024 16: 32
    It would be better to start building OVR corvettes.
  6. +3
    28 October 2024 17: 01
    The decision to modernize the Buyan-M has been long overdue and is in plain sight. Let me remind you: the Sea of ​​Azov is now an internal water body of the Russian Federation and it simply needs a brigade of small missile ships of twelve pennants with an ammunition load of 16 cruise missiles each. Well, it is not from the Caspian that we can terrorize the Europeans after deploying similar American missiles in Europe! The dates are now in NATO. The conditions for deploying the same brigade on Lake Ladoga are much more comfortable and cheaper than maintaining 12 frigates of Project 22350 (the combat capabilities for cruise missiles are the same) in the Arctic. Yes, increasing the military-industrial capacity to 1500 tons is unreasonable. They must fit into 1000 tons while maintaining the ability to fully use inland waterways. 24 new Buyans are faster and cheaper than building 6 frigates.
    1. +2
      28 October 2024 18: 19
      Of course, the deployment of cruise missiles is a strategic thing. Where to deploy them? However, making Odessa Russian is not in our plans for now. And from Odessa to the middle of Azov is 500 km, i.e. the range of operational tactical missiles. To the Caspian Sea it is 2,5 times further, which increases the protection of the basing area. To illustrate what I wrote: where is our Black Sea Fleet now?
      As for Ladoga, it freezes. The ice is almost half a year and the small missile ship here must be of the icebreaker type, which is of course nonsense. It turns out that the design of the small missile ship must be adapted to the basing area, although this is true. Small missile ships in the Barents and Caspian Seas cannot be the same. However, however: the Treaty on Medium-Range Missiles is not in effect. Accordingly, it is possible to dig caves in abundance in the fairly soft Crimean Mountains and place missiles there and let NATO intelligence guess where the caves are empty and where there are missiles + regular redeployments. I think it will be much cheaper.
    2. +2
      29 October 2024 00: 06
      The decision has come to write them off as useless garbage. They are simply an inadequately expensive launcher, and besides, they are defenseless against any means of destruction, and it is impossible to hide them. After the termination of the INF Treaty, we can easily pack these missiles into a standard container of 4 pieces, as has already been proposed, and easily move them anywhere - to Belgorod, Vladivostok or Murmansk. Moreover, the number of these containers is limited only by desire, unlike the constant capacity of the hull. And there is nothing to compare with mobility. But you can't make money on cheap containers, unlike with crabs.
      1. 0
        29 October 2024 22: 39
        I think your proposal is quite feasible and inexpensive. At the same time, combat patrols can be organized in case of threats. Moreover, Kalibr missiles are intended for war with Europe, and this is mainly a land-based combat area. What do submarines in the Black Sea and small missile ships have to do with it? Of course, combat patrol routes need to be organized, but this is still not as expensive as when deploying railway complexes, for which it was necessary to organize new reinforced rail-sleeper grids with heavier rails and reinforced concrete sleepers.
  7. +1
    28 October 2024 17: 23
    I agree with the author, new MRKs are not needed and their series should be closed in principle
  8. 0
    28 October 2024 23: 06
    Put 20 Calibers on it, put 30 Calibers, put 100 Calibers - its essence will not change. It's like sticking an AK-30 cannon on a boat with a displacement of 130 tons. There are universal ships, differing in displacement and, accordingly, seaworthiness, autonomy, ammunition, and weapon power. But! All these ships are capable of operating on targets under and above water, in the air and on the shore. They are capable of defending themselves (if possible) from any attacking enemy. And there are specialized ships: aircraft carriers, minesweepers, landing ships, including small missile ships, and we don't need them in such quantities. And this trough with 20 Calibers can drown an ATGM or an FPV drone, not to mention anything serious with all the billions spent on Calibers.
  9. 0
    29 October 2024 11: 05
    Any freethinking in the face of the loss of naval supremacy by the Black Sea Fleet seems unconvincing... You can come up with anything - and if you also change the fleet's missions - the scope is endless...
  10. mvg
    0
    29 October 2024 12: 49
    Useless vessel. They have awarded 55 projects, both small missile ships and corvettes with frigates. Even within one series there is specialization. 22350, 11356, 22350M - frigates, 1134, 1155.1, large anti-submarine ship, 20380, 20385, 20386 corvettes, 1144, 1143, 1164.. At the same time ALL "Atlantes" and "Orlans" were unique. Small missile ships in general are a whole bunch, starting with 1234 "Ovod" and ending with Buyans, Karakurts. It has come to the point that first they assemble, then they will float down the Volga-Don to the place of service, cutting off the settings.
    There is no naval air defense/missile defense. Poliment-Redut was being developed for 9 years. The Chinese, Americans, Turkey, France/Italy, Great Britain, South Korea, Israel have excellent air defense/missile defense. We have either monsters like Fort-M (S-300P) that only fit on a cruiser, or beam-type Uragans from the 70s or Shtil. There is simply no air defense for 150-180 km, and modern anti-ship missiles are 200-300 km.
    P.S.: The Black Sea Fleet has demonstrated its capabilities in the North-Eastern Military District. It will only get worse in the Baltic. And the Pacific Fleet is not far behind. With the level of the Japanese and Korean fleets
  11. 0
    29 October 2024 17: 46
    The answer is clear: such ships are needed... But only if they are covered by 22350. That is, they will be squires for the Gorshkovs.
  12. 0
    Yesterday, 01: 55
    The draft design of the 21635 MRK Sarsar is just one of the variants of the MRK Buyan, i.e. a river-sea ship. For ships of this class and displacement, even two UKSK 3S14 with 16 missile cells is an excessively heavy load. Let me remind you that the weight of the UKSK with 8 Oniks anti-ship missiles is 40 tons. And how it turns out to be 20 missiles is not clear. This article is published verbatim in many sources and with 20 calibers!!!