Admiral Grigorovich Frigate to Join Russian Navy Ships in Mediterranean Sea

Donate

The Admiral Grigorovich frigate, armed with the Kalibr cruise missiles, has resumed to carry out military tasks in the Mediterranean Sea.

Admiral Grigorovich Frigate to Join Russian Navy Ships in Mediterranean Sea

The Admiral Grigorovich frigate (Photo: Yantar Shipyard)

The Admiral Grigorovich frigate of the Russian Black Sea Fleet has resumed to carry out military tasks in the permanent composition of the Russian Navy in the Mediterranean Sea, the Interfax news agency reported on Saturday, citing commander of the information support department of the Black Sea Fleet, captain I rank Vyacheslav Truhachev.

“Today, a frigate of the Black Sea Fleet, the Admiral Grigorovich, commanded by captain III rank Anatoly Velichko, has joined the permanent formation of the Navy in the Mediterranean,” Trukhachev said.

He reminded that since April 3 to 5, the Admiral Grigorovich had been a master ship during a unofficial visit of a ship detachment of the Turkish Navy to Novorossiysk and took part in bilateral Russian-Turkish naval exercises of the PASSEX type.

On Friday, the news agency reported, citing its own unnamed informed source that the Admiral Grigorovich frigate, equipped with the Kalibr cruise missiles, was heading off to the operational formation of the Russian Navy in the Mediterranean Sea.

“The Admiral Grigorovich is returning in the formation in the Mediterranean Sea after participating in the joint exercises with ships of the Turkish Navy,” the source told Interfax on April 7.

In November of the last year, the Admiral Grigorovich fired the Kalibr cruise missiles from the Mediterranean Sea on terrorists in Syria. The operational formation of the Russian Navy in the Mediterranean includes about 10 ships and vessels.

The Admiral Grigorovich frigate is the main ship of the off-shore maritime zone of the project 11356. Ships of this series have a displacement of about 4,000 tons, a speed of 30 knots and a capability of autonomy navigation during 30 days. The Admiral Grigorovich is armed with the Kalibr-NK cruise missiles, the Shtil self-defense guided weapon system, a 100-mm artillery cannon, antiaircraft artillery, a reactive bomb system, torpedoes, and also can carry a ship-based helicopter.

Admiral Grigorovich Frigate to Join Russian Navy Ships in Mediterranean Sea

Click to see the full-size image

Donate

SouthFront

Do you like this content? Consider helping us!

  • Gryphonne

    Why don’t they send something more substantial? Like one of their battlecruisers?

    • Toni Liu

      They want to upgrade its weapon, so it stays in russia for that reason

    • Jesus

      When Nahimov is refurbished and rearmed maybe possibly with zircon missiles in 2018, those destroyers would keep their distance from it, because they would be dead meat; their only offensive weapon is the Tomahawk which performed “superlatively” a couple of days ago. If Russia had more EW assets in the area, they would have embarrassed the US Navy, without having to fire a single SAM.

      • Solomon Krupacek

        2 years??? so weak is russian industry? and 2 years will not leave the porte??? LOL

        • XRGRSF

          Solomon, old Buddy, you must learn a more subtle manner of poisoning minds. Your pathetic insults, and crass attacks only harden the resolve of your opponents. Try placing doubt, and confusion in the thoughts of the enemies of your employer. Help the targets of your cognitive dissonance absorb the toxin of your thoughts by serving small, but easily digested portions. At this time your technique has all of the refinement of a turd floating in a punch bowl, and that just won’t do.

          • Solomon Krupacek

            finish the crying :DDD

        • Jesus

          The refurbishment is quite extensive, Russian ship building capacity is increasing, ” weak Russian economy” is a misnomer, check the trade surplus for last year, the rearmament program is going ahead full speed, while 50 billion appropriated to Pentagon is going to try to maintain and service existing old weapon systems.
          Did you know in the 2nd WW a Russian division could do with 150 tons of supplies daily, while a US division needed 500.

          • Attrition47

            Red Army divisions were smaller so you might expect Red Army corps to contain the troops and equipment normally part of the establishment of British and US divisions.

          • Jesus

            Most divisions, German, English, Russian, American….etc had similar configurations using 12-16,000 men as a basic unit, synonymous to what a Roman legion was. The point I was making, western divisions were needier, and subsequently needed a longer support tail. They indulged in luxuries like chocolate cake and other “need” items, while the russians needs were basic and more ascetic.

          • Solomon Krupacek

            no, 25 000

          • Jesus

            25,000 what? A division can have auxiliary and support elements.

          • RFFESQ41

            A Roman legion had 9 cohorts @480, a 1st cohort @960, & 120 cavalry (Fr. the “Notatitium Dignitatum”, the definitive & most authoritative contemporary source.), for a total of 5,240 heavy infantry & 5,360 men total for the 1st-3rd C. Empire, down from the @6,000 man Republican Legion.

            Normally attached to a legion were auxiliary troops: levies from native peoples of the provinces. These varied very greatly in combat efficiency. Some were outstanding, like the Sarmation Cavalry or the Batavian & Tungrian Infantry. Some were specialists like the Scythian Archers or the Celt-Iberian Phalanges. The number of auxiliaries assigned to a legion in the field rarely varied below half the legion’s full strength nor more than equal to the legion’s full strength.

            So, when speaking of the strength of an Imperial Roman Legion during the Roman Army’s period of ascendancy, it was 5,360 Roman troops, but it might also have attached between 2,680 & 5,360 additional non-Roman troops, for a grand total formation strength of between 8 040 & 10,720 fighting personnel of all & various types.

            I don’t wish to engage in your vituperative little hypothetical debate about your personal picks for weapons systems & electronic warfare systems. Perhaps you all work for competing arms contractors & know each other & trading filthy barbs is de rigeur for your trade.

            I’m only a military historian, but a good one. Someone lumped Roman legions into comparisons of WW2 divisional organizations of Russians, Germans Brits, & Americans & implied legions were similar or the same. That is not accurate & quite misleading. What I have set forth for you above, you can take to the bank.

            Respectfully Submitted,
            …/s/Bob Frazier.
            Hon. Robert F. Frazier, Esq.

          • Jesus

            You misunderstood my anology, the basic major fighting unit during Roman times was the legion, in modern times it is the division.
            The division like the legion can have auxiliary units attached to it, or several legions comprise an army, the same way several divisions comprise a corps.
            What is so difficult to understand?

          • Solomon Krupacek

            boy, we are talking about 1 piece of ship.
            do not tell me anything about capacities.

        • John Whitehot

          but 2018 is one year. actually less, about 8 months.

          • Solomon Krupacek

            and sure 1st january will be? ;)

      • William Gutgesell

        Comrade Jesus/ so what became of the Russian frigate in pursuit of the US missile launcher? the last news was that they were headed South near Israel.You are much more informed.Also,could you provide ‘exact’ co-ordinates for Com.Assads quarters? We miscalculated miles/meters.Very much appreciated,smooth sailing!

        • Jesus

          LOL, you miscalculated? Why don’t you admit Tomahawk is a piece of junk, Russians are able to snuff the GPS guidance system with their EW.
          Maybe the Russians need to bring some more Krasukhas and show the world what the US offensive capability is all about.

          • Solomon Krupacek

            you do not know, what made russians. finish with your tales, kid.

          • Jesus

            Can you logically conclude something in your mind? Either Tomahawk is made in China ( junk) and the Russians can sit back and do nothing and laugh at the fiasco. Or the Tomahawk being overly reliable on GPS becomes a victim of EW interference.
            So, which one is it?

          • Solomon Krupacek

            tomahawk is madei in china??? kid, you are on meth :)))

            none of this. there is 1 vague information about 59 launched missiles and 23 targetd the airport.
            but!
            1) in the beginning your mod told, only 6 planes were destroyed. yesterday the syrians spoke about 15. and i believe to syrians. so, 15 is closer to 20 in foxnews..
            2) nobody saw the remnants of by you intercepted tomahawls. probably most of them found it targets. 15 planes and lot of other destryeed targets show, there were more then 23 incomes.

          • Jesus

            Sorry, you do not understand some humor, we have a saying, stuff made in China is junk.
            The performance of the Tomahawk equaled junk status.

          • Toni Liu
          • Solomon Krupacek

            1 missile, far from 30

          • John Brown

            The computer chips and motherboards of the Tomahawks are made in China that is how corrupt the USA is now.

          • Solomon Krupacek

            sure not :)

    • NN

      NO need it. Just watching and taking conclusions of the Syrian attack they would be thinking that if they even can not hit a defenseless an immobile target, less a ship at 30 knots per hour with the finest AA defense.

  • John Brown

    Its better to build and send subs and frigates and corvettes armed with big missiles then aircraft carriers, heavy cruisers etc. they are cheaper to build more likely to fight and win against an opponent who can fight back. Notice all USA aircraft carrier battle groups are now staying far away from Russia as they know they are only good for bombing defenseless third world countries with lots of brown people.

    • Jesus

      Frigates and corvettes need air cover to complement their air defenses, they are good platforms as long as they stay 500-1000 km from friendly coastlines. A corvette from the Caspian Sea can engage easily a carrier in the Persian gulf; the introduction of longer range and more capable missiles make the carrier an easy target, however, if you want to interdict SLBM launches from northern Atlantic or the North Pole you need a blue water flotilla capable to defend itself and carry the weaponry needed to make such interdiction effective. Maybe 2 carriers along with 12-14 Lidder destroyers.

      • John Brown

        Who wants to interdict SLBM launches??? It’s too expensive and
        too easy to defeat with cheap countermeasures. Putin is right to not bother and
        build better missiles instead like the new Sarmat Heavy ICBM, frigates, corvettes
        and subs.

        https://southfront.org/russia-defense-report-sarmat-heavy-icbm/

        • Jesus

          You interdict Trident SLBMS and you take any US delusions of a first strike capability; having Lidder destroyers equipped with S500 SAMs equipped with conventional/nuclear warheads, would intercept the SLBM before it MIRVS, and destroy it. Lidder destroyers could deploy vertical launchers with hundreds of missiles.
          That is what the naval Aegis is trying to accomplish, however, they are too far away from launching sites inside Russia.
          S500 is in the works, and the Lidder destroyer will be built after 2020.

          • John Brown

            The US ABM system does not work unless armed with nuclear warheads,
            then it works about 20% of the time at best, and such nuclear missile warheads can be transferred to cruise missiles which can be used to attack. One has to spend 10 times the money defending as one has to spend building better missiles to attack and get through such a defense . The real purpose of these forward ABM bases in Romania, Poland etc is that they can also hold nuclear armed cruise missiles for a surprise first strike nuclear attack against Russia and China.

            Read the speech!

            https://www.newcoldwar.org/a-world-between-war-and-peace-speech-by-vladimir-putin-to-the-valdai-discussion-club-in-sochi-russia-oct-22-2015/

            The United States initiated the signing of an agreement with Iran on settling the Iranian nuclear issue. We actively followed and supported our US and Iranian partners on the road to a common decision and this agreement has now come into force and Iran has agreed to send its enriched uranium out of the country. So if there is no Iranian nuclear problem, why develop a missile defence system? You could stop the
            project, but not only has the project not stopped, on the contrary, new tests and exercises are taking place. These systems will be in place in Romania by the end of the year and in Poland by 2018 or 2020.
            As I can tell you, and the specialists know, the missile defence deployment sites can be used effectively for stationing cruise missile attack systems. Does this not create a threat for us? Of course it does, and it changes the very philosophy of international security

          • Jesus

            Forget about US ABM, S500 and later versions will have antiballistic capabilities, with a range of approx 600kms or more. If these missiles were deployed aboard large ships (Lidder 14-18,000 tons), and you have 150 missiles per ship, being in the middle of Atlantic and being able to interdict any SLBM launches is a great asset. Of course the Lidder ship will not be used only for anti ballistic purposes, its assortment of weaponry will allow it to conduct anti submarine warfare, surface to surface and surface to air missions. It will need some air protection from a carrier, even though its surface to air capabilities will be good.

          • John Brown

            Jesus you are 50 years out of date. What do corvettes
            need air cover from? Their kalibar cruise missiles have a much
            longer range then any aircraft from an air craft carrier and their missiles
            too. You are thinking 50 years behind the times. It is the outdated aircraft
            carrier battle group that needs protection from Kalibr armed corvettes and
            frigates. Kalibr land attack versions in use by Russia
            have various claimed maximum ranges; it is believed that the conventionally armed
            version has a range of 1,500 km (930 mi), while a nuclear armed Kalibr has a
            greater range of 2,600 km (1,600 mi) with the naval versions said
            to have longer ranges. Just keep the frigates and corvettes within 1,000 km of
            Russian shores so they can get support from the Russian navy and land based
            aircraft if needed. Once Russia has a hundred or more of them they, can go on
            the hunt for aircraft carrier battle groups when these carriers are far away from their land based support and
            support the Russian submarine fleet in such hunts . Sure a few will be sunk but
            I would trade a few frigates and corvettes for an air craft carrier battle
            group or a few American submarines any day and
            such frigates and corvettes with their anti submarine capabilities and ability to deny the seas to American surface ships, provide good cheap support, for the Russian submarine
            fleet against the US submarine fleet.

          • Jesus

            Carriers are vulnerable to attacks, hence the range of the Caliber is greater than the range of the F18, having said that, carriers are escorted by Aegis cruisers and destroyers that provide surface to air defenses for the carrier. To overwhelm the Aegis defense requires a lot of Calibers, the corvettes and the frigates do not carry a heavy missile load, hence the Caliber is basically subsonic that accelerates to +Mach 2 in its terminal stage.
            A remodernized battle cruiser or a new Lidder destroyer would have at least 300 vertical launchers capable to overwhelm a carrier battle group.
            What is more even promising is the hypersonic glide vehicle (project 4202) that can be equipped with a conventional warhead, a Sarmat ICBM can carry up to 10 of them, they can attack the carrier at +Mach 10, whereby Aegis defenses would not be able to respond effectively.
            Also, the introduction of the hypersonic missile Zircon would aggravate Aegis’ ability to respond properly and effectively.

            Chinese DF21 and 26 are MRBM with hypersonic glide vehicle, are giving the US plenty to think about, they laugh it off thinking their EW would save the carrier.

          • John Brown

            Jesus, You sound like an old Soviet general (who lost the cold war)
            or an American general in 2017 who is about to lose as the US economy collapses, talking about the superiority of your conventional forces, which they can’t afford, which are a huge waste of money and totally irrelevant, in a real nuclear war, except such large and useless conventional forces bankrupt your economy. I am talking about how these ships will be
            used in a nuclear war. Any war between the Zionist empire and Russia is going to be a nuclear war as it would have been between the Warsaw Pact and the NATO pact. One nuclear armed Kalbibre missile can take out an entire carrier battle group or they can be programmed to attack in a swarm or my choice one at a time, detonating a nuke a few miles from a carrier task force causing huge waves causing some ships
            to just capsize and also EMP rendering their anti missiles systems inoperative long enough for another nuclear Kalibre to get closer and when it comes to nukes, close is good enough.

            I think you are drinking the same Kool-Aid like those in the
            USA who think a war between Russia and America is not going to go nuclear, the US will just twin, Russia won’t use its nuclear weapons when the US would in the reverse situation if Russia was to take Canada or Mexico. If the US is losing and Russia is going to take Western Europe you think the Israeli – US in 1980 or 2017 would not use nukes??????? How they and you can think Russia won’t use nukes in the same situation shows there and your insanity. Maybe your real name is Jim Jones, you remember the Kool-aid gut in south America.

          • Jesus

            What I said applied to conventional warefare, you use nuclear weapons when you are desperate and with the back against the wall.
            You are telling me that Russia building small ships equipped with nuclear weapons would offset carrier battle groups? Why would Russia do that? They have superior conventional attack missiles, the hypersonic missile is in the works along with hypersonic gliders.
            The hypersonic gliders would hit carriers anywher in the world, including their home ports. Each hypersonic glider would deliver a 1000kg warhead in a within a low CEP and the carrier is hit. 2 or 3 hits at +Mach 10 and the carrier is history.
            Russia is on the verge of superseding US in conventional capability, missilery and EW, if US looses a conventional war and wants to resort to a nuclear weapons, having naval platforms that can fire S500 missiles against SLBMs would take their bravado away.

            The intent is to have the capability to win conventional and nuclear wars as well.
            Russia is not there yet, the rearmament program through 2025 would bring her closer to that goal.

          • John Brown

            Russia designed their military for nuclear war because having an enormous conventional armed force is one of the main reasons for the collapse of the Soviet Union and is one of the main reasons the USA economy is now collapsing along with rampant organized
            Jewish corruption and criminality, as you seem to be unable to learn from history.

            You are wrong again in saying using nuclear weapons is a sign of desperation for Russia; their use for Russia are when it is necessary to defend their vital interests not for conquest as it used to be in the USA, before the Zionists took over all influential positions.

            It is a sign of desperation from the US and the Zionist empire that rules the USSA as it begins to collapse, to attack a nuclear armed state as their empire is collapsing as they are losing the peace because of their rampant criminality, corruption, Jewish
            racism and Jewish supremacism, and they think a war is their only hope. I would never advise Russia to start an offensive war of conquest against the USA because I know where it will end.

            However for some reason I don’t understand, you think
            the USA can attack nuclear armed states, start an offensive war of conquest against them and get away with it!!??? Well if you are happy with the death of all of the American people go ahead and do it. You obviously don’t value human life or any life at all on this planet, I guess we are all just useless, stupid, animal
            beast, Goyim, to die in your wars, as the racist, supremacist, Jew, and war criminal Henry Kissinger said.

          • John Brown

            There you go again with the insanity. You can’t win a nuclear war!!!!! You think like insane NEO CON, racist, supremacist, Jews. The best way to prevent a first strike is to have missiles like the new Sarmat ICBM, submarine based missiles, missiles based on railway cars, truck mobile missiles, ready to fire in 60 seconds. And not giving in on places like Syria, Ukraine, Poland, Romania and letting the Zionist empire station nuclear capable missiles on your borders in such places and the will to defend your vital interests.

            The Sarmat 2 is brand new, the Buluva missiles on Russian SLBM submarines are brand new, there are lots of new Russian ICBMS and SLBMs being produced right now! Don’t you know???

            You don’t want to mess with the MAD doctrine. This makes a nuclear war more likely insane one. MAD worked for 50 years.

            They build small ships so they can have a functioning economy and not go bankrupt and collapse again like the USA economy is doing now and still be able to fight a nuclear war and destroy their enemies America etc. keeping the MAD doctrine.

  • Aleks Black

    Putin is going to park that thing of the coast of Cypress right next to the US boats and launch Kaliber cruise missiles at the rebels in Hama, for parity, maybe 30.