This seems very unlikely. The point of buying her now is to get her into service quickly. Adding a permanent hangar would negate that, since it would mean major rebuilding, probably taking a couple of years. It would also compromise her functionality in her primary role (what she was bought for, in the long-term), i.e. sealift. The LHDs will have plenty of helicopter capacity.
Who says it needs to be permanent? Plus I don’t think adding some hangarspace would be that major a ‘rebuild’. It might suffice to add 1 or 2 telescopic hangars. The point is not that there isn’t enough helicopter capability, but rather that this ship can operate independently of the LHDs with a pair of helicopters on board
Just to give an impression:

Thank you Wan,
I was not able to find a single pic of the new Korsar frigate that is complete. The only pic I got was the one posted.
I also had some basic questions which did not came with my last post.
1) the VLS looks like 32-cell in 4x containers of 8-each. But is there any more to the SB side (?). I can’t see it properly.
2) Is it just me or just an illusion of the A-190E turret being installed on an elevated base? It looks like too much height and the crew is going to have a good fall if stepped out carelessly.
3) Does it have its exhaust just after the 2nd mast also?
4) any specific reason why RuN did not consider the Korsar class frigate even though they had better sonar dome/sonar than the Krivak class.
5) Is it probably because the SDB have more hold in the establishment than the ZDB?
1) just 4x 8-round Klinok
2) Sort of. Much like on Talwar class
3) Yes, 2 stacks, much like Neustrashimy
4, 5) There’s Neustrashimy and Mudry (and a third unfinished hull). I suppose that, with 22350 being a development in the line Krivak I, II, III, Talwar, it is a matter of standardization, avoiding multiple, parallel ‘lines’.
I really can’t understand what the need was there for them to come up with an entirely new design like the 22350 when the full potential of the Krivak class has not yet been exhausted.
Copmpletely new design? If you compare the line drawings, the descendancy from Krivak I, II, III, Talwar is quite obvious.
Is nothing new IIRC.


The Navy has successfully test-fired a range of powerful missiles mounted with laser technology, which display high precision and have a range of 45 km (28 miles) to 300 km (186 miles).
i.e. the Chinese YJ-8 (C-801) through YJ-83 (C-803) series of SSMs and maybe C-701 too.
It does appear that you would be very surprised then. From what I can tell these OPV’s were Thai-designed, with project consultation from a number of sources, and originally intended to be built locally. Hudong was able to offer a build price cheaper than local industry, so, it got the build contracts in 2002.
I wonder how much the fact that the F-22P contract was knocking about allowed the Hudong yard to offer such an attractive unit cost…..certainly a happy coincidence there!.
This (Thai-Chinese-third party set up) apparently is also the case with missile boats currenty on order for Bangladesh navy, a version of which will also be built in Pakistan.
2x 209/1200 rather than 2x 206/500?
http://asiancorrespondent.com/46721/thai-navy-plans-to-buy-submarines-from-germany/
ROK and US sourced ships both based on the Italian De Lerici class MHC design.
Do we really know how the 956s boilers have performed in China though? They certainly have a poor record compared to 1155s in Russia.
As do most steam plants when compared to more modern GTU plants …. ? But the question was not about relative performance of GTU versus steam, but about flaws in the steam plant.
How do we know anything about the performance of any Chinese ship these day?
Is it the case that most Sovremennys have had a boiler fire or explosion during their lifetime? If not, then what is the difference with the plant in Moskva’s, Kievs and Kuz that makes for problems? They’ve all suffered neglect during the final stages of the Soviet Union.
One indicator may be whether the Chinese Sovr’s (bot flavors) are seen as being mostly active or mostly moored. Another indicator would be their participation in port visits abroad. And then there’s out of area deployment.
JanGoBo, I don’t even know why we are arguing now. You can have the last word on the matter. I, for one, am sufficiently convinced and see no need to dispute such technicalities.
As for the matter of the boilers, we’ll just have to see. Every Soviet aircraft carrier including even the Kuznetsov has had at least one major boiler fire and near-chronic problems with the KVG boilers, and as such it seems natural for me that the Vikramaditya isn’t going to be problem-free, regardless of training and maintenance. But like I said, we’ll just have to wait and see.:)
Interesting, but how has the record been for e.g. the Sovremenny’s, which iirc use the same turbine and boilers, just in a smaller plant (Main propulsion include four KVG-3 high-pressure steam boilers, 50,000hp TV-12-4 steam turbines, driving two fixed pitch propellers.)http://www.sinodefence.com/navy/surface/sovremenny.asp
Taking the chinese sovremenny’s as example, with proper care they appear to function without problems. How do you explain that if there indeed is something inherently flawed with the equipment.
Brahmos on Teg
http://foto.rg.ru/gall/465cd33e
Thx, interesting pics.
Korsar is export version of 11540
One of several versions.
If anyone got anymore pictures of these two models, can you please post it? I could’t find much on these.
Had this drawing of Korsar
Also, check: http://spkb.air.spb.ru/en/news/news/2010/11/12/evronaval/
If anyone got anymore pictures of these two models, can you please post it? I could’t find much on these.
Only one I could finc on 22160 (from Euronaval 2010 exhibition)
Three ships, eh. Must be the ex-Belgian Wielingen ships. The only way to fit a heli-pad would be to remove/relocate the Mk29 Sea Sparrow launcher and maybe also the MM38s. Should prove interesting.
The ROKN’s 9 small 2,200 – 2,300 ton Ulsan Class frigates were built in South Korea, and commissioned from 1981-1993. They are not designed to operate alone in high-threat areas, or to provide general fleet defense on the open seas. Instead, they are designed to serve as high-end coastal patrol vessels with a mix of anti-air (RIM-7 Sea Sparrow), anti-ship (guns, RGM-84 Harpoon), and anti-submarine capabilities. They carry a crew of 150.
Nah, I don’t think so.
“Northrop Grumman and the U.S. Navy hope to use similar lasers against small aerial targets and unarmored boats in the near future.”
i.e. as ‘bug swatter’ against air or seaborn ‘swarm attacks’