Russian Military News, Reports, Data, etc.

Well, Gorshkov is already pushing destroyer territory, at over 5000t full load.

While the new class will obviously end up taking many cues from Pr.22350, this model probably is not quite what it will look like, BTW. That was a kit bash by a radar manufacturer to showcase as many of its wares as possible on a single ship. Cut & shut job on a Gorshkov hull & superstrucure seasoned with gratuitous radars, plus a Gremyashchiy integrated mast, basically.

Equation said:

It looks big enough to be a destroyer instead of a frigate. Do you know what the tonnage expected to be?

Click to expand...

The only solid number we know as of now is 64 UKSK cells.

james smith esq said:

I suspect that Russia will be the primary customer for this, reduced-price, platform.

Click to expand...

Having domestic customer buy-in is critical for export sales. I'm astonished that they announced this without even a token domestic commitment, and the fact that they did suggests the Russian Air Force is decidedly unenthusiastic about it.

Russians using Chinese hardware, Sino-Russian "Interaction-2021" Joint Exercise at Ningxia .

Equation said:

It looks big enough to be a destroyer instead of a frigate. Do you know what the tonnage expected to be?

Click to expand...

I think the Russian navy is afraid to use the classification of destroyer for this class of ships for whatever reason, however it may be due to two factors;
1. The Russian navy is still perusing the “Lider” class destroyer
2. It is an enlarged 22350 “Gorshkov” frigate and will retain the designation of frigate for technical or political reasons
Another possibility is because destroyers in the Soviet and Russian navies were defined by their large Anti-Ship/Anti-Submarine missiles which filled a very niche role unlike these modern “multi-purpose” ships. However indeed these ships are expected to be very large and displace more than [7,000] tons unloaded and even more loaded

meckhardt98 said:

I think the Russian navy is afraid to use the classification of destroyer for this class of ships for whatever reason, however it may be due to two factors;
1. The Russian navy is still perusing the “Lider” class destroyer
2. It is an enlarged 22350 “Gorshkov” frigate and will retain the designation of frigate for technical or political reasons
Another possibility is because destroyers in the Soviet and Russian navies were defined by their large Anti-Ship/Anti-Submarine missiles which filled a very niche role unlike these modern “multi-purpose” ships. However indeed these ships are expected to be very large and displace more than [7,000] tons unloaded and even more loaded

Click to expand...

From what I've seen, they don't really use the designation Destroyer, in general. The last time its use was widespread seemed to be in the 1950's. The only recent exception being the Sovremenny's.

Everything else, that was classified as a Destroyer in the west, usually got called something bland like "Large Anti-Submarine Ship" by the soviets.

sheogorath said:

From what I've seen, they don't really use the designation Destroyer, in general. The last time its use was widespread seemed to be in the 1950's. The only recent exception being the Sovremenny's.

Everything else, that was classified as a Destroyer in the west, usually got called something bland like "Large Anti-Submarine Ship" by the soviets.

Click to expand...

Destroyer was more of a designation given and used by NATO and the west. The soviets preferred to designate ships either as cruisers e.g.; heavy missile cruiser, heavy missile aviation cruiser, ect for political reasons.
If it walks like a duck and if it quacks like a duck and even looks like a duck is it a duck? Many of those ships can fit the profile of being a destroyer but at the end of the day the Russian definition of a “destroyer” affects their nomenclature.
However hopefully we will see them change this habit and things are looking up with the “Lider” class although that may be designated as a cruiser by the west similarly to how the Chinese Type 55 has been referred to as a cruiser by American intelligence in some reports.

meckhardt98 said:

Destroyer was more of a designation given and used by NATO and the west. The soviets preferred to designate ships either as cruisers e.g.; heavy missile cruiser, heavy missile aviation cruiser, ect for political reasons.
If it walks like a duck and if it quacks like a duck and even looks like a duck is it a duck? Many of those ships can fit the profile of being a destroyer but at the end of the day the Russian definition of a “destroyer” affects their nomenclature.
However hopefully we will see them change this habit and things are looking up with the “Lider” class although that may be designated as a cruiser by the west similarly to how the Chinese Type 55 has been referred to as a cruiser by American intelligence in some reports.

Click to expand...

On a side note the last true “destroyer” built by the Russians is the final batch of Udaloy IIs in the early nineties.

I believe the terminology Russians use is to do with the Montreux treaty. Destroyers are limited whereas frigates are not. Its same reason Russia's carrier isn't officially a carrier, even though it is.

Abominable said:

I believe the terminology Russians use is to do with the Montreux treaty. Destroyers are limited whereas frigates are not. Its same reason Russia's carrier isn't officially a carrier, even though it is.

Click to expand...

No relationship with it whatsoever. Modern Russian classification is simply a mess, with no particular logic or devious plan.

p.s. and Montreux doesn't limit Russian destroyers in any way anyways.

meckhardt98 said:

On a side note the last true “destroyer” built by the Russians is the final batch of Udaloy IIs in the early nineties.

Click to expand...

mid 2000s*