Udaloy and Sovremennyy destroyers

Would be a good place to fit some more naval TOR missiles...

Excellent clips of the modernized Shaposhnikov:

On the next ship they should lengthen the UKSK installation on the foredeck a little bit so that they could fit a Pantsir-M between the Uran launchers.

The UKSK launchers are where they are because of the 100mm gun & ammo area that was there before.
They might be able to put a Pantsir-M instead of the 2nd 100mm gun, instead of one of the Tor/Kinzhal installations but I think I'd rather see modernised Tor with the new missiles in modern grid VLS.

Ideally they'd do both modernised Tor & rework the area where the Ak-630s are like on the Udaloy II Admiral Chabanenko with Pantsir-M instead of Kashtan

They say now Levchenko is going to be modernized in the same way as the Shaposhnikov:

https://tass.ru/armiya-i-opk/9114175

LMFS wrote:They say now Levchenko is going to be modernized in the same way as the Shaposhnikov:

https://tass.ru/armiya-i-opk/9114175

It says they will do all 7??!!

TheArmenian wrote:Excellent clips of the modernized Shaposhnikov:

They are beautifully proportioned ships. Does anyone have any idea why they use a much darker shade of grey then the rest of the fleet? Also kinda smoky. I wonder if from the turbines or gensets

Could just be the batch of paint they got, or it could be a trick of the light...

It would be nice if they could give these things some medium-long range air defence.

Rodion_Romanovic wrote:

The-thing-next-door wrote:It would be nice if they could give these things some medium-long range air defence.

Totally agree, at least the same shtil (naval buk M2) that is on grigorovich in addition to the short range Tor...
They could probably fit 3 set of 12 cells instead of just 2 as in grigorovich...

Unlikely, chances are there simply isn't enough room for any of that.

PapaDragon wrote:
According to sources/leakers Admiral Levchenko is next in line for upgrade, apparently all 7 Udalois will be fully upgraded

Great news if true, we will know for certain war once Levchenko is in dry dock but these "leaks" have been spot on lately so hopefully it goes ahead

https://tass.ru/armiya-i-opk/9114175

I think it's a waste personally, I guess it depends on how much the refits cost and how long it takes to get it done, If you have to spend so many years upgrading one hull it really defeats the purpose in the end.

The only reason to do things like this is that you can get it done super fast and it serves as a short stop-gap measure until other ships come into service. If they were doing more then one at a time sure, but one at a time is just to slow for something like this.


btw for the record, they are reclassifying the Udaloy's as Frigates when the other ship was finished they changed its designation.

They have a situation right now where they are essentially using old cold war destroyers as frigates in their local waters... they are in the process of getting Corvettes and Frigates built or ready to built in significant numbers so all their fleets will have modern new ships, but the obvious problem is that you will have these new ships with modern communications and electronics and weapons working with old destroyers using dial up 14 Baud connections and 5 1/4 inch floppy disks.

Upgrading the older vessels will mean you will get ocean going destroyers with similar electronics and comms and some weapons the same as the new ships... which means the old stuff no longer needs to be supported any more, and they can communicate and operate together better.

It would mean a much quicker return to being a blue water navy and they can test larger sensor arrays and systems that will only fit on bigger ships to see how they perform while developing Destroyers for production.

It also means when the upgraded Kuznetsov and Kirovs and Slava class large ships return to service they will have ships to operate with...

SeigSoloyvov wrote:

PapaDragon wrote:
According to sources/leakers Admiral Levchenko is next in line for upgrade, apparently all 7 Udalois will be fully upgraded

Great news if true, we will know for certain war once Levchenko is in dry dock but these "leaks" have been spot on lately so hopefully it goes ahead

https://tass.ru/armiya-i-opk/9114175

I think it's a waste personally, I guess it depends on how much the refits cost and how long it takes to get it done, If you have to spend so many years upgrading one hull it really defeats the purpose in the end.

The only reason to do things like this is that you can get it done super fast and it serves as a short stop-gap measure until other ships come into service. If they were doing more then one at a time sure, but one at a time is just to slow for something like this.


btw for the record, they are reclassifying the Udaloy's as Frigates when the other ship was finished they changed its designation.

First one took 3 years OMG, they need to get 2 done per year!! If they take 3 years/ship they will have them all done in 2041 lol. Perhaps the feel they can get the next 7 knocked of quickly now they have the design tested?I agree it needs to happen fast. Fact is though they have a serious engine bottleneck in their new ship production. if they can knock these of at a rate of 2 per year and get them all upgraded in 3.5 years that is worth doing. These ships spent a lot of time tied up, as long as the corrosion can be dealt with they should be able to get 5-10 years out of each hull, at which point they can put a lot of parts into new ships, like the UKSKs and muntions.

These are anti-sub frigates. Likely their UKSKs will be used for the 91R anti-submarine Kalibr variant to launch against targets that their helicopters, sonar or seabed network detects.
Urans are for defense against corvettes and missile boats.

There were some reports that it will be fitted with Onyx and Tsirkon missiles but I don't believe that. More than anything it looks like it's going to continue to be an anti-sub vessel, and the Russian fleet is in need of some modern ones.

And due to this role air-defense is not really a priority.

Likely their UKSKs will be used for the 91R anti-submarine Kalibr variant

Likely they will talk up that the UKSKs will be loaded with Kalibr, Onyx & in future Zirkon because the point is to make them useful as a deterrent.

First one took 3 years OMG, they need to get 2 done per year!! If they take 3 years/ship they will have them all done in 2041 lol. Perhaps the feel they can get the next 7 knocked of quickly now they have the design tested?I agree it needs to happen fast. Fact is though they have a serious engine bottleneck in their new ship production. if they can knock these of at a rate of 2 per year and get them all upgraded in 3.5 years that is worth doing. These ships spent a lot of time tied up, as long as the corrosion can be dealt with they should be able to get 5-10 years out of each hull, at which point they can put a lot of parts into new ships, like the UKSKs and muntions.

Why do you think they can't do all 7 at once?

The first one involved working out the problems of taking an existing design and making all the changes so new weapons and sensors and equipment could be fitted and would actually work as intended.... now that that is complete why do you think they will take the same amount of time to do the same to other ships of the same design with the same upgrade?

These are anti-sub frigates. Likely their UKSKs will be used for the 91R anti-submarine Kalibr variant to launch against targets that their helicopters, sonar or seabed network detects.
Urans are for defense against corvettes and missile boats.

They were because the main missiles they carried were designed to be used against subs and only had a backup capacity against surface ships, but teh UKSK launcher is a universal launcher that can carry pretty much any of their new anti sub, anti ship, and land attack missiles.

The new communications and command electronics should make them fully multirole vessels... because the same upgraded equipment will be likely used in the new Corvettes and new Frigates and eventually in the new Destroyers and Cruisers.

The Urans have land attack models too and I suspect most of the time the ship will carry a variety of weapons for maximum flexibility...

Their size should allow much better endurance than existing frigates so while they wont be called destroyers in most aspects they will be.

For the anti sub role they can carry anti sub missiles and their sensors and communication equipment would make them ideal to lead a group of Corvettes that might not have powerful sonar... but they do have UKSK launch tubes and can carry the same anti sub missiles these ships carry which makes them useful too.

They could also lead a group of Corvettes launching land attack missiles against ground targets or engage enemy ships too.

The Pacific Fleet’s frigate Marshal Shaposhnikov capable of employing Kalibr and Uran cruise missiles after its upgrade took to the Sea of Japan for continuing shipbuilders’ sea trials, the Fleet’s press office reported on Thursday.

https://tass.com/defense/1189159

Why sellect a 100 mm gun when they have the 130mm AM-192M avaible?
Seems strange that the new frigates have it but not the modified destroyer.

It might simply be that there are large existing stocks of 100mm gun mounts and spares, and that seeing as this is an upgrade/overhaul, it makes sense to utilise those resources for vessels that will have a shorter lifespan than new-builds? By this, I mean primarily spares and sub-components, as the A-190 is an updated family member of the original AK-100, and thus it is almost guaranteed to share components.

It could be that they have a truly large amount of ammunition stocks on hand, or that manufacturing setups favour the 100mm.

There is precedent for this in other navies.. for example South Africa re-used 76mm guns off decommissioning strike craft for the new Valour class when they entered service.

If you have a large amount of existing guns and spares in place, then it makes perfect sense to use those resources, especially when the vessel is refurbished to serve for a designated period of time before replacement.
Many navies and manufacturers have warehouses with components and unused spares in place, and it is wasteful in the extreme if those are not used effectively or just thrown out.
There is nothing intrinsically wrong with the 100mm, it's a perfectly good naval gun.

If this is the case, then it is the smart thing to do, other than gold plating a refurbishment.

Perhaps the below deck architecture was better suited within budget to take the updated family member of the original AK-100?
Perhaps they were endeavouring to keep topweight down? It is 20 tons lighter than the original AK-100 mount, and 15 tons lighter than the A-192 mount fitted to the Gorshkov class. There are no free lunches, and it could be that a close eye was kept on topweight by the designers during the modernisation process.
What I mean to say, is that there could be many many very good, logical reasons for the choice.
The above is my speculation and opinion.

Why sellect a 100 mm gun when they have the 130mm AM-192M avaible? dunno
Seems strange that the new frigates have it but not the modified destroyer.

By calling them Frigates I suspect they will be using them as long endurance Frigates rather than Destroyers... and if that is the case then a smaller calibre gun with more ammo is more value than a heavier gun with less available rounds to fire.

quote]It might simply be that there are large existing stocks of 100mm gun mounts and spares, and that seeing as this is an upgrade/overhaul, it makes sense to utilise those resources for vessels that will have a shorter lifespan than new-builds? By this, I mean primarily spares and sub-components, as the A-190 is an updated family member of the original AK-100, and thus it is almost guaranteed to share components.[/quote]

The new upgraded 100mm gun is the weight of the old 76mm gun, and that should translate to a large increase of available space and capacity for ammo.

In its new role as a Frigate it probably wont need a larger gun...

It could be that they have a truly large amount of ammunition stocks on hand, or that manufacturing setups favour the 100mm.

The available onboard space is limited so a smaller calibre gun... which is the same size the original ships carried means more shells can be carried and a higher rate of fire maintained during engagements...

It might even be a cost saving idea... a 100mm gun would be cheaper and a new one is smaller, lighter than the previous model 100mm guns and probably cheaper than the new 130mm guns.

In the Army there are guns for the job... previously the gun for the job of BMP was the 30mm cannon, but as enemy armour has gotten stronger the current BMP gun is likely to be a 57mm calibre weapon.

In the Navy it is the same... 100mm for older Frigates... perhaps 130mm guns for Destroyers and 152mm guns for Cruisers...

The size of the ships are important... scaling up calibre has been made relatively easy because their new gun mounts are much lighter than they used to be, so you can put a heavier gun on a lighter ship... but the number of ready to use rounds would be reduced by having larger calibres and like anything the required amount of ammo needed to complete a mission can be calculated and larger calibre rounds count differently of course but might come up short.