• Hi Guest! Forum rules have been updated. All users please read here.

New Design Russia Type 23560E Shkval Destroyer

bobbymike

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
8,642
Reaction score
97
http://www.janes.com/article/51453/russian-destroyer-design-revealed?utm_campaign=%5bPMP%5d_PC5308_J360%2015.05.2015_KV_Deployment&utm_medium=email&utm_source=Eloqua

A new class of destroyer for the Russian Navy is currently under development by the Krylov State Research Center (KSRC), IHS Jane's was told during a visit to the company.

The new design is called Project 23560E or Shkval (Squall), KSRC's deputy director, Valery Polyakov, who added that a scale model of the design is going to be exhibited for the first time during the International Maritime Defence Show 2015 in St Petersburg from 1-5 July.

"The Project 23560E destroyer is intended to conduct operations in off-shore maritime and oceanic zones, to destroy land and naval targets, to provide combat stability to naval forces, to maintain area anti-air and anti-missile defence, and to complete peacetime tasks in all zones of the world's oceans," said Polyakov.

The Project 23560E destroyer has full-load displacement of 15,000-18,000 tons, a length of 200 m, beam of 23 m, draft of 6.6 m, high speed of 32 kt, cruise speed of 20 kt, endurance of 90 days, and a crew of 250-300.
 

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
11,789
Reaction score
200
I'll believe it when I see it.
 

muttbutt

CLEARANCE: Secret
Joined
Jan 31, 2010
Messages
201
Reaction score
1
According to some knowlagable chaps on another forum this is BS, These are some sort of private design by an institute that doesn't even design whole ships.

Seems like Janes got taken for a ride...or they are just crap take your pick ::)
 

TomS

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2008
Messages
3,175
Reaction score
101
Yeah, the picture doesn't inspire a lot of confidence -- it looks very top-heavy.
 

Attachments

Moose

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 4, 2010
Messages
1,003
Reaction score
30
I don't know if I'd say Jane's was taken for a ride, they rather clearly state they are repeating specs given to them by a rep. They didn't editorialize, but they also didn't exactly seem to be cheer leading it.

At any rate, yeah im sure Vlad wants a class of 18,000 ton Aegiski "destroyer's" to escort his fleet of megacarriers. But neither us all that likely to happen.
 

Triton

Donald McKelvy
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2009
Messages
9,723
Reaction score
168
Website
deeptowild.blogspot.com
I suggest merging this topic with:

"New Russian DDG?"
http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,21907.0.html
 

Triton

Donald McKelvy
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2009
Messages
9,723
Reaction score
168
Website
deeptowild.blogspot.com
muttbutt said:
According to some knowlagable chaps on another forum this is BS, These are some sort of private design by an institute that doesn't even design whole ships.

Seems like Janes got taken for a ride...or they are just crap take your pick ::)
Really?

The Krylov State Research Center (Russian: Крыловский государственный научный центр) is a Russian shipbuilding research and development institute, which operates as a federal state-owned unitary enterprise. The institute is named after Aleksey Krylov, the Russian naval designer and mathematician who was one of its first superintendents, and is based in Saint Petersburg.

The institute was established in 1894, to operate the Russian Empire's first ship model basin—the Naval Administration Towing Tank—on New Holland Island in Saint Petersburg. On 8 March that year, Emperor Alexander III and members of the royal family toured the facility, which is considered the foundation date of the institute. On 3 January 1900, Aleksey Krylov was appointed acting superintendent of the Tank, and proposed the establishment of a broader shipbuilding research institute based around the tank, including laboratories for electrical engineering, and physical, chemical and mechanical testing.

Originally subordinate to the Ministry of Shipbuilding Industry of the Soviet Union, the Krylov Shipbuilding Research Institute (KSRI) worked only for the Soviet Navy, but now operates in all ship science disciplines, and conducts sponsored research for international commercial shipbuilding companies.
Source:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Krylov_State_Research_Center
 

muttbutt

CLEARANCE: Secret
Joined
Jan 31, 2010
Messages
201
Reaction score
1
Triton said:
muttbutt said:
According to some knowlagable chaps on another forum this is BS, These are some sort of private design by an institute that doesn't even design whole ships.

Seems like Janes got taken for a ride...or they are just crap take your pick ::)
Really?

The Krylov State Research Center (Russian: Крыловский государственный научный центр) is a Russian shipbuilding research and development institute, which operates as a federal state-owned unitary enterprise. The institute is named after Aleksey Krylov, the Russian naval designer and mathematician who was one of its first superintendents, and is based in Saint Petersburg.

The institute was established in 1894, to operate the Russian Empire's first ship model basin—the Naval Administration Towing Tank—on New Holland Island in Saint Petersburg. On 8 March that year, Emperor Alexander III and members of the royal family toured the facility, which is considered the foundation date of the institute. On 3 January 1900, Aleksey Krylov was appointed acting superintendent of the Tank, and proposed the establishment of a broader shipbuilding research institute based around the tank, including laboratories for electrical engineering, and physical, chemical and mechanical testing.

Originally subordinate to the Ministry of Shipbuilding Industry of the Soviet Union, the Krylov Shipbuilding Research Institute (KSRI) worked only for the Soviet Navy, but now operates in all ship science disciplines, and conducts sponsored research for international commercial shipbuilding companies.
Source:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Krylov_State_Research_Center
That's what they said and they were Russians so I went with that.
 

Triton

Donald McKelvy
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2009
Messages
9,723
Reaction score
168
Website
deeptowild.blogspot.com
Source:
http://bastion-karpenko.ru/23560e-army-2015/
 

Attachments

donnage99

"Robert Gates, is that you??" sublight
Joined
Jun 17, 2008
Messages
954
Reaction score
4
Nice find, Triton. Such a big ship but so small is the flight deck
 

lastdingo

Blogger http://defense-and-freedom.blogspot.de/
Joined
Oct 18, 2008
Messages
578
Reaction score
2
Website
defense-and-freedom.blogspot.de
Extremely 'sexy' clipper bow, 'pagode' style tower and a questionable length:beam ratio of 10:1 (indicating speeds much greater than the 30 kts I believe to read from that Russian text).

Very different from DDX/DD-21/whatever, but if built it would be amongst the most recognizable destroyers/cruisers of all time (and probably a white elephant like the equally recognizable Long Beach).
 

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
11,789
Reaction score
200
lastdingo said:
Extremely 'sexy' clipper bow, 'pagode' style tower and a questionable length:beam ratio of 10:1 (indicating speeds much greater than the 30 kts I believe to read from that Russian text).

Very different from DDX/DD-21/whatever, but if built it would be amongst the most recognizable destroyers/cruisers of all time (and probably a white elephant like the equally recognizable Long Beach).
Why was Long Beach a "white elephant"?
 

Arjen

It's turtles all the way down
Senior Member
Joined
Nov 6, 2010
Messages
2,290
Reaction score
52
Too big, too expensive. The nuclear frigates/destroyers/cruisers that followed - Virginia, California, Bainbridge, Truxtun etc. - were very different.
 

DWG

CLEARANCE: Secret
Joined
Feb 11, 2007
Messages
292
Reaction score
35
You get some idea of the scale of the thing from the way it dwarfs the three Kashtan CWIS mounts on the superstructure (roughly 2.5x4x2.5m). But given the size of the Kashtans, is that HMG on the bridge wings to scale? It looks at least as long as the Kashtans are wide, and even a KPV is only a couple of metres long.
 

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
11,789
Reaction score
200
Arjen said:
Too big, too expensive. The nuclear frigates/destroyers/cruisers that followed - Virginia, California, Bainbridge, Truxtun etc. - were very different.
They had different weapon systems and VASTLY different capability. Personally, I'd rather have the 52 Talos (some of them nuclear) and the 120 RIM-67s than the two little Mk13 launchers of the Californias, or even the Mk26s of the Virginias.
 

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
11,789
Reaction score
200
lastdingo said:
...and it was the only one of its kind ever.
So was the CVN-65 Enterprise. I'd hardly consider "one of a kind" an automatic "white elephant" qualifier. Considering it served for 34 years, fought in Vietnam (including the longest combat SAM shot in history to this day), and was only retired because it's reactor came due for refueling, I'd say it was quite the opposite of a "white elephant".
 

TomS

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2008
Messages
3,175
Reaction score
101
sferrin said:
Arjen said:
Too big, too expensive. The nuclear frigates/destroyers/cruisers that followed - Virginia, California, Bainbridge, Truxtun etc. - were very different.
They had different weapon systems and VASTLY different capability. Personally, I'd rather have the 52 Talos (some of them nuclear) and the 120 RIM-67s than the two little Mk13 launchers of the Californias, or even the Mk26s of the Virginias.
If I had to deal with a saturation raid or sub-launched pop-up missiles, the later cruisers might be a better choice. That's a big part of what drove the Mk 13 and Mk26 over the slow-firing Mk 7 and Mk 10.
 

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
11,789
Reaction score
200
TomS said:
If I had to deal with a saturation raid or sub-launched pop-up missiles, the later cruisers might be a better choice. That's a big part of what drove the Mk 13 and Mk26 over the slow-firing Mk 7 and Mk 10.
But if you had to deal with raids launched from longer ranges RIM-67 might be a better option. Certainly they were missed which is why the SM-2 Block IVs were originally developed. But none of this in and of itself makes Long Beach a "white elephant".
 

Abraham Gubler

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Mar 18, 2008
Messages
3,559
Reaction score
13
sferrin said:
But if you had to deal with raids launched from longer ranges RIM-67 might be a better option. Certainly they were missed which is why the SM-2 Block IVs were originally developed. But none of this in and of itself makes Long Beach a "white elephant".
You made the point yourself about how the different "CVN"s had different capabilities. The Long Beach was a primarily air defence asset and the California types were primarily for anti-submarine.

Of course neither were white elephants. Such a comment based on the limited number of units built shows the very high level of ignorance worked with by the originator.
 

lastdingo

Blogger http://defense-and-freedom.blogspot.de/
Joined
Oct 18, 2008
Messages
578
Reaction score
2
Website
defense-and-freedom.blogspot.de
Well, or the ignorance is rather with those who don't know the range of meanings of "white elephant".

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/white-elephant

noun
1.
a possession unwanted by the owner but difficult to dispose of:
Our Victorian bric-a-brac and furniture were white elephants.
2.
a possession entailing great expense out of proportion to its usefulness or value to the owner:
When he bought the mansion he didn't know it was going to be such a white elephant.
3.
an abnormally whitish or pale elephant, usually found in Thailand; an albino elephant.
Long Beach fits #2, as did essentially all nuclear surface warships by default because the nuclear propulsion is and was too expensive. Long Beach added the development costs for a large ship that was one of its kind.
BTW, its launchers were embarrassingly unreliable and Talos was removed from Long Beach in 1978 already. Its long range did not apply to ECM-equipped or low-flying targets.


Maybe we can now go back to topic after wasting a page because some people didn't like two words?
 

TomS

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2008
Messages
3,175
Reaction score
101
Abraham Gubler said:
You made the point yourself about how the different "CVN"s had different capabilities. The Long Beach was a primarily air defence asset and the California types were primarily for anti-submarine.
The California class wer absolutely not primarily ASW platforms. They were direct evolutions out of the previous DLGNs and were primarily AAW shooters like their predecessors and successors. They had some ASW capacity, as did all the battlegroup escorts in that era -- dispersed formations meant all escorts needed a big bow sonar. But the lack of a helo hanger and any sort of provision for towed or variable-depth sonar clearly shows the were not envisaged as ASW specialists. ASW gear was in flux at the time, but the ASW specialist ships of the time (basically Knox and Spruance all had some helicopter (if only DASH, rapidly replaced by LAMPS I) and provision for IVDS, later replaced by TACTASS.
 

bobbymike

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
8,642
Reaction score
97
http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/russia-set-build-12-new-monster-warships-armed-200-missiles-16427
 

Rhinocrates

CLEARANCE: Confidential
Joined
Sep 26, 2006
Messages
178
Reaction score
10
Krylov Research Centre project numbered 23560E, which seems to match the description in terms of specs if not design as it is yet to be finalised. Useful as a reference or is the model simply a concept? The name is given as Shkval in an IHS Jane's report last year (no longer online).
 

Attachments

TomS

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2008
Messages
3,175
Reaction score
101
Same design discussed previously here:

http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,24697.0.html
 

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
11,789
Reaction score
200
MOSCOW --- The Project 23560 Leader-class destroyer will replace several warship types at once in the Russian Navy’s inventory, including guided missile cruisers and large antisubmarine warfare (ASW) ships. The Severnoye Design Bureau has started working on her engineering design, according to the Izvestia daily.

The ship will displace about 17,500 tons, which will make her close enough to Project 1144 Orlan-class (NATO reporting name: Kirov-class) heavy missile cruisers in terms of dimensions. According to former Russian Navy Deputy Commander-in-Chief Admiral Igor Kasatonov, the development of a ship like that implies certain geopolitical interests of Russia’s leadership. Metal will be cut for the new warship after 2018, according to the United Shipbuilding Corporation (USC). In all, a series of eight destroyers is planned.

http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articles-view/release/3/175678/new-russian-destroyer-to-replace-several-ship-classes.html

(Yes, I know it says "destroyer" but armed with S-500 and nuclear powered. . .)
 

Tzoli

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Feb 1, 2011
Messages
629
Reaction score
70
So this design is as "destroyer" as the Japanese Hyuga and Izumo class helicopter "destroyers"
 

Moose

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 4, 2010
Messages
1,003
Reaction score
30
The lesson of the "Cruiser Gap" remains: don't sweat what ships are called. More dubious than the destroyer label is the claim that they'll produce an 8-hull class of 17,500t nuclear combatants in any sort of useful timeframe.
 

Triton

Donald McKelvy
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2009
Messages
9,723
Reaction score
168
Website
deeptowild.blogspot.com
Model on display at International Maritime Defence Show (IMDS-2017)

Source:
http://foto-i-mir.ru/23560-squall-imds-2017/
 

Attachments

Triton

Donald McKelvy
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2009
Messages
9,723
Reaction score
168
Website
deeptowild.blogspot.com
"Project 23560E Shkval"

http://www.military-today.com/navy/project_23560e_shkval.htm

Project 23560E Shkval (squall) is the Russian Navy's current design for their next class of cruisers. It was publicly unveiled in March of 2015, and has been a media sensation ever since. It is the product of a mid-2000s plan by the Russian Navy to replace or radically modernise all of their major surface combatants by 2027.

The appearance of the project Shkval is quite intimidating, to say the least, with extremely angular features, a towering superstructure, a pyramidal aft mast, and a monolithic conning tower with three tiered, diamond-shaped bulges; both superstructures are also heavily clustered with platforms and balconies for sensors, communication systems, searchlights, and possibly weapons. Two canted and angular funnels are mounted side-by-side on the aft end of the conning tower.

The bow is subtly raked, with a raised forecastle topped with a single gun turret, and spray shields on either side of the lower forward deck, which is covered with VLS launch cell hatches. Spray shields also cover the edges of the deck between the fore and aft superstructures, which also features boats and various raised fixtures. A shorter spray shield extends partly behind the aft end of the aft superstructure, which contains a helicopter hangar. The long fantail is topped with a sizable helipad, and ends in a transom stern. The keel boasts a sizable bulbous bow, four large stabilizers, and extremely long and broad chines to provide enhanced stability; no doubt to compensate for the topweight of the colossal conning tower.

Little has been mentioned thus far about the planned electronics suite of the project Shkval. The model clearly depicts one large and two small spherical radomes, and what appear to be panels for AESA radar and a bulbous bow that may contain a sonar system. Similarly, no information has been provided as to the propulsion, speed, or range the project Shkval is to have.

Given the overwhelming size, technology, and firepower of the project Shkval, its official designation as destroyer is arguably a misnomer, given that it generously exceed the power of most cruisers. Most likely that designation destroyer was given due to political reasons. Once operational the new class of cruisers would replace the Kirov class and Slava class warships, that are steadily approaching the end of their service life.

More than 200 missiles are to be carried, including 70 cruise missiles, 128 Surface-to-Air Missiles (SAMs), and 16 anti-submarine missiles, along with a 130-mm gun and 2 helicopters. The sheer size of the design is equally imposing, at 200 m long, 15 000 tons at standard displacement, and 18 000 tons with a full load. The shape and composition of the Shkval are meant to reduce their radar cross-section to a minimum, while advanced sensors are meant to scan the seas, skies, and depths for threats at great distances, and a combat information system on par with the West's Aegis is meant to coordinate all of this.

The Shkval is specified to be powered by gas turbine engines and make 32 kts, though no other details concerning the vessel's mobility have been released to the public. It is also unknown what the projects' maximum range is to be, although it is planned to carry enough stores for an endurance at sea of 90 days. The vessel is to be propelled by 2 screws, and the steering equipment includes two large, trapezoid-shaped rudders.

Jane's has noted that while the Shkval is meant to be powered by gas turbines, Russia no longer has the ability to manufacture naval gas turbine engines of the scale required to power an 15,000-ton warship. Of even greater concern is that Russia also no longer has shipyards capable of manufacturing a 15 000-ton warship, which in earlier years resulted in the undoing of a Russian Navy 2007 plan to commission 6 new aircraft carriers by 2027.

However, there are other visible issues with the Project 23560E Shkval design, which beg the question of whether the Russian shipbuilding industry is actually capable of delivering such a monumental vessel; and also the judgment of the Russian Navy's leadership, for having wedded the Navy to the design in the first place.

A major concern for the project Shkval is icing in sub-zero weather and rough seas. Inattention to this issue in the Soviet era notably resulted in one class of warships having a severe operational deficiency. The Kynda class cruisers in the early 1960s had extremely tall and complex pyramidal masts, that not only had excessive topweight to begin with, but also gathered so much ice in arctic weather that the Kyndas were deemed too dangerous to operate in the Arctic Ocean. As a result, the Kynda class had the grim distinction of being the only Soviet cruisers that never served in the Arctic with the elite Red Banner Fleet. If the plight of the bygone Kynda class is any indication, the monolithic triple-diamond main mast of the Skhval is certain to experience the same problems.

Another questionable feature is the prominent boathouse at the base of the conning tower. Such large cavities (to say nothing of the whale boat inside) are extremely powerful radar reflectors, which makes minimizing radar cross-section impossible. Though this problem would be greatly mitigated by covering the boathouse with a door or shutter, no such feature was visible on the models, nor described by the designers.

There are also viable discrepancies between the layout of the design and its claimed capabilities. The Russian Navy claims the Shkval will carry 132 SAMs, 60-70 land-attack cruise missiles, 16-24 anti-submarine missiles, but scale model upon close inspection has only 72 VLS launch cells, and no visible box launchers. If it does indeed carry so many missiles with so few launch tubes, the rate of fire will be markedly slower than that of Western Aegis destroyers. Moreover, as a VLS launch cell ordinarily holds only one missile (for survivability reasons, as it helps contain a missile fire or "cook-off", and also because of the impracticality of having a magazine that loads so many different missile tubes), it is questionable whether carrying more than 72 missiles is feasible. This discrepancy has yet to be explained by either the designers or the Russian Navy.

The launch cells on the Shkval are also poorly-sited, with most of them being set forward, and there are noticeably less of them than on many contemporary Aegis warships, and and they're seemingly scattered randomly all over the recessed area of the forecastle (compare to all the VLC cells on the Sejong the Great class being packed into two neat, small squares). No other missile launchers are visible on the model. There is also no mention or visible evidence on the scale model made of anti-submarine rocket launchers or a torpedo battery, even though these have both been staples of Soviet and Russian warships since the 1950s.

Even though their helipads only cover a small portion of the deck, they are far too large for a vessel expected to operate one or two helicopters, and the hangars on the Project 23560E Shkval model are too small to hold more than that many.

It is also doubtful that Russia could afford to build even one of these vessels, regardless of whether their infrastructure is capable of it, as each would easily exceed $10 billion in cost; even comparatively wealthy Western nations can't afford to sink so much money into a warship. The US Navy is already learning the hard way with the Zumwalt class destroyers, which each cost more than twice as much). As with so many other huge weapons so publicized throughout Russia's history, such as the Tsar Cannon, the Tsar Tank, the Tsar Bomb, and recently the much-publicized "Father Of All Bombs", this new warship design is more likely an exercise in posturing, rather than a design intended to actually be put into production. Project 23560E Shkval could well be remembered in the future as the "Tsar Destroyer".

Whether these issues can be resolved (or at least mitigated) has yet to be seen.
 

DWG

CLEARANCE: Secret
Joined
Feb 11, 2007
Messages
292
Reaction score
35
Some of the analysis in that military-today article strikes me as, well, less than informed. The point about icing on the pagoda style integrated mast is probably well made, but criticizing it for having distributed VLS cells, when that is also true of the Zumwalts, with a well publicized survivability argument, and was also the case for SA-N-9 / Gauntlet / Khinzal on the entire last generation of Russian warships is definitely problematic. WRT missile numbers, the analysis has completely forgotten the 96 missiles in the 3 Pantsir-M modules, and completely ignores the existence of quad-packed ESSM when arguing it is impossible to fit more than one missile per VLS silo. Which is doubly a problem given discussion of quad-packing either 9M96 or 9M100.

Though it is all academic anyway as the Project 23560s were dropped from Russia's 2025 plan back in May.
 

Triton

Donald McKelvy
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2009
Messages
9,723
Reaction score
168
Website
deeptowild.blogspot.com
DWG said:
Some of the analysis in that military-today article strikes me as, well, less than informed. The point about icing on the pagoda style integrated mast is probably well made, but criticizing it for having distributed VLS cells, when that is also true of the Zumwalts, with a well publicized survivability argument, and was also the case for SA-N-9 / Gauntlet / Khinzal on the entire last generation of Russian warships is definitely problematic. WRT missile numbers, the analysis has completely forgotten the 96 missiles in the 3 Pantsir-M modules, and completely ignores the existence of quad-packed ESSM when arguing it is impossible to fit more than one missile per VLS silo. Which is doubly a problem given discussion of quad-packing either 9M96 or 9M100.

Though it is all academic anyway as the Project 23560s were dropped from Russia's 2025 plan back in May.
Thank you for the additional information.
 

Grey Havoc

The path not taken.
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2009
Messages
8,969
Reaction score
172
One thing that should be noted is that what we now know as the Shkval is two, possibly three projects merged into one. There was the original Project 23560 which was for a nuclear powered general purpose destroyer. This was then merged around the early 2010s (probably 2013) with the Lider (Leader) project for a nuclear powered destroyer leader (light cruiser in other words). Severnoye Design Bureau was in charge of at least the latter project and got the lead on the merged project. Finally the Project 23560 Lider seems to have been merged with a still unidentified project for an area air defence ship, though the destroyer leader and AAW projects may have actually been the one and same. In other words Lider originally would have been a Squadron Radar Picket Ship, similar in concept to the Soviet era Project 1077.

Whatever the case, around 2015, the Krylov State Research Center began lobbying in earnest for it's own Shkval design (designated Project 23560E though it is far from clear whether this designation had been formally approved at this time) to be adopted instead for the new destroyer program. With Putin's apparent support they seem to have won this battle in late 2016, leading to the program formally becoming Project 23560E Shkval. It is unclear if Severnoye is still actively involved in the program, though subsequent events strongly suggest not. In mid 2017 the program was dropped from the 2025 plan, likely as an adverse reaction by the naval leadership & sympathetic elements within the MOD to the Severnoye Design Bureau being dropped as program lead in favour of KSRC rather than the economic (and to a degree, industrial) constraints that were assumed at the time. For what ever reason, Putin seems to be going along with this for the moment, possibly because it gives him an excuse to delay providing additional funds to the navy at a time when the aforementioned economic constraints are still in effect (if not quite to the same degree as two years ago).

KSRC's design work on the Shkval appears to be still fully funded, for what it is worth.
 
Top