Project 20836 Derzkiy-class modular Corvette

Its absolutely criminal to install X-35s instead of fully integrated UKSKs on any newly built Russian ship. Also given the extremely slow buildtimes, absolutely all vessels in the Russian navy should be multirole, not with shitty interchangable modules like the LCS and derzkiy.


The Gremyaschiis are already far superior to the derzkiys because they have integrated UKSK, are cheaper, and also have equal ASW capability.

The hate for Kh-35 makes no sense. Kh-35U is the standard Kh-35 missile of the Russian armed forces, which is both anti ship and ground attack missile. As far as I am aware, the Kalibr is only anti ground with other models of Kaliber for anti ship.

Kh-35U is rather a solid missile and ideal for ground launchers, sea launchers and even launching from aircrafts.

miketheterrible wrote:The hate for Kh-35 makes no sense.  Kh-35U is the standard Kh-35 missile of the Russian armed forces, which is both anti ship and ground attack missile.  As far as I am aware, the Kalibr is only anti ground with other models of Kaliber for anti ship.

Kh-35U is rather a solid missile and ideal for ground launchers, sea launchers and even launching from aircrafts.

No, the 3M54 and the P-800 are standards. The X-35 is a relic from the late 80s. Just because its much better than the harpoon doesnt make it good for the RuN which has much more massive requirements(havve ASHMs that have a high chance of penetrating the AA of a carrier battlegroup with a dozen missiles). The RuN shouldnt compare itsself with NATO missiles. NATO can just spam 100s of harpoons every sortie and doesnt need good missiles.

KomissarBojanchev wrote:

miketheterrible wrote:The hate for Kh-35 makes no sense.  Kh-35U is the standard Kh-35 missile of the Russian armed forces, which is both anti ship and ground attack missile.  As far as I am aware, the Kalibr is only anti ground with other models of Kaliber for anti ship.

Kh-35U is rather a solid missile and ideal for ground launchers, sea launchers and even launching from aircrafts.

No, the 3M54 and the P-800 are standards. The X-35 is a relic from the late 80s. Just because its much better than the harpoon doesnt make it good for the RuN which has much more massive requirements(havve ASHMs that have a high chance of penetrating the AA of a carrier battlegroup with a dozen missiles). The RuN shouldnt compare itsself with NATO missiles. NATO can just spam 100s of harpoons every sortie and doesnt need good missiles.

What?

Kh-35 is a rather cheap missile and can be used more loosely than the other missiles. 3M54 is Kalibr, and we have not really seen in in use for antiship rolls as far as i am aware due to it not being much different than Kh-35. Onyx/Yakhont missiles I don't think are used on smaller ships so thats not much for discussion.

miketheterrible wrote:

KomissarBojanchev wrote:

miketheterrible wrote:The hate for Kh-35 makes no sense.  Kh-35U is the standard Kh-35 missile of the Russian armed forces, which is both anti ship and ground attack missile.  As far as I am aware, the Kalibr is only anti ground with other models of Kaliber for anti ship.

Kh-35U is rather a solid missile and ideal for ground launchers, sea launchers and even launching from aircrafts.

No, the 3M54 and the P-800 are standards. The X-35 is a relic from the late 80s. Just because its much better than the harpoon doesnt make it good for the RuN which has much more massive requirements(havve ASHMs that have a high chance of penetrating the AA of a carrier battlegroup with a dozen missiles). The RuN shouldnt compare itsself with NATO missiles. NATO can just spam 100s of harpoons every sortie and doesnt need good missiles.

What?

Kh-35 is a rather cheap missile and can be used more loosely than the other missiles.  3M54 is Kalibr, and we have not really seen in in use for antiship rolls as far as i am aware due to it not being much different than Kh-35.  Onyx/Yakhont missiles I don't think are used on smaller ships so thats not much for discussion.

The UKSK can fit the P-800. Russian firgates and the Gremyaschy also have the software to target with them.

The 3M54 is land attack variant? Are you serious? Haven't you read about kalibr missile FAMILY? The 3M54 is a 2 stage supersonic missile completely superior to the X-35 in every possible way. The 3M14 is the land attack variant.

Seig,

You forgot that Derzky has 8 x Kh-35 Uran as standard equipment.

So, let's redo your comparison with Grigorovich:

Gun Armament
1 x 100mm for both ships. But the Derzky's gun is of a newer generation.
2 x 30mm Gatlings fro both ships. Grigorovich does not have Kashtan, it uses same 30mm guns.

So as far as gunnery is concerned the two ships are equal.

Anti-air
Redut for Derzky and Shtil for Grigorovich

Redut is more modern and capable. So, advantage is for Derzky.

Anti-ship
8x URAN for Derzky. 8 x KALIBR for Grigorovich
But, in addition to URAN, Derzky can also carry KALIBR in containers too (at the expense of other equipment)

There may be a Grigorovich advantage, but it is a moot one.

Anti-sub
Both carry the same helicopter.
Traditional 533mm Tubes and RBUs for Grigorovich. Modern PAKET for Derzky.
Depending on the threat, advantage can be with either vessel. ASW capability will be based more on detection capability.

It is a draw in this department.

Landing/raiding and special missions
Grigorovich relies on traditional craft. Derzky has more advanced deployment craft.
Derzky will also have UAVs (armed) and robot submarines which Grigorovich does not.

Advantage Derzky.

Overall conclusion
The smaller (3400 T) Derzky is not inferior to Grigorovich (4000 T) in terms of weaponry.

Add the ingredients of superior stealth, better radars, better propulsion and smaller crew... and Derzky is the outright winner.

Note to everyone

A lot of posters are focusing too much on having UKSKs. They think that having UKSKs makes a ship great and not having UKSKs makes a ship poorly armed. Not true.

UKSKs are a massively superior no matter how much you deny it. The uran containers cant carry anti-sub missiles. The derzky by default has poor anti-ship capability and almost nonexistent long range ASW capability without UKSKs.

KomissarBojanchev wrote:UKSKs are a massively superior no matter how much you deny it. The uran containers cant carry anti-sub missiles. The derzky by default has poor anti-ship capability and almost nonexistent long range ASW capability without UKSKs.

They have the container kalibr if they need kalibr missiles.

and the Gowind class is much better weapons wise. 1 76mm, 2 CIWS, 16AA missiles, eight anti ship, 2 triple torp tubes plus one chopper.

The derk is also 1.1k times EMPTY displacement then it will be over 1.5 when they fully loaded the Derk out.

So the ship you stated is better weapons wise while being smaller. The dark cannot have all it's weapon it must pick and choose. I consider ships about over 3k tons frigates, I would still consider the Gowind a corvette a big one yes but still a corvette

The mica are point defence. Redut with 9M96 is way better. Urans are always on derzki if I'm not wrong so they are as good as gowind for antiship capabilities with land attack possibilities.

2 CIWS ? The 20 guns are for you CIWS ? You would try to intervept an oniks with a 20mm gun ? Seriously ? Even the 30mm on the derzki would have hard time with oniks.

You can add a container with 4 more kalibr missiles or something else. It is better than a gowind which has only space for helicopter.

What I wanted to say is just if you compare systems, compare them with their equivalents. Not derzki against smaller frigates but the equivalent like a gowind or other NATO or Chinese 100m corvettes. You will then see they are better armed than nato equivalent ships.

Isos wrote:

and the Gowind class is much better weapons wise. 1 76mm, 2 CIWS, 16AA missiles, eight anti ship, 2 triple torp tubes plus one chopper.

The derk is also 1.1k times EMPTY displacement then it will be over 1.5 when they fully loaded the Derk out.

So the ship you stated is better weapons wise while being smaller. The dark cannot have all it's weapon it must pick and choose. I consider ships about over 3k tons frigates, I would still consider the Gowind a corvette a big one yes but still a corvette

The mica are point defence. Redut with 9M96 is way better. Urans are always on derzki if I'm not wrong so they are as good as gowind for antiship capabilities with land attack possibilities.

2 CIWS ? The 20 guns are for you CIWS ? You would try to intervept an oniks with a 20mm gun ? Seriously ? Even the 30mm on the derzki would have hard time with oniks.

You can add a container with 4 more kalibr missiles or something else. It is better than a gowind which has only space for helicopter.

What I wanted to say is just if you compare systems, compare them with their equivalents. Not derzki against smaller frigates but the equivalent like a gowind or other NATO or Chinese 100m corvettes. You will then see they are better armed than nato equivalent ships.

Gowind is not the same, it's fully loaded it is like 2.5 the Derk will be over 4 fully loaded, that is NOT the same, sure you can add that container but then you gotta remove something else for it.

the Type 056 corvette has about 1 76mm gun, 2 30cm ciws, 4 anti ship missiles, 8 anti air missiles and 2 triple barrel torps plus space for one chopper,

That ship is also 1.5km Fully loaded.

You are trying to compare a ship that will be over 4k to ones that are under 3, I don't know how you think that makes sense, that Chinese corvettes despite being under half the derk's weight is better equipped because it has all of it's weapons fixed and doesn't need to give someone up to get another.

So yeah keep trying to peddle this myth that the derk is evenly armed for it's class because it ain't.

No the derk does not always have oniks on it, you don't even know how the ship is armed but you are trying to lecture me? think we done here dude until you educate yourself.

They are all around 105 m and the derzki is the best armed. It's not because it weights more that it has to have much more weapons. VLS are limited by the size of the ship not its weight. By the way they could add 16 VLS in that hangar for anti air missile in a container if they wanted it to be anti air instead of kakibr, it is easy to adapt a VLS into a container for them. They already did that with kalibr.

You quoted me. Can you at least read what I say ? I never said it has oniks always on it ...

Remove what for the container ? I never saw the real caracteristic for the hangar where it is supposed to be actually. It's empty. You put what you want in it. It is an advantage. Load depends on the mission.

the Type 056 corvette has about 1 76mm gun, 2 30cm ciws, 4 anti ship missiles, 8 anti air missiles and 2 triple barrel torps plus space for one chopper,

More like 1 gun, 3 ciws, 4 anti ship missiles. Russian molnya which is under 1kt has 16 urans, 1x76 mm gun and iglas. It's a fact that russian ships are better armed.

Isos wrote:They are all around 105 m and the derzki is the best armed. It's not because it weights more that it has to have much more weapons. VLS are limited by the size of the ship not its weight. By the way they could add 16 VLS in that hangar for anti air missile in a container if they wanted it to be anti air instead of kakibr, it is easy to adapt a VLS into a container for them. They already did that with kalibr.

You quoted me. Can you at least read what I say ? I never said it has oniks always on it ...

Remove what for the container ? I never saw the real caracteristic for the hangar where it is supposed to be actually. It's empty. You put what you want in it. It is an advantage. Load depends on the mission.

the Type 056 corvette has about 1 76mm gun, 2 30cm ciws, 4 anti ship missiles, 8 anti air missiles and 2 triple barrel torps plus space for one chopper,

More like 1 gun, 3 ciws, 4 anti ship missiles. Russian molnya which is under 1kt has 16 urans, 1x76 mm gun and iglas. It's a fact that russian ships are better armed.

https://www.naval-technology.com/projects/jiangdao-class-type-056-corvette/

Read that and I will expect you to be saying "I was wrong"

You don't even know how the Type 56 is armed.

My mistake you said urans not Onik's but that doesn't change anything.

SeigSoloyvov wrote:

Isos wrote:They are all around 105 m and the derzki is the best armed. It's not because it weights more that it has to have much more weapons. VLS are limited by the size of the ship not its weight. By the way they could add 16 VLS in that hangar for anti air missile in a container if they wanted it to be anti air instead of kakibr, it is easy to adapt a VLS into a container for them. They already did that with kalibr.

You quoted me. Can you at least read what I say ? I never said it has oniks always on it ...

Remove what for the container ? I never saw the real caracteristic for the hangar where it is supposed to be actually. It's empty. You put what you want in it. It is an advantage. Load depends on the mission.

the Type 056 corvette has about 1 76mm gun, 2 30cm ciws, 4 anti ship missiles, 8 anti air missiles and 2 triple barrel torps plus space for one chopper,

More like 1 gun, 3 ciws, 4 anti ship missiles. Russian molnya which is under 1kt has 16 urans, 1x76 mm gun and iglas. It's a fact that russian ships are better armed.

https://www.naval-technology.com/projects/jiangdao-class-type-056-corvette/

Read that and I will expect you to be saying "I was wrong"

You don't even know how the Type 56 is armed.

My mistake you said urans not Onik's but that doesn't change anything.

It''s smaller than I though but it doesn't change the fact that it is not armed very well. Its missiles which are ciws are not in the structure and its antiship missile is the same they are not in vls. The helipad support only light helicopter without hangar. Actually it is just a bad design not good for anything. Russia wouldn't develop such corvette.

SeigSoloyvov wrote:


Gowind is not the same, it's fully loaded it is like 2.5 the Derk will be over 4 fully loaded, that is NOT the same, sure you can add that container but then you gotta remove something else for it.

the Type 056 corvette has about 1 76mm gun, 2 30cm ciws, 4 anti ship missiles, 8 anti air missiles and 2 triple barrel torps plus space for one chopper,

That ship is also 1.5km Fully loaded.

You are trying to compare a ship that will be over 4k to ones that are under 3, I don't know how you think that makes sense, that Chinese corvettes despite being under half the derk's weight is better equipped because it has all of it's weapons fixed and doesn't need to give someone up to get another.

So yeah keep trying to peddle this myth that the derk is evenly armed for it's class because it ain't.

No the derk does not always have oniks on it, you don't even know how the ship is armed but you are trying to lecture me? think we done here dude until you educate yourself.

No, no, again no.

Stated full load displacement if honestly stated, is the maximum allowed displacement for a vessel.

Exceeding it will rapidly degrade seaworthiness, speed, endurance, floating capabilities when damaged.

So if 20386s are declared as having 3.400 tonnes displacement at full load, they shall never exceed it, and usually even with a full load of weapons and stores will displace lesser than that.

Moreover, 3400 tonnes displacement means 3400 cubic meters of submerged hull, this is the definition of displacement.

It's already hard to understand how an hull just 109 meters long, with a maximum beam of 13 meters and a typical naval (i.e. for military combatant vessels) keel and bow could have up to 3400 cubic meters submerged, over 4000 cubic meters is something likely never seen before in naval engineering.

And of course, comparing a 20386 with a type 056 is useless, the latter being short range patrol vessels, while the 20386s are long range with focus on special mssions ones.

The Gowind are only a little better, being still short on endurance and having systematically lighter weapon systems than a 20386 AShM apart and almost no special missions facilities.

Peŕrier wrote:

SeigSoloyvov wrote:


Gowind is not the same, it's fully loaded it is like 2.5 the Derk will be over 4 fully loaded, that is NOT the same, sure you can add that container but then you gotta remove something else for it.

the Type 056 corvette has about 1 76mm gun, 2 30cm ciws, 4 anti ship missiles, 8 anti air missiles and 2 triple barrel torps plus space for one chopper,

That ship is also 1.5km Fully loaded.

You are trying to compare a ship that will be over 4k to ones that are under 3, I don't know how you think that makes sense, that Chinese corvettes despite being under half the derk's weight is better equipped because it has all of it's weapons fixed and doesn't need to give someone up to get another.

So yeah keep trying to peddle this myth that the derk is evenly armed for it's class because it ain't.

No the derk does not always have oniks on it, you don't even know how the ship is armed but you are trying to lecture me? think we done here dude until you educate yourself.

No, no, again  no.

Stated full load displacement if honestly stated, is the maximum allowed displacement for a vessel.

Exceeding it will rapidly degrade seaworthiness, speed, endurance, floating capabilities when damaged.

So if 20386s are declared as having 3.400 tonnes displacement at full load, they shall never exceed it, and usually even with a full load of weapons and stores will displace lesser than that.

Moreover, 3400 tonnes displacement means 3400 cubic meters of submerged hull, this is the definition of displacement.

It's already hard to understand how an hull just 109 meters long, with a maximum beam of 13 meters and a typical naval (i.e. for military combatant vessels) keel and bow could have up to 3400 cubic meters submerged, over 4000 cubic meters is something likely never seen before in naval engineering.

And of course, comparing a 20386 with a type 056 is useless, the latter being short range patrol vessels, while the 20386s are long range with focus on special  mssions ones.

The Gowind are only a little better, being still short on endurance and having systematically lighter weapon systems than a 20386 AShM apart  and almost no special missions facilities.

I will make your entire point redundant with one statement.

Show me where the Russians have stated that 3.4k is the full load.

so your next post better contain a statement directly from them with words "With a FULL Displacement of 3400 Tons".

If your post doesn't I am going to brush it off.

I am quite aware of what the Derk is meant to do, I have stated it's strong point is utility not it's limited arsenal, it is weakly armed for a ship that will go over the stated tonnage, that is fact I have compared it to ships both abit bigger and much smaller than it and they all outclass it weapon wise.

The point of the derk is it's utility not it's weapon however the weakly armed part isn't wrong if you cannot understand this, then there is nothing else to say now is there

The existing public sources have stated that displacement.

But anyway, try to name any existing naval vessel with around those external sizes displacing even more than 3400 tonnes at full displacement.

I am just curious to meet one such vessel.

The source for 3400ton is a poster at the laying down ceremony. (post 32)
It also listed dimensions in line with 20380 though.


People over at Balancer forum made a CAD model of the hull based on pics of display model & the cross-section visible at laying down & calculated the volume.
Either the dimensions are correct & its ~2400ton -> 3400 is a typo or scaled to 3400ton it matches the dimensions given at waterline with overall dimensions close to 11356.
Normally they quote overall dimensions though, which is true we don't know until/unless Russian Govt clarifies.

I think comparison of the Ka-27 on the model does lean on 3400ton end though.

Only way you will know the dimensions if when they put it in the water not until then, 3400 is what was given it was never said if 3400 was it full load empty or what.

I believe 3400 is not the full, simply because shipbuilders calculate the empty weight when they lay the ships down, has the supports need to be capable of holding that weight and what not.

the full displacement typically only comes once it's in the water fully kitted out

SeigSoloyvov wrote:Only way you will know the dimensions if when they put it in the water not until then, 3400 is what was given it was never said if 3400 was it full load empty or what.

I believe 3400 is not the full, simply because shipbuilders calculate the empty weight when they lay the ships down, has the supports need to be capable of holding that weight and what not.

the full displacement typically only comes once it's in the water fully kitted out

No matter which way you want to look at it, the dimensions (length, width, etc.) of the Dersky are smaller than the 4000T (full load displacement) of the Grigorovich. You do the math.

Many knowledgeable people from Russian Naval forum still believe that the 3400T is an error. They argue that the standard displacementof the Derzky is 2400 T and that the full load is somewhere around 3000T.

Further debate on this subject is a waste of internet space until more information comes out.

TheArmenian wrote:

SeigSoloyvov wrote:Only way you will know the dimensions if when they put it in the water not until then, 3400 is what was given it was never said if 3400 was it full load empty or what.

I believe 3400 is not the full, simply because shipbuilders calculate the empty weight when they lay the ships down, has the supports need to be capable of holding that weight and what not.

the full displacement typically only comes once it's in the water fully kitted out

No matter which way you want to look at it, the dimensions (length, width, etc.) of the Dersky are smaller than the 4000T (full load displacement) of the Grigorovich. You do the math.

Many knowledgeable people from Russian Naval forum still believe that the 3400T is an error. They argue that the standard displacementof the Derzky is 2400 T and that the full load is somewhere around 3000T.

Further debate on this subject is a waste of internet space until more information comes out.

If the true weight is 2000 then it's armament would be much more sensible towards its size.

There is one and one only meaningful definition for military ships, and that is full load displacement.

Id est, the maximum mass the ship could have before coming short of the design requirements.

Definitions like standard displacement are just deceptions: it does not exist a standard displacement because a ship would load fuel, stores, accessory parts and items in the quantities required by the single mission it is tasked to perform on that single sortie within the limits dictated by its full load displacement.

It is a common practice to lie about a ship's real full load displacement, to hide its true potential, still given lenghtm beam and draught of the hull, only minor variations of the full load displacement could be given.

Coming back to 20386, given the imposing and tall superstructure, I would say the engineers opted for a deeper than usual draught to grant floating and stability at the same time, and it could explain the stated large displacement for its phisical size.

It just doesn't seem consistent with the published renderings and 3D models, but they could be not enough true to the real project.

Peŕrier wrote:There is one and one only meaningful definition for military ships, and that is full load displacement.

Id est, the maximum mass the ship could have before coming short of the design requirements.

Definitions like standard displacement are just deceptions: it does not exist a standard displacement because a ship would load fuel, stores, accessory parts and items in the quantities required by the single mission it is tasked to perform on that single sortie within the limits dictated by its full load displacement.

It is a common practice to lie about a ship's real full load displacement, to hide its true potential, still given lenghtm beam and draught of the hull, only minor variations of the full load displacement could be given.

Coming back to 20386, given the imposing and tall superstructure, I would say the engineers opted for a deeper than usual draught to grant floating and stability at the same time, and it could explain the stated large displacement for its phisical size.

It just doesn't seem consistent with the published renderings and 3D models,  but they could be not enough true to the real project.

"There is one and one only meaningful definition for military ships"

Lawls. Are you serious? you clearly have not spent an ounce of time around shipbuilding or a navy.

Armchair experts never cease to amuse me.

"It is a common practice to lie about a ship's real full load displacement, to hide its true potential"

you have watched too many movies, you cannot hide the displacement of a ship.

"Definitions like standard displacement are just deceptions"

Oui dude, you don't know what the hell you are talking about here clearly stop while you are ahead

I'm serious enough.
But please, give a meaningful definition of standard displacement.

Full load displacement provide a precise measurement of a hull, from which estimate its potential in terms of fuel load, future upgrades capabilities and some more.

And it is unlikely any decent navy would actually declare real full load displacement of its ships.

Single systems' characteristics are usually known: size, weight, power requirements are mostly known for artillery as for desalinations facilities or climatizations gear.

But putting all togheter to estimate what the real range and endurance of a ship are, how much more systems it could embark along its life, it's hard if not impossible without a good estimate of the full load displacement.

And it is not that easy to know it, because it requires to know with very good approssimation submerged hull's shape and dimensions.

20386 'progress' and actually first pic I think
http://www.nordsy.spb.ru/pressroom/18681/

3 bits of bare hull after is it 2 years?!
And they're moving it out of the way to make room for some fishingboats...

Confirming the 3400ton size are stats in that article (which is on Severnaya Verf official site)

Key features of the project 20386:
· A displacement of 3,400 tons
· Length of 109 meters
· Width 13 meters
· Speed 30 knots
· Cruising range of 5,000 nautical miles
· The crew of 80 people

BTW anyone else having issues with Google translate lately? I find its translating then almost instantly reverting to orginal, try again & says 'page can't be translated', try several times & it might actually work.
Yandex translate still works of course but it requires more effort.

Essentially, they sound very unsure on this boat.  That is the reason for all delay.  Engines being a big part of it.

They should have ordered more of the Grigorovich class frigates instead. They build those fast and they could simply upgrade it with Redut if really needed.