“Russia Launches Project 23550 Patrol Ship ‘Purga'” –Naval News

Official scale model of the Project 23550 ice-class patrol ship “Purga” for the Russian Coast Guard presented during the commissioning ceremony. Picture by Curious / forums.airbase.ru

Naval News reports the launch of a 9,000 tons, 114 meter icebreaker patrol ship for the Russian Coast Guard.

We have talked about this class before. Artist depictions of the class mounting containerized Kalibr cruise missile systems caused a bit of a stir, but we have yet to see containerized weapons on this class, nor have we seen Kalibr launched from containers against Ukraine. At this point, Russia may not have enough missiles to fully outfit its more capable combatants.

This is the first of the class for the Russian Coast Guard. The first two ships of the class were for the Russian Navy.

As I noted earlier, I really don’t think we need to mirror the Russian capability to put containerized missiles on our icebreakers, but the Polar Security Cutters will be valuable, almost irreplaceable auxiliaries, and unlike the Russians, we have very few icebreakers, so we need to be able to quickly upgrade their defensive capabilities.

These ships are in many respects similar to the Canadian Arctic Offshore Patrol Ships, but they are reportedly slightly faster at 18 knots and much better armed–but only to a level similar to the OPCs, unless containerized weapons are added. I expect our Artic Security Cutters may be more like these than the Healy, though they probably will be larger than the Russian ships.

7 thoughts on ““Russia Launches Project 23550 Patrol Ship ‘Purga'” –Naval News

  1. Chuck. I do not know the basis and research behind your opinion that we do not need to be armed in the Arctic, all I can observe is that Russia has significant armaments both on their ice class vessels and on shore based on my cruises to both Murmansk and to Siberia.

  2. If Congress would get off it’s Backside and the USN & USCG get their act together we’d have 2 New PSC operational instead of maybe in 2025 or 2027. We need these ships now all six. The Containerized Missiles need to be addressed NOW not after they are needed. Russia is pushing forth armed ice class OPC and armed icebreakers.

  3. I never said they should be armed. You might want to check out my earlier post.

    Will the CG Again Arm Icebreakers?

    I said we don’t need to arm them with cruise missiles because I don’t think they will every have occasion to engage Russian Surface warships while acting alone.

    Russian surface warships are not the principle threat in the Arctic, subs and air launched missiles are much more likely. As I said, we need to be able to quickly upgrade their defensive capabilities.

    If we are going after Russian Surface vessels, the Air Force or US sub are much more likely to take them out than an Icebreaker, even a well armed one.

    On the otherhand we will need these ships to survive to facilitate access to the Arctic or as I believe may someday be the case, to Antarctica.

  4. Chuck; zoom in on the helicopter pad, helicopter, and stern crane. The tail rotor on the helicopter overlaps the crane’s position. If the helicopter is not aligned exactly amidships the tail rotor and crane will impact. I know this is just a conceptual model, but still, that is a critical detail….Chief Car

    • @Michael Carr, Chief I think in the stowed position, the crane would be below the level of the flight deck. There is actually a two deck step down from the flight deck to the well deck. Does look like the base of the crane is one deck below the flight deck. Gear on the well deck all the way aft, looks like it might be something like a polution containment boom.

  5. I wouldn’t plan to add anything on we can deliver via sub, patrol plane, or bomber. A strong defense and bumper boat thinking might be smart. Like I wish every ship had:
    Mk 38 mod 4 or larger deck mounted gun.

    I’d suggest Phalanx with the thinking they might turn into Searam.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s