Icebreaker of the Week: Russia's Project 23550 "Combat Icebreakers"
A look at the reality (and not the hype) concerning Russia's newest class of Arctic patrol vessels.
Some time ago I teased a regular ‘icebreaker of the week’ feature. Today I intend to actually start it, with the goal of publishing one every Friday. We’ll start off late already with this Saturday post.
And there’s no better ship to start with than Russia’s Project 23550, the so-called ‘combat icebreakers,’ that have been in the news frequently during the past few years.
Note: This feature will not just include ships classified as icebreakers, but also polar research vessels and other ice classed vessels of note. Consider it the 'Icebreaker' of the Week, if you prefer.
Project 23550
The project began in 2016 when Russia’s Ministry of Defense ordered two ice-class patrol ships from Admiralty Shipyards in St. Petersburg. Two additional vessels, for use by the Coast Guard/FSB, were ordered in July of 2020.
According to the Russian News Agency TASS (translated via Microsoft Edge):
The ice-class patrol ship of project 23550 is a fundamentally new type of ship, combining the qualities of a tugboat, a patrol ship and an icebreaker, capable of moving in solid ice up to 1.5 m thick. It is designed to solve a wide range of tasks, including the protection and monitoring of Arctic water resources, escorting ships, participating in rescue operations, transporting special cargo, firefighting on floating and onshore facilities, protecting drilling platforms and vessels, patrolling offshore fields.
Originally, the first two vessels were supposed to be delivered to the Russian Navy by the end of 2020. However, funding problems announced in 2018 delayed delivery until 2023-2024. Delivery of the first ship, Ivan Papanin, took place on September 5, 2025.
Ivan Papanin is based in Severmorsk, the home of the Russian Navy’s Northern Fleet.
The general capabilities of the Ivan Papanin are comparable with other Arctic Patrol vessels, including Svalbard (operated by the Norwegian Coast Guard) and the six Harry DeWolf-class patrol ships of the Royal Canadian Navy:
And for friends who speak metric:
The ‘Combat Icebreaker’
It was the armament of the Project 23550 ships that really got the media excited, or at least the headline writers, excited.
(Click the headline to read the associated article)
And my favorite, a English-language page of a Russian website quoting a Vietnamese source:
Actual Armament:
In reality, the Project 23550 vessels are lightly armed, consistent with the needs of a patrol vessel. They are not intended to be front-line surface combatants.
Ivan Papanin armament:
1 × 76.2 mm (3 in) AK-176MA naval gun1
12.7 mm crew-served machine guns
2 x containerized Club-K missile launchers (up to 8 missiles)
It is the capability to carry the Club-K missile launcher that seemed to get everyone excited. Consider this quote from a recent article in MarineInsight:
Few countries operate military ships with both icebreaking capability and heavy armament. While Norway, Canada, and Denmark have ice-class patrol vessels for Arctic missions, none are configured with long-range missiles like the Papanin.
If armed with Kalibr cruise missiles, it would be the only icebreaker in the world able to strike targets hundreds of miles away.
However, the Ivan Papanin was delivered without the containerized missile systems installed. I have not been able to find any articles showing that these containerized systems have ever been deployed with the Russian Navy2.
Without the missiles, the Program 23550 ships look very much like their Norwegian and Canadian analogues:
Harry DeWolf armament:
1 x BAE systems Mk 38 Mod 3A 25mm machine gun system
crew served M2 .50cal mounts
Svalbard armament:
1 x Bofors 57mm naval gun
crew served 12.7mm machine guns
For comparison, here is a possible weapons loadout on Davie/Helsinki Shipyard’s design for the U.S. Coast Guard (currently being negotiated for construction):
Arctic Security Cutter (Davie/Helsinki Shipyard design):
1 x Mk 38 25mm deck gun
4 x M2 .50cal mounts/remote weapons stations
4 x Containerized mission payloads for ISR, ASW, mine laying and other missions, such as Mk70 vertical launchers (one Mk70 contains four VLS cells) or the SUMICO mine laying system.
To be fair, many of the articles I listed above get the story correct. However, the headline writers and popular media outlets seem to overstate the combat capability of these ships.
Construction Status
Project 23550 includes a total of four ships. Two are for the Russian Navy (Project Arktika) and two for the Russian Coast Guard/FSB (Project Ermak)
As I mentioned above, the first Project 23550 ship, Ivan Papanin, was delivered to the Russian Navy in September 2025.
The second Project 23550 ship, Nikolay Zubov, was launched in December of 2024 and scheduled for delivery to the Russian Navy in 2027.
The third and fourth ships are modified versions being built for the Russian Coast Guard/FSB. One of the modifications is that they will reportedly have two 30mm AK-630M Close-in Weapons Systems (CIWS) instead of the space for containerized weapons systems. The contract to build these vessels was originally awarded to Vyborg Shipyard (the first two vessels are being built at Admiralty Shipyards).
The third ship, Purga, was launched in October 2022. Originally supposed to be delivered in 2024, the ship is obviously behind schedule.
The fourth and final ship, Dzerzhinsky was laid down in December of 2023.
Problems at Vyborg?
According to recent report by the Russian news site RBC, construction work on Dzerzhinsky is being transferred from Vyborg to the Admiralty Shipyards (translation by Microsoft Edge):
The United Shipbuilding Corporation (USC, which is in trust management of VTB Bank) is working on the transfer of the construction of the military icebreaker Dzerzhinsky from the Vyborg Shipyard (VSZ) to the St. Petersburg Admiralty Shipyards. Three sources in the shipbuilding industry of St. Petersburg told RBC about this.
One of them says that this issue was discussed this week by the acting general director of the Admiralty Shipyards Andrey Bystrov and the general director of the Shipyard Sergey Chernogubovsky. At the same time, the initiative to postpone the order is coming from the management of USC, two sources of RBC emphasize.
According to the article, the contract for these two vessels was awarded to Vyborg shipyard because it was facing heavy losses:
A source close to USC claims that the Admiralty Shipyards should have received an order for the third and fourth icebreakers of project 23550 back in 2019. The St. Petersburg plant traditionally specializes in state defense orders - in the last decade, it has built several series of diesel non-nuclear submarines of the coastal zone for the Pacific and Black Sea Fleets. VSZ, in turn, specialized in civilian icebreakers and fishing vessels, and did not work at all through the state defense order. But in 2019, it became obvious that shipyards were going into losses on almost all fishing orders placed.
“The plant needed new orders to cover payments for electricity and other utilities, the work of drivers, depreciation of machine tools and other overhead costs. The only clear alternative for the Vyborg Shipyard at that time were military icebreakers for the border service - the company had previously built ice-class vessels for Rosmorport and Gazprom Neft. As a result, the Vyborg Shipyard managed to win the fight for these contracts,” says a source close to USC.
The article notes that if the Dzerzhinsky’s construction is moved, there will be additional delays because of the administrative work required to adjust the supply chains and untangle the existing contract:
A source close to the Vyborg Shipyard says that the postponement of construction, if it takes place, will be accompanied by time-consuming paperwork. “Technically, it is not difficult to drag the building of the Dzerzhinsky plant under construction to St. Petersburg. It is more difficult to resolve issues with the reorientation of the supply of materials and equipment to the Admiralty Shipyards: the Shipyard has already ordered a significant part of them for construction. It will also be necessary to resolve the issue of advance “painted” money received by the Shipyard from the customer,” he says.
However, Russia is not worried about the delays:
Mikhail Barabanov, an expert at the Center for Analysis of Strategies and Technologies, says that the Project 23550 icebreakers are designed to patrol the border in difficult ice conditions.
The expert believes that the question of urgent completion of these ships by the Navy and border troops is not raised, since there are no real serious threats to the Russian Federation in the polar zone today.
Thoughts and Comments:
In my research for this article, I found a number of articles in Russian sources that report on the reaction of the American press to Russia’s new “Combat Icebreaker.”3
In reality, the Project 23550 ships are ice-capable patrol vessels, similar in capability to the Royal Canadian Navy’s Harry DeWolf-class and the Norwegian Coast Guard’s Svalbard. The main difference is that the two project Arktika vessels can carry modular missile systems.
But with the advance of the MK 70 Payload Delivery System, a containerized version of the Mk 41 Vertical Launch System, many additional allied ships can also carry containerized missile system. Here is a photo of the USS Savannah (LCS 28) test firing an SM-6:
Notably, the Mk 70 does not need to integrate with the host ship at all- it can receive data from other platforms.
Still, this ship-to-ship comparison is of limited utility. Ships in ice are slow, noisy, and particularly susceptible to attacks from submarines.
Still, I believe every vessel built from here on out by the U.S. Navy and U.S. Coast Guard (for that matter, every allied Navy and Coast Guard) should be armed, including icebreakers. This has nothing to do with some strange vision of War at Sea in the ice. Rather, it is because in the event of a global war, every allied ship will need to be able to defend itself against missiles and drones. And in combat at sea, the number of available missiles will matter greatly.
Bottom Line:
The Project 23550 vessels appear to be capable patrol ships. But as of today, there is only one in service. The second is delayed to 2027, and there are apparently problems with the shipyard building the two Project Ermak vessels.
Today, Canada and Norway have seven equivalent vessels between them. And the U.S. Coast Guard is working out the details to acquire eleven Arctic Security Cutters, four of which are expected to be delivered within three years.
To put it simply, don’t believe the hype.
Until next time-
All the Best,
PGR
Some early news reports indicated Project 23550 ships would have a 100mm deck gun, but this proved incorrect.
China has developed an improved version of the Club-K launcher system. However, it is more concerning that these containers can be hidden on a merchant vessel or auxiliary among thousands of other containers.
Huge firepower: the icebreaker “Ivan Papanin” caused a stir in the United States is one such article.
The MK70 is a game changer, and every Coast Guard cutter over ~300ft should have deck space for modular systems like this, including ASC’s. As mentioned, one of the designs explicitly does.
I also have a suspicion the Navy’s newest FFG is going to look pretty familiar to Coasties, a Legend Class variant with VLS and deck space for missiles instead of a stern launch. My suggestion is once the line is hot again and NSCs need replacement, keep the VLS on the CG variant as well. Lock it out, but in a conflict load her up with Tomahawks and let them be fired from other platforms when needed.
Again, great article and thanks for what ya do!
You can always count on the Russians to have good ideas and (mostly) poor execution, either due to communism or corruption. But they have more combat capability in this area than we do, so...