Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    Promising destroyer "Lider-class"

    Nibiru
    Nibiru

    Posts : 200
    Points : 202
    Join date : 2018-05-22

    Promising destroyer "Lider-class" - Page 13 Empty Re: Promising destroyer "Lider-class"

    Post  Nibiru on Fri Mar 01, 2019 2:58 am


    so how would you do it with limited resources? tell me

    Well, that is a problem that I have no answer for lol. I guess we cant have everything. All I hope for is that Russia increase their efficiency in both tech reaserach/ development and construction of newer systems (planes, tanks, ships, etc.)
    Resource constraints should have been a thing of the 90s to early 2000s, its already 2020 10 months from now. Putin will need to pressure his men to work double time.
    Tsavo Lion
    Tsavo Lion

    Posts : 2869
    Points : 2867
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    Promising destroyer "Lider-class" - Page 13 Empty Re: Promising destroyer "Lider-class"

    Post  Tsavo Lion on Fri Mar 01, 2019 4:05 am

    GunshipDemocracy wrote:
    Tsavo Lion wrote:
    The USSR had the space shuttle Buran, a multiple use vehicle, but didn't have & couldn't produce its own disposable hypodermic needles.
    source?
    https://books.google.com/books?id=XrSHDAAAQBAJ&pg=PA21&lpg=PA21&dq=USSR++disposable+hypodermic+needles&source=bl&ots=qXtHnyVBOi&sig=ACfU3U2nTttwqXgyUUkFUVwLgS4crfs_aw&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwixpqKC99_gAhU4JDQIHeGGBjUQ6AEwE3oECAIQAQ#v=onepage&q=USSR%20%20disposable%20hypodermic%20needles&f=false
    BTW I  lived then in Soviet bloc and what low quality you do mean precisely ?
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Bloc#Black_markets

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consumer_goods_in_the_Soviet_Union#Consumer_supply_in_the_1980s

    https://www.quora.com/Why-was-the-Soviet-Union-often-portrayed-as-having-poor-quality-goods-and-machinery
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 22006
    Points : 22550
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Promising destroyer "Lider-class" - Page 13 Empty Re: Promising destroyer "Lider-class"

    Post  GarryB on Fri Mar 01, 2019 4:49 am

    Shiiiit 100 Zircons? more than Orlans by 25%. And Orlan is a battle cruiser and Lider is a destroyer?

    Well if the new UKSK-M launchers are going to be carrying large SAMS as well then the Orlans will replace both the 20 Granit tubes but also the 96 Rif-M missiles with UKSK-M launchers, so instead of 10 x 8, they could possible have 20 x 8 or more as part of their upgrade...

    100 Zircons is enough to take down ll CSGs really. As for AADs I'd assume S-500 will be included.

    If it is going to be a 20KT ship I would expect S-500 at the very least would certainly be included...

    Suspended technological ties with MTU AG. There are no better diesels than MTU! Ban on supplying of any technology that can be used for military purpose - and that means MAJORITY OF HIGH END TECHNOLOGIES!

    So they can invest money and develop high end technologies themselves... plus also steal the designs and technology too.

    Russia cannot afford to just sit down and take their time when dealing with issues like this as if its still peacetime. Nato is ALREADY knocking on Russia’s doorsteps itching for a total war. More delays in Russia’s military modernization is a fatal mistake that Russians need to address to be averted.

    I thought that was pretty clear that is what they are already doing... Kinzhal, Zircon, Avangard, Sarmat, Poseidon, and that nuclear powered unlimited range cruise missile are all ideal responses to NATOs encroachment on Russia... and vastly more effective than any new destroyer class ship could get in response...

    Sorry, from land AA system already in service to fully capable naval system on deck of a warship - there is a long way to go. At least, there are different  needs of anti-corrosion prevention, sea clutter for radar, stabilisation issues , and much more. I`m a lawyer and interpreter, not an engineer!

    Yeah, but it would not be the first ground based SAM they have navalised... in fact the only SAM in naval service that was no previously a land based system was the Goblet SA-N-3.  All of the rest were ground based missiles with adaptations to naval use...

    @ThingND - indeed S-500 seems to be its very important component .As prt of Russian ABM

    Well up until the US ended the ABM treaty the Russian ABM system consisted on one around Moscow... in full compliance with the ABM treaty.

    When the US withdrew from that treaty the Russians started expanding the S-400 and created the S-500 into areas previously banned by the ABM treaty. They also expanded their ABM missiles for the Moscow system and made them mobile too (Nudel)... so their ABM system went from Moscow only, to pretty much anywhere you could land vehicles based on trucks and tracks inside Russian territory.

    The expansion of the Russian Navy to include vessels of destroyer size and bigger suggests the next step is to expand the Russian ABM system world wide via sea based platforms...

    But no one in the west will ever blame the US for this... it is all about Russian aggression and not about US arrogance that Russia was never going to grow and develop.

    Turbines were called incorrectly Ukropistani . This was Soviet design, Ukrops did nothing else by their own.

    (Edit: During WWII) the west likes to claim the Soviets couldn't build trucks because they didn't build that many.... most of them they got via lend lease... but then while you are getting them... why bother making your own when you can take advantage of the fact that you are getting some that might not be ideal but are good enough and you can concentrate resources and energy on other things you also desperately need.

    It was the same with the Ukraine... they made a product Russia needed and buying those products kept Ukrainians working... a win win situation, but unfortunately western powers sought to poison and destroy that relationship and were very successful in doing so... now Russia needs to make its own and in doing so will need to set up production capacity and evaluate the design options it has... should it make what the Ukrainians were making, or take the opportunity to upgrade the designs and improve production performance and capacity and get something better now that they are making it themselves... new production technology, new materials all add scope for an improved product made more efficiently and faster, but might introduce potential problems to an otherwise mature design... so perhaps make minor obvious upgrades and start production and then work on upgrades and brand new designs... and that is the advantage of owning the production... you can invest in further development...

    so how would you do it with limited resources? tell me

    BTW there is prioritization you know. Nuclear forces with 15-20 min delivery to US is best thingy to keep any NATO attemptes out.

    Well building 20 CVN carrier groups would have the same effect and the threat of instant nuclear annihilation, but would cost trillions of dollars and take decades to actually get into service and operational... I think they made the right choice... especially when it is essentially costing them nothing because they were making Zircon anyway and most of the other systems will be hard to determine... are they the new super dangerous things or are they just standard Iskander missiles... they wont know and in recent history when they haven't known something they have assumed the worst... which in this case suits Russia very well.

    The Chinese discovered gun powder but had inferior cannons & no forearms during the Opium Wars.

    Yeah... give the Chinese black powder and they make fireworks to scare away evil demons... their biggest problem was that when the evil demons saw the black powder they made guns and cannons with it to murder people more efficiently...  Of course those same evil demons were the ones getting the Chinese hooked on opium too... they did everything they could to destroy that alternative civilisation... but young chinese people today see American culture and love it... talk about no learning from your own history...

    The USSR had the space shuttle Buran, a multiple use vehicle, but didn't have & couldn't produce its own disposable hypodermic needles. They also had heavy industry producing tanks, trucks, tractors, aircraft, ships, military uniforms, etc., but clothing, cars & other consumer goods were of low quality. Which is more complicated?

    Yeah, they were in the middle of a war with the west... having nice clothes or high performance sports cars really wasn't a high priority at the time.

    And the Buran was a nuclear bomber prototype... when they had it at the point where it could be used operationally they realised an ICBM was just as fast and much much cheaper so funding dried up almost immediately.

    Well, that is a problem that I have no answer for lol. I guess we cant have everything.

    You can try to have everything and when you go bankrupt you end up with nothing...


    https://www.quora.com/Why-was-the-Soviet-Union-often-portrayed-as-having-poor-quality-goods-and-machinery

    Yeah, the west is constantly comparing Soviet stuff with western stuff... even German stuff... they bollock on about how well engineered the Tiger or panther tank is compared with T-34s... but guess what.... they never had enough Tigers or Panthers... they seemed to manage to get a lot of T-34s out to the troops in pretty short order... could there possibly be a link between a dozen T-34s in the hand compared with the promise of one Tiger... in a months time...

    The thing is that not everything needs to be made with the fit and precision of a swiss watch... I mean have you seen a PPS-42 SMG stripped?

    It is all sheet metal, the only thing made on a lath is the barrel...


    Last edited by GarryB on Sat Mar 02, 2019 1:36 am; edited 2 times in total
    avatar
    kumbor

    Posts : 286
    Points : 284
    Join date : 2017-06-09

    Promising destroyer "Lider-class" - Page 13 Empty Re: Promising destroyer "Lider-class"

    Post  kumbor on Fri Mar 01, 2019 8:47 am

    GunshipDemocracy wrote:
    kumbor wrote:
    Sorry, from land AA system already in service to fully capable naval system on deck of a warship - there is a long way to go. At least, there are different  needs of anti-corrosion prevention, sea clutter for radar, stabilisation issues , and much more. I`m a lawyer and interpreter, not an engineer!

    Mind Russians have still 10 years ahead. S-500 task is hypersonic warheads and ICBMs so very valid tasks for a cruiser.

    Poliment-Redut and S-350 were ccepted the same time BTW




    kumbor wrote:Suspended technological ties with MTU AG. There are no better diesels than MTU! Ban on supplying of any technology that can be used for military purpose - and that means MAJORITY OF HIGH END TECHNOLOGIES!

    Are you serious? what precise technologies were ever sold to Russia? . Nobody  sells latest technology. Neva' eva' . Especially  for military in  Russia  

    And MTU is by no means critical nor high tech. Do you really think that Russians cannot develop standard diesel engines but could mini nuclear rectors, super-cavitating nuclear drones  or hypersonic  missiles? affraid affraid affraid

    It is more like pissing Russians off then any real stab.



    @ThingND - indeed S-500 seems to be its very important component .As prt of Russian ABM


    Hole wrote:+ no gas turbines from some unnamed place that have to be replaced by new ones.

    Turbines were called incorrectly Ukropistani . This was Soviet design, Ukrops did nothing else by their own.

    As USSSR was a highly centralised state, especially in a field of military industry, today Russia has all the documentation. Zorya-mashproekt in Dnepropetrovsk, now Dnipro, produced GTs. Big business, but I am stunned with a fact that for four years Russia still wasn`t able to switch production to the other plant.
    Concerning diesels, MTU are the best high speed diesels in the world, unparallelled in versatility and technology and also they are the most expensive ones.
    GunshipDemocracy
    GunshipDemocracy

    Posts : 4913
    Points : 4943
    Join date : 2015-05-17
    Age : 77
    Location : fishin on Stalin´s Strait between Mexico and Canada

    Promising destroyer "Lider-class" - Page 13 Empty Re: Promising destroyer "Lider-class"

    Post  GunshipDemocracy on Fri Mar 01, 2019 9:00 am

    kumbor wrote: Big business, but I am stunned with a fact that for four years Russia still wasn`t able to switch production to the other plant.

    not sure if you followed history of Russia since 91? 2 wars- economic collpse -rebuilding - crisis - war -crisis - war/Crimea.

    First priority has military security, what was achieved. You prefer to end up with diesels and no Su57, no hyperonic tech,no lasers , nu;cet tech? Then you end up like Germany - under Us boots.


    Concerning diesels, MTU are the best high speed diesels in the world, unparallelled in versatility and technology and also  they are the most expensive ones.

    so ?
    Isos
    Isos

    Posts : 3895
    Points : 3885
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Promising destroyer "Lider-class" - Page 13 Empty Re: Promising destroyer "Lider-class"

    Post  Isos on Fri Mar 01, 2019 10:53 am

    Mind Russians have still 10 years ahead. S-500 task is hypersonic warheads and ICBMs so very valid tasks for a cruiser.

    But it's harder to make the naval system than the ground based one.

    The naval system needs to take into account the movement of the ship which can occure even when it doesn't move because of the waves.

    Making Tor M2 able to launch on the move was a huge step but it still needs to go very slow and on a flat terrain.

    Tor engage low speed targets compared to s-500.
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 22006
    Points : 22550
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Promising destroyer "Lider-class" - Page 13 Empty Re: Promising destroyer "Lider-class"

    Post  GarryB on Sat Mar 02, 2019 1:46 am

    But it's harder to make the naval system than the ground based one.

    The naval system needs to take into account the movement of the ship which can occure even when it doesn't move because of the waves.

    Gun stabilisation systems reached quite a high level of performance in about WWI on naval ships.. it is not a new problem and has been repeatedly solved for every modern gun, every modern missile, and every modern radar or optical sight on every modern ship...

    Even on land these systems have to be tested with other systems to make sure they don't interfere with each other... including jamming and ESM systems, so it is not like you only have to do that on a ship as well.

    Making Tor M2 able to launch on the move was a huge step but it still needs to go very slow and on a flat terrain.

    And yet the naval version called Klintok was operational in the late 1980s and could be fired from a moving ship... perhaps it is actually easier to make naval missiles than it is to make land based ones?

    (there was a delay with the Klintok system, but that was related to the very sophisticated 3D search and tracking radar system it uses...)

    Tor engage low speed targets compared to s-500.

    But Tor is even more critical because even a tiny ship would benefit from having TOR on board as it is very useful against a wide variety of threats to the ship, while S-500 is huge and would really only be used against fairly critical targets no other missile could deal with... like satellites in orbit or incoming ICBM or IRBM or SLBM threats... things small ships probably would not even notice...
    LMFS
    LMFS

    Posts : 1397
    Points : 1391
    Join date : 2018-03-03

    Promising destroyer "Lider-class" - Page 13 Empty Re: Promising destroyer "Lider-class"

    Post  LMFS on Sat Mar 02, 2019 2:20 am

    From the interview with the scientific director of Krylov that dino00 posted here:

    http://www.russiadefence.net/t7158p750-russian-navy-status-news-4#248947

    - Does Center on the concept of perspective destroyer? What will represent this ship?

    - KGNZ were offered two options for destroyers. The first option – nuclear energy. It was quite a large ship. We heard in his address a rather skeptical statements like: what is this destroyer, if he has obtained the displacement of more than 18 thousand tons? I always suggest to look at the Zumwalt (promising American destroyer – if). This ship class destroyer with a displacement of more than 14 thousand tons in the presence of non-nuclear energy. Perhaps the most important element of this destroyer is its power plant, more integrated energy system (Integrated Power System – IPS). It is the core on which the "strung" all other advanced technologies that are implemented on DDG 1000. Without it several solutions would not take place.

    IPS of the destroyer Zumwalt is almost one hundred percent consistent with the concept of a fully electric vehicle. The system implements all the units, units and appliances power supply, supervises their work and controls them. The transition to full electric propulsion is possible to abandon heavy propeller shafts to free up a significant volume of the interior to accommodate a variety of payloads.

    I propose to look at Chinese destroyers type 052D series of thirteen Chinese missile destroyers. As of January 2018., the first six ships of the series are already in service, seven ships are in various stages of construction. They have a displacement of about 8 thousand tons.

    Therefore, if you choose the option of building the ship with nuclear power, you put yourself before the fact that its displacement will be very large.

    The second variant of the destroyers proposed KGNC, or rather, his concept project non-nuclear energy, with the fashion today in the direction of full electric propulsion. This ship allows to solve many problems inherent to this class of ships. He obtained a displacement of up to 8 thousand tons. The body he has his own, original solution proposed KGNZ. I liked the expression on the head of a design Bureau: "of Course, today, without science is impossible. She pushes us and directs where you want to go." So with these destroyers. The final decision will ultimately make the consumer, and the military. Most likely, the designer will be Northern design Bureau, the oldest, the wisest. But believe me, many developments and decisions of the Krylov centre will be accepted.
    kvs
    kvs

    Posts : 4778
    Points : 4899
    Join date : 2014-09-11
    Location : Canuckistan

    Promising destroyer "Lider-class" - Page 13 Empty Re: Promising destroyer "Lider-class"

    Post  kvs on Sat Mar 02, 2019 2:31 am

    LMFS wrote:From the interview with the scientific director of Krylov that dino00 posted here:

    http://www.russiadefence.net/t7158p750-russian-navy-status-news-4#248947

    - Does Center on the concept of perspective destroyer? What will represent this ship?

    - KGNZ were offered two options for destroyers. The first option – nuclear energy. It was quite a large ship. We heard in his address a rather skeptical statements like: what is this destroyer, if he has obtained the displacement of more than 18 thousand tons? I always suggest to look at the Zumwalt (promising American destroyer – if). This ship class destroyer with a displacement of more than 14 thousand tons in the presence of non-nuclear energy. Perhaps the most important element of this destroyer is its power plant, more integrated energy system (Integrated Power System – IPS). It is the core on which the "strung" all other advanced technologies that are implemented on DDG 1000. Without it several solutions would not take place.

    IPS of the destroyer Zumwalt is almost one hundred percent consistent with the concept of a fully electric vehicle. The system implements all the units, units and appliances power supply, supervises their work and controls them. The transition to full electric propulsion is possible to abandon heavy propeller shafts to free up a significant volume of the interior to accommodate a variety of payloads.

    I propose to look at Chinese destroyers type 052D series of thirteen Chinese missile destroyers. As of January 2018., the first six ships of the series are already in service, seven ships are in various stages of construction. They have a displacement of about 8 thousand tons.

    Therefore, if you choose the option of building the ship with nuclear power, you put yourself before the fact that its displacement will be very large.

    The second variant of the destroyers proposed KGNC, or rather, his concept project non-nuclear energy, with the fashion today in the direction of full electric propulsion. This ship allows to solve many problems inherent to this class of ships. He obtained a displacement of up to 8 thousand tons. The body he has his own, original solution proposed KGNZ. I liked the expression on the head of a design Bureau: "of Course, today, without science is impossible. She pushes us and directs where you want to go." So with these destroyers. The final decision will ultimately make the consumer, and the military. Most likely, the designer will be Northern design Bureau, the oldest, the wisest. But believe me, many developments and decisions of the Krylov centre will be accepted.

    Drivel. Nuclear power allows for larger displacement. If you want smaller displacement, then scale the power plant accordingly.
    What sort of moron would forgo nuclear propulsion in favour of limited fossil fuel based propulsion just because of displacement?
    Seriously, WTF is this BS.

    Oversized propeller shafts? Please wank harder, moron. All ships needs screws until the mystical time that they get water
    jet propulsion driven by magnetic fields. The propeller shafts reflect the screw power demand. This dipshit is claiming that
    magical electric propulsion requires smaller shafts? In what universe? Unless this clown is talking about putting the electric
    motors outside the hull at the screw attachment points. Ludicrous!
    LMFS
    LMFS

    Posts : 1397
    Points : 1391
    Join date : 2018-03-03

    Promising destroyer "Lider-class" - Page 13 Empty Re: Promising destroyer "Lider-class"

    Post  LMFS on Sat Mar 02, 2019 2:48 am

    kvs wrote:
    Drivel.  Nuclear power allows for larger displacement.  If you want smaller displacement, then scale the power plant accordingly.  
    What sort of moron would forgo nuclear propulsion in favour of limited fossil fuel based propulsion just because of displacement?
    Seriously, WTF is this BS.  

    Oversized propeller shafts?  Please wank harder, moron.   All ships needs screws until the mystical time that they get water
    jet propulsion driven by magnetic fields.   The propeller shafts reflect the screw power demand.   This dipshit is claiming that
    magical electric propulsion requires smaller shafts?   In what universe?   Unless this clown is talking about putting the electric
    motors outside the hull at the screw attachment points.    Ludicrous!
    The "dipshit" is the scientific director at Krylov... Suspect

    Maybe he refers to available nuclear reactors that could be used and not to scaled down versions or even newly developed ones?
    avatar
    kumbor

    Posts : 286
    Points : 284
    Join date : 2017-06-09

    Promising destroyer "Lider-class" - Page 13 Empty Re: Promising destroyer "Lider-class"

    Post  kumbor on Sat Mar 02, 2019 8:24 am


    The sort of powerplant has nothing to do with the size of propellers, Propellers are being designed concerning their hydrodynamic properties, e.g. thrust, drag, efficiency, vibrations... Many parameters of a propeller still depends on experiment to judge how it works. Waterjets are an alternative, but they have their problems of the efficiency wnen driving on low power.

    Nuclear propulsion is still more expensive than any other, but has obvious advantages of unlimited autonomy.

    Zumwalt is a futuristic vessel, but is futile in many ways. There are problems of stability, list, pitch, yaw, sway and all that, On sea state 6-7, often in the ocean, Zumwalt TENDS TO BECOME A SUBMARINE! censored Suspect
    x_54_u43
    x_54_u43

    Posts : 204
    Points : 222
    Join date : 2015-09-19

    Promising destroyer "Lider-class" - Page 13 Empty Re: Promising destroyer "Lider-class"

    Post  x_54_u43 on Sat Mar 02, 2019 8:47 am

    LMFS wrote:
    kvs wrote:
    Drivel.  Nuclear power allows for larger displacement.  If you want smaller displacement, then scale the power plant accordingly.  
    What sort of moron would forgo nuclear propulsion in favour of limited fossil fuel based propulsion just because of displacement?
    Seriously, WTF is this BS.  

    Oversized propeller shafts?  Please wank harder, moron.   All ships needs screws until the mystical time that they get water
    jet propulsion driven by magnetic fields.   The propeller shafts reflect the screw power demand.   This dipshit is claiming that
    magical electric propulsion requires smaller shafts?   In what universe?   Unless this clown is talking about putting the electric
    motors outside the hull at the screw attachment points.    Ludicrous!
    The "dipshit" is the scientific director at Krylov... Suspect

    Maybe he refers to available nuclear reactors that could be used and not to scaled down versions or even newly developed ones?

    Shhhhh, he's never heard of podded electric motors lol, like the kind Russia uses on its various vessels like the new icebreakers and others.
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 22006
    Points : 22550
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Promising destroyer "Lider-class" - Page 13 Empty Re: Promising destroyer "Lider-class"

    Post  GarryB on Sat Mar 02, 2019 11:53 am

    I find it amusing they are treating all electric drive as something different from nuclear powered vessels... surely even in an all electric drive system you need a power plant to generate the electrical power in the first place, and I would think Russian work regarding compact powerful nuclear power plants would be advantageous in this regard.

    Instead of having fixed propellers in the rear of the hull attached to enormous heavy propeller shafts attached to enormous gearboxes powered by whatever power supply... why not go for all electric drive where the electric motors are in external pods with propellers fitted to them so they can be mounted at the front and the rear of the ship able to rotate the pods 360 degrees so manouver capability would mean no tugs needed to get into or out of port.

    NNPs could be modular like a battery that are quick and easy to replace...

    The real point is that the Russian navy is not going to have a 500 ship fleet so making a dozen cruisers and maybe three dozen destroyers is probably about the best they could expect to manage and even that is not really very likely... more like 6 cruisers and 20 destroyers is a more likely figure... with perhaps 2 new CVNs by 2040 plus the Kuznetsov... perhaps with NPP and EMALS upgrade?
    GunshipDemocracy
    GunshipDemocracy

    Posts : 4913
    Points : 4943
    Join date : 2015-05-17
    Age : 77
    Location : fishin on Stalin´s Strait between Mexico and Canada

    Promising destroyer "Lider-class" - Page 13 Empty Re: Promising destroyer "Lider-class"

    Post  GunshipDemocracy on Sat Mar 02, 2019 6:44 pm

    GarryB wrote:
    Shiiiit 100 Zircons? more than Orlans by 25%. And Orlan is a battle cruiser and Lider is a destroyer?

    Well if the new UKSK-M launchers are going to be carrying large SAMS as well then the Orlans will replace both the 20 Granit tubes but also the 96 Rif-M missiles with UKSK-M launchers, so instead of 10 x 8, they could possible have 20 x 8 or more as part of their upgrade...


    No. Orlans had 20 Granits and 96 S-300F. 20 Granits will be replaced by 80 UKSK( M ?) . This will not affect number of S-300F or whatever missiles will be installed there. No ifo so fr bout whether S-300F will be replaced by other launchers AFAIK


    Liders for the other hand were to carry 64 UKSKs , now 100+ . This means really kick ass upgrde.


    GB wrote: I thought that was pretty clear that is what they are already doing... Kinzhal, Zircon, Avangard, Sarmat, Poseidon, and that nuclear powered unlimited range cruise missile are all ideal responses to NATOs encroachment on Russia... and vastly more effective than any new destroyer class ship could get in response...

    100 Zircons is enough to take down all CSGs if all get close enough respekt respekt respekt




    @ThingND - indeed S-500 seems to be its very important component .As prt of Russian ABM

    Well up until the US ended the ABM treaty the Russian ABM system consisted on one around Moscow... in full compliance with the ABM treaty.

    When the US withdrew from that treaty the Russians started expanding the S-400 and created the S-500 into areas previously banned by the ABM treaty. They also expanded their ABM missiles for the Moscow system and made them mobile too (Nudel)... so their ABM system went from Moscow only, to pretty much anywhere you could land vehicles based on trucks and tracks inside Russian territory.

    The expansion of the Russian Navy to include vessels of destroyer size and bigger suggests the next step is to expand the Russian ABM system world wide via sea based platforms...

    But no one in the west will ever blame the US for this... it is all about Russian aggression and not about US arrogance that Russia was never going to grow and develop.



    GB wrote: And the Buran was a nuclear bomber prototype... when they had it at the point where it could be used operationally they realised an ICBM was just as fast and much much cheaper so funding dried up almost immediately.

    not what I've herd. Buran irst of all was a carrier for Skiff orbital battle station. perhaps also truck to bring down "some satellites" form orbit.



    Tsavo Lion
    Tsavo Lion

    Posts : 2869
    Points : 2867
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    Promising destroyer "Lider-class" - Page 13 Empty Re: Promising destroyer "Lider-class"

    Post  Tsavo Lion on Sat Mar 02, 2019 7:44 pm

    ..why not go for all electric drive where the electric motors are in external pods with propellers fitted to them so they can be mounted at the front and the rear of the ship..
    they'll interfere with hydrodynamics of high speed & slow the ship down with greater water resistance, unless they r made retractable.
    Also, they'll be less protected when outside the hull.
    NPP on Adm. K won't happen:
    http://www.russiadefence.net/t7140p275-aircraft-carrier-admiral-kuznetsov-news-2#249062

    We had no civilian tasks for Buran and the military ones were no longer needed. It was originally designed as a military system for weapon delivery, maybe even nuclear weapons. The American shuttle also has military uses.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buran_programme

    It could get lower into the atmosphere & release nuclear tipped missiles, exactly how they suspected the US shuttles would.

    19K Tons of dreams: will Russia build the ship of the future


    Last edited by Tsavo Lion on Sat Mar 02, 2019 8:45 pm; edited 1 time in total (Reason for editing : add link)
    kvs
    kvs

    Posts : 4778
    Points : 4899
    Join date : 2014-09-11
    Location : Canuckistan

    Promising destroyer "Lider-class" - Page 13 Empty Re: Promising destroyer "Lider-class"

    Post  kvs on Sat Mar 02, 2019 10:38 pm

    x_54_u43 wrote:
    LMFS wrote:
    kvs wrote:
    Drivel.  Nuclear power allows for larger displacement.  If you want smaller displacement, then scale the power plant accordingly.  
    What sort of moron would forgo nuclear propulsion in favour of limited fossil fuel based propulsion just because of displacement?
    Seriously, WTF is this BS.  

    Oversized propeller shafts?  Please wank harder, moron.   All ships needs screws until the mystical time that they get water
    jet propulsion driven by magnetic fields.   The propeller shafts reflect the screw power demand.   This dipshit is claiming that
    magical electric propulsion requires smaller shafts?   In what universe?   Unless this clown is talking about putting the electric
    motors outside the hull at the screw attachment points.    Ludicrous!
    The "dipshit" is the scientific director at Krylov... Suspect

    Maybe he refers to available nuclear reactors that could be used and not to scaled down versions or even newly developed ones?

    Shhhhh, he's never heard of podded electric motors lol, like the kind Russia uses on its various vessels like the new icebreakers and others.

    Grow up fanboi. Show me one full sized naval ship that has podded electrically driven propellers. I dare you, genius.
    kvs
    kvs

    Posts : 4778
    Points : 4899
    Join date : 2014-09-11
    Location : Canuckistan

    Promising destroyer "Lider-class" - Page 13 Empty Re: Promising destroyer "Lider-class"

    Post  kvs on Sat Mar 02, 2019 10:42 pm

    LMFS wrote:
    kvs wrote:
    Drivel.  Nuclear power allows for larger displacement.  If you want smaller displacement, then scale the power plant accordingly.  
    What sort of moron would forgo nuclear propulsion in favour of limited fossil fuel based propulsion just because of displacement?
    Seriously, WTF is this BS.  

    Oversized propeller shafts?  Please wank harder, moron.   All ships needs screws until the mystical time that they get water
    jet propulsion driven by magnetic fields.   The propeller shafts reflect the screw power demand.   This dipshit is claiming that
    magical electric propulsion requires smaller shafts?   In what universe?   Unless this clown is talking about putting the electric
    motors outside the hull at the screw attachment points.    Ludicrous!
    The "dipshit" is the scientific director at Krylov... Suspect

    Maybe he refers to available nuclear reactors that could be used and not to scaled down versions or even newly developed ones?

    You are invoking an appeal to authority. I could care less if Einstein himself mouthed off some BS. That does not make it profound.

    And this "director of Krylov" looks to be some sort of 5th column dirtbag. All the fawning over the POS Zumwalt is nauseating.
    His job is clearly to steer Russian development down dead end alleys. At least this moron could have waited until the Zumwalt
    was a roaring success before pimping it as some spectacular innovation.

    BTW, how is not using nuclear to supply power to an electrically driven system better than using fossil fuels? The fossil fuel system
    still needs diesel or similar power plants to spin dynamos to produce electricity. This clown did not mention any fuel cell solutions
    so I will not give him any slack.

    kvs
    kvs

    Posts : 4778
    Points : 4899
    Join date : 2014-09-11
    Location : Canuckistan

    Promising destroyer "Lider-class" - Page 13 Empty Re: Promising destroyer "Lider-class"

    Post  kvs on Sat Mar 02, 2019 10:49 pm

    GarryB wrote:I find it amusing they are treating all electric drive as something different from nuclear powered vessels... surely even in an all electric drive system you need a power plant to generate the electrical power in the first place, and I would think Russian work regarding compact powerful nuclear power plants would be advantageous in this regard.

    Instead of having fixed propellers in the rear of the hull attached to enormous heavy propeller shafts attached to enormous gearboxes powered by whatever power supply... why not go for all electric drive where the electric motors are in external pods with propellers fitted to them so they can be mounted at the front and the rear of the ship able to rotate the pods 360 degrees so manouver capability would mean no tugs needed to get into or out of port.

    NNPs could be modular like a battery that are quick and easy to replace...

    The real point is that the Russian navy is not going to have a 500 ship fleet so making a dozen cruisers and maybe three dozen destroyers is probably about the best they could expect to manage and even that is not really very likely... more like 6 cruisers and 20 destroyers is a more likely figure... with perhaps 2 new CVNs by 2040 plus the Kuznetsov... perhaps with NPP and EMALS upgrade?

    Since there is no value in making any naval ship shorter, getting rid of propeller shafts is cosmetic BS. Is there some sort of need for thrust vectoring dog fights
    at sea with ships I am not aware of? In the missile era there is zero value to being able to spin the ship around in a few seconds. Maybe back in the day of
    lobbing shells there was some value. In fact, there is value in making ships faster and propeller shafts are not getting in the way. But nuclear power allows
    for both speed and persistence of fast travel. This Krylov clown must be one of the anti-nuclear true believers.

    avatar
    kumbor

    Posts : 286
    Points : 284
    Join date : 2017-06-09

    Promising destroyer "Lider-class" - Page 13 Empty Re: Promising destroyer "Lider-class"

    Post  kumbor on Sun Mar 03, 2019 12:21 am

    I do not say I am a professional in these matters, but in this topic I read such bullshit I cannot stand reading it, There is a bunch of foolish, childish ideas and no arguments for serious discussion.
    LMFS
    LMFS

    Posts : 1397
    Points : 1391
    Join date : 2018-03-03

    Promising destroyer "Lider-class" - Page 13 Empty Re: Promising destroyer "Lider-class"

    Post  LMFS on Sun Mar 03, 2019 1:52 am

    kvs wrote:
    LMFS wrote:The "dipshit" is the scientific director at Krylov... Suspect

    Maybe he refers to available nuclear reactors that could be used and not to scaled down versions or even newly developed ones?

    You are invoking an appeal to authority.   I could care less if Einstein himself mouthed off some BS.  That does not make it profound.

    And this "director of Krylov" looks to be some sort of 5th column dirtbag.   All the fawning over the POS Zumwalt is nauseating.  
    His job is clearly to steer Russian development down dead end alleys.    At least this moron could have waited until the Zumwalt
    was a roaring success before pimping it as some spectacular innovation.    

    BTW, how is not using nuclear to supply power to an electrically driven system better than using fossil fuels?   The fossil fuel system
    still needs diesel or similar power plants to spin dynamos to produce electricity.   This clown did not mention any fuel cell solutions
    so I will not give him any slack.
    Well, the fact that the guy has such a high level qualification will have a weight for me to evaluate more carefully what he says, among other things because I cant read his original words in Russian and besides ignore much of the background from where he speaks. If this is a fallacy of authority, be it, I will still take it as the safer bet. I don't know better, even when I found some of the statements a little striking. But as a high-level scientific guy, his work is among other things to analyse the state of the art as in foreign designs. He cannot simply dismiss the Zumwalt or QE without acknowledging relevant innovative approaches these can be using.

    The issue for me is the cost and complications of NPP. Otherwise it would be for sure the best approach since it gives essentially unlimited range, is very capable for producing electricity and should save a lot of fuel volume. I am not in a position to go into a quantitative evaluation here and therefore don't really have an opinion on whether the guy is telling BS or maybe I am missing something. For instance, what is the throttling capacity of modern Russian nuclear reactors for naval application? Can they be used practically without some gas turbines to cover peak power needs or not? If not, this would add a lot of cost and space and result actually in bigger displacement, more complex and more expensive ships. What is the comparative cost of a NPP? What are the restrictions for servicing and general security issues during operation? I see it as a complex issue, and the fact that so few vessels in so few countries use nuclear propulsion indicates to me this is a very high-end solution with lots of complications. In any case these vessels seem to be capital ships in the cruiser category (22350M will apparently be a full-fledged destroyer in most regards) and it would probably make sense that they are capable of very long assignments on distant sea zones, so nuclear looks the the best option.
    kumbor wrote:
    I do not say I am a professional in these matters, but in this topic I read such bullshit I cannot stand reading it, There is a bunch of foolish, childish ideas and no arguments for serious discussion.
    With all due respect, if you think the forum or thread is not up to your standards, well, nobody is trying to annoy you, open discussion on the internet about restricted military issues is what it is. If you can propose interesting points for discussion we will all be thankful I guess...
    Tsavo Lion
    Tsavo Lion

    Posts : 2869
    Points : 2867
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    Promising destroyer "Lider-class" - Page 13 Empty Re: Promising destroyer "Lider-class"

    Post  Tsavo Lion on Sun Mar 03, 2019 4:21 am

    They'll replace a couple or Kirov class CGNs & could be used in both the Indian & Arctic Oceans for BMD & SLOCs protection; so it makes more sense to have NPPs in them.
    The-thing-next-door
    The-thing-next-door

    Posts : 571
    Points : 607
    Join date : 2017-09-18
    Location : Soviet Interdimentional Command

    Promising destroyer "Lider-class" - Page 13 Empty Re: Promising destroyer "Lider-class"

    Post  The-thing-next-door on Sun Mar 03, 2019 8:00 am

    Also an NPP might make your enemies think twice about sabotage during peace time.

    That is if your troops don't .s.e.a.l club them first with DP-64s.
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 22006
    Points : 22550
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Promising destroyer "Lider-class" - Page 13 Empty Re: Promising destroyer "Lider-class"

    Post  GarryB on Sun Mar 03, 2019 10:05 am

    No. Orlans had 20 Granits and 96 S-300F. 20 Granits will be replaced by 80 UKSK( M ?) . This will not affect number of S-300F or whatever missiles will be installed there. No ifo so fr bout whether S-300F will be replaced by other launchers AFAIK

    Oh really... and did they have 100mm guns or 130mm guns?

    BTW they are supposed to be being replaced by 10 UKSK... there is no possible room to fit 80, which would hold 640 missile tubes.

    If they have developed a UKSK-M system that can hold large SAMs as well as cruise missiles then it would make sense to replace both the Granit launchers and the Rif SAM system (which is the S-300F BTW) with more than ten UKSK-M launchers... in fact that might be what is delaying the Kirov class upgrades because they want to use one launcher type (UKSK-M) instead of two or more (UKSK plus a larger version of Poliment Redut).

    Liders for the other hand were to carry 64 UKSKs , now 100+ . This means really kick ass upgrde.

    You mean they were supposed to carry 8 UKSK launchers and now more than 12...

    100 Zircons is enough to take down all CSGs if all get close enough

    In the 7 years it will take to make it and get it operational assuming no problems... yeah, but Kinzhal is operational now and avangard not very far away either.

    Not saying no to an upgraded destroyer BTW.

    not what I've herd. Buran irst of all was a carrier for Skiff orbital battle station. perhaps also truck to bring down "some satellites" form orbit.

    Buran got military support and funding because they suspected the US shuttles were nuclear orbital bombers in disguise. Experience led them to realise it was a pretty poor nuclear bomber concept... using enormous resources to deliver a payload two or three Satans could deliver for a fraction of the cost and always ready for launch... unlike shuttle launches that require a lot of preparation.

    The Skiff orbital battle station would be fitted to the Energyia rocket where the Buran normally was fitted for launch... so really did not require the Buran to exist at all... and the concept of fixing satellites in orbit was non existent at the time... it was only after the shuttle was used to fix hubble that this capability was really appreciated... but it is a very specific and narrow use for the thing... 90% of satellites would not be worth the cost of going to to capture and return or fix.

    they'll interfere with hydrodynamics of high speed & slow the ship down with greater water resistance, unless they r made retractable.

    They could angle them down and hydroplane lifting the ship out of the water and greatly improve speed performance...

    Also, they'll be less protected when outside the hull.

    What an interesting suggestion because the only case I could think of where that could be an issue would be in an ice field and the ships that already use the engine pods are ice breakers... they turn the pods around and run them in reverse and creep forward with the propeller blades chopping the ice into slush... the ability to rotate the blades 360 degrees offers a unique opportunity to actually protect the blades conventional designs don't have the option of doing.



    NPP on Adm. K won't happen:

    Repeat of my reply there:
    Nuclear power plants have previously been built into vessels from the design stage, but new more modern nuclear power plants are becoming smaller and more modular and could be placed almost anywhere you want in an all electric design because it is just basically a battery, so you could locate it any where you like... whereas with existing designs it was generally directly connected to the transmission and gearing attached to the end of some rather long and heavy shafts attached to propellers at the rear of the ship... not very flexible at all.

    With new engine pods and electrical drive, you could put the NPP anywhere you wanted... the only connection to the engine pods would be power cables...

    BTW no one other than the Soviets were making aircraft carrying cruisers like the Kiev class and no one converted them to more conventional flat deck carrier designs... like the Russians did for India...

    We had no civilian tasks for Buran and the military ones were no longer needed. It was originally designed as a military system for weapon delivery, maybe even nuclear weapons. The American shuttle also has military uses.

    That is the one... funded by the military because they thought the US might be using the space shuttle as an orbital bomber to overfly Soviet air defences... when it turned out a terribly ineffective and enormously expensive way of doing it the funding was cut.

    Actually Buran was much better suited to a wide variety of tasks in space... more specifically the Energyia rocket basically took the 120 ton Buran into space... it would be very easy to take off the buran and put on various fairly large objects to deliver to space... or if they were keen on the bomber role a huge fairing containing 120 tons of reentry vehicles to deliver to the US... which could be hundreds if not thousands of bombs...

    Or the biggest and most powerful bomb they could build perhaps.


    Grow up fanboi. Show me one full sized naval ship that has podded electrically driven propellers. I dare you, genius.

    Perhaps this ice breaking LNG tanker working the Yamal LNG fields in Russia?


    https://www.ship-technology.com/projects/christophe-de-margerie-class-icebreaking-lng-carriers/

    Since there is no value in making any naval ship shorter, getting rid of propeller shafts is cosmetic BS.

    On an 80K ton ship the propeller shafts are probably 1,000 tons... for fuck sake the barrels on the main guns of the Iowa class battlecruisers are 100 tons each.
    It also means that at the end of those propeller shafts is the gearbox and transmission and then the propulsion source... and what does all that weight and complication do... move the kinetic energy from the transmission to the propellers which are fixed in place and can run forward or backward...

    Is there some sort of need for thrust vectoring dog fights
    at sea with ships I am not aware of?

    The ability to manouver a ship precisely and accurately and without the support of tugs even in the most congested harbour or stretch of water, but obviously being able to control your ship better and move heavy components like NPPs to places where they would be safer and easier to change when needed makes it even more appealing.

    In the missile era there is zero value to being able to spin the ship around in a few seconds. Maybe back in the day of
    lobbing shells there was some value. In fact, there is value in making ships faster and propeller shafts are not getting in the way. But nuclear power allows
    for both speed and persistence of fast travel.

    Being fast is rather nice, but there is no benefit in being faster than any of the ships in your carrier group... I can't see landing ships running at more than 16 knots, and while US carriers have been reported to run quite fast even the noisiest diesel electric could sink such a blind target that is still not fast enough to outrun a torpedo... but it will be running fast enough to not know it is under attack.

    [quote]He cannot simply dismiss the Zumwalt or QE without acknowledging relevant innovative approaches these can be using.
    [quote]

    Many of the ideas for the Zumwalt might be brilliant, but trying to combine them with other things or a bad implimentation might have made them all fail miserably.

    The idea of all electric drive is a good idea whether it is a ship or a UAV or a tank or a car, but quite a few technologies need to reach a mature point for it to work properly...

    I mean the T-35 was a terrible failure in WWII... in WWI it would have been difficult to operate and control but might have done better, but in the 21st Centuries with EO systems auto searching for relevant targets and AI control of each of the turrets where targets are handed to the turret in its field of view that suits the target could be a roaring success... with no humans inside the thin armour is not really an issue... armour the ammo bins and the engine and it would be fine... AP rounds could punch right through the thing... would not matter.

    The issue for me is the cost and complications of NPP. Otherwise it would be for sure the best approach since it gives essentially unlimited range, is very capable for producing electricity and should save a lot of fuel volume.

    There is no real alternative to NPP for large ships, and they are getting more powerful and smaller and safer all the time.

    New models can be designed to not need refuelling for 20-30 years... and it is refuelling that is one of the most expensive things regarding existing nuclear submarines...

    I see it as a complex issue, and the fact that so few vessels in so few countries use nuclear propulsion indicates to me this is a very high-end solution with lots of complications.

    The US doesn't make conventional submarines... what does that indicate?

    Russia isn't going to be making dozens of these ships... especially if they are 20K tons, so they might as well not be cheap and cheerful.

    avatar
    hoom

    Posts : 1984
    Points : 1974
    Join date : 2016-05-06

    Promising destroyer "Lider-class" - Page 13 Empty Re: Promising destroyer "Lider-class"

    Post  hoom on Sun Mar 03, 2019 10:36 am

    Show me one full sized naval ship that has podded electrically driven propellers. I dare you, genius.
    OHP frigates had low-speed podded electric props https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oliver_Hazard_Perry-class_frigate
    Promising destroyer "Lider-class" - Page 13 ?q=70&w=1440&url=http%3A%2F%2Fapi.thedrive.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2017%2F07%2Fhadhahd526

    Juan Carlos & the Canberras have full Azipods https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_ship_Juan_Carlos_I
    Promising destroyer "Lider-class" - Page 13 Hmas_adelaide1
    Also Bay Class https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bay-class_landing_ship
    Promising destroyer "Lider-class" - Page 13 RFA-Mounts-Bay-Azipods
    GunshipDemocracy
    GunshipDemocracy

    Posts : 4913
    Points : 4943
    Join date : 2015-05-17
    Age : 77
    Location : fishin on Stalin´s Strait between Mexico and Canada

    Promising destroyer "Lider-class" - Page 13 Empty Re: Promising destroyer "Lider-class"

    Post  GunshipDemocracy on Sun Mar 03, 2019 12:07 pm

    LMFS wrote:From the interview with the scientific director of Krylov that dino00 posted here:

    "- Does Center on the concept of perspective destroyer? What will represent this ship?"


    electrical  engines, lasers, EM weapons (plasma shields?) + nuclear power plant  - deosnt it sound like synergy?



    GB wrote:

    If they have developed a UKSK-M system that can hold large SAMs as well as cruise missiles then it would make sense to replace both the Granit launchers and the Rif SAM system (which is the S-300F BTW) with more than ten UKSK-M launchers... in fact that might be what is delaying the Kirov class upgrades because they want to use one launcher type (UKSK-M) instead of two or more (UKSK plus a larger version of Poliment Redut).


    perhaps but this w not  what I was  talking about. 80cells  for  AShM only.




    GB wrote:
    100 Zircons is enough to take down all CSGs if all get close enough
    In the 7 years it will take to make it and get it operational assuming no problems... yeah, but Kinzhal is operational now and avangard not very far away either.


    Not sure if we're talking about the same.  Neither Kinzhal nor Avangard  ship missiles and is not going to be used on . The sense Zircons/Liders is in power projection for expeditionary forces. Instead of airwing.

    Avangards having global range (with icbm) withing 30mins dont need to be used on any ship.




    GB wrote: Not saying no to an upgraded destroyer BTW.

    unshaven  unshaven  unshaven  ?!



    GB wrote:
    not what I've herd. Buran irst of all was a carrier for Skiff orbital battle station. perhaps also truck to bring down "some satellites" form orbit.

    Buran got military support and funding because they suspected the US shuttles were nuclear orbital bombers in disguise. Experience led them to realise it was a pretty poor nuclear bomber concept... using enormous resources to deliver a payload two or three Satans could deliver for a fraction of the cost and always ready for launch... unlike shuttle launches that require a lot of preparation.

    FOBS AFAIK ws related to R36  not Burans. But all links/sources are welcome

    Sponsored content

    Promising destroyer "Lider-class" - Page 13 Empty Re: Promising destroyer "Lider-class"

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Mon Oct 14, 2019 9:33 pm