Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues
Hole wrote:Compared to what Lider will be 50% bigger?
Lider: 16 - 19.000ts
Nakhimov: 24.000ts
Hole wrote:Lider: 100 silos for missiles of all kinds:
Собеседник рассказал, что наибольшая длина эсминцев
будет достигать 230 м, водоизмещение составит 20 тыс. т.
"Лидер" сможет нести более 100 высокоточных ракет "Циркон", "Калибр" или "Оникс", - отметил источник.
Isos wrote: I think they want more ships instead of more weapons(so bigger ships) because Kirovs are huuuge and very costly. USSR though they could build many of them but once they realised its too expensive they ordered 10 slavas.
Isos wrote: Russia may make the same mistake by trying to get 12 nuk lider and find out it's too much and make a smaller ship of some 13kT like they did for slava/kiov.
Isos wrote:No way 100. If it goes full uksk then it's 8*? Silos. So can't be 100.
One Lider is enough to take down the whole eCSG or destroy verge sized country. Why would they need more then 5-6? 32-48 cells will be for 22350-M (8ktons displcemnt )
Isos wrote:One Lider is enough to take down the whole eCSG or destroy verge sized country. Why would they need more then 5-6? 32-48 cells will be for 22350-M (8ktons displcemnt )
They are not immune to f-35 or subs attacks.
Why to build 50% bigger ship with weaker armament? especially that Russian doctrine focuses on long range missiles not ariwings
verkhoturye51 wrote:Why to build 50% bigger ship with weaker armament? especially that Russian doctrine focuses on long range missiles not ariwings
Lider is supposed to be primarily an anti-air destroyer, having 64 anti surface and 72 anti air cells according to Wiki. That's a lot of missiles, even for 19k ton ship. Universal VLS system for all those missiles would make things easier. Technically, anti air missiles aren't too big. The largest S-400 missile is 7,8 m long and the current UKSK allows up to 8,6 m long birds.
Better store more smaller range missiles and few big ones just in case.
verkhoturye51 wrote:Why to build 50% bigger ship with weaker armament? especially that Russian doctrine focuses on long range missiles not ariwings
Lider is supposed to be primarily an anti-air destroyer, having 64 anti surface and 72 anti air cells according to Wiki. That's a lot of missiles, even for 19k ton ship. Universal VLS system for all those missiles would make things easier. Technically, anti air missiles aren't too big. The largest S-400 missile is 7,8 m long and the current UKSK allows up to 8,6 m long birds.
LMFS wrote: But as said it is important not to limit the design from the beginning trying to make it smaller than what is realistically needed for the task. NPP + all electric operation would be good to make the ship future-proof in terms of DEW, radars and other future needs that demand more electric power.
All sources I've seen were talking tubes for ASh missiles only. Why to build 50% bigger ship with weaker armament? especially that Russian doctrine focuses on long range missiles not ariwings
Well you gin look like US analyst , Us is bsing on CSGs Russians not. Then you need more missiles.
USN wants to have ~350 ships. 6 Liders is more than enough to keep them at bay.
Let me guess this is not about major war but Venezuela/Syria wars. .
that's why you need to build nuclear powered ships as main expeditionary ships like Liders or Shtorm concept.
recently superconductors were created working on -13 Celsius?
2 to roam+ 2 for close protection. not surprisingly 2 Liders will be build till 2030
most extreme case: your gas turbines run on H2. Ship's nuclear rector produces liquid H2 & stores while you run on economic speed directly from sea water. No need for tankers.
No way 100. If it goes full uksk then it's 8*? Silos. So can't be 100.
Russia may make the same mistake by trying to get 12 nuk lider and find out it's too much and make a smaller ship of some 13kT like they did for slava/kiov.
S-500 will be expensive too. Export s-400 is 500 million. Expect at least 250 million for domestic s-500. That's the price of a frigate.
The interlocutor told that the greatest length of destroyers
it will reach 230 m, displacement will be 20 thousand tons.
"Leader" will be able to carry more than 100 high-precision missiles "Zircon", "Caliber" or "Onyx", - said the source.
The-thing-next-door wrote:The Lider will actually be most likely uesed as a "cruiser" as in a ship for foriegn policy and intervetions while the conventionally powered Atlant and hybird Orlan class vessels will be modernised and used for defending the homeland in conjunction with land based intermediate range ASHMs and land based aviation.
There is siply little need the Lider class when it comes to deffence as the enemy navy would be on the bottome before it you could ever get you ships out of port.
No carrier ever concieved could possible hope to beat land based aviation, espetially Mig-31s and TU-22s armed with supersonic and hypersonic ASHMs.
GarryB wrote:especially when we follow developments and even we are not sure about UKSK-M.
.GB wrote:Well you gin look like US analyst , Us is bsing on CSGs Russians not. Then you need more missiles.
Well a US analyst should realise how capable these Zircon missiles are and realise even just one would be dangerous enough for the US Navy... they have never faced an enemy with such a potent weapon able to undo even their best defended ship.
+++
USN wants to have ~350 ships. 6 Liders is more than enough to keep them at bay.
GB wrote: Now when an Oscar class ship gets its 24 Granits replaced with 72 Onyx missiles, it makes sense they don't mean UKSK launch tubes and therefore all the Club weapons too... Oscar is anti carrier group... it doesn't need the distraction of land attack or anti sub weapons, but a new destroyer is supposed to be multi role so it makes sense to have different weapon types in its tubes...
+++
[/quote]GB wrote:Let me guess this is not about major war but Venezuela/Syria wars. .
They have never planned an invasion of Europe or the US.... they might end up destroying them to protect themselves from the threat, but no indication they want to take them over and occupy them.
GB wrote:No argument from me... Russian carrier groupings are not going to be enormous with dozens of ships, but they all need to be able to go places without too much resupply.that's why you need to build nuclear powered ships as main expeditionary ships like Liders or Shtorm concept.
GB wrote:In places in the Russian arctic that would require someone to light a fire to get it up to that...recently superconductors were created working on -13 Celsius?
GB wrote:They are calling it a 20K ton destroyer, but it is pretty clear this is a carrier escort we are talking about... a smaller Kirov... because with new weapons and new technology it wont need to be that big to have much much better performance...2 to roam+ 2 for close protection. not surprisingly 2 Liders will be build till 2030
GB wrote:most extreme case: your gas turbines run on H2. Ship's nuclear rector produces liquid H2 & stores while you run on economic speed directly from sea water. No need for tankers.
The carrier could produce and store the H2 and pump it back into a conventional ship it is towing along so it can refuel... once refuelled it can run on its own gas turbines now topped up with H2...
GB wrote: Zircon, Calibr, or Onyx... which suggests it has "more than 100 launch tubes" so at the bare minimum that is 13 UKSK launchers with 104 missile tubes... but they could just as easily load anti sub missiles or land attack missiles (like Calibr).
+++
Big ships will have big radar antenna arrays, so will be most effective with S-500 class SAMs, but they might just load them in a UKSK-M launcher system...
so where Kalibr-M will be carried ?
Im not saying you have to use zircons only. My point is if you use then you got kick ass.
No doubt S-500 makes sense but in original 1kt Lider UKSK 64 tubes and AAD were counted separately. Now displacement grew to 20kt and UKSKs till 104-112 (more less ratio constant). Why it would change now with AAD?
so where Kalibr-M will be carried ?
GB wrote:16 Zircons would be potent... 100 is just excessive...Im not saying you have to use zircons only. My point is if you use then you got kick ass.
But of course they can be used against land or sea targets so it is not totally unreasonable for three quarters of the onboard load of missiles was Zircons...
GB wrote:No doubt S-500 makes sense but in original 1kt Lider UKSK 64 tubes and AAD were counted separately. Now displacement grew to 20kt and UKSKs till 104-112 (more less ratio constant). Why it would change now with AAD?
You are missing the point...{lots about Kirovs here} ..
The arsenal ship is the USN concept from late 70`s, Modernised Nakhimov will get close to the idea of the arsenal ship. The new Lider, if any will be built, will be even closer to that idea. The progress in naval shipbuilding, new ideas of constructive protection, miniaturisation and progress in naval weaponry should mean more punch within same displacement. But, russian navy, after 25 years of a standstill, need so much of it everywhere! I hope there will be ideas, fundings and shipbuilding capacities to build new type of a capital ship, which Lider should become! As well as the English, Russians were never out of the innovation fields, concerning naval shipbuilding and weaponry!GunshipDemocracy wrote:GarryB wrote:so where Kalibr-M will be carried ?
The launch tubes that carry Zircon could instead carry Kalibr-M, or one of the three Club type missiles, or Onyx/Yakhont/Brahmos.
[/quot]
True, my point was, plese dont mix CM tubes with AAD ones. Even is both use USKS-Ms 100+ re for CMs.GB wrote:16 Zircons would be potent... 100 is just excessive...Im not saying you have to use zircons only. My point is if you use then you got kick ass.
But of course they can be used against land or sea targets so it is not totally unreasonable for three quarters of the onboard load of missiles was Zircons...
100+GB wrote:No doubt S-500 makes sense but in original 1kt Lider UKSK 64 tubes and AAD were counted separately. Now displacement grew to 20kt and UKSKs till 104-112 (more less ratio constant). Why it would change now with AAD?
You are missing the point...{lots about Kirovs here} ..
No sir, you didnt get my point. I was talking about Lider. Lider already had 56 cells for S-500 + 64 for AShM/rocket-torpedo .
Now 64 grew by ~60-70% till 100+. Why they should suddenly use S-500 there ? it is waste of cells.
BTW are you aware about an arsenal ship concept? this is INSTEAD of CVN
Russia plans to build two Lider-class nuclear-powered destroyers by the end of 2020s, with an estimated cost of each at around 100 billion rubles, a source in the shipbuilding industry told TASS on Thursday.
"In accordance with the existing state military program for 2018-2027, development works on the destroyers are expected to start in 2021, later proceeding to construction. According to preliminary estimates, it will take about seven years to build one destroyer," the source said.
"It is planned by the end of 2020s to start water trials of two Lider-class destroyers," he added noting that "each destroyer will cost around 100 billion rubles to build."
The source noted that Lider-class destroyers will have the capacity to carry over 100 Zirkon, Kalibr, or Oniks missiles.
Russia's United Shipbuilding Corporation refused to comment on this information but confirmed that they have necessary capabilities to build destroyers of this class
Russia plans to build two Lider-class nuclear-powered destroyers by the end of 2020s, with an estimated cost of each at around 100 billion rubles, a source in the shipbuilding industry told TASS on Thursday.
"In accordance with the existing state military program for 2018-2027, development works on the destroyers are expected to start in 2021, later proceeding to construction. According to preliminary estimates, it will take about seven years to build one destroyer," the source said.
Isos wrote:The dates are confusing. To build 2 of them by 2020 but dev work to begin in 2021
Maybe Ehniee is the chief designor
It depends on what you define as "development". They likely have a preliminary design completed, but it will take years to turn that into a detailed design with adequate documentation that will permit metal to be cut.Militarov wrote:Impossible, development was done already in 2017. Our forum source in USC said so.
Big_Gazza wrote:It depends on what you define as "development". They likely have a preliminary design completed, but it will take years to turn that into a detailed design with adequate documentation that will permit metal to be cut.Militarov wrote:Impossible, development was done already in 2017. Our forum source in USC said so.
Home
Latest images
Register
Log in
