Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    Promising destroyer "Lider-class"

    kvs
    kvs

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

    Promising destroyer "Lider-class" - Page 15 Empty Re: Promising destroyer "Lider-class"

    Post  kvs on Mon Mar 04, 2019 3:19 pm

    hoom wrote:
    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 15 ?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 15 Hmas_adelaide1
    Also Bay Class https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bay-class_landing_ship
    Promising destroyer "Lider-class" - Page 15 RFA-Mounts-Bay-Azipods

    Try to keep up. These are maneuvering propellers. Don't pimp podded propellers on me like you are proving something.
    You have not given a single example of the primary propulsion of any full sized naval ship that uses podded propellers.
    The onus is on you to prove that their absence is irrelevant.

    avatar
    hoom

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

    Promising destroyer "Lider-class" - Page 15 Empty Re: Promising destroyer "Lider-class"

    Post  hoom on Tue Mar 05, 2019 12:43 am

    WTF you asked for "one full sized naval ship that has podded electrically driven propellers" I gave you 79.

    OHP used them for their primary task of low speed, quiet ASW with 2ndary as emergency propulsion if the single main prop got damaged.
    They're 'full size naval ships with podded electric props' as requested, there were 71 of them built. (possible some don't have the pods though)

    Juan Carlos/Canberras are 3 'full size naval ships' of 26,000ton with entire propulsion being azipods.

    The 5 Bay class are 'full size naval ships' of 16,000ton with entire propulsion being azipods.

    Just because your poorly worded question didn't result in the answer you were after doesn't make mine an invalid response.


    Last edited by hoom on Tue Mar 05, 2019 1:38 am; edited 1 time in total
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 22039
    Points : 22583
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Promising destroyer "Lider-class" - Page 15 Empty Re: Promising destroyer "Lider-class"

    Post  GarryB on Tue Mar 05, 2019 12:52 am

    You have not given a single example of the primary propulsion of any full sized naval ship that uses podded propellers.
    The onus is on you to prove that their absence is irrelevant.

    Are you going to ignore my post regarding an 80,000 ton LNG carrier with icebreaking capabilities built by South Korea for the Russian LNG fields in Siberia with Azipods?

    The ships fitted with Azipods so far have not been high speed ships, but does that mean they can't be used on high speed ships?

    I mean an Azipod is not really that much different to a waterjet nozzle for a jet boat except an azipod is a fully contained propeller and electric motor like those little plastic pods with electric motors and an AA battery and a suction cup you could stick to the bottom of ships in a kids bath...
    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 15 Empty Re: Promising destroyer "Lider-class"

    Post  GunshipDemocracy on Tue Mar 05, 2019 1:26 am

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

    Perhaps the reason they are talking about a destroyer with 100 plus Zircons is because they might actually only have 64 Zircons and the rest are SAMs or other missiles because it will have UKSK-M launch tubes?
    In fact they likely never carry a full load of any missiles because it would cost too damn much to buy that many missiles anyway...



    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.


    GB wrote: but lets face it after the second ship sinks, and they realise their super defence systems don't work, the rest will run for the hills... the 7 years is the minimum time to get a leader into the water and it is a bare and optimistic minimum...

    USN wants to have ~350 ships. 6 Liders is more than enough to keep them at bay. My guess is 2 liders till 2030 because they plan t first to have 2 expeditionary ship groupings. At first. Kuz + one more.

    Expeditionary ship groupings is Russian Navy official naming convention. More less CSG equivlent. Let me guess this is not about major war but Venezuela/Syria wars. .




    GB wrote:
    not really, you dont count tens of military bases around the world to refuel yous ship.

    Russia had trouble getting to Syria.... a big ship like a carrier takes a lot of fuel to power... some small country ports probably couldn't cope with that sort of business...

    that's why you need to build nuclear powered ships as main expeditionary ships like Liders or Shtorm concept.




    GB wrote:
    The cabling and power conversion equipment needed for handling the absolutely MASSIVE amounts of power a big vessel needs are a technical challenge, expensive and heavy and with big cooling demands. So it is not like is 100% advantages and no downsides.

    But I thought all the problems would be solved by the Pixies from magic land like they normally are with new technology...

    recently superconductors were created working on -13 Celsius?



    GB wrote:
    I wonder what alternative to shafts the Krylov guy is meaning, podded propellers are not present AFAIK in any high speed ship.

    The fact that they have not been put in a high speed ship does not mean they couldn't be... perhaps some sort of planing hydrofoils could be used... having large ships moving at 40-50 knots... a 60 knot carrier an AN-2 would struggle to keep up with it and landing could be vertical...

    Promising destroyer "Lider-class" - Page 15 Ethrthsdfdxf



    The don't have nuclear destroyers or cruisers anymore either...

    anD how many TAKRS, nuclear ice-brekers or Orleans does USN have?




    GB wrote:
    In terms of wandering the Pacific fleet ship might have wandered around the Pacific and Asia and central and south America on the Pacific side, while the northern fleet spare might have gone down into the atlantic to africa and central and south america like Cuba and Venezuela and Brazil.

    2 to roam+ 2 for close protection. not surprisingly 2 Liders will be build till 2030



    GB wrote:
    True it would be interesting how "turbo" will be sorted out? maybe extra turbines but for electrical power generation? so no extra shafts needed?

    You could have gas turbines or diesels or both, but they would be connected with dynamos rather than drive shafts and transmissions...

    Like an electric car with electric motors on each wheel... you can have batteries and fuel cells and small gas turbines running all sorts of fuel from diesel or petrol to LNG or even hydrogen with the fuel cell. In this case a gas turbine is small and running at optimum speed all the time quite fuel efficient in generating power.

    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.
    lol1 lol1 lol1
    Hole
    Hole

    Posts : 2268
    Points : 2266
    Join date : 2018-03-24
    Age : 43
    Location : Merkelland

    Promising destroyer "Lider-class" - Page 15 Empty Re: Promising destroyer "Lider-class"

    Post  Hole on Tue Mar 05, 2019 11:07 am

    Compared to what Lider will be 50% bigger?

    Lider: 16 - 19.000ts
    Nakhimov: 24.000ts

    Lider: 100 silos for missiles of all kinds
    Nakhimov: 80 silos for cruise, anti-ship and ASW missiles + 96 long-range SAM´s
    Isos
    Isos

    Posts : 3902
    Points : 3892
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Promising destroyer "Lider-class" - Page 15 Empty Re: Promising destroyer "Lider-class"

    Post  Isos on Tue Mar 05, 2019 11:41 am

    Hole wrote:Compared to what Lider will be 50% bigger?

    Lider: 16 - 19.000ts
    Nakhimov: 24.000ts

    Lider: 100 silos for missiles of all kinds
    Nakhimov: 80 silos for cruise, anti-ship and ASW missiles + 96 long-range SAM´s

    No way 100. If it goes full uksk then it's 8*? Silos. So can't be 100.

    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.

    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.

    One advantage russia can exploit however is the standardisation of the ships. So if the lider shares 60-80% of components with the gorshkovs and another 10% about the nuk propulsion with the rest of nuclear ships (borei, yasen, icebreakers...) then the price can be affordable.

    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.
    Rodion_Romanovic
    Rodion_Romanovic

    Posts : 498
    Points : 498
    Join date : 2015-12-30

    Promising destroyer "Lider-class" - Page 15 Empty Re: Promising destroyer "Lider-class"

    Post  Rodion_Romanovic on Tue Mar 05, 2019 12:21 pm

    Isos wrote:
    Hole wrote:Compared to what Lider will be 50% bigger?

    Lider: 16 - 19.000ts
    Nakhimov: 24.000ts

    Lider: 100 silos for missiles of all kinds
    Nakhimov: 80 silos for cruise, anti-ship and ASW missiles + 96 long-range SAM´s

    No way 100. If it goes full uksk then it's 8*? Silos. So can't be 100.

    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.

    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.

    One advantage russia can exploit however is the standardisation of the ships. So if the lider shares 60-80% of components with the gorshkovs and another 10% about the nuk propulsion with the rest of nuclear ships (borei, yasen, icebreakers...) then the price can be affordable.

    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.
    An american Burke class.destroyer is 9800 tons and has
    96 cell Mk 41 VLS.

    This.beast (leader class cruiser/ destroyer) is about twice the size of a Burke destroyer so I can imagine it will have a proportional number of VLS cells
    Isos
    Isos

    Posts : 3902
    Points : 3892
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Promising destroyer "Lider-class" - Page 15 Empty Re: Promising destroyer "Lider-class"

    Post  Isos on Tue Mar 05, 2019 1:25 pm

    Depend of the lenght too. Uksk are also long so you also need internal space (amost 9m for kalibr and zirkon could be longer).
    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 15 Empty Re: Promising destroyer "Lider-class"

    Post  GunshipDemocracy on Tue Mar 05, 2019 1:26 pm

    Hole wrote:Compared to what Lider will be 50% bigger?

    Lider: 16 - 19.000ts
    Nakhimov: 24.000ts

    to Lider before "upgrde" : 10-12k ton

    Hole wrote:Lider: 100 silos for missiles of all kinds:

    no, only ASh.

    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.
    https://tass.ru/armiya-i-opk/6167819


    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 15 Empty Re: Promising destroyer "Lider-class"

    Post  GunshipDemocracy on Tue Mar 05, 2019 1:32 pm

    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.

    Lider IMHO is to replace both  1164 Atlants & 1144 Orlans so 5-6but ht is even more problem will be main ships of Russian expeditionary groupings.


    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.

    One Lider is enough to take down the whole CSG or destroy verge sized country. Why would they need more then 5-6? 32-48 cells will be for 22350-M (8ktons displacement ). 8 is so far planned.



    Isos wrote:No way 100. If it goes full uksk then it's 8*? Silos. So can't be 100.

    yes it can. However Tass clearly said more then 100.
    3С14УК1  - 8 cells
    3С14УК2  - 4 cells


    Promising destroyer "Lider-class" - Page 15 120683-1-f


    Last edited by GunshipDemocracy on Tue Mar 05, 2019 1:44 pm; edited 2 times in total
    Isos
    Isos

    Posts : 3902
    Points : 3892
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Promising destroyer "Lider-class" - Page 15 Empty Re: Promising destroyer "Lider-class"

    Post  Isos on Tue Mar 05, 2019 1:37 pm

    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.
    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 15 Empty Re: Promising destroyer "Lider-class"

    Post  GunshipDemocracy on Tue Mar 05, 2019 1:43 pm

    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.

    That's why they wiki be lead ships of fleet groupings. Sy 2 22350 perhaps CVN + couple of Huskys/Yasens
    verkhoturye51
    verkhoturye51

    Posts : 449
    Points : 445
    Join date : 2018-03-02

    Promising destroyer "Lider-class" - Page 15 Empty Re: Promising destroyer "Lider-class"

    Post  verkhoturye51 on Tue Mar 05, 2019 2:13 pm

    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.
    Isos
    Isos

    Posts : 3902
    Points : 3892
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Promising destroyer "Lider-class" - Page 15 Empty Re: Promising destroyer "Lider-class"

    Post  Isos on Tue Mar 05, 2019 3:24 pm

    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.

    Universal UKSK-M will be as long as the longest missiles that it can use. Having some less longer VLS means you can put them where the depth of the ship is smaller.

    In term of size, UKSK-M won't make things easier at all since everyone of them will need the same space inside the hull. Redut on the other hand takes less space and can be put more foreward like on gorshkov where uksk-m can't be used.

    10mVLS means there won't be anything under them. So you can put them above engines, above fuel cell, above rooms.

    Redut is easier to implement in the ship. If they make the tubes larger they could make a missile with 250km range for redut vls which would be enough for lot of threats. Bigger missiles could be stored in the uksk-m but in smaller number. Today ship based SAMs need to intercept cruise missiles instead of fighters so the 400km anti air missiles will be to much specially that nato antiship missiles are flying low so they can be interczpted only the last few tens of km from the ship. Better store more smaller range missiles and few big ones just in case.
    verkhoturye51
    verkhoturye51

    Posts : 449
    Points : 445
    Join date : 2018-03-02

    Promising destroyer "Lider-class" - Page 15 Empty Re: Promising destroyer "Lider-class"

    Post  verkhoturye51 on Tue Mar 05, 2019 4:15 pm

    Better store more smaller range missiles and few big ones just in case.

    You can quadpack small missiles in big tubes. I think the space won't be a problem on Liders. The draught alone is supposed to be 6.6 m for 10-15 k ton version as per Wiki, so 19 k ton ship would be closer to Orlan's 9 m.

    On this draft design the missiles are located all together and where the deck is the lowest:

    Promising destroyer "Lider-class" - Page 15 Maxres10

    In the expedition group, Derzky, Gorshkov and Super-Gorshkov will be probably quite strong when it comes to short and medium range air defence, so that's why Lider is expected to have 56 S-500 missiles vs. 16 S-350. This UKSK-M would be also installed on Super Gorshkov with raising tubes over deck like here:

    Promising destroyer "Lider-class" - Page 15 Frigat10

    Smaller ships can keep current version of UKSK or modernise it when required.
    LMFS
    LMFS

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

    Promising destroyer "Lider-class" - Page 15 Empty Re: Promising destroyer "Lider-class"

    Post  LMFS on Tue Mar 05, 2019 4:24 pm

    Lider will be probably carrying ABM missiles of the S-500 family, those will be very big (Russia will not make the mistake of trying to cram them in standard VLS cells as US with the SM-3) and therefore it makes sense to make it big enough, since it will need, additionally, substantial ASM, AShM and ASW weapons. 5-6 units would be enough, 8-10 very good in the long term. 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.
    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 15 Empty Re: Promising destroyer "Lider-class"

    Post  GunshipDemocracy on Wed Mar 06, 2019 2:33 am

    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.

    1)  Orlans had 20 Granits  + 96 S-300F yet still were considered CSG killers.

    2) wiki was referring to 10-12k tons concept 20k tons

    3) now Orlans will get  80 cells for ASh  and Lider 100+ (104? 108? 112?) for ASh.

    4) strong AAD is needed to cover fleet grouping & very likely  ABM


    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.

    DEW to build plasma shields - US also sooner or later get hypersonic missiles russia russia russia

    AFAIK US navy laser is planned first @ 100kW then increased  300kw. Peresvet looks like is sup to 1000kW
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 22039
    Points : 22583
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Promising destroyer "Lider-class" - Page 15 Empty Re: Promising destroyer "Lider-class"

    Post  GarryB on Wed Mar 06, 2019 9:11 am

    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

    Yeah, but most sources I have seen regarding the corvettes used to launch calibre in Syria mentioned they carried 8 Calibr missiles... it never mentioned the capacity to take 8 Club missiles of three distinctly different types...

    It is not the sort of thing I would expect a reporter reporting the news to understand the difference...

    especially when we follow developments and even we are not sure about UKSK-M.

    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.

    If you are talking about an F-16 then on paper it can carry a 7 ton payload but it never would... that is just an idea of potential capacity.

    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...

    USN wants to have ~350 ships. 6 Liders is more than enough to keep them at bay.

    One Lider will keep them all away... they really don't have a history of accepting the loss of 100 ships to take out one enemy ship...

    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.

    that's why you need to build nuclear powered ships as main expeditionary ships like Liders or Shtorm concept.

    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.

    recently superconductors were created working on -13 Celsius?

    In places in the Russian arctic that would require someone to light a fire to get it up to that...

    2 to roam+ 2 for close protection. not surprisingly 2 Liders will be build till 2030

    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...

    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...

    No way 100. If it goes full uksk then it's 8*? Silos. So can't be 100.

    Said over 100, so the closest would be 104..., which would be 13 UKSK launchers.

    The thing is that the original Kirov had 20 launch bins for granits, plus launchers for the Rif SAM and right at the front of the deck a twin launcher reloadable from under deck for the SS-N-14 Silex anti sub/anti ship missile delivering a torpedo for anti sub use.

    You could rip out the Granit tubes and replace them with 10 UKSK launchers for 80 missiles because Granit tubes seem to be rather big.

    But if they are also replacing Rif and the SS-N-14 silex missiles with more UKSK tubes... you could probably get 5 more UKSK launchers in the space of the Rif system because it was quite spread out, and maybe 3 more where the SS-N-14 silex tubes are... they have said to replace the Granits they could get 10 UKSK launchers in the space for the Granits alone.... if they are replacing Rif and the Silex system that is a lot more space... more than double the area so they might get 20 launchers there, which would allow 160 missiles...

    [qote]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.[/quote]

    No, they started building Slavas at the same time as the Orlans in case the Orlans were a failure.

    Slavas were the cheaper option but much less impressive ships in my opinion...

    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.

    Wasn't really a mistake... if the economy had not collapsed and they had completed the carriers they had being built a mix of Kirovs and Slavas would have been valuable escorts for their carrier groups...

    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 vast majority of SAMs on the big ships will be the 60km range and 150km range S-400s, and the rest will be TOR or Pantsir based and therefore relatively cheap.

    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.

    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).

    Zircon and Onyx also have land attack capability so it is not really only anti ship missiles.

    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...
    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 15 Empty Re: Promising destroyer "Lider-class"

    Post  The-thing-next-door on Wed Mar 06, 2019 12:08 pm

    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.
    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 15 Empty Re: Promising destroyer "Lider-class"

    Post  GunshipDemocracy on Wed Mar 06, 2019 12:51 pm

    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.

    well, I would not say no-carrier. I'd sy this is comparable solution. Only much cheaper.
    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 15 Empty Re: Promising destroyer "Lider-class"

    Post  GunshipDemocracy on Wed Mar 06, 2019 1:33 pm

    GarryB wrote:especially when we follow developments and even we are not sure about UKSK-M.

    so where Kalibr-M will  be carried ?



    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.

    .
    Im not saying you have to use zircons only. My point is if you use then you got kick ass.




    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...
    +++



    USN: has Ohio and CSGs too. Anteys wont get Onyxes, They will get 72 Kalibrs. Onyx can fit into Granit only 1:1 (67cm vs 85 cm)  .  this w as discussed already.  And in this sense is better to let them attack land objects.

    ..


    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.
    [/quote]

    Range  4,500km Kalibrs-M
    Distance
    Murmansk: Halifax Nova Scotia............5,696.93 km
    Murmansk: Reykjavik:........................2,196.24 km
    Anadyr :  Seattle:..............................3,983.43 km

    https://www.distance.to/Murmansk,Murmanskaya-oblast',RUS/Reykjav%C3%ADk,Reykjav%C3%ADkurborg,H%C3%B6fu%C3%B0borgarsv%C3%A6%C3%B0i%C3%B0,ISL




    GB wrote:
    that's why you need to build nuclear powered ships as main expeditionary ships like Liders or Shtorm concept.
    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.

    100% +


    GB wrote:
    recently superconductors were created working on -13 Celsius?
    In places in the Russian arctic that would require someone to light a fire to get it up to that...

    not that easy, you still  need pressure. But fireplace option looks interesting.  lol1  lol1  lol1

    Superconductivity at 215 K in lanthanum hydride at high pressures
    https://arxiv.org/abs/1808.07039

    Evidence for superconductivity above 260 K in lanthanum superhydride at megabar pressures
    https://arxiv.org/abs/1808.07695



    GB wrote:
    2 to roam+ 2 for close protection. not surprisingly 2 Liders will be build till 2030
    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...

    Battle Cruisers. Gorskhov-M will replace Atlant cruisers



    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...

    meh Sechin/Rosneft would never allowed it. lol1 lol1 lol1





    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...


    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?
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 22039
    Points : 22583
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Promising destroyer "Lider-class" - Page 15 Empty Re: Promising destroyer "Lider-class"

    Post  GarryB on Thu Mar 07, 2019 5:20 am

    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.

    Im not saying you have to use zircons only. My point is if you use then you got kick ass.

    16 Zircons would be potent... 100 is just excessive...

    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...

    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... in a ship that already had weapons allocated like the Kirov with 96 S-300 large SAMs and 20 Granit anti ship only cruise missiles and an SS-N-14 Silex missile launcher near the bow with say 12 Metel anti sub missiles with backup anti ship capability... when you upgrade it... 5 years ago there was poliment redut with S-400 systems and UKSK to replace the anti ship missile, but UKSK also has the 91RE1 ballistic rocket for delivering an anti sub torpedo... which basically replaces the SS-N-14 as well.

    So in the front of the ship you have three areas currently being used from front to back by an anti sub rocket delivered torpedo system called SS-N-14, then a large area of Rif vertical launchers for 96 S-300 large SAMs with a range of maybe 120km at most in that model, and then up the back in front of the bridge the Granit launchers with 20 anti ship only missiles.

    The original upgrade seemed to just be to replace the Granits and I suspect also the SS-N-14s with UKSK launchers and they were going to get 10 launchers in the space available, which means 80 missiles... at the time Onyx, but perhaps two 8 shot bins with 91Re1 anti sub weapons... so the actual load of 80 weapons would be 16 91RE1 anti sub torpedo rockets, plus the rest in Onyx... which can now be anti ship or land attack.

    Operationally they might add some other of the types of missile they could carry depending on the situation like 4,500km land attack cruise missiles or whatever.
    The point is that the 96 Rif missiles were not really going to be changed because the Redut system is not really big enough to hold full sized missiles, but if the UKSK-M has been developed to hold cruise missiles and SAMs then instead of just 10 UKSK plus Rif SAM launchers it might have 25 UKSK-M launchers... 16 91RE1s, 64 Onyx or now Zircon, and 15 UKSK-Ms with SAMs in them... say 8 tubes for S-500 with one missile per tube, that leaves 14 x 8 tubes for SAMs... now these are large missile sized tubes so you might get 6 S-400 9M96 missiles in each tube by width capacity, but the shorter ones you might get three layers and the longer 160km range models you might get two.... so 18 x 60km range S-400s per tube and 12 x 160km range S-400s per tube... with 9M100 you might get 24 missiles per tube...
    Hole
    Hole

    Posts : 2268
    Points : 2266
    Join date : 2018-03-24
    Age : 43
    Location : Merkelland

    Promising destroyer "Lider-class" - Page 15 Empty Re: Promising destroyer "Lider-class"

    Post  Hole on Thu Mar 07, 2019 11:14 am

    Admiral Nakhimov has no SS-N-14 launcher. Only Kirov (Adm. Ushakov) had it.

    Promising destroyer "Lider-class" - Page 15 000230
    Kirov

    Promising destroyer "Lider-class" - Page 15 000231
    Nakhimov
    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 15 Empty Re: Promising destroyer "Lider-class"

    Post  GunshipDemocracy on Thu Mar 07, 2019 11:44 pm

    [quote="GarryB"]
    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:
    Im not saying you have to use zircons only. My point is if you use then you got kick ass.
    16 Zircons would be potent... 100 is just excessive...

    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

    avatar
    kumbor

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

    Promising destroyer "Lider-class" - Page 15 Empty Re: Promising destroyer "Lider-class"

    Post  kumbor on Thu Mar 07, 2019 11:57 pm

    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:
    Im not saying you have to use zircons only. My point is if you use then you got kick ass.
    16 Zircons would be potent... 100 is just excessive...

    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

    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!

    Sponsored content

    Promising destroyer "Lider-class" - Page 15 Empty Re: Promising destroyer "Lider-class"

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Thu Oct 17, 2019 4:08 pm