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...