Promising destroyer "Lider-class"

PapaDragon wrote:

AlfaT8 wrote:...............

No Paket??

It's a freakin destroyer. It will have torpedoes no problem.

But Paket is also an anti-torpedo interceptor.

four for the Northern and Pacific fleets. On the other fleets - the Baltic and the Black Sea - the destroyers" Leader "service to bear will not be,"

Hmm, I'd kind of assumed they'd give BSF & Baltic 1 each to be Slava class replacement Flagship & S-500 umbrella

On the other hand, its certainly the Northern & Pacific which have the main need of big long range ships, while Baltic & BSF will be mainly operating in cover of land based AA so there is solid logic.

Project Canada wrote:

Ministry of Defense has decided to order eight nuclear destroyers "Leader"

Northern Design Bureau should complete the creation of the technical design of the destroyer in the fourth quarter of 2017

Russia's Defense Ministry plans to order eight nuclear destroyers like "Leader", the construction of the first ship is scheduled to begin in 2018. This was announced today  Tass  source in the military-industrial complex.

According to him, the Northern Design Bureau should complete the creation of the technical design of the destroyer in the fourth quarter of 2017, after which the Defense Ministry will sign a contract with the United Shipbuilding Corporation to build a series of ships of this type.

"Construction of the head of" Leader "is due to start in early 2018 and be completed by the end of 2022, that is, it will last for five years," - a spokesman said.

"It was originally supposed to build for the Navy a series of 12 destroyers, then this number has been reduced to eight units - four for the Northern and Pacific fleets. On the other fleets - the Baltic and the Black Sea - the destroyers" Leader "service to bear will not be," - said the source.

He said that the "leader" were armed with missiles "Caliber" and "Onyx", anti-aircraft missile systems S-500 "Prometheus" and "Poliment-Redoute" (currently being tested at the head frigate of project 22350 "Admiral Gorshkov"), and and rocket-gun complex "Carapace-M".

https://defence.ru/mashino-stroenie/minoboroni-reshilo-zakazat-vosem-atomnikh-esmincev-lider/

Good news for Russia. The timeline of the units after the first can be variable, surely is for after 2025. Not a problem.

http://www.deagel.com/Destroyers-and-Cruisers/Project-21956_a002084001.aspx
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/russia/ddg-newcon.htm
Is it possible that they build some of these with Liders?

It's a 163m destroyer, 9000 tons class, supposed to replace Udaloys. Much cheaper than Liders and they need to replace their Udaloys which haven't true anti ship missiles and long range air defence capabilities. Some thought that was a possible Lider design but in fact it was designed in 2007. Lider is suppoed to be much bigger.



I don't know if it's true but they are saying kh-101 missile can be lunched by S-400F lunchers. Could be a nice thing as it has 6*8=48 lunchers for 48N6 (150-200km) or 6*8*4=192 with 9M96 (40-120 km). Very good for big area air defence or fleet air defence.

So 3*8*4=96 9M96 + 3*8=24 Kh-101 + 16 UKSK (Kalibr) for attack operations isn't bad at all. It could have done what the three epardand buyan did ini syria and would still have more power than any actual russian ship after the attack.

An other question, is it better to have more destroyers or less but more armed and nuclear powered big cruiser ?

It is possible to see both. One as Cruiser and the other as Destroyer. If I'm not wrong it was a plan to build around 10 of them.

Interesting project.

Kh-101/102 wont be compatible with launchers for S-400 in any form.

It should be compatible with UKSK launchers but not S-300 or S-400 launchers.

George1 wrote:i think project 21956 is dead. What the purpose of building to such ships since leader will be universal design (cruiser, destroyer, large ASW ship)

Leader will be extremely expensive.
I would like to see those ships in service,.

marat wrote:

George1 wrote:i think project 21956 is dead. What the purpose of building to such ships since leader will be universal design (cruiser, destroyer, large ASW ship)

Leader will be extremely expensive.
I would like to  see those ships in service,.

Honestly, I am fairly certain that Lider class will be completed without too much hassle if nuclear icebreakers are anything to go by.

Size is similar, they use same nuclear reactors and vast majority of equipment and weaponry is either off the shelf stuff or will be by the time they are to be installed.

I am very optimistic about this class despite the size. There are not many unknowns in this equation.

PapaDragon wrote:

marat wrote:

George1 wrote:i think project 21956 is dead. What the purpose of building to such ships since leader will be universal design (cruiser, destroyer, large ASW ship)

Leader will be extremely expensive.
I would like to  see those ships in service,.

Honestly, I am fairly certain that Lider class will be completed without too much hassle if nuclear icebreakers are anything to go by.

Size is similar, they use same nuclear reactors and vast majority of equipment and weaponry is either off the shelf stuff or will be by the time they are to be installed.

I am very optimistic about this class despite the size. There are not many unknowns in this equation.

In other words Russia has the capacity to produce these ships. All the yammering is agenda-driven BS to make Russia look like some 3rd world
toilet. There really is way too much fantasy projection from all over the place by Russia haters.

PapaDragon wrote:

marat wrote:

George1 wrote:i think project 21956 is dead. What the purpose of building to such ships since leader will be universal design (cruiser, destroyer, large ASW ship)

Leader will be extremely expensive.
I would like to  see those ships in service,.

Honestly, I am fairly certain that Lider class will be completed without too much hassle if nuclear icebreakers are anything to go by.

Size is similar, they use same nuclear reactors and vast majority of equipment and weaponry is either off the shelf stuff or will be by the time they are to be installed.

I am very optimistic about this class despite the size. There are not many unknowns in this equation.

To be fair A nuclear ice breaker and a destroyer of that size are totally different ships. It's a bit much to say since they can build an ice breaker fast they can build a warship of that size has fast. When they actually start building it we will see which at this rate wont be until 2020 at the earliest.

Honestly, I am fairly certain that Lider class will be completed without too much hassle if nuclear icebreakers are anything to go by.

Size is similar, they use same nuclear reactors and vast majority of equipment and weaponry is either off the shelf stuff or will be by the time they are to be installed.

I think the big question is if they can get a decent Radar/AA Missile system up & working properly given the amount of difficulty they've had with doing much smaller ones.

Presumably Concern-Agat stuff would be a big factor http://nortwolf-sam.livejournal.com/1449376.html

But there is a big difference between some nice CGI & an actual functional integrated system to do justice to such a large & powerful ship.

PapaDragon wrote:

marat wrote:

George1 wrote:i think project 21956 is dead. What the purpose of building to such ships since leader will be universal design (cruiser, destroyer, large ASW ship)

Leader will be extremely expensive.
I would like to  see those ships in service,.

Honestly, I am fairly certain that Lider class will be completed without too much hassle if nuclear icebreakers are anything to go by.

Size is similar, they use same nuclear reactors and vast majority of equipment and weaponry is either off the shelf stuff or will be by the time they are to be installed.

I am very optimistic about this class despite the size. There are not many unknowns in this equation.

I didnt refer to technical posibilities to finish them, but to price. Russia needs more then 8 big ships in next 20 years and i am afraid that Russia can not afford to build them together with Frigates , classic and nuclear submarines, and landing fleet.

Expert Opinion on Future Russian Navy Project 23560 Leader-class Nuclear-Powered Destroyers

Russia’s defense industry continues the development of the Project 23560 (codename Leader) advanced guided missile destroyer. Experts approached by the Defence.ru news portal have assessed the prospects of the ship. Ilya Kramnik, a columnist with Lenta.ru, believes Russia needs a navy capable of operations on high seas, which implies the availability of big ships.


"We have always built such ships - missile cruisers designed for sinking enemy aircraft carriers in particular and enemy submarines as well and able to repel massive air attacks. The Leader being planned for construction now will be a missile cruiser, in fact. The shipbuilders have not come up with an accurate classification for her yet. The press keeps on mentioning a nuclear-powered destroyer or a missile cruiser. Overall, she will be an oceangoing combatant with versatile weaponry. The ship will have the land-attack capability owing to the Kalibr [NATO reporting name: SS-N-30] long-range cruise missile system that we have seen in action in Syria," the expert reminded.

Independent military expert Prokhor Tebin concurs with Lenta.ru’s military analyst: "Compared to the in-design Leader in terms of type, there are four similar ships in the Russian Navy’s inventory - three Project 1164 (Slava-class) cruisers and a Project 1144 (Kirov-class) Pyotr Veliky. Right, these are not fully identical ships, for they belong to different generations and embody different technologies; rather, they are different ships in the same class."

The expert also noted the problems the Russian Navy has encountered during the Syrian operation due to the shortage of ships: "We have two oceangoing fleets [the Northern and Pacific ones]. During the Syrian campaign, first the Moskva cruiser and then Varyag cruiser acted as flagship of the Mediterranean force while the third cruiser of the class, the Marshal Ustinov, and the Pyotr Veliky were in repair. Thus, two ships are in repair, two are in Syria, and none of the combatants in the class are available for other missions, say, near our shores, for training."


In Ilya Kramnik’s opinion, the advanced Leaders will replace the Project 956 (Sovremennyy-class) destroyers due for decommissioning in five to 10 years and some of the Project 1155 (Udaloy-class) antisubmarine warfare destroyers.

"The mainstay of our blue-water navy is to be eight Leaders and upgraded Soviet-built ships. The first of the latter will be the Admiral Nakhimov (Kirov-class) that is being repaired by Sevmash, as is known," Kramnik said.

Prokhor Tebin, too, assessed the feasibility of Russia’s gaining a full-fledged blue-water navy in case the Leader program is carried out. In Tebin’s opinion, Russia will only lack an advanced aircraft carrier and a versatile amphibious assault ship: "Overall, even lacking the carrier and LHD and considering the nuclear submarine fleet, future destroyers and ships in other classes, it will be a rather balanced oceangoing navy able to accomplish a lot of missions."


Judging by recent media reports, eight Project 23560 ships are slated to be built. From Tebin’s point of view, the number of destroyers is the minimally acceptable one: "By rule of thumb, we need a ship on a long-range cruise, at least one for operating near the home shore, one for training and one for repair. As for two ocean-going fleets, the total number of the ships is eight. Thus, this is the minimal number allowing effective operations. Whether they will be built is quite another kettle of fish. Let’s hope for the best."

"There should not be a problem with the engine for the advanced ships," Ilya Kramnik maintains, "because the Leader is being designed as nuclear-powered cruiser, and we already have a nuclear propulsion plant developed to equip RITM-200 icebreakers. It was developed as a versatile one from the outset. Hence, a power plant for warships can be derived from it. In theory, the Navy may order the development of a nuclear propulsion plant for an aircraft carrier, if it decides so. In other words, Russia is in a better position in terms of nuclear power plants than gas-turbine ones, because all relevant designers and manufacturers are here. Gas turbines pose a bigger problem for obvious reasons, but hopefully our engineers will manage to develop gas-turbine propulsion plants to equip frigates."

The expert also noted that there should be no problem with the weapons suite of the advanced surface combatant, because "it has been developed and proved itself." The air defense system is being tested on the new-generation Admiral Gorshkov (Gorshkov-class) frigate and other ships of the class. Let’s hope that there will have been the complete standardized weapons suite to fit out the Leader by the time her keel is laid, which, I guess, will take place in 2018 at the earliest."


The experts’ opinions differed on the recently reported deadlines for the Leader’s development and construction. As is known, the first Leader is slated for laying-down as soon as 2018.

"As for a ship as big and complex as a destroyer - essentially, a new-generation cruiser in terms of technology and dimensions, the deadline usually slips behind schedule," Prokhor Tebin remarked. "This is true for everybody, be it Russia or the United States. The latest US aircraft carrier, which keeps on slipping, is a good case in point. I would not say that it is no drama at all, but this is life. I do not think the program will be delayed much, but if it is, the less, the better."

Asked about the construction timeframe, Ilya Kramnik noted the problems facing industry as a whole: "Unfortunately, our shipbuilding is not in good shape. Everything will depend on what shipyard lands the order and how the latter will be financed. I hope that if they start carrying out the order at all, they will have been able to assess risks realistically by the time the lead ship is laid down, so that we avoid a 10-11-year-long delivery delay. If industry will have been squared away by the time, building a ship will take seven to eight years from cutting metal to delivering her to the Navy. I mean the lead ship. The construction of production-standard ones will take four to five years."

Lenta.ru’s military columnist stressed that the matter of financing consists in not only the funds set aside for the ships per se, but the money for shipbuilding modernization as well.
Both experts were cagey about the financing of the program.

"It depends on various considerations, e.g. whether there will be money allocated for research and operation or not, so on, so forth," Prokhor Tebin said.

"The program is absolutely feasible in engineering, technical and economic terms. However, Russia’s peculiarities should be taken in account too: we need the Navy, on the one hand, but it has been sidelined repeatedly," Ilya Kramnik summed up in his interview with the Defence.ru network news agency

Source: http://www.navyrecognition.com/index.php/focus-analysis/naval-technology/4643-expert-opinion-on-future-russian-navy-project-23560-leader-class-nuclear-powered-destroyers.html

12 10k+ ships by by 2025?.

No way they would be lucky to get two out in that timeframe.

It would be very interesting for Russia if they can have the first finnished by the end of 2020, opening the production line. This can be one of the consequences of the failure of the Mistral project (Russia has the money on hand).

For the rest, I expect longer life for the current ships, except if Russia continues reducing its fleet. In every case it would not be a real need of replacement of the current Russian Cruisers or Destroyers before 2030 except in the case of the Smetlivy (Project 01090) and the Kerch (Project 1134B). Both can be covered by the first ships of the Project 23560 Lider and the Project 21956, that many times are being mixed. The Project 23560 would be more in the size of a Cruiser, while the Project 21956 is in the size of a Destroyer.

Since 2030 the need would be significantly bigger, and some unit can be produced in advance.

SeigSoloyvov wrote:12 10k+ ships by by 2025?.

No way they would be lucky to get two out in that timeframe.

Well seems they now want to build only 8 of them with first to enter service in like 2027-8.

Most of that isn't beyond what Russia can do since they can build a larger nuclear powered ship in short time (Ice breakers).  The nuclear propulsion already exists, so does Kalibr missiles.  But what isn't is the S-500 so it will more likely end up with just S-400 missiles in the end till the 500 are ready (which wont be for a while I imagine).

Nothing wrong with any of this.  Fit a ship with a lot of the current tech that Russia has and it is still a mighty ship.

Militarov wrote:

SeigSoloyvov wrote:12 10k+ ships by by 2025?.

No way they would be lucky to get two out in that timeframe.

Well seems they now want to build only 8 of them with first to enter service in like 2027-8.

Article says 12.

Of course the date will be far different, much further away than 2025.

http://concern-agat.ru/en/production/radiolocation-radio-electronic-systems-and-complexes/radar-with-rotating-l-band-active-phased-array

Hope we will see this type of radar on Lider.

Isos wrote:http://concern-agat.ru/en/production/radiolocation-radio-electronic-systems-and-complexes/radar-with-rotating-l-band-active-phased-array

Hope we will see this type of radar on Lider.

I am abit skeptical about these ranges they claimed here.

Militarov wrote:

Isos wrote:http://concern-agat.ru/en/production/radiolocation-radio-electronic-systems-and-complexes/radar-with-rotating-l-band-active-phased-array

Hope we will see this type of radar on Lider.

I am abit skeptical about these ranges they claimed here.

If you look at the detection ranges of the other radars, it seem like they don't lie. However, Lider is meant to carry S-500 so it will need a radar like this one for ABM role.

Isos wrote:

Militarov wrote:

Isos wrote:http://concern-agat.ru/en/production/radiolocation-radio-electronic-systems-and-complexes/radar-with-rotating-l-band-active-phased-array

Hope we will see this type of radar on Lider.

I am abit skeptical about these ranges they claimed here.

If you look at the detection ranges of the other radars, it seem like they don't lie. However, Lider is meant to carry S-500 so it will need a radar like this one for ABM role.

No, no i am not saying they are lying, just that they are being abit optimistic

Militarov wrote:

Isos wrote:

Militarov wrote:

Isos wrote:http://concern-agat.ru/en/production/radiolocation-radio-electronic-systems-and-complexes/radar-with-rotating-l-band-active-phased-array

Hope we will see this type of radar on Lider.

I am abit skeptical about these ranges they claimed here.

If you look at the detection ranges of the other radars, it seem like they don't lie. However, Lider is meant to carry S-500 so it will need a radar like this one for ABM role.

No, no i am not saying they are lying, just that they are being abit optimistic

Most people here ar optimistic when it comes to the Russians Navy and building ships of this size.

If I hear the Ice Breaker Excuse again I swear.

SeigSoloyvov wrote:

Militarov wrote:

Isos wrote:

Militarov wrote:

Isos wrote:http://concern-agat.ru/en/production/radiolocation-radio-electronic-systems-and-complexes/radar-with-rotating-l-band-active-phased-array

Hope we will see this type of radar on Lider.

I am abit skeptical about these ranges they claimed here.

If you look at the detection ranges of the other radars, it seem like they don't lie. However, Lider is meant to carry S-500 so it will need a radar like this one for ABM role.

No, no i am not saying they are lying, just that they are being abit optimistic

Most people here ar optimistic when it comes to the Russians Navy and building ships of this size.

If I hear the Ice Breaker Excuse again I swear.

we are sorry that you are incapable of logical deduction.

It is very large though at 7.1m diameter & L-band.
Compare with 3.6m AN/SPY-1, 4.2m for AN/SPY-6 for the Flight3 Burkes, 1.4* bigger area than the 6m arrays for the proposed BMD San Antonio
The radar up the back of this pic is presumably the same


Which reminds me of an oddity in the model that I've been meaning to bring up:
As much as it's just a concept model -> fist full of salt but the front face antenna is really big, much smaller ones on the sides

Also still there on the later CG version

I've been kind of assuming it's for anti-ship detection?