Promising destroyer "Lider-class"

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

https://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!

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!

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...

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.

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?

..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:
https://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

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...

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.

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...

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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


Juan Carlos & the Canberras have full Azipods https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_ship_Juan_Carlos_I

Also Bay Class https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bay-class_landing_ship

Tsavo Lion wrote:...

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

The project of the future warship of the future for the Russian Navy, long known under the cipher "Leader", at the end of February 2019, presented the society with two news. First, sources in the shipbuilding industry reported that the displacement of the projected ship had grown to 19 thousand tons, and secondly, information appeared about the intention to build two combat units of this project by the end of the 2020s. Izvestia understands the situation.

This is right.

Despite tons of comments against this project from the pro-US and pro-Israel people in this forum, the project goes forward.

The construction of the first unit was assured with the approval of the preliminary project in the spring of 2017.

Now there are more concrete news about the second unit, that has a timeline like 2 years after the first.

And being a project of strategic importance for the Russian Navy, more delays are unlikely, and the first unit can be commissioned by the end of 2025.

Where is now all the people saying that the Project 23560 was out of the State Armament Project 2018-2027? The reality always comes for them like a truck over a .... in the road.

But still for George1 the troll is me...

eehnie wrote:

Now there are more concrete news about the second unit, that has a timeline like 2 years after the first.

And being a project of strategic importance for the Russian Navy, more delays are unlikely, and the first unit can be commissioned by the end of 2025.

Where is now all the people saying that the Project 23560 was out of the State Armament Project 2018-2027? The reality always comes for them like a truck over a .... in the road.

But still for George1 the troll is me...

Wait, are you saying it wasnt laid down already? Son i remember clearly you said it was laid down already... its on Wikipedia it has to be true...

Militarov wrote:

eehnie wrote:

Now there are more concrete news about the second unit, that has a timeline like 2 years after the first.

And being a project of strategic importance for the Russian Navy, more delays are unlikely, and the first unit can be commissioned by the end of 2025.

Where is now all the people saying that the Project 23560 was out of the State Armament Project 2018-2027? The reality always comes for them like a truck over a .... in the road.

But still for George1 the troll is me...

Wait, are you saying it wasnt laid down already? Son i remember clearly you said it was laid down already... its on Wikipedia it has to be true...

Your memory has some fault, check it, this is wrong, like your comments about the Tu-PAK-DA.

This is the source I quoted:

http://russianships.info/eng/warships/project_23560.htm

You can see here the name of the first unit (that you can confirm in multiple other sources), and a note saying "under construction", something perfectly compatible with the reality of the Technical Project ongoing since the approval of the Preliminary Project, but there is not a fixed data for the laid down.

When the laid down be done...