Russia Defence Forum

Would you like to react to this message? Create an account in a few clicks or log in to continue.

Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    Promising destroyer "Lider-class"

    avatar
    Guest
    Guest

    Promising destroyer "Lider-class" - Page 14 Empty Re: Promising destroyer "Lider-class"

    Post  Guest on Sun Mar 03, 2019 9:11 pm

    eehnie wrote:
    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, but there is not a fixed data for the laid down.

    When the laid down be done... Twisted Evil

    Ah, yes, PAK-DA, naturally, hypersonic flying wing. How could i forget.
    SeigSoloyvov
    SeigSoloyvov

    Posts : 1848
    Points : 1838
    Join date : 2016-04-08

    Promising destroyer "Lider-class" - Page 14 Empty Re: Promising destroyer "Lider-class"

    Post  SeigSoloyvov on Sun Mar 03, 2019 9:18 pm

    Does he still think they are buildings Liders? Lawls.

    commissioned by 2025 that's even funnier, Russia could never build and Sea Test a ship like that so quick.
    Tsavo Lion
    Tsavo Lion

    Posts : 4155
    Points : 4151
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    Promising destroyer "Lider-class" - Page 14 Empty Re: Promising destroyer "Lider-class"

    Post  Tsavo Lion on Sun Mar 03, 2019 9:27 pm

    On an 80K ton ship the propeller shafts are probably 1,000 tons..
    They still need more ballast for stability. Even a CVN rolls in heavy seas with waves breaking over the bow.
    The USN went all nuclear with subs after the MIC pushed it to get more $. They lost on it later as Taiwan needs new SSKs but has no1 else to turn to. But, the US yards don't & can't make them, even for export. Now they must make more SSNs to replace those they decommissioned earlier, wasting $ twice.
    SSKs r cheaper to build & operate + they can last longer- many r still in reserves in China & NK.
    avatar
    Guest
    Guest

    Promising destroyer "Lider-class" - Page 14 Empty Re: Promising destroyer "Lider-class"

    Post  Guest on Sun Mar 03, 2019 9:28 pm

    SeigSoloyvov wrote:Does he still think they are buildings Liders? Lawls.

    commissioned by 2025 that's even funnier, Russia could never build and Sea Test a ship like that so quick.

    Well... 5 pages and few months ago he said its already laid down... in 2017. I mean... some random site says so, it must be fucking right.
    avatar
    Guest
    Guest

    Promising destroyer "Lider-class" - Page 14 Empty Re: Promising destroyer "Lider-class"

    Post  Guest on Sun Mar 03, 2019 9:33 pm

    Tsavo Lion wrote:
    On an 80K ton ship the propeller shafts are probably 1,000 tons..
    They still need more ballast for stability. Even a CVN rolls in heavy seas with waves breaking over the bow.
    The USN went all nuclear with subs after the MIC pushed it to get more $. They lost on it later as Taiwan needs new SSKs but has no1 else to turn to. But, the US yards don't & can't make them, even for export. Now they must make more SSNs to replace those they decommissioned earlier, wasting $ twice.
    SSKs r cheaper to build & operate + they can last longer- many r still in reserves in China & NK.

    Well Navy also pushed budget towards nuclear component to achieve complete strategic mobility of submarine fleet which they couldnt do with diesels. They could make them, some shipyards were turning to Gov. to fund the project to provide Taiwan, Turkey, Australia and some other countries with diesels but they didnt seem to care since Germany was building 209s.
    eehnie
    eehnie

    Posts : 2461
    Points : 2470
    Join date : 2015-05-13

    Promising destroyer "Lider-class" - Page 14 Empty Re: Promising destroyer "Lider-class"

    Post  eehnie on Sun Mar 03, 2019 9:59 pm

    Militarov wrote:
    SeigSoloyvov wrote:Does he still think they are buildings Liders? Lawls.

    commissioned by 2025 that's even funnier, Russia could never build and Sea Test a ship like that so quick.

    Well... 5 pages and few months ago he said its already laid down... in 2017. I mean... some random site says so, it must be fucking right.

    False

    Militarov wrote:
    eehnie wrote: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, but there is not a fixed data for the laid down.

    When the laid down be done... Twisted Evil

    Ah, yes, PAK-DA, naturally, hypersonic flying wing. How could i forget.

    Did you saw the new Russian supersonic flying wing? Hypersonic is the fall of your arguments.
    SeigSoloyvov
    SeigSoloyvov

    Posts : 1848
    Points : 1838
    Join date : 2016-04-08

    Promising destroyer "Lider-class" - Page 14 Empty Re: Promising destroyer "Lider-class"

    Post  SeigSoloyvov on Sun Mar 03, 2019 10:35 pm

    Oh that's not false you did say a hull was under construction because some web site claimed so, EVERYONE here knows you said that don't try and back peddle now.
    Isos
    Isos

    Posts : 5751
    Points : 5743
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Promising destroyer "Lider-class" - Page 14 Empty Re: Promising destroyer "Lider-class"

    Post  Isos on Sun Mar 03, 2019 10:38 pm

    SeigSoloyvov wrote:Oh that's not false you did say a hull was under construction because some web site claimed so, EVERYONE here knows you said that don't try and back peddle now.

    He also said that before 2019 we will see Shtorm contract being signed or something like that. Theb he disapeared.
    eehnie
    eehnie

    Posts : 2461
    Points : 2470
    Join date : 2015-05-13

    Promising destroyer "Lider-class" - Page 14 Empty Re: Promising destroyer "Lider-class"

    Post  eehnie on Sun Mar 03, 2019 11:46 pm

    False statements have very short run. These are my comments of the Page 9 of this topic:

    https://www.russiadefence.net/t3297p200-promising-destroyer-lider-class#184241
    https://www.russiadefence.net/t3297p200-promising-destroyer-lider-class#191000
    https://www.russiadefence.net/t3297p200-promising-destroyer-lider-class#192933
    https://www.russiadefence.net/t3297p200-promising-destroyer-lider-class#192938
    https://www.russiadefence.net/t3297p200-promising-destroyer-lider-class#212617
    https://www.russiadefence.net/t3297p200-promising-destroyer-lider-class#212641
    https://www.russiadefence.net/t3297p200-promising-destroyer-lider-class#212660

    In the 6th my alone use of the term laid down:

    eehnie wrote:
    AlfaT8 wrote:
    eehnie wrote:The first unit of the Project 23560 Lider Cruiser/Destroyer seems to be under constrution.

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

    Named: Orlov-Chesmenskiy.

    At this point the Project 22350 seems designed to replace the current destroyers (with the Project 21956 of similar size, ruled out), the Project 23560 seems designed to replace the current cruisers and the Project 23000 seems the option in the cathegory of the aircraft carriers.

    Say what!!

    Which shipyard????

    I have not more information than the source. Surely will become public at the time of laid down.

    It will be time to analyze the quotes of others.

    Tsavo Lion
    Tsavo Lion

    Posts : 4155
    Points : 4151
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    Promising destroyer "Lider-class" - Page 14 Empty Re: Promising destroyer "Lider-class"

    Post  Tsavo Lion on Mon Mar 04, 2019 12:08 am

    The phrase "under construction" in shipbuilding should mean "laid down" & everything that happens after it until it's launched, not the start of computer/paper design work.
    I too can hire some1 to design & draw a yacht & claim that I started it's construction before sending it to the actual builders.
    eehnie
    eehnie

    Posts : 2461
    Points : 2470
    Join date : 2015-05-13

    Promising destroyer "Lider-class" - Page 14 Empty Re: Promising destroyer "Lider-class"

    Post  eehnie on Mon Mar 04, 2019 12:21 am

    Tsavo Lion wrote:The phrase "under construction" in shipbuilding should mean "laid down" & everything that happens after it until it's launched, not the start of computer/paper design work.
    I too can hire some1 to design & draw a yacht & claim that I started it's construction before sending it to the actual builders.

    Not necessarily.

    Laid Down is a ceremony done after the begin of the construction of some parts (at least of the plate installed and of the piece where the plate is installed in the ceremony, because both come to the ceremony after some mechanical work, and many times more parts are produced before the laid down).
    Tsavo Lion
    Tsavo Lion

    Posts : 4155
    Points : 4151
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    Promising destroyer "Lider-class" - Page 14 Empty Re: Promising destroyer "Lider-class"

    Post  Tsavo Lion on Mon Mar 04, 2019 12:27 am

    Cutting metal & producing parts to be used in construction isn't the same as actually starting construction, i.e. assembly of a ship.
    Those same parts can be scrapped or used for some other ship should plans change. Those items r called "long lead" in the US, FYI.
    Tsavo Lion
    Tsavo Lion

    Posts : 4155
    Points : 4151
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    Promising destroyer "Lider-class" - Page 14 Empty Re: Promising destroyer "Lider-class"

    Post  Tsavo Lion on Mon Mar 04, 2019 2:15 am

    I have bad news for u! FYI:
    Assembly: the fitting together of manufactured parts into a complete machine, structure, or unit of a machine
    https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/assembly

    Shipbuilding is the construction of ships and other floating vessels.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shipbuilding

    Ship construction, complex of activities concerned with the design and fabrication of all marine vehicles.
    https://www.britannica.com/technology/ship-construction

    Fabrication of a ship is its construction.
    The conceptual design may have started, but it's not the same as actual construction/assembly have started.  I don't need to be a linguist or a shipbuilder to understand the difference.


    Last edited by Tsavo Lion on Mon Mar 04, 2019 2:21 am; edited 1 time in total (Reason for editing : add link)
    avatar
    hoom

    Posts : 2102
    Points : 2092
    Join date : 2016-05-06

    Promising destroyer "Lider-class" - Page 14 Empty Re: Promising destroyer "Lider-class"

    Post  hoom on Mon Mar 04, 2019 6:09 am

    To be fair modules start to be constructed before the official laying down.
    There doesn't seem to be any particular standard minimum size chunk that they use to decide they have enough to have a laying down ceremony.
    Tsavo Lion
    Tsavo Lion

    Posts : 4155
    Points : 4151
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    Promising destroyer "Lider-class" - Page 14 Empty Re: Promising destroyer "Lider-class"

    Post  Tsavo Lion on Mon Mar 04, 2019 6:29 am

    Joining large sections together is also called assembly.
    eehnie was gone for a while & thought we won't be dealing with his nitpicking anymore! Have a nice day, mister!
    SeigSoloyvov
    SeigSoloyvov

    Posts : 1848
    Points : 1838
    Join date : 2016-04-08

    Promising destroyer "Lider-class" - Page 14 Empty Re: Promising destroyer "Lider-class"

    Post  SeigSoloyvov on Mon Mar 04, 2019 10:03 am

    Isos wrote:
    SeigSoloyvov wrote:Oh that's not false you did say a hull was under construction because some web site claimed so, EVERYONE here knows you said that don't try and back peddle now.

    He also said that before 2019 we will see Shtorm contract being signed or something like that. Theb he disapeared.

    Now he is trying to back peddle and say he never said a Lider was being built lol.

    This is hilarious, what does he think everyone forgot what he said?.

    Jesus he must have a really bad mental disability.
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 25272
    Points : 25818
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Promising destroyer "Lider-class" - Page 14 Empty Re: Promising destroyer "Lider-class"

    Post  GarryB on Mon Mar 04, 2019 10:32 am

    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?

    A bit like when America Strong fanbois talk about AEGIS class cruisers it has 184 SAMs or 184 cruise missiles or whatever max capacity of what ever weapon you happen to be talking about... but in actual practise it will never carry that many of anything...

    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...

    Not sure if we're talking about the same. Neither Kinzhal nor Avangard ship missiles and is not going to be used on . The sense Zircons/Liders is in power projection for expeditionary forces. Instead of airwing.

    I thought it was the suggestion that even with 100 Zircons... the Americans have more than 100 ships so it is going to run out of missiles before they run out of ships... 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...

    FOBS AFAIK ws related to R36 not Burans. But all links/sources are welcome

    FOBS was SS-9, but Skif was mounted on an Energyia rocket like Buran was... so Skif is a Buran launch without the Buran.

    It was merely a suggestion that the Energyia rocket was designed for large payloads on its back... like Skif or Buran, so a simple fairing with lots of warheads would also do the job... there were agreements in place to make it not legal of course.

    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...

    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.

    I personally am happy to see progress on this, and don't share the pessimism of the doom sayers that the Russian Navy is dead or doomed to remain a green water fleet.

    You would loose a good amount of power due to that angling, and it is doubtful you are going to lift a ship that big (you would rather sink the bow, unless the propellers are at the front of CoG).

    Dude... talking about a speed boat, not a ship.

    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...

    Land sea or air or indeed space and on other planets such problems are going to crop up and need solutions... do you wait until the Zumwalt is in the water and something dont work, or do you test some equipment on a nice big ship with propulsion issues already...
    If it fails on the Kuznetsov as an upgrade... retire her early... if it succeeds then you get three CVNs instead of two.

    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...

    Yes, this was the alleged reason for last US nuclear cruisers (Virginia class) being scrapped. This new technology allowing the ships essentially to cover their whole life without refuelling can be very important for the economic viability of Lider and other future Russian nuclear ships.

    Russia is a world leader in NPP and dealing with nuclear power and refuelling...

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

    But how many hundred of those do they have... and how many are Russia going to have?

    Of course. Plus almost anything today is powered with electricity so it makes sense to go all electric with power from step 1. Throttling capacity is very relevant nevertheless, traditional NPP are not good at that.

    If you have 10 compact NPPs around the ship and only have all 10 running when running at full speed with your nipples out...

    The other is number of CSGs. Look at Mistrals. Number 4 was ordered for a reason. IMHO 1 Arctic, 1 Pacific/Kamchatka + 2 roaming oceans.

    Actually the plan for two Mistrals was one for the Pacific/Kuriles, and the other for the northern fleet and arctic with icebreakers opening the way between them periodically. If four were bought the plan was two at each of the two ports... Northern Fleet and Pacific Fleet.

    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.

    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.

    In a tank you spend most of your time accelerating from zero to as fast as you can to move from cover to cover which is very non fuel efficient for a gas turbine. The electricity generators on command tanks are normally small gas turbines that can run for days and burn a lot less than the main tank engine (diesel or gas turbine) to keep the systems running and the heater going do you don't need a tent for your tank...

    Most probably CONAG propulsion system, either the gas turbines geared to the propulsion shaft or generating current for electric motors.

    You are better off without a propulsion shaft if you don't need one...

    They still need more ballast for stability. Even a CVN rolls in heavy seas with waves breaking over the bow.

    There are plenty of alternatives...

    Now they must make more SSNs to replace those they decommissioned earlier, wasting $ twice.
    SSKs r cheaper to build & operate + they can last longer- many r still in reserves in China & NK.

    I totally agree with what you are saying... conventional subs can be very potent... the Kilo class is an obvious example and the Lada class will hammer that home even further.... excellent value for money...

    But if they can have less than four aircraft carriers do they want to save a little money and make them smaller and cheaper and only able to operate vertical take off fighters that are not even on the drawing board yet, or do they want to spend a bit of money and get better value for money... they are planning EMALS so guess what... they are going to have to develop technology for handling high voltages on ships and the ability to store and move large amounts of electrical power when needed... Gas turbines are good at generating lots of power quickly and so are NPPs... they could use both... they will use both... nuclear powered SSBNs have emergency propulsion systems to get them out of port and out to sea quickly while the reactor is being powered up... that is perfectly normal and most very large ships have a range of power generation systems...

    They could make them, some shipyards were turning to Gov. to fund the project to provide Taiwan, Turkey, Australia and some other countries with diesels but they didnt seem to care since Germany was building 209s.

    Not to mention they had not ready to go conventional designs...

    kvs
    kvs

    Posts : 6336
    Points : 6473
    Join date : 2014-09-11
    Location : Canuckistan

    Promising destroyer "Lider-class" - Page 14 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 14 ?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 14 Hmas_adelaide1
    Also Bay Class https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bay-class_landing_ship
    Promising destroyer "Lider-class" - Page 14 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 : 2102
    Points : 2092
    Join date : 2016-05-06

    Promising destroyer "Lider-class" - Page 14 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 : 25272
    Points : 25818
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Promising destroyer "Lider-class" - Page 14 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 : 4988
    Points : 5016
    Join date : 2015-05-17
    Location : fishin on Stalin´s Strait between Mexico and Canada

    Promising destroyer "Lider-class" - Page 14 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 14 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 : 2957
    Points : 2957
    Join date : 2018-03-24
    Age : 44
    Location : Merkelland

    Promising destroyer "Lider-class" - Page 14 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 : 5751
    Points : 5743
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Promising destroyer "Lider-class" - Page 14 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 : 993
    Points : 991
    Join date : 2015-12-30

    Promising destroyer "Lider-class" - Page 14 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 : 5751
    Points : 5743
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Promising destroyer "Lider-class" - Page 14 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).

    Sponsored content

    Promising destroyer "Lider-class" - Page 14 Empty Re: Promising destroyer "Lider-class"

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Tue Aug 04, 2020 6:46 pm