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"

    SeigSoloyvov
    SeigSoloyvov

    Posts : 2153
    Points : 2145
    Join date : 2016-04-08

    Promising destroyer "Lider-class" - Page 20 Empty Re: Promising destroyer "Lider-class"

    Post  SeigSoloyvov on Sat Apr 25, 2020 4:39 pm

    Isos wrote:
    SeigSoloyvov wrote:Yeah that idea isn't feasible at all. There are reasons things aren't quad packed in that way.

    Nuke propulsion? That is such a vague term, I have no clue what you mean.

    There is generally ZERO reasons to try and use nuclear propulsion for missiles, Nuclear power is expensive, requires more space and it really doesn't offer a speed difference.

    For things like ICBM's it makes some sense as they need to travel extreme distances but for Anti-Ship and Anti-Air missiles, Nuclear power is pointless. Conventional methods due the job just fine.

    I feel like you watched some sci-fi movie and got weird ideas from that.

    Nuclear propulsion for the ship. That would free some space for more uksk.

    What reasons ? They are designed to be quad packed this way. Look at the picture. Naval S-300 rotary launchers use the same silos for the missiles and can be quad packed. US navy also quadpack missiles and I already gave you data about weight and the picture proves they already made that on ground launchers.

    Unless you bring some real data, could you stop pretending being an engineer and when you are not.

    No, it wouldn't again not a real thing.

    Going from conventional to nuke power would offer very little space changes. This alone shows you don't really know what you're talking about.

    There is a difference between on the ground launchers and ships, ships have narrow space to work with. It's silly I even need to mention this most basic detail. You just can't take something and have it take up all the space it wants, this is why Navies design VLS systems for ships because they must be built within a specific size range, width and length.

    If your talking about was feasible they would have done it. I have never seen a navy take a SAM system stick it into a ship VLS area and try and use it in that manner, because these are two different weapon systems that operate differently.

    I am not an engineer no but I know enough to know when something makes no dam sense and your idea makes no sense. It sounds good on paper but thats all, you don't need to be a master engineer to realize something so simple.
    PapaDragon
    PapaDragon

    Posts : 9490
    Points : 9572
    Join date : 2015-04-26
    Location : Fort Evil, Serbia

    Promising destroyer "Lider-class" - Page 20 Empty Re: Promising destroyer "Lider-class"

    Post  PapaDragon on Sat Apr 25, 2020 5:19 pm


    Again, could mods please lock this redundant tread?
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 26232
    Points : 26778
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Promising destroyer "Lider-class" - Page 20 Empty Re: Promising destroyer "Lider-class"

    Post  GarryB on Sun Apr 26, 2020 7:00 am

    Again, could mods please lock this redundant tread?

    Yeah, I think it is probably time.

    I am locking this thread because it seems the Lider programme has been cut.

    Feel free to create other threads regarding potential future destroyer classes or programmes, but this thread is over.
    GarryB

    Sponsored content

    Promising destroyer "Lider-class" - Page 20 Empty Re: Promising destroyer "Lider-class"

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Sat Oct 24, 2020 8:04 pm