Promising destroyer "Lider-class"

Project prospective destroyer oceanic zone. Prospective study options destroyers conducted North PKB (St. Petersburg) is actually from the late 1980s under different numbers of projects and the changing over the years, tactical and technical requirements. Probably, the scientific support of the project carries im.Krylova CRI (St. Petersburg). 19.06.2009 ITAR-TASS reports that before the end of 2009 it is planned to hold a contest to choose the project developer perspective for the Russian Navy destroyer, and already 26 June of the same year, Russian Navy Commander Vladimir Vysotsky zayalyaet that in 2012, construction will begin on a new destroyer project. February 1, 2012 Navy Commander Vladimir Vysotsky said that in 2012 will be determined by technical appearance of this class destroyer. June 25, 2012 the head of USC Roman Trotsenko media claims that the design perspective destroyer already underway Northern Design Bureau (St. Petersburg), and that the ship will be equipped with elements of missile and space defense. According to the annual report of the Northern Design Bureau in 2012 for a year of work on OCD "Leader" amounted to 5% of the company's trademark registration. 11.09.2013, the Russian Navy Commander Victor Chirkov visited North PKB and inspects work on designing a destroyer. February 26, 2013 RIA "News" published information that the pilot project for the development to create a new destroyer announces competition for R & D " Leader ", the funding for which is included in the state defense order for 2013. Deadline for research - the end of 2013 in the competition to create the preliminary design of the ship will certainly participate North PKB remaining contestants are unknown. After summarizing the preliminary designs of the competition in 2014 will be held OCD, and construction of the lead ship while planning to start in 2016 ( source ). 26.12.2013, in the course of the project familiarized Russian Navy Commander Victor Chirkov. Our forecast (09/28/2013 y) with high probability laying ship will take place according to plan - in 2016, but the actual construction will begin in the 2017-2018 g . of or even after 2020 - this is due to current trends fininsirovaniyu major projects in the construction of the Navy, as well as the unwillingness of many pieces of equipment and weapons systems of future spacecraft.





Construction of the ship . According to the Russian Navy Commander Vladimir Vysotsky of 23.06.2009 construction of ocean-going destroyer for the Russian Navy will begin in 2012 but June 25, 2012 the head of USC Roman Trotsenko told the media that a series of six ships is planned to be built from 2016 , entitled "Northern Shipyard" and "Baltic Shipyard." According to media reports from 26.02.2013, the construction of the ship will be conducted CVD "Severnaya Verf ( source ). November 20, 2013 Deputy Head of the Research Institute of shipbuilding and naval weapons for Research, Professor Naval Academy (Navy VUNTS) Andrew Zemlyanov said media that ship construction could begin in 2013-2015 GG Design ship will have a classic PCB layout for the North and will be adjusted in accordance with the radar visibility. Propulsion : In 2009, in a press release JSC "Turborus" reported the feasibility of using new project on the ship gas turbine plant with total capacity 55 000 hp 11.09.2013, the media reported that in the two versions of the destroyer - with nuclear and conventional power plant. highly probable that the ship will be equipped with a nuclear power plant. ship will be able to partially electric propulsion according to the requirements of the High Command of the Navy ( source ). TTX ship : Tonnage - 10,000 tons Full speed - ok.30 knots Armament :

Estimated information
RCC: 2-4 x 8 x Universal shipboard firing system (UKSK) 3K14 "Calibre" - setting 3S14U1 vertical launch, the missile of the "Caliber-NK" (3M54T, 3M54T1, 3M14T, 91RT2) with a range of more than 300 km including RCC "Onyx" 3M55 / P-160
SAM far zone: 2 x launchers AAMS P-500 "Prometheus"
SAM near zone: 2 x vertical launch missile launchers and 14 SAM complex "Redoubt polyment" , ammunition - from 28 to 112 SAM 9M96 class or similar. Complex control system with radar "polyment" PAR 4 is capable of delivering both Cueing 16 goals (4 per AFD).
Rate of fire - 1 SAM / s
Artillery: 1 x 130 mm universal gun created by OCD "Kartaun"
SPAR / AK: 2 combat module SPAR " Carapace-M " or 6 modules SPAR " Broadsword "
Torpedo tubes: 2 x 6 x PU CM-588 complex "package-NK"
RBU ?
Jamming: 2 x PU CT-308-05
8 x PU CT-216 / complex PC-10
or analogues
Helicopter: landing pad and hangar for 1-2 helicopters Ka-27
Others; According to the requirements of the High Command of the Navy ship will have a greater ability to use multi-function carrier aviation ( source ).

http://militaryrussia.ru/blog/topic-636.html

What happened to the version with 2 guns, when it comes to destroyers and their firepower the more the merrier!!!

Looks very promising, hopefully they can speed up both R&D and production! 

Funny how (at least according to this information) there will only be two S-500 cells onboard. I wonder if they are there "just for the sake of it". Not to say they should rid of them, but two missiles isn't exactly a lot. Then again, it will have countless missiles of the "9M96 class". 112 Redut cells! I might just wet my pants!  

Hopefully it would have 32 UKSK cells, that would put it way above the Tico's, Burke's, and Zumwalt's. 32 UKSK + 112 Redut + 2 S-500 cells (?) = 146 Cells!!!! 

Also, twelve Paket-NK's! I'm really starting to drool. (Please be true!)

One thing I don't understand is why there would be 2 "Carapace-M systems" (Pantsir) or 6 "Broadswords" (Palma). Seems to me like either they meant 2 + 6 rather than 2 or 6.

magnumcromagnon wrote:What happened to the version with 2 guns, when it comes to destroyers and their firepower the more the merrier!!!

Maybe they decided to replace the guns with more missile cells. Anyway, it really only "needs" a single gun. Two would be preferred, but it isn't a necessity.

Mike E wrote:

magnumcromagnon wrote:What happened to the version with 2 guns, when it comes to destroyers and their firepower the more the merrier!!!

Maybe they decided to replace the guns with more missile cells. Anyway, it really only "needs" a single gun. Two would be preferred, but it isn't a necessity.

People used to be believe guns were obsolete back in the 60's/70's until electronics, microchips, and new munitions greatly enhanced what guns are capable of, and gun systems are the only systems that both fills the offensive and defensive roles. Offensively they can attack aircraft, surface ships (and maybe a gun launched torpedo could be used to attack subs), and defensively they can attack missiles. Pure missile systems have significantly better raw performance, but they're no where near as versatile!

Sure, they are valuable. 

However, (IMO) they are not needed. They are flexible and all, but chances are they won't even be used in the future. No longer are planes getting within "gun range" of ships, they will simply launch missiles from far away. Same thing with ships. I actually do like your "anti-sub munition" idea, as anti-sub warheads don't need to be huge. So they could be fired from cannons. Also (IMO), bigger cannons are the "Sweet spot" as they can be used for cheap and effective land bombardment. Plus, the "anti-sub munition" would be awesome in such a large size. Having two smaller cannons is nice, but why bother if it only needs one, which might never even be used in combat. That being said, if I had any influence on the ships armament, I would include two guns; one around 155 mm, the other around 100 mm. Then you can have both farther range, and quick firing ability. Having two guns of the same caliber doesn't sound very smart in this day and age. 

They wouldn't be used to fire against missiles, most likely. That would be given to missiles, and CIWS's.

It won't look anything like those two designs, that much I am sure of.

Two turrets is a waste of space unless they are of fundamentally new power and range. Especially with ground attack Kalibr available finally.

With Koalition, which is a joint Navy Army program they were talking about 70km range shells with Glonass guidance offering 10m CEP in any weather, with 152mm shells.

Sounds pretty good to me.

Would be interesting to see a 203mm calibre model for Cruisers.

That Destroyer is beautifull!!!!!!!

Would be Nice to see 2-3 of them together with 3-4 gorshkovs escorting the new carrier!!

GarryB wrote:With Koalition, which is a joint Navy Army program they were talking about 70km range shells with Glonass guidance offering 10m CEP in any weather, with 152mm shells.

Sounds pretty good to me.

Would be interesting to see a 203mm calibre model for Cruisers.

That sounds delicious!   

Having multiple guns (like i said earlier) of the same calibre is relatively worthless. However, something like a 203 and 152 or 130 sure does sound good!

It will be even more delicious when it shows up. Somehow I don't think it will be soon. Also I don't recall seeing anything definitive state anything like that kind of range for naval Koalition.

And if we do end up with these mythical shells, one mount seems like it will be plenty to me. You can make a big magazine, a modern gun has good enough ROF, plus Koalition has two barrels anyways. Another installation means a large space and weight penalty. Not worth it IMO.

Peter the Great makes do with one Ak-130 mount.

TR1 wrote:It will be even more delicious when it shows up. Somehow I don't think it will be soon. Also I don't recall seeing anything definitive state anything like that kind of range for naval Koalition.

And if we do end up with these mythical shells, one mount seems like it will be plenty to me. You can make a big magazine, a modern gun has good enough ROF, plus Koalition has two barrels anyways. Another installation means a large space and weight penalty. Not worth it IMO.

Peter the Great makes do with one Ak-130 mount.

I hope so!

Agreed.

Also agreed.

Anyway, what do you think about having two S-500's (this is a question for all)?

It will be even more delicious when it shows up. Somehow I don't think it will be soon. Also I don't recall seeing anything definitive state anything like that kind of range for naval Koalition.

Those numbers were given for the land based system. I would assume a naval system would be easier to cope with heavy recoil and would therefore allow heavier propellent charges to be used so potentially the range could be even better for the naval model.

The land based version will be a single gun mount AFAIK, but the twin gun mount for the naval version should boost rate of fire.

With sophisticated charge loadings and ballistics calculations the gun should be able to burst fire 10-15 shells so they all land on target at ranges of 40-50km at once... the effect of which should be impressive.

Accuracy comes from Glonass fuze/guidance package for the nose of the shells.

Regarding S-500 every vessel Destroyer size and up will likely carry them... I would expect the naval model will be adapted to fit the standard heavy SAM launcher to allow a range of types to be carried at once.

I don't think there will be a separate S-500 launcher, but there will likely need to be separate radar and sensor equipment.

The destroyer is nice but will be nicer to see a Super cruiser.. with many SUper Long Range S-400s and a dozen S-500.
Anyone knows if we will ever see Long Range S-400s sams with 400km in enough numbers.. in Russian warships?

If Russia had the money, and really wanted to to stunt the world with a floating fortress ,will it be possible to make a warship a stealth super cruiser with the size of Kirov more or less. with...

1) 120 x S-400 (400km) range missiles.
2) 32 x S-500 (600km) range missiles.
3) 1/2 Pantsir or Tor naval defenses with about 120x to 200x short range missiles (30km) with its gatlin guns .
4) 32x to 64x (or 96x) kalibr/Brahmos missiles?

Will a warship like that could be possible to build for Russia,withing the size of a Kirov class more or less?
If not what will be possible in your opinion for a next generation stealth super cruiser to be like if Russia was ambitious and had the money?

They could rebuild the Kirovs into something like that... Building such large ships is so darn expensive nowadays that it isn't really practical. That money could be used for a newer carrier etc.

New-generation missile destroyer under development in Russia

MOSCOW, October 21. /TASS/. Russia’s Defense Ministry has approved the technical design specification for the Leader class destroyers, a high-ranking source in the ministry told TASS on Tuesday.

The destroyer’s nuclear-powered and gas turbine versions are planned. He said there was no clarity yet concerning the weapons, but the new ship will be most likely equipped with the Caliber high-precision cruise missile system and the S-500 antiaircraft defense system.

“The Leader technical design specification prepared by the Navy command has been signed by the Defense Ministry leadership that approved the engineering design for two versions of the destroyer — nuclear-powered and gas turbine,” the source said.

The Severnoye (Northern) Design Bureau has been given the engineering design preparation assignment; it plans to launch the work in 2015, he added.

According to the source, the Russian Navy is going to place orders for 12 Leader class destroyers — 6 for the Northern Fleet and 6 for the Pacific Fleet.

“In any case, given the complexity, novelty of the project and huge work amount, the first Leader — either its nuclear-powered or conventional version — is expected to be competed no earlier than 2023-2025,” he said. According to him, the Leader building project is not included in the state armaments program for the period until 2020, so "the construction will be carried out under the shipbuilding program until 2050."

By the time of the alledged building date that "super destroyer" might well become vaporware. BTW why does the concept model has such a ridiculously large mast? WTH are they acting like adding calibrs and landattack SSMs on a ship is such a huge step forward? Are they implying saying no russian surface ship ever built  has had any land attack weapons other than cannons? And zirkon is an absolute must. Any missile of the klub family(except ASW) should be second rate armament. Zirkon and onyx should be the main weapon.

The new destroyer definately needs 2 turrets as well as provisions for future railgun systems. Imagine if by the time russians develop naval railguns, none of their existing classes can be refitted with them, and they have to waste money on entirely new ships.

My design still looks like a huge step forward

Why two turrets? A single is definitely sufficient... I'd rather have one turret removed, with CIWS systems which are more important installed in its place. You have to consider that these ships won't be used for land-bombardment, nor will they fire their guns on other large ships, so why do they need two?

Nice design there, I'll try and do something similar if I can.

They are just finalising their new frigate design and will get that into full scale production.

the next step would obviously be destroyers, which will take longer, and by the time they are ready they will have decided about carriers and therefore also cruisers.

In the mean time they have one carrier that could do with an upgrade and at least two cruisers that could use an upgrade plus 3-4 more they could upgrade too.

that is plenty to be getting on with... what is the hurry?

Design work on the Leader destroyer to start in 2015

The futuristic warship will become operational by 2025, and will most likely be equipped with the Caliber cruise missile system and the Prometheus ZRK (anti-aircraft surface-to-air missile system).

The main attack method for the Leader destroyer will be the Calibre integrated missile system which is exported under the name Klub and includes 3M-14 anti-ship and cruise missiles. Source: Vladimir Shcherbakov

The Russian Ministry of Defense has approved the specifications for the design of the naval destroyer of the future, Tass said, citing a source in the defence industry. The program for its creation is known by the codename ‘Leader.’

Work on the ship has been entrusted to the Northern Design Bureau, the creator of practically all of the major surface warships in the Russian Navy. Although work on the design of the ship will start in 2015, the construction of the first of the series of 12 ships – half a dozen for the Northern and Pacific fleets – is not expected before 2023-2025.

Naval officials had said that the construction of the destroyer would commence in 2012 and two years ago representatives of the United Shipbuilding Corporation pushed that to 2016. The Leader program is not believed to have been included in the state armaments program for 2020 and funds for the construction of destroyers may only be dispersed within the framework of the shipbuilding program planned out through 2050.

“The decision to change the date for the creation of Leader type destroyers to 2023-2025 was completely justified,” independent military-naval expert Alexander Mozgovoy told RIR. “First of all, the Russian shipbuilding industry simply cannot build such ships at the moment,” he added. “Secondly, immense sums of money are needed to implement the program, but this money can currently be put to great use in other areas.” The analyst said some of the armaments systems meant for the Leader exist only “on paper” at the moment.

The long arms and sharp claws of the “Lord of the Seas”

It is believed that the main attack method for the Leader will be the Calibre integrated missile system which is exported under the name Klub and includes 3M-14 anti-ship and cruise missiles. These are designed for the destruction of important targets at great distances deep in the territory of the enemy and are recognized as going to be the “long arm” of the destroyer. In addition, the Calibre has anti-submarine missiles that make it possible to efficiently destroy various submarines belonging to the enemy, including silent non-nuclear subs.

The destroyer’s second “long arm” may be the Onyx strike system with supersonic cruise missiles. Moreover, both the Calibre and the Onyx can be used from the same launching unit. This is the main specificity giving Russian battleships full versatility and real multi-tasking capabilities.

A version meant for ships of the unique S-500 Prometheus anti-aircraft missile system will guarantee protection from air attacks. The ship will also get medium and close-range air and missile defence systems.

In addition, artillery and mine-torpedo equipment – means for fighting with saboteurs, helicopters, and drones – will be installed on the Leader, as well as modern radar and sonar which will allow the destroyer’s crew to detect any air, water surface, or underwater targets, even small or inconspicuous ones, at distances of tens, even hundreds of kilometres.

However, what exactly the Leader’s armaments are to be is not yet known. Moreover, there are weapons systems still in the development stage which will only be available for use in the fleet after several years. In particular, the then First Deputy Defence Minister Vladimir Popovkin spoke in 2011 of work on the creation of the Zircon-S ship-based hypersonic missile system.

Nuclear or gas

The greatest point of dispute in the Leader program is related to the choice of the destroyer’s main energy supply. It is believed that the Ministry of Defence ordered work on drafts for two variants for the main energy supply – gas turbine and nuclear

“At the R&D stage, the ministry will conclusively determine which is more appropriate, a nuclear or conventional destroyer, or whether it should be both. The latter variant is totally possible,” a highly placed source in the Russian military-industrial complex told Tass.

Considering the current capacities of domestic shipbuilding, today’s complicated financial and economic situation, and fact that the surface water strength of the Russian fleet requires large-scale and rapid renewal, the Ministry of Defence may not be in a position to construct destroyers with two types of power-generation units. Such production in midget batches – six nuclear and six gas turbine ships- is also unlikely. At the moment, not even the world’s “richest” fleet, the U.S. Navy can dream of something like this!

“Resuming a permanent presence on the world’s oceans should make a hole in the Russian budget,” executive editor of the Independent Military Review, Oleg Vladykin told RIR.

A source in the industry revealed characteristics of the destroyer "Leader"

- 10 000 - 15 000 tons displacement

and bang ....

The source said the agency "Leader" will have circuit ASW, percussion loop, including strikes against groups of ships, and "necessarily precision weapons to work on shore." "Next loop defense and a number of special circuits for the implementation of, say, missile defense, including space. Art designer - to fit it all, optimize, without weighing the project "- said the agency interlocutor.

Everything we talked about is there ....

Viktor wrote:A source in the industry revealed characteristics of the destroyer "Leader"

- 10 000 - 15 000 tons displacement

and bang ....

The source said the agency "Leader" will have circuit ASW, percussion loop, including strikes against groups of ships, and "necessarily precision weapons to work on shore." "Next loop defense and a number of special circuits for the implementation of, say, missile defense, including space. Art designer - to fit it all, optimize, without weighing the project "- said the agency interlocutor.

Everything we talked about is there ....

So basically their saying that Destroyers will be S-400, S-500 missile capable? Sounds like good news and as expected, and I'll bet top money the naval variants of said missiles will be more capable due to the fact that the radars could be made bigger, heavier and more powerful without worrying about whether the increased weight would affect cross-country capability (due to the fact that it's on a ship). Also precision weapons on shore means Kaliber subsonic 2,600 km range cruise missiles, essentially UKSK capable (also as expected).

WTH are they acting like adding calibrs and landattack SSMs on a ship is such a huge step forward? Are they implying saying no russian surface ship ever built has had any land attack weapons other than cannons?

Because previously only the cruise missile called Granat (SS-N-21) could hit land targets and it had a nuclear payload so using it in most minor conflicts was not really practical.

the Kalibr on the other hand has terminal guidance and a conventional warhead and a 2,500km flight range to hit a variety of ground targets and work on the Brahmos means it too will have land attack capability which could be transferred to the Onyx.

Previous Soviet and Russian ships had no land attack capability except nuclear armed (SS-N-21), or cannon based or unguided rocket barrage based (Grad).

The pics we've seen associated with the new destroyer look a lot like a larger version of the Gorshkov class frigate ie modern, but not "unconventional".

I notice the US Zummwalt and the ships like the Swedish Visby class corvette seem radically different.

Would a state of the art Leader class destroyer/cruiser look more like the Zummwalt or Visby?
Or is there a lot of unnecessary gimmickry in the design/styling of those two stealth ships


pics
RUSSIA'S LEADER CLASS
http://defense-update.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/russia-leader-class.jpg

Zummwalt
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b0/USS_Zumwalt_%28DDG-1000%29_at_night.jpg

Visby
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2b/K32_HMS_Helsingborg_Anchored-of-Gotska-Sandoen_cropped.jpg

This isn't a criticism of the Leader btw. I am sure that with its missile systems unparalleled anywhere in the World, it will set the standard for all rivals for the next couple of decades, atleast.
Just a query about the look of it, and how that might pertain to function.

Perhaps stealth is a bit overhyped by some rivals?

The main benefit from a radical new design has to be tangible and real.

Making some tri hulled boat just because it is different from everything else being made is a ridiculous risk for little real gain.

Those western designs seem to be to be a case of style over substance... let H R Giger design stuff and it will look really cool but what exact benefit are we talking about in terms of military capacity?

the Russian military already went down the path of custom designed ships with custom designed propulsion and weapons and sensors and systems and ended up with dozens of different ships with dozens of different weapons that didn't quite do the same thing and were not compatible.

the new plan is standardisation... the missiles going into a UKSK launcher on the smallest corvette are the same as the missiles going into the largest cruiser... the difference is that the Corvette might carry 4 anti sub missiles and 4 anti ship missiles whereas a cruiser might carry 20 anti sub missiles and 20 anti ship missiles and 40 land attack cruise missiles.