Home
Latest images
Register
Log in
Cant wait to see the real ship in 2100...
+61
JohninMK
PhSt
dino00
verkhoturye51
x_54_u43
Hole
Rodion_Romanovic
Nibiru
kumbor
Gibraltar
Tsavo Lion
LMFS
The-thing-next-door
Singular_Transform
miketheterrible
Benya
marat
hoom
AlfaT8
TheRealist
Zivo
Isos
PapaDragon
Dima
eehnie
SeigSoloyvov
Rmf
Project Canada
Triod
chicken
max steel
Flanky
jhelb
Cyberspec
Kyo
sepheronx
franco
TheArmenian
GunshipDemocracy
mack8
Tyloe
Werewolf
Big_Gazza
kvs
collegeboy16
Austin
wilhelm
Stealthflanker
xeno
flamming_python
runaway
Firebird
Viktor
KomissarBojanchev
Vann7
Flyingdutchman
GarryB
TR1
Mike E
magnumcromagnon
George1
65 posters
Promising destroyer "Lider-class"
Nibiru- Posts : 200
Points : 202
Join date : 2018-05-21
GarryB- Posts : 40541
Points : 41041
Join date : 2010-03-30
Location : New Zealand
So many clowns telling the same old jokes.
Shame Russia has to suffer the leadership of Putin instead of someone smart like you guys...
He knows... he is just being a dick...
Shame Russia has to suffer the leadership of Putin instead of someone smart like you guys...
Just a scale model
He knows... he is just being a dick...
hoom- Posts : 2352
Points : 2340
Join date : 2016-05-06
The rust thing was fair enough 10+yrs back but now its bullshit & especially for a new class.
Actually you see even older Russian ships looking clean & well cared for last few yrs, its the US & NATO ships that are increasingly showing up rusty.
Russian ships been catching up on deferred maintenance/completing refits/getting new ships & becoming more active, US etc being over-used, increasing reports of deferred maintenance, poorly trained crews causing incidents, ships tied up at dock inactive for years...
Actually you see even older Russian ships looking clean & well cared for last few yrs, its the US & NATO ships that are increasingly showing up rusty.
Russian ships been catching up on deferred maintenance/completing refits/getting new ships & becoming more active, US etc being over-used, increasing reports of deferred maintenance, poorly trained crews causing incidents, ships tied up at dock inactive for years...
SeigSoloyvov
SeigSoloyvov- Posts : 3900
Points : 3878
Join date : 2016-04-08
GarryB wrote:Yeah, American ships don't rust... they just run into cargo ships...
Hey at least we don't nearly sink our own carriers~
GarryB- Posts : 40541
Points : 41041
Join date : 2010-03-30
Location : New Zealand
The rust thing was fair enough 10+yrs back but now its bullshit & especially for a new class.
It is on a MODEL...
And even brand new models rust, so you think the laws of physics have changed?
Put lots of different metal types in salt water... look it up... it is called electrolysis
Hey at least we don't nearly sink our own carriers~
Haha... give them time...
Even your brand new ships seem to suffer from corrosion...
[url=https://www.matcor.com/navy-finds-aggressive-corrosion-on-new-ship/ ]https://www.matcor.com/navy-finds-aggressive-corrosion-on-new-ship/ [/url]
hoom- Posts : 2352
Points : 2340
Join date : 2016-05-06
A model depicting it as a post-soviet '90s rustbucket basically its a subtle bit of propaganda.It is on a MODEL...
From recollection that LCS one was because the shipyard didn't put anodes on it before launch/handing over to the navy, considered it navy responsibility, navy didn't realise they're missing -> the aluminium hull sat there in the sea for many months playing sacrificial anode.Even your brand new ships seem to suffer from corrosion...
Contract or not its hard to understand nobody at the shipyard saying 'nope, we can't launch this with no anodes'
Big_Gazza- Posts : 4896
Points : 4886
Join date : 2014-08-25
Location : Melbourne, Australia
hoom wrote:Contract or not its hard to understand nobody at the shipyard saying 'nope, we can't launch this with no anodes'
Especially as anodes can only be installed below the waterline onto hull studs provided for that purpose. If the studs are in place, why no anodes? If no studs, did they think the Navy would dry-dock and weld some on themselves?...
It boggles the mind.
GarryB- Posts : 40541
Points : 41041
Join date : 2010-03-30
Location : New Zealand
From recollection that LCS one was because the shipyard didn't put anodes on it before launch/handing over to the navy, considered it navy responsibility, navy didn't realise they're missing -> the aluminium hull sat there in the sea for many months playing sacrificial anode.
The aluminium hull with steel lined propulsion system was always going to create problems at sea where the two different metals met... it is not rocket science...
hoom- Posts : 2352
Points : 2340
Join date : 2016-05-06
Not if its properly anoded.
kumbor- Posts : 313
Points : 305
Join date : 2017-06-09
hoom wrote:Not if its properly anoded.
Anode protection is something ordinary for at least a century!
GunshipDemocracy- Posts : 6168
Points : 6188
Join date : 2015-05-17
Location : fishin on Stalin´s Strait between Mexico and Canada
only dreaming and speculations so fr but sounds nice though.
Prospective destroyer "grew up" to 19 thousand tons
https://flotprom.ru/2019/%D0%9E%D1%81%D0%BA4/
The displacement of a promising destroyer for the Russian Navy has grown to 19 thousand tons, the ship is supposed to be equipped with a nuclear power plant. This Mil.Press FlotProm was reported by two industry sources familiar with the situation.
On February 21, the issue of the destroyer was discussed at the United Shipbuilding Corporation, the source said.
At the same time, the dates for the commencement of substantive work on the ship have not yet been determined. The design bureau, SPKB, will start it closer to the middle of the current state armaments program, so that the creation time of the destroyer has once again been shifted to the right.
According to Valery Polovinkin, scientific director of the Krylov State Research Center, KGNTs initially offered two versions of the ship: with a displacement of 10-12 thousand tons with a gas turbine power plant and 18-19 thousand tons with an atomic one. The scientist noted that the choice in favor of the second option is logical based on the concept of the revival of the ocean "big fleet".
Technical design of the newest Russian destroyer "Leader" will begin in 2019-2020. This work is planned to be completed by 2022, Mil.Press FlotProm was told in July 2018 by Deputy Admiral Viktor Bursuk, deputy commander of the Russian Navy.
Help Mil.Press FlotProm
The concept of the newest oceanic ship was formulated by the Krylov Center, and the preliminary design of the destroyer Leader was prepared by the Northern Design Bureau. It is expected that the ship will receive a displacement of about 19,000 tons. The case length is 200 meters, width - 20 meters. The destroyer can reach speeds of up to 30 knots. The Leader’s armament will be approximately 60 anti-ship cruise missiles, 128 anti-aircraft guided missiles and 16 anti-submarine guided missiles.
The possibility of Russia's refusal to build large surface ships, including destroyers, is spelled out in the draft Strategydevelopment of the shipbuilding industry for the period up to 2035, prepared by the Ministry of Industry and Trade of the Russian Federation. According to one of the proposed industry development scenarios, this may occur "due to the substantial sequestering of defense budget allocations."
Isos- Posts : 11602
Points : 11570
Join date : 2015-11-06
Knowing that they need 2 years to buid a karakurt of 800 t , that gives a construction time for a 19000t ship of approx. 47 years 
add another 10 years for testing and the ship will be ready in 2070. 
Only a joke, keep calm GarryB and Ehniee
add another 10 years for testing and the ship will be ready in 2070. Only a joke, keep calm GarryB and Ehniee
Tsavo Lion- Posts : 5960
Points : 5912
Join date : 2016-08-15
Location : AZ, USA
In the best case scenario, how many would be needed?
I guess, to be very modest, if they'll have 2 CBGs + 4 UDKs, at least 6 for escort duties (3 in each fleet), + 4-6 for other ops (incl. some in the Baltic & Black Fleets) =7-9 total.
I guess, to be very modest, if they'll have 2 CBGs + 4 UDKs, at least 6 for escort duties (3 in each fleet), + 4-6 for other ops (incl. some in the Baltic & Black Fleets) =7-9 total.
PapaDragon- Posts : 13472
Points : 13512
Join date : 2015-04-26
Location : Fort Evil, Serbia
Tsavo Lion wrote:In the best case scenario, how many would be needed?
I guess, to be very modest, if they'll have 2 CBGs...
About 15-20 Gorshkov frigates would be ideal
Also, when you say CBG I hope you don't mean ones with aircraft carriers?
While we are at this, aren't these Lider destroyers supposed to be in service already according to eehenie's super secret open-source insider info?
GunshipDemocracy- Posts : 6168
Points : 6188
Join date : 2015-05-17
Location : fishin on Stalin´s Strait between Mexico and Canada
Tsavo Lion wrote:In the best case scenario, how many would be needed?
I guess, to be very modest, if they'll have 2 CBGs + 4 UDKs, at least 6 for escort duties (3 in each fleet), + 4-6 for other ops (incl. some in the Baltic & Black Fleets) =7-9 total.
not only CSGs need Liders, (ABM t least) - primrly I've herd 6-8 but with geopolitical situation anything change.
A cruiser in Baltic ?
1 Aurora should do for the moment. - For Black Fleet IMHO only if for long range Indian Ocean patrols.
GunshipDemocracy- Posts : 6168
Points : 6188
Join date : 2015-05-17
Location : fishin on Stalin´s Strait between Mexico and Canada
PapaDragon wrote:
About 15-20 Gorshkov frigates would be ideal
of which 6-8 Gorshkov-M's
PD wrote:Also, when you say CBG I hope you don't mean ones with aircraft carriers?
From what Russian admirals and navy aviation commander said last year there will be groups bout UDKs and "aviation carrying ships" .
It looks what is logical BTW) - primary attack /deference weapon will be missiles not an airwing.
PD wrote: While we are at this, aren't these Lider destroyers supposed to be in service already according to eehenie's super secret open-source insider info?
they alredy are redy, waiting for order to be reveled in full glory
GunshipDemocracy- Posts : 6168
Points : 6188
Join date : 2015-05-17
Location : fishin on Stalin´s Strait between Mexico and Canada
and fuckin proceedIsos wrote: keep calm GarryB and Ehniee
Tsavo Lion- Posts : 5960
Points : 5912
Join date : 2016-08-15
Location : AZ, USA
I wrote "In the best case scenario", & they want to have CVNs & thus their CBGs. Smaller DDGs/FFGs r not as well suited for long open ocean deployments/partols. Liders will have more endurance & firepower.
For the Med./Red Sea & the Atlantic too. They could do BMD patrols in the Black Sea itself. If a waterway across Iran is built, 1-2 could be home ported in Caspiisk & sail to the Indian Ocean from there.For Black Fleet IMHO only if for long range Indian Ocean patrols.
GunshipDemocracy- Posts : 6168
Points : 6188
Join date : 2015-05-17
Location : fishin on Stalin´s Strait between Mexico and Canada
Tsavo Lion wrote:
For the Med./Red Sea & the Atlantic too. They could do BMD patrols in the Black Sea itself. If a waterway across Iran is built, 1-2 could be home ported in Caspiisk & sail to the Indian Ocean from there.
Choking a commercial waterway by cruiser not good idea IMHO. Cheaper to build a base either in Sudan or Iran.
Tsavo Lion- Posts : 5960
Points : 5912
Join date : 2016-08-15
Location : AZ, USA
Other ships/barges can sail in front & astern of it at a safe distance, enforced by security/CG/police boats. Kiel, Panama & Suez canals r being used all the time, not to mention the Bosporus Strait.
Iran can't have foreign bases as per its constitution. Sudan can, but a capital ship won't be forward deployed there. The USN did it in Japan but only with the oldest CVs that were due to retire in ~10 years.
CVNs r different as they must to dance around their refueling schedules that can be done only on US E. Coast & other factors.
BMD can be done as good as or even better in/from the Caspian Sea as it's directly SE/SW & South of Central Russia, W. Siberia & the Urals full of industry, internal waterways/canals, population centers, AF/BM bases, & transportation network.
http://www.angelfire.com/nm/duga/rusmap002.jpg
Iran can't have foreign bases as per its constitution. Sudan can, but a capital ship won't be forward deployed there. The USN did it in Japan but only with the oldest CVs that were due to retire in ~10 years.
CVNs r different as they must to dance around their refueling schedules that can be done only on US E. Coast & other factors.
BMD can be done as good as or even better in/from the Caspian Sea as it's directly SE/SW & South of Central Russia, W. Siberia & the Urals full of industry, internal waterways/canals, population centers, AF/BM bases, & transportation network.
http://www.angelfire.com/nm/duga/rusmap002.jpg
Last edited by Tsavo Lion on Sat Feb 23, 2019 11:21 pm; edited 2 times in total
kumbor- Posts : 313
Points : 305
Join date : 2017-06-09
GunshipDemocracy wrote:and fuckin proceedIsos wrote: keep calm GarryB and Ehniee
Such wavering from side to side concerning size and displacement (200x20m, armoured with extensive built in protection, 19.000 tons D, what kind of powerplant, how many ships - from 2 to 12) indicates very early stage in projecting - still "paper games". Russian navy still doesn`t know if there is even a need for such capital ships, as 19.000t is a displacement of a pr.1144 - Orlan - Kirov. I think that SPKB should better address ME in defining basic characteristics of a project!
hoom- Posts : 2352
Points : 2340
Join date : 2016-05-06
Kirovs are 250m * 28.5m & 25,000ton, thats still a lot bigger.
kumbor- Posts : 313
Points : 305
Join date : 2017-06-09
hoom wrote:Kirovs are 250m * 28.5m & 25,000ton, thats still a lot bigger.
Sorry, I made a mistake concerning displacement of Kirovs. Nevertheless, L-200m, B-20m and 19.000tD indicates existence of full constructive protection - armoured belt, armoured deck, armoured traverse bulkheads, underwater protection of some kind, which all results in armoured citadel similar to battlecruiser or even battleship. I bet it`s some joke, somebody`s playing naval engineer type of Watts or even admiral Fisher! Оr it is simply DEZA - дезинформация - false information on purpose.
eehnie- Posts : 2425
Points : 2428
Join date : 2015-05-13
The kind of positive new that a person like George1 habitually fails to include.
http://to-ros.info/?p=72851
http://to-ros.info/?p=72851
Posted by 02/17/2019 4:38 by admin
New Russian nuclear destroyer will be named in honor of the cruiser "Rurik"
Облик эсминца проекта 23560
The second serial squadron of the project 23560 in the series, which will serve in the Pacific Fleet, will be called "Rurik". Vladimir Kartashev, Director of the Marine Search and Research Center of the Pacific Fleet Iskra, told about this at a meeting of the Public Council of the Duma of the city of Vladivostok, Pacific Russia reports .
“This year we have obtained from the high command of the Navy the assignment of the name Rurik to a ship of the first rank with a nuclear installation — the destroyer of project 23560 — the second ship in the series to serve in the Pacific Fleet,” said Vladimir Kartashev. He is quoted by the press service of the Duma of Vladivostok.
The exact technical parameters of the promising Russian destroyer have not yet been disclosed. Presumably, it will have a displacement of 13-14 thousand tons. At the expense of modern weapons, it will be superior in terms of anti-submarine capabilities to a large anti-submarine ship, the BOD, and in attack and anti-aircraft - today's destroyers and missile cruisers, except for Peter the Great and its "classmates."
hoom- Posts : 2352
Points : 2340
Join date : 2016-05-06
Thats certainly a curiously specific tid-bit 