Promising destroyer "Lider-class"

hoom wrote:Thats certainly a curiously specific tid-bit

Always some "well hidden" sources, never MoD or Tass. Eehnie already has recorded history of seeing things other dont.

PapaDragon wrote:

GunshipDemocracy wrote:

hoom wrote:Thats certainly a curiously specific tid-bit

Always some "well hidden" sources, never MoD or Tass. Eehnie  already has recorded history of seeing things other dont.

First ship will be called Xenia Onatopp

I remember they said that the first one should carry the name of Yevgeni Maximovich Primakov , former prime minister (and previously foreign minister) of Russia, the one that, on his way to Washington for an official visit ordered is airplane to turn around and return to Moscow, when he learned that NATO had started bombing Serbia.

As foreign minister he also presented a plan to change the new post cold war US lead unipolarity and develop new strategic ties with India and China.

He did not want Russia to continue its subservient foreign policy guided by the US.

Shiiiit 100 Zircons? more than Orlans by 25%. And Orlan is a battle cruiser and Lider is a destroyer?      
But since 22350-M frigates will have displacement comparable with Slavas Im ok with thas      


100bln ~ $1,5bn

Source: Russia plans to build two destroyers of the type "Leader" by the end of the 2020s

According to preliminary data, the cost of the construction of each ship will be 100 billion rubles, the source said.
MOSCOW, February 28. / TASS /. By the end of the 2020s, Russia plans to build two destroyers with a nuclear power plant of the Leader type project 23560, the cost of creating each ship will be about 100 billion rubles. This was reported by Tass source in the shipbuilding industry.

According to him, the draft design of the destroyer has been completed, research works and technical project preparation are underway.

"Under the current state armament program for 2018–2027, design and development work on a destroyer should begin in 2021 with the transition directly to construction. The construction of one ship will take seven years, according to preliminary estimates,” the agency’s source said.

The source said that "by the end of the 2020s, two destroyers of the type" Leader "(head and first serial - TASS) are planned to be launched." "The cost of the construction of each ship, previously, will be 100 billion rubles," - he added.

The interlocutor said that the destroyers' maximum length will reach 230 m, the displacement will be 20 thousand tons. "Leader" will be able to carry more than 100 high-precision Zirkon, Caliber or Onyx missiles, the source said.

The United Shipbuilding Corporation did not comment on the TASS information provided by the source, but noted that "the corporation's enterprises are ready to build ships of this class."

As the deputy commander-in-chief of the Russian Navy for armaments, Viktor Bursuk, reported in the summer of 2018, the development of the technical design for the new ship is scheduled to begin in 2019-2020, and completed sometime in 2022, after which the first ship will be laid. Bursuk also reported that funding for the shipbuilding program was provided for the creation of a new destroyer.

https://tass.ru/armiya-i-opk/6167819

GunshipDemocracy wrote:

Source: Russia plans to build two destroyers of the type "Leader" by the end of the 2020s

I sincerely hope that this project will not get dragged down with delays like the current Gorshkov. otherwise delays might add up another 10 or so years in its construction and by then most of us here might not even be around to see the ship

Wow 100 zirkons that sound like about enough fun to go around an entire carrier group.

Any news on its air deffence?


Also nuclear power means it can travel long distances and will most likely be used in the exact role of the cruisers of old so you may aswell think of it as a cruiser by purpose.

Wow 100 zirkons that sound like about enough fun to go around an entire carrier group.

They'll have a mix of missiles- read the quote, it mentions Onixes & Calibres too.

The-thing-next-door wrote:Wow 100 zirkons that sound like about enough fun to go around an entire carrier group.

Any news on its air deffence?


Also nuclear power means it can travel long distances and will most likely be used in the exact role of the cruisers of old so you may aswell think of it as a cruiser by purpose.

For God`s sake! This is naval subforum! Ships do not TRAVEL! Ships sail, no matter there are no sails, but they sail! Russians have very much practice concerning surface nuclear propulsion. New generation of RITM (Rhytm) modular reactors should make possible wide range of nuclear powerplants of various power. Apart from reactors, Russians are very capable of producing turbines and necessary reductors! But, western sanctions are taking their toll, cutting the connections with latest western innovations. Even Peter Velikiy is already over 20 year old. The response is needed, and quickly! Americans have many problems with their new ships. Ticonderogas are being phased out. The project of new frigates is still on the drawing board, and the whole US navy relies on excellent DDGs Arleigh Burke, whose project dates from early 80s. LCSs are not to be taken seriously and Zumwalts are a complete fail!

kumbor wrote:western sanctions are taking their toll, cutting the connections with latest western innovations.  

like?

The-thing-next-door wrote:Wow 100 zirkons that sound like about enough fun to go around an entire carrier group.

100 Zircons is enough to take down ll CSGs really. As for AADs I'd assume S-500 will be included.

Tsavo Lion wrote:

Wow 100 zirkons that sound like about enough fun to go around an entire carrier group.

They'll have a mix of missiles- read the quote, it mentions Onixes & Calibres too.

it can be 100 Kalibrs but 100 UKSK-Ms can be filled by Zircons. Of course it is overkill since take down CSG is really 1/5 at most enough.

Nibiru wrote:  I sincerely hope that this project will not get dragged down with delays like the current Gorshkov. o

Zircon's ready, Poliment-Redut ready, money on table, why delays now?[/quote]

+ no gas turbines from some unnamed place that have to be replaced by new ones.

GunshipDemocracy wrote:

kumbor wrote:western sanctions are taking their toll, cutting the connections with latest western innovations.  

like?

The-thing-next-door wrote:Wow 100 zirkons that sound like about enough fun to go around an entire carrier group.

100 Zircons is enough to take down ll CSGs really. As for AADs I'd assume S-500 will be included.

Suspended technological ties with MTU AG. There are no better diesels than MTU! Ban on supplying of any technology that can be used for military purpose - and that means MAJORITY OF HIGH END TECHNOLOGIES!

Hole wrote:+ no gas turbines from some unnamed place that have to be replaced by new ones.

I don`t catch!? Russia has all blueprints, all documentation, but is for already four years unable to start series production of GTs, badly needed for naval vessels ! Almost half of surface ships, if such powered are in need of replacement GTs!

Russia has all blueprints, all documentation, but is for already four years unable to start series production of GTs, badly needed for naval vessels ! Almost half of surface ships, if such powered are in need of replacement GTs!

Russia cannot afford to just sit down and take their time when dealing with issues like this as if its still peacetime. Nato is ALREADY knocking on Russia’s doorsteps itching for a total war. More delays in Russia’s military modernization is a fatal mistake that Russians need to address to be averted.

kumbor wrote:
Sorry, from land AA system already in service to fully capable naval system on deck of a warship - there is a long way to go. At least, there are different  needs of anti-corrosion prevention, sea clutter for radar, stabilisation issues , and much more. I`m a lawyer and interpreter, not an engineer!

Mind Russians have still 10 years ahead. S-500 task is hypersonic warheads and ICBMs so very valid tasks for a cruiser.

Poliment-Redut and S-350 were ccepted the same time BTW

kumbor wrote:Suspended technological ties with MTU AG. There are no better diesels than MTU! Ban on supplying of any technology that can be used for military purpose - and that means MAJORITY OF HIGH END TECHNOLOGIES!

Are you serious? what precise technologies were ever sold to Russia? . Nobody  sells latest technology. Neva' eva' . Especially  for military in  Russia  

And MTU is by no means critical nor high tech. Do you really think that Russians cannot develop standard diesel engines but could mini nuclear rectors, super-cavitating nuclear drones  or hypersonic  missiles?

It is more like pissing Russians off then any real stab.



@ThingND - indeed S-500 seems to be its very important component .As prt of Russian ABM

Hole wrote:+ no gas turbines from some unnamed place that have to be replaced by new ones.

Turbines were called incorrectly Ukropistani . This was Soviet design, Ukrops did nothing else by their own.

Nibiru wrote:

Russia cannot afford to just sit down and take their time when dealing with issues like this as if its still peacetime. Nato is ALREADY knocking on Russia’s doorsteps itching for a total war. More delays in Russia’s military modernization is a fatal mistake that Russians need to address to be averted.

so how would you do it with limited resources? tell me

BTW there is prioritization you know. Nuclear forces with 15-20 min delivery to US is best thingy to keep any NATO attemptes out.

Do you really think that Russians cannot develop standard diesel engines but could mini nuclear rectors, super-cavitating nuclear drones  or hypersonic  missiles?

The Chinese discovered gun powder but had inferior cannons & no forearms during the Opium Wars.
The USSR had the space shuttle Buran, a multiple use vehicle, but didn't have & couldn't produce its own disposable hypodermic needles. They also had heavy industry producing tanks, trucks, tractors, aircraft, ships, military uniforms, etc., but clothing, cars & other consumer goods were of low quality. Which is more complicated?

Tsavo Lion wrote:
The USSR had the space shuttle Buran, a multiple use vehicle, but didn't have & couldn't produce its own disposable hypodermic needles.

source?

They also had heavy industry producing tanks, trucks, tractors, aircraft, ships, military uniforms, etc., but clothing, cars & other consumer goods were of low quality. Which is more complicated?

if Soviets did steal as US/EU did from Latin America, Asia, Africa for hundredths of years they could to anything they wanted.
But in order not to end up being bombed/nuked  by US Soviets need to focus on defenses t first.

BTW I  lived then in Soviet bloc and what low quality you do mean  precisely ?[/quote]

so how would you do it with limited resources? tell me

Well, that is a problem that I have no answer for lol. I guess we cant have everything. All I hope for is that Russia increase their efficiency in both tech reaserach/ development and construction of newer systems (planes, tanks, ships, etc.)
Resource constraints should have been a thing of the 90s to early 2000s, its already 2020 10 months from now. Putin will need to pressure his men to work double time.

GunshipDemocracy wrote:

Tsavo Lion wrote:
The USSR had the space shuttle Buran, a multiple use vehicle, but didn't have & couldn't produce its own disposable hypodermic needles.

source?

https://books.google.com/books?id=XrSHDAAAQBAJ&pg=PA21&lpg=PA21&dq=USSR++disposable+hypodermic+needles&source=bl&ots=qXtHnyVBOi&sig=ACfU3U2nTttwqXgyUUkFUVwLgS4crfs_aw&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwixpqKC99_gAhU4JDQIHeGGBjUQ6AEwE3oECAIQAQ#v=onepage&q=USSR%20%20disposable%20hypodermic%20needles&f=false

BTW I  lived then in Soviet bloc and what low quality you do mean precisely ?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Bloc#Black_markets

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consumer_goods_in_the_Soviet_Union#Consumer_supply_in_the_1980s

https://www.quora.com/Why-was-the-Soviet-Union-often-portrayed-as-having-poor-quality-goods-and-machinery

Shiiiit 100 Zircons? more than Orlans by 25%. And Orlan is a battle cruiser and Lider is a destroyer?

Well if the new UKSK-M launchers are going to be carrying large SAMS as well then the Orlans will replace both the 20 Granit tubes but also the 96 Rif-M missiles with UKSK-M launchers, so instead of 10 x 8, they could possible have 20 x 8 or more as part of their upgrade...

100 Zircons is enough to take down ll CSGs really. As for AADs I'd assume S-500 will be included.

If it is going to be a 20KT ship I would expect S-500 at the very least would certainly be included...

Suspended technological ties with MTU AG. There are no better diesels than MTU! Ban on supplying of any technology that can be used for military purpose - and that means MAJORITY OF HIGH END TECHNOLOGIES!

So they can invest money and develop high end technologies themselves... plus also steal the designs and technology too.

Russia cannot afford to just sit down and take their time when dealing with issues like this as if its still peacetime. Nato is ALREADY knocking on Russia’s doorsteps itching for a total war. More delays in Russia’s military modernization is a fatal mistake that Russians need to address to be averted.

I thought that was pretty clear that is what they are already doing... Kinzhal, Zircon, Avangard, Sarmat, Poseidon, and that nuclear powered unlimited range cruise missile are all ideal responses to NATOs encroachment on Russia... and vastly more effective than any new destroyer class ship could get in response...

Sorry, from land AA system already in service to fully capable naval system on deck of a warship - there is a long way to go. At least, there are different  needs of anti-corrosion prevention, sea clutter for radar, stabilisation issues , and much more. I`m a lawyer and interpreter, not an engineer!

Yeah, but it would not be the first ground based SAM they have navalised... in fact the only SAM in naval service that was no previously a land based system was the Goblet SA-N-3.  All of the rest were ground based missiles with adaptations to naval use...

@ThingND - indeed S-500 seems to be its very important component .As prt of Russian ABM

Well up until the US ended the ABM treaty the Russian ABM system consisted on one around Moscow... in full compliance with the ABM treaty.

When the US withdrew from that treaty the Russians started expanding the S-400 and created the S-500 into areas previously banned by the ABM treaty. They also expanded their ABM missiles for the Moscow system and made them mobile too (Nudel)... so their ABM system went from Moscow only, to pretty much anywhere you could land vehicles based on trucks and tracks inside Russian territory.

The expansion of the Russian Navy to include vessels of destroyer size and bigger suggests the next step is to expand the Russian ABM system world wide via sea based platforms...

But no one in the west will ever blame the US for this... it is all about Russian aggression and not about US arrogance that Russia was never going to grow and develop.

Turbines were called incorrectly Ukropistani . This was Soviet design, Ukrops did nothing else by their own.

(Edit: During WWII) the west likes to claim the Soviets couldn't build trucks because they didn't build that many.... most of them they got via lend lease... but then while you are getting them... why bother making your own when you can take advantage of the fact that you are getting some that might not be ideal but are good enough and you can concentrate resources and energy on other things you also desperately need.

It was the same with the Ukraine... they made a product Russia needed and buying those products kept Ukrainians working... a win win situation, but unfortunately western powers sought to poison and destroy that relationship and were very successful in doing so... now Russia needs to make its own and in doing so will need to set up production capacity and evaluate the design options it has... should it make what the Ukrainians were making, or take the opportunity to upgrade the designs and improve production performance and capacity and get something better now that they are making it themselves... new production technology, new materials all add scope for an improved product made more efficiently and faster, but might introduce potential problems to an otherwise mature design... so perhaps make minor obvious upgrades and start production and then work on upgrades and brand new designs... and that is the advantage of owning the production... you can invest in further development...

so how would you do it with limited resources? tell me

BTW there is prioritization you know. Nuclear forces with 15-20 min delivery to US is best thingy to keep any NATO attemptes out.

Well building 20 CVN carrier groups would have the same effect and the threat of instant nuclear annihilation, but would cost trillions of dollars and take decades to actually get into service and operational... I think they made the right choice... especially when it is essentially costing them nothing because they were making Zircon anyway and most of the other systems will be hard to determine... are they the new super dangerous things or are they just standard Iskander missiles... they wont know and in recent history when they haven't known something they have assumed the worst... which in this case suits Russia very well.

The Chinese discovered gun powder but had inferior cannons & no forearms during the Opium Wars.

Yeah... give the Chinese black powder and they make fireworks to scare away evil demons... their biggest problem was that when the evil demons saw the black powder they made guns and cannons with it to murder people more efficiently...  Of course those same evil demons were the ones getting the Chinese hooked on opium too... they did everything they could to destroy that alternative civilisation... but young chinese people today see American culture and love it... talk about no learning from your own history...

The USSR had the space shuttle Buran, a multiple use vehicle, but didn't have & couldn't produce its own disposable hypodermic needles. They also had heavy industry producing tanks, trucks, tractors, aircraft, ships, military uniforms, etc., but clothing, cars & other consumer goods were of low quality. Which is more complicated?

Yeah, they were in the middle of a war with the west... having nice clothes or high performance sports cars really wasn't a high priority at the time.

And the Buran was a nuclear bomber prototype... when they had it at the point where it could be used operationally they realised an ICBM was just as fast and much much cheaper so funding dried up almost immediately.

Well, that is a problem that I have no answer for lol. I guess we cant have everything.

You can try to have everything and when you go bankrupt you end up with nothing...

https://www.quora.com/Why-was-the-Soviet-Union-often-portrayed-as-having-poor-quality-goods-and-machinery

Yeah, the west is constantly comparing Soviet stuff with western stuff... even German stuff... they bollock on about how well engineered the Tiger or panther tank is compared with T-34s... but guess what.... they never had enough Tigers or Panthers... they seemed to manage to get a lot of T-34s out to the troops in pretty short order... could there possibly be a link between a dozen T-34s in the hand compared with the promise of one Tiger... in a months time...

The thing is that not everything needs to be made with the fit and precision of a swiss watch... I mean have you seen a PPS-42 SMG stripped?

It is all sheet metal, the only thing made on a lath is the barrel...

GunshipDemocracy wrote:

kumbor wrote:
Sorry, from land AA system already in service to fully capable naval system on deck of a warship - there is a long way to go. At least, there are different  needs of anti-corrosion prevention, sea clutter for radar, stabilisation issues , and much more. I`m a lawyer and interpreter, not an engineer!

Mind Russians have still 10 years ahead. S-500 task is hypersonic warheads and ICBMs so very valid tasks for a cruiser.

Poliment-Redut and S-350 were ccepted the same time BTW

kumbor wrote:Suspended technological ties with MTU AG. There are no better diesels than MTU! Ban on supplying of any technology that can be used for military purpose - and that means MAJORITY OF HIGH END TECHNOLOGIES!

Are you serious? what precise technologies were ever sold to Russia? . Nobody  sells latest technology. Neva' eva' . Especially  for military in  Russia  

And MTU is by no means critical nor high tech. Do you really think that Russians cannot develop standard diesel engines but could mini nuclear rectors, super-cavitating nuclear drones  or hypersonic  missiles?

It is more like pissing Russians off then any real stab.



@ThingND - indeed S-500 seems to be its very important component .As prt of Russian ABM

Hole wrote:+ no gas turbines from some unnamed place that have to be replaced by new ones.

Turbines were called incorrectly Ukropistani . This was Soviet design, Ukrops did nothing else by their own.

As USSSR was a highly centralised state, especially in a field of military industry, today Russia has all the documentation. Zorya-mashproekt in Dnepropetrovsk, now Dnipro, produced GTs. Big business, but I am stunned with a fact that for four years Russia still wasn`t able to switch production to the other plant.
Concerning diesels, MTU are the best high speed diesels in the world, unparallelled in versatility and technology and also they are the most expensive ones.

kumbor wrote: Big business, but I am stunned with a fact that for four years Russia still wasn`t able to switch production to the other plant.

not sure if you followed history of Russia since 91? 2 wars- economic collpse -rebuilding - crisis - war -crisis - war/Crimea.

First priority has military security, what was achieved. You prefer to end up with diesels and no Su57, no hyperonic tech,no lasers , nu;cet tech? Then you end up like Germany - under Us boots.

Concerning diesels, MTU are the best high speed diesels in the world, unparallelled in versatility and technology and also  they are the most expensive ones.

so ?

Mind Russians have still 10 years ahead. S-500 task is hypersonic warheads and ICBMs so very valid tasks for a cruiser.

But it's harder to make the naval system than the ground based one.

The naval system needs to take into account the movement of the ship which can occure even when it doesn't move because of the waves.

Making Tor M2 able to launch on the move was a huge step but it still needs to go very slow and on a flat terrain.

Tor engage low speed targets compared to s-500.

But it's harder to make the naval system than the ground based one.

The naval system needs to take into account the movement of the ship which can occure even when it doesn't move because of the waves.

Gun stabilisation systems reached quite a high level of performance in about WWI on naval ships.. it is not a new problem and has been repeatedly solved for every modern gun, every modern missile, and every modern radar or optical sight on every modern ship...

Even on land these systems have to be tested with other systems to make sure they don't interfere with each other... including jamming and ESM systems, so it is not like you only have to do that on a ship as well.

Making Tor M2 able to launch on the move was a huge step but it still needs to go very slow and on a flat terrain.

And yet the naval version called Klintok was operational in the late 1980s and could be fired from a moving ship... perhaps it is actually easier to make naval missiles than it is to make land based ones?

(there was a delay with the Klintok system, but that was related to the very sophisticated 3D search and tracking radar system it uses...)

Tor engage low speed targets compared to s-500.

But Tor is even more critical because even a tiny ship would benefit from having TOR on board as it is very useful against a wide variety of threats to the ship, while S-500 is huge and would really only be used against fairly critical targets no other missile could deal with... like satellites in orbit or incoming ICBM or IRBM or SLBM threats... things small ships probably would not even notice...