Promising destroyer "Lider-class"

Hole wrote:Compared to what Lider will be 50% bigger?

Lider: 16 - 19.000ts
Nakhimov: 24.000ts

to Lider before "upgrde" : 10-12k ton

Hole wrote:Lider: 100 silos for missiles of all kinds:

no, only ASh.

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

Isos wrote: 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.

Lider IMHO is to replace both  1164 Atlants & 1144 Orlans so 5-6but ht is even more problem will be main ships of Russian expeditionary groupings.

Isos wrote: 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 Lider is enough to take down the whole CSG or destroy verge sized country. Why would they need more then 5-6? 32-48 cells will be for 22350-M (8ktons displacement ). 8 is so far planned.

Isos wrote:No way 100. If it goes full uksk then it's 8*? Silos. So can't be 100.

yes it can. However Tass clearly said more then 100.
3С14УК1  - 8 cells
3С14УК2  - 4 cells

One Lider is enough to take down the whole eCSG or destroy verge sized country. Why would they need more then 5-6? 32-48 cells will be for 22350-M (8ktons displcemnt )

They are not immune to f-35 or subs attacks.

Isos wrote:

One Lider is enough to take down the whole eCSG or destroy verge sized country. Why would they need more then 5-6? 32-48 cells will be for 22350-M (8ktons displcemnt )

They are not immune to f-35 or subs attacks.

That's why they wiki be lead ships of fleet groupings. Sy 2 22350 perhaps CVN + couple of Huskys/Yasens

Why to build 50% bigger ship with weaker armament? especially that Russian doctrine focuses on long range missiles not ariwings

Lider is supposed to be primarily an anti-air destroyer, having 64 anti surface and 72 anti air cells according to Wiki. That's a lot of missiles, even for 19k ton ship. Universal VLS system for all those missiles would make things easier. Technically, anti air missiles aren't too big. The largest S-400 missile is 7,8 m long and the current UKSK allows up to 8,6 m long birds.

verkhoturye51 wrote:

Why to build 50% bigger ship with weaker armament? especially that Russian doctrine focuses on long range missiles not ariwings

Lider is supposed to be primarily an anti-air destroyer, having 64 anti surface and 72 anti air cells according to Wiki. That's a lot of missiles, even for 19k ton ship. Universal VLS system for all those missiles would make things easier. Technically, anti air missiles aren't too big. The largest S-400 missile is 7,8 m long and the current UKSK allows up to 8,6 m long birds.

Universal UKSK-M will be as long as the longest missiles that it can use. Having some less longer VLS means you can put them where the depth of the ship is smaller.

In term of size, UKSK-M won't make things easier at all since everyone of them will need the same space inside the hull. Redut on the other hand takes less space and can be put more foreward like on gorshkov where uksk-m can't be used.

10mVLS means there won't be anything under them. So you can put them above engines, above fuel cell, above rooms.

Redut is easier to implement in the ship. If they make the tubes larger they could make a missile with 250km range for redut vls which would be enough for lot of threats. Bigger missiles could be stored in the uksk-m but in smaller number. Today ship based SAMs need to intercept cruise missiles instead of fighters so the 400km anti air missiles will be to much specially that nato antiship missiles are flying low so they can be interczpted only the last few tens of km from the ship. Better store more smaller range missiles and few big ones just in case.

Better store more smaller range missiles and few big ones just in case.

You can quadpack small missiles in big tubes. I think the space won't be a problem on Liders. The draught alone is supposed to be 6.6 m for 10-15 k ton version as per Wiki, so 19 k ton ship would be closer to Orlan's 9 m.

On this draft design the missiles are located all together and where the deck is the lowest:



In the expedition group, Derzky, Gorshkov and Super-Gorshkov will be probably quite strong when it comes to short and medium range air defence, so that's why Lider is expected to have 56 S-500 missiles vs. 16 S-350. This UKSK-M would be also installed on Super Gorshkov with raising tubes over deck like here:



Smaller ships can keep current version of UKSK or modernise it when required.

Lider will be probably carrying ABM missiles of the S-500 family, those will be very big (Russia will not make the mistake of trying to cram them in standard VLS cells as US with the SM-3) and therefore it makes sense to make it big enough, since it will need, additionally, substantial ASM, AShM and ASW weapons. 5-6 units would be enough, 8-10 very good in the long term. But as said it is important not to limit the design from the beginning trying to make it smaller than what is realistically needed for the task. NPP + all electric operation would be good to make the ship future-proof in terms of DEW, radars and other future needs that demand more electric power.

verkhoturye51 wrote:

Why to build 50% bigger ship with weaker armament? especially that Russian doctrine focuses on long range missiles not ariwings

Lider is supposed to be primarily an anti-air destroyer, having 64 anti surface and 72 anti air cells according to Wiki. That's a lot of missiles, even for 19k ton ship. Universal VLS system for all those missiles would make things easier. Technically, anti air missiles aren't too big. The largest S-400 missile is 7,8 m long and the current UKSK allows up to 8,6 m long birds.

1)  Orlans had 20 Granits  + 96 S-300F yet still were considered CSG killers.

2) wiki was referring to 10-12k tons concept 20k tons

3) now Orlans will get  80 cells for ASh  and Lider 100+ (104? 108? 112?) for ASh.

4) strong AAD is needed to cover fleet grouping & very likely  ABM

LMFS wrote: But as said it is important not to limit the design from the beginning trying to make it smaller than what is realistically needed for the task. NPP + all electric operation would be good to make the ship future-proof in terms of DEW, radars and other future needs that demand more electric power.

DEW to build plasma shields - US also sooner or later get hypersonic missiles

AFAIK US navy laser is planned first @ 100kW then increased  300kw. Peresvet looks like is sup to 1000kW

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

Yeah, but most sources I have seen regarding the corvettes used to launch calibre in Syria mentioned they carried 8 Calibr missiles... it never mentioned the capacity to take 8 Club missiles of three distinctly different types...

It is not the sort of thing I would expect a reporter reporting the news to understand the difference...

especially when we follow developments and even we are not sure about UKSK-M.

Well you gin look like US analyst , Us is bsing on CSGs Russians not. Then you need more missiles.

Well a US analyst should realise how capable these Zircon missiles are and realise even just one would be dangerous enough for the US Navy... they have never faced an enemy with such a potent weapon able to undo even their best defended ship.

If you are talking about an F-16 then on paper it can carry a 7 ton payload but it never would... that is just an idea of potential capacity.

Now when an Oscar class ship gets its 24 Granits replaced with 72 Onyx missiles, it makes sense they don't mean UKSK launch tubes and therefore all the Club weapons too... Oscar is anti carrier group... it doesn't need the distraction of land attack or anti sub weapons, but a new destroyer is supposed to be multi role so it makes sense to have different weapon types in its tubes...

USN wants to have ~350 ships. 6 Liders is more than enough to keep them at bay.

One Lider will keep them all away... they really don't have a history of accepting the loss of 100 ships to take out one enemy ship...

Let me guess this is not about major war but Venezuela/Syria wars. .

They have never planned an invasion of Europe or the US.... they might end up destroying them to protect themselves from the threat, but no indication they want to take them over and occupy them.

that's why you need to build nuclear powered ships as main expeditionary ships like Liders or Shtorm concept.

No argument from me... Russian carrier groupings are not going to be enormous with dozens of ships, but they all need to be able to go places without too much resupply.

recently superconductors were created working on -13 Celsius?

In places in the Russian arctic that would require someone to light a fire to get it up to that...

2 to roam+ 2 for close protection. not surprisingly 2 Liders will be build till 2030

They are calling it a 20K ton destroyer, but it is pretty clear this is a carrier escort we are talking about... a smaller Kirov... because with new weapons and new technology it wont need to be that big to have much much better performance...

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.

The carrier could produce and store the H2 and pump it back into a conventional ship it is towing along so it can refuel... once refuelled it can run on its own gas turbines now topped up with H2...

No way 100. If it goes full uksk then it's 8*? Silos. So can't be 100.

Said over 100, so the closest would be 104..., which would be 13 UKSK launchers.

The thing is that the original Kirov had 20 launch bins for granits, plus launchers for the Rif SAM and right at the front of the deck a twin launcher reloadable from under deck for the SS-N-14 Silex anti sub/anti ship missile delivering a torpedo for anti sub use.

You could rip out the Granit tubes and replace them with 10 UKSK launchers for 80 missiles because Granit tubes seem to be rather big.

But if they are also replacing Rif and the SS-N-14 silex missiles with more UKSK tubes... you could probably get 5 more UKSK launchers in the space of the Rif system because it was quite spread out, and maybe 3 more where the SS-N-14 silex tubes are... they have said to replace the Granits they could get 10 UKSK launchers in the space for the Granits alone.... if they are replacing Rif and the Silex system that is a lot more space... more than double the area so they might get 20 launchers there, which would allow 160 missiles...

[qote]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.[/quote]

No, they started building Slavas at the same time as the Orlans in case the Orlans were a failure.

Slavas were the cheaper option but much less impressive ships in my opinion...

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.

Wasn't really a mistake... if the economy had not collapsed and they had completed the carriers they had being built a mix of Kirovs and Slavas would have been valuable escorts for their carrier groups...

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.

The vast majority of SAMs on the big ships will be the 60km range and 150km range S-400s, and the rest will be TOR or Pantsir based and therefore relatively cheap.

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

Zircon, Calibr, or Onyx... which suggests it has "more than 100 launch tubes" so at the bare minimum that is 13 UKSK launchers with 104 missile tubes... but they could just as easily load anti sub missiles or land attack missiles (like Calibr).

Zircon and Onyx also have land attack capability so it is not really only anti ship missiles.

Big ships will have big radar antenna arrays, so will be most effective with S-500 class SAMs, but they might just load them in a UKSK-M launcher system...

The Lider will actually be most likely uesed as a "cruiser" as in a ship for foriegn policy and intervetions while the conventionally powered Atlant and hybird Orlan class vessels will be modernised and used for defending the homeland in conjunction with land based intermediate range ASHMs and land based aviation.

There is siply little need the Lider class when it comes to deffence as the enemy navy would be on the bottome before it you could ever get you ships out of port.

No carrier ever concieved could possible hope to beat land based aviation, espetially Mig-31s and TU-22s armed with supersonic and hypersonic ASHMs.

The-thing-next-door wrote:The Lider will actually be most likely uesed as a "cruiser" as in a ship for foriegn policy and intervetions while the conventionally powered Atlant and hybird Orlan class vessels will be modernised and used for defending the homeland in conjunction with land based intermediate range ASHMs and land based aviation.

There is siply little need the Lider class when it comes to deffence as the enemy navy would be on the bottome before it you could ever get you ships out of port.

No carrier ever concieved could possible hope to beat land based aviation, espetially Mig-31s and TU-22s armed with supersonic and hypersonic ASHMs.

well, I would not say no-carrier. I'd sy this is comparable solution. Only much cheaper.

GarryB wrote:especially when we follow developments and even we are not sure about UKSK-M.

so where Kalibr-M will  be carried ?

GB wrote:

Well you gin look like US analyst , Us is bsing on CSGs Russians not. Then you need more missiles.

Well a US analyst should realise how capable these Zircon missiles are and realise even just one would be dangerous enough for the US Navy... they have never faced an enemy with such a potent weapon able to undo even their best defended ship.
+++
USN wants to have ~350 ships. 6 Liders is more than enough to keep them at bay.

.
Im not saying you have to use zircons only. My point is if you use then you got kick ass.

GB wrote: Now when an Oscar class ship gets its 24 Granits replaced with 72 Onyx missiles, it makes sense they don't mean UKSK launch tubes and therefore all the Club weapons too... Oscar is anti carrier group... it doesn't need the distraction of land attack or anti sub weapons, but a new destroyer is supposed to be multi role so it makes sense to have different weapon types in its tubes...
+++

USN: has Ohio and CSGs too. Anteys wont get Onyxes, They will get 72 Kalibrs. Onyx can fit into Granit only 1:1 (67cm vs 85 cm)  .  this w as discussed already.  And in this sense is better to let them attack land objects.

..

GB wrote:

Let me guess this is not about major war but Venezuela/Syria wars. .

They have never planned an invasion of Europe or the US.... they might end up destroying them to protect themselves from the threat, but no indication they want to take them over and occupy them.

[/quote]

Range  4,500km Kalibrs-M
Distance
Murmansk: Halifax Nova Scotia............5,696.93 km
Murmansk: Reykjavik:........................2,196.24 km
Anadyr :  Seattle:..............................3,983.43 km

https://www.distance.to/Murmansk,Murmanskaya-oblast',RUS/Reykjav%C3%ADk,Reykjav%C3%ADkurborg,H%C3%B6fu%C3%B0borgarsv%C3%A6%C3%B0i%C3%B0,ISL

GB wrote:

that's why you need to build nuclear powered ships as main expeditionary ships like Liders or Shtorm concept.

No argument from me... Russian carrier groupings are not going to be enormous with dozens of ships, but they all need to be able to go places without too much resupply.

100% +

GB wrote:

recently superconductors were created working on -13 Celsius?

In places in the Russian arctic that would require someone to light a fire to get it up to that...

not that easy, you still  need pressure. But fireplace option looks interesting.      

Superconductivity at 215 K in lanthanum hydride at high pressures
https://arxiv.org/abs/1808.07039

Evidence for superconductivity above 260 K in lanthanum superhydride at megabar pressures
https://arxiv.org/abs/1808.07695

GB wrote:

2 to roam+ 2 for close protection. not surprisingly 2 Liders will be build till 2030

They are calling it a 20K ton destroyer, but it is pretty clear this is a carrier escort we are talking about... a smaller Kirov... because with new weapons and new technology it wont need to be that big to have much much better performance...

Battle Cruisers. Gorskhov-M will replace Atlant cruisers

GB wrote:

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.

The carrier could produce and store the H2 and pump it back into a conventional ship it is towing along so it can refuel... once refuelled it can run on its own gas turbines now topped up with H2...

meh Sechin/Rosneft would never allowed it.

GB wrote: Zircon, Calibr, or Onyx... which suggests it has "more than 100 launch tubes" so at the bare minimum that is 13 UKSK launchers with 104 missile tubes... but they could just as easily load anti sub missiles or land attack missiles (like Calibr).
+++
Big ships will have big radar antenna arrays, so will be most effective with S-500 class SAMs, but they might just load them in a UKSK-M launcher system...

No doubt S-500 makes sense but in original 1kt Lider UKSK 64 tubes and  AAD were counted separately. Now displacement grew to 20kt  and UKSKs till 104-112 (more less ratio constant).  Why it would change now with AAD?

so where Kalibr-M will be carried ?

The launch tubes that carry Zircon could instead carry Kalibr-M, or one of the three Club type missiles, or Onyx/Yakhont/Brahmos.

Im not saying you have to use zircons only. My point is if you use then you got kick ass.

16 Zircons would be potent... 100 is just excessive...

But of course they can be used against land or sea targets so it is not totally unreasonable for three quarters of the onboard load of missiles was Zircons...

No doubt S-500 makes sense but in original 1kt Lider UKSK 64 tubes and AAD were counted separately. Now displacement grew to 20kt and UKSKs till 104-112 (more less ratio constant). Why it would change now with AAD?

You are missing the point... in a ship that already had weapons allocated like the Kirov with 96 S-300 large SAMs and 20 Granit anti ship only cruise missiles and an SS-N-14 Silex missile launcher near the bow with say 12 Metel anti sub missiles with backup anti ship capability... when you upgrade it... 5 years ago there was poliment redut with S-400 systems and UKSK to replace the anti ship missile, but UKSK also has the 91RE1 ballistic rocket for delivering an anti sub torpedo... which basically replaces the SS-N-14 as well.

So in the front of the ship you have three areas currently being used from front to back by an anti sub rocket delivered torpedo system called SS-N-14, then a large area of Rif vertical launchers for 96 S-300 large SAMs with a range of maybe 120km at most in that model, and then up the back in front of the bridge the Granit launchers with 20 anti ship only missiles.

The original upgrade seemed to just be to replace the Granits and I suspect also the SS-N-14s with UKSK launchers and they were going to get 10 launchers in the space available, which means 80 missiles... at the time Onyx, but perhaps two 8 shot bins with 91Re1 anti sub weapons... so the actual load of 80 weapons would be 16 91RE1 anti sub torpedo rockets, plus the rest in Onyx... which can now be anti ship or land attack.

Operationally they might add some other of the types of missile they could carry depending on the situation like 4,500km land attack cruise missiles or whatever.
The point is that the 96 Rif missiles were not really going to be changed because the Redut system is not really big enough to hold full sized missiles, but if the UKSK-M has been developed to hold cruise missiles and SAMs then instead of just 10 UKSK plus Rif SAM launchers it might have 25 UKSK-M launchers... 16 91RE1s, 64 Onyx or now Zircon, and 15 UKSK-Ms with SAMs in them... say 8 tubes for S-500 with one missile per tube, that leaves 14 x 8 tubes for SAMs... now these are large missile sized tubes so you might get 6 S-400 9M96 missiles in each tube by width capacity, but the shorter ones you might get three layers and the longer 160km range models you might get two.... so 18 x 60km range S-400s per tube and 12 x 160km range S-400s per tube... with 9M100 you might get 24 missiles per tube...

Admiral Nakhimov has no SS-N-14 launcher. Only Kirov (Adm. Ushakov) had it.


Kirov


Nakhimov

[quote="GarryB"]

so where Kalibr-M will  be carried ?

The launch tubes that carry Zircon could instead carry Kalibr-M, or one of the three Club type missiles, or Onyx/Yakhont/Brahmos.
[/quot]

True, my point was, plese dont mix CM tubes with AAD ones. Even is both use USKS-Ms 100+ re for CMs.

GB wrote:

Im not saying you have to use zircons only. My point is if you use then you got kick ass.

16 Zircons would be potent... 100 is just excessive...

But of course they can be used against land or sea targets so it is not totally unreasonable for three quarters of the onboard load of missiles was Zircons...

100+

GB wrote:

No doubt S-500 makes sense but in original 1kt Lider UKSK 64 tubes and  AAD were counted separately. Now displacement grew to 20kt  and UKSKs till 104-112 (more less ratio constant).  Why it would change now with AAD?

You are missing the point...{lots about Kirovs here} ..

No sir, you didnt get my point. I was talking about Lider. Lider already had 56 cells for S-500 + 64 for AShM/rocket-torpedo .

Now 64 grew by ~60-70% till 100+. Why they should suddenly use S-500 there ? it is waste of cells.


BTW are you aware about an arsenal ship concept? this is INSTEAD of CVN

GunshipDemocracy wrote:

GarryB wrote:

so where Kalibr-M will  be carried ?

The launch tubes that carry Zircon could instead carry Kalibr-M, or one of the three Club type missiles, or Onyx/Yakhont/Brahmos.
[/quot]

True, my point was, plese  dont mix CM tubes with AAD ones. Even is both use USKS-Ms 100+ re for CMs.

GB wrote:

Im not saying you have to use zircons only. My point is if you use then you got kick ass.

16 Zircons would be potent... 100 is just excessive...

But of course they can be used against land or sea targets so it is not totally unreasonable for three quarters of the onboard load of missiles was Zircons...

100+

GB wrote:

No doubt S-500 makes sense but in original 1kt Lider UKSK 64 tubes and  AAD were counted separately. Now displacement grew to 20kt  and UKSKs till 104-112 (more less ratio constant).  Why it would change now with AAD?

You are missing the point...{lots  about Kirovs here}  ..

No sir, you didnt get my point. I was talking about Lider.  Lider  already had 56 cells for S-500 + 64 for AShM/rocket-torpedo .

Now 64 grew by ~60-70% till 100+. Why they should suddenly use S-500 there ? it is waste of cells.


BTW are you  aware about an arsenal ship concept? this is INSTEAD of  CVN

The arsenal ship is the USN concept from late 70`s, Modernised Nakhimov will get close to the idea of the arsenal ship. The new Lider, if any will be built, will be even closer to that idea. The progress in naval shipbuilding, new ideas of constructive protection, miniaturisation and progress in naval weaponry should mean more punch within same displacement. But, russian navy, after 25 years of a standstill, need so much of it everywhere! I hope there will be ideas, fundings and shipbuilding capacities to build new type of a capital ship, which Lider should become! As well as the English, Russians were never out of the innovation fields, concerning naval shipbuilding and weaponry!

Shipyard source, and USC refused to confirm/deny, so take with a pinch of NaCl?  

Russia to build 2 Lider-class nuclear-powered destroyers by end of 2020s — source

Russia plans to build two Lider-class nuclear-powered destroyers by the end of 2020s, with an estimated cost of each at around 100 billion rubles, a source in the shipbuilding industry told TASS on Thursday.

"In accordance with the existing state military program for 2018-2027, development works on the destroyers are expected to start in 2021, later proceeding to construction. According to preliminary estimates, it will take about seven years to build one destroyer," the source said.

"It is planned by the end of 2020s to start water trials of two Lider-class destroyers," he added noting that "each destroyer will cost around 100 billion rubles to build."

The source noted that Lider-class destroyers will have the capacity to carry over 100 Zirkon, Kalibr, or Oniks missiles.

Russia's United Shipbuilding Corporation refused to comment on this information but confirmed that they have necessary capabilities to build destroyers of this class

http://tass.com/defense/1046772

A delay of the commission of the first unit of the project 23560 until 2026 or later would mean that the important number of redundant auxiliary ships developped in the last years finally would have a negative impact in the development of the key projects of the current new generation of Russian armament.

https://www.russiadefence.net/t7032p50-sap-2018-2027-arms-procurement#212515

This would be hardly acceptable for the Russian Ministry of Defense and the Russian Navy.

The lobbying of the United Shipbuilding Corporation seems quite negative lately, and likely will have consequences, if they finally provoke unnecessary delay on key preojects to finish the current new generation of armament, like the Project 23560 and the winner project of aircraft carrier (likely the Project 23000).

It is likely they move forward strongly with the first unit, in order to reproduce not potential mistakes in the second before they be corrected.

Russia plans to build two Lider-class nuclear-powered destroyers by the end of 2020s, with an estimated cost of each at around 100 billion rubles, a source in the shipbuilding industry told TASS on Thursday.

"In accordance with the existing state military program for 2018-2027, development works on the destroyers are expected to start in 2021, later proceeding to construction. According to preliminary estimates, it will take about seven years to build one destroyer," the source said.

Impossible, development was done already in 2017. Our forum source in USC said so.[/quote]

The dates are confusing. To build 2 of them by 2020 but dev work to begin in 2021

Maybe Ehniee is the chief designor

You filthy Russophobes, Lider is already in service!!!

That laser thingy has blinded all witnesses so nobody can take photos

Isos wrote:The dates are confusing. To build 2 of them by 2020 but dev work to begin in 2021

Maybe Ehniee is the chief designor

``end of 2020``

Militarov wrote:Impossible, development was done already in 2017. Our forum source in USC said so.

It depends on what you define as "development". They likely have a preliminary design completed, but it will take years to turn that into a detailed design with adequate documentation that will permit metal to be cut.

Big_Gazza wrote:

Militarov wrote:Impossible, development was done already in 2017. Our forum source in USC said so.

It depends on what you define as "development".  They likely have a preliminary design completed, but it will take years to turn that into a detailed design with adequate documentation that will permit metal to be cut.

In practice its napkin drawing at this point.