Promising destroyer "Lider-class"

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

Yes, that is because in the later vessels they carried the SS-N-15 in their 10 torpedo tubes that pretty much did the same thing as SS-N-14 in a more compact arrangement that was all ready to fire and with faster ballistic rockets delivering torpedos against enemy subs...

Replacing them with UKSK tubes to carry the anti sub missiles means you could load up the 10 torpedo launchers with Paket anti torpedo torpedoes... which would be much more useful.

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

But the UKSK-M launcher is supposed to be a fully universal launcher that might take SAMs too... we don't really know for sure.

It just means instead of x number of UKSK cruise missile tubes plus x number of SAM missile tubes, there will be x + x UKSK-M tubes that can be loaded with various load options... it also means you could place SAMs all round the ship instead of a specific area, which would be important for CIWS missiles like 9M100.

100+

The first years the ship is in service they probably wont have that many to put on that ship as they will likely have them on ground launchers and launchers on trains and trucks.

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

An arsenal ship is instead of a CVN in the US navy... in the Russian navy the CVNs purpose is aerial protection and detection with fighters and AWACS aircraft... an arsenal ship would not be any good at that... no matter how many SAMs it carried.

One Arsenal ship would be a very good escort for a CVN, add a couple of SSNs and an SSGN, and perhaps a helicopter carrier, plus a couple of destroyers and a few support ships and you would have something there...

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

So they are planning to have them operational at about the time they might also have the Kuznetsov back in service and possibly a new CVN entering the water...

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.

I think it would be a mistake to assume because they are delaying an arsenal capital ship for half a decade means they will not build anything else... they can upgrade Kirovs and Slavas and the Kuznetsov and get some real destroyers into production and actually make some Frigates and Corvettes in decent numbers too in the mean time, which could all benefit from support ships.

It is likely they will develop a helicopter landing class ship for the Pacific and Northern fleets, which will also require support ships too.

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

Not confusing at all... they will have built 2 of them by the end of the 2020s as they say... 2029 is the end of the 2020s BTW.

In practice its napkin drawing at this point.

To be fair we have no idea what level its design is at this point.

As the new design will be modular and the modules will be things like UKSK-M and various other modules of weapons or sensors or other items, they really just need to design a hull shape and then fit all the bits together...

GarryB wrote:

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

But the UKSK-M launcher is supposed to be a fully universal launcher that might take SAMs too... we don't really know for sure.

It just means instead of x number of UKSK cruise missile tubes plus x number of SAM missile tubes, there will be x + x UKSK-M tubes that can be loaded with various load options... it also means you could place SAMs all round the ship instead of a specific area, which would be important for CIWS missiles like 9M100.

no it doesn't mean this, reread original article. Besides youd leve rmmnet on level of 12k ship while increasing discernment by 50%? why would you do that?

GB wrote:

100+

The first years the ship is in service they probably wont have that many to put on that ship as they will likely have them on ground launchers and launchers on trains and trucks.

not enough Kalibrs or Onyxes? Well my understanding it that this ship is to be lead of "expeditionary ship grouping" . Where CMs re min striking force. Then 100+ UKSK-M definitely make sense.

GB wrote:

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

An arsenal ship is instead of a CVN in the US navy... in the Russian navy the CVNs purpose is aerial protection and detection with fighters and AWACS aircraft... an arsenal ship would not be any good at that... no matter how many SAMs it carried.

Please, dont mix RN with USN. Lider is not supposed to fight enemy fighters , Lider is to kill their carriers. For land operations dont send tens of F-18 you send 50-100 CMs instead. Of course fighters to cove your fleet but not as main strike force.

what about:
100+ UKSKs per Lider
32-48 UKSKs for Gorshkov-M (2-3 per grouping?)
+ 2-3 Yasens/ Huskies

Huskies can get 200-300km ahead of Lider since S-500 anyway will cover form P3. Then use Zircons with 1000km+ range.

GB wrote:One Arsenal ship would be a very good escort for a CVN, add a couple of SSNs and an SSGN, and perhaps a helicopter carrier, plus a couple of destroyers and a few support ships and you would have something there...

On the contrary. In Russia CVN is to escort arsenal ship (like: Lider) + couple of Gorshkov-M . + some Yasens/Huskies.

GB wrote:

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

So they are planning to have them operational at about the time they might also have the Kuznetsov back in service and possibly a new CVN entering the water...

This is what me thinks too. I hope however that Kuz will be back earlier.

Militarov wrote:

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.

In practice its marine architectural and structural with internal equipment GA drgs and dynamics done to size the power-plant and confirm performance. Its hardly scrawled on the back of fag packet...

Detailed design includes mechanical details, electrical and sensors, fabrication and assembly drgs among other deliverables.

Not confusing at all... they will have built 2 of them by the end of the 2020s as they say... 2029 is the end of the 2020s BTW.

My bad I saw 2020 instead of 2020s.

Big_Gazza wrote:

Militarov wrote:

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.

In practice its marine architectural and structural with internal equipment GA drgs and dynamics done to size the power-plant and confirm performance.  Its hardly scrawled on the back of fag packet...

Detailed design includes mechanical details, electrical and sensors, fabrication and assembly drgs among other deliverables.

The maket supposed to be lider is the work of the company. First russian navy needs to express what they want and then the company will design a new ship based on the recquirements.

So tge work will needs to be done from the start. So add 2 years for that easily.

Isos wrote:

Big_Gazza wrote:

Militarov wrote:

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.

In practice its marine architectural and structural with internal equipment GA drgs and dynamics done to size the power-plant and confirm performance.  Its hardly scrawled on the back of fag packet...

Detailed design includes mechanical details, electrical and sensors, fabrication and assembly drgs among other deliverables.

The maket supposed to be lider is the work of the company. First russian navy needs to express what they want and then the company will design a new ship based on the recquirements.

So tge work will needs to be done from the start. So add 2 years for that easily.

There is no such a word as MAKET in english, not to say about RECQUIREMENTS. Obviously, children on this Forum are so uninformed about the scientific capacities of Krylow institute, that they don`t even know about test basins purposely built for hydrodynamic model testing. In such a way every perspective (not PROMISING, because nobody here gives any promises) future ship project can be thoroughly tested in model circumstances.

There is no such a word as MAKET in english, not to say about RECQUIREMENTS. Obviously, children on this Forum are so uninformed about the scientific capacities of Krylow institute, that they don`t even know about test basins purposely built for hydrodynamic model testing. In such a way every perspective (not PROMISING, because nobody here gives any promises) future ship project can be thoroughly tested in model circumstances. censored

A model* (french word is maquette so I just wrongly translated in maket). I pretty sure you know the word.

What's your point about krilow ? They design ships, nothing more. They are not russian navy. If russian navy doesn't tell them what they want as new destroyer, they can't design it. The design they proposed is just a design be it good or bad. It has little chance to be what russia wants.

The navy needs first to study what the ship will be made for, how it will be armed, what type of radars they want, number of missiles, uksk-M design, crew, what ships it will replace... that involves more than just krilov and its basin.

Isos wrote:What's your point about krilow ? They design ships, nothing more. They are not russian navy. If russian navy doesn't tell them what they want as new destroyer, they can't design it. The design they proposed is just a design be it good or bad. It has little chance to be what russia wants.

Just a correction here. Krylov does not design ships. They are not a design bureau, but a scientific institution at the service of the state. So they research technologies and developmental lines, raise debate where they see it necessary and oversee the work of the actual design bureaus. It is not the same if a design bureau comes up with a model of a proposal, trying to create demand for their product, as if Krylov creates a proposal to wake up debate about an issue. Completely different motivations and consequences. The bureau could be reasonably ignored by MoD as simply wanting to promote their product, Krylov should not, since them making proposals is exactly the reason why the state finances them.

They can do whatever they want. Work on Lider will start only when russian navy tells them what they want.

Isos wrote:They can do whatever they want. Work on Lider will start only when russian navy tells them what they want.

This is something they did long before the approval of the Preliminary Design of the project 23560 in the spring of 2017.

LMFS wrote:

Isos wrote:What's your point about krilow ? They design ships, nothing more. They are not russian navy. If russian navy doesn't tell them what they want as new destroyer, they can't design it. The design they proposed is just a design be it good or bad. It has little chance to be what russia wants.

Just a correction here. Krylov does not design ships. They are not a design bureau, but a scientific institution at the service of the state. So they research technologies and developmental lines, raise debate where they see it necessary and oversee the work of the actual design bureaus. It is not the same if a design bureau comes up with a model of a proposal, trying to create demand for their product, as if Krylov creates a proposal to wake up debate about an issue. Completely different motivations and consequences. The bureau could be reasonably ignored by MoD as simply wanting to promote their product, Krylov should not, since them making proposals is exactly the reason why the state finances them.

Krylov center does all it:

http://krylov-centre.ru/en/activities/

Activities
Core areas of the Krylov State Research Centre: Fundamental research related to marine and inland water technologies; Elaboration and justification of naval & commercial shipbuilding programs; Design and design appraisals of ships, vessels & structures intended for marine and inland water operations;

Core areas of the Krylov State Research Centre:
Fundamental research related to marine and inland water technologies;
Elaboration and justification of naval & commercial shipbuilding programs;
Design and design appraisals of ships, vessels & structures intended for marine and inland water operations;
Research in hydrodynamics, strength, power plants & electric systems, physical fields, hydroacoustics;
Design of ship electric equipment, propellers & propulsion systems;
Design solutions and developments related to offshore oil & gas platforms;
Standardization & unification, classification & coding, certification of products and QM systems within shipbuilding industry, cataloguing of products, metrological support, specialization & coordination of production facilities.

ACTIVITIES
System integration in naval shipbuilding
System integration in civil shipbuilding
Ship propulsion
Hydro and aero-dynamics
Supercomputer Center of Mathematical Modeling
Strength
Marine power plants, nuclear & radiation safety
Ship Electric Engineering & Technology
Ship acoustics
Ship electrodynamics and hydrophysics
Design
Standardization & certification

It includes design of ships

http://krylov-centre.ru/en/activities/design/

Design

Head — Chief Designer of Baltsudoproekt
Central Design Bureau
Andrey V. Obukhov
The Baltsudoproekt Central Design Bureau, established back in 1925, is the oldest Russian design company.

In 1999 the Bureau was incorporated in the Krylov State Research Centre as a branch, in 2008 it received the KSRC division status.

Since the time of its establishment the Central Design Bureau has produced about 200 ship designs with over 2600 ships (of total displacement exceeding 11 million tons) actually built to these designs. All ships built to the designs of CDB are noted for their excellent seaworthiness and operational reliability.

Baltsudoproekt produced a wide range of ship designs (in many cases being pioneers in the Russian and occasionally in the world shipbuilding), which for many decades were and remain to be now the backbone of the Russian marine fleet.

CDB is noted for producing a wide range and types of ship designs:

general cargo ship, timber carriers, bulkers;
liquid cargo carrier (oiltankers, chemical carriers, special-purpose tankers, gas carriers);
ferries (including railway ferries);
passenger and passenger/cargo vessels;
tugboats;
rescue vessels;
icebreakers and ice-going ships;
research ships, research expedition ships and hydrographic survey vessels;
vessels & platforms for development of offshore oil & gas fields (supply boats, anchor-handling vessels, drilling rigs, FPSOs);
ships & structures for extraction & processing of mineral & biological resources of the world ocean;
warships and auxiliary naval vessels;
nuclear-powered ships & structures;
specialist vessels (crane ships, pipe- and cable-laying vessels, floating docks);
various one-off and unique ships and floating structures.
Baltsudoproekt Central Design Bureau is using state-of-the-art CAD/CAE systems, which in combination with the wealth of design expertise accrued over the years as well as robust research and experimental capabilities of the Krylov State Research Centre, enables it to cope with any challenges and remain a leader in the design of ships and marine structures.

And it includes explicitly Preliminary Designs, and other design and documentation activities in more advanced stages of the construction of the ships:

http://krylov-centre.ru/en/activities/design/our-opportunities/

Our capabilities
Production of ship designs for Russian and foreign shipbuilders in accordance with the rules of various classification societies;
Design of inland vessels, sea-going ships and marine structures, issue of design documentation with different levels of complexity and detail:
preliminary design;
engineering design;
classification design;
construction documentation;
workshop design documentation;
acceptance documentation;
operating documentation;
refit & upgrade designs for ships of various types and missions;
expert design appraisals of inland vessels, sea-going ships and marine structures;
contract supervision and follow-up support;
preparing technical specification for model tests, support during tests, calculations based on test results;
design and generation of 3D-models using CAD/CAE systems:

If you know what a design means, you will see here that Krylov center is able of doing complete designs, including contract supervision and follow-up support. A good number of these works are done in the stage of construction of the ships.

And this is very logical, because if a design center is not able of developping entire projects with all the detail, until to see the ship in the sea, will not be able of doing well focused advanced research.

Big_Gazza wrote:

In practice its marine architectural and structural with internal equipment GA drgs and dynamics done to size the power-plant and confirm performance.  Its hardly scrawled on the back of fag packet...

Detailed design includes mechanical details, electrical and sensors, fabrication and assembly drgs among other deliverables.

Okay my bad, its napkin drawing and a oversized rubber duck.

List of wishes is sadly not a design. Setting overlay dimensions, imaginary powerplant and do dozen of tests in a pool with a toy is so far from anything called design. I rather prefer to not expect much and get suprised rather than what we normally get around here. Alot of hype and cold showers.

GarryB wrote:

eehnie wrote: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.

I think it would be a mistake to assume because they are delaying an arsenal capital ship for half a decade means they will not build anything else... they can upgrade Kirovs and Slavas and the Kuznetsov and get some real destroyers into production and actually make some Frigates and Corvettes in decent numbers too in the mean time, which could all benefit from support ships.

It is likely they will develop a helicopter landing class ship for the Pacific and Northern fleets, which will also require support ships too.

One thing is to do multiple works at same time, and other thing is to fail priorizing works and to get distracted until to fail achieving the goals.

For Russia, to restore the hability and capability of producing modern armament of every type of combat and auxiliary material for military purposes is key.  At this point all the key ongoing projects are converging to a timeline before the end of 2025 for the first unit (including prototypes) delivered to the Russian Armed Forces.

The list of projects that can break this situation is short:

some (number not defined still) projects of auxiliary aircraft.
Project 23000 (likely)
Project 23560

The problem is that the projects which timeline gets delayed after the rest, are the projects that can fall to the next generation, creating a hole in the current new generation of Russian armament and auxiliary material. Russia will not be waiting to them (and less half a decade) in order to launch the works on the next generation of armament and auxiliary material.

In the cases it happens, the cause of the delay will be strongly analyzed, including the work on redundant projects, and it will be consequences for sure.

Better for the United Shipbuilding Corporation to avoid more delay in these projects. The United Shipbuilding corporation can not take the timeline of these two projects and move them to their convenience. The margin for it is wasted.

The Technical Design of the Project 23560, next stage after the Preliminary Design finished in 2017, will be finished by 2020:

http://navyrecognition.com/index.php/news/defence-news/2018/october-2018-navy-naval-defense-news/6534-usc-eyes-russian-navy-contract-for-project-23560-leader-class-destroyer.html

...

Twelve ships of the 10,000t "Leader class" are planned to enter service from 2023-25, split between the Northern and Pacific Fleets. They will all be nuclear powered. They will be fitted with the ABM-capable S-500 SAM and Kalibr (SS-N-27) cruise missile.

"We hope the Leader destroyer will remain with the USC as we have operating or upgraded capacities for that," he said. He refused to say when the destroyer may be laid. "It is to be discussed with the Defense Ministry. It is not an easy issue," Rakhmanov said.

Navy Deputy Commander-in-Chief Vice Admiral Viktor Bursuk earlier said the technical design of the Leader destroyer would be ready by 2020

2025 is the timeline that must be respected for the commission of the first ship. Otherwise the timeline of the Project 23560 will broke the timeline of the current new geneartion of armament and heavy auxiliary material, leaving the project for the next generation and creating a hole in the current new generation that would have strong consequences for the United Shipbuilding Corporation for sure.

The Technical Design of the Project 23560, next stage after the Preliminary Design finished in 2017, will be finished by 2020:

You got a quote for Technical Design having actually started?

That would be a major step that shows this is a real, serious project.

On the other hand, if the Technical Design is not completed yet it certainly can't be under construction...

Construction of the destroyer "Leader" can begin in 2023

MOSCOW, July 10 - RIA News. The construction of the newest destroyer "Leader" may begin in 2023, the technical project is currently being developed by the Northern Design Bureau (PKB), Pavel Filippov, head of the Krylov State Research Center, told in an interview with RIA Novosti.
The Krylov Center developed the concept and advance design of this ship and then transferred the work to the Northern PKB for the development of a technical project.
"Yes, they (Northern PKB - Ed) started somewhere in 2016-2017. The work is on. It was just originally planned to build a ship with a gas turbine installation, and there was a displacement of 12-13 thousand tons, then they said that nuclear power was needed, and its displacement immediately increased to 18 thousand tons. What is the final result, we still do not understand, we need to ask the Northern PKB. And as far as I understand, in 2023 this “ship” we should start building, ”said Filippov.

https://ria.ru/20190710/1556370370.html

something something already underway, something reference russianships.info

Uggly but scary .

If this sonar goes actif it will kill all the fishes around. 

It is designed to allow it to operate away from port for longer... it is a very green new hookless netless fish recovery and processing system that is ethically humaine to the fish and kills them cleaning and quickly without them being caught by hooks or nets and dragged up out of the water to slowly suffocate... Greenpiss approved.

Isos wrote:Uggly but scary .

If this sonar goes actif it will kill all the fishes around. 

I hate to rant, but when will we witness these ships actually being put to service? when most of us are in retirement homes? and I am even only in my 30.

I'd like to see a more realistic indication of what concept they're actually working on.

hoom wrote:I'd like to see a more realistic indication of what concept they're actually working on.

Maybe you could expand on your reasons for saying the design is unrealistic?  No doubt you have a long career of naval architecture and ship design so that your opinions carry some weight, rather than simply being knee-jerk reactions or unthinking repetition of stuff other similar genius' have said?  

I don't actually see anything wrong with it.  It might look a little anime-inspired, but to my eye it looks fit for purpose. The tall pagoda superstructure will result in a superior radar horizon for detecting incoming threats, and the shaping looks good for reducing its own RCS (certainly better than the Zumwalt albino-pacyderm). The hull form looks pretty advanced, and the weapons fit looks top-notch and an improvement on the Kirovs.

Big_Gazza wrote:

hoom wrote:I'd like to see a more realistic indication of what concept they're actually working on.

Maybe you could expand on your reasons for saying the design is unrealistic?  No doubt you have a long career of naval architecture and ship design so that your opinions carry some weight, rather than simply being knee-jerk reactions or unthinking repetition of stuff other similar genius' have said?  

I don't actually see anything wrong with it.  It might look a little anime-inspired, but to my eye it looks fit for purpose.

Your critics about him can be applied to your own answer. "But to my eye it looks fit for purpose." isn't an analyze from an expert.

That's as realistic for russia as the Zumwalt for US. Possible but not the best option.

A realistic design would be a Kirov with the shapes of a Gorshkov. And something like 200m long.

At least I have a Bachelor of Engineering and a 30-year career behind me. My opinion carries at least some weight.  You?