Promising destroyer "Lider-class"

Isos wrote:...Very good system but they need a naval s-400 to deal with a carrier battle group. At least they will have the Kirovs. It's not only about missiles but also radars. Gorshkov don't have an L band radar which is a must have for today ships.

What makes you think they will be dealing with carrier groups using SAMs?

They have Kinzhals and Zircons for that, existing SAMs will give them enough time to launch anti-ship missiles which is all that's required

It's not like it would matter past first couple of hours anyway

Do you really think there will be some grand naval battles in the future?

its possible the sudden collapse oil prices has changed priorities

PapaDragon wrote:

Gorshkov with 3x8 UKSK did a lot to remove need for Gorshkov-M, 24 heavy missiles are no joke especially if they are Onyx/Zircon

My guess is that designers were told to come up with enlarged Gorshkov and to keep it simple but as usual they went full retard and in complete disregard for reality they drew up some idiotic bullshit like that Anime-class Lider that's still making rounds on meme websites and would be just as simple and logical to build

Likely what happened was that RuN realized that steel and missile capacity is dirt cheap compared to what actually makes up a warships cost: systems. I imagine they wish they had done it far earlier if they had known import substitution for the turbines would have taken so long or if they knew Crimean Spring was gonna happen at all.

Also, Krylov, the people behind that monstrosity aren't at all the people who made Gorshkov class, Krylov is to ships as TsAGI is to planes, they are a hydrodynamics facility that have a massive model testing facility where they test hulls for various factors such as efficiency, icebreaking performance, stability, etc.

They're actually very good at what they do, mainly being contracted by other actual naval design bureaus to do something like "my ship is this long and wide due to needing to cram UKSK into it, find me the most efficient bow that will allow the vessel to reach 27 knots".

However, when they go out and release the Lider model, or the Shturm aircraft carrier model, it's literally one of their design exercises, then people come along and go "is this Russia's next warship?", it isn't, it means literally nothing, zero.



I honestly think we're going to see cruiser far sooner rather than later, I mean, this UDC literally came out of the blue and it's not a small vessel, which illustrates my point above, it's not the displacement or size that drives up cost and build times, it's the systems, and for a large warship like a cruiser, you could very easily and it would be a very good idea in my opinion to use the KTM-6 4th gen reactor from 885M/955A as both it's reactor AND turbine are lifetime rated, i.e. no refueling, and no need for extensive turbine repairs/overhauls/etc like on Peter the Great/Nakhimov/Kuznetsov, it's a monoblock reactor with one turbine and one shaft, just stick two of them in and boom 15k ton warship. France does literally the same with with their aircraft carrier and their submarine reactors, just with worse reactors(no lifetime). Best thing is that this reactor is excellent design and performance, and in ACTIVE AND INCREASING PRODUCTION, which was precisely the factor for Gorshkov induction time. You get economy of scale kicking in for the cost of the reactor.

RuN has been around a while, they know the cost of ships.

No there is nothing promising about Lider. Lider class talk needs to die for at least a decade.

Focus on more Gorshkovs and Gorshlov-Ms

Does not really matter, Russias subs and planes with their focus on long range supersonic antiship missiles can take on those ships NP. I think Russia builds surface warships with the belief they are really to show the flag and a peace time weapon. In war it will be planes and subs that will be the only things that can survive.

Russia needs to be able to expand its trade to places not on its land borders, and to access such markets it needs to have a physical presence there. How can Russia trade with Venezuela if the US could simply impose a naval blockade and block naval traffic to and from the country?

Can Russia rely on the US or UK to help Russian flagged ships being attacked by Pirates in the various places of the world?

I doubt it.

She needs to be able to sort out her own problems using her own resources, but that means if she is operating in the south pacific or south atlantic or off the coast of africa or south america then it needs its own organic air power... which means aircraft carriers... which means cruisers and destroyers to support them and be supported.

Keep in mind the Russian concept of an aircraft carrier is not to invade a country, but to offer air protection to a group of surface vessels.

All these media sources are such crap. They feed sensationalist clickbait fragments that are basically worthless.

Sounds like the shipyards wanting decisions so they can make plans.... which is understandable from their position... they want to make boats, but for the Navy... they don't just want any boats... they want useful suitable boats because they are not getting hundreds of these things...

That's clearly not enough for long range missions. Those 24 needs to accomodate anti sub missiles, anti ship missiles and land attack missiles so more or less 8 of each type which is very low for any of those missions. Far away they don't have friendly bases to switch the missiles

It is a Frigate. For those long range missions it will have a Kirov with 80 missiles... each...

A single Arleigh burk can launch 50 tomahawks and still have enough anti air and anti sub missiles.

8 missiles is too low. It's even pathetic.

Yeah... 50 tomahawks shot down by two corvettes air defence missiles, while those 8 Zircons sink 8 American cruisers... pathetic.

Pathetic you think it would operate on its own, pathetic you are comparing a frigate with a cruiser...

However, when they go out and release the Lider model, or the Shturm aircraft carrier model, it's literally one of their design exercises, then people come along and go "is this Russia's next warship?", it isn't, it means literally nothing, zero.

X2

I honestly think we're going to see cruiser far sooner rather than later, I mean, this UDC literally came out of the blue and it's not a small vessel, which illustrates my point above, it's not the displacement or size that drives up cost and build time

As you mention as the ships get bigger the problems of Ukrainian engines disappear and nuke power plants come in to play which is bad for cost but good for performance.

Russia is never going to have enough big ships able to take on all of HATO... they don't need it.

What the do need is a group of ships that can operate together anywhere on the planet and fight as a group... in terms of SAMs and cruise/attack missiles they are already second to none.. they just need to build the ships... but they need to decide what ships to build first... so have some patience... when they are ready.

Isos wrote:


If 8 zirkons were needed to destroy 8 cruisers they would make they wouldn't bother making the Gorshkov better and bigger.

Sounds like they have come to that conclusion, perhaps the ongoing Tsirkon trials are going very well.

With a 40km engagement zone those Tomahawks can just go around the corvette.

It is forty kilometres for the small 9m96 missile... the bigger one goes 140km.

If 8 zirkons were needed to destroy 8 cruisers they would make they wouldn't bother making the Gorshkov better and bigger.

They are developing all sorts of new missiles they also want to use... plus all of HATO means lots of ships to shoot at... I doubt the US would attack Russia without blackmailing the British and the French and the Japs to join in too.

Some on the forum say Gorshkov is enough but on missions far away from home you need plenty of SAMs and UKSK. With 16 or 24 UKSK it would take 5 or 6 Gorshkov to equal a cruiser. They would need to send all fleet's Gorshkov at once.

The Gorshkov is a Frigate and will generally spend most of its time in and around Russian waters... their destroyers and cruisers on the other hand will need more missiles and also need to be bigger for longer periods away from port.

In Syria when tge grigorovitch launches its 4 kalibr at land target it is left with 4 cells for anti ship missiles or anti sub missiles. But at least she has 533mm torpedo and Tartus nearby. The less VLS you have the more you are limited.

It is a corvette... how long would you expect it to stay on station?

That is, the 22350 frigates will be canceled or they will be very late. The Russian Navy has increasingly miserable prospects

I realise making shit up is your thing... but really?

Nothing has been cancelled. Nothing has been decided.

Sounds like they have come to that conclusion, perhaps the ongoing Tsirkon trials are going very well.

Apart from internet warriors demanding destroyers and cruisers and carriers right fucking now, they have no reason to rush their decisions, because you can bet your ass if they make even the slightest mistake in their new designs those same internet warriors are going to be toxic.

The fact of the matter is that right now they have no use for 24 destroyers or 8 heavy cruisers or 2 CVNs... but over time they are going to develop international relations with countries all over this planet and they are going to have to create stable reliable lines of communication and transport to and from those countries that the US Navy, the British Navy, the French Navy and the Chinese Navy are not going to provide for them.

Isos wrote:

Big cruiser can last 50 years. If NATO comes up with a laser that can destroy the zirkon the 8 or 16 cells armed frigates will be useless and they won't be able to overwhelm opposing forces.

If NATO can do this then ultimately they have the doomsday Torpedo as their last security measure. But lasers will require targeting which is subject to countermeasures. Hypersonic weapons will operate in a cloud of plasma so targeting will be very difficult, they can release decoys and are already by definition extremely resistant to heat. Perhaps the first stage of the attack is a bunch of conventional smokescreen missiles to create haze in the direction of the attack. With a huge cruiser, you lose all that capacity with one hit. I am not so sure the Russians really need a lot of large ships. They seem to have embraced the SSGN as their "cruiser". Mess with the corvettes and hell will spring forth from underwater. Fire on a Russian ship and you may have a nasty surprise. That said it will be nice to see the first moded Kirov. I think this project gives them a distaste for large platforms and will also be the test of value of lage platforms before they decide if they really need many of them. NATO shits it pants even when Gorshkov is spotted.

Isos wrote:Big cruiser can last 50 years...

So does a frigate

Isos wrote:If NATO comes up with a laser that can destroy the zirkon...

If that happens Russia will have much bigger problems than some destroyers

Isos wrote:That's why they need a new destroyer build around many VLS...

And where would that destroyer go exactly? What specific spot on the planet would be it's area of operations?

Job of Russian Navy is to look for submarines and keep enemy fleets away from Russia

This is accomplished by a having more ships not by having fewer large ships who can only cover small area

Even if Tsirkon is countered by a laser weapon. The Russians still have Caliber M54AE which will approach low and then accelerate to supersonic in final stage. This gives all the same problems as CWIS with targeting. (20-40 seconds) Not sure what the window is with Tsirkon as we do not know the approach profile and what manuver options there are on approach. Maybe you have 2 tsirkons in formation, one dropping decoys and emitting smoke to shield the approach. Who knows..so many options to counter just about any super weapon.

The thing is that they are probably much better off with a destroyer that is not carrying a billion dollars worth of missiles, but spending that extra money saved by buying perhaps 18-24 Destroyers... and eventually perhaps 6-8 Cruisers and 2 CVNs, with perhaps 4 Helicopter landing craft or so...

Not saying a lot of missiles is bad or lots of missile tubes are bad, but unified tubes that allow attack missiles or SAMs to be carried would be a definite improvement... if UKSK-M can carry any type of SAM as well as attack missile it means instead of having 20 Redut launchers and 10 launchers especially designed for S-400 and S-500 and then fitting 40 UKSK launcher bins, that instead they could have say 60 UKSK-M... but that can actually carry more missiles.

The tubes on the UKSK are big so even fitting 16 9M100 small short range IIR guided missiles in one layer in the top means probably 7-8m of empty space below that layer. WIth the Redut launcher, which is likely much more shallow... perhaps 4-6 metres deep you might fit 2-3 layers of 9M100 missiles, but with UKSK-M that could be 3-4 layers of the smallest missiles... I mean if you are going to make it totally universal why not load TOR missiles in it too.

Each layer could have a base that can be ejected after the missiles above it are all gone revealing the next layer for use.

Obviously you would need to make sure the different layers in a tube are the same type of missile... it would be a bit silly having to launch 3 small SAMs so you could use the cruise missiles loaded below them, but then if you have attack missiles that don't fill the tube to the bottom perhaps some short range CIWS missiles underneath would come in handy after that attack missile has been launched.

The great thing is that we are having these chats.... I remember in the 1990s talking to old British sea dogs telling me the Soviet and Russian plan for anti ship missiles was stupid because they had to be huge by definition which means you need huge ships to carry them which makes them more expensive to deploy so you will never be able to deploy thousands of supersonic anti ship missiles because the cost of such a fleet of cruisers would bankrupt them...

Like things they have gotten smaller and lighter and faster and longer ranged and now... Ironically.... Russian ships can carry more supersonic anti ship missiles than most western ships carry subsonic anti ship missiles.... how things have changed...

192 Missiles on a 10k ton ship? Lol please get into the work of shipbuilding, that would make the ship's superstructure very unstable.

You know a ship needs room for things other than missiles right?.

You just can't stick hundreds of missiles into a ship and expect the thing to work well.

Same old same old logic.



Back in the 90's if the Russian tried to deploy a large fleet of cruisers (assume we talking like 17k ton range)

That would have caused them economic grief, Of course, that was then and this is now.

Use common sense before opening yours, those USUK launchers require a big enough of space around and under them, Weight isn't the only problem when building a ship.

But you are talking weird to me, Are you saying Carrying just missiles or enough tubes for 192 missiles.

If your talking about enough tubes you don't know anything about making a warship and this convo is done. I believe someone pointed this out time and time again but you choose to keep denying it again that's if you meant this.

If you mean the ship just carrying 192 missiles then, I misunderstood you based on how your typing and that's my bad.

Yeah that idea isn't feasible at all. There are reasons things aren't quad packed in that way.

Nuke propulsion? That is such a vague term, I have no clue what you mean.

There is generally ZERO reasons to try and use nuclear propulsion for missiles, Nuclear power is expensive, requires more space and it really doesn't offer a speed difference.

For things like ICBM's it makes some sense as they need to travel extreme distances but for Anti-Ship and Anti-Air missiles, Nuclear power is pointless. Conventional methods due the job just fine.

I feel like you watched some sci-fi movie and got weird ideas from that.

Yeah that idea isn't feasible at all. There are reasons things aren't quad packed in that way.

The 9M96 missiles are designed specifically so that four will fit in the space of one bigger S-300 or S-400 tube, and the smaller 9M100 is designed specifically so that four missiles will fit inside a 9M96 tube... that is the purpose of the missile design.

A naval launch tube can take one S-400 missile in the 250km or 400km flight range versions, but in that tube you could alternatively fit four 9M96 missiles either with 150km range or 60km range for the smaller of the two. This means one Redut launcher tube can either carry one S-400 or four 9M96 or 16 9M100 missiles each and that is without stacking missiles on top of one another.

The land based S-350 has two rows of 6 missiles on a truck mounted TEL... each of the 12 missiles carried in total can be replaced with four 9M100 missiles. The 12 standard missiles it carries are 9M96 missiles. You have seen the four 9M96 missiles mounted in the place of one launch tube for the S-400 so you can see for yourself they fit.

Nuclear propulsion for the ship. That would free some space for more uksk.

And would take away speed and endurance limits away from the ship.... it can run at full speed for as long as it wants...

Probably the main question will be also about the redut VLS or UKSK-M combination in this new ship class.

Well that is the question isn't it.

I rather suspect the smaller ships like Corvettes and Frigates might retain UKSK and Redut because of the depth the UKSK-M needs to fit everything into it might make it deeper than the UKSK launcher, and for smaller ships the Redut does not have the depth for the full length S-400 missiles or indeed the S-500, but corvettes and frigates wont really need to shoot down satellites or ICBMs and SLBMs much.

Better to leave that to destroyers and cruisers and carriers...