Military Review

Promising destroyer Leader will be with a nuclear power plant

97
A source in the military-industrial complex (MIC) reported on Thursday that the draft design of a promising destroyer for the Russian Navy "Leader" (23560 project, export version "Squall") was approved by the Ministry of Defense with a nuclear power plant.

Earlier, USC Vice-President Igor Ponomarev announced at the Army-2017 forum that the Ministry of Defense approved the draft Leader project, but at that time it was not reported which power plant the military department chose: nuclear or gas turbine.

Promising destroyer Leader will be with a nuclear power plant


The draft design assumes the presence of a nuclear power plant on a promising destroyer. This project is approved by the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation
- said the agency interlocutor

The draft design of the 23560 Leader destroyer (the Squall export version) was developed by the Northern Design Bureau, the ship will have a displacement of about thousands of tons around 17,5, 200 meters in length and 20 meters in width. "Leader" will be able to reach speeds up to 30 nodes and carry out autonomous voyages of up to 90 days duration. The squadron will be armed with 60 anti-ship cruise missiles, 128 anti-aircraft guided missiles and 16 anti-submarine guided missiles.
Photos used:
CC BY-SA 4.0 / Artem Tkachenko
97 comments
Ad

Subscribe to our Telegram channel, regularly additional information about the special operation in Ukraine, a large amount of information, videos, something that does not fall on the site: https://t.me/topwar_official

Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. A1845
    A1845 31 August 2017 10: 57
    0
    So, did not agree with Rybinsk?
    badly..
    1. Zibelew
      Zibelew 31 August 2017 11: 06
      +15
      Anyway, this is from the realm of fantasy. Work from these floodlights at Rybinsk will no longer be. Every year we hear nonsense about destroyers, despite the fact that we are building corpses for 2 kilotons for 8 years on the remains of Soviet industry.
      1. Muvka
        Muvka 31 August 2017 11: 19
        +12
        A submarine of the same displacement in a year and a half. Do you think that submarines are simpler than surface ships? Maybe you do not need to extrapolate some cases to the entire industry?
        1. Zibelew
          Zibelew 31 August 2017 11: 24
          +12
          For 17 years, 3 Borea and 1,5 Ashen were built under the guarantor. Moreover, some of them consist of Soviet backlogs. Project 636 Varshavyanka worked out, including for export, so it does not create problems. But this is not a new project.
          1. Muvka
            Muvka 31 August 2017 11: 45
            +16
            Army began to engage in the early 10s. At the same time, after the failure of 90, at first it was necessary to increase and re-equip the most critical areas of GDP - this is the Strategic Missile Forces. You won’t find money for everything at once. Now engaged in aviation. Satellite constellation. The case will come and the fleet will be updated. And Varshavyanka also collect from the reserve?
            1. Sevastiec
              Sevastiec 31 August 2017 12: 02
              +21
              To be honest, you don’t have to say anything about money. For how much money was in the fat 00s, it would be possible to build a fleet equal to the American one. According to the Courchevels, it was squandered, but palaces built, and trillions were taken out of the country ... And now, the problem is not in the money, but not in its intended use. The state earns and collects taxes a lot of money, but most of it simply dissolves, not even because of corruption, but because of the inability to handle it. We just have NO economists from the word in general, some accountants. It’s funny to listen to the excuses, they say: “oh well, we must be able to build ships cheaper, we don’t need such a fleet as the US, we must be able to save ... blah blah blah. But I would like to hear from our leadership that we, with our brains and our potential, will become richer than the United States and build a fleet more than the United States, and in general so that they do not flutter and sit quietly. Eternal damn, moaning in favor of the poor ...
              1. Muvka
                Muvka 31 August 2017 12: 22
                +7
                In fat zero money, not only went to the defense industry. The country began to rebuild. People pay a pension. Remember the year 99. The average pension was something like 1,5 thousand. Yes, the ruble was stronger then, but not so much. And when your industrial relations are destroyed and many industries are destroyed - how much money you don’t have, you won’t be able to produce anything high-tech.
                1. Greg Miller
                  Greg Miller 31 August 2017 18: 13
                  +10
                  The Prime Minister began to tidy up the country, although this did not last long, only 7 months, although much more was done than in the next 17 years of the “new Yeltsinism”, and then the Yeltsinism returned and no longer let go of power from its hands. The Chinese are rightly talking about present, advanced Russia - "Slowly sinking ship" ... Slowly, but still sinking ....
              2. bk316
                bk316 31 August 2017 12: 57
                +6
                Courchevel promoted

                Looks like you were not in Courchevel, you do not squander in this village not only the fleet, but one AUG
                In general, about palaces and kurshavely, I certainly understand that for beggars, everything that is more expensive than 10 kilobax is a billiard, but somehow it began to get ....
              3. aybolyt678
                aybolyt678 31 August 2017 23: 52
                0
                Quote: Sevastiec
                build a fleet more than the United States

                BETTER THAN THE USA !!!
          2. Tusv
            Tusv 31 August 2017 12: 12
            +1
            Quote: Zibelew
            For 17 years, 3 Borea and 1,5 Ashen were built under the guarantor.

            Well, if you take the American system with their initial combat readiness, then 4 and 3. And if in our (or on the database for nefig) 3 and 1. And who is asked more hopes for uriapatriots? I am glad another, 10 are already under construction
          3. Evgeniy667b
            Evgeniy667b 31 August 2017 12: 40
            +8
            This destroyer will not be 20-25 years old, and then it will be seen further. Bullshit is all this. But they are already considering the export option. Madhouse! Carriers, by the way, are also from this area.
        2. kapitan92
          kapitan92 31 August 2017 11: 37
          +7
          Quote: Muvka
          A submarine of the same displacement in a year and a half.

          A year and a half, this is not enough, but 2 years is a real term. Submarine Kolpino Project 636.3 (30.10.14 - 24.11.16.)
          Submarines of this type in the series, a project of the USSR, technologies have been developed, there are no problems with dvigunami.
      2. 210ox
        210ox 31 August 2017 11: 37
        +2
        Let's not hysteria ... Yes, Soviet power was stolen. But still better than nothing.
        Quote: Zibelew
        Anyway, this is from the realm of fantasy. Work from these floodlights at Rybinsk will no longer be. Every year we hear nonsense about destroyers, despite the fact that we are building corpses for 2 kilotons for 8 years on the remains of Soviet industry.
  2. Warnoob
    Warnoob 31 August 2017 10: 57
    +9
    “Will,” “provides,” “will.” ... All this is nothing more than farting into the water. Of all the "promising" ships, only the Storm has a more or less sane date of construction - after 2025. I have very sad thoughts about the fate of this project.
    1. 210ox
      210ox 31 August 2017 11: 41
      +2
      And I don’t have it. They’ll build it .. We look at the point above. By the way, what's up with the new shipyard in the Far East?
      Quote: WarNoob
      “Will,” “provides,” “will.” ... All this is nothing more than farting into the water. Of all the "promising" ships, only the Storm has a more or less sane date of construction - after 2025. I have very sad thoughts about the fate of this project.
      1. Tusv
        Tusv 31 August 2017 12: 19
        +2
        Quote: 210ox
        By the way, what's up with the new shipyard in the Far East?

        Well, the Koreans have not yet come out of the Superyacht project. So the patient is more likely alive than dead.
      2. arnar114
        arnar114 31 August 2017 17: 29
        +2
        with the shipyard - "almost nothing"! A hull processing workshop was built. You can build non-self-propelled dies. The slipway is not ready. There are no workers or specialists. There is no housing. Shallow bay, dredging is needed. Ship equipment in the country is not produced. You can continue for a long time ...
  3. Mavrikiy
    Mavrikiy 31 August 2017 10: 57
    +2
    It would be so long ago. And then where to get the gas turbine? Develop test, slowly. In the meantime, a nuclear power plant is a good solution.
    1. zhekazs
      zhekazs 31 August 2017 11: 56
      +2
      NPP, a good solution.

      And besides worked out. And let Rybinsk develop and work out his own, so that it would not be so that the destroyer will be built and will stand two-thirds of the time in repair due to the unworked production technology.
    2. Boa kaa
      Boa kaa 31 August 2017 15: 01
      +6
      Quote: Mavrikiy
      In the meantime, a nuclear power plant is a good solution.

      You can’t even imagine what operational and tactical advantages nuclear power plants provide!
      No need to lay dairy cows on the sea (guard-defend). General Deployment Speed ​​- 25 Nodes - Easy! Energy - the sea! If you want to fall with a lazar, you want to irrigate with a beam, and you want to organize a REP like on the shore!
      Yes, there will be a RB zone, but it only disciplines, the demandingness and control increase. And the new dvigla will apparently already be working on new icebreakers, so they will build it quickly, if only the filling goes without comment.
      IMHO.
      1. Mavrikiy
        Mavrikiy 31 August 2017 16: 50
        0
        My young friend. Common sense replaces me.
        My father used to say: "Son, what are you saying, I have long forgotten."
        Everything was already there, and nuclear powered ships have been "plowing the expanses of the universe" for 70 years.
        Thank you. good
        Yes, the Maritimes will be fun to serve.
    3. arnar114
      arnar114 31 August 2017 17: 40
      0
      And you to the nuclear power plant "what side"? I recommend a little familiarity with the composition of the installation and mass-dimensional characteristics. Nuclear submarines, over 30-35 years of operation, have an operating time of nuclear power plants of 25-34000 hours (an average of a little more than a month per year). Has anyone ever thought about recycling such ships? BARZK "Ural" pr.1941 has already been discharged for 9 years and there is no solution for the reactor compartment. The same problems will be with the “Eagles”.
      1. Mavrikiy
        Mavrikiy 31 August 2017 17: 47
        +2
        Quote: arnar114
        And you to the nuclear power plant "what side"? I recommend a little familiarity with the composition of the installation and mass-dimensional characteristics. Nuclear submarines, over 30-35 years of operation, have an operating time of nuclear power plants of 25-34000 hours (an average of a little more than a month per year). Has anyone ever thought about recycling such ships? BARZK "Ural" pr.1941 has already been discharged for 9 years and there is no solution for the reactor compartment. The same problems will be with the “Eagles”.

        Sorry. Thought up to you and for you. Both the "Lenin" and the nuclear submarines have been dismantled and disposed of.
        There are always problems if you do business, and not howl at the moon.
  4. bagr69
    bagr69 31 August 2017 10: 59
    0
    "This is all untrue," "This is all Mosfilm!" ©
  5. Vita vko
    Vita vko 31 August 2017 11: 08
    +3
    Judging by the add-ons and the number of missiles, the ship will perform not only air defense tasks, but also missile defense. For this, the power plant is also selected more powerfully.
    1. Aaron Zawi
      Aaron Zawi 31 August 2017 11: 31
      +4
      Quote: Vita VKO
      Judging by the add-ons and the number of missiles, the ship will perform not only air defense tasks, but also missile defense. For this, the power plant is also selected more powerfully.

      The project is more like an atomic cruiser.
      1. g1v2
        g1v2 31 August 2017 11: 50
        +2
        This is the atomic cruiser, and with a displacement more than Atlantes. Arsenal ship. Piece goods. Many of these will not be. request
        1. ZVO
          ZVO 31 August 2017 13: 50
          +3
          Quote: g1v2
          This is the atomic cruiser, and with a displacement more than Atlantes. Arsenal ship. Piece goods. Many of these will not be. request


          Those. Tiki and Burke - aren't arsenal ships? And they are not built almost 100 pieces?
          1. g1v2
            g1v2 31 August 2017 15: 04
            +1
            Are not. Would - they would not have been built so much. Berks are normal destroyers. Although the Tiki are called cruisers, in fact they are also destroyers. Yes, and do not build Ticonderoga for a long time. Last (Port Royal) in the year 94 surrendered.
            1. ZVO
              ZVO 31 August 2017 17: 27
              +3
              Quote: g1v2
              Are not. Would - they would not have been built so much. Berks are normal destroyers. Although the Tiki are called cruisers, in fact they are also destroyers. Yes, and do not build Ticonderoga for a long time. Last (Port Royal) in the year 94 surrendered.


              Are. And they built them in an amount of almost 100 units only in order to control the entire globe.
              So that anywhere in the world it would be possible to deliver the strongest blow within 1-3 days. And within 4-5 days - 4-5 burks will gather at the point of impact. And there will be a much more massive blow.
              And do not wait. until a single ship arrives in 2-3 weeks ...

              The enemy needs to know.
              And do not try to belittle its ability simply because. that he is an enemy ...
      2. Tusv
        Tusv 31 August 2017 12: 29
        +1
        Quote: Aaron Zawi
        The project is more like an atomic cruiser

        A NATO cruiser is no longer in vogue. Ticonderoga type displacement 9800, Arly Burke - 9600. Fuck them understand these bourgeois, where the destroyer, and where the cruiser what
    2. bagr69
      bagr69 31 August 2017 12: 07
      +3
      EW tools also require quite impressive energy resources.
      1. Tusv
        Tusv 31 August 2017 12: 50
        +3
        Quote: bagr69
        EW tools also require quite impressive energy resources.

        Oh oh The autonomy of the P-15 radar was quietly supported by the engine from Moskvichyonka hi
  6. The comment was deleted.
  7. Paul zewike
    Paul zewike 31 August 2017 11: 28
    +1
    And on this occasion to cram there lasers and electromagnetic weapons. To fear enemies. It needs to be launched into space.
    1. Zibelew
      Zibelew 31 August 2017 11: 32
      +5
      That is not. Put on so that there are 9 main guns and so that no less than 410 mm. So there are more torpedoes, more atomic ones. So that the armor was wow, so that the ship could be put in line, like armadillos. A nuclear reactor (but better than 3) for speed, ninety kilometers an hour is enough. And more calibers, more ...
      1. Paul zewike
        Paul zewike 31 August 2017 11: 51
        +1
        But I'm still for the lasers.
        1. GELEZNII_KAPUT
          GELEZNII_KAPUT 31 August 2017 13: 17
          +1
          Quote: Paul Zewike
          But I'm still for the lasers.

          Well, when they begin to go into orbit, then you can hang lasers again! soldier
          1. viktor007
            viktor007 31 August 2017 14: 11
            +1
            everyone knows the plasma is slaughtering more deadly, and looks better - green, Mythos Games will not let you lie.
      2. Boa kaa
        Boa kaa 31 August 2017 15: 06
        +3
        Quote: Zibelew
        Nuclear reactor (but better 3) for speed,

        Two, one by one and on board. So arrange? feel
  8. Lester7777
    Lester7777 31 August 2017 11: 32
    +2
    And is it possible so far something simpler, without reactors and antigravity, but that here and now? Poke holes cheaply and angrily, and only then swing at ambitious projects. And, if my memory serves me right, the Yankees did not pull the destroyers from the nuclear power plant at one time.
    1. The comment was deleted.
      1. bagr69
        bagr69 31 August 2017 12: 12
        +1
        Quote: viktor007
        they now have the most experience in the latest military shipbuilding and operation (very active), plus they know how to calculate costs.

        The thesis is very controversial, given the recent events with the ramming of merchant ships and the dangerous maneuvering near our Navy ships, also the largest costs in the world should translate into efficiency, but it is not ...
        1. viktor007
          viktor007 31 August 2017 12: 56
          0
          nothing controversial, compare the US and Russian fleets in size and activity, all questions will disappear,
          individual jambs with such colossal work as the amers will crawl out inappropriately, in our case, if one admiral, the blacksmith, generates an emergency as a squadron.
          1. bagr69
            bagr69 31 August 2017 13: 20
            +1
            And who said that size is an indicator of effectiveness ??? The entire US fleet is a bunch of floating airfields with numerous escort ships, each of which has its own separate function. In the 80s and 90s, it was undeniably powerful, but military science does not stand still and now this is in all senses the last century. A group target, all the more so huge, oh how easy it is now to detect and attack. After all, the ship doesn’t even need to be drowned: to damage the deck of the aircraft carrier or to damage the navigation tower of the destroyer ... and that’s all, sailed - you can board from "motor boats". And to the account "around the world" - but how to master the trillion-dollar military budgets, anchored in the harbor?
            In Russia, on the contrary, there is a small maneuverable fleet, where each ship is self-sufficient and able to withstand the squadron alone, because possesses all the necessary weapons of diverse and special purpose. means.
            1. viktor007
              viktor007 31 August 2017 13: 42
              +5
              Is humor so specific ??? last paragraph ???
              1. bagr69
                bagr69 31 August 2017 14: 26
                0
                Humor??? The history of the Russian Navy knows many examples of the successful confrontation of single ships against many times the enemy forces (http://www.russiapost.su/archives/8529). So there is nothing funny (for our military opponents, of course).
                1. The comment was deleted.
                  1. alexxxxz
                    alexxxxz 31 August 2017 14: 49
                    0
                    Crush? Hardly! No one counts! Heroically die causing maximum damage? Wow! This is in our tradition.
                  2. bagr69
                    bagr69 31 August 2017 15: 18
                    +1
                    Fir-trees, who ever said that our fleet should go straight into the rampage against the enemy fleet? There are various successful tactics of warfare. I repeat once again: we ask for favors, we will meet with dignity.
                2. Alexey RA
                  Alexey RA 31 August 2017 16: 03
                  +2
                  Quote: bagr69
                  Humor??? The history of the Russian Navy knows many examples of the successful confrontation of single ships against many times the enemy forces (http://www.russiapost.su/archives/8529). So there is nothing funny (for our military opponents, of course).

                  As I understand it, do you offer our ships to successfully run away from a qualitatively and quantitatively superior enemy, causing minimal damage to it? For the feat of the Mercury brig is just the story of how one brig reconnaissance escaped from two LCs that were superior in speed and armament.
                  And, by the way, the brig was able to leave not only thanks to Kazarsky’s excellent maneuvering, but also because the Turks did not want to take any particular risks in the presence of somewhere over the horizon Black Sea Fleet squadron (to which the pursued brig obviously went). Otherwise, the Turks would pursue the "Mercury" right up to the nearest Russian base. So the "single ship" in this case is a ship + superior to the enemy in terms of the strength of the squadron.
                  1. Vladimir1155
                    Vladimir1155 31 August 2017 20: 20
                    0
                    the brig mercury, the Turkish battleships that had escaped from the squadron, was small in size ..... the most invisible ships can quickly hide in any bay, pretending to be a seiner, it is the RF that they need to protect the coastal zone ... specifically the brig left the enemies in calm oars , and at Grengam the Russians attacked and captured 6 Swedish frigates on the docks ..... constrained by their draft, the conclusion ... better than a dozen other so-needed karakurt or three to five nuclear submarines, than an unnecessary destroyer the size of a battleship ... afraid to call him a battleship ... who do you want to deceive?
                    1. Alexey RA
                      Alexey RA 1 September 2017 11: 13
                      +1
                      Quote: vladimir1155
                      the brig mercury, who had escaped the Turkish battleships from the squadron, was its small size ...

                      The advantage of the brig was its commander and crew, who kept the optimal distance from the Turkish LC and did not expose the ship to the airborne volley. The Turks also contributed, which, judging by the nature of the damage, beat mainly with buckshot, and beyond its effective range.
                      Quote: vladimir1155
                      the maoye ships are more inconspicuous, they can quickly hide in any bay to pretend to be a seiner, it is the RF that they need to protect the coastal zone ...

                      The Libyans also thought so - in the mid-80s they tried to approach the MRC to the American squadron, lost in the crowd of fishing vessels. The result - one inclusion of an MRK radar was enough for the Americans to detect it, classify it, issue a missile defense and hit it.
                      Quote: vladimir1155
                      concreto brig left the enemy in calm oars

                      As I understand it, you did not read the report of Kazarsky himself ...
                      Using this circumstance, he resorted to the only means of speeding up the oars, hoping by means of them to increase the distance separating the brig from the enemy: but not even half an hour had passed before the wind freshened again, the ships began to approach the brig and opened fire on it from linear guns . Seeing the complete impossibility of avoiding an unequal battle, he gathered advice from the officers. The lieutenant of the navigational corps PROKOFIEV, from whom the first was required an opinion, suggested “to blow up the brig when it is brought to extremes”. Owing to this opinion, unanimously accepted by all, it was supposed to defend to the last possible opportunity, and if the mast was shot down, or a large leak opened, then grapple with the nearest enemy ship, and that officer who remains alive should light up the hook camera, for which he put on a spire gun. After that, turning to the lower ranks, he explained to them what the Sovereign expects of them and what the honor of the imperial flag requires, found the same feelings in the team as in the officers: everyone unanimously announced that they would be fully faithful to their duty and oath. Reassured by such general unanimity, he ordered the oars to cease action, put people to the cannons, throw the yale hanging behind the stern into the sea, and open fire from the ports of retirement.

                      That is, before the start of the battle, the brig tried to take advantage of the weakening of the wind and leave on the oars - but the wind intensified, and the team had to remove the oars and prepare for the battle “on sailing draft”. And “Mercury” left on the sails - taking advantage of that. that his team’s training turned out to be much higher than that of the Turks - those in the process of combat maneuvering, trying to take an optimal position for fire on the brig, in the end simply lost the wind.
                      Quote: vladimir1155
                      and at Grengam the Russians attacked and captured 6 Swedish frigates on the docks ..... constrained by their draft

                      You still give an example of Salamis. smile
                      With the KR with a range of 1200-2500 km and aircraft carrier-aircraft missile systems with a combat radius of 900-1200 km, no one will climb ships to places tactically advantageous for the work of RTOs. Your small ships will simply be knocked out of thin air.
                      Quote: vladimir1155
                      better a dozen other so-needed karakurt or three to five nuclear submarines, than an unnecessary destroyer the size of a battleship ...

                      This is all we have already gone through - having thumped people's money into the "mosquito fleet". And then it turned out that for the same TCA it was not speed that was important, but seaworthiness and at least some sort of air defense, which it was impossible to provide with the Tupolev "floats".
                      1. Vladimir1155
                        Vladimir1155 3 September 2017 22: 39
                        0
                        about seaworthiness ..... at MRK and MPK it is sufficient, about air defense, we need a small air defense ship in addition to the MPK MRK and Minesweepers .... and to the heap .... surface bark boats currently perform only auxiliary tasks in the vicinity of their shores under the protection of coastal aviation and ground bastions, the main tasks of the Navy are carried out only by submarines
            2. Ryazan87
              Ryazan87 31 August 2017 14: 20
              +6
              - "The US Navy - this is a bunch of floating airfields with numerous escort ships" - 14 underwater strategists alone. And a cute little thing - 14 Virginia + 3 Sivulfa.
              - "each of which has its own separate function." - especially “Arly Burke”: “Ships of this type are able to successfully operate in a variety of conditions, both in peacetime and during periods of their participation in wars and military operations, while performing a wide variety of tasks: from delivering missile attacks on enemy territory to "anti-aircraft, anti-ship and anti-submarine defense of ships and naval units of the US Navy."
              - “Oh, how easy it is to detect and attack now” - what do you suggest attacking? In the Soviet period, the AUG was calculated to be destroyed only with the use of special warheads. And not one.
              - "In Russia, on the contrary, a small maneuverable fleet, where every ship is self-sufficient and I am able to stand alone against the squadron "- are you embarrassed to ask, are you going to buttle with the squadron at Karakurt? Or at the Perfect?
              - "After all, the ship doesn’t even need to be sunk: to damage the deck of the aircraft carrier or damage the navigation tower of the destroyer ... and that’s all, sailed - you can board” - well, that September 1 already tomorrow.
              1. bagr69
                bagr69 31 August 2017 14: 49
                0
                In general, we are talking about "conventional" weapons, not a submarine strategic fleet. What can I say, God forbid, of course, but as soon as the US squadron, with bad intentions, approaches, say, the Crimea, and we will see for whom September 1 will need to be arranged, and what to confront. Over our rich history of hunters, there were many, but not the number conceived played a decisive role.
                1. Ryazan87
                  Ryazan87 31 August 2017 16: 00
                  +2
                  "In general, we are talking about" conventional "weapons" - 22 URA cruisers and 64 destroyers - what will you meet? one "Peter the Great"? or the self-sufficient "Vasily Bykov"?
                  "... as soon as the US squadron with bad intentions approaches, say, the Crimea," - nothing but the special warhead will help. No, of course, if the squadron will work in splendid isolation, and we will connect the aviation (all of the South-East Military District, preferably), then maybe that will happen. It depends on which squadron.
                  “For our rich history of hunters there were many” - specifically, a serious fleet of Western countries entered the Black Sea once. In the year 1854. What ended up for the Russian fleet, you know for sure.
                  In 1914, “Goeben” was enough to stump everyone for 3 years in advance.
                  In 1941-45 ... it’s better not to remember.
                  So be careful with historical examples.
                  1. bagr69
                    bagr69 31 August 2017 16: 10
                    0
                    Quote: Ryazanets87
                    In 1941-45 ... it’s better not to remember.

                    Well, well, so the Americans won, then I have no more questions.
                    1. Ryazan87
                      Ryazan87 31 August 2017 16: 50
                      0
                      "I have no more questions then" - and fine, write less nonsense. You are our boarding.
                      1. bagr69
                        bagr69 31 August 2017 16: 59
                        0
                        Blessed is he who believes ...
                  2. Vladimir1155
                    Vladimir1155 31 August 2017 20: 06
                    0
                    You need to meet the American squadron with bastions, land-based aircraft, and a submarine fleet, .... and not with one stupid battleship called a destroyer
            3. Alexey RA
              Alexey RA 31 August 2017 15: 11
              +5
              Quote: bagr69
              The entire US fleet is a bunch of floating airfields with numerous escort ships, each of which has its own separate function. In the 80s and 90s, it was undeniably powerful, but military science does not stand still and now this is in all senses the last century.

              I’m afraid that your data on the US Navy is also from the last century. The time of specialized ships, such as the same "UHP", "Knox", "Spruyensov", has long passed. Nowadays, AB escort ships are nowhere more versatile: both air defense, anti-aircraft defense, and shore work. And after receiving LRASM, an escort can (in theory) fight the enemy’s NK even without AB.
              Quote: bagr69
              A group target, all the more so huge, oh how easy it is now to detect and attack.

              It used to be easy - when each AUG was accompanied by ICAPL, surface ships, and air defense missile systems, plus the "Legend" worked. And then AV overslept, having arranged an imitation of a blow to the Kuril Islands. And could not find the AB that worked from the corner - from the fjords of Norway.
              Quote: bagr69
              In Russia, on the contrary, there is a small maneuverable fleet, where each ship is self-sufficient and able to withstand the squadron alone, because possesses all the necessary weapons of diverse and special purpose. means.

              Yeah ... apparently that is why the Soviet admirals persistently demanded their aircraft carriers - to cover up those very "self-sufficient" ships. smile
        2. ZVO
          ZVO 31 August 2017 13: 56
          +2
          Quote: bagr69
          Quote: viktor007
          they now have the most experience in the latest military shipbuilding and operation (very active), plus they know how to calculate costs.

          The thesis is very controversial, given the recent events with the ramming of merchant ships and the dangerous maneuvering near our Navy ships, also the largest costs in the world should translate into efficiency, but it is not ...


          There is efficiency - all countries of the world are afraid of a full-scale armed conflict with the United States.
          ALL!
          Everything.
          Whether you want it or not.
          For everyone will lose.
          The only thing in the event of a conflict with Russia or China is that civilization will also die due to the use of nuclear weapons.
          In non-nuclear conflict, no country in the world. even China does not have as many military resources as the United States, and in a full-blown war, even China will not pull out.
          Resources are not Nichrome soldiers ...
          This is money, money, and again money.
          1. bagr69
            bagr69 31 August 2017 14: 07
            +2
            I don’t know how it is in the USA, but here you simply can’t mine ore and you won’t build a boat out of money (read virtual zeroes on the account, not even paper and gold). And if there was a non-nuclear conflict, another “grandmother said in two,” who will be in the military gain, who has thicker mineral resources or a wallet with virtual debt obligations.
            1. The comment was deleted.
            2. fzr1000
              fzr1000 1 September 2017 10: 08
              0
              Saudi Arabia and the Hussites look at you reproachfully. Yes, and the Taliban, too.
          2. Boa kaa
            Boa kaa 31 August 2017 15: 27
            +3
            Quote: ZVO
            Resources are not Nichrome soldiers ... They are money, money, and again money.
            And you are not the case of these, like him .... uh ... MONETARISTS !?
            If so, then I am ready to give you 100 rubles so that from them (instead of a cartridge!) They would shoot an “enemy” ...
            Therefore, do not carry nonsense. Not in kindergarten did you learn to read and write?
            If it’s very interesting, read about the structure of the BATTLE potential of the Armed Forces, the military organization of the state, so that the depth of your misconceptions about the "buy everything!"
            Ага.
            1. ZVO
              ZVO 31 August 2017 17: 33
              0
              Quote: BoA KAA
              Quote: ZVO
              Resources are not Nichrome soldiers ... They are money, money, and again money.
              And you are not the case of these, like him .... uh ... MONETARISTS !?
              If so, then I am ready to give you 100 rubles so that from them (instead of a cartridge!) They would shoot an “enemy” ...
              Therefore, do not carry nonsense. Not in kindergarten did you learn to read and write?
              If it’s very interesting, read about the structure of the BATTLE potential of the Armed Forces, the military organization of the state, so that the depth of your misconceptions about the "buy everything!"
              Ага.


              Look at the size of the US economy, the number of its defense industry, the amount of resources for the production of weapons and the army.
              This is money.
              All that is called mobilization reserve is money.
              You cannot build a single tank without money. not a single cartridge.
              To put not a single worker to the machine, not a single bowl of soup for a soldier to cook.
              Money is money.
      2. Boa kaa
        Boa kaa 31 August 2017 15: 14
        +4
        Quote: viktor007
        in my opinion such a strange trough nafig is not necessary even if it is really assembled, there are some doubts about it.

        Yes, everything is the same as Burke and Aegis. Marine missile defense in missile-hazardous directions. They won’t bring them down, so at least they’ll light them up and they will issue them in a timely manner. All SPRN to help. Well, they will carry Zircons. Scream AMG Yankees at distant approaches. Overlap the borders of NATO’s PLO so that our atomic carriers jump out into the Atlantic, and on occasion Amsk KONs are driven ... But you never know what tasks can be hung up on 17,5 ct live weight !!!
        The main thing is to have a neck, and there will always be a collar! (with)
        1. viktor007
          viktor007 31 August 2017 15: 40
          +2
          dumb shipyards, at such a weight, well, civilian shipbuilding was killed in our country, and without it in modern conditions, the fleet cannot be built, on time and in money,
          in fact, only the submarines are now being built normally, since there the shipyards with the surface fleet do not overlap much, and for surface ships the infrastructure is killed, 10-15 years for a couple of pennants from a couple of kilotons and higher, this is our shipbuilding.

          and you can design at least a super missile battleship for 200kt, ten years for designing twenty percent of the contract amount (design + prototype construction) to master and go forward into a bright future, on the carpet to the bosses - you couldn’t get into the economy due to objective processes, forgive us , well, and then go for a corporate party and tell what all around are effective managers.
    2. Bronevick
      Bronevick 31 August 2017 12: 11
      +1
      20386 could stamp 30 pieces, this would be enough for the eyes.
    3. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 31 August 2017 13: 38
      +4
      Quote: Lester7777
      And is it possible so far something simpler, without reactors and antigravity, but that here and now?

      Alas - it is impossible. For MTU diesels are gone. And the Nikolaev GTD - too.
      Domestic gas turbine engines promise in 2018-2019. But those ships for which these GTEs do have another problem - the Poliment-Redoubt.
      There are no goals, no capture - worked until sunset,
      There are goals, there is no capture - I worked until dawn.

      A Kolomna import substitution for diesels ... the past Kolomna's approach to the shell just forced the Navy to switch to MTU products.
      Quote: Lester7777
      And, if my memory serves me right, the Yankees did not pull the destroyers from the nuclear power plant at one time.

      Chihiks ... so a nuclear power plant is the only type of ship-borne power plant with which we have no problems. Here is such an entertaining engineering. smile
      Quote: Lester7777
      And, if my memory serves me right, the Yankees did not pull the Yankee destroyers at the time

      But the Yankees built atomic frigates. smile
      Which then for solidity reclassified to a cruiser.
  9. Atlant-1164
    Atlant-1164 31 August 2017 11: 39
    +3
    I do not believe .. (Stanislavsky)
    1. kepmor
      kepmor 31 August 2017 14: 46
      +1
      rather, our bentopods will win the World Cup-18 ... than our USC will build the Leader ...
  10. dvina71
    dvina71 31 August 2017 11: 44
    +6
    Destroyer? 200m? 17kT? .. What's the truth? Shy things ...
    1. viktor007
      viktor007 31 August 2017 11: 51
      0
      By the way, yes, I didn’t pay attention, did students consider the tonnage, did they defend the diploma or not? that’s interesting.
  11. Ryazan87
    Ryazan87 31 August 2017 11: 57
    +8
    In general, I agree with the commentators:
    Finally, we must really take a look at things and stop producing mock-up and dreamy nonsense. The Gorshkov example shows how much a project is being implemented with respect to a full-fledged warship. At the same time, the Navy would not be bad to give clear justifications and a plan for the construction of the fleet, its composition, and tasks. Fresh marine doctrine is a separation from reality, worse than Ukrainian models.
    Before dreaming about the armada of "nuclear destroyers", it is necessary to carry out large-scale modernization of the shipbuilding industry, increase technical competencies, and seriously improve the quality of management (including by tightening personal responsibility, including for idle chatter).
    Suppose, with a creak and a groan of about 15 years, 1-2 Leaders will be built (very unlikely). So what? What is the meaning of these ships?
    Hypothetically fighting a 70-80 Arly Burke? Or do African waters patrol?
    At the same time, the military should often recall that the budget is not a bottomless barrel. You offer structure, you offer filling - give a clear justification for what. Not in the format “In order to drown the American AUG.”
    1. PSih2097
      PSih2097 31 August 2017 12: 08
      +1
      Quote: Ryazanets87
      Suppose, with a creak and a groan of about 15 years, 1-2 Leaders will be built (very unlikely)

      I also doubt very much that I’m about 10 years old at the current pace of construction, and if we take into account the admiral’s Wishlist, I’m afraid there will be a second long-suffering “Gren” ...
      Quote: Ryazanets87
      So what? What is the meaning of these ships?

      but as someone said there, to work out the construction of large surface ships before the construction of the aircraft carrier 80+ ct.
    2. bk316
      bk316 31 August 2017 13: 20
      +5
      Well, you are right and wrong.
      Ukrainians said the same thing about the Crimean bridge, but the arch is already standing there. Here the effect is exponential, it is worth setting up production (personnel, manufacturing process, communications, management) and a jerk occurs.

      But why do we need such ships, even if not 1-2, but 10-20 is unclear. I have already said, and I will repeat, we need a full-fledged global satellite targeting-guidance system and all the kayuk to all AUGs, because no one else in 50 years will learn to shoot down maneuvering on a 20M warhead, but it costs a lot less.

      That is, we now have a chance to make another 50 nuclear shield 2.0 and live quietly behind it. Make quietly without armada snow-white steamers, pooh nuclear-powered ships.
      1. viktor007
        viktor007 31 August 2017 14: 59
        +1
        Yeah, only the infrastructure for the construction of the bridge - and the infrastructure for the construction of large vessels, are slightly different things.
        here pygsy do not pygsy if there are no personnel there are no shipyards, you won’t do anything, and you won’t buy anything, and do not care that you have money, anyway for 10-15 years 2 pennants will be built.

        a single warhead direct to the AUG will be knocked down, that’s what the American naval missile defense system is designed for at the moment, the ability to maneuver the warheads is greatly exaggerated in the press, in fact there’s the usual breaking of a trajectory in a narrow cone, nothing outrageous for current anti-missile brains, Americans are VERY advanced in guidance systems now.
        1. bk316
          bk316 31 August 2017 18: 46
          +3
          a single warhead straight to the AUG

          Not ... 4202 normally maneuvers, but separates several thousand kilometers from the target.
          And PC-28 will output it, and the apogee of PC-28, as I understand it, hoo, besides, as they say in the Moscow Region, it must implement the concept of orbital bombardment, that is, in half an hour it can fly to AUG on either side. A warhead will be not one but not less than 5.
          And all this is already in trials and by the year 20 is in service, and not in the layout And there are no problems with docks and people. By the way, the Chinese, despite their shipyards, seem to have gone the same way.
    3. ZVO
      ZVO 31 August 2017 13: 57
      +1
      Quote: Ryazanets87
      Suppose, with a creak and a groan of about 15 years, 1-2 Leaders will be built (very unlikely). So what? What is the meaning of these ships?


      Admiral's cabin ....
  12. NUR
    NUR 31 August 2017 11: 58
    +1
    All this would be good if the democrats lied with perestroika and did not come, otherwise all efforts are on the side. There were 1500 warships in the union, and where are they?
    1. K-612-O
      K-612-O 31 August 2017 13: 07
      +3
      Half of which was built in the 40-50s and was part of the fleet for quantity, they did not go to sea.
  13. san4es
    san4es 31 August 2017 12: 30
    +2

    The design of the promising destroyer Leader is included in the draft state armament program for 2018-2025, the construction of the ship is scheduled to begin in 2025. This was announced on Thursday by TASS a source in the Russian delegation at the International Naval Salon "IMDS-2017."
    “The construction of a promising destroyer will take about five years. Until 2025, its design was introduced to the GPV [state armament program], they will start building it at the same time or later, ”he said.
    The destroyer project under the code "Leader" is being developed at the Northern Design Bureau in St. Petersburg. As Igor Ponomarev, Vice President of the United Shipbuilding Corporation for Military Shipbuilding, specified on Wednesday, the Russian Defense Ministry has already agreed on the outline design of the ship.
    Shipyards of the United Shipbuilding Corporation (USC) will be able to start building several promising Leader class destroyers at once, the capacities allow, Igor Ponomarev, Vice President of the United Shipbuilding Corporation for Military Shipbuilding, told RIA Novosti on Wednesday.
    Earlier, a representative of the Navy and USC announced the possible start of construction of the leading promising Leader class destroyer in 2017-2018.
    “The timing of the construction of a promising destroyer will be determined after the completion of the technical design of the ship. OSK shipyards have the appropriate technical capabilities for the simultaneous construction of several ships of this class, ”said Ponomarev.

    http://bastion-opk.ru/lider-em/
  14. domnich
    domnich 31 August 2017 12: 52
    +12
    Quote: Sevastiec
    To be honest, you don’t have to say anything about money.


    Quote: Muvka
    In fat zero money, not only went to the defense industry.


    In these very 00s, we received on board the Navy 2 die-boat from industry the established procedure (first one, a year later - the second). In the documents in the column "price" it was listed for the first 5,8 million, for the second - 6,7 million (so on). The catalog on watercraft caught our eye - and there the coolest die-boat (not that we were given a "trough with a motor") costs 300-400 thousand And where, one wonders, have gone over 5 million budget money for every die? Of course, this is not the only example. In general, with the world on a thread - "naked" for a caftan, but there is no money for destroyers ...
  15. NEXUS
    NEXUS 31 August 2017 13: 18
    +3
    however, then it was not reported which power plant the military department chose: nuclear or gas turbine.

    Initially, two versions of this destroyer were considered, and it would be nice if both decided to build ... with a smaller GTU, naturally.
    And as for nuclear weapons, the RITM-200 stands in the Arctic, which was decided long ago to be put on the Leaders. But the very construction of these ships, or rather conversations now, is ridiculous and inappropriate ... why? We build Karakurt with a displacement of 800 tons for 2 years each! Yesterday, a watchtower of 1800 tons was launched into the water, which has already been under construction for 3 years, and on this watchtower, the cat cried out for weapons (RTOs for the poor) ... and looking at how we built RTOs, the conversations and announcements about the construction of Leaders sound ridiculous and inappropriate, as well as the construction of an aircraft carrier.
    1. The comment was deleted.
    2. Music
      Music 31 August 2017 17: 49
      0
      It’s just a replacement for Peter. About thirty years he will stretch. Then the Leader will arrive in time.
  16. alstr
    alstr 31 August 2017 13: 28
    +2
    But it’s interesting. The news above is about ICEBREAD Leader.
    I have a stupid question: But our shipbuilders and other managers will not get confused in the same names.
    And then they can build a sort of hybrid icebreaker with a destroyer.
    Although most likely it will be worse, they will not build either one or the other, confused that they still build in the end (((Alas.
    1. The comment was deleted.
  17. viktor007
    viktor007 31 August 2017 14: 46
    +2
    Quote: bagr69
    The history of the Russian Navy knows many examples of the successful confrontation of single ships against many times the enemy forces (http://www.russiapost.su/archives/8529). So there is nothing funny (for our military opponents, of course).


    is this a typical proposal to build a stealth of sailing ships from wood (with a whole tension, it will have to be from chipboard and plywood) and then storm Amer’s augs into boarding, or shoot them with cores from the cores?

    although I think you can try a sailboat - an icebreaker with a nuclear reactor, and certainly calibers, such a project will surely scare everyone.
    1. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 1 September 2017 11: 18
      0
      Quote: viktor007
      although I think you can try a sailboat - an icebreaker with a nuclear reactor, and certainly calibers, such a project will surely scare everyone.

      No-no-no ... only Battleship Pereslegin:
      speed not less than 38 knots;
      autonomy of the order of six to ten months;
      reservation of a belt, main artillery, cabin;
      providing opportunities for the placement of radar and sonar reconnaissance devices, electronic warfare.

      The requirements for speed and autonomy uniquely determine the nuclear power plant. Of course, there can be no question of placing on the ship a backup propulsion system using fossil fuels. Moreover, the 38-knot full speed speed requires a reduction in bioprotection mass and the installation of a supercritical reactor. (It is possible to use two reactors with a common neutron field and a variable neutron flux coupling coefficient. Such an installation is, of course, unsafe. But we must be aware that a warship is created to fight the enemy, and not to protect the environment. moreover, that the real harm from such a battleship is in any case less than from the supertanker.)
      Note that the proposed power plant allows you to force the power (due to changes in the absorption coefficient of neutrons in the wall separating the reactors). If necessary, you can even turn the battleship into a nuclear firewall.
      The artillery of the ship should include three three-gun turrets with a caliber of 12 - 14 inches. The guns should be equipped with active rockets with a maximum range of about 100 miles.
      The ship is not equipped with auxiliary artillery. Anti-aircraft and anti-ship defense is carried out by standard means: SAM, anti-aircraft missile launchers, depth charges, Sabrok-type installations.
      Instead of the fourth tower, an angular flight deck is placed: the armament of the battleship should include 4 to 5 light fighter-interceptors.
      Protection of the ship - armored belt on the waterline, armored deck, towers. Armor thickness 100 - 152 mm. The reservation scheme is classic.
      Radio-electronic equipment should significantly exceed that of a modern nuclear-powered cruiser.
      Ensuring the required characteristics is possible with a displacement of 45 - 50 thousand tons and a total capacity of the power plant of at least 160 megawatts.
  18. alexxxxz
    alexxxxz 31 August 2017 14: 54
    0
    Quote: bk316
    But why do we need such ships, even if not 1-2, but 10-20 is unclear. I have already said and will repeat

    What kind of ships do we need? Enlighten please ...
    1. Music
      Music 31 August 2017 17: 47
      0
      They will be a couple. To replace Peter ..
  19. alexxxxz
    alexxxxz 31 August 2017 14: 59
    +2
    Quote: san4es
    The design of the promising destroyer Leader is included in the draft state armament program for 2018-2025

    I just don’t understand one thing - 7 years on the project! Seven Carl !!! Is it up to a fig ??? Or SevPKB at the same time wants to learn how to design ships of this class at public expense?
  20. viktor007
    viktor007 31 August 2017 16: 33
    +2
    Quote: alexxxz
    Quote: san4es
    The design of the promising destroyer Leader is included in the draft state armament program for 2018-2025

    I just don’t understand one thing - 7 years on the project! Seven Carl !!! Is it up to a fig ??? Or SevPKB at the same time wants to learn how to design ships of this class at public expense?


    But what is it, the design costs can be huge (on paper), you know how cool it is to master the military budget by issuing absolutely alien mukulatu at the exit, for the price of building half the ship in metal of a similar tonnage in France.
    and time - either the donkey will die, or the shah will die.
  21. Music
    Music 31 August 2017 17: 45
    +1
    By and large, they decided to make submarines in the surface version. And for export with a gas turbine?
    1. Vladimir1155
      Vladimir1155 31 August 2017 20: 22
      0
      true, only this thing cannot hide under water and will be sunk by the enemy in the first battle
  22. Vladimir1155
    Vladimir1155 31 August 2017 19: 57
    0
    nobody needs a project
  23. Petrol cutter
    Petrol cutter 31 August 2017 20: 51
    +1
    ... and everyone was sad ... It’s a pity of course that there is no Soviet power. Then there was no discussion of the popular and other nonsense. It's bad that not such a GEM! Why is it bad ?! Are there any developers here? Designers? The designer in the end ... He writes, who is not lazy. Absolutely not understanding in the steamboats of the word at all.
  24. Kyzmich
    Kyzmich 1 September 2017 23: 55
    +2
    A destroyer with a displacement of 17.5 thousand tons?
    What side is this EM is already a heavy cruiser!