This история began a year ago, when Roman Trotsenko, president of United Shipbuilding Corporation, held a press conference at the 2011th International Naval Salon (IMDS XNUMX), he made an intriguing statement: according to Trotsenko, the corporation is designing an destroyer class ocean ship with nuclear power plant for the Navy of the Russian Federation. He emphasized that the destroyers of the new project will not be exported, but are intended only for the Russian Navy fleet.
Commander-in-Chief of the Russian Navy, Admiral Vladimir Vysotsky, confirmed the design of a ship for the ocean zone for the Russian Navy. Having specified that the laying of a new Russian destroyer is possible already in 2012-2013, there is confidence in 90 percent that the ship will be with a nuclear power plant.
In principle, the new Russian destroyer of the 21956 project has been talked about for 20 years, but this issue has never been discussed at such a high level.
Now from all points there are conflicting data. The absence of any specific information about the project of a new Russian destroyer from officials, gives rise to a whole flurry of various improvisations on this topic, which we have not heard only strange things during this time! Nuclear power plant, stealth technology, universal firing systems, supersonic anti-ship missiles, twin 152 mm artillery "Coalition-F" artillery units ... The displacement of the Russian destroyer Ave 21956 pr. then the classic American "Orly Burke", then the newest "Silver Bullet of the Pentagon" destroyer URO-type "Zamvolt" ...
The approximate cost of the new destroyer of the Russian Navy - $ 2 ... 2,5 billion has already been announced. In the medium term (15-20 years), the 14-16 of the newest destroyers is planned. on average, 4 ship for each of the fleets of the Russian Navy.
Personally, I share the following expert opinion: the newest Russian destroyer is positioned not as a destroyer of ships, but as a kind of superhero - a huge, complex, terribly expensive ship, allegedly capable of almost single-handedly fighting with any surface, underwater and aerial targets, destroying enemy positions on the coast and act without support in remote areas of the oceans. Officials say the same thing: the newest Russian destroyer (cruiser? Dreadnought of the 21st century?) Will replace several existing classes of ships at once: destroyers Ave. 956 Sovremenny, large anti-submarine ships of the projects 1134B Berkut-B and 1155 Udaly, 1164 "Atlant" missile cruisers. Commendable aspirations. Only then can anyone answer the question: what exactly does Russia plan to build for its navy? How much does this prospective warship (the concept of which, in fact, differs radically from the destroyer URO destroyer) corresponds to the tasks of the Russian Navy?
Almirante Álvaro de Bassan
As an unexpected plot of the story, I suggest readers briefly travel back to sunny Spain. There, in the very south of the Iberian Peninsula, stands a fortress city - the legendary Gibraltar, a territory that has been under British jurisdiction for 300 for years, a key stronghold and NATO naval base, the main gateway to the Mediterranean Sea. Due to its geographical position, during the Cold War, the “bottleneck” of the Strait of Gibraltar became the most serious barrier for Soviet nuclear submarines on its way to the Mediterranean Sea - the narrow, shallow water area was saturated with acoustic and magnetic sensors and was heavily patrolled by anti-submarine weapons. Times have changed, but even nowadays, NATO ships are constantly patrolling here in these parts. Here is one of them - sparkles with freshly painted plating in the bright Mediterranean sun. Meet gentlemen - Alvaro de Bazan, the operation code F100, the newest frigate Armada Española (Spanish Naval Forces).
A series of four Spanish frigates of this type was built in the period from 1999 to 2006. Warships are designed to operate as part of the search and attack groups led by the aircraft carrier. The standard displacement of frigates is 4500 tons, the total displacement reaches 5800 tons (in the long term, taking into account modernization - up to 6250 tons). As you can see, "Alvaro de Bassan" is a large enough ship for its class, its size is close to the destroyers.
Like any NATO military project, the Spanish frigate is the fruit of international cooperation. Even with the naked eye it is noticeable that “Alvaro de Basan” is another reincarnation of Aegis, the destroyer “Orly Burke”. The hull lines, armament, power plant, the Aegis IUIS - most of the constructive elements of the Spaniard are copied from the American warship. Of course, the Spaniards created their own frigate for the needs of their own naval forces, because the "Alvaro de Basan" acquired its original features - firstly, it is much smaller than the "Orly Burke", and therefore cheaper.
The steel hull and superstructure of the frigate are built using “stealth technologies”, command posts and personnel premises are protected with Kevlar armor. Combined diesel-gas turbine unit allows the frigate to reach 28,5 knots, cruising range is 5000 nautical miles (on 18 knots) - a slight decrease in driving performance, compared to Orly Burk, - the consequences of replacing two General Electric LM2500 gas turbines with sustainer low-speed diesel engines Bazan / Caterpillar 3600 with total power 12 000 hp
The basis of the ship’s combat systems is the Aegis IUIS based on the Baseline 5 Phase III modification with the AN / SPY-1D multifunctional radar. Software that provides LAN communication between Spanish and American-made equipment was developed by FABA (Spanish Fábrica de Artilleria de Bazán). The combat information management system uses computers Hewlett-Packard, 14 color displays SAINSEL CONAM 2000 and two integrated control consoles. Communication with other ships, aircraft and coastal objects is maintained through Link 11 / 16 tactical systems, as well as through SATCOM satellite communication systems. EW facilities include the CESELSA Mark 9500 electronic intelligence system, the Aldebaran SLQ-380 electronic countermeasures system, and the 4 six-barreled 130-mm launchers for passive interference SRBOC.
Rocket weapon the ship is in the 6 eight-charge Mark-41 vertical launcher modules, the total number of 48 launchers. Typical ammunition consists of long-range Standard-32 2 and 64 self-defense anti-aircraft missiles RIM-162 ESSM with a launch range of 50 km (4 missiles in one cell). In addition, two inclined Mark-141 launchers were mounted in the middle part of the frigate to launch the Harpoon anti-ship missiles (subsonic anti-ship missiles with an effective range of 130 ... 150 km, warhead weight 225 kg).
Artillery is represented by the 127 mm 5 54 / 45 Mark 45 nasal gun. Thanks to the simplified design and lack of cellar mechanization, the Mark 24,6 is the easiest naval artillery system of its caliber — only 23 tonnes. / min
For the anti-missile and air defense frigate, an anti-aircraft artillery complex “Meroka” of caliber 20 mm is installed, which is a radar station and X-NUMX automatic guns “Oerlikon” mounted in a single unit. Also there are two guns "Oerlikon" with manual control. All of these systems are optional and can be easily replaced with any other anti-aircraft self-defense complexes.
Anti-submarine frigate weapons are also somewhat different from the Orly Burke armament complex. It is based on two 3 tube torpedo tubes of the Mark-32 system, but unlike the American destroyer, a recharge is provided here - 24 anti-submarine torpedoes of the 324 caliber are provided. Also, the frigates are equipped with two ABCAS / SSTS jet bomb bombs, an advanced range of hydro-acoustic equipment and a towed anti-torpedo defense system - the AN / SLQ-25 Nixie, standard for all NATO ships.
The requirement that has become mandatory for modern ships is a deck helicopter. The frigate “Alvaro de Bassan” has a hangar for the permanent deployment of two Sikorsky SH-60 “Ocean Hawk” helicopters, as well as a 26-meter helipad provided with the RAST forced landing system. In peacetime, to save money, only one helicopter is based on Spanish frigates.
The price for building one ship is € 600 million ($ 800 million).
Main combat ship
In my personal opinion, ships like the overgrown frigate Alvaro de Basan could become a good base for the Russian Navy in the medium term. My somewhat seditious point of view was confirmed by people directly related to the Russian Navy - it is such small efficient ships, laid down by a large series, that our sailors are waiting for, and not the most complicated and monstrously expensive atomic monsters that high-ranking Russian officials are talking so much about . Due to the lower price and relatively modest displacement, such semi-destroyers are quick to build and easier to operate. Those. they acquire one of the MAIN properties of the destroyer - mass, and therefore ubiquity. In the future, I propose to call this hypothetical project "main battle ship", by analogy with the main battle a tank - an extremely successful concept of a combat tracked vehicle.
URO-type destroyer "Orly Burke"
The destroyer of the project 21956, which was discussed at the beginning of the article, reflects the good intention to make a ship superior to the American DDG-1000 Zamvolt. But after all, American experts recognized the fallacy of their theories - Zamvolt, too expensive, could not become a new type of destroyer of the US Navy, it was decided to resume the construction of simple and reliable Orly Berkov, their number had already exceeded 60. According to the Zamvolt project, three ships are slowly being built, with a total displacement of 14 thousand tons - the US Navy is just working on new technologies. Obviously, the American sailors have surplus funds, if they allow themselves to build such "vundervafli." I repeat, the US Navy refused to build Zamvoltov in a large series. Doesn't it mean anything?
Our "main combat ship," despite the fact that on paper it is inferior in terms of the performance characteristics of Zamvalt, is intended for mass construction. As for the combat qualities of a promising Russian destroyer in the form of a “main combat ship,” the situation is as follows:
The Caliber family of missiles, the Bramos supersonic anti-ship missiles, the lighter X-35 Uranus - this is a whole range of modern anti-ship weapons ready for installation on a “main battle ship”. Either in the form of a universal firing complex, or in inclined launchers on the deck. It must be understood that “one is not a warrior in the field” - in the US Navy, such tasks are assigned to the deck Aviation and dozens of aircraft for various purposes. Without external target designation, the detection range of surface targets in any destroyer is limited by the radio horizon - 30 ... 40 km. The E-2 Hawkai carrier-based early warning radar is capable of exploring 100 sq. km ocean surface - still, the radio horizon at the Hawk radar antenna, raised to a height of 000 kilometers, is 10 km!
A destroyer ammunition - 8 (perhaps a little more) anti-ship missiles can not be compared with the cellars of the aircraft carrier, containing 2520 tons of ammunition. Therefore, it is not necessary to indulge yourself with the illusions that the destroyer is capable of any struggle with avinos shock groups, this is not his purpose. Although, in a fair one-on-one battle against their peers, for example, the Orly Berkov, the “main combat ship” can show teeth, especially if the new generation of supersonic anti-ship missiles are included in its armament. Again, the Berki, like other NATO ships, rarely sail in the ocean without air cover.
Really important factor! As part of the Russian Navy at the moment, only 4 of the ship can provide zonal air defense of the squadron: TARKR “Peter the Great” and 3 cruisers of the avenue 1164 “Atlant”. As far as I know, Azov, which, for experimental purposes, installed two S-300F SAM missile launchers, was removed from the Black Sea Fleet.
Long-range naval anti-aircraft missile systems should be the basis of armament of promising Russian destroyers. The “main combat ship”, similar to Alvaro de Basan, offers 48 launchers, 32 long-range missiles + 64 short-range missiles. This amount is quite enough to reflect any provocation or successful actions of the “main combat ship” in local conflicts. It would be naive to believe that the destroyer will ever have to shoot down enemy aircraft with batches - if the 32 did not have anti-aircraft missiles to repel an air attack, then World War III began.
It is worth paying more attention not to the number of missiles, but to the creation of a combat information and control system like the Aegis.
The self-defense system of the “main combat ship” can be enhanced through the installation of short-range anti-aircraft missile and artillery systems — the Dirk, the Palash — there is always room for them.
I do not share optimism about the twin 152 mm naval artillery system "Coalition-F". The reason is too complicated construction. Huge weight and exorbitant cost. On the positive side, the system allows firing at coastal targets from a long distance, outside the zone of enemy artillery (although it is much more likely that the opposition will not be a Grad missile, but an anti-ship missile, for which the extra 30 ... 50 km are only additional seconds of flight). However, there was a precedent off the coast of Libya - a NATO ship, during a shelling of the coast, received a shell from the coast. So large-caliber artillery systems are a very promising direction. The main thing to make the tool compact and simple.
Does the destroyer need a nuclear power plant
All statements about YASU on a prospective Russian destroyer cause only irritation. Perhaps it is beneficial to a certain circle of people, but for the Russian Navy this approach does not have any distinct advantages.
Even 50 years ago, it was proved that nuclear power plants are vital only for three classes of ships:
- To aircraft carriers (only a nuclear steam generating plant can provide the catapult with enough energy in the form of superheated steam or electricity)
- To submarines (only YASU is able to provide boats with the necessary amount of energy in a submerged position, which increases their submerged time, and therefore stealth, by an order of magnitude compared to diesel submarines)
- Icebreakers (the need for a powerful source of energy for long-term work in difficult ice conditions, possible wintering and other force majeure, requiring the provision of high autonomy of the icebreaker)
All other attempts to adapt YASU to cruisers or civilian vessels ended in failure — the ships had no advantages over their non-nuclear colleagues, but there were flaws in the whole sea.
Nuclear power plants have an enormous cost, which is further aggravated by the cost of nuclear fuel and its further disposal.
YASU is considerably larger than ordinary GEM. The concentrated loads and larger dimensions of the energy compartments require a different location of the rooms and significant redevelopment of the hull structure, which increases the costs when designing the ship. In addition to the reactor itself and the steam generating plant, YASU necessarily requires several circuits, with its biological protection, filters and an entire plant for seawater desalination: firstly, bidistillate is vital for the reactor, secondly it makes no sense to increase the cruising range of the fuel, if the crew has limited freshwater supplies. The maintenance of the YSU requires more personnel, with higher qualifications. This entails an even greater increase in displacement and cost of operation.
The survivability of an atomic destroyer is much less than a similar destroyer with a conventional GEM. Defective gas turbine can be turned off. And for whom will a destroyer with a damaged reactor loop become more dangerous — for the enemy or for his own crew?
The autonomy of the ship in terms of fuel reserves is not all. There is autonomy in possession, in ammunition, endurance crew and mechanisms. For example, the heavy nuclear cruiser “Peter the Great” has 60 autonomy for 24 hours in reserves of provisions. Everything. Next you need to look for a port or coral of complex supply. The best nuclear-powered cruiser will not be able to stay in a given area of the oceans indefinitely for a long time - people and technology need rest. A pair of cheap "main combat ships" can always be in the area in shifts.
There is an opinion that YASU is smaller than a conventional power plant, due to the absence of huge fuel tanks. Well, I can give the following numbers:
The destroyer of Her Majesty "Daring" - a modern British destroyer of air defense type 45.
Powerplant: 2 gas turbines Rolls-Royce WR-21 total power 57 000 hp (there are also auxiliary diesel engines, but their mass disappearing is small in our calculation)
The mass of each turbine together with the auxiliary equipment is 45 tons. The volume of fuel tanks destroyer - 1400 cube. m, the mass of fuel - 1120 tons. This is enough to ensure the 7000 nautical miles at nodal speed (from St. Petersburg to the Panama Canal across the Atlantic Ocean!).
Nuclear submarine cruiser pr.949A "Antey".
Two OK-659 reactors with thermal capacity 190MW. Two turbines with a total shaft power 90 000 hp The mass of the equipment of the reactor compartment, excluding radiation protection - 2500 tons (!).
These are the thoughts I had while meeting with materials about a new Russian destroyer. The ship is undoubtedly necessary and useful. It remains only to decide where we go on it, why we go there, and with whom we go there.
Instead of "Alvaro de Basana", the leadership of the Russian Navy decided to procure the UDC "Mistral". Well, they know better