Nuclear-powered armored destroyer PRO/PLO

53
Nuclear-powered armored destroyer PRO/PLO


Project


So, the sounded project of the Russian destroyer in the article “Destroyer 2030 of the Russian Navy”, based on existing components and minimal budget costs, was at least not supported by the silent majority of the audience, and ostracized by the aggressive minority of globalist minions. After all, the latter have already found an object for adoration and admiration in the form of the gray mediocrity of the 22350M project!



But the destroyer is still needed, as in the Black Sea and the Baltic at least one each to replace the deceased flagship of the Black Sea Fleet GRKR "Moskva" and the hopelessly outdated flagship of the DKBF destroyer "Persistent". But ships of the first rank are especially needed in the North and the Far East.

Just think, if the Nazi ukrovermacht in the tenth month of the war with the help of the Soviet drone managed to stab the base of strategic missile carriers deep in Russia for 700 kilometers, what potential opponents can do with the strategic bases of our fleet on the ocean coast, having arsenals of Tridents and Tomahawks on nuclear submarines in the adjacent waters?

And if the Euro-American bases are covered by land-based missile defense in Poland and Romania, then the American bases in Japan and South Korea are covered by the naval component of missile defense in the form of the destroyers Arleigh Burke, Kongo, Atago and Maya. And it’s far from a fact that these ships will not be deployed during the threatened period next to the so-called “bastions” of our SSBNs in order to try not even to let our SLBMs take off.

Our destroyer should become an outpost of the missile defense of the naval base, moved to the far sea zone; be able to cover the "bastion" of their SSBNs from threats from the air and from under water; be the backbone of the defense of any order of ships, regardless of the goals of its formation. To create a ship that meets the requirements put forward, it is necessary to set priorities correctly, and, strange as it may sound, the main priority must be given to reconnaissance (radar and hydroacoustics) and control means.

As a good example from a recent stories Let's remember how the A-30 aircraft was created around the seven-barreled 10-mm Gatling gun. So we will build a ship around the anti-missile defense radar proposed by Andrei Gorbachevsky in the article “Air defense efficiency of a promising destroyer. Alternative radar complex". I’ll just allow myself to reformat the concept of an alternative radar complex into a three-band radar complex (abbreviated as 3D radar).

3D radar


In order to completely close the upper hemisphere above the ship from the uncontrolled flight of the enemy's air and space attack systems, we place five AFARs (active phased antenna arrays) operating at a wavelength of λ = 70 cm in priority order at the most convenient position. Four arrays are traditionally placed along the perimeter of the superstructure, and the fifth is located horizontally on its roof.

In order to make the ship's hull as a whole in compliance with stealth technologies in the radar range, all its planes and surfaces have a constant equal slope of 10 degrees to the center from the vertical or 80 degrees from the horizontal.

Thus, to ensure a circular view of the AFAR along the perimeter of the superstructure, they have viewing zones along the horizon - 90 degrees each, and vertically - 55 degrees each.

Accordingly, the working area of ​​a horizontally located AFAR will be +/-35 degrees both in the longitudinal plane of the ship and in the transverse one. To prevent the impact on the operation of the RLC of various types of pitching, it is located exactly in the center. On the conceptual drawings of the ship and in table No. 1, the location of the detection AFAR and their parameters are highlighted in red.

Drawing up an algorithm for the operation of the AFAR when performing the tasks of detecting and tracking aeroballistic targets is a rather complicated and responsible job. It should take into account complex activities in cooperation with the space constellation of reconnaissance satellites and the capabilities of the state missile attack warning system (SPRN).

But with the help of applied mathematics, we can try to form our own idea of ​​it. So, if we limit the initial search in the AFAR responsibility sector of 90 × 55 degrees to an instrumental scanning range of 700 km, then we can count on a quick one-time scan of it in 2 seconds. During this time, a ballistic missile or warhead will be able to cover a distance of 6 to 15 km, but on the other hand, a 3D radar will be able to record the fact of target detection.

A search in an equally wide sector with a scanning range of 1 km will require more than 100 seconds, and this is without taking into account the need for AFAR to track previously identified targets. To cover the entire range of flight path altitudes, a scanning range of at least 3 km is needed (see Table No. 1), which means that in such a wide sector it will take about 500 seconds. It is worth noting that for the five "red" AFAR 2D-RLK, all aerodynamic objects in the atmosphere become targets, everything that starts into space or falls from it, and everything that flies in space in low Earth orbits, starting from Elon Musk's satellites, space debris and ending with habitable orbital stations.

The tasks are very difficult, both in terms of scale and energy intensity, and in terms of the required accuracy of coordinates and time. Obtaining reconnaissance information from satellites and early warning systems through interaction will allow targeted searches in narrower sectors (say, about 12 × 12 degrees) and at a distance of up to 2 km.

The second method to make the task easier is to transfer the tracking of targets from 0-400 km from the ship to the competence of the so-called "green" AFAR 3D radars.


And here the height of the flight of the author's fantasy can be limited only by the low value of the natural constant - the speed of light!

But first, about the principle of choosing ranges for 3D radar. No intrigue. We take as a basis the wavelength of 70 centimeters chosen and substantiated by our specialist for the missile defense radar, we divide it by five - we get λ = 14 cm, and again we divide by five - in the dry residue λ = 2,8 cm. The obtained values, in general and in particular fall within the international UHF bands permitted for radar; S; x.

If the first range of the radar complex (which has no analogues in the world today) is described by two red lines of table No. 1, then the more successful competitor of the famous American Aegis is represented by only the second green line. A third longer operating wavelength also entailed a corresponding increase in the geometric dimensions of the PAA antenna sheet while maintaining the same beam characteristics. An obvious small but pleasant bonus can be counted in favor of our locator by a smaller number of transceiver elements (3 units versus 364 American units).


And now let's step on the shaky ground of comparing the combat characteristics of locators based on incomplete and not always reliable (for obvious reasons) data.

It is well known that the "Polyment-Redut" on the frigate pr. -22350" with a maximum detection range of 4 km.

The Americans are less modest and more frank: Aegis in general on cruisers and destroyers can simultaneously fire up to 18-20 targets with a detection range of 320 km and with the involvement of 3-4 target illumination locators in the final section. Not very impressive compared to half the size of our frigate.

Yes, and it was not very necessary, under the umbrella of air defense from an aircraft carrier from an AWACS aircraft and a pair of fighters on duty. As the second range of the radar, we will put into service with our destroyer an AFAR with the characteristics from the first green line of Table No. 1, which in fact is a combination of four radars from the second green line. 64 simultaneously fired targets from a detection and tracking range of 400 km ...

As can be seen from the figures, the superstructure areas allow; the complexity of management, as we have the best IT specialists in the world in our country; too much - so look at the ammunition of the converted Ohio SSGNs with SLCMs.

As the last line of reconnaissance and defense at a distance of up to 150 km, eight X-band AFARs evenly spaced along the perimeter of the superstructure will be used (blue line in table No. 1). In addition to the fact that this gives an increase in the possibility of firing an additional 32 air targets in the near air defense zone of the ship in a circular manner, it will also allow concentrating the work of two AFARs from any direction of a detected massive raid.

Two frigates of project 22350 in an air defense order would have comparable capabilities. An additional function of the "blue" AFAR will be to control the firing of 57-mm artillery mounts. It is worth noting that to control any weapon, you can choose one of the three radars in the firing sector with the least beam shape distortion and loss of accuracy characteristics, or, within some sectors, control a pair of adjacent barrels to one radar.


The total height of the ship from the waterline is 41,5 m, the electrical centers of the missile defense antennas are located at a height of 35,5 m (bow and stern AFAR) and 37 m (onboard AFAR), which corresponds to the level of placement of the Sampson multifunctional radar on British destroyers type 45, recognized favorites of naval air defense according to the West.

It is the maximum possible height of the antenna posts that makes it possible to detect the most dangerous air targets flying above the wave crests as early as possible due to the radio horizon line. The height of the ship at 41,5 m is, as they say, an application for victory. And do not shed crocodile tears about the possible death due to low stability. The cruisers of Project 1144 "Orlan" reach a height of 59 meters, the superstructure of the Japanese battleship of the times of the Second World War "Fuso" after modernization has grown to 40 meters, and before the First World War no one was surprised by the height of the masts over 50 meters.


Arsenal


The broad capabilities of the ship's radar armament should logically correspond to the missile weapon. Eight 77N6 interceptor missiles rightfully become the main caliber. Actually, this ship should be built for them, and not just special vertical launch installations on it.

If we calculate the cost of launching a kilogram of payload into low-Earth orbit, the weight and cost of the spacecraft themselves, which can be destroyed by a salvo of eight missiles, then, probably, the construction of a missile defense destroyer may turn out to be a profitable commercial project.

I hope that no one will be cynical enough to calculate the cost of strategic defense facilities and the elite personnel on them, which can be destroyed by nuclear warheads intercepted on the way with the help of this ship.

As a possible prospect, the most powerful energy potential of subsequent modifications of these missiles can be used as carriers for launching satellites into orbits from the equatorial regions of the oceans in the form of a military alternative to the Sea Launch project.

Twelve 3S14 universal launchers on the deck in front of the ship's superstructure are able to console fans of strike variants of ships of the first rank. But the compromise must always be mutual. Therefore, in addition to the standard set of missiles of the 3S14 launcher (anti-submarine; anti-ship; KRSD), it should receive a registration of long-range missiles 48N6DM.

The 9M96D medium-range and 9M100 short-range anti-aircraft missiles will be placed in 3S97 shortened vertical launchers, eight of which are located in front of the UKKS UVP, and four more - along the edges of the helipad in the stern of the ship.


Four single-barreled 57-mm A-220M artillery mounts are offered as the last line of air defense and as a tribute to the naval traditions of having artillery on a warship.

It is hard to fight the inertia of thinking and tradition cast in bronze. But still, let's try to compare four AK-630s (say, on the destroyer pr. 956) and four A-220Ms on our ship. The barrel length of the old 54-caliber gun provides a projectile weighing 0,39 kg with almost the same muzzle velocity (1 m/s vs. kg. In other words, with an increase in caliber less than twice, we get an increase in the energy of the projectile by eight times. The horizontal and vertical pointing speeds for both installations are almost the same.

The new installation is a third heavier than the old one (6 tons versus 3,8 tons), but does this disadvantage matter for destroyers weighing several thousand tons? But the new installation shoots three times further (12 km versus 4 km). The only real advantage of the AK-630 over other artillery anti-aircraft systems is an order of magnitude higher rate of fire. It is comparable to the American 20-mm Vulkan-Falansk system.

Initially, a pair of these installations was included in the armament of the American destroyers Arleigh Burke, as the project developed, they tried to replace them with the 25-mm ZAU MARK 38, and on the Zamvolt we are already seeing two 30-mm single-barrel guns Mk 46, although according to the initial the project was supposed to have two single-barreled 57-mm artillery systems.

The 57-mm artillery system can overcome the advantage in rate of fire through the use of guided projectiles, proving its promise purely economically in terms of the "cost / efficiency" criterion. The visual representation of the stealth technology for our 57-mm caliber gun is given by the drawing of the American gun for the Zamvolt.


Aviation Detachment


Two heavy anti-submarine helicopters Ka-65 "Minoga". Two unmanned AWACS tiltrotor. Four UAVs of optical and electronic intelligence. Helicopters and convertiplanes appear to be machines of approximately the same class with unification for TV7-117VK engines with a capacity of 3 liters each. With. every. Two AFAR NO000 Belka radars, designed for the Su-36 fighter, are located in the front and rear parts of the tiltrotor fuselage. The number of PPM (pcs.) - 57 1. The size of the antenna fabric (mm) - 526 × 700. The frequency range of the locator (GHz) - from 900 to 8 - is, in general, all that is reliably known about it from the media. Having studied the previous sample on Wikipedia, it can be assumed that the target detection range with an EPR of 12 m² will be 1 km; the number of simultaneously tracked targets - 400; viewing angles in azimuth and elevation: ±62 degrees.

While our fleet does not have a full-fledged aircraft carrier with a catapult for using the Hawkeye-type AWACS aircraft, such an almost aircraft is quite suitable for the needs of cruisers and large destroyers. As a mandatory attribute of a destroyer-class ship, I will mention the presence on board of four four-barreled launchers (torpedo tubes) of NATO caliber Paket-NK.

... but we will not disgrace the Fleet


Probably, those who like to save money on the country's defense capability and, in particular, on the power of the ocean fleet, no longer have enough fingers on their limbs to count the people's billions, further it will be even more expensive and more painful ...

As can be seen from the figures, the hull of our ship in many respects resembles the American DDG-1000, but for greater stability when heeling, the side hall inward starts from one and a half meters above the water surface.

I did not want to repeat the American mistakes and risk the stability of the warship for the sake of low visibility. In the turbulent waters of our northern and Far Eastern seas, two pairs of side keels and a pair of active roll stabilizers will not be superfluous. The area of ​​the upper part of the superstructure is reduced to the necessary minimum to ensure an impeccable position from the point of view of the radar of the 3D radar described above.

The design does not contain bulky pipes for air intake and exhaust gases from the ship's power plant, built on the principles of operation of internal combustion engines. A roaring, fiery engine replaces the quietly purring nuclear reactor.

The following fact is not particularly advertised, but the following fact is not very well known to the general public.

Soviet nuclear submarines pr. 945 "Barracuda", pr. 945A "Condor", pr. 971 "Pike-B", already Russian nuclear submarines pr. 885 "Ash" and pr. and run on water-cooled nuclear reactors of the OK-955 family with a thermal power of 650–180 MW of various modifications. On the nuclear submarine pr. 190A "Antey" and pr. 949 "Shark" such reactors are in pairs.

In terms of striking power of only comparable weapons, the ship proposed for construction will surpass the modern Yasen-M, add to this an air defense zone with a radius of at least 150 km closed for flights of anti-submarine aircraft and the ability to “remove” objectionable spacecraft from near-Earth orbit. Is it possible to save an extra serial reactor with a turbo-gear unit on this?!

Yes, the ship of the first rank will be with one screw, perhaps in the future the power on the screw of the steam turbine unit and the main turbo-gear unit will be increased to 60 hp. s., but even the power of 000 liters currently existing on the nuclear submarine. With. are quite sufficient for long-term patrol duty at their strategic bases and SSBN patrol areas. The entire propulsion and energy complex "Borea" occupies 50% of the length of the boat or 000 meters with the largest width of the hull 40 m.

Thus, to place such a power plant in the hull of a destroyer with a maximum width of 23 meters and a draft of 8 meters will not be difficult. And even vice versa, the relatively large width of the ship in comparison with classmates, originally designed for greater stability and creating favorable working conditions for the 3D radar, will enhance the safety of the reactor by creating constructive anti-torpedo protection following the example of the best examples of battlecruisers of the Second World War, its thickness may well be within four meters on each side.

By the way, two compensators of 22 tons each are provided on a not the largest French nuclear aircraft carrier to maintain and stabilize the roll, in our case, empty anti-torpedo protection tanks in stormy weather can be filled with outboard water with a much greater weight.

I didn't think I'd ever write this, but as a matter of common sense, the maximum possible speed is not important for our ship.

In principle, the project - he should not catch up with anyone (enemy nuclear submarines or aircraft carriers, and even more so some Maghreb pirates). Hypersonic Zircons, supersonic missiles / PLURs or three-kilogram shells will meet and catch up.
If a third heavier and slightly longer Borey with its energy is capable of showing 29 full speed knots under water, 25 knots is quite enough for our destroyer, because it does not yet need to accompany an aircraft carrier when providing take-off and landing activities.

On the other hand, it is much more important to ensure the optimal course and low noise during long-term patrolling of the water area with a flexible extended towed antenna (GPBA) and a bow HOOK.

And, probably, a power plant with roots originating from submarines, for which silence and secrecy are the main weapon and advantage, will fit like nothing else. By the way, "Ash" and "Borea" are similar not only in reactors, but also in models of sonar systems "Irtysh-Amphora".

In simplicity, the sincere author drew the dimensions of the destroyer's nose fairing for an adapted version for a surface ship.


As can be seen from Table No. 3, from 1,5 to 3 thousand tons of the total displacement of ships is the stock of motor fuel for the power plant. And this is not the safest ballast on the ship, given the presence of huge arsenals of rockets and shells with powder engines and warhead filling. No wonder the name sounded long out of use the word "armored".

Based on the drawings, the destroyer has a full-fledged armored deck 30 meters long from the 130-meter mark from the stern to the 50-meter mark in the bow. Its thickness is 68 millimeters of armor, as on Soviet artillery cruisers of the post-war construction of project XNUMX bis. It actually divides the ship's hull in half along the lower waterline mark. A kind of under-deck armored citadel is formed around the ship's energy compartments, including a nuclear reactor.

The stern and bow armor beams of the same thickness from the second bottom to the armor deck are located at 30 and 130 meters. Vertical longitudinal main armored anti-torpedo bulkheads, also 50 mm thick and high from the second bottom to the armored deck, complete the protected below-deck space. Its dimensions are 100 meters long, 14 meters wide and 7 meters high.

But that's not all.

To protect the interior of the ship from the missile arsenal located in the bow, we will install a transverse armor bulkhead of the same thickness in the area of ​​95 meters from the armor to the upper deck, between the underdeck rooms of the bow guns and UVP 3S14.

According to the author's calculations, the weight of the armor on the ship will be 1 tons, which is fully compensated by the lack of an appropriate amount of organic fuel on board.

A bit of romance and sentimentalism


Nuclear, armored, missile defense / anti-aircraft destroyer ... And what names will the ships of this series bear? Two series of frigates with the names of admirals, well-known and not so famous, of the Russian Imperial Fleet and the Fleet of the Soviet Union, monarchists and children of the revolution, party nomenklatura proteges and henchmen, innovators and retrogrades.

Whether it's the case, if you remember the cruiser-"pebbles": "Diamond", "Emerald", "Pearl", or the goddess of domestic shipbuilding: "Pallada", "Diana", "Aurora".

Not being a supporter of fatalism and superstitions in the assignment of fatal names and renaming of ships, allegedly repeating the fate of the predecessors who previously bore these names, I would still like to see some continuity in this matter to more neutral and non-politicized names, something like “Royal Oak ” in the English style or poetically, like the Japanese - “Autumn Moon”.


I congratulate you all on the New Year of Victory!
53 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +8
    13 January 2023 05: 34
    But the destroyer is still needed, as in the Black Sea and the Baltic at least one
    Seriously ? one by one ? meaning then? and the Baltic is generally a trap.
    1. +10
      13 January 2023 06: 19
      Nice sketch of the project. You can also make a model. Something, but there is complete order with projecting in our army and navy. There are no UAVs at the front, there are no precision-guided munitions, but there are more than enough projects. It's better to design the Death Star right away: we'll scare everyone. laughing
      Klimov and Timokhin will not leave a stone unturned from this project.
      1. +4
        13 January 2023 08: 05
        There is such a psychological trick - in difficult times to get together and dream together about projects in a bright future, when everything is over and prosperous peaceful construction begins.
        Unfortunately, there are no prerequisites for economic prosperity. But dreaming is not harmful.
        1. -4
          13 January 2023 13: 55
          return of the battleships
          destroyers pr.22350M with a normal VI of 8000 tons will have a 100-mm armor of about 250 tons
          + armor based on boron carbide 250 mm steel equivalent minimum 1 meter
          - also 250 tons
          due to the small number of ships in the ocean zone - booking is just the way (!)
          such armored destroyers are not critical of any torpedoes, KABs, KRs with an explosive mass of up to 1500 kg.
          1. AAK
            0
            13 January 2023 15: 17
            The modernized TAKr 1144 would be quite suitable for the role of squadron air defense-missile defense ships, where the height and dimensions of the central mast-pipe allow you to freely place all the AFAR canvases ... I’m not even talking about the presence of sufficient volumes to accommodate weapons. With the armor protection of the hulls, it is also quite there, if necessary, it was possible to strengthen individual elements. Based on the presence of 4 units (and if the Ural had not been cut, then there would have been 5 such hulls), 2 each for the Northern Fleet and Pacific Fleet would have been enough, the costs would have been lower, the possibilities even more, given the larger dimensions of the hull . But alas, at best, these ships will remain 2, and their "modernization" is done exclusively for the old tasks, although the concept of the "strike raider" did not justify itself even at the time of their initial construction ...
            1. +3
              14 January 2023 01: 14
              Quote: AAK
              The modernized TAKr 1144 would be quite suitable for the role of squadron ships of air defense and missile defense

              You need to understand the residual resource of such ships, even after modernization they are unlikely to last more than 15 - 20 years, and the cost of such work has gone off scale beyond all conceivable limits (according to some reports, the final price tag of work on Nakhimov will be about 200 billion rubles. This is too .
              At the moment, gas turbines for ship power plants with a capacity of 40 - 000 l / s and a capacity of 45 l / s are being developed in the Russian Federation. What ships do you think?
              And for ships of which VI?
              The last GTP is unambiguous for AV of medium VI. What about the smaller one?
              So I think that some kind of large ships are in the plans, no matter if they are called destroyers or cruisers.
              Moreover, work continues on the 22350M project, which, according to VI, is already planning about 9-10 thousand tons, with 64 cells in eight UKKS and missiles with a range of at least 250 km. And if long-range missiles are planned, then it is obvious that the radar will be different.
              Which one
              Perhaps somewhat trimmed in the dimension of the antenna canvases of the RLC based on the MFRS of the S-500 complex. Such a choice would look quite logical. How logical it would be to place on board a certain amount of missiles from the S-400 arsenal. And since the dimension and weight of missiles with a range of 250 and 400 km. is approximately the same (different speeds and acceleration characteristics), then the use of both of these missiles will be fully justified ... That is, we have a classic destroyer in the Arly-Burke VI with a much more impressive armament.
              And since the project 22350M series is supposed to have at least 24 pennants, I consider the disputes about the future destroyer pointless, because the project of this is almost ready and the laying of the lead one is possible in the next couple of years.
              But the past 11 months of the NMD have shown that Russia will henceforth have to rely solely on its own forces to protect its geopolitical and trade interests ... So WHAT?
              This means that Russia needs its own ocean-going Merchant Fleet. And it is already being actively formed through the purchase of a large number of tankers and bulk carriers.
              But who will ensure the safety of navigation of the rapidly growing Russian Merchant Fleet?
              Of course, the Naval (with the prefix Oceanic) Fleet of Russia.
              And which will also have to be built in the most emergency mode.
              And what is needed for the combat stability of the Ocean Fleet in DM and OZ?
              Reliable air defense and air cover. As well as own means of AWACS on air carriers. That is, aircraft carriers.
              No, not such bulks as those of the United States, but medium VI AB - about 45 - 000 tons, with two squadrons of carrier-based fighters, 50 AWACS aircraft / helicopters and a certain number of PSS and PLO helicopters. With a catapult.
              And for an escort, such ABs need destroyers.
              And if we need at least 6 such ABs. (3 each for the Pacific Fleet and the Northern Fleet), then only as part of the escort they need 4 destroyers, a total of 24 pcs.
              But talking about a larger type of main ship can also get up. To lead the KUG, as carriers of a more significant arsenal of strike weapons and heavy missiles. In VI, about 18 - 000 tons.
              And for a power plant of this type of ships, a gas turbine of the above-described power will be needed.
              I repeat Gorshkov's words that a mighty Ocean Fleet can be built only if a mighty Merchant Fleet already exists. A mighty Merchant Fleet is already being created, and therefore a mighty Oceanic Navy will also be built.
              And there is money for this.
              In the meantime, it is necessary to victoriously end the war in Ukraine and stabilize the western borders.

              And what the author of the article presented here ... request well, fantasies, dreams ... about the "Russian Zamvolt".
              There is no need for such fantasies. The United States has already played enough of them to hiccups. And they refused! Now order the development of ONLY ships of the classic type. Based on functionality and an acceptable price tag.
              And so would we. Including dreamers.
              1. 0
                14 January 2023 03: 28
                Design.
                In my opinion, now they are too carried away by the design towards stealth. What tasks are currently being performed by our large warships? One of the main ones is the demonstration of the flag. That is, somewhere by its presence it expresses support for some state. Or vice versa, with their presence (with their weapons) near the conflict zone, put pressure on the enemy's brain, as happens when strategic bombers fly along the border of a foreign state.
                And everyone knows where the ship is. And what gives him stealth? The design of the ship should, first of all, leave the enemy with a sense of threat (of course, his strike weapons should also be appropriate).
                Our ships of the previous generation met these requirements (by design). The current ones are not very good (especially those with a claim to the Zamvolt design).
                1. +3
                  14 January 2023 23: 20
                  Quote: Bad_gr
                  The design of the ship should, first of all, leave the enemy with a sense of threat (of course, his strike weapons should also be appropriate).
                  Our ships of the previous generation met these requirements (by design). The current ones are not very good (especially those with a claim to the Zamvolt design).

                  The Zamvolt design has already been abandoned in the United States. Moreover, in the latest requirements for the development of a new destroyer and frigate, there was a very strict condition - no hobbies for stealth and exoticism, ONLY CLASSICAL LAYOUT. And the appearance of their promising destroyer really looks classic at the same time, and at the same time very functional, ergonomic and impressive.
                  We (praise Ahura-Mazda) also refused these ribs in "a la Zamvolt" (project 20386, not mentioned by night). And as for the fact that "the current ones are not very good", so we, in fact, do not have new ships of any serious class. Well, shouldn't "Gorshkov" be considered like that? With its 16 cells? In which half will be occupied by the Answer PLUR?
                  But the already improved 22350.1 (which is now on the stocks) with four UKKS (for 32 cells), with the same dimensions and outlines, is already perceived much more seriously.
                  In war and for war, it is much more important to be than to seem.
                  Quote: Bad_gr
                  The design of the ship should, first of all, leave the enemy with a sense of threat (of course, his strike weapons should also be appropriate).

                  When placing missiles in UKKS, outwardly you will not throw anything. It is important here that the "City and the World" know what is in these cells.
                  And the fact that on old Soviet ships heavy missiles were placed in launchers above the deck was a forced measure, but it looked really brutal. In addition, purely aesthetically, our ships were much more beautiful than those of our opponents - swift silhouettes, sloping lines and huge launchers on the upper deck. It looked swift, menacing and beautiful ... So after all, the "Gorshkov" for its class looks quite handsome, and it is completely formidable in terms of the composition of weapons. That's just his class ... a light frigate.
                  And at the same time, a rather low marching speed.
                  Replacing diesel engines with GTU M75RU will give a serious increase in both marching and maximum speed, will increase the dimension, and therefore expand the BC of strike weapons and missiles, improve seaworthiness (increased VI, less sensitivity to rolling), autonomy (larger fuel supply and, accordingly - cruising range) and a hangar for 2 helicopters. And we get for a "slightly more expensive" ship with radically better performance and combat capabilities.
                  At the same time, it will be possible to place X-35 anti-ship missiles on it for less priority surface targets.
                  And all this is exclusively on the existing own components, assemblies and assemblies. Without additional R&D and delays. Even the gearbox for the new power plant will be technically simpler than for a diesel-gas turbine plant and will allow adding the torque of both (main and afterburner) turbines to a single shaft.
                  And believe me, it will be a very beautiful ship.
                  1. +1
                    15 January 2023 00: 47
                    Quote: bayard
                    We (praise Ahura-Mazda) also refused these bounces in "a la Zamvolt" (the mentioned pr. 20386 was not mentioned by night).
                    Yes, and so on. 22160 the same one - not only is he not handsome, but neither speed nor weapons.

                    Quote: bayard
                    When placing missiles in the UKKS, outwardly you won’t throw anything ......
                    Design has its own secrets of how to evoke this or that impression. I just don’t know how much our designers take part in shaping the appearance of the ship or they don’t exist at all, but functionality rules the ball.
                    1. +3
                      15 January 2023 01: 54
                      Quote: Bad_gr
                      . I just don’t know how much our designers take part in shaping the appearance of the ship or they don’t exist at all, but functionality rules the ball.

                      In general, the Soviet school of shipbuilding has always been distinguished by its special aesthetics. In principle, the 22350 turned out to be quite nice, and those projects / sketches of the 22350M that lit up. It’s just that harmonically developed specialists were brought up in the USSR, and therefore our equipment was usually beautiful - the feeling of beauty is in our blood. And this beauty was made by Soviet design engineers, and not by any designers (how can an abstract designer succeed in shipbuilding?). In the USA, since the beginning of the 60s, there has been an emphasis on functionality, manufacturability in production and operation, minimization / optimization of costs. Because their ships have been so ... nondescript since those times.
                      There are many of them, they have good functionality and unification, but ... next to our handsome men they always looked ... stools made with an ax ... Then they just started using computer design (remember the story of the single-shaft Oliver-H. Perry ") .
                      But the strength of US shipbuilding programs has always been the thoughtfulness of functionality, unification and large series of ships of the same type.
                      From an overabundance of creative energy, we have always had an excessive variety of ships of the same age and purpose. What terribly complicated their maintenance, repairs, training of specialists and crew members.

                      And yes - today in military shipbuilding we have ... completely different times - vile ones. An example of this is the dragging into service of a whole series of freaks 22160. Everyone was against it, but the budget was allocated, the rubbish was built, the rollback was normal. And they also insisted - we’ll build, they say, both for the Baltic and for the Northern Fleet ... And how the press grimaced with enthusiasm for the "newest modular ship" No. .
              2. 0
                12 March 2023 23: 44
                Quote: bayard
                There is no need for such fantasies. The United States has already played enough of them to hiccups. And they refused!

                drinks
        2. +1
          13 January 2023 16: 14
          Quote: Civil
          But dreaming is not bad.

          If people did not dream, they would still live in caves or dugouts.
          Maybe this is another project, but if they are not, then there will be no projects. Which, quite possibly, will be developed from several projects. And an innovative idea is often called projecting and it always (!!) hardly makes its way to life.
        3. 0
          14 January 2023 23: 05
          Quote: Civil
          There is such a psychological trick - in difficult times to get together and dream together about projects in a brighter future

          Chapai and Petka are sitting, dreaming of a peaceful life. Chapaev:
          - Yes, Petka .. When the war ends, we will live with you
          in a new, Soviet way.
          We, Petka, will build a conservatory!..
          - Uh-huh .. And a machine gun on the roof ..
          - And why a machine gun?
          - And so that canned food is not ... whistled!
          1. -1
            17 January 2023 02: 16
            Continued ...
            - We'll build an observatory nearby...
            - And what is the observatory for, Vasily Ivanovich, to look at the stars?
            - You are Petka, what stars? If the canned food is not fresh, where will you run, what stars
            whether to watch? That's right ... to the Observatory, not to the bushes ...
      2. +2
        13 January 2023 18: 03
        they are already tormented to master "analogues in the world" and "NATO men in horror", so much so that they still have to squeeze all the juice out of the "Soviet" equipment of the 70-80s, only projectors and ceremonial samples, "selection Arab horses" when "workhorses" are needed ".
      3. 0
        13 January 2023 18: 11
        PSKR or a raid boat on the water is already being presented as the greatest achievement of shipbuilding, ora and pathos in all media, as the greatest breakthrough in engineering. Why do we need expensive developments and "toys" of a single copy, when we need simple patrol boats and BODs with frigates in an acceptable and adequate quantity, on a worked out and mastered hull.
        1. -1
          14 January 2023 01: 55
          Quote: seacap
          when you need simple patrol boats and BODs with frigates in an acceptable and adequate amount, on a well-developed and mastered hull.

          Yes, frigates are needed, precisely as the workhorses of the Fleet and escorts for the Merchant Fleet. But there are some problems with the existing project 22350 - problems with the production of marching diesel engines for their power plants. And these problems (with import substitution) cannot be quickly eliminated. And stocks purchased ahead of time may only be enough for ships already laid down.
          What's next ?
          and then it would be wiser to follow the precepts of Comrade Stalin - RELIANCE ON YOUR OWN FORCES.
          And what about our own?
          And from our own we have a line of three main turbines: M75RU (7 l / s), M500FRU (70 l / s) and M14FR (000 l / s). And this line, in principle, is enough for the construction of any ships of the main classes. Without problematic diesel engines as part of the power plant.
          Yes, with high fuel consumption compared to diesel marching ones. But we have an oil-producing country, don't we?
          To continue the 22350X line (let's call it that), instead of marching diesel engines, the M75RU of 7 l / s is quite suitable. With afterburner M500FR - 90 l / s each.
          And what do we get for the GEM?
          And it turns out that the power plant is approximately equivalent to the power plant of our wonderful BOD pr. 1155.
          What does it mean ?
          This means that the VI of the frigate can be safely increased to 7000 - 8000 tons with the same. as in 1155 speed characteristics.
          While maintaining the entire composition of the avionics and general ship systems, the BC can be slightly increased, say, up to 48 cells in 6 UKKS and doubled BC missiles. And another hangar for 2 helicopters.
          And what do we get as a result?
          And we get a wonderful frigate with improved speed characteristics, because the cruising speed will increase, and adding torque from both turbines (cruising and afterburner) will give a power of 70 l / s! And all this beauty will result in a price tag of about 000 million dollars. (sorry for using an enemy currency, but it's easier to count in it), against the 650 million price tag for 550.
          If you need an escort frigate of a smaller VI and with a lower price tag, then we put a power plant on the M22350RU + M75FRU turbopairs into the hull of the same 70 and get an escort nimble at cruising speeds, with a maximum speed of about 28 knots. Quite enough for an escort. And the price tag will be noticeably more modest. In mass production, I think about 500 million dollars.
          This is what needs to be built.
          Plus Project 22350M, which has already grown to 10 tons with its VI and will be a full-fledged destroyer.
          hi
  2. +5
    13 January 2023 05: 36
    The project is a little more real than the Death Star. Not technically, of course, but politically and economically.
  3. +6
    13 January 2023 05: 42
    It’s a fresh legend, but it’s hard to believe! You, my friend, need to present your work on alternathistory.com, such creativity is honored there. It’s not uncommon for materials from VO, of such an orientation, to be found there.
  4. +3
    13 January 2023 05: 56
    let's spend the money better on the development of unmanned weapons and on maintaining the combat capability of the strategic missile forces.
    All these submarines and strategic bombers, as practice shows, are too vulnerable to the enemy.
    But the rockets from the mines will take off 100%.
    1. +3
      13 January 2023 06: 41
      You do not live, but the spirit of Nikita Sergeevich lives in you laughing
  5. +4
    13 January 2023 06: 32
    I would also screw the ram in front. You get a bomb, not a ship.
    1. +3
      13 January 2023 15: 57
      And I would also screw the battering ram from below, and from above and behind. It will turn out a giant shuriken with missiles and a radar, it will be possible to throw it at enemies if the BC is exhausted.

      And armor, more armor, based on boron carbide and anaptanium: " Romario_Argo (Roman) Today, 13:55 NEW destroyers pr.22350M with a normal VI of 8000 tons will have a reservation of 100 mm approximately 250 tons + armor based on boron carbide 250 mm steel equivalent of at least 1 meter
      - also 250 tons
      due to the small number of ships in the ocean zone - booking is just the way (!)
      such armored destroyers are not critical of any torpedoes, KABs, KRs with an explosive mass of up to 1500 kg.
      "
  6. +3
    13 January 2023 08: 10
    It turns out some very expensive and extremely useless ships
  7. +1
    13 January 2023 09: 07
    How wrong I was! After reading a couple of lines, I decided that our "beloved" Mitrofanov had again come to us! And how I didn’t pay attention that I didn’t remember that our “beloved” had such an article! But it turned out that "he came to us ... he came to us ... Andrey Kononov yeah-ra-a-go-oh-oh-oh!

    Well, since he arrived and decided to "brew porridge", then let him "disentangle"!
    Drink to the bottom, drink to the bottom, drink to the bottom!
  8. Eug
    +1
    13 January 2023 10: 05
    What does it cost us to build a house? Let's draw - we will live ...
    No one really knows what the situation will be in the world in a year, and here it is 2030 ... what I really liked - without prodigies. Although he will still be strained with PPMs if the sanctions are not lifted ...
  9. +2
    13 January 2023 10: 18
    To paraphrase the classics:
    Ostap suffered. He felt a surge of new strength and shipbuilding ideas.

    I tried to find at least some rational grain in the dazzling prospects unfolded by the author, but I could not, but in the process a question arose for the author - why would a ship, the surface part of which, in fact, is a solid antenna, an armored deck? After all, the very first anti-ship missile that hits the superstructure and damages the antennas will turn the ship into a useless trough.
    The second question is how does this "naval fantasy" relate to the "Armament" section?
  10. +2
    13 January 2023 11: 09
    It is interesting, but what, have we already managed to provide each aligarh with a yacht the size of a football field? Of course not, but you are fantasizing here with your ship.
  11. +3
    13 January 2023 11: 43
    The total height of the ship from the waterline is 41,5 m, the electrical centers of the missile defense antennas are located at a height of 35,5 m (bow and stern AFAR) and 37 m (onboard AFAR), which corresponds to the level of placement of the Sampson multifunctional radar on British destroyers type 45, recognized favorites of naval air defense according to the West.

    What kind of tricks people don’t go for - if only they don’t interact with aviation. laughing
    1. 0
      14 January 2023 19: 30
      I understand and accept your sarcasm. Unfortunately, no one will dare to send a full-fledged AWACS on 8-hour duty to neutral waters 400-500 km from Murmansk or Petropavlovsk-Kamchatsky. But the missile defense / anti-aircraft destroyer will provide radar reconnaissance there 24/7 for a couple of months and without fighter cover , and in any weather, and will be able to stand up for himself within the reach of missiles. laughing
      1. 0
        16 January 2023 10: 16
        Quote: Scharnhorst
        On the other hand, the missile defense / anti-aircraft destroyer will provide radar reconnaissance there 24/7 for a couple of months and without fighter cover, and in any weather, and will be able to stand up for itself within the reach of missiles.

        On an infinite plane - yes. But in the conditions of our geoid, and even taking into account the love of means of destroying ships for extremely low altitudes, it is unlikely.
        A simple question - the detection range of the EM radar for a typical target - anti-ship missiles, going at an altitude of 10-15 m? Or the patrol cycle of two airborne quasi-DRLOs - how long will the ship remain without early warning? The Yankees, with their full-fledged airborne AWACS aircraft, in order to keep only one car in the air 24/7, require at least 4 Hawkeyes.
        1. 0
          17 January 2023 11: 01
          Interesting questions should not remain unanswered. The nuclear-powered armored destroyer missile defense / anti-aircraft defense of the "red" airborne AFAR will detect anti-ship missiles flying at the first of the indicated heights, at a distance of 38 km. You correctly noted the flattening of our planet from the poles, which somewhat approximates the conditions for the use of a ship in the Arctic of Murmansk and the Barents Sea to the mentioned infinite plane. And I accept 10 meters of the RCC flight altitude, although I myself usually use the nine (in my mind it is easier to extract the root), and we will accept the conditions of normal atmospheric refraction. With a missile speed of 15 km / min, an approach time of 2,5 minutes should be enough for the air defense on duty to save the ship from being hit.

          But we considered the ideal case for the enemy. The unanswerable question is always omitted: how did the enemy know where to shoot? Space exploration? AWACS aircraft? In a duel situation, it is desirable to reliably detect it yourself and first. The launch of missiles is also not perfect, regardless of the slope or vertically, but in the upper stage, the anti-ship missiles are forced to rise above the surface a hundred meters or more, and this is a unmasking factor and our chance for timely detection.
          Or a patrol cycle of two airborne quasi-DRLO

          I didn’t specifically study this question, but now I’ll try to answer by contradiction and using the American analogue of the CV-22 Osprey. With the voiced power of two engines of 3000 hp each. the maximum take-off weight of the device can reach 13 tons. Airplane speed 500 km/h; practical flight range of 2500 km at an altitude of 5000 meters. So the patrol time is up to 5 hours. From the VIKI about the CV-22 Osprey (two engines of 6150hp each; maximum take-off weight 27,4 tons; cruising speed in aircraft mode 510 km / h; practical range without refueling 2627 km; practical ceiling 7620 m. )
          With two destroyers in order with two convertiplanes on board each, we will almost approach the capabilities of an aircraft carrier. But initially, both two PLO helicopters and two AWACS convertiplanes are intended to be used only when building up the ship’s efforts in missile defense / anti-aircraft defense, mainly relying on on-board 3D radar and hydroacoustics on-board facilities. drinks
  12. +2
    13 January 2023 12: 09
    no need to shed crocodile tears about possible death due to low stability.


    Maybe still Stability

    And stability does not depend on the height of superstructures and masts, but on the amount of alcohol consumed. laughing
    1. +2
      13 January 2023 13: 18
      Maybe still Stability

      For this author, such trifles do not matter. He soars in the highlands of Delirium tremens, laboring hard to fit the Death Star into the Navy.
  13. -1
    13 January 2023 14: 08
    In general, the project is not bad. But the details need to be improved. Since the complete rejection of 30-mm rapid-fire guns in favor of 57-mm automatic guns, I consider it hasty. These guns are not yet sufficiently reliable and adapted to the ship's air defense. No one produces programmable projectiles in industrial quantities in our country.
    But here with
    but on common sense, the maximum possible speed is not important for our ship.
    completely disagree. The speed of the ship is the speed of the march - which means the time of the offensive of our forces in a given area. Speed ​​is the speed of movement between theaters of operations. And that means initiative. But SUBMARINES just do not need speed. The faster the melt, the noisier it is. And most importantly, and in many ways the only advantage is invisibility under water. And is it even worth thinking about the speed of our diesel-electric submarines and nuclear submarines if they turn into "roaring cows". But for ships in the ocean zone, speed is more important. Moreover, surface ships (due to the fact that they are surface ships), no matter how hard you try, will not be quiet. There is a category of noise that cannot be removed in any way (for example, the noise from how the waves hit the sides).
    Still, at a speed of 25 knots (this is about 46 km / h), there is a delay at the start of patrol due to the fact that it takes more time to get to the patrol zone. Let's assume that the patrol zone is 500 km away. at a distance from the deployment port. Then it turns out that the proposed ship needs almost 11 hours to get to the duty zone. But a ship with a speed of 30 knots (55.5 km / h) will need exactly 9 hours. 2 hour difference. And in those 2 hours, things can change a lot. 2 hours is a GIANT window into which you can launch a missile attack. Not to mention the fact that the ship, even being an air defense / missile defense ship, if necessary, can come to the aid of another ship. And which ship can better help an ally, the one that is "quiet and inconspicuous", or the one that a couple of hours earlier will come to the zone where it can cover the ship that needs support?
    1. -1
      14 January 2023 18: 17
      I see your sincere delusion in the concept of using the proposed ship. Sooner or later, there will be 6 Boreas in the fleets. When at least one is on duty, and possibly two during a threatened period, their deployment, duty and return will require cover on the routes and in the area. The three proposed destroyers with an autonomy of navigation comparable in duration to the autonomy of SSBNs (for which nuclear power is desirable) are capable of performing this responsible sluggish function for a long time without rotation. The same is true with naval missile defense duty from the side of the sea-ocean. According to the author, the tasks of these ships are akin to the tasks of KRLD (radar patrol ships) and reconnaissance, for which a powerful 3D radar and better acoustics are deployed on board. At the same time, they are designed to repel an air attack on the nuclear submarine on duty and repel a massive raid of cruise missiles on the guarded naval base. According to statistics, modern ships are at full speed for less than 10% of the duration of their trip. Moreover, they are in no hurry at inter-naval crossings. Your example about 500 km and 9-11 hours of travel is not entirely correct. As an option - you need to leave two hours earlier. And not every even a modern ship is able to maintain the maximum speed for 9 hours, or the turbines will die, or will come to a point with half-empty tanks, because the fuel consumption increases approximately three times. In these cases, a nuclear reactor will look preferable. Well, as a not entirely correct example on my part, read about the role of the floating battery "Do not touch me" in the air defense of Sevastopol in the second defense. hi
  14. +3
    13 January 2023 15: 51
    Dear author, it is impossible to build modern combat surface ships with one propeller. Propulsors, like engines, like engine rooms, must be duplicated. According to the dimensions of the destroyer you declared L × B × T = 160 × 23 × 8 (10), the displacement crawls out under 13 tons. GEM power 500 t.l.s. for such a displacement will be rather weak. Why does a power plant have to be nuclear? There are turbines M50FRU 70 hp. and M14FR 90 hp Two such turbines for each of the two propeller shafts will be much more efficient. Total power 27,5 hp
    Reservation of the ship's hull will do nothing against modern weapons. It only increases the displacement. In your case, the specified displacement increases by another 1500 tons. Only the cellars need to be booked.
    UVP for 200 cells will not fit into it., But at least two times less.
    The air defense of the ship should have a ship complex ,, Tor ,,, ,, Redut ,, and a ship ,, S-500 ,, with missile defense missiles. Plus a couple of gun mounts ,, Derivation ,, And a naturally powerful modern radar.
    And of course, the destroyer should have attack missiles - subsonic, supersonic and ultrasonic, as well as anti-submarine ones. Something like that.
    1. -2
      14 January 2023 17: 15
      it is impossible to build modern combat surface ships with one propeller. Propulsors, like engines, like engine rooms, must be duplicated.

      Please link to the normative document. An example from the American fleet with single-rotor power plant frigates is widely known - frigates of the Oliver Hazard Perry type, 71 ships were built from 1975 to 2004, and are currently operated in countries such as Turkey and Taiwan, Australia and Spain, Egypt and Poland.
      By displacement. According to the not very intelligible calculation method you gave, Zamvolta VI (see Table No. 3) should be within 19000 tons, which contradicts official data.
      Why does a power plant have to be nuclear?

      You bring the total power of the turbines to 83000 hp. If such a combination were according to the COGAG scheme, that is, two (large and small) turbines could work simultaneously on one propeller, then one could agree with your statement. Unfortunately, in the Russian Federation we are not yet able to create a gearbox for combining turbines of different power to work on one propeller at the same time. The COGOG scheme assumes the operation of one of two propellers, or - or. This means that the total power on the propellers will not exceed (2 × 27500) 55000hp. The nuclear power plant with the OK-650V reactor (as on the SSBN Project 955A Borey) has a thermal power of 190 MW. The main turbo-gear unit develops 50000 hp on the propeller, or 36,775 MW (1 kW = 1,3596 hp), which is no more than 20% of the reactor power. In my opinion, it is easier to increase the power of a steam turbine operating on a GTZA to 60000 hp. (a scheme that, in principle, has been worked out in production and is reliable in operation on nuclear submarines), than in wartime conditions to create a power plant from scratch, which so far has no analogues in the country, even for ships with a lower power such as corvettes and frigates.
      1500 tons of armor appeared on the ship due to the lack of organic fuel for the internal combustion engine. 1500 tons of fuel is at least 11000 barrels. At a price of 60 dollars per barrel, we get the cost of one refueling of 0,66 million dollars, or at the rate of 60 rubles per dollar - 39,6 million rubles. Please note that 1500 tons was taken at a minimum for a ship with VI of 10000 tons, the price of crude oil is not the price of motor fuel, and you are aware of the dollar exchange rate. If we add a logistics infrastructure and a delivery link to the Kola Peninsula or Kamchatka, it will turn out that a nuclear power plant is more economical. As, however, and nuclear energy in general in comparison with coal and gas.
      UVP for 200 cells will not fit into it., But at least two times less.

      In the drawings, 200 cells are shown, I’ll just add, there is no concept of a “cellar” on this ship as such. From the mark of 95 meters into the bow of the ship, three standard sizes of UVPs are located. For information, the scale corresponds to the ratio 1 pixel = 10 centimeters. The UVPs are located from the upper deck to the armored deck and are separated from the aft part of the ship by a vertical armored bulkhead at the indicated mark. The nomenclature of ammunition of three types of UVP is able to satisfy any real needs of the destroyer. hi
      1. +1
        15 January 2023 13: 41
        Quote: Scharnhorst
        . An example from the American fleet with single-rotor power plant frigates is widely known - frigates of the Oliver Hazard Perry type,


        Mdems.

        1st: OHP frigates are escort ships, and their survivability requirements were significantly lower than those of the ships of the first line.

        2nd: the presence of only one screw was considered a disadvantage, and a forced compromise.

        3rd: these are still American frigates, and the Americans are already on something, but in the fight for damage they ate Cthulhu, ate Dagon.
        Quote: Scharnhorst
        Unfortunately, in the Russian Federation we are not yet able to create a gearbox for combining turbines of different power to work on one propeller at the same time.

        Sigh. And a banal electric transmission - no? Instead of all these reducers-burduktors, put diesels and turbines to turn the dynamo, and rotate the propellers with drive electric motors? To have a constant excess of electrical power for the operation of radars, electronics and other systems?

        Quote: Scharnhorst
        The UVPs are located from the upper deck to the armored deck and are separated from the aft part of the ship by a vertical armored bulkhead at the indicated mark.


        And WHAT does the armor deck do, besides making it difficult to repair the ship?
      2. 0
        21 January 2023 09: 13
        Dear author, the example you gave with the outgoing frigate should not be compared with the destroyer.
  15. -2
    13 January 2023 16: 19
    For the Black Sea Fleet and the Baltic Fleet, such EMs are redundant, 4 Gorshkovs per eye, but the Northern Fleet and Pacific Fleet simply need such ships, at least 4 per fleet, and the more the better. And add the rest of the missing number of pennants 22350M. Speed ​​at least 30 knots and two propellers.
  16. -1
    13 January 2023 17: 58
    Star Wars. Eggs are needed for a preemptive strike, without them everything else will not help.
  17. 0
    13 January 2023 18: 54
    When you have money, you can build something like that. And money for technology and modernization. And for the timely replacement of this, so that it is not modernized 100500 times with an extension of the deadlines.

    The idea is good, but all authors thinking in a similar direction forget that our economy is currently shrinking, despite the fact that earlier, in more "fat" years, there was no money for such beauties.
    The current SVO will drag MO money "on land", and how it ends (-when) reflexively it will also continue.
    In order for us to have money for a suitable fleet and for it to be truly modern, we need to think about how to revive the industry and increase export revenues and revenues from the domestic market and related markets. Only then can we afford to dream. It's a luxury right now..
  18. 0
    14 January 2023 20: 39
    An obvious small but pleasant bonus can be counted in favor of our locator with a smaller number of transceiver elements

    Since when did this become a sign of advantage?
  19. +2
    15 January 2023 11: 09
    Sigh. Can anyone explain what the heavy steel armored deck, traverse bulkheads, etc. should protect against? From shipyard workers doing repairs and maintenance (you have to cut it to get to the inside!)

    Such an armored deck will protect against anti-ship missiles in absolutely no way: cumulative warheads will pierce it like cardboard. As if back in 1945, the Americans were testing the effect of cumulative bombs on the armor protection of battleships (see Guided missiles and techniques, NDRC, 1946). According to the results of testing on a full-size model of the battleship's armor protection - made up of several armor and deck plates with air gaps between them high in the interdeck space - it was concluded that a 454-kg (1000-pound) cumulative warhead, when it hits the roof of the tower, will penetrate battleship to the very cellars.

    Also, such an armored deck will not protect against supersonic anti-ship missiles (the speed of which is simply too high and comparable to the muzzle velocity of heavy guns), from diving combat units and many other ideas that military-technical thought came up with over the decades of the XX-XXI century.

    De facto, all that you will achieve with your armored deck is to make the ship even heavier and less tenacious, since its weight will interfere with stability.

    Replace it with Kevlar plates on top of the reactor and key combat posts, and you will be happy. Even 200 mm of armor will not save you from a direct hit, but fragments and Kevlar will stop.
  20. +1
    15 January 2023 11: 14
    If we calculate the cost of launching a kilogram of payload into low-Earth orbit, the weight and cost of the spacecraft themselves, which can be destroyed by a salvo of eight missiles, then, probably, the construction of a missile defense destroyer may turn out to be a profitable commercial project.


    Well, that's about 1/7-1/8 of SpaceX's weekly launch. Assuming every missile hits, of course. In terms of cost, you lose fifty times, since anti-missiles are more expensive than satellites ...
  21. Hog
    0
    15 January 2023 23: 39
    The superstructure is, of course, tin, the windage will be incredible.
  22. 0
    14 February 2023 12: 08
    In principle, a warship should be treated as a floating weapons platform. And it is precisely on this basis that it should already be equipped with means of detecting targets in all environments. What's the point of visiting him with clusters of radars and sonar if there is nothing to use from weapons? Or there are weapons for one salvo, after which only gun mounts remain with the ammunition load.
    Therefore, if we want to have a destroyer, then its dimensions should, first of all, provide for the placement of sufficient SLCM ammunition, hypersonic missiles, anti-ship missiles and anti-ship missiles, missiles of various ranges, rocket-artillery and artillery systems, and helicopters.
    It turns out a boat of thousands of 11-12 tons with a displacement. Moreover, the ship is universal. For it will be too expensive to build ships separately for air defense / missile defense, separately for anti-aircraft defense, separately for combating surface ships.
    And now, on a universal ship, it is already necessary to hang means for detecting air, surface and underwater targets
    1. 0
      17 February 2023 16: 38
      If we want a large ammunition supply, then we need to build some kind of barge, Schaub 100500 missiles fit in there ... well, like a Nimitz, we get a barge ... under 100 kton of displacement ...
  23. 0
    14 February 2023 12: 44
    Now about the nuclear power plant. You will laugh, but the autonomy of the atomic RRC of project 1144 was not much more than the autonomy of the RRC of project 1164. In terms of food supplies and fresh drinking water. Well, at least crack, but the crew needs to eat, and nutritional capsules, like the movie "June 31", where the pea was chicken and rice, have not yet been invented, not developed. But meat, flour, cereals, vegetables, pasta, you see, they take up space, and the size of the provisional chambers is not unlimited.
    Therefore - is the game worth the candle if you still have to drive supply ships to nuclear ships?
    About the armor. A decade ago, the possible renaissance of battleships was seriously discussed. For their main armor belt and armored deck could well provide protection against the main types of NATO anti-ship missiles - subsonic, with a high-explosive warhead. At the same time, the weight of these missiles in the final flight segment at a distance of about 100 km approximately corresponded to the weight of a 12-inch projectile, but the flight speed was approximately 2,5 times less than the take-off speed of such a projectile at the maximum range. That penetration of neither the main belt nor the armored deck is guaranteed.
    However, by the end of this decade, hypersonic missiles will become an obligatory attribute of the armament of many navies, and the mass of the GZR and their approach speed will be guaranteed to ensure the penetration of the main armor belt with a thickness of both 300 and 400 mm. As at one time, the KSShch missile, with its mass of more than two tons, multiplied by speed, simply broke through the armor belt of the unfinished Project 68 cruiser. Therefore, the meaning of hanging armor on a nuclear ship is incomprehensible. Protection about kamikaze drones? Optoelectronic guidance channels for anti-aircraft missile and gun systems will cope much better with this.
  24. 0
    17 February 2023 14: 42
    In order to build ships of the 1st rank, we need
    1. Normal naval base
    2. Provide a place to base and repair
    3. Provide the naval base with ships - TFR, minesweepers, etc.
    4. Provide the planned deployment area for ships of the 1st rank with supply and support ships, as well as BMZ ships.
    5. Determine the goals and objectives for the required ships of the 1st rank
    6. Give birth to tactics and strategy for the use of ships of the 1st rank.
    7. Determine the necessary armament of ships of the 1st rank.
    Only after that should you start designing and building ships of the 1st rank.

    If there is no secured naval base and support ships, then the ship of the 1st rank will not fulfill the tasks assigned to it.
  25. 0
    22 February 2023 16: 00
    Autumn is a chaotic article, without specifics.
  26. -1
    2 March 2023 09: 45
    I approve, do it.
    Report on completion.