Military Review

Global argument

The concept of a destroyer for action in the oceans is being worked out.

The perspective ship of the Russian Navy for operations in the distant sea and ocean zones is supposed to be classified as a destroyer. They are planned to be from 12 to 16. They will probably be sent to our oceanic fleets, since the presence of such ships in closed sea theaters cannot be considered expedient.

Official information in open sources is extremely small. Only operational requirements for this ship are more or less precisely known. The versatility of a promising destroyer assumes that he will participate in the solution of all the main tasks assigned to the Russian Navy. In wartime, this is primarily a counteraction by carrier strike and missile groups of a potential enemy.

And the Swede and the Reaper

A prospective destroyer, participating in the solution of this task, will act as part of the ship’s strike and aircraft-carrying groups, ensuring the defense of the “core” - aircraft carriers and cruisers, as well as participating in delivering rocket attacks on the enemy.

“It turns out the monster is something between the American ship-arsenal and the Ticonderoga type cruiser.”
Another equally important task of a promising destroyer is the destruction of important coastal targets by long-range cruise missiles (CRBMs) in non-nuclear equipment. He will be involved in landing and anti-landing operations as a fire support ship. Undoubtedly, his duties will include the fight against enemy submarines. The most important task is to ensure the combat stability of strategic submarines. One of the new for Russian fleet destinations - the defense of the theater of operations from the attacks of ballistic missiles of small and medium range. Also, promising destroyers can be used to protect maritime and oceanic communications, both within the framework of zone defense, and as part of the covering forces of especially important convoys.

Bristling with rockets

Fighting enemy naval groups involves air defense and strike missiles as a priority. Small groups and single surface ships will be attacked by two to four cruise missiles or aircraft. In attacks on large formations, 30–40 to 60–70 or more anti-ship missiles from missile ships and submarines and up to 40–50 deck and tactical aircraft can be used aviationprovided by covering EW and suppressing air defense.

Global argument

The estimated number of promising destroyers in the composition of the ocean fleets allows us to estimate their need in the combat order of the squadron of two or three units. It is these ships that will have to take on the reflection of the main part of the enemy's EIS, since the ships of the ocean zone of the old projects either will not have sufficient range and effectiveness of their air defense weapons, or these funds are limited to the zone of self-defense (such as, for example, from ships of the 1155 project). That is, two or three prospective destroyers must be able to hit from 30 to 50 various EAS in a collective air defense system by repelling one such enemy strike. Given the likelihood of infecting enemy air forces under conditions of interference from the enemy, the possibilities of firing these targets, the scope of the volley and the participation rate of air defense weapons, this will require at least eight target long-range air defense systems at each of the future destroyers. At the same time, it is extremely important that, in the absence of fighter aviation in the cover of the ship group, it is possible to defeat EW and DRLO and U aircraft operating at a distance of 250 – 350 kilometers from the impact object (this is determined by the capabilities of existing and prospective EW facilities and airborne radar). Accordingly, the destruction range of long-range air defense missile systems on prospective destroyers is desirable to have at least 400 kilometers.

Given the stock of missile weapons on ships of attack groups of potential opponents, the total number of long-range and medium-range missiles at each of the promising destroyers must be at least 160 units.

Air defense systems should allow for guaranteed repulse of groups of at least three or four air defense systems that broke into the zone of self-defense. To do this, you need at least six - eight target channels of self-defense air defense weapons on board. Solving these problems requires having an air defense system with at least eight channels and a TLU on 72 – 96 containers (each for one large or three or four small-sized missiles) on each of the destroyers, which can hit aerial targets up to 400 kilometers away. These requirements may well meet the maritime version of the C-400 air defense system.

In the self-defense system, multichannel short-range SAM systems (such as “Blade” or “Dagger”) can be used in the amount of four units and two to four ZAK units (such as AK-630 or its development) or SCARS.

In the interests of information support of the use of air defense systems, a radar station is needed that can detect and track airborne targets within a radio horizon at a distance of at least 500 kilometers on aircraft with large EPR and at least 100 – 150 kilometers on RCC. At the same time, the number of simultaneously accompanied targets must be at least 300, taking into account the possibility of placing on board a promising destroyer a ship control station for fighter aircraft. It is advisable that this radar be universal, that is, it would not only allow it to be used for detection, tracking and issuing target designations to air defense weapons, but also ensure the use of long and medium range air defense weapons. This will make it possible to significantly reduce the reaction time of the complex. Such requirements can only be satisfied by a phased-array radar integrated into a single combat information and control system of the ship, like the American Aegis.

Similar calculations regarding the required number of missiles to solve missile defense tasks from short-range and medium-range ballistic missiles show that the TLU will need up to 32 – 48 antimissiles that can hit warheads flying at speeds of up to three or four kilometers per second.

The composition of the strike weapons of a promising destroyer is determined by the requirement of the ability to form the missile volleys necessary for solving typical tasks. The first and most difficult of them is the defeat of large enemy ship groups - carrier-based and strike missiles. To overcome their air defense systems require a sufficiently large consumption of ammunition. As part of the main attack should be from 30 – 40 to 80 – 100 and more missiles, depending on the combat strength of the enemy ship group. At the same time, a reserve of missiles is necessary for the development of success — the defeat of ships that have retained their combat capability. In general, the destruction of a large group of surface ships (such as a carrier-based or missile attack) may require from 50 – 70 to 100 – 120 long-range missiles. When operating as part of a shipboard attack group of two or three new destroyers and one missile cruiser of the 1144 or 1164 project, the TLU of each of the destroyers must consist of 30 – 40 anti-ship missiles. And it is also advisable to provide a reserve in case of an unforeseen development of the situation: 15 – 20 percent of the total ammunition. That is, it is necessary to have 36 – 48 long-range missiles in order to successfully accomplish the tasks of fighting large-scale enemy surface units.

At the same time, the fight against enemy light forces — boats and corvettes that do not have long-range missiles, can be carried out using short-range RCCs from deck-mounted launchers. Their number should be sufficient to destroy at least four to six rocket boats or corvettes. To repel the attacks of two to four strike groups from ships of these classes, 10 – 16 missiles will be required. At the same time, the key condition for successful anticipatory impact on boat groups will be the presence of DRLO and U helicopters on board, without which it is impossible to ensure early detection of small marine targets.

Calculation of the required number of missiles for strikes on ground targets can be made, starting from ground targets, which must be hit with the first strikes of the “Caliber” type CBRB under the plan of conducting operations on ocean and sea theaters or on coastal directions. Estimates and experience of the wars of the beginning of the XXI century show that the number of such targets can be estimated for each of the oceanic fleets within 50 – 60, and the total required number of missiles for their destruction - in 250 – 300. Eliminating missiles that can be used from submarines, 120 – 180 units of such weapons should be placed on prospective destroyers. Assuming that not all are involved in this task, but part of the combat strength of these ships (three or four units), each of them should be able to place missiles of this type onboard from 30 – 40 to 50 – 60.

"God of war" in a vest

The task of direct fire support of the landing party on the coast, as well as ground troops actions on the coastal direction implies the presence of sufficiently powerful artillery installations with a caliber of at least 130 – 152 of a millimeter. The firing range must be such that the ship, being out of range of the enemy's field artillery, can ensure the destruction of ground targets to the depth of the enemy’s tactical defense. To do this, the firing range of shipboard AU must be at least 35 kilometers. The number of AUs can be determined from the requirement to ensure that the ship can perform one fire mission in one cycle of firing at the AU thermal regime, that is, to release 100 – 120 and more projectiles without interruption. This may require installation on a prospective destroyer of up to three double-barreled AU caliber 130 – 152 millimeters.

Another typical task for a promising destroyer is the search and destruction of submarines. The required ammunition of anti-submarine weapons will be small - six to eight anti-submarine missile-torpedoes (PLUR), which is determined by the characteristics of the combat use of submarines and the nature of anti-submarine operations. However, the key condition will be the presence of anti-submarine helicopters on board, without which it is not always possible to ensure effective use of the PLUR at full range. To search for submarines, it is necessary to have a sonar complex capable of detecting a submarine at least at a distance exceeding the effective range of its use of torpedo weapons, as well as towed sonar systems, including with an extended antenna.

It is important to have a sufficient air group on board the ship. The task is to ensure the control of air and surface space in at least one threatened direction by forces of at least one Ka-31 helicopter for a long time. This will require at least three such machines on board. In addition, one or two specialized helicopters are needed to provide anti-submarine operations. Total: a promising destroyer air group should consist of four to five helicopters.

And still a compromise

Thus, the appearance of a promising ship is emerging: universal TLUs with a total capacity of up to 260 weapons, four deck-mounted launchers for the 16 low-range anti-ship missiles, up to four multi-channel short-range air defense missile systems, two to four ZAK and two-three AU 130 – 152 AU units a millimeter with an air group of four to five helicopters. It should have advanced electronic weapons, including powerful radar and GAK. It turns out the monster is something between a US arsenal ship and a Ticonderoga type cruiser with a displacement exceeding 30 thousand tons. The price will be appropriate. Naturally, no one will build such a ship. The stated limits in 12 – 14 thousand tonnes of displacement will allow the TLU to place no more than 96 – 122 cells and up to three helicopters while maintaining the required set of self-defense facilities and necessary electronic weapons. In this case, it is necessary to differentiate the standard equipment of the ship with weapons. At least three options are viewed.

1. Predominantly anti-ship: 36 – 48 long range anti-ship missiles, 48 – 64 container for long-range (medium) range missiles and eight PLUR.

2. Predominantly shock: 48 – 64 KBMD for the destruction of ground objects (“Caliber”), 36 – 48 containers for long-range (medium) range SAMs and eight PLUR.

3. Predominantly defensive: 16 long range PKR, 72 – 96 containers for long (medium) range SAMs and eight PLUR.

The same options will also allow to successfully solve the whole range of peacetime tasks.

Reactor or turbine?

It is worthwhile to dwell on the type of the main power plant. The proposed nuclear installation has the advantage only in relation to the unlimited range of navigation on the fuel. However, there are other restrictions, in particular on food, on fatigue of personnel and on the duration of safe operation of equipment (for fresh water, restrictions can be neglected, since the ship’s power engineering will allow to place a desalination plant on board). These restrictions set the ship's autonomy in two to three months. However, the prospective destroyer will operate not one, but in the composition of tactical groups or operational connections of other ships that do not have nuclear power plants, and, accordingly, its increased autonomy is leveled by the limitations of the connection as a whole.

There are doubts about the structural stability of nuclear ships to possible combat damage. The size of the hull of a promising destroyer will not allow creating a reliable system for protecting a nuclear reactor, semi-light combat combat units of modern missiles weighing 300 – 500 kilograms can destroy it or at least depressurize the first circuit, with all the ensuing consequences. This factor reduces the combat stability of the ship with nuclear power. There is a problem with the restoration work - it will be necessary to carry out decontamination of the hull, which in terms of time and cost can significantly exceed the repair itself. And it’s not a fact that it will be possible at all in the conditions of conducting combat operations if the enemy defeats the ship repair infrastructure. At the same time, the mass and dimensional characteristics of a nuclear power unit (taking into account the desalination plant required for its operation) are one and a half to two times higher than those of a gas turbine unit of equal power, even with fuel reserves. It will require more qualified personnel. Thus, from the point of view of combat and operational necessity, nuclear power plants cannot be considered acceptable for a promising destroyer of the Russian Navy.

In conclusion, it is worth noting that with such a ship the name of the class to which they are going to carry it, the destroyer, somehow does not fit. One estimated displacement in 12 – 14 thousand tons requires assigning it to at least cruisers. However, the fact of the appearance of such ships in many fleets of the world suggests that the time has come to correct the accepted classification of the ship. But this is the subject of another analysis.

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:

Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. And Us Rat
    And Us Rat 22 November 2014 08: 04
    The idea is certainly beautiful, but so far there are no at least fully formulated parameters, then ... request
  2. Rocket
    Rocket 22 November 2014 08: 53
    Like an aircraft carrier from an armature. wink
  3. saag
    saag 22 November 2014 09: 02
    ship i yasu this is a peacetime ship
  4. A1L9E4K9S
    A1L9E4K9S 22 November 2014 09: 04
    Prospects for the distant future.
  5. Semenov
    Semenov 22 November 2014 09: 08
    What does not work, but it turns out AUG.
  6. Pafka
    Pafka 22 November 2014 10: 34
    It remains only to add the function of immersion / ascent and there will be a complete set))
    1. sharp-lad
      sharp-lad 22 November 2014 21: 28
      Sorry, I forgot about the function of take-off and landing on limited bodies of water! wink
    2. sharp-lad
      sharp-lad 22 November 2014 21: 28
      Sorry, I forgot about the function of take-off and landing on limited bodies of water! wink
  7. YUR_VAS
    YUR_VAS 22 November 2014 10: 57
    The big kayak by sight ... wassat
  8. den3080
    den3080 22 November 2014 11: 37
    At least three options are viewed.

    1. Predominantly anti-ship: 36 – 48 long range anti-ship missiles, 48 – 64 container for long-range (medium) range missiles and eight PLUR.

    2. Predominantly shock: 48 – 64 KBMD for the destruction of ground objects (“Caliber”), 36 – 48 containers for long-range (medium) range SAMs and eight PLUR.

    3. Predominantly defensive: 16 long range PKR, 72 – 96 containers for long (medium) range SAMs and eight PLUR.

    The same options will also allow to successfully solve the whole range of peacetime tasks.

    Well there ... fishing or barbecue rafting ... with devkame winked
  9. Sergey S.
    Sergey S. 22 November 2014 12: 03
    That's awesome!
    Top-secret topic is discussed among strategists and tacticians!
    One thing is good, for there is no smoke without fire.
    So the topic of a multi-purpose ship of rank I is really being worked out in Russia.
  10. marder4
    marder4 22 November 2014 12: 10
    It sounds beautiful, but how real is all this?
  11. andrey-ivanov
    andrey-ivanov 22 November 2014 12: 28
    Given the stockpiles of missile weapons on the ships of the strike groups of potential opponents, the total number of long and medium-range missiles on each of the promising destroyers should be at least 160 units.

    It still depends on who is considered as a "potential enemy" - if if the NATO Navy (read the US) then:
    1) There are not so many anti-ship weapons on the ships of the US Navy - the Harpoon anti-ship missiles are becoming obsolete, and the anti-ship version of the Tomahawk KR has not received widespread adoption. And the standard placement of "Harpoons" - PU 2X4 placed perpendicular to the ship's DP does not make it possible to release the entire ammo with one salvo at one target.
    2) Carrier aviation, in principle, can be a significant threat. Each F / A-18 E (F) is capable of carrying up to 6 anti-ship missiles with a max. loading and flying to maximum range without PTB. But...
    3) why did the author decide that a single ship, even stuffed with 160 (!!!) air defense missiles, would oppose the enemy's strike group? Or some poorly educated commander will send a single ship on an ocean voyage to "eat" the strike groups of the enemy fleet?
  12. AlNikolaich
    AlNikolaich 22 November 2014 12: 38
    Is everything so beautiful? Or type Russian Zumvolt
    with guns? The idea of ​​the plan is "sit, drink ... share,
    dispersed. "IMHO, real fleet concepts
    discussing professionals behind closed doors.
    Then work is done in KB, and only then we
    we learn that somewhere in the shipyard a ship is laid
    this type, this series ...
    And so, in open sources, all OBS!
    So in Armata, everyone is fortunate enough
    officially: "everything will be cool, you will see on
    parade of victory! "And that's it!
  13. SEK
    SEK 22 November 2014 13: 48
    Well, that is being discussed. The Mistral Stools Treaty was generally concluded without any discussion. Now the sailors are wondering what tasks to use them for, if at all they will give them to us.
  14. xtur
    xtur 22 November 2014 13: 49
    > It turns out a monster - a cross between an American arsenal ship and a Ticonderoga-class cruiser with a displacement of more than 30 thousand tons. The price will be appropriate. Naturally, no one will build such a ship. The declared limits of 12-14 thousand tonnes of displacement will make it possible to place the TLU for no more than 96-122 cells and up to three helicopters, while maintaining the required complex of self-defense equipment and the necessary electronic weapons.

    it turns out that without cruisers like "Peter the Great" with some destroyers for 12-14 thousand tons of displacement, the result is not danced
  15. mivail
    mivail 22 November 2014 15: 03
    We don’t have enough money for such toys. And there’s no time for their construction. Further prospects for the development of the Navy will be determined after the impending conflict.
  16. Tjeck
    Tjeck 22 November 2014 19: 17
    I am not a sailor and it is not for me to decide what needs to be built there. But personally, most of all I would like to see in the future (until 2020) the prestige ship. Something like Kirov in a new look. But this is so, my wet fantasies)) winked
  17. Pro100 people
    Pro100 people 22 November 2014 21: 11
    If you started discussing this topic, then for sure the design bureau already has conceptual designs and concepts for a promising destroyer.
  18. Observer2014
    Observer2014 22 November 2014 21: 30
    Speaking of "Mistrals", it would be for the happiness of the Russian sailors that the Russian sailors hijacked this barge! Oh, and there is no last doubt with these ships about who or who controls the gamerope.
  19. altman
    altman 23 November 2014 12: 41
    Expensive, and most importantly, does it make sense? Maybe a better number of ordinary ships with a conventional power plant, normal ships with a displacement of 8-10 thousand tons?
  20. red_october
    red_october 11 December 2014 20: 44
    The destroyer, but together with the ship it is necessary to design and build the infrastructure for it, because it not only needs to be put on planned or overhaul, but also refueling, loading with missiles and ammunition, and for this you need well-built logistics: rails, warehouses and much more another ...
    Yes, and for the destroyer at the moment, it is not clear where to make the ship installation, until recently it was supplied exclusively by the Ukrainian Machinery Plant "Zorya" and, according to rumors, they managed to supply engines only 2 patrol boats pr. 11356 (out of 6 planned for the Black Sea Fleet) and 1 pr. 22350 .. . Who knows more precisely correct ...