Military Review

The destroyer "Leader" will be included in the state program in 2018 g

124
The newest destroyer “Leader” (project 23560) will be included in the state armament program 2018-2025, at this time its preliminary design is being completed, reports MIC with reference to the RIA "News».




“Outline design of the ship ends. The bookmark time will be updated after the approval of the 2018-2025 state armament program, ”a source in the defense industry told the agency.

Now as part of the Navy, destroyers of the 956 “Sarych” project, developed back in 1970's, are serving.

Help "MIC": "The project of the destroyer" Leader "is developed by the Northern Design Bureau, the ship will have a displacement of about 17,5 KT., Have a length of 200 m and a width of 20 m. The" Leader "will be able to reach speeds up to 30 nodes and perform independent sailing up to 90 days . The squadron will be armed with 60 anti-ship cruise missiles, 128 anti-aircraft guided missiles and 16 anti-submarine guided missiles. ”
Photos used:
http://bastion-opk.ru/
124 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. PN
    PN 9 February 2016 17: 14
    16
    This is cool!
    1. Wiruz
      Wiruz 9 February 2016 17: 26
      12
      The newest destroyer Leader (project 23560) will be included in the state armament program for 2018-2025, at this time its outline design is being completed

      They contradict themselves!
      What ... stupid person decided that the Leader is that wunderwaffle, presented at last year's exhibition as "Destroyer pr.23560 Shkval"? fool
      "Shkval" is "Shkval" - the creation of the Krylovites. The leader is engaged in the Northern PKB. By the way, in one of the interviews, the head of the (seemingly) SPKB said, they say, "Shkval" has nothing to do with "Leader", they say it's just their own vision of the Krylovites for the future of the Russian Navy!

      I can’t add on my own: all fantasies about 12 atomic destroyers into the furnace, it is necessary to build domestic gas turbine analogues of Burkov and the 55th Chinese!
      hi
      1. tronin.maxim
        tronin.maxim 9 February 2016 17: 37
        +9
        Quote: Wiruz
        I can’t add on my own: all fantasies about 12 atomic destroyers in the furnace, it’s necessary to build domestic gas turbine analogues of Burkov and the 55th Chinese!

        The difficult question is what to put gas turbine or atomic? If I’m not mistaken (or maybe wrong) but we don’t do gas turbine engines, everything remains in the Union republics, but there are no atomic problems, all the more we have gained vast experience. In short min. defense let it decide their question!
        1. Wiruz
          Wiruz 9 February 2016 17: 44
          +3
          The difficult question is what to put gas turbine or atomic? If I’m not mistaken (or maybe wrong) but we don’t do gas turbine engines, everything remains in the Union republics, but there are no atomic problems, all the more we have gained vast experience. In short min. defense let it decide their question!

          But that is not the whole part of my ingenious (winked) plan.

          To build not destroyers with frigates, but destroyers instead of frigates. Reduce the line of Corvette-Frigate-Destroyer to Corvette-Destroyer. And the latter to build on all of the fleet, somewhere more, somewhere less.

          Yes, we have problems with gas turbines, but they seem to be being solved. But YaSU will increase the tonnage, the ship, its cost, its crew, and besides, it is unsafe - even art. a shot could damage the reactor. IMHO, GTU is preferable. And about the range - I think 6000-7000 miles can squeeze, which is enough hi
          1. user
            user 9 February 2016 18: 47
            +5
            IMHO, GTU is preferable. And about the range - I think 6000-7000 miles can squeeze,


            Well, we are not the United States, we do not have bases and 6000-7000 is a limitation of the range of the campaign.
            Remember how German raiders without fuel suffered.
            1. Atrix
              Atrix 9 February 2016 22: 51
              -2
              Quote: user
              Well, we are not the United States, we do not have bases and 6000-7000 is a limitation of the range of the campaign.
              Remember how German raiders without fuel suffered.

              What does not prevent the Russian ship from entering ports and replenishing supplies.
          2. aktanir
            aktanir 9 February 2016 18: 49
            -1
            yes ... in the navy we have practically nothing to boast about, the Lada submarines with autonomous anaerobic engines are being completed, but in fact the project is falling apart, the future of Kalina is uncertain, it remains to sail on the aging Varshavyanka and rivet the same ones to replace the ones coming out of building. There is no need to talk about surface ships, we design and build new ones for a very long time, limiting ourselves to the modernization of existing units ...
          3. gispanec
            gispanec 9 February 2016 19: 07
            +5
            Quote: Wiruz
            But YaSU will increase tonnage

            Afrikantov Design Bureau has already created a compact jar for our new nuclear-powered icebreakers and received an order for 6 units ..... so maybe you can stick it to destroyers ?? .. eh?
            1. severyanin
              severyanin 10 February 2016 03: 23
              -1
              Quote: gispanec
              Afrikantov Design Bureau has already created a compact jar for our new nuclear-powered icebreakers and received an order for 6 units ..... so maybe you can stick it to destroyers ?? .. eh?

              Do not confuse the warm with the soft - nuclear power plants for a civilian ship and for a warship are two big differences due to completely different design requirements!
              1. gispanec
                gispanec 10 February 2016 12: 37
                -1
                Quote: severyanin
                Do not confuse the warm with the soft - NPP for a civilian ship and for a warship -

                you yourself haven’t messed up anything ... according to your engine for the GTS (civil will be different from the military engine ?? fool ... and so for KAMAZ ... and other equipment ... that you would understand even a little bit - I’ll explain ... that all of our icebreakers are for dual purposes ..... so Adyu ..
                1. severyanin
                  severyanin 10 February 2016 14: 17
                  -1
                  Quote: gispanec
                  you yourself haven’t messed up anything ... according to your engine for the GTS (will the civilian engine differ from the military engine ?? ?? and so for KAMAZ ... and other equipment ... that you would understand at least a little - I will explain ... that all the icebreakers we have dual purpose ..... so Adyu ..

                  Well ... Well ... Compare the Nuclear Power Plant with the engine for KAMAZ ??? belay You are overheated, my dear, and are nonsense! We have something, in which case the icebreaker will turn into an atomic cruiser ??? And the nuclear power plant will immediately become fourfold redundant ??? And the power immediately once in 5 grow ???
                  Sometimes it is better to remain silent and seem silly than to say and dispel all doubts! hi
                  1. gispanec
                    gispanec 13 February 2016 10: 22
                    -1
                    Quote: severyanin
                    Compare the Nuclear Power Plant with the engine for KAMAZ?

                    are you out of your mind where I compared yau with a diesel engine from KAMAZ ?? ... do you know how to read? ... you wrote that the MILITARY yau and Citizenship are different as a fly and an elephant ... and I tell you that NO they are the same (for minor exclusions) .. .on the new nuclear-powered icebreakers, they are dual-use and about the diesel engine he gave as an example of military and civilian technologies in PRINCIPLE !! .... you are ours, noobas)) !!
                    1. severyanin
                      severyanin 13 February 2016 17: 08
                      -1
                      Quote: gispanec
                      MILITARY Yau and Citizenship are different as a fly and an elephant ... but I tell you that NO they are the SAME (for a minor exclusion) ... they are dual-purpose on new icebreakers-icebreakers, but about diesel, I gave it as an example of military and civilian technologies in PRINCIPLE !! .... noobas you ours)) !!

                      Well, of course, you know better from your sofa! wassat See don't burst with complacency hi
                      One may ask, where does such confidence come from that an NPP from an icebreaker is suitable, for example, to a cruiser or a promising destroyer?
                      Once again, for people like you: initially, at the design stage, they laid down completely different requirements for performing completely different tasks - they only have a common principle of action!
                      I'll try to "chew" specifically for you:
                      An icebreaker does not need, for example, a speed of 30 or more knots, so the required power of its nuclear power plant will be significantly lower (up to several times) in comparison with a warship, plus completely different requirements for protection, for supporting systems, etc. - these are not "minor exceptions" !!!
                      In order not to be unfounded, unlike you, I’ll give an example of excerpts from open sources (Wikipedia):
                      Promising icebreakers of the type LK-60Я (project 22220):
                      Displacement 33540 t; speed max. 22 node
                      GEM - 2 nuclear reactor at 175 MW as part of the RITM-200 nuclear power plant. The total power of the power plant (on the shafts) 60 MW;
                      TARKR project 1144.2 "Peter the Great":
                      Water displacement 25860 t; speed max. 32 node
                      GEM - 2 KN-3 type nuclear reactor with 300 MW capacity, 2 GTZA with 70000 horsepower. Total shaft power 140000 hp (103 MW)
                      Hence the conclusion - to ensure the required characteristics for warships, a GEM of much greater power is needed with a smaller displacement.
                      It makes no sense to invent dual-use reactors - for civilian vessels the capacity of such a reactor is excessive, and for the military, the capacity of the reactor is insufficient.
                      This is all I mean, THE SAME! reactors for promising icebreakers, of the same LK-60Я, will not be suitable for a promising destroyer without cardinal alterations and an increase in power characteristics! And this is just what we are talking about reactors, that is, PPU (steam generating unit), and even in the turbine part there is generally heaven and earth!
        2. Fregate
          Fregate 9 February 2016 17: 45
          +4
          Quote: tronin.maxim
          If I’m not mistaken (or maybe wrong) but we don’t do gas turbine engines, everything remains in the Union republics, but there are no atomic problems, all the more we have accumulated vast experience.

          Well, nuclear power plants are, first of all, autonomy. With our problem with basing places in the oceans - it seems like a way out. It seems so. Although I am not an expert. excuse me

          Yes, in terms of autonomy, a nuclear power plant is certainly better. Here I think not least of all the question of price arises of course. Although if the series will be of 12, then why not AEU. Especially for ships with such a displacement.
      2. Hecate
        Hecate 9 February 2016 17: 39
        +6
        It does not interfere. For example, gas turbine cruisers of the Legi type and their atomic version of the Bainbridge type were built in the USA. A nuclear destroyer will be more expensive and have less survivability in case of combat damage, but has a high speed that can support for a long time, which is not possible for a gas turbine ship. If you set the task of protecting the coast of the Russian Federation, then corvettes, project 20385 are enough for this, if you need an escort, for landing or transport ships, for sending, for example, to Syria, then frigates, project 11356 are enough, and if you set the task of a massive missile strike across enemy territory, with cruise missiles, or intercepting an enemy carrier strike group, then you need a nuclear missile destroyer, or a cruiser, or Project 885 nuclear submarine. A nuclear submarine is good, but nuclear submarines are more expensive than surface ships and their service is more dangerous for crews, even in peacetime .
      3. Ami du peuple
        Ami du peuple 9 February 2016 17: 39
        +2
        Quote: Wiruz
        I can’t add on my own: all fantasies about 12 atomic destroyers in the furnace, it’s necessary to build domestic gas turbine analogues of Burkov and the 55th Chinese!

        Well, nuclear power plants are, first of all, autonomy. With our problem with basing places in the oceans - it seems like a way out. It seems so. Although I am not an expert. excuse me hi
      4. just exp
        just exp 9 February 2016 17: 41
        +2
        Well, let’s say this, it is still fantasy, but in the future it’s quite possible, and it’s worth considering that these are not exactly destroyers, or rather not destroyers like Berks, at least look at the displacement.
      5. APASUS
        APASUS 9 February 2016 18: 19
        +4
        Quote: Wiruz
        What ... stupid person decided that the Leader is that wunderwaffle, presented at last year's exhibition as "Destroyer pr.23560 Shkval"?

        Leader is a little different
        1. Wiruz
          Wiruz 9 February 2016 18: 21
          +9
          Leader is a little different

          Ay-yay-yay ... And also Marshal ... This is one of the earliest versions of the Leader - "pr.21956" is called.
          48 Form-M cells (48 48n6dm or 192 9m96m) plus 16 UKKS. It’s solid, but they needed to be built the day before yesterday. hi
          1. SSeT
            SSeT 9 February 2016 23: 49
            0
            Exactly what the day before yesterday
        2. SSeT
          SSeT 9 February 2016 23: 49
          +3
          Well yes. The frigate and sight from the S-300 - at, the ultimate Leader, as it is! Smoke Yandex
          1. spravochnik
            spravochnik 10 February 2016 09: 47
            +1
            Quote: SSeT
            Well yes. The frigate and sight from the S-300 - at, the ultimate Leader, as it is! Smoke Yandex

            They wrote to you - this проект 21956, destroyer displacement 9000 t, i.e. almost 2 times less than that of the "Leader".
      6. UVB
        UVB 9 February 2016 18: 39
        +6
        Quote: Wiruz
        it is necessary to build domestic gas turbine analogues of Burkov and the 55th Chinese!

        With analogues, we can’t keep up with either one or the other, I mean quantitatively, and the repetition of the past is obviously lagging behind forever. We won’t be able to take it by number, it means we need to take it in quality, build such ships that for many years will be unattainable in terms of characteristics, like the Orlans, for example, in their time.
      7. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
        Andrei from Chelyabinsk 9 February 2016 21: 21
        +1
        Quote: Wiruz
        I can’t add on my own: all fantasies about 12 atomic destroyers in the furnace, it’s necessary to build domestic gas turbine analogues of Burkov and the 55th Chinese!

        Why? :) For Americans, the role of Arly is clear and understandable. And what will we do with 8 kt destroyers? What weapons to put on them? What tasks to use?
        Quote: Wiruz
        troit not destroyers with frigates, but destroyers instead of frigates

        I don’t understand why, to solve the ship’s tasks in 4 thousand tons, to build a ship in 8 thousand tons. Somehow wasteful, at first glance :))
        1. Wiruz
          Wiruz 9 February 2016 21: 34
          0
          Why? :) For Americans, the role of Arly is clear and understandable. And what will we do with 8 kt destroyers? What weapons to put on them? What tasks to use?

          No, well, I honestly see a destroyer in the region of 10-12 kt. What tasks? All to list? Starting from the demonstration of the flag and ending with massive attacks on surface and ground targets? The most diverse. What weapons? UKKS about 48-64 cells, about the air defense system is not yet clear. Like the S-500F promise? but something is hard to believe. If 40n6 really has an interception ceiling of 185 km, then it will be enough.
          I don’t understand why, to solve the ship’s tasks in 4 thousand tons, to build a ship in 8 thousand tons. Somehow wasteful, at first glance :))

          But I don’t understand why we need frigates at all. More precisely, not frigates, in the case of Project 22350 - "underdestructors".
          The main task of the corvette is simple and understandable - the search for submarines in the near sea zone. The presence of air defense systems and anti-ship missiles is secondary. What are frigates for? Moreover, according to my not at all mathematical calculations, we will spend about as much money on 15 frigates of project 22350 and 12 nuclear destroyers as on 25-30 destroyers with gas turbines.

          hi
          1. Serg65
            Serg65 10 February 2016 08: 27
            +1
            Quote: Wiruz
            But I don’t understand why we need frigates at all. More precisely, not frigates, in the case of Project 22350 - "underdestructors".

            Alexey, by what parameters of project 22356 (and everything goes to the fact that 6 ships of project 22350 will be built, and in the future Project 22356 will be laid) do you consider "an underdestructor" ??? Tonnage 4500 tons, power plant diesel-electric, 16 anti-ship missiles or KR, air defense missile system "RIF-M" (32 missiles) or "Shtil-1" (36 missiles), complex PLO "Packet-NK". 130mm. A-192M, ZRAK "PALASH", helicopter .... what is missing?
            Quote: Wiruz
            What tasks? All to list? Starting from the demonstration of the flag and ending with massive strikes on surface and ground targets? The most diverse

            The destroyer is who ??? A strike cruiser, or is it an air defense ship, an anti-aircraft defense ship and a fire support ship all rolled into one? Proceeding from the fact that our maritime theater of operations is extensive, Russia only in the north and east needs 20-30 destroyers in each direction to cover the maritime operational zone. The cost of pr. 22350 is five times less than that of pr. 21956, while the "Leader" is only in the draft design! And as Mr. NEXUS correctly noted
            Quote: NEXUS
            A leader with a stretch can be called a destroyer, looking at the tonnage. In fact, it replaces the Orlanes and Atlantes and is an arsenal ship (rather an ARC, not a destroyer

            For me, the story with the "Leader" is somehow very reminiscent of the Americans pulling money for their big gunboat "Zamvolt".
            1. spravochnik
              spravochnik 10 February 2016 09: 54
              0
              Quote: Serg65
              Alexei, according to what parameters pr.22356 (and everything goes to the fact that 6 ships of pr.22350 will be built, and subsequently pr.22356 will be laid) you think

              Actually, 22356 Ave. is an export version of 22350 Ave. with underestimated characteristics, and is unlikely to be laid for the Russian fleet.
              1. Serg65
                Serg65 10 February 2016 10: 03
                +1
                Quote: spravochnik
                Actually, 22356 Ave. is an export version of 22350 Ave. with underestimated characteristics, and is unlikely to be laid for the Russian fleet.

                You are right Victor, first wrote and then thought laughing . Although I wanted to indicate pr.22350M.
        2. Serg65
          Serg65 10 February 2016 07: 33
          +1
          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          I don’t understand why, to solve the ship’s tasks in 4 thousand tons, to build a ship in 8 thousand tons. Somehow wasteful, at first glance :))

          hi Welcome Andrew! I, too, somehow do not see the point in this big and expensive toy what . The fleet now needs a mass ship of the frigate-destroyer type, in the Northern Fleet and especially in the Pacific there is nothing to cover a huge theater of war !!! In my opinion, frigates of 22356 pr. And SKR pr. 11540 are suitable for this, the construction of which is not so burdensome for the country and will allow saturating the fleet as soon as possible.
          1. spravochnik
            spravochnik 10 February 2016 09: 59
            +1
            Quote: Serg65
            In my opinion, frigates pr. 22356 and SKR pr.11540 are suitable for this, the construction of which is not so burdensome for the country and will allow saturating the fleet as soon as possible.

            Build these two projects - duplicate functions. I believe that for the fleet it is necessary to build Project 22350 for closed theaters (Baltic and Black Sea), for the Northern and Pacific - modified 21956 Project with an increased maximum capacity of 12000 tons. and build them massively.
      8. NEXUS
        NEXUS 9 February 2016 21: 40
        +1
        Quote: Wiruz
        "Shkval" is "Shkval" - the creation of the Krylovites.

        A barrage is an destroyer for export from a gas turbine SU. That was announced. A leader with a stretch can be called a destroyer, looking at the tonnage. In essence, it replaces the Orlanes and Atlantes and is an arsenal ship (more likely an ARC, not a destroyer).
        Quote: Wiruz
        I can’t add on my own: all fantasies about 12 atomic destroyers in the furnace, it’s necessary to build domestic gas turbine analogues of Burkov and the 55th Chinese!

        I believe that the Squalls will be something like that as opposed to Arly Burke, although it is claimed that this is an export variation of the Russian destroyer.
      9. dzzen
        dzzen 10 February 2016 07: 21
        +2
        I agree that in 43, the Germans also relied on super tanks — the royal tigers, which the German industry could not provide in sufficient quantities to the front due to the laboriousness and high cost of assembly. Therefore, the victory tank is the T-34, which was produced in large quantities because of simplicity and cheapness. The Germans had a similar situation with the Americans in 44, when the Germans could counter 1000-20 fighters to intercept a group of American bombers in the amount of up to 50. Following the logic and practice of naval battles, each ship during a battle has its own survivability time, which in modern conditions of weapon development can be from 10 to 20 minutes. It makes no sense to build nuclear-powered destroyers that are expensive to operate, when for the same money and time you can build 2 BOD.
    2. Fregate
      Fregate 9 February 2016 17: 28
      +3
      the ship will have a displacement of about 17,5 thousand tons

      Not a damn destroyer! That he is that "Zumvolt". And what kind of cruisers will there be if someone is planning them?
      1. Wiruz
        Wiruz 9 February 2016 17: 32
        18
        Not a damn destroyer! That he is that "Zumvolt". And what kind of cruisers will there be if someone is planning them?

        There will be no cruisers. There will be, so to speak, "a single combat ship of the ocean zone." Well, even decided to call him a destroyer. As for me - at least a "battleship" just to build hi
      2. SSeT
        SSeT 10 February 2016 00: 04
        0
        In our paradigm, a destroyer frigate is not needed! There are enough corvettes in BMZ, then ocean ships are needed, these are the Leaders, with great autonomy, arsenal ships, flag demonstrators and solvers EVERYWHERE, anywhere in the sea. And apparently atomic, because GTU will not be and will not be long
        1. spravochnik
          spravochnik 10 February 2016 10: 03
          0
          Quote: SSeT
          In our paradigm, a destroyer frigate is not needed! There are enough corvettes in BMZ, then ocean ships are needed, these are the Leaders, with great autonomy, arsenal ships, flag demonstrators and solvers EVERYWHERE, anywhere in the sea. And apparently atomic, because GTU will not be and will not be long

          Everywhere will fail, quantitatively not enough. There are not many to build.
    3. tomket
      tomket 9 February 2016 17: 41
      +4
      Quote: PN
      This is cool!

      The silhouette of the "Paris Commune" reminds.
      1. Alexey RA
        Alexey RA 9 February 2016 18: 05
        +5
        Quote: tomket

        The silhouette of the "Paris Commune" reminds.

        Izumo!

        Campaign, design bureau densely hooked on cancer. smile
        1. Hecate
          Hecate 9 February 2016 18: 28
          +2
          What you have in the photo is a British battleship like Nelson. 1927 buildings. Http://www.maritimequest.com/warship_directory/great_britain/battleships/ne
          lson / nelson_alexander_monreal.jpg
          1. Alexey RA
            Alexey RA 9 February 2016 18: 46
            +3
            Quote: Hecate
            What you have in the photo is a British battleship like Nelson. 1927 buildings. Http://www.maritimequest.com/warship_directory/great_britain/battleship
            s / ne

            lson / nelson_alexander_monreal.jpg

            This is not Nelson. This is a "paper boat" of Japanese design with a "Nelsonian" arrangement of towers.

            Pay attention to the superstructure - for the Japanese it is a "pagoda", and for the Britons it is a traditional "iron". Plus, the Englishman was smooth-deck.
          2. SkiF_RnD
            SkiF_RnD 9 February 2016 19: 00
            +3
            What you have in the photo is a British battleship like Nelson. 1927 buildings. Http://www.maritimequest.com/warship_directory/great_britain/battleships/ne

            lson / nelson_alexander_monreal.jpg


            You are not right. "Nelson" has obvious differences in appearance, just similar. The image above is an unrealized super-battleship project for the Japanese navy. At least that's what he might look like, according to the "flattery" that made the game. One of the options that eventually lost to the Yamato project. At the "Nelson", the superstructure is different, and the towers are different, and the side, and the citadel is not raised above the upper deck, like the "Japanese".
            1. Hecate
              Hecate 10 February 2016 00: 14
              +2
              I confess that I am not strong in the ships that were planned to be built, but have never been built, and of the ships built, only Nelson-type battleships had a similar architecture.
              1. spravochnik
                spravochnik 10 February 2016 11: 13
                0
                By the way, such a project was in the Union - battleship pr. 21.
                1. Alexey RA
                  Alexey RA 10 February 2016 18: 16
                  0
                  Quote: spravochnik
                  By the way, such a project was in the Union - battleship pr. 21.

                  At that stage of the development of the domestic LC, there was generally a lot of stuffy stuff. And then the state got tired of looking at paper boats - and the USSR ordered projects from Ansaldo. smile
          3. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
            Andrei from Chelyabinsk 9 February 2016 21: 30
            0
            Quote: Hecate
            what you see in the photo is a British battleship such as Nelson.

            Listen, well, you give. If the photo shows Nelson, then I am a Japanese ballerina.
    4. hartlend
      hartlend 9 February 2016 18: 51
      +4
      Make and say yes, we did it. This is cool. And repeating the mantra will, will, will be - this is called another word.
    5. Army1
      Army1 9 February 2016 19: 26
      +1
      Quote: PN
      This is cool!

      Yes, nothing essentially super-cool just increased the ammunition, and for a long, long, long time, they said that in 2016 they would lay the destroyer. I don’t understand why come up with battleships, you need a balanced ship, the same Nakhimov and Petya after modernization, there will be an arsenal ship, and we need a lot of ships, and the sense of a few giants (which still need to be built) Until they are put into service, 10 years will pass , the USA has the same burke already. Perhaps everything will be decided by the Hypersonic RCC.
  2. Hecate
    Hecate 9 February 2016 17: 15
    +3
    Good news. The United States has 74 Arly Burke type destroyers and is completely insolent. Russia needs to protect its borders and interests. Anglo-Saxons live by the old principle - Britain is always right, even when it is not right. Britain has no permanent allies and opponents, Britain has permanent interests. Russia is time to answer the Anglo-Saxons with the same coin. Soviet cruisers, armed with the Russian Navy, are aging both morally and physically, they need a replacement.
    1. Ami du peuple
      Ami du peuple 9 February 2016 17: 26
      +2
      Quote: Hecate
      Soviet cruisers, armed with the Russian Navy, are aging both morally and physically, they need a replacement.

      Technically, this is a destroyer. Let's say, an analogue of "Zamvolt"
      Quote: Hecate
      The United States has 74 Arly Burke type destroyers and is completely insolent.

      Somewhat exaggerated, but, in principle, yes. Just we should not be measured with the Yankees, in the field of large surface ships, especially the 1st and 2nd ranks. We don’t pull financially, and it’s not necessary. We are, after all, a land power.
      1. Hecate
        Hecate 9 February 2016 17: 44
        +4
        The question here is that medium-range land missiles are prohibited by international agreements, although the US has already openly violated these agreements by placing dual-purpose launchers in the EU, supposedly anti-aircraft, but with the possibility of launching Tomahawk cruise missiles from them, including nuclear warheads part. Sea missiles are not limited by contracts, so you need to build anything you want, including missile boats capable of hitting cruise missiles X-101 and Caliber.
    2. Lord of the Sith
      Lord of the Sith 9 February 2016 17: 33
      +5
      Here is the full composition, and there a third goes under cancellation.

      Destroyer destroyers URO type "Arleigh Burke" (Arleigh Burke) - 62
      DDG-51 “Arleigh Burke”, 1991
      DDG-52 “Barry”, 1992
      DDG-53 John Paul Jones, 1993
      DDG-54 Curtis Wilbur, 1994
      DDG-55 “Stout”, 1994
      DDG-56 John S. McCain, 1994
      DDG-57 “Mitcher”, 1994
      DDG-58 Laboon, 1995
      DDG-59 Russell, 1995
      DDG-60 Paul Hamilton, 1995
      DDG-61 Ramage, 1995
      DDG-62 Fitzgerald, 1995
      DDG-63 “Stethem”, 1995
      DDG-64 “Carney”, 1996
      DDG-65 Benfold, 1996
      DDG-66 Gonzalez, 1996
      DDG-67 Cole, 1996
      DDG-68 The Sullivans, 1997
      DDG-69 “Milius”, 1996
      DDG-70 "Hopper" (Hopper), 1997
      DDG-71 “Ross” (Ross), 1997
      DDG-72 "Mahan" (Mahan), 1998
      DDG-73 "Speaker" (Decatur), 1998
      DDG-74 “McFaul”, 1998
      DDG-75 Donald Cook, 1998
      DDG-76 Higgins, 1999
      DDG-77 O'Kane, 1999
      DDG-78 "Porter" (Porter), 1999
      DDG-79 Oscar Austin, 2000
      DDG-80 Roosevelt, 2000
      DDG-81 Winston S. Churchill, 2001
      DDG-82 “Lassen”, 2001
      DDG-83 Howard, 2001
      DDG-84 Bulkeley, 2001
      DDG-85 McCampbell, 2002
      DDG-86 “Shoup”, 2002
      DDG-87 “Mason” (Mason), 2003
      DDG-88 “Preble”, 2002
      DDG-89 “Mustin”, 2003
      DDG-90 Chaffee, 2003
      DDG-91 “Pinckney”, 2004
      DDG-92 “Momsen”, 2004
      DDG-93 Chung-Hoon, 2004
      DDG-94 “Nitze”, 2005
      DDG-95 James E. Williams, 2004
      DDG-96 Bainbridge, 2005
      DDG-97 Halsey, 2005
      DDG-98 Forrest Sherman, 2006
      DDG-99 “Ferregat” (Farragut), 2006
      DDG-100 Kidd, 2007
      DDG-101 Gridley, 2007
      DDG-102 Sampson, 2007
      DDG-103 “Trakstan” (Truxtun), 2009
      DDG-104 “Erase” (Sterett), 2008
      DDG-105 Dewey, 2010
      DDG-106 Stockdale (Stockdale, 2009
      DDG-107 Gravely, 2010
      DDG-108 Wayne E. Meyer, 2009
      DDG-109 Dunham, 2010
      DDG-110 William P. Lawrence, 2011
      DDG-111 Spruance, 2011
      DDG-112 Michael Murphy, 2012
      1. [comment-show]
        Wiruz
        Wiruz 9 February 2016 17: 36
        0
        [quote.] Here is the full composition and there is a third of the write-off goes.

        [/ comment-show] [comment-deleted]
        The comment was deleted.
        [/ comment-deleted]
  • Wiruz
    Wiruz 9 February 2016 17: 55
    +8
    Here is the full composition, and there a third goes under cancellation.

    Yes, yes. Only here we are talking about the Americans: they write off 20 ships - build 30. All this talk about "the Russians arming themselves," "the Russians are behaving aggressively," "the Russians are the greatest danger to the United States" will only play into their hands. Their rubber budget can afford it, and they riveted destroyers all this time at a very good pace.

    By the way, today there was infa, supposedly based on the SM-6 anti-aircraft missile, the Americans are developing supersonic anti-ship missiles. That's it! hi
  • Hecate
    Hecate 9 February 2016 18: 05
    +6
    Add to this missile cruisers of the Tykandyrog type, they have more missiles than Berks.
  • SSeT
    SSeT 9 February 2016 23: 47
    +1
    Block 3 is also being built there faster than ours, 2 per year. Write off only the oldest
  • Neko75
    Neko75 9 February 2016 17: 15
    +3
    and perform autonomous voyages lasting up to 90 days.
    It was planned with the reactor ...
    1. Hecate
      Hecate 9 February 2016 17: 20
      +4
      Autonomy is not only a stock of fuel, but also a stock of products. This water can now be obtained from a desalination plant, but products can only be taken at a port, or from a supply ship.
      1. Wiruz
        Wiruz 9 February 2016 17: 31
        +4
        Autonomy is not only a stock of fuel, but also a stock of products.

        And rubber dawes repeat Where without them laughing
        1. Hecate
          Hecate 9 February 2016 18: 07
          +3
          Without girls, of course, it’s hard, but somehow you can do it for the duration of the trip, but without products in any way.
          1. Boa kaa
            Boa kaa 9 February 2016 18: 47
            +1
            Quote: Hecate
            but without products in any way.

            In the history of the fleet there is a pre-war experiment, when "Esca" left the Leningrad Naval Base for full autonomy, but blocked it by 2 times. So, on atomos it is possible to increase the autonomy of provisions by 1,5 times. Moreover, you don't really want to eat under water. Then it will be unnecessary to heat the "leftovers" at the pier when returning from the autonomous system.
            But you can’t go far without fuel ... Therefore, nuclear powered ships are preferable in this regard. Especially in wartime, when KKSy become targets of enemy attacks.
            1. Hecate
              Hecate 9 February 2016 19: 34
              +5
              During the Second World War, all this was not from a good life. With such a ration, the soldiers could walk no more than 300 meters, after which they fell to the ground, exhausting them. This reduces the attention of radar operators and the survivability division's capabilities to almost zero, so it’s better not to engage in such experiments and not send hungry sailors to the sea, unless absolutely necessary. Well, if necessary, most will not need to be asked, and history knows many examples. For example, the cruiser Varyag accepted the battle against the whole squadron, but did not lower the flag. The cruiser Svetlana shot the entire ammunition at the enemy, but refused to surrender and died without releasing the flag. Cruiser Novik took the battle against 2 heavy cruisers of the enemy, and answered the offer to surrender with fire from all the guns. He died in battle, but did not give up and managed to disfigure and set fire to one of the enemy's cruisers. The battleship Sevastopol fired to the last shell, repelling all enemy attacks, and having shot the entire ammunition was flooded by the crew in a deep-sea place, in the Bay of White Wolf. There are many such examples, but it is not necessary to demand from the fleet and army heroic self-sacrifice, unless absolutely necessary.
              1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                Andrei from Chelyabinsk 9 February 2016 19: 50
                -1
                Quote: Hecate
                Cruiser Novik took the battle against 2 heavy cruisers of the enemy, and answered the offer to surrender with fire from all the guns. He died in battle, but did not give up and managed to disfigure and set fire to one of the enemy's cruisers

                ??? It seems that this is not an alternative history site?
                Novik was scuttled by the team after a battle with the armored cruiser Tsushima. I don’t know what you confused and with what, I can only guess what was meant by "Admiral Ushakov", a coastal defense battleship killed in battle with two armored (NOT HEAVY!) Japanese cruisers.
                Quote: Hecate
                Battleship Sevastopol

                The battleship "Sevastopol". Don't think I'm picking on, but the battleship Sevastopol is a Russian dreadnought from the First World War.
                Strictly speaking, the battleship died not so - Essen was preparing the ship for a breakthrough from the doomed fortress, but the torpedo prevented ... so the battleship stayed and helped the defenders with fire, and when the fortress surrendered, the sailors remaining on it flooded the battleship.
                Which, however, does not detract from the honor and dignity of soldiers fighting on an armadillo.
                1. Hecate
                  Hecate 9 February 2016 20: 19
                  +2
                  Cruiser Novik took the battle against the armored cruiser Tsushima (152 mm guns) and the armored cruiser Chitose (203 and 120 mm guns). The Novik armored cruiser itself was inferior to opponents both in number and caliber of guns many times (120 mm guns). The battleship Sevastopol continued to fight after the fall of most of the bastions of Port Arthur and was flooded only after it shot the entire ammunition, repelling the attacks not only of the Japanese assault and siege artillery, but also of the attempt to torpedo its small Japanese destroyers. During the First World War, all pre-dreadnought also began to be called battleships. For example, the German training battleship - the pre-dreadnought Schleswig-Holstein, built in 1908.
                  1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                    Andrei from Chelyabinsk 9 February 2016 20: 57
                    0
                    Quote: Hecate
                    Cruiser Novik took the battle against the armored cruiser Tsushima (152 mm guns) and the armored cruiser Chitose (203 and 120 mm guns)

                    I strongly apologize, did you study Wikipedia history or what? :)
                    Chitose and Tsushima were sent to capture Novik, that's right. Chitose went to guard the strait that Novik was expecting, and Tsushima went to inspect Korsakov, where Novik was at that moment. There the cruisers met. During the battle, one on one Novik suffered damage that excluded the possibility of a breakthrough to Vladivostok, left the battlefield and flooded in shallow water (so that it was easy to lift after the war, and Korsakov - the Russian port). Chitose came up later and heartily shot at the place where the ship was sunk (something stuck above the water)
                    Quote: Hecate
                    The Novik armored cruiser itself was inferior to opponents both in number and caliber of guns many times (120 mm guns)

                    Novik and Tsushima - ships of approximately equal displacement. Six 120 mm guns versus 6 152 mm guns. - This is not multiple superiority. In addition, Tsushima was a newcomer who did not have time to fight, and Novik took part in almost all battles of the 1st TEO.
                    Well, to write armored cruisers (3400 tons and 4800 tons) into heavy cruisers (which at that time did not exist at all) - this is strong
                    Quote: Hecate
                    The battleship Sevastopol continued to fight after the fall of most of the bastions of Port Arthur and was flooded only after it shot the entire ammunition

                    He did not shoot any "entire ammunition", no inventions are needed. The battleship fought without this in the highest degree worthy - one preparation for a breakthrough is worth it, and the Japanese paid a considerable price for torpedoing the ship - 2 sunk numbered destroyers and 13 heavily damaged destroyers and destroyers.
                    Quote: Hecate
                    During the First World War, all pre-dreadnought also began to be called battleships.

                    (heavy sigh). The term "battleship" returned to the Navy in 1907, if my sclerosis isn't lying to me. But the point is not in this, but in the fact that it is incorrect to call the battleships of the RYA era battleships and leads to a certain confusion.
                    1. Hecate
                      Hecate 9 February 2016 21: 39
                      +2
                      There are books by different authors and various sources, the data of which diverge. Some sources say that the crew of Novik managed to remove part of the surviving artillery from the sunken ship and destroy one Japanese destroyer. Having arrived at Karsakov, Novik already had numerous combat injuries, including holes below the waterline; Japanese ships had no damage before the battle. Yes, some sources say that the battle with Tsushima became fatal for Novik, but the lion's share of the sources indicates that Tsushima received a worthy rebuff, caught fire and banked and if it weren’t for the approach of Chitose, who finished off Novik, having achieved the failure of management on a Russian cruiser, the fate of Tsushima might have been different. Guns 152 and 120 mm is a significant difference in both the range of fire and the mass of explosives. And taking into account the fact that there were a couple of 203 mm guns on Chitos, the superiority of the Japanese becomes overwhelming, due to the greater range of 8 Japanese guns (152 and 203 mm) In addition, 10 120 mm stood on Chitos, which already exceeded the entire Novik artillery. A lot has been written about Sevastopol and there are different descriptions of those battles. For example, some sources write about the hit of three Japanese torpedoes in Sevastopol, which, however, could not destroy the ship. It is also reported about the full consumption of ammunition in Sevastopol, due to the frequent and active fire that was conducted by the doomed ship. The bastions of Port Arthur lacked modern large-caliber artillery and naval guns, as they could, restrained the Japanese. Yes, different interpretations are possible because of the same names of the ships built at different times, but those who are interested in the history of the Russian fleet will never mix up the dreadnought and pre-dreadnought of Sevastopol, who had a different history of military service.
                      1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                        Andrei from Chelyabinsk 11 February 2016 11: 59
                        -1
                        Quote: Hecate
                        There are books by different authors and various sources

                        But you, of course, will not be able to remember a single one :))) This business is not lordly - sources to remember, I understand :)))
                        Quote: Hecate
                        Having arrived in Karsakov, Novik already had numerous combat damage, including holes below the waterline

                        Well, I wouldn’t record three hits in numerous injuries. And as for the lower waterline - most likely - there is still none, but there is no way to know the truth - the reports directly contradict each other.
                        Quote: Hecate
                        Yes, some sources say that the battle with Tsushima became fatal for Novik, but the lion's share of the sources suggests that Tsushima received a worthy rebuff, caught fire and tipped

                        ... rolled over, drowned, but emerged, received by the breech of the cannon Novik’s cannon on the cumpole (that is, the klotik), which is why, by the will of God, he died, but happily resurrected at the direction of Amaterasu.
                        Quote: Hecate
                        and if it were not for the approach of Chitose, which Novik finished off, having achieved the failure of control on the Russian cruiser, the fate of Tsushima could have been different.

                        I don’t know what communities you came from, but here links to “numerous sources” are not available. As a person who has devoted many years to the study of RYA, I categorically affirm to you that the lion's share of sources says that the battle was going one-on-one, Novik left the battle either simultaneously with Tsushima or Tsushima (really damaged) did not pursue him. The rudder damage is the result of the battle with Tsushima. It did not make sense for the Russian cruiser to continue the battle - he was damaged, excluding the passage to Vladivostok. So the cruiser, leaving the battle, flooded AND ONLY AFTER THIS came Chitose. Which fired at both the sunken cruiser and the town itself, which is especially noted in the memoirs of the priest Alexei Troitsky.
                        Briefly about all this you can read at A.Yu. Emelyn here http://wunderwaffe.narod.ru/Magazine/Midel/03/05.htm
                        Quote: Hecate
                        A lot has been written about Sevastopol and there are different descriptions of those battles.

                        Give at least one that says that the battleship shot the entire ammunition :))
                      2. Hecate
                        Hecate 11 February 2016 23: 16
                        +3
                        Don't you find that your stubbornness and unscrupulousness are worthy of better use ?! Now I don't remember the source that says that Sevastopol shot all the ammunition, but the source refuting your words, I found that once again confirms my innocence that there are many sources and the data in them differ and it is not so categorically worth something to assert. So back to the source. See the magazine `` Modelist-Konstruktor '' article `` Victims of the Tsushima tragedy '' by S. Balakin, edited by Admiral N.N. Amelko pages 13-16. Sevastopol is discussed on page 16. You claim that someone who tried to break out of Port Arthur Sevastopol was hit by a torpedo and therefore could not leave. I read that the port was so tightly blocked that there was no attempt to break through at all, but then, in different sources, they write differently. So in one source it is indicated that Sevastopol got hit by three torpedoes from the attack of small Japanese destroyers, but miraculously survived. S. Balakin writes on the contrary: “Sevastopol, under the command of Captain First Rank N.O. Essen, crossed into the White Wolf Bay, and for 6 days repelled the massive attacks of the enemy fleet. The Japanese fired a total of 180 torpedoes at the battleship, but did not reach the goal: the slightly damaged Sevastopol was flooded at great depth by its crew just before the surrender of the fortress. He and Petropavlovsk to this day rest at the bottom off the coast of Kvantun. '' That's it, sir. I have this magazine, in paper form, and I am not obliged to search for it on the Internet, but so be it, this time, I will find it, because I remember where to look. I remember because I do not have a full MK subscription and, at one time, I often looked for other articles in this publication. The publication is solid. The heading `` Marine collection '', which writes about the Navy, is always signed by engineers, admirals and captains of the Navy. I do not like to search for links to articles, because this search takes a lot of time, many links no longer work and I am not interested. Well, if you please, this time, for you, I will make an exception. Here's a link for you. Http://commi.narod.ru/bmc/mk1bs/bs16.htm
                      3. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                        Andrei from Chelyabinsk 12 February 2016 11: 35
                        -1
                        Quote: Hecate
                        I now don’t remember the source, which says that Sevastopol shot the entire ammunition

                        I doubt very much that such a source can exist in nature.
                        Quote: Hecate
                        You claim that Sevastopol, who was trying to break out of Port Arthur, was hit by a torpedo and therefore could not leave. I read that the port was so tightly blocked. That there was no attempt at breakthrough, but then, in different sources, they write in different ways

                        Oh, wei :)))
                        Quote: Hecate
                        S. Balakin writes on the contrary: “Sevastopol, under the command of Captain First Rank N.O. Essen, crossed into the White Wolf Bay, and within 6 days repelled the massive attacks of the enemy fleet. The Japanese fired a total of 180 torpedoes at the battleship, but so did not reach their goal: the slightly damaged Sevastopol was flooded at great depth by its crew just before the surrender of the fortress. He and Petropavlovsk to this day rest at the bottom off the coast of Quantun. '' That's it, dear sir.

                        Attention, question. Dear sir, do not consider it a job and answer: WHY did Sevastopol move to the White Wolf Bay? Why didn't he get it in Port Arthur? You will not find an answer to this question in Balakin, for one single reason: he wrote an article for publication in the MODELIST-DESIGNER magazine, generally speaking, intended for children of middle and older adolescence. We have all read the MK, of course, his "marine collection" instilled in many an interest in the fleet, but one cannot demand thoroughness from an article on one A4 sheet!
                        But it was like this: on November 9, the flagships last discussed the possibility of breaking through the squadron to Vladivostok, but since only three armadillos could go to sea (and there were almost no main caliber shells for Victory), they refused to leave. When the Japanese began firing at ships from 280-mm guns, they brought ammunition to land from them - so that the ships would not explode when they hit (mortars were hit by mounted fire). Ammunition was brought from Sevastopol as well. Nevertheless, 1TOE ships, receiving 20-30 hits perished one by one.
                        And then, yielding to Essen's persistent requests, his leadership finally allowed the Sevastopol to be taken to an external raid.
                        Essen led his battleship to White Wolf Bay (which was a very difficult operation, including because there were only 100 people left on the ship) and began to prepare for a breakthrough. On the morning of the next day, about 300 people returned to the battleship, they proceeded to equip the parking lot (boom, anti-torpedo nets) and to load ammunition and coal, without which a breakthrough was impossible, but for which it took several days - less than half was left from the crew, plus collapse in port economy, and yet someone else should be on duty at the guns. After the battleship was ready to leave, Essen was going to lead him on a breakthrough.
                        But the Japanese, having discovered that the battleship left Arthur’s harbor, correctly assumed that he was about to break through and was thrown by destroyers, which attacked him several nights in a row.
                      4. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                        Andrei from Chelyabinsk 12 February 2016 11: 42
                        -1
                        On the last night of November, a torpedo exploded in a hinged network damaged an armadillo - a leak and cracks formed, but ours failed the patch and were still preparing for a breakthrough. However, on December 2, a torpedo hit the same place - and again flowed. Repair again, but the next night the torpedo hit the stern and disabled the steering.
                        This hit became fatal - the battleship had to be planted stern to the ground and leave all sorts of thoughts about a breakthrough. Although the work to bring the patch continued - so that in the end the battleship was able to withdraw to depth and flood.
                        Well, you can read more about all this in Suliga's monograph "Squadron battleships of the" Poltava "type, specifically a description of the misfortunes of Sevastopol - pp. 68-74. The book can be taken here http://krigsmarine.ru/voenno-morskoj-flot/carskaya-rossiya / eskadrennye-bronenosc
                        y-tipa-poltava.html

                        Quote: Hecate
                        Well, please, this time, for you, I will make an exception. Here is the link for you. Http://commi.narod.ru/bmc/mk1bs/bs16.htm

                        Thank you! :) Finally, I hear the voice of not a boy, but a husband :))
                        So for this comment you plus from me :)
        2. SSeT
          SSeT 10 February 2016 00: 10
          0
          Nowadays, providing crew with food for 3 months is not even a problem, astronauts fly for 9 months on sublimates, nonsense
  • spravochnik
    spravochnik 9 February 2016 17: 32
    0
    Autonomy is different: for fuel, for water, for provisions. By water - not relevant (there are desalination plants). It remains to understand what is stated ?.
    1. Hecate
      Hecate 9 February 2016 18: 09
      +3
      In terms of food reserves, of course ... Water from a desalination plant, and the reactor provides a long-term possibility of full speed.
      1. SSeT
        SSeT 10 February 2016 00: 12
        0
        I repeat
        Nowadays, providing crew with food for 3 months is not even a problem, astronauts fly for 9 months on sublimates, nonsense
        The food is balanced and tasty, you won’t be hungry.
  • Vasya_Piterskiy
    Vasya_Piterskiy 9 February 2016 17: 15
    +1
    Beautiful! Well, all of ours are doing it honestly, so what is the auto industry so behind?
    1. Wiruz
      Wiruz 9 February 2016 17: 28
      +4
      Well, all of ours are doing it honestly

      M-yes, you are right. Layouts of our ships are able to do. It’s a pity that it doesn’t work out with ships request
      1. Vasya_Piterskiy
        Vasya_Piterskiy 9 February 2016 17: 54
        -3
        Why doesn't it work? Like "Mistral" ours do not, and thank God!
        1. Wiruz
          Wiruz 9 February 2016 18: 10
          +9
          Like "Mistral" ours do not, and thank God!

          Of course, thank God!
          Thank God that we are not building the Mistral!
          Thank God that in the 2008th we did not find a normal marines on the Black Sea Fleet!
          Thank God that we go to Syria on the miserable, stillborn BDK pr.775 and pr.1177!
          Thank God that I had to buy an N-nd number of bulk carriers and dispel the Andreevsky Flag over them!
          The main thing is that the Mistrals are not built wassat
    2. Kathernik
      Kathernik 9 February 2016 18: 32
      +3
      - And where did you see our auto industry? AvtoVAZ has long been Renault-Nissan ....
      1. Dewa1s
        Dewa1s 11 February 2016 06: 43
        -1
        And how they did crap - they do it.
        The place is really damn hike
  • izya top
    izya top 9 February 2016 17: 16
    +5
    bastards, why chase after foreigners? if the streamlined felling angles, then the return slope is better
  • gergi
    gergi 9 February 2016 17: 16
    +2
    Fine! To spare no money for such a thing!
  • Andrei from Chelyabinsk
    Andrei from Chelyabinsk 9 February 2016 17: 19
    +2
    I sincerely hope that "Leader" will in no way resemble the Chinese pagoda shown in the photo.
    1. Hecate
      Hecate 9 February 2016 17: 22
      +6
      This is not important, the main thing is that the enemy radar be noticed by a new destroyer as late as possible ...
      1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
        Andrei from Chelyabinsk 9 February 2016 17: 30
        +3
        Quote: Hecate
        the main thing is that the enemy radar notice the new destroyer as late as possible ...

        Do you think that this pyramid of Cheops is hardly noticeable for the radar? Great doubts gnaw at me on this score. And that the image in the photo has anything to do with the Leader is rather doubtful. As far as I remember, this model appeared simultaneously with the sleep of the mind called "Storm" (a completely nightmare model of an aircraft carrier ... more precisely, a model of a completely nightmare aircraft carrier) which no one ever intended to build for our fleet (for themselves, on the sly, something is being developed , but not shown) And this is more like an export concept prototype of an experimental model ...
        1. Uncle VasyaSayapin
          Uncle VasyaSayapin 9 February 2016 17: 41
          +1
          In general, this is not a pagoda, but our Russian Christmas tree!
          1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
            Andrei from Chelyabinsk 9 February 2016 19: 35
            +1
            No matter how they throw it on a stick, with such a Christmas tree
        2. Hecate
          Hecate 9 February 2016 18: 23
          +3
          Before building the ship, they will begin to test the model, including stealth for radar. I think that the final form of the ship may be different. This is a preliminary layout.
      2. Alexey RA
        Alexey RA 9 February 2016 18: 09
        0
        Quote: Hecate
        This is not important, the main thing is that the enemy radar be noticed by a new destroyer as late as possible ...

        Pffff ... with so many sources of radio emission on EMs, the enemy does not have to notice a new EM on their radars - the banal RTR will be enough.
        Pomnitsa, on the Mediterranean, the passage of the American AB through Suez was spotted right from the coast of Libya.
        1. Hecate
          Hecate 9 February 2016 18: 46
          +3
          Not so simple. It was only the active type on old radar ships, and now the ship’s radar and homing missiles can also work in passive mode, and at a decent distance for horizontal shooting.
          1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
            Andrei from Chelyabinsk 9 February 2016 19: 17
            0
            Quote: Hecate
            It was only active type on old radar ships, and now

            Passive radar guidance was implemented in rockets back in the 60s of the last century
            1. Hecate
              Hecate 9 February 2016 20: 37
              +3
              In the 60s, passive radar devices had a relatively short range, like the first generation missiles themselves. Now launching anti-ship missiles in passive mode is comparable to the maximum missile range of the 60s, and often exceeds it
              1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                Andrei from Chelyabinsk 9 February 2016 20: 59
                -3
                Quote: Hecate
                In the 60s, passive radar devices had a relatively short range, like the first generation missiles themselves. Now launching anti-ship missiles in passive mode is comparable to the maximum missile range of the 60s, and often exceeds it

                Well, it’s already good to fantasize :))) Do you ALMOST ONE RCC with a passive GOS call? :)))
                They do not exist as a class, except that some active seekers can target the sources of EW interference.
                1. mav1971
                  mav1971 9 February 2016 22: 00
                  +4
                  Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk

                  Well, it’s already good to fantasize :))) Do you ALMOST ONE RCC with a passive GOS call? :)))
                  They do not exist as a class, except that some active seekers can target the sources of EW interference.


                  Well, the old Penguin is Swedish - infrared ...

                  A bit from another opera.
                  The AMRAAM (active radar) missile seeker has a passive guidance mode not only at electronic warfare sources, but based on signals from an enemy radar.
                  Apparently, successes in conformal antennas have reached such a level.
                  Tacto, nothing prevents this modernization and the AGSN PKR ...
                  1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                    Andrei from Chelyabinsk 11 February 2016 15: 07
                    -1
                    Quote: mav1971
                    Well, the old Penguin is Swedish - infrared ...

                    Well, yes, it’s only an IR GOS, and it’s about passive ralolocation
                2. Hecate
                  Hecate 9 February 2016 23: 19
                  +3
                  Well, for example, the old Termit anti-ship missiles, some of which are still in service and not only in the Russian Federation, had several options for the guidance head, including passive, thermal. RCC launches toward the enemy ship, according to the radar of the carrier ship. Arriving in the target area, the RCC begins to search for the target with its own homing head. New anti-ship missiles can be corrected due to the feedback of the homing head from the radar of the carrier ship, or aircraft, or target helicopter. Such missiles have the possibility of a second approach to the target, in the event of an initial miss ...
                  1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                    Andrei from Chelyabinsk 11 February 2016 15: 09
                    -1
                    You wrote to us
                    Quote: Hecate
                    In 60-ies passive radar devices had a relatively short range, like the first generation missiles themselves. Now launching anti-ship missiles in passive mode is comparable to the maximum missile range of the 60s, and often exceeds it

                    Now, for some reason, talk about heat heads. You do not understand the difference between passive radar guidance and infrared guidance? :))
        2. Boa kaa
          Boa kaa 9 February 2016 19: 05
          +7
          Quote: Alexey RA
          with so many sources of radio emission on EMs, it is not necessary for the enemy to notice a new EM on their radars - the banal RTR will be enough.
          You have never heard the command on the ship: "The operating mode of the RES is number one!"
          And the boat has a "silence" mode. And then there is electronic camouflage. This is when the shalanda imitates the operation of the RES cruiser (for example). So it's not a fact that RTR will be able to take SDB and KS (space). And inside the compound, the Americans long ago switched to VHF and KIT-type equipment, when everything is limited to direct line of sight. Radar stations replaced TLV, IR cameras and laser rangefinders.
    2. Vladimirets
      Vladimirets 9 February 2016 17: 29
      +4
      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
      "Leader" will in no way resemble the Chinese pagoda shown in the photo.

      To be honest, this bell tower also strained me. what
    3. Wiruz
      Wiruz 9 February 2016 17: 29
      +2
      I sincerely hope that "Leader" will in no way resemble the Chinese pagoda shown in the photo.

      Japanese. But not the point. wink
      I join your hopes drinks
      1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
        Andrei from Chelyabinsk 9 February 2016 17: 35
        +1
        Quote: Wiruz
        Japanese.

        Why Japanese? In China, a lot of pagodas http://studychinese.ru/articles/5/49/
        Or are the Japanese in this particular case more similar?
        Quote: Wiruz
        I join your hopes

        drinks
  • sir_obs
    sir_obs 9 February 2016 17: 23
    +2
    As for beauty, it’s quite debatable, add-ons look more like Chinese pagodas.
    If this is in the corners of the notorious "stealth technology", then why bother to divide the bow superstructure into three parts and make additional reflectors in the corners? No, well, of course, there are very smart designers sitting there, but it doesn't look pretty.
    1. Igor V
      Igor V 9 February 2016 17: 53
      +1
      It seems that this is all completely phased antenna arrays. smile
  • FREGATENKAPITAN
    FREGATENKAPITAN 9 February 2016 17: 24
    +2
    The destroyer is the newest .... the speed is up to 30 knots ..... This is something ... or TTD - performance characteristics from the ceiling, or it is not necessary to build this ............ so for reference. ... with over 90 thousandth displacement AVN "Nimitz" speed is almost 32 knots .......
  • Rurikovich
    Rurikovich 9 February 2016 17: 29
    +3
    Generally a mess. It's time to introduce a normal classification. Let's transfer "Petya" to destroyers. And "Varyag" with "Moscow" in general will be demoted to watchdogs. request
    Normal cruising sizes are destroyer ... Ugh ...
    I like the idea with such a ship, it's time to build a modern and powerful good
    Now there are no restrictions to hide something under other ciphers. Spell it by your names and fear nothing. Well, it’s also clear that minds have become impoverished in coming up with something new, but it’s time to come up with some kind of framework where the gradation is either in terms of displacement, size, function, or something else. And some ships-arsenals are being built - destroyers, other aircraft carriers - are destroyers, third cruisers are being designed - destroyers ... winked
    1. jjj
      jjj 9 February 2016 17: 37
      0
      It is necessary to spite the enemy to leave the classification - cruiser
  • Sasha_Sar
    Sasha_Sar 9 February 2016 17: 30
    +5
    I will say in the words of Nekrasov: "It's only a pity - to live in this wonderful time
    I don’t have to - neither to me nor to you. ”
    1. Pirogov
      Pirogov 9 February 2016 17: 41
      -1
      Are you so bad?
    2. Vadim Zhivov
      Vadim Zhivov 9 February 2016 18: 31
      0
      hi Agree hi Well, at least our children (daughter) drinks +++ from me .. Pace in shipbuilding am
  • triglav
    triglav 9 February 2016 17: 36
    0
    Cool device will be!
  • flSergius
    flSergius 9 February 2016 17: 36
    +1
    I'm not a naval man, actually before the release of World of Warships, I was not at all interested in anything repeat So who in the subject explain: if now almost all ships with an air group and missile weapons, how can this one be called a destroyer? Well, it is clear that the cruiser, frigate and patrol boat are different, but it seems that all medium and smaller ships now fall under the "corvette", so why is it a destroyer? what Moreover, the article does not say a word about mines or about TA.
    1. Wiruz
      Wiruz 9 February 2016 18: 07
      0
      The appearance of many Navy today is to have only two multi-purpose ships - for operations in the near sea zone and for the distant sea / ocean. And how to call this couple (corvette / destroyer, corvette / frigate, light frigate / frigate, frigate / destroyer, LCS / destroyer) is the tenth thing. It is a pity that our Navy did not understand this yet request
    2. Hecate
      Hecate 9 February 2016 18: 13
      +3
      US cruisers of the Tykandyrog type differ little in size from destroyers such as Arly Burke, but carry more powerful weapons
      1. Wiruz
        Wiruz 9 February 2016 18: 20
        0
        US cruisers of the Tykandyrog type differ little in size from destroyers such as Arly Burke, but carry more powerful weapons

        120 missiles against 96ti ?! Do you think this is a significant difference? Me not! Moreover, not all cells on the Ticonderoga can accommodate Tomahawk or SM-3, unlike the last Burks - there at least fill all the cells with axes hi
        1. Hecate
          Hecate 9 February 2016 18: 50
          +3
          120 and 96, this is a difference of 24 missiles, and this is the full ammunition of the anti-ship missiles of the three newest frigates of the Russian Federation of project 11356, so it’s not enough.
          1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
            Andrei from Chelyabinsk 9 February 2016 19: 33
            0
            Quote: Hecate
            the difference is 24 missiles, and this is the full ammunition of the anti-ship missiles of the three newest frigates of the Russian Federation of project 11356,

            And almost three regiments of Yarsov (RS-24). laughing
            Not a single decent anti-ship missile goes into the Arly mines, so what's the point of comparing warm to white?
            1. Hecate
              Hecate 9 February 2016 20: 40
              +1
              RCC Harpoon is one of the best in the world, launch range up to 280 km. She surpasses both the French Exoset and the Italian Otomat. Do not underestimate the capabilities of the enemy, this is a dangerous rocket.
              1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                Andrei from Chelyabinsk 11 February 2016 15: 11
                -2
                Quote: Hecate
                RCC Harpoon one of the best in the World, launch range up to 280 km

                Of course, the fact that RCC Harpoon CANNOT be launched from UVP Arly Berkov and Ticonderoge is unknown to you.
                And why am I not surprised? :)
                1. Hecate
                  Hecate 11 February 2016 21: 25
                  +1
                  Tikanderog-type cruisers carry 122 Harpoon missiles and 8 Tomahawk anti-ship missiles. Unfortunately, the Russian Federation does not yet have ships with such an arsenal. The first will be the upgraded nuclear missile cruiser Adminar Nakhimov. In addition, anti-aircraft missiles can be used not only for air targets, and the range of SM-3 missiles is impressive, despite the fact that Arly Burke carry 74 of these missiles and they can be equipped with 8 Harpoon anti-ship missiles. Harpoon is an anti-ship missile that can be installed on any trough, in a container-type installation, like the Russian anti-ship missile X-35 / X-35M.
                  1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                    Andrei from Chelyabinsk 11 February 2016 21: 57
                    -2
                    Quote: Hecate
                    Tikanderog-type cruisers carry 122 Harpoon missiles and 8 Tomahawk anti-ship missiles. Unfortunately, the Russian Federation does not yet have ships with such an arsenal.

                    wassat
                    The cruisers "Ticonderoga" carry two Mk41 aircrafts with 61 containers each. In theory, 122 Tomahawk rockets (NOT a HARPOON!) Can be shoved into them. But to cram into them CRP The tomahawk is impossible, due to the absence of such a missile in service with the US Navy (decommissioned a long time ago). The Americans do not have any other anti-ship missiles that could be used from the Mk41. Therefore, the entire anti-missile arsenal "Ticonderogo" is limited to eight Harpoons, placed in light deck installations.
                    Quote: Hecate
                    Unfortunately, the Russian Federation does not yet have ships with such an arsenal.

                    The Russian Federation has a Project 1164 cruiser with 16 anti-ship missiles of such power, which the United States simply does not have - neither in range, nor in speed, nor in the power of warheads. At the same time, the cruiser has 64 missiles at least equivalent to the SM-2, and two small air defense systems (the American has none). Besides this, the 1164 project has 6 "metal cutters" (the American has 4).
                    Quote: Hecate
                    In addition, anti-aircraft missiles can be used not only for air targets

                    Line-of-sight - yes, i.e. kilometers by 25, good if 30. Read what the "lion's share of sources" writes on this topic. I'll even give you a hint - the peculiarities of the missile guidance system. But then try to figure it out yourself. You have to start sometime :))
                    Quote: Hecate
                    and the range of the SM-3 missiles is impressive

                    This is from absolute ignorance of the issue. It is unrealistic to come up with more nonsense than to shoot a missile with a kinetic interceptor at a surface target. Read "many sources" what is the SM-3, why it is NOT an anti-aircraft missile, WHAT is the striking element of the SM-3 and you will understand that the alternatively gifted who uses it to shoot at ships will be demoted to the sailors of the second article until the second coming.
                    1. Hecate
                      Hecate 11 February 2016 22: 32
                      0
                      My dear primer should be read, not smoking, and before arguing, read not one source, but at least 5, in order to draw certain conclusions and think about the hypothetical possibilities. 1) I advise you to read about the use of anti-aircraft missiles as tactical ones. For example, the S-75 air defense system in Yemen. Of course, their use has its own moments and limitations, but does not negate the possibility of their application. 2) In 2008, the Russian Navy used the Osa air defense system against Georgia in a naval battle, from a distance of 35 and 15 km, which is a lot for Osa. SM-3 has a huge range, and US missiles can be guided through satellites, GPS, and so on. 3) In addition, the United States is now working on the creation of a full-fledged anti-ship missile system based on the SM-3. 5) The great Confucius said: `` Never say never '', and you apparently consider yourself wiser than Confucius, this is in vain. 6) An active homing head is called a head that itself emits something, that is, radar, thermal homing head just passive, because it itself does not emit anything and is guided by the heat trail of the ship, which is always warmer, against the background of water. Therefore, you correctly wrote about the RCC Penguin and the RCC Termit, which were of two types, with radar and thermal guidance. 7) And not give me your minuses if you don't want them to come back to you.
                      1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                        Andrei from Chelyabinsk 12 February 2016 18: 33
                        -3
                        Quote: Hecate
                        I advise you to read about the use of anti-aircraft missiles, as tactical. For example, the S-75 air defense system in Yemen

                        I did not find anything like an over-the-horizon application, except as an uncontrolled missile. So you have to educate me :))
                        Quote: Hecate
                        In 2008, the Russian Navy used the Osa air defense system against Georgia in naval combat, from a distance of 35 and 15 km, which is a lot for Osa.

                        Sinking .... Wasp shot from 15 km, but not from 35, I hope you understand that the Wasp cannot fly so much? Or, as an option, it was a warning shot when the missile was launched towards the enemy, although it had no chance to hit (some descriptions of that battle mention this). However, judging by the report on missile consumption, only one missile was used - i.e. it is possible that one of these launches is fiction. Unfortunately, there is a lot of controversy in the descriptions of this battle. But the most important thing - IN ALL cases of using missiles, our ships SEEED the target (there were no external sources of target designation, this is not in any description, so the battle was in direct line of sight. That is, this example of my words does not refute in any way.
                        Quote: Hecate
                        SM-3 has a huge range, and US missiles can be guided through satellites, GPS and so on

                        Only there is a nuance - the guidance of air defense systems on any active US satellite (and the USSR - the Russian Federation) is impossible in principle. Just because the flight correction of a missile launcher is performed as follows - the radar of the ship determines the courses / speeds of the flying missile launcher and its goals, the calculator considers the deviations and gives the command for correction, which is transmitted through the communication channel to the missile launcher. Those. SAM requires constant monitoring of the radar and for someone to count on it all. SAM itself includes its brains only after it is let down on the target capture range of its seeker.
                        Modern satellites are not able to do anything like this. The most advanced "target indicators" (such as the "Legend" of the USSR) worked on a completely different principle - they determined the coordinates of the target, and "dumped" information about them onto the ships, they developed the control center for the anti-ship missiles (that is, they simply set the flight route of the rocket to area of ​​location of the target) and carried out the launch of RCC. She flew to a given area and searched for a target.
                        In other words, anti-ship missiles and missiles have fundamentally different guidance systems (even if both of them use AGSN) and, of course, no satellite missiles can control.
                        And even more so, it is impossible to point at a moving target by JP (you would at least think for yourself - well, he can still tell the position of your object, but what about the target position? :))
                        Quote: Hecate
                        In addition, the United States is currently working on creating a full-fledged RCC based on SM-3.

                        And also above the railgun, a fighter with a laser cannon and a similar shadow cast by the Russian horseradish plant. Good luck to them in this :) By the way, such works testify to the big strains with LRASM anti-ship missiles, which there were so many screams about a couple of years ago. In any case, the fact that the United States is wrinkling its forehead over something doesn’t refute my statement that they have no RCC for UVP.
                      2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                        Andrei from Chelyabinsk 12 February 2016 18: 35
                        -1
                        Quote: Hecate
                        The great Confucius said: `` Never say never '', and you apparently consider yourself wiser than Confucius, this is in vain

                        If Confucius really thought so, he would say: “You don’t need to say never,” or “Don’t say never,” but he said, “NEVER say“ never ”, thereby he himself used a word that he didn’t call use! The joke is very in the style of Confucius :)
                        Quote: Hecate
                        An active homing head is a head that emits something, that is, radar, the thermal homing head is just passive, because it does not emit anything and is aimed at the thermal trace of the ship, which is always warmer in the background of water. RCC Penguin and RCC Termite, which were of two types, with radar and thermal guidance heads.

                        Listen, have the courage to admit your mistakes, man are you, or where?
                        What did you write to us?
                        Quote: Hecate
                        It was only the active type on old radar ships, and now both the ship’s radar and the homing head can work in passive mode

                        I quite reasonably objected to this.
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        Passive radar guidance was implemented in rockets back in the 60s of the last century

                        If you originally had in mind not only the radar, but also the infrared seeker, you would have the opportunity to write about it right away. Instead, you got into a dispute, citing NEW rockets and NEW technologies
                        Quote: Hecate
                        In the 60s, passive radar devices had a relatively short range, like the first generation missiles themselves. Now launching anti-ship missiles in passive mode is comparable to the maximum missile range of the 60s, and often exceeds it

                        Well, when "suddenly" it turned out that the anti-ship missiles were somehow not visible in nature as purely passive RL-GOS, then you "suddenly" remembered the IR heads of Termit and Penguin. They just forgot that these missiles (the first - 1960, the second - 1972) are not new by definition. And if you insist that you had in mind, among other things, IR heads - what then did you write about new technologies?
                        Quote: Hecate
                        And do not put me your cons if you do not want them to return to you.

                        Believe me, your minuses are deeply monoenergetic :))
                        Well-deserved minus
    3. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 9 February 2016 18: 50
      +2
      Quote: Hecate
      US cruisers of the Tykandyrog type differ little in size from destroyers such as Arly Burke, but carry more powerful weapons

      So "tiki" were originally destroyers. They were reclassified into cruisers purely for political reasons, after the buchi raised by the admirals - they say, USN cannot remain without new cruisers.
  • SSeT
    SSeT 10 February 2016 00: 22
    +1
    What difference does it make? The ship of the ocean zone - is the name suitable?
  • King, just king
    King, just king 9 February 2016 17: 39
    -2
    2020 in 4 years!
    2025 in 9 years!

    Where are we going to build a series of atomic EMs (cruisers), for which chiches, and most importantly, with what concept? For 10 years, arms thought can make a leap an order of magnitude.
    The wave-electromagnet-hypersonic chain will be invented.

    Of course, it's good that at least there is some movement on the ships - but there is no concept of using the fleet. What we want - no concept, no theories, no discussions. It seems that they are building according to the principle - just to build. I understand that mere mortals will not be told military secrets, but it is clear that the General Staff has no military secrets. And even in 5-10 years it is difficult to restore the personnel and scientific potential. And if you look at the timing of the construction of corvettes and frigates, then the "Leader" of the head will be built for 20 years, tfu-tfu, so as not to predict.
    1. Pirogov
      Pirogov 9 February 2016 17: 56
      +1
      I also have many questions for the authorities, the fleet does not have enough frigates, and corvettes too, but they tell us about some destroyers .........
    2. flSergius
      flSergius 9 February 2016 18: 08
      0
      For 10 years, arms thought can make a leap an order of magnitude.


      Well, that doesn't mean you have to take the ostrich pose. Look, in the Second World War, our BT-7s and Fritz's PzKpfw II developments of the mid-30s successfully fought, the Americans are still fighting on Abrams buckets ...
      And I agree about the lack of a fleet application concept - a mess and 7 Fridays a week.
    3. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 9 February 2016 18: 12
      0
      Quote: King, just king
      Where will we build a series of atomic EMs (cruisers),

      Sevmash. Or traditionally - at the Baltzavod. To the delight of the Finns and Swedes, who even when the usual ALED enters the Gulf of Finland immediately fall into hysteria. smile
      1. King, just king
        King, just king 9 February 2016 18: 15
        -1
        Duc on "Sevmash" it is necessary to build an indoor HEATED boathouse, otherwise they will be like a "potty" in the cold. How many years does it take?
    4. Hecate
      Hecate 9 February 2016 18: 19
      +2
      Where to find. In St. Petersburg, during the time of the USSR, huge atomic icebreakers were being built and are now being built. Huge submarines of the Akala type were built on Zvezdochka and an aircraft carrier for India was built there. Now a new nuclear icebreaker is being built in St. Petersburg, and an atomic cruiser of the Orlan type is being repaired and re-equipped on Zvezdochka. The main thing is that money for the construction of the ship is given and monitored so that the bureaucrats are not plundered. In Ukraine, the corvette Volodimir the Great, according to estimates, is more expensive than a German corvette of the Meco 100 type, despite the fact that salaries in Germany cannot be compared with the Ukrainian ones. and foreign analogues, including Russian
      1. spravochnik
        spravochnik 10 February 2016 10: 28
        -1
        Quote: Hecate
        Where to find. In St. Petersburg, during the time of the USSR, huge atomic icebreakers were being built and are now being built. Huge submarines of the Akala type were built on Zvezdochka and an aircraft carrier for India was built there.

        We saw how to finish building. SHADOW. You can also assemble a supercomputer on the knee ...
  • King, just king
    King, just king 9 February 2016 18: 23
    -2
    Quote: flSergius
    For 10 years, arms thought can make a leap an order of magnitude.


    Well, that doesn't mean you have to take the ostrich pose. Look, in the Second World War, our BT-7s and Fritz's PzKpfw II developments of the mid-30s successfully fought, the Americans are still fighting on Abrams buckets ...
    And I agree about the lack of a fleet application concept - a mess and 7 Fridays a week.


    So after all, the BT-7 is just a BT-7, where is it at least against the modernized T-3? Of course, it is somehow uncomfortable to take the ostrich pose, but at such a rate of NK acceptance into operation, it is even unclear in what position our shipbuilding is. I have recently expressed my opinion that there is even nothing to say about the bookmark of the 69th "Burke"!

    And about Abrams, I think you are wrong. This "bucket" will cut anyone out of reality.
    1. Hecate
      Hecate 9 February 2016 18: 59
      +2
      Abrams is exactly a bucket. During the war in Iraq, the Soviet Phalanx ATGMs beat these Abrams even in the forehead, the first time, but the Challenger had to tinker with British tanks, they were better than the American armor. Challengers most often knocked out on the second attempt, less often on the first, or third. One tablet was enough for Abrams ...
      1. King, just king
        King, just king 9 February 2016 19: 15
        -1
        "Hecate", I, in principle, parallel to how much NATO armor was burned, but why write so lightly, I'm talking about a "bucket"? And then what is not a "bucket"?
        1. Hecate
          Hecate 9 February 2016 19: 45
          +2
          Not a bucket is the new Merkava, with multi-layer and active armor, not a bucket is the British Challenger-2, the Russian T-90MS and Armata, which the Russian Federation has so far almost none. There are new tanks, such as the Korean Black Panther, which have not yet been used in battle, the T-90MS and Armata are fired by the latest RPGs and after the shelling they came under their own power. Challengers-1 proved to be a tough nut in Iraq, better than Abrams, and Challenger-2, for sure, is better. What is happening with the Black Panther is not very clear, but the car can be interesting.
          1. NEXUS
            NEXUS 9 February 2016 22: 14
            +1
            Quote: Hecate
            What is happening with the Black Panther is not very clear, but the car can be interesting.

            You take a look at the price of the Black Panther and many questions will disappear by themselves. hi
            1. Hecate
              Hecate 9 February 2016 22: 54
              +4
              The question is not the price, the question is the possibilities of armor protection
              1. NEXUS
                NEXUS 9 February 2016 22: 57
                +1
                Quote: Hecate
                The question is not the price, the question is the possibilities of armor protection

                And what is the use of this protection if they are purchased a little, as a result of exorbitant prices?
                1. Hecate
                  Hecate 9 February 2016 23: 56
                  +2
                  Yes, South Korea doesn’t have many of them. Britain, for example, also has only 227 modern Challenger-2 tanks. The territory of these countries is not large and they probably have enough for defense in the opinion of their command. And Britain is also participating in NATO adventures. Israel has only one brigade armed with modern Merkava-4 tanks, their number is classified and only a few have been upgraded to the level of Merkava-4M.
          2. King, just king
            King, just king 9 February 2016 23: 05
            -1
            "Hecate"! FIGASSE YOU HAVE APPLICATIONS !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

            !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

            Present at the shelling of the 90th and Almaty? Have you read or written test reports? Have you read it somewhere? This is not a bunch of questions, you know, is it interesting.

            It is not harmful to write, it is harmful not to write!
            1. Hecate
              Hecate 9 February 2016 23: 59
              +2
              Gentlemen, I read and loot a lot about weapons, on different sites and all sources I just don’t remember, and I have no desire to look for them for you. If I wrote, then I read it somewhere and not in one source, but in several. If you are interested, look for yourself, and if you want to offend me, look for someone else. I’m tired of dying amateurs and Rambo sofas to death.
              1. King, just king
                King, just king 10 February 2016 09: 58
                -2
                All adult uncles and aunts gathered here, so I will write to you simply and without fancies: You have an extraordinary ease of thought!

                What do you mean look for yourself? Make a statement and then look proudly, fuck you all, look for confirmation yourself. Pi ... b (balabolit) do not roll bags, right, citizen of "Hecate"?

                But about this: "If you are interested, look for yourself, and if you want to offend me, look for someone else. I'm tired of amateurs and sofa Rambo to death." - to all appearances, "Hecate", your pride and aplomb were trampled upon you very specifically, now you are trying to offend the people here.
                1. Hecate
                  Hecate 11 February 2016 17: 52
                  +1
                  If I read something a few years ago, but I read a lot, then I may not remember the source and I don’t have to look for you. I don’t have to prove anything to you. If you think that I'm a liar, then find confirmation in your own words, and if you just want to be rude, then try to do it on the street, there you will be taught good manners.
                  1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                    Andrei from Chelyabinsk 11 February 2016 21: 08
                    -1
                    Quote: Hecate
                    If I read something a few years ago, but I read a lot, then I may not remember the source

                    Sure. You can’t remember what I’ve never read.
                    Quote: Hecate
                    I don’t have to prove anything to you

                    You are not required to write nonsense on the Internet either. However - write.
                    Quote: Hecate
                    If you think I'm a liar, then find confirmation in your own words

                    Well, here I have confirmed my words with a link on Novik to a very serious author - Emelin. What has that changed? Have you recognized yourself as a liar? It seems to be no.
                    By the way, I do not consider you a liar. Illiteracy is still not a lie. The only thing is funny to read how you refer to "many sources" when it is obvious that your knowledge in the Navy is limited to internet bikes. You obviously haven't read ... I'm not talking about working with archival documents, but there are no traces of Suliga, Kofman, Vinogradov, Skvortsov, and other adequate and serious authors in your posts.
                    Quote: Hecate
                    and if you just want to be rude, then try to do it on the street, there you will be taught good manners.

                    At present, you are rude, not following generally accepted norms of behavior on the Internet. And we teach you good manners laughing
              2. Cat man null
                Cat man null 11 February 2016 15: 20
                -1
                Quote: Hecate
                Gentlemen, I read a lot and loot about weapons, on different sites and all sources I just don’t remember, and I don’t want to look for them for you

                Nevertheless - it’s always considered to be a good form to confirm your words (especially if their truthfulness .. is not obvious), with references to more or less intelligible sources.

                To say "I am not obliged to look for this for you, look for it yourself" - is the inability to answer for your own words and rudeness, moreover.

                Quote: Hecate
                I'm sick and tired of Rambo amateurs and sofas

                Nu-nu .. you yourself, obviously, do not belong to such ones .. and are so similar in appearance laughing
              3. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                Andrei from Chelyabinsk 11 February 2016 16: 05
                -1
                Quote: Hecate
                I'm sick of death amateurs

                How do you look in the mirror? :)
      2. mav1971
        mav1971 9 February 2016 22: 10
        -1
        Quote: Hecate
        Abrams is exactly a bucket. During the war in Iraq, the Soviet Phalanx ATGMs beat these Abrams even in the forehead, the first time, but the Challenger had to tinker with British tanks, they were better than the American armor. Challengers most often knocked out on the second attempt, less often on the first, or third. One tablet was enough for Abrams ...


        Where from?
        Where does this stream of thoughts come from?
        Can you confirm your words with something?
        1. Hecate
          Hecate 9 February 2016 22: 58
          +2
          I don’t want to climb sites now and look for sources for you, look for yourself, just don’t watch the American video about the very tanks and planes. In this movie, as before, they brazenly lie about the fact that the USA did not allegedly lose a single Abrams tank, and the photo of the burned US tanks, with Arabs on them, is full in social networks, and there are not a few videos. Read the sources about the war in Iraq and pay attention to the use of Mi-24 helicopters at the initial stage of the war. It, for obvious reasons, was not long, but it gives an idea of ​​the capabilities of the Cobra helicopters during the Iran-Iraq War and the strength of the armor of NATO tanks, such as: Chieftain, Challenger, Abrams ...
  • Mountain shooter
    Mountain shooter 9 February 2016 18: 31
    0
    Wow destroyer - 17.5 thousand tons! The battleship "Paris Commune" during WWII - 23 thousand tons. And what will the cruiser be then?
    As for nuclear power plants. Of course, it is heavier than a turbine, but do we not consider fuel tanks? Russia has undeniable authority in terms of nuclear power plants. I think ours will cope with this. And this ship will be a real conqueror of the oceans. After all, a nuclear power plant will allow you to pass at maximum speed to any area.
    I don’t understand yet - during the Second World War, a ship was sailing on the Black Sea - the leader of the destroyers under the name “Tashkent”. He had a speed of 44 knots and in one night he was wound to Sevastopol and back from Novorossiysk. Why are they not building large ships at such speeds now? Such and not every torpedo will catch up.
    1. KBR109
      KBR109 9 February 2016 18: 41
      +2
      Just in case - the leader of TASHKENT - ITALIAN. Do not confuse round with sour.
    2. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 9 February 2016 18: 58
      +1
      Quote: Mountain Shooter
      Wow destroyer - 17.5 thousand tons! The battleship "Paris Commune" during WWII - 23 thousand tons. And what will the cruiser be then?

      That is, rocket cruiser 25 kilotons doesn’t bother you? smile
      Or a 1st-rank EM with a full displacement of 8 ct - as it used to be for KRL?

      But after all some with there are such nice boats as destroyers-helicopter carriers - with the displacement of the strike aircraft carrier of the Second World War (for example, "Big E"). smile
      Quote: Mountain Shooter
      Why aren’t they building big ships at such speeds now? Such and not every torpedo will catch up.

      Do not run from the sniper - you will die tired.
      What is the point of sacrificing speed to weapons, strength, range - if the RCC is still faster?
      Roughly speaking, to increase the speed of a ship by N times, it is necessary to increase the power of its GEM by N ^ 3 (N in a cube) times. With a corresponding increase in the mass and volume of GEMs. Is the game worth the candle?
    3. Hecate
      Hecate 9 February 2016 19: 04
      +2
      This is the same reason ships with side armor are not being built right now. Agrentina drowned the British destroyer with one small Exocet missile and all experts say that if such a missile had hit the armored cruiser of the Second World War, or even World War I, it would not have been able to sink it, despite the same size. The problem is that on modern ships there are a lot of all kinds of electronics, the weight of which eats up all the buoyancy reserves of modern combat
      ships
      1. Alexey RA
        Alexey RA 10 February 2016 18: 18
        0
        Quote: Hecate
        This is the same reason ships with side armor are not being built right now.

        Summon: Kaptsov. smile
    4. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      Andrei from Chelyabinsk 9 February 2016 19: 14
      -1
      Quote: Mountain Shooter
      He had a speed of 44 knots and in one night wound to Sevastopol and back from Novorossiysk. Why aren’t they building big ships at such speeds now? Such and not every torpedo will catch up.

      What for? The leaders had (as it seemed then) their own tactical niche. In fact, it turned out that it does not exist.
      Generally speaking, any ship is a way of compromise - do you want high speed? not a question, but if you please sacrifice other elements - armor there, or weapons. Now there is no deep sense in building a displacement ship for 40 knots
  • King, just king
    King, just king 9 February 2016 18: 35
    -3
    Quote: Hecate
    Where to find. In St. Petersburg, during the time of the USSR, huge atomic icebreakers were being built and are now being built. Huge submarines of the Akala type were built on Zvezdochka and an aircraft carrier for India was built there. Now a new nuclear icebreaker is being built in St. Petersburg, and an atomic cruiser of the Orlan type is being repaired and re-equipped on Zvezdochka. The main thing is that money for the construction of the ship is given and monitored so that the bureaucrats are not plundered. In Ukraine, the corvette Volodimir the Great, according to estimates, is more expensive than a German corvette of the Meco 100 type, despite the fact that salaries in Germany cannot be compared with the Ukrainian ones. and foreign analogues, including Russian



    May they not find "Hecate", the fact of the matter is that they will not find it. There is no place, everything is scheduled and occupied.

    And about "Volodymyr the Great" ....................................... well, you understand .. ......................
    1. Hecate
      Hecate 9 February 2016 19: 11
      +2
      The whole question is precisely in financing and control over the targeted expenditure of funds. If funding were constant and in full, ships in the Russian Federation would be built much faster. In addition, after the completion of the modernization of the nuclear missile cruiser Admiral Nakhimov and the gas turbine cruiser Marshal Ustinov, hard workers and engineers will have more experience, and with experience comes speed and quality of work.
      1. severyanin
        severyanin 10 February 2016 03: 46
        +2
        Quote: Hecate
        The whole question is precisely in financing and control over the targeted expenditure of funds. If funding were constant and in full, ships in the Russian Federation would be built much faster. In addition, after the completion of the modernization of the nuclear missile cruiser Admiral Nakhimov and the gas turbine cruiser Marshal Ustinov, hard workers and engineers will have more experience, and with experience comes speed and quality of work.

        Holy simplicity! It's not about financing - it's about pricing !!! Even if the plant "fights" 50-350 thousand rubles for any pendyuruchny valve Du400, then how much money do not pour in, "effective managers" - managers of shipbuilding and ship repair plants will master everything and ask again, as happened with the long-suffering "Ustinov"! The same thing is happening now with "Nakhimov" - SevMash broke the price of 10 !!! frigates of the "Admiral Gorshkov" type am It seems that the question of the expediency of further modernization of "Nakhimov" is even being considered. it doesn't fit into any gate am And do nothing - the monopolists dictate prices ...
        But it was simply not necessary to transfer strategic factories to private hands to the state - now we are reaping the fruits of "privatization" and "optimization"
        1. Hecate
          Hecate 11 February 2016 19: 49
          +4
          So it is necessary to nationalize the military factories, the hard workers get a penny on them, and that is not timely.
  • Andrey Peter
    Andrey Peter 9 February 2016 18: 37
    +1
    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
    I sincerely hope that "Leader" will in no way resemble the Chinese pagoda shown in the photo.

    Looking at the photo I was visited by the same thought. Such a superstructure has a large windage and even if composite materials are used there, one cannot believe it, which will not affect the visibility of the ship.
    Quote: flSergius
    so why is it a destroyer? Moreover, the article does not say a word about mines or about TA.

    It’s just that the article indicates only the means of protection of the ship. Back in the 70s, when I was related to the fleet, I was amazed at how many weapons there were on the ship, which, according to the classification, was considered a destroyer. Although there was a lot of interesting mine weapons.
  • King, just king
    King, just king 9 February 2016 18: 48
    0
    Quote: Mountain Shooter
    Russia has undeniable authority in terms of nuclear power plants. I think ours will cope with this. And this ship will be a real conqueror of the oceans. After all, a nuclear power plant will allow you to pass at maximum speed to any area.



    My exclusively personal opinion is that nuclear power plants are not from a good life. The striped ones have chopped up their nuclear cruisers, not least because they (striped) can refuel literally anywhere in the world. And ours? Moreover, a warship with a nuclear power plant will have a lot of problems when entering foreign ports. Plus the biological and physical protection of the reactor, so that we still need to see what our "Leader" will be armed with, otherwise there won't be enough space.
  • Anchonsha
    Anchonsha 9 February 2016 19: 07
    +1
    Remarkably, we need to at least slightly compensate for the backlog from the USA, if not by the quantity, but by the quality of our ships with superior weapons in terms of efficiency. It has already been reported in the news that the question of starting the construction of more modernized TU-160s has been resolved and our troops will already receive the first aircraft at the end of this year. This news oh how not like NATO and the United States
    1. King, just king
      King, just king 9 February 2016 19: 23
      -2
      Ah, and eh, Anchonsha! The "water Buryats" already had such a concept for ships. Everything is at the bottom .....
  • King, just king
    King, just king 9 February 2016 19: 20
    -2
    Quote: Hecate
    This is the same reason ships with side armor are not being built right now. Agrentina drowned the British destroyer with one small Exocet missile and all experts say that if such a missile had hit the armored cruiser of the Second World War, or even World War I, it would not have been able to sink it, despite the same size. The problem is that on modern ships there are a lot of all kinds of electronics, the weight of which eats up all the buoyancy reserves of modern combat
    ships



    "Hecate"!!! I, sorry, looked at the date of your registration in connection with your post. HOW MUCH YOU MISSED. THINGS HAVE BEEN AND CONTINUES THAT IS NOT IN A TALE TO TELL OR DESCRIBE WITH A PEN. Dig into the archive.
    1. Hecate
      Hecate 9 February 2016 19: 57
      +2
      Yes, I read this site for a long time, I just registered only today. I used to communicate more on the Nevsland.com website, but now they have changed the site and it has become difficult and almost no one to communicate with, because the people just left after their changes.
  • Izotovp
    Izotovp 9 February 2016 21: 16
    +4
    Here on the site this issue has already been dealt with quite qualitatively, so anyone interested can find it. I will repeat from memory the main theses of the conclusions: the gtu at our disposal is voracious, low-power and noisy. Their main production was in Ukraine, they tried to replace them with German ones, they got into it with sanctions. The experience in building a nuclear power plant has been extensive, the difference in mass with gtu (taking into account the fuel supply) is not significant. In the presence of atomic cruisers and aircraft carriers, include ships with a gtu deliberately weaken it in speed and range in the ship group. All distant ships should have similar parameters in this regard, and not wait until some destroyer or BDK escapes around the corner behind the diesel fuel.
    On the occasion of the pagoda, I also expressed concern about its wind resistance, but knowledgeable people assured me that according to the results of mathematical modeling and full-scale airflows, this is more advantageous than a picket fence.
    So far, somehow. hi
    1. severyanin
      severyanin 10 February 2016 03: 52
      +1
      Quote: Izotovp
      Their main production was in Ukraine, they tried to replace them with German ones, they got into it with sanctions.

      Well, well, remember, when did the Germans start producing ship gas turbines so that we could try to buy something from them? It seems that then it was about the delivery of German "MTU" DIESELS, if I'm not mistaken, for our corvettes. As a result, they began to put on Kolomna guano - there was no choice!
      1. Izotovp
        Izotovp 10 February 2016 16: 36
        0
        I don’t dare to argue exactly which gas turbines or diesel engines, I remember that the Germans were slowed down with the delivery and had to put exactly what you like G ... or not. It’s not very important here what: gas turbines or diesel engines. For the ocean zone, it is more suitable and there is a yaeu from its own. And with our g ... these corvettes have enough stock only to crawl along the Baltic puddle.
        And now for the Baltic, Black and Caspian, the problem is to find a suitable modern engine because the power supply is redundant there and the shoulder is small, it seems, but the required powerful and economical diesel or gas turbine.
    2. spravochnik
      spravochnik 10 February 2016 10: 45
      0
      Quote: Izotovp
      On the occasion of the pagoda, I also expressed concern about its wind resistance, but knowledgeable people assured me that according to the results of mathematical modeling and full-scale airflows, this is more advantageous than a picket fence. hi

      And something more compact, like "Gorshkov", does not ... hi
      1. Izotovp
        Izotovp 10 February 2016 16: 40
        0
        Perhaps you just need a lot of different antennas for all ranges, so you have to fence the garden. The lattice ones were spread all over the ship, therefore they seemed more harmonious, but here in one place everything is collected, different and all-perspective, and this is such a pyramid)))
  • red_october
    red_october 9 February 2016 21: 18
    +1
    The Americans do gas turbine installations very cool, we are nuclear. Based on our technological capabilities, our nuclear destroyer is more suitable for our destroyer.

    There are only 4 manufacturers of marine gas turbines in the world: General Electric, Rolls Royce, Zorya Machine Plant (apparently, not for long) and the Chinese. We will certainly arrange their production for frigates 11356 and 22350, but even taking into account the vague construction time of the Leaders, we will not have time to design and manufacture a reliable "heart" for the latter. And with a nuclear installation, destroyers will calmly go to the southern hemisphere for six months without being accompanied by a tanker.
    1. spravochnik
      spravochnik 10 February 2016 10: 47
      0
      Only here with a demonstration of the flag is not very. Ships and ships from nuclear power plants are prohibited in many countries' territorvs.
  • chunga-changa
    chunga-changa 9 February 2016 21: 24
    +1
    The destroyer is larger than the frigate. More missiles, more people, more supplies will intermeddle with him. More space for the installation of equipment, higher the mast - further "sees". It is more seaworthy, the crew suffers less from rolling, the weapon can be used in more waves. If the question is whether to build a frigate or a destroyer, you need to choose a destroyer, even if it is more expensive.
    Between the turbine and the nuclear installation they chose while Ukraine was with us, as soon as its Kremlin was pr..l, then all the talk about the choice was gone. This is bad, but not scary, the ship’s nuclear power plants have been worked out for a long time, they are successfully manufactured and operated, which cannot be said about turbines.
    The only real disadvantages are the cost of installation, fuel, the potential radiation hazard and the inability to call at many ports and countries, but this is not critical for a warship.
    1. spravochnik
      spravochnik 10 February 2016 10: 57
      0
      The nuclear power plant on the "destroyer" makes sense if we have a nuclear aircraft carrier. To escort him. Moreover, such was created (project 11990 "Anchar"). Mass EM (and this is exactly what is needed) must have a GTU. On its basis, it will be possible to create an atomic version (the displacement will, of course, be larger) and build in the quantity required for escorting the AB (for example, 4 pieces per AB).
      1. chunga-changa
        chunga-changa 10 February 2016 11: 04
        +1
        Quote: spravochnik
        must have a gas turbine

        There is no gas turbine engine, there is YaSU. To build from what is more reasonable than from what is not.
        1. spravochnik
          spravochnik 10 February 2016 13: 28
          +1
          Let there be a gas turbine. Perm engines in the 90s ship GTU offered, so there is a backlog. Only our Navy roamed - the Ukrainian were. Now they’ll finalize them to the modern level (all the more so since all the documentation on Khokhlyatskys is probably there, and it’s not a problem to entice specialists), they will organize serial production and the gas turbines will be ready by the right time. And nuclear submarines for nuclear submarines will be needed if their large-scale construction is planned.
          1. chunga-changa
            chunga-changa 10 February 2016 16: 17
            +1
            Yes, there will be a gas turbine

            Thank you so much. That's when they will, then we'll talk.
  • VP
    VP 9 February 2016 21: 30
    +1
    Figase destroyer ... A century ago, considered the largest and most powerful ship, the battleship "Dreadnought", had a displacement of only 5 thousand more.
    Yes, and Peter the Great too
    And in terms of saturation with missile weapons, it surpasses the cruiser URO Ticonderoga, except that it does not work to intercept intercontinental ships (that cattle has SM3), but even that is not a fact, perhaps by the time of launch a naval version of the C-500 was stuck there, the C-500 itself was threatened this year it will be put into service, so that by the time this "destroyer" is built, a naval version will also be made.
    But the toy will turn out, albeit very powerful, but expensive ... He himself will need escort from cruisers and destroyers easier, from harm's way. We will not have AUG and AUG))
    Although Gyurza-M, of course, is still cooler laughing
  • Aandrewsir
    Aandrewsir 9 February 2016 22: 18
    0
    Good "thing"! Happy for our Fleet! Hurry to finalize and into production!
    1. NEXUS
      NEXUS 9 February 2016 22: 23
      +4
      Quote: Aandrewsir
      Good "thing"! Happy for our Fleet! Hurry to finalize and into production!

      Good, no doubt. But here three questions arise: When will they start building? How much? And how long will one unit be built?
      With all this, we must remember that we did not build ships of the first rank (especially with such tonnage) for a very long time. And I also think that we should look at the construction, for example, say Yasenei-M, which we need the day before yesterday.
      1. Hecate
        Hecate 10 February 2016 00: 11
        +3
        Yes, even if they are building something, it’s not all the same to spend on Roma Abramovich’s yachts, whose fleet is comparable to the military Caspian flotilla of the Russian Federation. Let at least 4 be built, for starters, for Pacific Fleet and Northern Fleet.
  • red_october
    red_october 10 February 2016 17: 40
    +1
    Quote: spravochnik
    so there is a backlog.


    First, see how soon and how this touched affect GTU for 11356 and 22350 and smaller corvettes.

    You cannot build a destroyer with a "sick" engine - look how we suffer with "Kuznetsov" ...
  • CSI
    CSI 14 February 2016 12: 36
    +1
    the main thing is that the project is not released on the brakes soldier cool boat angry