Military Review

USC expects from the Ministry of Defense order for the construction of "Leader"

80
"United Shipbuilding Corporation" is awaiting the conclusion of a contract with the Ministry of Defense on the construction of a new destroyer of the project 23560 "Leader", reports RIA News Post deputy director of USC Igor Ponomarev.




“At present, the conceptual design of 23560" Leader "is under consideration by the Ministry of Defense. After a positive decision, the development of a technical project and documentation for construction will begin within the time specified by the Ministry of Defense under the contract to be signed, ”
said Ponomarev.

According to the description of the ship, the draft design of which was presented at the Army-2015 exhibition, “the displacement of the destroyer will be about 17,5 thousand tons, length - 200 meters, width - 20 meters, on board the ship will carry more than 200 missiles of various purposes - naval, anti-aircraft and antisubmarine ".

Earlier on USC reported that the final appearance of the "Leader" will be determined in the current year.
Photos used:
http://bastion-opk.ru
80 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Abbra
    Abbra 2 June 2016 15: 01
    +13
    Very rich news ... Is the process of "waiting" also information?
    1. enot73
      enot73 2 June 2016 15: 20
      +5
      Quote: Abbra
      Very rich news ... Is the process of "waiting" also information?
      Some more information on the implementation of the project in the video from the military-industrial complex name. Unfortunately on the screen saver video ship of another project
    2. Dangerous
      Dangerous 2 June 2016 15: 34
      +3
      So then they will write about each bolt twisted here)))
      1. Wiruz
        Wiruz 2 June 2016 15: 42
        -1
        My worst fears came true ... This "miracle" is a promising destroyer ...

        But the interview with the head of SPKB inspired me with hope ...
        1. Buffet
          Buffet 2 June 2016 16: 00
          +1
          And why did this "miracle" not please you? Is it bad when new ships are built?
        2. NEXUS
          NEXUS 2 June 2016 16: 04
          +3
          Quote: Wiruz
          My worst fears came true ... This "miracle" is a promising destroyer ...

          Remember how old the Orlans and Atlants ... they have long needed a worthy replacement. The leader must replace the Orlans and Atlanta in the long run, precisely because it is a more versatile and promising platform.
          1. PSih2097
            PSih2097 3 June 2016 00: 33
            +1
            Quote: NEXUS
            Remember how old the Orlans and Atlants ... they have long needed a worthy replacement. The leader must replace the Orlans and Atlanta in the long run, precisely because it is a more versatile and promising platform.

            Eagles, too, can not be frailly modernized and made into floating arsenals, especially since their size allows ...
            1. NEXUS
              NEXUS 3 June 2016 01: 13
              +2
              Quote: PSih2097
              Eagles, too, can not be frailly modernized and made into floating arsenals, especially since their size allows ...

              And age? It is clear that both Nakhimova and Petra will undergo modernization, and God forbid they still serve the motherland, but the ships, like people, are aging. And the question of replacing them anyway will someday become better sooner rather than later. About Atlanta I generally I’m silent. Flagman of the Black Sea Fleet Moscow will soon celebrate 40 years.
    3. evil partisan
      evil partisan 2 June 2016 15: 46
      -1
      Quote: Abbra
      Very rich news ... Is the process of "waiting" also information?

      Sometimes (during dysentery at work) such information (expectation ...) is very expensive for a particular individual yes .
    4. Ivan Ivanych
      Ivan Ivanych 2 June 2016 15: 52
      0
      The less we know, the better the "partners" will sleep. And then you won't want to wake up)))
    5. Homo
      Homo 2 June 2016 17: 52
      +2
      What bad Russians they write about every little thing. But the Western media write about the "greatest" achievements - a railgun is expected, a hypersonic missile is expected, a laser weapon is expected! So why is it not information but they have information? request
  2. Signal
    Signal 2 June 2016 15: 03
    +12
    - 17,5 thousand tons ??? Yes, it's a cruiser!
    1. Buffet
      Buffet 2 June 2016 15: 59
      0
      If the cruiser is small. Orlan will be almost one and a half times larger.
      1. pavlos
        pavlos 2 June 2016 21: 52
        +2
        Tikonderoga and Moscow have 8 and 6 thousand tons less.
  3. Herman
    Herman 2 June 2016 15: 08
    +1
    Interestingly, but in addition to the leader, are there any other promising (non-atomic) destroyers?
    1. NEXUS
      NEXUS 2 June 2016 15: 23
      +4
      Quote: Herman
      Interestingly, but in addition to the leader, are there any other promising (non-atomic) destroyers?

      The destroyer Flurry for export ... by the way in the photo in the article it is he. And the atomic Leader looks like this
      1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
        Andrei from Chelyabinsk 2 June 2016 15: 36
        +9
        Quote: NEXUS
        And the atomic Leader looks like this-

        In the photo - an old development, the destroyer of project 21956, has nothing to do with the Leader
        1. NEXUS
          NEXUS 2 June 2016 15: 42
          +1
          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          In the photo - an old development, the destroyer of project 21956, has nothing to do with the Leader

          By and large, the photo from the layout article also has little to do with the final appearance of both the Leader and the Flurry. hi
          1. Basarev
            Basarev 2 June 2016 15: 48
            -1
            I do not see a promising concrete destroyer specified many years ago.
      2. Wiruz
        Wiruz 2 June 2016 15: 54
        +5
        Nexus, you are wrong here. Although who is right is also not clear. That wunderwaffle, which is attached to the article, was originally called the export destroyer pr. 23560 "Shkval". Then, our "professional" mass media began to call her only a promising destroyer "Leader".
        Last year, the head of the SPKB said in an interview, they say, "Squall is not a Leader, it has nothing to do with a promising ship of the Russian Navy. This, so to speak, is the fruit of the Krylovtsy's imagination." Well, today, USC says that Project 23560 is the very Leader ... It's sad ...

        Well, that ship, the model of which you published, is a very early project (like from 2007) of a promising destroyer pr.21956.

        Somehow hi
        1. NEXUS
          NEXUS 2 June 2016 15: 57
          +2
          Quote: Wiruz
          Nexus, you're wrong here.

          Quote: Wiruz
          Well, that ship, the model of which you published, is a very early project (like from 2007) of a promising destroyer pr.21956.

          Somehow

          Even the developers do not know the final look, layout, etc., since all this is still at the level of documentation and drawings. And something tells me that the Leader, however, like the Flurry, will look completely different than the layouts ...
          Something like this...
          1. Wiruz
            Wiruz 2 June 2016 16: 02
            +1
            I really hope for it.

            I generally hope that our Navy will abandon the line of corvette-frigate-destroyer (cruiser), reducing it to a corvette-destroyer, and the destroyer with a gas turbine. Do not ask why, ten times already on this site explained.
            1. NEXUS
              NEXUS 2 June 2016 16: 07
              +2
              Quote: Wiruz
              I generally hope that our Navy will abandon the line of corvette-frigate-destroyer (cruiser), reducing it to a corvette-destroyer, and the destroyer with a gas turbine. Do not ask why, ten times already on this site explained.

              I think it will not be quite so ... as a result of the modularity and unification of the building, there will remain corvettes and RTOs of smaller displacement, frigates and conditionally destroyers, but essentially a universal arsenal platform (possibly an ARC-atomic missile cruiser).
              1. Wiruz
                Wiruz 2 June 2016 17: 15
                +1
                No, I am not against RTOs, they have their own task. I oppose the frigates, because I consider their construction unprofitable. Modern corvettes pr.20380 and their modifications may well solve problems in the far sea zone.
                1. NEXUS
                  NEXUS 2 June 2016 17: 22
                  +3
                  Quote: Wiruz
                  I oppose the frigates, because I consider their construction unprofitable.

                  Project 22350 frigates are likely to replace Sarych destroyers. What is the disadvantage? Displacement is close to Sarych. Project 20380 corvettes are more likely coastal zone ships and have an insufficient range, unlike frigates. Yes, and a displacement of 2200 tons is too small for ocean zone.
                  1. Wiruz
                    Wiruz 2 June 2016 18: 34
                    +1
                    The range is the same as that of Project 22350, and that of Project 20380. It is 4000 miles. But autonomy is different, the corvettes have half as much - 15 days.

                    But this is scary, we, out there, go to the Series and to the RTOs, as it takes.
                    1. NEXUS
                      NEXUS 2 June 2016 18: 40
                      +2
                      Quote: Wiruz
                      The range is the same as that of Project 22350, and that of Project 20380. She is 4000 miles

                      The 20380 has a range of 14 knots at 3500 miles; the 22350-4000 miles at 14 knots.
                2. Boa kaa
                  Boa kaa 2 June 2016 17: 50
                  +5
                  Quote: Wiruz
                  Modern corvettes pr.20380 and their modifications may well solve problems in the far sea zone.

                  Brave claim! I advise you to remember the autonomy, seaworthiness and sea balliness when using weapons. yes
                  1. Wiruz
                    Wiruz 2 June 2016 18: 38
                    +1
                    A bold statement, yes. Only not mine, but (here I am afraid to be mistaken) the head of the Almaz Design Bureau.
            2. Stas157
              Stas157 2 June 2016 16: 27
              +4
              Quote: Wiruz
              with the destroyer with a gas turbine. Do not ask why ten times already on this site explained.

              Kindly, maybe you can copy your answer, unfortunately I have not seen! On the contrary, I think that a nuclear power plant for Russia is not a problem and autonomy will increase, it will not be attached to a tanker, in contrast to a gas turbine which does not exist in nature at all! And when the first gas turbines appear, then Salut will not have enough capacity for everyone.
              1. Wiruz
                Wiruz 2 June 2016 18: 30
                +2
                Well, to begin with, the nuclear power plant will dramatically increase the cost, reduce the survivability of the ship (reactor damage is a terrible thing), increase the number of crews, increase displacement, complicate maintenance (the same replacement of nuclear fuel), plus there will be problems with visiting foreign ports ( not everyone will want to take a ship with YaSU). GTU, in this regard, is much simpler. I know that we have problems with their production, but now what to do? We must catch up. There, you look, and we will build ship engines for export.

                As for my dislike among frigates ... I love them, but I do not consider them necessary if there are good corvettes, and we have them good (they are so chic on paper). With the money you plan to spend on building 15-20 frigates of Project 22350 and 12 nuclear destroyers, it is entirely possible to build 20-25 gas turbine destroyers (each weighing 10-12 kilotons) and distribute them across all fleets (although they do not needed). I don’t think that providing such a ship with 6000-7000 miles will be difficult, and autonomy is 45-60 days. As for weapons, I think that 48 cells of the UKKS and 48 cells of the soaked S-500 will be enough (well, of course, also ZRPK, TA, AU, etc.).

                Thus, our Navy will have a sufficient number of "workhorses" capable of performing various tasks in the World Ocean.

                Afterword: speaking of the S-500, it should be noted that, in my opinion, the "main caliber" of this system will be missiles created on the basis of 40N6, that is, 40N6, 40N6M itself and, I would like, a kinetic interceptor based on it. Thus, one cell will be able to accommodate: either one 40N6, or 4 9M96M.
                The 77N6 family missiles, in my deep conviction, are intended for the A-235, which, most likely, in addition to the stationary one, will have a mobile, and maybe a marine, version.
                1. Stas157
                  Stas157 2 June 2016 19: 49
                  +2
                  Quote: Wiruz
                  Well, let's start with the fact that YaSU will dramatically increase the cost

                  A tanker with fuel is also not worth a penny. A destroyer, the size of a cruiser, with a gas turbine should be considered for the price, bearing in mind the cost of accompanying a tanker with a crew and fuel! The nuclear fuel in modern nuclear weapons, in general, was promised to be laid once for the entire service.
                  Quote: Wiruz
                  increase crew

                  For a lot? GTU also needs to be serviced. On the submarine, the crew is 100 people, and on the destroyer much more! So no big increase is not critical.
                  Quote: Wiruz
                  plus there will be problems with visiting foreign ports

                  For the destroyer with nuclear warheads no ports are needed, it does not have a gas turbine. His voyage is limited only by the amount of provisions taken on board. Like a submarine, he may not return home for half a year. Incredible degree of freedom!
                  1. alexmach
                    alexmach 2 June 2016 21: 12
                    +1
                    For the destroyer with nuclear warheads no ports are needed, it does not have a gas turbine. His voyage is limited only by the amount of provisions taken on board. Like a submarine, he may not return home for half a year. Incredible degree of freedom!


                    Does he not need drinking water?
                    1. samoletil18
                      samoletil18 2 June 2016 21: 23
                      +1
                      Having YaSU you can enable the desalination plant.
                    2. Stas157
                      Stas157 2 June 2016 21: 57
                      +2
                      Quote: alexmach
                      Does he not need drinking water?

                      Of course you must! For nuclear power plants it is not energy-intensive, in comparison with gas turbines, to have powerful desalination plants, like on nuclear submarines.
    2. Roman 11
      Roman 11 2 June 2016 16: 03
      0
      Quote: Herman
      Interestingly, but in addition to the leader, are there any other promising (non-atomic) destroyers?

      Somewhere there was information that he was considering in 2 projects (atomic and without).
  4. dsm100
    dsm100 2 June 2016 15: 09
    +2
    It looks very, very impressive ...
    1. dmi.pris
      dmi.pris 2 June 2016 15: 17
      +1
      I would say BEAUTIFULLY .. How will the final look .. But even this is not a matter of beauty, but of weapons and performance characteristics /, and the time of construction ..
  5. NEXUS
    NEXUS 2 June 2016 15: 12
    +14
    If you expect, then there is very little time left for design.
    Quote: Signal
    17,5 thousand tons ??? Yes, it's a cruiser!

    There was talk about 15 tons, but not the point ... the arsenal ship at the Pacific Fleet and the Northern Fleet will not be superfluous at all. Moreover, given that it will certainly be equipped with Caliber and Zircons (and in considerable quantities), as well as marine version of the S-000, we can confidently say that the Leader will be an order of magnitude more powerful than Peter the Great.
  6. Redfox3k
    Redfox3k 2 June 2016 15: 14
    +6
    May God let the "Leader" appear in metal. Yes, so that a series at once.
    1. NEXUS
      NEXUS 2 June 2016 15: 22
      +7
      Quote: Redfox3k
      May God let the "Leader" appear in metal. Yes, so that a series at once.

      The series will not be big unambiguously. Most likely 4-6 ships at best. And this is an optimistic forecast. Too expensive pleasure. But, I suppose, it may well turn out that 2-4 ships will be laid down with the atomic control system, and the rest, in the project of the Shkval destroyer (The project of the destroyer Shkval is export, but what prevents the construction of several such ships for itself?) Will be with the gas turbine SU ... in this case, the series will be larger.
      1. pavlos
        pavlos 2 June 2016 22: 15
        0
        More likely on the contrary ...
    2. RUSS
      RUSS 2 June 2016 15: 22
      +3
      Quote: Redfox3k
      Yes, so that a series right away.

      More about the "novelty".

      Hybrid APC is ready for delivery to the Russian army
      The silent BTR-90, on which a hybrid power plant and electric transmission are installed, is already fully ready for deliveries to the troops, TASS reports citing the general director of the Military Industrial Company Alexander Krasovitsky.

      According to him, the company plans to sign the last act with the Ministry of Defense in the near future.
      He emphasized that in modern conditions such a silent fighting vehicle as the BTR 90 will be in demand. Krasovitsky noted that the unique model standing in Nizhny Novgorod is waiting in the wings.

      Successful trials of the BTR-90 Rostock were previously reported. After refinement, the car received new types of energy storage, which allowed to increase the traveled distance by tens of times.
      1. Basarev
        Basarev 2 June 2016 15: 50
        +1
        So dozens of times? It looks like such a breakthrough in technology, against which Tesla is nothing more than children's fun.
    3. Roman 11
      Roman 11 2 June 2016 15: 57
      +1
      Quote: Redfox3k
      May God let the "Leader" appear in metal. Yes, so that a series at once.

      Somehow, Gorshkov (2235) and Lada are not glued to the series somehow, the path from the designer’s brain to commissioning is not a short one, but how much more do you need to try out? What would all systems generate without failures ... Immediately nothing and no one happens. It’s better to drive 1-2 ships through all sorts of tests and service for 5 years, then based on experience and developments with possible adjustments, you can run a series, otherwise we still build 1135/6 (still a Soviet project) ...... morally - The 80s + Varshavyanka from the same ...... but 2235 and Lada, I repeat, do not go in series.
  7. Tines
    Tines 2 June 2016 15: 16
    +2
    According to Deputy Minister of Defense Yuri Borisov, thanks to the nuclear power plant, the ship will be able to ensure the constant presence of the Russian fleet in the oceans. Today, there is only one such ship in the Navy - the Peter the Great heavy nuclear missile cruiser. The autonomy of the Leader type destroyer family will be limited only by the physical capabilities of the crews.
  8. alex80
    alex80 2 June 2016 15: 17
    +7
    In the photo in the article, it seems like a layout of the export version of the Shkval destroyer, and the layout of the Leader is here (see below).
    Although, frankly speaking, they are completely confused with these layouts. It would be better if several pieces were serially produced in metal, distributed among the fleets, and then they would give news in the media.
  9. hunt1
    hunt1 2 June 2016 15: 24
    +5
    can't understand why this is a destroyer? this Leader will be more powerful than Peter and they call the destroyer simply a brain rupture "I am a cloud a cloud a cloud and not a bear at all"
    1. NEXUS
      NEXUS 2 June 2016 15: 31
      +3
      Quote: Hunt1
      can't understand why this is a destroyer? this Leader will be more powerful than Peter and they call the destroyer simply a brain rupture "I am a cloud a cloud a cloud and not a bear at all"

      For the simple reason that the armament on it will be the newest, and since the Leader thinks of an arsenal ship, he will carry a lot more mine-based missiles, both cruise and anti-ship missiles, plus the latest electronic warfare systems, AFAR (I think ROFAR will already be on it), stealth, and so on ...
      They called the destroyer the Leader conditionally ... in terms of displacement it is the ARC ... but the essence is clear, it is an arsenal ship.
      1. Basarev
        Basarev 2 June 2016 15: 52
        0
        It looks like a Grozny class cruiser, built in a small destroyer hull.
    2. Tektor
      Tektor 2 June 2016 15: 45
      0
      The leader will be smaller than Peter 1144, which assumes 80 rocket launchers in universal cells after modernization, and only 60 on the destroyer smile
      1. NEXUS
        NEXUS 2 June 2016 15: 51
        +1
        Quote: Tektor
        on which 80 rocket launchers are supposed to be in universal cells after modernization, and only 60 on a destroyer

        Not a fact. In this case, the Leader will have a marine version of the S-500 which will not be on Peter and Nakhimov ... further AFAR (almost certainly there will be ROFAR on the Leader), which will also be absent on Peter. The latest electronic warfare systems, stealth and so on and so forth so on. And the declared 60 missiles, these are only declared. They may well be 200 pieces.
        Quote: Tektor
        The leader will be smaller than Peter 1144,

        Have you heard about modularity?
  10. Res_Ullus
    Res_Ullus 2 June 2016 15: 26
    0
    200 rockets !!! However fellow
    1. kamikaze
      kamikaze 2 June 2016 15: 34
      0
      and why not 2000 missiles and even a tornado volley fire system on the deck to install !!!!!
  11. okroshka79
    okroshka79 2 June 2016 15: 33
    +7
    What did nuclear cruisers practically give to our fleet? I do not consider the beauty and power of an individual ship. I am personally not interested in the demonstration of the flag in front of the townsfolk. I am interested in KOH (the number of combat services and running hours in relation to the total service life)), the time spent in repairs, the cost of the ship and its operation, ease of provision and real tactical characteristics. Who will answer? I believe that it would be better for our fleet and for the implementation of the Military Doctrine of the Russian Federation if instead of one "Leader" heels of "Gorshkovs" were built. Both in terms of cost / efficiency and the rate of saturation of our fleet with real modern combat units. And we also need to ensure the combat stability of the sea triad of strategic nuclear forces, while such a ship itself will require additional forces to ensure its combat stability. IMHO.
    1. NEXUS
      NEXUS 2 June 2016 15: 41
      +2
      Quote: okroshka79
      if instead of one "Leader" were built heels of "Gorshkovs".

      And what prevents building Leaders, corvettes and frigates in parallel? Nobody refuses from frigates and corvettes.
      Quote: okroshka79
      I’m somehow not personally interested in the demonstration of the flag in front of the townsfolk.

      This is not only a demonstration of the flag, but also a demonstration of power. At the same time, the power of the fleets will increase at times if at least two Leaders are built for the Pacific Fleet and the Northern Fleet. At the same time, nothing prevents the construction of Squalls from the gas turbine SU, which are the same Leader, but without atomic control.
      Quote: okroshka79
      And we also need to ensure the combat stability of the naval triad of strategic nuclear forces, while such a ship itself will require additional forces to ensure its combat stability.

      It is not a fact that this ship will not carry nuclear weapons either ... it is unlikely that it will be, but nevertheless ... at the same time, it will be a worthy grouping as a part of a group with frigates of Project 22350, which are carriers of Caliber and Onyx.
      1. okroshka79
        okroshka79 2 June 2016 18: 17
        +3
        The number of construction sites at shipyards and budgetary funds, or rather their insufficient number for such shipbuilding, interferes. The collapse of the ship industry, from which we cannot get out in any way and it is not known when we will get out of it. And force is demonstrated only by the use of force. This was clearly demonstrated by the Kalibrom rocket firing. Everything else is only in the imagination of incompetent journalists. As for nuclear weapons, even in the days of the Soviet Navy, even surface ships of the 3rd rank carried shock nuclear weapons when they were in the database, which is unprecedented! Yes, only here to such a ship, ka "Leader", it is necessary to attach from three-heels of the guard ships of the type of the same "Gorshkovs", but a couple of submarines would not hurt. And where and why should this group go? And for what and whom to be worthy? To compete with AUG, how was it hypothetically practiced by our OS RUS in Soviet times? In which the sailors themselves did not really believe. More precisely, they believed in the power of our MPA. But what is left of her? Something I have not come across information anywhere that we are developing the production of new attack aircraft against enemy ship groupings. Do not write nonsense with a clever look!
        1. NEXUS
          NEXUS 2 June 2016 18: 28
          +1
          Quote: okroshka79
          Something I have never met with information that we are developing the production of new attack aircraft against enemy naval groups.

          The concept of crushing AUG with two regiments of TU-22-x is long outdated, dear. They will soon put Zircon on armaments, then the issue of resuming shock ekranoplanes will be discussed quite seriously, plus if this starts a mess with mattresses, nuclear weapons will go first. ..then the question is for the wise guy, what are the air groupings sharpened for the destruction of the AUG, if it is possible to solve the issue by attacking missiles with nuclear weapons, by the same Zircons for example.
          Ahead of your answer that the AUG is relatively mobile and target designation will be problematic, I will answer right away - in the ocean more than two AUGs are not hanging out ... the remaining 9-10 aircraft carriers are at the berth.
          No need to sit here and be smart.
          1. okroshka79
            okroshka79 2 June 2016 19: 05
            +2
            Remember one movie? there is a brilliant phrase: "... in which regiment did you serve?" You don't have to answer.
            1. NEXUS
              NEXUS 2 June 2016 19: 27
              +1
              Quote: okroshka79
              Remember one movie? there is a brilliant phrase: "... in which regiment did you serve?" You don't have to answer.

              Dear, I have served, and you? Can not answer.
              All the best to you. The discussion is over.
              1. okroshka79
                okroshka79 3 June 2016 00: 36
                +3
                Actually, I served 39 calendar years in our Navy (including in preferential terms). Therefore, I do not judge the fleet, its condition and capabilities by Wikipedia, and I have some idea, so to speak, in kind.
  12. Roman 11
    Roman 11 2 June 2016 15: 40
    +2
    "The displacement of the destroyer will be about 17,5 thousand tons, length - 200 meters, width - 20 meters, on board the ship will carry more than 200 missiles for various purposes - ship, anti-aircraft and anti-submarine."
    I wonder who doesn’t have a bite? Destroyer of 17 thousand tons? Well it was necessary so to bow head over the rails in childhood ......

    So what kind of armored boats were in WWII - Yamato, Bismarck, Duke of York and Missouri? laughing

    In fact - I would like to know who so brutally thumps in the Navy ??
    1. NEXUS
      NEXUS 2 June 2016 15: 46
      +1
      Quote: Novel 11
      I wonder who doesn’t have a bite? Destroyer of 17 thousand tons? Well it was necessary so to bow head over the rails in childhood ......

      Initially, this project was conceived as a destroyer with a displacement of more than 9 tons. Then everyone reviewed it and even talked about building a Leader of 000 tons at one point. However, no one bothered about the name of the project. Since then, this project was called to call the destroyer Leader.
    2. pavlos
      pavlos 2 June 2016 22: 36
      0
      So the enemy is Zamvolt (14,5). And this seems to be due to the fact that now they don’t give money for the cruiser and they’re cunning.
  13. Ivan Ivanych
    Ivan Ivanych 2 June 2016 15: 45
    +2
    Question to the specialists. The destroyer with the presented displacement and weapons, how is it different from a cruiser? TTX comparable
    1. NEXUS
      NEXUS 2 June 2016 15: 51
      +2
      Quote: Ivan Ivanovich
      Question to the specialists. The destroyer with the presented displacement and weapons, how is it different from a cruiser? TTX comparable

      In essence, this is the ARC. But it’s more correct to talk about a new class of ships-arsenal ship.
      1. Taoist
        Taoist 2 June 2016 16: 16
        +4
        Well, this is definitely not an arsenal ship ... An ordinary missile cruiser. Arsenal meant a purely floating rocket cellar - everything else was "external." And here is a full-fledged ship.
        1. NEXUS
          NEXUS 2 June 2016 16: 23
          +1
          Quote: Taoist
          Arsenal meant a purely floating rocket cellar - everything else was "external

          Then the Ticonderoga cruiser, in your opinion, is also a missile cellar with 26 Tomahawk cruise missiles, 16 ASROC PLURs and 80 Standard-2 missiles — a total of 122 missiles in two modules.
          So your way?
          Or TARK Nakhimov, after modernization, it also turns out just a rocket cellar?
          1. Taoist
            Taoist 2 June 2016 16: 30
            +4
            And that we have someone Tikonderogo in the "ships - arsenals" recorded?
            1. NEXUS
              NEXUS 2 June 2016 16: 35
              +1
              Quote: Taoist
              And that we have someone Tikonderogo in the "ships - arsenals" recorded?

              This is certainly a cruiser, only the number of missiles on board suggests that it can easily be attributed specifically to the arsenal ship.
              Compare for example the total number of missiles in our Atlanta with Tiki ...
              1. Taoist
                Taoist 2 June 2016 17: 53
                +2
                Well, the concept of an "arsenal ship" itself was not only determined by the number of missiles. There, the idea was not to hit a maximum of missiles, but to divide the functions - to make an inconspicuous semi-submerged hull with a launcher itself and to carry the reconnaissance, target designation and other "activity" functions to escort ships ... Specially for the purpose of "not lights up "- received an external control center - shot and into the mud ...
  14. Alexey-74
    Alexey-74 2 June 2016 15: 51
    +1
    By 2030, we can see ...... not news at all
    1. NEXUS
      NEXUS 2 June 2016 15: 55
      +1
      Quote: Alexey-74
      By 2030, we can see ...... not news at all

      They are planning to lay the ship of the Leader project until 20 ... they will build 4-5 years ... count it ... although everything can be reviewed taking into account the economic situation both in one direction and in the other.
      1. Dmitry X
        Dmitry X 2 June 2016 16: 58
        +1
        4-5 years this is probably very optimistic, our frigates manage to build for 4 years. And the "Leader" is still a big ship ... The same Americans rivet an aircraft carrier in 3 years (although I understand that they have this process debugged). So, taking into account also the state tests, 2030 is not such a fantasy.
        1. NEXUS
          NEXUS 2 June 2016 17: 01
          +1
          Quote: Dmitry X
          4-5 years is probably very optimistic, we have frigates manage to build 4 years

          We have been building frigates for so long because of import substitution, and not due to the fact that we forgot how to build it. To the tab of the first Leader, I hope all issues of import substitution will be resolved, which means there should not be any delays. Although I repeat, everything can be changed.
  15. Taoist
    Taoist 2 June 2016 16: 14
    +5
    At one time, URO destroyers were baptized into missile cruisers to increase salaries and the rank of commanders ... And why now is the missile cruiser stubbornly called the destroyer? What would the enemy get confused?
  16. Verdun
    Verdun 2 June 2016 16: 30
    0
    Quote: SHVEDsky_stol
    Orlan will be almost one and a half times larger.

    Eagles are the largest missile cruisers in the world. No one has and never had any analogues. True, the then leadership of the fleet believed that the ships were too small and the power of the weapons was insufficient. As for the Leader project, I would like to see the formation of technical specifications and consideration of projects at various stages occur more quickly. Otherwise, we will be like the Japanese with their aircraft in WWII - while the customer is thinking about the proposed project, he already has time to become outdated ...
  17. Nikolay71
    Nikolay71 2 June 2016 16: 32
    0
    Quote: SHVEDsky_stol
    If the cruiser is small. Orlan will be almost one and a half times larger.

    Not so small. Atlas is one and a half times smaller.
  18. OlegYOla
    OlegYOla 2 June 2016 19: 41
    0
    I hope not a series of one and a half ships for each fleet, but at least 2-3
  19. Every
    Every 3 June 2016 16: 46
    0
    I wonder why the majority distinguishes between a cruiser and a destroyer by displacement? The differences are somewhat different.
    Cruiser - a ship that can operate anywhere in the world’s oceans and alone, without auxiliary vessels. This is due to their large displacement, you need a lot of things to load on board for autonomous navigation.
    Destroyer - implies actions as part of a squadron, a group of ships.
    The tonnage of ships has nothing to do with it.