Far Eastern four
One of the main fair arguments against the construction of a new nuclear aircraft carrier for the Pacific Fleet of the Russian Federation is the lack of escort ships for the future carrier strike group. And the fact that the four full-fledged modern destroyers (of the first series) in the Far East will clearly be in demand in ten years, there is no doubt both among specialists and experts, and among people who are not indifferent to the state of our fleet in general.
Skeptics argue that today in Russia there is no place and no one to create, according to military standards, a hull for a nuclear-powered aircraft carrier 305 meters long and 70,000 tons displacement. Something similar was created at the Ukrainian Nikolaev shipyards, technologies and competencies were lost, there are no qualified personnel both on the working site and in the design bureau. From the last I learned: the secret of the production of armored steel for the upper deck of an aircraft carrier has been lost. God bless him, with an aircraft carrier, with a cruiser (no one, except us and the Americans, have them), but what about a destroyer or not? I will take the liberty of saying that we can not only build it, but we must! I do not like the Hitler word "wunderwaffe" (from German wunderwaffe - "miracle weapon"). And you don't need a masterpiece, for yourself, not for export. Thirty years ago in Kaliningrad, at the Yantar shipyard, the hull of the Project 1155.1 ship was laid, which was launched in 1994 under the name Admiral Chabanenko. The plant is native, Russian, from that time to the present, it has been building warships. And the time-tested hull of the last Soviet BOD with minimal alterations will be suitable for the first Russian universal destroyer.
The same Americans have been riveting the Arleigh Burke-class destroyers for more than thirty years, only adding a hull displacement of 300 tons from series to series. A similar stability of taste in the choice of the hull is shown for our (not dimensionless) financing of naval developments.
Instead of a heart - a fiery motor
Comparing the overall dimensions of the American "Arleigh Burke" (the Arleigh Burke) of the 2A series and the Soviet project 1155.1 "Admiral Chabanenko", we can come to the conclusion about the better seaworthiness of the former. Yielding in length to the Soviet counterpart, the American sits deeper in the water and somewhat wider. When planning to build a truly distant sea zone ship, and all the more assuming to use it in an order with an aircraft carrier, which is 8-10 times heavier, such a characteristic as seaworthiness cannot be neglected. Digitizing Soviet blueprints and reworking them using computer programs for a new project (let's call it 1155.2) will not take much time and money. Just for a general presentation, I will voice the main dimensions of the hull of the project 1155.2 intended for the construction of the future destroyer:
displacement, t (standard / full) - 7000/9000;
length, m (waterline / maximum) - 145/160;
width, m (at the waterline / maximum) - 17, 8/19;
draft, m (hull / SAC) - 5, 5/8.
Naturally, the new hull must be stealth-adapted and no portholes. In the forward and aft parts of the hull, it is necessary to provide proportional side keels, in the central part - non-retractable active stabilizers.
"And instead of a heart - a fiery engine" in the literal sense of the word (like a hundred years ago), a gas turbine engine M90FR created and designed in Russia under the import substitution program. Yes, those long-awaited afterburners that are on the frigates of Project 22350. The power plant of the destroyer of Project 11552 will be created according to the COGAG scheme on gas turbine engines from Rybinsk NPO Saturn 4 * 27,500 hp. with. with a total capacity of 110,000 liters. with. It will be even slightly more powerful than the Arleigh Burke with four General Electric LM2500s of 25,000 hp each. with. each one. But can this fact be attributed to the shortcomings of the future ship? But the unification of the fleet, the prospects for industrial growth and export deliveries to the same China and India. With such energy, future ships can easily withstand the set pace of movement with the flagships of the KUG and AUG atomic "Orlans" and the latest nuclear aircraft carrier. We can say with confidence that the maximum speed of 32 knots, cruising speed of 18 knots and economic speed of 15 knots will be confirmed during sea trials. For the first series of Russian destroyers, a cruising range of 5,000 nautical miles at 18 knots could be considered quite decent. Although there is an opinion that on long voyages it is almost necessary that a detachment of warships should be accompanied by a fast tanker or a multipurpose supply vessel. And if you add an ocean tug and a hospital ship, then the result is a convoy or a caravan, but not a shock mobile autonomous connection of ships in the form of a KUG or AUG. With all this burden, the ocean crossing can be forced to make the RTO or the IPC. But this is not what we expect from a universal destroyer. The declared autonomy of the ship must be unconditional.
Armament: "Caliber" and "Pantsir-M"
The propensity of our sailors to have on board a warship a full-fledged powerful artillery of the largest possible caliber is well known. Soviet destroyers of Project 956 are the clearest example of this. The weight of an onboard minute salvo of these ships, armed with a pair of unique AK-130 gun mounts, turned into 6 tons of steel and explosives. This is slightly less than the German battle cruiser SMS Seydlitz could bring down on the enemy in The Battle of Jutland (Skagerrakschlacht), but surpasses the power of the main caliber of the Fuhrer's "pocket battleships" during World War II. As a means of air defense on the destroyers of Project 956, these guns were in secondary roles, and from that time to the present they were perfectly suited to demonstrate superiority in an artillery duel with any contemporary. In addition, AK-130s inspired the marines when landing from large landing ships of projects 1171 and 775, which at that time did not provide for helicopters for landing, and fighters and equipment were thrown to storm enemy positions into the surf on the beach. In short, nothing new (in comparison with the realities of the Second World War).
The naval thought of the admirals of the late USSR was forced to recognize the need for a second helicopter on the new universal destroyer (project 1155.1), but still did not want to sacrifice the ship's superiority in artillery over modern Western counterparts. And (predictably), the pride of the then military-industrial complex and the Navy was installed in the corps of the BOD taken as a basis, a single AK-130. Two barrels of 130 mm each significantly surpassed a pair of single-barreled AK-100s of the previous project in terms of fire performance.
Respecting the sailors' adherence to naval traditions, being a supporter of the evolutionary style of achieving perfection and harmony in building a balanced fleet, I propose to install a main battery gun on the new destroyer (similar to the Admiral Gorshkov class frigate installed on the project 22350 frigate). -192M. In terms of artillery power, our destroyer will still not yield to foreign counterparts, but will significantly save in weight and dimensions (in comparison with its predecessors) to accommodate the main weapons of a twenty-first century destroyer - missiles.
And at the turn of the first quarter of the 21st century, what do we have to offer for the armament of a destroyer of the thirties? At the moment, there are no options or alternatives - the Caliber family of missiles and the 3S14 universal shipborne firing system. The belated long-awaited development at the modern technological level of a set of missiles for various purposes and a single universal vertical launcher. Anti-ship missiles 3M14, anti-submarine 91R1, KR for firing at ground targets, supersonic 3M55 Onyx and hypersonic Zircon 3M22 are on the way - it would seem an impressive and formidable arsenal. But I’ll ask “a question not about salary”: where are the missiles for long-range air defense, for hitting the warheads of ballistic missiles, for removing reconnaissance satellites from low earth orbits? Or will the subsonic Hawkeye, with its not the most powerful and advanced radar, remain a nightmare for a new destroyer, on which there are practically no energy restrictions for locating a detection and guidance locator with a mass and size that exceeds the opponent's capabilities by an order of magnitude?
Firstly, the versatility of the UKSK 3S14 should be the same as that of the MK 41 PU for the entire large-sized nomenclature of the ship's missile armament.
Secondly, a line of missiles compatible with PU UKSK 3S14 for the upper hemisphere of the ship's defense with the tasks mentioned above should be developed. This is necessary not only for the hypothetical destroyer discussed in the article, but also for all ships of the first rank modernized in the future to carry this launcher.
For the four ships of the first series, we will limit ourselves to 80 launchers (10 universal modules). Of these, we will place 48 according to the classic in front of the bow superstructure of the ship, and 16 each - from the right and left sides of the superstructure in the center of the ship near the exhaust devices of the propulsion system. If the designer or the customer has any objective reasons, it is possible to go for a reduction of the launcher to 64. In any case, the number of launchers for the UKSK will be less than on American destroyers, but we will not blindly copy foreign experience and unnecessarily inflate the dimensions and displacement of the ship. I am impressed by the domestic approach in this matter in the course of the development of the project of frigates 22350, on which initially there are only 16 launchers and only from the fifth corps their number will be increased to 24, or, in other words, the ammunition will increase by a third. But from a ship of twice the displacement, we have the right to demand twice as much power. In addition, we will not give up 48 UVP of the Redut anti-aircraft missile system (32 launchers between the gun mount and the UKSK and 16 launchers between the exhaust) for 9M96 and 9M100 anti-aircraft guided missiles. By the way, why not during the discussion raise the question of the possibility of placing four 9M96 missiles (body diameter 240 mm) in special transport and launch containers for UKSK and up to nine 9M100 missiles (body diameter 125 mm), if a transport and launch cup (diameter 720 mm) with anti-ship missiles 3M55 "Onyx" (diameter 670 mm)?
Finishing the missile and artillery armament of the ship, we will opt for two Pantsir-M anti-aircraft missile and gun mounts. Traditionally, all Russian warships have 30-mm assault rifles, and now they will also have the ability to engage surface and air targets in automatic mode. It would not be bad by that time to receive a 30-mm sub-caliber projectile with a tungsten core and a projectile with a programmable fuse in the ammunition load, but the effectiveness and correctness of the decisions made will be tested by time and operation.
Japanese brother "Congo"
It is generally accepted that a modern destroyer is a universal ship, but at the same time, a full-fledged fleet of a particular country orders ships, so to speak, with a national touch or a bias in universality for solving basic tasks. The most important priority of the Russian fleet in the north and in the Pacific Ocean was and remains to ensure the deployment and cover in the bastions of strategic missile carriers. And if for anti-submarine helicopters and coast-based patrol aircraft the very presence in the area of a modern destroyer with a long-range air defense missile system on board will already be a weighty argument for caution, for submarine hunters this is a typical task. And the number of such boats and their fighting qualities among potential adversaries now significantly exceed the capabilities of our fleet in the fight against them.
The everyday probability of a duel with an enemy submarine for our destroyer (as part of a KUG, AUG) during an amphibious operation or autonomous navigation is still higher than a reflection of a star raid by carrier-based aircraft or anti-ship missiles. Therefore, the specificity of our ship should be readiness for anti-submarine defense when performing any other tasks.
We do not need to invent an adequate mission by sending a destroyer to the shores of Florida or California, as the United States does off the coast of the Crimea or the Persian Gulf. And the best air defense destroyer in the Western world in the Royal Navy of Great Britain, the Daring class, is not suitable for us. The Germans will also disappoint us with their universal frigate in the size of the destroyer F125 Die Baden-Württemberg-Klasse with the goals of our project 22160. Perhaps the greatest similarity with our specifics we will find in Japanese destroyers of the Atago and "Congo" (The Kongō class).
Zarya, Zvezda or Polyment-Redoubt?
So, the anti-submarine highlight of the new destroyer will be the permanent basing of two anti-submarine helicopters in a stationary hangar. Probably, SJSC "Zvezda-2" (as on the predecessor of the BOD project 1155.1 "Admiral Chabanenko") in our time, and even more so in the thirties, will no longer be relevant. On the other hand, this last version of the complex has undergone modernization on an operating ship, and, unfortunately, our military-industrial complex currently cannot offer anything worthy to a ship of the first rank with a bias towards confronting the underwater threat in the thirties and beyond.
"Zarya" harmoniously blended into the capabilities and tasks of the frigate of project 22350. One of the arguments against the bulky "Polynom" and its classmate of the next generation "Zvezda" sounded something like this: why such powerful and long-range acoustics on an anti-submarine ship, if a low-noise submarine detects its approach on the noise of the propellers much earlier than the SAC is detected in the active mode and a timely evasive maneuver is made?
Here, it would probably be appropriate to cite a criterion for the effectiveness of defense from another "environment". The effectiveness of air defense is assessed not by the number of aircraft shot down, but by the prevention of an air defense strike against the protected object. Thus, the very potential possibility of detecting an underwater enemy at twice the distance by a new destroyer will force him to choose a more cautious tactic, and, possibly, refuse to attack a guarded object until better times.
Agree, it would look strange in the long run if (having eliminated the main drawback of Soviet destroyers and BODs - the lack of a coherent air defense system for collective defense), the first Russian ships would swing to the other extreme - weakening PLO, in conditions of at least an unabated threat from under the water.
A logical addition to the destroyer's anti-submarine armament will be two launchers of the Paket-NK anti-submarine defense and anti-torpedo defense system located on board.
It is quite rare (for obvious reasons) that radar weapons are discussed on the pages of the VO, and then suddenly an article appeared immediately about a promising radar for surface ships ("The effectiveness of the air defense of a promising destroyer. An alternative radar system"). Unfortunately, I can't believe that something like this will be implemented in metal and semiconductors ten years later, coupled and tested with existing missiles and control systems, and put into service in the Navy …
Therefore, the recognizable FAR of the Polyment-Redut complex, which has become the hallmark of the frigates of the admiral's series, will most likely migrate to the newest destroyer. Perhaps, in the next modification, to increase the power, range and number of targets fired, the number of lines and columns of PPM in the PAR fabric will increase.
Using a creative approach to increasing the combat capabilities of a destroyer (compared to a frigate), I will propose to install not four, but five existing phased antenna arrays on the ship. Purely arithmetically, the number of simultaneously fired targets increases from 16 to 20 and the targeted missiles - from 32 to 40. The assigned sector for each HEADLIGHT will be reduced from 90 degrees to 72, and maintaining the ability of each of the grids separately to "look" into the adjacent sector by 9 degrees will create in a circular five separate sectors of 18 degrees, with the potential to double the number of targets fired, which will be 25 percent of the circular affected area. This point is especially important in terms of considering a salvo of anti-ship missiles from a single carrier-ship with a typical ammunition load of up to eight anti-ship missiles. Unfortunately, when the radiation pattern is “bent” from the normal to angles up to 45 degrees, we inevitably encounter some loss of the accuracy of the beam, but this has to be perceived as an inevitable evil from the PAR.
The installation of a radar from a frigate on a larger destroyer makes it possible to assume the placement of the electrical center of the antennas 2-3 meters higher above the water surface, which will entail an increase in the detection range of air targets at low and extremely low altitudes. By increasing the inclination of the antenna canvases by 5 degrees from the vertical, thereby reducing the size of the dead funnel above the ship, expanding the capabilities to combat ballistic targets and reconnaissance of satellites in low Earth orbits.
We will not delve further into secondary issues of additional equipment and equipment of the future ship.
Eight years before trials
So, at the present time it is safe to say that the military-industrial complex of Russia is able to create a modern destroyer class ship at the level of world developments. Since 2014, the pain points of our military shipbuilding have been systematically eliminated: the lack of engines for warships and the lag behind the level of world developments in our own electronics for weapons systems.
Of the entire set of weapons of the ship, a nomenclature of missiles for long-range air defense systems, compatible with the UKSK launcher, is to be developed almost from scratch. (If the justification for the presence of two different vertical launchers on the ship can be their optimization for such different mass and size characteristics of such products as 9M100 and 3M55, then the author could not think of such an excuse for the appearance of a third type of vertical launcher under a missile defense system).
The key to the success of the project 11552 destroyer implementation is the minimum level of the latest developments, which will require significant financial costs and constant time shifts to the right for commissioning the ships themselves. The project of the Leader destroyer has been discussed for eight years. Eight years later, Project 11552 may already be on trials.
The main question remains to be resolved: does the fleet need a new destroyer at all?
