A promising destroyer for the Russian Navy - can we dream up?

2024 Author: Matthew Elmers | [email protected]. Last modified: 2023-12-16 21:49

Relatively good news.

“The construction of a new-generation lead ocean-going destroyer will begin in Russia in 2012,” said the Commander-in-Chief of the Russian Navy, Admiral Vladimir Vysotsky. According to him, up to now, surface ships of the coastal and sea zones of the "corvette" and "frigate" type have been built in Russia, and the ships of the ocean zone have not been built.

A promising destroyer for the Russian Navy - let's dream up?

"The construction of a new destroyer can be started in 2012," Vysotsky said. Earlier, the commander-in-chief reported that a new ship of the oceanic zone of the destroyer type would be created in metal in 2016 for the country's navy. At the same time, he emphasized that a nuclear power plant will be installed on this ship."

Why is joy relative? Exclusively because the postponement of the construction of warships for our Navy by a year, by five, or even until "after the rain on Thursday, when the cancer hangs on the mountain" has long become a habit.

And the source of information, to be honest … not that the ultimate truth. I remember that our commander-in-chief of the Navy in 2008 promised the construction of as many as 5 multipurpose aircraft carriers. And where are they? The plans of the domestic shipbuilding industry until 2020 do not provide for their laying.

In addition, in addition to healthy skepticism about Vysotsky's words, there are other reasons for doubt. Here is what they wrote about our promising destroyers in March 2010

"The development of a new generation destroyer for the Russian Navy has begun, which will be built using stealth technology," a source in the military-industrial complex said on Thursday.

“Research work is underway to shape the new ship of the far sea zone, and the technical documentation of the project is being drawn up. This process will last about 30 months,”said the source of Interfax.

“The destroyer will receive a complex of missile weapons with universal vertical launch launchers for firing high-precision missiles at ground, surface and underwater targets. The ship's air defense will be provided by long, medium and short-range anti-aircraft missiles,”the expert said.

The destroyer's artillery mounts will also be universal, which will be able to fire at enemy coastal and naval targets with high-precision guided missiles, the military specialist added.

The versatility of the ship will also affect the content of its electronic stuffing, the expert noted. …

… According to him, the ship of the far sea zone will have unlimited seaworthiness and a speed of up to 30 knots. With a 17-knot course, the destroyer will be able to autonomously travel up to 10 thousand miles. The crew size is expected to be relatively small, which will improve the quality of habitability. The ship's displacement will reach 10 thousand tons. The main power plant of the destroyer will be of the gas turbine type. The ship will have a hangar for two anti-submarine helicopters."

So what do we have? The development time of the ship in March 2010 was estimated at more than 30 months, and this despite the fact that the technical documentation of the project is not at all the same as the working drawings. And most importantly, they designed a ship with a gas turbine installation, and now the Commander-in-Chief of the Navy is talking about a nuclear ship. But this will be a completely different project … So the elaboration of the ship's project by 2012 to the stage that allows it to be laid is highly doubtful.

And nevertheless … something stirred in the Danish kingdom:))) In principle, I would estimate the likelihood that a new type of ocean-going ship for the Russian Navy will be laid down in 2013-2016 at about 50/50. What will this ship be like?

At present, the most modern project of a promising destroyer of the Russian Federation is, in all likelihood, project 21956 of the Northern PKB.

Displacement of about 9000 tons (full)

Length 163 m.

Width 19, 00 m.

Draft 5, 5 m.

Technical details

Power plant of the power plant

Power 74000 hp with. (54 420 kW)

Speed 29.5 knots

Cruising range 5800 miles (at 18, 5 knots)

Cruising endurance 30 days (in terms of provisions)

Crew ≈300 people

Armament

Electronic armament of the "Fregat" and "Rif-M" type radars (surface targets), Sonar "Zarya-ME-03" (underwater)

Artillery armament 1 130 mm. AU A-192 or 1x2 AU AK-130

Anti-aircraft artillery 1 ZRAK "Kashtan"

Anti-ship weapons "Caliber-NKE" (16 PU)

Anti-submarine weapons "Caliber-PLE" 91RE1 (91RTE2)

Anti-aircraft missile armament 6 * 8 SAM "S-300F" (48 SAM 48N6E2 or 192 SAM 9M96E)

Mine-torpedo armament 2 * 4 torpedo tubes

Aviation group: there is a hangar and a helipad

It seems that the EM was designed relatively recently - the preliminary design was first demonstrated in 2007. Although who knows - maybe it was developed back in the 90s, and was presented only now? But this ship clearly does not "pull" the role of the ruler of the seas. The same Orly Burke, having a similar displacement, carries 2 UVP Mk 41 with a total capacity of 96 cells - while each cell can be equipped with a container carrying one Tomahawk, Asrok, Standard or 4 Sea Sparrow ".

The ammunition load of our ship is 64 containers. But if Orly Burke can take absolutely any combination of missiles, then our destroyer of Project 21956 is limited by the fact that it is impossible to install anti-aircraft missiles in the Caliber-NKE installation - just as in the S-300F it is impossible to "cram" anti-ship missiles or PLUR. In addition, the S-300F installation is not a UVP in the full sense of the word - unlike the Mk 41, it is a drum rotating under the deck - which, most likely, negatively affects the mass of the installation, and therefore the size of the ammunition.

The 48N6E2 missile is a good missile, with an altitude reach of up to 30 km and a range of 200 km - but still, by modern standards, this is a medium-range missile. It surpasses its American counterpart "Standard SM-2MR" (24 km and 166 km, respectively), but is somewhat inferior to "Standard SM-2ER" (33 and 240 km) and, of course, "Standard SM-3" an altitude of 250 km and a range of 500 km (though it should be remembered that at the indicated distances "Standard SM-3" is capable of shooting down only non-maneuverable targets - for example, warheads flying along a ballistic trajectory, and the parameters of this very trajectory must be known in advance).

You should also pay attention to one more sad fact - the S-300F seems to be able to use only 5V55RM missiles with a flight range of up to 75 km and an altitude reach of 25 km. But the 48N6E2 SAM can be installed on the S-300FM (this is exactly what was installed on the "Peter the Great"). But the larger size of the SAM led to the fact that the ammunition load was reduced by 2 missiles - from 48 to 46. Maybe our project 21956 was still supposed to be the S-300FM - but then why 48 missiles, and not 46? If we are talking about the S-300F, then it is completely sad.

Based on the foregoing, it can be stated that most likely the promising EM of the Russian Navy is neither pr 21956 nor its deep modernization. Its armament no longer fully meets modern requirements, the cruising range is much lower than that stated in the project, the power plant is a power plant, and not an atom. It is possible, of course (and even for sure) that when designing a new EV, some developments of Project 21956 will be used - but it will be a completely different ship.

Unfortunately, nothing concrete is known about him. Well, if so, there is a large field for imagination and folk art, to which I will now proceed.

How I would like to see a promising Russian destroyer

All drawings are taken from here www.otvaga2004.narod.ru THIS IS NOT A PROJECT IMAGE - but just folk art.

I want to say right away that my vision of the role and place of EVs in the modern Russian fleet was greatly influenced by the wonderful article by my esteemed colleague 178_ https://alternathistory.org.ua/perspektivnyi-esminets and, to an even greater extent, by the discussion of this article with its author.

EM is a single type of ocean-going missile-torpedo-artillery ship. This is a versatile combat ship that combines the capabilities of missile cruisers, destroyers and anti-submarine ships of the USSR Navy. EM combat systems should be integrated into the BIUS, like Aegis (only better:))) capable of receiving / transmitting intelligence and target designation from / to any submarine, surface and air combat units of the Russian Navy (including not only ships and manned aircraft, but and unmanned aircraft, missiles, satellites, etc.). EM armament must ensure reliable defeat of any existing classes and types of aviation, surface ships and submarines of a potential enemy at a distance exceeding the effective range of their weapon systems. The ship must have developed means of anti-missile and anti-torpedo defense, including electronic warfare, as well as developed constructive protection.

One of the serious shortcomings of Soviet surface ships was their "anti-ship" orientation, the USSR built its fleet exclusively for battles "fleet against fleet". A modern EM must have great versatility - it must be able to participate in "fleet against shore" operations as a ship-missile arsenal by delivering strikes with sea-to-ground missiles and artillery.

At present, it is quite obvious that a squadron that does not have air cover cannot effectively counter a modern aircraft carrier strike group (AUG). Therefore, the leadership of the Russian Navy fully realized the need for its own aircraft carriers, despite the fact that the shipbuilding program until 2020 does not provide for the laying of at least one aircraft carrier, there is no doubt that in the future Russia will nevertheless start building its own aircraft carrier fleet. At the same time, statements were repeatedly made that we will not create classical AUG, but much more information-integrated formations, in which the aircraft carrier itself, escort ships, submarines, aircraft, satellites, etc. will operate in a single information space according to the principle - "one sees - everyone sees." Therefore, the promising aircraft carrier formations of the Russian Federation were named MAS - "naval aircraft carrier system". It is obvious that promising EMs will become one of the components of the MAS.

Therefore, the main types of hostilities in which promising EM of the Russian Federation can take part will be:

1) As part of the MAS - all types of naval battles, including the most complex ones - operations to destroy the AUG, or a heterogeneous squadron that does not have an aircraft carrier, but is under the cover of coast-based naval aviation

2) Outside the MAS - operations to destroy dissimilar squadrons that do not have air cover

3) Striking enemy coastal targets - both as part of the MAS and independently

4) Observing and tracking the AUG of a potential adversary during periods of aggravation of the international situation and delivering a preemptive strike in the event of a war - both as part of the IAU and independently.

All of the above allows us to formulate the requirements for the armament of a promising EM. When determining specific types of weapons, it should be borne in mind that the first destroyer will enter service no earlier than 2017-2020, and serial construction will be carried out in the period from 2020 to 2030. Given that the development of new weapons systems takes from 5 to 12 years, we have the opportunity to go beyond existing weapons systems. We can also organize the process of developing new missiles, artillery, etc., optimizing their performance characteristics for the most effective solution of EM tasks, providing for the possibility of placing existing weapon systems on the first serial ships, as well as systems that will enter service in the very near future.

Rocket weapon.

Until now, shipborne missile weapons had a clear specialization - anti-ship missiles, anti-aircraft missiles, and PLUR. But recently, a not too obvious tendency has been born in the world - the universalization of anti-ship missiles and anti-aircraft missiles (for the time being, this idea is being implemented on small missiles, including in the Russian Federation - let us recall the Kornet, which, although not an anti-ship missile system, can hit both ground and air targets). On the one hand, the idea seems to be delusional, since the tasks facing these missiles are completely different, but on the other hand … it is tempting to have a universal missile to destroy surface and air targets.

Let's compare for a start some performance characteristics "Standard SM-2ER" and "Harpoon RGM-84D2"

The launch mass is 1466 and 742 kg, respectively.

Length - 6, 55 m and 5, 18 m

Diameter - 0.33 m and 0.34 m

Flight speed - 3.5M and 0.85M

Warhead weight - 113 kg and 235 kg

Flight range - 240 km and 280 km

And now let's see all the same, for the 48N6E2 SAM, the Klubkom - "Club-K" 3M-54E1 and "Onyx" 3M55

Launch weight - 1900 kg, 1800 kg and 3100 kg

Length - 7, 5m, 8, 22 m and 8, 9 m

Diameter - 0.519 m, 0.533 m, 0.7 m

Flight speed - over 7M (2.1 km / s), 0.8M and 2.9M (at altitude and 2M - at the surface)

Warhead weight - 150kg, 400kg, 250kg

Flight range - 200 km, 300 km and 300 km (when flying at low altitude - 120 km)

In other words, modern anti-aircraft and anti-ship missiles have somehow become very close in terms of mass and dimensional characteristics, and, often, anti-ship missiles have a smaller mass and size than missiles. There are, of course, differences - the SAM is faster, has a lighter warhead and a smaller (but comparable) flight range. In my example, only the Onyx supersonic anti-ship missile system stands apart from the SAM - but, on the other hand, the new and longer-range 48N6E3 SAM (range up to 250 km) will already have 180 kg warhead against 250 kg Onyx. And the starting mass of the new long-range 40N6E (range up to 400 km, reach in height - 185 km), most likely, will "go away" for 2 tons.

However, weight and dimensions are not all. The trajectory of the rocket is also important. The SAM - everything is clear, it simply flies to the air target, because no one has thought of shooting down SAMs with anti-missiles yet. They are counteracted mainly by traps and electronic warfare. RCC is a completely different matter. These try to huddle to the surface of the sea and not shine for the time being on the radar screens. Because anti-ship missiles flying at high altitudes with a speed of 0.8 - 2 M are "legal prey" not only for anti-missiles but also for conventional missiles.

A completely different matter is a modern missile defense system, flying at a speed of 6-7M at high altitude. If, say, a promising 40N6E can withstand a cruising flight speed of 2 km / s (its maximum speed is 2.5 km / s), then its flight time to a target located 250 km from the salvo point is just over 2 minutes. The chances that the enemy in the indicated 2 minutes will be able not only to detect missiles, but also prepare and launch their own missiles, which also requires a certain time to intercept, are at least illusory. That is why it is believed that hypersonic anti-ship missiles are invulnerable to modern air defense systems. But hypersonic anti-ship missiles so far exist only on paper - but hypersonic missiles are already on the wing. Accordingly, missiles capable of flying along a U-shaped trajectory and falling on enemy ships from above, both now and in the coming years, will be a weapon that cannot be repelled other than by means of electronic warfare. At the same time, missiles can carry quite a decent warhead, up to 200 kg - of course, this is not "Granite" with its 750 kg warhead, it is unlikely that it will be possible to drown an enemy aircraft carrier even with several such missiles. But when an escort ship hits a cruiser, inclusive, a lot of "pleasant sensations" are guaranteed, and, most likely, hitting even one such missile will disable the ship's delicate electronics - radar grilles, etc., etc. In this regard, a high-explosive warhead of a missile defense system is quite justified - it, of course, will not inflict such damage as the anti-ship missile system will give, which made a "slide" and fell on an enemy ship from above, with its penetrating high-explosive or even semi-armor-piercing warhead - but turn the superstructures of the enemy ship into a sieve and "Blind" him - SAM is quite capable. In this case, the enemy ship, even with unspent ammunition, will lose its ability to control the surface / air situation and air defense, which means it will become an easy prey for a conventional anti-ship missile system.

… But who knows what damage to a modern ship can be inflicted by a telegraph pole breaking through the deck at hypersonic speed, and even from a two-hundred-kilogram warhead? Damage received by relatively modern surface ships ("Stark", "Sheffield") as a result of hits from conventional subsonic anti-ship missiles with much more modest characteristics (both in terms of speed and mass of the missile and warhead) are not optimistic. Even one such missile is enough to disable a frigate-class ship

And most importantly, there is never a lot of anti-ship missiles on warships - it is rare when a modern ship has at least 16 anti-ship missiles in the ammunition load, or even less. At the same time, for a guaranteed oversaturation of the air defense of the American AUG, at least 100 anti-ship missiles are required. For such a strike, the Soviet fleet would have needed to collect all 4 nuclear-powered cruisers in one place - but the same effect could have been given by just ONE Orly Burke-class ship, if it were armed with universal missiles.

And this is the second advantage of universal missiles. Even a couple of modern destroyers with air defense systems for 70-90 missiles and universal missiles in them are capable of guaranteed oversaturation of the air defense of a typical American AUG or even a larger squadron.

But what needs to be done in order to turn a missile defense system into an anti-ship missile system?

The fact is that the homing systems of our missiles and anti-ship missiles, frankly, are fundamentally different. RCCs use an inertial guidance system on a large flight segment, and only when approaching the calculated location point, the active - radar guidance system - that is, is switched on. own rocket radar. At the same time, missiles (S-300 and S-400) mainly use a semi-active guidance system, combined with radio correction - when the target of the missile defense system is illuminated by a target designator (i.e. located on a ship or aircraft), and the missile defense system is guided by the reflected from the target to the signal of this radar. Obviously, if the enemy is within the reach of a warship's radar, he is quite capable of "planting" missiles on it, but at long distances, outside the radio horizon, such a feat is possible only if there is external target designation, and this external target designation should operate throughout the flight rockets. Yes, you can put an RLD helicopter on a destroyer - but no one guarantees that it will not be shot down at the most crucial moment and that the seemingly deadly missile salvo will simply “go into milk”. In this respect, the anti-ship missile system is much more functional, because in a combination of inertial and active guidance systems they implement the principle of “fire and forget” - it can be used to fire a volley at the point where enemy ships were detected, even if contact with them is lost - the IS will help not to go astray, and the head of active homing with a high degree of probability will allow it to still find the enemy. Modern missiles are capable of engaging a frigate-class target at a range of up to 40 km and even more, and even a subsonic anti-ship missile system will take no more than 15-20 minutes to overcome 200-250 km, during which a ship moving at a speed of 30 knots will have time to move no further than 14-16 km.

Thus, in order to create a full-fledged missile system (universal missile), it must simultaneously have inertial, active and semi-active guidance systems. How realistic is this?

In principle, this is a solvable problem. For example, SAM Standard-2MR (RIM-66C) has a combined guidance system (radio command telecontrol, inertial and semi-active radar).

As for our missiles, I can only say that inertial and active guidance systems need to be added to their semi-active guidance systems. How difficult is it? The active RLGSN of our Onyx anti-ship missile system weighs 85 kilograms. As for inertial systems - the weight of the models I know ranges from 5.4 to 23 kg.

It should be borne in mind that Onyx has excessive power for RLGSN missiles. It guarantees the detection of surface targets at a distance of 50 km - however, for a missile defense system capable of covering 400 km in a couple of minutes, that much is not required - during this time, a ship following 30 knots at a speed will have time to move away hardly 2 km. Although, of course, the more powerful the RLGSN signal, the better (the more difficult it is for electronic warfare to suppress it)

In other words, the overload of the missile launcher will not exceed 100 kg - and taking into account the improvement of technologies and some weakening of the radar missile system - much less. It should also be taken into account that, in all likelihood, some of the semi-active homing equipment will be able to simultaneously "serve" and active. But, of course, even an increase in mass of several tens of kilograms will significantly increase the launch mass of the rocket - it will require more engine power, a larger supply of fuel … This is undoubtedly a lack of SD. However, it must be taken into account that the combination of an active and semi-active seeker in one missile leads to the appearance of not only drawbacks …

The fact is that the main protection of aircraft and other aircraft from missiles is electronic warfare systems. How do they work?

When the electronic warfare unit receives a message about the radiation of the radar (no matter the missile defense system or the carrier from which the missile defense system was launched), the unit determines the frequency at which the radar operates and begins to "flicker" at this frequency, clogging it with "white noise". In response to this, the developers of missiles taught their missiles to change the frequency of the radar - but the developers of electronic warfare did not remain in debt - they taught their systems to quickly respond to changes, monitor them and "phonate" exactly on the waves on which the radar is currently operating … Thus, one electronic warfare unit is able to "blind" one missile defense system. Moreover, if the missile defense system is equipped with active homing, then the chance of its blinding is quite high, since the radar missile launcher and the power of the electronic warfare unit have comparable power - but to blind the missile defense system, which has a semi-active homing head, is more difficult, since the electronic warfare unit obviously loses in terms of radar power, with which missiles are being guided. Everything will depend on the distance from the radar to the electronic warfare unit.

But if the UR can simultaneously cut in both active and semi-active homing, then in order to blind the UR, you will need not one, but two EW units. Thus, the combination of active and semi-active guidance systems significantly increase the chances of missiles to hit an air target.

Consequently, the creation of a single missile from a missile defense system is not only possible, but also promises significant advantages of such a missile in the defeat of air targets.

It is these missiles, in my opinion, that should become the main weapon of the promising EM of the Russian Navy.

Approximate performance characteristics of such missiles - weight - up to 2.1 tons, warhead - not less than 180 kg, range - not less than 450 km, average speed - not less than 7 M.

However, the armament, consisting exclusively of SD, is categorically insufficient for EM. Yes, a full salvo of UR ammunition from two EMs will be able to "kill" the air defense of a classic AUG and, perhaps, even sink 1-2 escort ships, but that's all. In order to destroy an aircraft carrier, something more is needed. For these purposes, the EM must have a "main caliber" - several heavy hypersonic anti-ship missiles. The tactics of their use looks like this - they are launched immediately after the "shooting" of the UR. By the time the anti-ship missiles arrive, most of the enemy's air defense units are out of action, and the rest have their eyes scattered by the abundance of air targets, so there is nothing corny to repel the attack of even a small number of anti-ship missiles.

The characteristics of these missiles look something like this

Weight - 4.2 tons, warhead - at least 450 kg, range - 450 km, average speed - 5-6 M.

The ship's ammunition should include 2 UVP, one for 90 SD, the second for 8 anti-ship missiles. Many?

The total number of launchers - 98 - is quite comparable to the Orly Burke (although our missiles are heavier) Let's try to compare the total weight of the main missile weapons for large missile ships

"Orly Burke" - full displacement of 8488 tons, 96 containers, let's say - in all "Standard SM-2ER" - the total mass of missiles - 140.7 tons (for one ton of missiles - 54.8 tons of displacement)

"Ticonderoga" - full displacement of 9800 tons, 122 containers, let's say - also with "Standard SM-2ER" - total weight - almost 179 tons (for 1 ton of missiles - 60, 3 tons of displacement)

RCR "Slava" - full displacement - 11 380 tons, 16 "basalts" of 4, 8 tons and 64 missiles weighing 1, 6 tons - a total of 179, 2 tons (for 1 ton of missiles - 63, 5 tons of displacement)

The worst indicator of "Glory" is explained, among other things, by the fact that its missile launchers are much heavier than those of its American counterpart.

Prospective EM - 90 Ur of 2, 1 tons and 8 anti-ship missiles of 4, 2 tons - 226 tons, which roughly corresponds (if we take the Ticonderogo as a sample) the total displacement of 13 425 tons. Which, in principle, is acceptable (taking into account that the Zamvolt EM has a full displacement of 14, 5 thousand tons).

Missile defense

The basis of the anti-missile defense will be missiles, placed instead of part of the ammunition of universal missiles. So, at present, the installation "Polyment-Redut" accommodates in one cell one long-range missiles (48N6E2) or 4 9M96E - small missiles with a range of 40-50 km. In the future - even smaller 9M100 missiles - with a range of only 15 km, but 16 such anti-missiles are included in one cell.

Thus, in 90 cells of the UVP of universal missiles, a promising EM will be able to carry, say, 80 missile launchers, 20 medium-range anti-missile missiles (up to 50 km) and 80 ultra-small missiles.

In addition to the above, it seems promising to equip the ship with four installations "Broadsword" or "Pantsir-M"

Anti-submarine and torpedo weapons

The basis of anti-submarine weapons should be a complex of missile-torpedoes such as Medvedka-2, Caliber 91RTE2 or more modern, launched from the UVP UR.

Anti-torpedo defense is provided by 2x3 324 mm torpedo mounts

Artillery weapons

One two-gun mount of the "Advanced Coalition-F" class. Currently, the installation has the following characteristics

Caliber - 152 mm

Barrel length - over 52 calibers

Firing range - more than 50 km

Installation rate - 15-16 rds / min

Ammunition - the installation's ammunition will include promising guided projectiles and special long-range projectiles (probably active-reactive).

The main direction of improvements is bringing the rate of fire to (at least) 30 rounds per minute, bringing the range of an active-rocket projectile to 100 km.

Power

But from the atomic force, in my opinion, should be abandoned. For ships of not very large displacement, the AU turns out to be heavier than the GEM, even taking into account the fuel. The cost of building a nuclear ship is significantly higher - but so far no one has counted the costs of the comparative operating costs. Of course, ships with a power plant "eat up" fuel, but, firstly, uranium also costs something and a lot, and secondly, there are significant expenses associated with the disposal of spent nuclear fuel, and, most importantly, with the disposal of a reactor that has served its life. service of the ship.

As for the autonomy that the atomic chassis provides - it is, of course, great, but the autonomy in terms of food supplies and so on. much lower. So the ocean connection still needs an accompanying supply transport.

If, nevertheless, we put an atomic power plant on a promising EM, then we should expect that its displacement will reach 16-18 thousand tons (the nuclear missile cruiser "Peter the Great" has 80 tons of displacement per 1 ton of the main missile armament, however, it should be borne in mind that on the cruiser there are 2 reactors and a duplicating conventional power plant)

On the other hand, work is currently underway to minimize the size and weight of ship reactors….