This story began a year ago, when at a press conference held within the framework of the V International Maritime Defense Show (IMDS 2011) Roman Trotsenko, President of United Shipbuilding Corporation, made an intriguing statement: according to Trotsenko, the corporation is designing an ocean-going destroyer with a nuclear power plant for the Russian Navy. He stressed that the destroyers of the new project will not be exported, but are intended only for the Russian Navy.
The Commander-in-Chief of the Russian Navy, Admiral Vladimir Vysotsky, confirmed the fact of designing an ocean-going ship for the Russian Navy. Having specified that the laying of a new Russian destroyer is possible already in 2012-2013, there is 90 percent confidence that the ship will be nuclear powered.
In principle, they have been talking about the new Russian destroyer, project 21956 for 20 years, but this issue has never been discussed at such a high level.
Now conflicting data are coming from all points. The absence of any specific information about the project of the new Russian destroyer from the officials gives rise to a whole flurry of various improvisations on this topic, which only strange things we have not heard during this time! Nuclear power plant, stealth technology, universal firing systems, supersonic anti-ship missiles, paired 152 mm artillery mounts "Coalition-F" … The displacement of the Russian destroyer pr. 21956 increases abruptly from 9 thousand tons to 14 thousand tons; either the classic American "Orly Burke", or the newest "silver bullet of the Pentagon" of the URO destroyer of the "Zamvolt" class …
The approximate cost of the new destroyer of the Russian Navy has already been announced - $ 2 … 2, 5 billion. In the medium term (15-20 years), it is planned to lay down 14-16 newest destroyers. an average of 4 ships for each of the fleets of the Russian Navy.
Personally, I share the following expert opinion: the newest Russian destroyer is positioned not as a destroyer, but as a kind of superhero - a huge, complex, terribly expensive ship, supposedly capable of almost single-handedly fighting any surface, underwater and air targets, destroying enemy positions on the coast and operate without support in remote areas of the oceans. The same is stated by officials: the newest Russian destroyer (cruiser? Dreadnought of the XXI century?) Will replace several existing classes of ships at once: destroyers of project 956 "Sovremenny", large anti-submarine ships of projects 1134B "Berkut-B" and 1155 "Udaloy", missile cruisers 1164 Atlant. Laudable aspirations. Only then will someone be able to answer the question: what exactly is Russia planning to build for its navy? To what extent does this promising combat ship (the concept of which, in fact, fundamentally differ from the destroyer URO) corresponds to the tasks of the Russian Navy?
Almirante Alvaro de Basan
As an unexpected plot move, I suggest that readers briefly travel to sunny Spain. There, in the very south of the Iberian Peninsula, there is a fortified city - the legendary Gibraltar, a territory under British jurisdiction for 300 years, a key stronghold and a NATO naval base, the main gateway to the Mediterranean Sea. Due to its geographical location, during the Cold War, the “bottleneck” of the Strait of Gibraltar became the most serious barrier for Soviet nuclear submarines on the way to the Mediterranean Sea - the narrow, shallow water area was saturated with acoustic and magnetic sensors to the limit, and was heavily patrolled by anti-submarine weapons. Times have changed, but even today, NATO ships are constantly patrolling in these parts. Here is one of them - sparkling with freshly painted paneling in the bright Mediterranean sun. Meet, gentlemen - "Alvaro de Basan", operational code F100, the newest frigate Armada Española (Spanish Naval Forces).
A series of four Spanish frigates of this type were built between 1999 and 2006. Combat ships are designed to operate as part of search and strike groups led by an aircraft carrier. The standard displacement of frigates is 4500 tons, the total displacement reaches 5800 tons (in the future, taking into account modernization - up to 6250 tons). As you can see, "Alvaro de Basan" is a fairly large ship for its class, its dimensions are close to the destroyers.
Like any NATO military project, the Spanish frigate is the fruit of international cooperation. Even with the naked eye, it is noticeable that the Alvaro de Basan is another reincarnation of the Aegis destroyer Orly Burke. The hull lines, weapons, power plant, Aegis BIUS - most of the Spaniard's structural elements were copied from an American warship. Of course, the Spaniards created their frigate for the needs of their own Navy, so the Alvaro de Basan acquired its original features - firstly, it is much smaller than the Orly Burke, and therefore cheaper.
The steel hull and superstructures of the frigate were built using "stealth technologies", command posts and personnel quarters were protected with Kevlar armor. The combined diesel-gas turbine unit allows the frigate to reach a speed of 28.5 knots, the cruising range at speed is 5000 nautical miles (at 18 knots) - a slight decrease in running characteristics, compared to Orly Burk, - the consequences of replacing two General Electric LM2500 gas turbine units for cruising low-speed diesel engines Bazan / Caterpillar 3600 with a total capacity of 12,000 hp
The basis of the ship's combat systems is the Aegis BIUS based on the Baseline 5 Phase III modification with the AN / SPY-1D multifunctional radar. The software providing LAN communication between Spanish and American equipment was developed by FABA (Spanish Fábrica de Artilleria de Bazán). The combat information and control system uses Hewlett-Packard computers, 14 SAINSEL CONAM 2000 color displays and two integrated control consoles. Communication with other ships, aircraft and coastal objects is maintained through tactical Link 11/16 systems, as well as through SATCOM satellite communication systems. EW means include the CESELSA Mark 9500 electronic intelligence system, the SLQ-380 "Aldebaran" electronic countermeasures system, and 4 six-barreled 130-mm SRBOC passive jamming launchers.
The ship's missile weapons are located in 6 eight-charge modules of the Mark-41 vertical launcher, a total of 48 launch cells. A typical ammunition load consists of 32 long-range Standard-2 anti-aircraft missiles and 64 RIM-162 ESSM self-defense anti-aircraft missiles with a launch range of 50 km (4 missiles in one cell). In addition, in the middle of the frigate, two oblique launchers Mark-141 are mounted to launch Harpoon anti-ship missiles (subsonic anti-ship missiles with an effective firing range of 130 … 150 km, warhead weight 225 kg).
The artillery is represented by the bow 127 mm 5 / 54 Mark-45 gun. Due to its simplified design and the lack of mechanization of the cellar, the Mark-45 is the lightest naval artillery system of its caliber - only 24.6 tons. The maximum firing range is 23 kilometers, the rate of fire is 20 rounds / min.
For the anti-missile and air defense of the frigate, an anti-aircraft artillery complex "Meroka" of 20 mm caliber was installed, which is a radar station and 12 automatic cannons "Oerlikon", mounted in a single block. There are also two hand-operated Oerlikon guns. All of these systems are optional and can be easily replaced with any other self-defense anti-aircraft systems.
The frigate's anti-submarine weapons are also somewhat different from the Orly Burke's weapons complex. It is based on two 3-pipe torpedo tubes of the Mark-32 system, but unlike the American destroyer, reloading is provided here - there are 24 anti-submarine torpedoes of 324 mm caliber. Also, the frigates are equipped with two ABCAS / SSTS rocket launchers, an advanced sonar system and a towed anti-torpedo protection system - the AN / SLQ-25 Nixie rattle, standard for all NATO ships.
A requirement that has become mandatory for modern ships is a deck helicopter. The frigate Alvaro de Basan has a hangar for the permanent deployment of two Sikorsky SH-60 Ocean Hawk helicopters, as well as a 26-meter helipad provided with the RAST forced landing system. In peacetime, to save money, only one helicopter is based on Spanish frigates.
The cost of building one ship is € 600 million ($ 800 million).
Main battle ship
In my personal opinion, ships like the overgrown frigate Alvaro de Basan could become a good basis for the Russian Navy in the medium term. My, somewhat seditious point of view, was confirmed by people directly related to the Russian Navy - it is such small effective ships, laid down in a large series, that our sailors are waiting for, and not those most complex and monstrously expensive atomic monsters, about which high-ranking Russian officials are now talking so much … Due to the several times lower price and relatively modest displacement, such semi-destroyers-semi-frigates are quick to build and easier to operate. Those. they acquire one of the MAIN properties of a destroyer - mass character, and therefore ubiquity. In the future, I propose to call this hypothetical project "main battle ship", by analogy with the main battle tank - an extremely successful concept of a combat tracked vehicle.
The destroyer of Project 21956, which was discussed at the beginning of the article, reflects a good desire to make a ship superior to the American DDG-1000 Zamvolt. But after all, American experts admitted the fallacy of their theories - the too expensive Zamvolt could not become a new type of US Navy destroyer, it was decided to resume the construction of simple and reliable Orly Berks, their number has already exceeded 60. According to the Zamvolt project, slowly three ships with a total displacement of 14 thousand tons are under construction - the US Navy is only working out new technologies on them. Obviously, American sailors have a surplus of funds if they allow themselves to build such "wunderwales". Again, the US Navy refused to build the Zamvolts in a large series. Doesn't that mean anything?
Our "main battle ship", despite the fact that on paper it is inferior in performance characteristics to "Zamvolt", is intended for mass construction. As for the fighting qualities of a promising Russian destroyer in the form of a "main warship", the situation is as follows:
Anti-ship weapon
The Kalibr family of missiles, the Bramos supersonic anti-ship missiles, the lighter X-35 Uranus - this is a whole range of modern anti-ship weapons ready to be installed on the “main battle ship”. Either in the form of a universal firing complex, or in inclined launchers on the deck. It is necessary to understand that "one is not a warrior in the field" - in the US Navy, the implementation of such tasks is entrusted to carrier-based aircraft and dozens of aircraft for various purposes. Without external target designation, the detection range of surface targets for any destroyer is limited by the radio horizon - 30 … 40 km. The E-2 Hawkeye carrier-based long-range radar aircraft is capable of surveying 100,000 square meters per hour. km. the surface of the ocean - still, the radio horizon at the Houkaya radar antenna, raised to a height of 10 kilometers, is 400 km!
And the destroyer's ammunition load - 8 (maybe a little more) anti-ship missiles cannot be compared with the cellars of an aircraft carrier, which can hold 2,520 tons of ammunition. Therefore, you should not indulge yourself with the illusion that the destroyer is capable of any kind of fight against avionics strike groups, this is not its purpose. Although, in a fair one-on-one battle against their peers, for example, the same "Orly Berks", the "main warship" can show its teeth, especially if its armament includes a new generation of supersonic anti-ship missiles. Again, Berks, like other NATO ships, rarely sail in the ocean without air cover.
Anti-aircraft armament
A really important factor! As part of the Russian Navy, at the moment, only 4 ships can provide the squadron's zonal air defense: TARKR "Peter the Great" and 3 cruisers pr. 1164 "Atlant". As far as I know, the Azov BPK, on which two launchers of the S-300F air defense missile system were installed for experimental purposes, has been withdrawn from the Black Sea Fleet.
Long-range naval anti-aircraft missile systems should become the basis for armament of promising Russian destroyers. The "main warship", similar to the "Alvaro de Basan", offers 48 launchers, 32 long-range missiles + 64 short-range missiles. This amount is quite enough to repel any provocation or successful actions of the "main warship" in local conflicts. It is naive to believe that a destroyer will ever have to shoot down enemy planes in batches - if 32 anti-aircraft missiles were not enough to repel an air attack, then World War III began.
It is worth paying more attention not to the number of missiles, but to the creation of a combat information and control system, similar to Aegis.
The self-defense system of the "main warship" can be strengthened by installing short-range anti-aircraft missile and artillery systems - "Kortik", "Broadsword", there will always be a place for them.
Artillery
I do not share the optimism about the Coalition-F coaxial 152 mm naval artillery system. The reason is too complex construction. Huge weight and prohibitive cost. On the positive side, the system allows you to fire at coastal targets from a long distance, outside the zone of destruction of enemy artillery (although it is much more likely that the counteraction will not be a Grad MLRS shot, but an anti-ship missile, for which an extra 30 … 50 km is only additional seconds of flight). However, off the coast of Libya there was a precedent - a NATO ship, during shelling of the coast, received a shell from the coast. So large-caliber artillery systems are a very promising direction. The main thing is to make the tool compact and simple.
Does a destroyer need a nuclear power plant
All statements about nuclear control systems on a promising Russian destroyer cause only irritation. Perhaps this is beneficial to a certain circle of people, but for the Russian Navy this approach does not bring any distinct advantages.
Even 50 years ago, it was proved that nuclear power plants are vital only for three classes of ships:
- Aircraft carriers (only a nuclear steam generating plant can provide catapults with enough energy in the form of superheated steam or electricity)
- Submarines (only YSU is able to provide boats with the required amount of energy in a submerged position, which by an order of magnitude increases their time spent in a submerged position, and therefore stealth, in comparison with diesel submarines)
- Icebreakers (the need for a powerful source of energy for long-term operation in difficult ice conditions, possible wintering and other force majeure, requiring high autonomy of the icebreaker)
All other attempts to adapt YSU to cruisers or civilian ships ended in failure - the ships had no advantages over their non-nuclear counterparts, but there was a whole sea of shortcomings.
Nuclear power plants have a colossal cost, which is further exacerbated by the cost of nuclear fuel and its further disposal.
YSUs are much larger in size than conventional power plants. Concentrated loads and larger dimensions of the energy compartments require a different arrangement of the premises and a significant redevelopment of the hull design, which increases the cost of designing a ship. In addition to the reactor itself and the steam generating installation, the nuclear power plant requires several circuits, with their own biological shielding, filters, and a whole seawater desalination plant: firstly, bidistillate is vital for the reactor, and secondly, it makes no sense to increase the cruising range for fuel, if the crew has limited supplies of fresh water. The maintenance of the YSU requires a larger number of personnel, and more of a higher qualification. This entails an even greater increase in displacement and operating costs.
The survivability of a nuclear destroyer is significantly less than a similar destroyer with a conventional power plant. A defective gas turbine can be shut down. And for whom will a destroyer with a damaged reactor circuit become more dangerous - for the enemy or for its own crew?
The autonomy of the ship in terms of fuel reserves is not all. There is autonomy in terms of provision, in terms of ammunition, in terms of the endurance of the crew and mechanisms. For example, the heavy nuclear cruiser "Peter the Great" has an autonomy of 60 days in terms of provisions. Everything. Next, you need to look for a port or a complex supply corral. The best nuclear-powered cruiser will not be able to stay in a given area of the World Ocean for an indefinitely long time - people and technology need rest. And a couple of cheap "main warships" can be permanently in the area in shifts.
There is an opinion that the YSU is more compact than a conventional power plant, due to the absence of huge fuel tanks. Well, I can give you the following numbers:
Her Majesty's destroyer Daring is a modern British Type 45 air defense destroyer.
Powerplant: 2 Rolls-Royce WR-21 gas turbines with a total capacity of 57,000 hp (there are also auxiliary diesel engines, but their mass is vanishingly small in our calculation)
The mass of each turbine together with auxiliary equipment is 45 tons. The volume of the destroyer's fuel tanks is 1400 cubic meters. m, fuel weight - 1120 tons. This is enough to provide a cruising range of 7000 nautical miles at 18 knots speed (from St. Petersburg to the Panama Canal across the entire Atlantic Ocean!).
Project 949A nuclear submarine Antey.
Two OK-659 reactors with a thermal power of 190 MW. Two turbines with a total shaft power of 90,000 hp The mass of the reactor compartment equipment, excluding radiation protection, is 2500 tons (!).
These are the thoughts that came to my mind when I got acquainted with the materials about the new Russian destroyer. The ship is undoubtedly needed and useful. It remains only to decide where we will go on it, why we will go there, and with whom we will go there.
