An Indo Russian Leader?

Discussion in 'Indian Navy' started by bengalraider, Nov 3, 2015.

  1. bengalraider

    bengalraider DFI Technocrat Stars and Ambassadors

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2009
    Messages:
    3,688
    Likes Received:
    2,173
    Location:
    in a fast food joint next to the imperial shipyard
    The Russian navy shall begin construction of the Leader class destroyers from 2019, meant to replace the Sovremennyy-class destroyer, the Udaloy I class and the Slava-class cruiser. These nuclear powered giants shall displace 17500 tonnes and be armed with no less then 60Ashms/LACMs each apart from also fielding the naval variant of the S-500 with upto 128 SAMs. I personally feel it's a golden opportunity for us to understand the design philosophy behind these giants and build 4-6 of them/ similar indigenous designs as a bulwark force against OPFOR forces in the IOR.

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]


    http://in.sputniknews.com/russia/20150316/1013781801.html
     
  2.  
  3. blueblood

    blueblood Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2011
    Messages:
    1,871
    Likes Received:
    1,429
    • Won't fit well with Indian Navy's western style doctrines. Indian Navy's offence revolves around a number of capable CBGs.
    • Russian one insists on capital ships like Kirov class with huge tonnage and massive firepower operating independently with the intent of engaging aforementioned CBGs.
    • Will cost roughly the same as building a mid size carrier like INS Vikrant but with lower operational costs.
    It would be incredible if India can design and build Arleigh Burke class equivalent to operate independently.

    Just my two cents.
     
  4. jackprince

    jackprince Turning into a frog Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2009
    Messages:
    2,537
    Likes Received:
    2,681
    Location:
    Seema Andhra
    But this will give IN more punch for the buck and more flexibility. These ships won't require CBG like escort protection, and can actually operate alone or with support from may be an ASW corvette. Albeit it won't have as much muscle as CBG, but operational cost will be negligible and can actually dominate its own part of the sea, which may be smaller than CBG, but can substantially complement the CBG. Also, given that it can match firepower of 4 of the destroyers currently operating in IN, it will be a real power-house.
     
  5. bengalraider

    bengalraider DFI Technocrat Stars and Ambassadors

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2009
    Messages:
    3,688
    Likes Received:
    2,173
    Location:
    in a fast food joint next to the imperial shipyard
    While the CBG's shall primarily serve as our shield in the IOR, these could serve as swords much like the army's strike corps.I actually think that these vessels can be complementary to the CBG. providing long range detection and heavy organic SAM cover to the CBG. Imagine three flotillas of two Leader type vessels each alongside a couple of SSN's operating under the air umbrella of the CBG's. Now that would be a Battlegroup to be feared.
     
    Kharavela and Yusuf like this.
  6. blueblood

    blueblood Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2011
    Messages:
    1,871
    Likes Received:
    1,429
    1. The purpose of such ships is to engage CBGs so as far as IN is concerned it is an overkill of epic proportions. It is true that it won't escort protection but what will be its purpose?
    2. India is already building carriers for ocean dominance. Expensive projects like this will suck the oxygen in lieu of other essential projects. Vizag class already costs $1 billion each, which will cost much more when it'll enter service after the now normal delays and costs overruns.
    3. India needs two pronged approach if it wants to dominate IOR;
    • Larger and more capable destroyers in decent numbers something akin to Arleigh Burke class or Sejong class.
    • Significant numbers of smaller frigates like Talwar class or upgraded Kamorta class in range of 3000-4000 tons with sufficient firepower and survivability.
    @bengalraider , saw your post a little later. Indian Navy's threat perception is not even remotely close to that of Russians. They "need" it and we "want" it.
     
    Last edited: Nov 3, 2015
  7. Kshatriya87

    Kshatriya87 Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2014
    Messages:
    4,736
    Likes Received:
    3,177
    Location:
    Mumbai
    Sorry. Not familiar with the abbreviation CBGs?
     
  8. blueblood

    blueblood Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2011
    Messages:
    1,871
    Likes Received:
    1,429
    Carrier Battle Group........................
     
    Kshatriya87 likes this.
  9. jackprince

    jackprince Turning into a frog Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2009
    Messages:
    2,537
    Likes Received:
    2,681
    Location:
    Seema Andhra
    1. The threat of Chinese CBGs in IOC is going to be a fact in near future. The purpose of such a ship can be to operate independently to control a larger section of sea than any of the current class of destroyers or frigates of IN can. CBGs IMO is not going to stray far off our coasts. These ships can be delegated the task of controlling high seas far off our coasts.

    2.True. But, a single ship of this class will have more fire power than 3-4 such ships and will cost less than half of building that many of visakhapatnam-class. And, far less to maintain them too.

    3. True. And this ship will fill in the part of large and capable class of ships as pointed by you. Only it will be quite bit bigger and more capable than arleigh burke class.

    You have to understand, I am neither in in support of the idea nor against it. Just exploring the idea.

    CBG=Carrier Battle Group
     
    Kshatriya87 likes this.
  10. jackprince

    jackprince Turning into a frog Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2009
    Messages:
    2,537
    Likes Received:
    2,681
    Location:
    Seema Andhra
    But that Battle group will be far too costly to be maintained by IN and will limit the flexibility of IN and concentrate too much firepower at a limited part of the sea. Rather Leader class can operate alone or in pair only with a support vessel of ASW or AD Ship. Also, it can actually provide support to the planned LHDs or LPDs for independent ops.
     
  11. jackprince

    jackprince Turning into a frog Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2009
    Messages:
    2,537
    Likes Received:
    2,681
    Location:
    Seema Andhra
    http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/russia/ddg-newcon.htm

    Project 23560E Shkval destroyer
    Leader / Lider Class / New Construction Destroyer / Future Destroyer

    The Command of the Russian Navy approved the draft presented by the future destroyer design office Severnoe (Saint-Petersburg) in early 2013. If it is completed, this project would build the largest warship in Russia since the collapse of the USSR. The project had yet to get a designation and a name as of mid-2014, which is unusual, since typically Russia sees too many designations chasing not enough ships.

    Janes reported in the mid-1990s that the Russian navy intended to built a new missile cruiser or missile destroyer with VLS systems such as the US Ticoderoga and Arleigh Burke AEGIS vessels. Janes underlined that the project was doubtlful because of a complete lack of money, and indeed the project was cancelled.

    The widely attested Project 1157 Cruiser was said to be a stealth upgrade of the Slava class cruiser, designed in the late 1980s to meet the Russian Navy's urgent need to counterbalance the US Aleigh Burke class destroyer. With a displacement of 13,200 tons and a length of 186 meters, the Project 1157 cruiser was equipped with 4 X-band radars, hundreds of missiles including SA-N-24 (sea based S400), 4 Kashtan Air Defence Gun/Missile System, four gas turbines, the ship controls over 300KM radius of battle space with the full speed of 33 knots. But Project 1157 is pure fan art, not a real project. And the Alexander Nevski missile cruiser project is fantastic and not a real project.

    It was reported in early 2010 Russia has embarked on developing a new-generation destroyer featuring a displacement of about 10,000 tons and powered by a gas turbine. Efforts were then focused on the design of the new destroyer. The future destroyer would be a multirole ship. It would be armed with advanced missile systems with versatile vertical launchers. The destroyer would be able to engage ground, surface and submersible targets. It would also be fitted with an air/missile defense system with short-, medium- and long-range missiles. The ship would be equipped with versatile gun mounts designed to fire precision-guided munitions (PGM) at ground- and sea-based targets. The destroyer would be based on stealth technologies, which would considerably increase its concealment. It would be fitted with a helipad for two ASW helicopters. The new-generation destroyer is expected to boast an unlimited navigability, a full speed of 30 knots, and an operational range of 10,000 nautical miles.

    Russia has begun developing a new-generation destroyer for its Navy, which would be built using stealth technology, a source from the defense industry told Interfax-AVN on 11 March 2010. “Research is being done now to determine the image of a new offshore maritime zone vessel, and technical documents for the project are being drawn up. This process will last about 30 months,” the source said. The future warship would be multifunctional, which would determine the choice of weapons for it, he said. “The destroyer will have a missile weapon system using universal vertical launchers to fire high-precision missiles at ground, surface, and underwater targets. The ship’s air defense will be provided by short, middle, and long-range anti-aircraft missiles,” the expert said.

    The destroyer’s artillery systems would also be universal and would be capable of firing high-precision guided projectiles at coastal and marine targets, he said. The vessel’s multifunctionality would also affect its electronic equipment, the expert said. “The destroyer will be equipped with a universal target detection and designation system, electronic warfare systems, and hydro-acoustic equipment to detect submarines, mines, and underwater sabotage groups,” he said. One of the features of the new destroyer will be a high level of environmental security, which so far is not a characteristic of Russian warships.

    The president of JSC "United Shipbuilding Corporation" Roman Trocenko made an intriguing statement in the framework of the V internationality Naval Show (IMDS 2011). Trocenko said the company was designing a nuclear power plant for an ocean-going "destroyer" class ship for the Navy Russian Federation. He stressed that the destroyers of the new project would not be made available for export, and only provided for the Russian Navy. Navy Commander Admiral Vladimir Vysotsky confirmed the design for the Russian Navy ocean-going ships. Adding that the laying of a new Russian destroyer likely already in 2012-2013. There was a 90 percent confidence that the ship is nuclear powered.

    In June 2012, the director of OSK (holding Russian shipbuilding) stated at the Economic Forum in St. Petersburg that Russia would hold the first copy on the future destroyer in 2016, a total of 6 units to be built. The timing seems for the moment compliance with these statements.

    As of mid-2014, there were conflicting data from all points of the compass. The absence of any particular image of the draft of the new Russian destroyers from officials gave rise to a flurry of different improvisations on the subject. Various claims are made concerning the ship's design, including the nuclear power plant, the development of a "stealth" configuration, universal firing system, supersonic anti-ship missiles, twin 152 mm "Coalition-F" artillery. The displacement of the Project 21956 Russian destroyer ranges from from 9,000 tons to 14,000 tons, the ship taking on the traits ofa traditional "Arleigh Burke", or the new "silver bullet" guided missile destroyer like the DDG-1000 "Zumwalt". The approximate price of the new Navy destroyer was said to be $2,500,000,000. In the medium term (15-20 years) there were to be 14-16 of the new destroyers — ie an average of 4 ship to any of the fleets of the Russian Navy.

    The Russian Navy approved the next generation destroyer presented by the consulting firm Severnoe St. Petersburg, an office during the Soviet era was designed especially among the largest warships of the USSR: missile cruisers Project 1164 Atlant (cruiser Moskva, the flagship of the Black Sea fleet), large ASW ship Project 1155 nuclear cruisers Kirov Project 1164 (the Peter Grand, flagship of the Northern Fleet) and Project 956 destroyers which included some success Export with 4 units sold in China in 2000. With his experience, by one account Severnoe therefore presented to the Russian Navy destroyer project a displacement of 12,000 tonnes, higher than the Project 21956 destroyer designed primarily for export (8,000 t full load photo below). The last ship of comparable tonnage built in Russia was the nuclear missile cruiser Yuri Andopov, the future Peter the Great, put on hold in 1986 to plant the Baltic (ASA in 1998 in the Northern Fleet).

    The Atlant Cruisers are extremely oversized and not comparable to the US Navy Ticonderoga Cruisers which are Multi-role (plus the US has over 20 of theirs and Russia only 3 Atlant and 2 Orlan). The Atlant Cruisers were purpose built (as everything was purpose built in the Soviet Navy, which required a lot of ships just to accomplish one task) for Fleet Air Defense (with S-300F "Fort") and Long Range Anti-shipping ships. They require a lot of resources, like a crew number large enough to support 3-4 Frigates if divided.

    Although the construction site had not yet been officially decided, it seems that this would be the shipyard North (St. Petersburg), which is Presenti. It is expected that over the next 2 to 3 years, the office develops technical documentation of the ship, working on his appearance and armament. Regarding this last point, the armament of the future would therefore destroyer (as often since the cruisers of Project 1164 and 1144) and the height of the missions it would fall. It would be indeed a destroyer versatile able to implement missions ASW, anti-air to ensure a missile defense theater, even extended to a more substantial space and able to support land operations conducted by a task force. As a result, the next generation destroyer would carry torpedoes and would have a hydroacoustic station for ASW. It would also be equipped with anti-surface missile and would carry cruise missiles (probably like Club). It finally have anti-missile systems S-500 with Prometheus.

    The new generation destroyer should also complete missions Russian Mistrals escort and beyond the protection of the future Russian battle group formed around the next nuclear aircraft carrier , the project has not been submitted yet. According to a cons-retired Russian admiral interviewed by the newspaper Izvestia, the Navy would need at least three units. However, it is estimated that a total of nine units deployed fleets between the North and the Pacific would be ideal, with five other units in the Baltic Sea. According to him, the first units should primarily be sent in Pacifice.

    After many years, it has been confirmed that nuclear power plants are actually needed in only three classes of ships, Aircraft carriers need the nuclear power for catapults in the form of superheated steam or electricity. Submarines need nuclear power for high speed and increasing time spent submerged. Icebreakers need nuclear power for long-term work in difficult ice conditions. All other trials, such as cruisers or civilian ships, ended in failure — the ships did not have any advantages over its non-nuclear members, but it was a "sea of bugs" that came at a tremendous price.

    This destroyer project may reflect a desire to surpass the American DDG-1000 "Zumwalt". But the very expensive "Zumwalt" failed to become a new type of destroyer of the US Navy. Zumwalt slowly built only three ships, with a full displacement of 14,000 tons. Instead it was decided to resume the construction of conventional and reliable "Arleigh Burke".

    The similar 9,000-ton Project 21956 Multi-purpose Ship, unveiled in 2007, is designed for fighting submarines and surface ships of an enemy as well as for anti-submarine and anti-air defense of ships and vessels operating as part of a surface group or a task force performing a mission at sea or in the ocean.

    It was reported in December 2014 that Russia’s Defense Ministry had already approved the technical design specifications for its Leader class destroyers. The next-generation warships would be most likely be equipped with a Caliber high-precision cruise missile system and a S-500 Prometey antiaircraft defense system, which is more capable than US Aegis Ballistic Missile defense systems.

    Each destroyer would have a Redut-Poliment anti-ship weapons system as well as Pantsir-M and Palash antiaircraft artillery. The destroyer’s nuclear-powered and gas turbine propulsion power plant would be manufactured in Russia and would allow the ships to travel at 30 knots. The warships would be capable of combatting submarines and would also be equipped with two special helicopters and a modern sonar system.

    As of January 2015 the military-industrial commission is calculated on the creation of a new destroyer about 2018, and the first destroyer can be built no earlier than 2023-2025. The new destroyers are to replace the representative of the project 956 and 1155, which remain the main ocean warships Russia.

    Janes reported 14 May 2015 that the Project 23560E Shkval (Squall), destroyer had a full-load displacement of 15,000-18,000 tons, a length of 200 meters, beam of 23 meters, draft of 6.6 meters, maximum speed of 32 knots, cruise speed of 20 knots, endurance of 90 days, and a crew of 250-300. The destroyer is intended to be powered by a gas turbine engine (although Russia lacked any adequate sources for naval gas turbines). The destroyer's armament comprises 60-70 anti-ship or anti-land cruise missiles, 128 surface-to-air missiles (SAMs), and 16-24 anti-submarine missiles. The ship is also equipped with a 130 mm multipurpose naval gun. It was proposed to be fitted with a battle management system integrated with tactical and operational-tactical ACSs.

    Russia’s Defense Ministry amended a technical assignment for developing the Leader-type missile destroyer for the Navy, which will have a nuclear power unit as the sole option, a source in the defense industry said on 19 May 2015. "The Navy’s command has given up the development of the Leader ship with a gas turbine power unit. In accordance with the amendments in the technical assignment approved by the Defense Ministry, the conceptual designing involves only one option with a nuclear power unit," the source said.

    This decision was prompted by the need to have an offshore maritime zone ship that can sail to unlimited distances, he said. The Severnoye design bureau in St. Petersburg in northwest Russia is preparing the technical design, which is expected to "be completed in 2016," the source said. A source in the defense industry told TASS the Russian Navy could get the next-generation lead destroyer no sooner than 2023-2025.

    The Leader-type destroyers are set to replace Project 956 and Project 1155 ships. The Russian Navy intends to order 12 new destroyers, six for the Northern and six for the Pacific Fleet. The cruise missiles Caliber and Onyx or their modifications, as well as S-500 air defense systems capable of destroying targets in outer space, were previously mentioned as possible armaments for the Leader-type destroyers.

    The nuclear power generating facility for the propulsion system of Russia’s future aircraft carrier will be worked out on the Lider (Leader) class destroyer, a shipbuilding industry source told TASS on 02 July 2015. "At first, the nuclear power unit for the future national aircraft carrier will be worked out on the Lider destroyer," he said at the International Maritime Defence Show (IMDS-2015). The Navy has said that a prospective aircraft carrier will be built no earlier than in 2030. As for the Leader destroyer, its construction could begin in 2019.

    As for the Leader destroyer, its construction could begin in 2019 - such statement was made by Commander-in-Chief of the Russian Navy Admiral Viktor Chirkov in late June 2015. According to previous reports, this ship’s displacement may be 15,000 tonnes, the vessel will be armed with the Kalibr and Onyx cruise missiles or their modifications, as well as with the S-500 marine anti-aircraft missile system. The source told TASS that the Navy planned to get 12 destroyers of the new class.


    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]

    [​IMG] [​IMG] [​IMG]


    upload_2015-11-3_12-47-59.png
     
  12. blueblood

    blueblood Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2011
    Messages:
    1,871
    Likes Received:
    1,429
    Chinese CBG (just one) is way too distant a possibility for IN to worry about. Even in near to mid future, PLAN will have 3 operational CBGs and I'll bet my right nut that not a single one will enter IOC in times of conflict. Every battle is initiated from the position of strength. China sending its CBG to IOC translates to opening up ECS and SCS for JSDMF, USN and others. Even if a single CBG finds its way to IOC, it shall be welcomed by not one but two IN CBGs along with shore based defences from Southern peninsula and A&N Islands. A lose-lose propsition for China no matter what.

    Indian CBGs will not operate from shores which defeats the entire purpose of having one.

    Partially true. Don't judge a book by its cover. Kolkata class can carry twice the SAMs it is carrying now. So, overkill!!! You need to have strong enemies to have such a massive fleet. Russia and CHina does. India not so much.

    Not just a "bit" bigger, you are talking about roughly twice the size and more than that in terms of cost. Nuclear propulsion is for globe trotting navies. India is not one of them.

    I understand that mate. This is discussion forum afterall.
     
    Sakal Gharelu Ustad likes this.
  13. bengalraider

    bengalraider DFI Technocrat Stars and Ambassadors

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2009
    Messages:
    3,688
    Likes Received:
    2,173
    Location:
    in a fast food joint next to the imperial shipyard
    While I too understand and support the point about having more smaller combatants instead. The missile battlecruiser is still the biggest bruiser around, the era of gunboat diplomacy never ended and much as we deny it there is still some merit to carrying a really big stick.
    I mean one leader alone can sink the entire Pakistani Navy while killing a third of it's air force as well, that capability speaks volumes.
     
  14. Bahamut

    Bahamut Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2015
    Messages:
    1,838
    Likes Received:
    1,348
    Location:
    somewhere in space time
    The main aim of this types of ship for the Russian navy is to make sure that the enemy is not able to use its ASW capability to its full extend as there main attack force is their sub ,but India is going to have it main attack force as aircraft carrier .Also given the state of our sub fleet such ships will not make any sense.Our main focus should be to increase the no sub , frigates and few smaller destroyer . Taking the no of sub used by china we must improve our ASW capability.As for the no aircraft carrier is going to max 4 to 5 in long term and that itself will a very huge burden in terms of maintenance ,ship like these which
     
  15. Sakal Gharelu Ustad

    Sakal Gharelu Ustad Detests Jholawalas Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2012
    Messages:
    6,687
    Likes Received:
    6,666
    Any clue about the cost of such vessel?

    How does it compare to Vishakhapatnam class? Since Vishakhapatnam is not nuclear based, it would be much cheaper to build and operate 4 such vessels which will give more flexibility to the navy as compared to having just one vessel. If IN just plans to operate in IOR, it would never be too far from the coast to actually need a nuclear vessel for its missions. It might be overkill for the current job espoused by IN.
     
    blueblood likes this.
  16. bengalraider

    bengalraider DFI Technocrat Stars and Ambassadors

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2009
    Messages:
    3,688
    Likes Received:
    2,173
    Location:
    in a fast food joint next to the imperial shipyard
    Each leader should cost around 2.5$billion compared to around 1$billion for a vishakapatnam.
    As far as money is concerned the Indian economy is poised to cross 3$ trillion before 2020, simultaneously the defence budget should cross 70$billion( more than the entire current GDP of Nepal) making India the third biggest defence spender. With the Namo Parrikar combine all but certain to stay in power till 2024 ,we're gonna have many more big buys coming easily.
     
  17. Sakal Gharelu Ustad

    Sakal Gharelu Ustad Detests Jholawalas Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2012
    Messages:
    6,687
    Likes Received:
    6,666
    Can you please post sources? Visakhapatnam is not even nuclear based. I would expect price difference to be much higher. Or its standard Russian tech whose price will become five fold by the time of delivery.

    Sent from my MI 3W using Tapatalk
     
  18. salute

    salute Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2015
    Messages:
    1,587
    Likes Received:
    787
    Location:
    india
    delete......................................................................................................
     
  19. Bahamut

    Bahamut Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2015
    Messages:
    1,838
    Likes Received:
    1,348
    Location:
    somewhere in space time
    vishakapatnam will cost more then a 1$billion when cost of all system like SAM ,radar ,aircraft ,copper are included .My estimate will be around 2.5 to 3$ billion with all the system and system to make effective.
     
    Last edited: Nov 3, 2015
  20. salute

    salute Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2015
    Messages:
    1,587
    Likes Received:
    787
    Location:
    india
    you are always russian supporter,

    when its american or others you worry about economy,but not when its russian weapons which are less reliable.
     
    Dark Sorrow likes this.
  21. Bahamut

    Bahamut Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2015
    Messages:
    1,838
    Likes Received:
    1,348
    Location:
    somewhere in space time
    We can combat them by developing high speed long range cruise missile just like china try to counter USN CBG. It also give more flexibility. We also have the base in brahmos system .Plus even smaller ship and sub an take these missile .Just use a barage of 10 to 20 of the missile to sink CBG. These missile coming at mach 3 at 10 m above sea level can be lanched for 500 and plus km distance gives us the flexibility.
    The super ships are a alternative to a CBG but mainly for defense purpose and to protect you main attack group.A CBG take 10+$billion to make and very difficult to maintain.These ship gives us similar capability at a lower price but less flexibility.These can only be used to destroy enemy ships and planes while a CBG also gives a capability to support a naval landing by providing air support and it can be used to gather intel.A CBG also have a longer range .Its plane can go 1000 km and deal with threat or gather intel all in less then a hour but if the Russian develop a VTOL UACV then these can be used.I will check for further info on this .Think of these super ships as sniper whose aim is take out threats that at long range and protect your squad while a CBG is machine gun .It give the firepower needed the destroy the enemy.
     
    Last edited: Nov 3, 2015

Share This Page