Alternative designs for the new Russian destroyer

Just a quick note today. My friend and colleague Ilya Kramnik plots out four alternative designs for the new Russian destroyer currently in the works.

1) 7500-9000 tons, ~160 meters long, gas turbine CODAG propulsion, top speed of >30 knots

Equipped with 1x1x130mm gun, 2 CIWS complexes, 32 universal shipboard firing complexes (Kalibr/Oniks) and 64 Redut shipboard missiles, 2 Paket-NK anti-submarine torpedo systems, 2 helicopters

2) 9500-11500 tons, ~190 meters long, gas turbine CODAG propulsion, top speed of approximately 30 knots

Equipped with 1x2x130mm guns, 4 CIWS complexes, 48 universal shipboard firing complexes (Kalibr/Oniks) and 80 Redut shipboard missiles, 2 Paket-NK anti-submarine torpedo systems, 2 helicopters

3) 12,500-14,700 tons, ~200 meters long, either gas turbine CODAG or nuclear propulsion, top speed of approximately 30 knots

Equipped with 2x2x152mm guns, 4 CIWS complexes, 64 universal shipboard firing complexes (Kalibr/Oniks) and 80 Redut shipboard missiles, 2 Paket-NK anti-submarine torpedo systems, 2 helicopters

4) 13,000-15,200 tons, ~210 meters long, either gas turbine CODAG or nuclear propulsion, top speed of approximately 30 knots

Equipped with 1x2x152mm guns, 4 CIWS complexes, 16 universal shipboard firing complexes (Kalibr/Oniks) and 48 Redut shipboard missiles, 2 Paket-NK anti-submarine torpedo systems, 5 helicopters

All four versions would have the Sigma-E combat management system and Poliment active phased array radar. The largest of these options is pretty close to a cruiser, I suppose.

16 thoughts on “Alternative designs for the new Russian destroyer

  1. Which one of these designs will be the most similar to the new destroyer based on current VMF needs/trends/finances?

    • Not sure I understand your question. These are four options being considered for the new destroyer. Not clear which will be selected, though my personal feeling is that it will not be #4, which is just too large.

  2. Kramnik is trolling. 5 helicopters? The value of that analysis is not very high. Just light entertainment.

    Also, DGTU is CODAG, not just gas turbine. Also, I don’t think it’s a coincidence that the best destroyers in the world, including Soviet, were 4 x gas.

    Russian diesels are not that great these days, to be honest. Unless you order from Warsila or MTU, which isn’t out of the question between us here.

    • Kramnik’s response, which he asked me to post: Про пять вертолетов – это специальный вариант корабля в корпусе эсминца с доп секцией, большим ангаром и удлиненной кормовой ВПП. Прорабатывается как корабль противолодочной обороны соединения, с тем чтобы не занимать место пл-вертолетами в ангаре авианосца или удк. О таком варианте рассказал один из конструкторов северного ПКБ.

      I’ll try to translate and explain for non-Russian speakers: The version with five helicopters is a special ship, based on a destroyer but with an extra section that allows for a large hangar and extended aft landing area. This would be used as an ASW ship in a carrier group, in order to avoid having to take up space on a carrier or amphibious assault ship with ASW helicopters. This version of the destroyer was described by one of the designers from the northern design bureau.

      As I said before, I’m also skeptical that this version would be the one selected, but I guess it is actually under consideration. And you’re right on CODAG, just missed that in hurried translating.

      • Sounds like Type 071 on steroids to me.

        By the way, the main reason why I am skeptical about Kramnik’s ideas is number of missiles proposed.

        This wunderwaffe obsession is essentially what passes for “design” in the halls of the bureaus these days. It’s “cool” to have these hundreds of missiles on a ship until you realize that each missile costs upward of 1.5-2 million USD. The government would never, not in a million years, authorize a project that would have such enormous ancillary costs. No matter how prestigious it was, they would never authorize those expenses for a series of white elephants.

        Reduce the Design 1 armament by a third, and you might get some buy-in. Sure, it’s not an Arleigh Burke. But lest we forget, AB Flight III costs a cool $2.3 billion a piece.

  3. Artiom, it’s not a white elephant. DDG planning cost is a 50-60 billion rubles. Cost of her missile – up to 4-6 billions. It’s a little under military expenditures equal or more than two trillion per year.

  4. Ilya, I apologize for the confusion. I was rushing to write the comment when I was leaving for work, so I made quite a lot of typos. That will teach me not to comment in a hurry.

    I meant 3M55, of course. 3M54 and 3M14 are probably cheaper, but not by much.

  5. Reblogged this on World Events and commented:
    Good piece on Russian prospects for a new navy destroyer, though the last couple push up into the cruiser family. This is going to take the Russians a while, they have major problems in their shipbuilding industry.

  6. The larger design options are definitely in the cruiser range, though Russia needs those as well as destroyers. As time goes along and things improve, perhaps they’ll do both. Russia has come back from worse than the current situation before. They’ll do it again.

  7. Pingback: MVMS-2013 naval salon prompts more reflections on the future of the Russian navy | Russian Military Reform

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s