Russia set to build nuclear powered destroyer by 2016

[imperialman]

From: http://iafnews.nuvodev.com/posts/russia-set-to-build-nuclear-powered-destroyer-by-2016/

Russia will finish in 2016, the construction of a new class of destroyer which will most likely be nuclear powered, commander of the Russian Navy Adm Vladimir Vysotsky said on Thursday. “A prototype of an ocean-going class destroyer will be built in 2016 for the country’s Navy,” Vysotsky said at the 5th International Maritime Defense Show, IMDS-2011, in St. Petersburg. The admiral added there was a 90 percent probability that the warship would be equipped with a nuclear-powered engine.

President of Russia’s United Shipbuilding Corporation, Roman Trotsenko, said earlier on Thursday that his company would start designing a new-generation, nuclear-powered destroyer for the Russian Navy this fall. He said the design phase will take up to two years.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Seems quite interesting but in my opinion it's most likely just bluster, like the proclamations about all the aircraft carriers they say they're going to build.

 

[SAS]

A nuc Destroyer? what a waste.

 

[Brutoni]

A nuc Destroyer? what a waste.

Why do you say that? Nuclear powered gives you a huge amount of power generation. Nuclear power gives you a huge amount of independence and ability to stay at sea without refueling. Nuclear is also able to generate high speed vessels.

I can see several reasons for making a vessel nuclear, I don't think that the situation is as black and white as you suggest.

 

[SAS]

Given a regular Destroyers size and mission I see it as not efficient. The ship would need to resupply often anyways for foodstuffs so your not really saving. My opinion of course.

 

[unmerged(315649)]

http://www.en.rian.ru/mlitary_news/20110630/164924604.html

Considering that Russia will probably only have 3 Kirov-class cruisers in service by 2030 (Russia isn´t going to build new cruisers for a looooooong time) perhaps they want this new destroyer to fill some roles that should be handled by cruisers including having nuclear propulsion so they can escort their new carriers (whenever they arrive) around the world? It still seems kind of unnecessary and impractical for a destroyer though. Question is just whether it is a regular destroyer by Western standards or something else.

Though to be honest i doubt that they are going to be built at all. The United Shipbuilding Corporation are known talk much and do little even by russian standards.

 

[Brutoni]

I think we have hit on an important point here;

Destroyer can mean very different things depending on the country building it;

In the UK a destroyer is an anti-air platform
In the EU a destroyer often is a larger multi-role platform
In America a destryer is an independent, full multi-role platform that is focused on high end war fighting and designed to escort a carrier battle group.

Arleigh Burke class destroyers are 10,000 tons as of Flight III. That is actually as large as Russian "cruisers" and indeed as the Ticonderago class cruisers.

So if these new destroyers were designed to be 10,000-12,000 tons then I could see nuclear propulsion being a valid choice.

The ship would need to resupply often anyways for foodstuffs so your not really saving.

It's not unheard of for a Destroyer or Frigate to actually have more endurance in terms of food stuffs than a larger capital ship such as a nuclear powered carrier, due to the speed at which a carrier has to be resupplied in any event. As such in the west the resupply wouldn't be an issue.

Most ships suffer "stable firing" issues once they have used more than 40% of their fuel... Not well known but it is a fact that a ship running near empty fuel has issues with stable firing due to the changes in bouyancy... A nuclear vessel wouldn't suffer this.

 

[EmperorNortonII]

A nuc Destroyer? what a waste.

Maybe the Russians have a weapon system in the works that'll need that sort of power. Rail guns or directed-energy weapons.

 

[SAS]

Maybe the Russians have a weapon system in the works that'll need that sort of power. Rail guns or directed-energy weapons.

I guess anything is possible.

 

[unmerged(255320)]

Last I heard Russia proclaimed to embrace the doctrine of smaller fast warships. Defence ministry in Russia said that they will never build leviathans like Nimitz, to avoid the drawback of it being "too valuable to lose, too valuable to use".

To be honest I expected them to switch to corvette class vessels and small destroyers armed with deadly missiles. These news contradict what they said earlier.

 

[nimitz98]

Considering that Russia will probably only have 3 Kirov-class cruisers in service by 2030...

3 Kirovs? Source?

3 Kirovs to be upgraded
Just remember the Pyotr Velikiy is the newest and most modern Kirov so it will not be upgraded.

 

[Wave]

My opinion is pretty close to SAS'..

This is just like a submarine that can stay underwater for half a year but after a couple of weeks you notice that the crew can't stay there without food supplies..

Only the said railgun theory seems logical if you want to use (nearly) all potential of nuclear reactor (if they aren't working on a fleet of moving Chernobyls which would just crash to enemy port and say boom).

Does underwater rocket engines sound like anything..? Some sort of turbine that requires a lot of power and allows crazy speed for a ship...

 

[unmerged(257468)]

For a railgun you would probably use multiple powerful capacitators (i assume that's the english name).

 

[Brutoni]

For a railgun you would probably use multiple powerful capacitators (i assume that's the english name).

If you mean a device that stores electrical energy slowly but can rapidly discharge that energy then you have the correct name. Given the operation of a railgun you are indeed correct. However to power the multiple capacitor devices you are going to need a powerful energy source anyway. Especially if you want to maintain firing.

 

[unmerged(315649)]

Nimitz98, sorry for the late reply but i´ve been on vacation so i think you will understand.

Anyway even though the official line now is that all Kirovs are going to be refitted i simply dont think that the Admiral Lazarev (hull number 2 originally called Frunze) can be brought back into service. Because while the Kirov and Admiral Nakhminov have been sitting right outside the Sevmash wharf which means they have been recieving smaller repairs even in the 90s, while the Admiral Lazaerev have been left outside Vladivostok to rust away without supplies or repairs.

http://img683.imageshack.us/img683/8263/9823fb40830f.jpg

http://img17.imageshack.us/img17/1585/146e8e1eea04.jpg

2 pics for comparison. Top one is Lazarev and the bottom one Kirov.

I´m not gonna say that its theoretically impossible but its gonna cost a LOT of money and time to get it into running order.

BTW, this might be a bit off-topic but if you are intrested, the refit of Admiral Nakhminov has caught up speed recently. Its nuke reactor has been refueled, the Shipwrecks are being taken away from the ship and the newest version of the S-300 (Fort) system is supposed to be fitted soon (though the final decision hasnt been taken yet, it might be fitted with naval S-400 instead).

 

[nimitz98]

Shipwrecks being taken away?! The devs need to know about this! The way I see it is that refiting the Admiral Lazaerev would be no more difficult or costly than completing the fourth Slava.

 

[Amur_Tiger]

To me this seems aimed squarely at high energy use activities like rail guns/gauss cannons point defense lasers.

 

[Evilfisher]

lasers? are we in the starwars age yet?

 

[Caban]

I HIGHLY doubt that Russia has the technology to put useable railguns or gauss cannons on a ship...
and point defense lasers wouldn't consume anywhere near the energy to require a nuke reactor.

 

[Caban]

lasers? are we in the starwars age yet?

The US actually uses a military laser on some Humvees, but it's nowhere near advanced enough to be effective at point defense. Clearly we don't use nuclear powered Humvees.

We are currently testing 3 point defense lasers, but they shouldn't be entering production until close to 2020. I have to assume the Russians are a bit behind as they have no military lasers in current use(excepting targetting lasers).

 

[unmerged(315649)]

The US actually uses a military laser on some Humvees, but it's nowhere near advanced enough to be effective at point defense. Clearly we don't use nuclear powered Humvees.

We are currently testing 3 point defense lasers, but they shouldn't be entering production until close to 2020. I have to assume the Russians are a bit behind as they have no military lasers in current use(excepting targetting lasers).

Oh my! is that an Il-76 with a laser on it.