| Tango01 | 19 May 2015 11:10 p.m. PST |
…, gas turbine option dropped. " Russia's Defense Ministry has 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 Tuesday. "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 is prompted by the need to have an offshore maritime zone ship that can sail to unlimited distances, he said…"
Full article here
tass.ru/en/russia/795458 Amicalement
Armand |
| Katzbalger | 20 May 2015 3:49 a.m. PST |
I wonder if these destroyers are like US destroyers (you know, cruisers in all but name). That said, if the possibility of directed energy weapon use is just on the horizon, a nuke plant instead of turbines might also make sense. Not that I'm saying that's why the Russkies are goin' that way, of course--just an idea that popped into my head. Rob |
| Lion in the Stars | 20 May 2015 6:59 p.m. PST |
It should really have more to do with the expected price of oil. I know that the America-class LPHs were looked at for nuclear power and the USN came to the conclusion that oil would have to hit $140 USD a barrel for nuclear power to make more sense. Also, the Zumwalt class is designed for railguns and lasers, but still runs off of gas turbines. It's a matter of using the turbines to spin generators with the screws driven by electric motors. |
| cwlinsj | 20 May 2015 11:38 p.m. PST |
The TASS news article claims that Russia can go from drawing board to deployment of this new nuclear powered destroyer in 8-10 years… I have my doubts. |
| PHGamer | 21 May 2015 7:15 a.m. PST |
So they are planning a nuclear powered destroyer, and a conventionally powered super-carrier. What's wrong with this picture? |
| cwlinsj | 21 May 2015 2:44 p.m. PST |
Nothing wrong as neither of them will likely make it to actual deployment. If war breaks out, the Russians will spend their money on immediate needs. If peace breaks out, the Russians will spend their rubles on more immediate needs. Even though Putin increased the defense budget by 30%, the actual value of the ruble has fallen by over 40%, meaning that their true buying power is less than before. |
| David in Coffs | 21 May 2015 3:13 p.m. PST |
Nuclear powered does make sence as oil prices in rubles will be so much higher. You are less tied to fueling facilities (both onshore and at sea).
The carrier is for the export market if anyone wants one. |
| Charlie 12 | 21 May 2015 3:46 p.m. PST |
Still, a nuke powered DD is going to run up the buy price fierce. Which, with Russia's economic woes (and Putin's unrealistic buying binge), may mean the thing will never see the light of day. |
| Lion in the Stars | 21 May 2015 5:47 p.m. PST |
The USS Bainbridge (CGN-25) was ordered on 1 September 1958, formally commissioned on 6 October 1962, and made her first deployment in February 1963. So I'm sure that it's possible to deliver a nuclear-powered ship in 10 years from start of designing. |
| David in Coffs | 21 May 2015 6:48 p.m. PST |
No procurement plan survives first contact with the budget oversight committee! |
speculates about post-Innsmouth gaming.