052C/052D Class Destroyers

A

AndrewS

Brigadier
Registered Member
Iron Man said:
There was a first time the Russians built the Slava class. There was a first time the Russians built the Kirov class. There was a first time the Russians built the Kuznetsov class. If they've been there before, they can get there again. And even more basically I would like to think that the people who envisioned ship classes like the Lider and Shtorm know more about Russian shipbuilding capability than you or I or random internet people on Key Forums.
Click to expand...

The people who designed the Shtorm supercarrier were aiming for something to provide them with jobs.

It wasn't about whether Russian shipyards (given the current situation and the Vikramaditya debacle) are capable of producing such a vessel without a huge budget blowout or construction delay.

Nor did they consider whether Russia actually needs such a vessel given that it is a land-based power without significant seaborne trade, and has a limited budget.

A similar analysis applies to the nuclear-powered Lidar-class cruiser. Making it nuclear powered makes no sense. In a low-intensity conflict, it doesn't need to be nuclear-powered because it can be resupplied easily in a benign environment. And in a high-intensity conflict, it's not going to survive for long if it strays far from Russian bases.

So why didn't they design a more modest ship design like the Burke or Type-55, which would have stood a better chance of being funded and built. Both the US and China have global maritime interests which require much larger fleets, yet they haven't found nuclear powered cruisers a requirement.

So I would class the Lidar and Shtorm as pork-barrel projects for the military-industrial complex in Russia.
 
Last edited:
asif iqbal

asif iqbal

Lieutenant General
ESF is well equipped

4 x Type 052C 150-153
4 x Type 052D 154-157

SSF is next

2 x Type 052C 170-171
4 x Type 052D 172-175

NSF is last
With 4 x Type 052D 116-119

That completes 6 x Type 052C and 12 x Type 052D total 18

So now who will 13th and 14th Type 052D go to ? SSF ?

What will be the pennant numbers ? 176 and 177?

Then the last 4 x Type 052D 120-123

That completes 18 x Type 052D

Plus 6 x Type 052D total 24 DDG

2 x flotilla per fleet and 3 fleets
 
D

delft

Brigadier
AndrewS said:
The people who designed the Shtorm supercarrier were aiming for something to provide them with jobs.

It wasn't about whether Russian shipyards (given the current situation and the Vikramaditya debacle) are capable of producing such a vessel without a huge budget blowout or construction delay.

Nor did they consider whether Russia actually needs such a vessel given that it is a land-based power without significant seaborne trade, and has a limited budget.

A similar analysis applies to the nuclear-powered Lidar-class cruiser. Making it nuclear powered makes no sense. In a low-intensity conflict, it doesn't need to be nuclear-powered because it can be resupplied easily in a benign environment. And in a high-intensity conflict, it's not going to survive for long if it strays far from Russian bases.

So why didn't they design a more modest ship design like the Burke or Type-55, which would have stood a better chance of being funded and built. Both the US and China have global maritime interests which require much larger fleets, yet they haven't found nuclear powered cruisers a requirement.

So I would class the Lidar and Shtorm as pork-barrel projects for the military-industrial complex in Russia.
Click to expand...
It is good practice when no serious project is available to work on to try your hand on designing something special. You will never be building it but you might well hit on ideas that will prove useful in later projects.
 
R

Richard Santos

Captain
Registered Member
AndrewS said:
The people who designed the Shtorm supercarrier were aiming for something to provide them with jobs.

It wasn't about whether Russian shipyards (given the current situation and the Vikramaditya debacle) are capable of producing such a vessel without a huge budget blowout or construction delay.

Nor did they consider whether Russia actually needs such a vessel given that it is a land-based power without significant seaborne trade, and has a limited budget.

A similar analysis applies to the nuclear-powered Lidar-class cruiser. Making it nuclear powered makes no sense. In a low-intensity conflict, it doesn't need to be nuclear-powered because it can be resupplied easily in a benign environment. And in a high-intensity conflict, it's not going to survive for long if it strays far from Russian bases.

So why didn't they design a more modest ship design like the Burke or Type-55, which would have stood a better chance of being funded and built. Both the US and China have global maritime interests which require much larger fleets, yet they haven't found nuclear powered cruisers a requirement.

So I would class the Lidar and Shtorm as pork-barrel projects for the military-industrial complex in Russia.
Click to expand...


The US has a vast underway replenishment fleet, as well as a vast and established support network of friendly ports and bases on allied territories. The US has no pressing need for nuclear cruisers.

The Chinese has the funding and the plans to build a large underway replenishment fleet, and sufficient trade and geopolitical clout to establish and maintain increasingly substantial network of friendly ports and bases. So the case for nuclear surface combatant is also weak.

The Russians has neither the funding to build or,support any sizeable underway replenishment fleet, not the economic clout to establish any substantial network of reliable oversea bases. If Russia wants to have any sizeable naval presence outside the black sea and the Baltic, having a few nuclear cruisers may well be the cheapest and most practical way to attain this.
 
Jeff Head

Jeff Head

General
Registered Member
Richard Santos said:
The US has a vast underway replenishment fleet, as well as a vast and established support network of friendly ports and bases on allied territories. The US has no pressing need for nuclear cruisers.

The Chinese has the funding and the plans to build a large underway replenishment fleet, and sufficient trade and geopolitical clout to establish and maintain increasingly substantial network of friendly ports and bases. So the case for nuclear surface combatant is also weak.

The Russians has neither the funding to build or,support any sizeable underway replenishment fleet, not the economic clout to establish any substantial network of reliable oversea bases. If Russia wants to have any sizeable naval presence outside the black sea and the Baltic, having a few nuclear cruisers may well be the cheapest and most practical way to attain this.
Click to expand...
...except they cannot build them. They have lost the financial capability...and IMHO, seriously depleted their industrial capability.

Look, it took them ten years each to get two brand new, 4,000 ton frigates built (Gorshkovs), and it is taking 6-8 years to get the smaller Grigorovich.

Those are good designs and conventional power.

I do not believe the Russians can build a 10,000 to 12,000 ton nuclear cruiser at this point. If they tried, it would retard every other program they are working on.

I just do not see it happening in the near future...and certainly do not see a carrier being built in the near future at all.
 
Last edited:
D

delft

Brigadier
Not in the near future. Whatever plans are being made investment in (re)building shipyards and the supporting industries, and with an eye on what support might be provided by the Chinese industries, needs to happen first.
Those plans being made now will show what is necessary in that respect.
 
A

AndrewS

Brigadier
Registered Member
Richard Santos said:
The US has a vast underway replenishment fleet, as well as a vast and established support network of friendly ports and bases on allied territories. The US has no pressing need for nuclear cruisers.

The Chinese has the funding and the plans to build a large underway replenishment fleet, and sufficient trade and geopolitical clout to establish and maintain increasingly substantial network of friendly ports and bases. So the case for nuclear surface combatant is also weak.

The Russians has neither the funding to build or,support any sizeable underway replenishment fleet, not the economic clout to establish any substantial network of reliable oversea bases. If Russia wants to have any sizeable naval presence outside the black sea and the Baltic, having a few nuclear cruisers may well be the cheapest and most practical way to attain this.
Click to expand...

No, a few nuclear cruisers would not be the cheapest and most practical way to maintain a sizable naval presence far from Russian shores.

In a low-intensity conflict, Russia doesn't have to worry about resupplying its vessels, even if they are really far away.

In a high-intensity conflict, nuclear propulsion just means fuel is not an issue. But weapons and food will still need to be supplied in a contested environment, which still requires ports or replenishment ships.

Note that the UK is buying 4 replenishment ships from Korea for $600million. That works out as $150million each, which is almost certainly far less than building a cruiser with nuclear propulsion versus gas turbines.

Then consider that a single replenishment ship can support multiple ships (Eg. The Chinese anti-piracy patrols and global port visits).
 
A

AndrewS

Brigadier
Registered Member
delft said:
It is good practice when no serious project is available to work on to try your hand on designing something special. You will never be building it but you might well hit on ideas that will prove useful in later projects.
Click to expand...

Then why not just call it a concept design, like the UK Royal Navy did with the ADVANCED STEALTH Destroyer Ship Concept.

Instead, they managed to get it in the official shipbuilding plan.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top