&host=www.rt.com&uri=/news/navy-new-destroyer-project-441/&via=1.1 199.93.58.145:80 (Footprint 4.8/FPMCP)&ua=CCBot/1.0 (+http://www.commoncrawl.org/bot.html))
Navy eyes dozen new stealth destroyers
Published: 10 October, 2011, 14:16
Celebration of the Navy Day in Russia (RIA Novosti / Vitaliy Ankov)
TAGS: Arms, Military, Russia, Modernization
The Russian Navy is to deploy 14 to 16 new destroyer-class multipurpose warships over the next two decades. The desired vessel will be a natural naval killer of all sorts of targets from submarines to enemy missiles.
Production of the first ship of the new series may begin as early as in 2012, a source in the defense industry told Izvestia newspaper. The military want a versatile tool capable to engage surface fleets, submarines and aerial targets, including missiles.
“It will be a universal warship, which will be able to replace three classes of vessels. Thanks to modern weapons it will surpass the Large ASW destroyers in anti-submarine warfare and modern surface combat destroyers and guided-missile ships in terms of surface firepower and air defense capabilities, with the exception of the [nuclear-powered battlecruiser] Peter the Great and other ships of that class,” the source said.
Key to such versatility will be rocket launch systems, which will be able to fire different types of missiles depending on the task. The destroyers will carry anti-ship guided missiles, anti-submarine rocket-propelled torpedoes, surface-to-surface cruise missiles and medium-to-long-range surface-to-air missiles. It will also have two to four twin artillery guns.
“At the moment different versions of the warship are being evaluated and the propulsion system is being chosen. Depending on the Navy’s needs and budget restrictions they will have nuclear or gas turbine propulsion,” the source added.
Earlier media reports said the new vessel, which has been in development since at least 2009, will have displacement of 9-10,000 tonnes or 12-14,000 tonnes, depending on the choice of propulsion system. It will carry two or three combat helicopters. Its hull will use stealth technology to lower the ships radar cross-section.
The destroyer will be equipped with modern tactical information and weapons control system similar in capabilities to the American AEGIS.
With deployment of new ships, the navy will have additional flexibility in forming small yet powerful naval task forces consisting of one destroyer and tree to four escorts, the military say. The new ships will partially replace older destroyers and will partially strengthen the Russian fleets.
10.10.2011, 13:24
17 comments
‘Kosovo plays NATO off against Serbia’The atmosphere in Kosovo has been tense for months, and the international organizations set up to be impartial, clearly seem to be taking sides in the conflict, Serbian First Deputy PM Ivica Dacic told RT. |
10.10.2011, 14:40
6 comments
EU confusion blocks Spanish bond buy-inA multi-billion-dollar investment by Moscow into Spanish bonds is feasible, as BRICS countries consider helping Europe. But Russia wants the EU to get its act together before giving the final “go”, according to presidential aide Arkady Dvorkovich. Eurozone crisis |
Sbugiardo, that is the Kudrin side of the debate, the other side is the Putin side, which is that spending on defence will achieve two things. The first is security, which is the first brand pillar for Russia, you implied, and the second is generating economic growth, which actually can pay for more things that you want in the future. So actually the military spending, whilst having a possible short term negative affect on the ability to spend on services…. may in the long run provide more growth to provide even more services…. in the future. It is investing rather than spending and an interesting investment because it supplies modern technical opportunities. But as I said there are debateable points here, the proof is in the eating, which we have to wait for. However, my belief is that spending on the military at this time, as part of a mixed economic growth approach, is a great idea, and makes sense regardless of pure economic motives, so my neck is placed on the block, and I am happy to do that, because I know of no certain academic proof, that it will not work regarding growth. Quite the contrary, experience of others indicate it could well work, and there are not so many other opportunities to consider for alternate investments. This coupled with wider quickly developed economic ties with non western economies, adds breadth to our toolbox for growth.
blah, blah, blah. so many words, so few of substance. you would be better served by doing something about the hundreds of scrapped ships rusting and sinking in place on the black sea. there's some job growth for you.