23560 Lider - The Nuclear Option
Many Russian sources indicate the 23560 Lider will use nuclear propulsion. While a nuclear powered surface ship would be more expensive to build than a similar conventional ship, the nuclear powered ship could operated without accompanying auxiliary support ships. Sustained operations at sea was never a strong suit of the Soviet navy. Ships were designed for a brief but spectacular "battle of the first blow" but otherwise generally were not underway. In the 1980s, the Soviet Mediterranean Squadron spent most of its time sitting in an open-oecan anchorage.
Russia's new advanced project 23560 Lider-class nuclear-powered destroyer is expected to be laid down in 2019, the Russian Navy's former First Deputy Commander-in-Chief Adm. Igor Kasatonov said 28 July 2016. "The preliminary design of the ship has been prepared, a decision was taken to fit the vessel with a nuclear power unit. The type of reactor is currently being chosen. A submarine nuclear reactor has its own specifics, as does an icebreaker reactor. But we have extensive experience, this will be sorted out. Project planners will report on this. Regarding the laying down date, we are looking at 2019," Kasatonov said in an interview with RIA Novosti. The admiral, who also served as the head of Russia's Black Sea Fleet between 1991 and 1992, added that the project 23560 ship was likely to be built at the Severnaya Verf Shipyard in Saint Petersburg. Previously, the ship's construction was expected to commence in 2018.
There had been a continuing debate in the USA over the relative merits of conventional and nuclear power for US Navy warsbips. By the late 1970s, most American military experts agreed that submarines and large aircraft carriers should have nuclear propulsion. The lingering controversy centered over the desirability of nuclear power for cruisers, frigates, and destroyers that accospany the carriers. Nuclear ships are more capable but cost more, and their relative cost-effectiveness cannot be measured because US Navy analysts could not quantify many benefits of nuclear power. In addition, available data on construction and operating costs did not lend themselves to precise comparisons.
The nuclear advantage was minimized in a conflict where opposing forces are relatively close to one another. Where naval forces needed to transit long distances in a short time or are highly dependent on resupply of fuel at sea, nuclear power had a clear advantage. - The nuclear option meant mobility and greater freedom frcm logistics support. The ability to concentrate forces quickly at a scene of conflict (real or threatened) was superior and the vulnerability of providing logistics support was reduced.
Nuclear powered surface combatants are able to continue performing their assigned tasks in the task group, whereas conventional ships must periodically leave their assigned stations to refuel from the carrier. The refueling operation weakens the task group not only by drawing ships off station but also by requiring slow speeds and steady courses that increase the entire task group's vulnerability to attack. The presence of any conventional ships in the task group tends to d grade the effectiveness of the nuclear-powered ships.
Construction of cruisers (USS Long Beach and former frigates) and larger destroyers (Spruance class and former frigates) since 1956, including those authorized and budgeted but not completed, totaled 65 ships by 1977. Nine of these ships were nuclear-powered.
In 2011, the US Congressional Budget Office [CBO] analysed the US Navy’s planned new version of the DDG-51 destroyer and its replacement, the DDG(X); the LH(X) amphibious assault ship; and the LSD(X) amphibious dock landing ship. CBO then estimated the life-cycle costs for each ship in that fleet—that is, the costs over the ship’s entire 40-year service life, beginning with its acquisition and progressing through the annual expenditures over 40 years for its fuel, personnel, and other operations and support and, finally, its disposal.
Estimates of the relative costs of using nuclear power versus conventional fuels for ships depend in large part on the projected path of oil prices, which determine how much the Navy must pay for fuel in the future. The initial costs for building and fueling a nuclear-powered ship are greater than those for building a conventionally powered ship. However, once the Navy has acquired a nuclear ship, it incurs no further costs for fuel. If oil prices rose substantially in the future, the estimated savings in fuel costs from using nuclear power over a ship’s lifetime could offset the higher initial costs to procure the ship.
A conventionally powered DDG-51 Flight III destroyer (a “flight” is a variant) is expected to have a full-load displacement (weight) of 10,000 tons; CBO assumed that a nuclear-powered DDG-51 would displace 12,000 tons. CBO also assumed that the replacement class, the DDG(X), would displace 11,000 tons if conventionally powered and 13,000 tons if nuclear powered. CBO found that the costs for a fleet of conventionally powered ships would be significantly lower than the costs for a fleet of nuclear-powered ships. A conventional destroyer was projected to have a unit cost of $2.3 billion, while the nuclear variant was assessed to have a unit cost of $2.9 billion.
Nuclear power cannot compete on strictly economic basis with conventional power plants; however, other factors such as weight, space, speed, and range considerations would also enter into any complete evaluation.
According to the Russians, the vessel would become the world's third nuclear-powered "destroyer" after the two American ships, the 9,127 ton USS Truxtun (DLGN-35) and 9,265 ton USS Bainbridge (DLGN-25). However, according to designers, Russia's warship will outclass its American counterparts. But with a displacement in the range of 18,000 tons, this vessel would not be a destroyer by common classification, but rather a cruiser, a counterpart to the American 15,540 ton CGN-9 Long Beach. Indeed, after a time, Truxtun and Bainbridge were reclassified as cruisers.
After many years, it was confirmed that nuclear power plants are actually needed in only three classes of ships, Aircraft carriers need the nuclear power for catapults in the form of superheated steam or electricity. Submarines need nuclear power for high speed and increasing time spent submerged. Icebreakers need nuclear power for long-term work in difficult ice conditions. All other trials, such as cruisers or civilian ships, ended in failure — the ships did not have any advantages over its non-nuclear members, but it was a "sea of bugs" that came at a tremendous price.
The president of JSC "United Shipbuilding Corporation" Roman Trocenko made an intriguing statement in the framework of the V internationality Naval Show (IMDS 2011). Trocenko said the company was designing a nuclear power plant for an ocean-going "destroyer" class ship for the Navy Russian Federation. He stressed that the destroyers of the new project would not be made available for export, and only provided for the Russian Navy. Navy Commander Admiral Vladimir Vysotsky confirmed the design for the Russian Navy ocean-going ships. Adding that the laying of a new Russian destroyer likely already in 2012-2013. There was a 90 percent confidence that the ship is nuclear powered.
Russia’s Defense Ministry 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 19 May 2015. "The Navy’s command had 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 was prompted by the need to have an offshore maritime zone ship that can sail to unlimited distances, he said. The Severnoye design bureau in St. Petersburg in northwest Russia is preparing the technical design, which is expected to "be completed in 2016," the source said. A source in the defense industry told TASS the Russian Navy could get the next-generation lead destroyer no sooner than 2023-2025.
The nuclear power generating facility for the propulsion system of Russia’s future aircraft carrier will be worked out on the Lider (Leader) class destroyer, a shipbuilding industry source told TASS on 02 July 2015. "At first, the nuclear power unit for the future national aircraft carrier will be worked out on the Lider destroyer," he said at the International Maritime Defence Show (IMDS-2015).
|
NEWSLETTER
|
| Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list |
|
|
|
