Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    Questions Thread: Russian Navy

    Share

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15490
    Points : 16197
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Questions Thread: Russian Navy

    Post  GarryB on Sat Apr 12, 2014 10:28 am

    Sea planes made a lot of sense in the early 20th century when there were few air ports but lots of harbours.

    Sea planes are less aerodynamic and higher maintainence and really only make sense in particular situations... sea rescue, and fire fighting are two that spring to mind...


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order

    andalusia
    Corporal
    Corporal

    Posts : 86
    Points : 130
    Join date : 2013-10-01

    Are Seaplanes underrated?

    Post  andalusia on Sat Apr 12, 2014 10:45 pm

    Garry B did you read the two articles? I think the author makes a compelling case for seaplanes as a weapon of war. He is says how some corrupt elements in the military played down the seaplane success in World War II.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15490
    Points : 16197
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Questions Thread: Russian Navy

    Post  GarryB on Sun Apr 13, 2014 12:16 pm

    He is a very angry person isn't he?

    the picture of the prop fighter with wingtip mounted AMRAAMs says it all...

    Armed with AMRAAM BVR and short-range Sidewinder AAMs, SC-3s could engage even supersonic fighter jets and shoot them down. With two sets of eyeballs scanning the skies with sensors looking in all directions, its very likely the SeaHawk III crew will see the MIG first and shoot first.

    And which model Mig will ignore detecting this fighter at ranges in excess of 80km and will wait till it is within visual range before opening fire?

    As I mentioned... being able to operate from water requires fairly calm water... it compromises the aerodynamic shape of the aircraft which introduces more drag and weight which is never a good thing, and it increases maintainence requirements... expensive modern jet engines don't like salt water and there are limits to what you can do with regard to corrosion resistance.

    I personally think the airship is something worth bringing back... with modern materials like carbon fibre and strong fabrics and of course new technology like fuel cell technology allowing the use of hydrogen as a fuel and a lifting gas and also when put through a fuel cell as ballast then they become much cheaper and more flexible.

    You could design an airship to operate at 30,000m or 40,000m where there is very little oxygen so hydrogen wont even burn. The main problem with airships has been the waste of hydrogen to descend and climb and the complicated use of ballast.

    to start with the airship must be neutrally buoyant. Send it to a location to pick up the payload, but to load the payload on you have to drop ballast to maintain buoyancy. Once fully loaded with payload and fuel you start to fly to the destination but as you travel you burn fuel and get lighter so you need to release lifting gas or you just keep climbing.

    Once you get to the destination you need to offload the payload while at the same time take on ballast... usually water or sand bags.

    For a naval airship loading enormous radar antennas as part of the aircrafts structure so really all you need is lifting gas to get airborne and fuel to run the diesel engines plus some ballast and perhaps some self defence missiles.

    You can use a fuel cell to process hydrogen gas into water to create electricity and heat... electricity to power the motors to move around or keep station, and heat can be used to increase the efficiency of the hydrogen as a lifting gas. Diesel fuel can also be used to maintain station and power the radar antenna in active mode. Solar panels can be used to convert water into hydrogen gas through the fuel cell or stored electricity in batteries can be used.

    To climb you can use electricity to create more hydrogen from water ballast or you can burn diesel fuel. to descend or stop climbing hydrogen can be put through the fuel cell to create electricity and heat so reducing ballast and increasing lifting gas. The Diesel engines also produce heat which improves the performance of hydrogen lifting gas.

    Alternatively a small nuclear fuel cell like the ones used on satellites could be used together with a fuel cell to enable a large radar to be operated with the flexibility the hydrogen fuel cell offers in terms of ballast/lifting gas management.

    Regarding the second article about bringing back heavy sea planes... what does he mean by back?

    (Sorry to post Wiki at you but it is handy..)

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beriev_Be-12

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beriev_A-40

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beriev_Be-103

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beriev_Be-200


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order

    Zivo
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 1504
    Points : 1540
    Join date : 2012-04-13
    Location : U.S.A.

    Re: Questions Thread: Russian Navy

    Post  Zivo on Mon Apr 14, 2014 8:27 am

    Some of the authors points are rather far fetched.

    Anyways the #1 problem with a fighter-type seaplane, aerodynamics. No matter what, performance will always suffer. Dorsal intakes are mandatory, and the unfortunate thing about dorsal intakes is they cannot breathe at a high AoA. This physical limitation prevents them from being feasibly used on a fighter aircraft.

    #2, payload. You cannot hang fuel tanks or missiles below the wings, unless you want a high wing configuration or pontoons. Both configurations will severely cripple performance. Weapon bays may reduce the problem, but the lack of external fuel tanks will continue to be a drawback.

    #3, They STILL have the logistics ball and chain. They need to operate near a support vessel, as they would need to be refueled and rearmed.

    GarryB, I'm 100% behind the airship idea. Their comeback is long overdue.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15490
    Points : 16197
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Questions Thread: Russian Navy

    Post  GarryB on Mon Apr 14, 2014 11:11 am

    Sea still carries the vast majority of trade and commerce around the world.

    Ships are potentially very vulnerable but as a group and fully supported by air and land forces they can be very powerful and also the only way to reach some targets.

    Some cheeky fishing boat sitting off your coast fishing illegally in your waters... it makes sense to send a boat after it rather than a plane.

    The west has found its naval forces very useful in supporting operations including in Afghanistan, Kosovo, etc etc and likely will continue to do so. Even with a badly neglected naval force Russia has already used ships near Syria and even to an extent Venezuela to show support and as political symbols. In 10 years time when the Russian Navy is in much better shape they might represent real military power projection too.


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order

    Naval Fan
    Private
    Private

    Posts : 21
    Points : 29
    Join date : 2015-01-20
    Age : 20
    Location : New Zealand

    What is the estimated range for the Zircon missiles?

    Post  Naval Fan on Tue Jul 07, 2015 10:27 am

    I was reading a thread, and saw that the Russian navy were creating a missile which had a speed of roughly Mach 8. Does anyone have any guesses on the range?

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15490
    Points : 16197
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Questions Thread: Russian Navy

    Post  GarryB on Wed Jul 08, 2015 12:01 am

    It is hard to be sure, but we know some range figures for the missiles that have come before it.

    The missile known in the west as Sunburn, or SS-N-22 which is carried on the Sovremmeny class destroyers and some light missile boats has a range of 120km and flies supersonically (1.8 or so at low level and mach 2.2 at medium altitudes) at a height of less than 7m. The highest altitude it attains is 300m to spot its target and then it drops down and attacks from below 7m.

    Later versions were adapted so they flew at higher altitude for the first part of their flight and then dropped down low when they reached the radar horizon to the target, which extended its flight range to about 250km because jet engines are vastly more efficient in the thinner colder air at altitude, plus the fact that it is a rocket ramjet design the solid rocket fuel burns at a set rate for a fixed period of time... at very low altitude it would accelerate the missile to a max speed and then hold it at that speed until it burned out. By climbing however you more efficiently use the high thrust to climb to thinner colder air... the extra energy used in the climb can be recovered in the eventual descent, but the more efficient flight at altitude means moving faster for the same throttle setting which means a lower throttle setting can be used for the same speed or higher speed can be achieved.

    Now the replacement for Granit and Sunburn (3M80) is Onyx, which has been revealed to have a 500km range at altitude and 250km range at low altitude and a speed in the mach 1.8 at low level and 2.5 at medium altitudes.

    The Zircon uses a scramjet, which means the air intake does not need to slow the air flowing through the engine to subsonic speed for combustion.

    To achieve mach 7-8 it will have to fly high but at that sort of speed it is relatively safe as long as it can manouver. The speed doesn't come at the cost of fuel... we are not talking about just dumping lots of fuel into an AB to get the extra speed, this is a much higher thrust engine that retains thrust at very high speed, so flight range should be vastly increased as well as speed.

    I would expect a flight range from at least 500km to maybe 700km but only at high altitude.


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order

    nastle77
    Junior Sergeant
    Junior Sergeant

    Posts : 137
    Points : 179
    Join date : 2015-07-25

    Tarantul III

    Post  nastle77 on Tue Jul 28, 2015 4:42 pm

    Hello
    I wanted to know how many Tarantul III were operational by 1990 and if they were from the beginning armed with SSN-22 sunburn missiles

    Thanks

    Cucumber Khan
    Corporal
    Corporal

    Posts : 84
    Points : 85
    Join date : 2015-04-12

    Re: Questions Thread: Russian Navy

    Post  Cucumber Khan on Tue Jul 28, 2015 6:59 pm

    nastle77 wrote:Hello
    I wanted to know how many Tarantul III were operational by 1990 and if they were from the beginning armed with SSN-22 sunburn missiles

    Thanks

    Check here:
    http://russianships.info/eng/warfareboats/project_12411.htm

    nastle77
    Junior Sergeant
    Junior Sergeant

    Posts : 137
    Points : 179
    Join date : 2015-07-25

    SSN-21 Granat ( sampson) cruise missile

    Post  nastle77 on Sat Aug 01, 2015 7:38 pm

    SSN-21 Granat ( sampson) cruise missile



    By 1990 which of the soviet Subamrines carried this missile ?

    "The new Akula-class submarine, launched in September 1986, was the first class to receive the new missile. It was later fitted to the Sierra I/II class and eight Victor III's "

    This blurb I found on Wikipedia and I know that One yankee class was modified to carry it as well

    Does anybody know if this information is accurate ?

    artjomh
    Sergeant
    Sergeant

    Posts : 151
    Points : 187
    Join date : 2015-07-17

    Re: Questions Thread: Russian Navy

    Post  artjomh on Sat Aug 01, 2015 8:40 pm

    nastle77 wrote:SSN-21 Granat ( sampson) cruise missile



    By 1990 which of the soviet Subamrines carried this missile ?

    "The new Akula-class submarine, launched in September 1986, was the first class to receive the new missile. It was later fitted to the Sierra I/II class and eight Victor III's "

    This blurb I found on Wikipedia and I know that One yankee class was modified to carry it as well

    Does anybody know if this information is accurate ?

    Do you really need to create a separate article for each of your questions, nastle77?

    To answer your question, Victor III (a modified version, not all of them), Mike, Akula, Yankee Notch (3 were modified) and Sierra II carried Granat.

    Wikipedia is inacurate. Sierra I never carried Granats, only torpedoes and rocket-torpedoes.

    Cucumber Khan
    Corporal
    Corporal

    Posts : 84
    Points : 85
    Join date : 2015-04-12

    Re: Questions Thread: Russian Navy

    Post  Cucumber Khan on Sun Aug 02, 2015 11:31 am

    nastle77 wrote:SSN-21 Granat ( sampson) cruise missile



    By 1990 which of the soviet Subamrines carried this missile ?

    "The new Akula-class submarine, launched in September 1986, was the first class to receive the new missile. It was later fitted to the Sierra I/II class and eight Victor III's "

    This blurb I found on Wikipedia and I know that One yankee class was modified to carry it as well

    Does anybody know if this information is accurate ?

    A single Pr.671, the K-323, was also fitted with the RK-55 missile.

    nastle77
    Junior Sergeant
    Junior Sergeant

    Posts : 137
    Points : 179
    Join date : 2015-07-25

    These questions about Kara class

    Post  nastle77 on Mon Aug 03, 2015 9:20 pm

    http://www.military-today.com/navy/kara_class.htm

    A single gas-turbine exhaust funnel dominated the large superstructure. On the ship's stern was a helicopter landing pad with a hangar partially recessed below the flight deck. To stow the ASW helicopter the hanger roof hatch and doors had to be opened; the helicopter was pushed in and then lowered to the deck via an elevator.

    The ship's Shtorm (SA-N-3 Goblet) and Rastrub (SS-N-14 Silex) ASW missiles have secondary anti-ship capabilities, the former having a 25-kiloton nuclear warhead available in place of the normal 150-kg HE type. At the height of the Cold War it is believed that all Soviet ships with dual-capable weapon systems had at least 25 per cent of their missiles equipped with nuclear warheads while at sea.

    Trying not to start too many new threads Wink

    These questions about Kara class

    1-Is it true the SAN-3 had nuke warheads ? WHat were they used against a group of aircraft ? another ship ? since its a dual role missile

    2-Did really soviet dual role weapons have 25 % nuke warheads at sea ?

    Can the helicopters on the Kara class be also used for guidance for cruise missiles like the SSN-3a/b of other ships ?

    Anas Ali
    Corporal
    Corporal

    Posts : 57
    Points : 104
    Join date : 2013-02-12
    Age : 28
    Location : Egypt

    Radars of the missile Boat P-32

    Post  Anas Ali on Sat Aug 15, 2015 9:14 pm



    as you all know the Russian Government gave Egypt a P-32 Missile Boat as a gift

    i need to know the name of the Radars








    thanks in advance

    Stealthflanker
    Major
    Major

    Posts : 808
    Points : 894
    Join date : 2009-08-04
    Age : 28
    Location : Indonesia

    Re: Questions Thread: Russian Navy

    Post  Stealthflanker on Sat Aug 15, 2015 11:39 pm

    Dark Blue Box = Garpun Bal missile control radar
    Radar in pink box = MR-123 Vympel Gunfire control radar
    Large Radome in green circle = Mineral-ME search radar probably.
    Small radome in light blue box = Not a radar, might be ESM system associated with Garpun radar
    Antenna in red circle = Not a radar, it appears to be a VHF communication radio antenna. or ESM.

    jhelb
    Junior Lieutenant
    Junior Lieutenant

    Posts : 419
    Points : 483
    Join date : 2015-04-04
    Location : Previously: Belarus Currently: A Small Island No One Cares About

    Nuclear Propulsion In Ships

    Post  jhelb on Wed Aug 26, 2015 12:00 pm

    Is it necessary to design bigger ships if it is powered by a nuclear reactor?

    For example will the Lidar class destroyer be larger than the existing destroyers in the Russian Navy because the Lidar will be powered by a nuclear reactor?

    Stealthflanker
    Major
    Major

    Posts : 808
    Points : 894
    Join date : 2009-08-04
    Age : 28
    Location : Indonesia

    Re: Questions Thread: Russian Navy

    Post  Stealthflanker on Wed Aug 26, 2015 1:13 pm

    jhelb wrote:Is it necessary to design bigger ships if it is powered by a nuclear reactor?

    For example will the Lidar class destroyer be larger than the existing destroyers in the Russian Navy because the Lidar will be powered by a nuclear reactor?

    Usually yes, as shielding in nuclear reactor usually take quite amount of space.

    jhelb
    Junior Lieutenant
    Junior Lieutenant

    Posts : 419
    Points : 483
    Join date : 2015-04-04
    Location : Previously: Belarus Currently: A Small Island No One Cares About

    Re: Questions Thread: Russian Navy

    Post  jhelb on Wed Aug 26, 2015 5:50 pm

    Stealthflanker wrote:Usually yes, as shielding in nuclear reactor usually take quite amount of space.

    Thanks Stealthflanker. So basically the only advantage of a nuclear reactor in a destroyer or aircraft carrier is that it helps to cut down on the number of supply ships. Have I got that right?

    artjomh
    Sergeant
    Sergeant

    Posts : 151
    Points : 187
    Join date : 2015-07-17

    Re: Questions Thread: Russian Navy

    Post  artjomh on Wed Aug 26, 2015 10:24 pm

    jhelb wrote:Is it necessary to design bigger ships if it is powered by a nuclear reactor?

    Yes. Read this: https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/weapons/RL33946.pdf

    Americans did a cost study of nuclear propulsion and concluded that a small surface ship with a nuclear propulsion would only break even (compared to an diesel/gas-powered ships) if oil prices over the lifetime of the ship (30-40 years) average above $210 per barrel, given high operational tempo.

    Comparatively, a medium-sized surface combatant would require oil to be above $70 per barrel for nuclear propulsion to be cheaper than oil-based propulsion over the lifetime of the ship.

    In that study, "small surface combatants" displaced between 7900 and 11900 tons, while "medium surface combatants" evaluated displaced between 21600 and 37700 tons.

    Additionally, the cost premium of a nuclear power plant was assessed to be ~80% for a small ship, but only ~22% for a medium-size ship (at $600-700 million additional cost)

    https://seagrant.mit.edu/ESRDC_library/Webster_James_AlternativePropulsionMethods.pdf

    slasher
    Private
    Private

    Posts : 6
    Points : 6
    Join date : 2015-09-28

    Re: Questions Thread: Russian Navy

    Post  slasher on Sun Oct 25, 2015 11:18 pm

    hi, could anyone help identify this ship?

    Taken from http://tass.ru/en/defense/831321


    artjomh
    Sergeant
    Sergeant

    Posts : 151
    Points : 187
    Join date : 2015-07-17

    Re: Questions Thread: Russian Navy

    Post  artjomh on Mon Oct 26, 2015 12:50 am

    slasher wrote:hi, could anyone help identify this ship?

    Taken from http://tass.ru/en/defense/831321

    Project 537 rescue vessel ALAGEZ

    jhelb
    Junior Lieutenant
    Junior Lieutenant

    Posts : 419
    Points : 483
    Join date : 2015-04-04
    Location : Previously: Belarus Currently: A Small Island No One Cares About

    Re: Questions Thread: Russian Navy

    Post  jhelb on Mon Oct 26, 2015 9:22 am

    Is it possible to calculate the Velocity (not acceleration) of the missiles fired by the S-300F? Or for that matter the Velocity of any SAM missile? Thanks.

    artjomh
    Sergeant
    Sergeant

    Posts : 151
    Points : 187
    Join date : 2015-07-17

    Re: Questions Thread: Russian Navy

    Post  artjomh on Mon Oct 26, 2015 12:24 pm

    jhelb wrote:Is it possible to calculate the Velocity (not acceleration) of the missiles fired by the S-300F? Or for that matter the Velocity of any SAM missile? Thanks.

    Straight from the horse's mouth (OKB Fakel): Vavg = 900-1000 m/s

    http://pvo.guns.ru/book/fakel/new_gen.htm

    For 5V55 in particular, Said Aminov gives a Vmax = 2000 m/s, and Said is pretty reliable.

    http://pvo.guns.ru/s300p/data_sam.htm

    slasher
    Private
    Private

    Posts : 6
    Points : 6
    Join date : 2015-09-28

    Re: Questions Thread: Russian Navy

    Post  slasher on Mon Oct 26, 2015 12:45 pm

    artjomh wrote:
    slasher wrote:hi, could anyone help identify this ship?

    Taken from http://tass.ru/en/defense/831321

    Project 537 rescue vessel ALAGEZ


    Thanks.

    jhelb
    Junior Lieutenant
    Junior Lieutenant

    Posts : 419
    Points : 483
    Join date : 2015-04-04
    Location : Previously: Belarus Currently: A Small Island No One Cares About

    Re: Questions Thread: Russian Navy

    Post  jhelb on Mon Oct 26, 2015 4:53 pm

    artjomh wrote:Straight from the horse's mouth (OKB Fakel): Vavg = 900-1000 m/s

    http://pvo.guns.ru/book/fakel/new_gen.htm

    For 5V55 in particular, Said Aminov gives a Vmax = 2000 m/s, and Said is pretty reliable.

    http://pvo.guns.ru/s300p/data_sam.htm

    Great find artjomh. My vote.

    Sponsored content

    Re: Questions Thread: Russian Navy

    Post  Sponsored content Today at 3:16 am


      Current date/time is Sun Dec 11, 2016 3:16 am