Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    Russian Naval Construction Plans and Update

    Rodion_Romanovic
    Rodion_Romanovic

    Posts : 229
    Points : 231
    Join date : 2015-12-30

    Russian Naval Construction Plans and Update - Page 21 Empty Re: Russian Naval Construction Plans and Update

    Post  Rodion_Romanovic on Thu May 02, 2019 5:13 pm

    Isos wrote:
    The only "waste" could be in vertical space (as the shorter range.missile are also shorter), unless they decide to have some of the VLS launcher shorter (as it is the case for the french VLS, that exists in different lenghts but with the same horizontal area), maybe be able to install them in other part if the ships with less vertical space available

    Just keep the redut then . Because a universal VLS that is too short for most of missiles is no longer universal.


    Then, as i was saying, they could redesign the redut to a smaller diameter, as the cell is much bigger than the missile inside it, and the "horizontal" space in the ship is not well used.

    Unless these launchers are instead optimized for the size of the quad packed shorter range s350 missile, that are 125 mm in diameter (vs 240mm).
    MiamiMachineShop
    MiamiMachineShop

    Posts : 115
    Points : 119
    Join date : 2019-04-09

    Russian Naval Construction Plans and Update - Page 21 Empty Re: Russian Naval Construction Plans and Update

    Post  MiamiMachineShop on Thu May 02, 2019 5:44 pm

    Do we have any recent news on the MGT production of M90FR, M70FRU, and M70FRU-2? It seems to me the only thing stopping production is that they have not reached excess efficiency of the 10-15% stated by UEC. What is limiting them from achieving efficiency? Zorya Mashproekt states that they use cobalt alloys and other additives to manufacture their axial blades which have high thermal efficiency and can tolerate combustion chamber temperature reaching 1165 degrees without warping effects that can degrade engine performance. This temperature allows for High revving 5200RPM performance, and optimal fuel system pressurization allowing low revving performance around 3300RPM without having to power on smaller cruise turbines or cruise diesels. If the only thing NPO is aiming for is increased efficiency, I doubt the problem is their materials science as far as producing axial blades. I know they have advanced materials science and I doubt additives or cobalt alloy production is a limiting factor, neither is precision equipment necessary to mill and machine said components as they have a variety of extruding machines, 5-axis and 7-axis mills, precision laser cutters, and all the other toys. Could it be that fuel system is a very nuanced and tedious system? Those small diameter inlets are withstanding high external temperatures as well as high internal fuel temp and high pressure flow. Could NPO Saturn have problems with ensuring adequate pressurization of fuel system? They could have the engine 90% ready but without adequate fuel system they will not reach desired efficiency. Fuel inlets are not the same as blades, they have to be welded together, when you see the turbine you can see the variety of inlets and hoses running across distributing fuel to achieve optimal atomization and combustion.

    I know Agregat DKVP is for M70FRU-2 and has a stated superior efficiency of 0.4% over Zorya Mashproekt DP-71. If NPO Saturn is producing results similar to UGT16000 and UGT15000, why not just put out the engines they have and work on increased efficiency as they ramp up production? Why is it necessary to begin production with the already stated 15%+ efficiency rating?

    Gearboxes are nowhere near as complicated as engines, casting technology and machining tech aside, gearboxes do not heat up to engine levels, or withstand high pressurization, from what I understand gearboxes are designed with optimal tolerances of ring and pinion as well as high tolerance clutch packs and gear sets. Spec is set for optimal gear speed without creating positive or negative backlash on gear teeth which prematurely wear out gear teeth. Also gear oil lubricants and the flow of lubricants within the cast housing is also important, as during gear operation the oil must spin optimally within the housing to allow for good lubrication. This is nothing compared to maintaining high engine core temperature or fuel pressure. There is know how that goes into it but if they are as far along on M90FR as they say, then gearboxes are nothing for their machining guys.
    Hole
    Hole

    Posts : 2061
    Points : 2061
    Join date : 2018-03-24
    Age : 43
    Location : Merkelland

    Russian Naval Construction Plans and Update - Page 21 Empty Re: Russian Naval Construction Plans and Update

    Post  Hole on Thu May 02, 2019 9:59 pm

    There is a video somewhere here in the naval section, which was posted a few days ago, that showed that they are developing a version of the 40N6 missile for the Redut = 400km range.
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 20668
    Points : 21222
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Russian Naval Construction Plans and Update - Page 21 Empty Re: Russian Naval Construction Plans and Update

    Post  GarryB on Fri May 03, 2019 1:55 am

    Half of PtG S-300 are Rif the other half are rif-M which is naval PMU2 standard and uses 48N6E2 missiles with 250km range. You can see that the front radar is the one from ground s-300 (rif-M) and the one in the back is a big round radar for rif that you can also see on slavas.

    Gorshkov could have had the rif-M too just like chinese frigate that have it. The VLS just like Redut launcher is not universal so that change nothing apart missile types being carried.

    The radars it is fitted with don't indicate the actual missiles being carried... the vessel might have the new radar for the upgraded missile, but how many new missiles have they actually paid for and how many are even carried at sea?

    As discussed before, instead the redut cells in Gorshkov class are not optimized for the missile size, so they maybe plan to substitute them anyway.

    I would not read too much in to the size of the cells for the tests... they might have had telemetry equipment in each tube with the missile to measure all sorts of things and contain cameras or other instruments to monitor conditions for the missile during storage and launch and after launch... the operational system would probably have four missiles per missile hatch.

    The only "waste" could be in vertical space (as the shorter range.missile are also shorter), unless they decide to have some of the VLS launcher shorter (as it is the case for the french VLS, that exists in different lenghts but with the same horizontal area), maybe be able to install them in other part if the ships with less vertical space available.

    and/or they could maybe develop smaller redut VLS, optimized for the size of their missiles.

    Or they could stack the shorter missiles. So in a missile tube big enough to take an S-400 full size missile you should be able to fit four 9M96 missiles, and it is mentioned on another thread that they can fit four 9M100 missiles in each 9M96 tube, so you should be able to get 4x4 9M100 missiles in each S-400 tube so that is 16 missiles, but in terms of length there is a lot of wasted space as you point out... the 150km 9M96 is twice as long as the 50km range 9M96 so perhaps two layers of the 150km missile meaning 8 missiles per tube and perhaps three layers of the smaller 50km range 9M96 missile so 12 missiles per S-400 tube, and the 9M100 might be only slightly shorter than the 50km range missile so perhaps four layers of missiles.... which would be 64 missiles per S-400 tube.

    So with a total of 8 tubes, one UKSK-M launcher might have two S-500s which will fill the tubes completely, two S-400s with 400km range missiles, leaving four tubes... perhaps two with the long range 150km range missile, so 16 missiles, one with the 50km range missile with 12 missiles and one with 9M100 missiles and 64 missiles.

    So one UKSK-M launcher with:

    S-500 x 2 = 600km range.
    S-400 x 2 = 400km range.
    9M96 x 16 = 150km range.
    9M96 x 12 = 50km range.
    9M100 x 64 = 10-15km range.

    I would imagine a corvette would not bother with the S-500s and S-400s, so you could literally double the load of the other weapons... 32 x 150km range missiles, 24 x 50km range missiles, and 128 range 10-15km range missiles... which would be a potent self defence SAM armament...

    Without stacking then a single 8 tube UKSK-M launcher could carry 2 x S-500 missiles, 2 x S-400 missiles, 12 x 9M96 missiles, 16 x 9M100 missiles.


    Just keep the redut then . Because a universal VLS that is too short for most of missiles is no longer universal.

    Depends on Reduts design... can it for example carry S-400 missiles... and if it can then it is already too long to efficiently carry 9M100 missiles without stacking... and if you add stacking to make it work then you might as well use the UKSK-M.


    Unless these launchers are instead optimized for the size of the quad packed shorter range s350 missile, that are 125 mm in diameter (vs 240mm).

    To be clear there seems to be three different missile diameters that we are talking about... the S-300/S-400 full size missiles, and then the 9M96 reduced size S-400 family missiles and then the very small 9M100 missiles.

    The Redut hatch covers seem to be sized for the S-300/400 full size SAMs as used in the S-300P and S-300F missiles, so it should be able to carry four 9M96 missiles per missile hatch because the S-400 system could carry four 9M96 in place of each older larger tube.

    The 9M96 seem to be being called S-350 in the new land system, which carries two rows of 6 launch tubes in a 12 missile launcher, but when fitted with 9M100, which allows four missiles per 9M96 tube that means 48 missiles per launcher, or 16 missiles per original S-300/S-400 tube...

    There is a video somewhere here in the naval section, which was posted a few days ago, that showed that they are developing a version of the 40N6 missile for the Redut = 400km range.

    Which suggests the reason the hatch covers and missile space is so big is because ultimately they want to be able to use the standard S-300 and S-400 sized missiles as an option and so testing the much smaller 9M96 they needed a fairing cover to fill the tube space.

    I suspect the 250km and 400km missiles would be useful... especially with air support and an air borne AWACS platform giving target data regarding very far away targets... in a net centric IADS the launch platform is not so important and could be a tiny Corvette or even a submarine if they want to get clever... remember the Yasen class has UKSK launchers... imagine being in an MPA or anti sub helo knowing the Yasen class SSGN you are hunting could launch a 9M100 lock on after launch IIR guided SAM with very little warning... they could probably hear you coming and launch based on sound...
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 20668
    Points : 21222
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Russian Naval Construction Plans and Update - Page 21 Empty Re: Russian Naval Construction Plans and Update

    Post  GarryB on Fri May 03, 2019 1:59 am

    It was this thread:

    http://www.russiadefence.net/t7063p425-s-300-400-500-news-russian-strategic-air-defense-3#255518

    Where dino00 posted a link stating the Vityaz could carry 48 9M100s... it carries 12 9M96s... and the standard S-400 has four tubes for normal sized S-400 missiles and can carry 4 9M96 missiles per tube for a total of 16 missiles with 9M96s only, so with 9M100s it should be able to carry 64 missiles... which would look rather odd as they are much much shorter missiles...
    dino00
    dino00

    Posts : 845
    Points : 886
    Join date : 2012-10-12
    Age : 31
    Location : portugal

    Russian Naval Construction Plans and Update - Page 21 Empty Re: Russian Naval Construction Plans and Update

    Post  dino00 on Fri May 03, 2019 10:20 am

    Hole wrote:There is a video somewhere here in the naval section, which was posted a few days ago, that showed that they are developing a version of the 40N6 missile for the Redut = 400km range.


    This I think
    https://iz.ru/813938/aleksei-ramm-bogdan-stepovoi/sbit-so-sveta-korabli-poluchat-novye-zenitnye-rakety
    dino00
    dino00

    Posts : 845
    Points : 886
    Join date : 2012-10-12
    Age : 31
    Location : portugal

    Russian Naval Construction Plans and Update - Page 21 Empty Re: Russian Naval Construction Plans and Update

    Post  dino00 on Fri May 03, 2019 10:22 am

    GarryB wrote:It was this thread:

    http://www.russiadefence.net/t7063p425-s-300-400-500-news-russian-strategic-air-defense-3#255518

    Where dino00 posted a link stating the Vityaz could carry 48 9M100s... it carries 12 9M96s... and the standard S-400 has four tubes for normal sized S-400 missiles and can carry 4 9M96 missiles per tube for a total of 16 missiles with 9M96s only, so with 9M100s it should be able to carry 64 missiles... which would look rather odd as they are much much shorter missiles...

    Nope Cool this one

    https://iz.ru/813938/aleksei-ramm-bogdan-stepovoi/sbit-so-sveta-korabli-poluchat-novye-zenitnye-rakety
    Rodion_Romanovic
    Rodion_Romanovic

    Posts : 229
    Points : 231
    Join date : 2015-12-30

    Russian Naval Construction Plans and Update - Page 21 Empty Re: Russian Naval Construction Plans and Update

    Post  Rodion_Romanovic on Fri May 03, 2019 10:42 am

    GarryB wrote:It was this thread:

    http://www.russiadefence.net/t7063p425-s-300-400-500-news-russian-strategic-air-defense-3#255518

    Where dino00 posted a link stating the Vityaz could carry 48 9M100s... it carries 12 9M96s... and the standard S-400 has four tubes for normal sized S-400 missiles and can carry 4 9M96 missiles per tube for a total of 16 missiles with 9M96s only, so with 9M100s it should be able to carry 64 missiles... which would look rather odd as they are much much shorter missiles...
    , yeah the 40 km range 9M100 missiles are only 2.5 metres long (against the more than 5,5 metres of the 120km range 9M96E2 and the 7.5 metres of the S400 missiles. I do not know if it is true, but I have read somewhere that the 400km range 40N6 is more than 11 metres long.

    Anyway i believe the russian missiles are cold launched. If so maybe they "could" be "layered", but one would have to count also the size of the cold launching system for each missile.


    And finally: maybe the idea of small dedicated launchers for the 9M100 missiles is not a bad idea at all. They could be used also in smaller ships and they could replace the 128 Tor VLS cells in Peter the great and the 192 Tor cells in Kuznetov.
    Hole
    Hole

    Posts : 2061
    Points : 2061
    Join date : 2018-03-24
    Age : 43
    Location : Merkelland

    Russian Naval Construction Plans and Update - Page 21 Empty Re: Russian Naval Construction Plans and Update

    Post  Hole on Fri May 03, 2019 10:55 am

    Or something like the Gibhka launcher fitted with 8 x 9M100.
    franco
    franco

    Posts : 3181
    Points : 3213
    Join date : 2010-08-18

    Russian Naval Construction Plans and Update - Page 21 Empty Re: Russian Naval Construction Plans and Update

    Post  franco on Sat May 04, 2019 1:06 am

    Since 2012, more than 80 ships and boats have entered service. We publish the list:

    On April 23, 2019, at a ceremonial event in St. Petersburg on the occasion of the laying of new warships, it was reported that from 2012 to the present, more than 80 ships and boats, including three strategic missile submarines, were handed over to the armament. This statement caused interesting discussions and discussions in public circles, as many believe that this figure is too high. In this regard, it will be interesting to consider the completion of our Navy since 2012 and to see whether our fleet has really accepted more than 80 combat units.

    For starters, it should be noted separately that quite often many analysts and experts in the military field, analyzing the update of our fleet, take into account only large warships and submarines, well, suppose everything that has a displacement of 1000 tons and above, justifying it by that only these units are able to solve problems in the far sea zone and pose a serious threat to the enemy. In addition, often forget about the ships and boats for special purposes. This is fundamentally wrong, since each combat unit, starting from a boat, has its own range of tasks and mission. Moreover, a ship / boat enrolled in the Navy by order of the Navy GC is considered a military unit of the Navy, it is given a combat flag - the flag of the Navy (Andreevsky) and this unit is credited to a particular base / unit. Therefore, ignoring, say, patrol / anti-sabotage or amphibious boats is a deep mistake. The following is a list of ships and boats of all projects submitted to the Russian Navy from 01/01/2012 to the present (we confine ourselves to the date 04/23/2019 - at the time of the announcement of the figures):

    1). Project 955 CPSW-535 "Yury Dolgoruky" - adopted in the Northern Fleet in 2012.

    2). K-550 SSBN “Alexander Nevsky” of Project 955 - adopted in the Pacific Fleet in 2013.

    3). The K-551 SSBN "Vladimir Monomakh" of Project 955 was accepted into the Pacific Fleet in 2014.

    4). APKR K-560 "Severodvinsk" project 885 - adopted in the Northern Fleet in 2013.

    5). Diesel-electric submarines B-260 "Novorossiysk" project 06363 - was accepted into the BSF in 2014.

    6). The diesel-electric submarines B-237 "Rostov-on-Don" project 06363 - was accepted into the BSF in 2014.

    7). Diesel Substation B-262 "Old Oskol" project 06363 - was accepted into the BSF in 2015.

    Cool. Diesel-electric submarines B-265 "Krasnodar" project 06363 - adopted in the BSF in 2015.

    9). The diesel-electric submarines B-268 "Veliky Novgorod" project 06363 - was accepted into the Black Sea Fleet in 2016.

    10). The diesel-electric submarines B-271 "Kolpino" project 06363 - was accepted into the Black Sea Fleet in 2016.

    11). The frigate "Admiral of the Fleet of the Soviet Union Gorshkov" project 22350 - adopted in the Northern Fleet in 2018.

    12). The frigate "Admiral Grigorovich" project 11356 - was accepted into the Black Sea Fleet in 2016.

    13). The frigate "Admiral Essen" project 11356 - adopted in the Black Sea Fleet in 2016.

    14). The frigate "Admiral Makarov" project 11356 - adopted in the Black Sea Fleet in 2017.

    15). Corvette "Boiky" project 20380 - adopted in the BF in 2013.

    16). Corvette "Resistant" project 20380 - adopted in the BF in 2014.

    17). Corvette "Perfect" project 20380 - adopted in the Pacific Fleet in 2017.

    18). Corvette "Loud" project 20380 - adopted in the Pacific Fleet in 2018.

    19). Rocket ship "Dagestan" project 11661K - adopted in the CFL in 2012.

    20). Patrol ship "Vasily Bykov" project 22160 - adopted in the Black Sea Fleet in 2018.

    21). Small rocket ship "Grad Sviyazhsk" project 21631 - adopted in the CFL in 2013.

    22). Small rocket ship "Uglich" project 21631 - adopted in the CFL in 2013.

    23). Small rocket ship "Veliky Ustyug" project 21631 - adopted in the CFL in 2014.

    24). Small rocket ship "Serpukhov" project 21631 - adopted in the Black Sea Fleet in 2015. Since 2016, the service carries in the BF.

    25). Small Rocket Ship "Green Dol" project 21631 - adopted in the BSF in 2015. Since 2016, the service carries in the BF.

    26). Small rocket ship "Vyshny Volochek" project 21631 - adopted in the Black Sea Fleet in 2018.

    27). Small rocket ship "Orekhovo-Zuyevo" project 21631 - adopted in the Black Sea Fleet in 2018.

    28). Small rocket ship "Mytishchi" project 22800 - adopted in the BF in 2018.

    29). Small artillery ship "Makhachkala" project 21630 - adopted in the CFL in 2012.

    30). Sea trawler "Alexander Obukhov" project 12700 - adopted in the BF in 2016.

    31). Sea trawler "Ivan Antonov" project 12700 - adopted in the Black Sea Fleet in 2018.

    32). The average reconnaissance ship “Yuri Ivanov” of project 18280 was accepted into the Northern Fleet in 2014.

    33). The average reconnaissance ship Ivan Khurs of project 18280 was accepted into the Black Sea Fleet in 2018.

    34). Large landing ship "Ivan Gren" project 11711 - adopted in the Northern Fleet in 2018.

    35). The landing craft on the “Ivan Kartsov” air-cavity of the Project 21820 was accepted into the Pacific Fleet in 2014.

    36). The landing craft on the air-cavity “Michman Lermontov” of the project 21820 was accepted into the Baltic Fleet in 2014.

    37). The landing craft on the air-cavity “Denis Davydov” of the project 21820 - was accepted into the Baltic Fleet in 2014.

    38). The landing craft on the air-cavity “Lieutenant Rimsky-Korsakov” of Project 21820 - was accepted into the BF in 2014.

    39). The landing craft on the air-cavity “D-199” of project 11770 was accepted into the Black Sea Fleet in 2014.

    40). The landing craft on the air cavity "№-746" (w / o) of project 11770 - was accepted into the CFL in 2013.

    41). The air-cavity landing craft (tentatively No. 722) of project 11770 was accepted into the CFL in 2013.

    42). Anti-sabotage boat "P-680" of project 12150A - adopted in the BF in 2013.

    43). Anti-sabotage boat "P-679" of project 12150A - adopted in the BF in 2013.

    44). The anti-sabotage boat P-191 "Cadet" of project 21980 was accepted into the Black Sea Fleet in 2012.

    45). Anti-sabotage boat P-349 "Suvorovets" project 21980 - adopted in the BSF in 2012.

    46). Anti-diversion boat P-350 "Kursant Kirovets" project 21980 - adopted in the Black Sea Fleet in 2013.

    47). Anti-sabotage boat P-355 "Yunarmeets Crimea" project 21980 - adopted in the Black Sea Fleet in 2014.

    48). Anti-sabotage boat P-424 "Kinel" project 21980 - adopted in the Black Sea Fleet in 2014.

    49). Anti-diversion boat "P-433" project 21980 - adopted in the Black Sea Fleet in 2017.

    50). Anti-diversion boat P-351 "Caspian Yunarmeets" project 21980 - adopted in the CFL in 2013.

    51). Anti-sabotage boat "Yunarmeets Tatarstan" project 21980 - adopted in the CFL in 2018.

    52). The anti-sabotage boat P-340 "Ynarmeets Polaria" project 21980 - was accepted into the Northern Fleet in 2016.

    53). Anti-sabotage boat P-421 "Yunarmeets Belomorye" project 21980 - adopted in the Northern Fleet in 2016.

    54). Anti-sabotage boat P-430 "Valery Fedyanin" project 21980 - adopted in the Northern Fleet in 2017.

    55). Anti-sabotage boat P-429 "Sergey Preminin" project 21980 - adopted in the Northern Fleet in 2017.

    56). Anti-diversion boat P-377 project 21980 - adopted in the Pacific Fleet in 2013.

    57). Anti-sabotage boat P-420 "Yunarmeets of Primorye" project 21980 - adopted in the Pacific Fleet in 2014.

    58). Anti-sabotage boat P-417 "Yunarmeets Kamchatka" project 21980 - adopted in the Pacific Fleet in 2014.

    59). The anti-sabotage boat P-431 “Yunarmeets of Chukotka” of the project 21980 was accepted into the Pacific Fleet in 2017.

    60). The anti-sabotage boat of the project 21980 (serial number 8006) was accepted into the Pacific Fleet in 2018.

    61). Anti-sabotage (amphibious assault) boat "P-274" project 03160 - adopted in the Black Sea Fleet in 2015.

    62). The anti-sabotage (amphibious assault) cutter P-275 of Project 03160 was accepted into the Black Sea Fleet in 2015.

    63). Anti-sabotage (amphibious assault) boat "P-276" project 03160 - adopted in the Black Sea Fleet in 2015.

    64). Anti-sabotage (amphibious assault) boat P-280 "Yunarmeets Baltika" project 03160 - adopted in the BF in 2015.

    65). Anti-sabotage (amphibious assault) boat P-281 project 03160 - adopted in the BF in 2015.

    66). Anti-sabotage (amphibious assault) boat P-344 project 03160 - adopted in the BF in 2015.

    67). Anti-sabotage (amphibious assault) boat P-845 project 03160 - adopted in the Black Sea Fleet in 2015.

    68). Anti-sabotage (amphibious assault) boat P-838 of project 03160 - was accepted into the Black Sea Fleet in 2015.

    69). Anti-sabotage (amphibious assault) boat P-413 of the project 03160 - accepted into the Black Sea Fleet in 2017.

    70). Anti-sabotage (amphibious assault) boat P-425 of the project 03160 - accepted into the Black Sea Fleet in 2017.

    71). Anti-sabotage (amphibious assault) boat "P-345" project 03160 - adopted in the BF in 2015.

    72). The anti-sabotage (amphibious assault) boat P-415 “Georgy Potekhin” of Project 03160 was accepted into the Baltic Fleet in 2017.

    73). Anti-sabotage (amphibious assault) boat number 659 of project 03160 - adopted in the BF in 2018.

    74). The D-308 amphibious assault boat of project 02510 was accepted into the Northern Fleet in 2018.

    75). The D-2110 amphibious assault boat of project 02510 was accepted into the Northern Fleet in 2018.

    76). The D-655 amphibious assault boat of project 02510 was accepted into the Black Sea Fleet in 2018.

    77). The amphibious assault boat D-296 of project 02510 was accepted into the Black Sea Fleet in 2015.

    78). High-speed patrol boat "RK-2173" project A-149-1 - adopted in the CFL in 2015.

    79). High-speed patrol boat of the project A-149-1 - adopted in the Black Sea Fleet in 2013.

    80). The high-speed patrol boat P-834 of the project IC16MII - in 2013 became part of the Black Sea Fleet.

    81). The high-speed patrol boat "P-835" of the project IC16MII - in 2013 became part of the Black Sea Fleet.

    As we see, in fact, since 2012, the Russian Navy has really received at least 80 new combat units into its units. It is also worth noting that, according to preliminary data, no less than 6 airborne assault boats of the Project 02800 of the “Tavr” type have already been transferred to the Russian Navy, which in turn act both independently and as a regular unit of the new patrol ships of the Project 22160. For the near future until the end of 2019, according to the Russian Defense Ministry, it is planned to transfer at least 15 combat units to the Navy. Among them, the frigate of the project 22350, the PC of the project 22160, the MRK of the project 21631 and 22800, the submarine of the project 06363, the submarine of the projects 955A and 885, the MSCP of the project 12700, the PKA of the project 03160 and 024510 and the RAN of the project 21980 of the Rook type.
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 20668
    Points : 21222
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Russian Naval Construction Plans and Update - Page 21 Empty Re: Russian Naval Construction Plans and Update

    Post  GarryB on Sat May 04, 2019 4:37 am

    , yeah the 40 km range 9M100 missiles are only 2.5 metres long (against the more than 5,5 metres of the 120km range 9M96E2 and the 7.5 metres of the S400 missiles. I do not know if it is true, but I have read somewhere that the 400km range 40N6 is more than 11 metres long.

    No, that is not true... the 400km range missile is the same size as the S-300 missiles... there are pretty much only one size large missiles for the S-300 and S-400... the new missiles are the reduced size S-400 missiles called 9M96, that have now been called S-350, and the new Morfei 9M100 missiles which are supposed to be cross platform missiles used by army navy and air force.

    The article above states that Redut will get 40N6 400km range missiles, so there is no point in reducing the size of the launch tubes for Redut now because they were always intending to use the big full size S-300 and S-400 missiles in them.

    This means the tube could take one 400km range missile (or probably the 250km range version too) as well as the 150km range and 60km range smaller missiles but the smaller missiles should pack four to a tube because they could fit four of these missiles to each standard S-400 tube on the land based model.... so they should be able to manage the same with the naval models.

    Which means the 9M100 should fit 16 missiles to a single tube being four tubes each with four missiles... which is in a single layer.

    If they can stack the layers they could do even better.

    Anyway i believe the russian missiles are cold launched. If so maybe they "could" be "layered", but one would have to count also the size of the cold launching system for each missile.

    Note each missile is in its own self contained tube with a cold launch system built in to it to blow the missile up and away from the launch tube before the rocket motor is ignited.

    It would not take much effort to have a base layer that the tubes sit on and when all missiles are launched the base layer launches the tubes clear of the main tube and drags them off sideways into the water to clear the next layer of tubes.

    And finally: maybe the idea of small dedicated launchers for the 9M100 missiles is not a bad idea at all. They could be used also in smaller ships and they could replace the 128 Tor VLS cells in Peter the great and the 192 Tor cells in Kuznetov.

    It is an interesting idea, but keep in mind the new model TOR is half the size so double the ammo can be carried for the same dimensions... so 256 for PtG and 384 missiles for AdK... with the powerful and sophisicated radars all over those ships these command guided missiles will be very capable and accurate... I would actually suggest the 9M100 could be a good compliment for those missiles... (ie addition but not replacement).

    Or something like the Gibhka launcher fitted with 8 x 9M100.

    Actually Gibka would be interesting if you used a range of missile types.... the Igla-S is a potent missile, as would be its replacement Verba, but the SOSNA-R would also be interesting, as would Krisantema or Kornet. 9M100 would be rather more sophisticated and effective... but the idea of a cheap air defence system suggests it is probably OK as it is.

    Since 2012, more than 80 ships and boats have entered service.

    Nice list... wasn't there talk of 160 new ships by 2023-2025 or something?
    franco
    franco

    Posts : 3181
    Points : 3213
    Join date : 2010-08-18

    Russian Naval Construction Plans and Update - Page 21 Empty Re: Russian Naval Construction Plans and Update

    Post  franco on Sat May 04, 2019 8:23 am

    GarryB wrote:
    Since 2012, more than 80 ships and boats have entered service.

    Nice list... wasn't there talk of 160 new ships by 2023-2025 or something?


    Probably includes non combat vessels also. During that same period of the 80 fighting vessels, there have been about 100 support vessels arrive also. Another factor that confuses the situation is the difference between a ship and a boat. Half those vessels on the list mentioned would be classified as a ship, while the rest are boats suitable for harbour and inshore operations only.
    Vladimir79
    Vladimir79

    Posts : 2900
    Points : 3778
    Join date : 2009-07-10

    Russian Naval Construction Plans and Update - Page 21 Empty Re: Russian Naval Construction Plans and Update

    Post  Vladimir79 on Sat May 04, 2019 1:03 pm

    franco wrote:Probably includes non combat vessels also. During that same period of the 80 fighting vessels, there have been about 100 support vessels arrive also. Another factor that confuses the situation is the difference between a ship and a boat. Half those vessels on the list mentioned would be classified as a ship, while the rest are boats suitable for harbour and inshore operations only.  

    The first ten are related to submarines, the second 10 are actual surface combatants and the last 60 are not worth mentioning.
    PapaDragon
    PapaDragon

    Posts : 7908
    Points : 8000
    Join date : 2015-04-26
    Location : Fort Evil, Serbia

    Russian Naval Construction Plans and Update - Page 21 Empty Re: Russian Naval Construction Plans and Update

    Post  PapaDragon on Sun May 05, 2019 1:26 am

    Vladimir79 wrote:
    PapaDragon wrote:
    ...How did the French justify the infrastructure for building carriers?

    Easy, they have you

    Disrespect will not be tolerated.  Enjoy your time out.


    When is said "you" I meant Russia as a country not you as an individual.

    Why would I even refer to you personally in this context? It makes no sense.


    I guess what kept eehenie in the game as long as it did was simple tidy sentence structure...



    As for more elaborate answer:

    Vladimir79 wrote:...How did the French justify the infrastructure for building carriers?

    They justified it on account of simple fact that they (and rest of Europe) never lost track of their main objective which is to permanently take out Russia. 90s alone wouldn't do.

    Russians on the other hand were happily listening to empty drivel about peace and cooperation while Europeans never stopped trying to wrap garotte around their necks and squeeze.

    Keeping their eyes on the ball, that's how all those "needless" military expenses were justified. Not peacekeeping, not terrorism, not imperialism.

    Just goood old primary target: Russia
    Big_Gazza
    Big_Gazza

    Posts : 1529
    Points : 1531
    Join date : 2014-08-25
    Location : Melbourne, Australia

    Russian Naval Construction Plans and Update - Page 21 Empty Re: Russian Naval Construction Plans and Update

    Post  Big_Gazza on Sun May 05, 2019 2:00 am

    Vladimir79 wrote:The first ten are related to submarines, the second 10 are actual surface combatants and the last 60 are not worth mentioning.  

    Not worth mentioning? Or simply not glamorous war-fighters? Russia needs to replace her old Soviet-era boats. They were good solid designs and had plenty of life left in them at the start of the 90s, but nothing lasts forever and modern replacements are needed after the best part of 3 decades.

    My take is that the mix of sub/surface combatant/support & auxiliary is fully consistent with the rebuilding of the RuN from the ground (seabed?) upwards. You can't build a new blue-water navy for global operations if you can't de-mine your harbours, protect your bases from frogmen saboteurs, patrol your maritime borders or perform recon.
    PapaDragon
    PapaDragon

    Posts : 7908
    Points : 8000
    Join date : 2015-04-26
    Location : Fort Evil, Serbia

    Russian Naval Construction Plans and Update - Page 21 Empty Re: Russian Naval Construction Plans and Update

    Post  PapaDragon on Sun May 05, 2019 2:25 am


    They need Navy they are actually capable of building and supporting and without having to wait several decades to even get halfway there.

    This means missile ships, corvettes and frigates.

    Karakurts for missile ships. You always need padding.

    Gorshkovs for corvettes. Reasons are obvious.

    Derzkii/Mercury for frigates.

    Steregushi has the equipment but short range. Gremashi has equipment and range but is overstuffed.

    Then you have Mercury. Has equipment (AA system, anti-ship missiles, full anti-sub package, helicopter/missile container depending on need, speedboats), has range, has better propulsion (and local one) and plenty of room for whatever comes up down the road including drones.

    The moment they put Mercury in the water and confirm it it floats they should discontinue other two and fully switch to Mercury class.


    And most importantly: these ships can be built in more than one shipyard.


    Look at Karakurts and Bykovs: they are fastest growing ship classes precisely because you have more than one shipyard on the job. And you can get benefits of having competition between shipyards this way and reward good ones with more contracts.

    No wonder UEC is fuming over Pella. They are making them look bad by bringing attention to their incompetence. It would be even better if they gave Pella contract for corvette like Mercury. Direct competition.

    Nuclear destroyers or (God forbid) carriers will be built exclusively by one shipyard, it will be crazy slow, costs wil skyrocket as always, there will be no oversight because it will be too big to fail in case of carrier (which it will) and in they end they will only have handful of them at best after insane amount of time. Just look at Kirovs for reference.
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 20668
    Points : 21222
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Russian Naval Construction Plans and Update - Page 21 Empty Re: Russian Naval Construction Plans and Update

    Post  GarryB on Sun May 05, 2019 3:08 am

    They need to be able to build and maintain and upgrade and overhaul and dock large ships, which means lots of infrastructure... a place to make them is just the start... they need somewhere to berth them and support them when they are not operational... and that means civilian ships as well as military ones.

    They don't need enormous numbers of big ships but they do need some.

    I say name the new CVN Vladimir Putin... and Putin can be entering NATO waters for the next 50-60 years... hahahaha.
    marcellogo
    marcellogo

    Posts : 183
    Points : 189
    Join date : 2012-08-02

    Russian Naval Construction Plans and Update - Page 21 Empty Re: Russian Naval Construction Plans and Update

    Post  marcellogo on Sun May 05, 2019 4:03 am

    Vladimir79 wrote:
    franco wrote:Probably includes non combat vessels also. During that same period of the 80 fighting vessels, there have been about 100 support vessels arrive also. Another factor that confuses the situation is the difference between a ship and a boat. Half those vessels on the list mentioned would be classified as a ship, while the rest are boats suitable for harbour and inshore operations only.  

    The first ten are related to submarines, the second 10 are actual surface combatants and the last 60 are not worth mentioning.  

    Let's arrive to 30 adding all the Buyan, that started the Kalibr revolution and the Ivan Gren.
    George1
    George1

    Posts : 13144
    Points : 13627
    Join date : 2011-12-22
    Location : Greece

    Russian Naval Construction Plans and Update - Page 21 Empty Re: Russian Naval Construction Plans and Update

    Post  George1 on Tue May 14, 2019 4:58 pm

    Construction of warships of the ocean and far sea zone for the Russian Navy as of May 1, 2019

    Russian Naval Construction Plans and Update - Page 21 76131_original
    avatar
    Gazputin

    Posts : 70
    Points : 70
    Join date : 2019-04-07

    Russian Naval Construction Plans and Update - Page 21 Empty and ...

    Post  Gazputin on Wed May 15, 2019 8:57 am

    Russia is probably best in nuke subs
    surface fleet ... making there ships have insane firepower for their size .... I'd do the same

    what is wrong with you people ? .... their strategy is utterly logical and brilliant ....
    to me - lots of nuke SSGNs .... and lots of small widely distributed missile ships ... a no-brainer

    meanwhile USA/NATO masturbate on the "high seas" "surface fleet domination " ... wasting endless money
    seriously ..... stop watching CNN and the BBC .....

    what amazes me about you dumb-arses is that you are cheer-leadering for exactly what the USA wants ...
    they want Russia to bankrupt itself .... trying to be bigger wankers than the USA ......

    you guys are so dumb .... seriously ... you are in the wrong century

    and lets face it ... the biggest wankers in the history of the world are the "US-of-A"
    a bunch of total twats ..... like most of you



    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 20668
    Points : 21222
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Russian Naval Construction Plans and Update - Page 21 Empty Re: Russian Naval Construction Plans and Update

    Post  GarryB on Wed May 15, 2019 2:26 pm

    A blue water fleet can be sent anywhere on the globe and can ensure Russian interests are respected.

    They don't need thousands of ships and 20 CVNs... they could do it with two CVNs and perhaps 4-6 20K ton nuke powered destroyer/cruisers, plus maybe 24 mixed fleet of Gorshkov Frigate/Destroyer.. with maybe 6 of the current models and the remaining 18 with nuke propulsion and a 7K ton displacement and more missiles and bigger sensors.

    A couple of helicopter landing ships... 2 based on the modified Ivan Gren and perhaps 2 based on an enlarged nuclear powered Mistral type vessel with better weapons and more helos and they would be pretty much right for 1-2 surface groups that could operate anywhere on the planets oceans to ensure Russian interests (military and commercial) can't be ignored.

    It is not perfect.... note how ineffective the US was in the Georgian conflict in 2008, but equally how effective US naval power was in Serbia and Kosovo and ineffective Russia was in that situation.

    Having a decent modern carrier group does not make Russia omnipotent or all powerful, but it gives them a say in situations where otherwise no one would normally listen.

    If they had the Kuznetsov and a Kirov class ship and a couple of Udaloys off the coast of Venezuela right now doing exercises with the Venezuelan navy, the US would be having a fit but what they would not be doing is talking about an invasion.

    Why would countries like Venezuela trade with Russia or China if they can't protect them from illegal regime change from the US?

    Why would anyone trade with them?

    Why do you think China is building up a Navy... they are doing so for the same reason and it has nothing to do with being tough on the internet, or to fight Russia... it is about securing sea lanes of communication and trade because America and Britain wont do it for them... except for a very heavy price of compliance and doing what they are told.... they don't like that and neither does Russia. In the EU the British and French want the choice to say no even if in the case of Britain they will never say no, but the rest have no spine at all.
    Hole
    Hole

    Posts : 2061
    Points : 2061
    Join date : 2018-03-24
    Age : 43
    Location : Merkelland

    Russian Naval Construction Plans and Update - Page 21 Empty Re: Russian Naval Construction Plans and Update

    Post  Hole on Wed May 15, 2019 4:41 pm

    In the Kosovo war the bases in Italy were effective. There were even studies done by western "think tanks" that showed how ineffective the carriers were compared to the land bases.
    PapaDragon
    PapaDragon

    Posts : 7908
    Points : 8000
    Join date : 2015-04-26
    Location : Fort Evil, Serbia

    Russian Naval Construction Plans and Update - Page 21 Empty Re: Russian Naval Construction Plans and Update

    Post  PapaDragon on Wed May 15, 2019 4:50 pm

    Hole wrote:In the Kosovo war the bases in Italy were effective. There were even studies done by western "think tanks" that showed how ineffective the carriers were compared to the land bases.

    Correct

    Land based aviation was doing 99% of damage

    If USA tried to do anything with just carrier aircrafts they would still be at it (and hardly anyone here would have been too bothered over it)

    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 20668
    Points : 21222
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Russian Naval Construction Plans and Update - Page 21 Empty Re: Russian Naval Construction Plans and Update

    Post  GarryB on Thu May 16, 2019 8:59 am

    My point was that depending on the situation their carriers can provide options to countries that are not available to countries that don't have carriers.

    Even having x number of carrier groups the US Navy was impotent in Georgia, but Kosovo is not that much closer to the US, yet its distance from Russia and its close proximity to its EU allies meant it had decisive influence.

    For Russia it does not have allies it can depend on abroad so if it looked like the US was about to invade venezuela then there would be nothing they could actually do without an at sea carrier or large ships. With large ships and carriers however they can send those ships and a very serious message to the west.

    The west wont let Russia have its way unless Russia can back up words with force... they don't have to attack or invade anyone, but having naval forces that can defend themselves has value for Russia in international situations... but they sure don't need 10 CVNs and they don't need to be 100K ton carriers.

    If they can get slightly better numbers and fire power in a multi hull 45K ton ship then two of those would be fine.
    Vladimir79
    Vladimir79

    Posts : 2900
    Points : 3778
    Join date : 2009-07-10

    Russian Naval Construction Plans and Update - Page 21 Empty Re: Russian Naval Construction Plans and Update

    Post  Vladimir79 on Thu May 16, 2019 9:17 am

    Hole wrote:In the Kosovo war the bases in Italy were effective. There were even studies done by western "think tanks" that showed how ineffective the carriers were compared to the land bases.

    It makes sense if you can get a land base close to the action but that is not always the case.  A carrier aircraft dropping bombs is just as effective as a land based one.  It is all about sortie generation rate. A carrier operating 200km from the target area can turn around fighters faster than a land base 1000km away.

    Sponsored content

    Russian Naval Construction Plans and Update - Page 21 Empty Re: Russian Naval Construction Plans and Update

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Mon May 27, 2019 12:27 pm