Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    Russian Navy: Status & News #4

    Share
    avatar
    Militarov
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5364
    Points : 5409
    Join date : 2015-09-02
    Location : Serbia

    Re: Russian Navy: Status & News #4

    Post  Militarov on Fri Dec 09, 2016 4:30 am

    KiloGolf wrote:
    eehnie wrote:I know what a turbine engine is, and is not the most impressive technology today.

    It is when it comes to efficient, reliable and high performance ones.
    Ask GE, PW and RR.

    Although marine gas turbines don't necessarily need to be cutting edge and usually are conversions of  older aerospace variants. Of course in that field I'd expect the gearbox/transmission plays much more vital role.

    You could in theory take RD-93 and with adequate transmission use it to power ship. Again, in theory.
    avatar
    eehnie
    Lieutenant Colonel
    Lieutenant Colonel

    Posts : 936
    Points : 961
    Join date : 2015-05-13

    Re: Russian Navy: Status & News #4

    Post  eehnie on Fri Dec 09, 2016 4:53 am

    KiloGolf wrote:
    eehnie wrote:I know what a turbine engine is, and is not the most impressive technology today.

    It is when it comes to efficient, reliable and high performance ones.
    Ask GE, PW and RR.

    Although marine gas turbines don't necessarily need to be cutting edge and usually are conversions of  older aerospace variants. Of course in that field I'd expect the gearbox/transmission plays much more vital role.

    You said all yourself.

    Marine turbine engines do not necessarily need to be cutting edge. Not only that. Usually, are not.

    If you would know how easy is to mount (this is the word) a precarious turbine engine you would laugh. I can assure you that Russia is doing better than this. They need some time to do naval turbine engines that pass their own test standards for material adoption, but they can and will do it. I have not doubt. They are doing things far more difficult.

    In fact high level technology is far more used in engines for air and land mobile platforms than in engines for sea mobile platforms.
    avatar
    George1
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 10114
    Points : 10608
    Join date : 2011-12-22
    Location : Greece

    Re: Russian Navy: Status & News #4

    Post  George1 on Fri Dec 09, 2016 2:19 pm

    The French admiral about the threat of Russian submarines

    Speaking of the power of the Russian Navy, the Chief of Staff of the French Navy believes they develop clearly and their submarines are extremely effective. According to him, "at the Russian Black Sea are six Kilo submarines type boats, and in the Atlantic they deploy nuclear submarines, which have a very high performance." According to the admiral, all these features the highest level, they are used Russian very thoughtful and contradictory: there are areas where they are very strong, and those in which they are not very competitive methods.



    http://bmpd.livejournal.com/2311894.html


    _________________
    "There's no smoke without fire.", Georgy Zhukov


    Ned86
    Private
    Private

    Posts : 41
    Points : 41
    Join date : 2016-04-04

    Re: Russian Navy: Status & News #4

    Post  Ned86 on Fri Dec 09, 2016 3:50 pm

    I Don't know why someone delete my post, but I would like to ask him that next time send me a private message and explain the reason for that.
    Anyway I will repeat it........
    Militarov wrote:
    Actually atm imo we have no clue wtf is their "mission". I dont think they have real doctrine and plan at this moment. They are building small ships and diesel electric subs, and dream about Carriers, LHDs and destroyers, yet they claim they do not need them as they do not need to project power... 3 fleet commanders even claim different things. Then they bought bunch of commercal rust-buckets to transport goods to Syria in late 2015....
    What they are building you can check here
    http://navy-korabel.livejournal.com/146200.html

    In short, they are building 5 Yasen SSGN, plus 2 special purpose nuclear submarines (Belgorod and Khabarovsk) for carrying still classified weapon load.
    Also, they already build 6 Project 636 "Black Holes" ocean going submarines and ordered another 6. Also, they are finishing another 2 Lada class diesel submarines.

    They are app. 15 first and second rank ships currently in shipyard with most of them joining navy by 2020. Recently 3 Frigates Grigorovich class joined navy.
    Also, they are actively modernizing existing ships like Nakhimov, Ustinov, Chabanenko and other udaloy class destroyers.

    Militarov wrote:
    And then you have this expedition to Syria, then you have ships that are not supposed to be ocean-going ships sailing to Syrian coast then... its a mess. I personally do not see any doctrine there. They tried bying Mistrals then when they were denied everyone started saying "meeeh Russia doesnt need them anyways". Now they overhaul Nakhimov...they now plan to overhaul Kuz...
    Only small ships (not ocean going officially) that they were using are Buyan M class, but they shot from Caspian and Mediterranean sea which are not oceans. Later they shown that even small Buyan M can travel in Atlantic......

    Syria is great success for Ru navy. Although they don't possess aircraft carriers like US to create "propaganda" videos, but they managed to deploy more powerful aircraft like Su-34 and Su-35 on Syria territory. No matter what, you can't have something like Su-34 taking off from Carrier.


    Militarov wrote:
    My 5 cents are like this, yes, Russia does want to be able and project power, yes, Russia does want to be blue water navy, but atm there are no facilities for that. There is not enough of ships, there is not enough of capital ships, there is no enough friendly ports, there is not enough of auxilary ships (here i mean supply ships, oilers, weapon transport ships etc) and there is severe issue with shipbuilding. That is what i think. Now some might agree, some might disagree but i keep my right to say what i think.
    Russia is able to project power and they are showing that in Syria. They created several bases(air and naval) in distance country and cover them with S-400 and S-300. Also, many of guys on forum neglect success of Tu-22M3M which shown great performance in Syria, and it is great machine apart from Tu-95 and Tu-160 for projecting power. Russian air force and naval aviation posses a lot of Tu-22M3 which are armed with supersonic missiles which in case of war could send most of carriers to the ocean bottom........

    Also, all the time you purposely neglect Russian navy submarine force. In their doctrine, nuclear submarines are their main naval weapons. With Oscar II, Akula, Sierra and Kilos they are able to project power and to challenge any navy in the world, even US.
    avatar
    Militarov
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5364
    Points : 5409
    Join date : 2015-09-02
    Location : Serbia

    Re: Russian Navy: Status & News #4

    Post  Militarov on Fri Dec 09, 2016 4:42 pm

    Ned86 wrote:I Don't know why someone delete my post, but I would like to ask him that next time send me a private message and explain the reason for that.
    Anyway I will repeat it........
    Militarov wrote:
    Actually atm imo we have no clue wtf is their "mission". I dont think they have real doctrine and plan at this moment. They are building small ships and diesel electric subs, and dream about Carriers, LHDs and destroyers, yet they claim they do not need them as they do not need to project power... 3 fleet commanders even claim different things. Then they bought bunch of commercal rust-buckets to transport goods to Syria in late 2015....
    What they are building you can check here
    http://navy-korabel.livejournal.com/146200.html

    In short, they are building 5 Yasen SSGN, plus 2 special purpose nuclear submarines (Belgorod and Khabarovsk) for carrying still classified weapon load.
    Also, they already build 6 Project 636 "Black Holes" ocean going submarines and ordered another 6. Also, they are finishing another 2 Lada class diesel submarines.

    They are app. 15 first and second rank ships currently in shipyard with most of them joining navy by 2020. Recently 3 Frigates Grigorovich class joined navy.
    Also, they are actively modernizing existing ships like Nakhimov, Ustinov, Chabanenko and other udaloy class destroyers.

    Militarov wrote:
    And then you have this expedition to Syria, then you have ships that are not supposed to be ocean-going ships sailing to Syrian coast then... its a mess. I personally do not see any doctrine there. They tried bying Mistrals then when they were denied everyone started saying "meeeh Russia doesnt need them anyways". Now they overhaul Nakhimov...they now plan to overhaul Kuz...
    Only small ships (not ocean going officially) that they were using are Buyan M class, but they shot from Caspian and Mediterranean sea which are not oceans. Later they shown that even small Buyan M can travel in Atlantic......

    Syria is great success for Ru navy. Although they don't possess aircraft carriers like US to create "propaganda" videos, but they managed to deploy more powerful aircraft like Su-34 and Su-35 on Syria territory. No matter what, you can't have something like Su-34 taking off from Carrier.


    Militarov wrote:
    My 5 cents are like this, yes, Russia does want to be able and project power, yes, Russia does want to be blue water navy, but atm there are no facilities for that. There is not enough of ships, there is not enough of capital ships, there is no enough friendly ports, there is not enough of auxilary ships (here i mean supply ships, oilers, weapon transport ships etc) and there is severe issue with shipbuilding. That is what i think. Now some might agree, some might disagree but i keep my right to say what i think.
    Russia is able to project power and they are showing that in Syria. They created several bases(air and naval) in distance country and cover them with S-400 and S-300. Also, many of guys on forum neglect success of Tu-22M3M which shown great performance in Syria, and it is great machine apart from Tu-95 and Tu-160 for projecting power. Russian air force and naval aviation posses a lot of Tu-22M3 which are armed with supersonic missiles which in case of war could send most of carriers to the ocean bottom........

    Also, all the time you purposely neglect Russian navy submarine force. In their doctrine, nuclear submarines are their main naval weapons. With Oscar II, Akula, Sierra and Kilos they are able to project power and to challenge any navy in the world, even US.

    I am well aware what they are building, we all are.

    Buyan-Ms are really, really not suited for Atlantic ocean, and Med itself can be classified as "ocean-going" in almost every single characteristic, despite we call it a sea. South-Chinese sea is also "sea" which is basically...ocean.

    Su-34 actually was born from platform that was supposed to be flown from an aircraft carrier Smile. I am actually quite sure by adding a hook you could use it from the carrier even without any further modifications.

    Projecting power is not flying from Russia to Syria and dropping 6 500kg bombs. Projection of power is when you can deploy major taskforce, LHDs, carriers, auxilary fleet with fuel, ammunition, armored units...on division scale. Which Russia atm cant do. Russian contingent in Syria is more or less similar to what France deployed to Mali 2 years back.

    Russian submarines are part of nuclear triade, the only thing they can hold on and claim they have major naval force. That is the only part of the navy where they tried investing some money even in 90s in hopes to preserve at least title of "major power" though those hard times.

    We can put aside questions like "should they", "Why would they" etc. That is different discussion.
    avatar
    Singular_Transform
    Senior Sergeant
    Senior Sergeant

    Posts : 297
    Points : 299
    Join date : 2016-11-13

    Re: Russian Navy: Status & News #4

    Post  Singular_Transform on Fri Dec 09, 2016 5:35 pm

    Militarov wrote:

    I am well aware what they are building, we all are.

    Buyan-Ms are really, really not suited for Atlantic ocean, and Med itself can be classified as "ocean-going" in almost every single characteristic, despite we call it a sea. South-Chinese sea is also "sea" which is basically...ocean.

    Su-34 actually was born from platform that was supposed to be flown from an aircraft carrier Smile. I am actually quite sure by adding a hook you could use it from the carrier even without any further modifications.

    Projecting power is not flying from Russia to Syria and dropping 6 500kg bombs. Projection of power is when you can deploy major taskforce, LHDs, carriers, auxilary fleet with fuel, ammunition, armored units...on division scale. Which Russia atm cant do. Russian contingent in Syria is more or less similar to what France deployed to Mali 2 years back.

    Russian submarines are part of nuclear triade, the only thing they can hold on and claim they have major naval force. That is the only part of the navy where they tried investing some money even in 90s in hopes to preserve at least title of "major power" though those hard times.

    We can put aside questions like "should they", "Why would they" etc. That is different discussion.

    I think many of the guys here doesn't realise the changes in the geography.






    The RU navy has a small playground only, considering that it has no ice class warships and big enough icebreakers for warships.

    It has no real interest beyond its borders, it needs to protect the not frozen part of Arctic ocean.

    before 2007 it was no possible to quickly transfer warships from Atlantic to pacific, but since that the situation changed.


    The changes in warship building happened due to the climate change.


    As it looks like the ice cover from the arctic will disappear soon, means that RU will need warships to protect the newly established trade routes, and the "arctic rush".



    avatar
    kvs
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 2787
    Points : 2918
    Join date : 2014-09-11
    Location : Canuckistan

    Re: Russian Navy: Status & News #4

    Post  kvs on Fri Dec 09, 2016 11:36 pm

    The Arctic Ocean will still freeze over for most of the year even 100 years from now. The figures you linked show the minimum extent
    only during September and not annual mean ice cover. So building the Project 22220 icebreakers that can routinely plow through 3 meters
    of ice and operate in both shallow and deep water due to their adjustable draft, is worthwhile and they will be needed for operation 40 years
    from now. Russia will have year round commercial navigation capacity through the Arctic Ocean starting form 2018.
    avatar
    Militarov
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5364
    Points : 5409
    Join date : 2015-09-02
    Location : Serbia

    Re: Russian Navy: Status & News #4

    Post  Militarov on Fri Dec 09, 2016 11:47 pm

    Might not be directly naval matter, as they claim it will be used by some internal services like FSB too:

    "Using its Gidra mini-sonars, the robot developed and made by the MAKO Group can detect explosive devices and enemy combat divers hiding in the tangles of the underwater hydraulic works.

    According to a source of the Izvestia, who is close to the issue, the unmanned submersible has passed several tests at a hydraulic work on the Volga River and near the Kerch Strait Bridge’s construction site in summer this year. "Having made several dives, the robot transmitted clear imagery of the sea bottom near the construction site to the shore-based security outfit," the source said. "The robot’s sonars both recorded the traces of the previous work on the bridge pillars and spotted objects under the sea bottom’s soil, hidden in plastic containers by the organizers of the trials." The source emphasized that the tests had been a success and that a decision is in the pipeline on a date of the delivery of sophisticated submersible robotized systems.

    When on the surface, the 1.5-m-long Penguin looks similar to an overturned surfing board, which 80-cm tailfin is not in the water, but sticks up in the air. The submersible travels at a speed of 12 knots - just over 20 km/h - and dives to 500 m in automatic mode. It retains its self-contained operating capability for 6 h.

    The Penguin carries the Gidra mini-sonar, which sensors are marginally larger than a ballpoint pen. The Gidra feeds quality imagery of the sea floor to the operator from hundreds of meters away and images of hydraulic work walls or ship hulls from tens of meters away," Vladimir Trusilov, director general of the Ekran Company developing unique sonars, told the Izvestia. "The footage’s quality enables the operator to correctly identify the object in his field of view and take appropriate measures."

    According to expert Alexander Mozgovoi, controlling the underwater situation near dams, hydroelectric power station, bridges and naval bases is a key security mission. "



    Source: http://navyrecognition.com/index.php/news/defence-news/2016/december-2016-navy-naval-forces-defense-industry-technology-maritime-security-global-news/4655-mako-penguin-uuv-usv-system-in-trials-with-russia-s-secret-services-fsb.html

    Ned86
    Private
    Private

    Posts : 41
    Points : 41
    Join date : 2016-04-04

    Re: Russian Navy: Status & News #4

    Post  Ned86 on Sat Dec 10, 2016 4:29 am

    Militarov wrote:
    I am well aware what they are building, we all are.

    Buyan-Ms are really, really not suited for Atlantic ocean, and Med itself can be classified as "ocean-going" in almost every single characteristic, despite we call it a sea. South-Chinese sea is also "sea" which is basically...ocean.
    Mediterenian is not an ocean. It is conected to the Atlantic via Narrow Gibraltar strait...
    it is in fact ideal for Buyan M and Project 22160 patrols.....small and stealthy Buyan is hard to detect, still with Kalibr missile system it posses more land attack firepower then most NATO destroyers....
    Militarov wrote:
    Su-34 actually was born from platform that was supposed to be flown from an aircraft carrier Smile. I am actually quite sure by adding a hook you could use it from the carrier even without any further modifications.
    You are talking about su-33UB which made first flight 1999. Su-34 frst flown 1990 and from beginning it was designed as fighter bomber to replace Su-24. They never planed to use it on Aircraft carrier simply because it is too heavy....
    Militarov wrote:
    Projecting power is not flying from Russia to Syria and dropping 6 500kg bombs.
    That is also projecting power. Not much countries can do that? right?
    Militarov wrote:
    Projection of power is when you can deploy major taskforce, LHDs, carriers, auxilary fleet with fuel, ammunition, armored units...on division scale. Which Russia atm cant do. Russian contingent in Syria is more or less similar to what France deployed to Mali 2 years back.
    Regarding France intervention in Mali, they deployed few helicopters and made several airstrikes with few Rafaele and that is it. It is not even close to Russian operation in syria. Russia deployed more than 50 airplanes in Syria of different kind, from Su-24, Su-34, Su-25, Su-30, Su-35.....as well as attack helicopters Mi-28, Mi-35 and Ka-52. They created 2+ permanent bases there, Tartus and Khmeimim plus few other bases which they used and using when they need it. They deployed S-400 and S-300 missile defense system, Iskander ballistic missiles and Onyx supersonic cruise anti-ship and land attack cruise missiles there. Mate, that is real power projection.

    Well although Russian navy don't have LHD like Mistral, they still have 20 Large landing ships like Ropucha class. For example Mistral can take 40 Leclerc Tank + 450 troops while Ropucha can take 10 tanks+ 350 troops . For sure Mistral is larger but France has only 3, so that means maximum 120 tanks( even French army has only about 200 ative Leclerc tank anyway).
    While with 20 Ropuchas theoretically russia can deploy 200 tanks. Not to mention smaler landing crafts like Zubr, Serna, Dygon and etc.
    They miss helicopter decks for Ka-52K, but still they can "replace it" with Tu-22M3 and strategic aviation which France doesn't have.

    Militarov wrote:
    Russian submarines are part of nuclear triade, the only thing they can hold on and claim they have major naval force. That is the only part of the navy where they tried investing some money even in 90s in hopes to preserve at least title of "major power" though those hard times.
    Again you are spinning information. I was not talking about 12 Strategic SSBN submarines. I was talking about SSGN(Oscar and Yasen), SSN(Akula, Sierra, Victor) and SSK submarines which Russia has approximately around 40. That is their main naval weapons.

    YOU FORGOT mayor thing that Russia posses probably the best airborne troops and they can deploy divisions of special forces very quickly, which is far more better then doing that with LHD.
    avatar
    Rmf
    Junior Lieutenant
    Junior Lieutenant

    Posts : 451
    Points : 442
    Join date : 2013-05-30

    Re: Russian Navy: Status & News #4

    Post  Rmf on Sat Dec 10, 2016 10:12 am

    eehnie wrote:
    Militarov wrote:What i said stands, Russians never produced marine turbine engines. I said and i still stand behind it that Russians will have major issues with transmission and gearbox systems for those engines. Turbine itself are not a problem at all, and i said that more than once, they already have turbines themself. I have strong vibes you do not know what turbine engine actually is...

    That is all nice and dandy, you are all linking that icebreaker twice a day, how does that really reflects on a fact that Croatia doubles gross tonnage output of Russia again? I must have missed that one...

    I know what a turbine engine is, and is not the most impressive technology today. I think Russia can produce decent engines with some work. A work they are doing. If they respect their acceptation testing standards, I'm sure they will have good enough engines at the end of the process, that may require some time but not too much.

    Turbine engine technology is not used only for naval purposes, it is used also as example in the energy sector for power generation. Surely Russia has civil engineers that know them well enough and surely are helping.

    but for russia it is complicated , it is backwards in naval matters and thats where its staying, usa built fastest cruise ship in 50s !!!, and near same tonnage as aircraft carrier.... and its even civilian made of aluminium and it had 1/4 million turbine power. it could cruise at 35knts , cruise! , for weeks.... that pictures of kuznetsov smoking and going 10knts in 21st century its just pathetic when you compare.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SS_United_States

    avatar
    Project Canada
    Lieutenant
    Lieutenant

    Posts : 591
    Points : 602
    Join date : 2015-07-20
    Age : 28
    Location : Canada

    Re: Russian Navy: Status & News #4

    Post  Project Canada on Sat Dec 10, 2016 11:17 am


    so what is the reason behind the belief by some that Rus navy will Stay stagnant in its present deplorable state? Corruption? not enough motivation on part of the government? cause im pretty sure they can catch up with Technology and Production, so what gives?
    avatar
    Singular_Transform
    Senior Sergeant
    Senior Sergeant

    Posts : 297
    Points : 299
    Join date : 2016-11-13

    Re: Russian Navy: Status & News #4

    Post  Singular_Transform on Sat Dec 10, 2016 3:58 pm

    Rmf wrote:

    but for russia it is complicated , it is backwards in naval matters and thats where its staying, usa built fastest cruise ship in 50s !!!, and near same tonnage as aircraft carrier.... and its even civilian made of aluminium and it had 1/4 million turbine power. it could cruise at 35knts , cruise! , for weeks.... that pictures of kuznetsov smoking and going 10knts in 21st century its just pathetic when you compare.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SS_United_States


    The US shipbuilding is the fraction that is used to be, like the UK.

    It is not capable any more to make ships like that.
    avatar
    franco
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 2132
    Points : 2172
    Join date : 2010-08-18

    Re: Russian Navy: Status & News #4

    Post  franco on Sat Dec 10, 2016 4:09 pm

    Project Canada wrote:
    so what is the reason behind the belief by some that Rus navy will Stay stagnant in its present deplorable state? Corruption? not enough motivation on part of the government? cause im pretty sure they can catch up with Technology and Production, so what gives?

    Russian Navy is not stagnant but the Navy is not as important to Russia as it is to the USA. Take a look at the map of the world to see that. To Russia, a Navy is a defensive weapon and to the USA both an offensive and defensive weapon. To the USA, their Navy and Marines allows them to impose their will around the world. Do you thing Russia should impose it's will around the world? If so then Russia becomes no better then the USA.
    avatar
    Militarov
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5364
    Points : 5409
    Join date : 2015-09-02
    Location : Serbia

    Re: Russian Navy: Status & News #4

    Post  Militarov on Sat Dec 10, 2016 4:30 pm

    Singular_Transform wrote:
    Rmf wrote:

    but for russia it is complicated , it is backwards in naval matters and thats where its staying, usa built fastest cruise ship in 50s !!!, and near same tonnage as aircraft carrier.... and its even civilian made of aluminium and it had 1/4 million turbine power. it could cruise at 35knts , cruise! , for weeks.... that pictures of kuznetsov smoking and going 10knts in 21st century its just pathetic when you compare.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SS_United_States


    The US shipbuilding is the fraction that is used to be, like the UK.

    It is not capable any more to make ships like that.

    They simply do not build commercial shipping for cruises due to extremly high labour cost. Skilled welder in the US has 2-3 times bigger pay than he gets in South Korea, Japan or UK. From what i recall they havent actually built a cruise ship since... early 60s probably. So companies do not order such ships in the States. They co-produced few in late 90s and 2000s.

    US shipbuilding is mostly fighting for military and various state contracts, fishing and auxilary private fleets, some big business cargo ships and similar, yachts, oil platfroms etc. You wont find many major sized recreational ships being built in the States, as companies that order such ships get far better prices in Asia, even Europe. And as private company, you surely want to save money. However the do alot of maintenance in their shipyards, almost all ships bought abroad are being maintained in their shipyards to preserve jobs.
    avatar
    eehnie
    Lieutenant Colonel
    Lieutenant Colonel

    Posts : 936
    Points : 961
    Join date : 2015-05-13

    Re: Russian Navy: Status & News #4

    Post  eehnie on Sat Dec 10, 2016 6:31 pm

    Rmf wrote:
    eehnie wrote:
    Militarov wrote:What i said stands, Russians never produced marine turbine engines. I said and i still stand behind it that Russians will have major issues with transmission and gearbox systems for those engines. Turbine itself are not a problem at all, and i said that more than once, they already have turbines themself. I have strong vibes you do not know what turbine engine actually is...

    That is all nice and dandy, you are all linking that icebreaker twice a day, how does that really reflects on a fact that Croatia doubles gross tonnage output of Russia again? I must have missed that one...

    I know what a turbine engine is, and is not the most impressive technology today. I think Russia can produce decent engines with some work. A work they are doing. If they respect their acceptation testing standards, I'm sure they will have good enough engines at the end of the process, that may require some time but not too much.

    Turbine engine technology is not used only for naval purposes, it is used also as example in the energy sector for power generation. Surely Russia has civil engineers that know them well enough and surely are helping.

    but for russia it is complicated , it is backwards in naval matters and thats where its staying, usa built fastest cruise ship in 50s !!!, and near same tonnage as aircraft carrier.... and its even civilian made of aluminium and it had 1/4 million turbine power. it could cruise at 35knts , cruise! , for weeks.... that pictures of kuznetsov smoking and going 10knts in 21st century its just pathetic when you compare.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SS_United_States

    The smoke by itself really makes not a difference about how modern or not is a ship. Nuclear powered ships will not produce smoke. Ships with Diesel engines or gas turbines wil produce some, and ships with a steam turbine cycle can produce more.

    Technologically a turbine engine following a steam cycle is not of lower level than one following a gas cycle. The fluid used is different (habitually air in the gas turbine engines, and steam in the steam turbine engines) and it leads to other differences in the cycle, but not in terms of one being more primitive or less advanced than the other. Even, a steam cycle can avoid the liberation of steam with the use of different systems in the condensation stage. The smoke is consequence only of a simplification of the condensation stage of the cycle, and almost the same simplification is done habitually in the gas turbine engine with the liberation of hot air (not visible like the steam).

    The use of gas turbine engines for ships is not more difficult than the use of steam turbine engines. It is different, and time is required, only that. If you check these links you will see how they are Russian companies doing gas turbine engines (cycles) for different applications like the power generation. Only time is required to reach the right standards in the process of diversification.

    http://zaorotec.com/#el682
    http://www.utz.ru/cgi-bin/articles/view.cgi?id=529
    http://zaorotec.com/#el1147

    Also you will see how the same companies can work with steam turbine engines.
    avatar
    AlfaT8
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 1230
    Points : 1239
    Join date : 2013-02-02

    Re: Russian Navy: Status & News #4

    Post  AlfaT8 on Sat Dec 10, 2016 6:49 pm

    PapaDragon wrote:
    AlfaT8 wrote:..........

    Yea, i always though Russian Destroyers were odd in that prospective, it's like the Soviets were trying to make it an ASW ship with token AntSh capabilities.

    I know that, but at the same time i also believe Russia shouldn't ignore the adversaries combat capabilities, from what i can see the R.navy is putting high hopes in there Supersonic and soon Hypersonic missiles, while they're hoping to offset any firepower advantage of the adversary with capable Air defenses, it's a good strategy, but why hold back.


    They are not ignoring adversary's capabilities, they are just dealing with them within their budgetary and doctrinal boundaries.

    And they are not really holding back. They have plenty of tools available, it's just that most of those tools are land based.

    For nuclear countries above certain size facing each other surface fleets are not there to fight head on, their job is to draw attention to themselves in order to create an opening for nuclear submarines. They don't expect to survive direct confrontation one way or the other despite who wins the naval battle because their (and everyone else's) fate will be decided by other branches of the military. This goes for US surface navy as well regardless of their size.

    Surface fleets come into play when confronting non-nuclear medium sized enemies in conventional war. That is where all that weaponry they carry can (and does) decide the outcome.    


    And you are definitely right about comparing ship classes of RU and US Navies.


    Damn, i am late.

    Is that it, every time this gets brought up it's always a "budgetary and doctrinal problem", your opponent could fire 96 or even 48 missiles to end you, and all these frigates got is 16 missiles to respond, what is the doctrinal logic here??
    Seriously, even the Kirov only had 20 P-700s where's the logic??

    The states ain't gonna play your land based game.

    So the RuNavy exists for the Nuclear triad?

    Except all these non-nuclear medium sized opponent have joined forces and formed what is now NATO, so what you gonna do?

    I just find it odd that there's so few missiles.
    avatar
    kvs
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 2787
    Points : 2918
    Join date : 2014-09-11
    Location : Canuckistan

    Re: Russian Navy: Status & News #4

    Post  kvs on Sat Dec 10, 2016 6:54 pm

    eehnie wrote:
    Rmf wrote:
    eehnie wrote:
    Militarov wrote:What i said stands, Russians never produced marine turbine engines. I said and i still stand behind it that Russians will have major issues with transmission and gearbox systems for those engines. Turbine itself are not a problem at all, and i said that more than once, they already have turbines themself. I have strong vibes you do not know what turbine engine actually is...

    That is all nice and dandy, you are all linking that icebreaker twice a day, how does that really reflects on a fact that Croatia doubles gross tonnage output of Russia again? I must have missed that one...

    I know what a turbine engine is, and is not the most impressive technology today. I think Russia can produce decent engines with some work. A work they are doing. If they respect their acceptation testing standards, I'm sure they will have good enough engines at the end of the process, that may require some time but not too much.

    Turbine engine technology is not used only for naval purposes, it is used also as example in the energy sector for power generation. Surely Russia has civil engineers that know them well enough and surely are helping.

    but for russia it is complicated , it is backwards in naval matters and thats where its staying, usa built fastest cruise ship in 50s !!!, and near same tonnage as aircraft carrier.... and its even civilian made of aluminium and it had 1/4 million turbine power. it could cruise at 35knts , cruise! , for weeks.... that pictures of kuznetsov smoking and going 10knts in 21st century its just pathetic when you compare.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SS_United_States

    The smoke by itself really makes not a difference about how modern or not is a ship. Nuclear powered ships will not produce smoke. Ships with Diesel engines or gas turbines wil produce some, and ships with a steam turbine cycle can produce more.

    Technologically a turbine engine following a steam cycle is not of lower level than one following a gas cycle. The fluid used is different (habitually air in the gas turbine engines, and steam in the steam turbine engines) and it leads to other differences in the cycle, but not in terms of one being more primitive or less advanced than the other. Even, a steam cycle can avoid the liberation of steam with the use of different systems in the condensation stage. The smoke is consequence only of a simplification of the condensation stage of the cycle, and almost the same simplification is done habitually in the gas turbine engine with the liberation of hot air (not visible like the steam).

    The use of gas turbine engines for ships is not more difficult than the use of steam turbine engines. It is different, and time is required, only that. If you check these links you will see how they are Russian companies doing gas turbine engines (cycles) for different applications like the power generation. Only time is required to reach the right standards in the process of diversification.

    http://zaorotec.com/#el682
    http://www.utz.ru/cgi-bin/articles/view.cgi?id=529
    http://zaorotec.com/#el1147

    Also you will see how the same companies can work with steam turbine engines.

    RMF is one of the Russia hater circle jerk club that has infested this board.

    1) He has no clue about the maximum speed of the Kuznetsov and just assumes, as any retard would, that its chosen cruise speed to the Syrian
    theater was its maximum speed. Russia was successfully trolling NATzO during this trip. The build up to the anticipated, by NATzO,
    baby slaughter in Aleppo and the subsequent let down was pure gold.

    2) Anyone who brings up the smoke as evidence of inferiority is, by definition, a retard. Ships use low grade fuel oil that is essentially
    bitumen with water added (e.g. Orimulsion). This makes economic sense since they consume a lot of fuel and this is the cheapest
    available. They do not need to use aviation grade kerosene. But there are negative aspects including lots of black smoke generation
    due to poor combustion at some stages of the engine operation. Lighter fuels combust more readily and produce less black smoke
    which consists of a high soot fraction due to poor oxidation.

    3) According to the spew form the hate circle jerk club every jet on the Kuzentsov should have been on the seabed by now and the
    Kuzentsov itself should have experienced a catastrophic engine failure from a "boiler explosion". These clowns are a joke.
    avatar
    kvs
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 2787
    Points : 2918
    Join date : 2014-09-11
    Location : Canuckistan

    Re: Russian Navy: Status & News #4

    Post  kvs on Sat Dec 10, 2016 7:00 pm

    Project Canada wrote:
    so what is the reason behind the belief by some that Rus navy will Stay stagnant in its present deplorable state? Corruption? not enough motivation on part of the government? cause im pretty sure they can catch up with Technology and Production, so what gives?

    It is "stagnant" in the minds of the local hater circle jerk club. Listening to these clowns you would think that Russia has not built and is not
    building a single submarine of any type. As has been pointed out several times to the Cruise Princess he systematically ignores the Russian
    submarine program in all of his BS "evaluations". For some reason they expect Russia to spend $100 billion per year just on
    modernizing and growing the Navy including the building of WWII dinosaur aircraft carriers that are beyond obsolete in 2016. There is zero need
    for this on the part of Russia and the original military upgrade program did not call for such development pathway. The necessary investments
    in submarine construction are being made and Russia does not have the pool of fiat to blow on internet fanboi fantasy procurement
    desires.
    avatar
    Militarov
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5364
    Points : 5409
    Join date : 2015-09-02
    Location : Serbia

    Re: Russian Navy: Status & News #4

    Post  Militarov on Sat Dec 10, 2016 7:46 pm

    kvs wrote:
    eehnie wrote:
    Rmf wrote:
    eehnie wrote:
    Militarov wrote:What i said stands, Russians never produced marine turbine engines. I said and i still stand behind it that Russians will have major issues with transmission and gearbox systems for those engines. Turbine itself are not a problem at all, and i said that more than once, they already have turbines themself. I have strong vibes you do not know what turbine engine actually is...

    That is all nice and dandy, you are all linking that icebreaker twice a day, how does that really reflects on a fact that Croatia doubles gross tonnage output of Russia again? I must have missed that one...

    I know what a turbine engine is, and is not the most impressive technology today. I think Russia can produce decent engines with some work. A work they are doing. If they respect their acceptation testing standards, I'm sure they will have good enough engines at the end of the process, that may require some time but not too much.

    Turbine engine technology is not used only for naval purposes, it is used also as example in the energy sector for power generation. Surely Russia has civil engineers that know them well enough and surely are helping.

    but for russia it is complicated , it is backwards in naval matters and thats where its staying, usa built fastest cruise ship in 50s !!!, and near same tonnage as aircraft carrier.... and its even civilian made of aluminium and it had 1/4 million turbine power. it could cruise at 35knts , cruise! , for weeks.... that pictures of kuznetsov smoking and going 10knts in 21st century its just pathetic when you compare.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SS_United_States

    The smoke by itself really makes not a difference about how modern or not is a ship. Nuclear powered ships will not produce smoke. Ships with Diesel engines or gas turbines wil produce some, and ships with a steam turbine cycle can produce more.

    Technologically a turbine engine following a steam cycle is not of lower level than one following a gas cycle. The fluid used is different (habitually air in the gas turbine engines, and steam in the steam turbine engines) and it leads to other differences in the cycle, but not in terms of one being more primitive or less advanced than the other. Even, a steam cycle can avoid the liberation of steam with the use of different systems in the condensation stage. The smoke is consequence only of a simplification of the condensation stage of the cycle, and almost the same simplification is done habitually in the gas turbine engine with the liberation of hot air (not visible like the steam).

    The use of gas turbine engines for ships is not more difficult than the use of steam turbine engines. It is different, and time is required, only that. If you check these links you will see how they are Russian companies doing gas turbine engines (cycles) for different applications like the power generation. Only time is required to reach the right standards in the process of diversification.

    http://zaorotec.com/#el682
    http://www.utz.ru/cgi-bin/articles/view.cgi?id=529
    http://zaorotec.com/#el1147

    Also you will see how the same companies can work with steam turbine engines.

    RMF is one of the Russia hater circle jerk club that has infested this board.  

    1) He has no clue about the maximum speed of the Kuznetsov and just assumes, as any retard would, that its chosen cruise speed to the Syrian
    theater was its maximum speed.   Russia was successfully trolling NATzO during this trip.  The build up to the anticipated, by NATzO,
    baby slaughter in Aleppo and the subsequent let down was pure gold.

    2) Anyone who brings up the smoke as evidence of inferiority is, by definition, a retard.   Ships use low grade fuel oil that is essentially
    bitumen with water added (e.g. Orimulsion).   This makes economic sense since they consume a lot of fuel and this is the cheapest
    available.   They do not need to use aviation grade kerosene.   But there are negative aspects including lots of black smoke generation
    due to poor combustion at some stages of the engine operation.   Lighter fuels combust more readily and produce less black smoke
    which consists of a high soot fraction due to poor oxidation.

    3) According to the spew form the hate circle jerk club every jet on the Kuzentsov should have been on the seabed by now and the
    Kuzentsov itself should have experienced a catastrophic engine failure from a "boiler explosion".    These clowns are a joke.  

    Kuznetsov is burning at this moment Mazut-100
    avatar
    Singular_Transform
    Senior Sergeant
    Senior Sergeant

    Posts : 297
    Points : 299
    Join date : 2016-11-13

    Re: Russian Navy: Status & News #4

    Post  Singular_Transform on Sat Dec 10, 2016 10:52 pm

    Gas turbine require twice as expensive fuel than the steam turbine.

    Advantage of the steam is it can use any fuel.

    avatar
    Militarov
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5364
    Points : 5409
    Join date : 2015-09-02
    Location : Serbia

    Re: Russian Navy: Status & News #4

    Post  Militarov on Sun Dec 11, 2016 12:02 am

    Singular_Transform wrote:Gas turbine require twice as expensive fuel than the steam turbine.

    Advantage of the steam is it can use any fuel.


    Questionable at the times when oil and oil derivates have "solid" price. Gas turbines are very efficient compared to "oil" fired boilers, as gas turbines have very high thermal efficiency up to even 45%. Also some turbines are multi-fuel turbines so you have certain ability to adapt to situation.
    avatar
    Big_Gazza
    Lieutenant
    Lieutenant

    Posts : 581
    Points : 605
    Join date : 2014-08-25
    Location : Melbourne, Australia

    Re: Russian Navy: Status & News #4

    Post  Big_Gazza on Sun Dec 11, 2016 11:42 am

    Steam vs gas turbine - its not a simple question, as there isn't one answer.  

    Gas turbines need high caloric fuel such as diesel-grade distillates and are more expenisive as they operate at MUCH higher temperatures and the internal components downstream from the combustion chmaber need to be fabricated from exotic materials to deal with high temperature and minimise problems such as blade creep. Exhaust gas is always hot, so thermal efficiency suffers, unless the waste heat is captured via a exhaust heat boiler and a secondary steam turbine installed, ie a combined cycle system (which can also be used for electrical generation). Gas turbines can get up to operating temperatures very quickly, so vessels with gas turbines can have quick response times ie rapid reaction vessels.

    Steam turbines run on a closed cycle, and run at lower temperatures, and are cheaper and less technically demanding.  While the turbine can be very efficient, the steam generator and condensate recyling introduces additional energy losses and inefficiencies, so overall there isn't much difference. Steam systems are not as compact as similarly rated gas turbine systems, as steam requires bulky boilers and condensate collection and recovery vessels & piping, so its not suitable for small vessels. Steam cycles can run on wide variety of fuels dependent upon the burner system designs (which influences combustion temperatures) and can therefore use cheaper fuel grades such as heavy fuel oils or bunker oil. Unlike gas turbine however, steam turbines requires significant time to startup (heat-up) the steam generator so it unsuitable for naval units requiring rapid response times.

    I'd say that regarding the Kuznetsov, steam propulsion is the obvious choice.  Gas turbines will be too thirsty, and she simply doesn't need the rapid reaction capability of Destroyers & Cruisers. The current problems with the K seem to be her boilers (more specifically her burners), not her turbines. When she gets her major refit she will likely recieve a full boiler system replacement allowing for much higher combustion temperatures with heavy fuel oils (like Mazut-100), probably a multi-stage burner where the the temperature of the combustion air and fuel into the main boiler are raised by a pre-heater unit.  Higher combustion temperatures means more complete combustion of the heavy carbon-chain species in the heavy oils, and less soot in the flue gases.  less smoke, but more importantly, better fuel efficiency.
    avatar
    Singular_Transform
    Senior Sergeant
    Senior Sergeant

    Posts : 297
    Points : 299
    Join date : 2016-11-13

    Re: Russian Navy: Status & News #4

    Post  Singular_Transform on Sun Dec 11, 2016 11:54 am

    Militarov wrote:
    Singular_Transform wrote:Gas turbine require twice as expensive fuel than the steam turbine.

    Advantage of the steam is it can use any fuel.


    Questionable at the times when oil and oil derivates have "solid" price. Gas turbines are very efficient compared to "oil" fired boilers, as gas turbines have very high thermal efficiency up to even 45%. Also some turbines are multi-fuel turbines so you have certain ability to adapt to situation.

    Thermal efficiency higher, but it need more steps in the reduction gear.

    Each step cost 3-5% efficiency loss.

    Most efficient is the 2 stroke diesel engine directly coupled to the shaft.
    avatar
    kvs
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 2787
    Points : 2918
    Join date : 2014-09-11
    Location : Canuckistan

    Re: Russian Navy: Status & News #4

    Post  kvs on Sun Dec 11, 2016 5:23 pm

    Big_Gazza wrote:Steam vs gas turbine - its not a simple question, as there isn't one answer.  

    Gas turbines need high caloric fuel such as diesel-grade distillates and are more expenisive as they operate at MUCH higher temperatures and the internal components downstream from the combustion chmaber need to be fabricated from exotic materials to deal with high temperature and minimise problems such as blade creep. Exhaust gas is always hot, so thermal efficiency suffers, unless the waste heat is captured via a exhaust heat boiler and a secondary steam turbine installed, ie a combined cycle system (which can also be used for electrical generation). Gas turbines can get up to operating temperatures very quickly, so vessels with gas turbines can have quick response times ie rapid reaction vessels.

    Steam turbines run on a closed cycle, and run at lower temperatures, and are cheaper and less technically demanding.  While the turbine can be very efficient, the steam generator and condensate recyling introduces additional energy losses and inefficiencies, so overall there isn't much difference. Steam systems are not as compact as similarly rated gas turbine systems, as steam requires bulky boilers and condensate collection and recovery vessels & piping, so its not suitable for small vessels. Steam cycles can run on wide variety of fuels dependent upon the burner system designs (which influences combustion temperatures) and can therefore use cheaper fuel grades such as heavy fuel oils or bunker oil. Unlike gas turbine however, steam turbines requires significant time to startup (heat-up) the steam generator so it unsuitable for naval units requiring rapid response times.

    I'd say that regarding the Kuznetsov, steam propulsion is the obvious choice.  Gas turbines will be too thirsty, and she simply doesn't need the rapid reaction capability of Destroyers & Cruisers. The current problems with the K seem to be her boilers (more specifically her burners), not her turbines. When she gets her major refit she will likely recieve a full boiler system replacement allowing for much higher combustion temperatures with heavy fuel oils (like Mazut-100), probably a multi-stage burner where the the temperature of the combustion air and fuel into the main boiler are raised by a pre-heater unit.  Higher combustion temperatures means more complete combustion of the heavy carbon-chain species in the heavy oils, and less soot in the flue gases.  less smoke, but more importantly, better fuel efficiency.

    Even with such an upgrade it will still spew black smoke at certain stages of operation because of the fuel characteristics. Even though there will
    be less black smoke the hater fanbois will still be spooging themselves about mud hut level Russian technology. Because, like, they all have mechanical
    and chemical engineering degrees from nosepick internet U.

    BTW, as an aside, marine diesels of the extra large class run on the lowest grade fuels:

    http://www.dice-net.org/index.php/development/engines-for-dice

    http://www.industrytap.com/worlds-largest-diesel-engines-past-present-future-video/25044

    These diesels spew black smoke at certain operation points.


    Mindstorm
    Captain
    Captain

    Posts : 761
    Points : 944
    Join date : 2011-07-20

    Re: Russian Navy: Status & News #4

    Post  Mindstorm on Sun Dec 11, 2016 9:48 pm

    x_54_u43 wrote:Could you please tell us your thoughts on Carrier Aviation Wing being used in a anti-ship role?

    It is obvious to anyone that LRASM is by no means even close to X-31 or Onyx and such.

    But since LRASM will be entering service soon enough, and with LRASM range combined with combat radius of carrying aircraft, as well as possibility of in-flight refueling, such range would be far greater than any ship-borne anti-ship missile.

    With such range advantage, as well as large numbers of carried munitions per aircraft and large numbers of aircraft carried per carrier, would you not be able to achieve an acceptable level of success? Being able to hit your opponent outside of the range where he can hit you is a very large advantage.


    This concept, in facts, is at the basis of the US Navy doctrine since WWII and ,given the permanence of the carrier wing "variable" the overall balance in a conventional engagement between a formation including one or more US Navy CVBGs in a blue water environment (more than 1400 km from enemy shore) and any surface ship group of any enemy Navy of this planet would be lopsided in US Navy favour, in particular in relation to the capability of carrier air wing to progressively deplete the defensive capabilities of enemy formations in open sea capitalizing the chance to attack repeatedly from outside the engagement range of opponent's ships.


    Obviously the Federation's Naval doctrine since Soviet Union times have always taken into account this central "allowing" element of the US Navy; the constituting ideas at its foundation was ,for conventional scenarios, in four main directions :

    1) Maintain a significative technological advantage in antiship missile and antiship missile defense technology in comparison to NATO nations so to assure that, in the removing from the equation the carrier wing factor the entire composition of US surface Navy would suddenly collapse in the almost complete irrelevance for naval engagements.
    In the event of the elimination of the air wing element, in facts, single Soviet Navy units would have been capable to engage and destroy a much higher number of enemy surface ships from almost complete stand-off safety.

    2) Create an highly resilient multispectral, multiplatform sensors network ,from strategic to in-theatre level ,encopassing the entire level's gamut of theirs basing (under surface, surface, air and space based) capable to continously and reliably assure detection and tracking of the position of the big formations of surface and submerged US Navy units that would have been forced to remain in limited area of sea to assure a defensive coverage for the essential aircraft carrier element and transfer the positional data to air, sea and submerged units.

    3) Create highly specialized antiship weapons based on platforms not allowing NATO CVBG to capitalize the range advantage offered by theirs aviation elements. The natural selection was for : supersonic bombers capable to takeoff from airbases at thousands of km of distances protected by the titanic domestic IAD (the domestic constitutive "allowing" element) and capable to delivery at very high speed, theirs payload from well outside the effective engagement range of carrier DCA Group, submarines capable to employ those state of art antiship weapons from well outside the defensive submarine complement of CVBGs.


    4) Create limited safe-heaven areas - the so called "santuaries" - near to Federation's shores where was effectively impossible for NATO aircraft, ships and submarine to operate; so to assure a safe basin for the surface fleets to replenish offensive and defensive weapons or wait for the previously mentioned elements to enter into play allowing them to fully capitalize theirs superior weapon suit.

           

    Today the basis of those relative naval doctrines remain more or less the same (with the obvious intercurring technological advancements on both sides).
    The most equilibrated western article on that last subject -even if with some notable and gross mistakes coming out, mostly, from the employement of material of P. Bukowski  - is this one :

    http://www.defenceiq.com/air-land-and-sea-defence-services/articles/russian-strategy-and-the-evolving-anti-accessarea

    You can easily infer the relevance of the adaption of a "navalized" AGM-158 for ship and aircraft launch in comparison with the impact on the realive balance equation of the plurality of those domestic programs.......
    As already said , no much is destined to change, in the near/middle term, in the relative weapon balance and operational doctrine in both sides, in respect to Cold War situation.

    Sponsored content

    Re: Russian Navy: Status & News #4

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Tue Apr 25, 2017 10:25 pm