Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    Russian Navy: Status & News #1

    Share
    avatar
    Vladimir79

    Posts : 2180
    Points : 3072
    Join date : 2009-07-10

    Re: Russian Navy: Status & News #1

    Post  Vladimir79 on Mon Mar 21, 2011 2:33 am

    PAVN wrote:
    I remember reading in the past that the 2nd project 22350 can carry 32 9M96E missiles and the 2nd project 20380 can carry Shtil. I guess I was wrong then Neutral

    Btw, for project 22350, can 24 9M317 missiles be replaced by the navalized version of Tor or Pantsir?

    They never finished developing the VLS to launch it so they cheaped out on the pedestal mount. The 9M96E is designed for the S-400 and requires a radar system this ship can't handle.

    You could trade out the 9M317 for TOR but it would be a bad idea. Buk-M1 class missiles can cover a fleet area defence mission while TOR is only self defence. With two Kashtan it would be rather redundant to do so.

    PAVN

    Posts : 4
    Points : 4
    Join date : 2011-03-20

    Re: Russian Navy: Status & News #1

    Post  PAVN on Mon Mar 21, 2011 5:25 am

    Vladimir79 wrote:
    PAVN wrote:
    I remember reading in the past that the 2nd project 22350 can carry 32 9M96E missiles and the 2nd project 20380 can carry Shtil. I guess I was wrong then Neutral

    Btw, for project 22350, can 24 9M317 missiles be replaced by the navalized version of Tor or Pantsir?

    They never finished developing the VLS to launch it so they cheaped out on the pedestal mount. The 9M96E is designed for the S-400 and requires a radar system this ship can't handle.

    You could trade out the 9M317 for TOR but it would be a bad idea. Buk-M1 class missiles can cover a fleet area defence mission while TOR is only self defence. With two Kashtan it would be rather redundant to do so.
    I was thinking that Buk-class missile is only 50 km, it means that you can't take out aircrafts either since anti-ship missiles will be launched at a range much further out. In essence, the Buk missile will be used for defense against anti-ship missile. In that case, would it be better if you can stuff more smaller Tor missile than just 24 big Buk missiles?
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16302
    Points : 16933
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russian Navy: Status & News #1

    Post  GarryB on Mon Mar 21, 2011 6:02 am

    As far as I know the latest models of BUK have a range of 70kms or so and have a much more significant warhead than the TOR which should make it more effective against heavier targets.

    Not all engagements occur in open ocean and not all aircraft have long range anti ship missiles all the time.

    The British experience in the Falklands showed that their tracking radars were not so good at targets coming from land and there were several cases where British warships had to move close to land for their mission... either fire support for land forces or to protect shipping dropping off cargo. In these situations they were very vulnerable to low flying aircraft carrying dumb bombs. A missile like BUK would have been more useful than TOR in such a scenario because the BUK can engage targets at extended ranges.
    A serious threat to Argentine shipping was British helicopters like the Lynx armed with Sea Skua missiles which have a range to allow launches at standoff ranges outside short range SAMs.

    Of course when not operating alone... and operating in a group the BUK would allow the ship that carries it to cover other ships as well as itself whereas with all vessels armed with short range weapons each has to protect itself. BUK offers more flexibility... and to be quite honest the sooner a target can be dealt with the better.

    PAVN

    Posts : 4
    Points : 4
    Join date : 2011-03-20

    Re: Russian Navy: Status & News #1

    Post  PAVN on Mon Mar 21, 2011 6:44 am

    On the Udaloy II destroyer, this ship carries 128 Tor missiles. For a big and high priced tag like that, I think the manufactuer must have a lot of confidence on the short-ranged SAM to make it the "shield" of the ship instead of putting a few dozens of S-300 missiles don't you guys think? Neutral
    avatar
    Vladimir79

    Posts : 2180
    Points : 3072
    Join date : 2009-07-10

    Re: Russian Navy: Status & News #1

    Post  Vladimir79 on Mon Mar 21, 2011 6:52 am

    PAVN wrote:On the Udaloy II destroyer, this ship carries 128 Tor missiles. For a big and high priced tag like that, I think the manufactuer must have a lot of confidence on the short-ranged SAM to make it the "shield" of the ship instead of putting a few dozens of S-300 missiles don't you guys think? Neutral

    It has 8x8 launchers so it is 64, not 128. Considering the outfitted version only has 2-4 channels of fire, it is a bit excessive to have that many missiles. Udaloy was not fitted with Buk because it is an ASW ship, not an AAW.
    avatar
    IronsightSniper

    Posts : 454
    Points : 468
    Join date : 2010-09-25
    Location : California, USA

    Re: Russian Navy: Status & News #1

    Post  IronsightSniper on Mon Mar 21, 2011 6:57 am

    PAVN wrote:On the Udaloy II destroyer, this ship carries 128 Tor missiles. For a big and high priced tag like that, I think the manufactuer must have a lot of confidence on the short-ranged SAM to make it the "shield" of the ship instead of putting a few dozens of S-300 missiles don't you guys think? Neutral

    As Vlad says, the Udaloy II only needs SAMs for self-defense, as it's an AShW ship.

    The "prime" surface fleet air defense ship for Russian fleets would be the Slava class cruisers I think. 64 S-300s right there.

    GarryB wrote:As far as I know the latest models of BUK have a range of 70kms or so and have a much more significant warhead than the TOR which should make it more effective against heavier targets.

    Rosonboronexport says 32 km for naval BUKs.

    Pervius

    Posts : 249
    Points : 271
    Join date : 2011-03-08

    Re: Russian Navy: Status & News #1

    Post  Pervius on Mon Mar 21, 2011 8:12 am

    ""The "prime" surface fleet air defense ship for Russian fleets would be the Slava class cruisers I think. 64 S-300s right there.""

    Ever wonder if new James Webb space telescope with massive mirrors could be used to cook Slava Class Cruisers like bugs with a magnifying glass?

    Nazi's dreamed of making space based weapon to be used on Earth. Cheap to make. Maybe telescopes in space also have military use if used to magnify sun and direct energy to Earth? If so air defense ships would be worthless. Be like the slapping Kadafi is getting right now. Over in minutes.

    Maybe such weapons are already in space. Not controlled by Russia.

    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16302
    Points : 16933
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russian Navy: Status & News #1

    Post  GarryB on Mon Mar 21, 2011 8:41 am

    Rosonboronexport says 32 km for naval BUKs.

    No such thing as Naval BUK.

    Uragan is the Russian model of the exported Shtil, and Ezh is the vertical launched Russian version of the for export Shtil-1. The BUK-M3 which is the land based missile I was referring to has a reported range of up to 70km, though that has not been confirmed from multiple sources.

    It would not be talked about by Rosonboronexport because it is for Russian use like Oniks as opposed to Yakhont which is for export and has reduced performance parameters. The Russian military have said they don't want old stuff so I think it is fair to assume they will want the latest model in the Uragan/Buk family for their vessels.
    avatar
    IronsightSniper

    Posts : 454
    Points : 468
    Join date : 2010-09-25
    Location : California, USA

    Re: Russian Navy: Status & News #1

    Post  IronsightSniper on Mon Mar 21, 2011 11:38 pm

    GarryB wrote:
    Rosonboronexport says 32 km for naval BUKs.

    No such thing as Naval BUK.

    Uragan is the Russian model of the exported Shtil, and Ezh is the vertical launched Russian version of the for export Shtil-1. The BUK-M3 which is the land based missile I was referring to has a reported range of up to 70km, though that has not been confirmed from multiple sources.

    It would not be talked about by Rosonboronexport because it is for Russian use like Oniks as opposed to Yakhont which is for export and has reduced performance parameters. The Russian military have said they don't want old stuff so I think it is fair to assume they will want the latest model in the Uragan/Buk family for their vessels.

    Naval Buks are called Uragan/Shtil, I just don't like using multiple names for basically the same system.

    I knew you were referring to the BUK-M3, but there's no confirmation that it's been deployed for Naval Defense.

    Ever wonder if new James Webb space telescope with massive mirrors could be used to cook Slava Class Cruisers like bugs with a magnifying glass?

    Nazi's dreamed of making space based weapon to be used on Earth. Cheap to make. Maybe telescopes in space also have military use if used to magnify sun and direct energy to Earth? If so air defense ships would be worthless. Be like the slapping Kadafi is getting right now. Over in minutes.

    Maybe such weapons are already in space. Not controlled by Russia.

    Why can't giant mirrors in space just be used for space surveying?
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16302
    Points : 16933
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russian Navy: Status & News #1

    Post  GarryB on Tue Mar 22, 2011 1:38 am

    I knew you were referring to the BUK-M3, but there's no confirmation that it's been deployed for Naval Defense.

    They are only buying new stuff now...

    Nazi's dreamed of making space based weapon to be used on Earth. Cheap
    to make.

    You mean cheap to dream. Enormously expensive to make and put up and incredibly vulnerable once in place.

    Maybe telescopes in space also have military use if used to
    magnify sun and direct energy to Earth?

    The focal length of hundreds of kms would make them useless for anything else. Take a magnifying glass and focus the sunlight onto a piece of paper. The distance the sun is concentrated into its smallest size is called the focal length... where the paper burns the most readily. The problem is that the shape (curve) of the magnifying glass determines its focal length so as a space telescope to use a focal length to concentrate the suns rays on something on the ground would mean the sensor used to take photos of deep space would need to be at ground level too because that is where the image is focussed.

    A more likely use for such telescopes is to locate and carefully examine the satellites of other nations... especially the top secret ones.

    By looking at the type and size of the antennas and equipment it will make it possible to work out potential performance and capabilities of enemy satellites. It might also reveal potential defence mechanisms too.
    avatar
    runaway

    Posts : 348
    Points : 369
    Join date : 2010-11-12
    Location : Sweden

    Re: Russian Navy: Status & News #1

    Post  runaway on Mon Mar 28, 2011 9:08 pm

    Great news, i guess Japan is getting a headache. First Ustinov, now soon Nakhimov will join the pacific fleet.
    :

    In 2011 Russian Navy will launch modernization program of Program 1144 Orlan nuclear-powered missile cruiser Admiral Nakhimov, reports Interfax referring to a source in Navy Main HQ. This ship was laid up for repairs in 1999, although works have not started so far. The cruiser has been staying idle at moorage wall of Sevmash shipyard for 12 years. When repairs and modernization of Admiral Nakhimov are completed, the ship will join Pacific Fleet.

    Other two ships of Project 1144 – Admiral Ushakov and Admiral Lazarev – will undergo repair and upgrade right after Admiral Nakhimov. It is planned to replace obsolete analog radio-electronics with digital ones, and rearm the cruisers with new weapons. According to a source in United Shipbuilding Corporation, dismantling of arms and equipment has been already started on Admiral Nakhimov.

    As was previously declared by Sevmash shipyard, modernization of the missile cruisers will be carried out in the manner of Petr Veliky which is the only operable Orlan-class ship in Russian Navy. Funds for repairs of Admiral Nakhimov have been already appropriated, but exact sum is still uncertain. Earlier on, director general of Sevmash shipyard Nikolai Kalistratov stated the works were not sufficiently financed.

    Russian Navy Main HQ reported in July 2010 that Orlan class missile cruisers would return to the Navy within the nearest 10 years. Admiral Nakhimov was built under Project 1144.2 by Baltiysky Zavod shipyard in 1988 and had a name of Kalinin till 1992. In all, four ships were built under Project 1144. Admiral Lazarev and Admiral Ushakov were decommissioned in 2002 and 2005 respectively. Admiral Nakhimov is still in inventory of Northern Fleet.

    Displacement of Admiral Nakhimov is 26,200 tons; max speed is 32 knots. The cruiser is armed with Granit antiship missiles, ASW systems Vodopad-NK, antisubmarine rocket launchers Smerch-3 and Udav-1, gun mount AK-130, air defense systems Fort and Osa-MA, 533-mm torpedo tubes. Air wing includes three Ka-27PL helicopters.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16302
    Points : 16933
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russian Navy: Status & News #1

    Post  GarryB on Tue Mar 29, 2011 12:34 am

    Excellent news.

    Imagine how many USUK bins you could fit in an Orlan class vessel!!!

    I wonder if the new 152mm guns the navy is working on will be ready to fit to these vessels?

    Austin

    Posts : 6234
    Points : 6640
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Location : India

    Re: Russian Navy: Status & News #1

    Post  Austin on Tue Mar 29, 2011 5:29 am

    I personally think they should dump those cruiser and put money in building Pr 20350 Gorshkov class Frigate and a 60K T Carrier ,that would do lot good then refurbishing old ship.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16302
    Points : 16933
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russian Navy: Status & News #1

    Post  GarryB on Tue Mar 29, 2011 7:29 am

    It will be decades before they will be able to make Kirov sized vessels again... very simply because vessels this size tie up the limited number of ship yards that can handle this size vessel.
    Now these shipyards will also want to build other vessels as well like large gas carriers and oil tankers so by greatly reducing the amount of effort to get big ships you ease pressure in other production areas.
    Frigates and destroyers are simply not good enough to support a carrier... you need a cruiser... in the US case that is an AEGIS class cruiser, and for Russia that is either Slava or Kirov... or both.

    It is easier and cheaper to rip the guts out of a Kirov and upgrade it than to build it from scratch... very simply to upgrade all you need is space to sit it for a few years while workers work on it. Building from scratch requires bigger cranes and larger facilities.

    Very simply if you scrap the Kirovs and Slavas now there is no point in looking at carriers. And if you are not thinking about carriers then you don't even need frigates because they will be dead meat.
    Ships are vulnerable to air attack and the only solution that is worth a damn is to have your own air power with your ships at all times.

    There is nothing fundamentally wrong with the Kirov or Slava designs... they were excellent vessels and still are.

    The perfection of wide scale use of vertical launch missiles... which the Kirov pioneered BTW, will make it a much more potent vessel.

    It will be able to operate as an anti carrier vessel with Brahmos and Oniks, or become a long range danger with 5,000km range cruise missiles. Its air defences will likely be formidable with the potential for enormous numbers and types of SAM including sea based versions of SAM systems based on the S-400, S-500, Vityaz, Morfei, and Verba.

    ... there is no point in building a 60 ton carrier right now without a navy big enough to support its operations. New support network needs to be built to enable the full capability of a carrier force to be realised and part of that support network will include foreign bases and also more capable large support vessels.
    avatar
    runaway

    Posts : 348
    Points : 369
    Join date : 2010-11-12
    Location : Sweden

    Re: Russian Navy: Status & News #1

    Post  runaway on Tue Mar 29, 2011 4:52 pm

    GarryB wrote:There is nothing fundamentally wrong with the Kirov or Slava designs... they were excellent vessels and still are.

    The perfection of wide scale use of vertical launch missiles... which the Kirov pioneered BTW, will make it a much more potent vessel.

    It will be able to operate as an anti carrier vessel with Brahmos and Oniks, or become a long range danger with 5,000km range cruise missiles. Its air defences will likely be formidable with the potential for enormous numbers and types of SAM including sea based versions of SAM systems based on the S-400, S-500, Vityaz, Morfei, and Verba.

    I agree, with the Mistrals on the way, you really need these support ships. And as the slipbuilders are already busy with Corvettes, Frigates and subs, theres no way to build new cruisers. Also it would take a looong time, too long.

    Now, my only wish is that the Lazarev is renamed back to Frunze, a really cool name. And they say that both Ushakov and Lazarev is to be brought back to the fleet. Now where will they serve, one to PF and one to NF? That would make two Kirovs in each of the PF and NF. Wow!
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16302
    Points : 16933
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russian Navy: Status & News #1

    Post  GarryB on Wed Mar 30, 2011 4:33 am

    On paper the Mistrals are just helicopter carriers, but in the Russian fleet their command and communications suite actually makes them good solutions as flag ships to lead battle groups.

    How sad is that...

    It will be much better to have Kirov and Slava class vessels tooled up for that role because their size and capacity makes them better suited to the role.

    If the US simply decided to spend the money needed to start a little insurrection in Venezuela to get another puppet into power that will spend money on US military products instead of Chinese and Russian stuff... right now... apart from a little verbal complaining there is actually little the Russians could do about it.

    Being able to send a carrier group on the other hand for an impromptu visit sends a message... the important thing is that it sends a message to the US, but also to Hugo himself that there was extra value in buying products from Russia. It is like offering better after sales support. It means he knows that if there is an earthquake or tsunami in Venezuela that he wont have to rely on the embarrassment (for him) to accept US help... a couple of Mistrals arriving offshore with trucks to distribute aide and Helos to search for the missing etc will make a greater difference than all the positive media releases of talk about support.

    Austin

    Posts : 6234
    Points : 6640
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Location : India

    Re: Russian Navy: Status & News #1

    Post  Austin on Thu Mar 31, 2011 10:12 am

    The problem with old hulls specially rusty hulls is that they tend to be less sea worthy as time passes by , metal takes its wear and tear and a 15-20 years old ship over the period of next 15-20 years would be spending a lot of time in maintenance in the yards then out at sea compared to a new ship build today.

    They will spend massive huge amounts in making these ships sea worthy by adding new weapons , sensors , perhaps refueling its core and changing its machinery and spending billions of dollars and as she ages he hull will wear and tear much faster making it less sea worthy.

    I think they should spend money in buying capital ships like more Gorshkov , 6-8 mistral and build new aircraft carrier , buying old ships like Ukraina or spending billions in resurrecting is not worth the money if you compare the investement made versus its sea worthy capability in next 20 years

    avatar
    runaway

    Posts : 348
    Points : 369
    Join date : 2010-11-12
    Location : Sweden

    Re: Russian Navy: Status & News #1

    Post  runaway on Thu Mar 31, 2011 7:03 pm

    Austin wrote:The problem with old hulls specially rusty hulls is that they tend to be less sea worthy as time passes by , metal takes its wear and tear and a 15-20 years old ship over the period of next 15-20 years would be spending a lot of time in maintenance in the yards then out at sea compared to a new ship build today.

    They will spend massive huge amounts in making these ships sea worthy by adding new weapons , sensors , perhaps refueling its core and changing its machinery and spending billions of dollars and as she ages he hull will wear and tear much faster making it less sea worthy.

    Totaly wrong. Surface ships hulls can get very old, they do not get less seaworthy. Look at the old soviet icebreaker who was in service for 60 years. Look at the US Iowa battleships, they were in service from 1944-1992!

    Only problem with old ships is that they demand a very large crew, as they are little automated.

    Austin

    Posts : 6234
    Points : 6640
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Location : India

    Re: Russian Navy: Status & News #1

    Post  Austin on Thu Mar 31, 2011 7:07 pm

    runaway wrote:Totaly wrong. Surface ships hulls can get very old, they do not get less seaworthy. Look at the old soviet icebreaker who was in service for 60 years. Look at the US Iowa battleships, they were in service from 1944-1992!

    Only problem with old ships is that they demand a very large crew, as they are little automated.

    The real question to ask is how many times do they spend at sea in a year and how many months at the docks , if you look at old ships around you will see at the year passes by they would spend more time in the dock then at sea , hence practically they tend to be less useful for operation purpose and have more maintenance issues.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16302
    Points : 16933
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russian Navy: Status & News #1

    Post  GarryB on Fri Apr 01, 2011 4:38 am

    The problem with old hulls specially rusty hulls is that they tend to be
    less sea worthy as time passes by , metal takes its wear and tear and a
    15-20 years old ship over the period of next 15-20 years would be
    spending a lot of time in maintenance in the yards then out at sea
    compared to a new ship build today.

    The wear and tear is on systems not hulls.
    The Kirov and Slava class vessels were well designed, capable and popular vessels.
    Much of the older systems required relatively large crews, so a significant upgrade will greatly improve performance.
    These are not Iowa class battleships we are talking about where 50 men are required to operate each gun turret. The gun turrets of the Kirov were largely automated modern guns and any new guns will be even more automated. The old vertical launch systems on the Kirov had rotating magazines that allowed below deck access and maintainence on the missiles, but the new USUK launch cells will store and monitor the missiles automatically so they will be sealed systems... which will greatly reduce the maintainence work of the crew.

    There were actually 5 Kirov class hulls laid down, with the last vessel completed as a command ship, but with very little money making it to the armed forces it was laid up to save on operating costs.

    They will spend massive huge amounts in making these ships sea worthy by
    adding new weapons , sensors , perhaps refueling its core and changing
    its machinery and spending billions of dollars and as she ages he hull
    will wear and tear much faster making it less sea worthy.

    The money they spend will make the Kirovs in many ways much more similar to other vessels that will enter service in the next few years and that commonality will actually reduce costs for all the vessels.
    Any new propulsion system to be fitted to the Kirovs will likely also be fitted to the Kuznetsov when it gets its upgrade/overhaul, and also likely will be used in Russias future carriers after about 2020-2025.
    Again commonality within the fleet is a good thing.

    The main difference will be in numbers of weapons and types of weapons used and also propulsion, but being able to fit a standard vertical launch system from most naval SAMs and a vertical launch system for pretty much all other weapons on every Russian vessel and the minimising of types of sensors that can launch and control the entire range of weapons is a huge step forward for the Russian navy that will lead to much cheaper operation, simpler maintainence... because spares and support for a destroyers systems will be the same as for a frigates systems for example. It will also make Russian vessels much more flexible with a wide range of choices for load outs for different missions.

    I think they should spend money in buying capital ships like more
    Gorshkov , 6-8 mistral and build new aircraft carrier , buying old ships
    like Ukraina or spending billions in resurrecting is not worth the
    money if you compare the investement made versus its sea worthy
    capability in next 20 years

    The Gorshkov is not a capital ship... it is a Frigate!
    They don't need more than about 4 Mistrals. Mistrals are too big for the Black Sea and the Baltic Sea, and would really only be of use in the Pacific to protect the Kuril Islands and support operations in the Pacific, and in the Northern Fleet to support arctic operations.
    They are not able to perform a carrier role in the sense that they offer air cover for a naval force... they are good for what they were designed for.
    There is no point building a new carrier or class of carriers till you have the ships they will need to support them... and to be honest the shipyards making the new carrier would the the shipyard making the new large ships to support the carrier. Which comes first the chicken or the egg. Well it is not rocket science. A large ship is useful on its own... a Carrier on its own is vulnerable. A carrier with large ship support is the full tool set... not invincible, but far more powerful than any of its parts on their own.

    A full upgrade and overhaul of the Kirovs and Slavas will mean they will be able to operate fine for the next 40 years... as long as they are looked after and like any other system gets regular upgrades and overhauls.
    Brand new scratch build vessels would need a lot more testing and fitting out to make sure there are no design flaws and even when proven they will also need to be looked after and get regular upgrades and overhauls.

    Only problem with old ships is that they demand a very large crew, as they are little automated.

    The problem with the Iowa class vessels is that they were WWII designed battleships with enormous guns with little or no automation in their operation. This meant huge numbers of sailors were needed just to man each gun turret. The upgrades applied to them were largely cosmetic like some SAMs, CIWS, and some tomahawk launchers and new comms etc. Overall it was basically kept as a gunfire support vessel so they really just wanted those guns so a major upgrade was not warranted.

    The Kirov and Slava class vessels were already modern vessels and upgrades and overhauls for these ships could automate most systems to the point where their crews are a small fraction of what they were, which at about 700 was not exactly enormous for a ship this size. During Korea and Vietnam the Iowa class vessels had 2,000 more sailors than the Kirov and even after an upgrade it had 1,100 more sailors.

    The difference of course is that the Kirovs and Slavas are getting complete changes from relatively large and bulky old systems and sensors with new much more modern compact systems and sensors and equipment.

    The real question to ask is how many times do they spend at sea in a
    year and how many months at the docks , if you look at old ships around
    you will see at the year passes by they would spend more time in the
    dock then at sea , hence practically they tend to be less useful for
    operation purpose and have more maintenance issues.

    It is like the Mig-29. If you don't upgrade it you will find the parts for the old systems are hard to find because no one makes them any more. Upgrade to new systems and you can use modern parts which are easier to get and cheaper. I would agree the old Kirov would be difficult to put into service now because for a start the Granit is no longer made in Russia AFAIK. They would have to substitute the Vulkan instead... or if there is a replacement in the works whatever that might be.
    The point is that the upgrade for the Kirov will likely include weapons and sensors that will be used by most other new Russian navy vessels so maintaining the Kirov will only be more expensive because instead of 2 USUK vertical launch bins fitted to frigates the Kirov vessels might have 50 or 100.
    Go to your local electrical appliance shop and ask for a VCR so you can watch video tapes. You might be surprised how hard it is to still find such things.
    The upgrade and overhaul of the Kirov and Slava and for that matter the Kuznetsov should deal with the problems of supporting old out of production systems.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16302
    Points : 16933
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russian Navy: Status & News #1

    Post  GarryB on Fri Apr 01, 2011 4:43 am

    Another thing I didn't cover is that even US carriers are high maintainence and operate on a three role schedule.
    Operational, training, and overhaul. 6 Carriers for Russia would enable 3 in the Northern Fleet, and 3 in the Pacific Fleet, and of each of those three one carrier will be at sea, one will be in training and one will be in overhaul. Their support ships will operate in the same cycle.
    This will mean that for each carrier you will need a big ship... so it is not a case of banging out 2 large new ships and then banging out 2 carriers and problem solved... you will need rather more big ships to support each carrier. When you have Kirovs and Slavas available... that were designed for the battle group role in the first place... no disrespect meant Austin, but you would be a fool to just scrap them and throw them away.
    They might cost 5 billion to upgrade them all in the next 10 years, but in 20 years time that is probably how much each new big ship will cost to build with no guarantee they will get the new design right first time.
    avatar
    nightcrawler

    Posts : 535
    Points : 651
    Join date : 2010-08-20
    Age : 27
    Location : Pakistan

    Re: Russian Navy: Status & News #1

    Post  nightcrawler on Fri Apr 01, 2011 7:10 am

    @Garry
    The wear and tear is on systems not hulls.
    Why you said that sir.. I believe that hulls do suffer two types of.. say deformations:
    1] ordinary wear & tear [we know that already]
    2] latent defect [hard to detect;much deadly metallurgical fatigue/cracks..leading to full-scale rupture]
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16302
    Points : 16933
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russian Navy: Status & News #1

    Post  GarryB on Fri Apr 01, 2011 7:40 am

    Unless the hull has been damaged by running aground or a collision or it has suffered damage by being hit by a torpedo then it is generally fine for the lifetime of the ship.

    The hull of a ship is generally designed to be fairly strong and take a long service life in rough water.

    These vessels however have spent most of their lives sitting at piers doing very little.

    Austin

    Posts : 6234
    Points : 6640
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Location : India

    Re: Russian Navy: Status & News #1

    Post  Austin on Fri Apr 01, 2011 7:46 am

    GarryB wrote:These vessels however have spent most of their lives sitting at piers doing very little.

    Yeah and it will corrode the hulls and metal fatigue will creep in.

    Generally older ships have problem with machinery , boilers . The Hull itself does not cost much but the machinary , propulsion and electronic takes most of the cost of the ship like 80 % plus.

    Now with older ships if you replace the machinery,boilers , refuel it and replace the entire electronic and weapons , you might well replace the hull itself or just build a new ships.

    from what I have read they are replacing the electronics and weapons and will refuell the reactor , which IMHO is a bad deal since the older machinery will just give you more and more problem during its life and these are really old like 20 years or so.

    Its really a bad deal , they could have rather put that money in building new Gorshkov class Aircraft Carrier or build couple of new destroyers which would have lasted for 35-40 years.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16302
    Points : 16933
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russian Navy: Status & News #1

    Post  GarryB on Fri Apr 01, 2011 8:07 am

    I am no expert in ship design, but my understanding is that the ship hull is first put together and then it is floated out and sailed to another area to have propulsion and other material installed.

    The really big shipyards needed are needed to put the hull together... mounting or removing the propulsion can be done in smaller yards.

    If it was up to me I would remove the Kirov class complicated combined propulsion system and replace it with a more powerful and more modern and compact nuclear power unit that I would standardise and also put in the Slava class vessels I upgraded and also any carriers I was making or upgrading (including the Kuznetsov).
    The final carrier group we are creating will only operate as fast as its slowest vessel so its big ships all need to be fast and not limited by the speed of the refuelling ships.
    Edit: I would add that I would redesign all the ships... Kirovs and Slavas and any new carrier designs and the Kuznetsov, to modern smaller more powerful nuclear reactors, but I would also change them all to electric drive vessels with the nuclear reactors simply providing electrical power so they can be located in the centre of the vessels. The electric drive system should mean that the propellers could be fitted as pods at the front or the rear or both and make the vessels highly manoeuvrable. It will also make the design simpler and cheaper with less machinery and gearing... with no drive shaft or transmission.
    In practical terms it means also no rudders as the propeller pods can be used to precisely steer the ships... and of course the props can be run forward or in reverse instantly... a diesel will run backwards but normally has to be stopped first so reverse is normally handled by gearing and the transmission... electric drive eliminates this.
    Its really a bad deal , they could have rather put that money in
    building new Gorshkov class Aircraft Carrier or build couple of new
    destroyers which would have lasted for 35-40 years.

    Do you mean the modified Kiev class that was altered for the Indian Navy?
    It was modified because it was available... there are no other Kiev class carriers to modify so scratch building a new carrier modelled on it makes little sense.

    The Kirovs will be in service for another 30-40 years... this upgrade wont be their last and it wont be their most expensive upgrade either.

    The Slavas are in the same situation.


    Last edited by GarryB on Wed Apr 06, 2011 2:00 am; edited 1 time in total

    Sponsored content

    Re: Russian Navy: Status & News #1

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Sun Aug 20, 2017 5:27 pm