Russia Defence Forum

Would you like to react to this message? Create an account in a few clicks or log in to continue.

Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


+65
Dorfmeister
tanino
Mir
AZ-5
lancelot
Podlodka77
Krepost
ult
ALAMO
marcellogo
Broski
owais.usmani
The_Observer
calripson
Arrow
ATLASCUB
Admin
Gazputin
Rodion_Romanovic
Big_Gazza
SeigSoloyvov
Isos
d_taddei2
Gibraltar
Tingsay
dino00
kumbor
AMCXXL
marat
hoom
walle83
Singular_trafo
Singular_Transform
Hole
LMFS
Austin
verkhoturye51
JohninMK
The-thing-next-door
T-47
Nasr Hosein
GunshipDemocracy
miketheterrible
kvs
Tsavo Lion
Kimppis
Benya
eehnie
TheArmenian
Luq man
George1
GarryB
KiloGolf
sepheronx
AlfaT8
medo
Dima
zardof
PapaDragon
jhelb
franco
flamming_python
TR1
Vann7
Viktor
69 posters

    Russian Naval Construction Plans and Statistics Update

    avatar
    Arrow


    Posts : 1749
    Points : 1743
    Join date : 2012-02-12

    Russian Naval Construction Plans and Statistics Update - Page 25 Empty Re: Russian Naval Construction Plans and Statistics Update

    Post  Arrow Sat Oct 29, 2022 11:48 am

    after Nikolaev is Russian and there is no nearby front of the conflict) will be much better than giving money to foreign shipyards. wrote:

    It is not known whether Nikolaev will be Russian but another gigantic shipyard is to be built in Russia.
    Rodion_Romanovic
    Rodion_Romanovic


    Posts : 1771
    Points : 1755
    Join date : 2015-12-30
    Location : Merkelland

    Russian Naval Construction Plans and Statistics Update - Page 25 Empty Re: Russian Naval Construction Plans and Statistics Update

    Post  Rodion_Romanovic Sat Oct 29, 2022 1:33 pm

    Arrow wrote:

    It is not known whether Nikolaev will be Russian but another gigantic shipyard is to be built in Russia.
    Where?

    I know only about Zvezda and about something for Novatek in the Kola bay.

    There was some talk about a massive shipyard in Kotlin island near Sankt Petersburg, but I do not know the status.

    This will not anyway superseed the advantages about having back Nikolaev.
    avatar
    ALAMO


    Posts : 3475
    Points : 3477
    Join date : 2014-11-25

    Russian Naval Construction Plans and Statistics Update - Page 25 Empty Re: Russian Naval Construction Plans and Statistics Update

    Post  ALAMO Sat Oct 29, 2022 1:49 pm

    There is hardly any advantage to having Nikolayev shipyard.
    It is in a state of decomposition, and the whole infrastructure there is made back in the tsarist times. Soviets only expanded it.
    If anyone is to build a dreadnought, then yes, that would be a good address.
    Only needs to be grub up first ...

    GarryB, franco and Podlodka77 like this post

    Rodion_Romanovic
    Rodion_Romanovic


    Posts : 1771
    Points : 1755
    Join date : 2015-12-30
    Location : Merkelland

    Russian Naval Construction Plans and Statistics Update - Page 25 Empty Re: Russian Naval Construction Plans and Statistics Update

    Post  Rodion_Romanovic Sat Oct 29, 2022 2:31 pm

    ALAMO wrote:There is hardly any advantage to having Nikolayev shipyard.
    It is in a state of decomposition, and the whole infrastructure there is made back in the tsarist times. Soviets only expanded it.
    If anyone is to build a dreadnought, then yes, that would be a good address.
    Only needs to be grub up first ...

    To which one do you refer to? All of them? There was Nikolayev Shipyard (former communara 61), which is the the oldest of them, founded in 1789, where in 1900 the battleship potemkin was build (and where more recently te slava class cruisers were built).

    There was the black sea shipyard founded in 1895, where all the soviet aircrafts carriers where built (and which largest slipway was partially destroyed a few years ago to build the grain terminal).

    Finally there was Okean shipyard, build in 1951 and reconstructed in the 70s. It build only civilian ships and apparently it had a medium tonnage line (where they could  build vessels with maximum dimensions of 135x18 m, with a launching weight of 6,000 tons) and a large tonnage line with a massive dry dock (354x60x14 m) with two cranes with a capacity of 320 tons each.  According to public available info this line could be used for the construction of ships of maximum dimensions of 340x50x18 m.


    Probably the first two shipyards are in need of complete reconstruction, but Okean should still be in conditions no worse from what was Kerch shipyard in 2014.

    Furthermore even if they are in bad conditions, they are in good geographical location for building there modern shipyards, and it could be easier (albeit still expensive) to dismantle old equipment there and build there something new than in some location geographically unsuitable.

    Back to Kherson, which is already in Russian hands, albeit currently too close to the contact lines. This shipyard was apparently still somewhat active also recently, and is capable of building ships up to 180 metres long and with launching weight of 10000 tons. This shipyard should be of course the first to be involved, unless also the Mariupol shiprepairing yard could be also used for shipbuilding.


    Edit: In Nikolaev there is also the Nibulon shipyard, able to build ships up to 140 metres long, belonging to the grain export firm and basically the only ship building yard that was really active in the last years in the Ukraine.


    https://www.nibulon.com/data/branches/shipbuilding-and-repair-yard-nibulon/about-shipbuilding-and-repair-yard-nibulon.html


    Note: in 2019 they built there the Nibulon max, a 140m cargo ship and the longest cargo ship built in modern Ukraine.


    https://ubn.news/nibulon-commissioned-on-friday-the-nibulon-max-a-140-meter-long-grain-handling-ship-considered-to-be-the-longest-ship-built-in-independent-ukraine/

    Hole likes this post

    Hole
    Hole


    Posts : 8001
    Points : 7989
    Join date : 2018-03-24
    Age : 46
    Location : Scholzistan

    Russian Naval Construction Plans and Statistics Update - Page 25 Empty Re: Russian Naval Construction Plans and Statistics Update

    Post  Hole Sat Oct 29, 2022 5:25 pm

    ALAMO wrote:There is hardly any advantage to having Nikolayev shipyard.
    It is in a state of decomposition, and the whole infrastructure there is made back in the tsarist times. Soviets only expanded it.
    If anyone is to build a dreadnought, then yes, that would be a good address.
    Only needs to be grub up first ...

    New dreadnoughts...  unshaven
    caveat emptor
    caveat emptor


    Posts : 1287
    Points : 1289
    Join date : 2022-02-02
    Location : Murrica

    Russian Naval Construction Plans and Statistics Update - Page 25 Empty Re: Russian Naval Construction Plans and Statistics Update

    Post  caveat emptor Sat Oct 29, 2022 5:32 pm

    Rodion_Romanovic wrote:Where?

    I know only about Zvezda and about something for Novatek in the Kola bay.

    There was some talk about a massive shipyard in Kotlin island near Sankt Petersburg, but I do not know the status.

    This will not anyway superseed the advantages about having back Nikolaev.
    On Kotlin island next to Piter. 
    Problem with all these shipyards in Ukraine is, aside from need of massive investments is where to find all qualified workforce. Most of them didn't do shit for 30 years and competencies were lost. Whole Russian shipbuilding sector is still battling with same problem ( lack of qualified workforce).

    GarryB, Robert.V, ALAMO and Rodion_Romanovic like this post

    avatar
    ALAMO


    Posts : 3475
    Points : 3477
    Join date : 2014-11-25

    Russian Naval Construction Plans and Statistics Update - Page 25 Empty Re: Russian Naval Construction Plans and Statistics Update

    Post  ALAMO Sat Oct 29, 2022 6:03 pm

    Rodion_Romanovic wrote:[
    To which one do you refer to?

    Yeah, you are right - I was not precise.
    To the 61, as that is the most known one.
    We usually talk about that one when speaking about "The Nikolayev shipyard".
    The one you are addressing is in much better shape, still, it is one dock only.
    A big one, but constructed in the SU for one purpose only - to make carriers.
    All the assisting cluster was there.
    Today it would be considered as a relict - a yard that can build one ship of the size is ineffective.
    They have a smaller repair dock either, but both the big and the small one are being used for the same low scale repair or section assembling for years.
    All of that facilities are old age and require extensive rebuilding programs to be effective. All the new yards made in Russia are just another level, let it be a giant Zvezda or a small Pella.
    To have Nikolayev or not have it makes no difference.
    Rodion_Romanovic
    Rodion_Romanovic


    Posts : 1771
    Points : 1755
    Join date : 2015-12-30
    Location : Merkelland

    Russian Naval Construction Plans and Statistics Update - Page 25 Empty Re: Russian Naval Construction Plans and Statistics Update

    Post  Rodion_Romanovic Sat Oct 29, 2022 7:38 pm

    Well, the core of shipyard personnel could be formed already expert workers from other regions of Russia.
    But how to solve in general the issue of lack of qualified personnel? Organise state funded apprenticeships programs (both for normal workers and engineers) in each of the large and already established Russian shipyards (especially in Sankt Petersburg, but also in Zvezda, Amur, Crimea, etc), in order to educate and train new generation of workers, and then possibly rotate them in other shipyards? 

    If those apprenticeship programs are state funded (e.g salary for the trainees and engineering graduates are payed for the first 2 or 3 years by the state), that means that the shipyard themselves will not have to worry about the cost of getting new personnel to be trained.

    I thought about this because in the aeronautical sector in Europe, both Airbus and Rolls-Royce have similar programs (apprenticeships and graduate programs)

    In the case of those companies, they do not get exactly the salaries of the trainees paid by the state, but they get tax exemptions almost equivalent to that amount, so it is almost the same.

    E.g.
    https://www.airbus.com/en/careers/apprentices-and-pupils

    https://www.airbus.com/en/careers/graduates



    Quick consideration on Nikolaev:

    Here is the location of the shipyards I mentioned before (please ignore the Ukrainian naming of the city)


    Location C (in the north) is the delapidated Nikolaev shipyard (former communara 61)

    In location B there are, next to each other the Nibulon grain terminal, the former black sea shipyard and the small but active Nibulon shipyard (build probably in part of the territory of the black sea shipyard)

    Location A, to the south of Nikolaev, is where Okean shipyard is.
    Russian Naval Construction Plans and Statistics Update - Page 25 Screen10
    Krepost
    Krepost


    Posts : 525
    Points : 525
    Join date : 2021-12-08

    Russian Naval Construction Plans and Statistics Update - Page 25 Empty Re: Russian Naval Construction Plans and Statistics Update

    Post  Krepost Sun Oct 30, 2022 3:35 am

    Photo taken at Rybinsk shipyard:

    Two TARANTUL class missile boats (one of them nearly completed)
    One GRACHONOK patrol boat
    One 20360M (VLADIMIR PYALOV) class auxiliary

    Russian Naval Construction Plans and Statistics Update - Page 25 Molniy10

    franco, Hole and gc3762 like this post

    avatar
    ALAMO


    Posts : 3475
    Points : 3477
    Join date : 2014-11-25

    Russian Naval Construction Plans and Statistics Update - Page 25 Empty Re: Russian Naval Construction Plans and Statistics Update

    Post  ALAMO Sun Oct 30, 2022 8:32 am

    Those 1241 are sitting there like forever. They tried to sell them to Vietnam two decades ago or so.
    Podlodka77
    Podlodka77


    Posts : 1674
    Points : 1678
    Join date : 2022-01-06
    Location : Z

    Russian Naval Construction Plans and Statistics Update - Page 25 Empty Re: Russian Naval Construction Plans and Statistics Update

    Post  Podlodka77 Sun Oct 30, 2022 11:33 am

    The Russian Navy will very likely be even smaller than it is now.
    Apart from the problems with engines, it is necessary to finally select and reduce the number of projects under construction. It turns out that all projects of Russian surface warships are "unfinished" and that they are constantly being improved through construction. Due to the inefficiency and slowness of the construction, this should not be surprising, because since 2006, when the construction of the "Gorshkov" frigate began and 16 years have passed, only two frigates (Gorshkov and Kasatonov) of that project have been put into use. At the same time, the Chinese did build over 30 Type-054A project frigates and about the same number of Type-052C, Type-052D and Type-055 destroyers. That's why any comparison with China is ridiculous. The "Leopard" submarine has been undergoing modernization for over 10 years, and the same applies to the "Irkutsk" submarine, a complete mess.


    * Although the corvettes of projects 20380 and 20385 are similar in terms of displacement, they are still very different in terms of armament, while project 20386 is essentially a completely new ship.

    * The Russians started building 21631 Buyan-M projects and subsequently started building 22800 Karakurt small missile ships. The reason for this is that the project 22800 has much better sailing characteristics in rough seas. And the Russians again announce the increase of the combat kit and the construction of small missile ships of the project 21635 Sarsar.

    * Although the cessation of delivery of gas turbines from Ukroshitstan in 2014 is no justification for Russia, because one can justifiably ask why Russia waited for 23 years (from 1991 to 2014) to finally start designing gas turbines for the 22350 project. Eight years have passed since 2014, and the "Golovko" frigate has not yet begun sea trials, and I think that the question is whether the ship will be handed over to the Russian Navy next year. At the same time, "Isakov" has not yet been launched. It is a great shame for the country that builds 885M and 955A submarines. And in the end, here we come to a change in the project and it is already clear that from the fifth ship all frigates will have 24 or 32 cells in 3 to 4 UKSK.

    * Project 11711 also underwent changes, so the third and fourth ships (Vladimir Andreyev and Vasily Trushin) were significantly enlarged.

    * Any talk about project 22350M or about destroyers is completely meaningless after the above. Russian surface warships have no prospects (since the collapse of the USSR, nothing has been improved in terms of shipbuilding) and it remains to be seen whether Russia is at least able to build new submarines to replace projects 971 and 945A. That's why I'm just looking at Sevmash, although I'm already worried that the next in the 885M line, the submarine "Arkhangelsk", has been under construction for over 7.5 years and has not yet been launched. This means a minimum of 10 years until the introduction of that submarine into service and this leads to an imminent reduction in the number of operational SSN/SSGN submarines in the Russian Navy.

    owais.usmani likes this post

    lancelot
    lancelot


    Posts : 1568
    Points : 1570
    Join date : 2020-10-18

    Russian Naval Construction Plans and Statistics Update - Page 25 Empty Re: Russian Naval Construction Plans and Statistics Update

    Post  lancelot Sun Oct 30, 2022 12:10 pm

    There is no comparison really. You are comparing a navy which is in full swing in terms of production to one which is still trying to come up with the proper ship types to manufacture. Why don't you look at the Chinese ships from 1990-2010 then? It was a succession of pathetically obsolete ships, mishmashed designs, and poor designs in general made in homeopathic amounts until they came up with the ship types they have in service at the moment. I think the major mistake Russia made was believing they could import weapon components. After the Chinese were hit with sanctions following the Tiananmen Square incident in 1989 they have had severe restrictions on weapons imports. Given that experience and their previous experience with the Soviets withdrawing technical support after the Sino-Soviet split they basically demand the capability to license manufacture anything they use in their own military to any large degree. That is where I think Russia failed with its imports of MTU engines and Ukrainian gas turbines. They should have never put those in the critical production path without demanding tech transfer first.

    I think the Russian industry responded quite quickly to the gas turbine shortage. 5 years is the typical minimum for a project like that to enter production. Ramping up to mass production will take longer. The main issue is the goddamned diesels.

    Hole, limb, Mir and Broski like this post

    Podlodka77
    Podlodka77


    Posts : 1674
    Points : 1678
    Join date : 2022-01-06
    Location : Z

    Russian Naval Construction Plans and Statistics Update - Page 25 Empty Re: Russian Naval Construction Plans and Statistics Update

    Post  Podlodka77 Sun Oct 30, 2022 12:33 pm

    lancelot wrote:There is no comparison really. You are comparing a navy which is in full swing in terms of production to one which is still trying to come up with the proper ship types to manufacture. Why don't you look at the Chinese ships from 1990-2010 then? It was a succession of pathetically obsolete ships, mishmashed designs, and poor designs in general made in homeopathic amounts until they came up with the ship types they have in service at the moment. I think the major mistake Russia made was believing they could import weapon components. After the Chinese were hit with sanctions following the Tiananmen Square incident in 1989 they have had severe restrictions on weapons imports. Given that experience and their previous experience with the Soviets withdrawing technical support after the Sino-Soviet split they basically demand the capability to license manufacture anything they use in their own military to any large degree. That is where I think Russia failed with its imports of MTU engines and Ukrainian gas turbines. They should have never put those in the critical production path without demanding tech transfer first.

    I think the Russian industry responded quite quickly to the gas turbine shortage. 5 years is the typical minimum for a project like that to enter production. Ramping up to mass production will take longer. The main issue is the goddamned diesels.

    And where are the gas turbines you write about because "Golovko" was launched on May 22, 2020 and both turbines were installed inside the ship by December 2020. The ship still hasn't started sea trials. And what is the guarantee that even when it finally starts sea trials, there will be no malfunctions ?
    What is the justification that Russia, as a country with a largest nuclear arsenal (a fact), did not start designing and then building gas turbines immediately after the disintegration of the USSR ?
    30 years Lancelot, over 30 years have passed since 1991 and this kind of irresponsibility is not acceptable. They had over 30 years to start developing their own turbines and not be dependent on Ukroshitstan Zorya Mashproekt. And while you mention China in the period from 1990 to 2010, I have to write to you that the construction of project Type-054A frigates and Type-052C destroyers began before 2010. So, the Chinese already hinted in the zero years of the 21st century in which direction they were going.
    Which current Russian warship under construction would you turn against Type-052D and Type-055 destroyers ? Although they are far better armed than the Chinese Type-054A class frigates, the Russian Project 22350 frigates have neither the range nor the arsenal to counter the Chinese destroyers. Only two such frigates are in service after 16 years of construction - 16 years!!! I have already written about the fact that only American and Chinese warships have universal VLS, while European and Russian ships use separate VLS for air defense systems.
    Lancelot, who needs "technical support" now, the Chinese or the Russians ?
    avatar
    ALAMO


    Posts : 3475
    Points : 3477
    Join date : 2014-11-25

    Russian Naval Construction Plans and Statistics Update - Page 25 Empty Re: Russian Naval Construction Plans and Statistics Update

    Post  ALAMO Sun Oct 30, 2022 12:42 pm

    First of all, don't forget the totally different role of the navy for both countries.
    WMF task is to protect the nuclear missiles carriers, and that is very much of it ...
    Russian trade to this very moment was made by the land corridors and pipes ...
    While China is strongly dependant on global trade executed by sea.
    China is objectively speaking 5x bigger economy than the Russian one, so just multiply the Russian numbers by 5 ...
    And what you will have - is more or less what we see.
    Still, all Russian fleet modernization projects are much more effective than let's say European.

    GarryB and Mir like this post

    Podlodka77
    Podlodka77


    Posts : 1674
    Points : 1678
    Join date : 2022-01-06
    Location : Z

    Russian Naval Construction Plans and Statistics Update - Page 25 Empty Re: Russian Naval Construction Plans and Statistics Update

    Post  Podlodka77 Sun Oct 30, 2022 12:47 pm

    ALAMO wrote:First of all, don't forget the totally different role of the navy for both countries.
    WMF task is to protect the nuclear missiles carriers, and that is very much of it ...
    Russian trade to this very moment was made by the land corridors and pipes ...
    While China is strongly dependant on global trade executed by sea.
    China is objectively speaking 5x bigger economy than the Russian one, so just multiply the Russian numbers by 5 ...
    And what you will have - is more or less what we see.
    Still, all Russian fleet modernization projects are much more effective than let's say European.


    No bro, you're wrong this time. The fucking French and Italians have built 19 frigates of the FREMM class since 2007, and even the USA ordered 20 "Constellation" frigates based on those frigates.

    ALAMO likes this post

    avatar
    ALAMO


    Posts : 3475
    Points : 3477
    Join date : 2014-11-25

    Russian Naval Construction Plans and Statistics Update - Page 25 Empty Re: Russian Naval Construction Plans and Statistics Update

    Post  ALAMO Sun Oct 30, 2022 1:26 pm

    Not that I feel a particular need to defend Russkies here bro, but ... Laughing

    Re: France/Italy programs, we talk about two world-class marine powers, so there is nothing strange that they can construct&build relatively successful units.
    France's and Italy's defense budgets combined are bigger than the Russian one.
    Both nations are well established naval construction players for centuries, and none of them faced catastrophic events like the dissolution of the WarPac and the SU itself.
    Russkie are being continuously deprived of the possibility of a stable fleet modernization program, and that is both obvious and notorious.
    The 2014 coup was a giant blow to the Russian naval programs of all sorts, and I am impressed - frankly speaking - that they have managed to recover in a really short time.

    Yet, FREMM is just an oversized equivalent of a Russian corvette.
    It represents no bigger punch than 20380, objectively speaking.
    From this perspective, Russians made no worse - 20380, 20385, 20386, 11356 ...
    If we take let's say Horizon frigates, then again Russkie are not worse with 22350...

    Just take a look at the submarine construction program - what the Russians do there is mindblowing. There is no equivalent in Europe for that, no matter that the European combined defense spending fourfold the Russian ones.

    lancelot has a good point there.
    Chinese are just steadily expanding their capabilities, and that reflects the general condition of China itself.
    They became a global superpower in the last 2 decades and the biggest economy on the planet. They need a big, blue water navy because of the structure of the economy - big dependence on the sea route trade.
    That includes both the things they export and the crucial resources that they need to import, including the supply from Africa.
    It didn't take out of anywhere, you know. They needed time to master the situation, and a civilian construction peak was one of the reasons here. You need cadres to make a successful naval construction program, and you can't have those cadres with no big & effective marine construction sector. This is what Russkie have been building for more than a decade now, and belive me my friend, you will see the difference very soon.

    It is a matter of priorities if you ask my opinion dunno

    GarryB, Mir and Podlodka77 like this post

    lancelot
    lancelot


    Posts : 1568
    Points : 1570
    Join date : 2020-10-18

    Russian Naval Construction Plans and Statistics Update - Page 25 Empty Re: Russian Naval Construction Plans and Statistics Update

    Post  lancelot Sun Oct 30, 2022 2:07 pm

    Podlodka77 wrote:And where are the gas turbines you write about because "Golovko" was launched on May 22, 2020 and both turbines were installed inside the ship by December 2020. The ship still hasn't started sea trials. And what is the guarantee that even when it finally starts sea trials, there will be no malfunctions ?
    What is the justification that Russia, as a country with a largest nuclear arsenal (a fact), did not start designing and then building gas turbines immediately after the disintegration of the USSR ?
    ...
    I have already written about the fact that only American and Chinese warships have universal VLS, while European and Russian ships use separate VLS for air defense systems.
    It is like I said it took them roughly 5 years to put those marine gas turbines into production from when the project started in 2014. Which is pretty impressive. Yes it might have malfunctions like the UK has had issues with its propulsion units in the Type 45. So what? I am pretty sure if there are any issues they will be fixed.

    Remember that trade with Ukraine was pretty lopsided to begin with and with so many things needing funding after the breakup of the Soviet Union the naval combustion engines were like the last item on the list. It is not like they didn't have enough credits given that Ukraine always seemed to never pay for the natural gas they used. The only reason Russia went with things like the MTU diesel engines in the first place was because of the lack of on time delivery on the part of Ukraine of any military components they ordered. The only sector in Russia which had consistent funding in the 1990s was strategic weapons like the ICBM program.

    With regards to the VLS like others here told you, a universal VLS takes more space, and since Russia is still restrained to building smaller ship hulls they maximize their space with separate VLS for the land attack and air defense missiles. It is as simple as that.

    GarryB, ALAMO and Mir like this post

    Podlodka77
    Podlodka77


    Posts : 1674
    Points : 1678
    Join date : 2022-01-06
    Location : Z

    Russian Naval Construction Plans and Statistics Update - Page 25 Empty Re: Russian Naval Construction Plans and Statistics Update

    Post  Podlodka77 Sun Oct 30, 2022 2:17 pm

    ALAMO wrote:Not that I feel a particular need to defend Russkies here bro, but ... Laughing

    Re: France/Italy programs, we talk about two world-class marine powers, so there is nothing strange that they can construct&build relatively successful units.
    France's and Italy's defense budgets combined are bigger than the Russian one.
    Both nations are well established naval construction players for centuries, and none of them faced catastrophic events like the dissolution of the WarPac and the SU itself.
    Russkie are being continuously deprived of the possibility of a stable fleet modernization program, and that is both obvious and notorious.
    The 2014 coup was a giant blow to the Russian naval programs of all sorts, and I am impressed - frankly speaking - that they have managed to recover in a really short time.

    Yet, FREMM is just an oversized equivalent of a Russian corvette.
    It represents no bigger punch than 20380, objectively speaking.
    From this perspective, Russians made no worse - 20380, 20385, 20386, 11356 ...
    If we take let's say Horizon frigates, then again Russkie are not worse with 22350...

    Just take a look at the submarine construction program - what the Russians do there is mindblowing. There is no equivalent in Europe for that, no matter that the European combined defense spending fourfold the Russian ones.

    lancelot has a good point there.
    Chinese are just steadily expanding their capabilities, and that reflects the general condition of China itself.
    They became a global superpower in the last 2 decades and the biggest economy on the planet. They need a big, blue water navy because of the structure of the economy - big dependence on the sea route trade.
    That includes both the things they export and the crucial resources that they need to import, including the supply from Africa.
    It didn't take out of anywhere, you know. They needed time to master the situation, and a civilian construction peak was one of the reasons here. You need cadres to make a successful naval construction program, and you can't have those cadres with no big & effective marine construction sector. This is what Russkie have been building for more than a decade now, and belive me my friend, you will see the difference very soon.

    It is a matter of priorities if you ask my opinion dunno


    Alamo, my friend, the small missile ships of project 22800 are a direct consequence of 2014 and the cessation of deliveries of gas turbines from Ukroshitstan and Zorya-Mashproekt. Therefore, project 11356R and 22350 frigates were left without power units. I'm just writing that a country that builds intercontinental ballistic missiles, strategic bombers, tons of tanks and armored vehicles of all kinds - should not have allowed itself to get into this position.

    Since it is clear that there is no respect between the USA and Russia and there is no more agreement regarding long-range missiles, and therefore cruise missiles, then it is better to place two missiles on two or 4 trucks (depending on whether they are two or 4 Kalibr missiles) on truck, but to build small missile ships without sufficient navigation range, without serious radar systems, only with a close air defense system and without anti-submarine weapons.

    To standardize and improve the two existing classes of ships, that is, the corvette and the frigate, while it is necessary to work on the third "link" called the destroyer. The fourth is the landing ships of project 11711. This is the only correct solution;

    * The Chinese are building corvettes of the Type-056A project, which are not even servants to the Russian corvettes of the basic 20380 project (the 20385 is not even worth talking about in comparison with Type-056A), so the ideal solution is the 20386 corvette with two UKSK (16 missiles in total) and two VLS for the Redut (also 16 missiles) + Paket-NK for anti-submarine warfare. Also, these corvettes would carry the new "Otvet" torpedo rockets in their UKSK. In short; after 20385 you need to perfect 20386 (in constructin from 2016 !!!) or simply don't waste time and increase the production of 20385 corvettes and the corvette problem is solved..


    * Project 22350 frigates; finally finish the testing of the gas turbine and reducer and start the large-scale construction of the frigates of this project. Given the small displacement of these frigates but their impressive arsenal, these frigates do not have a long sailing range - according to Russian sources, about 4,500 nautical miles at a sailing speed of about 14 knots.


    * destroyers; Ships that would have a range of over 6,000 miles with an economic cruising speed of about 18 knots are not yet under construction in Russia. Project 1164 cruisers have an economical cruising speed of around 18 knots and a range of 6000+ nautical miles. Apart from a much longer sailing range, these ships would have at least twice as many UKSKs as the upgraded project 22350 frigates, which should have 24 (3 UKSKs). It is certain that these ships would also have a naval variant of the Pantsir or Tor-M2 system. And the ship's electronic equipment would be at a slightly higher level, with the possible possibility of carrying two helicopters.

    * landing craft; it is necessary to continue with the construction of the additional number of this project 11711, while the ships of project 23900 are still far from the end of construction and with the construction of a solid air wing made of attack drones and helicopters, their application makes sense.

    * FOREVER GOODBYE to ;Small missile ships of projects 21631 and 22800, as well as patrol ships of project 22160; insufficient sailing range, there are only extremely close range systems (at 21631 with Gibka system) and only Pantsir (22800 project and from the third ship), while 22160 has nothing. There are no anti-submarine weapons on those ships, while there are no missile weapons on the 22160, but it does have a helicopter.

    ALAMO likes this post

    Rodion_Romanovic
    Rodion_Romanovic


    Posts : 1771
    Points : 1755
    Join date : 2015-12-30
    Location : Merkelland

    Russian Naval Construction Plans and Statistics Update - Page 25 Empty Re: Russian Naval Construction Plans and Statistics Update

    Post  Rodion_Romanovic Sun Oct 30, 2022 2:24 pm

    lancelot. wrote:With regards to the VLS like others here told you, a universal VLS takes more space, and since Russia is still restrained to building smaller ship hulls they maximize their space with separate VLS for the land attack and air defense missiles. It is as simple as that.
    Yeah, it depends also by the type of missiles but it is not necessarily better to have totally universal VLS, also because smaller missiles are usually also shorter, so even if you can put with adaptor 4 of them in one VLS it is not generally easy to stack them vertically.

    So having two types of VLS could also be seen as optimization for the internal space of the ship.
    Maybe what can be done is keeping the redut VLS for the medium and short range air defence missiles, and use the larger VLS (shared with kalibr/onyx/Zirkon, etc) for the 400 km range air defence missiles.

    GarryB and ALAMO like this post

    Podlodka77
    Podlodka77


    Posts : 1674
    Points : 1678
    Join date : 2022-01-06
    Location : Z

    Russian Naval Construction Plans and Statistics Update - Page 25 Empty Re: Russian Naval Construction Plans and Statistics Update

    Post  Podlodka77 Sun Oct 30, 2022 2:43 pm

    lancelot wrote:
    Podlodka77 wrote:And where are the gas turbines you write about because "Golovko" was launched on May 22, 2020 and both turbines were installed inside the ship by December 2020. The ship still hasn't started sea trials. And what is the guarantee that even when it finally starts sea trials, there will be no malfunctions ?
    What is the justification that Russia, as a country with a largest nuclear arsenal (a fact), did not start designing and then building gas turbines immediately after the disintegration of the USSR ?
    ...
    I have already written about the fact that only American and Chinese warships have universal VLS, while European and Russian ships use separate VLS for air defense systems.
    It is like I said it took them roughly 5 years to put those marine gas turbines into production from when the project started in 2014. Which is pretty impressive. Yes it might have malfunctions like the UK has had issues with its propulsion units in the Type 45. So what? I am pretty sure if there are any issues they will be fixed.

    Remember that trade with Ukraine was pretty lopsided to begin with and with so many things needing funding after the breakup of the Soviet Union the naval combustion engines were like the last item on the list. It is not like they didn't have enough credits given that Ukraine always seemed to never pay for the natural gas they used. The only reason Russia went with things like the MTU diesel engines in the first place was because of the lack of on time delivery on the part of Ukraine of any military components they ordered. The only sector in Russia which had consistent funding in the 1990s was strategic weapons like the ICBM program.

    With regards to the VLS like others here told you, a universal VLS takes more space, and since Russia is still restrained to building smaller ship hulls they maximize their space with separate VLS for the land attack and air defense missiles. It is as simple as that.


    Have you already forgotten that Ukroshitstan cut into pieces 10 Tu-160s back in the nineties under US pressure and that due to the Russian threat regarding Ukraine's debt for gas payments, Ukroshitstans had to deliver to Russia 8 Tu-160s and 3 Tu-95MS, as well as over 570 H-55 missiles ?
    Wasn't that enough of an indicator for Russia to start developing its own turbines back in the nineties ?
    There is no justification for gas turbines, and I stand by my statement because Russia had to have strategic planning and even in the 1990s it was clear in what direction Ukroshitstan was going.
    The bottom line is that corvettes 20380 and frigates 22350 are universal ships and have anti-submarine, anti-ship and anti-aircraft weapons, as well as a cannon and a helicopter. Project 20385 corvettes have significantly raised the "ladder" and these corvettes have a 33,3% increased number of missiles from the Redut system compared to 20380 and because those corvettes have one UKSK they have the ability to launch the P-800 Onyx, 3M-14 Kalibr or 3M54 Kalibr, and therefore the "Otvet" missile-torpedo. This most likely also means the possibility of new 3M22 hypersonic missiles could be launched from 20385 corvettes.

    ALAMO, limb and Mir like this post

    avatar
    ALAMO


    Posts : 3475
    Points : 3477
    Join date : 2014-11-25

    Russian Naval Construction Plans and Statistics Update - Page 25 Empty Re: Russian Naval Construction Plans and Statistics Update

    Post  ALAMO Sun Oct 30, 2022 2:58 pm

    Podlodka77 wrote:
    Alamo, my friend, the small missile ships of project 22800 are a direct consequence of 2014 and the cessation of deliveries of gas turbines from Ukroshitstan and Zorya-Mashproekt. Therefore, project 11356R and 22350 frigates were left without power units. I'm just writing that a country that builds intercontinental ballistic missiles, strategic bombers, tons of tanks and armored vehicles of all kinds - should not have allowed itself to get into this position.

    Yes you are right, yet you need two for a tango.
    Russia was not in the position of reestablishing its own production cap for everything the SU produced, and remember that even the SU was not self-sufficient, especially in the shipbuilding business.
    Tons of other countries supplied them with whole ships, components, and even bloody marine-rated cables supplied from Poland.
    Were they unable to make a cables? Sure not.
    But that was a distribution along the COMECON. They have not produced some things, to support the other economies and distribute both the know&how and welfare.
    Now you have a huge bomb exploding - COMECON ceases to exist on a night shift. Your economy is being torn to pieces, you have not only lost the complementary industry that supplied you with subsystems, but your very own country is ceasing to exist.
    Your marine grade steel sheets are being produced in the other country.
    So are your engines, steering gears, shafts, even fuckin' windows not being supplied from the GDR anymore, as the GDR ceased to exist either.
    And guess what? You have no cash to localize the production in your country. You don't have the production facilities, the whole production clusters are abroad now. Those were here only yesterday, you woke up, and you need a customs clearance to be made to import something that you just asked to deliver a week ago from the other city in YOUR country.
    The recovery they have made in the last decade+ is impressive. I was in this business, a long time ago but still remember.
    Sometimes you dance to the music you don't like, as there is no other for the party Wink

    Podlodka77 wrote:
    * FOREVER GOODBYE to ;Small missile ships of projects 21631 and 22800, as well as patrol ships of project 22160; insufficient sailing range, there are only extremely close range systems (at 21631 with Gibka system) and only Pantsir (22800 project and from the third ship), while 22160 has nothing. There are no anti-submarine weapons on those ships, while there are no missile weapons on the 22160, but it does have a helicopter.

    I seriously disagree.
    Those ships play an extremely important role in the whole Russian Navy concept, and de facto closing a niche of impotence Russkie always had with their fleet. No matter how big it was, it was separated into different theatres of operation, unable to relocate quickly and achieve local dominance. This is how it was defeated by an inferior enemy.
    Now with that mosquito fleet they finally achieved the flexibility and potential to make a secret, safe and effective dominance at demanded front.
    Sure you can kill the locks, block the river routes, but you can do perfectly nothing to defeat a 2500km range cruise missiles carrier that sits hidden in the grassy shore of Ladoga lake and covers the whole of Europe with its missiles.
    I like those small ugly motherf*ukers.
    Like them a lot bro Laughing Laughing

    Rodion_Romanovic, Hole, limb, lancelot, Mir, Broski and Podlodka77 like this post

    Podlodka77
    Podlodka77


    Posts : 1674
    Points : 1678
    Join date : 2022-01-06
    Location : Z

    Russian Naval Construction Plans and Statistics Update - Page 25 Empty Re: Russian Naval Construction Plans and Statistics Update

    Post  Podlodka77 Sun Oct 30, 2022 4:34 pm

    OK ALAMO, this picture is for you; on the left the project 22800 Karakurt and on the right 21631 Buyan-M.

    Russian Naval Construction Plans and Statistics Update - Page 25 Malyi-11

    ALAMO, zardof, lancelot and Broski like this post

    GarryB
    GarryB


    Posts : 34889
    Points : 35407
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Russian Naval Construction Plans and Statistics Update - Page 25 Empty Re: Russian Naval Construction Plans and Statistics Update

    Post  GarryB Mon Oct 31, 2022 5:42 am

    Wasn't that enough of an indicator for Russia to start developing its own turbines back in the nineties ?

    Nobody else was buying their ship gas turbine propulsion systems and Russia was also the main user of Motor Sichs' helicopter engines for Hinds and Hips and Havocs and Hokums and Helix and also the bigger engines for Halos.

    The Orcs were arseholes but who knew they would commit suicide and cut off their biggest customer?

    In the 1990s you could probably predict they would be total dicks but there were thousands of other technologies that also needed to be developed in Russia that were a higher priority at the time... helicopter engines were more important than engines for new ships considering how few new ships they were building anyway.

    It is very good that Klimov managed to get helicopter engines into production in an improved design and into production, and they are still working on bigger engines for bigger aircraft (helicopters and transport planes).

    They will build solutions for their other gas turbine powered corvettes and frigates but if destroyers and larger ships are going to be nuclear powered then they won't be needing an enormous number of ship propulsion systems anyway.

    Next gen stuff seem to be going to electric motors anyway in ships and subs and aircraft and ground vehicles (tanks, IFVs, APCs, prime movers, buses, trucks, cars, bikes, trains, etc etc etc).

    They can't invest in everything at once and have to make choices.

    They are likely going to need a civilian fleet of ships as well to sell goods around the world without fear of western sanctions.

    They are going to have to expand and upgrade all of their existing shipyards... military and civilian.

    Broski likes this post

    lancelot
    lancelot


    Posts : 1568
    Points : 1570
    Join date : 2020-10-18

    Russian Naval Construction Plans and Statistics Update - Page 25 Empty Re: Russian Naval Construction Plans and Statistics Update

    Post  lancelot Mon Oct 31, 2022 7:02 am

    The UEC Saturn M90FR gas turbine is powerful enough to make destroyers. Just use four engines instead of two.

    Once the PD-35 engine is available then that engine core might be repurposed for naval engines. Similarly to what the Brits did with the Rolls Royce MT30. That engine should have 35 MW power instead of 20 MW and would enable a new generation of ship designs.

    As for cruisers they can simply use nuclear power. Russia has the RITM-200 nuclear reactor.

    LMFS, Hole and Broski like this post

    avatar
    Arrow


    Posts : 1749
    Points : 1743
    Join date : 2012-02-12

    Russian Naval Construction Plans and Statistics Update - Page 25 Empty Re: Russian Naval Construction Plans and Statistics Update

    Post  Arrow Mon Oct 31, 2022 7:51 am

    They already have much more powerful RITM 400 reactors that will power the new Lider icebreakers in the first place.

    Hole and Broski like this post


    Sponsored content


    Russian Naval Construction Plans and Statistics Update - Page 25 Empty Re: Russian Naval Construction Plans and Statistics Update

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Wed Dec 07, 2022 11:06 am