Russian Naval Shipbuilding Industry: News

Vladimir79 wrote:The goal has always been projecting power far beyond your shores.  We did that during the Soviet by having the largest fleet of nuclear attack subs that has ever existed.  The Kremlin decided we could never afford to keep up with the carrier race with the US so the only way to operate safely was under the waves.  We could go anywhere and destroy anything on or under the water.  

Today the ambitions have to be scaled back.  The plan was to model a blue water navy like France, one that was affordable yet powerful when needed and having a fleet of smaller vessels to monitor a large EEZ.  The French have been able to maintain and upgrade this model, 

If the only goal was to protect our shores from American carriers that could be solved by a powerful Air Force with a large amount of tankers.    

I agree on almost everything just Id add that flag waving is important for political motives/PR.  
BTW reasonable aircraft carrying ships are planned. Sine MoD started VSTOL fighter project, to me looks like this will be closer to TAKR concept then 100ktons monster.
But we need to live to see. This year CV project competition should be finalized . Well see what vision o f blue water navy won.

V79 wrote: every time we try to get there something gets in the way to scuttle it.

IMHO not "something" but deliberate attack from west. Once Russia gets too independent west finds reason to attack with sanctions/info war. This is correlated to me.

Vladimir79 wrote:

GarryB wrote:

And when it fails they will have neither...

Maybe it will, maybe it won't.  There is certainly no budget to develop Super Carriers.  

Im look ng forward to hear Garry's response

Vladimir79 wrote:...The French have been able to maintain and upgrade this model, every time we try to get there something gets in the way to scuttle it...

What was scuttling was having production chain strewn across former USSR with all problems that creates but due to recent events that part seems to be handled wether they like it or not

Other problem was lack of commitment to type of platform they want to build and constant change of plans and redesigns halfway through construction

If they finally commit to Gorshkov platform this will be sorted out

As for nuke subs they should accept the fact that good subs aren't cheap and that fewer good ones are better than lots of not as good ones, basically order more Yasens while you can

Vladimir79 wrote:...Maybe it will, maybe it won't. There is certainly no budget to develop Super Carriers...

Not that they are needed anyway

Also, get ready for five pages of angry replies

Maybe it will, maybe it won't. There is certainly no budget to develop Super Carriers.

The supercarrier is by definition more of a US 100K ton Nimitz or Ford class... Russia would be better off with nothing than with those expensive white elephants.

As previously mentioned the new multi hull hybrid being suggested is 45K tons or so with a capacity slightly better than the current Kuznetsov and a much larger deck area and internal volume... at worst I am suggesting a 70k ton vessel optimised for what the Russian Navy wants... AWACS and fighters to defend a surface group of ships.

There is no value in a colonial carrier to overthrow countries and steal resources from the weak... the US simply would not put up with that sort of competition and would create direct confrontations leading to a war where everyone dies.

The days of trying to maintain the largest nuclear sub fleet are over. There is not much money left for conventional weapons. We must do procurement in a scaled back and rational way.

A smaller more modern fleet is necessary, but fixed wing fighters and AWACS platforms will allow them to be smaller in number but no less capable and vulnerable.

A modern destroyer can have the firepower that in the 1980s only a Kirov cruiser could have and with balanced modern ships that are fully multirole you don't need 20 ship carrier groups.

BTW reasonable aircraft carrying ships are planned. Sine MoD started VSTOL fighter project, to me looks like this will be closer to TAKR concept then 100ktons monster.

Have repeatedly said 100K ton ships are not even in consideration, but you keep bringing them up as the only alternative.

The huge irony is that the multihull proposal is in the 40-45K ton range with a bigger deck and slightly bigger capacity than Kuznetsov... and right in the ball park of what the French currently have... my suggestion is either this with real STOL fighters or a 70K ton like the UK are building two of, but you keep claiming I am suggesting a Ford clone if it makes you feel big.

every time we try to get there something gets in the way to scuttle it.

The west is afraid of a strong independent Russia... and a strong independent China... in fact a strong independent anything they don't control.

It will just take a little longer.

Which is not to suggest there are no internal problems either... their corvettes seem rather good, and their frigates seem to be pretty good too, but getting production up will always be an issue, but the standardisation should help even if the multirole capacity makes them rather more complicated than previous small vessels they used to make.

there will be factions within the navy and the MIC wanting small carriers and VSTOL aircraft because if they work they might end up cheaper, and there will be others who think smaller is not always cheaper... especially if it is too small to get the job done.

You can get away with small like Mistral, because it is not small it is a big helicopter carrier... operating with a real carrier for real air support it is very capable and fully multirole... but thinking you can get away with just more small ships and use some as helicopter landing craft and some as mini carriers like the Hermes and Invincible... well they made it work but it didn't really work well and if you add the cost of the ships lost because they didn't have proper air control then you would probably do what they did and get rid of those little carriers and make your next carrier a 70K ton ship.

Other problem was lack of commitment to type of platform they want to build and constant change of plans and redesigns halfway through construction

The problem is that the people are so certain of what they really need like many members on this board can't really prove why their choice is right or better than any other choice... some are obviously wrong... tried before and rejected... the mini carrier with STOVL fighters, and the obvious 100K ton carriers with all the bells and whistles...

The real question seems to be do they go for 40K tons or 70 K tons... they already have the 55 K tons in the middle and seem to think it is not ideal.

Also, get ready for five pages of angry replies

Funny from the guy whose main complaint at my suggestion of slightly larger than the K (slightly larger than 55K ton) carriers is that they wont be able to take on all those thousands of US carrier based aircraft...

GarryB wrote:

Maybe it will, maybe it won't. There is certainly no budget to develop Super Carriers.

The supercarrier is by definition more of a US 100K ton Nimitz or Ford class... Russia would be better off with nothing than with those expensive white elephants.

As previously mentioned the new multi hull hybrid being suggested is 45K tons or so with a capacity slightly better than the current Kuznetsov and a much larger deck area and internal volume... at worst I am suggesting a 70k ton vessel optimised for what the Russian Navy wants... AWACS and fighters to defend a surface group of ships.

There is no value in a colonial carrier to overthrow countries and steal resources from the weak... the US simply would not put up with that sort of competition and would create direct confrontations leading to a war where everyone dies.

The days of trying to maintain the largest nuclear sub fleet are over. There is not much money left for conventional weapons. We must do procurement in a scaled back and rational way.

A smaller more modern fleet is necessary, but fixed wing fighters and AWACS platforms will allow them to be smaller in number but no less capable and vulnerable.

A modern destroyer can have the firepower that in the 1980s only a Kirov cruiser could have and with balanced modern ships that are fully multirole you don't need 20 ship carrier groups.

BTW reasonable aircraft carrying ships are planned. Sine MoD started VSTOL fighter project, to me looks like this will be closer to TAKR concept then 100ktons monster.

Have repeatedly said 100K ton ships are not even in consideration, but you keep bringing them up as the only alternative.

The huge irony is that the multihull proposal is in the 40-45K ton range with a bigger deck and slightly bigger capacity than Kuznetsov... and right in the ball park of what the French currently have... my suggestion is either this with real STOL fighters or a 70K ton like the UK are building two of, but you keep claiming I am suggesting a Ford clone if it makes you feel big.

every time we try to get there something gets in the way to scuttle it.

The west is afraid of a strong independent Russia... and a strong independent China... in fact a strong independent anything they don't control.

It will just take a little longer.

Which is not to suggest there are no internal problems either... their corvettes seem rather good, and their frigates seem to be pretty good too, but getting production up will always be an issue, but the standardisation should help even if the multirole capacity makes them rather more complicated than previous small vessels they used to make.

there will be factions within the navy and the MIC wanting small carriers and VSTOL aircraft because if they work they might end up cheaper, and there will be others who think smaller is not always cheaper... especially if it is too small to get the job done.

You can get away with small like Mistral, because it is not small it is a big helicopter carrier... operating with a real carrier for real air support it is very capable and fully multirole... but thinking you can get away with just more small ships and use some as helicopter landing craft and some as mini carriers like the Hermes and Invincible... well they made it work but it didn't really work well and if you add the cost of the ships lost because they didn't have proper air control then you would probably do what they did and get rid of those little carriers and make your next carrier a 70K ton ship.

Other problem was lack of commitment to type of platform they want to build and constant change of plans and redesigns halfway through construction

The problem is that the people are so certain of what they really need like many members on this board can't really prove why their choice is right or better than any other choice... some are obviously wrong... tried before and rejected... the mini carrier with STOVL fighters, and the obvious 100K ton carriers with all the bells and whistles...

The real question seems to be do they go for 40K tons or 70 K tons... they already have the 55 K tons in the middle and seem to think it is not ideal.

Also, get ready for five pages of angry replies

Funny from the guy whose main complaint at my suggestion of slightly larger than the K (slightly larger than 55K ton) carriers is that they wont be able to take on all those thousands of US carrier based aircraft...

Evidently, there was technological progress in the way of miniaturisation of weapons` and electronics from 80s on, but, nobody can tell that 15.000ton hull is nowadays less combat protected and as vulnerable as 5.000ton hull!. Remember KNM Helge Ingstad case a couple of months ago! State of the art, very expensive, almost new warship was ripped open like a can and sank beyond repair due to silly mistake in navigation and communication. Yes I am a fan of big, armoured battleships of the past, but there are shipbuilding principles that are not to be neglected, no matter wnen, no matter how!

GarryB wrote:

Maybe it will, maybe it won't. There is certainly no budget to develop Super Carriers.

The supercarrier is by definition more of a (1) US 100K ton Nimitz or Ford class... Russia would be better off with nothing than with those expensive white elephants.

As previously(@) mentioned the new multi hull hybrid being suggested is 45K tons or so with a capacity slightly better than the current Kuznetsov and a much larger deck area and internal volume... at worst I am suggesting a 70k ton vessel optimised for what the Russian Navy wants... AWACS and fighters to defend a surface group of ships.

(1) Shtorm is supercarrier

(2)waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaat ? a dinky pocket CV? what did you do to our GarryB dude ?!
But yes this precisely what makes sense for RuN IMHO

There is no value in a colonial carrier to overthrow countries and steal resources from the weak... the US simply would not put up with that sort of competition and would create direct confrontations leading to a war where everyone dies.

but Krylov's 44ktons pocket one one IS a colonial wars carrier.

GB wrote:

The days of trying to maintain the largest nuclear sub fleet are over. There is not much money left for conventional weapons. We must do procurement in a scaled back and rational way.

A smaller more modern fleet is necessary, but fixed wing fighters and AWACS platforms will allow them to be smaller in number but no less capable and vulnerable.
A modern destroyer can have the firepower that in the 1980s only a Kirov cruiser could have and with balanced modern ships that are fully multirole you don't need 20 ship carrier groups.

True same with downsizing CVNs. No need for 60-70 as 40 will do.

GB wrote:

BTW reasonable aircraft carrying ships are planned. Sine MoD started VSTOL fighter project, to me looks like this will be closer to TAKR concept then 100ktons monster.

The huge irony is that the multihull proposal is in the 40-45K ton range with a bigger deck and slightly bigger capacity than Kuznetsov... and right in the ball park of what the French currently have... my suggestion is either this with real STOL fighters or a 70K ton like the UK are building two of, but you keep claiming I am suggesting a Ford clone if it makes you feel big.

if you read my posts with understanding, not "forum rage" you'd see i am talking about 40-50ktons, 20-30 fighters class which was os far ...dinky to you
My only remark is - due to different set of tasks then US number of ASw helos could be increased sometime like Kuz originally. But drones could compensate of copurse.

GB wrote:Which is not to suggest there are no internal problems either... their corvettes seem rather good, and their frigates seem to be pretty good too, but getting production up will always be an issue, but the standardisation should help even if the multirole capacity makes them rather more complicated than previous small vessels they used to make.

there will be factions within the navy and the MIC wanting small carriers and VSTOL aircraft because if they work they might end up cheaper, and there will be others who think smaller is not always cheaper... especially if it is too small to get the job done.

(1) there will be no helo carriers which was already long time officially stated
(2) Cost effectiveness is measured according to Navy 2020-30 doctrine neither Falklands 80' scenarios nor on 1940's midway ones.

GB wrote:The real question seems to be do they go for 40K tons or 70 K tons... they already have the 55 K tons in the middle and seem to think it is not ideal.

Because she is no CVN but conventionally powered TAKR and old with aging deck fighters ?

kumbor wrote: Evidently, there was technological progress in the way of miniaturisation of weapons` and electronics from 80s on, but, nobody can tell that 15.000ton hull is nowadays less combat protected and as vulnerable as 5.000ton hull!. Remember KNM Helge Ingstad case a couple of months ago! State of the art, very expensive, almost new warship was ripped open like a can and sank beyond repair due to silly mistake in navigation and communication. Yes I am a fan of big, armoured battleships of the past, but there are shipbuilding principles that are not to be neglected, no matter wnen, no matter how!

he he battleships in hypersonic missiles and tactical nukes... MAKE SENSE . BTW 1143  Kiev was built to sustain 30ktons explosion in 2 kms and...keep on fighting

Согласно существовавшим в то время требованиям противоатомной защиты, боеспособность корабля должна была сохраняться при воздушном взрыве 30-килотонного ядерного заряда на удалении 2000 м. При этом непотопляемость обеспечивалась при затоплении любых четырёх смежных отсеков (без учета ангара, где границей непотопляемости являлась 5-я палуба, и указанный показатель составлял три отсека)
+++
According to the requirements of anti-nuclear protection at that time, the ship’s combat capability was to be maintained with an air explosion of a 30-kiloton nuclear charge at a distance of 2000 m. At the same time, unsinkability was ensured when any four adjacent compartments were flooded (without taking into account the hangar, where , and this figure was three compartments).

.

and armored too

The presence on board the ASR "1143 Kiev" of completely numerous rocket, artillery and anti-submarine complexes, designed for solving various combat missions, is not typical for an aircraft carrier, predetermined a kind of "hybrid" type of ship architecture.

The system set the body along the entire length was longitudinal, in the extremities - transverse. The body and the two lower tiers of the 9-tier superstructure were made of AK- 25 steel (up to 30 mm thick) and AK -27 (over 35 mm) steel. The superstructure, starting from the 3rd tier and above, was made from AMg. All vertical surfaces of the superstructure, chimney and the hull itself were made inclined from the vertical (up to 10 °) in order to minimize the size of the radar field and, as a result, the visibility of the ship as a whole. It must be said that the decisions made then by the specialists of Nevsky PKB in some cases anticipated the technology of "stealth", to which so much attention is paid today in the West.

http://ship.bsu.by/ship/100000

GarryB wrote:

The supercarrier is by definition more of a US 100K ton Nimitz or Ford class... Russia would be better off with nothing than with those expensive white elephants.

As previously mentioned the new multi hull hybrid being suggested is 45K tons or so with a capacity slightly better than the current Kuznetsov and a much larger deck area and internal volume... at worst I am suggesting a 70k ton vessel optimised for what the Russian Navy wants... AWACS and fighters to defend a surface group of ships.

There is no value in a colonial carrier to overthrow countries and steal resources from the weak... the US simply would not put up with that sort of competition and would create direct confrontations leading to a war where everyone dies.

What the state armaments programme had been pushing certainly qualified as a supercarrier. The problem was the designers forgot we didn't have a shipyard that could build it. With the sinking of PD 50 we don't even have a drydock to refit what we have.

The current plans are to base a system on the facilities we have that can construct and maintain vessels of certain sizes. The largest that is right now is a Mistral size and what had been planned for. Just because the French sold off our ships to Egypt doesn't mean the infrastructure disappeared. The USC received much needed upgrades out of the deal and got it for almost nothing.

The US would have no choice but to put up with it because if they start something... everyone dies.

The largest that is right now is a Mistral size and what had been planned for.

For VTOL fighter use, Mistral is small. Unless they just want the fighters as a second capability.

If they want a naval aviation, they will need something that looks like a carrier. Light Shtorm being the minimum design with very small hangars, no UKSK, no anti-air VLS...

They have a shipyard that can build 100kT ships. They only lack money for it.

Isos wrote:
They have a shipyard that can build 100kT ships. They only lack money for it.

I'd say low priority. There seem to be money for Gorskhovs-M, Liders. I dont think "aircraft carrier" of Mistral size wili be even considered. You dont need to develop fighter for 18ktons ship.

There was some recent discussion about validity of naval Azipods, interesting that Zvezdochka has finished development of a domestic Russian 9MW azipod https://bmpd.livejournal.com/3584640.html

Only the 3rd manufacturer in the world.
Specifically stated as designed for Icebreakers but could be a thing that crops up elsewhere too.

The future of ships is all electric propulsion, which means the end of an engine or boiler with long heavy shafts attached to the main propellers.

I have mentioned the analogy of the motor car where the engine is actually moved from where it is to being an electric motor inside the wheel, or in this case an electric motor with a propeller attached in a pod.

It means you could put the electric generation system anywhere... put it somewhere where it can be lifted out and replaced like a battery... for instance...

That battery might be a compact nuclear power plant or it could be a self contained module with a gas turbine engine and fuel supply attached to an electric generator, or a diesel generator connected to an electric generator.

Connections to batteries and fuel cells and capacitors will enable all sorts of power generation options but electric motors will be the standard propulsion of the vehicle.

More useful for a car than a boat, but coming down hills means not only not using power, but actually recovering small amounts too...

Imagine a Yacht with sails made of a flexible material with solar panels in it so it can generate speed from wind and sun based energy can be stored for when there is no wind.... instead of heavy batteries you could have a fuel cell converting water to hydrogen gas which can be used as a power source when there is no sun or wind to propel the vessel...

I read that Russia has successfully bought Catherine TIS through Algeria despite EU sanctions without much problem. Would it be possible for Russia to acquire western ship engines the same way?

From defencepolicyasia:

Ever since Russia was sanctioned for their involvement in the Crimean war, France was bound by those sanctions to not supply weapons and technology to Russia. Joint developments between French and Russian weapon industries made Russian weapons more competitive in the market, without which Russian arms industry would slowly starve.

French and Russian cooperation benefited the Russian arms industry that employs nearly three million people, and French industrialists seeking to ramp up against stiffening competition in the global market. Restructuring of several French defence conglomerates to remain competitive took place amidst new and powerful entrants from Israel, China, Russia, Brazil, South Africa, and other Asian powers. France is currently the world’s third largest arms exporter but they constantly have to juggle between political prudence and employment back home.

To get around the sanctions, Russia went through a number of third party countries via joint ventures to have France supply directly to these third party projects rather than have these sensors assembled inside Russia, as such actions are barred by sanctions. The plan is to have the French install these sensors at the customer’s base when the Russian made vehicles arrive.

The Algerian-Russian joint venture to assemble T-90s in Algeria is one such example. Thales, according to some reports, has agreed to supply components for these Russian made tanks only if they are assembled in Algeria. OJSC Peleng, a Belorussian company that makes fire control systems and sensors for the Russian military, have been in close cooperation with French companies to provide components for their sensors used in Russian made tanks for export. In all, the sanctions had negligible effect for armoured vehicle sales and were nothing more than a nuisance.

Thats describing T-90s for Algeria being assembled in Algeria.
Are you saying that was fake & foreign components wound up in Russia?

Similar scheme I think exists for Indian Su-30 production & the 11356es to be completed/built in India for India are supposed to be getting Ukrainian engines/gearboxes that were ordered by Russia but have been un-delivered post-coup.

You might be able to use that kind of scheme for naval engines once maybe twice but not in any sustainable way.

Better is domestic production &/or analogue replacement like the Chinese license-produced diesels being used on Buyan-M.

Marine engines are a technology Russia would benefit from developing and they have several competent companies that develop engines.... Saturn and Klimov leap to mind immediately that could have been making said engines for decades if there was no other company in the Soviet Union already making them.

Engines are not trivial things and as problems with Chinese copies of German engines if you don't get them right they don't work very well, but that is just design and materials and experience.

You need strong durable parts in certain places which makes them more expensive but it is worth it. You could make the entire engine out of such materials but that just makes it more expensive, but wont necessarily make the engine more durable... harder parts can shatter in some temperature conditions more easily than softer parts.

I am sure the Chinese will get it right, but it makes sense for Russia to make their own engines and master development and production on their own... it will take time but it is worth it because a good family of scalable engines can be used at sea and on land including diesels and gas turbines.

From what they are saying they should be able to make new maritime engines and gearboxes already... it might take a few years to ramp up production and get the design and materials right so reliability might be an issue, but that is normal, and at least when Russia pays for engines it will get them...

The Russians were quite a bit behind in thermal imager technology because the Soviets focussed on low light level TV system like the EO system in the Su25TM and Ka-50 Shkval-M and Shkval-K... such technology is also used in autotracking systems in Kornet and Pantsir etc so it was valuable, but they bought thermal sights from all over the place including Sweden and South Africa and France.

They now can produce their own models which are top quality world class systems... the new thermals for the Armata vehicles and new close in thermals for their helos offering 360 degree coverage for detecting targets on the ground and for landing and taking off show they no longer need foreign assistance there. Of course foreign countries might prefer French thermals because that is what they use.

hoom wrote:Thats describing T-90s for Algeria being assembled in Algeria.
Are you saying that was fake & foreign components wound up in Russia?

Similar scheme I think exists for Indian Su-30 production & the 11356es to be completed/built in India for India are supposed to be getting Ukrainian engines/gearboxes that were ordered by Russia but have been un-delivered post-coup.

You might be able to use that kind of scheme for naval engines once maybe twice but not in any sustainable way.

Better is domestic production &/or analogue replacement like the Chinese license-produced diesels being used on Buyan-M.

What about letting India buy the frigates and then purchase them back. It would be completely legal. Also, what are the differences between military ship turbines and civilian ones?

Would it be possible to reverse engineer an MTU turbine? If not, then how was the Rolls Royce Nene, which is a much more complex engine based on physical principles, reverse engineered in the late 40s?

GarryB wrote:Marine engines are a technology Russia would benefit from developing and they have several competent companies that develop engines.... Saturn and Klimov leap to mind immediately that could have been making said engines for decades if there was no other company in the Soviet Union already making them.

Engines are not trivial things and as problems with Chinese copies of German engines if you don't get them right they don't work very well, but that is just design and materials and experience.

You need strong durable parts in certain places which makes them more expensive but it is worth it. You could make the entire engine out of such materials but that just makes it more expensive, but wont necessarily make the engine more durable... harder parts can shatter in some temperature conditions more easily than softer parts.

I am sure the Chinese will get it right, but it makes sense for Russia to make their own engines and master development and production on their own... it will take time but it is worth it because a good family of scalable engines can be used at sea and on land including diesels and gas turbines.

From what they are saying they should be able to make new maritime engines and gearboxes already... it might take a few years to ramp up production and get the design and materials right so reliability might be an issue, but that is normal, and at least when Russia pays for engines it will get them...

The Russians were quite a bit behind in thermal imager technology because the Soviets focussed on low light level TV system like the EO system in the Su25TM and Ka-50 Shkval-M and Shkval-K... such technology is also used in autotracking systems in Kornet and Pantsir etc so it was valuable, but they bought thermal sights from all over the place including Sweden and South Africa and France.

They now can produce their own models which are top quality world class systems... the new thermals for the Armata vehicles and new close in thermals for their helos offering 360 degree coverage for detecting targets on the ground and for landing and taking off show they no longer need foreign assistance there. Of course foreign countries might prefer French thermals because that is what they use.

At this point isn't the problem simply lack of industrial capacity and competent workforce pool, as we have seen with the failure to supply engines from Zvezda on time?

https://bmpd.livejournal.com/3609282.html
Interesting stuff about staffing the big Zvezda shipyard in the East.

Namely they're nicking staff from a bunch of other shipyards.
Which could partially explain slowdown in output from other yards.

hoom wrote:https://bmpd.livejournal.com/3609282.html
Interesting stuff about staffing the big Zvezda shipyard in the East.

Namely they're nicking staff from a bunch of other shipyards.
Which could partially explain slowdown in output from other yards.

This is very good development

Efficient shipyards will attract qualified workforce, this is how you properly populate Far East

It's a win-win situation

Navy can now finally capitalize on this by ordering combat ships from Zvezda

And other shipyards can use this opportunity to increase investments in training new workforce and improving their income

But we all know that they will just keep whining and squealing about conspiracies

United Shipbuilding Corporation has been trying for years to take control of Pella Shipyard because they were swiping their contracts and making them look bad in comparison

More contextless claims about lack of Russian ability.

How big are the delays that they would reflect "lack of a competent labour pool". It takes 15 years to educate a person. Let's
say they just need retraining. That takes a good 5 years of education and shop learning (work experience). None
of the delays reflect some workforce retraining necessity.

I have been reading about how the sky is falling ever since Banderastan stopped supplying its Soviet era gas turbines
to Russia. Now Russia has fully replaced these models with more efficient designs (yes, more efficient judging by
the exhaust temperature and applying the laws of thermodynamics). But people are still running around squawking
like its 2014.

kvs wrote:More contextless claims about lack of Russian ability.    

How big are the delays that they would reflect "lack of a competent labour pool".   It takes 15 years to educate a person.   Let's
say they just need retraining.   That takes a good 5 years of education and shop learning (work experience).    None
of the delays reflect some workforce retraining necessity.  

I have been reading about how the sky is falling ever since Banderastan stopped supplying its Soviet era gas turbines
to Russia.   Now Russia has fully replaced these models with more efficient designs (yes, more efficient judging by
the exhaust temperature and applying the laws of thermodynamics).    But people are still running around squawking
like its 2014.  

Contextless claims? Lol their record speaks for it's self. that is going by the current day, maybe in the future, that will change and hey hopefully it does.

But attacking someone saying they are wrong when the build rates are what they are is just blind fanboyism, make up all the excuses you wish.

End of the day reality is reality.

PapaDragon wrote:

hoom wrote:https://bmpd.livejournal.com/3609282.html
Interesting stuff about staffing the big Zvezda shipyard in the East.

Namely they're nicking staff from a bunch of other shipyards.
Which could partially explain slowdown in output from other yards.

This is very good development

Efficient shipyards will attract qualified workforce, this is how you properly populate Far East

It's a win-win situation

Navy can now finally capitalize on this by ordering combat ships from Zvezda

And other shipyards can use this opportunity to increase investments in training new workforce and improving their income

But we all know that they will just keep whining and squealing about conspiracies

United Shipbuilding Corporation has been trying for years to take control of Pella Shipyard because they were swiping their contracts and making them look bad in comparison

they are also cross training their staff in South Korea. I imagine they will set up also proper apprentiships for high school graduates and engineering graduates. That means that, in a few years, as soon as they reach the needed workforce with a desired range of training, education and experience, they will be able to "export" back to other shipyards in the country a certain amount of experienced professionals without.impacting their own production capabilities.

Lol their record speaks for it's self.

From the squealing of some members on this forum you would think the Russian military was ordering like the Chinese government, and the Russian shipyards were delivering nothing at all.

There have been a few delays, and a few issues, but all these salty tears are fanboy tears that they can brag about the navy...

Just sad really.

GarryB wrote:

Lol their record speaks for it's self.

From the squealing of some members on this forum you would think the Russian military was ordering like the Chinese government, and the Russian shipyards were delivering nothing at all.

There have been a few delays, and a few issues, but all these salty tears are fanboy tears that they can brag about the navy...

Just sad really.

Yeah yeah white knight all you want Garry numbers speak the truth people do not, that's one reason I always liked math it doesn't give you BS or try and Feed you BS from whatever biased position you wish to take. It's the cold hard truth is all.

A day will come where russia doesn't have a shipbuilding problem and when it does good for them. I hope the day comes sooner rather than later but that day isn't today or tomorrow.

SeigSoloyvov wrote:

GarryB wrote:

Lol their record speaks for it's self.

From the squealing of some members on this forum you would think the Russian military was ordering like the Chinese government, and the Russian shipyards were delivering nothing at all.

There have been a few delays, and a few issues, but all these salty tears are fanboy tears that they can brag about the navy...

Just sad really.

Yeah yeah white knight all you want Garry numbers speak the truth people do not, that's one reason I always liked math it doesn't give you BS or try and Feed you BS from whatever biased position you wish to take. It's the cold hard truth is all.

A day will come where russia doesn't have a shipbuilding problem and when it does good for them. I hope the day comes sooner rather than later but that day isn't today or tomorrow.

 the problems were a lot: lack of funds, lack of stable orders (basically no new orders for both civilian and surface naval ships for almost two decades), some of the biggest shipyards that ended up in a foreign country, the only naval gas turbine plant (also main producer of reduction gears and possibly was also producing some of the diesel engines) also ended up abroad. This also caused the loss of an incredible number of experienced professionals that were not replaced in the years. Furthermore much of the building technologies and techniques were not modernised and not at the latest standarf of, as an example, modern.western and south Korean shipyards. Some of the personnel problems were also shared by some.sectors of the aeronautical industry (see Ilyushin).

What would you have done better, starting from let say 2008, to improve the situation?


(Short of taking a time machine, going back to 1985 and replacing Gorbachev with Nazarbayev?)