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


+68
Krepost
ALAMO
Broski
marcellogo
Azi
auslander
miroslav
thegopnik
Finty
Mir
mavaff
Russian_Patriot_
Lurk83
Kiko
nero
flamming_python
PapaDragon
The_Observer
RTN
gbu48098
thedrunkengeneral
Firebird
ARYGER
zardof
limb
bren_tann
lyle6
slasher
mnztr
The-thing-next-door
Backman
calripson
AMCXXL
Big_Gazza
kvs
Sujoy
lancelot
Gomig-21
ult
LMFS
medo
owais.usmani
TheArmenian
ultimatewarrior
Arrow
Mindstorm
franco
d_taddei2
Viktor
JohninMK
walle83
Austin
PhSt
Tsavo Lion
magnumcromagnon
Gibraltar
Rodion_Romanovic
George1
Cyberspec
dino00
Singular_Transform
Vann7
Hole
hoom
miketheterrible
x_54_u43
marat
SeigSoloyvov
72 posters

    Russian Navy: Status and News #5

    magnumcromagnon
    magnumcromagnon


    Posts : 8159
    Points : 8304
    Join date : 2013-12-05
    Location : Pindos ave., Pindosville, Pindosylvania, Pindostan

    Russian Navy: Status and News #5 - Page 22 Empty Re: Russian Navy: Status and News #5

    Post  magnumcromagnon Sat Apr 03, 2021 12:12 am

    Found kvs post on the CNC subject:

    Ah the Toshiba myth. That's right Soviet engineers could never create NC machinery that could produce the metal part
    geometry needed. Even though the USSR had world leading understanding of the science and applied mathematics of
    fluid boundary layers and turbulence. The USSR could make a world leading propeller design, but couldn't produce it.
    What a retarded joke.

    Anyone who spends any time thinking about this "insurmountable" problem would realize it is the usual NATO quasi-racist
    propaganda. They could produce the right geometry by hand if they had to, down to 0.1 mm. It's not like they needed 10 million propellers
    per month. This trope is the same one as the "Soviet ICBMs were not accurate". More pap for uneducated saps who don't
    know what laser gyroscopes are and what determines the accuracy of a missile (hint: it ain't much besides the gyroscopes, missiles
    aren't sailing ships where the crew performance with the sails and astrolabe matters). The USSR had good solid state ring laser
    gyroscopes as of 1970 (glass-ceramic).

    https://www.russiadefence.net/t754p150-russian-nuclear-submarine-force-discussion#111986

    This is also another case of Fantasy vs Reality, and unsubstantiated claim vs a real-world incident/event.

    Fantasy: Russian/Soviet CNC machines were crap, which lead to having loud subs. Rolling Eyes

    vs

    Reality: A Soviet era nuclear attack sub, Project 971 (Akula Class) went an entire month in the Gulf of Mexico undetected by the USN, and congressmen were concerned.

    Silent Running
    Russian attack submarine sailed in Gulf of Mexico undetected for weeks, U.S. officials say

    Russian Navy: Status and News #5 - Page 22 AP070731043264-540x289

    A Russian nuclear-powered attack submarine armed with long-range cruise missiles operated undetected in the Gulf of Mexico for several weeks and its travel in strategic U.S. waters was only confirmed after it left the region, the Washington Free Beacon has learned.

    It is only the second time since 2009 that a Russian attack submarine has patrolled so close to U.S. shores.

    The stealth underwater incursion in the Gulf took place at the same time Russian strategic bombers made incursions into restricted U.S. airspace near Alaska and California in June and July, and highlights a growing military assertiveness by Moscow.

    The submarine patrol also exposed what U.S. officials said were deficiencies in U.S. anti-submarine warfare capabilities—forces that are facing cuts under the Obama administration’s plan to reduce defense spending by $487 billion over the next 10 years.

    The Navy is in charge of detecting submarines, especially those that sail near U.S. nuclear missile submarines, and uses undersea sensors and satellites to locate and track them.

    The fact that the Akula was not detected in the Gulf is cause for concern, U.S. officials said.

    The officials who are familiar with reports of the submarine patrol in the Gulf of Mexico said the vessel was a nuclear-powered Akula-class attack submarine, one of Russia’s quietest submarines.

    A Navy spokeswoman declined to comment.

    One official said the Akula operated without being detected for a month.

    "The Akula was built for one reason and one reason only: To kill U.S. Navy ballistic missile submarines and their crews," said a second U.S. official.

    "It’s a very stealthy boat so it can sneak around and avoid detection and hope to get past any protective screen a boomer might have in place," the official said, referring to the Navy nickname for strategic missile submarines.

    The U.S. Navy operates a strategic nuclear submarine base at Kings Bay, Georgia. The base is homeport to eight missile-firing submarines, six of them equipped with nuclear-tipped missiles, and two armed with conventional warhead missiles.

    "Sending a nuclear-propelled submarine into the Gulf of Mexico-Caribbean region is another manifestation of President Putin demonstrating that Russia is still a player on the world's political-military stage," said naval analyst and submarine warfare specialist Norman Polmar.

    "Like the recent deployment of a task force led by a nuclear cruiser into the Caribbean, the Russian Navy provides him with a means of ‘showing the flag’ that is not possible with Russian air and ground forces," Polmar said in an email.

    The last time an Akula submarine was known to be close to U.S. shores was 2009, when two Akulas were spotted patrolling off the east coast of the United States.

    Those submarine patrols raised concerns at the time about a new Russian military assertiveness toward the United States, according to the New York Times, which first reported the 2009 Akula submarine activity.

    The latest submarine incursion in the Gulf further highlights the failure of the Obama administration’s "reset" policy of conciliatory actions designed to develop closer ties with Moscow.

    Instead of closer ties, Russia under President Vladimir Putin, an ex-KGB intelligence officer who has said he wants to restore elements of Russia’s Soviet communist past, has adopted growing hardline policies against the United States.

    Of the submarine activity, Sen. John Cornyn (R., Texas), member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said, "It's a confounding situation arising from a lack of leadership in our dealings with Moscow. While the president is touting our supposed ‘reset' in relations with Russia, Vladimir Putin is actively working against American interests, whether it's in Syria or here in our own backyard."

    The Navy is facing sharp cuts in forces needed to detect and counter such submarine activity.

    The Obama administration’s defense budget proposal in February cut $1.3 billion from Navy shipbuilding projects, which will result in scrapping plans to build 16 new warships through 2017.

    The budget also called for cutting plans to buy 10 advanced P-8 anti-submarine warfare jets needed for submarine detection.

    In June, Russian strategic nuclear bombers and support aircraft conducted a large-scale nuclear bomber exercise in the arctic. The exercise included simulated strikes on "enemy" strategic sites that defense officials say likely included notional attacks on U.S. missile defenses in Alaska.

    Under the terms of the 2010 New START arms accord, such exercises require 14-day advanced notice of strategic bomber drills, and notification after the drills end. No such notification was given.

    A second, alarming air incursion took place July 4 on the West Coast when a Bear H strategic bomber flew into U.S. airspace near California and was met by U.S. interceptor jets.

    That incursion was said to have been a bomber incursion that has not been seen since before the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991.

    It could not be learned whether the submarine in the Gulf of Mexico was an Akula 1 type submarine or a more advanced Akula 2.

    It is also not known why the submarine conducted the operation. Theories among U.S. analysts include the notion that submarine incursion was designed to further signal Russian displeasure at U.S. and NATO plans to deploy missile defenses in Europe.

    Russia’s chief of the general staff, Gen. Nikolai Makarov, said in May that Russian forces would consider preemptive attacks on U.S. and allied missile defenses in Europe, and claimed the defenses are destabilizing in a crisis.

    Makarov met with Army Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, in July. Dempsey questioned him about the Russian strategic bomber flights near U.S. territory.

    The voyage of the submarine also could be part of Russian efforts to export the Akula.

    Russia delivered one of its Akula-2 submarines to India in 2009. The submarine is distinctive for its large tail fin.

    Brazil’s O Estado de Sao Paoli reported Aug. 2 that Russia plans to sell Venezuela up to 11 new submarines, including one Akula.

    Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said Moscow’s military is working to set up naval replenishment facilities in Vietnam and Cuba, but denied there were plans to base naval forces in those states.

    Asked if Russia planned a naval base in Cuba, Lavrov said July 28: "We are not speaking of any bases. The Russian navy ships serve exercise cruises and training in the same regions. To harbor, resupply, and enable the crew to rest are absolutely natural needs. We have spoken of such opportunities with our Cuban friends." The comment was posted in the Russian Foreign Ministry website.

    Russian warships and support vessels were sent to Venezuela in 2008 to take part in naval exercises in a show of Russian support for the leftist regime of Hugo Chavez. The ships also stopped in Cuba.

    Russian Deputy Premier Dmitri Rogozin announced in February that Russia was working on a plan to build 10 new attack submarines and 10 new missile submarines through 2030, along with new aircraft carriers.

    Submarine warfare specialists say the Akula remains the core of the Russian attack submarine force.

    The submarines can fire both cruise missiles and torpedoes, and are equipped with the SSN-21 and SSN-27 submarine-launched cruise missiles, as well as SSN-15 anti-submarine-warfare missiles. The submarines also can lay mines.

    The SSN-21 has a range of up to 1,860 miles.

    https://freebeacon.com/national-security/silent-running/

    GarryB, Big_Gazza, kvs and miketheterrible like this post

    GarryB
    GarryB


    Posts : 33873
    Points : 34391
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Russian Navy: Status and News #5 - Page 22 Empty Re: Russian Navy: Status and News #5

    Post  GarryB Sat Apr 03, 2021 2:09 am

    In the technology thread on this forum companies in Denmark and Germany are buying Russian C&C machines because they are just as good as German and Japanese models but are much cheaper.

    Precision in production has dramatically changed in the last few decades... just look at the early MiG-29s with the current ones... there are gaps in the skin of the early model MiGs you could poke your finger through... but at the time it was pointed out in the west but it didn't matter... surface airflows actually improve with rough surfaces... the dimples on a golf ball improve its flight range by creating turbulence at the surface so the the airflow follows the surface of the ball... a smooth golfball the air detaches at the edges so the full width of the ball creates drag and slows the ball in flight... a ball the same size and weight but with dimples even if that makes it slightly heavier means the airflow attaches to the surface and follows past the sides of the ball so the airflow drag volume area is reduced so hit with the same power a dimpled ball will travel quite a bit further with every shot.

    The rough surface of a MiG-29 probably didn't improve drag, but it certainly didn't make it worse as western experts suggested.

    At the time it made the planes quicker and easier and cheaper to make... now the skin of the aircraft is used for fuel tankage so the gaps would allow fuel to leak and would increase the RCS of the aircraft so new planes are much better made.
    avatar
    mnztr


    Posts : 1624
    Points : 1666
    Join date : 2018-01-21

    Russian Navy: Status and News #5 - Page 22 Empty Re: Russian Navy: Status and News #5

    Post  mnztr Wed Apr 07, 2021 8:54 pm

    GarryB wrote:
    Tying up one Kirov for 8 years is not the end of the world... they still have Slava class cruisers and one other operational Kirov that could escort the Kuznetsov around the world.


    Problem is, by the time the next one is done, all the weapons will be approacing obsolecence. So then you revise the project mid project, costing billions more, then it end up taking another 8-10 years and then you are back to a 20 year project and a brand new 50 year old ship.

    ARYGER likes this post

    Big_Gazza dislikes this post

    GarryB
    GarryB


    Posts : 33873
    Points : 34391
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Russian Navy: Status and News #5 - Page 22 Empty Re: Russian Navy: Status and News #5

    Post  GarryB Thu Apr 08, 2021 11:07 am


    Problem is, by the time the next one is done, all the weapons will be approacing obsolecence. So then you revise the project mid project, costing billions more, then it end up taking another 8-10 years and then you are back to a 20 year project and a brand new 50 year old ship.

    Nah... the old weapons like SA-N-4 OSA SAMs, and Rif, and the Granit launch tubes and the SS-N-14 launchers were all custom designed for specific weapon and could only fire those weapon types... you couldn't load a Vulkan into a Granit launcher even though they are similar huge heavy missiles.

    The upgraded Kirov has its Granits and SS-N-14 launchers replaced with universal UKSK launchers, and the SAM launchers will likely be replaced with a mix of Redut and naval TOR.

    The UKSK launcher can launch any new Russian anti ship or land attack naval missile so wont be obsolete even when fitted in 8 years time... by then you could load Zircon missiles into it and it would still be state of the art.

    The Redut uses S-350 and S-400 missiles, and naval TOR missiles will always be useful.

    It is likely the 130mm gun mount might be replaced with the Coalition 152mm naval gun for testing... they might fit it to their cruisers only or perhaps they might fit them to their destroyers too giving them excellent shore bombardment potential with the first models firing full calibre guided standard rounds to 70km, while their upgraded shells with a range of 180km being developed... they might even decide a new 203mm gun based on the technology and materials that created the 152mm long range shells is worth the effort for land and sea based models and put the 152mm guns on the new destroyers and use 203mm guns on the new cruisers.

    Testing on a Kirov would be useful to work out any potential problems and issues with performance.

    The brand new large sensors (sonar and radar and other equipment like EO sensors and indeed lasers) could be fitted and tested and refined and improved before going to sea on new destroyer designs.

    Testing new equipment and systems on upgraded ships just means realistic testing and better design choices and fewer problems with the new future models.

    And it means new capabilities get into service and use faster.

    lancelot likes this post

    lancelot
    lancelot


    Posts : 1298
    Points : 1300
    Join date : 2020-10-17

    Russian Navy: Status and News #5 - Page 22 Empty Re: Russian Navy: Status and News #5

    Post  lancelot Thu Apr 08, 2021 3:34 pm

    Couldn't they just quad pack missiles in Redut cells? The S-350 can do this.
    That would eliminate the need to carry any Tor missiles. The 9M100 missile specs are not that different from the 9M331's.
    Seems like that would be a lot more flexible.

    Even better just use UKSK-M so that you aren't limited in your anti-ship and anti-air loadout mass ratio and can configure the ship for the mission it is supposed to do.

    My issue with the Slava conversion is how would they do it. Those ships use slanted launchers on the top sides of the ship.
    While a slanted UKSK launcher is supposed to exist why didn't they use it in the Marshal Shaposhnikov upgrade?

    If they replace the side mounted Vulcan launchers with Uran launchers the Slava will have limited long range anti-ship and land attack capabilities.
    To be honest I think they should just do a new universal nuclear cruiser ship design and not bother with massive retrofits like these.

    The Kirov class retrofits are a lot more viable because of the placement of the missile cells. The original design is a lot more amenable to convert to modern VLS.
    GarryB
    GarryB


    Posts : 33873
    Points : 34391
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Russian Navy: Status and News #5 - Page 22 Empty Re: Russian Navy: Status and News #5

    Post  GarryB Fri Apr 09, 2021 12:35 am

    Couldn't they just quad pack missiles in Redut cells? The S-350 can do this.
    That would eliminate the need to carry any Tor missiles. The 9M100 missile specs are not that different from the 9M331's.
    Seems like that would be a lot more flexible.

    I disagree... on really big ships the Redut cells will probably include full sized 400km range S-400 missiles, which are over 7m long which means it needs to occupy probably at least three decks down where ever you put it... when loaded with TOR missiles, or indeed 9M100 missiles that vertical space is wasted unless they can stack them in layers.

    There are limited spaces on any ship where three vertical levels of the ship are available for one system or module, and such things will be competing with UKSK launch tubes which probably take four or five decks.

    On a large ship having enormous numbers of UKSK and Redut launchers could lead to difficulty in getting from one end of the ship to the other in the top three or four deck levels of the ship... which would be a serious problem as you might imagine.

    In comparison a TOR launcher could be contained in one deck level just below the deck, which you might be able to fit all over the place... TOR is simple and cheap and very very effective against a wide range of targets irrespective of their IR and radar signature and the current model is half the size of the original model, which the Kuznetsov carried 192, so without any modification the same ship could carry 384 ready to fire missiles. Newer models of smaller cheaper design intended for use against small cheap drones could allow four to be carried in each of those 384 tubes so a theoretical 1536 missiles on the current Kuznetsov just replacing the existing TOR system... and you can see the TOR guidance and radar mounts... there are four... one on each corner of the island, so there is no question of retaining them.

    The vertical launch tubes are near the sides of the ship the positions probably don't go down 5 decks so UKSK or Redut launch tubes would not be practical in the same location... certainly not without angling the tubes and creating all sorts of problems having to shift around everything that is there.

    And they are very effective weapons.

    Even better just use UKSK-M so that you aren't limited in your anti-ship and anti-air loadout mass ratio and can configure the ship for the mission it is supposed to do.

    If they can stack shorter missiles in layers to greatly increase the number of missiles that can be carried then that makes a lot of sense but even in big ships there are limits to how many will fit and where they can be placed.

    The UKSK-M also seems to show all sorts of other things like EW rockets so it appears to be planned to replace RBU launchers and PAKET launchers etc etc too, which means more existing space can be freed up for other things.

    For instance if you look at the bow of a Kirov class ship, from the front of the bridge, first is the 20 angled tubes for Granit, and then the Rif launchers for 96 odd S-300 missiles, and then the SS-N-14 launcher, and then from memory a few RBU launchers right at the front.

    Well the UKSK launchers replace both Granit and SS-N-14, but if it can launch RBU type weapons too then a Redut launcher that can carry Rif as well as 9M96 and 9M100 missiles then the entire front of the ship can be just all vertical launch tubes...no need for under deck access to the bow mounted sonar area... the whole front section could be closed off from the rest of the ship, but that means along the sides where the hull narrows the UKSK and Redut launchers could not go right to the sides of the ship, so rather than waste those shallower sides, fit a line of TOR launch bins to fill that gap and use the empty real estate to good effect.

    A ship like a Kirov should use Redut tubes for long range missiles to protect the group of ships it operates but having TOR on board to protect itself will be important too because it will certainly be a serious and important target of enemy fire so lots of TOR systems makes good sense too.

    As I said... cheap, simple and effective missiles... the system is not cheap but worth it.

    My issue with the Slava conversion is how would they do it. Those ships use slanted launchers on the top sides of the ship.
    While a slanted UKSK launcher is supposed to exist why didn't they use it in the Marshal Shaposhnikov upgrade?

    If they replace the side mounted Vulcan launchers with Uran launchers the Slava will have limited long range anti-ship and land attack capabilities.
    To be honest I think they should just do a new universal nuclear cruiser ship design and not bother with massive retrofits like these.

    These upgrades are not instead of new cruisers, these upgrades are to provide the Russian navy with large heavy long endurance ships that can sail anywhere around the world, defend themselves and the ships they are operating with. They don't need to each sink an entire HATO fleet with each ship upgraded.

    If they only have four missiles where each pair of Vulcans was located and therefore can carry only 32 missiles that is not the end of the world... especially considering those 32 missiles will likely be Zircons anyway.

    They do have slanted launchers, we have seen them tested on smaller ships... they appear to have 6 tubes instead of 8 but that is still a lot of missiles and would allow an upgraded Slava class cruiser to carry 32 Zircon missile, but also carry a further 16 missiles, which could be land attack or anti sub missiles... which under most situations be plenty.

    The Kirov class retrofits are a lot more viable because of the placement of the missile cells. The original design is a lot more amenable to convert to modern VLS.

    Very true, but they have to work with what they have. A brand new custom designed cruiser should be able to be much smaller than a current model Kirov, and yet have an eye watering array of missiles and sensors. But while they work on that boosting the performance of what they have by adding the new modular launchers and new sensors just makes sense in terms of support and supply and operational use.

    Currently a Slava class ship could go to any Russian naval port, but does every port have supplies of Vulcan missiles to load up? Currently a Kirov class ship has the same problem... which ports have Granit missiles in stock and the specialist handling equipment needed to load them.

    Once upgraded the UKSK launcher is standardised so a range of weapons can be loaded from a reloading system that can reload ships Zircon is rapidly approaching operational status too and it is four times faster than Onyx and likely similar size an weight... like replacing a turboprop engine with a turbojet engine...
    zardof
    zardof


    Posts : 29
    Points : 35
    Join date : 2016-01-04
    Age : 63
    Location : France

    Russian Navy: Status and News #5 - Page 22 Empty New boat transfer from caspian to Black sea

    Post  zardof Fri Apr 09, 2021 11:03 am

    According to Opex360.com, 10 new boats will be transfered from Matchakala to Black sea fleet.
    it is a question of transferring landing craft as well as gunboats. This will include Sterna landing craft.
    This have been done in 2018 with 5 boats now it s twice more.
    More detailled informations will be wellcome.
    Big_Gazza
    Big_Gazza


    Posts : 3593
    Points : 3591
    Join date : 2014-08-25
    Location : Melbourne, Australia

    Russian Navy: Status and News #5 - Page 22 Empty Re: Russian Navy: Status and News #5

    Post  Big_Gazza Fri Apr 09, 2021 11:02 pm

    lancelot wrote:
    While a slanted UKSK launcher is supposed to exist why didn't they use it in the Marshal Shaposhnikov upgrade?

    Slanted launchers for Oniks do exist, trialled on the Pr.1234 Nakat (probably as Russias contribution to JV development of the Brahmos?) with similar launchers are installed on the INS Rajput.  I expect however that these launchers require customised Oniks/Brahmos missiles with a launch/boost profile adapted for slant launch, so that complicates supply & logistics.  The Rajputs sisters INS Ranvir and Ranvijay carried their Brahmos in 8-cell VLS replacing their aft SAM launcher & magazine, while the Kolkatas have 16 cell VLS, so its clear that angled launchers have a downside and are not in favour.

    Slanted UKSK-compatible launchers also exist, but the same issues will apply. Are these compatible with all Kalibre variants and Zircon? (highly doubtful IMHO)  Fitting them to Slavas will cost a pretty penny, and add to the Navys procurement and logistics challenges (when their clear preference is to increasing standardisation).  Not sure of the available inventory of P-500/P-1000 Bazalt & Vulcan missiles, but since the Slavas are now the only users of these weapons I suspect they have adequate stocks for the types remaining service life?   All things considered I think the Navy has better uses for the coin.
    GarryB
    GarryB


    Posts : 33873
    Points : 34391
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Russian Navy: Status and News #5 - Page 22 Empty Re: Russian Navy: Status and News #5

    Post  GarryB Sat Apr 10, 2021 7:26 am

    Upgrading as many ships as possible with standard launchers makes sense, but it is not always possible or logical.

    The Granit launch tubes on the Kirov are angled, most of the weapons launched from the UKSK are designed to be launched from torpedo tubes too, so angled launch should not actually be a huge issue... except in terms of targeting performance... the high acceleration rocket boosted models would not like being launched in the wrong direction... which is most of them.

    It would make the 91er1 rather more limited in use, but I am sure that wont matter too much.
    franco
    franco


    Posts : 5234
    Points : 5266
    Join date : 2010-08-17

    Russian Navy: Status and News #5 - Page 22 Empty Re: Russian Navy: Status and News #5

    Post  franco Sat Apr 10, 2021 8:53 am

    zardof wrote:According to Opex360.com, 10 new boats will be transfered from Matchakala to Black sea fleet.
    it is a question of transferring landing craft as well as gunboats. This will include Sterna landing craft.
    This have been done in 2018 with 5 boats now it s twice more.
    More detailled informations will be wellcome.

    The 5 boats last year were to have a naval parade in Rostov for May 9th celebrations. Suspect there is that intent again however they could also be useful (limited) if military action breaks out.
    magnumcromagnon
    magnumcromagnon


    Posts : 8159
    Points : 8304
    Join date : 2013-12-05
    Location : Pindos ave., Pindosville, Pindosylvania, Pindostan

    Russian Navy: Status and News #5 - Page 22 Empty Re: Russian Navy: Status and News #5

    Post  magnumcromagnon Mon Apr 12, 2021 2:30 pm

    Hmmmm, so a small a submersible (diving) patrol ship for coast guards, probably to fight off drug smuggling submarines? It seems primarily for export.

    Russian Navy: Status and News #5 - Page 22 1618221332_6075651

    "For foreign customers": CDB "Rubin" has developed a submersible patrol ship "Guard"

    dino00 and LMFS like this post

    PapaDragon
    PapaDragon


    Posts : 12450
    Points : 12510
    Join date : 2015-04-26
    Location : Fort Evil, Serbia

    Russian Navy: Status and News #5 - Page 22 Empty Re: Russian Navy: Status and News #5

    Post  PapaDragon Mon Apr 12, 2021 3:44 pm

    magnumcromagnon wrote:Hmmmm, so a small a submersible (diving) patrol ship for coast guards, probably to fight off drug smuggling submarines? It seems primarily for export...

    Definitely for export... to Mexico and Columbia Cool

    This baby can carry a lot of kilos lol1

    LMFS and lyle6 like this post

    lyle6
    lyle6


    Posts : 1262
    Points : 1262
    Join date : 2020-09-13
    Location : Philippines

    Russian Navy: Status and News #5 - Page 22 Empty Re: Russian Navy: Status and News #5

    Post  lyle6 Mon Apr 12, 2021 8:28 pm

    PapaDragon wrote:
    Definitely for export... to Mexico and Columbia Cool

    This baby can carry a lot of kilos lol1

    You can say its a real... Hunter-killer Razz

    franco likes this post

    GarryB
    GarryB


    Posts : 33873
    Points : 34391
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Russian Navy: Status and News #5 - Page 22 Empty Re: Russian Navy: Status and News #5

    Post  GarryB Tue Apr 13, 2021 4:07 am

    Needs a deck gun...
    Hole
    Hole


    Posts : 7001
    Points : 6989
    Join date : 2018-03-24
    Age : 46
    Location : Scholzistan

    Russian Navy: Status and News #5 - Page 22 Empty Re: Russian Navy: Status and News #5

    Post  Hole Tue Apr 13, 2021 8:53 am

    Russian Navy: Status and News #5 - Page 22 Eyxbih10
    There is one.

    GarryB, flamming_python, dino00, magnumcromagnon, PapaDragon, thegopnik, mnztr and ARYGER like this post

    avatar
    ARYGER


    Posts : 3
    Points : 3
    Join date : 2021-04-13

    Russian Navy: Status and News #5 - Page 22 Empty Aerodynamics

    Post  ARYGER Tue Apr 13, 2021 5:55 pm

    GarryB wrote:In the technology thread on this forum companies in Denmark and Germany are buying Russian C&C machines because they are just as good as German and Japanese models but are much cheaper.

    Precision in production has dramatically changed in the last few decades... just look at the early MiG-29s with the current ones... there are gaps in the skin of the early model MiGs you could poke your finger through... but at the time it was pointed out in the west but it didn't matter... surface airflows actually improve with rough surfaces... the dimples on a golf ball improve its flight range by creating turbulence at the surface so the the airflow follows the surface of the ball... a smooth golfball the air detaches at the edges so the full width of the ball creates drag and slows the ball in flight... a ball the same size and weight but with dimples even if that makes it slightly heavier means the airflow attaches to the surface and follows past the sides of the ball so the airflow drag volume area is reduced so hit with the same power a dimpled ball will travel quite a bit further with every shot.

    The rough surface of a MiG-29 probably didn't improve drag, but it certainly didn't make it worse as western experts suggested.

    At the time it made the planes quicker and easier and cheaper to make... now the skin of the aircraft is used for fuel tankage so the gaps would allow fuel to leak and would increase the RCS of the aircraft so new planes are much better made.

    Hi I am following you guy's quite a long time, guess more that 10 years....

    So I take the chance today to respond on Garry's post....

    ...because it is a little bit more complex than that. First of all "edges of a ball" ? Russian Navy: Status and News #5 - Page 22 1f609 , second: the "dimples" of an golfball are concave, what would reduce the weight and not add to it and better support your thesis, third: the size of that "dimples" are (mostly) calculated carefully (ref. Reynold-Nr.) which induce a turbulent layer that let the airflow detach later than without the "dimples", guess that's what you mean. So the total random skin gap dimensions that also differ from plane to plane of early MiG-29s did definitely not support the aerodynamic quality. It has only to do with resources and quality management. If you compare a MiG-21 vs. a MiG-29A you can see the quality difference with advantage for the 21. By the way, aerodynamically the final third of an airplane is most important regarding structure quality if low drag is the only target what's definitely not the case for fighting airframes. What you said here is the only truth regarding the cold war situation
    GarryB wrote: ...made the planes quicker and easier and cheaper to make...

    Skin gabs does not mean holes otherwise they would have faced more problems than increased drag! Fly past Mach 1 with holes or gabs in the skin and you fly naked within seconds. Also in most combat aircraft the skin is not part of the fuell tank itself. Gap dimension is important if you care about RCS, like you stated later but also regarding lifetime (corrosion etc) and when you need total control about aerodynamic behaviour (responsive post stall maneuver control like in Su-35/57)
    GarryB
    GarryB


    Posts : 33873
    Points : 34391
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Russian Navy: Status and News #5 - Page 22 Empty Re: Russian Navy: Status and News #5

    Post  GarryB Wed Apr 14, 2021 2:29 am


    Hi I am following you guy's quite a long time, guess more that 10 years....

    So I take the chance today to respond on Garry's post....

    Hello, if you have been on this forum that long you should know you first post is supposed to be an introduction in the introductions section... Smile

    First of all "edges of a ball" ?

    Not a physical edge, but when you look at a full moon the outer edge is the perimeter of the surface, which is what I am referring to with a flat ball moving through a gas under pressure... atmosphere. The dimples create surface turbulence so instead of air hitting the front and sliding around the face of the ball and slipping straight off the edge forming a drag low pressure area the full width of the ball, the turbulence means the air stays attached and carries on a little around the ball surface so the actual area of drag is smaller than the full width of the width creating less drag.

    second: the "dimples" of an golfball are concave, what would reduce the weight and not add to it and better support your thesis,

    Wrong again. The dimples are extra surface area and require more material, whether they stick out or are dimples inwards, they are not impressions made on the ball surface, they are extra surface material which if flattened out would overlap the area of the hole they create at the surface, so more material should mean more weight.

    The significant reduction in drag means even if it is much heavier that wouldn't matter... a much heavier golf ball would be accelerated to a lower speed by the golf club energy, but a heavier ball would push its way through the air more efficiently than a lighter ball... the lower drag created by the dimples means it will slow down slower and therefore achieve better range.

    Imagine trying to hit a ping pong ball with a golf club... very light so you should be able to hit it an enormous distance, but you can't because it either breaks, or rapidly slows down in the air like throwing an inflated balloon... its low density makes it a poor projectile.

    third: the size of that "dimples" are (mostly) calculated carefully (ref. Reynold-Nr.) which induce a turbulent layer that let the airflow detach later than without the "dimples", guess that's what you mean.

    That is what I said. The airflow attaches to the surface of the ball and continues further round than with a smooth ball. This creates a much smaller dead space of drag slowing the ball down so the ball retains speed better and therefore achieves better range with the same energy hit.

    So the total random skin gap dimensions that also differ from plane to plane of early MiG-29s did definitely not support the aerodynamic quality.

    They would not have been significant enough to create turbulence, but equally would not have increased parasitic drag for the very same reasons.

    By the way, aerodynamically the final third of an airplane is most important regarding structure quality if low drag is the only target what's definitely not the case for fighting airframes.

    As shown by bullet aerodynamics the rear is critical for subsonic flight speeds... a flat rear end on a bullet the full bullet calibre in width will dramatically reduce the ballistic range of the round. A narrowing rear end, often called a boat tail can have quite dramatic effects on range of flight of the bullet... boat tail rounds travel to much greater ranges.

    Of course for the first few seconds of flight at supersonic speed it is the front of the bullet that matters rather more... I would presume it would be the same with aircraft.

    Fly past Mach 1 with holes or gabs in the skin and you fly naked within seconds.

    The SR-71 grows by about 30cm at full speed because the metal skin and structure is heated and expands... its outer skin... unlike the early MiG-29s is the outer skin of its fuel tanks, so when an SR-71 takes off it is haemorrhaging fuel.... the first thing it does when it gets airborne is take on more fuel with an inflight refuelling aircraft and then it accelerates to top speed to heat up the aircraft to seal its tanks...

    Do you think heat friction would seal its tanks and make it get 30cm longer at mach 1?

    Or do you think it would take a few minutes at mach 2 plus to get that sort of effect?

    Also in most combat aircraft the skin is not part of the fuell tank itself.

    Aircraft like the F-16 and the new model MiG-29s use sealed wielded panels because it maximises available fuel space, while minimising weight because you don't need a physical fuel tank.

    Gap dimension is important if you care about RCS, like you stated later but also regarding lifetime (corrosion etc) and when you need total control about aerodynamic behaviour (responsive post stall maneuver control like in Su-35/57)

    It did not create aerodynamic problems... a British engineer I talked to in the late 1980s who was very impressed with the tail slide manouver said to me that it was a very impressive manouver because in a climbing stall like that most aircraft designs will roll... one side or the other... he was amazed the pilot could maintain control and stop it rolling one side or the other and slide back down the way it went up and then nose forward, engines on and carrying on flying.

    Gaps and all.

    avatar
    ARYGER


    Posts : 3
    Points : 3
    Join date : 2021-04-13

    Russian Navy: Status and News #5 - Page 22 Empty Re: Russian Navy: Status and News #5

    Post  ARYGER Thu Apr 15, 2021 6:43 am

    [quote="GarryB"]

    Hi I am following you guy's quite a long time, guess more that 10 years....

    So I take the chance today to respond on Garry's post....

    Hello, if you have been on this forum that long you should know you first post is supposed to be an introduction in the introductions section... Smile

    First of all "edges of a ball" ?

    ...

    Sorry to have disturbed your life in a bubble.

    Also sorry for not introduce my self. Normally I don't read the disclaimer, my fault.... ...did also not see this bs bingo coming...

    If I had known that you are not only a respected aeronautical engineer with structural knowledge and wind tunnel experience but also a proven golf ball expert, I would not have tried to spread that nonsense, sorry....

    ... the SR 71 example is quite out of context and yes if I change the boundary condition to vacuum then no geometry has any effect on drag. As for your tailslide maneuver, yes the MiG-29 is an impressively stable and maneuverable aircraft even in the A version. But to speak of unrestricted poststall maneuverability is a stretch but what do I know with my few hours on that type.

    Just ignore me! Sign me off!



    avatar
    Firebird


    Posts : 1353
    Points : 1385
    Join date : 2011-10-14

    Russian Navy: Status and News #5 - Page 22 Empty Re: Russian Navy: Status and News #5

    Post  Firebird Thu Apr 15, 2021 7:45 am

    Hole wrote:Russian Navy: Status and News #5 - Page 22 Eyxbih10
    There is one.

    I've wondered about this sort of concept before.
    Perhaps Russia could use them for its own navy. Or rather, a larger variant.
    Its got extreme stealth, and leaves enemies completely guessing.
    Russia is as good as anyone with sub production, and with its missile capabilities it could mean small vessels going anywhere on the Planet, in safety. It would also be cheaper than building a large surface vessel to negotiate choppy oceans. Even in a worst case scenario ie choppy seas, missiles could be fired from below the water. It could carry drones, and maybe even manned choppers.

    I wonder if the Ru Navy is considering it?
    Hole
    Hole


    Posts : 7001
    Points : 6989
    Join date : 2018-03-24
    Age : 46
    Location : Scholzistan

    Russian Navy: Status and News #5 - Page 22 Empty Re: Russian Navy: Status and News #5

    Post  Hole Thu Apr 15, 2021 4:17 pm

    Russian Navy: Status and News #5 - Page 22 000273
    A successor for the old "Quebec" class.
    GarryB
    GarryB


    Posts : 33873
    Points : 34391
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Russian Navy: Status and News #5 - Page 22 Empty Re: Russian Navy: Status and News #5

    Post  GarryB Fri Apr 16, 2021 2:39 am

    Just ignore me! Sign me off!

    Wow, can understand why your lurk rather than post.

    Taking things way to personal there buddy, I am no engineer and never claimed to be, but I am afraid the medal ceremony has been delayed so you wont need to introduce yourself so urgently... we expect the ceremony to be this coming summer... about early December.

    the SR 71 example is quite out of context and yes if I change the boundary condition to vacuum then no geometry has any effect on drag.

    So you are saying only the MiG-29 blew apart when flying supersonically?

    I mentioned the SR-71 because it is known that its surface panels logically had to have gaps, and at least until they heated up would be flying at supersonic speed... which shows such a thing is possible because teh SR-71 flies so fast it needs the gaps, though the MiG-29 had the gaps for other reasons and could not fly fast enough for the gaps to self seal due to heat expansion... oops now I will be accused of being an expert in thermodynamics and also metallurgy.


    If I had known that you are not only a respected aeronautical engineer with structural knowledge and wind tunnel experience but also a proven golf ball expert, I would not have tried to spread that nonsense, sorry....

    I am guessing you wanted a hug.

    Don't take things so personally...


    Try watching this... from 1:26 until about 3:16...



    But to speak of unrestricted poststall maneuverability is a stretch but what do I know with my few hours on that type.

    The engineer I was talking to was impressed that when it stalled it did so symetrically... the nose fell forward and with the engines by that stage on full power it was essentially able to slide forward and power out of the super stall. It wasn't able to perform post stall manouvers but it didn't fall or roll left or right and lose control. It maintained its nose up attitude and then fell nose forward and then gained speed and recovered after a short dive.


    I wonder if the Ru Navy is considering it?

    I suspect the main problem is that when it is submerged it has no effect because no one knows it is there, but surfacing it is a large target with perhaps one gun so an enemy ship even just with heavy machine guns and light cannon could do some serious damage to such a vessel.

    The small gun would be nice to force unarmed ships to do as they are told, but for piracy policing and many other roles the stealth is not as useful as say the speed of a helicopter, or the proper fire power of a decent deck gun like a 100mm or 130mm gun that the Russians are putting on their corvettes and frigates.

    It is an interesting idea, but I suspect it would be used as a sneaky special forces deployment or recovery option... a big sub would be too large to armour to protect it from HMG or light cannon rounds or RPGs, and while small bursts are not going the sink the sub, they might be able to concentrate enough fire power to make it go away, and lack of a helicopter would be a problem, though UAVs would be useful and inflatables with naval infantry on board could be useful too, I think they have a few patrol corvettes and frigates with inflatables and helicopters that would be better equipped for most missions.

    In many ways these sorts of subs are like snipers... they can stay hidden and take out targets or just observe and gather information without being noticed, but when you expose them they become very vulnerable and simply don't have the fire power to defend themselves from many opponents.

    It has potential in some situations like catching pirates in the act.... imagine a pirate speed boat approaches a container ship to hijack it, while on the other side of that huge container ship this surfaces and two inflatables deploy naval spetsnaz to board the ship first to protect it and prevent the pirates boarding the ship while the sub sails around the ship and opens direct fire on the pirates boats...

    But in shipping areas with lots of ships and pirate boats zipping around looking for a soft target how fast would the sub be to get troops on board the right ship first... sounds like a good idea but hard to implement... in fact it would be easier with a corvette or frigate whose helicopters can respond quickly to calls from ships that they are under attack, with fast boats following with support weapons and more troops...
    Rodion_Romanovic
    Rodion_Romanovic


    Posts : 1603
    Points : 1587
    Join date : 2015-12-30
    Location : Merkelland

    Russian Navy: Status and News #5 - Page 22 Empty Re: Russian Navy: Status and News #5

    Post  Rodion_Romanovic Fri Apr 16, 2021 4:11 am

    https://ria.ru/20210415/lider-1728335998.html
    The head of the USC spoke about the problems with the project of the destroyer "Leader"

    MOSCOW, April 15 - RIA Novosti. The project for the construction of the Leader destroyer for the Russian Navy is unlikely to be implemented, said Alexei Rakhmanov, General Director of the United Shipbuilding Corporation (USC) , in an interview with RIA Novosti .

    "In the form in which it was planned earlier, it will most likely not be implemented, at least not so quickly. But here everything depends on the decision of the customer - the Ministry of Defense," he said.

    Initially, the "Leader" was planned to be laid in 2017, but the construction has not yet begun. There is also no technical design of the destroyer, the former deputy commander-in-chief of the Russian Navy for armaments Viktor Buruk stated that the document should have begun to be developed in 2019-2020.
    Admiral Viktor Chirkov , when he was Commander-in-Chief of the Navy, emphasized that a new generation destroyer should have a nuclear power plant, its displacement should be about 14 thousand tons.
    Later in a number of media outlets there was information about the decision to increase the displacement to 19 thousand tons. They talked about two possible versions of the ship: the first - with a displacement of 10-12 thousand tons with a gas turbine power plant and the second - 18-19 thousand tons with a nuclear one.
    Now in the combat composition of the Russian Navy is one surface ship with a nuclear power plant - the heavy nuclear missile cruiser "Peter the Great".

    Well it is still not clear what they will do. If they actually manage to build a decent number of 22350 and 22350M (the latter should have good endurance not inferior to Soviet era destroyers) they probably can do without additional nuclear cruisers.
    Furthermore the idea of a oversized nuclear cruiser came when Russia did not have yet domestic production of gas turbines.
    For the moment it is important to put in service admiral Nakhimov and have some field experience with it and build enough 22350 and 22350M. After the first 22350M is in service they will have a better understanding of additional needs (if any).
    Big_Gazza
    Big_Gazza


    Posts : 3593
    Points : 3591
    Join date : 2014-08-25
    Location : Melbourne, Australia

    Russian Navy: Status and News #5 - Page 22 Empty Re: Russian Navy: Status and News #5

    Post  Big_Gazza Fri Apr 16, 2021 7:32 am

    "In the form in which it was planned earlier, it will most likely not be implemented, at least not so quickly. But here everything depends on the decision of the customer - the Ministry of Defense," he said.

    So I interpret this as meaning that the widely-ridiculed Krylov-designed stepped-pagoda stealth cruiser probably won't be built... or at least not soon.... but its the Navy that will decide.... so by inference something different might be built soon... but we can't know for sure.... because the Navy will decide....

    Wow.. that settles the question I guess. Suspect
    LMFS
    LMFS


    Posts : 4684
    Points : 4684
    Join date : 2018-03-03

    Russian Navy: Status and News #5 - Page 22 Empty Re: Russian Navy: Status and News #5

    Post  LMFS Fri Apr 16, 2021 7:35 am

    ^ Right, they are going step by step, no point in planing every detail of the fleet until 2050 and getting it all wrong. There is a lot of learning to be done in the process by both the industry and the military.
    George1
    George1


    Posts : 17724
    Points : 18231
    Join date : 2011-12-22
    Location : Greece

    Russian Navy: Status and News #5 - Page 22 Empty Re: Russian Navy: Status and News #5

    Post  George1 Fri Apr 16, 2021 9:50 am

    Specialists of the Northern fleet Together with the Russian Geographical Society, as part of the expedition, they discovered in the Barents Sea a Soviet submarine of the "K" type, which had perished during the Second World War. This was reported by the press service of the Ministry of Defense.

    https://en.topwar.ru/182052-sovmestnaja-jekspedicija-sf-i-rgo-obnaruzhila-v-barencevom-more-sovetskuju-podlodku-tipa-k.html

    Sponsored content


    Russian Navy: Status and News #5 - Page 22 Empty Re: Russian Navy: Status and News #5

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Fri Aug 12, 2022 5:26 am