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


    Russian Navy: Status and News #5

    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 29010
    Points : 29540
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Russian Navy: Status and News #5 - Page 23 Empty Re: Russian Navy: Status and News #5

    Post  GarryB Tue Apr 13, 2021 9:07 am

    Needs a deck gun...
    Hole
    Hole

    Posts : 4088
    Points : 4084
    Join date : 2018-03-24
    Age : 45
    Location : Merkelland

    Russian Navy: Status and News #5 - Page 23 Empty Re: Russian Navy: Status and News #5

    Post  Hole Tue Apr 13, 2021 1:53 pm

    Russian Navy: Status and News #5 - Page 23 Eyxbih10
    There is one.

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

    avatar
    ARYGER

    Posts : 2
    Points : 2
    Join date : 2021-04-13

    Russian Navy: Status and News #5 - Page 23 Empty Aerodynamics

    Post  ARYGER Tue Apr 13, 2021 10:55 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 23 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 : 29010
    Points : 29540
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Russian Navy: Status and News #5 - Page 23 Empty Re: Russian Navy: Status and News #5

    Post  GarryB Wed Apr 14, 2021 7:29 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 : 2
    Points : 2
    Join date : 2021-04-13

    Russian Navy: Status and News #5 - Page 23 Empty Re: Russian Navy: Status and News #5

    Post  ARYGER Thu Apr 15, 2021 11:43 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 : 1063
    Points : 1093
    Join date : 2011-10-14

    Russian Navy: Status and News #5 - Page 23 Empty Re: Russian Navy: Status and News #5

    Post  Firebird Thu Apr 15, 2021 12:45 pm

    Hole wrote:Russian Navy: Status and News #5 - Page 23 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 : 4088
    Points : 4084
    Join date : 2018-03-24
    Age : 45
    Location : Merkelland

    Russian Navy: Status and News #5 - Page 23 Empty Re: Russian Navy: Status and News #5

    Post  Hole Thu Apr 15, 2021 9:17 pm

    Russian Navy: Status and News #5 - Page 23 000273
    A successor for the old "Quebec" class.
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 29010
    Points : 29540
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Russian Navy: Status and News #5 - Page 23 Empty Re: Russian Navy: Status and News #5

    Post  GarryB Fri Apr 16, 2021 7:39 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 : 1441
    Points : 1431
    Join date : 2015-12-30
    Location : Merkelland

    Russian Navy: Status and News #5 - Page 23 Empty Re: Russian Navy: Status and News #5

    Post  Rodion_Romanovic Fri Apr 16, 2021 9:11 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 : 2454
    Points : 2454
    Join date : 2014-08-25
    Location : Melbourne, Australia

    Russian Navy: Status and News #5 - Page 23 Empty Re: Russian Navy: Status and News #5

    Post  Big_Gazza Fri Apr 16, 2021 12:32 pm

    "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 : 3473
    Points : 3475
    Join date : 2018-03-03

    Russian Navy: Status and News #5 - Page 23 Empty Re: Russian Navy: Status and News #5

    Post  LMFS Fri Apr 16, 2021 12:35 pm

    ^ 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 : 16089
    Points : 16586
    Join date : 2011-12-22
    Location : Greece

    Russian Navy: Status and News #5 - Page 23 Empty Re: Russian Navy: Status and News #5

    Post  George1 Fri Apr 16, 2021 2:50 pm

    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
    miketheterrible
    miketheterrible

    Posts : 5761
    Points : 5735
    Join date : 2016-11-06

    Russian Navy: Status and News #5 - Page 23 Empty Re: Russian Navy: Status and News #5

    Post  miketheterrible Fri Apr 16, 2021 3:51 pm

    Big_Gazza wrote:
    "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

    I never saw Russia needing a cruiser or destroyer - their frigates are usually armed way better than most destroyers. Now they can make the turbines for their frigates, why bother?

    Probably going back to drawing board to find a cheaper alternative. Priority will still be missile and Airforce while Navy will take the back burner till they figure out what the hell they want.
    Rodion_Romanovic
    Rodion_Romanovic

    Posts : 1441
    Points : 1431
    Join date : 2015-12-30
    Location : Merkelland

    Russian Navy: Status and News #5 - Page 23 Empty Re: Russian Navy: Status and News #5

    Post  Rodion_Romanovic Fri Apr 16, 2021 4:36 pm

    miketheterrible wrote:
    Big_Gazza wrote:
    "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

    I never saw Russia needing a cruiser or destroyer - their frigates are usually armed way better than most destroyers.  Now they can make the turbines for their frigates, why bother?

    Probably going back to drawing board to find a cheaper alternative.  Priority will still be missile and Airforce while Navy will take the back burner till they figure out what the hell they want.

    Well they probably need some destroyers in addition to frigates, as normally destroyers have greater endurance and range than frigates, as well as more space for sensors and weapon systems...

    But 22350M will be destroyers, and quite capable ones too, even if Russia insists for calling them frigates.
    lancelot
    lancelot

    Posts : 256
    Points : 258
    Join date : 2020-10-18

    Russian Navy: Status and News #5 - Page 23 Empty Re: Russian Navy: Status and News #5

    Post  lancelot Fri Apr 16, 2021 6:16 pm

    To be honest I always found the design of the Leader destroyers kind of ridiculous.
    You have a huge ship like that and it carries less missiles than a Ticonderoga cruiser with like half the displacement.
    I still think the nuclear destroyers make sense as a concept but that Leader destroyer design... well...

    I think once they have the RITM-400 reactors operational and they design a military propulsion system with those then they can make the carrier and the destroyers.
    Input from the Admiral Nakhimov upgrade process and initial operations will also help refine the design.
    I still think they will start the design on a nuclear destroyer/battlecruiser in the next 5 years and will start construction before the end of this decade.
    But I hope it will not be this design.
    avatar
    thedrunkengeneral

    Posts : 5
    Points : 5
    Join date : 2021-04-16

    Russian Navy: Status and News #5 - Page 23 Empty Re: Russian Navy: Status and News #5

    Post  thedrunkengeneral Fri Apr 16, 2021 7:28 pm

    Rodion_Romanovic wrote:
    miketheterrible wrote:
    Big_Gazza wrote:
    "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

    I never saw Russia needing a cruiser or destroyer - their frigates are usually armed way better than most destroyers.  Now they can make the turbines for their frigates, why bother?

    Probably going back to drawing board to find a cheaper alternative.  Priority will still be missile and Airforce while Navy will take the back burner till they figure out what the hell they want.

    Well they probably need some destroyers in addition to frigates, as normally destroyers have greater endurance and range than frigates, as well as more space for sensors and weapon systems...

    But 22350M will be destroyers, and quite capable ones too, even if Russia insists for calling them frigates.

    22350M compared to 22350 is akin to 20385 compared to 20380. It shares the same hull.
    Rodion_Romanovic
    Rodion_Romanovic

    Posts : 1441
    Points : 1431
    Join date : 2015-12-30
    Location : Merkelland

    Russian Navy: Status and News #5 - Page 23 Empty Re: Russian Navy: Status and News #5

    Post  Rodion_Romanovic Fri Apr 16, 2021 10:19 pm

    thedrunkengeneral wrote:

    22350M compared to 22350 is akin to 20385 compared to 20380. It shares the same hull.

    Maybe you are confounding them with the last "version" of 22350 (the last 4 ships that they started building in 2019 and in 2020), which has one additional UKSK module in the same hull.

    22350M (super Gorshkov) should have 6 UKSK modules (for 48 UKSK VLS) + an unspecified number of redut VLS (at least 32, but probably 48) and additional weapon systems for a total displacement of 8000 tons. Normal 22350 is 5400 tons at full load.
    It cannot be the same hull. They need also a different powerplant arrangement

    http://mil.today/2020/Navy3/
    https://mil.today/2020/Industry4/
    avatar
    thedrunkengeneral

    Posts : 5
    Points : 5
    Join date : 2021-04-16

    Russian Navy: Status and News #5 - Page 23 Empty Re: Russian Navy: Status and News #5

    Post  thedrunkengeneral Sat Apr 17, 2021 12:57 am

    Rodion_Romanovic wrote:
    thedrunkengeneral wrote:

    22350M compared to 22350 is akin to 20385 compared to 20380. It shares the same hull.

    Maybe you are confounding them with the last "version" of 22350 (the last 4 ships that they started building in 2019 and in 2020), which has one additional UKSK module in the same hull.

    22350M (super Gorshkov) should have 6 UKSK modules (for 48 UKSK VLS) +  an unspecified number of redut VLS (at least 32, but probably 48) and additional weapon systems for a total displacement of 8000 tons.  Normal 22350 is 5400 tons at full load.
    It cannot be the same hull. They need also a different powerplant arrangement

    I doubt 22350M would be 8,000 tons. 22350M has the same dimensions as 22350 at 135 meters long. 22350 is 5,400 tons. 22350M should be about 5,800 tons. By comparison 20380 is 2,200 tons compared to 20385 which has the same dimensions as 20380 and 2,500 tons.

    The hull must be same or else it wouldn't be called 22350M but rather something else.
    miketheterrible
    miketheterrible

    Posts : 5761
    Points : 5735
    Join date : 2016-11-06

    Russian Navy: Status and News #5 - Page 23 Empty Re: Russian Navy: Status and News #5

    Post  miketheterrible Sat Apr 17, 2021 2:23 am

    I believe it's supposed to be a stretched/widen variant of Gorshkov but the rest of the design is the same
    So a larger Gorshkov. They are happy with the Gorshkov design so yeah.

    Other than that, dunno.
    LMFS
    LMFS

    Posts : 3473
    Points : 3475
    Join date : 2018-03-03

    Russian Navy: Status and News #5 - Page 23 Empty Re: Russian Navy: Status and News #5

    Post  LMFS Sat Apr 17, 2021 4:20 am

    thedrunkengeneral wrote:I doubt 22350M would be 8,000 tons. 22350M has the same dimensions as 22350 at 135 meters long. 22350 is 5,400 tons. 22350M should be about 5,800 tons. By comparison 20380 is 2,200 tons compared to 20385 which has the same dimensions as 20380 and 2,500 tons.

    The hull must be same or else it wouldn't be called 22350M but rather something else.

    Wow, do you have the blueprints already, amazing!

    Now seriously, cut the crap. The design has been approved, not published. And the sources that are "leaked" in the official channels say it is 8kt, with twice the weapons load than the standard 22350. BTW the 20380 and 20385 have different dimensions and displacement, and 11711 and 11711M are completely different even in their layout...

    Big_Gazza, Rodion_Romanovic, Hole and lancelot like this post

    Big_Gazza
    Big_Gazza

    Posts : 2454
    Points : 2454
    Join date : 2014-08-25
    Location : Melbourne, Australia

    Russian Navy: Status and News #5 - Page 23 Empty Re: Russian Navy: Status and News #5

    Post  Big_Gazza Sat Apr 17, 2021 4:42 am

    lancelot wrote:To be honest I always found the design of the Leader destroyers kind of ridiculous.
    You have a huge ship like that and it carries less missiles than a Ticonderoga cruiser with like half the displacement.

    Thats not really an accurate assessment.

    Pr 23560 nominally has 8x UKSK (64 heavy AShM, LACM, ASubCM) plus something like 18x quad-cell VLS for heavy SAMs (minimum of 72 missiles, but could be much more if cells are multi-packed with smaller missiles).  Add onto that 3x Pantsir-M CIWS, presumably with significant reloads.

    Ticos have 122 general purpose tubes, plus IIRC about 8x harpoons.

    Pr 23560 has a stealthy config, nuclear propulsion and expanded stores for long endurance as they might be required to operate solo on long deployments without the support of a global auxilliary fleet and an archipelago of bases on stolen territory....  err..  "leased" locations that the USN enjoys.

    The Tico is little more than an expanded Spruance class that has been stuffed to the gunnels with tubes and intended to function as an imperial gunboat to keep the planets natives in line and foreign regimes suitably quelled and pliant.  

    If you think the Pr 23560 compares unfavourably against the Tico, what do you think of the Zumwalt? It only has 80 tubes plus 2x 155m arty pieces, all on a nearly 16,000 T displacement. Laughing

    Funnily enough I kinda accept that experienced Russian naval architects know more about designing combat ships to meet Russian Navy doctrinal needs than we Western-based Armchair Admirals (myself included)?

    Having said all that, the Pr 23560 is not an official project, and whatever large combatant the RuN chooses to build in latter 2020s will likely look very different.

    Hole likes this post

    Rodion_Romanovic
    Rodion_Romanovic

    Posts : 1441
    Points : 1431
    Join date : 2015-12-30
    Location : Merkelland

    Russian Navy: Status and News #5 - Page 23 Empty Re: Russian Navy: Status and News #5

    Post  Rodion_Romanovic Sat Apr 17, 2021 10:19 am

    LMFS wrote:
    thedrunkengeneral wrote:I doubt 22350M would be 8,000 tons. 22350M has the same dimensions as 22350 at 135 meters long. 22350 is 5,400 tons. 22350M should be about 5,800 tons. By comparison 20380 is 2,200 tons compared to 20385 which has the same dimensions as 20380 and 2,500 tons.

    The hull must be same or else it wouldn't be called 22350M but rather something else.

    Wow, do you have the blueprints already, amazing!

    Now seriously, cut the crap. The design has been approved, not published. And the sources that are "leaked" in the official channels say it is 8kt, with twice the weapons load than the standard 22350. BTW the 20380 and 20385 have different dimensions and displacement, and 11711 and 11711M are completely different even in their layout...
    Exactly, the Russians have also strange habits when they use the M after the project number (e.g 11711M or Tu22M, both very different from the original project).

    I bet 22350M will end up very close to the dimensions of Udaloy class (which is 163 m long and with a beam of about 19m ("vanilla" 22350 has a beam of 16m)).

    Big_Gazza and LMFS like this post

    Isos
    Isos

    Posts : 7414
    Points : 7398
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Russian Navy: Status and News #5 - Page 23 Empty Re: Russian Navy: Status and News #5

    Post  Isos Sat Apr 17, 2021 10:29 am

    UKSK is finished.

    They will come with a universal uksk-M for any kind of big missile.

    Redut will be kept for places where UKSK-M is too big and will also be improved to store bigger missiles but also more 9m96 per cell.

    Number of cell will be good no matter how many they use because each cell will be quad pack for small/medium/long range missiles unless they use anti ship, land attack or very long range AD missiles.

    They will also use they for quad packing loitoring munitions or drones in huge numbers.
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 29010
    Points : 29540
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Russian Navy: Status and News #5 - Page 23 Empty Re: Russian Navy: Status and News #5

    Post  GarryB Sat Apr 17, 2021 11:41 am

    I never saw Russia needing a cruiser or destroyer - their frigates are usually armed way better than most destroyers. Now they can make the turbines for their frigates, why bother?

    The thing is that their Corvettes can barely defend themselves, and their Frigates are slightly better armed in terms of self defence but there is no way even with 30 Corvettes and 30 frigates that they could operate two 40K ton helicopter landing ships and support a landing operation.

    For the helicopter landing ships to be useful... remember they are talking about them having a 60 day endurance, which suggests they wont be using them to land in Kaliningrad or the Kurile Islands.

    If they are going to use them further afield away from ground based air defence and land based fighters they are going to need aircraft carriers...

    And that is a big hint there... if they only wanted corvettes and frigates then why waste time overhauling the Kuznetsov or the two Kirov class cruisers let alone the Slava class cruisers. Even the upgrades of the Udaloy class ships would be a waste of time... they have a Frigate design and a few corvette designs... just bashing out them would be the solution.

    Except two 40K ton helicopter carriers means they want to see the world, which means corvettes and frigates are not going to cut it on their own... great for the waters around Russia, but no good further afield.

    Upgraded cruisers and destroyers and the Kuznetsov gives them a basic global reach but over time they will need new destroyers and some new cruisers... we are not talking hundreds like the US Navy, but I would think four cruisers each at the Northern Fleet and Pacific Fleet would be useful, and perhaps 6 to 8 destroyers for the Northern Fleet and the Pacific Fleet and maybe 4 in the Baltic and Black Sea fleets too.

    The two 40K ton helicopter carriers in the Northern Fleet will probably be joined with two more for the Pacific fleet though one each might have the helicopters and drones while the other has 1,000 naval infantry and armour.

    Two CVNs would round things off and the the upgraded ships could retire over time... leaving a very modern and capable fleet.

    They will come with a universal uksk-M for any kind of big missile.

    If they can get layering to work it will allow enormous numbers of missiles to be carried... especially the very small missiles that are not very efficient in the big launch tubes designed for huge missiles...
    Isos
    Isos

    Posts : 7414
    Points : 7398
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Russian Navy: Status and News #5 - Page 23 Empty Re: Russian Navy: Status and News #5

    Post  Isos Sat Apr 17, 2021 12:22 pm

    If they can get layering to work it will allow enormous numbers of missiles to be carried... especially the very small missiles that are not very efficient in the big launch tubes designed for huge missiles...

    Big missiles in small launchers is impossible. There is no drawback in quad packing 9m96 instead of a 48N6. On the opposite uksk and redut can't carry 48N6...

    Sponsored content

    Russian Navy: Status and News #5 - Page 23 Empty Re: Russian Navy: Status and News #5

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Sat May 15, 2021 6:58 am