Questions Thread: Russian Navy

Paket-NK can target subs in close range.

I would more like to ask about their replacement. Years ago there were plans for Katran and Scorpion missile boats,but now no news about them. I think at least one Scorpion boat was in building.

Well the introduction of the UKSK launcher means that instead of a small light missile boat you can have a slightly larger corvette that is significantly better armed.

The main problem with the small missile boat is its vulnerability... it tended to have short range SAMs and limited radar performance and the equivalent fire power of a battleship with 4-8 anti ship missiles.

It was a bit too fragile and a helo with a weapon like Sea Skua was a serious threat.

A corvette on the other hand is a larger vessel with greater range, longer endurance, SIGMA C4IR systems, and even with one UKSK launcher you combine the two small missile boat and torpedo boat options together with the potential to carry up to 8 Onyx or Brahmos missiles, or 8 anti sub torpedos delivered up to 40km from the ship by a mach 1.5 rocket or a combination of them and also the subsonic and supersonic models of Klub and of course land attack missiles too.

The larger corvette will also have the capacity for a much heavier SAM defence enabling it to protect itself from helos and aircraft to much longer ranges.

The vertical launch tubes take up more internal space but are much more stealthy with no moving parts reducing maintainence requirements.

I wonder if there are plans to add Kh-35s to the UKSK missile system. There was talk of adding SAM capacity, which would mean instead of separate UKSK and SAM launchers you could just have more UKSK launchers, but the problem is that the missiles used in the UKSK system are largely similar... very long relatively narrow missiles.

I would guess that stacking missiles in modules might allow more efficient use of the space... for instance in the space you put one Yakhont missile you might be able to fit 6 small short range IIR guided missiles based on Morfei/9M100 in a module that takes the width a Yakhont missile takes up, but the huge length of the Yakhont you might be able to stack 3 modules in the space one Yakhont missile takes up.

This would mean that there are three modules in the tube and for the first 6 targets the missiles are catapulted from the top module and when the top module is empty it is ejected making the next module ready to fire and once it is empty it is ejected and the last module is ready to fire. The ejection of the modules could be by rocket launching it up and then a side rocket launching it out into the sea, or the modules could be designed and aligned so that the lower modules use the upper tubes as barrels to launch the lower missiles through.

This would make it simpler and safer with the modules removed and reloaded in port.

Big modules being blown around the place creates a problem whereas the missiles in the lower modules can launch up through the tubes of the missiles above and push out the ejection mechanism of the missile above them ahead of them as they exit the tube. They could be made disposable... using compressed air or something.

The result of course is that a Corvette with two UKSK launchers could have 8 Oniks missiles in one bin... which could potentially include hypersonic 1,000km range anti ship missiles and up to 144 short range lock on after launch IIR guided SAMs.

medo wrote:I would more like to ask about their replacement. Years ago there were plans for Katran and Scorpion missile boats,but now no news about them. I think at least one Scorpion boat was in building.

21631 methinks is excellent replacement.

GarryB wrote:
I wonder if there are plans to add Kh-35s to the UKSK missile system. There was talk of adding SAM capacity, which would mean instead of separate UKSK and SAM launchers you could just have more UKSK launchers, but the problem is that the missiles used in the UKSK system are largely similar... very long relatively narrow missiles.

I dont think that VLS is needed for fast attack missile boats. I think Project 1242.1/1241.8 'Molniya' further development of the Tarantul family boats can be a replacement with canisters for Uran-E.

Concerning Project 21631 it has the double displacement of 21630. About 1000tons and speed about 25 knots. Tarantul has 45 knots.

A fast attack craft (FAC) is a small, fast, agile and offensive warship armed with anti-ship missiles. FACs are usually operated in close proximity to land as they lack both the sea-keeping and all-round defensive capabilities to survive in blue water. Sizewise they are usually between 400 tonnes and can reach speeds of 35–50 knots.

Corvettes will operate in greater proximity to land. And mainly they will have ASW role with Paket NK system and 91RE2 missiles in VLS (Project 20385)

The speed won't be much of a loss when we consider that with UKSK they have weapons with far greater range + speed. Much more usefull than the carriers speed IMO.
It is more of a "Nanuchka" replacement, I don't think we will see a direct Tarntul replacement.
I am more concerned by the targeting means of the 21631s long range weaponry.

I would expect a move away from having large numbers of fast attack craft and a move to larger vessels.

Certainly a few FACs each with 16 Kh-35s would be very capable vessels, but they are like eggs... very thin shells...

A corvette would be more useful and the larger corvettes able to carry light helos or indeed rotary wing UAVs would be more useful than a FAC of old.

TR1 wrote:

medo wrote:I would more like to ask about their replacement. Years ago there were plans for Katran and Scorpion missile boats,but now no news about them. I think at least one Scorpion boat was in building.

21631 methinks is excellent replacement.

Agree, Buyan-M could be good replacement, although it is with 74 m length a corvette and no more a boat. Maybe for other fleets it should be equipped with Palash/Palma system instead of Duet and Gibka SAM systems to be more effective in self defense and air defense.

I dont think that VLS is needed for fast attack missile boats.

I was thinking in terms of standardisation.

They seem to be fitting every vessel they are making with UKSK launchers and that includes the Mistrals from corvettes up to carriers. I agree a FAC wont have the hull depth to have UKSK launchers and deck mounted clusters of 4 Kh-35s would be ideal... they are so compact they could fit 8 missiles for each Styx missile so even an old vessel can carry 16 missiles which in their latest version have a range of 240km which is formidible.

What I was thinking was that the depth and width of the UKSK tubes you could probably fit two stacks of 3-4 missiles per tube, so instead of one Klub you could carry 6-8 Kh-35s ready to launch.

It is about flexibility and of course usefulness. The Kh-35 becomes a much more useful weapon if suddenly every naval vessel in the fleet can carry a large number of them... especially if you make different versions of the Kh-35 like land attack models and IIR guided weapons with a lock on after launch capability and completely passive homing.

My wife and I just got back from a Baltic cruise. While in St Petersburg, we took the hydrofoil back from Peterhof. When we entered the Neva River, I was surprised to see two frigates/corvettes docked on the north bank. I didn't have time to take any pictures. My Janes Warship Recognition Guide is from 2006 and nothing looks familier. The hull (pennant) numbers were 161 and 162. Can anyone help me out with classes/names?

Did they have large anti ship missile tubes, or those round looking Anti-submarine rocket launchers?

None of the larger new ships (20380 corvettes) have those numbers, so I am thinking it is a smaller ship.

I didn't get a good look but they had a turreted cannon on the forecastle and what appeared to be a small twin automatic cannon on each side of the after superstructure. It was hard to tell since they were covered with tan tarps. They were bigger than the Russian Coast Guard cutter next to them.

Ahh, that helps.

Did they look like this? :
http://www.scalespeed.com/Images/TarantulIII.jpg
http://www.ausairpower.net/Tarantul-Corvette-DNSC9701565-1S.jpg

I am having trouble finding any corvettes/missile/anti-submarine boats in the Baltic with those numbers on them.

Come to think of it, you mentioned it was covered in tarp, maybe an export vessel under construction?

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-El4pix7ZCSQ/T5G7weF1iJI/AAAAAAAAEvs/BF2JanBd5rg/s1600/Koni.jpg

Algerian boats like this one are under modernization @ Severnaya.

EDIT:

ALso a number of these were built for Vietnam, but I am not sure of the Hull numbers while in Russia:
http://njanokuku.files.wordpress.com/2012/04/tarantul4-1.jpg

Just the guns had tarps over them, not the whole boat.

So the guns were open turret designs?

Sounds like border patrol gun boats.

Only 37mm and 25mm gun mounts commonly have open mounts and they are becoming more and more rare... mainly kept on mine hunters for shooting mines on the surface...

I found a local library that had a copy of Janes Fighting Ships 2010-11. It appears that what I saw were two Pauk (Type 12412) ships. In the book, they were painted dark gray with stripes and lettered for the Border Guards. The two that I saw were in fresh dark gray like most Russian ships. I checked pennant numbers and the Janes list skipped from 161 to 163. I wrote down that the two I saw were 161 and 162.

AFAIK Russian and Soviet Pennant numbers were not fixed and were subject to change.

As the title said..

We know that during 1950-1970 era, some of Soviet/Russia Submarines were powered using Liquid metal cooled reactor..like the Project 705 Lira (Alfa class) and Project 661 Anchar (papa class).. they're developed by OKB Gidropress..hmm which now developing and offering such reactors (Sodium and Lead Bismuth Euthetics) for power generation application.

Anyway i wonder if there's anymore reactor of that kind (Liquid Metal Cooled) developed or deployed today for naval propulsion, or did the Russian navy completely abandoned it in favor of more common Pressurized Water Reactor ?

many thanks for any given answers

I seem to remember they were looking at helium cooled reactors, or it might have been nitrogen cooled reactors.

The main problem with water cooled reactors is that you have to have high pressure so that it stays water and doesn't turn into steam at the hundreds of degrees they are working at.

Very simply the problem with water is that if you keep heating it... it turns to steam... if you heat it more and more eventually the hydrogen and oxygen separate... hydrogen on its own would be fine... it would burn in air but not explode, but when it is created from water it also releases oxygen... and when you mix hydrogen and pure oxygen at very high temperatures you get an explosion.

Using liquid metal was great because it can run at very high temperatures without exploding in the pipes... the main problem is that you need to keep them running... it is like a concrete mixer full of concrete... turn it off for a period of time and the metal hardens and you need to chuck the whole system out and put in a new one...

I remember reading about their designs for ship based portable reactors they could sail to far north areas in Russia... even down rivers where it could generate power and hot water supplies and heat for a small community.

I can't remember what material they were talking about using as a coolant but the idea was to have a closed cooling system that was connected to a pump that could pump in water from the river or sea the boat was in to further cool the coolant but without radiation leaving the vessel. The result was hundreds of thousands of litres of fresh water a day and all the hot water you might need... together with the electricity of course.

This seems like as good a thread to ask this, so Ill just go ahead. I learnt that Western subs have a crew-rotation policy, at least for their SSBNs, where while one crew is out at sea with the boat, the second crew gets R&R and some training, and when the first crew finishes their patrol, the second crew take over. Blue and Gold crews, I think they were called.

Do Russian subs have some sort of similar crew cycle?

AFAIK Russian boomers have a much lower operational tempo compared with US subs, but the Soviet subs are generally larger and roomier so they don't have to put up with the US practise of "hot racking".

For those not familiar with life on a sub it basically has three crews that work 8 hours on and 16 hours off, so, say with 90 sailors on board you might use 30 to sail the boat, which leaves 30 asleep, and 30 resting or at meals. The result is that a boat with 90 crew will have 30 bunks for crew to sleep in that will be used all the time... three crewmen to a single bunk.

On an Akula there is a room for 2-3 crewmen and each man has his own bunk and space... in addition there are at least three aviaries (with live birds), at least 3 libraries, 3 gyms and a movie theatre...

Who says Russian weapon weapon designers don't care about crew comfort ?

can Russian subs survive a hit from a western AS torpedo(mk.48 for example)just enough time so it can surface and its crew can survive?