No. Orlans had 20 Granits and 96 S-300F. 20 Granits will be replaced by 80 UKSK( M ?) . This will not affect number of S-300F or whatever missiles will be installed there. No ifo so fr bout whether S-300F will be replaced by other launchers AFAIK
Oh really... and did they have 100mm guns or 130mm guns?
BTW they are supposed to be being replaced by 10 UKSK... there is no possible room to fit 80, which would hold 640 missile tubes.
If they have developed a UKSK-M system that can hold large SAMs as well as cruise missiles then it would make sense to replace both the Granit launchers and the Rif SAM system (which is the S-300F BTW) with more than ten UKSK-M launchers... in fact that might be what is delaying the Kirov class upgrades because they want to use one launcher type (UKSK-M) instead of two or more (UKSK plus a larger version of Poliment Redut).
Liders for the other hand were to carry 64 UKSKs , now 100+ . This means really kick ass upgrde.
You mean they were supposed to carry 8 UKSK launchers and now more than 12...
100 Zircons is enough to take down all CSGs if all get close enough
In the 7 years it will take to make it and get it operational assuming no problems... yeah, but Kinzhal is operational now and avangard not very far away either.
Not saying no to an upgraded destroyer BTW.
not what I've herd. Buran irst of all was a carrier for Skiff orbital battle station. perhaps also truck to bring down "some satellites" form orbit.
Buran got military support and funding because they suspected the US shuttles were nuclear orbital bombers in disguise. Experience led them to realise it was a pretty poor nuclear bomber concept... using enormous resources to deliver a payload two or three Satans could deliver for a fraction of the cost and always ready for launch... unlike shuttle launches that require a lot of preparation.
The Skiff orbital battle station would be fitted to the Energyia rocket where the Buran normally was fitted for launch... so really did not require the Buran to exist at all... and the concept of fixing satellites in orbit was non existent at the time... it was only after the shuttle was used to fix hubble that this capability was really appreciated... but it is a very specific and narrow use for the thing... 90% of satellites would not be worth the cost of going to to capture and return or fix.
they'll interfere with hydrodynamics of high speed & slow the ship down with greater water resistance, unless they r made retractable.
They could angle them down and hydroplane lifting the ship out of the water and greatly improve speed performance...
Also, they'll be less protected when outside the hull.
What an interesting suggestion because the only case I could think of where that could be an issue would be in an ice field and the ships that already use the engine pods are ice breakers... they turn the pods around and run them in reverse and creep forward with the propeller blades chopping the ice into slush... the ability to rotate the blades 360 degrees offers a unique opportunity to actually protect the blades conventional designs don't have the option of doing.
NPP on Adm. K won't happen:
Repeat of my reply there:
Nuclear power plants have previously been built into vessels from the design stage, but new more modern nuclear power plants are becoming smaller and more modular and could be placed almost anywhere you want in an all electric design because it is just basically a battery, so you could locate it any where you like... whereas with existing designs it was generally directly connected to the transmission and gearing attached to the end of some rather long and heavy shafts attached to propellers at the rear of the ship... not very flexible at all.
With new engine pods and electrical drive, you could put the NPP anywhere you wanted... the only connection to the engine pods would be power cables...
BTW no one other than the Soviets were making aircraft carrying cruisers like the Kiev class and no one converted them to more conventional flat deck carrier designs... like the Russians did for India...
We had no civilian tasks for Buran and the military ones were no longer needed. It was originally designed as a military system for weapon delivery, maybe even nuclear weapons. The American shuttle also has military uses.
That is the one... funded by the military because they thought the US might be using the space shuttle as an orbital bomber to overfly Soviet air defences... when it turned out a terribly ineffective and enormously expensive way of doing it the funding was cut.
Actually Buran was much better suited to a wide variety of tasks in space... more specifically the Energyia rocket basically took the 120 ton Buran into space... it would be very easy to take off the buran and put on various fairly large objects to deliver to space... or if they were keen on the bomber role a huge fairing containing 120 tons of reentry vehicles to deliver to the US... which could be hundreds if not thousands of bombs...
Or the biggest and most powerful bomb they could build perhaps.
Grow up fanboi. Show me one full sized naval ship that has podded electrically driven propellers. I dare you, genius.
Perhaps this ice breaking LNG tanker working the Yamal LNG fields in Russia?
https://www.ship-technology.com/projects/christophe-de-margerie-class-icebreaking-lng-carriers/
Since there is no value in making any naval ship shorter, getting rid of propeller shafts is cosmetic BS.
On an 80K ton ship the propeller shafts are probably 1,000 tons... for fuck sake the barrels on the main guns of the Iowa class battlecruisers are 100 tons each.
It also means that at the end of those propeller shafts is the gearbox and transmission and then the propulsion source... and what does all that weight and complication do... move the kinetic energy from the transmission to the propellers which are fixed in place and can run forward or backward...
Is there some sort of need for thrust vectoring dog fights
at sea with ships I am not aware of?
The ability to manouver a ship precisely and accurately and without the support of tugs even in the most congested harbour or stretch of water, but obviously being able to control your ship better and move heavy components like NPPs to places where they would be safer and easier to change when needed makes it even more appealing.
In the missile era there is zero value to being able to spin the ship around in a few seconds. Maybe back in the day of
lobbing shells there was some value. In fact, there is value in making ships faster and propeller shafts are not getting in the way. But nuclear power allows
for both speed and persistence of fast travel.
Being fast is rather nice, but there is no benefit in being faster than any of the ships in your carrier group... I can't see landing ships running at more than 16 knots, and while US carriers have been reported to run quite fast even the noisiest diesel electric could sink such a blind target that is still not fast enough to outrun a torpedo... but it will be running fast enough to not know it is under attack.
[quote]He cannot simply dismiss the Zumwalt or QE without acknowledging relevant innovative approaches these can be using.
[quote]
Many of the ideas for the Zumwalt might be brilliant, but trying to combine them with other things or a bad implimentation might have made them all fail miserably.
The idea of all electric drive is a good idea whether it is a ship or a UAV or a tank or a car, but quite a few technologies need to reach a mature point for it to work properly...
I mean the T-35 was a terrible failure in WWII... in WWI it would have been difficult to operate and control but might have done better, but in the 21st Centuries with EO systems auto searching for relevant targets and AI control of each of the turrets where targets are handed to the turret in its field of view that suits the target could be a roaring success... with no humans inside the thin armour is not really an issue... armour the ammo bins and the engine and it would be fine... AP rounds could punch right through the thing... would not matter.
The issue for me is the cost and complications of NPP. Otherwise it would be for sure the best approach since it gives essentially unlimited range, is very capable for producing electricity and should save a lot of fuel volume.
There is no real alternative to NPP for large ships, and they are getting more powerful and smaller and safer all the time.
New models can be designed to not need refuelling for 20-30 years... and it is refuelling that is one of the most expensive things regarding existing nuclear submarines...
I see it as a complex issue, and the fact that so few vessels in so few countries use nuclear propulsion indicates to me this is a very high-end solution with lots of complications.
The US doesn't make conventional submarines... what does that indicate?
Russia isn't going to be making dozens of these ships... especially if they are 20K tons, so they might as well not be cheap and cheerful.
Home
Latest images
Register
Log in
LMFS
