perhaps but this w not what I was talking about. 80cells for AShM only.
Perhaps the reason they are talking about a destroyer with 100 plus Zircons is because they might actually only have 64 Zircons and the rest are SAMs or other missiles because it will have UKSK-M launch tubes?
A bit like when America Strong fanbois talk about AEGIS class cruisers it has 184 SAMs or 184 cruise missiles or whatever max capacity of what ever weapon you happen to be talking about... but in actual practise it will never carry that many of anything...
In fact they likely never carry a full load of any missiles because it would cost too damn much to buy that many missiles anyway...
Not sure if we're talking about the same. Neither Kinzhal nor Avangard ship missiles and is not going to be used on . The sense Zircons/Liders is in power projection for expeditionary forces. Instead of airwing.
I thought it was the suggestion that even with 100 Zircons... the Americans have more than 100 ships so it is going to run out of missiles before they run out of ships... but lets face it after the second ship sinks, and they realise their super defence systems don't work, the rest will run for the hills... the 7 years is the minimum time to get a leader into the water and it is a bare and optimistic minimum...
FOBS AFAIK ws related to R36 not Burans. But all links/sources are welcome
FOBS was SS-9, but Skif was mounted on an Energyia rocket like Buran was... so Skif is a Buran launch without the Buran.
It was merely a suggestion that the Energyia rocket was designed for large payloads on its back... like Skif or Buran, so a simple fairing with lots of warheads would also do the job... there were agreements in place to make it not legal of course.
not really, you dont count tens of military bases around the world to refuel yous ship.
Russia had trouble getting to Syria.... a big ship like a carrier takes a lot of fuel to power... some small country ports probably couldn't cope with that sort of business...
Despite tons of comments against this project from the pro-US and pro-Israel people in this forum, the project goes forward.
The construction of the first unit was assured with the approval of the preliminary project in the spring of 2017.
Now there are more concrete news about the second unit, that has a timeline like 2 years after the first.
And being a project of strategic importance for the Russian Navy, more delays are unlikely, and the first unit can be commissioned by the end of 2025.
Where is now all the people saying that the Project 23560 was out of the State Armament Project 2018-2027? The reality always comes for them like a truck over a .... in the road.
I personally am happy to see progress on this, and don't share the pessimism of the doom sayers that the Russian Navy is dead or doomed to remain a green water fleet.
You would loose a good amount of power due to that angling, and it is doubtful you are going to lift a ship that big (you would rather sink the bow, unless the propellers are at the front of CoG).
Dude... talking about a speed boat, not a ship.
The cabling and power conversion equipment needed for handling the absolutely MASSIVE amounts of power a big vessel needs are a technical challenge, expensive and heavy and with big cooling demands. So it is not like is 100% advantages and no downsides.
But I thought all the problems would be solved by the Pixies from magic land like they normally are with new technology...
Land sea or air or indeed space and on other planets such problems are going to crop up and need solutions... do you wait until the Zumwalt is in the water and something dont work, or do you test some equipment on a nice big ship with propulsion issues already...
If it fails on the Kuznetsov as an upgrade... retire her early... if it succeeds then you get three CVNs instead of two.
I wonder what alternative to shafts the Krylov guy is meaning, podded propellers are not present AFAIK in any high speed ship.
The fact that they have not been put in a high speed ship does not mean they couldn't be... perhaps some sort of planing hydrofoils could be used... having large ships moving at 40-50 knots... a 60 knot carrier an AN-2 would struggle to keep up with it and landing could be vertical...
Yes, this was the alleged reason for last US nuclear cruisers (Virginia class) being scrapped. This new technology allowing the ships essentially to cover their whole life without refuelling can be very important for the economic viability of Lider and other future Russian nuclear ships.
Russia is a world leader in NPP and dealing with nuclear power and refuelling...
The don't have nuclear destroyers or cruisers anymore either...
But how many hundred of those do they have... and how many are Russia going to have?
Of course. Plus almost anything today is powered with electricity so it makes sense to go all electric with power from step 1. Throttling capacity is very relevant nevertheless, traditional NPP are not good at that.
If you have 10 compact NPPs around the ship and only have all 10 running when running at full speed with your nipples out...
The other is number of CSGs. Look at Mistrals. Number 4 was ordered for a reason. IMHO 1 Arctic, 1 Pacific/Kamchatka + 2 roaming oceans.
Actually the plan for two Mistrals was one for the Pacific/Kuriles, and the other for the northern fleet and arctic with icebreakers opening the way between them periodically. If four were bought the plan was two at each of the two ports... Northern Fleet and Pacific Fleet.
In terms of wandering the Pacific fleet ship might have wandered around the Pacific and Asia and central and south America on the Pacific side, while the northern fleet spare might have gone down into the atlantic to africa and central and south america like Cuba and Venezuela and Brazil.
True it would be interesting how "turbo" will be sorted out? maybe extra turbines but for electrical power generation? so no extra shafts needed?
You could have gas turbines or diesels or both, but they would be connected with dynamos rather than drive shafts and transmissions...
Like an electric car with electric motors on each wheel... you can have batteries and fuel cells and small gas turbines running all sorts of fuel from diesel or petrol to LNG or even hydrogen with the fuel cell. In this case a gas turbine is small and running at optimum speed all the time quite fuel efficient in generating power.
In a tank you spend most of your time accelerating from zero to as fast as you can to move from cover to cover which is very non fuel efficient for a gas turbine. The electricity generators on command tanks are normally small gas turbines that can run for days and burn a lot less than the main tank engine (diesel or gas turbine) to keep the systems running and the heater going do you don't need a tent for your tank...
Most probably CONAG propulsion system, either the gas turbines geared to the propulsion shaft or generating current for electric motors.
You are better off without a propulsion shaft if you don't need one...
They still need more ballast for stability. Even a CVN rolls in heavy seas with waves breaking over the bow.
There are plenty of alternatives...
Now they must make more SSNs to replace those they decommissioned earlier, wasting $ twice.
SSKs r cheaper to build & operate + they can last longer- many r still in reserves in China & NK.
I totally agree with what you are saying... conventional subs can be very potent... the Kilo class is an obvious example and the Lada class will hammer that home even further.... excellent value for money...
But if they can have less than four aircraft carriers do they want to save a little money and make them smaller and cheaper and only able to operate vertical take off fighters that are not even on the drawing board yet, or do they want to spend a bit of money and get better value for money... they are planning EMALS so guess what... they are going to have to develop technology for handling high voltages on ships and the ability to store and move large amounts of electrical power when needed... Gas turbines are good at generating lots of power quickly and so are NPPs... they could use both... they will use both... nuclear powered SSBNs have emergency propulsion systems to get them out of port and out to sea quickly while the reactor is being powered up... that is perfectly normal and most very large ships have a range of power generation systems...
They could make them, some shipyards were turning to Gov. to fund the project to provide Taiwan, Turkey, Australia and some other countries with diesels but they didnt seem to care since Germany was building 209s.
Not to mention they had not ready to go conventional designs...
Home
Latest images
Register
Log in
