Domestic production of marine engines for Russian Navy

PhSt wrote:

but eventually it will get sorted with Russian engines to do the job

and when is this going to get sorted out? its been 6 years since Ukraine blocked sale of ship engines to Russia, how much more time does Russia need to develop a working domestic engine? 20 years? 30? by that time the engine they are making will be obsolete

What has this to do with the Ukraine?

Yeah Russia lost a lot of capabilities on diesel engine production and also did not invest on it after the fall of Soviet union... but it was not getting the diesel engines from them. Zorya Mashproekt in Nikolaev made the naval gas turbine engines and the reduction gears, and Russia should be self sufficient on those now...

Rodion_Romanovic wrote:

PhSt wrote:

but eventually it will get sorted with Russian engines to do the job

and when is this going to get sorted out? its been 6 years since Ukraine blocked sale of ship engines to Russia, how much more time does Russia need to develop a working domestic engine? 20 years? 30? by that time the engine they are making will be obsolete

What has this to do with the Ukraine?

Yeah Russia  lost a lot of capabilities on diesel engine production and also did not invest on it after the fall of Soviet union... but it was not getting the diesel engines from them. Zorya Mashproekt in Nikolaev made the naval gas turbine engines and the reduction gears, and Russia should be self sufficient on those now...

It is hard to see what happens .

To start the production of the new items then first the design has to finalised, second the manufacturing process, the actual plants with tooling, and infally the product has to finalished, tested with the other components and with the ship.


If a problem require the modification of the desing then the whole chain has to be rolled back.


C'mon, for the US more than 20 years wasn't enought to make usable F-35 aircrafts, in the original design specification.

They solved the issue partially by decreasing the perfomrance requirements, and by accepting substandard airframes, and pushing even the kichen sink into the project.


But in this case there is a ship, that has a narrow set of parameters, and there is not so much room for mistakes.

Singular_Transform wrote:...It is hard to see what happens .

It's not really

Instead of getting started on designing local engines the moment sanctions hit they wasted years waiting and hoping that everything will blow over and that Ukrainians, Finns and Germans will for some inexplicable reason start delivering engines again (we can safely say that they were certain of it)

Why did they go with this approach when it was perfectly clear that nobody will ever give them engines ever again? Answer is simple: they are lazy morons and they couldn't be arsed to do complicated stuff like designing and setting up production of engines from scratch

They preferred to sit on their asses and hope for the best because, Russia...

Of course as always time proved them wrong and now they are years behind (see space industry for another example of being proven obviously wrong from the get go)

PapaDragon wrote:

Singular_Transform wrote:...It is hard to see what happens .

It's not really

Instead of getting started on designing local engines the moment sanctions hit they wasted years waiting and hoping that everything will blow over and that Ukrainians, Finns and Germans will for some inexplicable reason start delivering engines again (we can safely say that they were certain of it)

Why did they go with this approach when it was perfectly clear that nobody will ever give them engines ever again? Answer is simple: they are lazy morons and they couldn't be arsed to do complicated stuff like designing and setting up production of engines from scratch

They preferred to sit on their asses and hope for the best because, Russia...

Of course as always time proved them wrong and now they are years behind (see space industry for another example of being proven obviously wrong from the get go)

Quality fast cheap


You can choose two  : )

The Ukrainan crisis throw a wrench into the satelite, icebreaker, BN-800 reactor, miltiary ships, aircrafts and many other countless project.

They had to prioritise, and most likelly the surface ships received the lowest priority.


And again, starting a supply chain from the scratch takes time.

Takes an example the FOGBANK mishaps :
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FOGBANK

From the decision to the first refudbished warhead it took more than 15 years, and they suffered several years of delay.

And in that case they just restarted a refurbishing line, and they had all previous tooling, documentation and drawing, and the target wasn't to make new warheads, only to refurbish them.

and when is this going to get sorted out? its been 6 years since Ukraine blocked sale of ship engines to Russia, how much more time does Russia need to develop a working domestic engine? 20 years? 30? by that time the engine they are making will be obsolete

German companies have been making diesel engines for centuries. So have Russian and Soviet companies but unfortunately for Russia they were Motor Sich based in the Ukraine. Fortunately for Russia those engines weren't super state of the art, so even if the Ukraine wasn't being a dick they would have had to make some serious investments in design and production facilities to get new engines worthy of the new ships they were going in to. But now instead of pumping money into the Ukraine they can pump investment money into Russian companies and the improved engine technology and metalurgy will benefit other Russian projects too.

It will take time to get it right but they will end up with something they own and can export and use in other areas too.

Short term it is a pain in the ass, but in the long term it is actually better than trying to rely on Germany or China.

What has this to do with the Ukraine?

The Soviet marine diesel technology centre was Ukraine. It was where most of the big engines... diesels and gas turbines for ships were developed and built.

Yeah Russia lost a lot of capabilities on diesel engine production and also did not invest on it after the fall of Soviet union... but it was not getting the diesel engines from them. Zorya Mashproekt in Nikolaev made the naval gas turbine engines and the reduction gears, and Russia should be self sufficient on those now...

Developing everything for yourself and actually making stuff that is good enough and world class that wont disadvantage units that use it is slow and expensive... during the 1990s and 00s they were replacing all sorts of things that were made in other Soviet States or even eastern europe (like light helicopters and their engines and jet trainers and their engines). They weren't building many ships during that period... and most of the ones they were building were for export anyway... if they wanted to cut the Ukraine off like that then the Ukraine would have turned to the west a long time ago and everything they made would have been cut off.

It would have been very difficult for the Russian MIC because a lot of what was exported for desperately needed export cash probably could not have happened with those Ukrainian parts and without that money a lot of systems we see now would not exist.

That includes western parts that were not cut off really until 2014... so it gave more time to introduce alternative designs with domestic components... by 2014 Russia was much stronger than it was at any period before so the pain of having to make their own products with their own components was greatly reduced, and the result of all Russian equipment and components will make the economy stronger and more robust...

To start the production of the new items then first the design has to finalised, second the manufacturing process, the actual plants with tooling, and infally the product has to finalished, tested with the other components and with the ship.


If a problem require the modification of the desing then the whole chain has to be rolled back.

The first thing they will do is create or buy or steal decent plans for the engine... preferably digital. They do have experts that make engines already so there might be a few changes they could make to make the engine easier to make or more powerful or more reliable... They would then make a land based test bed and give it a swimming pool sized fuel tank and oil tank etc etc and start running it... after a couple of weeks they can stop it and take it apart and check for wear and tear and then run it again... Any parts that wear out are strengthened or reshaped or made thicker and stronger and put back in the engine... if that improves it... changes are made to the design... after running it for a year or more you put one in a real boat for testing under loads... and your organise serial manufacture of that engine.

If such things were easy then everyone would be making them... people think drones are simple and easy... well the remote control plane a kid could build from a set of plans but digital datalinks and decent cameras with stabilisers and very high magnification are very technical and make the difference between effective tool and crappy pieces of junk. A cellphone camera is not good enough... you need to be able to see objects 10km away clearly and sharply if the drone is operating at 10km altitude...

Good engines in cars can make or break a car design, and really big marine diesels are even more complex...

C'mon, for the US more than 20 years wasn't enought to make usable F-35 aircrafts, in the original design specification.

When you earn good money fixing problems... you really don't want to actually fix them because that means the job is over... and you need another job.

France doesn't make its own titanium bits in its own jet engines... and they have plenty of high tech capabilities... I would rate the Rafale as being better than an F-22 simply because I think both aircraft could defeat each others missiles and in a gun fight I would think the Rafale would win.

They solved the issue partially by decreasing the perfomrance requirements, and by accepting substandard airframes, and pushing even the kichen sink into the project.

They dropped requirements completely... the VSTOL model is now subsonic like a Harrier or it damages itself and stops being stealthy...

But in this case there is a ship, that has a narrow set of parameters, and there is not so much room for mistakes.

The Russians had a lot of technologies but also have a few gaps... this is just a case of spending some money and some time to fill a gap...

Instead of getting started on designing local engines the moment sanctions hit they wasted years waiting and hoping that everything will blow over and that Ukrainians, Finns and Germans will for some inexplicable reason start delivering engines again (we can safely say that they were certain of it)

You say that but we really don't know that. There are thousands of different imported bits of equipment that suddenly stopped and needed to be replaced.... designing and building your own marine diesel engines is not an easy or quick or cheap thing to do so their first choice was to buy the same engine from China... and I would add that is something you have suggested on occasion too have you not?

That didn't work out so great but they haven't been asleep... there is an enormous range of other bits and pieces that have been replaced that were imported... I seem to remember impact resistant seats for ships and vehicles were replaced with domestically made versions, and lighting strips for ships was also found in a domestic provider.

Their experience with Chinese made diesels should give them an idea of the weak points and potential failure nodes that they will need to focus on if they dont want the same problems with their engines.

They haven't just replicated the parts and assembled the engines and sent them off to sea... they are clearly interested in getting the new engines right which I think is a good thing. Bad reputations are hard to shift.

Why did they go with this approach when it was perfectly clear that nobody will ever give them engines ever again? Answer is simple: they are lazy morons and they couldn't be arsed to do complicated stuff like designing and setting up production of engines from scratch

Of course... lazy and stupid... it has to be in their CV or they don't even get considered for the job.

Please post the evidence that they didn't set up production from scratch and in the mean time order some diesels from China because production of diesels from scratch doesn't happen in one or two years... even when you have an engine ready to run it for two years continuously to test it before you put it in a boat. You also take time to examine the design and look for problem areas... the german factories might be able to do things your factories can't... they might be able to make things out of fewer parts, or you might be able to improve the design by using your 6 axis milling machine to get away with fewer parts... experience with the Chinese diesels will tell you where some obvious weak points are in the design.

They preferred to sit on their asses and hope for the best because, Russia...

What proof do you have of this exactly?

Of course as always time proved them wrong and now they are years behind (see space industry for another example of being proven obviously wrong from the get go)

Of course because all Russians are lazy... that is why the west is so damn afraid of them... but then Ivan Gren is now a success despite early problems... those lazy bastards actually looked at the problems and fixed them... and kept redesigning and improving and now they have something that will work... without having to start over again 3 times like they would have if they listened to you.

The fact is that the boat is a good design and the only problem is the engines... once those problems are sorted out and new engines are made and put in to the boats they can make them in numbers and you will have forgotten you called them lazy idiots... I suspect they wont get an apology... the shipyard making the Ivan Gren didn't get one... the Russian Navy didn't know what they wanted but the shipyard gets the blame every time.

Of course they wouldn't care about Internet trolls who have never planned anything in their lives... that is shown by going to pieces when something goes wrong... and when good planning comes in... you can just delay and change the problems into features... this fighter plane can't fly supersonic... this aircraft carrier can only launch drones and helicopters despite weighing 100K tons...

They had to prioritise, and most likelly the surface ships received the lowest priority.

Especially small ones...

Project 22350 Admiral Golovko will be the first ship to take a domestic production gas turbine engine

Strictly speaking, from the pictures from the launching ceremony (link 1), on which the chimney is not visible, and from the deadline for completion and testing of the second serial ship (more than two years), announced by the shipyard’s press service (link 2), it was clear that but the head of the USC set the final point on June 25: “The first turbine will be delivered to the frigate of project 22350 this year. We just have to finish work on summing gearboxes. Things are not going well there, but we already see understandable technical solutions that will allow [solve this problem] "(link 3 with stylistic corrections of the author of the blog).

By "first turbine" Mr. Rakhmanov, presumably, had in mind the first diesel-gas-turbine unit (DGTA) M55R. The gas turbine (GTE) M90FR, along with the 10D49 diesel engine and the RO55 gearbox, is an integral part of it and does not mean anything by itself. In the Saturn test complex, the units will be tested assembled with verification of the joint and separate operation of the gas turbine engine and diesel engine and the subsequent delivery of the gas turbine engine to the shipyard. The supply of a single turbine (as previously reported - reference 4) is meaningless (*).

(*) With the exception, perhaps, of using a working gas turbine engine as a mass-dimensional layout for the purpose of interlinking the foundations, units and systems of a power plant (which is especially important if the engine is installed on a ship for the first time) with returning to Saturn for testing as part of DHTA.

The further fate of Golovko will depend on whether the official May descent was final or technological. In the first case, after the delivery of DHTA, they will be shipped to order and mounted at the outfitting embankment. In the second, the ship will be lifted out of the water with the help of a transfer float and put on a solid foundation. Both methods seem equally probable. Of course, it is more convenient to mount a power plant on an open slipway, but the final alignment of the valines in any way will have to be carried out afloat (on the slipway it is possible to make only preliminary alignment, which is violated due to deformation of the hull when launching an order for water).

https://navy-korabel.livejournal.com/243837.html

Is there a comprehensive list of naval gas turbines being manufactured in Russia?
Is there also a list of gas turbines Russia is actively designing, and what their power output and intended uses will be?
I am trying to figure out which Soviet legacy ships power units are being supported, and which current and future programmes are being catered for.

wilhelm wrote:Is there a comprehensive list of naval gas turbines being manufactured in Russia?
Is there also a list of gas turbines Russia is actively designing, and what their power output and intended uses will be?
I am trying to figure out which Soviet legacy ships power units are being supported, and which current and future programmes are being catered for.

This is what I have, probably you have seen it already:



Couple of links:

http://mil.today/2017/Science8/
https://thaimilitaryandasianregion.blogspot.com/2017/06/saturn-enterprise-gas-turbine-engines.html
http://elements.rostec.ru/en/water/

The first Russian gear units for the Project 22350 frigate

As reported on October 23, 2020 by PJSC Zvezda (St. Petersburg), gearboxes of PJSC Zvezda for the first domestic power plant of the project 22350 frigate have successfully passed qualification tests, as well as tests as part of a diesel-gas turbine unit, the developer and manufacturer of which is NPO "Saturn" (PJSC "UEC-Saturn"). By the decision of the qualification commission, the enterprise was recognized as ready for serial production and delivery of products. Reducer transmission PO55 manufactured by PJSC "Zvezda" (St. Petersburg) for the diesel-gas turbine unit DGTA-M55R of the frigate of project 22350 under construction for the Russian Navy with serial number 924 (c) PJSC "Zvezda"




https://bmpd.livejournal.com/4170665.html

George1 wrote:The first Russian gear units for the Project 22350 frigate

As reported on October 23, 2020 by PJSC Zvezda (St. Petersburg), gearboxes of PJSC Zvezda for the first domestic power plant of the project 22350 frigate have successfully passed qualification tests, as well as tests as part of a diesel-gas turbine unit, the developer and manufacturer of which is NPO "Saturn" (PJSC "UEC-Saturn"). By the decision of the qualification commission, the enterprise was recognized as ready for serial production and delivery of products. Reducer transmission PO55 manufactured by PJSC "Zvezda" (St. Petersburg) for the diesel-gas turbine unit DGTA-M55R of the frigate of project 22350 under construction for the Russian Navy with serial number 924 (c) PJSC "Zvezda"




https://bmpd.livejournal.com/4170665.html

This was the main show stopper, as apparently the gas turbines themselves (from Saturn) were already ready a couple of years ago...

Russia has lots of capabilities in this area. After all the nuclear subs need gearboxes as well, as do the Mi-26. Not exactly the same of course but the MI-26 gearbox is really quite outstanding to the point the Americans had to copy it for the CH-53K as their original approach could not scale up power wise. Lets not forget the incredible TU-95 gearbox, what a piece of machinery that must be!!!

For really impressive gearboxes just look at the ones mounted in Kamov coaxial rotor models... but actually the advent of electrical gearboxes and electric motors in aircraft an ships and vehicles are going to reduce the need for such systems... gearboxes and transmissions...

The United Engine Corporation has delivered the first completely domestic M55R diesel/gas turbine power unit for the latest Project 22350 frigates, UEC Deputy CEO Viktor Polyakov announced on Tuesday.
https://tass.com/defense/1227213

UEC Saturn, a subsidiary of Russia’s United Engine Corporation (UEC), has produced domestic M70FRU-2 seaborne engines for Project 12322 ‘Zubr’ and Project 12061 ‘Murena’ air cushion amphibious assault ships, UEC Deputy CEO Viktor Polyakov announced on Tuesday.
https://tass.com/defense/1227155

Gazputin wrote:
I can't see why it wouldn't all be DC …. so infinitely variable control should be a doddle
you only use AC to transmit power over long distances …

Actually thoughts have changed on this as well. The longest transmission lines are now DC!!. The Chinese have claimed to have made a breakthorugh on DC ship sytems. I am not 100% sure what the limitations are. I understand in long range transmission but not in complex systems. The next Chinese carrier will allegedly be IEP (integrated eletrical propulsion) with a DC system and EMALs ..or so they say.

GarryB wrote:For really impressive gearboxes just look at the ones mounted in Kamov coaxial rotor models... but actually the advent of electrical gearboxes and electric motors in aircraft an ships and vehicles are going to reduce the need for such systems... gearboxes and transmissions...

Electric motors will still require transmissions. The reason is, rather then building bespoke motor for each class, you can come up with a useful size and just add multiples for larger applications. For example, the Artika class has 6x 10MW motors (2 for each prop) this is the ideal design for quick production. You can power them by nuclear, diesel or gas tubine. Need more power? Stretch the shaft a bit longer and add 2 more motors further down and just beef up the main shaft!! (proabably add about 8-12 feet but of course the ship will be much larger)

But if the propeller is being driven directly by an electric motor then a huge long heavy drive shaft is unnecessary, and indeed undesirable.

Think of a drive shaft in a car... it transfers rotational power from the engine through the gearbox to each wheel, though you have a differential for turning corners to stop wheels slipping.

For those not familiar with cars if you are driving forwards then all four wheels if powered can run at the same speed and everything is fine.... but if you turn the steering wheel then the car is driving around in a circle... the outer wheels will be traveling further than the inner wheels because the outer wheels will be going round the outside of the circle and the inner wheels will be going around a much smaller circle... a direct drive motor to a fixed axle would mean the inner wheel is spinning faster than it needs to because it is spinning the same as the outer wheel which retains contact with the road so you will get a wheel spin on the inner wheel.

A dif, or differential allows for the difference in distance the inner and outer wheel is moving so it slows down the inner wheel so both grip the road and provide equal traction which means balanced acceleration and less likely for loss of control because the inner wheels are skidding.

When you remove the drive shaft and transmission and differential and even the axles and just have each wheel using an electric motor with a built in gearbox, then you can run each wheel at the speed it needs to so they don't lose grip... you don't need drive shafts and transmissions and gearboxes... just a power source like a small gas turbine connected to two electric generators... one on each side of the GT generating electricity and with those generators supplying electrical current to batteries for storage and also directly to the wheels for direct electrical propulsion.

It would need computer control because an electric motor like the ones on each wheel is also a generator so from the top of a hill you could take off the brake and roll down the hill with the wheels acting as generators producing electrical power which can be directed into the batteries.

You could have retractable wheels for cross country and motorway use for instance, so on the motorway run with four wheels in contact with the road, but leave the tar seal you could lower two or even four more wheels for better traction and lower ground pressure for traveling on snow or mud or sand...

Like Azipods on ships the wheels could be rotated 360 degrees so parking would be easy stop parallel to the park and rotate the wheels 90 degrees and roll sideways into the park.

The cross country wheels can be relatively small like the wheels on the BRDM-2 and might only be used at lower speeds... say up to 40km/h or so.

Note because the engine wont be ever put under load like a cars engine is when accelerating through the gears a gas turbine makes more sense as a power supply because it is smaller and lighter and offers more power per cubic metre.

Ships are going to use diesels and gas turbines and nuclear power plants for generating power because small and compact and light are not so critical, whereas reliable and fuel efficient is more useful.

By using less than half the fuel that a gas turbine uses means a diesel can have twice the range, or the weight saved with the smaller lighter gas turbine engine is squandered on the extra 200 tons of fuel you need to carry to get the same range.

Small emergency power generators are often small diesels or GTs...

New technology is going to make interesting improvements in performance and capabilities and sizes and weights.

A huge ship with Azi pods wont need tugs in even the most tricky harbour with sand banks etc etc.

There is no need for a long shaft. The electric motors can sit on the same plane as gearbox. The engines can be anywhere (as they are on QE carriers) Typically they cruise on diesel gensets and when higher speeds are needed they fire up the turbines. Azi pods are great but there are questions about vulnerability to damage in battle even with near misses. Also they have to be "bespoke" i.e your ability to modularize the azipod and use it on multiple ships is less then if you use 10 MW motors or 20 MW motors. You can see that if you come up with a good 20 MW motor and 50MW transmission that can take up to 5 motors it would not really take up a huge amount of space or weight or cost to use it in applications where you do not even need all the power. The cost savings, parts supply chain, speed of manufacturing etc etc far outweight the "perfect" solution. It can even be easily adapted to subs. Subs can all be nuclear electric like the French ones. The problem with tradition packaging was shafts - gearbox - Turbine and boilers all having to be close. Now you only have gearbox and shaft. Diesel Gensets can be distributed for redundancy and Gas turbines can bbe placed closer to surface for reduced plumbing and noise.

There is no need for a long shaft. The electric motors can sit on the same plane as gearbox. The engines can be anywhere (as they are on QE carriers).

I am no expert but if your engines are anywhere on the ship in a conventionally powered ship then the drive shaft has to go from where the engine is to where the propeller is because it is the drive shaft that transmits the energy from the transmission attached to the engine to the screws or wheels in the case of a car.

The gearbox on electrical drive systems would need to be between the electric motor turning the screw or the wheel and the screw or the wheel to ensure the screw or wheel turns at the appropriate speed rather than just the speed of the electric motor.

Typically they cruise on diesel gensets and when higher speeds are needed they fire up the turbines.

Indeed, that makes sense... the very low rev diesel engines are good for cruise speeds but not so good for dashes...

The point is that when they are not under torque load a gas turbine can be run at efficient rpms where they don't burn a lot of fuel like they would in direct drive like for a tank for instance.

Lots of power stations use gas turbines because when used at efficient rpms they don't use a lot of fuel but generate a lot of power.

Azi pods are great but there are questions about vulnerability to damage in battle even with near misses.

You could use a couple of embedded props that don't hang down and just provide forward thrust with two thrusters widely separated so differential thrust could be used in emergency situations where rudders are gone, plus multiple azi pods for propulsion, including retractable manouvering pods for use in port... it could be located in the bow and stern an simply used as bow thrusters that are even better protected from damage than conventional propulsion systems...

Also they have to be "bespoke" i.e your ability to modularize the azipod and use it on multiple ships is less then if you use 10 MW motors or 20 MW motors. You can see that if you come up with a good 20 MW motor and 50MW transmission that can take up to 5 motors it would not really take up a huge amount of space or weight or cost to use it in applications where you do not even need all the power.

Actually I would say the opposite... the first models might be 20MW, completely contained in the pod with motor, gearbox and screw... inside the ship is another motor that turns the azipod to the direction needed and power cabling to provide power to the electric motor in the pod... in 10 years time the new azipods using brand new technology are not 100MW and vastly smaller and more compact... and double ended with super hardened screws so they can be used in the arctic because they chew up ice like a blender...

The cost savings, parts supply chain, speed of manufacturing etc etc far outweight the "perfect" solution. It can even be easily adapted to subs.

I disagree... a conventional engine in a ship powers a shaft that delivers rotational energy to a screw.... the bigger and more powerful the ship the bigger the engine but also the bigger the shaft and the screw which can be enormous and very very heavy.

Replacing it will all electric drive means the power generation system can be anywhere and it can be modular so it can be removed and replaced by a different type of power generation... because they all just generate electricity which is then routed thoughout the vessel for various uses. The future use of small powerful nuclear batteries could mean each area on a ship could have its own battery power plus a backup and when used together can power and run the whole ship...

Now you only have gearbox and shaft. Diesel Gensets can be distributed for redundancy and Gas turbines can bbe placed closer to surface for reduced plumbing and noise.

If the screws are driven by electric motor powered by diesel or GT or nuclear or whatever, then putting the electric motor next to the screw with the gearbox between them means the drive shaft can be tiny... and the electricity generators can be located anywhere on the ship with a power cable from them to the electric motor driving the screw through the gearbox.

Azipods are typically gearless to reduce their length, which means they need specialized motors with large diameter to generate more torque. Electric motors do not have to be behind the gearbox, they can be adjacent kinda like the second one on this page:

http://www.dynamicscience.com.au/tester/solutions1/hydraulicus/gears1a.htm. Azipods are great tech but I doubt Russia can build them yet and I still they are more vunerable to battle damage and concussion. Mistral is the only warship I know of that uses them.

They are probably right, but when you look at the market for Marine gas turbines there are really very few suppliers. Essential RR, GE and Zorya. Now Russia of course. The GE 2500 that is quite universal is ancient but reliable, and thus still sells. Its a small market with only 4000 marine turbines in all the world. (mostly warships)

United Engine Corporation handed over to the customer the first fully domestic diesel-gas turbine unit М55Р for frigates of project 22350. And the shipment of the second unit is scheduled for early December.

Is there a reason for joy? In general, there is. The frigates of project 22350 "Admiral Isakov" and "Admiral Golovko", which have risen dead, will finally get the opportunity to get into service.

True, with a delay of 2.5 years. Now this is called at length "shifting the timeline to the right," but we are well aware that this is so ornately called the inability to complete the construction within the specified time frame.

"Admiral Isakov" was supposed to receive its power plant in 2018. In the month of July, specifically. Received a little later, which is still a reason for expressing satisfaction. Looking back over the years.

According to the agreement signed in 2015, the so-called ship kit for the frigate "Admiral Isakov" cost 2.295 billion rubles. The ship kit consisted of two M55R diesel-gas turbine units. According to the contract, it was envisaged to build:

• control systems "Metel-55" and "Sheksna-90", vibration diagnostic equipment VDA-56.
The cost of one set is 102 million rubles, the production period is July 2016.
• diesel engine 10D49 with "Blizzard" control system.
The cost of one set is 108 million rubles, the production period is September 2017.
• PO55 reducer, transmission, ВСМ37 / М55Р.
The cost of one set is 299 million rubles, the production period is December 2017.
• gas turbine engine М90ФР with transmission elements.
The cost of one set is 593 million rubles, the production time is November-December 2017.

In general, they were a little late.

Moreover, the first ship kit is intended for the frigate "Admiral Isakov", which is still at the stage of slipway construction. Meanwhile, the frigate "Admiral Golovko", which was left without a propulsion system, will receive only the second set.

This is due to the fact that it is necessary to renegotiate a bunch of agreements and contracts, since the supplier of engines for "Admiral Golovko" is still legally considered CJSC "Turborus", a Russian-Ukrainian joint venture, which includes the well-known NPO Saturn and GP NPKG " Zorya "-" Mashproekt "from Ukraine.

I translate: JSC "Turborus" exists only nominally on paper and will not be able to deliver anything to anyone. Because Zorya - Mashproekt will not supply M90F gas turbine engines and PO55 gearboxes for frigates under construction in Russia.

The case when the bureaucracy is unable to replay political differences. And nevertheless, you will first have to annul a mountain of international treaties and contracts, and then conclude new ones. We will not discuss how quickly this is done in Russia. I just want to express my wish that Admiral Golovko will still be put into operation at least by the end of 2022.

And the frigates of Project 22350 will use Russian M55R engines. Evil tongues claim that these are full-fledged clones of the Ukrainian M90F, which were still a Soviet development. This means nothing "at the level of the leading NATO countries," as the optimistic part of the infosphere claims.

And here I would like to note the following: well, a clone of a Soviet-made Ukrainian-made engine. Perhaps not as modern as we would like, but ...

There is no other, as it were. Dancing with the Germans around their engines ended in sanctions and a lack of supplies. Friendship with the Chinese around their copies of German engines ended in urgent overhauls with original solutions, such as cutting the ship's hull.

Indeed, a copy of the old Soviet engine is better. But this engine can be assembled, installed, repaired. And no problem with spare parts and repair kits.

By the way, unofficial, but rather numerous, reports appeared in the press on the topic that the first ship kit, after all, by a voluntaristic decision of someone very high above, will be put on "Admiral Golovko".

A very logical decision, since the frigate is already practically on the water and the expectation of the second set can easily turn it into another long-term construction. Although, in principle, "Golovko" is already long-term construction. Since 2012.

And the way out is quite normal: without waiting for thousands of papers to be processed, put the engines on the ship that can start using them faster. Only the building is being completed for Isakov, so they can definitely wait there.

I wonder how this news perceived there, abroad? It is clear that this is not about NATO, it is funny for them to look at a couple of frigates. We are talking about the GP NPKG "Zorya" - "Mashproekt" from the city of Nikolaev, a glorious naval tradition, whose M90F engines are on the first two frigates of project 22350 "Admiral of the Fleet of the Soviet Union Gorshkov" and "Admiral of the Fleet Kasatonov".

Politically, not politically, but that's it, this page is turned. Yes, it was very difficult to turn it over, yes, most likely, in technical terms, this is a step back, but if the M55P really go into production, then this is only for the benefit of Russian shipbuilding.

And once, some 30 years ago, the Soviet Union was considered a very advanced country in terms of ship propulsion ...

So, it can be stated that the UEC "Saturn" from Rybinsk coped and the engines were issued.

This is very excellent information, the main thing is that in Rybinsk they could actually build them not by the piece, but in series. Because these engines are needed not just like air, but were needed yesterday.

Yesterday is when not only two Project 22350 frigates, which are being built now, but also four frigates of the same project, laid down in 2019-2020, were left without power plants. Plus, even in Kaliningrad, three frigates of the 11356r project have been unable to torment them since 2013 for the same reason: the lack of engines.

So it only remains to wish the Rybinsk engine builders real success in mastering the serial production of engines that are so necessary for the fleet.

Author: Roman Skomorokhov

I thought that the M90 were a relatively new development from the 2000s (joint development from Zorya and Saturn).

Anyway they are good enough for the moment.

After all the GE LM2500 used in a lot of western navy ships is a marine derivative of the CF6 aircraft engine, which first ran in 1971. Of course it was modernised many times, but the original design is from an engine 50 years old.

If Russia will need more modern naval engines in the future, they will be able to do a naval derivative of the many new aircraft engines they are developing now, e.g the PD series or the modernised NK32

I think it is easier to upgrade the old turbines for higher efficiency. Ship turbines are not the same as airplane turbines. Most of the gains in airplane turbines are being made in the fan section, while gains in the ship have to be made in the hot section. Of course you can improve compressor aerodynamics, ratios etc, that can be done by modifying the engine and materials. In the hot section you need new materials, cooling and aerodynamics as well. They would be better to use the approach RR used by using heat recouperation, This has yielded massive gains on the order of 30%.

mnztr wrote:I think it is easier to upgrade the old turbines for higher efficiency. Ship turbines are not the same as airplane turbines. Most of the gains in airplane turbines are being made in the fan section, while gains in the ship have to be made in the hot section. Of course you can improve compressor aerodynamics, ratios etc, that can be done by modifying the engine and materials. In the hot section you need new materials, cooling and aerodynamics as well. They would be better to use the approach RR used by using heat recouperation, This has yielded massive gains on the order of 30%.

Almost all naval gas turbine are aero derivative. Also because it is extremely expensive to design and develop a brand new engine,  especially if for a small number of engine that will be produced.

Probably you meant the Rolls-Royce WR21, which has an intercooler and arecuperator (designed snd made by Northrop Grumman ).

It is still  considered an aero derivative engine, anyway, as many parts are derived from those in the RB211 or trent aero engine. Anyway, it is used only in the type 45 destroyers,  apparently it was not as good as advertised or too complex and costly (and apparently also subject to some issues) as subsequent british ships use instead the MT30  (that has no recuperator), a direct naval derivative of the trent 800 (boeing 777 engine).

And it is not true that most of the gain is made by the fan. The vast majority of the thrust comes from the fan, but without an highly efficient hot section the engine performance would be compromised.

What I mean is that since a lot of work has been done (and a lot of money spent) to create a new serie of efficient aero engines, a new naval gas turbine could be created from them with a reduced effort. Of course later if needed they could be also improved adding recuperator or similar, but it would be wise to use the core of one of the modern aero engine as a starting point. (NK32 or even better the PD35 after it is ready)