Russian Navy: Status & News #3

In my view it is interesting the discussion about new systems on ships, but also it is necessary to do it with a realistic approach to the Russian Navy procurement. It is not right to scorn the value and the capabilities of many ships that are in middle of their active service, just because they have not the most modern systems. There is an experience of successful campaigns done with armament that is not the most modern. The same must be applied to the Navy.

Between all the ships of all the projects listed here:

http://russianships.info/eng/today/

The alone ships that are not of enough level of armament to be listed between the Russian combat ships are the three of the Project 1400. And even this is more a mistake of the web than of the Russian Navy because the ships of the Project 1400 should be considered more like auxiliary ships for coast (base) guard role. The rest, more modern or less, but all have something useful at this point. The question is to combine them by the right way, also taking into account what PapaDragon said about nuclear weapons.

If I would have to talk about mistakes or about the weakest points of the Russian Navy I would say, in this order:

1.- The purchase of 4 old cargo ships for the Syrian campaign. I consider it a mistake because I think it was unnecessary, because the Russian Navy had enough auxiliary ships for it, and opened the door to articles like this:

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-russia-syria-ships-idUSKBN0TY2BG20151215

2.- Some ships of the following projects should be in the Russian Navy instead of in the Russian Coast Guard:

Project 11351
Project 1330(1)
Project 1265
Project 1176
Project T-4

Having the ships, to have them in the Russian Navy would give to them some aditional capability, while surely they are not useful for the Russian Coast Guard since they are of roles or have armament that is outside of the logical and common roles or armament of a Coast/Border Guard force. Their presence in the Russian Coast Guard is more symbolic.

3.- I would expect a bigger use of the ships of foreign design in the campaign of Syria, because their future can be likely out of the Russian Navy in the short term:

Type Dora
Type Dubna
Project REF-675
Project REF-100
Project R-5757
Project UK-3
Project V92
Project V820
Deep Water 2000 Project ARS-600
IC16M

Some are being used, but I would expect bigger use.
In some case I doubt if they are of Sovietic design, then should not be in the list.

Notice anything at 3:50?

Does anyone know when the Gorshkov is finally going to be commissioned?

Also, in my opinion, I think that the Rus Navy should have the following inventory for their fleets, as a minimum:

Northern Fleet and Pacific Fleet:

• Atleast 5 Gorshkov Frigates for each fleet
  

• 7 Dzirkiy Corvettes each
  

Baltic Fleet and Black Sea Fleet:

• 5 Dzirkiy Corvettes each
  

• 5 Steregushy Corvettes to complement
  

This is assuming that the Dzirkiy corvettes are armed with both Poliment Redoute and Kalibr/Onyx systems. Hopefully with the commissioning of the Gorshkov and successful introduction of the Dzirkiy, then the Rus Navy can decommission the older destroyers.

For the hysterical morons on this board pissing and shitting on Russians (Militarov et al.):

1) Every aircraft operating from the Kuznetsov has crashed, right? That is the logic you are peddling when you claim
the systems on this ship "don't work".

2) Russia can't build a tanker, hah. Please go peddle your drivel to retards on the NATO boards. You claim to be some sort of
expert. You are an obvious poser. Trying to portray some cruise ship as more complex than a Kirov class has exposed you
as a dipshit. So a ship's technical complexity is only a function of its size, eh...LOL.

3) You were hyping the "ukrainian" marine turbines as being out of reach for Russia. Saturn is starting serial production
at the end of next year.

Basically go and sod off.

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/06/16/482288188/russia-launches-worlds-biggest-most-powerful-icebreaker

http://www.navyrecognition.com/index.php/news/defence-news/2016/september-2016-navy-naval-forces-defense-industry-technology-maritime-security-global-news/4378-ritm-200-nuclear-reactor-fitted-aboard-russias-project-22220-nuclear-powered-icebreaker-arktika.html

http://www.aem-group.ru/en/mediacenter/news/atomenergomash-has-manufactured-reactor-plant-ritm-200-for-the-most-powerful-icebreaker-in-the-world2.html

http://www.nuclearpowerdaily.com/reports/Russias_TVEL_Makes_First_Batch_of_Fuel_for_New_Nuclear_Powered_Icebreakers_999.html

Russia inferior! US and NATO number one!

kvs wrote:For the hysterical morons on this board pissing and shitting on Russians (Militarov et al.):

1) Every aircraft operating from the Kuznetsov has crashed, right?   That is the logic you are peddling when you claim
the systems on this ship "don't work".  

2) Russia can't build a tanker, hah.   Please go peddle your drivel to retards on the NATO boards.   You claim to be some sort of
expert. You are an obvious poser.   Trying to portray some cruise ship as more complex than a Kirov class has exposed you
as a dipshit.   So a ship's technical complexity is only a function of its size, eh...LOL.

3) You were hyping the "ukrainian" marine turbines as being out of reach for Russia.   Saturn is starting serial production
at the end of next year.  

Basically go and sod off.  

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/06/16/482288188/russia-launches-worlds-biggest-most-powerful-icebreaker

http://www.navyrecognition.com/index.php/news/defence-news/2016/september-2016-navy-naval-forces-defense-industry-technology-maritime-security-global-news/4378-ritm-200-nuclear-reactor-fitted-aboard-russias-project-22220-nuclear-powered-icebreaker-arktika.html

http://www.aem-group.ru/en/mediacenter/news/atomenergomash-has-manufactured-reactor-plant-ritm-200-for-the-most-powerful-icebreaker-in-the-world2.html

http://www.nuclearpowerdaily.com/reports/Russias_TVEL_Makes_First_Batch_of_Fuel_for_New_Nuclear_Powered_Icebreakers_999.html

Russia inferior!  US and NATO number one!

For a start, stop refering to people as "hysterical morons" just coz they do not agree with your...well...lets call it opinion. Opinions of a man with no military or engineering background must be very valuable ofc.

No, not every.. just... lets calculate... 100/15*2 = 13,3% of its fixed wing detachment in... 10 days, out of combat.

And no, i did not say Russia "cant build a tanker", i said Russia cant build a tanker without hundreds of components that are obtained from Germany, South Korea, Japan... and few other countries. Various pumps, valves, sensors, PLCs... Director of Sevmash himself last year said they import 40% of electronic components it was posted on this forum.

Kirov was not build by Russia, for a start.. dipshit. Kirov was built by USSR. And yes, current cruise ships are in terms of shipbuilding as itself are far, far beyond what any destroyer in this world is. Have you ever even been on one?



What i said stands, Russians never produced marine turbine engines. I said and i still stand behind it that Russians will have major issues with transmission and gearbox systems for those engines. Turbine itself are not a problem at all, and i said that more than once, they already have turbines themself. I have strong vibes you do not know what turbine engine actually is...

That is all nice and dandy, you are all linking that icebreaker twice a day, how does that really reflects on a fact that Croatia doubles gross tonnage output of Russia again? I must have missed that one...

Militarov wrote:What i said stands, Russians never produced marine turbine engines. I said and i still stand behind it that Russians will have major issues with transmission and gearbox systems for those engines. Turbine itself are not a problem at all, and i said that more than once, they already have turbines themself. I have strong vibes you do not know what turbine engine actually is...

That is all nice and dandy, you are all linking that icebreaker twice a day, how does that really reflects on a fact that Croatia doubles gross tonnage output of Russia again? I must have missed that one...

I know what a turbine engine is, and is not the most impressive technology today. I think Russia can produce decent engines with some work. A work they are doing. If they respect their acceptation testing standards, I'm sure they will have good enough engines at the end of the process, that may require some time but not too much.

Turbine engine technology is not used only for naval purposes, it is used also as example in the energy sector for power generation. Surely Russia has civil engineers that know them well enough and surely are helping.

eehnie wrote:I know what a turbine engine is, and is not the most impressive technology today.

It is when it comes to efficient, reliable and high performance ones.
Ask GE, PW and RR.

Although marine gas turbines don't necessarily need to be cutting edge and usually are conversions of  older aerospace variants. Of course in that field I'd expect the gearbox/transmission plays much more vital role.

PS: Just doing a small research far from exhaustive I found part of what I expected:

http://zaorotec.com/#el682
http://www.utz.ru/cgi-bin/articles/view.cgi?id=529
http://zaorotec.com/#el1147

There is people in Russia to do turbine engines. Only need time for a right process of diversification

KiloGolf wrote:

eehnie wrote:I know what a turbine engine is, and is not the most impressive technology today.

It is when it comes to efficient, reliable and high performance ones.
Ask GE, PW and RR.

Although marine gas turbines don't necessarily need to be cutting edge and usually are conversions of  older aerospace variants. Of course in that field I'd expect the gearbox/transmission plays much more vital role.

You could in theory take RD-93 and with adequate transmission use it to power ship. Again, in theory.

KiloGolf wrote:

eehnie wrote:I know what a turbine engine is, and is not the most impressive technology today.

It is when it comes to efficient, reliable and high performance ones.
Ask GE, PW and RR.

Although marine gas turbines don't necessarily need to be cutting edge and usually are conversions of  older aerospace variants. Of course in that field I'd expect the gearbox/transmission plays much more vital role.

You said all yourself.

Marine turbine engines do not necessarily need to be cutting edge. Not only that. Usually, are not.

If you would know how easy is to mount (this is the word) a precarious turbine engine you would laugh. I can assure you that Russia is doing better than this. They need some time to do naval turbine engines that pass their own test standards for material adoption, but they can and will do it. I have not doubt. They are doing things far more difficult.

In fact high level technology is far more used in engines for air and land mobile platforms than in engines for sea mobile platforms.

Might not be directly naval matter, as they claim it will be used by some internal services like FSB too:

"Using its Gidra mini-sonars, the robot developed and made by the MAKO Group can detect explosive devices and enemy combat divers hiding in the tangles of the underwater hydraulic works.

According to a source of the Izvestia, who is close to the issue, the unmanned submersible has passed several tests at a hydraulic work on the Volga River and near the Kerch Strait Bridge’s construction site in summer this year.  "Having made several dives, the robot transmitted clear imagery of the sea bottom near the construction site to the shore-based security outfit," the source said. "The robot’s sonars both recorded the traces of the previous work on the bridge pillars and spotted objects under the sea bottom’s soil, hidden in plastic containers by the organizers of the trials."  The source emphasized that the tests had been a success and that a decision is in the pipeline on a date of the delivery of sophisticated submersible robotized systems.  

When on the surface, the 1.5-m-long Penguin looks similar to an overturned surfing board, which 80-cm tailfin is not in the water, but sticks up in the air. The submersible travels at a speed of 12 knots - just over 20 km/h - and dives to 500 m in automatic mode. It retains its self-contained operating capability for 6 h.

The Penguin carries the Gidra mini-sonar, which sensors are marginally larger than a ballpoint pen. The Gidra feeds quality imagery of the sea floor to the operator from hundreds of meters away and images of hydraulic work walls or ship hulls from tens of meters away," Vladimir Trusilov, director general of the Ekran Company developing unique sonars, told the Izvestia. "The footage’s quality enables the operator to correctly identify the object in his field of view and take appropriate measures."

According to expert Alexander Mozgovoi, controlling the underwater situation near dams, hydroelectric power station, bridges and naval bases is a key security mission. "


Source: http://navyrecognition.com/index.php/news/defence-news/2016/december-2016-navy-naval-forces-defense-industry-technology-maritime-security-global-news/4655-mako-penguin-uuv-usv-system-in-trials-with-russia-s-secret-services-fsb.html

eehnie wrote:

Militarov wrote:What i said stands, Russians never produced marine turbine engines. I said and i still stand behind it that Russians will have major issues with transmission and gearbox systems for those engines. Turbine itself are not a problem at all, and i said that more than once, they already have turbines themself. I have strong vibes you do not know what turbine engine actually is...

That is all nice and dandy, you are all linking that icebreaker twice a day, how does that really reflects on a fact that Croatia doubles gross tonnage output of Russia again? I must have missed that one...

I know what a turbine engine is, and is not the most impressive technology today. I think Russia can produce decent engines with some work. A work they are doing. If they respect their acceptation testing standards, I'm sure they will have good enough engines at the end of the process, that may require some time but not too much.

Turbine engine technology is not used only for naval purposes, it is used also as example in the energy sector for power generation. Surely Russia has civil engineers that know them well enough and surely are helping.

but for russia it is complicated , it is backwards in naval matters and thats where its staying, usa built fastest cruise ship in 50s !!!, and near same tonnage as aircraft carrier.... and its even civilian made of aluminium and it had 1/4 million turbine power. it could cruise at 35knts , cruise! , for weeks.... that pictures of kuznetsov smoking and going 10knts in 21st century its just pathetic when you compare.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SS_United_States

Rmf wrote:

but for russia it is complicated , it is backwards in naval matters and thats where its staying, usa built fastest cruise ship in 50s !!!, and near same tonnage as aircraft carrier.... and its even civilian made of aluminium and it had 1/4 million turbine power. it could cruise at 35knts , cruise! , for weeks.... that pictures of kuznetsov smoking and going 10knts in 21st century its just pathetic when you compare.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SS_United_States

The US shipbuilding is the fraction that is used to be, like the UK.

It is not capable any more to make ships like that.

Rmf wrote:

eehnie wrote:

Militarov wrote:What i said stands, Russians never produced marine turbine engines. I said and i still stand behind it that Russians will have major issues with transmission and gearbox systems for those engines. Turbine itself are not a problem at all, and i said that more than once, they already have turbines themself. I have strong vibes you do not know what turbine engine actually is...

That is all nice and dandy, you are all linking that icebreaker twice a day, how does that really reflects on a fact that Croatia doubles gross tonnage output of Russia again? I must have missed that one...

I know what a turbine engine is, and is not the most impressive technology today. I think Russia can produce decent engines with some work. A work they are doing. If they respect their acceptation testing standards, I'm sure they will have good enough engines at the end of the process, that may require some time but not too much.

Turbine engine technology is not used only for naval purposes, it is used also as example in the energy sector for power generation. Surely Russia has civil engineers that know them well enough and surely are helping.

but for russia it is complicated , it is backwards in naval matters and thats where its staying, usa built fastest cruise ship in 50s !!!, and near same tonnage as aircraft carrier.... and its even civilian made of aluminium and it had 1/4 million turbine power. it could cruise at 35knts , cruise! , for weeks.... that pictures of kuznetsov smoking and going 10knts in 21st century its just pathetic when you compare.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SS_United_States

The smoke by itself really makes not a difference about how modern or not is a ship. Nuclear powered ships will not produce smoke. Ships with Diesel engines or gas turbines wil produce some, and ships with a steam turbine cycle can produce more.

Technologically a turbine engine following a steam cycle is not of lower level than one following a gas cycle. The fluid used is different (habitually air in the gas turbine engines, and steam in the steam turbine engines) and it leads to other differences in the cycle, but not in terms of one being more primitive or less advanced than the other. Even, a steam cycle can avoid the liberation of steam with the use of different systems in the condensation stage. The smoke is consequence only of a simplification of the condensation stage of the cycle, and almost the same simplification is done habitually in the gas turbine engine with the liberation of hot air (not visible like the steam).

The use of gas turbine engines for ships is not more difficult than the use of steam turbine engines. It is different, and time is required, only that. If you check these links you will see how they are Russian companies doing gas turbine engines (cycles) for different applications like the power generation. Only time is required to reach the right standards in the process of diversification.

http://zaorotec.com/#el682
http://www.utz.ru/cgi-bin/articles/view.cgi?id=529
http://zaorotec.com/#el1147

Also you will see how the same companies can work with steam turbine engines.

eehnie wrote:

Rmf wrote:

eehnie wrote:

Militarov wrote:What i said stands, Russians never produced marine turbine engines. I said and i still stand behind it that Russians will have major issues with transmission and gearbox systems for those engines. Turbine itself are not a problem at all, and i said that more than once, they already have turbines themself. I have strong vibes you do not know what turbine engine actually is...

That is all nice and dandy, you are all linking that icebreaker twice a day, how does that really reflects on a fact that Croatia doubles gross tonnage output of Russia again? I must have missed that one...

I know what a turbine engine is, and is not the most impressive technology today. I think Russia can produce decent engines with some work. A work they are doing. If they respect their acceptation testing standards, I'm sure they will have good enough engines at the end of the process, that may require some time but not too much.

Turbine engine technology is not used only for naval purposes, it is used also as example in the energy sector for power generation. Surely Russia has civil engineers that know them well enough and surely are helping.

but for russia it is complicated , it is backwards in naval matters and thats where its staying, usa built fastest cruise ship in 50s !!!, and near same tonnage as aircraft carrier.... and its even civilian made of aluminium and it had 1/4 million turbine power. it could cruise at 35knts , cruise! , for weeks.... that pictures of kuznetsov smoking and going 10knts in 21st century its just pathetic when you compare.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SS_United_States

The smoke by itself really makes not a difference about how modern or not is a ship. Nuclear powered ships will not produce smoke. Ships with Diesel engines or gas turbines wil produce some, and ships with a steam turbine cycle can produce more.

Technologically a turbine engine following a steam cycle is not of lower level than one following a gas cycle. The fluid used is different (habitually air in the gas turbine engines, and steam in the steam turbine engines) and it leads to other differences in the cycle, but not in terms of one being more primitive or less advanced than the other. Even, a steam cycle can avoid the liberation of steam with the use of different systems in the condensation stage. The smoke is consequence only of a simplification of the condensation stage of the cycle, and almost the same simplification is done habitually in the gas turbine engine with the liberation of hot air (not visible like the steam).

The use of gas turbine engines for ships is not more difficult than the use of steam turbine engines. It is different, and time is required, only that. If you check these links you will see how they are Russian companies doing gas turbine engines (cycles) for different applications like the power generation. Only time is required to reach the right standards in the process of diversification.

http://zaorotec.com/#el682
http://www.utz.ru/cgi-bin/articles/view.cgi?id=529
http://zaorotec.com/#el1147

Also you will see how the same companies can work with steam turbine engines.

RMF is one of the Russia hater circle jerk club that has infested this board.

1) He has no clue about the maximum speed of the Kuznetsov and just assumes, as any retard would, that its chosen cruise speed to the Syrian
theater was its maximum speed. Russia was successfully trolling NATzO during this trip. The build up to the anticipated, by NATzO,
baby slaughter in Aleppo and the subsequent let down was pure gold.

2) Anyone who brings up the smoke as evidence of inferiority is, by definition, a retard. Ships use low grade fuel oil that is essentially
bitumen with water added (e.g. Orimulsion). This makes economic sense since they consume a lot of fuel and this is the cheapest
available. They do not need to use aviation grade kerosene. But there are negative aspects including lots of black smoke generation
due to poor combustion at some stages of the engine operation. Lighter fuels combust more readily and produce less black smoke
which consists of a high soot fraction due to poor oxidation.

3) According to the spew form the hate circle jerk club every jet on the Kuzentsov should have been on the seabed by now and the
Kuzentsov itself should have experienced a catastrophic engine failure from a "boiler explosion". These clowns are a joke.

kvs wrote:

eehnie wrote:

Rmf wrote:

eehnie wrote:

Militarov wrote:What i said stands, Russians never produced marine turbine engines. I said and i still stand behind it that Russians will have major issues with transmission and gearbox systems for those engines. Turbine itself are not a problem at all, and i said that more than once, they already have turbines themself. I have strong vibes you do not know what turbine engine actually is...

That is all nice and dandy, you are all linking that icebreaker twice a day, how does that really reflects on a fact that Croatia doubles gross tonnage output of Russia again? I must have missed that one...

I know what a turbine engine is, and is not the most impressive technology today. I think Russia can produce decent engines with some work. A work they are doing. If they respect their acceptation testing standards, I'm sure they will have good enough engines at the end of the process, that may require some time but not too much.

Turbine engine technology is not used only for naval purposes, it is used also as example in the energy sector for power generation. Surely Russia has civil engineers that know them well enough and surely are helping.

but for russia it is complicated , it is backwards in naval matters and thats where its staying, usa built fastest cruise ship in 50s !!!, and near same tonnage as aircraft carrier.... and its even civilian made of aluminium and it had 1/4 million turbine power. it could cruise at 35knts , cruise! , for weeks.... that pictures of kuznetsov smoking and going 10knts in 21st century its just pathetic when you compare.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SS_United_States

The smoke by itself really makes not a difference about how modern or not is a ship. Nuclear powered ships will not produce smoke. Ships with Diesel engines or gas turbines wil produce some, and ships with a steam turbine cycle can produce more.

Technologically a turbine engine following a steam cycle is not of lower level than one following a gas cycle. The fluid used is different (habitually air in the gas turbine engines, and steam in the steam turbine engines) and it leads to other differences in the cycle, but not in terms of one being more primitive or less advanced than the other. Even, a steam cycle can avoid the liberation of steam with the use of different systems in the condensation stage. The smoke is consequence only of a simplification of the condensation stage of the cycle, and almost the same simplification is done habitually in the gas turbine engine with the liberation of hot air (not visible like the steam).

The use of gas turbine engines for ships is not more difficult than the use of steam turbine engines. It is different, and time is required, only that. If you check these links you will see how they are Russian companies doing gas turbine engines (cycles) for different applications like the power generation. Only time is required to reach the right standards in the process of diversification.

http://zaorotec.com/#el682
http://www.utz.ru/cgi-bin/articles/view.cgi?id=529
http://zaorotec.com/#el1147

Also you will see how the same companies can work with steam turbine engines.

RMF is one of the Russia hater circle jerk club that has infested this board.  

1) He has no clue about the maximum speed of the Kuznetsov and just assumes, as any retard would, that its chosen cruise speed to the Syrian
theater was its maximum speed.   Russia was successfully trolling NATzO during this trip.  The build up to the anticipated, by NATzO,
baby slaughter in Aleppo and the subsequent let down was pure gold.

2) Anyone who brings up the smoke as evidence of inferiority is, by definition, a retard.   Ships use low grade fuel oil that is essentially
bitumen with water added (e.g. Orimulsion).   This makes economic sense since they consume a lot of fuel and this is the cheapest
available.   They do not need to use aviation grade kerosene.   But there are negative aspects including lots of black smoke generation
due to poor combustion at some stages of the engine operation.   Lighter fuels combust more readily and produce less black smoke
which consists of a high soot fraction due to poor oxidation.

3) According to the spew form the hate circle jerk club every jet on the Kuzentsov should have been on the seabed by now and the
Kuzentsov itself should have experienced a catastrophic engine failure from a "boiler explosion".    These clowns are a joke.  

Kuznetsov is burning at this moment Mazut-100

Gas turbine require twice as expensive fuel than the steam turbine.

Advantage of the steam is it can use any fuel.

Singular_Transform wrote:Gas turbine require twice as expensive fuel than the steam turbine.

Advantage of the steam is it can use any fuel.

Questionable at the times when oil and oil derivates have "solid" price. Gas turbines are very efficient compared to "oil" fired boilers, as gas turbines have very high thermal efficiency up to even 45%. Also some turbines are multi-fuel turbines so you have certain ability to adapt to situation.

Steam vs gas turbine - its not a simple question, as there isn't one answer.  

Gas turbines need high caloric fuel such as diesel-grade distillates and are more expenisive as they operate at MUCH higher temperatures and the internal components downstream from the combustion chmaber need to be fabricated from exotic materials to deal with high temperature and minimise problems such as blade creep. Exhaust gas is always hot, so thermal efficiency suffers, unless the waste heat is captured via a exhaust heat boiler and a secondary steam turbine installed, ie a combined cycle system (which can also be used for electrical generation). Gas turbines can get up to operating temperatures very quickly, so vessels with gas turbines can have quick response times ie rapid reaction vessels.

Steam turbines run on a closed cycle, and run at lower temperatures, and are cheaper and less technically demanding.  While the turbine can be very efficient, the steam generator and condensate recyling introduces additional energy losses and inefficiencies, so overall there isn't much difference. Steam systems are not as compact as similarly rated gas turbine systems, as steam requires bulky boilers and condensate collection and recovery vessels & piping, so its not suitable for small vessels. Steam cycles can run on wide variety of fuels dependent upon the burner system designs (which influences combustion temperatures) and can therefore use cheaper fuel grades such as heavy fuel oils or bunker oil. Unlike gas turbine however, steam turbines requires significant time to startup (heat-up) the steam generator so it unsuitable for naval units requiring rapid response times.

I'd say that regarding the Kuznetsov, steam propulsion is the obvious choice.  Gas turbines will be too thirsty, and she simply doesn't need the rapid reaction capability of Destroyers & Cruisers. The current problems with the K seem to be her boilers (more specifically her burners), not her turbines. When she gets her major refit she will likely recieve a full boiler system replacement allowing for much higher combustion temperatures with heavy fuel oils (like Mazut-100), probably a multi-stage burner where the the temperature of the combustion air and fuel into the main boiler are raised by a pre-heater unit.  Higher combustion temperatures means more complete combustion of the heavy carbon-chain species in the heavy oils, and less soot in the flue gases.  less smoke, but more importantly, better fuel efficiency.

Militarov wrote:

Singular_Transform wrote:Gas turbine require twice as expensive fuel than the steam turbine.

Advantage of the steam is it can use any fuel.

Questionable at the times when oil and oil derivates have "solid" price. Gas turbines are very efficient compared to "oil" fired boilers, as gas turbines have very high thermal efficiency up to even 45%. Also some turbines are multi-fuel turbines so you have certain ability to adapt to situation.

Thermal efficiency higher, but it need more steps in the reduction gear.

Each step cost 3-5% efficiency loss.

Most efficient is the 2 stroke diesel engine directly coupled to the shaft.

Big_Gazza wrote:Steam vs gas turbine - its not a simple question, as there isn't one answer.  

Gas turbines need high caloric fuel such as diesel-grade distillates and are more expenisive as they operate at MUCH higher temperatures and the internal components downstream from the combustion chmaber need to be fabricated from exotic materials to deal with high temperature and minimise problems such as blade creep. Exhaust gas is always hot, so thermal efficiency suffers, unless the waste heat is captured via a exhaust heat boiler and a secondary steam turbine installed, ie a combined cycle system (which can also be used for electrical generation). Gas turbines can get up to operating temperatures very quickly, so vessels with gas turbines can have quick response times ie rapid reaction vessels.

Steam turbines run on a closed cycle, and run at lower temperatures, and are cheaper and less technically demanding.  While the turbine can be very efficient, the steam generator and condensate recyling introduces additional energy losses and inefficiencies, so overall there isn't much difference. Steam systems are not as compact as similarly rated gas turbine systems, as steam requires bulky boilers and condensate collection and recovery vessels & piping, so its not suitable for small vessels. Steam cycles can run on wide variety of fuels dependent upon the burner system designs (which influences combustion temperatures) and can therefore use cheaper fuel grades such as heavy fuel oils or bunker oil. Unlike gas turbine however, steam turbines requires significant time to startup (heat-up) the steam generator so it unsuitable for naval units requiring rapid response times.

I'd say that regarding the Kuznetsov, steam propulsion is the obvious choice.  Gas turbines will be too thirsty, and she simply doesn't need the rapid reaction capability of Destroyers & Cruisers. The current problems with the K seem to be her boilers (more specifically her burners), not her turbines. When she gets her major refit she will likely recieve a full boiler system replacement allowing for much higher combustion temperatures with heavy fuel oils (like Mazut-100), probably a multi-stage burner where the the temperature of the combustion air and fuel into the main boiler are raised by a pre-heater unit.  Higher combustion temperatures means more complete combustion of the heavy carbon-chain species in the heavy oils, and less soot in the flue gases.  less smoke, but more importantly, better fuel efficiency.

Even with such an upgrade it will still spew black smoke at certain stages of operation because of the fuel characteristics. Even though there will
be less black smoke the hater fanbois will still be spooging themselves about mud hut level Russian technology. Because, like, they all have mechanical
and chemical engineering degrees from nosepick internet U.

BTW, as an aside, marine diesels of the extra large class run on the lowest grade fuels:

http://www.dice-net.org/index.php/development/engines-for-dice

http://www.industrytap.com/worlds-largest-diesel-engines-past-present-future-video/25044

These diesels spew black smoke at certain operation points.

Dede Moroz (Santa Claus) has gifts for the Russian Navy:

23 December : The eight Borei class submarine (Knyaz Dimitri Pozharsky) will be laid down in Sevmash (Severodvinsk)
24 December : The fifth Karakurt class corvette will be laid down in Pella shipyard (St. Petersburg)

TheArmenian wrote:Dede Moroz (Santa Claus) has gifts for the Russian Navy:

23 December : The eight Borei class submarine (Knyaz Dimitri Pozharsky) will be laid down in Sevmash (Severodvinsk)
24 December : The fifth Karakurt class corvette will be laid down in Pella shipyard (St. Petersburg)

What is the status of the Kazan?

Is there any news about it?