Russian Naval Shipbuilding Industry: News

GarryB wrote:

I say, if the shipyard is that much of a problem, why not privatize it. I imagine someone else may be able to make better of it if the government/USC cannot.

Why do westerners think privatisation is a solution?

First of all producing military equipment... which private companies would you like to own this shipyard... Boeing? The French?

Privatisation means basically firing half the workers and then making the remaining workers do three times more work than they did before for less wages, while the new management steal the profits and retirement funds of the workers...

Its only SOME westerners Garry.
Usually those who feast off others labour and do fuck all themselves.

Personally I think it all depends on the *type* of enterprise.

For instance. America's Apollo mission.
A state run project using zillions of taxpayers money.
Its purpose? To "prove" that private enterprise was better than state run enterprise.

So they "proved" private enterprise was better than state enterprise... by having a (supposedly) successful state run enterprise.

Hmm....

You couldnt make this shit up.

Altho they do claim to have "lost" the orginal moon landing tapes.
So maybe... they did make the whole thing up!

GarryB wrote:

I say, if the shipyard is that much of a problem, why not privatize it. I imagine someone else may be able to make better of it if the government/USC cannot.

Why do westerners think privatisation is a solution?

First of all producing military equipment... which private companies would you like to own this shipyard... Boeing? The French?

Privatisation means basically firing half the workers and then making the remaining workers do three times more work than they did before for less wages, while the new management steal the profits and retirement funds of the workers...

When it comes to shipbuilding Russia has tried every carrot in the book. No results whatsoever.

Maybe generous application of stick is just what the doctor ordered.

PapaDragon wrote:

GarryB wrote:

I say, if the shipyard is that much of a problem, why not privatize it. I imagine someone else may be able to make better of it if the government/USC cannot.

Why do westerners think privatisation is a solution?

First of all producing military equipment... which private companies would you like to own this shipyard... Boeing? The French?

Privatisation means basically firing half the workers and then making the remaining workers do three times more work than they did before for less wages, while the new management steal the profits and retirement funds of the workers...

When it comes to shipbuilding Russia has tried every carrot in the book. No results whatsoever.

Maybe generous application of stick is just what the doctor ordered.

But that won't happen because because Putin is a capitalist and is veiws destroying the oligarchs plaguing the russian industry and finance in general would "be an attack upon the free market" and we all know the sacred "free market" is so less evil than socialism because the right wing global capitalist(russian included) bourgeoisie says so

Well, by sounds of it, it really boils down to piss poor management. So it has to be somewhere to fix this. It could also be funds as well. Russia has quite a few shipyards so I imagine it is hard to fund them all. I dont say privatize all of them, but let government concentrate on the shipyards most important and sell off the other ones. And selling off doesnt mean to some foreigner. It could be sold off to companies like Gazprom or Rosneft who can use the shipyards to build their own tankers/transporters, equipment for offshore drilling, logistics, etc. If they manage to turn it around, then could get profitable contracts from gov for military means. Could generate revenue.

PapaDragon wrote:

GarryB wrote:

I say, if the shipyard is that much of a problem, why not privatize it. I imagine someone else may be able to make better of it if the government/USC cannot.

Why do westerners think privatisation is a solution?

First of all producing military equipment... which private companies would you like to own this shipyard... Boeing? The French?

Privatisation means basically firing half the workers and then making the remaining workers do three times more work than they did before for less wages, while the new management steal the profits and retirement funds of the workers...

When it comes to shipbuilding Russia has tried every carrot in the book. No results whatsoever.

Maybe generous application of stick is just what the doctor ordered.

Beating a dead horse rarely helps.

If the problem is management then it shouldn't be a problem... they should be able to look at the practises in the shipyards that get things done and use that as a model for shipyards that are having problems.

Of course the reality is that the shipyards that are having problems are the ones making brand new designs with new standardised systems that have not been integrated before... they can produce Krivak IVs or Vs of whatever they are called, and Improved Kilos quickly enough, but the technology in the Lada class SSKs is all new and experimental.

Perhaps the MIC needs more than just money thrown at it... perhaps it needs real attention... attention that so far it has not received.

Any information on Russian shipbuilding industry? I mean, any ideas if they will increase shipbuilding capabilities since from what i am aware they are greatly limited in size of the ships they can build atm since biggest shipyard ended up in Ukrainian hands. Coz this long term rearmament program is even mentioning future carrier (100.000t) and i must express my doubt that Russians have shipyard big enough for it, so its either to build it abroad (China?) or to expand some shipyard, Admiralty Shipyard, Sevmash...

I doubt they will ever get important ships built by over seas shipbuilders.

they are building a new shipyard in the far east for building large vessels... oil tankers and gas transporters... it will likely build any carriers they decide to build.

Hmm, it would probably be easier just to build another drydock on some of the existing shipyards for major projects atm, tho i dont have anything aganist new shipyards on Far East either. Well they did try to obtain Mistrals which are not only built overseas but also built totally on foreign platform, so i wouldnt be suprised if they did such deal with China, they after all base alot of their navy on originally Russian designs.

Militarov wrote:Hmm, it would probably be easier just to build another drydock on some of the existing shipyards for major projects atm, tho i dont have anything aganist new shipyards on Far East either. Well they did try to obtain Mistrals which are not only built overseas but also built totally on foreign platform, so i wouldnt be suprised if they did such deal with China, they after all base alot of their navy on originally Russian designs.

Half of each Mistral hull was built in Russia and sailed to France for assembly.

Militarov wrote:Any information on Russian shipbuilding industry? I mean, any ideas if they will increase shipbuilding capabilities since from what i am aware they are greatly limited in size of the ships they can build atm since biggest shipyard ended up in Ukrainian hands. Coz this long term rearmament program is even mentioning future carrier (100.000t) and i must express my doubt that Russians have shipyard big enough for it, so its either to build it abroad (China?) or to expand some shipyard, Admiralty Shipyard, Sevmash...

For all the talk about this "great" deficiency in Russia it really is no big deal. If Russia can build a stadium it can build any type
of drydock. Ukraine can keep its rotting Soviet infrastructure that it can't afford to maintain and has not maintained since 1991.

The newer shipyard either in st pete or eastern Russia (I forgot which one), that is currently under construction with JV work with S.Korea can build ships upwards to 250,000 tons. Or something like that.

kvs wrote:

Militarov wrote:Hmm, it would probably be easier just to build another drydock on some of the existing shipyards for major projects atm, tho i dont have anything aganist new shipyards on Far East either. Well they did try to obtain Mistrals which are not only built overseas but also built totally on foreign platform, so i wouldnt be suprised if they did such deal with China, they after all base alot of their navy on originally Russian designs.

Half of each Mistral hull was built in Russia and sailed to France for assembly.

You said it yourself, half of it with quite generous exchange of engineering solutions by French shipyard.

kvs wrote:

Militarov wrote:Any information on Russian shipbuilding industry? I mean, any ideas if they will increase shipbuilding capabilities since from what i am aware they are greatly limited in size of the ships they can build atm since biggest shipyard ended up in Ukrainian hands. Coz this long term rearmament program is even mentioning future carrier (100.000t) and i must express my doubt that Russians have shipyard big enough for it, so its either to build it abroad (China?) or to expand some shipyard, Admiralty Shipyard, Sevmash...

For all the talk about this "great" deficiency in Russia it really is no big deal.   If Russia can build a stadium it can build any type
of drydock.   Ukraine can keep its rotting Soviet infrastructure that it can't afford to maintain and has not maintained since 1991.

I am aware their shipbuliding infrastructure is not in good shape, however Russians seem to neglect abit their shipbuilding resources they desperately need at least two big (when i say big, i mean huge for 100.000t/300m+ shps) drydocks one at least in "warm" port, naturally for both civilian and military purposes. Crimea?

As I said, and please, dont ignore it and repeat yourself, they are already making one.

http://dcss.ru/en/projects/construction-of-zvezda-shipbuilding-complex.html

Upwards to 350,000 tons

sepheronx wrote:As I said, and please, dont ignore it and repeat yourself, they are already making one.


Upwards to 350,000 tons

It says "will be able to construct tankers with a displacement of up to 350 thousand tons, LNG carriers up to 250,000 cubic meters" that doesnt really makes any sense, i belive they confused here Gross tonnage/DWT and displacement, i do not really have alot of faith in journalists in general. There are no such ships that have 350.000t displacement, Gerald Ford-class aircraft carriers are somewhat around 100.000t of displacement, TI-class supertanker around 70.000t. What they mean is that 350.000t shall be max Deadweight tonnage of ships, at least that is the only thing that makes sense since even if they ment Gross tonnage those would be again some of the biggest ships ever made.

"Freighters, such as oil tankers and bulk carriers, are often measured by deadweight, measured in imperial tons or tonnes. Deadweight is the weight of freight, fuel, stores and anything else the ship can carry, right down to her cat. Oil tankers of around 500,000 tons deadweight have been built. This appears to be about the practical limit. Few ports can accommodate such ships, which may draw as much as 25 metres of water. The deadweight of a modern cruise ship is quite small, as she carries no freight and only limited fuel. Cruise ship deadweights of less than 10,000 tons are quite common." Source: pomorci.com

"The Zvezda yard will be a centerpiece in Russian industrial developments in the region. Here, few kilometers from the borders to North Korea and China, a key part of Russia’s future oil and gas industry is likely to be shaped.  The new top-modern yard will be able produce the full range of oil and gas-related installations, among them up to 350.000 dwt tankers." - Source: barentsobserver.com

When i said they need dry docks that can be used to build 100.000t ships i was refering to displacement, not in DWT, carriers have immense DWT and even tho Zvezda looks promising it does not mean it will be big enough to build carriers, not that i wish it not to be capable of it, uncontrary i am looking forward to see Russian carriers being materialised, however Samsung heavy industries have for an example  Dock No. 3 which is 640 meters long, 97.5 m wide, almost double compared to what Zvezda will have. While so big dry dock is not needed for carrier to be built itself, it depends alot on how much weight they can move around, cranes, profile cutters etc.

US is building their carriers in Newport News Shipbuilding company and they have couple of docks one of wich is Dock 12 that is 660m long and 76 wide and 510m long outfiting berth, Hyundai has 672m long one, Dalian Shipbuilding Industry in China 550m one, Qingdao Beihai Heavy Industries 480m one, Pipavav Shipyard in India is 640m long and can take ships up to 400.000DWT etc, etc. What i am trying to say is that improvements are good, Zvezda is getting better facilities but i am not sure if its really equipment suitable for carrier building.

I am an engineer, i like numbers and i like facts, and random saying "we can built 350.000t displacement ships" by journalist who doesnt know difference between weight and mass is of very low value to me. Also if you do not like other people expressing their doubts, opinions and ideas you should quit forums.

The point is that more than one or two large drydocks is wastefull.. they are not going to spend the next 50 years pumping out 20 100K+ aircraft carriers.

At best it might be 3 carriers in the 60-80K ton range and lots of oil and gas tanker ships.

Plus perhaps refurbs on Kirov based ships plus a few new builds.

So in answer to your question they are building new shipyards... using South Korean technology and methods... which are pretty much state of the art in terms of western ship making.

Capacity to build does not equal build.

I have the capacity to walk everywhere I need to go, but i don't actually walk to work because it would take too much time.

Most importantly they are including the capacity to deal with nuclear reactors and to build military ships at the new shipyard.

GarryB wrote:The point is that more than one or two large drydocks is wastefull.. they are not going to spend the next 50 years pumping out 20 100K+ aircraft carriers.

At best it might be 3 carriers in the 60-80K ton range and lots of oil and gas tanker ships.

Plus perhaps refurbs on Kirov based ships plus a few new builds.

So in answer to your question they are building new shipyards... using South Korean technology and methods... which are pretty much state of the art in terms of western ship making.

Capacity to build does not equal build.

I have the capacity to walk everywhere I need to go, but i don't actually walk to work because it would take too much time.

Most importantly they are including the capacity to deal with nuclear reactors and to build military ships at the new shipyard.

Actually having multiple big drydocks is not wasteful, when you are not building military ships they can be building civilian ships during whole year, South Korea Samsung Heavy Industries is building 70 ships per year 90% of which for civilian purposes, i remind you that most of the shipbulding around the globe is actual for civilian purposes and not military. Tankers, LNG carriers, icebreakers, cruise liners, floating cranes, floating drydocks, oil platforms, maritime patrol ships, maritime research ships, ferries, cargo ships, hospital ships, ocean going tugs... Russia atm has only small fragment of worlds commercial shipbuilding market, with few big drydocks they could chop nice part of market and earn some serious money.

Interesting if another production line is going to be opened in East for diesel subamarines

Defense Ministry wants to build diesel submarines to the Pacific Fleet in the Amur plant

This was stated by deputy head of the Defense Ministry, Yuri Borisov, during his visit to the Amur shipyard, where he inspected the plant built corvettes Project 20380 and a diesel submarine of project 636 "Varshavyanka".

MOSCOW, September 6 - RIA Novosti. The Russian Defense Ministry will continue to cooperate with the Amur shipyard in the construction of corvettes, as the performance of previous orders, and eventually the plant can trust building diesel submarines to the Pacific Fleet, said the deputy head of the military department, Yuri Borisov.

As described in the Defense Ministry, Borisov visited the factory on Sunday and visited the shop built Project 20380 corvettes, diesel submarine Project 636 "Varshavyanka", as well as composite products shop.

According to him, the factory a few years ago was in the verge of bankruptcy, but as the city-forming enterprise it should be retained. Ministry of Defense has gradually load shipyard orders, "Review of the cost parameters' loss-making contract for the construction of the first two corvettes 20380.

"The plant was delivered condition: if they start rhythmically to fulfill its contractual obligations and in time to hand over the construction phase, we will continue to place orders. What we are gradually doing. They launched their first corvette, we signed with them an additional two contracts for the third and four corvettes. It will continue to build relationships "- quoted Borisov Defense Ministry.

"That launched the second corvette, will be the fifth and sixth order. In general, in the future, we will look for the construction of this plant diesel submarines to the Pacific Fleet," - said Deputy Minister of Defense.

Borisov told representatives of the plant, which plans to master the technology of the production of plastic sections of the ship. This technology will allow the court to make such as "sweeper" for the Far East, which previously did here.

https://translate.google.com/translate?depth=1&hl=en&rurl=translate.google.com&sl=auto&tl=en&u=http://ria.ru/defense_safety/

ExBeobachter1987 wrote:

Militarov wrote:i am guessing this is sign they are serious about new carrier and that they want to have more deck capable pilots available.

The "new" carrier will be the post-mid-life refit Admiral Kuznetsov.

Even after MLR i have doubts Kuznetsov will be able to take 50 planes, Granits do not take that much space to allow 20+ increase in terms of airwing.

How realistic would a "stopgap" 2nd Kuznetsov be, does anyone know?

I know the next gen aircraft carrier is likely to be very state of the art - drones, satellitte launches, sea drones etc etc. BUT quite a way away.

Could an updated clone of the Kuznetsov be done quickly and efficiently?
Maybe even sharing features of an extended Leader class destroyer (but obviously much bigger).

This would mean economies of scale if it shared parts with the Kuznetsov, and mean that Russia isnt without a crucial AC carrier, when one is being refitted.

PS after all, Russia produced something similar to the Kuz for India very recently (albeit on a hull that was produced long before).

Firebird wrote:How realistic would a "stopgap" 2nd Kuznetsov be, does anyone know?

I know the next gen aircraft carrier is likely to be very state of the art - drones, satellitte launches, sea drones etc etc. BUT quite a way away.

Could an updated clone of the Kuznetsov be done quickly and efficiently?
Maybe even sharing features of an extended Leader class destroyer (but obviously much bigger).

This would mean economies of scale if it shared parts with the Kuznetsov, and mean that Russia isnt without a crucial AC carrier, when one is being refitted.

PS after all, Russia produced something similar to the Kuz for India very recently (albeit on a hull that was produced long before).

Not very likely imo. Best i could imagine is Kuznetsov getting its boilers replaced with reactor since its known for having propulsion issues, but new hull of the class is probably out of the question. Sharing parts with some other class is plausible, coz Russians already claimed they shall build Mistral "replacement" of a kind, that might use some of the components seen on Kuznetsov or at last fairly similar ones.

why not , china proved with major restoration it can be done, with smaller island and without granits and some more space on edges of flattop you can put many aircraft on there....
Russia will be better with 4-5 medium carriers like this with nuclear reactors taken from icebreakers, that could be more quickly done with less resourses, then 2-3 megalomaniac carrier it dreams...

Rmf wrote:why not , china proved with major restoration it can be done, with smaller island and without granits and some more space on edges of flattop you can put many aircraft on there....
Russia will be better with 4-5 medium carriers like this with nuclear reactors taken from icebreakers, that could be more quickly done with less resourses, then 2-3 megalomaniac carrier it dreams...

Russia does not have China's larger defence budget nor its superior shipbuilding industry.
Another Russian fix-wing aircraft carrier will remain a dream.

ExBeobachter1987 wrote:

Rmf wrote:why not , china proved with major restoration it can be done, with smaller island and without granits and some more space on edges of flattop you can put many aircraft on there....
Russia will be better with 4-5 medium carriers like this with nuclear reactors taken from icebreakers, that could be more quickly done with less resourses, then 2-3 megalomaniac carrier it dreams...

Russia does not have China's larger defence budget nor its superior shipbuilding industry.
Another Russian fix-wing aircraft carrier will remain a dream.

Russia has third largest defense budget. An aircraft carrier costs roughly 1 - 3 billion, which is peanuts for Russias procurement (procurement alone is over $300B for 8 years).  As well, the sevmesh shipyard is capable. Soon, Zvezda shipyard.

Go do your homework before spewing bs.