Russian Navy: Status and News #5

Problem is, by the time the next one is done, all the weapons will be approacing obsolecence. So then you revise the project mid project, costing billions more, then it end up taking another 8-10 years and then you are back to a 20 year project and a brand new 50 year old ship.

Nah... the old weapons like SA-N-4 OSA SAMs, and Rif, and the Granit launch tubes and the SS-N-14 launchers were all custom designed for specific weapon and could only fire those weapon types... you couldn't load a Vulkan into a Granit launcher even though they are similar huge heavy missiles.

The upgraded Kirov has its Granits and SS-N-14 launchers replaced with universal UKSK launchers, and the SAM launchers will likely be replaced with a mix of Redut and naval TOR.

The UKSK launcher can launch any new Russian anti ship or land attack naval missile so wont be obsolete even when fitted in 8 years time... by then you could load Zircon missiles into it and it would still be state of the art.

The Redut uses S-350 and S-400 missiles, and naval TOR missiles will always be useful.

It is likely the 130mm gun mount might be replaced with the Coalition 152mm naval gun for testing... they might fit it to their cruisers only or perhaps they might fit them to their destroyers too giving them excellent shore bombardment potential with the first models firing full calibre guided standard rounds to 70km, while their upgraded shells with a range of 180km being developed... they might even decide a new 203mm gun based on the technology and materials that created the 152mm long range shells is worth the effort for land and sea based models and put the 152mm guns on the new destroyers and use 203mm guns on the new cruisers.

Testing on a Kirov would be useful to work out any potential problems and issues with performance.

The brand new large sensors (sonar and radar and other equipment like EO sensors and indeed lasers) could be fitted and tested and refined and improved before going to sea on new destroyer designs.

Testing new equipment and systems on upgraded ships just means realistic testing and better design choices and fewer problems with the new future models.

And it means new capabilities get into service and use faster.

Couldn't they just quad pack missiles in Redut cells? The S-350 can do this.
That would eliminate the need to carry any Tor missiles. The 9M100 missile specs are not that different from the 9M331's.
Seems like that would be a lot more flexible.

Even better just use UKSK-M so that you aren't limited in your anti-ship and anti-air loadout mass ratio and can configure the ship for the mission it is supposed to do.

My issue with the Slava conversion is how would they do it. Those ships use slanted launchers on the top sides of the ship.
While a slanted UKSK launcher is supposed to exist why didn't they use it in the Marshal Shaposhnikov upgrade?

If they replace the side mounted Vulcan launchers with Uran launchers the Slava will have limited long range anti-ship and land attack capabilities.
To be honest I think they should just do a new universal nuclear cruiser ship design and not bother with massive retrofits like these.

The Kirov class retrofits are a lot more viable because of the placement of the missile cells. The original design is a lot more amenable to convert to modern VLS.

Couldn't they just quad pack missiles in Redut cells? The S-350 can do this.
That would eliminate the need to carry any Tor missiles. The 9M100 missile specs are not that different from the 9M331's.
Seems like that would be a lot more flexible.

I disagree... on really big ships the Redut cells will probably include full sized 400km range S-400 missiles, which are over 7m long which means it needs to occupy probably at least three decks down where ever you put it... when loaded with TOR missiles, or indeed 9M100 missiles that vertical space is wasted unless they can stack them in layers.

There are limited spaces on any ship where three vertical levels of the ship are available for one system or module, and such things will be competing with UKSK launch tubes which probably take four or five decks.

On a large ship having enormous numbers of UKSK and Redut launchers could lead to difficulty in getting from one end of the ship to the other in the top three or four deck levels of the ship... which would be a serious problem as you might imagine.

In comparison a TOR launcher could be contained in one deck level just below the deck, which you might be able to fit all over the place... TOR is simple and cheap and very very effective against a wide range of targets irrespective of their IR and radar signature and the current model is half the size of the original model, which the Kuznetsov carried 192, so without any modification the same ship could carry 384 ready to fire missiles. Newer models of smaller cheaper design intended for use against small cheap drones could allow four to be carried in each of those 384 tubes so a theoretical 1536 missiles on the current Kuznetsov just replacing the existing TOR system... and you can see the TOR guidance and radar mounts... there are four... one on each corner of the island, so there is no question of retaining them.

The vertical launch tubes are near the sides of the ship the positions probably don't go down 5 decks so UKSK or Redut launch tubes would not be practical in the same location... certainly not without angling the tubes and creating all sorts of problems having to shift around everything that is there.

And they are very effective weapons.

Even better just use UKSK-M so that you aren't limited in your anti-ship and anti-air loadout mass ratio and can configure the ship for the mission it is supposed to do.

If they can stack shorter missiles in layers to greatly increase the number of missiles that can be carried then that makes a lot of sense but even in big ships there are limits to how many will fit and where they can be placed.

The UKSK-M also seems to show all sorts of other things like EW rockets so it appears to be planned to replace RBU launchers and PAKET launchers etc etc too, which means more existing space can be freed up for other things.

For instance if you look at the bow of a Kirov class ship, from the front of the bridge, first is the 20 angled tubes for Granit, and then the Rif launchers for 96 odd S-300 missiles, and then the SS-N-14 launcher, and then from memory a few RBU launchers right at the front.

Well the UKSK launchers replace both Granit and SS-N-14, but if it can launch RBU type weapons too then a Redut launcher that can carry Rif as well as 9M96 and 9M100 missiles then the entire front of the ship can be just all vertical launch tubes...no need for under deck access to the bow mounted sonar area... the whole front section could be closed off from the rest of the ship, but that means along the sides where the hull narrows the UKSK and Redut launchers could not go right to the sides of the ship, so rather than waste those shallower sides, fit a line of TOR launch bins to fill that gap and use the empty real estate to good effect.

A ship like a Kirov should use Redut tubes for long range missiles to protect the group of ships it operates but having TOR on board to protect itself will be important too because it will certainly be a serious and important target of enemy fire so lots of TOR systems makes good sense too.

As I said... cheap, simple and effective missiles... the system is not cheap but worth it.

My issue with the Slava conversion is how would they do it. Those ships use slanted launchers on the top sides of the ship.
While a slanted UKSK launcher is supposed to exist why didn't they use it in the Marshal Shaposhnikov upgrade?

If they replace the side mounted Vulcan launchers with Uran launchers the Slava will have limited long range anti-ship and land attack capabilities.
To be honest I think they should just do a new universal nuclear cruiser ship design and not bother with massive retrofits like these.

These upgrades are not instead of new cruisers, these upgrades are to provide the Russian navy with large heavy long endurance ships that can sail anywhere around the world, defend themselves and the ships they are operating with. They don't need to each sink an entire HATO fleet with each ship upgraded.

If they only have four missiles where each pair of Vulcans was located and therefore can carry only 32 missiles that is not the end of the world... especially considering those 32 missiles will likely be Zircons anyway.

They do have slanted launchers, we have seen them tested on smaller ships... they appear to have 6 tubes instead of 8 but that is still a lot of missiles and would allow an upgraded Slava class cruiser to carry 32 Zircon missile, but also carry a further 16 missiles, which could be land attack or anti sub missiles... which under most situations be plenty.

The Kirov class retrofits are a lot more viable because of the placement of the missile cells. The original design is a lot more amenable to convert to modern VLS.

Very true, but they have to work with what they have. A brand new custom designed cruiser should be able to be much smaller than a current model Kirov, and yet have an eye watering array of missiles and sensors. But while they work on that boosting the performance of what they have by adding the new modular launchers and new sensors just makes sense in terms of support and supply and operational use.

Currently a Slava class ship could go to any Russian naval port, but does every port have supplies of Vulcan missiles to load up? Currently a Kirov class ship has the same problem... which ports have Granit missiles in stock and the specialist handling equipment needed to load them.

Once upgraded the UKSK launcher is standardised so a range of weapons can be loaded from a reloading system that can reload ships Zircon is rapidly approaching operational status too and it is four times faster than Onyx and likely similar size an weight... like replacing a turboprop engine with a turbojet engine...

lancelot wrote:
While a slanted UKSK launcher is supposed to exist why didn't they use it in the Marshal Shaposhnikov upgrade?

Slanted launchers for Oniks do exist, trialled on the Pr.1234 Nakat (probably as Russias contribution to JV development of the Brahmos?) with similar launchers are installed on the INS Rajput.  I expect however that these launchers require customised Oniks/Brahmos missiles with a launch/boost profile adapted for slant launch, so that complicates supply & logistics.  The Rajputs sisters INS Ranvir and Ranvijay carried their Brahmos in 8-cell VLS replacing their aft SAM launcher & magazine, while the Kolkatas have 16 cell VLS, so its clear that angled launchers have a downside and are not in favour.

Slanted UKSK-compatible launchers also exist, but the same issues will apply. Are these compatible with all Kalibre variants and Zircon? (highly doubtful IMHO)  Fitting them to Slavas will cost a pretty penny, and add to the Navys procurement and logistics challenges (when their clear preference is to increasing standardisation).  Not sure of the available inventory of P-500/P-1000 Bazalt & Vulcan missiles, but since the Slavas are now the only users of these weapons I suspect they have adequate stocks for the types remaining service life?   All things considered I think the Navy has better uses for the coin.

Upgrading as many ships as possible with standard launchers makes sense, but it is not always possible or logical.

The Granit launch tubes on the Kirov are angled, most of the weapons launched from the UKSK are designed to be launched from torpedo tubes too, so angled launch should not actually be a huge issue... except in terms of targeting performance... the high acceleration rocket boosted models would not like being launched in the wrong direction... which is most of them.

It would make the 91er1 rather more limited in use, but I am sure that wont matter too much.

PapaDragon wrote:
Definitely for export... to Mexico and Columbia

This baby can carry a lot of kilos

You can say its a real... Hunter-killer

Needs a deck gun...

Hi I am following you guy's quite a long time, guess more that 10 years....

So I take the chance today to respond on Garry's post....

Hello, if you have been on this forum that long you should know you first post is supposed to be an introduction in the introductions section...

First of all "edges of a ball" ?

Not a physical edge, but when you look at a full moon the outer edge is the perimeter of the surface, which is what I am referring to with a flat ball moving through a gas under pressure... atmosphere. The dimples create surface turbulence so instead of air hitting the front and sliding around the face of the ball and slipping straight off the edge forming a drag low pressure area the full width of the ball, the turbulence means the air stays attached and carries on a little around the ball surface so the actual area of drag is smaller than the full width of the width creating less drag.

second: the "dimples" of an golfball are concave, what would reduce the weight and not add to it and better support your thesis,

Wrong again. The dimples are extra surface area and require more material, whether they stick out or are dimples inwards, they are not impressions made on the ball surface, they are extra surface material which if flattened out would overlap the area of the hole they create at the surface, so more material should mean more weight.

The significant reduction in drag means even if it is much heavier that wouldn't matter... a much heavier golf ball would be accelerated to a lower speed by the golf club energy, but a heavier ball would push its way through the air more efficiently than a lighter ball... the lower drag created by the dimples means it will slow down slower and therefore achieve better range.

Imagine trying to hit a ping pong ball with a golf club... very light so you should be able to hit it an enormous distance, but you can't because it either breaks, or rapidly slows down in the air like throwing an inflated balloon... its low density makes it a poor projectile.

third: the size of that "dimples" are (mostly) calculated carefully (ref. Reynold-Nr.) which induce a turbulent layer that let the airflow detach later than without the "dimples", guess that's what you mean.

That is what I said. The airflow attaches to the surface of the ball and continues further round than with a smooth ball. This creates a much smaller dead space of drag slowing the ball down so the ball retains speed better and therefore achieves better range with the same energy hit.

So the total random skin gap dimensions that also differ from plane to plane of early MiG-29s did definitely not support the aerodynamic quality.

They would not have been significant enough to create turbulence, but equally would not have increased parasitic drag for the very same reasons.

By the way, aerodynamically the final third of an airplane is most important regarding structure quality if low drag is the only target what's definitely not the case for fighting airframes.

As shown by bullet aerodynamics the rear is critical for subsonic flight speeds... a flat rear end on a bullet the full bullet calibre in width will dramatically reduce the ballistic range of the round. A narrowing rear end, often called a boat tail can have quite dramatic effects on range of flight of the bullet... boat tail rounds travel to much greater ranges.

Of course for the first few seconds of flight at supersonic speed it is the front of the bullet that matters rather more... I would presume it would be the same with aircraft.

Fly past Mach 1 with holes or gabs in the skin and you fly naked within seconds.

The SR-71 grows by about 30cm at full speed because the metal skin and structure is heated and expands... its outer skin... unlike the early MiG-29s is the outer skin of its fuel tanks, so when an SR-71 takes off it is haemorrhaging fuel.... the first thing it does when it gets airborne is take on more fuel with an inflight refuelling aircraft and then it accelerates to top speed to heat up the aircraft to seal its tanks...

Do you think heat friction would seal its tanks and make it get 30cm longer at mach 1?

Or do you think it would take a few minutes at mach 2 plus to get that sort of effect?

Also in most combat aircraft the skin is not part of the fuell tank itself.

Aircraft like the F-16 and the new model MiG-29s use sealed wielded panels because it maximises available fuel space, while minimising weight because you don't need a physical fuel tank.

Gap dimension is important if you care about RCS, like you stated later but also regarding lifetime (corrosion etc) and when you need total control about aerodynamic behaviour (responsive post stall maneuver control like in Su-35/57)

It did not create aerodynamic problems... a British engineer I talked to in the late 1980s who was very impressed with the tail slide manouver said to me that it was a very impressive manouver because in a climbing stall like that most aircraft designs will roll... one side or the other... he was amazed the pilot could maintain control and stop it rolling one side or the other and slide back down the way it went up and then nose forward, engines on and carrying on flying.

Gaps and all.

Just ignore me! Sign me off!

Wow, can understand why your lurk rather than post.

Taking things way to personal there buddy, I am no engineer and never claimed to be, but I am afraid the medal ceremony has been delayed so you wont need to introduce yourself so urgently... we expect the ceremony to be this coming summer... about early December.

the SR 71 example is quite out of context and yes if I change the boundary condition to vacuum then no geometry has any effect on drag.

So you are saying only the MiG-29 blew apart when flying supersonically?

I mentioned the SR-71 because it is known that its surface panels logically had to have gaps, and at least until they heated up would be flying at supersonic speed... which shows such a thing is possible because teh SR-71 flies so fast it needs the gaps, though the MiG-29 had the gaps for other reasons and could not fly fast enough for the gaps to self seal due to heat expansion... oops now I will be accused of being an expert in thermodynamics and also metallurgy.

If I had known that you are not only a respected aeronautical engineer with structural knowledge and wind tunnel experience but also a proven golf ball expert, I would not have tried to spread that nonsense, sorry....

I am guessing you wanted a hug.

Don't take things so personally...


Try watching this... from 1:26 until about 3:16...

But to speak of unrestricted poststall maneuverability is a stretch but what do I know with my few hours on that type.

The engineer I was talking to was impressed that when it stalled it did so symetrically... the nose fell forward and with the engines by that stage on full power it was essentially able to slide forward and power out of the super stall. It wasn't able to perform post stall manouvers but it didn't fall or roll left or right and lose control. It maintained its nose up attitude and then fell nose forward and then gained speed and recovered after a short dive.

I wonder if the Ru Navy is considering it?

I suspect the main problem is that when it is submerged it has no effect because no one knows it is there, but surfacing it is a large target with perhaps one gun so an enemy ship even just with heavy machine guns and light cannon could do some serious damage to such a vessel.

The small gun would be nice to force unarmed ships to do as they are told, but for piracy policing and many other roles the stealth is not as useful as say the speed of a helicopter, or the proper fire power of a decent deck gun like a 100mm or 130mm gun that the Russians are putting on their corvettes and frigates.

It is an interesting idea, but I suspect it would be used as a sneaky special forces deployment or recovery option... a big sub would be too large to armour to protect it from HMG or light cannon rounds or RPGs, and while small bursts are not going the sink the sub, they might be able to concentrate enough fire power to make it go away, and lack of a helicopter would be a problem, though UAVs would be useful and inflatables with naval infantry on board could be useful too, I think they have a few patrol corvettes and frigates with inflatables and helicopters that would be better equipped for most missions.

In many ways these sorts of subs are like snipers... they can stay hidden and take out targets or just observe and gather information without being noticed, but when you expose them they become very vulnerable and simply don't have the fire power to defend themselves from many opponents.

It has potential in some situations like catching pirates in the act.... imagine a pirate speed boat approaches a container ship to hijack it, while on the other side of that huge container ship this surfaces and two inflatables deploy naval spetsnaz to board the ship first to protect it and prevent the pirates boarding the ship while the sub sails around the ship and opens direct fire on the pirates boats...

But in shipping areas with lots of ships and pirate boats zipping around looking for a soft target how fast would the sub be to get troops on board the right ship first... sounds like a good idea but hard to implement... in fact it would be easier with a corvette or frigate whose helicopters can respond quickly to calls from ships that they are under attack, with fast boats following with support weapons and more troops...

https://ria.ru/20210415/lider-1728335998.html

The head of the USC spoke about the problems with the project of the destroyer "Leader"

MOSCOW, April 15 - RIA Novosti. The project for the construction of the Leader destroyer for the Russian Navy is unlikely to be implemented, said Alexei Rakhmanov, General Director of the United Shipbuilding Corporation (USC) , in an interview with RIA Novosti .

"In the form in which it was planned earlier, it will most likely not be implemented, at least not so quickly. But here everything depends on the decision of the customer - the Ministry of Defense," he said.

Initially, the "Leader" was planned to be laid in 2017, but the construction has not yet begun. There is also no technical design of the destroyer, the former deputy commander-in-chief of the Russian Navy for armaments Viktor Buruk stated that the document should have begun to be developed in 2019-2020.
Admiral Viktor Chirkov , when he was Commander-in-Chief of the Navy, emphasized that a new generation destroyer should have a nuclear power plant, its displacement should be about 14 thousand tons.
Later in a number of media outlets there was information about the decision to increase the displacement to 19 thousand tons. They talked about two possible versions of the ship: the first - with a displacement of 10-12 thousand tons with a gas turbine power plant and the second - 18-19 thousand tons with a nuclear one.
Now in the combat composition of the Russian Navy is one surface ship with a nuclear power plant - the heavy nuclear missile cruiser "Peter the Great".

Well it is still not clear what they will do. If they actually manage to build a decent number of 22350 and 22350M (the latter should have good endurance not inferior to Soviet era destroyers) they probably can do without additional nuclear cruisers.
Furthermore the idea of a oversized nuclear cruiser came when Russia did not have yet domestic production of gas turbines.
For the moment it is important to put in service admiral Nakhimov and have some field experience with it and build enough 22350 and 22350M. After the first 22350M is in service they will have a better understanding of additional needs (if any).

"In the form in which it was planned earlier, it will most likely not be implemented, at least not so quickly. But here everything depends on the decision of the customer - the Ministry of Defense," he said.

So I interpret this as meaning that the widely-ridiculed Krylov-designed stepped-pagoda stealth cruiser probably won't be built... or at least not soon.... but its the Navy that will decide.... so by inference something different might be built soon... but we can't know for sure.... because the Navy will decide....

Wow.. that settles the question I guess.

^ Right, they are going step by step, no point in planing every detail of the fleet until 2050 and getting it all wrong. There is a lot of learning to be done in the process by both the industry and the military.