Russia to develop VTOL fighter

Unread postPosted: 21 Jul 2017, 00:09
by zerion
Russia’s Defense Ministry is currently in talks with aircraft makers to discuss the development of a promising vertical take-off and landing (VTOL) plane for a future aircraft carrier, Russian Deputy Defense Minister Yuri Borisov said.

The fighter jet will derive from a group of vertical take-off and landing planes manufactured by the Yakovlev Company, he added.

"The Defense Ministry is planning to launch the construction of an advanced aircraft carrier in the distant future, at the final stage of the 2018-2025 state armament program. Of course, the production of new-generation aircraft will begin by that time," Borisov said at the MAKS 2017 international airshow...

http://www.navyrecognition.com/index.ph ... rrier.html

Re: Russia to develop VTOL fighter

Unread postPosted: 21 Jul 2017, 01:24
by popcorn
HAHAHA.. good one...

Re: Russia to develop VTOL fighter

Unread postPosted: 21 Jul 2017, 13:43
by mk82
zerion wrote:Russia’s Defense Ministry is currently in talks with aircraft makers to discuss the development of a promising vertical take-off and landing (VTOL) plane for a future aircraft carrier, Russian Deputy Defense Minister Yuri Borisov said.

The fighter jet will derive from a group of vertical take-off and landing planes manufactured by the Yakovlev Company, he added.

"The Defense Ministry is planning to launch the construction of an advanced aircraft carrier in the distant future, at the final stage of the 2018-2025 state armament program. Of course, the production of new-generation aircraft will begin by that time," Borisov said at the MAKS 2017 international airshow...

http://www.navyrecognition.com/index.ph ... rrier.html


Are they dusting off their Yak 38s and Yak 141s again? Back to the future!!!!

Re: Russia to develop VTOL fighter

Unread postPosted: 21 Jul 2017, 21:46
by milosh
mk82 wrote:
zerion wrote:Russia’s Defense Ministry is currently in talks with aircraft makers to discuss the development of a promising vertical take-off and landing (VTOL) plane for a future aircraft carrier, Russian Deputy Defense Minister Yuri Borisov said.

The fighter jet will derive from a group of vertical take-off and landing planes manufactured by the Yakovlev Company, he added.

"The Defense Ministry is planning to launch the construction of an advanced aircraft carrier in the distant future, at the final stage of the 2018-2025 state armament program. Of course, the production of new-generation aircraft will begin by that time," Borisov said at the MAKS 2017 international airshow...

http://www.navyrecognition.com/index.ph ... rrier.html


Are they dusting off their Yak 38s and Yak 141s again? Back to the future!!!!


141 was demonstrator with R-79-300 engine (~150kN), proposed fighters would be: YAK-41M with R-179-300 engine (200kN) and "massive" YAK-43 (NK-32 engine that is Tu-160 engine :shock:)

Re: Russia to develop VTOL fighter

Unread postPosted: 21 Jul 2017, 22:27
by sferrin
milosh wrote:
mk82 wrote:
zerion wrote:Russia’s Defense Ministry is currently in talks with aircraft makers to discuss the development of a promising vertical take-off and landing (VTOL) plane for a future aircraft carrier, Russian Deputy Defense Minister Yuri Borisov said.

The fighter jet will derive from a group of vertical take-off and landing planes manufactured by the Yakovlev Company, he added.

"The Defense Ministry is planning to launch the construction of an advanced aircraft carrier in the distant future, at the final stage of the 2018-2025 state armament program. Of course, the production of new-generation aircraft will begin by that time," Borisov said at the MAKS 2017 international airshow...

http://www.navyrecognition.com/index.ph ... rrier.html


Are they dusting off their Yak 38s and Yak 141s again? Back to the future!!!!


141 was demonstrator with R-79-300 engine (~150kN), proposed fighters would be: YAK-41M with R-179-300 engine (200kN) and "massive" YAK-43 (NK-32 engine that is Tu-160 engine :shock:)


That engine is about a foot more in diameter than an F135 and twice the weight. At 55k, not enough bang for the size.

Re: Russia to develop VTOL fighter

Unread postPosted: 21 Jul 2017, 22:32
by hythelday
"The Defense Ministry is planning to launch the construction of an advanced aircraft carrier in the distant future, at the final stage of the 2018-2025 state armament program. Of course, the production of new-generation aircraft will begin by that time"


Where can I bet money on neither of those things happening?

There isn't even a shipyard with production facilities large enough to build proposed carrier right now.

Re: Russia to develop VTOL fighter

Unread postPosted: 21 Jul 2017, 23:09
by citanon
Maybe they want to license the F35 for local production. You know, hit old buddy Lockheed back for their Yak-141 investment all those years back. :mrgreen:

Re: Russia to develop VTOL fighter

Unread postPosted: 21 Jul 2017, 23:56
by sferrin
citanon wrote:You know, hit old buddy Lockheed back for their Yak-141 investment all those years back. :mrgreen:


double-facepalm1.jpg


Convair model 200.jpg

Re: Russia to develop VTOL fighter

Unread postPosted: 22 Jul 2017, 04:36
by citanon
sferrin wrote:
citanon wrote:You know, hit old buddy Lockheed back for their Yak-141 investment all those years back. :mrgreen:


double-facepalm1.jpg


Convair model 200.jpg


I'm referring to this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yakovlev_ ... h_Lockheed

Following the announcement by the CIS on September 1991 that it could no longer fund development of the Yak-41M, Yakovlev entered into discussions with several foreign partners who could help fund the program. Lockheed Corporation, which was in the process of developing the X-35 for the US Joint Strike Fighter program, stepped forward, and with their assistance 48-2 was displayed at the Farnborough Airshow in September 1992. Yakovlev announced that they had reached an agreement with Lockheed for funds of $385 to $400 million for three new prototypes and an additional static test aircraft to test improvements in design and avionics. Planned modifications for the proposed Yak-41M included an increase in STOL weight to 21,500 kg (47,400 lb). One of the prototypes would have been a dual-control trainer. Though no longer flyable, both 48-2 and 48-3 were exhibited at the 1993 Moscow airshow. The partnership began in late 1991, though it was not publicly revealed by Yakovlev until 6 September 1992, and was not revealed by Lockheed until June 1994.


Did Lockheed learn anything useful? Who knows. But they did help Yakovlev out to the tune of $400 million way back in the day. Time for the YAK to pay back. Amiright? :D

Re: Russia to develop VTOL fighter

Unread postPosted: 22 Jul 2017, 13:01
by milosh
hythelday wrote:
"The Defense Ministry is planning to launch the construction of an advanced aircraft carrier in the distant future, at the final stage of the 2018-2025 state armament program. Of course, the production of new-generation aircraft will begin by that time"


Where can I bet money on neither of those things happening?

There isn't even a shipyard with production facilities large enough to build proposed carrier right now.


Right now, yes but don't forget they are investing in shipbuilding, for example Zvezda shipyard will build large ships (350.000tons):
http://www.offshoreenergytoday.com/wp-c ... 64x471.jpg

And if you google, you will see massive crane is in process of assembling in that shipyard.

But big question can Russia really afford super carrier? I don't so. New vtol fighter is lot more logical solution for russian carrier fleet, they can make smaller (similar size carrier as they used today) and can use it even from future lhd ships.

Re: Russia to develop VTOL fighter

Unread postPosted: 22 Jul 2017, 14:30
by hythelday
milosh wrote:Right now, yes but don't forget they are investing in shipbuilding, for example Zvezda shipyard will build large ships (350.000tons):
http://www.offshoreenergytoday.com/wp-c ... 64x471.jpg

And if you google, you will see massive crane is in process of assembling in that shipyard.

But big question can Russia really afford super carrier? I don't so. New vtol fighter is lot more logical solution for russian carrier fleet, they can make smaller (similar size carrier as they used today) and can use it even from future lhd ships.


That is a nice render. Unfortunately a lot has changed since.

South Korean DSNE have since left the project, and for some reason German engineering contractors have also high-tailed since nobody is to keen to be plastered with sanctions and fines for working on dual-purpose projects with the russians. Russian Big Oil, who were providing $$$ for the project, and were also planning to build ice class super tankers there first and foremost, are not doing too well financially, and neither is Russian National Welfare Fund.

Here are some more recent news about "Zvezda shipbuilding supercluster":
"4 billion roubles embezzled during "Zvezda" construction", April 2015
http://www.rbc.ru/society/16/04/2015/55 ... 1bdcf8312e
""Zvezda" doesn't have enough orders", 2017
http://www.rbc.ru/newspaper/2017/04/24/ ... f79f1defdf
"Construction site now hiring workers for "Zvezda" project in Pimorye region", September 2016, with wonderful comments about 12,000 rouble salary.
http://www.newsvl.ru/society/2016/09/22/151888/
"Rosneft seeks more support for Zvezda shipyard", February 2015
http://www.motorship.com/news101/ships- ... a-shipyard

Note, those news are strictly oil&gas, now for some military news:
I.e. from MoD official channel, TV Zvezda (no relation):
https://tvzvezda.ru/news/forces/content ... 9-bnt5.htm
""Vostochnaya Verf" to recieve MoD order for new ships".. what ships? OPVs, auxillaries, and pontoons. Video shows how it's in real life, not on renders.

They have 7,5 years to build up the huge shipyard, train enough qualified workers for every level and on top of that fund the whole damn thing. Not gonna happen. But I bet Putin is really happy they got that damned peninsula back, it was all worth it.

Re: Russia to develop VTOL fighter

Unread postPosted: 22 Jul 2017, 14:48
by milosh
Old news, Zvezda shipyard today:

Re: Russia to develop VTOL fighter

Unread postPosted: 22 Jul 2017, 14:52
by hythelday
milosh wrote:Old news. Zvezda shipyard today:


Impressive.

Well, let's see how it turns out. I'm still willing to wager a bet worth a six-pack of beer neither the carrier, nor the new VTOL fighter materialize by December 31st 2025.

Re: Russia to develop VTOL fighter

Unread postPosted: 22 Jul 2017, 15:19
by milosh
hythelday wrote:
milosh wrote:Old news. Zvezda shipyard today:


Impressive.

Well, let's see how it turns out. I'm still willing to wager a bet worth a six-pack of beer neither the carrier, nor the new VTOL fighter materialize by December 31st 2025.


2018-2025 is next armament program in which they will decide about new carrier and that VTOL fighter. So 2025 isn't year when we expect they be build.

Zvezda isn't on Crimea, it is Russian far east.

Re: Russia to develop VTOL fighter

Unread postPosted: 22 Jul 2017, 15:58
by sferrin
citanon wrote:I'm referring to this:


I'm referring to this:

"A great deal of misinformation has appeared on the Internet regarding the relationship of the Soviet Yak-41 (later Yak-141), NATO reporting name Freestyle, to the X-35 and the rest of the JSF program. The Pratt & Whitney 3BSD nozzle design predates the Russian work. In fact the 3BSD was tested with a real engine almost twenty years before the first flight of the Yak.

Throughout the 1970s and 1980s, the Soviet Navy wanted a supersonic STOVL fighter to operate from its ski jump equipped carriers. At what point the Yakovlev Design Bureau became aware of the multi-swivel nozzle design is not known, but the Soyuz engine company created its own variant of it. The Yak-41 version of the nozzle, from published pictures, appears to be a three-bearing swivel duct with a significant offset “kink.” The Yak-141 also used two RKBM RD-41 lift engines – an almost identical arrangement to the Convair Model 200 design. The aircraft was also re-labeled as a Yak-141 to imply a production version, but no order for follow-on series came from the Russian Navy.

The Yak-141 was flown at the Paris Airshow in 1991. The flight displays of the Yak were suspended when the heat from the lift engines started to dislodge asphalt from the tarmac. At the 1992 Farnborough show, the Yak was limited to conventional takeoffs and landings with hovers performed 500 feet above the runway to avoid a repeat performance of asphalt damage. But the Yak-141 does deserve credit for being the first jet fighter to fly with a three-bearing swivel nozzle – twenty-five years after it was first designed in the United States.

During the early days of the JAST effort, Lockheed (accompanied by US government officials from the JAST program office) visited the Yakovlev Design Bureau along with several other suppliers of aviation equipment (notably also the Zvezda K-36 ejection seat) to examine the Yakovlev technologies and designs.

Yakovlev was looking for money to keep its VTOL program alive, not having received any orders for a production version of the Yak-141. Lockheed provided a small amount of funding in return for obtaining performance data and limited design data on the Yak-141. US government personnel were allowed to examine the aircraft. However, the 3BSN design was already in place on the X-35 before these visits.

The 3BSD was invented in America in the 1960s, proposed by Convair to the US Navy in the 1970s, first flown by the Russians in the late 1980s, re-engineered from the 1960 Pratt & Whitney design for the X-35 in the 1990s, and put into production for the F-35 in the 2000s. Sometimes a good idea has to wait for the right application and set of circumstances to come along. One moral of this story is not to throw out good work done in the past. It just might be needed later on."


http://www.codeonemagazine.com/article.html?item_id=137

citanon wrote:Did Lockheed learn anything useful?


Not really.

citanon wrote:Who knows.


Lockheed Martin

Re: Russia to develop VTOL fighter

Unread postPosted: 22 Jul 2017, 23:44
by citanon
Any idea how much Lockheed actually paid them? Was it actually $400 million? This was back in the new spirit of friendship and cooperation days, but that seems like a lot of money to donate.

Re: Russia to develop VTOL fighter

Unread postPosted: 23 Jul 2017, 02:47
by arian
milosh wrote:Old news, Zvezda shipyard today:


Yeah that's just the cranes. They bought 5 cranes: 2 100 ton, 2 320ton and 1 1,200 ton. https://www.rosneft.com/press/news/item/185997/

Having those cranes doesn't mean anything. Those are small-scale as far as naval cranes are concerned (the ones installed so far) and in any case the maximum capacity of the shipyard as of right now is still about 13,000 ton. And that slipway is for repair work anyway. They would need more large scale cranes in the dry-dock, which hasn't even started construction yet.

That doesn't negate anything said here. I'ts still several years away from being able to produce anything of that size, or if and when such a thing will be finished. Construction on the dry-dock or any other facility hasn't even begun. So far they have only expanded the slipway and installed these 100 and 320 ton cranes.

So old news, new news...there's not much going on there to indicate anything of that magnitude being build there.

The project is this:
http://dcss.ru/en/projects/construction ... mplex.html

Which means there's 1 drydock large enough in that shipyard that is planned. Doesn't leave a lot of room for building oil and gas ships and platforms, and aircraft carriers too. But any case, simply because a shipyard can build oil and gas ships of very large size and weight, doesn't mean it can build aircraft carriers.

Re: Russia to develop VTOL fighter

Unread postPosted: 23 Jul 2017, 09:50
by milosh
???

Where I said shipyard is ready? No where. I only said it will be capable to build huge ships in future, and new carrier isn't something to be expected tomorrow but at end of next decade.

Re: Russia to develop VTOL fighter

Unread postPosted: 23 Jul 2017, 13:27
by tincansailor
Considering Russia's poor record on naval nuclear reactors it's not likely they could produce a successful CVN design right off the bat. It's been pointed out that they need to build a ship yard first. As for a VTOL fighter it would need a lengthy, and expensive development program like the PAK/FA. Considering Russia's financial situation, and the limited use they would get from such an aircraft; being limited to Carrier use, they would need an international partner like India to share the development costs. Considering all these issues it seems unlikely they could do this by 2030.

Re: Russia to develop VTOL fighter

Unread postPosted: 23 Jul 2017, 15:50
by talkitron
tincansailor wrote:Considering Russia's poor record on naval nuclear reactors it's not likely they could produce a successful CVN design right off the bat.


I agree that Russia building a CVN is unlikely because of their financial problems and prioritization of other armaments. But Russia builds nuclear powered submarine successfully so I am not sure what you mean by their "poor record on naval nuclear reactors".

Re: Russia to develop VTOL fighter

Unread postPosted: 23 Jul 2017, 17:45
by barrelnut
citanon wrote:Any idea how much Lockheed actually paid them? Was it actually $400 million? This was back in the new spirit of friendship and cooperation days, but that seems like a lot of money to donate.


Nope. 400 grand IIRC.

Re: Russia to develop VTOL fighter

Unread postPosted: 23 Jul 2017, 17:49
by milosh
tincansailor wrote:Considering Russia's poor record on naval nuclear reactors it's not likely they could produce a successful CVN design right off the bat. It's been pointed out that they need to build a ship yard first. As for a VTOL fighter it would need a lengthy, and expensive development program like the PAK/FA. Considering Russia's financial situation, and the limited use they would get from such an aircraft; being limited to Carrier use, they would need an international partner like India to share the development costs. Considering all these issues it seems unlikely they could do this by 2030.


They operate fleet of nuclear icebreakers and they are building new ones,They also operate two nuclear powered missile cruisers and there are talks about third return in service in next decade. Fourth had problem with reactor or didn't had, different reports but if malfunction happen it was during collapse of USSR so it is more due to that then to some design failure.

IMO problem with Russian CVN isn't reactor but cost of to build and to maintain, They probable could afford two medium size conventional carriers for cost of one nuclear super carrier (if we look whole service life).

VTOL fighter is only logical if they are not going for super carrier. For example time and money which they would need to invest in new super carrier they can spent on VTOL and modified Kuznecov carrier.

Re: Russia to develop VTOL fighter

Unread postPosted: 23 Jul 2017, 22:29
by tincansailor
They operate fleet of nuclear icebreakers and they are building new ones,They also operate two nuclear powered missile cruisers and there are talks about third return in service in next decade. Fourth had problem with reactor or didn't had, different reports but if malfunction happen it was during collapse of USSR so it is more due to that then to some design failure.

IMO problem with Russian CVN isn't reactor but cost of to build and to maintain, They probable could afford two medium size conventional carriers for cost of one nuclear super carrier (if we look whole service life).

VTOL fighter is only logical if they are not going for super carrier. For example time and money which they would need to invest in new super carrier they can spent on VTOL and modified Kuznecov carrier.[/quote]
[/quote][/quote]

Respectfully the Russian record for reactor safety, and reliability has been poor. The American's have lost 2 SSN's but they were not lost from reactor failures. Russian Boats have been contaminated, and crews poisoned. Serious incidents were frequent during the Cold War, they got even worse in the aftermath of the Soviet dissolution. Things seem to have gotten better in the last 10-15 years, but the standard is low.

When the Soviet Union had money they designed reactors in a reckless slap dash manor, sacrificing safety in an effort to catch up with NATO navies. They sent subs to sea with inadequate radiation shielding, to save weight, and make the boat faster. Crews were considered expendable, safety was a secondary consideration to operational performance. If their Boats were unreliable they would make up the difference with numbers. That was their attitude across the board on land, sea, and air, we can't make am good, but we can make a lot of them.

Now that the resources are low they no longer even have the numbers. Unless they have completely changed their design philosophy they will have the same problems, only spread out over a smaller fleet. Smaller fleet fewer incidents. "See comrades we are doing much better." A new generation of reactors will cost a lot of time and money, which I don't know if Russia has. You can't even finish the ships design, let alone start building it until you have prototype reactors up and running. That forces you to use the marginal designs they have today, which are old 1970's concepts.

The U.S. advanced light years in reactor design from Nautilus to Virginia, and Enterprise to Ford. Russia has shown no such advances. I'm sure they have made incremental improvements, but we haven't seen radical changes, at least that I'm aware of. If anyone has different information I'm sure we'd all like to know about it.

Re: Russia to develop VTOL fighter

Unread postPosted: 23 Jul 2017, 23:29
by arian
milosh wrote:???

Where I said shipyard is ready? No where. I only said it will be capable to build huge ships in future, and new carrier isn't something to be expected tomorrow but at end of next decade.


I was just pointing out what is in that picture, and what the shipyard is actually doing. What will happen in the far-away future is neither you nor I know.

Re: Russia to develop VTOL fighter

Unread postPosted: 24 Jul 2017, 00:06
by arian
milosh wrote:They operate fleet of nuclear icebreakers and they are building new ones,They also operate two nuclear powered missile cruisers and there are talks about third return in service in next decade. Fourth had problem with reactor or didn't had, different reports but if malfunction happen it was during collapse of USSR so it is more due to that then to some design failure.

IMO problem with Russian CVN isn't reactor


They're very different things. Nuclear ice-breakers are hardly the same as nuclear aircraft carriers. To explain it simply, the nuclear ice breakers the Russians are building are powered by reactors that offer about the same level of power as submarine nuclear reactors. The latest Russian reactors for these icebreakers have a power output of about 170 MWt (the t is for thermal, ie the overall heat generated to create steam for the steam turbines).

The Kirov's reactor is about twice that at about 300 MWt. So right there you can see the difference between a civilian icebreaker and a warship.

The Nimitz's reactors by comparison are at about 550MWt each. The Ford's are estimated at over 700 MWt. The Russians have never produced anything of that power (the Kirov's reactors were the most powerful they developed). So making nuclear reactors for aircraft carriers is a different ball game.

You can use smaller reactors for smaller carriers, like the French did. But it's a different thing from CVNs of the size or capability of the USN. Or alternatively you could use more reactors of smaller size, but the space they take up in a ship goes up quickly.

milosh wrote:They probable could afford two medium size conventional carriers for cost of one nuclear super carrier (if we look whole service life).


That's not the conclusion the USN came to. They said the difference was in the single digit % over the lifetime. But that's from a Navy with long experience of running both kinds, and Russia has little experience with either kind. But...two...is probably a vast overestimation.

milosh wrote:VTOL fighter is only logical if they are not going for super carrier. For example time and money which they would need to invest in new super carrier they can spent on VTOL and modified Kuznecov carrier.


All you'd be getting in that case is a fleet defense carrier. I.e. something to put up fighters and helos to defend a fleet, but not much in terms of strike capability (the Kuznetsov demonstrated its deficiencies as a strike platform in Syria)

Re: Russia to develop VTOL fighter

Unread postPosted: 24 Jul 2017, 06:06
by neptune
arian wrote:...The Kirov's reactor is about twice that at about 300 MWt. So right there you can see the difference between a civilian icebreaker and a warship......


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A1B_reactor

The A1B reactor plant was developed for the new ..class aircraft carriers. ..The naming of reactors is based on the type, generation, and manufacturer. ..A = Aircraft Carrier, 1 = maker's first-generation reactor plant design, B = Bechtel, the company that manufactures the reactor

.. The A1B reactor plant will provide increased electrical generation capability, including large unused capacity for future needs... Two A1B reactor plants will power the ship. Electrical aircraft catapult power will also free the ship's air wing from reactor plant constraints. The A1B reactor plant total power is classified, but the electrical power generation is 3 times that of the current A4W plants on Nimitz-class carriers. It is estimated that the total power output of the A1B will be a 25% increase on that provided by the A4W, i.e. around 700 MW. Improved efficiency in the total plant is expected to provide improved output to both propulsion and electrical systems... Compared to the Nimitz-class carriers' A4W, the A1B is smaller and weighs less. Operator interfaces are expected to be improved as well.

..However, overall there has been "6,200 reactor-years of accident-free experience" in the US Navy's nuclear powered ships. According to a statement of Admiral F. L. Bowman, the US Navy Director of the Naval Nuclear Propulsion Program, made in 2003 before the House Committee on Science, nuclear powered vessels in the US Navy have sailed over "128 million miles since 1953". ..It has increased from 6,200 to 6,500 reactor-years and from 128 million to "over 151 million miles safely steamed on nuclear power." Western navy Naval reactors used in submarines, icebreakers and carriers have an excellent, even exemplary safety record.
:)

Re: Russia to develop VTOL fighter

Unread postPosted: 24 Jul 2017, 08:27
by hythelday
arian wrote:That's not the conclusion the USN came to. They said the difference was in the single digit % over the lifetime. But that's from a Navy with long experience of running both kinds, and Russia has little experience with either kind. But...two...is probably a vast overestimation.


For Russians going nuclear on ships smaller than a super CV might still be cheaper for a specific reason - they have lost conventional propulsion R&D facilities and manufacturing industry (Ukranian Zorya-Mashproekt) in exchange for Crimea - as I have mentioned before. Sure, they said they'll initiate their own domestic effort - but that again is money and time.

With regards to "starting production of a " new generation" VTOL fighter by 2025", there's problem:
Image

As you can see there's naval PAK FA in the render. Even if we assume Yakovlev is technically capable of restarting Freestyle production within given timeframe, it will then be a competitor with PAK FA. Given that the Russians need to maximize numbers/sale opportunities, one plane has to be sacrafised. That's concidering they'll find money for the Lider-class destroyer, CV etc...

With all due respect to all participants, but let's not derail the thread. I do not doubt that Russia is capable of building a shipyard for 60,000 tonne ships, said 60,000 tonne ships, a VTOL fighter etc. The original news snippet they'll start production of both by 2025 - and that is what I doubt sincerely.

Re: Russia to develop VTOL fighter

Unread postPosted: 24 Jul 2017, 09:25
by juretrn
What's the state of Yakovlev these days anyway? I guess LM's financial injection kept them afloat?

Re: Russia to develop VTOL fighter

Unread postPosted: 24 Jul 2017, 09:29
by hythelday
juretrn wrote:What's the state of Yakovlev these days anyway? I guess LM's financial injection kept them afloat?


Yakovlev is part of UAC and thus is kept afloat by the government. They producr Yak-130 trainers now, and managed to bag export contracts for those in Belarus and Bangladesh.

Re: Russia to develop VTOL fighter

Unread postPosted: 24 Jul 2017, 14:58
by sferrin
arian wrote:The Kirov's reactor is about twice that at about 300 MWt. So right there you can see the difference between a civilian icebreaker and a warship.

The Nimitz's reactors by comparison are at about 550MWt each. The Ford's are estimated at over 700 MWt. The Russians have never produced anything of that power (the Kirov's reactors were the most powerful they developed). So making nuclear reactors for aircraft carriers is a different ball game.

You can use smaller reactors for smaller carriers, like the French did. But it's a different thing from CVNs of the size or capability of the USN. Or alternatively you could use more reactors of smaller size, but the space they take up in a ship goes up quickly.


Enterprise had eight reactors. Four of those in Kirov (one per shaft) doesn't seem to be all that outlandish by comparison.

Re: Russia to develop VTOL fighter

Unread postPosted: 24 Jul 2017, 16:46
by mixelflick
Holy sh!t! Where is all the money coming from??

Off the top of my head: New, Ford sized class aircraft carrier. Buying brand spanking new SU-34's, 35's and of course PAK FA in the pipeline. New Mig-35's, new smaller stealth sized jet to compete with the F-35, new Mig-31 replacement. New build TU-160's, new S-500 SAM system, new Mig-29K's, new heavy (stealth) bomber PAK DA and now..... a new VTOL fighter?

And these are just the ones I can think of, I'm sure there's lots more. If all of the above is true, the "sanctions" we've been imposing don't amount to jack!

Re: Russia to develop VTOL fighter

Unread postPosted: 24 Jul 2017, 17:17
by sferrin
mixelflick wrote:Holy sh!t! Where is all the money coming from??

Off the top of my head: New, Ford sized class aircraft carrier. Buying brand spanking new SU-34's, 35's and of course PAK FA in the pipeline. New Mig-35's, new smaller stealth sized jet to compete with the F-35, new Mig-31 replacement. New build TU-160's, new S-500 SAM system, new Mig-29K's, new heavy (stealth) bomber PAK DA and now..... a new VTOL fighter?

And these are just the ones I can think of, I'm sure there's lots more. If all of the above is true, the "sanctions" we've been imposing don't amount to jack!


Add to that new ICBMs, SLBMs, SSBNs, SSNs, tanks, etc.

Re: Russia to develop VTOL fighter

Unread postPosted: 24 Jul 2017, 17:48
by neptune
sferrin wrote:
mixelflick wrote:Holy sh!t! Where is all the money coming from??

Off the top of my head: New, Ford sized class aircraft carrier. Buying brand spanking new SU-34's, 35's and of course PAK FA in the pipeline. New Mig-35's, new smaller stealth sized jet to compete with the F-35, new Mig-31 replacement. New build TU-160's, new S-500 SAM system, new Mig-29K's, new heavy (stealth) bomber PAK DA and now..... a new VTOL fighter?

And these are just the ones I can think of, I'm sure there's lots more. If all of the above is true, the "sanctions" we've been imposing don't amount to jack!


Add to that new ICBMs, SLBMs, SSBNs, SSNs, tanks, etc.


....no problem, they'll borrow it from Trump, this is what the stupid Russia C#ap is about, he beat the Dems to the punch on the loans.....
:drool: :drool: :roll:

Re: Russia to develop VTOL fighter

Unread postPosted: 24 Jul 2017, 18:49
by sferrin
neptune wrote:
sferrin wrote:
mixelflick wrote:Holy sh!t! Where is all the money coming from??

Off the top of my head: New, Ford sized class aircraft carrier. Buying brand spanking new SU-34's, 35's and of course PAK FA in the pipeline. New Mig-35's, new smaller stealth sized jet to compete with the F-35, new Mig-31 replacement. New build TU-160's, new S-500 SAM system, new Mig-29K's, new heavy (stealth) bomber PAK DA and now..... a new VTOL fighter?

And these are just the ones I can think of, I'm sure there's lots more. If all of the above is true, the "sanctions" we've been imposing don't amount to jack!


Add to that new ICBMs, SLBMs, SSBNs, SSNs, tanks, etc.


....no problem, they'll borrow it from Trump, this is what the stupid Russia C#ap is about, he beat the Dems to the punch on the loans.....
:drool: :drool: :roll:


No idea what you're trying to say here. :wtf:

Re: Russia to develop VTOL fighter

Unread postPosted: 24 Jul 2017, 20:05
by arian
mixelflick wrote:Holy sh!t! Where is all the money coming from??


Brochures and "new" old junk is cheap.

Re: Russia to develop VTOL fighter

Unread postPosted: 25 Jul 2017, 01:13
by geforcerfx
I don't get why A. They want a super Carrier and B. If you have a super carrier why not use CATOBAR? Having something the size of a Ford class that can carry as many aircraft and then only having STOVL or STOBAR aircraft on board seem's like a complete waste of time. Well any country trying to develop a aircraft carrier that's not part of NATO seem's like a waste of time, you're dwarfed by the USA's Naval air power, and it would take a massive economy and 15-20 years to match it numerically.

Re: Russia to develop VTOL fighter

Unread postPosted: 25 Jul 2017, 14:47
by mixelflick
sferrin wrote:
mixelflick wrote:Holy sh!t! Where is all the money coming from??

Off the top of my head: New, Ford sized class aircraft carrier. Buying brand spanking new SU-34's, 35's and of course PAK FA in the pipeline. New Mig-35's, new smaller stealth sized jet to compete with the F-35, new Mig-31 replacement. New build TU-160's, new S-500 SAM system, new Mig-29K's, new heavy (stealth) bomber PAK DA and now..... a new VTOL fighter?

And these are just the ones I can think of, I'm sure there's lots more. If all of the above is true, the "sanctions" we've been imposing don't amount to jack!


Add to that new ICBMs, SLBMs, SSBNs, SSNs, tanks, etc.


Exactly. Every time I turn around they're either pumping out something new or talkin about it. With respect to new not really being new. OK, maybe. But the SU-35 is fundamentally a lot more capable airframe than the SU-27. The PAK FA isn't a Flanker, although it owes its lineage to it. It just seems like they're modernizing a lot faster than they ever were!

Re: Russia to develop VTOL fighter

Unread postPosted: 25 Jul 2017, 15:24
by neptune
mixelflick wrote:[....... OK, maybe. But the SU-35 is fundamentally a lot more capable airframe than the SU-27. The PAK FA isn't a Flanker, although it owes its lineage to it. It just seems like they're modernizing a lot faster than they ever were!


....in your opinion, with the active STOVL type a/c in service; forget "pie in the sky/ best evers" which way will they go; F-35B type MTOW 60Klbs. or a AV-8B type MTOW 30Klbs.? Sure they can wait for alien technology to evolve their space planes, but in the next 30- 40 years, which predominant technology will they pursue and eventually field to challenge the F-35B launched off the LHA/ LHD/ QE....or not?
:)

Re: Russia to develop VTOL fighter

Unread postPosted: 25 Jul 2017, 21:28
by XanderCrews
Good to see those 1980s wish lists getting dusted off

Re: Russia to develop VTOL fighter

Unread postPosted: 25 Jul 2017, 23:06
by arian
mixelflick wrote:Exactly. Every time I turn around they're either pumping out something new or talkin about it. With respect to new not really being new. OK, maybe. But the SU-35 is fundamentally a lot more capable airframe than the SU-27. The PAK FA isn't a Flanker, although it owes its lineage to it. It just seems like they're modernizing a lot faster than they ever were!


The Su-35 is fundamentally a late 80s project. The Russians have lots of "projects" because as was usual with the Soviets, they pursued 6 different avenues to get the same thing. Yes of course its a lot more modernization now than in the past. Obviously some of that is being flush with oil money (so we'll see how much that lasts now), and the other thing is that pretty much all their equipment in most of their branches has become hopelessly obsolete or unserviceable.

Re: Russia to develop VTOL fighter

Unread postPosted: 26 Jul 2017, 10:27
by tincansailor
mixelflick wrote:Holy sh!t! Where is all the money coming from??

Off the top of my head: New, Ford sized class aircraft carrier. Buying brand spanking new SU-34's, 35's and of course PAK FA in the pipeline. New Mig-35's, new smaller stealth sized jet to compete with the F-35, new Mig-31 replacement. New build TU-160's, new S-500 SAM system, new Mig-29K's, new heavy (stealth) bomber PAK DA and now..... a new VTOL fighter?

And these are just the ones I can think of, I'm sure there's lots more. If all of the above is true, the "sanctions" we've been imposing don't amount to jack!



Nowhere. Most of these programs won't go very far. Some like the S-500 will go forward, because it's a strategic defense system. TU-160 will move forward in limited numbers, because they need to maintain a credible strategic bomber force. New ICBM's SLBM's are needed to replace the existing strategic missile force, which is facing block obsolescence. Likewise SU-34, SU-35, MIG-35, T-50 are needed to replace the whole tactical air force. T-14 tank production will be at a trickle. A Russian CVN is a pipe dream.

These new systems will replace the current ones in far fewer numbers. In 20 years Russia will be far weaker then they are today. Their population, and economy are declining. The former Soviet Central Asian republics will be Chinese satellites along the New Silk Road. Russia herself will be a junior ally of China. If they don't fall in line China will simple take the former Chinese territory Russia took from them in the 19th century. There are already more Chinese living in the Russian border areas then Russians.

Putin's big talk about using nuclear weapons to repel a conventional invasion is a sign of weakness, not strength. What country would commit national suicide if threatened with the loss of a Provence? Russia is fighting rearguard actions, trying to maintain it's prestige as a world power. Their strategy in Syria is to fight a war to keep a naval base, but they have no fleet to send there. They took Crimea but as in the 18th century the Black Sea is a back water bathtub. Geography was just not very kind to Russia.

Russia is still dangerous, but it's not a surging power, like the Germans, and Japanese in the last century. Russia is on the strategic defense, trying to secure it's heartland in European Russia. The fall of the Soviet Union put Russia back to where they were in the 17th century. St Petersburg on the Baltic, and Crimea are all that's left of the conquests of Peter the Great. The process of 500 years of Russian expansion has been reversed, where the contraction will end is still not clear.

Re: Russia to develop VTOL fighter

Unread postPosted: 27 Jul 2017, 19:17
by milosh
arian wrote:That's not the conclusion the USN came to. They said the difference was in the single digit % over the lifetime. But that's from a Navy with long experience of running both kinds, and Russia has little experience with either kind. But...two...is probably a vast overestimation.


But that is USN which have carriers form 1920s, while Russians only got first real carrier in 1980s. So upgraded Kuznetsov design would be much better solution then making some super carrier aka russian budget killer. It would took lot less time and money to be done and with one already build that is two (old Kuzentsov would also got upgrade).

arian wrote:The Su-35 is fundamentally a late 80s project. The Russians have lots of "projects" because as was usual with the Soviets, they pursued 6 different avenues to get the same thing. Yes of course its a lot more modernization now than in the past. Obviously some of that is being flush with oil money (so we'll see how much that lasts now), and the other thing is that pretty much all their equipment in most of their branches has become hopelessly obsolete or unserviceable.


I really don't see lot of projects. Su-35 is Su-27 with modern materials, MiG-35 is same thing, modern MiG-29.

Only PAK-FA can consider new project. VTOL and possible UAE&Russian fighter could be another new project (lighter stealth) and I wouldn't be suprise if they use similar approch as US with JSF, similar airframe for both projects.

Re: Russia to develop VTOL fighter

Unread postPosted: 27 Jul 2017, 22:18
by arian
milosh wrote:But that is USN which have carriers form 1920s, while Russians only got first real carrier in 1980s. So upgraded Kuznetsov design would be much better solution then making some super carrier aka russian budget killer. It would took lot less time and money to be done and with one already build that is two (old Kuzentsov would also got upgrade).


I don't disagree that a Kuznetsov-sized carrier is more reasonable and likley, rather than full-blown super-carrier. Just pointing out that for the same sort of carrier, the differences between nuclear and conventional aren't as great in costs.

milosh wrote:I really don't see lot of projects. Su-35 is Su-27 with modern materials, MiG-35 is same thing, modern MiG-29.


I agree, but in reality these are all competing projects just as they were back in the day. Su-30, Su-35, MiG-35, Su-34...all slightly different but fundamentally they are all doing the same thing, but being pursued simultaneously. And they are all 1980s projects that finally got build some 30 years later.

Re: Russia to develop VTOL fighter

Unread postPosted: 29 Jul 2017, 06:35
by collimatrix
The Soviets did have a plan for a supercarrier, the Ulyanovsk class. They got as far as laying the keel before the cold, clawing hand of economic reality forced them to focus on other priorities.

There have been odd rumors of the Russians resuming work and having another go at making an Ulyanovsk, as well as rumors that the Chinese indigenous carrier design (the follow-on to their Kuznetsov-class ships) will be based on the Ulyanovsk. I guess we'll see in time.

Ulyanovsk would have been about 3/4 the displacement of a Nimitz, and had an aircraft compliment about 3/4 the size. Aircraft launch was to be a mix of steam catapult and ski jumps, so sortie generation would have probably fallen short of 3/4 of what a Nimitz can do. Still, it would have been a big-boy carrier, just not one that could go toe-to-toe with a US supercarrier (and let's be honest, that's nothing to be ashamed of).

Aircraft would have consisted of SU-33, MiG-29K, naval Kamov helos and the YAK-44, which was sort of a mega-sized E-2 equivalent. Later on COD and ASW variants of the YAK-44 would have been developed, and a carrier version of the SU-47 would have joined the fighter compliment. Actually, the SU-47 was originally conceived as a carrier aircraft. The forward-swept wings were specifically chosen for their good low-speed landing characteristics.

Propulsion would have been nuclear. Ulyanovsk would have a quartet of reactors, same model as in the Kirov.

The ship was quite ambitious for the Soviets, and I really have a hard time imagining that the Russians would opt for it today as it would be proportionally an enormous outlay for them. I can easily imagine why they would want such a ship, and can easily envision how they might find it very useful. I just can't readily imagine how they would pay for it. It really is a testament to Gorshkov's political acumen that the project got as far as it did.

My bet is that any near-future Russian carriers will be much more modest designs.

Re: Russia to develop VTOL fighter

Unread postPosted: 29 Jul 2017, 23:04
by mixelflick
neptune wrote:
mixelflick wrote:[....... OK, maybe. But the SU-35 is fundamentally a lot more capable airframe than the SU-27. The PAK FA isn't a Flanker, although it owes its lineage to it. It just seems like they're modernizing a lot faster than they ever were!


....in your opinion, with the active STOVL type a/c in service; forget "pie in the sky/ best evers" which way will they go; F-35B type MTOW 60Klbs. or a AV-8B type MTOW 30Klbs.? Sure they can wait for alien technology to evolve their space planes, but in the next 30- 40 years, which predominant technology will they pursue and eventually field to challenge the F-35B launched off the LHA/ LHD/ QE....or not?
:)


It's not going to happen IMO. I still question the need for VTOL aircraft. Can't think of a single conflict in recent memory where an airbase was cratered so bad they couldn't patch it and get on with things. As for ship borne aircraft, they're going to have plenty of PAK FA, Mig-29K and other navalised birds. At some point, the fiscal reality of all these grandiose plans has to hit home, and something's got to give.

I say it's this supposed VTOL fighter..

Re: Russia to develop VTOL fighter

Unread postPosted: 30 Jul 2017, 00:49
by arian
mixelflick wrote:It's not going to happen IMO. I still question the need for VTOL aircraft. Can't think of a single conflict in recent memory where an airbase was cratered so bad they couldn't patch it and get on with things.


That's probably not the main impetus for VSTOL for F-35B, for example. More to do with Marine requirements.

Same for the Russians, if they decide to go this route (which probably won't happen. lots of these brochure weapons advertised out there which don't amount to much in the end). It's about operating from non-conventional carriers.

Re: Russia to develop VTOL fighter

Unread postPosted: 19 Aug 2017, 11:04
by flateric
citanon wrote:Did Lockheed learn anything useful? Who knows. But they did help Yakovlev out to the tune of $400 million way back in the day. Time for the YAK to pay back. Amiright? :D


$400 mln? LOLD. They barely paid 400 kilobucks to Yak.

Re: Russia to develop VTOL fighter

Unread postPosted: 19 Aug 2017, 15:18
by terrygedran
arian wrote:
They're very different things. Nuclear ice-breakers are hardly the same as nuclear aircraft carriers. To explain it simply, the nuclear ice breakers the Russians are building are powered by reactors that offer about the same level of power as submarine nuclear reactors. The latest Russian reactors for these icebreakers have a power output of about 170 MWt (the t is for thermal, ie the overall heat generated to create steam for the steam turbines).

The Kirov's reactor is about twice that at about 300 MWt. So right there you can see the difference between a civilian icebreaker and a warship.

The Nimitz's reactors by comparison are at about 550MWt each. The Ford's are estimated at over 700 MWt. The Russians have never produced anything of that power (the Kirov's reactors were the most powerful they developed). So making nuclear reactors for aircraft carriers is a different ball game.

You can use smaller reactors for smaller carriers, like the French did. But it's a different thing from CVNs of the size or capability of the USN. Or alternatively you could use more reactors of smaller size, but the space they take up in a ship goes up quickly.



260 000/550+550 = 236.36
140 000/171+171 = 409.3567
So whose rectors are more effective ?

Re: Russia to develop VTOL fighter

Unread postPosted: 19 Aug 2017, 23:27
by arian
terrygedran wrote:[260 000/550+550 = 236.36
140 000/171+171 = 409.3567
So whose rectors are more effective ?


Yes because aircraft carriers do nothing else with the energy created by their nuclear reactors other than drive their screws.

:roll:

Re: Russia to develop VTOL fighter

Unread postPosted: 19 Aug 2017, 23:45
by botsing
arian wrote:
terrygedran wrote:[260 000/550+550 = 236.36
140 000/171+171 = 409.3567
So whose rectors are more effective ?


Yes because aircraft carriers do nothing else with the energy created by their nuclear reactors other than drive their screws.

:roll:

LOL, this terrygedran guy is even too simple to look at his own tail.

Re: Russia to develop VTOL fighter

Unread postPosted: 20 Aug 2017, 04:31
by terrygedran
arian wrote:"So right there you can see the difference between a civilian icebreaker and a warship."


As can be seen from the above there is no difference.

Re: Russia to develop VTOL fighter

Unread postPosted: 20 Aug 2017, 04:33
by botsing
terrygedran wrote:
arian wrote:"So right there you can see the difference between a civilian icebreaker and a warship."


As can be seen from the above there is no difference.

Would you care to elaborate? Show us the numbers please?

Show us why there is no difference.

Re: Russia to develop VTOL fighter

Unread postPosted: 20 Aug 2017, 06:17
by arian
terrygedran wrote:
arian wrote:"So right there you can see the difference between a civilian icebreaker and a warship."


As can be seen from the above there is no difference.


Where do these geniuses come from?

1) First off, what the hell is shp/MWt supposed to imply? And, why does it matter? Be specific.

2) "Effective"? Is that a technical term? LOL :wink: I think you're looking for some efficiency term.

3) You realize you did the wrong calculation there genius. :roll: Kirov has 2x 300Mwt reactors producing 140k shp, so that's 233 shp/MWt. So I guess you lose. Again.

4) The correct calculation you were looking for is 2x 175MWt (which is the latest Russian icebreaker reactor) for about 81,000 shp (for the latest icebreaker). So that's 231 shp/MWt. So again, you lose.

5) The above numbers of course are correctly interpreted in terms of efficiency as about 17.59% efficiency for Nimitz and about 17.37% for Kirov and about 17.22% efficiency for latest icebreaker.

6) Except that in none of these cases is that information interesting or relevant at all since all three ships use energy from the reactors to do lots of other things other than run their propellers.

7) And finally, it's scale that matters here. Not efficiency.

Re: Russia to develop VTOL fighter

Unread postPosted: 20 Aug 2017, 08:39
by tincansailor
terrygedran wrote:
arian wrote:"So right there you can see the difference between a civilian icebreaker and a warship."


As can be seen from the above there is no difference.



terrygedran the mistake your making is your just comparing the SHP vs. MWT ratio, on your chart and seeing their about the same. The American reactors are much smaller, and lighter for their output. It's like comparing aircraft engines, and not factoring T/W ratios, or engine size into the equation. Your also not considering other factors such as safety, reliability, serviceability, and core life.

Comparing the speed of ships isn't much help ether. My old ship had 80,000 SHP, and was about 7% the displacement of a Ford Class Carrier; so the SHP vs. displacement ratio was about 4 X better, yet the Ford is as least as fast, and most likely faster. Speed has more to do with hull shape, draft, and the limits of shaft, and screw efficiency then just raw power.

Re: Russia to develop VTOL fighter

Unread postPosted: 21 Aug 2017, 00:25
by nutshell
In a nimitiz carrier, there are, alone,well over a 100K KMs of elecrical wires to supplement power for all the systems.

That should make you ring a bell or two on ho much power a super carrier needs besides powering their engines.

The more you can produce the better. That's why Ford CVNs will be the first in line to host future direct energy weapons and who knows, something based on railgun tech.

Damn, you got s F*ING Gigawatt at your disposal, that thing would be enough to power Florence or heck, the whole Tuscany for all i know.

Re: Russia to develop VTOL fighter

Unread postPosted: 21 Aug 2017, 01:03
by popcorn
...

Re: Russia to develop VTOL fighter

Unread postPosted: 21 Aug 2017, 04:35
by sdkf251
"3) You realize you did the wrong calculation there genius. :roll: Kirov has 2x 300Mwt reactors producing 140k shp, so that's 233 shp/MWt. So I guess you lose. Again."

Hmmm.... that is a valid point, but it is actually much worse than that if I recall the old information about the Kirov. I remember to have read in the old days that the Kirov is powered by a combined nuclear and oil fired power system. (CONAS) The nuclear side is only able to give 24 knots by nuclear power itself and top speed can only be achieved if you
burn fuel oil to create higher steam pressures to get to higher speeds like 30+ knots.

However, I must admit, the Kirov class ships look very nice. I do not know what the aesthetics standards are today, but the literal forest of antennas and sensors and clutter on the old USSR ships seem to make the ships look more purposeful. (Emphasis on the word look) I guess after the greying of all modern aircraft, the new necessity of doing clean designs
is the future of military ship design. (Look at the zumwalt )

Re: Russia to develop VTOL fighter

Unread postPosted: 21 Aug 2017, 05:49
by arian
sdkf251 wrote:Hmmm.... that is a valid point, but it is actually much worse than that if I recall the old information about the Kirov. I remember to have read in the old days that the Kirov is powered by a combined nuclear and oil fired power system. (CONAS) The nuclear side is only able to give 24 knots by nuclear power itself and top speed can only be achieved if you
burn fuel oil to create higher steam pressures to get to higher speeds like 30+ knots.


Could be. Those things have sailed so few times in their entire lifetime, it's hard to say if they are even reliable enough in the first place.

The funny part of terrygedran's post is that he doesn't understand what he posted in his first two tables. Since he's so fluent in Russian, he should have figured out that one of the rows is the actual output power in MWt (which can be converted to shp). 54MWt is the highest output on that list (for 2x 171 MWt reactors), which is equivalent to about 72k shp.

Re: Russia to develop VTOL fighter

Unread postPosted: 21 Aug 2017, 05:57
by rheonomic
sdkf251 wrote:However, I must admit, the Kirov class ships look very nice. I do not know what the aesthetics standards are today, but the literal forest of antennas and sensors and clutter on the old USSR ships seem to make the ships look more purposeful.


That antenna forest is also a giant "SHIP HERE -- SHOOT ME" sign.

With the speed that modern kill chains operate at, LO is necessary to have a chance of survival should we ever get into a conventional war again. Even unconventional, e.g. the "Houthis" (read: Iranians) taking out some of the gulf states' vessels with ASMs.

Re: Russia to develop VTOL fighter

Unread postPosted: 21 Aug 2017, 18:13
by sferrin
rheonomic wrote:
sdkf251 wrote:However, I must admit, the Kirov class ships look very nice. I do not know what the aesthetics standards are today, but the literal forest of antennas and sensors and clutter on the old USSR ships seem to make the ships look more purposeful.


That antenna forest is also a giant "SHIP HERE -- SHOOT ME" sign.


Back in the day (late 70s) conceptual artwork for the HARM missile showed it attacking a Kresta II class cruiser. The idea was to use the hard-to-hit HARM to disable its weapon systems then finish it off with bombs or PGMs.

Re: Russia to develop VTOL fighter

Unread postPosted: 21 Aug 2017, 20:23
by arian
rheonomic wrote:With the speed that modern kill chains operate at, LO is necessary to have a chance of survival should we ever get into a conventional war again. Even unconventional, e.g. the "Houthis" (read: Iranians) taking out some of the gulf states' vessels with ASMs.


But all the ships involved in the Yemen conflict have been "LO" (some even quite so). And as far as I know the Houthis have only taken out a transport converted from a civilian hull and no warships (with missiles at least. they damaged a Saudi ship with a suicide craft). And they have carried out many engagements with no success.

Re: Russia to develop VTOL fighter

Unread postPosted: 22 Aug 2017, 14:21
by terrygedran
3) You realize you did the wrong calculation Kirov has 2x 300Mwt reactors producing 140k shp, so that's 233 shp/MWt. So I guess you lose. Again.
------------------------------------

There is a difference in sources of information associated with journalistic mistakes and translations into other languages .


It is quite obvious that this misconception :

Some talk about not specifying that kirov= 300MW(t) and kirov 2xKH-3 .
Eventually turning Kirov into a ship with total power= 600MW(t)

Some say kirov :

" Общая тепловая мощность двух реакторов составляет 342 МВт. "-The total thermal capacity of the two reactors is 342 MW.




Проектирование атомной паропроизводящей установки для ТАРКР пр. 1144 вообще было связано со значительными трудностями. Дело в том, что имевшаяся двухреакторная атомная паропроизводящая уста­новка ВМ-4, применявшаяся на первых советских атомных подводных лодках, после отмены для «Орлана» ограничений по водоизмещению уже не удовлетворяла требованиям по мощности, а трехреакторная установка атомного ледокола «Ленин» по своим габаритам и массе просто «не влезала» в корпус крейсера, да и по ряду других требований она не удовлетворяла военных. Пришлось для «Кирова» проектировать новую атомную энергоустановку, а заодно - разрабатывать концепцию по созданию систем безопасности, включая системы аварийного рас­холаживания и локализации аварии. Данные системы рассчитывались на проектную аварию «разрыв трубопровода теплоносителя на макси­мальном диаметре». Разработчиками была применена блочная схема компоновки, позволившая уменьшить габариты АЭУ и улучшившая ее эксплуатационные параметры, а также имевшая режим естественной циркуляции по первому контуру на высоких уровнях мощности ядерного реактора, автоматическую систему расхолаживания, которая была способна выполнить операции по глушению ядерного реактора даже в случае опрокидывания корабля. Реакторы для «Орлана» разрабатыва­лись на базе ЯР, использовавшихся на атомных ледоколах, но имелись и некоторые отличия. Они - двухконтурные, водо-водяные, на тепловых нейтронах, а в качестве замедлителя и теплоносителя применена вода высокой степени чистоты.

The design of the nuclear steam generating plant for TARKR prospect 1144 was generally associated with considerable difficulties. The fact is that the existing two-reactor nuclear steam-generating plant VM-4, used in the first Soviet nuclear submarines, after the abolition of the displacement restrictions for Orlan no longer satisfied the requirements for capacity, and the three-reactor installation of the nuclear icebreaker Lenin(OK-900) in its dimensions and the masses simply "did not fit" into the cruiser's corps, and for a number of other requirements it did not satisfy the military. It was necessary for Kirov to design a new nuclear power plant, and at the same time - to develop a concept for the creation of security systems, including systems for emergency cooling and localization of the accident. These systems were calculated for the design accident "breaking the coolant pipeline at maximum diameter." The developers used a block layout scheme that made it possible to reduce the dimensions of the AEU and improve its operational parameters, and also had a natural circulation mode along the first circuit at high power levels of the nuclear reactor, an automatic cooling system that was capable of performing nuclear reactor shutdown operations even in case of overturning ship. Reactors for Orlan were developed on the basis of nuclear weapons used on nuclear icebreakers, but there were some differences. They are two-circuit, water-water, thermal neutrons, and high-purity water is used as a retarder and coolant.




1) KH-3 is the same OK-900 but smaller geometric dimensions - ie OK-900A with thermal power of the reactor 171 MW.
2) 1144.1(2) Kirov-class battlecruiser = 342 MW(t) or 100-150 MW electric power

Re: Russia to develop VTOL fighter

Unread postPosted: 22 Aug 2017, 14:49
by sdkf251
sferrin wrote:Back in the day (late 70s) conceptual artwork for the HARM missile showed it attacking a Kresta II class cruiser. The idea was to use the hard-to-hit HARM to disable its weapon systems then finish it off with bombs or PGMs.


Your right! I remember very old videos of ARM missiles hitting ship radars. Not sure what type of ARM missiles they were (Shrike or Standard or HARM). But I do remember seeing in a video of the HARM being launched from an A7 and hitting a ship antenna or something similar.

I admit the antenna forest are not really a good idea anymore.

On the Kirov I am now more certain that the CONAS really is like 24knots with nuclear only and with oil firing will make it go 30+ knots. If I can only remember where I read it a long time ago.

On the Russian VTOL fighter, they did make the nostalgic Yak 38 Forger and tried with the YAK 41 I believe. I wonder what their operational concept of an aircraft carrier will be this time. Will it be a pure aircraft carrier or like their old operational concepts of missile carriers with aircraft for protection or ASW cruisers with VTOL aircraft for air protection.

Re: Russia to develop VTOL fighter

Unread postPosted: 22 Aug 2017, 22:32
by arian
terrygedran wrote:3) You realize you did the wrong calculation Kirov has 2x 300Mwt reactors producing 140k shp, so that's 233 shp/MWt. So I guess you lose. Again.
------------------------------------

There is a difference in sources of information associated with journalistic mistakes and translations into other languages .


It is quite obvious that this misconception :

Some talk about not specifying that kirov= 300MW(t) and kirov 2xKH-3 .
Eventually turning Kirov into a ship with total power= 600MW(t)

Some say kirov :

" Общая тепловая мощность двух реакторов составляет 342 МВт. "-The total thermal capacity of the two reactors is 342 MW.




Проектирование атомной паропроизводящей установки для ТАРКР пр. 1144 вообще было связано со значительными трудностями. Дело в том, что имевшаяся двухреакторная атомная паропроизводящая уста­новка ВМ-4, применявшаяся на первых советских атомных подводных лодках, после отмены для «Орлана» ограничений по водоизмещению уже не удовлетворяла требованиям по мощности, а трехреакторная установка атомного ледокола «Ленин» по своим габаритам и массе просто «не влезала» в корпус крейсера, да и по ряду других требований она не удовлетворяла военных. Пришлось для «Кирова» проектировать новую атомную энергоустановку, а заодно - разрабатывать концепцию по созданию систем безопасности, включая системы аварийного рас­холаживания и локализации аварии. Данные системы рассчитывались на проектную аварию «разрыв трубопровода теплоносителя на макси­мальном диаметре». Разработчиками была применена блочная схема компоновки, позволившая уменьшить габариты АЭУ и улучшившая ее эксплуатационные параметры, а также имевшая режим естественной циркуляции по первому контуру на высоких уровнях мощности ядерного реактора, автоматическую систему расхолаживания, которая была способна выполнить операции по глушению ядерного реактора даже в случае опрокидывания корабля. Реакторы для «Орлана» разрабатыва­лись на базе ЯР, использовавшихся на атомных ледоколах, но имелись и некоторые отличия. Они - двухконтурные, водо-водяные, на тепловых нейтронах, а в качестве замедлителя и теплоносителя применена вода высокой степени чистоты.

The design of the nuclear steam generating plant for TARKR prospect 1144 was generally associated with considerable difficulties. The fact is that the existing two-reactor nuclear steam-generating plant VM-4, used in the first Soviet nuclear submarines, after the abolition of the displacement restrictions for Orlan no longer satisfied the requirements for capacity, and the three-reactor installation of the nuclear icebreaker Lenin(OK-900) in its dimensions and the masses simply "did not fit" into the cruiser's corps, and for a number of other requirements it did not satisfy the military. It was necessary for Kirov to design a new nuclear power plant, and at the same time - to develop a concept for the creation of security systems, including systems for emergency cooling and localization of the accident. These systems were calculated for the design accident "breaking the coolant pipeline at maximum diameter." The developers used a block layout scheme that made it possible to reduce the dimensions of the AEU and improve its operational parameters, and also had a natural circulation mode along the first circuit at high power levels of the nuclear reactor, an automatic cooling system that was capable of performing nuclear reactor shutdown operations even in case of overturning ship. Reactors for Orlan were developed on the basis of nuclear weapons used on nuclear icebreakers, but there were some differences. They are two-circuit, water-water, thermal neutrons, and high-purity water is used as a retarder and coolant.




1) KH-3 is the same OK-900 but smaller geometric dimensions - ie OK-900A with thermal power of the reactor 171 MW.
2) 1144.1(2) Kirov-class battlecruiser = 342 MW(t) or 100-150 MW electric power


Hmm. Lets just say that you've yet again proven why you have no idea what you're talking about.

1) "Some say". Literally no one other than some random website says so.

2) Nowhere in the quoted text you gave (with no source, but who needs sources when you're making s**t up anyway) does it say that KN-3 is the same as OK-900.

OK-900 is the designation of a civilian nuclear reactor. Being "based on" doesn't mean it is the same or has the same power output.

Here, read: http://www.nks.org/scripts/getdocument. ... 0111120029

Of course if you could read your own tables that you posted where OK-900 is listed, you could figure out what it says. But seeing how you have no idea what you're talking about and instead post random stuff...

KH-3 is the same OK-900 but smaller geometric dimensions - ie OK-900A with thermal power of the reactor 171 MW.


LOL. OK-900A is literally listed about 6 times in the table you put on your previous post. Obviously however, you don't even know why you put that table there in the first place. OK-900A is listed, in all those instances in the table, as being fielded in 2x 171MWt units, producing a combined output of 54MWt.

54MWt is ~72,000 shp, which gives us an efficiency of about 15.79%.

Re: Russia to develop VTOL fighter

Unread postPosted: 23 Aug 2017, 01:47
by terrygedran
arian wrote:1) "Some say". Literally no one other than some random website says so."


Russian Nuclear Power Plants for Marine Applications
Ole Reistad
Norwegian Radiation Protection Authority, Norway
Povl L. Ølgaard
Risø National Laboratory, Denmark








arian wrote:Being "based on" doesn't mean it is the same or has the same power output.





The nuclear reactors in use on Russian surface vessels were constructed drawing on experience gained from the building and operating of reactors for the nuclear icebreakers. The construction of the reactor is almost identical to that used in the nuclear icebreakers of the Arktika class. They have the classification KN-3 (OK-900A) with a VM-16 type reactor core.




The OK-150 reactor (1st generation) and its successor, the OK-900 reactor (2nd generation) are Soviet marine nuclear fission reactors used to power ships at sea. They are pressurized water reactors (PWRs) that use enriched uranium-235 fuel. They have been used in various Russian nuclear-powered icebreaker ships.


OK-150 Specifications:

Fuel: 5% enriched uranium
Power production: 90 megawatts
Steam capacity 120 t/h
Power propulsion 44 000 h/p

OK-900 Specifications:

Power production: 159 megawatts
Steam capacity 220 t/h
Power propulsion 44 000 h/p

If you have not figured it OK-150 was removed from ship and replaced by OK-900 , but power propulsion the same.


OK-900A Specifications:

Fuel: 90% enriched uranium
Power production: 171 megawatts
Steam capacity 240 t/h
Power propulsion 75 000 h/p


Kirov KN-3 (OK-900A) with a type VM-16 reactor core

Specifications:

Power production: 171 megawatts

Power propulsion 140 000 h/p

Особое внимание было уделено отработке схемы применения энергетической установки корабля, мощность на валу у которой достигла 70 тысяч л. с. Комплексно-автоматизированная АЭУ размещается в трёх отсеках и включает два атомных реактора с общей тепловой мощностью 342 МВт.

Particular attention was paid to the development of the scheme for the use of the ship's power plant, the shaft power at which reached 2x70 h / p. The complex-automated AES is located in three compartments and includes two nuclear reactors with a total heat capacity of 342 MW.




Warships Forecast

US Nuclear Propulsion


This report tracks the development and upgrading of nuclear propulsion plants for US Navy vessels.
Sponsor
US Department of Energy
Washington, DC
USA
US Navy
Naval Sea Systems Command (NAVSEA)
2531 Jefferson Davis Hwy
Arlington, Virginia (VA) 22242-5160
USA
Tel:
+1 703 602 6920
(Procurement, RDT&E of Navy nuclear reactors)
US Nuclear Propulsion

A1G.
A General Electric version of the A4W (see
below), physically the same reactor but using different
reactor cores
providing longer core life.
A4W.
The Westinghouse D1W reactor was scaled up
during the late 1960s to provide a powerplant for the
new CVN-68 Nimitz class aircraft carriers.
Power
output was doubled to 120,000 shp, with two of the
reactors being used for each of the new carriers, giving a
total installed power of 240,000 shp (the USS Nimitz is reported to have developed 260,000 shp in trials)




arian wrote:They're very different things. Nuclear ice-breakers are hardly the same as nuclear aircraft carriers. To explain it simply, the nuclear ice breakers the Russians are building are powered by reactors that offer about the same level of power as submarine nuclear reactors. The latest Russian reactors for these icebreakers have a power output of about 170 MWt (the t is for thermal, ie the overall heat generated to create steam for the steam turbines).

The Kirov's reactor is about twice that at about 300 MWt. So right there you can see the difference between a civilian icebreaker and a warship.

The Nimitz's reactors by comparison are at about 550MWt each. The Ford's are estimated at over 700 MWt. The Russians have never produced anything of that power (the Kirov's reactors were the most powerful they developed). So making nuclear reactors for aircraft carriers is a different ball game.


1)How many N- icebreakers are operating the US? - 0
What the US is aware of the design of civilian nuclear reactors - 0
2)No KN-3 it is the same power OK-900A
3)It is not needed to make 2 550MW if you can get 4-171(or 300 for you claim) for same or better result .

Re: Russia to develop VTOL fighter

Unread postPosted: 23 Aug 2017, 02:38
by arian
terrygedran wrote:
arian wrote:1) "Some say". Literally no one other than some random website says so."


Russian Nuclear Power Plants for Marine Applications
Ole Reistad
Norwegian Radiation Protection Authority, Norway
Povl L. Ølgaard
Risø National Laboratory, Denmark


Are you so clueless as to cite my own source that I just gave you which says the opposite?

Since you're so clueless, here's your own source which you don't understand:

Image

OK-900A used as 2x171MWt installed power plant units with 59MWt output power.

пропульсивная мощность - 59 MBt

59 MWt translates to ~72,000 shp. Produces about 18-21 knots on a 23,000 ton ship.

You seem easily confused.

1)How many N- icebreakers are operating the US? - 0


Lots of icebreaker needs in the Gulf of Mexico, apparently.

2)No KN-3 it is the same power OK-900A


No.

3)It is not needed to make 2 550MW if you can get 4-171(or 300 for you claim) for same or better result .
[/quote]

I don't think you understand that that's not how things scale.

Re: Russia to develop VTOL fighter

Unread postPosted: 23 Aug 2017, 15:39
by terrygedran
"which says the opposite?"
:roll:

He says that :

Icebreaker LENIN have OK-150 : Power production: 90 megawatts, Steam capacity 120 t/h, Power propulsion 44 000 h/p

Icebreaker LENIN have OK-900(new type reactor) : Power production: 159 megawatts, Steam capacity 220 t/h,
Power propulsion 44 000 h/p

You see that without a change in the propulsion system, does not matter your reactor maximum power? :wink:

Also according to the materials I have given the new reactor unit of aircraft carrier ford the same for Nimitz without significant changes and a power increase of 25%.

The same way OK-900 modernized for military purposes have 171MWt not your claim 300MWt .

You can not just raise the reactor power by 2 times at the same time greatly reducing its dimensions without significant revisions all components of the reactor.
And there were no such changes :
1)Fuel is the same u235 90%
2) Without increasing the number of fuel assemblies you can not raise the power 2 times with the same fuel.
3) You can not increase the amount of fuel without increasing the geometric dimensions.
4)The geometric dimensions of the reactor decreased thanks to a new modular structure.
5)They did not describe the reactor in any way just posted information from Wikipedia
6) Civilian icebreakers low h/p vs military , If you do not chase the maximum speed, what can you get in the end? -Range.
Or in the context of reactors = running time on one load. Have 30knt+ It is simply unnecessary for civil ship.

Re: Russia to develop VTOL fighter

Unread postPosted: 24 Aug 2017, 01:13
by arian
^^^ You're just making stuff up at this point.

If you only understood the stuff you actually cite, that would be a start.

Re: Russia to develop VTOL fighter

Unread postPosted: 24 Aug 2017, 23:42
by collimatrix
terrygedran wrote:

260 000/550+550 = 236.36
140 000/171+171 = 409.3567
So whose rectors are more effective ?



Dude...

You divided weight by power. That's a weight to power ratio, not a power to weight ratio, so lower is better.

Learn to math.

Re: Russia to develop VTOL fighter

Unread postPosted: 25 Aug 2017, 00:53
by terrygedran
collimatrix wrote:
terrygedran wrote:

260 000/550+550 = 236.36
140 000/171+171 = 409.3567
So whose rectors are more effective ?



Dude...

You divided weight by power. That's a weight to power ratio, not a power to weight ratio, so lower is better.

Learn to math.




Funny thing if you think that Arian is right with 300MWt then the ratio in favor of 1144.2

BUT dude...... 260 000 h\p is weight ? :shock:

If you take the ratio that you mentioned
Displacement: 100 000 /1100= 91
Displacement: 25 000/ 342 = 73.1(41.6 if 300MWt+300MWt)
so lower is better.

260 000 / 100 000= 2.6 h/p per ton
140 000/ 25 000 = 5.6 h/p per ton
so lower is worse.

Re: Russia to develop VTOL fighter

Unread postPosted: 25 Aug 2017, 00:59
by arian
You know what, I give up. You're absolutely right. I don't know how I didn't see how right you were in the brilliance of your arguments.

You're absolutely right that Kirov uses 2 OK-900A reactors. It's so obvious! A random website said so, so it must be true!

I am a bit confused by this, however:
Image

Care to explain to me what I have circled there?

Thank you for your brilliance.

Re: Russia to develop VTOL fighter

Unread postPosted: 25 Aug 2017, 01:04
by rheonomic
arian wrote:But all the ships involved in the Yemen conflict have been "LO" (some even quite so). And as far as I know the Houthis have only taken out a transport converted from a civilian hull and no warships (with missiles at least. they damaged a Saudi ship with a suicide craft). And they have carried out many engagements with no success.


You're probably right; I'll fully admit my knowledge of naval matters is relatively limited. The point I was trying to make was that minimizing signature is useful even in non-conventional conflicts. I guess I could have come up with a better example though.

Re: Russia to develop VTOL fighter

Unread postPosted: 25 Aug 2017, 11:17
by terrygedran
Nimitz -----------------------------------------------------1100MWt= 1475124 h/p 260.000 h/p = 17.62%
kn-3 Kirov------------------------------------------------600MWt = 804613 h/p 140.000 h/p = 17.4%
OK-900A with active zone type BM-16(kn-3)---------342MWt= 458629 h/p 140.000 h/p = 30.53%
OK-900A IceB ----------------------------------------------342MWt= 458629 h/p 72.415 h/p = 15.8%

---------------------
1dec34453c683c963263c6ffccaf21f7.png



It seems I figured out where the talk came from about 300MWt KH-3

"The development of APPU for the new aircraft carrier was carried out on the basis of the KH-3 reactors mastered in production, which were installed on the Kirov-type nuclear cruisers, only the forced type KH-3-43 (305MWt)"

Re: Russia to develop VTOL fighter

Unread postPosted: 25 Aug 2017, 18:55
by tincansailor
rheonomic wrote:
arian wrote:But all the ships involved in the Yemen conflict have been "LO" (some even quite so). And as far as I know the Houthis have only taken out a transport converted from a civilian hull and no warships (with missiles at least. they damaged a Saudi ship with a suicide craft). And they have carried out many engagements with no success.


You're probably right; I'll fully admit my knowledge of naval matters is relatively limited. The point I was trying to make was that minimizing signature is useful even in non-conventional conflicts. I guess I could have come up with a better example though.



The good news is that first class warships have been able to protect themselves from ASMs. The bad news is unless an escort is right there with them merchant ships are highly vulnerable. Since ancient times the primary task of a navy is to protect shipping. Remember the target of the U-Boat War in WWI & WWII was merchant shipping, not warships. Shore Based ASM placed at a strategic choke point like the southern entrance of the Red Sea are a threat to the worlds economy.

Iran is threating both the entrance to the Red Sea, and the Persian Gulf with shore based ASM. China, Saudi Arabia, U.S. and France all have naval air bases in Djibouti, which represents quite a buildup of forces in the Gulf of Aden area. It seems the worlds powers are focusing on this choke point on the major trade route between Europe, and Asia. Amazing that so many powers could base forces all in the same country.

With the Turks becoming active in Somalia, and

Re: Russia to develop VTOL fighter

Unread postPosted: 26 Aug 2017, 03:04
by arian
terrygedran wrote:Nimitz -----------------------------------------------------1100MWt= 1475124 h/p 260.000 h/p = 17.62%
kn-3 Kirov------------------------------------------------600MWt = 804613 h/p 140.000 h/p = 17.4%
OK-900A with active zone type BM-16(kn-3)---------342MWt= 458629 h/p 140.000 h/p = 30.53%
OK-900A IceB ----------------------------------------------342MWt= 458629 h/p 72.415 h/p = 15.8%

---------------------
1dec34453c683c963263c6ffccaf21f7.png



It seems I figured out where the talk came from about 300MWt KH-3

"The development of APPU for the new aircraft carrier was carried out on the basis of the KH-3 reactors mastered in production, which were installed on the Kirov-type nuclear cruisers, only the forced type KH-3-43 (305MWt)"


You seem genuinely clueless. I love that you underline totally random s**t on that table and then also proceed to totally make up numbers.

I mean...you're not even a good troll.

Re: Russia to develop VTOL fighter

Unread postPosted: 26 Aug 2017, 03:42
by spazsinbad
Why has this 'not so good troll' been allowed to derail a thread about 'Russian VTOL Fighters' with B/S 'bout nuke reactors?

Re: Russia to develop VTOL fighter

Unread postPosted: 26 Aug 2017, 07:22
by tincansailor
Funny thing if you think that Arian is right with 300MWt then the ratio in favor of 1144.2

BUT dude...... 260 000 h\p is weight ? :shock:

If you take the ratio that you mentioned
Displacement: 100 000 /1100= 91
Displacement: 25 000/ 342 = 73.1(41.6 if 300MWt+300MWt)
so lower is better.

260 000 / 100 000= 2.6 h/p per ton
140 000/ 25 000 = 5.6 h/p per ton
so lower is worse.[/quote]

Your still not addressing the other factors that make American naval reactors better. Their lighter, more compact, and put out more energy. Their have better safety, reliability, serviceable, and core life. By it's nature an ice breaker needs more h/p per ton to do it's job, so they needed 2 reactors. Having all that power doesn't make them any faster. If the Americans wanted to build an ice breaker it would only need 1 reactor. That would make an American ice breaker cheaper, with a more efficient power plant, smaller crew, and an over all smaller ship. If the Russian ship is 25,000 GRT the American ship might be only 20,000 GRT.

If Russia builds a CVN they'd need 4 reactors, vs 2. That would take up maybe 3 times the reactor space on the American CVNs. The calculation for Enterprise vs Kitty Hawk was she saved 20% internal space by not having to carry fuel oil. That lets them carry more ammo, and aviation fuel. By taking up so much more space for reactors a lot of that advantage would be lost. Added to their other disadvantages a Russian CVN would be far less cost effective vs an American CVN.

With Russian's lack of experience, with cats, and traps, poor maintenance at sea, and marginal carrier based aircraft I really don't think Russia will make the investment. They have many higher priorities, and shrinking resources. I just don't see where a Russian Carrier force fits into their naval strategy. They'd need a least 4 carriers, 2 in the Artic, 2 in the Pacific to have any strategic value. That's a huge investment, better spent on submarines, surface ships, and long range naval aircraft. It makes no sense to build just 1, so I doubt they will build any.

Re: Russia to develop VTOL fighter

Unread postPosted: 27 Aug 2017, 05:43
by nutshell
popcorn wrote:...



Well, 700MWt are close enough to the Giga, 'mkay? :mrgreen: :mrgreen:


Should we assume usual 33% efficiency rating from ground reactors?

With a bare minimum of 180MWe to use, Ford class can really enjoy lot of toys to play with.

Re: Russia to develop VTOL fighter

Unread postPosted: 27 Aug 2017, 16:26
by sferrin
nutshell wrote:
popcorn wrote:...



Well, 700MWt are close enough to the Giga, 'mkay? :mrgreen: :mrgreen:


Should we assume usual 33% efficiency rating from ground reactors?

With a bare minimum of 180MWe to use, Ford class can really enjoy lot of toys to play with.


Considering approximately 4622 iphones will be recharging at any given moment it will need it. :lmao:

Re: Russia to develop VTOL fighter

Unread postPosted: 27 Aug 2017, 21:25
by tincansailor
terrygedran wrote:
tincansailor wrote:
Your still not addressing the other factors that make American naval reactors better. Their lighter, more compact, and put out more energy. Their have better safety, reliability, serviceable, and core life. By it's nature an ice breaker needs more h/p per ton to do it's job, so they needed 2 reactors.




Are you ready to provide data on the dimensions of the reactors ?
If not, then I can say the same thing.



I can't give you accurate weight, or dimension figures for the reactors, but we can make some logical deductions, based on published data. Lets compare the USS Ohio Class vs Russia's Typhoon Class SSBNs. Ohio is 560ft long, 42ft beam, 35.5ft draft, and a max surface displacement of 16,499 long tons. Typhoon is 574ft. long, 75.5ft. beam, 39ft, 4in draft, with a max surface displacement of 22.830 tons. Ohio is powered by one S8G 220 MWT reactor, producing 60,000 SHP, weighing 2,750 tons, housed in a 55 by 42ft compartment. Typhoon is powered by two OK-650 190 MWT reactors producing 46,900 SHP, from each turbine. It's size, and dimensions are of course a state secret, like the boats toilet system.

The first question that leaps out is why is the Typhoon so much wider, and heavier then the Ohio? Typhoon's SS-NX-20 Sturgeon SLBMs are larger then the American Trident IIs. 54ft, by 7.9ft, 185,000lbs, vs 44ft, by 6ft, 11" 130,000lbs. Total missile weight of 20 SS-NX-20s is 1,,850 tons. vs 1,560 tons for 24 Trident IIs. A missile being 10" wider wouldn't account for a 33ft difference in beam. Nor would a difference of 290 tons in missile weight account for over 6,000tons displacement.

Even with their double hulls the only thing that can account for the weight, and breath of the boat is the reactors, and attendant machinery, and coolant water. With two shifts the reactor rooms are probable side, by side. I base that on the fact that their single reactor boats are much narrower. The heaviest section of a submarine is the engineering section back aft. It seems that to help balance the boat the designers had to place the missile tubes forward of the sail.

The more modern Borey Class SSBN has greatly reduced weight, boat dimensions, lighter missile load, smaller crew, single reactor, and so have been able to return to mounting the missile tubes amidships. Yet the OK-650B reactor still only puts out same 190 MWT of the OK-650 on the Typhoon.

As for surface ships compare USS Long Beach CGN-9 vs the Kirov. CG-9 was powered by two 1950s C1W reactors, producing 60 MWT, and 80,000 SHP, able to propel a 15,540 ton fully loaded ship at 30 Kt. At 28,000 tons, Kirov's 2 reactors needed a combined steam plant to produce 120,000 SHP to make 32 KT. What accounts for Kirov being 12.000 tons heavier then Long Beach? Again we see a much bigger hull. 827ft, by 94ft, by 30ft, vs 721, by 71.5ft, by 30ft. Granted Kirov has more missile systems, and radars then Long Beach, but that won't account for 12,000 tons. Her machinery with side by side reactors, must have been heavier, and bigger, which helped drive up both the hull length, and beam.

Later USN CGNs were much smaller then Long Beach. Long Beach was built with the WWII concept of a Cruiser being very a large ship, even though she didn't have armor plate. The California Class displaced 10,600 tons with 2, D2G reactors using a compartment, measuring 37ft long, by 31ft wide, and weighed 1,500 short tons, 35,000 SHP each. Reactor Rooms were fwd. and aft So we can see the USN was able to build much smaller nuclear powered vessels, and they didn't need conventional steam plants to complement reactor power. Granted better weapons layout, and general design accounts for some of that, but machinery has to be a big factor. High powered turbines, and cooling water are just heavy.

As for safety, reliability, severability, and core life the record speaks for it's self. The USN has never had a major nuclear accident, or reactor failure. The Soviet, and Russian Navy has had a terrible record in comparison. American Submariners have been exposed to more radiation while visiting Russian Submarines for a few hours, then they were in their whole career in the USN. How many Russian Sailors have been killed, or suffered early death, or illness from radiation exposure? Sailors were treated as expendable items. The Russian Navy's Nuclear program has been a human, and environmental tragedy.

Re: Russia to develop VTOL fighter

Unread postPosted: 28 Aug 2017, 00:04
by white_lightning35
But, but russia stronk...

Re: Russia to develop VTOL fighter

Unread postPosted: 28 Aug 2017, 04:39
by arian
I'm still waiting for you to explain what I have circled in that table, terrygedran.

You're going to keep me waiting?

Re: Russia to develop VTOL fighter

Unread postPosted: 28 Aug 2017, 12:32
by sferrin
tincansailor wrote:The first question that leaps out is why is the Typhoon so much wider, and heavier then the Ohio? Typhoon's SS-NX-20 Sturgeon SLBMs are larger then the American Trident IIs. 54ft, by 7.9ft, 185,000lbs, vs 44ft, by 6ft, 11" 130,000lbs. Total missile weight of 20 SS-NX-20s is 1,,850 tons. vs 1,560 tons for 24 Trident IIs. A missile being 10" wider wouldn't account for a 33ft difference in beam. Nor would a difference of 290 tons in missile weight account for over 6,000tons displacement.

Even with their double hulls the only thing that can account for the weight, and breath of the boat is the reactors, and attendant machinery, and coolant water. With two shifts the reactor rooms are probable side, by side. I base that on the fact that their single reactor boats are much narrower. The heaviest section of a submarine is the engineering section back aft. It seems that to help balance the boat the designers had to place the missile tubes forward of the sail.

The more modern Borey Class SSBN has greatly reduced weight, boat dimensions, lighter missile load, smaller crew, single reactor, and so have been able to return to mounting the missile tubes amidships. Yet the OK-650B reactor still only puts out same 190 MWT of the OK-650 on the Typhoon.


It's a whole lot more complicated than that. While the Ohios and Typhoons serve similar missions, where they can, and do, do it from is very different. The Typhoons, and the SS-N-20 (R-39 Rif) were designed to operate under up to 2 meters of ice. The missile was designed to be launched from up to 50 meters down. (Or more as I recall).

The Borea would be a better comparison, but even that isn't necessarily apples to apples. For example, the Columbia class will displace more than the Ohios but only carry 2/3 of the SAME missiles. Does that mean it's inferior?


P.S. both the Typhoon and Borea displace a lot more than an Ohio.

Re: Russia to develop VTOL fighter

Unread postPosted: 28 Aug 2017, 13:27
by terrygedran
arian wrote:I'm still waiting for you to explain what I have circled in that table, terrygedran.

You're going to keep me waiting?


You do not know what you've have circled in that table ? :?

Re: Russia to develop VTOL fighter

Unread postPosted: 28 Aug 2017, 15:29
by botsing
arian wrote:I'm still waiting for you to explain what I have circled in that table, terrygedran.

You're going to keep me waiting?

There is no point in asking him anything. He is not here to provide information, he is here to provide disinformation.

Re: Russia to develop VTOL fighter

Unread postPosted: 28 Aug 2017, 20:56
by tincansailor
It's a whole lot more complicated than that. While the Ohios and Typhoons serve similar missions, where they can, and do, do it from is very different. The Typhoons, and the SS-N-20 (R-39 Rif) were designed to operate under up to 2 meters of ice. The missile was designed to be launched from up to 50 meters down. (Or more as I recall).

The Borea would be a better comparison, but even that isn't necessarily apples to apples. For example, the Columbia class will displace more than the Ohios but only carry 2/3 of the SAME missiles. Does that mean it's inferior?


P.S. both the Typhoon and Borea displace a lot more than an Ohio.


[/quote]
Your making very good points, and your quite correct in everything your saying. I'm not saying one ship is better then the other. I was referring to how compact the designs were. The issue was that Russia can't seem to make reactors as powerful as America can. On large submarines they need to use two. If they ever built a CVN I suspect they would need four, which would take up a lot of space.

know I tend to post long, so I was trying to keep it short. That's why I didn't address the vast difference in submerged displacement between Typhoon, and Ohio. The Russian boat has an enormous reserve buoyancy, probable because as you say they intended to operate under ice, and also because they expected to take torpedo hits.

The wide space between Russian double hulls is to preform the function that anti-torpedo bulkheads did on battleships. I have heard the void between hulls could be as much as 12ft. Even that doesn't account for so broad a beam on both the Typhoon, or Oscar. I was trying to make a connection between them having 2 reactors, and being so broad. I suspect the reactors are side by side accounting for the wide beam. In both classes a lot of weight is shifted forward. Oscar II was lengthened, and the sail was pushed forward in an effort I would suspect to counter balance the weight of the double reactors aft.

As for the future Columbia having only 16 Trident II Missiles I think that is a matter of arms control agreements. Trident II Missiles can carry up to 14 warheads, but most mods carry 8, or 10. The most modern mod carries 6. With 16 missiles carrying 6 warheads each, we can have a fleet of more boats. It makes sense to spread our limited allowable warheads out among the largest number of submarines.

I'm sure you know 4 Ohio's were rebuilt as SSGNs carrying 154 Tomahawk Missiles. When they retire we will be getting new build Virginia class boats, with a plug in section with 4 tubes for 28 Tomahawk type missiles, with 2 more tubes in the nose, for a total of 42 missiles. Not bad. The Virginia will continue to be a very flexible, and useful boat.

Re: Russia to develop VTOL fighter

Unread postPosted: 28 Aug 2017, 21:42
by tincansailor
[Are you ready to provide data on the dimensions of the reactors ?
If not, then I can say the same thing.
------------------------------------

I can't give you accurate ,.


That was enough.[/quote]
[/quote]

Since Russia keeps that information secret unless I'm a spy how could I provide it? We have to make logical estimates based on what is publicly available. The fact that Russia needs to use two reactors on large submarines, and the USN doesn't shows the American's can make more powerful reactors. Obviously two reactors weigh more then one, because you have to duplicate all the subsystems that go with a reactor.

Russia has only used nuclear power on very large ships, while the USN built medium sized warships. That indicates U.S. nuclear power plants are small enough, and light enough to fit in a smaller hull then the Russian's can. The Kirov needs a conventional steam plant to supplement the nuclear plant to reach high speeds. American CVNs, and CGNs don't. That means American nuclear power plants can handle the job, while Russian systems can't.

Again even more important is the terrible Russian Nuclear safety record. The USN has had a perfect safety record, with not one major accident. No radiation leaks. or any human loses. Russia on the other hand has had one disaster after another. How many men has Russia lost in naval nuclear failures? Can you address the terrible safety record of the Russian Nuclear Navy? How can you say Russian reactors are as good as American reactors if they're so unreliable, and dangerous?

Re: Russia to develop VTOL fighter

Unread postPosted: 28 Aug 2017, 22:01
by SpudmanWP
Would everyone please look at your posts after you submit them to make sure your "quotes" and other BBCode markup tags are formatted correctly.

Re: Russia to develop VTOL fighter

Unread postPosted: 28 Aug 2017, 22:08
by terrygedran
tincansailor wrote: The issue was that Russia can't seem to make reactors as powerful as America can. On large submarines they need to use two.

I was trying to make a connection between them having 2 reactors, and being so broad. I suspect the reactors are side by side accounting for the wide beam.


"Russia can't seem to make reactors as powerful as America can"
It is a question of development time and money


"having 2 reactors, and being so broad. I suspect the reactors are side by side "

This is not due to reactors or inability to make 1 big .

Image

28 - nuclear reactors

32/33 - main robust hull.


Основное вооружение — ракетный комплекс Д-19 с 20 трёхступенчатыми твердотопливными баллистическими ракетами Р-39 «Вариант». Из-за больших габаритов Р-39 лодки проекта «Акула» были единственными носителями этих ракет.

Особенностью конструкции лодки является наличие внутри лёгкого корпуса пяти обитаемых прочных корпусов. Два из них являются основными, имеют максимальный диаметр 10 м и расположены параллельно друг другу, по принципу катамарана. В передней части корабля, между главными прочными корпусами, расположены ракетные шахты, которые впервые были размещены впереди рубки. Кроме того, имеются три отдельных герметичных отсека: торпедный отсек, отсек модуля управления с центральным постом и кормовой механический отсек. Вынос и размещение трёх отсеков в пространство между основными корпусами позволило повысить пожаробезопасность и живучесть лодки.
Для того, чтобы лодки были способны нести дежурства в высоких широтах, ограждение рубки выполнено очень прочным, способным проламывать лёд толщиной 2-2,5 м.
Экипаж размещён в условиях повышенной комфортности. На лодке имеются салон для отдыха, спортивный зал, плавательный бассейн размером 4×2 м и глубиной 2 м, заполняемый пресной или солёной забортной водой с возможностью подогрева, солярий, обшитая дубовыми досками сауна, «живой уголок».




The main armament is the D-19 missile system with 20 three-stage solid-fuel ballistic missiles R-39 "Variant". Because of the large dimensions of the P-39, the Shark project boats were the only carriers of these missiles.

A special feature of the boat's design is the presence inside the light hull of five habitable solid shells. Two of them are basic, have a maximum diameter of 10 m and are parallel to each other, according to the principle of a catamaran. In front of the ship, between the main strong bodies, there are missile shafts, which were first placed ahead of the felling. In addition, there are three separate sealed compartments: a torpedo compartment, a control module compartment with a central post and a stern mechanical compartment. Removal and placement of three compartments in the space between the main buildings allowed to increase the fire safety and survivability of the boat

In order for the boats to be able to keep watch at high latitudes, the fencing enclosure is very durable, capable of breaking ice 2-2.5 m thick.

The crew is located in a comfortable environment. On the boat there is a lounge for relaxation, a sports hall, a swimming pool 4 × 2 m in size and 2 m deep, filled with fresh or salt seawater with the possibility of heating, a solarium, an oak-planked sauna, a "living area".

P.S "It is difficult to find the most advanced Russian Akula class submarines when they operate at tactical speed or less," Admiral Jeremy Boorda said.

Re: Russia to develop VTOL fighter

Unread postPosted: 29 Aug 2017, 00:16
by pmi
SpudmanWP wrote:Would everyone please look at your posts after you submit them to make sure your "quotes" and other BBCode markup tags are formatted correctly.


But then it makes them easier to read. I'm not so sure that is a good thing.

Re: Russia to develop VTOL fighter

Unread postPosted: 29 Aug 2017, 01:14
by tincansailor
[

The main armament is the D-19 missile system with 20 three-stage solid-fuel ballistic missiles R-39 "Variant". Because of the large dimensions of the P-39, the Shark project boats were the only carriers of these missiles.

A special feature of the boat's design is the presence inside the light hull of five habitable solid shells. Two of them are basic, have a maximum diameter of 10 m and are parallel to each other, according to the principle of a catamaran. In front of the ship, between the main strong bodies, there are missile shafts, which were first placed ahead of the felling. In addition, there are three separate sealed compartments: a torpedo compartment, a control module compartment with a central post and a stern mechanical compartment. Removal and placement of three compartments in the space between the main buildings allowed to increase the fire safety and survivability of the boat

In order for the boats to be able to keep watch at high latitudes, the fencing enclosure is very durable, capable of breaking ice 2-2.5 m thick.

The crew is located in a comfortable environment. On the boat there is a lounge for relaxation, a sports hall, a swimming pool 4 × 2 m in size and 2 m deep, filled with fresh or salt seawater with the possibility of heating, a solarium, an oak-planked sauna, a "living area".

P.S "It is difficult to find the most advanced Russian Akula class submarines when they operate at tactical speed or less," Admiral Jeremy Boorda said.

[/quote]

Thanks for the information. A few points. The missiles carried by the Typhoon are .5 meters wider then those carried by the Delta IV. That would account for an increase in beam of about 2 meters, not 10. Your description of how the boat is divided into sections sounds pretty standard procedure for modern submarine construction. The Germans started building U-Boats in sections in WWII.

As I said Russian double hulls are designed to take torpedo hits, and operated under ice. The American strategy is not to get hit by torpedoes. Hoping that a double hull will help a sub survive a hit from a MK-48 is a poor bet. If the anti-torpedo bulkheads on WWII Battleships couldn't protect them from major compartment flooding double hulls won't help Russian submarines ether. Perhaps their hoping to only be hit by light ASW torpedoes like the MK-54.

It's unclear to me based on your diagram where on the boat the reactors are placed? Are they bigger then the reactors on the Delta IV? How are they laid out? Side by side? Stacked? Fore, and aft?. What is the logic of using two reactors on a submarine were space is at a greater premium then on surface ships? We usually see Russians doublings up on shipboard systems incase one brakes down. Is that the logic of two reactors?

Also could you address the poor safety, and reliability issues with Russian reactors. What would make us think a Russian CVN would be anymore reliable, or safe then the Kirov's have been? Could they achieve 30 plus knots without a supplemental steam plant?

I think the reason they want a CVN, rather then a CV is tanker support. A CVN with a very low tempo of air operations, and only a couple of escorts could deploy anywhere in the world with a minimal number of tankers. Russia just doesn't have much of a fleet logistical train. Look what happened with the Kuznetsov during her last Mediterranean deployment. Not very impressive.

Re: Russia to develop VTOL fighter

Unread postPosted: 29 Aug 2017, 01:28
by tincansailor
Wow was I being dense. I didn't look carefully at your diagram. Two whole pressure hulls surrounded by an outer casing. No wonder it needs two reactors, and needs to be so wide, and massive. Do you really think if one hull is ruptured the other can continue to operate? What a monstrosity.

Re: Russia to develop VTOL fighter

Unread postPosted: 29 Aug 2017, 11:46
by terrygedran
tincansailor wrote: if one hull is ruptured the other can continue to operate?

This was the goal.

Re: Russia to develop VTOL fighter

Unread postPosted: 29 Aug 2017, 12:28
by terrygedran
tincansailor wrote:Also could you address the poor safety, and reliability issues with Russian reactors. What would make us think a Russian CVN would be anymore reliable, or safe then the Kirov's have been? Could they achieve 30 plus knots without a supplemental steam plant?

КН-3 this technology until 1986 Chernobyl accident.
After 1986 a lot has changed in the design, in the training of specialists.
The difference is so significant that students who studied 5 years after this are not able to believe in how the Chernoble occurred.

Re: Russia to develop VTOL fighter

Unread postPosted: 29 Aug 2017, 15:36
by SpudmanWP
terrygedran wrote:
tincansailor wrote: if one hull is ruptured the other can continue to operate?

This was the goal.


Wouldn't one flooded hull throw of the CoG and make ballasting a nightmare?

Re: Russia to develop VTOL fighter

Unread postPosted: 29 Aug 2017, 17:32
by tincansailor
terrygedran wrote:
tincansailor wrote:Also could you address the poor safety, and reliability issues with Russian reactors. What would make us think a Russian CVN would be anymore reliable, or safe then the Kirov's have been? Could they achieve 30 plus knots without a supplemental steam plant?

КН-3 this technology until 1986 Chernobyl accident.
After 1986 a lot has changed in the design, in the training of specialists.
The difference is so significant that students who studied 5 years after this are not able to believe in how the Chernoble occurred.



Hard to know if there has been much improvement. In the West the smallest incident at a nuclear plant becomes public knowledge, while in Russia getting any information is like pulling teeth. We do know that both Kirov, and Peter the Great have suffered reactor failures, and those were after 1986. The tempo of nuclear submarine activity since the end of the Cold War has been very low, which probable accounts for most of the decline in incidents. There have been several incidents due to accidents in the decommissioning process of nuclear reactors.

As far as Typhoon surviving a torpedo hit, it's problematic at best. Considering the damage from single torpedo hits on cruisers, and battleships in WWII it's not encouraging. USS North Carolina had a 32 by 18ft hole blown in her forward beam end. Several U.S. Cruisers had their bows blown off. An underwater explosion is more destructive then an equal airburst, because of the way shockwaves prorogate through water.

Submarines were heavily damaged by depth charges detonating 20-30ft away from the hull. Closer then that could be fatal. Hedgehog was a ASW mortar with a 30lb TNT, or 35lb Torpex warhead, with a contact fuse. It could destroy a U-Boat with one hit, and was a more effective weapon then the more fames depth charge. Even a lightweight torpedo has A 100lb warhead. A submarine hull at depth is already under heavy stress, a hull breach will cause internal bulkheads to collapse.

Kursk was also expected to be able to survive a torpedo hit. She was sunk by a torpedo fuel explosion. The torpedo warheads didn't go off until after the boat had sunk, and slammed into the seafloor. Kursk was probable at periscope depth when the explosion occurred, and she went straight to the bottom.

Even if one pressure hull of a Typhoon stayed intact do you really think the boat could surface? With the ballast tanks, and pressure hull ruptured on one side even if you had enough reserve buoyancy to surface you'd probable capsize. If that happened it's a good thing Russia isn't communist anymore. At least the crew can pray.

Re: Russia to develop VTOL fighter

Unread postPosted: 29 Aug 2017, 18:25
by sferrin
tincansailor wrote:Submarines were heavily damaged by depth charges detonating 20-30ft away from the hull. Closer then that could be fatal. Hedgehog was a ASW mortar with a 30lb TNT, or 35lb Torpex warhead, with a contact fuse. It could destroy a U-Boat with one hit, and was a more effective weapon then the more fames depth charge. Even a lightweight torpedo has A 100lb warhead. A submarine hull at depth is already under heavy stress, a hull breach will cause internal bulkheads to collapse.


Because in most submarines the pressure hull is the hull. That is not the case here. There is a VAST distance between the exterior hull and the pressure hulls. That makes a huge difference.

tincansailor wrote:Kursk was also expected to be able to survive a torpedo hit. She was sunk by a torpedo fuel explosion. The torpedo warheads didn't go off until after the boat had sunk, and slammed into the seafloor. Kursk was probable at periscope depth when the explosion occurred, and she went straight to the bottom.


Jesus. That's because the torpedo went off INSIDE the damn submarine. :doh:

Re: Russia to develop VTOL fighter

Unread postPosted: 30 Aug 2017, 06:53
by terrygedran
"Kursk was"
There were several events in Kursk.
The first of them -all compartments were open and the flame spread non-stop over the submarine(according to the rule, all bulkheads must be closed).
Then there is the theory of what originally happened before the detonation of the torpedo:
Collision with nato submarine (doubtfully) or Kirov mistakenly threw off a deep bomb straight to Kursk instead nato submarine who spied on the tests.

Re: Russia to develop VTOL fighter

Unread postPosted: 30 Aug 2017, 06:58
by terrygedran
" suffered reactor failures, and those were after 1986."
Dude if you did something on the technology of the 70's - It's all the same technology 70's even if it built 15-20 years later.

Re: Russia to develop VTOL fighter

Unread postPosted: 30 Aug 2017, 08:22
by tincansailor
sferrin wrote:
tincansailor wrote:Submarines were heavily damaged by depth charges detonating 20-30ft away from the hull. Closer then that could be fatal. Hedgehog was a ASW mortar with a 30lb TNT, or 35lb Torpex warhead, with a contact fuse. It could destroy a U-Boat with one hit, and was a more effective weapon then the more fames depth charge. Even a lightweight torpedo has A 100lb warhead. A submarine hull at depth is already under heavy stress, a hull breach will cause internal bulkheads to collapse.


Because in most submarines the pressure hull is the hull. That is not the case here. There is a VAST distance between the exterior hull and the pressure hulls. That makes a huge difference.

tincansailor wrote:Kursk was also expected to be able to survive a torpedo hit. She was sunk by a torpedo fuel explosion. The torpedo warheads didn't go off until after the boat had sunk, and slammed into the seafloor. Kursk was probable at periscope depth when the explosion occurred, and she went straight to the bottom.


Jesus. That's because the torpedo went off INSIDE the damn submarine. :doh:



The pressure hull is not the hull on any submarine. Submarines have an outer casing with the ballast tanks, and other equipment outside the pressure hull. creating huge voids between the outer casing and the pressure hull may keep most of the force of the blast away from the pressure hull, but when it ruptures the space will fill with water, and the boat will sink. Submarines operate on a beautiful balance of neutral buoyancy, they glide though the water. Their not like surface ships that float on reserve buoyancy.

A Typhoon taking a torpedo hit, while running deep will take on a hundreds of tons of water, in seconds. Flooding will be progressive. if hit on the side it will lose ballast control on that side, heel over, and start to sink. Assuming the pressure hulls didn't rupture, the only action the crew can take is go full power, and try to drive to the surface. as a last resort an emergency blow would result in an uncontrolled ride to the roof. With flooding, and no ballast control on one side, if she comes up she'll have at least a major list. Then she's a sitting duck, because she can't dive again.

None of the anti-torpedo bulkhead systems built into battleships worked very well. Even when they hit the armored belt plates would spring, and compartments flood. HMS Prince of Wales was crippled by an air dropped torpedo that hit aft of her rear main turret. She flooded a prop shift, which flooded an aft engine room causing an electrical failure aft. The lose of power crippled damage control efforts, the ship took on a list, and lost the ability to effectively maneuver to dodge more attacks. She was hit by 3 more torpedoes, and sank.

I don't believe any submerged submarine could take that kind of damage, and survive. No submarine can have the armored protection, or compartmentalization of a battleship. Again by definition submarines can't depend on reserve buoyancy, they only have neutral buoyancy. If an engine room floods, you lose propulsion, and go down by the stern. That's what happened to the USS Thresher. She lost power, went down by the stern, and couldn't blow her ballast tanks.

Watch the movie "Crimson Tide". That was pretty realistic. The Alabama almost sank, and she didn't take a direct hit, only a close aboard explosion. She had a flooded prop shaft, and lost propulsion. She had to have propulsion, or sink. Do you have any doubt a torpedo hit in the stern wouldn't blow open the hull, flooding prop shafts, and engine rooms?

Yes the explosion in Kursk's torpedo room was internal. The initial blast was a torpedo fuel explosion, not a warhead. It destroyed and flooded the torpedo room, destroyed the bulkhead aft of it, which destroyed the control room. The boat immediately sank nose down. The point being the first blast was enough to sink the boat. Do you have any doubt a torpedo hit in the bow wouldn't have done the same thing?

Separate hulls, surrounded by a massive outer casing may be an effective system for a new class of battleships, but not submarines. A submarine operating at 1,000ft is under pressure of 433psi. Submarines that sank ships in deep water would hear bulkheads collapsing under the pressure, as they headed to the bottom. Water flooding in at that type of pressure will crush almost any kind of internal bulkhead.

I wouldn't give a Typhoon a high chance of surviving a heavy torpedo hit. Condition under high water pressure make a submarine more vulnerable then surface ships of equal size. Russian designers spent a lot money, and resources making a bad bet.

Re: Russia to develop VTOL fighter

Unread postPosted: 30 Aug 2017, 13:20
by sferrin
tincansailor wrote:The pressure hull is not the hull on any submarine.


Wrong.

keel%20laying.jpg


Now something like Typhoon or Oscars:

NXGsceK.jpg

Re: Russia to develop VTOL fighter

Unread postPosted: 30 Aug 2017, 17:58
by tincansailor
sferrin wrote:
tincansailor wrote:The pressure hull is not the hull on any submarine.


Wrong.

Respectfully sferrin your not understanding the photos your looking at. The Virginia Class Sub is a construction modular, not a complete section. It will have an outer casing put around it. The ballast tanks, towed arrays, and other gear will be installed between the outer casing, and the pressure hull. The Russian Sub is an operational boat with it's bow cut off, so you see the space between the outer casing, and the pressure hull.

If you saw the American Sub complete you would see an outer casing with the same spherical shape as the pressure hull. The void between the two would be much narrower, just big enough to fit in the equipment. The boats reflect different design philosophy's. The Americans want a streamlined teardrop shape, with a high length to beam ratio. Quieter, faster. The Russians think of the outer casing as armor, end seem to want a wider beam for greater stability, again like a battleship.

This explains the vast difference between the submerged displacements of the Ohio, and the Typhoon. The difference between Ohio's surfaced vs submerged displacement is 2,000tons. The difference in Typhoon is 11,000tons and more. The Russians must think they can use the enormous outer casing for reserve buoyance like a battleship does, with the ability to use the trim tanks like a battleship uses counter flooding.

I just don't believe the Russian system will work. I think a torpedo hit in the beam ends, or sail will bypass the outer casing armor, and hit the pressure hull directly. I also think the shockwave, and high underwater pressure from a heavy torpedo hit will crush the longitudinal bulkheads, flooding the voids, and rupturing the ballast tanks. Besides who says an enemy sub will fire only one torpedo?

Re: Russia to develop VTOL fighter

Unread postPosted: 30 Aug 2017, 18:44
by sferrin
tincansailor wrote:
sferrin wrote:
tincansailor wrote:The pressure hull is not the hull on any submarine.


Wrong.

Respectfully sferrin your not understanding the photos your looking at. The Virginia Class Sub is a construction modular, not a complete section. It will have an outer casing put around it.


Uh, NO, it won't. That IS the "outer casing". It's already painted. The pressure hull is the strong back, and is built first, then stuffed, then the segments are joined together. There is no "outer hull" that goes on the outside.

044_QP09.jpg


08002325.jpg

Re: Russia to develop VTOL fighter

Unread postPosted: 31 Aug 2017, 05:14
by tincansailor
Uh, NO, it won't. That IS the "outer casing". It's already painted. The pressure hull is the strong back, and is built first, then stuffed, then the segments are joined together. There is no "outer hull" that goes on the outside.

044_QP09.jpg


08002325.jpg


[/quote]I think this should clarify what were talking about. I was specking imprecisely, and using an obsolete term of outer casing.

After World War II, approaches split. The Soviet Union changed its designs, basing them on the latest German developments. All post-World War II heavy Soviet and Russian submarines are built with a double hull structure. American and most other Western submarines retain a single-hull approach. They still have light hull sections in the bow and stern, which house main ballast tanks and provide a hydrodynamically optimized shape, but the main cylindrical hull section has only a single plating layer.

Re: Russia to develop VTOL fighter

Unread postPosted: 31 Aug 2017, 14:24
by sferrin
tincansailor wrote: They still have light hull sections in the bow and stern, which house main ballast tanks and provide a hydrodynamically optimized shape, but the main cylindrical hull section has only a single plating layer.


And those are basically fairings with relatively little structural strength. If you check the nose of the San Francisco underwater collision, you can see that the nose fairing was obliterated while the pressure hull was intact.

sf.jpg


These fairings don't cover the entire submarine but only certain sections. For example, the Ohios have one encasing the upper ends of the missile tubes.

USS_Ohio_SSBN-726_hatches.jpg


The -688s have one between the nose and forward end of the pressure hull that can be seen here:

Mk-45-VLS-003.jpg

Re: Russia to develop VTOL fighter

Unread postPosted: 31 Aug 2017, 16:38
by tincansailor
sferrin wrote:
tincansailor wrote: They still have light hull sections in the bow and stern, which house main ballast tanks and provide a hydrodynamically optimized shape, but the main cylindrical hull section has only a single plating layer.


And those are basically fairings with relatively little structural strength. If you check the nose of the San Francisco underwater collision, you can see that the nose fairing was obliterated while the pressure hull was intact.

sf.jpg


These fairings don't cover the entire submarine but only certain sections. For example, the Ohios have one encasing the upper ends of the missile tubes.

USS_Ohio_SSBN-726_hatches.jpg


The -688s have one between the nose and forward end of the pressure hull that can be seen here:

I stand corrected. I thought the light casing or fairings covered the whole hull, your correct they don't. I never suggested they were any type of armor, like the Russian doubles hulls. They serve the function I said they did. They protect the ballast tanks, arrays, and other equipment mounted outside the pressure hull, and maintain the hull shape. I've seen the picture of San Francisco before. Hitting an underwater mountain at flank speed with the pressure hull fully intact is an impressive test, that no one wanted to take.

Re: Russia to develop VTOL fighter

Unread postPosted: 06 Sep 2017, 19:08
by zerion
They're gonna build a super duper carrier. :mrgreen:

Aircraft Carrier Basic Design Submitted to Russian Defence Ministry

http://www.navyrecognition.com/index.ph ... istry.html

Re: Russia to develop VTOL fighter

Unread postPosted: 06 Sep 2017, 19:15
by SpudmanWP
So... The basically are ripping off the QE class and making it bigger.

Re: Russia to develop VTOL fighter

Unread postPosted: 06 Sep 2017, 20:20
by sprstdlyscottsmn
Russian MO right?

Re: Russia to develop VTOL fighter

Unread postPosted: 06 Sep 2017, 23:27
by popcorn
Russian CVN making progress, graduating from vaporware to brochureware and has now in the modelware stage. :mrgreen:

Re: Russia to develop VTOL fighter

Unread postPosted: 06 Sep 2017, 23:40
by SpudmanWP
Small & made out of plastic.. Sounds like Tupperware to me. :lmao:

Re: Russia to develop VTOL fighter

Unread postPosted: 07 Sep 2017, 00:15
by white_lightning35
What are they hoping to accomplish? I thought aircraft carriers are useless floating targets? Just like stealth aircraft. AND THE RUSSIANS ARE BUILDING THOSE, TOO! Are only stronk mighty Russian designs viable?

On another note, what are they hoping to accomplish? To challenge the USN? There's a big difference between saying you will lob some missiles at US carriers, and establishing sea dominance, or at least ensuring your surface fleet isn't wiped out in a few hours. If Nato carriers are vulnerable, what will that make the mighty stronk Russian one?

Re: Russia to develop VTOL fighter

Unread postPosted: 07 Sep 2017, 02:47
by tincansailor
white_lightning35 wrote:What are they hoping to accomplish? I thought aircraft carriers are useless floating targets? Just like stealth aircraft. AND THE RUSSIANS ARE BUILDING THOSE, TOO! Are only stronk mighty Russian designs viable?

On another note, what are they hoping to accomplish? To challenge the USN? There's a big difference between saying you will lob some missiles at US carriers, and establishing sea dominance, or at least ensuring your surface fleet isn't wiped out in a few hours. If Nato carriers are vulnerable, what will that make the mighty stronk Russian one?



Good analysis. Russia always mocked aircraft carriers because they couldn't afford, or build them. When they could build them, they were they were really through deck cruisers. Now there early efforts, at true carriers. But building a fleet of one is only a prestige unit. They don't have the reactors, and they've never operated catapults. They need a minimum of four for an effective fleet, and they don't have the money, or ship yards to build them in the next 20 years.

Re: Russia to develop VTOL fighter

Unread postPosted: 07 Sep 2017, 15:38
by spazsinbad
Here ya go - here is the ideal painted nonuseful deck - even sailors in their tighty whities for gorsake - what more....? :devil:
Russia may build 115,000-tonne aircraft carriers by 2020


"MOSCOW, September 5. /TASS/. The Russian industry will be able to build aircraft carriers having a displacement of 110,000-115,000 tonnes by 2020, Deputy Prime Minister Dmitry Rogozin said on the Rossiya-24 round-the-clock TV news channel on Tuesday.

"When we build new shipyards and a huge dry dock in the Far East, if there is such a contract, it will be possible to create an aircraft carrier having a displacement of 110,000-115,000 tonnes. We will be capable of doing that starting from 2020," Rogozin said....

...The Russian Navy earlier said the Russian fleet hoped to get a nuclear-powered aircraft carrier by the end of 2030. Russian Deputy Defense Minister Yuri Borisov said the contract for building an aircraft carrier might be signed by the end of 2025. And Industry and Trade Minister Denis Manturov said a sketch project of what may become Russia’s aircraft carrier of the future had been presented to the Defense Ministry."

PHOTO: "© Andrei Luzik/Russian Navy Northern Fleet Press Office/TASS https://phototass1.cdnvideo.ru/width/74 ... 176552.jpg


Source: http://tass.com/defense/963756

Re: Russia to develop VTOL fighter

Unread postPosted: 02 Oct 2017, 18:07
by juretrn
I normally wouldn't post this, but the stupidity level is just too high.
The joys of Youtube comments:
(please excuse the awkward language, it's translated by Google from Russian.
reading that this is not an airfield, there is always the probability of an airplane falling into the sea. The Russian Federation has one aircraft carrier. For the year, 3 planes fell. The US has 11 aircraft carriers. For the year, 14 aircraft fell. But from one carrier of the Russian Federation for the year, more departures were made than from 11 US aircraft carriers combined.


Can you handle the stupidity? I can't.

Re: Russia to develop VTOL fighter

Unread postPosted: 03 Oct 2017, 19:30
by mixelflick
So back to the topic at hand..

I say no new VTOL fighter, no way. They're going to be lucky getting a navalised SU-57 on a new/existing carrier, nevermind a dedicated VTOL fighter.

Where are the rubles going to come from?

Re: Russia to develop VTOL fighter

Unread postPosted: 04 Oct 2017, 00:08
by white_lightning35
So they're going to build 100,000+ ton carriers, and they're developing VTOL fighters. Does that mean they'll be making a stovl supercarrier? Or are they building extra amphibious ships and developing a brand-new carrier fighter, like a navalized su-57? I'm betting on none of the above..... 8)

Re: Russia to develop VTOL fighter

Unread postPosted: 04 Oct 2017, 01:13
by nutshell
What they mean is clearly a STOVL version of a 5th gen Carrier.

A 100.000 ton carrier that can operate from the DECK of the Admiral Kuznetsov.

Crazy engine development from the russians, i swear.

No need for much money since its going to be cheaper than Roman Abramovich's 500+ feet super yacht.

Re: Russia to develop VTOL fighter

Unread postPosted: 04 Oct 2017, 19:59
by tincansailor
I don't see the point in building a 100,000 ton nuclear supercarrier, that can only operate VTOL aircraft. There's nothing super about it. IMHO the British made a mistake with no Cats & Traps on their new carriers. F-35Cs with their superior range, and payload would have been more effective for both CAP, and strike missions. Also a VTOL carrier is unable to employing EW aircraft like the E-2D. I don't think any helicopter mounted system could compete with an AWACS aircraft like the Hawkeye.

Re: Russia to develop VTOL fighter

Unread postPosted: 18 Oct 2017, 21:32
by milosh
They aren't making super carrier, that was "Russia stronk" news. In reality Zvezda mega shipyard will building tankers for long time. Zvezda second dry dock is for 40.000 tons. I would expect they will use it to overhaul third Kirov and then start building new carrier.

Re: Russia to develop VTOL fighter

Unread postPosted: 24 Nov 2017, 15:44
by zerion
No more plans for Russia super carrier

http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-bu ... uise-23356

Re: Russia to develop VTOL fighter

Unread postPosted: 24 Nov 2017, 21:58
by XanderCrews
zerion wrote:No more plans for Russia super carrier

http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-bu ... uise-23356


Image

OMG no way!?

Re: Russia to develop VTOL fighter

Unread postPosted: 24 Nov 2017, 22:54
by zerion
deleted

Re: Russia to develop VTOL fighter

Unread postPosted: 24 Nov 2017, 22:56
by count_to_10
Well, to be honest, surface fleets are for projecting power and securing sea ways, and the US and it’s allies already do the latter.

Re: Russia to develop VTOL fighter

Unread postPosted: 24 Nov 2017, 23:51
by XanderCrews
count_to_10 wrote:Well, to be honest, surface fleets are for projecting power and securing sea ways, and the US and it’s allies already do the latter.



Russian navy has always been the odd man out... and the USSR used to have two branches of air force!

Re: Russia to develop VTOL fighter

Unread postPosted: 26 Nov 2017, 14:53
by mixelflick
zerion wrote:No more plans for Russia super carrier

http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-bu ... uise-23356


As the old saying goes, go big or go home..

Building a 110,000t carrier and simultaneously pursuing a new VTOL fighter is a great cognitive dissonance. What's the point? You either go big with CAT's and fixed wing birds, go small with no CAT's and VTOL birds or... do neither. Sounds like they settled on subs, cruise missiles and some other odds and ends. Makes a lot more sense IMO...

Re: Russia to develop VTOL fighter

Unread postPosted: 27 Nov 2017, 14:24
by sferrin
XanderCrews wrote:
count_to_10 wrote:Well, to be honest, surface fleets are for projecting power and securing sea ways, and the US and it’s allies already do the latter.



Russian navy has always been the odd man out... and the USSR used to have two branches of air force!


Hell, the US used to have FOUR: SAC, TAC, MAC, and ADC. :)

Re: Russia to develop VTOL fighter

Unread postPosted: 28 Nov 2017, 10:55
by Corsair1963
mixelflick wrote:
zerion wrote:No more plans for Russia super carrier

http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-bu ... uise-23356


As the old saying goes, go big or go home..

Building a 110,000t carrier and simultaneously pursuing a new VTOL fighter is a great cognitive dissonance. What's the point? You either go big with CAT's and fixed wing birds, go small with no CAT's and VTOL birds or... do neither. Sounds like they settled on subs, cruise missiles and some other odds and ends. Makes a lot more sense IMO...



Russia settled on Submarines, Cruise Missiles, and Frigates. Because that is all she can afford...... :shock:

Re: Russia to develop VTOL fighter

Unread postPosted: 10 Aug 2018, 01:15
by zerion
Russia unlikely to build new aircraft carrier before 2030

https://www.navyrecognition.com/index.p ... -2030.html

Re: Russia to develop VTOL fighter

Unread postPosted: 10 Aug 2018, 13:56
by mixelflick
So here we are, 9 pages later. Let's recap what we know to be true..

1.) The Russians won't be building a super-carrier anytime soon. Their current carrier is a joke, having limped back to port after losing a Mig-29 and SU-33 on her "cruise" out to Syria
2.) The SU-33 has been passed over in favor of Mig-29K's
3.) Hold the phone though: The plan was for navalised SU-57's too.
4.) Only problem with that is that we have a press release from Russians themselves - there will be no mass production. Just 12 examples ordered. I wonder how many of those 12 will be involved in sea trials? LOL
5.) This new VTOL fighter is going to fly from... where again? Since they'll be no super-carrier, it won't be flying from there. Maybe they're thinking of building a QE type carrier? Whatever the case, no catapults equals very limited capability.

The whole thing sounds like a giant fustercluck. They're making Mig-29K's which are obsolete before they're put together at the factory. The SU-57 project is having a tough time operating from runways, nevermind carriers. And the VTOL fighter is getting funded from, where.... ? This may be the best example of Russian "brochure weapons" and grandiose planning that amounts to... nothing I've ever seen.

Inn, before COBRA321 corrects us saying everything's proceeding according to plan...

Re: Russia to develop VTOL fighter

Unread postPosted: 10 Aug 2018, 21:28
by collimatrix
mixelflick wrote:So here we are, 9 pages later. Let's recap what we know to be true..

1.) The Russians won't be building a super-carrier anytime soon. Their current carrier is a joke, having limped back to port after losing a Mig-29 and SU-33 on her "cruise" out to Syria


Compared to a US Nimitz/Ford class? Not the same ballpark, it ain't the same league, it ain't even the same sport. There's a critical size threshold where a carrier is able to undertake simultaneous launch and recovery operations. The Kuznetsov is below this threshold, and US supercarriers are above it. Simple as that. Furthermore, the Kuznetsov doesn't have catapults, which means it can't launch fixed-wing AEW aircraft. That makes it a lot less strategically independent than a US supercarrier.

But if you compare the Kuznetsov to other medium-sized carriers like the HMS Queen Elizabeth, INS Vikramaditya or even the Charles de Gaulle, it's not a bad ship. The biggest problems are the lack of crew experience and that the ship is badly in need of overhaul.

2.) The SU-33 has been passed over in favor of Mig-29K's


Not exactly. All in-service SU-33s are ancient, and it's not obvious that KnAAPO was even capable of making new ones. A lot of the initial development of the navalized Flankers was done in Ukraine, remember. In fact, the Chinese snagged a SU-33 prototype from Ukraine which they then reverse-engineered to make the J-15. The SU-33 has a fair number of unique parts from land-based Flankers, and those parts might have been sourced from Ukraine. It is entirely possible that the Russians can't currently make new SU-33s. This was a big problem for Russian Federation forces after the breakup of the USSR. The plant that made all their heavy machine guns was in Kazakhstan, the plant that made their SU-25s was in Georgia, and the plant that made all their T-80UDs was in Ukraine.

More likely the MiG-29K contract was a way to keep the lights on and the doors open at MiG, and have at least something that can fly off of their carrier. Their SU-33s are likely near the end of their service lives, and it might make more sense to keep MiG on life support than to develop a SLEP for the tiny SU-33 fleet.

3.) Hold the phone though: The plan was for navalised SU-57's too.


I'll believe it when I see it.

4.) Only problem with that is that we have a press release from Russians themselves - there will be no mass production. Just 12 examples ordered. I wonder how many of those 12 will be involved in sea trials? LOL


I strongly suspect that this was a sensationalized mis-translation of a single out-of-context quote, but we'll see. The production SU-27 is completely redesigned from the initial T-10 prototypes because Sukhoi wasn't happy with the initial results. This could be a similar situation.

The whole thing sounds like a giant fustercluck. They're making Mig-29K's which are obsolete before they're put together at the factory. The SU-57 project is having a tough time operating from runways, nevermind carriers. And the VTOL fighter is getting funded from, where.... ? This may be the best example of Russian "brochure weapons" and grandiose planning that amounts to... nothing I've ever seen.


The Russians were recently reaching out to the UAE as potential partners in a new fifth-generation fighter program. I could see Turkey as another potential partner, if Russia and Turkey are able to resolve their differences over the situation in Syria and Turkey can't partner with the UK (who have better tech).

Re: Russia to develop VTOL fighter

Unread postPosted: 10 Aug 2018, 23:50
by vilters
I don't know what to think about Russian aviation any more.
The more I look at it, the more mess I see.

When building a new A/C generation, you build a NEW aircraft generation.

The PAK-FA is build like all others before and since.
Rough, with a hammer and a screwdriver. If you look at some pictures, with overlapping panels, exposed stuff all around, a finish that does not even come close on how our F-104's were build half a century AGO.

Flying aircraft that still have to wait 5 more years for their engines?
Flying aircraft that don't even come close to 4th generation avionix?

Supposed to be LO RCS, but half of it is bare steel plate? ? How can one get something like that approved in the first place? ?

The ONLY use, and I mean the ONLY use I can see is a testbed for LEVCONS. probably the ONLY thing that performs more or less to specs.

Melt them down ASAP, and start over.

Russia building a VTOL? Not in your wettest dreams for the first 20 years or so.

Let's start with question number 1 : What engine?

Re: Russia to develop VTOL fighter

Unread postPosted: 11 Aug 2018, 00:12
by vilters
Brings me on another brainwave I always get when seeing a Russian plane close up, be it a Mig or Su aircraft.

They did not read about, or understand RAM completely. ( or the translation was done by a Chinese guy reading Japanese ).

In Russian RAM means : Rough Amateurish Machinery.
:devil:

UNBELIEVABLE how they still rivet plates over plates over bulkheads.

If you guys even have the chance? ? ? ? Go see a Mig 29 center line tank. => You are warned ! ! ! OK?

PS, that CLT design and welding must have taken at least a double Wodka plus taxes to complete. LOL.

Do something alike in the West and they put you in jail .

Re: Russia to develop VTOL fighter

Unread postPosted: 11 Aug 2018, 04:36
by mk82
mixelflick wrote:So here we are, 9 pages later. Let's recap what we know to be true..

1.) The Russians won't be building a super-carrier anytime soon. Their current carrier is a joke, having limped back to port after losing a Mig-29 and SU-33 on her "cruise" out to Syria
2.) The SU-33 has been passed over in favor of Mig-29K's
3.) Hold the phone though: The plan was for navalised SU-57's too.
4.) Only problem with that is that we have a press release from Russians themselves - there will be no mass production. Just 12 examples ordered. I wonder how many of those 12 will be involved in sea trials? LOL
5.) This new VTOL fighter is going to fly from... where again? Since they'll be no super-carrier, it won't be flying from there. Maybe they're thinking of building a QE type carrier? Whatever the case, no catapults equals very limited capability.

The whole thing sounds like a giant fustercluck. They're making Mig-29K's which are obsolete before they're put together at the factory. The SU-57 project is having a tough time operating from runways, nevermind carriers. And the VTOL fighter is getting funded from, where.... ? This may be the best example of Russian "brochure weapons" and grandiose planning that amounts to... nothing I've ever seen.

Inn, before COBRA321 corrects us saying everything's proceeding according to plan...


Spot on!

Re: Russia to develop VTOL fighter

Unread postPosted: 11 Aug 2018, 06:57
by spazsinbad
Meanwhile back in KUZNETSOV land: Kuznetsov Undergoes MiG-29K Refit 09 Aug 2018
"The Russian navy has embarked on a three-year project to modernize its sole aircraft carrier..."
https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news ... -29k-refit

Re: Russia to develop VTOL fighter

Unread postPosted: 11 Aug 2018, 23:25
by vilters
They are completely drunk this time.

Refit an obsolete craft to fly old-timers.

Probably with retired pilots to get full circle.

Re: Russia to develop VTOL fighter

Unread postPosted: 12 Aug 2018, 18:21
by XanderCrews
mixelflick wrote: everything's proceeding according to plan...



Plans always work if you just change them constantly then pretend it's always been like that.

Re: Russia to develop VTOL fighter

Unread postPosted: 12 Aug 2018, 19:40
by vilters
At least now we know why they don't build stealth fighters. You can follow the carrier by its smoke plume from space.

Re: Russia to develop VTOL fighter

Unread postPosted: 13 Aug 2018, 04:46
by Corsair1963
The refit for the Kuznetsov is actually very modest in nature.... :?

Re: Russia to develop VTOL fighter

Unread postPosted: 13 Aug 2018, 13:14
by mixelflick
This VTOL fighter is really going to be something.

The rolling take off into a ski jump continues the decades long "mistake" with that setup: Substandard fuel and weapons load. Any VTOL engine is going to have a lift fan, so range will be compromised out of the gate to make room for said engine. Unless they can get 14,000lbs of gas in it, like the F-35B AND it's just as fuel efficient (doubtful).

On the one hand, it can't be any worse than the Forger - can it? On the other hand, if they had trouble building a land based stealth fighter, something with corrosion/other issues putting to sea is going to make it that much more difficult. It may just beat the hypersonic spaceplane/Mig-41 into the air though. The Mig-31 replacement is going to cost them a ridiculous amount of money. It'll make the SU-57 look cheap. So I think of the two, this VTOL will be first. I didn't say it'd make it to production, just first in the air (or the sea, if the Kustenov continues its abysmal record of launching/recovering fighters)...

Re: Russia to develop VTOL fighter

Unread postPosted: 15 Aug 2018, 08:26
by element1loop
Do crew get training on how to avoid black lung?

Re: Russia to develop VTOL fighter

Unread postPosted: 15 Aug 2018, 08:35
by popcorn
element1loop wrote:Do crew get training on how to avoid black lung?

Well, it serves to cover the stench from the non-working toilets :mrgreen:

Re: Russia to develop VTOL fighter

Unread postPosted: 15 Aug 2018, 10:34
by element1loop
popcorn wrote:
element1loop wrote:Do crew get training on how to avoid black lung?

Well, it serves to cover the stench from the non-working toilets :mrgreen:


Ahhh! ... that's why they call it a cruiser ... :mrgreen:

Re: Russia to develop VTOL fighter

Unread postPosted: 16 Aug 2018, 14:53
by mixelflick
vilters wrote:They are completely drunk this time.

Refit an obsolete craft to fly old-timers.

Probably with retired pilots to get full circle.


I have to agree, huge waste of $ for what? Just to say you have an aircraft carrier??

The ship itself leaves a lot to be desired, but refitting it with old, 4th gen airframes really takes the cake. I saw a model somewhere where navalised PAK FA's adorned her deck. That's an even bigger pipe dream than getting the land based version into service IMO. I wonder what cobra321 has to say about this?

The selection of the Mig-29K is a peculiar one. Russia seems to have learned the Flanker is far more capable than the Fulcrum, except when it comes to.... carrier based aircraft? OK it's smaller, but it also can't carry as much, doesn't go as far, isn't as maneuverable and can't fly as high as the Flanker. Where are they going to send her into combat, Syria again?

Getting aircraft aboard before they run out of fuel is...... sort of fundamental, no? I hope they can get the fundamentals down (for the pilots sake), but I'm not holding my breath. So here's what I'm getting from all this...

1.) Refitting their 1 carrier is going to be expensive as hell
2.) The Mig-29K will be a flying target in 2021.
3.) It doesn't really afford them any real power projection (what carrier's do)
4.) There isn't going to be a navalised PAK FA
5.) Navalised Flankers are out of the game (rare instance where Mig wins, Sukhoi loses)
6.) Carrier is further severely limited by a lack of dedicated AWACS, air to air refueling and other specialty aircraft.
7.) The Mig-29 has a dismal combat record, unless they plan on fighting Cessna's and ultra-lights

Overall I'd call this one of the worst decisions the Russians have ever made.

Re: Russia to develop VTOL fighter

Unread postPosted: 17 Aug 2018, 10:14
by knowan
lrrpf52 wrote:Look at what happened with it in Syria. Even in a totally-permissive naval environment in the Med, where none of the Western forces are going to attack her, she couldn't even do daytime, calm weather carrier operations with the MiG-29K and Su-33 without losing 2 of those birds within weeks, and that was with divert fields 50 miles away. These are things you do back at home before going on float, not once you get into theater. Embarrassing


The Kuznetsov's sortie rate was dismal too; only 420 sorties in total completed over about 2 months, which is around 7 per day.

A Nimitz class is capable of sustained 120 sorties per day, with a surge capability of 240 per day.

Re: Russia to develop VTOL fighter

Unread postPosted: 18 Aug 2018, 00:19
by vilters
Ach, they should take the thing to China to do the upgrade in half the time and at a third of the cost.
Less corruption and less Wodka in China. LOL.

Re: Russia to develop VTOL fighter

Unread postPosted: 18 Aug 2018, 22:03
by citanon
China has a different kind of corruption than Russia. You used to be able to be totally corrupt in China as long as you could deliver the goods in terms of local economic development. If you don't, the central government will dig up your illicit assets and your disgruntled mistresses and screw you right up the back door. In Russia, you can be corrupt and .... Pretty much that's yet. You don't have to deliver anything except toys for those higher up the food chain.


The Chinese are an aggressive real estate development conglomerate that also happens to be a government, the Russians are a mafia that happened to take over a country.

Ironically Xi's centralization if power and crack down on corruption has probably made China's economy less adaptable by constraining local decision making.

On the other hand, the government places a heavy emphasis on developing military technology. The organizations there are full of young people, driven, motivated and well supported. They will get stuff done fast.

Re: Russia to develop VTOL fighter

Unread postPosted: 19 Aug 2018, 04:16
by zhangmdev
China experienced massive laid-off and privatization of its SOE in the 1990s, including its defense industry. Lots of institutions were restructured and relocated, making civilian products to fend for themselves. Funding did not recover until well into the 2000s. That is why those places appear to be full of young people now.

Re: Russia to develop VTOL fighter

Unread postPosted: 21 Aug 2018, 23:43
by zerion
The Russian Navy needs at least four aircraft carriers, Valery Polovinkin, scientific director of the Krylov State Scientific Center, has said.

https://www.navyrecognition.com/index.p ... enter.html

Re: Russia to develop VTOL fighter

Unread postPosted: 22 Aug 2018, 00:33
by popcorn
zerion wrote:The Russian Navy needs at least four aircraft carriers, Valery Polovinkin, scientific director of the Krylov State Scientific Center, has said.

https://www.navyrecognition.com/index.p ... enter.html

I need four Ferraris... :devil:

Re: Russia to develop VTOL fighter

Unread postPosted: 26 Aug 2018, 21:24
by zerion
Russia's Krylov Research Center Unveils Light Aircraft Carrier Design

...The light multipurpose aircraft carrier is designed to ensure combat sustainability of the fleet’s forces and weapons which are engaged in hostilities in blue and green waters by fulfilling anti-aircraft and anti-missile defense tasks as well as by destroying air, surface, underwater and onshore targets," KGCN said in its documents.

The light aircraft carrier’s standard displacement is 37000 tons; normal displacement - 40500 tons and full displacement - 44000 tons. The length is 304 meters. The length on design waterline is 260 meters. The width is 78 meters. The width on design water line is 38 meters; sea gauge is 8.5 meters. Full speed is 28 knots; cruising speed is 16 knots. Range on 16 knots is 8000 miles; autonomous navigation on food supplies is 60 days. Aviation seaworthiness is up to 7 points. The main propulsion plant consists of a two-shaft gas turbine with partial electric propulsion. The capacity is 81000 KWT or 110000 horse-power. The electric power system consists of 3 power plants with a total capacity of 32MWATTS (6.3 kW/50Hz)...

Image

Re: Russia to develop VTOL fighter

Unread postPosted: 26 Aug 2018, 23:20
by geforcerfx
Some light carriers with amphib capabilities would make a lot more sense for Russia. They can actually keep one deployed often while the others are in port and they can run them as heli carriers on some deployments until they can build up there training and air fleet for naval operations. They have no blue water amphib capabilities and lost that route after losing the mistrals. But Russia has almost no need for carrier most of the water they want to defend is within range of there air power launched from Russia.

Re: Russia to develop VTOL fighter

Unread postPosted: 27 Aug 2018, 00:45
by zerion
It’s about prestige not what makes sense.

Re: Russia to develop VTOL fighter

Unread postPosted: 27 Aug 2018, 01:46
by madrat
Let's create a scenario where that Russian battlegroup centered around aforementioned light carrier has to shut down a sovereign country's airbase in a strategic location. What would that country be that the battlegroup could actually succeed in the task, Latvia? Buenos Aires?

Re: Russia to develop VTOL fighter

Unread postPosted: 27 Aug 2018, 03:17
by element1loop
Putin could just buy some secondhand USMC LHDs and beg a sqn of F-35B and he's all ready to play Great-Powers again. :mrgreen:

#Does my sphere-of-influence look big in this?

Re: Russia to develop VTOL fighter

Unread postPosted: 27 Aug 2018, 03:45
by Corsair1963
zerion wrote:Russia's Krylov Research Center Unveils Light Aircraft Carrier Design

...The light multipurpose aircraft carrier is designed to ensure combat sustainability of the fleet’s forces and weapons which are engaged in hostilities in blue and green waters by fulfilling anti-aircraft and anti-missile defense tasks as well as by destroying air, surface, underwater and onshore targets," KGCN said in its documents.

The light aircraft carrier’s standard displacement is 37000 tons; normal displacement - 40500 tons and full displacement - 44000 tons. The length is 304 meters. The length on design waterline is 260 meters. The width is 78 meters. The width on design water line is 38 meters; sea gauge is 8.5 meters. Full speed is 28 knots; cruising speed is 16 knots. Range on 16 knots is 8000 miles; autonomous navigation on food supplies is 60 days. Aviation seaworthiness is up to 7 points. The main propulsion plant consists of a two-shaft gas turbine with partial electric propulsion. The capacity is 81000 KWT or 110000 horse-power. The electric power system consists of 3 power plants with a total capacity of 32MWATTS (6.3 kW/50Hz)...

Image


Honestly, even this design is to ambitious for Russia's pocket book!

Re: Russia to develop VTOL fighter

Unread postPosted: 27 Aug 2018, 04:34
by madrat
The model features Su-33 and MiG-29K. Ironically, that would meaning using the same carrier wings simultaneously on the four carriers.

Re: Russia to develop VTOL fighter

Unread postPosted: 27 Aug 2018, 05:30
by Corsair1963
What four carriers???

Re: Russia to develop VTOL fighter

Unread postPosted: 27 Aug 2018, 10:44
by madrat
They dream plan to have four of these things.

Re: Russia to develop VTOL fighter

Unread postPosted: 27 Aug 2018, 14:21
by hythelday
madrat wrote:They dream plan to have four of these things.


Correction: it was Krylov Bureau, the people who create these paper carriers, said "Russian Navy could use four of those".

Re: Russia to develop VTOL fighter

Unread postPosted: 27 Aug 2018, 14:52
by popcorn
hythelday wrote:
madrat wrote:They dream plan to have four of these things.


Correction: it was Krylov Bureau, the people who create these paper carriers, said "Russian Navy could use four of those".

Actually more advanced than paper carriers, they're now in plastic model stage of development. :mrgreen:

Re: Russia to develop VTOL fighter

Unread postPosted: 28 Aug 2018, 07:24
by Corsair1963
Russia is clearly doing its fair share of dreaming these days......... :shock:

Re: Russia to develop VTOL fighter

Unread postPosted: 28 Aug 2018, 20:38
by mixelflick
This is awesome!

Resurgent Russia, indeed...

* Four new supercarriers on the way
* Navalised SU-57 right around the corner
* SU-57 morphing into 6th gen fighter, entirely skipping the 5th generation the US is building
* Mig-31 hypersonic space plane coming soon
* Updated TU-160's being built
* PAK DA replacing those TU-160's, possibly before they're even delivered. The pace of modernization truly is astounding.
* Supersonic VTOL fighter in development (to fly from... where?)

I am completely stoked for these new ships and aircraft. Where can I go and see them? Farnborough?? RIAT? MAKS???

Re: Russia to develop VTOL fighter

Unread postPosted: 28 Aug 2018, 21:19
by zerion
mixelflick wrote:* Supersonic VTOL fighter in development (to fly from... where?)


From landing ships yet to be designed developed and built...but they definitely don’t want helicopter carriers, those are for the little people. Don’t worry they have a decade to get the ship done while they work on the jet.

http://www.navyrecognition.com/index.ph ... craft.html

Re: Russia to develop VTOL fighter

Unread postPosted: 28 Aug 2018, 21:25
by vilters
Does that Russian carrier comply to European emission norms? :devil:
Must be special stuff they are burning.

Ahaa, now I get it.. it is their ultra modern ADF system.
Their pilots need it to find the carrier. :devil:

Re: Russia to develop VTOL fighter

Unread postPosted: 29 Aug 2018, 01:52
by element1loop
mixelflick wrote:This is awesome!

Resurgent Russia, indeed...

* Four new supercarriers on the way
* Navalised SU-57 right around the corner
* SU-57 morphing into 6th gen fighter, entirely skipping the 5th generation the US is building


You forgot to mention it was announced just this month by some rooskie big-wig with a magic wand that "Su57 will be ready for the soldiers in 2019".

:doh:

Re: Russia to develop VTOL fighter

Unread postPosted: 29 Aug 2018, 19:14
by milosh
mixelflick wrote:This is awesome!

Resurgent Russia, indeed...

* Four new supercarriers on the way
* Navalised SU-57 right around the corner


What super carriers? Four proposed carriers are light carriers (~40.000tons). No carrier variant of Su-57.

Re: Russia to develop VTOL fighter

Unread postPosted: 30 Aug 2018, 03:13
by Corsair1963
milosh wrote:
mixelflick wrote:This is awesome!

Resurgent Russia, indeed...

* Four new supercarriers on the way
* Navalised SU-57 right around the corner


What super carriers? Four proposed carriers are light carriers (~40.000tons). No carrier variant of Su-57.



He was making a joke.... :crazypilot:

Re: Russia to develop VTOL fighter

Unread postPosted: 30 Aug 2018, 03:17
by weasel1962
What is factual is Russia ordering 2 mistrals (with an option for 2 more). After the French delivery debacle, Krylov designed the 23000 ton Priboy LHD as the alternative which should be delivered by 2025 for the 1st 2.

Re: Russia to develop VTOL fighter

Unread postPosted: 30 Aug 2018, 05:54
by Corsair1963
I've seen nothing that would make be believe they have the resources to build the Priboy LHD. Let alone have it in service by 2025...

Re: Russia to develop VTOL fighter

Unread postPosted: 30 Aug 2018, 16:46
by mixelflick
element1loop wrote:
mixelflick wrote:This is awesome!

Resurgent Russia, indeed...

* Four new supercarriers on the way
* Navalised SU-57 right around the corner
* SU-57 morphing into 6th gen fighter, entirely skipping the 5th generation the US is building


You forgot to mention it was announced just this month by some rooskie big-wig with a magic wand that "Su57 will be ready for the soldiers in 2019".

:doh:


Ready for soldiers in 2019? Well, let's see if/how that's possible.

As I understand it, there are 12 prototypes now (not all flyable, let's call it 9 flyable). But there are a dozen on order. So... they're going to have (perhaps) 2 of these 12 delivered in 2019? I rather doubt they're capable of building 1 a month. So one or two to give to "the soldiers" next year. And this is after 8 full years of putting the prototypes through their paces? Complete joke. What airframe is flying with the new/2nd stage engines? I'm guessing that's one of the 9 flying prototypes?

Even assuming a full complement of 12 delivered in 2019, you have to almost feel sorry for them. They talked the SU-57 up way beyond what the reality was, poured a ton of money into it and... have almost nothing to show for it. It's actually worse than the ME-262 in WWII - at least a few of those airframes were combat capable. Highly unlikely that the 12 "production" birds have fully functioning weapons systems, radars etc. And even if all 12 work flawlessly.... 12?

The only question now is how long can Russia delude itself that it's 4 ++ generation birds are "good enough". They best hope there isn't some DS or Kosovo type of action where their machines are exposed as hopelessly obsolete and no match for the F-35/22. I can't imagine any country shelling out for up rated Flankers then. If they do, they'll be the most expensive collection of hair, teeth and eyeballs flying...

Re: Russia to develop VTOL fighter

Unread postPosted: 31 Aug 2018, 06:29
by weasel1962
mixelflick wrote:
element1loop wrote:
mixelflick wrote:This is awesome!

Resurgent Russia, indeed...

* Four new supercarriers on the way
* Navalised SU-57 right around the corner
* SU-57 morphing into 6th gen fighter, entirely skipping the 5th generation the US is building


You forgot to mention it was announced just this month by some rooskie big-wig with a magic wand that "Su57 will be ready for the soldiers in 2019".

:doh:


Ready for soldiers in 2019? Well, let's see if/how that's possible.

As I understand it, there are 12 prototypes now (not all flyable, let's call it 9 flyable). But there are a dozen on order. So... they're going to have (perhaps) 2 of these 12 delivered in 2019? I rather doubt they're capable of building 1 a month. So one or two to give to "the soldiers" next year. And this is after 8 full years of putting the prototypes through their paces? Complete joke. What airframe is flying with the new/2nd stage engines? I'm guessing that's one of the 9 flying prototypes?

Even assuming a full complement of 12 delivered in 2019, you have to almost feel sorry for them. They talked the SU-57 up way beyond what the reality was, poured a ton of money into it and... have almost nothing to show for it. It's actually worse than the ME-262 in WWII - at least a few of those airframes were combat capable. Highly unlikely that the 12 "production" birds have fully functioning weapons systems, radars etc. And even if all 12 work flawlessly.... 12?

The only question now is how long can Russia delude itself that it's 4 ++ generation birds are "good enough". They best hope there isn't some DS or Kosovo type of action where their machines are exposed as hopelessly obsolete and no match for the F-35/22. I can't imagine any country shelling out for up rated Flankers then. If they do, they'll be the most expensive collection of hair, teeth and eyeballs flying...


Contract for 15 Su57 finally inked in Aug 22 with 1st unit delivery from 2019 (does not mean completed by 2019).
https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news ... -army-2018

As to how long 4++G are "good enough", ...A-10 and F-16 also comes to mind...

Countries do shell out for obsolete planes. J-7 (Mig-21) production ended in 2006, 15 years after desert storm (when the Mig-21 was already known to be way obsolete) and 39 years after the Israelis massacred Arab Mig-21s including 6 Syrian Mig-21s over Golan Heights. Mig21/J-7/F-7 is (according to Flight's world air force 2018) still 2nd in the most active combat aircraft with 1390 active unit (after the F-16 with 2,269). F-16 is still being ordered and produced...

Re: Russia to develop VTOL fighter

Unread postPosted: 31 Aug 2018, 14:53
by mixelflick
"Countries do shell out for obsolete planes..."

I suppose you're right, as fielding something beats fielding nothing. These poor countries though will be paying for Mig-35's, SU-35's, Gripens etc. that will all be flying targets for F-35's proliferating around the globe (not to mention more advanced SAM systems). Going to be a short "war" when your entire fleet of 4++ gen birds is eating AMRAAM's.

It may be that instead of buying large numbers of Russian/Chinese aircraft, they'll instead opt for very small numbers and invest more heavily in S-300, 400 or 500 systems. That's what Iran is doing, albeit moreso due to sanctions vs. anything else. Come to think of it, Iran is the undisputed king of obsolete fighter platforms..

1.) 1970's era F-14's
2.) Early 1980's era Mig-29
3.) 1960's era F-4's
4.) 1960's era F-5's

And their airfields will be toast, courtesy of Tomohawk and other joint standoff weapons.

Conclusion? They could really use Russia's new VTOL fighter... :)