Russia to develop VTOL fighter

Military aircraft - Post cold war aircraft, including for example B-2, Gripen, F-18E/F Super Hornet, Rafale, and Typhoon.
  • Author
  • Message
Offline

arian

Banned

  • Posts: 1293
  • Joined: 23 Dec 2014, 09:25

Unread post21 Aug 2017, 20:23

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.
Offline

terrygedran

Banned

  • Posts: 100
  • Joined: 13 Apr 2017, 14:48

Unread post22 Aug 2017, 14:21

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
Offline

sdkf251

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 100
  • Joined: 24 Nov 2014, 11:02

Unread post22 Aug 2017, 14:49

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.
Offline

arian

Banned

  • Posts: 1293
  • Joined: 23 Dec 2014, 09:25

Unread post22 Aug 2017, 22:32

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%.
Offline

terrygedran

Banned

  • Posts: 100
  • Joined: 13 Apr 2017, 14:48

Unread post23 Aug 2017, 01:47

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 .
Offline

arian

Banned

  • Posts: 1293
  • Joined: 23 Dec 2014, 09:25

Unread post23 Aug 2017, 02:38

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.
Offline

terrygedran

Banned

  • Posts: 100
  • Joined: 13 Apr 2017, 14:48

Unread post23 Aug 2017, 15:39

"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.
Offline

arian

Banned

  • Posts: 1293
  • Joined: 23 Dec 2014, 09:25

Unread post24 Aug 2017, 01:13

^^^ You're just making stuff up at this point.

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

collimatrix

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 159
  • Joined: 10 Jul 2016, 15:27

Unread post24 Aug 2017, 23:42

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.
Offline

terrygedran

Banned

  • Posts: 100
  • Joined: 13 Apr 2017, 14:48

Unread post25 Aug 2017, 00:53

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.
Offline

arian

Banned

  • Posts: 1293
  • Joined: 23 Dec 2014, 09:25

Unread post25 Aug 2017, 00:59

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.
Offline
User avatar

rheonomic

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 644
  • Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 03:44

Unread post25 Aug 2017, 01:04

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.
"You could do that, but it would be wrong."
Offline

terrygedran

Banned

  • Posts: 100
  • Joined: 13 Apr 2017, 14:48

Unread post25 Aug 2017, 11:17

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)"
Offline

tincansailor

Banned

  • Posts: 711
  • Joined: 05 Jul 2015, 20:06

Unread post25 Aug 2017, 18:55

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
Offline

arian

Banned

  • Posts: 1293
  • Joined: 23 Dec 2014, 09:25

Unread post26 Aug 2017, 03:04

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.
PreviousNext

Return to Modern Military Aircraft

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 12 guests