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
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 23611
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post26 Aug 2017, 03:42

Why has this 'not so good troll' been allowed to derail a thread about 'Russian VTOL Fighters' with B/S 'bout nuke reactors?
A4G Skyhawk: www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ & www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/videos?view_as=subscriber
Offline

tincansailor

Banned

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

Unread post26 Aug 2017, 07:22

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.
Offline

nutshell

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 458
  • Joined: 04 May 2016, 13:37

Unread post27 Aug 2017, 05:43

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.
Offline
User avatar

sferrin

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5460
  • Joined: 22 Jul 2005, 03:23

Unread post27 Aug 2017, 16:26

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:
"There I was. . ."
Offline

tincansailor

Banned

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

Unread post27 Aug 2017, 21:25

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.
Offline
User avatar

white_lightning35

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 401
  • Joined: 18 Sep 2016, 03:07
  • Location: Home of nuclear submarines, engines, and that's about it.

Unread post28 Aug 2017, 00:04

But, but russia stronk...
Offline

arian

Banned

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

Unread post28 Aug 2017, 04:39

I'm still waiting for you to explain what I have circled in that table, terrygedran.

You're going to keep me waiting?
Offline
User avatar

sferrin

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5460
  • Joined: 22 Jul 2005, 03:23

Unread post28 Aug 2017, 12:32

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.
"There I was. . ."
Offline

terrygedran

Banned

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

Unread post28 Aug 2017, 13:27

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 ? :?
Offline
User avatar

botsing

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 862
  • Joined: 05 Dec 2015, 18:09
  • Location: The Netherlands

Unread post28 Aug 2017, 15:29

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.
"Those who know don’t talk. Those who talk don’t know"
Offline

tincansailor

Banned

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

Unread post28 Aug 2017, 20:56

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.
Offline

tincansailor

Banned

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

Unread post28 Aug 2017, 21:42

[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?
Offline

SpudmanWP

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 8401
  • Joined: 12 Oct 2006, 19:18
  • Location: California

Unread post28 Aug 2017, 22:01

Would everyone please look at your posts after you submit them to make sure your "quotes" and other BBCode markup tags are formatted correctly.
"The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."
Offline

terrygedran

Banned

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

Unread post28 Aug 2017, 22:08

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.
Offline
User avatar

pmi

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 109
  • Joined: 06 Oct 2011, 09:12

Unread post29 Aug 2017, 00:16

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.
PreviousNext

Return to Modern Military Aircraft

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests