Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

RuAF News and development Thread part 15

Collapse
X
Collapse
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 9 (0 members and 9 guests)
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • paralay
    Rank 5 Registered User
    • Aug 2005
    • 1418

    The potential of Russia 37.5% (population + territory), the Soviet Union built seven aircraft carriers:
    1123 2 * 19200 t
    1143 3 * 43220 t
    1143.4 * 44500 t
    1143.5 * 55,000
    The total displacement of 267560 tons.

    Russia can afford: 267560 t * 0.375 = 100335 t. Promising aircraft carrier: two units of 50,000 tons each, or one larger ship.

    Comment

    • LMFS
      Rank 4 Registered User
      • Feb 2018
      • 563

      Originally posted by paralay View Post
      The potential of Russia 37.5% (population + territory), the Soviet Union built seven aircraft carriers:
      1123 2 * 19200 t
      1143 3 * 43220 t
      1143.4 * 44500 t
      1143.5 * 55,000
      The total displacement of 267560 tons.

      Russia can afford: 267560 t * 0.375 = 100335 t. Promising aircraft carrier: two units of 50,000 tons each, or one larger ship.
      Ok I see, but I don't think this rule can be applied without further refinements. Russia has much more than the 0.375 of the former surface and resources of the Soviet Union, especially the high level technical ones. Also the shipyard capable for these vessels was lost. So it is not a linear function of population loss.

      Comment

      • paralay
        Rank 5 Registered User
        • Aug 2005
        • 1418

        Russia has much more than the 0.375 of the former surface and resources of the Soviet Union
        USSR vs Russia
        The area of 22 402 200 square kilometres / 17 075 400 sq km
        Population 293 047 571 people / 144 526 278 people

        The territory of Russia is 76.2 % of the USSR, the population is 49.3%.
        76.% * 49.3 % = 37.5 % - we get the "potential" of Russia relative to the USSR.

        Comment

        • Austin
          Rank 5 Registered User
          • Oct 2003
          • 6512

          You need to add CSTO and CIS country whose defense is dependent on Russian Armed Forces legally/treaty wise
          "A map does you no good if you don't know where you are"

          Comment

          • Deino
            Rank 5 Registered User
            • Jan 2000
            • 4229

            Pardon, but to try to calculate the potential for a certain country to built an aircraft carrier by the factors of land-mass area and population is plain ridiculous.

            And given the facts that certain Russian media outlets were proposing or even reporting the Russian Navy WILL operate a fleet of supercarriers soon or whatever and nothing happened all these years I'm more inclined to believe this is yet another PR stunt than a real project including the development of a VSTOL type in parallel to a navalised Su-57.

            As such this is more for the own peoples ...
            ...

            He was my North, my South, my East and West,
            My working week and my Sunday rest,
            My noon, my midnight, my talk, my song;
            I thought that love would last forever; I was wrong.

            The stars are not wanted now; put out every one:
            Pack up the moon and dismantle the sun;
            Pour away the ocean and sweep up the woods:
            For nothing now can ever come to any good.
            -------------------------------------------------
            W.H.Auden (1945)

            Comment

            • FBW
              FBW
              Rank 5 Registered User
              • Dec 2011
              • 3294


              Originally posted by LMFS View Post

              Ok I see, but I don't think this rule can be applied without further refinements. Russia has much more than the 0.375 of the former surface and resources of the Soviet Union, especially the high level technical ones. Also the shipyard capable for these vessels was lost. So it is not a linear function of population loss.
              Got cut off-

              This is a singularly facile comparison. Russian MIC didnt degrade at a some percentile of landmass or mesurable rate compared to the USSR. Shipbuilding took a hit while the aerospace industry survived via exports. It isnt capacity that matters so much as know how and subcontractors. Thousands of high level engineers left, retired, or moved on. your talking about an industry that needed rebuilding from near zero output. Look at the number of ships built from 1995 to about 2008, an entire generation of engineers, workers, was lost. The industrial base is being restored from a non-existence. There were supposed to be 12 project 22350 frigates by 2020, 8 yasen class SSGN, and two revamped project 1144 class ships by 2020. Nakhimov is a half a decade late if it meets the 2021 new deadline (no given). There are two yards capable of modular construction techniques; zveszda and zaliv. Both new to Russia, the others use slipways with low capacity cranes, beam restrictions, or basin capacity.

              If there is one industry that reflects the problems Russia has faced rebuilding its previous military capacity, it is shipbuilding. Short term edicts and a command economy have little impact on projects that take a half a decade to complete. The loss of Ukrainian turbines set Russia back five years in their surface fleet, and nuclear subs can only be turned out at a rate equal to the availability of yards and specialized technicians. Percent of land area and resources dont reflect capacity.
              Doesnt help when leadership is pushing unattainable goals like revamping project 971 ships beyond their projected service lives, and slow modernization of shipyards.

              not that western navies arent facing a similar cliff, its just exasperated in Russia due to 15 years of relative inaction.
              Last edited by FBW; 12th April 2019, 06:46.

              Comment

              • TR1
                TR1
                http://tiny.cc/tp8kd
                • Oct 2010
                • 9826

                I could see construction of a Mistral or Mistral-and-a-half sized ship beginning in the second half of the next decade. Depends on funding priority above all in the new GPV. MOD has been stingy with surface fleet money before, reason construction took so long (engines and weapons sytesm aside) is they literally paused payments in the past. See 20380 hulls being conserved @ Severnaya in the 2000s.
                Shipyards can do the work if they are paid. Baltisky Zavod was almost raided of all its assets and sold off for real estate, but they managed to complete their half of the Mistrals without a problem and are doing good work on the nuclear icebreakers. The latter are delayed but not too badly, the delay is not the shipyards fault in any case AFAIK.

                Personally I think such a ship is mostly worthless aside from some niche-roles, but admirals and MOD officials have mentioned it is a possibility.
                I'd venture either Baltisky Zavod (Rakhmananov said they might return to armed ships post 2021), or Zaliv in Crimea could be contenders. Maybe even the new Zvezda shipyard in the far east, but I suspect they will have their hands full with Oil&Gas tankers for the next decade plus, not to mention possibly the huge Leader icebreaker.
                Last edited by TR1; 12th April 2019, 06:53.
                sigpic

                Comment

                • JSR
                  JSR
                  Rank 5 Registered User
                  • Aug 2011
                  • 4982

                  There were supposed to be 12 project 22350 frigates by 2020, 8 yasen class SSGN, and two revamped project 1144 class ships by 2020. Nakhimov is a half a decade late if it meets the 2021 new deadline (no given).
                  it is not the size or number of huls but the technology of compactness and communication management for long range strike from small vessels. show me size of vessels or subs that can carry range of klibr missiles or new 9M96D missile. same missile both against missles and fighters. it is nothing short of technological revolution.

                  Comment

                  • Sab3r329
                    Rank 5 Registered User
                    • Apr 2016
                    • 91

                    Paralay, I say this with the utmost respect, but I believe that your method for calculating possible tonnages and number of carriers that Russia could fund and support to be flawed, as carriers and most combat vessels and their prices are do not have linear relationship between tonnage and cost, but rather system capability that drives cost. Russia could make several "dumb" carriers that have nothing but propulsion and support systems to launch fighters and other aircraft on some big 400m long deck, but no one likes to put such expensive fighters and people on a unprotected large vessel. So obviously expensive radars and missiles are added on which drive the costs up enormously, which means size has to be sacrificed in order to take the edge off.

                    In my humble opinion, a nice sight to see for Russian naval plan in general would be a heavy switch to a mostly submarine based force, with large numbers of SSGNs,SSN(?), SSK, and SSK sized UUVs to become the long spear of Russia against strategic level foes, the so-called "peer and near-peer" foes, ie Western powers and the like, and would serve dual purposely in the foreign military intervention type role, providing ample amounts of cruise missile punishment against ISIL type foes, and a surface force consisting of appropriate amount of high level flagships that would carry powerful force multiplier assets like long range radar and aircraft carrying capability, which would be a mainly expeditionary force intended for foreign intervention, but would be used as a force multiplier for for the submarine fleet, such as OTH targeting for submarine based Tskirkons to slaughter enemy fleets with hypersonic salvoes. Not to mention the BMD roles the flagships could implement, naval based S-500 or even Nudol(?).

                    Basically a standard squadron for peer/near-peer warfare would look like this,

                    Surface component:

                    1x Nuclear 40k displacement carrier(air wing would be a mix between ASuW and Recon aircraft)
                    2x Nuclear cruiser in the Leader/Kirov level of armament/displacement

                    Submarine component:

                    6 x Husky/Yasen
                    ? x Optional SSK/SSK sized UUVs plus any UUVs carried aboard surface or submarines.

                    You could could just take the already developed LK-60Ya's nuclear-turboelectric propulsion for the carrier and cruisers, the commonality would result in large cost savings and development time. Or even the LK-110Ya's....
                    Having all nuclear propulsion would save on having to have a auxiliary fleet following you around. https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Operation_Sea_Orbit

                    And in all honesty, TR1 is correct that major surface combatants are likely around a decade out, which means programs like Okhotnik UCAV would likely be quite mature, possibly leading to development of all-UCAV carriers. After all, Russia went to such effort to design and show such weapons like Kinzhal and Tsirkon that were made to kill surface vessels, why invest large amounts in surface vessels keeping the existence of such weapons in mind? Similar to how Imperial Japan showed the power of the carrier in the attack on Pearl Harbor and continued to put faith and resources into the Yamato class.

                    TR;DL, keep surface combatants to a minimum level, necessary flagships and force multipliers, logistical and support, etc. Bulk of firepower should be submarine based.
                    Last edited by Sab3r329; 12th April 2019, 10:24.

                    Comment

                    • LMFS
                      Rank 4 Registered User
                      • Feb 2018
                      • 563

                      Originally posted by paralay View Post
                      USSR vs Russia
                      The area of 22 402 200 square kilometres / 17 075 400 sq km
                      Population 293 047 571 people / 144 526 278 people

                      The territory of Russia is 76.2 % of the USSR, the population is 49.3%.
                      76.% * 49.3 % = 37.5 % - we get the "potential" of Russia relative to the USSR.
                      By that logic, if we add another factor we would reduce even further the calculated potential. In this case an average of the factors would be a more correct calculation method. Going that way, GDP should be a factor too, but if there is no capable shipyard then the potential to build carriers is automatically zero. Since Russia has most of the scientific institutions of USSR, biggest GPD by far and best military industry it is just a matter of time until the capacities are developed in the level they are needed, be it for vessels of 40 kT or 60 kT, that is not the core of the issue IMO.

                      FBW

                      I could agree in most of what you said, with minor comments. SSBN fleet and construction is reasonably well, at least Boreis are being produced at decent paces. But large surface combatants are of course a big challenge. I see signs of improvement in several areas and a clear determination on the leadership that the navy and associated industry are a must, so they are developing them according to long term plans. Apparently 22350s can be produced now on reasonable paces and if all goes to plan, 6 will be in service by 2025, Poliment / Redut as the base of AD for all new classes is operational and domestic gas turbines start to be available again. So a good number of roadblocks have been removed, the work must continue until shipyards and supply chain are efficient and capable of handling bigger vessels. Recent orders and announcements about bigger surface ships just point out the progress made and increasing confidence of the navy to move forward. Will take time and effort in huge amounts, but there is no other real option for a country like Russia.

                      Comment

                      • paralay
                        Rank 5 Registered User
                        • Aug 2005
                        • 1418

                        I have proposed one of a dozen ways to assess the potential of the country. True or false, time will tell. Several independent methods with similar calculation results will be the most accurate.

                        I think that we need to build LMFS short takeoff and vertical landing with an engine "Izd.30".
                        And build as many aircraft carriers class "destroyer" (8 - 12 thousand tons of displacement)

                        the 9000 ton destroyer and a cruiser of 13,000 tons

                        Click image for larger version

Name:	9000&13000.JPG
Views:	1862
Size:	363.6 KB
ID:	3859501

                        Comment

                        • TR1
                          TR1
                          http://tiny.cc/tp8kd
                          • Oct 2010
                          • 9826

                          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VARVdpXXh70

                          The Full video where the R-37M screen was from.

                          Quite a few R-77-1 and R-37M around that MiG-31, good to see.
                          sigpic

                          Comment

                          • LMFS
                            Rank 4 Registered User
                            • Feb 2018
                            • 563

                            Originally posted by paralay View Post
                            I have proposed one of a dozen ways to assess the potential of the country. True or false, time will tell. Several independent methods with similar calculation results will be the most accurate.

                            I think that we need to build LMFS short takeoff and vertical landing with an engine "Izd.30".
                            And build as many aircraft carriers class "destroyer" (8 - 12 thousand tons of displacement)

                            the 9000 ton destroyer and a cruiser of 13,000 tons
                            Cool, nice drawings! Maybe new multihull technology by Krylov allows something like this in a future, who knows??

                            TR1

                            Thanks for the video

                            Comment

                            • Austin
                              Rank 5 Registered User
                              • Oct 2003
                              • 6512

                              Mi-28NM

                              https://bmpd.livejournal.com/3612842.html


                              Looks to me it got DIRCM near tail and under fuselage
                              "A map does you no good if you don't know where you are"

                              Comment

                              • Guest's Avatar
                                Guest

                                Originally posted by paralay View Post
                                The aircraft carrier Kuznetsov will definitely be repaired and the su-33 will be upgraded. And then, after 2030, new aircraft carriers will be built
                                Questionable if the Kuznetsov will be repaired or scrapped or sold??? My guess would be one of the latter two. As for a New Aircraft Carrier post 2030....."doubtful"...let along "CARRIERS"?

                                Plus, what would operate from them post 2030???

                                Comment

                                • TR1
                                  TR1
                                  http://tiny.cc/tp8kd
                                  • Oct 2010
                                  • 9826

                                  https://my-files.ru/e3lw65

                                  Over the years we have had a discussion over dock and slipway size in Russian shipyards, pertaining to the construction of larger warships. Found this interesting document from 2017, re. the possibility of constructing the Leader icebreaker in a number of potential yards in the near future. Document was made by Central Research Institute of Shipbuilding Technology- this isn't a secret document or anything and it appears they relied mostly on open sources to make it, so there is the possibility of mistakes. Someone already mentioned the Zvezda dock maximum capacity (I guess this translates to keel load per meter? Unsure exactly) in the original project was 150, not 300 ton/meter, though since then and after a minor scandal they changed the project to increase maximum capacity of the dock.

                                  The document did assume the ship is pretty damn big, 209 meter length, 47.7 meter width, 11+ meter draft. Icebreakers are also really heavy for their size, probably much more so than say a Mistral. Hull itself would have a mass of around 32K tons, displacement almost 57,000 tons, though I have read more recent estimates that full displacement will be around 75K tons.

                                  Sevmash:
                                  -Covered slipways are huge, Slipway 2 is 370x80 (gate width 72m) meters and about 300x44 for each of the smaller slipways (behind the Vikra in the pics). The issue is of course they are already heavily loaded with nuclear sub work inside the slipways, and would need a new transfer dock to launch the ships into the basin, as well as deepening of the parts of the basin itself and expanding the basin lock gates.
                                  -Cost and scope of work to build a surface ship of this size is pretty excessive.

                                  Zvezda:
                                  -Dock plans are to make it 485x114 meters, water depth of 11.5m, though I think they have since increased the depth (due in part to Leader desires).
                                  -There is also the open slipway, which has several sections of about 390 meters in length, and from 110 to 40 meters in width. Weight capacity makes high level of hull completion impossible here though (200tons/meter).
                                  -Possible location of Leader build (this has only increased in likeliness since they published this and changed some dock plans).

                                  Baltisky Zavod:
                                  -Slipway 'A' is 350.4 x 36 meters. Not big enough for leader, probably at its limit with 1144 nuclear cruiser size vessel. Same with weight, capacity is for 150 t/meter max. Also a ship of this size might have problems with the canal the shipyard is located on.
                                  -Leader could only be built if the proposed open dock was built (cross section in the document). I also found this pic of a proposed covered slip, but this is only a proposal at this point in any-case:

                                  https://2019.f.a0z.ru/04/01-7361417-...-v-7.18.43.png

                                  Severnaya Verf:
                                  -Obviously in its current state not made for ships of this size and displacement.
                                  -There is a modernization project that has started which will add two covered slipways, but from what I have seen in pics it is only in the early stages so far, so not sure when that will be done. Probably relevant for new destroyers in the 2020s though.

                                  http://portnews.ru/upload/baseimage/...spa%20pSpV.jpg

                                  Zaliv:
                                  -The dock is 354x60 meters, 400 ton/meter max capacity. Obviously the only one like Zvezda which currently has Gantry cranes over the dock. 11 meter dock water depth not enough for something the size of Leader however, so the whole thing could not be finished in there.
                                  -Document is pretty high on Zaliv's ability to modernize to do the work within a reasonable time-frame and cost. Like I said however, it seems like USC is aiming to do the project at Zvezda.
                                  However it does raise possibility of Zaliv playing a role in large warship construction next decade.


                                  Document also estimates cost and time to modernize shipyards to work on "Leader" as well as some other comments, ask if there is anything you want translated.








                                  sigpic

                                  Comment

                                  • haavarla
                                    Rank 5 Registered User
                                    • Dec 2008
                                    • 6715

                                    First IL-476 or IL-76MD90-A..?

                                    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U5A9CCwpKik

                                    It sure looks nice!
                                    There is a need for 100 planes.. I guess this is with other upgrades/overhauls on existing airframes then.
                                    Thanks

                                    Comment

                                    • stealthflanker
                                      Rank 5 Registered User
                                      • Sep 2015
                                      • 1027

                                      Mostly IL-76-MD90A. Looks very nice indeed and about time. Better PS-90 engine and upgrades on avionics. That will sure make the plane lasts longer. 60 Metric tonne payload is better than 40 tonne earlier Il-76.

                                      Comment

                                      • haavarla
                                        Rank 5 Registered User
                                        • Dec 2008
                                        • 6715

                                        Originally posted by stealthflanker View Post
                                        Mostly IL-76-MD90A. Looks very nice indeed and about time. Better PS-90 engine and upgrades on avionics. That will sure make the plane lasts longer. 60 Metric tonne payload is better than 40 tonne earlier Il-76.
                                        Yeah, to tell the truth, i am a little surprised that they kept the third seat in cockpit, it must be completely redundant by now.. however it sure keeps a nice seat view for the rest of the crew. Think it a total of four now. Was five or six before.
                                        Last edited by haavarla; 22nd April 2019, 12:35.
                                        Thanks

                                        Comment

                                        • Austin
                                          Rank 5 Registered User
                                          • Oct 2003
                                          • 6512

                                          Good Interview with VIAM Chief ......Talks in details about PD-14 Engine

                                          https://rg.ru/2019/04/21/dlia-rossij...okoleniia.html
                                          "A map does you no good if you don't know where you are"

                                          Comment

                                          Unconfigured Ad Widget

                                          Collapse

                                           

                                          Working...
                                          X