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

tincansailor

Banned

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

Unread post29 Aug 2017, 01:14

[

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.
Offline

tincansailor

Banned

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

Unread post29 Aug 2017, 01:28

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.
Offline

terrygedran

Banned

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

Unread post29 Aug 2017, 11:46

tincansailor wrote: if one hull is ruptured the other can continue to operate?

This was the goal.
Offline

terrygedran

Banned

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

Unread post29 Aug 2017, 12:28

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.
Offline

SpudmanWP

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 8390
  • Joined: 12 Oct 2006, 19:18
  • Location: California

Unread post29 Aug 2017, 15:36

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?
"The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."
Offline

tincansailor

Banned

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

Unread post29 Aug 2017, 17:32

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.
Offline
User avatar

sferrin

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5409
  • Joined: 22 Jul 2005, 03:23

Unread post29 Aug 2017, 18:25

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:
"There I was. . ."
Offline

terrygedran

Banned

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

Unread post30 Aug 2017, 06:53

"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.
Offline

terrygedran

Banned

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

Unread post30 Aug 2017, 06:58

" 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.
Offline

tincansailor

Banned

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

Unread post30 Aug 2017, 08:22

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.
Offline
User avatar

sferrin

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5409
  • Joined: 22 Jul 2005, 03:23

Unread post30 Aug 2017, 13:20

tincansailor wrote:The pressure hull is not the hull on any submarine.


Wrong.

keel%20laying.jpg


Now something like Typhoon or Oscars:

NXGsceK.jpg
"There I was. . ."
Offline

tincansailor

Banned

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

Unread post30 Aug 2017, 17:58

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?
Offline
User avatar

sferrin

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5409
  • Joined: 22 Jul 2005, 03:23

Unread post30 Aug 2017, 18:44

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
"There I was. . ."
Offline

tincansailor

Banned

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

Unread post31 Aug 2017, 05:14

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.
Offline
User avatar

sferrin

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5409
  • Joined: 22 Jul 2005, 03:23

Unread post31 Aug 2017, 14:24

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
"There I was. . ."
PreviousNext

Return to Modern Military Aircraft

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: swiss and 7 guests