Russia to develop VTOL fighter

[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.

[arian]

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.

[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.

[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.

[talkitron]

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".

[barrelnut]

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.

[milosh]

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.

[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.

[arian]

???

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.

[arian]

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.

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.

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)

[neptune]

...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.

[hythelday]

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:


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.

[juretrn]

What's the state of Yakovlev these days anyway? I guess LM's financial injection kept them afloat?

[hythelday]

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.

[sferrin]

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.