dark light

Neptune

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 526 through 540 (of 606 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: Help Needed on Russian Sub re-building capability #2071154
    Neptune
    Participant

    Basically not, as it would bring at least some profit by transporting these goods, in either giving those people in Siberia what they need or giving some money, instead of only taking more money by arming them with useless weapons and sailing around without giving ANY money back. So “better use” is a very relative thing given that half the world is very unlikely to attack Russia at the moment (and that they have enough SSBNs remaining to do that job) and that those people really need those potatoes (well after the conversion she was meant to transport ore for Norilsk)

    in reply to: An idea? #2071191
    Neptune
    Participant

    Problem is, how do you command the submarines? “let them wait for the next radarship to come”? There is current etc. Position determination and radio commands are hard below the surface. GPS doesn’t work that deep, unless you really stay very shallow, with all the risk of detection from the air… I think the idea has something, and probably the problems can be solved somehow, if it’s not now, then probably in the future.

    in reply to: Help Needed on Russian Sub re-building capability #2071192
    Neptune
    Participant

    here is a drawing of the cargo-typhoon from the site of Rubin,
    the link will get you to the general explanation:
    http://www.ckb-rubin.ru/eng/project/otherp/uwaters/index.htm
    http://www.ckb-rubin.ru/eng/project/otherp/uwaters/img/03.jpg
    http://www.ckb-rubin.ru/eng/project/otherp/uwaters/img/02.jpg
    Very interesting on this drawing is that you can actually see her very tiny propellors on the lower side of the aft hull, these are really present on the submarines at the moment too. For slow speed manoeuvering.
    The strange bow shape is done for the ice breaker capacity on the surface.

    in reply to: Help Needed on Russian Sub re-building capability #2071210
    Neptune
    Participant

    They have used a Typhoon once with missile tubes filled with potatoes, to transport them to SIberia. Afterwards the idea of a submerged Bulk carrier came. Just removing the missile tubes and use the entire forward space as cargo room. Too costly, nuclear reactors can’t be profitable and as Norilsk, the company who wanted to convert this Typhoon is a company with profit on its mind, it was soon abandoned.
    A nuclear ice breaker when used properly can do several transports, while instead you would require many more nuclear powered submarine to run that same route. The idea was going up one of the large rivers in Siberia, then dive below the ice in the arctic and go to Murmansk, unload there in a “normal” ship and return to the river. (I think it was the Yennisei or Lena river).

    in reply to: HMS Nottingham #2071296
    Neptune
    Participant

    The replacement could possibly not do the job better, but if you don’t try, you’ll never know…
    As for the captains, indeed, plenty of people waiting for such promotions and very well motivated to do it better than their predecessor!

    Neptune
    Participant

    You know what? Maybe they could pay their debts to all their companies instead of letting them go bancrupt and order limited weapons from a very select group of companies? The SSBN Tula, Delta IV class, will not be handed back over to the Russian Navy, for that same reason. The yard doesn’t want to give it back because of the huge debts the Russian federation still has with that company. Even the last overhaul (of Bryansky or Ekaterininburg don’t know which one anymore) is not totally financed up till now…

    in reply to: HMS Nottingham #2071394
    Neptune
    Participant

    Well, if the people weren’t so stupid, they would get punished for that by the voters in the next elections. Unfortunately people in general are very stupid and don’t see the kind of tricks that politicians come up with just before the elections.
    Captains have this in their job, they know that there is always someone ready to replace him without too much trouble. And no matter who’s mistake it was, he’s the responsible one.

    in reply to: Help Needed on Russian Sub re-building capability #2071406
    Neptune
    Participant

    One of the major problems of Alpha was indeed that you couldn’t turn it off, not even in port. They sometimes did put it off and used some land based equipment to keep the coolant running (that is only in port of course). This extra equipment was very expensive and certainly when it can only be used for the small number of Alpha’s.
    PWRs are always heavy, the reactor itself, but also the shielding. You could also use a diesel tank as only shielding in front of your reactor, but I don’t think they called those stupid Novembers “Cancer Incubators” for nothing… The Foxtrot would become the same due to her small size and limited weight allowance. Of course one could remove the aft tubes and torpedoes to save some weight, but again the sheer moments and forces would be the major issue preventing this.

    in reply to: HMS Nottingham #2071409
    Neptune
    Participant

    Well, as I said, still a normal punishment, he did cause several extra millions of tax payers’ money to be spent on this ship.

    in reply to: HMS Nottingham #2071452
    Neptune
    Participant

    Logical, it’s his responsability.

    in reply to: Help Needed on Russian Sub re-building capability #2071470
    Neptune
    Participant

    The Lira is called Alpha by the west, they all had trouble with the reactors, the liquified metal ones. The reactors were cut out and replaced by normal PWRs. But then again, these boats were built as SSNs from the start.

    in reply to: Help Needed on Russian Sub re-building capability #2071509
    Neptune
    Participant

    Yeah, someone must have lost his mind. Ever thought about shielding? If you put a reactor in a Foxtrot, that’ll teach them one thing, how to get cancer. And that would be the only thing to learn from that, apart from it being a very stupid idea.
    Ever thought about the weight of such a configuration? If you put that in a weak Foxtrot hull, near its center of gravity, all the thing will do is break. Huge buoyancy on the far sides of the core, with a relatively low weight, while the buoyancy on the part of the reactor will be low compared to the weight. That will cause a huge amount of sheer forces and bending moments, causing a break up. It’s not built for it and hence it can not take it. Too few strengthening parts etc. If you would really really really want it, it could succeed, but after all the reinforcements and lengthening needed, it probably can’t be called Foxtrot anymore. The displacement of the sub would rise with a huge amount and hence the size would have to follow, lengthening, possibly beam change etc.

    in reply to: Help Needed on Russian Sub re-building capability #2071558
    Neptune
    Participant

    The other Yankee conversions, Akson-1 and Akson-2 also had such things done to the hull. It’s never a good thing to do it, but it’s good enough for testing purposes. They won’t stress the boat as much as a real one, they just need their tests to be done and then it’s fine.

    in reply to: Kuznetsov what if… #2071874
    Neptune
    Participant

    The Yak would have operated from the other carriers, Gorshkov and Novorosiysk, and of course Varyag and Kuznetsov.
    What effect it would have? That they had a pretty rubbish plane instead of the Su-33, but that they would have more such planes, although with lesser capabilities.

    in reply to: Can Oscar II Be Converted As LACM Carrier ?? #2071875
    Neptune
    Participant

    China acquires Russian carrier Varyag

    Vishnu Som

    Sunday, November 6, 2005 (New Delhi):

    China has acquired the Varyag, a Soviet-era aircraft carrier which is several times larger than India’s INS Viraat or the second-hand carrier Gorshkov, that is being refurbished in Russia.

    A Chinese front company called Chong Lot Travel Agency managed to buy the ship as scrap for US$ 20 million and towed it half way around the world, before placing it under high security in the Chinese naval base in Dalian.

    Offer turned down?

    During the 1990s, the Varyag – Russian for Viking – was being constructed in Nokolayev in the Black Sea. After the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1992, the ship went to Ukraine which had no need for it.

    Ukraine offered the ship to Russia which could not afford it and then offered the ship to India for US$ 1.6 billion on the condition that remaining construction and fitting out of the warship was done at its Nikolayev facilities.

    The Indian Navy conducted a feasibility study of the ship which did meet several of its technical requirements. However, the Navy rejected the ship on the grounds that it was in a condition of disrepair.

    “At a time when we were certain that the Vikrant could not be kept in service for any period of time, India looked at the possibility of getting a replacement and we looked at the former Soviet Union and their carriers because they were available and in addition to the Gorshkov which we have now contracted, the Varyag was considered.

    “But my own recall is that after the initial assessment it was not a serious issue for us at that time because we didn’t have the funding support at that time,” said Commodore Uday Bhasker, defence analyst.

    Now it’s being painted in Chinese colours. But according to sources, in 1994-1995, the ship was offered to the Indian Navy which refused and eventually opted for the Gorshkov in a deal worth upwards of US$ 1 billion.

    But China clearly didn’t feel the same way and kept negotiating with the Ukrainians for years, who eventually agreed to sell the Varyag to the Chong Lot Travel Agency which said that it wanted to convert the vessel into a floating casino in Macau.

    But according to sources, Chong Lot does not have any offices in Macau and in fact the company is a subsidiary of a firm based out of Hong Kong called Chinluck – the directors of which have had links with the Chinese Navy.

    Advantage China

    If the Chinese are able to successfully complete the refitting of the Varyag which does not have an engine or rudders, the ship will be very similar to the Kuznetsov.

    Kuznetsov is the flagship of the Russian Navy – designed as a counter to the giant American aircraft carriers which have dominated the world’s oceans.

    It will also be substantially more capable than the Gorshkov which India has bought from Russia.

    The Varyag is 67,500 tonnes, substantially larger than the Gorshkov which, after refit will be substantially smaller at 44,570 tonnes.

    The Varyag has a complement of 52 aircraft. The Gorshkov is not likely to carry more than 30-32.

    The Varyag is likely to operate a variant of the Sukhoi-27 fighter which has a greater operating range and weapon carrying load than the MiG-29K jets the Gorshkov will have.

    The Chinese acquisition of the Varyag is part of what is one of the largest and fastest growing fleet expansion plans since World War II and the acquisition of an aircraft carrier is being seen as a logical step forward in its naval evolution.

    But naval analysts point out that buying an aircraft carrier is all very well but learning to operate it effectively may take several years.

    Indeed it was Varyag offered to India back then. Pretty late to report the sale now though. Quite some rubbish and “ifs” in this article on aircraft and lay-out of Varyag. We still don’t know wheter she’s becoming a museum or a warship. Although most things do indicate a warship at the moment.

Viewing 15 posts - 526 through 540 (of 606 total)