I previously stated that it was not possible to discern a VLS aft on either of the models of the different Project 11990 Anchar variants. However, having now found better photos I think there could be one (or rather six eight cell modules) on the four x 3S90 Uragan variant. Given the lack of any other AShM on the design, using these for Onyx would make sense if they are indeed VLS.
Nice finds. No idea what that forward system is, but it looks suspiciously like the intended layout of the forward Kinzhal battery on 1144.2. It *could* be a vertical launch ASW system, but I've never heard of the Soviets developing one (they went from Metel to Vodopad).
The aft system is definitely proto-UKSK for P-800, the Atrina article on 1199/11990 mentions that space was reserved aft for P-800 and that's most definitely it. The article didn't give a number, and I wasn't expecting 32 cells - I need to update my model.
(Edit: Holy moly the site is slow today, the images had trouble loading...)
Edit2: I was wrong, there are *48* cells back there! That's a lot of Oniks!
Been staring for a bit at @JFC Fuller's images, and I *think* what's going on with those aft VLS cells is that there's four blocks of Redut (Sokolov told me this was in development at the time, with model photos of some of the 1143.7 concepts for proof, and was resurrected later) and two of UKSK (the aftmost blocks, separate from the others and barely visible).
The drawing based on this model has round Kinzhal cells here instead.
Also... how does Kinzhal reload? Do they do it one missile at a time through the launch opening, or might they actually do what's in the model here and flip open the big lid to switch the whole cylinder?
The idea of hermaphrodite flattop-equipped hybrid carrier battleships was revisited often over the years. In the Great War, the British converted the battlecruiser HMS Furious to have a 160-foot fl…
Red Caucasus carrier conversion. It was planned at one point to turn her and her sister into aircraft carriers in 1946, but they were too badly damaged from hard wartime service
laststandonzombieisland.com
I'd love to know more about this, or at least determine it's veracity. It might genuinely be the most silly hybrid.
Erm. Its a scheme of placing "Krasny Kavkas" into floating dock for repairs. After Black Sea Fleet was forced to retreat to Caucas harbors in 1941, there were no drydocks of sufficient size available for cruisers repairs. So the improvised solution was found in "half-docking" the cruiser in the available floating dock:
Absolutely nothing to do with any kind of carrier conversion.
Erm. Its a scheme of placing "Krasny Kavkas" into floating dock for repairs. After Black Sea Fleet was forced to retreat to Caucas harbors in 1941, there were no drydocks of sufficient size available for cruisers repairs. So the improvised solution was found in "half-docking" the cruiser in the available floating dock:View attachment 783685
Absolutely nothing to do with any kind of carrier conversion
It's very obviously a docking arrangement to anyone who knows the first thing about ship building and repair. And I'm immediately curious about the supporting calculations, because that's a very unusual operation.
Unfortunately I can't find the source of this illustration. Considering the style and coloration, I think it's from some much later book - maybe some kind of manual.
The full title will definitely help: «Советский ракетный крейсер. Зигзаги эволюции»
Note that Sokolov himself has posted a version of the book on his blog, with new art, so he obviously does not care that the book is being distributed.
BE ADVISED: There's a bunch of stuff on the blog that Sokolov found on the internet. He really wasn't big on the whole "credits" thing in the beginning, and there's a bunch of stuff he mistook for being real ideas, rather than fan-made. Also, the full length books (which are listed in the latest post of the blog with their Russian titles so you can search for them on the blog) are posted as "Russian text within an image" making reading them a bit frustrating.
Still, there's a whole bunch of actual information on there, and lots of separate articles you can look for by simply typing a project number, e.g. "1144" or "1165" into the search box.
Yes, but the upper echelons of the Soviet Navy often disagreed with Stalin (although not very openly or vocally for obvious reasons) and he often overruled the Soviet Navy to push for his obsessions.
For example, if it was left up to the Soviet Navy, Project 82 would probably have been designed as a heavy cruiser in the 20,000 ton displacement range with 220mm guns, rather than the greater than 35,000 tons displacement Battlecruiser with 305mm guns it ended up being.
For example, if it was left up to the Soviet Navy, Project 82 would probably have been designed as a heavy cruiser in the 20,000 ton displacement range with 220mm guns, rather than the greater than 35,000 tons displacement Battlecruiser with 305mm guns it ended up being.
“The shortcomings of the artillery of the main caliber of the“ Red Caucasus ”were so serious that in 1939-1940. the command of the Black Sea Fleet insisted on replacing the single-gun 180-mm towers of the cruiser with 130-mm twin mounts B-2-LM, the prototype tests of which were planned to be carried out from December 1940 to May 1941 on the leader Tashkent in Sevastopol. " -the article attributes to Kuznetzov
“The shortcomings of the artillery of the main caliber of the“ Red Caucasus ”were so serious that in 1939-1940. the command of the Black Sea Fleet insisted on replacing the single-gun 180-mm towers of the cruiser with 130-mm twin mounts B-2-LM, the prototype tests of which were planned to be carried out from December 1940 to May 1941 on the leader Tashkent in Sevastopol. " -the article attributes to Kuznetzov
More like CA-C (the contemporary heavy cruiser) instead of Alaska, but yes very much so. The Stalingrads (Project 82) are the companion large cruiser/supercruiser to Project 66's heavy cruiser.
And where Alaskas have the Montana above, the Stalingrad's big brother (father?) would be the gargantuan Project 24.
Project 66 (Stephen McLaughlin - "Admiral Kuznetsov's Cruiser Killer")
Project 82 (believe this one is from A.M. Vasilyev + A.B. Morin: "Суперлинкоры Сталина"):
Project 24 (A.M. Vasilyev: "Линейные корабли типа 'Советский Союз'")
You can really see the family resemblance, without knowing the scale it would be hard to tell which is which
Sadly Project 24's wife (Stalin) left him, and he was never the same again. The family doesn't talk much anymore
More like CA-C (the contemporary heavy cruiser) instead of Alaska, but yes very much so. The Stalingrads (Project 82) are the companion large cruiser/supercruiser to Project 66's heavy cruiser.
And where Alaskas have the Montana above, the Stalingrad's big brother (father?) would be the gargantuan Project 24.
Project 66 (Stephen McLaughlin - "Admiral Kuznetsov's Cruiser Killer") View attachment 797132
Project 82 (believe this one is from A.M. Vasilyev + A.B. Morin: "Суперлинкоры Сталина"): View attachment 797134
Project 24 (A.M. Vasilyev: "Линейные корабли типа 'Советский Союз'") View attachment 797136
You can really see the family resemblance, without knowing the scale it would be hard to tell which is which
Radar directed quad 45mm mountings are probably better than anything on any contemporary USN ships in service, apart from those with refitted with 3"/50s controlled by Mk.56 or Mk.63.
The Soviet doctrine at this time was that large warship should carry mainly short-range AA guns for self-defense, and long-range AA defense should be provided by escorting destroyers & light cruiser.
The Soviet doctrine at this time was that large warship should carry mainly short-range AA guns for self-defense, and long-range AA defense should be provided by escorting destroyers & light cruiser.
Double superfiring makes sense when you consider that there's a lot of available space: most Soviet projects are already quite large, a consequence of both design inefficiencies, and the Soviet-style armor protection where large portions of the ship are armored.
Even relatively lightly-armored ships like Project 66 suffer from over-extensive armor schemes: very tall armor belt, 60mm deck + 50mm upper deck over the entirety of a long citadel, plus bow and stern armor, plus topsides and splinter protection (this ship is 25,000 tons by the way):
(Also I think weight is lost via over-elaborate systems just like the Hippers these ships are all somewhat based on, but I haven't been able to confirm this)
So what's the harm in spending a bit of extra weight to greatly improve the AA firing arcs, even if it starts to look ridiculous
Radar directed quad 45mm mountings are probably better than anything on any contemporary USN ships in service, apart from those with refitted with 3"/50s controlled by Mk.56 or Mk.63.
true, but on the other hand, the 25mms on many of these Soviet projects were thought to be useless, as they had no radars and only rudimentary fire control
Yeah. The Soviets didn't have much wartime experience to gain, seeing as Soviet ships saw little action (many of them being hidden away to prevent damage) outside of shore batteries and aircraft. Many design features were carried over from the Tsarist days (the practice of armoring virtually the entire ship), a large portion the improvements were lessons learned from observing other powers, and there was a lot of guesswork involved.
That's why it's unfortunate that Beria and Khrushchev axed the entire program. It would have been interesting to see how the Stalingrads turned out, for example.
(Although, the loss of this construction and the weakness of the Soviet Navy greatly benefitted America and the West, so I'm not all too sad.)
This was being done because of experience with the Kamikazes. The 40mm was found insufficient to ensure a kill where the aircraft lost aerodynamic flight or could remain largely intact and ballistic. The 3"/50 ensured destruction. That was why, even by late 1944, the 20mm was on its way out and ship's captains were clamoring for more 40mm mounts.
It's very obviously a docking arrangement to anyone who knows the first thing about ship building and repair. And I'm immediately curious about the supporting calculations, because that's a very unusual operation.
Well, center of gravity is going to be somewhere inside the dock, so it probably won't just fall out, but yeah, the bending moment on the unsupported forward third looks really dicey. Might have been a good idea to support that section with something like camels just so it isn't hanging out in open air.
Well, center of gravity is going to be somewhere inside the dock, so it probably won't just fall out, but yeah, the bending moment on the unsupported forward third looks really dicey. Might have been a good idea to support that section with something like camels just so it isn't hanging out in open air.
Now that I look again, I think the idea is to lift the stern – presumably to work on the screws or rudder. I could see that operation being necessary if a docking facility capable of taking the ship wasn't available for some reason.
In that case, the bow is supported by it's own buoyancy. Got me thinking how I'd plan that operation now...
Now that I look again, I think the idea is to lift the stern – presumably to work on the screws or rudder. I could see that operation being necessary if a docking facility capable of taking the ship wasn't available for some reason.
In that case, the bow is supported by it's own buoyancy. Got me thinking how I'd plan that operation now...
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
