The Ship Model Forum

[quote="carr"][quote="chuck"] I will make the blisters ...[/quote]
Your call, of course, but we (meaning the people who frequent this thread!) have drydock photos of Kirov and Velikiy that clearly show that the blister (or half-moon as it's also been called) is not present. I can't recall whether they've been posted in this thread, or not. I suppose it's remotely possible that the blister was present at some point in time and then removed but there is absolutely no evidence of that.

I assume you're also aware of the tunnel under the stern, if you're going for accuracy?

Best wishes,
Bob[/quote]


I am not going strictly for accuracy, because I am trying to build the intended but unachieved design configuration of Kirov class, with Kashtan, 2 cross swords, and kinshal silos both forward and back, and not the actual configuration of any particular ship. I have't decided if I want two tombstone radars or two top dome radars. Tombstone and S-300MF may reflect a later extemporized ungrade that was not strictly intended in the original design. The tombstone radar itself seems to be a straight transplant of a land based radar unit instead of something designed as a naval radar from the beginning.

I know of the stern tunnel. I cut a wedge out of the hull under the stern where the tunnel and the berms on either side was, and built the tunnel back up with styrene sheets.

You know a topic's been brought up many times when you can remember which page in this thread it was posted...

Discussion on the stern: http://www.shipmodels.info/mws_forum/viewtopic.php?f=48&t=8143&start=320#p291426

[quote="chuck"] I will make the blisters ...[/quote]
Your call, of course, but we (meaning the people who frequent this thread!) have drydock photos of Kirov and Velikiy that clearly show that the blister (or half-moon as it's also been called) is not present. I can't recall whether they've been posted in this thread, or not. I suppose it's remotely possible that the blister was present at some point in time and then removed but there is absolutely no evidence of that.

I assume you're also aware of the tunnel under the stern, if you're going for accuracy?

Best wishes,
Bob

[quote="carr"][quote="chuck"]My only evidence for the fact that all these either exists, existed, or was intended to exist in the original design is a collection of photos of a large scale, highly detailed model of a Kirov class ship featuring all these. The photos were appearently taken in a Russian museum. I have a strong impression the it was an official model.[/quote]
I've seen photos of that model. It's a very nice model but several aspects and features shown on it are proven incorrect by photographic evidence. That calls into question all aspects of the model that aren't backed by photo evidence. The photos we have of the underwater hull hint, in the least definitive way possible, that there are no prominent reactor scoops or keel mounted sonar. We already know that the "blisters" don't exist and probably never did. So, the model, while fascinating, can't be taken as authoritative. That said, if anyone chose to add those features to their model, I certainly couldn't/wouldn't argue very strenuously against it![/quote]

Thanks. I will make the blisters, intake scoop and underkeel sonar removable, so as to accommodate any future evidence.

[quote="chuck"]My only evidence for the fact that all these either exists, existed, or was intended to exist in the original design is a collection of photos of a large scale, highly detailed model of a Kirov class ship featuring all these. The photos were appearently taken in a Russian museum. I have a strong impression the it was an official model.[/quote]
I've seen photos of that model. It's a very nice model but several aspects and features shown on it are proven incorrect by photographic evidence. That calls into question all aspects of the model that aren't backed by photo evidence. The photos we have of the underwater hull hint, in the least definitive way possible, that there are no prominent reactor scoops or keel mounted sonar. We already know that the "blisters" don't exist and probably never did. So, the model, while fascinating, can't be taken as authoritative. That said, if anyone chose to add those features to their model, I certainly couldn't/wouldn't argue very strenuously against it!

[quote="Neptune"]To be honest, that's been brought up several times before, yet I doubt its existence. The only lead for such a thing would be the lack of dry dock blocks at its supposed position. That however is quite a weak proof. Its use, with a bow mounted sonar like that, is also pretty doubtful.
Normally when you have a keel mounted sonar, you don't mount a bow mounted sonar. The keel mounted version is placed at approx 1/3rd of the length from the bow, to have minimal disturbance from the bubbles and noise of the bow wave, yet retain it in operation when running your props astern (again bubbles) as well as to keep it away from engine room and general noise of props when running ahead. Practically comes down to: as much forward as possible, but far enough from the bow to avoid disturbance. That is why they don't mount a bow sonar as well, since then you create much more disturbance forward. If I'm not mistaken keel mounts can be found on Grisha, Oliver Hazard Perry, Wielingen etc. They all have smooth bow sections without bulb.
Both sonars have advantages, but mounting them both in one ship is not a good idea.
Considering the Kirovs have a VDS, practially taking over any advantages a keel mounted sonar would have, as well as a bow mounted sonar, I doubt she had a keel mounted one.

In short, I'm still waiting for a picture to prove its existence, as long as I don't have that, I don't believe she had a keel mounted unit. :heh:[/quote]


By trumpeter depiction, the keel mounted sonar is much smaller than the bow unit. So perhaps it is a high frequency unit?

The underwater hull of the Kirov is a little mysterious to me. The items whose basis in reality have been questioned includes the blisters near the propellers, the intake ram scoops for the reactors, and the under keel sonar.

My only evidence for the fact that all these either exists, existed, or was intended to exist in the original design is a collection of photos of a large scale, highly detailed model of a Kirov class ship featuring all these. The photos were appearently taken in a Russian museum. I have a strong impression the it was an official model.

To be honest, that's been brought up several times before, yet I doubt its existence. The only lead for such a thing would be the lack of dry dock blocks at its supposed position. That however is quite a weak proof. Its use, with a bow mounted sonar like that, is also pretty doubtful.
Normally when you have a keel mounted sonar, you don't mount a bow mounted sonar. The keel mounted version is placed at approx 1/3rd of the length from the bow, to have minimal disturbance from the bubbles and noise of the bow wave, yet retain it in operation when running your props astern (again bubbles) as well as to keep it away from engine room and general noise of props when running ahead. Practically comes down to: as much forward as possible, but far enough from the bow to avoid disturbance. That is why they don't mount a bow sonar as well, since then you create much more disturbance forward. If I'm not mistaken keel mounts can be found on Grisha, Oliver Hazard Perry, Wielingen etc. They all have smooth bow sections without bulb.
Both sonars have advantages, but mounting them both in one ship is not a good idea.
Considering the Kirovs have a VDS, practially taking over any advantages a keel mounted sonar would have, as well as a bow mounted sonar, I doubt she had a keel mounted one.

In short, I'm still waiting for a picture to prove its existence, as long as I don't have that, I don't believe she had a keel mounted unit. :heh:

Kirov class appears to have an separate small sonar dome under the keel behind the main horse jaw sonar in the bulbous forefoot. Trumpeter depicts the back of the under keel sonar dome to be blunt. This doesn't make a whole lot sense to me. It seems more reasonable to make the back of the underkeel dome taper to a vertical edge for hydrodynamic and self-noise reasons.

What do you think? Any photos?

[quote]This seems to be a odd arrangement. It would seem to me to make much more sense design the missile launch hatch to also be the missile loading hatch. To load the missile one simply line up the empty slot in a rotoary launcher with launch hatch, and the missile would be loaded straight down the hatch into its intended position in the rotory launcher. That would save the complexity and space requirements of having to move the missiles inside the ship.

The only reason I can think of for the space hogging arrangement actually used is if the rotory launchers were unreliable, and the designers wanted the ship to have the option to shift the missiles from one launcher to another while the ship is underway.

It appears the Russian rotory launcher arrangement for S-300 is far more space intensive than western 1 missile per silo hot launch arrangement, and is also more complex and less reliable, and hence is a far inferior arrangement.[/quote]

Very valid point. Why they did it, nobody knows. Probably Saura is pretty close in the direction of their wish to retain similarity with the existing S-300 systems.
The alternative "improved" arrangement you mention is what they actually came up with for the Kinzhal launchers. There they also did away with the rotary launcher but made it a rotary hatch instead. Much easier. A device is put on top of the Kinzhal launcher and then the missile is slid in from the top. It's actually a manual reloading system. S-300 is too big for that though.
If I'm not mistaken the Chinese use "your" system on their Type 52C. The Chinese Rif-M equipped ships do retain the Russian style seperate reload hatch.
It is indeed correct that Kirov and Slava both have 8 missiles per launcher, only Azov, a Kara class used as test ship for this system had 6 missiles for each launcher. She did have rectangular hatches, like Kirov over the revolver launchers and had already that reloading mechanism with a seperate hatch.

One advantage of the Kirov arrangement is that they can reload at sea. Her arrangement is lined up with RAS equipment and she can therefore handle large missiles at sea, something a US ship can't as far as I know. They may, although I haven't seen any real confirmation of that, carry more reloads inside the "hold" lined up against a bulkhead or prepared on the tracks inside, to reload after firing a missile. They have plenty space inside, so I wouldn't rule out that option.

All said, this doesn't change the arrangement as it is and may or may not be the explanation for these outside reinforcements. If that is what they are.... On the Nedelin surveillance ships their presence and placement is more difficult to explain, so I'm really not sure if this is the true reason for these things.

I believe each s-300 round is stored in a sealed container. On slava and probably kirov, 8 such containers are loaded into each carousel. When firing, the carousel revolve to align the containing containing the selected round with the launch hatch and cold gas ejection mechanism. The cold gas ejector the shoots the round out through the top of the container and out the launch hatch.

It makes more sense to me to put each carousel in its own splinter plated silo, and load the missile container down the launch hatch, then to load the missile elsewhere and move it into a carousel inside the ship.

I'm not entirely sure, but if I am not mistaken, the S-300F stores a few rounds to a launch container, in the neighbourhood of three to a container if I recall, plus, of course, the cold launch equipment. I think it's a redundancy setup that they have that hold as it is - if something damages the core systems of one launcher, you can shift containers off that launcher to another one, allowing the missiles to not be entirely lost. Similarly, in some way, it's a pretty secure design with the stored containers, since if one container detonated, in that area, it would not detonate the entire magazine, owing to the law of conservation of energy directing the blast into the empty space of the hold. Additionally, consider that they developed the S-300F as an extension of the S-300, and thus probably aimed to retain as much operational/mechanical similarities to the land-based launchers, thus retaining the protective containers around the actual missiles, since the system was already like that, rather than go all out and cost more on the system development.

[quote="Neptune"]Actually they do... There are no continuous decks inside, there is just one big empty hold.
The reload arrangement is placed forward of the missile launchers on both sides. The missiles are entered into a hatch with a conveyor, once down they are placed in a sort of chariot and driven on tracks to the launcher where they are needed. Since they are pretty high (about 7m from the top of my head), that means there are no decks over such a height (include the chariot and height between bottom of launchers and bottom of compartment and you'll end up at about 9-10m of free space).
Aft of that is the pretty massive launch installation for the Granit, which, like on subs is reportedly filled with water before launch. That means there is a pretty big downward force there, together with the main buoyancy force of the compartment in front of it, this creates a rather big shear force on the hull.

Again, an assumption based on what we know about this ship and its systems. The actual figures and the necessity or non-necessasity of strengthening remains a question... I think it just rather big coincidence that they sort of stop where the empty space stops...[/quote]

This seems to be a odd arrangement. It would seem to me to make much more sense design the missile launch hatch to also be the missile loading hatch. To load the missile one simply line up the empty slot in a rotoary launcher with launch hatch, and the missile would be loaded straight down the hatch into its intended position in the rotory launcher. That would save the complexity and space requirements of having to move the missiles inside the ship.

The only reason I can think of for the space hogging arrangement actually used is if the rotory launchers were unreliable, and the designers wanted the ship to have the option to shift the missiles from one launcher to another while the ship is underway.

It appears the Russian rotory launcher arrangement for S-300 is far more space intensive than western 1 missile per silo hot launch arrangement, and is also more complex and less reliable, and hence is a far inferior arrangement.

Just a peripheral thought/observation in regard to your commentary on the S-300 launcher section, I would say that is probably a good reason why the Forward CIWS systems are mounted real close to that area, to put work towards stopping incoming threats to that area as best as possible...

For your reference:
[img]http://simhq.com/forum/files/usergals/2012/03/full-29508-29937-pu.jpg[/img]

Not entirely sure if this is Slava or Kirov, seen both, both are same from the inside, yet Kirov has a rectangular cover over the round launchers and of course an additional bank. Not sure if she has a centreline bulkhead between the two systems (8 on one side, 4 on the other) since both have a reloading hatch (which then again, could of course be accessible to both sides in order to be able to reload from one side without a centre bulkhead). From the pics I saw of the Kirov system it appeared that she didn't have a centre bulkhead (picture was taken from a rather long distance from the launchers, so unless the photographer was standing against that bulkhead....)
Always thought that was kind of a big weakness of these ships, if that part got hit, it would take quite some weight on water in, perhaps even breaking the forward part of (which happens on bulkcarriers from time to time).

Actually they do... There are no continuous decks inside, there is just one big empty hold.
The reload arrangement is placed forward of the missile launchers on both sides. The missiles are entered into a hatch with a conveyor, once down they are placed in a sort of chariot and driven on tracks to the launcher where they are needed. Since they are pretty high (about 7m from the top of my head), that means there are no decks over such a height (include the chariot and height between bottom of launchers and bottom of compartment and you'll end up at about 9-10m of free space).
Aft of that is the pretty massive launch installation for the Granit, which, like on subs is reportedly filled with water before launch. That means there is a pretty big downward force there, together with the main buoyancy force of the compartment in front of it, this creates a rather big shear force on the hull.

Again, an assumption based on what we know about this ship and its systems. The actual figures and the necessity or non-necessasity of strengthening remains a question... I think it just rather big coincidence that they sort of stop where the empty space stops...

[quote="Neptune"]I would say reinforcements for the hull. They are also present on some other Soviet/Russian ships. One of them is the Marshal Krylov class electronic surveillance ship, she's conventionally powered, yet also over 200m in length.
In addition to that, if you look at Kirov's structure, they seem to extend more or less exactly (certainly the lower one) underneath the big empty space of the SAM launchers, those missiles almost the height of the hull. The hull is pretty empty in that compartment, which means not so much strength, yet it carries some weight and has buoyancy (big forces acting on it). Seen such "steel fenders" on some merchant ships as well, typically ships with big empty spaces inside. In most of the merchant ships the reinforcement, strength is placed inside, yet on warships the inside volume is already at premium.
It also seems to extend midships towards the bilgekeel, where it seems to transform in a thicker plating.

I have the feeling that the knuckle in the hull on Peter the Great forward also corresponds to the placing of the SAM battery and may therefore be a consequence of that SAM installation.

These are however just guesses from my side. They may house something as well, or just be real "steel fenders" (although I sincerely doubt that).

As for Udaloy, such deployed VDS pics are available, I'll have a look if I can dig some up for you.[/quote]

Do the big missile silos in the fore parts of the ship penetrate seveal continuous decks like old gun turret barbettes, or do they exist in a sort of big empty hold similar to bulk carrier's holds? I would think as a warship with flood and fire control considerations, the designers wouldn't just create large open interior spaces for the missile silos without horizontal and vertical partitions. So it would surprise me if the hull needs to be reinforced from the outside like a bulk carrier's hull.

I would say reinforcements for the hull. They are also present on some other Soviet/Russian ships. One of them is the Marshal Krylov class electronic surveillance ship, she's conventionally powered, yet also over 200m in length.
In addition to that, if you look at Kirov's structure, they seem to extend more or less exactly (certainly the lower one) underneath the big empty space of the SAM launchers, those missiles almost the height of the hull. The hull is pretty empty in that compartment, which means not so much strength, yet it carries some weight and has buoyancy (big forces acting on it). Seen such "steel fenders" on some merchant ships as well, typically ships with big empty spaces inside. In most of the merchant ships the reinforcement, strength is placed inside, yet on warships the inside volume is already at premium.
It also seems to extend midships towards the bilgekeel, where it seems to transform in a thicker plating.

I have the feeling that the knuckle in the hull on Peter the Great forward also corresponds to the placing of the SAM battery and may therefore be a consequence of that SAM installation.

These are however just guesses from my side. They may house something as well, or just be real "steel fenders" (although I sincerely doubt that).

As for Udaloy, such deployed VDS pics are available, I'll have a look if I can dig some up for you.

There are ridges that runs part of the war around the hull of the Kirov, both above and below waterline. These look like degaussing cables on WWII ships. Since no other modern warships have external degaussing cables, I am guessing these are not degaussing cables either. Does anyone know what these are?

Krivak seem to have a different towed sonar than Kirov (NATO name Oxtail vs Horsetail). But Udaloy I seem to have the same towed sonar as Kirov. With the soviets you never know, but at least it is possible the VDA compartment and deployment mechansim on the Kirov would be the same as the Udaloy.

Anyway, the deployment mechanism in the VDA compartment seems to be quite complex. I had hoped to replicate the articulations the deployment frame and pulley system, but that may not be possible unless I can get good photos of what it looks like when it is in the deployed position.

Udaloy is considerably different, although the hatch mechanism is more more less the same. On Krivak there is also two small hatches on both sides of the lower edge that close once the sonar is in, I guess they prevent water ingress to a certain degree when the main hatch is open. In the end I haven't seen any of the Kirov class itself, so I'm not sure how that arrangement is.

[img]http://i894.photobucket.com/albums/ac145/Sevmash/005_zpsfaa8f795.jpg[/img]

Board doesn't seem to verify the size of this pic, so I'll give you a direct link:
Udaloy in dry dock, with the hatch open and seen from below. There seems to be a wheel to guide the wire connected near the top edge of the hatch. There are more pics of Udaloys with VDS operational or ready to operate. Don't have them at hand though. They aren't too hard to come by.

[url]http://i894.photobucket.com/albums/ac145/Sevmash/_1_1_zpsecfb60b7.jpg[/url]