The Ship Model Forum

Dear Maxim,
Really really thanks. I had seen the first video (from which i had taken the screen shot), but the second video is better, since it allows different points of view. The video captured my attention more than one year ago, but the modelling time is very little and therefore only now i came to try to replicate that strange object, that was identified as, possibly, a diesel 600 kw engine. Please thank the german people of the other forum for their kind, quick and proactive reply. Indeed the replica of that device is challenging, since any enlarged picture gives very temptative borders to its shape.

There at this forum, they also identified the two ships: Bezuderzhnyy (???????????, 406) and Gremyashchiy (????????, 404) in Severomorsk in 2018.

Probably the source for the photo:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_SMIvHumrYY

The answer in another fora was that this could be one of the 600 kW diesel generators:
https://www.forum-marinearchiv.de/smf/i ... 904.0.html

Do you know which ships these are and when they were photographed?

Dear all,
Attached you can find the pictures of 2 Sovremenny under demolition (screenshot from a video I found). I encircled in red an object that I do not understand what it can be. Can anyone help me? I haven�t found any other image of it, neither in operation nor under demolition. It seems something folded or maybe not. If anyone has any idea, they are welcommed.

First point is correct, however, it might be that the actual bollards on the smaller ships are on the large side... Also, bollard dimensions are not always directly related to their holding power, the main item regarding holding power is what's below deck. You can put a very large bollard on a normal deck plate and it will be simply ripped out by a small force. It's the framing below that deck plate that creates the bollard's holding power.
It's also somewhat a choice during construction, I know from experience that two similar sized LNG carriers had on one of them 72t SWL bollards, while the other one had 100t SWL bollards and they were the same size, so the forces acting on them during a moored period would be quite similar. So practically during construction they opted for a bit more safety on one of them. It also depends on whether you are going to tow on the bollards or only moor on them.

For anchors it's the same thing, the calculation depends on how much force you are going to have on your vessel with the wind from the bow. I didn't calculate anything, but I can imagine the wind force on a Tico or Spruance would be quite large compared to a similar sized vessel with a more sleek superstructure (a Slava class for example).
Additionally you have the type of anchor (high holding power or not) and the chain, as a lot of holding power from an anchoring system is actually created by the weight and drag of the pile of chain you put on the bottom rather than the anchor itself. So a smaller anchor with a slightly larger chain may have an equal or better holding power. Or they may simply have a different rule regarding how much chain they pay out in relation to the depth they anchor in.

I observed something interesting and curious from numerous onboard photos of Russian destroyers and cruisers. Using the rungs of the railing as a scale, it appears to me that Russian destroyers, cruisers and even the huge 28000 ton Pytor velickiy, all use bollards and fairleads of apparently same size and design. They also seem to have more or less the same number of bollards and fairleads regardless of the size of the ship. One would think bigger ships would need bigger bollards and fairleads for stronger lines able to resist greater pull, or failing that more bollards and fairleads?

Does anyone know if my observation is incorrect?

Also, it appears to me Russian warships uses smaller anchors than might be expected for ships of their size. Using known height of hull in dry dock as a scale and measuring from photographs of the ship in dry dock with its anchor chained played out and anchor sitting upright on the floor of the dock nest to the ship�s bulbous bow, it appears to me Pyotr velickiy uses anchors of the same size as and very similar design to the 4.5 ton stern anchors on the Bismarck. 4.5 ton anchor is rather puny for a 30000 ton ships, no?

USS Alaska, the WWII era american large cruiser similar in size to the Pyotr Velickiy, had 14 ton anchors.

Thanks, Timmy!

Can't help with the first query, but to the second query: you're right, it's one large barn-door-style hatch and two circular objects outboard.

See following Getty's Images photos:

https://media.gettyimages.com/photos/-i ... =2048x2048
https://media.gettyimages.com/photos/-i ... =2048x2048
https://media.gettyimages.com/photos/-i ... =2048x2048
https://media.gettyimages.com/photos/-i ... =2048x2048 (This one's the best shot)
https://media.gettyimages.com/photos/-i ... =2048x2048
https://media.gettyimages.com/photos/-i ... =2048x2048

2 questions regarding the Udaloy II class destroyer Admiral Chabenanko:


1. On the Chabenanko. the sides of the forward superstructure block at main deck level contain two large cutouts screened by what appear to be mesh or fine grating. The area covered by the grating is located directly behind the big P-270 moskit/Ss-N-22 sunburn missile launchers.

These grating does not correspond to any ventilation or air intake on Udaloy I ships. There is no reason I can see why Udaloy II will need some huge new vents that Udaloy I didn�t need. So my suspicion is these grating do not cover any real vents in the superstructure. Rather they probably just afford some additional protection to an semi-enclosed area above the whether deck created by blast deflector behind the Moskit launchers. So the area behind these gratings is not properly inside the superstructure, buy just a sort of screened promenade on the weather deck.

If that is correct, then on the trumpeter model I intend to cut away the molded mesh pattern on the superstructure surface that close off these cut outs, replace it with a fine photo etch mesh, and scratch build the true sides of main superstructure behind the mesh.

Can anyone point me to any on-board photos showing this part of the admiral Chabanenko?

2. On Udaloy I class ships, the quadruple torpedo tubes are exposed above deck just behind the break of f�c�stle and fire over the side of the ship. There is a pivoting reload cradle right behind the torpedo tubes. Presumably the reload torpedo can be placed on carts at the mid-ship underway replenishment station via the use of the prominent crane, and then shuttled around the deck on rails until they can be located next to the reload cradle Where they can be pushed up through the pivoting reload cradle to be aligned with the individual torpedo tubes and be pushed into the tubes. On the Chabanenko, the break of f�c�stle has been moved aft to enclose the torpedo tubes, so the torpedo tubes are now completely below deck and normally protected from weather. They fire instead out the side of the ship through doors that open upwards, like on the Slava and Kirov classes. Being completely enclosed below deck, it would seem the Udaloy 1 method of reloading tubes via replenishment station and trolley rails around deck would not work unless there is some big door at the break of,f�c�stle that would enable the torpedo carts to be pushed through the break of f�c�stle. On the trumpeter model, there is only a normal sized water tight door. The cart rails stop and does not go in through the break of f�c�stle. Yet it clearly depicts a pivoting reload cradle straddling the cart rails right behind the f�c�stle break, where it could not possible play a role in loading the torpedo tubes. So I think trumpeter clearly merged features seen in Udaloy i with known layout of Udaloy ii and then added some conjectures where it had no firm information, , without realizing the mixture of features it depicted can�t be but nonsense, because the Udaloy I features it borrowed can�t work with the Udaloy ii configuration it depicted. My guess is the break of f�c�stle isn�t completely enclosed as depicted by trumpeter, and accessible only through a standard size water tight door. Rather it is open to the back, So the torpedo tubes are enclosed outboard by the hull side, protect4d overhead by the extended f�c�stle deck, but not enclosed to the rear. Does anyone know of any photos showing close up of the break of f�c�stle on udaloy ii Adm Chabanenko, preferably seen from the rear?

Thanks.

I guess the battleships of the past didn't have to be as accurate as a Sov with a much smaller calibre. In the end accuracy is everything nowadays, so I wouldn't dismiss it entirely.

Their rudders are like that for easier manoeuvering, the configuration with a single rudder and twin props is the worst possible one for manoeuvering as the rudder only enters the props thrust at larger angles. By making the rudder longer, it (partially) enters that thrust field faster. A rudder without a propeller directly forward of it, is generally useless, also the reason why rudders don't work when running the engine astern.
Manoeuvering wasn't really their priority during design phase I guess.

Another observation, over the last century rudders on ocean going ships seems to me to generally evolved towards higher aspect ratio, that is to say the front back dimension of the moving part of rudder tend to shrink relative to the up and down dimension. So rudders tend to become narrower but deeper.

This is understandable because high aspect airfoil tend to suffer less from tip effect and is thus more efficient and create less drag for the desired effect the generate.

But the Soviets seem to be unique in defying this trend. Udaloy, sovremenny and Slava all have low aspect ratio rudders more reminiscent of big centerline rudders seen on big ships built before the 1950s.

Hmmm, I believe even in WWII, naval shore bombardment did not require the ship to come to a dead stop and maintain perfect station. So I suspect the sovremennys didn�t need such precise station keeping either for shore bombardment.

The propulsion pods are neat, but their rationale seems a bit of mystery.

The other classes do not have pods, however I believe it may have to with one of the Sovs main roles, shore bombardments. The pods may be there to help them keep position for shore bombardments with the two double 130mm's.
The other classes don't have such a role of course.
May also have helped for mooring as I've heard they (Soviet Navy) rarely used tugs to moor, but then you'd expect the same pods on other designs of that time...

Yes, I verified from a dry dock photo on airbase.ru that the Sovremennys don�t have it. Instead of an indentation, they actually have a small raised protrusion at the center of the bottom of their stern. I think that protrusion may have to do with the small extensible auxiliary propulsor pod housed in their stern.

Which bring me back to these propulsion pods. It would seem odd to me that sovremenny should have these pods if other contemporary Russian surface warships didn�t.

On Soviet submarines, similar pods are used to provide a silent running capability for getting past SOSUS. But the sovremennys were not primarily ASW ships. So if dedicated ASW ships like Udaloy didn�t need these pods, Then the ones on sovremenny were probably not there to enable them to creep silently.

If they are a backup to give the sovs a get home capability if the main propulsion plant is incapacitated, then why wouldn�t other contempary russian warships also need such a feature?

Yet I found several drawings, illustrations and actual photos of the ships showing these pods on sovs after just a short search, and no hint at all that their contemporaries such Udaloy, Slava, Krivak and Kirovs have anything similar.

As far as I remember, Sovremenny doesn't have it. For the time being, I believe it might have something to do with VDS retrieval (Sov doesn't have a VDS and therefore wouldn't need it). If the VDS would come slightly forward by swell or current during retrieval it would slide sideways on a normal hull, this cone could center it as it's being pulled up.
That's only a theory of course...

Udaloy's conical stern indent is just barely visible in this photo posted on page 16 in this thread: viewtopic.php?f=49&t=34696&start=300#p499002

As for the Sovremennies, you can try browsing through the dozens of pages on the Airbase.ru forum pertaining to the class and hope something's there: http://forums.airbase.ru/2007/05/t55722 ... a-956.html

Mamy Russian warships seem to have a distinctive conical indentation in the middle of their hull bottom right below the transom stern. Kirov has it, Slava and Krivack also have it. I am guessing this is for modulating water flow to facilitate deployment of the towed sonar.

Can anyone confirm whether Udaloy and Sovremenny has this as well, and if possible point me to photos of these?

Also, is the extensible Azipod right behind the sonar dome on the Sovremenny unique to that class or do some other Russian warships also have something similar?

Most later soviet attack submarine have auxiliary propulsion pods. On the Akula they are retractable. So I am wondering if late Soviet surface combatants also have it.

Thanks for the link Maxim. An interesting upgrade. Such beautiful ships!

Here a video of the modernized Udaloy class Marshal Shaposhnikov - now called frigate, with new main gun, new Kalibr VLS, new Uran launchers, at least a new radar on the foremast and one the bridge:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_cont ... e=emb_logo

Some ships of the Udaloy class are currently modernised.

The quad Rastrub-B Silex launchers below the bridge wing will be replaced by each two quad Uran launchers. One 10 cm turret will be removed and replaced by a VLS for the Kalibr missile family (anti-ship, anti-submarine, land attack).

https://navyrecognition.com/index.php/n ... ships.html

That would be an interesting conversion! The question remains if the radars and other sensors will remain unaltered.