Calling all Soviet Kirov-class (Орлан) Project 1144 & Slava-class (Атлант) Project 1164 fans

[Neptune]

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.

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.

[chuck]

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?

[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.

[chuck]

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.

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.

[carr]

..

[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.

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!

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

[carr]

..

[Timmy C]

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: viewtopic.php?f=48&t=8143&start=320#p291426

[chuck]

I will make the blisters ...

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

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.

[chuck]

Does anyone have any pictures clearly showing the stern tunnel, rudder and rudder posts of the Slava class? Slava has a single rudder in line with the a rather stern tunnel. I want to know if the stern tunnel on the Slava class begins before, at, or behind the rudder post. if the stern tunnel of the Slava class begins behind the rudder posts, I want to verify whether the rudder post is connected to, or is separate from, the keel skeg.

[Timmy C]

Did you see this one? viewtopic.php?f=48&t=8143&start=320#p289535

I think it's the best shot there is, though it's still not enough to answer your question.

[chuck]

Did you see this one? viewtopic.php?f=48&t=8143&start=320#p289535

I think it's the best shot there is, though it's still not enough to answer your question.

Yes, I've seen that. It is what prompted the question. I am working on a 1/350 trumpeter Slava model. It appears to me from that photo that the rudder post is actually located in the tunnel. Otherwise the tunnel must be very short. But I want to make sure.

If the rudder post is actually in the tunnel, then there has to be some distance between the top of the tunnel and the top of the moving part of the rudder, else big deflections of the rudder would foul the side of the tunnel. But if the rudder is located a little distance from the top of the tunnel, then I wonder if there is some sort of fixed fillet between the rudder and the top of the tunnel for hydrodynamic purposes.

Also, does anyone know what the Russians used single rudder on twin screw ships? It appears to me that such an arrangement would result in very non-linear rudder response. Slight deflections of the rudder would have little effect as the rudder would be in the wake of the hull skeg. But at some bigger deflection the rudder would enter propeller wash, and bam! the efficacy of the rudder would suddenly increase.

Also, what is the purpose of the tunnel under the stern? It appears to me that a big tunnel under the stern would channel water upwards, nullify the benefit of transom stern at high speed, and probably result in a big roaster feather water spray in the ship's wake.

[chuck]

Kirov class helicopter hanger can hold 3 helicopters in line abreast. The elevator is in the center position. So the two helicopters stowed to either side of the elevator must be moved side ways onto the elevator before they can be raised onto the deck.

I am building 1/350 kirov class model based mostly on the ptoyr velikey. I intend to have the hanger open. My ambition is to make elevator doors and the elevator itself operable like on the real ship.

California Bound posted a few great shots of the inside of the hanger. There are several interesting things in these pictures:

1. There are raised rails running parallel to the length of the ship under the helicopter stow to the side in the hanger. This makes it hard to simply turn the helicopter's wheels 90 degrees and roll the helicopter side ways onto the elevator.

2. There are raised rails running athrowt ships on the hanger floor on the other side, where there are currently no helicopter in the pictures.

This makes me wonder exactly how is the hanger floor arranged. The raised length wise rail under the helicopter suggests the helicopters themeslevs can't be moved sideways onto or off of the elevators. The raised crosswise rails suggests something large is meant to be moved sideways mechanically.

So my guess is the floor of the hanger actually comes in 2-3 mobile sections, one under each helicopter storage spot in tHe hangers and sized to fit the elevator. When a helicopter needs to be moved onto the elevator, the entire floor section with the helicopter attached moved on crosswise rails onto the elevator.

Does anyone have any information to confirm or refute my conjecture?

[Neptune]

Hello Chuck,

lots of questions. From the helicopter hangar thing, I think you are actually correct. I don't have any evidence on how it would work, but studying some pics, with your idea in mind, it seems pretty plausible. The Kamov aft wheels can't turn sideways anyway, and with front wheels alone, it wouldn't suffice to move the helo sideways on the elevator.

The rudder thing is open for speculation. I think they do that for ice navigation. Twin rudders are rather vulnerable in ice navigation (outward, exposed position of the rudders and if one rudder breaks it's difficult to get anywhere). Ice breakers also have single rudders, although often a three screw configuration. In the North and also in Baltic Sea, their ships go through ice infested waters too. They aren't going through thick ice, but they do go through areas with considerable amount of floating pieces of ice.
I may be wrong on this though, it might just because of internal space issues as well, where they simply don't have enough space for two steering gears next to each other. Unlikely though, as a different type of steering gear or different orientation may solve that issue.

A lot of speculations on the tunnel as well. I mentioned before that it probably has to do with the VDS arrangement, in order to facilitate retrieval of the fish.
Notably the Sovremenny doesn't have that tunnel, while it has no VDS either... As a further idea, if you look at those tunnels, you'll see that on both sides there is something like a shallower tunnel, sort of a tunnel that guides the prop wash. It may, whithout any direct mechanical advantage, be there to guide the prop wash away from the VDS during retrieval, in order to reduce the forces on the winch.

These are just some ideas, might be considered jibberish as well. I guess we'll never really know unless somebody makes some tests or some of the designers explain why.
It's an interesting feature for sure. And so are many of these oddities they tried on different ships.

[peppe]

for the hangar of kirov and of course for the other parts, it is a beautiful 360� foto in the site
http://www.inosmi.ru/images/16162/55/161625541.swf
is in russian but exploring a little bit you can find a panoramic view of the hangar with one helicopter.
ciao peppe

[chuck]

for the hangar of kirov and of course for the other parts, it is a beautiful 360� foto in the site
http://www.inosmi.ru/images/16162/55/161625541.swf
is in russian but exploring a little bit you can find a panoramic view of the hangar with one helicopter.
ciao peppe

Thanks. I think the panorama confirms my basic idea of how the hanger works. Basically the helicopters are secured to flat pallets. These pallets can be moved in the transverse direction inside the hanger mechanically on rails. To raise the helicopter up to flight deck level, the pallet with the selected helicopter is slide onto the elevator.

The pallets do not extend the full length of the elevator. Instead the helicopter is stowed with its nose pointed to the front of the ship. The pallet they stow on start just before the nose gear of the Ka-27, and extend just beyond the main gear. There are depressions on the pallet for accommodating the main gear tires.

I am not clear on whether the pallets slide directly onto the elevator, or if there is some mechanism that raises the pallets slightly to move them onto the elevator platform. The question arises because the top of the rails on the hanger floor appears to be at the same level as the top of the pallet stowed on the elevator.

Also I am not clear if the hunger is intended to house just 2 helicopters, leaving the elevator well clear, or if it actually intended to accommodate 3 helicopters, with one helicopter being stowed on the elevator platform.

The difficulty with stowing three helicopters is having 3 pallets in a row would keep any of them from moving. There are nonetheless two ways I can think of for 3 helicopters to be accommodated:

1. One helicopter rests directly on the elevator platform in the elevator well, and not on a pallet. When this helicopter departs, it would create room on the elevator platform for the other 2 helicopters pallets to move onto the elevator. The problem I've seen another photo of the elevator in the up position, but without the pallet on it. It clearly shows raised transverse rails on the elevator platform for engaging the pallets. So there is no way for the helicopter to roll off the elevator because the raised rails blocks the wheels.

2. There are 3 pallets, and there are some mechanical provision to enable pallets to be stacked. This way the helicopter stowed on the elevator would also sit on its own pallet. one this helicopter departs and the elevator lowers, some provision would enable another loaded pallet in the hanger to be slightly raised and the empty pallet stored underneath it. This way the other pallet can then slide onto the elevator for its helicopter to be delivered to flight deck.

However it is arranged, it appears to me the Soviets were thinking a lot about how to manhandle and secure helicopters in heavy weather, and were willing to accept a great deal of complexity and weight to enable the helicopters to be handed by mostly mechanical power. It seems to me there are much simpler ways to store and maneuver three helicopters if one were to be willing to use sailor muscle power or simple captan and winch to manhandle them if one was willing to restrict heliopcter operation to relatively calm weather.

[Neptune]

Good question.

It appears these pallets are at level with each other. The elevator platform seems to be slightly lower so they can roll straight on. Don't think they can stack. Also in the panorama, you can only see two platforms, one in place on the elevator, which is level with the one on portside, with the helicopter. Starboard position, is empty.
There is also a certain device, sort of manual winch, when you look straight down, not sure what that's for.

Another option for the third helicopter, would be to place it opposite. With the nose towards the stern, in that way the landing gear would be on the clear aft part of the elevator and not on the rail obstructed part. Wouldn't be too well lashed on that position though, since the rails for the wheels are much wider apart and there is no real sign of lashing gear. It would also clear some space to work on the other helo's like that, since only its tail would be placed between the other two helo canopies.

I do however question how far raised these transverse rails are... Possibly they can roll it over the rails, not needing any platform for the first helicopter.

On your previous question of the VDS I just found a picture in this very topic that shows the Kirov deploying a VDS which is same as the Udaloy's "space ship" type VDS.

[chuck]

I notice that on the side without helicopter and pallet, the top of the railing seems to come up to the same level as the top of the pallet on the elevator. This leaves no room on the top of the rails for a pallet if the top of the pallet on the elevator was at the same level as the top of the pallet on the sides of the hunger, as it seems to be on the other side. This puzzles me.

On an earlier photo in this thread that looks straight down the elevator well onto the elevator platform, it appears some of the rails on the elevator platform can be seen through a gap in the middle of the pallet sitting on the elevator platform.

I am wondering if the pallet actually doesn't sit as one piece on top of the rails, but rather slide in several pieces between the rails, so the top of the pallets can infact be level with the tops of the rails.

As to rolling helicopter wheels over the rails, I don't think that could be how it is intentionally designed. The amount of effort required to roll a heavily loaded wheel over a vertical obstruction is quite substantial. It would also impose quite a bit of lateral stress on the landing gear. If they really intended roll the helicopter across the rails, they could have designed gaps in the rails to accommodate the wheels.

I get the feeling that the mechanical arrangement of the hanger elevator/floor is even more complex than even meets the eye. Notice a substantial set of hydraulic jacks located behind the set of 4 vertical bicycle style roller chains on the bulkhead ahead of the elevator. The rolling chains probably lifts the elevator platform, but I don't know what these hydraulic jacks are meant to do. They clearly have nthing to do with the elevator doors, but have something to do with the elevator pltforms, but not while the elevator platform in the down position.

Notice also there are a number of cutouts in the center of the elevator, and what appears to be fold down retaining latches near the end of the platform. These are clearly not helecopter tie down points. It seems to me they are designed to engage recesses on the elevator platform and hold the pallet in a fixed position while on the elevator.

Also, just ahead of the pallet on the elevator floor, visible in the downward view into the elevator well, there are 4 small ramps with gaps in the middle. I am not sure what these are for. If I were to guess I would say they are there to allow the helicopter to roll slightly uphill, implying the top surface of the pallet is not always flush with the upper surface of the back half of the elevator.

[Neptune]

The jacks are the actual lifting mechanism of the platform/elevator.
As you can see the single chain going down, which doesn't make much sense since somewhere that chain has to "lose length" to lift the platform. By moving that grey platform down, which is connected to the three jacks, you shorten the chain by twice the length of the jacks.
I stink at paint, but I'm sure you'll get it. I'm fairly sure it works like this, although you can't really see the aft part of the chain and where it's connected. One time the jack's length (meaning fixed on the moving grey part) would only bring the platform halfway.
If they'd use winches (to coil up something), they'd probably use regular steel wires instead of these big chains.

[Neptune]

What puzzles me is why there is not a similar system on the aft side. There seems to be only a single chain there, perhaps connected to the forward part underneath the elevator, that would however require some additional heaving mechanism to shorten the chain.

I did find the platform shifting device/mechanism. In below picture you can see the motor with belt/chain which drives the drive shaft on top. Then No1 is the transmission down, by belt/chain inside that casing to the lower drive shaft No2. On both sides of this drive shaft you can see wheels, most likely cogwheels or sheaves which are operating/shifting the platforms on the most forward and aft rail. These rails are higher since they keep the platforms from moving forward and aft, while the more inside rails are supporting the platforms.

You did get me genuinly confused about that rail/platform/elevator post though... Not sure what you mean