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

[Timmy C]

I suppose this explains why the Russians were the ones who came up with Tetris as a computer game...

[chuck]

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.

I agree the pulley solution is elegant.

My issue with the pulley interpretations is mechanism doesn't need bicycle chain style cables. Bicycle style cables are heavier, weaker and more maintenance intensive, and makes sense only if the cable is being driven by toothed sprockets.

A procket drive can work with an endless chain loop and there would be no issue with having to shorten the chain to lift the platform.

I think the reason why there are 4 chain cables in the front and only 2 in the back is the Ka-28 is stowed nose forwards. So majority of the helicopter's weight would be on the chains in the front.

[chuck]

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.

The problem is if you look at the other side where there is a helicopter sitting on its pallet, it does not appear as if the pallet is raised above the floor level and needs to be constrained by taller rails on either side. Instead it appears the pallet slides in a recess on the floor and lies flush with the floor.

It is possible the floors of the hanger are not symmetric left and right.

[chuck]

I suppose this explains why the Russians were the ones who came up with Tetris as a computer game...

The image of a bunch of Soviet sailors trying to reorient a ka-27 Helix helicopter as it falls down the elevator well, hoping to make it end up right side up and in the right position to engage the landing gear detent on the hanger floor, comes to mind.

[Neptune]

I agree on the reason why forward has more chains.
Aft chains do seem to have some sort of motor (grey things both sides of the chain connections). Forward is not that clear. Still the question where that chain goes though, perhaps a compartment forward and aft of the actual hangar.
If we assume the chains are driven by cogs and seperate motors, I'm fairly sure the jacks would act as heave compensators, these things are used in shipping in order to absorb the shocks of pitching on cranes and winches etc. (we use one on our ships when lifting a 90t underwater buoy) Considering all the above and the clear intention to use the helos and elevator in bad weather, such a device wouldn't be such a bad/unthinkable addition. When the ship pitches in bad weather, her stern section would have quite an acceleration. The jacks would compensate for that while lifting a helo up, to avoid overloading the motors for the chains.

Why they use these chains is still a mistery though, might as well use regular wires. Arguably the chains are less maintenance intensive than wires, damage is also easier to spot on chains than on wires.

[chuck]

Has anyone seen a clear photo of the hull side torpedo tube doors on the pyotr veliky, or any other kirov class ship?

Trumpeter depicts the door recessed and extending across the hull side chine. I can't find any evidence of any rectangular hull side recess on any photo, and I suspect torpedo tube doors don't need to be so tall as depicted by trumpeter.

[Timmy C]

Does this photo help? http://navsource.narod.ru/photos/02/168/02168020.jpg
It does show a rounded rectangular panel that extends over the chine.

I'm assuming that's where they are, ish.

[DrPR]

This type of chain lift is used in forklifts, elevators, etc. where the load must be lifted equally all around. The chain doesn't slip on the sprockets and it doesn't stretch.

Phil

[peppe]

one more view of the torpedo tubes panel (on side of the container) and four foto of a model with the panel open
ciao peppe

[chuck]

It appears that for once, Trumpeter got it closer to being right. The models shown above with open torpedo doors got it wrong. The door is actually quite tall, and extend below the turn of the chine, just like trumpeter depicted. However, it also appears the doors fit almost flush and is nearly invisible when closed. Here trumpeter got it wrong.

Does anyone know of a photo showing the tube doors open? I think the way the door opens on the models shown above, where it hinges along its upper edge and sticks out beyond the side of the ship, is unlikely. My reason is the door is quite close to the waterline, and such an arrangement would make the door very vulnerable to wave damage even in moderate seas, rather line the hullside casemates on older battleships. I think more likely the door either slide horizontalled, or open by rotating up and into the hull on pivots located some distance behind the door so the door mostly retracts into the hull when opened. What do you think?

[Timmy C]

Oddly, the first photo Peppe posted shows the door ending above the chine, in contrast the one I posted...

[chuck]

Interesting. The lower edge of the door is a little indistinct in Peppe's first photo but I believe you are right.

I think Peppe's photo is part of a collection of on-board photos of Kirov taken when the ship is in Moth ball.

I am guessing the difference in the doors between Kirov and Pyotr Velikey is caused by the fact that the torpedo tubes are used for different purposes between Kirov and the 3 subsequent ships.

In the Kirov, the torpedo tubes really fired torpedos for short to medium range submarine defence. The long-range anti-submarine weapons on the Kirov was the SS-N-14 Silex missile, fired from two fat tubes on the bow.

In the 3 later ships, the Silex tubes were deleted, and the torpedo tubes have been repurposed to also fire the new SS-N-15 Starfish missile, which superceded the SS-N-14 Silex as the primary long-range anti-submarine weapons on these ships. I will guess the enlarged door facilitates the firing of the Star fish missile from the torpedo tubes.

[Neptune]

For Vodopad capability fixed torpedo tubes are required. I'm not sure whether the original Kirov had those. She might have had the rotating mounts, as seen on the model (although the model is a Peter the Great model, considering the Tombstone). The latter units would certainly have fixed tubes, much like Chabanenko and Neustrashimiy (although the latter has a different configuration of those).

The difference in torpedo launch system may explain the different in hatch size/configuration as well.

[chuck]

Why does vodopod need fixed tubes? Is there any photo of the fixed tubes on maushtrashminy or adm chabenenko?

[Sauragnmon]

I don't know of many other Russian missiles launched from torpedo tubes. This one's launched from a hatch-covered below-deck arrangement - could be a Kirov, but it might be something else. I don't recall if Slava Class have a similar hatch-covered torpedo tube set. Or this is Chabanenko, far as I can guess.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EDEnhtrjR3U

[Neptune]

Give me some time to dig it up.
On Neustrashimiy the torp tubes are the big hatches, 3 on either side iirc, you can see below the aft superstructure (or part of it), all single hatches/tubes. So it's very different from the others.

Here is a picture of Velikiy with the torp hatch open. Considering the size of that shadow I'm rather sure it sticks out when open.

[chuck]

Hmm, PV's hatch opening shown in the photo also does not extend below the chine, Eventhough the outline of the closed hatch appeared to do so. Perhaps the door is in two sections, dividing at the chine line. Only the upper door section is open in the photo.

I suspect fixed tube is a convenience made possibly by, not a requirement for, ss-n-15. I can't think of why the missile, once in the tube, would care if the tube rotated or not.

[chuck]

I don't know of many other Russian missiles launched from torpedo tubes. This one's launched from a hatch-covered below-deck arrangement - could be a Kirov, but it might be something else. I don't recall if Slava Class have a similar hatch-covered torpedo tube set. Or this is Chabanenko, far as I can guess.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EDEnhtrjR3U

The video shows torpedo tubes protruding out the hatch opening. This suggests the tube either rotates or telescopes. If the tubes are completely fixed, then it can't stick out and block the hatch from closing.

I think it is more likely the tube rotates into outboard position for firing position.

What do you think?

[peppe]

looking the foto it seem, to me, that the big "hole" is formed by two parts
up, darker, the hole
down, less dark, the shadov of hatch on the side of ship
ciao peppe

[Neptune]

I agree with Peppe, there is just a simple hatch, above the chine. Here is a close-up of Frunze's hatch. Notice the rust trail on the aft lower edge of the hatch.



The reason why it "should" be fixed tubes is that the forces are much bigger. For a torpedo you just have to eject it and it'll find its own way once underwater. Vodopad doesn't really swim as far as I know. She ejects, levels out and ignites its rocket engine. It therefore has to be ejected with enough force for that whole process to take place (and in order not to ignite its engine not too close to the ship). it needs enough speed and distance to align with the target before igniting. Therefore I suppose (yes, it's just that) that it needs a higher acceleration during launch.

Up till now, I've always seen the ability to launch Vodopad together with the presence of fixed tubes on the (surface) ship. Never seen that option with rotating tubes. It would also explain why they never upgraded the other Udaloys to the Sunburn/Moskit. On Chabanenko that option was done because she had her anti-submarine capability retained by Vodopad. In case of a regular Udaloy, such upgrade would mean quite a substantial structural upgrade rather than just switch some torpedos for Vodopads.

The above was just a suggestion I did long time ago without searching too much further into it. If you can correct me, with evidence, I'm really open to that (and love to see it!). The video appears to me as the Chabanenko or a Slava since the distance from the "step" in the main deck to the torpedo hatch is too small to be a Kirov. It is indeed an enigma why the tubes appear to be sticking out of the hull. It may be just an open hatch, behind the main hatch, much like the Neustrashimiy's hatches to avoid any water ingress through the tubes or it may indeed be a trainable mount after all.