3(13)

C O N T E N T S3(70).2013

PUBLISHING HOUSEMOSCOW

Director General

Valeriy Stolnikov

Deputy Director General

Ilya Kolikov

Chief Editor

Mikhail Khondoshko

Editors

Alexandr Buharov

Maxim Khrustalev

Dmitry Sergeev

Designers

Mariya Marakulina

Timofey Babkin

Print-manager

Anton Patsovsky

Office-manager

Olesya Lazareva

Circulation: 5000

The magazine is registered in the Committee for Press of the Russian Federation. Certificate № 016692 as of 20.10.1997. Certificate № 77-15450 as of 19.05.2003.Any material in this publication may not be reproduced in any form without the written permission of the pub-lisher. The editorial staff’s opinion does not necessarily coincide with that of the authors. Advertisers bear re-sponsibility for the content of provided materials.

ARMS, 2013

ADDRESSP.O. Box 77, Moscow, 125057, RussiaTel.: + 7 495 459 9072Fax.: + 7 495 459 6042E-mail: [email protected]

www.interarms.ru

ARMS MARKET

4 Here are turks coming

NAVAL AMMUNITION

8 Artillery rounds

LAND FORCES

10 The KBP’s Combat Modules

as effective means for the

armored vehicles upgrade

LAND FORCES

12 Bakhcha combat module –

weapon of the 21–st century

MODERNISED VEHICLE

16 Т–90MS main battle tank

PROPULSIONS

18 Motor Sich. The most

powerful engines

MODERN

20 Su–35 the last and the best

in fourth generation

WEAPONS

26 Flyung over wave.

Russia builds unique

hovercrafts

NAVY

36 Silent killers of enemy

missile carriers. Conventional

submarines in nuclear world

HISTORY

44 The Birth of Russian nuclear

fleet. Who and where was

engaged in development of

the missiles against aircraft

carriers and nuclear–

powered cruisers

EDITORIAL

Great respect for you, Turkey!

Dear organizers, participants and guests of the IDEF-2013! The editorial staff of the A4 Publishing house

«Arms» magazine glad to meet once again with you on the hospitable Turkish ground. So, we have one more chance, as they say in Russia – to meet the people and prove ourselves.The IDEF fair has a really impressive list of par-

ticipants and displays. The most famous weapons manufacturers and military companies of the fifty leading countries on the field of military technolo-gies will present their proven and up-to-date de-velopments. Hundreds of specialists will attend a Tuyap Fair Convention and Congress Center in Is-tanbul, where the fair will be held. It is also expect-ed that some Ministers and their Deputies as well as other military authorities will visit the exhibition stands and pavilions. They will visit the fair in order to get acquainted with the modern defense tech-nologies, various military industry developments and up-to-date military equipment presented for exports on the arms world market. Many partici-pants will attend a fair with already formed tasks – to sign delivery contracts or to purchase some of presented military hardware. For sure, the exhibition displays and stands of the

Russian Rosoboronexport holding company that presents developments of famous Russian weap-ons manufacturers and design centers will not dis-appear in a wide variety of military companies.Of course, the Turkish developers and manufac-

turers of military equipment traditionally will dem-onstrate a large and wide exposition as they have a number of interesting developments.All the achievements in development of national

high technology industry could not be possible without the efforts made by government and its senior leaders – Abdullah Gul, the President of Tur-key and Recep Tayyip Erdogan, the Prime Minister of Turkey. A great educational and propaganda campaign among population of the country real-ized by national authorities of all levels resulted in patriotic enthusiasm that meets all, no matter – great or small, achievements of Turkish defense industry.That is why we have to say: “Great respect for you,

Turkey!”

Mikhail Khondozhko,Editor

ARMS MARKET

4 ● ARMS Defence Technologies Review

is a common knowl-edge that Turkey is a resort and cheap con-sumer goods para-dise. Therefore, our

newsmen and political scientists are greatly surprised if they found something iron and electronic be-sides leather jackets, low-karat gold and fruits.Meanwhile, if we will look closer

at this country, we will find in addi-tion to hotels and markets a num-ber of development centers, fac-tories and maritime shipyards that already nowadays deliver dozens of models of combat equipment to armed forces. It could be easy to understand if it was MRAP-type (Mine Resistant Ambush Protected)

armored vehicles which produc-tion is still not available in our own country. An Altay main battle tank (MBT) was demonstrated on IDEF-2011 defense fair. It was de-veloped in cooperation with South Korean company – Hyundai Rotem. The weight of this combat vehicle is 60 ton. It is equipped with 1500 hp diesel engine and 120 mm smooth-bore gun. The tank will be pro-duced of only Turkish-made com-ponents and its delivery to armed forces will begin in 2016.It is also amazing as only 15 years

ago the Turkish stock of tanks was comprised of relatively up-to-date Leopard (1А and 2А), old US M48 and M60 as well as Wehrmacht Pz. III and Pz. IV combat vehicles. In

1996, the leadership of Turkey took a decision to equip its armed forc-es with new-generation tanks. They examined even Ukrainian Yatagan main battle tank but the choice was made in favor of the German qual-ity. Currently, Turkey makes a reso-lute steps – it upgrades its Leopard and M60 tanks and performs a dis-posal of old models.The Turkish company Aselsan has

already developed its own upgrad-ed version of Leopard 2A4 that was named as Leopard 2NG (Next Generation). The tank is equipped with new electronic, mechanical and hydraulic systems. Besides that, it has a dual fire control sys-tem, inertial navigation system, du-al periscope system, external re-

It

HERE ARE TURKS COMING

ARMS MARKET

3(70).2013 ● 5

motely-operated combat module, stabilization system, additional an-ti-mine and ballistic armor as well as friend-or-foe identification sys-tem. Some upgrade technologies will be used on Altay MBT as its de-velopment started only in 2007.Moreover, the Turkish defense in-

dustry develops corvettes, high-technology patrol ships of small capacity and high-speed boats. It has a serial production of multi-ple launch rocket systems (MLRS), unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV) as well as aircraft components and ammunition. Furthermore, the de-fense industry was tasked to devel-op in addition to MBT the country’s own frigate, combat helicopter and fighter-aircraft. It is well-known that nowadays

Turkey is one of the five largest importers of arms in the world. But its own production is also in-creasing. If in 2004, the total vol-ume of defense industry contracts was approximately $1.4 billion and exports of military products was less than $200 million, then in

2010 these figures amounted to $2.7 billion and $634 million, re-spectively. The national industry covers not only more than half of the needs of the Turkish Armed Forces, but also exports its prod-ucts. In 2012, the volume of export increased by 43% and reached $1.262 billion.Among the active importers of

Turkish weapons are Azerbaijan, Egypt, Bosnia and Herzegovina, and other countries. Currently the list of customers for military equip-ment with “Made in Turkey” trade-mark includes not only small coun-tries but also the leaders of this market – the USA, Russia and Great Britain. Last year, the main export-ed military products of Turkish de-fense industry were spare parts for aircrafts including helicopters, tanks and armored vehicles. In 2012, the USA again topped the list of Turkish defense industry prod-ucts importers as it imported the aircraft/helicopter spare parts and various types of weapons and am-munition for $490 million.

The achievements of Turkish de-fense industry are great, but it is forgotten that the impulse for that was the US embargo in 1975 – as a result of Ankara intervention on the Cyprus conflict. It was a short-term embargo affected on Turkish defense policy – they realized that the Americans were not so close friends and the best hope was for national capabilities. Today we can see the results of system and con-sistent efforts of the state for near-ly forty years. The private business funds in addition to effective MOD leadership and support of defense industries became the main source and the basis of the military-indus-trial miracle in Turkey. The defense industry of this country enjoys the political and military leadership re-spect. Industrial development in-cluding the military-industrial com-plex of the Republic of Turkey is considered as an organic part of the real (not fake) modernization of the country. Therefore, any success including modest achievements in this field meet with genuine en-

THE GROWTH OF MILITARY PRODUCTION IN TURKEY (MILLION USD)

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Total volume of sales 1377 1591 1720 2010 2317 2319 2733

Exports of military equipment 196 337 352 420 576 670 634

Exports of civil aviation equipment - - 135 195 208 172 219

ARMS MARKET


thusiasm. It means that this mod-ernization is supported by state pa-triotism (for some reason we call it nationalism). Unconsciously we compare this situation with Russia where the private companies actu-ally ousted from the defense indus-try or nationalized, and in fact ex-propriated, and where all reference to the word «Russian» it seems to be excluded.The increasing needs of the

Turkish army give a new opportu-nity for our manufacturers and ex-porters of arms. Although Ankara is generally oriented for western military-technical market, its mili-tary and political priorities could be changed. Nowadays, Turkey dem-onstrates the increasing rate of in-dependence from Europe and even from the United States. The suc-cess of the country’s modernization and increasing distance from the western countries as much could be a suitable platform for promo-tion of Russian economic interests in Turkey.So far the Turks used the Russians

exclusively as an instrument of pressure on the European and American suppliers of armaments. Such a situation was in case related to helicopter tender, when the bet-ter in technical and economic terms the Russian offer was rejected. The same thing happened when the Turkish government chose main battle tank. The above mentioned cases, of course, will be taken into consideration when making future

decisions on the transfer of Russian defense technologies to Turkey.However, if Turkey will continue its

tendency to strengthening the rel-atively weak by now military-tech-nical independence, Russia will be a natural source of defense-orient-ed intellect and technologies for Ankara.

Mikhail Timoshenko, Military Expert


NAVAL AMMUNITION

espite all the variety and strength of missile weap-onry, naval artillery still remains an important component of different

class ship’s armament and coastal units of Russian and foreign navy.

The main missions of naval artil-lery are as follows:■■ Anti-aircraft ship defense in com-

bination with AA rocket systems.■■ Defeat of surface and land tar-

gets.■■ Support of landing of marines.■■ Land forces fire support.■■ Counter landing missions (coast-

al artillery).■■ Patrol and boarder service, coun-

ter piracy missions etc. The missions, mentioned above,

are carried out using respective artil-lery rounds that, in combination with auxiliary rounds, constitute ammuni-

D

Sergey Rusakov, Joint Stock Company

“Mechanical Engineering

Research Institute”

ARTILLERY ROUNDS

3(70).2013 ● 9

NAVAL AMMUNITION

tion loads of naval and coastal artil-lery systems.

JCS “NIMI” is the leading devel-oper of 76 mm, 100 mm and 130 mm artillery rounds that present the firepower of modern Russian naval artillery.

Nowadays there are the following rounds for AK-726 and AK-176 naval gun mounts:■■ Rounds with high-explosive pro-

jectiles (HE) and VGh-67 point det-onating fuze.

■■ Rounds with HE anti-aircraft pro-jectile and AR-51 LM radio prox-imity fuze.The rounds are developed to elim-

inate small visible surface and land targets as well as air attack means at ship’s close defensive line, includ-ing “dead” zone of AA rocket sys-tems’ range. Auxiliary rounds with practice and drill projectiles are also in service.

As for AK-100 and A190 the follow-ing rounds are developed:■■ Rounds with HE projectile and

V-429 point detonating fuze. ■■ Rounds with AA projectile and

DVM-60M1 mechanical time fuze.■■ Rounds with AA projectile and AR-

32 radio proximity fuze and its modifications.The rounds are designed to de-

feat warships and transport vessels in duel combat, to suppress land tar-gets as well as to defeat air attack means at ship’s close defensive line. The ammunition loads also contain drill, practice and discharging rounds.

130 mm rounds for AK-130 naval gun mount and A-222 coastal artil-lery defense system (as part of artil-lery system “Bereg”) include:■■ Rounds with HE projectile and

4MRM base fuze (penetrating projectile, detonates behind tar-get area).

■■ Rounds with AA projectile and DVM-60M1 mechanical time fuze.

■■ Rounds with AA projectile and AR-32 radio proximity fuze and its modifications. The rounds mentioned above

are designed to destroy enemy’s de-fense bases, warships and transport vessels, air attack means at close de-fensive lines. Auxiliary rounds in-clude drill, warming, discharging and practice ones.

The modern naval ammunition are fixed, that allows to use all naval gun mounts’ potential in rate of fire, which is up to 120 rounds per min-ute (e.g. in 76 mm guns). Yet it re-quired thorough work in develop-ing rounds and assembly technolo-gy. Due to motion along a compli-cated feeding tract and during seat-ing to the gun’s chamber, a round is subject to strong reversal axial and lateral overloads.

The mentioned rounds, devel-oped by JCS “NIMI” in cooperation with other research institutes and plants are supplied to foreign coun-tries as well as to Russian Navy. Effectiveness and high reliability of rounds are provided by decades of complex R&D, technologies and quality control during manufacture process.

Today researchers, designers and production engineers are carrying out the mission of sufficient im-provement of naval artillery rounds that would be competitive among the world’s best rounds. We should replace obsolete, outdated items with more effective and universal ammunition. Simultaneously am-munition suits have to be amended with new types of artillery rounds that will sufficiently improve func-tions and possibilities of naval artil-lery during preparation and combat.

The progress in these spheres is connected with and based on the achievements in science and tech-nology, new fields such as micro-electronics, information science and nanotechnologies as well as in tradi-tional science.

As for fuzes and detonation de-vices the breakthrough in micro-electronics is a question of principle. Multi functionality and adaptability to target of the so called “smart fuz-es” allows to drastically improve am-munition lethality against various types of targets.

The technology of data input with the use of inductive fuze setter in combination with digital fire con-trol system allows inputting all pos-sible precise settings in fuze or det-onation device.

Today for trajectory correc-tion it’s possible to use informa-tion from satellite navigation sys-

tem GLONASS on board a projec-tile with subsequent generation of steering commands to actuating correction device.

Traditional ways of modernizing artillery rounds are also applicable, for example, the use of low-sensitiv-ity explosives, bursting charges’ ini-tiation schemes optimization, the use of preformed fragments includ-ing those of heavy alloys, develop-ment of prefragmented bodies etc.

Another very important route of ammunition development is be-tween services and inside services ammunition unification. This sphere has obvious economic and technical advantages.

Our enterprise also plans to de-sign explosion-safe fireproof ergo-nomic and endurable package made of composite and plastic that will re-place traditional wooden package.

Naval artillery rounds develop-ment is a part of State armament pro-gram (GPV-2020). Implementation of the program will allow to equip naval and coastal artillery with ef-fective, reliable and characteristical-ly competitive rounds.

LAND FORCES


he lightly armored ve-hicles under conditions of present-day war con-flicts are the best multi-purpose means, which

allows solving a wide range of mis-sions aimed to engagement of all tar-gets typical for land-based combat operations.In the sector of the lightly armored

vehicles armament KBP is a world-wide leader being a developer of ar-mament for the BMP-1 (the 73-mm weapon), BMP-2 (the 2А42 gun of 30-mm and guided weapon) , weapon system for BMP-3 (automated FCS, the 2А72 gun of 30-mm, 2A70 gun-launcher of 100-mm and guided weapon), upgraded fighting module B05Ya01 for BMP-2 and for BMD-4 in whole.The weapon systems now offered

by KBP to equip lightly armored vehi-cles are based on the armament de-veloped and produced by KBP, includ-ing 30-mm guns 2А42 and 2А72, 100-mm gun-launcher 2A70, 30-mm gre-nade launcher AG-30M, 100-mm HE-F

projectile 3UОF19 Vishnya with con-tact and proximity fuses and 30-mm grenade GPD-30 of increased lethality and firing range, guided weapon, day-and-night precise FCS.The fire control system comprises the

combined gunner’s sight, panoramic commander’s sight, weapon stabilizer with digital control, ballistic comput-er with a sensor unit, automatic tar-get tracker.The automatic FCS ensures capabili-

ty of operative survey and precise fir-ing from stationary position, on the move and afloating, by day and night against targets moving at a high ve-locity, including air threat; under se-vere weather and terrain conditions at any firing distances suitable for the weapon with all ammunition types, including newly developed ammuni-tion.With small size and modular design

FCS can be used within both new ar-mored vehicles and previously up-graded tanks and IFVs, meanwhile they require minimum retrofitting for FCS installation.

Combat module B05Ya01 that weights up to 3 tones has been de-veloped within the frame of the in-fantry fighting vehicle BMP-2 (BMP-1) upgrade. It presents the weapon sys-tem, which comprises the unified au-tomatic FCS, modern Kornet-E ATGW, 30-mm automatic gun 2A42, grenade launcher AG-30M and 7.62-mm ma-chine-gun PKT.The combination of the flat trajectory

fire of the gun projectile and the loft-ed trajectory fire of the grenade al-lows engaging hostile manpower and soft vehicles.Heavily protected targets are en-

gaged by the Kornet-E weapon sys-tem with first shot at distances of up to 5.5 km. Engagement of modern and future tanks equipped with sys-tems of active protection is provided through firing of two guided missiles within one beam (tandem). Single-seat fighting compartment

that weighs up to 1.8 tones is de-signed to equip lightly armored vehi-cles, including wheeled ones (BMP-1 IFV, BMD-2 AAV, BRD ARV). The mod-

T

The KBP’s Combat Modules As Effective Means

For The Armored Vehicles Upgrade

LAND FORCES

3(70).2013 ● 11

ule comprises the Kornet-E ATGW, 30-mm automatic gun and 7.62 machine-gun PKT.This armament ensures effective en-

gagement of tanks, manpower and vehicles without armor protection.Combat module B8Ya01 has 3.2–4.0

tones in weight and is intended for installation on vehicles like BMP-3, BMD-3, BMD-4, weighing as much as 20 tones. It is offered for mounting on light tracked and wheeled tanks. Combat module B8Ya01 is equipped with GLONAS/GPS navigation system that allows for indirect firing from the 100-mm gun-launcher.The guided missiles of increased le-

thality with tandem warhead and a firing range of up to 5.5 km are able to effectively engage armored and soft land-based targets as well as low-flying aerial threats. The 100-mm HE-fragmentation projectiles of en-hanced lethality and precision ballis-tic engage hostile manpower, hard-

ware and engineering constructions by direct and indirect firing at distanc-es of up to 7.0 km.Combat vehicles with new module

get high effectiveness, versatility and can operate not only as IFVs, but they also can be used like light tank, ar-tillery system, antitank weapon and AD gun.Due to such armament the motorized

infantry and assault units can fight au-tonomously without assistance of ar-tillery and tanks.By this means the KBP’s novel devel-

opments and works on modernization of the whole nomenclature of lightly armored vehicles allow to provide cru-cial superiority over any current hos-tile armored vehicles, including tanks and helicopters.

A.G. ShipunovN.I. Khokhlov, L.M. Shvets

Combat module Bakhcha-U

BMD-4

BTR-90

T-72

BMD-2

BMP-1, BMP-2

BMP-2 combatmodule

Unified automatic FCS

BMP-3

BTR Rostok

When this issue was getting ready we received the sad news that on the 86th, died Arkady Shipunov, the first deputy managing andscientific director of KBP, Academician of the Russian Academy of Sciences, the International and the Russian Engineering Academy, the Russian Academy of Missile and Artillery Sciences, Honorary Academician of the Russian Academy of Natural Sciences, doctor of technical sciences, professor.Publishing house A4 expresses sincere condolences to

the family and friends of Arkady Shipunov with whom we have cooperated fruitfully for many years.

LAND FORCES


he experience of the last decades has shown that lightly armoured hard-ware (IFVs, Armoured Assault Vehicles, APCs,

etc.) constitutes a significant compo-nent of any land grouping both in lo-cal conflicts and in integrated all-arms battle. Infantry fighting vehicle is the main transport asset of the infantry and its weapon system remains the main fire support means for a motor-ized infantryman.Throughout its history KBP

Instrument Design Bureau has been developing small-arms and gun ar-mament as well as guided weapons for Land Forces, Air Forces and Navy. A large scope R&D work in respect of armament structure and its efficiency has been carried out. All that provided

for development in 1980-s the unique weapon system for the new IFV.In 1987 the new BMP-3 IFV was put in

service with the Soviet Army. Exactly the original armament package of high fire power (2A70 gun-launch-er, 2A72 automatic gun and 7.62 ma-chine-gun integrated in a single mod-ule and an automated fire control sys-tem) developed for BMP-3 by KBP Instrument Design Bureau (Tula city) predetermined popularity of BMP-3 vehicle in the world market and now-adays it is in service with many Armies worldwide.Within the past twenty years a high

experience of combat vehicles oper-ation was gained. Scientific and tech-nical achievements in the areas of sighting systems development, am-munition upgrade, computer engi-

neering and new electronic compo-nents created the prerequisites for de-velopment of the new fighting com-partment with an armament pack-age featuring high performance spec-ifications that meet modern require-ments. A great upgrade potential of the BMP-3 vehicle was realized in the course of Bakhcha combat module development.Research and development activities

were carried out within the three ar-eas:1. Armament package and fire control

system upgrade;2. Development of the new fighting

compartment and its components;3. Development of the new guided

and conventional ammunition of in-creased lethality.

T

BAKHCHA COMBAT MODULE – WEAPON OF THE

21-ST CENTURY

LAND FORCES

3(70).2013 ● 13

MAIN FEATURES OF THE BAKHCHA B8YA01 COMBAT MODULE

Purpose Designed for installation on wheeled and tracked vehicles weighing from 14 to 30 tones

Armor protection Differentiation (for each type of chassis)

Combat weight, kg Differentiation (for each type of chassis)

Distance measurement error, m No more than 10Armament of fighting compartment:

-elevation laying angle, degree

100mm gun-launcher 2A7030mm automatic gun AP 2A727.62mm machine-gun PKTM in a single unit

-6…+60

Automatic loader Single for 100mm round with guided missile and HE-F rounds

Ammunition load (ready to fire), pcs: - rounds with guided missile - 100mm rounds with HE-F - 30mm rounds - 7.62mm cartridges

4345002000

Firing rate, rnds/min - GM - 100mm HE-F

6-812

FCS

Indirect firing

AutomaticPrecisionAll-weather day-and-night

ensuredDegasifier available

ATGW 3UBK23-3 ArkanFiring range, mGuidance systemJamproofness

100-5500Laser beamHigh

100mm HE-F rounds 3UOF19

Firing range, mDestruction of fortificationsReduced area of destruction, m2 - With contact fuse - With proximity fuse

Up to 7000mEnsured

368600

ARMAMENT PACKAGE AND FIRE CONTROL SYSTEM UPGRADE

The work was carried out in the fol-lowing directions:■■ Fighting vehicle efficient employ-

ment at night. To provide this the fire control system (FCS) was out-fitted with an integrated gunner’s sight featuring 3-rd generation thermal imager and laser range-finder. At the same time the sight retained missile guidance channel and sighting channel of variable magnification.

■■ Increasing commander’s combat efficiency. The FCS was outfitted with commander’s panoramic sight with low-level TV-camera and laser rangefinder. The sight extends surveillance capability, broadens the conditions for firing

all types of ammunition by day and at night and in case of emer-gency – using the gunner’s ther-mal imager.

■■ Automation of the crew’s combat operation. To provide this the FCS was outfitted with a TV/TI auto-matic target tracker and the fight-ing compartment – with a single loader for 100 mm rounds (short artillery rounds and long guided rounds). Thus, an automatic load-ing for all types of 100 mm rounds is ensured as well as automatic target tracking is provided. More-over, precise “fire-and-forget” op-eration is provided when firing an ATGM.

■■ High-effective firing against low-flying targets is ensured thanks to new fire algorithm that includes

all required factors of fire, as well as a HF rangefinder, TV/TI auto-matic target tracker, commander’s panoramic sight mirror with high elevation angles (up to 60 º).

■■ High-effective firing from station-ary position, on the move and being afloat, against moving and static targets is ensured thanks to the use of automatic FCS outfitted with a range of sensors and digital units as well as to the availability of integrated multi-purpose com-mander’s and gunner’s sights.

■■ High reconnaissance performance of the sights is ensured thanks to availability of sighting, thermal imaging and TV channels (1.5÷2 times increase in number of tar-gets detected per time unit when compared to standard IFVs).

LAND FORCES


■■ Control of the FCS parameters thanks to built-in test equipment.

■■ Capability to fire 100 mm HEF from indirect firing positions. To provide this the fighting com-partment is equipped with GPS/GLONASS sensors that show com-bat vehicle coordinates. Ballistic computer features an algorithm ensuring indirect firing provided the target coordinates are avail-able. Firing can be done to the range of up to 7000 m.

■■ High precision of ATGM firing on the move at night and in adverse weather conditions (using ther-mal imager) thanks to integration of optical channel, TI channel and ATGM guidance channel within a single sight.

■■ New digital weapon stabilizer pro-vides for high precision of stabili-zation and maximum speeds of weapon slewing in elevation and azimuth channels up to 60º.

FIGHTING COMPARTMENT AND ITS MECHANISMS UPGRADE

■■ Variable types of armour provide for fighting compartment installa-tion on chassis of various weights. Structurally it is implemented in the form of additional add-on ar-mour.

■■ The ammunition load of 100 mm HEF rounds is increased up to 34 pcs, guided missiles – up to 4 pcs. Loading is done by a single loading mechanism without distracting the gunner from target tracking.

■■ Reliability of the fighting compart-ment mechanisms is increased thanks to the use of smaller actua-tors in the single automatic loader. At the same time automatic loader doesn’t require any greasing and is immune to dust and dirt due to the use of the rollers that squeeze out dirt and dust (self-cleaning ef-fect).

■■ An upgraded 100mm gun-launch-er providing for firing the new HEF rounds with a range of 7000 m as well as future munitions is used.

■■ Gas contamination of the fighting compartment is reduced thanks to the employment of ejector that in-creases gas ejection outwards the fighting compartment when firing 100 mm gun-launcher.

B8Ya01 fighting compartment

2A70 gun-launcherPKT machine-gun

PPB-2 backup sight

Gunner’s sight

Elevation laying drive

100mm HEF shell

Accumulator with 4 guided missiles

HEF shells con-veyor per 34 pcs

Cases and links collector

2A72 gun feed channel

Azimuth laying drive

Commander’s panoramic sight

2A72 automatic gun

LAND FORCES

3(70).2013 ● 15

■■ Accuracy of firing all types of am-munition is increased thanks to the employment of the built-in muzzle reference system that helps the gunner to check and adjust 100 mm gun-launcher and 30 mm au-tomatic gun in an automatic mode.

■■ Accuracy of target designation from the commander’s sight to the gunner’s sight is increased (< 1 mil). For the first time target designation is given not only in azimuth but in elevation that is of primary importance when firing against aerial threats.

■■ Manual loading of 100 mm rounds of both types is also provided (when there are no transported personnel) for the crew when the conveyor gets jammed, for exam-ple, in case of mine blast.

■■ Vehicle safety in case of mine blast is increased thanks to extension of the gap between the floor of combat module and the chassis bottom up to 160 mm and vertical location of the rounds.

■■ Gunner and commander entrance and leaving the turret became easier thanks to enlargement of turret hatches by 30%.

AMMUNITION UPGRADE■■ The 3UBK23-3 round and the

9M117M guided missile are devel-oped providing for the following (when compared to a standard round):- engagement of targets outfitted with ERA;- increase of armour penetration from 550mm to 700 mm;- extended fire range from 4000m to 5500 m.

■■ The new 3UOF19 Vishnya HEF round is developed providing:- extended fire range from 4000m to 7000 m- enlarged by 2 times fragmenta-tion area (up to 360 m2) - elimination of the round weight marks and increase of fire accura-cy due to higher stability of muz-zle velocity.

Further upgrade of the 3UOF19 Vishnya HEF round regarding fitting it with proximity fuse allowed to en-large the reduced area of destruction from 368m2 to 600m2. The carried work made it possible for

the Bakhcha fighting compartment to outperform almost by 2 times the M2A3 Bradley fighting compartment

in fire power. The said fighting com-partment was successfully test fired on the chassis of BTR-90 APC, BMP-2 and BMP-3 IFVs. It can be mounted on the other carriers of corresponding weight and payload capacity.The main advantage of this vehicle is

the availability of two-caliber artillery systems - 100 mm and 30 mm and au-tomatic FCS providing for fire mis-sion fulfillment with various ammu-nition types while stationary and on the move against a range of targets (tanks, IFVs, helicopters, lying infan-trymen, etc.) with high efficiency.The said combat module is serial-

ly manufactured by KBP Instrument Design Bureau.The engineering solutions realized in

the combat module have a good up-grade potential. Thus, availability of TV and TI channels, automatic target tracker as a component of FCS even nowadays provide for combat module unmanned employment.

N.I. Khokhlov, L.M. Shvets

BMD-4

BTR-90

BMP-3

Patria

BAKHCHA-U COMBAT MODULE

MODERNISED VEHICLE


evelopment of T-90 started in 1986. In January, 1989, the man-ufacturer began tests of four tanks. The combat

vehicles were tested during one and a half year in mountainous, swampy and sandy areas as well as on the roads. Test engineers decided to indicate in technical passports only data received in worst conditions –

up to this point they indicated averaged data. In usual conditions these tanks demonstrated bet-ter results. In 1992, the enterprise started serial production of T-90. However, it was a difficult time for Russian defense manufactur-ers. Export was the only chance to save tank-construction capa-bilities. But the main problem was home bureaucracy. Confrontation

between manufacture and bureau-crats lasted for five years. In 1997, at Abu Dhabi Exhibition

military specialists from India dis-played a sincere interest in T-90S (export version). Their requirement was to upgrade the combat vehicle as it should be competitive during the whole service life. The new tests of this tank were performed in Thar Desert, where the air temperature was up to +55 degree Centigrade. The announced characteristics have been not only maintained but also improved. After oil chang-ing from Russian into British one, the engine power increased up to 1,100 hp. After that, Indian Minister of Defense Mr. D.Singh said that «according to its effectiveness, the T-90S will be the second deter-rent power after nuclear weap-on». Therefore, Indian authorities took a decision to re-equip the 21st armor regiment by T-90S main battle tanks. The governments of two countries signed an agreement about licensed production of 1,000 T-90S tanks in India till 2019, along with delivery of 600 tanks from Russia. In August, 2009, the first ten Indian-made tanks were delivered to Indian Armed Forces. After India another countries

signed contracts for T-90S delivery – Algeria, Turkmenia, Azerbaijan and Uganda. The total number of exported tanks exceeded a num-ber of 1,000 vehicles! As a result, this combat vehicle, designed in the town of Nizhny Tagil, became the most traded main battle tank (MBT) in the world within the peri-od from 2001 till 2010. The market niche of T-90S is unique. Money, which enterprise received from export, allowed the company to upgrade the tank and design the new T-90MS combat vehicle. Let`s compare the last version of

T-90 (designed in 2011) with its for-eign opponents – Abrams, Leopard, Leclerc, Challenger and Merkava main battle tanks. Weight of Russian T-90 tank is

48 ton. Weight of opponents is – from 55 ton (Leclerc) up to 70 ton (Merkava). Multilayered armor of T-90MS is designed from steel-composite-steel construction

Т-90MS MAIN BATTLE TANKWe have a wrong idea that it is quite difficult to sell any product with brand «Made in Russia». The following event overturned our mind – T-90 was recognized as the most traded combat vehicle in the world. It happened after killing criticism from military department authorities – one of them said that «it is good and deep upgrading of T-34 tank». He was right only in one thing – both tanks are equipped with diesel engines. However, the engine of T-90 is twice as power-ful – 1,000 hp. Another common feature – both tanks were designed to fight against equal or more powerful enemy in the wide theaters of military operations characterized by lack or poor infrastructure. These characteristics are common for all tanks designed in Nizhny Tagil.

D

MODERNISED VEHICLE

3(70).2013 ● 17

with built-in reactive armor and active protection system. Reactive armor consists of rectangular con-tainers which contain explosives. When the enemy round hits the tank, reactive armor detonates and diverts the round or explosive jet. The effectiveness of this design is equal to one-piece steel armor with thickness of 1,600 mm. The inner part of the hull is covered by frag-mentation protective kevlar. The active protection system is sensi-tive to laser irradiation of antitank missiles – T-90 immediately turns its gun in dangerous direction and sprays the smoke cloud. Besides that, the tank is equipped with electro-magnetic protection system from mines. The opponents has also multilayered armor with effective-ness equal to one-piece steel armor with thickness of 1,200-1,400 mm. Some of these combat vehicles are equipped with reactive armor as well as Merkava tank is equipped with active protection system. Armament. In this field our tanks

hold leading positions. So, T-90MS is equipped with 125-mm smooth-bore gun. At the same time, this gun can be used as a launcher for Invar guided missiles, with killing range of 5 km, it provides effec-tive destruction of the enemy tanks, helicopters and protected combat emplacements. Nowadays the main feature of the armored com-bat is range of fire – if tank will have a small range of fire it will become an easy target for its enemy. The effective range of fire of tank guns is about 2 km, at the same time the Invar launcher gives an opportu-nity for T-90 to extend its range of fire by 3 km. It means that our tank will have 3-5 minutes of time gap; it will allow launching from 5 to 10 missiles. Only Israeli Merkava is equipped with the similar gun and LAHAT missiles. T-90 was born with the most

advanced fire control system and X-diesel engine with the power of 1,500 hp – the opponents reached the same characteristics only towards the end of nineties. But, due to lack of financing, both proj-ects were delayed till now. Currently, special attention is given to

improvement of target acquisition and fire control at day and night – the system is equipped with ther-mal imaging device, GPS/GLONASS units and the whole system is inte-grated into tactical-level automatic C2 system. The driver`s compart-ment is equipped with a manual control, automatic transmission, night-vision device and rear-view camera. Engine power is – 1130 hp. There is no doubt in good market

perspectives of T-90MS tank – it was demonstrated on arms exhibi-tions in Delhi and Paris, which were held in 2012. At present time it is still not clear what version of tank will be produced for Russian Armed Forces. Our military authorities say that the turret with combat com-partment of T-90 complies with all requirements, but other parts of tank – engine, transmission and so on – do not comply with their requirements. On the one hand, if we compare

the T-90 diesel engine and manual transmission with French Leclerc small-sized turbo-charged diesel engine with power of 1,500 hp and automatic transmission – it looks old-fashioned. It looks like all components were

designed in order to improve the mobility of tank. Of course, western main battle tanks look very glori-ous in temperate European climate.

However, hydro mechanic trans-mission is heavier than mechanic transmission – it means that the weight of tank will also become heavier. So, the 1,500 hp engine will be a real dilemma. Besides that, the maintain systems of tank will also increase the weight of tank as well as its fuel consumption. All above mentioned words mean

that the western tanks are not able to move on difficult terrain which is easy to operate for T-90 combat vehicles. Both military operations in Iraq demonstrated that with-in two days of operation a large number of tanks got out of ser-vice. Another reason that limited the US armor mobility was a large consumption of fuel – they had to refuel the 500-halon fuel tanks every day. Due to lack of fuel US Abrams tanks could not overtake the Iraqi Republican Guard T-72 tanks! At that time, the US mili-tary supply system was the best in the world and there were not the enemy artillery firing or any air strikes. At the same time, the Iraqi forces did not have any sup-ply at all. Now look at the map of Eurasia,

please and answer the question – what tanks will dominate in this area in case of military conflict – heavy western tanks or cross-country, reli-able, easy to operate T-90 tanks?

PROPULSIONS


oday Motor Sich JSC is well known as the manufacturer of sev-eral thousand turbo-shaft engines TV3-117

for medium-class military and civil helicopters such Мi-14, Мi-24/Mi-25/Мi-35/, Мi-8МТ/МТV, Мi-17, Мi-28, Ка-27, Ка-29, Ка-31, Ка-32, Ка-50, Ка-52 and their modifications. The company produces the most powerful engines in the world D-136 for the heaviest lift-er Mi-26 and its modifications.Motor Sich engines fly aboard he-

licopters manufactured in Russian Federation in more than 60 countries worldwide.

For further improvement of heli-copters flight performance and ef-ficiency during hot and high op-eration, in September 2007 Motor Sich accomplished work on heli-copter engine ТV3-117VМА-SBМ1V incorporating continuous takeoff rating that provides, when neces-sary, continuous operation of both engines at takeoff for more than 5 (up to 30) minutes. As regards performance, this engine complies with up-to-date technical require-ments, and in 2007 was issued Type Certificates of IAC Aviation Register and State Aviation Administration of Ukraine.

In 2009 the ТV3-117VМА-SBМ1V engine was put in service in MoD of Ukraine.In the course of tests in 2010 at

Konotop aviation repair plant ‘Aviacon’, the Мi-8МТV helicopter equipped with ТV3-117VМА-SBМ1V gained record height of 8100 m.In 2011 the ТV3-117VМА-SBМ1V

successfully passed sate bench tests in Russia and confirmed compliance with requirements of MoD of Russian Federation .In 2012 the ТV3-117VМА-SBМ1V

engines successfully passed prelim-inary flight tests on Мi-8МТV-5-1 helicopter at MIL helicopter plant.

T

Motor SichThe most powerful engines

PROPULSIONS

3(70).2013 ● 19

On accomplishment of tests the heli-copter was transferred to the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation and now is being tested in flight.Today Motor Sich is busy with heli-

copter projects. The company orga-nized design bureau and helicopter manufacturing facilities carrying out development, designing, upgrading, repair, and re-engining of helicopter products.The company received the

Certificate from State Aviation Administration of Ukraine recogniz-ing Motor Sich JSC as the designer of aviation products.For improvement of performance

characteristics, reliability as well as extension of Мi-8 helicopters oper-ating life and increase of their effi-ciency, Motor Sich developed and incorporated the program of their upgrading in Мi-8МSB version providing for installation of ТV3-117VМА-SBМ1V 4Е engines of own manufacture in place of obsolete ТВ2-117s which are not manufactured any longer.The engine inherited the best de-

sign solutions tested on basic engine ТV3-117VМА-SBМ1V, which allowed to establish a new assigned life of 15000 hours/cycles, introduce 2.5-minute and 60-minute emergen-cy ratings (equal to 1700 hp) with one engine inoperative, which were not available in the ТВ2-117, and 60-minute rating equal to that of takeoff.The new engine is equipped with

electrical starting system, thus the process of upgrading Мi-8 helicopter in Мi-8МSB version does not require

installation of auxiliary power unit (APU), which considerably reduces the time and cost of modernization as compared Мi-8МТV helicopters.Maximum weight of cargo carried

inside the Мi-8МSB cargo compart-ment is 4000 kg, and that on exter-nal load sling system is 3000 kg. The Мi-8МSB helicopters can be deliv-ered in transport, passenger, search and rescue, fire-fighting, agricultural and military versions.In September 2012, at International

Air Show ‘AVIASVIT 2012’, the Мi-8МSB helicopter powered with new generation engines ТV3-117VМА-SBМ1V, Series 4E, gained 8250 m attitude, setting a new world record in E-lg class (FAI category for helicopters with takeoff weight of 6000 to 10000 kg).In 2012 Motor Sich organized

overhaul of Mi-2 helicopters with standard build-up. The helicopters are overhauled by qualified employ-ees at specialized overhauling facil-ities in Vinnitsa, the company’s sub-sidiary since 2011.If necessary, avionic equipment

of overhauled helicopters can be upgraded and compartment conver-sion carried out.As the main disadvantage of Мi-2

helicopters, powered with GTE-350 engines, is poor reliability and insuf-ficient power of engines, Motor Sich JSC develops and implements pro-gram on overhaul and upgrading of Мi-2 helicopters in MSB-2 version.At present the experimental work

is underway on MSB-2 helicopter, in which the GTE-350 engines will be replaced with up-to-date and cost-

efficient engines AI-450M. The up-grading will considerably improve its flight performance. As compared with Мi-2 helicopters, the MSB-2 are expected to:

- save fuel consumption per hour by more than 30 %;- increase static and dynamic ceil-ing;- considerably improve helicopter hot and high performance.

Motor Sich gained great experience with CIS and non-CIS countries and offers the market a wide range of promising new engines for helicopters.

Vyacheslav A. Boguslayev, President Motor Sich JSC

The TV3-117VMA-SBM1V series 4E turboshaft engine

MOTOR SICH Motorostroiteley, 15,

Zaporozhye, 69068, Ukraine

Tel: (+38061) 720-48-14Fax: (+38061) 720-50-05

E-mail: [email protected]//www.motorsich.com

MODERN


u-35 is positioned as air-craft complex intend-ed for heavy multi-role fighters Su-27 and Su-30 niche filling before

mass furnishing of the 5th genera-tion aircraft. Furthermore, scientif-ic and technical groundwork is used in maximum possible degree during fighter development, which was cre-

ated in the network of the 5th gen-eration perspective aircraft complex (PAK FA) program. In turn, Su-35 has a function of specific flying laborato-ry perfecting many technologies and processes of T-50.

Upon declaration of aircraft in-dustry representatives, Su-35 over-tops all aircraft of 4+ generation ex-isting abroad by its combat efficien-

cy in tasks of gaining air superiority, closely approaching to 5th genera-tion American aircraft complex F-22A (and overcoming it by attack facili-ties). A number of foreign analysts al-so agree with such assessment.

At first sight Su-35 practically does not differ from Su-27. But dif-ferences become more evident by close examination. Though they

SU-35 THE LAST AND THE BEST IN FOURTH GENERATION

S

MODERN

3(70).2013 ● 21

have a local character, concern-ing certain units and parts only, it seems that aerodynamics and de-signers of Sukhoi Design Bureau have well worked with aircraft air-frame, seeking to eliminate, as far as possible, all shortcomings and imperfections revealed during 30 years of Su-27 exploitation, and also implement a number of ad-vanced technologies, avoiding structure radical alteration requir-ing long and expensive tests.

Su-35 has no air brake on the top of the fuselage, its functions are as-sumed by differentially-moving rud-ders. Landing gear is reinforced and nose landing gear is two-wheeled because of Su-35 increased take-off weight.

Su-35 airframe design provides in-creasing the internal fuel load more than 20% - by the full loading it is filled 11 500 kg in comparison with 9 400 kg of serial Su-27. With the external tank the total fuel quantity on Su-35 reach-es 14 500 kg. Aircraft is equipped with in-flight refueling system (hose-cone structure) with telescopic probe on the portside. Rate of fuel pumped in refu-eling reaches 1 100 l/min.

It was announced that fighter air-frame reinforced design would al-low considerable gaining of resource extension – up to 6 000 hours or 30 years of use. Life time up to the first checking and reconditioning re-pair and overhaul period are extend-ed nearly to 1 500 hours or 10 years of use. Airframe design reinforce-ment should provide Su-35 maxi-mum take-off weight increasing up to 38 800 kg. But the empty air-craft weight is also increased, closely reaching 19 000 kg.

Antiradar detection measures are realized at Su-35 development. Furthermore, effective radar cross-section decreasing is provided in centimeter waves range in sector of +/-60 degrees in heading plane.

However Stealth technology is ad-opted rather moderately by Su-35 (as though by American F/A-18E/F Super Hornet, and also European Rafale and Typhoon). The aim of its applica-tion – not to make aircraft complete-ly invisible (by the way it is impos-sible), but to turn to good account the rate of ranges of radar mutual detection in rendezvous with ene-my fighters.

The use of a new complex digi-tal flight control system KSU-35 de-signed by MRPC Avionica, solving the tasks of Su-35 several particular systems at once, provides improve-ment flight and maneuvering per-formances. Besides, KSU-35 at the same time assumes functions of ac-tive safety system.

The major difference of Su-35 from preceding aircraft of Su-27 fam-ily is a new power plant with more powerful and advanced NPO Saturn engines of 117C type, which repre-sent the advanced modernization of by-pass turbojet afterburning en-gine AL-31F. Engines are equipped with thrust vector control system (UVT). Thrust in modes Maximal, Full Reheat and Extreme Reheat makes 8 800, 14 000 and 14 500 kgf respec-tively.

The base of armament control sys-tem (ACS) of aircraft complex Su-35 is radar system with passive phased ar-ray, known as Irbis-E in export vari-ant. System is developed by JSC V.V. Tikhomirov Scientific Research Institute of Instrument Design (NIIP) and is a further development of Bars station mounted on Su-30MKI fight-ers furnished to Indian Air Force and Su-30MKM serving Malaysian Air Force. Radar feature is the system of antenna’s mechanical corrective turn allowing extend scanning sector in horizontal plan from +/-60 up to +/120 degrees. It should be said that at the moment this technology is ad-opted in Europe and used in phased

array radars intended for modern-ized Eurofighter EF2000 Typhoon.

Passive phased array Irbis-E of 900 mm in diameter is mounted on two-degree-of-freedom electrohydraulic actuator ensuring the turn by azi-muth and roll. System can detect and track up to 30 air targets when keep-ing continuity of space scanning. It ensures possibility of simultaneous missile attack of up to eight air tar-gets or up to four ground ones (by keeping the air control).

Irbis-E has unique facilities, over-coming foreign analogs facilities, range characteristics practically ver-ified by flight tests. It can detect air targets with effective radar cross-section equal to 3 m2, at the distance up to 400 km.

Complex of optoelectronic infor-mation systems used on Su-35 (and demonstrated at MAKS-2011) is partial-ly unified with analogous complex of fighter MiG-29M(M2) and, as it seems, it is close by conception to optoelec-tronic complex of American fighter F-35 having passive infrared system with distributed aperture AN/AAQ-37 with assembled multi-channel opto-electronic system EOTS. It includes: ■■ six conformly placed detectors in-

stalled over airframe surface and

Cheif-pilot of Sukhov Company Sergey Bogdan and President of Sukhoy Michail Pogosyan

MODERN


ensuring spherical scanning with generation of mnemo- and video images of the ambient space

■■ two laser radiation detectors (OLO)

■■ optical-location search-and-track station intended for ground tar-gets attack (OLS-A/G), made in container variant, mounted on ex-ternal suspension

■■ optical-location search-and-track station intended for air targets at-tack (OLS-A/A)

OLS-A/A has sufficiently high per-formances comparable with ones of the best foreign systems of analo-gous purpose. It has operation lim-its by azimuth equal to +/-90 degrees and by angle of elevation -15/+50 de-grees. Maximum detection range of air target of Su-27 class is 90 km in rear hemisphere and 35 km in the forward one. Measurement of range to air tar-get can be executed by laser range-finder at a distance up to 20 km, and to the ground target – up to 30 km.

Cockpit management information system is designed with use of two large-size (9x12") full-color multifunc-tion LCD displays MFI-35. By its infor-mation area the system of these two displays MFI is capable to work in mul-tiwindow mode, is not inferior to pan-oramic MFI of aircraft F-35. Display definition is 1,400x1,050 pixels.

MFI are intended for displaying of graphical, alpha-numerical and sym-bol data, images from onboard TV and infrared detectors with overlay-ing of alpha-numerical and symbol synthesized data, as well as video signal forming and delivering in the video recording system in a digi-tal form.

Multifunction control panel with integrated display processing unit is provided for operating data display-ing and commands issue with the help of corresponding buttons on the display frame. Besides, there is a wide-angle head-up display HUD-1M in the cockpit with integrated pro-

cessor ensuring the field of view of 20x30 degrees.

Su-35 onboard equipment, sys-tems and armament control is pro-vided with buttons and switches on the control stick and throttle con-trol levers (TCL) as well as with MFI frame’s buttons. As a result HOTAS concept is realized on the fighter (pi-loting without taking away hands from controls).

The aircraft is equipped with modern navigation and radio com-munication equipment, systems pro-viding fighters group actions as well as with high-performance electronic countermeasures complex. Su-35 ar-mament can be placed on 12 units of external suspension. Its weight can reach 8,000 kg. As the other aircraft of Su-27 family Su-35 has a build-in gun GSh-301 (30 mm, ammunition load – 150 cartridges).

Mass media give the following gen-eral performances of fighter Su-35:

Fighter's advantages and short-coming can be assessed by its com-parison with foreign analogs only, with which it should carry on fight to the death for gaining air superiori-ty in an armed conflict. Among mod-ern foreign combat aircraft which may really fight with Su-35 in air combat, in the first place it should be named American multifunction fighter Boeing F/A-18E Super Hornet, serving USA Navy, and advancing in export As Su-35, Super Hornet is a modernized variant of 4th genera-

ISSUED AND PLANNED TENDERS FOR FRIGATES

Length 21.9 m Height 5.9 m Wing span 15.3 mWing area 62.2 m2Take-off weight:

- normal, at incomplete refueling 25,300 kg - maximum 38,800 kg

Maximum fuel reserve in internal tanks 11,500 kg Maximum armament weight 8,000 kgService ceiling, 18 kmService range with maximum refueling:

- ground-level at М=0.7 1,580 km - at cruising altitude with cruising speed 3,600 km

Ferry range with two external fuel tanks 4,500 km Maximum rate of climb (at the altitude 1,000 m) not less than 280 m/s Maximum flight speed:

- at the altitude 200 m 1,400 km/h - at the altitude 11,000 m 2,400 km/h

Maximum limit load factor 9.0 Take-off run by normal take-off weight,in Full Reheat mode 400-450 mTake-off run with ski-ramp 200 m Landing run by landing on concrete runway with drag parachute and wheel brakes, by normal landing weight 650 m

MODERN

3(70).2013 ● 23

tion aircraft which passed into ser-vice in 1980s. As export object Su-35 must actively compete in inter-national aviation market with uni-fied strike fighter Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II. But the most seri-ous opponent of Su-35, the aircraft which can be theoretically met in air fight by Russian aircraft and its part-ners ones, undoubtedly is American aircraft of 5th generation Lockheed Martin F-22A Raptor – the most pow-erful and modern American machine intended for gaining air superiori-ty (USAF should receive the latest 187th aircraft of this type in May, 2012). Therefore it would be interest-ing to compare even approximate-ly these aircraft complexes in gener-al terms, using available channels of information.

In the comparison of Su-35 and F-22А it is aerodynamics arrange-ment conformity that comes to the front. Both are built according to nor-mal aerodynamics design with all-moving tailplane and twin-stabiliz-er vertical tail (canard which was so popular in 1980-1990s, is not used). Fighters’ power plant includes two by-pass turbojet engines with reheat chambers. F-35 differs from them by its power plant having one by-pass turbojet afterburning engine.

Su-35 and F-22A are close by theirs weight parameters: the weight of empty F-22A (according to offi-cial data given by manufacturer) is 19,700 kg. From all appearances, Su-35’s feature approximates to 19,000 kg. For comparison, empty fighter F/A-18E weight is somewhat less – 14,550 kg, and empty serial F-35A after all necessary modifications should have weight about 15,000 kg, by Americans’ assessment (what will decrease its possibilities to act as a fighter).

Take-off thrust-to-weight ratio of Su-35 by normal take-off weight equal to 25,300 kg, with incomplete fuel reserve, is 1.14, and F-22A (by 25,800 kg) – 1.23. This is rather more than other fighters of 4+ and 5th generation have (except T-50 may-be). However, this characteristic can have in the foreseeable future mod-ernized Super Hornet, Typhoon and Rafale with engines having aug-mented thrust.

Compared aircraft have perfect aerodynamic characteristics (that was more than once shown at inter-national air shows). So, Su-35 accel-erates from 600 km/h to 1,300 km/h just by 21.8 s, and its rate of climb is more than 280 m/s. For comparison, initial rate of climb of F/A-18E is 228 s.

Su-35 has pronounced inte-gral design and fuel tank capacity higher than F-22A has (containing 11,500 kg and 8,200 kg respective-ly). Considering approximately equal efficiency of engines this ensures for Sukhoi aircraft a service range equal to 3,600 km. F-22A service range is not superior to 2 500 km. Aircraft fer-ry range (with external fuel tanks) is equal to 3 000 and 4 500 respectively. For comparison, fighter F/A-18E has ferry range of 3,330 km.

At the same time, Raptor’s creators was able to made three quite capa-cious sections inside the fuselage (to-tal capacity - 6.73 м3) accounting for approximately 20% of airframe inte-rior volume, whereas it was not possi-ble to do something similar on Su-35 (as though on Super Hornet). It should be said that these sections have 5th generation fighters only, such as F-22A, F-35 (USA), Т-50 (Russia) and J-20 (China), and the last three did not pass into service yet.

Maximum speed (one of the main combat aircraft performances) of Su-35 is 2 400 km/h. F-22A performance is somewhat lower 2 100-2 200 km/h. This is specified in particular by the use of incontrollable air intakes on American fighter; their design pro-vides low radar detectability, but in

the same time, limits Mach num-ber by 2.0 – 2.1. By specialists assess-ments of Lockheed Martin, if F-22A uses controllable air intakes, it will flight with M = 2.45, but in this case it will become more detectable. It should be noted that F/A-18E and F-35А aircraft also having incontrolla-

ble air intakes, have maximum speed even less than Raptor has (1,900 and 1,700 km/h respectively).

Fighters F-22А and Su-35 are equipped with by-pass turbojet af-terburning engines Pratt&Whitney F119-PW-100 (11,700/15,900 kgf) and 117C (8,800/14,500 kgf) respectively. American engine corresponding to the 5th generation level has high op-erating characteristics. Engine’s stat-ed life time, by the manufacturer statement, makes 7,000 hours, that is comparable with the life time of aircraft itself. F119-PW-100 modern-ization potential is also very high. Advantage of Russian engine, be-sides its characteristics (which are al-so very high), is a high degree of de-sign succession with by-pass turbo-

MODERN


creases OVT performance capabili-ties of aircraft control). At the same time American plane nozzle ensures much more low radar and infra-red detectability, than axisymmetric nozzle of the Russian aircraft (how-ever, a number of measures of de-tectability decrease has been also re-alized in its design).

Besides the use of OVT system, high maneuver characteristics of Russian aircraft in close air combat are provides by its aerodynamics. Su-35 (as Su-27) has a wing of high as-pect ratio with bulk quasi-adaptive lift devices having lifting features greater by М<1 than Raptor’s wing being the compromise between aerodynamics and low detectability requirements.

It is necessary to zoom in on the subject of low detectability. F-22А –is the first maneuverable aircraft in the world, which was adjusted for low radar detectability requirements. Consequently it succeeded decreas-ing its minimum effective radar cross-section in heading plane in compar-ison with fighters of 4th generation (in which design a number of mea-sures by radar detectability decreas-ing have been also realized) approx-imately by an order of magnitude, up to 0.1 – 0.5 m2 (the best possible value - 0.3 m2). As a result, Raptor at the subsonic speed, receiving exter-nal target designation or using on-board passive radio intelligence sys-tem, can take an optimal position for enemy aircraft attack, due to multi-ple superiority in mutual radar detec-tion. Meanwhile it will stay “invisible” up to the last moment of stealth’s on-board radar station activation for def-inition of target movement parame-ters and launched AMRAAM missiles radio guidance.

Su-35 has a number of measures (much less radical, not affecting air-frame configuration and having no effect on its aerodynamics) realized for radar detectability decreasing in the forward hemisphere. As a result one can expect that Su-35 effective radar cross-section is close to rates of such aircrafts as Super Hornet, Rafale or Typhoon (i.e. about 1.5 – 1.0 m2). It is considerably greater than fight-er F-22A has and does not provide so substantial tactical advantages as

Raptor's low detectability. But even such decreasing of detectability lev-el perceptibly increases combat sur-vivability of aircraft and decreases enemy radars detection range.

F-22А is equipped with Northrop Grumman radar AN/APG-77, the first in the world (except dozen of actual-ly experiment stations AN/APG-63(V)2 mounted in 2000 on F-15С aircraft) production radar station with active phased array. Officially this radar char-acteristics are not communicated, but according to unofficial, more reliable figures, station is able to detect air targets with effective radar cross-sec-tion of 3 m2 at distance up to 220

– 230 km (in the absence of active jamming counteraction on the enemy side). Radar scanning sector makes +/- 60 degrees, it is possible to track simul-taneously up to 28 air targets.

It will be recalled that radar N035 Irbis mounted on Su-35 and equipped with passive phase array, realizes design of antenna’s mechan-ical corrective turn allowing extend passive phase array scanning sector up to +/240 degrees. Irbis can de-tect air targets on the record long range—up to 400 km (by target ef-fective radar cross-section equal to 3 m2) that overcomes AN/APG-77 performance capabilities by half as much. It should be noted that as ear-ly as 1997 the first, much less perfect prototype of actual Irbis equipped with common notch antenna, has shown in practice capability of de-tection of Su-27 class air targets at a distance up to 330 km.

At the same time active phase ar-ray use in American radar complex theoretically provides it with more wide range of operating modes as well as with better safety and surviv-ability characteristics.

It pays to compare duel facilities of Su-35 and F-22A Raptor radars. Russian machine equipped with Irbis, can detect target with the effective radar cross-section of 0.1-0.5 m2 (i.e. Raptor) at the distance 165-240 km. American fighter detect its enemy with much more great (about 1 m2) effective radar cross-section and al-so at the distance about 200 km. Thereby low-detectable Raptor with active phase array has no real supe-riority over Su-35 in the way of on-

jet afterburning engine АL-31F pro-duced since 1980s and used on near-ly 1,000 aircraft Su-27, Su-30, Su-33, Su-34, J-10, J-11 and J-15 being build in Russia, India, China.

Generally, close to optimal combi-nation of high endurance and thrust characteristics, high-performance au-tomated control system and improved operational characteristics are specif-ic for F119-PW-100 and 117С engines.

Important element of new gen-eration fighters’ maneuverability en-hancement is the thrust vector de-flection system (OVT), used both on F-22А and Su-35. But if Su sys-tem allows differential nozzle de-flection, Raptor's nozzles can be de-flected synchronously only (that de-

Cheif-pilot Sergey Bogdan

MODERN

3(70).2013 ● 25

board radar complex in air combat at the out-of-vision range.

The marked advantages of Su-35 over F22A both in close and long-range air combat are also provid-ed by high sensitive and jam-proof multi-channel (capable to operate air and ground targets) optical-loca-tion station (Raptor has no such sys-tem, though it was specified initially in technical specifications).

F-22A pilot cockpit as well as Su-35 is equipped with wide-angle HUD hav-ing 20х30 degrees field of view for dis-playing flight, navigation and aiming information, as well as integrated iden-tification system information, commu-nication and ECCM information.

In center of American fighter’s cockpit panel there is a master multi-function LCD display with 8х8" screen for displaying synthesized tactical sit-uation information. On each side and at the bottom there are three multi-function colour LCD displays with 6х6" screens. On the top of the cockpit panel there are two 3х4" displays for navigation and communication infor-mation. It should be said that above-mentioned Su-35 cockpit seems rath-er more up-to-date than F-22A cock-pit, whatever the appearances of Russian avionics “hopeless lag”.

One of the Su-35 essential advan-tages over Raptor is also long-range

air-to-air missiles included in aircraft armament. This allows to Sukhoi to use in full unique possibilities of its ra-dar complex and destruct air targets at the distance of hundreds of kilome-ters. Against it Raptor complex char-acteristics look much less balanced.

Unlike F-22A created for gaining air superiority and only now acquiring possibility to fight the ground (main-ly with enemy air defense ground fa-cilities), Su-35 as well as Su-30MK and Su-27SM has always been regarded as multifunction combat aircraft car-rying heavy strike (both high-preci-sion and common) weapons with to-tal weight up to 8,000 kg. By the number and nomenclature of air-to-ground weapons Su-35 is equal with modernized European aircraft EF2000 Typhoon and Rafale, as well as American F/A-18E/F Super Hornet po-sitioned as multifunction fighters in international aviation market.

Generally, when compared F-22А to Su-35, it may be concluded that currently they have close combat performances. But the significant Raptor’s advantage as aircraft com-plex manufactured in whole with the use of state-of-the-art technol-ogies is its greater modernization potential. At the same time Su-35 considered to be temporary mea-sure called to maintain the level of

Russian combat aviation quality un-til 5th generation aircraft pass into service, is evidently called to play a small part in our Air Force history. However Sukhoi combining extreme-ly high characteristics approximating to the ones of 5th generation aircraft with the moderate price (mass me-dia have announced aircraft export price equal to $85 million), should keep for years its commercial attrac-tion, staying claimed by foreign cus-tomers even after the coming of Т-50 and F-35 5th generation aircraft in in-ternational aviation market.

Vladimir Ilyin


WEAPONS

ilitary air-cushioned landing ships (craft) are the most unique varia-tion of the amphibious landing ships. They are

based on small- to mid-displacement multi-purpose hovercraft and some-times known as ‘over the beach’ craft. Technically, hovercraft is a craft capable of traveling over surfaces by means of a specially created cush-ion of slow moving, high-pressure air which is ejected against the sur-face below and contained within a so-called ‘skirt’. Due to a cushion of air, hovercraft or air-cushion land-ing ship is capable to travel equally well over land, ice, and water. Ships of this type provide military planners

with the opportunity to conduct am-phibious operations in a wider range of regions of the World, and allow troops and material to access more than 70% of the World's coastline, comparing with only 15% of that coastline available for amphibious operations with conventional, non-air-cushion landing ships and craft.

ZUBR CLASSThe whole set of development

programmes, research projects and various design works on the ships using a layer of compressed air for support carried out in the Soviet Union since 1934 resulted in creation of the World’s famous and largest air-cushion landing ship. The pro-

totype of the ship, named Project 12322 Zubr (‘Aurochs’ or ‘Bizon’) by the Soviet Navy or Pomornik by the NATO reporting system, was fin-ished in 1985 and underwent two-year comprehensive trials. The series construction of the class, named by the customer as ‘maly desantny ko-rabl na vozdushnoy podushke’ (small air-cushion landing ship) was start-ed in 1986 at the Almaz Shipyard (Sudostroitelnoye Obyedineniye Almaz), St. Petersburg, and Yuzhnaya Tochka (‘Southern Point’) Shipyard, Feodosiya, currently named Morye Shipyard of Ukraine.

The design has an unmistak-able profile that is characterized by a narrow superstructure located

M

Russia builds unique hovercraftsFLYUNG OVER WAVE

3(70).2013 ● 27

WEAPONS

on the centerline amidships; a short, tapered mast topped by the gun fire control radar; and three large ring shrouds, housing the four-bladed air propellers, mounted side-by-side on the fantail. The square-shaped pontoon structure of the Zubr’s hull provides a rugged, stable and sea-worthy design. It is the main load-carrying part of the craft’s hull. The pontoon is made of pressed al-uminium-magnesium alloy panels of 3mm and 4mm thick. The pon-toon’s superstructure is divided by two longitudinal bulkheads into three functional sections. The mid-dle section accommodates the com-partment for main battle tanks or armoured combat vehicles to be landed with taxi tracks and load-ing/unloading ramps. The two out-er sections house the main and aux-iliary power plants of the craft, four troop compartments (140 marines), crew living cabins, as well as life sup-port and NBC protection systems.

The space occupied by the vehicles can be alternatively equipped with detachable benches and other acces-sories to accommodate an addition-al 360 troops. Ventilation, air-condi-tioning and heating systems are in-stalled in the marines compartments and in the crew living cabins. These areas are also fitted with thermal and sound insulation coatings and vibra-tion isolation structures.

The ship is fitted with light armour plating (Amg-62T alloy) to provide a degree of protection to the crew and the troops against ammunition and blast fragments. Central com-mand post and MS-227 launchers compartments are strengthened with Amg-62T alloy armour too. There is no way for the ship to be blown up with contact sea mines. Zubr is also protected from influ-ence mines with the horizontal wind-ing to compensate for the ship’s and the transported materiel’s magnet-ic fields. Zubr-class ships have small bow and stern ramps for fast land-ing of troops and combat materi-el. The design of tank ramps ensures protection of the skin against dam-age by tank tracks.

Considering the use of the alu-minium-magnesium alloy as a main structure material and a bulk of elec-tric equipment and armament, a par-

ticular attention is given to fire pro-tection and fire-fighting systems. The latter includes distributed re-mote fire detection/warning system, fire main system, artillery mount fire-sprinkling system, fire volume chemi-cal system, foam fire-fighting system and portable fire-fighting means.

Zubr-class air-cushion landing ships are equipped with main ma-chinery which includes three Zorya-Mashproekt designed and built GGTA M35-1 gas turbine engines (10,000 hp output each), two GGTA M35-2 superchargers to power lift fans (10,000 hp output each), four NO-10 axial turbochargers (air blow-ers or lift fans) and three AV-98 air propellers. Three high-temperature gas turbine engines are mounted on pylons and provide the power to drive the air-cushion blowers and the air propellers. They are equipped with exhaust thrust diverters to en-hance mobility.

The lift-fan superchargers drive four blowers to maintain skirt pres-sure and are mounted near the stern in the wing compartments and ex-haust through the stern. To form an air cushion, four NO-10 air blow-ers are used. Each of them includes an axial impeller of 2.5 meters in di-ameter, adjustable guide vanes, a flow straightener, supports with

Russia builds unique hovercraftsZUBR CLASS

Type air-cushioned landing ship

Class Zubr (Project 12322), NATO — Pomornik

Displacement 340 tons (light), 480 tons (standard), 550 tons (full load)

Dimensions, m

length, hull — 56.2; length, on air cushion — 57.3; beam, hull — 22.3; beam, on air cushion — 25.6; max hull height — 21.9; draught (max) — 1.6; air cushion height — 2.7

Main machinery five Type NK-12MV gas turbines — two for lift and three for propulsion

Propellers three four-bladed variable pitch propellersPower, main power plant, hp (kW)

50,000 (36,765)

Power, electric power system, kW 400

Speed, knotsmax with 50% fuel capacity and 130t cargo loaded — 60; max with air temperature more than +25 degrees Centigrade –40

Range, nautical miles

at 55 knots, 131-ton load — 300; at 55 knots, 115-ton load — 400; at 55 knots, light — 1,000

Complement 27 officers and enlisted

Endurance 5 days


WEAPONS

an independent lubrication system and elastic couplings to engage with a reduction gear of the transmis-sion. The blowers ensure high effi-ciency over the wide range of car-go weights. The four-bladed, re-versible, variable-pitch air propel-lers, 5.5 m in diameter, generate air thrust providing the Zubr air-cush-ion landing ship with a maximum speed of about 60 knots. The enter-ing edges of the blades are protected against erosion. The propellers are

mounted into the ring shrouds of 6m in diameter made of polymeric ma-terials and given Zubr its distinctive appearance.

Electric power is supplied by four GTG-100 gas turbo-gener-ators (100kW output each), ar-ranged in two electric power plants. The plants generate 220 V/400 Hz current. To energize users requiring currents of other characteristics and to start up engines, there are stat-ic converters, rectifiers, and storage

batteries. During anchorage the craft can be supplied with electric power from the shore (up to 100 kW).

The ship’s movement and sys-tems operation are managed by Flora-32 automated remote control system. The control is performed from the main command post, the central control post and remote control consoles. The main control console (with an aircraft-type wheel, control handles and buttons) allows an operator to easily control aero-dynamic vanes, jet vanes, propeller blade pitch; perform craft liftoff and landing, emergency braking and au-tomatic course stabilization, as well as monitoring of motion parame-ters (heel, trim, course, speed and drift). The central control post en-sures controlling the main and aux-iliary power plants, the electric pow-er system, as well as craft’s systems and monitoring their parameters. The fuel capacity (56 tons) ensures the ship’s voyage to the range up

3(70).2013 ● 29

WEAPONS

to 1,000 nm in case no cargo load-ed. At-sea replenishment capability is also provided.

Basic Zubr-class air-cushion land-ing ships, owened by the Russian and Ukrainian Navies are armed with the following wepoans systems:■■ 140.3-mm Ogon multiple rocket

launching / flame-throwing sys-tem with two 22-barrelled MS-227 retractable stabilized launchers (–10/+65 deg. In elevation and –160/+160 deg. In azimuth; 66 rockets per each launcher) and DVU-3 fire control range-finder/sight system. In a stowed posi-tion launchers, which were spe-cially designed for the Zubr class, are under the deck and pop out only to fire rockets. The rockets are ripple-fired at 0.2-second in-tervals and have a range from 4.5 to 10 km;

■■ four Igla-1M (or Stinger in the Hellenic navy) MANPADS launchers (up to 32 SAMs);

■■ two six-barrelled 30-mm AK-630M automatic Gatling guns (3,000 rounds per mount) with fire con-trol, provided by MR-123-01 ra-dar (basic variant for Russian Navy ships), or Laska radar system with Rakurs-IK optronic device, or MR-123-02Ts radar;

■■ Zubr class is also capable of laying minefields, takin up to 80 mines in lieu of vehicle cargo, and has a set of removable equipment for such purpose.In an air cushion mode Zubr can op-

erate and use its armament at a wave height up to 2 m and a speed of wind of any direction up to 12 m/sec.

Russian and export-oriented ships of the class could be equipped with a wide range of electronic equipment and EW systems: MR-244-3 surface search and MR-123-01 (Vympel AME, NATO — Bass Tilt; except of the first ship of class) gun fire control radars; GKU-2 gyro- and KM-60-M2 magnet-ic compasses; RDL-3-AP100 Doppler drift log; radionavigation system and NAVSAT receivers; Rumb radio direc-tion finder; RS-1 radionavigation sys-tem; Baza central gyro stabilization system; VNTs-452 day and night vi-sion drift sight; Zvyozdochka-12322 ECCM equipment; Buran-6 auto-mated communications system and R-159 and R-855UM portable radi-os, as well as Quad Look E/O device and TV-camera, mounted just below the pilothouse.

Zubr-class air-cushion landing ship is the largest military hover-craft in the world, featuring the full displacement of up to 550 tons and length on air cushion of 57.3 me-tres and compaering with 56.4-me-tres length and 310-tons displace-ment of the World's largest civil hov-ercraft of BHC SR.N4 Mk.III class. The ship has a troops accommoda-tion of three 50t MBTs, or eight BMP-2 IFVs or ten BTR-70 APCs with 140 marines totaling up to 115 tons, or 500 fully equipped marines with 360 of them in the cargo compartment, or 140 fully equipped marines and 130 tons of cargo. The full displace-ment ship is capable of negotiating up to 5-degree gradients on non-equipped shores and 1.6m-high ver-tical walls. It remains seaworthy in up to 4 Sea State sailing at 30–40 knots on air cushion. Zubr is easy in con-trol with maneuverability enough to pass through narrow waters and to go inland. In a displacement mode it can sail and maneuver at a wave height up to 3.5 m and a wind speed up to 20 m/sec. It is also worth to mention, that Zubr won a bronze medal at the 44th Brussels Eureka 1995 Salon of Innovations.

ZUBR FOR EXPORTGreece signed two agree-

ments to buy four Zubr class craft: the 101-million USD deal with the Russian Rosvooruzhenie (now


WEAPONS

Rosoboronexport) State Corporation on January 24, 2000 for two craft (one new and one used from the Russian Navy) and the 97-million USD deal with the Ukrainian Ukrspetsexport State Corporation in January 2000 for another two ships. Russian part of the deal was given to the Almaz Shipyard, while the Ukrainian part ws submitted to the Feodosiya-based Morye Production Association, which has been a long-time manu-facturer of high-speed craft and pas-senger ships, including sush military-purpose hovercraft as Project 12322 Zubr, Project 12061 Murena, Project 1206T Kasatka, Project 1206 Kalmar and Project 1209 Omar.

Two ships — L180 Kafellinia (Shipyard number 104, launched by Almaz in 1993 and served with the Russian Navy since 1994 under Hull number 717, with official hando-ver of the ship from the Hellenic

Navy and the rise of Greek flag tak-ing place on January 22, 2001 with Commanding Officer Commander X. Zisimopoylos) and L183 Zakynthos (SY number 107, laid down by Almaz in August 2000 and launched in May 2001; embarked to Greece in September 2001, the integra-tion in the Hellenic Navy as well as the rise of the national flag was conducted on October 5, 2001 with Commanding Officer Commander M. Tsenempis) — were delivered by the Almaz Shipbuilding Company in the autumn of 2001, the third ship, L181 Ithaca, was supplied by Ukraine (launched by Morye in 1992, the of-ficial handover by the Hellenic Navy and the rise of Greek flag took place on March 2, 2001 with Commanding Officer Commander G. Tatakos).

However, the second Ukrainian craft was rejected by the Hellenic Navy because of its hull de-

fects, and on November 14, 2002 the Hellenic Ministry of Defence and the Rosoboronexport State Corporation signed an agreement worth 180 million USD for building of two additional Zubr class craft at the Almaz Shipyard, one of them in option mode, delivering of spare parts, auxiliary equipment and train-ing aides for crews and technicians and for shore support installations construction in Greece. The price for one craft was reported around 63.9 millions USD. Each of the new craft should be fitted with Volvo-Penta diesel-generators instead of Ukrainian Energiya GTG-100K gas turbo-generators, as well as feature the new navigational radar, which re-quired redesigning her mast, and IR imagery display system.

The third Almaz-built ship, L182 Kerkyra, was laid down on January 24, 2003, and early 2004 saw the as-sembly of her systems and equip-ment completed. On March 17, rep-resentatives of the customer and manufacturer signed the dock-side trials acceptance certificate. The ship was launched on July 24 the same year with a floating dock and St. Petersburg’s Mayor Valentina Matviyenko became the ship’s god-mother. The ship arrived in Greece on December 22, 2004 and the in-tegration in the Hellenic Navy and the rise of the flag was conducted on January 4, 2005 with Commanding Officer Commander H. Koyplakis.

3(70).2013 ● 31

WEAPONS

All the Zubr-class ships, des-ignated by the Hellenic Navy as the Kefallinia-class air-cushion landing craft, were placed under the Amphibious Forces Command of the Hellenic Navy. They are greatly appreciated by Greek seamen, they put them out to sea regularly dur-ing combat training. According to the NATO specialists, each Zubr can carry eight M-113 armored personnel carriers or three LEOPARD 1A5 main battle tanks or up to 140 troops and 130 tons of cargo.

On August 7, 2009, Kiev-based cor-respondent of The Earth Times Online Newspaper, registered in the UK, told, that China's Navy is to purchase four Zubr-class hovercraft in a 315-mil-lion-dollar deal. The Feodosia-based Morye Shipbuilding Plant will con-struct two Zubr-class craft, and a sec-ond pair of ships will be built in China under the supervision of Ukrainian technicians. According to the on-line newspaper, the Ukrainian gov-ernment publication listing state contracts confirmed the order with-out giving its value, while officials at the Morye Shipyard in Feodosia declined comment. The Chinese Navy currently lacks heavy capacity hover-craft of the Zubr type. The most mod-ern Chinese naval hovercraft in oper-ation today, the Jingsah II class craft, has a maximum capacity of 70 troops. Thus, the Zubr hovercraft's capaci-ty to deliver substantial combat forc-es by water at speeds doubling con-

ventional landing ships would, once in Chinese inventory, complicate de-fence planning for South China Sea nations.

It is worth to mention, that China in 2006 was in talks with the both Almaz design bureau and shipyard on the purchase of six Zubr hov-ercraft, ended without result. But management of the Ukraine's Morye Shipyard, one of production site of Zubr-class hovercraft, began talks with Chinese naval representatives in 2008. However, official informa-tion for the deal is not available by the time of finishing the article.

MURENA AND CHILIM CRAFTThe other two Almaz-designed

air-cushion landing craft current-ly marketing abroad are Project 12061/12061E Murena/Murena-E or ‘Moray’ (NATO reporting name — Tsaplya) and Project 20910 Chilim multipurpose vessels.

The first one was based on the ba-sis of the Soviet-era Project 1206 Kalmar (‘Squid’; NATO reporting name — Lebed) air-cushion land-ing craft, designed under the lead-ership of L.V. Ozimov in 1968–70 and built by the Yuzhnaya Tochka Shipyard in Feodosiya (14 craft plus

MURENA-E CLASS

Type air-cushioned landing craft

Class Murena/Murena-E (Project 12061/12061E), NATO — Tsaplya

Displacement, tons 80 (light); 104 (standard); 150 (full with 24-ton payload)

Dimensions, m

length on air cushion — 31.3; beam on air cushion — 14.8; skirt height — 1.5; hull height above waterline (at rest) — 15.2

Main machinery two MT-70M main gas-turbine sets

Power, main power plant, hp (kW) 20,000 (14,700)

Electric system two Volvo Penta diesel-generators

Power, electric system, kW 6.4

Propulsors two AV-96 air propellersFull speed at calm sea and full dis-placement 55 knots

Range at 50-knot speed with 24-ton payload 200 nautical miles

Endurance 1–3 days

Crew 12 men


WEAPONS

three Project 1206T Kasatka air-cush-ion minesweepers) and Primorskiy Zavod Shipyard in Leningrad (five craft). Kalmars were intended for the Ivan Rogov class landing dock ships, one craft was sold to Vietnam in 1980s.

Murena is designed to take land-ing assault units and combat ma-teriel from equipped/non-equipped shores, large-displacement landing ships and transports and land them onto non-equipped shores or in shal-low littoral waters, as well as to patrol littoral and naval base/port water ar-eas. She features improved structur-al and seakeeping qualities thanks to the use of advanced anticorrosive alloys, extruded profiles and pan-els, as well as a powerful propulsion plant. The craft is fitted with integrat-ed steering and equipment control system. Steering control is accom-plished with hydraulically-driven jet and aerodynamic rudders on com-mands of an aircraft-type control col-umn in the pilot house. Murena air-cushion landing craft can carry two infantry combat vehicles, or two ar-moured personnel carriers, or three light armoured vehicles, or two am-phibious tanks, or one medium bat-tle tank, or 130 fully equipped troops. While sailing on cushion the ship can be operated and its weapons em-

ployed at wave height of up to 1.5 m and wind velocity of up to 12 m/sec.

Murena’s welded hull is a water-tight pontoon with a mounted su-perstructure with the conning bridge (pilot) house atop it. It is made of cor-rosion-resistant Type 1561 aluminum-magnesium alloy with broad applica-tion of extruded panels. The pon-toon is divided by the transverse and longitudinal bulkheads in several watertight compartments. The com-partment for accommodating vehi-cles, marines and cargo is in the mid-dle part. The bow ramp is 5.5 m long and 5.0 m wide. The cargo deck has about 130 sq. m useful space. In ad-dition to a bow ramp Murena is fitted with a housing device to load more

cargo on the landing deck during re-loading it from large landing ships or transports. To facilitate the vehi-cles, troops and cargo loading/un-loading the craft is equipped with a hydraulically powered bow ramp and a ramp-hatch cover. A 12-per-son crew is accommodated in a com-fortable four-bunks cabin and eight-bunks living compartment with ven-tilation, air-conditioning and heat-ing systems.

Main propulsion plant of the craft consists of two main gas-turbine sets incorporating one MT-70R (or MT-70M) gas-turbine engine with 10,000-hp (7,360 kW) output, one gearbox, as well as one BT-56K (or BT-56) axial lift fan and one AV-96

CHILIM CLASS

Type air-cushioned patrol (landing) craft

Class Chilim (Project 20910)

Displacement, full load 9.5 tons

Max length on air cushion 12.0 metres

Max beam on air cushion 5.9 metres

Height overall on air cushion 4.34 metres

Speed, knots maximum — 43; full speed at nominal (sustained) power — 38

Range at 38 knots with full load 162 nautical miles

Ferry range not less than 350 nautical miles

Endurance 1 day

Complement two men (plus six border guards)

3(70).2013 ● 33

WEAPONS

variable-pitch airscrew propeller on either side. The main gas-turbine engine includes high- and low-pres-sure compressors and a combined power turbine. Placed side-by-side AV-96 four-bladed propellers have 3.5 m in diameter and wrapped up in ring-type nozzles. Two B-56K axial flow fans are 2.2 m in diameter and positioned on the craft’s sides near the bridge housing. Modified main gas-turbine engines, produced by Ukrainian Zorya-Mashproekt compa-ny, is capable to operate at the am-bient air temperature of up to 40 deg. Centigrade and in water areas with 35 pro mile salinity. A flexible air-cushion skirt runs over the ex-ternal edges of the hull. The detach-able, rubberized cloth flexible skirts are cylindrical in section. Two AV-96 type airscrew propellers placed in-to ring-type nozzles in the stern part of the craft.

Murena has a more moderate ar-mament, which consists of:■■ eight Igla MANPADS;■■ two six-barrelled 30-mm/54-cal.

AK-306 Gatling remotely-con-trolled light gun mounts, mount-ed on platforms at the bow abaft the bridge housing and equipped with SP-521 Rakurs (NATO — Kolonka II) ringsight directors (500 rounds per mount);

■■ two 12.7-mm Utyos-M machine guns (Project 12061 only);

■■ two 40-mm BP-30 Plamya (‘flame’) automatic grenade launchers with

ammunition load of up to 1,200 grenades (Project 12061 only).Murena features improved struc-

tural and seakeeping qualities thanks to the use of advanced anticorrosive alloys, extruded profiles and pan-els, as well as a powerful propulsion plant. The craft’s propulsion plant ensures operation on unprepared beaches, snowy, marshy areas or ice fields, tundra or sandstone regions, as well as water ways of various types. The craft is also capable of ne-gotiating up to 0.8-high obstacles and ascend 6-degrees slopes ashore. While sailing on cushion the ship can be operated and its weapons em-ployed at wave height of up to 1.5 m and wind velocity of up to 12 m/sec. Murena has cargo capacity up to 42 tons: three light armored vehicles, or two IFVs, or two APCs, or one MBT, or 130 fully equipped marines.

Pelikan (Project 1206T Kasatka) mine warfare variant was also built in three units series, but two craft probably are non-operational and one modernized as fire support ship with 2x22 Grad-M rocket launchers and two more BP-30 grenade launchers.

The Murena-class air-cush-ion craft was put into series pro-duction at the Ussuri Shipyard, Khabarovsk (Russia) and Yuzhnaya Tochka Shipyard, Feodosiya (Ukraine). Eight craft were built in to-tal and in 1994 were transferred from the Russian Navy to the Coast Guard Force of the Russian Border

Guard Service (now under the con-trol of the Federal Security Bureau). However they were stricken from ser-vice in 2001 (replaced by the Chilim-class craft, economic reasons were cited for their somewhat premature departure from active service.

Murena-E secured one signifi-cant export order on August 5, 2002, when South Korea ordered three craft for 100 million USD as part pay-ment of the Russian debt. On April 27, 2005, Khabarovsk Yard laid the keel for the third Murena-E destined for South Korea to complete delivery in 2007. During the Euronaval-2010 naval exhibition held in Paris last year, Dmitry Litinsky from the Almaz CMDB stated that the contract for three Murena-E craft is under nego-tiation with one of the Persian Gulf country (probably Kuweit).

The second serially-construct-ed Russian military-designed hov-ercraft is the Project 20910 Chilim air-cushion patrol boat, which is de-signed to guard maritime state bor-ders in littoral zones at a range of up to 25 miles off its home base all year round. Chilim is capable of success-fully accomplishing the following tasks: high-speed patrolling of litto-ral waters; detection, interception, and inspection of trespassing ships; landing/evacuation of border guard detachments on/from remote areas; search and rescue of distressed ships.

Chilim can negotiate shallow wa-ters and rivers with snaggy bottoms,


WEAPONS

rapids, sandy and swampy coasts, sludge and floating ice during ice motion and freeze-up, snow-covered ice and ground. The boat can be shipped by air and other transpor-tation means due to its modular de-sign. She is powered by two Deutz BF 8L513 air-cooled diesels with maxi-mum power output of 320 hp and propulsive-lifting system. The latter incorporates two transmissions, six centrifugal superchargers, and two variable-pitch air propellers featur-ing enhanced reliability in all opera-tional modes. Electric power is sup-plied by two 1.5kW mounted genera-

tors and four storage batteries.The craft is armed with one

7.62mm Kalashnikov machine gun, one RPG-7 grenade launcher and one Igla MANPADS, and features the Gals navigation radar, satellite communi-cations system, DS-83 magnetic ho-rizon compass and KM 69-M2 mag-netic compass. The craft is capable of carrying six Border Guards with their weapons and equipment.

Series construction of the craft was organized at the Jaroslavski Shipyard in Jaroslavl, Russia. The first craft was laid down on February 24, 1998 and entered service in early 2001, while

three additional craft were built in Yaroslavl in 1997-99. Chilim was introduced into the service with to the Coast Guard Force of the Russian Border Guard Service (now under the control of the Federal Security Bureau). According to the official sources, four Chilims were in service in 2004.

CONCLUSIONFuture of the Russian mili-

tary hovercraft is not so bright as of the Project 11356 guided-mis-sile corvette or Molniya-family mis-sile craft. The option for the fourth Zubr-class ship, ordered by Greece, is very hard to be fulfilled. The same situation we can found in ‘the Chinese case’. So the only chance for the Russian military hovercraft builders at the World’s naval market should be associated with Murena-E-class craft, which has potential cus-tomers in East Asia and Persian Gulf region, and Chilim-class multipur-pose craft.

Vladimir Shcherbakov


NAVY

n those days when funds for defence are limited and under watchful eye of the public, the Russian navy

faces a dilemma on whether to pro-ceed with procurement of diesel-electric submarines. There are some doubts whether Russia should con-tinue funding R&D and acquisition of such vessels in the time when the US, UK and France abandoned such practices long ago. The three lead-

ing shipbuilding nations of the West do not buy conventionally powered submarines for the navies of their own. Instead, they spend their mon-ey on perfecting and building nucle-ar submarines.In contrast, China and India – the

two developing countries possess-ing the atomic technologies – con-tinue to buy both conventional and nuclear powered U-boats. Both are Russia’s long standing customers and in the need of Russian expertise.

Prediction can be made: if Beijing and New Delhi continue with acqui-sitions of conventional submarines built in Russia, the local military will buy a quantity also.In one of its recent public state-

ments, the Kremlin said that devel-opment of military organization will remain a state policy priority. Big funds will be channeled for nation-al defence until 2020: at least 2.8% of GDP. Substantial funds have been allocated for the implementation of

I

Whale's jump

Conventional Submarines in Nuclear World

SILENT KILLERS OF ENEMY MISSILE CARRIERS

NAVY

3(70).2013 ● 37

Sevmash headquarters

Project 677 head ves-sel Saint Petersburg

the programme: over 23 trillion ru-bles [US dollar 800 billion]. By 2015, the share of new armaments must increase to 30 percent, and by 2020 – to above 70 percent.Throughout 2011 and the first

half of 2012, large domestic orders for military equipment have been awarded to local manufacturers. In particular, the share of domes-tic military orders in the order port-folio of Russia’s largest naval equip-ment enterprise, Sevmash, has ris-en above 70%. During 2011, another prominent company, the Admiralty Shipyards, laid down three improved Project 636 diesel-electric subma-rines for the Russian navy’s Black Sea fleet. The Defence Ministry intends to increase the order up to six hulls. In other words, Russia continues to procure conventional submarines. But in the terms of financial values, respective orders are overshadowed by those for nuclear vessels.In terms technical, the immediate

future of the Russian diesel electric submarines takes its shape in the Project 677 design codenamed Lada. Early June shall see departure of the Saint Petersburg from the Admiralty Shipyards in the city of St. Petersburg, where the vessel was built, to the Arctic waters for deep water trials. The Saint Petersburg is the head vessel of the Project 677; the Amur 1650 is the latter’s export derivative. The Lada was conceived by General Designer Yuri Kormilitsin at “Rubin” Central Design Bureau for Marine Engineering. Earlier he headed de-velopment of the Project 641B, 877 and 636 diesel electric submarines and certain nuclear programmes.The Amur’s primary competitor is

the Type 214, an export derivative of the baseline Type 212 in ser-vice with the German Navy. Also, strong competition is provided by the Scorpene. Although the French Navy operates only nuclear-pow-ered submarines, DCNS has been successful with the Scorpene sales to foreign customers: a pair of such submarines went to Chile, anoth-er pair to Malaysia. Six such vessels are to join the Indian navy. They are being constructed locally in India under license-production contract with Mazagon Dock Ltd (MDL).

The shipbuilders of Germany, France and Russia are locked in-to a fierce battle in India which seeks to buy six conventional sub-marines. Nothing new: these three have been competing for subma-rine orders round the world for de-cades. Each of the three has its

strong and weak points. Broadly speaking, the West Europeans are considered better at air-indepen-dent propulsion (AIP) technologies. The Germans claim their Type 212 can move submerged at speed of three knots for nearly 14 days. This is made possible through the use of

NAVY


300kWt AIP, based on fuel cells, and the use of stored oxygen.Since 1998, Howaldtswerke

Deutsche Werft has been supplying Type 212 U-boats to German and Italian navies with eight deliveries, so far. The exportable Type 214 is larger, with displacement of 1,960t against 1,450t. Nine deliveries have been made to Portugal, Republic of Korea and Greece.Early sales success was somewhat

marred by media reports about nu-merous design deficiencies. The U-boats tended to be unstable when surfaced, especially in strong winds, their AIPs produced lower output and overheated. There were reports of water leaking into hy-draulics, periscope vibrations, cavi-tation, which decreased the propel-ler’s efficiency, and certain onboard sensors worked unstably. In 2010-2011, the RoK Navy reportedly with-drew submarines from active ser-vice temporarily for repairs, as near-ly 30 cases of loosing bolts were dis-covered on three vessels.Arguably, the Type 212/214 was

very advanced and innovative de-sign for the turn of the century and yet it could not escape the in-evitable teething problems. Most of them are believed to have been cured. Rightfully, the German prod-uct is widely considered front-run-ner in the ongoing completion.France has already won Indian

order for six Scorpene vessels. Increasing the numbers to 12 may be beneficial to local partner MDL. France does not operate Scorpene

for itself, but Portugal and Malaysia operate them in a simplified 1,500-t version without AIP. KD Tunku Abdul Rahman and KD Tun Razak complet-ed in 2009, for the Malaysian Navy, reportedly had problems when get-ting submerged. Contract worth over two billion Euro raised con-cerns in the country. Claims were made against certain government members, adding to DCNS’ charges of corruption made earlier.DCNS has produced unique type

of AIP called MESMA (Module d’Energie Sous-Marin Autonome). MESMA makes use of a steam tur-bine. Steam is generated by com-bustion of ethanol and oxygen stored under pressure of 60 atmo-spheres. There is only one subma-rine actually outfitted with MESMA, the Pakistan Navy’s third hull of the Agosta 90B class. The S137 Hanza differs from her sister ships in hav-ing displacement of 2,050 tons against 1,760, and comes equipped with a 200kW MESMA. Reportedly, she did not manage to develop the advertised four knots, her actual speed falling one knot behind the promise.Naturally, use of compact steam

turbines predetermines relatively low efficiency, in range of 15-26 per cent compared to 42-46 per cent for the German AIP solution and 50-55 per cent for the Russian. The latter two centre on use of fuel cells and electrochemical generators and have power output in the region of 300-350 kW, just enough to make three-four knots under water.

NAVY

3(70).2013 ● 39

The Russian submarines have bet-ter chances in a duel situation. In this respect, the current produc-tion Project 636 (06363) is pictured as prevailing over the contempo-rary German and French designs. The newer Amur 1650 is even bet-ter, due to more powerful acoustic system, lesser noise and lower dis-placement: 1,765t against 2,350t.As an added bonus, the Russian

submarines can be equipped with Club-S missile system from Novator, an export version of the Caliber on the Russian Navy ships. The Club-S can fire three types of missiles, the anti-ship 3M-54, the anti-subma-

rine 91R and the land-strike 3M-14. Today, such missilery is available only from Russia. In the course of their refit and modernization, the Indian Navy Project 877EKM sub-marines have been obtaining the Club-S.Next step in that direction is the

integration onto submarines of the BrahMos Aerospace PJ-10 super-sonic cruise missile able to strike at stationary and moving surface targets, such as warships. Based on the Russian systems known un-der names of the Onix, Alfa and Yakhont, the Indo-Russian PJ-10 has a launch weight of four tons and

firing range nearly 300km. In the case of a diesel electric submarine, the PJ-10s can find place in a spe-cial compartment amidships of the stretched hull, aft of the conning tower. The one would house a num-ber of vertical launch containers.Models of the Amur 1650 exhibit-

ed at international show how this will be done. Russians designers can smoothly integrate the BrahMos on their ships, as they have a rich ex-perience in vertical launches. More importantly, the PJ-10 is a deriva-tive of the Onix system in use on the Project 885 Yasen fast-attack submarine.

Photo of INS Project 877EKM

NAVY


The Russian weaknesses are chiefly aftermaths of the system crisis in their defence industrial complex that devel-oped after the collapse of the Soviet Union. Meeting offset requirements is particularly an issue. Negotiations on the matter of offset need active par-ticipation of Russia’s integrated struc-tures such as the United Shipbuilding Corporation (OSK) and Russian Technologies State Corporation. In many ways, Chinese and Indian

orders are critical to the future of the Russian military shipbuilding. They provide a considerable addition to the domestic orders. From a manu-facturer’s point of view, foreign or-ders is the butter on the bread from the local buyers.India is expected to lease one more

Project 971, with respective govern-mental decision expected shortly. Also, there are some chances for the Project 636, a previous generation diesel elec-tric submarine in relation to the Project 677 Lada and the Amur 1650. It has been popular with China, which add-ed six improved ships in 2004-2006 to a pair acquired in 1997-1998. Besides, China has commenced building copies known as the Yuan class.

Meantime, media reports emerged recently stating that China is expe-riencing troubles with getting its “home grown” submarines up to modern standard – they are too noisy. In these reports the German MTU diesels and their local cop-ies are pictured as being two gen-erations behind the world’s lev-el. This creates new opportunity for Russian suppliers in the sense that they may expect additional Chinese orders.Algeria ordered two Project 636

vessels in 2009 – they have been completed and are ready for de-livery. Vietnam has signed for six. Last year, the Admiralty Shipyards in St Petersburg laid down the Novorossiysk and the Rostov-upon-Don for the Russian Navy’s Black Sea Fleet. The local customer has or-dered four more improved Project 636 (06363) vessels.The Project 636 was on offer in India

sometime ago. Today, however, the Russians bid in the ongoing compe-tition there with the more modern Amur 1650. Such a decision was in-fluenced by the Russian Navy com-mander’s order dated 6 May 2010,

on inclusion of the St Petersburg, the head vessel of Project 677, into in-ventory of the Baltic Sea Fleet, sup-plemented by ritual hoisting of the Russian Navy flag.Development of the Lada and Amur

commenced in the mid-1980s. It was meant to be a sort of interceptor, able to defeat US fast-attack subma-rines, operating off Russian coasts which were trying to detect and then shadow Russian strategic nu-clear submarines on deterrent pa-trols. For this purpose, the Project 677 was made quieter and smaller than its predecessor Project 636, yet equipped with much more powerful acoustic sensors. At the turn of the century, the

Admiralty Shipyards laid down two series hulls, the Kronshtadt and the Sevastopol for the Russian Navy, and a third for export. The Admiralty Shipyards reports that first two hulls are 40 per cent and 10 per cent com-plete respectively, while the export hull is ready for outfitting with sys-tems. This creates good foundations for fulfilling would-be foreign orders, should overseas customers buy the Amur 1650.

Rubin headquarters

NAVY

3(70).2013 ● 41

In 2011, Sevmash declared its intent to built diesel-electric submarines along with the Admiralty Shipyards. Based in Severodvinsk, Northern Russia, the company specializes in nuclear-pow-ered submarines, with 128 units hav-ing been built so far. The company says that, without slowing down con-struction of nuclear-powered subma-rines for the Russian Navy, it can pro-duce at least one diesel-electric sub-marine for export customers annually.This statement comes along with an-

other one: Sevmash and its patron OSK are talking to the Russian defence ministry on construction of three to four improved Project 636 submarines for the Russian Navy. Initially, the cus-tomer wanted to take six units from the Admiralty Shipyards, but latter was booked to capacity with previ-ous orders, including that from the Vietnamese Navy.The importance of Sevmash is that, it

adds considerably to the Russian ex-port capabilities, especially in terms of production quality, and fulfilling industrial offset requirements. With workforce of 27,000, it is not only the largest shipbuilder in Russia, but al-so the best equipped and financial-ly stable.In November 2011, the Russian de-

fence ministry awarded OSK and Sevmash orders for construction of four Project 955A Borey-A strate-gic nuclear submarines, in addition to three Project 955 Boreys, already built in Severodvinsk. The custom-er had ordered five Project 885M Yasen-M nuclear fast-attack subma-rines, in addition to the head ves-sel, now under sea trials. The exact sum of these contracts has not been made public but it is known that the Alexander Nevsky, a second Borey-class vessel, was build under con-tract worth Rouble 23 billion, which equates to USD 0.75 billion.The Saint Petestburg, head vessel

of the Project 677, has been un-dergoing sea trials for nearly six years already. These highlighted is-sues that need to be resolved before the Project 677 goes into full scale production. It is a standard Russian practice that head vessel of a brand-new type goes through vigorous testing before permission is given for mass manufacture. For instance,

a previous generation Russian de-sign had a four-year operational trails period on two ships during which the navy made nearly thir-ty major and half-a-thousand minor claims, and these were subsequent-ly addressed and resolved by the in-dustry before launching the type in-to quantity production.Since entering service, Saint

Petersburg sailed Baltic waters reg-ularly every year, for trials and work-ing out war tactics. Work on prepa-rations of improved design for the Russian Navy is proceeding well, in view of the completion date of 2013.Today, AIP is the hottest issue for

Russian conventional submarines. Due to huge investments in new technologies in the Soviet times, the Russian scientists have amassed large experience in fuel cells, and have tried them on submarines and spacecraft, and more recently, on unmanned air vehicles. However, the Russian shipbuilders do not have ex-portable projects of AIP-equipped submarines that might be offered off-the-shelf to foreign customers.In February 2012 the Russian na-

vy confirmed its interest in further

improved Lada. Then- Russian na-vy commander Admiral Vladimir Vysotsky said the head vessel should continue her operational tri-als. At the same time he stated that Lada’s propulsion system needs fur-ther improvement. So that the next two hulls, the Sevastopol and the Kronshtadt being completed at the Admiralty Shipyards, should use a redeveloped propulsion system featuring an air independent pro-pulsion. “Our key task is to create non-nuclear submarines with local-ly-developed air-independent pro-pulsion. We have already achieved some positive results. [AIP] devel-opment goes at high speed, even above our expectations”, Vysotsky was quoted as saying.The Admiral was referring to bench

prototype under tests at Rubin. The design house experiments with ref-ormation of diesel fuel so as to elim-inate the need in onboard storage of hydrogen for fuel cells. Vysotsky fur-ther said the completion of the fol-low-on Project 677 hulls is “worth it” since the submarine has some po-tential for further improvement. “If we install the new propulsion into

PLAN's Project 636 submarine at Admiralty Shipyards

NAVY


the Lada, it will get new functions and capabilities, and, in the end, we will get a good ship”. First example of completely operable AIP shall be ready for installation into submarine hulls in 2014.That time the Rubin company said

bench testing of a technology dem-onstrator unit were complete. Their purpose was to attest technolo-gies on generation of hydrogen on-board the submarine through refor-mation of diesel fuel. The hydrogen is fed to an electrochemical gener-ator charging the submarine’s bat-teries. Next step is construction of a full-size AIP in 2012-2013. This work is being done by Rubin under the com-pany’s initiative, in reply to requests of potential foreign customers.In India, the Amur 1650 is offered

with a new type of AIN. By the time the tender committee comes to the selection process of the most suit-able supplier, work on shaping Amur 1650’s AIP should be complete. In the respective competition, the Amur 1650 is offered with AIP that employs fuel cells and reforming of diesel fuel for hydrogen by means of electro chemical generator. This so-lution permits to escape the need of storing hydrogen onboard subma-rines, as the Germans do, and rath-er generate it, as necessary. This eas-es issues with coastal infrastructure and crew safety.Although the Rubin company con-

tinues to invest into AIP technolo-

gies, the Russian thinking is that un-derwater time of conventional diesel can better be enlarged by increased capacity of accumulator batteries. The classic acid batteries are giving way to newer ion-lithium. As of now, the Saint Petersburg is equipped with a classic battery, but in future, it will be replaced by ion-lithium, when latter gets available. It is ex-pected that the Amur-1650 with ion-lithium batteries can get a two fold increase in underwater time – from 9 days currently up to 16-18.Russian and European shipbuilders

are divided not only on AIP issues. Another example illustrating differ-ence in their approaches is a duel scenario. Starting from the Project 641B, the Soviet (and then Russian) thinking was focused on lowering acoustic fields so that diesel-elec-tric submarines could be effectively employed on defence of naval bases and coastal waters against US fast-attack submarines, seeking to shad-ow Russian strategic nuclear sub-marines. The Soviet Union invested heavily in powerful acoustic sensors that would enable its submarines to detect enemy ships at greater dis-tances, and allow for timely execu-tion of evasive maneuvers or first-see-first-strike sort of action.Acoustic signature can be de-

creased by means of employing elec-trical motors on permanent mag-nets. The Russians and the Germans

went that way, brining to life, mo-tors like Siemens Permasyn on Type 212/214, a unitary engine for ‘creep-ing’ towards target, economic cruise and full speed. This has been a new direction in conventional submarine development, which met numerous difficulties. Higher-than-advertised noised levels were reported for RoK and Helenic navy vessels. In turn, the Russians managed to achieve noise levels, but still worked on their SED-1 motor, trying to make it deliv-er the full advertised power. During sea trials of St Petersburg, underwa-ter speed tended to increase, but it is still some two-three knots below specification.The Project 677 features state-of-

the-art Lira acoustic detection sys-tem from Elektropribor company, complete with huge quasi-confor-mal antennae. As a result, the Saint Petersburg fared better in simulated duels with previous-generation sub-marines. The Lira has demonstrat-ed stable work in Baltic waters but still needs checking in deeper ocean waters. Following completion of the Saint Petersburg modernisation and repairs, the ship will go to the Arctic for testing purposes in 2012.During public discussions on fu-

ture of the Russian Naval forces in the time when the Russian Navy was choosing between the improved Project 636 and Project 677, to equip the Black Sea Fleet, lots of informa-

Photos of Indian submarines

NAVY

3(70).2013 ● 43

tion became available on results of Saint Petersburg testing. This includ-ed making public certain facts about her teething problems such as that with SED-1. Bits of that information have been skillfully used by interest-ed parties in a campaign against the newer Russian project, seemingly in an effort to decrease its chances in the global marketplace.Immediate target is India. In the

meantime, this country continues development of its “home grown” nuclear submarine called Advanced Technology Vehicle. The head vessel, Arihant, is at sea, undergoing sea tri-als. Besides, under a special deal be-tween Kremlin and New Delhi, the Indian Navy has accepted a Project 971 submarine. The ship’s name is Nerpa, tactical number K-152. After completion and acceptance trials in Russia, she has been ferried to India and is now serving as INS Chakra. The Indian Navy may have as many as five or six nuclear-powered sub-marines in 2020. This would be a big development, but the need for mod-ern conventional submarines will re-main.As of today, the Indian navy oper-

ates four Shishumar class subma-rines of the German Type 209 and 10 Russian-built Project 877EKM at-tributed to the Sindhughosh class. It used to have eight older Russian submarines of the Foxtrot class. But the last of those, the INS Vagli, re-tired in 2011 after 36 years of service. Of the existing fleet, only four sub-marines are expected to remain op-erational in 2020 and none in 2025.According to the local defence pro-

curement practices, suitable com-panies from major exporting coun-tries are invited to bid in open in-ternational tenders. In the course of the ongoing completion for six conventional submarines, India is-sued Request for Information (RFI) in 2010. Request for Proposal (RFP) is expected any time soon. Selection of the collaborator country is due by 2014, and the delivery of the first vessel by 2016-2017. India has plans for 24 new non-nuclear submarines, of which, 12 shall be built locally and 12 by the collaborator.

Vladimir Karnozov

HISTORY


The Birth of Russian Nuclear Fleet Who and where was engaged in development of the missiles against aircraft carriers and nuclear-powered cruisers

Vehicle-mounted missilesof the C-75 Dwina air defense system

equipped with surface-to-air missiles

The history of our domestic defense-and-technical developments counts lots of little-known pages including those related to the miraculous achievements in NIOKR area and advanced technolo-gies development. Thus, for instance, not everyone knows that the national heavy engineering giant – “Uralmashzavod” – for the purposes of the State’s defense power enhancement has distin-guished itself not only in the area of tanks, self-propelled guns and field artillery construction, but it has participated in development and creation of missiles against nuclear-powered submarines and aircraft carriers. Whereas, Uralmash’s designers and technologists have solved a lot of sophisticated engineering and technological tasks.

HISTORY

3(70).2013 ● 45

ithin the second half of the fifties of the previ-ous century, the new generation of subma-rines has appeared in

the world and characterized with high velocity, self-guided ballis-tic missiles able to precisely hit the ships and any other targets at long ranges. Therefore, the subma-rine force has become much more menacing than it previously was. Because a single submarine could devastate vast territories using its missiles with nuclear warheads, to destroy a city or an industrial area, to inflict the irrecoverable damag-es to transport infrastructure apart from the military facilities. In this case the military designers (by the way, on both sides of the “iron cur-tain”) have commenced their active work on counter-weapons against the occurred threat. In the other words – how to destroy such pow-erful and dangerous submarines.The first effective anti-subma-

rine was created in USA. On May 1, 1962 the American destroy-er has launched the anti-subma-rine missile ASROC in Pacific Ocean. According to the documents, the missile has flown 3650 m, then ran into the water and the warhead of about 1.5 kilo ton has successive-ly exploded at the depth of 200 m. That was enough for destruction of any submarine. In the same year the anti-submarine weapons system ASROC was commissioned in US Navy. The new missiles were able to carry either self-guided torpedoes or depth charges with conventional and nuclear charges. ASROC’s range of fire was up to 11 km. However, the simple engineer’s

supposition states: the nuclear-powered submarine could be de-stroyed using the missiles launched from the torpedo tubes of anoth-er submarine. In early sixties in USA they were developing the anti-sub-marine missile SUBROC launched from the conventional 533 mm tor-pedo tube. The idea of American engineers was like that: after be-ing launched from the torpedo tube

at a safe distance from the friend-ly submarine the engine is started, the bottom cover is detached, and the self-guided missile continues its movement towards the enemy sub-marine: first – under the water as a torpedo, and after escaping from the water – as a missile with hyper-sonic speed to the set target. At the reference path point the reversible engine is started by the command of onboard control system, and the charge itself is detached from the missile. So “delivered” nuclear depth

charge continues its flight along the ballistic path following it using the aerodynamic stabilizers. After submersion the charge is explod-ed at the preset depth. Casualty ra-dius of the charge explosion with TNT equivalent from 1 to 5 kilo tons shall be equal to 5-8 km, max-imum flying distance is 56 km. The SUBROC missiles were expected to be used in submarines of Thresher type, and then Permit and Sturgeon types.However, Soviet engineers kept

pace with these activities. On October 13, 1960 the Soviet Council of Ministers has adopted the res-olution on development of the first “Snowstorm” missile system of “submarine-air-submarine” type. Its construction was assigned to “Uralmashzavod” by that time ac-quired the extensive industrial expe-rience, but it was unlikely related to missiles construction.

“URALMASH” IS RECONSTRUCTED Construction of any sophisticated

machine of a new type requires at least two component parts – well-selected design bureau and produc-tion capacities able to implement the designers’ ideas. On February 13, 1958 Victor

Krotov has become the Director of “Uralmashzavod”, and previ-ously worked as the Director of Sverdlovsk Engineering Works

W

OBJECTIVE MILITARY AND DEFENSE NEEDS

HISTORY


named after M.I.Kalinin. He came to “Uralmashzavod” from the position of the Head of Defense Industry de-partment of Sverdlovsk Sovnarkhoz (National economy council). It seems the top positioners have come to the decision that the Uralmash’s pro-duction and processing services will also participate in the missile ar-mament construction. The more so, because the well-experienced “de-fense expert” was nominated as the Director. And shortly after his nom-ination the additional capacities were brought (or truly returned) in-to “Uralmashzavod”, namely the de-fense-purpose plant No.9 togeth-er with OKB-9 in due time detached from the Works.At once the new defense-purpose

line appearance was appreciated at the Works. Modernization of artillery production has started; at the same time the capacities for missile con-struction were provided. As far back as 1959 the long-term preserved en-gineering building for OKB-9 was completed (previously the design-ers worked terribly squeezed on the fifth floor of the Works managerial building). The new building has ac-commodated the then technolog-ical wonder – electronic computer

“Urals” being the first computer in the Middle Urals.For missile subassemblies produc-

tion (first of all their bodies weld-ing) the two shops were reconstruct-ed. Saying more: in spring 1962 the new huge building for experimen-tal missile production was commis-sioned at the Works, and the labora-tories for altitude chambers and mis-sile test equipment were construct-ed nearby.

FIRST MISSILES OF “URALMASHZAVOD” “Uralmashzavod” has started its

“missile” topics with the boost-er engines (powder boosters) PRD-18 production using the third-party drawings, and the engines were de-signed for the newly commissioned ground-to-air missiles S-75 “Dvina”. Of course, the new business was not very easy: according to veterans, the defective welded seams were initially detected, but welding ex-perts of the Works have solved all the issues quite operatively and the engines were constructed in series. By the way, the final assembling of “Dvina” missiles was organized next door, at the Engineering works named after M.I.Kalinin. And soon Uralians discussed in whisper the certain combat result of their work: on May 1, 1960 the American recon-naissance aircraft was defeated over Sverdlovsk, and the missile piec-es were marked with OTK mark of Kalinin works. Two Uralmash work-

ers were awarded that time with decorations: V.V.Krotov, the Works Director, and P.G.Kopysov, the fore-man of the shop where PRD-18 was constructed.The upgrading of tactical “Vulture”

missile of “ground-to-ground” type created in Moscow-region Kaliningrad (now Korolev) was the first independent work of OKB-9 designers in the area of missilery. Uralmash engineers were assigned to revise the missile design and to replace the liquid engine with the solid engine, with modernization of ballistic characteristics and creation of new nozzle set. The experts of OKB-9 have successfully completed the engineering side of the task, but the missile production was trans-ferred to another plant due to un-availability of sufficient production capacities at the Works at that time.

“ONEGA” EXPERIENCE Somewhile Uralmash armorers used

to deal with jet-driven Army “Onega” system with solid guided missiles. It was the first experience of in-dependent construction of a mis-sile with above-ground equipment. The implemented work was gigan-tic. It should be mentioned that on the basis of a shop the new sections were organized within the shortest possible terms: the section for sol-id engines production, for alumi-num welding, for plating, for ma-chining of such materials as titani-um alloys, molybdenum, graphite

HISTORY

3(70).2013 ● 47

and even tungsten. For the purpose to obtain the calibrated geometry of thin-walled engines’ bodies a lot of equipment for thermal processing, welding and machining was deliv-ered and a portion thereof was ac-knowledged as inventions in terms of its specifications. The extrusion technique was test-

ed for the first time, namely the cold straightening within the special mold through creation of high hy-draulic pressure inside the cylinders. The method was later used while producing any other missiles, as well as that at Motovilikhinskie plants for tubes production for the “Grad” rocket systems. The special milling machine for body elements process-ing and the test stands for vibration resistance tests of the assemblies and missile itself were developed by their own efforts. They have suffered a lot with the technology for appli-cation of light but efficient thermal insulation coatings.The dual “Onega” launchers were

mounted on tracked and wheeled chassis, and the design has later become the primary one for the similar machines designing at the other plants. The missile itself was equipped with inertial control sys-tem, in the modern terms it was rather bulky and not very reliable. After the missile completion it was tested on the firing range Kapustin Jar. But all works related to the mis-sile system were terminated under the resolution of USSR Government because the similar “Moon” system was concurrently under develop-ment at the other plant and the lat-ter system had displayed more reli-able results.At the same time the Uralmash proj-

ect of the solid rocket probe MR-12 appeared to be very successful. The rockets and launchers were test-ed in different climatic conditions and have played very important role in operations with air sampling in course of nuclear explosions at high altitudes. In 1966 the MR-12 rocket (at that time the project was trans-ferred from “Uralmashzavod” to ZiK) was exhibited at VDNH of USSR and it was awarded with Golden medal. The rocket was so good that the French government has ad-

dressed to the USSR Government for its joint use. Several years togeth-er with French experts the MR-12 rocket used to be launched for the upper atmosphere research in the Northern latitudes (including those on Heisa Island), in Southern aquat-ic areas of the World ocean and at the equator.

“SNOWSTORM” FOR “SALMON”Underwater missile system (PRK)

“Snowstorm” has become the lat-est Uralmash product of missilery. The system was developed by anal-ogy with the American SUBROC, but it was multipurpose one – it could be effectively used for aircraft carri-ers defeating since they are almost impossible to be hit by convention-al torpedoes since they are covered with a fleet.Uralmash designers have creat-

ed the missiles of two calibers: 533 and 650 mm (“Snowstorm-53” and “Snowstorm-65”). “Snowstorm-53” was 8.2 m long and represented the analogue of the American SUBROC missile, and “Snowstorm-65” was 11.3 m long. The helical self-guided small-scale torpedo was used as the warhead with the charge of the or-dinary explosive and effective range of 8-10 km.Officially, the chief designer of

“Snowstorm” system was F.F.Petrov, but the main volume of engineer-ing developments was produced un-der the leadership of his deputy Nicolay Kostrulin. For operative res-

olution of any technical issues in course of “Snowstorm” construction the Director of Uralmashzavod has timely (for three months) relieved chief engineer Pavel Malkov and chief technologist Yuri Kondratov of all other works. It should be noted that, according to the eyewitnesses, the leaders worked at the missiles by 14-16 hours a day together with all other workers. Yuri Kondratov was surprised with

the following picture: at the section

HISTORY


of steering parts some workers were milling the steering parts profiles from the solid plate of pure tung-sten using the carbide tool hardly

“biting” into the material. It was ex-tremely labor intensive operation, and each missile had four parts like that one. The chief technolo-gist of Uralmashzavod told Fedor Petrov: “The plate could be used for production of tens thousands of tungsten-containing cutters. Why couldn’t we make the steer of the ordinary or alloyed steel and to coat it with tungsten, and we have a number of coating techniques?” And in several days the design-ers have created the latticed steer-ing gears, and two steers instead of four ones. They became easier for production in welded option made of profiled strip bars, whereupon the technologists have learned how to coat them with heat-resistant materials. The experts have select-ed the original heat-resistant mate-rials, and the engine nozzles were molded in die molds.“Uralmashzavod” was given the fir-

ing range in Crimea for the mis-siles testing, near Feodosiya. The field was fenced with barbed wire, the torpedo tube was installed for the missiles launching, and the han-

gar for storage and assembling of the missiles was constructed. First launches were not very success-ful, but then the missiles had fol-lowed all commands. However the test program was not completed – in 1964 all missile tasks were trans-ferred from “Uralmashzavod” to ZiK together with production and labo-ratory bases, designers and technol-ogists participated the “Snowstorm” project. Nicolay Kostrulin has be-come the deputy chief designer of ZiK Veniamin Lyuliev in marine programs and had completed the “Snowstorm” program. On August 4, 1969 RPK-2

“Snowstorm-53” with 81R missile was commissioned in USSR Navy. The missiles were mounted even on the very modern submarines of 671RT project “Salmon”. Later on, under the leadership of Nicolay Kostrulin the effective missile systems were developed: RPK-6 “Waterfall” and RPK-7 “Wind” with longer range of fire, with the deeper launch depth, and the self-guidance systems.

Yuri Sokolov

3(13)

Documents

military authorities

military hardware

uptodate military equipment

idef fair

russian federation

russian rosoboronexport

tuyap fair convention

birth of russian nuclear