Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
READ INSIDE:
INDUSTRY TRENDS ARE ENCOURAGINGAnatoly Shlemov — on the tasks set by the state for the shipbuilders
NUCLEAR AVATARSUnique projects of cooperation between Russia and India
№ 2 (15) 2013
FLEET IS REVIVING
FEATURE ONE:
Dear friends, This issue of the United Shipbuilding Corporation’s corporate
magazine mainly focuses on the various aspects of modern naval shipbuilding. A rather difficult situation in the foreign sector is analyzed in the article by Vice President Igor Zakharov based on the results of the International Maritime & Aerospace Exhibition LIMA-2013, as well as in a review prepared by the officers of the Naval Shipbuilding and Weapons Research Institute (part of the Kuznetsov Naval Academy) on order from the editorial office.
An interview with Anatoly Shlemov, head of State Defense Contracts Department at USC, concerns the revival of the Rus-sian fleet and large-scale tasks set by the President of the country in this regard for the shipbuilders. The article “Diving into His-tory” is devoted to the 65th anniversary of the Malakhit SPMBM, one of the world’s leaders in design of multi-purpose submarines and deep-submergence vehicles.
Fragments of vivid memoirs of famous submariner Alexan-der Terenov, who took an active part in a unique project to lease nuclear submarines of two generations to the Indian Navy, will surely attract particular attention of Russian and foreign experts, sailors and all those interested in the history of naval affairs.
The article “Crew Simulator” outlines ambitious projects planned by a joint venture between the Corporation and JSC Transas.
A story provided by Sovcomflot, our long-time partner and Russia’s largest shipping company celebrating its 25th anniversary this year, is dedicated to the beginning of operations of Vitus Ber-ing and Alexey Chirikov, two unique high-tech ice-class supply vessels built at USC’s enterprises.
By marine tradition, I wish all the readers of the magazine health and seven feet under the keel!
Best regards, President of USC Vladimir Shmakov
CONTENT
3_ NEWS
10_ TOPICAL AND ORIGINAL ITEMS United Shipbuilding Corporation demonstrated to foreign customers the true export potential of the Russian shipbuilding industry
14_ A CRISIS AT SEA General trends in the global market for surface ships
20_ DIVING INTO HISTORY Chronicle of domestic underwater shipbuilding in the annals of Malakhit SPMBM, one of the best Russian design organizations
28_ ATOMIC AVATARS The man’s life in ship’s life
38_ BOIKY SAILED OFF FOR THE BALTICS Second batch-produced 20380 Project corvette commissioned into Russian Navy
40_ “TENDENCIES IN SHIPBUILDING AND IN THE NAVY ARE ENCOURAGING” What is the strength of our new warships? Will Russia build an aircraft carrier fleet? Do we need to buy ships abroad? All these issues will be touched on in an interview with Anatoly Shlemov, head of the State Defense Contract Department at the United Shipbuilding Corporation
49_ CREW SIMULATOR At the International Maritime Defense Show, St. Petersburg, the USC-Transas Company will present the latest integrated technology for training Navy specialists
52_ THE VITUS BERING AND ALEKSEY CHIRIKOV CONTINUE ExPLORATION OF THE FAR EAST
56_ ISSUE WATCH
28 10
40 5238
«USC. STRENGTH AND POWER AT SEA» magazine №2(15) 2013Published by USC JSС
President of USC — Vladimir Shmakov
Address 11/1 Sadovaya-Kudrinskaya, Moscow,123242 RussiaTel.: +7 (495) 617-33 00Fax: +7 (495) 617-34 00
e-mail: [email protected]: www.oaoosk.ru
NEWS
SINDHURAKSHAK DIESEL-ELECTRIC SUBMARINE IS BACK TO INDIA AFTER OVERHAUL IN RUSSIA MUMBAI, April 29, 2013 (USC Press Service). The In-dian Navy’s diesel-electric submarine Sindhurakshak, which underwent its interim overhaul and moderni-zation in Russia, has completed an extended passage from Severodvinsk to its home. The submarine, whose name is translated as “Sea Giant”, put on a berth at the Indian Navy’s naval base in Mumbai.
The overhaul and retrofit of the boat were done at the Zvezdochka Ship Repair Center in 2010-2012. At the end of January 2013 the submarine went on a long cruise. Sindhurakshak is the first of five Indian submarines upgraded at Zvezdochka, which left the shipyard for its home in icy conditions.Its route ran across six seas and two oceans, the Atlan-tic and the Indian. In three months, the boat travelled nearly 10,000 nautical miles. Along with the Indian crew, a trial crew, headed by Leonid Bibik, the trial captain respon-sible for commissioning the ship and senior builder at JSC Zvez-dochka’s Department 7, took part in the voyage to India on the Russian side. According to his report, the passage was made on schedule. The materiel of the ship is intact, remarks identified during the voyage have been ad-dressed, and the submarine is ready for commissioning. It is expected that Prime Minister of India Mr. Manmohan Singh will visit the submarine retrofitted in Severodvinsk.“We handed over our first foreign ship — diesel-electric submarine Sindhuvir — to the Indian Navy af-
ter its mid-life overhaul in 1999, — recalled Zvezdoch-ka’s Director General Vladimir Nikitin. — Three years later, Zvezdochka returned the diesel-electric subma-rine Sindhuratna to service — we carried out pilot work on it to install the Club-S missile system. The submarine Sindhugosh left Severodvinsk for its native shores an-other three years later. In addition to the Club-S system, we equipped it with the Indian-made systems, namely the Ushus sonar system and the CCS communications system. The Sindhuvidzhay handed over to the customer in 2008 was additionally fitted with a few more advanced systems, including Indian-made ones. As to Sindhurak-shak, as many as twelve different Indian-manufactured systems were installed on it. Thus, each new repair con-tract for these submarines indicates the new stages in the development of Indian national shipbuilding, and Zvezdochka has been making a significant contribution to its strengthening, considering the enhancement of India’s submarine force capabilities to be our common cause,” — said Nikitin.
TRIKAND COMPLETED THE SEA PART OF ITS OFFICIAL TESTS KALININGRAD, April 17, 2013 (USC Press Service). The frigate Trikand (Bow), built for the Indian Navy at the Yantar Baltic Shipyard, has completed the sea part of the official tests.
The official tests of the last of three frigates began on April 4 at an acceptance facility in the town of Baltiysk. Since April 8 the ship regularly left for the Baltic Fleet’s sea test ranges, where it showed the state commission the functioning of all its systems and mechanisms, in-cluding weapons.
USC №2(15), 2013 3
On March 17, a shipyard’s trial crew and a Baltic Fleet’s crew conducted missile firing of the Shtil-1 SAM system. “As a result of firing, a target missile flying at an altitude of 50 meters above sea was destroyed, — said Alevtin Dmitriev, manager of the Project 11356 at the Yantar Shipyard. — This was observed not only by the members of the state commission, but the Indian crew as well. They remained satisfied with the result.”In addition, in the next few days, the Indian crew will complete its hands-on training on board the frigate Tri-kand, whereupon the ship will return to the Yantar Ship-yard to undergo the audit. Here, the shore part of the ship hands-on training will also continue.The delivery of the ship to the Indian Navy is scheduled for June 2013.
A NAVAL SHOW IN MALAYSIA: THE RESULTS ARE ENCOURAGING April 2, 2013 (USC Press Service). LIMA 2013, the In-ternational Maritime & Aerospace Exhibition held on Langkawi Island (Malaysia) has ended. The United Shipbuilding Corporation’s delegation was one of its active exhibitors displaying its products within Rus-sia’s exposition.
The head of the delegation, Vice-President of USC Igor Zakharov, noted in particu-lar that “a strong interest in Russian shipbuilders’
joint stand shown by the exhibitors and guests of the exhibition, as well as business meetings and negotia-tions held indicate good prospects for our design bu-reaus and shipyards on the fast growing naval security market in South-East Asian, African and the Persian Gulf regions.”During the exhibition, the United Shipbuilding Corpo-ration’s stand was visited by the senior representatives of 12 countries, including a number of royal families and governments in the region, heads of defense min-istries, Navy and Coast Guard commanders, shipbuild-ing industry professionals.Rubin CDB ME’s new-generation Amur-950 and Amur-1650 non-nuclear submarine projects, the latest sur-face ship and boat designs from the Severnoye Design Bureau, Almaz CMDB and Zelenodolsk Design Bureau enjoyed great interest among the visitors.The current state and future development of the Rus-sian Navy were the main topics of discussion that took place when naval mariners from a detachment of the RF Pacific Fleet’s warships, which called at Langkawi Bay after completing its civilian shipping protection mission in the Gulf of Aden, visited the USC stand. Com-mander of the cruise, Rear-Admiral Vladimir Vdoven-ko, and Flag-Captain of the large ASW ship Marshal Shaposhnikov, Captain First Rank Andrey Kuznetsov,
got familiar with promising projects from USC’s design bureaus and enterprises and then, already on board the flagship, arranged an excursion and reception for the representatives of the Russian delegation and the foreign establishments headed by Russian Ambassa-dor to Malaysia Lyudmila Vorobyeva.
DMITRY ROGOZIN TO TAKE NAVAL AND CIVIL SHIPBUILDING UNDER PERSONAL CONTROL May 22, 2013 (ITAR-TASS). At a meeting in Sochi, Rus-sian President Vladimir Putin instructed Deputy Prime Minister Dmitry Rogozin to take personal control over not only naval but also civilian shipbuilding, said a rep-resentative of the RF Government Military-Industrial Commission’s office. He added that, as part of this as-signment, Rogozin is going to discuss the “road map” for activities required to ensure the smooth operation of the Corporation with the directors of the enterpris-es, which are part of USC.
On Tuesday, the President called the unjustified place-ment of orders with foreign shipyards unacceptable and required to give priority to domestic shipbuilders. In addition, Putin demanded that USC speed up the de-livery of ships to the Navy and ensure smooth work in the future.The head of the State gave instructions to USC man-agement and its new head, Vladimir Shmakov. “The first is to improve the corporate structure, — Putin said. — It is necessary to begin developing a produc-tion costs management program, conduct the econom-ic and financial audit of all contracts concluded under State Defense Order and of large contracts secured with commercial organizations.” In addition, he said, “it is necessary to organize the audit of the existing re-equipment programs for key USC enterprises and pre-pare specific proposals in this area.” “Please, report
NEWS
4 USC №2(15), 2013
the results of the work done to the Government within three months,” — he concluded.In addition, Putin demanded that the USC Development Strategy with regard to the state program “The Ship-building Industry Development” be approved no later than September 1. He urged the Corporation to estab-lish closer cooperation with Gazprom, Rosneft and oth-er companies in order to develop the required marine equipment.In the civil shipbuilding area, the head of the State ex-pects greater efficiency from USC. “Production of ice-breakers, high-tech various vessels, drilling rigs and production platforms is of strategic importance for our country, — said Vladimir Putin. — The build-up of Rus-sia’s presence in the Arctic and other regions of the oceans of the world, the development of natural re-sources in the Far East and the North Seas, increase in the economic efficiency of the oil and gas projects on the continental shelf directly depend on this.”
KEEL-LAYING OF THE SECOND PROJECT 20385 CORVETTE TO BE TIMED TO NAVY DAY May 16, 2013 (Flot.com). The keel-laying ceremony for the Project 20385 corvette will be held at the Sev-ernaya Verf shipyard on the eve of Navy Day, which is celebrated this year on July 28, according to Director General of the shipyard Alexander Ushakov. Recall that metal cutting for the first follow-on Project 20385 corvette started at the shipyard in April 2013.
According to the RF Government’s decision, JSC SZ Severnaya Verf is currently the sole supplier of Project
20380/20385 corvettes, surface combatants operating in coastal areas.The corvette (Class II guard ship) has been developed by the Almaz Central Marine Design Bureau around the Project 20380 Steregushchy-class series-built ships, which are serving in the Navy, with regard to current requirements and operating experience. The new ship is distinguished from its predecessors in increased dis-placement (2,200 tons) and dimensions. Its length will be 105 meters, width — 13 meters, draft — about 8 me-ters.In fact, the Project 20385 corvette is a comprehensive upgrade of the Project 20380, including its electrome-chanical plant.Its combat capabilities have significantly been improved through the installation of a new versatile Kalibr-NK missile system with a common launcher accommodat-ing several types of both anti-ship and land-attack mis-
Project20380
USC №2(15), 2013 5
siles. The armament mix of the new corvette includes the Redut SAM system, a 100mm A190-01 gun, two 30mm AK-630M CIWS, and the Paket ASW system.The ship will carry the Ka-27PL ASW helicopter. A fea-ture of the advanced ship is an integrated photonics mast with a set of modern radars, systems for primary processing of nearly 500 targets, systems for secondary processing of several dozen targets, with the capabil-ity of sending target designation to other ships. Such a photonics mast will dramatically increase the opera-tional effectiveness of the corvette and bring it to a class of larger ships — frigates — in capabilities.
THE FIRST AIP-POWERED SUBMARINE MAY BE COMMISSIONED TO THE RF NAVY AS EARLY AS TWO YEARS May 18, 2013 (RIA Novosti). Russia’s Navy expects to get the first air independent propulsion (AIP) system for Project 677 Lada-class submarines in 2-3 years, said Russian Navy Command-er-in-Chief Admiral Viktor Chirkov.
This plant is under development at the Rubin Central Design Bureau for Marine Engineering. “We hope to receive the first AIP plant in 2015-2016,” — said Chirkov. He specified that the first non-nuclear AIP-powered submarine may be commissioned by the RF Navy in 2016-2017. “This will be a modified project, upgraded submarines, Lada-class submarine pro-ject,”- said the Commander-in-chief.According to him, the first three Lada-class submarines will be powered by a traditional diesel-electric propul-sion system.It is planned to use air independent propulsion systems on future non-nuclear submarines in order to improve their stealth and quietness.
THE RF NAVY WILL BE SUPPLMENTED BY THREE NUCLEAR-POWERED SUBMARNES BEFORE YEAR END April 23, 2013 (Military-Industrial Courier). This year it is planned to supplement the Navy by two Project
955 Borei-class nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarines (SSBNs) and one Project 855 Yasen-class nuclear-powered attack submarine (SSN). Andrey Vernigora, director of the State Defense Contracts De-partment at the RF Ministry of Defense, reported this within a roundtable on equipping the Russian Armed Forces with new weapons.“Progress of work on the submarines and the amount of work done on them inspire confidence that these boats will be delivered in 2013», — said A. Vernigora. He spec-ified that he was referring to SSBNs Alexander Nevsky and Vladimir Monomakh as well as SSN Severodvinsk.“The first follow-on Borei-class submarine Alexander Nevsky has passed the whole scope of testing provided for by the builder’s sea trials program. In December, the boat was submitted for the official tests, but their
completion was postponed to 2013, due to weather conditions”- he ex-plained.The second follow-on Borei-class submarine Vladimir Monomakh, according to Vernigora, will begin the integrated mooring trials of the main propulsion plant in May. Then the builder’s sea trials will
start. After that, the submarine will be submitted for the official tests and will join the RF Navy by the end of the year.Andrey Vernigora noted that “a significant amount of testing was carried out” on the submarine Severodvinsk (Project Yasen) in 2012. “In 2013, the official tests will be completed with firings, including also strike weapons, and the delivery of the boat to the Navy is also sched-uled,” — he concluded.
“USC STRATEGY WILL BE SYNCHRONIZED WITH THE STATE PROGRAM” May 27, 2013. (Kommersant). Vladimir Shmakov, the new President of the United Shipbuilding Corpora-tion, told about the company development plans and new orders for offshore projects.
NEWS
6 USC №2(15), 2013
— To what extent will the USC strategy be in consist-ence with the Industry and Trade Ministry’s state pro-gram “Shipbuilding Industry Development through 2030”?
— The strategic objectives that we have set for our-selves are fully consistent with this state program. Of course, the Corporation strategy will be synchronized with the state program and developed for the period through 2030.
— Will the USC strategy be focused on research and new developments, as the state program does, or put its emphasis on the construction of new shipyards and modernization of old ones?
— I will be able to speak more or less seriously about the structure and focuses of the future USC strategy upon the completion of the audit of existing contracts in the field of state defense procurement, military-technical cooperation and civil shipbuilding, which we are beginning in accordance with the President Vladimir Putin’s instruction. The main function of the USC is to build ships, vessels and marine equipment, which is impossible without efficient manufacturing facilities, and it is obvious that this priority should be conceptually reflected in a new strategy.
— What will be the USC’s position in regard to form-ing its order book for Arctic and offshore equipment? Does the Corporation plan to get most of offshore or-ders from Rosneft and Gazprom or will it mind if some of the contracts are transferred to foreign shipyards?
— At a recent meeting on the state and development prospects for USC, President Vladimir Putin called the unjustified placement of orders by domestic companies abroad unacceptable and clearly favored the preference of domestic shipbuilding industry in meeting the needs of the national market, including, of course, the develop-ment projects in the Arctic and Far Eastern shelf. I think it is important at this stage to establish a constructive dialogue with customers, organize work more closely with Rosneft and Gazprom in order to create a clear work plan to develop the necessary marine equipment.
— What will be the USC strategy for building new shipyards or buying new assets, primarily for fulfill-ing offshore orders? Will the main efforts focus on the construction of the Far East Zvezda Shipyard or other major projects be likely implemented?
— The Corporation development strategy will give an-swers to these questions. Let me just note that special attention should be paid to a modern universal ship-building complex project at Zvezda’s premises, which is the largest industrial facility under construction in Primorye.
— Dmitry Rogozin said some of the subprograms in the state program “Shipbuilding Industry Develop-ment” may be revised. What projects will be affect-ed and where the money allocated for subprograms could be re-channeled?
— You’re talking to the wrong man at the moment. Changes and improvements to these documents are possible. If you want to know whether USC will pro-pose and lobby some changes to the appropriate fed-eral target programs and the state program, it will not be clear until a comprehensive analysis of the situation at USC and in the industry as a whole is over. It may become clear from it where the reserves lie and how is best to dispose of them to perform the tasks set by the Government.
— How will the technical audit of USC’s assets be done?
— I can only tell that I have already prepared the tech-nical specifications for this work. We believe it is nec-essary to analyze the situation in the financial and economic bloc, the corporate structure in order to un-derstand how asset management is carried out, and the administrative and organizational structure of the Corporation’s central office. In addition, along with the audit of contracts secured, the USC’s technical and technological capabilities have to be assessed.
USC №2(15), 2013 7
SEVASTOPOL
VYBORG SHIPYARD
ВЫБОРГ
NORTH-EASTERN REPAIR CENTER
ZVEZDA FAR-EASTERN YARD
ZVEZDA-DSME
AMUR SHIPBUILDING PLANT
179 SHIP REPAIR YARD KHABAROVSK SHIPBUILDING YARD KHABAROVSK YARD n.a. A.M.GORKIY
NPO VINT
MOSCOW SHIPBUILDING AND SHIP REPAIR YARD
SDEBE
YANTAR SHIPYARD
33 SHIP REPAIR YARD
SVETLOVSKOYE ENTERPRISE ERA
NEVSKOYE DESIGN BUREAU
SEVERNOYE DESIGN BUREAU
MALACHITE DESIGN BUREAU
ICEBERG DESIGN BUREAU
RUBIN DESIGN BUREAU
ALMAZ DESIGN BUREAU
SREDNE-NEVSKY SHIPBUILDING PLANT
KRONDSHTADSKY MARINE PLANT
ADMIRALTY SHIPYARDS
SEVERNAYA VERF SHIPYARD
BALTIYSKY SHIPBUILDING PLANT
PROLETARSKY PLANT
ENTERPRISES OF THE UNITED SHIPBUILDING CORPORATION
THE ENTERPRISES INTEGRATED INTO THE UNITED SHIPBUILDING CORPORATION ARE LOCATED AT ALL BIG PORTS AND TRANSPORTATION HUBS OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION — FROM KALININGRAD TO VLADIVOSTOK, FROM SEVERODVINSK TO ASTRAKHAN
DESIGN BUREAUS
ENTERPRISES
ZELENODOLSK DESIGN BUREAU
ALEXEEV CENTRAL HYDROFOIL DESIGN BUREAU
DESIGN BUREAU «VYMPEL»
KRASNOYE SORMOVO SHIPYARD
ZNT YARD
RUBIN-SEVER DESIGN BUREAU
ONEGA R&D TECHNOLOGICAL AND DESIGN BUREAU
ZVYOZDOCHKA SHIP REPAIR CENTER
PO SEVMASH
NORTHERN PRODUCTION ASSOCIATION ARKTIKA
NERPA SHIP REPAIR YARD
35 SHIP REPAIR YARD
10 SHIP REPAIR YARD
82 SHIP REPAIR YARD
BASE FOR FLEET TECHNICAL MAINTENANCE
DESIGN BUREAU «ASTRAMARIN»
LOTOS SHIPYARD
KARL MARX SHIPYARD
ASTRAKHAN SHIP REPAIR YARD
ASTRAKHAN SHIPBUILDING PRODUCTION ASSOCIATION
KRIUSHINSKY SHIPBUILDING AND SHIP REPAIR YARD
NOVOROSSIYSK SHIP REPAIR YARD
TUAPSINSKY SHIP REPAIR YARD
NIZHNIY NOVGOROD
ZELENODOLSK
ULYANOVSKMOSCOW
SAINT-PETERSBURG
SEVERODVINSK
ARKHANGELSK
SNEZNOGORSK
MURMANSK
BALTIYSKSVETLY
KALININGRAD
VILYUCHINSK
KOMSOMOLSK-on-AMUR
BOLSHOY KAMENVLADIVOSTOK
KHABAROVSK
NOVOROSSIYSK
TUAPSE
ASTRAKHAN
BEREG RESEARCH INSTITUTE
FAR-EASTERN DESIGN INSTITUTE VOSTOKPROEKTVERF
VOSTOK-RAFFLES
DALZAVOD SHIP REPAIR CENTER
92 SHIP REPAIR YARD
30 SHIP REPAIR YARD
176 SHIP REPAIR YARD
5 SHIP REPAIR YARD
TEMRYUK
DESIGN BUREAU «CORALL»
SEVASTOPOL
VYBORG SHIPYARD
ВЫБОРГ
NORTH-EASTERN REPAIR CENTER
ZVEZDA FAR-EASTERN YARD
ZVEZDA-DSME
AMUR SHIPBUILDING PLANT
179 SHIP REPAIR YARD KHABAROVSK SHIPBUILDING YARD KHABAROVSK YARD n.a. A.M.GORKIY
NPO VINT
MOSCOW SHIPBUILDING AND SHIP REPAIR YARD
SDEBE
YANTAR SHIPYARD
33 SHIP REPAIR YARD
SVETLOVSKOYE ENTERPRISE ERA
NEVSKOYE DESIGN BUREAU
SEVERNOYE DESIGN BUREAU
MALACHITE DESIGN BUREAU
ICEBERG DESIGN BUREAU
RUBIN DESIGN BUREAU
ALMAZ DESIGN BUREAU
SREDNE-NEVSKY SHIPBUILDING PLANT
KRONDSHTADSKY MARINE PLANT
ADMIRALTY SHIPYARDS
SEVERNAYA VERF SHIPYARD
BALTIYSKY SHIPBUILDING PLANT
PROLETARSKY PLANT
ENTERPRISES OF THE UNITED SHIPBUILDING CORPORATION
THE ENTERPRISES INTEGRATED INTO THE UNITED SHIPBUILDING CORPORATION ARE LOCATED AT ALL BIG PORTS AND TRANSPORTATION HUBS OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION — FROM KALININGRAD TO VLADIVOSTOK, FROM SEVERODVINSK TO ASTRAKHAN
DESIGN BUREAUS
ENTERPRISES
ZELENODOLSK DESIGN BUREAU
ALEXEEV CENTRAL HYDROFOIL DESIGN BUREAU
DESIGN BUREAU «VYMPEL»
KRASNOYE SORMOVO SHIPYARD
ZNT YARD
RUBIN-SEVER DESIGN BUREAU
ONEGA R&D TECHNOLOGICAL AND DESIGN BUREAU
ZVYOZDOCHKA SHIP REPAIR CENTER
PO SEVMASH
NORTHERN PRODUCTION ASSOCIATION ARKTIKA
NERPA SHIP REPAIR YARD
35 SHIP REPAIR YARD
10 SHIP REPAIR YARD
82 SHIP REPAIR YARD
BASE FOR FLEET TECHNICAL MAINTENANCE
DESIGN BUREAU «ASTRAMARIN»
LOTOS SHIPYARD
KARL MARX SHIPYARD
ASTRAKHAN SHIP REPAIR YARD
ASTRAKHAN SHIPBUILDING PRODUCTION ASSOCIATION
KRIUSHINSKY SHIPBUILDING AND SHIP REPAIR YARD
NOVOROSSIYSK SHIP REPAIR YARD
TUAPSINSKY SHIP REPAIR YARD
NIZHNIY NOVGOROD
ZELENODOLSK
ULYANOVSKMOSCOW
SAINT-PETERSBURG
SEVERODVINSK
ARKHANGELSK
SNEZNOGORSK
MURMANSK
BALTIYSKSVETLY
KALININGRAD
VILYUCHINSK
KOMSOMOLSK-on-AMUR
BOLSHOY KAMENVLADIVOSTOK
KHABAROVSK
NOVOROSSIYSK
TUAPSE
ASTRAKHAN
BEREG RESEARCH INSTITUTE
FAR-EASTERN DESIGN INSTITUTE VOSTOKPROEKTVERF
VOSTOK-RAFFLES
DALZAVOD SHIP REPAIR CENTER
92 SHIP REPAIR YARD
30 SHIP REPAIR YARD
176 SHIP REPAIR YARD
5 SHIP REPAIR YARD
TEMRYUK
DESIGN BUREAU «CORALL»
TOPICAL AND ORIGINAL ITEMSUnited Shipbuilding Corporation demonstrated to foreign customers the true export potential of the Russian shipbuilding industry
PARADE OF PROSPECTS
10 USC №2(15), 2013
I.G. Zakharov, USC Vice-President for Investment Management and FTP Implementation.
he largest Russian shipbuilding holding brought an exposition which raised a great interest among visitors to the exhibition. Special attention was paid to proposals made by the Rubin Central Design Bureau of
Marine Engineering on Projects 1650 and 950 Amur-class non-nuclear submarines armed with a missile system capable of engaging both maritime and coastal targets. The latter capability sets our submarines apart from those of other manufacturers. Moreover, not-withstanding novelty of the design, a prototype of these submarines has been already built and handed over to the Navy as the lead ship. This is the potential custom-ers were able to discuss and evaluate a real ship not a paperwork project.
Defence and naval commanders from South-East Asian countries starting to master submarine technolo-gies expressed sincere interest in the Rubin projects. They thoroughly studied performance data that en-sured enhanced covertness and strike capabilities of the submarines as well as lower operational costs com-pared to their foreign counterparts. The submarines
also gained great appreciation for their state-of-the-art hydroacoustic characteristics and a high level of au-tomation which allows substantially cutting the crew number.
Our exposition was fully exhaustive as regards sur-face ships. It should be noted that in South East Asia by tradition small displacement ships are mainly operated. A number of projects in this class were offered by de-velopers from the Almaz, Zelenodolsk and Severnoye design bureaus.
Quite a flurry was raised by multi-purpose cor-vettes. Nowadays this class combines ships capable of operating for a long time off home bases and perform-ing all major missions usually assigned to surface ships. Multipurpose corvettes are newcomers to the regional market, and therefore advantages of our Project 20382 Tigr ship were greatly appreciated by the visitors. These days many customer states seek to transfer production of multipurpose corvettes from project-developing countries to their territories. It should be noted that such attitude to small displacement ships of simpler design has proved its value for several years now. For example, Vietnam is carrying on licence construction of Molniya-class small missile ships designed by the Almaz Central Marine Design Bureau. However, de-velopment of a multi-purpose corvette requires a more advanced level of technological evolution, first of all in weapon systems integration. Therefore one of feasible options may be construction of the lead ship in the developer-country with subsequent transfer of serial production onto prepared manufacturing base.
Foreign delegations showed considerable interest in small corvettes, missile boats, patrol vessels, and high-speed craft. These ships can sail at high speeds exceed-ing 50 knots allowing them to be considered the most effective means against terrorists and pirates of channel/island zones. Patrol ships adapt with success to an abso-lutely new for them operational zone — the Arctic. Rus-sia has long been conducting maritime activities in this harsh region, therefore our shipbuilders know well the requirements to ice-class vessels and how to meet them. Together with the renewal of interest in civil navigation via the Northern Sea Route, the issues of the Arctic sea control are gaining new currency. The Border Guards start getting ice-class vessels into service. Besides that, the United Shipbuilding Corporation has a considerable experience in building ice-resistant sea platforms and continues developing ice breaker technologies.
At the exhibition many questions were asked about the prospects for cooperation between the United Shipbuilding Corporation and such a strong regional
Т
The United Shipbuilding Corporation was an active participant in the Langkawi International Aerospace and Maritime exhibition LIMA 2013 held in Malaysia, on the island of Langkawi, from 26 to 30 March.
Project 11356 frigates of the Severnoye PDB capable of launching the BrahMos cruise missiles of the joint Russian-Indian design are especially attractive to India. The missiles can be fired from the vertical launch tubes of the Amur 950 submarine (also presented at the stand).
USC №2(15), 2013 11
power as India. It concerned, in particular, Project 11356 frigates developed by the Severnoye project design bureau. Now that the second triplet of these ships is at the final stage of construction one cannot exclude that India will continue their construction with the purpose to standardise its fleet structure. Sooner or later, we could also propose the upgrad-ing of the frigates. These ships are of special value for India since they are capable of launching the BrahMos cruise missiles of the joint Russian-Indian design. It should be noted that vertical launch tubes on the Amur 950 submarine (also presented at the stand) can be used for employment of such missiles.
Among various topics discussed during the exhi-bition there was a topic related to the implementa-tion of the contract for repair and upgrading of the Indian aircraft carrier «Vikramaditya». Of course, that was a big and complex project. During its hull renovation Russian shipbuilders replaced the majority of above-water elements and powerplant boilers, totally removed old weapons and installed the new ones. The hangar also underwent an up-grading. The ship’s deck was fitted with an arresting gear, a ski-jump, an optical landing system, and two elevators. Last year, upon completion of all works, the aircraft carrier sailed off for sea trials. However, the ship acceptance has been postponed until this October in connection with deficiencies found in the power plant. This time will be spent most ef-ficiently by the customer. The Indian aircraft carrier crew will continue their training programme. In-dian pilots will start flying practical flights with the participation of Russian designers and test pilots of the MiG Corporation.
It should be acknowledged that the ship as a whole is worthy of praise. It meets the Indian Navy’s requirements and embodies our designers’ heritage. This is one of the world’s biggest military ships manufactured at the greatest shipbuilding plant in Russia. Moreover, the experience gained during works made on the aircraft carrier allowed our shipbuilders to recover technologies necessary for building ships of this type which had been mas-tered in the Soviet times. There is no doubt that, if the government takes decision to develop such a ship for the Russian Navy, our designers and work-ers will manage their job well.
Innovative solutions implemented in domestic projects deserve a separate note (this subject was also discussed with managers at different levels of authority and with specialists), in particular as re-gards the application of shipbuilding materials.
At the present time the industry implements several major innovation programmes including, among others, the creation of new materials (ni-trided steels, corrosion-resistant aluminium alloys, composite materials). Speaking of composites as the main material for the hull, we must state that for the time being fibreglass hulls are, regrettably, too heavy
and costly and have a number of operational short-comings. However, these materials are getting bet-ter every year and are finding a growing number of applications. For example, their use in minesweeper hull structures allows a considerable extension of the hull operating life and a reduction in manufac-turing labour content. Polymer composites used as the main construction material answer the concept of low-observable combat ship to the utmost degree, thus representing an important element of stealth technology. Moreover, the assigned service life of fi-breglass hull can be extended up to 30-45 years, and the number of repairs for this period — reduced in half. Another equally important advantage of using polymer composites as the hull material is consider-able saving of time and money in serial production. In other words, having readied the production tools (as a unique universal matrix) one can churn out hulls in one production centre and then transfer them to other plants and outfitting yards for outfit-ting and mounting mechanisms and armaments.
We should mention the great achievement of the Sredne-Nevsky shipbuilding plant in the develop-ment of a new minesweeper. For the first time in the world it implemented in practice a new infu-sion technology (closed forming of hull structures) for such a large ship which allows forming to be performed with significantly increased framework construction quality and consistency, higher physi-cal and mechanical characteristics of materials, im-proved hygienic and sanitary labour conditions.
A sincere interest was taken in the proposals of the Rubin Central Design Bureau of Marine Engineering on Projects 1650 and 950 Amur-class non-nuclear submarines armed with a missile system designed to engage both maritime and coastal targets.
PARADE OF PROSPECTS
12 USC №2(15), 2013
Maritime robotization was another innovation subject actively discussed at the exhibition. This technology was born as a result of aggravating maritime security problems and in line with the general trend to the informatization of maritime operations. Thus, plans are made to equip antimine warfare ships with self-propelled unmanned un-derwater vehicles enabling more effective and safe operations against mine threats. Ships are equipped with unmanned aerial vehicles to provide continu-ous situational awareness and prevent illegal mari-time activities. Remotely-piloted high-speed boats equipped with dedicated search-and-surveillance systems can also be deployed to carry out antimine warfare, patrol-and-inspection and other tasks. These technologies are on offer in the component market, and await their practical employment by navies. For instance, the Gorizont Air S-100 un-manned aerial reconnaissance, surveillance and monitoring system made by the Gorizont company, Rostov-on-Don, has just passed with success state acceptance tests in the Border Guard Service of Russia. This system is planned for basing on the Russian Navy ships as well.
As regards antimine warfare technologies, there are two options under consideration. On the one hand, we are developing such system ourselves, on the other hand, we are conducting negotiations with the French company ECA Group on buying a French system including both underwater vehicles and their carriers — Inspector-type unmanned boats. Final choice will be made after evaluation and comparison of both systems.
umming up results of the exhibition, one can state that the LIMA 2013 exhibition, remaining traditional as regards target audience (with its focus on buyers from South East Asian countries), has turned
into a prominent trade event for the dynamically de-veloping international naval systems market.
The main feature of this year’s exhibition is a more fixed than before interest of several countries in underwater equipment. In addition, potential customers looked into various organizational for-mats of surface ship creation, such as joint design and joint construction, taking into account also lo-cal specifics and economic level of concrete states. Nowadays some countries in the region possess rather modern shipbuilding capacities allowing them to create surface ships. Exclusion should be made for complex combat systems which they will most probably plan to procure.
Most exhibitors and visitors judge that this year the Russian exposition has drawn greater atten-tion compared with the previous exhibition. There were several reasons for it. Firstly, visitors were impressed with the high quality of stand decora-tion and layout. Secondly, we brought a whole set of new proposals on underwater and surface technologies which had not been shown at the previous exhibition. Thirdly, it must be admitted that this time our competitors did not look very impressive: their expositions were generally small, naval systems and ship projects, far from being new, had been already exhibitied at many other exhibitions.
The world economic crisis has had its impact also on the list of exhibitors. Many Western com-panies have set up joint ventures with local com-panies in Malaysia which presented their products and services. By the way, this tendency is now spreading to other South East Asian countries. As a result, production is gradually transferred from product-developing to product-consuming coun-tries, and final products are developed and manu-factured by the combined efforts of joint ventures with local companies, and foreign developers.
Yet, notwithstanding difficulties, traditional devel-opers and manufacturers continue sustaining the in-dustrial base and scientific and technological poten-tial required for modern naval shipbuilding. During LIMA 2013 our exposition has clearly showed that the Russian shipbuilding industry which comprises a great number of enterprises developing and manu-facturing various types of vessels and equipment is capable of creating submarines and combatants at world’s top level.
S
The Gorizont Air S-100 unmanned aerial reconnaissance, surveillance and monitoring system made by the Gorizont company from Rostov-on-Don, has successfully passed state acceptance tests in the Border Guard Service of Russia. This system is planned for basing on the Russian Navy ships as well.
USC №2(15), 2013 13
Captain 3rd Rank K.Yu. Rozhin, deputy head of department, Naval Shipbuilding and Weapons Research Institute, Kuznetsov Naval Academy, Cand. Sc. (Eng), associate professor.
Captain 2nd Rank A.Yu, Bykov, deputy head of department, Naval Shipbuilding and Weapons Research Institute, Kuznetsov Naval Academy.
ver the past ten years, the evolution of naval shipbuilding in leading mari-time nations has been driven mainly by increased attention to the counter-terrorist and peacekeeping operations,
mostly amphibious operations. This factor affects the dynamics of the global naval ship strength by ship type (Fig. 1): growth in the number of patrol ships and craft on the naval market is clearly visible.
General trends in the global market for surface shipsA CRISIS AT SEA
19900
200
400
600
800
1000
1995 1999 2004 2009 2013
corvette
frigate
minesweeper
missile boat
submarine
destroyer 19900
4000
3000
2000
1000
5000
1995 1999 2004 2009 2013
patrol
landing
19900
200
400
600
800
1000
1995 1999 2004 2009 2013
corvette
frigate
minesweeper
missile boat
submarine
destroyer 19900
4000
3000
2000
1000
5000
1995 1999 2004 2009 2013
patrol
landing
CHANGES IN THE NUMBER OF NAVAL SHIPS BETWEEN 1990 AND 2013 Fig. 1
О
Construction of the aircraft carrier Queen Elizabeth
MARKET TRENDS
14 USC №2(15), 2013
Deliveries of patrol ships have increased most markedly — nearly 500 units have been added, missile boats — around 100 units (due to a large series of Chinese Houbei class boats). A small increase is seen among corvettes. As to amphibi-ous ships and minesweepers, there is an obvious decline.
If we consider the current distribution of ships by class (Fig. 2), it becomes obvious that patrol and amphibious ships make up the bulk of the fleet.
The same trend continues also in planned deliv-eries (Fig. 3) but with a nuance: the share of frig-ates, corvettes and submarines slightly increases, due to a minimum reduction in the the planned deliveries of landing and patrol ships. The reason is that the latter are structurally simple, can be quickly built, and tenders for their purchase are held in a short time.
However, if we view the distribution of ships by displacement (Fig. 4), the ratio between classes var-ies. Landing ships account for a large portion, frig-ates are responsible for almost a quarter of the total displacement.
Let’s consider the development prospects for surface ships in the leading naval countries in more detail.
ThE UNITED STATESAfter cuts in the total military budget as a
result of the global financial crisis in 2013, a sig-nificant reduction loomed over the U.S. Navy. However, everything turned out well: according to the advanced shipbuilding plan published on May 10, the number of ships will, perhaps, even increase in the long term — from 283 today to 306 in 2043. Nevertheless, on the other hand, the military leadership of the country had to give up its previous plans to build a fleet consisting of 313 ships.
Multipurpose nuclear-powered aircraft carriers will still be the backbone the U.S. Navy’s surface forces as before and their total number will remain
unchanged. The pace of their construction will expectedly be kept at the same level — 1 ship in 5 years. It is planned to build 6 more ships to main-tain the total number of aircraft carriers at the level of 11 units.
The fleet of cruisers and destroyers, too, holds its positions and it is even proposed to expand it from 85 to 88 ships through building Arleigh Burke class destroyers of the new Flight-III series. The main difference from the previous series will be a new AMDR-type radar system, which was initially planned to be installed on CG(X) class cruisers. Due to its very high cost, the program to build new-generation DDG-1000 (formerly DD (X)) class destroyers has been reduced from seven to three ships.
Oliver H. Perry-type frigates are being phased out of service. They will be replaced by LCS class ships, whose construction has already begun.
The number of amphibious ships will remain at the same level — 31 ships. Despite previous state-ments about a reduction in the number of San An-tonio-class amphibious transport docks, the series will be completed in full (12 units).
Minesweepers are the only class of ships, which will be reduced in the future. It is assumed that the countermine missions will be performed by LCS class ships.
UNITED KINGDOMThe policy document titled “Strategic Defence
and Security Review” (SDSR), published in Oc-tober 2010, focuses on cutting defense spending. The British naval forces had to reduce the number of destroyers and frigates, Bay-class auxiliary
DISTRIBUTION OF SHIPS BY CLASS Fig. 2
DISTRIBUTION OF SHIPS BY CLASS IN PLANNED DELIVERIES Fig. 3
DISTRIBUTION OF SHIPS BY DISPLACEMENT. Fig. 4
53%
10%
3%
12%
5%
8%
9%
39%
18%
23%
4%3%
9%4%
56%
20%
6%
4%
7%2%
5%
landing
submarinemissile boatcorvettefrigate
minesweeper
patrollanding
submarinemissile boatcorvettefrigate
minesweeper
patrollanding
submarinemissile boatcorvettefrigate
minesweeper
patrol
Multipurpose nuclear-powered aircraft carriers will still be the backbone the U.S. Navy’s surface forces and their total number (11) will remain unchanged.
USC №2(15), 2013 15
dock ships, and it is planned to build only one aircraft carrier.
In the current period and the short term, the Royal Navy will be giving priority to multipurpose ship devel-opment. The participation in international peacekeep-ing and counter-terrorism operations remains the main mission of the fleet.
According to the SDSR, only one Invincible-class light aircraft carrier Illustrious remained in service with the Navy; after its conversion in 2011, it is used as an assault helicopter carrier and is part of the amphibious forces. The current program includes the construction of the aircraft carrier Queen Elizabeth. However, its construction has dragged on, due to a significant reduc-tion in the defense budget. The type of aircraft planned to be based on board the ship also remains unclear: the F-35C-type conventional takeoff aircraft was clearly pointed out in the SDSR, but in 2012, Defense Secre-
tary Philip Hammond said that a STOVL aircraft ver-sion is more preferred.
The construction of a series of Type 45 destroyers, intended to replace the Type 42 ships, continues. Due to lack of funds, the series will be reduced to six ships. The armament system of the ship is built around the Sea Viper area air defense missile system.
The Type 26 new-generation frigate program has been launched. It is expected that the ships will not be commissioned until 2020. In parallel, studies on a mul-timission UAV carrier ship are under way. If successful, this project will lay the basis for a new class of ships for the Royal Navy.
FRANCEAt the beginning of 2013 the so-called White Pa-
per on defense and national security, which defines France’s military doctrine for 2014-2025, was pub-lished. The document envisages a major reduction in the armed forces to maintain the level of military spending.
The Paper states that a second aircraft carrier will not be built, whereas the number of frigates will be reduced to 15, corvettes — to 6 and amphibious ships — to 3.
The lead frigate Aquitaine of FREMM class during trials
The United Kingdom is conducting studies on a multimission UAV carrier ship. If successful, this project will lay the basis for a new class of ships for the Royal Navy.
MARKET TRENDS
16 USC №2(15), 2013
However, it was already confirmed that a series of FREMM-class frigates will not be reduced and will consist of 11 ships, of which 9 will be built to a version with enhanced ASW weapons (F-ASM) and another 2 ships — to a multifunction version (FREDA/F-AVT).
In addition, the minehunter program will most likely be delayed.
ITALyAt present, the country’s Naval Strategy envisages
two priority areas: defense of its own coast and the par-ticipation in peacekeeping operations.
In early 2009, the Navy was supplemented by the landing helicopter dock Cavour with a full displace-ment of 27,100 tons. Initially, the ship was designed as an amphibious assault ship, but later its dock chamber was removed, due to lack of funds. Thus, the ship can be used in amphibious operations as a carrier of attack helicopters and an amphibious transport (with stern and side ramps).
Future plans provide for the construction of the FREMM-class multi-purpose frigates to a joint French-
Italian project, which will have to replace the Lupo and Maestrale-class frigates. Like the French Navy, the Italian Navy intends to order these frigates in two versions: four in ASW version and six in the attack version.
To replace in-service corvettes, it is planned to develop a multimission ship similar to the American LCS in concept and designed to perform a variety of
missions using unmanned vehicles (boats, aircraft and underwater vehicles). Unlike the LCS, the Italian ship will have a smaller displacement (2500-2700 tons) and lower speed (up to 30 knots).
The long-term plans envisage the construction of three amphibious assault ships instead of San Giorgio-class landing ships. Commissioning of the lead ship is scheduled for 2018-2020. Studies are under way to vali-date the configuration of a new AAS.
GERMANy The Fleet Development Plan, elaborated at the next
stage of reforming Germany’s armed forces, provides for the following fleet structure by 2020:
6 Type 212A non-nuclear submarines;– 4 Type 123 frigates;– 3 Type 124 frigates;– 4 Type 125 frigates;– 5 Type K130 corvettes;– 10 minesweepers of the existing types;– 6 Type 180 multimission ships.Most likely, advanced amphibious ships being de-
Project image of the German Navy’s F-125 class frigate
France’s White Paper on defense and national security envisages a major reduction in the armed forces in 2014-2025 to maintain the level of military spending.
USC №2(15), 2013 17
signed for the German Navy will not be built.Thus, the existing eight Bremen (F-122) class
ships will be replaced by the F 125 class ships, while missile boats — by Type 180 multimission ships. The latter are an advanced version of the K130 cor-vette program.
JAPANThe policy document titled Defense of Japan
2008 supplements the mission entrusted to the Japanese Navy by the participation in international peacekeeping operations.
Since the overall level of funding of the Navy remains virtually unchanged, it is planned to reduce the size of the surface fleet and bring the number of submarines to 22.
Officially, Japan does not build aircraft carri-ers, but two Hyuga class ships intended to replace Haruna class helicopter destroyers have been completed recently. In architecture, displacement, and the list of planned missions, the Hyuga is quite similar to a light aircraft carrier. Its displace-ment is over 18,500 tons. Moreover, the approved 2010 budget was supplemented by funds to build an aircraft carrier larger than the Hyuga with a displacement of about 26,000 tons. Its air group will include 16 helicopters; in addition to them, the ship will transport Marines and armored and automotive vehicles. The program, called 22DDH, provides for the delivery of the lead ship in 2014-2015.
Akizuki class destroyers (formerly known as Type 19DD) are under construction — they will supersede the Hatsuyuki class ships. In addition, there are plans to build ships, which will replace the existing frigates.
A series of three Hirashima class minehunters has been completed. The construction of a series of Enoshima class basic minehunters to a completely new project has begun. As new ships enter service, older types will be phased out and transferred to naval districts’ commandants.
ChINAOver the past few years, China’s military leader-
ship has substantially revised the doctrine related to the use and organization of the Navy in order to improve its professional level and also to develop an auxiliary fleet, capable of supporting ships, which are under construction, in the ocean theaters far away from their bases. Changes to the doctrine pro-vide for also appropriate funding.
Unlike the world’s leading navies, the Chinese Navy has no difficulties with funding and is build-ing simultaneously surface combatants of all major classes — destroyers, frigates, corvettes, landing ships and boats. As China covers up its force de-velopment plans, it is possible only to tentatively predict the approximate size of the PLA Navy’s fleet in the near and distant future.
China has been carrying out systematic work to recover the heavy aircraft-carrying cruiser Varyag, which remained unfinished in the Soviet Union; the ship has put to sea several times for trials. In September 2012, the Chinese aircraft carrier was officially commissioned by the Navy, receiving the name Liaoning.
In early 2013, the official Beijing said that design work on its indigenous full-fledged aircraft carrier is already under way. Unfortunately, information about the characteristics of the new ship is contro-versial; it is known only that deck-based fighters and AEW&C aircraft are being developed in paral-lel with the aircraft carrier.
In 2004-2005, China built two Type 052C Luy-ang-II-class destroyers using foreign technology and components (French radars, sonars, 100mm naval gun, Russian Rif SAM system, Ukrainian gas turbine engines, etc). The Chinese Navy conducted exten-sive testing and trial operation of these ships for a long time, which resulted in modifications made to the project. At present, a series of new destroyers is under construction to the modified Type 052D de-sign. The main visible change is the use of multi-cell vertical launch systems instead of drum launchers.
China is actively building Type 054A frigates with vertical launch systems (which are supposed-ly a modified Shtil-1 SAM system) and the C-602 anti-ship missile system. Two such ships are built a year.
Funding of the Japanese Navy provides for a reduction in the size of the surface fleet and bringing the number of submarines to 22.
Ex-Soviet heavy aircraft-carrying cruiser Varyag and now PLA Navy’s aircraft carrier Liaoning on a test cruise
MARKET TRENDS
18 USC №2(15), 2013
Zhoushan (in the foreground) and Xuzhou dur-ing exercises
According to several sources, China will begin construction of an amphibious assault ship, which received the name Type 081 in the foreign press.
In addition, the construction of air cushion tank-landing boats, similar to the American LCAC type, is in full swing.
In 2004, China’s Navy commissioned a new Type 022 missile boat Houbei. It has the catamaran out-lines and was built to a project designed by Austral-ian firm AMD Marine Consulting. After commis-sioning, the boat underwent comprehensive testing during several years. The customer apparently re-mained satisfied with the results of testing, because in 2007 China launched a massive construction program to build new Type 022 combatant boats at six plants. More than 80 boats have been built to date.
FINDINGSVirtually all of the major world powers are re-
ducing their naval fleets, due to the financial crisis and cuts in military budgets.
However, on a global scale, there is a tendency to an increase in ship population (Fig. 5), mainly due to patrol ships, which suggests the stability of the global naval equipment market.
Chinese Navy’s Type 054A frigates
19908000
8500
9000
9500
10000
10500
1995 1999 2004 2009 2013
THE TOTAL WARSHIP STRENGTH FROM 1990 TO 2013 Fig. 5
Unlike the world’s leading navies, the Chinese Navy has no difficulties with funding and is conducting simultaneous construction of warships of all major classes — destroyers, frigates, corvettes, landing ships and boats.
USC №2(15), 2013 19
DIVING INTO hISTORyChronicle of domestic underwater shipbuilding in the annals of Malakhit SPMBM, one of the best Russian design organizations
FROM GENERATION TO GENERATION
20 USC №2(15), 2013
V.Yu. Dorofeyev, General Director of Malakhit SPMBM
LOOKING FOR NEW SOLUTIONS1948. World War II ended and
military strategists pondered over what ships would be needed after the
war. They argued, inter alia, about the fate of submarines. B.M. Malinin, the chief designer of the first Soviet submarines, wrote at the time: “If the submarine claims its further existence, she must turn into a true underwater ship in the full sense of the word, ca-pable of ascending and staying on the surface of the sea for just some time
(limited time if any).” This required new propulsion plants and equipment, whose operation would be independent of the ambient air.
Then, in the postwar period, a HTP (High Test Peroxide) turbine plant (a steam-gas turbine power plant) was con-sidered among the most promising pro-pulsion systems. It was developed during
April 7, 2013 marked the 65th anniversary of the Malakhit St. Petersburg Marine Engineering Bureau (SPMBM), one of the leading designers in domestic underwater shipbuilding industry. Originally set up to address the fundamentally new challenges, the Bureau still remains committed to the chosen policy.
USC №2(15), 2013 21
World War II by German scientist Hell-muth Walter and installed on a number of experimental German submarines. Boats powered by Walter closed-cycle plants could reach speeds of about 20 knots, which was unprecedented at the time and allowed them to catch up and attack convoys and then break off the pursuing anti-submarine ships. One such a plant was found in the Soviet zone of occupation and delivered to the USSR as a trophy.
On April 7, 1948, the USSR Ministry of the Shipbuilding Industry issued an order establishing the Special Design Bureau No. 143 (SKB-143) as part of General Directorate V. The Bureau was tasked to design and develop special power plants (like HTP turbine plants and others) and also high-speed subma-rines powered by such plants. The term “special” in the name of the Bureau emphasized its main mission — to deal with extraordinary, specific, targeted tasks. Along with design departments, SKB-143 also included research depart-ments and a test facility, where the HTP plant was rebuilt and made operational. The Bureau was designing a Project 617 high-speed submarine powered by this plant and also was conducting prelimi-nary design studies on the Project 618 boat equipped with a “common engine” of various types.
A.A. Antipin was the first chief of SKB-143 and the chief designer of the submarine of this project. The Bureau’s personnel were formed from employees of TsKB-18 (now Rubin Central Design Bureau for Marine Engineering) and Ts-NII-45 (now the Krylov State Research Center). Future general designer of nu-clear strategic submarines S.N. Kovalev and future head of the Rubin CDB ME I.D. Spassky worked at SKB at the time. A group of 10 German experts, headed by Dr. F. Stateshny, a close aide to Wal-ter, also had worked at the test facility until February 1952.
The Project 617 submarine S-99 with a Walter closed-cycle propulsion plant was successfully developed by SKB-143, built at Plant 196 Sudomech (now Admiralty Shipyards) and handed over to the Navy in March 1956 for trial operation. Importantly, along with mastering a propulsion plant, which was new for domestic submarine build-ing industry, the issues related to high-
speed underwater dynamics, organ-izing industrial production of high-test peroxide used as an oxidizer in HTP turbine plants, and submarine operat-ing infrastructure were also resolved as part of Project 617.
ThE FIRST SOVIET NUCLEAR-POWERED SUBMARINEHowever, even at the time it was
clear that basically neither the HTP tur-bine plant which was essentially an af-terburning engine nor any of the types of a close-cycle fossil-fuel “common engine” was solution to the problem of building a true submersible capable of staying submerged indefinitely long without time constraints imposed by its propulsion plant. After all, only such a ship can successfully conduct combat operations, trail a target, take up a fa-vorable position to attack and evade a counterattack of enemy ASW forc-es. Therefore, the advent of subma-rines powered by a fundamentally new — nuclear — power plant was the turning point in the evolution of submersibles.
In 1952, USSR Academy of Sci-ences’ researchers, who were involved in the national nuclear weapons pro-gram, applied to the Government with a proposal to develop a nuclear-powered submarine capable of delivering a 1500mm T-15 “land-attack” torpedo (length — 24 meters and weight — 40 tons) equipped with a thermonuclear warhead to the enemy territory. Thus, the first Soviet nuclear submarine was initially conceived as a strategic nu-clear delivery vehicle, an alternative to strategic aviation. As we know, inter-continental ballistic missiles capable of carrying a nuclear warhead were not yet available at the time.
The development of the first Soviet Project 627 nuclear submarine was assigned to SKB-143. To this end, the Bureau was reorganized. A team, which worked on the Project 617 submarine, was transferred to TsKB-18. The per-sonnel of the reshaped SKB-143 includ-ed specialists from TsKB-18, TsKB-16
and TsNII-45, as well as graduates from universities and colleges — it is this youth that brought “fresh blood” and shaped the new SKB-143 and the out-standing style of its subsequent work. V.N. Peregoudov was assigned head and chief designer of Project 627, while Academician A.P. Alexandrov — re-search director of the project.
During the development of the first nuclear submarine, its initial concept, adopted without the participation of Navy’s experts, was revised. The idea of a delivery vehicle for the strategic tor-pedo proved unviable, and at the Navy’s suggestion the boat was redesigned to carry classical torpedoes.
The first Soviet nuclear submarine resulted from Herculean efforts made by SKB-143 designers, cooperative enter-prises and its builder — Plant 402 (to-day’s legendary Sevmash). It was built in
just 6 years. Already in 1959, the Navy commissioned the Project 627 nuclear subma-rine K-3 into trial operation.
The advent of a nuclear-powered boat has revolution-ized underwater shipbuild-ing: the ship could now stay submerged without surfac-ing and move at full speed indefinitely. In the making of the Project 627 nuclear submarine, not only a com-
pact shipboard nuclear power plant was developed, but also the whole range of related issues like hydrodynamics and movement at speeds up to 30 knots were successfully handled. New struc-tural materials for its pressure hull were introduced, a powerful set of torpedoes was developed, and equipment provid-ing normal living conditions to a man staying in a confined space for several months was devised.
In October 1963, in parallel with the Project 627 submarine equipped with a nuclear power plant based on a pressurized water reactor, the Navy took delivery of a Project 645 subma-rine with a liquid metal cooled reactor, where a lead-bismuth alloy was used as the primary coolant. Such a plant had a number of advantages, including in-creased steam parameters. Comparative field operation of first-generation sub-marines powered by two types of NPPs gave invaluable experience in selecting
The nuclear submarine was conceived in the Soviet Union as a delivery vehicle for strategic nuclear weapons, being an alternative to strategic aviation.
FROM GENERATION TO GENERATION
22 USC №2(15), 2013
the optimal directions for further devel-opment of marine power plants.
A nuclear power plant developed later under Project 627 was used also on other first-generation nuclear sub-marines — Project 658 and 659 boats — which were developed by TsKB-18 and armed with ballistic and cruise missiles, respectively.
TsKB-16 (later Volna Central Design Bureau) pioneered the introduction of missiles in domestic submarines. In 1974 it merged with the Union Design & In-stallation Engineering Bureau (this was a new name for SKB-143 since 1966) to form Malakhit SPMBM. TsKB-16 spe-cialized in development testing and im-plementation of ballistic missile systems in submarines since the mid-1950s. It was headed then by chief designer of the first missile submarines N.N. Isanin.
In 1954, TSKB-16, jointly with OKB-1 (headed by S.P. Korolev), began work on the arrangement of the D-1 missile system with the R-11FM missile on a Project 611 submarine (Volna project). As a result, the world’s first launch of a sea-launched ballistic missile was carried out on board the Project V611 submarine B-67 as soon as September 16, 1955 — at this point the launch was done from a surfaced position and the submarine had to surface and extend a missile out of its launching tube. Nev-ertheless, the Soviet Union took the first step towards equipping its subma-rines with nuclear missiles. Later, using TSKB-16 projects, shipbuilders con-verted five Project 611 submarines into missile submarines; in 1957-62 they built a series of 22 Project 629 diesel-electric missile submarines that carried three R-13 missiles of the D-2 missile system. By the way, these were the first missile submarines built to an original design; in the 1960s, precisely these boats made up the core of the Soviet Navy’s naval strategic nuclear forces.
Since the early 1960s, TSKB-16 be-gan developmental testing of underwa-ter launch of ballistic missiles on board the Project V613 and PV611 testbed submarines. By 1974, using specially designed submerging stands and test-bed submarines, the Bureau had com-pleted testing of the R-21 sea-launched ballistic missiles for the D-4 missile sys-tem, R-27 missiles for the D-5 system and R-29 missiles for the D-9 system,
opening the way for them to Rubin-developed Project 658, 667A and 667B strategic nuclear missile submarines.
SECOND-GENERATION NUCLEAR-POWERED SUBMARINESIn August 1958, the State Committee
on Shipbuilding announced a competi-tion to prepare feasibility studies for new submarines, on the basis of which it was later planned to develop different types of nuclear submarines. The new boats were to have a greater diving depth and higher speed, be armed with underwa-ter-launched missiles, and effectively counter enemy submarines and surface ships. SKB-143 submitted its options of Project 667 submarine (with ballistic missiles), Project 669 (a large torpedo submarine to engage surface ships), Pro-ject 670 (a boat with cruise missiles) and Project 671 (ASW nuclear-powered sub-marine with torpedoes). As a result, the Bureau was announced the winner, but then, for some reasons, it continued to develop only the Project 671 ASW boat (chief designer G.N. Chernyshev).
Full-scale development of Project 671 was launched in May 1959, and already in November 1967 the lead boat K-38 was handed over to the Navy. Project 671 submarines featured a new architec-ture with an optimized hull form and a single-shaft power plant, a new configu-ration of the fore end with the compact
placement of a large sonar antenna and torpedo armament, and the reasonable introduction of equipment automation. These were all-new submarines that had tremendous growth potential for further evolutionary improvement.
Project 671RT, 671RTM (671RTMK) were the advanced derivatives of the Project 671 submarine. In particular, they featured:
> New types of weapons: 650mm long-range torpedoes; Vyuga, Vo-dopad, Veter and Shkval antisub-marine missile systems; strategic cruise missiles of the Granat missile system;
> New electronics and sensors: Ru-bikon and Skat-KS sonar suites; Akkord and Omnibus combat information systems; Medveditsa navigation system; a submarine wake detection system;
> Acoustic protection measures: shock-absorbing isolation was ap-plied to the turbine-geared propul-sion unit, equipment with improved vibroacoustic performance, cush-ioning and protection means for non-supporting links, sound-ab-sorbing plating, etc. were installed.
A total of 48 submarines had been built to the family of Projects 671-671RT-671RTM by 1992. As the “workhorses” of the domestic Navy, they were reliable, simple and safe in operation.
Project 671
USC №2(15), 2013 23
ThE INNOVATIVE APPROAChThe Project 971 third-generation
nuclear-powered submarine was the pinnacle of evolution of submarine designs developed under the supervi-sion of G.N. Chernyshev. Its develop-ment began in 1976 as a version of the Project 945 submarine, having a hull made of steel rather than titanium alloy. Moreover, the Bureau’s team was able to implement all-new design and engi-neering solutions resulting in improved performance of the boat in terms of stealth and armament. Project 971 boats significantly outperformed the prototype in combat effectiveness and had a better cost/performance ratio.
K-284, the lead boat of Project 971, was built at the Leninsky Komsomol Shipyard (in Komsomolsk-on-Amur) and commissioned by the Navy in De-cember 1984. A total of 14 submarines had been built to this project for the domestic Navy by 2001.The submarines had been continuously improved during serial construction in order to maintain their high combat capabilities and par-ity with the best foreign counterparts in stealth performance.
In 2012, the submarine Nerpa built to Project 09719 (general designer Yu.I. Farafontov) was leased to India and commissioned as INS Chakra. It carries new electronics, sensors and automa-tion systems based on modern circuitry
components and is adapted for use in equatorial waters.
Along with the evolutionary develop-ment of second- and third-generation attack nuclear submarines, Malakhit was engaged in the development of subma-rines, whose concept itself was revolu-tionary — these were Projects 705 and 661. The boats served as testbeds to try and test breakthrough ideas and techni-cal solutions, which later were imple-mented in third- and fourth-generation follow-on ships.
Project 705 (705K) nuclear submarine was developed as an integrated auto-mated small-displacement ship intended to counter enemy submarines (chief de-signer: M.G. Rusanov, then V.V. Romin).
In 2012, the Project 09719 submarine Nerpa (chief designer yu.I. Farafontov) was leased to India and commissioned as INS Chakra.
Project 671
Projects 661
FROM GENERATION TO GENERATION
24 USC №2(15), 2013
It was unofficially called boat-killer, which accurately captured the essence of the concept itself. This nuclear-powered vessel had a displacement of about 2,300 tons (one and a half times less compared to the Project 671 submarine). Its crew consisted of 30 people (half as many as that of Project 671), was accommodated in one compartment and run the ship, its combat and technical facilities from the main control room. The hull and equipment of the submarine were made of titanium alloy. The boat was equipped with a steam-generating plant with a liquid metal coolant. Due to a high rate of power rise of the plant and excellent controllability, the submarine offered a unique maneuverability. An enemy boat had no chance to break off a Project 705 submarine trailing it. The nuclear-powered submarine was equipped with a crew rescue chamber in the event of emergency.
In 1972, the Leningrad Admiralty As-sociation built the lead submarine K-64 of Project 705; however the boat’s steam-generating plant soon failed. In 1977-81, after modifications made to the project, the shipyard handed over 3 Project 705 follow-on submarines to the Navy; an-other 3 Project 705K boats were built at the Sevmash Shipyard.
The Project 661 nuclear-powered submarine (chief designer: N.N. Isanin, then N.F. Shulzhenko) was developed to counter enemy carrier forces. The boat was armed with 10 Ametist (P-120) underwater-launched cruise missiles, had a hull made of titanium alloy and a twin-shaft power plant with a capacity of 80,000 hp, which enabled it to achieve a speed exceeding 44 knots, which is still unattainable today. Such swiftness allowed the boat to successfully attack an aircraft carrier. When the Project 661 was under implementation, efforts were undertaken to fine-tune underwa-ter launching of cruise missiles using submerging stands, as well as manu-facturing of titanium alloys for use in submarines, their welding and structure fabrication in shipyard conditions.
The Project 1710 experimental sub-marine (chief designer G.P. Moskalev) can also be referred to as a concept boat. Its development began in the mid-1960s and involved the Siberian Branch of the Academy of Sciences when there emerged a need for fine-tuning the pro-
pulsive and maneuvering characteristics of the new second- and third-generation submarines being under development. The boat was intended to investigate the water resistance reduction methods using suction of the boundary layer and injection of polymer solutions into it, as well as to fine-tune the maneuvering performance of the submarine, research the issues related to the noise of the sub-marine and its propulsion machinery, reduction in ship’s interference impair-ing the effectiveness of the sonar system.
The Project 1710 diesel-electric submarine was built at the Leningrad Admiralty Association in 1987 and then transferred to the Black Sea Fleet, where a test base located near Balaklava was specially set up for her. However, the subsequent collapse of the Soviet Union frustrated the planned test program.
Currently, Malakhit is completing a long development period for the lead submarine Severodvinsk of fourth-gen-eration Project 885 (chief designer V.N. Pyalov). Its development began back in the second half of the 1980s, when the economic structure of the country and the country as a whole was undergoing a change. The project had to become a program for survival of the domestic submarine shipbuilding industry. It was owing to this project that cooperation between enterprises involved in the de-velopment of nuclear-powered subma-rines had been preserved in the period of non-payments and under-funding of the 1990s — early 2000s.
The Project 885 nuclear submarine is an attack ship capable of destroying enemy surface ships and transports, hunting enemy submarines, and engag-ing ground targets. The submarine is armed with the Onyx and Kalibr missile systems, as well as a powerful torpedo-missile system.
This nuclear-powered submarine is of a mixed architectural and design type (double- and single-hulled areas are combined along the pressure hull), which is completely new for domestic submarine engineering, and has a con-figuration with an “acoustically perfect” fore end which accommodates only large sonar antennas (torpedo tubes were re-moved from it).
In its development, emphasis was placed on ensuring stealth of the sub-marine. As part of Project 885, a work package was carried out to develop a new-generation on-board power plant, low-noise shipborne systems and acoustic protection facilities. Malakhit’s specialists have fine-tuned engineering and layout solutions using special scaled acoustic models.
In June 2010, in the presence of Russian President Dmitry Medvedev, Severodvinsk was rolled out from Sevmash’s assembly ways shop and launched. In September 2011, the boat put to sea for the first time for builders sea trials and testing of newly developed weapons systems, armaments and naval equipment. In 2011-12, a significant part of the test program was completed,
Project 705
USC №2(15), 2013 25
including firings of 2 anti-ship missiles and 3 long-range cruise missiles of the Kalibr system. Testing of the nuclear submarine Severodvinsk is scheduled for completion in 2013.
4+ GENERATIONIn the early 2000s, it was decided to
develop the upgraded Project 08851 boat. The new submarine is different from Project 885 in using Russian-made equipment and materials as well as electronic and sensor equipment based on new circuitry components. In addi-tion, the developers draw upon experi-ence with the construction and trials of the lead boat of Project 885. So Project 08851 can be safely referred to as 4+ generation.
Malakhit was assigned to act as cus-tomer of new electronics and sensor systems and automation equipment. Moreover, the Bureau actually performs the functions of a system integrator providing effective interaction between newly developed systems and equip-ment, as well as their implementation on the basis of common general technical requirements. This role was entrusted to Bureau for the first time and requires assimilating new knowledge and skills from Malakhit’s specialists.
In the development of the working drawings of the Project 08851 subma-rine, the Bureau was the first in the domestic submarine industry to use the Pro/Engineer (CreoElements/Pro since 2011) CAD system. In this case, the shipbuilder, Sevmash, receives not only the traditional drawings, but also 3D models of submarine structures. As a re-
sult, the construction of the lead nucle-ar-powered boat Kazan of Project 08851 is proceeding without laying-down.
In parallel with the construction of a series of Project 08851 boats, Malakhit is developing technical solutions for fu-ture submarines. Of course, these will be stealth combat platforms characterized primarily by:
> High stealth, including during travel at higher speeds;
> A high level of command and con-trol intellectualization;
> High-performance on-board situ-ational awareness systems;
> An extensive communications system and adaptability to network-centric operations;
> Flexibility of weapons load, which may vary depending on submarine missions;
> High-precision long-range strike weapons;
> Extensive self-defense means and countercapability.
The cost-performance factors are also of importance. Design solutions as ap-plied to future submarines are optimized with respect to the cost of their imple-mentation and functional redundancy of weapons and equipment is eliminated.
NOT By BOATS ALONE Developing attack nuclear-powered
submarines has become the most well-known area of Malakhit’s activities and is rightly seen as its hallmark. However, the Bureau has another, equally impor-tant specialization — the development of deep-submergence vehicles (DSV).
In 1970, TsPB Volna was assigned the prime design bureau responsible for designing manned DSVs for ocean development. The designers developed the first-generation DSVs (chief designer Yu.K. Sapozhkov) such as the Sever-2, Sever-2bis and Poisk-2, which had a diving depth of 2000 m, and the Poisk-6 bathyscaphe capable of diving to a depth of 6000 m
Vehicles like the Sever-2 (Project 1825) were developed for the Ministry of Fisheries. They were built at the Len-ingrad Admiralty Association and inten-sively used, having carried out a total of hundreds of dives in all the oceans of the world during a variety of scientific expe-ditions. Using the Sever-2 DSV, seabed topography in the Black Sea was exam-ined with great precision and the seawa-ter salinity and temperature maps were prepared. The Sever-2 and Sever-2bis vehicles, based on the carriers Odyssey and Ikhthyandr, helped detect previously unknown target species on seamounts in the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans. In 1983-88, three expeditions were carried out to the open part of the North Atlantic to the North Atlantic and Reykjanes Ridges and the Hatton-Rockall Plateau. Stocks of commercial fish and crabs found in the northern part of the Atlantic turned out to be much more abundant than expect-ed from previous long-term studies.
The Poisk-2 (Project 1832) vehicles were developed to carry out research and underwater work in the interests of the Navy’s hydrographic and SAR services. The Poisk-2’s functions included: hydro-graphic and hydrological operations, in-cluding sounding, sonar bottom survey,
Project 885
FROM GENERATION TO GENERATION
26 USC №2(15), 2013
measurements of temperature, current speed, electrical conductivity, salinity, transparency, illumination, biolumines-cence, and changes in the speed of sound in water. The vehicle enabled geophysical work including gravimetric and magnetic survey, as well as the measurement of the magnetic field of the Earth.
In the 1980s, three vehicles were built that were operated in the Black Sea, Northern and Pacific Fleets. The Black Sea Fleet’s AS-8 vehicle worked in the canyons like the Burun-Tabiy (to a depth of 402 m), Chohor (142 m), Rioni (313 m) and Supsa (192 m) canyons in the eastern part of the Black Sea. The causes for destruction of the Caucasian shores were extensively investigated with its use, which later made it possible to de-velop recommendations for their protec-tion. In 1989, the Northern Fleet’s AS-27 vehicle stationed on the rescue ship Michael Rudnicki performed a survey of the submarine Komsomolets that sunk at a depth of 1700 m.
On August 20, 1985, the Poisk-6 (Pro-ject 1906) bathyscaphe, built at the Len-ingrad Admiralty Association, made its famous dive into the Kuril-Kamchatka Trench to a depth of 6015 m for the first
time in the history of the domestic fleet.In order to study the underwater be-
havior of fish in the fishing vessel opera-tion areas, the Tethys-N towed vehicle, developed to order from the Ministry of Fisheries, was used. The Benthos-300 autonomous underwater laboratory was employed for the long-term observation of fishing migrations and biological fac-tors on the continental shelf of the seas and oceans.
The experience in developing the first-generation DSV showed that domestic vehicles, offering increased payload compared with their foreign counterparts, were superior to the lat-ter in the capability of obtaining a given amount of information per dive.
The second-generation Project 16810 Rus autonomous manned DSV (chief designer V.G. Markov, then E.N. Razu-mikhin) built at Admiralty Shipyards in 2000 was further evolution of the do-mestic submersible engineering school. It was intended to conduct research and underwater work at depths of up to 6,000 m in the interests of the Navy’s search and rescue service.
The third-generation Project 16811 Consul autonomous manned DSV (chief designer E.N. Razumikhin, later general designer Yu.M. Konovalov) built also at Admiralty Shipyards is Malakhit’s latest product in this area. The official testing program of Consul was successfully completed on May 14, 2011 with a dive to 6,270 m in the North Atlantic.
Autonomous DSVs of XXI century are capable of solving the following sci-entific and engineering problems:
> Support of hydrocarbon exploration and production activities on the oil and gas deposits;
> Exploration and test mining of ore deposits and nodules;
> Participation in the development of gas hydrate deposits;
> Conducting underwater work on platforms, pipelines, cables and other underwater objects;
> Conducting rescue operations.
Malakhit’s diversified activities cover also a number of other areas. In addition to the world-known nuclear submarines and deep-submergence ve-hicles, the Bureau, jointly with partners, develops:
> Torpedo-missile and self-defense systems (torpedo tubes, self-defense launchers), conducting their integration, including the development of their operational algorithms;
> Vertical missile launchers;> Sophisticated marine engineering
products, including:- Telescopic mast devices, - Steering gears, - Devices for extending and towing
communication and sonar anten-nas,
- Devices for waste container re-moval and item & special round disposal
- Fire suppression systems, includ-ing fire-smothering systems.
> Submarine and DSV crew training sets;
> Nuclear submarine disposal pro-jects.
The domestic design school for build-ing nuclear submarines and manned submersibles for ocean development has formed at Malakhit. It is characterized by the adoption of advanced, innovative design solutions based on research ad-vances, clear understanding of the na-tional defense industry’s needs and the public interest in the development of the oceans of the world, taking into account the real possibilities of and prospects for domestic industry.
The Bureau’s vast science and tech-nology capabilities and traditions find proper use in developing Russia’s under-water defensive shield and ocean devel-opment for peaceful purposes.
The official testing program of the Consul third-generation DSV (Project 16811) was successfully completed on May 14, 2011 with a dive to a depth of 6,270 meters in the North Atlantic.
Project 16811
USC №2(15), 2013 27
lexander Terenov wrote his memoirs and reflections about these unique projects car-ried out in the sphere of military technical cooperation in his book entitled “Under three flags. The saga of the submarine cruis-
er K-43”. The book was republished three times in Rus-sia, translated into English and became a textbook for young Indian officers who know little about the roots of friendship between our states. We publish excerpts from several chapters of this most interesting book with the author’s permission.
Presenting the book to wide readership, Chief of Staff of Northern Fleet in the1980s Admiral Innokentiy Naletov writes, in particular:
“Ships, like humans, have their own life stories, fam-ilies, parents and teachers. Some ships of our national fleet died unborn in the years of unbridled democracy. Others were pitilessly scraped out of “mother’s womb”. Ships discussed in this book had a great piece of luck. One of them, the K-43, had sung its swan song many years ago and retired to a well-earned rest. The other, the K-152 was brought to life after long cure and train-ing, and was transferred, first to the Navy after almost twenty years of wait, and then into the reliable hands of our strategic partner.
This book is well-structured, interesting and capti-vating; it is written with a touch of humour and self-irony and reads like an adventure novel. It reveals many
historical moments of our military-technical coop-eration. It also teaches us to draw conclusions from the history of relations of the two sea powers”.
A STARTING POINTThe Russian merchant,
Afanasy Nikitin was the first European who visited India ahead of Vasko da Gama almost five hundred years ago and described what he saw in his mem-oirs named “A journey beyond three seas”. Afanasy travelled on foot and on horseback, in rowboats and sail vessels by the Volga, the Caspian Sea, through Persia and the Arabian Sea, and returned home in several years by the Black Sea. We sailed to India in the nuclear-powered cruising submarine by a very different route and crossed many more seas, so I enti-tled my first book “Under three flags. The saga of the submarine cruiser K-43”, because its participatation in the education of Indian submariners and subsequent “tour of India” became the impressive final stage of the submarine’s life. In fact, for any Russian the name of the book is associated with India — and only with it. The story is symbolical also due to the fact that the K-43 lead submarine ship of the second generation sailed in all seven oceans for many years under the
А
Project 971U Nerpa nuclear-powered submarine built in Russia has been sailing already for over a year under the Indian Navy flag bearing the name “Chakra”. More than 3 months out of this time were spent in the open sea. It is the Indian Navy›s second nuclear-powered submarine cruiser with the same name. The first Project 670 nuclear submarine was commanded by Alexander Ivanovich Terenov who trained Indian submariners in Vladivostok a quarter of century ago and continued training them in India for all three years of its leasing. he also took an active part in the life of a new Chakra boat when he was deputy director general of the Amur shipyard where the future Chakra-2 was built.
AVATARSThe man’s life in ship’s life
ATOMIC
28 USC №2(15), 2013
CAPTAIN’S MEMOIRS
flags of the Soviet Union, India and Russia eventually longer than any other submarine of this project.
In January 2013 we celebrated the regular anniver-sary — 25 years of hoisting the Indian flag on the ship, starting the lease, and giving it a remarkable name “Chakra” glorified in legends and epic poems. The Chakra has been plying the Indian ocean for over a year now. I witnessed the reincarnation when the Russian cruising submarine K-152 picked up the baton from the K-43 Soviet boat, and for that reason I entitled the new chapter in my book “Avatar” which means God’s embodiment on Earth.
It is known that initially India planned to procure a Project 671 submarine since it wanted ships without
missile containers but capable of launching missiles through torpedo tubes against maritime and coastal targets. But at that time we had no such weapons. It was probably in August 1982, after the presenta-tion of the K-43 submarine to the Indian delega-tion, when the final decision on ship’s selection was taken. It was small wonder since the development of such submarines in our country came out as a very unpleasant surprise for NATO aircraft carrier task forces and large combattants. A compact well-armed submarine capable of launching the unique Amethyst cruise missiles from underwater position bode ill for the enemy. Small missile flight-to-target time, low altitude and close-in range hampered countering underwater strikes. The independence from external target designation data sources and the capability of engaging enemy targets based on submarine’s own data provided by its surveillance and reconnaissance facilities turned this shortcoming into the advantage, especially in such seas as the Mediterranean and in narrow waters such as the Strait of Malacca and Strait of Gibraltar…
A compact well-armed submarine capable of launching the unique Amethyst cruise missiles from underwater position bode ill to enemy. Small missile flight-to-target time, low altitude and close-in range hampered countering underwater strikes.
The first patrol cruise to the Andaman Sea. On the bridge are: first commander of the submarine R. Ganesh, first commander of the aircraft carrier V. Pasricha wearing a lifejacket who just descended from a helicopter (both will be three-star admirals in the future, but they do not yet know about this) and Soviet commander A. Terenov (he knows exactly that will not be an admiral). The shot was made from a Sea King helicopter. September 1988
USC №2(15), 2013 29
Three Indian crews shortly came to a specially-built training center in Vladivostok and began studying the Russian language, and later went through the theo-retical course. In the fall of 1984 my K-43 submarine moored for the first time within the city, in the Bay of Ulysses. The idea of basing the nuclear submarine in the immediate vicinity of the training center was bril-liant. The seamen could test the acquired knowledge in practice in the on-line mode. The Indians were eager to get aboard the submarine and were ready to explore it day and night.
By the late summer 1985 each of them passed Task No.1, and by my order all Indian personnel were permitted to operate independently the entrusted equipment. After long disputes on how to clear com-manders and chief mates for submarine control (there was no notion of a certificate of competency yet in our fleet), it was decided that I would make them pass tests, and would permit them to control the subma-rine independently by my ship’s order. In any case the responsibility for the vessel and the crew would rest with me. With a clean conscience I handed over to the commanders badges “Commander of the Subma-rine” which we properly celebrated in a narrow circle. The Indian and most other navies (excepting, per-haps, the German Navy) do not have such decoration, but a submariner badge common for all categories of personnel. Even when a submariner’s fate brings him on board a surface ship, into aviation or coastal units, he bears with pride this badge till the end of his service. Given organisational peculiarities of officers’ military service in foreign navies, one should not be surprised when seeing, for example, a commander of an aircraft carrier or a surface ship wearing the submariner’s badge. This means that the officer previ-ously served on the submarines or even commanded them.
At that time already we were surprised to see how highly ordered and disciplined were Indians: wearing impeccable uniforms, moving in formation, report-ing execution of orders, showing subordination and respect to seniors. There was a clear rank distinction of officers, warrant officers and seamen — with no familiarity. The boatswain is both chief mate, deputy commander for morale, elder brother and father for all warrant officers and seamen. The chief mate is both “chain dog” and deputy commander for morale in one person. The commander is the first person af-ter God. Officers are a special caste, and although di-vided into seniors and juniors all of them are invited to all official events such as cocktails and receptions regardless of the rank. At leisure we often paid visits to one another, usually accompanied by our families. Sometimes we organised stag parties since the com-munion between our wives was difficult at the begin-ning, mainly due to the language barrier. The head of the training center D.S. Kasper Yust established the tradition of going to the Russian bathhouse on Fri-days, and I was happy to join. A small group of enthu-
siasts was formed, including Kasper Yust, his depu-ties and myself with Indian commanders. At first they felt a little shy, but soon began to enjoy it, cheerfully beat each other with green birch twigs, and bathed in icy water.
After passing exams on Task 1 we sailed off in the sea. We thoroughly thought out the sea tasks work-up plan. The Indian crews were divided into six com-bat shifts, and in the beginning each shift put out to sea for four days. The commanding officer, chief mate, mate and engineer sailed off with each shift. The crew took in up to 50 persons additionally, including of-ficers of the third crew. Then we returned to the base for four hours to replace combat shifts and prepare the ship — and off we sailed again for four days. Such training arrangements helped us greatly increase the quality of training by allowing crews to have an adequate rest, if the word “rest” is somehow applica-ble to mariner’s activities. By the end of October we started setting sail with the entire crew for 15 days, then we returned to the base, and again sailed off for two more days to pass the Task 2 weapon delivery exam. The same procedure was repeated with the sec-ond crew.
As is known, a nuclear-powered submarine differs from a diesel-electric one not only by reactor and
Happy Indian and Russian officers celebrate the reinforcement of Indian Navy with a new mighty ship — an attack nuclear submarine (1988 and 2012)
30 USC №2(15), 2013
CAPTAIN’S MEMOIRS
turbine, but also by combat capabilities provided by nuclear propulsion — for example, high underwater speed. Surely, the Indian seamen were experienced submariners who grasped the essence at first glance, but some time they had to change an attitude of slow diesel-electric submariner for that of speedy atomic warrior (I hope that submariners from diesel-electric boats will not be offended by my slang). It is one thing when the horizontal rudders are jammed in div-ing position at a cruising speed of 3 knots, and quite another when it occurs at 25 knots when in mere seconds you dive under the limit depth. Therefore we continued exercising at sea with the emphasis on damage control, especially in such scenarios as flood-ing causing fire, radiation hazard, jamming of the horizontal rudders at high speed. To questions of the commanders bewildered why we devoted so much time to damage control when the submarine was in perfect condition, I would answer that we had eve-rything ahead (as if I were a clairvoyant). Although a nuclear submarine is a complex mechanism, it is very difficult to sink it if basic underwater service rules are observed; doing so requires deep knowledge, skills and a great desire. As I know, the Indian seamen ob-serve these rules with the utmost diligence.
It was hard time. We put out 200 persons to sea while the organic crew counted 90 and there were
only 70 bunks. Meals, washing, toilet, clean-ing and rest, organised for 5-6 shifts, and 4-hour communica-tion sessions — all these exhausted the crew and hampered combat training. In those conditions we had to resort to small tricks. Since the com-bat training ranges in the Peter the Great Bay are situated in zones with intensive shipping and fish-ing activities, it is rather dif-ficult to navigate there in both above-water and even underwater positions, frequently so at night and amid a storm. Sometimes, especially when the command post of the Fleet did not allow us to stay in submerged position, I made for a fixed buoy, the nearest to the range, and moored to it during the night providing rest for the crew. Besides, this maneuver took off strain from the main control station since we departed from main shipping routes, saved radar service life; and, in general, mooring to the buoy without the help of a tug boat is an excellent seamanship practice. We mastered this method ear-lier during sea trials and state acceptance tests. Soon I came to know positions and reliability of all buoys scattered along the coast of the Peter the Great Bay. By the way, this manoeuvre only seems to be very simple: you just come close to the buoy from the lee side and put a mooring hand on it to rapidly fasten the mooring lines. But once an incident happened: during a routine maneuver performed in the dead of the night at a freezing temperature and a strong wind, the mooring hand lingered, the submarine was car-ried away in the dark, and the seaman remained on the buoy. Of course, in about an hour we found the
Head of Rosoboronexport’s Department Andrey Samarin and the Indian commander signing a historic submarine transfer document
The signing of the Acceptance Protocol and flag and name changing ceremony were appointed on January 5, 1988. The ambassador, naval attache, representative of the Ministry of foreign affairs and Pacific Fleet Commander-in-Chief arrived to attend at the event. There were no media, but the national newspapers Izvestia and Pravda published short news about a nuclear-powered submarine transferred on lease.
“The lease of the Chakra was a remarkable milestone in the history of international
naval cooperation and evolution of the Indian Navy. Successful
operations of the nuclear submarine by the Indian Navy testify to the professionalism of our seamen and officers. It also proved the
effectiveness of training methods practiced on the Soviet submarines.
On my part I would like to add that Alexander Ivanovich must be given
most of the credit for the success of this program. His personality traits
greatly impressed all those who had the honor to serve with him”.
R. GaneshVice Admiral (Ret.),
Commander of the Southern Naval Command
(1999-2000)
USC №2(15), 2013 31
buoy, not without difficulty in the darkness, res-cued our submariner and completed the manoeu-vre, but I was truly worried and it cost me an added touch of grey in my hair. But just imagine what felt all this time the seaman left alone in the dark and cold sea on a small slippery barrel….
During torpedo firings we lost only one anti-submarine torpedo, and it happened under rather curious circumstances. The torpedo was fired against a head-on target at a small range (it was a diesel submarine in the duelling position). The torpedo went off and homed onto “the enemy” and started turning around it, while we turned away and drew closer and when we were under the tar-get, the torpedo hit us on the conning tower sail — and, of course, sank. The impact was hard, all of us sweated with horror, especially when the sonar operator reported that the torpedo was coming onto us. But no mistakes had been done: each boat had sailed at its echelon of depths, and the torpedo’s running depth had been set correctly. This fact was an additional argument in favour of our weapons capable of striking any target at any depth. Closer to the springtime, together with the Indian commanders we carried out three missile launches — all successfully scored direct on-target hits …
IN ThE MySTERIOUS INDIAThe signing of the Acceptance Protocol and flag
and name changing ceremony were appointed on January 5, 1988. The ambassador, naval attache, representative of the Ministry of foreign affairs and Pacific Fleet Commander-in-Chief arrived to attend. There were no media, but short news ap-peared in the national newspapers Izvestia and Pravda about a nuclear-powered submarine trans-ferred on lease. That day the weather looked clear and frosty, minus 25 degrees Centigrade, with strong wind blowing. That morning the submarine looked extraordinarily beautiful like a bride before wedding. The white and blue ice on the frozen bay stressed fine lines of the boat, surely it is not by accident that a submarine in our country is in feminine just like any ship in Britain. The band had great trouble when playing the two anthems because their lips got frozen to the metal. Ink also froze in fountain pens. According to the Indian
tradition the wife of the naval attache broke a coconut against the board of the submarine and pulled off a screen from the plate bearing its new name. After 20 years of distinguished service in the Soviet Navy the nuclear-powered missile-carrying submarine cruiser K-43 was assigned a new tactical number S-71 and the name “Chakra” designating the ancient weapon of Indian gods.
In India the submarine was actively operated, took part in all major naval exercises and missile and torpedo firings, sailed to full endurance run, accomplished interbase and interfleet transitions.
I remember patrols (this term is used in India and in the rest of the world to designate combat duty missions and cruises) carried out in the Andaman sea and in the direction of the Anda-man, Nicobar, Lakshadvipa and Maldives Islands. In general, the Bay of Bengal and Arabian Sea
History repeats itself. And now spouse of a new ambassador, as then, 24 years ago, unveils the nameplate with a new name for Nerpa which became Chakra
Twenty years ago, a 5-kg chocolate cake greeted my Chakra after patrol.On January 23, 2012 Indian commander P. Ashokan and two Russian commanders, D. Lavrentyev and B. Dolbenkov, cut the chocolate cake weighing already 50 kg
32 USC №2(15), 2013
CAPTAIN’S MEMOIRS
became our home waters. Once, sailing to the Arabian Sea and Bombay for taking part in the interfleet excercises and parade to the President of the Republic, we left the base, for the sake of ex-periment, two days after the Eastern Fleet surface ships bound for the same destination, surpassing them by one day which surprised them immensely. They could not believe that the submarine can sus-tain the speed of 26 knots for a long time, outrun the squadron, attack its ships with impunity, and remain invisible. However, the strait between the mainland and the island of Sri Lanka is known to be shallow and can be passed only on junk-type boats. Because of this fact all interfleet transits were carried out around the island which in-creased the distance and transit time...
Many things happened to the submarine and the crew in India. But after three years the lease ended — and we returned to Vladivostok. Indians were eager to prolong the lease because the nuclear submarine was in the excellent technical state and could have served them at least two or three years more. Back home the boat was decommissioned, never again put out to sea and was scrapped in 2006.
NEW AVATARQuite a few years passed since my handing over
the submarine after its lease to India. I kept no con-tacts with my foreign colleagues: too many events happened in those turbulent years. They were the coup, collapse of the country to which I swore, study in the naval academy, voucher privatisation, struggle for survival, birth of a long-awaited son 12 years after daughter, service in central institutions of the Ministry of Defence.
One day in 1999 I received a phone call from an Indian Admiral who managed to find me from the outer office of the Commander-in-Chief of the Russian Navy V. Kuroedov. I immediately recog-nised the voice of my Indian friend. We quickly
In India, as well as in Russia, names of glorious ships are inherited, only in India this process has a religious nature known as reincarnation, one of the pillars of hinduism where people sincerely believe in the transmigration of souls.
Indian Ambassador Malhotra thanks Russia and Russian Navy for the beautiful ship. Malakhit SPMBM’s Director General V. Dorofeyev and Amur Shipyard’s Director General A. Gurov have put a lot of effort and soul into making the ship
A new Avatar after a 40-day passage from Vladivostok to the port of Vishakhapatnam
agreed to meet at my home that very night. My friend was not late, and we sat long recalling our best moments in Vladivostok, Sea of Japan, India and Indian Ocean in a mixture of Russian and my partially forgotten English. We remembered how I received a little bear cub as a gift from hunters at the very start of my young commander carrier in Paratunkа on Kamchatka, how strongly it was at-tached to my crew and the crew to it. How it began to grow up rapidly, how I rushed about not know-ing what to do about it until I met Yuri Nikulin. We also recalled the accident which occurred at great depth in the Bay of Bengal with flooding and strong fire in the central station, complete de-en-ergizing of the boat, and finally the rudder jammed in diving position. The reactor accident with a discharge of reactor water made the situation, as it seemed, practically hopeless. But we came off this situation with honour and returned to our base under own power on the turbine. I clearly remem-ber the day of our return from the northen part of the Sea of Japan to our home Bay of Ulysses, when
USC №2(15), 2013 33
we tried to escape from the storm but the Fleet Head-quarters did not allow us to transit under water and the crew started massively feeling seasick because of heavy rolling so that I took decision to seek shelter in one of the Primorye bays. The nearest one was the Bay of Olga, and I entered it looking for my favourite buoy, but the bay was packed with ice. So we had to spend the night deeply dug into it. The bay surrounded with centuries-old cedars looked marvellous, and it saved us a lot of trouble. I remember myself standing on the bridge, after having ascertained safe mooring and the turbine put out of operation, dozing off with one duty-opened eye and face buried into a snow-white fur of my anorak when I had the sweetest feeling as if my head lay on the bosom of a beloved woman hiding me from bad weather…
I was surprised to learn from my guest that our ex-perience was not lost as I had thought until then. And my Indian friends who took high positions in the Navy convinced the leadership of their country to continue the course started long ago and to lease one more nuclear-powered submarine. This time it was Bars. I could not believe my ears! For at that time, that was too advanced and complex a submarine….
REINCARNATIONThe acceptance trials of the submarine were com-
pleted only by the New Year 2012 after all issues connected with the fitting-out, sea and state tests, training of Indian crews had been solved. I want to pay tribute to the newly assigned deputy Commander-in-Chief of the Pacific Fleet Andrei Ryabukhin. The submarine transfer took place largely thanks to his efforts. The Commander-in-Chief assigned the task — and he executed it. The Navy needs exactly such ambi-tious young admirals capable of taking decisions who are not afraid of taking responsibility in these trying times.
We witnessed the birth of a new Chakra on Janu-ary 23, 2012. In India, as well as in Russia, names of
glorious ships are inherited, only in India this process has a religious nature known as reincarnation, one of the pillars of Hinduism where people sincerely believe in the transmigration of souls. Everything was almost like it had been 24 years ago: the Peter the Great Bay, a clear day with frost at minus 25, an enormous cake, guests, a banquet in the restaurant, the same speeches and toasts. The Chakra commander Captain 1st rank Ashokan and a representative of Rosoboroneksport A. Samarin signed the Acceptance Protocol, and the wife of the Ambassador of India in Russia opened the screen to show a new name “Nerpa”. The event was much more superior in scope than the past one when the K-43 had become the first avatar. Several hundred guests were present, whereas twenty five years ago only my officers were invited. The cake was ten times heavier and bigger than the cake we had a quarter of century ago.
In the middle of February 2012 Chakra began its transition to the native shores by the most complex route possible, and I went to India at the head of a small delegation to prepare the base, places of boarding and
Commander of the happy Chakra P. Ashokan raises his first toast to Russia and the Russian Navy, which entrusted him a great ship developed at Malakhit Design Bureau and built at Amur Shipyard
Amur Shipyard’s Chief Construction Manager Viktor Mishkin and responsible deliverer Alexander Guriev have done much for the ship to get the name of Chakra
Courage of second in command Captain 1st Rank Sanjay Roy defies description: despite his frostbitten ear, he did not flinch and did not leave the ranks
34 USC №2(15), 2013
CAPTAIN’S MEMOIRS
work for a guarantee brigade coming from the Amur shipyard.
The Russian delegation at the welcome reception of the new avatar in India was headed by the first deputy director of the Federal service for military technical cooperation A.V. Fomin and the first deputy general director of Rosobronexport I.M. Goncharenko. The United Shipbuilding Corporation was represented by heads of departments I.B. Ponomarev, A.F. Shlemov and first deputy director general of the Malachite Saint-Petersburg marine engineering design bureau N.A. Novoselov. I met with my Indian commanders who had long become admirals: R. Ganesha, S. Ananda and R. Sharmu, with whom I spent many years in the sea. We had enough things to remember and discuss, and despite the great difference in age our friendship passed the test of sea and time. Only many years later could I appreciate how much I was enriched by the commu-nication with these Indian commanders so different in character and views of life. I would like to make a special emphasis on their role and influence during all three years of the nuclear submarine lease. They bore on their shoulders a heavy load of responsibility for the boat, and it was they and their crews who proved that the Indian Navy was fit, already 20 years ago, to oper-ate independently and accident-free the most complex technical systems…
AN AFTERWORD By ThE FIRESIDEI decided to complete my memoirs in the com-
pany of friends who ascended to high places in the Navy and industry (thanks to their personal talents only, not to protection). I seized this opportunity to put questions troubling not only myself, to some of my friends, among a hundred of them, and get their answers. I am glad that my Indian friends, now Admi-rals, agreed to participate in the conversation. In my narration I actually described my personal impres-
sions and feelings. It was a chance to learn the opin-ion of Indian colleagues on a wide range of issues, answers to which may differ from my point of view. If I may have abused my friendship with them, let read-ers judge.
The format of the corporate magazine does not allow publishing all answers to my questions, but they are very interesting, instructive and informative. Only a few statements and opinions, important for gen-eral understanding of Russian-Indian relations in the sphere of military technical cooperation and situation in the underwater shipbuilding, are included.
India’s Defense Minister Anthony is inducting the Chakra into the Indian Navy
Indian commander’s immediate associates — first mate, chief engineer, chief electrician and a doctor are great officers who know their stuff and love it
USC №2(15), 2013 35
Alexander Fomin, director of the Federal service for military technical cooperation: We have very confidential relations with India
along military technical cooperation lines, and our friendship is time-proven. And although in recent years we have taken a lot of criticism from India, especially about after-sale servic-ing of our equipment, we do learn from our mistakes and place a high priority on our future relations. This is why I was very pleased to hear kind, instead of critical, words about Russia said by the Indian Navy Commander-in-Chief Nirmal Vermy and Defence Minister Anthony during the welcome reception of the new Chakra on April 4, 2012 in Vishakhapatnam attended by numer-ous guests and media. During the reception of the new Chakra I was especially proud for our country when I heard words of the Indian Navy Commander-in-Chief about you personally and the commanders who you taught and who be-came Admirals. A lot of truly warm words were said about your book “Under three flags” which has become a textbook for many people, not only submariners, in which you write with love about India and Indian seamen.
Russia very seriously intends to expand mili-tary technical cooperation with India as our stra-tegic partner in many areas, including supplies of unique weapons. That period of the surprising cooperation of our fleets, when you commanded your submarine in India, will be continued on a qualitatively new level, you can rest assured.
R.K. Sharma, last Chakra’s commander, commander of Indian submarine forces, Rear Admiral (Ret.): I walked down the ladder from the ship for the
last time with tears swelling in my eyes. My feel-ings were akin to feelings of a captain who just lost his ship at sea. At that moment you were in the Pacific Fleet Headquarters reporting about the acceptance of the submarine from the Indian Navy. I made several steps on the pier and realised that I forgot keys from my hostel room aboard in the captain’s cabin. I turned back and headed for the ladder to pick them up. A sentry stopped me. In accordance with the rules the sentry passed my request about going down to the central station. A quick response came that the keys would be de-livered at the hostel, and I must not be on board. I looked at the submarine for the last time. It had the Soviet red flag proudly flying in the wind — and, alas, that was not the Indian flag. It hurts me now doubly that the submarine never again sailed in the sea when it was in the Soviet and Russian Navies, whereas it could have served for at least two or three years more in India.
Ravindranat Ganesh, first Chakra’s commander, commander of the aircraft carrier, commander of the Southern Naval Command, program manager for the development of the ATV nuclear-powered submarine, Vice Admiral: After commanding Chakra and studying in the
academy I was appointed a commander of the aircraft carrier Vikrant. For me, as a submariner,
On the day of the meeting the new Avatar I got the pleasure of meeting my old friends — Indian commanders R.N. Ganesh, S.C. Anand, R.K. Sharma with whom I spent several years at sea. Our friendship has been tested by time and the sea
Malakhit-designed submarines, especially this one, which I hope is not the last boat of the Bars class (NATO reporting name: Akula), are beautiful in their aggressive hull lines, combat power. Such superlative epithets are applicable to weapons, too — a military man will understand
36 USC №2(15), 2013
CAPTAIN’S MEMOIRS
the opportunity to acquire experience of managing the aircraft carrier was unique, as its organization is extremely complex and requires a many-sided education. In my experience, the most important is to create a strong team with complete mutual trust and re-spect. I can honestly say that although the post of the commander of aircraft carrier is extremely honorable, visible and known all over the Navy, com-manding a nuclear-powered submarine is a unique and unequalled experience. The submarine commander’s post re-quires a 24-hour brainwork a day. The commander must constantly feel the pulse of his submarine. Commanding
the submarine means that the entire crew works on you and the submarine’s attack is your masterpiece. I cannot imagine more reverent and exciting sense of cohesion and friendship with the crew where all are for one and one is for all.
Mikhail Konstantinovich Barskov, head of advisers group in the Far-Eastern shipbuilding and repair center of the United Shipbuilding Corporation, Vice Admiral: Generally speaking, this is a very promising
area, all the more so that our country was first to explore it. We built a complete series of unique Project 705 submarines developing up to 45 knots under water.
It was a unique nuclear-powered submarine. No one in the world was able to design anything like it. The submarines were automated to an extent which
is exceptional even today. Having gained vast expe-rience in operating these boats, we were prepared to build a new nuclear-powered submarine with liquid metal coolant, much improved, first of all, as regards maintenance of the liquid metal cooled reactors. But the situation in our country in the 1990s was not favourable for the development of this project.
Innokentiy Naletov, chief of staff of the Northern Fleet, commander of naval forces of the Federal border service, adviser to general director of Rosoboronexport, Admiral: The fifth generation submarine must be fully
automated, super quiet, of small displacement with uninhabited compartments. Noise signature — at sea noise level, low observable by sonars. No re-volving mechanisms aboard the underwater ship, everything in statics. Power generation — non-nuclear, specialised and safe, with direct drive for motion and power supply to life support and all ship systems.
Crew — 10 persons for any displacement. Three watch commanders — commanding officer, chief mate and mate. Three watch engineers/mechanics to control all ship systems and main power plant, three watch engineers to control communication, navigation, radio and weapons delivery systems. The tenth crew member — cook, seaman steward, physician-psychologist, masseur, etc. — all in one person. Modern designer should be a visionary with strategic thinking. Wide and versatile modern outlook. High professionalism. Knowledge of re-cent advances in science and technology and abil-ity to apply them in practice. Three-dimensional design. Submarines must operate in groups, as a rule. Secure communications only from under-water position both with coastal facilities and between submarines. Submarine operations must pose constant threat to potential enemy in the broad sense of this word, and harass him strongly. To divert a large part of its forces and assets for the disclosure of threat situation, defence of com-munications and bases. Operations of submarines must be stealthy, large-scale, ingenious. Manda-tory condition: it is necessary to create new-generation high-precision versatile weapons; com-munication, navigation, reconnaissance, power generation systems; new materials.
They bore on their shoulders a heavy load of responsibility for the boat, and it was they and their crews who proved that the Indian Navy was fit, already 20 years ago, to operate independently and accident-free the most complex technical systems…
Indian Navy Chief and my old friend Admiral Nirmal Verma is putting in the base on board the Chakra to announce the arrival of a new Avatar
A banner from the solemn ceremony for inducting the INS Chakra II into the Indian Navy
USC №2(15), 2013 37
Severnaya Verf Press Service
natoly Shlemov, head of Defence Procurement and Acquisition Department of Russia’s United Shipbuilding Corporation, especially un-
derlined during the solemn ceremony that “shipyard keeps outstanding tradi-tions in building surface warships for the Russian Navy”. “I very much appre-ciate that in these anything but simple conditions you coped with the task and commissioned this state-of-the-art, powerful and so needed for the Russian Navy warship on the eve of its Baltic Fleet anniversary”, — he said.
It is nothing but coincidental that the ship was titled “Boiky”. It is a tribute to the old fleet tradition, memory and herit-age of the famous predecessors — Buiny-class destroyers of the Russia-Japan war period; the 7th Project destroyers which defended Sevastopol and Odessa during the Great Patriotic War; and the 57bis Project missile cruisers which served for
the benefit of Russia over different peri-ods of its history.
The Boiky corvette is a decent suc-cessor of the Russian 20380 Project breakthrough vessels which signifi-cantly outranks the similar class ships by her specifications and combat characteristics. The vessels of this class are distinguished by the multifunctional performance, stealth technology, high-ly automated and integrated ship sys-
tems and significant upgrade potential. While building the corvette, the Sev-
ernaya verf shipyard has accommodated the contractor’s all new requirements concerning armaments, ship systems, communication and automatic equip-ment. Some changes were introduced into the hull and superstructure. Experts from the Severnaya verf shipyard, while adopting a batch-production, have de-veloped a single computer design and
May 16, 2013. Shipbuilders from the Severnaya verf shipyard and all navy sailors will remember this day for a solemn event — commissioning of the second 20380 Project Boiky corvette into the Russian Navy. The ship that was put into the Baltic Sea inventory is a sort of a gift made by the shipbuilders to the Russian Navy Baltic Fleet on its 310th anniversary celebrated on the 18th of May.
The 20380 Project multipurpose warships are equipped with the state-of-the-art strike, air de-fence and antisubmarine weapon systems. The ship air group con-sists of the Ka-27PL helicopter housed in a separate hangar. The ship boasts a stealth radar and IR
band equipment which meets the ship’s architectural features and is complimented by special covers. The ship’s displacement is 2.200 tons; length — 100 m; width — 13 m; speed — about 27 knots; autonomy — 4.000 miles. Armaments — 100-mm artillery systems, air de-fence missile systems, supersonic missiles and automated artillery systems.
A
BOIKy SAILED OFF FOR ThE BALTICSSecond batch-produced 20380 Project corvette commissioned into Russian Navy
38 USC №2(15), 2013
FLEET’S ADVANCED GUARD
The Boiky corvette is the 20380 Project ship developed by the Almaz Central Marine Design Bureau. The Project forerunner, Steregushchy, was commissioned into the Russian Navy in February 2008. The first serial production ship, Soobrazitelny, has been performing its service duties in the Russian Baltic Fleet since October 2011. Production of the third 20385 Project serial corvette is almost completed. It shall be commissioned into the Russian Navy in 2014. At the same time the shipyard continues building the 20385 Project upgraded corvettes developed by the Almaz Central Marine Design Bureau on the basis of the Steregushchy-class serial production ships and having accommodated the recent requirements and operational experience.
engineering support technology for the Project which is based on a digital 3D model of the hull.
The Boiky corvette is a penultimate order of the 20380 Project (Stoiky cor-vette, the last vessel of the Project, was put into water on May 30, 2013). The Severnaya verf shipyard is now working hard on the serial orders of the 20385 up-graded Project: the Gremyashiy forerun-ner ship, laid down on February 1, 2012, is under double quick construction now. The metal cut procedures for the first corvette of the Project, Provorniy, began this April. The vessel differs from the 20380 Project ships by more consider-able dimensions and displacement as well as by significantly more sophisticated weaponry. There will be much work to do for the shipbuilders of the shipyard in the future: three more contracts on the 20385 Project corvettes are coming…
The Severnaya verf shipyard is the only Russian shipbuilding company now that restored a batch-production of naval surface ships. It is due to manu-
facture and commission six 22350 Pro-ject frigates (off-shore maritime zone ships) and six 20380 and 20385 Project corvettes (near-shore maritime zone ships) until the year 2020. The shipyard portfolio of orders also includes three 23120 Project high ice-class combat logistics ships. The first ship, Elbrus, was solemnly laid down on November 14, 2012, the day of 100th anniversary of the shipyard.
The workers of the shipyard are ready for such a tense production programme. The immediate tasks of the shipyard are: putting into water of the 18280 Project Yuri Ivanov communication vessel; lay-ing down of the first serial 20385 Project corvette Provorniy; preparing and begin-ning of the trials of the 22350 Project USSR Fleet Admiral Gorshkov frigate which already houses her crew. Moreo-ver the experts of this unique shipbuild-ing company are making necessary preparations to repair and upgrade one of the St.Peterbsurg’s symbols — legend-ary Aurora cruiser.
The main advantages of the completely new for the Russian Navy 20380 Project ships are their multifunctional performance, stealth technology, highly automated and integrated ship systems and significant upgrade potential.
BOIKy SAILED OFF FOR ThE BALTICS
USC №2(15), 2013 39
r. Shlemov, you must admit that the end of May 2013 can be considered a milestone in domestic shipbuild-ing industry. On May 21, Vladimir Putin held a meeting on the devel-
opment of USC, where the importance of the ef-fective and smooth operation of the Corporation for the nation was emphasized, which implies, in particular, on-time delivery of ships and marine equipment to the customer. A few days later, at a meeting chaired by Deputy Prime Minister Dmitry Rogozin, one of the key problems hindering the proper execution of state defense order tasks by shipbuilders was voiced — poor performance of cooperative enterprises and the lack of a system of incentives capable of synchronizing the opera-tion of the entire defense-industrial shipbuilding complex. What in your opinion are solutions to these problems?
— Today, the construction and delivery of ships to the Navy are not dependent solely on prime contractors — USC enterprises, design bureaus, shipbuilders — and depend largely on the concerted efforts by all cooperative entities of Russia’s defense-industrial complex. First of all, the question is nu-clear and non-nuclear submarines, Class I, II ships; I would not include support or special purpose ves-sels here: they may have their own specifics.
USC includes no suppliers and has no influence on them, either ideological or economic, for the simple reason that, unfortunately, the contracts concluded with the Corporation are not particularly profitable. Such a problem exists and it is pressing and not simple. In my opinion, a solution to this problem depends primarily on the backbone de-partment — the Ministry of Industry and Trade — as well as on the Government Military-Industrial Commission (MIC), set up by the state to deal with complex, systemic issues concerning the defense
industry.We build good modern ships,
whether these are products from Sev-mash — fourth-generation Borei- and Yasen-class nuclear-powered subma-
rines or Class I and II surface combatants from the Severnaya Verf shipyard. I emphasize: there are no problems with general ship systems at all. There are problems with timely deliveries of weapon systems.
Here is a clear example. Why were the Project 20380 corvettes Boiky and Stoiky not handed over to the Navy last year? Yes, simply because the A190 gun mount was not delivered for the corvette Boiky until after December 20, 2012. As a result, we failed to deliver the almost completed ship that was fully ready as a platform. Such examples are numerous, and only a comprehensive solution to this problem will allow us to meet the specified ship delivery deadlines.
What is the strength of our new warships? Will Russia build an aircraft carrier fleet? Do we need to buy ships abroad? All these issues will be touched on in an interview with Anatoly Shlemov, head of the State Defense Contract Department at the United Shipbuilding Corporation
“TENDENCIES IN ShIPBUILDING AND IN ThE NAVy ARE ENCOURAGING”
-М
40 USC №2(15), 2013
COVER FEATURE
By the way, as part of the efforts to elaborate the Military-Industrial Commission’s action plan for the second half of 2013, USC presented its own proposal. Its essence is that we consider it appropri-ate to hold a MIC’s meeting on the current state of the development and delivery of weapon systems for naval ships. The proposal was sent to the RF Government MIC and the Ministry of Industry and Trade’s specialist Department.
The next question that is closely correlated with the previous topic is the issue of the quality of these deliveries.
Today, the SSBN Vladimir Monomakh, a follow-on Borei-class boat, is being intensely prepared for builder’s sea trials. In May, we successfully and on schedule carried out a physical start-up of its nu-clear reactor, carried out all the necessary checks, technical and physical measurements.
Everything seemed to be going well. And at the same time there are ongoing problems with a num-ber of suppliers. Their geography is quite extensive: Livny, St. Petersburg, Moscow, Kolomna, et cet-era. Poor quality of equipment entails its frequent breakdowns and, of course, makes it difficult to meet deadlines.
Well, of course, a quality complaint and claim settlement system is in place in our country and it basically works, but, unfortunately, this way is associated with a failure to meet the already tight deadlines. For example, this is now just a case at our place in the North where “a day feeds a year.” Let me remind you that summer navigation has already begun and the White Sea is crowded with delivery ships — both from Sevmash and Zvezdochka. It is very difficult to separate them as regards test support, test safety, and providing just putting out to sea, because equipment test-ing requires certain test ranges, conditions and so on. A postponement of tests even for a few days is fraught with consequences, because navigation at the main test ranges in the White Sea is strictly limited by the weather conditions and lasts till December.
Now about the third issue — the pricing poli-cy — which is also very relevant.
As regards meeting the State Defense Order’s target figures for this year’s delivery program, there
are no problems associated with funding. Both USC and all the leading enterprises, being aware of their responsibility to the State, will provide the delivery of all the planned ships without any requests or de-mands to change or adjust prices. We will perform all of these works at those prices approved as of today — even with a margin that does not meet the common sense — just because we understand: the state will not be able to allocate the other money. It’s a hard, tough but probably the right decision. However, as to ships to be delivered in 2014, 2015 and 2016, it is necessary, as USC enterprises at different levels repeatedly reported, to revise the prices under contracts signed between 2004 and 2007, as the economic conditions have changed drastically since then.
It’s nice that the new RF Ministry of Defense ex-ecutives hear and understand the domestic indus-try. In the first quarter of the year, by the order of First Deputy Defense Minister Yuri I. Borisov, USC and all the leading companies conducted in-depth analysis of each contract and reported the results to the military department. As a result, a specific decision was made on each ship and so-called “road maps” were drawn up, where industry, military acceptance offices and the relevant bodies of mili-tary administration were rigidly and specifically instructed to adjust the prices and other parameters of the contracts, if necessary, for the sake of the sin-gle purpose — to ensure the unconditional delivery of these ships.
The instructions given to industry are continu-ously monitored by us, so I can exactly state: today our entities have done this completely, military acceptance offices have reviewed all the pricing and cost calculations documents and given the ap-propriate opinions. It is a very pleasant fact that the prices, which they have approved, are in principle very similar to those submitted and justified by industry. Of course, military representatives have removed a number of cost items, but they had rea-soned arguments. For comparison, it is sufficient to remember what happened in 2010-2012, when, without considering the documents and not taking any justifications, the bodies of military adminis-tration forcibly and groundlessly removed 30-40% from the prices submitted.
The current approach to solving this problem can be definitely considered unbiased. However, an insufficient fine-tuning of the mechanism grieves: it is already the end of May and the deferred appro-priate decisions will significantly impede fulfillment of this year’s delivery program. I repeat once again, this does not apply to 2013, 2014, 2015 and subse-quent years.
Of course, there are problems, whose solving is solely the responsibility of the Corporation. This, in particular, is organizing more effective communica-tion with design bureaus, shipyards and, of course,
In May, we have successfully and on schedule carried out a physical start-up of a nuclear reactor on board the Vladimir Monomakh, carried out all the necessary checks, technical, and physical measurements. Everything seemed to be going well. And at the same time ongoing problems persist. They are due to the fact that part of equipment from the suppliers does not meet current reliability criteria.
USC №2(15), 2013 41
the suppliers. We will cope with these problems and there is no doubt about it.
— On May 16 the Project 20380 corvette Boiky was handed over to the Navy. This is the second follow-on and most advanced Russian combatant ship in its class. How did its construction proceed? Are sailors satisfied with the new ship?
I can say that the project has succeeded, although it required great efforts. It’s the first surface combat-ant ship, which was conceived in Russia, designed in Russia, built in Russia and handed over to the do-mestic Navy. The ship includes weapon systems made exclusively in Russia. It was under construction in the real economic and political conditions. The construc-tion of the lead ship, the Steregushchy, proceeded strenuously as well; however, all the requirements placed on it by the Navy and Ministry of Defense were also met.
Now, aside from the lead ship, the Navy oper-ates already two follow-on ships. Of course, the lat-ter, and especially the Boiky, have incorporated the Navy’s comments received since trial operation of the lead ship. This is good practice, when, relying on the analysis of all the tests, the state commission for acceptance of the lead ship makes up a protocol/pro-posal to increase the combat and technical properties of the ship. The proposals submitted are analyzed by the Central Design Bureau, the shipbuilder, and Min-istry of Defense’s institutes and then are implemented in the follow-on ships of the series. A great many such comments have been implemented in the Boiky, which enables its crew to more effectively and reliably operate the corvette in accordance with the tasks set by the State and the RF Ministry of Defense.
However, problems have remained open on this ship. They are not related to the builder and designer and concern the deliveries of several weapon systems and some of their parameters. These products need to be brought to the required performance level by the Ministry of Defense in conjunction with the prime contractors — the Region Corporation, Tactical Mis-siles Corporation and Almaz-Antey Concern. Only then will we be able to talk about the full operational capability of the delivered corvette Boiky.
In general, I know the attitude of both the state commission, which tested the ship, and the Baltic Fleet, which provided support of these tests. The Boiky has already joined the Baltic Fleet, the attitude to the ship is good, the sailors positively assessed its performance, seaworthiness, power plant, navigation systems, habitability, etc. The ship is modern, has great tasks assigned and great capabilities. It is espe-cially good that its commissioning with our Navy co-incided with the 310th anniversary of the Baltic Fleet.
— Recently, experts have been increasingly debating over whether Russia needs an aircraft car-
rier fleet. The discussion has reached a new level in connection with the ever-intensifying efforts of South-East Asian countries to establish aircraft car-rier capabilities: China and India are speeding up the development of aircraft carrier-based segment of their fleets and hence the industry as a whole. It turns out that Russia is on the sidelines? How do you, a naval mariner and shipbuilder, assess the situation?
—From the Navy’s standpoint, this issue for such a major maritime power as Russia is conceptual. Many researchers related to the domestic fleet believed and still believe that we need aircraft carriers, given the specificity of our country. In addition, all the major maritime powers — the U.S., the U.K., France, India, China, and Spain and even Italy — have or intend to have aircraft carriers in service with their Navies. That is, the global trend is obvious.
Indeed, this kind of naval forces is rapidly evolving in the Asian region. China, according to authoritative sources, has been very seriously engaged in this issue. India, our strategic partner, will definitely receive the aircraft carrier Vikramaditya this year. The ship will complete all the remaining sea trials, including joint tri-als together with its air wing, in summer and early fall and then will go to India, which is making active prepa-rations for the upcoming event, and already considers this powerful ship as the flagship of its naval forces.
A. Shlemov standing by Almaz CMDB Director General Alexander Shlyakhtenko, a representative of the Leningrad Naval Base, ship commander Lieutenant Commander A. Suslov, Chief Project Builder A. Ulyashev, head of the military acceptance office Yu. Pavlenko on the deck of the corvette Boiky
42 USC №2(15), 2013
COVER FEATURE
What do we have? This is definitely a nationwide task, a very complex, expensive system project. And it is the state and not the Navy or the Ministry of Defense that has to make the decision to build it — due to the complexity of development and the need to make sig-nificant budget allocations.
Most naval experts believe that Russia needs such ships, and more than one. Let me remind you that today we have only a heavy aircraft-carrying cruiser, which is the flagship of the Northern Fleet and the entire Navy of the country. Meanwhile, we need a few ships of this type, which would be based both in the Northern and the Pacific Fleets. I think it would be right.
There is one more argument in favor of such confi-dence: we need to retain deck-based aviation, a whole arm of the naval forces. The best pilots in the Navy and Air Force serve there. It is encouraging that a general-purpose ground-based aircraft test & training facility is being established near Eysk in Russia, which will make it possible to fine-tune aircraft, conduct combat train-
ing and instruction of specialists and pilots of carrier-based aircraft. We need to preserve these people, en-sure their further development and continuity of their experience.
As to the future, the issue is being seriously studied by the Ministry of Defense’s institutions, industrial enterprises and design bureaus. I must clarify that it is a preliminary study rather than development. Unfortu-nately, the state armament program (SAP), which was approved and is being implemented, does not provide for the development of an aircraft carrier (or an air-craft carrying complex, to be more precise). True, the Russian defense-industrial complex and the Ministry of Defense are actively working on SAP, which will be implemented in 2016-2025. It is possible that, given a certain political will, the efforts on such an aircraft carrying complex will be specified, defined and instruc-tions will be finally issued.
On my part, I can assure that the Russian defense industry is basically ready to meet this technological and organizational challenge. Sevmash’s experience in a comprehensive modernization of the heavy aircraft-carrying cruiser Admiral Gorshkov is a confirmation. Sevmash is the flagship in the Russian submarine industry. The experience it has gained is hard, but ex-tremely useful: the retrofit and overhaul of the aircraft carrier Vikramaditya became actually its construction from scratch. Now there is a company (albeit the only one) in Russia that has experience in building ships of this class. Moreover, the design bureaus, which were
Mariners positively evaluated the performance of the Boiky, its seaworthiness, power plant, navigation systems, habitability, etc. The modern ship has great tasks and great capabilities.
The first collective snapshot of the designers and builders of corvette Boiky together with its crew
USC №2(15), 2013 43
The retrofit and overhaul of the aircraft carrier Vikramaditya became actually its construction from scratch. Now there is a company in Russia that has experience in building ships of this class.
COVER FEATURE
actively involved in providing technical support of modernization, have further developed their expertise. In addition, all cooperating entities have filled in the gaps in experience of creating ships of this class in several areas, which had been avail-able in the Soviet Union until 1991, and has also developed new technologies.
If the “aircraft-carrier” question is resolved positively in the future, experience in developing and placing various aircraft on board a ship, gained when forming an air wing for the aircraft carrier Vikramaditya, will be also useful.
Summing up: the task is extremely difficult, ex-tremely costly, and time-consuming. It will require the efforts of Russia’s defense industry because an aircraft carrier is probably the most complex naval weapon system.
— In recent months, there have been fierce debates in the offices, corridors of power and the media over the need or inexpediency of procure-ment and repair of military equipment abroad. What is your opinion?
— In general, it is possible to buy military equip-ment abroad. Another thing is whether we need it. Let’s evaluate all aspects and perspectives.
The country positioning itself as a maritime power simply must build ships on its own. First, for reasons of national security; second, from the standpoint of developing its own industry; and third, — this is very important — in order to maintain the prospects for military-industrial cooperation. We are a major exporter of military equipment under military-technical cooperation agreements and we supply both ships and weapon systems. Russia must not lose this market, as it provides significant budget replenishment, sub-stantially maintains and encourages our industry, and helps keep a strong position on the global scene. If we start to buy something, we’ll gradually lose our authority.
Now a few words about do’s and don’ts in im-port.
I am deeply convinced that our country must not buy ships as naval weapon systems. And if it does buy, this must be a unique, isolated case, seriously grounded by a common need of the state, the Min-istry of Defense and the Navy, because we ourselves can and must build ships.
Probably, it is permissible to buy some specific military systems, preferably equipment packages. To be honest, many pieces of foreign equipment are often better, more modern, and in many cases cheaper than what we produce ourselves today. It is quite acceptable to buy and install them on our ships, provided that their operation is supported during the entire life cycle (I mean SPTA, docu-mentation, and various types of maintenance). In
addition, we will be able to gain experi-ence of their installation, testing and operation, get the know-how and later do the same, preferably even to a better quality. China is going this way — and such a way is probably justified.
As for repair of ships abroad, I can say the following. Our Navy currently operates approximately 70 support and auxiliary vessels built during the Soviet period both in the Warsaw Pact coun-tries (Poland, East Germany) and in the capitalist countries, such as Finland. There were quite a lot of such vessels in the USSR and it was natural, as the fleet was huge — but, I emphasize once again that these were auxiliary vessels. There are also a number of amphibious ships, including Project 775 ships, which Poland built when it was a mem-ber of the Warsaw Pact Organization. These ships were and remain in service with the Navy and have proved to be reliable. We have completely mastered their maintenance.
But life is life — SPTA sets for these ships have run out today. I think we can master their produc-tion in our country, but we should evaluate the eco-nomics and timing. If the Navy needs, we can do an experiment. It is possible to take one or two ships of the same Project 775 and have them repaired there in the case of obvious economic benefit and con-sent of Poland. After receiving the result, we will evaluate it and then make a decision to extend or abandon the practice. We’ve been taught and we re-member well that practice is the criterion of truth.
The opinions of experts on the subject are dia-metrically opposite. The Navy and the Ministry of Defense have to decide. My opinion is as follows: such experience should be one-off, because if it turns regular, then what will happen? We will take away orders from our industry, while financing the defense industry and human development of states, which are not today with us within a single block, and therefore we are not politically liable for their support and even more so for the strengthening of their defense-industrial capabilities. I believe we need to feed our industry, preserve and develop it.
— What do you think about the introduction of fashionable “full life-cycle” contracts in the native Navy and DIC?
— Yes, this pat phrase has become a catchword in the defense-industrial complex, it means manag-ing the life cycle of military equipment from scratch (i.e. from conception) to disposal. Well, the prob-lem is not new, it is relevant and rightful. I can say that different approaches are available today.
I understand what the Navy means by life cycle management. The Navy is interested, first of all,
The country positioning itself as a maritime power is simply obliged to build ships on its own, rather than buy them abroad.
46 USC №2(15), 2013
COVER FEATURE
to ensure the operation of the ships delivered by industry. It seems to me that the Navy’s priority is associated with the second part of the life cycle — the operation and maintenance periods. But there is also a forward-looking stage of the life cycle as-sociated with the development of new ships and military hardware for them, that is the concept, the design stage, the stage of development of associated equipment, the construction stage, the test stage and so on.
For life cycle management to be truly effective during the operation period, the Navy must clearly determine what is service support. The analogy a car looks here most correct and valid. Do you want your iron horse to work well — conduct its mainte-nance properly in accordance with its service book. And if the car is good, do it at specialized service
centers rather than by means of some persons in question. Then you will be provided with a warranty for further operation, for all of the performance characteristics, and the reliability of units and the whole car.
Let’s make the analogy with a ship. Of course, the ship, all its systems and complexes must be serviced routinely, in accordance with prescribed maintenance schedules. Then all the reliability cri-teria, performance indicators of a ship as a complex naval weapon system, as well as the performance characteristics of systems and component elements will be provided.
Yes, I say bluntly, it is expensive and requires some other budget allocations. Because the lion’s share of these service activities, especially in the last time period, has not been offered to industry and performed by ship personnel. Sometimes these functions were transferred to the so-called enter-prises of different ownership forms. I understand the priority is given to addressing a number of tasks set for ships by the Navy — this is the meaning of using the Navy in peacetime. However, new ships are a very sophisticated equipment set. The ship, which industry delivers to the Navy, should have a
At the solemn ceremony at the Severnaya Verf shipyard dedicated to the signing of the acceptance certificate and raising the flag
Normal constructive relationship has been established between industry and prime customer and understanding has appeared. A purely masculine approach has prevailed: you are at least listened and your arguments are analyzed for the good of the cause.
USC №2(15), 2013 47
corresponding document (you can call it, for exam-ple, a scheduled service logbook). It should contain a list of the works that the industry must timey and efficiently perform on this ship, moreover in respect of each ship system, each complex. Of course, all this will require some budget allocations. It will be necessary to calculate the annual service cycle for each particular ship. On the other side, much is guaranteed.
Unfortunately, the personnel in the Navy serve now just 12 months. Over this time, it is possible to learn somehow to operate modern equipment, but it is difficult to master servicing of all equip-ment and all maintenance operations from the service point of view. Nevertheless, the problem is pressing and right. It needs to be addressed organ-izationally, technically and financially by provid-ing for such costs in the budget. Deputy Defense Minister Yuri Borisov has already set this task for the Navy — it concerns, first of all, the lead fourth-generation nuclear ballistic missile submarine Yuri Dolgoruky, which we delivered on December 30, 2012. Prime contractors Sevmash and Rubin CDB ME are engaged to implement these measures. They are thinking and calculating together with the Northern Fleet and the Navy Command. The technical and, importantly, the economic param-eters of the work will be determined soon. And only then it is possible to organize it.
There are another two nuances that need to be taken into account. First, it is the place of ship repair and maintenance. An incompetent person might decide that the manufacturer of military equipment should “pasture” it throughout the entire life cycle. In the Navy, it is not something the case: generally, some shipyards build ships while others repair them. Other options are not available. Let’s take Severodvinsk: on one shore is Sevmash, which has built 129 nuclear submarines, and on the other — Zvezdochka that has virtually repaired all of these boats. They have different objectives, different specialists and different tech-nological equipment. Therefore, I think the repair of ships (except for the lead ships) and all military equipment should be done by ship repair enter-prises. Later, in the contracting phase, this will have to be taken into account.
The second aspect is also of importance. It hap-pens that the ships built, for example, at Sevmash, serve completely at the other end of the country, including in the Pacific Fleet. As you can imagine, the distance is considerable, and it also has to be considered when establishing the logistics system for new contracts.
In general, thinking conceptually, ship life cy-cle management is a multi-criterion and complex activity. It goes far beyond the USC’s competence. I mean a complete revision of the regulatory framework, which, in fact, is missing today in the
industry. Studies are under way, tasks have been assigned, leading institutions in the field of ship-building, led by the Krylov State Research Center, the undisputed leader, are working.
As a former naval officer, I consider it necessary to set and solve the life cycle support task already in the period of direct ship operation. Moreover, the Navy, the Ministry of Defense and industry must join efforts to efficiently organize everything and address the issue of making the necessary ap-propriations in state defense order.
How are the current relations with the new Ministry of Defense executives and the new Navy Command?
The tendencies in shipbuilding industry and in the Navy are encouraging. The very positive changes have taken place in the Ministry of De-fense and the Navy. Working with the military department became much more comfortable. Normal constructive relationship has been estab-lished between industry and prime customer and understanding has appeared. I think that a purely masculine approach has prevailed: the partner is at least listened and its arguments are analyzed when major organizational and capital-intensive tasks are solved for the good of the cause. Now there is a strong belief that the other party will try to under-stand you and help solve problems.
The positive changes have taken place in the Navy, too. New Commander-in-Chief Admiral Chirkov has had a hard fight to restore the RF Navy Command. I am glad that a naval shipbuild-ing department and a small technical department have emerged. The weapons and weapon opera-tions bodies are being established, which should help the Commander-in-Chief, the Navy and also the shipbuilding industry better shape orders, build and test ships. The state ship acceptance sys-tem began to revive. This body with a century-long history once consisted of the most professional of-ficers involved precisely in the testing of ships and the entire most sophisticated equipment. These emerging trends can not but please. They give us hope that life will improve both in shipbuilding and in the Navy.
From the standpoint of repair, a ship can be compared with a car. Do you want your iron horse to work well — conduct its maintenance properly in accordance with its service book. And if the car is good, do it at specialized service centers rather than by means of some persons in question. Then you will be provided with a warranty for further operation, for all of the performance characteristics, and the reliability of units.
48 USC №2(15), 2013
COVER FEATURE
Sophia Andreyeva
he use of instructional tools based on infor-mation technologies like computer-based simulators is one of the newest personnel training techniques. Moreover, the train-ing systems that developed today make
it possible not only to train specialists in operating the particular type of equipment, but also to practice the characteristics of cooperation between different services and arms of the armed services in a single virtual space. Precisely such integrated solutions will be presented by USC-Transas at the International Maritime Defense Show (IMDS), the world’s largest naval forum, which will be held at Lenexpo Exhibition Complex from 3 to 7 July, 2013.
INNOVATION BASED ON ExPERIENCEWorld practice proves that the use of high-tech
simulator solutions helps effectively organize the comprehensive training of various servicemen cat-egories. The benefits of training on modern simula-
tors are obvious: less time required to master modern weapons and military equipment, markedly lower material costs through saving the service life and military equipment itself. In addition, methodologi-cal and technical opportunities for personnel training provided by training simulators are much higher than when real-world weapons and military equipment are used.
Development of advanced simulators solutions became one of the priorities for USC-Transas, a joint venture between JSC USC and Transas Group estab-lished in 2011. Drawing on more than twenty years of Transas’ experience in the development of simulators
CREW SIMULATORAt the International Maritime Defense Show, St. Petersburg, the USC-Transas Company will present the latest integrated technology for training Navy specialists
It’s no secret that training of highly skilled personnel for the Russian Navy is one of the key issues today. In parallel with active re-equipment of the troops with modern weapons and military equipment, there is a growing need for qualified personnel capable of operating and properly using them.
T
The benefits of training on modern simulators are obvious: less time required to master modern weapons and military equipment, markedly lower material costs through saving the service life and military equipment itself.
USC №2(15), 2013 49
JOINT PROJECT
for civil and defense customers, the JV is actively de-veloping cutting-edge personnel training systems for the Army and Navy.
The development efforts on simulators rely on Transas technologies in the field of visualization systems and mathematical modeling, unique to our country and sometimes worldwide, as well as on advances in the area of integration of both in-house and third-party equipment and systems. In addition, USC-Transas applies a comprehensive approach to
the development of new-generation training equip-ment: a full range of solutions is being developed, from e-books and automated computer training courses to versatile integrated training simulator sys-tems.
TRAINING — FOR ALL hANDSAmong the priority areas where USC-Transas is
particularly active is the development of integrated complex ship control simulators that allow training of the whole crew simultaneously. The idea behind this approach is to develop facilities that make it possible to practice the interaction of combat stations, command posts, combat departments, crews and the ship as a whole. The various functional modules of the simulator are integrated into a single information space, which enables both individual and group training of the crew members. In addition, each specialist (or a group of
A unique system has been developed for individual training of boat and ship crews, collective training as part of a group of ships, as well as training of the Coast Guard command in action planning and control of forces at sea.
50 USC №2(15), 2013
JOINT PROJECT
specialists) not only practices his own task on his module, but also affects the course of an exercise for other trainees. This ensures comprehensive training of combat crews and ships’ crews in the area of navigation, navigation safety, operation of shipboard weapons and equipment.
A similar Transas Group-made complex system, the Laguna series training simulator system, was delivered to the Vietnamese Navy and is now suc-cessfully used for training crews of Gepard-3.9 class frigates. The simulator system consists of 56 combat stations mimicking all the combat depart-ments of the ship and can operate in the following modes: individual training, combat department-level training and training of the entire crew under the direction of the ship’s captain. Such simula-tors are not yet available to our military, however Rassvet-Trenazher, Russia’s first integrated train-ing simulator for RF Coast Guard units, is already undergoing testing. This training set will provide even wider training opportunities not only to all the Coast Guard ships’ crew members, but also to the Coast Guard Command. In other words, a unique system has been developed for individual training of boat and ship crews, collective training as part of a group of ships, as well as training of the Coast Guard command in action planning and control of forces at sea.
ThROUGh INTEGRATION A high degree of integration of training simula-
tor systems is one of the key features of Transas products. Technologies used make it possible to integrate training equipment for various services of the armed forces — shipborne, airborne, and tacti-cal army trainers — in a single virtual battlefield.
“Today, we are moving away from the develop-ment of stand-alone trainers and are developing a concept building integrated seta and whole training centers for joint training of specialists of various services and arms of the armed forces, — says Eug-eny Komrakov, director general of USC-Transas. —
`One of the possible options for such integration will be displayed at our booth during the Interna-tional Maritime Defense Show: this is the integra-tion of simulators for a landing ship, a helicopter wing and a Marine unit. Such a solution enables practicing cooperation of an amphibious landing support force for coordinated mission accomplish-ment.”
ThE UNIFyING FORCESuch an ambitious project as the establishment
of inter-service training centers cannot be imple-mented by the manufacturer alone, and here USC-Transas, as the center of competence in the field of training simulator systems, is ready to act as a system integrator and arrange the required coop-eration between interested companies and research centers.
Apart from integrating the training simulators, it is possible to integrate training simulators and real-world shipboard systems from USC-Transas and other suppliers at the Navy’s training centers. Thus it is quite feasible to train ship specialists us-ing real-world shipboard equipment, hone their skills in operation and maintenance of materiel during ship construction and the inter-cruise pe-riod.
The current Army and Navy re-equipment scopes and rates, together with the active intro-duction of high-tech equipment, dictate complete-ly new requirements for personnel training. In this situation, the training simulators are the best way to train qualified specialists able to quickly adapt at the workplace and be all ready to perform com-bat missions. Being clearly aware of the upgraded national armed forces’ needs for professional personnel, USC-Transas is ready to supply the Russian military with innovative training simula-tor technologies and long-term groundwork in the field of the development of integrated personnel training sets for various services and arms of the armed forces.
Technologies used make it possible to integrate training equipment for various services of the armed forces — shipborne, airborne, and tactical army trainers — in a single virtual battlefield.
USC №2(15), 2013 51
Sovcomflot Press Service
his year saw two ice-breaking replenish-ment ships starting operations in the Far East to supply oil-production sea platforms. The vessels were built on the order of the Sovkomflot company at the Arctech ship-
yard, a joint venture of the United Shipbuilding Corpo-ration (USC) and STX Finland company.
The Sovkomflot and USC joint stock companies plan to continue this successful joint project of Russian and Finnish shipbuilders.
The Russian Maritime Fleet commissioning of ships of this type and Russian companies involvement in their construction marked an important progress in the development of domestic shipbuilding. Vessels of the Vitus Bering class are listed in the Russian International
Register of Vessels and operate under Russian colours, their home port is Saint Petersburg. It is noteworthy that 90 per cent of these vessels’ structures have been manufactured in the Vyborg shipbuilding plant, a sub-sidiary of the USC.
At the meeting with Prime ministers of Russia and Denmark in 2011 in Copenhagen Vladimir Putin noted: “We are now building a fleet for operations in the Arctic latitudes and we have decided to christen one of the most advanced ice-breaker in the world as Vitus Bering. He was a Dane in the first place, and secondly, he was an outstanding Russian explorer. He worked exactly at these latitudes in the Far East. I think that we will see this ice-breaker launched in Saint Petersburg by the end of 2012. It will navigate precisely where Vitus Behring conducted his studies at that time”.
ThE VITUS BERING AND ALEKSEy ChIRIKOV CONTINUE ExPLORATION OF ThE FAR EAST
T
52 USC №2(15), 2013
CONQUEST OF THE ARCTIC
Vitus Jonassen Bering (1681-1741) — a seafarer and officer of the Russian Navy, captain-commander. Bering, Dane by origin, dedicated his life to serve the Russian flag and accomplished the great mission assigned by Peter the First — to map Russia and neighbouring territories. On the order of the first Russian emperor Bering led the First and Second Kamchatka expeditions set off to explore the coast of the peninsula and discover a seaway between Asia and North America. He passed the strait between Chukchi Peninsular and Alaska (later named Bering Strait), reached North America, and discovered a number of islands in the Aleutian ridge.
Aleksei Ilyich Chirikov (1703-1748) — a Russian seafarer, one of the pioneers of North Western America, explorer of the Northern part of Pacific Ocean and the Northeast Asian coast, navigator, captain-commander. He graduated from the Marine Academy in Saint Peters-burg in 1721. Chirikov was assistant to Vitus Bering during the First and Second Kamchatka expeditions, passed from the mouth of the Kamchatka river through a strait (later named Bering Strait) into the Arctic Ocean. Chirikov’s name was given to an island in the Bay of Alaska, a cape on the Near Aleutian Islands and to other geographical places.
Basic characteristics of the Vitus Bering class vessels:Dead weight — 3,950 tMax length — 99.2 mBeam — 21.7 mMax draft — 7.9 mCrew — 22 persons
So said, so done. The vessel was commissioned on December 21, 2012 and christened on January 10, 2013 at a solemn ceremony in Saint Petersburg which was attended by the President of Russia Vladimir Pu-tin and other honourable guests. The national flag of the Russian Federation was solemnly hoisted up on the vessel to the sounds of a military band. The official event on board the Vitus Bering was also attended by the Minister of Transport of the Russian Federa-tion Maxim Sokolov, Minister of Industry and Trade Denis Manturov, Governor of Saint Petersburg Geor-giy Poltavchenko, heads of JSC Sovkomflot, United Shipbuilding Corporation, Gazprom, Novatek, and Exxon Neftegas Ltd. The second vessel in this series
USC №2(15), 2013 53
This year JSC Sovkomflot celebrates its silver jubilee.
Twenty five years ago the company became one of the first joint stock companies in the history of modern Russia. Formed in 1988 as a joint stock business, the Sovkomflot adopted, already in those years, international standards in its operating activity following the best examples in the world practice. Given the global nature of the world tanker industry, the Sovkomflot always tried to satisfy high standards of the tanker market and was among first Russian companies which introduced the International Financial Reporting Standards.
54 USC №2(15), 2013
CONQUEST OF THE ARCTIC
was christened as Aleksey Chirikov last April in Helsinki.
The Vitus Bering represents a unique class of vessels — ice-breaking replenishment ships. They
are recognised to be among world’s best in their class. Their hulls are designed to support naviga-tion in difficult climate conditions. The ship design and equipment allow a year-round shipping of personnel, necessary goods and expendable mate-rials to oil-producing platforms. These days both ice-breakers continuously provide an uninterrupted operation of the Orlan oil-producing platform situated at the Arkutun-Dagi field in the Sea of Okhotsk.
Water areas in the Far-Eastern seas of Russia is a region where oil-and-gas production on the continental shelf is dynamically expanding, and the fleet of Sovkomflot, the world’s leader in sea transportation of energy resources under adverse ice conditions, plays a growing role in rendering transport/logistic services to it. There are plans to continue building multi-purpose ice-breaking replenishment vessels of this class at the USC plants, also for their operation within the frame-work of the Sakhalin-2 project (with the Sakhalin energy company being a project operator). The Sovkomflot and USC signed the corresponding agreement at a solemn ceremony on board the Vitus Bering ship.
The SKF group of companies (Sovkomflot) is the largest Russian shipping company and one of the world’s leading tanker operators specializing in the transportation of oil, petroleum products and liquefied gas. Its fleet includes 159 vessels with the total deadweight of about 12 mln tonnes, one third of which falls to ice-class tankers. The Sovkomflot is the leading shipping company in the Arctic region: it was the first company in the world which opened routes via the Northern Seaway for large-tonnage ships and is efficiently increasing its involvement in rendering effective shipping/logistic services to oil/gas fields in the Arctic region. The SKF participates in the maintenance of large offshore energy projects in Russia and abroad such as Sakhalin-1, Sakhalin-2, Varandey, Prirazlomnoye, Tangguh, Peregrino. The company is registered in Saint Petersburg and has representations in Moscow, Novorossiysk, Murmansk, Vladivostok, London, Limassol, Madrid, Singapore, Dubai.
“Building of vessels similar to the Vitas Bering is fully compliant with the Sovkomflot business strategy aimed at a wider participation in industrial projects carried out on the continental shelf in the Far-Eastern and Arctic seas of Russia. These vessels embody the latest achievements in science and technology applicable to shipbuilding. They are claimed by Russian and international oil-and-gas companies, and we hope we’ll continue building vessels of this class in our domestic shipbuilding plants. We are thankful to all our partners for their participation in this project. Our mutually advantageous cooperation is time-proven and has bright prospects”.
Sergei FrankDirector General of JSC Sovkomflot
USC №2(15), 2013 55
oday JSC PO Sevmash Deputy Director General in economics and development programs Sergei G. Kuchenov is offering
his opinion on issue 5 (13)/2012 of the cor-porate magazine, “USC. We Build a Fleet of the Great Nation.”
Each time, taking the magazine in hands — not yet even looking inside — I’m already beginning to feel its weight, sub-stantiality and quality. In my opinion, it is precisely this very first impression that any potential reader should get of Russian shipbuilding industry’s top magazine. You have hit the mark.
You’ve done right that placed a story about Anatoly P. Tyukov. Everyone who worked with this person is ready to put their names to each letter of the story. (I confess myself that I would not have no-ticed that the last day of his employment with USC fell on a unique date — 12.12.12).
In the News section there is a note, “Floating Nuclear Power Plant to Be Completed.” It is sad, but because of Ro-satom officials’ personal ambition (and maybe something else) and trickery of an oligarch who had fled Russia the floating nuclear power plant project was not com-pleted at Sevmash 2-3 years ago for far less money than it will be finished today.
The article “The Arctic Will not Wait» placed in the “National Interest” column is extremely informative and useful. It is pity that it was decided at the end of 2012 to headquarter the NSR administration in Moscow and not in Arkhangelsk.
The article “Our Design Bureaus Do Not Need Government Support,” stating an opinion of E. Plotkin from the Nevsky Design Bureau, is very good and timely for discussion. I would be pleased to read the continuation with the opinions of ship-builders, military customers, Industry
and Trade Ministry officials, academicians and bloggers as-sociated with shipbuilding. I myself am an economist by training, but, having worked for 26 years at Sevmash (of which 9 years I have been watching the Nevsky Design Bureau’s work on Project 11430 Admiral Gorshkov ship), I have my own point of view on this issue. So, I think that E. Plot-kin is egregiously wrong that there is no need for intervention of the state (not of-ficials, but the state machine in the face of government customer and shipbuild-ers) into the activities of lead design bu-reaus in order to jointly develop a design and construction strategy for advanced ships. Only in this way it is possible and necessary to focus their capabilities on developing the most urgent and desired projects. And if the design bureaus have troubles fulfilling them, then we should create competition by sharing the lead design bureaus into smaller entities and announce competitions. Then the young people will get a chance to prove them-selves, while the elderly will have to try rather than rest on their laurels and pre-viously earned reputation.
By the way, these my suggestions on Russian design are fully supported by the article “Seasickness of European Defense Industry.” Where are the new Russian de-velopments? Aside from a small mention of the Almaz CMDB, there is no one else ... At the same time the trends in new na-val shipbuilding (in terms of size and cost of equipment) are mentioned right. If the Russian shipbuilding and military leader-ship have not noticed this phenomenon, this is probably extremely short-sighted.
The section “Information Strategy” should be issued as a pamphlet and care-fully explained to all workers, engineers and other professionals as well as to mili-tary customer employees. It is necessary
to force them to learn it by heart (with exams) and then intro-duce new Management Stand-ards and simultaneously (no later than 2014) to switch over to “digital” control in shipbuilding in order to deprive some people of the opportunity to justify their laziness and stupidity by “manu-facturing features.”
I much liked the article on N.S. Zharkov. For the first time I read such a creative rather than a “duty” anniversary article.
The article “Personnel Evolu-tion” leaves a dual impression. On the one hand, everything seems right. On the other hand, the proposals lack specificity and novelty — in particular, regarding the promotion of initiatives among youth. For example, I have the impression that, since the Komsomol organization vanished in 1991, young people have been deprived of the opportunities to express themselves, try their hands in real things until now. Time will come to take up managing posi-tions — and where then will youth, which got mature gradually and “did not take snuff”, gain experience?
The article “One Hundred Years — for the Fatherland” turned out to be informa-tive and useful for me. I had to dip even into Internet several times to replenish my stock of knowledge on the history of ship types.
Thanks to the authors of the USC’s cor-porate magazine for this issue. Keep it up!
P.S. I do not understand why the par-ent company’s experience in publishing a corporate magazine has not found emula-tion among regional centers or large en-terprises (they still publish not the most attractive house newspapers 1-2 times a week). Maybe it’s better to issue repre-sentative magazines with 4 to 12 issues a year?
P.P.S. EDITORIAL NOTE:It so happened that the reviewer’s
ideas, which are valuable in our opinion, have coincided with kind words addressed to the editorial staff. Actually, the idea to introduce this column appeared after we got familiar with a private letter from S. Kuchenov who made a number of theses able to become a seed for a new round of discussions on pressing industry top-ics. We are confident that we will hear also useful criticism of us from our future “monitors”.
Т
56 USC №2(15), 2013
ISSUE WATCH
In order to strengthen the feedback from the corporate magazine’s audience, the editorial staff is introducing a regular column, “The Issue Monitor.” We will attract the representatives of USC Group’s major companies and or-ganizations to write the column in turn. We expect our col-leagues going on “magazine watch” to provide analysis of materials published in the previous issue of the magazine as well as make suggestions on topics and problems that are worth to highlight, on authors and genres that might appear in the subsequent issues of our magazine.
“yOU GOT ThAT RIGhT!”
READ INSIDE:
INDUSTRY TRENDS ARE ENCOURAGINGAnatoly Shlemov — on the tasks set by the state for the shipbuilders
NUCLEAR AVATARSUnique projects of cooperation between Russia and India
№ 2 (15) 2013
FLEET IS REVIVING
FEATURE ONE:
