Successes of engine builders: What are the pros and cons of our naval gas turbines

In previous articles, I talked about the state of affairs in our Navy, in particular about the problems that arose in our construction of heavy and light frigates of projects 22350 and 11356R, respectively. They should have become the basis of our surface fleet, replacing the aging and retiring Soviet-built ship fleet for decommissioning (by 2030 we risked being left without BNKs of the 1st and 2nd rank altogether).

Problems with heavy frigates were caused by the difficulties that arose during the fine-tuning of the lead ship of this series "Admiral Gorshkov" and its acceptance by the fleet (this dragged on for almost 8 years), which led to the resuscitation of the export version of the light frigate, which we once riveted a fair amount (6 pcs) for the Indian Navy, but the Ukrainian side has already set up the bandwagon for us, refused to supply power plants for them. We found a way out here too. Which one? More on this below.

MRK "Karakurt"

When in 2014 it became clear that Ukrainian turbines, and, accordingly, new frigates of projects 11356 and 22350, would not be received by the fleet in the near future, it was decided to build 19 small missile ships of project 22800 "Karakurt", which, due to their higher seaworthiness characteristics, should were to strengthen the fleet of missile ships "Buyan-M" (those who distinguished themselves by strikes "Calibrov-NK" in Syria). Although everyone understood that these were coastal zone ships and they were not able to fully replace the frigates. But we also could not afford to idle our shipbuilding capacities, calmly observing the aging of the fleet of the Russian Navy. Therefore, project 22800 was urgently launched, which became a major success for domestic shipbuilders.

The Almaz Central Marine Design Bureau (developer) and the Leningrad Shipyard Pella (a private plant that won a production tender) have proven that a warship can be created quickly and inexpensively. Only three years passed from the decision to start construction to the launch of the ship for testing. In our recent history, a warship has never been built so quickly. The ship is notable for the fact that during its creation, no accompanying R&D was carried out. The customers set the task - to use only serial equipment mastered by the industry. They used what has letters, or developed according to the completed ROCs of the Ministry of Industry and Trade, that is, already existing samples that only needed to be accepted by the military. Therefore, in such a short time, everything worked out. One of the highlights of the project is almost complete import substitution. All serious equipment is domestic.

Another highlight of the project was the involvement of private owners for its implementation. The program for the construction of the modernized missile ships "Karakurt" was prepared under the former Deputy Defense Minister of the Russian Federation Yuri Borisov (now he is the Deputy Prime Minister of the Russian Federation). The peculiarity of the program is that it was completely dismantled by private shipbuilders who stole orders right from under the nose of the state United Shipbuilding Corporation (USC). The first contract of the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation for seven ships was won by the Leningrad "Pella", the second for six RTOs went to the Zelenodolsk plant named after Gorky, who also attracted the Kerch shipyard "Zaliv" for this. And on August 22, 2018, within the framework of the Army-2018 forum's business program, contracts were signed for the construction of six more Karakurts already in the Far East for the needs of the Pacific Fleet (four at the Amur Shipyard and two at the Eastern Shipyard).

However, the trouble came from where they did not expect. Petersburg engine-building plant "Zvezda", whose diesel engine М507 and generator DGAS-315о are used to equip ships for the close coast guard of the Russian Navy, officially notified its recipients about the impossibility of their delivery this year. The disruption was caused by the fact that the Zvezda plant had a large volume of orders for the supply of marine engines, diesel generators and gearboxes for the Russian Navy. Zvezda was not ready for their influx, either technically or financially. The conveyor simply could not cope with the military orders that had fallen on them. As a result, the deadlines for the delivery of "Karakurt" were shifted to 2019-21. Project 20385 corvettes also suffered from this, the deadlines for which also moved to the right.

Even options were considered to replace the Karakurt ship power plant with the M70FRU-R gas turbine engine from UEC-Saturn and the CHD622V20 diesel engine produced by Henan Diesel Engine Industry Limited (PRC). Both options were discarded. From the GTE due to the lack of full-fledged (dozens of engines per year) serial production, as well as due to the fact that the frigates of Project 11356 should be the first to receive these engines. And the Chinese diesel engines were abandoned due to their poor quality (4 cases of failure on operating ships of the Russian Navy and the Border Service of the FSB of the Russian Federation) and the inability to withstand the performance characteristics of the ship - they were not able to provide a given speed, which dropped by half. As a result, they returned to diesel engines from Zvezda. Proven quality. Diesel engines of the M507 series are a development of more than half a century ago, they still have unique specific indicators, albeit with very difficult operation. True, you will have to wait with them (now the long-range fleet is in priority, and the ships of the coastal zone can wait).

Pros and cons of the new power plant

But there is never a silver lining. As a result of the podlyany thrown at us by the Ukrainian side, we faced the need to promptly launch the production of such products at the domestic production base. On the other hand, what else could you expect from non-brothers? We had to think before, when we created our own weapon of retaliation with a localization of 87%, leaving the production of the heart of the ship - its power plant - to our neighbors on the globe, which Mazepa, Bandera and Petliura have not forgiven us yet. Just think about what happened, by refusing to supply us with their power plants, they actually slowed down the development of our Navy for 10 years. This is how long it will take us to replace the missing components with our own production. 7 years have already passed, there were no frigates, and still no. And they were supposed to become the backbone of our surface fleet. The backbone, around which our Naval forces could form.

We are sorely lacking ships of the 1st and 2nd rank, we have nothing to support our ambitions, not only in the World Ocean, but even in the nearest seas surrounding the Russian Federation along the perimeter. For comparison, our main enemy only has 4 Arlee Burke-class URO destroyers of the 67th generation, 7 more are under construction and 10 more are planned. These are ships with a displacement of 7-9 thousand tons, carrying guided missile weapons (from 56 to 96 of the same Tomahawk missiles with a range of up to 2,5 thousand km, capable of carrying nuclear charges). And these are just destroyers of the 4th generation, while I am not saying anything about their 22 missile cruisers of the Ticonderoga type, carrying 122 missiles each, and about 11 aircraft carrier strike groups, where, in addition to the aircraft carriers themselves , includes another ten or one and a half escort and escort ships (the same URO cruisers, URO destroyers, frigates, corvettes and nuclear submarines). The forces are clearly not equal. And the power plant, before it enters the series, must work tens of thousands of engine hours at the stand, not counting the mandatory sea trials. We do not have such installations. And the Ukrainians do. Proven by years of work at sea ("Zorya-Mashproekt" has been running its products since 1978, and so far we have been driving only empty!). It's time to regret that in 2014 we did not take Nikolayev for ourselves, with its Black Sea shipyard, which built missile and aircraft-carrying cruisers in Soviet times (the unique "Thread" also remained there - a runway for testing carrier-based aircraft, about You already know everything about Zoryu-Mashproekt).

Therefore, in order not to get into such a situation and continue not to depend on the supply of engines for new ships being built for the Russian fleet, the command of the Russian Navy developed and adopted the "Concept for the creation and use of gas turbine engines and surface ship units." As a result, the responsibility for the production and supply of gas turbine engines was assigned to the Rybinsk UEC-Saturn. Yes, as a matter of fact, and the choice was not great. PJSC "UEC-Saturn" (formerly OJSC "Rybinsk Motors") is an engine building company (part of AO UEC under the roof of the state corporation Rostec), the main specialization of which is the development and production of gas turbine engines for aviation, ships, marine and coastal industrial facilities, as well as for power generating and gas pumping installations. Who else if not them?

And the Rybinsk engine builders did not disappoint (which even Putin did not fail to mention!). They rolled over their heads and in the shortest possible time created the MA4 power plant based on four M2FRU gas turbine engines of their own production, configured according to the 2 + 70 scheme, which have no Ukrainian analogues (with a capacity of 14 thousand hp), and, thanks to the use of cobalt-based alloys, brought it The efficiency is up to 36%, against 32% for the Ukrainian analogue. They achieved similar efficiency indicators on a more powerful M90FR gas turbine engine of their own production (for the Nikolaev analogue of DT59, this indicator is even lower - only 30%). And this despite the fact that installations of this type, in general, do not give an efficiency more than 40%, here there is a war for every percentage. And this is a definite plus.

Among the minuses, it can be noted that in the original Ukrainian project, the M7N1 unit consisted of two gas turbine units (GTU) - one with a capacity of 8 hp. for an economical course, and the second, "afterburner", with a capacity of 450 hp. for full stroke. Thus, given that two such units were installed on the ship, on two "economical»Turbines, the frigate developed a power of 16 hp, and the total power was 900 hp. Now it is planned to install two gas turbine units on the ships, each of which has two M60FRU gas turbine engines (a total of 900 gas turbine engines according to the 70 + 4 scheme with a capacity of 2 hp each). Thus, the economical run will be carried out with the turbine power of 2 hp, and full speed at 14 hp. Sounds good? The maximum speed of the frigates did not drop much, but the speed of the economical course increased. It would seem that the problem has been solved? However, how to look. After all, this decreases the range of autonomous navigation, due to the higher fuel consumption due to the increase in the power of the gas turbine. In this situation, it would be good to make it to Syria. So here the stick turned out to be two-edged. We won in economical speed, lost in cruising range due to excessive consumption of fuel. Therefore, one should not be surprised that the home port of the already built frigates is Sevastopol, and not Baltiysk (otherwise a tanker will have to be chased after each of them).

But this does not diminish the tasks facing the Rybinsk engine builders. According to the "Concept for the creation and use of gas turbine engines and surface ship units", adopted by the command of the Russian Navy, it is planned to equip missile cruisers of project 1164, large anti-submarine ships of project 1155, frigates of project 22350 and 22350M, patrol ships (light frigates) of project 11356, corvettes project 20386, small missile ships of project 22800, missile boats of project 1241, as well as air-cushion landing ships of projects 12322 (code "Zubr") and project 12061 (code "Murena").


This concludes a brief overview of the problems of the fleet. So, thanks to our problems with Ukraine, the Indian, Algerian and Egyptian fleets are growing in power. Ukraine here, too, does not graze the hind, having bought from the United States two decommissioned 30-year-old Island class patrol boats without weapons on the occasion, paying for them as if they were new ($ 9 million with delivery and training of crews). For that kind of money, the Yankees promised to give the aborigines some spare parts (which is understandable, the ships still remember Reagan and Madame Thatcher, they cannot be repaired!). In their fight against the hated aggressor, the very thing will be! Note that if we sell the latest ships, the Americans sell exclusively floating scrap metal, inferior in profit only to their ancestors, who bought the island of Manhattan for beads, buttons and some other garbage from the aborigines. And recently, from their generosity, they threw 84 rubber boats to their wards. And I'm not kidding here! Already now I see how the non-brothers, lined up like a pig, will join them to storm Sevastopol or board the missile cruiser Moskva. But let's not talk about sad things.
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Dukhskrepny Offline Dukhskrepny
    Dukhskrepny (Vasya) 15 March 2021 11: 24
    Another 10 years to wait until these gas turbine engines rivet the required amount
  2. Afinogen Offline Afinogen
    Afinogen (Afinogen) 15 March 2021 18: 16
    Nikolayev, with its Black Sea shipyard, which built missile and aircraft-carrying cruisers in Soviet times, also did not take for themselves (there also remained the unique "Thread" - a runway for testing carrier-based aircraft,

    As far as I know, "Thread" has always been and is in the Crimea.
    1. Petrol cutter Offline Petrol cutter
      Petrol cutter (Vitali) 15 March 2021 20: 50
      In addition to this, the article lacks accuracy.
      1. Volkonsky Offline Volkonsky
        Volkonsky (Wolf) 15 March 2021 22: 28
        what? I will be glad to fix it
    2. Volkonsky Offline Volkonsky
      Volkonsky (Wolf) 15 March 2021 22: 25
      sorry, Afinogen, I was mistaken, indeed under the Sakas, Republic of Crimea, RF
    3. Shavkat Kuvatov Offline Shavkat Kuvatov
      Shavkat Kuvatov (Shavkat Kuvatov) April 2 2021 16: 08
      I was also surprised when I read about it. Back in the days of Apakidze I read that "Thread" was in the Crimea. So believe the rest of the material of such writers.
  3. Etsaaa ... gentlemen of the military, explain to me why we need to build steamers that carry hypersonic missiles? This is cube idiocy!
    1. Volkonsky Offline Volkonsky
      Volkonsky (Wolf) 15 March 2021 22: 28
      look at the range of our Calibers - 2,5 ... 3 thousand km, and then look at the map - where are the decision-making centers of our enemies? Nobody carries hypersonic zircons yet
  4. bonifacius Offline bonifacius
    bonifacius (Alex) 16 March 2021 00: 40
    I am no specialist at all in engines, especially ship engines, and I cannot understand why a 28000hp power plant cannot be operated (to save fuel) at 22000hp?
    It would not be bad for the author to find out how much more fuel is consumed in the Ukrainian and Russian engines with the same developed power (if, in the author's opinion, this is the "Achilles heel" of the Russian engine.
    1. Volkonsky Offline Volkonsky
      Volkonsky (Wolf) 16 March 2021 02: 37
      there is such a thing as engine efficiency, and what do you compare white with fluffy? 22 horses is the power of one Ukrainian afterburner, and two are working during afterburner. 000 horses we have is the power of economy course and there is no relay that allows you to regulate the power. Lord, why do you need higher mathematics, take up singing, mathematics is definitely not your strong point
      1. Cat Offline Cat
        Cat (Sergei) 16 March 2021 10: 41
        So it is possible to run an EH on one turbine, and not on two M70FRU GTEs. Or is it the gearbox?
        1. Volkonsky Offline Volkonsky
          Volkonsky (Wolf) 16 March 2021 16: 39
          Initially, the frigates of Project 11356 were regularly equipped with the Ukrainian M7N.1E gas turbine unit (gas turbine unit) produced by the Nikolaev GP NPKG Zorya-Mashproekt, consisting of four gas turbines and five gearboxes located in two engine rooms. The cruise compartment housed two turbines of economic progress DS-71 (with a capacity of 8,45 thousand hp) with two PO63 gearboxes and an auxiliary gearbox Р1063, allowing each turbine to work on both propellers at once. The afterburner housed two DT-59.1 full-speed turbines (22 hp each) and two RO58 single-speed gearboxes. At the same time, the entire power plant operated according to the COGOG scheme (with separate operation of the afterburner and main engines) through complex gearboxes on two shafts and two fixed pitch propellers (FPP). The total power of the main power plant (main power plant) was 2 x 30,45 thousand hp. (60,9 thousand hp).
          How is it on one turbine? The unit includes two turbines. Turn off one?
      2. Svetoslav Offline Svetoslav
        Svetoslav (Svetoslav O) 17 March 2021 20: 34
        To reduce the power, you do not need a relay - the power of the gas turbine engine is regulated by the fuel supply. On the frigates of Project 11356r, 4 turbines are operating at full speed, 2 for each shaft, at the economic speed, the power plant is provided by one engine operating on one shaft, the second rotates freely. All three frigates are equipped with Ukrainian turbines, ours are planned only for those under construction. The Talvar have an installation as you described below, where each of the gas turbine units of the economical drive can operate on both shafts at the same time, that is, one works, the other is muffled, this gives a gain in propulsive efficiency due to the elimination of losses for a freely rotating propeller ... but there is also minus "economy" and "afterburner" work separately, either one or the other, i.e. power is not summed up, therefore more powerful afterburner gas turbines are required.
    2. Shavkat Kuvatov Offline Shavkat Kuvatov
      Shavkat Kuvatov (Shavkat Kuvatov) April 2 2021 16: 14
      Yes indeed. In one of the paragraphs the author said. that now it is necessary to carry a tanker with fuel for our ships. What's wrong now? After all, the cordon sanitaire works for Russia and not every port on the way will let us go to refuel. And apart from incomprehensible comparisons, the article does not say anything about how much more fuel is consumed in the Ukrainian and Russian engines with the same developed power. But now the Bandera factories have been riveting engines since 1978, when our Fleet (and aviation) did not particularly save on fuel.
  5. 123 Offline 123
    123 (123) 16 March 2021 10: 41
    I will bring my fly in the ointment of our potential enemy. So to speak for objectivity.
    "Arlie Burke" and "Tikanderoga" are analogous to what we call "Soviet legacy".
    What is characteristic is the lack of space, which has long been turned into a fetish by the Americans, has nothing to do with these ships. "Arlie Burke" are still produced, if I am not mistaken, 2 pcs. in year. As far as I understand, Russia is reaching this rate in the production of frigates. The Americans have more displacement, of course, but this production has been worked out for decades, and we have a new project. So in comparison, the pace of construction is somehow not very impressive. And the existing ones inevitably get old, they need repair, modernization. The production of new destroyers is more likely to replace old ones that are retired by age.

    "Tikanderoga" has not been built for a long time, the last on the list is "Port Royal" born in 1994. They were planned to be written off by 2029, one and all.

    If they are behind schedule, then this is not from a good life, but because there is no replacement for them. What have Americans built new over the years? 3 "Zumvalta", I suppose there is no need to tell about this "successful" program. 10 or 11 corvettes (littoral ships) 4 of them are written off, the rest for training purposes or for fishing to drive. They are not good for anything. 1 aircraft carrier, which they still cannot bring to mind.
    This I mean that in the shipbuilding they are not so smooth. And it looks like the prospect is not rosy. They are considering reducing the number of aircraft carriers, even they do not have enough money for everything. And the shipyards simply cannot cope with the planned repairs of the existing armada. Half or more of the aircraft carriers are in the queue for repairs.
    In general, an adequate replacement for "Arlie Burke" and "Tikanderog" is not expected for them, they are considering adaptation to their needs and the production of European frigate, yes yes it is a frigate. There is a tendency towards a decrease in displacement. While we are worried that we do not have ships of rank 1-2, they are going to move to the same frigates.
    Their capabilities, of course, are incomparably greater than ours, but after all, their shipyards and engine manufacturers did not leave for Mexico, and their own "restructuring" seems to be ahead of them. We should look not only in their direction, but also sometimes look back at our Chinese comrades.
    Well, in conclusion .... this is how the ships leave ... Preparations for the disposal of the landing ship USS Bonhomme Richard have begun.
    Citizens follow the fire safety rules.

    1. Shavkat Kuvatov Offline Shavkat Kuvatov
      Shavkat Kuvatov (Shavkat Kuvatov) April 2 2021 16: 19
      I'm not a moraman. But I think that in the current war, all the ships of the world will die within one, maybe a little more, week. Bearing in mind the development of all sorts of calibers and other super missiles.
      1. 123 Offline 123
        123 (123) April 2 2021 16: 33
        I'm not a moraman. But I think that in the current war, all the ships of the world will die within one, maybe a little more, week. Bearing in mind the development of all sorts of calibers and other super missiles.

        I'm not a Moreman either request No one will throw all ships into a bayonet attack. Many will stand in relatively safe places, much like the battleships of the Germans in WWII. And in battle, I suppose they really will not be fun.
  6. Lyabaka 13 Offline Lyabaka 13
    Lyabaka 13 (Dmitriy) 19 March 2021 12: 15
    Our liberals were deeply convinced (and they still think so) that their entire industry can be completely destroyed, and if something is suddenly needed, we will sell gas or oil and buy everything. Only in reality it doesn't work out very well.
    1. Shavkat Kuvatov Offline Shavkat Kuvatov
      Shavkat Kuvatov (Shavkat Kuvatov) April 2 2021 16: 23
      Most likely, they hung up on our ears, having the prospect of destroying everything when they came to power. And so it happened. While Russians for 15-20 years got used to being only a consumer society, the West was fine with that. Yes, and Gaidarik-Shmaidarik with all sorts of Yeltsin too. And as soon as we woke up, it was then that they showed us (like Kuzka's mother).
  7. Volder Offline Volder
    Volder April 8 2021 22: 21
    Quote: Volkonsky
    Our main enemy has only the 4th generation URO destroyers of the Arleigh Burke class in service, 67 more are under construction and 7 more are planned.

    So that you understand: 67 American destroyers are scattered across the globe. There are 15 pieces left to contain Russia. Another 15-20 - to contain China. But there is also Iran, India and many other countries that are not allies of the United States. From here we must proceed. That is, it makes no sense for Russia to compete with the United States in terms of the number of pennants. In addition, new destroyers are being built, and old ones are being written off. As a result, the United States will have no more than 70 destroyers in the coming years.

    Quote: Volkonsky
    These are ships carrying guided missile weapons (from 56 to 96 of the same Tomahawk missile launchers with a range of up to 2,5 thousand km). At the same time, I'm not saying anything about their 22 Ticonderoga-class missile cruisers, carrying 122 missiles each, and about 11 aircraft carrier strike groups ... The forces are clearly not equal.

    With good missiles capable of sinking an enemy fleet from afar, the importance of the number of pennants is reduced. Modern Russia is following exactly this path. The range of our anti-ship "Calibers", "Onyx" and "Zirkons" exceeds the range of the American anti-ship missile "Harpoon" or is equal to the anti-aircraft SM-6 and subsonic anti-ship "Tomahawks", which are not yet equipped with ships. In general, our rockets are better. In addition, the Tomahawk missile with a range of 2,5 km is a missile purely for strikes on the EARTH; they do not threaten the surface fleet put to sea. As for the 11 aircraft carriers, all those in the ranks are never combat-ready. Half of the aircraft carriers are idle for various reasons (repairs, waiting for maintenance after the trip, etc.). Well, and even half of the US aircraft carriers will not be thrown on Russia alone, tk. from a strategic and tactical point of view, it is impossible to expose other directions and points in the world ocean, where other countries are being held back.
  8. Emelianenko Alexander (Emelianenko Alexander) April 13 2021 23: 47
    Russia is a continental power. We need a fleet of those volumes so that, in addition to delivering a nuclear missile ular across the United States, we need to provide flanks that go out to the sea. It is extremely important for us to dominate the Black Sea, since Crimea is the only bridgehead that the states can use for a field war with us. Europe without the United States is not an enemy. Well, not from Antwerp to arrange logistics for the delivery of army supplies. In the Second World War, the Germans were dung. Still, 2 km. And the dominance over the Black Sea is based on the Crimea and Tartus. So much for you. Those. in addition to nuclear submarines, which are ready to demolish New York from the face of the Earth, we need a fleet to ensure the integrity of the forward lines in the Mediterranean. Crimea rear base, Tartus - forward. That is how many and what kind of ships, it is desirable that it be enough, but everything else is from God. There is nothing superfluous too
  9. rvd-ru.igor Offline rvd-ru.igor
    rvd-ru.igor (Igor Sedunov) 5 May 2021 19: 53
    The author writes what is actually absent by definition.

    There are two problems with the introduction of turbines in shipbuilding: the lack of production of gearboxes for the declared power and a fivefold increase in fuel consumption in relation to diesel.
    The M507 engine is an anachroism, even with outstanding power for it, the Zvezda plant was and is in a deplorable state. The engine resource for current affairs is 5000 (even if in the future at least 10000 hours) before overhaul is negligible. While the ship from Russia will sail to India, he already needs to do a major overhaul there, and why the heck is shit and continue to rivet.
  10. Shavkat Kuvatov Offline Shavkat Kuvatov
    Shavkat Kuvatov (Shavkat Kuvatov) 14 May 2021 22: 20
    It has always been a mystery to me why Russia was left without its own gas turbine engines? Here they refer to Zorya-Mashproekt. In Soviet times, it was included in the list of factories that produced engines for the entire Union. This means that all the documentation (copies), in addition to the one at the enterprise itself, should have been in some institution in Moscow or some other city. Like archived. In case the production in Ukraine is suddenly seized by the enemy, or destroyed. How many posts were similar to this, which said that our country had to create / develop naval gas turbine engines from scratch. But I cannot believe these optimistic notes, knowing what our officials are. They are ready to hang a ton of noodles on higher ranks that they will not get a hat for failure in business.