Boat master. Ship command boats Swift boat project for self-build
At the beginning of November 1949, state tests of the lead destroyer of the Zobis project began. But even before the end of the tests, it was clear that all M-3 command boats, which were intended for installation on all production ships, had very low seaworthiness. It was unacceptable to supply new ships with such boats, and they had to be replaced.
The fact that command boats have low seaworthiness was known long before the start of testing of the destroyer, and preventive measures had already been taken. Moscow TsKB-20 received technical specifications for the design of a command boat for destroyers of the Zobis and 41 projects.
In December 1949, a detailed design of a wooden small ship's command boat for second-rank ships was completed.
|
Project 37# boat on the territory of the L&6 workshop of plant No. 5 |
The documentation for the construction of a series of boats was transferred to plant No. 5 and in the early fifties, after partial adjustments of the documentation to the plant’s technology, the lead boat of Project 378 was built.
The operation of small command boats began, and comments appeared personnel fleets according to their technical and economic elements, which were summarized by the Main Directorate of Shipbuilding of the Navy. In February 1953, these comments were sent to SKB-5 through the 3rd Main Directorate of the Ministry of Transport and Heavy Engineering (MT and TM). In order not to cause bewilderment to the reader, I explain: in 1953, during the next reorganization, a new ministry was created on the basis of four ministries, including the Ministry of Shipbuilding Industry - MT and TM, which existed until April 1954.
The main complaints from the operators were about the large list during circulation, which had a frightening effect on passengers and the crew of the boat. At the same time, the question was raised about replacing the gasoline engine with a diesel engine, which would increase the operating efficiency and fire safety of both the boat and the ship. And it was more convenient to store a less fire-hazardous single fuel on the ship.
There was a lot of work to be done to revise the theoretical drawing, since only through this would it be possible to reduce the list during circulation; it was necessary to take into account comments and suggestions for the operation of serial boats in fleets, as well as all the shortcomings and improvements in the technology and design of boats identified from the experience of their construction at the factory. It was also necessary to improve the boat because this boat was intended instead of Project 378 boats to supply new promising destroyers and patrol ships of Projects 56 and 42.
In addition, the boat was designed with the possibility of using it in the national economy as a service or pleasure boat.
No tactical and technical specifications for such work were issued, and the designer had to be guided by the customer’s comments and his own experience.
The absence of a specific technical specification always gave rise to a variety of designs that were offered to the customer for choice. When a tactical and technical specification was issued, the designer in his work was guided by the optimal tactical and technical characteristics worked out upon approval, and in the absence of such, the design was carried out in such a way that some parameters were positively resolved at the expense of the deterioration of others and the designer, having his own opinion, had to be guided by the wishes of the customer .
This was the case in this case as well.
In order to reduce the heel angle during circulation, it was possible to change the completeness of the contours in the stern of serial boats by installing a zygomatic extension without changing the main hull structure. Or it was possible to change the contours of the body by adjusting theoretical drawing, but then it turned out to be a different boat.
The main gasoline engine still had to be replaced with a diesel engine. The designer operated with two brands of diesel engines available to him at that time - 6ch 8.5/11 with a power of 30 hp. With. and YaAZ-204 with a power of 100 hp. With. The 6ch 8.5/11 engine was developed in 1953 by the Scientific Research Diesel Institute (NIDI) as an experimental one, the power of which was supposed to be increased to 45 hp by boosting. With.
The diesel engine did not have a reversible clutch, and when performing studies, the designer depicted the engine with a conventional reversible clutch. With such an engine, the boat could only have a speed of 9.5 knots, which was clearly not enough for a command boat, but this study was carried out at the request of the Central Research Institute of Military Shipbuilding of the Navy in anticipation of the successful completion of work at NIDI.
The YaAZ-204 diesel engine was a mass-produced, large-scale production vehicle at the Yaroslavl Automobile Plant, including a ship conversion, but without a reversible gearbox.
The weight of such a diesel engine with all auxiliary units was equal to 800 kg, which made it possible to use it on small ship command boats.
The use of such a diesel engine was possible only with a special steering wheel, which provided rapid damping of inertia and reverse gear without changing the direction of rotation of the propeller. Such a rudder in the closed state is similar to a regular rudder, but when reverse gear was needed, the leading edges opened at an angle of about 90° and formed a V-shaped box behind the propeller, which changed the direction of the jet from the propeller by 180°, and by turning the box - in the desired direction.
The idea of using such a steering wheel to reverse was not new. In addition to foreign experiments, it was tested on one of the towing motor boats and gave a positive result in terms of obtaining reverse gear.
By installing a 100 hp diesel engine on a production boat. s., more than 1.5 times more powerful than the existing one, it was necessary to strengthen the hull structures. An increase in the speed of the boat entailed an increase in the dynamic load on the hull when sailing in rough seas. In addition, during the operation of the boats, there were cases of severe damage to the plating, especially when approaching the ship’s ladder in rough seas. To increase the hull's resistance to shock loads, it was planned to install additional pine frames, while retaining the shell-type glued outer skin. The customer really liked this cladding.
So, having before him the components of the task, the designer completed five variants of development. Project 378 was adopted as the base boat, and all development options received project number 378p. The chief designer of the project was N. A. Makarov.
The first two development options were boats with existing dimensions and gasoline engines, but one option was with a bilge fitting, the other with a new theoretical drawing. The third option was with a 6h 8.5/11 engine. The first three options had characteristics close to Project 378, but on a diesel-powered boat, the lifting weight, taking into account the hull reinforcement, was 370 kg more than the base one.
The fourth and fifth development options were a boat with a YAZ-204 diesel engine with a bow and stern location of the main engine. If the YaAZ-204 diesel engine was installed, the length of the boat increased by 0.5 m and the width by 0.1 m, and the lifting weight increased by 830 kg compared to the base boat.
The last two options did not cause delight among the designers of the carrier ships, since this entailed alteration of the lifting device, and to some extent local reconfiguration upper deck and changing the approved ship specification.
Anticipating these objections, the designer made a drawing of the location of the boat with the YAZ-204 diesel engine on the ship in relation to Project 56 and proved the possibility of placing the boat in the same place where the Project 378 boat was installed. What
As for the lifting capacity of the device, on project 56 it was equal to 4 tons, which is quite sufficient to lift a boat weighing 2.7 tons. Placing this boat was possible on projects Zobis and 42, but this required additional checks on site, including and by prototyping. According to SKB-5, the resolution of this controversial issue should be transferred to higher organizations.
If the option with the allotment kept intact all the production processes for building serial boats, then all other options radically changed the contours of the old hull of the Project 378 boat. If one of these options was approved, it would be necessary to completely change the production equipment of the workshops and actually begin the construction of a new boat, starting from the head.
The advantage of the fitted boat option, which should have been taken advantage of, was that, without requiring any changes to the technological equipment, it would be possible to test the effectiveness of changing the theoretical drawing. To do this, it was enough to add a bilge to any built Project 378 boat and, by testing together with production boats, decide the question to what extent a sharp bilge in the stern will help reduce heel during circulation and how it will affect seaworthiness and ride quality boats. Based on these considerations, these changes to the contours of the theoretical drawing could be recommended for boats with the YaAZ-204 diesel engine, which will have other main elements and will not depend on the existing production process.
Analyzing the developed options for the Project 378p boat, the designer, together with the customer, came to the conclusion that the first two options have practical value for determining a qualitative change in the contours, in order to reduce the roll during circulation.
This must be used to refine serial boats, without stopping their production and without changing technological equipment until the creation of a boat with a main diesel engine.
Due to the low engine power and the lack of a reversible clutch, the third version of the boat has been excluded from consideration for today.
Regarding the design development of a boat with a stern-mounted YaAZ-204 diesel engine, this version of the boat requires the development and creation of an angular reversible gearbox, which must be kept in mind for the future and not leave this option without attention.
Today, the most realistic option is to develop a preliminary design for a new command ship's boat with a YaAZ-204 engine located in the bow of the boat. At the same time, the scope of submitted project materials must include a working model of a boat with a reversible rudder. Using such a model, the efficiency of the steering wheel in reverse and forward motion will be tested, roll in circulation and behavior in waves will be determined.
Regarding the objections of ship designers regarding the unacceptability of a boat with a YAZ-204 diesel engine due to the need to change cargo device and a slight increase in the ship's displacement, the designer did not consider them justified. These changes will be able to fully pay for themselves during the operation of the ship in
Due to the use of a single fuel, which is less dangerous in terms of fire and more economical when operating a command boat.
The construction of Project 378 boats according to the corrected theoretical drawing continued, they were willingly accepted by the Navy and the border guards, whom it served reliably and for a long time.
If the first half of the problem was solved - it was possible to eliminate the large roll in the circulation on the boat, then the second half - the installation of a diesel engine was not implemented. It still had to be solved by developing a version of the boat with a diesel engine.
It took a long time to formalize the results of consideration of design studies for the Project 378p boat, and finally, in December 1956, in the boathouse of the TsKB-5 experimental laboratory, the keel of a new small ship command boat of Project 380 was laid down.
This bookmark was preceded by technical and working designs for a version of the boat with a bow-mounted diesel engine and a reversible rudder.
The customer insisted on testing new design solutions adopted in the project, and therefore it was decided to build the boat as an experimental one and in the singular.
During the development of the project, all comments received from the results of the operation and construction of Project 378 boats were taken into account. The theoretical drawing was changed, a diesel engine was installed, the hull was strengthened, and the architecture of the boat was changed.
Despite the fact that the Project 378 boat was taken as the basis, appearance The new boat began to differ from its prototype in a more correct ratio of surface dimensions and hull length. The silhouette of the boat has acquired a swift shape that is pleasing to the eye. In order to improve the appearance, we had to work on reducing the external protruding parts, namely, reduce the size and change the design of the wind visor, make the headlight folding, and place sound signals under the upper deck.
Room passenger compartment was increased due to the aft overhang of the cabin roof, because of this it became possible to lengthen the sofas, which made it possible to rest on them while lying down. The helmsman's post was raised to the point of view of the water surface at a distance of 2-2.5 m from the stem.
During factory testing, I had to tinker with the reversible steering wheel, which created a lot of problems for the designer. Throughout the summer of 1957, various versions of the reversible rudder were tested.
Finally, all the problems were solved, and on June 18, 1958, the Project 380 boat was presented for state testing.
The state tests were not without incident: when the boat was launched into the water, the keel block of the launch trolley broke, and the boat received two holes in the outer skin and a broken cheekbone over 0.5 m.
When they re-moored the boat in cramped conditions, they again pierced the skin in the bow on the starboard side above the waterline. When approaching the floating pier, the brass fitting of the stem was damaged so much that it had to be replaced at a length of 0.3 m
And finally, when we were conducting maneuver tests, we received a blow from the propeller in the area of the propeller-rudder complex, and as a result, the rollers of the steering cable wiring were torn off, the skin on the starboard side was torn out, and three propeller blades were bent.
All damage, of course, was promptly repaired, and the tests were eventually brought to a happy end.
According to the test results, it became clear that they did not reach the specification speed of 1.5 knots, and in terms of cruising range with economic speed - 10% of the distance. The commission accepted these deviations as satisfying the requirements for boats for this purpose.
But during sea trials in force five seas, the boat showed remarkable qualities. In all operating modes of the main engine, it was well controlled, held a stable course, rode the wave well, there was no flooding, and the impacts on the wave were insignificant. True, there was strong splashing at the bow heading angles relative to the wave, for which the boat’s seaworthiness was limited to four points in all operating modes of the main engine.
When testing the reversible steering device, which was a rotary-converging attachment in the form of two deflectors with an electric drive and a push-button control system, good controllability was noted in forward gear and satisfactory in reverse in calm weather. But if there was wind, the boat could not be controlled in reverse. The reverse speed was 1.5 knots, which the customer considered insufficient. The boat was especially poorly controlled when approaching the mooring area. The commission also criticized the design of the steering device, which
Raya, in addition to not providing reliable maneuvering when approaching and departing from the mooring site, was more difficult to maintain and repair and less reliable in operation than a traditional steering device.
Without eliminating these shortcomings, the boat could not be recommended for serial construction.
Speaking about the shortcomings of the steering device, the commission also noted the advantages of the experimental crew boat built in comparison with the serially built Project 378 boat. The commission approved the selected hull contours, noting the small angle of heel on the turn of 5° instead of 16-18° on Project 378 boats, good seaworthiness and heading stability in forward motion in any sea surface condition. Particularly noted was the use of a diesel engine, which made it possible to use the most economical fuel, less fire hazardous and widely used on Navy ships.
Improved habitability of the boat was also noted.
The boat was accepted into trial operation by the Navy to identify the possibility of improving the reversible rudder used and the feasibility of building a series with a similar steering device. ■
Trial operation of the boat convinced the customer to abandon this boat due to limited maneuverability and unreliability of the reversible steering device. The designer did not object, because at that time he could not offer anything other than a new boat, taking into account all the progressive design solutions and with a traditional rudder-propeller complex.
The fleet was left without a boat with a diesel engine, and the customer agreed to develop a new project.
It was 1960, and the company mastered light alloy as a structural material. The first boat of Project 338 was already built from an aluminum-magnesium alloy, and a boat of Project 337 was on the way. In this case, the designer had a desire to try his hand at creating a command boat from a light alloy, which the customer did not object to.
While working with boats of projects 378 and 380, the designer learned a lot and gained experience in designing small command boats, including bitter experience in working with a reversible rudder.
If the issues with the theoretical drawing and steering device were resolved, then the question remained with the choice of engine and boat architecture. For a small command boat, a light diesel engine was needed, but powerful enough for the boat to sail at a speed of at least 13 knots, like the Project 378 boat. This problem was solved by the new 60 hp bchsp 9.5/11 diesel engine. With. and weighing 570 kg, created by the Dagdizel plant together with the Bogorodsk Mechanical Plant.
To refine the appearance of the new boat, foreign materials from periodicals were studied not only on ship boats, but also on small service and special boats. The results of the study and analysis showed that foreign-built boats were distinguished by a small hull length to width ratio and rectilinear superstructure shapes.
The ship's boats of Great Britain and the USA were mainly double-hulled, but along with these there were also limousine boats in smaller quantities. As a result, the issue of choosing the type of boat was decided in favor of a two-hull boat.
It was from these components - theoretical lines and design solutions worked out on the Project 380 boat, a new diesel engine and a layout based on a double-deck architecture - that the Project 339 boat was created. It had, respectively, two cabins, between them an open control post and a cockpit in the stern. The bow cabin, which was more democratic, had hard seats with lockers, and the aft cabin had soft sofas and mirrors.
|
|
This was the first small ship's command boat welded from a light alloy.
The boat was built in Feodosia, where it underwent state tests, which ended in December 1960.
According to the test results, the boat has proven itself positively in all aspects of the program, and compared to the Project 378 boat, advantages in stability, unsinkability and seaworthiness were noted. The boat's light alloy hull was significantly better than a wooden one in all respects, and a diesel engine instead of a gasoline engine had long been desired in the fleet.
|
|
Officially, there were no negative or critical comments in the acceptance certificate. The most significant note, perhaps, was that the helmsman's seat is low. But unofficially, the command staff who were to operate the boat made critical remarks regarding the lack of expressive architectural appearance, short length compared to the surface size, high noise from the engine, insufficient speed and poor quality of hull and finishing work. And one high-ranking naval commander called the boat “Zaporozhets,” meaning a car made in the 60s. Chief designer N.A. Makarov took advantage of this and negotiated permission and support from this boss for the proactive development of a new boat.
In the meantime, in response to these unofficial comments, the company developed a fiberglass boat design and built a boat in 1961, which received project number 339A. This resolved the issue of the quality of the body and finishing work, and also reduced the noise from the engine. At the same time, as much as possible, the architecture of the boat was refined, especially in the windows. The configuration of the windows was changed, visibility was improved and the solid surface of the sides was visually reduced.
It was impossible to increase the speed due to the lack of an appropriate engine. This absence lasted almost until the end of the 20th century, until imported lungs and sufficient powerful engines, but small command boats were no longer needed.
The Project 339A boat did not go into production, since there were very few enterprises in the shipbuilding industry that had mastered the production of fiberglass ships. And those enterprises that had mastered fiberglass were overly busy with more pressing orders, and it was impossible to accommodate them for large-scale construction of Project 339A boats for production reasons. Due to this state of affairs in the industry, the designer did not really try to convince the customer, who at that time had a very great distrust of fiberglass. And at the enterprise, work with fiberglass was just beginning. In addition, fiberglass was still an expensive material at that time.
In 1961, the first fiberglass boats for the Navy were also of concern - projects 354 and 354P, which by that time had not yet been tested by operation.
All this ended with the fact that in 1962 a light alloy boat was built with architectural changes like Project 339A, but with improved finishing quality and improved hull assembly technology.
This project received the number 339B and was launched into serial production at the Feodosia Shipyard.
At the beginning of 1961, the algorithm for creating small command boats was disrupted by a letter from TsKB-17. In this letter, with reference to the Navy and the State Committee of the USSR Council of Ministers for Shipbuilding, TsKB-5 was given the task “... to carry out the development of a small command boat made of plastic for order 1123
Small command boat of project 339 (7.Yam. 2.9t. 60hp, 73kt)
Hydrofoils... in terms of purpose, passenger capacity, dimensions, lifting device, focus on a small command boat made of plastic 339P. Seaworthiness and maneuverability... it is desirable to obtain higher ones than those of the boats of the project... 339P...” (there was an error in the letter, the plastic boat bore the project number 339A).
The agreement between TsKB-5 and TsKB-17 to carry out the study was concluded in May 1961.
The need to create such a boat was dictated by the increase in the distance between the anchorages of the anti-submarine cruiser and the shore, which required speed and seaworthiness from the ship's boat.
The strict conditions for placing this boat on board the ship significantly limited the fulfillment of these requirements due to the choice of the optimal ratio of the main hull elements. As one of the ways to solve this problem in order to increase speed and seaworthiness, the designer chose hydrofoils, which did not contradict the requirements of the technical specifications.
By 1961, the use of hydrofoils on boats became widespread both abroad and in domestic shipbuilding. Despite the feasibility of using hydrofoils, this did not apply to ship boats due to complications during mooring and lifting onto the ship, as well as due to the lack of a light and sufficiently powerful motor unit. These complications were caused by wing devices protruding beyond the dimensions of the boat, which threatened to break their own structure and damage the side of the ship. Folding wings could not be used, since they did not reduce, but could even increase the height of the boat and did not allow folding the wings while moving. The only solution in this case could be a wing device that, like an airplane landing gear, could extend and retract into the boat’s hull without stopping movement.
The problem, as always, was the engine of such power that would allow the boat to be accelerated until sufficient lifting force was generated on the wings. And the engine power was directly related to its weight.
A preliminary calculation of the mass of the boat, based on its lifting weight in accordance with the specifications, determined the mass of the engine along with fuel to be no more than 450 kg, while the engine power should have been about 150 hp. With. And all this for the possibility of launching the boat “on the wing”.
Only three domestic engines met the set conditions: TVD-350 (150 kg, 230 hp), AI-14 (270 kg, 200 hp) and the engine of the Chaika car (316 kg, 150 hp). ). Of the listed engines, only the TVD-350 had less weight, ran on heavy fuel and was more compact than the other two, running on gasoline.
The choice was made on the TVD-350 turbine engine. In addition to the advantages listed above, this engine had a gearbox, but a gearbox had to be developed for other engines.
In order to increase speed and improve seaworthiness, a new design of hydrofoils retractable into the hull was developed. Possibility of cleaning
|
|
TOC o "1-5" h z Number of passengers, persons. 4
Speed, knots 13.5
Cruising range, miles 75
Seaworthiness, score 4
Engine type: gasoline “M51G-1”
Engine power, l. With. 62
Speed, rpm 2600
|
|
|
|
During sailing, the wings, in addition to the convenience of mooring and lifting onto the ship, helped dampen the inertia of free motion, which increased the maneuverability of the boat.
Superiority in basic parameters, combined with architectural design of the exterior, gave this boat undoubted advantages over command boats in service with the fleet.
This boat received project number 1389.
The Project 1389 boat turned out to be very progressive for its time, and that is the only reason why the project was not approved. In terms of its design solutions, the boat was ahead of its time, and modern technologies could not ensure the reliability and safety of the mechanisms used on the boat. Such mechanisms were propeller shaft with two cardans that ensure the movement of the stern wing together with the propeller without stopping the rotation of the propeller shaft, a bow cardan with a sliding coupling that ensures longitudinal displacement of the shaft when the wings are raised, a wing lifting mechanism, an adjustable pitch propeller with a mechanism for turning the blades.
All this could work flawlessly with high technology achievements using advanced technological processes, which was not available in the industry at that time.
The customer understood all this and wanted to have a reliable, trouble-free, economical and comfortable boat, and the TVD-350 turbine engine consumed almost twice as much fuel as a conventional diesel engine and was noisier.
Although the project was not implemented, it was of great importance for the further completion of work on small command boats. The efforts of the designers were not in vain; they worked out the architectural forms of the boat, magnificent for that time, which were used for the initiative project of a small commander-
Option for design study / boat project 7389
Initiative version of a small command boat
|
|
The Project 1390 boat, which survived until the end of the 20th century and took the place of the Project 1389 boat on board the Project 1123 anti-submarine cruiser.
Using the support of a high-ranking naval commander, N. A. Makarov began to develop an initiative version of a small command boat.
Project 339B was adopted as the basis for the new boat, and the new initiative project received the number 1390 “Strizh”.
Everything except the exterior architecture of this boat was worked out on previous small command boats, and there was no reason to abandon elements of the boat that had been tested during operation. The boat's hull remained virtually unchanged, the engine was a 9.5/11 bchsp, since there was no other engine anyway. The layout of the boat was taken from the studies of the 378p project. The option with a stern location of the main engine was chosen as an option that has a number of positive aspects - the bow of the boat was freed from noisy and bulky mechanisms, and the salon was very well located in this space. Behind the salon there was a storage room with a navigator's post, which, being an isolating room from the engine compartment, significantly reduced the noise in the salon. Due to the absence of a superstructure in the aft part above the engine compartment, access to the engine for servicing was significantly improved. The stern location of the engine improved driving and seaworthiness, thanks to the stern alignment of the boat.
The location of the engine in the stern required the manufacture of an angular gearbox and an intermediate shaft.
Now it remained to determine the architectural design of the appearance. To do this, the designer familiarized himself with information on the latest foreign cars.
Car bodies with bright interiors, thanks to a large glass area, and streamlined shapes could not leave the designer indifferent and aroused the desire to apply these architectural solutions in boat building.
Project 7390 & Strazh boat during sea trials
The choice of superstructure type was decided in favor of a limousine, and the boat received an appearance consistent with the architecture of modern passenger cars. It acquired a beautiful, swift shape that met the requirements for the architecture of a new type of ship's command boats.
By the end of September 1962, the boat was ready for state tests, but by this time Gulf of Finland the situation was cleared due to the end of the navigation period. The boat was sent on a trailer to the Black Sea in Feodosia, and in October it passed state tests, where it showed its best side. The speed instead of 12.5 knots was 14.2, the cruising range was 95 miles instead of 75. During sea trials, the boat took the waves well, did not get buried or flooded in four-point seas, and the impacts on the oncoming waves were soft. The vibrations during pitching were not sharp and quickly faded. Passenger capacity - including the crew - was eight people, and installing the engine on shock absorbers and excellent noise insulation of the engine compartment significantly reduced noise and improved the boat's habitability.
The state testing program included joint comparative tests of small command boats of projects 339B and 1390 in order to determine best option for mass production.
/7approach of the command boat to the bot of the carrier ship
In terms of dimensions, the boats were practically no different from each other, and in terms of weight, Project 1390 was 200 kilograms heavier. In terms of speed, the Project 1390 boat surpassed its competitor by 1 knot, and in terms of cruising range it was 20 miles behind it due to its smaller fuel reserve. In terms of architectural design, Project 339B was significantly inferior to its rival, but the boats were equal in seaworthiness.
The results of comparative tests were unanimously in favor of the Project 1390 boat and, in order to note any shortcomings, it was included in the test report that installing a reversible gearbox instead of a reversible clutch “creates some noise when the engine is turned on and running.”
In March 1963, a joint decision of the Navy and industry ordered the start of serial construction of Project 1390 boats instead of Project 339B boats. The boats were to be built by the Feodosia Shipyard according to documentation corrected by TsKB-5 taking into account comments received from the test results.
Since 1964, the Feodosia Shipyard began serial construction of small ship command boats of Project 1390.
In 1971, by order of the Ministry of Shipbuilding, the production of Project 1390 boats was transferred to the Batumi Shipyard.
Moreover, in 1972, by order of the Minister, all documentation, including the original design documents, were also transferred to the Batumi plant, which from that moment became the full owner of the project (in professional language - a tracing paper holder), and the TsKB-5 branch lost all copyrights.
Until 1974, the Feodosia plant completed the construction of boats with full use of the reserve, and during this time the Batumi plant prepared production for the serial construction of Project 1390 boats.
Since 1974, the Batumi Shipyard began to provide the Navy with small command boats and, as the only holder of the right to the project, began to develop its modifications for the needs of the national economy, at the request of individual customers and for export.
Before last days In the USSR, for almost 20 years, the plant produced these boats, which were in great demand among consumers. The designer tried several times to replace it more modern boat, but the promising design contribution of the early sixties did not allow it to be declared obsolete in the seventies and removed from production.
In March 1963, a government decision ordered the development, under an agreement with the Main Directorate of Shipbuilding of the Navy in the third quarter of 1963, of a reduced technical design for a version of a boat with a fiberglass hull and the construction of two boats based on it, one with a gasoline engine, the other with a diesel engine.
By signing this decision, the Deputy Commander-in-Chief of the Navy excluded work on a boat with a gas engine, leaving the construction of two boats with diesel engines.
Following the instructions of the government, and in accordance with the ongoing state policy for the development of the domestic chemical industry and synthetic materials, the enterprise, by decision of the Navy and the State Committee of the USSR Council of Ministers for Shipbuilding, began to introduce chemical industry products in order to replace wooden and metal materials. The first object of such implementation was the Project 1390 small command boat.
It was necessary to develop design documentation, work out the technology for the construction of the prototype, and organize the serial construction of small crew boats made of fiberglass. This was work for the future, since at that time the cost of building boats made of fiberglass was significantly higher than those made of wood or metal. In the future, as industrial enterprises are commissioned, producing large quantities of glass fillers and binders
Resins, the cost of fiberglass boats should have decreased significantly, and thanks to the operational advantages, such boats should have gradually replaced wooden and metal ones.
Counting on this, the leadership of the Navy and the State Committee for Shipbuilding ordered TsKB-5 to develop technical documentation and build two Project 1390 boats made of fiberglass. Considering that the project will differ from the basic one only in the hull material while maintaining the weight, dimensions and performance characteristics, the project was assigned the number 1390A.
According to the design results, all weight and dimensions, except lifting weight, and tactical specifications preserved. Lifting weight and displacement increased by 50 kg, but stability improved and speed increased by one knot.
In the second quarter of 1964, two boats were built. They were approved by the customer, but they were in no hurry to launch the project into series, expecting a reduction in the cost of building materials.
Counting on the fact that the serial construction of boats will be carried out at the Feodosia Shipyard, which in 1964 mastered a new technology for building small plastic boats and boats, the TsKB-5 branch, on its own initiative, in 1964 developed a version of the Project 1390A boat with a three-layer design.
The three-layer structure of the boat consisted of an outer skin, an inner skin with a set molded at the same time, and filling the space between them with self-foaming polyurethane foam. The implementation of such a design reduced the labor intensity of construction due to the rational formation of the hull structure and the implementation of insulation and finishing work of the premises, improved thermal and sound insulation, increased the volume of labor mechanization, increased the survivability of the boat and reduced the volume of working documentation.
Compared to the project 1390A of the stacked design, the displacement increased by only 100 kg due to the second hull and filler.
The design of the boat with a three-layer structure was reviewed by all interested organizations and received approval. TsKB-5 asked higher authorities to approve Project 1390A with a three-layer hull for the construction of the lead boat and, based on the test results, to make a decision on the serial construction of Project 1390A boats.
But a decision was never made for the reasons stated above.
The Navy continued to struggle for speed, and in 1963 its command and the State Committee for Shipbuilding ordered TsKB-5 to submit proposals in 1964 for the construction of “new small ship command boats with increased speed up to 20-25 knots with an extended hull, giving the boat a modern, sweeping shape, with greater passenger capacity, modern, distinct architecture and high quality performance of production work."
Project 7390/1 boat of three-layer construction (7.#m, 3.35t, 60hp, 74kt)
For this purpose, it was even possible to use gasoline engines, which the fleet had already abandoned.
Considering that the new boat will be close in type to boats of projects 1390 and 1390A, it was assigned project number 1390B.
No official technical specifications for the development of the project were issued, and therefore the boat was developed on the basis of directives from the Navy command and the leadership of the State Shipbuilding Committee.
Getting to work, the designer began by changing the length of the boat from 7.8 m to 8.5. The work boats of Project 338P had this length, and the unification of the new boat in length with the work boats would contribute to the symmetrical arrangement of equipment on opposite sides of the ship.
The architectural appearance of the boat had already been worked out during the design of boats of projects 1390 and 1390A using the achievements of foreign automotive industry.
The most painful question remained - the choice of the main engine. To achieve the specified speed of 20-25 knots, options for a motor installation with a YAME-236 diesel engine of 130 hp were developed. s., with a ZIL-160 gasoline engine of 130 liters. With. and with a GTD-350 turbine of 230 hp. With.
The version of the boat with a turbine had, in turn, two versions - with hydrofoils of a retractable design and without hydrofoils.
According to the results of the calculations, the version of the boat with the YAME-236 engine had a speed of 16 knots, lower than the specified one, and the lifting weight of the boat increased by 700 kg.
The version with a ZIL-160 gasoline engine had a speed of 18 knots, an increase in lifting weight by 500 kg and an increased fire hazard.
Both mentioned engines existed in a general industrial version. To use them on a boat, it was necessary to convert them to marine engines and manufacture a new gearbox. The converted engines could be placed on the boat only in the stern using an angular reversible gearbox and a propeller shaft.
The version of the boat without hydrofoils with a GTD-350 turbine had a speed of about 23 knots, and when moving on the wings, about 34 knots. The lifting weights of the boats increased by 250 and 650 kg, respectively, but they were less fire hazardous and had a larger interior to accommodate passengers due to the compactness of the GTD-350 engine. The disadvantages of this engine included greater noise and twice the fuel consumption compared to piston engines.
In all versions, the boat's passenger capacity was increased to eight people.
The GTD-350 turbine could be used with an aircraft gearbox on a boat with a water-jet propulsion system that does not require engine reversal. True, at that time aircraft gearboxes had already been created, but they had not yet been mass-produced, since it was difficult to identify a plant to fulfill this order.
Of all the developed options, only the option with the GTD-350 turbine fully satisfied the customer’s requirements. But the designer’s enthusiasm was tempered by the fact that an engine with increased noise and lower efficiency, used for the first time on a boat in combination with a water-jet system, would require much more time for finishing work and testing the boat during testing than with a conventional propeller-driven installation. And it was still unknown what would come of it and whether this boat would satisfy the customer.
In conclusion to the studies, the designer recommended approaching the decision on choosing an option empirically, namely, building a boat with a YAME-236 engine, with a GTD-350 turbine without wings and with a retractable wing device. Before the implementation of Project 1390B, continue the construction of small command boats of Project 1390. The fleet could not afford such a luxury as the construction of three boats for the sake of science and agreed only with the proposal regarding the construction of Project 1390 boats.
It so happened that this construction continued until the end of the 20th century!
In 1974, based on the “Weapon system for ships, coastal units and naval bases with command, crew and work boats,” Project 1407 “Snegir” was developed for a small ship’s command boat. The Commander-in-Chief of the Navy proposed speeding up the development of a new boat for ships of the second rank in October 1971 when reviewing materials technical project boat "Sokolyonok".
The new boat was intended for installation on large anti-submarine ships of Project 1134 and patrol ships project 1135 and the like, as well as for auxiliary vessels.
The tactical and technical specifications for the Project 1407 boat were issued in 1973. Over the years of operation, the Project 1390 boat has proven itself positively and the fleet has become accustomed to it, and the reason why it was planned to replace it with the Project 1407 boat was insufficient speed and outdated forms of architecture. In addition to these basic requirements, it was necessary to improve the protection of the propeller and rudder, provide a fire extinguishing system in the engine compartment, heating and ventilation in the cabin, improve the fencing of open areas of the upper deck, increase passenger and fat capacity, ensure the boat can navigate in broken ice and many other improvements. . At the same time, the Project 1407 boat was supposed to replace the Project 1390 boats on floating ships and vessels without radical changes to the lifting devices and fastening it in standard places.
As of 1974, the only suitable engine for a small command boat was the diesel bchsp 9.5/11 with a power of 60 hp. With. Such an engine was not capable of providing the boat with a speed of 18 knots, as required by the technical specifications. A new diesel engine that was light and powerful was required. The available YaMZ 236 and ZD20 diesel engines could increase the speed to 18-20 knots, but then the lifting weight of the boat would exceed 4 tons, the dimensions of the boat would increase, noise and vibration would increase, living conditions would worsen and the cost of the boat would increase by 25%.
According to the terms of the technical specifications, all this was unacceptable.
To fulfill the requirements of the task, there was only one way left - boosting the 9.5/11 bchsp engine to 110 hp. With. the Dagdizel plant and the creation of a reversible gearbox by the Bogorodsk Mechanical Plant, whose consent for this work was received.
The designer knew well the state of production of boats at the enterprises of the ministry and therefore recommended abandoning the option of a fiberglass boat, since the lack of factories working with fiberglass would not allow serial construction of the boat, which was confirmed by the experience of building the Project 1390A boat.
The only option left was a boat with a light alloy hull. The advantages of this boat were obvious; the boat’s hull was 250 kg lighter, which gave
The speed increase was about 1 knot, and its cost was 40% less than fiberglass. And most importantly, there was a construction plant that had extensive experience in building boats with a light alloy hull. This is the Batumi Shipyard, which produces boats of Project 1390, the production facilities of which could be replaced by boats of Project 1407.
The customer agreed with these arguments, and it was decided to make the boat’s hull from light alloy.
The practically new boat was an improved modification of the Project 1390A boat.
The hull shape of the Project 1407 boat was adopted according to the theoretical drawing of the Project 1390A boat, sharp-chine with an inclined stem. The hull is welded from an aluminum-magnesium alloy with ice reinforcements for the ability to swim at low speed in shallow broken ice. Insulation, heating and ventilation of habitable spaces were provided to enable the boat to operate in the Northern Fleet. Everything else was the same as Project 1390A, only even better.
The chief designer of the project was E.V. Zakharov.
After presenting the project to the customer and its approval, the question arose about the industrial production of the boat in general and its financing in particular. The customer needed to finance not only the production of the boats itself, but also the costs of mastering the production of new equipment. Additionally, it was necessary to finance work on the creation of a new modification of the bchsp 9.5/11 engine. And all this despite the fact that the Project 1390 boat, serial production of which was established at the Batumi plant, fully met all the customer’s requirements, and the fleet did not really need a new boat. In addition, the Batumi Shipyard has just completed mastering the construction of Project 1390 boats, worked out the technological process, completed the manufacture of technological equipment and began producing boats. In such a situation, the customer did not agree to unjustified repeated costs.
Let me remind you that in 1974, the construction of Project 1390 boats was transferred from Feodosia to Batumi along with the design documentation of the TsKB-5 branch.
The designer’s arguments that by the mid-seventies the fashion for the architectural appearance of cars had changed, and the design of the Project 1390 boat looked outdated, did not convince the customer. He was also not convinced by the arguments that the presence of a large number of curved surfaces on the Project 1390 boat increases the cost of technology and reduces serial construction, and that these issues could be resolved by creating a boat of modern design and simplified construction technology.
Well, after the Dagdizel plant stated that, due to the conditions of the enterprise’s workload, the real deadline for creating a forced engine could only be 1978, and the Bogorodsky Mechanical Plant stated that the creation of a reversible gear transmission is possible only after the creation of a diesel engine, the question of building a boat Project 1407 was resolved.
|
|
TOC o "1-5" h z Seaworthiness, score up to 4
Speed, knots 13
Cruising range, miles 100
Main engine 6ChSP9.5/11
Engine power, l. With. 55
Speed, rpm 1500
Case material: light alloy
|
|
|
Project 377B boat |
TOC o "1-5" h z Total displacement, t 8.87
Maximum length, m 11.87
Maximum width, m 3.06
Side height at midship, m 1.04
Draft at full displacement, m 0.60 Crew, persons. 4
Number of passengers, people eleven
Seaworthiness, score 5
Speed, knots 14.5
Cruising range, miles 75
Main engine diesel ZD6S
Engine power, l. With. 150
Speed, rpm 1500
Housing material steel
Further design of the Project 1407 boat was suspended until better times, which never came.
In 1994, after the collapse of the USSR, the supply of Project 1390 small command boats by the Batumi Shipyard ceased, and the fleet was left without boats. Although practically no new ships were built, it was necessary to replace old boats that had exhausted their service life. Then, in 1994, the Main Directorate of Shipbuilding entered into an agreement with the Redan Central Design Bureau for the supply of new Project 1390 boats to the fleet. For this, the Redan Central Design Bureau had to modernize the project and organize its construction at its pilot production.
The modernization of the project was supposed to consist of developing a new architectural type of boat, since, according to the customer, it no longer “meet modern requirements and trends in boat building”, replacing outdated equipment and hull material with fiberglass and installing a new 100 hp engine. s., which had to be developed.
The boat had to retain the lifting weight and all the design limitations of the launching device, and the dimensions had to be such that there was complete interchangeability with the old decommissioned Project 1390 boats, including seats on keel blocks.
Such a boat was designed under project number 13900, and working drawings were developed, but due to the collapse of the enterprise, lack of money from the customer and lack of demand for boats, the project was not implemented.
When the time came to change the worn-out Polish tent, the kitchen-shed and update the favorite outboard motors “Vikhr-30”... and the motorboat “Kazanka-2m” began to seem small. All this together promised significant financial costs, costs dedicated to “leaving everything as it is”... and I was least happy with this. I wanted something more. I wanted to relax afloat, to walk in comfort over “long” distances, as it seemed to me then (within 250 km in one direction) with people close to me.
The Swift boat is a rare beast in my region. Navy bases are his native element.
I first noticed this boat when I saw it on the Spit of the Volga and Oka rivers. My friend and I were hiding under the awning from the sun that was starting to get hot, in his “Kazanka -5M” and were still hoping to catch some fish when the handsome “Swift” confidently walked by. There were 4 people on board. At the same time, it was clear that no one was bothering anyone, people were calmly moving along the boat. The captain calmly controls the boat, quietly and confidently revving the diesel engine. I will not describe all the adventures associated with the search and acquisition of Swift. Let me just say that it was probably the largest event in my life at that time. I was 23 years old then.
I received the boat with the propeller shaft and angular reverse gear removed. The propeller looked like it had been chewed. The propeller shaft bracket was almost destroyed by corrosion. In the engine compartment there was a 6chsp9.5/11 with 110 engine hours on the engine hour meter. The boat was brought to the boat dock in late autumn before the first snow. Everyone around everyone reacted in approximately the same way: “Where are you going with this ship?”, “You can’t handle it,” “You’re even more crazy than I thought!” etc.
By spring, I had eliminated all the faults, cut out the bulkhead of the bow pressurized compartment to the level of the cabin flooring (interestingly, this had no effect on the unsinkability. If the forepeak is leaking, the water does not rise above the normal draft of the boat. If there is a hole in the cabin, the water rises to the level of the flooring). In this form my Swift was launched into the water. In the process of performing all the described work, the name “Flying” was miraculously firmly stuck to it. Wonderful - because a few years later I learned that just at that time the small anti-submarine ship “Flying” was cut into scrap metal. What is this? Ship relocation of souls apparently)))..
At the time the boat was brought into working condition, I was told by at least two people who were already “closely acquainted” with 6 chsp9.5/11 that it was better to immediately hand it over to ferrous metal. But at that time I didn’t listen, and I wasn’t ready to purchase a new engine.
While the boat was standing on the shore, the diesel engine with a filled internal circuit started easily, worked steadily, and gave the impression of a completely serviceable engine. As soon as the boat was launched, water from the internal circuit went into the crankcase. Replacing cylinder head gaskets...after a while the same thing. Half the engine again, gaskets intact. Sitting in silence next to the engine, I hear a murmur. I remove the inspection hatch into the cavity where the timing rods pass, and find an open fistula (obviously a casting defect). The whole season has been like this. I learned to disassemble/reassemble the engine with my eyes closed, just as they teach me to disassemble and reassemble a Kalashnikov assault rifle. The boat with this engine ran “weakly”: it reached the design speed of 22 km/h “on major holidays” - with one driver and empty fuel tanks. At the end of the season, I was so fed up with this engine that I was ready to yank it out of the engine compartment with my bare hands, so the question of its capital didn’t even arise. The 6H was so stressful to use that I couldn’t even figure out whether I was happy with the boat itself.
At the end of the season, the boat was raised for the winter, and 6chsp9.5/11 was dismantled. In March, a new engine was purchased and delivered to the boat yard - turbo diesel D-245.7. With the same weight and dimensions, this engine had twice the power (122 hp versus 60 hp). The fuel system with a mechanical in-line injection pump was more than satisfactory for me. Making the subframe and installing the engine in the boat did not take much time (no more than a month, despite the fact that I worked only on weekends). But the piping (manufacturing of exhaust pipe parts, connecting the throttle cable, installing the cooling system, connecting devices) lasted until mid-June.
The boat with the new engine was no longer recognizable. The boat began to reach the design speed (22 km/h) regardless of the load. Once, as a result of providing assistance, there were 13 people on board, and once, 8 people and the Kazanka-5m4 motorboat with the Mercury-60 PLM, full of things on board, in tow. The engine easily coped with the overload. In both cases, the boat developed its speed of 22 km/h. Maximum speed was 33-34 km/h. But at this speed the boat becomes almost uncontrollable; it wanders on course and falls from side to side. This is caused by the boat going beyond the design speed and there is no point in fighting it... - it is better to immediately transfer to a planing boat if you are struggling for speed. However, the speed reserve came in handy many times when overtaking “passengers”. It was a pleasant surprise that the fuel consumption per km either did not change or changed so much that I did not notice it. Consumption was 0.4-0.6 l/km. The first figure is in relation to the usual load: 4 people with things + 100% fuel reserves. The second - 4 people with things + 200% of fuel reserves (in cans) + approximately 40% of the transition time - stormy weather.
Miracles really don’t happen, and pretty soon a weak point emerged: twice, every 2 years, the shank of the secondary shaft of the reverse gear broke off. This subsequently led to the modernization of the boat's shaft line. However, the problem was solved 100% and no more malfunctions from the series of “childhood diseases” occurred.
The boat's seaworthiness was inspiring: on the Volga in my region (Nizhny Novgorod-Cheboksary) there is simply no wave in which you cannot go out from the base on Strizha. The sharp contours of the underwater part easily cut the waves, and the camber of the sides in the surface part lifts the boat onto the wave. It was not possible to “receive” any significant impacts on the waves inherent in planing boats of similar sizes. The boat cut through the waves like a knife through butter. There was enough space in the cabin with a cut-out airbox bulkhead for a comfortable stay of 4 people on board. Spending time on the water completely changed its character. We walked a lot and stood a little. Weekend trips became 50-100 km one way. This was a significant “growth” relative to tent and boat recreation. Where my friends went to such distances on a boat loaded to capacity with things only on vacation, after which they stood in one place for a month. We were completely unattached to the shore: today Tatinets, tomorrow Barmino, the day after tomorrow Vasilsursk!!! At first it was even unusual. It seemed: somewhere to go... but the complete lack of anchorage to the shore and full fuel tanks always “found a way out” and again we were going somewhere... while our boat friends remained sitting in their habitual camp. Those were great times! We couldn't sit still! Something to remember! The name “Flying” was completely justified.
The time has come to customize the boat to suit your needs. Based on the results of the 4-year operation of the boat, many wishes appeared for “what I would like to have on board.” I wanted a semi-closed pilothouse that would protect from rain and ultraviolet radiation, a latrine, a galley, and a double berth (standard sofas don’t count). All this was realized over time. Next, I wanted to increase fuel reserves, which would make it possible to increase the “range of action” of the boat, without portable canisters occupying useful volumes. Rework the steering, eliminating the steering cable. But at this stage I realized that I was ready technically, morally and financially... it was time to take the next step, move on to a boat of a “different weight category”, as I had dreamed of since childhood: to a large steel “ship”. More on this in another article.
The new generation high-speed armored landing and assault boat Strizh-4-1DSh was developed and manufactured at the St. Petersburg shipbuilding company Triumph.
The Strizh-4-1DSh landing assault boat is designed for the protection of facilities, service and traveling purposes, patrolling water areas and conducting environmental monitoring, rescue operations on rivers, lakes and coastal zones of the seas.
The Strizh-4-1DSh boat is made of corrosion-resistant aluminum-magnesium alloy grade 1561 (mainly panels). The peculiarity of the material used is the use of rolled panels, i.e. the body set is rolled together with the sheet, which, compared to a welded and riveted set, increases the strength of the body by 30%. This allows you to increase the service life of the housing (more than 30 years).
The Strizh-4-1DSh landing assault boat is equipped with armor protection of personnel of class I – III. It is designed to accommodate automatic small arms with a caliber of up to 12.7 mm and an AGS-17 (AGS-30) grenade launcher.
The Strizh-4-1DSh boat has a closed pilothouse, a bow cabin for personnel rest, a galley, a refrigerator, a radiation monitoring system, and a latrine. A stationary diesel installation and a water jet allow it to operate reliably in shallow water. A boat option for working in broken ice is possible.
To increase unsinkability, as well as create comfortable conditions in rough seas, a removable inflatable side made of durable synthetic materials is installed on the sides of the Strizh-4-1DSh boat. The presence of an inflatable side is indispensable when performing rescue operations on the water - even when placing 5 people on one side, the boat does not capsize and has a roll of no more than 17°.
The Strizh-4-1DSh landing assault boat is equipped with a stationary diesel engine with a power of 440 l/s, powered by an HJ series water-jet propulsion unit, which allows it to reach speeds of up to 85 km/h. Seaworthiness – up to 4 points.
The HJ series water jet propulsion system incorporates the latest technological innovations used in marine propulsion systems. As speed increases beyond 25 knots, Hamilton waterjets provide higher propulsion efficiency than conventional propellers. Thus, the HJ series water jets are an ideal choice for high-speed work boats, patrol boats and fast ferries.
The absence of an open propeller on the water cannon ensures complete safety for marine life and for people in the water. The maximum level of comfort is achieved due to the absence of any vibration of the vessel's hull, the absence of torque and cavitation at high speeds.
The risk of destruction upon impact is reduced due to the absence of an exposed screw. The impeller precisely matches the engine power, which eliminates its overload under any conditions.
The boat Strizh-4-1DSh is operated by 1 person, passenger capacity is 8 people. Short-term transportation of special personnel up to 12 people is acceptable.
Strizh-4-1DSh is transportable by car and by rail and on board the ship.
Main technical characteristics of the landing assault boat Strizh-4-1DSh:
Overall length, m: 9.77;
Overall width, m: 2.8;
Side height at the head, m: 1.3;
Draft, m: 0.45;
Total displacement, t: 5;
Speed, km/h: 45 with a stationary diesel power of 440 hp. With.;
Propulsion: Hamilton water cannon;
Seaworthiness, points: 4;
Crew/passenger capacity, persons: 1/8;
Sleeping places, pcs.: 4;
Cruising range, miles: 250;
Armor protection, class: I - III
This boat can be used as vehicle for hunting, fishing and recreation on water bodies. In addition, it can be used for sports competitions and as a rescue vessel. The design of this boat allows it to be used both in a rowing version and with the use of an outboard motor.
The boat "Strizh" is designed for navigation on inland waters (rivers, lakes and reservoirs) and in the coastal zone of the seas (up to 1000 m) with an outboard motor with a power of up to 5 hp. With. with excitement up to 1 point.
The Strizh cartop (i.e. it can be transported on the top trunk of a car) is a modern vessel consisting of 2 main parts - the bottom and the deck. The internal cavities are filled with polyurethane foam, which allows the vessel to remain afloat with cargo and passengers if it receives serious damage. In the deck part, 3 seating areas are molded: in the bow, stern and amidships.
All horizontal surfaces have a slight roughness, which helps reduce sliding on them. On the transom (in its lower part) there is a drain plug for draining water from the internal cavities of the boat when storing it.
There is a built-in eye-brace in the bow of the boat, designed for towing, anchoring and covering. Additionally, cleats can be installed on the hull for mooring to coastal berthing structures and other vessels, and transport wheels on racks (their fastening is similar to that on the Progress motorboat).
At high speed and with a sharp roll, the vessel has good stability and a small turning radius, which allows it to be used for sports trips.
The boat "Strizh" complies with the technical specifications TU 7440-002-96942190-2007 and has a certificate of conformity ROSS RU.MP15.V00231
Boat specifications
| Maximum load capacity, kg | 250 |
| Maximum passenger capacity, persons. | 3 |
| Weight, kg | 49±2 |
| dimensions | |
| Length, m | 2,770 |
| Width, m | 1,235 |
| Overall height, m | 0,459 |
| Freeboard height (midship), m | 0,336 |
| Average draft, m | 0,186 |
| Permissible motor power (max), l. With. | 5 |
Search
We can notify you about new articles,