Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    Naval Weapon Systems & Technology

    Share

    coolieno99
    Junior Sergeant
    Junior Sergeant

    Posts : 136
    Points : 159
    Join date : 2010-08-25

    Naval Weapon Systems & Technology

    Post  coolieno99 on Wed Sep 29, 2010 7:55 pm

    AK-630-M2 dual Gatling guns CIWS


    IronsightSniper
    Junior Lieutenant
    Junior Lieutenant

    Posts : 496
    Points : 520
    Join date : 2010-09-25
    Location : California, USA

    Re: Naval Weapon Systems & Technology

    Post  IronsightSniper on Thu Sep 30, 2010 12:39 am

    Is it me or did you only post text?

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15465
    Points : 16172
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Naval Weapon Systems & Technology

    Post  GarryB on Thu Sep 30, 2010 9:51 am

    I see the vids, so perhaps it is you.

    You aren't tuning in from behind a firewall that blocks content are you?

    (Nice vids BTW coolieno99 )

    IronsightSniper
    Junior Lieutenant
    Junior Lieutenant

    Posts : 496
    Points : 520
    Join date : 2010-09-25
    Location : California, USA

    Re: Naval Weapon Systems & Technology

    Post  IronsightSniper on Thu Sep 30, 2010 10:07 am

    Dunno, but I can see the videos fine now. Nice vids too.

    Austin
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5666
    Points : 6072
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Age : 40
    Location : India

    Re: Naval Weapon Systems & Technology

    Post  Austin on Wed Mar 09, 2011 1:48 pm

    Russian Navy Air Defense Missile [ pdf document ]

    nightcrawler
    Lieutenant
    Lieutenant

    Posts : 559
    Points : 687
    Join date : 2010-08-20
    Age : 27
    Location : Pakistan

    Re: Naval Weapon Systems & Technology

    Post  nightcrawler on Thu Mar 10, 2011 11:16 am

    Austin with another BAM...thnx

    Austin
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5666
    Points : 6072
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Age : 40
    Location : India

    Re: Naval Weapon Systems & Technology

    Post  Austin on Sun Mar 13, 2011 10:26 am

    Can any one identify the Russian ship and what is written in Russian ?


    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15465
    Points : 16172
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Naval Weapon Systems & Technology

    Post  GarryB on Sun Mar 13, 2011 10:15 pm

    Sorry I can't help... as you know I can't read or understand Russian, but I must say it is the first drawing of a new ship I have seen with 57mm gun turrets, and that alone suggests this is a patrol ship.

    The lighter gun would still be very useful against illegal fisherman and smugglers without being overkill.

    The missiles suggests a vessel that can look after itself.

    From my knowledge of basic Cyrillic the name on the side of the ship is GAVRIIL. This name is repeated in the bottom left corner of the page.

    Austin
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5666
    Points : 6072
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Age : 40
    Location : India

    Re: Naval Weapon Systems & Technology

    Post  Austin on Mon Mar 14, 2011 4:13 am

    Its too heavily armed to be a patrol boat , infact its quite well armed never mind the 57 mm twin gun , i suppose thats the new Corvette ?

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15465
    Points : 16172
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Naval Weapon Systems & Technology

    Post  GarryB on Tue Mar 15, 2011 1:31 am

    Looking at the vertical launch systems I think perhaps they have gone with everything vertical launch including decoy rockets etc.

    The round bin seems to hold only 5 weapons, one of which is the anti torpedo system with the 40km range and 324mm calibre in the brown box at the bottom. It is an ASROC type weapon but instead of a conventional torpedo it carries an anti torpedo torpedo... used to intercept incoming enemy torpedoes. The other weapon depicted with a range of 150km could be an anti ship missile, but I am not sure. I could just as easily be a SAM for outer ring defence of the vessel.

    The other bin seems to have a range of weapons but they are relatively small weapons... the bottom missile shown is a naval TOR missile... KLINTOK... a SAM with a range of 15km.
    The weapon depicted above it in the green box looks like some sort of replacement rocket for the RBU series depth charge launchers with a mass of 160kgs.

    To be honest these are patrol boat sized weapons... I would think if this boat was built 30 years ago the front gun would be moved back to where the vertical launch bins are and because of the extra volume in the hull it would likely have been an AK-176 single barrel 76mm automatic gun and the new space in front of it would have a couple of RBU-6000 launchers. At the middle of the boat would be a couple of 533mm torpedo tubes to launch torpedoes, and at the rear would be a couple of 30mm gun mounts for AK-630 CIWS.

    I still think this is a small ship.

    Austin
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5666
    Points : 6072
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Age : 40
    Location : India

    Re: Naval Weapon Systems & Technology

    Post  Austin on Tue Mar 22, 2011 7:39 am

    Some scribbling done by me when I was 10 years younger Laughing

    Modern Torpedoes And Countermeasures

    http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/MONITOR/ISSUE3-4/joseph.html

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15465
    Points : 16172
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Naval Weapon Systems & Technology

    Post  GarryB on Tue Mar 22, 2011 8:51 am

    Nice, though I would add that in addition to decoys and depth charges the RBU-1000 can also launch proximity mines in the path of incoming threats.

    The system can also be used against divers as well.

    I remember reading based on the systems fitted to new ships that the RBU-1000 has been largely supersceded by the PAKET which is basically a torpedo that homes in and destroys incoming torpedoes... a sort of anti torpedo torpedo... Individually more expensive but more capable... a bit like comparing 23mm cannon shells from a ZU-23 with an Igla SAM... the 23mm cannon shells can be used against a range of targets including ground targets but overall the SAM is more effective over a wider range in its primary role and so works out cheaper and easier to use.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15465
    Points : 16172
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Naval Weapon Systems & Technology

    Post  GarryB on Mon Jul 18, 2011 6:45 am

    Here are some interesting photos:







    This is the first set of photos I have seen of the AS-17/Kh-31 with a solid rocket booster to allow it to be fired from slow moving aircraft like Helos or Su-25TM type aircraft.

    This booster should allow a slow flying launch of this weapon allowing it to achieve normal flight performance from a slow and low launch.

    This would be a very potent weapon for a naval Ka-52 operating from a Mistral carrier for use against small to medium sized enemy ships.

    I have read that while the MA-31 anti ship test missile version the USN bought and used was not so reliable and had shorter range than they expected, they apparently tested it 17 times against defended targets and it hit all 17 times.

    So against a smaller less potent navy than the US such missiles are excellent and potent threats.

    Against the USN of course there will be problems getting close enough with a Kh-31 armed aircraft to launch the weapon let alone score a hit, but not all naval combat occurs in open ocean...

    medo
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 3051
    Points : 3149
    Join date : 2010-10-24
    Location : Slovenia

    Re: Naval Weapon Systems & Technology

    Post  medo on Mon Jul 18, 2011 10:15 am

    You are right, this Kh-31 is interesting. If Russians actually managed to integrate Kh-31 missile with Ka-52 helicopter, than I think it could use both versions of Kh-31, anti-ship and anti-radar version. ESM suite in Ka-52 is in my opinion advanced enough that it could be used for anti-radar missile. Maybe they only need to modify radar in Ka-52 nose, that it could be used in anti-ship role. Ka-50 could use Kh-25 ASM, so Ka-52 for sure could use it also and if Ka-52 could have such heavy missile as Kh-31, than Kh-29 could also be integrated on Ka-52. Together with Hermes missiles Ka-52 could actually be a helicopter class as fighter-bomber class in airplanes.

    Pervius
    Senior Sergeant
    Senior Sergeant

    Posts : 259
    Points : 287
    Join date : 2011-03-08

    Re: Naval Weapon Systems & Technology

    Post  Pervius on Mon Jul 18, 2011 1:05 pm

    Pakistan and China have been working on some kind of data link for these types of missiles.

    They want to launch their YJ-93's (Kh-31 copy) from submarines and hit things over the horizon their reconnaissance might see and target. Launching them from submarines they will likely have bigger solid fuel stage for more range.


    Likely before it gets close enough to the ship for SeaRam to shoot at it, explosive charge in warhead "shotgun" fires many many depleted uranium rounds, they continue with extreme speed and rattle tin can ship with holes.

    No way to shoot down such a missile unless you take it out with airborne laser no?

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15465
    Points : 16172
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Naval Weapon Systems & Technology

    Post  GarryB on Tue Jul 19, 2011 4:50 am

    If Russians actually managed to integrate Kh-31 missile with Ka-52 helicopter, than I think it could use both versions of Kh-31, anti-ship and anti-radar version.ESM suite in Ka-52 is in my opinion advanced enough that it could be used for anti-radar missile.

    Certainly the anti radiation version should be easy to integrate as enemy radar emissions should be detectable I certainly agree with that.

    Maybe they only need to modify radar in Ka-52 nose, that it could be used in anti-ship role.

    For use against smaller enemy vessels that might be a threat to the Mistral platform I suspect a Ka-31 with Ka-52 combination might be more potent.

    Ka-50 could use Kh-25 ASM, so Ka-52 for sure could use it also and if Ka-52 could have such heavy missile as Kh-31, than Kh-29 could also be integrated on Ka-52.

    The Kh-38 is supposed to be the replacement for both the Kh-25 and Kh-29 with a range of 40km and a reasonable payload and a choice of terminal seekers. It is double the weight of a Kh-25 but then with 4 weapon pylons carrying 4 lighter weapons with shorter range or 4 heavier weapons with much longer range and heavier payloads I think the choice is clear.

    They want to launch their YJ-93's (Kh-31 copy) from submarines and hit things over the horizon their reconnaissance might see and target. Launching them from submarines they will likely have bigger solid fuel stage for more range.

    The missiles sold to China were older model Kh-31s and new models with double the range in both the anti ship and anti radar models are now available.

    A bigger solid fuel rocket will accelerate the missile to a slightly higher speed initially and perhaps allow it to gain more altitude which would improve range, but adding more fuel to the ramjet sustainer would be much more efficient in extending range.

    The newer model Kh-31s are slightly heavier but have double the range.

    Think in terms of a cruise missile with a kerosene powered jet engine that needs a solid fuel engine to get moving.

    The purpose of the solid fuel rocket is to start it moving... on the ground there is too much drag for its jet engine to get it moving and at zero speed its wings give no lift to help it.

    The solid rocket only burns for a few seconds... making it twice the size will increase its speed but will not greatly increase performance except in some cases.

    Once the solid fuelled rocket has lifted the missile off the ground it falls away and the large solid fuelled rocket down the centre of the missile ignites and accelerates the missile to a higher speed and altitude to where the ramjet engine can be started. The solid rocket engines burn for less than 15 seconds while the ramjet engine burns for minutes. Adding fuel to the ramjet is a more efficient way to increase range... in the same way that a solid rocket booster to get a heavy transport aircraft airborne from a short strip makes sense, but to double the rocket boosters to try to extend the flight range of the transport aircraft does not make sense. It makes more sense to slightly increase the rocket boosters and use that extra energy to add more fuel to the transport to extend its flight range once airborne.

    The SA-19 uses a small slim low drag missile that is launched by a booster. The original booster accelerated the SA-19 to 1,000m/s and then falls away and a small very low power rocket motor on the SA-19 starts up to reduce drag and maintain speed to the target area.

    It has a range of about 8-12km depending on the model. The Pantsir-S1 has a larger more powerful rocket motor that accelerates the missile to 1.3km/s which doubles the range of the low drag missile to 20km.

    The difference here is that the Kh-31 is not a low drag design rocket and derives most of its range from its ramjet engine. The purpose of the solid fuelled rocket is not to get the Kh-31 to the target, it is to accelerate the weapon to a speed where its ramjet engine can be started from stationary (helos) or slow moving targets (aircraft) operating at relatively low altitude.

    Likely before it gets close enough to the ship for SeaRam to shoot at it, explosive charge in warhead "shotgun" fires many many depleted uranium rounds, they continue with extreme speed and rattle tin can ship with holes.

    SEA RAM would probably start engaging at 9km which is too far for a shotgun warhead to be effective.

    I see that the Russian navy is ready to introduce the naval version of Pantsir-S1 to their new ships and ships for export, so that means 20km range missiles... in fact the news report is here:

    The Russian Navy will soon receive a new ship-based gun/missile air defense system, KBP Instrument Design Bureau, the developer of the system, said on Monday.

    The system, dubbed Pantsyr-M, has been developed on the basis of the land-based Pantsyr-S1 (SA-22 Greyhound).

    "Pantsyr-M will replace the Kortik air defense systems and will be installed on all new classes of Russian combat ships, from corvettes to cruisers," said Alexander Zhukov, a senior KBP official.

    Zhukov cited specifications for an export version of Pantsyr-M as the data on the system for the Russian Navy is still classified.

    The export Pantsyr-ME version has a response time of 3-5 seconds and can track and destroy simultaneously up to four targets.

    Its missiles have a range of 20 kilometers and can hit targets at altitudes from 2 meters to 15 kilometers, while its guns have a range of four kilometers and can hit targets at altitudes up to 3 kilometres.

    source: http://en.rian.ru/mlitary_news/20110718/165263833.html

    Response time is impressive and the ability to take on 4 targets at once is also impressive with the range of 20km and altitude from 2m to 15km makes it a very potent system for small vessels, while for larger vessels it will be even more useful with multiple turrets managed and coordinated with larger longer range systems (radar and missiles).

    Mindstorm
    Captain
    Captain

    Posts : 734
    Points : 917
    Join date : 2011-07-20

    Re: Naval Weapon Systems & Technology

    Post  Mindstorm on Wed Jul 20, 2011 2:00 pm

    I see that the Russian navy is ready to introduce the naval version of Pantsir-S1 to their new ships and ships for export, so that means 20km range missiles... in fact the news report is here:


    GarryB the figures you have cited are for the export version(Pantsyr-ME) which,in fact,coincide perfectly with the export version of the corrispective land based systems selled to UAE.
    Also the article clearly specify that: "Zhukov cited specifications for an export version of Pantsyr-M as the data on the system for the Russian Navy is still classified".

    Now if the russian tradition to offer on the international market weapon systems with capabilities enormously inferior to those operated internally,can be an hint (and any of us remember perfectly the immense difference in level of protection between the T-72M and derivatives offered to not-Warsaw Pact nations and the T-72A/B which in '90 years Manfred Held before and Leland Ness after,finded in live tests virtually impenetrable for the whole spectrum of NATO's anti-tanks weapons operative at the time) we can only argue that likely the capabilities of Pantsyr-M will be much greater.

    GarryB i have also a question for you.
    In the last weeks we have obtained from IMDS 2011 two good pics of Pr 22350 frigate's VLS number arrangement and size .
    Moreover,from Almaz Antey annual 2010 report,has been confirmed that 9M100 is not only alive but even in production.

    From a quick analysis of the size of the new naval standardized VLS and arrangement of missiles also in land-based launchers,appear almost sure that 4 9M96 will be hosted in each of those 28 VLS in the same way of tubes hosting 48N6 series exchangeable with 4 9M96 tubes.

    Some sources (like warfare.ru )go even further suggesting that the VLS of Redut AD system could allow to host a 4 packed smaller missile like 9M100 for each 9M96 offering an even greater flexibility in missile's customization.

    Do you have any information on this subject ? Thanks.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15465
    Points : 16172
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Naval Weapon Systems & Technology

    Post  GarryB on Thu Jul 21, 2011 2:53 am

    Now if the russian tradition to offer on the international market weapon systems with capabilities enormously inferior to those operated internally,can be an hint (and any of us remember perfectly the immense difference in level of protection between the T-72M and derivatives offered to not-Warsaw Pact nations and the T-72A/B which in '90 years Manfred Held before and Leland Ness after,finded in live tests virtually impenetrable for the whole spectrum of NATO's anti-tanks weapons operative at the time) we can only argue that likely the capabilities of Pantsyr-M will be much greater.

    For the last two decades the Russians have been in serious condition... in fact a coma with regards to sales and exports so for a while not only have exported weapons not been downgraded they have not been bought by the Russian military so in many ways it has been the Russian military with the old inferior products and the export customers getting the best stuff.

    A clear example of this is the Indian Su-30MKIs which were clearly superior to Su-27s from the late 1980s and early 1990s. Further more the Indian aircraft had R-77s which are superior to the R-27 series too. With proper funding the R-27 could greatly improve with new electronics and sensors and ARH and IIR seekers they would be a very capable family of missiles... but that funding wasn't there.

    Now that the Russian military is actually spending money they can start limiting what is exported more and saving the good stuff for themselves.

    A hint of the performance of the Pantsir-S1 in Navy and Army service can perhaps be gauged by the projected performance of the very similar and related HERMES missile developed and land and air and sea based versions with various terminal homing options and flight ranges.
    The land based system has different models with ranges of 20km, up to 40km, and up to 100km depending on the model and rocket booster type.

    With terminal homing it becomes a more effective CIWS for dealing with swarm attacks, at the expense of increased cost.

    In the last weeks we have obtained from IMDS 2011 two good pics of Pr 22350 frigate's VLS number arrangement and size .
    Moreover,from Almaz Antey annual 2010 report,has been confirmed that 9M100 is not only alive but even in production.

    From a quick analysis of the size of the new naval standardized VLS and arrangement of missiles also in land-based launchers,appear almost sure that 4 9M96 will be hosted in each of those 28 VLS in the same way of tubes hosting 48N6 series exchangeable with 4 9M96 tubes.

    Some sources (like warfare.ru )go even further suggesting that the VLS of Redut AD system could allow to host a 4 packed smaller missile like 9M100 for each 9M96 offering an even greater flexibility in missile's customization.

    Do you have any information on this subject ? Thanks.

    I was under the impression that the Redut launchers were 16 tube bins, so with two that would make 32 launch tubes for full sized S-400 type missiles. I have heard that the smaller 9M96 type missiles can be loaded 4 to a bin but I rather doubt each of those missiles could be replaced by 4 9M100 missiles.

    For a Frigate I would suspect a normal load of perhaps 64 x 10km range 9M100 missiles for short range defence in conjunction with CIWS, plus probably a balance of perhaps 20 x 120km range larger 9M96 missiles and 44 x 40km range smaller 9M96 missiles.

    Remember this is a Frigate!!!

    Mindstorm
    Captain
    Captain

    Posts : 734
    Points : 917
    Join date : 2011-07-20

    Re: Naval Weapon Systems & Technology

    Post  Mindstorm on Thu Jul 21, 2011 12:29 pm

    For the last two decades the Russians have been in serious condition... in fact a coma with regards to sales and exports so for a while not only have exported weapons not been downgraded they have not been bought by the Russian military so in many ways it has been the Russian military with the old inferior products and the export customers getting the best stuff.

    In my opinion the situation is a bit different: in a period of great economical depression,like the '90 years, Russians choosed wisely to employ the limited resources at theirs disposition almost exclusively in the R&D segment, which is surely less evident to public opinion but absolutely crucial,above all in troublesome times avoiding ,contextually,to induce in any branch of Armed Forces any type of weapon system which would result fatally already "outdated" in the procurement process for the completion of research on new generation of weapon systems,

    If some years ago,at example,Russian Air Force would have massively procured "internal" versions of the most advanced version of SU-30 of the time, we wouldn't have seen ,two years ago,the order of 48 Su-35S neither the latest deal with Irkut for 40 Su-30SM and likely no funds for mass produce PAKFA would have been disposable.

    the R-27 could greatly improve with new electronics and sensors and ARH and IIR seekers

    Active radar homing seekers for R-27 (R-27A/AE) is already at its third production version and some years ago AGAT already offered for export some advanced ARH seekers for R-27 series like 9B1103M-200; i agree with you about the lacking of a IIR seeker for the R-27 limiting,in some way,the efficiency of the typical mixed seeker salvo at BVR of Russian fighter aircraft against a top end opponent.
    But i strongly suspect that we will never see an R-27 equiped with a similar advanced seeker,because likely those will be integrated in the new generation of missile for Su-35S/PAKFA

    I was under the impression that the Redut launchers were 16 tube bins, so with two that would make 32 launch tubes

    The image of Pr. 22350 model from the last IMDS 2011 at which i refer show a bined 14 VL tube formation (for a grand total of 28 ) on the bow and other 8 tubes bined (for a total of 16 more)in a more recessed position, likely UKSK tubes for AShM.

    http://balancer.ru/forum/punbb/attachment.php?item=231441



    What surely hit the eyes is that the overall appearance of the 28 VLS of Redut AD and the 16 3R-14UKSK is pratically identical letting we to speculate only on a possible difference in deepness (3R-14UKSK is 9.58 meters deep for allow the hosting of Oniks or BrahMos).




    IronsightSniper
    Junior Lieutenant
    Junior Lieutenant

    Posts : 496
    Points : 520
    Join date : 2010-09-25
    Location : California, USA

    Re: Naval Weapon Systems & Technology

    Post  IronsightSniper on Fri Jul 22, 2011 6:35 am

    I have read that while the MA-31 anti ship test missile version the USN bought and used was not so reliable and had shorter range than they expected, they apparently tested it 17 times against defended targets and it hit all 17 times.

    So against a smaller less potent navy than the US such missiles are excellent and potent threats.

    Against the USN of course there will be problems getting close enough with a Kh-31 armed aircraft to launch the weapon let alone score a hit, but not all naval combat occurs in open ocean...

    According to here: http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:pFNvdPK_fsMJ:www.acq.osd.mil/dsb/reports/ADA441466.pdf+Ma-31+target+test&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEEShknsIb1A375SqtnrzW0NFBHMbFUGPKvgn7-qCjzIKJUDayVON5YkfVkoOuI_k-hO2zwzmU5AvsVCjbj-gwjDgz67DWhGsFCcIy9R1rZ9ArlNmgAmc0EwZWcOTYRntqSFkpkXQX&sig=AHIEtbTwJUHvxxNpbGAWLNrWq8Pb2a2YDA , the MA-31 has only been used 13 times, don't know of it's success rates.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15465
    Points : 16172
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Naval Weapon Systems & Technology

    Post  GarryB on Fri Jul 22, 2011 11:16 am

    In my opinion the situation is a bit different: in a period...

    You could certainly say the period trimmed the fat, but it also reduced the muscle mass.

    Right now the doctor is trying to revive the patient and throwing money at it seems to be working best. The problem is if it throws money at the obsolete stuff it will absorb and grow just like the flesh and bone.

    The trouble is letting the fat die and reviving the organs and vital stuff.

    Clearly some that was fat needs to survive but it needs to change and adapt... licence production is the best solution here.

    If some years ago,at example,Russian Air Force would have massively procured "internal" versions of the most advanced version of SU-30 of the time, we wouldn't have seen ,two years ago,the order of 48 Su-35S neither the latest deal with Irkut for 40 Su-30SM and likely no funds for mass produce PAKFA would have been disposable.

    If India and China had not ordered Flankers then Su-35 and PAK FA would not be anything like what they are now. In absence of such orders the companies involved would have needed orders to inject cash and work into their businesses otherwise there would be no skilled workforce to do the job.

    The result was China and India had more capable aircraft than the Russian AF which was a situation they had to put up with because they had no real funding.

    It is no secret the Russian MIC largely got by on foreign orders.

    Now that the Russian military has money and a huge need to rearm it makes sense to spend that money inside the Russian market to boost the Russian economy.

    Where I live there is a rail yard that has a maintainence and support branch and our government has just started a push to get the railways up and running after decades of neglect.
    A new order for railcars... just went to a Chinese company. The government gave the company millions of dollars to spend and they spend it in the Chinese economy. They saved 80 million dollars, by sending New Zealanders tax payers money to China to buy something we could have made here. They will give themselves a pat on the back for saving all that money of course and then fire people in my area because they don't need such large support bases at the moment.

    Spending a bit more makes sense when you are spending that money in your own economy and creating jobs. Jobs means they earn money and spend money in your economy... money you get back through taxes which allows you to spend even more.

    Foreign production should not be an option. Licence production is expensive but brings you up to the level of the product you are producing.

    i agree with you about the lacking of a IIR seeker for the R-27 limiting,in some way,the efficiency of the typical mixed seeker salvo at BVR of Russian fighter aircraft against a top end opponent.
    But i strongly suspect that we will never see an R-27 equiped with a similar advanced seeker,because likely those will be integrated in the new generation of missile for Su-35S/PAKFA

    With QWIP technology you can combine a long and medium and short wave IR sensor with an optical visible light sensor that looks like a CCD camera sensor chip that can be mass produced relatively cheaply. The R-77 already uses a datalink and this could very easily be transferred to the entire R-27 family of missile bodies.
    A new cheap optical seeker with a datalink would not be difficult to incorporate the only issue with the R-27 is that it would not be compatible with internal carriage... well for the Mig-35, Su-35 and older aircraft that is not an issue.

    The IR guided BVR missile is really for low level interception... at sea level a sidewinder has a range of something like 8-10km, the vast majority of air to air kills are at less than 20km even with BVR missiles. An R-27ET could be fired at a retreating enemy aircraft at much greater range than WVR missiles, so a target that turns and runs requires IR guided BVR missiles.


    Excuse my ignorance but in this photo of a model:

    http://balancer.ru/forum/punbb/attachment.php?item=231441

    I see the two sets of launcher bins for Brahmos and Club in the centre with 8 hatches each, but I don't see the 14 tube Redut launcher tubes.
    The two blank areas above and below the Brahmos and Klub launchers in the photo include 3 separate tubs or boxes... unless they each hold a different number of missiles each I would suggest that these are the Redut launchers and that with them grouped in threes that 14 will not likely be their capacity unless each of the three bins that make up each group of launchers holds 4.6666 missiles.
    I suspect that a more sensible load for each bin would be 4, which makes the capacity of three bins 12 missiles and the two forward groups of bins 24 missile capacity.

    Assuming there are no other launchers elsewhere on the vessel that means 16 land attack, anti sub and anti ship missiles and 24 SAM launchers for up to 24 x 4 = 96 SAMs.

    That would likely result in a load of perhaps 64 Morfei short range IIR missiles for close in defence plus perhaps 24 x 40km range 9M96 missiles, which would leave 8 x 120km range 9M96 missiles.

    According to here: http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:pFNvdPK_fsMJ:www.acq.osd.mil/dsb/reports/ADA441466.pdf+Ma-31+target+test&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEEShknsIb1A375SqtnrzW0NFBHMbFUGPKvgn7-qCjzIKJUDayVON5YkfVkoOuI_k-hO2zwzmU5AvsVCjbj-gwjDgz67DWhGsFCcIy9R1rZ9ArlNmgAmc0EwZWcOTYRntqSFkpkXQX&sig=AHIEtbTwJUHvxxNpbGAWLNrWq8Pb2a2YDA , the MA-31 has only been used 13 times, don't know of it's success rates.

    That article is from 2005. It clearly states it is political hurdles that are preventing more purchases and that they have bought 18 and tested 13 and have 2 in the then current inventory. This suggests they took two apart for testing no doubt.
    It also clearly states that they want to use up to 5 per year and that they originally planned to buy 41 vehicles.

    Is it possible that with the reset and all they might have gotten more missiles and done more tests?
    AFAIK the Russian Duma blocked further sales of the MA-31 to the USN, so I would expect that they likely put back together the few they took apart and used them in tests which would explain the 17 tests.

    Mindstorm
    Captain
    Captain

    Posts : 734
    Points : 917
    Join date : 2011-07-20

    Re: Naval Weapon Systems & Technology

    Post  Mindstorm on Fri Jul 22, 2011 1:56 pm

    I see the two sets of launcher bins for Brahmos and Club in the centre with 8 hatches each, but I don't see the 14 tube Redut launcher tubes.


    GarryB go at the bottom of the pic's page and scroll the page to the right and you will see the two series of 14 Redut AD launchers (the pic is very big therefore you see at the beginning only the left part )


    Assuming there are no other launchers elsewhere on the vessel that means 16 land attack, anti sub and anti ship missiles and 24 SAM launchers for up to 24 x 4 = 96 SAMs.

    Because are present 28 Redut launchers the correct count is 28 x 4 = 112 SAM of the 9M96 type.


    That would likely result in a load of perhaps 64 Morfei short range IIR missiles for close in defence plus perhaps 24 x 40km range 9M96 missiles, which would leave 8 x 120km range 9M96 missiles.

    But my previous question remain : we know that 4 9M96,with a diameter of 25 cm ,fit the space of a big 48N6 ,with a diameter of 50 cm .
    We have the 9M100 missile with a diameter just of 12,5 cm (do you note the pattern in the diameter measure ?); do you belive that 9M100 will replace the space of 9M96 on a one to one basis ? ...I highly doubt that ;at the contrary i believe that the same reason behind the design of the short range 9M100 ,is to gain an highly effective mean against large scale saturating attacks.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15465
    Points : 16172
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Naval Weapon Systems & Technology

    Post  GarryB on Sat Jul 23, 2011 3:00 am

    When I open the picture there is no horizontal scroll bar so I can see the blanked launcher bins for Redut.

    Because the picture is side on the Redut launchers are above and below the front UKSK launcher and seem to consist of three bins each with no clearly defined hatches so their capacity is hard to determine directly from the model.

    Because are present 28 Redut launchers the correct count is 28 x 4 = 112 SAM of the 9M96 type.

    If we can establish there are 28 launch tubes then I agree on the count of 112 SAMs.

    But my previous question remain : we know that 4 9M96,with a diameter of 25 cm ,fit the space of a big 48N6 ,with a diameter of 50 cm .
    We have the 9M100 missile with a diameter just of 12,5 cm (do you note the pattern in the diameter measure ?); do you belive that 9M100 will replace the space of 9M96 on a one to one basis ? ...I highly doubt that ;at the contrary i believe that the same reason behind the design of the short range 9M100 ,is to gain an highly effective mean against large scale saturating attacks.

    I can't give you hard answers, but we can use a bit of logic and try to work out what would make sense.

    First of all the purpose of the Redut system is similar to the UKSK system in that it is to be a unified launcher that can be loaded with a variety of weapons.
    It makes sense to build a system that can be applied from small corvettes right up to carriers... especially because unlike other types of launchers it is stealthy in that it mounts flush to the deck and is not limited in terms of firing rate in that all the missiles in the tubes are actually ready to fire... they don't need to be handled or moved to a firing position.

    Having all the launch systems the same makes a lot of sense in terms of standardisation of systems and handling and maintainence, though there is something to be said for having long and short models where the long models are fitted to the bigger ships and allow full sized 400km range S-400 and full sized Rif-M missiles to be loaded, while for smaller ships a shorter launcher that can take the shorter S-400 missiles could be used.

    If it is the case of the latter then fitting the tiny 9M100 missile into the enormous tubes... even if you fit them in quad packs is a little inefficient.

    If you look at this photo you can see even though the two smaller 9M96 missiles are much slimmer, they are not actually that much shorter than the full sized missiles:



    However the 9M100 missiles will likely be much shorter weapons, so even including a cold launch catapult system to throw them up into the air and get them started even if you couldn't pack 4 in the area of one 9M96 missile (which I doubt), you could probably stack two lots on top of each other with the smaller missile so each launch tube could carry one full sized long range missile, or 4 9M96 missiles of 120km or 40km range, or you could put a double pack of 9M100 missiles that has 8 missiles which consist of two stacks of four missiles in each tube.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15465
    Points : 16172
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Naval Weapon Systems & Technology

    Post  GarryB on Sat Jul 23, 2011 3:24 am

    My apologies... I now see the scroll bar on the web page itself, and yes... it appears there are two large bins each with 14 hatches which are presumably the Redut launchers.

    Makes me wonder what the blanked out bins either side of the UKSK launchers are.

    Keep in mind this is a frigate yet it has the potential to have up to 16 Brahmos missiles and 112 SAMs.

    In fact on most pictures I have seen of the vessel it has Kashtan systems at the rear corners, so with the Pantsir-S1 upgrade that means 64 missiles with 20km range able to hit targets at 2m above the water up to 15km altitude and engage 4 targets each at one time... and that is for the export models of Pantsir-S1.

    This is a very well armed frigate... in fact it is better armed than the Sovremmeny Destroyers which were considered well armed vessels.

    Mindstorm
    Captain
    Captain

    Posts : 734
    Points : 917
    Join date : 2011-07-20

    Re: Naval Weapon Systems & Technology

    Post  Mindstorm on Sun Jul 24, 2011 1:15 pm

    Makes me wonder what the blanked out bins either side of the UKSK launchers are.

    My hypothesis,founded on the point that UKSK are placed in that position just to "gain" the 1,5 / 2 meters of deepness necessary to host Oniks, is that those hatches are built but not with capacity to host future integration of long range navalized very long range AD / or cruise missiles.
    Likely the purpose for this will be,thanks to the synergistic resultant of the ship's reduced radar signature and even only the most basic noise/selective jamming,to leave also future airborne attacking menaces well within engagement envelop of the ship (implementable) Long Range Air Defence systems.


    Keep in mind this is a frigate yet it has the potential to have up to 16 Brahmos missiles and 112 SAMs.......so with the Pantsir-S1 upgrade that means 64 missiles with 20km range able to hit targets at 2m above the water up to 15km altitude and engage 4 targets each at one time... and that is for the export models of Pantsir-S1.

    GarryB,all the data at our dispaosal,give to me the distinct feeling that project 20350 will execute -at least until first unities of new generation destroyer will be laid down-several roles assigned,in other Navies around the world, at ships in totally different size categories.
    If the informations on the true range of internal versions of Klub not subject to MTCR (likely the subsonic land attack version with the 400 kg warhead http://rusnavy.com/news/navy/index.php?ELEMENT_ID=11768 ) can be an hint , we can easily infer that the engagement range of Russian Oniks,not subject to MTRC, lie in the region of 800-900 km .
    That mean that a pair of those "frigates" would be capable ,at second of the missile configuration, attack and destroy several high paying land based targets :C4 sites, radar installations, airfields hangars etc.., from ranges well outside the possibilities of any conventional version -Block III and Block IV TLAM - of BGM-109 http://www.navy.mil/navydata/fact_display.asp?cid=2200&tid=1300&ct=2 ; or engage an enemy naval formation with a salvo of high supersonic and manoeuvrable missiles in the class of Oniks/3M54 Klub from well outside the engagement range of any AShM operative in any other Navy worldwide.

    On the missile defence sector we have that each Pr 20350,leaving out any employement of the space now reserved to the technological hatches of which we have talked previously,will mount : 1) Redut AD VL tubes with 112 9M96 missiles with range of 120 / 40 km (or in my opinion,more likely, 90 9M96 missiles and 88 9M100 missile with about 10 km of engagement range for close defence) with the crucial capability to engage incoming missile in a saturating salvo not in the closing order but from the "interior" of theirs formation so to offer to the most internal layers of AD not only targets much easier to designate and neutralize but also enough time between menaces for re-engagement of missiles not destroyed, 2) 64 23Ya6 missile of Pantsyr-M with range superior to 20 km (likely in the 30 km region), 3) A-192 130 mm gun in the 22 km region 4)On board jamming systems in the 13-14 km range 5) 9M100 fire and forget missiles in the 10 km range,likely shooted in salvo of 2-3 to each evenual survivng missile 6)Chaff/Flare delivered by both in borad systems and KA-28 helicopter 7) Two Twinned 30mm gun of Pantsyr-M with range of 4 km.

    On the ASW departement we have (ecluding Klub 91RE1/2 mounted purposely for the task) that the Pr. 20350 is equiped with a new generation sonar ,2 quadruple Medvedka 2 sytems and the only hard kill anti-torpedo active defence system ,at now,operative worldwide the Paket-E/Nk.

    ....Those aren't precisely the capabilities of a typical frigate ship......

    Sponsored content

    Re: Naval Weapon Systems & Technology

    Post  Sponsored content Today at 7:38 pm


      Current date/time is Mon Dec 05, 2016 7:38 pm