Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    Naval Weapon Systems & Technology

    Share

    Stealthflanker
    Major
    Major

    Posts : 808
    Points : 894
    Join date : 2009-08-04
    Age : 28
    Location : Indonesia

    Re: Naval Weapon Systems & Technology

    Post  Stealthflanker on Sat Aug 31, 2013 5:15 pm

    Vann7 wrote:
    im wondering about your opinions about the claims of an user in another forum about Russia navy defense capabilities.. He told..

    Both AEGIS and the UK/French PAAMS are designed to counter "saturated attacks" of high performance, supersonic anti-ship missiles and aircraft. No Soviet missile would penetrate the defense systems of ANY AEGIS or PAAMS equipped warship.

    I would put PAAMS slightly above AEGIS in terms of air-defense capabilities - however AEGIS will regain parity or even exceed PAAMs in the near future (upgrades etc).

    Apart from AEGIS and PAAMS there is no other naval air-defense system that even comes close.

    The Chinese type 052C and future 052D destroyers are equipped with advanced AESA multi-function radars and long-range SAMs to provide similar capabilities of Western AEGIS/PAAMS systems. But we can safely assume that the Chinese "AEGIS" is still inferior to the Western systems. The Indian Navy is also developing its own "AEGIS" system in the new P-15A (Kolkata-class) and P-15B destroyers. But again, like the Chinese system it is still inferior to Western AEGIS and PAAMS. Germany and the Netherlands have also developed their own "AEGIS" like systems.

    The Russians as of yet have not developed any capable naval air defense systems and their fleet will still be vulnerable to anti-ship missiles like the Harpoon or Exocet.

    He seems a fanboy but not sure of any of his claims.. whats your take about his comments?
    it was in defense pk forums . can post the link of the conversation if you want.

    Typical old arguments..no need to get really worked up on it.

    AEGIS air defense are still limited by how many fire control director it can carry... even with 100++ standards.. Arleigh burke can only at best engage three of them at long range because it only carries three directors. SM-6 may improve their case though.. but with advent of naval based 9M96's..they're equal.

    I Don't really buy of "Over The Horizon Engagement" capability of the SM-6's as it still relies on other platform who were happen to spot the target to contact the missile carrier before launch.

    Russian naval air defense are more comprehensive than their western counterpart.. just take Kashtans.. combination between missile and guns.. can engage more targets than any EU or US Close in systems except RAM...along with Klinok and naval version of OSA's .. All of them have their own Radar's Thus won't disturb each other.. meaning more targets can be engaged independently.

    And even nicer that Russian CIWS often come in pair... instead typical western arrangement which favor single fighter arrangement.. meaning that Russian CIWS can put more lead on the air.. increasing probability of destruction of AsHM's

    And odds are that if Soviet doctrine implemented.. There would be jammers directed at the radar's...though this can be dealt with ECCM's ... and not to mention Soviet ASHM's are armored.. won't be easily brought down by typical SAM fragmentation warhead.


    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15490
    Points : 16197
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Naval Weapon Systems & Technology

    Post  GarryB on Sun Sep 01, 2013 12:28 pm

    It is similar to the situation on land... the Soviets spend a lot of money on their air defences on land and sea because the west spent a lot on air power.

    The Soviets have systems like Kashtan and soon Pantsir-S1 with two 6 barrel gatling guns and 8 ready to fire missiles and 24 reload missiles on an automatic ammo handling system... do you think that is because they have rather more experience with supersonic anti ship missiles?

    As StealthFlanker mentions the total number of on board SAMs is not as important as the number of missile director channels you have... SA-2 SAM sites with the capability of engaging one target at a time means two cruise missiles at once are a serious threat... Vityaz with 16 missile directors each able to control 2 missiles against 1 target means 16 targets can be engaged at once with the high speed of the missile meaning more targets can be engaged per minute than with older slower missiles.


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order

    gaurav
    Master Sergeant
    Master Sergeant

    Posts : 309
    Points : 309
    Join date : 2013-02-19
    Age : 37
    Location : Blr

    Re: Naval Weapon Systems & Technology

    Post  gaurav on Thu Nov 07, 2013 8:56 am


    A bit of history is needed... in the 1980s the Soviets had two subsonic nuclear armed cruise missiles...
    Hi Garrry
    I would like to ask one thing can yu detail me the upgrade (only if yu have , it is not mandatory I mean) of Kirov class cruisers.
    The reason why I am saying this is...
    The thing is that we need to have this discussion at the same time next year. Perhaps in 1-2 years things will be much clear.



    I would also like to add that Russian Navy is not going to replace the launchers on  the  kirov class cruiser.

    I do not have the upgrade list for slava class cruiser and also for Kirov class cruisers. There is no upgrade list available on the internet for that matter.
    The discussion is Nakhimov, Ushakov Kirov class cruisers.
    Varyag,Moskava,Ustinov slava class cruiser.
    I suppose for both these upgrades we do not have enough information to suggest UKSK launchers will be installed.


    Coming back to the missiles teh Russian navy believes that bazalt , Granit  still match their performance requirements where as the Kalibre doesn't.

    This is a fact , I mean without proof Cool. Hence we cannot conclude on the deployment of UKSK launchers across the board of Russian Navy.

    For Russian corvettes and small ships the domain changes and the deployment of UKSK launchers is of timely necessity.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15490
    Points : 16197
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Naval Weapon Systems & Technology

    Post  GarryB on Fri Nov 08, 2013 1:50 pm

    The UKSK is a universal launcher for land attack and anti ship and anti submarine cruise missiles.

    Kalibr is a cruise missile for land attack and offers a capability no variant of Granit or Vulkan can match... the ability to target and hit land targets.

    If there is a need to engage enemy surface vessels the Onyx is believed to fly at about mach 2.5-2.8 and have a flight range of between 500km and 700km... it is the missile the Yakhont is based upon.. but without the export restrictions.

    Granit is no longer in production and is no longer an option.

    The plan for the upgrade of the Kirovs is to add 10 UKSK launchers to allow those vessels to carry up to 80 heavy missiles... whether they are Kalibr, Klub, Onyx, Brahmos, or anti sub AS-15/16 rocket delivered torpedoes.

    Other modifications can obviously be speculated... the naval Koalition 152mm gun mount is an obvious choice for artillery and Kashtan-M would be ideally replaced by Pantsir-S1 turret mounts.
    Rif and Rif-M would obviously be replaced with Vityaz and naval S-400 and of course likely S-500 too.

    Much of that upgrade information is speculation on my part but the 80 tubes for UKSK has been mentioned by Russian officials.

    One of the criticisms of the Soviet Navy was the range of different weapons and sensors and systems and propulsion... one of the things they are aiming for is standardisation so all vessels will receive UKSK launch bins... the size of the vessel will determine the number of systems, but all will be standard.


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order

    George1
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 9457
    Points : 9949
    Join date : 2011-12-22
    Location : Greece

    Re: Naval Weapon Systems & Technology

    Post  George1 on Fri Nov 08, 2013 8:53 pm

    GarryB wrote:The UKSK is a universal launcher for land attack and anti ship and anti submarine cruise missiles.

    Kalibr is a cruise missile for land attack and offers a capability no variant of Granit or Vulkan can match... the ability to target and hit land targets.

    If there is a need to engage enemy surface vessels the Onyx is believed to fly at about mach 2.5-2.8 and have a flight range of between 500km and 700km... it is the missile the Yakhont is based upon.. but without the export restrictions.

    Granit is no longer in production and is no longer an option.

    The plan for the upgrade of the Kirovs is to add 10 UKSK launchers to allow those vessels to carry up to 80 heavy missiles... whether they are Kalibr, Klub, Onyx, Brahmos, or anti sub AS-15/16 rocket delivered torpedoes.

    Other modifications can obviously be speculated... the naval Koalition 152mm gun mount is an obvious choice for artillery and Kashtan-M would be ideally replaced by Pantsir-S1 turret mounts.
    Rif and Rif-M would obviously be replaced with Vityaz and naval S-400 and of course likely S-500 too.

    Much of that upgrade information is speculation on my part but the 80 tubes for UKSK has been mentioned by Russian officials.

    One of the criticisms of the Soviet Navy was the range of different weapons and sensors and systems and propulsion... one of the things they are aiming for is standardisation so all vessels will receive UKSK launch bins... the size of the vessel will determine the number of systems, but all will be standard.
    how many Kirovs will be upgraded? 2 pr 3?

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15490
    Points : 16197
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Naval Weapon Systems & Technology

    Post  GarryB on Sat Nov 09, 2013 12:18 pm

    From what I have read only 2. Sad


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order

    flamming_python
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 3189
    Points : 3317
    Join date : 2012-01-30

    Re: Naval Weapon Systems & Technology

    Post  flamming_python on Sat Nov 09, 2013 3:39 pm

    They should do all 4, and upgrade/finish all 4 Slavas too - put the Russian navy on the map Twisted Evil 

    If we saved the Akulas too; there wouldn't even any need for the Kuznetsov carrier right now; it could be undergoing modernisation at port where it belongs.

    ali.a.r
    Junior Sergeant
    Junior Sergeant

    Posts : 105
    Points : 110
    Join date : 2011-11-04

    Re: Naval Weapon Systems & Technology

    Post  ali.a.r on Sat Nov 09, 2013 3:51 pm

    If we saved the Akulas too; there wouldn't even any need for the Kuznetsov carrier right now; it could be undergoing modernisation at port where it belongs.
    How would subs compensate the role of a carrier?


    TR1
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5840
    Points : 5892
    Join date : 2011-12-07

    Re: Naval Weapon Systems & Technology

    Post  TR1 on Sat Nov 09, 2013 10:53 pm

    Only 2?

    Guys lets finish (or even start) Nakhimov before even talking about a 2nd ship.


    flamming_python
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 3189
    Points : 3317
    Join date : 2012-01-30

    Re: Naval Weapon Systems & Technology

    Post  flamming_python on Sun Nov 10, 2013 3:42 am

    ali.a.r wrote:
    If we saved the Akulas too; there wouldn't even any need for the Kuznetsov carrier right now; it could be undergoing modernisation at port where it belongs.
    How would subs compensate the role of a carrier?

    Just the sheer awesomeness of the largest sub in the world, sitting hidden in the Meditteranean, filled to the brim with cruise missiles.

    Like a carrier, it would have enough firepower to level targets all over Syria; with no need for a carrier group, or in fact any other ships - to protect or support it; it would be completely autonomous and unexpected.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15490
    Points : 16197
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Naval Weapon Systems & Technology

    Post  GarryB on Sun Nov 10, 2013 10:23 am

    Smile

    Keep in mind that FP means the real shark... not the NATO shark... NATO name for Akula is Typhoon.

    Personally I can see where he is coming from but to me the long term plans seem to focus on the Pacific and Northern fleet, which means two main bases, which needs at least two main capital ships.

    They could certainly make them, but they already have two in the form of two Kirov class vessels plus an upgrade of the Slavas would mean a formidable force with modern systems... I would upgrade both the Kirovs and Slavas with nuclear propulsion and UKSK launchers...Slava having external angled launchers with 8 tubes replacing each existing two side by side tubes, while the Kirovs can have fully recessed vertical tubes... heck they could rotate them on the Slavas so they can have two UKSK launchers in each twin tube position so they have 16 x 8 tubes so 128 missiles ready to launch... quite potent...

    With every vessel equipped with Sigma data/communications/battle management hardware then every vessel can contribute to the air, space, sea surface and sea subsurface picture on every Navy vessel.

    The UKSK launcher allows each vessel to engage land, sea surface and sea subsurface targets, while Redut will allow air targets and with S-500 space targets to be engaged....

    Personally I would like to see the Akulas fitted out as motherships for a range of manned and unmanned mini and micro subs... used for mapping and tapping...


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order

    Rpg type 7v
    Junior Lieutenant
    Junior Lieutenant

    Posts : 420
    Points : 284
    Join date : 2011-05-01

    Re: Naval Weapon Systems & Technology

    Post  Rpg type 7v on Sun Nov 10, 2013 10:36 pm

    i dont know anything about submarines but i can talk about missiles ,and uksk launchers will have many negative effects on russian navy...

    TR1
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5840
    Points : 5892
    Join date : 2011-12-07

    Re: Naval Weapon Systems & Technology

    Post  TR1 on Sun Nov 10, 2013 11:55 pm

    Rpg type 7v wrote:i dont know anything about submarines but i can talk about missiles ,and uksk launchers will have many negative effects on russian navy...
    Please, do tell.

    I am looking foreward to more laughable "analysis".

    Negative effects like Russian surface combatants actually having a potent land strike ability across most platforms. Terrible!

    Werewolf
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5391
    Points : 5640
    Join date : 2012-10-25

    Re: Naval Weapon Systems & Technology

    Post  Werewolf on Mon Nov 11, 2013 6:39 am

    From where comes this russophobe weirdo that uses a russian weapon designation as a nickname?
    So much russophobic mumblings one after another i only have seen from hardcore polish,georgian,jews (zionistic),americans,majority of people from baltic countries or turkish people.
    Does that cover a place where you come from?

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15490
    Points : 16197
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Naval Weapon Systems & Technology

    Post  GarryB on Mon Nov 11, 2013 2:21 pm

    By all means share these negative effects with the rest of us.

    AFAIK the Russians don't have a don't ask don't tell policy when it comes to nuclear weapons on board, so that wont be a problem.

    Otherwise having one dedicated launcher means standardisation of launchers... the only moving parts are roof hatches so there is very little to go wrong with no ammo hoists or ammo handlers to load missiles... all are ready to go.

    Plus being universal launchers a range of weapons can be loaded to tailor the capabilities of the ships.

    Where previously a ship might have anti sub missiles or anti ship missiles now they can have a mix of weapons in larger numbers ready to fire with the addition of land attack, which was previously not available to the average Russian vessel.


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order

    Rpg type 7v
    Junior Lieutenant
    Junior Lieutenant

    Posts : 420
    Points : 284
    Join date : 2011-05-01

    Re: Naval Weapon Systems & Technology

    Post  Rpg type 7v on Wed Nov 13, 2013 12:08 am

    well just 1 major flaw i can see is are you going to have the same number of short range sams as longrange sams because of uksk?
    i mean 1 tube fits all principle is flawed because missiles are of different sizes,short-medium-longrange A-A missile, or you going to have dedicated launchers?

    medo
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 3055
    Points : 3153
    Join date : 2010-10-24
    Location : Slovenia

    Re: Naval Weapon Systems & Technology

    Post  medo on Wed Nov 13, 2013 12:36 am

    Rpg type 7v wrote:well just 1 major flaw i can see is are you going to have the same number of short range sams as longrange sams because of uksk?
    i mean 1 tube fits all principle is flawed because missiles are of different sizes,short-medium-longrange A-A missile, or you going to have dedicated launchers?
    UKSK is meant for anti-ship missiles and land attack cruise missiles. SAMs have their own VLS. They don't use UKSK.

    ali.a.r
    Junior Sergeant
    Junior Sergeant

    Posts : 105
    Points : 110
    Join date : 2011-11-04

    Re: Naval Weapon Systems & Technology

    Post  ali.a.r on Wed Nov 13, 2013 8:16 am

    Rpg type 7v wrote:

    well just 1 major flaw i can see is are you going to have the same number of short range sams as longrange sams because of uksk?
    i mean 1 tube fits all principle is flawed because missiles are of different sizes,short-medium-longrange A-A missile, or you going to have dedicated launchers?
    Not really.

    If for example one UKSK/Redut launch bin can hold one heavy/long-range missile, and a short-or-medium range missile has (for examples sake) half the diameter of the bigger missile, then you could fit four of the smaller missiles into one launch bin. So its entirely possible to carry combinations of different missiles, all using the same launch system.

    If a ship has 16 launch bins, it could carry (again, for examples sake, because I dunno the exact dimensions) 8 of the long range missiles like the 48N6 (each one taking up ONE launch bin) , and 32 9M96 medium range missiles (with 4 missiles in each bin).

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15490
    Points : 16197
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Naval Weapon Systems & Technology

    Post  GarryB on Wed Nov 13, 2013 1:08 pm

    As mentioned UKSK is a universal launcher of land attack, anti ship, and anti submarine cruise missiles. It is not intended for SAMs.

    SAMs are mounted in the Redut launchers which will be standard launchers for Naval SAMs, though there is also Shtil-1 launchers in vertical launch systems for export, and Pantsir-S1/Kashtan-M/Palma-Sosna SAMs as well and I presume the Klintok vertical launch system.

    Redut uses standard Rif-M (ie S-300 large missiles) but is standardised throughout the navy from corvette to carrier and sub as well... all use the same launcher and also the UKSK launcher too.

    The only difference is in the number of launchers each size vessel can carry, with small corvettes with one Redut and one UKSK... meaning up to 32 full sized S-300 sized SAMs or more likely a combination of 9M100 Morfei, Vityaz, and S-400, and likely S-500. For a Corvette perhaps 4 X 250km range S-400 SAMs plus 48 x Vityaz medium range 120km range missiles taking up 16 tubes and the remaining 16 tubes with say 8 Morfei missiles in each, so 128 Morfei short range missiles.

    With one UKSK launcher that means say 6 Onyx supersonic anti ship missiles plus 2 anti sub missiles or land attack missiles.


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order

    Rpg type 7v
    Junior Lieutenant
    Junior Lieutenant

    Posts : 420
    Points : 284
    Join date : 2011-05-01

    Re: Naval Weapon Systems & Technology

    Post  Rpg type 7v on Wed Nov 13, 2013 8:01 pm

    you are confused ,will they use uksk for sams or not?
    so 1 big longrange SAM ,or 4 medium SAMs of half diameter.
    if they use kastan ciws with its separate missiles ,why then another short range system in launchers?

    TR1
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5840
    Points : 5892
    Join date : 2011-12-07

    Re: Naval Weapon Systems & Technology

    Post  TR1 on Wed Nov 13, 2013 8:12 pm

    Neither Shtil VLS nor Redut uses UKSK.


    Rpg type 7v
    Junior Lieutenant
    Junior Lieutenant

    Posts : 420
    Points : 284
    Join date : 2011-05-01

    Re: Naval Weapon Systems & Technology

    Post  Rpg type 7v on Wed Nov 13, 2013 8:20 pm

    nore granit or vulkan, many missiles will be left behind because of uksk , what a drawback for russian navy whose main and unique assests were exactly those missiles...

    TR1
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5840
    Points : 5892
    Join date : 2011-12-07

    Re: Naval Weapon Systems & Technology

    Post  TR1 on Wed Nov 13, 2013 8:22 pm

    LOL Keep showing how bad of an argument you have.

    Granit isn't even in production, forget about it. First SAMs now this nonsense. Vulkan is ancient, potent maybe, but ancient.

    You propose putting Vulkan sized missiles on a 20380 or a 22350? lmao

    UKSK mounts every perspective and current RuNavy AShM. Good enough.

    Rpg type 7v
    Junior Lieutenant
    Junior Lieutenant

    Posts : 420
    Points : 284
    Join date : 2011-05-01

    Re: Naval Weapon Systems & Technology

    Post  Rpg type 7v on Wed Nov 13, 2013 11:40 pm

    well to sink newest ships you really need a heavy warhed -a 500kg warhead at least , this tiny missiles will not be able to even produce enough damage to disable a warship with prepared crew and good damage control.

    flamming_python
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 3189
    Points : 3317
    Join date : 2012-01-30

    Re: Naval Weapon Systems & Technology

    Post  flamming_python on Thu Nov 14, 2013 2:27 am

    He has a point there TR1

    Sponsored content

    Re: Naval Weapon Systems & Technology

    Post  Sponsored content Today at 5:39 pm


      Current date/time is Sat Dec 10, 2016 5:39 pm