Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    Naval Weapon Systems & Technology

    Share

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15470
    Points : 16177
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Naval Weapon Systems & Technology

    Post  GarryB on Wed Nov 13, 2013 11:41 pm

    you are confused ,will they use uksk for sams or not?
    The UKSK launcher is for anti ship, land attack, and anti sub cruise/ballistic missile weapons only.

    In its domestic model it can fire Onyx (which replaces Granit, Vulkan, and Moskit) as the mach 2.5 supersonic anti ship missile with long range (500-700km).

    The export model of UKSK wont have Onyx... it will have either Yakhont, or Brahmos depending on the export customer (China will have Yakhont, India will have Brahmos).

    The Domestic model can also fire Kalibr a subsonic 2,500km range cruise missile with nuke and conventional payloads with a land attack role.

    The Domestic model can also fire the supersonic model of Kalibr that uses a supersonic second stage to attack well defended ships with a mach 2.9 terminal stage.

    The Export model has Klub in sub 300km range versions with subsonic all the way and supersonic terminal phase models for both anti ship and land attack purposes.

    The Domestic model also has a rocket fired ballistic missile that delivers a torpedo payload at mach 2.5 to targets up to an unknown range in the surface launched models for corvettes to carriers, and also a different missile also with an unknown range in a version of UKSK for submarines.

    The Export model also has a rocket fired ballistic missile that delivers a torpedo payload at mach 2.5 to targets up to 40km away in the surface launched models for corvettes to carriers, and also a different missile to 50km range in a version of UKSK for submarines.

    Neither the domestic nor the export model is designed to launch SAMs.

    They, however, will be compatible with all future land attack, anti ship, and anti sub weapons like the hypersonic Zirconium missile and the Brahmos II.

    if they use kastan ciws with its separate missiles ,why then another short range system in launchers?
    Kashtan-M will likely be replaced in upgrades on non stealthy vessels by the domestic equivalent of Pantsir-S1.

    Using short range lock on after launch 9M100 Morfei missiles as CIWS is rather more stealthy and when used with Duet you get a combination of missiles and guns in a relatively stealthy setup.

    I suspect the future of Pantsir-S1 in the navy might depend on the performance of Morfei, but on small patrol boats Pantsir-S1 will continue to be useful as it combines TI and MMW radar and CMW radar to detect targets.

    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...
    Granit is out of production and is largely replaced by Onyx, as is Vulkan.

    As you might appreciate the electronics in Onyx is rather more compact and with the use of lighter materials the Onyx is a lighter but still very capable missile. Zirconium uses scramjet propulsion technology to raise speed and range to a new level, while using the sophisticated attack capability of the earlier missiles... as you might imagine the datalinking technology has improved since the early 1980s.

    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.
    Tiny?  9m long and 3 tons is hardly tiny.

    The goal is to unify all the anti ship, land attack and anti sub weapons into one launcher that can be fitted to every Russian vessel.

    All future missiles of those types will be designed to fit into those launchers.

    This means that every Russian vessel will be fully multirole able to hit land, sea surface, and sea sub surface targets with a quick reload at the dock.

    It is a tremendous step forward for them... now instead of 5 anti ship missile corvettes and 5 anti sub corvettes and no land attack corvettes because who is going to mount nuclear armed land attack cruise missiles on a corvette in the Soviet Navy they can have 10 corvettes of the same design and when arming them at the dock they can configure the armament to suit the nature of the patrol with a mix of weapon including conventional land attack which was not previously available...

    The new launchers are fixed bins with no moving parts like ammo hoists or articulated aiming arms that could fail or need maintainence.

    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.
    The kinetic energy of a 1.5 ton missile with all its fuel burned hitting a ship at over 2 times the speed of sound should do some serious damage even if the warhead does not detonate. In the near future when Zirconium is ready a similar weight missile hitting at mach 5 or mach 6 will result in fragments moving at explosive speeds. (the expansion rate of an exploding grenade produces metal fragments moving at mach 2-3, so 1.5 tons of material moving at twice that speed would be devastating).

    More importantly a single Corvette with 8 Onyx or Zirconium missile is very well armed... a Frigate with twice that number even more so.

    Kirov class cruisers with 10 UKSK launchers and 80 missiles would be overkill for most targets... especially when you consider every other ship operating with that vessel will also have UKSK launchers as will the subs operating with them too.

    The adoption of the UKSK launcher will make training and maintainence easier and cheaper... instead of learning how to use SS-N-22, and SS-N-19, and S-N-12 launchers, plus SS-N-15/16 launchers etc etc there is just one launcher type... one set of sensors to support those launchers... cheaper and easier and also larger production numbers makes production faster and easier.... making smaller numbers of specialised vessels is rather more complex and expensive.

    Logistically supporting a larger number of vessels with the same equipment and systems and weapons is much cheaper and simpler... especially for support vessels as fewer types of systems need fewer different types of parts.

    He has a point there TR1
    Not really. From Corvette up there will actually be rather more missiles carried per vessel and more missiles are always harder to defend against... Harpoon on its own is fairly ordinary... but 6 of them is a real challenge to deal with.

    How many Corvettes of the Soviet Navy carried 8 Granits?

    How many Frigates carried 16 Granits?

    The new Destroyers they are building will likely have 4 UKSK launchers, which means 32 missiles... a Sovremmeny class and a Udaloy class together could carry 8 Moskits and 8 anti sub torpedo carrying SS-N-14s... a new Russian destroyer could carry 8 Onyx missiles, 8 Kalibr anti sub missiles and still have 16 tubes free... the firepower of 4 Soviet Destroyers in terms of its primary armament!

    No I don't think there will be a lack of anti ship capability for the Russian Navy with the introduction of the UKSK launchers.

    Most importantly just looking at the ship you could know the capability of a Sovremmeny class vessel, but what is the new Destroyer carrying in those tubes?


    _________________
    “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 : 3182
    Points : 3310
    Join date : 2012-01-30

    Re: Naval Weapon Systems & Technology

    Post  flamming_python on Thu Nov 14, 2013 12:22 am

    GarryB wrote:Not really. From Corvette up there will actually be rather more missiles carried per vessel and more missiles are always harder to defend against... Harpoon on its own is fairly ordinary... but 6 of them is a real challenge to deal with.

    How many Corvettes of the Soviet Navy carried 8 Granits?

    How many Frigates carried 16 Granits?

    The new Destroyers they are building will likely have 4 UKSK launchers, which means 32 missiles... a Sovremmeny class and a Udaloy class together could carry 8 Moskits and 8 anti sub torpedo carrying SS-N-14s... a new Russian destroyer could carry 8 Onyx missiles, 8 Kalibr anti sub missiles and still have 16 tubes free... the firepower of 4 Soviet Destroyers in terms of its primary armament!

    No I don't think there will be a lack of anti ship capability for the Russian Navy with the introduction of the UKSK launchers.

    Most importantly just looking at the ship you could know the capability of a Sovremmeny class vessel, but what is the new Destroyer carrying in those tubes?
    No, I agree with all that, I'm simply saying that indeed the new missiles have smaller payloads and against larger ships this may be problematic.
    Nothing busts a vessel quite like the Vulkan or Granit

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15470
    Points : 16177
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Naval Weapon Systems & Technology

    Post  GarryB on Thu Nov 14, 2013 12:59 am

    Nothing busts a vessel quite like the Vulkan or Granit
    I would be inclined to agree normally, but the real difference between Granit and Vulkan is Vulcan was made of more modern materials and was lighter than Granit... things like Titanium armour were used instead of steel armour to protect the missile from fragmentation warheads and 20mm cannon shells.

    Onyx has taken the reduced weight even further, but a major change would be the shift in propulsion to ramjet which means a smaller lighter more compact weapon.

    The end result will be that the Vulkan and Granit certainly hit harder but I rather doubt the difference would be enormous as Vulkan and Granit were more fuel and propulsion which made them big and heavy, while the smaller and lighter Onyx is just more efficient.

    Zirconium will be twice as fast and the old energy equals mass times the square of speed means twice as fast means 2 to the power of 2 times more energy.

    For many light corvette like targets a Granit would vapourise them, and while I agree against a Carrier one Onyx would not sink it you are not going to just use one... unless it is a nuke.


    _________________
    “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

    TR1
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5840
    Points : 5892
    Join date : 2011-12-06

    Re: Naval Weapon Systems & Technology

    Post  TR1 on Thu Nov 14, 2013 9:04 am

    flamming_python wrote:He has a point there TR1
    No he does not. He has been cornered and is making an ass for himself.

    The ships that employ the UKSK never employed weapons the size and potency of the Vulkan and Granit. UKSK gives a massive boost in fleet capability through Yakhont and Kalibr.

    As to his "warhead size" argument, even stupider. 250kg warhead on a Yakhont will WRECK a non carrier combatant. Mission kill easily.

    runaway
    Master Sergeant
    Master Sergeant

    Posts : 351
    Points : 372
    Join date : 2010-11-12
    Location : Sweden

    Re: Naval Weapon Systems & Technology

    Post  runaway on Thu Nov 14, 2013 11:19 am

    TR1 wrote:
    As to his "warhead size" argument, even stupider. 250kg warhead on a Yakhont will WRECK a non carrier combatant. Mission kill easily.
    One hit from Onyx would seriously damage even larger warships and several hits would certainly be leathal. The Klub-N missile has versions with 400kg warhead that fits VLS tubes,  It is also allegedly capable of disabling or even sinking an aircraft carrier.

    this tiny missiles will not be able to even produce enough damage to disable a warship with prepared crew and good damage control.
    Just ridiculous
    In 1982 HMS Sheffield was hit and sunk by an Exocet missile fired from a Super Étendard plane of Argentina air force. The missile hit amidships, and did NOT explode, instead its jet engine ignited fuel and flammable materials.
    This missile had a 165kg warhead, speed Mach 0.92 and was deadly for most ships, then compare to 250kg warhead and Mach 2.5 for Onyx..




    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 Thu Nov 14, 2013 6:35 pm

    ok but lets see that also means that future cruisers will use same missiles as frigates.
    which is kinda stupid and a shame ,since the point of cruisers is they could carry larger weapons compared to other ship classes -[b]instead of 1000 small onyx missiles ,100 very potent granits with 1000km range,...unless they plan bigger uksk for cruisers.Idea 

    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 Thu Nov 14, 2013 6:37 pm

    runaway wrote:
    TR1 wrote:
    As to his "warhead size" argument, even stupider. 250kg warhead on a Yakhont will WRECK a non carrier combatant. Mission kill easily.
    One hit from Onyx would seriously damage even larger warships and several hits would certainly be leathal. The Klub-N missile has versions with 400kg warhead that fits VLS tubes,  It is also allegedly capable of disabling or even sinking an aircraft carrier.

    this tiny missiles will not be able to even produce enough damage to disable a warship with prepared crew and good damage control.
    Just ridiculous
    In 1982 HMS Sheffield was hit and sunk by an Exocet missile fired from a Super Étendard plane of Argentina air force. The missile hit amidships, and did NOT explode, instead its jet engine ignited fuel and flammable materials.
    This missile had a 165kg warhead, speed Mach 0.92 and was deadly for most ships, then compare to 250kg warhead and Mach 2.5 for Onyx..
    Ok but this were iron ,steel, and titanium missiles ,not lightweight composite missiles of today which shatters on imapact into useless dust and small fragments ,kinetic impact penetration from composite into iron superstructure is tiny, and getting that close to todays ships whithout detection -good luck man sunny

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15470
    Points : 16177
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Naval Weapon Systems & Technology

    Post  GarryB on Fri Nov 15, 2013 4:01 am

    The ships that employ the UKSK never employed weapons the size and potency of the Vulkan and Granit. UKSK gives a massive boost in fleet capability through Yakhont and Kalibr.
    Not quite... the introduction of the UKSK launcher for every ship from Corvette to Carrier and all non SSBN subs actually means that the Russian fleet will be deploying 100 times more supersonic anti ship missiles than they did before... it is pretty much turning Onyx and Zirconium into Harpoon in the sense that Harpoon was not a super weapon but with numbers it would be effective.

    Onyx and Zirconium are everything Vulkan and Granit were but now in Harpoon deployment numbers...

    As to his "warhead size" argument, even stupider. 250kg warhead on a Yakhont will WRECK a non carrier combatant. Mission kill easily.
    New explosives are more powerful than older explosive compounds... not to mention new EW systems fitted to some missiles are more likely to lead to multiple hits.

    Explosive power is certainly one thing, but the real killer of ships is not HE... it is fire.

    compared to other ship classes -[b]instead of 1000 small onyx missiles ,100 very potent granits with 1000km range,...unless they plan bigger uksk for cruisers.
    Small Onyx missiles? 3 tons and 9m long is hardly small... the two main reasons it is smaller and lighter than Granit is that it trades the 750kg warhead for a 250kg one but also it is rather more fuel efficient and burns rather less fuel. This means that by the time the Granit gets to its target and has burned off its fuel it will not be that much heavier if at all.

    composite into iron superstructure is tiny, and getting that close to todays ships whithout detection -good luck man
    Exocet never should have gotten any where near Sheffield either... Sea Dart and Sea Wolf should have offered total protection... but they didn't work as advertised in a real combat situation... surprise surprise.


    _________________
    “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

    runaway
    Master Sergeant
    Master Sergeant

    Posts : 351
    Points : 372
    Join date : 2010-11-12
    Location : Sweden

    Re: Naval Weapon Systems & Technology

    Post  runaway on Fri Nov 15, 2013 9:35 am

    Rpg type 7v wrote:ok but lets see that also means that future cruisers will use same missiles as frigates.
    which is kinda stupid and a shame ,since the point of cruisers is they could carry larger weapons compared to other ship classes -instead of 1000 small onyx missiles ,100 very potent granits with 1000km range,...unless they plan bigger uksk for cruisers.Idea 
    What a Face Not a bad idea, but with 900km for 3M14 and 450kg warhead, its a heavy weapon. 300km and 250kg warhead for Oniks along with mach 2,9 is leathal against all small to middle class ships. And its really better to fire a volley of 20 Oniks than 4 granits, to owerhelm enemy defenses and be sure to score some hits.

    I think range is not very critical, but finding the enemy before he finds you. Modern naval conflict will be much like tank warfare, first to shoot often will win.
    And Gary is right about fire is a great hazard on ships, after a hit, its almost everytime the fire that doomes the vessel. Imagine a hit that knocks out power to the pumps for firefighting, not unusual.


    Domestic variants Klub missile

       3M-54 - DOD designation SS-N-27A (NATO codename "Sizzler"). An anti-shipping variant deployed in the Russian federation navy, as a submarine launched missile, Its basic length is 8.22 m (27.0 ft), with a 200 kg (440 lb) warhead. Its range is 440–660 km (270–410 mi). It is a Sea-skimmer with supersonic terminal speed and a flight altitude of 4.6 metres (15 ft) at its final stage; its speed is then 2.9 mach.

       3M-54T - DOD designation SS-N-27A (NATO codename also "Sizzler"). The anti-shipping variant is deployed in the Russian federation navy, in a surface ship with a VLS launched system and a thrust vectoring booster; its Basic length is 8.9 m (29 ft), its warhead weight and other performances are the same as the 3M-54.

       3M-14 - DOD designation SS-N-30A. An Inertial guidance land attack variant deployed in the Russian federation navy. The submarine-launched weapon has a basic length of 6.2 m (20 ft), with a 450 kg (990 lb) warhead. Its range is 600–900 km (370–560 mi). Its subsonic terminal speed is 0.8 mach.

       3M-14T - DOD designation SS-N-30A; is the Inertial guidance land attack variant which is deployed in the Russian federation navy. A surface ship with VLS launched missile, with thrust vectoring booster, its basic length is 8.9 m (29 ft), its warhead weight and other performance are the same as the 3M-14.

    Oniks

    Engine Ramjet using kerosene liquid fuel
    Wingspan 1.7 m (5.6 ft)
    Operational
    range
    120 to 300 km (74.6 to 186.4 mi) depending on altitude
    Flight altitude 10 meters or higher[2]
    Speed Mach 2.5
    Guidance
    system
    midcourse inertial, active-passive radar seeker head
    Launch
    platform
    coastal installations, naval ship, Fixed-wing aircraft


    TR1
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5840
    Points : 5892
    Join date : 2011-12-06

    Re: Naval Weapon Systems & Technology

    Post  TR1 on Fri Nov 15, 2013 11:56 am

    Domestic Onix/Yakhont/ whatever will almost assuredly have longer range than 300km. I have heard estimates of 500km +.

    That is a HUGE upgrade for the Russian Navy, when you consider what ships carry UKSK. Kalibr + Onix is replacing P-120, Moskit, Rastrub, and such.
    Due to smaller dimensions we get more missiles, much better performance, and of course, a massive boost in (non existent before) long range, pinpoint land strike capability thanks to land-attack Kalibr.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15470
    Points : 16177
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Naval Weapon Systems & Technology

    Post  GarryB on Sat Nov 16, 2013 9:37 am

    If Onyx has a range of 300km then there would be no need for Yakhont... which does have a range of 300km and was designed for export only.

    Onyx is believed to have a range of 500-700km depending on the source.

    The land attack and anti ship versions of Klub for export have sub 300km ranges.

    The cruise missile they are based upon... Kalibr, has a range of 2,500km in the land attack model and also likely in the anti ship model too.

    The supersonic Klub for domestic use may have a range of up to 1,500km.



    _________________
    “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

    runaway
    Master Sergeant
    Master Sergeant

    Posts : 351
    Points : 372
    Join date : 2010-11-12
    Location : Sweden

    Re: Naval Weapon Systems & Technology

    Post  runaway on Mon Nov 18, 2013 11:27 am

    Explain to me about VLS UKSK in russian navy, 1x8 cells, can they take 8 oniks or kalibr? What about up to 4 missiles per cell, that would make 32 missiles in 1x8 cells? which type of missile, or is it just VLS Redut AA?


    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 Mon Nov 18, 2013 6:56 pm

    bramos yakhont is speed limited -and that gives it limited range, onyx has the same flying time but at higher ramjet speed of mach 3.5 which gives it more range..

    they just cant ,the russian naval industry in a state of chaos compared to well oiled american juggernaut....
    cruisers and destroyers should have at least longer ranged missiles compared to frigates but they cant because of UKSK lol! , what the point at constructing or sending cruiser when you can send a frigate with same capabilities pwnd ... and why not install naval s-400 to frigates then? Laughing 
    and just imagine some country sending a frigate they bought from russians before hostilities started and destroying their cruiser they sent ,crazy i know geek  cheers 

    TR1
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5840
    Points : 5892
    Join date : 2011-12-06

    Re: Naval Weapon Systems & Technology

    Post  TR1 on Mon Nov 18, 2013 7:03 pm

    What cruisers and destroyers?

    Dear god your argument sucks. Stop digging your hole farther.

    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 Mon Nov 18, 2013 7:06 pm

    ah then its ok ,so the russians will have only frigates in their navy , i didnt get the memo sry , good for them ,regional power all the way.

    TR1
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5840
    Points : 5892
    Join date : 2011-12-06

    Re: Naval Weapon Systems & Technology

    Post  TR1 on Mon Nov 18, 2013 7:09 pm

    Let me translate: I tried to make the UKSK look bad, and made a fool of myself. Like always.

    Welcome to ignore list.

    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 Mon Nov 18, 2013 7:12 pm

    so instead of a direct answer more rubbish , like your every single post on this topic , well good riddance i say ....

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15470
    Points : 16177
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Naval Weapon Systems & Technology

    Post  GarryB on Tue Nov 19, 2013 10:05 am

    Explain to me about VLS UKSK in russian navy, 1x8 cells, can they take 8 oniks or kalibr? What about up to 4 missiles per cell, that would make 32 missiles in 1x8 cells? which type of missile, or is it just VLS Redut AA?
    The purpose of UKSK is to replace Granit launchers and Vulkan launchers and Moskit launchers and also SS-N-14 launchers and SS-N-15/16 launchers with one unified launcher for all ships and subs in the Russian Navy.

    One UKSK launcher has 8 launch tubes and each of those tubes will fit one missile. All the missiles it carries are very much like torpedos in that they are long and relatively narrow, though Brahmos/Onyx isn't actually that narrow.

    On a small Corvette there will be room for one UKSK launcher but if that means 8 Onyx/Yakhont/Brahmos then that is pretty good weapon capacity better than previous vessels of that size. Frigates can carry 2 UKSK launchers for 16 missiles (which is twice the main weapon capacity of a Sovremmeny destroyer with 8 Moskits). Destroyers will likely have 4 UKSK launchers with 32 missiles, and Kirov is expected to have 10 UKSK launchers for 80 missiles when upgraded.

    One ship carrying up to 80 Onyx or Kalibr missiles is a very powerful ship... remember they have 80 tubes but the actual mix of weapons can be decided in port every time she goes to port.

    The current missiles she could carry include 2,500km range Kalibr land attack cruise missiles, 1,500km range Kalibr with a terminal mach 2.9 rocket stage for anti ship use, Onyx/Yakhont/Brahmos supersonic long range land attack, anti ship missile, and finally a 40km+ range mach 2.5 ballistic rocket with a torpedo payload for anti sub use.

    Future additions include Brahmos II and Zirconium hypersonic missiles.

    Redut is the SAM system designed around the old S-300 based Rif-M naval system. It has 32 tubes but because the new Vityaz SAM is designed from the 9M96 missile to fit 4 to a tube on the S-400 system it should be able to carry one S-400 in each tube with a flight range of 400km for the long range missiles and 250km for the standard missiles. For the smaller 9M96 missiles it will fit 4 missiles per original main tube, and the new IIR guided Morfei should be able to take that further being a smaller missile... perhaps two layers of 6 missiles.

    That would mean a single Redut system with 32 main tubes could carry 32 x S-400, or 128 x 9M96, or 384 x 9M100, or a combination of the three.

    Obviously one Frigate with one Redut system is one thing... imagine the Kirov with 4-6 Redut systems... or more...

    bramos yakhont is speed limited -and that gives it limited range, onyx has the same flying time but at higher ramjet speed of mach 3.5 which gives it more range..
    Why would they speed limit Yakhont? It is not a requirement for export agreements.

    The Su-30MKI showed the Russians were happy for India to induct into service a Flanker much more capable than any they had in service at the time... why would they reduce the flight speed of Yakhont?

    cruisers and destroyers should have at least longer ranged missiles compared to frigates but they cant because of UKSK
    Your problem is you live in the past.

    US AEGIS Cruisers have full data pictures of the air and sea and sub surface around them from a range of platforms.

    The Russian system shares that data with every Russian vessel from Corvette to Carrier.

    The reason you don't fit 400km range SAMs to Corvettes is because their small size and tiny radars so close to the wave tops means they don't have the sensor performance to use 400km range SAMs.

    With Sigma however new Russian ships WILL have the sensor range to detect and engage such targets.

    This will greatly increase performance across the navy.

    what the point at constructing or sending cruiser when you can send a frigate with same capabilities
    Cruisers will still have longer range sensors, but supporting frigates and even corvettes will be able to contribute to the conflict in a more meaningful way.

    It also means that servicing and support for most vessels will be the same and port facilities can standardise and reduce parts storage requirements etc.

    and just imagine some country sending a frigate they bought from russians before hostilities started and destroying their cruiser they sent ,crazy i know
    A country buying one Frigate from Russia would have serious trouble fighting a Russian cruiser with the same type of fire power but ten times the ready to fire weapons... 16 Onyx vs 80... 128 SAMs vs perhaps thousands... with the Russian cruiser able to operate several helos and with enormous AESA radars...


    _________________
    “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

    runaway
    Master Sergeant
    Master Sergeant

    Posts : 351
    Points : 372
    Join date : 2010-11-12
    Location : Sweden

    Re: Naval Weapon Systems & Technology

    Post  runaway on Tue Nov 19, 2013 10:47 am

    GarryB wrote:Frigates can carry 2 UKSK launchers for 16 missiles (which is twice the main weapon capacity of a Sovremmeny destroyer with 8 Moskits). Destroyers will likely have 4 UKSK launchers with 32 missiles, and Kirov is expected to have 10 UKSK launchers for 80 missiles when upgraded.
    Thanks Gary, The Gorshkov frigate will have 16 VLS, but Grigorovich class only 8, yet they are similar in size. Guess it has to do with Gorshkov is a new design with VLS in mind.

    TheArmenian
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 1511
    Points : 1674
    Join date : 2011-09-14

    Re: Naval Weapon Systems & Technology

    Post  TheArmenian on Tue Nov 19, 2013 12:15 pm

    runaway wrote:
    GarryB wrote:Frigates can carry 2 UKSK launchers for 16 missiles (which is twice the main weapon capacity of a Sovremmeny destroyer with 8 Moskits). Destroyers will likely have 4 UKSK launchers with 32 missiles, and Kirov is expected to have 10 UKSK launchers for 80 missiles when upgraded.
    Thanks Gary, The Gorshkov frigate will have 16 VLS, but Grigorovich class only 8, yet they are similar in size. Guess it has to do with Gorshkov is a new design with VLS in mind.
    The Grigorovich displacement is about 4000 T full load.
    The Gorshkov is 4500 T full load.
    The 500 T difference is substantial and more than justifies the 16 vs 8 VLS numbers.

    etaepsilonk
    Captain
    Captain

    Posts : 717
    Points : 699
    Join date : 2013-11-19

    Re: Naval Weapon Systems & Technology

    Post  etaepsilonk on Tue Nov 19, 2013 5:56 pm

    Good day.
    If you ask me, armament of the Grigorovich frigate is a little mystery, for me at least. Some time ago I stumbled upon one internet site:
    (sorry, can't post links now).

    In the Grigorovich frigate section, I had found several versions of this ship, but one particularly caught my eye. It was Project 11356.8, if I remember correctly. It had it's RBU 6000 launcher removed and had 8-cell UKSK installed in it's place (with a total of 16 launch cells Smile  ). There was even a profile drawing there one could clearly see 4 VLS rows. Trouble is, I forgot this site for several months, and when I came to check again, all information about this particular ship version was gone, and I was unable to find it neither in English, nor Russian version of the site. Since I'm certainly not an expert here, I'd like to ask, could space provisions for RBU 6000 allow installation of UKSK in Pr. 11356 frigate? Please mind, that the former system hasn't been mounted on any new Russian warships, I'm not sure, if domestic version is still even in production.
    Any information would be appreciated Smile

    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 Tue Nov 19, 2013 6:32 pm

    i agree more defensive missiles can be added for a cruiser thats good, but the destroyers and cruisers will have same offensive capabilities as frigates... thats a poore decision.
    frigate can use s-300 missiles just like cruiser but ones with active radar guidance ,you just need a good command link to get it near the target.
    Lets say if it takes 8 onyxes to kill a ship, if you launch 16 from a frigate or 80 from a cruiser it doesnt matter , its just a waste of missiles and an overkill from a cruiser. and both ships go down.
    but if they include bigger faster longer range brahmos2 into cruisers then i concur.

    runaway
    Master Sergeant
    Master Sergeant

    Posts : 351
    Points : 372
    Join date : 2010-11-12
    Location : Sweden

    Re: Naval Weapon Systems & Technology

    Post  runaway on Tue Nov 19, 2013 6:59 pm

    etaepsilonk wrote:Good day.
    If you ask me, armament of the Grigorovich frigate is a little mystery, for me at least. Some time ago I stumbled upon one internet site:
    (sorry, can't post links now).

    In the Grigorovich frigate section, I had found several versions of this ship, but one particularly caught my eye. It was Project 11356.8, if I remember correctly. It had it's RBU 6000 launcher removed and had 8-cell UKSK installed in it's place (with a total of 16 launch cells Smile  ). There was even a profile drawing there one could clearly see 4 VLS rows. Trouble is, I forgot this site for several months, and when I came to check again, all information about this particular ship version was gone, and I was unable to find it neither in English, nor Russian version of the site. Since I'm certainly not an expert here, I'd like to ask, could space provisions for RBU 6000 allow installation of UKSK in Pr. 11356 frigate? Please mind, that the former system hasn't been mounted on any new Russian warships, I'm not sure, if domestic version is still even in production.
    Any information would be appreciated Smile
    Compared to the more advanced Project 22350 Admiral Gorshkov class, the more conventional Project 11356M Admiral Grigorovich class is a transitional class based on a proven design that is cheaper and can be quickly inducted to make up for depleting numbers in the Russian Navy.
    I doubt they can make room for an additional UKSK by removing RBU6000, which is a good and proven system, they are mounted on Gepard and Talwar class as well. Gorshkov class has 324mm torpedo tubes for Paket ASW system instead.



    runaway
    Master Sergeant
    Master Sergeant

    Posts : 351
    Points : 372
    Join date : 2010-11-12
    Location : Sweden

    Re: Naval Weapon Systems & Technology

    Post  runaway on Tue Nov 19, 2013 7:24 pm

    Rpg type 7v wrote:i agree more defensive missiles can be added for a cruiser thats good, but the destroyers and cruisers will have same offensive capabilities as frigates... thats a poore decision.
    frigate can use s-300 missiles just like cruiser but ones with active radar guidance ,you just need a good command link to get it near the target.
    Lets say if it takes 8 onyxes to kill a ship, if you launch 16 from a frigate or 80 from a cruiser it doesnt matter , its just a waste of missiles and an overkill from a cruiser. and both ships go down.
    but if they include bigger faster longer range brahmos2 into cruisers then i concur.
    If you are 2000 NMI from replenishment its a hell of differens spending all your missiles in one go or have more for additional engagements.
    And fire 4 SSM missiles in a volley, 8, or as cruisers maybe 50-60 is also very different in offensive capability. It would be no sense to have Kirovs retain 20 Granit or similar SSM when they can have 80 with less warhead (400kg instead of 750) but with longer range 600km- 900km respectively.

    Personally i like Kh-31 fired from MiG29k, speed of mach 3.5 seaskimming and range 50km and 94kg warhead, but with mach 3.5 you dont need much of a warhead Wink 


    etaepsilonk
    Captain
    Captain

    Posts : 717
    Points : 699
    Join date : 2013-11-19

    Re: Naval Weapon Systems & Technology

    Post  etaepsilonk on Tue Nov 19, 2013 8:57 pm

    runaway wrote:
    etaepsilonk wrote:Good day.
    If you ask me, armament of the Grigorovich frigate is a little mystery, for me at least. Some time ago I stumbled upon one internet site:
    (sorry, can't post links now).

    In the Grigorovich frigate section, I had found several versions of this ship, but one particularly caught my eye. It was Project 11356.8, if I remember correctly. It had it's RBU 6000 launcher removed and had 8-cell UKSK installed in it's place (with a total of 16 launch cells Smile  ). There was even a profile drawing there one could clearly see 4 VLS rows. Trouble is, I forgot this site for several months, and when I came to check again, all information about this particular ship version was gone, and I was unable to find it neither in English, nor Russian version of the site. Since I'm certainly not an expert here, I'd like to ask, could space provisions for RBU 6000 allow installation of UKSK in Pr. 11356 frigate? Please mind, that the former system hasn't been mounted on any new Russian warships, I'm not sure, if domestic version is still even in production.
    Any information would be appreciated Smile
    Compared to the more advanced Project 22350 Admiral Gorshkov class, the more conventional Project 11356M Admiral Grigorovich class is a transitional class based on a proven design that is cheaper and can be quickly inducted to make up for depleting numbers in the Russian Navy.
    I doubt they can make room for an additional UKSK by removing RBU6000, which is a good and proven system, they are mounted on Gepard and Talwar class as well. Gorshkov class has 324mm torpedo tubes for Paket ASW system instead.


    Sorry, but I have to disagree. At least as it appears, replacement of RBU 6000 with UKSK is neither costly, nor time consuming, for example, it looks like it wouldn't require ANY hull design changes at all, and only minimal changes of weapons bay. Wouldn't a two times increase in firepower justify a little cost increase Cool ?
    Also, while I agree about RBU 6000 prowess, it's actual effectiveness leaves a lot to be desired. I believe, that given it's range and accuracy limitations, it, in theory, performs better than guided torpedoes only in shallow littoral environments. And modern advances in sensor sophistication make even that advantage diminish gradually. And who said that Talwar couldn't employ Paket Smile ? If anything, it would bring Grigorovich even closer to Gorshkov in terms of capability, not to mention simplified logistics.
    Also, as a side note. Didn't Dagestan light frigate got it's RBU 6000 deleted in favour of UKSK launcher?

    Sponsored content

    Re: Naval Weapon Systems & Technology

    Post  Sponsored content Today at 11:33 am


      Current date/time is Wed Dec 07, 2016 11:33 am