Naval Weapon Systems & Technology

GarryB wrote:They are unifying their cruise/anti ship/anti sub missile launchers into one unified launcher called UKSK. They are also unifying some of their SAM systems into the Redut VLS.

There is talk of integrating their UKSK with Redut but it does not make as much sense for the Russians as it did for the US because the UKSK carries enormous supersonic anti ship missiles... to use them to carry even fairly large SAMs would be inefficient... unless there was a capacity to multipack missiles.

I wonder if they will use UKSK to mount the S-500 ABM system when it becomes available for the planned Leader class destroyers? I'd expect the S-500 would be too large to be accomodated by Redut?

GarryB wrote:

They are unifying their cruise/anti ship/anti sub missile launchers into one unified launcher called UKSK. They are also unifying some of their SAM systems into the Redut VLS.

There is talk of integrating their UKSK with Redut but it does not make as much sense for the Russians as it did for the US because the UKSK carries enormous supersonic anti ship missiles... to use them to carry even fairly large SAMs would be inefficient... unless there was a capacity to multipack missiles.

Last I've heard they have the same dimensions except for height where Redut has a short version for corvettes and longer version for frigates and up. But both have the same 900mm by 900mm diameter (I forgot where I read that). Which means they occupy almost the same space. Is it true?

I wonder if they will use UKSK to mount the S-500 ABM system when it becomes available for the planned Leader class destroyers? I'd expect the S-500 would be too large to be accomodated by Redut?

Actually I would expect S-500 to be similar in size to S-300/400, though it might be a two stage missile.

I don't think they would want to lose UKSK tubes to S-500... it might get its own dedicated launcher.

BTW I don't think destroyers will carry it as standard as I doubt their sensors would be up to the job.

Cruisers and carriers would be the main platforms for S-500 in my personal opinion...

Last I've heard they have the same dimensions except for height where Redut has a short version for corvettes and longer version for frigates and up. But both have the same 900mm by 900mm diameter (I forgot where I read that). Which means they occupy almost the same space. Is it true?

I have not heard anything about short versions of Redut or UKSK. In the case of the latter all the weapons carried by UKSK are quite long and there is no shorter weapon that would suit a shorter launcher.

GarryB wrote: BTW I don't think destroyers will carry it as standard as I doubt their sensors would be up to the job.

Cruisers and carriers would be the main platforms for S-500 in my personal opinion...

Agreed, although I refer to the Leaders as "destroyers" only because current literature (such as it is) does so. With a 10kT displacement (and possible nuclear propulsion), the Leaders will nominally be heavier than USN Ticonderogas so will be cruisers in all but name, and they should be large enough to fulfill a fleet-defense ABM role.

Anti-torpedo Paket-E/NK - domestic priority

In the journal "Arsenal Fatherland" (number 3 (17) of 2015) published interesting to art-known expert on naval underwater weapons Maxim Klimov "Antitorpedy - domestic priority," contain enough detailed information about the incoming Russian Navy and offered for export complex torpedo protection "Paket-E/NK" developed by JSC "State Research and Production Enterprise" Region "(now part of the JSC" Corporation "Tactical Missiles"). Our blog brings to attention the author's version of the article.



Today anti-torpedo complex "Paket-E/NK" has the highest, compared with competitors, reliable torpedo potential to defeat the attacking torpedoes.

Studies on the ability to effectively defeat the attacking torpedoes were launched in anti-torpedo SSPE "Region" in the second half of the 80s of the last century.

They became the foundation of a big experience in the development of high-precision, high-performance characteristics of homing systems (PRS), high-speed anti-aircraft missiles - APR-2, APR-3, receiving high praise not only in the Soviet Navy naval aviation, but also abroad.

The development of digital technology has allowed for the second half of the 1980s to put the question on the possibility of high-speed precision underwater ordnance (antitorpedo) on high-speed small objects (attacking torpedo). At the same time, the customer had set very strict reliability requirements for solving the problem of torpedo defense (PTZ). These requirements (defeat torpedoes on the criterion of "the destruction of the body"), required to ensure a very high pointing accuracy and the use of powerful warhead.

Initially, in the late 1980s was based on the development of the domestic digital microelectronics, and the first version of CCH antitorpedo been implemented on it, with some limitations to provide a reliable solution to the problem only to defeat torpedoes on board of the submarine. The development of microelectronics has allowed in the early 1990s to put the possibility of effective application anti-torpedo for PTZ surface ships. Later it was sold to a complex "Paket-E/NK".

Despite the difficult 1990s, the potential of SSPE "Region", under the leadership of the Director General Shahidzhanova ES, was not only saved but also significantly developed. The world's first actual prototypes anti-torpedo guidance on high-speed torpedo goals were made in the range of Feodosia Navy in 1998..

It should be noted that these tests were conducted in extremely difficult (hydro-logical) conditions for work CLO anti-torpedo, and yet the test successfully held with providing sightings on a torpedo with high accuracy (provided by the demand for "the destruction of the body" attacking torpedoes).

Today, the complex "Paket-E/NK" includes:
• Compact anti-torpedo;
• small-size submarine torpedo for hitting;
• launcher;
• sonar torpedo detection and targeting;
• complex management system.

Complex "Paket-E/NK" has a modular design and a large modernization potential.

It is interesting to compare the efficacy of a complex "Paket-E/NK" with similar products (complexes) in other countries.
The development of active complexes with PTA anitorpedo in the west were made in Germany - SeaSpider, USA - Tripwire (TTDS), Italy and France - MU90HK.

The most successful was the development of the US Navy, which ended in June 2014. with impressive demonstration of the real solution of the problem PTZ in newest aircraft carrier CVN-77 "George HW Bush" of torpedoes "Type Mk-48".

Despite the fact that the real out-rights of TTX ant-itorpedo Tripwire of US Navy were not disclosed, it should be assumed (by the use of unique and highly complex power plant on the lithium fluoride to the turbine closed cycle) that achieved, high speed and range anti-torpedo.

However, the main criterion for assessing the effectiveness of the active complex PTZ are not a "table performance" products and the reliability of solving the problem of PTA (the destruction of the attacking torpedo). For all his fine performance in speed, range and compactness, Tripwire carries a very small warhead and selected developers arrangement greatly limits the maneuverability of a torpedo.

It is necessary to stress once again, not only from the beginning of domestic developments for antitorpedo customer was firmly put the issue of ensuring a very high probability of hitting the attacking torpedoes, but also that all development efforts (SSPE "Region") focused on this, and in the end result, these requirements have been met.

The high complexity of the solution of the problem is most clearly manifested in the development of the active complex PTZ SeaSpider (Germany), where the developer is already in the final stages of development, in the course of the test in real conditions and real goals (Torpedo) was faced with the need to make very significant changes in the structure and complex, and most anti-torpedo (including obviously limits the effectiveness of the originally planned to level):
• rejection of the launcher "type missile" in favor of "firing a board" with an inclined pneumatic launcher is significantly limited the effective range (Def) defeat torpedoes;
• small (insufficient) warhead mass forced developers to go for unique Western products solution - the use of detonating propellant engine.

However, according to available information in the media, the German developers have not managed to finalize SeaSpider and bring reliable solutions to PTZ task to an acceptable level.

Applications Consortium Eurotorp of solving the problem of an active PTA antitorpedoy MU90HK currently appear rather advertising, as objective information on an actual test there. However, it should be noted that the weight and size parameters and table of TTX MU90HK close to MTT complex product "Paket-E/NK", and during the relevant R & D antitorpeda MU90HK can obtain their high antitorpedo potential.

The development of an active anti-torpedo protection of "SSPE" Region "continues, including towards the creation of small-sized products (providing them with high efficiency) and a number of other areas.

Thus, today antitorpedo complex "Paket-E/NK" has the highest, compared with competitors, providing reliable torpedo potential defeat the attacking torpedoes.


http://bmpd.livejournal.com/1556639.html

George1 wrote:
Thus, today antitorpedo complex "Paket-E/NK" has the highest, compared with competitors, providing reliable torpedo potential defeat the attacking torpedoes.
[/b]

http://bmpd.livejournal.com/1556639.html

Thanks George1, lots of excellent info on here. I can only think to how dangerous a Gorshkov-class frigate becomes with this system.

Certainly no regular frigate.

Sailors sayinvariably subs “sink” the surface force.

Yes, this has been true since the early 60's. Thats why Nuclear Attack Subs operate as long range ASW screen for Carrier Forces. This has helped a lot in preventing enemy subs from approaching. But, only to a limited degree. Ocean water is much more than it seems. temperature differences abound with depth and currents. Sound in water is reflected or deflected by temp erature gradiants.

Long and short in, a Sub measures these temperature differences constantly, and can hide with ease in and under layers. Fresher and saltier water also creates reflection or defelction layers. again, the Sub records these constantly. Leaving plenty of hiding places.

This all makes a Sub able to evade other subs and approach the surface task forces. Exercises repeatedly prove this. And when US Subs exercise, they attempt to mimic what we know about Chinese or Russian capabilites. Their sub does not assume American capabilites and use them to the full, they try to mimic the supposed enemy.

But is it true that with Russian submarines this often can't be done, due to the large operational technical differences ??

It is an axiom in the Submarine fleet and in the Anti Submarine Warfare schools that Subs sink Carriers. Thats just how it is .

US Was Unaware of Russian Underwater Nuclear Delivery System

Rose Gottemoeller said that the United States did not know about Russia’s nuclear undersea delivery system when the two countries negotiated the New START Treaty.

WASHINGTON (Sputnik) — The United States did not know about Russia’s nuclear undersea delivery system when the two countries negotiated the New START Treaty, US Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security Rose Gottemoeller said in a hearing.

"The answer to that question is unequivocal ‘no’," Gottemoeller stated on Tuesday when asked whether the United States was aware of the existence of this system when it was in negotiations with the New START Treaty.

Gottemoeller offered to discuss the Russian nuclear system in more details in a closed session.

A presentation slide with information on the Status-6 nuclear system was accidentally broadcast on Russian TV as part of a story covering Vladimir Putin's meeting with defense officials in Sochi. Status-6 is a torpedo, equipped with a nuclear warhead, which will be capable of causing assured unacceptable damage to an enemy by contaminating vast coastal areas.

“We are concerned about it as a threat to the United States, but if it turns into a system that is widely put into operational deployment,” Gottemoeller stated Tuesday. “I think it is a troubling system.”

Read more: http://sputniknews.com/military/20151202/1031081529/us-unaware-russian-delivery-system.html#ixzz3t9y3vax7

The system is clearly designed to bypass the US ABM system to restore MAD... mutually assured destruction.

There is a very good chance the programme did not exist when the new START treaty was signed.

It will have been a direct result in US pig headedness in developing an ABM system in the US and in Europe and in Asia to defend the US from ICBMs that don't exist in Iran and North Korea.

If it really bothers them that much why not sign binding agreements with Russia that all these ABM systems are not directed at Russian missiles and share data and access to all US ABM systems.

Of course they wont because those ABM systems are of course directed at Russian ballistic weapons... in their third or fourth block upgrades they talk about much more powerful interceptors able to engage all sorts of BM threats and a shield to stop all possible man made ballistic threats... in such conditions it is only natural for the Russians to develop a weapon that completely bypasses the US ABM system and restores the threat of nuclear destruction on the US.

Status-6 - a very good news. They have to keep the Americans in a state of thinking that their ABM wont make any significant differrence...

Sth interesting. 60x 3K10 Granat cruise missiles of Northern fleet will be disposed

http://bmpd.livejournal.com/1772748.html

These are the old SS-N-21 Granat... CEP was 250m or so and came only in nuclear warhead armed model... these weapons are now totally obsolete with the service use of Kalibr and Klub families of missiles based on Granat.

Here is what I know about this weapon
deployed 1976
The Akula/Alfa/Sierra/Victor III can carry till by 1985
range 50-100 km depending on the speed
used specifically against large surface ships

is this accurate ?

Shipbuilding Company "RosPromResurs" in a press release dated April 21, 2016 reported that "has produced the first unit Enclosure naval artillery installation A190-01 of plastic composite materials.



http://bmpd.livejournal.com/1863666.html

Russian Navy to receive advanced Futlyar torpedoes

The new torpedoes will equip the Project 955A Borey-A (NATO reporting name: Dolgorukiy-class), Project 885 Yasen-class (Severodvinsk-class) and Project 885M Yasen-M in the first place

MOSCOW, June 22. /TASS/. The Russian Navy is expected to adopt for service the advanced Futlyar deep-water torpedo that is undergoing its state trials now, a source in the defense industry told TASS on Wednesday.

According to the source, the Futlyar is an upgraded variant of the Fizik homing torpedo that has entered service recently.

"The new variant of the torpedo is undergoing state trials at Lake Issyk-Kul in Kyrgyzstan, which are due for completion later in the year. If the torpedo passes the tests, it will enter service and its full-scale production should begin in 2017," the source said.

According to the source, the sophisticated torpedo will be of heat-seeking design like the baseline model but it will have the ability to be controlled from the submarine.

"The Futlyar will also be supplied with an improved homing system with an extended underwater target lock-on range. It will retain the baseline model’s range, speed and maximum launch depth - 50 km, over 50 knots and 400 m respectively," the source said.

The source said that the Futlyar would equip the Project 955A Borey-A (NATO reporting name: Dolgorukiy-class), Project 885 Yasen-class (Severodvinsk-class) and Project 885M Yasen-M in the first place. With the beginning of the Futlyar’s serial production, the output of the Fizik torpedo will be discontinued.

The Futlyar has been developed by the St. Petersburg Research Institute of Marine Engineering and the Dagdizel Enterprise will handle its production.

An official confirmation of the above information is unavailable to TASS at the moment.

In April last year, another source in the defense industry told TASS about the service entry and the launch of the production of the Fizik torpedo designed to replace the obsolete USET-80 developed in the 1980s.


More:
http://tass.ru/en/defense/883900

Bubble-Enclosed Submarines Could Go Really, Really Fast

Supercavitation promises airplane speeds--under the sea.

Researchers at Penn State are working to enclose the submarines of the future in a bubble of gas, allowing them to achieve top speeds faster than what is possible while moving through regular water. If successful, it could mean submarines capable of speeds of up to hundreds of miles per hour.

As submarines and torpedoes travel through seawater they are naturally at the mercy of physics, and objects traveling through sea travel encounter much more drag than objects traveling through air. The end result is that the practical speed limit of submarines is somewhere around 30 to 40 knots. Even with nuclear propulsion, that's about the best many military submarines can do.

But what if it were possible to enclose a submarine in a gas as it travels through liquid? That's the principle behind supercavitation.

There is a precedent: the Russian VA-111 Shkval torpedo. Developed in the 1970s, Shkval is equipped with a bubble generator in the nose that envelops the torpedo in a gas membrane while a solid rocket fuel engine provides thrust. The Shkval is capable of speeds in excess of 200 knots—up to five times faster than conventional torpedoes.

Scientists at Penn State are currently trying to understand so-called "pulsation"—the continuous cycle of shrinkage and expansion of a gas bubble around an object that occurs during supercavitation. Pulsation creates an inconsistent bubble unsuitable for travel, but before they can tame pulsation, the scientists need to understand how it works. Pulsation is difficult to create under laboratory conditions, but researchers at Penn State have managed to pull it off.

Supercavitating submarines wouldn't be perfect. Ultimately submarines are stealthy killers, relying on their ability to remain undetected. Maintaining a giant gas bubble would be very noisy, making the submarine easy to locate. A compromise might be a submarine that can sprint from its base at, say San Diego by supercavitation, and then switch to slow-and-stealthy mode once it gets to a patrol zone in the western Pacific.

Another thing about supercavitating submarines: if they, like Shkval, used rocket motors for thrust the subs would generate tremendous amounts of pollution, dumping rocket exhaust directly into the oceans. Not the most eco-friendly propulsion system, but seriously impressive if it can be made to work.

All new Russian Navy ships and submarines will be equipped with the Fizik-1 universal deep water homing torpedo which has a target range 2.5 times greater than the USET-80, currently in service, a military source told RIA Novosti on Wednesday.

http://sputniknews.com/military/20160629/1042168265/torpedo-ships-submarines.html

so this is the new standard torpedo of Russian Navy?

George1 wrote:

All new Russian Navy ships and submarines will be equipped with the Fizik-1 universal deep water homing torpedo which has a target range 2.5 times greater than the USET-80, currently in service, a military source told RIA Novosti on Wednesday.

http://sputniknews.com/military/20160629/1042168265/torpedo-ships-submarines.html

so this is the new standard torpedo of Russian Navy?

I believe they already upgraded that.

http://concern-agat.ru/en/production/missile-systems-land-and-sea-based-missile-systems/3r-14uksk-kh-ship-general-purpose-firing-system



Just found that their are 2 types of uksk lunchers. One with 8 missiles and one with just 4 missiles wich is smaller.

I have seen models where if you look under the deck a UKSK launcher is two huge tubes with 4 inner tubes, so one bin launcher has two big huge tubes that contain two lots of 4 tubes equalling 8 small tubes in total for the missiles for naval vessels.

I suspect the single large tube model with just 4 small tubes is for the shipping container version and might have a land based model like Iskander eventually when the INF treaty is torn up...

For use on ships its great depth because of the length of the missiles the system carries means the launcher needs to be centrally placed... so I doubt they would fit only 4 tubes on ships or subs... might as well have all 8 tubes...

Thanks for the link to that site though...

Actually looking at that site...

this page:

http://concern-agat.ru/en/production/missile-systems-land-and-sea-based-missile-systems/club-u-modular-missile-system

Shows Club... which is the family of missiles in the UKSK launcher so this page shows it refitted onto an existing type... in this case a Udaloy class with mockups of inclined launchers and new under deck systems and systems mounted at the mid section... this suggests such inclined mounts could be used on the Slava and Sovremmeny class as well as Udaloy.

the inclined launcher seems to have 6 missiles ready to launch so fitting that to a Slava class means instead of 16 heavy missiles in 8 sets of twin launchers it should be able to carry 8 sets of 6 missiles, so 48 missiles...

So that is the Club land attack (ie Kalibr) plus the Club subsonic anti ship missile and the Club subsonic anti ship missile with the rocket propelled mach 3 terminal stage anti ship missile...

What is status of 650mm torpedo's in Russian Navy? After Kursk disaster there is a rumor that they will be put out of service and after that I am not hear nothing about that.

GarryB wrote:Actually looking at that site...

this page:

http://concern-agat.ru/en/production/missile-systems-land-and-sea-based-missile-systems/club-u-modular-missile-system

Shows Club... which is the family of missiles in the UKSK launcher so this page shows it refitted onto an existing type... in this case a Udaloy class with mockups of inclined launchers and new under deck systems and systems mounted at the mid section... this suggests such inclined mounts could be used on the Slava and Sovremmeny class as well as Udaloy.

the inclined launcher seems to have 6 missiles ready to launch so fitting that to a Slava class means instead of 16 heavy missiles in 8 sets of twin launchers it should be able to carry 8 sets of 6 missiles, so 48 missiles...

So that is the Club land attack (ie Kalibr) plus the Club subsonic anti ship missile and the Club subsonic anti ship missile with the rocket propelled mach 3 terminal stage anti ship missile...

Well if they decide to do that, it would give them a realy big power up, I mean just puting the inclined lunchers. Their Moskit have a small range for a destroyer. They could assist Slava's and Kirovs with the same missiles.

Hope they will do that, They just need to change the external lunchers, wires and computers. Its not a big job to do that, they could do it easily.

GarryB wrote:I have seen models where if you look under the deck a UKSK launcher is two huge tubes with 4 inner tubes, so one bin launcher has two big huge tubes that contain two lots of 4 tubes equalling 8 small tubes in total for the missiles for naval vessels.

I suspect the single large tube model with just 4 small tubes is for the shipping container version and might have a land based model like Iskander eventually when the INF treaty is torn up... Smile

For use on ships its great depth because of the length of the missiles the system carries means the launcher needs to be centrally placed... so I doubt they would fit only 4 tubes on ships or subs... might as well have all 8 tubes...

Thanks for the link to that site though... Smile

Or put some missiles on Navy's tankers