Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    Naval Weapon Systems & Technology

    Share
    avatar
    Rowdyhorse4

    Posts : 60
    Points : 70
    Join date : 2017-04-25
    Location : Indonesia

    Re: Naval Weapon Systems & Technology

    Post  Rowdyhorse4 on Tue Apr 25, 2017 12:46 pm

    Isos wrote:Russian navy isn't going to use shtil. It was already mounted on grigorovitvh which were upgraded of old soviet frigate meant for Indian navy. The fact is that they knew Gorshkov will take time to be ready so they ordered some of them.

    The only other ships that can use shtil are Sovromenys which use older version. They can be upgraded with VLS (Chinese are doing this) but they won't as they will be replaced by gorshkovs.

    But russia's main navy anti air defence systems will be Redut (Gorshkov and Steregouchy), and future S-400F ( for destroyers and cruiser, which is still not ready for naval use) and pantsir and tor for smaller vessels.

    Concerning Nakhimov, I don't think it ill get Redut which is too "small" for such a ship. The VLS can't take bigger missiles like 48N6E, just 9M96. An upgrade to S-300FM is more usefull while S-400F is not ready, at least I never heard of a naval S-400. Redut is more navale S-350 than, like some articles say, a naval S-400.

    It was said that the Nakhimov will be equipped with S-400PMU/Fs on her refit
    avatar
    flamming_python

    Posts : 3246
    Points : 3352
    Join date : 2012-01-30

    Re: Naval Weapon Systems & Technology

    Post  flamming_python on Tue Apr 25, 2017 3:09 pm

    Rowdyhorse4 wrote:
    Isos wrote:Russian navy isn't going to use shtil. It was already mounted on grigorovitvh which were upgraded of old soviet frigate meant for Indian navy. The fact is that they knew Gorshkov will take time to be ready so they ordered some of them.

    The only other ships that can use shtil are Sovromenys which use older version. They can be upgraded with VLS (Chinese are doing this) but they won't as they will be replaced by gorshkovs.

    But russia's main navy anti air defence systems will be Redut (Gorshkov and Steregouchy), and future S-400F ( for destroyers and cruiser, which is still not ready for naval use) and pantsir and tor for smaller vessels.

    Concerning Nakhimov, I don't think it ill get Redut which is too "small" for such a ship. The VLS can't take bigger missiles like 48N6E, just 9M96. An upgrade to S-300FM is more usefull while S-400F is not ready, at least I never heard of a naval S-400. Redut is more navale S-350 than, like some articles say, a naval S-400.

    It was said that the Nakhimov will be equipped with S-400PMU/Fs on her refit

    There is no such thing as a 'S-400F' and won't be. You had the S-300F and then that sort of evolved into a more modular and flexible system with a smaller footprint - the Redut VLS. They're not going to take a step back from that now.

    IMO it doesn't make too much sense to talk about S-300s/S-400s in the naval context. As S-300/400 battallions are composed not only of launch & reload vehicles, but search radars, tracking/engagement radars, command vehicles and other infrastructure. That's why it makes sense to call them these different designations.

    However on a ship all of those functions are handled by the ship's sensors and control systems itself, and also via interfacing with other ships and whatever other assets.

    So the only differentiation between a S-300 and S-400 that's left in the naval context - are the missiles themselves.

    And the missiles of the S-300P/S-300F are being phased out along with these systems themselves, while the newer missiles have been unified between S-350, S-400 and Redut VLS (and partially S-300PMU); except for the fact that the largest missiles are only compatible with the S-400 launch vehicles, from what we know.

    The Nakhimov will be equipped with Reduts; the only question is will those Reduts be compatible with the long and ultra-long range 48N6 series missiles. I would guess yes. Befitting a ship of its class.

    Ideally it would have S-500 missiles; but as the S-500 is only going to be introduced on land by 2019 - the time-frame is way too tight to develop and test a naval version for the Nakhimov, along with all the radar and sensor modifications for that class of weapon.
    Perhaps the Peter the Great will eventually get the S-500 on its next modernization.
    avatar
    Rowdyhorse4

    Posts : 60
    Points : 70
    Join date : 2017-04-25
    Location : Indonesia

    Re: Naval Weapon Systems & Technology

    Post  Rowdyhorse4 on Wed Apr 26, 2017 11:51 am

    flamming_python wrote:
    Rowdyhorse4 wrote:
    Isos wrote:Russian navy isn't going to use shtil. It was already mounted on grigorovitvh which were upgraded of old soviet frigate meant for Indian navy. The fact is that they knew Gorshkov will take time to be ready so they ordered some of them.

    The only other ships that can use shtil are Sovromenys which use older version. They can be upgraded with VLS (Chinese are doing this) but they won't as they will be replaced by gorshkovs.

    But russia's main navy anti air defence systems will be Redut (Gorshkov and Steregouchy), and future S-400F ( for destroyers and cruiser, which is still not ready for naval use) and pantsir and tor for smaller vessels.

    Concerning Nakhimov, I don't think it ill get Redut which is too "small" for such a ship. The VLS can't take bigger missiles like 48N6E, just 9M96. An upgrade to S-300FM is more usefull while S-400F is not ready, at least I never heard of a naval S-400. Redut is more navale S-350 than, like some articles say, a naval S-400.

    It was said that the Nakhimov will be equipped with S-400PMU/Fs on her refit

    There is no such thing as a 'S-400F' and won't be. You had the S-300F and then that sort of evolved into a more modular and flexible system with a smaller footprint - the Redut VLS. They're not going to take a step back from that now.

    IMO it doesn't make too much sense to talk about S-300s/S-400s in the naval context. As S-300/400 battallions are composed not only of launch & reload vehicles, but search radars, tracking/engagement radars, command vehicles and other infrastructure. That's why it makes sense to call them these different designations.

    However on a ship all of those functions are handled by the ship's sensors and control systems itself, and also via interfacing with other ships and whatever other assets.

    So the only differentiation between a S-300 and S-400 that's left in the naval context - are the missiles themselves.

    And the missiles of the S-300P/S-300F are being phased out along with these systems themselves, while the newer missiles have been unified between S-350, S-400 and Redut VLS (and partially S-300PMU); except for the fact that the largest missiles are only compatible with the S-400 launch vehicles, from what we know.

    The Nakhimov will be equipped with Reduts; the only question is will those Reduts be compatible with the long and ultra-long range 48N6 series missiles. I would guess yes. Befitting a ship of its class.

    Ideally it would have S-500 missiles; but as the S-500 is only going to be introduced on land by 2019 - the time-frame is way too tight to develop and test a naval version for the Nakhimov, along with all the radar and sensor modifications for that class of weapon.
    Perhaps the Peter the Great will eventually get the S-500 on its next modernization.

    Yeah....  the Talk about S-400s on the Nakhimov were just based on articles i've read about the Nakhimov's refit....  
    (Want to post links to them but i can't but searching Admiral Nakhimov S-400 in Google brings up articles from Naval Recognition, Sputnik, RBTH and other sites about the S-400 being equipped into the Nakhimov for her refit... Deagel also has an short info page for the S-400F for the Nakhimov)

    I wasn't aware you can equip Redut VLS with 48N6 missiles....  
    Last i saw someone suggesting that, people said it was too big....

    Besides...  Redut is still having issues with the guidance of its 9M96E2 missiles which range is only 120KM so i doubt it could effectively guide 48N6 missiles with its FCS....  
    But i may be wrong...  
    Would like if a mod or an admin could confirm this correct this for me  Very Happy
    avatar
    flamming_python

    Posts : 3246
    Points : 3352
    Join date : 2012-01-30

    Re: Naval Weapon Systems & Technology

    Post  flamming_python on Wed Apr 26, 2017 12:53 pm

    Rowdyhorse4 wrote:I wasn't aware you can equip Redut VLS with 48N6 missiles....  
    Last i saw someone suggesting that, people said it was too big....

    Besides...  Redut is still having issues with the guidance of its 9M96E2 missiles which range is only 120KM so i doubt it could effectively guide 48N6 missiles with its FCS....  
    But i may be wrong...  
    Would like if a mod or an admin could confirm this correct this for me  Very Happy

    If you can fit 3x 9M96s tubes in the place of 1x full-size 48N6 on a S-400 launch vehicle; then I don't see why it shouldn't be possible to fit 1x 48N6 in a large Redut cell that occupies the space of 4 standard Redut cells. Even a 40N6.
    Such an installation would have to be deeper (twice as much); hence perhaps why you haven't seen it yet in the ships which have Redut but are all quite a bit smaller than a Slava or Kirov class.
    Perhaps software/sensor limitations play a role too as you hinted.

    Either way, I would find it hard to imagine the Nakhimov being limited to just the 9M96s with a Redut. That would give it less range than the Pyotr Veliky with its S-300FM that's compatible with 48N6 missiles.

    I guess they can just upgrade the Nakhimov's S-300F to a S-300FM too. However that's legacy technology at this stage, as would any further upgrade to it be to a S-300FM2, S-400F or whatever.

    chicken

    Posts : 99
    Points : 104
    Join date : 2014-09-04

    Re: Naval Weapon Systems & Technology

    Post  chicken on Wed Apr 26, 2017 2:39 pm

    Rowdyhorse4 wrote:

    Yeah....  the Talk about S-400s on the Nakhimov were just based on articles i've read about the Nakhimov's refit....  
    (Want to post links to them but i can't but searching Admiral Nakhimov S-400 in Google brings up articles from Naval Recognition, Sputnik, RBTH and other sites about the S-400 being equipped into the Nakhimov for her refit... Deagel also has an short info page for the S-400F for the Nakhimov)

    I wasn't aware you can equip Redut VLS with 48N6 missiles....  
    Last i saw someone suggesting that, people said it was too big....

    It's S-300FM, same as currently on Peter the Great.
    http://www.navyrecognition.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=2310

    'Product 3M-48 - 120 million rubles. [anti-aircraft missile system S-300FM]'
    avatar
    hoom

    Posts : 583
    Points : 581
    Join date : 2016-05-06

    Re: Naval Weapon Systems & Technology

    Post  hoom on Wed Apr 26, 2017 3:31 pm

    "The Poliment-Redut-R R&D work is focused on developing small-, medium-and intermediate-range missiles for arming the relevant ships,"
    I find it weird that they're talking about Poliment-Redut as if its a completely new system rather than one that was supposed to be in service like 10yrs ago...

    Why work on two different systems that fulfill the same role?  Seems redundant to me
    It's quite confusing to me too.
    I have 2 main theories:
    An intentional Russian MoD organised Hi-Lo setup with blank page all-new tech Redut/S-350 High end, high risk vs modernised Sthil-1/Buk-M3 Low end, low risk.
    Unintentional side-effect of letting various companies/design bureaux try to get Export orders. (Talwars have non-VLS Sthil-1, S-350 is supposed to be heavily based on work with South Korean K-sam)
    Maybe a bit of both dunno

    Is this really what is being proposed for the Nakhimov Refit?
    Sort of, sort of not.
    There is no official list of what's changing/image of what it should look like. I think the 2nd pic is probably pretty close to what's known though.
    There is a price-list of components that are supposedly going into it & a few official quotes.
    10* UKSK modules has been quoted = 80* Onyx/Kalibr/Zircon even though the area appears to give room for more (hence a bunch of fan-art pics show many more than 80 cells)
    I believe 6* Naval Pantsir has been quoted. (= 192* ~15km missiles)
    The price-list includes the large Podberezovik, Fregat, Poliment (most people missed the 5P-20K code), Puma fire control radars, updated S-300FM (which might include the 48N6 from S-400) there is no new S-300 grid-style VLS (other than some English language references to one called Krepost) so presumably will continue to use the existing 12* 8-cell rotary launchers = 96* long range SAMs, no Redut launchers mentioned but seems an obvious addition that can replace Tor/Osa, your 2nd pic has 56* cells which seems a bit light but not bad in context of 96* longer & 192* shorter range missiles.
    avatar
    Rowdyhorse4

    Posts : 60
    Points : 70
    Join date : 2017-04-25
    Location : Indonesia

    Re: Naval Weapon Systems & Technology

    Post  Rowdyhorse4 on Wed Apr 26, 2017 4:40 pm

    chicken wrote:
    Rowdyhorse4 wrote:

    Yeah....  the Talk about S-400s on the Nakhimov were just based on articles i've read about the Nakhimov's refit....  
    (Want to post links to them but i can't but searching Admiral Nakhimov S-400 in Google brings up articles from Naval Recognition, Sputnik, RBTH and other sites about the S-400 being equipped into the Nakhimov for her refit... Deagel also has an short info page for the S-400F for the Nakhimov)

    I wasn't aware you can equip Redut VLS with 48N6 missiles....  
    Last i saw someone suggesting that, people said it was too big....

    It's S-300FM, same as currently on Peter the Great.


    'Product 3M-48 - 120 million rubles. [anti-aircraft missile system S-300FM]'

    Ah....  
    Well...
    Shit....  

    Not saying the S-300FM is bad tech but its definitely old (17 Years)....   Wouldn't be that confident engaging NATO aircraft with late 2000s or Early 2010s DECM/OECMs (F/A-18G with its AN/ALQ-214V2 IDECM as an example or the AN/APG-81 AESA radar which has OECM capabilities)   150KM is also not that great for an AD Range for Capital ships....    (SM-6 for comparison has a range of 240-400KM tho i suspect effective range with high POH is around 200-300KM)

    I can see why the RuN is lacking behind in pushing out new Weapons systems tho...    
    The predicted 250KM range of the 48N6 Missiles would be a nice stop gap until a we get better ULR SAM Systems to be used as standard like a Naval version of the S-500....
    Also that list didn't speak of any Weapon modification of changes as well...  only S-300FM....  
    Strange.....

    *Note When i say late 2000s i meant as an Era (2005-2010) and early 2010s (2010-2015)....
    avatar
    Rowdyhorse4

    Posts : 60
    Points : 70
    Join date : 2017-04-25
    Location : Indonesia

    Re: Naval Weapon Systems & Technology

    Post  Rowdyhorse4 on Wed Apr 26, 2017 5:08 pm

    updated S-300FM (which might include the 48N6 from S-400)

    Update yet no change to the Name of the system? I guess its update to FCS....   Also I doubt the FCS of the S-300F series can guide missiles to the ranges of beyond 180KM as effective as the S-400...  Again..  its still based of the original S-300FM FCS with some refurbishment....    I can see the Redut system being able to operate it with Updates to the System but....   Unless the russians built the Program Architecture of the S-300F FCS like AEGIS but as far as i know, it wasn't....   Russia's first attempt at an AEGIS-like system is the Poliment-Redut Universal System as far as i know which is more recent so i doubt the S-300F's FCS is that adaptive... Or else there would be no reason to create the S-400 combat Package if S-300s with system updates were adequate enough to operate 48N6E3 (I'm aware that newer S-300s can operate 48N6 missiles but the E3 variant is what we want as it fits the bill for Naval ULR missiles of the modern age... and last i checked, the 48N6E3s are exclusively being run by S-400s right now)

    10* UKSK modules has been quoted = 80* Onyx/Kalibr/Zircon even though the area appears to give room for more

    Russians can probably fit more than 10 UKSK modules (And they probably should since they will be playing with a lot of Surge attacks and missile barrages against US destroyers with AEGIS)....  
    I hope they do...

    no Redut launchers mentioned but seems an obvious addition that can replace Tor/Osa

    Osa-MA's era as PD systems has already been long over....  Their missiles probably won't even track Tomahawk BLK IV MMT (Multi-Mission AShM capable) or Harpoon IIs (Updated) after launch because the 9K33M's seeker is most likely going to get spoofed by their onboard DECM untill they reach EOS targeting distance....  but by then, they would have failed in their job and the CIWS would take over instead.... Reduts would make a good system to use now using their (9M96 Baseline as medium Range and 9M100s as PD)

    An intentional Russian MoD organised Hi-Lo setup with blank page all-new tech Redut/S-350 High end, high risk vs modernised Sthil-1/Buk-M3 Low end, low risk.

    I can see that as use until the russians have finished testing the Redut System and can fully replace the Shtil-1....    Shtil-1 can be kept as export i guess.... Or be integrated to the Redut system... Either way...  Shtil-1 is long overdue IMO and with the standard it has (40-50KM only?), Better focus R&D to the Redut system which is more comparable to the SM-2ERs for reference.....
    avatar
    hoom

    Posts : 583
    Points : 581
    Join date : 2016-05-06

    Re: Naval Weapon Systems & Technology

    Post  hoom on Thu Apr 27, 2017 10:40 am

    Update yet no change to the Name of the system?
    Its what they say dunno
    On one hand S-300 with its bewildering array of variants & possible configs is kinda the poster child for modular upgradable & scalable land based SAM so I don't discount possibility of capability upgrades under same designation.
    Maybe they have unused S-300FM stuff sitting in a warehouse from when they were finishing off PtG?
    On the other hand Ustinov just had a big upgrade but still has S-300F designation & there's no mentions of improved capability.

    Osa-MA's era as PD systems has already been long over
    I meant replace as in use the physical location (though also Ustinov apparently retains Osa for some reason)

    until the russians have finished testing the Redut System and can fully replace the Shtil-1.... Shtil-1 can be kept as export i guess.... Or be integrated to the Redut system
    For my part having developed & put Stihl-1 into service I want to see them build more ships with it.
    Its a pretty big missile with very medium range but it seems silly to waste that effort on only 3 or 6 orphan 11356es.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16520
    Points : 17128
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Naval Weapon Systems & Technology

    Post  GarryB on Fri Apr 28, 2017 9:31 am

    Osa-MA's era as PD systems has already been long over.... Their missiles probably won't even track Tomahawk BLK IV MMT (Multi-Mission AShM capable) or Harpoon IIs (Updated) after launch because the 9K33M's seeker is most likely going to get spoofed by their onboard DECM untill they reach EOS targeting distance.... but by then, they would have failed in their job and the CIWS would take over instead.

    Neither OSA or TOR have seekers on their missiles... they are all command guided... so as long as a radar on the ship can track the target OSA or TOR should be able to hit it.

    There is no talk of S-400 but all the electronics and systems will likely be upgraded to S-400 level even if old missiles are used.

    Eventually newer missiles based on the new large S-400 will be made and may be called S-400 or maybe not.

    When S-500 enters service then larger launch tubes make sense anyway.



    _________________
    “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

    Mindstorm

    Posts : 771
    Points : 948
    Join date : 2011-07-20

    Re: Naval Weapon Systems & Technology

    Post  Mindstorm on Fri Apr 28, 2017 12:26 pm

    Rowdyhorse4 wrote:Osa-MA's era as PD systems has already been long over....  Their missiles probably won't even track Tomahawk BLK IV MMT (Multi-Mission AShM capable) or Harpoon IIs (Updated) after launch because the 9K33M's seeker is most likely going to get spoofed by their onboard DECM untill they reach EOS targeting distance....  



    Complex "Оса" (domestic version for the Army) are routinely tested against representative targets of product BGM-109 and ATACM and show not problem in theirs interception , in particular the subsonic former representing one of the most trivial target among aerodynamics ones.


    https://sdelanounas.ru/blogs/6975/


    I believe that not a single further word is necessary to add on the performances of the latest version of "Tomahawk" cruise missile (TLAM Block IV), its abysmal level is under the eyes of anybody with the last attack to the Al-Shayrath air base.

    I believe that the hidden details of this attack will "resurface" in the next years, when theirs military and ,even more diplomatic, impact will be much lower, if any, in comparison with the existing boundary traced by Russia-US  de-confliction and ROE agreement at the time in force in Syria.

    Anyway sometimes numbers provide very important hints : USS Ross shot 36 missiles , USS Porter 23 (or probably 24 withg one malfunctioning at the start), just 23 missiles have reach Al-Shayrath air base.......
    avatar
    flamming_python

    Posts : 3246
    Points : 3352
    Join date : 2012-01-30

    Re: Naval Weapon Systems & Technology

    Post  flamming_python on Fri Apr 28, 2017 2:39 pm

    Mindstorm wrote:Anyway sometimes numbers provide very important hints : USS Ross shot 36 missiles , USS Porter 23 (or probably 24 withg one malfunctioning at the start), just 23 missiles have reach Al-Shayrath air base.......

    What 23 - in the satellite pics you can count some 44 impact sites or craters; and some of those would have been targetted by 2 missiles so the US claim of 59 hits out of 60 launches (with 1 launch malfunction) looks accurate.
    avatar
    flamming_python

    Posts : 3246
    Points : 3352
    Join date : 2012-01-30

    Re: Naval Weapon Systems & Technology

    Post  flamming_python on Fri Apr 28, 2017 2:50 pm

    Rowdyhorse4 wrote:
    updated S-300FM (which might include the 48N6 from S-400)

    Update yet no change to the Name of the system? I guess its update to FCS....   Also I doubt the FCS of the S-300F series can guide missiles to the ranges of beyond 180KM as effective as the S-400...  Again..  its still based of the original S-300FM FCS with some refurbishment....    I can see the Redut system being able to operate it with Updates to the System but....   Unless the russians built the Program Architecture of the S-300F FCS like AEGIS but as far as i know, it wasn't....   Russia's first attempt at an AEGIS-like system is the Poliment-Redut Universal System as far as i know which is more recent so i doubt the S-300F's FCS is that adaptive...  Or else there would be no reason to create the S-400 combat Package if S-300s with system updates were adequate enough to operate 48N6E3 (I'm aware that newer S-300s can operate 48N6 missiles but the E3 variant is what we want as it fits the bill for Naval ULR missiles of the modern age... and last i checked, the 48N6E3s are exclusively being run by S-400s right now)

    Are you talking about the S-300F's 3R41 Volna engagement radar of late-70s vintage? I'm pretty sure that replacing it with something more modern would be the least of all difficulties.
    avatar
    MarshallJukov

    Posts : 20
    Points : 20
    Join date : 2015-02-22

    Re: Naval Weapon Systems & Technology

    Post  MarshallJukov on Sat Apr 29, 2017 11:34 am

    flamming_python wrote:
    Mindstorm wrote:Anyway sometimes numbers provide very important hints : USS Ross shot 36 missiles , USS Porter 23 (or probably 24 withg one malfunctioning at the start), just 23 missiles have reach Al-Shayrath air base.......

    What 23 - in the satellite pics you can count some 44 impact sites or craters; and some of those would have been targetted by 2 missiles so the US claim of 59 hits out of 60 launches (with 1 launch malfunction) looks accurate.


    Actualy its not 23 its just 6 missiles that actualy reached an airbase. On satellite images you can not count any 23 impact sites, no matter how many yellow circles you draw over imaginary hits.
    avatar
    hoom

    Posts : 583
    Points : 581
    Join date : 2016-05-06

    Re: Naval Weapon Systems & Technology

    Post  hoom on Sat Apr 29, 2017 12:11 pm

    I'm pretty sure that replacing it with something more modern would be the least of all difficulties.
    Well the most obvious difference between S-300F & S-300FM is the flap-lid as seen on PtG.

    We know that Nakhimov is getting 2* S-300FM so that much is at least clearly getting changed.
    But its not exactly bleeding edge on PtG is it? (and is there any clear reason why they only put 1 on PtG?)

    On the other hand AEGIS ain't a spring chicken either, has had many upgrades over the years & there are significant variations in the installed equipment but it all still gets called AEGIS...

    Mindstorm

    Posts : 771
    Points : 948
    Join date : 2011-07-20

    Re: Naval Weapon Systems & Technology

    Post  Mindstorm on Sat Apr 29, 2017 3:56 pm

    flamming_python wrote:
    Mindstorm wrote:Anyway sometimes numbers provide very important hints : USS Ross shot 36 missiles , USS Porter 23 (or probably 24 withg one malfunctioning at the start), just 23 missiles have reach Al-Shayrath air base.......

    What 23 - in the satellite pics you can count some 44 impact sites or craters; and some of those would have been targetted by 2 missiles so the US claim of 59 hits out of 60 launches (with 1 launch malfunction) looks accurate.

    I hope that you do not refer to that self-embarrassing "analysis" by ISI ,with those at best imaginative yellow circles traced on an old satellite image of the Al-Shayrath air base.

    I've seen in course of the latest years several trash-level "psychological-based" PR pieces in western media (aimed obviously at the bulk of the less informed easily gullible people in the public opinion), but one so openly inconsistent and basic in its deceiving mechanism I have difficulty to remember honestly.

    It declare to have the evidence for 44 points of impact of TLAM on Al-Shayrath air base but show ......how strange


    Last edited by Mindstorm on Sat Apr 29, 2017 5:18 pm; edited 1 time in total
    avatar
    Isos

    Posts : 822
    Points : 820
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Re: Naval Weapon Systems & Technology

    Post  Isos on Sat Apr 29, 2017 5:04 pm

    hoom wrote:
    I'm pretty sure that replacing it with something more modern would be the least of all difficulties.
    Well the most obvious difference between S-300F & S-300FM is the flap-lid as seen on PtG.

    We know that Nakhimov is getting 2* S-300FM so that much is at least clearly getting changed.
    But its not exactly bleeding edge on PtG is it? (and is there any clear reason why they only put 1 on PtG?)

    On the other hand AEGIS ain't a spring chicken either, has had many upgrades over the years & there are significant variations in the installed equipment but it all still gets called AEGIS...

    S-300F is S-300PMU and S-300FM is PMU2 equivalent. The S-300FM can use 48N6E2 and the S-300F se just the old 5V55 with just 90 km range. The difference between them is huge.

    The 9M96E2 from redut is 120 km in range but it's smaller than than 5V55 and 48N6E2 so maybe it's more easily jammed and has less "punch". So it's not a true replacement.

    Mindstorm

    Posts : 771
    Points : 948
    Join date : 2011-07-20

    Re: Naval Weapon Systems & Technology

    Post  Mindstorm on Sat Apr 29, 2017 6:03 pm

    ...only after-attack images of the points of impact already clearly visible in the UAV video provided by Russian MoD just few times after the attack (including thermal images clearly identifying the point of impact if actual TLAMs and secondary sympathetic detonations, like the two before one of the reinforced concrete hangar).

    Those amateurish want-to-be PR operatives could begin with providing the after attacks images of the 10 ammunition storage sites "supposedly" hit in theirs child toy yellow circle infested old image. It will be VERY interesting

    Mindstorm

    Posts : 771
    Points : 948
    Join date : 2011-07-20

    Re: Naval Weapon Systems & Technology

    Post  Mindstorm on Sat Apr 29, 2017 6:10 pm

    An old contributor to this forum , SOC - alias Sean O'Connor- in virtue if its vastly greater proficiency and intelligence, has at least attempted to provide a less laughable map of the after-attack impacts at the air base in an article for Jane's Defense named " Analysis : Satellite imagery refutes Russian claims about Tomahawk strike" (at now strangely unavailable at the same Jane's site ). In this piece, with some mental and semantics "triple mortal jump" and mixing point of impact collimating with UAV images and some fact twarting SOC attempt to provide some basis to save at least a fraction of the legendary 59 missile hits.....obviously without any hope of success.
    At least one can appreciate the more evolute attempt


    Last edited by Mindstorm on Sat Apr 29, 2017 11:04 pm; edited 1 time in total
    avatar
    AlfaT8

    Posts : 1386
    Points : 1387
    Join date : 2013-02-02

    Re: Naval Weapon Systems & Technology

    Post  AlfaT8 on Sat Apr 29, 2017 7:51 pm

    SOC (Sean O'Connor) is mostly on Facebook nowadays.

    https://www.facebook.com/caffeinatedanalyst/?_fb_noscript=1
    avatar
    AlfaT8

    Posts : 1386
    Points : 1387
    Join date : 2013-02-02

    Re: Naval Weapon Systems & Technology

    Post  AlfaT8 on Thu May 04, 2017 9:51 pm

    avatar
    George1

    Posts : 10509
    Points : 10986
    Join date : 2011-12-22
    Location : Greece

    Re: Naval Weapon Systems & Technology

    Post  George1 on Fri Jun 16, 2017 11:14 pm

    A new 533-mm UET-1E torpedo will be demonstrated at the IMC-2017 Naval Salon

    http://bmpd.livejournal.com/2675097.html


    _________________
    "There's no smoke without fire.", Georgy Zhukov

    avatar
    Rmf

    Posts : 506
    Points : 493
    Join date : 2013-05-30

    Re: Naval Weapon Systems & Technology

    Post  Rmf on Sat Jun 17, 2017 10:15 am

    it seems electric torpedoes are getting close with characteristics to thermal ones. but with much less noise.... they are working on isolated cables to supply power from submarine  for first 5 km of travel.
    new compact batteries testing for 500seconds of heavy discharge exploatation.
    avatar
    Singular_Transform

    Posts : 489
    Points : 485
    Join date : 2016-11-13

    Re: Naval Weapon Systems & Technology

    Post  Singular_Transform on Sun Jun 18, 2017 9:37 am

    The collision of the USS Fitzgerald make a quite interesting case.

    The ships had 10 m/sec speed,and the bigger one has 25 million kg mass.

    Means that the maximum theoretical impact force should be way lass than 200 kg of explosive.

    Two compartment of the ship get flooded, lost propulsion and combat capability.

    The impact profile was more preferable than an anti ship missile.

    Means that the damage can be equivalent with one harpoon, and one onyx could destroy the ship completely.
    avatar
    PapaDragon

    Posts : 5424
    Points : 5528
    Join date : 2015-04-26
    Location : Fort Evil, Serbia

    Re: Naval Weapon Systems & Technology

    Post  PapaDragon on Sun Jun 18, 2017 6:29 pm

    Singular_Transform wrote:The collision of the USS Fitzgerald make a quite interesting case.

    The ships had 10 m/sec speed,and the bigger one has 25 million kg mass.

    Means that the maximum theoretical impact force should be way lass than 200 kg of explosive.

    Two compartment of the ship get flooded, lost propulsion and combat capability.

    The impact profile was more preferable than an anti ship missile.

    Means that the damage can be equivalent with one harpoon, and one onyx could destroy the ship completely.

    Fitzgerald was pierced by container ship's bulbous bow and most of the damage is under the water line. It also hit the compartment where crew sleeps (don't know naval name for that part) hence the missing crew.

    They were probably washed away from their beds and into the ocean.

    Sponsored content

    Re: Naval Weapon Systems & Technology

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Fri Oct 20, 2017 5:52 pm