Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    Naval Weapon Systems & Technology

    Share

    GunshipDemocracy
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 1519
    Points : 1561
    Join date : 2015-05-17
    Location : Stalin´s Strait between Mexico and Canada

    Re: Naval Weapon Systems & Technology

    Post  GunshipDemocracy on Thu Oct 13, 2016 11:13 am

    magnumcromagnon wrote:
    GunshipDemocracy wrote:
    George1 wrote:The underwater missile "Predator"

    http://bmpd.livejournal.com/2170952.html

    From text is looks like improved Shkval cavitating torpedo. I wonder if any control is added and range. It might be nice weapon for drones. just lay down on bottom 1km +,  no sound, no movement, just listening. Until Ac group comes close..then salvo of 500km/h torpedos and the way cleared Smile

    There's another article from a different source that also talks about the ABM A-235 in relation to it, which is real puzzling.

    https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=en&tl=ru&js=y&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fvpk.name%2Fnews%2F165449_podvodnaya_raketa_hishnik.html&edit-text=&act=url

    not that bad, look below

    JSC "KB "Electropribor" (Saratov) presented the application-presentation for participation in the contest "aircraft Builder of the year" by the end of 2015, organized by the Union of aircraft manufacturers of Russia.


    In the first part of the application of JSC "KB "Electropribor"
    is created to represent the enterprise modernized management system "multi-channel missile system special purpose" (of the missile defense complex) system RTC-181М (A-235) in the framework of the ROC "Plane-M". It is reported that "since the beginning of 2015 is the serial production of the modernized systems. At the end of 2016 it is planned to conduct interdepartmental testing of the system, including field work (missile), the results of which will be held the awarding of the design documentation of the upgraded system the letter "O1".


    Later in the application it is reported that "one of the directions of scientific and technical activity of JSC "KB "Electropribor" on the implementation of the state defense order are the R & d to develop composite parts advanced underwater vehicles".


    So A-235 is referring to a first part of presentation. Second to improved Shkval.

    KomissarBojanchev
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 1026
    Points : 1181
    Join date : 2012-08-05
    Age : 19
    Location : Varna, Bulgaria

    Re: Naval Weapon Systems & Technology

    Post  KomissarBojanchev on Thu Oct 13, 2016 10:57 pm



    Is this a correct representation on the effectiveness of aegis vs supersonic missiles? It says that for each aegis equipped ship you need over 25 AShMs to bring it down, not counting any additional support it might have. Can the Russian navy bring that kind of firepower?

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15692
    Points : 16397
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Naval Weapon Systems & Technology

    Post  GarryB on Fri Oct 14, 2016 3:06 am

    We talking about the same AEGIS class cruiser that penetrated Iranian waters in the late 1980s and was almost destroyed by an Airbus?

    I doubt we can be sure until an actual attack is successfully repulsed, but the Kh-32 and Onyx and Moskit would not be easy beats... we were told Patriot could shoot down Scuds remember...


    _________________
    “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

    magnumcromagnon
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 4481
    Points : 4672
    Join date : 2013-12-05
    Location : Pindos ave., Pindosville, Pindosylvania, Pindostan

    Re: Naval Weapon Systems & Technology

    Post  magnumcromagnon on Fri Oct 14, 2016 6:26 am

    KomissarBojanchev wrote:

    Is this a correct representation on the effectiveness of aegis vs supersonic missiles? It says that for each aegis equipped ship you need over 25 AShMs to bring it down, not counting any additional support it might have. Can the Russian navy bring that kind of firepower?

    You shouldn't be so easily swayed by crude black propaganda. The HMS Sheffield was sunk by a "1" Excocet missile in the Falklands War, and the HMS Sheffield has a displacement of 4,820 tons, compare that to the Arleigh Burke classes 9800 tons. For it to take 25 AShMs, you would need a 100k ton displacement, and keep in mind P-800 Onyx warhead is almost 100kg's heavier (Exocet 165kg's, Onyx 250kg's). Theoretically speaking it would only need 1 to 2 Onyx to sink a Arleigh Burke destroyer, and is it mere coincidence that the Bastion-P launcher (that fires Onyx AShM's from a land vehicle) has a standard load of 2 Onyx missiles?...I think not!

    OminousSpudd
    Major
    Major

    Posts : 838
    Points : 857
    Join date : 2015-01-03
    Age : 21
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Naval Weapon Systems & Technology

    Post  OminousSpudd on Fri Oct 14, 2016 6:52 am

    KomissarBojanchev wrote:

    Is this a correct representation on the effectiveness of aegis vs supersonic missiles? It says that for each aegis equipped ship you need over 25 AShMs to bring it down, not counting any additional support it might have. Can the Russian navy bring that kind of firepower?
    I've seen a few of this guy's videos now... and they're pretty bad. I think what makes it worse is that he poses as a Russian.

    KomissarBojanchev
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 1026
    Points : 1181
    Join date : 2012-08-05
    Age : 19
    Location : Varna, Bulgaria

    Re: Naval Weapon Systems & Technology

    Post  KomissarBojanchev on Fri Oct 14, 2016 9:08 am

    OminousSpudd wrote:
    KomissarBojanchev wrote:

    Is this a correct representation on the effectiveness of aegis vs supersonic missiles? It says that for each aegis equipped ship you need over 25 AShMs to bring it down, not counting any additional support it might have. Can the Russian navy bring that kind of firepower?
    I've seen a few of this guy's videos now... and they're pretty bad. I think what makes it worse is that he poses as a Russian.

    Yeah I'm starting to believe he isn't Russian. He tries to be balanced but he honestly goes full retard especially in his Russia vs turkey video by not taking into account Russian land based cruise missiles, and considering the T-72B as terrible while the M60 as "adequate".

    KomissarBojanchev
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 1026
    Points : 1181
    Join date : 2012-08-05
    Age : 19
    Location : Varna, Bulgaria

    Re: Naval Weapon Systems & Technology

    Post  KomissarBojanchev on Fri Oct 14, 2016 9:10 am

    magnumcromagnon wrote:
    KomissarBojanchev wrote:

    Is this a correct representation on the effectiveness of aegis vs supersonic missiles? It says that for each aegis equipped ship you need over 25 AShMs to bring it down, not counting any additional support it might have. Can the Russian navy bring that kind of firepower?

    You shouldn't be so easily swayed by crude black propaganda. The HMS Sheffield was sunk by a "1" Excocet missile in the Falklands War, and the HMS Sheffield has a displacement of 4,820 tons, compare that to the Arleigh Burke classes 9800 tons. For it to take 25 AShMs, you would need a 100k ton displacement, and keep in mind P-800 Onyx warhead is almost 100kg's heavier (Exocet 165kg's, Onyx 250kg's). Theoretically speaking it would only need 1 to 2 Onyx to sink a Arleigh Burke destroyer, and is it mere coincidence that the Bastion-P launcher (that fires Onyx AShM's from a land vehicle) has a standard load of 2 Onyx missiles?...I think not!
    I'm talking about the number of missiles that the target will destroy until one missile gets through.

    Isos
    Master Sergeant
    Master Sergeant

    Posts : 353
    Points : 357
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Re: Naval Weapon Systems & Technology

    Post  Isos on Fri Oct 14, 2016 4:57 pm

    KomissarBojanchev wrote:

    Is this a correct representation on the effectiveness of aegis vs supersonic missiles? It says that for each aegis equipped ship you need over 25 AShMs to bring it down, not counting any additional support it might have. Can the Russian navy bring that kind of firepower?

    https://defencyclopedia.com/2014/12/27/explained-how-the-us-navy-can-shoot-down-the-deadly-brahmos-missile/

    An other analyse that is according to me better done.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15692
    Points : 16397
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Naval Weapon Systems & Technology

    Post  GarryB on Sat Oct 15, 2016 9:20 am

    You shouldn't be so easily swayed by crude black propaganda. The HMS Sheffield was sunk by a "1" Excocet missile in the Falklands War, and the HMS Sheffield has a displacement of 4,820 tons, compare that to the Arleigh Burke classes 9800 tons. For it to take 25 AShMs, you would need a 100k ton displacement, and keep in mind P-800 Onyx warhead is almost 100kg's heavier (Exocet 165kg's, Onyx 250kg's). Theoretically speaking it would only need 1 to 2 Onyx to sink a Arleigh Burke destroyer, and is it mere coincidence that the Bastion-P launcher (that fires Onyx AShM's from a land vehicle) has a standard load of 2 Onyx missiles?...I think not!

    I would add one critical piece of information... of all the Exocets that sank several boats in the falklands conflict... AFAIK none of them were believed to have actually exploded. Most just burned until the fire set off ammo or fuel...

    If you look at OS's signature picture to see what sort of damage a fast moving missile can create... one hit will be enough.

    Also keep in mind that Granit is a 7 ton missile at launch... even when it arrives on target it is several tons moving as fast as most rifle bullets and it has an armoured warhead that shrapnel or even 20mm cannon shells are rather unlikely to set off.

    Some models actually hit the water 20m short of hitting the ship and detonate when it penetrates the hull... which would direct all the blast into the ship as the sea water behind it wont compress...

    When tested against actual sea skimming targets the Phalanx was found to be useless despite claiming it was capable against mach 2.5 Vandal targets it seems that very low flying targets create multipath returns with the radar off the wavetops... hense Sea RAM was developed... but I personally doubt it has the hitting power for the job.

    I would say the country with the most experience with supersonic anti ship missiles are the Russians... and they fit CIWS based on 30mm cannon and short range missiles in large numbers on all their vessels...


    _________________
    “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

    KomissarBojanchev
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 1026
    Points : 1181
    Join date : 2012-08-05
    Age : 19
    Location : Varna, Bulgaria

    Re: Naval Weapon Systems & Technology

    Post  KomissarBojanchev on Sat Oct 15, 2016 9:28 am

    GarryB wrote:
    You shouldn't be so easily swayed by crude black propaganda. The HMS Sheffield was sunk by a "1" Excocet missile in the Falklands War, and the HMS Sheffield has a displacement of 4,820 tons, compare that to the Arleigh Burke classes 9800 tons. For it to take 25 AShMs, you would need a 100k ton displacement, and keep in mind P-800 Onyx warhead is almost 100kg's heavier (Exocet 165kg's, Onyx 250kg's). Theoretically speaking it would only need 1 to 2 Onyx to sink a Arleigh Burke destroyer, and is it mere coincidence that the Bastion-P launcher (that fires Onyx AShM's from a land vehicle) has a standard load of 2 Onyx missiles?...I think not!

    I would add one critical piece of information... of all the Exocets that sank several boats in the falklands conflict... AFAIK none of them were believed to have actually exploded. Most just burned until the fire set off ammo or fuel...

    If you look at OS's signature picture to see what sort of damage a fast moving missile can create... one hit will be enough.

    Also keep in mind that Granit is a 7 ton missile at launch... even when it arrives on target it is several tons moving as fast as most rifle bullets and it has an armoured warhead that shrapnel or even 20mm cannon shells are rather unlikely to set off.

    Some models actually hit the water 20m short of hitting the ship and detonate when it penetrates the hull... which would direct all the blast into the ship as the sea water behind it wont compress...

    When tested against actual sea skimming targets the Phalanx was found to be useless despite claiming it was capable against mach 2.5 Vandal targets it seems that very low flying targets create multipath returns with the radar off the wavetops... hense Sea RAM was developed... but I personally doubt it has the hitting power for the job.

    I would say the country with the most experience with supersonic anti ship missiles are the Russians... and they fit CIWS based on 30mm cannon and short range missiles in large numbers on all their vessels...

    What if those 20mm shells destroy the engine or slice off the P-700's wing?

    nastle77
    Sergeant
    Sergeant

    Posts : 173
    Points : 221
    Join date : 2015-07-25

    Re: Naval Weapon Systems & Technology

    Post  nastle77 on Tue Dec 13, 2016 2:18 am

    The RBU 6000 can it be used for shore bombardment and also against surface ships (I'm assuming can only be effective against merchant ships patrol boats etc) ?
    Thanks

    Militarov
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5084
    Points : 5129
    Join date : 2015-09-02
    Location : Serbia

    Re: Naval Weapon Systems & Technology

    Post  Militarov on Tue Dec 13, 2016 2:41 am

    nastle77 wrote:The RBU 6000 can it be used for shore bombardment and also against surface ships (I'm assuming can only be effective against merchant ships patrol boats etc) ?
    Thanks

    Its not very practical to be used aganist other surface ships, no point in it.

    However yes, it can be used for shore bombardment.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15692
    Points : 16397
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Naval Weapon Systems & Technology

    Post  GarryB on Tue Dec 13, 2016 7:10 am


    What if those 20mm shells destroy the engine or slice off the P-700's wing?

    The P-700 is moving at almost a kilometre a second... how many rounds do you actually think will even get a hit.

    Even if it took both wings completely off at 1km or less range it is an object weighing several tons... it will keep going the way it was going... it will likely hit something the size of a large ship anyway.

    The projectiles from Phalanx are 12.7mm calibre slugs of DU designed to penetrate armour... not remove limbs or appendages... if they hit anything they will punch little holes in things... if the hit the core body of the incoming missile they will likely be deflected by the Titanium armour protecting the warhead.

    The RBU 6000 can it be used for shore bombardment and also against surface ships (I'm assuming can only be effective against merchant ships patrol boats etc) ?
    Thanks

    They have multiple uses but shore bombardment is not one of them AFAIK except in an extreme emergency.

    There are three types of rockets for use against subs and incoming enemy torpedoes.

    Obviously the depth charge for subs and torpedoes, but also floating mines for torpedoes and diverting decoy sound emitter for torpedoes as well.

    For shore bombardment they have the A-22 OGON system.

    The features that allow it to be used against incoming enemy torpedoes also make it effective against enemy divers too... but it would be a total waste against shore targets... a 30mm gatling burst of shells or larger calibre gun would be used against shore targets.


    _________________
    “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

    nastle77
    Sergeant
    Sergeant

    Posts : 173
    Points : 221
    Join date : 2015-07-25

    Re: Naval Weapon Systems & Technology

    Post  nastle77 on Tue Dec 13, 2016 4:59 pm

    Re RBU 6000
    Will it's rockets not explode if they hit surface ships or land targets ? Are they designed to explode only under water ?

    Militarov
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5084
    Points : 5129
    Join date : 2015-09-02
    Location : Serbia

    Re: Naval Weapon Systems & Technology

    Post  Militarov on Tue Dec 13, 2016 6:54 pm

    nastle77 wrote:Re RBU 6000
    Will it's rockets not explode if they hit surface ships or land targets ? Are they designed to explode only under water ?

    They will explode its very simple arming fuse, however why would you target surface ship with it? I dont see the situations for it myself. For shore bombardment sure, it would act like mortar but why against surface ships?

    Isos
    Master Sergeant
    Master Sergeant

    Posts : 353
    Points : 357
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Re: Naval Weapon Systems & Technology

    Post  Isos on Tue Dec 13, 2016 7:15 pm

    Militarov wrote:
    nastle77 wrote:Re RBU 6000
    Will it's rockets not explode if they hit surface ships or land targets ? Are they designed to explode only under water ?

    They will explode its very simple arming fuse, however why would you target surface ship with it? I dont see the situations for it myself. For shore bombardment sure, it would act like mortar but why against surface ships?

    Why not ! if it's close to you you fire with everything you have to take advantage.

    Singular_Transform
    Sergeant
    Sergeant

    Posts : 163
    Points : 165
    Join date : 2016-11-13

    Re: Naval Weapon Systems & Technology

    Post  Singular_Transform on Tue Dec 13, 2016 8:01 pm

    KomissarBojanchev wrote:

    What if those 20mm shells destroy the engine or slice off the P-700's wing?


    The Phalanax muzzle velocity is 1km/sec. The bullets of it won't capable even theoretical to hit granit/onyx from behind.
    Means if it start to fire at 2km distance then if the targeting was OK the bullets will meet the granit/onyx one second later , midway.

    Of course if the missile is so nasty to use up this one second do say move only 2 meter off from the calculated position, then the bullets will kill the air.

    If the granit/onyx has 20g manoeuvring capability then the phalanx will miss it by 600 something meter at 2 km, and at the collision with target it will miss it by 60 meters.

    Only chance to kill it if it is so kind to not to manoeuvre.

    Only thing that has chance to kill is the mid range RIM-162 Evolved SeaSparrow Missile.

    The long range missiles with active seeker won't have chance to kill it, all of them has same speed like the missile, and the active head prompt the missile to do evasion manoeuvres ( unless the russians left out this 10 000 $ option from the 3 000 000 000 $ missile)

    But the granit/onyx will do evasion here as well as soon as it feel the X band illuminators, so the high kill chance will be around 14 km distance from the ship at the end of the ESSM boost phase, out of that range it will decrease dramatically.


    Last edited by Singular_Transform on Tue Dec 13, 2016 10:26 pm; edited 3 times in total

    nastle77
    Sergeant
    Sergeant

    Posts : 173
    Points : 221
    Join date : 2015-07-25

    Re: Naval Weapon Systems & Technology

    Post  nastle77 on Tue Dec 13, 2016 8:15 pm

    Militarov wrote:
    nastle77 wrote:Re RBU 6000
    Will it's rockets not explode if they hit surface ships or land targets ? Are they designed to explode only under water ?

    They will explode its very simple arming fuse, however why would you target surface ship with it? I dont see the situations for it myself. For shore bombardment sure, it would act like mortar but why against surface ships?
    I was thinking of very low tech warfare
    This system is carried by parchim poti petya class ships which also are the major surface combatants of smaller navies in 80s so maybe this RBU can be used as a weapon against offshore patrol vessels minseweepers coastal merchant shopping etc too esp against opponents who might not have much of a submarine fleet

    nastle77
    Sergeant
    Sergeant

    Posts : 173
    Points : 221
    Join date : 2015-07-25

    Re: Naval Weapon Systems & Technology

    Post  nastle77 on Tue Dec 13, 2016 8:17 pm

    Isos wrote:
    Militarov wrote:
    nastle77 wrote:Re RBU 6000
    Will it's rockets not explode if they hit surface ships or land targets ? Are they designed to explode only under water ?

    They will explode its very simple arming fuse, however why would you target surface ship with it? I dont see the situations for it myself. For shore bombardment sure, it would act like mortar but why against surface ships?

    Why not !  if it's close to you you fire with everything you have  to take advantage.
    Exactly was thinking of low tech littoral warfare involving small ships that routinely carried this system but didn't have submarine opponents and might end up fighting other smaller surface combatents

    miroslav
    Private
    Private

    Posts : 22
    Points : 24
    Join date : 2016-11-16

    Re: Naval Weapon Systems & Technology

    Post  miroslav on Tue Dec 13, 2016 10:36 pm

    nastle77 wrote:
    Isos wrote:
    Militarov wrote:
    nastle77 wrote:Re RBU 6000
    Will it's rockets not explode if they hit surface ships or land targets ? Are they designed to explode only under water ?

    They will explode its very simple arming fuse, however why would you target surface ship with it? I dont see the situations for it myself. For shore bombardment sure, it would act like mortar but why against surface ships?

    Why not !  if it's close to you you fire with everything you have  to take advantage.
    Exactly was thinking of low tech littoral warfare involving small ships that routinely carried this system but didn't have submarine opponents and might end up fighting other smaller surface combatents  

    Theoretically this is all possible, but the system is not designed for it at all. This is essentially an area target weapon not a point target one. If you want to engage surface targets (sea or land) there are far, far more effective weapons like the main gun, as some one mentioned before, most ships equipped with RBU-600 will have at least a 57mm universal gun. Using an RBU-6000 up an close against an enemy ship is well, 19 century style.

    As far ass the fuse goes, its a dual one, it can be activates by contact and set to detonate at a certain depth, the minimal difference in depth that the grenades are set to is 5m. So a volley of 12 grenades will cover the dept from, for instance, 50 to 105 with detonations at every 5m, roughly. The fuse can be set manually or automatically, meaning, as an example: first three at 50, 70 and 80, second three at 100 120 140 and so on.

    The new versions of the grenades, like the ones on Adm. Girgorovic and I supose on the Udaloy class, have an active seeker head, basically a small sonar, the warhead is smaller (shaped charge for point contact) but that is a small drawback compare to the gains of having an active seeker head.

    nastle77
    Sergeant
    Sergeant

    Posts : 173
    Points : 221
    Join date : 2015-07-25

    Re: Naval Weapon Systems & Technology

    Post  nastle77 on Tue Dec 13, 2016 10:55 pm

    miroslav wrote:
    nastle77 wrote:
    Isos wrote:
    Militarov wrote:
    nastle77 wrote:Re RBU 6000
    Will it's rockets not explode if they hit surface ships or land targets ? Are they designed to explode only under water ?

    They will explode its very simple arming fuse, however why would you target surface ship with it? I dont see the situations for it myself. For shore bombardment sure, it would act like mortar but why against surface ships?

    Why not !  if it's close to you you fire with everything you have  to take advantage.
    Exactly was thinking of low tech littoral warfare involving small ships that routinely carried this system but didn't have submarine opponents and might end up fighting other smaller surface combatents  

    Theoretically this is all possible, but the system is not designed for it at all. This is essentially an area target weapon not a point target one. If you want to engage surface targets (sea or land) there are far, far more effective weapons like the main gun, as some one mentioned before, most ships equipped with RBU-600 will have at least a 57mm universal gun. Using an RBU-6000 up an close against an enemy ship is well, 19 century style.

    As far ass the fuse goes, its a dual one, it can be activates by contact and set to detonate at a certain depth, the minimal difference in depth that the grenades are set to is 5m. So a volley of 12 grenades will cover the dept from, for instance,  50 to 105 with detonations at every 5m, roughly. The fuse can be set manually or automatically, meaning, as an example: first three at 50, 70 and 80, second three at 100 120 140 and so on.

    The new versions of the grenades, like the ones on Adm. Girgorovic and I supose on the Udaloy class, have an active seeker head, basically a small sonar, the warhead is smaller (shaped charge for point contact) but that is a small drawback compare to the gains of having an active seeker head.

    Thanks for the explanation but if you look at some of the low-intensity conflict in third world countries until 80s they are kind of like 19 century.... most of the opponents are small combatants with few having capabilities of sophisticated antiship missiles and even then they only carry 2 to 4 missiles which when expended makes these small craft very vulnerable even to basic weapon systems esp since  most of their battles are in the littorals

    I get your point that it's an area defense weapon not a point defense weapon I assume you mean it cannot be aimed very well against surface ships and that's why maybe it is useful against static targets during shore bombardment

    miroslav
    Private
    Private

    Posts : 22
    Points : 24
    Join date : 2016-11-16

    Re: Naval Weapon Systems & Technology

    Post  miroslav on Tue Dec 13, 2016 11:10 pm

    nastle77 wrote:
    miroslav wrote:
    nastle77 wrote:
    Isos wrote:
    Militarov wrote:
    nastle77 wrote:Re RBU 6000
    Will it's rockets not explode if they hit surface ships or land targets ? Are they designed to explode only under water ?

    They will explode its very simple arming fuse, however why would you target surface ship with it? I dont see the situations for it myself. For shore bombardment sure, it would act like mortar but why against surface ships?

    Why not !  if it's close to you you fire with everything you have  to take advantage.
    Exactly was thinking of low tech littoral warfare involving small ships that routinely carried this system but didn't have submarine opponents and might end up fighting other smaller surface combatents  

    Theoretically this is all possible, but the system is not designed for it at all. This is essentially an area target weapon not a point target one. If you want to engage surface targets (sea or land) there are far, far more effective weapons like the main gun, as some one mentioned before, most ships equipped with RBU-600 will have at least a 57mm universal gun. Using an RBU-6000 up an close against an enemy ship is well, 19 century style.

    As far ass the fuse goes, its a dual one, it can be activates by contact and set to detonate at a certain depth, the minimal difference in depth that the grenades are set to is 5m. So a volley of 12 grenades will cover the dept from, for instance,  50 to 105 with detonations at every 5m, roughly. The fuse can be set manually or automatically, meaning, as an example: first three at 50, 70 and 80, second three at 100 120 140 and so on.

    The new versions of the grenades, like the ones on Adm. Girgorovic and I supose on the Udaloy class, have an active seeker head, basically a small sonar, the warhead is smaller (shaped charge for point contact) but that is a small drawback compare to the gains of having an active seeker head.

    Thanks for the explanation but if you look at some of the low-intensity conflict in third world countries until 80s they are kind of like 19 century.... most of the opponents are small combatants with few having capabilities of sophisticated antiship missiles and even then they only carry 2 to 4 missiles which when expended makes these small craft very vulnerable even to basic weapon systems esp since  most of their battles are in the littorals


    Dont get mo wrong I like the idea of a close up an dirty fight with ships, guns, speed and maneuvering.

    Here is the RBU-6000 one the Talwar's, same set up on the Adm. Grigorovic I presume, probably a better sonar and overall fire control, start at 3:56, it has 90R grenades as part of a standard load, active seeking ones, and 48 of them as a total combat load, including the standard RGB60 ones, they mainly use the RGB60 for mines and torpedoes and keep the 90R for submarines. Wikipedia says that the Indian ones (RGB60) have a range of only 1500m, very down graded.

    This sort of indicates that a ship like the Adm. Grigorovic has solid ASW capabilities, all included.


    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EkpjbdP6CHo

    miroslav
    Private
    Private

    Posts : 22
    Points : 24
    Join date : 2016-11-16

    Re: Naval Weapon Systems & Technology

    Post  miroslav on Tue Dec 13, 2016 11:20 pm

    miroslav wrote:
    nastle77 wrote:
    miroslav wrote:
    nastle77 wrote:
    Isos wrote:
    Militarov wrote:
    nastle77 wrote:Re RBU 6000
    Will it's rockets not explode if they hit surface ships or land targets ? Are they designed to explode only under water ?

    They will explode its very simple arming fuse, however why would you target surface ship with it? I dont see the situations for it myself. For shore bombardment sure, it would act like mortar but why against surface ships?

    Why not !  if it's close to you you fire with everything you have  to take advantage.
    Exactly was thinking of low tech littoral warfare involving small ships that routinely carried this system but didn't have submarine opponents and might end up fighting other smaller surface combatents  

    Theoretically this is all possible, but the system is not designed for it at all. This is essentially an area target weapon not a point target one. If you want to engage surface targets (sea or land) there are far, far more effective weapons like the main gun, as some one mentioned before, most ships equipped with RBU-600 will have at least a 57mm universal gun. Using an RBU-6000 up an close against an enemy ship is well, 19 century style.

    As far ass the fuse goes, its a dual one, it can be activates by contact and set to detonate at a certain depth, the minimal difference in depth that the grenades are set to is 5m. So a volley of 12 grenades will cover the dept from, for instance,  50 to 105 with detonations at every 5m, roughly. The fuse can be set manually or automatically, meaning, as an example: first three at 50, 70 and 80, second three at 100 120 140 and so on.

    The new versions of the grenades, like the ones on Adm. Girgorovic and I supose on the Udaloy class, have an active seeker head, basically a small sonar, the warhead is smaller (shaped charge for point contact) but that is a small drawback compare to the gains of having an active seeker head.

    Thanks for the explanation but if you look at some of the low-intensity conflict in third world countries until 80s they are kind of like 19 century.... most of the opponents are small combatants with few having capabilities of sophisticated antiship missiles and even then they only carry 2 to 4 missiles which when expended makes these small craft very vulnerable even to basic weapon systems esp since  most of their battles are in the littorals


    Dont get mo wrong I like the idea of a close up an dirty fight with ships, guns, speed and maneuvering.

    Here is the RBU-6000 one the Talwar's, same set up on the Adm. Grigorovic I presume, probably a better sonar and overall fire control, start at 3:56, it has 90R grenades as part of a standard load, active seeking ones, and 48 of them as a total combat load, including the standard RGB60 ones, they mainly use the RGB60 for mines and torpedoes and keep the 90R for submarines. Wikipedia says that the Indian ones (RGB60) have a range of only 1500m, very down graded.

    This sort of indicates that a ship like the Adm. Grigorovic has solid ASW capabilities, all included.


    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EkpjbdP6CHo

    This is better, and I am suppose to be working as a programmer.


    nastle77
    Sergeant
    Sergeant

    Posts : 173
    Points : 221
    Join date : 2015-07-25

    Re: Naval Weapon Systems & Technology

    Post  nastle77 on Wed Dec 14, 2016 9:04 pm

    Thanks
    I wonder why western navies did not retain similar weapons ?

    Singular_Transform
    Sergeant
    Sergeant

    Posts : 163
    Points : 165
    Join date : 2016-11-13

    aegis vs onyx / granit

    Post  Singular_Transform on Wed Dec 14, 2016 10:34 pm

    I spent same time to research the chances to kill a supersonic missile with a SAM.

    Interesting result.

    The Antley -2500 gladiator SAM has 0.6 chance to kill a non manoeuvring Lance ballistic missile.
    http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-Giant-Gladiator.html#mozTocId912634

    Say if it has 0.4 chance to kill a manoeuvring target then it needs 5 rocket for 90% kill chance.

    The gladiator is a monster, 10 meters long, 6 tons heavy.

    The advanced sea sparrow 3.6 meters long and 280 kg.


    The gladiator is designed against fast moving supersonic targets.


    What can be the kill chance of a sea sparrow against a granit or onyx? 0.2 ?

    Realistic it means the aegis has to launch 160 rocket against a 16 onyx salvo to kill 14 of them.

    However the kill chance smaller if the target is out of the optimal engagement range ( if the acceleration of the sea sparrow is 7 g then it will be around 14 km) , so 160 SAM will let through 4-8 onyx by quite high chance.

    Sponsored content

    Re: Naval Weapon Systems & Technology

    Post  Sponsored content Today at 8:23 pm


      Current date/time is Mon Jan 16, 2017 8:23 pm