Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    Naval Weapon Systems & Technology

    Share
    avatar
    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 16107
    Points : 16798
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Naval Weapon Systems & Technology

    Post  GarryB on Tue Feb 05, 2013 9:07 am

    Actually I remember discussing the Paket system a while back and the person I was chatting to had concluded that the Paket system had been selected by the Russian Navy as the way forward.

    As far as anti torpedo systems go the Russians had the RBU series of depth charge throwers that launched a range of rocket types in the path of torpedoes including jammers, floating mines, and depth charges in the path of the incoming torpedoes... these rockets could also be used against divers and enemy submarines.

    The problem is that these rocket systems weren't very stealthy as they were not retractable.

    I have seen a ship design drawing I think Austin posted of a light patrol boat that seemed to have a vertical launch system that included small calibre rockets so they might be going to vertical launch alternatives, but I suspect the higher kill ratio of a Paket system against an enemy torpedo has been chosen for its cost effectiveness and stealthiness over the old RBUs.


    _________________
    “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
    avatar
    George1
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 10142
    Points : 10636
    Join date : 2011-12-22
    Location : Greece

    Russia to Develop Naval Equivalent of U.S. Aegis Defense System

    Post  George1 on Mon Feb 18, 2013 1:36 pm

    Russia is set to develop a sea-based missile defense program similar to the U.S. Aegis system, a senior defense industry official said on Friday.

    Aegis, designed to intercept ballistic missiles at the post-boost phase and prior to reentry, is part of the U.S. national missile defense strategy.

    “This task has been assigned to [the defense] industry,” said Anatoly Shlemov, head of the state defense contracts department at the United Shipbuilding Corporation.

    Aegis analogs are being developed at companies affiliated with PVO Almaz-Antei [an air defense concern],” he said.

    He declined to elaborate citing the classified nature of the topic.

    http://en.rian.ru/military_news/20120831/175538466.html
    avatar
    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 16107
    Points : 16798
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Naval Weapon Systems & Technology

    Post  GarryB on Tue Feb 19, 2013 9:31 am

    Actually that is not true... AEGIS is a naval based battle management system that takes data from sonar, radar and other sensors and combines them into a subsurface, surface, and air picture to help defend carrier battle groups at sea.

    Only recently has it acquired any ABM capability.

    The Russian Navy equivalent of AEGIS is called Sigma and pretty much does the same thing of combining data from subsurface, sea, land, air and space assets to provide a complete picture of the battlespace and can be used to direct the defence of assets.

    Even the smallest new Russian Corvette is being fitted with Sigma and the standard cruise missile VLS and SAM VLS systems. A tiny Corvette could use data from a carrier 500km away to launch a 400km range SAM at a target 300km away from the Corvette and 200km from the carrier using data from the carriers AWACS aircraft... not many other corvettes have that capacity.


    _________________
    “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
    avatar
    Viktor
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5678
    Points : 6327
    Join date : 2009-08-25
    Age : 36
    Location : Croatia

    Re: Naval Weapon Systems & Technology

    Post  Viktor on Thu Feb 21, 2013 1:09 am

    Well, interesting stuff. Smaller Brahmos-M is in the pipe and Su-30 will be able to carry 3 of them, and Mig-29 two as opposed to

    one Brahmos-A, Su-30 can carry.

    The development of a smaller version of the supersonic missile "Brahmos"

    20/02/2013 A joint Russian-Indian company BrahMos Aerospace began to develop a smaller version of the supersonic missile "Brahmos", said a source close to the Ministry of Defence of India.

    "Weight of the new missile will be 1.5 tons, length - about six feet - the source ITAR-TASS. "It will be for the Su-30MKI and MiG-29, however, for this and for other military vehicles that are in service or to be taken by the Air Force of India, including aircraft Rafale and Mirage 2000" - he said. However, he stressed that it is not a missile "Brahmos" airborne ("BrahMos-A"), the test to be held later this year. "This is a different missile, - he explained. - If the Su-30MKI can install only one missile "BrahMos-A", then "BrahMos-M - three. MiG-29 - it will be possible to establish two missile" BrahMos-M. " According to him, "BrahMos- M "will be first tested at 1.5 - 2 years. Its range also be about 290 km. According to the newspaper VIEW, January 9, in the Bay of Bengal command warship of the Indian Navy successfully launched the Indo-Russian supersonic cruise missile "Brahmos". rocket flew 290 kilometers (almost maximum range) and by doing "double maneuver in the form S" hit the ship-goal at the level of one meter above the waterline, the source said, adding that the ship was "broken through." In October, the first deputy director of the NGO Engineering Alexander Dergachev said run an anti-ship cruise missile "Brahmos" submarine-scheduled for the end of 2012. Dergachev reminded that the missile "Brahmos" is designed to be versatile, able to start as a marine and surface and underwater vehicles, with a slope of 15 to 90 degrees, and from the ground. Machinery NGO representative said that by surface missile "Brahmos" is armed with 10 ships of the Naval Forces of India, each of which is eight to 16 missiles of this class. Russian-Indian joint venture "BrahMos "(NGO Organization Engineering and Defence Research and Development of India), established in 1998, specializes in the creation of supersonic missile ship and shore-based. missile "Brahmos" is designed to engage a wide range of marine purposes. It is characterized by high-range (up to 290 km) , hypersonic speeds (up to 2.8 m), a powerful combat load (250 kg), and low signature to radar. missile, whose weight in the base case is three tons, can be adjusted in height from 10 meters to 14 thousand . meters with respect to the trajectory. in new rocket into practice the principle of "fire - forget" - a goal she finds herself. According to experts, this unique missile, which would have the supersonic speed and a similar range in the world yet.

    http://flotprom.ru/news/?ELEMENT_ID=138477

    avatar
    TR1
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5816
    Points : 5864
    Join date : 2011-12-06

    Re: Naval Weapon Systems & Technology

    Post  TR1 on Thu Feb 21, 2013 3:14 am

    I wonder what the point is.
    There is already Kh-31 with extended range for example.
    avatar
    AlfaT8
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 1233
    Points : 1242
    Join date : 2013-02-02

    Re: Naval Weapon Systems & Technology

    Post  AlfaT8 on Wed Feb 27, 2013 4:02 pm

    Anybody know the status of the naval version of Pantsir-S1?? study
    avatar
    Viktor
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5678
    Points : 6327
    Join date : 2009-08-25
    Age : 36
    Location : Croatia

    Re: Naval Weapon Systems & Technology

    Post  Viktor on Wed Feb 27, 2013 4:10 pm

    AlfaT8 wrote:Anybody know the status of the naval version of Pantsir-S1?? study

    I believe its in the pipeline.

    Pancir-S1 is for ADS is still in Ashuluk on a testing ground and a new version is about to enter service with new radar.

    Together with Tor-M1-2.
    avatar
    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 16107
    Points : 16798
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Naval Weapon Systems & Technology

    Post  GarryB on Thu Feb 28, 2013 4:57 am

    I wonder what the point is.
    There is already Kh-31 with extended range for example.

    Agreed... the French and Germans spent years talking about an anti ship missile that would be about 800kgs, would fly at Mach 2 with a 90kg warhead... they changed their minds several times and changed the name of it several times too but never actually got anything actually flying in the end.

    In comparison the Soviets got the anti ship and anti radar Kh-31 into service and have managed to make it lighter and faster and cover a greater range than was envisioned by the European missile design.

    There is no real benefit to creating a smaller Brahmos if it is going to replicate the performance of the Kh-31... it would make rather more sense to make a smaller Brahmos II hypersonic missile for tactical fighters and perhaps even helos and perhaps also a surface launched model for corvettes and perhaps conventional subs...

    I remember seeing a photo that claimed to be a reduced size Kh-35 uran for smaller vessels over shorter ranges, which would certainly be useful, but a hypersonic missile would be even more useful.

    I guess the main point of a smaller and lighter Brahmos would be to allow large numbers to be fired more rapidly to overwhelm the defences of any vessel/group of ships/land based target.

    A missile designed to fit in the rotary internal launcher of the Backfire would certainly be useful... especially as that would mean the Blackjack should be able to hold 24 such weapons if needed in a conventional strike mission...


    _________________
    “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

    eridan
    Junior Sergeant
    Junior Sergeant

    Posts : 135
    Points : 143
    Join date : 2012-12-13

    Re: Naval Weapon Systems & Technology

    Post  eridan on Thu Feb 28, 2013 10:11 am

    How is a missile which has same range, same speed and 2-3 times smaller warhead for 2-3 times more missiles per aircraft not worth it? And how does that fall into same category as even the most advanced kh31 missile, which still falls short in range compared to that. Making a smaller brahmos for air launch makes perfect sense. Current air launched variant, even if it is a bit lighter than regular variant, is really too much of a missile for 90% of possible missions. Plus there is the whole saturation of target thing which may prove worth the extra cost if it means actually getting some missiles to the target, even in those remaining 10% of the missions. Even an undetonated missile can serious endanger a ship, let alone coupled with 100 kg warhead. 300kg warheads are often overkill, especially so if it means having less individual missiles carried and launched.
    avatar
    KomissarBojanchev
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 1102
    Points : 1257
    Join date : 2012-08-05
    Age : 19
    Location : Varna, Bulgaria

    Re: Naval Weapon Systems & Technology

    Post  KomissarBojanchev on Thu Feb 28, 2013 1:22 pm

    I honestly dont think the shkval is an effective weapon now and wont be in the future due to:
    1. its extremely short range. A seahawk helicopter would destroy the submarine long before its in range to fire the shkval.
    2. Its too noisy and will emmediately uncover the submarines approximate location.

    I think AshMs like the klub and very long range high calibre torpedos are far more useful than submerged rockets.
    avatar
    TheArmenian
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 1630
    Points : 1793
    Join date : 2011-09-14

    Re: Naval Weapon Systems & Technology

    Post  TheArmenian on Fri Mar 01, 2013 7:51 am

    TR1 wrote:I wonder what the point is.
    There is already Kh-31 with extended range for example.

    Kh-31 is a decades old design that has been upgraded and re-upgraded. It can not be upgraded much more. While the Brahmos is new and has much more future potential. I bet the smaller missile, if it indeed is produced, will have a superior range compared to Kh-31 and be just as fast.
    avatar
    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 16107
    Points : 16798
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Naval Weapon Systems & Technology

    Post  GarryB on Fri Mar 01, 2013 9:04 am

    How is a missile which has same range, same speed and 2-3 times smaller warhead for 2-3 times more missiles per aircraft not worth it?

    When there is a missile already in service with similar flight parameters... the latest model Kh-31 in the anti ship/anti radiation model has a flight range of 250km, a flight speed of about mach 3, yet weighs about 650kgs... the Mig-35 could probably carry at least 6 of them, perhaps 8.

    Redesigning it for scramjet propulsion could result in a significant increase in speed and range.

    Not suggesting a smaller lighter Brahmos is a bad idea... just saying it already exists in the form of the late model Kh-31.

    I honestly dont think the shkval is an effective weapon now and wont be in the future due to:
    1. its extremely short range. A seahawk helicopter would destroy the submarine long before its in range to fire the shkval.
    2. Its too noisy and will emmediately uncover the submarines approximate location.

    The export model Shkval is unguided and is a short range self defence weapon that should be very effective as most counter measures take time to deploy.

    Shkval is but one tool in the tool kit... in a few years time submarines could be equipped with the sub equivalent of the 9M100, the land based version is called Morfei... it will be an imaging infrared guided missile with lock on after launch capability... that sea hawk has a very noisy engine...

    Longer range... better guidance... higher speed... it has a lot of potential.

    I think AshMs like the klub and very long range high calibre torpedos are far more useful than submerged rockets.

    Think of it in terms of aircraft... as everyone moves to more stealthy aircraft designs, then the usefulness of long range missiles diminishes because there is no point in having 500km range AAMs if the enemy planes can't be detected till they are within 10km... in which case the Shkval suddenly becomes a very potent weapon.

    Kh-31 is a decades old design that has been upgraded and re-upgraded. It can not be upgraded much more. While the Brahmos is new and has much more future potential. I bet the smaller missile, if it indeed is produced, will have a superior range compared to Kh-31 and be just as fast.

    I really don't see how that can be true... the current model Kh-31s use new fuels and new ramjet engines and new materials... there is nothing in the design of the Yakhont that makes it a better missile apart from scale allowing a larger warhead.

    The new model Kh-31 anti ship version has a range of 250km in its export model... to scale down the Brahmos they would need to take out fuel and warhead and make a smaller seeker.... and basically make a Kh-31.


    _________________
    “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

    eridan
    Junior Sergeant
    Junior Sergeant

    Posts : 135
    Points : 143
    Join date : 2012-12-13

    Re: Naval Weapon Systems & Technology

    Post  eridan on Fri Mar 01, 2013 11:22 am

    GarryB wrote:
    The new model Kh-31 anti ship version has a range of 250km in its export model... to scale down the Brahmos they would need to take out fuel and warhead and make a smaller seeker.... and basically make a Kh-31.

    That is all news to me. What credible link supports those numbers? All i've found so far is kh31ad version - http://eng.ktrv.ru/production_eng/323/512/564/ where it claims 715 kg weight, 110 kg weight of warhead, 160 km max theoretical range. Practical ranges fired from 10 km altitude and with sea skimming last phase would be less, as also pointed out at the website. So where did 250 km figure come from? That is some newest version? kh31adm or whatever?

    And it is wishful thinking that mig29/35 would carry more than 4 such missiles in any real world mission.
    avatar
    TR1
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5816
    Points : 5864
    Join date : 2011-12-06

    Re: Naval Weapon Systems & Technology

    Post  TR1 on Fri Mar 01, 2013 11:29 am

    http://eng.ktrv.ru/production_eng/323/511/565/

    As you can see the airframes range has no problem with 250km.


    Anyways this "small" Barhmos is vaporware so far. When it actually appears, we can compare.

    eridan
    Junior Sergeant
    Junior Sergeant

    Posts : 135
    Points : 143
    Join date : 2012-12-13

    Re: Naval Weapon Systems & Technology

    Post  eridan on Fri Mar 01, 2013 12:05 pm

    Ballistic range is irrelevant here. Missiles for s300 complex were tested in late 80s going over 300 km in pure ballistic profiles. Aim-54 could reach 300 km in a ballistic profile when properly launched but that is an useless figure.

    Those same pages give actual, more useful ranges in practice, up to 160 km for actual antishipping range of actual antishipping variant. Why cling on a figure taken as theoretical maximum of an airframe? It is there black on white, why pick a different set of figures on purpose, figures that are not meant to be interpreted as practical range values?

    It is much more useful to have a missile that will stay below the radar horizon for the whole 300 km of its flight range than one that will have to be fired at 15 km altitude, at mach 1,5, then go into a climb and painfully glide to squeeze out all energy to reach 250 km, leaving no energy for course correction (which may not even be efficient if missile is fyling too high) no energy for end manouvers and overall little chance of doing its mission since it was flying over the radar horizon, in a straight and steady trajectory, and took some 5-6 minutes to do it all, exposing itself to the target and possible interceptors.

    A 1200-1500 kg brahmos-lite stands much better chances of actually completing its mission, and doing it from somewhat longer range.

    Mindstorm
    Captain
    Captain

    Posts : 765
    Points : 948
    Join date : 2011-07-20

    Re: Naval Weapon Systems & Technology

    Post  Mindstorm on Fri Mar 01, 2013 3:43 pm


    I honestly dont think the shkval is an effective weapon now and wont be in the future due to:
    1. its extremely short range. A seahawk helicopter would destroy the submarine long before its in range to fire the shkval.
    2. Its too noisy and will emmediately uncover the submarines approximate location.



    And anyone here honestly hope that your opinion will be totally shared by US Navy Command and those of its allied nations ,it would be a true dream realized Very Happy
    Unluckily i honestly believe that they share the opinion exactly opposite to yours.....



    1) Shkval-E torpedo offered on international market is not only a vastly downgraded version of the first model of VA-111 (capable moreover to hit only surface units ) but also show an immensely simplified propulsion section just to prevent anyone to obtain ,from samples of this export version ,any technical information useful for develop, at its own time, a supercavitating torpedo version even only on par with the first domestic version.

    2) Even this vastly downgraded unguided export version of the first model of VA-111 can represent a simply deadly weapon ,without any peer among competitors in the hands of a proficient operator.
    The weapon ,in facts, assure the destruction of the attacked targets in spite of any defensive torpedo counter-measure on board for the simple reason that ,in virtue of its enormous speed ,it can literally proceed toward the computed intercept point in a totally unguided way (therefore totally immune to any soft-kill countermeasure) and still prevent the engaged ship to avoid the impact in any way; also the immensely more advanced and faster guided version can initiate the terminal , completely inertial, engagement phase toward the intercept point far outside the range of any anti-torpedo defensive countermeasure.
    The only real defensive countermeasure against those class of weapons is represented by active anti-torpedo hard-kill defensive systems such as "Paket" ,anyhow with reduced threat's suppression chances; but ,at today ,exactly as for VA-111 torpedo, don't exist any western corresponding to Paket hard kill defensive system. Wink )



    A seahawk helicopter would destroy the submarine long before its in range to fire the shkval.


    Laughing Laughing Laughing


    Dozen of different systems could be used to attempt to engage an enemy submarine .....if detected in first instance and....if detected long enough .
    Several of those systems, wanting only to talk of conventional means, are hundreds of times more efficient than an Sh-60 (used mostly to deploy sonobuoys screens or to remotely investigate a "contact" at a speed of....170-180 km/h Laughing

    Do you know, if you receive a remote contact from a sonobuoys barrier or a bottom MAD sensors or thermo-differential detector or even a distant submarine or ship, two or three RPK-7 "Veter" or 91R1 "Kalibr" going toward the coordinates at more than 1800 km/h or 2400 km/h have several hundreds of times more chances to destroy the detected enemy submarine before the contact go lost.

    Returning to the real range of detection of enemy submarines (outside national sea areas covered by overlapping sensor systems) results obtained by the entire ASW screens of US NAvy CVBGs against even the most outdated foreign conventional submarines -several of which vastly inferior even to export models of first version ok Kilo class - are ......not perfectly encouraging.





    This is a cute photo taken by the......Oberon-class !!! .... HMAS "Onslow" submarine of the Nimitz-class aircraft carrier USS "Carl Vinson" ,just before executing its simulated "kill" from ....300 yards after having surpassed totally undetected the surface and submarine screen of the CVBG










    This is USS "Enterprise" ,in all its beauty, kindly eternalized by a photo from a German Type 206A












    This instead is a lovely closing salutation ,before the kill, from the much more modern Type 212, SMG "S. Todaro" to the Nimitz-class aircraft carrier USS "Theodore Roosevelt" ,just seconds after having engaged also a destroyer of its escort Wink







    And so on with Australian Collin class, Chinese Song class , Dutch Zwaardvis-class etc…..

    With VA-111-E (export version) torpedo any submarine, in the same conditions and operation time, would have been perfectly capable to engage the entire CVBG instead of one or two at maximum, with the absolute certainty ,not only that none of the attacked ships would have been capable to neutralize in any way the menace , but that the immensely reduced time for the target's destruction and the lack of need for any wire guidance wouldn't have conceded to them any window for execute a counter attack on the submarine .


    "seahawk helicopter would destroy the submarine long before its in range to fire the shkval".......oh yes, yes, of course. Rolling Eyes Rolling Eyes


    avatar
    Werewolf
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5380
    Points : 5623
    Join date : 2012-10-24

    Re: Naval Weapon Systems & Technology

    Post  Werewolf on Fri Mar 01, 2013 6:04 pm

    like a boss Cool
    avatar
    KomissarBojanchev
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 1102
    Points : 1257
    Join date : 2012-08-05
    Age : 19
    Location : Varna, Bulgaria

    Re: Naval Weapon Systems & Technology

    Post  KomissarBojanchev on Fri Mar 01, 2013 6:54 pm

    Another doubt about russian weapons capability once again destroyed for good Very Happy
    However If an oliver perry FFG, P-3 orion, etc. do eventually locate a soviet submarine(lets say schuka-1 for example)and release the AS torps what kinds of countermeasures do the sovietsailors have at their diposal? Will we see the paket in the yasen and lada class?
    avatar
    TR1
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5816
    Points : 5864
    Join date : 2011-12-06

    Re: Naval Weapon Systems & Technology

    Post  TR1 on Fri Mar 01, 2013 9:15 pm

    eridan wrote:Ballistic range is irrelevant here. Missiles for s300 complex were tested in late 80s going over 300 km in pure ballistic profiles. Aim-54 could reach 300 km in a ballistic profile when properly launched but that is an useless figure.

    Those same pages give actual, more useful ranges in practice, up to 160 km for actual antishipping range of actual antishipping variant. Why cling on a figure taken as theoretical maximum of an airframe? It is there black on white, why pick a different set of figures on purpose, figures that are not meant to be interpreted as practical range values?

    It is much more useful to have a missile that will stay below the radar horizon for the whole 300 km of its flight range than one that will have to be fired at 15 km altitude, at mach 1,5, then go into a climb and painfully glide to squeeze out all energy to reach 250 km, leaving no energy for course correction (which may not even be efficient if missile is fyling too high) no energy for end manouvers and overall little chance of doing its mission since it was flying over the radar horizon, in a straight and steady trajectory, and took some 5-6 minutes to do it all, exposing itself to the target and possible interceptors.

    A 1200-1500 kg brahmos-lite stands much better chances of actually completing its mission, and doing it from somewhat longer range.
    The Brahmos will most certainly not be achieving 300km range if it is flying low for the entire flight path.

    Why would the AS variant not be able to do 250km, when the anti-radiation variant can do that much vs smaller targets?
    Mind you these are all export range figures. Would not be shocked in the least that the Russian anti-ship variant can hit past 250km assuming a favorable launch profile.
    avatar
    Viktor
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5678
    Points : 6327
    Join date : 2009-08-25
    Age : 36
    Location : Croatia

    Re: Naval Weapon Systems & Technology

    Post  Viktor on Fri Mar 01, 2013 10:43 pm

    I agree here with Eridan.

    Here is Kh-31AD airborne anti-ship guided

    - missile weight 715kg
    - missile range up to 160km when launched from H=15km, M=1.5

    This are the numbers for export version of course and we can expect better ones with the Russian one, but still
    as with every missile, range shrinks with speed/denser air/time in such conditions etc

    Having air launched "small" Brahmos with the up to 1500kg weight (double the Kh-31AD weight) would mean:

    - larger range (because of more fuel)
    - bigger warhead (double the weight in comparison with Kh-31AD, can afford it)
    - more demanding fight profiles with less range penalty (in relative values in comparison with Kh-31AD)
    - 3 "small" Brahmos missiles per Su-30 and 2 per MIG-29.


    eridan wrote:Ballistic range is irrelevant here. Missiles for s300 complex were tested in late 80s going over 300 km in pure ballistic profiles. Aim-54 could reach 300 km in a ballistic profile when properly launched but that is an useless figure.

    You are mixing oranges and apples.

    Ballistic range when talking S-300 is important and in no way connected with the continuation of your story about Kh-31.
    avatar
    TheArmenian
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 1630
    Points : 1793
    Join date : 2011-09-14

    Re: Naval Weapon Systems & Technology

    Post  TheArmenian on Sat Mar 02, 2013 8:42 am

    TR1 wrote:
    Why would the AS variant not be able to do 250km, when the anti-radiation variant can do that much vs smaller targets?
    Mind you these are all export range figures. Would not be shocked in the least that the Russian anti-ship variant can hit past 250km assuming a favorable launch profile.

    Because the Anti-Ship variant has to carry the radar which adds weight and occupies space. The AR version of the Kh-31 had always a greater range than the AS version.
    avatar
    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 16107
    Points : 16798
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Naval Weapon Systems & Technology

    Post  GarryB on Sat Mar 02, 2013 8:57 am

    Ballistic range is irrelevant here. Missiles for s300 complex were tested in late 80s going over 300 km in pure ballistic profiles. Aim-54 could reach 300 km in a ballistic profile when properly launched but that is an useless figure.

    Air breathing missiles rarely have "ballistic" ranges.

    The range given of 180-250km is determined not by kinematic range and ballistic range, but by altitude and speed at launch.. which means it is not much different from Brahmos.

    Those same pages give actual, more useful ranges in practice, up to 160 km for actual antishipping range of actual antishipping variant.

    That is the launch range limit and is based mainly on detection range of the seeker and launch platform.

    It is much more useful to have a missile that will stay below the radar horizon for the whole 300 km of its flight range than one that will have to be fired at 15 km altitude, at mach 1,5, then go into a climb and painfully glide to squeeze out all energy to reach 250 km, leaving no energy for course correction (which may not even be efficient if missile is fyling too high) no energy for end manouvers and overall little chance of doing its mission since it was flying over the radar horizon, in a straight and steady trajectory, and took some 5-6 minutes to do it all, exposing itself to the target and possible interceptors.

    A low all the way Brahmos is a mach 1.5 missile, which is still a very difficult target, but it wont be a 300km distant target either.

    Ramjets love the thin cold air up high... most jet engines do.

    Both missiles are designed for use against the USN and it is assumed that they will have AWACS aircraft and early detection... the purpose of the high speed is to minimise their reaction time so they don't have much time to do anything about it.

    A 1200-1500 kg brahmos-lite stands much better chances of actually completing its mission, and doing it from somewhat longer range.

    For the vast majority of targets either missile would be fine... for many targets Kh-35 subsonic Uran is overkill.

    Please keep in mind that the Kh-31 we have data for is for EXPORT... the export model of the Kh-38 is listed as having a range of 40km on the website above, yet Russian military personel have stated that the domestic version will have a range of 80km.

    Even assuming a 160km missile range for the antiship model of Kh-31, what sort of magic are you expecting for a mini brahmos?

    Both are ramjet powered missiles... they have different weights and different payloads and different ranges but the same basic design. When you reduce the weight of the brahmos you will just end up with Kh-31 and to be honest if you want an effective mini missile it would make rather more sense to scale up a Kh-31 than to scale down a Brahmos because scaling down everything in size and weight is harder and more expensive than fitting a slightly larger warhead and adding more fuel to the Kh-31.

    300km is not some magic figure that will make the launch aircraft safe... flying at mach 1.5 at 15km altitude 140km from a target makes you pretty safe from most sea targets.

    And it is wishful thinking that mig29/35 would carry more than 4 such missiles in any real world mission.

    Why? If the target has to be saturated to ensure a kill there is no reason why a Mig-35 couldn't carry 6 or more.


    Because the Anti-Ship variant has to carry the radar which adds weight and occupies space. The AR version of the Kh-31 had always a greater range than the AS version.

    The new model ARMs carry broad band antennas to detect a wide range of signals and computers for signal processing to locate the emitter with an autopilot in case the emitter turns off during the attack... after the first anti ship missile has been fired it would actually make a lot of sense to fire a few ARMs at the ships to mix things up.


    _________________
    “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
    avatar
    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 16107
    Points : 16798
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Naval Weapon Systems & Technology

    Post  GarryB on Sat Mar 02, 2013 9:36 am

    Yes, I know it is just a model...



    But it is a model that shows on the side closest to the camera what appears to be a 1,500kg guided bomb, an AS-11 anti radiation missile and a TV guided Kh-29 missile. The Kh-29 is over 600kgs, as is the Kh-58 (AS-11), and of course the KAB-1500 is also well over 600kgs, so I would expect a load of 6 Kh-31s should be possible with an R-77 and R-73 on each wing for self defence would be a very practical load for the Mig-35.

    Make a missile that is 1.2 tons and it will likely only be able to carry two or perhaps three.

    The whole point in making it smaller is to either carry more, or be able to deploy it on a wider range of platforms... or both.

    Kh-31 allows more to be carried than a 1-1.2 ton mini Moskit.


    _________________
    “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
    Captain
    Captain

    Posts : 765
    Points : 948
    Join date : 2011-07-20

    Re: Naval Weapon Systems & Technology

    Post  Mindstorm on Sat Mar 02, 2013 1:18 pm




    If an oliver perry FFG, P-3 orion, etc. do eventually locate a soviet submarine(lets say schuka-1 for example)and release the AS torps what kinds of countermeasures do the sovietsailors have at their diposal? Will we see the paket in the yasen and lada class?


    Paket ?

    Likely you have completely lost mine point in calling Paket hard kill defensive system in the argumentation : Paket is required for neutralize SUPERCAVITATING torpedo, with speed in exceeds of 220 kn, against which neither maneuvering, neither soft kill countermeasures can achieve any effect.
    At today a pr. 971 would never have the problem to confront a supercavitating torpedo for the simple reason that no "enemy" Navy has any of them in theirs inventory.

    Returning to your question, i find it very strange because, by now, is a commonly accepted fact that, on average, Russian nuclear submarine's survivability is MUCH, MUCH GREATER than all theirs western counterparts.

    The reasons contributing to that are several ,among which:


    1) Significantly higher depth limit
    2) Significantly higher speed and maneuverability
    3) Double hull construction
    4) Employment of higher yield steel ( AK-29 and Ak-32 steel since plain Cold War against the HY-60 and 80 used by US Very Happy )
    5) Extensive employment of titanium/titanium alloys
    6) Much greater reserve buoyancy
    7) Higher compartmentalization
    Cool Significantly lower magnetic signature
    9) Superior level of automation and systems redundancy
    10)Greater propulsion reactor's density (reduced chance of hit and of critical propulsion failure)

    If we talk of the Akula class named in your question, we must add to what up said also:

    1) Presence of the unique -not foreign analogues- MG-74/74M or MG-104 multispectral programmable decoy, capable to perfectly mimic submarine signatures, movements and behavior for more than an hour !!
    2) Hydrodynamics polymers delivering systems (to greatly enhances ,momentarily, submarine outer hull's hydrodynamics coefficient so to avoid enemy torpedo eventually not seduced/outranged)


    Just to provide a measure of the difficulty to hit a submarine proceding at high speed and great depth, is sufficient to remember that an APR-3/3M rocket propelled torpedo (also here we talk of a weapon with absolutely not western analogue) used also in anti-submarine variant of "Kaliber" missile, with a terminal engagement speed of about 100 knot ,about 2 times and half the speed of a Mk-46 torpedo..., and with significantly more powerful warhead than Mk-46 too, can engage targets with a maximum speed of 43 knot when this target proceed at depth greater than 290 m(naturally at the grow of the depth the Pk decrease accordingly)


    But all of what said obviously make no difference for the US, for no other reason that the unique nations it attack (in big NATO coalitions ,always enjoying crushing numerical advantage and ,very often, only after years of insulating international embargo) are only immensely inferior ones equipped with few export versions of weapon systems 30-35 years older. Razz Razz




    Mindstorm
    Captain
    Captain

    Posts : 765
    Points : 948
    Join date : 2011-07-20

    Re: Naval Weapon Systems & Technology

    Post  Mindstorm on Sat Mar 02, 2013 1:52 pm



    Next generation -5th- torpedo "Ломонос" and new generation of anti-torpoedo countermeasure МГ-124 "Бериллий" to be introduced within four years ; other programs in advancement too.



    http://www.almaz.info/3124.html



    Very likely the introduction of Pr. 885M, improved Yasen class, will follow the state test acceptance of those new generation weapons and defensive systems.



    Sponsored content

    Re: Naval Weapon Systems & Technology

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Sun Apr 30, 2017 2:57 pm