Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    Naval Weapon Systems & Technology

    Share

    Austin
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 6008
    Points : 6420
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Location : India

    Re: Naval Weapon Systems & Technology

    Post  Austin on Sat Mar 02, 2013 2:04 pm

    Nice Post Mindstorm , Was missing you in action for some time , Welcome back

    Austin
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 6008
    Points : 6420
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Location : India

    Re: Naval Weapon Systems & Technology

    Post  Austin on Sat Mar 02, 2013 5:59 pm

    Mindstorm wrote:
    2) Hydrodynamics polymers delivering systems (to greatly enhances ,momentarily, submarine outer hull's hydrodynamics coefficient so to avoid enemy torpedo eventually not seduced/outranged)

    Those polymers system were known to be in development and Norman Polmar has hinted at it in this book but these systems were never operationalised on any submarine most certainly on Schuka/Akula class for sure.


    I should add here though Soviet/Russian submarine has many qualities that were non appreciated by Western Defence Journal types but professional in US who were not biased did appreciate qualities that russian submarine had lik greater depth , speed , energy , non-acoustic sensors.

    Most if the weakness in these areas where over come by west with Sea Wolf and Virginia class submarine which had similar depth , greater speed and other qualities that Soviet submarine enjoyed.

    Acoustically Speaking Akula class were equal or even superior to LA class and other western SSN but Sea Wolf and Virginia were acoustically far superior specially at high speed.

    Russia would come on par with most modern US submarine with Yasen class and perhaps Yasen-M might even give it some advantage acoustically speaking against most modern Western SSN.

    Ofcourse if the entire Zircon-S and 5th gen torpedo program is sucessful then 885M will be a different beast.
    avatar
    Stealthflanker
    Major
    Major

    Posts : 809
    Points : 895
    Join date : 2009-08-04
    Age : 29
    Location : Indonesia

    3R41 Volna Why it's so different than 5N63S

    Post  Stealthflanker on Wed Jul 24, 2013 2:21 pm



    Well..this is the 3R41 Volna used in Slava and Kirov for guidance of S-300F.

    One thing i wondered for quite long time was.. why this Radar was designed that way... I mean well the land based 5N63S for S-300P family use backplane feed where the transmit and receive feed is located behind the phased array antenna. But 3R41.. it use different arrangement referred as reflective phased array where the feed is located ahead of the array.

    Would be nice though if one can enlighten me on that subject.
    avatar
    Sujoy
    Lieutenant Colonel
    Lieutenant Colonel

    Posts : 911
    Points : 1077
    Join date : 2012-04-02
    Location : India

    Re: Naval Weapon Systems & Technology

    Post  Sujoy on Wed Jul 24, 2013 9:39 pm

    The phasing principle of the 3R41 Volna is different from a conventional phased array radar  .

    Instead of individual transciever elements, 3R41 Volna has a central feed (the nib on the center of the radome) which reflects phase-changed transmissions off a flat surface. 3R41 operates in the J-band.  3R41 applies it's phase changes to a flat array that acts as a reflector for the feed mounted on the radome .

    The small hemispheric radome is associated with the missile control system. The three long dielectric features on the sensor’s front are a  part of some sort of diagnostic subsystem, or an ECCM device .
    avatar
    Stealthflanker
    Major
    Major

    Posts : 809
    Points : 895
    Join date : 2009-08-04
    Age : 29
    Location : Indonesia

    Re: Naval Weapon Systems & Technology

    Post  Stealthflanker on Thu Jul 25, 2013 1:42 pm

    Sujoy wrote:The phasing principle of the 3R41 Volna is different from a conventional phased array radar  .

    Instead of individual transciever elements, 3R41 Volna has a central feed (the nib on the center of the radome) which reflects phase-changed transmissions off a flat surface. 3R41 operates in the J-band.  3R41 applies it's phase changes to a flat array that acts as a reflector for the feed mounted on the radome .

    The small hemispheric radome is associated with the  missile control system. The three long dielectric features on the sensor’s front are  a  part of some sort of diagnostic subsystem, or an ECCM device .

    I know..as i mentioned above the Volna is a Reflective phased array. The question is why it has to be like that.. Given that the S-300 family use backplane feed like one in 5N63S.

    I don't think there are any technical difficulties in making naval variant of the 5N63S..considering that today's Kirov use navalized 30N6 with backplane feed.

    There should be another reason which make me curious.

    Vann7
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 3338
    Points : 3462
    Join date : 2012-05-16

    Re: Naval Weapon Systems & Technology

    Post  Vann7 on Thu Aug 29, 2013 6:30 pm

    GarryB wrote: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.

    im wondering about your opinions about the claims of an user in another forum about Russia navy defense capabilities.. He told..


    Both AEGIS and the UK/French PAAMS are designed to counter "saturated attacks" of high performance, supersonic anti-ship missiles and aircraft. No Soviet missile would penetrate the defense systems of ANY AEGIS or PAAMS equipped warship.

    I would put PAAMS slightly above AEGIS in terms of air-defense capabilities - however AEGIS will regain parity or even exceed PAAMs in the near future (upgrades etc).

    Apart from AEGIS and PAAMS there is no other naval air-defense system that even comes close.

    The Chinese type 052C and future 052D destroyers are equipped with advanced AESA multi-function radars and long-range SAMs to provide similar capabilities of Western AEGIS/PAAMS systems. But we can safely assume that the Chinese "AEGIS" is still inferior to the Western systems. The Indian Navy is also developing its own "AEGIS" system in the new P-15A (Kolkata-class) and P-15B destroyers. But again, like the Chinese system it is still inferior to Western AEGIS and PAAMS. Germany and the Netherlands have also developed their own "AEGIS" like systems.

    The Russians as of yet have not developed any capable naval air defense systems and their fleet will still be vulnerable to anti-ship missiles like the Harpoon or Exocet.

    He seems a fanboy but not sure of any of his claims.. whats your take about his comments?
    it was in defense pk forums . can post the link of the conversation if you want.

    avatar
    TR1
    Colonel
    Colonel

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

    Re: Naval Weapon Systems & Technology

    Post  TR1 on Thu Aug 29, 2013 10:03 pm

    Russian fleet vulnerable to pedestrian missiles like Exocet and Harpoon?

    Excuse me while I laugh my ass off.

    ALso I love the certainty that he has that no Soviet missile would penetrate AEGIS.
    Sounds like a fanboy alright.
    avatar
    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 16077
    Points : 16768
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Naval Weapon Systems & Technology

    Post  GarryB on Fri Aug 30, 2013 1:04 pm

    No Soviet missile would penetrate the defense systems of ANY AEGIS or PAAMS equipped warship.
    An Iranian Airbus almost got through an AEGIS destroyers defences... the first shot they tried to fire failed and it was the second missile they fired within Iranian waters that murdered the 290 odd people on board.

    Moskit was in service in the early 1980s and it underflew AEGIS easily... the only defence the US Navy had on their AEGIS class cruisers that would get a shot at a Moskit was Phalanx and it is being replaced by SEA RAM because it can't hit low flying targets.

    No Soviet missile would penetrate the defense systems of ANY AEGIS or PAAMS equipped warship.
    A very strong statement. Does he know that on paper those Exocets used by Argentina against British warships should also have failed miserably as Britain had Exocets and knew all about them and the Sea Wolf was on paper able to shoot them down with ease... yet so many ships sunk.

    Apart from AEGIS and PAAMS there is no other naval air-defense system that even comes close.
    You are paying too much attention to what he is actually saying and ignoring what he is not saying.

    He clearly has an interest and has researched AEGIS and PAAMS, though to what level is not clear, the problem is clearly that he obviously knows nothing about Russian Naval air defence systems or development in that direction... what he really should be saying is:

    Apart from AEGIS and PAAMS there is no other naval air-defense system that I know of that even comes close in performance to the performance that I believe AEGIS and PAAMS has.

    Which I think you will agree can fail on two counts... over estimation of the performance of the systems compounded by his ignorance of any other system including new Russia weapons and their deployment.

    For years the USN has been quite worried about Moskit and its replacement Onyx, and also the Klub missile with a long range subsonic carrier missile with a mach 2.8 high speed rocket propelled terminal component... not to mention the service entry in the next decade of the hypersonic Brahmos II and Zirconium missiles... currently every new vessel made for the Russian navy is being fitted with UKSK launch bins from Corvette right up to carrier and all the subs as well to carry supersonic anti ship missiles and Tomahawk equivalents.

    The Russians as of yet have not developed any capable naval air defense systems and their fleet will still be vulnerable to anti-ship missiles like the Harpoon or Exocet.
    A single KASHTAN-M turret can engage up to 4 Harpoons or 4 Exocets at once and apart from light patrol boats I don't know of any Russian or Soviet vessel that just has one CIWS.


    _________________
    “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
    Stealthflanker
    Major
    Major

    Posts : 809
    Points : 895
    Join date : 2009-08-04
    Age : 29
    Location : Indonesia

    Re: Naval Weapon Systems & Technology

    Post  Stealthflanker on Sat Aug 31, 2013 3:15 pm

    Vann7 wrote:
    im wondering about your opinions about the claims of an user in another forum about Russia navy defense capabilities.. He told..

    Both AEGIS and the UK/French PAAMS are designed to counter "saturated attacks" of high performance, supersonic anti-ship missiles and aircraft. No Soviet missile would penetrate the defense systems of ANY AEGIS or PAAMS equipped warship.

    I would put PAAMS slightly above AEGIS in terms of air-defense capabilities - however AEGIS will regain parity or even exceed PAAMs in the near future (upgrades etc).

    Apart from AEGIS and PAAMS there is no other naval air-defense system that even comes close.

    The Chinese type 052C and future 052D destroyers are equipped with advanced AESA multi-function radars and long-range SAMs to provide similar capabilities of Western AEGIS/PAAMS systems. But we can safely assume that the Chinese "AEGIS" is still inferior to the Western systems. The Indian Navy is also developing its own "AEGIS" system in the new P-15A (Kolkata-class) and P-15B destroyers. But again, like the Chinese system it is still inferior to Western AEGIS and PAAMS. Germany and the Netherlands have also developed their own "AEGIS" like systems.

    The Russians as of yet have not developed any capable naval air defense systems and their fleet will still be vulnerable to anti-ship missiles like the Harpoon or Exocet.

    He seems a fanboy but not sure of any of his claims.. whats your take about his comments?
    it was in defense pk forums . can post the link of the conversation if you want.

    Typical old arguments..no need to get really worked up on it.

    AEGIS air defense are still limited by how many fire control director it can carry... even with 100++ standards.. Arleigh burke can only at best engage three of them at long range because it only carries three directors. SM-6 may improve their case though.. but with advent of naval based 9M96's..they're equal.

    I Don't really buy of "Over The Horizon Engagement" capability of the SM-6's as it still relies on other platform who were happen to spot the target to contact the missile carrier before launch.

    Russian naval air defense are more comprehensive than their western counterpart.. just take Kashtans.. combination between missile and guns.. can engage more targets than any EU or US Close in systems except RAM...along with Klinok and naval version of OSA's .. All of them have their own Radar's Thus won't disturb each other.. meaning more targets can be engaged independently.

    And even nicer that Russian CIWS often come in pair... instead typical western arrangement which favor single fighter arrangement.. meaning that Russian CIWS can put more lead on the air.. increasing probability of destruction of AsHM's

    And odds are that if Soviet doctrine implemented.. There would be jammers directed at the radar's...though this can be dealt with ECCM's ... and not to mention Soviet ASHM's are armored.. won't be easily brought down by typical SAM fragmentation warhead.

    avatar
    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 16077
    Points : 16768
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Naval Weapon Systems & Technology

    Post  GarryB on Sun Sep 01, 2013 10:28 am

    It is similar to the situation on land... the Soviets spend a lot of money on their air defences on land and sea because the west spent a lot on air power.

    The Soviets have systems like Kashtan and soon Pantsir-S1 with two 6 barrel gatling guns and 8 ready to fire missiles and 24 reload missiles on an automatic ammo handling system... do you think that is because they have rather more experience with supersonic anti ship missiles?

    As StealthFlanker mentions the total number of on board SAMs is not as important as the number of missile director channels you have... SA-2 SAM sites with the capability of engaging one target at a time means two cruise missiles at once are a serious threat... Vityaz with 16 missile directors each able to control 2 missiles against 1 target means 16 targets can be engaged at once with the high speed of the missile meaning more targets can be engaged per minute than with older slower missiles.


    _________________
    “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
    gaurav
    Master Sergeant
    Master Sergeant

    Posts : 312
    Points : 312
    Join date : 2013-02-19
    Age : 37
    Location : Blr

    Re: Naval Weapon Systems & Technology

    Post  gaurav on Thu Nov 07, 2013 5:56 am


    A bit of history is needed... in the 1980s the Soviets had two subsonic nuclear armed cruise missiles...
    Hi Garrry
    I would like to ask one thing can yu detail me the upgrade (only if yu have , it is not mandatory I mean) of Kirov class cruisers.
    The reason why I am saying this is...
    The thing is that we need to have this discussion at the same time next year. Perhaps in 1-2 years things will be much clear.



    I would also like to add that Russian Navy is not going to replace the launchers on  the  kirov class cruiser.

    I do not have the upgrade list for slava class cruiser and also for Kirov class cruisers. There is no upgrade list available on the internet for that matter.
    The discussion is Nakhimov, Ushakov Kirov class cruisers.
    Varyag,Moskava,Ustinov slava class cruiser.
    I suppose for both these upgrades we do not have enough information to suggest UKSK launchers will be installed.


    Coming back to the missiles teh Russian navy believes that bazalt , Granit  still match their performance requirements where as the Kalibre doesn't.

    This is a fact , I mean without proof Cool. Hence we cannot conclude on the deployment of UKSK launchers across the board of Russian Navy.

    For Russian corvettes and small ships the domain changes and the deployment of UKSK launchers is of timely necessity.
    avatar
    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 16077
    Points : 16768
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Naval Weapon Systems & Technology

    Post  GarryB on Fri Nov 08, 2013 10:50 am

    The UKSK is a universal launcher for land attack and anti ship and anti submarine cruise missiles.

    Kalibr is a cruise missile for land attack and offers a capability no variant of Granit or Vulkan can match... the ability to target and hit land targets.

    If there is a need to engage enemy surface vessels the Onyx is believed to fly at about mach 2.5-2.8 and have a flight range of between 500km and 700km... it is the missile the Yakhont is based upon.. but without the export restrictions.

    Granit is no longer in production and is no longer an option.

    The plan for the upgrade of the Kirovs is to add 10 UKSK launchers to allow those vessels to carry up to 80 heavy missiles... whether they are Kalibr, Klub, Onyx, Brahmos, or anti sub AS-15/16 rocket delivered torpedoes.

    Other modifications can obviously be speculated... the naval Koalition 152mm gun mount is an obvious choice for artillery and Kashtan-M would be ideally replaced by Pantsir-S1 turret mounts.
    Rif and Rif-M would obviously be replaced with Vityaz and naval S-400 and of course likely S-500 too.

    Much of that upgrade information is speculation on my part but the 80 tubes for UKSK has been mentioned by Russian officials.

    One of the criticisms of the Soviet Navy was the range of different weapons and sensors and systems and propulsion... one of the things they are aiming for is standardisation so all vessels will receive UKSK launch bins... the size of the vessel will determine the number of systems, but all will be standard.


    _________________
    “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 : 10121
    Points : 10615
    Join date : 2011-12-22
    Location : Greece

    Re: Naval Weapon Systems & Technology

    Post  George1 on Fri Nov 08, 2013 5:53 pm

    GarryB wrote:The UKSK is a universal launcher for land attack and anti ship and anti submarine cruise missiles.

    Kalibr is a cruise missile for land attack and offers a capability no variant of Granit or Vulkan can match... the ability to target and hit land targets.

    If there is a need to engage enemy surface vessels the Onyx is believed to fly at about mach 2.5-2.8 and have a flight range of between 500km and 700km... it is the missile the Yakhont is based upon.. but without the export restrictions.

    Granit is no longer in production and is no longer an option.

    The plan for the upgrade of the Kirovs is to add 10 UKSK launchers to allow those vessels to carry up to 80 heavy missiles... whether they are Kalibr, Klub, Onyx, Brahmos, or anti sub AS-15/16 rocket delivered torpedoes.

    Other modifications can obviously be speculated... the naval Koalition 152mm gun mount is an obvious choice for artillery and Kashtan-M would be ideally replaced by Pantsir-S1 turret mounts.
    Rif and Rif-M would obviously be replaced with Vityaz and naval S-400 and of course likely S-500 too.

    Much of that upgrade information is speculation on my part but the 80 tubes for UKSK has been mentioned by Russian officials.

    One of the criticisms of the Soviet Navy was the range of different weapons and sensors and systems and propulsion... one of the things they are aiming for is standardisation so all vessels will receive UKSK launch bins... the size of the vessel will determine the number of systems, but all will be standard.
    how many Kirovs will be upgraded? 2 pr 3?
    avatar
    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 16077
    Points : 16768
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Naval Weapon Systems & Technology

    Post  GarryB on Sat Nov 09, 2013 9:18 am

    From what I have read only 2. Sad


    _________________
    “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
    flamming_python
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 3208
    Points : 3328
    Join date : 2012-01-30

    Re: Naval Weapon Systems & Technology

    Post  flamming_python on Sat Nov 09, 2013 12:39 pm

    They should do all 4, and upgrade/finish all 4 Slavas too - put the Russian navy on the map Twisted Evil 

    If we saved the Akulas too; there wouldn't even any need for the Kuznetsov carrier right now; it could be undergoing modernisation at port where it belongs.

    ali.a.r
    Junior Sergeant
    Junior Sergeant

    Posts : 106
    Points : 111
    Join date : 2011-11-04

    Re: Naval Weapon Systems & Technology

    Post  ali.a.r on Sat Nov 09, 2013 12:51 pm

    If we saved the Akulas too; there wouldn't even any need for the Kuznetsov carrier right now; it could be undergoing modernisation at port where it belongs.
    How would subs compensate the role of a carrier?

    avatar
    TR1
    Colonel
    Colonel

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

    Re: Naval Weapon Systems & Technology

    Post  TR1 on Sat Nov 09, 2013 7:53 pm

    Only 2?

    Guys lets finish (or even start) Nakhimov before even talking about a 2nd ship.

    avatar
    flamming_python
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 3208
    Points : 3328
    Join date : 2012-01-30

    Re: Naval Weapon Systems & Technology

    Post  flamming_python on Sun Nov 10, 2013 12:42 am

    ali.a.r wrote:
    If we saved the Akulas too; there wouldn't even any need for the Kuznetsov carrier right now; it could be undergoing modernisation at port where it belongs.
    How would subs compensate the role of a carrier?

    Just the sheer awesomeness of the largest sub in the world, sitting hidden in the Meditteranean, filled to the brim with cruise missiles.

    Like a carrier, it would have enough firepower to level targets all over Syria; with no need for a carrier group, or in fact any other ships - to protect or support it; it would be completely autonomous and unexpected.
    avatar
    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 16077
    Points : 16768
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Naval Weapon Systems & Technology

    Post  GarryB on Sun Nov 10, 2013 7:23 am

    Smile

    Keep in mind that FP means the real shark... not the NATO shark... NATO name for Akula is Typhoon.

    Personally I can see where he is coming from but to me the long term plans seem to focus on the Pacific and Northern fleet, which means two main bases, which needs at least two main capital ships.

    They could certainly make them, but they already have two in the form of two Kirov class vessels plus an upgrade of the Slavas would mean a formidable force with modern systems... I would upgrade both the Kirovs and Slavas with nuclear propulsion and UKSK launchers...Slava having external angled launchers with 8 tubes replacing each existing two side by side tubes, while the Kirovs can have fully recessed vertical tubes... heck they could rotate them on the Slavas so they can have two UKSK launchers in each twin tube position so they have 16 x 8 tubes so 128 missiles ready to launch... quite potent...

    With every vessel equipped with Sigma data/communications/battle management hardware then every vessel can contribute to the air, space, sea surface and sea subsurface picture on every Navy vessel.

    The UKSK launcher allows each vessel to engage land, sea surface and sea subsurface targets, while Redut will allow air targets and with S-500 space targets to be engaged....

    Personally I would like to see the Akulas fitted out as motherships for a range of manned and unmanned mini and micro subs... used for mapping and tapping...


    _________________
    “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

    Rpg type 7v
    Junior Lieutenant
    Junior Lieutenant

    Posts : 419
    Points : 283
    Join date : 2011-05-01

    Re: Naval Weapon Systems & Technology

    Post  Rpg type 7v on Sun Nov 10, 2013 7:36 pm

    i dont know anything about submarines but i can talk about missiles ,and uksk launchers will have many negative effects on russian navy...
    avatar
    TR1
    Colonel
    Colonel

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

    Re: Naval Weapon Systems & Technology

    Post  TR1 on Sun Nov 10, 2013 8:55 pm

    Rpg type 7v wrote:i dont know anything about submarines but i can talk about missiles ,and uksk launchers will have many negative effects on russian navy...
    Please, do tell.

    I am looking foreward to more laughable "analysis".

    Negative effects like Russian surface combatants actually having a potent land strike ability across most platforms. Terrible!
    avatar
    Werewolf
    Colonel
    Colonel

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

    Re: Naval Weapon Systems & Technology

    Post  Werewolf on Mon Nov 11, 2013 3:39 am

    From where comes this russophobe weirdo that uses a russian weapon designation as a nickname?
    So much russophobic mumblings one after another i only have seen from hardcore polish,georgian,jews (zionistic),americans,majority of people from baltic countries or turkish people.
    Does that cover a place where you come from?
    avatar
    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 16077
    Points : 16768
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Naval Weapon Systems & Technology

    Post  GarryB on Mon Nov 11, 2013 11:21 am

    By all means share these negative effects with the rest of us.

    AFAIK the Russians don't have a don't ask don't tell policy when it comes to nuclear weapons on board, so that wont be a problem.

    Otherwise having one dedicated launcher means standardisation of launchers... the only moving parts are roof hatches so there is very little to go wrong with no ammo hoists or ammo handlers to load missiles... all are ready to go.

    Plus being universal launchers a range of weapons can be loaded to tailor the capabilities of the ships.

    Where previously a ship might have anti sub missiles or anti ship missiles now they can have a mix of weapons in larger numbers ready to fire with the addition of land attack, which was previously not available to the average Russian vessel.


    _________________
    “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

    Rpg type 7v
    Junior Lieutenant
    Junior Lieutenant

    Posts : 419
    Points : 283
    Join date : 2011-05-01

    Re: Naval Weapon Systems & Technology

    Post  Rpg type 7v on Tue Nov 12, 2013 9:08 pm

    well just 1 major flaw i can see is are you going to have the same number of short range sams as longrange sams because of uksk?
    i mean 1 tube fits all principle is flawed because missiles are of different sizes,short-medium-longrange A-A missile, or you going to have dedicated launchers?
    avatar
    medo
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 3136
    Points : 3234
    Join date : 2010-10-24
    Location : Slovenia

    Re: Naval Weapon Systems & Technology

    Post  medo on Tue Nov 12, 2013 9:36 pm

    Rpg type 7v wrote:well just 1 major flaw i can see is are you going to have the same number of short range sams as longrange sams because of uksk?
    i mean 1 tube fits all principle is flawed because missiles are of different sizes,short-medium-longrange A-A missile, or you going to have dedicated launchers?
    UKSK is meant for anti-ship missiles and land attack cruise missiles. SAMs have their own VLS. They don't use UKSK.

    Sponsored content

    Re: Naval Weapon Systems & Technology

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Wed Apr 26, 2017 7:29 pm