Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    Naval Weapon Systems & Technology

    Share

    Viktor
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5630
    Points : 6283
    Join date : 2009-08-26
    Age : 36
    Location : Croatia

    Re: Naval Weapon Systems & Technology

    Post  Viktor on Sat Mar 02, 2013 1:43 am

    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.

    TheArmenian
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 1523
    Points : 1686
    Join date : 2011-09-14

    Re: Naval Weapon Systems & Technology

    Post  TheArmenian on Sat Mar 02, 2013 11:42 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.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15490
    Points : 16197
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Naval Weapon Systems & Technology

    Post  GarryB on Sat Mar 02, 2013 11:57 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

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15490
    Points : 16197
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Naval Weapon Systems & Technology

    Post  GarryB on Sat Mar 02, 2013 12:36 pm

    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 : 737
    Points : 920
    Join date : 2011-07-20

    Re: Naval Weapon Systems & Technology

    Post  Mindstorm on Sat Mar 02, 2013 4:18 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 : 737
    Points : 920
    Join date : 2011-07-20

    Re: Naval Weapon Systems & Technology

    Post  Mindstorm on Sat Mar 02, 2013 4:52 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.



    Austin
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5680
    Points : 6086
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Age : 40
    Location : India

    Re: Naval Weapon Systems & Technology

    Post  Austin on Sat Mar 02, 2013 5:04 pm

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

    Austin
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5680
    Points : 6086
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Age : 40
    Location : India

    Re: Naval Weapon Systems & Technology

    Post  Austin on Sat Mar 02, 2013 8:59 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.

    Viktor
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5630
    Points : 6283
    Join date : 2009-08-26
    Age : 36
    Location : Croatia

    Re: Naval Weapon Systems & Technology

    Post  Viktor on Wed Mar 20, 2013 6:32 pm

    And by the end of this year we can expect air launched version too.



    India test-fires submarine-launched version of BrahMos missile


    VISAKHAPATNAM: India today successfully carried out the maiden test firing of the over 290km-range submarine-launched version of BrahMos supersonic cruise missile in the Bay of Bengal — becoming the first country in the world to have this capability.

    The submarine-launched version of BrahMos was successfully test-fired from an underwater pontoon near here, BrahMos CEO A Sivathanu Pillai told PTI.

    This is the first test-firing of an underwater supersonic cruise missile anywhere in the world and the missile travelled its complete range of over 290km, he said.

    He said the performance of the missile during the test launch was "perfect".

    Ship and ground-launched versions of the missile have been successfully tested and put into service with the Indian Army and the Navy.

    The maiden test of the submarine-launched version of BrahMos comes over a week after the indigenously built long-range subsonic cruise missile Nirbhay failed to hit its target in its first test.

    "BrahMos missile is fully ready for fitment in submarines in vertical launch configuration which will make the platform one of the most powerful weapon platforms in the world," Pillai said.

    Defence minister A K Antony congratulated DRDO scientists and Russian specialists along with officers of the Indian Navy associated with the project for successful test launch of missile from an underwater platform.


    LINK

    Sujoy
    Lieutenant Colonel
    Lieutenant Colonel

    Posts : 914
    Points : 1082
    Join date : 2012-04-02
    Location : India

    Re: Naval Weapon Systems & Technology

    Post  Sujoy on Wed Mar 20, 2013 8:22 pm

    And BRAHMOS released these pictures of the launch




    TR1
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5840
    Points : 5892
    Join date : 2011-12-07

    Re: Naval Weapon Systems & Technology

    Post  TR1 on Thu Mar 21, 2013 12:02 am

    Very interesting.

    What was the launch platform? And what in the Indian navy is going to be used as the platform?

    "This is the first test-firing of an underwater supersonic cruise missile anywhere in the world and the missile travelled its complete range of over 290km, he said."

    Cough nope cough Very Happy

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15490
    Points : 16197
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Naval Weapon Systems & Technology

    Post  GarryB on Thu Mar 21, 2013 1:35 am

    "This is the first test-firing of an underwater supersonic cruise missile anywhere in the world and the missile travelled its complete range of over 290km, he said."

    Hehehehe... a very impressive achievement... but not the first... or the second...


    _________________
    “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

    Sujoy
    Lieutenant Colonel
    Lieutenant Colonel

    Posts : 914
    Points : 1082
    Join date : 2012-04-02
    Location : India

    Re: Naval Weapon Systems & Technology

    Post  Sujoy on Thu Mar 21, 2013 10:39 am

    TR1 wrote:What was the launch platform?

    BRAHMOS did not mention the type of platform but stated that it was a launched from a submerged, stabilised and stationary platform

    TR1 wrote:And what in the Indian navy is going to be used as the platform?

    P75 (I) of Indian Navy

    TR1 wrote:"This is the first test-firing of an underwater supersonic cruise missile anywhere in the world and the missile travelled its complete range of over 290km, he said."

    Cough nope cough Very Happy

    The important part has been left out .
    For the first time a supersonic missile was launched VERTICALLY from a submerged, stabilised and stationary platform
    .

    So what exactly is the salient feature of a vertical launch ?

    When a cruise missile is vertically installed in vertical cannisters within the pressure-hull of a nuclear-powered SSGN, the cruises missile ( in this case BrahMos-1) increases the ‘offensive power’ of the SSGN without compromising on the SSGN’s ‘defensive power’ as the torpedo tubes can be fully utilised for engaging in undersea warfare while operating in the self-seeking hunter-killer mode.

    TR1
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5840
    Points : 5892
    Join date : 2011-12-07

    Re: Naval Weapon Systems & Technology

    Post  TR1 on Thu Mar 21, 2013 11:04 am

    How is that different from the multitude of Soviet subs that had vertically launched supersonic anti ship missiles?

    Scorpene is a pretty small sub, is the modified Indian variant going to be much bigger? Brahmos capability is impressive on such a hull, what is the number of tubes they are looking at?

    Sujoy
    Lieutenant Colonel
    Lieutenant Colonel

    Posts : 914
    Points : 1082
    Join date : 2012-04-02
    Location : India

    Re: Naval Weapon Systems & Technology

    Post  Sujoy on Thu Mar 21, 2013 11:11 am

    TR1 wrote:How is that different from the multitude of Soviet subs that had vertically launched supersonic anti ship missiles?

    The missile, BRAHMOS 1 was NOT launched from a submarine but a platform that was stabilized artificially . Having a stabilized platform launch a missile vertically is not something that has been achieved before , according to the BRAHMOS press release.

    http://www.brahmos.com/newscenter.php?newsid=166

    The same platform that was used for test-firing the B-O5/K-15 SLBM on January this year.

    TR1
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5840
    Points : 5892
    Join date : 2011-12-07

    Re: Naval Weapon Systems & Technology

    Post  TR1 on Thu Mar 21, 2013 11:21 am

    Oh in that sense, it maybe true. I don't know of any SOviet AShM testing was from stationary platforms or all subs .
    But its not really much of an achievement is it? Testing from an actual sub is far more indicative of ready for use.

    I think it was just them trying to put spin and hype on the launch Very Happy

    Any info on number of 75I tubes?

    Sujoy
    Lieutenant Colonel
    Lieutenant Colonel

    Posts : 914
    Points : 1082
    Join date : 2012-04-02
    Location : India

    Re: Naval Weapon Systems & Technology

    Post  Sujoy on Thu Mar 21, 2013 3:36 pm

    TR1 wrote:Any info on number of 75I tubes?

    The submarines that will come from off the shelf purchase will have 6 tubes. This design will have to be modified to accommodate the eight VL-tubes for BrahMos—a process that will take at least three years at the very least .

    Also , it needs to be pointed out that the the S-2 (Arihant), S-3 & S-4 nuclear-powered submarines will also cary the BRAHMOS 1 , since these vessels have been designed from the outset by Russia to carry such vertically-launched missiles in customised launch-silos

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15490
    Points : 16197
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Naval Weapon Systems & Technology

    Post  GarryB on Fri Mar 22, 2013 3:06 am

    Oh in that sense, it maybe true. I don't know of any SOviet AShM testing was from stationary platforms or all subs .
    But its not really much of an achievement is it? Testing from an actual sub is far more indicative of ready for use.

    I think it was just them trying to put spin and hype on the launch Very Happy

    Hahahaha... a bit like KBP saying that photos of early test launches of the Kornet-EM from a Tigr vehicle were the first launches of a supersonic guided anti tank missile from a Tigr.... sounds significant till you think about it.

    Lots of navies use test platforms for very early testing without risking an expensive submarine... or without having to take a sub from active service to perform a very early test of a missile.

    Regarding early supersonic antiship missiles launched from subs... Charlie, Oscar, Papa... let alone hypersonic ballistic missiles Hotel, Golf...


    _________________
    “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

    coolieno99
    Junior Sergeant
    Junior Sergeant

    Posts : 136
    Points : 159
    Join date : 2010-08-25

    Re: Naval Weapon Systems & Technology

    Post  coolieno99 on Mon Jul 15, 2013 2:21 am

    Kh-35 anti-ship missile


    Stealthflanker
    Major
    Major

    Posts : 808
    Points : 894
    Join date : 2009-08-04
    Age : 28
    Location : Indonesia

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

    Post  Stealthflanker on Wed Jul 24, 2013 4:21 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.

    Sujoy
    Lieutenant Colonel
    Lieutenant Colonel

    Posts : 914
    Points : 1082
    Join date : 2012-04-02
    Location : India

    Re: Naval Weapon Systems & Technology

    Post  Sujoy on Wed Jul 24, 2013 11:39 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 .

    Stealthflanker
    Major
    Major

    Posts : 808
    Points : 894
    Join date : 2009-08-04
    Age : 28
    Location : Indonesia

    Re: Naval Weapon Systems & Technology

    Post  Stealthflanker on Thu Jul 25, 2013 3:42 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 : 3236
    Points : 3360
    Join date : 2012-05-16

    Re: Naval Weapon Systems & Technology

    Post  Vann7 on Thu Aug 29, 2013 8:30 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.


    TR1
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5840
    Points : 5892
    Join date : 2011-12-07

    Re: Naval Weapon Systems & Technology

    Post  TR1 on Fri Aug 30, 2013 12:03 am

    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.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15490
    Points : 16197
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Naval Weapon Systems & Technology

    Post  GarryB on Fri Aug 30, 2013 3:04 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

    Sponsored content

    Re: Naval Weapon Systems & Technology

    Post  Sponsored content Today at 5:37 pm


      Current date/time is Sat Dec 10, 2016 5:37 pm