Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    Questions Thread: Russian Navy

    Share

    IronsightSniper
    Junior Lieutenant
    Junior Lieutenant

    Posts : 496
    Points : 520
    Join date : 2010-09-25
    Location : California, USA

    Questions Thread: Russian Navy

    Post  IronsightSniper on Mon Dec 27, 2010 3:40 pm

    Despite their size, why do Russian subs carry less SLBMs then smaller U.S. Subs despite having SLBMs of the same performance?

    nightcrawler
    Lieutenant
    Lieutenant

    Posts : 559
    Points : 687
    Join date : 2010-08-20
    Age : 27
    Location : Pakistan

    Re: Questions Thread: Russian Navy

    Post  nightcrawler on Mon Dec 27, 2010 6:33 pm

    IronsightSniper wrote:Despite their size, why do Russian subs carry less SLBMs then smaller U.S. Subs despite having SLBMs of the same performance?
    Thats a very good observation. Assuming you are right & you are I say that because Russian designed turbines & related assembly is relatively more spacious; this too holds true for their aeroplane engines length.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15440
    Points : 16147
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Questions Thread: Russian Navy

    Post  GarryB on Tue Dec 28, 2010 9:48 am

    First of all in general the Soviet and now Russian SLBMs are generally bigger than US missiles which makes packing more missiles easier.

    Second Soviet and Russian subs are double hulled which makes them much bigger than western submarines.

    Third the Soviet and Russian preferred more subs rather than lots of missiles in fewer subs.

    Fourth, despite the fact that the Ohio class SSNs carry 24 missiles their standard warhead load is 7 warheads which means in terms of SLBM warheads it had 168 warheads per boat. The Akula class (Western designation Typhoon) carried 20 missiles but each missile normally carried 10 warheads for a total of 200 warheads per boat.
    The Akula was design specifically to operate under the north pole icecap as it had a very high freeboard (ie it sat very high in the water when it is on the surface) and was designed to surface through up to 4 metres of solid ice. The idea was for it to find a shallow part of the ice and surface up through it to fire its missiles. Its sides would be protected by the ice hanging down around it from SSN attack and it would be too far north to attack with aircraft.

    I should point out that the long range subsonic cruise missiles the Russians make are every bit as good as their US equivelents in terms of range and speed and weight. The Kh-102 and 101 weigh more and are in the 2 ton weight class but their fight range is 5,500km.

    IronsightSniper
    Junior Lieutenant
    Junior Lieutenant

    Posts : 496
    Points : 520
    Join date : 2010-09-25
    Location : California, USA

    Re: Questions Thread: Russian Navy

    Post  IronsightSniper on Tue Dec 28, 2010 11:26 am

    Problem is that apparently the Kh-101 is non-existent.

    Size comparison:

    Trident II
    ----------
    13.4 meters long
    2.11 meters wide
    58.5 tonnes

    Bulava
    --------
    12.1 meters long
    2.1 meters wide
    36.8 tonnes


    So the Bulava is clearly smaller, yet when one compares their launch platforms:

    Ohio class
    ----------
    18,750 tonnes submerged
    170 meters long
    13 meters wide

    Borei Class
    -----------
    24,000 tonnes submerged
    170 meters long
    13.5 meters wide

    So the Borei is also clearly equal or larger to the Ohio. Yet the Borei can only carry 16 Bulavas total compared to the Ohio carrying 24, which is a huge difference in carrying capacity, despite the equal Sub sizes and even a lighter missile for the Borei. Although the double hull might explain that though. If I may so inquire, would would the Russians prefer less Missiles per subs in favor of more Subs? My first guess was to spread out their forces so that the loss of one Sub won't mean crippling the Nuke Trinity, but wouldn't more Nukes per Sub and More Subs per fleet be even better?

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15440
    Points : 16147
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Questions Thread: Russian Navy

    Post  GarryB on Tue Dec 28, 2010 12:38 pm

    Very simply they don't want all their eggs in one basket.

    With a reduction of nuclear weapons warheads to 1,500 that means each branch of the nuclear triad has 500 warheads each... that is two and a half Akula class subs. Three subs would be easier to keep track of than 8 newer more capable vessels.

    More nukes and more subs is not necessary and these days with limits on warheads and platforms it makes no sense to continue cold war subs.

    Another issue is that MIRV missiles can't be used against widely scattered targets so the sub will have a designated launch area and from that area certain targets can be reached. Carrying enormous numbers of missile warheads wont result in a lot more targets being engaged, rather it would simply result in some targets getting multiple warheads targeted at them.

    Another aspect is that Soviet/Russian subs tend to be a bit roomier for the crew and they don't follow the US practise of hot racking where the crew is divided into 3 x 8 hour shifts where one shift is at work, one is sleeping, and one is eating/relaxing/exercising/reading/etc. This means each rating shares his bunk with two other people.
    In comparison the Akula had an aviary, a library, two swimming pools, a picture theatre, and each officer had their own cabin and there were two ratings to each bunk room. Luxury.

    Problem is that apparently the Kh-101 is non-existent.

    You might want to tell the Russian military because every time they mention air launched cruise missiles they talk about missiles with flight ranges of over 5,000km. They will have lots of Kh-55s in stock but no model Kh-55 has that sort of range... the first model had a 2,500km range and the later model with the saddle fuel tanks had a 3,500km range, but neither approached 5,000km with any flight profile option.

    Viktor
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5627
    Points : 6280
    Join date : 2009-08-25
    Age : 36
    Location : Croatia

    Re: Questions Thread: Russian Navy

    Post  Viktor on Mon Feb 07, 2011 10:21 pm

    I wonder what if project 20120 Sarov class with nuclear propulsion and VLS with navalized Iskander system in antiship role?

    Or perhaps mix of Iskander/Clubs. Iskander is stated to be maneuverable with different terminal guidance systems.

    A launch of mix of such weapons would surely left all ships no matter they spec in great problems.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15440
    Points : 16147
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Questions Thread: Russian Navy

    Post  GarryB on Fri Feb 11, 2011 1:16 am

    This forum is the only place I have seen a navalised Iskander mentioned, so I can't see the current makers of Russian anti ship missiles too keen to add another missile type... especially when Brahmos II is being worked on.

    To put it in perspective they currently have a huge number of anti ship weapons either in service or ready for service, from the older systems like Termit, Malakhit, Granit and Vulkan, through to Moskit, Oniks, Uran, plus the new model Uran with double the range of old Uran, the Club series of missiles that are air, sea and sub launched. And that doesn't include air to surface missiles that have an anti ship role from SHTURM/ATAKA, through Kh-25 versions, Kh-29, Kh-31... including a new model Kh-31 with double the range of the previous model, and of course the Kh-58 and Kh-59M and then there is the dedicated Kh-22M anti radiation/anti ship missiles.

    Even here I am assuming the Bazalts are being replaced by Vulkans.

    Very simply the Russians have inherited an enormous range of weapons from small ATGMs that can be used to hit the engine compartment of a fishing boat to make it stop without obliterating the entire vessel or killing everyone on board right through to nuclear armed supersonic sea skimmers that would vapourise any ship it hit... and lots of stuff in between.

    The universal launchers the Russians are developing include one for SAMs and one for other missile types... the later is the USUK system that as far as I know can carry a range of missile types. Specifically they can carry the 5,000km range convention or nuclear armed Kh-101/Kh-102 missiles, the Club series of surface launched missiles, which includes a subsonic all the way missile for anti ship use and land attack, and a subsonic most of the way and mach 3 for the last portion to penetrate CIWS defences version, and it also includes a missile that is basically a rocket that delivers a torpedo payload up to 40km away from the ship, and finally it can handle the Brahmos missile or the Oniks missile or the Yakhont missile.

    Note the Oniks missile is the original Soviet/Russian missile and the Yakhont is the downgraded shorter range limited warhead size missile developed from the Oniks for export. The Brahmos is the greatly updated missile developed with India that is based on the Yakhont, so its avionics are better but its range and warhead are smaller because Brahmos and Yakhont are restricted by export agreements while the Oniks is not. I would suspect that the new build Oniks might include many of the new technologies created and the improvements made during the development of the Brahmos. I think because of this the Russians might just introduce that into service and call it Brahmos. They would not be able to export that model of course.

    So the USUK can carry a 5,000km range nuclear armed cruise missile, a 5,000km range conventionally armed cruise missile, a missile that flies at subsonic speed all the way to its target which should be good for most targets, with a range of at the very least of 400km and likely 500km because it is for Russian use and not being exported so it is not restricted by any export restrictions, a missile that flies at subsonic speed most of the distance to a target to make it hard to detect and to give it a longer range than if it flew supersonic all the way which
    should be good for well defended or alert targets, with a range of at the very least of
    400km and likely 500km because it is for Russian use and not being
    exported so it is not restricted by any export restrictions, a missile that will deliver a homing torpedo up to 40km away from the ship, and a choice of two missiles (Oniks and Brahmos) which fly at just under Mach 3 all the way to their targets 300kms or more away.

    The point is that if you want to fire a Mach 7 missile that manoeuvres and can reach targets 400km away then the S-400 is likely being navalised and on its way soon... and more than likely an S-500 development will also be in the works as well to counter USN developments in this regard too.

    Vladimir79
    Grand Marshal
    Grand Marshal

    Posts : 2193
    Points : 3099
    Join date : 2009-07-10

    Re: Questions Thread: Russian Navy

    Post  Vladimir79 on Fri Feb 11, 2011 1:55 pm

    IronsightSniper wrote:Despite their size, why do Russian subs carry less SLBMs then smaller U.S. Subs despite having SLBMs of the same performance?

    Sineva is like half a meter wider than Trident. Bigger diameter means more space required. Bulava is the same size but going on smaller submarines.

    woogar
    Private
    Private

    Posts : 1
    Points : 3
    Join date : 2011-10-30

    Ekranoplans

    Post  woogar on Sun Oct 30, 2011 9:20 am

    I have read on the internet, 'rumours' that the Russian Navy will being an Ekranoplan project again. Does anyone know anything about this? I saw this article on it coldwarcontinues dot blogspot dot com

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15440
    Points : 16147
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Questions Thread: Russian Navy

    Post  GarryB on Mon Oct 31, 2011 1:08 am

    Rumours about the Ekranoplan is a bit like rumours about the A-42 Albatross... there is all sorts of speculation about whether the Russian Navy will or will not fund these programs.

    For the A-42 some say it is too specialised and expensive and that because they will only need a dozen or so at most for the Black and Baltic sea fleets, because sea conditions in the northern fleet and pacific fleet mean that for most of its time it will not be able to land on the sea surface will make it a very expensive aircraft to operate and use.

    A more conventional shape like that of the Tu-214 or something similar would be far more cost effective.

    The issue is what can its unusual design bring to the table that is worth the cost and effort and cannot be achieved through other means or simply the navy can do without the capability it provides.



    The same question will be asked of Ekranoplan designs.

    BTW Woogar it is a forum rule that you introduce yourself in the "members introductions and rules" thread. Smile

    George1
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 9422
    Points : 9914
    Join date : 2011-12-22
    Location : Greece

    3M51 Alfa submarine launched cruise missile

    Post  George1 on Mon Jan 23, 2012 4:05 am

    he 3M51 Alfa is a submarine launched cruise missile (SLCM) designed to engage surface ships and targets on-shore. The 3M51 uses a layout similar to the 3M54 Club missile system with a highly subsonic first stage that runs for several hundreds kilometers and a terminal highly supersonic stage carrying the warhead. The supersonic stage is intended to penetrate advanced air defenses and runs for 30 to 50 kilometers. The Alfa missile can be equipped with a nuclear warhead and its range could vary between 300 to 800 kilometers. The Russian Navy's Project 885 Yasen nuclear attack submarines are the primary carriers for the 3M51 Alfa cruise missiles.

    http://www.deagel.com/Land-Attack-Cruise-Missiles/3M51_a002397001.aspx

    Any info?

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15440
    Points : 16147
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Questions Thread: Russian Navy

    Post  GarryB on Mon Jan 23, 2012 10:50 am

    This Alpha is related to the Granat that the Klub series are based on.

    Very simply Granat and Alpha are dead, Klub is the future and includes domestic granat and alpha equivalents.

    The UKSK vertical launch systems being introduced on Navy subs and ships carries Klub and Oniks/Yakhont/Brahmos, and Kh-101/102 type missiles.

    George1
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 9422
    Points : 9914
    Join date : 2011-12-22
    Location : Greece

    SS-N-21 Sampson SLCM

    Post  George1 on Wed Jan 25, 2012 2:26 pm

    The Novator RK-55 Granat (Russian: РК-55 Гранат 'Garnet'; NATO:SSC-X-4 'Slingshot'; GRAU:3K10) was a Soviet land-based cruise missile with a nuclear warhead. It was about to enter service in 1987 when such weapons were banned under the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty. A version launched from submarine torpedo tubes, the S-10 Granat (SS-N-21 'Sampson';GRAU:3M10), has apparently been converted to carry conventional warheads and continues in service to this day.

    Is this cruise missile still in production for Russian attack nuclear submarines?

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15440
    Points : 16147
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Questions Thread: Russian Navy

    Post  GarryB on Wed Jan 25, 2012 11:01 pm

    Granat is basically Klub/Club/Kalibr.

    Must ships and subs in the new Russian fleet will have UKSK launchers for various Klub and other missiles.

    George1
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 9422
    Points : 9914
    Join date : 2011-12-22
    Location : Greece

    Re: Questions Thread: Russian Navy

    Post  George1 on Wed Jan 25, 2012 11:05 pm

    What about the acula, sierra, victor SSNs? Are they armed with ss-n-21?

    TR1
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5840
    Points : 5892
    Join date : 2011-12-06

    Re: Questions Thread: Russian Navy

    Post  TR1 on Wed Jan 25, 2012 11:15 pm

    They used to carry them yes. If they do today is a separate question. Not sure if a conventionally armed variant was ever fielded, and Russian attack subs stopped carrying nuclear weapons in the early 90s, I think.

    George1
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 9422
    Points : 9914
    Join date : 2011-12-22
    Location : Greece

    Re: Questions Thread: Russian Navy

    Post  George1 on Wed Jan 25, 2012 11:29 pm

    i thought it was conventionally armed like US Tomahawk

    TR1
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5840
    Points : 5892
    Join date : 2011-12-06

    Re: Questions Thread: Russian Navy

    Post  TR1 on Wed Jan 25, 2012 11:33 pm

    It was nuclear from outset. Wikipedia makes conventional claims, but weather a conventional variant was actually fielded in the 90s or not, I don't know.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15440
    Points : 16147
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Questions Thread: Russian Navy

    Post  GarryB on Thu Jan 26, 2012 1:32 am

    AFAIK the Klub series was the result of trying to make conventionally armed versions of the Granat, that led to anti ship models with both subsonic all the way and mixed subsonic and supersonic flight profiles.
    The addition of solid rocket propelled torpedo systems was an added bonus.

    Nuclear weapons were totally withdrawn from Russian Navy vessels, but I believe they are going to... if they haven't already, returning them to service as a counter to the significant difference in force levels of NATO, US, and Russian fleets.

    A sub with a few cruise missiles is much more of a threat to a carrier battle group if its anti ship missiles are nukes and of course the ability to deliver a cruise missile attack (conventional or nuke) makes their vessels much more flexible and capable.


    medo
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 3051
    Points : 3149
    Join date : 2010-10-24
    Location : Slovenia

    Re: Questions Thread: Russian Navy

    Post  medo on Sun Apr 29, 2012 10:49 am

    I would more like to ask about their replacement. Years ago there were plans for Katran and Scorpion missile boats,but now no news about them. I think at least one Scorpion boat was in building.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15440
    Points : 16147
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Questions Thread: Russian Navy

    Post  GarryB on Mon Apr 30, 2012 12:59 am

    Well the introduction of the UKSK launcher means that instead of a small light missile boat you can have a slightly larger corvette that is significantly better armed.

    The main problem with the small missile boat is its vulnerability... it tended to have short range SAMs and limited radar performance and the equivalent fire power of a battleship with 4-8 anti ship missiles.

    It was a bit too fragile and a helo with a weapon like Sea Skua was a serious threat.

    A corvette on the other hand is a larger vessel with greater range, longer endurance, SIGMA C4IR systems, and even with one UKSK launcher you combine the two small missile boat and torpedo boat options together with the potential to carry up to 8 Onyx or Brahmos missiles, or 8 anti sub torpedos delivered up to 40km from the ship by a mach 1.5 rocket or a combination of them and also the subsonic and supersonic models of Klub and of course land attack missiles too.

    The larger corvette will also have the capacity for a much heavier SAM defence enabling it to protect itself from helos and aircraft to much longer ranges.

    The vertical launch tubes take up more internal space but are much more stealthy with no moving parts reducing maintainence requirements.

    I wonder if there are plans to add Kh-35s to the UKSK missile system. There was talk of adding SAM capacity, which would mean instead of separate UKSK and SAM launchers you could just have more UKSK launchers, but the problem is that the missiles used in the UKSK system are largely similar... very long relatively narrow missiles.

    I would guess that stacking missiles in modules might allow more efficient use of the space... for instance in the space you put one Yakhont missile you might be able to fit 6 small short range IIR guided missiles based on Morfei/9M100 in a module that takes the width a Yakhont missile takes up, but the huge length of the Yakhont you might be able to stack 3 modules in the space one Yakhont missile takes up.

    This would mean that there are three modules in the tube and for the first 6 targets the missiles are catapulted from the top module and when the top module is empty it is ejected making the next module ready to fire and once it is empty it is ejected and the last module is ready to fire. The ejection of the modules could be by rocket launching it up and then a side rocket launching it out into the sea, or the modules could be designed and aligned so that the lower modules use the upper tubes as barrels to launch the lower missiles through.

    This would make it simpler and safer with the modules removed and reloaded in port.

    Big modules being blown around the place creates a problem whereas the missiles in the lower modules can launch up through the tubes of the missiles above and push out the ejection mechanism of the missile above them ahead of them as they exit the tube. They could be made disposable... using compressed air or something.

    The result of course is that a Corvette with two UKSK launchers could have 8 Oniks missiles in one bin... which could potentially include hypersonic 1,000km range anti ship missiles and up to 144 short range lock on after launch IIR guided SAMs.

    TR1
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5840
    Points : 5892
    Join date : 2011-12-06

    Re: Questions Thread: Russian Navy

    Post  TR1 on Mon Apr 30, 2012 4:57 am

    medo wrote:I would more like to ask about their replacement. Years ago there were plans for Katran and Scorpion missile boats,but now no news about them. I think at least one Scorpion boat was in building.

    21631 methinks is excellent replacement.

    George1
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 9422
    Points : 9914
    Join date : 2011-12-22
    Location : Greece

    Re: Questions Thread: Russian Navy

    Post  George1 on Mon Apr 30, 2012 5:23 am

    GarryB wrote:
    I wonder if there are plans to add Kh-35s to the UKSK missile system. There was talk of adding SAM capacity, which would mean instead of separate UKSK and SAM launchers you could just have more UKSK launchers, but the problem is that the missiles used in the UKSK system are largely similar... very long relatively narrow missiles.


    I dont think that VLS is needed for fast attack missile boats. I think Project 1242.1/1241.8 'Molniya' further development of the Tarantul family boats can be a replacement with canisters for Uran-E.

    Concerning Project 21631 it has the double displacement of 21630. About 1000tons and speed about 25 knots. Tarantul has 45 knots.

    A fast attack craft (FAC) is a small, fast, agile and offensive warship armed with anti-ship missiles. FACs are usually operated in close proximity to land as they lack both the sea-keeping and all-round defensive capabilities to survive in blue water. Sizewise they are usually between 400 tonnes and can reach speeds of 35–50 knots.

    Corvettes will operate in greater proximity to land. And mainly they will have ASW role with Paket NK system and 91RE2 missiles in VLS (Project 20385)


    TR1
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5840
    Points : 5892
    Join date : 2011-12-06

    Re: Questions Thread: Russian Navy

    Post  TR1 on Mon Apr 30, 2012 6:05 am

    The speed won't be much of a loss when we consider that with UKSK they have weapons with far greater range + speed. Much more usefull than the carriers speed IMO.
    It is more of a "Nanuchka" replacement, I don't think we will see a direct Tarntul replacement.
    I am more concerned by the targeting means of the 21631s long range weaponry.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15440
    Points : 16147
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Questions Thread: Russian Navy

    Post  GarryB on Mon Apr 30, 2012 8:47 am

    I would expect a move away from having large numbers of fast attack craft and a move to larger vessels.

    Certainly a few FACs each with 16 Kh-35s would be very capable vessels, but they are like eggs... very thin shells...

    A corvette would be more useful and the larger corvettes able to carry light helos or indeed rotary wing UAVs would be more useful than a FAC of old.

    Sponsored content

    Re: Questions Thread: Russian Navy

    Post  Sponsored content Today at 7:49 am


      Current date/time is Sat Dec 03, 2016 7:49 am