Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    Do you think Russia should build new Aircraft Carriers and Battlecruisers?

    Share

    Poll

    Do you think russia should start designing a replacement for the Kirov class?

    [ 20 ]
    77% [77%] 
    [ 6 ]
    23% [23%] 

    Total Votes: 26
    avatar
    KomissarBojanchev

    Posts : 1170
    Points : 1329
    Join date : 2012-08-05
    Age : 19
    Location : Varna, Bulgaria

    Re: Do you think Russia should build new Aircraft Carriers and Battlecruisers?

    Post  KomissarBojanchev on Wed Mar 19, 2014 7:10 am

    I made a drawing of a stealth cruiser design for russia and will soon upload it. Its specifications:3x2 Koalition turrets, 8x pantsyrs, 160 zirkon ASMs, 32 S-500, 160 S-400 in redut.
    Proper number for them :4
    names:
    Chapayev
    Maxim Gorkiy
    Kalinin
    Chkalov
    avatar
    Morpheus Eberhardt

    Posts : 1945
    Points : 2066
    Join date : 2013-05-20

    Re: Do you think Russia should build new Aircraft Carriers and Battlecruisers?

    Post  Morpheus Eberhardt on Wed Mar 19, 2014 7:39 am

    KomissarBojanchev wrote:I made a drawing of a stealth cruiser design for russia and will soon upload it. Its specifications:3x2 Koalition turrets, 8x pantsyrs, 160 zirkon ASMs, 32 S-500, 160 S-400 in redut.
    Proper number for them :4
    names:
    Chapayev
    Maxim Gorkiy
    Kalinin
    Chkalov

    Let's see it then.

    How about calling one of them Крым and another Севастополь.
    avatar
    Morpheus Eberhardt

    Posts : 1945
    Points : 2066
    Join date : 2013-05-20

    Re: Do you think Russia should build new Aircraft Carriers and Battlecruisers?

    Post  Morpheus Eberhardt on Wed Mar 19, 2014 8:00 am

    Morpheus Eberhardt wrote:
    KomissarBojanchev wrote:I made a drawing of a stealth cruiser design for russia and will soon upload it. Its specifications:3x2 Koalition turrets, 8x pantsyrs, 160 zirkon ASMs, 32 S-500, 160 S-400 in redut.
    Proper number for them :4
    names:
    Chapayev
    Maxim Gorkiy
    Kalinin
    Chkalov

    Let's see it then.

    How about calling one of them Крым and another Севастополь.

    You should also add UKSKs for antisubmarine missiles, Medvedka-2, and Paket-Eh/NK.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16281
    Points : 16912
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Do you think Russia should build new Aircraft Carriers and Battlecruisers?

    Post  GarryB on Wed Mar 19, 2014 8:35 am

    I suspect the 160 Zirconium Missiles are in UKSK launchers... 20 of them.

    The thing is that the Naval industry is having trouble completing Frigates and you want uber cruisers with twice the number of UKSK launchers as will likely be fitted to upgraded Kirovs...

    The facts are that supported ground forces are effective... rather more effective than air power alone.

    These Mistral carriers will be very useful to the Russian Navy and there is no way France will try to hurt Russia by paying millions of Euros in penalties anyway.

    France has covered its a$$ by drawing a line where Russia probably wouldn't cross anyway... Russia wants calm in the Ukraine... only the coup leaders benefit from violence and chaos.


    _________________
    “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

    Vann7

    Posts : 3452
    Points : 3570
    Join date : 2012-05-16

    Re: Do you think Russia should build new Aircraft Carriers and Battlecruisers?

    Post  Vann7 on Wed Mar 19, 2014 10:49 am

    KomissarBojanchev wrote:I made a drawing of a stealth cruiser design for russia and will soon upload it. Its specifications:3x2 Koalition turrets, 8x pantsyrs, 160 zirkon ASMs, 32 S-500, 160 S-400 in redut.
    Proper number for them :4
    names:
    Chapayev
    Maxim Gorkiy
    Kalinin
    Chkalov

    I was thinking in doing something similar.. lol
    But my artistic abilities in 3d graphics not good enough. Will be nice if you use a real design ,not just a fake one..
    For example take the design of Admiral Gorshov Frigate and scale it to the size of a kirov cruser.and check how many weapons it could carry.
    avatar
    KomissarBojanchev

    Posts : 1170
    Points : 1329
    Join date : 2012-08-05
    Age : 19
    Location : Varna, Bulgaria

    Re: Do you think Russia should build new Aircraft Carriers and Battlecruisers?

    Post  KomissarBojanchev on Wed Mar 19, 2014 2:44 pm

    Morpheus Eberhardt wrote:
    KomissarBojanchev wrote:I made a drawing of a stealth cruiser design for russia and will soon upload it. Its specifications:3x2 Koalition turrets, 8x pantsyrs, 160 zirkon ASMs, 32 S-500, 160 S-400 in redut.
    Proper number for them :4
    names:
    Chapayev
    Maxim Gorkiy
    Kalinin
    Chkalov

    Let's see it then.

    How about calling one of them Крым and another Севастополь.
    This:


    I took these with a webcam bc I dont have a camera.
    edit:I noticed the main guns are out of proportion. Soryy about that.
    avatar
    Flyingdutchman

    Posts : 543
    Points : 561
    Join date : 2013-07-30
    Location : The Netherlands

    Re: Do you think Russia should build new Aircraft Carriers and Battlecruisers?

    Post  Flyingdutchman on Wed Mar 19, 2014 3:38 pm

    KomissarBojanchev wrote:
    Morpheus Eberhardt wrote:
    KomissarBojanchev wrote:I made a drawing of a stealth cruiser design for russia and will soon upload it. Its specifications:3x2 Koalition turrets, 8x pantsyrs, 160 zirkon ASMs, 32 S-500, 160 S-400 in redut.
    Proper number for them :4
    names:
    Chapayev
    Maxim Gorkiy
    Kalinin
    Chkalov

    Let's see it then.

    How about calling one of them Крым and another Севастополь.
    This:


    I took these with a webcam bc I dont have a camera.
    edit:I noticed the main guns are out of proportion. Soryy about that.


    very nice drawing!!!
    would be awesome if the RU navy is getting something like that!! russia 
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16281
    Points : 16912
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Do you think Russia should build new Aircraft Carriers and Battlecruisers?

    Post  GarryB on Thu Mar 20, 2014 12:56 am

    If France refuses to sell Mistrals it would be better to get all the money back and penalties than keep half a boat.

    @KomissarBojanchev

    Nice... but very narrow. I would suggest making it 1.5-2 times wider... which would greatly increase internal volume for a range of other systems.

    Down each side I would even consider a runway surface for UCAVs to take off and land perhaps with a hangar in the centre... one strip for takeoff and one for landing so there is less chance of a collision...


    _________________
    “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
    Morpheus Eberhardt

    Posts : 1945
    Points : 2066
    Join date : 2013-05-20

    Re: Do you think Russia should build new Aircraft Carriers and Battlecruisers?

    Post  Morpheus Eberhardt on Thu Mar 20, 2014 1:00 am

    GarryB wrote:If France refuses to sell Mistrals it would be better to get all the money back and penalties than keep half a boat.

    @KomissarBojanchev

    Nice... but very narrow. I would suggest making it 1.5-2 times wider... which would greatly increase internal volume for a range of other systems.

    Down each side I would even consider a runway surface for UCAVs to take off and land perhaps with a hangar in the centre... one strip for takeoff and one for landing so there is less chance of a collision...

    VTOL UCAV, Garry.
    avatar
    collegeboy16

    Posts : 1184
    Points : 1201
    Join date : 2012-10-05
    Age : 20
    Location : Roanapur

    Re: Do you think Russia should build new Aircraft Carriers and Battlecruisers?

    Post  collegeboy16 on Thu Mar 20, 2014 5:01 am

    fck VTOLs, any high-performance UCAV needs to shave as much needless weight- hover equipment useful only for takeoff and landing is best example.

    Vann7

    Posts : 3452
    Points : 3570
    Join date : 2012-05-16

    Re: Do you think Russia should build new Aircraft Carriers and Battlecruisers?

    Post  Vann7 on Thu Mar 20, 2014 7:16 am

    medo wrote:Half of Sevastopol Mistral is still in Russia. If France cancel this contract, Russia could still build the other half and finish this ship.

    Nah.. Russia should give away the mistral totally.. take not a single one.

    and use the money to build new stealth nuclear super cruisers to replace their kirov class. with state of the art warships.
    avatar
    TR1

    Posts : 5699
    Points : 5735
    Join date : 2011-12-06

    Re: Do you think Russia should build new Aircraft Carriers and Battlecruisers?

    Post  TR1 on Thu Mar 20, 2014 7:41 am

    You guys are drunk if you think "stealth nuclear cruisers" the size of the 1144s will be built for the Mistral sum.

    It will cost far, far more. And no it wont be happening.

    Russia isn't building ships of that size any time soon- and what is the point? Nakhimov is being modernized, and Peter the Great eventually as well.

    The sensible thing to do with this money is to convert another shipyard to 22350 production.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16281
    Points : 16912
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Do you think Russia should build new Aircraft Carriers and Battlecruisers?

    Post  GarryB on Thu Mar 20, 2014 1:27 pm

    You guys are drunk if you think "stealth nuclear cruisers" the size of the 1144s will be built for the Mistral sum.

    You are quite right... a new from scratch battle cruiser would not be so cheap and could not be built any time soon.

    VTOL UCAV, Garry.

    I remember a biplane design from a Soviet designer that when the aircraft took off as the wheels folded up they took the lower wing of the biplane arrangement and folded it up into the upper wing for high speed flight. This meant for takeoff and landing it was a biplane with lots of lift and excellent low speed handling, but for normal flight it was low drag higher speed monowing design.

    this sort of innovative design is the sort of stuff they should be working on.

    A Hovercraft with a wing so it can land on any surface as a hovercraft but accelerate to flight speed and take off using a wing like an aeroplane...

    Nah.. Russia should give away the mistral totally.. take not a single one.

    and use the money to build new stealth nuclear super cruisers to replace their kirov class. with state of the art warships.

    Two helicopter carriers would be far more useful to Russia than any stealth battle cruiser.


    _________________
    “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
    KomissarBojanchev

    Posts : 1170
    Points : 1329
    Join date : 2012-08-05
    Age : 19
    Location : Varna, Bulgaria

    Re: Do you think Russia should build new Aircraft Carriers and Battlecruisers?

    Post  KomissarBojanchev on Thu Mar 20, 2014 4:56 pm

    GarryB wrote:
    You guys are drunk if you think "stealth nuclear cruisers" the size of the 1144s will be built for the Mistral sum.

    You are quite right... a new from scratch battle cruiser would not be so cheap and could not be built any time soon.

    VTOL UCAV, Garry.

    I remember a biplane design from a Soviet designer that when the aircraft took off as the wheels folded up they took the lower wing of the biplane arrangement and folded it up into the upper wing for high speed flight. This meant for takeoff and landing it was a biplane with lots of lift and excellent low speed handling, but for normal flight it was low drag higher speed monowing design.

    this sort of innovative design is the sort of stuff they should be working on.

    A Hovercraft with a wing so it can land on any surface as a hovercraft but accelerate to flight speed and take off using a wing like an aeroplane...

    Nah.. Russia should give away the mistral totally.. take not a single one.

    and use the money to build new stealth nuclear super cruisers to replace their kirov class. with state of the art warships.

    Two helicopter carriers would be far more useful to Russia than any stealth battle cruiser.
    The designer you're talkinga bout was Nikitin with the IS-1 and 2 but they were obsolete from the moment they were designed since any kinds of biplanes became unacceptable by that time and the IS-1 was basically an I-15 with your mentioned wing configuration.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16281
    Points : 16912
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Do you think Russia should build new Aircraft Carriers and Battlecruisers?

    Post  GarryB on Fri Mar 21, 2014 2:06 am

    The designer you're talkinga bout was Nikitin with the IS-1 and 2 but they were obsolete from the moment they were designed since any kinds of biplanes became unacceptable by that time and the IS-1 was basically an I-15 with your mentioned wing configuration.

    What made them obsolete was the fact that engine power increased dramatically.

    To get airborne with a low power engine you need a lot of lift and biplanes of the day provided that lift. Designing a biplane was no good because in combat it had too much drag and was too slow. the key however was that these planes were only slow biplanes during takeoff and landing which made takeoff and landing much safer because the speeds were lower and the landing strip could be much much shorter.

    the design allowed a short takeoff and landing roll while allowing low drag high speed flight... but like the swing wing the cost was complication and weight.

    there was no obvious reason why such an arrangement could not have worked and it too would have benefited from the more powerful engines too.


    the main problem is that you want lots of lift to fly high but you don't want long wings on a boat... perhaps a design where the wings fold but the aircraft can takeoff with the wings vertically where they can twist to force them horizontal once they are clear of the ship with the natural air flow and then twist back up to generate lift to avoid hitting the sea...

    recovery could be lowered skirt for hovercraft air pocket in the belly to land on water and then attach to a crane to lift it aboard the vessel and wings fold as it is lifted...

    Nah I think biplane is better with lots of lift for low speed takeoff and landing with mono plane config for high speed flight... or an airship.


    _________________
    “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
    Morpheus Eberhardt

    Posts : 1945
    Points : 2066
    Join date : 2013-05-20

    Re: Do you think Russia should build new Aircraft Carriers and Battlecruisers?

    Post  Morpheus Eberhardt on Fri Mar 21, 2014 2:51 am

    GarryB wrote:
    I remember a biplane design from a Soviet designer that when the aircraft took off as the wheels folded up they took the lower wing of the biplane arrangement and folded it up into the upper wing for high speed flight. This meant for takeoff and landing it was a biplane with lots of lift and excellent low speed handling, but for normal flight it was low drag higher speed monowing design.

    Those were IS-1, IS-2, IS-3, IS-4, ... by Nikitin and Shevchenko.

    Here’s a picture of IS-1.

    avatar
    Morpheus Eberhardt

    Posts : 1945
    Points : 2066
    Join date : 2013-05-20

    Re: Do you think Russia should build new Aircraft Carriers and Battlecruisers?

    Post  Morpheus Eberhardt on Fri Mar 21, 2014 2:59 am

    Any configuration that a person can imagine has been built by the Russians, including AC with aircushion landing gear.

    Also look at VVA-14 VTOL and 14M1P. Pictures will follow some day.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16281
    Points : 16912
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Do you think Russia should build new Aircraft Carriers and Battlecruisers?

    Post  GarryB on Fri Mar 21, 2014 3:28 am

    Any configuration that a person can imagine has been built by the Russians, including AC with aircushion landing gear.

    I know... but now the design bureaus themselves have supercomputers to test hundreds of designs at a time... they should start looking at the creative talent like Bartini and plenty of other designers.

    Sometimes a new technology is all that is needed to overcome the barriers that prevented good ideas getting into service all those years ago.


    _________________
    “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
    Morpheus Eberhardt

    Posts : 1945
    Points : 2066
    Join date : 2013-05-20

    Re: Do you think Russia should build new Aircraft Carriers and Battlecruisers?

    Post  Morpheus Eberhardt on Fri Mar 21, 2014 6:30 am

    KomissarBojanchev wrote:
    Morpheus Eberhardt wrote:
    KomissarBojanchev wrote:I made a drawing of a stealth cruiser design for russia and will soon upload it. Its specifications:3x2 Koalition turrets, 8x pantsyrs, 160 zirkon ASMs, 32 S-500, 160 S-400 in redut.
    Proper number for them :4
    names:
    Chapayev
    Maxim Gorkiy
    Kalinin
    Chkalov

    Let's see it then.

    How about calling one of them Крым and another Севастополь.
    This:


    I took these with a webcam bc I dont have a camera.
    edit:I noticed the main guns are out of proportion. Soryy about that.

    That's an excellent design, Komissar.

    At the same time I should mention that from an structural and certain hydrodynamic stability points of view a smaller length to beam ratio is somewhat advantageous.

    From a system design point of view I should add that the Russians have different classes of antisurface missiles. There is the class that includes missile systems like Granit and Bazal't; there is the medium sized missile systems like Moskit and Malakhit; and there is the class that includes Oniks and Termit. There are other classes too.

    Your concept design shows a large ship. The Russian capabilities and requirements would never allow for such a ship to rely on an Oniks class missile as its main antisurface missile. You should go to a larger missile class.

    To think for a femtosecond that the "current" versions of these larger classes don't exist is identical to thinking that the Russians didn't have T-34-76, T-34-85, ..., KV-1, KV-2, ..., IS-1, IS-2, IS-3, IS-4, ... tanks during "WWII" and that they fought that "war" with only the BT-5 tanks.
    avatar
    KomissarBojanchev

    Posts : 1170
    Points : 1329
    Join date : 2012-08-05
    Age : 19
    Location : Varna, Bulgaria

    Re: Do you think Russia should build new Aircraft Carriers and Battlecruisers?

    Post  KomissarBojanchev on Sun Mar 23, 2014 12:07 am

    Morpheus Eberhardt wrote:
    KomissarBojanchev wrote:
    Morpheus Eberhardt wrote:
    KomissarBojanchev wrote:I made a drawing of a stealth cruiser design for russia and will soon upload it. Its specifications:3x2 Koalition turrets, 8x pantsyrs, 160 zirkon ASMs, 32 S-500, 160 S-400 in redut.
    Proper number for them :4
    names:
    Chapayev
    Maxim Gorkiy
    Kalinin
    Chkalov

    Let's see it then.

    How about calling one of them Крым and another Севастополь.
    This:


    I took these with a webcam bc I dont have a camera.
    edit:I noticed the main guns are out of proportion. Soryy about that.

    That's an excellent design, Komissar.

    At the same time I should mention that from an structural and certain hydrodynamic stability points of view a smaller length to beam ratio is somewhat advantageous.

    From a system design point of view I should add that the Russians have different classes of antisurface missiles. There is the class that includes missile systems like Granit and Bazal't; there is the medium sized missile systems like Moskit and Malakhit; and there is the class that includes Oniks and Termit. There are other classes too.

    Your concept design shows a large ship. The Russian capabilities and requirements would never allow for such a ship to rely on an Oniks class missile as its main antisurface missile. You should go to a larger missile class.

    To think for a femtosecond that the "current" versions of these larger classes don't exist is identical to thinking that the Russians didn't have T-34-76, T-34-85, ..., KV-1, KV-2, ..., IS-1, IS-2, IS-3, IS-4, ... tanks during "WWII" and that they fought that "war" with only the BT-5 tanks.
    Yup I did make it a bit too long since I'm not very good at making overhead drawings. What do you mean the onyx/zirkon isn't a big missile? The granit doesn't have a future this is it since it will have maybe 600-700 km range and hypersonic speed not to mention a warhead bigger than the klub. I don't see how that wouldn't be acceptable for a large ship since all NATO counterparts have much shittier ASMs on them yet they're still claimed to be exceptional.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16281
    Points : 16912
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Do you think Russia should build new Aircraft Carriers and Battlecruisers?

    Post  GarryB on Sun Mar 23, 2014 8:55 am

    Your concept design shows a large ship. The Russian capabilities and requirements would never allow for such a ship to rely on an Oniks class missile as its main antisurface missile. You should go to a larger missile class.

    The standard future land attack, anti ship, and anti sub Russian Navy missile will be carried in the UKSK launch system.

    that means that future land attack missiles to replace the Kalibr and Klub family, the future anti ship missiles (ie brahmos II/ Zirconium) that will replace Onyx, and the future anti sub missile will also be designed to fit in the UKSK launcher.

    With scramjet propulsion the new Russian missiles will get much faster but wont get much bigger.

    It means the loadout can be decided at port so for example with 20 UKSK launch systems each with 8 tubes you can carry 160 missiles, but depending on the mission they might be a mix of anti ship, land attack and anti sub weapons, and if you meet an ammo tender ship at sea you could change your load out or rearm to suit.


    _________________
    “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
    Morpheus Eberhardt

    Posts : 1945
    Points : 2066
    Join date : 2013-05-20

    Re: Do you think Russia should build new Aircraft Carriers and Battlecruisers?

    Post  Morpheus Eberhardt on Fri Apr 04, 2014 2:07 pm

    Komissar and Garry,

    I had somehow missed your responses. The intention, of course, wasn’t to be rude and to ignore them.

    Here are my responses.

    KomissarBojanchev wrote:What do you mean the onyx/zirkon isn't a big missile?

    Other than implying that you behold an incorrect notion, what kind of response is this?

    I am aware of three distinct weight-groups of Russian antiship cruise missiles that are heavier than Oniks. I mentioned two of the weight groups in my previous post.

    KomissarBojanchev wrote:The granit doesn't have a future this is it since it will have maybe 600-700 km range and hypersonic speed not to mention a warhead bigger than the klub.

    I really didn’t understand what you were trying to say. Please elaborate.

    I’ll make a guess about what you were trying to say anyway:

    One thing that should be kept in mind is that the performance figures for Russian nonexportable systems, and sometimes the exportable ones too, are always substantially higher than the wikipedia-type figures, sometimes by over an order of magnitude.

    In addition, the Russian requirements for antiship missiles with warhead masses of around 1 ton and antiship ballistic missiles have not gone away.

    KomissarBojanchev wrote:I don't see how that wouldn't be acceptable for a  large ship since all NATO counterparts have much shittier ASMs on them yet they're still claimed to be exceptional.

    What were you expecting of the “US/NATO” systems?

    An editor of Jane’s Fighting Ships (can’t remember which one) once said something to the effect that, in comparison to Russian warships, the “US”/”NATO” “warships” are armed only with popguns. The reality is even much more extreme than this metaphorical assessment by Jane's editor.

    The Russians have never strived for mere superiority; extreme supremacy has always been one of their basic requirements. Why do you think that they have weapons like Kh-22? Because, Kh-22’s purpose is absolute supremacy. Even the Russian have admitted that Kh-22B can reach a speed of over Mach 6 and an altitude of over 70 km (due to technical reasons, the real figures are substantially higher).

    Again, the fact that PPSh-41 is a better weapon than M16 doesn’t mean that the Russians are sticking with the PPSh-41 and have never introduced AK-47, AN-94, or XY-mn.

    You want to guess what XY-mn is? It stands for all the assault rifles that Russia has employed without you having heard of them.

    GarryB wrote:The standard future land attack, anti ship, and anti sub Russian Navy missile will be carried in the UKSK launch system.

    Why do you make that assertion? Give a reason.

    In my previous post, I have already made an analogy with the “WWII” situation. In 1941, experts with viewpoints similar to what you just stated were stating that the best tanks that the Russians had where the likes of BT-7 and T-26.

    BT-7 and T-26 were very good tanks, but in comparison to the list I gave in my previous post, they were nothing; they were strategic decoys.

    Similar arguments have been made over the decades about very similar issues. I have participated in many of those debates. This is just the latest round.

    GarryB wrote:that means that future land attack missiles to replace the Kalibr and Klub family, the future anti ship missiles (ie brahmos II/ Zirconium) that will replace Onyx, and the future anti sub missile will also be designed to fit in the UKSK launcher.

    With scramjet propulsion the new Russian missiles will get much faster but wont get much bigger.

    It means the loadout can be decided at port so for example with 20 UKSK launch systems each with 8 tubes you can carry 160 missiles, but depending on the mission they might be a mix of anti ship, land attack and anti sub weapons, and if you meet an ammo tender ship at sea you could change your load out or rearm to suit.

    This is all a copy of material spoken on forums and the like, and I think, for now, I have said enough.

    In conclusion, I should add something as a bit of food for thought:

    Here is a picture of proekt 12347 with Oniks missile. The first time I saw a picture of this ship with Oniks launchers was about 30 years ago.

    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16281
    Points : 16912
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    I made a drawing of a stealth cruiser design for russia

    Post  GarryB on Sat Apr 05, 2014 11:15 am

    Other than implying that you behold an incorrect notion, what kind of response is this?

    The Granit is like a Scud... it is a 7 ton missile largely because it has a turbojet engine which requires a lot of fuel to carry the missile to the distance and speed that it manages.

    The Onyx is a much newer missile that uses a ramjet motor that means it can fly at supersonic speed much more efficiently than the Granit, and also the armour used in the Onyx to deflect CIWS shells and protect its warhead... which is over 600kgs BTW is relatively light Titanium.

    The result is a missile with similar performance that is approximately 3 tons lighter.

    Onyx is the replacement for Granit and Moskit.

    I am aware of three distinct weight-groups of Russian antiship cruise missiles that are heavier than Oniks. I mentioned two of the weight groups in my previous post.

    The heaviest weight group has been eliminated because of improvements in propulsion and electronics.

    I really didn’t understand what you were trying to say. Please elaborate.

    I’ll make a guess about what you were trying to say anyway:

    What he is probably trying to say is that Onyx and Zirconium are not export missiles... so unlike the Yakhont and Brahmos, both missiles are not limited to 300km range and 500km in payload weight. this means although lighter than Granit their performance is probably not actually inferior in many areas.

    Zirconium being a scramjet powered hypersonic missile yet to enter service.

    In addition, the Russian requirements for antiship missiles with warhead masses of around 1 ton and antiship ballistic missiles have not gone away.

    the kinetic impact of several tons of missile would sink many ships on its own with large HE payloads less useful... many modern missiles have incendiary payloads because fire is rather more devastating on board a ship than HE.

    Even the Russian have admitted that Kh-22B can reach a speed of over Mach 6 and an altitude of over 70 km (due to technical reasons, the real figures are substantially higher).

    The Kh-32 is described as having double the range and speed of the Kh-22M and is described as having a flight speed of more than mach 5 with a flight range of well over 600km.

    Why do you make that assertion? Give a reason.

    The English translation of UKSK is basically universal vertical launch anti ship/cruise missile launcher.

    It is pretty much the standard launcher for anti ship, anti sub, and land attack missiles for the Russian Navy and will be fitted to ships from Corvettes to carriers and also a version on submarines.

    BT-7 and T-26 were very good tanks, but in comparison to the list I gave in my previous post, they were nothing; they were strategic decoys.

    Similar arguments have been made over the decades about very similar issues. I have participated in many of those debates. This is just the latest round.

    One of the biggest problems of the Soviet Navy was customisation. They customised ship design and created very capable vessels. An example is the Udaloy class... an ASW Destroyer. It had Gas Turbine engines to chase subs efficiently, it had SS-N-14 missiles to hunt both subs and ships, it had an array of sensors and self defence systems. It is a similar size and from a similar time period as the Sovremmeny class Destroyers... different propulsion, different missiles and different guns and sensors and systems but similar size.

    Very little in common between the two otherwise similar sized vessels. No compatibility between the anti ship missiles they carried, very different propulsion.

    The result is that they made a dozen of each and they had a dozen of each type. A Sovremmeny was not much good for ASW, and the Udaloy was not great at anti ship... the SS-N-14 being a subsonic IR guided anti ship missile... a bit like the NSM really, though the SS-N-14 carried a torpedo too for use against submarines, which was its normal role.

    Now the Russian Navy has decided to get rid of all the thousands of companies that supply ten different anti ship missile and ten different SAM.

    The UKSK is a launcher that can launch land attack cruise missiles (ie Kalibr... based on the Klub missile with a range of 2,500km in the Russian model), a subsonic anti ship missile (again the klub with presumably the same 2,500km flight range as the very similar land attack cruise missile), a Supersonic anti ship missile (the Onyx with a 500km range... for export there is the Yakhont for anti ship only like the Onyx, and the Brahmos for anti ship and land attack... both the export missiles have a range of less than 300km and a payload of less than 500kgs). The launcher can also fire the 91RE2 which is a mach 2 ballistic missile that carries a torpedo as a payload to 40km range in the ship based model and 50km range in the sub based model.

    As I said all the ships in the Russian Navy will have this launcher so the next gen Destroyer with 4 UKSK launchers will be able to carry up to 32 missiles (each launcher has 8 tubes) in any combination.

    That means a modern destroyer can have 8 x Onyx missiles, 8 x 91Re2s, and still have 16 tubes for land attack missiles... compared with the Sovremmeny class ship with 8 Moskits or the Udaloy with 8 SS-N-14 anti sub torpedo launchers.. the new destroyer can have the firepower of both ships, the sensors to use them, and have a land attack capability only previous generation SSBNs had.

    the loadout can be changed at the pier before a mission or by reloading ship at sea.

    Not only that when a ship goes to another Russian port the propulsion is going to be more standardised, there are going to be fewer weapons and sensors so there are fewer sensor and weapon companies but it means fewer weapon types need to be stored and bought.

    Much easier to manage and maintain and operate.

    Here is a picture of proekt 12347 with Oniks missile. The first time I saw a picture of this ship with Oniks launchers was about 30 years ago.

    Now that they actually have some money the money seems to be going to production of new small vessels rather than upgrades of older vessels.

    the one place I can see this sort of upgrade being applied is with the Slava class cruisers as there is not sufficient internal space for the UKSK launch bins, but the Granit is no longer in production so if they want to equip it with a long range anti ship missile then Onyx or Zircon make the most sense.

    If they can fit a UKSK launcher angled in place of each of the twin angled missiles on the Slava that should mean 8 x 8 launchers and 64 missiles. Not as many as they project they will be able to fit in the Kirov upgrades where they are talking about 10 UKSK launchers with 80 missiles. But still reasonable.


    _________________
    “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
    KomissarBojanchev

    Posts : 1170
    Points : 1329
    Join date : 2012-08-05
    Age : 19
    Location : Varna, Bulgaria

    Re: Do you think Russia should build new Aircraft Carriers and Battlecruisers?

    Post  KomissarBojanchev on Thu Dec 25, 2014 8:24 pm

    Perhaps russia could build this with the mistral compensation Twisted Evil



    This battlecruiser although looking old fashioned actually could have a lot of uses in modern sea warfare. First of all its guns aren't WW2 tech. The 305mm ones are EM cannons capable of firing projectiles to 300km and 570km rocket assisted. As for guns arent as accurate as missiles it can fire guided shells too at a fraction of the price of a full blown missile.If that isn't enough it has 6 UKSK cells. Keep in mind the guns can be replaced with extra UKSK VLSs in an alternate version, leaving the still very potent conventional 203mm turret(120-150km range with rocket assisted shells) . Unlike other modern ships it also has armor. Not WW2 steel belts but thick composite modern tank armor capable of protecting it from FAE blasts and close(but not direct) tactical nuclear detonations. It's spacious interior makes it very hard for narrow HEAT blasts to do much damage to it unless a critical area is hit(very unlikely). Combined with massive shore bombardment potential and heavy armor(forget about Bereg doing any damage to it) it would be the most effective ship in supporting amphibious landings.

    If you think if its a battleship then it still has bofors guns, its not the case with this one. It has completely contemporary(even superior to most of today's ships) multilayer AA systems that can effectively defend against ASM attacks. For defence against submarines  it it doesn't have much more than the UKSK launchers but since it's a capital ship it's expected to have escorting destroyers.

    It's speed:32kn

    Armament:
    2x203mm conventional cannon
    2x2 305mm EM guns
    48 UKSK launchers
    Redut
    S-500
    5x Palash and 5x Pantsir CIWS
    paket

    My suggested names: after famous russian victories
    Stalingrad
    Poltava
    Gangut
    Sinop
    Kaliakria
    avatar
    collegeboy16

    Posts : 1184
    Points : 1201
    Join date : 2012-10-05
    Age : 20
    Location : Roanapur

    Perhaps russia could build this with the mistral compensation

    Post  collegeboy16 on Thu Dec 25, 2014 8:37 pm

    dude, as much as that would make the french(or anyone else, really) go for peanut butter and jealous, what the russkies really need is just a cheap and simple mistral equivalent.

    Sponsored content

    Re: Do you think Russia should build new Aircraft Carriers and Battlecruisers?

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Fri Aug 18, 2017 3:19 am