Poliment-Redut Naval Air Defense System

GarryB wrote:so carrying four 9M96 x 150km range missiles for each rif missile tube effectively increases range and quadruples the missile capacity

The 9M96D is almost 6 m long, so a quad pack on those Fort launchers that actually look identical to S-300/S-400 canisters is only logical, is it  not done at the moment?

Of course at the cost of only carrying one missile per hatch the 250km and 400km large missiles will be more effective against heavy targets and there is that range as well which makes up for not carrying as many missiles.

This is not a kind of missile that is used to repel massive attacks or small agile targets, so I don't think big amounts of them are needed in any case. What is critical is to have the necessary amount of smaller interceptors to counter a massive salvo and be able to direct them to their targets, which is also far from trivial (the reason for ARH in 9M96 and IR seeker in 9M100)

That second image you posted... look at the actual hole for the missile... you could fit four of those under that hatch if you wanted to....

That is why I posted the first picture too, in order to see the size of the canister. Its diameter is way bigger than the body of the missile itself, because the fins need to fit inside too. In the top view that I posted below you see there is only place for one canister of 9M96 per cell.

The third image is what I am talking about.... the big long missile tube... one per hatch is the 250km or 400km range S-400 missile, though being a naval system could use any Rif and Rif-M missiles they still have in stock. The quad missile tubes next to it are the 9M96 of the S-350 missile family.

I wish it was, the big missile is the 9M96 and the quad pack is the 9M100

It is a twelve hatch missile vertical launch system meaning 12 Rifs or S-400s, or up to 48 S-350/9M96s, or 192 9M100s if you fill the whole launcher up with the same missile types. In practise they might have four of each... so four S-400s (two of 250km range and two of 400km range), plus another four of S-350s( eight of 60km range and eight of 150km range) and four of 9M100 (64 of 9M100 CIWS missiles).

It is for the smaller missiles, see above. The 20380 carries the 12 cell VLS, the 22350 have 32 cells.

Of course not bad for a frigate, though they might change them to two hatches with S-400 with two 250km range missiles, and 8 hatches with 32 missiles in total... perhaps 8 x 150km range missiles and 24 with 60km range missiles, and two hatches with CIWS 9M100 with 32 self defence missiles.

In fact the newer revision of the 22350 with 3 x UKSK may devote on of them to 40/48N6 missiles to create a very decent AD bubble around it and the 32 Redut cells to 24 9M96(D) and 32 9M100, without considering the A-192 and the 2 Palash CIWS. Not bad an AD for a frigate as you say...

Who needs arsenal ships...

Never been a friend of that idea to be honest... specially when we hear about the potential of naval artillery in AD as we discussed somewhere else. If it is really as effective as I think it may be, the magazine depth and therefore salvo size needed to overwhelm a medium sized ship may be really big... imagine the power of a 130 mm guided round in that role. It has a huge advantage in that it is accelerated to max speed almost instantaneously and needs no rocket. It is a massive improvement in time to intercept and space needed onboard.

the Kuznetsov has 192 TOR missiles ready to fire and those are the old missiles...

You need to be able to guide all those hundreds of missiles and count with the enemy trying to make a salvo as simultaneous as possible. The guidance capabilities of radar systems are not so fantastic, 4 targets per array for the Poliment for instance.

The thing is that the UKSK-M will be bigger than the UKSK which means it is not going to be able to be carried in large numbers on smaller boats like Corvettes and Frigates.

They say here it is to be used also in small ships:

https://www.navyrecognition.com/index.php/news/defence-news/2017/november-2017-navy-naval-forces-defense-industry-technology-maritime-security-global-news/5738-russia-s-uksk-vls-to-be-replaced-with-upgraded-uksk-m-systems.html

Making the UKSK-M able to carry the S-500 makes sense because the bigger ships that will carry it will have more use for such a missile... Destroyers, Cruisers, and Carriers.

Maybe they create a separate launcher for them, it would be great if it can use the S-300V missiles too. Bigger ships should be capable of handling those...

after the top missile is launched the spacer between the layers would then launch the now empty tube up and out and sideways clear of the launcher ready for the next tube to launch if need be... the lower tube could then be raised up to the position of the upper tube perhaps.++

Yes, that is more or less what I meant when I wrote "loader", some kind of automation to make that possible. It would be complex as hell though  

That is what I am thinking... I could offer my services at very reasonable rates in fact... they could pay me in small arms and ammo...

when I retire they could send me off to the middle of nowhere with a few machine guns and a weather station to look after...  

Hahaha, my services would be very cheap too, just let me plague some military designers with questions once a year and I am all yours

The 9M96D is almost 6 m long, so a quad pack on those Fort launchers that actually look identical to S-300/S-400 canisters is only logical, is it not done at the moment?

My understanding was that the Redut was to become a universal SAM launcher while the UKSK was the universal attack missile launcher (to combine anti sub, anti ship and land attack missiles). The unification of missiles with the UKSK was made easier because most of the weapons it carried were torpedo tube launched and were 533mm wide and either 6 or 8 metres long. The new missiles which were designed from the outset to fit in the tubes were designed to be 750mm wide and less than 10m long... so Onyx and Zircon and the Kh-101/102 series missiles are 750mm calibre and will fit directly into the UKSK without modification.

The S-350 missiles... the 9M96 were originally designed to be mounted on the same TEL as the S-300 and S-400 big missile tubes... I rather suspect that was so they could be used in the Naval Rif system too so each of the tubes in the 12 shot rotary launcher could hold one Rif missile or four S-350 missiles.

The problem I have is that my information comes from the export website which is not the same as their domestic stuff.... it describes the existing rotary launcher for Rif and a fixed cell based system for the Smaller missiles, but that is for export.

The image above you posted with 12 launch tubes is clearly Redut and no UKSK. It clearly shows a single long large tube the full width of the hatch... look further up at the Redut launch hatches open test firing a 9M96 and the hole for the missile is nothing like the full width of the hatch area... there are photos of the land based S-350 missiles on a TEL for the S-300 where all four 9M96 launch tubes actually fit inside the space of the single larger tube for the big missiles so we know four tubes would fit.

What the image does not show is the smaller 9M100 missiles which they seem reticent to reveal and they are so small (ie narrow) that each of the missiles in the quad missile pack under each hatch would carry four missile tubes meaning 16 missiles per hatch. We know this is true because the land based version of the 9M96 called S-350 can carry 12 separate tubes for the 9M96 missiles of the different types or it can carry four 9M100 missiles for each tube... meaning 48 missiles in 12 tubes.

Well in Redut there are four 9M96 tubes per hatch, which means effectively the S-350 land based TEL is three hatches of Redut, so every three hatches of Redut should be able to carry 48 missiles... there are 12 hatches per system so 48 times four is 192 missiles... which is what I calculated in the above post.

Note with that sort of capacity even assuming a single layer a reduced depth Redut designed specifically only to carry the self defence 9M100 missiles... so perhaps only four or five metres in depth could carry as many short range defence missiles as all the Klintok launchers on the Kuznetsov without upgrade... if you upgrade the Kuznetsov and keep the same bulky inefficient rotary launchers instead of simple cells with the new missiles half the size it could carry 384 missiles easily.

Remember those drawings of the new landing ship... the so called "crates" that stuck up out of the deck about 1-1.5m... if that had 6 Redut launchers that ship would be very well protected from enemy aircraft and munitions...

That is why I posted the first picture too, in order to see the size of the canister. Its diameter is way bigger than the body of the missile itself, because the fins need to fit inside too. In the top view that I posted below you see there is only place for one canister of 9M96 per cell.

You are confusing things... in your post you have images of Redut and also images of UKSK... in the UKSK image...



First if all it is clear it is UKSK because there are only 8 hatches... and it shows the capacity in the UKSK launchers for each different type of missile listed below and with dimensions of the weapons given.

the weapons are:

Yakhont
Kalibr
9M96 (S-350 SAM)
9M317 (which is of course naval BUK (Shtil))
9M100
And what are called EW projectiles.... ie decoys or jammers or smoke and flare dispensers etc.
And at the bottom 40N6 long range S-400 SAMs.

Most interesting is that they show the sizes of all the munitions.

Note that UKSK has tubes that are only 750mm wide so they can't do what Redut does and have four 9M96 missiles per tube.

Note the 40N6 missile is actually 645mm calibre but the launch cannister is 1m diameter.

According to that drawing the 9M100 missile is 20cm calibre and 3m long, so with the 9M96 being 480mm diameter and 6m long and the Rif missile cannisters being 1m diameter and about 7.6m long for the Redut system it makes sense... the hatch needs to be 1m across so a single Rif tube can be lowered in... but being 1m across you could fit four 9M96 tubes into the square area or in each of the 480mm diameter tubes you could fit four 20cm diameter 9M100 missile tubes...

I wish it was, the big missile is the 9M96 and the quad pack is the 9M100

It can't be because we can see from the top the diameter of the missile tube is 480mm and the hatch is 1m so hanging underneath the tube should be 1 quarter the with of the hatch... like the quad tubes. To be the size of the full size tube which is the width of the hatch the lining inside the missile tube would be thicker than the missile. The missiles in the quad tubes would be needles.... and I don't mean Igla... hahahaha.

That drawing showing the big tube and the quad tubes is not showing any 9M100s...

In the bottom drawing showing lengths it says the big missiles are 7.8 metres and the 9M96 missiles are 6 metres and the 9M100 missiles are 3 metres... look at the image again... including those tubes all the way up to the hatches are you looking at big tubes that are six metres and quad tubes that are half that length or are you looking at 7.8m tubes and 6 metre quad tubes... just use your fingers and compare the size ratio between the missile tubes visible... are the quad tubes half the length of the single tubes?

I would say no.

It is for the smaller missiles, see above. The 20380 carries the 12 cell VLS, the 22350 have 32 cells.

Are you sure they are not Redut and Shtil launchers... the Shtil launchers have 32 tubes.

The Redut would be standard, so it would be one with 12 tubes or two with 24 tubes or three with 36 tubes...

Very interesting image of the UKSK launcher with the information about being able to fire Shtil and S-350 missiles but I suspect its size means it is rather less efficient at carrying SAMs than the Redut launcher.

I would think the UKSK-M is to improve capacity by resizing the tubes to allow better capacities, though we still don't know what size the S-500 is and what size these launchers will have to be to carry them. At the very least the drawing of the Rif and 9M96 missiles shows they can fit smaller missiles into the tubes in bundles so it is not just 12 missiles of any size going in there.

Never been a friend of that idea to be honest... specially when we hear about the potential of naval artillery in AD as we discussed somewhere else. If it is really as effective as I think it may be, the magazine depth and therefore salvo size needed to overwhelm a medium sized ship may be really big... imagine the power of a 130 mm guided round in that role. It has a huge advantage in that it is accelerated to max speed almost instantaneously and needs no rocket. It is a massive improvement in time to intercept and space needed onboard.

During testing in the 1990s the Russians fitted a small scramjet motor to the nose of an SA-5 missile... the scramjet was tiny and fitted on the nose tip. They replaced the warhead with telemetry gear and fuel for the scramjet and they launched the missile and commanded it to climb to high altitude and speed.

It got to about 20km altitude at about Mach 5 which is about normal for the missile... and then they lit up the scramjet, which burned for a minute or a minute and a half and accelerated the missile (which is rather large and bulky) from mach 5 to mach 6. In the 90 seconds the scramjet was operating the missile covered just under 180km.

Attaching a small scramjet to the nose of a naval artillery round with a small fuel tank added would not be hard and the improvement in performance in terms of speed and distance would be significant... add control fins and GLONASS guidance or an optical seeker and it could be a very potent weapon.

They have already said the 152mm land based Coalition gun will be used on naval vessels... I personally am hoping they will fit them to the Kirov as a test and then have them as standard main gun for their new destroyers... operational use on the upgraded Kirovs would allow them to work out the kinks and problems, and then in 8-10 years time when they are ready to build Cruisers they could upgrade the Kirovs with new 203mm guns with even better performance for fitting on new cruisers and perhaps retrofitting to landing ships.

You need to be able to guide all those hundreds of missiles and count with the enemy trying to make a salvo as simultaneous as possible. The guidance capabilities of radar systems are not so fantastic, 4 targets per array for the Poliment for instance.

True but with short range IIR guided lock on after launch 9M100 missiles... 192 per Redut 12 tube launcher they could do better...

The main AESA arrays on the ships are only going to get more capable over time with improved performance and capabilities... adding the ability to guide command guided missiles like TOR and Pantsir would be a useful addition too.

They say here it is to be used also in small ships:

So clearly they have not had to make it much deeper...

Maybe they create a separate launcher for them, it would be great if it can use the S-300V missiles too. Bigger ships should be capable of handling those...

Separate launchers contradicts the whole idea... honestly I really don't think the S-500 is going to be smaller than the S-300V family... if the size is significant then perhaps a special launcher for "strategic" weapons like naval versions of land based IRBMs that can also carry heavy SAMs too... Iskander and S-500 and S-300V4 etc etc.

Hahaha, my services would be very cheap too, just let me plague some military designers with questions once a year and I am all yoursp

We need a volunteer section... the western media always talks about Putins paid stooges... it would be nice to formalise it so we can benefit from our interest in the truth... money would be no good, but as I said small arms or even obsolete equipment... empty 14.5x114mm HMG shell cases to go with my collection... heck even a 12.7 x 108mm round to go with my Browning rounds, or perhaps a 122mm propellent case to go with my 105mm shell case... or special tours of factories....

GarryB wrote:My understanding was that the Redut was to become a universal SAM launcher while the UKSK was the universal attack missile launcher

Precisely USKS-M is supposed to include SAMs

The image above you posted with 12 launch tubes is clearly Redut and no UKSK.

Certainly.

It clearly shows a single long large tube the full width of the hatch... look further up at the Redut launch hatches open test firing a 9M96 and the hole for the missile is nothing like the full width of the hatch area...

- Redut is for 9M96 and 9M100, nowhere I see anyone claiming it can handle 48N6-sized missiles
- In fact the space below deck both in 20380 and 22350 is not enough, the UKSK is placed rearwards and raised relative to the 3S97.
- Look again at the top view, then look at the pictures of the launching and compare with the relative size of the 9M96 and the container as seen in expositions: the body of the missile is way smaller than the front diameter of the casing (ca 27 cm vs 42 cm IIRC).
- Nowhere is said that the hatch has 1 meter wide, and you have to subtract the space taken by the hinges and walls. Of course the perspective also plays a role, but if you measure the hole done by the missile vs. the diameter of the container, it basically respects the proportions 42/27.
- Container for the S-300/400 missiles is different, the ones in the pictures I linked are identical to 9M96



Check this if you want, the pdf has great info:

https://twitter.com/I_Amraamski/status/889469724282703873
http://кбсм.рф/uploads/files/70-let_KBSM.pdf

You are confusing things... in your post you have images of Redut and also images of UKSK... in the UKSK image...

Yes I know there are pictures of both

Note that UKSK has tubes that are only 750mm wide so they can't do what Redut does and have four 9M96 missiles per tube.

UKSK cell size is bigger in top view than Redut

In the bottom drawing showing lengths it says the big missiles are 7.8 metres and the 9M96 missiles are 6 metres and the 9M100 missiles are 3 metres... look at the image again... including those tubes all the way up to the hatches are you looking at big tubes that are six metres and quad tubes that are half that length or are you looking at 7.8m tubes and 6 metre quad tubes... just use your fingers and compare the size ratio between the missile tubes visible... are the quad tubes half the length of the single tubes?

9M100 (canister) is 3.68
9M96E2 (canister) is 5.61 m




https://twitter.com/dressler_w/status/886808305229811712

Attaching a small scramjet to the nose of a naval artillery round with a small fuel tank added would not be hard and the improvement in performance in terms of speed and distance would be significant... add control fins and GLONASS guidance or an optical seeker and it could be a very potent weapon.

A-192 is said to reach already 18 km against air target, which is already at the detection limits of a sea skimming missile. I suspect hypersonic weapons will fly way higher, cannon would need to handle the appropriate elevations and there the range/speed increase you mention would help.

Separate launchers contradicts the whole idea...

Sure and yet as we are seeing, to put micro-missiles and ASAT weapons in the same launcher is a bit difficult  

honestly I really don't think the S-500 is going to be smaller than the S-300V family... if the size is significant then perhaps a special launcher for "strategic" weapons like naval versions of land based IRBMs that can also carry heavy SAMs too... Iskander and S-500 and S-300V4 etc etc.

S-500 is already known to be addressing aero and ballistic targets with different interceptors. I don't know if the 600 km range missile is much bigger than 40N6, but the ones capable of near-space interception are almost certainly very big. As you say, installing launchers for that kind of strategic weapons in the 1142 and potential followers would make sense. AShBM are a big risk for a fleet almost at any distance of land and you would need highest end capabilities against them that only the biggest ships can carry. The capital ship is not only a liability, or should not be allowed to turn into one by not using its inherent advantages to carry powerful systems and weapons that other ships can not.

We need a volunteer section... the western media always talks about Putins paid stooges... it would be nice to formalise it so we can benefit from our interest in the truth...

That is true, everybody is supposed be on Putin's payroll but until now I haven't seen a penny

First of all I will be moving this stuff on Redut out of this thread and into a thread about redut...

- Redut is for 9M96 and 9M100, nowhere I see anyone claiming it can handle 48N6-sized missiles

But the recent information about Redut says it has missiles that can reach 400km, and the drawing you have above with a single missile tube under one hatch that is clearly the right width and length to be a 48N6 missile... which is a 400km range missile... if those missile quads are 6m deep then that single missile looks about 7.8m doesn't it?

- In fact the space below deck both in 20380 and 22350 is not enough, the UKSK is placed rearwards and raised relative to the 3S97.

The UKSK is 10m deep, the Redut would only need to be 8m at most... they might have reduced depth versions of the redut that is only 6m deep and can only take 9M96 and 9M100 missiles... like the land based S-350... the TEL with two rows of 6 9M96 missiles would not be able to carry S-400 large missiles either.

- Nowhere is said that the hatch has 1 meter wide, and you have to subtract the space taken by the hinges and walls. Of course the perspective also plays a role, but if you measure the hole done by the missile vs. the diameter of the container, it basically respects the proportions 42/27.

The Russian export page for the Rif SAM and the Redut SAM for export:

http://roe.ru/eng/catalog/naval-systems/shipborne-weapons/rif-m/

TLC length: 7.6m for the Rif, and 4.6m for 9M96, TLC width: (it says 10 for the Rif but I suspect that is an error and it is supposed to be 1 or 1.0, and 0.47m for 9M96.

Assuming that image you showed of the under deck view of the 12 tube Redut is accurate then the bigger single tube per hatch is Rif, and the smaller quad missiles are 9M96.

BTW that image with single missiles under each hatch looks cute but is meaningless... it even has the control surfaces deployed before launch...

A-192 is said to reach already 18 km against air target, which is already at the detection limits of a sea skimming missile.

Target information can come from other sources...

A-192 is said to reach already 18 km against air target, which is already at the detection limits of a sea skimming missile. I suspect hypersonic weapons will fly way higher, cannon would need to handle the appropriate elevations and there the range/speed increase you mention would help.

Direct impact with a hypersonic target that is manouvering would be near impossible but firing a burst of a dozen shells with air burst spreading steel ball fragments in the path of the incoming hypersonic target would be interesting... because it would make the hypersonic targets speed work against it...

Sure and yet as we are seeing, to put micro-missiles and ASAT weapons in the same launcher is a bit difficult

Not at all... enlarge the tubes to 1m diameter with 1m hatches and design it the way I am suggesting and it will work fine... 1m diameter ASAT weapons that are 14m long per tube or 4 layers of 16 9M100 per tube... 64 missiles per tube and you will only need 2-3 tubes for CIWS... the rest could be an increased size 3,000km range Zircon, or 1m diameter 12m long 10,000km range subsonic land attack cruise missile.... or 2,500km range ship launched two stage Iskander-M2.

S-500 is already known to be addressing aero and ballistic targets with different interceptors. I don't know if the 600 km range missile is much bigger than 40N6, but the ones capable of near-space interception are almost certainly very big.

Not a huge surprise the S-300V missiles were optimised for ballistic and aerodynamic targets with different missiles too... more specifically different sized boosters...

AShBM are a big risk for a fleet almost at any distance of land and you would need highest end capabilities against them that only the biggest ships can carry. The capital ship is not only a liability, or should not be allowed to turn into one by not using its inherent advantages to carry powerful systems and weapons that other ships can not.

The requirements for their CVN mentioned being a command centre of course, but also able to see and operate (ie kill things) sub surface, surface, air, and space. In other words being able to detect and defeat things in all four environments...

That is true, everybody is supposed be on Putin's payroll but until now I haven't seen a penny

Perhaps we can use this site as evidence for back pay....

Precisely USKS-M is supposed to include SAMs

But there is no point if it is not going to be efficient.... the drawing above you show with the UKSK launcher shows a single Shtil missile per tube...

With a full UKSK launcher that means 8 Shtil missiles... which is worse than one Shtil launcher that has 32 missile tubes...

The ultimate idea is that if you could get similar number of SAMs into the UKSK launcher then instead of carrying UKSK launchers AND SAM launchers, you could get rid of teh SAM launchers and just have the UKSK-M... so you can still carry attack missiles and SAMs but you would have much more flexibility because you could carry different combinations including EW rockets too.... perhaps even drone launchers etc etc.

It would be horrendously expensive to fill every UKSK tube with a Zircon missile... but it might be useful for every platform with those launch tubes to carry at least one.

On the drawing you supplied with the UKSK-M it states the 9M96 tube is 48cm wide... look at the photos of 9M96 being launched and look at the size of the hole and the tube around it... you could fit two across the area of that square cell with a little space left over... which makes that cell under that hatch how big?

GarryB wrote:But the recent information about Redut says it has missiles that can reach 400km,

What I have read is that they are developing a new SAM with 400 km range, but I have not read them clearly stating it is for Redut...

It may be doable though, but they would need to modify the launcher, making it deeper and removing the hinges from the way so a somewhat bigger canister fits, but not the canister of Fort/S-300, which is enormous. So a VLS with the same footprint of Redut but deeper could eventually manage extended range missiles.

and the drawing you have above with a single missile tube under one hatch that is clearly the right width and length to be a 48N6 missile... which is a 400km range missile... if those missile quads are 6m deep then that single missile looks about 7.8m doesn't it?

My view is that those quads are the 9M100 with 3.7 m length, the other should be 5.6 m for the 9M96D or E2. If you look at those canisters, they don't resemble 48/40N6 family.

Redut is narrower than UKSK:

- In fact the space below deck both in 20380 and 22350 is not enough, the UKSK is placed rearwards and raised relative to the 3S97.

The UKSK is 10m deep, the Redut would only need to be 8m at most...

Kalibr and Oniks are 8.9 m long, 48N6 is 7.8, one meter difference between them. I would say it is a good match

they might have reduced depth versions of the redut that is only 6m deep and can only take 9M96 and 9M100 missiles...

Yeah, this is the only Redut I habe seen until now...

TLC length: 7.6m for the Rif, and 4.6m for 9M96, TLC width:  (it says 10 for the Rif but I suspect that is an error and it is supposed to be 1 or 1.0, and 0.47m for 9M96.

Agree it is 1 m, this is the known measure of the S-400/S-300 canister. 0.47 m for the canister of the 9M96 means it is slightly different to that in the S-350, which is 0.48x0.42. It fits with what say, the proportion between canister and the hole made by the missile is ok with the known measures for 9M96.

BTW that image with single missiles under each hatch looks cute but is meaningless... it even has the control surfaces deployed before launch...

The important part is where it mentions the type and number of missiles used, 12 medium-long range, 48 short range missiles.

Target information can come from other sources...

You are right, but you would normally need aircraft doing that job.

Direct impact with a hypersonic target that is manouvering would be near impossible but firing a burst of a dozen shells with air burst spreading steel ball fragments in the path of the incoming hypersonic target would be interesting... because it would make the hypersonic targets speed work against it...

If you could make them reach a certain point and explode at the same time you could create some sort of barrier, that is interesting...

But there is no point if it is not going to be efficient.... the drawing above you show with the UKSK launcher shows a single Shtil missile per tube...

I assume the drawing is purely speculative

Isos wrote:The width of the redut is the same that UKSK like you can see on the image but the missile tube inside is much smaller.

Redut is not as wide as UKSK

UKSK-M can't fit on Gorshkovs anyway unless in the place where the UKSK are but then it will only carry cruise missiles so there no point switching them.

It could carry a few long range SAMs too...

Isos wrote:Their main issues is deapth. The only redut carrying classes are Gorshkov and Steregoushchy which are small/medium frigates and the only part of the ship where they can put missiles longer >6-7m is at mid ship and even then it need to be elevated.

French FREMM class have the same issue and carry 2 Sylver A43 for only Aster 15 and 2 Sylver A70 for MdCN or Aster 30.

There is no point for a redut that can carry 48N6 missiles because it won't fit in the ship anyway.

But the Nakhimov can have them so they will either use a UKSK-M for all the missiles or a new VLS for all the S-400 missiles and UKSK.

US use MK-41 but it takes lot of space but they don't care as they have mainly destroyers with enough space. Gorshkov is only 135m.

IMO the new 400km will be just like what aster 30 is to aster 15. The same missile but with a much bigger/wider  booster. The width of the redut is the same that UKSK like you can see on the image but the missile tube inside is much smaller. UKSK-M can't fit on Gorshkovs anyway unless in the place where the UKSK are but then it will only carry cruise missiles so there no point switching them.

I remember there was a discussion about unifying the two VLS, Redut and UKSK, before some years

Isos wrote:the 9m96 is 1/4 of the cell.

I see a canister completely filling the gap between the hinges in that cell, do you see space for four of them? Size of the canister and size of the missile body are two very different thinks in any launching system...

It could but will they sacrifice few cruise missiles for AD missiles ? Right now the number of Gorshkov is very low to do it but maybe when they get 15 of them and Nakhimov and enough Yasen they would put some 48N6 to target high value targets and jammer fighters.

The new batch of Gorshkov will have 24 UKSK cells, and as you say these long range missiles are not intended against low value targets so no need to carry many of them. They being there is enough of a threat to avoid anybody from coming too close.

That's the idea behind the UKSK-M but it will be too heavy for smaller ships. Could only be used on destroyer/cruise type of ships.

Where have you read that it will be bigger than current UKSK?

Precisely USKS-M is supposed to include SAMs

But using it instead of Redut or Shtil-1 only makes sense if it can carry as many missiles as the SAM launchers.... and based on your drawing above it clearly does not.

It carries one Yakhont, one Kalibr... only one 9M96, and one Shtil missile per tube in the top row, while the second row shows it can carry four 9M100 missiles, or 6 EW rockets, ... there is a line missing in the list and the hatch cover is not square but full sized, and then the last tube it mentions the 400km range S-400 missile.

So effectively it could carry 8 9M96 missiles or 32 9M100 missiles or 8 Shtil-1 missiles.... which honestly is pathetic... Yakhont and Kalibr make more sense... though the fact that it calls it Yakhont instead of Onyx suggests this is a drawing of the export model... would be interested in the contents of the 7th cell... perhaps a long range UAV to find targets when there is no helicopter or air craft support?

the Shtil launcher has 32 cells and the Redut carries more missiles too so it makes no sense at all to adopt the UKSK-M to replace all vertical launch systems...

Unless this is just indicative of what is for export...

What I have read is that they are developing a new SAM with 400 km range, but I have not read them clearly stating it is for Redut...

The full sized S-400 missiles we have seen are presumably S-300F and therefore 90km for Rif and 150km for Rif-M which is no better than 9M96 missiles can reach now.

The 400km range missile they are working on will be a replacement for Rif so the real question is... will it be fitted to upgraded Kirovs and continue to be used with that launcher, or will it be integrated with the Redut system as the big long range missile...

My view is that those quads are the 9M100 with 3.7 m length, the other should be 5.6 m for the 9M96D or E2. If you look at those canisters, they don't resemble 48/40N6 family.

Redut is narrower than UKSK:

Looks like 6 lots of 8 tube launchers to me... so 6 UKSK...

Yeah, this is the only Redut I habe seen until now...

So why would you think Redut on a destroyer or cruiser needs to be the same? 9m96 would be perfectly fine.... it is the equivalent of the area SAM used on the Kirov cruisers for goodness sake...

The important part is where it mentions the type and number of missiles used, 12 medium-long range, 48 short range missiles.

Might be the export model...

Or the first version... the first TOR vehicles carried 8 missiles ready to launch but current systems have 16 missiles ready to launch...

I assume the drawing is purely speculative

The missing row in the contents of the tubes is interesting...

Their main issues is deapth. The only redut carrying classes are Gorshkov and Steregoushchy which are small/medium frigates and the only part of the ship where they can put missiles longer >6-7m is at mid ship and even then it need to be elevated.

French FREMM class have the same issue and carry 2 Sylver A43 for only Aster 15 and 2 Sylver A70 for MdCN or Aster 30.

There is no point for a redut that can carry 48N6 missiles because it won't fit in the ship anyway.

The difference in depth is less than 2 metres.... the 9M96 is 6m long and the 48N6 is 7.8m long... why not make it 2m higher and allow the use of 400km and 250km 40N and 48N missiles...

IMO the new 400km will be just like what aster 30 is to aster 15. The same missile but with a much bigger/wider booster.

It can't be because if it is bigger and wider it wont fit in the tube... remember according to LMFS those big cannisters are 9M96 tubes so a bigger tube wont fit under the hatch...

GarryB wrote:But using it instead of Redut or Shtil-1 only makes sense if it can carry as many missiles as the SAM launchers.... and based on your drawing above it clearly does not.

Maybe it just includes the big SAMs

So effectively it could carry 8 9M96 missiles or 32 9M100 missiles or 8 Shtil-1 missiles.... which honestly is pathetic... Yakhont and Kalibr make more sense... though the fact that it calls it Yakhont instead of Onyx suggests this is a drawing of the export model... would be interested in the contents of the 7th cell... perhaps a long range UAV to find targets when there is no helicopter or air craft support?

I think this is just someone, maybe Paralay, doing some speculation about what could fit in those launchers.

The full sized S-400 missiles we have seen are presumably S-300F and therefore 90km for Rif and 150km for Rif-M which is no better than 9M96 missiles can reach now.

Sure, with today's possibilities that is just wasting space.

The 400km range missile they are working on will be a replacement for Rif so the real question is... will it be fitted to upgraded Kirovs and continue to be used with that launcher, or will it be integrated with the Redut system as the big long range missile...

I wish I knew... the new Kirovs have so much potential

Looks like 6 lots of 8 tube launchers to me... so 6 UKSK...

Closer to the gun mount it carries 32 Redut cells. They are a bit narrower than a UKSK, measure them and you will see.

So why would you think Redut on a destroyer or cruiser needs to be the same?

Yeah, as said above I dont know what the solution for the big vessels will be. It would be absurd to limit a 1142 with the kind of launcher you can place in a corvette.

Isos wrote:Nakhimov may get special VLS for S-400 IF tey plan to use also s-500 missiles on it as a future upgrade.

If not they may get only UKSK-M with some redut on "smaller area".

Long range AD system are over-estimated. Modern antiship missiles have more than 300km ranges and launching aircraft will stay well without their reach. They may see them on radar for few seconds when they aquire the ship on radar and launch their missiles and that would be too short to destroy them.

Long range missiles will threaten patrol aircraft, Awacs and jammer aircraft. So they don't a lot of them.

Ship AD may focus on intercepting missiles. So a 9m96E2 for long range (against missile), shtil/9m96 for medium range, pantsir/tor/9m100 for short range and 30mm for very short range. I also suggested an "arena-E" APS type for ships as a last chance defence. Also lets not forget 76/100/130/57mm guns with modern rounds and FCS can do a lot to destroy many missiles as they have a straight path for all the flight but the last km's.

I am not sure why Russia would need S-500 missiles on ships. Wouldn't S-400 be able to intercept Chinese anti-ship ballistic missiles?

Sure, with today's possibilities that is just wasting space.

They may have a few in storage that they could use up before introducing a newer longer ranged model...

Closer to the gun mount it carries 32 Redut cells. They are a bit narrower than a UKSK, measure them and you will see.

Which means at least one different type of Redut launcher because the standard is two rows of 6 tubes for 12 per system... which should make 36 with three launchers...

Yeah, as said above I dont know what the solution for the big vessels will be. It would be absurd to limit a 1142 with the kind of launcher you can place in a corvette.

The idea of standardised launchers does not preclude that they evolve or adapt to larger ships... on a small ship with no depth capacity to replace the Redut with UKSK then having some long range SAMs in the UKSK launcher might make it more capable of air defence... perhaps along with some anti sub and land attack missiles perhaps.

On larger ships with more launchers then it makes them even more flexible... and having four 9M96 missile to each hatch would be useful to allow more missiles to be carried....

Nakhimov may get special VLS for S-400 IF tey plan to use also s-500 missiles on it as a future upgrade.

If not they may get only UKSK-M with some redut on "smaller area".

The new missiles are much smaller than the old ones so 10 UKSK launchers in place of the old Granit Launchers, plus in front of those was the Rif launcher which had a rotary mechanism that was huge and lots of space under the deck where you could access the missiles. Replacing that with Redut should allow rather more missiles to be carried... especially as in front of that was a twin launcher for the anti sub Metel missile and an under deck reloader which took up a bit of space and would be redundant with the UKSK being able to carry anti sub missiles too.

So the SS-N-19, Rif, and SS-N-14 launchers all replaced with UKSK and Redut should actually greatly increase the missile performance of the ship signficantly while making it simpler and cheaper as there is no electric motors and rotary launchers with big empty spaces because of the design.

Long range AD system are over-estimated. Modern antiship missiles have more than 300km ranges and launching aircraft will stay well without their reach. They may see them on radar for few seconds when they aquire the ship on radar and launch their missiles and that would be too short to destroy them.

With aircraft in the air anti ship missiles can be destroyed from 400km out using S-400... which means whittling down enemy missile numbers early... the further away you shoot them down the better... and of course aircraft can be engaged too... they might know where your AWACS is but they might not be sure where your cruisers are... your AWACS could detect enemy aircraft and get a cruiser to launch a SAM which could attack those attacking aircraft without warning... as it comes roaring down at mach 6 from very high altitude...

I also suggested an "arena-E" APS type for ships as a last chance defence.

Interesting but most anti ship missiles have large warheads so even if you destroy a missile at 20m from the ship it is still going to do some serious damage.

Smoke and chaff and decoy and flare systems all have a part to play... certainly a Russian surface group wont go down without a fight...

I am not sure why Russia would need S-500 missiles on ships. Wouldn't S-400 be able to intercept Chinese anti-ship ballistic missiles?

Probably... but not sub launched SLBMs.... Plus the ability to knock out the odd satellite whereever you are would be a useful thing too.

I suspect the extra range and abilty to operate outside the atmosphere (ie rocket side thrusters) could make it agile enough to take on some hypersonic threats a normal missile might be unable to deal with.

Certainly too with 100mm high rate of fire guns firing ball bearing filled HE rounds with air burst fuses like giant claymore mines could form a barrier that very fast missiles or very small drones might not penetrate...

GarryB wrote:
Certainly too with 100mm high rate of fire guns firing ball bearing filled HE rounds with air burst fuses like giant claymore mines could form a barrier that very fast missiles or very small drones might not penetrate...

An idea I had a while back was to have a few ultra high fire rate gauss cannon (as gauss cannon do not need a sealed breach you can greatly simplify the feed mechanism) on a missile cruiser that could fire a couple of hundred such shells in a few seconds.

That should stop almost anything that gets within a few km of your ship.

The shipborne air defense missile system "Polyment-Redut" has confirmed the ability to hit sea targets

https://en.topwar.ru/189919-korabelnyj-zrk-poliment-redut-podtverdil-sposobnost-porazhat-morskie-celi.html

To clarify, they have said they are developing 400km range SAMs for redut... I suspect they planned to do so all along because it is intended to be a standard SAM system for Russian ships, new and upgraded.

The new 250km and 400km range large S-400 type SAMs have ARH, as do the two shorter ranged 9M96 missiles so rate of fire and number of targets that could be engaged should be rather good with AESA radar directing the missiles.

The new missiles would need to be launched from existing Redut launchers, because they are not going to develop a whole new launcher for the longer ranged missiles.

I expect the 400km range missiles probably have reduced sized warheads because the Active radar homing guidance is probably more accurate so the large warhead is not needed... the space and weight that frees up would allow more fuel which would allow much better range too, though the 250km range model might keep the heavier warhead for specific targets that need to be hit harder.

When the TOR SA-15 vehicle came out it had 8 ready to fire missiles in its turret, but not long after a newer model was revealed with smaller missiles that doubled the missile load to 16.

I suspect the current Redut launcher is not the final launcher and that quad mounted 9M96s can be fitted beneath each hatch which would also allow a single larger S-400 missile to be loaded too.

It might be that the bigger missiles will only fit on larger ships like the Frigates and larger vessels perhaps.

Redut silo after launch of a 9M96. Lots of space for a fatter missile.