Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    Poliment-Redut Naval Air Defense System

    Isos
    Isos

    Posts : 3265
    Points : 3263
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Poliment-Redut Naval Air Defense System - Page 4 Empty Re: Poliment-Redut Naval Air Defense System

    Post  Isos on Mon Nov 19, 2018 10:38 pm

    So they were working on such missile. They will exploit poliment/redut perfectly with this. An export version would help sell the frigate.
    avatar
    hoom

    Posts : 1783
    Points : 1773
    Join date : 2016-05-06

    Poliment-Redut Naval Air Defense System - Page 4 Empty Re: Poliment-Redut Naval Air Defense System

    Post  hoom on Tue Nov 20, 2018 3:27 am

    Waaat Shocked
    That seems fairly unlikely given Redut is a pretty small cell.

    If true it'd give a future 22350M/other large new ship more serious long range firepower than just the 120km 9M96.
    dino00
    dino00

    Posts : 845
    Points : 886
    Join date : 2012-10-12
    Age : 31
    Location : portugal

    Poliment-Redut Naval Air Defense System - Page 4 Empty Re: Poliment-Redut Naval Air Defense System

    Post  dino00 on Tue Nov 20, 2018 10:48 am

    According to Izvestia, a new anti-aircraft guided missile (ZUR) will be created using the technological reserve of the 40N6 missile , as well as 9M96 and 9M100 missiles. The exact tactical and technical characteristics of new items are not yet known. But, presumably, it will be able to hit aerodynamic targets at a distance of 400 km and an altitude of up to 35 km.

    https://iz.ru/813938/aleksei-ramm-bogdan-stepovoi/sbit-so-sveta-korabli-poluchat-novye-zenitnye-rakety

    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 20650
    Points : 21204
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Poliment-Redut Naval Air Defense System - Page 4 Empty Re: Poliment-Redut Naval Air Defense System

    Post  GarryB on Wed Nov 21, 2018 12:04 am

    The specs sound like the long range S-400 missile...

    Of course it would not be that difficult to put a significant sized solid rocket booster on the rear of the 9M96/E to further enhance flight range, but I suspect it is the new long range S-400 missile they are talking about.
    avatar
    hoom

    Posts : 1783
    Points : 1773
    Join date : 2016-05-06

    Poliment-Redut Naval Air Defense System - Page 4 Empty Re: Poliment-Redut Naval Air Defense System

    Post  hoom on Wed Nov 21, 2018 2:53 am

    But Redut cells are much smaller than S-3/400 tubes so it'd have to be a much smaller missile than normal S-400 to fit.
    avatar
    hoom

    Posts : 1783
    Points : 1773
    Join date : 2016-05-06

    Poliment-Redut Naval Air Defense System - Page 4 Empty Re: Poliment-Redut Naval Air Defense System

    Post  hoom on Thu Nov 22, 2018 2:24 pm

    So on the question of the new 400km S-400 missile
    Poliment-Redut Naval Air Defense System - Page 4 9

    Its 7.825m*1m (I think transport/storage tube)
    Vs
    9M96 5.65m*.24m which is waaaaay smaller.

    I guess the question then is how big is a Redut cell?
    Poliment-Redut Naval Air Defense System - Page 4 11tk6


    Perhaps the reporter misinterpreted someone telling him 22350M will have S-400 missiles? (UKSK-M? which hopefully will actually quad-pack 9M96)
    AlfaT8
    AlfaT8

    Posts : 1738
    Points : 1733
    Join date : 2013-02-02

    Poliment-Redut Naval Air Defense System - Page 4 Empty Re: Poliment-Redut Naval Air Defense System

    Post  AlfaT8 on Thu Nov 22, 2018 2:32 pm

    Yea, this is definitely a case of either miss reporting or faulty translation.

    The 22350M is without a doubt going to have the S-400.
    Hole
    Hole

    Posts : 2061
    Points : 2061
    Join date : 2018-03-24
    Age : 43
    Location : Merkelland

    Poliment-Redut Naval Air Defense System - Page 4 Empty Re: Poliment-Redut Naval Air Defense System

    Post  Hole on Thu Nov 22, 2018 4:11 pm

    Length is a problem. Does somenone have the length of the VLS tubes of the system?

    Take a look at the picture and you will see that the tube is much smaller than the lid. The new missile could be greater in diameter then the 9M96.
    Isos
    Isos

    Posts : 3265
    Points : 3263
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Poliment-Redut Naval Air Defense System - Page 4 Empty Re: Poliment-Redut Naval Air Defense System

    Post  Isos on Thu Nov 22, 2018 8:51 pm

    hoom wrote:So on the question of the new 400km S-400 missile

    Its 7.825m*1m (I think transport/storage tube)
    Vs
    9M96 5.65m*.24m which is waaaaay smaller.

    I guess the question then is how big is a Redut cell?
    Poliment-Redut Naval Air Defense System - Page 4 11tk6


    Perhaps the reporter misinterpreted someone telling him 22350M will have S-400 missiles? (UKSK-M? which hopefully will actually quad-pack 9M96)

    I'm more impressed about how small the missile tube is compare to the place taken by the VLS. You can easily pack 4 missiles per tubes.

    They really are 50 years behund US in VLS technology. Even chinese VLS can launch tens of different missiles. Russian ones are limited to 2 or 3 or 1 for shtil-1 each. That doesn't make the boats that much multirole.
    Hole
    Hole

    Posts : 2061
    Points : 2061
    Join date : 2018-03-24
    Age : 43
    Location : Merkelland

    Poliment-Redut Naval Air Defense System - Page 4 Empty Re: Poliment-Redut Naval Air Defense System

    Post  Hole on Thu Nov 22, 2018 10:00 pm

    Russia was the first to utilise VLS magazines. For the S-300F and Kinzhal, starting back in the 70´s.

    Amiland uses two different missiles from its VLS, Tomahawk and SM-2 (SM-3 and SM-6 are just versions of this missile).

    Don´t know about the Chinese but most of their ships use VLS for air defence systems, anti-ship missiles are launched from tubes on deck.

    The VLS in the picture is used with 9M96 missiles. It is large enough to fit four 9M100 each. The new long-range missile could be a 9M96 with a fatter first stage.
    avatar
    hoom

    Posts : 1783
    Points : 1773
    Join date : 2016-05-06

    Poliment-Redut Naval Air Defense System - Page 4 Empty Re: Poliment-Redut Naval Air Defense System

    Post  hoom on Fri Nov 23, 2018 2:54 am

    I'm more impressed about how small the missile tube is compare to the place taken by the VLS. You can easily pack 4 missiles per tubes.
    Indeed, it looks like it should be possible, many ppl assumed it would be done but somehow the Russians seem to have inexplicably missed the opportunity to do it.

    Or if tightly bound to 1 missile per cell they missed the opportunity to make Redut cells significantly smaller -> more cells fit in same area.


    Amiland uses two different missiles from its VLS, Tomahawk and SM-2 (SM-3 and SM-6 are just versions of this missile).
    Missed ESSM & ASROC.
    The very different capabilities of SM-3 & 6 means they easily count as separate missiles & from recollection there are a couple of different range versions of SM-2.
    There will also be LRASM upcoming.
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 20650
    Points : 21204
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Poliment-Redut Naval Air Defense System - Page 4 Empty Re: Poliment-Redut Naval Air Defense System

    Post  GarryB on Fri Nov 23, 2018 1:03 pm


    Perhaps the reporter misinterpreted someone telling him 22350M will have S-400 missiles? (UKSK-M? which hopefully will actually quad-pack 9M96)

    That Redut launcher clearly shows the existing tube takes up a tiny amount of the available space and that if needed the capacity of the launch system could be dramatically increased if needed.

    The 22350M is without a doubt going to have the S-400.

    Have been saying for years... why make a SAM vertical launch system that only takes one type of SAM when your company makes S-350 and S-400?

    They really are 50 years behund US in VLS technology. Even chinese VLS can launch tens of different missiles. Russian ones are limited to 2 or 3 or 1 for shtil-1 each. That doesn't make the boats that much multirole.

    Yeah, maybe even 1,000 years behind... except for all their VLS prowess the US can't currently vertically launch a supersonic anti ship missile from their launch tubes, and the fact that the naval TOR and Rif systems predate US vertical launchers by quite a few years who is leading whom?

    The Russians have large heavy missiles for land attack and anti ship use as well as anti sub use... it makes zero sense at all in making them capable of carrying tiny SAMs too because it just would not make sense in terms of capacity.

    It is the UKSK launchers that make Russian ships multirole... not her SAMs.

    Indeed, it looks like it should be possible, many ppl assumed it would be done but somehow the Russians seem to have inexplicably missed the opportunity to do it.

    Or if tightly bound to 1 missile per cell they missed the opportunity to make Redut cells significantly smaller -> more cells fit in same area.

    For testing, 1 missile per tube is plenty, but later on different tube linings allowing larger missiles or multiple smaller tubes could be introduced easily enough.

    The Redut system is supposed to take both 9M96 and 9M96E and 9M100 missiles which are all different diameters and lengths so of course different tube linings would need to be used to carry them.

    Missed ESSM & ASROC.
    The very different capabilities of SM-3 & 6 means they easily count as separate missiles & from recollection there are a couple of different range versions of SM-2.
    There will also be LRASM upcoming.

    So Tomahawk, SM-2, SM-3, SM-6, ESSM, and ASROC... and LRASM in the future...

    So for the UKSK we have the land attack Club, the subsonic anti ship Club, the supersonic anti ship Club, the anti sub ballistic 91RE2, the Onyx, the Yakhont, the Brahmos, and soon the Zircon supersonic anti ship missiles. So 7 vs 8... sound about the same to me even though the Russian system is surface to surface/subsurface weapons only.

    Where is this US superiority?
    Isos
    Isos

    Posts : 3265
    Points : 3263
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Poliment-Redut Naval Air Defense System - Page 4 Empty Re: Poliment-Redut Naval Air Defense System

    Post  Isos on Fri Nov 23, 2018 2:58 pm

    Yeah, maybe even 1,000 years behind... except for all their VLS prowess the US can't currently vertically launch a supersonic anti ship missile from their launch tubes, and the fact that the naval TOR and Rif systems predate US vertical launchers by quite a few years who is leading whom?

    The Russians have large heavy missiles for land attack and anti ship use as well as anti sub use... it makes zero sense at all in making them capable of carrying tiny SAMs too because it just would not make sense in terms of capacity.

    It is the UKSK launchers that make Russian ships multirole... not her SAMs.

    Supersonic antiship missiles isn't US philosophy of naval war even if their anti air missiles can hit also naval targets.

    Tor and rif vls are made for only one type of system. Not comparable to US vls.

    So Tomahawk, SM-2, SM-3, SM-6, ESSM, and ASROC... and LRASM in the future...

    So for the UKSK we have the land attack Club, the subsonic anti ship Club, the supersonic anti ship Club, the anti sub ballistic 91RE2, the Onyx, the Yakhont, the Brahmos, and soon the Zircon supersonic anti ship missiles. So 7 vs 8... sound about the same to me even though the Russian system is surface to surface/subsurface weapons only

    That's because of the versatility of the kalibr family based on 1 design. And no anti air missiles.

    BTW we are still not sure they use the other missile of kalibr family apart of the land attack version and the anti sub.

    On gorshkov where russian have only two UKSK, US would have put a big block of 10 VLS like of their AB. The biggest shtill VLS with 24 tubes can't be used because it is heavy so they need much more space than US VLS that carries much bigger missiles.
    Hole
    Hole

    Posts : 2061
    Points : 2061
    Join date : 2018-03-24
    Age : 43
    Location : Merkelland

    Poliment-Redut Naval Air Defense System - Page 4 Empty Re: Poliment-Redut Naval Air Defense System

    Post  Hole on Fri Nov 23, 2018 5:15 pm

    Mk 41 was designed for SM-2 and ASROC (which took 20 years to be ready!). The first ten years it only could use SM-2, then the Tomahawk was added. Another 10 years later the VLS version of the ASROC. And Mk 41 can only be used with large ships, even the LCS can´t use them.

    The Shtil-1 was designed for export. It only got into service with the russian Navy because they bought the russian version of the Talwar. The 9M117 missile could also hit sea and land targets.

    Redut was designed for medium-size ships. Possibly the Hermes will be added in future to attack smaller land and sea targets.

    The only difference is that Russia developed an VLS vor LACM, AShM and ASW Missiles, which can be used from small (Karakurt) to large (Nakhimov) ships and a different VLS for air defence (Redut), which is used on medium sized ships like 20380 and Gorschkov. On larger ships the USKS could also be used for air defence missiles, just like "our friends and partners" in the Pentagon adapted the Mk 41 to LACM´s.
    Isos
    Isos

    Posts : 3265
    Points : 3263
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Poliment-Redut Naval Air Defense System - Page 4 Empty Re: Poliment-Redut Naval Air Defense System

    Post  Isos on Fri Nov 23, 2018 8:30 pm

    That only means they didn't learned of US mistakes. Instead of making UKSK really universal, they made it for some type of missile. Redut take the same space, not in deapth however, but that could have been solve by packing the launcher at mid ship lie on Arleigh Burkes.
    LMFS
    LMFS

    Posts : 1398
    Points : 1392
    Join date : 2018-03-03

    Poliment-Redut Naval Air Defense System - Page 4 Empty Re: Poliment-Redut Naval Air Defense System

    Post  LMFS on Fri Nov 23, 2018 10:03 pm

    Isos wrote:That only means they didn't learned of US mistakes. Instead of making UKSK really universal, they made it for some type of missile. Redut take the same space, not in deapth however, but that could have been solve by packing the launcher at mid ship lie on Arleigh Burkes.
    But AShM or LACM are substantially bigger than SAMs. If you want to unify all VLS but need almost 10 meters height for it, you are loosing a lot of places where you could place SAM VLS for all but the biggest, longer ranged missiles.

    Isos
    Isos

    Posts : 3265
    Points : 3263
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Poliment-Redut Naval Air Defense System - Page 4 Empty Re: Poliment-Redut Naval Air Defense System

    Post  Isos on Fri Nov 23, 2018 10:09 pm

    LMFS wrote:
    Isos wrote:That only means they didn't learned of US mistakes. Instead of making UKSK really universal, they made it for some type of missile. Redut take the same space, not in deapth however, but that could have been solve by packing the launcher at mid ship lie on Arleigh Burkes.
    But AShM or LACM are substantially bigger than SAMs. If you want to unify all VLS but need almost 10 meters height for it, you are loosing a lot of places where you could place SAM VLS for all but the biggest, longer ranged missiles.


    That's an issue for sure. Even european Sylver VLS for aster have different versions because of that.

    US solved that by making only destroyers to carry them.
    LMFS
    LMFS

    Posts : 1398
    Points : 1392
    Join date : 2018-03-03

    Poliment-Redut Naval Air Defense System - Page 4 Empty Re: Poliment-Redut Naval Air Defense System

    Post  LMFS on Fri Nov 23, 2018 11:11 pm

    [quote="Isos"]
    LMFS wrote:US solved that by making only destroyers to carry them.
    I am not very knowledgeable on US VLS systems, but as far as I see it, that is not solving anything, is having a problem. Russia has corvettes with better offensive missiles than any ship in the whole USN. That allows a way smaller navy than USN to be a dangerous opponent which is better to leave in peace.

    Maybe UKSK could hold 40N6 and similarly sized missiles, obviously in small amounts and rather as deterrence. But mid and short range missiles are better in shorter VLS cells that can be placed in swallower areas of the ship for bigger numbers. That, unless missiles could be somehow stacked on top of each other inside some kind of "double-deck" VLS , which I guess is not currently feasible, and use-up better the space in bigger VLS wells.
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 20650
    Points : 21204
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Poliment-Redut Naval Air Defense System - Page 4 Empty Re: Poliment-Redut Naval Air Defense System

    Post  GarryB on Sat Nov 24, 2018 3:35 am

    Supersonic antiship missiles isn't US philosophy of naval war even if their anti air missiles can hit also naval targets.

    Ironic as we were led to believe the Soviets used dumb simple technology in large numbers to overwhelm the enemy, while the west used high tech expensive but capable systems to defeat the simpler enemy in vast numbers...

    The US uses Harpoon and Tomahawk... both entered service in about the late 1970s... at which time the Soviets had about 7 different anti ship cruise missiles... and were introducing more.

    Tor and rif vls are made for only one type of system. Not comparable to US vls.

    When TOR and RIF were in service the US was using missiles from arm launchers and had no vertical launch systems...

    That's because of the versatility of the kalibr family based on 1 design. And no anti air missiles.

    When you have pathetic little anti ship missiles that are about the same size as a SAM then it makes sense to put them all in the same tubes.

    Putting SAMs in a UKSK tube would be a pathetic waste of tube space and very inefficient... the opposite of what vertical launch tubes are supposed to achieve.

    BTW we are still not sure they use the other missile of kalibr family apart of the land attack version and the anti sub.

    Get a dictionary and look up the definition of the Russian words that make up the acronym UKSK... (it means universal cruise missile launcher).

    They have several different vertical launch systems for SAMs... ie Redut and Shtil and Klintok, but they only have one for cruise missiles.

    On gorshkov where russian have only two UKSK, US would have put a big block of 10 VLS like of their AB. The biggest shtill VLS with 24 tubes can't be used because it is heavy so they need much more space than US VLS that carries much bigger missiles.

    Hahahaha... the other way around... the UKSK system carries very long missiles and needs a lot of depth of hull to fit it... Gorshkov is a Frigate... how many frigates does the US have with vertical launch tubes... LCS?

    That only means they didn't learned of US mistakes. Instead of making UKSK really universal, they made it for some type of missile. Redut take the same space, not in deapth however, but that could have been solve by packing the launcher at mid ship lie on Arleigh Burkes.

    But that is the thing.... they did learn from US mistakes... 8 Zircons from one UKSK launcher is worth 1,000 harpoons or tomahawks... their solution is just better.

    US solved that by making only destroyers to carry them.

    So WTF are you talking about... how can the Russian solution be inferior when the US solution does not even work for Frigates and Corvettes?

    Maybe UKSK could hold 40N6 and similarly sized missiles, obviously in small amounts and rather as deterrence. But mid and short range missiles are better in shorter VLS cells that can be placed in swallower areas of the ship for bigger numbers. That, unless missiles could be somehow stacked on top of each other inside some kind of "double-deck" VLS , which I guess is not currently feasible, and use-up better the space in bigger VLS wells.

    The Russians are experts in cold launch systems... look at TOR launchers as an example... or indeed S-300 and S-400 and S-350.

    It should not be that hard to stack small missiles in a bigger tube... they are already putting three Onyx tubes in a single Granit tube in Oscar class SSGNs... how hard could it be to have two or three layers in depth of multiple missiles...
    LMFS
    LMFS

    Posts : 1398
    Points : 1392
    Join date : 2018-03-03

    Poliment-Redut Naval Air Defense System - Page 4 Empty Re: Poliment-Redut Naval Air Defense System

    Post  LMFS on Sat Nov 24, 2018 3:57 am

    GarryB wrote:The Russians are experts in cold launch systems... look at TOR launchers as an example... or indeed S-300 and S-400 and S-350.

    It should not be that hard to stack small missiles in a bigger tube... they are already putting three Onyx tubes in a single Granit tube in Oscar class SSGNs... how hard could it be to have two or three layers in depth of multiple missiles...
    Those three Onyx per Granite tube, they are side to side right? Granit is 10 m long while Onyx is almost 8 m
    Like said, not very up to date with these systems, but have no recall of seeing stacked missiles in VLS cells. So my first thought is, that there is some reason for VLS being single deck. But then, it does not make real sense in the small vessels that have been built until now, since the limiting factor in them is the depth of the cells. But when RuN starts developing destroyers and above, the deck surface taken by the launchers will start to limit the number of missiles, especially mid and short range against saturation attacks, and then maybe this could be worth the effort. From what we know for the Nakhimov, Redut and UKSK are going to be kept in parallel so no unification in sight, even in big vessels.
    avatar
    hoom

    Posts : 1783
    Points : 1773
    Join date : 2016-05-06

    Poliment-Redut Naval Air Defense System - Page 4 Empty Re: Poliment-Redut Naval Air Defense System

    Post  hoom on Sat Nov 24, 2018 5:07 am

    Where is this US superiority?
    I was just showing Mk-41 is more than 2 missiles.

    Mk 41 can only be used with large ships, even the LCS can´t use them.
    I don't believe there is any particular minimum size, the lack of VLS anti-ship missile & general rarity of missile boats in Western navies is probably the main reason they haven't been mounted on smaller ships.
    Several fairly small frigate classes have 8 cells which can mean 32* ESSM.
    LCS should totally have had 8 or 16 cells but it was dumb requirements of the program that prevented it rather than ship size.
    The new FFG(X) is set to fix that.
    Hole
    Hole

    Posts : 2061
    Points : 2061
    Join date : 2018-03-24
    Age : 43
    Location : Merkelland

    Poliment-Redut Naval Air Defense System - Page 4 Empty Re: Poliment-Redut Naval Air Defense System

    Post  Hole on Sat Nov 24, 2018 9:33 pm

    It is possible that in the future the USKS could be used for air defence missiles on an destroyer-size ship. We don´t know that yet. The Gorschkov uses a separate VLS because of the hull depth. The Nakhimov uses different VLS because they were already there.

    By the way, USKS means universal silo and catapult (launch) system.
    avatar
    hoom

    Posts : 1783
    Points : 1773
    Join date : 2016-05-06

    Poliment-Redut Naval Air Defense System - Page 4 Empty Re: Poliment-Redut Naval Air Defense System

    Post  hoom on Sun Nov 25, 2018 12:44 am

    It is possible that in the future the USKS could be used for air defence missiles on an destroyer-size ship.
    UKSK-M is supposed to be properly universal.
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 20650
    Points : 21204
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Poliment-Redut Naval Air Defense System - Page 4 Empty Re: Poliment-Redut Naval Air Defense System

    Post  GarryB on Sun Nov 25, 2018 3:35 pm

    Those three Onyx per Granite tube, they are side to side right? Granit is 10 m long while Onyx is almost 8 m

    In the Oscar the Granit tubes are side by side, but three Onyx missiles fit inside the Granit tubes.

    Like said, not very up to date with these systems, but have no recall of seeing stacked missiles in VLS cells. So my first thought is, that there is some reason for VLS being single deck.

    VLS systems are generally designed for a standard or a group of standard missiles.

    All the missiles that currently fit in the UKSK launcher are between 8-10 metres long for instance.

    With Redut however the tube space, or cell space seems to be based on the full sized S-300 missile... the S-400 has shown that you can fit four 9M96 missile tubes in the space for one S-300 missile... the whole point of the smaller 9M96 missiles was to increase the number of ready to fire missiles by four times while using the same launchers. these missiles are also much shorter than the standard full sized missiles so stacking becomes potentially possible.

    S-300 missiles are cold launched so they exit the launch tubes before their rocket motors start up... it would not take much to create a cold launch system that ejects itself when it launches the top missile so further layers of shorter missiles could be stacked on top of each other.

    9M100 missiles will be tiny in comparison with the S-300 missiles, so you could have 3 or more layers of 4-6 missiles each quite easily.

    But then, it does not make real sense in the small vessels that have been built until now, since the limiting factor in them is the depth of the cells.

    The cell size is fixed and as you can see in the picture above the use of 9M96 missiles does not fill the cell efficiently. Having a quad liner for the cell so four missiles could be loaded makes sense but if the missiles are shorter as well as narrower then why not have layers too?

    One tube could carry one S-400 full sized missile with a range of 400km, or it could carry a normal S-400 with a 250km range, or it could carry two layers of missiles with four missiles packed into each layer for 8 x 9M96 missiles per tube, or three layers of 5 missiles with the 9M100 missiles with a total of 15 missiles per tube.

    That means with 12 tubes you could have four long range S-400s (2x400km and 2 x 250km), 4 tubes with medium range 150km and 60km range 9M96 missiles (32 missiles), and 4 tubes with 15 9M100 missiles (60 missiles).

    That means a corvette could have 96 missiles of a wide variety of types and capabilities against a range of targets... and that does not include any Pantsir or TOR based systems...

    It would make bigger ships very formidably armed... Frigates with 36 launch tubes (3 launchers), destroyers with 72 launch tubes (6 launchers), cruisers with 144 launch tubes in 12 launchers...

    From what we know for the Nakhimov, Redut and UKSK are going to be kept in parallel so no unification in sight, even in big vessels.

    I don't see the point in unification of the UKSK cruise missile launchers and the Redut SAM launchers... the difference between the small SAMs and the big SAMs is big enough already without adding enormous cruise missiles to the problem.

    You could have small shallow 9M100 launchers all over the place as they are short range lock on after launch IIR guided missiles that would always be useful... even embedded in the sides of ships facing outwards...

    It is possible that in the future the USKS could be used for air defence missiles on an destroyer-size ship. We don´t know that yet. The Gorschkov uses a separate VLS because of the hull depth. The Nakhimov uses different VLS because they were already there.

    By the way, USKS means universal silo and catapult (launch) system.

    My understanding it means universal silo for cruise missiles... AFAIK the original model was never intended to carry SAMs, and no SAM maker has integrated SAM for it.

    The new Shtil-1 and S-350/400/500 Redut vertical launch systems are for SAMs, and are not interchangeable.

    UKSK-M is supposed to be properly universal.

    If they are going to end up using UKSK launchers then they will definitely need tube liners and layers because the cruise missile tubes are huge and the smaller SAMs are tiny in comparison.
    Hole
    Hole

    Posts : 2061
    Points : 2061
    Join date : 2018-03-24
    Age : 43
    Location : Merkelland

    Poliment-Redut Naval Air Defense System - Page 4 Empty Re: Poliment-Redut Naval Air Defense System

    Post  Hole on Sun Nov 25, 2018 4:57 pm

    Universal shipboard firing system 3S14U1 (UKSK). This is the translation I found so far.

    Sponsored content

    Poliment-Redut Naval Air Defense System - Page 4 Empty Re: Poliment-Redut Naval Air Defense System

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Sat May 25, 2019 12:19 pm