[Official] 'Peter The Great' News Thread:

How is TOR gonna do that when it can only detect up to 48 targets and track only 10 a a time.

The TOR system they mount on their new ships doesn't need to be the same system in their current vehicles... that small search radar they use and the large phased array tracking radar on existing vehicles could be updated to incorporate the main AESA radar of the ship covering 360 degrees with active radar scanning covering hundreds or perhaps thousands of targets at one time... it is about processing power and command channels for which they could have plenty of space on an upgraded Cruiser.

The missiles themselves are cheap simple command guided missiles they could carry in enormous numbers and using the main AESA radar array they could attack multiple targets in any direction at once... no need to turn the turret or antenna to point the tracking radar towards the incoming threats.

Plus it is a cruiser so it will also have Redut and S-350 and S-400 to engage targets at extended ranges too.

It would most likely also have their Kashtan-M systems replaced with Pantsir systems with 40 missiles per mount plus two 30mm gatling guns with airburst 30mm shells too.

As for the USA not having hypersonics, do you honestly doubt they will have them within 5 years?

And by that time Russian air defence experts will have had 5 years worth of testing and development of defences and counter systems for hypersonic threats... do you think a cruiser would be better able to defeat hypersonic threats with S-500 missiles able to intercept 7km/s targets and S-400 missiles able to intercept 4.8km/s targets, or you think you just have some Corvettes and beat the US by making them launch ten missiles to hit ten small ships instead of one big better protected ship.

And it is not just missiles... guns and lasers and jammers and decoys can be better on a bigger ship... you don't have to shoot down an incoming missile if you have a huge AESA radar that can direct megawatts of energy at the incoming missile so it can't see its target and just hits the sea...

Right now they are behind in everything and scrambling to not just catch up but also get the basics into serial production... they lack tanks and armoured vehicles and decent fighter aircraft and air defence systems and equipment... they have a lot of work to do and it isn't going to be cheap and money is getting tight... pretty soon they will start talking about closing foreign bases to save money...

Might even get to the point where the funding for the military starts to get cut to fund infrastructure projects that are long overdue...

Any air defense can be penetrated. The bomber will always get through. Each of those 100 can easily deploy 5-10 decoys without any real impact to their payload. Every air defense system has a saturation point. Perhaps laser cannons can do the job..but then the saturation volume will just go higher.

Any air defense can be penetrated.

No country is going to risk getting nuked to try to penetrate the air defences of a Russian cruiser.

If the cost of penetrating the defence is the lives of most of the pilots in your air force and most of the ships of your navy and your capital city I think the cruiser will probably be safe.

The bomber will always get through.

Tell that to the pilots of all the bombers that don't make it.

The modern air defences of the Russian Army are formidable and on a ship they are even more concentrated with guns and radars and other systems and equipment all working together.

Each of those 100 can easily deploy 5-10 decoys without any real impact to their payload. Every air defense system has a saturation point. Perhaps laser cannons can do the job..but then the saturation volume will just go higher.

In the Falklands war the number of missiles needed to saturate the target was probably 3 or 4, because that is the number of engagement channels the air defence systems the British ships had to defend themselves.

With modern AESA radar systems an upgraded Cruiser of today can probably deal with hundreds of targets all at once, and experience in Ukraine is leading them to develop mini missiles able to shoot down individual artillery shells and artillery rockets that could be carried in their thousands on ships and on land by supply columns.

Add to that 152mm heavy shells with air burst capacity as well as 130mm and 100mm and 76mm and 57mm and 30mm guns all with radar fire controls and air burst ammo plus as I mentioned new laser systems designed to destroy small objects out to 10km these days and its range is only increasing... if it can burn through a target at 10km then it should be able to blind/dazzle optical guidance at 100km... then you have decoys and jammers and smoke screens, or directed energy weapons to simply overwhelm the radar equipment in the incoming weapon.

And that ignores the fact that you might have a whole ship full of your own drones and aircraft that can take down enemy aircraft and enemy drones...

There comes a point where the saturation point is just not worth it and we are just talking about one ship... when you add an aircraft carrier and more ships who are all coordinating their defence and their attack capacity then an enemy would be enormously stupid to even try.

Remember if you want to attack with 1,000 planes... where are you going to base those planes... wont they notice?

After you have shot down 500 planes do they continue... because by then they know who you are and where you are launching from and what is to stop them nuking the airfields and bases and a few cities near where you are launching your attacks from?

Who is to say they don't already have a couple of Yasens in the area very close to your carriers launching these aircraft and drones and in response to your attack on their cruiser they launch a couple of Zircons to sink your entire damn navy... or at least the really expensive big ships in your navy...

BTW thanks for the flashback... spent most of the 1990s talking to hard core pro western navy fanboys who seemed to think US aircraft carriers were all seeing all doing things that could be anywhere and not detected and see all but still not be seen. It seems when they see everything everywhere they do it without emitting any radar or radio signals so no one can tell where they are, and their fighter aircraft defeat everything anywhere every time...

For a normal ship at sea information is a problem... when you get a contact at 400km, you can't really tell what it is or what its intentions are, so without an aircraft carrier you just have to guess and wonder. With an aircraft carrier you can send a couple of fighters out to have a closer look and generally you will find out if it is a civilian airliner or a cruise missile or a group of fighter aircraft etc... the point is that the fighter does not need to get within visual range to determine what the target is and if it turns out to be hostile they can turn tail and run back to the carrier... the target information they would have gotten would be enough for a ship in your group to launch a long range SAM at the target and if he tries to chase your fighters he is going to get a 1.5 ton SAM hitting him from rather high altitude and enormous speed he likely wont even see coming.

The point is that the radars and sensors on carrier aircraft act like mobile sensors that can be used by the AD network of the carrier group and in the future those fighters could be Su-57Ks with internally carried long range AAMs with good range too.

By this time that S-400 might be a modified missile that delivers 6 air to air missiles instead of the original 150kg warhead... it might literally carry 15 x 10kg AAMs based on the new short range missiles that are ballistically lobbed 400km to come down from maybe 40km altitude and each missile homes in on its own target individually guided by its own active radar homing seeker...

The attack potential is enormous and growing.

I have seen rumors that Peter the great will be retired and not undergo refit like the Nakhimov. I suppose thats part of the very high cost but also for the land war against Nato and the west. What russia needs now is not another Orlan-M in 10 years, but T-90s, Koalitiya and Iskanders now instead. Su-34 with Kinzhal is also in high demand right now.
And by the looks of it, this confrontation will not end even when the war ends, therefore i see the PG doing service as she is, the being retired when she is deemed not fit for service anymore.
And to be honest, 4 new 22350 instead of one Orlan-M will be much smarter.

runaway wrote:I have seen rumors that Peter the great will be retired and not undergo refit like the Nakhimov. I suppose thats part of the very high cost but also for the land war against Nato and the west. What russia needs now is not another Orlan-M in 10 years, but T-90s, Koalitiya and Iskanders now instead. Su-34 with Kinzhal is also in high demand right now.
And by the looks of it, this confrontation will not end even when the war ends, therefore i see the PG doing service as she is, the being retired when she is deemed not fit for service anymore.
And to be honest, 4 new 22350 instead of one Orlan-M will be much smarter.

Yes. You have seen rumours.