Naval Weapon Systems & Technology

Helicopters, Sea Bed sonar arrays... even just smaller boats with dipping sonar arrays or subs with towed arrays all detecting targets but not wanting or able to attack the target directly themselves (either because they are not carrying suitable weapons or perhaps are not wanting to give away their own position)... could transmit target data to a platform further away to engage the target...

Being command guided, the Ataka would be a useful anti helicopter and anti drone missile as DIRCMS and flares wont stop it...

I would be interesting to see what missile types could be used... 10km range Kornet EM missiles as well as the Ataka family (Shturm and Khrisantema) as well as perhaps Pine/Sosna and of course MANPADS like Igla and Verba...

Could be quite a flexible system...

The silver content probably is not in batteries but in electronics and equipment on the torpedo.

The Tor-M2 anti-aircraft missile system was developed in the late 2000s. The combat vehicle is capable of effectively countering air targets moving at speeds up to 700 km / h at an altitude of up to 10 km. At the same time, the range of destruction of the domestic complex reaches 15 km.

SAM "Tor-M2" is made on the basis of a tracked chassis and has a power reserve of up to 500 km. The complex is equipped with 8 missiles 9М330. The missiles are launched vertically, like in the S-300, to protect against climatic factors, as well as against the effects of bomb fragments.

What an odd combination of information... the land based TOR system that entered service in the 1980s had 8 missiles per vehicle... the once developed since the 2000s have 16 missiles. The old missiles could hit targets moving at 700m/s up to an altitude of 10km, but to ranges of up to 12km. The new ones can reach 15km range and 15km altitude thanks to Serbian experience in Kosovo...

Mounting the missiles vertically internally protects them from small arms fire and fragments...

Would they need to used Silver oxide batts today or would Lithium ion be ok?

Would Lithium be cheaper?

No, it is in the battery. Silver and zinc.

The pic is an old battery. Just an example.

There are lots of material alternatives for batteries and they have a choice.

Considering each torpedo can sink a ship spending a little extra on a more reliable or more effective power supply is probably worth it.

When making the MiG-25 they saved a lot of money by making the aircraft mostly out of stainless steel, and also using a silver mesh around the engines to help cool them down. Making the plane out of Titanium and the mesh around the engines out of gold would have been better performing but also rather more expensive.

The MiG-31 has more Titanium in its structure, but is cheaper to operate than the SR-71, which is the US equivalent.

The Soviets and Russians didn't waste money... they spent it where it was needed, but they didn't waste money.

limb wrote:
On  r/warcollege someone said unironically that the only reason russia has CIWS is to make its sailors feel "brave and strong" This is how entrenched prejudice against russians is engrained in military discourse.

Russia's not the one with the navy constantly getting trashed by cargo ships. Just saying. Oh and opinions of redditors should be discarded as a general rule.

Should russia create a point defence missile akin to the RAM? I guess it could be a modified verba but with extreme maneuverability.

TOR is a bigger heavier missile that is very manoeuvrable and cheap and in production in large numbers since the mid 1980s.

Used on land and at sea.

They are finalising the development of the 9M100 short range lock on after launch IIR guided point defence missile that will be launched from Redut tubes at sea, and S-350 launch tubes on land, and there is an air launched self defence models for shooting down AAMs and SAMs too.

On r/warcollege someone said unironically that the only reason russia has CIWS is to make its sailors feel "brave and strong" lol1 This is how entrenched prejudice against russians is engrained in military discourse.

Actually that is so Ironic because the one or two Phalanx systems they used to fit to their carriers meant that is exactly what the west was fitting them for.

In practise Phalanx fires 50 cal DU cores at a fairly moderate rate of fire and it is effective from about 500m out to about 1.8km... which makes it almost useless against any supersonic sea skimming missile. Shallow angle radar returns from waves rendered it useless against any target flying low.

DO you buy the argument that cannon CIWS has less Pk compared to short ranged SAMs?

Guns are less useful against very small targets like missiles and drones, yet with airburst fuses they should be effective enough. Against aircraft the guns would be devastating. Missiles are effective too even more so against manouvering targets than guns, but they are less cost effective much of the time.

A combination of both solutions especially including larger calibre guns makes the most sense.

The Soviets and Russia cover their ships with air defence guns and missiles... their carriers don't have two gatling guns... they normally have 8 Kashtan-Ms plus half a dozen gatling turrets and about 196 TOR type SAMs, so that is about 256 Pantsir missiles and more than 16 30mm gatling guns...

Guns cover this dead zone.

Guns can also fire warning shots and be directed on small targets you might not get a radar lock on... like a mine bobbing in the water semi submerged.

Their Pk if you can track correctly the missile and with a good FCS can be 100% against subsonic targets.

In Syria the PK for BUK and Pantsir was 100% but not for each missile. ( in other words one or two targets might have required more than one missile but all targets were defeated that came near the system).

That was against tiny plastic drones with little to no IR or radar signature.

Still they could pack a dozen or so Pantsir missiles in rack on helicopter hangar to boost the anti-missile defences, seems like a no brainer especially on boats that already have Pantsirs installed

It is funny because a system like Gibka is often discounted, yet armed with Verba or Igla-S missiles and with radar assistance and EO direction it is directly comparable to RAM... which is a frankenstein mishmash of Stinger and Hellfire and a few other systems crammed together.

With prior warning the Gibka can be pointing its missiles directly at an incoming missile or a passing missile going for another target... Igla was tested against AT-3 ATGMs and shot down 5 out of 9 targets... which is pretty good considering it has a graze fuse so it had to contact the missile to explode.

Igla-S was given amongst other improvements a proximity fuse which Verba also has to allow it to destroy very small targets without needing to hit them directly.

I would think they will develop a shipping crate with vertical launch TOR missiles mounted on it.

The Turret of the current TOR vehicle carries 16 ready to launch missiles, so the number you could fit in a standard 40ft shipping crate will be triple figures.

Having two or more of those sitting on the deck of a helicopter carrier plugged in to mains power and fibre optic command communications, those vertically launched missiles could be launched in any direction... though the location of the shipping container would need to be included in the self defence information so it didn't launch a missile that tried to fly through the carriers island to reach a target on the other side of the ship...

I am sure the system would sort that out.

Heck, you could sit the crate on top of internal vertical launchers for the same type of missiles so when the crate is empty they could lift it by crane back on to the deck exposing the ships own missiles ready for use once the missiles in the crate are used up.

Pantsir is a good system but it needs the deck below its mount for its missile reload system.

Of course you could add a room behind that room where more missiles could be stored and loaded forward into the missile magazine room... or just make the missile magazine room take up two or three rooms and hold rather more than 24 reloads.

The new small missiles that fit four to an original missile tube diameter could be the standard missile used on a ship because it might be powerful enough to take down a subsonic western anti ship missile so you can have four times as many ready to fire missiles.