Russia Defence Forum

Would you like to react to this message? Create an account in a few clicks or log in to continue.

Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    Poliment-Redut Naval Air Defense System

    AlfaT8
    AlfaT8

    Posts : 1892
    Points : 1887
    Join date : 2013-02-02

    Poliment-Redut Naval Air Defense System - Page 6 Empty Re: Poliment-Redut Naval Air Defense System

    Post  AlfaT8 on Thu Jul 18, 2019 11:33 pm

    GarryB wrote:
    1) 3 kinds of missiles presented + one perspective with range 400km altitude 35km Izvestia claims it is built base of 40N6E

    Well that confirms why the area under each Redut hatch is so big... to fit the 40N6 missiles.

    Therefore it is logical that the 9M96 missiles can be loaded four to each hatch, and the smaller 9M100 can be fitted 16 to each hatch... and that is assuming they only use one layer of missiles as the much smaller 9M100 missiles might be short enough to stack in two layers...


    ????
    What??..... 2 layers.
    As far as we know this the only config.
    Poliment-Redut Naval Air Defense System - Page 6 Igor-sutyagin-the-opposite-of-air-power-53-1024[/quote]

    Where is the 40N6 suppose to go?
    Poliment-Redut Naval Air Defense System - Page 6 AdBNHxJ

    And 9m100 only has a quad config in Redut, not sure about S-300/400.
    Poliment-Redut Naval Air Defense System - Page 6 9M100_MAKS-2017_2_05

    Now this is all assuming Redut and the S-350 have the same dimensions.
    I found this, which if the VLS system here is Redut, then you may have room for the 48N6, but not the 40N6.
    Looking at the altitude specs of 85km, this would definitely mean that it's not the 40N6, since it's altitude is almost 200km, so an improved 48N6 would be more likely.
    Either that or this report totally wrong.

    Poliment-Redut Naval Air Defense System - Page 6 0axkiij

    ____
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 26248
    Points : 26794
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Poliment-Redut Naval Air Defense System - Page 6 Empty Re: Poliment-Redut Naval Air Defense System

    Post  GarryB on Fri Jul 19, 2019 2:12 am


    ????
    What??..... 2 layers.
    As far as we know this the only config.

    Look at your first image with the truck mounted 9M96 (the full length tubes) and the 9M100 (the short tubes).

    In your pictures showing the 9M96 missiles lying next to the full sized 40N6 missiles you can see the 40N6 is as wide as the four pack of 9M96 missiles, so if Redut can carry the 40N6 missile it must be both wide enough and long enough to fit that rather big missile.

    If Redut can fit the big long range missiles then it should be able to fit four of the 9M96 missiles in the same space because they were designed to fit into the same space... there are pictures of S-400 missiles with one large missile missing and a quad pack of 9M96 missiles in the one missiles place.

    The S-350 is not designed to carry the big 40N6 missiles as it would need to be rather longer to fit the wider and longer missiles.

    If Redut can carry the 40N6 missiles then there must be extra length space within the tube to fit those longer missiles.

    Now look at the S-350 launcher again... the 9M100 missiles are rather smaller than the 9M96 missile tubes.

    The 9M96 tubes are not half the length of the 40N6 so you could not stack them in Redut, but the 9M100 missiles might be half the length of the 40N6... we know they are a quarter the size so even with just one layer they could have 16 missiles per 40N6 tube... the question is can they fit 32 in two layers of 16 missiles.

    It is not really critical for Redut, but for bigger tubes like UKSK-M stacking might solve the problem of volume... tiny missiles are not worth carrying if you can only carry one in a huge tube... it is all about efficiency of using the tube... getting four 9M96 missiles into one tube means you can have extreme long range with one 40N6, or you can give up that extreme range... which many targets wont warrant anyway and get four shorter ranged missiles.

    In fact you could mix it up and have two 150km range missiles and two 60km range missiles... or you might even have one 150km range missile, two 60km range missiles, and four 10km range 9M100 missiles under the one Redut hatch cover...

    If the 9M100 can be stacked then you could have 8 x 10km range 9M100 missiles... which is even better.

    The UKSK-M has to carry enormous long range cruise missiles 10m long and also the S-500 which could be an enormous missile too, which means the tube is even wider than the redut tube... there is little chance of getting two or three or four 40N6 missiles in each tube, but their might be room for more 9M96s and certainly regarding length there should be room for three lots of 9M100 missiles stacked on top of each other... it is just a way of more efficiently using up space.

    Now this is all assuming Redut and the S-350 have the same dimensions.

    Look at the big tube at the back on the truck mounted S-350... that is the 9M96.

    That is the missile on Redut which has a fairing all round it because the hatch cover is enormous... and it has to be that big because each cell is designed to carry 40N6 sized missiles which your posted images above clearly show in the background is rather bigger (wider and longer) than the 9M96.
    The 9M100 is even smaller and can fit in the space of one 9M96.

    It is like the Russian dolls... the Redut launcher on the ships can take the 40N6... if you open that you can fit four 9M96 inside though there is a gap because they are rather shorter than the 40N6. If you open each 9M96 you can fit four 9M100 missiles in each.

    That means that a single Redut launcher cell (ie each hatch cover) can be loaded with one 40N6 missile, OR four 9M96 missiles, OR 16 (4x4) 9M100 missiles.

    That seems to be fact.

    What I am suggesting is that the 9M100 missiles are so much shorter than the 9M96 missiles and also the even bigger 40N6 that fit in the tube that it might be possible to stack the 9M100 missiles in two layers... so 32 missiles per tube instead of 16.

    This would be very useful for small vessels as the 9M100 practically equates to a very high performance CIWS anti missile missile.

    The latter is purely speculation on my part and I have no evidence or have seen no references to suggest I might be right regarding stacking.

    The UKSK-M would benefit enormously from stacking of different missile types as it is designed to carry a wide range of missile sizes (widths and lengths).
    Rodion_Romanovic
    Rodion_Romanovic

    Posts : 1124
    Points : 1122
    Join date : 2015-12-30

    Poliment-Redut Naval Air Defense System - Page 6 Empty Re: Poliment-Redut Naval Air Defense System

    Post  Rodion_Romanovic on Fri Jul 19, 2019 11:25 am

    GarryB wrote:

    ????
    What??..... 2 layers.
    As far as we know this the only config.

    Look at your first image with the truck mounted 9M96 (the full length tubes) and the 9M100 (the short tubes).

    In your pictures showing the 9M96 missiles lying next to the full sized 40N6 missiles you can see the 40N6 is as wide as the four pack of 9M96 missiles, so if Redut can carry the 40N6 missile it must be both wide enough and long enough to fit that rather big missile.

    If Redut can fit the big long range missiles then it should be able to fit four of the 9M96 missiles in the same space because they were designed to fit into the same space... there are pictures of S-400 missiles with one large missile missing and a quad pack of 9M96 missiles in the one missiles place.

    The S-350 is not designed to carry the big 40N6 missiles as it would need to be rather longer to fit the wider and longer missiles.

    If Redut can carry the 40N6 missiles then there must be extra length space within the tube to fit those longer missiles.

    Now look at the S-350 launcher again... the 9M100 missiles are rather smaller than the 9M96 missile tubes.

    The 9M96 tubes are not half the length of the 40N6 so you could not stack them in Redut, but the 9M100 missiles might be half the length of the 40N6... we know they are a quarter the size so even with just one layer they could have 16 missiles per 40N6 tube... the question is can they fit 32 in two layers of 16 missiles.

    It is not really critical for Redut, but for bigger tubes like UKSK-M stacking might solve the problem of volume... tiny missiles are not worth carrying if you can only carry one in a huge tube... it is all about efficiency of using the tube... getting four 9M96 missiles into one tube means you can have extreme long range with one 40N6, or you can give up that extreme range... which many targets wont warrant anyway and get four shorter ranged missiles.

    In fact you could mix it up and have two 150km range missiles and two 60km range missiles... or you might even have one 150km range missile, two 60km range missiles, and four 10km range 9M100 missiles under the one Redut hatch cover...

    If the 9M100 can be stacked then you could have 8 x 10km range 9M100 missiles... which is even better.

    The UKSK-M has to carry enormous long range cruise missiles 10m long and also the S-500 which could be an enormous missile too, which means the tube is even wider than the redut tube... there is little chance of getting two or three or four 40N6 missiles in each tube, but their might be room for more 9M96s and certainly regarding length there should be room for three lots of 9M100 missiles stacked on top of each other... it is just a way of more efficiently using up space.

    Now this is all assuming Redut and the S-350 have the same dimensions.

    Look at the big tube at the back on the truck mounted S-350... that is the 9M96.

    That is the missile on Redut which has a fairing all round it because the hatch cover is enormous... and it has to be that big because each cell is designed to carry 40N6 sized missiles which your posted images above clearly show in the background is rather bigger (wider and longer) than the 9M96.
    The 9M100 is even smaller and can fit in the space of one 9M96.

    It is like the Russian dolls... the Redut launcher on the ships can take the 40N6... if you open that you can fit four 9M96 inside though there is a gap because they are rather shorter than the 40N6. If you open each 9M96 you can fit four 9M100 missiles in each.

    That means that a single Redut launcher cell (ie each hatch cover) can be loaded with one 40N6 missile, OR four 9M96 missiles, OR 16 (4x4) 9M100 missiles.

    That seems to be fact.

    What I am suggesting is that the 9M100 missiles are so much shorter than the 9M96 missiles and also the even bigger 40N6 that fit in the tube that it might be possible to stack the 9M100 missiles in two layers... so 32 missiles per tube instead of 16.

    This would be very useful for small vessels as the 9M100 practically equates to a very high performance CIWS anti missile missile.

    The latter is purely speculation on my part and I have no evidence or have seen no references to suggest I might be right regarding stacking.

    The UKSK-M would benefit enormously from stacking of different missile types as it is designed to carry a wide range of missile sizes (widths and lengths).

    Hey Garry, and what do you think instead of thw idea of having smaller (and shorter) dedicated VLS cells only for the smaller missile? They should be comparable in size with the kinzhal (naval tor) VLS and they could be placed were there is not enough space for a full sized Redut cell (e.g. side of the hull or in smaller vessel).
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 26248
    Points : 26794
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Poliment-Redut Naval Air Defense System - Page 6 Empty Re: Poliment-Redut Naval Air Defense System

    Post  GarryB on Sat Jul 20, 2019 7:34 am

    That would be interesting, because not every vessel is going to be able to carry the UKSK-M which is the final universal missile launcher that seems to be designed to carry all their different missile types, as some of those missiles are huge.

    Personally I think a bit of flexibility is a good thing so a small SAM launcher and a small other missile launcher design together with the universal launcher that can carry anything at all.

    To be honest with the volume of missiles these vessels will be able to carry I think half the time they will be operating with half their missile tubes empty simply because that many new missiles wont be cheap.

    Perhaps that is the reasoning behind the revealed TOR launch system which appears to have the turret of the land based TOR system minus the search radar but with the tracking radar and presumably 16 ready to launch missiles and two pods behind it with two more packs of presumably 16 more missiles each... you can just bolt it on externally to any free area of deck space... the front section with the tracking radar will need to turn but the other modules with missiles could be dotted all over the ship and not need to move at all... you could even put them on civilian ships if you wanted to... takes up no space under the deck except presumably power and data cables...

    Sort of the equivalent of an external above deck quad pack of Kh-35 missiles and the appropriate cabling and software upgrades to use them... they could probably add another similar system with the later model Kh-31s with a bigger solid rocket booster to give it decent range... over time upgrading it with scramjet propulsion could make it a very potent little missile for targets that are not carriers.

    The idea of a universal launcher is brilliant, but only if you can stack missiles and utilise the full capacity of the tubes with the smaller missile designs.

    That is not to say you don't need any other weapons on their ships... I think guns and even grad type rocket launchers sill have their place.

    It would be interesting to see if they could update their artillery shells to include cloaking rounds with chaff and flare munitions that can be rapidly fired around the ship with perhaps a jamming round that could be fired away from the ship to attract anti jamming missiles away from the ship rapidly and available 24/7.
    AlfaT8
    AlfaT8

    Posts : 1892
    Points : 1887
    Join date : 2013-02-02

    Poliment-Redut Naval Air Defense System - Page 6 Empty Re: Poliment-Redut Naval Air Defense System

    Post  AlfaT8 on Sat Jul 20, 2019 7:36 pm

    GarryB wrote:

    ????
    What??..... 2 layers.
    As far as we know this the only config.

    Look at your first image with the truck mounted 9M96 (the full length tubes) and the 9M100 (the short tubes).

    In your pictures showing the 9M96 missiles lying next to the full sized 40N6 missiles you can see the 40N6 is as wide as the four pack of 9M96 missiles, so if Redut can carry the 40N6 missile it must be both wide enough and long enough to fit that rather big missile.

    If Redut can fit the big long range missiles then it should be able to fit four of the 9M96 missiles in the same space because they were designed to fit into the same space... there are pictures of S-400 missiles with one large missile missing and a quad pack of 9M96 missiles in the one missiles place.

    The S-350 is not designed to carry the big 40N6 missiles as it would need to be rather longer to fit the wider and longer missiles.

    If Redut can carry the 40N6 missiles then there must be extra length space within the tube to fit those longer missiles.

    Now look at the S-350 launcher again... the 9M100 missiles are rather smaller than the 9M96 missile tubes.

    The 9M96 tubes are not half the length of the 40N6 so you could not stack them in Redut, but the 9M100 missiles might be half the length of the 40N6... we know they are a quarter the size so even with just one layer they could have 16 missiles per 40N6 tube... the question is can they fit 32 in two layers of 16 missiles.

    It is not really critical for Redut, but for bigger tubes like UKSK-M stacking might solve the problem of volume... tiny missiles are not worth carrying if you can only carry one in a huge tube... it is all about efficiency of using the tube... getting four 9M96 missiles into one tube means you can have extreme long range with one 40N6, or you can give up that extreme range... which many targets wont warrant anyway and get four shorter ranged missiles.

    In fact you could mix it up and have two 150km range missiles and two 60km range missiles... or you might even have one 150km range missile, two 60km range missiles, and four 10km range 9M100 missiles under the one Redut hatch cover...

    If the 9M100 can be stacked then you could have 8 x 10km range 9M100 missiles... which is even better.

    The UKSK-M has to carry enormous long range cruise missiles 10m long and also the S-500 which could be an enormous missile too, which means the tube is even wider than the redut tube... there is little chance of getting two or three or four 40N6 missiles in each tube, but their might be room for more 9M96s and certainly regarding length there should be room for three lots of 9M100 missiles stacked on top of each other... it is just a way of more efficiently using up space.

    Now this is all assuming Redut and the S-350 have the same dimensions.

    Look at the big tube at the back on the truck mounted S-350... that is the 9M96.

    That is the missile on Redut which has a fairing all round it because the hatch cover is enormous... and it has to be that big because each cell is designed to carry 40N6 sized missiles which your posted images above clearly show in the background is rather bigger (wider and longer) than the 9M96.
    The 9M100 is even smaller and can fit in the space of one 9M96.

    It is like the Russian dolls... the Redut launcher on the ships can take the 40N6... if you open that you can fit four 9M96 inside though there is a gap because they are rather shorter than the 40N6. If you open each 9M96 you can fit four 9M100 missiles in each.

    That means that a single Redut launcher cell (ie each hatch cover) can be loaded with one 40N6 missile, OR four 9M96 missiles, OR 16 (4x4) 9M100 missiles.

    That seems to be fact.

    What I am suggesting is that the 9M100 missiles are so much shorter than the 9M96 missiles and also the even bigger 40N6 that fit in the tube that it might be possible to stack the 9M100 missiles in two layers... so 32 missiles per tube instead of 16.

    This would be very useful for small vessels as the 9M100 practically equates to a very high performance CIWS anti missile missile.

    The latter is purely speculation on my part and I have no evidence or have seen no references to suggest I might be right regarding stacking.

    The UKSK-M would benefit enormously from stacking of different missile types as it is designed to carry a wide range of missile sizes (widths and lengths).

    Well first of all that is not the 40N6, it's the smaller 48N6, i couldn't find a proper pic of the 40N6, sorry.

    And i don't think so, although Redut does have some extra space, it doesn't look like it could hold a Quad config.

    Poliment-Redut Naval Air Defense System - Page 6 11TK6
    Poliment-Redut Naval Air Defense System - Page 6 9M96_MAKS-2017_2_09
    Poliment-Redut Naval Air Defense System - Page 6 1024px-Air_Defence_System_%22Vityaz%22_%28english_%22Knight%22%29

    Else if there was space for quad 9M96s they would have done it, and we would also see Hexa 9M100 config.
    But that's not the case here.

    As for stacked launchers, that would definitely by one hell of a technological and design improvement, but like 360 or 180 Degree IRST systems, it doesn't look like it's happening.
    It could happen, but not today.

    Sadly, i haven't been able to get a good measurements.
    But from what i found the Kalibre missiles from the UKSK has a diameter of around 0.5m and according to open source info, the 48N6 has a similar diameter.

    So for comparisons sake.

    Poliment-Redut Naval Air Defense System - Page 6 UKSK_Russia_VLS
    Poliment-Redut Naval Air Defense System - Page 6 11TK6

    Now length wise the 48N6 is 7,5m no doubt the 40N6 is closer to 8m.
    Now we know the UKSK is 9.5m, so looking it the Gorshkov where the Redut is 1 meter or so lower than the UKSK, stands to reason that it might be possible, but Diameter wise it doesn't add up, as the pics above show.
    Above all, if they have the space for Quad 9M98s, then they would have done it.

    After looking at the hatches of the UKSK and Redut on the Gorshk, they look similar, but i can't get anything accurate on the Redut.

    Strange, info about the UKSK and Shtil-1 are easy to find, but i can't find anything on Redut.

    Overall, it's a nice idea, but i just don't see it yet, maybe when we know more about the Redut.
    avatar
    hoom

    Posts : 2155
    Points : 2145
    Join date : 2016-05-06

    Poliment-Redut Naval Air Defense System - Page 6 Empty Re: Poliment-Redut Naval Air Defense System

    Post  hoom on Sun Jul 21, 2019 3:11 am

    Logically it looks like they should be able to quad-pack the 9M96 in Redut which also should mean hexa-pack 9M100.

    But having been in service for 8 years already on first production 20380, there is no evidence of it actually being a thing, no public statement or rumors that its a possible or upcoming upgrade.
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 26248
    Points : 26794
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Poliment-Redut Naval Air Defense System - Page 6 Empty Re: Poliment-Redut Naval Air Defense System

    Post  GarryB on Sun Jul 21, 2019 3:48 am


    And i don't think so, although Redut does have some extra space, it doesn't look like it could hold a Quad config.

    Ignore the lip, and look at the actual hole the missile actually fits inside... you could easily fit four in that space.

    This is the picture to look at because this picture shows the 9M96 launch tubes right next to the launch tube of the big S-400 missiles:

    Poliment-Redut Naval Air Defense System - Page 6 14857210

    As you can see the four tubes of the 9M96 are designed to fit into the space of the bigger missile tube so that the launcher that carried four big tubes as normal could replace each large missile with a quad pack of smaller missiles... the whole idea behind the 9M96 was to replace earlier S-300 missiles that are the same size as the big S-400 missiles with a weapon with better performance (more modern and more capable) than the old missiles but could be loaded in greater numbers to help deal with larger attacks, and the 9M96 was ideal... the 150km range missile of the time easily exceeded the range performance of the 90km range early S-300s, and the smaller lighter 40km range missiles were more efficient against lower flying targets that wouldn't be detected at much greater ranges anyway.

    The small missiles in the picture above are the big missiles on the S-350 system on the truck and the naval Redut system.

    They have stated that the Redut system is compatible with the 400km range 40N6... which equates to the bigger missiles above... if they don't fit then how can they be compatible?

    If they do fit then looking at the image above a quad pack of the 9M96 should also fit...

    Else if there was space for quad 9M96s they would have done it, and we would also see Hexa 9M100 config.
    But that's not the case here.

    Why?

    They are just testing the system and design.

    The obvious question then becomes if the tube can only fit one 400km range missile or one 60km or 150km range missile, why would they ever carry the smaller missiles?

    But from what i found the Kalibre missiles from the UKSK has a diameter of around 0.5m and according to open source info, the 48N6 has a similar diameter.

    UKSK launches Calibres and Onyx/Yakhont/Brahmos, the UKSK tubes are wider than Redut and Rif.

    Above all, if they have the space for Quad 9M98s, then they would have done it.

    For the same reason the Ansat attack helicopter variant has 8 shot 80mm rocket pods and 12.7mm HMG fixed guns whereas bigger helicopters have 30mm cannons and 20 shot 80mm rocket pods.

    These are corvettes and Frigates... they are only testing them right now... later on they could give them their full armament and then the west will sht itself when it works out how many missiles the bigger ships will be carrying...
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 26248
    Points : 26794
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Poliment-Redut Naval Air Defense System - Page 6 Empty Re: Poliment-Redut Naval Air Defense System

    Post  GarryB on Sun Jul 21, 2019 3:56 am

    Compare:

    Poliment-Redut Naval Air Defense System - Page 6 Igor-sutyagin-the-opposite-of-air-power-53-1024

    with

    Poliment-Redut Naval Air Defense System - Page 6 14857211

    You can see the big missiles in the top image of the S-350 are the small missiles in the lower image of the S-400, so the tiny missiles in the S-350 should fit into the space of one of the smaller missiles on the S-400...

    Look at the lower image... the base is the same size and shape of the bases for the larger missiles and the base gets narrower as it goes up to where the quad missiles are located so the quad 9M96 pack is actually slightly narrower than the missile tube for the bigger missiles... which should make them fit even better if the big missile tube fits and they state it does because they have said the 400km and 250km range large missiles can fit in Redut.

    BTW I have just noticed that that image with the truck mounted S-350 is wrong, it states the big 9M96 missile is the big tube and the smaller tubes are the 9M100 and also the small 9M96 missile.

    This is wrong.

    The S-350 can carry either 12 9M96 missiles big or small, so both missiles are the big tubes, or it can carry 48 9M100 missiles which are the small quad packs that fit into the space of one of the bigger tubes. You can have combinations where the 9M100 is in multiples of four... so you can have 6 9M96 missiles and 6 x 4 = 24 9M100s for instance.
    Isos
    Isos

    Posts : 6403
    Points : 6395
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Poliment-Redut Naval Air Defense System - Page 6 Empty Re: Poliment-Redut Naval Air Defense System

    Post  Isos on Sun Jul 21, 2019 9:30 am

    They have stated that the Redut system is compatible with the 400km range 40N6... which equates to the bigger missiles above... if they don't fit then how can they be compatible?

    If they do fit then looking at the image above a quad pack of the 9M96 should also fit...

    They said they will develop a missile with 400km range for redut.

    Redut was made for 9M96. There is no official data saying it can carry bigger ones. That's why they will replace it with uksk-m.
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 26248
    Points : 26794
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Poliment-Redut Naval Air Defense System - Page 6 Empty Re: Poliment-Redut Naval Air Defense System

    Post  GarryB on Sun Jul 21, 2019 1:18 pm

    They said they will develop a missile with 400km range for redut.

    Yeah, not a brand new one... one that is related to S-400 and S-500 missiles...

    https://sputniknews.com/military/201703121051499457-russia-advanced-guided-missile/

    For Corvettes and Frigates the focus is defending the ship with their SAMs, but for larger ships like Destroyers and Cruisers they also have the requirement of area defence... defending ships operating with them, for which extra range is desirable as they have a bigger radar set and more resources like helicopters to extend their view to engage such long range targets.

    The system is called Polliment Redut and it is a unified SAM system intended to be used on small ships right up to big ones.

    The ones they have put on corvettes and frigates wont be different from the ones they put on cruisers and destroyers... and indeed aircraft carriers and cruisers that are created new or upgraded.

    Redut was made for 9M96.

    Well the evidence shows the opposite of that statement... the hatch cover size compared with the size of the tube for the 9M96 missile clearly shows the hatch is enormous and the launch tube is tiny... they could literally have made the launch tube hatch a quarter its size if they wanted to...

    There is no official data saying it can carry bigger ones. That's why they will replace it with uksk-m.

    UKSK-Ms might be universal missile launchers carrying all their missiles within them, but they wont be able to fit any on their corvettes or frigates because they are too deep...

    If they are only going to put 9M96 missiles in them then they can make them quite shallow and put them in a lot of places the UKSK-M or standard Redut would never fit, yet there is room for smaller missiles....
    Isos
    Isos

    Posts : 6403
    Points : 6395
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Poliment-Redut Naval Air Defense System - Page 6 Empty Re: Poliment-Redut Naval Air Defense System

    Post  Isos on Sun Jul 21, 2019 1:44 pm


    Well the evidence shows the opposite of that statement... the hatch cover size compared with the size of the tube for the 9M96 missile clearly shows the hatch is enormous and the launch tube is tiny... they could literally have made the launch tube hatch a quarter its size if they wanted to...


    If they are only going to put 9M96 missiles in them then they can make them quite shallow and put them in a lot of places the UKSK-M or standard Redut would never fit, yet there is room for smaller missiles....

    48N6 is 7.5m long. It can't fit in redut VLS. The uksk on gorshkov is above redut and it was made for the long missiles like kalibr or oniks which are more comparable to 48n6 in size than 9M96 versions are. There is no way they coukd put a 48N6 in those redut cells.

    Hatch size doesn't prove anything if you don't know the deapth of the redut VLS.

    40N6 will be even longer.

    Redut carries only the 9M96 for now.
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 26248
    Points : 26794
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Poliment-Redut Naval Air Defense System - Page 6 Empty Re: Poliment-Redut Naval Air Defense System

    Post  GarryB on Sun Jul 21, 2019 2:19 pm

    48N6 is 7.5m long. It can't fit in redut VLS.

    Actually the 48N6E (Naval Rif-M) is in a 7.8m long cannister that has a 1m diameter.

    How deep is the Redut launch system on any given ship?

    The uksk on gorshkov is above redut and it was made for the long missiles like kalibr or oniks which are more comparable to 48n6 in size than 9M96 versions are. There is no way they coukd put a 48N6 in those redut cells.

    UKSK is 9.6 metres deep. How deep does the UKSK or the redut go on any ship... do you know?

    Its position gives an idea but no certainty... and they have said they are developing 400km range missiles for the Redut system...

    Are they going to go for a two stage 9M96 and even if they were would it be shorter than a 40N6?

    Hatch size doesn't prove anything if you don't know the deapth of the redut VLS.

    A hatch size that is enormous compared with the missile that seems to be covered by that hatch suggests the system was designed to allow larger missiles to be used as well as the ones seen.


    40N6 will be even longer.

    Why would it be longer?

    The new 9M96 missiles outrange the old S-300 missiles by quite a margin and they are much much smaller, so logically putting the same propellent from the 9M96 into the older larger S-300 missiles should result in a significant boost in range and performance on its own without much smaller and lighter electronics and servo motors and of course a smaller warhead because of the higher accuracy guidance...

    Redut carries only the 9M96 for now.

    For now that seems to be accurate, but then for now the Russian Army does not have Pine missiles in service, and nor does it have S-500 missiles in service, but that is about to change too shortly.
    Rodion_Romanovic
    Rodion_Romanovic

    Posts : 1124
    Points : 1122
    Join date : 2015-12-30

    Poliment-Redut Naval Air Defense System - Page 6 Empty Re: Poliment-Redut Naval Air Defense System

    Post  Rodion_Romanovic on Sun Jul 21, 2019 3:13 pm

    Isos wrote:

    Well the evidence shows the opposite of that statement... the hatch cover size compared with the size of the tube for the 9M96 missile clearly shows the hatch is enormous and the launch tube is tiny... they could literally have made the launch tube hatch a quarter its size if they wanted to...


    If they are only going to put 9M96 missiles in them then they can make them quite shallow and put them in a lot of places the UKSK-M or standard Redut would never fit, yet there is room for smaller missiles....

    48N6 is 7.5m long. It can't fit in redut VLS. The uksk on gorshkov is above redut and it was made for the long missiles like kalibr or oniks which are more comparable to 48n6 in size than 9M96 versions are. There is no way they coukd put a 48N6 in those redut cells.

    Hatch size doesn't prove anything if you don't know the deapth of the redut VLS.

    40N6 will be even longer.

    Redut carries only the 9M96 for now.
    that is the problem. It is made for 9M96, and probably there is not space for 4 of them quad packed (and there instead a lot of place "wasted" when loaded with only one 9M96 (or 4 quad packed 9M100). with space wasted I mean that a UKSK with a calibr or Onyx looks more efficiently loaded.

    I do not know if the redut cell would be large enough to fit a dedicated long range missile derived from the 48N6 or 40N6, but those cell in gorshkov are probably not long enough (the 120km range 9M96E2 missiles are 5.65m long).

    I would prefer, if possible, to reduce the size of the redut cells to fit tighly around the 9M96 missile, allowing more cells to be fit in the same space. (Having so maybe 40 or 48 redut cells instead of 32 in admiral Gorshkov frigates)

    The 40N6 and 48N6 missiles could be instead put in the UKSK-M cells.


    I suggested also dedicated, even smaller cells for the shorter range 9M100 missiles, as they are only 2,5m long and we do not yet if Garry's idea of stacking 2 layers of missiles one on top of the other in the same cell is feasible.

    Isos
    Isos

    Posts : 6403
    Points : 6395
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Poliment-Redut Naval Air Defense System - Page 6 Empty Re: Poliment-Redut Naval Air Defense System

    Post  Isos on Sun Jul 21, 2019 3:34 pm

    that is the problem. It is made for 9M96, and probably there is not space for 4 of them quad packed (and there instead a lot of place "wasted" when loaded with only one 9M96 (or 4 quad packed 9M100). with space wasted I mean that a UKSK with a calibr or Onyx looks more efficiently loaded.

    Is there space or no for quad packing 9M96 isn't a problem since it was designed for 1 9m96 per cell. Speculation here won't change that fact. Actual configuration is 1 per cell. They never tested quad packed or bigger missiles so that won't happen.

    If they want to change that they will have to send already made ships to shipyard and change the all system.
    Rodion_Romanovic
    Rodion_Romanovic

    Posts : 1124
    Points : 1122
    Join date : 2015-12-30

    Poliment-Redut Naval Air Defense System - Page 6 Empty Re: Poliment-Redut Naval Air Defense System

    Post  Rodion_Romanovic on Sun Jul 21, 2019 3:55 pm

    Isos wrote:
    that is the problem. It is made for 9M96, and probably there is not space for 4 of them quad packed (and there instead a lot of place "wasted" when loaded with only one 9M96 (or 4 quad packed 9M100). with space wasted I mean that a UKSK with a calibr or Onyx looks more efficiently loaded.

    Is there space or no for quad packing 9M96 isn't a problem since it was designed for 1 9m96 per cell. Speculation here won't change that fact. Actual configuration is 1 per cell. They never tested quad packed or bigger missiles so that won't happen.

    If they want to change that they will have to send already made ships to shipyard and change the all system.

    The change would be only for newly built vessels, of course (Like fitting 24 instead of 16 UKSK VLS starting from the 5th 22350).

    The ships already built can operate with the previous version VLS until their next big refit, for which they need to dock in a shipyard anyway. And even in the case of refit, the change of modules to increase the number of carried VLS cells is not always cost effective.
    Hole
    Hole

    Posts : 3255
    Points : 3255
    Join date : 2018-03-24
    Age : 44
    Location : Merkelland

    Poliment-Redut Naval Air Defense System - Page 6 Empty Re: Poliment-Redut Naval Air Defense System

    Post  Hole on Sun Jul 21, 2019 4:31 pm

    The size of the silo gives enough room for improvements.

    Did some official source ever claim that the Poliment-Redut system is optimized for the 9M96?

    It is the first missile to be used, because it is the first missile which was ready. Next step is the 9M100. I guess a four-pack can be fitted into one silo. That gives the Pr. 20380 a load of 48 missiles, which is quite good for such a ship.

    Then a larger missile with greater range will be fitted to the Gorshkovs.

    If they develop a successor for the 9M96 in 20 years there will be enough space even if it gets bigger and heavier.
    avatar
    Austin

    Posts : 7619
    Points : 8016
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Location : India

    Poliment-Redut Naval Air Defense System - Page 6 Empty Re: Poliment-Redut Naval Air Defense System

    Post  Austin on Mon Sep 30, 2019 6:46 pm

    Concern East Kazakhstan region "Almaz-Antey" successfully completed state tests of air defense missile systems "Poliment-Redut"

    http://www.nationaldefense.ru/includes/periodics/defense/2019/0716/130827228/detail.shtml
    Isos
    Isos

    Posts : 6403
    Points : 6395
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Poliment-Redut Naval Air Defense System - Page 6 Empty Re: Poliment-Redut Naval Air Defense System

    Post  Isos on Mon Aug 03, 2020 2:12 pm


    The cell size may be related to this:

    Actually it's the opposite. They are making the new missile because they found out they have lot of space in redut cells.

    At the begining redut was only for 9m96 family.

    Hope for them they will find out that they could quad-pack 9m96 in them also. That would bring the max number on Gorshkov to 128 9m96 and 24 UKSK making it a destroyer of 135m Very Happy .
    Isos
    Isos

    Posts : 6403
    Points : 6395
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Poliment-Redut Naval Air Defense System - Page 6 Empty Re: Poliment-Redut Naval Air Defense System

    Post  Isos on Wed Aug 05, 2020 12:47 am

    They say they use technology from the 40N6. Do you have the dimensions of the Redut cell?

    Never saw any data about them.

    But on Gorshkov they are in front of the UKSK where there is less deapth in the ship and the UKSK are still mounted higher in a place where there is more deapth. 40N6 should be around the size of a kalibr rather than a 9m96.

    LMFS likes this post

    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 26248
    Points : 26794
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Poliment-Redut Naval Air Defense System - Page 6 Empty Re: Poliment-Redut Naval Air Defense System

    Post  GarryB on Wed Aug 05, 2020 12:22 pm

    Not most powerfull. They made a new radar for the ground SM variant and stoped the S2. Logically they should have used the SM radar for the naval variant.

    We can deduce that the pantsir S2 isn't meeting their expectation so they made the SM for which they will use the 40km missiles.

    That brings the question is it possible to use the 40km missile on the naval pantsir then.

    First of all I was being sarcastic because some people seem to think it is either AESA radars or nothing at all.

    Second, this is a corvette... they don't need to be the most powerful radars or the radars with the greatest range.

    I would think 40-45km range Pantsirs would be useful but not essential to such a ship and the radars would need to match that performance but I would suspect an AESA radar of that size should be able to detect targets well beyond 40km, but it is the tracking radars that will be used in the actual engagement at ranges beyond about 12km or so, so it is probably those radars you want to be the best really.

    I would assume as production of AESA radars increases then radar elements themselves will become smaller and lighter and cheaper, while also becoming more powerful and more efficient, but once deployed they are not really set in stone.

    A significant step forward might lead to an upgrade across the board, but for a Corvette it does not need the AESA radars of an AEGIS class cruiser or Kirov class battle cruiser... the radar for Pantsir seemed to handle drones and other targets in Syria... which is pretty much all you really need.

    It will be a new missile. I don't think S-400 missiles can fit in redut.

    In the new reports they talk about Redut being a 400km range system... do you think perhaps the 9M96 has been radically improved?

    Yeah but the design of the big karakurt doesn't have it. So I suggested they use a bigger hull for the same weaponery/capabilities. They intend to use it as missike boat rather than a corvette.

    Still think helicopters are more use than more missiles...

    A Ka-226 with a couple of combat modules including an anti piracy one for Russian Naval Infantry with rocket pods and cannon pods and 6 fully armed marines that can catch any type of speed boat or land on larger boats quickly. Another module with variable depth sonar for sub hunting. Another module for 360 degree radars and EO systems for detection of low flying targets at extended range... another module for VIP transport and personnel transfer, and simply a cargo model with a pod for internal transport or a hook for slung cargoes... the list is endless...

    The advanced model I referred was shown twice: first time at the Kremlin on 24th of December 2019, the second in Sevastopol the 9th of January of this year. You can see plenty of pictures and further details here:

    The fact that it was shown to Putin, suggests it is not just a fan made toy.

    They say they use technology from the 40N6. Do you have the dimensions of the Redut cell?

    There is a large white fairing around the 9M96s shown launched to day with a centre hole that looks like you could fit four in a quad arrangement in the space under the hatch.

    There is no advantage to making a really big hatch for a small missile...

    But on Gorshkov they are in front of the UKSK where there is less deapth in the ship and the UKSK are still mounted higher in a place where there is more deapth. 40N6 should be around the size of a kalibr rather than a 9m96.

    UKSK are 10m deep. The launch container for the 48N6E is 7.8 metres deep and has a diameter of 1m. The 9M96E with launcher is 4.6m deep and 0.47m wide... so as long as the Redut hatches cover cells 1m x 1m then the 9M96 should be able to fit in packs of four...

    LMFS
    LMFS

    Posts : 2061
    Points : 2063
    Join date : 2018-03-03

    Poliment-Redut Naval Air Defense System - Page 6 Empty Re: Poliment-Redut Naval Air Defense System

    Post  LMFS on Wed Aug 05, 2020 3:51 pm

    GarryB wrote:I would think 40-45km range Pantsirs would be useful but not essential to such a ship and the radars would need to match that performance but I would suspect an AESA radar of that size should be able to detect targets well beyond 40km, but it is the tracking radars that will be used in the actual engagement at ranges beyond about 12km or so, so it is probably those radars you want to be the best really.

    The Pantsir-S2 radar range is "more than 40 km", the SM reaches 75 km. 360º coverage and that performance, in terms of target speed and numbers, for a ship that size is fantastic.

    In the new reports they talk about Redut being a 400km range system... do you think perhaps the 9M96 has been radically improved?

    The UKSK-M is supposed to unify the AD and attack missiles. As to what are the ultimate limits of Redut, we don't know, since their measures seem difficult to come by. The cell seen from above is not square, so it may seem very big in one direction but not in the other. It is way bigger than 6M96 in any case.

    As we discussed time ago, a swallower VLS system for short to medium range SAMs makes sense and is easier to integrate, if you can launch the bigger ones from other VLS system onboard. Particularly in small vessels there are not many places where you can place a 10 m deep VLS.

    The fact that it was shown to Putin, suggests it is not just a fan made toy.

    That is what I think, too. It may be a solution to the slow construction pace of 20380/20385/22350 or not, and may be unified with the ASW variant mentioned earlier... or not Wink
    Isos
    Isos

    Posts : 6403
    Points : 6395
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Poliment-Redut Naval Air Defense System - Page 6 Empty Re: Poliment-Redut Naval Air Defense System

    Post  Isos on Wed Aug 05, 2020 3:53 pm

    UKSK are 10m deep. The launch container for the 48N6E is 7.8 metres deep and has a diameter of 1m. The 9M96E with launcher is 4.6m deep and 0.47m wide... so as long as the Redut hatches cover cells 1m x 1m then the 9M96 should be able to fit in packs of four...

    He is asking about 40N6 in redut cells.
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 26248
    Points : 26794
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Poliment-Redut Naval Air Defense System - Page 6 Empty Re: Poliment-Redut Naval Air Defense System

    Post  GarryB on Fri Aug 07, 2020 4:16 am

    The UKSK-M is supposed to unify the AD and attack missiles.

    It is, but if you think about it.... the UKSK bins are already deeper than they would need to be to carry any of their current SAMs... the Naval Rif missile is 7.8m or so including launch tube (which includes all the bits to blow the missile out of the tube for a cold launch so no extra length would be needed for that).

    Either the problem is width... the S-300 and S-400 missiles are 1m diameter tubes, while the UKSK are 750mm tubes, or the problem is because they are going to need to carry S-500 missiles too and they might be longer than the 10m of UKSK or wider than the 750mm of the UKSK and the 1m of the Rif.... or possibly all three so the new S-500s might be the driving force for the upgrade of the UKSK... because if they make the UKSK bigger then they can also fit all their SAMs as well so why not use it for everything...

    The problem would be if S-500 is a 1.2m diameter tube with a 14m long missile so UKSK-M with 1.2m wide tubes 15m deep wont fit on small boats... but then most of the time the S-500s will only go in cruisers and carriers that will have the huge radar arrays needed to use them effectively.

    What I hope is happening is that they will keep Redut for smaller vessels that don't need S-500 missiles because Redut can be only 7.6m deep or something... it already has 1m diameter tubes and hatches but seems to have a lot of space around each 9M96 missile tube. If they can fit four 9M96 missiles per hatch or one large Rif or S-400 missile per tube and therefore also 16 9M100 missiles per hatch then they should be fine for Corvettes and Frigates (ie smaller ships).

    For bigger ships they could put Redut systems in places where they don't have a lot of deck depth.... and also deck mounted TOR launchers as well, but the UKSK-M should be designed so it can take everything.

    This is a chance for Russian tetris experts to take control... lets say S-500 has a width of 1.5m... if they make the tubes 2m square they can carry one S-500 or four S-400 or 16 S-350 or 64 9M100 missiles in each tube in one layer. If the S-500 is 14m long if they make the tubes 15m deep they might get on S-500 in each tube but at about 7.5m long they should be able to get two layers for S-400 and S-300 missiles and perhaps even three layers for S-350 depending on which model they use (60km or 150km range models)... and they might get four layers of 9M100 missiles in each tube....

    If you have ever seen an SS-18 launch there is a thing the shape of a giant hockey puck that comes out after the missile and side thruster rocket motors drag it sideways so it does not fall back down into the silo... having a spacer like that between layers will keep them separate and could prevent damage from an upper missile damaging a lower missile.  (which is not to say I think SS-18 launch tubes have more than one missile in each of them...)

    He is asking about 40N6 in redut cells.

    While it has the extended range, the 40N6 is the same size as the standard 48N6E missiles which are essentially the S-300F Rif and Rif-M missiles used by the Navy in rotary launchers on the Kirov class cruisers... if one fits then so should the other...
    LMFS
    LMFS

    Posts : 2061
    Points : 2063
    Join date : 2018-03-03

    Poliment-Redut Naval Air Defense System - Page 6 Empty Re: Poliment-Redut Naval Air Defense System

    Post  LMFS on Sat Aug 08, 2020 1:39 am

    GarryB wrote:It is, but if you think about it.... the UKSK bins are already deeper than they would need to be to carry any of their current SAMs... the Naval Rif missile is 7.8m or so including launch tube (which includes all the bits to blow the missile out of the tube for a cold launch so no extra length would be needed for that).

    Well, I just don't know. I have found some nice info on the Redut system and it seems not really compatible with the bigger missiles in the 40N6 class. And I doubt they have a smaller missile with the same range, since 40N6 is pretty recent.

    Redut 3K96 - based on missiles 9M96/9M96D/9M100 - VLS cell 3S97

    Poliment-Redut Naval Air Defense System - Page 6 DFgF4oPVoAAz0w7?format=jpg&name=large
    Poliment-Redut Naval Air Defense System - Page 6 11TK6
    Poliment-Redut Naval Air Defense System - Page 6 DFgHu36UIAAsdnJ?format=jpg&name=large
    Poliment-Redut Naval Air Defense System - Page 6 DFgHwvrVwAEuE2W?format=jpg&name=4096x4096
    Poliment-Redut Naval Air Defense System - Page 6 DFgHxLaVYAQHnE5?format=jpg&name=large

    It would still be logical to use this VLS as we discussed, because it can be placed in swallower areas of the ship where a bigger UKSK does not fit. In the end, wanting to launch 9M100 and Tsirkon from the same launcher seems a bit too much to me!

    This is what Bastion says:

    In the future, they will be supplemented by a new product that can engage air targets at distances of up to 400 kilometers. This development is being carried out by the Almaz-Antey concern. They took the "land" 40N6 system S-400 "Triumph" as a basis.

    http://bastion-opk.ru/poliment-redut/

    In the end I think UKSK-M may simply include some fittings and interfacing modifications to use the missiles of the 40N6 family, since they have roughly the same size than the big attack missiles already hold in UKSK. The launching tube is way bigger for S-400 and similar, but the actual diameter of the missile is a bit more than 500 mm and I think a different folding of the wings would do the trick:

    Poliment-Redut Naval Air Defense System - Page 6 Image_10
    Poliment-Redut Naval Air Defense System - Page 6 TPK

    Double and triple stacking... may be, but when the cold launch kicks in it is still very strong, the "floor" below the missile should be capable to withstand it and therefore the missile below would not go through it easily. Some kind of loader may be doable but I guess that would remove part of the simplicity of the VLS system.

    In order to launch a S-500, which should be a different category of missile, they should do a very big VLS. US tried with the Mk41 and now they don't know how to put more fuel in the SM-3, in the end the range and altitude of interception is what makes an ABM system capable of reaching ICBMs with lofted trajectories or not. Maybe we get some hints when we see Nakhimov after the modernization, if they decide it makes sense to put those super high-end missiles on it. May not be silly, since anti ship ballistic missiles are now part of the menu for any big power and maybe some not so big like Iran.

    If you have ever seen an SS-18 launch there is a thing the shape of a giant hockey puck that comes out after the missile and side thruster rocket motors drag it sideways so it does not fall back down into the silo... having a spacer like that between layers will keep them separate and could prevent damage from an upper missile damaging a lower missile.  (which is not to say I think SS-18 launch tubes have more than one missile in each of them...)

    Yeah, it is pretty cool. If a really soft cold launching is possible, then maybe missile stacking is possible, who knows. If we have thought about it you can bet an arm Russian engineers have done it too Razz

    BTW, I am thinking this can go direct to the Redut thread, sorry!
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 26248
    Points : 26794
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Poliment-Redut Naval Air Defense System - Page 6 Empty Re: Poliment-Redut Naval Air Defense System

    Post  GarryB on Sat Aug 08, 2020 12:51 pm

    Well, I just don't know.

    I don't know either... but the Russians tend to be sensible guys...

    I have found some nice info on the Redut system and it seems not really compatible with the bigger missiles in the 40N6 class. And I doubt they have a smaller missile with the same range, since 40N6 is pretty recent.

    On their export website they talk about the Redut system and the Rif system as separate, but that is only because they are not selling or showing a fully unified system yet.

    The Rif and Rif-M system on Kirov and Slava class cruisers require huge amounts of under deck space because each launch hatch has a rotary launcher with 12 missiles with full access to those tubes underneath. Replacing them with a cell system in which tubes are simply lowered into and electronically monitored would take vastly less room or conversely mean rather more could be carried using the same space.

    They had the Rif system for cruisers because no smaller ships had enough room for the missiles or the radar and electronics...

    But with the new Redut even tiny ships can carry it because it is rather more compact... but bigger ships like destroyers and cruisers as well as upgraded cruisers could fit a cell based Rif launcher... so why not base it on Redut so it could carry redut missiles as well as Rif... remember the 150km range redut 9M96 missile actually has a 60km range increase over the original Rif missile with a range of 90kms so carrying four 9M96 x 150km range missiles for each rif missile tube effectively increases range and quadruples the missile capacity.

    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.

    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....

    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.

    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).

    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.

    With two twelve hatch Redut launchers you double the number... plus of course probably Duet and Pantsir also adding to the air defence... corvettes might do away with the super long range missiles and just carry the close range weapons.

    A Destroyer might have four Redut launchers and a Cruiser might have 8... but the destroyer probably also has the UKSK-M which could also carry SAMs including S-500s... maybe 6 UKSK-M launchers, while the cruiser might have 10-12 UKSK-M launchers...

    Who needs arsenal ships...

    It would still be logical to use this VLS as we discussed, because it can be placed in swallower areas of the ship where a bigger UKSK does not fit. In the end, wanting to launch 9M100 and Tsirkon from the same launcher seems a bit too much to me!

    But for larger ships it adds flexibility to be able to load SAMs as well as attack missiles... much more so when the tubes are going to be rather big... if layers were possible then for small missiles carrying them in big numbers makes sense... the Kuznetsov has 192 TOR missiles ready to fire and those are the old missiles... just replacing the old with the new should allow them to carry double that because the newer missiles are half the size and weight.... the first land TOR had 8 missiles ready to launch, while the current vehicle that is not physically bigger carries 16.

    In the end I think UKSK-M may simply include some fittings and interfacing modifications to use the missiles of the 40N6 family, since they have roughly the same size than the big attack missiles already hold in UKSK. The launching tube is way bigger for S-400 and similar, but the actual diameter of the missile is a bit more than 500 mm and I think a different folding of the wings would do the trick:

    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.

    If that is the case I think keeping Redut separate for smaller ships or in places where there is not the deck space to fit a UKSK-M launcher, that making them able to carry the 9M100, the 9M96, and the S-400 large missiles is good enough on its own.

    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.

    If that means they adapt the UKSK-M to also carry the missiles the Redut carries that is fine but there will be places on the Destroyer and Cruisers and Carrier where a UKSK-M might not fit but a Redut will so just stick a few of those in there.

    The only reason or benefit for replacing the Redut on a larger ship with UKSK-M is if it will take layers of missiles as discussed... if that was the case then I would go for all UKSK-M launchers on all their bigger ships.

    Double and triple stacking... may be, but when the cold launch kicks in it is still very strong, the "floor" below the missile should be capable to withstand it and therefore the missile below would not go through it easily. Some kind of loader may be doable but I guess that would remove part of the simplicity of the VLS system.

    The cases they are stored in are pretty strong and should withstand longitudal force quite well... a bending force from teh side would be a problem but for launches of missiles above it should not be a huge issue... remember the cold launch system is inside the tube so when it launches it should be fine... 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.

    You could have tracks on the sides of the tube raise the tubes into top position... have three side by side so a total of three launch tubes could be fitted to each hatched tube... have them offset so when the top tubes missile is launched and the separator ejects the top tube the rails that held the top tube in position are not aligned with the rails holding the next tube down so as the lower two tubes come up and one sits at the top and the second one just below it you have the top rails and the second rails overlapped with only space for the third set of rails from the bottom tube after the second missile is launched and the tube is ejected...

    Yeah, it is pretty cool. If a really soft cold launching is possible, then maybe missile stacking is possible, who knows. If we have thought about it you can bet an arm Russian engineers have done it too

    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... Twisted Evil

    Sponsored content

    Poliment-Redut Naval Air Defense System - Page 6 Empty Re: Poliment-Redut Naval Air Defense System

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Mon Oct 26, 2020 11:41 pm