The 9M96D is almost 6 m long, so a quad pack on those Fort launchers that actually look identical to S-300/S-400 canisters is only logical, is it not done at the moment?
My understanding was that the Redut was to become a universal SAM launcher while the UKSK was the universal attack missile launcher (to combine anti sub, anti ship and land attack missiles). The unification of missiles with the UKSK was made easier because most of the weapons it carried were torpedo tube launched and were 533mm wide and either 6 or 8 metres long. The new missiles which were designed from the outset to fit in the tubes were designed to be 750mm wide and less than 10m long... so Onyx and Zircon and the Kh-101/102 series missiles are 750mm calibre and will fit directly into the UKSK without modification.
The S-350 missiles... the 9M96 were originally designed to be mounted on the same TEL as the S-300 and S-400 big missile tubes... I rather suspect that was so they could be used in the Naval Rif system too so each of the tubes in the 12 shot rotary launcher could hold one Rif missile or four S-350 missiles.
The problem I have is that my information comes from the export website which is not the same as their domestic stuff.... it describes the existing rotary launcher for Rif and a fixed cell based system for the Smaller missiles, but that is for export.
The image above you posted with 12 launch tubes is clearly Redut and no UKSK. It clearly shows a single long large tube the full width of the hatch... look further up at the Redut launch hatches open test firing a 9M96 and the hole for the missile is nothing like the full width of the hatch area... there are photos of the land based S-350 missiles on a TEL for the S-300 where all four 9M96 launch tubes actually fit inside the space of the single larger tube for the big missiles so we know four tubes would fit.
What the image does not show is the smaller 9M100 missiles which they seem reticent to reveal and they are so small (ie narrow) that each of the missiles in the quad missile pack under each hatch would carry four missile tubes meaning 16 missiles per hatch. We know this is true because the land based version of the 9M96 called S-350 can carry 12 separate tubes for the 9M96 missiles of the different types or it can carry four 9M100 missiles for each tube... meaning 48 missiles in 12 tubes.
Well in Redut there are four 9M96 tubes per hatch, which means effectively the S-350 land based TEL is three hatches of Redut, so every three hatches of Redut should be able to carry 48 missiles... there are 12 hatches per system so 48 times four is 192 missiles... which is what I calculated in the above post.
Note with that sort of capacity even assuming a single layer a reduced depth Redut designed specifically only to carry the self defence 9M100 missiles... so perhaps only four or five metres in depth could carry as many short range defence missiles as all the Klintok launchers on the Kuznetsov without upgrade... if you upgrade the Kuznetsov and keep the same bulky inefficient rotary launchers instead of simple cells with the new missiles half the size it could carry 384 missiles easily.
Remember those drawings of the new landing ship... the so called "crates" that stuck up out of the deck about 1-1.5m... if that had 6 Redut launchers that ship would be very well protected from enemy aircraft and munitions...
That is why I posted the first picture too, in order to see the size of the canister. Its diameter is way bigger than the body of the missile itself, because the fins need to fit inside too. In the top view that I posted below you see there is only place for one canister of 9M96 per cell.
You are confusing things... in your post you have images of Redut and also images of UKSK... in the UKSK image...
First if all it is clear it is UKSK because there are only 8 hatches... and it shows the capacity in the UKSK launchers for each different type of missile listed below and with dimensions of the weapons given.
the weapons are:
9M96 (S-350 SAM)
9M317 (which is of course naval BUK (Shtil))
And what are called EW projectiles.... ie decoys or jammers or smoke and flare dispensers etc.
And at the bottom 40N6 long range S-400 SAMs.
Most interesting is that they show the sizes of all the munitions.
Note that UKSK has tubes that are only 750mm wide so they can't do what Redut does and have four 9M96 missiles per tube.
Note the 40N6 missile is actually 645mm calibre but the launch cannister is 1m diameter.
According to that drawing the 9M100 missile is 20cm calibre and 3m long, so with the 9M96 being 480mm diameter and 6m long and the Rif missile cannisters being 1m diameter and about 7.6m long for the Redut system it makes sense... the hatch needs to be 1m across so a single Rif tube can be lowered in... but being 1m across you could fit four 9M96 tubes into the square area or in each of the 480mm diameter tubes you could fit four 20cm diameter 9M100 missile tubes...
I wish it was, the big missile is the 9M96 and the quad pack is the 9M100
It can't be because we can see from the top the diameter of the missile tube is 480mm and the hatch is 1m so hanging underneath the tube should be 1 quarter the with of the hatch... like the quad tubes. To be the size of the full size tube which is the width of the hatch the lining inside the missile tube would be thicker than the missile. The missiles in the quad tubes would be needles.... and I don't mean Igla... hahahaha.
That drawing showing the big tube and the quad tubes is not showing any 9M100s...
In the bottom drawing showing lengths it says the big missiles are 7.8 metres and the 9M96 missiles are 6 metres and the 9M100 missiles are 3 metres... look at the image again... including those tubes all the way up to the hatches are you looking at big tubes that are six metres and quad tubes that are half that length or are you looking at 7.8m tubes and 6 metre quad tubes... just use your fingers and compare the size ratio between the missile tubes visible... are the quad tubes half the length of the single tubes?
I would say no.
It is for the smaller missiles, see above. The 20380 carries the 12 cell VLS, the 22350 have 32 cells.
Are you sure they are not Redut and Shtil launchers... the Shtil launchers have 32 tubes.
The Redut would be standard, so it would be one with 12 tubes or two with 24 tubes or three with 36 tubes...
Very interesting image of the UKSK launcher with the information about being able to fire Shtil and S-350 missiles but I suspect its size means it is rather less efficient at carrying SAMs than the Redut launcher.
I would think the UKSK-M is to improve capacity by resizing the tubes to allow better capacities, though we still don't know what size the S-500 is and what size these launchers will have to be to carry them. At the very least the drawing of the Rif and 9M96 missiles shows they can fit smaller missiles into the tubes in bundles so it is not just 12 missiles of any size going in there.
Never been a friend of that idea to be honest... specially when we hear about the potential of naval artillery in AD as we discussed somewhere else. If it is really as effective as I think it may be, the magazine depth and therefore salvo size needed to overwhelm a medium sized ship may be really big... imagine the power of a 130 mm guided round in that role. It has a huge advantage in that it is accelerated to max speed almost instantaneously and needs no rocket. It is a massive improvement in time to intercept and space needed onboard.
During testing in the 1990s the Russians fitted a small scramjet motor to the nose of an SA-5 missile... the scramjet was tiny and fitted on the nose tip. They replaced the warhead with telemetry gear and fuel for the scramjet and they launched the missile and commanded it to climb to high altitude and speed.
It got to about 20km altitude at about Mach 5 which is about normal for the missile... and then they lit up the scramjet, which burned for a minute or a minute and a half and accelerated the missile (which is rather large and bulky) from mach 5 to mach 6. In the 90 seconds the scramjet was operating the missile covered just under 180km.
Attaching a small scramjet to the nose of a naval artillery round with a small fuel tank added would not be hard and the improvement in performance in terms of speed and distance would be significant... add control fins and GLONASS guidance or an optical seeker and it could be a very potent weapon.
They have already said the 152mm land based Coalition gun will be used on naval vessels... I personally am hoping they will fit them to the Kirov as a test and then have them as standard main gun for their new destroyers... operational use on the upgraded Kirovs would allow them to work out the kinks and problems, and then in 8-10 years time when they are ready to build Cruisers they could upgrade the Kirovs with new 203mm guns with even better performance for fitting on new cruisers and perhaps retrofitting to landing ships.
You need to be able to guide all those hundreds of missiles and count with the enemy trying to make a salvo as simultaneous as possible. The guidance capabilities of radar systems are not so fantastic, 4 targets per array for the Poliment for instance.
True but with short range IIR guided lock on after launch 9M100 missiles... 192 per Redut 12 tube launcher they could do better...
The main AESA arrays on the ships are only going to get more capable over time with improved performance and capabilities... adding the ability to guide command guided missiles like TOR and Pantsir would be a useful addition too.
They say here it is to be used also in small ships:
So clearly they have not had to make it much deeper...
Maybe they create a separate launcher for them, it would be great if it can use the S-300V missiles too. Bigger ships should be capable of handling those...
Separate launchers contradicts the whole idea... honestly I really don't think the S-500 is going to be smaller than the S-300V family... if the size is significant then perhaps a special launcher for "strategic" weapons like naval versions of land based IRBMs that can also carry heavy SAMs too... Iskander and S-500 and S-300V4 etc etc.
Hahaha, my services would be very cheap too, just let me plague some military designers with questions once a year and I am all yoursp
We need a volunteer section... the western media always talks about Putins paid stooges... it would be nice to formalise it so we can benefit from our interest in the truth... money would be no good, but as I said small arms or even obsolete equipment... empty 14.5x114mm HMG shell cases to go with my collection... heck even a 12.7 x 108mm round to go with my Browning rounds, or perhaps a 122mm propellent case to go with my 105mm shell case... or special tours of factories....