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


    Russian Navy: Status and News #5

    PapaDragon
    PapaDragon

    Posts : 10488
    Points : 10562
    Join date : 2015-04-26
    Location : Fort Evil, Serbia

    Russian Navy: Status and News #5 - Page 22 Empty Re: Russian Navy: Status and News #5

    Post  PapaDragon Fri Apr 02, 2021 5:12 am


    Guys, don't you recognize your old friend Ultron?

    I mean "10 Khabarovsk to challenge America undersea" c'mon he isn't even trying anymore lol1

    Big_Gazza, miketheterrible and LMFS like this post

    Big_Gazza
    Big_Gazza

    Posts : 2426
    Points : 2426
    Join date : 2014-08-25
    Location : Melbourne, Australia

    Russian Navy: Status and News #5 - Page 22 Empty Re: Russian Navy: Status and News #5

    Post  Big_Gazza Fri Apr 02, 2021 5:49 am

    PapaDragon wrote:
    Guys, don't you recognize your old friend Ultron?

    Oh my, pls say it isn't so..... Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing

    I thought this forum had long wiped that shit from its shoe.
    avatar
    mnztr

    Posts : 1069
    Points : 1101
    Join date : 2018-01-21

    Russian Navy: Status and News #5 - Page 22 Empty Re: Russian Navy: Status and News #5

    Post  mnztr Fri Apr 02, 2021 6:51 am

    lancelot wrote:

    I doubt the modernization of PtG would take the same amount of time as the Nakhimov's. I wouldn't be surprised if they could do it in half the time.

    If they hit their latest target 1/2 the time would still be 8 years!!!

    I would think that updates to the electronics would be mandatory, air defence -update to S-350s and take out 4 Granits and replace with 16-28 Tsirkon or Kaliber. Maybe improved drone close in air defence and done.
    avatar
    Arrow

    Posts : 844
    Points : 842
    Join date : 2012-02-12

    Russian Navy: Status and News #5 - Page 22 Empty Re: Russian Navy: Status and News #5

    Post  Arrow Fri Apr 02, 2021 9:50 am

    GarryB wrote:



    At best Russia will have one or two carrier groups to operate and a few areas of sea around its coastline where it would benefit from having nuclear sub support... Russia does not have to police the world and be able to interdict at a moments notice... it does not need hundreds of submarines.

    It also has the enormous advantage of having SSKs that can operate in shallow waters much more cheaply and efficiently than SSNs can which is a serious gap in Americas inventory.



    GarryB There is no point in including new Russian aircraft carriers in these talks. Two decades have passed before they are created. They can only be considered after they have laid the keel for a new aircraft carrier. It is not known when this will happen. Not fast.
    LMFS
    LMFS

    Posts : 3363
    Points : 3365
    Join date : 2018-03-03

    Russian Navy: Status and News #5 - Page 22 Empty Re: Russian Navy: Status and News #5

    Post  LMFS Fri Apr 02, 2021 11:21 am

    PapaDragon wrote:
    Guys, don't you recognize your old friend Ultron?

    I mean "10 Khabarovsk to challenge America undersea" c'mon he isn't even trying anymore lol1

    Or saying Kazan will be commissioned in few years, when it will be handed out to the VMF the 25th of July. Just low level censored

    GarryB and magnumcromagnon like this post

    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 28731
    Points : 29261
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Russian Navy: Status and News #5 - Page 22 Empty Re: Russian Navy: Status and News #5

    Post  GarryB Fri Apr 02, 2021 12:43 pm

    Yasen lacks pump jet. The upcoming Khabarovsk should be able to go toe to toe with Seawolf / Virginia. In any event, Russia needs 10 Yasen and 10 Khabarovsk in order to be able to challenge America in undersea.

    They have been testing pumpjets on a Kilo class sub for quite some time... the fact that they chose not to use it suggests they have good reasons to do so.

    Russia does not need to challenge the US... and even if they did... how exactly would have twenty very expensive submarines achieve that?

    Submarines are only useful if they are invisible and near Russia their SSKs are better at that than any SSN anywhere.

    If they hit their latest target 1/2 the time would still be 8 years!!!

    Tying up one Kirov for 8 years is not the end of the world... they still have Slava class cruisers and one other operational Kirov that could escort the Kuznetsov around the world.

    A few upgraded old destroyers would be ideal to support world wide operations because their size should allow good endurance while the newer ships patrol the waters around Russia and keep the home country safe.

    GarryB There is no point in including new Russian aircraft carriers in these talks. Two decades have passed before they are created. They can only be considered after they have laid the keel for a new aircraft carrier. It is not known when this will happen. Not fast.

    When you are planning you have to allow for what happens when you achieve your goals and their goals will be that probably by the mid 2030s they will have a CVN in the water fitting out supporting Kuznetsov operations... likely later on with two CVNs and perhaps four or six Helicopter carriers of the 40K ton class based on the two currently laid down would mean at best they could probably handle two major situations, where cruisers and destroyers and a CV/N could be sent to two locations allowing for one CV/N to be in dock or refit.

    If you are not planning to have 10 CVNs then that will effect how many destroyers and cruisers your need and the timescale you will need to have them ready by... otherwise like the UK you might find you have two new aircraft carriers but no decent ships to escort them both on actual missions because the funding all went to these two aircraft carriers and their enormously expensive fighters while neglecting the support ships and escort ships they actually need to operate safely and effectively.

    franco
    franco

    Posts : 4070
    Points : 4100
    Join date : 2010-08-18

    Russian Navy: Status and News #5 - Page 22 Empty Re: Russian Navy: Status and News #5

    Post  franco Fri Apr 02, 2021 1:42 pm

    On the cost of the fleet that Russia needs

    In the previous article " On the fleet that we need ", I outlined in the most general terms the composition of the fleet that would meet the requirements laid down in the Decree of the President of the Russian Federation of July 20, 2017 No. 327 "On the approval of the Fundamentals of the state policy of the Russian Federation in the field of military -marine activities for the period up to 2030 ".

    It turned out, of course, on a very large scale. We will need aircraft carriers, missile carriers, new types of submarines, destroyers and all sorts of other things. And, of course, questions arise - are we capable of building such a fleet technically, and will we pull it economically?

    Full article: https://6b6gjclcha6ibjpa45wvvqdamu--topwar-ru.translate.goog/181285-o-stoimosti-flota-kotoryj-nam-nuzhen.html

    And yet another Russian Navy article...
    Hole
    Hole

    Posts : 4021
    Points : 4017
    Join date : 2018-03-24
    Age : 44
    Location : Merkelland

    Russian Navy: Status and News #5 - Page 22 Empty Re: Russian Navy: Status and News #5

    Post  Hole Fri Apr 02, 2021 8:45 pm

    Just because the americans can´t design and build a proper screw for there subs doesn´t mean that pump-jets are better.

    The same folks that keep on telling us that western subs are quieter, western sonars are better, pump-jets are better then screws told us the last 20 years that the F-35 is the best fighter jet ever developed, with unmatched capabilities... and now the americans need a new fighter jet (propably a slightly modernised F-16) because the F-35 turned out to be a lemon.

    Looking at real facts: russian subs are faster and can dive deeper then western ones. They´re equipped with rocket-propelled torpedos, super-cavitating torpedos, ASW missiles with far greater range then western ones, and now with tube-launched anti-ship and cruise missiles and soon hypersonic missiles. The only way westerners can still claim "superiority" is by unproven measures like "quieter" and "sonar better".

    Russia leads the world in things like nuclear reactors/propulsion, there rocket engines are unmatched, metalurgy and welding capacities are world leaders, but still some people try to tell us that somehow russian engineers are unable to build quiet subs. Rolling Eyes

    Big_Gazza, kvs, LMFS and lancelot like this post

    avatar
    limb

    Posts : 147
    Points : 155
    Join date : 2020-09-17

    Russian Navy: Status and News #5 - Page 22 Empty Re: Russian Navy: Status and News #5

    Post  limb Fri Apr 02, 2021 9:20 pm

    Well tbh the soviets were like 30 years behind in CNC machinery compared to Japan and the US until they allegedly bought it from Toshiba in 1988 I think. Before that their screws were very primitive and caused a lot more noise from cavitation and vortices, due to extreme backwardness in precision manufacturing compared to western SSN screws. Idk how much they've bridged the gap by now,but I believe it's safe to assume their Victor 3s and sierras, have garbage screws unless they were replaced.
    magnumcromagnon
    magnumcromagnon

    Posts : 7285
    Points : 7434
    Join date : 2013-12-05
    Location : Pindos ave., Pindosville, Pindosylvania, Pindostan

    Russian Navy: Status and News #5 - Page 22 Empty Re: Russian Navy: Status and News #5

    Post  magnumcromagnon Fri Apr 02, 2021 10:01 pm

    limb wrote:Well tbh the soviets were like 30 years behind in CNC machinery compared to Japan and the US until they allegedly bought it from Toshiba in 1988 I think. Before that their screws were very primitive and caused a lot more noise from cavitation and vortices, due to extreme backwardness in precision manufacturing compared to western SSN screws. Idk how much they've bridged the gap by now,but I believe it's safe to assume their Victor 3s and sierras, have garbage screws unless they were replaced.

    Didn't kvs already address this to be a fraud? BTW I like the logic behind the idea that the Soviets could create a space station but couldn't create a CNC machine....it's like saying Aquaman has drowned in a bathtub.

    dino00, Big_Gazza, kvs and LMFS like this post

    avatar
    limb

    Posts : 147
    Points : 155
    Join date : 2020-09-17

    Russian Navy: Status and News #5 - Page 22 Empty Re: Russian Navy: Status and News #5

    Post  limb Fri Apr 02, 2021 11:37 pm

    magnumcromagnon wrote:
    limb wrote:Well tbh the soviets were like 30 years behind in CNC machinery compared to Japan and the US until they allegedly bought it from Toshiba in 1988 I think. Before that their screws were very primitive and caused a lot more noise from cavitation and vortices, due to extreme backwardness in precision manufacturing compared to western SSN screws. Idk how much they've bridged the gap by now,but I believe it's safe to assume their Victor 3s and sierras, have garbage screws unless they were replaced.

    Didn't kvs already address this to be a fraud? BTW I like the logic behind the idea that the Soviets could create a space station but couldn't create a CNC machine....it's like saying Aquaman has drowned in a bathtub.
    I cant find any english info about the claim that soviets had to pruchase japanese CNC machinery for their screws being a fraud
    Big_Gazza
    Big_Gazza

    Posts : 2426
    Points : 2426
    Join date : 2014-08-25
    Location : Melbourne, Australia

    Russian Navy: Status and News #5 - Page 22 Empty Re: Russian Navy: Status and News #5

    Post  Big_Gazza Sat Apr 03, 2021 1:53 am

    Hole wrote:Russia leads the world in things like nuclear reactors/propulsion, there rocket engines are unmatched, metalurgy and welding capacities are world leaders, but still some people try to tell us that somehow russian engineers are unable to build quiet subs. Rolling Eyes

    The exceptionalists continue to sing this idiot song even while NATOstani ASW forces fly around in ever-increasing circles trying in vain to find a Ruskie 636 in the eastern med. Laughing Laughing Laughing

    GarryB, kvs and LMFS like this post

    magnumcromagnon
    magnumcromagnon

    Posts : 7285
    Points : 7434
    Join date : 2013-12-05
    Location : Pindos ave., Pindosville, Pindosylvania, Pindostan

    Russian Navy: Status and News #5 - Page 22 Empty Re: Russian Navy: Status and News #5

    Post  magnumcromagnon Sat Apr 03, 2021 5:12 am

    Found kvs post on the CNC subject:

    Ah the Toshiba myth. That's right Soviet engineers could never create NC machinery that could produce the metal part
    geometry needed. Even though the USSR had world leading understanding of the science and applied mathematics of
    fluid boundary layers and turbulence. The USSR could make a world leading propeller design, but couldn't produce it.
    What a retarded joke.

    Anyone who spends any time thinking about this "insurmountable" problem would realize it is the usual NATO quasi-racist
    propaganda. They could produce the right geometry by hand if they had to, down to 0.1 mm. It's not like they needed 10 million propellers
    per month. This trope is the same one as the "Soviet ICBMs were not accurate". More pap for uneducated saps who don't
    know what laser gyroscopes are and what determines the accuracy of a missile (hint: it ain't much besides the gyroscopes, missiles
    aren't sailing ships where the crew performance with the sails and astrolabe matters). The USSR had good solid state ring laser
    gyroscopes as of 1970 (glass-ceramic).

    https://www.russiadefence.net/t754p150-russian-nuclear-submarine-force-discussion#111986

    This is also another case of Fantasy vs Reality, and unsubstantiated claim vs a real-world incident/event.

    Fantasy: Russian/Soviet CNC machines were crap, which lead to having loud subs. Rolling Eyes

    vs

    Reality: A Soviet era nuclear attack sub, Project 971 (Akula Class) went an entire month in the Gulf of Mexico undetected by the USN, and congressmen were concerned.

    Silent Running
    Russian attack submarine sailed in Gulf of Mexico undetected for weeks, U.S. officials say

    Russian Navy: Status and News #5 - Page 22 AP070731043264-540x289

    A Russian nuclear-powered attack submarine armed with long-range cruise missiles operated undetected in the Gulf of Mexico for several weeks and its travel in strategic U.S. waters was only confirmed after it left the region, the Washington Free Beacon has learned.

    It is only the second time since 2009 that a Russian attack submarine has patrolled so close to U.S. shores.

    The stealth underwater incursion in the Gulf took place at the same time Russian strategic bombers made incursions into restricted U.S. airspace near Alaska and California in June and July, and highlights a growing military assertiveness by Moscow.

    The submarine patrol also exposed what U.S. officials said were deficiencies in U.S. anti-submarine warfare capabilities—forces that are facing cuts under the Obama administration’s plan to reduce defense spending by $487 billion over the next 10 years.

    The Navy is in charge of detecting submarines, especially those that sail near U.S. nuclear missile submarines, and uses undersea sensors and satellites to locate and track them.

    The fact that the Akula was not detected in the Gulf is cause for concern, U.S. officials said.

    The officials who are familiar with reports of the submarine patrol in the Gulf of Mexico said the vessel was a nuclear-powered Akula-class attack submarine, one of Russia’s quietest submarines.

    A Navy spokeswoman declined to comment.

    One official said the Akula operated without being detected for a month.

    "The Akula was built for one reason and one reason only: To kill U.S. Navy ballistic missile submarines and their crews," said a second U.S. official.

    "It’s a very stealthy boat so it can sneak around and avoid detection and hope to get past any protective screen a boomer might have in place," the official said, referring to the Navy nickname for strategic missile submarines.

    The U.S. Navy operates a strategic nuclear submarine base at Kings Bay, Georgia. The base is homeport to eight missile-firing submarines, six of them equipped with nuclear-tipped missiles, and two armed with conventional warhead missiles.

    "Sending a nuclear-propelled submarine into the Gulf of Mexico-Caribbean region is another manifestation of President Putin demonstrating that Russia is still a player on the world's political-military stage," said naval analyst and submarine warfare specialist Norman Polmar.

    "Like the recent deployment of a task force led by a nuclear cruiser into the Caribbean, the Russian Navy provides him with a means of ‘showing the flag’ that is not possible with Russian air and ground forces," Polmar said in an email.

    The last time an Akula submarine was known to be close to U.S. shores was 2009, when two Akulas were spotted patrolling off the east coast of the United States.

    Those submarine patrols raised concerns at the time about a new Russian military assertiveness toward the United States, according to the New York Times, which first reported the 2009 Akula submarine activity.

    The latest submarine incursion in the Gulf further highlights the failure of the Obama administration’s "reset" policy of conciliatory actions designed to develop closer ties with Moscow.

    Instead of closer ties, Russia under President Vladimir Putin, an ex-KGB intelligence officer who has said he wants to restore elements of Russia’s Soviet communist past, has adopted growing hardline policies against the United States.

    Of the submarine activity, Sen. John Cornyn (R., Texas), member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said, "It's a confounding situation arising from a lack of leadership in our dealings with Moscow. While the president is touting our supposed ‘reset' in relations with Russia, Vladimir Putin is actively working against American interests, whether it's in Syria or here in our own backyard."

    The Navy is facing sharp cuts in forces needed to detect and counter such submarine activity.

    The Obama administration’s defense budget proposal in February cut $1.3 billion from Navy shipbuilding projects, which will result in scrapping plans to build 16 new warships through 2017.

    The budget also called for cutting plans to buy 10 advanced P-8 anti-submarine warfare jets needed for submarine detection.

    In June, Russian strategic nuclear bombers and support aircraft conducted a large-scale nuclear bomber exercise in the arctic. The exercise included simulated strikes on "enemy" strategic sites that defense officials say likely included notional attacks on U.S. missile defenses in Alaska.

    Under the terms of the 2010 New START arms accord, such exercises require 14-day advanced notice of strategic bomber drills, and notification after the drills end. No such notification was given.

    A second, alarming air incursion took place July 4 on the West Coast when a Bear H strategic bomber flew into U.S. airspace near California and was met by U.S. interceptor jets.

    That incursion was said to have been a bomber incursion that has not been seen since before the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991.

    It could not be learned whether the submarine in the Gulf of Mexico was an Akula 1 type submarine or a more advanced Akula 2.

    It is also not known why the submarine conducted the operation. Theories among U.S. analysts include the notion that submarine incursion was designed to further signal Russian displeasure at U.S. and NATO plans to deploy missile defenses in Europe.

    Russia’s chief of the general staff, Gen. Nikolai Makarov, said in May that Russian forces would consider preemptive attacks on U.S. and allied missile defenses in Europe, and claimed the defenses are destabilizing in a crisis.

    Makarov met with Army Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, in July. Dempsey questioned him about the Russian strategic bomber flights near U.S. territory.

    The voyage of the submarine also could be part of Russian efforts to export the Akula.

    Russia delivered one of its Akula-2 submarines to India in 2009. The submarine is distinctive for its large tail fin.

    Brazil’s O Estado de Sao Paoli reported Aug. 2 that Russia plans to sell Venezuela up to 11 new submarines, including one Akula.

    Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said Moscow’s military is working to set up naval replenishment facilities in Vietnam and Cuba, but denied there were plans to base naval forces in those states.

    Asked if Russia planned a naval base in Cuba, Lavrov said July 28: "We are not speaking of any bases. The Russian navy ships serve exercise cruises and training in the same regions. To harbor, resupply, and enable the crew to rest are absolutely natural needs. We have spoken of such opportunities with our Cuban friends." The comment was posted in the Russian Foreign Ministry website.

    Russian warships and support vessels were sent to Venezuela in 2008 to take part in naval exercises in a show of Russian support for the leftist regime of Hugo Chavez. The ships also stopped in Cuba.

    Russian Deputy Premier Dmitri Rogozin announced in February that Russia was working on a plan to build 10 new attack submarines and 10 new missile submarines through 2030, along with new aircraft carriers.

    Submarine warfare specialists say the Akula remains the core of the Russian attack submarine force.

    The submarines can fire both cruise missiles and torpedoes, and are equipped with the SSN-21 and SSN-27 submarine-launched cruise missiles, as well as SSN-15 anti-submarine-warfare missiles. The submarines also can lay mines.

    The SSN-21 has a range of up to 1,860 miles.

    https://freebeacon.com/national-security/silent-running/

    GarryB, Big_Gazza, kvs and miketheterrible like this post

    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 28731
    Points : 29261
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Russian Navy: Status and News #5 - Page 22 Empty Re: Russian Navy: Status and News #5

    Post  GarryB Sat Apr 03, 2021 7:09 am

    In the technology thread on this forum companies in Denmark and Germany are buying Russian C&C machines because they are just as good as German and Japanese models but are much cheaper.

    Precision in production has dramatically changed in the last few decades... just look at the early MiG-29s with the current ones... there are gaps in the skin of the early model MiGs you could poke your finger through... but at the time it was pointed out in the west but it didn't matter... surface airflows actually improve with rough surfaces... the dimples on a golf ball improve its flight range by creating turbulence at the surface so the the airflow follows the surface of the ball... a smooth golfball the air detaches at the edges so the full width of the ball creates drag and slows the ball in flight... a ball the same size and weight but with dimples even if that makes it slightly heavier means the airflow attaches to the surface and follows past the sides of the ball so the airflow drag volume area is reduced so hit with the same power a dimpled ball will travel quite a bit further with every shot.

    The rough surface of a MiG-29 probably didn't improve drag, but it certainly didn't make it worse as western experts suggested.

    At the time it made the planes quicker and easier and cheaper to make... now the skin of the aircraft is used for fuel tankage so the gaps would allow fuel to leak and would increase the RCS of the aircraft so new planes are much better made.
    avatar
    mnztr

    Posts : 1069
    Points : 1101
    Join date : 2018-01-21

    Russian Navy: Status and News #5 - Page 22 Empty Re: Russian Navy: Status and News #5

    Post  mnztr Thu Apr 08, 2021 1:54 am

    GarryB wrote:
    Tying up one Kirov for 8 years is not the end of the world... they still have Slava class cruisers and one other operational Kirov that could escort the Kuznetsov around the world.


    Problem is, by the time the next one is done, all the weapons will be approacing obsolecence. So then you revise the project mid project, costing billions more, then it end up taking another 8-10 years and then you are back to a 20 year project and a brand new 50 year old ship.

    ARYGER likes this post

    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 28731
    Points : 29261
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Russian Navy: Status and News #5 - Page 22 Empty Re: Russian Navy: Status and News #5

    Post  GarryB Thu Apr 08, 2021 4:07 pm


    Problem is, by the time the next one is done, all the weapons will be approacing obsolecence. So then you revise the project mid project, costing billions more, then it end up taking another 8-10 years and then you are back to a 20 year project and a brand new 50 year old ship.

    Nah... the old weapons like SA-N-4 OSA SAMs, and Rif, and the Granit launch tubes and the SS-N-14 launchers were all custom designed for specific weapon and could only fire those weapon types... you couldn't load a Vulkan into a Granit launcher even though they are similar huge heavy missiles.

    The upgraded Kirov has its Granits and SS-N-14 launchers replaced with universal UKSK launchers, and the SAM launchers will likely be replaced with a mix of Redut and naval TOR.

    The UKSK launcher can launch any new Russian anti ship or land attack naval missile so wont be obsolete even when fitted in 8 years time... by then you could load Zircon missiles into it and it would still be state of the art.

    The Redut uses S-350 and S-400 missiles, and naval TOR missiles will always be useful.

    It is likely the 130mm gun mount might be replaced with the Coalition 152mm naval gun for testing... they might fit it to their cruisers only or perhaps they might fit them to their destroyers too giving them excellent shore bombardment potential with the first models firing full calibre guided standard rounds to 70km, while their upgraded shells with a range of 180km being developed... they might even decide a new 203mm gun based on the technology and materials that created the 152mm long range shells is worth the effort for land and sea based models and put the 152mm guns on the new destroyers and use 203mm guns on the new cruisers.

    Testing on a Kirov would be useful to work out any potential problems and issues with performance.

    The brand new large sensors (sonar and radar and other equipment like EO sensors and indeed lasers) could be fitted and tested and refined and improved before going to sea on new destroyer designs.

    Testing new equipment and systems on upgraded ships just means realistic testing and better design choices and fewer problems with the new future models.

    And it means new capabilities get into service and use faster.

    lancelot likes this post

    lancelot
    lancelot

    Posts : 163
    Points : 165
    Join date : 2020-10-18

    Russian Navy: Status and News #5 - Page 22 Empty Re: Russian Navy: Status and News #5

    Post  lancelot Thu Apr 08, 2021 8:34 pm

    Couldn't they just quad pack missiles in Redut cells? The S-350 can do this.
    That would eliminate the need to carry any Tor missiles. The 9M100 missile specs are not that different from the 9M331's.
    Seems like that would be a lot more flexible.

    Even better just use UKSK-M so that you aren't limited in your anti-ship and anti-air loadout mass ratio and can configure the ship for the mission it is supposed to do.

    My issue with the Slava conversion is how would they do it. Those ships use slanted launchers on the top sides of the ship.
    While a slanted UKSK launcher is supposed to exist why didn't they use it in the Marshal Shaposhnikov upgrade?

    If they replace the side mounted Vulcan launchers with Uran launchers the Slava will have limited long range anti-ship and land attack capabilities.
    To be honest I think they should just do a new universal nuclear cruiser ship design and not bother with massive retrofits like these.

    The Kirov class retrofits are a lot more viable because of the placement of the missile cells. The original design is a lot more amenable to convert to modern VLS.
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 28731
    Points : 29261
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Russian Navy: Status and News #5 - Page 22 Empty Re: Russian Navy: Status and News #5

    Post  GarryB Fri Apr 09, 2021 5:35 am

    Couldn't they just quad pack missiles in Redut cells? The S-350 can do this.
    That would eliminate the need to carry any Tor missiles. The 9M100 missile specs are not that different from the 9M331's.
    Seems like that would be a lot more flexible.

    I disagree... on really big ships the Redut cells will probably include full sized 400km range S-400 missiles, which are over 7m long which means it needs to occupy probably at least three decks down where ever you put it... when loaded with TOR missiles, or indeed 9M100 missiles that vertical space is wasted unless they can stack them in layers.

    There are limited spaces on any ship where three vertical levels of the ship are available for one system or module, and such things will be competing with UKSK launch tubes which probably take four or five decks.

    On a large ship having enormous numbers of UKSK and Redut launchers could lead to difficulty in getting from one end of the ship to the other in the top three or four deck levels of the ship... which would be a serious problem as you might imagine.

    In comparison a TOR launcher could be contained in one deck level just below the deck, which you might be able to fit all over the place... TOR is simple and cheap and very very effective against a wide range of targets irrespective of their IR and radar signature and the current model is half the size of the original model, which the Kuznetsov carried 192, so without any modification the same ship could carry 384 ready to fire missiles. Newer models of smaller cheaper design intended for use against small cheap drones could allow four to be carried in each of those 384 tubes so a theoretical 1536 missiles on the current Kuznetsov just replacing the existing TOR system... and you can see the TOR guidance and radar mounts... there are four... one on each corner of the island, so there is no question of retaining them.

    The vertical launch tubes are near the sides of the ship the positions probably don't go down 5 decks so UKSK or Redut launch tubes would not be practical in the same location... certainly not without angling the tubes and creating all sorts of problems having to shift around everything that is there.

    And they are very effective weapons.

    Even better just use UKSK-M so that you aren't limited in your anti-ship and anti-air loadout mass ratio and can configure the ship for the mission it is supposed to do.

    If they can stack shorter missiles in layers to greatly increase the number of missiles that can be carried then that makes a lot of sense but even in big ships there are limits to how many will fit and where they can be placed.

    The UKSK-M also seems to show all sorts of other things like EW rockets so it appears to be planned to replace RBU launchers and PAKET launchers etc etc too, which means more existing space can be freed up for other things.

    For instance if you look at the bow of a Kirov class ship, from the front of the bridge, first is the 20 angled tubes for Granit, and then the Rif launchers for 96 odd S-300 missiles, and then the SS-N-14 launcher, and then from memory a few RBU launchers right at the front.

    Well the UKSK launchers replace both Granit and SS-N-14, but if it can launch RBU type weapons too then a Redut launcher that can carry Rif as well as 9M96 and 9M100 missiles then the entire front of the ship can be just all vertical launch tubes...no need for under deck access to the bow mounted sonar area... the whole front section could be closed off from the rest of the ship, but that means along the sides where the hull narrows the UKSK and Redut launchers could not go right to the sides of the ship, so rather than waste those shallower sides, fit a line of TOR launch bins to fill that gap and use the empty real estate to good effect.

    A ship like a Kirov should use Redut tubes for long range missiles to protect the group of ships it operates but having TOR on board to protect itself will be important too because it will certainly be a serious and important target of enemy fire so lots of TOR systems makes good sense too.

    As I said... cheap, simple and effective missiles... the system is not cheap but worth it.

    My issue with the Slava conversion is how would they do it. Those ships use slanted launchers on the top sides of the ship.
    While a slanted UKSK launcher is supposed to exist why didn't they use it in the Marshal Shaposhnikov upgrade?

    If they replace the side mounted Vulcan launchers with Uran launchers the Slava will have limited long range anti-ship and land attack capabilities.
    To be honest I think they should just do a new universal nuclear cruiser ship design and not bother with massive retrofits like these.

    These upgrades are not instead of new cruisers, these upgrades are to provide the Russian navy with large heavy long endurance ships that can sail anywhere around the world, defend themselves and the ships they are operating with. They don't need to each sink an entire HATO fleet with each ship upgraded.

    If they only have four missiles where each pair of Vulcans was located and therefore can carry only 32 missiles that is not the end of the world... especially considering those 32 missiles will likely be Zircons anyway.

    They do have slanted launchers, we have seen them tested on smaller ships... they appear to have 6 tubes instead of 8 but that is still a lot of missiles and would allow an upgraded Slava class cruiser to carry 32 Zircon missile, but also carry a further 16 missiles, which could be land attack or anti sub missiles... which under most situations be plenty.

    The Kirov class retrofits are a lot more viable because of the placement of the missile cells. The original design is a lot more amenable to convert to modern VLS.

    Very true, but they have to work with what they have. A brand new custom designed cruiser should be able to be much smaller than a current model Kirov, and yet have an eye watering array of missiles and sensors. But while they work on that boosting the performance of what they have by adding the new modular launchers and new sensors just makes sense in terms of support and supply and operational use.

    Currently a Slava class ship could go to any Russian naval port, but does every port have supplies of Vulcan missiles to load up? Currently a Kirov class ship has the same problem... which ports have Granit missiles in stock and the specialist handling equipment needed to load them.

    Once upgraded the UKSK launcher is standardised so a range of weapons can be loaded from a reloading system that can reload ships Zircon is rapidly approaching operational status too and it is four times faster than Onyx and likely similar size an weight... like replacing a turboprop engine with a turbojet engine...
    zardof
    zardof

    Posts : 29
    Points : 35
    Join date : 2016-01-04
    Age : 62
    Location : France

    Russian Navy: Status and News #5 - Page 22 Empty New boat transfer from caspian to Black sea

    Post  zardof Fri Apr 09, 2021 4:03 pm

    According to Opex360.com, 10 new boats will be transfered from Matchakala to Black sea fleet.
    it is a question of transferring landing craft as well as gunboats. This will include Sterna landing craft.
    This have been done in 2018 with 5 boats now it s twice more.
    More detailled informations will be wellcome.
    Big_Gazza
    Big_Gazza

    Posts : 2426
    Points : 2426
    Join date : 2014-08-25
    Location : Melbourne, Australia

    Russian Navy: Status and News #5 - Page 22 Empty Re: Russian Navy: Status and News #5

    Post  Big_Gazza Sat Apr 10, 2021 4:02 am

    lancelot wrote:
    While a slanted UKSK launcher is supposed to exist why didn't they use it in the Marshal Shaposhnikov upgrade?

    Slanted launchers for Oniks do exist, trialled on the Pr.1234 Nakat (probably as Russias contribution to JV development of the Brahmos?) with similar launchers are installed on the INS Rajput.  I expect however that these launchers require customised Oniks/Brahmos missiles with a launch/boost profile adapted for slant launch, so that complicates supply & logistics.  The Rajputs sisters INS Ranvir and Ranvijay carried their Brahmos in 8-cell VLS replacing their aft SAM launcher & magazine, while the Kolkatas have 16 cell VLS, so its clear that angled launchers have a downside and are not in favour.

    Slanted UKSK-compatible launchers also exist, but the same issues will apply. Are these compatible with all Kalibre variants and Zircon? (highly doubtful IMHO)  Fitting them to Slavas will cost a pretty penny, and add to the Navys procurement and logistics challenges (when their clear preference is to increasing standardisation).  Not sure of the available inventory of P-500/P-1000 Bazalt & Vulcan missiles, but since the Slavas are now the only users of these weapons I suspect they have adequate stocks for the types remaining service life?   All things considered I think the Navy has better uses for the coin.
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 28731
    Points : 29261
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Russian Navy: Status and News #5 - Page 22 Empty Re: Russian Navy: Status and News #5

    Post  GarryB Sat Apr 10, 2021 12:26 pm

    Upgrading as many ships as possible with standard launchers makes sense, but it is not always possible or logical.

    The Granit launch tubes on the Kirov are angled, most of the weapons launched from the UKSK are designed to be launched from torpedo tubes too, so angled launch should not actually be a huge issue... except in terms of targeting performance... the high acceleration rocket boosted models would not like being launched in the wrong direction... which is most of them.

    It would make the 91er1 rather more limited in use, but I am sure that wont matter too much.
    franco
    franco

    Posts : 4070
    Points : 4100
    Join date : 2010-08-18

    Russian Navy: Status and News #5 - Page 22 Empty Re: Russian Navy: Status and News #5

    Post  franco Sat Apr 10, 2021 1:53 pm

    zardof wrote:According to Opex360.com, 10 new boats will be transfered from Matchakala to Black sea fleet.
    it is a question of transferring landing craft as well as gunboats. This will include Sterna landing craft.
    This have been done in 2018 with 5 boats now it s twice more.
    More detailled informations will be wellcome.

    The 5 boats last year were to have a naval parade in Rostov for May 9th celebrations. Suspect there is that intent again however they could also be useful (limited) if military action breaks out.
    magnumcromagnon
    magnumcromagnon

    Posts : 7285
    Points : 7434
    Join date : 2013-12-05
    Location : Pindos ave., Pindosville, Pindosylvania, Pindostan

    Russian Navy: Status and News #5 - Page 22 Empty Re: Russian Navy: Status and News #5

    Post  magnumcromagnon Mon Apr 12, 2021 7:30 pm

    Hmmmm, so a small a submersible (diving) patrol ship for coast guards, probably to fight off drug smuggling submarines? It seems primarily for export.

    Russian Navy: Status and News #5 - Page 22 1618221332_6075651

    "For foreign customers": CDB "Rubin" has developed a submersible patrol ship "Guard"

    dino00 and LMFS like this post

    PapaDragon
    PapaDragon

    Posts : 10488
    Points : 10562
    Join date : 2015-04-26
    Location : Fort Evil, Serbia

    Russian Navy: Status and News #5 - Page 22 Empty Re: Russian Navy: Status and News #5

    Post  PapaDragon Mon Apr 12, 2021 8:44 pm

    magnumcromagnon wrote:Hmmmm, so a small a submersible (diving) patrol ship for coast guards, probably to fight off drug smuggling submarines? It seems primarily for export...

    Definitely for export... to Mexico and Columbia Cool

    This baby can carry a lot of kilos lol1

    LMFS and lyle6 like this post

    lyle6
    lyle6

    Posts : 465
    Points : 467
    Join date : 2020-09-14
    Location : Philippines

    Russian Navy: Status and News #5 - Page 22 Empty Re: Russian Navy: Status and News #5

    Post  lyle6 Tue Apr 13, 2021 1:28 am

    PapaDragon wrote:
    Definitely for export... to Mexico and Columbia Cool

    This baby can carry a lot of kilos lol1

    You can say its a real... Hunter-killer Razz

    franco likes this post


    Sponsored content

    Russian Navy: Status and News #5 - Page 22 Empty Re: Russian Navy: Status and News #5

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Thu Apr 22, 2021 2:53 am