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


+68
Krepost
ALAMO
Broski
marcellogo
Azi
auslander
miroslav
thegopnik
Finty
Mir
mavaff
Russian_Patriot_
Lurk83
Kiko
nero
flamming_python
PapaDragon
The_Observer
RTN
gbu48098
thedrunkengeneral
Firebird
ARYGER
zardof
limb
bren_tann
lyle6
slasher
mnztr
The-thing-next-door
Backman
calripson
AMCXXL
Big_Gazza
kvs
Sujoy
lancelot
Gomig-21
ult
LMFS
medo
owais.usmani
TheArmenian
ultimatewarrior
Arrow
Mindstorm
franco
d_taddei2
Viktor
JohninMK
walle83
Austin
PhSt
Tsavo Lion
magnumcromagnon
Gibraltar
Rodion_Romanovic
George1
Cyberspec
dino00
Singular_Transform
Vann7
Hole
hoom
miketheterrible
x_54_u43
marat
SeigSoloyvov
72 posters

    Russian Navy: Status and News #5

    miketheterrible
    miketheterrible


    Posts : 7403
    Points : 7377
    Join date : 2016-11-06

    Russian Navy: Status and News #5 - Page 23 Empty Re: Russian Navy: Status and News #5

    Post  miketheterrible Fri Apr 16, 2021 3:51 pm

    Big_Gazza wrote:
    "In the form in which it was planned earlier, it will most likely not be implemented, at least not so quickly. But here everything depends on the decision of the customer - the Ministry of Defense," he said.

    So I interpret this as meaning that the widely-ridiculed Krylov-designed stepped-pagoda stealth cruiser probably won't be built...  or at least not soon....   but its the Navy that will decide....  so by inference something different might be built soon...  but we can't know for sure....  because the Navy will decide....

    Wow.. that settles the question I guess.   Suspect

    I never saw Russia needing a cruiser or destroyer - their frigates are usually armed way better than most destroyers. Now they can make the turbines for their frigates, why bother?

    Probably going back to drawing board to find a cheaper alternative. Priority will still be missile and Airforce while Navy will take the back burner till they figure out what the hell they want.
    Rodion_Romanovic
    Rodion_Romanovic


    Posts : 1687
    Points : 1671
    Join date : 2015-12-30
    Location : Merkelland

    Russian Navy: Status and News #5 - Page 23 Empty Re: Russian Navy: Status and News #5

    Post  Rodion_Romanovic Fri Apr 16, 2021 4:36 pm

    miketheterrible wrote:
    Big_Gazza wrote:
    "In the form in which it was planned earlier, it will most likely not be implemented, at least not so quickly. But here everything depends on the decision of the customer - the Ministry of Defense," he said.

    So I interpret this as meaning that the widely-ridiculed Krylov-designed stepped-pagoda stealth cruiser probably won't be built...  or at least not soon....   but its the Navy that will decide....  so by inference something different might be built soon...  but we can't know for sure....  because the Navy will decide....

    Wow.. that settles the question I guess.   Suspect

    I never saw Russia needing a cruiser or destroyer - their frigates are usually armed way better than most destroyers.  Now they can make the turbines for their frigates, why bother?

    Probably going back to drawing board to find a cheaper alternative.  Priority will still be missile and Airforce while Navy will take the back burner till they figure out what the hell they want.

    Well they probably need some destroyers in addition to frigates, as normally destroyers have greater endurance and range than frigates, as well as more space for sensors and weapon systems...

    But 22350M will be destroyers, and quite capable ones too, even if Russia insists for calling them frigates.
    lancelot
    lancelot


    Posts : 1367
    Points : 1369
    Join date : 2020-10-18

    Russian Navy: Status and News #5 - Page 23 Empty Re: Russian Navy: Status and News #5

    Post  lancelot Fri Apr 16, 2021 6:16 pm

    To be honest I always found the design of the Leader destroyers kind of ridiculous.
    You have a huge ship like that and it carries less missiles than a Ticonderoga cruiser with like half the displacement.
    I still think the nuclear destroyers make sense as a concept but that Leader destroyer design... well...

    I think once they have the RITM-400 reactors operational and they design a military propulsion system with those then they can make the carrier and the destroyers.
    Input from the Admiral Nakhimov upgrade process and initial operations will also help refine the design.
    I still think they will start the design on a nuclear destroyer/battlecruiser in the next 5 years and will start construction before the end of this decade.
    But I hope it will not be this design.
    avatar
    thedrunkengeneral


    Posts : 5
    Points : 5
    Join date : 2021-04-16

    Russian Navy: Status and News #5 - Page 23 Empty Re: Russian Navy: Status and News #5

    Post  thedrunkengeneral Fri Apr 16, 2021 7:28 pm

    Rodion_Romanovic wrote:
    miketheterrible wrote:
    Big_Gazza wrote:
    "In the form in which it was planned earlier, it will most likely not be implemented, at least not so quickly. But here everything depends on the decision of the customer - the Ministry of Defense," he said.

    So I interpret this as meaning that the widely-ridiculed Krylov-designed stepped-pagoda stealth cruiser probably won't be built...  or at least not soon....   but its the Navy that will decide....  so by inference something different might be built soon...  but we can't know for sure....  because the Navy will decide....

    Wow.. that settles the question I guess.   Suspect

    I never saw Russia needing a cruiser or destroyer - their frigates are usually armed way better than most destroyers.  Now they can make the turbines for their frigates, why bother?

    Probably going back to drawing board to find a cheaper alternative.  Priority will still be missile and Airforce while Navy will take the back burner till they figure out what the hell they want.

    Well they probably need some destroyers in addition to frigates, as normally destroyers have greater endurance and range than frigates, as well as more space for sensors and weapon systems...

    But 22350M will be destroyers, and quite capable ones too, even if Russia insists for calling them frigates.

    22350M compared to 22350 is akin to 20385 compared to 20380. It shares the same hull.
    Rodion_Romanovic
    Rodion_Romanovic


    Posts : 1687
    Points : 1671
    Join date : 2015-12-30
    Location : Merkelland

    Russian Navy: Status and News #5 - Page 23 Empty Re: Russian Navy: Status and News #5

    Post  Rodion_Romanovic Fri Apr 16, 2021 10:19 pm

    thedrunkengeneral wrote:

    22350M compared to 22350 is akin to 20385 compared to 20380. It shares the same hull.

    Maybe you are confounding them with the last "version" of 22350 (the last 4 ships that they started building in 2019 and in 2020), which has one additional UKSK module in the same hull.

    22350M (super Gorshkov) should have 6 UKSK modules (for 48 UKSK VLS) + an unspecified number of redut VLS (at least 32, but probably 48) and additional weapon systems for a total displacement of 8000 tons. Normal 22350 is 5400 tons at full load.
    It cannot be the same hull. They need also a different powerplant arrangement

    http://mil.today/2020/Navy3/
    https://mil.today/2020/Industry4/
    avatar
    thedrunkengeneral


    Posts : 5
    Points : 5
    Join date : 2021-04-16

    Russian Navy: Status and News #5 - Page 23 Empty Re: Russian Navy: Status and News #5

    Post  thedrunkengeneral Sat Apr 17, 2021 12:57 am

    Rodion_Romanovic wrote:
    thedrunkengeneral wrote:

    22350M compared to 22350 is akin to 20385 compared to 20380. It shares the same hull.

    Maybe you are confounding them with the last "version" of 22350 (the last 4 ships that they started building in 2019 and in 2020), which has one additional UKSK module in the same hull.

    22350M (super Gorshkov) should have 6 UKSK modules (for 48 UKSK VLS) +  an unspecified number of redut VLS (at least 32, but probably 48) and additional weapon systems for a total displacement of 8000 tons.  Normal 22350 is 5400 tons at full load.
    It cannot be the same hull. They need also a different powerplant arrangement

    I doubt 22350M would be 8,000 tons. 22350M has the same dimensions as 22350 at 135 meters long. 22350 is 5,400 tons. 22350M should be about 5,800 tons. By comparison 20380 is 2,200 tons compared to 20385 which has the same dimensions as 20380 and 2,500 tons.

    The hull must be same or else it wouldn't be called 22350M but rather something else.
    miketheterrible
    miketheterrible


    Posts : 7403
    Points : 7377
    Join date : 2016-11-06

    Russian Navy: Status and News #5 - Page 23 Empty Re: Russian Navy: Status and News #5

    Post  miketheterrible Sat Apr 17, 2021 2:23 am

    I believe it's supposed to be a stretched/widen variant of Gorshkov but the rest of the design is the same
    So a larger Gorshkov. They are happy with the Gorshkov design so yeah.

    Other than that, dunno.
    LMFS
    LMFS


    Posts : 4917
    Points : 4917
    Join date : 2018-03-03

    Russian Navy: Status and News #5 - Page 23 Empty Re: Russian Navy: Status and News #5

    Post  LMFS Sat Apr 17, 2021 4:20 am

    thedrunkengeneral wrote:I doubt 22350M would be 8,000 tons. 22350M has the same dimensions as 22350 at 135 meters long. 22350 is 5,400 tons. 22350M should be about 5,800 tons. By comparison 20380 is 2,200 tons compared to 20385 which has the same dimensions as 20380 and 2,500 tons.

    The hull must be same or else it wouldn't be called 22350M but rather something else.

    Wow, do you have the blueprints already, amazing!

    Now seriously, cut the crap. The design has been approved, not published. And the sources that are "leaked" in the official channels say it is 8kt, with twice the weapons load than the standard 22350. BTW the 20380 and 20385 have different dimensions and displacement, and 11711 and 11711M are completely different even in their layout...

    Big_Gazza, Rodion_Romanovic, Hole and lancelot like this post

    Big_Gazza
    Big_Gazza


    Posts : 3782
    Points : 3780
    Join date : 2014-08-25
    Location : Melbourne, Australia

    Russian Navy: Status and News #5 - Page 23 Empty Re: Russian Navy: Status and News #5

    Post  Big_Gazza Sat Apr 17, 2021 4:42 am

    lancelot wrote:To be honest I always found the design of the Leader destroyers kind of ridiculous.
    You have a huge ship like that and it carries less missiles than a Ticonderoga cruiser with like half the displacement.

    Thats not really an accurate assessment.

    Pr 23560 nominally has 8x UKSK (64 heavy AShM, LACM, ASubCM) plus something like 18x quad-cell VLS for heavy SAMs (minimum of 72 missiles, but could be much more if cells are multi-packed with smaller missiles).  Add onto that 3x Pantsir-M CIWS, presumably with significant reloads.

    Ticos have 122 general purpose tubes, plus IIRC about 8x harpoons.

    Pr 23560 has a stealthy config, nuclear propulsion and expanded stores for long endurance as they might be required to operate solo on long deployments without the support of a global auxilliary fleet and an archipelago of bases on stolen territory....  err..  "leased" locations that the USN enjoys.

    The Tico is little more than an expanded Spruance class that has been stuffed to the gunnels with tubes and intended to function as an imperial gunboat to keep the planets natives in line and foreign regimes suitably quelled and pliant.  

    If you think the Pr 23560 compares unfavourably against the Tico, what do you think of the Zumwalt? It only has 80 tubes plus 2x 155m arty pieces, all on a nearly 16,000 T displacement. Laughing

    Funnily enough I kinda accept that experienced Russian naval architects know more about designing combat ships to meet Russian Navy doctrinal needs than we Western-based Armchair Admirals (myself included)?

    Having said all that, the Pr 23560 is not an official project, and whatever large combatant the RuN chooses to build in latter 2020s will likely look very different.

    Hole likes this post

    Rodion_Romanovic
    Rodion_Romanovic


    Posts : 1687
    Points : 1671
    Join date : 2015-12-30
    Location : Merkelland

    Russian Navy: Status and News #5 - Page 23 Empty Re: Russian Navy: Status and News #5

    Post  Rodion_Romanovic Sat Apr 17, 2021 10:19 am

    LMFS wrote:
    thedrunkengeneral wrote:I doubt 22350M would be 8,000 tons. 22350M has the same dimensions as 22350 at 135 meters long. 22350 is 5,400 tons. 22350M should be about 5,800 tons. By comparison 20380 is 2,200 tons compared to 20385 which has the same dimensions as 20380 and 2,500 tons.

    The hull must be same or else it wouldn't be called 22350M but rather something else.

    Wow, do you have the blueprints already, amazing!

    Now seriously, cut the crap. The design has been approved, not published. And the sources that are "leaked" in the official channels say it is 8kt, with twice the weapons load than the standard 22350. BTW the 20380 and 20385 have different dimensions and displacement, and 11711 and 11711M are completely different even in their layout...
    Exactly, the Russians have also strange habits when they use the M after the project number (e.g 11711M or Tu22M, both very different from the original project).

    I bet 22350M will end up very close to the dimensions of Udaloy class (which is 163 m long and with a beam of about 19m ("vanilla" 22350 has a beam of 16m)).

    Big_Gazza and LMFS like this post

    Isos
    Isos


    Posts : 9861
    Points : 9847
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Russian Navy: Status and News #5 - Page 23 Empty Re: Russian Navy: Status and News #5

    Post  Isos Sat Apr 17, 2021 10:29 am

    UKSK is finished.

    They will come with a universal uksk-M for any kind of big missile.

    Redut will be kept for places where UKSK-M is too big and will also be improved to store bigger missiles but also more 9m96 per cell.

    Number of cell will be good no matter how many they use because each cell will be quad pack for small/medium/long range missiles unless they use anti ship, land attack or very long range AD missiles.

    They will also use they for quad packing loitoring munitions or drones in huge numbers.
    GarryB
    GarryB


    Posts : 34297
    Points : 34815
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Russian Navy: Status and News #5 - Page 23 Empty Re: Russian Navy: Status and News #5

    Post  GarryB Sat Apr 17, 2021 11:41 am

    I never saw Russia needing a cruiser or destroyer - their frigates are usually armed way better than most destroyers. Now they can make the turbines for their frigates, why bother?

    The thing is that their Corvettes can barely defend themselves, and their Frigates are slightly better armed in terms of self defence but there is no way even with 30 Corvettes and 30 frigates that they could operate two 40K ton helicopter landing ships and support a landing operation.

    For the helicopter landing ships to be useful... remember they are talking about them having a 60 day endurance, which suggests they wont be using them to land in Kaliningrad or the Kurile Islands.

    If they are going to use them further afield away from ground based air defence and land based fighters they are going to need aircraft carriers...

    And that is a big hint there... if they only wanted corvettes and frigates then why waste time overhauling the Kuznetsov or the two Kirov class cruisers let alone the Slava class cruisers. Even the upgrades of the Udaloy class ships would be a waste of time... they have a Frigate design and a few corvette designs... just bashing out them would be the solution.

    Except two 40K ton helicopter carriers means they want to see the world, which means corvettes and frigates are not going to cut it on their own... great for the waters around Russia, but no good further afield.

    Upgraded cruisers and destroyers and the Kuznetsov gives them a basic global reach but over time they will need new destroyers and some new cruisers... we are not talking hundreds like the US Navy, but I would think four cruisers each at the Northern Fleet and Pacific Fleet would be useful, and perhaps 6 to 8 destroyers for the Northern Fleet and the Pacific Fleet and maybe 4 in the Baltic and Black Sea fleets too.

    The two 40K ton helicopter carriers in the Northern Fleet will probably be joined with two more for the Pacific fleet though one each might have the helicopters and drones while the other has 1,000 naval infantry and armour.

    Two CVNs would round things off and the the upgraded ships could retire over time... leaving a very modern and capable fleet.

    They will come with a universal uksk-M for any kind of big missile.

    If they can get layering to work it will allow enormous numbers of missiles to be carried... especially the very small missiles that are not very efficient in the big launch tubes designed for huge missiles...
    Isos
    Isos


    Posts : 9861
    Points : 9847
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Russian Navy: Status and News #5 - Page 23 Empty Re: Russian Navy: Status and News #5

    Post  Isos Sat Apr 17, 2021 12:22 pm

    If they can get layering to work it will allow enormous numbers of missiles to be carried... especially the very small missiles that are not very efficient in the big launch tubes designed for huge missiles...

    Big missiles in small launchers is impossible. There is no drawback in quad packing 9m96 instead of a 48N6. On the opposite uksk and redut can't carry 48N6...
    George1
    George1


    Posts : 17774
    Points : 18279
    Join date : 2011-12-22
    Location : Greece

    Russian Navy: Status and News #5 - Page 23 Empty Re: Russian Navy: Status and News #5

    Post  George1 Tue Apr 20, 2021 3:26 pm

    Start of the interspecific command-staff exercise under the leadership of the Commander-in-Chief of the Navy in the Northern Fleet


    Gomig-21 and Hole like this post

    PhSt
    PhSt


    Posts : 725
    Points : 731
    Join date : 2019-04-02

    Russian Navy: Status and News #5 - Page 23 Empty Re: Russian Navy: Status and News #5

    Post  PhSt Mon Apr 26, 2021 5:44 am


    What is Russia's counterpart to the American Aegis Combat System? I have read a lot of commentary about how Russia excels in anti aircraft/ ballistic missile/ satellite systems, but I saw information about the US Standard Missile 3 which claims to have 1,200 km range and engage targets up to 1,050 km in altitude, when I compared it to Russia's S-400, it only has a maximum range of 400 km and 60 km altitude. And S-400 don't even seem to have a naval version. Am I comparing different systems for different roles? I checked information about Poliment-Redut but its range and altitude are even lower than the S-400.
    lancelot
    lancelot


    Posts : 1367
    Points : 1369
    Join date : 2020-10-18

    Russian Navy: Status and News #5 - Page 23 Empty Re: Russian Navy: Status and News #5

    Post  lancelot Mon Apr 26, 2021 6:53 am

    PhSt wrote:
    What is Russia's counterpart to the American Aegis Combat System? I have read a lot of commentary about how Russia excels in anti aircraft/ ballistic missile/ satellite systems, but I saw information about the US Standard Missile 3 which claims to have 1,200 km range and engage targets up to 1,050 km in altitude, when I compared it to Russia's S-400, it only has a maximum range of 400 km and 60 km altitude. And S-400 don't even seem to have a naval version. Am I comparing different systems for different roles? I checked information about Poliment-Redut but its range and altitude are even lower than the S-400.

    At that kind of altitude you aren't inside the atmosphere anymore.
    There isn't any air friction at that altitude.

    If you look at the missile dimensions the SM-3 and the S-400 missile dimensions aren't that different.
    The diameter is roughly the same and the Russian missiles are up to a meter longer.

    It seems that the longest range S-400 missile has two stages and the SM-3 can have four stages.
    Missiles with more stages can reach higher terminal velocities. The problem is you get less missile reliability because staging can fail.
    It seems to me the S-400 is more optimized against aircraft and the SM-3 against ballistic missiles.

    This is likely because of the threat scenarios these missiles were designed to defend against.
    A Russian ship might have to defend against a subsonic Harpoon or some other cruise missile.
    While the US ship will have to defend against supersonic missiles up to Mach 4.6 like the Kh-32.

    I think it is more adequate to compare S-400 missiles like the 40N6 with the SM-6 instead of the SM-3.

    Big_Gazza likes this post

    lyle6
    lyle6


    Posts : 1315
    Points : 1311
    Join date : 2020-09-14
    Location : Philippines

    Russian Navy: Status and News #5 - Page 23 Empty Re: Russian Navy: Status and News #5

    Post  lyle6 Mon Apr 26, 2021 7:31 am

    PhSt wrote:
    What is Russia's counterpart to the American Aegis Combat System? I have read a lot of commentary about how Russia excels in anti aircraft/ ballistic missile/ satellite systems, but I saw information about the US Standard Missile 3 which claims to have 1,200 km range and engage targets up to 1,050 km in altitude, when I compared it to Russia's S-400, it only has a maximum range of 400 km and 60 km altitude. And S-400 don't even seem to have a naval version. Am I comparing different systems for different roles? I checked information about Poliment-Redut but its range and altitude are even lower than the S-400.
    As if you could believe those numbers. Their battle-tested and decades in service Patriots are proven trash. What makes you think the Aegis is any better?

    Big_Gazza and kvs like this post

    LMFS
    LMFS


    Posts : 4917
    Points : 4917
    Join date : 2018-03-03

    Russian Navy: Status and News #5 - Page 23 Empty Re: Russian Navy: Status and News #5

    Post  LMFS Mon Apr 26, 2021 11:18 am

    PhSt wrote:
    What is Russia's counterpart to the American Aegis Combat System? I have read a lot of commentary about how Russia excels in anti aircraft/ ballistic missile/ satellite systems, but I saw information about the US Standard Missile 3 which claims to have 1,200 km range and engage targets up to 1,050 km in altitude, when I compared it to Russia's S-400, it only has a maximum range of 400 km and 60 km altitude. And S-400 don't even seem to have a naval version. Am I comparing different systems for different roles? I checked information about Poliment-Redut but its range and altitude are even lower than the S-400.

    AEGIS is a naval weapons system, Russia has their equivalent but the exoatmospheric interceptor is missing in it, probably an eventual naval version of S-500 will fulfil that role. Redut / S-300 / S-400 are not even the same type of thing. Remember it was the US that withdrew from ABM treaty and planned to use their fleet as a mobile ABM shield, so they put the focus in that kind of weapon for their own reasons, while Russia had no big need for that. The actual kinematics of such interceptions put a heavy burden on the missile design, so that the SM-3 due to the VLS cells size is challenged to actually meet the needs of the mission. Russians will probably create a bigger VLS cell size for that kind of missiles, so that the interceptors are much harder to defeat.

    Big_Gazza and kvs like this post

    Singular_Transform
    Singular_Transform


    Posts : 1031
    Points : 1015
    Join date : 2016-11-13

    Russian Navy: Status and News #5 - Page 23 Empty Re: Russian Navy: Status and News #5

    Post  Singular_Transform Mon Apr 26, 2021 2:16 pm

    LMFS wrote:
    PhSt wrote:
    What is Russia's counterpart to the American Aegis Combat System? I have read a lot of commentary about how Russia excels in anti aircraft/ ballistic missile/ satellite systems, but I saw information about the US Standard Missile 3 which claims to have 1,200 km range and engage targets up to 1,050 km in altitude, when I compared it to Russia's S-400, it only has a maximum range of 400 km and 60 km altitude. And S-400 don't even seem to have a naval version. Am I comparing different systems for different roles? I checked information about Poliment-Redut but its range and altitude are even lower than the S-400.

    AEGIS is a naval weapons system, Russia has their equivalent but the exoatmospheric interceptor is missing in it, probably an eventual naval version of S-500 will fulfil that role. Redut / S-300 / S-400 are not even the same type of thing. Remember it was the US that withdrew from ABM treaty and planned to use their fleet as a mobile ABM shield, so they put the focus in that kind of weapon for their own reasons, while Russia had no big need for that. The actual kinematics of such interceptions put a heavy burden on the missile design, so that the SM-3 due to the VLS cells size is challenged to actually meet the needs of the mission. Russians will probably create a bigger VLS cell size for that kind of missiles, so that the interceptors are much harder to defeat.

    The VLS used by the Russian ships way bigger then the USA ones, to acocmodate supersonic missiles.

    So there won't be issue to fit bigger missiles.
    GarryB
    GarryB


    Posts : 34297
    Points : 34815
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Russian Navy: Status and News #5 - Page 23 Empty Re: Russian Navy: Status and News #5

    Post  GarryB Mon Apr 26, 2021 5:10 pm

    The Russian system is called Sigma I believe.

    The SM-3 is a two stage missile with a large solid rocket motor booster, the S-400 is a single stage SAM.

    The SM-3 is an ABM modification of the Standard Surface to air Missile system used on US ships for quite a number of decades... the SM-2 was the missile that shot down an Iranian airbus in the 1980s.

    The air defence weapons of the US navy are head and shoulders above those of the US Army or Air Force, but in terms of claims the SM-3 is pretty much a naval version of the Russian ABM system that is intended to shoot down ABMs... it is a new development because before the ABM treaty was ripped up it would be illegal, and it is also a missile that is illegal when they introduced the AEGIS Ashore system, because obviously a missile that can reach targets 1,200km away is an IRBM, while the tomahawk cruise missiles the system can also launch are IRCMs which are both totally in violation of the INF treaty they only recently ripped up.

    Their battle-tested and decades in service Patriots are proven trash. What makes you think the Aegis is any better?

    Funny you should say that but when they shot down an Iranian airliner which they mistook for being an F-14 there was a system error that delayed the launch of the SM-2 missile by 90 seconds... if they were being attacked they would have been dead by then I would think.

    probably an eventual naval version of S-500 will fulfil that role.

    This... these are ABM systems and would be useless against aircraft or low flying missiles.

    SM-3 would likely be unable to manouver to kill Zircon... it is optimised for ballistic targets that follow predictable paths, not any sort of manouvering targets like aircraft.

    The obvious question would be if their naval SAMs could reach 1,200km... that is further than their F-35s could reach in 2 hours... why waste time with aircraft when you have such systems... and the answer is that SM-3 is like PAC-3 and THAAD and is not much use for anything except hitting very fast very predictable targets that don't move and don't fly low or turn...

    The Russian AEGIS system is applied to all their new and upgraded ships so from corvette up to carrier and including subs and aircraft are all linked in...
    LMFS
    LMFS


    Posts : 4917
    Points : 4917
    Join date : 2018-03-03

    Russian Navy: Status and News #5 - Page 23 Empty Re: Russian Navy: Status and News #5

    Post  LMFS Mon Apr 26, 2021 7:14 pm

    Singular_Transform wrote:The VLS used by the Russian ships way bigger then the USA ones, to acocmodate supersonic missiles.

    So there won't be issue to fit bigger missiles.

    As far as I know the Mk 41 allows for canisters up to 7.7 m tall and the missiles inside seem to be 533 mm max. Mk 57 allows missiles up to three inches wider and 18 in longer. UKSK is almost 9 m tall and allows missiles up to 65-70 cm diameter from what I ahve seen, though it is difficult sometimes to be sure about canister and missile diameters in these cases. So similar sizes but it indeed seems the advantage is for the USKSK.

    GarryB wrote:Funny you should say that but when they shot down an Iranian airliner which they mistook for being an F-14 there was a system error that delayed the launch of the SM-2 missile by 90 seconds... if they were being attacked they would have been dead by then I would think.

    Maybe the time was needed to override the civilian casualties lock...

    Now seriously, a missile like the 3M54 would give little more than 10 seconds to the weapon systems on the ship to detect, get a firing solution and launch before being hit. For their own good, I hope they have improved massively in their reaction time.

    SM-3 would likely be unable to manouver to kill Zircon... it is optimised for ballistic targets that follow predictable paths, not any sort of manouvering targets like aircraft.

    Yes, and not only that, it employs a hit to kill exoatmospheric interceptor that is useless against missiles flying inside the atmosphere...
    Isos
    Isos


    Posts : 9861
    Points : 9847
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Russian Navy: Status and News #5 - Page 23 Empty Re: Russian Navy: Status and News #5

    Post  Isos Mon Apr 26, 2021 9:03 pm

    ABM capability is missing on most of ARGIS ships, less than a third of their aegis ships have it. I also saw somewhere that when in ABM mode they can't detect low flying anti ship missiles so a simultanous attack with kalibr and Kinzhal is impossible to counter. But not sure if it's true.

    Sigma is a battle management system that connects all the ships/HQ/planes to share data they collect. Everyone can see what the others see.

    US counterpart is link 16.

    AEGIS is just the system that manages the weapons on a ship. Russian modern counterpart is poliment/redut.

    ABM on ships like S-500 isn't needed for Russia since they don't have bases around the world to protect them. Their mainland is protected by land based systems which are better positionned and connected to the ground based OTH radars that see better than any ship mounted radar.


    As far as I know the Mk 41 allows for canisters up to 7.7 m tall and the missiles inside seem to be 533 mm max. Mk 57 allows missiles up to three inches wider and 18 in longer. UKSK is almost 9 m tall and allows missiles up to 65-70 cm diameter from what I ahve seen, though it is difficult sometimes to be sure about canister and missile diameters in these cases. So similar sizes but it indeed seems the advantage is for the USKSK.

    US and chinese VLS can carry any type of missiles.

    UKSK is just for cruise missiles. Redut is only for smaller AD missiles.

    In that regard US system has an advantage and can carry any mix of missile it wants. Russians are more limited.
    Singular_Transform
    Singular_Transform


    Posts : 1031
    Points : 1015
    Join date : 2016-11-13

    Russian Navy: Status and News #5 - Page 23 Empty Re: Russian Navy: Status and News #5

    Post  Singular_Transform Mon Apr 26, 2021 9:11 pm

    Isos wrote:
    In that regard US system has an advantage and can carry any mix of missile it wants. Russians are more limited.

    The Russian canisters way bigger then the USA oney, check the dimension of the tomahawk vs onyx.
    Isos
    Isos


    Posts : 9861
    Points : 9847
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Russian Navy: Status and News #5 - Page 23 Empty Re: Russian Navy: Status and News #5

    Post  Isos Mon Apr 26, 2021 9:56 pm

    Singular_Transform wrote:
    Isos wrote:
    In that regard US system has an advantage and can carry any mix of missile it wants. Russians are more limited.

    The Russian canisters way bigger then the USA oney, check the dimension of the tomahawk vs onyx.

    And ? It can't carry AD weapons. And redut can't carry cruise missiles.

    US don't use oniks. They don't need to design their VLS to carry a missile they don't use.
    Singular_Transform
    Singular_Transform


    Posts : 1031
    Points : 1015
    Join date : 2016-11-13

    Russian Navy: Status and News #5 - Page 23 Empty Re: Russian Navy: Status and News #5

    Post  Singular_Transform Mon Apr 26, 2021 11:22 pm

    Isos wrote:
    Singular_Transform wrote:
    Isos wrote:
    In that regard US system has an advantage and can carry any mix of missile it wants. Russians are more limited.

    The Russian canisters way bigger then the USA oney, check the dimension of the tomahawk vs onyx.

    And ? It can't carry AD weapons. And redut can't carry cruise missiles.

    US don't use oniks. They don't need to design their VLS to carry a missile they don't use.
    ??

    Correctly sounds like : The USA can't carry supersonic/hypersonic air breathing missiles in the VLS, because they are too small for this purpose

    The Redut is for small , shart/medium renge SAM missiles, the normal VLS is for long range, light and medium missiles.

    The USA can field only light missiles into the VLS systems on the ships.

    Sponsored content


    Russian Navy: Status and News #5 - Page 23 Empty Re: Russian Navy: Status and News #5

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Thu Sep 29, 2022 7:35 pm