Naval Air Defence systems

64 missiles for the size of two UKSK. In the back there are another 2 sets that could also be upgraded with 64 missiles too bringing total to 128 missiles.

Neither, its new naval Tor.
Quad-pack as seen in my earlier post above.

In that location on Udaloy are 4*8 Kinzhal (aka naval Tor)
There are also 4*8 forward of the hangar = 64 Tor.

This model has 16 cells that are quad-pack = 64 forward alone.
Presumably same replacement will be done aft = 128 total which is solid.
Though I'd still have preferred to see a longer range missile on such a big ship.

Those are launchrs for Tor missiles. 9m96 can't be used.

Isos wrote:64 missiles for the size of two UKSK. In the back there are another 2 sets that could also be upgraded with 64 missiles too bringing total to 128 missiles.

Is this image official final appearance of upgraded Udaloi?

Is this image official final appearance of upgraded Udaloi?

I don't think so. I found it on twitter. It was with the two images posted above. More like advertising for the tor system.

There is no official statement about upgrading udaloy air defence systems.

There is no official statement about upgrading udaloy air defence systems.

Aww, I was hoping this was explicitly showing the intended final upgrade config.
If they're not actually doing that its gonna be a pretty sad upgrade

Big_Gazza wrote:Sad upgrade?

Remove 2x quad launchers for Rastrub and 1x 100mm gun but gain 2x UKSK bins and 2x launchers for Uran?

Man, you just ain't thinking straight....

Well upgrading tor to a newer tor while the ship is beig cut into pieces wouldn't be a bad idea.

Aww, I was hoping this was explicitly showing the intended final upgrade config.
If they're not actually doing that its gonna be a pretty sad upgrade unshaven

I'm not sure but in the last picture I saw from Udaloy being modernized I think they were also working on tor launchers which could suggest they are being modernized too.

If you have a recent pic would be nice to see what they are doing.

The old Kinzhal launchers were rotary systems with moving revolving launch tubes that moved the tube to beneath a hatch for a launch. The new land based TOR is half the size so even with the old rotary arrangement you should be able to double the load from 128 to 256 per boat without doing anything other than swapping out the missiles.

The point is that the new launch tubes should allow rather more missiles to be carried within the same space... possibly triple, so I would say removing the old launchers and installing fixed new launch tube arrays would be a good idea simply to save money on a simpler system that is better in most areas...

Remove 2x quad launchers for Rastrub and 1x 100mm gun but gain 2x UKSK bins and 2x launchers for Uran?

But leave only a 1980s age point-defense SAM to defend it.
I still would have liked to see a Poliment Redut or Shtil-1 upgrade but new Naval Tor would be acceptable.

If you have a recent pic would be nice to see what they are doing.

This is recent & shows no sign of the Kinzhal rotary launchers being stripped out.

But leave only a 1980s age point-defense SAM to defend it.
I still would have liked to see a Poliment Redut or Shtil-1 upgrade but new Naval Tor would be acceptable.

There is no space for long missiles under the deck. That's a soviet design with no VLS in mind. UKSK takes away one gun and they still need a plateform to mount the VLS bc of the lenght of the mossiles.

Also they would need totally new radars for newer AD systems.

Finally, redut would be nice but shtil provides nothing more than a tor system since both will only face anti ship missiles as they don't have the range to attack the missile carriers. Modern tor proved in syria to be able to hit very small and fast targets.

I would rather add two more targeting radars for tors to have two in the front and two in the back. They are smaller than old tor radars.

It is a VLS.

Hole wrote:It is a VLS.

It is a small VLS for tor missiles. You can switch them for redut missiles. Unless you evelate the VLS like they are doing with uksk.

Apparently they're working on a naval version of the Derivation/Baikal 57mm turret
http://bastion-karpenko.ru/au220m/


It looks like it could work as a replacement for AK-630?

Air burst shells would be rather effective and if you can put all the high tech and processing in to the mount and keep the rounds simple and cheap this could be an excellent idea.

A simple tiny laser beam sensor in the tail of a shell facing backwards that sets off a rear mounted detonator with perhaps a 1-2kg HE charge in the rear of the round with pre fragmented side walls and an array of projectiles like steel balls or steel cubes in front of the charge so when the detonator sets off the charge it sends a shower of fragments sideways but also forward like a claymore mine to form a cone of fragments forward, you could track via radar your rounds going out and the incoming threat and as they get close you can lase your own round to detonate it sending a shower of fragments at the incoming threat... you could sweep around with the beam so the rounds get set off one at a time to maximise the damage to the target.

The problem with normal proximity fuse ammo is that it needs a forward facing radio sensor that transmits a beam that is interrupted by the target... if the shell gets no where near the target then it does not detonate so there is no chance of any fragments damaging the target.

With precision time fuses the timer has to be incredibly precise which makes them rather expensive and as they are in the shells they are destroyed with each use which makes the ammo expensive.

Having a simple laser sensor that detects a coded laser beam that just sets off the detonator would be very cheap and simple and reliable and could be produced in enormous numbers... most ships these days will have plenty of super high precision AESA radar arrays and EO systems for looking for threats and tracking targets so the laser beam that sets off the rounds might be located at the other end of the ship so that if it is pointing at a round fired a few seconds before it wont set off a round that has just been fired...

Such a round would be cheap and could be carried in enormous numbers... The rear mounted fuse could also have an impact function so that it penetrates a target before exploding showering the inside of the target with metal fragments... perhaps adding some incendiary material would make it fully dual purpose and effective against a range of targets... fire makes ammo more effective most of the time...

It looks like it could work as a replacement for AK-630?

I don't think so. Modern nato missiles would make evasive manoeuvres in the engageement zone of this 57mm gun so it won't have a Pk of 100%. The 76/100/130mm gun can fire further and would have better chance of intercepting missiles because far away the missile still fly straight. But when it start zig zaging, intercepting it with a shell is impossible (only at the last km).

Ak-630 can also be in auto mode with no crew needed to operate it. It take very little space and provide very good CIWS capability.

Air burst 57mm shells would fill a box area with shrapnel rather more efficiently than with 30mm rounds and out to greater distances... the 57mm rounds could be fired intentionally with a spread so the fragments cover an enormous area... plus they could have guided shells as well as air burst ones...

Ak-630 can also be in auto mode with no crew needed to operate it. It take very little space and provide very good CIWS capability.

Most CIWS air defence systems operate automatically, this gun will be fully automatically loaded and aimed and fill the same role at sea as a similar gun would perform on land... most likely for use against small drones that are too many in number for missiles...

Small calibre high rate of fire makes sense with larger objects like aircraft, but as the targets get smaller... like the end on view of an incoming missile then you have to fire a lot of shells to get a hit... pretty soon an airburst heavier shell starts to make more sense to improve hit probability.

Air burst 57mm shells would fill a box area with shrapnel rather more efficiently than with 30mm rounds and out to greater distances... the 57mm rounds could be fired intentionally with a spread so the fragments cover an enormous area... plus they could have guided shells as well as air burst ones...

When tracking the anti ship mossile the FCS will provide an "intercepting"point where to fire the 57mm airburst shell. But that shell will need some few second to travel there. So if the anti ship missile is in evasive manoeuvre mode (generally it starts 15km before the impact so it's te engagement zone of the 57mm gun) the gun will have hard time intercepting it.

You can see in this video from the game war thunder how it is harder to target a target that turns randomly than a target that goes straight. At greater distance it is worse.
I wouldn't be surprised if modern missile have a basic rwr against x band engagemebt radars and know when they are targeted to start manoeuvring.




For the last 2 or 3 km I would prefere to still have the ak630 than just a 57mm gun.

Modern nato missiles would make evasive manoeuvres in the engageement zone of this 57mm gun so it won't have a Pk of 100%.

And AK-630 has 100%?

The AU-220M mount is new-gen tech being designed for new AD units for the modern army & replacing existing 30mm/missile units.
Its an unmanned, remote operated turret -> part of navalisation can be expected to be integration with ship fire-control/radar.
Its a light-weight & compact mount, as far as I can find (though there's a lot of variation in quoted numbers for both AK-630 & AU-220M) it seems to be very similar dimensions & mass to an AK-630.

57mm has same muzzle velocity & longer range -> its maintaining the velocity better.
Its got a significant air-burst so doesn't need to direct-hit & using modern precision ranged fuses.

Arguably that should combine to equal a better PK both close & further away than 30mm.

Put both on a ship.

There is no space for long missiles under the deck. That's a soviet design with no VLS in mind. UKSK takes away one gun and they still need a plateform to mount the VLS bc of the lenght of the mossiles.

They didn't design the original ships with the idea of upgrading them with new weapon systems that hadn't even been thought of when the original ship was designed... that is hardly a design fault... secondly naval TOR is a vertical launch system, so they did design it with that in mind... replacing the old naval TOR with a new model naval TOR shouldn't be super hard because in the land based version the new missiles fit into the same space as the old ones... in fact they fit twice as many of the new missiles in the same space the old ones took.

The difference is even more noticeable with the old naval TOR missiles as they had a complicated revolving launcher system with one launch hatch for 8 missile tubes that revolved into position under the hatch for launch... having a cell launcher with no moving parts and individual hatches for each launch tube should be much easier and simpler and cheaper and should allow a vast increase in the number of available ready to launch missiles... add to that the fact that the missiles are half the size so you can further double capacity then it is hard to imagine why they wouldn't use an updated tor model... the fact that they are showing new models of Naval TOR proves they are continuing with the missile... it is the point defence missile used on the Kirov class cruisers, the Slava class has the older OSA system that was replaced on land by the TOR system so any upgrades to that ship will likely include TOR, and of course the Kuznetsov uses the TOR system for point defence along with 30mm gatling mounts and Kashtan gun/missile systems...

When tracking the anti ship mossile the FCS will provide an "intercepting"point where to fire the 57mm airburst shell. But that shell will need some few second to travel there. So if the anti ship missile is in evasive manoeuvre mode (generally it starts 15km before the impact so it's te engagement zone of the 57mm gun) the gun will have hard time intercepting it.

Those problems are the same for any gun related interception of an incoming threat. A well designed air bursting shell will create an area in front of the exploding shell where most threats are dealt with... when an incoming threat is detected whether it is pulling 10g or 1g if it is headed towards the ship the 57mm gun is mounted on it needs to be pointing in that guns general direction and is therefore getting closer and closer.

Any manouvers need to result in the target hitting the ship so just any manouvers wont be possible.

Equally if the target is manouvering hard then a TOR missile or a Pantsir missile could be launched to deal with the threat.

If the target is flying straight and level then a quick burst of 3-4 shells to send a cloud of fragments at the incoming target when it is 12km away is worth a shot to stop the threat cheaply and quickly.

You can see in this video from the game war thunder how it is harder to target a target that turns randomly than a target that goes straight. At greater distance it is worse.
I wouldn't be surprised if modern missile have a basic rwr against x band engagemebt radars and know when they are targeted to start manoeuvring.

But random manouvers rely on luck and as I said a threat that is manouvering can be dealt with using manouvering missiles... a 30mm gun is point blank last ditch self defence. A 57mm gun is the same but with better range. A scramjet powered 57mm round might be moving faster at 12km than it was from the muzzle of the gun and with simple command guidance could be a cheap munition to fire... note TOR and pantsir are command guided weapons too...

For the last 2 or 3 km I would prefere to still have the ak630 than just a 57mm gun.

You do understand they know what they are doing?

At 2km range a burst of 200 x30mm shells means 200 chances of a direct hit spread out over 20-30 square metres or more... a single airburst 57mm shell would mean 10,000 chances of a hit over a similar area.

They have missiles for use against manouvering targets...

The AU-220M mount is new-gen tech being designed for new AD units for the modern army & replacing existing 30mm/missile units.

And the point is that the 30mm is too small to have a reliable proximity fuse and enough HE and metal fragments to damage targets over significant distances and even a 200 round burst at 2km means lots of empty space between the shells where small targets like missiles can slip through.

Against bombers or aircraft like a helicopter or an MPA the 30mm is tried and tested and can still do an excellent job.

Even against speed boats and larger vessels or people in the water the 30mm cannon says stop what you are doing and listen to me.

Their defence against supersonic threats has been two stage high speed SAMs and twin 30mm gatling guns.

Their solution for small fast targets is to go for airburst heavier calibres like the 57mm guns in question.

A manouvering 57mm shell can compensate for any manouvers the target might have performed between when the shell was fired to the point of interception and delivering a small HE charge to that target... hopefully to impact or near impact...

Most rounds will be simpler cheaper airburst rounds for use against straight and level stupid targets out to 14km... anything manouvering will need missiles or guided rounds.

GarryB wrote:Air burst 57mm shells would fill a box area with shrapnel rather more efficiently than with 30mm rounds and out to greater distances... the 57mm rounds could be fired intentionally with a spread so the fragments cover an enormous area... plus they could have guided shells as well as air burst ones...

{}
Small calibre high rate of fire makes sense with larger objects like aircraft, but as the targets get smaller... like the end on view of an incoming missile then you have to fire a lot of shells to get a hit... pretty soon an airburst heavier shell starts to make more sense to improve hit probability.

I guess this is the idea behind recent announcement to install 57mm on Russian ships. Thje question is will it only replace 30mm Gatling guns o tor also compete with 76mm on light ships (like 22800 or 22160 ?)

The second question would be - does it make sense to use 57mm instead of 30mm in sea-pantsir?