Kirov was large, nuclear powered and fitted with new electronics and weapons.
Slava was based on the Kresta II class, slightly enlarged, with some new and some old equipment as backup for the Kirovs if they run into some development problems.
launchers and Redut launchers (note even the 9M96 50km and 150km range missiles would be a huge improvement over the 90km range Rif, let alone a 200km range S-300 variant or 400km range S-400 variant),
Isos wrote:launchers and Redut launchers (note even the 9M96 50km and 150km range missiles would be a huge improvement over the 90km range Rif, let alone a 200km range S-300 variant or 400km range S-400 variant),
Half of PtG S-300 are Rif the other half are rif-M which is naval PMU2 standard and uses 48N6E2 missiles with 250km range. You can see that the front radar is the one from ground s-300 (rif-M) and the one in the back is a big round radar for rif that you can also see on slavas.
Gorshkov could have had the rif-M too just like chinese frigate that have it. The VLS just like Redut launcher is not universal so that change nothing apart missile types being carried.
The only "waste" could be in vertical space (as the shorter range.missile are also shorter), unless they decide to have some of the VLS launcher shorter (as it is the case for the french VLS, that exists in different lenghts but with the same horizontal area), maybe be able to install them in other part if the ships with less vertical space available
Isos wrote:The only "waste" could be in vertical space (as the shorter range.missile are also shorter), unless they decide to have some of the VLS launcher shorter (as it is the case for the french VLS, that exists in different lenghts but with the same horizontal area), maybe be able to install them in other part if the ships with less vertical space available
Just keep the redut then . Because a universal VLS that is too short for most of missiles is no longer universal.
Half of PtG S-300 are Rif the other half are rif-M which is naval PMU2 standard and uses 48N6E2 missiles with 250km range. You can see that the front radar is the one from ground s-300 (rif-M) and the one in the back is a big round radar for rif that you can also see on slavas.
Gorshkov could have had the rif-M too just like chinese frigate that have it. The VLS just like Redut launcher is not universal so that change nothing apart missile types being carried.
As discussed before, instead the redut cells in Gorshkov class are not optimized for the missile size, so they maybe plan to substitute them anyway.
The only "waste" could be in vertical space (as the shorter range.missile are also shorter), unless they decide to have some of the VLS launcher shorter (as it is the case for the french VLS, that exists in different lenghts but with the same horizontal area), maybe be able to install them in other part if the ships with less vertical space available.
and/or they could maybe develop smaller redut VLS, optimized for the size of their missiles.
Just keep the redut then . Because a universal VLS that is too short for most of missiles is no longer universal.
Unless these launchers are instead optimized for the size of the quad packed shorter range s350 missile, that are 125 mm in diameter (vs 240mm).
There is a video somewhere here in the naval section, which was posted a few days ago, that showed that they are developing a version of the 40N6 missile for the Redut = 400km range.
Hole wrote:There is a video somewhere here in the naval section, which was posted a few days ago, that showed that they are developing a version of the 40N6 missile for the Redut = 400km range.
GarryB wrote:It was this thread:
https://www.russiadefence.net/t7063p425-s-300-400-500-news-russian-strategic-air-defense-3#255518
Where dino00 posted a link stating the Vityaz could carry 48 9M100s... it carries 12 9M96s... and the standard S-400 has four tubes for normal sized S-400 missiles and can carry 4 9M96 missiles per tube for a total of 16 missiles with 9M96s only, so with 9M100s it should be able to carry 64 missiles... which would look rather odd as they are much much shorter missiles...
, yeah the 40 km range 9M100 missiles are only 2.5 metres long (against the more than 5,5 metres of the 120km range 9M96E2 and the 7.5 metres of the S400 missiles. I do not know if it is true, but I have read somewhere that the 400km range 40N6 is more than 11 metres long.GarryB wrote:It was this thread:
https://www.russiadefence.net/t7063p425-s-300-400-500-news-russian-strategic-air-defense-3#255518
Where dino00 posted a link stating the Vityaz could carry 48 9M100s... it carries 12 9M96s... and the standard S-400 has four tubes for normal sized S-400 missiles and can carry 4 9M96 missiles per tube for a total of 16 missiles with 9M96s only, so with 9M100s it should be able to carry 64 missiles... which would look rather odd as they are much much shorter missiles...
, yeah the 40 km range 9M100 missiles are only 2.5 metres long (against the more than 5,5 metres of the 120km range 9M96E2 and the 7.5 metres of the S400 missiles. I do not know if it is true, but I have read somewhere that the 400km range 40N6 is more than 11 metres long.
Anyway i believe the russian missiles are cold launched. If so maybe they "could" be "layered", but one would have to count also the size of the cold launching system for each missile.
And finally: maybe the idea of small dedicated launchers for the 9M100 missiles is not a bad idea at all. They could be used also in smaller ships and they could replace the 128 Tor VLS cells in Peter the great and the 192 Tor cells in Kuznetov.
Or something like the Gibhka launcher fitted with 8 x 9M100.
Since 2012, more than 80 ships and boats have entered service.
GarryB wrote:Since 2012, more than 80 ships and boats have entered service.
Nice list... wasn't there talk of 160 new ships by 2023-2025 or something?
franco wrote:Probably includes non combat vessels also. During that same period of the 80 fighting vessels, there have been about 100 support vessels arrive also. Another factor that confuses the situation is the difference between a ship and a boat. Half those vessels on the list mentioned would be classified as a ship, while the rest are boats suitable for harbour and inshore operations only.
Vladimir79 wrote:PapaDragon wrote:
...How did the French justify the infrastructure for building carriers?
Easy, they have you
Disrespect will not be tolerated. Enjoy your time out.
Vladimir79 wrote:...How did the French justify the infrastructure for building carriers?
Vladimir79 wrote:The first ten are related to submarines, the second 10 are actual surface combatants and the last 60 are not worth mentioning.
Vladimir79 wrote:franco wrote:Probably includes non combat vessels also. During that same period of the 80 fighting vessels, there have been about 100 support vessels arrive also. Another factor that confuses the situation is the difference between a ship and a boat. Half those vessels on the list mentioned would be classified as a ship, while the rest are boats suitable for harbour and inshore operations only.
The first ten are related to submarines, the second 10 are actual surface combatants and the last 60 are not worth mentioning.
JohninMK wrote:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8561297/Russia-flexes-growing-power-Navy-huge-parade-involving-200-warships-St-Petersburg.html