Naval Weapon Systems & Technology

max steel wrote:

Werewolf wrote:Nothing is that stealthy and like in NATO navy drills and wargames have shown, even less developed british subs can detect american "stealthy" vessels and kill them, that will be even less problem for more capable subs russia uses along with their Shkval torpedoes with nuclear warheads to destroy entire battlegroups.

But shkval range isn't that much . Even germans have supercavitating torpedoes .

Only one supercavitating torpedo is in active service that is the Shkval and it is the only one with nuclear tipped warhead, no vessel can get away from such speeds.

Werewolf wrote:

max steel wrote:

Werewolf wrote:Nothing is that stealthy and like in NATO navy drills and wargames have shown, even less developed british subs can detect american "stealthy" vessels and kill them, that will be even less problem for more capable subs russia uses along with their Shkval torpedoes with nuclear warheads to destroy entire battlegroups.

But shkval range isn't that much . Even germans have supercavitating torpedoes .

Only one supercavitating torpedo is in active service that is the Shkval and it is the only one with nuclear tipped warhead, no vessel can get away from such speeds.

On that note, any news on Shkval II YET?

Werewolf wrote:

max steel wrote:

Werewolf wrote:Nothing is that stealthy and like in NATO navy drills and wargames have shown, even less developed british subs can detect american "stealthy" vessels and kill them, that will be even less problem for more capable subs russia uses along with their Shkval torpedoes with nuclear warheads to destroy entire battlegroups.

But shkval range isn't that much . Even germans have supercavitating torpedoes .

Only one supercavitating torpedo is in active service that is the Shkval and it is the only one with nuclear tipped warhead, no vessel can get away from such speeds.

Can you prove that Shkval is a deployed weapon in the Russian submarine force?

TR1 wrote:

Werewolf wrote:

max steel wrote:

Werewolf wrote:Nothing is that stealthy and like in NATO navy drills and wargames have shown, even less developed british subs can detect american "stealthy" vessels and kill them, that will be even less problem for more capable subs russia uses along with their Shkval torpedoes with nuclear warheads to destroy entire battlegroups.

But shkval range isn't that much . Even germans have supercavitating torpedoes .

Only one supercavitating torpedo is in active service that is the Shkval and it is the only one with nuclear tipped warhead, no vessel can get away from such speeds.

Can you prove that Shkval is a deployed weapon in the Russian submarine force?

I can.

max steel wrote:
But shkval range isn't that much .

How do you know the range of nonexportable variant of Shkval?

Even germans have supercavitating torpedoes .

The "German" one is not German.

Morpheus Eberhardt wrote:

TR1 wrote:

Werewolf wrote:

max steel wrote:

Werewolf wrote:Nothing is that stealthy and like in NATO navy drills and wargames have shown, even less developed british subs can detect american "stealthy" vessels and kill them, that will be even less problem for more capable subs russia uses along with their Shkval torpedoes with nuclear warheads to destroy entire battlegroups.

But shkval range isn't that much . Even germans have supercavitating torpedoes .

Only one supercavitating torpedo is in active service that is the Shkval and it is the only one with nuclear tipped warhead, no vessel can get away from such speeds.

Can you prove that Shkval is a deployed weapon in the Russian submarine force?

I can.

Produce it please.

TR1 wrote:Produce it please.

He can't, he won't. He doesn't have time. Go figure.

why won't they in first place ? it' a nice weapon to blow nato subs to kingdom come

<span id="sceditor-start-marker" style="line-height: 0; display: none; " class="sceditor-selection sceditor-ignore"></span><span id="sceditor-end-marker" style="line-height: 0; display: none; " class="sceditor-selection sceditor-ignore"></span>

GarryB wrote:What makes you think it isn't in service TR-1?

The Shkval does not use HTP fuel so it was not the cause of the explosion on the Kursk if that is what you think.

It is actually a defensive weapon used in ports and on ships to defend against threats detected in close.

It is for short range knife fights basically.

Thats what i said russian shkval range is unknown but exported model has 150 km range which is less what if hostile sub is out of our torpedo range and we have detected it already . How will you counterthe threat ? Because in anti submarine warfare first attack is required .

max steel wrote:
Thats what i said russian shkval range is unknown but exported model has 150 km range which is less what if hostile sub is out of our torpedo range and we have detected it already . How will you counterthe threat ? Because in anti submarine warfare first attack is required .

150km range is too much- no way its gonna be in the standard 533 or even 650mm torpedo size. it would also give an awful lot of time for the target to move out of the way- supercavitation is noisy as hell, and sound travels rather faster in water than in air. maybe an extended range subroc klub that is 650mm in diameter to allow for more solid fuel rocket.

collegeboy16 wrote:

max steel wrote:
Thats what i said russian shkval range is unknown but exported model has 150 km range which is less what if hostile sub is out of our torpedo range and we have detected it already . How will you counterthe threat ? Because in anti submarine warfare first attack is required .

150km range is too much- no way its gonna be in the standard 533 or even 650mm torpedo size. it would also give an awful lot of time for the target to move out of the way- supercavitation is noisy as hell, and sound travels rather faster in water than in air. maybe an extended range subroc klub that is 650mm in diameter to allow for more solid fuel rocket.

If it is noisy and will give an awful lot of time for nato subs to escape then whats the point of having shkval in russian subs . Query

Russian Navy’s Top 5 Military Innovations: Armata Learns to Swim?

Together with the Russian Navy, one of the country’s top scientific institutes has developed a series of cutting-edge new military hardware and technology.

Russia has always been a world leader when it came to developing new military hardware and technologies. Sputnik reveals the top 5 projects of Russia's central scientific research institute "Kurs."

1. Ice-cutting Laser

As Russia sets its eye on developing the Arctic and making it a key region in the near future, the institute has developed an original method of breaking the Arctic ice — an ice-slashing laser. The powerful laser will cut through the thick Arctic ice like a hot knife through butter by cutting off the top layers. After that Russian icebreakers can easily go through the rest of the ice.

2. Underwater Navigator

A new underwater navigator is currently being tested by the Russian Navy. The device can work in depths of over 80 meters (262 feet) for more than 7 hours, providing underwater navigation and communication between groups of frogmen. The special feature of the device is biometric sensors that measure the heart and breathing rates of divers and transmit them back up to a base. The navigator weighs only 7 kg (15 lbs.), which makes it extremely easy to carry around underwater.

3. Underwater Rescue Kit

A new underwater rescue kit has been designed to save the lives of pilots who crash land in water. The rescue kit allows the pilot to escape from a sinking aircraft from depths of over 30 meters (100 feet). The kit consists of an oxygen bottle that starts automatically when a person starts breathing. The rescue kit can also be used to escape from toxic, gassed areas, as well as a reserve air kit for frogmen.

4. Amphibious Vehicles on Armata Platform

The institute is about to install the new Armata platform onto amphibious vehicles. Marine ships equipped with the new impenetrable armor can go as fast as 14 — 16 km/h, have a sea-keeping performance of up to grade 5 and carry 50 soldiers or 8 tons of equipment. Furthermore, there are rumors coming from "Kurs" that military engineers plan to make the new T-14 Armata tank amphibious. Now that would be crazy!

5. Ships Without Crew

No, they're not the Flying Dutchman, but equally intimidating. Last year, the institute held trials for an unmanned marine vehicle. The vehicle could automatically dock, navigate through its course and avoid natural and artificial obstacles. Although the unmanned ship was developed largely for civilian purposes, it could certainly be used for military goals.

Read more: http://sputniknews.com/military/20150603/1022896127.html#ixzz3c4MdoOaO

Does the Russian navy have any heavy guns planned for use onboard its ships?

GarryB wrote:The 152mm Coalition programme is a joint Army/Navy programme, though the navy model will likely retain the double barrel configuration as it does not need to fit inside an aircraft for transport...

Garry, a couple of questions?

1. Why is the Russian Navy going for a 152 mm gun whereas US and Chinese Navies are opting for 155mm/62 caliber guns?

2. Does the Russian Navy have any guided ammunition like OTO Melara's VULCANO for their 76mm, 127mm naval guns?

http://www.otomelara.it/products-services/guided-ammunition/vulcano-127mm

3. Now that 155mm/62 caliber naval guns are available does the 127mm naval gun have any future?

jhelb wrote:

GarryB wrote:The 152mm Coalition programme is a joint Army/Navy programme, though the navy model will likely retain the double barrel configuration as it does not need to fit inside an aircraft for transport...

Garry, a couple of questions?

1. Why is the Russian Navy going for a 152 mm gun whereas US and Chinese Navies are opting for 155mm/62 caliber guns?

2. Does the Russian Navy have any guided ammunition like OTO Melara's VULCANO for their 76mm, 127mm naval guns?

http://www.otomelara.it/products-services/guided-ammunition/vulcano-127mm

3. Now that 155mm/62 caliber naval guns are available does the 127mm naval gun have any future?

1. 155mm is the caliber chosen by NATO, Russia chose something else. Both have to do with what they adopted during WW2.

2. Yes, Krasnopol, along with the controlled drag fuse they showed with Koalitsiya.

3. No.

jhelb wrote:

GarryB wrote:The 152mm Coalition programme is a joint Army/Navy programme, though the navy model will likely retain the double barrel configuration as it does not need to fit inside an aircraft for transport...

Garry, a couple of questions?

1. Why is the Russian Navy going for a 152 mm gun whereas US and Chinese Navies are opting for 155mm/62 caliber guns?

2. Does the Russian Navy have any guided ammunition like OTO Melara's VULCANO for their 76mm, 127mm naval guns?

http://www.otomelara.it/products-services/guided-ammunition/vulcano-127mm

3. Now that 155mm/62 caliber naval guns are available does the 127mm naval gun have any future?

I think that..
All those decisions are largely based on probable conflicts /wars and scenarios.
When Hitler invaded RUssia.. Russia had to build their artillery to a different caliber to the one Germany used. Why? so that if Germany capture a munition depot from Russia ,they cannot
use it in their own artillery.  Even the Rails of the train in Russia were done incompatible with the rails of germany trains.. to not allow them use their trains in Russia territory.. and this delayed a lot Germany transportation with trains in Russia.  because rails had to be redone again.

This is why Russia assault rifles ,Tank guns ,and Artillery guns will always use a different caliber
munition than the NATO one. If China use same caliber of NATO , it had to be because they are not expecting NATO to invade CHina ever again after they kicked NATO from North korea ,in the korean war. you cannot defeat China in their land with pure man power, they will overwhelm your forces as they did in North Korea to NATO.. and with inferior weapons. So probably China use same caliber of NATO because they expect they will be forced to invade Taiwan or another
island to fight NATO and they will benefit of using the same caliber of NATO munition. Because
they know they have superior man power and can break through any army force. Russia is purely defensive nation and cannot rely in numbers of man power and is never bad to prepared for worse case scenario of being invaded again by a pro NATO large force.. being forced to take advantage of its vast terrain ,and force the enemy to over extend its supply lines as was world war 2 vs Germany.. so any munition storage depot lost will be useless to the enemy.

Interestingly Russia assault rifle AK-12 support multiple caliber ,including NATO ones..
means that their special forces could operate in any part of Europe and ressupply munition
using the one capture from NATO forces ,killed in combat.

but the munition storages they build in Russia are focused on Russian official munition caliber . So if for example  any Chechens are armed with advanced weapons from abroad with NATO weapons ,they will be unable to take advantage of taking control of a munition depot. Because of incompatibility with their NATo weapons.

All this strategic decisions are thinking in the worst possible scenario..that they cannot use nuclear weapons for x or y reasons.  The simplicity manufacturing of their assault rifles is aimed to make it easier for civilians without combat experience ,in no time to take a rifle and help the mother land. Reason why low maintainance is also important.. Rifles that are idiot proof and can operate  in the hands of normal patriotic civilians for months without cleaning.

T-72s follows this doctrine ,cheap ,easy to use ,easy to maintain ,easy to repair..
Armata/Pak-fa in the other hand completely change this. For a different scenario of clean wars
against Modern weapons from NATO.  So is a risk in terms of price and cost and training.. So i suspect Russia probably will Upgrade T-90 armor and use them as their backbone tank in low level conflicts either Ukraine or Terrorism. and use Armata only when they see Modern NATO tanks in the conflict or modern weapons.  

So Russia will be good..combining old and new weapons . I do see their T-72s also upgraded
its armor and mostly used against terrorist fighters.. each tank will have its place in the battlefield. Probably T-72s could be deployed even in the artic.. ask any NATO nations to do that with their tanks with lost of electronics and computer screens..  Electronics and sensors will break in that cold..   But this is also true for ARmata.. but fortunately Russia have lots of Tanks about 15,000 T-72s , according to global fire power that will work even in case of a nuclear conflict ,if not direct hit and not near the place of the bombing.

The perfect combination is to have both weapons for extreme environment and long conflicts
and weapons for short duration conflicts again modern armies.

GarryB wrote: and clearly they have Coalition as well which is a 152mm gun, which they have not had in naval service since the Sverdlov was reactivated as a naval gunfire support ship.

Obviously the Coalition twin gun weapon should be more effective and efficient than a triple barrel manually loaded 152mm gun turret.... or two.

Garry, one of the major issues that the 152mm gun on board Russian Cruisers/Destroyers may face is that they will have a range of less than 30 miles, and the rocket propellant needed to reach this far and the guidance system leaves little room for explosives in the projectile. Ideally when you have a 152mm you would want to go beyond 100 miles.

The US Navy is facing this problem with the Zumwalt class.The US Navy tested a 5-inch (127mm) Extended Range Guided Munition (ERGM) for a decade with poor results. Its projectile was mostly guidance and rocket propellant, so it had room for only 19 lbs of submuntions at a cost of $50,000 a round. ERGMs may be useful against a few high-value targets, but are too expensive for general use, their GPS guidance can be jammed, and their warhead is far too small.

2SPOOKY4U wrote:
3. No.

But then there are a lot of technical problems with 155mm guns. So I think Navies will have to stick with 127mm for the time being.

GarryB wrote:You are contradicting yourself...

So the major issue you say, is that it lacks range, and that when range is extended by increasing propellent and adding base bleed and rocket boosting there is no room for sufficient explosive... and then you say it needs even more range...

The thing is Navies need a 152mm or 155m gun to hit at ranges of 100 miles or more. However, to do that the projectiles will need a lot of propellant. This extra propellant will reduce the room for sufficient explosives.

This is why me think the 152 mm/ 155mm naval gun is still work in progress.

GarryB wrote:The Russians have a range of guided munition options, some of which are cheap, and others are not so cheap, but range is not what you compare with payload... accuracy and the target are teh important things when considering payload. Even the lightest payload will be effective if the CEP is less than 1 metre and the target is soft. A super heavy bunker will require a large payload no matter what the accuracy is.... and everything in between.

The biggest problem with guided projectiles is that they can be jammed.

GarryB wrote:Note the Russians are getting extended ranges from new propellent and EM assistance as part of the gun design... by going for conservative ranges they get guidance and good range without having to give up payload...

Will appreciate if you can elaborate on this development.

GarryB wrote:For a decent naval gun support gun, I personally think the old 203mm guns on a specialised vessel would be the best basis

The shock and the weight of the 203mm will strain the ship.

In Russia, are developing a new version of the ship's MLRS "Grad"

Scientific-Production Enterprise "Start" is considering the possibility of establishing on the basis of MLRS "Grad-M" with a launcher MS-73m, the general director Maxim Group Kuzyuk.

MOSCOW, July 7 - RIA Novosti. Scientific Production Enterprise "Start", part of the group "technodynamics", is developing a new shipboard launcher, which will replace the ship's multiple launch rocket systems (MLRS) "Grad-M", told RIA Novosti on Tuesday, General Director Maxim Group Kuzyuk.

Marine version of the MLRS "Grad" producing now on NPP "Start", was developed in 1969. "Grad-M" are mounted on amphibious ships to engage manpower and equipment of the enemy on the shore and support the actions of marines.

"On the" Start "The possibility of the creation of on the basis of MLRS" Grad-M "(sea) from the launcher MS-73m - the universal launcher for missiles of various calibers and purposes. Preliminary work has already been done," - said Kuzyuk.

Director-General of the Group added that due to the expected extension of a series of landing craft air cushion "Zubr", the company will also consider the possibility of the resumption of production and modernization of the incendiary flame-ship complex of MS-227 "Fire."

"In the case of the modernization of the state defense order the launcher will be inevitable," - said Kuzyuk.