Naval Weapon Systems & Technology

OTVET anti-submarine missile...TASS

The newest shipborne anti-submarine missile system "Answer" (OTVET) has been adopted by the Russian Navy. This was announced on Tuesday, January 11, by a source in the military-industrial complex to TASS.

"The Otvet anti-submarine complex has been adopted by the Russian Navy. For a year now, it has been serially supplied to the ships of the fleet," he said.
TASS has no official confirmation of this information.

In mid-December 2021, the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation reported that in the Sea of ​​Japan the modernized frigate Marshal Shaposhnikov (formerly a large anti-submarine ship of Project 1155) launched a missile of the Otvet complex, which successfully hit an underwater target.

Otvet is a missile that delivers a small-sized homing anti-submarine torpedo MPT-1 / MPT-1UM to the target area, the warhead mass of which is 60 kg. The maximum firing range is 50 km. The depth of the lesion is up to 800 meters.
In November 2020, it was reported that the "Otvet" shipborne anti-submarine missile system had passed state tests and is planned to be put into service.

In December 2021, a TASS source said that work was underway to increase the range of the "Answer" cruise missile - it could be at least doubled. It is planned to equip most of the surface ships of the Russian Navy with "Answer", including the modernized heavy nuclear missile cruiser "Admiral Nakhimov" of project 11442.

ARKHANGELSK, January 12. / TASS /. For the first time in Russia, a digital model of a nuclear submarine was created at the Sevmash enterprise (Sevmash, part of the USC) in Severodvinsk, Arkhangelsk region, the press service of the enterprise reported. "At Sevmash, for the first time in Russia, a digital model of a nuclear submarine was created. The project has been implemented within the framework of a single design and production space created by the enterprise and four design bureaus," the message says.

The technology was developed by specialists from Sevmash, design bureaus "Severnoye PKB", "Rubin", "Malakhit" and "Almaz". In the process, technologies of reverse design, volumetric laser scanning were used, optical-electronic measurement instruments were introduced. New technologies have made it possible to avoid costly and labor-intensive rework.

On the basis of a three-dimensional model of the submarine, developed by Sevmash specialists, technological documentation for the manufacture of hull structures was issued. The routes for laying pipelines were also designed, equipment was placed, and the assembly and operation of complex mechanical engineering products were simulated.

The pilot project has proven to be effective. Thanks to digitalization and three-dimensional modeling, the accuracy of calculations and the efficiency of design and technological preparation of processes, as well as the degree of elaboration, have been significantly increased. The results were approved by the project managing committee, general director of Sevmash Mikhail Budnichenko, general director of USC Alexei Rakhmanov. Now the enterprise is scaling the project.

They will use a gigantic 3D printer to print the sub in one piece.

Leningrad Naval Base Receives Monolit-BR Radar Complex
The complex is designed for long-range over-the-horizon detection

MOSCOW, January 20. /TASS/. The Leningrad naval base received the Monolith-BR coastal radar detection and target designation system in 2021, Alexei Mitor, commander of the 55th Separate Coastal Missile Division, said on Thursday.

"The Kaluga Instrument-Making Plant Typhoon, within the framework of the state contract, manufactured and supplied the monolith-BR coastal detection and target designation radar system for the needs of the Russian Navy," Mitor reported to Russian Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu during a single day of military acceptance. The complex has highly sensitive active and passive radar channels, a state radar identification channel. The possibility of combined use of these channels provides combat stability and secrecy. Efficiency in solving assigned combat missions and tactical flexibility is ensured by an integrated digital control and communication system.

https://tass.ru/armiya-i-opk/13478117

Hey all tried finding a thread around this topic but couldn't find one.

I am hoping to find information on the future naval guns such as the A-190, the Koalitsiya 152mm, The A-192, and other future guns.

Why dont Russia attempt to rebuild a duel barreled naval gun, especially with a 30+ kilometre range and 100+ rounds per minute.

Which naval gun will they add to the Nakhimov? Will they add that Koalitsiya 152mm or keep the AK-130 and give it better fire control?

And why does Russia guns only fire out to 20-24 kilometres. Most new navies are 30 kilometres +

Look forward to your responses

AFAIK the A-192M has double the fire rate of the Soviet 130mm naval gun. 80 rounds per minute instead of 40 rounds per minute on each AK-130 gun barrel. So it should have a similar volley volume as the dual barrel gun.

magnumcromagnon wrote:

Navy fanboy wrote:Hey all tried finding a thread around this topic but couldn't find one.

https://www.russiadefence.net/t1032-naval-weapon-systems-technology

Ahh thank you very much

The new navy has been planned for a very long time and includes cooperation in development of the land based 152mm Coalition gun too.

What is revolutionary about their current new guns is not their range performance, but their weight and calibre.

Previously they had guns of the same calibre they use now with fixed propellent cases meaning similar range and velocity performance, but what has changed is the weight and size of the gun mounts, so for instance the old AK-100 single barrel gun mounts like the ones mounted on the first Orlan cruiser, is a single barrel 100mm calibre gun whose turret without ammo is about 49 tons with a firing rate of 30 to 50 rounds per minute to a range of a little over 20km.

The new 100mm gun, the A-190 has the same range and is also a single barrel gun but fires at over 80 rounds per minute with the entire gun mount without ammo being just under 19 tons.

Faster rate of fire... liquid cooled so it can sustain that increased rate of fire and 30 tons lighter than the original almost 50 ton gun.

Previously 130mm guns were carried by Destroyers and Cruisers, while Frigates had 100mm guns and Corvettes had 76.2mm guns, but with the upgrades and updates corvettes can carry 100mm guns easily and frigates can carry 130mm guns.

The old 130mm guns are twin barrel and were adopted to improve naval gun support capacity... they also put their old Sverdlov class cruisers back in service because of their 152mm guns... obviously very weak compared with the Iowa class battleships reactivated by the USN for the naval gun support role too, but they don't have the same resources the USN has.

The AK-130 weighs almost 100 tons without ammo and has two gun barrels per turret and a rate of fire of 20-35 rounds per minute, the 130mm replacement is again a lightweight turret with a single 130mm gun with the same range of over 22km and a rate of fire of about 30 rounds per minute but the gun mount without ammo is only 30 tons... that is 19 tons lighter than the old 100mm gun and 70 tons lighter than the old 130mm gun.

These are all lightweight guns intended for corvettes and frigates however so what are they going to fit on their new Destroyers and new Cruisers...

Well we know they joined development of the Coalition... which is probably where it got its name from... a 152mm gun with a range of 70km with guided shells would be very useful for the Russian Navy and the fact that the Russian Army is keeping their 203mm guns in service suggests that perhaps in future their might be joint development on an even larger calibre.

I would think both services would benefit from both weapons that are not by any means excessive in terms of weight and cost and performance, but would be rather useful in a range of roles.

Sharing development costs makes sense and could lead to a very useful weapon system.

Currently the coastal artillery battery used by Russia is the 130mm calibre Bereg which has range limits, but it compliments a Bal battery.

Upgrading to a 152mm calibre gun would greatly increase reach and accuracy performance as well as launching a heavier more effective shell down range.

Having shells shared with the Army means access to a range of ready to fire shell types and also the potential to create your own specialist ammo types if needed.

Certainly down the track a 203mm version might be considered useful too.

In terms of smaller calibres it will be interesting to see if the Pantsir retains its 30mm guns or if it becomes an all missile system supported by a 57mm gun turret... it will also be interesting to see what happens to the land based systems as well... the depictions of the tracked Pantsir seem to show twin barrel 30mm cannon and missiles so the 2S38 57mm gun armed SPAAG might be used together with a missiles and 30mm gun equipped vehicle.

The Pantsir has the radar on board to track outgoing 30mm shells and the incoming target and send radio command detonation signals to set off the 30mm rounds at an optimal distance from the targets to get good damage on target. Not sure the 2S38 has radar to do the same.

@Garry B

Very interesting points.

I believe Russia needs to try find a gun with slightly more range. I know OTO Melara have a shell capable of 70-120 kilometres for new 127 mm gun. Wonder when 152mm Koalitsiya will be tested on a ship.

That is the million dollar question.

They have a fuse that includes control fins and GLONASS guidance that is cheap enough to use for every round... it results in a CEP of 10metres at 70km range.

They were also talking about special ammo that could be fired out to 180km in 152mm calibre and if that is successful they could... and this is just my speculation of course.... apply the lessons learned from 152mm calibre ammo to 203mm calibre weapons so both could be used for naval gun support roles.

They do have two helicopter landing ships laid down and being built so being able to support landing operations with guns would be useful.

Being super optimistic they might fit a 152mm gun to an upgraded Orlan class ship, or perhaps fit a 152mm gun to a new model of the Bereg coastal defence gun system.

It might look something like this:

That is one beautiful looking weapon. How come 2 barrels above each other? what advantages would that give?

And how hard would a howitzer be to maintain at sea? Didnt the Germans have issues with their trials with one due to corrosion?

Regarding the vertical gun arrangement I suspect it was related to ammo feed mechanisms allowing ammo and propellent to be delivered to both barrels from linkless feed belt arrangements... of course unlike most normal naval guns the Coalition has variable charge propellent loads which means each shot has the propellent cut to size for that specific shot which might be problematic on a ship.... some sort of binary liquid propellent arrangement might work better.

I would suspect corrosion would be something they would have considered during development because from the outset it was supposed to go to sea.

They navalised the Su-27 and MiG-29 so I rather expect they can do the same with a gun... they are developing all sorts of advanced coatings for aircraft engine blades that resist heat and stress, I would think corrosion resistant coatings would be useful too.

Another factor is that the old guns had men on the mounts but the Coalition has an unmanned turret where all the ammo handling and loading is automated.

Of course the older guns also had automated ammo handling... no human could load 30 130mm shells a minute...

The Russians are certainly more advanced than the West let on. Most can see that with the AK-130 compared to the 127 mm used on New Zealand ANZAC class frigates. 80 rounds vs 20 out to same range.

And this 152mm will be a game changer. 16 rounds per minute is very impressive considering the size of the gun. Will be awesome to see Nakhimov with a new gun, but sad aswell knowing how effective AK-130 is/was.

Navy fanboy wrote:Didnt the Germans have issues with their trials with one due to corrosion?

The superior NATO plan was to just stick a land artillery turret onto a ship.
You can't do that because corrosion.

If you design from the outset/competently re-design it for naval purposes it will be as corrosion resistant as any other naval mount regardless of size/type.

Navy fanboy wrote:The Russians are certainly more advanced than the West let on. Most can see that with the AK-130 compared to the 127 mm used on New Zealand ANZAC class frigates. 80 rounds vs 20 out to same range.

And this 152mm will be a game changer. 16 rounds per minute is very impressive considering the size of the gun. Will be awesome to see Nakhimov with a new gun, but sad aswell knowing how effective AK-130 is/was.

Well, not ALL the West.









Basically , there are navies that consider the gun something that has a secondary importance and so no need to spend time and money to improve it.

And there are a few instead that consider a good artillery dotation absolutely essential for their ships to operate successfully, so they put a lot into them.

And VMF and MMI are without any doubt the absolute leaders in this peculiar field of expertise.

Isnt the major name behind western naval guns OTO Malera? Italians have awesome defense industry. Some stuff rivals or even betters french kit.

TMA1 wrote:Isnt the major name behind western naval guns OTO Malera? Italians have awesome defense industry. Some stuff rivals or even betters french kit.

It is successful but better ? I wouldn't say that. Gun science is pretty much the same everywhere. It's only that since they export more their price should be cheaper and they have better production and supply lines.

For normal shells all the countries are at the same level. It's simple science. For guided and rocket assisted shells some don't invest into it and choices are more limited.

For exemple US are buying german guns for their abrams because if they develop their own it will be very similar to other nato guns. So they just buy an existing one. French have their own 120mm gun and its perfs are the same as the one on leopards.

Damn I just realized that these guns probably only have a service life in the hundreds of shells. I know for tanks that when fin is used the service life is surprisingly short. Is it even more so for naval guns?

High pressure smoothbore tank guns are probably up there as one of the highest expressions of a country's metallurgical expertise. Only a handful of nations with advanced manufacturing industries possess the capability to design and build such products.

Naval guns are even harder. A naval gun compared to its land equivalent of similar caliber would be expected to have at least 5 times the rate of fire, shoot much heavier projectiles for extended periods of time and do it with a rifled (which by design, is less durable than a smoothbore) barrel - all the while maintaining minimal dispersion. Its a technically demanding niche most nations wouldn't even dream of touching, so they could only really outsource to the few who do.

No, any country with an industry can make such guns. They are produced for a hundred of years. The technology is well known.

Naval guns are the same technology as big land artillery with a bigger loader and anti corrosion metal. No rocket science there. Higher rate of fire is possible thanks to to water cooling systems that work with sea water. Land based guns have more lumited systems.

It's just more affordable to buy it than invest into a local solution which couldn't be profitable for most countries since the local needs would be for few pieces.

The larger naval guns always had modular or more accurately bagged charges. Loading processes for naval guns are also highly parallelized so adding or shorting charges on the fly is not a problem at all.

That is very true, but not true for the biggest current Russian naval gun the 130mm gun used at sea and ashore on coastal batteries.

The 130mm round is a one piece with a single full sized metal case... not semi combustible like the 125mm tank calibre they use on land.

Damn I just realized that these guns probably only have a service life in the hundreds of shells. I know for tanks that when fin is used the service life is surprisingly short. Is it even more so for naval guns?

The barrel life for the old 130mm guns is given as more than 1,500 rounds per gun.

The new 130mm gun has a barrel life rating of over 4,500 rounds, which is a significant improvement... but barrels are relatively easy to replace so it is not a huge deal.

I remember reading about a huge German rail gun that was about 800mm in calibre and was enormous. The shells it fired were all of a different calibre and had to be fired in order because the rounds to fire later were slightly larger calibre to allow for the expanding barrel after firing shots.

If the rounds were all the same size then performance would drop off dramatically and the propellent blew past the round in the barrel because it was too small to fit the rifling...

Obviously this gun is the extreme... it essentially fired the equivalent of a car weight object hundreds of kms so the pressure is enormous and sustained for a relatively long time with a very long barrel.

It's just more affordable to buy it than invest into a local solution which couldn't be profitable for most countries since the local needs would be for few pieces.

As long as it is a proven and reliable design and it ticks all the boxes of requirements then licence production when possible is always the cheapest option.

The British made their own 120mm gun because they like the HESH round which needs rifling to work, and probably a bit of pride there too.

Note the first Abrams design had a British 105mm gun, but was upgraded to a 120mm West German smoothbore... the armour was British, the coaxial machine gun was Belgian... and people rip India for their Arjun tank not being Indian enough...

@Garry B

That railgun you referred to is the Schwerer Gustav. In case anyone is wondering. It had a H.E shell of 4.8 tonnes and an Armour Piercing shell of over 7 tonnes.