Project 21631: Buyan-M missile ship

Nope, it's a lot of waste. As for cost-effective AAD, perhaps Sosna could be installed. There's no need for additional radars and it has a bit longer range than Verb/Strela.

My point was that most existing air defence SAMS on ships are all about shooting down planes at long range before they launch missiles, and at medium and short range to shoot down missiles and glide bombs and of course helicopters and small platforms with shorter range weapons down to speed boats.

The new systems designed to defeat tiny drones are on the way and they will take time... such threats were always present but I rather suspect it was intended for gun mounts to deal with such threats.

With modernised ammo and night and all weather sights guns can still be very effective at targets very close to a ship like sea surface drones and aerial drones some of which might have small payloads but could target air defence systems on the ship to weaken it and make it vulnerable to attack by larger more conventional weapons.

FPV drones are generally too short range for ships at sea but ironically for this ship operating in rivers and near costs it is actually an issue.

Currently, FPV drones are not the main threat, nor are the larger Bayraktar ones (they can be reached by a 100mm gun, by the way), but submersible ones. In that case, Pantsir wouldn't make much of a difference.

Actually it is funny you say that because the Russians are the most advanced nation when it comes to supercavitating rounds and supercavitating HMG rounds on deck guns would actually allow the engagement of targets a few metres below the water surface, and the old anti diver anti torpedo rockets that were loaded into the RBU family of rocket propelled depth charges can also be loaded into the UKSK launcher system...

Larger drones are no threat because standard SAM and gun based air defence systems would deal with them effectively enough and as we saw in the Ukraine conflict they were quickly picked off when going against an enemy with decent Air Defence. I would wonder how effective western air defences would be against such a threat because their air defence systems are so sparse and so expensive so it would dramatically weaken a western armed force simply by making them use up their AD ammo on disposable targets.... this is even more important in the naval sense... the UK ships have 48 SAMs and then it is protected by its guns only... sending some drones to attack it and it will quickly use up its missiles and become very vulnerable.

And it is not a small patrol ship like Buyan.

This is a problem for every sea going ship and the solution will take time to develop and integrate into all their ships.

her is , in a quite ironic form though

He is having a bit of fun... you can joke along with it, or you can be bitter and twisted and angry about it... how do you want to live your life... he understands that the Ukraine and indeed Syrian conflict have revealed new threats and that trying different solutions is important and is being done, but a comprehensive systematic solution will take time and the west will of course immediately call it silly or stupid and then when they find out the actual results they will quietly adopt all the same solutions themselves.

The west became rich and powerful by travelling the world and finding new ideas and combining them to make them even better... and of course being ruthless heartless bastards... destroyers of civilisations...

Podlodka77 wrote:To-MIG-31BM2, etc.....

The production line for 21631 Buyan-M corvettes is closing and the last ship under construction is "Stavropol" (12th in a row), whose keel was laid in July 2018 and is expected to be launched this year.
Since I believe that the Zelenodolsk shipyard will certainly not close its facilities, I am of the opinion that the Russians will CONTINUE the production of small missile ships of the announced 21635 "Sarsar" project....

Has a contract with lots already been signed for this?

They should just go for a light Gepard frigate that would allow the use of helicopters and go further away.

Those missile ships proved to be quite useless when you can launch missiles from ground or air. It's just a matter of time before they start producing unlimited range kalibrs for truck mounted launchers.

Isos wrote:Those missile ships proved to be quite useless when you can launch missiles from ground or air. It's just a matter of time before they start producing unlimited range kalibrs for truck mounted launchers.

Are you utterly mental?

Ships under 1000T carrying 8x heavy missiles are "useless"?

Buyan-M can loadout with Oniks and in that config they have the firepower to rip the guts out of a CVN at a range of > 1,000 kms and even a single ship has a good chance of its strike penetrating the AD of its accompanying battlegroup.

LCS are useless. Buyan-M are capable little ships that deserve respect.

Those UKSK launch tubes can carry a wide range of weapons including anti sub missiles as well as land attack 4,500km range cruise missiles and supersonic and hypersonic anti ship missiles.

Not every boat in the Russian Navy needs to take on all of HATO by itself, but even these ships could do serious damage to a full sized US carrier battle group.

Big_Gazza wrote:

Isos wrote:Those missile ships proved to be quite useless when you can launch missiles from ground or air. It's just a matter of time before they start producing unlimited range kalibrs for truck mounted launchers.

Are you utterly mental?  

Ships under 1000T carrying 8x heavy missiles are "useless"?

Buyan-M can loadout with Oniks and in that config they have the firepower to rip the guts out of a CVN at a range of > 1,000 kms and even a single ship has a good chance of its strike penetrating the AD of its accompanying battlegroup.

LCS are useless.  Buyan-M are capable little ships that deserve respect.

That can be done by ground launchers and aviation.

Those ships are useless and now easy target to naval drones.

Ground launchers and aviation are fixed to your borders for the most part.

These missile corvettes don't have unlimited range but they can go patrol along any littoral zone, resupply at the port of any friendly country, and can be equipped with different missiles depending on what's demanded.

flamming_python wrote:Ground launchers and aviation are fixed to your borders for the most part.

These missile corvettes don't have unlimited range but they can go patrol along any littoral zone, resupply at the port of any friendly country, and can be equipped with different missiles depending on what's demanded.

And be destroyed easily by any suicide drone as shown in the black sea.

They are shit and useless.

Sorry I hurt your feelings fanboy. Reality is tvat they produce such ships and ukrainians destroy them brand new.

Isos wrote:And be destroyed easily by any suicide drone as shown in the black sea.

They are shit and useless.

You'll have to find them first. They don't have to be waiting around in the Black Sea for months on end. They can be moving along the rivers or along any coast, really.

Furthermore sea drones are a new weapon and it's only a matter of time until countermeasures are installed even on small missile boats.

That can be done by ground launchers and aviation.

It is a patrol ship... how the hell can aviation and ground launchers perform the role of a patrol ship?

What country has a navy but has no patrol ships and only ground launchers for cruise missiles and anti ship missiles and aircraft?

Patrol ships are useful, which is why they are making them.

Aircraft are useful too as are ground launchers for anti ship and long range ground attack missiles.

Aircraft like MiG-31Ks with 2,000km range hypersonic Kinzhal anti ship missiles are useful.

Russia has all of these.

Those ships are useless and now easy target to naval drones.

If your definition of useless is something that can be destroyed in war or targeted by cheap drones then everything is useless... don't make anything... just surrender.

And be destroyed easily by any suicide drone as shown in the black sea.

The nazis with HATO help have been attacking repeatedly over and over.... no expense spared.... expensive cruise missiles and decoys and drones of all types used and the effect has been pitiful... not even 10% of the Russian force has been hit or damaged... in comparison the damage done to Ukraine was said to be 480 billion US dollars by the Europeans trying to keep tally because they think they can get Russia to pay them for it.

Reality is tvat they produce such ships and ukrainians destroy them brand new.

Is that why HATO gives nazis in Kiev no brand new fighters like F-35s or Rafales?

Are they afraid they might not work as advertised.

If you think something is useless if it can be destroyed in war then you really don't understand the game.

Lots of Russian stuff has been hit and repaired and put back into the game and continues to do damage to its enemy.

I guess the French will take their first hit and roll up into a ball and cry.

Furthermore sea drones are a new weapon and it's only a matter of time until countermeasures are installed even on small missile boats.

They are making new vehicles and weapons and platforms and they are developing new systems to deal with new threats and weapons to deal with targets.

Their attack missiles seem to be rather effective, but they will be improving those too because they take this stuff seriously, unlike the west where the French and UK can't agree on anything let alone cooperate so they had decent aircraft carriers or destroyers.


BTW should I go and troll in all the western threads about what a waste of time it is for western countries to continue to make tanks and BMPs and aircraft, because Russian SAMs and ATGMs and anti armour systems seem to turn that stuff into scrap metal so fast and so easy that making tanks and BMPs and fighters and helicopters is just the west pissing its money away on useless crap.

flamming_python wrote:

Isos wrote:And be destroyed easily by any suicide drone as shown in the black sea.

They are shit and useless.

You'll have to find them first. They don't have to be waiting around in the Black Sea for months on end. They can be moving along the rivers or along any coast, really.

Furthermore sea drones are a new weapon and it's only a matter of time until countermeasures are installed even on small missile boats.

A truck can go on any russian roads. Even harder to find. A ship on a river is quite easy to find by satellites.

It is a patrol ship... how the hell can aviation and ground launchers perform the role of a patrol ship?

No it's not. It's a missile ship.

In the black sea right now it can't patrol russian ports safely let alone the black sea.

Those ships are stuck near russian ports including in Syria. They offer nothing more than a truck mounted launcher. For targets further away they have the aviation and NO those missile ships don't go far away near enemy country to launch missiles. It's a sitting duck in such cases.

With the new kalibr M it's even more useless as they can reach any target from russian territory.


Frigates on the other way provide more flexibility to launch missiles from positions unreachable by aviation.

Subs are even better.

ALAMO wrote:Admiral Arsmageddon has spoken

Still better than russian admirals who lost such an amazing ship at port .

A truck can go on any russian roads. Even harder to find. A ship on a river is quite easy to find by satellites.

They have both. But satellites can detect trucks just as easily as they can detect boats... but which ones have missiles and which do not?

A river barge 300m long could have 50 shipping containers each with four x 4,500km range ground launched Kh-101 cruise missiles. A string of trucks driving on any road in European Russia could have similar containers... all ready to launch.

Spotting them is easy. Telling which ones are dangerous and actually doing something about it before they can launch their missiles and become trucks and barges whose destruction means nothing is the problem.

No it's not. It's a missile ship.

The Russians have adopted standard launchers for their ships. Pretty much all their new ships will carry UKSK launchers. The missiles loaded into them will reflect their mission. Some might never have land attack cruise missiles loaded because they are anti sub or anti ship vessels, but that is that is the advantage of a universal launcher. You can decide what to load into it depending on the mission and location.

Having these launchers means a patrol ship can defend itself from anything from enemy ships to enemy subs. It can also hit point targets on the land thousands of kms away. It would not surprise me if they added Paket capacity so it could engage incoming torpedos or submerged threats too...

In the black sea right now it can't patrol russian ports safely let alone the black sea.

During war time nothing is safe... that does not mean the waters don't need to be patrolled and normal operations need to continue.

Having such a ship improves their coverage and firepower as opposed to not having anything makes them vulnerable to special forces landing teams and drones.

Those ships are stuck near russian ports including in Syria. They offer nothing more than a truck mounted launcher.

How many trucks have a fully automatic 100mm gun and 30mm gatlings?

A single land mine can take out a truck carrying millions of dollars worth of missiles. A single FPV drone could do it.

Trucks are limited to roads most of the time.

For targets further away they have the aviation and NO those missile ships don't go far away near enemy country to launch missiles. It's a sitting duck in such cases.

For land attack their standard Calibre cruise missile (that fits in standard torpedo tubes.. 533mm calibre and 6m long) has a range of 2,500km, while the new missile being developed for the UKSK launch tubes is based on the air launched Kh-101 and is 7.4m long and 650mm calibre and can reach 4,500km. The 10m depth of the UKSK launch tube should allow a 2.5m solid rocket booster to get the missile out of the tube and accelerated to high speed so it does not lose much range with the ground launch.

With the new kalibr M it's even more useless as they can reach any target from russian territory.

See now that is the problem. You are focused on the conflict in Ukraine and against HATO and not seeing the big picture.

The Russian Navy needs patrol boats. I doubt these Buyan ships will carry anti ship missiles or land attack missiles most of the time. Their main use will likely be against subs for which it will be carrying OTVET missiles instead.

I agree for the role of attacking ground targets in the Ukraine that a couple of trucks or Iskander vehicles with the new cruise missiles makes rather more sense and would likely be cheaper unless they want the missiles to come in from the south to make them harder to detect and intercept.

The Buyan is a patrol ship that can also attack ships and subs and land targets with precision.

The Buyan can also do lots of other things and will be useful for the Russian Navy for lots of jobs that a truck simply can't perform.

Frigates on the other way provide more flexibility to launch missiles from positions unreachable by aviation.

Frigates are more capable and more flexible but also more expensive and rather larger targets.

Why can't they have both?

Still better than russian admirals who lost such an amazing ship at port

Not lost, merely delayed.

Crying about losses in war is for children.

Trying to protect everything is pointless because you can't... and if you do then the enemy... in this case nazis, will just find a target you can't protect... a market square, a concert venue... and when they kill lots of civilians there will be complaints that the military is only protecting itself so you move resources to protect civilian targets... but there are more civilian targets than there are military platforms to defend from attack... and that is what the enemy wants... spread your defences thin so they can probe for gaps.

The enemy has mounted hundreds of thousands of attacks and maybe a dozen get through a year and you cry about it.

Good for you... cry about it as they are winning.

You are French aren't you... do you refuse to make Omelettes because you refuse to break eggshells?

When building a house you make a real mess but it gets cleaned up when you finish and looks brand new... don't cry about how dusty and dirty it got when they were building.

Don't get me wrong, I would love to see them make ships that can't be sunk that can defend themselves from all of HATO at once, but lets be realistic and admit that is not possible and while defences against drones and other threats are being developed this is pretty damn good compared with patrol boats as Alamo has mentions specifically in comparison to super ships of the west... that cost ten times more and have inferior weapons...

Isos wrote:A truck can go on any russian roads. Even harder to find. A ship on a river is quite easy to find by satellites.

Trucks travel by land, missile boats travel by water

I'd say they complement each other

You say missile boats are redundant because of trucks and aviation. Well you can take that a step further. Trucks are redundant too, all you need is aviation. So then you get rid of both missile boats and trucks and all you have left are aircraft and they work well but suddenly the enemy rolls out an interceptor with 600km range air to air missiles and you find yourself kind of screwed.

Point being is that you never know how the situation will evolve so redundancy in capabilities always makes sense. Better to have them and not need them then vice-versa.

As for trucks vs. missile boats; you point out the missile boat's vulnerability to sea drones but that's only a function of their location. Trucks if they were close enough to the front-line could also be hunted by ATACMS and drones and whatever the enemy has. Yes they'll be harder to find, but they'll still be marked and distinguishable. It will be an 18-wheeler truck-trailer in green camo, or else some sort of long MZKT transporter-launcher, can't mistake it for anything else. And then the enemy only has to track it to its next pit-stop potentially.
Missile boats are easier to see but they also have at least some means of defending themselves. They have anti-air missile systems against drones and it's only a matter of time until they get anti-sea drone counter-systems too.
They are also a lot more versatile than any truck. What if your main worry is not destroying enemy targets inland but say an enemy fleet. The same missile boats can be re-equipped at port with anti-ship and anti-sub missiles and act in support of the main fleet and receive radar data from them.

A boat can carry way more load than a truck.

lancelot wrote:A boat can carry way more load than a truck.

That missile ships costs some tens of millions. A military truck with a launch some 1 million maybe and can carry 6 missile.

You say missile boats are redundant because of trucks and aviation. Well you can take that a step further. Trucks are redundant too, all you need is aviation. So then you get rid of both missile boats and trucks and all you have left are aircraft and they work well but suddenly the enemy rolls out an interceptor with 600km range air to air missiles and you find yourself kind of screwed.

Trucks are not redundant since they allow much quicker launches and can stay on duty all day compare to a fighter than takes hours to repair/prepare and needs to go back to refuel every time.

Missile boats are operating around ports and when a enemy weapon is around it's most likely gonna blow up in pieces with nowhere to hide.

A truck can be hidden anywhere and quickly covered. A bit like ukro do with their himars. You get some losses but it's very hard to find them, impossible if they launch missiles 500km away from the front.

They need to stop those dumb project and buy real ships. Grigorovitch class is by far their best ship right now abd proved it by intercepting ukro attacks and protecting Syria.

SSK are also a must have. Under water they can control a zone very easily and are very hard to detect. They also need new maritime patrol aircraft. It's way more important than dumb missile ships.

Russia has developed missile launchers based in shipping containers... which means any commercial truck can be used as a missile launching platform.

In a country with hundreds of thousands of trucks, not to mention tens of thousands of trains with probably millions of cargo containers in yards in storage, or moving around the place, they already have plenty of launch options... but they also need patrol boats and their patrol boats can carry more missiles too.

A river barge three shipping containers wide and ten shipping containers long can carry 30 x 4 missiles ready to fire... or they might be exercise bikes and bean bags in those shipping crates... the satellite wont be able to tell.

Good luck trying to destroy every shipping crate in Russia.