Udaloy and Sovremennyy destroyers

To simulate a ship in IR you need a pattern of heat, not just a few extreme points of heat like a road flare.

That shower or curtain of sparks forms a more complex pattern of heat that is more likely to fool an IR sensor into thinking there is a large ship there... It often contains metallic material (chaff) to give it a radar return as well...

GarryB wrote:To simulate a ship in IR you need a pattern of heat, not just a few extreme points of heat like a road flare.

That shower or curtain of sparks forms a more complex pattern of heat that is more likely to fool an IR sensor into thinking there is a large ship there... It often contains metallic material (chaff) to give it a radar return as well...

How long it stays in the air ? I ve seen a video of french chaff that were lunched and then exploding again and again above the water.

Lunching them for a few sec won't work. They have to be lunched before the missile goes active and stay as long as there is the missile in the air.

Will the chabanenko get UKSKs?

KomissarBojanchev wrote:Will the chabanenko get UKSKs?

Yes

Better informed folks say that they are to get 2 UKSK launchers each (2x8 cells) but until there is official confirmation assume that they will be getting just 1 (to be on the safe side)

Lunching them for a few sec won't work. They have to be lunched before the missile goes active and stay as long as there is the missile in the air.

The decoys are intended to distract the incoming missile and remain useful for a minute or so normally AFAIK.

They don't have to be effective before the incoming missile goes active... launching a decoy and then activating 'noise' jammers means a new target appears and the existing target becomes hard to get a proper lock on to, so it goes for the decoys instead.

The common twin barrel PK-2 launcher is a 140mm calibre weapon firing rockets weighing just under 40kg each and carries 100 rockets that can set up a decoy target from 500m to 6km from the target ship.

The Marshal Shaposhnikov, a destroyer from the Russian Pacific Fleet, caught fire on Friday morning while anchored in Vladivostok. Eleven fire trucks and 48 personnel were dispatched to the port to fight the blaze. All 106 crew members on board were safely evacuated.

.....

The incident happened during welding works, and it is believed that either the ship's hull or the repair tools accidentally caught fire, a source told Interfax, adding there are no weapons or any other crucial equipment on board.

https://www.rt.com/news/418957-russian-destroyer-on-fire/



(what's with the music? I guess this is someones idea of a joke.... 5th columnist retard no doubt)


Hmmm... another fire caused by some idiot with a welder, getting to be a regular occurence on Russian yards... They should nail his head to the mast as a warning to the others.... on second thoughts, the HSE rep might not approve, ad the media would find some angle to complain about...

They really have issues with fires ... they should recrut some quality ingineers to control work in the shipyards. They clearly don't respect rules.

Yes the fires are too much.
There was also one on Neustrashimy on 14th, plus the minesweeper in 2016, a bunch of subs in refit over the years.

Any welding, whether it is spot welding or arc welding or whatsoever, is always at risk to start fires.

The more so in an old hull where almost any spot could be contaminated with oils or others inflammables substances.

in almost any yard there are many fire incidents even when working in new built hulls, so it is not that weird to have such incidents while working on old hulls, that are likely contaminated in almost any spot with inflammable substances.

What is worrisome is the frequency with which damage containment squads are unable to suppress those incidents: either there is a lack of focus during such works, or there is something works with standard safety procedures.

Or it could be that sometimes proper decontaminations practices are not put in places before starting such kind of activities: any room where a fire hazard work should be performed, have usually to be decontaminated from any inflammable fluid or material, even paint should be removed if not fire-proof.

It is nothing dramatic, just a classical case of better to worry before than to be sorrow after.

Peŕrier wrote:Any welding, whether it is spot welding or arc welding or whatsoever, is always at risk to start fires.

The more so in an old hull where almost any spot could be contaminated with oils or others inflammables substances.

in almost any yard there are many fire incidents even when working in new built hulls, so it is not that weird to have such incidents while working on old hulls, that are likely contaminated in almost any spot with inflammable substances.

What is worrisome is the frequency with which damage containment squads are unable to suppress those incidents: either there is a lack of focus during such works, or there is something works with standard safety procedures.

Or it could be that sometimes proper decontaminations practices are not put in places before starting such kind of activities: any room where a fire hazard work should be performed, have usually to be decontaminated from any inflammable fluid or material, even paint should be removed if not fire-proof.

It is nothing dramatic, just a classical case of better to worry before than to be sorrow after.

Well, it can be dramatic. Many of those fires killed poeple. I think India lost a submarine because of an accidental fire. They are suppose to know what they are doing and be quick to react when a fire starts. Russian shipyard have a real issue with that.

Nothing unexpected, not here nor anywhere else.

Poor safety discipline and low fire safety standards.

Both easily fixed with boot up the ass and drastic paycheck cuts. All it takes is a will.

Project 956 Sovremennyy-class destroyer "Bezboyaznennyy" transferred at the Patriot Park in Kronstadt for exhibition.

Thus, out of the 17 destroyers of Project 956, which joined the Navy of the USSR and Russia, now only three ships remained in the Navy - the "Bystryy" in the Pacific Fleet, "Admiral Ushakov" (ex-Besstrashnyy) in the Northern Fleet and "Nastoychivyy" in the Baltic Fleet (the last ship is under repair at JSC "33 ship repair plant" in Baltiysk).

https://bmpd.livejournal.com/3165020.html

George1 wrote:Project 956 Sovremennyy-class destroyer "Bezboyaznennyy"  transferred at the Patriot Park in Kronstadt for exhibition.

Thus, out of the 17 destroyers of Project 956, which joined the Navy of the USSR and Russia, now only three ships remained in the Navy - the "Bystryy" in the Pacific Fleet, "Admiral Ushakov" (ex-Besstrashnyy) in the Northern Fleet and "Nastoychivyy" in the Baltic Fleet (the last ship is under repair at JSC "33 ship repair plant" in Baltiysk).

https://bmpd.livejournal.com/3165020.html

One less destroyer for the Russian navy. Nice that they will keep it as a museum anyway

I hope they retain 1 unit of the Akula/Typhoons and the Kirovs. They are worthy of permanent preservation as icons from the Soviet period.

Were the Udaloy I destroyers in the 80s equipped to fire SSN-15 and SSN-16 ASW missiles through their torpedo tubes ?

Marshal Shaposhnikov in repairs July 2018.

It seems they are replacing everything

where did u find these photos? Interesting it seems they will put vertical launchers also

Doesn't look much changed from this older pic Dec 2017 (post 101)


So here's my idea of what the upgrade could be if they go full hog

Blue is whats there, green what I'd put there.
Not married to the Urans, put them there since its been rumored, I think everyone is assuming 2*8 UKSK in place of the 2nd 100mm, don't know if the 12* Shtil-1 module would actually fit in same space as 2*8 naval Tor but eyeball it feels right.
Couple of sources say they carry 30 torps so if there is a weight issue those could be reduced or outright removed.

Were the Udaloy I destroyers in the 80s equipped to fire SSN-15 and SSN-16 ASW missiles through their torpedo tubes ?

Its a good question.
Bunch of English language sources seem to make the assumption yes since the missile exists & the ship has the appropriate size torps.
From Russian sources seems only the Udaloy II had it to make up for the Metel having been replaced by Moskit, but only Admiral Chabanenko was completed of the 3 started.

Buk is useless above the ocean in my opinion. Ithas 45km range. Most antiship missiles have much longer range so the air defence of udaloy protects it only from anti ship missiles. And buk in syria wasn't successfull against cruise missiles. Pantsir and tors are much better for such role.

If you want longer range missile go with redut 120km with active radar or nrwest buk m3 that has 70km with active radar but we don't know if it is working on naval systems.
There is enough space instead of rbu and tor for 2x8 launchers.

Buk is useless above the ocean in my opinion. Ithas 45km range. Most antiship missiles have much longer range so the air defence of udaloy protects it only from anti ship missiles. And buk in syria wasn't successfull against cruise missiles. Pantsir and tors are much better for such role.

Aster 15 = 30km
SeaCeptor going on UKs new 8000ton Type26 = 25km
ESSM = 50km
Tor-M2 = 16km

In Syria monkey model Buk-M2E are claimed to have hit 24 out of 29 launches, pretty sure the Tor (not sure which version) had about the same misses but from about half the launches.

Shtil-1 is based on much newer Buk-M3 tech, its tested & confirmed combat ready on 11356, even has a freshly developed Active version (possibly allowing use of full 70km missile range), wheras Admiral Godot is still faffing around with P-R.

Its not a theatre umbrella but its adequate for self-defense, vastly outranges Tor.
Its compatible with the existing Fregat radar & more ships with it is better for logistics instead of leaving it orphaned on just the 3* 11356.

Pantsir had a much better kill ratio in syria. And they have a longer range missile than the current one that makes it longer range than any other one you said above. And cheaper.

Tor isn't deployed in syria and is better than buk against cruise missiles.

Well I admit for an upgrade shtill is the best because it can be connected to many radars already deployed. But redut has the same size and it can make an umbrella like you said over a task group or even protect shore cities.

hoom wrote:

Buk is useless above the ocean in my opinion. Ithas 45km range. Most antiship missiles have much longer range so the air defence of udaloy protects it only from anti ship missiles. And buk in syria wasn't successfull against cruise missiles. Pantsir and tors are much better for such role.

Aster 15 = 30km
SeaCeptor going on UKs new 8000ton Type26 = 25km
ESSM = 50km
Tor-M2 = 16km

In Syria monkey model Buk-M2E are claimed to have hit 24 out of 29 launches, pretty sure the Tor (not sure which version) had about the same misses but from about half the launches.

Shtil-1 is based on much newer Buk-M3 tech, its tested & confirmed combat ready on 11356, even has a freshly developed Active version (possibly allowing use of full 70km missile range), wheras Admiral Godot is still faffing around with P-R.

Its not a theatre umbrella but its adequate for self-defense, vastly outranges Tor.
Its compatible with the existing Fregat radar & more ships with it is better for logistics instead of leaving it orphaned on just the 3* 11356.

Very true, Shtil is more than adequate for very good self defense and convoy/small battle group protection.

There isn't much news on the development of the active guided missiles, last news was related to the Adm. Makarov and the alleged test that where done with that ship.

In any way, if the current Shil system, which is much more advanced that its original version on the Sovremeny destroyers, is updated with fully active guided missiles that all the inherent problems of semi-active guidance (like easier saturation) will be fixed. But such a missile will not be developed any time son, or excepted into service,  unless there is enough reasne for it, they need to put the system on to ships.

The combination of Shtil + Pantsir is more then excellent by any ones standard.

Tor is generally in the same class as Pantsir, there is no reason to put 2 systems of this type on a single ship its better to put larger number of Tor missiles (50+) and a pair of Ak-630 Duets or 4 of them on a such a large ship, that's much cheaper.

There isn't much news on the development of the active guided missiles, last news was related to the Adm. Makarov and the alleged test that where done with that ship.

Well we know Makarov was delayed entering service due to testing the active seeker, has since been accepted into service, so I presume its because the tests were successful.
Also possible the tests failed & they gave up on it, took into service with the standard semi-active I guess

Pantsir had a much better kill ratio in syria.

Note I believe a Pantsir-M could go in place of the RBUs just forward of the hangar, would have good firing arc there.
Combo of Shtil-1 & Pantsir-M would be solid.

Tor isn't deployed in syria and is better than buk against cruise missiles.

I was mis-remembering the claimed numbers from the big US strike
But Tor have been spotted at Khmeimim & Iran has apparently lost several of their version (possibly inferior Iran produced version of old monkey model) to Israeli raids.

If Pantsir is installed it will be in place of two (or all four?) AK-630´s, like on Adm. Chabanenko.