Well, I just don't know.
I don't know either... but the Russians tend to be sensible guys...
I have found some nice info on the Redut system and it seems not really compatible with the bigger missiles in the 40N6 class. And I doubt they have a smaller missile with the same range, since 40N6 is pretty recent.
On their export website they talk about the Redut system and the Rif system as separate, but that is only because they are not selling or showing a fully unified system yet.
The Rif and Rif-M system on Kirov and Slava class cruisers require huge amounts of under deck space because each launch hatch has a rotary launcher with 12 missiles with full access to those tubes underneath. Replacing them with a cell system in which tubes are simply lowered into and electronically monitored would take vastly less room or conversely mean rather more could be carried using the same space.
They had the Rif system for cruisers because no smaller ships had enough room for the missiles or the radar and electronics...
But with the new Redut even tiny ships can carry it because it is rather more compact... but bigger ships like destroyers and cruisers as well as upgraded cruisers could fit a cell based Rif launcher... so why not base it on Redut so it could carry redut missiles as well as Rif... remember the 150km range redut 9M96 missile actually has a 60km range increase over the original Rif missile with a range of 90kms so carrying four 9M96 x 150km range missiles for each rif missile tube effectively increases range and quadruples the missile capacity.
Of course at the cost of only carrying one missile per hatch the 250km and 400km large missiles will be more effective against heavy targets and there is that range as well which makes up for not carrying as many missiles.
That second image you posted... look at the actual hole for the missile... you could fit four of those under that hatch if you wanted to....
The third image is what I am talking about.... the big long missile tube... one per hatch is the 250km or 400km range S-400 missile, though being a naval system could use any Rif and Rif-M missiles they still have in stock. The quad missile tubes next to it are the 9M96 of the S-350 missile family.
It is a twelve hatch missile vertical launch system meaning 12 Rifs or S-400s, or up to 48 S-350/9M96s, or 192 9M100s if you fill the whole launcher up with the same missile types. In practise they might have four of each... so four S-400s (two of 250km range and two of 400km range), plus another four of S-350s( eight of 60km range and eight of 150km range) and four of 9M100 (64 of 9M100 CIWS missiles).
Of course not bad for a frigate, though they might change them to two hatches with S-400 with two 250km range missiles, and 8 hatches with 32 missiles in total... perhaps 8 x 150km range missiles and 24 with 60km range missiles, and two hatches with CIWS 9M100 with 32 self defence missiles.
With two twelve hatch Redut launchers you double the number... plus of course probably Duet and Pantsir also adding to the air defence... corvettes might do away with the super long range missiles and just carry the close range weapons.
A Destroyer might have four Redut launchers and a Cruiser might have 8... but the destroyer probably also has the UKSK-M which could also carry SAMs including S-500s... maybe 6 UKSK-M launchers, while the cruiser might have 10-12 UKSK-M launchers...
Who needs arsenal ships...
It would still be logical to use this VLS as we discussed, because it can be placed in swallower areas of the ship where a bigger UKSK does not fit. In the end, wanting to launch 9M100 and Tsirkon from the same launcher seems a bit too much to me!
But for larger ships it adds flexibility to be able to load SAMs as well as attack missiles... much more so when the tubes are going to be rather big... if layers were possible then for small missiles carrying them in big numbers makes sense... the Kuznetsov has 192 TOR missiles ready to fire and those are the old missiles... just replacing the old with the new should allow them to carry double that because the newer missiles are half the size and weight.... the first land TOR had 8 missiles ready to launch, while the current vehicle that is not physically bigger carries 16.
In the end I think UKSK-M may simply include some fittings and interfacing modifications to use the missiles of the 40N6 family, since they have roughly the same size than the big attack missiles already hold in UKSK. The launching tube is way bigger for S-400 and similar, but the actual diameter of the missile is a bit more than 500 mm and I think a different folding of the wings would do the trick:
The thing is that the UKSK-M will be bigger than the UKSK which means it is not going to be able to be carried in large numbers on smaller boats like Corvettes and Frigates.
If that is the case I think keeping Redut separate for smaller ships or in places where there is not the deck space to fit a UKSK-M launcher, that making them able to carry the 9M100, the 9M96, and the S-400 large missiles is good enough on its own.
Making the UKSK-M able to carry the S-500 makes sense because the bigger ships that will carry it will have more use for such a missile... Destroyers, Cruisers, and Carriers.
If that means they adapt the UKSK-M to also carry the missiles the Redut carries that is fine but there will be places on the Destroyer and Cruisers and Carrier where a UKSK-M might not fit but a Redut will so just stick a few of those in there.
The only reason or benefit for replacing the Redut on a larger ship with UKSK-M is if it will take layers of missiles as discussed... if that was the case then I would go for all UKSK-M launchers on all their bigger ships.
Double and triple stacking... may be, but when the cold launch kicks in it is still very strong, the "floor" below the missile should be capable to withstand it and therefore the missile below would not go through it easily. Some kind of loader may be doable but I guess that would remove part of the simplicity of the VLS system.
The cases they are stored in are pretty strong and should withstand longitudal force quite well... a bending force from teh side would be a problem but for launches of missiles above it should not be a huge issue... remember the cold launch system is inside the tube so when it launches it should be fine... after the top missile is launched the spacer between the layers would then launch the now empty tube up and out and sideways clear of the launcher ready for the next tube to launch if need be... the lower tube could then be raised up to the position of the upper tube perhaps.
You could have tracks on the sides of the tube raise the tubes into top position... have three side by side so a total of three launch tubes could be fitted to each hatched tube... have them offset so when the top tubes missile is launched and the separator ejects the top tube the rails that held the top tube in position are not aligned with the rails holding the next tube down so as the lower two tubes come up and one sits at the top and the second one just below it you have the top rails and the second rails overlapped with only space for the third set of rails from the bottom tube after the second missile is launched and the tube is ejected...
Yeah, it is pretty cool. If a really soft cold launching is possible, then maybe missile stacking is possible, who knows. If we have thought about it you can bet an arm Russian engineers have done it too
That is what I am thinking... I could offer my services at very reasonable rates in fact... they could pay me in small arms and ammo...
when I retire they could send me off to the middle of nowhere with a few machine guns and a weather station to look after...
Home
Latest images
Register
Log in
[/quote]
Rodion_Romanovic
.
