Poliment-Redut Naval Air Defense System

So they were working on such missile. They will exploit poliment/redut perfectly with this. An export version would help sell the frigate.

Waaat
That seems fairly unlikely given Redut is a pretty small cell.

If true it'd give a future 22350M/other large new ship more serious long range firepower than just the 120km 9M96.

According to Izvestia, a new anti-aircraft guided missile (ZUR) will be created using the technological reserve of the 40N6 missile , as well as 9M96 and 9M100 missiles. The exact tactical and technical characteristics of new items are not yet known. But, presumably, it will be able to hit aerodynamic targets at a distance of 400 km and an altitude of up to 35 km.

https://iz.ru/813938/aleksei-ramm-bogdan-stepovoi/sbit-so-sveta-korabli-poluchat-novye-zenitnye-rakety

The specs sound like the long range S-400 missile...

Of course it would not be that difficult to put a significant sized solid rocket booster on the rear of the 9M96/E to further enhance flight range, but I suspect it is the new long range S-400 missile they are talking about.

But Redut cells are much smaller than S-3/400 tubes so it'd have to be a much smaller missile than normal S-400 to fit.

So on the question of the new 400km S-400 missile


Its 7.825m*1m (I think transport/storage tube)
Vs
9M96 5.65m*.24m which is waaaaay smaller.

I guess the question then is how big is a Redut cell?



Perhaps the reporter misinterpreted someone telling him 22350M will have S-400 missiles? (UKSK-M? which hopefully will actually quad-pack 9M96)

Yea, this is definitely a case of either miss reporting or faulty translation.

The 22350M is without a doubt going to have the S-400.

hoom wrote:So on the question of the new 400km S-400 missile

Its 7.825m*1m (I think transport/storage tube)
Vs
9M96 5.65m*.24m which is waaaaay smaller.

I guess the question then is how big is a Redut cell?



Perhaps the reporter misinterpreted someone telling him 22350M will have S-400 missiles? (UKSK-M? which hopefully will actually quad-pack 9M96)

I'm more impressed about how small the missile tube is compare to the place taken by the VLS. You can easily pack 4 missiles per tubes.

They really are 50 years behund US in VLS technology. Even chinese VLS can launch tens of different missiles. Russian ones are limited to 2 or 3 or 1 for shtil-1 each. That doesn't make the boats that much multirole.

I'm more impressed about how small the missile tube is compare to the place taken by the VLS. You can easily pack 4 missiles per tubes.

Indeed, it looks like it should be possible, many ppl assumed it would be done but somehow the Russians seem to have inexplicably missed the opportunity to do it.

Or if tightly bound to 1 missile per cell they missed the opportunity to make Redut cells significantly smaller -> more cells fit in same area.

Amiland uses two different missiles from its VLS, Tomahawk and SM-2 (SM-3 and SM-6 are just versions of this missile).

Missed ESSM & ASROC.
The very different capabilities of SM-3 & 6 means they easily count as separate missiles & from recollection there are a couple of different range versions of SM-2.
There will also be LRASM upcoming.

Perhaps the reporter misinterpreted someone telling him 22350M will have S-400 missiles? (UKSK-M? which hopefully will actually quad-pack 9M96)

That Redut launcher clearly shows the existing tube takes up a tiny amount of the available space and that if needed the capacity of the launch system could be dramatically increased if needed.

The 22350M is without a doubt going to have the S-400.

Have been saying for years... why make a SAM vertical launch system that only takes one type of SAM when your company makes S-350 and S-400?

They really are 50 years behund US in VLS technology. Even chinese VLS can launch tens of different missiles. Russian ones are limited to 2 or 3 or 1 for shtil-1 each. That doesn't make the boats that much multirole.

Yeah, maybe even 1,000 years behind... except for all their VLS prowess the US can't currently vertically launch a supersonic anti ship missile from their launch tubes, and the fact that the naval TOR and Rif systems predate US vertical launchers by quite a few years who is leading whom?

The Russians have large heavy missiles for land attack and anti ship use as well as anti sub use... it makes zero sense at all in making them capable of carrying tiny SAMs too because it just would not make sense in terms of capacity.

It is the UKSK launchers that make Russian ships multirole... not her SAMs.

Indeed, it looks like it should be possible, many ppl assumed it would be done but somehow the Russians seem to have inexplicably missed the opportunity to do it.

Or if tightly bound to 1 missile per cell they missed the opportunity to make Redut cells significantly smaller -> more cells fit in same area.

For testing, 1 missile per tube is plenty, but later on different tube linings allowing larger missiles or multiple smaller tubes could be introduced easily enough.

The Redut system is supposed to take both 9M96 and 9M96E and 9M100 missiles which are all different diameters and lengths so of course different tube linings would need to be used to carry them.

Missed ESSM & ASROC.
The very different capabilities of SM-3 & 6 means they easily count as separate missiles & from recollection there are a couple of different range versions of SM-2.
There will also be LRASM upcoming.

So Tomahawk, SM-2, SM-3, SM-6, ESSM, and ASROC... and LRASM in the future...

So for the UKSK we have the land attack Club, the subsonic anti ship Club, the supersonic anti ship Club, the anti sub ballistic 91RE2, the Onyx, the Yakhont, the Brahmos, and soon the Zircon supersonic anti ship missiles. So 7 vs 8... sound about the same to me even though the Russian system is surface to surface/subsurface weapons only.

Where is this US superiority?

Yeah, maybe even 1,000 years behind... except for all their VLS prowess the US can't currently vertically launch a supersonic anti ship missile from their launch tubes, and the fact that the naval TOR and Rif systems predate US vertical launchers by quite a few years who is leading whom?

The Russians have large heavy missiles for land attack and anti ship use as well as anti sub use... it makes zero sense at all in making them capable of carrying tiny SAMs too because it just would not make sense in terms of capacity.

It is the UKSK launchers that make Russian ships multirole... not her SAMs.

Supersonic antiship missiles isn't US philosophy of naval war even if their anti air missiles can hit also naval targets.

Tor and rif vls are made for only one type of system. Not comparable to US vls.

So Tomahawk, SM-2, SM-3, SM-6, ESSM, and ASROC... and LRASM in the future...

So for the UKSK we have the land attack Club, the subsonic anti ship Club, the supersonic anti ship Club, the anti sub ballistic 91RE2, the Onyx, the Yakhont, the Brahmos, and soon the Zircon supersonic anti ship missiles. So 7 vs 8... sound about the same to me even though the Russian system is surface to surface/subsurface weapons only

That's because of the versatility of the kalibr family based on 1 design. And no anti air missiles.

BTW we are still not sure they use the other missile of kalibr family apart of the land attack version and the anti sub.

On gorshkov where russian have only two UKSK, US would have put a big block of 10 VLS like of their AB. The biggest shtill VLS with 24 tubes can't be used because it is heavy so they need much more space than US VLS that carries much bigger missiles.

That only means they didn't learned of US mistakes. Instead of making UKSK really universal, they made it for some type of missile. Redut take the same space, not in deapth however, but that could have been solve by packing the launcher at mid ship lie on Arleigh Burkes.

LMFS wrote:

Isos wrote:That only means they didn't learned of US mistakes. Instead of making UKSK really universal, they made it for some type of missile. Redut take the same space, not in deapth however, but that could have been solve by packing the launcher at mid ship lie on Arleigh Burkes.

But AShM or LACM are substantially bigger than SAMs. If you want to unify all VLS but need almost 10 meters height for it, you are loosing a lot of places where you could place SAM VLS for all but the biggest, longer ranged missiles.

That's an issue for sure. Even european Sylver VLS for aster have different versions because of that.

US solved that by making only destroyers to carry them.

Supersonic antiship missiles isn't US philosophy of naval war even if their anti air missiles can hit also naval targets.

Ironic as we were led to believe the Soviets used dumb simple technology in large numbers to overwhelm the enemy, while the west used high tech expensive but capable systems to defeat the simpler enemy in vast numbers...

The US uses Harpoon and Tomahawk... both entered service in about the late 1970s... at which time the Soviets had about 7 different anti ship cruise missiles... and were introducing more.

Tor and rif vls are made for only one type of system. Not comparable to US vls.

When TOR and RIF were in service the US was using missiles from arm launchers and had no vertical launch systems...

That's because of the versatility of the kalibr family based on 1 design. And no anti air missiles.

When you have pathetic little anti ship missiles that are about the same size as a SAM then it makes sense to put them all in the same tubes.

Putting SAMs in a UKSK tube would be a pathetic waste of tube space and very inefficient... the opposite of what vertical launch tubes are supposed to achieve.

BTW we are still not sure they use the other missile of kalibr family apart of the land attack version and the anti sub.

Get a dictionary and look up the definition of the Russian words that make up the acronym UKSK... (it means universal cruise missile launcher).

They have several different vertical launch systems for SAMs... ie Redut and Shtil and Klintok, but they only have one for cruise missiles.

On gorshkov where russian have only two UKSK, US would have put a big block of 10 VLS like of their AB. The biggest shtill VLS with 24 tubes can't be used because it is heavy so they need much more space than US VLS that carries much bigger missiles.

Hahahaha... the other way around... the UKSK system carries very long missiles and needs a lot of depth of hull to fit it... Gorshkov is a Frigate... how many frigates does the US have with vertical launch tubes... LCS?

That only means they didn't learned of US mistakes. Instead of making UKSK really universal, they made it for some type of missile. Redut take the same space, not in deapth however, but that could have been solve by packing the launcher at mid ship lie on Arleigh Burkes.

But that is the thing.... they did learn from US mistakes... 8 Zircons from one UKSK launcher is worth 1,000 harpoons or tomahawks... their solution is just better.

US solved that by making only destroyers to carry them.

So WTF are you talking about... how can the Russian solution be inferior when the US solution does not even work for Frigates and Corvettes?

Maybe UKSK could hold 40N6 and similarly sized missiles, obviously in small amounts and rather as deterrence. But mid and short range missiles are better in shorter VLS cells that can be placed in swallower areas of the ship for bigger numbers. That, unless missiles could be somehow stacked on top of each other inside some kind of "double-deck" VLS , which I guess is not currently feasible, and use-up better the space in bigger VLS wells.

The Russians are experts in cold launch systems... look at TOR launchers as an example... or indeed S-300 and S-400 and S-350.

It should not be that hard to stack small missiles in a bigger tube... they are already putting three Onyx tubes in a single Granit tube in Oscar class SSGNs... how hard could it be to have two or three layers in depth of multiple missiles...

Where is this US superiority?

I was just showing Mk-41 is more than 2 missiles.

Mk 41 can only be used with large ships, even the LCS can´t use them.

I don't believe there is any particular minimum size, the lack of VLS anti-ship missile & general rarity of missile boats in Western navies is probably the main reason they haven't been mounted on smaller ships.
Several fairly small frigate classes have 8 cells which can mean 32* ESSM.
LCS should totally have had 8 or 16 cells but it was dumb requirements of the program that prevented it rather than ship size.
The new FFG(X) is set to fix that.

It is possible that in the future the USKS could be used for air defence missiles on an destroyer-size ship.

UKSK-M is supposed to be properly universal.

Those three Onyx per Granite tube, they are side to side right? Granit is 10 m long while Onyx is almost 8 m

In the Oscar the Granit tubes are side by side, but three Onyx missiles fit inside the Granit tubes.

Like said, not very up to date with these systems, but have no recall of seeing stacked missiles in VLS cells. So my first thought is, that there is some reason for VLS being single deck.

VLS systems are generally designed for a standard or a group of standard missiles.

All the missiles that currently fit in the UKSK launcher are between 8-10 metres long for instance.

With Redut however the tube space, or cell space seems to be based on the full sized S-300 missile... the S-400 has shown that you can fit four 9M96 missile tubes in the space for one S-300 missile... the whole point of the smaller 9M96 missiles was to increase the number of ready to fire missiles by four times while using the same launchers. these missiles are also much shorter than the standard full sized missiles so stacking becomes potentially possible.

S-300 missiles are cold launched so they exit the launch tubes before their rocket motors start up... it would not take much to create a cold launch system that ejects itself when it launches the top missile so further layers of shorter missiles could be stacked on top of each other.

9M100 missiles will be tiny in comparison with the S-300 missiles, so you could have 3 or more layers of 4-6 missiles each quite easily.

But then, it does not make real sense in the small vessels that have been built until now, since the limiting factor in them is the depth of the cells.

The cell size is fixed and as you can see in the picture above the use of 9M96 missiles does not fill the cell efficiently. Having a quad liner for the cell so four missiles could be loaded makes sense but if the missiles are shorter as well as narrower then why not have layers too?

One tube could carry one S-400 full sized missile with a range of 400km, or it could carry a normal S-400 with a 250km range, or it could carry two layers of missiles with four missiles packed into each layer for 8 x 9M96 missiles per tube, or three layers of 5 missiles with the 9M100 missiles with a total of 15 missiles per tube.

That means with 12 tubes you could have four long range S-400s (2x400km and 2 x 250km), 4 tubes with medium range 150km and 60km range 9M96 missiles (32 missiles), and 4 tubes with 15 9M100 missiles (60 missiles).

That means a corvette could have 96 missiles of a wide variety of types and capabilities against a range of targets... and that does not include any Pantsir or TOR based systems...

It would make bigger ships very formidably armed... Frigates with 36 launch tubes (3 launchers), destroyers with 72 launch tubes (6 launchers), cruisers with 144 launch tubes in 12 launchers...

From what we know for the Nakhimov, Redut and UKSK are going to be kept in parallel so no unification in sight, even in big vessels.

I don't see the point in unification of the UKSK cruise missile launchers and the Redut SAM launchers... the difference between the small SAMs and the big SAMs is big enough already without adding enormous cruise missiles to the problem.

You could have small shallow 9M100 launchers all over the place as they are short range lock on after launch IIR guided missiles that would always be useful... even embedded in the sides of ships facing outwards...

It is possible that in the future the USKS could be used for air defence missiles on an destroyer-size ship. We don´t know that yet. The Gorschkov uses a separate VLS because of the hull depth. The Nakhimov uses different VLS because they were already there.

By the way, USKS means universal silo and catapult (launch) system.

My understanding it means universal silo for cruise missiles... AFAIK the original model was never intended to carry SAMs, and no SAM maker has integrated SAM for it.

The new Shtil-1 and S-350/400/500 Redut vertical launch systems are for SAMs, and are not interchangeable.

UKSK-M is supposed to be properly universal.

If they are going to end up using UKSK launchers then they will definitely need tube liners and layers because the cruise missile tubes are huge and the smaller SAMs are tiny in comparison.