UKSK VLS System

GunshipDemocracy wrote:

GarryB wrote:Note Calibre is based on the SS-N-21 Grannat, and is not related to the air launched Kh-55 or Kh-101 families of missiles.

in article it is clearly written: much larger than Kalibr and warhead is close to one ton. . BTW Kh-101 although airborne has warhead max 450kg, length ~8m and diameter 0,7 os it is bigger.

So the new beast is gonna be rather bigger. As for UKSK-M , why do you think this M was needed?

Yeah, it's definitely new thing. You don't get 4k range and 1t warhead on current UKSK size no matter how awesome new fuel is.

I just hope they pay attention to backwards compatibility and don't make same mistake as with UKSK and Redut where they have to use different launchers for cruise and AA missiles. These two should be able to fit into this new UKSK-M.

PapaDragon wrote:

Yeah, it's definitely new thing. You don't get 4k range and 1t warhead on current UKSK size no matter how awesome new fuel is.

I just hope they pay attention to backwards compatibility and don't make same mistake as with UKSK and Redut where they have to use different launchers for cruise and AA missiles. These two should be able to fit into this new UKSK-M.

your wish was granted

Izvestia from 2017 wrote:Russian warships will receive an "omnivorous" launcher. It allows you to store and launch, even in the most severe storm, all types of missiles that are in service with the Navy — anti-aircraft, cruise, anti-ship, and even anti-submarine. At present, several types of launchers (launchers) for various types of missiles are placed on Russian ships.

The official name of the new product is UKSK-M

+++

As told to Izvestia in the main command of the Navy, currently the development of UKKS-M is already underway. It is planned that after the completion of the tests, the installation will go into service with Russian prospective warships. UKKS-M can be placed not only on cruisers and frigates, but also on lighter corvettes and even on very small small rocket ships. On older ships, the installations will be mounted while undergoing scheduled maintenance.

https://iz.ru/654343/aleksei-ramm-nikolai-surkov-evgenii-dmitriev/rossiiskii-flot-poluchit-superraketnitcu

hoom wrote:

So it seems they are not putting the Kh-101 or Kh-102 into UKSK launch tubes... they are adapting the Calibre missile to extend its range... presumably with new motor and reshaped design to allow more internal fuel.

Yes, with the subsequent articles specifically naming it Kalibr-M its not Kh-101.
There was still that suggestion a while back, so could also be coming.
Though perhaps more likely that 'naval Kh-101' was a misunderstood reference to this Kalibr-M.

Its was not. The president of KTRV Said they are on development a missile like Kalibr with more range from their company.
KTRV and Novator (Kalibr developer) are diferent companies, he could not BE talking about Kalibr-M.
Its possible KTRV project was cancelled in favor of Kalibr-M, if not we will be hear about that in the near future

Though perhaps more likely that 'naval Kh-101' was a misunderstood reference to this Kalibr-M.

No, the references I saw were when the UKSK was new and had not even be installed on a ship yet.

I suspect they intended to unify the design of cruise missiles to reduce the number of manufacturers they had to deal with, but it is pretty clear that the makers of Club have enough say to keep making products.

It is my understanding that the company that makes Club and Kalibr also make the UKSK launch tubes.

I have seen a vertically launched missile that has a large base that launched the missile out of the tube but when it has blown the missile up and out of the tube clear of the ground a side thrusting rocket blows the base off to one side clear of the launch tube.

They will need to use clever things like this to allow SAMs to be packed into large tubes in enormous numbers for this to make any sense.

Hope they don't fuck it up like the Americans did, where they have about 20 different versions of their Mk-41 launchers in about three different lengths.

Of course they have the huge advantage that they can use a modern and much safer cold launch system that does not require a water protection system or venting like the US systems do.

UKKS-M can be placed not only on cruisers and frigates, but also on lighter corvettes and even on very small small rocket ships. On older ships, the installations will be mounted while undergoing scheduled maintenance.

I suspect the main reason for making the UKSK-M bigger would be to allow for S-500 missiles to be carried as they are too big for Redut anyway. Having larger launch tubes would likely also help with Zircon as a scramjet missile would benefit from being bigger (wider) too.

The fact that they are making the tubes bigger to allow for bigger missiles would explain why they are now making bigger longer ranged cruise missiles too, and the one ton warhead sounds like the tubes are much bigger and they don't need 12,000km range cruise missiles so they made the warhead much bigger too.

The comment about fitting to older ships during maintenance is interesting... makes it sound like a trivial thing to fit to an old ship not designed to carry them.

Wonder if that means they can be fitted inclined like the older weapons they are replacing?

That would make it easier to install them on small rocket ships...

Hope they don't fuck it up like the Americans did, where they have about 20 different versions of their Mk-41 launchers in about three different lengths.

Already did: Redut thats not quite big enough to twin or quad-pack the 9M96, can't take antiship missiles.
Shtil-1 similar size to Redut but incompatible with the same missiles.
UKSK that can't handle SAMs & possibly too small for upcoming missiles -> UKSK-M.

GarryB wrote:
Wonder if that means they can be fitted inclined like the older weapons they are replacing?

That would make it easier to install them on small rocket ships...

unlikely, inclined on large ships means no need for Granits anymore. All  new can start vertically. Small ships like stopgap rocketships? they unlikely will have anything besides Kh-35 anyway. New line Buyan-M or Karakurt (or Bykov ) already carry or can carry UKSK

hoom wrote:[UKSK that can't handle SAMs & possibly too small for upcoming missiles -> UKSK-M.

t
Now we got:

9M96E/ 9M96E -> 240mm
9M100..............-> 125mm

UKSK can store Onyx (diameter 0,67m) thus 4 pack of 9M96 could theoretically fit, but as we know it was not designed for. But ok UKSK-M is going to be bigger... if it will be closer to 900mm then 9x9M96 could eventually fit. Nice

Already did: Redut thats not quite big enough to twin or quad-pack the 9M96, can't take antiship missiles.

WTF are you talking about?

Redut is a SAM launch tube system and was never intended to carry anti ship missiles.

The MK-41 only makes sense because ASROC and SM-2 and SM-3 and Tomahawk are fucking huge missiles.

If Redut is a failure because it can't take Onyx then Sea Ram is fucking useless because it can't take ESSM missiles... Redut is for SAMs... Onyx is not a SAM... why can't Sea RAM carry ESSM, Sea RAM and ESSM are both SAMs...

Shtil-1 similar size to Redut but incompatible with the same missiles.

Missiles made by different companies with different search and tracking radar that are not compatible... repeat... why doesn't Sea Ram carry ESSM missiles?

UKSK that can't handle SAMs & possibly too small for upcoming missiles -> UKSK-M.

It was never supposed to carry SAMs... for most of the fleet the vast majority of SAMs will be small and tiny compared with the anti ship and anti sub and land attack missiles the entire fleet will carry.

A corvette wont carry big SAMS... at best it will likely carry 150km range 9M96E missiles... Most importantly because of size it is never going to be able to carry more than perhaps two UKSK launchers so how many SAMs could it possibly carry?

A bigger vessel will need more SAMs and more cruise missiles, but by using a unified launcher you are probably going to end up reducing its cruise missile capacity because extra SAMs will generally be favoured by most captains for most missions.

unlikely, inclined on large ships means no need for Granits anymore.

Slava class ships don't have vertical launch tubes for its primary anti ship missiles... if they are not inclined there they will need a complete redesign of the ship to allow deep deck penetration into places that never had missiles there before... practically a redesign of the ship...

The Kirovs could obviously use them vertically for both replacement of the Granits and the Rifs, but it talks about retrofitting them to shallow displacement vessels.

Small ships like stopgap rocketships? they unlikely will have anything besides Kh-35 anyway. New line Buyan-M or Karakurt (or Bykov russia russia russia ) already carry or can carry UKSK

Did you not even read the article you posted?

It talks about putting the new systems on older vessels during scheduled maintenance... and it mentions light corvettes and very small rocket ships... so we are talking about OSA and similar type vessels with old anti ship missile armament... but also presumably old torpedo boats with the 91ER1 type weapons...

This should be a good export product if it can easily replace old missile setups during maintenance...

UKSK can store Onyx (diameter 0,67m) thus 4 pack of 9M96 could theoretically fit, but as we know it was not designed for. But ok UKSK-M is going to be bigger... if it will be closer to 900mm then 9x9M96 could eventually fit. Nice

Well you could take it further and say if the new tubes are closer to Granit size then three Onyx missiles could be carried per tube as well... and presumably the existing missiles could be carried three to a tube too.

The length would be interesting as well... 8 or 9 or 12 metres length... Kh-35 is about 4.5m long and about 42cm wide so perhaps three per layer with two layers so 6 missiles per tube?

The 9M100 will be short and with a thrust vectoring motor will have minimal fins so you could probably pack a half dozen per layer and possibly 3-4 layers per tube... and they are lock on after launch so vertical launch wont be an issue... 24 missiles per tube?

GarryB wrote:

unlikely, inclined on large ships means no need for Granits anymore.

Slava class ships don't have vertical launch tubes for its primary anti ship missiles... if they are not inclined there they will need a complete redesign of the ship to allow deep deck penetration into places that never had missiles there before... practically a redesign of the ship...

oh you dont dramatize, remember what Russians did on Anteys? inserted launch containers, so no need for UKSK in such case. Of course if they decide to refurbish Atlants.

GB wrote: The Kirovs could obviously use them vertically for both replacement of the Granits and the Rifs, but it talks about retrofitting them to shallow displacement vessels.

I'd say where's possible, unless ships were foreseen for upgrade already.

GB wrote:

Despicable Me wrote: ]Small ships like stopgap rocketships? they unlikely will have anything besides Kh-35 anyway. New line Buyan-M or Karakurt (or Bykov russia russia russia ) already carry or can carry UKSK

Did you not even read the article you posted?

It talks about putting the new systems on older vessels during scheduled maintenance... and it mentions light corvettes and very small rocket ships... so we are talking about OSA and similar type vessels with old anti ship missile armament... but also presumably old torpedo boats with the 91ER1 type weapons...

Oh, I did. And nobody siad about Osa (ekhm withdrawn long ago) nor Molnya 1241. If you checked those stop-gap 2 hulls had installed 8 Kh-35 no Kalibr/Onyxes. Why would you need on such small ships such big missiles? Besides what is expediency to maintain old Soviet designs in 2030s?!

Buyan-M is a small rocket ship.

GB wrote:

UKSK can store Onyx (diameter 0,67m) thus 4 pack of 9M96 could theoretically fit, but as we know it was not designed for. But ok UKSK-M is going to be bigger... if it will be closer to 900mm then 9x9M96 could eventually fit. Nice

Well you could take it further and say if the new tubes are closer to Granit size then three Onyx missiles could be carried per tube as well... and presumably the existing missiles could be carried three to a tube too.

Should be bigger than Granits ? they might be i dont believe. Granits were really huge. BTW we made this exerciser already in Antey thread. Granit diameter was ~850mm, Onyx is 670 \mm so no way 2 can fit. 3 kalibrs can. As for AAMs this is only my wild guess, It would make sense. will they be stacked? I've never seen such system, but somebody has to be the first one

oh you dont dramatize, remember what Russians did on Anteys? inserted launch containers, so no need for UKSK in such case. Of course if they decide to refurbish Atlants.

Anteis are carrier group killers... they don't need UKSK they just need anti ship missiles... ie Onyx.

Slavas are cruisers and would be much more multirole with UKSK launchers instead of being limited to only Onyx replacing their Vulkans.

The really big Soviet ships were their only multirole vessels because their size allowed different radar and sonar and a variety of weapons.

Today they can achieve that with universal missile launchers.

I'd say where's possible, unless ships were foreseen for upgrade already.

But that is the point... he didn't say some will get them and some wont... he basically said all old ships will get them... even the small shallow displacement vessels...

Oh, I did. And nobody siad about Osa (ekhm withdrawn long ago) nor Molnya 1241. If you checked those stop-gap 2 hulls had installed 8 Kh-35 no Kalibr/Onyxes. Why would you need on such small ships such big missiles? Besides what is expediency to maintain old Soviet designs in 2030s?!

Perhaps they want to retrofit standardised weapon launch systems so they can have an entire fleet of vessels they can have weapons for and operate from any port without having to ship different missiles in from somewhere...

The Moskit is not compatible with UKSK-M so when its launch tubes are replaced it will no longer be in Russian Navy service... ships that carried that might get Kh-35, or they might get UKSK-M and become more flexible and capable.

If it is the latter that is actually better because then they can offer the UKSK-M system for export to poorer clients to seriously upgrade existing ships... perhaps even foreign ones...

Should be bigger than Granits ? they might be i dont believe. Granits were really huge.

English lesson number 3,434. Saying IF something is CLOSER IN SIZE to something, is not the same as saying it is bigger. At worst it is saying it is upto or the same size but not bigger... otherwise I would say bigger like you are claiming I did... when I clearly didn't.

It would make sense. will they be stacked? I've never seen such system, but somebody has to be the first one

If they are not stacked then when loading 9M100 missiles... why would you? what a waste to put so few missiles into such an enormous space... it would be like a Tu-22M3M with a double pylon on each of its two main wing pylons... you know the pylons that carry 5 ton Kh-22M missiles... fitting them with double pylons to carry two R-60M missiles for a total of four missiles on two pylons.... yeah... that'd be worth it...

If the russian navy could find the money, they could replace the S-300 launchers on the Slavas with UKSK-M modules. They could carry 48N6M2 missiles for air defence and some Kalibrs/Zircons.

Hole wrote:If the russian navy could find the money, they could replace the S-300 launchers on the Slavas with UKSK-M modules. They could carry 48N6M2 missiles for air defence and some Kalibrs/Zircons.

Money? There's infinite money for non-essential/non-strategic expensive gold-plated white-elephant projects like a 5th-gen Russified F-35B II Lightning S/VTOL as well as the multiple aircraft carriers to support them; but their's no money for strategic area-denial systems (such as the systems you mentioned as well as IRBM's). How can I be more convincing to you? Do I need to type posts in a sensationalist manner, with broken English grammar and spelling typos?

Hole wrote:If the russian navy could find the money, they could replace the S-300 launchers on the Slavas with UKSK-M modules. They could carry 48N6M2 missiles for air defence and some Kalibrs/Zircons.

It's the worst time imaginable to increase defense buget to start large-scale modernization/rearnament. The term of pro-Russian US president should be 101 % exploited to sign new START, INF treaties, show that Russia is a nice guy if you just recognise accession of Crimea.

verkhoturye51 wrote:

Hole wrote:If the russian navy could find the money, they could replace the S-300 launchers on the Slavas with UKSK-M modules. They could carry 48N6M2 missiles for air defence and some Kalibrs/Zircons.

It's the worst time imaginable to increase defense buget to start large-scale modernization/rearnament. The term of pro-Russian US president should be 101 % exploited to sign new START, INF treaties, show that Russia is a nice guy if you just recognise accession of Crimea.

Good lord buddy....take your meds!

magnumcromagnon wrote:

verkhoturye51 wrote:

Hole wrote:If the russian navy could find the money, they could replace the S-300 launchers on the Slavas with UKSK-M modules. They could carry 48N6M2 missiles for air defence and some Kalibrs/Zircons.

It's the worst time imaginable to increase defense buget to start large-scale modernization/rearnament. The term of pro-Russian US president should be 101 % exploited to sign new START, INF treaties, show that Russia is a nice guy if you just recognise accession of Crimea.

Good lord buddy....take your meds!

Well mr russia believer get the reality check the entire Ru web community is pissed off by 22160 and slow pace of everything that makes a bit of sense so you should start convincing them not us

verkhoturye51 wrote:

Hole wrote:If the russian navy could find the money, they could replace the S-300 launchers on the Slavas with UKSK-M modules. They could carry 48N6M2 missiles for air defence and some Kalibrs/Zircons.

It's the worst time imaginable to increase defense buget to start large-scale modernization/rearnament. The term of pro-Russian US president should be 101 % exploited to sign new START, INF treaties, show that Russia is a nice guy if you just recognise accession of Crimea.

There is no pro-Russian US president

And INF dissolution will allow development and deployment of more cost-effective solutions that will facilitate decrease in Russian defense budget

As for Crimea, that thing will go on longer than Taiwan so no point wasting effort on negotiating about it, just roll with it

Hole wrote:If the russian navy could find the money, they could replace the S-300 launchers on the Slavas with UKSK-M modules. They could carry 48N6M2 missiles for air defence and some Kalibrs/Zircons.

Launchers are not expensive. Its more about is it worth upgrading such big old ship for the price of new one. To change the launchers you need to change all systems/radars/computers/wires so you need to cut all the ship and rebuild it. It also means you want to operate it for another 15-20 years so you need to upgrade the structure/living rooms/engines ...

So you basically need to destroy it and rebuild it with new tech. While for a new destroyer you only need the second part (i.e build it with new tech) and you can design it to replace more ships than slavas like sovromenys and kirovs and maybe udaloy.

That's why they have the Lider project.

Bigger ships can operate for long periods and upgrades are normal and expected.

Think about the computer you were using in the mid 1990s and the one you are using now...

I bought a 133Mhz PC computer with an 8GB hard drive and something like an 8MB graphics card.

Just bought a 16GB SD card for my camera for $10...

Technology moves on... so whether you upgrade or you continue to buy brand new is always an issue... I still have that old computer, that has had repeated upgrades over the years and I am about to give it a new upgrade to get it to a modern capable state where it is every bit as good as a brand new computer.

The new systems and equipment are designed to replace the old systems, but the new systems are drop in.

The old computer was made to a standard and so as long as new components meet that standard they can be used to replace old components.

The issue for the Russian navy is that if they can't make Frigates that fast then how long will it take to make a cruiser or destroyer sized vessel.

They already have some but they need some work to integrate new systems... the important thing is to get the new modular systems to fit because once they are back in service upgrading them will simply be a case of replacing the older modules for new ones.

With brand new ships they will be designed to take the new modules and should be rather easy to upgrade in the future.

Upgrading old ships is a skill that is needed because all ships need upgrades eventually.

The point is that they have some big ships in service and they don't need to be converted into super ships for now, just upgraded older ships will be fine for the next decade or two.

The critical thing is that the upgraded old ships can use the new modular weapons launchers and can have the new sensors and systems associated with using them... other than that who cares if they can't get them as stealthy or as well armed as a custom designed new ship... it is about growth... they still have a lot of infrastructure and support vessels and crew training to sort out too... but one thing at a time.

Do you think we could see a quad pack cruise missile 4 times smaller in diameter than kalibr for UKSK. A stealth "squared" shape like new missiles (kh-59mk2 or scalp...) with a diameter of some 15-20 cm but with a lenght of 8m like kalibr would give it half the range of kalibr easily. For attacking small targets like aircraft hangers on aeroports in big numbers it would be a wonderfull weapon just like for antiship as it would have stealth shapes but also a small frontal cross section.

This thing would looke weird.
Don´t know about the stability of such a thing.

Hole wrote:This thing would looke weird.
Don´t know about the stability of such a thing.

2 pairs of wing and it's ok

Instead of 8 missile you would have 32. For low value or small targets and antishiping where range s don't generally exceed 500km it would be a good choice.

For antishipping it would create many targets on the radar and oblige the ship to use all its air def missiles. Most of westerb ones carry 32 or less.

Make the last stage hypersonic and it would hit a ship like a APFSDS.

Hole wrote:Make the last stage hypersonic and it would hit a ship like a APFSDS.

If it only makes a small you (= hole ) it's useless.

They could also quad or even eight pack small suicide drones for harassing air defences. Israel one showed good result. It can also work with air defences of ships and coastal forces prior to a landing. Like I said most ships carry small amount of missiles. Once empty they are easy to destroy or even capture.

Also many small fires that start inside a ship are as deadly as a big one. During exercice US sank a frigate or destroyer don't remember with 20 or so ATGM hit.

Take the current Calibre missile and change the current round shape to a Square shape... now with each of those four flat external surfaces draw a line from the corner to the centre of the missile and you have four flat based triangles... each could be a separate missile in each tube.

The 300km and 500km range limits are all artificial... domestic Club missiles can have a range of up to 2,500km so reducing its size by a quarter it could still have a flight range of over 750km or so... which would be plenty for most missiles and most small vessels.

You could make them multi stage with a solid rocket booster to get the whole missile up and on its way and a rear section full of fuel that can be dropped when it is empty... a straight wing can then sweep forward to compensate for the forward shift in cg when the rear fuel tank is dropped... a forward sweep wing being most efficient for high subsonic flight.... with perhaps the final stage a high supersonic rocket propelled section... or whatever.

The main problem I see is separating the missiles so each can be fired individually instead of all four at once.