[Official] 'Peter The Great' News Thread:

Hole wrote:Official MoD release claims Vodopad.

Vodopad:



Kaliber:



Look like twins.

They are all the same weapon... both carry the same torpedo payload... in the top drawing you see the actual torpedo payload both separate and attached to the weapon, and in the bottom drawing is the same weapon with the pointed nose fairing fitted.

This is a solid rocket boosted ballistic weapon that is supersonic so the bigger one launched from submarines is 8 metres long and has a firing range of 50km and a solid rocket booster that carries it at mach 2.5 on its ballistic flight to the target area where it drops into the water and releases the torpedo... it is distinctive because of its rear grid fin design... it is called 91re1 and is the weapon depicted above in both drawings and the photo.

The other weapon is also a solid rocket boosted ballistic weapon that is also supersonic but is only 6.5m long and has a much smaller solid rocket booster called 91re2 that is launched from ships and has a 40km range and a mach 2 ballistic speed to deliver the same torpedo.

Both have pointed noses, but the shorter missile has a much shorter solid fuel rocket booster and more conventional fins on the missile (not the booster).

Both are part of the Club family, but neither are the Kalibr which is a subsonic land attack cruise missile that the Club family of weapons are based upon.

This is Kalibr:



While the other missiles of the Club family are detailed on wiki:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3M-54_Kalibr

If you scroll the above page down to Export Variants you can see images of the subsonic anti ship and land attack models and then the two 91RE anti sub ballistic torpedo delivery rockets... if you scroll back up to the Operational History title you will see the supersonic anti ship model with the long range cruise missile with the rocket powered final attack stage (note the pointed nose).

EDIT: Note both ballistic anti sub Club missiles (91re1 and 91re2) are 533mm and are fired from torpedo tubes. The shorter ship launched missile can also be loaded into the UKSK launcher system. I suspect they are working on a longer ranged model for the new UKSK-M launcher just to extend the range of the weapon.

Compared even with a super high speed torpedo like Shkval, this weapon is much faster and gives the target almost no warning of the attack until the torpedo hits the water and starts searching for targets.

There is still no any proved data about light torpedo carried by Vodopad. Is it APR3 or derivative - rocket powered, or it is classical propeller/ pump jet powered light torpedo?

Anyway, Pyotr Velikiy is long overdue for capital refit. Long range 3D radar is long outdated, Fregat MR2 needs substitute with newer version, not to mention recore and overhaul of powerplant. After Nahimov`s refit is completed, PV should be put in refit as quick as possible. She was laid down in 1987, so hull should be inspected thoroughly. Some russian  specialists cite that she was rotten from the first day of service. i don`t believe, but she is in a grave need of refit anyway.

Modernization now slated to begin only after Nakhimov will be back in service in 2022. No mention of S-500.

http://www.militarynews.ru/story.asp?rid=1&nid=504620&lang=RU

Somewhere in the first pages of this thread it was mentioned that the S-300F will stay and be fitted with a new missile. Range: 350km and active radar seeker.

It would be appropriate that Peter would get better air defense than Nakhimov. The US has lately made considerable progress in the field of anti-ship missiles with LRASM and SM-6. S-500's radar 91N6 with 600 km range would benefit the air defense greatly, because it would buy more reaction time. Such radar offers higher reliability and capability than drones or helicopters.

S-500 is an ABM system designed to shoot down ICBMs and SLBMs... not the most sensible use of available space on a cruiser really.

The APR-3ME is described as being used in naval anti submarine missile systems as homing warheads separated from carriers in the air or in the water depending on their basing (Sub or ship).

So, yes it is the payload of the 91ER1 and 91RE2.

S-500 is an ABM system designed to shoot down ICBMs and SLBMs... not the most sensible use of available space on a cruiser really.

Agree. S-400 radars with 250km missiles is more than enough. Some 400km missiles for AWACS, tankers and p-8 would be nice too.

But what they definitly needs is a huge L band radar with 2500+km range powered by the nuclear reactor to act as a Early warning radar and connect it to the ground network of those huge radars used for detecting ICBM launches.

S-500 is an ABM system designed to shoot down ICBMs and SLBMs... not the most sensible use of available space on a cruiser really.

What are you talking about, they seem to want it on smaller cruiser concept Lider?

If Peter's modernization will be anything like Nakhomov's, than there should be plenty of space left, starting with the space between UKSK and S-300 launchers, as well as in front of S-300, where they've offered an extra space for 4 UKSKs:



No to mention ex-Kinzhal sections in the stern, which will be reduntant, now that there are Pantsir-M and short-range S-400 missiles. They go 2-3 decks below. Even with S-500's radars, they'd need much more space for helicopters or drones. Without AWACS, warship becomes arsenal ship, and it's well known to be a weak spot of Russia, with fewer millitary satellites and CVNs than the US. I could imagine a large part of deck filled with big drones, ready to launch most of the time, with elevators to get them from beneath. A drone-carrying cruiser concept.

starting with the space between UKSK and S-300 launchers

Granit has an angled launcher, the gap is because of the angle.


Kinzhal areas are probably getting Redut, your pic (which I think is a pretty conservative estimate for Nakhimov) indicates 8 modules (64 cells).

I could imagine a large part of deck filled with big drones, ready to launch most of the time, with elevators to get them from beneath. A drone-carrying cruiser concept.

Or they could dedicate a few Oscars filled with UAVs to accompany them. Supply ships could carry & launch them too.

Pictures of what the mod. Kirov could carry. Pretty impressive but doubtfull it gets the max one.

https://mobile.twitter.com/RALee85/status/1251972110936932352

Interesting idea... but not very realistic.

They were talking about 10 UKSK launchers for 80 Onyx or Kalibre missiles.

The top image has 35 UKSK launchers in orange and yellow and for some reason shows the yellow UKSK launchers as carrying S-400 missiles.

Now imagine 10 UKSK launchers where the orange tubes are... the space where the yellow tubes are is where the Rif System is so you could certainly take that out and replace those 96 S-300 missiles with a much more efficient cell launcher for large SAMs.

That rectangular hatch between the yellow and the green launchers was for the SS-N-14 system which is redundant now because that missiles replacement can be loaded in to the UKSK launcher as the 91er1 missile... so effectively you could fill that entire space with vertical launchers.

Right now there are two systems... the UKSK for attack missiles and Redut for SAMs... though there is also the Shtil SAMs too.

In the near future they might have the UKSK-M which might add heavy SAMs to its range of missiles it can carry... if they can manage that then looking at these images realistically... the twenty launch tubes for Granit are being replaced by 10 UKSK launchers... lets make them UKSK-M launchers because UKSK-M is replacing everything on big ships with enough draft to carry them. So 10 UKSK-M launchers replacing the Granits, another 10 replacing the Rif-M, and another row of 5 replacing the space for the SS-N-14 system... so 25 UKSK-M launchers, plus the Redut launchers in the shallower front so we can have a reasonable bow sonar because the Redut launchers don't fill up the under deck space as far as the UKSK-M launchers will.

The thing is that if you take out the padding of the Redut launchers you could get four 9M96 missiles in each tube (ie per hatch) which means S-400 would fit inside them anyway, or quads of 9M96 or 16 9M100 missiles and that is just assuming one layer deep.

They have two Kirov class ships in good enough condition to keep, but no matter how much you change things and no matter how much you spend it is not going to be some arsenal super ship better than anything else around... it will be upgraded because that will make it useful and right now big long range ships are useful... but when they start building new from scratch boats those new boats will be better and much more capable with more complete and fundamental improvements. The Kirovs are good ships and will continue to be useful for some time but it is like anything... you can only upgrade a MiG-21 or T-34 so far before you realise that buying some cheap MiG-29s or T-90s and upgrading them gives you better performance for less money and it is easier to upgrade and there is more you can do to upgrade them.

The best upgrade for the Kirovs would be to rip out the old electronics and upgrade it all... which should free up enormous amounts of internal space because old electronics are big and bulky and not particularly powerful. An upgrade of propulsion would also be a good thing, but you want to replace the sensors and electronics and weapons so you can get these new systems into operational testing... the new smaller boats can't carry enormous AESA radar arrays and L band radars etc etc... this is the stuff only really big ships can carry so getting them on to the Kirovs means by the time they are working on new cruisers lots of bits will be tested and proven or tested and fixed and working... it means that there will be less brand new stuff that can fail so you can focus on the few things rather than finding everything is failing like the Ford and the Zumwalt. Sometimes it is working fine but something else that should be working is stopping it from working... all these complex interactions makes finding the real problem difficult...

Nahkimov will have 10x UKSK. The following appears fairly accurate AFAIK.

That's too low for such ship. They could put more UKSK but let them empty because kalibr are not that cheap and the day they need an arsenal ship just load them.

UKSK are just empty launchers with some wires, that's not heavy or complicated and kirov has plenty of space for them.

If it had space the navy would have used it. You need nearly 10 metres of hull depth for an UKSK and below these "open deck spaces" is a lot of stuff.

Hole wrote:If it had space the navy would have used it. You need nearly 10 metres of hull depth for an UKSK and below these "open deck spaces" is a lot of stuff.

The space where are the uksk is totally empty since it was the space used for the Granit. They can easily put another row of uksk.

IMO it is more an issue of weight/strenght. They had this issues with the 36 cell shtil VLS.

PapaDragon wrote:
That fanart is from 2015

I know it's a fanart but dimensions are respected.

Isos wrote:The space where are the uksk is totally empty since it was the space used for the Granit. They can easily put another row of uksk.

IMO it is more an issue of weight/strenght. They had this issues with the 36 cell shtil VLS.

Its also an issue of below decks access between VLS silos for service/inspection and damage control if ever required. You can't pack a space full of VLS bins if personnel cannot get access to the innards of the inner bins in an emergency, or have the space to run fire protection services or install spalling liners to catch fragments (if a Kirov ever takes a penetrating hit in the vicinity of its UKSKs and a fire starts, how the fuck can you do damage control if the bins are dense-packed with zero segregation between adjacent ordnance?).

Why the heck do idiots (not finger pointing at you Isos ) on this forum seem to think that they know more than experienced Russian military engineers and naval architects when it comes to performing complex ship conversions???? Friggin unbelievable.

The thing is that while having a lot of launch tubes is useful.... it is going to be a capable ship anyway... you can talk about Chinese ships with 400 launch tubes but there is no free lunch... sailing around its entire operational life never being loaded with more than 100 missiles might result in them thinking that 250 tubes might have done the job.

I suspect the best result would be UKSK-M launchers that can be layered with layers of smaller missiles so instead of having to have separate launchers for smaller weapons you can just have more big tubes.

There are plenty of systems on Russian ships like decoy and smoke and IR flare launchers that could be replaced with vertical launch systems to make them more stealthy for instance...

This is not a brand new cruiser so they might decide retaining space for other things might be worth while... remember a ship this size will operate for a long time away from Russia so lots of storage space and space for odd things like drones of all descriptions will be carried and used. Filling every nook and cranny with Kalibr missiles might seem like a good idea... but then they might just build a few shipping cargo carriers designed to carry cruise missiles with onboard cranes so they can load it up with missiles and anchor it off shore in a conflict zone and use the onboard cranes to shift around crates for launch or storage and use that as the arsenal ship... the Kirov class ships using their radar and sensors to guide or target the missiles...

Practise at upgrading the Kirovs should be good experience going forward with designing a new cruiser to eventually replace them though...

Why the heck do idiots (not finger pointing at you Isos Laughing) on this forum seem to think that they know more than experienced Russian military engineers and naval architects when it comes to performing complex ship conversions???? Friggin unbelievable.

Quite true, though I remember having a discussion with an English chap who had been in the Royal Navy and he was sure that vertical launch S-300 type missiles were a horrendous fire danger on ship... imagine if one failed to fire its main rocket motor after being catapulted into the air by the launch mechanism... he said with the weight of the missile the fire would be horrendous... and I couldn't disagree.

We have since seen a vertical launch missile fail on a European ship and start a serious fire on the deck. But we have also seen the main engine failure of a land based S-300 missile where nothing exploded and nothing caught fire...

So the truth is that reality can surprise you and until you test it you really don't know what is going to happen.

I guess the best solution for the engine failure scenario is making sure your ejection charge is generous enough to get the missile over the water. Then if the engine fails, it goes in the drink rather then landing on deck where a delayed start can cause the entire magazine to blow. Maybe that is why the older Russian missiles were angled. Considering how huge they were and maybe with liquid fuels, they were extremely dangerous. One of the British destroyers in the Falklands war (I think the Shaffield) was destroyed purely from residual fuel form the Exocet missile as the warhead failed.

One of the British destroyers in the Falklands war (I think the Shaffield) was destroyed purely from residual fuel form the Exocet missile as the warhead failed.

There is a difference between a missile hit that might have damaged your ability to fight fire on board the ship with the addition of serious damage and an accelerant accelerated fire to deal with, and a missile on deck.

First of all the fuse on the failed missile and all the non fired missiles will be off until activated close to the target so the chance of the warhead exploding is low.

Rocket fuel... whether liquid or solid is highly volatile, but don't be fooled solid rocket fuel burns just as vigorously as liquid fuel... in fact liquid fuel only burns when the different liquids mix, so if only one liquid fuel tank ruptures there might not even be a fire.

The main known accident for the Soviets loading SLBMs into a sub was with an Akula SSBN where an SS-N-20 slipped and broke open and burst into flame... SS-N-20 is a solid rocket fuelled missile. They nicknamed the sub Red October because of the surface damage from the fire.

The forward angle of the Granit missiles on the Kirov was mainly because it would generally be heading towards the carriers it was firing upon... same with the Kiev class carriers and Slava class cruisers. The Granits in the Kuznetsovs seem to be angled forward too just looking at the photo I have seen of a launch.

There will be lots of fail safes in the system and if a fault or problem is found the missile wont be launched. Some way of ejecting faulty missiles would be useful.

Big_Gazza wrote:Nahkimov will have 10x UKSK.  The following appears fairly accurate AFAIK.

I wasn't particularly impressed when posted a while back https://www.russiadefence.net/t780p150-official-peter-the-great-news-thread#251875

But I think this is probably a pretty realistic interpretation.
We know that it has the 80* UKSK cells, it seems pretty certain that the 96* rotary S-300 cells will be retained with relatively minor upgrades to launch S-400 missiles.
64* Redut cells seems comparatively limited by comparison but its still not shonky & has to be considered in context that its supplementary to those 96* S-300 cells for a total 160 SAM VLS cells.
Add to that 6* 32 Pantsir-M missiles for a phenomenal 352 SAMs.