Naval Air Defence systems

GarryB wrote:Not totally clear but it seems from the article that there will be two versions... one for upgrading existing ships and one for new designs.

I would expect the model for new designs is a more stealthy design perhaps?

Perhaps, as it is with the AK-630.

Palma testing:

Here is another air defense system called Komar (from Ratep).

Model of the Naval Pantsir at The Naval Show in St. Petersburg.
More photos coming up in the Navy Thread.

Mods.
In my opinion this thread should be merged with the other one. We have too many threads and it makes the forum less user friendly as members have to follow too many threads.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M-11_Shtorm

The 4K60/41K65 missiles are carried in pairs on rotating twin rail launchers and fly at between Mach 2 and 3. They are 6.1 m (20 ft) long, weigh 845 kg (1863 lb) each with an 80 kg (176 lb) warheads. The effective altitude is around 100–25000 m (328-82,000 ft) and the earlier missiles have an engagement range of 3–30 km (2–19 miles) while the 41K65 extends the maximum range to 55 km (34 mi). Guidance is via radio command with terminal semi-active radar homing (SARH).

this is a dual role weapon , so I'm assuming in the anti-ship role too its range of the 41K65 is 55 km ? not just in the the SAM role ?

GarryB wrote:Most heavy SAMs have an ground to ground capability... the Shtil is known to have an anti surface capacity too.

Range is generally limited to line of sight so the target cannot be below the horizon... and must be visible to the launch vessels sensors.

would be interesting to see if they were nuke tipped

GarryB wrote:Most heavy SAMs have an ground to ground capability... the Shtil is known to have an anti surface capacity too.

Range is generally limited to line of sight so the target cannot be below the horizon... and must be visible to the launch vessels sensors.

Which begs the question, when the VKS inducts the S-500 in to service, will NATO scream bloody murder claiming the S-500s existence is a violation of the INF Treaty, and demand it be taken out of service? As you already know, given the opportunity, NATO will grasp more straws then the ending scene in the Wizard of Oz movie:

magnumcromagnon wrote:Which begs the question, when the VKS inducts the S-500 in to service, will NATO scream bloody murder claiming the S-500s existence is a violation of the INF Treaty, and demand it be taken out of service? As you already know, given the opportunity, NATO will grasp more straws then the ending scene in the Wizard of Oz movie:

Extremely unlikely, The INF treaty restricts Ballistic and Cruise Missiles, it does not restrict AA missiles, unless the U.S desperately tries to claim that the S-500 missiles are cruise missiles.

One could say that this can also be used to defend the U.S ABMs in Europe, but the problem for that is not the missile but it's launcher, which is the exact same as those used on ships, which is strictly against the INF treaty.

S-500 falls under ABM Treaty which US scrapped.

AlfaT8 wrote:

magnumcromagnon wrote:Which begs the question, when the VKS inducts the S-500 in to service, will NATO scream bloody murder claiming the S-500s existence is a violation of the INF Treaty, and demand it be taken out of service? As you already know, given the opportunity, NATO will grasp more straws then the ending scene in the Wizard of Oz movie:

Extremely unlikely, The INF treaty restricts Ballistic and Cruise Missiles, it does not restrict AA missiles, unless the U.S desperately tries to claim that the S-500 missiles are cruise missiles.

One could say that this can also be used to defend the U.S ABMs in Europe, but the problem for that is not the missile but it's launcher, which is the exact same as those used on ships, which is strictly against the INF treaty.

That's the point, they'll grasp any straw available to them...Long tubes with missile like objects contained within them is all the evidence they need...

max steel wrote:S-500 falls under ABM Treaty which US scrapped.

Let's put this in to perspective. NATO pulled out of the CFE Treaty long before Russia did, but it didn't stop them from reprimanding about the 'Russkie Threat' to Europe when Russia finally decided to abandon the now defunct treaty. I mean the same people claimed Russia was isolated when predominately only North America and Europe cut ties with Russia, while the overwhelming majority of Asia (with the exception being Japan), Africa, South America refused to follow NATO's lead on breaking diplomatic ties. That's the overwhelming majority of the worlds population, and I don't even think America + Canada + Japan + E.U. makes even 1 billion people...something like 10-20 million short of a billion people.  



...So repeat after me children "Treaties only apply to non-NATO members"...

GarryB wrote:Most of the large SAMs the Russian Navy used had warheads of 50-150kgs so they could easily have carried nuclear warheads... and in the ground role would be the only rational reason for using Nukes.

Actually from memory I seem to recall mention that the BUK was particularly accurate in the ground to ground role.

In the ASUW role you mean by " ground role"?

Sorry to jump in, but i have been wondering what is the difference between the Kashtan and the Pantsir with respects to naval CIWS, and is the Pantsir going to replace the Kashtan, if so why, when a cheaper modernized version could do just the same?

GarryB wrote:Kashtan is Tunguska M1, but with 30mm gatling guns instead of twin barrel cannon and Kashtan-M is Pantsir but with 30mm gatlings instead of single barrel 30mm cannon.

Kashtan has 8km range missiles and two 30mm gatling guns, Kashtan-M has 12k range missiles and longer barrel 30mm gatlings with 960m/s muzzle velocity and better range with improved sensors and drives for better aiming accuracy and faster aiming.

Pantsir-S1 and Pantsir-SM have longer ranged missiles (20km and 40km range respectively) and offer better performance for vessels.

and both Kashtan+Pantsir-M use same gattlings AO–18KD )

Alright.

GarryB wrote:

and both Kashtan+Pantsir-M use same gattlings AO–18KD

Are you sure?

I thought the Kashtan used the original AO-18K, but the Kashtan-M and Palma used the longer barrel AO-18KD...

You´re right. I meant Kashtan M and Pantsir M apology