Project 22350: Admiral Sergei Gorshkov #3

That is bad news.... if the long range SAMs are launched from UKSK launch tubes that means the number of Clubs and Calibrs and Zircons that can be carried will be reduced so S-400s and perhaps S-500s can be carried.

I would much prefer the Redut launch tubes be used for the bigger missiles with less padding around the tubes as shown with the 9M96 missiles in the tubes.

Ie more efficient use of the Redut tubes rather than using up the cruise missile and anti sub tubes for air defence tubes.

400km missiles are useless for those ships.

Not at all... the long range missiles are Active radar homing, as are the 60km and 150km range 9M96 missiles so they can hit targets down to just above sea level or ground level as long as you can direct them to the vicinity of the target... they don't need continually tracked targets for the intercept and particularly the S-400 large missiles have rather large radar antenna which means a rather big radar is fitted with decent range (50km+).

The size of the Redut tubes should allow the big S-400 missiles to be loaded along with four x 9M96 missiles and 16 x 9M100 per tube and if they can manage that then that is an efficient way to load the tubes but the UKSK-M launch tubes are 10m deep... loading it with four 9M96 means they are two thirds empty... it would make sense to use the UKSK tubes for the 400km range S-400 missile if you mount 6-10 9M100 missiles on top of it instead of the normal warhead so the missile will fly a high ballistic path 400km towards the enemy and then release 6 to 10 ARH or IIR guided missiles falling from a great height at great speed with their own rocket motors and individually guiding towards targets detected... perhaps have the missiles declare a leader that scans for targets and delegate available missiles to available targets and they then attack the way Soviet anti ship missiles operated in the late 1970s.

The Redut launch tubes and hatches could be a quarter their size if they only carry 9M96 missiles individually and you could have four times more missiles and missile hatches in that case.

Now if the larger launchers are used to house the long range 400km missiles, could the redut/s350 medium range missiles be duel packed? Or say could a single cell hold 6 short range missiles?

The Redut launch tubes seem to be large enough to have S-300 sized missiles, which is the same size as the big S-400 missiles, so they should be able to fit the launch tubes of the smaller S-400 missiles too (9M96).

If that is the case then a 12 tube launcher for Redut could carry up to 12 x 250km or 400km range S-400 large missiles, 12 x 4 150km or 60km range 9M96 missiles (48 missiles in total for the 12 launch tubes), or 12 x 4 x 4 of the small 9M100 missiles that fit four to a 9M96 missile tube which means 192 missiles in 12 launch tubes, or any combination of those missile types.

The problem so far seems to be that the Redut only carries one 9M96 missile per tube which means 12 x 150km or 60km range missile or 48 x 9M100 short range missiles or combinations of the two.

The 9M96 launch tube looks tiny under a Redut hatch.

A UKSK drawing previously shown here included alternative missile options including a single Shtil missile (Naval BUK type) and here it is:



The Key lists the contents of each missile tube from left to right top to bottom the first tube is the Yakhont (Onyx), then Calibre, and the third missile in the tube is 9M96, then the naval Shtil (BUK) and then the four missiles in a tube are the 9M100. The sixth tube are countermeasures with 6 per launch tube, the 7th tube seems to be empty but might be censored... perhaps a drone? and the last tube as the 40N6 large S-400 missile of 400km range.

The land based missiles are better designed in the sense that the full sized missile of the 40N6 in its launch tube is the same calibre as four 9M96 missiles, and each 9M96 missile tube could hold four 9M100 missiles... the 9M100 missiles are 20cm diameter, while the 9M96 missile is 48cm diameter and the 40N6 is 64.5cm diameter, but its launch tube is bigger so four 9M96s fit inside it in their launch tubes.

You still need to track it during all the engagement.

No you don't. You need initial detection and track what direction and speed it is travelling at and calculate the time of arrival of your missile and determine the rough area the target will be in when your missile arrives. After launch you can periodically check the location of the target to see if it has changed speed or direction that might effect its location when your missile arrives... if it has turned 180 degrees and wont be anywhere near the interception point you can calculate a new interception point and send course correction commands to your missile, but you don't need to constantly track the target and send constant course corrections to your missile.

It's not because it has a radar that it can use it like a fighter or ship's radar. Its radar is very basic in the sense it already knows where to look and when to look.

It is not a sophisticated multi mode radar, but it is still a radar that can scan a fairly large area of space in front of the missile to find its target and fly towards it.

Being a very long range missile it would have accelerated and climbed to high altitude so as it comes in for the kill it will be diving down on the target from above at rather high speeds...

And at mach 3 or 4 wheb it engages a target flying at mach 1 it won't have time to scan the airspace with a range of 50km even less against small cruise anti ship missiles.

Their new ARH missiles have AESA arrays and scan electronically... as it gets closer to its target it will get a better and better view.

Who would fire a heavy long range SAM against a cruise missile that wasn't designed for such targets?

If a Russian ship is launching a 400km range SAM to engage incoming anti ship missiles it would be one of the new SAM/AAMs they are developing with small SAMs delivered by a big missile... they will likely have combined ARH and IIR seekers for the purpose of detecting and attacking such targets.

So no what you say is not working.

And you still need an external radar to find a target at such range because at 400km away your ship's radar will see only beyond a certain altitude (radar horizon). Even if you don't need to track it like you say.

Not at all... your ESM suite might detect L band emissions from an area of open empty sea... might be datalink communication, or might be low power radar altimeter preventing a low flying missile from flying into the wavetops... but such emissions would be enough to be worth launching aircraft or drones to investigate... that might detect optically or by further detection of emissions and the triangulation of those emissions to work out a threat in an area that is worth firing a missile at.

A HALE or MALE might detect targets optically and transmit their location... the point is that the SAM carries its own radar and can find its own targets... it just needs basic target information to get it close.

The usefulness of such big missiles is very low without awacs and fighters in the air with datalinks.

Not suggesting the Frigates should only carry 400km range missiles but embark a single Ka-31 on the frigate and you can engage low flying threats out to 250km... the further away you can hit targets the safer your ships are.

The point is that a long range SAM is like a cruise missile... the launch platform does not need to detect the target with its own sensors.

With 9M96 missiles a Russian Corvette might come under attack by a western aircraft operating 200km away trying to stay out of range of its 9M96 missiles and launching missiles attacking the corvette... 500km away behind the attacking aircraft an approaching Gorshkov cruiser can receive target data from the high flying fast aircraft launching missiles at the corvette... 300km behind the enemy aircraft an incoming SAM from behind wont be expected... commanding that area of air space is quite powerful... even if only rarely used.

The point is that these launch tubes are not single launch type tubes like the Fort tubes in the Kirov that could only carry Fort and Fort-M missile types... in this case you can carry 250km or 400km range SAMs or you can carry 1,500km range Zircons or 50km range Otvet missiles.

.they are not for scanning the airspace or detecting small targets over the horizon, like incoming cruise missiles or submarine periscopes.

They can carry Ka-31s AEW or perhaps the new cm wave radar of the new Ka-52K naval attack helicopters might be optimised for those jobs.

Of course that is assuming that drawing of the UKSK or UKSK-M is official and accurate and not just some fan art.

I liked the idea of the launch tubes being scaled to allow different missile combinations with lower numbers of the bigger heavier missile and larger numbers of the smaller lighter missiles.

At 100km a target could be engaged with huge 250km and 400km range missiles at one missile per tube but the smaller more agile 9M96 missiles would probably not only be more efficient but also more capable being smaller lighter and more manouverable but if you can get only one 9M96 missile or one 400km range missile or one 250km range missile, well why not go for the bigger longer ranged missile in case the target appears at greater range.

If you can have one x 250km or 400km range missile or four x 150km or 60km range missiles or 16 x 15km range per launch tube then it becomes rather more flexible.

Having SAMs in the UKSK launch tubes could mean not needing deeper tubes for the Redut SAM tubes... I mean if the Redut tubes can only take 9M96 and 9M100 missiles then they can be mounted on parts of the ship that only have 6.2m of under deck space, whereas if you had to fit the 40N6 missiles you would need almost 2 metres more deck space to allow for the 7.8m depth of those tubes.

UKSK already has 10 metre long missiles so any current known naval SAM will fit in there, but it does limit where those launch tubes can be mounted.

Deck mounted TOR missile tubes could add numbers... especially if it can carry the new short range point defence SAMs for anti artillery missiles they are developing.

In the middle of an ocean with no hills to fly through and no valleys to fly down lots of changes of direction actually are a serious problem for missiles because at sea there are no land marks or distinctive features to update their position... with a land attack cruise missile you can note specific features along the flight of your missile... in fact you can add turns and waypoints to coincide with landmark features to improve the accuracy of your attack.

For instance a prominent rail line next to a main highway could be used for a missile to fly down and a fork or T junction on the road could be used to precisely identify the exact location of the missile even if it has already been flying for 2,000km, flying over a T junction or bridge or other landmark resets the navigation accuracy to as high as it is at launch... no such things at sea so waypoints don't make a lot of sense except to skirt a potential target to hit it from an unexpected direction, but that just costs range and burns fuel.

The whole point of putting a radar in the nose of a missile is so it can find its own targets for itself over the distance it is to its target rather than trying to use a radar from where the missile was launched. The smaller radar wont be as powerful as radar on a ship but moving the radar close to the target makes it much more effective most of the time... especially when the target is in a blind spot like below the radar horizon of the launch platform.

Not being able to see the target and not scanning its position regularly does reduce your chances of hitting it... but equally scanning it continuously will make it realise it is under attack and the earlier it realises this the more it can do about it... it has rather more fuel on board than your missile does so it can climb and accelerate in one direction and then turn 90 degrees and accelerate in that direction and then do that at random every minute or two... the distance that would shift the intercept point with each change of direction would be significant but to start with it wont matter much because a tiny turn by the missile can compensate for a complete 180 degree turn, but as the missile gets closer to the target area the more the direction and speed changes are going to be a problem.

If you at looking at something thousands of km away through binoculars it does not matter if they are moving at enormous speeds, because they are so far away they don't appear to move very far or very fast... the moon slowly tracks across the sky... it is moving rather fast but from the earth you can follow it with a telescope easy enough.

When the object is much closer things are different... relatively fast objects are no longer simple or easy to track and the tiny control surfaces on missiles are not great for turning and following targets.

The point is that if you detect a target 400km away which might be an enemy AWACS aircraft you detected because of its own emissions... they are a valuable target worth taking out... or an inflight refuelling tanker or MPA about to discover your fleet... how you detect the target... by the targets emissions or maybe a friendly platform nearer to the target might detect it and be sending you the target data so you can launch a long range SAM without emitting or giving away your position.

You might even have an Su-57K near the target detecting targets passively with IRST and transmitting target data via satellite link... or acting as its own AWACS using L band wing mounted radar the enemy fighters don't recognise as being air to air radar because HATO uses it as a datalink channel.

When the SAMs come in nearly vertically they wont need precision target information... L band information would be just fine... the missiles would be coming in near vertically downwards so stealth would not be that effective for most aircraft.

You can still do what you say thanks to inertial navigation but the Pk drops dramatically in this mode unless you fire at a airliner flying straight. Anti ship missile are programmed to move and don't go straight for that purpose.

Yeah, I have had Naval discussions with the best on line and have been told that the US Navy is amazing because at the same time it can see everything but also no one even knows they are there because they don't emit anything.

If you are performing a mission this will effect your flying... if you are an MPA hunting subs then you will fly grid patterns which means you will stay in an area and not leave it very much... so a desperate signal from a Yasen Sub that is being approached by two or three MPAs, it would make sense for a nearby Corvette or Frigate to launch a long range SAM to make them leave the area even if they don't get kills, but a missile hunting a ship don't normally fly complex pattern in the open ocean... they will skirt around a target to hit from an unexpected direction but flying random patterns and flightpaths just wastes fuel and has no effect on any outcome.

Equally aircraft on CAP will remain in an area looking for incoming threats, and inflight refuelling aircraft and AWACS platforms will be equally predictable.

Ironically the aircraft that fly the erratic and difficult flightpaths are the ones that are being continuously tracked from great distances...

I rather have a zirkon and fire it at the enemy ship than a 40n6 without awacs around to make it really useful.

One is a land attack and anti ship missile and the other is a heavy long range SAM... you would probably find both to be useful I would think.

A serious threat to any ship is platforms with long range weapons... the solution is to hit the platforms before they launch their weapons because that makes defence rather easier and simpler... Zircon for ships and ground based threats and 40N6 for aircraft.

he Gorshkov is making the headlines over here as the Russians will launch the dreaded Tsirkon in plain sight of the South African and Chinese Navies. wrote:

When will these exercises take place?