Future russian aircraft carriers. #3

Ideally, it would make sense to have it in the Pac. Fleet, but the SSBN bastion there is well protected by air & naval bases on Kamchatka, Sakhalin & the Kurils; moving it to the Black or Barents Sea won't be cheap.
The CV-17 & CVN-18/-19 crews will be trained on the CV-16. By the time China has 3-4 CVNs, the CV-16 will need a major overhaul.
They won't do it just before selling it to Russia, & it would be too expensive for her to buy it anyway. The Russian yards will be too busy building & refitting other ships & subs to get involved with the CV-16.
The Kra-Canal could be of an enormous economical benefit to Thailand and it could become a center of gravity for trade between the Pacific and Indian Ocean. The plan is to develop an industrial zone for heavy industry, including dry-dock and ship-building facilities and a deep-sea port at the canal entrances.
https://www.iims.org.uk/kra-canal-project/
https://thaimilitaryandasianregion.wordpress.com/2016/11/26/the-kra-canal-and-the-reform-of-thailand/

In 10-15 years, the Kra Canal will be built & Thailand may want to buy a 2nd CV to replace it's own, now useless & w/o STOVLs:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HTMS_Chakri_Naruebet

The Kra Canal will be to the RTN CG what the Panama Canal is to the USN & CG.

GarryB wrote:But what sort of payload are these high speed helos going to be able to manage... to achieve those speeds they will be sleek low drag designs... so likely no external rocket pods or large missile packs like current attack helos... and likely not heavily armoured either.

Chief designer at Kamov already said some time ago that he sees the future helicopter as faster, streamlined, with weapons integrated in bays. The model leaked fulfils his statements. This layout would be completely different and new technology so we would need to see how it would be used and with what capabilities. Rolling TO could be used for instance for increased payload, a bit like a different form of STOVL plane. Ceiling would be also potentially higher than normal helos due to the wings, plus long range missiles like Hermes and strongly increased speed could mean better survivability despite maybe less armour.

Personally I think cruise missiles for deep strike for navy vessels, and a few gun vessels with 152mm and 203mm naval guns to offer NGS.

Cost and flexibility of dumb bombs dropped with SVP24 have proven difficult to beat IMHO. You would need intelligent ammo to come close to its precision with a cannon and despite the amount of explosive delivered would be quite smaller. Cannons would be range limited, CMs expensive in comparison.

In general I think the experience in Syria shows that most important aspect for strike is intelligence and proper coordination. Then a limited number of aircraft can make a big difference, but reducing its operational costs (compare flight hour costs of helos and jet fighters) would always be welcome.

Sure a new carrier with su-57 would be thousand times better but unlikely they got it any time soon.

Even if they took possession of the now Chinese carrier, it would take 4-5 years just to rip the guts out of it and replace it with their own systems and equipment and get it back into the water...

They recently flew Tu-160s to Venezuela and I am sure they would like to follow that up with a visit by the Russian Navy, but really they need to expand their existing fleet before they start doing too much of that... they need at least 3-4 destroyer sized vessels and a cruiser to go... and by then the Kuznetsov will be out of refit and will be needing a decent trip to stretch its legs and test the new equipment and upgrades.

Plus K class can carry big su-33 which means any new smaller and lighter VTOL mig could be used without big changes neither on the deck neither in the hangar neither on the lift.

It certainly can operate the Su-33, though it was expected that the slightly larger Ulyanovsk class carrier that was to replace the Kuznetsov class would be the main platform for the Flankers...

Wires and engines are already new, chinese build but new.

New systems and equipment would need new wiring...

Kuznetsov was in a very bad situation that's why it needed an upgrade.

Changes in technology means a lot of equipment and wiring just would not cut it today... the original very likely did not have much fibre optic cable at all... as an example. Communication wires might have operated at fax speed rather than broadband speed today...

Weapons system can be removed and install only pantsirs and paket nk. It will have escort anyway to protect it from missiles. Radar and russian computers could be installed easily.

Russian carriers are not American carriers... they will likely want to fit UKSK launchers and also Redut and naval S-500 for their new carriers.

On the current Kuznetsov they might consider eventually fitting S-500 in the Granit launcher area, or they might go with UKSK... the Granit launchers on the Oscars allowed three Onyx missiles per Granit, so if the same holds true with the Kuznetsov that would mean up to three UKSK launchers could be fitted into the space if the dimensions allow... potentially for 36 Zircon anti ship hypersonic missiles... by 2022 they should know...

Ceiling would be also potentially higher than normal helos due to the wings, plus long range missiles like Hermes and strongly increased speed could mean better survivability despite maybe less armour.

Except that we know from experience with MiG-15 through to MiG-27 that fast is not necessarily better for ground attack... hence the Su-25.

For delivering troops, I think faster helos make sense, but not for ground attack...

Cost and flexibility of dumb bombs dropped with SVP24 have proven difficult to beat IMHO. You would need intelligent ammo to come close to its precision with a cannon and despite the amount of explosive delivered would be quite smaller. Cannons would be range limited, CMs expensive in comparison.

To support a landing most of the main targets will be on or near the beach... a NGS vessel with a couple of 152mm turrets firing to 70km, and perhaps a couple of 203mm guns firing to perhaps 120km or so with Glonass guided shells should not be too expensive... and the rate of fire with naval guns with water cooled barrels should be rather high... I have read that the naval 152mm gun can fire at about 20 rounds per minute and the ship could carry thousands of rounds, so all weather, day/night support with relatively cheap artillery shells.

For targets deeper in the enemy rear, then aircraft from a fixed wing carrier with a mix of guided and unguided weapons would allow deep strikes relatively cheaply, but in the situation where the enemy actually has modern defences then SEAD armed fighters plus cruise missile and hypersonic missile attack could be the better options.

In general I think the experience in Syria shows that most important aspect for strike is intelligence and proper coordination. Then a limited number of aircraft can make a big difference, but reducing its operational costs (compare flight hour costs of helos and jet fighters) would always be welcome.

Indeed, their first focus from 2008 to about 2015 was C4IR, and it shows they got the results they wanted... finding and IDing targets is the first critical part of the operation. Communicating that to the relevant attack platform is the next step... but that attack platform could be a range of platforms in the near future including manned and unmanned platforms or weapons.

GarryB wrote:

Sure a new carrier with su-57 would be thousand times better but unlikely they got it any time soon.

Even if they took possession of the now Chinese carrier, it would take 4-5 years just to rip the guts out of it and replace it with their own systems and equipment and get it back into the water...

They recently flew Tu-160s to Venezuela and I am sure they would like to follow that up with a visit by the Russian Navy, but really they need to expand their existing fleet before they start doing too much of that... they need at least 3-4 destroyer sized vessels and a cruiser to go... and by then the Kuznetsov will be out of refit and will be needing a decent trip to stretch its legs and test the new equipment and upgrades.

Plus K class can carry big su-33 which means any new smaller and lighter VTOL mig could be used without big changes neither on the deck neither in the hangar neither on the lift.

It certainly can operate the Su-33, though it was expected that the slightly larger Ulyanovsk class carrier that was to replace the Kuznetsov class would be the main platform for the Flankers...

Wires and engines are already new, chinese build but new.

New systems and equipment would need new wiring...

Kuznetsov was in a very bad situation that's why it needed an upgrade.

Changes in technology means a lot of equipment and wiring just would not cut it today... the original very likely did not have much fibre optic cable at all... as an example. Communication wires might have operated at fax speed rather than broadband speed today...

Weapons system can be removed and install only pantsirs and paket nk. It will have escort anyway to protect it from missiles. Radar and russian computers could be installed easily.

Russian carriers are not American carriers... they will likely want to fit UKSK launchers and also Redut and naval S-500 for their new carriers.

On the current Kuznetsov they might consider eventually fitting S-500 in the Granit launcher area, or they might go with UKSK... the Granit launchers on the Oscars allowed three Onyx missiles per Granit, so if the same holds true with the Kuznetsov that would mean up to three UKSK launchers could be fitted into the space if the dimensions allow... potentially for 36 Zircon anti ship hypersonic missiles... by 2022 they should know...

Ceiling would be also potentially higher than normal helos due to the wings, plus long range missiles like Hermes and strongly increased speed could mean better survivability despite maybe less armour.

Except that we know from experience with MiG-15 through to MiG-27 that fast is not necessarily better for ground attack... hence the Su-25.

For delivering troops, I think faster helos make sense, but not for ground attack...

Cost and flexibility of dumb bombs dropped with SVP24 have proven difficult to beat IMHO. You would need intelligent ammo to come close to its precision with a cannon and despite the amount of explosive delivered would be quite smaller. Cannons would be range limited, CMs expensive in comparison.

To support a landing most of the main targets will be on or near the beach... a NGS vessel with a couple of 152mm turrets firing to 70km, and perhaps a couple of 203mm guns firing to perhaps 120km or so with Glonass guided shells should not be too expensive... and the rate of fire with naval guns with water cooled barrels should be rather high... I have read that the naval 152mm gun can fire at about 20 rounds per minute and the ship could carry thousands of rounds, so all weather, day/night support with relatively cheap artillery shells.

For targets deeper in the enemy rear, then aircraft from a fixed wing carrier with a mix of guided and unguided weapons would allow deep strikes relatively cheaply, but in the situation where the enemy actually has modern defences then SEAD armed fighters plus cruise missile and hypersonic missile attack could be the better options.

In general I think the experience in Syria shows that most important aspect for strike is intelligence and proper coordination. Then a limited number of aircraft can make a big difference, but reducing its operational costs (compare flight hour costs of helos and jet fighters) would always be welcome.

Indeed, their first focus from 2008 to about 2015 was C4IR, and it shows they got the results they wanted... finding and IDing targets is the first critical part of the operation. Communicating that to the relevant attack platform is the next step... but that attack platform could be a range of platforms in the near future including manned and unmanned platforms or weapons.

One more new idiocy and ignorance, common on this Forum! 152/203mm systems to fire at the range of 70/120km!!!???. There is no classical ammunition, even ERFB/BB, super, hyper BB, or else to fire at such range. You need state of the art guided/homing ammunition, whose price will soon amount to 1 million $ for a single 203mm missile of doubtful usefulness, not to talk about HE effect on target of one single 50kg warhead! What kind of C4I would you need to achieve accuracy on such range. Counter-battery radars, UAVs, what kind of UNOBSTRUCTED surveillance on the battlefield in real war. KINDERGARDEN THOUGHTS!

mutantsushi wrote:

Paper data is one thing, but real chance of hitting something 60km far is nearing 0. Of course you can use guided ammo, but it is prohibitively expensive  & makes very small amount of total quantity of rounds. Not to mention destructive effect of one/two hits of 127mm caliber on 5.000tD frigate, which is small, except if it directly hits C&C quarters or powerplant! . The recent catastrophe of RNM Helge Ingstad frigate tells a lot about design flaws and vulnerability of modern fighting ship. Shame!

USN MK51 AGS LRLAP is cancelled as foolishly expensive and of doubtful efficiency! One LRLAP missile round amounts to 1million $!!! which is completely mad thing!

GarryB wrote:For delivering troops, I think faster helos make sense, but not for ground attack...

Time critical targets need as fast an aircraft as possible. Also ceiling and speed affect the engagement window of any AD weapon, and also of the own offensive means. An important issue to survive missile attacks would be the manoeuvrability of the aircraft, since the rotor is not loaded during high speed operation it is possible that the overloads attainable would be substantially higher than in current helicopters, maybe even approaching that of fixed wing aircraft. With the added advantage in this case that the high speed helo can do all those things normal ones do, like using low speed and altitude to hide.

To support a landing most of the main targets will be on or near the beach... a NGS vessel with a couple of 152mm turrets firing to 70km, and perhaps a couple of 203mm guns firing to perhaps 120km or so with Glonass guided shells should not be too expensive... and the rate of fire with naval guns with water cooled barrels should be rather high... I have read that the naval 152mm gun can fire at about 20 rounds per minute and the ship could carry thousands of rounds, so all weather, day/night support with relatively cheap artillery shells.

Artillery is always the best solution for cheap attack at short range, but at the distances you mention you would need ammo which is currently very expensive , way more than dumb bombs. And you don't want your ships exposed to the same kind of retaliatory bombardment from land so you need to be far from the shore in any case. And remember the Syrian lesson is rather to increase the size of the warhead than to reduce it, in order to destroy fortification work of the enemy and compensate for less than perfect precision.

Indeed, their first focus from 2008 to about 2015 was C4IR, and it shows they got the results they wanted... finding and IDing targets is the first critical part of the operation. Communicating that to the relevant attack platform is the next step... but that attack platform could be a range of platforms in the near future including manned and unmanned platforms or weapons.

Yes, for COIN a very good solution would be a long endurance UCAV, but I don't know if that could be practically deployed from LHDs.

kumbor wrote:

mutantsushi wrote:

Paper data is one thing, but real chance of hitting something 60km far is nearing 0. Of course you can use guided ammo, but it is prohibitively expensive  & makes very small amount of total quantity of rounds. Not to mention destructive effect of one/two hits of 127mm caliber on 5.000tD frigate, which is small, except if it directly hits C&C quarters or powerplant! . The recent catastrophe of RNM Helge Ingstad frigate tells a lot about design flaws and vulnerability of modern fighting ship. Shame!

USN MK51 AGS LRLAP is cancelled as foolishly expensive and of doubtful efficiency! One LRLAP missile round amounts to 1million $!!! which is completely mad thing!

To my knowledge cost per round was about 450.000 USD for those 150 ordered for testing. It was to cost 35-40.000 USD per piece upon serial production starts. Basically similar price to modern guided shells used in howtizers.

One more new idiocy and ignorance, common on this Forum!

I find your tone rather disrespectful.

152/203mm systems to fire at the range of 70/120km

The 152mm Coalition land based artillery system has a range of 70km... that is a fact.

It is known that the land based Coalition was a joint development with the navy to produce a long range artillery weapon, so a naval version was also designed and tested.

There is no classical ammunition, even ERFB/BB, super, hyper BB, or else to fire at such range.

They have stated that the guided rounds reach 70km and the standard rounds 50km. I would expect no less for the naval rounds.

You need state of the art guided/homing ammunition, whose price will soon amount to 1 million $ for a single 203mm missile of doubtful usefulness, not to talk about HE effect on target of one single 50kg warhead!

We are talking about Russian weapons, not gold plated American ones... and 152mm shells are 45kgs, 203mm shells would be more like 110kgs... which is pretty much equivalent to half the weight of a normal aircraft delivered bomb... which has plenty of effect as long as it is accurate enough.

What kind of C4I would you need to achieve accuracy on such range. Counter-battery radars, UAVs, what kind of UNOBSTRUCTED surveillance on the battlefield in real war. KINDERGARDEN THOUGHTS!

Of course... kindergarten amateurs... that is what the Russian Navy is... they would never consider recon... they just fire their guns at random for shock and awe...

Now if you have finished being a dick...

The Russian Army has decided to not retire their 203mm guns and 240mm mortars, and to keep them operational for situations where their special features might be more useful than standard weapons. Situations like mountain warfare or urban warfare... which means keeping the 203mm and 240mm ammo in production... in fact continuing to develop new guided rounds for those weapons.

But obviously I am being unreasonable to suggest that if the Army wants to keep 203mm ammo and weapons that the navy might want to introduce a 203mm version of a 152mm gun they have already joint developed with the army.

But if they do introduce a 203mm gun... what are the chances it will have a 30km range, when the 152mm gun is known to have a range of 70km?

Naw... that is all just kiddy stuff... why would the Russian navy expect their gun artillery to have performance figures like US naval gun artillery? ... after all it is not a race...

Paper data is one thing, but real chance of hitting something 60km far is nearing 0. Of course you can use guided ammo, but it is prohibitively expensive & makes very small amount of total quantity of rounds. Not to mention destructive effect of one/two hits of 127mm caliber on 5.000tD frigate, which is small, except if it directly hits C&C quarters or powerplant! . The recent catastrophe of RNM Helge Ingstad frigate tells a lot about design flaws and vulnerability of modern fighting ship. Shame!

We are talking about NGS.... naval gunfire support... if the target is a 5,000 ton frigate then they would use anti ship missiles obviously.

If the target is inland and is a machine gun position firing on Russian troops during a beach landing then a 40kg HE shell from 70kms away is just the ticket to make them go night night...

Besides... a 40kg HE shell through the bridge front window would certainly effect the performance of any corvette or frigate... while a tanker that refuses to stop can be stopped with a 40kg shell just below the water line on the bow... unless it wants to sink...

USN MK51 AGS LRLAP is cancelled as foolishly expensive and of doubtful efficiency! One LRLAP missile round amounts to 1million $!!! which is completely mad thing!

All calibres of Russian artillery have guided rounds and they are not expensive... in fact even the french have bought them for their 155mm guns... Krasnopol-M.

there was talk of a new fuse for Russian artillery of 152mm and larger calibre that has control fins and replaces the nose fuse of the old rounds that turns them into GLONASS guided shells... less than $1,000 each... which is pretty damn cheap if you ask me.

Putin has already stated that guided rounds are a good way forward so that fewer rounds will be needed to get the job done... and do the job faster which is also important too.

An important issue to survive missile attacks would be the manoeuvrability of the aircraft, since the rotor is not loaded during high speed operation it is possible that the overloads attainable would be substantially higher than in current helicopters, maybe even approaching that of fixed wing aircraft. With the added advantage in this case that the high speed helo can do all those things normal ones do, like using low speed and altitude to hide.

Sorry, I can't agree with that... if you think an aircraft can dodge incoming modern missiles then you are not being serious... most would flash past in an instant with no time to manouver...

Artillery is always the best solution for cheap attack at short range, but at the distances you mention you would need ammo which is currently very expensive , way more than dumb bombs.

I disagree... we know US attempts to create accurate long range artillery are expensive, but we also know that shorter range guided artillery rounds are widely used by Russia and are a fraction of the cost of western equivalents.

And remember the Syrian lesson is rather to increase the size of the warhead than to reduce it, in order to destroy fortification work of the enemy and compensate for less than perfect precision.

Precision means smaller payloads can still be effective... old cruise missiles with a CEP of 250metres would only be effective with a nuclear warhead because they could miss the target by 250m or more. A CEP of 5 metres means it will at least hit the building so a 400kg warhead can be used... if the CEP was 10cm then you could probably make it a kinetic weapon with no warhead for killing individual people...

Yes, for COIN a very good solution would be a long endurance UCAV, but I don't know if that could be practically deployed from LHDs.

I am talking about a separate NGS ship... a vessel designed to provide dedicated gunfire support to landing or landed troops.

Guns on carriers for fire support would need enormous range to keep the carrier a safe distance from the shore.

As I said a Coalition gun on a Serna landing craft could be deployed offshore to fire on targets on land during the landing and then once the position is secured they could land and provide support as the ground forces moved inland...

GarryB wrote:there was talk of a new fuse for Russian artillery of 152mm and larger calibre that has control fins and replaces the nose fuse of the old rounds that turns them into GLONASS guided shells... less than $1,000 each... which is pretty damn cheap if you ask me.

Was unaware of such prices, have you got some link? In that case the scenario changes of course

Sorry, I can't agree with that... if you think an aircraft can dodge incoming modern missiles then you are not being serious... most would flash past in an instant with no time to manouver...

Not so fast... helos in low-level conflicts are shot down with AAA, ATGMs, MANPADS and the like. The same way speed + overload capability helps a plane attack and egress in the needed time window to escape AD it would help a helo against more basic assets like the ones mentioned above. Nobody is talking about a helo dodging a modern SAM...

I disagree... we know US attempts to create accurate long range artillery are expensive, but we also know that shorter range guided artillery rounds are widely used by Russia and are a fraction of the cost of western equivalents.

OK, would be great to have examples

Precision means smaller payloads can still be effective... old cruise missiles with a CEP of 250metres would only be effective with a nuclear warhead because they could miss the target by 250m or more. A CEP of 5 metres means it will at least hit the building so a 400kg warhead can be used... if the CEP was 10cm then you could probably make it a kinetic weapon with no warhead for killing individual people...

Yes this logic is clear, and it is clear also that Russia will use an increasing amount of guided munitions. But in practical terms reaching certain level of precision is very difficult and very expensive. A big blast makes your ordnance less reliant on sensitive guidance and this has been noticed and put in practice in Syria

I am talking about a separate NGS ship... a vessel designed to provide dedicated gunfire support to landing or landed troops.

OK. Any existing proposal of a ship of this kind? Battleship comes to mind, and they were all decommissioned. Calibre of modern naval cannons is substantially smaller now and it does not seem there is a big push to change this. The rail gun on the Zumwalts was to be the substitute but I don't see it is going anywhere soon. So NGS is supposed to be pursued still but I don't see real determined efforts, with the focus being rather on missiles and air power.

Guns on carriers for fire support would need enormous range to keep the carrier a safe distance from the shore.

Agreed, but they could house rail guns with long range. Since we are talking about future systems...
A specially designed rail gun maybe could make the projectile overloads small enough to launch missiles without booster and heavily increased warhead sizes to very long ranges and at reduced costs.

As I said a Coalition gun on a Serna landing craft could be deployed offshore to fire on targets on land during the landing and then once the position is secured they could land and provide support as the ground forces moved inland...

The land based opponent would have a huge advantage in numbers, being able to base their artillery on land. Would the Serna or similar landing craft withstand this use?

Krasnopol was trialed by French like decade and half ago togerher with designs from Sweden, US, South Africa, South Korea... it was never obtained in quantities nor introduced in service.

LMFS wrote:

GarryB wrote:there was talk of a new fuse for Russian artillery of 152mm and larger calibre that has control fins and replaces the nose fuse of the old rounds that turns them into GLONASS guided shells... less than $1,000 each... which is pretty damn cheap if you ask me.

Was unaware of such prices, have you got some link? In that case the scenario changes of course

Sorry, I can't agree with that... if you think an aircraft can dodge incoming modern missiles then you are not being serious... most would flash past in an instant with no time to manouver...

Not so fast... helos in low-level conflicts are shot down with AAA, ATGMs, MANPADS and the like. The same way speed + overload capability helps a plane attack and egress in the needed time window to escape AD it would help a helo against more basic assets like the ones mentioned above. Nobody is talking about a helo dodging a modern SAM...

I disagree... we know US attempts to create accurate long range artillery are expensive, but we also know that shorter range guided artillery rounds are widely used by Russia and are a fraction of the cost of western equivalents.

OK, would be great to have examples

Precision means smaller payloads can still be effective... old cruise missiles with a CEP of 250metres would only be effective with a nuclear warhead because they could miss the target by 250m or more. A CEP of 5 metres means it will at least hit the building so a 400kg warhead can be used... if the CEP was 10cm then you could probably make it a kinetic weapon with no warhead for killing individual people...

Yes this logic is clear, and it is clear also that Russia will use an increasing amount of guided munitions. But in practical terms reaching certain level of precision is very difficult and very expensive. A big blast makes your ordnance less reliant on sensitive guidance and this has been noticed and put in practice in Syria

I am talking about a separate NGS ship... a vessel designed to provide dedicated gunfire support to landing or landed troops.

OK. Any existing proposal of a ship of this kind? Battleship comes to mind, and they were all decommissioned. Calibre of modern naval cannons is substantially smaller now and it does not seem there is a big push to change this. The rail gun on the Zumwalts was to be the substitute but I don't see it is going anywhere soon. So NGS is supposed to be pursued still but I don't see real determined efforts, with the focus being rather on missiles and air power.

Guns on carriers for fire support would need enormous range to keep the carrier a safe distance from the shore.

Agreed, but they could house rail guns with long range. Since we are talking about future systems...
A specially designed rail gun maybe could make the projectile overloads small enough to launch missiles without booster and heavily increased warhead sizes to very long ranges and at reduced costs.

As I said a Coalition gun on a Serna landing craft could be deployed offshore to fire on targets on land during the landing and then once the position is secured they could land and provide support as the ground forces moved inland...

The land based opponent would have a huge advantage in numbers, being able to base their artillery on land. Would the Serna or similar landing craft withstand this use?

Light construction of fast landing craft cannot withstand huge forces of 152mm gun fired! Maybe if specially strengthened and still in the water, not mowing, but than that won`t be Serna LC anymore.

Was unaware of such prices, have you got some link? In that case the scenario changes of course

Austin wrote:The Russian army will receive from the satellite-guided bombs
http://www.izvestia.ru/news/504342

   Moscow Design Bureau "Compass" - one of the major Russian developers of navigation for the Armed Forces - successfully tested GLONASS navigation module for artillery ammunition.

   The new module, created under the "Dynamics", can be installed on new shells, and the existing ones, said, "Izvestia," a source in the Defense Ministry.

   - Module Development "Compass" can be screwed into the head of the artillery shells of 152 mm and above, at the regular place of fuse. It includes a combination fuze, GLONASS receiver and control surfaces - aerodynamic control surfaces, which are arranged in the flight path of the projectile and correct, - said the source "Izvestia".

   In contrast, shells, controlled by a laser beam, the projectile with the module "Dynamics" does not depend on weather conditions and does not require external illumination purposes, so you can quickly hit point targets with known coordinates. Circular error probable modernized so the shell does not exceed 10 m, whereas for conventional 152-mm shells at long range shooting, it may be 100 m or more.

   Russian version of the modernization of ammunition allows the shells with a satellite-guided considerably more expensive than 155-mm projectile American Excalibur from guided by GPS. This missile, equipped with a gas generator and built-in rudder, it is worth more than $ 80 thousand is expected that a large batch of its price should fall to $ 50 thousand Domestic module which allows to upgrade existing missiles in storage, will cost a little more than $ 1 thousand, explained " Izvestia, "a source in the military-industrial complex.

   - The module can be used for both the old shells, as well as new, but in any case it will be much cheaper than American products. Russian scientists have been able to achieve sustainable GLONASS signal reception on the rotating shell, whereas the American "Excalibur" to stop its rotation to get a navigation signal. This greatly complicates and increases the cost of its construction, - the interlocutor of the newspaper.

   According to the chief editor of trade magazine "Arsenal" Victor Murakhovski, the new Russian design - a real revolution in artillery.

   - With the new shell can be reused to reduce the consumption of ammunition. When firing conventional ammunition to the platoon strong point to 1.8 thousand rounds, and then require ten times less. Shooting accuracy modernized missiles do not fall from a distance - it will be the same regardless of whether we shoot a 5 km or 50 km. This allows you to instantly strike any target, the main thing - to know their coordinates, which can be obtained from the reconnaissance drones and other sources - said the expert.

   Murakhovski also noted that the low price of the module allows you to quickly equip the artillery units more guided missiles, with no additional upgrade themselves do not need guns.

   However, the director of the Center for Military Forecasting Anatoly Tsyganok said that for effective use of such shells in the military system lacks precision targeting.

   - Deep exploration to solve other problems, and no guidance on its long-range artillery will not be distracted. Satellite controls all field and there will not be reconfigured for each instrument, - said the Gypsy.

   In his opinion, direct high-precision bombs to unmanned spy planes, which in the Russian army yet.

   Back to top

Note this is from 2011, and the targeting issues for the Russian Army have clearly been addressed too.




https://www.russiadefence.net/t1606p25-russian-gun-artillery-discussion-thread

Original link:

https://iz.ru/news/504342

OK, would be great to have examples

Examples of Soviet/Russian guided gun launched munitions?

AFAIK they have guided rounds for all their gun and mortar calibres 100mm and bigger that are in first line service... that includes missiles for the different 100mm guns... (ie BMP-3 100mm rifled gun, 100mm rifled gun of the T-54/55 tank, and smoothbore 100mm gun of the MT-12, they have a guided 120mm mortar round, and a 122mm guided round, as well as the 125mm rounds of various types including Svir and Sokol-1, and of course their naval 100mm guns and 130mm guns, while their 152mm guns have guided shells of course... both old and new, and they had guided shells for their 160mm mortar and 180mm guns too, though they are likely disused along with the weapons. And of course they have 203mm and 240mm guided rounds as well.)

Yes this logic is clear, and it is clear also that Russia will use an increasing amount of guided munitions. But in practical terms reaching certain level of precision is very difficult and very expensive. A big blast makes your ordnance less reliant on sensitive guidance and this has been noticed and put in practice in Syria

Yeah but big blasts can be counter productive... being able to deal with a point target using a direct fire 82mm gun/mortar that directly hits the target with a 4kg projectile is often going to be quicker and easier and cheaper than lobbing a 110kg 203mm shell from enormous range from an enormous gun that might land within 10m of the target...

Having to take out the whole city block because accuracy is expensive is fine for WWIII, but in local wars where you spent all this money on target acquisition and identification capabilities, you might as well just destroy the target and leave everything else more or less intact if you can.

OK. Any existing proposal of a ship of this kind? Battleship comes to mind, and they were all decommissioned.

They were decomissioned because they were old battleships not actually designed for the role at hand.

Calibre of modern naval cannons is substantially smaller now and it does not seem there is a big push to change this.

But accuracy and range make modern guns even more valuable in many ways.

The rail gun on the Zumwalts was to be the substitute but I don't see it is going anywhere soon.

Work on EMALS could lead to a bomb thrower that might be useful with smaller bomb weights... especially with a nose mounted fuse with a GLONASS guidance package that allows it some ability to steer.

So NGS is supposed to be pursued still but I don't see real determined efforts, with the focus being rather on missiles and air power.

Perhaps it is waiting for the right technology to be developed... missiles are effective, but not so cost effective... putting the aiming and propulsion into the gun launch platform makes the projectiles much simpler and cheaper...

Agreed, but they could house rail guns with long range. Since we are talking about future systems...
A specially designed rail gun maybe could make the projectile overloads small enough to launch missiles without booster and heavily increased warhead sizes to very long ranges and at reduced costs.

Or maximise the overloads to get best performance and simplify the projectile so it can take enormous acceleration forces on launch... some sort of nose or tail mounted scramjet motor to negate drag and extend range...

The land based opponent would have a huge advantage in numbers, being able to base their artillery on land. Would the Serna or similar landing craft withstand this use?

If they pick a landing area that is well defended it would need extensive artillery preparation before any attack... as the ground forces are landed and move forward the Coalitions could provide fire support to those ground units... the ground units requesting fire support could lase the targets they want hit directly, so it is the equivalent of giving front line ground troops 40kg HE rounds they can direct simply by pointing a laser at the target and making a radio call.


The ideal fire support.

And the ability for ground forces on land to hit a moving landing craft... well good luck with that...

Obviously firing from a moving landing craft would reduce accuracy, but laser guided shells would correct that...

Krasnopol was trialed by French like decade and half ago togerher with designs from Sweden, US, South Africa, South Korea... it was never obtained in quantities nor introduced in service.

The frogs backed out of another deal with the Russians... what a shock... no surprises there I guess.

They did select it as their winner however.

And the actual original system entered Soviet service in the Mid 1980s... and it has been used in Syria to great effect too.

Light construction of fast landing craft cannot withstand huge forces of 152mm gun fired! Maybe if specially strengthened and still in the water, not mowing, but than that won`t be Serna LC anymore.

Water is an excellent medium to absorb recoil force, and the gun mechanism itself is designed to absorb some of the force too.

They could easily design a shock absorbing platform for the vehicle to sit on in the Serna when it fires...

GunshipDemocracy wrote:

Isos wrote:Do you think it is possible that Russia buys back chinese Kuznetsov once they got their domestical carriers ? The ships looks very good, better than Russian K. They did a very good job but looks like they keep it only for training.

Two kuznetsov with 24-30 mig 29k is what they need right now and it could be a quick and cheap solution.

MiG-29k is out in India (loug) and in Russia (silently but actions speak more than words: extending Su-33, non procurement new MiGs and starting new VSTOL program, MiG corpitself erased MiG-29k form existence. Now is it called 35. I hope they really reworked this 29k fail).


you need 3 to have 2 floating. All depends on a combination of geopolitical directions, military doctrine & money supply. With current trends I dont see many big ships. But this spring   a competition is to be finalized which  project is accepted by MoD.

Militarov wrote:Krasnopol was trialed by French like decade and half ago togerher with designs from Sweden, US, South Africa, South Korea...  it was  never obtained in quantities nor introduced in service.

well it was actually used in Syria last year.  70km range.

Totally untrue! There is no Krasnopol version with 70km range!

Mig-29k is not dead and is very good for defending a fleet against all but 5th generation fighters. Mig-35 is not yet a navaized jet. Indian are happy with its caracteristics. Their issue is maintenance like with all their jets because indians are the problem not the jets.

Russia don't buy lot of them because the Kuznetsov is more used as an helicopter carrier than a real aircraft carrier.

Isos wrote:Mig-29k is not dead and is very good for defending a fleet against all but 5th generation fighters. Mig-35 is not yet a navaized jet. Indian are happy with its caracteristics. Their issue is maintenance like with all their jets because indians are the problem not the jets.

Russia don't buy lot of them because the Kuznetsov is more used as an helicopter carrier than a real aircraft carrier.

Hahaaargh! One more completely ungrounded info! SU-33 from Kuz were extensively used in battle group AAD, as well as in ground attack role in Syria! I have never found here people citing their sources professionally! Strange! 12 unit SU-33 squadron is small, but effective in a low danger theatre like Syria! There were also a couple of MiG-29K for testing also. Two lost fighters were due to arrester failure not duly repaired. Shame!

Hahaaargh! One more completely ungrounded info! SU-33 from Kuz were extensively used in battle group AAD, as well as in ground attack role in Syria! I have never found here people citing their sources professionally! Strange! 12 unit SU-33 squadron is small, but effective in a low danger theatre like Syria! There were also a couple of MiG-29K for testing also. Two lost fighters were due to arrester failure not duly repaired. Shame!

Send there to see how they perform in such war. Compare to US or french carriers, their sortie rates per pilot are very low. There were also ka-52 and ka-27 that take just as much room as the 12 fighters.

Russian don't see K like a aircraft carrier but rather like a cruiser/heli carrier able to launch some jets.

@Gunship First of all mig-29k is old. They privilage mig-35 because its new and was specially designed for export. It costs more than mig-29k so of course they will sell ot over mig29k.

And yes most of the time indians are the problem. They have issues with all their fighters. Even the pak-fa wasn't good enough for them while it didn't even exist. If mig-29k is total failure why don't they navalise their stupid Tejas that is in dev since like half a century ago ...

Isos wrote:

Hahaaargh! One more completely ungrounded info! SU-33 from Kuz were extensively used in battle group AAD, as well as in ground attack role in Syria! I have never found here people citing their sources professionally! Strange! 12 unit SU-33 squadron is small, but effective in a low danger theatre like Syria! There were also a couple of MiG-29K for testing also. Two lost fighters were due to arrester failure not duly repaired. Shame!

Send there to see how they perform in such war. Compare to US or french carriers, their sortie rates per pilot are very low. There were also ka-52 and ka-27 that take just as much room as the 12 fighters.

Russian don't see K like a aircraft carrier but rather like a cruiser/heli carrier able to launch some jets.

@Gunship First of all mig-29k is old. They privilage mig-35 because its new and was specially designed for export. It costs more than mig-29k so of course they will sell ot over mig29k.

And yes most of the time indians are the problem. They have issues with all their fighters. Even the pak-fa wasn't good enough for them while it didn't even exist. If mig-29k is total failure why don't they navalise their stupid Tejas that is in dev since like half a century ago ...

I agree that Tejas is not a success. I think it won`t never become fully operational. India won`t buy chinese 5 gen. fighter as China/India mutual relations are rather complicated. There rests only SU-57 variant as a solution!

The problems of India are just the problems of every country with small aircraft carriers.

Narrow dimmenssions are a problem for the use of aircrafts. It means stronger limits for the aircrafts, that lead to smaller aircrafts with less firepower.

Very likely the MiG-29K variant was not designed for aircraft carriers of 44000 tons. They are likely forcing the aircraft.

GunshipDemocracy wrote:So , this is to me clear signal: we dont buy old tech if no war is expected  immediately. No Russians are not happy with MiG-29ks otherwise no new deck aviation programme would ever start, neither Su-33 woudl be magically extended by 10 years right after  MiGs were delivered to RuNavy.  In English there is a difference between adequate and top preferment.

They are happy with Su-35 and are building the PAK-FA regardless... due to development time you always work in the successors of your current fleet. Do not see anything strange or fundamentally wrong here. Su-33 have still life on them and it makes sense to install the SVP24 on them. Once the MiGs are done, they will be substituted, they don't need (by now) to buy additional ones considering the K is in retrofit and they already have two sqd. worth of them plus the Sukhois. Maybe your intuition is correct and RuN does not like the MiGs but until now I didn't see any official complain or comment in this direction.

In any case, a company like MiG that has been losing contracts and projects to Sukhoi over so many years has probably lost also engineers and many other valuable resources, this I can easily accept. MoD and government are doing everything possible to bring back credibility and orders to the company because it is a national asset. That means, what needs to be improved will be improved, like the service structure or production processes. They will not throw a worldwide-known brand like MiG into the trash bin only because of some difficulties.

Even MiG themselves erased  MiG-29k name... of course who is guilty? Indians

What do you mean? I don't see the plane erased:
http://migavia.ru/index.php/en/production/new-unified-family-of-the-fighters/mig-29k-mig-29kub
http://roe.ru/eng/catalog/aerospace-systems/fighters/mig-29k/

LMFS wrote:

GunshipDemocracy wrote:So , this is to me clear signal: we dont buy old tech if no war is expected  immediately. No Russians are not happy with MiG-29ks otherwise no new deck aviation programme would ever start, neither Su-33 woudl be magically extended by 10 years right after  MiGs were delivered to RuNavy.  In English there is a difference between adequate and top preferment.

They are happy with Su-35 and are building the PAK-FA regardless... due to development time you always work in the successors of your current fleet. Do not see anything strange or fundamentally wrong here. Su-33 have still life on them and it makes sense to install the SVP24 on them. Once the MiGs are done, they will be substituted, they don't need (by now) to buy additional ones considering the K is in retrofit and they already have two sqd. worth of them plus the Sukhois. Maybe your intuition is correct and RuN does not like the MiGs but until now I didn't see any official complain or comment in this direction.

In any case, a company like MiG that has been losing contracts and projects to Sukhoi over so many years has probably lost also engineers and many other valuable resources, this I can easily accept. MoD and government are doing everything possible to bring back credibility and orders to the company because it is a national asset. That means, what needs to be improved will be improved, like the service structure or production processes. They will not throw a worldwide-known brand like MiG into the trash bin only because of some difficulties.

Even MiG themselves erased  MiG-29k name... of course who is guilty? Indians

What do you mean? I don't see the plane erased:
http://migavia.ru/index.php/en/production/new-unified-family-of-the-fighters/mig-29k-mig-29kub
http://roe.ru/eng/catalog/aerospace-systems/fighters/mig-29k/

Russia will sign contract for procurement of no less than 110 Mig-35 for AF, according to news I have read on this Forum. Or I`m wrong?