PLAN Sovremenny DDG 136, 137, 138 & 139 Thread

[Iron Man]

I see what you mean, however I do think modifying/reinforcing the platform/pedestal may permit 1130s to be mounted in a slightly more forward direction where the issue of vertical clearance is substantially lower (no pun intended).

It could even be placed directly to the sides of the "hangar" (or base of the extendable hangar, depending on how specific we want to be), if that is how much more forward it needs to be.

I'm not necessarily saying they will defiintely do so, but I do believe mounting 1130s in roughly the position of Kashtan or AK630s is not out of the question.

Well obviously it depends on exactly how "roughly" at the position of the 630s you are talking about. The Kashtan positions on the 956EM are obviously ok and not part of this discussion. The 630 positions themselves are not suitable for something with the height of the 730 or 1130. Some position slightly forward of the 630 or the level below would be definitely be more suitable.

Yeah. Well as you said, we disagree on the necessity of such a modification in light of the Navy's overall air defence fleet, as well as probably disagree on just how much more money or time may be needed to allow such a configuration to work.

"Necessity" is not really the correct descriptor. The Sovs didn't "need" a VLS; they could have just reinstalled the swingarm launchers back into the ship during the refit.

 

[Blitzo]

Well obviously it depends on exactly how "roughly" at the position of the 630s you are talking about. The Kashtan positions on the 956EM are obviously ok and not part of this discussion. The 630 positions themselves are not suitable for something with the height of the 730 or 1130. Some position slightly forward of the 630 or the level below would be definitely be more suitable.

Sure. Let's just say that I think there are positions either side of the hangar more forward to the AK630 position that can probably mount 1130s safely.

"Necessity" is not really the correct descriptor. The Sovs didn't "need" a VLS; they could have just reinstalled the swingarm launchers back into the ship during the refit.

"Value of," then.

 

[FORBIN]

Here we obviously just disagree.


This is where I mean that they would have had to commit some extra funds. How much extra funds? Not much in my view. The 24-missile magazine was cylindrical while the 16-cell VLS section is rectangular so regardless of similar volume there would have been bulkhead cutting. Also, judging by the red lines here it is clear to me that the forward red box would already have had to be shifted forward anyway and the rear red box would have had to be shifted rearward in order for a VLS section to clear the abovedeck structures. I don't see any vital machinery spaces forward of the front red box which would have made adding more VLS modules a financial hardship. Maybe someone who speaks Russian can translate what "3" and "28" are:
View attachment 34812

No? Then this should help (note how close the rotor blades are to the rear 630s):
View attachment 34813
View attachment 34814



Again, not really that difficult to modify at all. Just look at the Sov cutaway I posted.

For comparison
according it especialy

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Where is the Type 364 and 4 Ciws remains and 8 YJ-18 ?
I fix after

 

[badger16]

Tough tradeoff for me. A 33% reduction in air defense firepower to achieve a faster firing rate is a marginal tradeoff at best. Those swingarm launchers could launch 1 missile every 6-8 seconds, making for 7-10 missiles/min or the entire 24-missile magazine in approximately 2-3 minutes, a very reasonable rate of fire. A VLS could launch missiles much faster but there are only Orekh 6 illuminators on the Sovs meaning you could at most have maybe 12 missiles in the air at once anyway. If you are facing an immediate all-out saturation attack against your ship, the VLS will have an advantage. But in a protracted conflict those extra 16 missiles would definitely be missed.

IIRC, rate of fire for those single-arm launchers is about one missile each 14 seconds. So it's not too fast even when you have two. Also, VLS is much more reliable than rail launcher.

I agree that the refit leaves the ships slightly undergunned (-missiled?) for their size, but one needs to figure out that they're already past about half their useful service life. Disappointed that they're replacing the guns

 

[FORBIN]

SS-N-22 retired

 

[antiterror13]

SS-N-22 retired
View attachment 35514 View attachment 35515

where is it? and when?

 

[kwaigonegin]

Any recent pics of the Sovs?

 

[antiterror13]

actually I am interested to know what happen to Chinese SS-N-22 (ex Russia). My understanding is China received many SS-N-22 when they bought 4 Sovs (installed, training and spares) ... hundreds

 

[Hyperwarp]

actually I am interested to know what happen to Chinese SS-N-22 (ex Russia). My understanding is China received many SS-N-22 when they bought 4 Sovs (installed, training and spares) ... hundreds

The Moskit in 138, 139 (956EM) are different from the ones on the 136, 137 (956E). 956EM are armed with 3M80MBE instead of the 3M80E in 956E. The range is said to be 200 km for the 3M80MBE compared to the 120 km on the 3M80E. It seems the 3M80MBE development was funded by China.

 

[antiterror13]

The Moskit in 138, 139 (956EM) are different from the ones on the 136, 137 (956E). 956EM are armed with 3M80MBE instead of the 3M80E in 956E. The range is said to be 200 km for the 3M80MBE compared to the 120 km on the 3M80E. It seems the 3M80MBE development was funded by China.

so do you think China will (or have) retire 3M80E and keep the 3M80MBE?