shen
Senior Member
thanks for putting the album together.
the only reason Russia has these relative small displacement vessels with LACM is because INF prohibit them from having land based LACM. doesn't make sense for anyone else.
Russian Military News, Reports, Data, etc.
- Thread starter tphuang
- Start date
thanks for putting the album together.
the only reason Russia has these relative small displacement vessels with LACM is because INF prohibit them from having land based LACM. doesn't make sense for anyone else.
Well, they are a very economical way of providing a very decent capability...and when not needed for LACM duties, those corvettes are powerful missile corvettes for anti-shipping duties as well.
Good use of resource.
I add in more Russian as European counties, Sylver VLS, don' t have a versatile VLS have a VLS with missiles for only a mission only USA and Chinese now have ( Universal/052D ) but don' t have all missiles ready for her VLS right now no sure LACM, YJ-12 Chinese are operationna and no AShM for Mk-41.
MK-41 can' t launched Harpoon but USN have in few years the very good AGM-158C very long range 1000 km ! and at this time a big number from a MSC could be used, right now " only " 8 Harpoon for saturating attacks the size of the burst determines the effectiveness.
And now an important number of ships SK, India Chinese have 16 SSM.
Only things AGM-158C is subsonic, supersonic version canceled by economy then Westen don't have supersonic AShM and have never buil unlike Russia whis is the specialist and now new Chinese but remains to see exactly her specifications right now no completely sure as always with China difficult for know exactly.
Also ofc number of missiles is not illimited on the ships and mainly actual often expensives and except some big navies in fact others have a number enough to recharge once.
Don' t forget also all SM-1/2 can also attack ships he is supersonic but no sea skimming more small warhead has Harpoon 115 kg vs 220 half and suppress AAW missiles on the ship, new SM-6 can' t attack ships but can attack land targets but no good for it very expensive, Tomahawk is cheaper less big range and same problem as SM-2 less big warhead 115 kg vs 450 small vs ground targets.
But now SM-1/2 can be very usefull for Burke Fl IIa which don' t have Harpoon by economy same for US SSN retired since about 10 years.
MK-41 can' t launched Harpoon but USN have in few years the very good AGM-158C very long range 1000 km ! and at this time a big number from a MSC could be used, right now " only " 8 Harpoon for saturating attacks the size of the burst determines the effectiveness.
And now an important number of ships SK, India Chinese have 16 SSM.
Only things AGM-158C is subsonic, supersonic version canceled by economy then Westen don't have supersonic AShM and have never buil unlike Russia whis is the specialist and now new Chinese but remains to see exactly her specifications right now no completely sure as always with China difficult for know exactly.
Also ofc number of missiles is not illimited on the ships and mainly actual often expensives and except some big navies in fact others have a number enough to recharge once.
Don' t forget also all SM-1/2 can also attack ships he is supersonic but no sea skimming more small warhead has Harpoon 115 kg vs 220 half and suppress AAW missiles on the ship, new SM-6 can' t attack ships but can attack land targets but no good for it very expensive, Tomahawk is cheaper less big range and same problem as SM-2 less big warhead 115 kg vs 450 small vs ground targets.
But now SM-1/2 can be very usefull for Burke Fl IIa which don' t have Harpoon by economy same for US SSN retired since about 10 years.
Jura The idiot
General
that's what I think, too, and add the pennant numbers:
- 745 for the Admiral Grigorovich
- 751 for the Admiral Essen
- not assigned yet? be sure to tell me if you know it
for the Admiral Makarov (launched only in the beginning of September:
https://www.sinodefenceforum.com/russian-military-news-reports-data-etc.t1545/page-249#post-362115
here
I think the India part is iffy: they would have to buy the engines in Ukraine, hulls plus outfitting in Russia ... how would it work, I mean the engines would be sent to Russia, or the ships transported to Ukraine (and back, to get the Klubs LOL), or everything taken to India, or ... ? but I'm not predicting this can't happen or nothing, I just don't understand it
Brumby
Major
The point about the limited supply of cruise missiles also underscores the unmatched flexibility and offensive capabilities offered by a super carrier. In a high intensity conflict you will run out of cruise missiles very quickly (there is a CSBA study on this), and the significant cost delivery advantage offered by PGM's from air assets.
Ticonderoga and first Burke can, have a small crane in one module take the place of 3 cell's for each main VLS, in the front rear and can reload in sea not easy with a sea calm but possible.
The more big problem is to receive the missiles since the CS with a big crane the suspended missile the instability of the operation.
But for Ticonderoga and first Burke possible drop the missile on deck close her crane and she insert the canister in the cell
For others ships almost all transport missiles from the CS with her big crane, a long cable, the pendulum effect with some pitching always a little except in a lake
too difficult in practice.
Brumby
Major
Ticonderoga and first Burke can, have a small crane in one module take the place of 3 cell's for each main VLS, in the front rear and can reload in sea not easy with a sea calm but possible.
The more big problem is to receive the missiles since the CS with a big crane the suspended missile the instability of the operation.
But for Ticonderoga and first Burke possible drop the missile on deck close her crane and she insert the canister in the cell
For others ships almost all transport missiles from the CS with her big crane, a long cable, the pendulum effect with some pitching always a little except in a lake
The reload issue had been brought up in discussions over at Navymatters quite often. My impression is that no practical solution is available yet on an operational basis.
Jura The idiot
General
recent posts here inspired me to try estimate the distance/time the Russian Battle Group (or how should I call it? LOL) sailed to strike:
https://www.sinodefenceforum.com/isis-isil-conflict-in-iraq-syria-thread.t6913/page-170#post-367777
from the chart the Russians presented, it would be about 300 nm from Baltiysk to the position for launch, and assuming the economic speed of Buyan-Ms (12 kn), it took a whole day (24 hours) to get there ... one day back, time for the reload ... next strike would've been possible only after 60 or so hours (but hadn't happened)
(I know I'm only guessing.)
https://www.sinodefenceforum.com/isis-isil-conflict-in-iraq-syria-thread.t6913/page-170#post-367777
from the chart the Russians presented, it would be about 300 nm from Baltiysk to the position for launch, and assuming the economic speed of Buyan-Ms (12 kn), it took a whole day (24 hours) to get there ... one day back, time for the reload ... next strike would've been possible only after 60 or so hours (but hadn't happened)
(I know I'm only guessing.)
Brumby
Major
There was an article I read today mentioning that the missile strike was essentially distributed lethality in action. The Russians has quietly gone about implementing it while it remains a concept with the USN. Lol.
You talk for Caspian Sea Flotilla i presume, ships based to Makhachkala 42°52'54.44"N 47°39'28.00"E