Russian Military News, Reports, Data, etc.

gelgoog said:

The Russian government is going to order two more Yasen-M and two more Borei-A submarines in a new contract according to reports.

Click to expand...

So what happen to the supposed Husky class development ? Shelved ? Sometimes Russian military acquisition and planning can be so so very flip flopping.

TerraN_EmpirE said:

At least the AC130 wasn’t designed for use against tanks it was at its origins an evolution over the AC47 which was an anti infantry weapon. Basically a world war 2 transport bird with two M134 Gatling guns mounted in the hull used to lay waste to attacks on fire bases. AC130 then evolved taking on heavier weapons to offer danger close fire support.
The latest version of the AC130, the AC130J Ghostrider and the AC130W Stinger II use a 30mm Bushmaster gun a 105mm howitzer and a selection of bombs and missiles having traded off the Gatling gun and Bufors for a chain gun.
The BM57 57mm’s origin as a anti aircraft gun and mix of anti personal weapons from its targeted adoption for IFVs would I think render the Gatling gun superfluous. As to tank busting depending on the reason this may have come about that may not even be considered or might be rolled to a pylon of ATGM.

Click to expand...

I dunno, the Russians might see a small caliber gun on board as a useful tool in the event of very close fire support or they need to limit civilian casualties and/or infrastructure damage. A 57mm HE shell would be very difficult to control in terms of damage radius.

As for anti vehicle work, there is quite some supportive reasons as to why a 57mm would be preferable over a pylon loaded ATGM. The first is to cost, a 57mm AP round is always going to cost less then a guided ATGM missile. Moreover, the potential gunship can leverage the advantage of altitude to fire down on the weakest part of enemy vehicles.

Viktor Jav said:

So what happen to the supposed Husky class development ? Shelved ? Sometimes Russian military acquisition and planning can be so so very flip flopping.

Click to expand...

Motivation for Husky was the high cost of Yassen.

But at that point I think wasn't possible to distinguish between the cost of restart of sub manufacturing and the actual cost of submarine.

Now the dust settled, and they have better picture.

Additional possible reasons:
- driver of the cost is the diameter / diving deep, diameter driven by the supersonic missiles and the 6-8 tube requirement, deep by required tactic.
-If they go for conformal sonar then the standard, straight torpedo tube can be back , maybe there will be a Yassen-M1 with straight tubes

A 57mm would be far more controlled that a unguided munition. And depending on she’ll type less destructive too.
It would also be more than enough vs your average Toyota pickup. If however armor is your worry you would prefer an ATGM. If Air defense is a worry this wouldn’t be the best choice.

Viktor Jav said:

So what happen to the supposed Husky class development ? Shelved ? Sometimes Russian military acquisition and planning can be so so very flip flopping.

Click to expand...

It can seem like that. But one thing you should remember is that the Russians, like the Soviets before them, very seldom really cancel projects.
I suspect they found out the Husky design would not be ready for a long time. Buying these Yasen-M submarines buys them that time until Husky's development stage is finalized.

In order to start a new class you have to clear the existing order and yard the. Retool for the new boat. They will crank out a couple more Yasen then clear the yard and retool.

Tirdent said:

@Brumby: Regarding our S-400 discussion, it so happens that a rather authoritative source which all but confirms CEC-ski has recently popped up.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Machine translation of the relevant paragraph:



It doesn't explicitly link these capabilities to the 40N6 missile, but I think we may safely connect the dots.

Click to expand...

Jura said:

let me offer my loose translation:

The main improvements in S-400 over older systems are jamming resistance and an increased fire potential.

The S-400 can simultaneously engage many more targets than the S-300.

This is also due to the new 'smart' missile with control systems enabling its use in various guiding modes: both through an active radar homing and by using an input from external sources and other radars.

The S-400 can also engage over-the-horizon targets; those are not detectable by an S-400's radar, but their data are available.

LOL any pro please tell me the translation of интеллектуальной ракеты

Click to expand...

On the subject of CEC, any systems that cooperate in the engagement within a kill chain is exhibiting some form of CEC. For example, during the Battle of Britain in WW2, the British took off board data from its early warning radars and rerouted that information by vectoring its fighters through a central command is engaging in some form of CEC.

If we are to have some form of informed discussions on this topic, we need to understand the key differences between CEC as practiced by the USN vs what transpires with the S 400 system as they are clearly not the same.

I do not follow Russian systems but with the S400 I think I have sufficient information to form an idea of how its systems cooperate within its kill chain. The S400 uses a number of radars that operate in different frequencies such as X, L, and VHF. The radars include "Big Bird" 91N6E; 96L6E; "Grave Stone" 92N6E; multi mode Nebo SUV/M'; the unique 40V6MR; and et al. The way they operate is via data link in some form of sensor net. Given that different frequencies have different properties in detection, the idea is that some of the lower frequencies radar are meant to cue the information through a chain system that effectively enables the fire control radars to scan a lower volume area thus increasing its effective engagement range especially against VLO platforms.



In contrast, the USN CEC is about building composite tracks to improve the fidelity of the tracks. Airborne tracks were subsequently added in an expansion of the system. The technical challenges were calibrating and aligning the radar within the net to avoid dual tracks or false targets besides latency issues due to distances.

GLONASS receivers on NEBO.

Anlsvrthng said:

Motivation for Husky was the high cost of Yassen.

But at that point I think wasn't possible to distinguish between the cost of restart of sub manufacturing and the actual cost of submarine.

Now the dust settled, and they have better picture.

Additional possible reasons:
- driver of the cost is the diameter / diving deep, diameter driven by the supersonic missiles and the 6-8 tube requirement, deep by required tactic.
-If they go for conformal sonar then the standard, straight torpedo tube can be back , maybe there will be a Yassen-M1 with straight tubes

Click to expand...

So basically it the new Yasen might be a watered down version, or a Husky class in all but name if all you said holds true.

TerraN_EmpirE said:

In order to start a new class you have to clear the existing order and yard the. Retool for the new boat. They will crank out a couple more Yasen then clear the yard and retool.

Click to expand...

Thing is this is not an effort to clear out the yard, this is a new contract for new hulls that are not yet laid.