Russian Military News, Reports, Data, etc.

D

Deleted member 13312

Guest
TerraN_EmpirE said:
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.
Click to expand...
But we are not talking about unguided munitions here, but a smaller caliber gun which would be far less destructive and easier to control. Between a 30mm and a 57mm there is no contest.
As to ATGMs, we are again going back to the issue of costs and sustainability (which I fail to raise in my earlier post), it does not take much to figure out that at a guided ATGM is going to cost more than an unguided 57mm, and again due to the angle of fire, the 57mm lack of penetration would not be that great of an issue. and a AN-12 can carry hundreds if not thousands of 57mm shells in comparison to pylon loaded ATGMs which are limited by firing space and detrimental effects on the plane's flight performances, every single missile loaded on a wing has a negative effect on it while shells stored in the hold has much less effect.
 
TerraN_EmpirE

TerraN_EmpirE

Tyrant King
Viktor Jav said:
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.
Click to expand...
You still need to finish the hulls under contracts before you can start new hulls. That’s how you clear out the yard. You complete the Sub and deliver to the Customer. From there you can start on new types.
Viktor Jav said:
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.
Click to expand...
That’s pretty much been the analysis.
To use an allegory Husky is to Yasen as Virginia is to Seawolf. Harvest the best tech off of Yasen and put it on a diet. Trim the fat.
 
TerraN_EmpirE

TerraN_EmpirE

Tyrant King
Viktor Jav said:
But we are not talking about unguided munitions here, but a smaller caliber gun which would be far less destructive and easier to control. Between a 30mm and a 57mm there is no contest.
Click to expand...
I see what you are trying to say. The HE payload is vastly different between the two. Yet in practice it’s not as big a deal. A 57mm she’ll direct fired from an orbiting Gunship isn’t going to bring as much damage as a 500lb bomb and will be more accurate and that is the point.
The 30mm capability of more modern AC130 series came about has a sacrifice of the 40mm Bufors and 25mm Gatling.
The 40mm was one of the most versatile weapons on the Spectre. And despite the rapid rate of fire of the Gatling was arguably more useful.
The HE payload and semi auto to low rate of auto fire was more easy to control than the 25mm.
The 57mm semi auto gun if properly loaded would be very close that that capability.
As to ATGMs, we are again going back to the issue of costs and sustainability (which I fail to raise in my earlier post), it does not take much to figure out that at a guided ATGM is going to cost more than an unguided 57mm, and again due to the angle of fire, the 57mm lack of penetration would not be that great of an issue. and a AN-12 can carry hundreds if not thousands of 57mm shells in comparison to pylon loaded ATGMs which are limited by firing space and detrimental effects on the plane's flight performances, every single missile loaded on a wing has a negative effect on it while shells stored in the hold has much less effect.
Click to expand...
This is true but use of such can be useful. It’s another tool in the tool box so to speak. Against some targets a missile will work better and give more stand off than a cannon.
 
Jura The idiot

Jura The idiot

General
Brumby said:
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.

View attachment 52856

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.

View attachment 52857

View attachment 52858
Click to expand...
so?
 
D

Deleted member 13312

Guest
TerraN_EmpirE said:
You still need to finish the hulls under contracts before you can start new hulls. That’s how you clear out the yard. You complete the Sub and deliver to the Customer. From there you can start on new types.
Click to expand...
But here is the issue, taking the article at face value. It literally means that the Russian navy is placing new orders for new Yasen-M submarines. These represent hulls that have not been laid or even had the first steel cut. It cannot possibly refer to any of the hulls in construction as those are most assuredly been ordered before hand, and given the state of Russian military fund I will find it equally hard to believe that they would have ordered any extra sections or parts beyond what is absolutely necessary.
TerraN_EmpirE said:
That’s pretty much been the analysis.
To use an allegory Husky is to Yasen as Virginia is to Seawolf. Harvest the best tech off of Yasen and put it on a diet. Trim the fat.
Click to expand...
I was more referring to the proposed Yasen-M being a watered down version of the baseline Yasen, not the Husky. Russia has already made it clear that the Husky was to have more conventional tech and construction which makes it less advanced that the Yasen.
 
G

gelgoog

Lieutenant General
Registered Member
Yasen-M is not watered down at all. At least not in any way that we know of.
It is more compact than Yasen likely because it uses more modern components.

It carries less large torpedos and has more VLS cells. This likely reflects more modern thinking. Old Russian attack subs fired cruise missiles (S-10 Granat) from the large torpedo tubes. They had no VLS cells. Now that is not necessary anymore so they reduce the amount of large torpedo tubes and add more VLS cells which can fire the Kalibr and the Oniks.

Husky is supposed to be a general purpose hull design which can be modified for several kinds of roles.
It is supposed to be used for the attack subs, strategic subs, and missile carriers. You do this by adding or removing sections on it.
It is the F-35 of Russian nuclear submarines I guess.
 
Last edited:
A

anzha

Captain
Registered Member
ourteen submariners on board a Russian defense ministry research vessel were killed in a fire while carrying out a survey of the sea floor, the ministry was quoted as saying by Russian news agencies.

The incident took place on Monday and the fire has been extinguished. The vessel is now at the Russian Northern Fleet’s base in Severomorsk on the Barents Sea, and an investigation has been launched to establish the cause, Interfax, RIA and TASS quoted the ministry as saying.
Click to expand...

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top