Russian weapons and military technology

The Military Issues & History Forum is a venue to discuss issues relating to the military aspects of the Indian Armed Forces, whether the past, present or future. We request members to kindly stay within the mandate of this forum and keep their exchanges of views, on a civilised level, however vehemently any disagreement may be felt. All feedback regarding forum usage may be sent to the moderators using the Feedback Form or by clicking the Report Post Icon in any objectionable post for proper action. Please note that the views expressed by the Members and Moderators on these discussion boards are that of the individuals only and do not reflect the official policy or view of the Bharat-Rakshak.com Website. Copyright Violation is strictly prohibited and may result in revocation of your posting rights - please read the FAQ for full details. Users must also abide by the Forum Guidelines at all times.
Manish_P
BRFite
Posts: 1361
Joined: 25 Mar 2010 17:34

Re: Russian weapons and military technology

Postby Manish_P » 16 May 2018 09:58

As for allied strikes it was Syrian sources that confirmed that no missiles were shot down FYI.


Why throw away precious missiles in not trying to hit inbound missiles on pre-agreed expendable targets

manjgu
BRFite
Posts: 1546
Joined: 11 Aug 2006 10:33

Re: Russian weapons and military technology

Postby manjgu » 16 May 2018 10:26

wondering how IDF with all their fancy gear/electronics could not handle S200? whats the story?

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21769
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Russian weapons and military technology

Postby Austin » 16 May 2018 11:04

John wrote:
Indranil wrote:The western observer says "we hit them all", and we are to believe them. The Russians say that the vehicle had run out of ammo and was being reloaded, and we are to call BS.

Even if that was reloading in this situation IDF seems to have knocked out a lot of Pantsir and system overall seems to have performed quiet terribly to date. Only S-200 seems to have shot down a IDF plane.

As for allied strikes it was Syrian sources that confirmed that no missiles were shot down FYI.

Off topic but Tunguska and Kashtan (precursor to Pantsir) both have had issues in IA and IN service ( plagued with technical and maintenance problems). It could very well be Syrian Army is facing technical challenges maintaining Pantsir.


Russian MOD is the offical source for this , Allied strike ~ 70 % of PGM shot at , check the BRF Syrian Thread there are tons of details pictures there.

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=7201&start=11120

Israel strike more than 50 % of Pgms were intercepted Russian MOD Statement: https://www.rt.com/news/426328-israel-28-jets-syria/

Israel just managed to take out one non-working Pantisir ..nothing more

There is no issue with Tunguska or Kashtan in Indian Armed service , Can you quote any official report that say that ? All you you doing here is trying to throw tons of thing which backing with any evidence , hoping some thing will stick !

Petty I used to like reading your post some year back it was more informative and well researched now its exactly opposite.

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21769
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Russian weapons and military technology

Postby Austin » 16 May 2018 11:07

manjgu wrote:wondering how IDF with all their fancy gear/electronics could not handle S200? whats the story?


Israel lost atleast 1 F-15 and 1 F-16 in Syria https://southfront.org/at-least-one-isr ... ces-media/

sarabpal.s
BRFite
Posts: 338
Joined: 13 Sep 2008 22:04

Re: Russian weapons and military technology

Postby sarabpal.s » 16 May 2018 12:16

Austin wrote:
manjgu wrote:wondering how IDF with all their fancy gear/electronics could not handle S200? whats the story?


Israel lost atleast 1 F-15 and 1 F-16 in Syria https://southfront.org/at-least-one-isr ... ces-media/

When every wreck of down bird or missile is paraded in media where is so called down bird of Israel expect one which crashed inside Israel, I'm unaware of reason btw

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21769
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Russian weapons and military technology

Postby Austin » 16 May 2018 12:23

The distance between Israel and Syria is so short that any aircraft shot over Syria by SAA unless completely pulvarised by warhead would easily reach Israel territory and considering the losses Israel had they now use stand off weapon from Israel Airspace or Neutral Lebenon without entering Syrian Airspace.

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 62702
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: Russian weapons and military technology

Postby Singha » 16 May 2018 13:06

a few isolated pantsyrs and a few older SAMs are putting up a good fight against what is one of the better AF , with complete set of ECM, sat intel and using standoff weapons enmasse. they sent in the harop drones to loiter around the ingress axes of the missiles and latch on to the radar emissions of SAM radars going active .... these being somewhat LO need fighters in the air armed with good radar to tackle . that fact that dozens of missiles were visible fired seems proof enough that either the syrians are clever at pulsing their radars to avoid the harop, or they shot down or chased off the harops until this one sneaked through!

in the video posted in levant thread one can clearly see a pantsyr missile scoring a direct hit on a passing missile whose tail already seems to be on fire perhaps from AA gun hits or other reasons.
https://twitter.com/WaelAlRussi/status/ ... 1392178176

in a proper integrated "russian style IADS", those f16/f15 would be targeted both by fighters and LRSAMs and those missiles & harops also face a more denser and redundant system. nobody would be allowed to just loiter outside the border and shoot n scoot, they would be actively hunted and pushed off the plan. nobody would sit like a linebacker letting the oppn seize all the initiative where and when to attack.

there is no magic bullet. the combat effectiveness of F-solah probably drops by half without support of jammers, e-orbat, tankers and other assets.

IDF has stopped overflights of syria except a hit n run attack over aleppo from the east after blending among nato a/c - if the syrian AD were really bad, they would still be flying over damascus with impunity at night :twisted: the israelis need to retain the myth of invincibility and cannot afford even 1 captured pilot being paraded by iranian proxies.

pls read up on how PLA will use its S300 batteries (last count few years back they had 200+ Telars, must be more now counting domestic clones)...in tibet....redundant coverage zones, redundant TELARs to cover reload times, orbiting AWACS to give cues to counterstrike, MRSAM/SRAM and radar guided guns for close in defence....operating in a dispersed but coordinated network for max effect. their Pk will start dropping if the network is broken and they are isolated into smaller nodes and singletons as the syrians are forced to operate due to lack of numbers and money...just as a F-solah without the US network of systems in the hands of say TSPAF is far less potent than a usaf F_solah

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21769
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Russian weapons and military technology

Postby Austin » 17 May 2018 21:30

Underwater vehicle "Poseidon" will be able to carry a warhead with a capacity of up to two megatons

https://defence.ru/article/podvodnii-ap ... -megatonn/
The Poseidon unmanned underwater vehicle created in Russia will be capable of carrying a nuclear warhead up to 2 megatons to destroy enemy naval bases. This was reported by TASS on Thursday, a source in the defense-industrial complex.

"The" torpedo "of the multipurpose naval system Poseidon will be able to install various nuclear charges, the mono-block thermonuclear warhead, similar to Avagard's charge, will have the maximum power - up to two megatons in TNT equivalent,
" the interlocutor of the agency said.

He specified that in nuclear equipment the device will be "primarily designed to destroy the fortified naval bases of a potential enemy." Thanks to the nuclear power plant, the source said, Poseidon will go to the intercontinental range at a depth of more than 1 km at a speed of 60-70 knots (110-130 km / h).


As another source in the defense industry said earlier, Poseidon will join the Navy in the framework of the existing weapons program for 2018-2027, its carrier will be a new specialized submarine being built at Sevmash.

Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3155
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

Re: Russian weapons and military technology

Postby Cain Marko » 18 May 2018 08:36

Even if claims about pantsir are true, what about the success of the older s200? S300s will be much more difficult and S400s, all the more so. People making wild claims about the futility of russki sams need to remember how golden oldie SA 3 Goa was used by the serbs to bring down the stealthy f117.

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 62702
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: Russian weapons and military technology

Postby Singha » 18 May 2018 12:23

S300/400 being tiers of missiles, it all depends how any particular instance is fleshed out with numbers, locations, radars in redundant positions and how much ground and air based CIWS, SRSAM, ELINT, EW and surveillance support they can get.

they are no more invincible dogs than the ANG F-15 off Otis could save NYC from the 911 wolves.

its all systems of systems vs systems of systems now. incrementally one must id and plug gaps and make it capable of sustained fighting and graceful under degraded conditions of heavy attacks. thats where the true "strength" of a system lies - anyone can throw a sucker punch, but if punched to the mat, can they get up and inflict punishment?

that is why we should keep moderate expectations of any isolated point-purchase like a couple of S400 systems for our limited ABM shield. they are not silver bullets and cannot be. moscow ABM uses huge fast missiles tipped with small n-warheads and punishment will be inflicted ranging from IRBM strikes to Mig31 Kinzhal using tactical nukes in any small exchange even, plus score of classified EW systems not for export. So S400 has its own "home team" in support in the Rodina. Likewise the THAAD/PAC3 inside the american network has a different Pk than in saudi or UAE hands :D

Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3155
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

Re: Russian weapons and military technology

Postby Cain Marko » 18 May 2018 12:28

Can such long ranged sams backup as short ranged SSMs?

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19380
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Russian weapons and military technology

Postby Philip » 18 May 2018 12:35

Singha, you're right.There is no better policy than having large numbers of systems." Safety in numbers", old saying.Therefore having layered systems as on a warship, 3-4 anti missile systems which include main gun, gatlings, and LR/MR and SR Sam's, plus decoys, gives you a greater chance of surviving a missile attack especially saturated attacks.BM warheads now come with several decoys too to confuse defences, therefore unless there is some highly capable system that can separate the " wheat from the chaff", every incoming warhead will have to be tackled so more defensive systems the better.

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 62702
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: Russian weapons and military technology

Postby Singha » 18 May 2018 12:42

Cain Marko wrote:Can such long ranged sams backup as short ranged SSMs?


not really optimal as they would burn out earlier and lack any terminal seeker to make out ground target.
houthis are trying it, with mixed results.

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21769
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Russian weapons and military technology

Postby Austin » 18 May 2018 15:42

Singha wrote:S300/400 being tiers of missiles, it all depends how any particular instance is fleshed out with numbers, locations, radars in redundant positions and how much ground and air based CIWS, SRSAM, ELINT, EW and surveillance support they can get.

they are no more invincible dogs than the ANG F-15 off Otis could save NYC from the 911 wolves.

its all systems of systems vs systems of systems now. incrementally one must id and plug gaps and make it capable of sustained fighting and graceful under degraded conditions of heavy attacks. thats where the true "strength" of a system lies - anyone can throw a sucker punch, but if punched to the mat, can they get up and inflict punishment?

that is why we should keep moderate expectations of any isolated point-purchase like a couple of S400 systems for our limited ABM shield. they are not silver bullets and cannot be. moscow ABM uses huge fast missiles tipped with small n-warheads and punishment will be inflicted ranging from IRBM strikes to Mig31 Kinzhal using tactical nukes in any small exchange even, plus score of classified EW systems not for export. So S400 has its own "home team" in support in the Rodina. Likewise the THAAD/PAC3 inside the american network has a different Pk than in saudi or UAE hands :D


Indeed what the Russians and SAA faced in Syria is real war with peer and near peer enemy who has best of PGM's , EW , Fighters , Radar , Intel , Recco system , this was no Redflag or some exercise involving 100 or 1000 sorties , under extreme diplomatic pressure , False Flag ops and military ones these wars were and still being fought.

Real bomb were dropped against Terrorist back by States in Gulf , Hundreds of Real PGM , Cruise Missile were fired and EW games were played on the field with NATO countries and extreme tense moment were handled in past 3 years ,Soldiers and Airmen from SAA , Russian , Hezb have lost their lives , AD system and system of systems were tested in combat condition involving Urban , Guerrilla and Conventional operation

These experience are gained in real war and I dont recollect any thing in decades where near peer or peer country were facing each other on Land , Air or at Sea ......The Syrian war is pretty much close one can get to short of full scale conventional war between countries or a nuclear one.

These kind of experiences are priceless and one can never get it unless one faces it in real life ....unlike exercises they never got second chance.

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21769
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Russian weapons and military technology

Postby Austin » 18 May 2018 15:47

Cain Marko wrote:Can such long ranged sams backup as short ranged SSMs?


You can loft a SAM in pure Ballistic Trajectory and use against land or ship targets but considering most SAM dont carry warhead beyond few kg or ~ 100 kg and are mostly directional charged optimised to intecept air targets their effectiveness against land targets remain questionable , As Singha has said the houthis have tried it against Saudi with varying degrees of success

Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7801
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Russian weapons and military technology

Postby Pratyush » 18 May 2018 16:15

The quality of posts on the forum regarding the capability of Soviet era sams is beginning to resemble the uttering of Baghdad Bob.

Why do I say that.

Since 1982 atleast the isrealies have been clobbering such sites with rediculeus ease. Using planning and tactics. Yet people seriously believe that the same force will loose that capacity when going against a Syrian air defence environment that has been seriously compromised, by intelligence operations at different times and years of civil war.

I am expected to believe that this system is still so capable.

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21769
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Russian weapons and military technology

Postby Austin » 18 May 2018 16:51

Have you visited Levant thread ? if not do that and go through post we have discussed in quite detail on all the NATO/Israel ops against Syria , Singha and others including your truly have spent extensive time documenting all known operations and this is not 1982.

Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7801
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Russian weapons and military technology

Postby Pratyush » 18 May 2018 20:05

Stoped visiting Levant thread after I identified a sa6 wreck being passed off as a downed tomohawk.

Any way it is not 82 for Syria it is worst. It's system's are completely compromised it is EW network is patchy at best.

Just because Russian airforce is present in Syria dosent mean that the old and compromised Syrian air defence network can deal with threats it could not deal with when the same network was brand new.

Especially when the threat has had 30 years to evolve.

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21769
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Russian weapons and military technology

Postby Austin » 18 May 2018 22:19

SAA has also evolved they are not the same old patch as 30 years ago , Granted they are with old system but old system can do wonders if manned by well trained crew and tactics that evolve like Bosnia war as shown. SAA did an excellent job with limited resources and odds stacked against it .

Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7801
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Russian weapons and military technology

Postby Pratyush » 19 May 2018 08:52

Sir whatever floats your boat.

A military effected by defection and short on funds and a regime fighting for survival without the funds to support beyond the most rudementry capacity.
Cannot have well trained airdefences regardless of who is supporting it.

That is the basic fact. You can choose to accept it or you can continue to believe that Syrians kicked ass with 50 year old weapons with limited upgrades when fighting against the most capable military in their region. That is a world leader in defeating the very system's the Syrians are using.

That just dosent compute.

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21769
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Russian weapons and military technology

Postby Austin » 19 May 2018 09:36

Proof of the pudding is in its eating , if they managed to shoot F-16 and F-15 and shot down many PGM then it is far from rudimentary military ,SAA managed to saves Syria from brink of absolute defete just 3 yrs back when they were rolled over by western funded jihadi today they have most part of Syria under control no small achievement against all odds one can think off and a hostile neighbour , don’t like facts can’t help it

Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7801
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Russian weapons and military technology

Postby Pratyush » 19 May 2018 11:19

Austin wrote:Proof of the pudding is in its eating , if they managed to shoot F-16 and F-15 and shot down many PGM then it is far from rudimentary military ,SAA managed to saves Syria from brink of absolute defete just 3 yrs back when they were rolled over by western funded jihadi today they have most part of Syria under control no small achievement against all odds one can think off and a hostile neighbour , don’t like facts can’t help it


Well if that's the logic and proof, then I fully accept that the isrealies got their asses handed to them and were completely anhilated.

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21769
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Russian weapons and military technology

Postby Austin » 19 May 2018 14:00

No one here made such claims so no need to get hyperbole .....but this not 30 years back where IAF can enter SAA airspace and wont face resistance or loss of asset which indeed they already did

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21769
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Russian weapons and military technology

Postby Austin » 19 May 2018 14:00

315 years ago, on May 18 (the 7th in the old style), 1703, the rowing flotilla with the soldiers of the Preobrazhensky and Semyonovsky regiments under the command of Peter the Great won the first battle victory, seizing two Swedish military ships at the mouth of the Neva - Gedan and Astrild

This day has gone down for ever, and today it is on this day that the Day of the Baltic Fleet is celebrated. Congratulations to the military sailors and veterans of the BF with a professional holiday, we wish you health and success!


Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 62702
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: Russian weapons and military technology

Postby Singha » 19 May 2018 22:03

>>Stoped visiting Levant thread after I identified a sa6 wreck being passed off as a downed tomohawk.

^ by the original twitter poster . and yet you did not notice or acknowledge I tagged it as a sa6 in a post below that.

John
BRFite
Posts: 1763
Joined: 03 Feb 2001 12:31

Re: Russian weapons and military technology

Postby John » 20 May 2018 00:12

Austin wrote:No one here made such claims so no need to get hyperbole .....but this not 30 years back where IAF can enter SAA airspace and wont face resistance or loss of asset which indeed they already did

Sticking to relevant Pantsir poor performance doesn't surprise me Syria could be facing similar issues we ran into. We had issues with maintenance and operation of Tunguska and Kashtan which are precursor to Pantsir. They are so bad both IA and IN have refused to consider either Kashtan-M1 ( IN would rather have Vikramaditya defenseless than fit Kashtan and Russians asked for exuberant amount for vl-shtil to fitted instead) or Pantsir.

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21769
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Russian weapons and military technology

Postby Austin » 20 May 2018 11:04

John are you here just to troll , you claim many things without backing up without any thing , have you seen mod brief on Syria pantsir was the best performing in Syria which had most hits even better than some of medium range Sam like Buk m1

Don’t just make claims pulling it out of thinn air you have zero knowledge on Syrian ops and I doubt you even cared to look at

The only reason IN didnt pursue with Kashtan is because it wanted fleet wide standardisation of AK-630 and Barak-1 Sam as the latter was modular and former was built by ofb and lic made in india

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 62702
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: Russian weapons and military technology

Postby Singha » 20 May 2018 11:13

these days american salesmen & fanboys far outnumber the lone russian gear loyalist.

Admin note: this post was reported for name calling, will leave this post here, but all parties please dont go overboard with your criticism based on hunches

Thakur_B
BRFite
Posts: 1215
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Russian weapons and military technology

Postby Thakur_B » 20 May 2018 11:40

Have the Russians achieved the feat of integrating a miniature nuclear reactor on a cruise missile? Probably the craziest thing ever done.

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21769
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Russian weapons and military technology

Postby Austin » 20 May 2018 12:00

Thakur_B wrote:Have the Russians achieved the feat of integrating a miniature nuclear reactor on a cruise missile? Probably the craziest thing ever done.


The idea is no more crazy then having a nuclear propelled Submarine or Nuclear reactor on Satellite these things are operation since decades .... but they would be the first to deploy on Cruise missile and UUV , based on interview I posted on this thread yes the reactor has been tested and known to work.

from a cruise missile point of view a nuclear reactor is useless because an average speed of cruise missile is 0.7M or max 0,8 and even if you loiter for many days with unlimited power it would be vulnerable to attack as cruise missile are still a slow beast.

As an example Kh-101 has average speed of 0,7 and max range of 4000 km to complete the total range it would need flight hours of 8-9 hours ............. the only advantage of Unlimited Range or Long range is you can shape your trajectory without having to worry about running out of fuel , you can do a lo lo 4000 km

For a UUV it is most useful to have unlimited power with a 2 MT TNW that it will have a top speed of 60-70 knots it can been in deep ocean for months and can be activated as second strike weapon , if they Slat it with Cobalt , so called Cobalt Weapons it can guarantee destroy life on the planet within months as contamination from Cobalt is suppose to last 100 years and no humanity can survive that long.
Last edited by Austin on 20 May 2018 12:01, edited 1 time in total.

darshhan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2280
Joined: 12 Dec 2008 11:52

Re: Russian weapons and military technology

Postby darshhan » 20 May 2018 12:01

Singha wrote:these days american salesmen & fanboys far outnumber the lone russian gear loyalist.


To add to russian misery, even that lone russian gear loyalist is extremely crude. This level of crudeness actually backfires by producing extreme revulsion and contempt for perceived or real slavishness towards Mother Russia.

On the other hand the american salesmen are far more subtle and insidious approach. These are versions of pure evil, following a well thought out strategy in order to first discredit the rival nations MIC and then force India to align with American interests. And these are present not just on BRF. They are everywhere.

John
BRFite
Posts: 1763
Joined: 03 Feb 2001 12:31

Re: Russian weapons and military technology

Postby John » 20 May 2018 17:36

Austin wrote:John are you here just to troll , you claim many things without backing up without any thing , have you seen mod brief on Syria pantsir was the best performing in Syria which had most hits even better than some of medium range Sam like Buk m1

Don’t just make claims pulling it out of thinn air you have zero knowledge on Syrian ops and I doubt you even cared to look at

The only reason IN didnt pursue with Kashtan is because it wanted fleet wide standardisation of AK-630 and Barak-1 Sam as the latter was modular and former was built by ofb and lic made in india

Austin stop the name calling i am not arguing with that it didn't down gazillion missiles for mother Russia and protect Assad . What I am pointing out is that they are challenging systems to maintain and IA/IN have had issues with their predecessor and Syria might be facing similar problems. Not sure why any mention of issues with Russian systems is quickly jumped on multiple folks are eager to proudly defend and spin the facts.

OT Kashtan was not pursued because of poor performance not just because of Standardization of Ak-630 + Barak. In fact IN is looking for CIWS that can replace Ak-630.

prasannasimha
Forum Moderator
Posts: 775
Joined: 15 Aug 2016 00:22

Re: Russian weapons and military technology

Postby prasannasimha » 20 May 2018 22:20

Please stop this name calling and start discussing congenially . If this continues we will have to delete posts and issue warnings.

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21769
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Russian weapons and military technology

Postby Austin » 21 May 2018 09:37

reloading the Ammo and Missile on Pantsir


tsarkar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2453
Joined: 08 May 2006 13:44
Location: mumbai

Re: Russian weapons and military technology

Postby tsarkar » 21 May 2018 20:41

Austin wrote:The only reason IN didnt pursue with Kashtan is because it wanted fleet wide standardisation of AK-630 and Barak-1 Sam as the latter was modular and former was built by ofb and lic made in india

What is the source of your assumption?

FWIW, Kashtan was chosen for Type 17 but dropped because of its poor performance in Talwar class.

http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/NAVY/weap ... ct-17.html
For the CIWS (Close In Weapon System) role, the ship was originally designed for two Kashtan Air Defence Gun/Missile mounts but this has since been superseded by the now standard Barak + AK 630M comination.


There is no Barak-1 on Teg class, so it lacks an SRSAM. So IN really didnt standardize on Barak-1 for all ships.

And why did Russia drop Kashtan from Admiral Grigorovich class frigates if it was so good?

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21769
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Russian weapons and military technology

Postby Austin » 21 May 2018 21:22

tsarkar wrote:FWIW, Kashtan was chosen for Type 17 but dropped because of its poor performance in Talwar class.

http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/NAVY/weap ... ct-17.html
For the CIWS (Close In Weapon System) role, the ship was originally designed for two Kashtan Air Defence Gun/Missile mounts but this has since been superseded by the now standard Barak + AK 630M comination.


Nothing to do with performance but with cost and modularity , Kashtan-M is superior to Barak-1 because it can also intercept high supersonic target low flying targets that barak-1 cant but Kashtan needs a dedicated deep space and cannot be retrofitted unless deisgned for while Barak-1 is very modular system and can be retrofitted without need for dedicated space , its a trade off , IN decide to standardise on Barak-1 and AK-630 instead of having to have different systems. As far as I can all all new ships have AK-630 and Barak-1 and if they dont they will be retrofitted during upgrade , there are Barak-1 systems under order

IF Kashtan-1 was that bad IN would have removed it already and replaced with Barak-1 , considering the IN would not even allow trishul to be fitted unless proven

There is no Barak-1 on Teg class, so it lacks an SRSAM. So IN really didnt standardize on Barak-1 for all ships.

And why did Russia drop Kashtan from Admiral Grigorovich class frigates if it was so good?


Kashtan-M is still deployed on Dozens of Ships today of RuN fleet http://militaryrussia.ru/blog/topic-16.html

But they will progressively be replaced with Naval Verison of PAntsir-M the first ship with Pantisir-M is already on trial and Grogorvich will eventually fitted with the same system as well as other ships that would go into mid-life upgrade. http://militaryrussia.ru/blog/topic-677.html

Naval Pantsir-M system

https://pp.userapi.com/c846216/v8462161 ... -JM_iA.jpg
https://2018.f.a0z.ru/05/02-6229097-228 ... 5.2018.jpg


John
BRFite
Posts: 1763
Joined: 03 Feb 2001 12:31

Re: Russian weapons and military technology

Postby John » 21 May 2018 23:00

Austin wrote:
tsarkar wrote:FWIW, Kashtan was chosen for Type 17 but dropped because of its poor performance in Talwar class.

http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/NAVY/weap ... ct-17.html
For the CIWS (Close In Weapon System) role, the ship was originally designed for two Kashtan Air Defence Gun/Missile mounts but this has since been superseded by the now standard Barak + AK 630M comination.


Nothing to do with performance but with cost and modularity , Kashtan-M is superior to Barak-1 because it can also intercept high supersonic target low flying targets that barak-1 cant but Kashtan needs a dedicated deep space and cannot be retrofitted unless deisgned for while Barak-1 is very modular system and can be retrofitted without need for dedicated space , its a trade off , IN decide to standardise on Barak-1 and AK-630 instead of having to have different systems. As far as I can all all new ships have AK-630 and Barak-1 and if they dont they will be retrofitted during upgrade , there are Barak-1 systems under order

IF Kashtan-1 was that bad IN would have removed it already and replaced with Barak-1 , considering the IN would not even allow trishul to be fitted unless proven

There is no Barak-1 on Teg class, so it lacks an SRSAM. So IN really didnt standardize on Barak-1 for all ships.

And why did Russia drop Kashtan from Admiral Grigorovich class frigates if it was so good?


Kashtan-M is still deployed on Dozens of Ships today of RuN fleet http://militaryrussia.ru/blog/topic-16.html

But they will progressively be replaced with Naval Verison of PAntsir-M the first ship with Pantisir-M is already on trial and Grogorvich will eventually fitted with the same system as well as other ships that would go into mid-life upgrade. http://militaryrussia.ru/blog/topic-677.html

Naval Pantsir-M system

https://pp.userapi.com/c846216/v8462161 ... -JM_iA.jpg
https://2018.f.a0z.ru/05/02-6229097-228 ... 5.2018.jpg


That is entirely urban legend that Barak-1 cannot intercept supersonic missiles it can engage supersonic target however it is capability are limited due to low range and can only engage a target at a time due to its use of an engagement radar (CLOS guidance). Kashtan has same exact weakness as do other similar missiles like Seawolf. (Pantsir might be better because it has better engagement range.)

I cannot speak for Kashtan-m1 but Barak is superior to Kashtan primarily because of low engagement range which allows it engage targets only few hundred meters from the vessel, Kashtan does not posses this capability nor is it a VLS system. Barak-1 + AK-630 combination is mainly added due to limitation of Shtil-1, with addition of Barak-8 Navy would not be going for that combo. In fact Ak-630 would have been replaced with superior naval Skyguard a while back if wasn't for idiotic bribery scandal.

As for Kashtan similar to Tunguska it sounds great on paper and for all the armchair generals like us but on execution it is too many moving pieces that can go wrong which complicates maintenance and increases cost. It is not easy to replace Kashtan requires extensive refit and with current budget good luck with it, but as Barak-8 is being standardized i would not surprised if Barak-8 is refitted on Talwar in next decade or so at which point Kashtan is retired.

sahay
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 33
Joined: 11 Apr 2017 19:45

Re: Russian weapons and military technology

Postby sahay » 22 May 2018 09:05

Austin wrote:IF Kashtan-1 was that bad IN would have removed it already and replaced with Barak-1 , considering the IN would not even allow trishul to be fitted unless proven

Navy had poor experience with Kashtan on Talwar class. They replaced Kashtan on Shivalik class, despite it causing a delay in construction. From Mrityunjoy Mazumdar's write up on Shivalik class in Seaforth World Naval Review 2013,

In addition, there were some significant systems changes; for example the substitution of a combined Barak 1 and AK630M anti-missile defence complex for the planned ‘Kashtan’ system following a poor experience with the latter on the first Russian-built Project 1136.6 frigate, Talwar. The substitute system was only ready for installation when Shivalik was 87 per cent complete, necessitating major structural and electrical reworking.


Edited to fix a misunderstanding.

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 62702
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: Russian weapons and military technology

Postby Singha » 22 May 2018 09:17

Navy Recognition comment:
The Poseidon (formerly known as Status-6 / NATO designation Kanyon) is a self-propelled underwater craft to be carried by two submarines under construction - the Khabarovsk and the Belgorod. Open sources said each submarine will carry three-ten underwater craft. They resemble a big 20-meter long torpedo with a diameter of close to 1.5 meters. The range is up to 10 thousand kilometers. The craft has several compartments. It is likely a universal platform which can carry various modules depending on the mission. They can be nuclear or conventional charges, radio-electronic warfare or reconnaissance means.

Status-6 can engage in various missions ranging from destruction of important economic facilities on the coast up to the fight with aircraft-carrying forces. There are no weapons in the world at present which can counter the craft operating at major depths and at high speed


Return to “Military Issues & History Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Balaji, Bart S, Google [Bot], Neela, prasannasimha and 36 guests