Russian Navy : News & Discussion Part-2

Zvezdochka finished repair and modernization of the «Bryansk»
27.02.2008

The sub was passed over to the Russian Navy. According to the press-service of the enterprise Evgenie Gladyshev the ship has been seriously upgraded. Its combat power was improved in terms of reducing the noise, increasing the opportunities of tracing enemy’s subs, increasing survivability and nuclear safety. The service life of “Bryansk” has been prolonged for ten years. Repair of the submarine began in 2002, however, according to the audior of CAST Michael Barabanov because of the shortage of financing the repair of “Bryansk” was strongly delayed, the works were repeatedly suspended.

Bryansk became the fourth submarine of one of the most modern projects 667BDRM which passed repair and upgrade. In the near future it is expected that Zvezdochka will take the next (6th) sub of this type – “Novomoskovsk”. The seventh sub of this type “Vladimir” will be converted into a sub of special purpose. Because of the slow repair, in the opinion of Barabanov, the combat structure of the Navy now has just four subs of this project.

News source: ShipbuildingRu

My point is simply that “based on” does not automatically imply that they can take the new components and fit them to any Kh-55 missile body.

They were already working on the Kh-101 and Kh-102. They stated at the time that the guidance was based on the land attack seeker of these new missiles. If they knew these new missiles were being developed why bother basing the Kh-65 on the Kh-55 at all? The Kh-55 has much shorter range than the Kh-10x, but then the Kh-65 is credited with a relatively short range too. If the Kh-65 was based on the Kh-10x you would expect a much greater range even if it wasn’t the 5,000km range of the originals. The Kh-55 on the other hand with a range of only 1,500km or so the 250km range of the Kh-65 makes more sense.

Again, modification and modular capability are not the same thing. The fact of the matter is that we just don’t know, really.

We don’t know but we can make an educated guess based on the facts. The Kh-55 will be being withdrawn rapidly. We know the Soviets were able to make thousands of Kh-55s in a few years because they are relatively simple and cheap to make. We know the replacement has been successfully tested so we can deduce that there are going to be a lot of unnecessary Kh-55s lying around the place. The nuclear warheads can probably be reused in the new missiles after an overhaul and thorough check. The remaining components can either be chucked away… certainly not what they have done in the past, or they could attach the warhead and seeker of the newer missile to make the Kh-65 or they can use them as cruise missile targets for air defence exercises. My bet is that they will do both. Operationally for exercises and for war some targets will require a 5,000km range conventional missile and some will require a 250km range missile. Have heard of a weapon called Kh-SD but later heard it was a system or group of missiles rather than an individual weapon. It supposedly had a range of 650km when it was described as a missile and I think it might be the Kh-65 modification of the Kh-555 with the extra saddle tanks to increase range. As such you may be right… the Kh-65 might be obsolete and the Kh-55s might be being used as cruise missile targets instead of becoming Kh-65s and the Kh-555 might be getting the new warheads and seekers and becoming Kh-SDs.

By tossed I meant removed from service. I do know what they do with formerly operational hardware, there’s even talk right now of converting some of the oldest 5V55 rounds from the S-300P series into targets.

Not surprising… my 2001-2002 edition of Russias arms list the SA-1, SA-6, SA-2, SA-3, SA-8, and the 96M6M missiles as training target missiles. It even mentions that since 1965 over 11,000 SA-1s have been used as targets during training.

Really, you should try typing on a laptop with a 1 year old scrambling all over the place once, it’s an interesting experience

🙂

When it was revealed it was described as being based on the Kh-55.

My point is simply that “based on” does not automatically imply that they can take the new components and fit them to any Kh-55 missile body.

The Kh-65 wasn’t designed as a seperate weapon but as a modification of an existing weapon. I would expect it was designed to require as few modifications as possible.

All the sources that mention it that I have ever read describe it as a conventional weapon with land attack and anti ship capabilities. They also describe it as a modification of the kh-55.

Again, modification and modular capability are not the same thing. The fact of the matter is that we just don’t know, really.

You don’t know the Russians as well as you think you do.
They still have SA-1s for use as drone targets. Even without implimenting the Kh-65 modification they can certainly be fitted with an inert warhead and “pretend” to be cruise missiles… very convincing cruise missiles in fact for the air defence people to practise upon.

By tossed I meant removed from service. I do know what they do with formerly operational hardware, there’s even talk right now of converting some of the oldest 5V55 rounds from the S-300P series into targets.

Really, you should try typing on a laptop with a 1 year old scrambling all over the place once, it’s an interesting experience 😀

I would suspect that a modern digital avionics suite would be capable of multi role use and that it would be a case of wiring to hardpoints that may or may not limit weapon options. The fact that the Bear and the Blackjack and the Backfire are getting a range of TV, laser, satellite, and IR guided munitions added to their armament options suggests that unification of systems might allow unification of weapons options too. Remember without inflight refuelling although the Backfire has a good flight range the Bear and Blackjack have much greater range and with larger noses likely radar antennas of larger apature too.

They’re getting conventional munitions capability (BEAR H and BLACKJACK, that is) to broaden their capabilities beyond the nuclear role, in much the same manner as the USAF did to the B-1B and B-2A. It’s really a good idea, especially in the case of the BLACKJACK, as you can probably fit a very good sized payload in the two internal bays.

How do you mean “superceded”?

Superceded in development and media focus, not operational service (yet).

Kh-101 seems to have superceded both the Kh-555 and Kh-65.

How do you mean “superceded”? The Kh-555, AFAIK, has been in service for a while on modernized Tu-95MSMs (the upgrading of Tu-95MS16s to Tu-95MSMs is, according to Jane’s pretty much complete) and there’s been various articles referring to the firing of conventional cruise missiles in exercises, which I understood to be the Kh-555, seeing as how its a less ambitious program than the Kh-101.

It was a new missile, it may have been based on the Kh-55 but there is no evidence to suggest that a real missile would consist of the back end of a reworked Kh-55.

When it was revealed it was described as being based on the Kh-55.

JDAM is a little more involved than just the tail section, but it is a strap-on kit.

It is a modification of a weapon for making it suitable for a different role.

But is it that simple? A much heavier front end may require some center of gravity alterations, perhaps necessitating the resituating of the wings or some other major change.

The Kh-65 wasn’t designed as a seperate weapon but as a modification of an existing weapon. I would expect it was designed to require as few modifications as possible.

It could be modular, but there is just not enough information to make that a definitive answer.

All the sources that mention it that I have ever read describe it as a conventional weapon with land attack and anti ship capabilities. They also describe it as a modification of the kh-55.

Probably tossed eventually, as their replacement is the Kh-102.

You don’t know the Russians as well as you think you do.
They still have SA-1s for use as drone targets. Even without implimenting the Kh-65 modification they can certainly be fitted with an inert warhead and “pretend” to be cruise missiles… very convincing cruise missiles in fact for the air defence people to practise upon.

Kh-101 seems to have superceded both the Kh-555 and Kh-65.

Or maybe they are to be called Kh-SD and used by the backfires and Su-34s as tactical (650km range) missiles while the Kh-101/-102 model conventional warhead model will be the strategic weapon.

I’ve heard that they are being upgraded but not that they are receiving the same systems. Even if they did receive the same basic radar set, there is no guarantee that, say, the anti-ship avionics modules will be fitted to the BEAR and BLACKJACK.

I would suspect that a modern digital avionics suite would be capable of multi role use and that it would be a case of wiring to hardpoints that may or may not limit weapon options. The fact that the Bear and the Blackjack and the Backfire are getting a range of TV, laser, satellite, and IR guided munitions added to their armament options suggests that unification of systems might allow unification of weapons options too. Remember without inflight refuelling although the Backfire has a good flight range the Bear and Blackjack have much greater range and with larger noses likely radar antennas of larger apature too.

No it wasn’t a new design… it is rather more like SLAM is to Harpoon… a change of guidance and a (dramatic) change in role but based on an existing weapon.

It was a new missile, it may have been based on the Kh-55 but there is no evidence to suggest that a real missile would consist of the back end of a reworked Kh-55.

Think of it more as a upgrade kit in the same sense that JDAM is an upgrade… in JDAM the tail section is removed and the JDAM kit is fitted.

JDAM is a little more involved than just the tail section, but it is a strap-on kit.

In the Kh-65 the nuclear warhead and guidance section is removed and the new warhead and guidance system is fitted. In that sense the Kh-65 nost could be fitted to almost any Russian missile in that it is a warhead and guidance package to be fitted to a missile body. Obviously reshaping of the external part of the Kh-65 nose section would be required for very large missiles perhaps if that is an option. They might just stick to strategic cruise missiles.

But is it that simple? A much heavier front end may require some center of gravity alterations, perhaps necessitating the resituating of the wings or some other major change.

The missile is very likely to be modular in design with a warhead and guidance section respectively. I would expect the new warhead and guidance package was specifically designed to replace the existing one so you just manufacture as many kh-65 front sections as you need and select the Kh-55 missiles that are about to expire and use them for testing.

It could be modular, but there is just not enough information to make that a definitive answer.

Unless they are at war soon obviously missiles will expire before they can be used in practise so a few of the Kh-55 missiles will likely get overhauls or be discarded.

Probably tossed eventually, as their replacement is the Kh-102.

Common sense would suggest they would use up all the Kh-55s as Kh-65s first while production… hang on… I thought there were two new missiles… Kh-101 and Kh-102, where the Kh-102 was nuclear armed and the Kh-101 was conventionally armed and that the Kh-65 was basically fitting the Kh-101s warhead and seeker onto the Kh-55.

Kh-101 seems to have superceded both the Kh-555 and Kh-65.

The Bears, the Blackjacks and the Backfires that remain in service are to be given a unified upgrade with the same radar, the same systems etc. This means that if the Backfire is to retain its maritime role as well as its nuclear land strike role then all three will get naval and land attack strike capabilities and there will probably be some sort of unification of their weapons as well. Whether that means that they will all get Kh-15 or a replacement for that weapon remains to be seen.

I’ve heard that they are being upgraded but not that they are receiving the same systems. Even if they did receive the same basic radar set, there is no guarantee that, say, the anti-ship avionics modules will be fitted to the BEAR and BLACKJACK.

Because the Kh-65 is a new design with a new forward fueslage, new guidance systems, and a large concentional warhead taking up far more internal space than the nuclear round, which is part of the reason that the Kh-65 doesn’t have the range of the Kh-55. Being heavier doesn’t help that either, of course.

No it wasn’t a new design… it is rather more like SLAM is to Harpoon… a change of guidance and a (dramatic) change in role but based on an existing weapon. The original shown in the early 90s was clearly a Kh-55 with a new nose with new warhead and guidance. Think of it more as a upgrade kit in the same sense that JDAM is an upgrade… in JDAM the tail section is removed and the JDAM kit is fitted. In the Kh-65 the nuclear warhead and guidance section is removed and the new warhead and guidance system is fitted. In that sense the Kh-65 nost could be fitted to almost any Russian missile in that it is a warhead and guidance package to be fitted to a missile body. Obviously reshaping of the external part of the Kh-65 nose section would be required for very large missiles perhaps if that is an option. They might just stick to strategic cruise missiles.

Could they rework the Kh-55s into Kh-65s? Probably, but it’d be a lot more involved than just lopping off the front end and replacing it, what with the new avionics, warhead, etc.

The missile is very likely to be modular in design with a warhead and guidance section respectively. I would expect the new warhead and guidance package was specifically designed to replace the existing one so you just manufacture as many kh-65 front sections as you need and select the Kh-55 missiles that are about to expire and use them for testing.

Unless they are at war soon obviously missiles will expire before they can be used in practise so a few of the Kh-55 missiles will likely get overhauls or be discarded.

Apparently the Kh-65 is actually a modded Kh-101 now as well?

Wouldn’t surprise me at all. If the USN came out with a newer stealthier and much longer ranged Harpoon it would make sense for them to also use that newer model to upgrade the SLAM as well.

Kinda hard to know which type of missiles the Russians are building at the moment.

Common sense would suggest they would use up all the Kh-55s as Kh-65s first while production… hang on… I thought there were two new missiles… Kh-101 and Kh-102, where the Kh-102 was nuclear armed and the Kh-101 was conventionally armed and that the Kh-65 was basically fitting the Kh-101s warhead and seeker onto the Kh-55.

BEAR H and BLACKJACK both use the CLAM PIPE (Obzor-something) radar set, which is matched to the Kh-55 ALCM. Whether CLAM PIPE can support an anti-ship missile is a good question, as it is matched with the Kh-55 there’d probably have to be a software upgrade.

The Bears, the Blackjacks and the Backfires that remain in service are to be given a unified upgrade with the same radar, the same systems etc. This means that if the Backfire is to retain its maritime role as well as its nuclear land strike role then all three will get naval and land attack strike capabilities and there will probably be some sort of unification of their weapons as well. Whether that means that they will all get Kh-15 or a replacement for that weapon remains to be seen.

I was hoping for a more thorough explanation, since there seems to be a serious lack of radar information on Russian bombers. 😛 That would be the best explanation for a Bear H being able to (or not to) perform AShM missions.

BEAR H and BLACKJACK both use the CLAM PIPE (Obzor-something) radar set, which is matched to the Kh-55 ALCM. Whether CLAM PIPE can support an anti-ship missile is a good question, as it is matched with the Kh-55 there’d probably have to be a software upgrade.

I was hoping for a more thorough explanation, since there seems to be a serious lack of radar information on Russian bombers. 😛 That would be the best explanation for a Bear H being able to (or not to) perform AShM missions.

What complete and utter nonsense, to perform an AShM carrier role all a Tu-95 needs is sufficient communications equipment to be kept informed of where the target is so that it knows where to launch its missiles and what direction to point them in. Of course the problem of finding targets for the Russian at the moment has been discussed to death in other threads. It is the same principle for aircraft, they do not have actually ‘see’ the target themselves. The question is whether the existing Tu-95 force is outfitted to carry the Kh-22 and without any evidence (your effort to use wikipedia was shockingly inept) the answer has to be no. It would help everyone here if you actually knew what it was you were talking about before you posted.:rolleyes:

The Tomahawk and SS-N-21 aren’t what the Russian Navy really need or needed in the past. Their (Russian Armed Forces) cruise missile attacks are generally carried out by the Tu-95/160 bombers.

The Kirov is meant more as an anti-ship / anti aircraft platform, with other secondary uses as well like ASuW.

Arming it with subsonic missiles would be a serious downgrade if anything.

I’m sure there is enough room to add a cruise missile launch system for Granats anyway.

Upgrading the Granits to do a flight profile like the Yakhont’s would be the best option in my opinion, and perhaps increase range with a booster or better motor.

So dionis were is the problem, is much easier to fire a cruise missile from VLS than from torpedo tube. Also, I believe that only a Yakhont armed “Kirov” is nothing more than a “large frigate”. Such a vessel should have a strategic orientation. Also Yakhont is a little bit different from Indian Brahmos. The russian missile has a lighter warhead, only 200kg and also shorter range, 220km. So if you plan to attack against large target with such missile the only thing will happen is to open a hole and send the vessel to shipyard for a period of time. Granit’s 750kg warhead is guarantee;)
Do you have any information for upgeate Yakhont? The russian navy will opperate only Onyx, not Brahmos. Finally do you know if after the modernization of Nakhimov it will be used the same 45o degree VLS or a real VLS?

I mentioned the recessed fairing because the genius at Wikipedia mentioned the Kh-20 as well…and that one isn’t fitting underwing!

http://www.testpilot.ru/russia/mikoyan/kh/20/kh20_e.htm

I was hoping for a more thorough explanation, since there seems to be a serious lack of radar information on Russian bombers. 😛 That would be the best explanation for a Bear H being able to (or not to) perform AShM missions.

I assume the main reason the latest Bears can’t carry the Kh-22 would only be lack of the Down Beat / Leninets type radar. The Bear should have carried the Kh-22s underneath its wings, so the recess isn’t an issue I think. The noses of the Bear G / H are similar, so you can’t rule out the possibility it perhaps being possible.

I mentioned the recessed fairing because the genius at Wikipedia mentioned the Kh-20 as well…and that one isn’t fitting underwing!

http://www.testpilot.ru/russia/mikoyan/kh/20/kh20_e.htm

If this is Druzhny then take a look at her in google earth: http://bbs.keyhole.com/ubb/placemarks/968528-Moscow.kmz In the river outside Moscow! Probably planned preserved and converted into museum. You have an old Tango submarine down the river as well.
http://static.panoramio.com/photos/original/3694102.jpg Here you have an image of her linked in google earth.

I think thats it, thanks for links, Rav3n, given the ships age I would be very surprised if she is being returned to service.

If you are to be taken seriously as well, you need to provide sources against my ideas then. If you have nothing concrete, too bad. #1 FAN BOY!!

You have been shot down by multiple posters time and again and provided nothing to defend yourself, you will get far more respect here if you just admit you were wrong rather than persisting with this nonsense. Like I said, the US has a death star.:rolleyes:

The Kh-101 derived Kh-65 that Global Security mentions is not a Kh-65 but a Kh-SD, again no evidence of it having flown let alone having entered service. Furthermore there is every reason to suspect that it has no (or highly limited) AShM capability based on the fact that there was a dedicated AShM version of the Kh-65 (Kh-65SE), you have been told all of this before.:rolleyes:

I dont need to prove they cant, you are the one claiming they can and if you want to be taken seriously you have to provide evidence to back it up. We have been through this lesson several times, I can claim that the US has a death star, you can not disprove it (after all its an uber secret weapon that only certain people know about) therefore it must exist. A claim without support is just a theory, there is nothing wrong with theories if you say that is what they are but it is wrong to present them as fact as you insist on doing. The reason you do this is that you are a fan boy.

If you are to be taken seriously as well, you need to provide sources against my ideas then. If you have nothing concrete, too bad. #1 FAN BOY!!

Because the Kh-65 is a new design with a new forward fueslage, new guidance systems, and a large concentional warhead taking up far more internal space than the nuclear round, which is part of the reason that the Kh-65 doesn’t have the range of the Kh-55. Being heavier doesn’t help that either, of course.

Could they rework the Kh-55s into Kh-65s? Probably, but it’d be a lot more involved than just lopping off the front end and replacing it, what with the new avionics, warhead, etc.

They’re listing all of the Tu-95’s weapons, not just those carried by the Tu-95MS. The Tu-95MS was designed from the Tu-142 airframe as a cruise missile carrier to employ the Kh-55. Beyond that, look at the bottom of one, there are no fairings for the recesses needed to accomodate the Kh-22 or any other large cruise missile.

Podvig is certainly a credible source regarding anything to do with Russia’s nuclear forces. Forget his blog, that’s only the tip of the iceberg. What you need is his book, Russian Strategic Nuclear Forces. Truly an excellent reference source.

Also, regarding Admiral Lazarev, here are the dates when the vessel was imaged in both locations:

6 June 2005 – Bolshoy Kamen
23 August 2007 – Abrek Bay

Clearly the ship was moved, and that explains why you see it twice in Google Earth!

Yeah figured it was Lazarev because of the way the ship looks as well.

I’ve seen/read the book SOC. Fact of the matter is, there were 45+ K22 variant Bears in 1998 and apparently none in 2000. It’s possible, but I wouldn’t be surprised if the scrapping delayed a bit and there were a few airframes in flying condition left.

I assume the main reason the latest Bears can’t carry the Kh-22 would only be lack of the Down Beat / Leninets type radar. The Bear should have carried the Kh-22s underneath its wings, so the recess isn’t an issue I think. The noses of the Bear G / H are similar, so you can’t rule out the possibility it perhaps being possible.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/russia/kh-65.htm

Apparently the Kh-65 is actually a modded Kh-101 now as well? :confused:

Kinda hard to know which type of missiles the Russians are building at the moment.

Prove the Russian CAN’T re-arm their Kh-55s into Kh-65s on a short notice.

Because the Kh-65 is a new design with a new forward fueslage, new guidance systems, and a large concentional warhead taking up far more internal space than the nuclear round, which is part of the reason that the Kh-65 doesn’t have the range of the Kh-55. Being heavier doesn’t help that either, of course.

Could they rework the Kh-55s into Kh-65s? Probably, but it’d be a lot more involved than just lopping off the front end and replacing it, what with the new avionics, warhead, etc.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu-95

Basic source. Bottom. Stats for MS model. Kh-22 can be carried. :confused:

They’re listing all of the Tu-95’s weapons, not just those carried by the Tu-95MS. The Tu-95MS was designed from the Tu-142 airframe as a cruise missile carrier to employ the Kh-55. Beyond that, look at the bottom of one, there are no fairings for the recesses needed to accomodate the Kh-22 or any other large cruise missile.

Secondly, prove Pavel’s godly log is correct, and every one of 50+ Tu-95K22s is already scrap metal. Come on, you are so smart! Surely this is a simple task.

Podvig is certainly a credible source regarding anything to do with Russia’s nuclear forces. Forget his blog, that’s only the tip of the iceberg. What you need is his book, Russian Strategic Nuclear Forces. Truly an excellent reference source.

Also, regarding Admiral Lazarev, here are the dates when the vessel was imaged in both locations:

6 June 2005 – Bolshoy Kamen
23 August 2007 – Abrek Bay

Clearly the ship was moved, and that explains why you see it twice in Google Earth!

Krivak, a reconstruction/rebuild I assume.

Thats actually a pretty good series of photos. It is interesting that there does seem to be a slight bias towards ASW is the ships that are getting this attention. It would be interesting to know whether there are any system upgrades and if so to what extent?

It is of course worth mentioning that the youngest Krivak II hull is now 25 years old.

Edit: Closer inspection leads me to believe this is the Druzhny which would make her a Krivak I and 33 years old! That is a pretty old hull (especially given what has happened to much younger Russian navy units) and one has to wonder whether she really is being refitted or sent for scrap, the upper works certainly look a mess……..anyone have any details?

If this is Druzhny then take a look at her in google earth: http://bbs.keyhole.com/ubb/placemarks/968528-Moscow.kmz In the river outside Moscow! Probably planned preserved and converted into museum. You have an old Tango submarine down the river as well.
http://static.panoramio.com/photos/original/3694102.jpg Here you have an image of her linked in google earth.

You still fail to prove that the Russians can not modify their equipment on short notice in case it is needed. I say you are delusional. And talking about fan boys, like I said, you LEAD the US “fan boys” here.

I dont need to prove they cant, you are the one claiming they can and if you want to be taken seriously you have to provide evidence to back it up. We have been through this lesson several times, I can claim that the US has a death star, you can not disprove it (after all its an uber secret weapon that only certain people know about) therefore it must exist. A claim without support is just a theory, there is nothing wrong with theories if you say that is what they are but it is wrong to present them as fact as you insist on doing. The reason you do this is that you are a fan boy.

Again, where are your sources, the answer is simple, you have none becouse what you want to believe is just pure fantasy you are a fan boy.

The fact that you resort to insults and criticism of spelling just goes to show how absolutely flawed your ability to engage in discussion is. Now, once again, where are your sources? And in case you had forgotten everything is produced by individuals so I dont quite know what you were aiming at with that but it just undermined you even further.

You still fail to prove that the Russians can not modify their equipment on short notice in case it is needed. I say you are delusional. And talking about fan boys, like I said, you LEAD the US “fan boys” here.