The emergence of the UKSK universal shipborne firing system and the 3S14 universal launchers, which provide vertical launch of the Caliber family of cruise missiles, has become a sharp step forward in the potential capabilities of the Russian Navy. Now, during the construction of any warship, it became possible to "fit" into its design a "package" of at least eight vertically mounted missiles. Launchers 3C14 can be installed in "blocks" of several units. Russia, thus, received technologies, in many respects similar to those thanks to which the US Navy dramatically increased its power at the turn of the 80s and 90s of the last century.
The creators of this system have a right to be proud of it.
However, another fact should not be hidden behind pride and joy - concentration only on vertical launch units does not allow fully disclosing the combat potential of the domestic military fleet. Together with the 3S14, the Navy "threw out a child with water" - rejected the decision allowing to place cruise missiles of the "Caliber" family not only on new ships, or modernized aircraft carrier "Admiral Nakhimov" and BOD "Marshal Shaposhnikov", which are being modernized according to complex and expensive projects.
We are talking about an inclined launch of cruise missiles, not vertically upwards, but at an angle to the horizontal. Such a solution would make it possible to install rocket launchers for missiles of the "Caliber" family on any old ship, where there are appropriate reinforcements of the decks and resistance to heating from the jet exhaust of the rocket booster is provided.
The installation that allows launching "Caliber" "in a tilt" was developed, there is even an index 3S14P, where "P" means "Deck". It could be installed on any ship armed with missiles, instead of the standard missile weapon. And with minimal rework. But alas.
In slope
Launching a cruise missile is not vertically upward, as our Caliber and American Tomahawks are launched today, but at an angle to the horizontal, “tilted” is energetically more advantageous for a cruise missile. The reason is that in a few seconds after the start, an additional lift appears on its body, and the appearance of lift on the wing occurs instantly after the wings open.
A very important advantage of this method of launching a rocket is a shallow "slide" - a rocket that starts "tilting" does not rise to such a height that the booster raises the rocket during a vertical launch. This is important because with a vertical launch, the enemy can detect a missile that has risen high enough for his radars to detect it from a long distance - even for a few seconds. These seconds will be enough for the enemy to realize that a missile strike is being delivered on him.
Another important feature of such installations is that they allow you to equip anything with cruise missiles. This is confirmed, for example, by the American experience.
The first "Tomahawks" began to arrive in the US Navy so-called ABL - armored box launcher. Incomparably lighter than today's standard Mk.41, the ABL does not require as much space below deck - in fact, it only needs power cables and connections to the CIUS. It can be installed on any ship. For the Americans, however, they were not just inclined, but also lifting - this provided the possibility of multiple reloading on the ship. But we still don't have a place, you can put it permanently.
The Americans, having received such a launcher, immediately began to equip it with their "units" - destroyers "Spruence", nuclear-powered cruisers of the "Virginia" class and, until a certain moment, the champion in carrying "Tomahawks" - battleships of the "Iowa" class. A little later, vertical installations appeared on "Spruens" and "Ticonderogs", and then a series of destroyers "Arleigh Burke" went, but it all started with armored boxes on the decks.
And this lesson from the past is completely ignored by our Navy.
Missed opportunities
There are ships in the under-deck space of which vertical launch units are placed. This is, for example, the Admiral Nakhimov heavy nuclear missile cruiser. Or the BOD of Project 1155 - we will come back to the project of their modernization.
It is less known that the "vertical" 3S14 can stand on the SKR of project 1135 instead of the standard PLRK "Blizzard" - then the ship, instead of four old PLUR 85R, would receive eight "cells" in which modern PLUR 91R / RT and KR of the Caliber family could stand "- both anti-ship missiles 3M54 and a missile for strikes against ground targets 3M14.
However, such modernization makes sense only together with the repair of the ship and the extension of its service life by a significant amount, the possibility of which is not obvious.
On the other hand, it is obvious that it is possible to install inclined launching guides (if they were) on the RTOs of projects 1234 "Gadfly".
Currently, these ships are undergoing overhaul and modernization, during which instead of the Malakhit missile system with six missiles, the ships receive the Uranus missile system with sixteen.
Such modernization certainly increases their strike potential when attacking surface targets. However, if such ships had received "Caliber" instead of "Uranus", then their strike potential would not have been less, rather, on the contrary, it would have become many times greater. But at the same time, they would also be able to attack ground targets.
At present, the total salvo of cruise missiles from our entire fleet is absolutely insufficient; in the US Navy, the same number of missiles can be fired by a couple of destroyers. At the same time, in Russia there are twelve units of MRK project 1234 in service, and two units of ships of project 1239.
It is difficult to determine how many missiles of the Caliber family could actually fit on the Gadfly. On the ship of project 1234.7 "Nakat", which was used for testing the Onyx anti-ship missile system, it was possible to place 12 such anti-ship missiles. Taking into account the fact that the missiles of the "Caliber" family are smaller, it is safe to say that about sixteen of these missiles would fit on the MRK.
Of course, in the future, such CD carriers will be replaced by ground-based launchers. But, firstly, ground-based launchers of the KR will not be able to attack enemy ships if the enemy is set up, and secondly, we already have MRKs anyway, why not give them additional capabilities by making the ship more versatile? It's not to spend on new money - the ships have already been built.
Approximately the same number of "Caliber" could be installed on each of the two MRK project 1239.
Thus, if at one time pennies were not saved on inclined launchers for ships, and an accelerated modernization of the MRK was carried out, now the Navy would have 14 more cruise missile carriers, and each of them would carry 16 cruise missiles. A total of 224 missiles in a salvo.
Similarly, it would be possible to modernize the destroyers of Project 956. These ships, like MRKs, are dubious in their concept - they have very powerful artillery weapons combined with powerful anti-ship missiles, but in small numbers - 8 units on board. Air defense, frankly speaking, is moderate in capabilities, and anti-aircraft defense is approximately zero.
The ship is thus sub-optimal and vulnerable from under water. Putting here his problematic boiler-turbine power plant, we get a "walking headache". But, again, as in the case of the MRK, other ships of this class will not be available soon, and this one may well be used for attacks on surface targets, fire support for airborne assault forces and air defense. Replacing the Moskit anti-ship missile system with the Caliber, firstly, would solve the problem of obsolescence of the main offensive weapon for this ship, which, we admit, exists, secondly, it would increase its ammunition load, and thirdly, it would also give it the ability to strike along the coast from a long distance. And here already no ground complex could compete with it. The destroyer is a ship of the oceanic zone, armed with the KR "Caliber", it could strike almost anywhere on the planet, and staying in the depths of the oceanic zone, without approaching a dangerous distance from the enemy's coast.
Assuming that the destroyer would carry 16 missiles, we get 32 more missiles in a salvo on those ships that are in service, and, potentially, if the "Persistent" is repaired, then 16 more, 48 in total. Together with the modernized MRK of two projects - 272 rockets.
But all this pales against the background of the possibility of re-equipping the missile cruisers of Project 1164. The placement of anti-ship missile launchers on these ships is such that their replacement with vertical launch units is completely ruled out. But the replacement of sixteen huge launchers of Soviet anti-ship missiles with compact launchers for "Caliber", and perhaps "Onyx" (as on RTO "Nakat") is technically quite feasible. At the same time, it is difficult to immediately imagine how many missiles a cruiser will be able to carry after such an upgrade, but in any case, we are talking about many tens of units. And some of them may well be intended for strikes against ground targets.
Once again, it is worth focusing on the fact that everything is technically feasible - missiles of the "Caliber" family can be launched from inclined guides, a transport and launch container has been developed for experimental container launchers, which can become a "base" for the development of a TPK with an inclined launch. Those ships on which such missiles could be "registered" already have inclined launchers, and, accordingly, will withstand the loads from the "Calibers". All that is needed is political will and a very small amount of money compared to other military expenditures.
However, there is also an expensive option.
Modernization of the BOD "Marshal Shaposhnikov" as a comparative example. As you know, the BOD of the Marshal Shaposhnikov project is currently undergoing modernization. At one time, there was a lot of speculation on the topic of this modernization, and today we can say that the "speculators" were largely right. The modernization project really, among other things, provides for the dismantling of one of the two artillery installations, instead of which 2 launchers 3S14 will be mounted, with eight cruise missiles in each. Established PU KT-100 PLRK "Bell" have already been dismantled. Instead of them, the PU RK "Uran" will be installed.
At first glance, the result of the modernization is promising good - the ship will have 16 "cells" in which there may be a PLUR for the destruction of submarines, and cruise missiles for striking the ground, there may be other missile weapons.
And a plus to them is also "Uranus". The downside is the lost gun.
It's too early to talk about the price, let's just say that two 3S14 launchers for this ship by themselves, this is much more than a billion rubles (including hull work). The numbers will be announced one day, while we restrict ourselves to the fact that the restructuring of the entire bow of such a ship cannot be cheap.
The problem with our Navy was that there was a much more budgetary alternative.
The fact is that it was technically possible, slightly, by a few degrees, to change the angle of installation of the standard KT-100 launchers, to place in them instead of the standard PLUR 85RU a pair of TPK with missiles of the Caliber family.
It would be several times cheaper - neither the 3S14 nor the cutting of the hull where they are installed would be needed, the second 100-mm gun would remain in place, only the BIUS would undergo modifications. Moreover, the number of missiles in the KT-100 would be the same as in the Shaposhnikov, it would be in the 3C-14.
What would be the advantages of such a solution? First, it is many billion rubles cheaper. The total savings on all BODs to be upgraded would be comparable to the cost of building a small ship or vessel.
Secondly, the cannon remains. BODs of project 1155 do not have long-range air defense systems. Their SAM "Dagger", among other things, has a short target reach in height - 6000 meters. The AK-100 cannons have more than twice the height reach. And when the ship is attacked by bombs from aircraft flying at altitudes of more than 6000 meters, it is the cannons that are its only air defense means. And here the number of trunks is of great importance. When repelling a missile attack, the "extra" 100-mm barrel would also be in place.
Third, the timing. A simple upgrade, not associated with extensive cutting of the hull structures, would have made it possible to finish all work with the ship much faster. And this is also critical for the Navy.
Someone will object that in this case the ship is deprived of the Uranus missile system, the missiles of which should be installed in place of the KT-100 launchers. But closer to the stern of the ship there are ChTA-53 torpedo tubes outdated to the limit and taking up a lot of space. They have no meaning at the present time. Their dismantling will allow not only placing the Uranus launcher in the specified area of the ship (with the direction of firing sideways, as on western ships or corvettes of Project 20380), but also installing there launchers of the Packet complex with 324-mm torpedoes and anti-torpedoes. Which is in no way superfluous for a ship whose task is to fight submarines.
Alas, none of this will happen, at least with the "Shaposhnikov" - for sure, and knowing the policy of the Navy, you can guarantee that it will not happen at all.
With all the indifference of the fleet to the issues of cost savings, it is worthwhile to voice this problem - there is a technical possibility to ensure the launch of cruise missiles of the Caliber family from inclined launchers. Such installations can be mounted on naval warships instead of standard ones. In the case of the BOD of Project 1155, in principle, standard KT-100 launchers can be used as inclined launchers with minimal modifications. But they are not needed by anyone in the Navy
The use of inclined launchers will make it possible to modernize the mass of ships in service with the Navy, giving them new capabilities, and not expensively. All that is needed for this is to quickly resume the development of the 3S-14P launcher and bring it to the "series", develop a project for the modernization of the KT-100 launcher, modify the TPK of the Caliber missiles for inclined launch, develop new software for the rocket and conduct tests.
There are no fundamental reasons why something could seriously fail in this project.
Vertical launch systems are good in that they allow you to "pack" more missiles in a given volume than inclined ones, but they are more appropriate on new ships than on old ones; on old ones, their use makes sense in a few cases. In the rest, both common sense and economic feasibility require a completely different solution.
Financing the Navy in the foreseeable future will be insufficient, and this requires an economical approach to everything. It would be great if we got firepower at the cost of less money, which our country already has little.
