Military Review

Ships of the Navy will receive a universal launcher

38
Russian warships will receive a universal launcher, which allows you to store and launch even in the strongest storm all types of missiles that are in service with the Navy, according to News.




The official name of the new product is UKS-M (universal ship shooting complex). These are container-cells, which are placed under the deck of the ship. Each cell is designed to accommodate one rocket. From the outside, only protective covers are visible, according to the material.

According to experts, the novelty allows you to maximize the combat capabilities of ships - on board you can take the missiles of exactly the type that is needed to solve a specific task.

“Currently, the development of UKSC-M is already underway. It is planned that after the completion of the tests, the installation will go into service with Russian prospective warships. UKKS-M can be placed not only on cruisers and frigates, but also lighter corvettes and even small rocket ships. On older ships, the installations will be mounted while undergoing scheduled maintenance, ”the newspaper writes, citing a representative of the Navy’s main command.

According to the publication, "UKSK-M is designed not only for missiles already in service, but also for promising products, in particular, the installation is designed for the transportation and use of hypersonic Zircon missiles".

Navy expert Dmitry Boltenkov:

You can download rockets of exactly the type that is needed to solve a specific problem. For example, more cruise missiles are taken to support ground operations, and anti-aircraft and anti-ship to accompany the aircraft carrier group. But there are certain technical difficulties. The missiles have different dimensions, and the internal fastenings of UKKS-M must equally effectively hold both light and short, and heavy and long products. A unified information exchange system between the rocket and the ship’s combat information system is also required. This requires not only universal connectors on rockets, but also special algorithms embedded in electronic systems.


Currently, Russian ships are equipped with several types of PU. Thus, the latest vertical launchers (VPU) 3C14 are designed for the Caliber cruise missiles and the Onyx anti-ship missiles. Similar in construction, the TLU are also used for anti-aircraft missiles of the Polyment-Redut complex. These installations are in many ways similar to UKSK-M - they are containers hidden under the deck of a ship.
38 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. igorspb
    igorspb 17 November 2017 10: 24 New
    +5
    Yes, really, well, finally ....
    1. Orel
      Orel 17 November 2017 10: 31 New
      +3
      Quote: igorspb
      Yes, really, well, finally ....


      The answer to the MK-41. Unification simplifies and reduces the cost of many things.
      1. IL-18
        IL-18 17 November 2017 10: 47 New
        +2
        This rocket needs to be done under a single container, now? Or did you manage to adapt the container to everything? If the second, then reduces the cost. If the first, then heaps of adapters, etc. with other nomenclature and specially trained people can become a pretty penny. I can’t believe that 533 mm of product diameter solves all problems.
        Although, I'm civilian. And faith in the ability of Russians (we are a multinational nation, mutually enriching each other), allows us to hope that everything is simple, as in the article.
        1. Mih1974
          Mih1974 17 November 2017 10: 57 New
          +6
          And how the MK-41 managed to concoct the mattresses - collected information, “fitted” it into a single format, developed adapters (and there are not many) and now they have universal PU good And now New missiles or upgrades to a new format are customized. Actually, in addition to the problem of adapters and electronics, there can be no problem in the hardware. If I’m not mistaken, instead of one “ax” they put a single block of 4 missile defense, so what bothers us? Yes, in one working day, you can go through all the options for composing and develop the optimal PU and the question again rests - in electronics. good
          After all, it seems "what a nuisance, how are we going to shove and set it all up", but few people think that "PU filling occurs exclusively in the Port, moreover, if a" non-standard "rocket is shoved into an adapter, then this" adapter "is shoved it can be packaged in advance, slowly and without rushing and screaming, and at the berth in the control room the blocks already prepared can be charged even a month ago or more. good
        2. Orel
          Orel 17 November 2017 11: 09 New
          +1
          Quote: IL-18
          This rocket needs to be done under a single container, now? Or did you manage to adapt the container to everything? If the second, then reduces the cost. If the first, then heaps of adapters, etc. with other nomenclature and specially trained people can become a pretty penny. I can’t believe that 533 mm of product diameter solves all problems.


          I think even if it’s not the best option, but in the long run it will still be more profitable in the end. Even with the initial large investment.
  2. Burbon
    Burbon 17 November 2017 10: 26 New
    +1
    it’s a good thing, it’s time to unify everything for a long time, but where is the zircon and when will the Poliment Redoubt be ??
  3. donavi49
    donavi49 17 November 2017 10: 26 New
    +7
    Less than 42 years have passed (since development is in the article, then we take development) - how it came to be that having your MK41 is profitable and correct.
    1. Jedi
      Jedi 17 November 2017 10: 44 New
      +4
      I agree with you, but better late than never.
    2. AID.S
      AID.S 17 November 2017 11: 05 New
      0
      Quote: donavi49
      Less than 42 years have passed (since development is in the article, then we take development) - how did it come to be that having your MK41 is profitable and correct

      Like under the USSR they could have no problems, but fools, and in the 90s, it’s just not clear why they didn’t make it?
  4. destination
    destination 17 November 2017 10: 26 New
    +3
    And what's new ... recourse Well, maybe one of the participants will chew on the ignorant ...
    1. Separ DNR
      Separ DNR 17 November 2017 10: 55 New
      +4
      Quote: destination
      And what's new ...

      News yes And not only for Russia, but probably I will not be mistaken, for all countries that have their own rocket technology.
      Strongly swung yes good . The task is the most difficult arch. Therefore, GOOD LUCK.
      1. Tektor
        Tektor 17 November 2017 15: 55 New
        0
        And what's new ...
        And it’s new here: now we have different such launchers for calibers, uranium, missiles, calm and redoubt. And now everything will be one. But it is very strange how they were able to place Onyx in one cell with a container diameter of 720 mm, having a length of 8,9 m and a total mass of a product with TPK - 3,9 tons and TPK ZUR Shtilya-1, 9M317M, having a length of 5 m , weight - 08 kg, the diameter of the SAM shell - 1040 mm, and the overall size of the TPK - 360x400 mm, approximately? It is likely that in one cell for Onyx is placed 400 TPK Zur Shtil.
  5. Magic archer
    Magic archer 17 November 2017 10: 28 New
    +1
    But this is good news! It is high time to come to unification. And then we have all kinds of mottling! And in all branches of the army!
    1. NEXUS
      NEXUS 17 November 2017 14: 18 New
      +2
      Quote: Magic Archer
      But this is good news! It is high time to come to unification. And then we have all kinds of mottling! And in all branches of the army!

      I believe they are preparing for new RCC, KR, etc. ... including for Zircons.
      It’s just not clear how this is all in practice ... RPC Granite, for example, nifiga is not small compared to, say, Onyx ... and what kind of installation should be in order to accommodate Granite and Onyx ...
  6. Neputin
    Neputin 17 November 2017 10: 30 New
    +2
    I could be wrong, but it seems to me that the Americans have their MK41 designed only for axes and anti-aircraft missiles. Anti-ship "Harpoons" have their own separate launcher. Who knows? explain.
    1. venik
      venik 17 November 2017 10: 54 New
      +2
      Quote: Neputin
      I could be wrong, but it seems to me that the Americans have their MK41 designed only for axes and anti-aircraft missiles.

      ========
      Not only!! It can run:
      - Anti-aircraft (including air defense / missile defense): "Standard (of all modifications), Sea Sparrow, ESSM;
      - Winged: "Tomahawk"
      - Anti-submarine: ASROC /
      Here's how!
      PS they have a rather interesting system implemented there: special “glasses” - “inserts” standardized by “external dimensions” are used for missiles of different sizes.
      1. burigaz2010
        burigaz2010 17 November 2017 11: 29 New
        +2
        That is why dances for harpoons are ancient pu!
    2. Veteran
      Veteran 17 November 2017 18: 12 New
      +3
      "Harpoons" have their own separate PUs ("hedgehogs" like our "Uranus"), and can not be used through the VPU Mk41.
      1. Neputin
        Neputin 17 November 2017 19: 06 New
        0
        Thank you, Veteran, you have confirmed my assumptions. And if this is true, then the creation of a universal installation for all types of weapons (anti-ship missiles, air defense, anti-aircraft defense) is a really big breakthrough. most importantly, the number of these launchers should be sufficient for a certain type of ship. For example, for a multifunctional corvette - 8 anti-ship missiles, 8 - anti-submarine missiles, 12 medium-range air defense missiles and 24 short-range air defense missiles. TOTAL: 52 missiles. The question is - will displacement allow?
        1. Veteran
          Veteran 17 November 2017 23: 36 New
          +4
          Such a set can only be delivered to the frigate with a PVI of at least 5500 tons.
          Of course, this invention is wonderful - universal launchers for all types of missiles, but you need to keep in mind that by increasing the amount of ammunition of one type, you reduce the stock of another. And on a long voyage, it will not be possible to change its composition (to our ships).
  7. novel66
    novel66 17 November 2017 10: 42 New
    +4
    still to build at least one decent ship for them, well, start at least ...
    1. venik
      venik 17 November 2017 10: 58 New
      0
      Quote: novel xnumx
      still to build at least one decent ship for them, well, start at least ...

      =========
      Well Duc are building "Pots"! I think in subsequent ships of the series this system should be implemented!
      1. novel66
        novel66 17 November 2017 11: 02 New
        +3
        it will not be enough !. no, even so -
  8. Egorovich
    Egorovich 17 November 2017 10: 45 New
    +5
    The main thing is that you can install this universal complex on old ships during repair, otherwise the construction of warships is very slow in our country.
  9. faiver
    faiver 17 November 2017 11: 08 New
    0
    I hope this case does not drag on for another ten years?
  10. rudolff
    rudolff 17 November 2017 11: 54 New
    +2
    That they will expand the range of missiles at UKKS and marry him with anti-aircraft guns is, of course, good. More attention was drawn to: "... an installation that allows you to store and launch all types of missiles even in the most severe storm." Could it be that on a gyro-stabilized platform the launchers will be placed? Curious.
    1. burigaz2010
      burigaz2010 17 November 2017 11: 57 New
      +3
      rudolff your words yes in god ears!
      1. Boa kaa
        Boa kaa 17 November 2017 21: 05 New
        +3
        Quote: burigaz2010
        rudolff your words yes in god ears!

        It is not necessary: ​​the LORD may become deaf !!!
        (The sailors were already tortured to beg him to send attention to their sun type!) am
        1. rudolff
          rudolff 17 November 2017 21: 58 New
          +2
          Beautifully said Boa!
          drinks
    2. ZVO
      ZVO 17 November 2017 19: 34 New
      +3
      Quote: rudolff
      That they will expand the range of missiles at UKKS and marry him with anti-aircraft guns is, of course, good. More attention was drawn to: "... an installation that allows you to store and launch all types of missiles even in the most severe storm." Could it be that on a gyro-stabilized platform the launchers will be placed? Curious.


      hardly.
      Or a standardized starting accelerator (knockout charge), coupled with guides, guaranteed to start despite the change in linear vibrations of the body.

      Although, reading the news from our PR-services, I will not be surprised that we are talking simply about the sealed cases of containers and their lids ...
      1. rudolff
        rudolff 17 November 2017 19: 47 New
        +3
        Yes, unlikely. Too bulky system will be. But then, how loudly announced! Typically, seaworthiness for the use of weapons is always lower than seaworthiness for safety of navigation.
    3. Boa kaa
      Boa kaa 17 November 2017 21: 02 New
      +3
      Quote: rudolff
      Could it be that on a gyro-stabilized platform the launchers will be placed? Curious.

      Hello Volchara! hi
      About the most severe storm - for the sake of a red phrase - a fact. This is important for ICBMs, as there are gyroscopes and they cannot be "greatly disturbed."
      And if gyro-stabilizing the UKKS at the pitching angles for the NK "during the most severe storm" - then below, under the deck, you need to have free space equal to at least 1 / 2 of the length of the "trunk". You understand, this is an impermissible luxury, even for "floats". yes
      IMHO.
      1. rudolff
        rudolff 17 November 2017 21: 55 New
        +4
        Good evening, Boa! Why gyro-stabilize the launcher (platform) for the entire amplitude of the oscillations? There are only two technical points to solve. First, the automatic selection of the launch moment in the optimal spatial position of the launch. That is, the actual launch is made with a hardware delay in time after the start command is received, until the ship enters the longitudinal-transverse zero phase (+/- tolerance). The second is gyrostabilization itself. It is necessary purely in order to exclude the lateral load on the rocket body itself at the moment of movement along the launch channel, up to the full exit. How long does the launch take? Let it go a second. That is, in order to dampen the unwanted load on the rocket, the launcher must be “turned” literally a few degrees. Theoretically, this is possible, but automation should work like my marine chronometer.
  11. Former battalion commander
    Former battalion commander 17 November 2017 19: 34 New
    0
    The task of a "single" starting device is not solvable in principle. We can talk about a line of unified launchers. If we limit ourselves to one launcher, then for various sizes of missiles the ship's volume will be used extremely inefficiently. As a result, in attempts to unify roughly the box for missiles, the number of these missiles on a particular ship will be significantly reduced. And here it is not known which is better. Either an extra anti-aircraft missile in the zagashnik, or a hypothetical OPPORTUNITY to stuff another type of missile there, which may NEVER be needed.
  12. Eflintuk
    Eflintuk 17 November 2017 19: 34 New
    +1
    Here, the presence of a BIUS is important on the corresponding ship - about which there is silence, and not a universal iron box.
    1. ZVO
      ZVO 17 November 2017 21: 07 New
      0
      Quote: EFLINTuk
      Here, the presence of a BIUS is important on the corresponding ship - about which there is silence, and not a universal iron box.


      This is generally terra incognita.

      Well, unless our intelligence agents stole it, and an understanding of the concept and implementation methods came ...
      Although, looking at how rapturously the generals talk about the unprecedented development of UAVs. standing near 50 kilogram units ...
  13. VladimirNET
    VladimirNET 18 November 2017 00: 11 New
    0
    Quote: Orel
    Unification simplifies and reduces the cost of many things.

    But there are also disadvantages:
    if the missiles are narrow, then there will be more launchers (launchers) than in the case of universal ones.

    Although during the modernization of the launcher, you won’t have to change it to a new one, but the missile will simply be replaced and that’s it.
  14. Steve57
    Steve57 18 November 2017 06: 46 New
    0
    20 years! It took me to think of unification.