Why are Russians crazy? What's the purpose of Grads

Kaiju defense

They think 122mm rockets can stop a modern warship

Seriously look it up, they operate 122mm MLRS' for "coastal artillery"

>what is the purpose of artillery
Killing shit dead as fuck m8.

>>33819624
You will find out

>>33819624
Ask yourself this:

Do you NOT want Grads everywhere?

If you say you don't want more MLRS, you are a poor excuse for a man.

File: thumbsup.jpg (16KB, 400x220px) Image search: [Google]

16KB, 400x220px

>>33819632
fpbp

A lot of territory in Russia is in the arctic circle, therefore the Russians have developed platforms to operate in those areas to defend territory if needed.

It's not rocket science.

>>33819624
It's like you want to be killed by a shoggoth.

>>33819633
No one can actually be this stupid. Did they learn nothing from watching CRAM setups in Iraq and Afghanistan? Do they think that, setting aside for a moment all the guidance and probability of hit issues, range issues, vulnerability to air attack issues, etc., such attacks would possibly be worthwhile against even the CIWS layer of ship defense on modern warships?

>>33819695
Wasn't Mountains of Madness in the Antarctic, not the Arctic? Am I remembering wrong?

>>33819675
>rockets
>aint rockets
anon...

>>33819705
Western CWIS systems aren't all that great senpai. When you own the seas anti-ship warfare generally isn't a concern. I think US warships generally only have a single layer.

File: 13422868_194970577566337_595582547_n.jpg (31KB, 428x428px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 428x428px

blow the fuck out of santa to avenge the USSR

>>33819776
>Western CWIS systems aren't all that great senpai
Served on a base protected by CRAM. AFAIK, it had a perfect intercept record. Shit landed near the base a couple times, but I personally witnessed at least three dozen successful intercepts.

>I think US warships generally only have a single layer.
Then you are retarded. Just the physical ship launched interceptors (no EW, decoy, CAP-launched A2A missiles, etc.), in descending order of range:
>SM-3 (ABM only, at least at the moment)
>SM-6
>SM-2ER
>ESSM
>Mk 45 5"/54 gun
>SeaRAM
>Phalanx
That's seven distinct AA defensive layers, just in ship-launched or mounted systems.

>>33819635
read
>>33819696

Grads are inaccurate as fuck

They will kill innocent wildlife like Penguins and Seals

>>33819696
How long can a gun based CIWS fire for? How many do you think can it effectively stop at what range?

Askking\\for afriiiend

>>33819857
>>SM-3 (ABM only, at least at the moment)
>>SM-6
>>SM-2ER
>>ESSM
>>Mk 45 5"/54 gun

That's a lot of CIWS
Oh wait, they aren't

>>33819931
This is all googleable and depends on specific system and mount.

>>33819946
>That's a lot of CIWS
>Oh wait, they aren't
someone needs to learn to into reading comprehension: >>33819696
>against even the CIWS layer of ship defense on modern warships?
Where did I ever say they were all CIWS? My original statement, when parsed, clearly states that of the multiple layers of modern warship defense, a Grad system can't even be relied on to reliably penetrate the CIWS layer, much less the others.

>inb4 other post
Nope, didn't say that in this >>33819857 post either.

Learn to read, dipstick.

>>33819971
>learn to into reading comprehension

>Western CWIS systems aren't all that great senpai. When you own the seas anti-ship warfare generally isn't a concern. I think US warships generally only have a single layer.
>Western CWIS systems aren't all that great senpai. I think US warships generally only have a single layer.
>US warships generally only have a single layer of Western CIWS systems

AHAHAHAHAHA Burgers can't even into English.

>>33820105
>>US warships generally only have a single layer of Western CIWS systems
Even this is incorrect, considering the existence and application of both SeaRAM and Phalanx on many USN hulls.

>>Western CWIS systems aren't all that great senpai.
This part I addressed first thing in this post: >>33819857
>Served on a base protected by CRAM. AFAIK, it had a perfect intercept record. Shit landed near the base a couple times, but I personally witnessed at least three dozen successful intercepts.
Which I note you completely ignored.

Furthermore, all you're doing now is desperate damage control to distract from the basic fact that you actually suggested USN CIWS couldn't intercept fucking Grad missiles, were absolutely wrong about how many CIWS the current USN routinely employs and are absolutely assflustered about being incorrect on the internet. But please, don't let that stop you from more autistic screeching and attempts at distraction from the central question.

>>33819901
Why would there be penguins in the arctic? They are native to the southern hemisphere, not the northern.

>>33820180
>Why would there be penguins in the arctic?
That would be the 63rd Sphenis Expeditionary Force, the Emperor's Flightless. They do not fuck around.

>>33820170
>Furthermore, all you're doing now is desperate damage control to distract from the basic fact

From the basic fact that the original post was >>33819776
>Western CWIS systems aren't all that great senpai. When you own the seas anti-ship warfare generally isn't a concern. I think US warships generally only have a single layer.

Which was talking about CIWS and you had to go off tangent by spouting shit like SM-3, SM-6 when everybody knows those aren't CIWS.

Yes yes burger go on.

>>33820376
>From the basic fact that the original post was
From the basic fact that the original post was incorrect in every single respect. But vatnik gonna vatnik, I guess.

>>33819624
If you launch 40 Grad rockets on a hip with two RAM blocks there are 19 rockets left for the guns to deflect

>>33819696
Muppet, these dumb as fuck Grad rockets are there to saturate the airspace and make the 'oh so perfect' CRAM and other expensive missile systems, like Sea Sparrows waste their ammo.

Using your brain might actually do you well...but I know, it probably hurts too much.

>>33821273
>Muppet, these dumb as fuck Grad rockets are there to saturate the airspace and make the 'oh so perfect' CRAM and other expensive missile systems, like Sea Sparrows waste their ammo.
Dipshit, they're firing on a MOVING TARGET, which means as soon as they're aloft, the targets have changed course, rendering most of them completely fucking useless and the remainder very simple to intercept.

Are all slavs this completely fucking retarded or is it just "Let little Ivan with Fetal Alcohol Syndrome play online" day?

>>33821273
xaxaxaxaxaxa comrade I have new plan for making Americansky waste more dollars)))

Tell me Ivan what is of plan

what if we waste our own missiles, to make dumb silly americans waste missiles?

XASXAXAAXXAXAXAAX IVAN YUO ARE GINIUS)))))))))))

>>33819971
>a Grad system
What if there were 2 Grads?

>>33821347
See >>33821300
Launching a saturation attack with unguided Grads is pants on head retarded.

>>33821332
>what if we waste our own missiles, to make dumb silly americans waste missiles?

Yep, dumb silly is right. How much do you think a dumb Grad missile costs compared to a high tech Sparrow or CRAM missile?

>firing on a MOVING TARGET, which means as soon as they're aloft, the targets have changed course, rendering most of them completely fucking useless and the remainder very simple to intercept.

You twat, that's the point of these dumb $500 Grad missiles, to make you waste expensive hi-tech interceptors...You still don't get it.

Imagine being a firing officer on a Burke or Ticonderoga and you see missiles (cz you don't know if these are only dumb artillery rockets or hi-tech AShMs) coming in your general direction. What will he do? Will he just shrug and say, 'these must be those dumb grad rockets that couldn't hit a mountin, ignore' or will he try to intercept as many as he can?

Does the term 'cost-effective' mean anything to you, muppets? Doesn't seem so.

Armchair generals of /k/ knows better.

>>33821355
>CRAM missile
*sigh*

>>33821355
>Imagine being a firing officer on a Burke or Ticonderoga and you see missiles (cz you don't know if these are only dumb artillery rockets or hi-tech AShMs) coming in your general direction. What will he do? Will he just shrug and say, 'these must be those dumb grad rockets that couldn't hit a mountin, ignore' or will he try to intercept as many as he can?
Riiiiiight. Because ISR on military assets in your AO clearly isn't a thing. It's also not a thing to immediately change course. It's definitely not a thing to have AWACS aloft so as to be aware of both launch location and munition type.

Your idea is beyond stupid. Kindly neck yourself.

File: arcnato0.jpg (94KB, 814x542px) Image search: [Google]

94KB, 814x542px

...same as their purpose anywhere else? it's not like norwegian, canadian or american troops can survive under rocket barrage any longer than syrian rebels or ukrainian conscripts

I would like to think in my infinite wisdom that if one rocket from a grad system hits a warship

That warship will have a pretty serious amount of damage.

I watch a bit of telly and modern ships don't look very well armoured

Let alone if you have 2-4 Grads

And I'm sure if someone tried a naval landing action, Grads would make it a bit harder

grad is love

>>33821300
So shoot more grads and shoot to where it's going.

File: dp-62 damba (1).jpg (86KB, 900x600px) Image search: [Google]

86KB, 900x600px

>>33819624
That's a proposed development, dummy. No one is buying this so far and likely no one will. And even if they would, the purpose would be the same as with any regular MRL system.
>>33819633
>They think 122mm rockets can stop a modern warship
No, they do not. You, however, seem to think that wasting a half a million dollar missile on a tiny ship or a boat is a brilliant idea.
>they operate 122mm MLRS' for "coastal artillery"
The only coastal artillery they operate is A-222 and it is 130 mm. Coalition-based coastal artillery on a wheeled Kamaz Typhoon platform was proposed, but I didn't hear news about it for a while. The DP-62 Damba system that you are probably referring to is specifically an anti-diversion system aimed against small submarines and saboteur personnel and therefore armed with depth charges.
>>33819705
You are remembering right, but I think the point is nothing really prevents you from using it in Antarctic, except for a demilitarisation agreement and shoggoths don't really care about them.
>>33819857
>Served on a base protected by CRAM. AFAIK, it had a perfect intercept record
Not him, but I'm sure that as a direct witness you comprehend the difference between a lone hand-made towelhead mortar round and an artillery hail from even a single simple MRL system, let alone a modern one.
>SM-3 (ABM only, at least at the moment)
It will never be anything else, since that's what SM-2/6 are.
>Mk 45 5"/54 gun
>As an S2A defence
That's, well, ...questionable. USN warships have good layered air defence, but it's not 7 layers, it's 3 to 4 depending on how you count.
>>33819901
>What the fuck are PGM?
That's not even a Grad, it's a Tornado-G.

>>33821516
>It will never be anything else, since that's what SM-2/6 are.
I've been wondering about that. After all, aren't Cuda supposed to be hit-to-kill weapons? Isn't that how they got them so small? What's to stop the same principle applying to the KKV on the SM-3?

>>33821516
>That's, well, ...questionable. USN warships have good layered air defence, but it's not 7 layers, it's 3 to 4 depending on how you count.
It's been a thing since WWII, anon.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5%22/54_caliber_Mark_45_gun
>The gun is designed for use against surface warships, anti-aircraft and shore bombardment to support amphibious operations.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ship/systems/mk-45.htm
>the gun is also used in an anti-air defense in depth capacity.

https://fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ship/weaps/mk-45.htm
>Versatile and extremely accurate, the gun is also used in anti-air defense.

>>33821541
We are talking about intercepting guided and unguided rocket volleys, not shooting in the general direction of an aircraft hoping proximity fuse will do the job. And even then, technically naval artillery indeed is supposed to do that, but in practice no one is insane enough to rely on it as a valid defence option. It's the current year, even CIWS are generally just a last resort oh-shit option. Regardless of country.

>>33821557
>not shooting in the general direction of an aircraft hoping proximity fuse will do the job.
That's not how radio fusing works, first of all. Secondly, deck gun systems have been an integrated part of AAA ship defense since literally WWII. Thirdly, you act as if the deck gun is a CIWS system, with similar range. The Mk 45 is closer in terms of range to an ESSM than it is a Phalanx.

Accurately directed 5" shells can throw a lot of shrapnel up in the path of an AShM, and it only takes one chunk, at most two. Even if it only drops one missile in a swarm of 20, that's still one less missile for SeaRAM, Phalanx, decoys and EW to deal with. Against a saturation attack, everything goes.

Now, against a relatively slow moving rocket like a grad on a ballistic course? Child's play for a Mk 45. It's not like they won't have half a fucking day to lock those incoming rockets into a firing solution and kick the guns over to automatic. As a part of the overall AAA defense scheme, it's very much a valuable part.

File: 1473217270291.gif (1MB, 480x351px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 480x351px

I don't know if you've heard, anon, but Russia suffers from snow in Winter.

>>33821602
It is how it works, since it takes more than half a minute for the shell to get to its effective firing range. You can not reliably "direct" it into anything that is not another warship, since it will be what I already said it will be - shooting it the general direction of an aerial target.
>The Mk 45 is closer in terms of range to an ESSM than it is a Phalanx
No, it is not. ESSM is a very promising _guided_ _missile_ with range up to half a hundred kilometres. Naval artillery is about as effective as CIWS, if not less, knowing the difference in fire rate.
>Even if it only drops one missile in a swarm of 20, that's still one less missile for SeaRAM, Phalanx, decoys and EW to deal with.
That's you proving my point that it de jure supposed to be capable of aerial interception, but in general under no circumstances is relied upon as a valid mean to.
>Now, against a relatively slow moving rocket like a grad on a ballistic course?
So against a literally non-existent threat? I thought I already clarified this. Coastal grads are not for bombing warships, they are for launching depth charges against saboteurs at the maximum range of approximately 5 km. Naval Grads as seen on Zubr-class LCAC are for supporting amphibious operations, i.e. firing at the coastal defence, not being one. Rocket launchers like RBU-6000 are specifically anti-submarine weapons. Who the fuck gave you the idea a hail of unguided rockets from whatever system will be launched against a warship?

>>33821704
>So against a literally non-existent threat?
That's exactly what we were discussing ITT. Did you somehow miss the memo? Did I forget to draw it for you in crayon? Did you forget to read the fucking thread before you went turbo-autismo?

>>33821704
>Who the fuck gave you the idea a hail of unguided rockets from whatever system will be launched against a warship?
Gee. Pretty sure it was you, or someone at least half as dumb as you are. See >>33821273 and >>33821355

File: dp-62 damba (2).jpg (119KB, 900x600px) Image search: [Google]

119KB, 900x600px

>>33821718
You are discussing bullshit and you responded to my post where I specifically address the topic being bullshit, trying to prove the questionable effectiveness of naval artillery based upon a non-existent threat that is exactly the bullshit that was addressed in the post you were responding to. Talking about reading comprehension.

File: a-222 bereg.jpg (104KB, 800x600px) Image search: [Google]

104KB, 800x600px

>>33821722
So some retard gave you a bullshit idea and you gladly swallowed it? Gee. What is it with some /k/tards, why are they so willing to pick every dirty thing and put it in their own mouths?

>>33821726
I specifically took exception to your assertion that the Mk 45 was not part of the USN's AAA defense response. See >>33821541. You were wrong, and you continue to be wrong on that simple fact.

>>33821733
>dat smokescreen
>dat damage control
>dat only pretending to be retarded guize

Ah, vatniks. They never cease to entertain.

>>33821736
I didn't say it was not a part of it, I said it has questionable effectiveness to say the least, let alone is questionable as being a separate layer of defence.

>>33821742
Whatever. Just wash you mouth before opening it the next time.

>>33821602
>Against a saturation attack, everything goes.
Pretty much this

>>33821400
EW will tell him, based on speed, radar signature and eventual emissions from active searching radar

>>33819624
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=pbrKLnh8wLA

Because of the Nazis hiding up there

>>33821733
>A222 in artic camo

It looks cool as shit.
How effective is it ?

>>33821726
>picture
that looks like a fun job

File: we_wuz.jpg (94KB, 604x453px) Image search: [Google]

94KB, 604x453px

based russians are setting up in the arctic to take it

they have the rights anyways if I remember the tectonic setup there correctly

anyways, what kind of stupid fucking question is

> why do the russians need artillery in [x]

artillery is king

File: 96k6 pantsir-sa.jpg (2MB, 2250x1500px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2250x1500px

>>33821833
That's not Arctic camo. This is.

>>33822049
those are not grads though, are they? that boxy thingy between the 3x3 rocket pipes looks like some radar guidance foo
>tfw nograd

File: 130731_Russia_0010-X2.jpg (358KB, 1280x850px) Image search: [Google]

358KB, 1280x850px

>>33819624

Those articulated crawlers have EXTREME offroad mobility.

Being able to get into a position where your enemy couldn't even fathom, and then deploy a rocket artillery barrage on your ass is an amazing capability.

Russians understand artillery, probably better than you Shartniks.

>>33822150

That's clearly some new iteration of the Pantsir system.

File: 96k6 pantsir-sa (2).jpg (3MB, 2250x1500px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 2250x1500px

>>33822150
Read the file name. And yes, that's a radar.

File: 9k331 tor-m2dt.jpg (3MB, 2250x1500px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 2250x1500px

But I don't recall ever seeing Grads or any other MRL systems in Arctic camo. Or even any artillery, really. The chassis on these pics are the same as the project proposal in OP.

File: trekol-39294 & dt-10 & dt-30pm.jpg (689KB, 1620x1080px) Image search: [Google]

689KB, 1620x1080px

>>33822197
In the Arctic the point is mainly now surface pressure and extreme temperature endurance.

>>33821300
I know "saturation" is a word with a lot of letters, but you should look it up.

>>33822243
sry mate I read "96k6..." and figured it would be some sort of autogenerated time stamp or something. of course now I realize it is some sort of missile designation in the russian nomenclature. my bad.
>>33822238
>clearly
clearly I am not up-to-date with all the russian (guessing here) short-to-medium range SAM systems.
truly these are sad times, when its hardly fathomable to bomb the soviet unio.. err, russia.

>>33822314
>surface pressure
so THATs the idea behind grads in the arctic
>grad strike the general enemy position
>ice breaks
>yanks drown
nasty

subtitle for the humoristically impaired, that was sarcastic. I hope.

File: Firefox_Screenshot_2017-05-01T14-33-46.221Z.png (58KB, 1684x597px) Image search: [Google]

58KB, 1684x597px

>>33822359
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GRAU#Designation_scheme
>I am not up-to-date with all the russian (guessing here) short-to-medium range SAM systems
It's really not all that complicated at all :^)

>>33822386
>It's really not all that complicated at all :^)
uh huh
>For example, one of the surface-to-air missiles in the S-25 Berkut air defense system had at least four domestic designations:
>
> design name: La-205
> GRAU index: 5V7
> industry name: Article 205 (Izdeliye 205)
> Soviet military designation: V-300

File: flanders finger.png (182KB, 442x341px) Image search: [Google]

182KB, 442x341px

>>33822430
S-25 is the official name of the system. The system uses a missile with a number of variations, which were developed in the design bureau that gave them their own designations during the development (La-205, La-207, La-215, Izdeliye 217, Izdeliye 218, etc.). As the system became operational, the different missile variations received official GRAU designations (5V17, 5V18, 5Ya24, 5Ya25, etc.). The official name of missile itself is V-300 with a suffix depending on a variation, like V-300M, V-300MT, etc.

>>33819931
>How long can a gun based CIWS fire for?
3-4 incoming rounds intercepts.