Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    Naval Weapon Systems & Technology

    Share
    avatar
    Rowdyhorse4

    Posts : 62
    Points : 72
    Join date : 2017-04-25
    Location : Indonesia

    Re: Naval Weapon Systems & Technology

    Post  Rowdyhorse4 on Tue Jul 11, 2017 7:57 am

    KnightRider wrote:I was looking into the Shkval, and had heard it was unguided. However, these pictures show some kind of connector on the rear right side of the torpedo. Is this an indication that the Shkval utilizes wire guidance from the launching submarine, or is it something else?







    Shkval is guided...      From the first production variant to the Shkval II they use today....

    Shkval I uses GOLIS inertial Guidance while Shkval II gets Vectored thrust to improve its guidance

    Later Variants of the Shkval I got active acoustic terminal guidance as well i heard....
    avatar
    Isos

    Posts : 964
    Points : 962
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Re: Naval Weapon Systems & Technology

    Post  Isos on Wed Jul 12, 2017 4:16 pm

    Granit lunched from Osacar sub:

    avatar
    Benya

    Posts : 528
    Points : 532
    Join date : 2016-06-05
    Location : Budapest, Hungary

    Re: Naval Weapon Systems & Technology

    Post  Benya on Thu Jul 20, 2017 8:57 pm

    Russia’s Tactical Missiles Corporation Unveils APR-3ME Grif Air Launched Torpedo

    JSC Region State Research and Production Enterprise, part of the Tactical Missiles Corporation (TMC), has developed a new APR-3ME Grif airborne anti-submarine missile, which is a modernized version of the APR-3E missile. The new system was unveiled at the MAKS 2017 airshow currently held in Russia.


    APR-3ME Grif anti-submarine torpedo showcased on Tactical Missiles Corporation stand at MAKS 2017.

    "The company is showing a new missile at MAKS-2017 in Zhukovsky, near Moscow. This is the APR-3ME (Grif) airborne anti-submarine missile, an upgrade of the APR-3E. The improved capability missile is designed to destroy submarines at depths up to 800 meters moving at a speed of up to 80 km/h. The APR-3ME has the same caliber as its predecessor (350 mm), but the weight and size characteristics were reduced: its length is 3250 mm versus 3685 mm, weight - 470 kg versus 525 kg," the press service’s statement said.

    Previously, thanks to its proprietary solid fuel motor designs, the TMC’s company developed a unique APR-1 airborne anti-submarine missile, which initiated further improvement of airborne anti-submarine missiles. So, for instance, the APR-3E missile with a new specially developed turbo-waterjet engine running on composite solid-fuel became an export bestseller. The APR-3E is employed from ASW planes and helicopters and designed to destroy modern submarines, including SSNs, at submerged speeds up to 40 knots (at depths of up to 800 meters) in any water areas of the oceans of the world in sea state up to 6. The APR-3E is distinguished by fast response in target search and detection mode, a high target-missile relative speed after lock-on and, as a result, can kill the target before the latter starts actively counteracting. This area of anti-submarine weapons will continue to evolve.


    APR-3ME Grif anti-submarine torpedo showcased on Tactical Missiles Corporation stand at MAKS 2017

    Source: Arrow http://www.navyrecognition.com/index.php/news/defence-news/2017/july-2017-navy-naval-forces-defense-industry-technology-maritime-security-global-news/5408-russia-s-tactical-missiles-corporation-unveils-apr-3me-grif-air-launched-torpedo.html
    avatar
    Benya

    Posts : 528
    Points : 532
    Join date : 2016-06-05
    Location : Budapest, Hungary

    Re: Naval Weapon Systems & Technology

    Post  Benya on Sat Jul 22, 2017 3:04 pm

    Presidential Decree Calls for More Cruise Missiles and Balanced Fleet for Russian Navy

    Long-range precision-guided sea-launched cruise missiles (SLCMs) will be the main armament of the Russian Navy’s surface ships and submarines until 2025. This is stated in Presidential Decree No. 327 "On the approval of the Fundamentals of the Russian Federation’s state policy in the field of naval activities for the period until 2030," published on the official legal information website on July 20, 2017


    The Buyan-M Corvette "Uglich" launches a 3M-54 Kalibr anti-ship missile during maneuvers in the Caspian Sea.

    "Long-range precision-guided sea-launched cruise missiles will be the backbone of armament for the Russian Navy’s surface ships and submarines and coastal forces until 2025. After 2025, hypersonic missiles and diverse robotic systems, including autonomous unmanned underwater vehicles, will enter service with the Navy’s submarine, surface and coastal forces," paragraphs 43 and 44 of the decree say.

    In addition, until 2030, it is planned to develop a "naval aircraft-carrying complex," advanced surface ships and submarines (combat platforms), and next-generation deep-sea naval warfare systems. Among the objectives is to deploy naval robotic systems to perform a wide range of combat and support missions.

    "By 2030, the Russian Federation must have strong balanced fleets in all theaters of operation that will consist of ships intended to operate in near, far sea zones and ocean areas, as well as of naval aviation and coastal forces equipped with effective precision-guided strike weapons and will have an advanced basing and support system," paragraph 46 of the decree says.


    Russian Navy submarine Omsk (K-186), a Project 949A SSGN (NATO designation: Oscar II), with all missile hatches opened. The class is being modified to launch Kalibr SLCM. Picture via airbase.ru

    According to the document, the main objectives in the field of the Russian Navy construction and development are to form balanced naval forces, maintain the combat potential of the naval component of strategic nuclear forces at a high level and build a qualitatively new configuration of general-purpose naval forces equipped not only with new and modernized weapons, but also with new and modernized military and special equipment.

    The decree notes that one of the priorities in the Navy’s fleet construction and development program in the medium and long term is to build up the fleet capabilities by building and upgrading attack nuclear submarines armed with missiles and torpedoes and diesel-electric submarines, guided weapon surface ships of different classes, naval aircraft, and various surface effect ships.

    One of the main strategic requirements for the Russian Navy is to "integrate interconnected and unified naval armament systems, ships, submarines, naval aircraft and coastal facilities into a single control loop."

    The decree especially emphasizes the need to completely switch the development and production cycle for key components of weapons and military equipment in the interests of the Navy to Russia’s scientific and industrial foundation.


    Range of Kalibr family of cruise missile (scale models) on display at IMDS naval defense exhibition in Russia

    Among the main goals of the naval activities to prevent military conflicts and provide strategic deterrence, according to the decree, is to enable the use of precision-guided long-range weapons by the Navy ships against any potential enemy, to perform inter-theater maneuvers, including regular submarine voyages under the ice, to increase the combat and operational capabilities of the Black Sea Fleet through the development of a joint force grouping in the Crimea and to provide a continuous naval presence of the Russian Federation in the Mediterranean and other strategic areas of the world's oceans.

    "With the development of precision-guided weapons, the Navy faces a qualitatively new challenge: destroying the enemy's military and economic potential by hitting its vital facilities from the sea. The availability of a sufficient number of precision-guided weapons and the capability of using them in various ways will deter large-scale military operations against the Russian Federation. The key components of the strategic deterrence system are nuclear and non-nuclear deterrence. The general-purpose naval forces occupy an important place in meeting strategic deterrence challenges," the document says.

    Source: Arrow http://www.navyrecognition.com/index.php/news/defence-news/2017/july-2017-navy-naval-forces-defense-industry-technology-maritime-security-global-news/5413-presidential-decree-calls-for-more-cruise-missiles-and-balanced-fleet-for-russian-navy.html
    avatar
    Benya

    Posts : 528
    Points : 532
    Join date : 2016-06-05
    Location : Budapest, Hungary

    Re: Naval Weapon Systems & Technology

    Post  Benya on Thu Aug 31, 2017 2:42 pm

    Russian Navy to get new unified submarine weapon containers

    The Russian Navy will get specialized transportation and launching containers for torpedoes and missiles. They are installed either between the hulls or loaded into the torpedo launcher of a submarine. It allows considerably expanding the types of munitions without changing warship construction and combat control systems. The first to get the containers are the latest Russian submarines of project 885, the Izvestia daily reported.


    Kalibr cruise missile Kilo SSK loadingLoading of a Kalibr cruise missile aboard a Kilo-class submarine

    The unified transportation and launching containers were created by the Malakhit Maritime Design Bureau in St. Petersburg. All submarines have a double-hulled construction comprising internal solid and outside light hulls. The first accommodates equipment and mechanisms in charge of motion and control of the warship, as well as missile and torpedo launchers. The external hull ensures hydro-dynamic characteristics of the warship. Ballast tanks are installed between the hulls.

    Leading torpedo arms expert of the Malakhit bureau Alexander Konyukhov told Izvestia the container had passed the test trials and is already installed on perspective Russian warships.
    "The container is unified for 533mm-caliber torpedo launchers. It is light and simple and besides big nuclear submarines can be installed on small ones as well," he said.

    Torpedoes or missiles are kept in the container a dry state. The container is armed and checked on the ground. Therefore, it does not need any additional maintenance onboard. The launch is remotely controlled with usual equipment.

    The new container fires torpedoes, missiles and anti-torpedoes of caliber 324mm and a length of up to 3.2 meters at a depth of up to 400 meters. It looks like an ordinary 4.7-meter long pipe with a locking arrangement in the front. The hull has several standard technical couplings for connecting onboard equipment to launch missile and torpedoes. An impulse gas generator fires the weapons. It allows immediately firing the weapon by pressing the launch button on the control panel.

    Expert Dmitry Boltenkov told Izvestia submarines of project 885 (codename Yasen) have a unique construction in the Russian Navy. In contrast to other submarines their torpedo launchers are installed not in the forward hemisphere by behind the conning tower between the solid and light hulls.

    "Attack nuclear submarines of project 885 Yasen are most secret ones in the Russian Navy. In contrast to the latest strategic fourth-generation submarines of project 955 Borei all their mechanisms, units and systems are completely new ones which have never been used before. It is high-tech equipment without analogues in Soviet or Russian military shipbuilding," he said.

    Arrow https://www.navyrecognition.com/index.php/news/defence-news/2017/august-2017-navy-naval-forces-defense-industry-technology-maritime-security-global-news/5531-russian-navy-to-get-new-unified-submarine-weapon-containers.html

    nastle77

    Posts : 210
    Points : 276
    Join date : 2015-07-25

    Re: Naval Weapon Systems & Technology

    Post  nastle77 on Wed Oct 25, 2017 4:36 am

    during the 1980s were any of the soviet SLBMs equipped with conventional non-nuclear warheads ?

    I meant the Delta/typhoon/yankee class subs any non-nuclear SLBms ?

    thanks

    miroslav

    Posts : 70
    Points : 72
    Join date : 2016-11-16
    Location : Land of Serbia

    Re: Naval Weapon Systems & Technology

    Post  miroslav on Wed Oct 25, 2017 12:29 pm

    nastle77 wrote:during the 1980s were any of the soviet SLBMs equipped with conventional non-nuclear warheads ?

    I meant the Delta/typhoon/yankee class subs any non-nuclear SLBms ?

    thanks

    You mean an ICBM with conventional/chemical warheads, never heard of something like that, if you think about it, it makes no sense tactically or strategically.

    If you launch something like that from a Delta/Typhoon/Yankee it needs to be something that can level a small town with the ground or an entire airfield (especially the ones that can support bombers) or you just risk loosing that submarine and all of its other nuclear missiles for nothing.

    Remember, if you launch something like an ICBM the other side doesn't have a way of confirming whether it is nuclear or conventionally armed, so they have to respond with a real nuclear ICBM. Basically you would destroy their building and they will in turn destroy your entire city.


    nastle77

    Posts : 210
    Points : 276
    Join date : 2015-07-25

    Re: Naval Weapon Systems & Technology

    Post  nastle77 on Wed Oct 25, 2017 10:28 pm

    miroslav wrote:
    nastle77 wrote:during the 1980s were any of the soviet SLBMs equipped with conventional non-nuclear warheads ?

    I meant the Delta/typhoon/yankee class subs any non-nuclear SLBms ?

    thanks

    You mean an ICBM with conventional/chemical warheads, never heard of something like that, if you think about it, it makes no sense tactically or strategically.

    If you launch something like that from a Delta/Typhoon/Yankee it needs to be something that can level a small town with the ground or an entire airfield (especially the ones that can support bombers) or you just risk loosing that submarine and all of its other nuclear missiles for nothing.

    Remember, if you launch something like an ICBM the other side doesn't have a way of confirming whether it is nuclear or conventionally armed, so they have to respond with a real nuclear ICBM. Basically you would destroy their building and they will in turn destroy your entire city.


    Makes a lot of sense
    avatar
    Isos

    Posts : 964
    Points : 962
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Re: Naval Weapon Systems & Technology

    Post  Isos on Thu Oct 26, 2017 6:25 pm

    nastle77 wrote:
    miroslav wrote:
    nastle77 wrote:during the 1980s were any of the soviet SLBMs equipped with conventional non-nuclear warheads ?

    I meant the Delta/typhoon/yankee class subs any non-nuclear SLBms ?

    thanks

    You mean an ICBM with conventional/chemical warheads, never heard of something like that, if you think about it, it makes no sense tactically or strategically.

    If you launch something like that from a Delta/Typhoon/Yankee it needs to be something that can level a small town with the ground or an entire airfield (especially the ones that can support bombers) or you just risk loosing that submarine and all of its other nuclear missiles for nothing.

    Remember, if you launch something like an ICBM the other side doesn't have a way of confirming whether it is nuclear or conventionally armed, so they have to respond with a real nuclear ICBM. Basically you would destroy their building and they will in turn destroy your entire city.


    Makes a lot of sense

    What they could however is to make a naval Iskander for use on surface vessels. One luncher with reloads. They could put it between the two hangars for helicopter on the future Lider class.

    One Iskander can destroy really big targets so a small number per ship is enough (like 4 or 6) and the range could be increased to 1500 or 2000 km easily.
    avatar
    flamming_python

    Posts : 3261
    Points : 3367
    Join date : 2012-01-30

    Re: Naval Weapon Systems & Technology

    Post  flamming_python on Fri Oct 27, 2017 9:24 pm

    Isos wrote:
    nastle77 wrote:
    miroslav wrote:
    nastle77 wrote:during the 1980s were any of the soviet SLBMs equipped with conventional non-nuclear warheads ?

    I meant the Delta/typhoon/yankee class subs any non-nuclear SLBms ?

    thanks

    You mean an ICBM with conventional/chemical warheads, never heard of something like that, if you think about it, it makes no sense tactically or strategically.

    If you launch something like that from a Delta/Typhoon/Yankee it needs to be something that can level a small town with the ground or an entire airfield (especially the ones that can support bombers) or you just risk loosing that submarine and all of its other nuclear missiles for nothing.

    Remember, if you launch something like an ICBM the other side doesn't have a way of confirming whether it is nuclear or conventionally armed, so they have to respond with a real nuclear ICBM. Basically you would destroy their building and they will in turn destroy your entire city.


    Makes a lot of sense

    What they could however is to make a naval Iskander for use on surface vessels. One luncher with reloads. They could put it between the two hangars for helicopter on the future Lider class.

    One Iskander can destroy really big targets so a small number per ship is enough (like 4 or 6) and the range could be increased to 1500 or 2000 km easily.

    Why would this be preferable to e.g. a Zirkon?
    avatar
    Big_Gazza

    Posts : 863
    Points : 881
    Join date : 2014-08-25
    Location : Melbourne, Australia

    Re: Naval Weapon Systems & Technology

    Post  Big_Gazza on Sat Oct 28, 2017 3:17 am

    flamming_python wrote:Why would this be preferable to e.g. a Zirkon?

    Bigger warhead, more destructive potential against naval targets (ie fragmentation/blast as opposed to mainly kinetic). Also the option of EMP pulse warheads to kill enemy ABM/AAM defense systems. Iskander is known to have an optically guided warhead option, so this would be ideal for selective targeting, ie killing enemy flat-tops.

    Iskander is reckoned to be hypersonic M6-7 at the height of its trajectory, so its fair to assume it's terminal attack speed will be greater again. Its ability to maneuver could allow it to perform a top-down attack, ie striking from near-vertical, at thereby pose an extreme tracking challenge for ship-borne radars which lack coverage at the zenith.
    avatar
    Isos

    Posts : 964
    Points : 962
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Re: Naval Weapon Systems & Technology

    Post  Isos on Sat Oct 28, 2017 11:50 am

    Big_Gazza wrote:
    flamming_python wrote:Why would this be preferable to e.g. a Zirkon?

    Bigger warhead, more destructive potential against naval targets (ie fragmentation/blast as opposed to mainly kinetic).  Also the option of EMP pulse warheads to kill enemy ABM/AAM defense systems.  Iskander is known to have an optically guided warhead option, so this would be ideal for selective targeting, ie killing enemy flat-tops.

    Iskander is reckoned to be hypersonic M6-7 at the height of its trajectory, so its fair to assume it's terminal attack speed will be greater again.  Its ability to maneuver could allow it to perform a top-down attack, ie striking from near-vertical, at thereby pose an extreme tracking challenge for ship-borne radars which lack coverage at the zenith.

    The range could be greater too. But difficult to say because specs of both missiles are classified and what we can read on internet is probably bullshit.
    avatar
    flamming_python

    Posts : 3261
    Points : 3367
    Join date : 2012-01-30

    Re: Naval Weapon Systems & Technology

    Post  flamming_python on Sat Oct 28, 2017 7:47 pm

    I don't think the range or manueverability will differ significantly.
    Kinetic at Mach 7 will be plenty destructive enough; you don't really need an HE or cluster warhead at such speeds. Not for nothing are they planning to equip the Sarmat ICBM with Yu-74 hypersonic glider vehicles that release pure-kinetic warheads to destroy targets such as hardened missile silos.. where are their nuclear or explosive payloads?
    No reason why a Zirkon can't be fitted with an EMP warhead, or even have optics and cameras for image-matching and guidance (although in an anti-sea role I really don't see why this would be neccessery).

    And of course the Zirkon as a cruise missile has far more flight profiles available to it; it can sea-skim at supersonic speeds instead if that is what has the best chance of getting through. Or even better the ship can just launch a Kalibr instead.
    You won't get that versatility if you just build a ship around the Iskander-M.

    BTW the Iskander actually slows down in its terminal stage to supersonic speeds, typically, in order to perform anti-ABM defence manuevers.

    Some of you guys have been swayed by China's new anti-ship ballistic missile system, I can see.
    But this is fundamentally old tech.
    China relies on these big launchers with 1-2 missiles a vehicle, and with a network of coastal radars to support them. They haven't come up with a naval variant of it.

    The Zirkon on the other hand is a cruise missile that's far more compact and that can possibly be fitted onto the UKSK containers of any Russian ship or to the Bastion-P coastal defence anti-ship missile complex, goes at about the same speed as the Chinese missile, and is targeted using the ship's or launching system's own radars. They'll likely be able to come up with an air-launched version of it too. Probably cheaper than the Chinese solution too.
    avatar
    Isos

    Posts : 964
    Points : 962
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Re: Naval Weapon Systems & Technology

    Post  Isos on Sat Oct 28, 2017 8:18 pm

    flamming_python wrote:I don't think the range or manueverability will differ significantly.
    Kinetic at Mach 7 will be plenty destructive enough; you don't really need an HE or cluster warhead at such speeds. Not for nothing are they planning to equip the Sarmat ICBM with Yu-74 hypersonic glider vehicles that release pure-kinetic warheads to destroy targets such as hardened missile silos.. where are their nuclear or explosive payloads?
    No reason why a Zirkon can't be fitted with an EMP warhead, or even have optics and cameras for image-matching and guidance (although in an anti-sea role I really don't see why this would be neccessery).

    And of course the Zirkon as a cruise missile has far more flight profiles available to it; it can sea-skim at supersonic speeds instead if that is what has the best chance of getting through. Or even better the ship can just launch a Kalibr instead.
    You won't get that versatility if you just build a ship around the Iskander-M.

    BTW the Iskander actually slows down in its terminal stage to supersonic speeds, typically, in order to perform anti-ABM defence manuevers.

    Some of you guys have been swayed by China's new anti-ship ballistic missile system, I can see.
    But this is fundamentally old tech.
    China relies on these big launchers with 1-2 missiles a vehicle, and with a network of coastal radars to support them. They haven't come up with a naval variant of it.

    The Zirkon on the other hand is a cruise missile that's far more compact and that can possibly be fitted onto the UKSK containers of any Russian ship or to the Bastion-P coastal defence anti-ship missile complex, goes at about the same speed as the Chinese missile, and is targeted using the ship's or launching system's own radars. They'll likely be able to come up with an air-launched version of it too. Probably cheaper than the Chinese solution too.

    Iskander has a 800 kg warehead. Imagine you want to destroy an airfield or damage it seriously. You will need like tens of Kalibrs to do so like US did to Syrian airbase. With an Iskander you can put a warehead with submunitions and touch all the area to destroy any fighter that is not covered and even if it is detected it can't be destroyed by SAM (very difficult, not impossible).

    Zircon has yet to prove all these capacities. You have 0 proof it has a range of a true land Attack cruise missile (1000+ km) or it has lot of flight profiles.

    I didn't say to use Iskander for antiship missions but for land Attack on big target behind enemy lines. But to answer to you remark about chinese BM, it is a dangerous weapon because it attacks from the top. Radars have dead zones, and the chinese antiship ballistical missile exloits these dead zones (like normal antiship flying low to be under the coverage of radar) to go through defences.

    You should compare what Houti's BM did to saoudis and what can do a single cruise missile. The difference is huge in terms of results.

    Iskanders are not Scud to miss targets by 1km or more. They are as precise as kalibr but fly just 5 to 10 minutes befire reaching the target with 4 times bigger warehead than kalibr.
    avatar
    Big_Gazza

    Posts : 863
    Points : 881
    Join date : 2014-08-25
    Location : Melbourne, Australia

    Re: Naval Weapon Systems & Technology

    Post  Big_Gazza on Sun Oct 29, 2017 1:17 am

    flamming_python wrote:Kinetic at Mach 7 will be plenty destructive enough; you don't really need an HE or cluster warhead at such speeds. Not for nothing are they planning to equip the Sarmat ICBM with Yu-74 hypersonic glider vehicles that release pure-kinetic warheads to destroy targets such as hardened missile silos.. where are their nuclear or explosive payloads?

    Kinetic attack against small concentrated targets like a silo (where any damage to the missile will likely render it inoperable) isn't nearly as effective against something like a CVN. Sure you can punch a hole through it and damage the systems you hit and cause some fires, but unless you hit something critical like a reactor or ordnance store, damage control could quite conceivably save the vessel. A nice 800kg blast/frag warhead detonating in the ships guts will be far more destructive and likely to cause the sort of fires and secondary damage that have the potential to quickly cripple the ships operations.

    I think its a little too early to state that 4202/Yu-24/PMGB-1 (Putins Magic Gold Bullet Mk 1) won't have a HE warhead. We simply know too little about it.

    Do you have a source for stating that Iskander slows to supersonic speeds for terminal phase? Sounds counter-intuitive for a missile touted to defeat ABMs systems to slow down at the target... Wiki claims the vertical attack mode has a final attack speed of 700-800m/s but... pfftt... its wiki so who knows?

    Agree with many of your comments on Zircon, but I like the option of attacking a HATOstani CVN simultaneously with Islanders and AShMs, launch-sequenced to arrive together. Scenarios requiring the division of missile defence capabilities against simultaneous ballistic, hypersonic and sea-skimming supersonic threats has got to mess with HATOstani minds and give these bastards a few sleepless nights.
    avatar
    GunshipDemocracy

    Posts : 1747
    Points : 1787
    Join date : 2015-05-17
    Location : fishin on Stalin´s Strait between Mexico and Canada

    Re: Naval Weapon Systems & Technology

    Post  GunshipDemocracy on Sun Oct 29, 2017 2:12 am

    Big_Gazza wrote:
    flamming_python wrote:Kinetic at Mach 7 will be plenty destructive enough; you don't really need an HE or cluster warhead at such speeds. Not for nothing are they planning to equip the Sarmat ICBM with Yu-74 hypersonic glider vehicles that release pure-kinetic warheads to destroy targets such as hardened missile silos.. where are their nuclear or explosive payloads?

    Kinetic attack against small concentrated targets like a silo (where any damage to the missile will likely render it inoperable) isn't nearly as effective against something like a CVN.  Sure you can punch a hole through it and damage the systems you hit and cause some fires, but unless you hit something critical like a reactor or ordnance store, damage control could quite conceivably save the vessel.  A nice 800kg blast/frag warhead detonating in the ships guts will be far more destructive and likely to cause the sort of fires and secondary damage that have the potential to quickly cripple the ships operations.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TNT_equivalent

    kilogram of TNT kg 4.184×106 J or 4.184 megajoules 1.163 kWh 46.55 ng

    object mass 1kg flying 4km/s = 1/2*mv2 = 8 MJ
    mass 1kg flying 3 km/s (~ 9Ma on sea level)    =  4,5MJ

    So actually Zircon is close to speed where having chemical explosive looses it sense ... density of  chemical energy is  less than kinetic object flying above 3km/s if I am not mistaken here.

    The only question is to pass this entity  to hit object in maximum destructive way.  If You71 flies with 7km/s then per kg tou have ~ 25MJ per kg... 6 times more is it was a chemical warhead.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16865
    Points : 17473
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Naval Weapon Systems & Technology

    Post  GarryB on Sun Oct 29, 2017 10:24 am

    Iskander uses solid rocket fuel that burns to launch it and burns for some time during flight but is generally burned out by the time it gets to the target area.

    The Zircon uses a jet engine... an engine that will run at supersonic speed and provide thrust all the way to the target area.

    That means that the fuel the Zircon carries does not need to include oxygen... it scoops that up as it moves along.

    Generally by weight solid rocket fuel is two thirds oxygen and one third fuel, so you can triple the fuel supply with a scramjet engine and you can throttle the engine which makes it even more useful.

    If you think for a second if you have x amount of thrust from a rocket engine then that will accelerate a specific shaped object to a particular speed at any given height. At lower altitude lower speeds are achieved because drag is higher so the extra energy of the rocket motor is wasted if the trajectory is low.

    Equally with wings and fuel burn rate control you can sensibly use thrust to maximise both speed and flight range... max throttle all the way means less efficiency... a high throttle setting for the initial climb and then reduced throttle for long range cruise at high altitude maximises range, then as you approach the target area you can throttle up and with much of the fuel burned the missile will be much lighter and will accelerate faster in the thinner colder air of high altitude to higher speeds for the terminal attack on the target.

    With normal jet engines or ramjet engines a rocket offers more acceleration and higher velocity, but scramjet opens up the higher speeds but offers better fuel management in terms of throttle control as well as altitude options.

    You could simulate the advantages of the supersonic calibr by subsonic long range efficient cruise portion of the flight and then accelerate to high supersonic at low altitudes for more effective terminal attack... or efficient high altitude supersonic cruise with hypersonic terminal portion to penetrate enemy defences.

    The fact that they have adapted existing missiles like Onyx and Granit to land attack suggests all new missiles will combine land attack and anti ship capacities.


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order
    avatar
    flamming_python

    Posts : 3261
    Points : 3367
    Join date : 2012-01-30

    Re: Naval Weapon Systems & Technology

    Post  flamming_python on Mon Oct 30, 2017 12:07 am

    Isos wrote:Iskander has a 800 kg warehead. Imagine you want to destroy an airfield or damage it seriously. You will need like tens of Kalibrs to do so like US did to Syrian airbase. With an Iskander you can put a warehead with submunitions and touch all the area to destroy any fighter that is not covered and even if it is detected it can't be destroyed by SAM (very difficult, not impossible).

    Zircon has yet to prove all these capacities. You have 0 proof it has a range of a true land Attack cruise missile (1000+ km) or it has lot of flight profiles.

    I didn't say to use Iskander for antiship missions but for land Attack on big target behind enemy lines. But to answer to you remark about chinese BM, it is a dangerous weapon because it attacks from the top. Radars have dead zones, and the chinese antiship ballistical missile exloits these dead zones (like normal antiship flying low to be under the coverage of radar) to go through defences.

    You should compare what Houti's BM did to saoudis and what can do a single cruise missile. The difference is huge in terms of results.

    Iskanders are not Scud to miss targets by 1km or more. They are as precise as kalibr but fly just 5 to 10 minutes befire reaching the target with 4 times bigger warehead than kalibr.

    Sure, the Iskander is rather more powerful. But building a ship around it cannot be justified.
    Does Russia need to carry out strikes on Papua New Guinea now?

    As for it's range; it's officially stated at around 500km. Unofficially who knows.
    The Zirkon is also given a range figure of around the same ballpark. But as for it's true range again it's classified.

    The Zirkon is a cruise missile, which means it will be able to adopt different flight profiles a lot easier than a quasi-ballistic missile such as the Iskander can. Although given that it's Unique Selling Point is speed the only real profile that makes sense is a diving attack; at the very least during the 2nd phase of its flight (it might sea-skim earlier on). If you want a missile that sea-skims all the way you might as well use a cheaper Kalibr.
    With a diving attack it will also attack the target top-down, little different to the Chinese missile.

    I don't know if it will have a land-attack mode. It might not need it. But I feel that this is the sort of thing whereby if the Russian MoD decides that it needs such a capability from the Zirkon for use against land-based infrastructre, then it can be added in w/o too much trouble.

    Furthermore Russia itself is big. If there are targets to take out in Europe, Iskanders can be deployed to Kaliningrad (as they already are), Belarus or Transdniestr.
    If targets in the Middle East - they can be deployed to Armenia or Tajikistan (in fact there already is a regiment in Armenia).
    If targets in the Asia-Pacific region; they can be deployed to Primorye or Sakhalin.
    They can even reach Alaska, if deployed to Chukotka.

    Iskanders can't reach South Asia, South America, mainland US, Australasia or Africa from Russian territory. But if, for some reason there is an urgent need to reach further - then Russia can always leave the INF treaty and introduce a new system with a longer range.

    Big_Gazza wrote:Do you have a source for stating that Iskander slows to supersonic speeds for terminal phase?   Sounds counter-intuitive for a missile touted to defeat ABMs systems to slow down at the target...   Wiki claims the vertical attack mode has a final attack speed of 700-800m/s but... pfftt...  its wiki so who knows?

    Wiki claims it and cites sources. I might have read it somewhere else too, don't remember.

    The missile has to slow down to carry out anti-ABM manuevers. The missile can't manuever when its travelling at hypersonic speeds.
    It can't home in on anything either when travelling so fast; it would have to be a pre-programmed stationary target given by GLONASS co-ordinates.

    Although I'm sure that there is also a mode whereby it won't slow down at all; if there are only anti-air defences to worry about, and that's what command figures will give it the best chance of striking the target.[/quote]
    avatar
    miketheterrible

    Posts : 1562
    Points : 1562
    Join date : 2016-11-06

    Re: Naval Weapon Systems & Technology

    Post  miketheterrible on Mon Oct 30, 2017 4:40 pm

    A ship that could carry Shtil-1 or Redut with also being able to have some kind of VLS system in the rear to launch Iskanders at land targets would be amazing.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16865
    Points : 17473
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Naval Weapon Systems & Technology

    Post  GarryB on Tue Oct 31, 2017 4:50 am

    Iskander is a truck based system... there is no reason you could not park it on the deck of a ship and launch it from there.

    A containerised version designed to be operated from ships could easily be adapted from the existing system.

    Most importantly the INF treaty is only for land based systems and does not include air or sea based systems so the INF treaty would not apply.

    They could develop an Iskander-N for the navy that is perhaps even a two or three stage missile with a range of thousands of kms.

    In terms of manouvering the problem so far has been that it is a solid fuelled rocket so the powered flight period is short and it spends most of its time coasting.

    With scramjet technology perfected there is no reason why a final scramjet powered penetrator could not be developed that is accelerated to high speed and then coasts at high speed high altitude in the low drag upper atmosphere and then lights up a scramjet motor and powers down towards the target.

    How effective it is at evading ABM systems would be increased by high speed, so the faster it goes the safer it will be and huge flight turns are not needed.... a missile flying at 2km per second turns 5 degrees will shift the projected impact point by an enormous distance and it can turn 5 degrees very quickly and easily... the intercepting missile needs to determine the change in trajectory and then manouver to fly to the new interception point using energy of its own.... five or six changes of trajectory will cause huge manouver problems for the interceptors and will likely mean the chances of an effective interception become zero because interception locations can be rapidly calculated but changing interceptor flight paths to effect an intercept take time and energy.... the missile just sweeping back 10 degrees to head 5 degrees in the other direction wont increase drag that much but will shift the impact point several kilometres in a few seconds... does the interceptor have enough time to turn to get to the new interception point in time to be there when the target comes through....

    Remember when the target is moving at 2km per second a half second out and you miss by a kilometre or more.

    Scramjet technology allows speeds previously only available to solid fuelled rockets, but with energy management and throttle control inside the atmosphere....


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order

    rrob

    Posts : 38
    Points : 42
    Join date : 2017-10-30

    Re: Naval Weapon Systems & Technology

    Post  rrob on Sat Nov 04, 2017 11:19 pm

    Eve


    Last edited by rrob on Tue Nov 14, 2017 4:31 am; edited 1 time in total
    avatar
    KomissarBojanchev

    Posts : 1228
    Points : 1385
    Join date : 2012-08-05
    Age : 20
    Location : Varna, Bulgaria

    Re: Naval Weapon Systems & Technology

    Post  KomissarBojanchev on Sun Nov 05, 2017 12:09 am

    rrob wrote: Everyone better start thinking about that fact that the Americans are now DEPLOYING a 450 kw laser systems aboard their carriers and dd 1000s and possibly Burkes this year as they have tested it already aboard the USS Ponce 3 years ago and again last year.  These things if works as advertised, are game changers as a 2 mile per second zircon missile appears to just be a stationary easy target to the beam of light traveling 186,000 miles per second.  These things will redefine air defense warfare as they are not only fast and accurate but tested to cost (equipment price aside) less than a dollar a shot. I leave it to you to do a little background research on these systems on line.  Not practical for small low electrical output ships right now but on big platforms like the Ford class carriers and dd 1000 are said to have a virtually unlimited shot capability.  If true we are in the dawn of a new age in weaponry which will render missile tech nearly obsolete as you can shoot down a 2 million dollar missile for less than a buck. Please do a search as I seem to be unable to post any links or web addresses.

    These lasers cannot destroy or disable missiles by simply touching them, they need a few seconds to damage it, meanwhile by the time the zirkon enters its range, it will only be a fraction of a second away from its target. Also the laser's power and range is further reduced by water vapour, something ubiquitous at sea. Therefore the US CIWS laser is useless vaporware even more situational than stealth.
    avatar
    AlfaT8

    Posts : 1427
    Points : 1428
    Join date : 2013-02-02

    Re: Naval Weapon Systems & Technology

    Post  AlfaT8 on Sun Nov 05, 2017 12:59 am

    KomissarBojanchev wrote:
    rrob wrote: Everyone better start thinking about that fact that the Americans are now DEPLOYING a 450 kw laser systems aboard their carriers and dd 1000s and possibly Burkes this year as they have tested it already aboard the USS Ponce 3 years ago and again last year.  These things if works as advertised, are game changers as a 2 mile per second zircon missile appears to just be a stationary easy target to the beam of light traveling 186,000 miles per second.  These things will redefine air defense warfare as they are not only fast and accurate but tested to cost (equipment price aside) less than a dollar a shot. I leave it to you to do a little background research on these systems on line.  Not practical for small low electrical output ships right now but on big platforms like the Ford class carriers and dd 1000 are said to have a virtually unlimited shot capability.  If true we are in the dawn of a new age in weaponry which will render missile tech nearly obsolete as you can shoot down a 2 million dollar missile for less than a buck. Please do a search as I seem to be unable to post any links or web addresses.

    These lasers cannot destroy or disable missiles by simply touching them, they need a few seconds to damage it, meanwhile by the time the zirkon enters its range, it will only be a fraction of a second away from its target. Also the laser's power and range is further reduced by water vapour, something ubiquitous at sea. Therefore the US CIWS laser is useless vaporware even more situational than stealth.

    And this is to say nothing of the fact that Hyper-sonic missiles would already be built to resist extreme heat. Rolling Eyes

    rrob

    Posts : 38
    Points : 42
    Join date : 2017-10-30

    Re: Naval Weapon Systems & Technology

    Post  rrob on Sun Nov 05, 2017 1:44 am

    You


    Last edited by rrob on Tue Nov 14, 2017 4:32 am; edited 1 time in total
    avatar
    GunshipDemocracy

    Posts : 1747
    Points : 1787
    Join date : 2015-05-17
    Location : fishin on Stalin´s Strait between Mexico and Canada

    Re: Naval Weapon Systems & Technology

    Post  GunshipDemocracy on Sun Nov 05, 2017 1:45 am

    rrob wrote: Everyone better start thinking about that fact that the Americans are now DEPLOYING a 450 kw laser systems aboard their carriers and dd 1000s and possibly Burkes this year as they have tested it already aboard the USS Ponce 3 years ago and again last year.  These things if works as advertised, are game changers as a 2 mile per second zircon missile appears to just be a stationary easy target to the beam of light traveling 186,000 miles per second.  These things will redefine air defense warfare as they are not only fast and accurate but tested to cost (equipment price aside) less than a dollar a shot. I leave it to you to do a little background research on these systems on line.  Not practical for small low electrical output ships right now but on big platforms like the Ford class carriers and dd 1000 are said to have a virtually unlimited shot capability.  If true we are in the dawn of a new age in weaponry which will render missile tech nearly obsolete as you can shoot down a 2 million dollar missile for less than a buck. Please do a search as I seem to be unable to post any links or web addresses.

    Not yet able - till 10 posts or so Smile


    I am not sure about current level of lasers for anti air or missile defences but challenge is: rate of fire? every pulse needs to recharge a battery of condensers. Power of pulse and time of it.

    If something is movinf 2-3kms in plasma probably it is trivial to burn a salvo of missiles. With supersonic sea skimming also not. But OI am sure designers of new missiles took this factor into consideration.

    Sponsored content

    Re: Naval Weapon Systems & Technology

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Thu Dec 14, 2017 4:14 pm