Black Sea Fleet vs Turkish Navy

flamming_python wrote:

TR1 wrote:Kh-15 is gone gone gone.

Really? What lead to its demise?

Missiles got old, and it was nuke only. They only made sub 300 of them in any case, and prolonging the missile life was not seen as worthwhile.

TR1 wrote:

flamming_python wrote:

TR1 wrote:Kh-15 is gone gone gone.

Really? What lead to its demise?

Missiles got old, and it was nuke only. They only made sub 300 of them in any case, and prolonging the missile life was not seen as worthwhile.

so it's meet the same fate as the AGM-131 SRAM.  

TR1 wrote:

dionis wrote:

GarryB wrote:

The best on-board ASCM option is either the SM-39 or UGM-84 Harpoon. If Turkey can procure SM 29 and UGM 84 Harpoon in sufficient number there is very little that the RuAF can do.

Even their tiniest Corvette will have a 30mm gatling gun answer to a subsonic Harpoon or Exocet. If Turkey could procure B-2s in sufficient number... say 1,000 of them then the Russian military will not have enough AAMs to shoot them all down and therefore some will make it to Moscow!

Every Black Sea Fleet ship in the Russian Navy carries a better anti ship missile than the Exocet or Harpoon.

Eh? I mean for the Slava that's obvious, but the Kara/Kashin/Krivak class vessels carry the Uran at best (which isn't better than even the Harpoon). Then the others have the SS-N-14, which is crap.

Uran has 260km range, does Harpoon?

The BSF also has small rocket ships with Moskit.

Metel is no worse tactically than Exocet, and obviously is dual role.

260km range for the Uran is for some new version no doubt - any evidence these are deployed in the BSF? Can the ships even use them to their max range?

And yes, Harpoon does have a quoted 278km range in the RGM-84F version. I suppose the question is, are these deployed in the Turkish fleet?

Not some exotic new version- just the Russian produced one with the newer (post-Soviet) Russian engine. The old ones had Ukrainian engines, and will or already have run out of service life.

TR1 wrote:Not some exotic new version- just the Russian produced one with the newer (post-Soviet) Russian engine. The old ones had Ukrainian engines, and will or already have run out of service life.

The Kh-35U? That's a new development as far as I know.

And TMC still shows the 130KM version on their website.

Russia did a major strategic overhaul of its tactical missile engines, to prevent outside sources (Ukraine) from becoming an issue.
Any new missiles it buys, made by the Tactical Missile Corps use Russian engines, and hence would have improved range.

Range of course matters on launch platform, I haven't seen specifics as to Harpoon or Kh-35 range when launched from land vs say air.
But it is very unlikely they get 200 + KM when launched from ships.

Kh-35 is a newer design though, would not surprise me that it outranges Harpoon if we compare similar (vintage wise) versions.
Kh-35 used turbofan from the start, unlike Haproons solid fuel engine + turbojet.

Really? What lead to its demise?

Lack of a conventionally armed model.

Its main trick was a mach 5 dive onto a target that was emitting radar energy... now they have Kh-32 which does a similar job (mach 4.5) over a much greater range and can use conventional and nuke armed versions with active and passive guidance... presumably including a much more accurate GLONASS guided alternative.

And TMC still shows the 130KM version on their website.

Export model?

GarryB wrote:

And TMC still shows the 130KM version on their website.

Export model?

It's all export models there.

MTCR does not apply to the Kh-35.

Kh-35E = 130KM

Kh-35UE = 260KM

I've seen no evidence whatsoever that there's any of the 260KM versions in service with the BSF.

The BSF has received coastal BAL complexes recently, and they are with the Russian engines Kh-35.

Chances are we won't get any "evidence" any time soon, but given how many times the BSF fires its Urans, you can bet within a few years any older stock missiles be expended.

TR1 wrote:The BSF has received coastal BAL complexes recently, and they are with the Russian engines Kh-35.

Chances are we won't get any "evidence" any time soon, but given how many times the BSF fires its Urans, you can bet within a few years any older stock missiles be expended.

Which ships even carry Uran? I'm counting more of the Metel than anything, not counting the Tarantul boats.

Not many, just Smetlivy (gonna be gone soon) and whatever new rocket/gunboats they get after Caspian gets its fill. Assuming Tatarstan doesn't drop by like it often does by Novorosiisk.

Mind you Metel itself is only employed by Kerch + Ladnyy + Pitlivvy, which will be gone around the same Smetlivy.

If anything the most common missile by pure tube count is much better than both Moskit.

That will change this decade as the UKSK ships become the majority by 2020.

TR1 wrote:Not many, just Smetlivy (gonna be gone soon) and whatever new rocket/gunboats they get after Caspian gets its fill. Assuming Tatarstan doesn't drop by like it often does by Novorosiisk.

Mind you Metel itself is only employed by Kerch + Ladnyy + Pitlivvy, which will be gone around the same Smetlivy.

If anything the most common missile by pure tube count is much better than both Moskit.

That will change this decade as the UKSK ships become the majority by 2020.

Moskit range was always a little confusing.

Is the navy limited to 120KM range?

I know some variants have a high flight profile option with 240KM range..

Yeah it is a flight profile difference. Mind you when all these ( no matter the country) small missiles show amazing ranges it is usually air launched, Mach 1 + high altitude launch. Slow moving ship? Good luck getting that long range
Hell, Kh-31 PD range changes from like 20-30km max to over 240 in a lofted high alt/speed launch .

The Chinese navy got extended range variants, so naval based weapons are definitely not limited to 120km.

In the black sea , definitively Turkey but also all NATO navies combined if choose to suicide  

1) The easiest safest and boring and most expensive way
Russia just launch a couple of hundred of Oniks ,Calibr from Sochi coast from very long ranges 700km
in the many hundreds until none NATO warship left.

2)The cheap way
Russia can just send 40 x sukhoi SU-27..(and a couple of MIg-31 with long range missiles to defeat awacs)
flying low to avoid detection with Kh-35 missiles. each one can carry 4 of them..
that is  40x4 = 160 antiship missiles. and launch them in salvo at near ~60km. 4 missiles against big warship and 2 against corvettes or patrol ships. Read somewhere that Aegis cannot engage planes or missiles flying very low beyond 50km.
Perhaps that explain why NATO depends heavily on their Navy Airforce  and Awacs to defend their warships.

3) The elegant way..
Russia just send 30  Su-34s flying very low with its terrain following radar ,avoiding any detection until 40km-50km of their
warships and then launch at the same time in salvo 6 x kh-31 or 3 x calibr/brahmos missiles.Both supersonic . That is 30 x 6  =180 missiles or 30 x 3 =90 using Kalibr/brahmos.


In real practice navy vs navy will not happen in the black sea ,because they can use their Airforce. a plane cost a lot less than a warship and can escort and deliver missiles very close to their enemies. For sure Russia have a big military airport near the black sea with many combat jets carrying anti-ship missiles.

Vann7 wrote:
In real practice navy vs navy will not happen in the black sea ,because they can use their Airforce. a plane cost a lot less than a warship and can escort and deliver missiles very close to their enemies. For sure Russia have a big military airport near the black sea with many combat jets carrying anti-ship missiles.

There is something called submarines.
Also i doubt the airforce can go in and sink ships uncontested, for sure they will have much other things at hand in a big war. It can be skirmishes not all out war. Displaying your ships in hotspots and using them in limited actions, like south Ossetia is very useful.
No one really knows how a modern naval war will look like, nearest is Falklands and thats 30 years ago...
I dont think eternal peace has come to the Black sea area, naval engagements is bound to happen sooner or later.

This would have been an interesting scenario if set in the 80s with the SOviet black sea fleet vs Turkish fleet

any thoughts on that by the original poster ? In the 80s a possible few changes

1-Turks have 50 or so F-16 and the Soviets have very few Mig-29s but mostly Mig-23
2-Black sea fleet has ships equipped with SSN-2 Styx and SSN-3b/c missile ships which are inferior to the Harpoon ( which I assume equipped Turkish ships in the 80s?)
3-How big is the Turkish sub fleet in 80s ?
4-The AV MF had backfires in the pacific fleet but in the black sea fleet they had mostly Badger G and Bear G I'm assuming ?

We can change this whole scenario again aswell

Modified Nakhimov vs Turkish fleet

Just saw this on the internet about Turkish submarines, I want to know should Russia be concerned?


https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/2022/01/analysis-why-do-turkeys-upcoming-reis-class-submarines-have-potential-to-affect-balances-in-the-region/

It will make a difference. But I suspect the Turks are buying these submarines more to have parity with the Greek navy than to confront Russia. At least at this time.

The Russians are very capable in terms of anti sub warfare, considering the way Turkey is acting recently I would not be that concerned... they seem very reasonable and sensible at the moment.... unlike the rest of the west.