Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    Anti-Ship Missiles: Discussion

    Share

    artjomh
    Sergeant
    Sergeant

    Posts : 151
    Points : 187
    Join date : 2015-07-17

    Re: Anti-Ship Missiles: Discussion

    Post  artjomh on Thu Sep 10, 2015 2:36 pm

    nastle77 wrote:Ofcourse but what I'm trying to ask is that incase a regiment of AV-MF bombers equipped with Kh-22 do encounter enemy frigate/destroyer/cruiser type targets they could still try to take them out ? without calling for backup from other termit malakhit equipped ships etc

    Sorry if I wasn't clear , appreciate your responses Smile

    I am having trouble answering your question because I think the likelihood of such a situation occurring was fairly slim.

    During general war, most DA and AVMF units would have been thrown against pre-planned strategic targets, CVBGs and strategic infrastructure in Western Europe. Given the probable attrition rate in the raids against CVBGs, there would have simply been no other Tu-22M3 regiment available for your scenario.

    I guess, if it was a state of general war and a bomber regiment had no other tasks, and it came upon an enemy destroyer SAG, it would try to take it out (with varying degree of success, I already mentioned the missile's poor resolution against small targets). However, like I said, I do not foresee such a scenario "just coincidentally happening".

    nastle77
    Junior Sergeant
    Junior Sergeant

    Posts : 137
    Points : 179
    Join date : 2015-07-25

    Re: Anti-Ship Missiles: Discussion

    Post  nastle77 on Thu Sep 10, 2015 6:10 pm

    artjomh wrote:
    nastle77 wrote:Ofcourse but what I'm trying to ask is that incase a regiment of AV-MF bombers equipped with Kh-22 do encounter enemy frigate/destroyer/cruiser type targets they could still try to take them out ? without calling for backup from other termit malakhit equipped ships etc

    Sorry if I wasn't clear , appreciate your responses Smile

    I am having trouble answering your question because I think the likelihood of such a situation occurring was fairly slim.

    During general war, most DA and AVMF units would have been thrown against pre-planned strategic targets, CVBGs and strategic infrastructure in Western Europe. Given the probable attrition rate in the raids against CVBGs, there would have simply been no other Tu-22M3 regiment available for your scenario.

    I guess, if it was a state of general war and a bomber regiment had no other tasks, and it came upon an enemy destroyer SAG, it would try to take it out (with varying degree of success, I already mentioned the missile's poor resolution against small targets). However, like I said, I do not foresee such a scenario "just coincidentally happening".
    True if the primary enemy is CVBG of USN ,however if USSR is at war with another nation and not USA then a destroyer based SAG might be the target. I guess the only solution for that poor resolution problem would be a massed strike e.g 8 or 10 kh-22 missiles launched against a single destroyer sized target hoping atleast one would find home.

    artjomh
    Sergeant
    Sergeant

    Posts : 151
    Points : 187
    Join date : 2015-07-17

    Re: Anti-Ship Missiles: Discussion

    Post  artjomh on Thu Sep 10, 2015 6:29 pm

    nastle77 wrote:True if the primary enemy is CVBG of USN ,however if USSR is at war with another nation and not USA then a destroyer based SAG might be the target. I guess the only solution for that poor resolution problem would be a massed strike e.g 8 or 10 kh-22 missiles launched against a single destroyer sized target hoping atleast one would find home.

    You answered your own question, then.

    But so far this hypothetical war is somewhat of a "spherical horse in vacuum". Much would depend on who is the enemy, where the action is being fought, what is the correlation of forces in the AOR, how serious is the escalation of violence, what is the end-goal of the confrontation.

    I don't really know why only Tu-22M3/Kh-22 is considered and the Navy is left alone. The submarine force would certainly play a decisive role in such a limited conflict, in my opinion.

    max steel
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 2980
    Points : 3014
    Join date : 2015-02-12
    Location : South Pole

    Re: Anti-Ship Missiles: Discussion

    Post  max steel on Thu Sep 10, 2015 6:32 pm

    Russian navy has always been a sea denial power . So even if it's US , they can't get past through .

    nastle77
    Junior Sergeant
    Junior Sergeant

    Posts : 137
    Points : 179
    Join date : 2015-07-25

    Re: Anti-Ship Missiles: Discussion

    Post  nastle77 on Thu Sep 10, 2015 6:56 pm

    Artjomh,
    forgive me for being so vague, consider the foe JSDF.They have harpoon equipped ships and heavy ASW capability, therefore soviet subs face a real threat plus in the 80's the harpoon considerably out ranges the Styx and Starbrights.There are only a few sunburns in service back then
    .
    Therefore the Soviet navy surface ships and subs are at a distinct disadvantage fighting with such well equipped jSdf ships even though they are not AEGIS equipped

    artjomh
    Sergeant
    Sergeant

    Posts : 151
    Points : 187
    Join date : 2015-07-17

    Re: Anti-Ship Missiles: Discussion

    Post  artjomh on Thu Sep 10, 2015 7:28 pm

    nastle77 wrote:Artjomh,
    forgive me for being so vague, consider the foe JSDF.They have harpoon equipped ships and heavy ASW capability, therefore soviet subs face a real threat plus in the 80's the harpoon considerably out ranges the Styx and Starbrights.There are only a few sunburns in service back then
    .
    Therefore the Soviet navy surface ships and subs are at a distinct disadvantage fighting with such well equipped jSdf ships even though they are not AEGIS equipped

    Strabright? That's P-70, right? That was a submarine-only missile, though.

    I am thinking more in terms of P-35, P-500 or P-120. First two hugely outrange RGM-84A and the second one is in Harpoon's ballpark.

    In the end, it would certainly be a combined arms confrontation. And I wouldn't discount the Pacific Fleet submarines. The sheer number of them (especially the converted Echo-II which carried P-500) would certainly overwhelm Japanese ASW defenses.

    nastle77
    Junior Sergeant
    Junior Sergeant

    Posts : 137
    Points : 179
    Join date : 2015-07-25

    Re: Anti-Ship Missiles: Discussion

    Post  nastle77 on Fri Sep 11, 2015 5:21 pm

    ^No doubt the Pacific sleep is a formidable opponent but Japanese navy also has approximately 34 harpoon armed ships by 80s deep freeze of the Cold War...
    neutralizing these ships would be a task divided between the submarines the few anti-surface warfare cruisers and the bombers of the Naval Aviation, that's why I was wondering how they would Cope with smaller targets , possibly the AS 6 kingfish carried by tu 16 could also be used against the destroyers considering it was a scaled-down version of the AS 4

    nastle77
    Junior Sergeant
    Junior Sergeant

    Posts : 137
    Points : 179
    Join date : 2015-07-25

    Re: Anti-Ship Missiles: Discussion

    Post  nastle77 on Fri Sep 11, 2015 5:26 pm

    SS19 and SS12 ( sorry again for using the NATO designation I grew up with then lol) you are right even in small numbers must be a huge threat to JDSF destroyers

    E.g a echo II can launch of these well outside the range of Harpoon

    Even the small nanuchka class with its 6 x SS9 sirens is equivalent to a destroyer firepower in ASUW roles ? Isn't the Sirens aND early harpoon roughly equivalent?

    nastle77
    Junior Sergeant
    Junior Sergeant

    Posts : 137
    Points : 179
    Join date : 2015-07-25

    Re: Anti-Ship Missiles: Discussion

    Post  nastle77 on Fri Sep 11, 2015 5:29 pm

    Although I'm not sure how the Victor class subs primarily designed for ASW will fare against destroyers

    artjomh
    Sergeant
    Sergeant

    Posts : 151
    Points : 187
    Join date : 2015-07-17

    Re: Anti-Ship Missiles: Discussion

    Post  artjomh on Fri Sep 11, 2015 8:31 pm

    nastle77 wrote:^No doubt the Pacific sleep is a formidable opponent but Japanese navy also has approximately 34 harpoon armed ships by 80s deep freeze of the Cold War...
    neutralizing these ships would be a task divided between the submarines the few anti-surface warfare cruisers and the bombers of the Naval Aviation, that's why I was wondering how they would Cope with smaller targets , possibly the AS 6 kingfish carried by tu 16  could also be used against the destroyers considering it was a scaled-down version of the AS 4

    nastle, remember, Pacific Fleet doesn't actually need to destroy all those ships. We are not fighting the Battle of Midway here.

    The fleet only needs to decisively destroy a few ships without getting shot back it (and with P-500 range, it's not that hard), then MJSDF will see the error of its ways and turn back.

    What is exactly is the Japanese purpose here? Take back Sakhalin? Then forget the destroyers and sink the landing craft, what are they going to do then?

    jhelb wrote:Artjomh, slightly off topic. What are the challenges designers have to overcome if they have to install a missile/bomb in an aircraft that is from a foreign vendor?

    For example, say Russia exports the Mig 29K or Su 30 to a foreign country and that country chooses to fit the Mig 29K with the Harpoon or the Su 30 with the Brimstone.  How difficult will this task be to integrate the Harpoon or Brimstone on a Mig 29K or  Su 30? Many thanx.

    Here's how: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MIL-STD-1760

    For the physical part, I assume there are adaptors, but I do not know this 100%

    nastle77
    Junior Sergeant
    Junior Sergeant

    Posts : 137
    Points : 179
    Join date : 2015-07-25

    Re: Anti-Ship Missiles: Discussion

    Post  nastle77 on Sat Sep 12, 2015 7:56 pm



    nastle, remember, Pacific Fleet doesn't actually need to destroy all those ships. We are not fighting the Battle of Midway here.
    True lol but enough to scare them , atleast 1/3 of their frontline ships
    The fleet only needs to decisively destroy a few ships without getting shot back it (and with P-500 range, it's not that hard), then MJSDF will see the error of its ways and turn back.


    hopefully although Japanese do fight to the last man and last round
    What is exactly is the Japanese purpose here? Take back Sakhalin? Then forget the destroyers and sink the landing craft, what are they going to do then?

    Probably to take advantage of a collapsing USSR to grab sakhalins and Kurils
    The landing craft can be hit by SU-17/mig-27 planes quite effectively don't need long range ASM IMHO

    nastle77
    Junior Sergeant
    Junior Sergeant

    Posts : 137
    Points : 179
    Join date : 2015-07-25

    Re: Anti-Ship Missiles: Discussion

    Post  nastle77 on Wed Sep 16, 2015 9:03 pm

    artjomh wrote:
    nastle77 wrote:
    artjomh wrote:
    nastle77 wrote:so a destroyer sized target/large frigates ( approx. 250 feet long 2000 tonnes or more ) can be targeted but smaller ones like smaller frigates /FPB etc were too small to get a lock on ?

    It is impossible to say with that kind of precision.

    I understand, were the Kh-22 in the anti-ship role also equipped with nuke warheads ? if nothing else they can obliterate a couple of small ships even if they are inaccurate

    Yes. But the carrier was the main target.

    The common tactic was to detonate one nuclear Kh-22 over the general area of the SAG to kill off the ECM, then pick off individual surviving targets with HE-armed missiles.

    Hi
    Can you please tell me where are these tactics mentioned ? also is there any details on the trials live-fire ones preferably that were done on the Kh-22 ? and what kind of targets was it tested against ?

    Do you think saturation attacks by kh-22 i.e 10 or so missiles against a destroyer sized target increases the odds significantly of a hit ? I mean it will likely take only 1 hit by a Kh-22 to sink a destroyer

    Thanks for your help Very Happy

    nastle77
    Junior Sergeant
    Junior Sergeant

    Posts : 137
    Points : 179
    Join date : 2015-07-25

    Re: Anti-Ship Missiles: Discussion

    Post  nastle77 on Wed Sep 23, 2015 1:06 am

    artjomh wrote:
    nastle77 wrote:Artjomh,
    forgive me for being so vague, consider the foe JSDF.They have harpoon equipped ships and heavy ASW capability, therefore soviet subs face a real threat plus in the 80's the harpoon considerably out ranges the Styx and Starbrights.There are only a few sunburns in service back then
    .
    Therefore the Soviet navy surface ships and subs are at a distinct disadvantage fighting with such well equipped jSdf ships even though they are not AEGIS equipped

    Strabright? That's P-70, right? That was a submarine-only missile, though.

    I am thinking more in terms of P-35, P-500 or P-120. First two hugely outrange RGM-84A and the second one is in Harpoon's ballpark.

    In the end, it would certainly be a combined arms confrontation. And I wouldn't discount the Pacific Fleet submarines. The sheer number of them (especially the converted Echo-II which carried P-500) would certainly overwhelm Japanese ASW defenses.

    By P-35 you mean the SSN-3A/B shaddock ? can that be used against destroyer sized targets ?

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15458
    Points : 16165
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Anti-Ship Missiles: Discussion

    Post  GarryB on Wed Sep 23, 2015 12:26 pm

    By P-35 you mean the SSN-3A/B shaddock ? can that be used against destroyer sized targets ?

    Why not?

    It was faster than Exocet, though it was much bigger... I would expect its warheads would explode properly and sink ships more effectively than exocet did.


    _________________
    “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

    nastle77
    Junior Sergeant
    Junior Sergeant

    Posts : 137
    Points : 179
    Join date : 2015-07-25

    Re: Anti-Ship Missiles: Discussion

    Post  nastle77 on Wed Sep 23, 2015 5:50 pm

    GarryB wrote:
    By P-35 you mean the SSN-3A/B shaddock ? can that be used against destroyer sized targets ?

    Why not?

    It was faster than Exocet, though it was much bigger... I would expect its warheads would explode properly and sink ships more effectively than exocet did.

    Ok thanks I wasn't sure if it could pick targets smaller than 10,000 tonnes

    I read that the AS-4 Kitchen was designed to target only large ships as mentioned earlier in this thread too

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15458
    Points : 16165
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Anti-Ship Missiles: Discussion

    Post  GarryB on Thu Sep 24, 2015 3:38 am

    Ok thanks I wasn't sure if it could pick targets smaller than 10,000 tonnes

    I read that the AS-4 Kitchen was designed to target only large ships as mentioned earlier in this thread too

    Keep in mind that technology improves over time and I would suggest all modern Russian anti ship missiles would be able to target surf boards by now... the AS-4 likely would not have been wasted on a corvette in the 1980s, but these days even corvettes are potent vessels that can't be ignored.

    Besides once the fighting starts most ships will scan for threats making them vulnerable to anti radiation models of AShMs too.


    _________________
    “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

    nastle77
    Junior Sergeant
    Junior Sergeant

    Posts : 137
    Points : 179
    Join date : 2015-07-25

    Re: Anti-Ship Missiles: Discussion

    Post  nastle77 on Sat Sep 26, 2015 3:35 pm

    GarryB wrote:
    Ok thanks I wasn't sure if it could pick targets smaller than 10,000 tonnes

    I read that the AS-4 Kitchen was designed to target only large ships as mentioned earlier in this thread too

    Keep in mind that technology improves over time and I would suggest all modern Russian anti ship missiles would be able to target surf boards by now... the AS-4 likely would not have been wasted on a corvette in the 1980s, but these days even corvettes are potent vessels that can't be ignored.

    Besides once the fighting starts most ships will scan for threats making them vulnerable to anti radiation models of AShMs too.

    True but I was most interested in capabilities of Soviet ASM in the 80s, do you think saturation might work against destroyer sized targets ?
    e.g if 5 Tu-22M launch 2 x AS-4 each against a destroyer there are good chances atleast one would find home and given large warhead most likely sink the ship

    Again I do understand AS-4 were to be saved for CVBG but even a harpoon armed destroyed can be bad news at the wrong place and need to be eliminated , and other ships armed with ASM or SSM may not be around e.g Krivaks, Udaloy, Kara , Kresta II carried no anti-ship missiles

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15458
    Points : 16165
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Anti-Ship Missiles: Discussion

    Post  GarryB on Sun Sep 27, 2015 9:47 am

    True but I was most interested in capabilities of Soviet ASM in the 80s, do you think saturation might work against destroyer sized targets ?
    e.g if 5 Tu-22M launch 2 x AS-4 each against a destroyer there are good chances atleast one would find home and given large warhead most likely sink the ship

    I would think a destroyer would be big enough to target, the thing is that I rather doubt they would send up 5 Backfires just to fly around looking for targets to attack and when they find a target to make a snap decision as to whether to attack it or not.

    I would expect a Bear (Tu-142) flying on MPA might detect a signal from a radar or communication from the target... give it a quick scan on long range radar and send coordinates to HQ who might decide to mount an all out attack or it might send a few aircraft.

    The AS-4 came in a range of types including anti radar and active radar homing... if the target is not emitting then a single active radar homing model followed by a few anti radar missiles would be a useful attack where the incoming first missile will result in the defensive use of radars to scan for more incoming missiles, which in turn allows the following missiles something to detect and home in on

    Most destroyers of the 1980s were like land based air defences of the time and had one or maybe two guidance channels per major SAM system so 2-3 fast missiles could overwhelm quite impressive systems.

    and other ships armed with ASM or SSM may not be around e.g Krivaks, Udaloy, Kara , Kresta II carried no anti-ship missiles

    Actually they were more well rounded systems than the west actually thought... the SS-N-14 Silex was a fully dual role weapon system in its 1980s models.

    The original was like the Australian Ikara in that it was a torpedo with a rocket attached to its top... the rocket carried the torpedo ballistically to the general location of the sub and then released the torpedo into the water for the torpedo to hunt down and hopefully sink the sub.

    The SS-N-14 was different and actually had a secondary HE warhead and optical seeker, so when launched it used its wings to maintain flight and flew to the target at subsonic speeds and dropped its torpedo into the water near where the sub was expected to be. At the flick of a switch however the torpedo payload was not dropped and the optical guidance was activated to find surface ships... the combination of the warhead on the rocket section and the torpedo warhead and fuel combined to make quite a significant anti ship payload and with fully passive guidance it would give less warning than Harpoon and Exocet.

    Obviously designed for anti sub use where the optical guidance and rocket payload was not used.


    _________________
    “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

    nastle77
    Junior Sergeant
    Junior Sergeant

    Posts : 137
    Points : 179
    Join date : 2015-07-25

    Re: Anti-Ship Missiles: Discussion

    Post  nastle77 on Mon Sep 28, 2015 4:04 pm

    GarryB wrote:
    True but I was most interested in capabilities of Soviet ASM in the 80s, do you think saturation might work against destroyer sized targets ?
    e.g if 5 Tu-22M launch 2 x AS-4 each against a destroyer there are good chances atleast one would find home and given large warhead most likely sink the ship

    I would think a destroyer would be big enough to target, the thing is that I rather doubt they would send up 5 Backfires just to fly around looking for targets to attack and when they find a target to make a snap decision as to whether to attack it or not.

    I would expect a Bear (Tu-142) flying on MPA might detect a signal from a radar or communication from the target... give it a quick scan on long range radar and send coordinates to HQ who might decide to mount an all out attack or it might send a few aircraft.

    The AS-4 came in a range of types including anti radar and active radar homing... if the target is not emitting then a single active radar homing model followed by a few anti radar missiles would be a useful attack where the incoming first missile will result in the defensive use of radars to scan for more incoming missiles, which in turn allows the following missiles something to detect and home in on

    Most destroyers of the 1980s were like land based air defences of the time and had one or maybe two guidance channels per major SAM system so 2-3 fast missiles could overwhelm quite impressive systems.

    and other ships armed with ASM or SSM may not be around e.g Krivaks, Udaloy, Kara , Kresta II carried no anti-ship missiles

    Actually they were more well rounded systems than the west actually thought... the SS-N-14 Silex was a fully dual role weapon system in its 1980s models.

    The original was like the Australian Ikara in that it was a torpedo with a rocket attached to its top... the rocket carried the torpedo ballistically to the general location of the sub and then released the torpedo into the water for the torpedo to hunt down and hopefully sink the sub.

    The SS-N-14 was different and actually had a secondary HE warhead and optical seeker, so when launched it used its wings to maintain flight and flew to the target at subsonic speeds and dropped its torpedo into the water near where the sub was expected to be. At the flick of a switch however the torpedo payload was not dropped and the optical guidance was activated to find surface ships... the combination of the warhead on the rocket section and the torpedo warhead and fuel combined to make quite a significant anti ship payload and with fully passive guidance it would give less warning than Harpoon and Exocet.

    Obviously designed for anti sub use where the optical guidance and rocket payload was not used.

    Thankyou very much for the detailed explanation

    I think the tendency in the West is to dismiss the soviet weapons as utterly useless, I was reading an article which argued that the Japanese fleet in the 80s in any conventional battle can trounce the Soviet pacific fleet but based on the discussions here I think that view is seriously flawed

    franco
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 1732
    Points : 1772
    Join date : 2010-08-18

    Re: Anti-Ship Missiles: Discussion

    Post  franco on Tue Sep 29, 2015 7:53 pm

    Rearmament coastal missile units

    The Defense Ministry plans to completely re-equip with modern weaponry of the coastal missile until 2021. This was announced on September 29 Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu at a conference in the office.
    According to him, until the end of 2015, two coastal missile complex "Bastion" will go to the Northern and Pacific fleets, and the following year the Russian Navy will receive five coastal missile systems. In the future will come to the fleets of four sets per year. "As a result, by 2021 we will be able to fully re-equip coastal missile units with modern weapons," - said the Minister.
    Shoigu noted that such systems are already in use on the Black Sea fleet, they have high mobility and low vulnerability of the air strikes.

    Rmf
    Master Sergeant
    Master Sergeant

    Posts : 375
    Points : 370
    Join date : 2013-05-30

    Re: Anti-Ship Missiles: Discussion

    Post  Rmf on Sat Oct 03, 2015 2:00 am

    GarryB wrote:
    True but I was most interested in capabilities of Soviet ASM in the 80s, do you think saturation might work against destroyer sized targets ?
    e.g if 5 Tu-22M launch 2 x AS-4 each against a destroyer there are good chances atleast one would find home and given large warhead most likely sink the ship

    I would think a destroyer would be big enough to target, the thing is that I rather doubt they would send up 5 Backfires just to fly around looking for targets to attack and when they find a target to make a snap decision as to whether to attack it or not.

    I would expect a Bear (Tu-142) flying on MPA might detect a signal from a radar or communication from the target... give it a quick scan on long range radar and send coordinates to HQ who might decide to mount an all out attack or it might send a few aircraft.

    The AS-4 came in a range of types including anti radar and active radar homing... if the target is not emitting then a single active radar homing model followed by a few anti radar missiles would be a useful attack where the incoming first missile will result in the defensive use of radars to scan for more incoming missiles, which in turn allows the following missiles something to detect and home in on

    Most destroyers of the 1980s were like land based air defences of the time and had one or maybe two guidance channels per major SAM system so 2-3 fast missiles could overwhelm quite impressive systems.

    and other ships armed with ASM or SSM may not be around e.g Krivaks, Udaloy, Kara , Kresta II carried no anti-ship missiles

    Actually they were more well rounded systems than the west actually thought... the SS-N-14 Silex was a fully dual role weapon system in its 1980s models.

    The original was like the Australian Ikara in that it was a torpedo with a rocket attached to its top... the rocket carried the torpedo ballistically to the general location of the sub and then released the torpedo into the water for the torpedo to hunt down and hopefully sink the sub.

    The SS-N-14 was different and actually had a secondary HE warhead and optical seeker, so when launched it used its wings to maintain flight and flew to the target at subsonic speeds and dropped its torpedo into the water near where the sub was expected to be. At the flick of a switch however the torpedo payload was not dropped and the optical guidance was activated to find surface ships... the combination of the warhead on the rocket section and the torpedo warhead and fuel combined to make quite a significant anti ship payload and with fully passive guidance it would give less warning than Harpoon and Exocet.

    Obviously designed for anti sub use where the optical guidance and rocket payload was not used.

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

    Isos
    Master Sergeant
    Master Sergeant

    Posts : 304
    Points : 308
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Re: Anti-Ship Missiles: Discussion

    Post  Isos on Sun Nov 15, 2015 6:57 pm

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eIwr8W1dr8E

    Look at the first hit !! It hits under water.

    Why don't they upgrade Moskit with a better range and absorbing radar paint?

    It was able to counter AEGIS when it was designed and today it's the same AEGIS on the US destroyers so an upgraded Moskit will be a good weapon against US and Japanese destroyers.

    And it has the best design of all the antiship missiles, it is pretty dissuasive.

    I have also some questions:

    1) Can you tell aproximative prices of each russian anti ship missiles and some western to make comparison ?
    2) If the Kh-35 is programmed to hit the target from behind, will it be harder for the target's radar to detect it ? For exemple on the steregushchy presentation video I've seen on YouTube, there was a part of the structure behind the radar. Can this make the detection harder ? Moreover most of ships have very bad defences at the rear , no missiles, no canons, no gatling guns.

    3) And why western navys use subsonic, not really stealth missiles?

    4) Can you employ Iskander-M against aircraft carrier ? I know taht they can be re-programmed durring flight against manoeuvring targets so with GPS/GLONASS guidance and optic guidence at the end it would be a very usefull weapon. 500 Km range is enough because in a war the carrier must be close to the battlfield as the F-18 doesn't have a long range. What the you think ?

    max steel
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 2980
    Points : 3014
    Join date : 2015-02-12
    Location : South Pole

    Re: Anti-Ship Missiles: Discussion

    Post  max steel on Thu Jan 14, 2016 6:27 pm

    Any difference between Vulkan and US LRASM apart from speed ? They both are long range antiship missile.

    artjomh
    Sergeant
    Sergeant

    Posts : 151
    Points : 187
    Join date : 2015-07-17

    Re: Anti-Ship Missiles: Discussion

    Post  artjomh on Fri Jan 15, 2016 1:08 am

    Vulkan = turbojet engine, inertial+satellite+radar navigation, ship-launched

    LRASM = turbofan engine, GPS-assisted inertial+radar+electro-optical navigation, ship- and aircraft-launched

    Completely different missiles.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15458
    Points : 16165
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Anti-Ship Missiles: Discussion

    Post  GarryB on Sat Jan 16, 2016 5:11 am

    And one is deployed operational system and the other is not.


    _________________
    “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

    Sponsored content

    Re: Anti-Ship Missiles: Discussion

    Post  Sponsored content Today at 12:54 am


      Current date/time is Sun Dec 04, 2016 12:54 am