Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    Anti-Ship Missiles: Discussion

    Share

    nastle77
    Junior Sergeant
    Junior Sergeant

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

    Re: Anti-Ship Missiles: Discussion

    Post  nastle77 on Mon Aug 03, 2015 8:39 pm

    GarryB wrote:

    This is the large 4 shot missile launcher used in the original Krivak class frigates.
    This is a later model missile, the early missile was a lot like the Australian Ikara in that it was a rocket with a torpedo slung under it.
    The difference was that the first model Silex missile was a fully dual purpose weapon with built in radar guidance.
    In the anti sub role, which was its primary role, the missile flew a ballistic path to the suspected location of the enemy sub and when it got there it dropped a torpedo into the water which spiralled down in the water listening for sub targets... when it spotted one it powered up its propulsion system and turned on its active sonar seeker and chased the target to impact.
    In its anti ship role in the main body of the missile there was a radar seeker and a 300kg HE warhead. The torpedo was not released before impact and its warhead and fuel provided the extra power to sink a ship by providing extra explosive for the blast and extra fuel for incendiary effect.

    The ship was seen as unbalanced in the west because "it was considered vulnerable to even a WWII Gearing class destroyer". Of course in the anti ship mode the Silex would have easily dealt with most WWII destroyers.

    Later models of the missiles retained the anti ship capabilities but added IR as well as radar guidance to improve their anti ship performance.



    This is the UKSK vertical launcher which is fitted to the newer versions of the Krivak Class vessels and one launcher replacing the old 4 tube launcher alone is a large step up in capability. Though the anti sub Klub missile is not a dual anti ship anti Sub weapon with 8 tubes the new vessels can have the anti sub klub missile that is every bit as capable as the Silex in anti sub use though probably better with its newer model more capable torpedo payload, in the remaining 4 tubes it could carry Oniks or Brahmos which of course have significantly higher anti ship performance than the subsonic Silex. Equally the tubes can be loaded with land attack cruise missiles, and subsonic and supersonic versions of the Klub system.


    Was the Rastrub as powerful as the Harpoon ? it had a much shorter range apparently which probably didn't help much

    What purpose will it serve in the antiship role esp most subs surface ships opposing it will be armed with the Harpoon

    nastle77
    Junior Sergeant
    Junior Sergeant

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

    Re: Anti-Ship Missiles: Discussion

    Post  nastle77 on Tue Aug 04, 2015 2:17 am

    Kresta II, Kara , udaloy I are very weak in this anti-ship department and outmatched against Harpoon armed ships.What was the plan of the soviets later Russians if they were to battle harpoon armed ships ? Even though these ships were ASW ships but they can be encounter surface threats as well,As the Harpoon armed ship has the advantage of a longer range, what can the Rastrub armed ship do to survive ?


    Stealthflanker
    Major
    Major

    Posts : 808
    Points : 894
    Join date : 2009-08-04
    Age : 28
    Location : Indonesia

    Re: Anti-Ship Missiles: Discussion

    Post  Stealthflanker on Tue Aug 04, 2015 4:27 am

    nastle77 wrote:Kresta II, Kara , udaloy I are very weak in this anti-ship department and outmatched  against Harpoon armed ships.What was the plan of the soviets later Russians if they were to battle harpoon armed ships ? Even though these ships were ASW ships but they can be encounter surface threats as well,As the Harpoon armed ship has the advantage of a longer range, what can the Rastrub armed ship do to survive ?


    They will travel together in task force with Sovremenny. Kynda or other ship that carry anti ship weapons.

    nastle77
    Junior Sergeant
    Junior Sergeant

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

    Re: Anti-Ship Missiles: Discussion

    Post  nastle77 on Tue Aug 04, 2015 4:38 am

    Stealthflanker wrote:
    nastle77 wrote:Kresta II, Kara , udaloy I are very weak in this anti-ship department and outmatched  against Harpoon armed ships.What was the plan of the soviets later Russians if they were to battle harpoon armed ships ? Even though these ships were ASW ships but they can be encounter surface threats as well,As the Harpoon armed ship has the advantage of a longer range, what can the Rastrub armed ship do to survive ?


    They will travel together in task force with Sovremenny. Kynda or other ship that carry anti ship weapons.

    so what is the point of having ships which are ASW or AsuW only specialized
    isn't it better to have multipurpose vessels like JNSDF in the region ?

    sepheronx
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 7302
    Points : 7612
    Join date : 2009-08-06
    Age : 27
    Location : Canada

    Re: Anti-Ship Missiles: Discussion

    Post  sepheronx on Tue Aug 04, 2015 4:52 am

    nastle77 wrote:
    Stealthflanker wrote:
    nastle77 wrote:Kresta II, Kara , udaloy I are very weak in this anti-ship department and outmatched  against Harpoon armed ships.What was the plan of the soviets later Russians if they were to battle harpoon armed ships ? Even though these ships were ASW ships but they can be encounter surface threats as well,As the Harpoon armed ship has the advantage of a longer range, what can the Rastrub armed ship do to survive ?


    They will travel together in task force with Sovremenny. Kynda or other ship that carry anti ship weapons.

    so what is the point of having ships which are ASW or AsuW only specialized
    isn't it better to have multipurpose vessels like JNSDF in the region ?

    Yes, it is much better, cheaper and easier to maintain. Problem with Russia and its MIC, as well as generals is that there are too many of them, too many of them incapable of thinking properly, and they lobby for each project. So the shipbuilding industry has all these types of surface ship designs yet they cannot get a single one out on time or working properly because they are biting FAR more they can chew.

    In reality, having a single type of costal ships using similar weapons/equipment (of course in smaller numbers) to protect Russia's cost, then having a single type of frigates and destroyers to help provide longer range operations. Similar weapons makes it cheaper, helps deal with the bugs, reduces time/costs in development and thus they could probably get ships out on time, on budget and in good quality.

    But of course, that wont happen. Because it is so much better to have 5 different type of corvettes, two different types of frigates being developed, all with different types of sub systems for even similar types.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15482
    Points : 16189
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Anti-Ship Missiles: Discussion

    Post  GarryB on Tue Aug 04, 2015 5:00 am

    Was the Rastrub as powerful as the Harpoon ? it had a much shorter range apparently which probably didn't help much

    Was ASROC as good as GRANIT?

    Rastrub was an anti sub missile similar to the Aussie Ikara, but it also had a built in secondary capability against ships with IR homing and an extra warhead on board of 300kgs or so. the combined mass of that warhead and the torpedos warhead would make it vastly more effective against a ship than Harpoon if it hits. And unlike harpoon the Silex does not scan the target with radar to warn it is coming...

    What purpose will it serve in the antiship role esp most subs surface ships opposing it will be armed with the Harpoon

    It is an anti sub weapon and would only be used against surface ships in self defence.

    Udaloys don't have vertical launchers. So it will be a radical renovation i guess. So how costly it will be?

    The Krivaks had an external four shot launcher for their Silex missiles so fitting vertical launchers suggests the same problems. The Talwar built for India has vertical launch tubes...



    _________________
    “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

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15482
    Points : 16189
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Anti-Ship Missiles: Discussion

    Post  GarryB on Tue Aug 04, 2015 6:16 am

    Udaloy is an anti sub destroyer... why do you think it should be able to sink US destroyers?

    Can I criticise the USS Nimitz because it can't operate at the same depths that a Kilo class sub can?

    BTW Of course western experts are going to say subsonic anti ship missiles are better than supersonic ones... until they introduced smoothbore main guns on tanks they were inaccurate too, and while they don't use autoloaders in their tanks that is a serious problem as well.

    the main problem with old Soviet supersonic anti ship missiles was they were huge and expensive and only a couple of Soviet vessels actually carried them and they didn't carry them in large numbers.

    With every Russian vessel being equipped with UKSK launchers however that argument is moot, not to mention land based launchers and aircraft launched missiles as well.

    Soon hypersonic missiles will make the gap even bigger... and the Russians also have subsonic missiles too in the form of the Kh-35 and Klub.


    so what is the point of having ships which are ASW or AsuW only specialized

    Having specialised anti sub vessels was a necessity, not a choice.

    Togay modern Russian vessels will be fully multirole thanks to UKSK.

    BTW did you know that the sale price of Harpoon was actually higher than for Yakhont... the cost argument no longer applies...


    _________________
    “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 Fri Aug 07, 2015 3:14 pm

    GarryB wrote:Udaloy is an anti sub destroyer... why do you think it should be able to sink US destroyers?

    Can I criticise the USS Nimitz because it can't operate at the same depths that a Kilo class sub can?

    BTW Of course western experts are going to say subsonic anti ship missiles are better than supersonic ones... until they introduced smoothbore main guns on tanks they were inaccurate too, and while they don't use autoloaders in their tanks that is a serious problem as well.

    the main problem with old Soviet supersonic anti ship missiles was they were huge and expensive and only a couple of Soviet vessels actually carried them and they didn't carry them in large numbers.

    With every Russian vessel being equipped with UKSK launchers however that argument is moot, not to mention land based launchers and aircraft launched missiles as well.

    Soon hypersonic missiles will make the gap even bigger... and the Russians also have subsonic missiles too in the form of the Kh-35 and Klub.


    so what is the point of having ships which are ASW or AsuW only specialized

    Having specialised anti sub vessels was a necessity, not a choice.

    Togay modern Russian vessels will be fully multirole thanks to UKSK.

    BTW did you know that the sale price of Harpoon was actually higher than for Yakhont... the cost argument no longer applies...

    in the kind of war soviets trained for
    large scale with possible use of tactical nukes
    was specialized ships or aircraft neccesarily a bad thing ?
    esp if a larger number of specialized vs smaller number of multirole platforms

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15482
    Points : 16189
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Anti-Ship Missiles: Discussion

    Post  GarryB on Sat Aug 08, 2015 8:03 am

    in the kind of war soviets trained for
    large scale with possible use of tactical nukes
    was specialized ships or aircraft neccesarily a bad thing ?
    esp if a larger number of specialized vs smaller number of multirole platforms

    At the time the specialised platform was a necessity...

    For anti ship use the Kirov class vessels carried the 7 ton Granit... ie SS-N-19 SHIPWRECK... it also carried the SSN-14 SILEX, but it was a cruiser and had the space for such large weapons.

    For the Udaloy, the 8 SS-N-14 missiles took up the space of the 8 SS-N-22 anti ship missiles on the Sovremmeny... the choice is either to have 4 missiles of each type on a multi purpose anti ship anti sub destroyer or to have two ships... ASW and AShW. they did the latter.

    The different vessels were totally different with different weapons and sensors and propulsion to perfectly suit their different missions.

    today such a destroyer would have 4 UKSK launchers which could have any combination of anti ship, anti sub, and also land attack cruise missiles in them... with 8 tubes each that is 32 missiles in any combination... so a new destroyer could carry 8 Onyx missiles that replaced the Granit and Moskit, plus it can have 8 Klub ballistic rocket propelled torpedoes the replacement for Silex, and still have 16 tubes free for the same number again to have the fire power of 2 Sovremmeny class destroyers and 2 Udaloy class destroyers... or it could carry Brahmos and Klub anti ship missiles or various land attack missiles to give it a land attack capability no Soviet or Russian vessel has ever possessed.


    The same change has taken place with aircraft with new aircraft able to replace a variety of previous aircraft in a variety of roles in a single mission...

    The MiG-29M or SMT could perform the short and medium range interception roles of the MiG-21 and MiG-23, and also the short to medium range attack roles of the MiG-27 and Su-17.


    _________________
    “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

    artjomh
    Sergeant
    Sergeant

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

    Re: Anti-Ship Missiles: Discussion

    Post  artjomh on Sat Aug 08, 2015 9:05 am

    GarryB wrote:today such a destroyer would have 4 UKSK launchers which could have any combination of anti ship, anti sub, and also land attack cruise missiles in them...

    Yeah, but the anti-ship missiles will have a much lower range than before.

    You are forced to go supersonic to defeat modern ship AD, but supersonic gives you massive range penalty. So, no more 900 kilometer range anti-ship cruise missiles. Which is both a blessing and a curse, I guess, since for 900 km range you kinda have to have a RORSAT, since without targeting you are limited to horizon.

    Another pro/contra moment of new missile is warhead size. P-800 warhead is 2-3 times smaller than the one on P-500/P-700, so it has no chance of sinking a capital ship alone without going nuclear. And before you mention swarming, it is a method of punching through the AD, not of adding extra TNT. 6-12 missile swarm is there to make sure 1-2 missiles get through, but it's those 2 remaining vampires will be doing the heavy lifting. Which is incidentally why P-800 was never intended to be used against aircraft carriers when it was developed in the 80's, it was purely a destroyer/cruiser level missile (and yes, those kind of parameters WERE actually put into requirements).

    So, we are back to medium-range nukes...

    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 Sat Aug 08, 2015 10:02 am

    ASMs such as Onyx are completely networked and have a very good range for homing (search and lock ranges).

    P.S. Wait till M=5+ hypersonic ASMs go online. I say about another 3-4 years at most. Prototypes are already flying.You may track the evolution of the ASMs into the formidable weapon they are from P-700 Granit. This was a revolutionary weapon.


    Stealthflanker wrote:hmm an additional material :

    https://www.scribd.com/doc/267396243/Naval-Engineers-Journal-Volume-109-Issue-1-1997-J-F-McEachron-Subsonic-and-Supersonic-Antiship-Missiles-An-Effectiveness-and-Utility-Comparison

    Basically outlines consideration and design of anti ship missile. This seems explain well why US stick with Harpoon for so long and replace it with another subsonic LRASM-A and Kongsberg NSM.


    Can anybody explain that technical link in layman terms as to why usa naval consider subsonic asms ?

    The stuff he wrote went all over my head What a Face

    chicken
    Corporal
    Corporal

    Posts : 83
    Points : 88
    Join date : 2014-09-04

    Re: Anti-Ship Missiles: Discussion

    Post  chicken on Sat Aug 08, 2015 10:48 am

    Any chance of Kh-35 being integrated into UKSK?

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15482
    Points : 16189
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Anti-Ship Missiles: Discussion

    Post  GarryB on Sat Aug 08, 2015 11:50 am

    Yeah, but the anti-ship missiles will have a much lower range than before.

    I would not say that exactly... many of the members of Klub... the subsonic all the way anti ship missile supposedly has a very long range, and the subsonic most of the way and supersonic last leg anti ship missile I have read has a range of about 1,500km or so.

    But you could argue that the 500km range of the Granit and the 120km range of the Sunburn were the 1980s options while the much smaller lighter Onyx likely has a range of about 500km at most so the range performance has not changed a huge amount in some cases.


    You are forced to go supersonic to defeat modern ship AD, but supersonic gives you massive range penalty. So, no more 900 kilometer range anti-ship cruise missiles. Which is both a blessing and a curse, I guess, since for 900 km range you kinda have to have a RORSAT, since without targeting you are limited to horizon.

    ALlthough another aspect is the the C4IR should have been extensively upgraded too... the biggest change is the most dramatic is the 2,500km + conventional ground attack capability that the Russian Navy has never had before.

    Another pro/contra moment of new missile is warhead size. P-800 warhead is 2-3 times smaller than the one on P-500/P-700, so it has no chance of sinking a capital ship alone without going nuclear. And before you mention swarming, it is a method of punching through the AD, not of adding extra TNT. 6-12 missile swarm is there to make sure 1-2 missiles get through, but it's those 2 remaining vampires will be doing the heavy lifting. Which is incidentally why P-800 was never intended to be used against aircraft carriers when it was developed in the 80's, it was purely a destroyer/cruiser level missile (and yes, those kind of parameters WERE actually put into requirements).

    But then the logic behind such decisions are pretty sound... the US carrier group with AEW air support and AEGIS support meant just going with lots and lots of subsonic missiles was never going to cut it... assuming the missiles would be detected at long range the solution they took was speed to reduce reaction time... the cost being big heavy missiles that few platforms could carry.

    The newer much lighter missiles means larger numbers carried and higher chances of defence layer penetration.

    Speed increases chances of getting through... but so does numbers... speed and numbers.

    And of course with subsonic missiles as well there is plenty of flexibility... carriers don't need to be sunk... one decent hit even with a conventional missile at supersonic speed should make it and the other carriers withdraw from the battle area and operate from max range... this alone will make carrier operations more dangerous and their strikes less effective...

    So, we are back to medium-range nukes...

    Well a 600km range S-500 on board... perhaps a small nuclear warhead on that... with its active radar nose sensor it could dodge incoming threats and hit ships 600km away... Smile

    The near future introduction of Zircon with mach 7-8 flight speed will create a more capable threat for opposing forces... the range reductions will be less of an issue for the Russians as they will be more interested in protecting their near by seas an oceans rather than hunting enemy forces in the pacific and atlantic...

    For Russias client states then land based anti ship missiles with a range of only 300km would be fine.

    Any chance of Kh-35 being integrated into UKSK?

    For export or as part of a swarm concept where 4-6 missiles are loaded per tube in a way that they are all launched in a cannister that then releases them all in one shot. Or perhaps a structure that allows each to be fired individually that fits in the tube.


    _________________
    “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

    Big_Gazza
    Lieutenant
    Lieutenant

    Posts : 510
    Points : 534
    Join date : 2014-08-25
    Location : Melbourne, Australia

    Re: Anti-Ship Missiles: Discussion

    Post  Big_Gazza on Sat Aug 08, 2015 4:31 pm

    One issue that is often overlooked is that it is not actually necessary to sink an enemy warship with an AShM, but only disable it and prevent it from carrying out its function.  Hit a carrier with an Onyx and you will likely prevent it from launching and recovering aircraft, and that essentially makes the hit a mission kill.  In WW2, carriers were taken out of action with only a single bomb thru the flight deck, and I cannot believe that a Nimitz-class carrier with a big blast hole in its flight deck, or listing to port by 10 degrees can continue to operate effectively.

    Disable enough of a USN CBG with long-range AShMs and suppress its air-superiority capabilities, and it becomes far more susceptible for follow-up attacks, especially once its carrier-borne fighters and AWACs are no longer operable.  Take down a CBGs ability to adequately defend itself and it can be ground down at your leisure.

    flamming_python
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 3183
    Points : 3311
    Join date : 2012-01-30

    Re: Anti-Ship Missiles: Discussion

    Post  flamming_python on Sun Aug 09, 2015 12:45 am

    P-700 Granit will make a bigger hole than the Kalibr. Just sayin'

    JohninMK
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 3388
    Points : 3431
    Join date : 2015-06-16
    Location : England

    Re: Anti-Ship Missiles: Discussion

    Post  JohninMK on Sun Aug 09, 2015 1:10 am

    Are we at the stage yet where AShM are smart and manoeuvrable enough to identify and locate the target and then attack it, not from the broadside but from the front or rear? The big and fast Russian missiles would do a lot more damage that way. Bit like the British at Trafalgar sending cannon balls along the French/Spanish gun decks rather than across them.

    artjomh
    Sergeant
    Sergeant

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

    Re: Anti-Ship Missiles: Discussion

    Post  artjomh on Sun Aug 09, 2015 1:12 am


    • There is no supersonic Kalibr, it was just something Novator came up with for export customers, but I've heard from some reliable sources that none for built for Russian Navy and only Oniks is being used as a supersonic anti-ship missile. And the 1500-1250 km version is the land-attack subsonic version.

    • Also, I highly doubt Oniks has 500 km range. No real number has been revealed and my bet is it's somewhere close to 350-400 km based on missile size/engine type.

    • Kh-35 is an air-launched missile. If you are referring to Uran, it's an outdated missile that was originally meant to be an export replacement for Styx, but was eventually adopted as a beggars-can't-be-chosers solution for some Russian Navy ships while Kalibr was being worked on. Now that Kalibr and Oniks have been adopted, Uran has no particular reason to exist (other than for already existing ship designs)

    • Attacking land-targets from 2500 km is not and has never been an issue. Inertial navigation, topographic maps and terrain contour mapping is a thing. Attacking sea targets from 2500 km is a fantasy, if anyone tells you that such capability exists today, don't believe them.

    flamming_python
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 3183
    Points : 3311
    Join date : 2012-01-30

    Re: Anti-Ship Missiles: Discussion

    Post  flamming_python on Sun Aug 09, 2015 2:11 am

    artjomh wrote:[*]There is no supersonic Kalibr, it was just something Novator came up with for export customers, but I've heard from some reliable sources that none for built for Russian Navy and only Oniks is being used as a supersonic anti-ship missile. And the 1500-1250 km version is the land-attack subsonic version.

    I call BS on this, aren't there supposed to be domestic supersonic variants of the missile?
    In fact I don't think there even is a domestic subsonic anti-ship variant.

    The Project 20386 design for the Russian navy, has both Uran quad-launchers, and Klub missile containers with Klub-K missiles stored below deck, with part of the deck above sliding away to enable launch.
    Why would this design bother with this elaborate system, just for the sake of supporting 2 different types of subsonic missile?

    [*]Kh-35 is an air-launched missile. If you are referring to Uran, it's an outdated missile that was originally meant to be an export replacement for Styx, but was eventually adopted as a beggars-can't-be-chosers solution for some Russian Navy ships while Kalibr was being worked on. Now that Kalibr and Oniks have been adopted, Uran has no particular reason to exist (other than for already existing ship designs)

    Bal coastal missile system is in service and uses Urans.
    The Uran is designated as a missile for use against < 5000t vessels. It's smaller than the Kalibr and can fit into ships the full-size Kalibrs can't.
    The angled quad launcher comes in handy too; they've been fitting them to all sorts of places where UKSK VLS would be awkward to place; notably in the Steregushchy and Project 20386 designs.
    It's more than likely cheaper too.

    All in all, it's a compact, cheaper subsonic missile that is suitable for arming smaller vessels that can't afford the space for UKSK VLC cells or aren't expected to face threats that would justify possessing such capabilties.

    [*]Attacking land-targets from 2500 km is not and has never been an issue. Inertial navigation, topographic maps and terrain contour mapping is a thing. Attacking sea targets from 2500 km is a fantasy, if anyone tells you that such capability exists today, don't believe them.

    Except that the Russian Navy never had the capability to launch a conventional missile strike against a land target until fairly recently. All it's missiles for land-attack throughout the Cold War period were nuclear-only.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15482
    Points : 16189
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Anti-Ship Missiles: Discussion

    Post  GarryB on Sun Aug 09, 2015 1:04 pm

    There is no supersonic Kalibr, it was just something Novator came up with for export customers, but I've heard from some reliable sources that none for built for Russian Navy and only Oniks is being used as a supersonic anti-ship missile. And the 1500-1250 km version is the land-attack subsonic version.

    All the models I have seen of the UKSK launcher show all models of Klub including the subsonic anti ship, subsonic/supersonic anti ship, subsonic land attack, and Yakhont, and the rocket propelled anti sub torpedo.

    Also, I highly doubt Oniks has 500 km range. No real number has been revealed and my bet is it's somewhere close to 350-400 km based on missile size/engine type.

    Which could certainly be the case, but that isn't such a huge difference to western missiles like Harpoon in their standard in service versions, and isn't that much shorter than cold war supersonic missiles in the 7 ton (Granit) and 4.5 ton (Moskit) weight range. The new missiles are 2-3 tons, which is a dramatic improvement in my opinion.

    Kh-35 is an air-launched missile. If you are referring to Uran, it's an outdated missile that was originally meant to be an export replacement for Styx, but was eventually adopted as a beggars-can't-be-chosers solution for some Russian Navy ships while Kalibr was being worked on. Now that Kalibr and Oniks have been adopted, Uran has no particular reason to exist (other than for already existing ship designs)

    Uran and its upgrade with almost double the range are in Russian Navy service on several boats. Its use on small boats and indeed helicopters and land based aircraft and coastal defence units make it just as flexible as Harpoon and likely a cheaper numbers missile system.

    Attacking land-targets from 2500 km is not and has never been an issue. Inertial navigation, topographic maps and terrain contour mapping is a thing. Attacking sea targets from 2500 km is a fantasy, if anyone tells you that such capability exists today, don't believe them.

    Nuclear warheads were the only option for such missiles. Today with superior electronics and terminal guidance a conventional warhead makes these missiles much more flexible and much more usable... and indeed much more versatile.



    _________________
    “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

    artjomh
    Sergeant
    Sergeant

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

    Re: Anti-Ship Missiles: Discussion

    Post  artjomh on Tue Aug 11, 2015 11:35 am

    I'll reply to you both in bulletpoint format again, if you don't mind. The quote notation is giving me headaches.


    • Novator has advertised subsonic LA, subsonic AS and subsonic AS /w supersonic sprint. But those promotional posters are for foreign customers. Russian MOD gets its own set of promos. And the way that I've heard reported from reliable sources (you don't have to believe any of this, btw), only the subsonic LA version was purchased by the MOD, since the AS function is being covered by Oniks which can be launched from the same UKSK launchers. Also, setting aside "sources" and other bullshit, think about it logically: why would Russian Navy need to have a second subsonic or quasi-supersonic anti-ship missile when it already has Oniks in the same VLS? What would be the point of adding extra supply chain complexity?

    • Uran/Bal is being supplanted by Oniks/Bastion. The reason why Bal is still being delivered is due to long-ass laggy supply chains and production contracts being signed before Bastion became mature product. Same issue with Uran: it is only being deployed on legacy design ships (20380 family corvettes). They've tried to redesign the deck to get rid of Uran completely (20385), but it got too expensive for a corvette, so they are back to a cheaper version with Uran (20386). In any case, you'll notice that not a single completely new corvette/frigate design project that came out recently has Uran launchers, they all have either UKSK or modular containers. Uran is a thing of the past, just like Moskit or Termit.

    • On S-10 Granat. The deployed version only had a nuclear charge, but this isn't a navigation issue. You could put a HE charge on it and it would have exactly the same navigation issues and solutions: inertial navigation using uploaded topographical maps. A HE charge is usually heavier than a nuclear charge, so there would have been a range penalty, but the basic navigational unit would not have changed.

    flamming_python
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 3183
    Points : 3311
    Join date : 2012-01-30

    Re: Anti-Ship Missiles: Discussion

    Post  flamming_python on Tue Aug 11, 2015 10:43 pm

    artjomh wrote:[*]Novator has advertised subsonic LA, subsonic AS and subsonic AS /w supersonic sprint. But those promotional posters are for foreign customers. Russian MOD gets its own set of promos. And the way that I've heard reported from reliable sources (you don't have to believe any of this, btw), only the subsonic LA version was purchased by the MOD, since the AS function is being covered by Oniks which can be launched from the same UKSK launchers. Also, setting aside "sources" and other bullshit, think about it logically: why would Russian Navy need to have a second subsonic or quasi-supersonic anti-ship missile when it already has Oniks in the same VLS? What would be the point of adding extra supply chain complexity?

    [*]

    Then following that logic, why would it need the subsonic Kalibrs either, when it already has the Urans/Harpoonskis?

    If they're planning to get rid of the Urans as you claim, and switch to subsonic Kalibrs, then why don't they just start switching to supersonic Kalibrs too in preference to the Oniks - that way they will achieve greater standardisation; both the subsonic and supersonic missiles in service with the Russian Navy will be 90% the same, with the only difference being that the supersonic version has a terminal booster and is longer and heavier. Moreover, the supersonic Kalibr is a more modern missile than the Oniks, the same way as the subsonic Kalibr is more modern than the Uran (slightly).

    I'm not saying that you're wrong, I'm just floating the thought.

    [*]Uran/Bal is being supplanted by Oniks/Bastion. The reason why Bal is still being delivered is due to long-ass laggy supply chains and production contracts being signed before Bastion became mature product. Same issue with Uran: it is only being deployed on legacy design ships (20380 family corvettes). They've tried to redesign the deck to get rid of Uran completely (20385), but it got too expensive for a corvette, so they are back to a cheaper version with Uran (20386). In any case, you'll notice that not a single completely new corvette/frigate design project that came out recently has Uran launchers, they all have either UKSK or modular containers. Uran is a thing of the past, just like Moskit or Termit.

    [*]

    The 20386 is the newest design and it has Urans; albeit the design hasn't been built yet and could still be rejected. That they've rejected the Kalibrs/UKSKs in favour of the Urans for cost reasons shows that there still might a place for the Uran in Russian service.

    The Rubin-class patrol corvette class in service with the FSB Border Guard has the option of being fitted with them. Right now they're not installed but I'd bet you a nickel that they have that option in reserve and ready to be implemented if global tensions start ratcheting up.

    Personally I see the Uran quad-pack as something like the Komar or the Gibka MANPAD turret. It's something that takes up a lot less space than the UKSK, is cheaper and can be fitted onto smaller ships without the need to be designed around it (as mentioned, they had to jump through hoops to come up with a design for the Buyan-M with UKSK VLS).
    I can definately see it being fitted to some missile boat, patrol ship or corvette classes in the next 10 years.

    [*]On S-10 Granat. The deployed version only had a nuclear charge, but this isn't a navigation issue. You could put a HE charge on it and it would have exactly the same navigation issues and solutions: inertial navigation using uploaded topographical maps. A HE charge is usually heavier than a nuclear charge, so there would have been a range penalty, but the basic navigational unit would not have changed.

    [*]

    As GazB hinted, I'm not sure those Cold War era missiles would have had the accuracy in that mode of targetting in order to be able to reliably deal effective damage with just a HE payload.
    There's a reason why every single land-attack cruise missile was nuclear despite being designated for use against the type of targets that can nowadays be taken out with a precision strike.

    artjomh
    Sergeant
    Sergeant

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

    Re: Anti-Ship Missiles: Discussion

    Post  artjomh on Tue Aug 11, 2015 11:54 pm

    flamming_python wrote:Then following that logic, why would it need the subsonic Kalibrs either, when it already has the Urans/Harpoonskis?

    Because they need a land-attack cruise missile, and Uran is an anti-ship missile?

    In the surface fleet, they can use 3M55 (Oniks) in anti-ship role and 3M14 (land-attack Kalibr) in land-attack role. 3M55 is fast, so it's good against modern vessels. 3M14 has long range, so it's good against land targets.

    3M54 (anti-ship Kalibr) has inferior speed to 3M55 and inferior range to 3M14. It just makes no sense for the surface navy.

    For submarines, the story is different. Only 885 sub can launch both 3M55, 3M54 and 3M14, so there the calculus is the same: use 3M55 as ASuW, 3M14 as land-attack.

    But 636.6 subs can only launch 533 mm missiles, so 3M55 is out. So, in order to use 636.6 against surface ships, you need a 533 mm anti-ship missile. That's where 3M54 comes in, both for diesel-submarines and for export customers.

    If they're planning to get rid of the Urans as you claim, and switch to subsonic Kalibrs, then why don't they just start switching to supersonic Kalibrs too in preference to the Oniks

    Because there is no purely supersonic Kalibr. The quasi-supersonic version of 3M54 only goes M=2.8 in the final stretch, while 3M55 is supersonic all the way.

    The 20386 is the newest design and it has Urans; albeit the design hasn't been built yet and could still be rejected. That they've rejected the Kalibrs/UKSKs in favour of the Urans for cost reasons shows that there still might a place for the Uran in Russian service.

    It's still a modified legacy design.

    The Rubin-class patrol corvette class in service with the FSB Border Guard has the option of being fitted with them. Right now they're not installed but I'd bet you a nickel that they have that option in reserve and ready to be implemented if global tensions start ratcheting up.

    KGB never fitted missiles on their border patrol ships in the past. Only guns and self-defense weapons. You don't need missiles to scare off Japanese and Norwegian poachers.

    http://russianships.info/eng/borderguard/project_11351.htm

    As GazB hinted, I'm not sure those Cold War era missiles would have had the accuracy in that mode of targetting in order to be able to reliably deal effective damage with just a HE payload.
    There's a reason why every single land-attack cruise missile was nuclear despite being designated for use against the type of targets that can nowadays be taken out with a precision strike.

    How much accuracy do you really need against an unhardened stationary target?

    As for nuclear, that's just how they rolled in the Cold War. There was significantly more emphasis put on nuking Puget Sound, rather than blasting a few hapless Afghanis in Kandahar.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15482
    Points : 16189
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Anti-Ship Missiles: Discussion

    Post  GarryB on Wed Aug 12, 2015 10:00 am

    I'll reply to you both in bulletpoint format again, if you don't mind. The quote notation is giving me headaches.

    That is fine... I hope you don't mind if I continue using quotes as I think it makes it clearer to whom I am replying to specifically... and it also helps me keep on topic... tend to ramble sometimes... Smile

    Novator has advertised subsonic LA, subsonic AS and subsonic AS /w supersonic sprint. But those promotional posters are for foreign customers. Russian MOD gets its own set of promos.

    Yes, the range performance alone shows that these are export weapons.

    And the way that I've heard reported from reliable sources (you don't have to believe any of this, btw),

    The fact that you admitted to making a mistake with Granit a few pages ago says to me you admit when you are wrong... based on that I am happy to take your word these are reliably sources. Smile

    only the subsonic LA version was purchased by the MOD, since the AS function is being covered by Oniks which can be launched from the same UKSK launchers. Also, setting aside "sources" and other bullshit, think about it logically: why would Russian Navy need to have a second subsonic or quasi-supersonic anti-ship missile when it already has Oniks in the same VLS? What would be the point of adding extra supply chain complexity?

    Actually using logic alone I would turn it around and ask why an export customer would bother buying a subsonic/supersonic combination missile just to get less than 300km range performance when the same company can provide likely for not much difference in cost or weight or capacity a missile that is capable of flying very fast all the way to the target that is 300km away.

    I would think the real point of making a missile that flies low and slow and then launches a supersonic stage near the target would be to get a range that is simply not possible with a supersonic all the way missile.

    I don't expect you to search too far back but several times Russian officials have talked about supersonic missiles with a range of 1,500km, which at the time we thought could be Onyx, but information released more recently suggests a sub 500km range for Onyx in most flight attack profiles.

    I personally think 1,500km range should be perfectly possible with a subsonic missile carrying a rocket propelled mach 2.9 terminal stage and would certainly justify its existance... and a subsonic all the way version able to hit ships detected by other platforms or space based sensors also makes sense to me... with a full range of 2,500km and terminal guidance and conventional warhead.

    I don't have any evidence of this of course either... this is just supposition... I suspect the Navy brass will be interested in hitting ships... especially a ship like a freighter or cargo support ship at extended ranges to cripple the supply lines of a more powerful enemy.

    Uran/Bal is being supplanted by Oniks/Bastion. The reason why Bal is still being delivered is due to long-ass laggy supply chains and production contracts being signed before Bastion became mature product. Same issue with Uran: it is only being deployed on legacy design ships (20380 family corvettes). They've tried to redesign the deck to get rid of Uran completely (20385), but it got too expensive for a corvette, so they are back to a cheaper version with Uran (20386). In any case, you'll notice that not a single completely new corvette/frigate design project that came out recently has Uran launchers, they all have either UKSK or modular containers. Uran is a thing of the past, just like Moskit or Termit.

    I agree with what you are saying except that I think the Uran will remain as an air launched option and that it adds flexibility to smaller vessels not big enough for UKSK... and of course as an export item it is a perfect item to offer as a cheap and simple modification to old, existing, new, and future vessels.

    Together with the anti ship models of Kh-31 I think Uran and Kh-35 make sense.

    BTW I also remember seeing a mini-Uran model that reminded me of the British Sea Skua... does anyone know anything about that?

    Personally I think a new model with combined radar and IIR seeker would make sense if it can be made small and cheap enough... to function it should already have a lock on after launch feature, which would make it useful for drones and even submarines etc etc... even shipping crates... Twisted Evil

    On S-10 Granat. The deployed version only had a nuclear charge, but this isn't a navigation issue. You could put a HE charge on it and it would have exactly the same navigation issues and solutions: inertial navigation using uploaded topographical maps. A HE charge is usually heavier than a nuclear charge, so there would have been a range penalty, but the basic navigational unit would not have changed.

    My understanding was that without terminal guidance the accuracy of the guidance was not good enough to get it closer than 250m or so.

    Obviously missing a target by 250m is irrelevant for a nuclear warhead, but for a 300kg HE warhead it makes it useless.

    It is newer development of the Kh-101 and Kh-102 with its improved inertial guidance and terminal guidance that has brought the CEP down below 25m (some sources say a lot below 25m) which makes conventionally armed versions become practical... plus more efficient jet engines further improve range performance too... though they are bigger heavier missiles that the Kh-55, they ahve a much longer range too... up to 5,500km AFAIK.

    That they've rejected the Kalibrs/UKSKs in favour of the Urans for cost reasons shows that there still might a place for the Uran in Russian service.

    Not just cost... the UKSK is a very long system and needs a lot of hull depth to fit... for larger vessels it isn't a problem, but with the smaller vessels they need to have superstructure built up to allow for the length.

    The Rubin-class patrol corvette class in service with the FSB Border Guard has the option of being fitted with them. Right now they're not installed but I'd bet you a nickel that they have that option in reserve and ready to be implemented if global tensions start ratcheting up.

    Another good point... reduce size missiles for export as well as border patrol duties would be useful... using a 2 ton supersonic anti ship missile is a bit excessive for non navy duties like border patrol.

    3M54 (anti-ship Kalibr) has inferior speed to 3M55 and inferior range to 3M14. It just makes no sense for the surface navy.

    But isn't 3M54 subsonic most of the way to the target and then supersonic to breach the short range defences at mach 2.9... so in the terminal phase it is actually faster than Onyx, but potentially its flight range should be significantly greater... I mean that is the point of the subsonic phase.

    And the 3M14 is just a subsonic all the way round nose family member of the 3M54 which has a pointed nose for the supersonic terminal portion.

    Because there is no purely supersonic Kalibr. The quasi-supersonic version of 3M54 only goes M=2.8 in the final stretch, while 3M55 is supersonic all the way.

    To reach its top speed and top range the 3M55 has to fly high and should be detected at fairly long range. In comparison the 3M54 should be able to fly a decent distance at medium altitude in subsonic cruise and when it gets near the radar horizon of the target it can drop down to just above the water and sneak in and launch itself at the target at higher speed than the 3M55 achieves at low altitude.

    Sounds rather more clever than you seem to give it credit for... Smile

    KGB never fitted missiles on their border patrol ships in the past. Only guns and self-defense weapons. You don't need missiles to scare off Japanese and Norwegian poachers.

    It is excessive, though for anti piracy roles having it available would be useful... perhaps a reduced payload model with say a 25kg or 50kg warhead instead of 145kg... the extra space could be used for more fuel... would be interesting if a fuel tank could be added in the warhead compartment so any unused fuel could be part of the explosive content... of course as fuel is used the shift in cg might make the missile unstable or reduce its flight performance.

    How much accuracy do you really need against an unhardened stationary target?

    Certainly better than the 200-300m accuracy they got back then... clearly plenty of accuracy for a nuke warhead, but not for conventional.

    As for nuclear, that's just how they rolled in the Cold War. There was significantly more emphasis put on nuking Puget Sound, rather than blasting a few hapless Afghanis in Kandahar.

    And that is why Russia is spending all this money on upgrading its military... in WWII to ensure a factory in a city was destroyed... either about 10 x 10,000 bomber raids, or a nuke. Today hitting a specific target can be achieved with a cruise missile using a conventional warhead and therefore is a more usable weapon than having to resort to a nuclear warhead to make up for accuracy issues.

    This is what they mean about NATOs conventional weapons making a first strike more likely... launching lots of conventional cruise missiles able to disable point targets like airfields and nuclear facilities is the equivalent to having even more nuclear weapons.

    well when the Russian navy gets bigger with lots of new vessels all carrying UKSK launchers then Russia will have that capability too... Smile

    Notice the US has already looked at blimps as low cost anti cruise missile air defence systems... and all through the cold war the US mainland air defence upgrades have been largely lip service only.


    _________________
    “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 Aug 12, 2015 4:04 pm

    Was the Kh-55 AS-15 carried by the Bear H during the cold war be used against naval targets ?

    artjomh
    Sergeant
    Sergeant

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

    Re: Anti-Ship Missiles: Discussion

    Post  artjomh on Wed Aug 12, 2015 5:55 pm

    GarryB wrote:Actually using logic alone I would turn it around and ask why an export customer would bother buying a subsonic/supersonic combination missile just to get less than 300km range performance when the same company can provide likely for not much difference in cost or weight or capacity a missile that is capable of flying very fast all the way to the target that is 300km away.

    Because some countries do not have convenient 700 mm launch tubes, so the only choice they get is 533 mm Kalibr in both anti-ship and land-attack role. Those are countries like China, Vietnam, Algeria, etc.

    Additionaly, you have to remember that NPO Mashinostroyenia and Novator are competitors. Naturally, Novator would prefer that customers chose their product, so they offer a complete line of missiles/rockets under the Kalibr/Klub lineup. RuMOD chose to spread the love, India also invested in both Brahmos and Klub, but other countries have no choice and have to go with both 3M14E and 3M54E

    I would think the real point of making a missile that flies low and slow and then launches a supersonic stage near the target would be to get a range that is simply not possible with a supersonic all the way missile.

    It doesn't only fly under horizon, actually. 3M54 also does the same pop-up maneuver like 3M55. Otherwise, how would it "see" its target without external guidance?

    Here, have a look.



    I don't expect you to search too far back but several times Russian officials have talked about supersonic missiles with a range of 1,500km, which at the time we thought could be Onyx, but information released more recently suggests a sub 500km range for Onyx in most flight attack profiles.

    I remember those claims, they were in regard to dometic land-attack Kalibr, 3M14. There is almost no way that an anti-ship missile would have 1500 km range. That just makes no sense from a tactical point of view. You will not be able to estalish enough search recce and the missile will never reach active radar range before the ships simply sail away. RORSATs are not magical, you know.

    I agree with what you are saying except that I think the Uran will remain as an air launched option and that it adds flexibility to smaller vessels not big enough for UKSK... and of course as an export item it is a perfect item to offer as a cheap and simple modification to old, existing, new, and future vessels.

    Together with the anti ship models of Kh-31 I think Uran and Kh-35 make sense.

    Kh-35, maybe. For both Ka-52K and, potentially, Il-38N.

    Uran though I seriously doubt. What prospective small ship designs shown recently at IMDS carries Uran? I don't remember any.

    But isn't 3M54 subsonic most of the way to the target and then supersonic to breach the short range defences at mach 2.9... so in the terminal phase it is actually faster than Onyx, but potentially its flight range should be significantly greater... I mean that is the point of the subsonic phase.

    Against point-defense, yes. As long as you can penetrate the outer envelope of SM-2 and ESSM, you have an advantage. But ship defenses got really long legs these days, so as soon as 3M54 pops up for a first lock on target, it becomes vulnerable to Aegis. At this stage it is just as lame-legged as Harpoon and just as vulnerable.

    To reach its top speed and top range the 3M55 has to fly high and should be detected at fairly long range. In comparison the 3M54 should be able to fly a decent distance at medium altitude in subsonic cruise and when it gets near the radar horizon of the target it can drop down to just above the water and sneak in and launch itself at the target at higher speed than the 3M55 achieves at low altitude.

    No, both of them do the high-low-high maneuver.

    I don't think either of them goes quasi-ballistic for extra range, they just pop over the radar horizon to lock on target, then dive down into the sea-skimming mode.

    Sponsored content

    Re: Anti-Ship Missiles: Discussion

    Post  Sponsored content Today at 6:44 am


      Current date/time is Fri Dec 09, 2016 6:44 am