Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    Anti-Ship Missiles: Discussion

    Share

    Stealthflanker
    Major
    Major

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

    Re: Anti-Ship Missiles: Discussion

    Post  Stealthflanker on Wed Aug 12, 2015 6:13 pm

    So can 3M55 have same range as 3M54 at Lo-Lo-Lo profile ?

    A thing a see from 3M54 is that due to its propulsion nature.. it's range is virtually independent of altitude. While 3M55 in order to outrange 3M54.. it need to fly high for better aerodynamic efficiency. Thus elements of surprise is reduced. While 3M54 can remain low.. and only need to "pop up" for brief moment for searching target.


    artjomh
    Sergeant
    Sergeant

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

    Re: Anti-Ship Missiles: Discussion

    Post  artjomh on Wed Aug 12, 2015 6:27 pm

    Stealthflanker wrote:So can 3M55 have same range as 3M54 at Lo-Lo-Lo profile ?

    We don't actually know the real range for either 3M54 or 3M55. 300 km given to export versions is obviously a software limiter due to MTCR.

    A thing a see from 3M54 is that due to its propulsion nature.. it's range is virtually independent of altitude. While 3M55 in order to outrange 3M54.. it need to fly high for better aerodynamic efficiency.  Thus elements of surprise is reduced. While 3M54 can remain low.. and only need to "pop up" for brief moment for searching target.

    3M55 makes up for it by being a bigger missile. Also, being ramjet, you don't need to carry as much oxidizer, so that also gives you extra space for fuel.

    Mindstorm
    Captain
    Captain

    Posts : 737
    Points : 920
    Join date : 2011-07-20

    Re: Anti-Ship Missiles: Discussion

    Post  Mindstorm on Wed Aug 12, 2015 10:16 pm

    artjomh wrote: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.


    Obviously not artjonh, to the exact contrary in facts just the vastly reduced vulnerability of the multistage version of Kalibr during the pop-out maneuver and third stage activation - mostly in reason of the vastly increased angular and radial velocity doppler ambiguity induced by the warhead's section separation and the hurdles posed by the task to intercept the very small, high-G maneuvering terminal attacking element during the last engagement phase - have generated for this product a true "case" in US Navy environment.

    The question has been so important that almost any US Navy conference since beginning of 2000' years count at least one intervention exclusively dedicated to this specific subject ("Threat D") and exist accordingly a very rich scientific literature on the complexity to adress to the problems it generate for interception.

    At today at least three programs has been sollicitated by NAVAIR and funded by US MoD to specifically adress to this problem, mostly aimed at produce a representative target drone (last of which the MSST program), none of which after more than 8 years have produced a viable product.

    chicken
    Corporal
    Corporal

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

    Re: Anti-Ship Missiles: Discussion

    Post  chicken on Thu Aug 13, 2015 6:09 am

    I asked this question before but I want to ask it again to artjomh.

    According to
    http://charly015.blogspot.com/2014/11/a-cuentas-del-sistema-ruso-de-misiles.html

    The 3M54 subsonic missile has a 600km range, while the 3M14 missile has 2600km range.

    Why not use the 3M14 as basis for an anti ship missile? It would be good for coastal batteries, I think.

    artjomh
    Sergeant
    Sergeant

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

    Re: Anti-Ship Missiles: Discussion

    Post  artjomh on Thu Aug 13, 2015 8:50 am

    chicken wrote:The 3M54 subsonic missile has a 600km range, while the 3M14 missile has 2600km range.

    Why not use the 3M14 as basis for an anti ship missile? It would be good for coastal batteries, I think.

    Think about it from a tactical point of view. What kind of sensors do you have that are able to provide target intelligence in real time from 2600 km? How would you provide actual guidance information to this missile in real time while in flight?

    3M14 (or any other land-attack cruise missile) is useful at extremely long ranges because targets on land are big and usually do not move, so you can pre-programme targeting data. Targets at sea are small and move all the time. Finding them is extremely difficult and was a massive problem even for the Soviet Navy. Keeping an "eye" on them after you have found them is another very very difficult task. Networking all those intelligence sources in real time is a third hugely complicated task.

    These are REAL tactical problems. They are not solved magically by saying "Satellites!" or "Granit used to network, so can you!". We do not yet have that kind of capability.

    Americans think they have a solution to this called Tomahawk Block IV (Tactical Tomahawk). They claim that they are able to feed new tactical information to the missile in real time through networked sensor platforms and retarget it in flight. All at the range of 1800 km (about half of the original TLAM)

    Let's just say that I am very very very sceptical about the real-world utility of this kind of project. I do not believe the HYPE.

    Oh, and Americans are so far only planning to use this wunderwaffe against land targets, which will tell you a thing or two about how good it is in an anti-ship role.

    Mindstorm wrote:The question has been so important that almost any US Navy conference since beginning of 2000' years count at least one intervention exclusively dedicated to this specific subject ("Threat D") and exist accordingly a very rich scientific literature on the complexity to adress to the problems it generate for interception.

    I am not certain I understood your reply at all, so if you can provide reading material about these USN programmes, I would be entirely grateful. I am certain it will help me learn new things.

    Stealthflanker
    Major
    Major

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

    Re: Anti-Ship Missiles: Discussion

    Post  Stealthflanker on Thu Aug 13, 2015 8:57 am

    chicken wrote:I asked this question before but I want to ask it again to artjomh.

    According to
    http://charly015.blogspot.com/2014/11/a-cuentas-del-sistema-ruso-de-misiles.html

    The 3M54 subsonic missile has a 600km range, while the 3M14 missile has 2600km range.

    Why not use the 3M14 as basis for an anti ship missile? It would be good for coastal batteries, I think.

    3M14 is a Land attack missile. Not anti ship. That 600 and 2600 Km figure looks hugely exaggerated.

    Anyway one of the criteria of determining AsHM range is the "Area of Uncertainty(AoU)" Which is a function of missile flight time and target speed. The faster your target you may need a faster missile to keep the area of uncertainty small.. Thus allow smaller and perhaps less power hungry seeker.

    This "Area of uncertainty (AoU)" determines range requirement for your missile's seeker. larger AoU means large and more powerful seeker is required.
    AoU can be calculated by multiplying flight time and target speed.

    Now we know that 3M54 subsonic variant has a cruise speed of around 800-900 Km/h with range of 300 Km (The domestic version however might be 400-500 km) That distance can be covered in roughly 0.3 hr If we assume target speed of typical ship in 25 Knot (46.3 km/h) The AoU would be :

    0.3 * 46.3= 13.89 Km Thus the seeker need to have detection range of 14 Km. This easily covered by ARGS-54 seeker which have maximum detection range of 65 Km.

    So what's likely the range of 3M54 with that 65 Km detection range seeker against that same 25 knot ship ? well we can divide that 65 km with 46.3 giving the result of 1.4 hr of flight time. To get flight range is straight "S=VxT" So 1.4*900 = 1260 Km. The maximum possible range of the missile based on seeker performance alone.

    But that assume constant cruise speed and discount the missile's fuel payload, aerodynamics and other factors.

    jhelb
    Junior Lieutenant
    Junior Lieutenant

    Posts : 419
    Points : 483
    Join date : 2015-04-04
    Location : Previously: Belarus Currently: A Small Island No One Cares About

    Re: Anti-Ship Missiles: Discussion

    Post  jhelb on Thu Aug 13, 2015 10:33 am

    artjomh wrote:I am not certain I understood your reply at all, so if you can provide reading material about these USN programmes, I would be entirely grateful. I am certain it will help me learn new things.



    https://www.usnwc.edu/Departments---Colleges/Center-for-Naval-Warfare-Studies/Warfare-Analysis-and-Research/Readings-and-Refences/China-Naval-Modernization--Implications-for-U--%281%29.aspx

    artjomh
    Sergeant
    Sergeant

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

    Re: Anti-Ship Missiles: Discussion

    Post  artjomh on Thu Aug 13, 2015 12:04 pm

    I read these precis regularly, they are usually rather barebones. This one is especially targeted at noobs in Congress.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

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

    Re: Anti-Ship Missiles: Discussion

    Post  GarryB on Thu Aug 13, 2015 12:47 pm

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

    The AS-15 Kent was an Air Force weapon. There were supposed to be Kh-15 Kickback missiles carried by the Navy, but the Navy Bears were not cruise missile carriers AFAIK.

    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?

    But they are the 300km export models... they would fly all the way to the target at low altitude... the chart you posted shows a ballistic trajectory at launch because of the vertical tubes and then low altitude flight until it gets to the supersonic portion of its flight... for the domestic model that might be 900km, which means for the first 500km or so it could fly at medium height at higher speed with lower fuel consumption to maximise range.

    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 do know, but against support convoys and adding doglegs to the flight to have the missiles coming from an unexpected direction would make the range useful... at medium altitude the flight speed can be high subsonic without using too much fuel like it would just above the waves.

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

    I think it has potential as there is little to no deck penetration, just an above deck quad launcher that is relatively compact.


    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.

    Not every enemy has AEGIS and if the target detects the missile the instant it pops up then it doesn't need to pop up... it can just listen to all the emitters that are looking for it.

    And when one missile pops up how about decoys making it seem like thousands of targets approaching...  Twisted Evil

    Also, being ramjet, you don't need to carry as much oxidizer, so that also gives you extra space for fuel.

    Only an advantage over rockets... most subsonic cruise missiles get their oxidiser from the oxygen in the air too... just like all jet engines.

    Think about it from a tactical point of view. What kind of sensors do you have that are able to provide target intelligence in real time from 2600 km? How would you provide actual guidance information to this missile in real time while in flight?

    I think he means the 600km range missile as anti ship and the 2,600km range missile as land attack.

    3M14 is a Land attack missile. Not anti ship. That 600 and 2600 Km figure looks hugely exaggerated.

    Kh-SD was supposed to have a range of 600km.

    Asking about what you target at 1,500km range... how about AEGIS class cruisers sitting above Canada in the Arctic ocean trying to swat Russian missiles on their way to the US... having a few incoming might upset their aim.

    Personally I think they will probably not rush anything new into service as they are expecting Zircon to enter service soon... the question is what sort of range will it have.

    There are plenty of targets that don't require supersonic speed to defeat and a Tomahawk like missile would be fine for that. Other targets might not have air cover but good defences so a subsonic all the way and supersonic to penetrate close in defences is worth the extra costs I think.

    And to top it off the Onyx as a supersonic anti ship weapon is excellent till the hypersonic model is ready. then all that is left is the ASROC equivalent and the long range land attack missile with the conventional warhead.


    _________________
    “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

    Mindstorm
    Captain
    Captain

    Posts : 737
    Points : 920
    Join date : 2011-07-20

    Re: Anti-Ship Missiles: Discussion

    Post  Mindstorm on Thu Aug 13, 2015 1:41 pm

    artjomh wrote:I am not certain I understood your reply at all, so if you can provide reading material about these USN programmes, I would be entirely grateful. I am certain it will help me learn new things.


    artjomh this is one of the first documents wherein is named the by now famous "Threat D" , identified, and the first analysis and target drone feasibility study ( committed initially to John Hopkins University / Applied Physics Laboratory)


    www.acq.osd.mil/dsb/reports/ADA441466.pdf


    The opened question and the challenges posed by "Threat D" remain open since those years and represented as a true "chapter of its own" in virtually all US Navy conference since then, that up to 2007 (with a brief ad hoc TD study committed in the mean time directly to Office of Naval Research -ONR- of US Navy)

       
    http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2007targets/Day2/PatBuckley/Buckleynovideo.pdf


    At this point, precisely identified the danger posed by this kind of menaces (reproduced in the meantime also by China in the shape of  YJ-18) a draft request for proposals for the development a representative drone was launched by US Navy in the same year (MSST).....


    http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/us-navy-launches-supersonic-target-competition-215921/


    ...won by Alliant Techsystems

    http://www.upi.com/Business_News/Security-Industry/2008/09/09/Aegis-upgrade-fitted-on-USS-Bunker-Hill/18271220975922/


    Anyhow ,at today, the program still failed at producing a working target drone capable to represent the menace (pag 69-74)


    http://www.secnav.navy.mil/fmc/fmb/Documents/12Pres/RDTEN_BA6_Book.pdf



    artjomh i remember distinctively to have read some years ago several of your interventions at mp.net and get the clear impression of an equilibrated and very knowledgeable man (in particular in the surface Navy systems and organization field) and while i perfectly understand and partially share the rational of your attempts to "shuffle the cards" about domestic induction of some sensible weapon systems....as also in the instance of the RVs for the latest ICBMs  Smile ...(even if i find it somewhat a "candid" propose, taking into account the enormous amount of intellectual and financial resources squandered ,in both instances, up to this time by our main over-Ocean opponents purposely for the goal  Wink ) i find very strange that you could have not only completely missed the question that just the "technological surprise" represented by the multistage version of Калибр opened in all those years in US navy environment but came out also with an assertion so grossly out of the line in regards to the segment of increased vulnerabilty to interception of this kind of missile identifying it just in the segment of lower vulnerability.


    Are you truly "that" artjomh ?

    artjomh
    Sergeant
    Sergeant

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

    Re: Anti-Ship Missiles: Discussion

    Post  artjomh on Thu Aug 13, 2015 3:50 pm

    GarryB wrote:But they are the 300km export models... they would fly all the way to the target at low altitude... the chart you posted shows a ballistic trajectory at launch because of the vertical tubes and then low altitude flight until it gets to the supersonic portion of its flight... for the domestic model that might be 900km, which means for the first 500km or so it could fly at medium height at higher speed with lower fuel consumption to maximise range.

    Setting aside the unrealistic ranges, how is this any different from 3M55? It also gets boosted into a high position out of the tube, then settles into a sea-skimming cruise, before quickly popping up then down for a final lock.

    I do know, but against support convoys and adding doglegs to the flight to have the missiles coming from an unexpected direction would make the range useful... at medium altitude the flight speed can be high subsonic without using too much fuel like it would just above the waves.

    I feel like this discussion is academic, since we don't know the real ranges for 3M54 and 3M55, so we don't really know how much of a range advantage 3M54 has to make those doglegs. Given Oniks' bigger dimensions, the "advantage" could be trivial.

    I think it has potential as there is little to no deck penetration, just an above deck quad launcher that is relatively compact.

    You could potentially put Oniks in inclined, on-deck launchers. Or, indeeded, in a modular container. You don't need to redesign the superstructure just to accomodate it. This is not really an advantage for Uran, I personally feel.

    Not every enemy has AEGIS and if the target detects the missile the instant it pops up then it doesn't need to pop up... it can just listen to all the emitters that are looking for it.

    Those emitters could be a squaking Ka-29 or just a tattletale "fishing trawler". The missile obviously won't go active until the final stretch.

    And when one missile pops up how about decoys making it seem like thousands of targets approaching...  Twisted Evil

    Decoys?

    Asking about what you target at 1,500km range... how about AEGIS class cruisers sitting above Canada in the Arctic ocean trying to swat Russian missiles on their way to the US... having a few incoming might upset their aim.

    The question is HOW you target them. Do you sail a "fishing fleet" looking for delicious Kamchatka crab? Well, Americans aren't stupid, they know that boat is the enemy.

    Satellites used to be pretty unreliable, we've yet to know what Pion-NKS is capable of.

    Do you launch a suicide Tu-22M strike hoping to find that American SAG and relay the info to submarines and surface strike forces? That's how they would have rolled way back then. I am not sure if Russia can throw away assets like that just for intel in the today environment.

    And then, after you found them, how do you prevent the American SAG from disappearing again? The ocean is vast and 1500 km gives you a lot of room to hide.

    This is a non-trivial task, not at all.

    Personally I think they will probably not rush anything new into service as they are expecting Zircon to enter service soon... the question is what sort of range will it have.

    There are plenty of targets that don't require supersonic speed to defeat and a Tomahawk like missile would be fine for that. Other targets might not have air cover but good defences so a subsonic all the way and supersonic to penetrate close in defences is worth the extra costs I think.

    Absolutely. But you should prepare for the worst, otherwise you end up like US Navy today, looking for ways to defeat Iranian swarm tactics, but otherlooking vastly more sophisticated threats.

    Mindstorm wrote:artjomh i remember distinctively to have read some years ago several of your interventions at mp.net and get the clear impression of an equilibrated and very knowledgeable man (in particular in the surface Navy systems and organization field) and while i perfectly understand and partially share the rational of your attempts to "shuffle the cards" about domestic induction of some sensible weapon systems....as also in the instance of the RVs for the latest ICBMs  Smile ...(even if i find it somewhat a "candid" propose, taking into account the enormous amount of intellectual and financial resources squandered ,in both instances, up to this time by our main over-Ocean opponents purposely for the goal  Wink ) i find very strange that you could have not only completely missed the question that just the "technological surprise" represented by the multistage version of Калибр opened in all those years in US navy environment but came out also with an assertion so grossly out of the line in regards to the segment of increased vulnerabilty to interception of this kind of missile identifying it just in the segment of lower vulnerability.


    Are you truly "that" artjomh ?

    Thanks for likbez, though I feel like you are misrepresenting the issue somewhat.

    Your own links talk about the problem facing the US Navy from a rapidly changing terminal threat profile, that is a how the missile will accelerate and drop a stage in the final stretch, confusing USN point-defense (RAM, Sea Sparrow)

    I was talking about the fact that in Kalibr will be visibile to US SAG way before the terminal stage, either when it boost for the initial assent, or because Americans are flying CAP and can detect the missile during midcourse. At which point it is subsonic and vulnerable to long-range interception using SM-2ER or SM-6

    Identifying a sea-skimming missile through the clutter is a non-trivial matter, for sure, but also not a new one.

    http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA357319

    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 Aug 13, 2015 4:27 pm

    So you are saying that every coastal nastion complexes hidden in terrain to thwart any enemy naval presence in russian waters ( suppose it to be us navy ) are all useless because according to what you said is that usa ddg can target every land targets in russia from sea only without even entering russian waters.

    and all those anti ship missiles like Sunburn Brahmos Onyx are useless against a fleet of us navy because they will shoot down every incoming missile at them using extended sea sparrow and sm-6 . SM-6 is for BM and Cruise missiles according to usa.


    artjomh
    Sergeant
    Sergeant

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

    Re: Anti-Ship Missiles: Discussion

    Post  artjomh on Thu Aug 13, 2015 4:31 pm

    max steel wrote:So you are saying that every coastal nastion complexes hidden in terrain to thwart any enemy naval presence in russian waters ( suppose it to be us navy ) are all useless because according to what you said is that usa ddg can target every land targets in russia from sea only without even entering russian waters.

    and all those anti ship missiles like Sunburn Brahmos Onyx are useless against a fleet of us navy because they will shoot down every incoming missile at them using extended sea sparrow and sm-6 .  SM-6 is for BM and Cruise missiles according to usa.

    Noone said that, don't be a baby.

    A complex problem is still a problem, even if it has very complex, non-trivial solutions.

    Mindstorm
    Captain
    Captain

    Posts : 737
    Points : 920
    Join date : 2011-07-20

    Re: Anti-Ship Missiles: Discussion

    Post  Mindstorm on Thu Aug 13, 2015 5:01 pm


    artjomh wrote:was talking about the fact that in Kalibr will be visibile to US SAG way before the terminal stage, either when it boost for the initial assent, or because Americans are flying CAP and can detect the missile during midcourse.


    ??? I have direct idea of difference between what is somewhere named "TF study" and, instead, the production of a working system....


    Long story short : artjomh can you point to even only a single over the horizon successful intercept at sea , still at today, of even only a lone (not in salvo, not ECM equipped, not incoming from multi-axis/sector, etc...) sea-skimming AShM by part of an AEGIS equipped ship ? Even more at ranges barely near to allow prevention of transition to the third stage activation of domestic version of multistage Калибр ?


    At today experimentations on something barely near to the task (NIFC-CA, with plan of future integration and harmonization with F-35C's EO DAS -likely by beginning of next decade-) is still at the level of ground-test validation, in environmental conditions and employing assets, very different than those available at sea.....even more in real situation of multi-axis, saturation attacks by part of AShM of those kind....



    artjomh
    Sergeant
    Sergeant

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

    Re: Anti-Ship Missiles: Discussion

    Post  artjomh on Thu Aug 13, 2015 5:14 pm

    Mindstorm wrote:Long story short : artjomh can you point to even only a single over the horizon successful intercept at sea , still at today, of even only a lone (not in salvo, not ECM equipped, not incoming from multi-axis/sector, etc...) sea-skimming AShM by part of an AEGIS equipped ship ? Even more at ranges barely near to allow prevention of transition to the third stage activation of domestic version of multistage Калибр

    http://www.navyrecognition.com/index.php/news/defence-news/year-2012-news/april/426-french-navys-air-warfare-destroyers-successfully-intercept-supersonic-sea-skimming-target-.html

    Not exactly Aegis, but close enough.

    Interception range and altitude not revealed, but target missile matches profile.

    Mindstorm
    Captain
    Captain

    Posts : 737
    Points : 920
    Join date : 2011-07-20

    Re: Anti-Ship Missiles: Discussion

    Post  Mindstorm on Thu Aug 13, 2015 10:03 pm


    artjomh wrote:Not exactly Aegis, but close enough.

    Interception range and altitude not revealed, but target missile matches profile.


    Yes artjomh, this is the unique confirmed successful interception of a supersonic sea-skimming target to date ;even if it was only a lone "Coyote" drone and the "achievement" reqiuired a) an interceptor boasting terminal max G-charge limit way higher than SM series..... b) a third party tracking platform (Chevalier Paul) ostensibly forwardly placed in parallel to GQM-163's vector of attack so to provide reliable in flight positional correction data for the interceptors.

    Range is not specified ,but anyone can easily infer from the lack of celebrations that it happened well within target ship's radar horizon (otherwise the achievement would had widely publicized in the same way of all similar instances).


    Obviously a GQM-163 drone is very far in kinematic and ECM capabilities from a 3М55, a BrahMos and,even less, the small ,dart-like third stage section of Калибр.




    artjomh
    Sergeant
    Sergeant

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

    Re: Anti-Ship Missiles: Discussion

    Post  artjomh on Thu Aug 13, 2015 10:33 pm

    Listen, Mindstorm, if the point of our exchange is for me to "admit" that supersonic seaskimmers are a massive threat, then you can rest easy. We are in complete and utter agreement on this.

    (Which is, incidentally, why I think Oniks and hopefully future Tsirkon, are a superior anti-ship solution to Novator's products)

    My only issue here is with unrealistic stats people are throwing around, missile ranges that are unsupported by either physics or the tactical reality.

    I am a big opponent of "magical thinking", an idea that your country is so cool that you can create these unstoppable wunderwaffe (of offensive, or defensive kind) in some sort of vacuum, completely divorced from the complexities of physics, tactics or economics. Moderate scepticism is my position.

    2SPOOKY4U
    Senior Sergeant
    Senior Sergeant

    Posts : 283
    Points : 300
    Join date : 2014-09-20

    Re: Anti-Ship Missiles: Discussion

    Post  2SPOOKY4U on Fri Aug 14, 2015 5:45 am

    artjomh wrote:
    I am a big opponent of "magical thinking", an idea that your country is so cool that you can create these unstoppable wunderwaffe (of offensive, or defensive kind) in some sort of vacuum, completely divorced from the complexities of physics, tactics or economics. Moderate scepticism is my position.

    Rest assured "artjomh", no one here is fragment on the reverse black-white thinking on Western weaponry and Russian.

    Much of ours assertions on all come very rational thinking and processes of factual evaluation.

    Trust me, ours Soviet Union was truly the unbeatable on both offensive and the defensive.

    Ours strategic supremacy, continued to this day, come from ours devotion of financial and intellectual resources on requirements and needs both opposite and significantly the higher than the West.

    You know "artjomh", nothing can conceal hard countermeasures devised since in confrontation of actual findings.

    Not even best PR.

    sepheronx
    Colonel
    Colonel

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

    Re: Anti-Ship Missiles: Discussion

    Post  sepheronx on Fri Aug 14, 2015 7:00 am

    I imagine that if there was a few cruise missiles aimed at the ship (with same high accuracy) one will go through. Hence why systems like Bashtion and alike have a multiple missile launcher. Evident that this tactic works is recent saudi failure to take down more than two old scuds launched against it. Doesnt mean the defense system is bad, but most defense systems can be overcome by saturation.

    TheArmenian
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 1519
    Points : 1682
    Join date : 2011-09-14

    Re: Anti-Ship Missiles: Discussion

    Post  TheArmenian on Fri Aug 14, 2015 10:42 am

    Artjomh,

    From one of your (much) earlier posts that I can not find (maybe it was in another thread) I had the perception that you believe that supersonic AShM is the way to go and that subsonic ones (Kh-35 Uran, Bal Complex etc.) are obsolete in modern naval warfare.

    If that is indeed your opinion, can you please elaborate?
    Thanks

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

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

    Re: Anti-Ship Missiles: Discussion

    Post  GarryB on Fri Aug 14, 2015 12:54 pm

    Setting aside the unrealistic ranges, how is this any different from 3M55? It also gets boosted into a high position out of the tube, then settles into a sea-skimming cruise, before quickly popping up then down for a final lock.

    The unrealistic ranges are because jet engines are more efficient at medium altitude, so instead of subsonic all the way cruise missile flying 3,000km we have the much shorter range of 600-900km, followed by a highly supersonic penetration of short range air defences.

    The difference is greatly extending the range by medium altitude low speed cruise... this compares with high supersonic missile having a fraction of that range because of its high speed, and that short range meaning that the faster missile must remain low to hide from enemy radar, which further limits max range.

    I feel like this discussion is academic, since we don't know the real ranges for 3M54 and 3M55, so we don't really know how much of a range advantage 3M54 has to make those doglegs. Given Oniks' bigger dimensions, the "advantage" could be trivial.

    It does make discussion difficult, but the design parameters of the two different missiles was with supersonic missile that the enemy will detect you anyway so go fast and try to penetrate the defences giving less time to intercept. The low flying subsonic is to sneak up and rush the last layer of defences.

    There are a range of targets and threats and I think a range of solutions would be most effective in dealing with those threats and targets. An old oiler able to make 12knts does not need Onyx to sink it.

    [quoteYou could potentially put Oniks in inclined, on-deck launchers. Or, indeeded, in a modular container. You don't need to redesign the superstructure just to accomodate it. This is not really an advantage for Uran, I personally feel.[/quote]

    They are also more compact... a small patrol craft like the Soviet missile boats like OSA could carry 16 Urans, and in the current model with the 240km range they would be as potent as any other subsonic missile today.

    Those emitters could be a squaking Ka-29 or just a tattletale "fishing trawler". The missile obviously won't go active until the final stretch.

    Even detecting one missile popping up does not tell them how many missiles there are, there are of course jammers and even the simple possibility that the targets might be lined up so half the targets are hidden behind other targets and are not visible... lots of bad things can happen you can't do much about.

    Decoys?

    UAVs.

    This is a non-trivial task, not at all.

    If it was who would bother building a navy?

    There are solutions, and likely no one solution will be used... it will take many solutions, and a lot of the time the ones you use wont be enough.

    Moderate scepticism is my position.

    Fair enough.



    _________________
    “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 Fri Aug 14, 2015 7:39 pm

    TheArmenian wrote:Artjomh,

    From one of your (much) earlier posts that I can not find (maybe it was in another thread) I had the perception that you believe that supersonic AShM is the way to go and that subsonic ones (Kh-35 Uran, Bal Complex etc.) are obsolete in modern naval warfare.

    If that is indeed your opinion, can you please elaborate?
    Thanks

    I do believe this, more or less.

    I think subsonic missiles had their time and place and installation of Uran on 11540 and 20380 served its useful purpose during the prior turbulent decades, but now that there is a better alternative, Uran and other subsonic medium-range cruise missiles have outlived their utility.

    The competitive environment in the naval sphere has grown beyond the capacity of such missiles and I would rather see Russian Navy be overpowered vs some 4th rate donkey fleet, rather than be underpowered vs a 1st rate navy.

    It is no longer feasible to defeat PAAMS/AEGIS equipped navies with a missile that was originally inteded to be a proverbial "monkey model" destined to serve in Egyptian or Vietnamese forces.

    The economic argument likewise holds very little water with me. Supersonic missile will never achieve comparable economies of scale if you keep buying outdated equipment that is cheap now. I'd rather invest in advanced equipment and make it cheaper over the 50 year period, rather than save money now and always be afraid of the "more expensive" equivalent.

    I am not hugely versed in air-launched missiles, so I am not familiar with technical limitations of Kh-31 versus Kh-35, though I would once again support Kh-31 as long as it can be installed and launched from a particular platform. I am not aware if there are limitations of launching Kh-31 from Ka-52K, for example.

    nastle77
    Junior Sergeant
    Junior Sergeant

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

    Re: Anti-Ship Missiles: Discussion

    Post  nastle77 on Fri Aug 14, 2015 8:15 pm

    In the 80s when the AS_15 kent Kh-55 was first introduced can it be used in a antiship role ? with a convential warhead

    2SPOOKY4U
    Senior Sergeant
    Senior Sergeant

    Posts : 283
    Points : 300
    Join date : 2014-09-20

    Re: Anti-Ship Missiles: Discussion

    Post  2SPOOKY4U on Fri Aug 14, 2015 8:21 pm

    nastle77 wrote:In the 80s when the AS_15 kent Kh-55 was first introduced can it be used in a antiship role ? with a convential warhead

    No

    Werewolf
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5391
    Points : 5640
    Join date : 2012-10-24

    Re: Anti-Ship Missiles: Discussion

    Post  Werewolf on Fri Aug 14, 2015 8:42 pm

    artjomh wrote:
    I am not hugely versed in air-launched missiles, so I am not familiar with technical limitations of Kh-31 versus Kh-35, though I would once again support Kh-31 as long as it can be installed and launched from a particular platform. I am not aware if there are limitations of launching Kh-31 from Ka-52K, for example.

    For helicopter launches of any rocket or missile there often limitations, that often depends on the intial exhaust gasses to not suffocate the engines, like the limitations of launching ungided S-8 rockets not beneath the speed of 90 km/h, since the rocket engines are burning away in just 0.7 seconds and produce a good amount of fumes, so a certain amount of speed is recommended to avoid engines sucking the majority of those gasses in. Another limitation is high velocity launches of missiles, the engines usually tend to have either delayed ignition or with intial reduced thrust to avoid the plattform suffering from high thrust that is pushing against the stubbed wing, other weapons mounted or the entire plattform. Limitations in launch altitude are also present to avoid wasting of ASM/AShM missiles due the relative low speed of the launching plattform and the delayed/reduced thrust in colloration of range and visibility off the designated target.

    Sponsored content

    Re: Anti-Ship Missiles: Discussion

    Post  Sponsored content Today at 6:49 am


      Current date/time is Fri Dec 09, 2016 6:49 am