Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    Anti-Ship Missiles: Discussion

    Share

    artjomh
    Sergeant
    Sergeant

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

    Re: Anti-Ship Missiles: Discussion

    Post  artjomh on Sat Aug 15, 2015 12:47 am

    Aren't both Kh-31 and Kh-35 launched from the same AKU? Meaning that they would both be "catapulted" away from the launcher before the engine starts.

    Berkut, you here? Any comment?

    Werewolf
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5391
    Points : 5640
    Join date : 2012-10-25

    Re: Anti-Ship Missiles: Discussion

    Post  Werewolf on Sat Aug 15, 2015 1:25 am

    artjomh wrote:Aren't both Kh-31 and Kh-35 launched from the same AKU? Meaning that they would both be "catapulted" away from the launcher before the engine starts.

    Berkut, you here? Any comment?

    Yes the X-31/35 are launched from two APU/AKU's the APU-78 and AKU-58. The K in AKU stands for Aviazionnyj Katapult Ustrojstvo.

    http://vympelmkb.com/products/prod05/

    The APU-78 jettisons the X-31/35 aswell.

    The X-25 which can be used from Ka-52 however is not jettisoned/catapulted it is launched from APU-68/UM.






    TheArmenian
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 1523
    Points : 1686
    Join date : 2011-09-14

    Re: Anti-Ship Missiles: Discussion

    Post  TheArmenian on Sat Aug 15, 2015 1:27 am

    artjomh wrote:
    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.

    Thanks for your opinion.
    Why do you think Western Navies are still stuck in the subsonic AShM era? Don't they think that modern Russian SAMs will shoot them down?

    As for a helicopter or aircraft launched Kh-31 or Kh-35, the missile is jetisioned like a gravity bomb.The missile motor ignites when the missile has already cleared the launch aircraft or helicopter by several meters. I don't think there is aproblem in doing this from a Ka-52.

    Stealthflanker
    Major
    Major

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

    Re: Anti-Ship Missiles: Discussion

    Post  Stealthflanker on Sat Aug 15, 2015 1:41 am

    TheArmenian wrote:
    Thanks for your opinion.
    Why do you think Western Navies are still stuck in the subsonic AShM era? Don't they think that modern Russian SAMs will shoot them down?


    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

    This.

    Werewolf
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5391
    Points : 5640
    Join date : 2012-10-25

    Re: Anti-Ship Missiles: Discussion

    Post  Werewolf on Sat Aug 15, 2015 1:58 am

    Stealthflanker wrote:
    TheArmenian wrote:
    Thanks for your opinion.
    Why do you think Western Navies are still stuck in the subsonic AShM era? Don't they think that modern Russian SAMs will shoot them down?


    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

    This.

    Would you be so kind and summerize it up for us?

    artjomh
    Sergeant
    Sergeant

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

    Re: Anti-Ship Missiles: Discussion

    Post  artjomh on Sat Aug 15, 2015 2:06 am

    TheArmenian wrote:Why do you think Western Navies are still stuck in the subsonic AShM era? Don't they think that modern Russian SAMs will shoot them down?

    As comrade Stalin would say: "dizziness from success".

    The peace dividend produced as a result of the end of the Cold War meant that many programs were cancelled as money was funnelled away from military programmes (e.g. Fast Hawk).

    Further attempts to create a US response to supersonic cruise missile threat (HyFly, JSSCM/SHOC, the RATTLRS programme, as well as LRASM-B) were also cancelled due to budget sequestrations.

    Stealthflanker
    Major
    Major

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

    Re: Anti-Ship Missiles: Discussion

    Post  Stealthflanker on Sat Aug 15, 2015 1:21 pm

    Werewolf wrote:

    Would you be so kind and summerize it up for us?

    In Short. The Americans see the subsonic options more viable because :

    -Stealthty In both RF and IR spectrum.
    -Very low flight altitude possible without resorting to exotic material. Supersonic missile might suffer from heating and might have high IR signature
    -Subsonic missile can be made small, while supersonic one is often larger for comparable range.
    -Subsonic missile can be cheaper thus developed faster than supersonic analogue.
    -Subsonic missile can "loiter" the target area, thus opened up possibility for Re-targeting and possibly having higher hit probability.

    Apparently LRASM-A win over supersonic-hypersonic LRASM-B because of those factors mentioned above.


    Mike E
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 2789
    Points : 2853
    Join date : 2014-06-19
    Location : Bay Area, CA

    Re: Anti-Ship Missiles: Discussion

    Post  Mike E on Sat Aug 15, 2015 1:50 pm

    You also forgot;
    - Less effective, so more missiles need to be fired, hence more bought, so the MIC can get some more $$$.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15487
    Points : 16194
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Anti-Ship Missiles: Discussion

    Post  GarryB on Sat Aug 15, 2015 4:44 pm


    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.

    I have heard comments about the new versions of both missiles not being as effective on low speed aircraft like the Su-25TM and of course helicopter launched, but that in response there have been new versions made with more powerful rocket boosters to restore performance from a low speed low altitude launch.

    It is also possible that the members of the Club family might be adapted for air launch along with Onyx and Brahmos/II.

    The most interesting in my opinion is the Kh-32 upgrade of the Kh-22M, supposed to have double the range of the earlier missile and mach 4.5 speed and much less volatile fuel to make handling easier.

    In Short. The Americans see the subsonic options more viable because :

    Plus the other reason... they never developed one in the past and would have to spend a lot of money... which isn't available to solve a problem they don't see exists.

    Just like they didn't develop a smooth bore tank gun... the West Germans did that for them.

    The US tends to rely more on air power for attack and defence, so their air defence in their Army is pretty weak. The air defence in their navy is not as weak but still uses aircraft at its core... strike aircraft are its primary attack and primary defend weapon... and they are flexible, long range and powerful in those two roles.


    _________________
    “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

    max steel
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 2980
    Points : 3014
    Join date : 2015-02-13
    Location : South Pole

    Re: Anti-Ship Missiles: Discussion

    Post  max steel on Sat Aug 15, 2015 4:49 pm

    [quote="artjomh]

    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.

    [/quote]





    Mobile land-based ASM complexes such as Bastion (with Yakhont) are virtually impossible to locate (especially inside the serious AD environment), especially inside the forests and complex terrain. This video demonstrates perfectly how terrain is used. The complex is highly mobile with a very short time of deployment into firing position--less than 5 minutes.

    nastle77
    Junior Sergeant
    Junior Sergeant

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

    Re: Anti-Ship Missiles: Discussion

    Post  nastle77 on Tue Aug 18, 2015 2:25 am

    During the late phase of the cold war , was the OTH targeting of the SSN-3 shaddock cruise missile done by Ka-25 /Tu-95 Bear D ? Or was this role taken over by the RORSAT orbital reconnaissance and targeting system, which employed a Molniya satellite link for the Sistema Morskoi Kosmicheskoi Razvedki i Tselkazaniya (SMKRITs) ?

    Thanks

    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 18, 2015 5:04 am

    nastle77 wrote:During the late phase of the cold war , was the OTH targeting of the SSN-3 shaddock cruise missile done by Ka-25 /Tu-95 Bear D ? Or was this role taken over by the RORSAT orbital reconnaissance and targeting system, which  employed a Molniya satellite link for the Sistema Morskoi Kosmicheskoi Razvedki i Tselkazaniya (SMKRITs) ?

    Thanks

    The space based system (MKRC Legenda)  never replaced the earlier Uspekh (The Tu-95RT based system) But instead it's complementing each other.  

    ---------------------
    Regarding the Soviet space based system, i noticed that the US-A Satellite seems to have insufficient resolution to identify target. The US-A is equipped with 10 m width radar antenna and using a real-beam imaging to detect target. Playing with simple math Res=Wavelength*Range of SLAR platform/Antenna width. I came up with resolution of 625 m It is not enough to resolve any target for identification.

    The parameter for US-A Satellite however can be found here :
    http://faculty.fordham.edu/siddiqi/writings/p14_siddiqi_jbis_rorsat_1999.pdf

    It mention 4 m width antenna, but i found later in a paper by Vega (The maker of US-A Radar) The antenna was actually 10 m long.  The Antenna is work in X-band The frequency however is not given thus i assume 12 Ghz the highest frequency of X-band.  The orbit altitude of US-A Was 250 km.


    and no the US-A was not using SAR method. The first soviet based SAR was Venera 13/15 spacecraft for scientific purpose.

    Rmf
    Master Sergeant
    Master Sergeant

    Posts : 381
    Points : 376
    Join date : 2013-05-30

    Re: Anti-Ship Missiles: Discussion

    Post  Rmf on Wed Aug 19, 2015 3:18 am

    that is good enough , missile radar activates and searchs left and right for ships about 5-10km in an elipse , when the missile is about 30-50 km from target area.

    max steel
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 2980
    Points : 3014
    Join date : 2015-02-13
    Location : South Pole

    Re: Anti-Ship Missiles: Discussion

    Post  max steel on Mon Sep 07, 2015 4:28 pm

    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 ?



    I guess you got your answers more clearly here than by Jonesy at keypub. Its funny that he thinks saturation attacks are a fiction but judiciously promotes fictional Tom Clancy's novel Chapter dance of vampires as a real scenario .

    Stealthflanker
    Major
    Major

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

    Re: Anti-Ship Missiles: Discussion

    Post  Stealthflanker on Mon Sep 07, 2015 7:01 pm

    Mike E wrote:You also forgot;
    - Less effective, so more missiles need to be fired, hence more bought, so the MIC can get some more $$$.

    Well if this the case then the maker of Uran must be evil as they make subsonic missiles and Russian MOD is such a dumb to accept it in service.

    kvs
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 2538
    Points : 2671
    Join date : 2014-09-11
    Location : Canuckistan

    Re: Anti-Ship Missiles: Discussion

    Post  kvs on Mon Sep 07, 2015 7:14 pm

    Stealthflanker wrote:
    Mike E wrote:You also forgot;
    - Less effective, so more missiles need to be fired, hence more bought, so the MIC can get some more $$$.

    Well if this the case then the maker of Uran must be evil as they make subsonic missiles and Russian MOD is such a dumb to accept it in service.

    The problem is the exclusive reliance on subsonic weapons in the NATO navies. There is no case to be made against hypersonic
    weapons so Mike E is hitting the bull's eye with his post. NATO armies and navies are about feeding corporations first and foremost.

    nastle77
    Junior Sergeant
    Junior Sergeant

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

    Re: Anti-Ship Missiles: Discussion

    Post  nastle77 on Thu Sep 10, 2015 2:29 am

    Can the AS-4 kitchen Kh-22 , AS-5 Kelt antiship missiles can be used against all kinds of ships ? Like destroyers and frigates too ?

    artjomh
    Sergeant
    Sergeant

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

    Re: Anti-Ship Missiles: Discussion

    Post  artjomh on Thu Sep 10, 2015 3:56 am

    nastle77 wrote:Can the AS-4 kitchen Kh-22 , AS-5 Kelt antiship missiles can be used against all kinds of ships ? Like destroyers and frigates too ?

    Technically, yes.

    Realistically, Kh-22 seeker didn't have enough resolution to "grab" small targets. It needed a very strong radiating/large sized source to target its beam at.

    However, given that aircraft carriers and destroyers were the main target of this missile, this was not considered major issue compared to other problems (e.g. ECM protection)

    nastle77
    Junior Sergeant
    Junior Sergeant

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

    Re: Anti-Ship Missiles: Discussion

    Post  nastle77 on Thu Sep 10, 2015 4:30 am

    artjomh wrote:
    nastle77 wrote:Can the AS-4 kitchen Kh-22 , AS-5 Kelt antiship missiles can be used against all kinds of ships ? Like destroyers and frigates too ?

    Technically, yes.

    Realistically, Kh-22 seeker didn't have enough resolution to "grab" small targets. It needed a very strong radiating/large sized source to target its beam at.

    However, given that aircraft carriers and destroyers were the main target of this missile, this was not considered major issue compared to other problems (e.g. ECM protection)

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

    artjomh
    Sergeant
    Sergeant

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

    Re: Anti-Ship Missiles: Discussion

    Post  artjomh on Thu Sep 10, 2015 4:58 am

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

    It is impossible to say with that kind of precision.

    nastle77
    Junior Sergeant
    Junior Sergeant

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

    Re: Anti-Ship Missiles: Discussion

    Post  nastle77 on Thu Sep 10, 2015 5:15 am

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

    It is impossible to say with that kind of precision.

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

    artjomh
    Sergeant
    Sergeant

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

    Re: Anti-Ship Missiles: Discussion

    Post  artjomh on Thu Sep 10, 2015 5:20 am

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

    It is impossible to say with that kind of precision.

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

    Yes. But the carrier was the main target.

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


    nastle77
    Junior Sergeant
    Junior Sergeant

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

    Re: Anti-Ship Missiles: Discussion

    Post  nastle77 on Thu Sep 10, 2015 5:34 am

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

    It is impossible to say with that kind of precision.

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

    Yes. But the carrier was the main target.

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

    I see that's clever , but for non-USN SAG e.g a JSDF or RN SAG which is primarily cruisers/destroyers/frigates will the Kh-22 armed planes still use the same tactics ?
    I'm assuming things will be a lot easier for AV-MF bombers ( even though their targets are smaller and harder to get a lockon ) as even if the JSDF/RN SAG is covered by land based interceptors they are only equipped with SARH AIM-7 sparrow missiles and the bombers don't have to deal with the AIM-54/F-14 combination ?

    artjomh
    Sergeant
    Sergeant

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

    Re: Anti-Ship Missiles: Discussion

    Post  artjomh on Thu Sep 10, 2015 5:42 am

    nastle77 wrote:I see that's clever , but for non-USN SAG e.g a JSDF or RN SAG which is primarily cruisers/destroyers/frigates will the Kh-22 armed planes still use the same tactics ?
    I'm assuming things will be a lot easier for AV-MF bombers ( even though their targets are smaller and harder to get a lockon ) as even if the JSDF/RN SAG is covered by land based interceptors they are only equipped with SARH AIM-7 sparrow missiles and the bombers don't have to deal with the AIM-54/F-14 combination ?

    There was another class of lighter missiles for frigate/destroyer/cruiser type targets that were not operating as part of the CVBG.

    That was the Termit, Malakhit, Moskit, Oniks succession of missiles.

    nastle77
    Junior Sergeant
    Junior Sergeant

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

    Re: Anti-Ship Missiles: Discussion

    Post  nastle77 on Thu Sep 10, 2015 5:52 am

    artjomh wrote:
    nastle77 wrote:I see that's clever , but for non-USN SAG e.g a JSDF or RN SAG which is primarily cruisers/destroyers/frigates will the Kh-22 armed planes still use the same tactics ?
    I'm assuming things will be a lot easier for AV-MF bombers ( even though their targets are smaller and harder to get a lockon ) as even if the JSDF/RN SAG is covered by land based interceptors they are only equipped with SARH AIM-7 sparrow missiles and the bombers don't have to deal with the AIM-54/F-14 combination ?

    There was another class of lighter missiles for frigate/destroyer/cruiser type targets that were not operating as part of the CVBG.

    That was the Termit, Malakhit, Moskit, Oniks succession of missiles.
    Ofcourse but what I'm trying to ask is that incase a regiment of AV-MF bombers equipped with Kh-22 do encounter enemy frigate/destroyer/cruiser type targets they could still try to take them out ? without calling for backup from other termit malakhit equipped ships etc

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

    Sponsored content

    Re: Anti-Ship Missiles: Discussion

    Post  Sponsored content Today at 2:24 pm


      Current date/time is Sat Dec 10, 2016 2:24 pm