Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    Anti-Ship Missiles Thread

    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 20877
    Points : 21431
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Anti-Ship Missiles Thread - Page 10 Empty Re: Anti-Ship Missiles Thread

    Post  GarryB on Sun Jan 06, 2019 5:39 am

    R-37 is rocket powered so it would be unpowered as it fell on its target at or near max range... the Kh-31 uses a ramjet, but with all the new work they are doing on scramjet engines they could upgrade it to a scramjet powered model with much higher speed and much greater range.

    Solid rocket fuel is expensive, while the Kh-31 uses kerosene...

    The kh-31 is very limited in use because if you want to achieve longer ranges (110km) you have to launch it pretty high exposing the fighter to SAM and the enemy ship will most likely see you at that range so it will know it is under attack.

    The R-37M is supposed to have a range of 300km from a high altitude high speed launch (from a MiG-31), so an anti ship model R-37M would be no great advantage... in terms of launch characteristics.

    Even chinese rejected the high-low trajectory of russian version and developed their own version with Low-Low trajectory but with shorter range.

    Russian missiles have the option of flying high or flying low... if someone told you this story about the Chinese rejecting it because they wanted it to fly low then they are lying to you or to themselves.

    The Russian missile could just as easily fly low all the way like the Kh-41 Moskit does, and of course shorter flight range will be a consequence of this flight profile...

    If anything I would like to see a sea-skimming torpedo launcher. I'm thinking of taking the Kh-35U, removing the standard warhead, and adding a stage that launches a (a smaller with far less propellant) Shkval torpedo missile in to the water. Kh-35U has range of 300km, a modified version of it could fly 290 km, and launch a shrunk Shkval torpedo for the last 10 km. Should be devastating.

    Or use the already invented Club missile with its rocket propelled mach 2.9 terminal missile... AFAIK the export model flys about 250km at subsonic speed... which sounds a little strange... the whole point of subsonic cruise missiles is their enormous range... I suspect the domestic Russian model has a subsonic flight range closer to 1,500km than 300km, as the models with subsonic flight all the way reach beyond 2,500km...

    The fundamental issue is that the R-37s is a large heavy missile carried currently by the MiG-31 and PAK FA. In the future it will likely be integrated to other aircraft as their radars are updated to AESAs so they can use the missile to its max range, but I rather suspect a future development of the Kh-31 with a scramjet would improve its performance well beyond anything the solid rocket powered R-37 could manage.
    Isos
    Isos

    Posts : 3424
    Points : 3420
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Anti-Ship Missiles Thread - Page 10 Empty Re: Anti-Ship Missiles Thread

    Post  Isos on Sun Jan 06, 2019 8:26 am

    magnumcromagnon wrote:
    Hole wrote:R-37: 4,06m long, 510kg launch weight, 60kg warhead
    Kh-31AD: 5,34m long, 715kg launch weight, 110kg warhead
    Kh-35U: 3,85m long, 550kg launch weight, 145kg warhead

    Not much difference. Why bother to develop an anti-ship version of R-37?

    If anything I would like to see a sea-skimming torpedo launcher. I'm thinking of taking the Kh-35U, removing the standard warhead, and adding a stage that launches a (a smaller with far less propellant) Shkval torpedo missile in to the water. Kh-35U has range of 300km, a modified version of it could fly 290 km, and launch a shrunk Shkval torpedo for the last 10 km. Should be devastating.  

    Small torpedo like the one on klub missile have very short range like less than 5 km.

    This one would be even smaller.

    R-37 is rocket powered so it would be unpowered as it fell on its target at or near max range... the Kh-31 uses a ramjet, but with all the new work they are doing on scramjet engines they could upgrade it to a scramjet powered model with much higher speed and much greater range.

    Agree but now kh-31 is very limited by its ramjet. At low altitude it has small range so launch aircraft has to come close.

    The good point of R-37 is that ot flies high and fast. Keep some fuel to accelerate it at the end and you will have a mach 4 or 5 final attack.
    Hole
    Hole

    Posts : 2106
    Points : 2106
    Join date : 2018-03-24
    Age : 43
    Location : Merkelland

    Anti-Ship Missiles Thread - Page 10 Empty Re: Anti-Ship Missiles Thread

    Post  Hole on Sun Jan 06, 2019 11:18 am

    Kh-31AD has a range of 260km launched from 15.000m.

    If launched from below 5.000m the range of the R-37 will be closer to 150km, even less when it has to fly close to the Ground/sea. And it has only a 60kg warhead. And a plane can´t carry more then Kh-31. No Advantages.
    Isos
    Isos

    Posts : 3424
    Points : 3420
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Anti-Ship Missiles Thread - Page 10 Empty Re: Anti-Ship Missiles Thread

    Post  Isos on Sun Jan 06, 2019 11:43 am

    Hole wrote:Kh-31AD has a range of 260km launched from 15.000m.

    If launched from below 5.000m the range of the R-37 will be closer to 150km, even less when it has to fly close to the Ground/sea. And it has only a 60kg warhead. And a plane can´t carry more then Kh-31. No Advantages.

    You are not honest in your statements. You compare range of a low flying r-37 with the range of a high flying kh-31.

    R-37 can fly at 25km altitude so it is a huge advantage since most air defence missiles or radars won't see it.

    Kh-31 launched below 5000m is nowhere near the 150km range of the r-37 too.
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 20877
    Points : 21431
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Anti-Ship Missiles Thread - Page 10 Empty Re: Anti-Ship Missiles Thread

    Post  GarryB on Sun Jan 06, 2019 1:41 pm

    Agree but now kh-31 is very limited by its ramjet. At low altitude it has small range so launch aircraft has to come close.

    The good point of R-37 is that ot flies high and fast. Keep some fuel to accelerate it at the end and you will have a mach 4 or 5 final attack.

    You say the Kh-31 has a short range with a low altitude flight profile... the R-37s range would be much much worse using the same low flight profile because rocket powered missiles have limited thrust curves.

    The R-37 is rocket propelled... it can't keep fuel for anything... once lit it burns... no stopping it or saving some for later...

    The Kh-31 would be better suited to a high lofted flight profile where it coasts a lot of the way ballisticly and then uses fuel at the end for terminal attack manouvers...

    As I mentioned... a new model with a scramjet motor could accelerate to much higher speeds too.

    You are not honest in your statements. You compare range of a low flying r-37 with the range of a high flying kh-31.

    R-37 can fly at 25km altitude so it is a huge advantage since most air defence missiles or radars won't see it.

    Kh-31 launched below 5000m is nowhere near the 150km range of the r-37 too.

    He is not wrong... the thicker denser warmer air at lower altitudes that reduce the range of the Kh-31 would be devastatingly more harsh on a rocket powered missile in terms of flight range and speed.

    The range given for the R-37 is for a high altitude high speed launch from the only aircraft that can carry it... the MiG-31.

    The figures given for the Kh-31 are for attack aircraft flying much lower and much slower.

    Very simply put a Kh-31 launched from high altitude and high speed could travel much much further and that is compounded by its jet engine...

    An R-37 has a high energy fuel and a lower energy fuel.. the high energy fuel burns first and very very rapidly and accelerates the missile to its flight speed... then the lower energy fuel starts burning... it helps the missile maintain speed rather than accelerate or climb but it burns dozens of times longer than the high energy fuel.

    At high altitude the R-37 fired at high speed, the high energy fuel accelerates it to top speed... mach 5-6 or so, but after 5-10 seconds that burns out and the lower energy fuel starts burning... it helps the missile maintain speed and might burn for a minute or more. The point is that if the missile only had the high energy fuel it might accelerate to mach 6 or 7 but it will rapidly slow down after the engine had burned out and so instead of going 300km it might only reach 180km or so.

    A low altitude launch at a much lower speed and the R-37 might reach mach 3-4, but more importantly it wont be able to climb to altitude where the air is thin and friction is lower so it will have less energy and momentum and much more drag all the way... a low altitude launch and the R-37s range would probably be less than 100km.

    With the Kh-31 there is a high energy solid rocket booster that accelerates the missile and allows it to climb but its ramjet is a jet engine and it can throttle it to optimise its flight performance... ie a relatively high throttle setting to allow it to climb, and then top setting to accelerate to top speed at an altitude where it can fly fast and then throttle back to coast to the target area...

    With a scramjet it will be able to accelerate to much higher speeds...
    dino00
    dino00

    Posts : 900
    Points : 941
    Join date : 2012-10-12
    Age : 31
    Location : portugal

    Anti-Ship Missiles Thread - Page 10 Empty Re: Anti-Ship Missiles Thread

    Post  dino00 on Sun Jan 06, 2019 3:12 pm

    I have never seen this on the forum so...

    An interview to Boris Obnosov ceo of KTRV(Tactical Missile Weapons Corporation) they incorporate raduga, npo Mashinostroeniya etc... in 17/08/2016

    This part:

    In the operation of the Russian Navy in Syria, the Caliber-NK and Caliber-PL missiles developed by the Novator Design Bureau distinguished themselves. Are there similar developments in KTRV?

    Yes there is. And significantly longer range. More, you know, I can not say.

    What is This??? Cant be zirkon from npo because of the range, a super oniks?Nah,  A sub/sea launched kh-101 from Raduga? Most probable. Cant be an improved kalibr because Novator is from Almaz-Antey corporation

    Other thing:

    In the Syrian VKS operation, the Kh-101 long-range air-launched cruise missiles of the KTRV developed and produced well. Is the modernization of these missiles continuing? What characteristics of missiles can be improved?

    Yes, modernization is coming. The direction of work is clear. This is an increase in range and increased accuracy.

    Its an old interview, but i didnt saw on the forum or read anywhere, if already posted and debated attack  dont BE mean lol1

    The full interview:
    https://rns.online/interviews/Glava-KTRV-ob-operatsii-v-Sirii-giperzvuke-i-oruzhii-dlya-dronov-2016-08-17/


    Last edited by dino00 on Sun Jan 06, 2019 6:13 pm; edited 1 time in total (Reason for editing : Mispelling)
    avatar
    hoom

    Posts : 1838
    Points : 1828
    Join date : 2016-05-06

    Anti-Ship Missiles Thread - Page 10 Empty Re: Anti-Ship Missiles Thread

    Post  hoom on Sun Jan 06, 2019 4:36 pm

    I recall there was talk of a naval X-101 for UKSK but it seems unlikely to fit in a UKSK cell, being quite a bit fatter than Onyx which appears to be a pretty tight fit.
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 20877
    Points : 21431
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Anti-Ship Missiles Thread - Page 10 Empty Re: Anti-Ship Missiles Thread

    Post  GarryB on Mon Jan 07, 2019 9:04 am

    Actually the early specs I read for the UKSK launchers mentioned Kh-101 and Kh-102 missiles specifically... I was actually surprised to find they had the Calibr in them which is basically an upgraded SS-N-21 Grannat missile with terminal guidance and better accuracy allowing both conventional and nuclear warheads.

    (Note SS-N-21 Grannat missile as opposed to SS-19 Granit missile).

    Unification of missile types makes a lot of sense and it would be expected that the missiles would fit in the UKSK... the U meaning universal... the meaning of which is pretty clear...

    What is This??? Cant be zirkon from npo because of the range, a super oniks?Nah, A sub/sea launched kh-101 from Raduga? Most probable.

    Calibr NK and PL are both cruise missiles... the only air launched equivalents would be Kh-101 and Kh-102... NK being ship launched and PL being sub launched cruise missiles.
    dino00
    dino00

    Posts : 900
    Points : 941
    Join date : 2012-10-12
    Age : 31
    Location : portugal

    Anti-Ship Missiles Thread - Page 10 Empty Re: Anti-Ship Missiles Thread

    Post  dino00 on Mon Jan 07, 2019 10:29 am

    GarryB wrote:
    Calibr NK and PL are both cruise missiles... the only air launched equivalents would be Kh-101 and Kh-102... NK being ship launched and PL being sub launched cruise missiles.

    I know. My question was what should be the new missile from KTRV, most probable a kh-101 sub/sea launched.
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 20877
    Points : 21431
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Anti-Ship Missiles Thread - Page 10 Empty Re: Anti-Ship Missiles Thread

    Post  GarryB on Tue Jan 08, 2019 12:55 am

    Yup, so larger and heavier and with a more efficient turbofan engine for greatly increased flight range... though from a surface or sub launch its range might be reduced to 4,500km or so compared with air launched...
    Isos
    Isos

    Posts : 3424
    Points : 3420
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Anti-Ship Missiles Thread - Page 10 Empty Re: Anti-Ship Missiles Thread

    Post  Isos on Sat Jan 12, 2019 6:04 pm

    https://www.checkpointasia.net/russian-navy-hit-and-sank-a-decommissioned-frigate-in-syria-live-fire-drills-video/

    I don't know if this video was posted before but it's a good one. Back in april 2018, russian su-34 destroyed a syrian retired corvette with two kh-35.

    You can see the missile hiting the back of the ship targeting the propulsion of the ship.
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 20877
    Points : 21431
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Anti-Ship Missiles Thread - Page 10 Empty Re: Anti-Ship Missiles Thread

    Post  GarryB on Sun Jan 13, 2019 2:14 am

    Went down like a Norwegian Frigate hitting an oil tanker...
    avatar
    nastle77

    Posts : 214
    Points : 286
    Join date : 2015-07-25

    Anti-Ship Missiles Thread - Page 10 Empty ssc-1 sepal numbers in 1990

    Post  nastle77 on Mon Jan 14, 2019 4:05 am

    Hello
    I just wanted to see if someone has any numbers of SSC-1 sepal TEL operational by 1990
    military balance gives only 40 TEL
    and here http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-Rus-Cruise-Missiles.html#mozTocId369687

    it says in 4 fleets soviets had 19 battalions of 15 TEL each so over 300 TEL

    huge discrepency

    any help appreciated
    GunshipDemocracy
    GunshipDemocracy

    Posts : 4914
    Points : 4952
    Join date : 2015-05-17
    Age : 77
    Location : fishin on Stalin´s Strait between Mexico and Canada

    Anti-Ship Missiles Thread - Page 10 Empty Re: Anti-Ship Missiles Thread

    Post  GunshipDemocracy on Thu Mar 28, 2019 9:02 pm

    nastle77 wrote:Hello
    I just wanted to see if someone has any numbers of SSC-1 sepal TEL operational by 1990
    military balance gives only 40 TEL
    and here http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-Rus-Cruise-Missiles.html#mozTocId369687

    it says in 4 fleets soviets had 19 battalions of 15 TEL each so over 300 TEL

    huge discrepency

    any help appreciated


    I dunno but if question is valid i can try to do some research?

    Sponsored content

    Anti-Ship Missiles Thread - Page 10 Empty Re: Anti-Ship Missiles Thread

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Thu Jun 27, 2019 1:10 am