Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    Anti-Ship Missiles Thread

    Share
    avatar
    TR1

    Posts : 5699
    Points : 5735
    Join date : 2011-12-06

    Re: Anti-Ship Missiles Thread

    Post  TR1 on Sun Nov 10, 2013 8:55 pm

    Rpg type 7v wrote:i dont know anything about submarines but i can talk about missiles ,and uksk launchers will have many negative effects on russian navy...
    Please, do tell.

    I am looking foreward to more laughable "analysis".

    Negative effects like Russian surface combatants actually having a potent land strike ability across most platforms. Terrible!
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16315
    Points : 16946
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Anti-Ship Missiles Thread

    Post  GarryB on Mon Nov 11, 2013 11:21 am

    By all means share these negative effects with the rest of us.

    AFAIK the Russians don't have a don't ask don't tell policy when it comes to nuclear weapons on board, so that wont be a problem.

    Otherwise having one dedicated launcher means standardisation of launchers... the only moving parts are roof hatches so there is very little to go wrong with no ammo hoists or ammo handlers to load missiles... all are ready to go.

    Plus being universal launchers a range of weapons can be loaded to tailor the capabilities of the ships.

    Where previously a ship might have anti sub missiles or anti ship missiles now they can have a mix of weapons in larger numbers ready to fire with the addition of land attack, which was previously not available to the average Russian vessel.


    _________________
    “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

    Rpg type 7v

    Posts : 399
    Points : 263
    Join date : 2011-05-01

    Re: Anti-Ship Missiles Thread

    Post  Rpg type 7v on Tue Nov 12, 2013 9:08 pm

    well just 1 major flaw i can see is are you going to have the same number of short range sams as longrange sams because of uksk?
    i mean 1 tube fits all principle is flawed because missiles are of different sizes,short-medium-longrange A-A missile, or you going to have dedicated launchers?
    avatar
    medo

    Posts : 3194
    Points : 3284
    Join date : 2010-10-24
    Location : Slovenia

    Re: Anti-Ship Missiles Thread

    Post  medo on Tue Nov 12, 2013 9:36 pm

    Rpg type 7v wrote:well just 1 major flaw i can see is are you going to have the same number of short range sams as longrange sams because of uksk?
    i mean 1 tube fits all principle is flawed because missiles are of different sizes,short-medium-longrange A-A missile, or you going to have dedicated launchers?
    UKSK is meant for anti-ship missiles and land attack cruise missiles. SAMs have their own VLS. They don't use UKSK.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16315
    Points : 16946
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Anti-Ship Missiles Thread

    Post  GarryB on Wed Nov 13, 2013 10:08 am

    As mentioned UKSK is a universal launcher of land attack, anti ship, and anti submarine cruise missiles. It is not intended for SAMs.

    SAMs are mounted in the Redut launchers which will be standard launchers for Naval SAMs, though there is also Shtil-1 launchers in vertical launch systems for export, and Pantsir-S1/Kashtan-M/Palma-Sosna SAMs as well and I presume the Klintok vertical launch system.

    Redut uses standard Rif-M (ie S-300 large missiles) but is standardised throughout the navy from corvette to carrier and sub as well... all use the same launcher and also the UKSK launcher too.

    The only difference is in the number of launchers each size vessel can carry, with small corvettes with one Redut and one UKSK... meaning up to 32 full sized S-300 sized SAMs or more likely a combination of 9M100 Morfei, Vityaz, and S-400, and likely S-500. For a Corvette perhaps 4 X 250km range S-400 SAMs plus 48 x Vityaz medium range 120km range missiles taking up 16 tubes and the remaining 16 tubes with say 8 Morfei missiles in each, so 128 Morfei short range missiles.

    With one UKSK launcher that means say 6 Onyx supersonic anti ship missiles plus 2 anti sub missiles or land attack missiles.


    _________________
    “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

    Rpg type 7v

    Posts : 399
    Points : 263
    Join date : 2011-05-01

    Re: Anti-Ship Missiles Thread

    Post  Rpg type 7v on Wed Nov 13, 2013 5:20 pm

    nore granit or vulkan, many missiles will be left behind because of uksk , what a drawback for russian navy whose main and unique assests were exactly those missiles...
    avatar
    TR1

    Posts : 5699
    Points : 5735
    Join date : 2011-12-06

    Re: Anti-Ship Missiles Thread

    Post  TR1 on Wed Nov 13, 2013 5:22 pm

    LOL Keep showing how bad of an argument you have.

    Granit isn't even in production, forget about it. First SAMs now this nonsense. Vulkan is ancient, potent maybe, but ancient.

    You propose putting Vulkan sized missiles on a 20380 or a 22350? lmao

    UKSK mounts every perspective and current RuNavy AShM. Good enough.

    Rpg type 7v

    Posts : 399
    Points : 263
    Join date : 2011-05-01

    Re: Anti-Ship Missiles Thread

    Post  Rpg type 7v on Wed Nov 13, 2013 8:40 pm

    well to sink newest ships you really need a heavy warhed -a 500kg warhead at least , this tiny missiles will not be able to even produce enough damage to disable a warship with prepared crew and good damage control.
    avatar
    flamming_python

    Posts : 3205
    Points : 3319
    Join date : 2012-01-30

    Re: Anti-Ship Missiles Thread

    Post  flamming_python on Wed Nov 13, 2013 11:27 pm

    He has a point there TR1
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16315
    Points : 16946
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    He has a point there TR1

    Post  GarryB on Wed Nov 13, 2013 11:41 pm

    you are confused ,will they use uksk for sams or not?
    The UKSK launcher is for anti ship, land attack, and anti sub cruise/ballistic missile weapons only.

    In its domestic model it can fire Onyx (which replaces Granit, Vulkan, and Moskit) as the mach 2.5 supersonic anti ship missile with long range (500-700km).

    The export model of UKSK wont have Onyx... it will have either Yakhont, or Brahmos depending on the export customer (China will have Yakhont, India will have Brahmos).

    The Domestic model can also fire Kalibr a subsonic 2,500km range cruise missile with nuke and conventional payloads with a land attack role.

    The Domestic model can also fire the supersonic model of Kalibr that uses a supersonic second stage to attack well defended ships with a mach 2.9 terminal stage.

    The Export model has Klub in sub 300km range versions with subsonic all the way and supersonic terminal phase models for both anti ship and land attack purposes.

    The Domestic model also has a rocket fired ballistic missile that delivers a torpedo payload at mach 2.5 to targets up to an unknown range in the surface launched models for corvettes to carriers, and also a different missile also with an unknown range in a version of UKSK for submarines.

    The Export model also has a rocket fired ballistic missile that delivers a torpedo payload at mach 2.5 to targets up to 40km away in the surface launched models for corvettes to carriers, and also a different missile to 50km range in a version of UKSK for submarines.

    Neither the domestic nor the export model is designed to launch SAMs.

    They, however, will be compatible with all future land attack, anti ship, and anti sub weapons like the hypersonic Zirconium missile and the Brahmos II.

    if they use kastan ciws with its separate missiles ,why then another short range system in launchers?
    Kashtan-M will likely be replaced in upgrades on non stealthy vessels by the domestic equivalent of Pantsir-S1.

    Using short range lock on after launch 9M100 Morfei missiles as CIWS is rather more stealthy and when used with Duet you get a combination of missiles and guns in a relatively stealthy setup.

    I suspect the future of Pantsir-S1 in the navy might depend on the performance of Morfei, but on small patrol boats Pantsir-S1 will continue to be useful as it combines TI and MMW radar and CMW radar to detect targets.

    nore granit or vulkan, many missiles will be left behind because of uksk , what a drawback for russian navy whose main and unique assests were exactly those missiles...
    Granit is out of production and is largely replaced by Onyx, as is Vulkan.

    As you might appreciate the electronics in Onyx is rather more compact and with the use of lighter materials the Onyx is a lighter but still very capable missile. Zirconium uses scramjet propulsion technology to raise speed and range to a new level, while using the sophisticated attack capability of the earlier missiles... as you might imagine the datalinking technology has improved since the early 1980s.

    well to sink newest ships you really need a heavy warhed -a 500kg warhead at least , this tiny missiles will not be able to even produce enough damage to disable a warship with prepared crew and good damage control.
    Tiny?  9m long and 3 tons is hardly tiny.

    The goal is to unify all the anti ship, land attack and anti sub weapons into one launcher that can be fitted to every Russian vessel.

    All future missiles of those types will be designed to fit into those launchers.

    This means that every Russian vessel will be fully multirole able to hit land, sea surface, and sea sub surface targets with a quick reload at the dock.

    It is a tremendous step forward for them... now instead of 5 anti ship missile corvettes and 5 anti sub corvettes and no land attack corvettes because who is going to mount nuclear armed land attack cruise missiles on a corvette in the Soviet Navy they can have 10 corvettes of the same design and when arming them at the dock they can configure the armament to suit the nature of the patrol with a mix of weapon including conventional land attack which was not previously available...

    The new launchers are fixed bins with no moving parts like ammo hoists or articulated aiming arms that could fail or need maintainence.

    well to sink newest ships you really need a heavy warhed -a 500kg warhead at least , this tiny missiles will not be able to even produce enough damage to disable a warship with prepared crew and good damage control.
    The kinetic energy of a 1.5 ton missile with all its fuel burned hitting a ship at over 2 times the speed of sound should do some serious damage even if the warhead does not detonate. In the near future when Zirconium is ready a similar weight missile hitting at mach 5 or mach 6 will result in fragments moving at explosive speeds. (the expansion rate of an exploding grenade produces metal fragments moving at mach 2-3, so 1.5 tons of material moving at twice that speed would be devastating).

    More importantly a single Corvette with 8 Onyx or Zirconium missile is very well armed... a Frigate with twice that number even more so.

    Kirov class cruisers with 10 UKSK launchers and 80 missiles would be overkill for most targets... especially when you consider every other ship operating with that vessel will also have UKSK launchers as will the subs operating with them too.

    The adoption of the UKSK launcher will make training and maintainence easier and cheaper... instead of learning how to use SS-N-22, and SS-N-19, and S-N-12 launchers, plus SS-N-15/16 launchers etc etc there is just one launcher type... one set of sensors to support those launchers... cheaper and easier and also larger production numbers makes production faster and easier.... making smaller numbers of specialised vessels is rather more complex and expensive.

    Logistically supporting a larger number of vessels with the same equipment and systems and weapons is much cheaper and simpler... especially for support vessels as fewer types of systems need fewer different types of parts.

    He has a point there TR1
    Not really. From Corvette up there will actually be rather more missiles carried per vessel and more missiles are always harder to defend against... Harpoon on its own is fairly ordinary... but 6 of them is a real challenge to deal with.

    How many Corvettes of the Soviet Navy carried 8 Granits?

    How many Frigates carried 16 Granits?

    The new Destroyers they are building will likely have 4 UKSK launchers, which means 32 missiles... a Sovremmeny class and a Udaloy class together could carry 8 Moskits and 8 anti sub torpedo carrying SS-N-14s... a new Russian destroyer could carry 8 Onyx missiles, 8 Kalibr anti sub missiles and still have 16 tubes free... the firepower of 4 Soviet Destroyers in terms of its primary armament!

    No I don't think there will be a lack of anti ship capability for the Russian Navy with the introduction of the UKSK launchers.

    Most importantly just looking at the ship you could know the capability of a Sovremmeny class vessel, but what is the new Destroyer carrying in those 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
    avatar
    flamming_python

    Posts : 3205
    Points : 3319
    Join date : 2012-01-30

    Re: Anti-Ship Missiles Thread

    Post  flamming_python on Thu Nov 14, 2013 12:22 am

    GarryB wrote:Not really. From Corvette up there will actually be rather more missiles carried per vessel and more missiles are always harder to defend against... Harpoon on its own is fairly ordinary... but 6 of them is a real challenge to deal with.

    How many Corvettes of the Soviet Navy carried 8 Granits?

    How many Frigates carried 16 Granits?

    The new Destroyers they are building will likely have 4 UKSK launchers, which means 32 missiles... a Sovremmeny class and a Udaloy class together could carry 8 Moskits and 8 anti sub torpedo carrying SS-N-14s... a new Russian destroyer could carry 8 Onyx missiles, 8 Kalibr anti sub missiles and still have 16 tubes free... the firepower of 4 Soviet Destroyers in terms of its primary armament!

    No I don't think there will be a lack of anti ship capability for the Russian Navy with the introduction of the UKSK launchers.

    Most importantly just looking at the ship you could know the capability of a Sovremmeny class vessel, but what is the new Destroyer carrying in those tubes?
    No, I agree with all that, I'm simply saying that indeed the new missiles have smaller payloads and against larger ships this may be problematic.
    Nothing busts a vessel quite like the Vulkan or Granit
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16315
    Points : 16946
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Anti-Ship Missiles Thread

    Post  GarryB on Thu Nov 14, 2013 12:59 am

    Nothing busts a vessel quite like the Vulkan or Granit
    I would be inclined to agree normally, but the real difference between Granit and Vulkan is Vulcan was made of more modern materials and was lighter than Granit... things like Titanium armour were used instead of steel armour to protect the missile from fragmentation warheads and 20mm cannon shells.

    Onyx has taken the reduced weight even further, but a major change would be the shift in propulsion to ramjet which means a smaller lighter more compact weapon.

    The end result will be that the Vulkan and Granit certainly hit harder but I rather doubt the difference would be enormous as Vulkan and Granit were more fuel and propulsion which made them big and heavy, while the smaller and lighter Onyx is just more efficient.

    Zirconium will be twice as fast and the old energy equals mass times the square of speed means twice as fast means 2 to the power of 2 times more energy.

    For many light corvette like targets a Granit would vapourise them, and while I agree against a Carrier one Onyx would not sink it you are not going to just use one... unless it is a nuke.


    _________________
    “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
    avatar
    TR1

    Posts : 5699
    Points : 5735
    Join date : 2011-12-06

    He has a point there TR1

    Post  TR1 on Thu Nov 14, 2013 9:04 am

    flamming_python wrote:He has a point there TR1
    No he does not. He has been cornered and is making an ass for himself.

    The ships that employ the UKSK never employed weapons the size and potency of the Vulkan and Granit. UKSK gives a massive boost in fleet capability through Yakhont and Kalibr.

    As to his "warhead size" argument, even stupider. 250kg warhead on a Yakhont will WRECK a non carrier combatant. Mission kill easily.
    avatar
    runaway

    Posts : 348
    Points : 369
    Join date : 2010-11-12
    Location : Sweden

    Re: Anti-Ship Missiles Thread

    Post  runaway on Thu Nov 14, 2013 11:19 am

    TR1 wrote:
    As to his "warhead size" argument, even stupider. 250kg warhead on a Yakhont will WRECK a non carrier combatant. Mission kill easily.
    One hit from Onyx would seriously damage even larger warships and several hits would certainly be leathal. The Klub-N missile has versions with 400kg warhead that fits VLS tubes,  It is also allegedly capable of disabling or even sinking an aircraft carrier.

    this tiny missiles will not be able to even produce enough damage to disable a warship with prepared crew and good damage control.
    Just ridiculous
    In 1982 HMS Sheffield was hit and sunk by an Exocet missile fired from a Super Étendard plane of Argentina air force. The missile hit amidships, and did NOT explode, instead its jet engine ignited fuel and flammable materials.
    This missile had a 165kg warhead, speed Mach 0.92 and was deadly for most ships, then compare to 250kg warhead and Mach 2.5 for Onyx..




    Rpg type 7v

    Posts : 399
    Points : 263
    Join date : 2011-05-01

    Re: Anti-Ship Missiles Thread

    Post  Rpg type 7v on Thu Nov 14, 2013 6:35 pm

    ok but lets see that also means that future cruisers will use same missiles as frigates.
    which is kinda stupid and a shame ,since the point of cruisers is they could carry larger weapons compared to other ship classes -[b]instead of 1000 small onyx missiles ,100 very potent granits with 1000km range,...unless they plan bigger uksk for cruisers.Idea 

    Rpg type 7v

    Posts : 399
    Points : 263
    Join date : 2011-05-01

    Re: Anti-Ship Missiles Thread

    Post  Rpg type 7v on Thu Nov 14, 2013 6:37 pm

    runaway wrote:
    TR1 wrote:
    As to his "warhead size" argument, even stupider. 250kg warhead on a Yakhont will WRECK a non carrier combatant. Mission kill easily.
    One hit from Onyx would seriously damage even larger warships and several hits would certainly be leathal. The Klub-N missile has versions with 400kg warhead that fits VLS tubes,  It is also allegedly capable of disabling or even sinking an aircraft carrier.

    this tiny missiles will not be able to even produce enough damage to disable a warship with prepared crew and good damage control.
    Just ridiculous
    In 1982 HMS Sheffield was hit and sunk by an Exocet missile fired from a Super Étendard plane of Argentina air force. The missile hit amidships, and did NOT explode, instead its jet engine ignited fuel and flammable materials.
    This missile had a 165kg warhead, speed Mach 0.92 and was deadly for most ships, then compare to 250kg warhead and Mach 2.5 for Onyx..
    Ok but this were iron ,steel, and titanium missiles ,not lightweight composite missiles of today which shatters on imapact into useless dust and small fragments ,kinetic impact penetration from composite into iron superstructure is tiny, and getting that close to todays ships whithout detection -good luck man sunny
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16315
    Points : 16946
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Anti-Ship Missiles Thread

    Post  GarryB on Fri Nov 15, 2013 4:01 am

    The ships that employ the UKSK never employed weapons the size and potency of the Vulkan and Granit. UKSK gives a massive boost in fleet capability through Yakhont and Kalibr.
    Not quite... the introduction of the UKSK launcher for every ship from Corvette to Carrier and all non SSBN subs actually means that the Russian fleet will be deploying 100 times more supersonic anti ship missiles than they did before... it is pretty much turning Onyx and Zirconium into Harpoon in the sense that Harpoon was not a super weapon but with numbers it would be effective.

    Onyx and Zirconium are everything Vulkan and Granit were but now in Harpoon deployment numbers...

    As to his "warhead size" argument, even stupider. 250kg warhead on a Yakhont will WRECK a non carrier combatant. Mission kill easily.
    New explosives are more powerful than older explosive compounds... not to mention new EW systems fitted to some missiles are more likely to lead to multiple hits.

    Explosive power is certainly one thing, but the real killer of ships is not HE... it is fire.

    compared to other ship classes -[b]instead of 1000 small onyx missiles ,100 very potent granits with 1000km range,...unless they plan bigger uksk for cruisers.
    Small Onyx missiles? 3 tons and 9m long is hardly small... the two main reasons it is smaller and lighter than Granit is that it trades the 750kg warhead for a 250kg one but also it is rather more fuel efficient and burns rather less fuel. This means that by the time the Granit gets to its target and has burned off its fuel it will not be that much heavier if at all.

    composite into iron superstructure is tiny, and getting that close to todays ships whithout detection -good luck man
    Exocet never should have gotten any where near Sheffield either... Sea Dart and Sea Wolf should have offered total protection... but they didn't work as advertised in a real combat situation... surprise surprise.


    _________________
    “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
    avatar
    runaway

    Posts : 348
    Points : 369
    Join date : 2010-11-12
    Location : Sweden

    Re: Anti-Ship Missiles Thread

    Post  runaway on Fri Nov 15, 2013 9:35 am

    Rpg type 7v wrote:ok but lets see that also means that future cruisers will use same missiles as frigates.
    which is kinda stupid and a shame ,since the point of cruisers is they could carry larger weapons compared to other ship classes -instead of 1000 small onyx missiles ,100 very potent granits with 1000km range,...unless they plan bigger uksk for cruisers.Idea 
    What a Face Not a bad idea, but with 900km for 3M14 and 450kg warhead, its a heavy weapon. 300km and 250kg warhead for Oniks along with mach 2,9 is leathal against all small to middle class ships. And its really better to fire a volley of 20 Oniks than 4 granits, to owerhelm enemy defenses and be sure to score some hits.

    I think range is not very critical, but finding the enemy before he finds you. Modern naval conflict will be much like tank warfare, first to shoot often will win.
    And Gary is right about fire is a great hazard on ships, after a hit, its almost everytime the fire that doomes the vessel. Imagine a hit that knocks out power to the pumps for firefighting, not unusual.


    Domestic variants Klub missile

       3M-54 - DOD designation SS-N-27A (NATO codename "Sizzler"). An anti-shipping variant deployed in the Russian federation navy, as a submarine launched missile, Its basic length is 8.22 m (27.0 ft), with a 200 kg (440 lb) warhead. Its range is 440–660 km (270–410 mi). It is a Sea-skimmer with supersonic terminal speed and a flight altitude of 4.6 metres (15 ft) at its final stage; its speed is then 2.9 mach.

       3M-54T - DOD designation SS-N-27A (NATO codename also "Sizzler"). The anti-shipping variant is deployed in the Russian federation navy, in a surface ship with a VLS launched system and a thrust vectoring booster; its Basic length is 8.9 m (29 ft), its warhead weight and other performances are the same as the 3M-54.

       3M-14 - DOD designation SS-N-30A. An Inertial guidance land attack variant deployed in the Russian federation navy. The submarine-launched weapon has a basic length of 6.2 m (20 ft), with a 450 kg (990 lb) warhead. Its range is 600–900 km (370–560 mi). Its subsonic terminal speed is 0.8 mach.

       3M-14T - DOD designation SS-N-30A; is the Inertial guidance land attack variant which is deployed in the Russian federation navy. A surface ship with VLS launched missile, with thrust vectoring booster, its basic length is 8.9 m (29 ft), its warhead weight and other performance are the same as the 3M-14.

    Oniks

    Engine Ramjet using kerosene liquid fuel
    Wingspan 1.7 m (5.6 ft)
    Operational
    range
    120 to 300 km (74.6 to 186.4 mi) depending on altitude
    Flight altitude 10 meters or higher[2]
    Speed Mach 2.5
    Guidance
    system
    midcourse inertial, active-passive radar seeker head
    Launch
    platform
    coastal installations, naval ship, Fixed-wing aircraft

    avatar
    TR1

    Posts : 5699
    Points : 5735
    Join date : 2011-12-06

    Re: Anti-Ship Missiles Thread

    Post  TR1 on Fri Nov 15, 2013 11:56 am

    Domestic Onix/Yakhont/ whatever will almost assuredly have longer range than 300km. I have heard estimates of 500km +.

    That is a HUGE upgrade for the Russian Navy, when you consider what ships carry UKSK. Kalibr + Onix is replacing P-120, Moskit, Rastrub, and such.
    Due to smaller dimensions we get more missiles, much better performance, and of course, a massive boost in (non existent before) long range, pinpoint land strike capability thanks to land-attack Kalibr.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16315
    Points : 16946
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Anti-Ship Missiles Thread

    Post  GarryB on Sat Nov 16, 2013 9:37 am

    If Onyx has a range of 300km then there would be no need for Yakhont... which does have a range of 300km and was designed for export only.

    Onyx is believed to have a range of 500-700km depending on the source.

    The land attack and anti ship versions of Klub for export have sub 300km ranges.

    The cruise missile they are based upon... Kalibr, has a range of 2,500km in the land attack model and also likely in the anti ship model too.

    The supersonic Klub for domestic use may have a range of up to 1,500km.



    _________________
    “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

    Rpg type 7v

    Posts : 399
    Points : 263
    Join date : 2011-05-01

    Re: Anti-Ship Missiles Thread

    Post  Rpg type 7v on Thu Nov 21, 2013 7:42 pm

    so in order to sink the frigate ,destroyer or a cruiser will actually have to get into its range??
    that is a poore offensive capability...
    now if they had a balistic anti ship version of iskander with 1000km range  and granits and kalibrs subsonic-supersonic dash version ,and subsonic-torpedo dash version, about those ranges ,that would be trully awesome capability. launch subsonic kalibr first ,then supersonic granits then ballistic iskanders and wham they all arive at the same time at the target.
    avatar
    runaway

    Posts : 348
    Points : 369
    Join date : 2010-11-12
    Location : Sweden

    Re: Anti-Ship Missiles Thread

    Post  runaway on Thu Nov 21, 2013 10:19 pm

    Rpg type 7v wrote:so in order to sink the frigate ,destroyer or a cruiser will actually have to get into its range??
    that is a poore offensive capability...
    In every aspect of modern warfare, be it land, air or sea the most important thing is ... intelligence, detection, stealth, they are all part of it.
    Range is not crucial nor is size of missile but the ability to stay hidden, to detect the enemy before he detects you. To analyse and foresee his movements.
    If you cant find him, you cant kill him. Screaming for bigger missiles is childish and naive.


    etaepsilonk

    Posts : 715
    Points : 697
    Join date : 2013-11-19

    Re: Anti-Ship Missiles Thread

    Post  etaepsilonk on Fri Nov 22, 2013 1:29 am

    runaway wrote:
    Rpg type 7v wrote:so in order to sink the frigate ,destroyer or a cruiser will actually have to get into its range??
    that is a poore offensive capability...
    In every aspect of modern warfare, be it land, air or sea the most important thing is ... intelligence, detection, stealth, they are all part of it.
    Range is not crucial nor is size of missile but the ability to stay hidden, to detect the enemy before he detects you. To analyse and foresee his movements.
    If you cant find him, you cant kill him. Screaming for bigger missiles is childish and naive.

    I agree. And I may also add, that you can destroy a ship not only by another ship, but also by submarine, aircraft, and coastal defence system(s), for those, said ship's missile range is not relevant.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16315
    Points : 16946
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Anti-Ship Missiles Thread

    Post  GarryB on Fri Nov 22, 2013 11:30 am

    so in order to sink the frigate ,destroyer or a cruiser will actually have to get into its range??
    that is a poore offensive capability...
    No.

    An exported Frigate will have exported missiles... in other words Brahmos/Yakhont/Klub... 300km range at most.

    A domestic Frigate, Destroyer, Cruiser will have Onyx 500-700km, and Kalibr 2,500km missiles.

    More importantly an exported Frigate will have exported frigate level sensors which will have shorter detection ranges than the larger more powerful sensors on Destroyers and Cruisers.

    now if they had a balistic anti ship version of iskander with 1000km range
    There is no reason why they couldn't develop a 2,000km range naval Iskander if they wanted... INF applies to land based weapons only.

    I agree. And I may also add, that you can destroy a ship not only by another ship, but also by submarine, aircraft, and coastal defence system(s), for those, said ship's missile range is not relevant.
    A ship is a platform for its weapons... in the past a small ship had small sensors of short range so there was no advantage to fitting them with long range weapons of any kind because they could not utilise them fully.

    With satellites and other surface vessels and sea bed arrays and submarines all communicating and sharing data there is no reason not to fit long range weapons to every vessel that can carry them.

    In terms of aircraft it is like putting RVV-BD missiles on a Yak-130... on the face of it it might sound silly as the Yak-130 doesn't even have a radar, but using a datalink together with some high flying Mig-31s or PAK FA the Yaks can carry missiles and launch them and the Mig-31s and PAK FAs and even A-100s can guide them to their targets while the Yaks land and refuel and rearm. If the Mig-31s are attacked they are still fully armed and in a good position to defend themselves.


    _________________
    “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

    etaepsilonk

    Posts : 715
    Points : 697
    Join date : 2013-11-19

    Re: Anti-Ship Missiles Thread

    Post  etaepsilonk on Fri Nov 22, 2013 2:58 pm

    To GarryB:

    I have to disagree about long range weapons.
    You see, every military asset needs to successfully fight, even if network-centric capabilities are lost. There's a high probability, that those datalinks you are talking about could be lost in a war by jamming, cyberattack, destruction of relay station, many things. That's why we won't see Yak-130s armed with R-37 ever. And also we won't see Gorshkovs armed with S-400 for the same reason. Even Oscar SSBNs weren't supposed to rely on Tu-142s and RORSATs only, and if needed, would be targetting those Granits by sonar, at reduced range, of course.

    Sponsored content

    Re: Anti-Ship Missiles Thread

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Tue Aug 22, 2017 3:43 am