Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    Strategic Cruise Missiles: Discussion

    Share

    dionis
    Corporal
    Corporal

    Posts : 64
    Points : 65
    Join date : 2012-12-13

    Re: Strategic Cruise Missiles: Discussion

    Post  dionis on Thu Apr 04, 2013 7:28 am

    So what's the latest on the Kh-555 and Kh-101 for range and warhead size?

    Both can also hit moving targets? Like a ship?

    Austin
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5663
    Points : 6069
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Age : 40
    Location : India

    Re: Strategic Cruise Missiles: Discussion

    Post  Austin on Tue Jul 09, 2013 9:01 am

    Cruise Missile Engine Manufacturing Localized

    NPO Saturn and state machine-building design bureau Raduga officially announced on Monday an agreement to manufacture cruise missile engines worth 4 billion rubles ($120 million).

    The engines are intended for various ground, sea and air-based missiles, including the Kh-55 cruise missile installed on Tu-95MS aircraft.

    "We plan to produce over 1,500 such engines per year," said Ilya Fyodorov, managing director of NPO Saturn.

    Previous engines for strategic nuclear missiles were mostly made by Ukrainian manufacturer Motor Sich.

    "Strategic air and sea-based missiles should not depend on other countries, even friendly states, for major parts supply. So we are now organizing local engine production," Fyodorov said.

    He also said that the price of the new engine will be competitive with the Ukrainian equivalent while having better performance results in terms of fuel consumption and weight, which means missiles equipped with it will be able to travel longer distances.

    The news followed a recent statement by Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu who said Russia was going to increase its stock of cruise missiles five-fold within the next three years.

    "A long-term contract like the one we have signed will make it possible for us to plan ahead and to adjust our production facilities accordingly," Fyodorov said.

    The contract is to be implemented over three years, from 2013 to 2015.

    Saturn's new manufacturing program has grown 250 percent compared to the previous three-year production plan. It's factory in Rybinsk in Yaroslavl region will now start to produce missile engines at the rate it did before the collapse of the Soviet Union.

    This is all a result of the government's strategy to substitute military imports with local production.

    While the defense industry saw payment delays in the past, suppliers are now more satisfied with funding flow. "We do not have any problems with the defense ministry today, all contracts have been signed," Fedorov said.

    Government officials have said that when local manufacturers lack the expertise to make a particular military component, they should endeavor to purchase the technology, not just the product itself. This is a key element of the Kremlin's stated goal of modernizing 70 percent of the military's hardware by 2020.

    In 2010, state company Rosoboronprom signed a contract with Israel Aerospace Industries to assemble Israel's drones Searcher MkII and Bird Eye 400 at a factory in Yekaterinburg.

    The locally assembled drones are now being called Forpost and Zastava. In 2011, the defense ministry signed a contract to supply 10 Forpost systems for a total of 9 billion rubles and 27 smaller Zastava systems.

    "If we do not understand today that a new revolution in the way war is made has already happened — that it is done with high-precision weapon systems — we will miss this revolution the same way we missed drone systems and a lot more before," Deputy Prime Minister Dmitry Rogozin said at a defense conference organized by Rossiiskaya Gazeta at the end of June. "We cannot make a second mistake here or we will fall behind forever," he added.


    Viktor
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5628
    Points : 6281
    Join date : 2009-08-25
    Age : 36
    Location : Croatia

    Re: Strategic Cruise Missiles: Discussion

    Post  Viktor on Tue Jul 09, 2013 10:16 am

    @Austin If I where you you would have this part of the text bold Very Happy 

    Basically what they are saying is that:

    - 1500 engines for cruise missiles will be produced per year (meaning 1500 cruise missiles per year)
    - 80 000E per engine
    - 2.5 times increased production capacity of NPO Saturn in the last three years
    - contract are signed and financing is without problems




    NPO Saturn and state machine-building design bureau Raduga officially announced on Monday an agreement to manufacture cruise missile engines worth 4 billion rubles ($120 million).
    "We plan to produce over 1,500 such engines per year," said Ilya Fyodorov, managing director of NPO Saturn
    "Strategic air and sea-based missiles should not depend on other countries, even friendly states, for major parts supply. So we are now organizing local engine production," Fyodorov said.
    Saturn's new manufacturing program has grown 250 percent compared to the previous three-year production plan. It's factory in Rybinsk in Yaroslavl region will now start to produce missile engines at the rate it did before the collapse of the Soviet Union.

    Austin
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5663
    Points : 6069
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Age : 40
    Location : India

    Re: Strategic Cruise Missiles: Discussion

    Post  Austin on Tue Jul 09, 2013 10:19 am

    1500 engine does not mean 1500 cruise missile many of them could be spares and few could be replacing faulty engines etc also these engines might also be developed for Club , Kh-59 and other turbofan curise missile for export.

    They are replacing Ukranian engine with Russian one

    Viktor
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5628
    Points : 6281
    Join date : 2009-08-25
    Age : 36
    Location : Croatia

    Re: Strategic Cruise Missiles: Discussion

    Post  Viktor on Tue Jul 09, 2013 10:36 am

    Austin wrote:1500 engine does not mean 1500 cruise missile many of them could be spares and few could be replacing faulty engines etc also these engines might also be developed for Club , Kh-59 and other turbofan curise missile for export.

    They are  replacing Ukranian engine with Russian one

    I think it means 1500 new cruise missiles. Why?

    - because we had info that Russian cruise missile stock will grow 5 times in the next three years and 30 times by 2020
    - because even If you replace every single old engine of the cruise missiles and leave some in stock (and make a spare parts depot) what are you going to do next
    year?
    - besides Russia will certainly not change working Ukrainian engines in its cruise missiles with another Russian engines just to squeeze out 100 more miles in range
    it will spend the missiles or phase out them as they expire and replace them with Kh-101 and others - new ones.

    TheArmenian
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 1505
    Points : 1668
    Join date : 2011-09-14

    Re: Strategic Cruise Missiles: Discussion

    Post  TheArmenian on Tue Jul 09, 2013 10:52 am

    Austin wrote:1500 engine does not mean 1500 cruise missile many of them could be spares and few could be replacing faulty engines etc also these engines might also be developed for Club , Kh-59 and other turbofan curise missile for export.

    Actually it does mean 1500 new cruise missiles.
    There is hardly any need for spare engines for cruise missiles as they don't get worn out....After all, they are used only once.

    As Viktor mentioned, Cruise missile procurement by Russia is going to increase exponentially. There may also be substantial export orders of CLUB series and other cruise missiles.

    TR1
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5840
    Points : 5892
    Join date : 2011-12-06

    Re: Strategic Cruise Missiles: Discussion

    Post  TR1 on Tue Jul 09, 2013 9:33 pm

    1500 cruise missiles per year?

    Guys...come on.
    Even if we include Kalibr, it won't come out to 1500 missiles per year, not even close.
    Hell the USSR never made that many.

    I think when he said 1500 engines, he meant not just cruise missiles in the traditional sense (Kh-101, Kalibr, etc) but tactical weapons as well. The number becomes a bit more believable then.

    Viktor
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5628
    Points : 6281
    Join date : 2009-08-25
    Age : 36
    Location : Croatia

    Re: Strategic Cruise Missiles: Discussion

    Post  Viktor on Wed Jul 10, 2013 12:58 am

    TR1 wrote:1500 cruise missiles per year?

    Guys...come on.
    Even if we include Kalibr, it won't come out to 1500 missiles per year, not even close.
    Hell the USSR never made that many.

    I think when he said 1500 engines, he meant not just cruise missiles in the traditional sense (Kh-101, Kalibr, etc) but tactical weapons as well. The number becomes a bit more believable then.

    Of course tactical weapons are included but tactical weapons have up to 500km range and 1500 of cruise missiles (no matter what type) is just great.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15445
    Points : 16152
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Strategic Cruise Missiles: Discussion

    Post  GarryB on Wed Jul 10, 2013 12:30 pm

    "Strategic air and sea-based missiles should not depend on other countries, even friendly states, for major parts supply. So we are now organizing local engine production," Fyodorov said.

    So Russian engines will now power all Russian cruise missiles... this is excellent and will likely result in performance increases... why would they wait till now to introduce Russian engines? Clearly they have engines that exceed foreign models ready for production and so they will introduce them now.

    Regarding 1,500 new missiles per year... of the missile types that can be fired by UKSK launchers on all new Russian naval vessels (surface and subsurface) the Klub and Kalibr missiles... ie three stage antiship with solid rocket launch, subsonic jet cruise and solid rocket terminal phase, plus the two stage solid rocket launch and subsonic all the way to target anti ship and land attack missiles will need these engines too.

    Corvettes with 8 launch tubes, Frigates with 16, Destroyers with 32 or more and cruisers with 80 launch tubes each they are going to need a lot of missiles to fill those tubes...

    Add to that the air launched versions of Klub and missiles like Kh-59/MK (AS-13/-18) and they will need lots of engines.

    In addition I rather suspect that a cruise missile engine would be rather useful for various UAV and UCAV designs... perhaps even as a pod mounted booster engine for takeoff that contains the engine, fuel, and a recovery parachute for large light aircraft/glider like UAVs.


    _________________
    “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

    Viktor
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5628
    Points : 6281
    Join date : 2009-08-25
    Age : 36
    Location : Croatia

    Re: Strategic Cruise Missiles: Discussion

    Post  Viktor on Fri Jun 20, 2014 1:10 pm

    6 Kh-101/2 (most likely cruise missiles fired from Tu-95MS)  thumbsup 

    Strategic bomber Tu-95MS cruise missile launches conducted on range on the Kamchatka Peninsula

    "One strategic bomber Tu-95MS bombers carried launches six new high-precision cruise missiles, air-launched using a multifunctional launcher ground targets on the Kura testing range aviation. Crew clearly worked on flight tasks, learning objectives at the site were amazed," -

    Mike E
    Colonel
    Colonel

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

    Re: Strategic Cruise Missiles: Discussion

    Post  Mike E on Tue Jun 24, 2014 11:30 pm

    It has been confirmed the 6 missiles fired were of the Kh-101/2 "class". 

    Bummer there is little information to be found on these missiles, maybe more info will leak out in the near future.

    George1
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 9422
    Points : 9914
    Join date : 2011-12-22
    Location : Greece

    Re: Strategic Cruise Missiles: Discussion

    Post  George1 on Thu Oct 02, 2014 8:46 am

    NPOMash completed tests of new cruise missile, continues to work on new strategic system

    NPO Mashinostroyeniya (NPOMash), as the Chelomey Design Bureau is known, reported that in September 2014 it completed tests of a new cruise missile - "In September we completed state acceptance trials of a new cruise missile and two missile systems, ground-based and sea-based, that include the missile."

    This seems to be something different from the R-500 Iskander and the entire 3M14 and 3M54 line of cruise missiles that are being developed by the Novator Design Bureau (although I probably should not rule out a joint project of some sort). I'm wondering if the NPOMash cruise missile is the culprit in the INF Treaty compliance controversy. UPDATE: No, apparently it is not - see the discussion in comments.

    Also, NPOMash confirmed that it is carrying out flight tests of a new system for the Strategic Rocket Forces. This is clearly the Project 4202.

    http://russianforces.org/blog/2014/09/npomash_completed_tests_of_new.shtml

    George1
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 9422
    Points : 9914
    Join date : 2011-12-22
    Location : Greece

    Re: Strategic Cruise Missiles: Discussion

    Post  George1 on Fri Nov 14, 2014 8:48 am

    Ukraine has suspended deliveries of engines for cruise missiles in the Russian Federation

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15445
    Points : 16152
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Strategic Cruise Missiles: Discussion

    Post  GarryB on Sat Nov 15, 2014 2:01 am

    AFAIK the extended range estimates for the Kh-101 and Kh-102 is because the Russians have developed a new more powerful but also more fuel efficient engine for cruise missiles to replace those made in the Ukraine for older Soviet 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

    max steel
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 2980
    Points : 3014
    Join date : 2015-02-12
    Location : South Pole

    Re: Strategic Cruise Missiles: Discussion

    Post  max steel on Wed Jun 17, 2015 11:05 pm

    NPOMash says it is not part of the Sarmat project.

    George1
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 9422
    Points : 9914
    Join date : 2011-12-22
    Location : Greece

    Re: Strategic Cruise Missiles: Discussion

    Post  George1 on Tue Jun 23, 2015 11:17 pm

    Cruise missiles and INF - What about 9M729?

    I have a piece in the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists where I try to untangle the controversy around alleged Russia's non-compliance with the INF Treaty. The short version of it is that I believe that the culprit missile is an SLCM that was tested from a "wrong" kind of launcher. It's still a violation, of course, which would require some creative thinking to reverse. Read the column for details.

    Hard evidence is difficult to come by these days (unfortunately, a ban on posting selfies taken on the test site seems to be enforced quite well), so all we have is bits and pieces that may or may not fit together. When the Bulletin column was published, some of my colleagues were skeptical about the SLCM claim. The question I got was, What about that 9M729 missile that looks like the Iskander's 9M728/R-500 follow-on?

    Well, what about it? Very much all we know about 9M729 comes from a brief mention in a report of GosNIIP, a design bureau that builds guidance for cruise missiles (the site has been taken down for redesign). According to the report, Russia completed state acceptance trials of the "ground-based system 9M728, 9M729 and its modernized version." We know that 9M728 is a cruise missile developed as part of the Iskander project (see "Kamnev" on this page; as always, thanks to Alexander for the links). It appears that it is the missile usually referred to as R-500, which has been now deployed with Iskander-M systems.

    It's very reasonable to suggest that 9M729 is a follow-on to 9M728, also to be deployed as part of the ground-based Iskander-M. If so, it appear to be a very good candidate for the role of the INF non-compliance culprit. The only thing I would note here that since it was tested together with 9M728, it's unlikely to be a follow-on. A long-range version with a light (presumably nuclear) payload would be one possibility. But not the only one.

    The 9M729 theory looks fairly compelling, but it doesn't seem to fit the various bits and pieces of information about the non-compliance allegation. First, U.S. officials have repeatedly said that the missile in question is not Iskander. There are many ways to interpret these statements, but I would think that if we were talking about a nuclear-capable Iskander missile the language would have been somewhat different.

    Then, as I understand, Russia has been working on long-range cruise missiles, but these seem to be larger (8 meters) missiles. This does not necessarily mean that there is no project that produced a short 6-meter missile to be launched from Iskander, but it's just another piece that doesn't quite fit.

    Also, I have it on good authority that the missile in question has its own launcher (apparently treaty-compliant) that is different from the (presumably non-fixed) launcher that triggered the non-compliance allegation. Again, this does not prove anything, but it's one more detail to consider.

    Finally, I would just note that the difference between SLCMs and GLCMs is very much artificial. There is no reason a SLCM cannot be easily deployed on land. There are few doubts that Russia is working on long-range SLCMs, which could then be deployed on ground-based launchers, if necessary. In fact, they don't have to be - as far as Europe is concerned, Russia could cover it with SLCMs. So, while I cannot completely rule out a scenario in which Russia decided to openly disregard the INF Treaty, I still strongly believe that the alternative - SLCM tests that turned out to be non-compliant - is much more plausible.

    Does anyone have details about this new missile??


    _________________
    "There's no smoke without fire.", Georgy Zhukov


    max steel
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 2980
    Points : 3014
    Join date : 2015-02-12
    Location : South Pole

    Re: Strategic Cruise Missiles: Discussion

    Post  max steel on Tue Jun 23, 2015 11:37 pm

    I like russianforces blog(contributors)  , i wish if they could also join this forum . Looks like a new modified cruise missile to me .

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15445
    Points : 16152
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Strategic Cruise Missiles: Discussion

    Post  GarryB on Wed Jun 24, 2015 6:40 am

    I suspect they were testing a naval missile from a land launcher, which should not be a violation of the INF treaty as long as it was intended to be a naval missile... ie Ship or Sub Launched Cruise Missile... SLCM.

    One aspect no one seems to have considered is that current air launched cruise missiles have a flight range of 5,000km, which means if the naval and land based cruise missiles can attain this range or even slightly more they would be excluded from the INF agreement as they exceed the range boundaries.

    the INF agreement applies to missiles with a flight range of between 500 and 5,000km, so a new land attack cruise missile with a flight range of 5,000km or more would not be covered by the INF treaty.

    Ironically several US UCAVs however would be bound by the INF treaty...


    _________________
    “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

    Rmf
    Master Sergeant
    Master Sergeant

    Posts : 375
    Points : 370
    Join date : 2013-05-30

    Re: Strategic Cruise Missiles: Discussion

    Post  Rmf on Wed Jun 24, 2015 7:23 pm

    this is pure b.s. from americans to prop up BMD shields in romania. they have to come up with concrete EVIDENCE  that Russia has violated but they have not so far. ZERO.
    this missiles are probably for ships actually and submarines.

    max steel
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 2980
    Points : 3014
    Join date : 2015-02-12
    Location : South Pole

    Re: Strategic Cruise Missiles: Discussion

    Post  max steel on Wed Jun 24, 2015 9:24 pm

    They have propped up BMD shields in Romanian waters already .

    http://www.russiadefence.net/t672p15-romania-to-host-us-missile-interceptors (n.30)

    George1
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 9422
    Points : 9914
    Join date : 2011-12-22
    Location : Greece

    Re: Strategic Cruise Missiles: Discussion

    Post  George1 on Mon Jul 06, 2015 2:00 pm

    Prospective view of the Russian cruise missile X-101

    1. Yes, we believe that the rocket engine is similar to the rocket X-55 engine, it is pulled out of the fuselage after the launch, along with the opening of the wings.

    2. EPR? The engine is likely to most corners of the missile shield frame, which is made canonically - is in the form of reduced ESR.

    3. The rocket was to enter the Air Force in 2013, but for that there is no evidence. Of course, advances in privacy - our all, but dozens of rockets - not a needle and even a foe surely be feared, but ... silence.

    4. curious moment - one time there was a hypothesis about using a rocket X-101 propeller-fan motor. Perhaps such a project existed on paper, but in general it is even doubtful.

    5. Conversion of the Kh-101 cruise missile universal for different launch platforms - aircraft, submarines, ships, etc. until just it seems extremely doubtful, but the media write about the pr.885 perspective. However, their right.

    As for the new design - it's not perfect and has seen some of the shortcomings of interpretation. Let's wait for the critics, the facts, and I'll update.

    ps in the media usually mention the Su-34 - I do not believe, but the facts do not ... modernized Tu-22M also is not lit the rocket. As the Tu-160.

    http://bmpd.livejournal.com/1371195.html


    _________________
    "There's no smoke without fire.", Georgy Zhukov


    max steel
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 2980
    Points : 3014
    Join date : 2015-02-12
    Location : South Pole

    Re: Strategic Cruise Missiles: Discussion

    Post  max steel on Thu Oct 29, 2015 1:38 am

    How do Russia tracks any incoming low flying cruise missile ?

    sepheronx
    Colonel
    Colonel

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

    How do Russia tracks any incoming low flying cruise missile ?

    Post  sepheronx on Thu Oct 29, 2015 2:00 am

    max steel wrote:How do Russia tracks any incoming  low flying cruise missile ?

    Radar.

    Is this a serious question?

    Voronez radar can now detect cruise missiles, not just ballistic. That is an example.

    Militarov
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 4798
    Points : 4845
    Join date : 2015-09-02
    Location : Serbia

    Re: Strategic Cruise Missiles: Discussion

    Post  Militarov on Mon Nov 02, 2015 8:25 pm

    "There have been two Russian cruise missiles in the news lately.  One is a ground-launched cruise missile that apparently violates the 1987 Intermediate Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, the other is a sea-launched cruise missile that Russia recently fired against targets in Syria. Both of these cruise missiles are made by the same firm, Novator.  I have a sneaking suspicion that they are closely related.  In fact, I bet they look exactly alike.  Here is my best effort at a hypothesis.  It is speculation, since the United States is not releasing any information about the missile that violates the INF treaty.  But I think we can make an educated guess or two.

    Bill Gertz (I know!) claimed that Russia had, on September 2, conducted another test of the ground-launched cruise missile that the United States claims violatesthe 1987 INF Treaty.  Gertz indicated that the US designation is the “SSC-X-8.” I believe this missile is designated 9M729.  There was a Russian announcement by GosNIIP, the design bureau that builds guidance for cruise missiles, that Russia completed state acceptance trials of the “ground-based system 9M728, 9M729 and its modernized version.” We know the 9M728 is the Iskander cruise missile.  (It is also called the R500 — the name of the missile is different from its GRAU number.) The way Russian GRAU numbers work is formulaic — the 9M means it is an Army missile.  That means the 9M729 is also for Iskander or a new launcher that we have yet to see.  Let’s presume that the 9M728 is a reduced-range version of the 9M729 — an INF-compliant version of its bigger brother.  That’s not hard to believe — Russian officials have long said they could extend the range of the cruise missile for Iskander  beyond 500 km with little difficulty; their confidence was probably rooted in some evidence.



    Now, this is where it gets tricky.  We know the Russians make an export version of the Kalibr family missiles, which they call  Klub.  So, Klub missiles are reduced range versions of the Kalibr systems that can be exported without violating the MTCR. (You may recall they are marketed with the awesome video about how great it is to hide cruise missiles in shipping containers.)  So, for example, the 3M14E (e is for export) Klub is a reduced range (~300 km) version of the 3M14 Kalibr that Russia used to strike Syria (2,000 km). It is hard to know how Russia reduced the range, but one option is just to reduce the size of the fuel tank. It is possible that the Kalibr and Klub versions are externally identical, although we don’t know that for certain.

    If the 9M728/R500 deployed with Iskander (~500 km range) is a reduced range version of the 9M729 (~2000 km), and if the 3M14E is a reduced range version of the 3M14, what does it say that the reduced range versions appear to be identical?  That would strongly imply, to me anyway, that the 9M729 and the 3M14 are probably externally identical. We are looking at a single family of missiles. One benefit of concluding the the 3m14 and the 9M279 are likely similar is that  we can infer something about the range of one based on the other.  The United States has not offered a public assessment of the GLCM range, but the Russians have described the range of the 3m14 (SS-N-30A) as 2000-2500 km.  That would imply a similar range for the 9M729 (SSC-X-Cool, depending on the type of warhead."


    I guess this goes under Ground force thread Smile

    Full article: http://lewis.armscontrolwonk.com/archive/7816/russian-cruise-missiles-revisited

    "Well, what about it? Very much all we know about 9M729 comes from a brief mention in a report of GosNIIP, a design bureau that builds guidance for cruise missiles (the site has been taken down for redesign). According to the report, Russia completed state acceptance trials of the "ground-based system 9M728, 9M729 and its modernized version." We know that 9M728 is a cruise missile developed as part of the Iskander project (see "Kamnev" on this page; as always, thanks to Alexander for the links). It appears that it is the missile usually referred to as R-500, which has been now deployed with Iskander-M systems.

    It's very reasonable to suggest that 9M729 is a follow-on to 9M728, also to be deployed as part of the ground-based Iskander-M. If so, it appear to be a very good candidate for the role of the INF non-compliance culprit. The only thing I would note here that since it was tested together with 9M728, it's unlikely to be a follow-on. A long-range version with a light (presumably nuclear) payload would be one possibility. But not the only one."


    Source: http://russianforces.org/blog/2015/06/cruise_missiles_and_inf_-_what.shtml






    max steel
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 2980
    Points : 3014
    Join date : 2015-02-12
    Location : South Pole

    Re: Strategic Cruise Missiles: Discussion

    Post  max steel on Mon Nov 02, 2015 8:58 pm

    Militarov wrote:"There have been two Russian cruise missiles in the news lately.  One is a ground-launched cruise missile that apparently violates the 1987 Intermediate Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, the other is a sea-launched cruise missile that Russia recently fired against targets in Syria. Both of these cruise missiles are made by the same firm, Novator.  I have a sneaking suspicion that they are closely related.  In fact, I bet they look exactly alike.  Here is my best effort at a hypothesis.  It is speculation, since the United States is not releasing any information about the missile that violates the INF treaty.  But I think we can make an educated guess or two.

    Bill Gertz (I know!) claimed that Russia had, on September 2, conducted another test of the ground-launched cruise missile that the United States claims violatesthe 1987 INF Treaty.  Gertz indicated that the US designation is the “SSC-X-8.” I believe this missile is designated 9M729.  There was a Russian announcement by GosNIIP, the design bureau that builds guidance for cruise missiles, that Russia completed state acceptance trials of the “ground-based system 9M728, 9M729 and its modernized version.” We know the 9M728 is the Iskander cruise missile.  (It is also called the R500 — the name of the missile is different from its GRAU number.) The way Russian GRAU numbers work is formulaic — the 9M means it is an Army missile.  That means the 9M729 is also for Iskander or a new launcher that we have yet to see.  Let’s presume that the 9M728 is a reduced-range version of the 9M729 — an INF-compliant version of its bigger brother.  That’s not hard to believe — Russian officials have long said they could extend the range of the cruise missile for Iskander  beyond 500 km with little difficulty; their confidence was probably rooted in some evidence.



    Now, this is where it gets tricky.  We know the Russians make an export version of the Kalibr family missiles, which they call  Klub.  So, Klub missiles are reduced range versions of the Kalibr systems that can be exported without violating the MTCR. (You may recall they are marketed with the awesome video about how great it is to hide cruise missiles in shipping containers.)  So, for example, the 3M14E (e is for export) Klub is a reduced range (~300 km) version of the 3M14 Kalibr that Russia used to strike Syria (2,000 km). It is hard to know how Russia reduced the range, but one option is just to reduce the size of the fuel tank. It is possible that the Kalibr and Klub versions are externally identical, although we don’t know that for certain.

    If the 9M728/R500 deployed with Iskander (~500 km range) is a reduced range version of the 9M729 (~2000 km), and if the 3M14E is a reduced range version of the 3M14, what does it say that the reduced range versions appear to be identical?  That would strongly imply, to me anyway, that the 9M729 and the 3M14 are probably externally identical. We are looking at a single family of missiles. One benefit of concluding the the 3m14 and the 9M279 are likely similar is that  we can infer something about the range of one based on the other.  The United States has not offered a public assessment of the GLCM range, but the Russians have described the range of the 3m14 (SS-N-30A) as 2000-2500 km.  That would imply a similar range for the 9M729 (SSC-X-Cool, depending on the type of warhead."


    I guess this goes under Ground force thread Smile

    Full article: http://lewis.armscontrolwonk.com/archive/7816/russian-cruise-missiles-revisited

    "Well, what about it? Very much all we know about 9M729 comes from a brief mention in a report of GosNIIP, a design bureau that builds guidance for cruise missiles (the site has been taken down for redesign). According to the report, Russia completed state acceptance trials of the "ground-based system 9M728, 9M729 and its modernized version." We know that 9M728 is a cruise missile developed as part of the Iskander project (see "Kamnev" on this page; as always, thanks to Alexander for the links). It appears that it is the missile usually referred to as R-500, which has been now deployed with Iskander-M systems.

    It's very reasonable to suggest that 9M729 is a follow-on to 9M728, also to be deployed as part of the ground-based Iskander-M. If so, it appear to be a very good candidate for the role of the INF non-compliance culprit. The only thing I would note here that since it was tested together with 9M728, it's unlikely to be a follow-on. A long-range version with a light (presumably nuclear) payload would be one possibility. But not the only one."


    Source: http://russianforces.org/blog/2015/06/cruise_missiles_and_inf_-_what.shtml








    They didn't violate any treaty moreover US is violating with placement of SM missile series in both Poland and Romania.

    Sponsored content

    Re: Strategic Cruise Missiles: Discussion

    Post  Sponsored content Today at 10:38 am


      Current date/time is Sat Dec 03, 2016 10:38 am