Russia Defence Forum

Would you like to react to this message? Create an account in a few clicks or log in to continue.

Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    Anti-ship Ballistic Missiles (ASBM)

    Big_Gazza
    Big_Gazza

    Posts : 2083
    Points : 2085
    Join date : 2014-08-25
    Location : Melbourne, Australia

    Anti-ship Ballistic Missiles (ASBM) - Page 3 Empty Re: Anti-ship Ballistic Missiles (ASBM)

    Post  Big_Gazza on Sun Oct 29, 2017 10:17 am

    flamming_python wrote:Kinetic at Mach 7 will be plenty destructive enough; you don't really need an HE or cluster warhead at such speeds. Not for nothing are they planning to equip the Sarmat ICBM with Yu-74 hypersonic glider vehicles that release pure-kinetic warheads to destroy targets such as hardened missile silos.. where are their nuclear or explosive payloads?

    Kinetic attack against small concentrated targets like a silo (where any damage to the missile will likely render it inoperable) isn't nearly as effective against something like a CVN. Sure you can punch a hole through it and damage the systems you hit and cause some fires, but unless you hit something critical like a reactor or ordnance store, damage control could quite conceivably save the vessel. A nice 800kg blast/frag warhead detonating in the ships guts will be far more destructive and likely to cause the sort of fires and secondary damage that have the potential to quickly cripple the ships operations.

    I think its a little too early to state that 4202/Yu-24/PMGB-1 (Putins Magic Gold Bullet Mk 1) won't have a HE warhead. We simply know too little about it.

    Do you have a source for stating that Iskander slows to supersonic speeds for terminal phase? Sounds counter-intuitive for a missile touted to defeat ABMs systems to slow down at the target... Wiki claims the vertical attack mode has a final attack speed of 700-800m/s but... pfftt... its wiki so who knows?

    Agree with many of your comments on Zircon, but I like the option of attacking a HATOstani CVN simultaneously with Islanders and AShMs, launch-sequenced to arrive together. Scenarios requiring the division of missile defence capabilities against simultaneous ballistic, hypersonic and sea-skimming supersonic threats has got to mess with HATOstani minds and give these bastards a few sleepless nights.
    GunshipDemocracy
    GunshipDemocracy

    Posts : 4984
    Points : 5012
    Join date : 2015-05-17
    Location : fishin on Stalin´s Strait between Mexico and Canada

    Anti-ship Ballistic Missiles (ASBM) - Page 3 Empty Re: Anti-ship Ballistic Missiles (ASBM)

    Post  GunshipDemocracy on Sun Oct 29, 2017 12:12 pm

    Big_Gazza wrote:
    flamming_python wrote:Kinetic at Mach 7 will be plenty destructive enough; you don't really need an HE or cluster warhead at such speeds. Not for nothing are they planning to equip the Sarmat ICBM with Yu-74 hypersonic glider vehicles that release pure-kinetic warheads to destroy targets such as hardened missile silos.. where are their nuclear or explosive payloads?

    Kinetic attack against small concentrated targets like a silo (where any damage to the missile will likely render it inoperable) isn't nearly as effective against something like a CVN.  Sure you can punch a hole through it and damage the systems you hit and cause some fires, but unless you hit something critical like a reactor or ordnance store, damage control could quite conceivably save the vessel.  A nice 800kg blast/frag warhead detonating in the ships guts will be far more destructive and likely to cause the sort of fires and secondary damage that have the potential to quickly cripple the ships operations.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TNT_equivalent

    kilogram of TNT kg 4.184×106 J or 4.184 megajoules 1.163 kWh 46.55 ng

    object mass 1kg flying 4km/s = 1/2*mv2 = 8 MJ
    mass 1kg flying 3 km/s (~ 9Ma on sea level)    =  4,5MJ

    So actually Zircon is close to speed where having chemical explosive looses it sense ... density of  chemical energy is  less than kinetic object flying above 3km/s if I am not mistaken here.

    The only question is to pass this entity  to hit object in maximum destructive way.  If You71 flies with 7km/s then per kg tou have ~ 25MJ per kg... 6 times more is it was a chemical warhead.
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 25928
    Points : 26474
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Anti-ship Ballistic Missiles (ASBM) - Page 3 Empty Re: Anti-ship Ballistic Missiles (ASBM)

    Post  GarryB on Sun Oct 29, 2017 8:24 pm

    Iskander uses solid rocket fuel that burns to launch it and burns for some time during flight but is generally burned out by the time it gets to the target area.

    The Zircon uses a jet engine... an engine that will run at supersonic speed and provide thrust all the way to the target area.

    That means that the fuel the Zircon carries does not need to include oxygen... it scoops that up as it moves along.

    Generally by weight solid rocket fuel is two thirds oxygen and one third fuel, so you can triple the fuel supply with a scramjet engine and you can throttle the engine which makes it even more useful.

    If you think for a second if you have x amount of thrust from a rocket engine then that will accelerate a specific shaped object to a particular speed at any given height. At lower altitude lower speeds are achieved because drag is higher so the extra energy of the rocket motor is wasted if the trajectory is low.

    Equally with wings and fuel burn rate control you can sensibly use thrust to maximise both speed and flight range... max throttle all the way means less efficiency... a high throttle setting for the initial climb and then reduced throttle for long range cruise at high altitude maximises range, then as you approach the target area you can throttle up and with much of the fuel burned the missile will be much lighter and will accelerate faster in the thinner colder air of high altitude to higher speeds for the terminal attack on the target.

    With normal jet engines or ramjet engines a rocket offers more acceleration and higher velocity, but scramjet opens up the higher speeds but offers better fuel management in terms of throttle control as well as altitude options.

    You could simulate the advantages of the supersonic calibr by subsonic long range efficient cruise portion of the flight and then accelerate to high supersonic at low altitudes for more effective terminal attack... or efficient high altitude supersonic cruise with hypersonic terminal portion to penetrate enemy defences.

    The fact that they have adapted existing missiles like Onyx and Granit to land attack suggests all new missiles will combine land attack and anti ship capacities.
    flamming_python
    flamming_python

    Posts : 3977
    Points : 4063
    Join date : 2012-01-31

    Anti-ship Ballistic Missiles (ASBM) - Page 3 Empty Re: Anti-ship Ballistic Missiles (ASBM)

    Post  flamming_python on Mon Oct 30, 2017 10:07 am

    Isos wrote:Iskander has a 800 kg warehead. Imagine you want to destroy an airfield or damage it seriously. You will need like tens of Kalibrs to do so like US did to Syrian airbase. With an Iskander you can put a warehead with submunitions and touch all the area to destroy any fighter that is not covered and even if it is detected it can't be destroyed by SAM (very difficult, not impossible).

    Zircon has yet to prove all these capacities. You have 0 proof it has a range of a true land Attack cruise missile (1000+ km) or it has lot of flight profiles.

    I didn't say to use Iskander for antiship missions but for land Attack on big target behind enemy lines. But to answer to you remark about chinese BM, it is a dangerous weapon because it attacks from the top. Radars have dead zones, and the chinese antiship ballistical missile exloits these dead zones (like normal antiship flying low to be under the coverage of radar) to go through defences.

    You should compare what Houti's BM did to saoudis and what can do a single cruise missile. The difference is huge in terms of results.

    Iskanders are not Scud to miss targets by 1km or more. They are as precise as kalibr but fly just 5 to 10 minutes befire reaching the target with 4 times bigger warehead than kalibr.

    Sure, the Iskander is rather more powerful. But building a ship around it cannot be justified.
    Does Russia need to carry out strikes on Papua New Guinea now?

    As for it's range; it's officially stated at around 500km. Unofficially who knows.
    The Zirkon is also given a range figure of around the same ballpark. But as for it's true range again it's classified.

    The Zirkon is a cruise missile, which means it will be able to adopt different flight profiles a lot easier than a quasi-ballistic missile such as the Iskander can. Although given that it's Unique Selling Point is speed the only real profile that makes sense is a diving attack; at the very least during the 2nd phase of its flight (it might sea-skim earlier on). If you want a missile that sea-skims all the way you might as well use a cheaper Kalibr.
    With a diving attack it will also attack the target top-down, little different to the Chinese missile.

    I don't know if it will have a land-attack mode. It might not need it. But I feel that this is the sort of thing whereby if the Russian MoD decides that it needs such a capability from the Zirkon for use against land-based infrastructre, then it can be added in w/o too much trouble.

    Furthermore Russia itself is big. If there are targets to take out in Europe, Iskanders can be deployed to Kaliningrad (as they already are), Belarus or Transdniestr.
    If targets in the Middle East - they can be deployed to Armenia or Tajikistan (in fact there already is a regiment in Armenia).
    If targets in the Asia-Pacific region; they can be deployed to Primorye or Sakhalin.
    They can even reach Alaska, if deployed to Chukotka.

    Iskanders can't reach South Asia, South America, mainland US, Australasia or Africa from Russian territory. But if, for some reason there is an urgent need to reach further - then Russia can always leave the INF treaty and introduce a new system with a longer range.

    Big_Gazza wrote:Do you have a source for stating that Iskander slows to supersonic speeds for terminal phase?   Sounds counter-intuitive for a missile touted to defeat ABMs systems to slow down at the target...   Wiki claims the vertical attack mode has a final attack speed of 700-800m/s but... pfftt...  its wiki so who knows?

    Wiki claims it and cites sources. I might have read it somewhere else too, don't remember.

    The missile has to slow down to carry out anti-ABM manuevers. The missile can't manuever when its travelling at hypersonic speeds.
    It can't home in on anything either when travelling so fast; it would have to be a pre-programmed stationary target given by GLONASS co-ordinates.

    Although I'm sure that there is also a mode whereby it won't slow down at all; if there are only anti-air defences to worry about, and that's what command figures will give it the best chance of striking the target.[/quote]
    miketheterrible
    miketheterrible

    Posts : 4728
    Points : 4706
    Join date : 2016-11-07

    Anti-ship Ballistic Missiles (ASBM) - Page 3 Empty Re: Anti-ship Ballistic Missiles (ASBM)

    Post  miketheterrible on Tue Oct 31, 2017 2:40 am

    A ship that could carry Shtil-1 or Redut with also being able to have some kind of VLS system in the rear to launch Iskanders at land targets would be amazing.
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 25928
    Points : 26474
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Anti-ship Ballistic Missiles (ASBM) - Page 3 Empty Re: Anti-ship Ballistic Missiles (ASBM)

    Post  GarryB on Tue Oct 31, 2017 2:50 pm

    Iskander is a truck based system... there is no reason you could not park it on the deck of a ship and launch it from there.

    A containerised version designed to be operated from ships could easily be adapted from the existing system.

    Most importantly the INF treaty is only for land based systems and does not include air or sea based systems so the INF treaty would not apply.

    They could develop an Iskander-N for the navy that is perhaps even a two or three stage missile with a range of thousands of kms.

    In terms of manouvering the problem so far has been that it is a solid fuelled rocket so the powered flight period is short and it spends most of its time coasting.

    With scramjet technology perfected there is no reason why a final scramjet powered penetrator could not be developed that is accelerated to high speed and then coasts at high speed high altitude in the low drag upper atmosphere and then lights up a scramjet motor and powers down towards the target.

    How effective it is at evading ABM systems would be increased by high speed, so the faster it goes the safer it will be and huge flight turns are not needed.... a missile flying at 2km per second turns 5 degrees will shift the projected impact point by an enormous distance and it can turn 5 degrees very quickly and easily... the intercepting missile needs to determine the change in trajectory and then manouver to fly to the new interception point using energy of its own.... five or six changes of trajectory will cause huge manouver problems for the interceptors and will likely mean the chances of an effective interception become zero because interception locations can be rapidly calculated but changing interceptor flight paths to effect an intercept take time and energy.... the missile just sweeping back 10 degrees to head 5 degrees in the other direction wont increase drag that much but will shift the impact point several kilometres in a few seconds... does the interceptor have enough time to turn to get to the new interception point in time to be there when the target comes through....

    Remember when the target is moving at 2km per second a half second out and you miss by a kilometre or more.

    Scramjet technology allows speeds previously only available to solid fuelled rockets, but with energy management and throttle control inside the atmosphere....
    KomissarBojanchev
    KomissarBojanchev

    Posts : 1440
    Points : 1601
    Join date : 2012-08-05
    Age : 22
    Location : Varna, Bulgaria

    Anti-ship Ballistic Missiles (ASBM) - Page 3 Empty What is the Russian equivalent of the DF-21?

    Post  KomissarBojanchev on Mon Feb 05, 2018 5:26 pm

    What is the Russian equivalent of the DF-21? TR1 once told me that its the Sineva SLBM, but can it actually target ships with conventional warheads? Also what about a ground based equivalent?
    George1
    George1

    Posts : 14941
    Points : 15440
    Join date : 2011-12-23
    Location : Greece

    Anti-ship Ballistic Missiles (ASBM) - Page 3 Empty Re: Anti-ship Ballistic Missiles (ASBM)

    Post  George1 on Mon Feb 05, 2018 5:54 pm

    KomissarBojanchev wrote:What is the Russian equivalent of the DF-21? TR1 once told me that its the Sineva SLBM, but can it actually target ships with conventional warheads? Also what about a ground based equivalent?

    except china only Iran i think has developed anti-ship ballistic missile
    KomissarBojanchev
    KomissarBojanchev

    Posts : 1440
    Points : 1601
    Join date : 2012-08-05
    Age : 22
    Location : Varna, Bulgaria

    Anti-ship Ballistic Missiles (ASBM) - Page 3 Empty Re: Anti-ship Ballistic Missiles (ASBM)

    Post  KomissarBojanchev on Mon Feb 05, 2018 7:24 pm

    George1 wrote:
    KomissarBojanchev wrote:What is the Russian equivalent of the DF-21? TR1 once told me that its the Sineva SLBM, but can it actually target ships with conventional warheads? Also what about a ground based equivalent?

    except china only Iran i think has developed anti-ship ballistic missile

    Its a shame that Russia hasn't developed such a thing yet. With their massive experience experience in missile technology, they could've created a DF-21 equivalent in the 1980s, which would effectively destroy US carrier superiority in the middle of the atlantic. Could the object 4202 on the sarmat be made into a carrier killer then?
    George1
    George1

    Posts : 14941
    Points : 15440
    Join date : 2011-12-23
    Location : Greece

    Anti-ship Ballistic Missiles (ASBM) - Page 3 Empty Re: Anti-ship Ballistic Missiles (ASBM)

    Post  George1 on Mon Feb 05, 2018 7:29 pm

    The-thing-next-door
    The-thing-next-door

    Posts : 814
    Points : 860
    Join date : 2017-09-19
    Location : Uranus

    Anti-ship Ballistic Missiles (ASBM) - Page 3 Empty Re: Anti-ship Ballistic Missiles (ASBM)

    Post  The-thing-next-door on Mon Feb 05, 2018 8:26 pm

    KomissarBojanchev wrote:
    George1 wrote:
    KomissarBojanchev wrote:What is the Russian equivalent of the DF-21? TR1 once told me that its the Sineva SLBM, but can it actually target ships with conventional warheads? Also what about a ground based equivalent?

    except china only Iran i think has developed anti-ship ballistic missile

    Its a shame that Russia hasn't developed such a thing yet. With their massive experience experience in missile technology, they could've created a DF-21 equivalent in the 1980s, which would effectively destroy US carrier superiority in the middle of the atlantic. Could the object 4202 on the sarmat be made into a carrier killer then?

    I don't see why not.

    The question is how acurate is it.
    avatar
    YG_AJ

    Posts : 8
    Points : 8
    Join date : 2017-11-03

    Anti-ship Ballistic Missiles (ASBM) - Page 3 Empty Re: Anti-ship Ballistic Missiles (ASBM)

    Post  YG_AJ on Tue Feb 06, 2018 2:14 am

    You forget that Russia is still in the INF-treaty and isn‘t allowed to have ground based ballistic missles between 500km and 5500km in service.

    Sent from Topic'it App
    Stealthflanker
    Stealthflanker

    Posts : 917
    Points : 997
    Join date : 2009-08-04
    Age : 32
    Location : Indonesia

    Anti-ship Ballistic Missiles (ASBM) - Page 3 Empty Re: Anti-ship Ballistic Missiles (ASBM)

    Post  Stealthflanker on Tue Aug 07, 2018 9:07 pm

    KomissarBojanchev wrote:What is the Russian equivalent of the DF-21? TR1 once told me that its the Sineva SLBM, but can it actually target ships with conventional warheads? Also what about a ground based equivalent?

    Should be the the variant R-27 "Zyb". 2400 km range. but doesnt seem to be fielded.
    George1
    George1

    Posts : 14941
    Points : 15440
    Join date : 2011-12-23
    Location : Greece

    Anti-ship Ballistic Missiles (ASBM) - Page 3 Empty Re: Anti-ship Ballistic Missiles (ASBM)

    Post  George1 on Fri Aug 10, 2018 6:59 am

    Anti-Ship Iskander-M?
    Posted on August 9, 2018 | 2 Comments

    Russia may view the Iskander-M as an effective weapon against high-value ships and aircraft carriers in particular. There is, however, no openly available information indicating the Russians have actually tested it as an anti-ship ballistic missile.

    In late July and early August, the Russian Army conducted two exercises for the first time featuring notional launches of the land-based mobile 9K720 Iskander-M (SS-26 ‘Stone’) short-range ballistic missile (SRBM) against ships in the Black Sea. Reports on the drills appeared on Mil.ru and government-controlled newspaper Rossiyskaya gazeta.

    The 1st Missile Brigade of the Krasnodar-based 49th Combined Arms Army departed garrison in late July for combat readiness drills under the personal control of Southern Military District commander Colonel General Aleksandr Dvornikov. The brigade performed the Iskander-M launch drills at some point before they were reported on July 27 and August 2 respectively.

    The MOD press-releases stated that the Russian forces “delivered an electronic missile strike on notional enemy ships and shore facilities” and conducted “electronic launches on notional enemy targets detected in the Black Sea and ashore.”

    An “electronic” launch likely means a field combat simulation where the missile unit prepares and performs all procedures for a real-world launch without firing a live missile.

    Exactly which ships the Russians used as notional targets for the Iskander-M is unknown. However, the annual NATO Sea Breeze exercise took place in Black Sea waters during mid-July. Forces from 13 alliance members as well as Georgia, Moldova, Sweden, and Ukraine participated in the multinational training. Tensions between Russia and Ukraine remain high since Moscow seized Crimea and sent forces to fight in eastern Ukraine in 2014.

    The Iskander-M has the capability to attack moving targets including ships. Its 9M723 missile flies a low, semi-ballistic trajectory at Mach 6-7 with possible maneuvering in the terminal flight stage. It has inertial navigation as well as active radar or electro-optical terminal guidance. Active radar would be employed against ships at sea. However, a successful SRBM strike on a moving naval target would likely also depend on real-time inputs and updates from space-based surveillance and intelligence systems.

    The deployment of the Iskander-M as a possible anti-ship system comes just months after Russian President Vladimir Putin unveiled the Kh-47M2 Kinzhal air-launched ballistic missile. The Kinzhal uses a modified Iskander-M missile and has also been advertised as an anti-ship weapon and “carrier killer.”

    Compared to the relatively long-range Kinzhal, the 500-km declared range of the Iskander-M makes it less threatening to foreign aircraft carriers and battle groups which could remain outside its reach. However, combined with existing sea- and land-based anti-ship cruise missile systems, Iskander-M’s hypersonic speed would be a major contribution to Russia’s robust anti-access/area denial strategy on the approaches to its four fleet areas.

    https://russiandefpolicy.blog/2018/08/09/anti-ship-iskander-m/
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 25928
    Points : 26474
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Anti-ship Ballistic Missiles (ASBM) - Page 3 Empty Re: Anti-ship Ballistic Missiles (ASBM)

    Post  GarryB on Fri Aug 10, 2018 2:57 pm

    Indeed, the Kinzhal offers better performance all round simply because being air launched its range and flight speed can be easily enhanced and it is not bound by the INF treaty.

    Of course a naval version would also be rather potent as there would be no range limitations so it could be enlarged and improved with a bigger solid rocket motor and perhaps even a sustainer scramjet motor to further improve performance.
    magnumcromagnon
    magnumcromagnon

    Posts : 6112
    Points : 6263
    Join date : 2013-12-05
    Location : Pindos ave., Pindosville, Pindosylvania, Pindostan

    Anti-ship Ballistic Missiles (ASBM) - Page 3 Empty Re: Anti-ship Ballistic Missiles (ASBM)

    Post  magnumcromagnon on Sat Aug 24, 2019 8:40 am

    Mindstorm wrote:
    Mindstorm , any idea , which weapon is this that Colonel-General Karakayev is referring to


    Space based US ABM components, including perspective defeating elements (based both on HTK mechanism and ,in middle term, DE solutions).

    Both sides are very active in this crucial (potentially decisive in future) department ; when the race for space weaponization will openly begin the most farseeing actor will gain a position of technological and strategical preeminence for some decades  Wink

    The U.S. attempt of developing HTK warheads have been a failure:

    https://www.russiadefence.net/t2568p725-inf-treaty-coming-to-the-end-of-its-life#263449

    Sponsored content

    Anti-ship Ballistic Missiles (ASBM) - Page 3 Empty Re: Anti-ship Ballistic Missiles (ASBM)

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Sun Sep 27, 2020 4:19 pm