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


    Kalibr missile system

    Isos
    Isos

    Posts : 6213
    Points : 6205
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Kalibr missile system - Page 6 Empty Re: Kalibr missile system

    Post  Isos on Thu Dec 19, 2019 12:09 pm

    I'm talking about how could be possible for a standalone ship to attack successfully another ship / group of ships without using any other assets.


    The RUN going into that direction anyway.

    And it can explain the high cost of kalibr.

    They haven't spend huge money on comms, satelittes and data links to send a lonely ship against a group of enemy ships.

    They are certainly not going in this direction.

    The ka-27 and its radar with a range of 250-300 km will be able to track any ship and stay out of it engagement zone. Now they are also equiping their ships with orlan 10 which is a cheap way to detect ebemy ship.

    The only problem would be against a carrier that brings 40 f-18 that will be able to destroy the ka-27 but in such situation yasen and oscar 2 will be the main answer and they will be backed up by aviation and ships from behind.

    Gorshkovs, Kirov and Slava will create a no fly zone from where tu-22M will launch their kh32 and f18 won't be able to intercept them. In the same time the carrier group will run away from Yasens.


    Yasen and oscar would be 100-200 km away. Ships 600-700km away and tu 22 would come above them and launch their missiles.


    If the US carrier is hit they would be left with ships armed with 8 harpoons with a pathetic range of 200 km.

    The work will even be easier if they have a carrier with 24-30 mig29k to cover all that formation. They would fly at 10km altitude with 4 r-77 and 2 r73. F18 attacking ships carying s-300/400 need to use their harpoons at max range but fly at low altitude. The migs would have the advantage of altitude and speed launching their missiles from further away and having better energy/speed for dogfight.
    jhelb
    jhelb

    Posts : 909
    Points : 1018
    Join date : 2015-04-04
    Location : Previously: Belarus Currently: A Small Island No One Cares About

    Kalibr missile system - Page 6 Empty Re: Kalibr missile system

    Post  jhelb on Thu Dec 19, 2019 2:54 pm

    GarryB wrote:Big air defence targets will be targeted with several missiles, with perhaps the carrier getting 6-8 missiles on its own...

    Russia does have guided rocket variant of Smerch isn't it ?

    Naval variant of guided rockets probably would be a good idea.

    Though at times I'm unable to understand what purpose do guided rockets serve when cruise missiles already exist.
    Isos
    Isos

    Posts : 6213
    Points : 6205
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Kalibr missile system - Page 6 Empty Re: Kalibr missile system

    Post  Isos on Thu Dec 19, 2019 3:11 pm

    Guided rockets are still rockets. They won't change their flight path once launched. The guidance make them hit more precisely but you still need to launch them very close to the target. A moving ship will be very hard to hit.
    Singular_Transform
    Singular_Transform

    Posts : 834
    Points : 824
    Join date : 2016-11-13

    Kalibr missile system - Page 6 Empty Re: Kalibr missile system

    Post  Singular_Transform on Thu Dec 19, 2019 5:00 pm

    Isos wrote:
    I'm talking about how could be possible for a standalone ship to attack successfully another ship / group of ships without using any other assets.


    The RUN going into that direction anyway.

    And it can explain the high cost of kalibr.

    They haven't spend huge money on comms, satelittes and data links to send a lonely ship against a group of enemy ships.

    They are certainly not going in this direction.

    The ka-27 and its radar with a range of 250-300 km will be able to track any ship and stay out of it engagement zone. Now they are also equiping their ships with orlan 10 which is a cheap way to detect ebemy ship.

    The only problem would be against a carrier that brings 40 f-18 that will be able to destroy the ka-27 but in such situation yasen and oscar 2 will be the main answer and they will be backed up by aviation and ships from behind.

    Gorshkovs, Kirov and Slava will create a no fly zone from where tu-22M will launch their kh32 and f18 won't be able to intercept them. In the same time the carrier group will run away from Yasens.


    Yasen and oscar would be 100-200 km away. Ships 600-700km away and tu 22 would come above them and launch their missiles.


    If the US carrier is hit they would be left with ships armed with 8 harpoons with a pathetic range of 200 km.

    The work will even be easier if they have a carrier with 24-30 mig29k to cover all that formation. They would fly at 10km altitude with 4 r-77 and 2 r73. F18 attacking ships carying s-300/400 need to use their harpoons at max range but fly at low altitude. The migs would have the advantage of altitude and speed launching their missiles from further away and having better energy/speed for dogfight.

    First , the Kalibr seems like more expensive than the Tomahawk

    Based on sales of the export version of this missile to India, Gundarov suggests each Kalibr cost $6.5 million; but he concludes that the 44 missiles sold domestically to the Russian defense ministry and fired off last October amounted to 2.7 billion rubles ($41 million—approximately $980,000 per missile) (Nezavisimoye Voyennoye Obozreniye, July 22). Other than testing or advertising the missile capability, some of which landed in Iran, there was no real underlying military purpose for using Kalibr missiles in Syria. Either way, the process was certainly expensive.

    https://jamestown.org/program/russias-futuristic-military-plagued-by-old-problems/

    The above cost means for the price of one F-18 the USA can buy 60-70 tomahawk, but for the price of one Su-30/35 Russia can buy 20 Kalibr.

    That is big difference, close to threefold.

    And of course there are many platform to target, but the best is if no launch platform depends on any other to gather targeting data, and from that point all satellite/communication will increase the effectiveness.


    The USA thinking the network is a necessary for each element to work .
    miketheterrible
    miketheterrible

    Posts : 4739
    Points : 4717
    Join date : 2016-11-06

    Kalibr missile system - Page 6 Empty Re: Kalibr missile system

    Post  miketheterrible on Thu Dec 19, 2019 6:25 pm

    Singular_Transform wrote:
    Isos wrote:
    I'm talking about how could be possible for a standalone ship to attack successfully another ship / group of ships without using any other assets.


    The RUN going into that direction anyway.

    And it can explain the high cost of kalibr.

    They haven't spend huge money on comms, satelittes and data links to send a lonely ship against a group of enemy ships.

    They are certainly not going in this direction.

    The ka-27 and its radar with a range of 250-300 km will be able to track any ship and stay out of it engagement zone. Now they are also equiping their ships with orlan 10 which is a cheap way to detect ebemy ship.

    The only problem would be against a carrier that brings 40 f-18 that will be able to destroy the ka-27 but in such situation yasen and oscar 2 will be the main answer and they will be backed up by aviation and ships from behind.

    Gorshkovs, Kirov and Slava will create a no fly zone from where tu-22M will launch their kh32 and f18 won't be able to intercept them. In the same time the carrier group will run away from Yasens.


    Yasen and oscar would be 100-200 km away. Ships 600-700km away and tu 22 would come above them and launch their missiles.


    If the US carrier is hit they would be left with ships armed with 8 harpoons with a pathetic range of 200 km.

    The work will even be easier if they have a carrier with 24-30 mig29k to cover all that formation. They would fly at 10km altitude with 4 r-77 and 2 r73. F18 attacking ships carying s-300/400 need to use their harpoons at max range but fly at low altitude. The migs would have the advantage of altitude and speed launching their missiles from further away and having better energy/speed for dogfight.

    First , the Kalibr seems like more expensive than the Tomahawk

    Based on sales of the export version of this missile to India, Gundarov suggests each Kalibr cost $6.5 million; but he concludes that the 44 missiles sold domestically to the Russian defense ministry and fired off last October amounted to 2.7 billion rubles ($41 million—approximately $980,000 per missile) (Nezavisimoye Voyennoye Obozreniye, July 22). Other than testing or advertising the missile capability, some of which landed in Iran, there was no real underlying military purpose for using Kalibr missiles in Syria. Either way, the process was certainly expensive.

    https://jamestown.org/program/russias-futuristic-military-plagued-by-old-problems/

    The above cost means for the price of one F-18 the USA can buy 60-70 tomahawk, but for the price of one Su-30/35 Russia can buy 20 Kalibr.

    That is big difference, close to threefold.

    And of course there are many platform to target, but the best is if no launch platform depends on any other to gather targeting data, and from that point all satellite/communication will increase the effectiveness.


    The USA thinking the network is a necessary for each element to work .

    You quote jamestown?  GTFO

    Cost of each Tomohawk is $1.4M

    https://www.cnbc.com/2018/04/16/syria-airstrikes-cost-to-us-taxpayers.html

    With an estimated cost of $1.4 million each, Raytheon’s Tomahawk missile has an intermediate range of 800 to 1,553 miles and can be deployed from more than 140 U.S. Navy ships and submarines. What also makes the Tomahawk exceptionally lethal is its capability to carry a 1,000-pound conventional warhead which can be reprogrammed midflight.
    Singular_Transform
    Singular_Transform

    Posts : 834
    Points : 824
    Join date : 2016-11-13

    Kalibr missile system - Page 6 Empty Re: Kalibr missile system

    Post  Singular_Transform on Thu Dec 19, 2019 9:11 pm

    miketheterrible wrote:

    You quote jamestown?  GTFO

    Cost of each Tomohawk is $1.4M

    https://www.cnbc.com/2018/04/16/syria-airstrikes-cost-to-us-taxpayers.html

    Tomahawk price is well established, there are dozens of sources .

    So, F-18 cost 90 million, tomahawk cost 1.5, 1 fighter = 60 tomahawk.

    Russian side 44 kalibr cost 2.7 billion, 1 mig 29 cost 1.1 billion, so 1 fighter = 18 kalibr.

    It is huge difference.
    Isos
    Isos

    Posts : 6213
    Points : 6205
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Kalibr missile system - Page 6 Empty Re: Kalibr missile system

    Post  Isos on Thu Dec 19, 2019 9:35 pm

    Tomahawk price is well established, there are dozens of sources .

    Kalibr price is not really established and since they are putting in service more and more vessels with UKSK its price will get lower.

    I woukd like to see an other source for the 6.5 million per missile india gave. That's another lie.

    Your source suck. No interest in reading it. Just another think thank full of stupid journalists that have no clue in weapons.
    Singular_Transform
    Singular_Transform

    Posts : 834
    Points : 824
    Join date : 2016-11-13

    Kalibr missile system - Page 6 Empty Re: Kalibr missile system

    Post  Singular_Transform on Thu Dec 19, 2019 11:31 pm

    Isos wrote:
    Tomahawk price is well established, there are dozens of sources .

    Kalibr price is not really established and since they are putting in service more and more vessels with UKSK its price will get lower.

    I woukd like to see an other source for the 6.5 million per missile india gave. That's another lie.

    Your source suck. No interest in reading it. Just another think thank full of stupid journalists that have no clue in weapons.

    Any other data for the cost of the Kalibr ?
    Or for the Onyx ,as well.
    Isos
    Isos

    Posts : 6213
    Points : 6205
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Kalibr missile system - Page 6 Empty Re: Kalibr missile system

    Post  Isos on Thu Dec 19, 2019 11:47 pm

    Any other data for the cost of the Kalibr ?
    Or for the Onyx ,as well.

    I don't have any source.

    6.5 million for one missile is fake. Either a lie from a anti russian journalist or a stupid journalist that divided the value of a contract that included the kalibr and plenty of other stuff explaining why he got 6.5 million unit price.

    They are not cheap but certainly not as expensive as a US tomahawk.
    miketheterrible
    miketheterrible

    Posts : 4739
    Points : 4717
    Join date : 2016-11-06

    Kalibr missile system - Page 6 Empty Re: Kalibr missile system

    Post  miketheterrible on Thu Dec 19, 2019 11:49 pm

    Putin already said it was cheaper than American equivalent.
    miketheterrible
    miketheterrible

    Posts : 4739
    Points : 4717
    Join date : 2016-11-06

    Kalibr missile system - Page 6 Empty Re: Kalibr missile system

    Post  miketheterrible on Thu Dec 19, 2019 11:55 pm

    Singular_Transform wrote:
    miketheterrible wrote:

    You quote jamestown?  GTFO

    Cost of each Tomohawk is $1.4M

    https://www.cnbc.com/2018/04/16/syria-airstrikes-cost-to-us-taxpayers.html

    Tomahawk price is well established, there are dozens of sources .

    So, F-18 cost 90 million, tomahawk cost 1.5, 1 fighter = 60 tomahawk.

    Russian side 44 kalibr cost 2.7 billion, 1 mig 29 cost 1.1 billion, so 1 fighter = 18 kalibr.

    It is huge difference.

    Your grasping at straws.

    $1.4M per missile is official number. Not something based on assumption of how many you can buy for one fighter jet.

    Contracts for export of missiles also include servicing and various other this bits.

    Anyway, all one had to do is to monitor contracts between Russia mod and the company. Usually this stuff is open. One just has to go through the paperwork.
    Singular_Transform
    Singular_Transform

    Posts : 834
    Points : 824
    Join date : 2016-11-13

    Kalibr missile system - Page 6 Empty Re: Kalibr missile system

    Post  Singular_Transform on Fri Dec 20, 2019 2:05 am

    miketheterrible wrote:



    Your grasping at straws.

    $1.4M per missile is official number. Not something based on assumption of how many you can buy for one fighter jet.

    Contracts for export of missiles also include servicing and various other this bits.

    Anyway, all one had to do is to monitor contracts between Russia mod and the company. Usually this stuff is open. One just has to go through the paperwork.

    I don't care about tomahawk.

    The price of that is well established.

    The Kalibr has only one price point, and that showing it as three times costlier than the tomahawk, not in the term of exchange rate, but compared to the fighter airframes of the same MIC.

    I spent lot of time to found price reference for the Kalibr, with only one price.

    If you can found more then thank you, but at the moment it is in the dark.

    If you are there it can be interesting to see the nose cone of a P-800 and P-700 : )
    Singular_Transform
    Singular_Transform

    Posts : 834
    Points : 824
    Join date : 2016-11-13

    Kalibr missile system - Page 6 Empty Re: Kalibr missile system

    Post  Singular_Transform on Fri Dec 20, 2019 2:11 am

    Isos wrote:
    Any other data for the cost of the Kalibr ?
    Or for the Onyx ,as well.

    I don't have any source.

    6.5 million for one missile is fake. Either a lie from a anti russian journalist or a stupid journalist that divided the value of a contract that included the kalibr and plenty of other stuff explaining why he got 6.5 million unit price.

    They are not cheap but certainly not as expensive as a US tomahawk.

    The only price point is 61 million rouble for one missile.

    That is three times more expensive than the tomahawk , compared to the fighter airframes of the same MIC.
    miketheterrible
    miketheterrible

    Posts : 4739
    Points : 4717
    Join date : 2016-11-06

    Kalibr missile system - Page 6 Empty Re: Kalibr missile system

    Post  miketheterrible on Fri Dec 20, 2019 6:15 am

    Singular_Transform wrote:
    Isos wrote:
    Any other data for the cost of the Kalibr ?
    Or for the Onyx ,as well.

    I don't have any source.

    6.5 million for one missile is fake. Either a lie from a anti russian journalist or a stupid journalist that divided the value of a contract that included the kalibr and plenty of other stuff explaining why he got 6.5 million unit price.

    They are not cheap but certainly not as expensive as a US tomahawk.

    The only price point is 61 million rouble for one missile.

    That is three times more expensive than the tomahawk , compared to the fighter airframes of the same MIC.

    That's still based upon a Jamestown article which Jamestown is bullshit.
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 25967
    Points : 26513
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Kalibr missile system - Page 6 Empty Re: Kalibr missile system

    Post  GarryB on Sat Dec 21, 2019 7:47 am

    Russia does have guided rocket variant of Smerch isn't it ?

    Not really. They have rockets fitted with gyros to reduce the distance they spread in flight so volleys land closer together which makes them more effective on an area target like a group of soldiers moving through a forest or open ground. Their guided rockets are Tochka-U and Iskander and are separate systems used for different targets.

    There are guided rockets in the sense that they have unguided rockets with sensor fused submunitions that detect tanks or armoured vehicles as they fall and target them with a directed attack using self forging fragment warheads to penetrate the roof structure of the vehicle and damage engines or kill crews, but the rockets themselves are ballistic and not guided.

    Such rockets on ships would be useful for landings to clear large areas of ground of troops and light enemy emplacements in a rapid volley that doesn't need to be precise, but they use 122mm rockets rather than Smerch which is a 300mm rocket system.

    Naval variant of guided rockets probably would be a good idea.

    Though at times I'm unable to understand what purpose do guided rockets serve when cruise missiles already exist.

    Rockets and missiles are for different things, but these days the purpose has become blurred with guided rockets...

    Very simply in the 1980s a Hind attack helicopter had three main weapons... nose mounted HMG or cannon, four pods of unguided rockets, and four anti tank guided missiles. The missiles were expensive but necessary to take out tanks which are simply too heavily armoured to reliably be taken out with rockets in terms of accuracy and penetration performance. Guns use very cheap ammo but require short range engagements which makes the helicopter vulnerable to return fire by similar calibre guns. Rockets are cheap and simple and could be carried in large numbers and could be used against a wide variety of targets, but most of the time if you saw a tank you used an anti tank missile from as far away as the missiles performance allowed. If the threat was a group of enemy soldiers all spread out and firing small arms at you a volley of a dozen rockets would spread shrapnel over a wide area so even if you didn't kill all of them they would be ducking and diving rather than firing at you... note precise gun fire or missile fire is of no use because of the number of individual targets that all need to be dealt with or suppressed. Rockets fired in volleys or one to two rocket bursts aimed at various bushes or trees from which the enemy fire is coming from suppresses that fire well enough and cheaply enough without needing a more expensive weapon.

    Today however... a simple cheap guidance system you can fit to a cheap unguided rocket means instead of firing rockets in volleys to hit area targets or unarmoured point targets, you can now use fewer rockets. For instance you see an enemy truck... an ATGM is overkill and might just punch a small diameter hole right through without destroying the truck straight away... but it might be too far away for cannon or HMG fire. With unguided rockets the accuracy of them means you might need to fire 4-5 rockets to hit it with enough fragments to stop it and set it on fire. Even with cheap rockets having to fire 4-5 per target means 4-5 targets per 20 shot rocket pod... with guided rockets you don't increase the cost too much but you use rather less of them so one rocket from 4km range will hit that truck directly and destroy it, so instead of hitting 4-5 trucks per 20 shot rocket pod you can get 17 or 18 targets per 20 shot rocket pod.

    Say the new guidance package triples the cost of the rocket... if you are using 4 times less rockets it actually works out cheaper to use guided rockets than unguided rockets.

    Of course when dealing with area targets then guidance is no advantage in terms of dealing with targets, but the guidance system means you can loft the rockets into the air and engage targets from much greater and much safer ranges because there is less risk of return fire which makes the helo safer.

    For naval use unguided rockets are used to clear areas of potential enemy forces or to destroy mines... the point is that the landing forces will also likely have destroyers and cruisers supporting operations so they will likely have guided 152mm shells that could take out point targets from 70km range or more... guided rockets would be less useful as their biggest benefit would be to deliver a huge amount of fragments and HE all in a very short period... almost all at once... which is really something you can't do with missiles or shells... except with nukes of course.

    Guided rockets are still rockets. They won't change their flight path once launched. The guidance make them hit more precisely but you still need to launch them very close to the target. A moving ship will be very hard to hit.

    A simple guidance package for Smerch to hit a ship would be pretty simple and much easier than with land targets because ships are huge and contrast easily against their sea water background... the problems would be such rockets would be fairly straight forward to intercept being largely ballistic weapons with some terminal manouvers to hit their targets... the other problem is getting to within 120km/90km of a ship target to fire them.

    First , the Kalibr seems like more expensive than the Tomahawk

    Of course... it is because of all the corruption right?

    The above cost means for the price of one F-18 the USA can buy 60-70 tomahawk, but for the price of one Su-30/35 Russia can buy 20 Kalibr.

    Your logic is pointless... the US spends more on weapons than any other 30 countries on the planet, it is of course a given that the US can afford to buy more missiles than Russia can... the question is... are they? Or are they spending money getting their carriers and destroyers and new stealth fighters fixed...

    And of course there are many platform to target, but the best is if no launch platform depends on any other to gather targeting data, and from that point all satellite/communication will increase the effectiveness.

    The USA thinking the network is a necessary for each element to work .

    The idea of every platform for itself is the opposite of networking and cooperation...

    ... it would be like looking at a good idea like Grad 122mm rocket artillery system, cheap simple and light and based on widely produced and used trucks already in production, and making it very very expensive and also based on a platform at that time only the US used (Bradley), which is tracked and expensive to buy and to operate with no commonality with any other tracked vehicle in their allies inventory...

    What also makes the Tomahawk exceptionally lethal is its capability to carry a 1,000-pound conventional warhead which can be reprogrammed midflight.

    And what makes it useless is that even individual Syrian units without an IADS were able to shoot down three quarters of them...


    Any other data for the cost of the Kalibr ?
    Or for the Onyx ,as well.

    That information is secret, and neither of those missiles are for export anyway.

    What you are calling Kalibr exported to India is actually Club.

    The Kalibr has only one price point, and that showing it as three times costlier than the tomahawk, not in the term of exchange rate, but compared to the fighter airframes of the same MIC.

    Kalibr has a range of 2,500km in its current model and has never been exported to anyone. 500km range Clubs have been exported in various types but export prices includes profits that are not included when the Russian Navy buys them. Export aircraft prices are similarly not accurate indications either... especially when we have no idea what the contracts include... all we can be sure of is that US products are horribly over priced and the US loves to spend on bling and don't care they are getting screwed.

    Based on the snippit of information you posted here.... ie:

    Based on sales of the export version of this missile to India, Gundarov suggests each Kalibr cost $6.5 million; but he concludes that the 44 missiles sold domestically to the Russian defense ministry and fired off last October amounted to 2.7 billion rubles ($41 million—approximately $980,000 per missile) (Nezavisimoye Voyennoye Obozreniye, July 22). Other than testing or advertising the missile capability, some of which landed in Iran, there was no real underlying military purpose for using Kalibr missiles in Syria. Either way, the process was certainly expensive.

    Kalibr is a land attack missile with a 2,500km range, it would be illegal for Russia to sell such a weapon to India and the dickhead who claimed each missile cost $6.5 million each but then concludes that the 44 missiles sold domestically to the Russian defence military and fired off last October cost 41 million dollars... how the fuck could they cost 6.5 million dollars each if 44 of them cost 41 million... but you stick to his bullshit claim of 6.5million per missile... are you drunk or just biased. BTW the underlying reason for using cruise missiles in Syria was to kill terrorists... something American forces there don't seem interested in at all, they just seem more interested in protecting their moderate terrorist friends. Seems 11/9 wasn't enough... of course you are going to keep giving your wife and friends STDS if you bed with whores.

    That is three times more expensive than the tomahawk , compared to the fighter airframes of the same MIC.

    Why did you pick very specific aircraft for the comparison?


    That's still based upon a Jamestown article which Jamestown is bullshit.

    It is a propaganda outlet sending out bullshit to keep the gardens in the west green and growing by pointing out there is nothing wrong in the US and oh what a terrible state Russia is... it produces nothing and is a third world country that exports oil...

    Before these articles about Russia not needing to use cruise missiles in Syria were articles saying they couldn't help Syria if they tried and Assads days are numbered because their terrorists are going to do to Syria what they did to Libya... that was the plan... US oil companies would swoop in and take all the oil contracts for Syrian oil and the country would be in such a broken state they would need to pump a lot of oil to pay to fix all the damage and that will further force down the price of oil to try to hurt Russia... their main problem is that Russia has pretty much gotten off its oil dependency problem and are growing in all sorts of areas, while the rich and powerful in the west have not diversified and are still addicted to oil... of course that is not going to bite them in the ass... but it will all be Putins fault... all his aggression and opposition to the peaceful west... bastard.... russia

    jhelb
    jhelb

    Posts : 909
    Points : 1018
    Join date : 2015-04-04
    Location : Previously: Belarus Currently: A Small Island No One Cares About

    Kalibr missile system - Page 6 Empty Re: Kalibr missile system

    Post  jhelb on Sat Dec 21, 2019 4:09 pm

    GarryB wrote: A simple guidance package for Smerch to hit a ship would be pretty simple and much easier than with land targets because ships are huge and contrast easily against their sea water background... the problems would be such rockets would be fairly straight forward to intercept being largely ballistic weapons with some terminal manouvers to hit their targets...

    But terminal manoeuvre should ensure that these guided rockets are difficult to intercept isn't it ?


    GarryB wrote:the other problem is getting to within 120km/90km of a ship target to fire them.

    Can't their range be increased to lets say 250 kms or more ?
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 25967
    Points : 26513
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Kalibr missile system - Page 6 Empty Re: Kalibr missile system

    Post  GarryB on Sun Dec 22, 2019 1:31 am

    But terminal manoeuvre should ensure that these guided rockets are difficult to intercept isn't it ?

    Not really.... there is an enormous difference between a guided missile which is constantly correcting its flight path to accurately hit the aim point... like Lance 2 for instance, and a missile designed to perform evasive manouvers during the terminal phase of an attack to evade interception like the Iskander.

    The former is basically flying towards the target with small continuous corrections to ensure it lands near the point of aim... so turns will be tiny and will be more minor corrections rather than abrupt and sharp turns.

    The latter might even include speeding up or slowing down and vigorous turns away from the target and then back again to make interception unlikely...

    Can't their range be increased to lets say 250 kms or more ?

    Of course, but there would be no real benefit... you could take the warhead from one Smerch and attach three standard rocket bodies to it strapped together so all three fire together and then have them fall away once they have burned out leaving the warhead with all the energy of the three rocket motors but with very low drag most of the way to the target... its range would be enormous... but it would still be a ballistic target... you might as well use Scuds... you wouldn't be able to use them in large volumes because they would be bulky and more expensive... needless to say a 800kg Smerch rocket has a ballistic range of about 120km in its current models... a 600kg Uran flys 240km on a small jet engine and is much more compact and it is guided so it is quite accurate.

    The advantage of unguided rockets is that they are cheap and can be used in enormous numbers.

    Some jobs... like building up lethal concentrations of chemical weapons or bio weapons, or delivering an enormous volume of HE before the recipients can take cover, then an unguided rocket barrage is perfect... you don't fire it at one vehicle or one building... you fire it at a large enemy armoured force when they are loading their vehicles and fuelling up and are vulnerable, or if the enemy has a large formation of men on foot moving to attack you... an enormous volley of rockets can be devastating to troops in the open or even moving through a forest.

    With anti Armour munitions and mines you can attack a group of armoured vehicles forming up for an operation.

    In Georgia in 2008 there was a story in the west about those evil Russians attacking a town square in a Georgian town that killed lots of civilians... they showed blood on the ground but no bodies or debris and they claimed it was a submunition attack. Well later on we learn about an armoured formation that was forming up in a town square that was hit with a submunition warhead from a Tochka ballistic missile... the accuracy of the Tochka meant the armoured vehicles could be targeted, but having a submunition payload meant lots of vehicles and presumably crew could be damaged or destroyed instead of a single 500kg warhead that would have devastated the square but probably not damaged more vehicles or killed more people...

    When you don't know exactly each target is but you know there are dozens or hundreds or perhaps thousands of people and vehicles coming to do you harm then a volley of rockets with submunition warheads that scatter and spread fragments is a very very efficient way of dealing with large groups of enemy at one time where a single 500kg bomb might take out less than 10% of them hundreds or thousands of tiny bombs scattered over a wide area increase the chance to get kills or damaged vehicles that can no longer do you harm.

    The problem is that at sea no navy is going to have thousands of sailors in small boats or just people in the water that could simulate that sort of situation. The only naval situations where that is possible is the places where unguided rockets are used... on landing ships and hovercraft to deal with ground troops and land based fortifications, and to engage divers and torpedoes and submarines where you are not totally sure where they are so volume is used instead of precision... though new model RBUs use guided depth charges to deal with Subs and also a range of rocket types for torpedoes and divers.

    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 25967
    Points : 26513
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Kalibr missile system - Page 6 Empty Re: Kalibr missile system

    Post  GarryB on Sun Dec 22, 2019 1:35 am

    BTW What do you guys make of this story....

    The Admiral Essen, one of the most advanced frigates in the Russian Navy, took part in an exercise in the Black Sea which involved hitting a target over 250km away with its primary armament, the Kalibr cruise missile.

    It took the projectile just 137 seconds to travel over 250km to its intended target on the shore and obliterate it, Zvezda TV reported, publishing footage of the test fire. The Kalibr missile family can be used by a wide range of naval platforms, and made its debut in actual combat during Russia’s counter-terrorism campaign in Syria.

    137 seconds to travel over 250km... that is about 1.8km/second... for Kalibr... wonder if this is upgrade Onyx... but the missile shown is a long slim cruise missile... not a long but fatter Onyx missile...

    Have a look at the article...

    https://www.rt.com/russia/475565-kalibr-missile-test-essen/
    Isos
    Isos

    Posts : 6213
    Points : 6205
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Kalibr missile system - Page 6 Empty Re: Kalibr missile system

    Post  Isos on Sun Dec 22, 2019 2:17 am

    Another biased article by a stupid journalist. Any other official statement ?
    Big_Gazza
    Big_Gazza

    Posts : 2085
    Points : 2087
    Join date : 2014-08-25
    Location : Melbourne, Australia

    Kalibr missile system - Page 6 Empty Re: Kalibr missile system

    Post  Big_Gazza on Sun Dec 22, 2019 11:35 am

    Isos is probably right (ie journalistic ineptitude at Zvezda) but we can't fully discount the remote possibility that released footage is just stock imagery and that they did test some kind of hypersonic weapon. Can the 11536s launch Oniks or are they limited to Kalibres only?

    All things considered, my money is on journo idiocy....
    Hole
    Hole

    Posts : 3146
    Points : 3146
    Join date : 2018-03-24
    Age : 44
    Location : Merkelland

    Kalibr missile system - Page 6 Empty Re: Kalibr missile system

    Post  Hole on Sun Dec 22, 2019 11:58 am

    Or they used the supersonic "anti-ship" version of Kaliber.
    Isos
    Isos

    Posts : 6213
    Points : 6205
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Kalibr missile system - Page 6 Empty Re: Kalibr missile system

    Post  Isos on Sun Dec 22, 2019 1:20 pm

    Hole wrote:Or they used the supersonic "anti-ship" version of Kaliber.

    It is supersonic only for the last 30-40km.
    Viktor
    Viktor

    Posts : 5815
    Points : 6450
    Join date : 2009-08-25
    Age : 39
    Location : Croatia

    Kalibr missile system - Page 6 Empty Re: Kalibr missile system

    Post  Viktor on Sun Dec 22, 2019 8:42 pm

    Point is 1.8 km/sec is hyper sonic speed. Fact Russian portal is mentioning it means 3M-54E received upgrades since the first time it was introduced.

    Who could have guessed Kaliber missile can be upgraded to hyper sonic speeds and given its time already in service if the upgrade does not require any major

    mechanical modification which was most likely one of project task for its modernization we are seeing almost momentarily shift of Russian navy towards hyper sonic weapons.
    Isos
    Isos

    Posts : 6213
    Points : 6205
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Kalibr missile system - Page 6 Empty Re: Kalibr missile system

    Post  Isos on Sun Dec 22, 2019 9:38 pm

    Who could have guessed Kaliber missile can be upgraded to hyper sonic speeds and given its time already in service if the upgrade does not require any major

    No one. Even the engineers that works on the kalibr are surprised lol1

    Viktor
    Viktor

    Posts : 5815
    Points : 6450
    Join date : 2009-08-25
    Age : 39
    Location : Croatia

    Kalibr missile system - Page 6 Empty Re: Kalibr missile system

    Post  Viktor on Sun Dec 22, 2019 10:47 pm

    Isos wrote:
    Who could have guessed Kaliber missile can be upgraded to hyper sonic speeds and given its time already in service if the upgrade does not require any major

    No one. Even the engineers that works on the kalibr are surprised lol1


    Could be that even engineers did not expect to raise its speed by the factor of 2 Very Happy Western World will certainly have something to think about if they manage to overcome denial phase   Shocked


    Sponsored content

    Kalibr missile system - Page 6 Empty Re: Kalibr missile system

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Wed Sep 30, 2020 10:47 am