Russian Tactical Air-to-Surface Missiles (ASM):

GarryB wrote:Keep in mind even if the Russian Air Force or Aerospace Defence Force are not interested the Russian Navy has Su-30s and other platforms including MPAs that could carry these weapons around the place... and surface launched models are a given as well...

Certainly, the coastal protection is mostly solved with a variety of means, it is the power projection that until now Russia has not been in a condition to take care of. I am pretty sure this will change in the medium term.

The main point with this weapon is its mach 2.9 flight speed at sea level... you really need a powerful rocket motor to achieve this... a short range AAM like Sidewinder has a flight speed of about mach 2.5 but launched from low altitude at a low altitude target its speed is more like Mach 1.5 and its effective range is dramatically reduced... it would not be able to chase down this missile for example.

Based in all the detection complications as discussed in our doctrine thread, the AD system in the ship has no time to react... and of course the very interceptors are challenged because the target is almost as fast or even faster than themselves. Their advantage is that they are placed directly at the target, but vigorous manoeuvring by the AShM partially counters that.

This might sound weird but the initial scan from the missiles radar alerting the target that it might be under attack would be interesting because most ships captains wont light up all their radars if they detect a radar signal from 1,000km away

It depends, if the ship has no radar engaged then any kind of passive targeting by the missile itself (ie using third party target coordinates) turns it into a sitting duck because the AD will not even react to the incoming attack. If it has the radar on, passive targetting is also possible and a flight path below radar horizon will also give it very little time to react. So this is a difficult situation for the ship to be

... but the might start turning the ship so that it is either bow or stern on to the potential threat... just as a precaution to make the ship a smaller target....

I really don't think the ship can do too much, in case of passive targeting from first radar contact to impact you hay have from 30 secs at best to less than ten at worst. Ship's crew needs to be 100% focused 100% of the time to even be capable to react and order course change etc.

but the speed of this missile means it will fly low all the way and when it gets close it rapidly accelerates remaining very low until impact... the kinetic energy of such an impact will cause it to penetrate multiple sections of the ship... but if it is side on the risk is that it might punch right through and come out the other side before the warhead explodes... hitting the bow or stern means it has the full length of the ship to penetrate and explode in causing much more damage.

Hitting engine room, magazine, bridge or combat control room turns the ship into a target waiting to be finished off or destroys it directly. And as you say the kinetic energy makes sure those places in the ship can be reached without problem.

300km is the export model with range limited to 300km...

I am assuming a lighter air launched version. As seen, if the plane approaches below radar horizon the needed missile range is quite small actually, probably the cruise subsonic section could be even removed altogether.

Being similar to the Kh-555 I don't think they would be enormously useful... though being able to fly 1,000km on a tangent so it attacks the target from a different direction could be valuable... like flying down from Iran to where Yemen is before launching a missile at Saudi Arabia for instance...  

Sure, one of the main uses of range in subsonic CMs is precisely to be able to attack from the least protected direction and make the best use of the topography...

Nah... the whole point of subsonic turbofan powered carrying stage is to add range... if the range is 1,500km then it makes sense but if it is only 600km then you would be better off with an Onyx with the new fuel flying high but at mach 5 and 800km range plus... and Zircon on the way to double the speed and increase the range even further in an air launched model.

They have many options indeed, and all are good. The 3M54 is previous to Tsirkon or the the modernized Oniks with those characteristics you mention, we don't know what the missile could do now if it used the technology available. What I meant is that the aircraft transport adds a range and flexibility that the surface launched version does not have, or conversely allows to substantially reduce size of the missile to increase the salvo size carried by the plane. 600 km is nice but does not keep a VMF ship outside of the range of similar enemy weapons, while a naval fighter could carry it 1000 km and launch it well beyond the engagement range of the enemy missiles.

OK... that is a bit of a let down... 1,500km range I was expecting but 950km/h means it will be traveling at a similar speed to the aircraft that launched it... so it certainly is not a Kh-16 type mach 5 nuclear warhead armed weapon to clear enemy air defences ahead of the bomber...

It is the kind of long range tactical CM that Russia was needing... I see nothing wrong with that. There are higher performance missiles but you need a weapon you can use in numbers and that can be used by tactical bombers and Tu-22M3 in stand-off range. Most enemies cannot stop properly planed and executed CM attacks once their AD has started being degraded, and many can not do it even in top conditions.

1. Speed achieved by the scramjet demonstrator: Mach 6
2. Altitude of flight : 30 km.
3. Duration of flight >22 seconds.

Nice... at mach six that means in 22 seconds it would have covered at least 40km... as the speed and flight time ratchet up the distances become even more impressive...

Certainly, the coastal protection is mostly solved with a variety of means, it is the power projection that until now Russia has not been in a condition to take care of. I am pretty sure this will change in the medium term.

But why do they need new weapons to kill when the west has so graciously welcomed them with open arms into the international community...

Based in all the detection complications as discussed in our doctrine thread, the AD system in the ship has no time to react... and of course the very interceptors are challenged because the target is almost as fast or even faster than themselves. Their advantage is that they are placed directly at the target, but vigorous manoeuvring by the AShM partially counters that.

Well to be fair a ship on its own is horribly vulnerable because by the time they detect it on the horizon it has probably just gone terminal and is rapidly accelerating like only a rocket can... which will make it easier to spot optically because it will be spewing ionised rocket fumes, but interception points will be shifting rapidly so on detection the interception point might have been 2km in front of it, but three seconds later when your missile launches it might be 10km in front of the missile and inside your minimum engagement range for that missile...

A very clever combination of two different attack strategies to make the most from each.

I really don't think the ship can do too much, in case of passive targeting from first radar contact to impact you hay have from 30 secs at best to less than ten at worst. Ship's crew needs to be 100% focused 100% of the time to even be capable to react and order course change etc.

I was referring to the initial radar lock by the missile after it is launch from the fighter...

Ie assuming 1,500km range for the missile the pilot is given the coordinates of the target and its speed and direction so a rough calculation suggests a general location about an hour later when the missile will be arriving at low speed.

Because the target is over 1,000km away then the fighter can launch the missile at medium altitude and the missile can climb a little and throttle back quite a bit to cruise efficiently to within say 600km of the target at 12km altitude or so... once it gets to that range it should be able to use its own radar to scan for a ship sized target of the type it is expecting to find. When it detects this target (it might have to close a further 2-300km to find it at 12,000m altitude) it can then drop down to low altitude having found and identified its target and accelerate to full throttle and low altitude.

The target ship would have detected a bit of this scanning and certainly the lock so it knows something is up... and this is when I suggest the captain turns his ship towards the incoming threat to minimise his radar cross section... the radar equipped target has dropped from sight but they will try to detect things coming from that direction anyway... eventually a small dot appears on that horizon... flying directly at the ship now because it has radar emissions to use to passively correct its estimate of where the target is and just as it hits the horizon it lights up its rocket terminal portion and rapidly accelerates to mach 3 essentially and screams in at very low level trying to get to the ship before they can react...

I am assuming a lighter air launched version. As seen, if the plane approaches below radar horizon the needed missile range is quite small actually, probably the cruise subsonic section could be even removed altogether.

But what I am saying is that the subsonic section is to achieve long range... on the land attack Kalibr you get 2,500km range from that turbojet engine, but even it probably gets that range by flying the early portion of the attack at medium level with a lower thrust setting.

Why bother with a complicated combined rocket boosted turbojet powered missile with a rocket terminal phase weapon with a range of 600km when a missile roughly the same size and weight with a combined rocket ramjet engine can fly 600km at mach 5 all the way in the form of an upgraded Onyx?

Or indeed in a few years time a Mach 10 Zircon whose surface launched model reaches over 1,000km...

If the Kalibre supersonic anti ship missile had a flight range of 1,500km where 1,470kms is at subsonic speed and the last 30km were mach 2.9 under rocket power then it would make sense to deploy it and use it... it would be sneaky and clever, but with a range of only 600km in the domestic model why would you put one in a UKSK tube when you could put Onyx or soon a Zircon into that same tube? Or with tactical aircraft an air launched version of either...

600 km is nice but does not keep a VMF ship outside of the range of similar enemy weapons, while a naval fighter could carry it 1000 km and launch it well beyond the engagement range of the enemy missiles.

And I agree with that too... to be useful the low flying subsonic missile needs range to be useful and 600km doesn't really cut it... more than double that range and you have something interesting... but why does it need a plane to achieve that.... these are 533mm calibre weapons... the ship launched model could do with extra fuel tanks and perhaps new rocket fuel to double the range of the terminal portion perhaps.... or even a scramjet terminal portion that just keeps accelerating...

It is the kind of long range tactical CM that Russia was needing... I see nothing wrong with that. There are higher performance missiles but you need a weapon you can use in numbers and that can be used by tactical bombers and Tu-22M3 in stand-off range. Most enemies cannot stop properly planed and executed CM attacks once their AD has started being degraded, and many can not do it even in top conditions.

Yes, I realise I am being unfair... it was only ever speculation that suggested a mach 6 speed and for use as a replacement for the Kh-15...

Considering the requirements and new technologies now I don't think it is unreasonable to expect another mach 6 or faster missile is not being developed with a range of 1,000+km for the job of clearing a path through hostile territory for their bombers...

GarryB wrote:Well to be fair a ship on its own is horribly vulnerable because by the time they detect it on the horizon it has probably just gone terminal and is rapidly accelerating like only a rocket can... which will make it easier to spot optically because it will be spewing ionised rocket fumes, but interception points will be shifting rapidly so on detection the interception point might have been 2km in front of it, but three seconds later when your missile launches it might be 10km in front of the missile and inside your minimum engagement range for that missile...

It is even worse, from what I have found the reaction time of the AEGIS fire control system (from first detection to first missile launched) is ca. 10 seconds... at 3 M that is the time for the missile to cover 10 km. Even in normal conditions (standard radar horizon of a 18 m high radar vs AShM flying 5 m above the surface is 14 km) it means a SM will be close to minimum engagement distance. In conditions of reduced radar horizon (there are instances below 7 km) there is not even time to launch the first interceptor...

A very clever combination of two different attack strategies to make the most from each.

Indeed, that is why the USN classified it as "critical" risk. They were afraid the two-speed flight course would fool their fire control systems and make them calculate wrongly the interception points... not even considering they would not have the material time to detect and launch missiles, as we see could be the case without an increased detection range. As of today, I think they do not have the practise target needed to properly model Threat D, though there were several attempts to kick-off a program with that intent. Maybe I am wrong but the last news I saw is that they had been cancelled.

I was referring to the initial radar lock by the missile after it is launch from the fighter...

Ie assuming 1,500km range for the missile the pilot is given the coordinates of the target and its speed and direction so a rough calculation suggests a general location about an hour later when the missile will be arriving at low speed.

True. What I referred is that against such reduced radar horizon a fighter can approach very close to the ship (maybe 50 km?) and launch, the position of the ship cold not change substantially and its radar emissions would give it away in any case... it could be tracked from many hundreds of km away by AEW planes. So potentially the ship would not even get any hint the missile is inbound.

Why bother with a complicated combined rocket boosted turbojet powered missile with a rocket terminal phase weapon with a range of 600km when a missile roughly the same size and weight with a combined rocket ramjet engine can fly 600km at mach 5 all the way in the form of an upgraded Onyx?

I assume the Oniks is bigger, even the air launched version was something like 2.5 t. 3M54 with newer technology would probably be faster, lighter and/or longer ranged.

Or indeed in a few years time a Mach 10 Zircon whose surface launched model reaches over 1,000km...

Of course an air launched Tsirkon would be a total nightmare... imagine the range when air launched at high speed, added to the range of the carrier... it is a weapon potentially capable of closing the theater to any opposing surface fleet...

If the Kalibre supersonic anti ship missile had a flight range of 1,500km where 1,470kms is at subsonic speed and the last 30km were mach 2.9 under rocket power then it would make sense to deploy it and use it... it would be sneaky and clever, but with a range of only 600km in the domestic model why would you put one in a UKSK tube when you could put Onyx or soon a Zircon into that same tube? Or with tactical aircraft an air launched version of either...

3M54 is faster (in its terminal phase) than the original Oniks... as said we would need to see what an upgrade version would be capable of. But of course having Tsirkon you don't want anything else, the only question is price.

And I agree with that too... to be useful the low flying subsonic missile needs range to be useful and 600km doesn't really cut it... more than double that range and you have something interesting... but why does it need a plane to achieve that.... these are 533mm calibre weapons... the ship launched model could do with extra fuel tanks and perhaps new rocket fuel to double the range of the terminal portion perhaps.... or even a scramjet terminal portion that just keeps accelerating...

With a plane you get a lot of added flexibility. Maybe you can take it 1000 km away and launch from there, instead of making huge missiles with huge fuel tanks taking a lot of space in the VLS. Or you may have effective aerial refuelling in the future and launch big payloads 1500 or more km from the fleet, or reduce a lot the size of the missiles and massively increase the salvo size. For instance, an internally carried hypersonic AShM for the Su-57, of which you can take 4 pieces without RCS or drag increase and that can be used in relatively close distance to the target, to maximize warhead size... a single plane disabling 4 AEGIS DDGs? Sounds crazy, but it may be possible....

Yes, I realise I am being unfair... it was only ever speculation that suggested a mach 6 speed and for use as a replacement for the Kh-15...

GZUR isn't it? That will come too, they have lots of hypersonic weapons in the pipeline...

GarryB wrote:Nice... at mach six that means in 22 seconds it would have covered at least 40km... as the speed and flight time ratchet up the distances become even more impressive...

There is no need for hypersonic cruise missiles. Traveling at Mach 6 - Mach 10 at best it will deliver what a 500 lbs warhead at best. ICBMS will travel at Mach 20 and above and deliver a 10 ton warhead.

It is even worse, from what I have found the reaction time of the AEGIS fire control system (from first detection to first missile launched) is ca. 10 seconds... at 3 M that is the time for the missile to cover 10 km. Even in normal conditions (standard radar horizon of a 18 m high radar vs AShM flying 5 m above the surface is 14 km) it means a SM will be close to minimum engagement distance. In conditions of reduced radar horizon (there are instances below 7 km) there is not even time to launch the first interceptor...

More important is that it wont just be scanning the horizon all the time because that would give away its location and identity to enemy forces in an enormous radius.

When a US AEGIS class cruiser entered Iranian waters in the 1980s and was firing on Iranian navy vessels when the commander decided to fire SAMs at the target they had been tracking for some time there was a fault with the missile and the launch was delayed about 90 seconds... imagine such a delay against a target was actually trying to do them harm...

Indeed, that is why the USN classified it as "critical" risk. They were afraid the two-speed flight course would fool their fire control systems and make them calculate wrongly the interception points... not even considering they would not have the material time to detect and launch missiles, as we see could be the case without an increased detection range. As of today, I think they do not have the practise target needed to properly model Threat D, though there were several attempts to kick-off a program with that intent. Maybe I am wrong but the last news I saw is that they had been cancelled.

Well to be fair.... their best defence against such threats is carrier based AWACS platforms that could detect low flying weapons are reasonable distances...

Would be interesting to see how they engineered the missile though... does it release the rocket section that fires up and accelerates madly towards the target in a frantic race to the finish... destroying the subsonic section in the process... or does it separate cleanly allowing the subsonic portion to continue... perhaps with a jammer or chaff and flares that might distract the air defences... or even just continue flying and fractions of a minute after the mach 3 rocket hits the ship the subsonic section smacks into the ship at 850km/h spreading its remaining fuel all over the deck and starting a fire just to rub salt into the wound...

I assume the Oniks is bigger, even the air launched version was something like 2.5 t. 3M54 with newer technology would probably be faster, lighter and/or longer ranged.

For a ship whether it is a 6 metre long 3M54 that is 533mm in calibre with a range of 600km and subsonic most of the way and mach 3 for the last 20-30km, or an 8 metre long 750mm calibre Onyx with improved fuel and 800km range at mach 5... that could probably do the same trick... medium altitude for max speed most of the way until it gets close and then drops down remaining in the horizons shadow and streak in at mach 3 using a ramjet engine with super fuel... it might be 3 tons instead of the 2 tons for the subsonic/supersonic model.

The 3M54 should be lighter and longer ranged... the problem is that it does not seem to be.

Of course an air launched Tsirkon would be a total nightmare... imagine the range when air launched at high speed, added to the range of the carrier... it is a weapon potentially capable of closing the theater to any opposing surface fleet...

To be clear though having it air launched at high speed wont effect its range as much as if it was a solid rocket powered only weapon.

The Zircon will have a solid rocket component to get it into the air and flying and then it will use its scramjet engine to climb and accelerate to high altitude where its jet engine operates most efficiently.

Being flown up to altitude and reasonable speed means it its initial rocket motor boost will take it higher and faster so the scramjet motor can be used less saving rather a lot of fuel... it could gradually accelerate as it loses fuel weight using the fuel more efficiently and extend range a bit.

With an all solid rocket fuel missile it will get to a height and a flight speed and then coast so launching from sea level and stationary wastes a lot of rocket energy getting the missile moving and climbing to an altitude where it can move efficiently.

For a jet powered missile the throttle can be used to avoid wasting fuel, and to extend effective range.

Not really clear is it... what I am trying to say is a solid rocket motor missile is like a gun... fire it from the ground and you will get x distance for range. Take the gun up 20,000m and fire it and the same round will launch the projectile to much higher speed because of less drag and the projectile will travel much further.

It is not the same for a jet powered aircraft.... you will get a boost in range just based on how far the plane carrying you can fly, and the speed you are travelling at together with the speeds you can achieve with your solid rocket booster and scramjet, but you wont dramatically increase the actual distance the missile moves by three times like you would with a solid rocket missile.

3M54 is faster (in its terminal phase) than the original Oniks... as said we would need to see what an upgrade version would be capable of. But of course having Tsirkon you don't want anything else, the only question is price.

If it can get to mach 5 at high altitude then it should be able to reach mach 2-3 at low altitude... or perhaps mach 6 in a steep dive from very high altitude...

Flying at 40km altitude can be as safe as flying at 10m above the wave tops... the odds on a big wave at 40km altitude is pretty low, but you find all sorts of things at sea...

With a plane you get a lot of added flexibility. Maybe you can take it 1000 km away and launch from there, instead of making huge missiles with huge fuel tanks taking a lot of space in the VLS.

Well the thing is that the VLS systems are currently the size they are... and where the missiles are much smaller than that means empty space that is not being used. For aircraft keeping them small is useful, but for ships and subs then you might as well make the missiles bigger to fill out the available width and length and get better performance from them. They will still fit 8 to a UKSK launcher, but having 4,500km range land attack missiles is more useful than 2,500km range land attack missiles... or 2,500km range land attack missiles with three warheads that can be dropped enroute to primary targets... perhaps delayed fuse warheads that explode 10 minutes after the missile has passed...

GZUR isn't it? That will come too, they have lots of hypersonic weapons in the pipeline...

Yes, I am getting it confused... I thought Kh-50 was GZUR, but it seems to me based on its specs that Kh-50 is actually Kh-SD... a 6m long stealthy land attack cruise missile for Bears and Backfires to carry internally with a range of 1,500km or so...

There is no need for hypersonic cruise missiles. Traveling at Mach 6 - Mach 10 at best it will deliver what a 500 lbs warhead at best. ICBMS will travel at Mach 20 and above and deliver a 10 ton warhead.

The missile I am talking about... Gzur, is a short range attack missile that is a nuclear armed high speed missile that strategic bombers would use during a nuclear war to basically clear a path to where it needs to get to to launch its long range cruise missiles.

In other words you are in a Blackjack cruising at 900km/h at medium altitude and your EW set detects a ground based radar 500km away... it is part of a Patriot battery... you have two weapon bays each 11m long... in one bay you have 6 x kh-102 nuclear armed missiles with a range of 5,000km, while in the other bay you have 12 AS-16 Kickback missiles... a speed of mach 5 and a range of 250km and a nuclear warhead at 1.5 tons each.

On your radar you detect a flight of 20 F-15s approaching... so you launch two Kickbacks... one at the radar on the ground and one into the midst of the F-15s... both of which are obliterated with a 300Kt plus nuclear blast... and so you carry on towards your launch position...

The thing is that the AS-16 (Kh-15) has been withdrawn from service... the Gzur is expected to replace it with mach 6 speed and 1,500km range so it could be launched at airfields or known enemy bases... its speed means it can race ahead and destroy the target before the bomber flys over it... which in the case of a SAM site would be too late...

The replacement for the Gzur is already in the planning stage and will be twice as long (so will fill the 11m weapon bay of the Blackjack) but will have a flight range of over 12,000km and a flight speed of mach 12. It is not expected for at least a decade, but would be a rather interesting weapon for the future...

These are strategic weapons only for use during WWIII so they would only ever be fitted with nuclear warheads.

For conventional targets Onyx with new fuel would be fine...

GarryB wrote:The missile I am talking about... Gzur, is a short range attack missile that is a nuclear armed high speed missile that strategic bombers would use during a nuclear war to basically clear a path to where it needs to get to to launch its long range cruise missiles.

Fair enough. I was only referring to the point that you made about using hypersonic cruise missiles.

Like I said, they are not useful. Flying at Mach 6,7, Mach 10 at best they will deliver a 500lbs warhead. ICBMs can deliver a 1 ton warhead flying at speeds of Mach 20 and above.

The thing is that ICBMs are the longest ranged fastest delivery system for nuclear weapons, so if they make mach 12 cruise missiles obsolete don't they also make subsonic cruise missiles obsolete too?

And those terribly short range SLBMs are slower and shorter ranged as well.

The thing is, however, each has a valuable niche advantage over the alternatives... ICBMs have excellent range and speed but new ABMs are being designed to shoot them down. New warheads that manouver are being developed... the but the technology to manouver inside the atmosphere at those speeds require new heat resistant materials and propulsion systems and when you take those and apply them to other weapons like cruise missiles you make them more effective and able to penetrate existing air defences.

ABM systems are basically able to hit ICBM warheads because they are fully ballistic... like a rock... you throw it up at an angle moving at a certain speed and as it approaches the target most humans from sight can watch its path and estimate an intercept path to hit it... say with a bat or a shotgun blast.

A cruise missile is a powered craft so it is impossible to track it for a short period and then make rather accurate predictions about its flight path to impact... there is the same problem with bombers.

The difference so far with cruise missiles and bombers is that they are easy to intercept because they are slow and can't manouver very well so they are fairly easy targets for most air defence systems.

Accelerating them to mach 12 however and allowing them to follow any path they like makes interception vastly more difficult... which obviously makes them more effective.

Many many years ago when the US and the Soviets were trying and failing to create ICBMs and also long range strategic bombers another solution was the long range cruise missile... the strategic cruise missile.... never intended to be carried by aircraft... these were submarine launched or launched from the ground... most were about mach 3 and had flight ranges of 4-5 thousand kms... and they were big and heavy and very expensive.

ICBMs and strategic bombers and SSBN submarines rendered them redundant... but a nuclear ramjet powered missile with unlimited range makes them interesting again...

GarryB wrote:More important is that it wont just be scanning the horizon all the time because that would give away its location and identity to enemy forces in an enormous radius.

They have no chance other than that, otherwise they would be trivially bombed, WWII style

Would be interesting to see how they engineered the missile though... does it release the rocket section that fires up and accelerates madly towards the target in a frantic race to the finish... destroying the subsonic section in the process... or does it separate cleanly allowing the subsonic portion to continue... perhaps with a jammer or chaff and flares that might distract the air defences... or even just continue flying and fractions of a minute after the mach 3 rocket hits the ship the subsonic section smacks into the ship at 850km/h spreading its remaining fuel all over the deck and starting a fire just to rub salt into the wound...

The way it is build, the subsonic section holds the supersonic one and does not appear to have any possibility to fly further, due to shape and CoG issues...

The 3M54 should be lighter and longer ranged... the problem is that it does not seem to be.

Funny, it was the best thing available few years ago and now it seems outdated... but I see the concept specially useful for an air launched AShM. The plane could carry it very close to the ship, and if they could manage more speed to make the terminal approach even faster and with very good precision, they could reduce the size of the warhead. For instance attack the superstructure where search radars are placed and which are very delicate equipment, the ship would be rendered essentially defenceless and could be finished off on the cheap.

To be clear though having it air launched at high speed wont effect its range as much as if it was a solid rocket powered only weapon.

Yeah, it has a cruise engine, but it has also a booster that needs to take it high in the atmosphere and > 5 M, there is a lot of energy involved in placing the missile at the right altitude and flight speed.

Being flown up to altitude and reasonable speed means it its initial rocket motor boost will take it higher and faster so the scramjet motor can be used less saving rather a lot of fuel... it could gradually accelerate as it loses fuel weight using the fuel more efficiently and extend range a bit.

In less dense atmosphere at such speeds, that would mean maybe hundreds of km more.

Not really clear is it... what I am trying to say is a solid rocket motor missile is like a gun... fire it from the ground and you will get x distance for range. Take the gun up 20,000m and fire it and the same round will launch the projectile to much higher speed because of less drag and the projectile will travel much further.

Yes it is clear, I have seen the calculations and it is like that. Nevertheless, there are fast and slow burn rocket engines, slow burn is better for range because less energy is spent defeating high drag. On the other hand, in launches from sea level, you actually want the missile to be very fast very soon so it reaches less dense air asap. This is a problem a Kinzhal does not have...

It is not the same for a jet powered aircraft.... you will get a boost in range just based on how far the plane carrying you can fly, and the speed you are travelling at together with the speeds you can achieve with your solid rocket booster and scramjet, but you wont dramatically increase the actual distance the missile moves by three times like you would with a solid rocket missile.

Probably not, but we would need to see numbers and we may be surprised... drag at low altitudes and high speeds is a terrible handicap

Well the thing is that the VLS systems are currently the size they are... and where the missiles are much smaller than that means empty space that is not being used. For aircraft keeping them small is useful, but for ships and subs then you might as well make the missiles bigger to fill out the available width and length and get better performance from them. They will still fit 8 to a UKSK launcher, but having 4,500km range land attack missiles is more useful than 2,500km range land attack missiles... or 2,500km range land attack missiles with three warheads that can be dropped enroute to primary targets... perhaps delayed fuse warheads that explode 10 minutes after the missile has passed...

I still need to see whether USKS-M will be the same size than now. There is the possibility that Kalibr-M just maxes the available cell diameter and depth, there is some margin. We still don't have details on the 4500 km range missiles. Still, I am focusing in naval strike and subsonic CMs are not the best weapon for that. Maybe I have not yet figured out the real difficultly of detecting and stoping low flying missiles in reality, but what I don't doubt is that they are substantially easier for the ship's AD than high supersonic ones.

Yes, I am getting it confused... I thought Kh-50 was GZUR, but it seems to me based on its specs that Kh-50 is actually Kh-SD... a 6m long stealthy land attack cruise missile for Bears and Backfires to carry internally with a range of 1,500km or so...

Yes, Kh-SD is how Butowsky referred it

S-8L

Two different rockets on your pics ?

So a laser guided 80mm unguided rocket... nice....

Anything that can carry an 80mm rocket pod in the Russian military has the capacity to mark a target with a laser beam so effectively they are already able to carry and use this weapon...

Nice.

Wonder how cheap they can make them for...

Wonder if the nose ring is enough for manouvering or if it needs fin deflection too... if the nose ring is enough it could be fitted to the nose fuse pocket of any 80mm rocket with any warhead type to make them laser homing... this is perhaps similar to the 152mm artillery shell guidance system and fuse, though it uses GLONASS and this is laser homing... it could be fitted to any weapon that uses a nose mounted fuse...

This means you still have to aim the weapons towards their targets but it should make precise hits much easier to achieve and ballistic launches with lofted rockets much more accurate and effective... increasing standoff range and making the launch aircraft much safer.

Isos wrote:Two different rockets on your pics ?

Third pic is a bomb. It´s a comparison of the "laser window" to that of the rocket.

Hole wrote:

Isos wrote:Two different rockets on your pics ?

Third pic is a bomb. It´s a comparison of the "laser window" to that of the rocket.

The colours are the same so I thought it was two rockets. The first with in-build guidance and the bellow with a modification kit to an old rocket.

I was reading about the most recent KH-31 PD missiles. When launched at 15000m alt. they have a top speed of M4.5 and range of 250 km. Is there any antimissile system that can defend against this? I was thinking about how Russia actually sold drone versions of this missile to the USA and I was thinking "why in gods name..." but then I think its actually quite findishly clever. Firstly, the USA has the bulk of high value targets to protect, secondly, knowing for sure that the Russians will sell them this weapon to pick apart makes them think OMG what on EARTH do they have that they WON'T sell us So in typical USA fashion, this sets up a multibillion dollar expenditure on ways to protect the fleet. Just in time for Russia to showcase the even more scary weapons. They must have such fun in the Kremlin yanking the Americans around. lol

The competition the American Navy ran was intended to allow them to cheaply get their hands on Moskit... is SS-N-22 Sunburn.

The Russians wanted money... it was the 1990s... so they entered an very early model Kh-31... it wasn't very good... it was the anti radiation version and was intended for high altitude flight to then dive steeply on the target radar so that the radar would likely not see it coming... it was never intended for low altitude flight to hit a ship... that was a different version optimised for flying low and fast.

The Russians got some money and the Americans got an old obsolete late 1970s version of a Russian missile.

I remember at the time pro america fanboys whining and asking why American entries for the competition didn't win and they kept showing drawings of paper projects and claiming America had had such systems for decades... obviously without ever putting them in to service or anything.

Anyway, as barely acceptable as the M-31 was they quickly realised that high speed low flying missiles made Phalanx a joke, so they hurriedly put SEA RAM into development and production... it is a mishmash of Sidewinder, Stinger, and Hellfire missiles.

At the time they were selling the Kh-31A missiles to the Americans they were ready to put Onyx into service... a very different sort of beast...

Note the Kh-31 being a tactical fighterbomber weapon rather than a naval anti ship missile means it does not have the wolf pack hunting datalinks and sophisticated guidance systems...

It is a cheap simple fast anti ship and anti radiation missile that compliments the Kh-35 Uran rather well.

They have no chance other than that, otherwise they would be trivially bombed, WWII style

That is what makes AWACS aircraft so critical... they can search without giving away the precise location of any ship.

New kh-59mkm. In the back there is also the mini kh-35 with an electro-optical homing head.

Isos wrote:New kh-59mkm. In the back there is also the mini kh-35 with an electro-optical homing head.

Not as advanced as Armement Air-Sol Modulaire/Hammer

Armement Air-Sol Modulaire/Hammer is a gliding bomb kit, they have plenty of those already... GROM for instance...


It comes in two versions, one with a solid rocket motor to deliver the 250kg HE weapon 100km to target at mach 2, or you can replace the solid rocket motor with 130kgs more HE but no rocket motor.

It is based on the Kh-38 which is a guided weapon delivering a 250kg bomb too..

owais.usmani wrote:

https://twitter.com/ndos_ru/status/1417403440469270565

What is this fantastic light diorama on the ceiling.
It feature both Su-30SM than Su-57 or just the latter?

GarryB wrote:Armement Air-Sol Modulaire/Hammer is a gliding bomb kit, they have plenty of those already... GROM for instance...


It comes in  two versions, one with a solid rocket motor to deliver the 250kg HE weapon 100km to target at mach 2, or you can replace the solid rocket motor with 130kgs more HE but no rocket motor.

It is based on the Kh-38 which is a guided weapon delivering a 250kg bomb too..

I'll explain why the Hammer is far more cutting edge than any Russian analogue.


The Hammer missile is equipped with INS/GPS/Laser Guidance. SBU-54 version of Hammer is equipped with INS/GPS/IR (infrared) guidance. It also has a powerful automatic target recognition technology which enables HAMMER to hit the target with utmost precision.

HAMMER has an unmatched capability of targeting locations that are even at 90 degrees to the direction of aircraft as it can approach its target in pure geographical coordinates which give it surgical precision wherein enemy location behind a cliff can also be targeted with ease.

It is also expensive. They quickly run out of those ammos in Libya.

Kh-59 isn't an analogue to gliding bombs but to scalp and other taurus missiles with >300km range. And it comes with differznt warheads so it can be used against ground but also naval targets contrary to nato missiles.

USSR/Russia aren't that much interested by gliding bombs since you need to fly very high to reach 100km range thus putting you in range of AD missiles or easy target for air to air missiles.

They are interested in it mainly as a weapon for drones.
Given that those class of planes have a limited payload, the possibility of increase their standoff range with a modest weight increase is worth the effort.
We are however talking about 50-100kg class ordnances.
For heaviest ones they would go toward missiles.
Note that they already have specific a Kh-59 version for use on 5th gen bomb bays.

The Hammer missile is equipped with INS/GPS/Laser Guidance. SBU-54 version of Hammer is equipped with INS/GPS/IR (infrared) guidance. It also has a powerful automatic target recognition technology which enables HAMMER to hit the target with utmost precision.

GPS.... so you need US permission/cooperation to use it?

GROM uses INS/GLONASS guidance, it is based on the Kh-38 guided air to ground missile which has Thermal imaging, Laser homing, and active radar terminal guidance options. As a glide bomb its range is rather less, but obviously the heavier warhead choices makes it more effective against most targets.

They also have a very wide range of guided glide bombs with Thermal and TV and laser homing guidance options too.