Setting aside the unrealistic ranges, how is this any different from 3M55? It also gets boosted into a high position out of the tube, then settles into a sea-skimming cruise, before quickly popping up then down for a final lock.
The unrealistic ranges are because jet engines are more efficient at medium altitude, so instead of subsonic all the way cruise missile flying 3,000km we have the much shorter range of 600-900km, followed by a highly supersonic penetration of short range air defences.
The difference is greatly extending the range by medium altitude low speed cruise... this compares with high supersonic missile having a fraction of that range because of its high speed, and that short range meaning that the faster missile must remain low to hide from enemy radar, which further limits max range.
I feel like this discussion is academic, since we don't know the real ranges for 3M54 and 3M55, so we don't really know how much of a range advantage 3M54 has to make those doglegs. Given Oniks' bigger dimensions, the "advantage" could be trivial.
It does make discussion difficult, but the design parameters of the two different missiles was with supersonic missile that the enemy will detect you anyway so go fast and try to penetrate the defences giving less time to intercept. The low flying subsonic is to sneak up and rush the last layer of defences.
There are a range of targets and threats and I think a range of solutions would be most effective in dealing with those threats and targets. An old oiler able to make 12knts does not need Onyx to sink it.
[quoteYou could potentially put Oniks in inclined, on-deck launchers. Or, indeeded, in a modular container. You don't need to redesign the superstructure just to accomodate it. This is not really an advantage for Uran, I personally feel.[/quote]
They are also more compact... a small patrol craft like the Soviet missile boats like OSA could carry 16 Urans, and in the current model with the 240km range they would be as potent as any other subsonic missile today.
Those emitters could be a squaking Ka-29 or just a tattletale "fishing trawler". The missile obviously won't go active until the final stretch.
Even detecting one missile popping up does not tell them how many missiles there are, there are of course jammers and even the simple possibility that the targets might be lined up so half the targets are hidden behind other targets and are not visible... lots of bad things can happen you can't do much about.
Decoys?
UAVs.
This is a non-trivial task, not at all.
If it was who would bother building a navy?
There are solutions, and likely no one solution will be used... it will take many solutions, and a lot of the time the ones you use wont be enough.
Moderate scepticism is my position.
Fair enough.
Home
Latest images
Register
Log in
sepheronx
