VMF vs. USN scenarios

Returning to the possibility of redirecting and detecting targets between individual fire units.
Russia still lacks a complete satellite targeting system. Currently, the Liana system consists of four or five satellites, including only one Pion NSK radar. The rest are ELINT satellites. In the times of the USSR, the Legend system consisted of more than 37 satellites of the ELINT system and the US-P and US-A radar satellites. Of course, the Liana system is more modern and has the possibility of much more precise indications, but it is very incomplete. The Russian navy can, of course, use many sources of indication and detection, such as ship radars, sonars, aviation, etc. There are OTH radars, but they give precise indications. Which causes problems with target identification. To make the most of the power of new missiles, etc., Russia needs a global satellite-based targeting system. Especially because it has a nuclear submarine that can operate covertly far from the borders of Russia.In this case, the satellite targeting system comes in very handy.

Apparently there are 5 Araks-R (14F155) radar reconnaissance satellites scheduled for launch in 2021, 2022, 2023, 2024 and 2025.
I have no idea how this project is doing atm but I believe there are some technical problems?

Russia still lacks a complete satellite targeting system.

Russia lacks and will likely never have a 100% global coverage with its navy... its coverage around Russian territory is completed by OTH radar that operates 24/7 and has lots of overlaps and no gaps. Their satellite network is developing and improving.

Russia does not need to have complete global coverage, because its mission is not the extermination of all enemy forces... in terms of safety for Russia just destroying any ships or subs that approach their territory by say 2,000km or less would be good enough to ensure it can be protected from any attack they could defend against.

Anything more is just pissing away money.

GarryB wrote:

Russia lacks and will likely never have a 100% global coverage with its navy... its coverage around Russian territory is completed by OTH radar that operates 24/7 and has lots of overlaps and no gaps. Their satellite network is developing and improving.

Russia does not need to have complete global coverage, because its mission is not the extermination of all enemy forces... in terms of safety for Russia just destroying any ships or subs that approach their territory by say 2,000km or less would be good enough to ensure it can be protected from any attack they could defend against.
.

OTH radars do not give precise indications.  They won't even know what the unit is.  Identifying target is extremely important.  If they are misidentified, they can sink their own vessel.  Therefore, even when shooting at 2,000 km, a satellite targeting system is needed.  Aviation will not detect a destroyer or a frigate at this distance.  They have to fly closer, which puts them at risk of being hit by an air defense missile.  Modern frigates are made with stealth technology and lowered IR.  Which also reduces the detection range of the active warhead on anti-ship missiles and other radiolocation systems on airplanes and ships.Anyway, the MiG 31K can fly out of the Russian airspace and shoot at ships that are even more distant.  The same submarines or frigates.

OTH radars do not give precise indications. They won't even know what the unit is. Identifying target is extremely important.

True, but it is the early warning that is critical to defence... the alternative is having all your defences operating all the time looking for threats and enemies which would be too expensive and would mean you would have to split into shifts... greatly reducing the amount of forces you can dedicate to blunting any particular attack.

Early warning is everything.

If the target is a group of ships then general intel from spy ships and friendly vessels should give you a very good indication of which ships are part of that force, whereas with low flying missiles or high flying missiles then SAM batteries and air defence fighters can be armed and loaded up and in the latter case launched on forward patrols to get more detailed information of the composition of the incoming threat.

If it is aircraft then the general types could be determined and forces formed to intercept.

Nothing really happens till the threat is detected but once it is detected then assets can be brought in to identify and intercept and destroy.

A flight of hundreds of cruise missiles flying at 20m altitude heading directly towards Russian territory they would likely not wait for permission to fire... but a group of ships 2,000km away might be a landing force wanting to take islands for Japan or they might be innocently on their way past... the geopolitical situation at the time would determine whether a few systems were put on alert or if a flight of MiG-31Ks with Dagger missiles was launched and sent towards the threatening group of ships.

In the latter case there would be no need to formally identify the target involved... the Dagger missiles will sort that out on their way to the target area between themselves.

If they are misidentified, they can sink their own vessel.

They will know where their own military vessels are, and civilian vessels don't normally form up in groups like that...

Modern frigates are made with stealth technology and lowered IR.

Stealth is shaping and coatings that are effective against short frequency targeting radar but useless against long wave OTH radars...

Which also reduces the detection range of the active warhead on anti-ship missiles and other radiolocation systems on airplanes and ships.

There are very very few anti ship missiles that require a lock on before launch... so pretty much all radar guided anti ship missiles will not detect the target ship they are attacking until they have flown much closer. Having a stealthy ship just means the missile will remain on autopilot and closing the distance before it gets a lock... not a big deal.

Anyway, the MiG 31K can fly out of the Russian airspace and shoot at ships that are even more distant. The same submarines or frigates.

The combination of SSKs, and corvettes and frigates and shore based defences as well as MiG-31Ks and indeed Su-30s are enough to protect Russia from any sort of naval attack from any country... as long as they see it coming and the OTH radars together with some satellite based systems already fully provide that.

Over the next few years the space based component is going to massively improve and provide much more detailed information, but then as they expand their navy that information is going to become rather more useful too.

From Moon of Alabma:

Finally some folks at the U.S. Navy Postgraduate School in Monterey have also done the appropriate math. Here are their results (pg 57):

The literature review section describes the manner in which [Tomahawk Land Attack Missile (TLAM)] cruise missiles must be launched in salvos as large as 16 missiles to defeat a target with active defense. Due to its exceptional speed, maneuverability, and low flight path, a single hypersonic glide body missile is likely to be able to overcome an active defensive system that could defeat even a salvo attack of TLAMs.
An Arleigh Burke-class destroyer is equipped with 96 TLAMs, or six salvo attacks of 16 missiles each. This means that a vessel equipped with 12 hypersonic missiles can attack as many actively defended targets as two Arleigh Burke-class destroyers firing 16-missile salvos. 12 [All-Up-Rounds (AURs)] was chosen as the highest rating for this attribute because it represents the offensive equivalent of two entire vessels in the scenario where an actively defended target is being attacked.

One Russian Admiral Gorshov class corvette of some 5,000 tons with 16 hypersonic missiles and costing some $150 $500 million has MORE firepower than two U.S. Arleigh Burke class destroyers with 9,000 tons each, 192 missiles and costing a total of some $3.2 billions.

There´s only a "little" mistake. One Gorshkov is the equivalent of 4 or even 6 Burkes, because besides 16 silos for offensive weapons the Gorshkov has another 24 for SAM´s. And no Burke will carry 96 LACM´s against countries like Russia, China or even Iran. In that case they will need any air defence that they can get, therefore at least half the silos will be filled with SAM´s. Or even two thirds of them as planned in the good, old 1980´s.

Well mach 10 for Tzirkon is at high altitude. Ships are a height of 0m. So the missile will have to go through high density atmosphere where it will loose speed.

This data would be valuable for US navy planers. Because if the speed fall to mach 4 or 5 it is still possible to intercept it.

Isos wrote:Well mach 10 for Tzirkon is at high altitude. Ships are a height of 0m. So the missile will have to go through high density atmosphere where it will loose speed.

This data would be valuable for US navy planers. Because if the speed fall to mach 4 or 5 it is still possible to intercept it.

Hypersonic weapons approaching from a high angle of attack while under power will cut through the lower atmosphere very quickly, and won't lose a lot of speed. Flying at M9 will travel 20kms is about 7 sec, so a dive from a 20km cruise altitude might take ~10 seconds. Gravity will assist the maintenance of speed, as will the scramjet. No-one (other than the Russians) know how robust the scramjet operating profile is or how it would adjust to a rapid dive into the dense lower atmosphere, but even if the engine were to flameout in the later stages of the descent, it won't slow markedly. In any case, while US defenses might be able to intercept M4-5 missiles, their ship-based ABMs are designed to intercept at range, and won't be much use in terminal attack phase at short ranges within a few kms.

Hole wrote:From Moon of Alabma:

Finally some folks at the  U.S. Navy Postgraduate School in Monterey have also done the appropriate math. Here are their results (pg 57):

The literature review section describes the manner in which [Tomahawk Land Attack Missile (TLAM)] cruise missiles must be launched in salvos as large as 16 missiles to defeat a target with active defense. Due to its exceptional speed, maneuverability, and low flight path, a single hypersonic glide body missile is likely to be able to overcome an active defensive system that could defeat even a salvo attack of TLAMs.
An Arleigh Burke-class destroyer is equipped with 96 TLAMs, or six salvo attacks of 16 missiles each. This means that a vessel equipped with 12 hypersonic missiles can attack as many actively defended targets as two Arleigh Burke-class destroyers firing 16-missile salvos. 12 [All-Up-Rounds (AURs)] was chosen as the highest rating for this attribute because it represents the offensive equivalent of two entire vessels in the scenario where an actively defended target is being attacked.

One Russian Admiral Gorshov class corvette of some 5,000 tons with 16 hypersonic missiles and costing some $150 $500 million has MORE firepower than two U.S. Arleigh Burke class destroyers with 9,000 tons each, 192 missiles and costing a total of some $3.2 billions.

There´s only a "little" mistake. One Gorshkov is the equivalent of 4 or even 6 Burkes, because besides 16 silos for offensive weapons the Gorshkov has another 24 for SAM´s. And no Burke will carry 96 LACM´s against countries like Russia, China or even Iran. In that case they will need any air defence that they can get, therefore at least half the silos will be filled with SAM´s. Or even two thirds of them as planned in the good, old 1980´s.

The quoted section forgets about the speed difference of TLAMs and hypersonic missiles. There is not going to be a perfect response from the American ships.
Some will launch TLAMs soon enough, others will not be so lucky.

The difference between TLAM and Tsirkon is not quantitative but qualitative, them saying that 16 TLAM = 1 Tsirkon is utter BS, despite being one step in the right direction. Current AD of RF can stop almost any arbitrary number of Tomahawk, but US AD cannot stop any single Tsirkon. One 22800 can disable a CSG or a Yasen can attack a major US naval base, but the Arleigh Burkes of a CSG probably cannot sink the Peter the Great, Kuznetsov or similar capital ships with serious AD or attack land targets with high probability of success. So in reality the balance of power in the sea domain looks way worse than what they are saying.

Well mach 10 for Tzirkon is at high altitude. Ships are a height of 0m. So the missile will have to go through high density atmosphere where it will loose speed.

It will be flying at an altitude of between 30km and 50km and as it approaches the location of its target will most likely pitch up and do a short climb and then dive down nearly vertically on its target in full thrust mode... and as it will have burned off most of its fuel weight its power to weight ratio in its vertical dive will be impressive... moving at mach 10 it will be descending at just over 3km per second so only the last three or four seconds will the air actually be very thick, but as I said it wont be free falling like a bomb... it will be coming down with the equivalent of a rocket engine propelling its descent...

Rather than slow down I would expect it would speed up...

This data would be valuable for US navy planers. Because if the speed fall to mach 4 or 5 it is still possible to intercept it.

The idea behind the scramjet is that it can manouver and not lose speed... I would think it would not lose speed when heading down to the target either...

In any case, while US defenses might be able to intercept M4-5 missiles, their ship-based ABMs are designed to intercept at range, and won't be much use in terminal attack phase at short ranges within a few kms.

Another factor is lead... when firing a cannon or gun at an incoming missile you lead the incoming target so in the few seconds it takes for the incoming threat to be reached by your cannon round or missile the target threat will have moved.

At mach 10 in a dive that means in one seconds time the target will move 3km, so a cannon or missile fired three seconds before impact that is 2.5km away on another ship and moves at mach three would be aimed at the ship if you launch/fire it when the incoming threat is at 9km altitude... and into the water below the ship if fired any later...

The quoted section forgets about the speed difference of TLAMs and hypersonic missiles. There is not going to be a perfect response from the American ships.
Some will launch TLAMs soon enough, others will not be so lucky.

A loose association of Soviet and Russian air defence vehicles not integrated in an air defence network and positioned around potential targets was able to shoot down 73 out of 103 missiles fired at targets in Syria... every missile that was fired upon was shot down... many of the missiles not shot down flew into the ground because of EW. The targets that were struck were empty and not actually defended by anything on the ground because the intel was bad.

I would honestly say that 16 missiles would only be enough for a very limited range of targets most of the time... a single vehicle like a TOR could deal with four targets at a time and so could a single Pantsir system.... a full land based battery of TOR or Pantsir operating normally as part of an IADS could easily defeat an attack from 16 subsonic low flying missiles.

In fact the new four missiles per tube anti drone missiles for Pantsir would probably be enough to get a kill per missile and their very high speed means even a single vehicle could probably start engaging targets at 20km and engage more than a waves of missiles at once.

With missile flight times to 20km of about 20-30 seconds the first wave of four missiles being engaged at 20km could be defeated at 20-18km range so the next four missiles could be engaged at 16-14km range, and another four missiles at 12-10km range, so 12 tomahawks are likely dead before getting within 10km of the defence vehicle... leaving four missiles and a Pantsir vehicle with no missiles left, but with guns... but Russian vehicles operate in batteries of 6 or more vehicles so while that vehicle was shooting down 12 missiles the other 3 to 5 vehicles could easily take down 36 to 60 more targets... and that might not be the battery protecting the target the Tomahawks were aimed at... it might have just been a Pantsir battery on the way to the target area...

TOR is worse because although it has a shorter range of 15km, it carries more ready to fire missiles with 16 ready to launch missiles per system and the improvements in accuracy and radar means they no longer fire two missiles at each target...

Russian and Soviet air defences were designed to defeat subsonic threats and supersonic threats too.... hypersonic threats are new.

The west is hoping numbers can overwhelm when it can't deal with speed... Russia had speed but lacked numbers but now has numbers and speed and HATO is not well defended against either.

Hole wrote:From Moon of Alabma:

Finally some folks at the  U.S. Navy Postgraduate School in Monterey have also done the appropriate math. Here are their results (pg 57):

The literature review section describes the manner in which [Tomahawk Land Attack Missile (TLAM)] cruise missiles must be launched in salvos as large as 16 missiles to defeat a target with active defense. Due to its exceptional speed, maneuverability, and low flight path, a single hypersonic glide body missile is likely to be able to overcome an active defensive system that could defeat even a salvo attack of TLAMs.
An Arleigh Burke-class destroyer is equipped with 96 TLAMs, or six salvo attacks of 16 missiles each. This means that a vessel equipped with 12 hypersonic missiles can attack as many actively defended targets as two Arleigh Burke-class destroyers firing 16-missile salvos. 12 [All-Up-Rounds (AURs)] was chosen as the highest rating for this attribute because it represents the offensive equivalent of two entire vessels in the scenario where an actively defended target is being attacked.

One Russian Admiral Gorshov class corvette of some 5,000 tons with 16 hypersonic missiles and costing some $150 $500 million has MORE firepower than two U.S. Arleigh Burke class destroyers with 9,000 tons each, 192 missiles and costing a total of some $3.2 billions.

There´s only a "little" mistake. One Gorshkov is the equivalent of 4 or even 6 Burkes, because besides 16 silos for offensive weapons the Gorshkov has another 24 for SAM´s. And no Burke will carry 96 LACM´s against countries like Russia, China or even Iran. In that case they will need any air defence that they can get, therefore at least half the silos will be filled with SAM´s. Or even two thirds of them as planned in the good, old 1980´s.

The first 4 Gorshkov frigates have 16 UKSK launchers for offensive weapons and 32 launchers for SAMs. Next Gorshkovs frigates have 24 UKSK launchers for offensive weapons and 32 launchers for SAMs. Gorshkovs also have 2 Palma CIWS complexes and it is not clear if it is gun only complex or could also carry Sosna SAM missiles... Gorshkov frigate with 24 Zircon missiles will be very dangerous ship.

I was generous with my 1:6 comparison.

For the 78 time: Tsirkon is powered from start to impact, just like Kaliber, Onyx or Uran-M. It will not loose speed while maneuvering at lower altitude.

Stupid comparison. Arleigh burkes are there for protecting the carriers.

US real strike plateforms are the f-18, f-35 and all the b-1, b-2 and b-52 and submarines.

It's just a matter of time before they come with their own hypersonic weapons.

A flying plateform like f-18 will add another 800km in range to the missile.

And russian ships are even less protected against such weapons because they rely more on corvettes or light frigates, at least until now. Don't expect the Tor on Udaloy, the 9m96 or the Shtil to intercept mach 7-10 missiles.

Burkes VLS are better suited to carry bigger missiles that have a chance against hypersonic missiles if they somehow design such missile. Russian AD vls are too small for bigger missiles and we can see S-500 missiles are much bigger than s-400 missiles which can't even be carried by russian ships.

The first to shoot will be the first to hit and to win. US have lot of awacs and a carrier based aviation that gives lot of stand off range. They also have submarines that will be able to fire such missiles.

Hole wrote:I was generous with my 1:6 comparison.

For the 78 time: Tsirkon is powered from start to impact, just like Kaliber, Onyx or Uran-M. It will not loose speed while maneuvering at lower altitude.

They should loose some speed, but just a little from 27km/30km to the ground at zirkon speed will take just few seconds deceleration

It is true that the US will eventually develop hypersonic missiles and even missiles and whatnots that would be able to defend against hypersonic threats but to this date they have nothing to show whilst Russia has a good couple and most of them are entering service already. It probably won't take too long for Russia to develop a S-350 size missile being able to defend against hypersonic missiles.

Isos wrote:Stupid comparison. Arleigh burkes are there for protecting the carriers.

US real strike plateforms are the f-18, f-35 and all the b-1, b-2 and b-52 and submarines.

It's just a matter of time before they come with their own hypersonic weapons.

A flying plateform like f-18 will add another 800km in range to the missile.

And russian ships are even less protected against such weapons because they rely more on corvettes or light frigates, at least until now. Don't expect the Tor on Udaloy, the 9m96 or the Shtil to intercept mach 7-10 missiles.

Burkes VLS are better suited to carry bigger missiles that have a chance against hypersonic missiles if they somehow design such missile. Russian AD vls are too small for bigger missiles and we can see S-500 missiles are much bigger than s-400 missiles which can't even be carried by russian ships.

The first to shoot will be the first to hit and to win. US have lot of awacs and a carrier based aviation that gives lot of stand off range. They also have submarines that will be able to fire such missiles.

You're buying into Murkan PR & sales promotion bullshit.  Missile tech is eclipsing ship defense just like aviation eclipsed the big gun battleships.  The dynamics of the paradigm change are quite undeniable, no matter how much the Murkans and their water-carrier puke their exceptionalist nonsense. Murkans are simply in institutional denial that their massive investment into carriers is becoming redundant and their conventional power projection capability is now vulnerable.

US has also an airforce, bombers and submarines. The same things as Russia is relying on. They will also end up with a functional hypersonic missile that can be used from all of those plateforms.

Carriers are bonus and they work fine against weak countries, countries they make war against 100% of the time.

Isos wrote:US real strike plateforms are the f-18, f-35 and all the b-1, b-2 and b-52 and submarines.

They are (re)creating a AShM version of the Tomahawk to use its longer range, they want to be as far from the Tsirkon equipped VMF ships as possible, and I understand them. Even when the weapon is crap, it allows to keep the initiative in certain conditions.

And russian ships are even less protected against such weapons because they rely more on corvettes or light frigates, at least until now. Don't expect the Tor on Udaloy, the 9m96 or the Shtil to intercept mach 7-10 missiles.

Burkes VLS are better suited to carry bigger missiles that have a chance against hypersonic missiles if they somehow design such missile. Russian AD vls are too small for bigger missiles and we can see S-500 missiles are much bigger than s-400 missiles which can't even be carried by russian ships.

What is this nonsense...

The first to shoot will be the first to hit and to win. US have lot of awacs and a carrier based aviation that gives lot of stand off range. They also have submarines that will be able to fire such missiles.

USN as of now and for the next 5-7 years will need to stay clear of VMF Tsirkon capable ships and pray there is no Yasen in the theater or they are toast. Simple as that.

Afterwards, and if we allow ourselves some speculation, Russia needs to develop their naval air power for once, as the opportunity window created by the Tsirkon will progressively close, but the advantage they are gaining now will keep the US off balance for the best part of this decade and will allow them to play in the same category as USN at a ridiculous fraction of the cost US pays. Coming 2030, VMF should have the Kuznetsov in operation with clear plans or even ongoing construction fro the new CVN and PAK-KA may be in advanced state of development or maybe even deployed, together with the internal carriage hypersonic missiles announced for the Su-57. At that time, USN is again cornered, since they will need a new platform capable enough to compete with a eventual Su-57K which would have potential to be head and shoulders above both F-18 and F-35C in most regards. AWACS for the VMF remains an issue, I believe they will go with UAVs for this, platforms like Helios RLD have a huge potential compared to conventional manned platforms like E-2.

dino00 wrote:

Hole wrote:I was generous with my 1:6 comparison.

For the 78 time: Tsirkon is powered from start to impact, just like Kaliber, Onyx or Uran-M. It will not loose speed while maneuvering at lower altitude.

They should loose some speed, but just a little from 27km/30km to the ground at zirkon speed will take just few seconds deceleration

If it flies a similar profile as the Kh-32 it will gain speed in the dive towards the target.

What is this nonsense...

No nonsense. Russia VLS systems for air defence are designed around smaller missiles like tor, buk and 9m96.

S-500 which uses bigger missiles than S-400 can be used on ships using such VLS.

Only new ships will be able to use it and that is only if they get UKSK-M (and even then S-500 missiles could be still too big).

On the opposite US vls can carry all their missiles and even big ones. It will be easier to use a new missile designed to counter hypersonic missiles inside an Arleigh Burke thanks too its optimzed VLS than in reduts on Gorshkovs or Steregoushchys that will be the backbone of russian fleet.

Isos wrote:
No nonsense. Russia VLS systems for air defence are designed around smaller missiles like tor, buk and 9m96.

S-500 which uses bigger missiles than S-400 can be used on ships using such VLS.

Only new ships will be able to use it and that is only if they get UKSK-M (and even then S-500 missiles could be still too big).

On the opposite US vls can carry all their missiles and even big ones. It will be easier to use a new missile designed to counter hypersonic missiles inside an Arleigh Burke thanks too its optimzed VLS than in reduts on Gorshkovs or Steregoushchys that will be the backbone of russian fleet.

First, you are forgetting the capital ships like Atlant and Orlan that constitute the main AD assets of the VMF;

Second, you are also forgetting the S-300F y S-300FM, which use missiles the same size as S-400 and reach to 150 km. It is not unthinkable that they can jump to the 40N6 or a similar version on the ships that are worth carrying it an receive modern radar complexes, that would mean 400 km range which has nothing to do with short range, and those missiles already have a certain capacity vs. hypersonic threats.

Third, you don't know the dimensions of the S-500 missiles and whether any current, in design or modernized Russian combatant will be able to carry them.

Fourth, there is no official information about the characteristics of UKSK-M

Fifth, Mk41 VLS for SM-3 had to be modified for the Block IIB with more capable 27" booster and still the missile is thinner than the Oniks. The length is also smaller than that of UKSK missiles. It is the US side that has a problem with their VLS because they need to modify the whole fleet to accommodate the bigger missiles that they will need if they really want to have interceptors capable against kinematically advanced threats or to launch missiles equivalent to Tsirkon

Sixth, unlike Russia, US has no interceptors capable against hypersonic missiles. And therefore you have no clue about how big or small those missiles will be

You could have checked data before writing...

Actually the anti ballistic performance of S-350 is actually excellent and better than Aster... it should be able to deal with any western operational missile for the next decade...

The S-350 is better than the Rif and Rif-M S-300F naval missiles in every parameter including target speed... which is up to 4.8km/s.... mach 10 is 3.2km/s or thereabouts...

The point is that the Russians already have three missiles approaching or exceeding Mach 5 in its dive on target... the mach 4.5 Kh-32 flys at 40km altitude and probably hits the water going mach 6 or more... the Dagger (Kinzhal) and Zircon are rather faster with the Zircon just entering service and the other two having been in service for a while.

With Onyx using new fuels able to fly at mach 5 to 800km it also becomes rather more potent too... what does the west have?

Currently Russia has corvettes and frigates... the Redut system is designed to use 250km and 400km range missiles which means the large S-400 missiles.

Now that the S-500 is entering service.... did you notice the anti ICBM S-550 they stated it would not be used on naval platforms... note they didn't say the same about the S-500?

Being able to intercept 7km/s targets makes it a pretty good system to have on a naval vessel...

You are comparing US cruisers with Russian Corvettes and Frigates... amusing because US cruisers are designed to defend US carriers, while Russian Corvettes are armed to the point where they can sink US carriers even with US cruisers present... the reverse isn't true though.

LMFS wrote:

Sixth, unlike Russia, US has no interceptors capable against hypersonic missiles. And therefore you have no clue about how big or small those missiles will be

You could have checked data before writing...

Seventh - the S-500 is perhaps the first but definitely not the last word in Russian hypersonic defense.

The main offensive weapon of western fleets are Harpoon-like missile, either ship- or air-launched. Against that the short/medium range SAM´s of russian ships are the best defence.