I'll reply to you both in bulletpoint format again, if you don't mind. The quote notation is giving me headaches.
That is fine... I hope you don't mind if I continue using quotes as I think it makes it clearer to whom I am replying to specifically... and it also helps me keep on topic... tend to ramble sometimes...
Novator has advertised subsonic LA, subsonic AS and subsonic AS /w supersonic sprint. But those promotional posters are for foreign customers. Russian MOD gets its own set of promos.
Yes, the range performance alone shows that these are export weapons.
And the way that I've heard reported from reliable sources (you don't have to believe any of this, btw),
The fact that you admitted to making a mistake with Granit a few pages ago says to me you admit when you are wrong... based on that I am happy to take your word these are reliably sources.
only the subsonic LA version was purchased by the MOD, since the AS function is being covered by Oniks which can be launched from the same UKSK launchers. Also, setting aside "sources" and other bullshit, think about it logically: why would Russian Navy need to have a second subsonic or quasi-supersonic anti-ship missile when it already has Oniks in the same VLS? What would be the point of adding extra supply chain complexity?
Actually using logic alone I would turn it around and ask why an export customer would bother buying a subsonic/supersonic combination missile just to get less than 300km range performance when the same company can provide likely for not much difference in cost or weight or capacity a missile that is capable of flying very fast all the way to the target that is 300km away.
I would think the real point of making a missile that flies low and slow and then launches a supersonic stage near the target would be to get a range that is simply not possible with a supersonic all the way missile.
I don't expect you to search too far back but several times Russian officials have talked about supersonic missiles with a range of 1,500km, which at the time we thought could be Onyx, but information released more recently suggests a sub 500km range for Onyx in most flight attack profiles.
I personally think 1,500km range should be perfectly possible with a subsonic missile carrying a rocket propelled mach 2.9 terminal stage and would certainly justify its existance... and a subsonic all the way version able to hit ships detected by other platforms or space based sensors also makes sense to me... with a full range of 2,500km and terminal guidance and conventional warhead.
I don't have any evidence of this of course either... this is just supposition... I suspect the Navy brass will be interested in hitting ships... especially a ship like a freighter or cargo support ship at extended ranges to cripple the supply lines of a more powerful enemy.
Uran/Bal is being supplanted by Oniks/Bastion. The reason why Bal is still being delivered is due to long-ass laggy supply chains and production contracts being signed before Bastion became mature product. Same issue with Uran: it is only being deployed on legacy design ships (20380 family corvettes). They've tried to redesign the deck to get rid of Uran completely (20385), but it got too expensive for a corvette, so they are back to a cheaper version with Uran (20386). In any case, you'll notice that not a single completely new corvette/frigate design project that came out recently has Uran launchers, they all have either UKSK or modular containers. Uran is a thing of the past, just like Moskit or Termit.
I agree with what you are saying except that I think the Uran will remain as an air launched option and that it adds flexibility to smaller vessels not big enough for UKSK... and of course as an export item it is a perfect item to offer as a cheap and simple modification to old, existing, new, and future vessels.
Together with the anti ship models of Kh-31 I think Uran and Kh-35 make sense.
BTW I also remember seeing a mini-Uran model that reminded me of the British Sea Skua... does anyone know anything about that?
Personally I think a new model with combined radar and IIR seeker would make sense if it can be made small and cheap enough... to function it should already have a lock on after launch feature, which would make it useful for drones and even submarines etc etc... even shipping crates...
On S-10 Granat. The deployed version only had a nuclear charge, but this isn't a navigation issue. You could put a HE charge on it and it would have exactly the same navigation issues and solutions: inertial navigation using uploaded topographical maps. A HE charge is usually heavier than a nuclear charge, so there would have been a range penalty, but the basic navigational unit would not have changed.
My understanding was that without terminal guidance the accuracy of the guidance was not good enough to get it closer than 250m or so.
Obviously missing a target by 250m is irrelevant for a nuclear warhead, but for a 300kg HE warhead it makes it useless.
It is newer development of the Kh-101 and Kh-102 with its improved inertial guidance and terminal guidance that has brought the CEP down below 25m (some sources say a lot below 25m) which makes conventionally armed versions become practical... plus more efficient jet engines further improve range performance too... though they are bigger heavier missiles that the Kh-55, they ahve a much longer range too... up to 5,500km AFAIK.
That they've rejected the Kalibrs/UKSKs in favour of the Urans for cost reasons shows that there still might a place for the Uran in Russian service.
Not just cost... the UKSK is a very long system and needs a lot of hull depth to fit... for larger vessels it isn't a problem, but with the smaller vessels they need to have superstructure built up to allow for the length.
The Rubin-class patrol corvette class in service with the FSB Border Guard has the option of being fitted with them. Right now they're not installed but I'd bet you a nickel that they have that option in reserve and ready to be implemented if global tensions start ratcheting up.
Another good point... reduce size missiles for export as well as border patrol duties would be useful... using a 2 ton supersonic anti ship missile is a bit excessive for non navy duties like border patrol.
3M54 (anti-ship Kalibr) has inferior speed to 3M55 and inferior range to 3M14. It just makes no sense for the surface navy.
But isn't 3M54 subsonic most of the way to the target and then supersonic to breach the short range defences at mach 2.9... so in the terminal phase it is actually faster than Onyx, but potentially its flight range should be significantly greater... I mean that is the point of the subsonic phase.
And the 3M14 is just a subsonic all the way round nose family member of the 3M54 which has a pointed nose for the supersonic terminal portion.
Because there is no purely supersonic Kalibr. The quasi-supersonic version of 3M54 only goes M=2.8 in the final stretch, while 3M55 is supersonic all the way.
To reach its top speed and top range the 3M55 has to fly high and should be detected at fairly long range. In comparison the 3M54 should be able to fly a decent distance at medium altitude in subsonic cruise and when it gets near the radar horizon of the target it can drop down to just above the water and sneak in and launch itself at the target at higher speed than the 3M55 achieves at low altitude.
Sounds rather more clever than you seem to give it credit for...
KGB never fitted missiles on their border patrol ships in the past. Only guns and self-defense weapons. You don't need missiles to scare off Japanese and Norwegian poachers.
It is excessive, though for anti piracy roles having it available would be useful... perhaps a reduced payload model with say a 25kg or 50kg warhead instead of 145kg... the extra space could be used for more fuel... would be interesting if a fuel tank could be added in the warhead compartment so any unused fuel could be part of the explosive content... of course as fuel is used the shift in cg might make the missile unstable or reduce its flight performance.
How much accuracy do you really need against an unhardened stationary target?
Certainly better than the 200-300m accuracy they got back then... clearly plenty of accuracy for a nuke warhead, but not for conventional.
As for nuclear, that's just how they rolled in the Cold War. There was significantly more emphasis put on nuking Puget Sound, rather than blasting a few hapless Afghanis in Kandahar.
And that is why Russia is spending all this money on upgrading its military... in WWII to ensure a factory in a city was destroyed... either about 10 x 10,000 bomber raids, or a nuke. Today hitting a specific target can be achieved with a cruise missile using a conventional warhead and therefore is a more usable weapon than having to resort to a nuclear warhead to make up for accuracy issues.
This is what they mean about NATOs conventional weapons making a first strike more likely... launching lots of conventional cruise missiles able to disable point targets like airfields and nuclear facilities is the equivalent to having even more nuclear weapons.
well when the Russian navy gets bigger with lots of new vessels all carrying UKSK launchers then Russia will have that capability too...
Notice the US has already looked at blimps as low cost anti cruise missile air defence systems... and all through the cold war the US mainland air defence upgrades have been largely lip service only.