Anti-Ship Missiles Thread

There is no supersonic Kalibr, it was just something Novator came up with for export customers, but I've heard from some reliable sources that none for built for Russian Navy and only Oniks is being used as a supersonic anti-ship missile. And the 1500-1250 km version is the land-attack subsonic version.

All the models I have seen of the UKSK launcher show all models of Klub including the subsonic anti ship, subsonic/supersonic anti ship, subsonic land attack, and Yakhont, and the rocket propelled anti sub torpedo.

Also, I highly doubt Oniks has 500 km range. No real number has been revealed and my bet is it's somewhere close to 350-400 km based on missile size/engine type.

Which could certainly be the case, but that isn't such a huge difference to western missiles like Harpoon in their standard in service versions, and isn't that much shorter than cold war supersonic missiles in the 7 ton (Granit) and 4.5 ton (Moskit) weight range. The new missiles are 2-3 tons, which is a dramatic improvement in my opinion.

Kh-35 is an air-launched missile. If you are referring to Uran, it's an outdated missile that was originally meant to be an export replacement for Styx, but was eventually adopted as a beggars-can't-be-chosers solution for some Russian Navy ships while Kalibr was being worked on. Now that Kalibr and Oniks have been adopted, Uran has no particular reason to exist (other than for already existing ship designs)

Uran and its upgrade with almost double the range are in Russian Navy service on several boats. Its use on small boats and indeed helicopters and land based aircraft and coastal defence units make it just as flexible as Harpoon and likely a cheaper numbers missile system.

Attacking land-targets from 2500 km is not and has never been an issue. Inertial navigation, topographic maps and terrain contour mapping is a thing. Attacking sea targets from 2500 km is a fantasy, if anyone tells you that such capability exists today, don't believe them.

Nuclear warheads were the only option for such missiles. Today with superior electronics and terminal guidance a conventional warhead makes these missiles much more flexible and much more usable... and indeed much more versatile.

I'll reply to you both in bulletpoint format again, if you don't mind. The quote notation is giving me headaches.

• 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. And the way that I've heard reported from reliable sources (you don't have to believe any of this, btw), 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?
  
  
• 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.
  
  
• 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.
  

artjomh wrote:[*]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. And the way that I've heard reported from reliable sources (you don't have to believe any of this, btw), 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?

[*]

Then following that logic, why would it need the subsonic Kalibrs either, when it already has the Urans/Harpoonskis?

If they're planning to get rid of the Urans as you claim, and switch to subsonic Kalibrs, then why don't they just start switching to supersonic Kalibrs too in preference to the Oniks - that way they will achieve greater standardisation; both the subsonic and supersonic missiles in service with the Russian Navy will be 90% the same, with the only difference being that the supersonic version has a terminal booster and is longer and heavier. Moreover, the supersonic Kalibr is a more modern missile than the Oniks, the same way as the subsonic Kalibr is more modern than the Uran (slightly).

I'm not saying that you're wrong, I'm just floating the thought.

[*]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.

[*]

The 20386 is the newest design and it has Urans; albeit the design hasn't been built yet and could still be rejected. 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.

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.

Personally I see the Uran quad-pack as something like the Komar or the Gibka MANPAD turret. It's something that takes up a lot less space than the UKSK, is cheaper and can be fitted onto smaller ships without the need to be designed around it (as mentioned, they had to jump through hoops to come up with a design for the Buyan-M with UKSK VLS).
I can definately see it being fitted to some missile boat, patrol ship or corvette classes in the next 10 years.

[*]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.

[*]

As GazB hinted, I'm not sure those Cold War era missiles would have had the accuracy in that mode of targetting in order to be able to reliably deal effective damage with just a HE payload.
There's a reason why every single land-attack cruise missile was nuclear despite being designated for use against the type of targets that can nowadays be taken out with a precision strike.

flamming_python wrote:Then following that logic, why would it need the subsonic Kalibrs either, when it already has the Urans/Harpoonskis?

Because they need a land-attack cruise missile, and Uran is an anti-ship missile?

In the surface fleet, they can use 3M55 (Oniks) in anti-ship role and 3M14 (land-attack Kalibr) in land-attack role. 3M55 is fast, so it's good against modern vessels. 3M14 has long range, so it's good against land targets.

3M54 (anti-ship Kalibr) has inferior speed to 3M55 and inferior range to 3M14. It just makes no sense for the surface navy.

For submarines, the story is different. Only 885 sub can launch both 3M55, 3M54 and 3M14, so there the calculus is the same: use 3M55 as ASuW, 3M14 as land-attack.

But 636.6 subs can only launch 533 mm missiles, so 3M55 is out. So, in order to use 636.6 against surface ships, you need a 533 mm anti-ship missile. That's where 3M54 comes in, both for diesel-submarines and for export customers.

If they're planning to get rid of the Urans as you claim, and switch to subsonic Kalibrs, then why don't they just start switching to supersonic Kalibrs too in preference to the Oniks

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.

The 20386 is the newest design and it has Urans; albeit the design hasn't been built yet and could still be rejected. 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.

It's still a modified legacy design.

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.

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.

http://russianships.info/eng/borderguard/project_11351.htm

As GazB hinted, I'm not sure those Cold War era missiles would have had the accuracy in that mode of targetting in order to be able to reliably deal effective damage with just a HE payload.
There's a reason why every single land-attack cruise missile was nuclear despite being designated for use against the type of targets that can nowadays be taken out with a precision strike.

How much accuracy do you really need against an unhardened stationary target?

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.

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.

Was the Kh-55 AS-15 carried by the Bear H during the cold war be used against naval targets ?

GarryB wrote: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.

Because some countries do not have convenient 700 mm launch tubes, so the only choice they get is 533 mm Kalibr in both anti-ship and land-attack role. Those are countries like China, Vietnam, Algeria, etc.

Additionaly, you have to remember that NPO Mashinostroyenia and Novator are competitors. Naturally, Novator would prefer that customers chose their product, so they offer a complete line of missiles/rockets under the Kalibr/Klub lineup. RuMOD chose to spread the love, India also invested in both Brahmos and Klub, but other countries have no choice and have to go with both 3M14E and 3M54E

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.

It doesn't only fly under horizon, actually. 3M54 also does the same pop-up maneuver like 3M55. Otherwise, how would it "see" its target without external guidance?

Here, have a look.

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 remember those claims, they were in regard to dometic land-attack Kalibr, 3M14. There is almost no way that an anti-ship missile would have 1500 km range. That just makes no sense from a tactical point of view. You will not be able to estalish enough search recce and the missile will never reach active radar range before the ships simply sail away. RORSATs are not magical, you know.

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.

Kh-35, maybe. For both Ka-52K and, potentially, Il-38N.

Uran though I seriously doubt. What prospective small ship designs shown recently at IMDS carries Uran? I don't remember any.

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.

Against point-defense, yes. As long as you can penetrate the outer envelope of SM-2 and ESSM, you have an advantage. But ship defenses got really long legs these days, so as soon as 3M54 pops up for a first lock on target, it becomes vulnerable to Aegis. At this stage it is just as lame-legged as Harpoon and just as vulnerable.

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.

No, both of them do the high-low-high maneuver.

I don't think either of them goes quasi-ballistic for extra range, they just pop over the radar horizon to lock on target, then dive down into the sea-skimming mode.

So can 3M55 have same range as 3M54 at Lo-Lo-Lo profile ?

A thing a see from 3M54 is that due to its propulsion nature.. it's range is virtually independent of altitude. While 3M55 in order to outrange 3M54.. it need to fly high for better aerodynamic efficiency. Thus elements of surprise is reduced. While 3M54 can remain low.. and only need to "pop up" for brief moment for searching target.

Stealthflanker wrote:So can 3M55 have same range as 3M54 at Lo-Lo-Lo profile ?

We don't actually know the real range for either 3M54 or 3M55. 300 km given to export versions is obviously a software limiter due to MTCR.

A thing a see from 3M54 is that due to its propulsion nature.. it's range is virtually independent of altitude. While 3M55 in order to outrange 3M54.. it need to fly high for better aerodynamic efficiency.  Thus elements of surprise is reduced. While 3M54 can remain low.. and only need to "pop up" for brief moment for searching target.

3M55 makes up for it by being a bigger missile. Also, being ramjet, you don't need to carry as much oxidizer, so that also gives you extra space for fuel.

artjomh wrote:Against point-defense, yes. As long as you can penetrate the outer envelope of SM-2 and ESSM, you have an advantage. But ship defenses got really long legs these days, so as soon as 3M54 pops up for a first lock on target, it becomes vulnerable to Aegis. At this stage it is just as lame-legged as Harpoon and just as vulnerable.

Obviously not artjonh, to the exact contrary in facts just the vastly reduced vulnerability of the multistage version of Kalibr during the pop-out maneuver and third stage activation - mostly in reason of the vastly increased angular and radial velocity doppler ambiguity induced by the warhead's section separation and the hurdles posed by the task to intercept the very small, high-G maneuvering terminal attacking element during the last engagement phase - have generated for this product a true "case" in US Navy environment.

The question has been so important that almost any US Navy conference since beginning of 2000' years count at least one intervention exclusively dedicated to this specific subject ("Threat D") and exist accordingly a very rich scientific literature on the complexity to adress to the problems it generate for interception.

At today at least three programs has been sollicitated by NAVAIR and funded by US MoD to specifically adress to this problem, mostly aimed at produce a representative target drone (last of which the MSST program), none of which after more than 8 years have produced a viable product.

I asked this question before but I want to ask it again to artjomh.

According to
http://charly015.blogspot.com/2014/11/a-cuentas-del-sistema-ruso-de-misiles.html

The 3M54 subsonic missile has a 600km range, while the 3M14 missile has 2600km range.

Why not use the 3M14 as basis for an anti ship missile? It would be good for coastal batteries, I think.

chicken wrote:The 3M54 subsonic missile has a 600km range, while the 3M14 missile has 2600km range.

Why not use the 3M14 as basis for an anti ship missile? It would be good for coastal batteries, I think.

Think about it from a tactical point of view. What kind of sensors do you have that are able to provide target intelligence in real time from 2600 km? How would you provide actual guidance information to this missile in real time while in flight?

3M14 (or any other land-attack cruise missile) is useful at extremely long ranges because targets on land are big and usually do not move, so you can pre-programme targeting data. Targets at sea are small and move all the time. Finding them is extremely difficult and was a massive problem even for the Soviet Navy. Keeping an "eye" on them after you have found them is another very very difficult task. Networking all those intelligence sources in real time is a third hugely complicated task.

These are REAL tactical problems. They are not solved magically by saying "Satellites!" or "Granit used to network, so can you!". We do not yet have that kind of capability.

Americans think they have a solution to this called Tomahawk Block IV (Tactical Tomahawk). They claim that they are able to feed new tactical information to the missile in real time through networked sensor platforms and retarget it in flight. All at the range of 1800 km (about half of the original TLAM)

Let's just say that I am very very very sceptical about the real-world utility of this kind of project. I do not believe the HYPE.

Oh, and Americans are so far only planning to use this wunderwaffe against land targets, which will tell you a thing or two about how good it is in an anti-ship role.

Mindstorm wrote:The question has been so important that almost any US Navy conference since beginning of 2000' years count at least one intervention exclusively dedicated to this specific subject ("Threat D") and exist accordingly a very rich scientific literature on the complexity to adress to the problems it generate for interception.

I am not certain I understood your reply at all, so if you can provide reading material about these USN programmes, I would be entirely grateful. I am certain it will help me learn new things.

chicken wrote:I asked this question before but I want to ask it again to artjomh.

According to
http://charly015.blogspot.com/2014/11/a-cuentas-del-sistema-ruso-de-misiles.html

The 3M54 subsonic missile has a 600km range, while the 3M14 missile has 2600km range.

Why not use the 3M14 as basis for an anti ship missile? It would be good for coastal batteries, I think.

3M14 is a Land attack missile. Not anti ship. That 600 and 2600 Km figure looks hugely exaggerated.

Anyway one of the criteria of determining AsHM range is the "Area of Uncertainty(AoU)" Which is a function of missile flight time and target speed. The faster your target you may need a faster missile to keep the area of uncertainty small.. Thus allow smaller and perhaps less power hungry seeker.

This "Area of uncertainty (AoU)" determines range requirement for your missile's seeker. larger AoU means large and more powerful seeker is required.
AoU can be calculated by multiplying flight time and target speed.

Now we know that 3M54 subsonic variant has a cruise speed of around 800-900 Km/h with range of 300 Km (The domestic version however might be 400-500 km) That distance can be covered in roughly 0.3 hr If we assume target speed of typical ship in 25 Knot (46.3 km/h) The AoU would be :

0.3 * 46.3= 13.89 Km Thus the seeker need to have detection range of 14 Km. This easily covered by ARGS-54 seeker which have maximum detection range of 65 Km.

So what's likely the range of 3M54 with that 65 Km detection range seeker against that same 25 knot ship ? well we can divide that 65 km with 46.3 giving the result of 1.4 hr of flight time. To get flight range is straight "S=VxT" So 1.4*900 = 1260 Km. The maximum possible range of the missile based on seeker performance alone.

But that assume constant cruise speed and discount the missile's fuel payload, aerodynamics and other factors.

artjomh wrote:I am not certain I understood your reply at all, so if you can provide reading material about these USN programmes, I would be entirely grateful. I am certain it will help me learn new things.

https://www.usnwc.edu/Departments---Colleges/Center-for-Naval-Warfare-Studies/Warfare-Analysis-and-Research/Readings-and-Refences/China-Naval-Modernization--Implications-for-U--%281%29.aspx

I read these precis regularly, they are usually rather barebones. This one is especially targeted at noobs in Congress.

Was the Kh-55 AS-15 carried by the Bear H during the cold war be used against naval targets ?

The AS-15 Kent was an Air Force weapon. There were supposed to be Kh-15 Kickback missiles carried by the Navy, but the Navy Bears were not cruise missile carriers AFAIK.

It doesn't only fly under horizon, actually. 3M54 also does the same pop-up maneuver like 3M55. Otherwise, how would it "see" its target without external guidance?

But they are the 300km export models... they would fly all the way to the target at low altitude... the chart you posted shows a ballistic trajectory at launch because of the vertical tubes and then low altitude flight until it gets to the supersonic portion of its flight... for the domestic model that might be 900km, which means for the first 500km or so it could fly at medium height at higher speed with lower fuel consumption to maximise range.

I remember those claims, they were in regard to dometic land-attack Kalibr, 3M14. There is almost no way that an anti-ship missile would have 1500 km range. That just makes no sense from a tactical point of view. You will not be able to estalish enough search recce and the missile will never reach active radar range before the ships simply sail away. RORSATs are not magical, you know.

I do know, but against support convoys and adding doglegs to the flight to have the missiles coming from an unexpected direction would make the range useful... at medium altitude the flight speed can be high subsonic without using too much fuel like it would just above the waves.

Uran though I seriously doubt. What prospective small ship designs shown recently at IMDS carries Uran? I don't remember any.

I think it has potential as there is little to no deck penetration, just an above deck quad launcher that is relatively compact.

Against point-defense, yes. As long as you can penetrate the outer envelope of SM-2 and ESSM, you have an advantage. But ship defenses got really long legs these days, so as soon as 3M54 pops up for a first lock on target, it becomes vulnerable to Aegis. At this stage it is just as lame-legged as Harpoon and just as vulnerable.

Not every enemy has AEGIS and if the target detects the missile the instant it pops up then it doesn't need to pop up... it can just listen to all the emitters that are looking for it.

And when one missile pops up how about decoys making it seem like thousands of targets approaching...  

Also, being ramjet, you don't need to carry as much oxidizer, so that also gives you extra space for fuel.

Only an advantage over rockets... most subsonic cruise missiles get their oxidiser from the oxygen in the air too... just like all jet engines.

Think about it from a tactical point of view. What kind of sensors do you have that are able to provide target intelligence in real time from 2600 km? How would you provide actual guidance information to this missile in real time while in flight?

I think he means the 600km range missile as anti ship and the 2,600km range missile as land attack.

3M14 is a Land attack missile. Not anti ship. That 600 and 2600 Km figure looks hugely exaggerated.

Kh-SD was supposed to have a range of 600km.

Asking about what you target at 1,500km range... how about AEGIS class cruisers sitting above Canada in the Arctic ocean trying to swat Russian missiles on their way to the US... having a few incoming might upset their aim.

Personally I think they will probably not rush anything new into service as they are expecting Zircon to enter service soon... the question is what sort of range will it have.

There are plenty of targets that don't require supersonic speed to defeat and a Tomahawk like missile would be fine for that. Other targets might not have air cover but good defences so a subsonic all the way and supersonic to penetrate close in defences is worth the extra costs I think.

And to top it off the Onyx as a supersonic anti ship weapon is excellent till the hypersonic model is ready. then all that is left is the ASROC equivalent and the long range land attack missile with the conventional warhead.

artjomh wrote:I am not certain I understood your reply at all, so if you can provide reading material about these USN programmes, I would be entirely grateful. I am certain it will help me learn new things.

artjomh this is one of the first documents wherein is named the by now famous "Threat D" , identified, and the first analysis and target drone feasibility study ( committed initially to John Hopkins University / Applied Physics Laboratory)


www.acq.osd.mil/dsb/reports/ADA441466.pdf


The opened question and the challenges posed by "Threat D" remain open since those years and represented as a true "chapter of its own" in virtually all US Navy conference since then, that up to 2007 (with a brief ad hoc TD study committed in the mean time directly to Office of Naval Research -ONR- of US Navy)

   
http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2007targets/Day2/PatBuckley/Buckleynovideo.pdf


At this point, precisely identified the danger posed by this kind of menaces (reproduced in the meantime also by China in the shape of  YJ-18) a draft request for proposals for the development a representative drone was launched by US Navy in the same year (MSST).....


http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/us-navy-launches-supersonic-target-competition-215921/


...won by Alliant Techsystems

http://www.upi.com/Business_News/Security-Industry/2008/09/09/Aegis-upgrade-fitted-on-USS-Bunker-Hill/18271220975922/


Anyhow ,at today, the program still failed at producing a working target drone capable to represent the menace (pag 69-74)


http://www.secnav.navy.mil/fmc/fmb/Documents/12Pres/RDTEN_BA6_Book.pdf



artjomh i remember distinctively to have read some years ago several of your interventions at mp.net and get the clear impression of an equilibrated and very knowledgeable man (in particular in the surface Navy systems and organization field) and while i perfectly understand and partially share the rational of your attempts to "shuffle the cards" about domestic induction of some sensible weapon systems....as also in the instance of the RVs for the latest ICBMs   ...(even if i find it somewhat a "candid" propose, taking into account the enormous amount of intellectual and financial resources squandered ,in both instances, up to this time by our main over-Ocean opponents purposely for the goal   ) i find very strange that you could have not only completely missed the question that just the "technological surprise" represented by the multistage version of Калибр opened in all those years in US navy environment but came out also with an assertion so grossly out of the line in regards to the segment of increased vulnerabilty to interception of this kind of missile identifying it just in the segment of lower vulnerability.


Are you truly "that" artjomh ?

GarryB wrote:But they are the 300km export models... they would fly all the way to the target at low altitude... the chart you posted shows a ballistic trajectory at launch because of the vertical tubes and then low altitude flight until it gets to the supersonic portion of its flight... for the domestic model that might be 900km, which means for the first 500km or so it could fly at medium height at higher speed with lower fuel consumption to maximise range.

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.

I do know, but against support convoys and adding doglegs to the flight to have the missiles coming from an unexpected direction would make the range useful... at medium altitude the flight speed can be high subsonic without using too much fuel like it would just above the waves.

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.

I think it has potential as there is little to no deck penetration, just an above deck quad launcher that is relatively compact.

You 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.

Not every enemy has AEGIS and if the target detects the missile the instant it pops up then it doesn't need to pop up... it can just listen to all the emitters that are looking for it.

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.

And when one missile pops up how about decoys making it seem like thousands of targets approaching...  

Decoys?

Asking about what you target at 1,500km range... how about AEGIS class cruisers sitting above Canada in the Arctic ocean trying to swat Russian missiles on their way to the US... having a few incoming might upset their aim.

The question is HOW you target them. Do you sail a "fishing fleet" looking for delicious Kamchatka crab? Well, Americans aren't stupid, they know that boat is the enemy.

Satellites used to be pretty unreliable, we've yet to know what Pion-NKS is capable of.

Do you launch a suicide Tu-22M strike hoping to find that American SAG and relay the info to submarines and surface strike forces? That's how they would have rolled way back then. I am not sure if Russia can throw away assets like that just for intel in the today environment.

And then, after you found them, how do you prevent the American SAG from disappearing again? The ocean is vast and 1500 km gives you a lot of room to hide.

This is a non-trivial task, not at all.

Personally I think they will probably not rush anything new into service as they are expecting Zircon to enter service soon... the question is what sort of range will it have.

There are plenty of targets that don't require supersonic speed to defeat and a Tomahawk like missile would be fine for that. Other targets might not have air cover but good defences so a subsonic all the way and supersonic to penetrate close in defences is worth the extra costs I think.

Absolutely. But you should prepare for the worst, otherwise you end up like US Navy today, looking for ways to defeat Iranian swarm tactics, but otherlooking vastly more sophisticated threats.

Mindstorm wrote:artjomh i remember distinctively to have read some years ago several of your interventions at mp.net and get the clear impression of an equilibrated and very knowledgeable man (in particular in the surface Navy systems and organization field) and while i perfectly understand and partially share the rational of your attempts to "shuffle the cards" about domestic induction of some sensible weapon systems....as also in the instance of the RVs for the latest ICBMs   ...(even if i find it somewhat a "candid" propose, taking into account the enormous amount of intellectual and financial resources squandered ,in both instances, up to this time by our main over-Ocean opponents purposely for the goal   ) i find very strange that you could have not only completely missed the question that just the "technological surprise" represented by the multistage version of Калибр opened in all those years in US navy environment but came out also with an assertion so grossly out of the line in regards to the segment of increased vulnerabilty to interception of this kind of missile identifying it just in the segment of lower vulnerability.


Are you truly "that" artjomh ?

Thanks for likbez, though I feel like you are misrepresenting the issue somewhat.

Your own links talk about the problem facing the US Navy from a rapidly changing terminal threat profile, that is a how the missile will accelerate and drop a stage in the final stretch, confusing USN point-defense (RAM, Sea Sparrow)

I was talking about the fact that in Kalibr will be visibile to US SAG way before the terminal stage, either when it boost for the initial assent, or because Americans are flying CAP and can detect the missile during midcourse. At which point it is subsonic and vulnerable to long-range interception using SM-2ER or SM-6

Identifying a sea-skimming missile through the clutter is a non-trivial matter, for sure, but also not a new one.

http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA357319

So you are saying that every coastal nastion complexes hidden in terrain to thwart any enemy naval presence in russian waters ( suppose it to be us navy ) are all useless because according to what you said is that usa ddg can target every land targets in russia from sea only without even entering russian waters.

and all those anti ship missiles like Sunburn Brahmos Onyx are useless against a fleet of us navy because they will shoot down every incoming missile at them using extended sea sparrow and sm-6 . SM-6 is for BM and Cruise missiles according to usa.

max steel wrote:So you are saying that every coastal nastion complexes hidden in terrain to thwart any enemy naval presence in russian waters ( suppose it to be us navy ) are all useless because according to what you said is that usa ddg can target every land targets in russia from sea only without even entering russian waters.

and all those anti ship missiles like Sunburn Brahmos Onyx are useless against a fleet of us navy because they will shoot down every incoming missile at them using extended sea sparrow and sm-6 .  SM-6 is for BM and Cruise missiles according to usa.

Noone said that, don't be a baby.

A complex problem is still a problem, even if it has very complex, non-trivial solutions.

artjomh wrote:was talking about the fact that in Kalibr will be visibile to US SAG way before the terminal stage, either when it boost for the initial assent, or because Americans are flying CAP and can detect the missile during midcourse.

??? I have direct idea of difference between what is somewhere named "TF study" and, instead, the production of a working system....


Long story short : artjomh can you point to even only a single over the horizon successful intercept at sea , still at today, of even only a lone (not in salvo, not ECM equipped, not incoming from multi-axis/sector, etc...) sea-skimming AShM by part of an AEGIS equipped ship ? Even more at ranges barely near to allow prevention of transition to the third stage activation of domestic version of multistage Калибр ?


At today experimentations on something barely near to the task (NIFC-CA, with plan of future integration and harmonization with F-35C's EO DAS -likely by beginning of next decade-) is still at the level of ground-test validation, in environmental conditions and employing assets, very different than those available at sea.....even more in real situation of multi-axis, saturation attacks by part of AShM of those kind....

Mindstorm wrote:Long story short : artjomh can you point to even only a single over the horizon successful intercept at sea , still at today, of even only a lone (not in salvo, not ECM equipped, not incoming from multi-axis/sector, etc...) sea-skimming AShM by part of an AEGIS equipped ship ? Even more at ranges barely near to allow prevention of transition to the third stage activation of domestic version of multistage Калибр

http://www.navyrecognition.com/index.php/news/defence-news/year-2012-news/april/426-french-navys-air-warfare-destroyers-successfully-intercept-supersonic-sea-skimming-target-.html

Not exactly Aegis, but close enough.

Interception range and altitude not revealed, but target missile matches profile.

artjomh wrote:Not exactly Aegis, but close enough.

Interception range and altitude not revealed, but target missile matches profile.

Yes artjomh, this is the unique confirmed successful interception of a supersonic sea-skimming target to date ;even if it was only a lone "Coyote" drone and the "achievement" reqiuired a) an interceptor boasting terminal max G-charge limit way higher than SM series..... b) a third party tracking platform (Chevalier Paul) ostensibly forwardly placed in parallel to GQM-163's vector of attack so to provide reliable in flight positional correction data for the interceptors.

Range is not specified ,but anyone can easily infer from the lack of celebrations that it happened well within target ship's radar horizon (otherwise the achievement would had widely publicized in the same way of all similar instances).


Obviously a GQM-163 drone is very far in kinematic and ECM capabilities from a 3М55, a BrahMos and,even less, the small ,dart-like third stage section of Калибр.

Listen, Mindstorm, if the point of our exchange is for me to "admit" that supersonic seaskimmers are a massive threat, then you can rest easy. We are in complete and utter agreement on this.

(Which is, incidentally, why I think Oniks and hopefully future Tsirkon, are a superior anti-ship solution to Novator's products)

My only issue here is with unrealistic stats people are throwing around, missile ranges that are unsupported by either physics or the tactical reality.

I am a big opponent of "magical thinking", an idea that your country is so cool that you can create these unstoppable wunderwaffe (of offensive, or defensive kind) in some sort of vacuum, completely divorced from the complexities of physics, tactics or economics. Moderate scepticism is my position.

artjomh wrote:
I am a big opponent of "magical thinking", an idea that your country is so cool that you can create these unstoppable wunderwaffe (of offensive, or defensive kind) in some sort of vacuum, completely divorced from the complexities of physics, tactics or economics. Moderate scepticism is my position.

Rest assured "artjomh", no one here is fragment on the reverse black-white thinking on Western weaponry and Russian.

Much of ours assertions on all come very rational thinking and processes of factual evaluation.

Trust me, ours Soviet Union was truly the unbeatable on both offensive and the defensive.

Ours strategic supremacy, continued to this day, come from ours devotion of financial and intellectual resources on requirements and needs both opposite and significantly the higher than the West.

You know "artjomh", nothing can conceal hard countermeasures devised since in confrontation of actual findings.

Not even best PR.