Anti-Ship Missiles Thread

I imagine that if there was a few cruise missiles aimed at the ship (with same high accuracy) one will go through. Hence why systems like Bashtion and alike have a multiple missile launcher. Evident that this tactic works is recent saudi failure to take down more than two old scuds launched against it. Doesnt mean the defense system is bad, but most defense systems can be overcome by saturation.

Artjomh,

From one of your (much) earlier posts that I can not find (maybe it was in another thread) I had the perception that you believe that supersonic AShM is the way to go and that subsonic ones (Kh-35 Uran, Bal Complex etc.) are obsolete in modern naval warfare.

If that is indeed your opinion, can you please elaborate?
Thanks

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.

TheArmenian wrote:Artjomh,

From one of your (much) earlier posts that I can not find (maybe it was in another thread) I had the perception that you believe that supersonic AShM is the way to go and that subsonic ones (Kh-35 Uran, Bal Complex etc.) are obsolete in modern naval warfare.

If that is indeed your opinion, can you please elaborate?
Thanks

I do believe this, more or less.

I think subsonic missiles had their time and place and installation of Uran on 11540 and 20380 served its useful purpose during the prior turbulent decades, but now that there is a better alternative, Uran and other subsonic medium-range cruise missiles have outlived their utility.

The competitive environment in the naval sphere has grown beyond the capacity of such missiles and I would rather see Russian Navy be overpowered vs some 4th rate donkey fleet, rather than be underpowered vs a 1st rate navy.

It is no longer feasible to defeat PAAMS/AEGIS equipped navies with a missile that was originally inteded to be a proverbial "monkey model" destined to serve in Egyptian or Vietnamese forces.

The economic argument likewise holds very little water with me. Supersonic missile will never achieve comparable economies of scale if you keep buying outdated equipment that is cheap now. I'd rather invest in advanced equipment and make it cheaper over the 50 year period, rather than save money now and always be afraid of the "more expensive" equivalent.

I am not hugely versed in air-launched missiles, so I am not familiar with technical limitations of Kh-31 versus Kh-35, though I would once again support Kh-31 as long as it can be installed and launched from a particular platform. I am not aware if there are limitations of launching Kh-31 from Ka-52K, for example.

In the 80s when the AS_15 kent Kh-55 was first introduced can it be used in a antiship role ? with a convential warhead

nastle77 wrote:In the 80s when the AS_15 kent Kh-55 was first introduced can it be used in a antiship role ? with a convential warhead

No

artjomh wrote:
I am not hugely versed in air-launched missiles, so I am not familiar with technical limitations of Kh-31 versus Kh-35, though I would once again support Kh-31 as long as it can be installed and launched from a particular platform. I am not aware if there are limitations of launching Kh-31 from Ka-52K, for example.

For helicopter launches of any rocket or missile there often limitations, that often depends on the intial exhaust gasses to not suffocate the engines, like the limitations of launching ungided S-8 rockets not beneath the speed of 90 km/h, since the rocket engines are burning away in just 0.7 seconds and produce a good amount of fumes, so a certain amount of speed is recommended to avoid engines sucking the majority of those gasses in. Another limitation is high velocity launches of missiles, the engines usually tend to have either delayed ignition or with intial reduced thrust to avoid the plattform suffering from high thrust that is pushing against the stubbed wing, other weapons mounted or the entire plattform. Limitations in launch altitude are also present to avoid wasting of ASM/AShM missiles due the relative low speed of the launching plattform and the delayed/reduced thrust in colloration of range and visibility off the designated target.

Aren't both Kh-31 and Kh-35 launched from the same AKU? Meaning that they would both be "catapulted" away from the launcher before the engine starts.

Berkut, you here? Any comment?

artjomh wrote:Aren't both Kh-31 and Kh-35 launched from the same AKU? Meaning that they would both be "catapulted" away from the launcher before the engine starts.

Berkut, you here? Any comment?

Yes the X-31/35 are launched from two APU/AKU's the APU-78 and AKU-58. The K in AKU stands for Aviazionnyj Katapult Ustrojstvo.

http://vympelmkb.com/products/prod05/

The APU-78 jettisons the X-31/35 aswell.

The X-25 which can be used from Ka-52 however is not jettisoned/catapulted it is launched from APU-68/UM.

artjomh wrote:

TheArmenian wrote:Artjomh,

From one of your (much) earlier posts that I can not find (maybe it was in another thread) I had the perception that you believe that supersonic AShM is the way to go and that subsonic ones (Kh-35 Uran, Bal Complex etc.) are obsolete in modern naval warfare.

If that is indeed your opinion, can you please elaborate?
Thanks

I do believe this, more or less.

I think subsonic missiles had their time and place and installation of Uran on 11540 and 20380 served its useful purpose during the prior turbulent decades, but now that there is a better alternative, Uran and other subsonic medium-range cruise missiles have outlived their utility.

The competitive environment in the naval sphere has grown beyond the capacity of such missiles and I would rather see Russian Navy be overpowered vs some 4th rate donkey fleet, rather than be underpowered vs a 1st rate navy.

It is no longer feasible to defeat PAAMS/AEGIS equipped navies with a missile that was originally inteded to be a proverbial "monkey model" destined to serve in Egyptian or Vietnamese forces.

The economic argument likewise holds very little water with me. Supersonic missile will never achieve comparable economies of scale if you keep buying outdated equipment that is cheap now. I'd rather invest in advanced equipment and make it cheaper over the 50 year period, rather than save money now and always be afraid of the "more expensive" equivalent.

I am not hugely versed in air-launched missiles, so I am not familiar with technical limitations of Kh-31 versus Kh-35, though I would once again support Kh-31 as long as it can be installed and launched from a particular platform. I am not aware if there are limitations of launching Kh-31 from Ka-52K, for example.

Thanks for your opinion.
Why do you think Western Navies are still stuck in the subsonic AShM era? Don't they think that modern Russian SAMs will shoot them down?

As for a helicopter or aircraft launched Kh-31 or Kh-35, the missile is jetisioned like a gravity bomb.The missile motor ignites when the missile has already cleared the launch aircraft or helicopter by several meters. I don't think there is aproblem in doing this from a Ka-52.

TheArmenian wrote:
Thanks for your opinion.
Why do you think Western Navies are still stuck in the subsonic AShM era? Don't they think that modern Russian SAMs will shoot them down?

https://www.scribd.com/doc/267396243/Naval-Engineers-Journal-Volume-109-Issue-1-1997-J-F-McEachron-Subsonic-and-Supersonic-Antiship-Missiles-An-Effectiveness-and-Utility-Comparison

This.

Stealthflanker wrote:

TheArmenian wrote:
Thanks for your opinion.
Why do you think Western Navies are still stuck in the subsonic AShM era? Don't they think that modern Russian SAMs will shoot them down?

https://www.scribd.com/doc/267396243/Naval-Engineers-Journal-Volume-109-Issue-1-1997-J-F-McEachron-Subsonic-and-Supersonic-Antiship-Missiles-An-Effectiveness-and-Utility-Comparison

This.

Would you be so kind and summerize it up for us?

TheArmenian wrote:Why do you think Western Navies are still stuck in the subsonic AShM era? Don't they think that modern Russian SAMs will shoot them down?

As comrade Stalin would say: "dizziness from success".

The peace dividend produced as a result of the end of the Cold War meant that many programs were cancelled as money was funnelled away from military programmes (e.g. Fast Hawk).

Further attempts to create a US response to supersonic cruise missile threat (HyFly, JSSCM/SHOC, the RATTLRS programme, as well as LRASM-B) were also cancelled due to budget sequestrations.

Werewolf wrote:

Would you be so kind and summerize it up for us?

In Short. The Americans see the subsonic options more viable because :

-Stealthty In both RF and IR spectrum.
-Very low flight altitude possible without resorting to exotic material. Supersonic missile might suffer from heating and might have high IR signature
-Subsonic missile can be made small, while supersonic one is often larger for comparable range.
-Subsonic missile can be cheaper thus developed faster than supersonic analogue.
-Subsonic missile can "loiter" the target area, thus opened up possibility for Re-targeting and possibly having higher hit probability.

Apparently LRASM-A win over supersonic-hypersonic LRASM-B because of those factors mentioned above.

You also forgot;
- Less effective, so more missiles need to be fired, hence more bought, so the MIC can get some more $$$.

I am not hugely versed in air-launched missiles, so I am not familiar with technical limitations of Kh-31 versus Kh-35, though I would once again support Kh-31 as long as it can be installed and launched from a particular platform. I am not aware if there are limitations of launching Kh-31 from Ka-52K, for example.

I have heard comments about the new versions of both missiles not being as effective on low speed aircraft like the Su-25TM and of course helicopter launched, but that in response there have been new versions made with more powerful rocket boosters to restore performance from a low speed low altitude launch.

It is also possible that the members of the Club family might be adapted for air launch along with Onyx and Brahmos/II.

The most interesting in my opinion is the Kh-32 upgrade of the Kh-22M, supposed to have double the range of the earlier missile and mach 4.5 speed and much less volatile fuel to make handling easier.

In Short. The Americans see the subsonic options more viable because :

Plus the other reason... they never developed one in the past and would have to spend a lot of money... which isn't available to solve a problem they don't see exists.

Just like they didn't develop a smooth bore tank gun... the West Germans did that for them.

The US tends to rely more on air power for attack and defence, so their air defence in their Army is pretty weak. The air defence in their navy is not as weak but still uses aircraft at its core... strike aircraft are its primary attack and primary defend weapon... and they are flexible, long range and powerful in those two roles.

During the late phase of the cold war , was the OTH targeting of the SSN-3 shaddock cruise missile done by Ka-25 /Tu-95 Bear D ? Or was this role taken over by the RORSAT orbital reconnaissance and targeting system, which employed a Molniya satellite link for the Sistema Morskoi Kosmicheskoi Razvedki i Tselkazaniya (SMKRITs) ?

Thanks

nastle77 wrote:During the late phase of the cold war , was the OTH targeting of the SSN-3 shaddock cruise missile done by Ka-25 /Tu-95 Bear D ? Or was this role taken over by the RORSAT orbital reconnaissance and targeting system, which  employed a Molniya satellite link for the Sistema Morskoi Kosmicheskoi Razvedki i Tselkazaniya (SMKRITs) ?

Thanks

The space based system (MKRC Legenda)  never replaced the earlier Uspekh (The Tu-95RT based system) But instead it's complementing each other.  

---------------------
Regarding the Soviet space based system, i noticed that the US-A Satellite seems to have insufficient resolution to identify target. The US-A is equipped with 10 m width radar antenna and using a real-beam imaging to detect target. Playing with simple math Res=Wavelength*Range of SLAR platform/Antenna width. I came up with resolution of 625 m It is not enough to resolve any target for identification.

The parameter for US-A Satellite however can be found here :
http://faculty.fordham.edu/siddiqi/writings/p14_siddiqi_jbis_rorsat_1999.pdf

It mention 4 m width antenna, but i found later in a paper by Vega (The maker of US-A Radar) The antenna was actually 10 m long.  The Antenna is work in X-band The frequency however is not given thus i assume 12 Ghz the highest frequency of X-band.  The orbit altitude of US-A Was 250 km.


and no the US-A was not using SAR method. The first soviet based SAR was Venera 13/15 spacecraft for scientific purpose.

that is good enough , missile radar activates and searchs left and right for ships about 5-10km in an elipse , when the missile is about 30-50 km from target area.

nastle77 wrote:Kresta II, Kara , udaloy I are very weak in this anti-ship department and outmatched  against Harpoon armed ships.What was the plan of the soviets later Russians if they were to battle harpoon armed ships ? Even though these ships were ASW ships but they can be encounter surface threats as well,As the Harpoon armed ship has the advantage of a longer range, what can the Rastrub armed ship do to survive ?

I guess you got your answers more clearly here than by Jonesy at keypub. Its funny that he thinks saturation attacks are a fiction but judiciously promotes fictional Tom Clancy's novel Chapter dance of vampires as a real scenario .

Mike E wrote:You also forgot;
- Less effective, so more missiles need to be fired, hence more bought, so the MIC can get some more $$$.

Well if this the case then the maker of Uran must be evil as they make subsonic missiles and Russian MOD is such a dumb to accept it in service.

Stealthflanker wrote:

Mike E wrote:You also forgot;
- Less effective, so more missiles need to be fired, hence more bought, so the MIC can get some more $$$.

Well if this the case then the maker of Uran must be evil as they make subsonic missiles and Russian MOD is such a dumb to accept it in service.

The problem is the exclusive reliance on subsonic weapons in the NATO navies. There is no case to be made against hypersonic
weapons so Mike E is hitting the bull's eye with his post. NATO armies and navies are about feeding corporations first and foremost.

Arrow wrote:Are there any new information on the progress of the Zircon cruise missile ?

Just to inform you US hypersonic missile program is dead already.

Arrow wrote:Are there any new information on the progress of the Zircon cruise missile ?

Last I know of