Russian Cruise Missiles Thread

Scorpius wrote:

George1 wrote:It notes that from 2012 to 2020, the number of cruise missiles in service with the Russian army increased 37 times. This type of weapons includes sea-based missiles "Caliber", air missiles X-101, and other similar types of weapons. Many of them are part of the strategic non-nuclear forces.

https://en.topwar.ru/178434-rossijskij-arsenal-krylatyh-raket-bolshoj-dalnosti-vyros-v-desjatki-raz.html

At the beginning of next year, we will conclude long-term contracts for the additional purchase of high-precision long-range missiles, which will double their number.
Quote from the official report of the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation on the results of 2020.

So, after a couple of years, the x37 will have to double.

kvs wrote:

Scorpius wrote:

George1 wrote:It notes that from 2012 to 2020, the number of cruise missiles in service with the Russian army increased 37 times. This type of weapons includes sea-based missiles "Caliber", air missiles X-101, and other similar types of weapons. Many of them are part of the strategic non-nuclear forces.

https://en.topwar.ru/178434-rossijskij-arsenal-krylatyh-raket-bolshoj-dalnosti-vyros-v-desjatki-raz.html

At the beginning of next year, we will conclude long-term contracts for the additional purchase of high-precision long-range missiles, which will double their number.
Quote from the official report of the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation on the results of 2020.

So, after a couple of years, the x37 will have to double.

I think this is an overlooked Russian response to NATzO's aggression.   Recall back in the 1980s NATO was all giddy because it thought its cruise
missiles were a game changer against the USSR.   There were books written on the subject.   Somehow this aspect of cruise missiles faded away.
But it makes sense for Russia to have the ability to launch saturation attacks using cruise missiles.   This is a strategic deterrent even if the
missiles are not strategic nuclear warhead carriers.   It is like a super long range artillery barrage with deadly accuracy that will soften up any invading
military alliance.  

Syria was a good wake up call to NATzO planners who drank the koolaid where Russia did not have long range cruise missile ability.   A


As I mentioned, the use of Caspian Sea launched Caliber missiles was overkill. It was meant to send a clear message. Kind of like Truman dropping two atom bombs on Japan was a not to subtle message intended for Stalin.
relic from the 1980s.

USSR had only tor and S-300.

Isos wrote:

That was 30 years ago. All of them were for sure destroyed. They have limit date.

They are deploying kh-101/102 for a long time now.

lyle6 wrote:

Kh-55s are nuclear only. Way too imprecise otherwise.

Not at all true. You can aim them at a building and have them go thorough the window.

Do they have a program for a dummy target drone like US TALD to make enemy air defence spend they missiles on fake targets ?

CEP for KH-55 is listed as 25m.

There was also a optical terminal guidance version the SM, that was for precision strike.

Missile threat lists the KH-555 range as 3500 km.

Yeah I think the KH series is pretty awesome and can just do with targeting upgrades. Other then that, easy to build, probably lots in stock for cheap upgrade, 3500km... what more do you really need.

mnztr wrote:

franco wrote:

Remember reading the total of non-nuclear cruise missiles available at the start of this and it was only double digits hence the massive growth even with testing and use in Syria.

How can it only be double digits, no way. The had a lot of cruise missile models already that were quite mature.

franco wrote:

mnztr wrote:

franco wrote:

Remember reading the total of non-nuclear cruise missiles available at the start of this and it was only double digits hence the massive growth even with testing and use in Syria.

How can it only be double digits, no way. The had a lot of cruise missile models already that were quite mature.

This from a report that Shoigu gave in 2019 in regards to progress over the previous 8 years. Would assume he was only talking about non-nuclear cruise missiles but it is not clear.

"At that time, there were practically no long-range precision weapons in the Armed Forces. There were only 30 operational aircraft carriers, and only 37 aviation cruise missiles."

https://southfront.org/pivotal-changes-in-russian-armed-forces/

GarryB wrote:
It was the wake up call of the conflict in South Ossetia that made them realise without C4IR they are essentially a WWII force.

Soviet generals saw what the west did to Iraq in Desert Storm and they wanted the same capability but having cruise missiles without terminal guidance means 150 to 200m which is only useful with a nuke warhead. To get it below 10m was the goal or you are wasting your time.

Cheap affordable weapons make sense, and it is something the west is really bad at to be honest.

How can this be correct when 575 were returneed from Ukraine in 1999? Maybe they were sabotaged?

Labor is expensive in west because their currency is desired and used a lot in trade...

GarryB wrote:
Most labour in the west in defence factories is people watching robots assemble components... western labour costs are not that big... quite a significant number of jobs are minimum wage.

It is more like gouging is more acceptable in the west so everyone gets in on it... a $20 keyboard becomes a $500 keyboard without any significant changes made to it...

In Syria thry had state of the art radars to detect them and systems designed to hit such targets.

Upgraded Kh-59MKM missile

GarryB wrote:

In Syria thry had state of the art radars to detect them and systems designed to hit such targets.

Actually to be fair in Syria those cruise missiles were all guided at Syrian targets.  

As far as I am aware no missiles were directed at Russian facilities and no Russian operated SAMs were attack nor were the facilities they were protecting.