Russia Defence Forum

Would you like to react to this message? Create an account in a few clicks or log in to continue.

Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    Russian Cruise Missiles Thread

    kvs
    kvs

    Posts : 9904
    Points : 10049
    Join date : 2014-09-11
    Location : Canuckistan

    Russian Cruise Missiles Thread - Page 7 Empty Re: Russian Cruise Missiles Thread

    Post  kvs Mon Jan 25, 2021 4:18 am

    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
    relic from the 1980s.

    GarryB likes this post

    Isos
    Isos

    Posts : 7453
    Points : 7437
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Russian Cruise Missiles Thread - Page 7 Empty Re: Russian Cruise Missiles Thread

    Post  Isos Mon Jan 25, 2021 1:21 pm

    USSR was less protected than Russia against cruise missiles.

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

    USSR had only tor and S-300.

    With 100 good hits you can make lot of damages to a country (Main companies, HQ, political decapitation, oil reserves, main bridges, nuclear powerplants and dam...).
    avatar
    calripson

    Posts : 480
    Points : 527
    Join date : 2013-10-26

    Russian Cruise Missiles Thread - Page 7 Empty Syria

    Post  calripson Mon Jan 25, 2021 4:33 pm

    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.
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 29408
    Points : 29936
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Russian Cruise Missiles Thread - Page 7 Empty Re: Russian Cruise Missiles Thread

    Post  GarryB Tue Jan 26, 2021 7:48 am

    USSR had only tor and S-300.

    To be fair they also had the PVO with Flankers and Foxhounds and Fulcrums...

    Even SA-8 proved effective against slow low flying cruise missiles...

    But it was the driving force behind their IADS and basically all their current missiles being modified to shoot down low flying cruise missiles... including MANPADS and ATGMs.

    The main difference now is the quality and depth of radar coverage they have to see small things coming.

    Obviously the INF treaty only changed things a little bit by getting rid of land based cruise missiles but not naval or air launched missiles...

    Scorpius likes this post

    avatar
    mnztr

    Posts : 1136
    Points : 1170
    Join date : 2018-01-21

    Russian Cruise Missiles Thread - Page 7 Empty Re: Russian Cruise Missiles Thread

    Post  mnztr Wed Jan 27, 2021 4:56 am

    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.


    I doubt cruise missiles that time out are just discarded. KH-55 was pretty accurate. I doubt they would just destory timed out missiles without taking delivery of new ones one for one. If new missiles are not available you rebuild the old ones. They received them from Ukraine in around 2000. At the end of the USSR Ukraine had about 1700 KH-55s so we start to get an idea of what Russia would see as a reasonable inventory. If 1700 were based in Ukraine then you know they probably had at least 2000 in Russia as well. In todays reality with a much smaller airforce I can see them relying more on cruise missiles and a reasonable inventory considering all the platforms would be 7-10000 missiles.
    avatar
    mnztr

    Posts : 1136
    Points : 1170
    Join date : 2018-01-21

    Russian Cruise Missiles Thread - Page 7 Empty Re: Russian Cruise Missiles Thread

    Post  mnztr Wed Jan 27, 2021 4:58 am

    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.
    Isos
    Isos

    Posts : 7453
    Points : 7437
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Russian Cruise Missiles Thread - Page 7 Empty Re: Russian Cruise Missiles Thread

    Post  Isos Sun Feb 14, 2021 2:09 pm

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

    Posts : 29408
    Points : 29936
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Russian Cruise Missiles Thread - Page 7 Empty Re: Russian Cruise Missiles Thread

    Post  GarryB Mon Feb 15, 2021 1:57 am

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

    Actually very true... the Kh-55 had a CEP of about 200m which is good enough for a nuclear payload... but if they are launching cruise missiles at Europe it is not a question of precision strikes against point targets... Europe is the threat so they need to do as much damage as they can so a 200 CEP nuke is actually better than a through the window 400kg conventional payload weapon.

    For nuclear attack the Kh-55SM is good enough for any target within 3,000km... the Kh-55 is the older model with 2,500km range... the Kh-555 is the much shorter range conventional model with Kh-101 terminal guidance for through the window attacks.

    The point is that apart from the nuclear warhead the Kh-55SM would be the cheapest and easiest to mass produce even now.... it is also smaller and lighter and with the INF treaty gone you could bundle them 6 to a train carriage and carry thousands.

    There is nothing difficult about making them so even a small firm that makes small aircraft could build them... these days the computer performance in a cell phone will be more than enough to control one from launch to impact.... the improved digital maps means it might be rather more accurate... say 100m CEP assuming GLONASS is being jammed at the target end.

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

    Honestly I would think Russian missiles cost less than US decoys and dummies, but there are 122mm rockets the Su-25 and Su-24 and Su-34 or in fact any aircraft that carries the 5 shot 122mm rocket pods where there is a decoy jammer rocket that sprouts wings on launch and starts up a pulse detonation jet engine and flys into enemy held territory for the launch aircraft to monitor radar and radio signals... I would expect that is just the tip of the iceberg, but also that such systems are rather secret too.

    dino00 likes this post

    avatar
    mnztr

    Posts : 1136
    Points : 1170
    Join date : 2018-01-21

    Russian Cruise Missiles Thread - Page 7 Empty Re: Russian Cruise Missiles Thread

    Post  mnztr Mon Feb 22, 2021 8:28 pm

    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. Of course with deliberately deceptive Russian missile model numbers its hard to know whats what. 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.
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 29408
    Points : 29936
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Russian Cruise Missiles Thread - Page 7 Empty Re: Russian Cruise Missiles Thread

    Post  GarryB Tue Feb 23, 2021 8:37 am

    CEP for KH-55 is listed as 25m.

    Not sure where you are getting your figures from but that is way too accurate for a missile with no terminal guidance system, just a terrain comparison system for flight along the way.

    With its nuclear payload it would not need that level of precision.

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

    The Kh-55 is nuclear armed and has little need for that level of precision. The Kh-55SM is the same missile with saddle tanks to extend the flight range from 2,500km to 3,000km and also uses a nuclear warhead.

    The Kh-555 has the terminal seeker of the Kh-101 and the conventional warhead and has a CEP of 3m to 5m and a conventional HE warhead.

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

    I believe its range has been revealed to be between 2,500km and 2,800km...


    They started making Kh-55s in the late 1970s, but replaced it in about the mid 80s with the Kh-55SM with saddle fuel tanks and slightly increased range.

    The first Kh-555s were converted Kh-55s... it was Kh-555s that were used in Syria along with Kh-101 which are both conventionally armed cruise missiles...


    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.

    There were essentially three families... the Kh-55, which improved to Kh-55SM and then the conventional Kh-555, and the 3M10 Granat, which was the naval system that has since evolved into the Klub and Kalibr system (Klub for export Kalibr for domestic use).

    The Kh-101/102 is an enlarged and extended range missile family... no longer 533mm calibre for launching from torpedo tubes and no longer 6m long for fitting internal bomber weapon bays the new 750mm calibre 7.4m long missiles have much better flight range and will likely replace sea based versions too.

    As you point out the older shorter smaller missiles are just as useful as they ever were and you could fit huge bundles on trucks and trains and shipping crates...
    franco
    franco

    Posts : 4229
    Points : 4261
    Join date : 2010-08-18

    Russian Cruise Missiles Thread - Page 7 Empty Re: Russian Cruise Missiles Thread

    Post  franco Mon Apr 19, 2021 2:58 pm

    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
    GarryB

    Posts : 29408
    Points : 29936
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Russian Cruise Missiles Thread - Page 7 Empty Re: Russian Cruise Missiles Thread

    Post  GarryB Tue Apr 20, 2021 10:04 am

    The only airforce units that got significant numbers of precision guided missiles were the Su-24 units... most fighter bombers used dumb bombs and unguided rockets most of the time... later model Su-17s and late model MiG-27s could carry guided weapons, but most other aircraft just used dumb bombs and unguided rockets.

    Planes like the Su-25 was very effective with cannon fire and bombs and rockets.

    The lack of rush to get conventionally armed cruise missiles mainly came from the neglect and almost total lack of C4IR assets... it would be stupid to buy thousands of conventionally armed cruise missiles when you didn't have the recon assets to find targets 2,500km behind enemy lines.

    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.

    But to give them credit they took their problems seriously and looked at not just C4IR, but also training and equipment and EW and air defence.

    They are at a point where they are a modern professional armed force... they could do with more ships and more new subs but they are on their way... those sorts of things take decades to get right unless you are in the position to throw billions and billions at the problem... it is not enough of a problem to take funds from other areas... it is simply going to take time... at least they are getting it right before mass producing...

    Their intelligent focus on anti tank missiles for example and also surface to air missiles means the consumables... the missiles that are destroyed with each use are dumb and cheap, while the expensive and capable stuff is in the launcher.

    It means over time you can get expensive launch systems but using them is cheap so you have a lot of munitions on hand and don't learn to be afraid to use them because they are cheap and easy to mass produce. Hesitating to shoot at an enemy position with a guided missile because the missile is a Javelin and probably costs more than your house, so you have a very limited number of those and when they are gone you are not getting more for the next financial year... is a real issue.

    The Gefest & T system is a case in point where the smart stuff is built into the aircraft so cheap dumb bombs and rockets can be used in free flight without needing to fly low and straight and level at a steady speed... you can manouver and you can also drop bombs from altitude.

    Newer aircraft like the Su-35 and Su-57 and MiG-35 wont need that to be added because it will be built in... and make actually using weapons affordable.

    The number of types of new missiles and bombs and weapons has exploded (pun intended) including a special class for drones... that could be used on light aircraft and helicopters too no doubt.

    Simple conventional subsonic cruise missiles would be amazingly cheap to mass produce, and it would be useful to make a whole lot of them simply because when they get to expiry dates they can be used in Syria or in training etc.

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

    Posts : 1136
    Points : 1170
    Join date : 2018-01-21

    Russian Cruise Missiles Thread - Page 7 Empty Re: Russian Cruise Missiles Thread

    Post  mnztr Fri Apr 30, 2021 5:30 pm

    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/

    How can this be correct when 575 were returneed from Ukraine in 1999? Maybe they were sabotaged?
    avatar
    gbu48098

    Posts : 198
    Points : 200
    Join date : 2021-04-18

    Russian Cruise Missiles Thread - Page 7 Empty Re: Russian Cruise Missiles Thread

    Post  gbu48098 Fri Apr 30, 2021 5:50 pm

    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.
    Exactly the reason why Putin said they are ahead for the first time in a practical sense with zircon, avantgard and so on.

    Cheap affordable weapons make sense, and it is something the west is really bad at to be honest.
    Two high-level reasons....
    Labor is expensive in west because their currency is desired and used a lot in trade....Russia is unique in the sense it inherited good deep research from USSR in all military and science areas and still leveraging with abundant raw materials and so on....when rouble is desired by other countries then you will see they wont be as cheap especially if MIC gets away from state control
    Western MIC has succeeded in corrupting their governments especially US....

    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 29408
    Points : 29936
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Russian Cruise Missiles Thread - Page 7 Empty Re: Russian Cruise Missiles Thread

    Post  GarryB Sat May 01, 2021 7:25 am


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

    He is not talking about strategic nuclear missiles.... the ones returned from Ukraine were returned because they were nuclear armed strategic missiles... not precision guided theatre missiles.

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

    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...
    avatar
    gbu48098

    Posts : 198
    Points : 200
    Join date : 2021-04-18

    Russian Cruise Missiles Thread - Page 7 Empty Re: Russian Cruise Missiles Thread

    Post  gbu48098 Sat May 01, 2021 2:20 pm

    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...
    Someone making $50k here is barely surviving and even with 90% discount, clothing retailers still make money. So yes, everything is hugely expensive regardless of the reasons from medicines to planes especially ones that do not have competition or muscled in markets like arms.

    GarryB likes this post

    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 29408
    Points : 29936
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Russian Cruise Missiles Thread - Page 7 Empty Re: Russian Cruise Missiles Thread

    Post  GarryB Sun May 02, 2021 7:05 am

    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.

    When that cruise missile attack the Syrians were not part of the Russian IADS so essentially their BUK and Pantsir batteries were vehicles operating on their own without much if any warning and actually not fully equipped the way a Russian equivalent would be.

    An airfield in Syria might have a couple of vehicles but not the full batteries the Russians used, and from the results I have seen the targets where the missiles got through were old disused buildings that used to be used for chemical weapons research, but were not longer in use and were not defended.

    Now I suspect the Russians might have contributed with information as well as perhaps jamming or GPS interference, but the performance of those SAM vehicles was essentially the result of small groups of vehicles or systems on their own dealing with the incoming threat.

    Firing ten times more missiles at one target in Russia today would be likely even less successful simply because they have long range over the horizon early warning radar and an air force that can be deployed to help coordinate and pre warn air defences on the ground so they can take down the maximum number of threats as they pass each installation.

    Sponsored content

    Russian Cruise Missiles Thread - Page 7 Empty Re: Russian Cruise Missiles Thread

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Mon Jun 21, 2021 5:24 am