Russian attack capabilities [Archive] - Key Publishing Ltd Aviation Forums

Jonesy

5th November 2004, 02:53

Sea ram can fire about 1 missile every 2 to 3 secs and there is no saying how many targets it can engage because its fire and forget system. So in other words when sea ram launcher points and fire 2 to 3 missiles against 3 targets all 3 missiles might just end intercepting the first target.

Even if you were right Jon what this means is that a saturation subsonic skimmer attack is more likely to defeat a RAM-equipped ship than a couple of heavy supersonics. Two strike fighters carrying four subsonics apiece would be more likely to be successful, against such a target, than if they were carrying single heavies.

Thats the problem with fire forget SAM systems.

Not so quick to write them off. Active radar SAMs are every bit as fire-and-forget. Theyre launched on a specific target track and can discriminate just fine. RAM is the same in Sea RAM or Mk49 variant - it is cued by onboard/onmount sensors onto a specific target track. IF there are multiple target tracks very close together missiles can crosslock certainly, but, they do have to be in very close proximity. The RN trialled SeaRAM on HMS York for a year and they came back with very positive views on the system.

Sev,

Granit never comes alone. And as I said, I think this little RAM won't take the Granit out... It might damage its systems in the best case, and hopefully for the defender, these systems will be the guidance systems. Otherwise it'll just go straight through

P-700 is able to perform all these wonders simply by virtue of its size. If a smaller supersonic weapon were able to penetrate naval defences do you think the Russians would have incorporated all the penetration-aids they have on Granit?.

P-700's size also limits it as an efficient weapons system. Whats the point of having some of these, very powerful, weapons if you dont have a Kirov or OscarII to fire them. Whats the point of having these weapons if your ISTAR capability doesnt allow for positive targetting control at x00kms standoff distance. Lastly these are big expensive weapons what is the smallest target thats worth a Granit attack? A 4000 ton escort?. A 9000ton AEGIS destroyer? Granits' buddy-designation attack profile is very clever, but, what happens if the hi-profile missile is taken down prior to terminal-phase designation and the remainder of the group miss or hit 'low-value' targets due to the lack of update?. If you're only starting the engagement with 20 P-700's in your inventory a wasted salvo diminishes your chances of acheiving your strategic and tactical aims.

This is not to dispute the fact that the Russians have some powerful antiship missiles, but, it illustrates that, to get those advantages, they have had to make sacrifices in operational practicality terms. The missiles are dangerous, but, only in certain operational conditions.

When a US sub fires a torpedo, it will almost be certain that this will be a wire guided one. Russians can hear this torpedo. If they do this, they just fire a Shkval in the direction of that torpedo.

Not that simple. The launch transient, if the SSN skipper is any good, can be screened in the targets baffles. Mk48's, like most current-generation HWTs, can be fired on low speed settings and steered off course to attack a target on a dogleg bearing to that of the launching sub. Firing a Shvkal down an inbound bearing is not necessarily a good 'revenge' attack. More likely is that the Russian might try an active sweep and a snapshot before attempting evasion and so employ the weapon on a confirmed target. Even that is dicey though as an active sweep would tipoff the attacking SSN skipper that a weapon might be about to be heading back at him.

Srbin,

When it comes to Anti-Shipping missiles, the Russians are just way ahead, the best West can offer is the subsonic Harpoons and Exocets,

Not a chance. The Norweigans have this down with Kongsberg and the NSM. Deployable, long ranged, flexible and capable of operation without heavy offboard targetting support. Not capable of sinking a super-carrier, perhaps, but a) what conventional-warhead missile is so capable and b) who's got the military capability to take on the USN to need such a capability!?.

Severodvinsk

5th November 2004, 10:36

Steve, can you tell me which ship carries the NSM? Indeed, None up till now. Skjold is supposed to carry it and probably the Fridjorf Nansen too.
Yet it's not there yet, so in that case, the Russians are still ahead, cause most of their systems are active for almost a decade.

P-700 is able to perform all these wonders simply by virtue of its size. If a smaller supersonic weapon were able to penetrate naval defences do you think the Russians would have incorporated all the penetration-aids they have on Granit?.

P-700's size also limits it as an efficient weapons system. Whats the point of having some of these, very powerful, weapons if you dont have a Kirov or OscarII to fire them. Whats the point of having these weapons if your ISTAR capability doesnt allow for positive targetting control at x00kms standoff distance. Lastly these are big expensive weapons what is the smallest target thats worth a Granit attack? A 4000 ton escort?. A 9000ton AEGIS destroyer? Granits' buddy-designation attack profile is very clever, but, what happens if the hi-profile missile is taken down prior to terminal-phase designation and the remainder of the group miss or hit 'low-value' targets due to the lack of update?. If you're only starting the engagement with 20 P-700's in your inventory a wasted salvo diminishes your chances of acheiving your strategic and tactical aims.

This is not to dispute the fact that the Russians have some powerful antiship missiles, but, it illustrates that, to get those advantages, they have had to make sacrifices in operational practicality terms. The missiles are dangerous, but, only in certain operational conditions.

As for Granit, If you shoot the hi-flyer, the second one fired goes up and switches on its radar. Takes command. The Attack just resumes, if the second one is shot, the third goes up etc. It is not clear how many missiles one can command, statements go from 1 command missile up for every 8 missiles to 1 command missile for 12 missiles... I suppose it might depend on the platform. They DO have that Kirov cruiser, soon a second one again too. And they DO have these Oscars.
It's an expensive weapon, but if all your ships are laden with it and you're in a situation where a CVBG is in front of you, you don't look at the money, you just fire. Granit can determin the size of its targets. The command missile will take four missiles with it to the carrier, and the other missiles in the flight, if they are not shot down at longer ranges, are being sent to smaller targets, the escorts.
An Oscar will not fire on a single frigate, these are anti-carrier weapons and meant to be deployed against CVBGs. For Frigates and smaller vessels I suppose it would one of its 650mm or 533mm torpedoes.
It was also the purpose (doctrine) of having 5 Oscar subs for 1 CVBG, so, the attack would involve quite a lot of Granits, possible from different angles too.
Indeed they sacrifice some other things, they have to pay for the expensive Oscar, and of course the design of Oscar isn't very "optimal". On the other hand, it allows for not building these huge carriers, which I suppose are still more expensive than an Oscar sub. The targetting system of Granit is very complex, involving RORSAT, other satellite systems and planes etc. And yes, nowadays it is doubtful whether all these systems still work. Although I don't think they would keep the system if it didn't... Anyway, it does allow for targetting from these huge ranges.
What do you exactly mean by its size? A smaller supersonic weapon didn't exist back then, the size was necessary for its range and speed. It of course also allowed for these "extra" features to be incorporated, I think these "extras" were meant for increasing the chance of a hit, not necessary for making the hit (meaning, it could do without, but everyone wants to be that little bit more sure to succeed). Now, there are smaller supersonic weapons around, which do not have these features.

For JonS, who said the Granits were coming from the same direction? You can point your 11 box launcher in the direction of one, but that doesn't necessarily mean the other missiles are coming from the same way.
For Jonesy on this point, it's better to have multiple planes with a single missile, gives flexibility and allows to attack from three or more different directions, hence create some more trouble for the defenses.

Not that simple. The launch transient, if the SSN skipper is any good, can be screened in the targets baffles. Mk48's, like most current-generation HWTs, can be fired on low speed settings and steered off course to attack a target on a dogleg bearing to that of the launching sub. Firing a Shvkal down an inbound bearing is not necessarily a good 'revenge' attack. More likely is that the Russian might try an active sweep and a snapshot before attempting evasion and so employ the weapon on a confirmed target. Even that is dicey though as an active sweep would tipoff the attacking SSN skipper that a weapon might be about to be heading back at him.

I knew that, yet I'm not that sure wether the Russian sub won't hear the slow mode either... You still have to open those torpedo hatches before a launch too.
If the Russian one does do that active sweep and warn the attacking sub of an incoming weapon, it's already too late for the attacking sub, don't forget Shkval reaches 200 or 250kts... And if the Russian sub attacks, it'll be from Shkval's short range, meaning the attacking skipper will have no time at all to get out. And you know how slow a ship reacts...

Even if you were right Jon what this means is that a saturation subsonic skimmer attack is more likely to defeat a RAM-equipped ship than a couple of heavy supersonics. Two strike fighters carrying four subsonics apiece would be more likely to be successful, against such a target, than if they were carrying single heavies.

As I already mentioned, gives more flexibility to your attack and of course, if you arm a plane with these subsonic missiles, like Harpoon or Exocet, you'll have to close up to 130km (a bit closer if you want your missile to have some fuel left to increase its effectiveness in the hit), within the ranges of certain AD systems. If you carry one of these heavy long-range missiles, you can stay out of these systems' ranges and get out with your planes.

Severodvinsk

5th November 2004, 11:26

As a little add, I'd like to add that the Granit development was done by the Bureau of Guidance, and not, like previous projects by the Bureau of missiles and propulsion.
The Bureau of Guidance developed this complicated system and afterwards, the missile was built around this package.
The planes for guidance are more as a RORSAT role. Together with the AGI ships.
The Guidance of the missile itself was done by a satellite system (I'll look up which one it was) and of course afterwards by the commanding missile with its own active radar on.

Jonesy

5th November 2004, 18:00

Steve, can you tell me which ship carries the NSM? Indeed, None up till now. Skjold is supposed to carry it and probably the Fridjorf Nansen too. Yet it's not there yet, so in that case, the Russians are still ahead, cause most of their systems are active for almost a decade.

NSMs now at the point where the technology is demonstrated. A test weapon recently flew 130km plus and guided successfully. Maybe its not in service but its certainly thereabouts and is a LOT more effective than anything the Russians, or anyone else, has. What other weapon can be deployed from trucks, ships/missile boats, helicopters or fixed wing aircraft with no targetting support required beyond an ESM bearing. What other weapon can simultaneously give any light escort capable of embarking an NH90-level chopper a standoff precision land-attack capability along with a Harpoon/Uran-ranged antiship capability on the same airframe?.

Simply put in today's threat environment many navies have to justify their funding by what their units can bring to the all arms battle ashore. The blue-water fleet on fleet engagement doesnt exist anywhere anymore. With the demise of that goes all the value of P-700 and all the other weapons of that kind as an unuseable weapon is a useless weapon. Without a US CVN to try and sink whats the point of a bloody great missile, however advanced, who's only value is sinking US CVN's?.

As for Granit, If you shoot the hi-flyer, the second one fired goes up and switches on its radar. Takes command. The Attack just resumes, if the second one is shot, the third goes up etc. It is not clear how many missiles one can command, statements go from 1 command missile up for every 8 missiles to 1 command missile for 12 missiles... I suppose it might depend on the platform.[quote]

The selection process will rely on the low altitude pack to miss a sequence of 'keepalive' signals from the command missile. This will take a set time interval and on top of this is the time interval for the promotion process of a second or third missile to take up the high slot. Given that this salvo is charging in at high supersonic speeds all the while if that initial missile is taken down just before terminal update is distributed then the salvo could be damn near over target by the time the secondary is in place!.

[quote] They DO have that Kirov cruiser, soon a second one again too. And they DO have these Oscars.

Are those Kirovs and Oscars any value to them now though?. What practical mission has a Kirov or Oscar performed in the last 10 years?. The Udaloys, Sovremenny's, Akula's and even the sole Neustrashimy have all deployed on defence diplomacy missions or joint exercises at least. The Oscars, Kirov's and Slava's may have kept those USN battlegroups away, but, seeings as they were never coming in the first place haven't they been just a little bit useless this past decade?. Worse still havent they, the Kirov's especially, drawn funding that could have been more practically used on other vessels or better infrastructure. Theres the legacy of P-500, P-700 and the rest - a few big ships that dont do anything but look pretty in text books and impress the uninitiated on internet forums!.

Now, there are smaller supersonic weapons around, which do not have these features.

If speed and range where enough to reliably get the job done Roel do you think that P-700 would carry ECM and armour?. If Granit needs such penetration aids what makes you think that Yakhont wouldnt?.

For Jonesy on this point, it's better to have multiple planes with a single missile, gives flexibility and allows to attack from three or more different directions, hence create some more trouble for the defenses.

What happens if squadrons of strike fighters arent available solely for maritime strike, or, if they need to stage out and available tanker assets will only support a limited number of airframes? Multiple missiles on a single airframe is a much more efficient attack than single missiles on multiple airframes.

I knew that, yet I'm not that sure wether the Russian sub won't hear the slow mode either... You still have to open those torpedo hatches before a launch too.

Torpedo doors and pressure equalisation would again, ideally, be actioned in the target baffles. There are few reasons that a captain would willingly give away his location by flooding tubes or cracking open tube doors right in front of a hostile contact. Either way the advantage goes to the boat with the sonar edge.

As I already mentioned, gives more flexibility to your attack and of course, if you arm a plane with these subsonic missiles, like Harpoon or Exocet, you'll have to close up to 130km (a bit closer if you want your missile to have some fuel left to increase its effectiveness in the hit), within the ranges of certain AD systems. If you carry one of these heavy long-range missiles, you can stay out of these systems' ranges and get out with your planes.

Like we discussed on the Brahmos thread. Range for a Yakhont type weapon on lo-lo profile is also about 130km. There is a range advantage only if you choose a high midcourse approach for the supersonic weapon. That high midcourse giving the defender a much easier time detecting the inbound.

seahawk

5th November 2004, 18:15

Imho there is no best ASM. If you want to try to sink an american CVN then you need all the goodies Russia has to offer. Take the supersonic ASMs add some long range ARMs and you have a real chance to sink a carrier. China for example could develop this capability with ease.

If you want an all-round ASM with a high success rate against "normal" shipping then you might prefer the western systems.

Jonesy

5th November 2004, 18:17

Sounds like a very reasonable summary to me!

Severodvinsk

5th November 2004, 18:36

Are you calling me uninitiated?
These ships have indeed passed their good time, yet are Tico, Burke etc. Any better? If the Russians wanted to give these assets a good purpose, they could engage anyone for any reason, like US does, yet they do not do that... That indeed renders these ships somewhat useless. Although, in late Soviet Doctrine, which I think they might still be able to follow, they could still protect the SSBN bastions in the North very well. This would still be good enough to keep away any other Navy that would try to attack them, including USN. Indeed, they consume lots of money, but so do US cruisers and destroyers, they could build 300 frigates instead if they wanted.(this would by the way give them a much better protection against smugglers and terrorists than the current fleet).

Like we discussed on the Brahmos thread. Range for a Yakhont type weapon on lo-lo profile is also about 130km. There is a range advantage only if you choose a high midcourse approach for the supersonic weapon. That high midcourse giving the defender a much easier time detecting the inbound.
Yes, it would, but what are you going to do about it? Apart from USN and a handful of European countries, nobody has the weapons to start defending at such ranges. So, eventually you hardly have any advantage by detecting it earlier. When it starts its attack in low profile you would see quite late, yet you would directly be capable of engaging it, on the other hand, if it goes high, you detect it early, but you have to wait untill it's close enough to engage it. Also, when it comes diving from that high, it'll have an additional speed.

If speed and range where enough to reliably get the job done Roel do you think that P-700 would carry ECM and armour?. If Granit needs such penetration aids what makes you think that Yakhont wouldnt?.
This is exactly what I meant with "extra". Granit had extra space available in its airframe, yet doesn't necessarily need these measures to get through. The titanium etc, are just to make your hit-chance higher, the Styx that got hit by an OSA-MA missile didn't have that titanium protection... But USSR didn't know what a SeaSparrow would do against this, so, they took the sure thing before the unsure thing! ECM is supposed to be on the missile, but we're not sure of it unless you can give me a good link?
So, these missiles are at the edge, they don't have any spare space, it's full of warhead and fuel tank, no space for ECM gear and armour.

Simply put in today's threat environment many navies have to justify their funding by what their units can bring to the all arms battle ashore. The blue-water fleet on fleet engagement doesnt exist anywhere anymore. With the demise of that goes all the value of P-700 and all the other weapons of that kind as an unuseable weapon is a useless weapon. Without a US CVN to try and sink whats the point of a bloody great missile, however advanced, who's only value is sinking US CVN's?.

Maybe you can describe today's Threat environment here? To most of the world, the threat STILL IS A US CVBG... They are the most agressive Navy around. And if you're talking about terrorists, well throw away all your missiles, no AD systems needed, not even a Harpoon needed, a Phalanx will do the job then.
If that battle ashore is on your terrain, you won't try to shoot missiles at your own land, you'll try to avoid the other guy from putting men ashore and these men just come from a US Amphibious group in 90% of the cases. Now these are mostly protected by a CVBG...
Of course, if you're not a large power, you indeed don't need Granit etc. Well in fact no one needs it, cause US only dares to take on small countries of which they are sure they can't do anything.

The NSM is indeed a good missile. Uran can be helo-launched, plane-launched etc. too.
Those strike fighters might be available, China and Russia have them.
As for multiple missiles, it's of course better if you have multiple supersonic missiles on your airframe, like KH-31P or KH-31A that would do the job, yet that brings you back into the range of these AD systems... ANd of course, the Tu-22M3 bomber carried 3 Kh-22M... But is of course a huge and probably quite expensive plane.

BTW: US has a program for a Supersonic anti-ship missile at the moment. It's not "which Navy can threaten us enough to need such weapon?" but it's "Which Navy WILL BE ABLE to threaten us enough to need such weapon?" and the answer is of course PLAN.

Shadow1

5th November 2004, 22:52

Dionis,
Footage in the Clancy movie The Sum of All Fears would give you a good idea as to what would happen to an American carrier should it be attacked and a few of the missiles aimed at it broke through the defensive screen. As much as the defensive capabilities of a CBG would more than likely be able to defeat any type of attach thrown at a carrier, I do think that overwhelming these systems would allow for a few of these anti-carrier missiles to break through the perimeter. Its getting them there that would be the hardest thing to do! The E-2C Hawkeye and Super Hornet/AMRAAM combination would make that a hard thing to do. Cheers!

dionis

6th November 2004, 09:18

The Backfires could be escorted by Mig-31s or Su-27SMs, Mig-29SMTs, and what not.

Russia should be actively operating all atleast 3 Kirovs within the next 2-3 years. Nakhimov (certain) and Lazarev (half certain) are slated for repair (I could have gotten them mixed up), and I heard something about the Duma and Ushakov .. about funding, but I am not sure where that all went. Pyort Velikiy has been cruising around quite a bit with Admiral Kuznetsov.

The Oscar II's are in excellent shape and very active.

Also, what happen to ATGMs? AT-11, AT-14/15 and especially the Vikhr-M (AT-16) and Shturm.

Nitin_V

6th November 2004, 11:17

Sounds like a very reasonable summary to me!

Same here.

Severodvinsk

6th November 2004, 12:03

Sum of All fears was BAD in this respect. I liked the movie, but this was one of the worst parts of the movie, showing nice stuff, but missing some part.

The defense of the carrier was completely absent, no Tico or Burke in the area, only the Phalanx was used as defense. Also, the Phalanx just shot two or three missiles, which is practically impossible, 1 is the limit.

Indeed Nakhimov is under repair now, Lazarev isn't certain at all and Ushakov is being scrapped now. They indeed tried to raise funds for her repair and asked the population for some money, yet they didn't get half what they needed, so they abandoned the repair. Now she's being scrapped as result. A Good thing if you ask me. It's too outdated without the Kashtans and old S300F. They'd better upgrade Nakhimov for the S300FM and also finish Velikiy.

As for SeaHawk/Jonesy/Nitin, Indeed, same here, you need all components to get it right. Otherwise you'll have to build a copy of a US fleet and hope your CVBG is better...

fencer2000

6th November 2004, 16:37

BTW Anyone have any info on the LGB-250? Not much info on it except that its a 300kg LGB. Possibly a replacement for Kh-25ML?

HERE SOME BASIC INFOS
http://www.offnews.info/inteligencia_seguridad/china_russia.htm

20 August RUSSIA UNVEILED A NEW LASER GUIDED BOMB, THE LGB-250, AT THE MAKS 2003 AIR SHOW IN MOSCOW. The LGB-250 is similar in appearance to the US Paveway II laser-guided bomb. Officials from FSUE Region Company, the manufacturer of the LGB-250, said that they exported their KAB-1500KR TV guided bombs to India and China last year. The KAB-500 is presently being fitted with a global positioning system. Tests for the resultant bomb, designated KAB-500S-E, will be completed soon and the bomb will enter service in the Russian Air Force in 2003. The LGB-250 can be carried by the Su-27 and Su-30 series fighters. {Robert Hewson in JDW 17.09.03}

20 August RUSSIA UNVEILED A NEW LASER GUIDED BOMB, THE LGB-250, AT THE MAKS 2003 AIR SHOW IN MOSCOW. The LGB-250 is similar in appearance to the US Paveway II laser-guided bomb. Officials from FSUE Region Company, the manufacturer of the LGB-250, said that they exported their KAB-1500KR TV guided bombs to India and China last year. The KAB-500 is presently being fitted with a global positioning system. Tests for the resultant bomb, designated KAB-500S-E, will be completed soon and the bomb will enter service in the Russian Air Force in 2003. The LGB-250 can be carried by the Su-27 and Su-30 series fighters. {Robert Hewson in JDW 17.09.03}

http://www.idds.org/acr2003/707e3CAR03.html

SRBIN SAID:

Latest Russian PGMs like the KAB-500Kr/S(GPS)/L, KAB-1500L/S,

where you reed that russia devlops laser/tv guided bomb with INS/GLONASS??

PS:I reed in JDW that KAB 1500 bombs are delivred from high altittude/high speed from an aircraft like su-30.......

regard's

Shadow1

6th November 2004, 17:56

Severodvinsk,
The Phalanx isn't a SAM system but rather the CIWS 20mm point defense system found on virtually all US Navy ships.
I do agree that Sum of All Fears did lack objectivity when showing the strike on the US carrier, however, I was just using that footage as an example of whatthe result of such an attack would be.

dionis

6th November 2004, 21:02

woulda been funny if the AS-16s (which were like launched from visual range) all had 200kt nuclear warheads... :P

Srbin

7th November 2004, 03:20

If lets say the Anti-Shipping missiles are armed with nuclear warheads, and they come close to a carrier, if they hit obviously the carrier is done, but if they are destroyed by something like a Phalanx, wouldn't they still basically destroy the carrier since the missile would be destroyed and explode so close to the Carrier?

Severodvinsk

7th November 2004, 10:51

You don't have to tell me Phalanx is a CIWS, I have a complete table of all these systems, made by me and someone else. I really know what I was talking about... The SeaRAM is a Phalanx derivate and can be seen as a SAM system since it uses missiles, combined with the Phalanx quidance.
And btw, Phalanx is being phased out now, The latest Burkes didn't receive it, because they'll have ESSM (and maybe, SeaRAM).

For Srbin, I don't know whether it would still have a nuclear explosion. Could just fall out and spread the nuclear material without causing a chainreaction.
But indeed, if one of these heavy Russian missiles is shot by a Phalanx, it would still be possible that the debris of the missile hits the ship, if lucky even damaging one of the SPY-1 Arrays or radar systems.

Srbin

7th November 2004, 16:27

Not only has Russia a similar equivelant to the Harpoon and Exocet, the Uran, they also have a wide array of many other missiles, a low flyin long range Alfa which speeds up to m3+ on last 20 kms, then the 300km high flying supersonic Yakhont, or 130km when going low, the 250-300km low flying supersonic Moskit, supersonic 100km high flying Kh-31A/AD/AM, the 500 km supersonic Kh-22M, mach 5 aeroballistic 150km Kh-15P and a **** load of others.

Jonesy

7th November 2004, 17:32

All true Srbin but how many of them havent already been countered or are dependent on offboard targetting assets that are absolutely vital to the weapons usefulness?.

the 300km high flying supersonic Yakhont, or 130km when going low

As we've discussed on the Brahmos thread a powerful missile, but, hardly any new revolutionary capabilities. High altitude profile puts it in detection range of anything with a DA08 radar or better in plenty of time to initiate defensive measures. Low altitude profile only makes sense against advanced opposition and draws launching platform unpleasantly close to that opposition.

the 250-300km low flying supersonic Moskit,

LIGHT BULB datalink supporting Moskit operation is capable of guiding just a single missile at a time so salvo fire is a difficult proposition. Moskit whole raison d'etre for development of RAM, ESSM, Aster weapons systems.

supersonic 100km high flying Kh-31A/AD/AM,

A medium range supersonic diver. A profile that point defence missile systems have been designed to counter since Sea Wolf back in the 70's.

the 500 km supersonic Kh-22M,

Modified version or not this is still the missile that AEGIS was designed to beat. Fast and powerful but still a big, fat target. Will require large volumes of missiles to break through a comprehensive AAW screen and how many nations have the capability to deploy that number of weapons?. Paper tiger.

mach 5 aeroballistic 150km Kh-15P

Get a Backfire/Blackjack to within 150km of a CVN to employ it!. What else warrants a nuclear warhead?. Paper tiger II.

The only system Russia has, that poses a threat outside the scope of existing defensive systems, is the 3M-54E version of the Klub missile. This, if it works reliably, is a startlingly scary weapon. It is a complicated piece of kit though and I'd welcome any information regarding the service status, if achieved, of (specifically) the -54E version.

Severodvinsk

7th November 2004, 21:05

Hmm Jonesy, Indeed "How many nations have the capability to deploy that number of weapons?" But also, "How many nations have the capability to get this comprehensive AAW screen you're talking about?" Certainly not the European countries with their 4 AAW destroyers on average, nor China, nor India with their lack of long-range SAMs and detection... It's pretty much only US that is left, together with the NATO Coalition fleets. Maybe Britain, although they lack a good modern SAM at the moment. Soon this will be filled up by Aster 30, yet how many destroyers with this weapon they will finally get is a big question mark.
The Indian Navy has the Klub from their submarines, last two submarines were built with the system and now, I think, the two first Kilo class submarines have been fitted with the system too. Also the latest Chinese Navy Kilo class submarines have this system, I think the first two of these have been delivered to China very recently.
Also, the Talwar frigates have the Klub 3M-54E variant for their VLS launchers.
From Bharat-rakshak:
The Sindhugosh Class submarines are being equipped with the Klub-S (the 3M-54E variant), while the three Talwar Class frigates will be equipped with the Klub-N (the 3M-54E variant, in VLS mode). Induction of the Klub ASCM, makes India the first export customer and also gives the Indian Navy it's first under-water launched missile capability. The Indian Navy is truly excited about this missile and calls it the Russian Tomahawk. Admiral Sushil Kumar (Retd.), former Chief of Naval Staff, has said, "The missile will give us unsurpassed reach and kill capability. The Klub fits into the torpedo tubes of the submarine and can target ships and land targets." This indicates that the Indian Navy might have possibly acquired the 3M-14E variant as well. In July 2002, Jane's Defence Weekly (JDW) reported that the INS Sindhugosh might also be equipped with the 3M-14E, in addition to the 3M-54, during her mid-life refit. No reliable info exists on whether the Indian Navy intends to acquire the 91RE1 or 91RE2 anti-submarine torpedoes. In December 2001, India Defence Consultants reported that up to 200 Klub ASCMs are being supplied for the Sindhugosh Class submarines being refitted and for the future needs for the Project 17 Class frigate and the Bangalore Class destroyers.

Acceptance trials conducted by the Indian Navy for its modernised Sindhugosh Class submarines, resulted in six successful 3M-54E test launches which demonstrated both minimum (20km) and maximum (220km) range capability against surface targets. During a test launch, in an Indian Ocean test range, a 3M-54E missile launched from INS Sindhushastra failed to hit its target. Upon further investigation it was revealed that the fault was with the target on the test range and not with the ARGS-54 seeker. An anchored target with a corner radar reflector simulating a frigate-class surface ship was displaced and the reflector began to radiate signals in a direction perpendicular to a flight trajectory of the missile's third supersonic stage. As a result, the ARGS-54 seeker failed to acquire the target. During qualification tests conducted for the Talwar Class frigates, a 3M-54E missile completed a successful live-fire test in the Barents Sea, demonstrating its maximum operational range of 220 km. The missile performed flawlessly and accurately hit the target.

From Rubin (I think this is Klub in a container, or is it just the fitting of the torpedo tubes?):
http://www.ckb-rubin.ru/eng/project/submarine/noatompl/img/11.jpg
It's the IN Shindushastra.

Jonesy

7th November 2004, 21:25

Sev,

We're getting at least 8 Type 45s according to the last Parliamentry report I read. More than enough for a comprehensive screen. Two of the APAR ships paired would present a SAM barrier that a dozen Kh-22's (about a squadrons worth?) M variant or not would have a sincere problem penetrating. If you look at a coalition situation with an LCF, a Type124, an F100 and a couple of Arleigh's just how many Tu-22s carrying a single Kh-22 (find a picture of the three missile Tu-22 config and its over its own field!) do you think you'll have to send?.

The point I'm making Roel is that the weapon has been countered and countered a long time ago.

The Indian Navy has the Klub from their submarines, last two submarines were built with the system and now, I think, the two first Kilo class submarines have been fitted with the system too. Also the latest Chinese Navy Kilo class submarines have this system, I think the first two of these have been delivered to China very recently.
Also, the Talwar frigates have the Klub 3M-54E variant for their VLS launchers.

This was looked into a while ago and, last I recall, the 3M-54E1 was proven in IN service but no-one could find any evidence that the -54E was actually in operational service?

Shadow1

7th November 2004, 21:31

Severodvinsk, I meant no disrespect. I should have read the entire thread before opening my big mouth! Apologies!

Severodvinsk

7th November 2004, 21:59

Shadow1, no problem at all, no offense taken.
E is for Export I suppose, Russian Navy only has the Klub on its own Kilo submarines. Otherwise they don't use it.
[quote]Acceptance trials conducted by the Indian Navy for its modernised Sindhugosh Class submarines, resulted in six successful 3M-54E test launches which demonstrated both minimum (20km) and maximum (220km) range capability against surface targets[/img]
It is in service... Or do you mean in Russian service? Russians don't really use it as I said before. They seem to rely on their submarines and Granit only... With only four Sovremennies active, the Moskit platforms have decreased a lot. Only the Tarantul III carries it. I suppose they have chosen for the slower sea-skimmers. Uran is mounted on Smetliviy, Tartarstan, and upgraded Krivak I class, it's also proposed for Neustrashimy (and soon her sistervessel probably).

Partially you are right, indeed with a Tupolev-only strike it wouldn't succeed, but that wasn't the idea either. As I have admitted before, you need all the assets. These Tupolevs would be augmented by, normally, 5 Oscars, that would still give you something to think about. Since your AD systems will be firing at all these "easy" targets, yet a 100 Granits will be flying on a lower path.
Now, what I just got to think of, wouldn't it be better then to give your attack from just that one angle? Filling 100+ missiles in one small SPY-1 panel? giving just that part of the system too much work? Also, SPY doesn't really target, these ships only have three (Burke) and four (Tico) illuminators which you need for about 10 seconds on each target. If you need 10 seconds for four targets, you'll need a lot more seconds for 10 times that much missiles and those seconds are quite vital if the attack consists of these rapid birds...

Jonesy

7th November 2004, 22:48

Well Roel I'm going by the SIPRI report on arms transfers to India which lists an order placed in 1998 for 96 missiles of which 38 were delivered by end '02. The missiles SIPRI lists -> 3M-54E1

I am very willing to be corrected here, but, as yet I've seen nothing open source to suggest 3M54E got past the technical difficulties it was suffering 2 years ago. Enquiries to a few old oppo's has drawn an equivalent blank. Anyone who can point me towards news that 3M-54E (NOT 3M-54E1) has passed its acceptance trials I will be staggeringly impressed with!.

Partially you are right, indeed with a Tupolev-only strike it wouldn't succeed, but that wasn't the idea either. As I have admitted before, you need all the assets. These Tupolevs would be augmented by, normally, 5 Oscars, that would still give you something to think about. Since your AD systems will be firing at all these "easy" targets, yet a 100 Granits will be flying on a lower path.

Fair one, but, you are confirming my point. The original assertion here was that the Russians were ahead of the game on antiship missiles. I listed some of the operational drawbacks of some of the weapons that, IMO, disprove that view. Now you seem to be suggesting that missiles would have to be fired in such volumes as to occupy the target fleets full complement of director fire-channels.

Tell me why the same feat couldnt be performed, oh so much cheaper and easier, by 50 Flankers carrying 4 Uran's apiece instead of 100 thumping great Backfires firing 100 Kh-22's and 5 thumping great SSGNs firing 100 Shipwrecks?. That is, in fact, if it is at all feasible to target that many weapons on a task force simultaneously (which I strongly doubt).

Srbin

8th November 2004, 01:36

Still, the air launched Klub, the Alfa is ages ahead of any Harpoon or Exocet. The P-900 Alfa has a launch weight of something like 1570-1700kg and it reports on global security of a 450kg warhead. For most of it's flight it flies some 10-15ms above sea level and then for last 20-60kms it drops down to 5 kms and speeds up past mach 3. The Air launched version is reported to have a range of some 250-300kms.

Its ages ahead of Exocet and Harpoon in terms of range and lethality.

Jonesy

8th November 2004, 02:47

Srbin,

You are slightly missing the point here I fear. There has been no convincing news that I can find that the supersonic terminal phase version of Klub has entered service anywhere. The 3M54E1 variant has been delivered to the IN and tested with varying degrees of success, but, the -54E1 is the pure-subsonic antiship version of the weapon and quite a different beastie than -54E. The subsonic variant is still powerful but is, essentially, little more than a big, long ranged, Uran.

Also, to be fair, comparing 3M-54E to Harpoon is a bit like comparing an Su-30 to an F-5E. The Russian aircraft is, obviously, superior BUT the US type was designed several decades ago, is much cheaper and not intended for the same mission!. Now if you want to compare 3M-54E to NSM, IMO, the Norweigan/European missile takes the prize every time.

dionis

8th November 2004, 03:19

why wouldnt the russians get within 150km of the CVBG? F-18C/Es going to outrange Mig-31s and outgun Su-27SMs? (escorting the Backfires)

Jonesy

8th November 2004, 03:53

Dionis its not even nearly that simple.

MiG-31's? The Backfires are being tooled up with AS-16s to go US carrier-hunting and you think the FOXHOUNDs, their premier anti-bomber/anti-cruise platform, would be chopped to AV-MF for bomber escort???. Whats an Su-27SM? Does it exist yet or is it some kind of upgrade or what? Does it have the endurance to try for a fighter sweep to shoot in the Backfires x00nm from their coast? Don't know?.

Irrelevant anyway unless they take along a MAINSTAY to control their air picture. If they dont they're fighting blind and blind in a battlespace where the USN fighters, directed by E-2's and perhaps the odd shipboard set, see everything! Does an AMRAAM outrange whatever your alphabet-soup Flanker shoots - I've no idea to be honest, but, its largely irrelevant again. All the fighter director has to do is bring in his CAPs nose cold for beam/tail shots outside of the coverage of the bomber/fighters sensor cones. Without situational awareness what chance do the Russians have?. Thats before we even start talking about SAM ships, SAM traps and threat axis!?

A Backfire, or anything else airborne and inidentified, would not be allowed to close to 150km of an alert carrier group.

Srbin

8th November 2004, 05:19

You are slightly missing the point here I fear. There has been no convincing news that I can find that the supersonic terminal phase version of Klub has entered service anywhere. The 3M54E1 variant has been delivered to the IN and tested with varying degrees of success, but, the -54E1 is the pure-subsonic antiship version of the weapon and quite a different beastie than -54E. The subsonic variant is still powerful but is, essentially, little more than a big, long ranged, Uran.

Also, to be fair, comparing 3M-54E to Harpoon is a bit like comparing an Su-30 to an F-5E. The Russian aircraft is, obviously, superior BUT the US type was designed several decades ago, is much cheaper and not intended for the same mission!. Now if you want to compare 3M-54E to NSM, IMO, the Norweigan/European missile takes the prize every time.

http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/showthread.php?t=3492&highlight=3M-51
That clarifies the difference between 3M-54E/54E1/51

The Air launched 3M-51 is the development of the surface launched 3M-54E.

According to http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/NAVY/Klub.html
The 3M-54E is surface launched, 220km range, subsonic flight with supersonic final attack stage, 2300kg launch weight, 200kg warhead. Then the 3M-54E1 is also surface launched, has no supersonic final attack stage, it is purely subsonic the whole time, it has a launch weight of 1780kg, warhead weight of 400kg and a range of 300km. It is meant to be installed on smaller ships I guess. 3M-54E1 is said to be compatable with the 3M-54E.

The 3M-51 is the Air Launched variant, it will probably have a final supersonic attack stage like the 3M-54E. However the specifications at the bottom are very unlikely. If it was developed from 3M-54E, it will have certainly longer range(since it's launched from the air), not just be lighter. If it's developed from 3M-54E1 then it should be lighter than 1780kg or about the same and have a even longer range, but highly unlikely. So the Air Launched Club HAS to be developed from the 3M-54E. Besides everything points out that the air launched variant has the final supersonic attack stage, so thats another reason why it would be developed from 3M-54E.

I would expect the 3M-51 to be much lighter than 2300kg and have a much longer range than 220km. It may have a bigger warhead but it may not.
I also searched this forum for the 3M-51
http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/showthread.php?t=32690&highlight=3M-51
So as it appears the air launched 3M-51 has a launch weight of 1600kg, probably a max range of 250kms and has a supersonic final attack stage. It should retain the same 200kg warhead or maybe have a bigger one.

As for NSM, it clearly is better than the Exocet or Harpoon. The surface launched NSM has a range of 160kms and launch weight of 410kgs, while the Air launched has a 348kg launch weight and same range. They have a 120kg warhead. The surface launched Kh-35 has a range of 130kms and a launch weight of 630kgs with a warhead of 145kgs. The fixed wing air launched Kh-35 has also the same range and warhead weight but weighs 480kgs while the helicopter launched one is similar as the surface launched one. Obviously just when you look at the range and weights you'll know.

As for the Clubs, they are in a totally different weight and performance class compared to NSM.

GarryB

8th November 2004, 07:12

The thing that the Russian PGMs cannot be dropped from a higher altitude, these aircraft would have to go down low to do it, which exposes them to low level trashfire.

How much trash fire is there at 5,000m? The tactical weapons the Russians are exporting were designed for tactical aircraft... tactical aircraft fly low to both detect their targets and evade larger SAMS and enemy fighters.

BTW Anyone have any info on the LGB-250? Not much info on it except that its a 300kg LGB. Possibly a replacement for Kh-25ML?

First of all the replacement for the Kh-25ML will not be a bomb, but more likely a longer range missile.

The LGB-250 is a 250kg LGB with a HE FRAG warhead with three delay options ( airburst, impact and delayed). Can be used at altitudes from 500m to 6,000m at speeds of 550km/h to 1,100km/h.

Also, what is such a great big difference between using Bombs or short range Missiles?

Speed and altitude. A Helo could use a Kh-25ML from 9km but to use a bomb it would near enough have to overfly the target. An aircraft like an A-10 benefits from the standoff range of missiles, and from a defensive point of view a missile would be harder to stop than a guided bomb due to reduced warning/engagement times.

The author said that the west did not follow this path because the missile, going supersonic will let the other guy know that is comming, because:
1) in the first part of the trajectory, the missile is obliged to go ballistic, this will help a powerfull radar (SPY) would locate it (heped by the fact that these missiles are big as telephone poles);
2) in the last part, they will travel sea skimming. A flying object, going 2M at sea level, will heat so much, that you don't need a very sophisticated IR system to see it.

Did the author also mention the purpose of the high speed Russian missiles was because there was no point in developing a small short range missile like Harpoon as to launch it you would need to get well within the CAP of the target carrier and that when designing the long range high speed anti ship weapons they accepted that the target would know it was being attacked but would design the weapon to travel so fast that countermeasures would be difficult if not impossible?

Needless to say that if the Sheffield was not distracted it probably would have defended itself from the Exocet that sunk it. Replace that with something more capable like a Moskit and I doubt it would have survived.

On the other hand a Western system (Harpoon, Exocet) will let you know it is comming when it salmms in your ship.

Yet early 80s technology British vessels not only detected but also engaged and destroyed exocet missiles. The exceptions where interference, or civilian vessels without military standard defences made hits that otherwise cannot be counted on.

The range of this torpedo is 10-15 km. If you think that that a sub can get so close to anything the West have undetected...

I was referring to the Skval-M system in the Su-25TM... an electro optic system with automatic target tracking.

No matter how sinuous would be the final trajectory, a big ASM is no match for the agile RAM.

And at what range does the RAM hit the incoming missile? If it is less than 1km then it has wasted its time as 4 tons of metal and HE flying at mach 3 at sea level needs more than a near miss by 10kgs of HE to stop it.

The Russian equivelent has a range of 10km in the Grison.

Even if you were right Jon what this means is that a saturation subsonic skimmer attack is more likely to defeat a RAM-equipped ship than a couple of heavy supersonics. Two strike fighters carrying four subsonics apiece would be more likely to be successful, against such a target, than if they were carrying single heavies.

But the Russians have subsonic antiship missiles too. Where are the wests supersonic antiship missiles?

Granits' buddy-designation attack profile is very clever, but, what happens if the hi-profile missile is taken down prior to terminal-phase designation and the remainder of the group miss or hit 'low-value' targets due to the lack of update?.

If the lead missile is taken out another missile in the group takes its position.

The missiles are dangerous, but, only in certain operational conditions.

They are designed to take on the best the USN could produce... against anything less they are overkill, but not less effective for that. Using an F-22 to hunt Mig-21s doesn't make the F-22 crap.

Even that is dicey though as an active sweep would tipoff the attacking SSN skipper that a weapon might be about to be heading back at him.

If the weapon used is Shkval then I doubt if the target would not hear it coming.

involving RORSAT, other satellite systems and planes etc. And yes, nowadays it is doubtful whether all these systems still work.

It won't work at the moment but with improvements in reliability in electronics when they do need it they will no doubt be able to put up a rather more capable system than before.

Without a US CVN to try and sink whats the point of a bloody great missile, however advanced, who's only value is sinking US CVN's?.

Both deterrent value and probably the only missile with a warhead large enough to threaten to sink a crude oil carrier or other large container ship. Equally the layered defence of fighters and long range SAMs and medium range SAMs and finally SPAAGs applies today as it ever did. Few Navies have adopted such defences but equivelent defences are available to any ship that is near to land and land based SAMs and fighter CAPs.

If speed and range where enough to reliably get the job done Roel do you think that P-700 would carry ECM and armour?. If Granit needs such penetration aids what makes you think that Yakhont wouldnt?.

The Granit was created during the cold war for cold war targets. The Yakhont is a more general purpose system that can be used against a wider variety of targets... air defences have improved, but not so much that such extra features are needed... besides who knows what ESM or ECM capabilities a Yakhont has or hasn't got.

Like we discussed on the Brahmos thread. Range for a Yakhont type weapon on lo-lo profile is also about 130km. There is a range advantage only if you choose a high midcourse approach for the supersonic weapon. That high midcourse giving the defender a much easier time detecting the inbound.

That choice will be made depending upong the target and is not a choice available to operators of Harpoon etc.

If lets say the Anti-Shipping missiles are armed with nuclear warheads, and they come close to a carrier, if they hit obviously the carrier is done, but if they are destroyed by something like a Phalanx, wouldn't they still basically destroy the carrier since the missile would be destroyed and explode so close to the Carrier?

Unless the fuze was activated they would not detonate in a nuke explosion as such.

As we've discussed on the Brahmos thread a powerful missile, but, hardly any new revolutionary capabilities. High altitude profile puts it in detection range of anything with a DA08 radar or better in plenty of time to initiate defensive measures. Low altitude profile only makes sense against advanced opposition and draws launching platform unpleasantly close to that opposition.

As usual you assume cold war situation. The most likely use of a Russian antiship missile by a nation other than Russia would most likely be a land based system or air launched system from home airspace. For example if the US decided to interfere with Iran and they got bolshy and closed the Persian gulf again then a couple of air launched high speed missiles might be slamming into a few crude oil carriers headed for the US or operating under a US flag... to engage a modern US frigate or destroyer one would need rather more than a little subsonic missile like Uran unless that vessel is operating alone.... which it won't be. Iran is rather unlikely to take on a whole carrier fleet but to assert its dominance in the region it might take a shot at a few US ships that test the water so to speak. In such a case being able to launch outside a CAP is not necessary, but there are many ships around the world that are too hard to sink with just a simple weapon like an Exocet or Harpoon or Uran. Lets face it... the Sheffield probably could have defended herself from an exocet, but whether she would have survived an attack from a MOSKIT back then is rather unlikely.

Moskit whole raison d'etre for development of RAM, ESSM, Aster weapons systems.

And when they are proven to stop it then the Western boats with RAM, ESSM, and ASTER fitted can worry about one less system... of course they were designed specifically to kill AEGIS boats.

the 500 km supersonic Kh-22M,

Modified version or not this is still the missile that AEGIS was designed to beat. Fast and powerful but still a big, fat target. Will require large volumes of missiles to break through a comprehensive AAW screen and how many nations have the capability to deploy that number of weapons?. Paper tiger.

Designed to overfly Phoenix or under fly Standard... you get a choice at launch. The new model might fly higher and/or lower and is certainly faster.

Get a Backfire/Blackjack to within 150km of a CVN to employ it!. What else warrants a nuclear warhead?. Paper tiger II.

Was designed as an ARM for strategic bombers, not taking on carrier groups... it as never intended to engage such targets. However I think engaging targets flying at 40,000m would be problematic for many defences... even if they can track it.

Fair one, but, you are confirming my point. The original assertion here was that the Russians were ahead of the game on antiship missiles. I listed some of the operational drawbacks of some of the weapons that, IMO, disprove that view. Now you seem to be suggesting that missiles would have to be fired in such volumes as to occupy the target fleets full complement of director fire-channels.

Well first of all are you suggesting that we compare the Russian weapons with the rest of the worlds weapons combined? Hardly a fair comparison... The Russians have the widest most comprehensive range of weapons and systems. A few countries have individual systems that are better in some areas but are even less operational than the Russian systems.

Tell me why the same feat couldnt be performed, oh so much cheaper and easier, by 50 Flankers carrying 4 Uran's apiece instead of 100 thumping great Backfires firing 100 Kh-22's and 5 thumping great SSGNs firing 100 Shipwrecks?. That is, in fact, if it is at all feasible to target that many weapons on a task force simultaneously (which I strongly doubt).

Because high performance Antiship missiles exist. They can't be uninvented and they wont be. Ships defence systems can be surprised by subsonic low flyers but these days improvements in defences even for individual vessels is such that you will need higher performance weapons anyway... unless you play war for fun like the US and Britain do. Their navies will never fight a battle of self defence or self preservation so having lots of missiles that might or might not work is not important... you can just send some planes to do it later or subs or whatever later.

cru

8th November 2004, 07:36

when assesing anti-asm capabilities of o US Navy carrier battle group, you shoud consider the CEC. This is more important than Standard, ESSM or RAM

Jonesy

8th November 2004, 13:18

Garry,

Did the author also mention the purpose of the high speed Russian missiles was because there was no point in developing a small short range missile like Harpoon as to launch it you would need to get well within the CAP of the target carrier and that when designing the long range high speed anti ship weapons they accepted that the target would know it was being attacked but would design the weapon to travel so fast that countermeasures would be difficult if not impossible?

Yes Garry that was then though. The likelihood of NATO's Strike Fleet Atlantic heading for the Kola Peninsula faded, just a bit, nearly 15 years ago didnt it?. Look at the carrier airwing compositions of the last decade - where are the long-range SIOP-tasked nuclear bombers?. The USN is reacting to the changed strategic situation and saving money by not maintaining the capabilities to fight the cold war all over again. You would expect the Russians, with their funding issues, to have grasped this just a bit more seriously.

Needless to say that if the Sheffield was not distracted it probably would have defended itself from the Exocet that sunk it. Replace that with something more capable like a Moskit and I doubt it would have survived.

This lets me illustrate a point wonderfully. Exocet was small enough and flexible enough to be deployed from a light tactical strike aircraft - an aircraft well within the technical means of the Argentines to support. It was deployable and, therefore, a useful weapons system. What would the Argentinians have had to buy to operate Moskit off?. What platform could they have used to provide OTH targetting for it?.

And at what range does the RAM hit the incoming missile? If it is less than 1km then it has wasted its time as 4 tons of metal and HE flying at mach 3 at sea level needs more than a near miss by 10kgs of HE to stop it.

I find it astounding how the 'internet-forum world' has latched on to missile debris-strikes so vehemently as a guaranteed ship mission-killer. There is every bit as much 'chance' of the heavier, pain inducing, bits of debris punching through the funnel group or somewhere else non-critical as trimming off a vital sensor or weapons system.

But the Russians have subsonic antiship missiles too. Where are the wests supersonic antiship missiles?

Studied but rejected as unnecessary or, worst case, wasteful in resource terms to develop. Most advanced western services decided that the best way to sink heavily SAM'd up high value units was with a heavyweight torpedo.

If the lead missile is taken out another missile in the group takes its position.

As I've already said - how long does this evolution take? If its near terminal phase update is their a risk that the missiles pass the terminal phase threshold without update? Also, just like Yakhont, the high missile gives away the suprise that there is a strike inbound. Anything that tips off a group of warships that missiles are inbound more than a couple of minutes out is a bad thing as it lets them start decoying. Look at Sheffield she was caught because she wasnt alert, irrespective of her defensive systems, the best way to catch a ship is not to let her know that she's under attack at all.

They are designed to take on the best the USN could produce... against anything less they are overkill, but not less effective for that. Using an F-22 to hunt Mig-21s doesn't make the F-22 crap.

Fair point but they were designed to take on the USNs best 20 years ago it must be remembered. Plus how much development would you put in on the F-22 if you were only likely to be facing MiG-21's?. Might you not be tempted to develop more of a multirole aircraft, like a JSF say, so that, once the MiG's have been splatted, you can go off and do a little damage ashore?.

It won't work at the moment but with improvements in reliability in electronics when they do need it they will no doubt be able to put up a rather more capable system than before.

Isnt this putting the cart before the horse though Garry?. Your suggesting that to get these missiles working reliably and usefully that a full space surveillance system has to be developed (or at least evolved from the former systems) and launched!. How much does that add to the unit cost of each missile sold!!!?.

Both deterrent value and probably the only missile with a warhead large enough to threaten to sink a crude oil carrier or other large container ship.

Important part there is 'threaten' to sink. There is absolutely no guarantee that even a conventional warhead the size of that on a P-700 would actually cause uncontrollable damage to a big bulk carrier or supertanker. Certainly the cost of that type of missile system, its launching platform and satellites etc doesnt seem to be very sensible when you could put a spread of 'cheap' SST4 or Type 53 heavyweight torpedoes from a 'relatively cheap' SSK into the tanker hull for the same effect.

The Granit was created during the cold war for cold war targets. The Yakhont is a more general purpose system that can be used against a wider variety of targets... air defences have improved, but not so much that such extra features are needed... besides who knows what ESM or ECM capabilities a Yakhont has or hasn't got.

Again fair point Yakhont is more useable than Granit, but, as I asked elsewhere what target is too small for a Yakhont to be worth using against instead of a few Urans? Would you use one against a couple of thousand tons of light frigate equipped with a basic single fire-channel PDMS?.

Srbin

8th November 2004, 15:19

As for Phalanx CIWS, if a supersonic missile is traveling at lets say m2.5, which is some 700+m/s, the Phalanx should have like about 2 seconds to destroy the missile. Now how many Phalanx are there in total on a carrier battle group facing one direction?

nuke1

8th November 2004, 15:25

Hi, Garry,

listem me, leave Jonesy: he's too good for everyone remarking it's poin of wiews as "definively truht". He could have a huge culrure about, no doubt, but he is always so convincted that his standpoints are the best or the unic that discuss with him is a substantial loss of time, despite it's fair to see the datas and arguments spoke in that discussions. His article of faiht N.1 is : the supersonic SSM are a loss of money and a failure concept .N.2 russians made Overlooked weapons. He is able to give much interesting datas and ideas about, but he is als oso convincted that the things could been only like he says that is unuseful try to discuss about. He will be concincted only if a Granit cut in two his frigate

regs.

seahawk

8th November 2004, 17:56

And Jonsey is spot on. Just look at the resouces you need to use those huge spuersonic weapons. You either need a large warship (with escorts) better 2, a huge submarine with external help to find the targets (better 2) or a bomber fleet.

So in any case you need a modern sea surveilance system. MPAs and satelittes would be a must. The later means you need a capable launch system to launch your eyes in space when needed.
A surface warfare group must be capable of defeating the US submarine threat and an pre-emptive strike of an US carrier airwing. Imagine 36 Harpoon and HARM carrying F-18 e/Fs coming in. Each carrying 2 HARMS and 2 Harpoons. That gives you nicely 72 incoming ASMs and 72 ARMs. Or if the Hornets carry 4 Harpoons you have 144 subsonic but sea skimming ASMs coming in.

You will need a very capable airdefence system to handle them all without leakers. They might not be good enough to sink you main surface ship, but a mission kill is probably and even only if some escorts are damaged the Task Force is out of the war.

A submarine fleet would need more ships, as submarines can cover only a smaller area of the ocean. It will also need the surveillance network and it must be able to avoid detection by US attack subs and MPAs.

The bomber fleet is the next step. You need the targeting help and a number of bombers large enough to sautrate the defenses. With 1 missile on every aircraft you need at least 6-10 planes for a strike. Then you need some planes to train. So you will need 12 high performace bombers as they will have to evade the US Caps.
Addionally the US could possibly take out your bombers with a sublaunched Tomahawk strike while the carrier is still far out of range.

Compare this to a large fleet of multi role combat aircraft carrying a small missile. You could launch 72 planes of that type and easily saturate the defenses. The CAP won´t have a chance to defeat such a strike and the air defenses will be tested to the limits.

Furthermore you should remember that ships have only a limited number of reloads. So a small number of high performacne missiles is better for them then a large number of lower performance missiles.

And if you don´t plan on fighting the US it is wasted investment anyway. Obviously you don´t need to kill large civil ships. Damaging them is enough to kee them away from trying to dock at your enemies ports, because the insurances rates will increase tenfolds. And for a normal surfrace combat groups of a destroyer or two and some frigates a large number of small missiles will work anyway. You just need to render them inoperational and not blow them to pieces.

dionis

8th November 2004, 19:03

Both the Su-27SM and Mig-29SMT are very real. Do a little googling :)

Severodvinsk

8th November 2004, 20:02

hmm, not fair of pushing me out here...
Guys, if this is AGAIN the way this discussion is going, we should just close this place down... No personal attacks on Jonesy or anyone else should be made here. You just have to give him hard facts to convince him, if you don't have these, or don't have a logical assumption, he might as well be right! That's the basics of debate and conversation.

Fair one, but, you are confirming my point. The original assertion here was that the Russians were ahead of the game on antiship missiles. I listed some of the operational drawbacks of some of the weapons that, IMO, disprove that view. Now you seem to be suggesting that missiles would have to be fired in such volumes as to occupy the target fleets full complement of director fire-channels.

Tell me why the same feat couldnt be performed, oh so much cheaper and easier, by 50 Flankers carrying 4 Uran's apiece instead of 100 thumping great Backfires firing 100 Kh-22's and 5 thumping great SSGNs firing 100 Shipwrecks?. That is, in fact, if it is at all feasible to target that many weapons on a task force simultaneously (which I strongly doubt).

I think Gary was right about this. It's not because an F-22 can fight the MiG-21 that it is as rubbish as MiG-21. Same with those SSMs. It's not because the Harpoon is a good weapon that there is no better one around. I think you are just looking at this a bit too much the US vs. Russian way again (now that's my only personal remark). As I said before, how many countries have such a comprehensive AAW screen? In Asia, that is none, so there these supersonic missiles are more of a pain in the ass than Uran or Harpoon. They simply don't have the systems that need hundreds of cheap slow missiles to saturate their defenses. 1 or 2 fast supersonic missiles might already suffice.
Also, your extremely slow Harpoons (or Uran if you want) will give much more time to the defenses to redirect the illuminators. The Supersonic Mach3 weapons give you a few seconds while the Uran/Harpoon will give you many more seconds to use your illuminators, hence if you fire hundred very slow ones, they might take out 50, if you fire 100 superfast ones, they might take out only 10 (purely theoretical, no calculations, but it's logical I suppose).

For that Klub, they are marketing the missile, so I suppose it's ok now. As for any proof of active service, there is none. I think the Russian Kilos (I think 4 or 5 of them are upgraded with it) use the same system as the Indian Kilos. No other systems are around at the moment.

I find it astounding how the 'internet-forum world' has latched on to missile debris-strikes so vehemently as a guaranteed ship mission-killer. There is every bit as much 'chance' of the heavier, pain inducing, bits of debris punching through the funnel group or somewhere else non-critical as trimming off a vital sensor or weapons system.

Do you know what a Burke is worth without its forward funnel? Indeed, NOTHING. All communications between the Bridge and CIC run through it (quite a flaw in the design, having a CIC in the lower part of the ship instead of just behind your bridge). WHen a fire occurs in there... The ship's finished. If it hits one of the radars or illuminators... It will be disabled for some part. As Gary said, when 4 tons of debris is coming your way, it might have a chance of hitting whatever part of a ship.
As I've already said - how long does this evolution take? If its near terminal phase update is their a risk that the missiles pass the terminal phase threshold without update? Also, just like Yakhont, the high missile gives away the suprise that there is a strike inbound. Anything that tips off a group of warships that missiles are inbound more than a couple of minutes out is a bad thing as it lets them start decoying. Look at Sheffield she was caught because she wasnt alert, irrespective of her defensive systems, the best way to catch a ship is not to let her know that she's under attack at all.

The Yakhont doesn't use this kind of system I think. Yakhont is guided by the Kondor-E satellite, Now, there are almost no countries that can counter a satellite at the moment. So again, no real offboard targetting unit is required (or at least not a vulnerable one). I think in terminal phase, all Granit missiles go up and light up their own radars. I'll take a look for that.

Eventually thought, wouldn't it be better to have a few coming from both sides? Seperating the directors to both sides of the ship, not allowing them to change direction, hence limiting the number of directors on one side to 2 or even only 1? Then it would be even better for using supersonic missiles, since four Harpoons on one side would still be vulnerable, while Four supersonic missiles would be almost sure of a hit...
Just another idea. But again, may I point out that there are more Navies than USN alone and that no matter what Harpoon can do, a missile that is faster more manoeverable and longer-ranged is imho a better weapon.

seahawk

8th November 2004, 20:04

faster and more manuverable is a contradiction btw.

Severodvinsk

8th November 2004, 20:39

No it isn't, considering Granit's wings and its speed, this allows for greater manoeverability. And if not, then Harpoon doesn't really use its manoeverability and Granit and Moskit do. Also, AFAIK, you need smaller wings at greater speeds to keep your manoeverability. (well that's what you need for ship's stabilizing fins...)

Srbin

8th November 2004, 21:39

Wow you guys are listing all the things that are needed to sink a Carrier YET you cannot do ANYTHING with the subsonic Harpoons or Exocets or NSMs. Their lethality is just that much lower when compared to also lower flying supersonic missiles. A Flanker can carry either 2 Kh-41 Moskits or 3 Alfas or Yakhonts, it's up to you to choose which one you want.

Severodvinsk

8th November 2004, 22:14

Hmm, you seem to have forgotten about the SM-2, which can intercept those missiles at... 150km? And ESSM, which also has a range of 50km? etc. etc. But that's not this discussion I suppose. The CIWS is a last ditch defense, it can only take out 1 missile. It's considered as the Abandon Ship Alarm (called "the zipper", because its well known sound)in the US Navy. For 1 direction, I suppose they have about 8 of them.
Edit for Jonesy: These Sukhois indeed are very real planes and a Hornet really isn't a match for them... They have the advantage in this defensive role of being land-based and hence are quite heavily armed. With the AMRAAM-comparable missiles.

Srbin

8th November 2004, 22:28

At what distance will an Aegis detect a low flying skimmer like the Alfa? I understand the Moskit would be easier to detect since it's bigger and of course supersonic through the whole low altitude.

I guess you would need quite a force multirplier to actually hit something like a well protect Carrier. a squadron of 20 Flankers carrying 60 Alfas should give anything a run for their money.

BTW, what chances will the ships have at lets say intercepting a high flying supersonic missile like the Yakhont or Kh-22M flying m2.5+. Also at what hypothetical range would they be detected at.

Jonesy

9th November 2004, 04:15

I think that makes it about 6 against 2 now. Seahawk make that 2 beers shipmate!. I really love this site sometimes!.

I dont think Nuke intended his commentry as particularly hostile Sev. I certainly didnt read it as such. In many ways he has interpreted what I've been saying accurately. What he's shown me is that I need to explain exactly why I'm so 'convinced' that my opinion is the correct one here as my, basic, message isnt getting through.

Maybe its more efficient of me to change perspective and outline my view on naval operations and capabilities in order to explain why I view the Russian weapons in question so dimly. Here goes :-

First off no-one is fighting the Cold War anymore. No-one - not even the Chinese if they're smart. Those 'battles' have been analysed to death by every major weapons/countermeasures designer out there for the past three decades. The Soviet-era heavy weapons as we know were large airframes that relied on the brute force approach to penetrate defensive systems. As Garry's stated in the past they simply accepted the fact that weapons, being large and employing the profiles they did, would be detected, intercepted and decoyed. They accepted this on the belief that they would always be able to fire enough to make sure a few would get through and a nuclear warhead or two would be the end of the issue. As a strategy it was a very difficult one to argue with as effectively they only needed one lucky break to win.

That approach is inappropriate for anyone other than the Soviet Union 20 years ago though. Today no-one, not even the Russians, have the ISTAR capability to fix a deployed carrier group and hold it for sufficient duration to assemble and vector a strike. Plus the luxury of not having to worry about going nuclear isnt quite an option now that a major naval action is no longer a just a milestone on the way to ragnarok.

Going back to topic though the Soviets, being well aware what AEGIS meant for P-500/700/Kh-22, rushed development on 3M-80 to get a countering system fielded. They ran out of politics before the potentially useful Kh-41 air-launched variant could be delivered though. Moskit ended up doing little more than exposing a critical vulnerability in the AEGIS/SPY system in time for the Americans to plug it before the step change to littoral warfare took place. Somewhat ironically this being the only environment where the relatively short-ranged surface launched Moskit could have been effective.

Seeking to capitalise on the state-funded development work from P-700 and RKV-500 the Russians evolved the Yakhont and Klub 3M-54 series. These address the deployability issue well, it being quite handy not needing to have Backfires Kirovs and Oscars to be able to use them, but all bar the 3M-54E variant still utilise familiar flight profiles, from the earlier weapons, and established technology. These drawbacks are well covered in the thread.

For Cold War US vs Russia, as Sev and Garry believe I'm discussing, this is a mistake for obvious reasons. Same old approach = same old defence. It may now be Yakhont vs ESSM instead of SM2 vs Kh-22 but the calculus still holds - everything is just a bit faster and a bit smaller!. This is why I'm expressly NOT thinking in terms of US/Russia.

What I am more thinking about is the rest of the world as client nations. This is largely because the US has such a lead in expeditionary warfare that I dont believe they can be successfully challenged even if anyone wanted to.

This isnt some form of sycophantic hero-worship American good/Russian bad thing please believe me. They are just ahead of the game today by a huge margin and are developing ISTAR/weapons systems that will allow them to target and initiate strikes ashore from ranges in excess of 600nm with very low detect-to-impact cycles. That kind of capability is not going to be countered with a dozen manned MarPats and a couple of RORSAT-type birds for targetting and a stack of P-700's, KH-22's, Yakhonts, Klubs or any other of those systems however supersonic, armoured and ecm'd up they may be.

To beat the Americans at their game China, India or whoever have two options:

a) Develop the capability to go toe-to-toe with the USN in blue water. This means matching carrier capabilities and deployable numbers. It means matching SSN capabilities in quality and quantity and it means matching ISTAR assets and netcentric capabilities. I dont know of a single naval analyst who believes there is anyone who can achieve that in the forseeable future. India has, in fact, already precluded this option by going for Admiral Gorshkov and STOBAR carriers for the next 30 years.

b) Develop the ability to start their coastal defence 400nm offshore and make it, if you forgive the pun, watertight!. The most practical way I can envisage this is with high-endurance UAV/UCAV's acting as surveillance platforms and first-stage buses for, perhaps, a dozen or so 'lightweight' NSM-style AShM's. Weapons that can be launched immeditely on an initial detection, not just hope the survillance platform stays 'alive' and in contact until a heavy strike package can be launched and vectored from ashore. Weapons that are passive and give scant indication that theyre on the way, are smart enough to reject targets not found in their onboard threat-database and to target specific vulnerable zones on hostile ships i.e radars, weapons mounts, chopper hangars, ordnance lifts etc. If four or more of these UAV/UCAV's can be coordinated, in realtime, to have their weapons arrive simultaneously from multiple axis enough ships could be mission-killed to turn a carrier deployment around. Not as 'sexy' as Granit-struck carriers turning tail burning from stem-to-stern, but, who really cares if it sends the USN home before they can hurt you?.

This relies, of course, on the premise that an emerging-superpower, wishing to seek to dispute US hegemony, would choose to do so militarily and would commit to the massive expenditures on developing these kinds of systems and all the support infrastructure necessary to employ them. My read is that no-one is dumb enough to try that. The US CVSG is therefore, IMO, going to remain unchallenged for a very long time to come.

Now we've done away with the anti-superpower scenario we have to look around and evaluate the requirements, capabilities and threats facing the smaller regional navies and airforces. Here we see lots of navies carrying on with frigate sized hulls, and downwards, embarking subskimmers of whatever flavour. We also see many airforces with three or so squadrons max of naval strike tasked tactical fastjets also carrying subsonic skimmers. The greatest challenge to these services in sinking neighbours ships is finding them and getting a positive ID prior to engagement - it comes down to ISTAR again!. Very few of these frigates have hardkill capability better than a basic PDMS and maybe a CIWS. They nearly all mount some form of ESM and offboard decoy system though. A big supersonic Klub or Yakhont is therefore unnecessary and, thanks to its size and targetting requirement, perhaps even a handicap. Plus an ARH is vulnerable to the one defensive system that is common and relatively easy to keep updated economically.

In addition, as I've said ad nauseum, an active radar homer, supersonic or otherwise, is of very little value where RoE's are in place to protect friendly and neutral shipping. A weapon like NSM removes that RoE no-fire limitation as, thanks to the target-recognition system, it will not attack a target it cant positively match to its threat database. This also adds for a greater confidence in attacking surface targets on a 'vague' detection. What you could conceivably have is an opponent with Harpoon, MM40, Uran or whichever one of the other ARH weapons waiting for further confirmation and evaluation on a target before getting permission to engage while the NSM ship has already fired and has missiles bearing down on target.

There is no Russian, American, Chinese or European 140km-ranged antiship weapon I am aware of, supersonic or not, that gives that kind of operational flexibility to a ships warfare team. Hope this clears up my reasoning a little.

Note for Sev,

You mentioned Kondor-E as a sat targetting platform for Yakhont. This isnt the case in antiship terms. Kondor-E is a radar imaging bird used to support Yakhont-M land-attack targetting. An imaging SAR system like this isnt capable of providing naval targetting data any more than an optical reconsat would. They can provide the cueing for another system to start a track from perhaps, but, with SAR resolution comes at a price - a very narrow field of view.

The below image is the 8m resolution image of Singapore Harbour from the Space Imaging RADARSAT. This is a 50km square sector which is the maximum snapshot at that resolution. Which ones are the tankers and which are the container ships? Space Imaging lists the RADARSAT as being capable of 500km deep coverage along its orbital path but only with a resolution of 100m and at that definition you dont get detail!. How long would it take to scan the Indian Ocean looking at 50 sq.km blocks at a time I wonder!.

Severodvinsk

9th November 2004, 08:59

quite easy in fact. The large guy in the middle is an LPG-tanker, can be seen by its broad beam and huge size (and compressor room in the middle). You can also easily, for warships, see it on size. This is a scale view, you can probably very well see the carrier. From this you can also determin where the Ticos and Burkes are.
I think P700 is guided by the Kasatka-B system in addition to RORSAT. Got anymore info on this one?
You think the classified military sats aren't any better than this?

Severodvinsk

9th November 2004, 13:33

Jonesy, I'm not "accusing" you for doing the Cold War US/Russia conflict. The point I wanted to make is that you still are stuck in the Anti-US scenario, not a Anti-Argentine, anti-Brazil, Anti-India or anti-China scene etc.. These navies do have the poor AAW capability and are capable to take out Harpoon at some point. They have some rudimentary CIWS (for Argentine, Brazil and other smaller countries, except China and India that is) which might have the capability of taking out a slow target like Harpoon or Exocet. Yet can these systems take out the supersonic missiles? They don't have the long-range SAM to take out the missile that far out, nor can they threaten the launching plane. Etc. etc. In this respect, the Russian missiles are far superior to their Western counterparts. And I'm not talking about Granit or other weapons designed to counter the carriers specifically, I'm talking about Klub, Yakhont, Brahmos etc. The newer weapons.

Jonesy

9th November 2004, 14:01

Sev,

If I hadn't told you where that radar snapshot was taken would you have still been able to pick out a civillian vessel from a military one? :D

This is a scale view, you can probably very well see the carrier. From this you can also determin where the Ticos and Burkes are.
I think P700 is guided by the Kasatka-B system in addition to RORSAT. Got anymore info on this one? You think the classified military sats aren't any better than this?

As I remember it Kasatka was the earthbound side of the Legenda system. This was a combination of two spacecraft types - a RORSAT and passive ELINT sat. IIRC the RORSAT (US-A) never worked properly resolution in heavy seas was only sufficient for picking out carrier sized hulls and greater while the passive bird (US-P) worked well but wasn't accurate enough to deliver targetting information.

Like I said, regarding the above image, that is a 50km by 50km box. Even at that resolution scanning the seas is absolutely impractical as it would take forever to get a detect and, by the time you did find something, the target would have moved. These systems are not realtime remember!.

The point I wanted to make is that you still are stuck in the Anti-US scenario, not a Anti-Argentine, anti-Brazil, Anti-India or anti-China scene etc.. These navies do have the poor AAW capability and are capable to take out Harpoon at some point.

Roel what platform exists in the Brazillian Navy, Argentine Navy, Malaysian Navy, Indonesian Navy, Turkish Navy, Greek Navy etc, etc, etc that could not be defeated by a better subsonic missile as opposed to a supersonic?. Of the vessels in any of those fleets would they be more likely to decoy or shootdown 2 Yakhonts that they know about or 4 NSMs that they havent seen?.

Which would be an easier and more economical attack for the aggressor to mount - a pair of JAS39 sized aircraft carrying a pair of NSMs each or a pair of Su-30's, with offboard targetting support, carrying a single Yakhont each?.

ink

9th November 2004, 14:48

Roel what platform exists in the Brazillian Navy, Argentine Navy, Malaysian Navy, Indonesian Navy, Turkish Navy, Greek Navy etc, etc, etc that could not be defeated by a better subsonic missile as opposed to a supersonic?. Of the vessels in any of those fleets would they be more likely to decoy or shootdown 2 Yakhonts that they know about or 4 NSMs that they havent seen?

Jonesy,
I've gotta ask; is this question based on the relative costs of Yakhonts and NSMs? If so what are the relative costs? Is NSM really half the price of a Yakhont?

Severodvinsk

9th November 2004, 14:52

hmm that is not a 50km on 50km box for sure... That would mean the ship in the middle is more than a mile (well to give a better calculation, it would be about 5miles) large. That one doesn't exist, sorry. Yes, sure I would, you can clearly see that on size and Length-beam ratio. That is also why I'm quite 90% sure that is an LPG carrier, it's more sleek than a large crude tanker (and of course the Compressor room is visible). If it had a much larger beam and same length I would have known it was a tanker. A carrier quite an easy distinguishable deckshape.
I was even surprised that this is Singapore, I've been there at anchor and we were quite a lot closer to each other there. The anchorages there are more seperated, the oil tankers are more towards teh Strait of Malacca, the LPGs are kept in a more open water (as can be seen here). The smaller vessels might be smaller LPG carriers, not sure, but I'm hell sure they are merchants. You can see the "bridgewings" of the accomodations in the back of each ship, the radar response of these parts is much higher than the fronts of the ship, that's probably because the roof of an accomodation is straight and the maindeck is going down towards the side (a bit stealthy in that respect). Now, it's the first time I see such a pic and I'm sure the military analysts who did this many more times, can see a lot more points to see the difference between both types of vessels.

I'll have to look that over again, yet this could be one of my last posts here... I don't have time to sustain all this research nowadays.

As for the Gripen, this already requires a close Airbase, it won't fly as far as the Sukhoi, neither will it be able to launch its missile equially far off. Not good if you ask me. Cheaper, yes, but I suppose that depends on your scenario then.
And you keep saying that NSM is invisible, do you have any proof of that? Doesn't that mean your plane has to launch it very close to the surface? or get seen by the radar while just launched? You're thinking too much on economics too, since Indian and Chinese don't seem to think about that at all. It's not because the West has such a lousy management that the entire world has that... Basically you're connecting "best missile" to "cheapest thing around"... You can see it the other way around too. WHat does it cost you to keep off these missiles, well it takes you a $4blln carrier which undergoes a $2blln refit during its life, it takes you 4 or 6 $800mln-$1bln escorts, plus the price of all these planes, hundreds of missiles for the escorts, fuel for all of this, replenishment vessels etc. In this respect, I don't know who is better off... Also, if one of these escorts is taken out, you'll have a great weakeness, on the other hand if you take out 1 of these attackers, well another one will take its place, costing only 40mlln to replace, while your ship will add another 1blln to your cost.

seahawk

9th November 2004, 17:35

Well for which scenario other then a anit US CVBG mission requires a Granit or Yakhont ??

I mean if you can spent the money to bring all neccessary systems to fully use those missiles into service, you should have so much money that you should easily wipe smaller navies with ease.

Just the costs of building the satelittes and the launch system would probably exceed the whole budget of a normal adversary.

Just to give you an example of capabilities the German F-123 Sachsen AAW frigate with SM-2, ESSM and RAM is designed to be capable of handling up to 8 sea skimming ASMs with high rate of success. But how many similiar ships are fielded by smaller nations ?? How many do field a AEGIS system ??
How many will be able to do so in the future ?? And how many could form a decent surface action group centred around such a vessel, which includes escorts and ASW ships ??

Nearly every Navy world wide (except for the biggest) would be hard pressed to handle 12 incoming modern subsonic ASMs. And in todays world hitting a ship is as good as killing, as damage repair ciycles make it highly unlikely that a damaged shup would return to service before a conflict ends, because of external pressure to end the conflict.

For the cold war scenario. We are always assuming that it would be only a one CVBG battle group, but I doubt that one carrier would sail close to the enemy shores alone, when facing such a strong defense. The US planed to use at least 3 carriers before venturing close to the Soviet coast line.

Srbin

9th November 2004, 18:18

If you don't like supersonic missile high on the IR, why dont you look at the Alfa. It's subsonic throughout it's whole flight profile and then it speeds up for last few kilometres. I don't see how the NSM or an other low level skimmer thats subsonic whole way can cope with that.

seahawk

9th November 2004, 18:26

Jonesy

9th November 2004, 18:33

Ink,

Finding reliable figures for Russian weapons systems is not the easiest of endeavors. The NSM development program though has, to date, cost 1.75 billion Kronor or about US$275 million.

To put this in context with the Russian weapon to develop BrahMos, from the already developed Yakhont airframe, the Indians invested in excess of $200 million. The figures for the development of the basic Yakhont would probably be difficult to sort out as, plainly, aerodynamic research has been borrowed from the work done on P-700.

Even so, looking at total weapon system costs, I'm happy with the assumption that equipping your forces with Yakhont and setting up a targetting infrastructure to support it would be a considerably costlier exercise than adopting NSM.

Sev,

Your right on the image size. I had to crop the original to fit the posting area better. The scale is off by some margin. As to superstructure components I can see foremasts and what could be bridge wings on three of the shapes and this is at a pretty high resolution. The area covered by a radar snapshot at this resolution is very small compared to the surface area that would have to be scanned. Either way the point that I'm trying to underline is that this kind of platfrom is NOT an ocean search sensor suitable for OTH targetting of an antiship weapon.

As for the Gripen, this already requires a close Airbase, it won't fly as far as the Sukhoi, neither will it be able to launch its missile equially far off. Not good if you ask me. Cheaper, yes, but I suppose that depends on your scenario then.

Referring to Gripen I was implying that an aircraft selected by several nations at the lower end of the market could operate one weapon and, decidedly, not the other. As to being able to fire at a longer range why is this important when facing off against frigate navy? Firing a volley of NSMs at 140kms is hardly much more dangerous than firing a Yakhont at 270.

And you keep saying that NSM is invisible, do you have any proof of that? Doesn't that mean your plane has to launch it very close to the surface

To a shipboard ESM system yes NSM is quite invisible. The first indication a non-AEW equipped fleet will have of a sea-skimmer is from an ESM intercept of its seeker head during popup. NSM denies this information to its target this means that the first indication a vessel will have that the weapon is inbound may be when it crosses that vessels sensor horizon. A minute or so warning isn't a lot to go from air-raid condition set to hard-kill cueing and soft-kill deployment especially not if you're facing multiple inbounds!.

You're thinking too much on economics too, since Indian and Chinese don't seem to think about that at all.....Basically you're connecting "best missile" to "cheapest thing around"...

My criteria for 'best all-round missile' would certainly include costs. Not just missile unit costs but cost-to-employ. For Yakhont, Klub and those types of weapons that is many times the value that NSM would return. To be effective you need a decent inventory of the weapons to use. Look at Argentina's situation with the AM-39's 5 weapons did not stretch very far. India according to SIPRI has, very sensibly, ordered over 400 Kh-35's and 96 3M-54E1's - enough for a sustained military action. What use is acquiring a few 'golden bullet' Yakhonts if you shoot off your arsenal and the opponent is still coming? Cost is definitely a significant factor in a weapons usefulness.

Severodvinsk

9th November 2004, 19:21

Important part there is 'threaten' to sink. There is absolutely no guarantee that even a conventional warhead the size of that on a P-700 would actually cause uncontrollable damage to a big bulk carrier or supertanker
You must hate me quite badly, again aiming at the merchies aren't you? Well, your statement is partially correct, yet you're not talking about sissy Navy vessels here. A Bulkcarrier has double hull, with 3 or more meters of seperation in between (seperation is one of the main principles of armour too). Basically, your SSM will enter the first hull, go through the second one, then fly for another 20m and hit the next wall on the other side of the ship, then go further and the hit the second wall and go through the ship.Bulkcarriers are often loaded only to a low level, hence your missile won't really hit anything. Even if it explodes inside that hull, it'll explode in a hold that is 20m high, 50m long and 20 or more meters broad. Not a real problem there. If it's laden with grain, no problem either, it'll start burning, but nothing more, very controllable.
Let's compare this to a warship, the missile hits the wall, goes through, hits a lot of stuff inside, some of that very explosive and eventually explode, dependant on your warhead of course. What I mean is, a Bulkcarrier is an empty hull, a warship isn't.
A supertanker, that gives a different thing, also double hulled, and tanks that are fully inerted, no explosions are possible there. I don't know the result of this, since I don't know how fast air will flow in and allow the oil to burn (btw crude doesn't really burn well). Yet even if it explodes or burns I'm sure there are measures to counter it. Normally every tanker has a foam cannon that can cover the entire deck with foam within 2 or 3seconds. So, basically these things are quite well protected against missiles. And yes, I indeed admit some of them sank and exploded in the Iranian conflict yet ships have been made better now, and I also said before, I can't really predict what will happen. Possible because those small slow missiles were used.

OK, we have a different definition of best-all-round-missile...
basically, that Klub version would indeed be your dream missile wouldn't it? Your minute warning of NSM would then be reduced to a couple of seconds...

Also, as I said, you never told me that satellite was a targetting one. If so, it is indeed not capable, if it isn't, don't you think they have better stuff around, working together with RORSAT, using RORSAT for an all-round search, getting the other sats for better, accurate guidance?

Referring to Gripen I was implying that an aircraft selected by several nations at the lower end of the market could operate one weapon and, decidedly, not the other. As to being able to fire at a longer range why is this important when facing off against frigate navy? Firing a volley of NSMs at 140kms is hardly much more dangerous than firing a Yakhont at 270.

It allows you to keep the frigates and destroyers off your coast, creating a much larger safe zone for your merchants to sail, not allowing the engagers to disturb your coastal trade and also external trade.

Jonesy

9th November 2004, 20:17

Sev,

Blame Garry for that one!. He's the one who's mentioned turning anti-carrier missiles on you '20knts is really fast' plodding merchie types a few times over the years!!!.

I was the one suggesting that the best way to turn one of those big lumps into an artificial reef was to open up its hull with a spread of heavyweight torpedoes. Would be interested to see how one would handle with one of those cavernous holds filling with water! :D

OK, we have a different definition of best-all-round-missile...
basically, that Klub version would indeed be your dream missile wouldn't it? Your minute warning of NSM would then be reduced to a couple of seconds...

With my background I'm a big fan of limiting in service weapons to as few different types as possible. Creates far fewer maintenance problems, easier logistics, vastly simplifies training requirements and results in optimal weapon serviceability. The wide deployability of NSM coupled with its secondary 140km precision land attack capability just makes it far too versatile for any other current system to come close in my mind.

IF the Kongsberg missile was unavailable for any reason and I had to plan a naval strategy against an opponent with specialist AAW vessels then the 3M-54E variant, IF proven in service and reliable under operational conditions, would be my second choice. Simply as its the only other missile system I'm aware of, from any manufacturer, that pushes the envelope of defensive systems. As an ARH I still dont like the vulnerability to softkill, but, at least the subsonic mid phase allows for a longer time to perform track filtering and target refinement protocols. It should, therefore, have a better chance of commiting to a genuine target come terminal phase commit than a full-flight supersonic.

Also, as I said, you never told me that satellite was a targetting one. If so, it is indeed not capable, if it isn't, don't you think they have better stuff around, working together with RORSAT, using RORSAT for an all-round search, getting the other sats for better, accurate guidance?

Sorry Sev!. Someone mentioned the Kondor-E as a targetting platform for Yakhont - I thought it was you!. Kondor-E is a radar imaging platform similar to the Space Imaging platform. I can tell you quite categorically that they do not have 'anything better' at least nothing thats publically registered as being orbitted. With the failiure of the RORSAT component of the Legenda system (thanks to some suspect nuclear powerplants IIRC) they kept on with the passive EOSATs and have modified them with a low-powered surveillance radar.

These are the US-PU series of which - according to the below report - they only keep one in orbit at any one time.

Launch of Cosmos-2405 naval reconnaissance satellite
On May 28, 2004 Russia successfully launched a Tsiklon-2 rocket from the launch pad No. 20 of the launch complex No. 90 of the Baykonur launch site. The launch was performed by the Space Forces crews at 10:00 MSK (09:00 DMV, 06:00 UTC). The satellite delivered into orbit was designated Cosmos-2405 (see note on designations).

Cosmos-2405 is reported (Kommersant, May 29, 2004) to be a new US-PU satellite of the Legenda (EORSAT) naval reconnaissance and targeting system. It became the only satellite of this type on orbit. Previous satellite of this type, Cosmos-2383 (27053/2001-057A), launched in December 2001 stopped operations in May 2003 and reentered atmosphere in March 2004.

The satellite was given an international designation 2004-020A and the NORAD number 28350. According to NORAD data, inclination of the initial orbit of Cosmos-2405 is 65.0 degrees, orbital period is about 93 minutes. Apogee of the orbit is about 427 km, perigee - 412 km.

[Space] [May 28, 2004]

Severodvinsk

9th November 2004, 20:36

Hmm, Kondor-E similar to this and where did you get that idea? Seen images of it? Any specifics on it as to have same accuracy, resolution?
20 kts is not at all fast, containers even get to 25kts. And even then try to match our speed with your sissy unstable speedboat in a beaufort 10 storm! Let's see who gets sick first and who advances fastest... (btw my LPG-tanker only got to 18.4kts max)
Spread of heavyweight torpedoes, I can think of cheaper means, doesn't fit into your logic, torpedoes are quite expensive as you probably know. I'll pay Garry for that if I see him laying in the sun on his yacht, he's not going to believe what he sees.

If proven in service and in operational conditions, can you show me any case of NSM doing this? I had contact with the Commander of KNM Skjold, the first ship to be fitted with this system, yet he said they didn't test it yet...

Severodvinsk

9th November 2004, 21:00

Let's play some open cards here:
P-700 Granit (SS-N-19 Shipwreck)

The development of the P-700 missile system started in 1969, but it was prolonged due to its complexity. It was assumed that the main source of information would be the satellite-based reconnaissance network, and from the very beginning, it was believed that the missile would be able to communicate with it directly after launch. The initial targeting information was to be received by a submarine cruising at a depth of about 30 m via a long-wave communications system from ground bases. The attack was to be coordinated with a group of long-range Tu-22M anti-ship aircraft. The underwater attack group consists of three to five Oscar and Oscar II subs, each armed with 24 P-700 missiles. The subs were to launch 70-120 such missiles against a single carrier group in a single mass attack. Roughly 30-50% of them are aimed at the carrier, while the others go after accompanying ships. Another salvo of 12-24 missiles was to be launched by aircraft, mainly to saturate the carrier group's defenses. The 30-knot speed of the Oscar I/II submarines enables a rapid approach to the launch area, about 450-500 km from the carrier group, and equally quick evasion after the attack.

The missile employs all of the techniques from the Bazalt/Vulkan. One lead missile per every 24 in the salvo flies at high altitude to reconnoiter the target, using its radar in active and passive modes. The active mode is used in quick "looks," then turned off to increase the penetration probability. The lead missile assigns targets to all subordinate missiles and communicates with the other lead missiles in the massive salvo to coordinate the attack. To achieve this, the missile is equipped with a powerful digital computer with three processors. The missile has an onboard integrated electronic-countermeasures suit for avoiding enemy anti-missile attacks using a combination of maneuver and deception jamming. The computer could order the missile to one of various stored courses with multiple altitudes. At high altitude, the missile speed is Mach 2.5, while at low (sea-skimming) altitude, it is Mach 1.5. Vital parts of the missile are armored to increase penetration against fire from Phalanx-type close-in weapon systems and against fragments of closely exploding air-defense missiles. The missile has a conventional 750-kg HE warhead or a nuclear warhead with an unknown yield (reportedly 500 kT, but that seems too high).

The guidance system was developed by TsNII "Granit." The missile itself was developed in OKB-52 (later NPO Mashinostoyeniya) under the direction of Chelomey and, after his death in 1984, under Gerberd Efremov. First tests of the missile started in November 1975. Numerous difficulties prolonged the factory tests until 1979, and in autumn of that year, the missile began state trials. Technical difficulties further prolonged the trials through October 1983, and the missile was officially accepted into service in March 1983. At this time, the space-based Legenda reconnaissance system had been fully deployed. In addition to the satellite system, the submarine could also use its own MGK-540 Skat-3 sonar system for targeting.

Only two Oscar I ships have been built: the K-525 (Arkhangelsk ) and K-206 (Murmansk ), commissioned in 1981 and 1983, respectively. Both remain in service with the Northern Fleet, and each are armed with 24 missiles and have Kasatka-U receivers for communication with the Legenda system. The subs were followed by the "ultimate" Oscar II class, of which 11 have been commissioned since 1986. The Northern Fleet operates the K-119 (Voronezh ), K-148 (Krasnodar ), K-410 (Smolensk ), K-266 (Orel ), K-186 (Omsk ), and K-150 (Tomsk ). The K-141 (Kursk ) exploded and sank on August 13, 2000. The Pacific Fleet operates the K-132 (Irkutsk ), K-173 (Krasnoyarsk ), K-442 (Chelabinsk ), and K-456 (Vyluchinsk ). The Russian Navy plans to commission a replacement for the Kursk, the K-329 (Belgorod ).

The P-700 missile was also introduced to service as a weapon for surface ships. Four Kirov-class nuclear cruisers were commissioned between 1980 and 1998: the Kirov (renamed Admiral Ushakov ), Frunze (renamed Admiral Lazarev ), Kalinin (renamed Admiral Nakhimov ) and Yuriy Andropov (renamed Pyotr Velikiy ). They were armed with 20 semi-vertical (with some oblique, like in submarines) P-700 Granit launchers. The system was directly adapted from submarines - to the point where the launchers have to be filled with water before launch. Fire control is provided by the MR-212 Vaygach-U onboard radar and other ships' electronic systems (the Gurzuf or Kantata-M passive reconnaissance systems, for example). The first two cruisers were withdrawn from service in the late 1990s, but the Admiral Nakhimov and the Pyotr Velikiy continue to serve. The only other ship equipped with P-700 Granit system is the aircraft carrier Admiral Kuznietsov , commissioned in 1990 and operational with Russian Northern Fleet since 1995. The ship is armed with 12 P-700 launchers."

It's from an article called Managing the Chaos: Postwar evolution of Naval C3

The MRSC-1 Uspekh system was developed specifically for target acquisition and designation for anti-ship missiles. It consisted of a Tu-95RC Bear D with its radar and a data-exchange system with aircraft and ship interfaces. Echo II submarines used the Argument fire-control system for presetting a missiles INS and for data exchange with the missile in flight. The whole system was fielded the in latter half of the 1960s. Two new systems were developed in the early 1970s. First was the more capable Uspekh-U, which was based on a modernized Tu-95RC aircraft. The other became the primary targeting means of the Soviet - and presently the Russian - Navy. This was the MKRC Legenda space-based system, operational in 1979, the main element of which is radar-equipped 17F16 satellites that use onboard miniature nuclear reactors for power. Again, the system consisted of both SIGINT- and radar-equipped components, but in this case they were satellites. The Legenda system did not replace the Uspekh-U, which also remains in service, but provides greater coverage and flexibility. The deployment of both systems solved the problem of targeting for cruise-missile-armed units, both surface warships and submarines. The latter, equipped with the Kasatka (and later-model) receiving equipment, are able to receive basic targeting information from the Legenda reconnaissance system, even when submerged. This feature greatly improved submarine survivability.

In 1967, the first "Uspekh" system, developed by his team was built. Its main performers (Kudryavtsev, Alekseyev, Khaskin, Kobilyanskiy, Lapiy) got the State Prize of the USSR. The success was full !!! Then Kudryavtsev began intensive studies of the problem of "behind horizon" vision. The solution of this problem might expand the Radio-location system (RLS) visibility range. The academician Shchukin, one of the founders of radio-location, considered this idea as an absurd one. But Kudryavtsev's system of "behind horizon" vision, built on the basis of his dissertation was under operation for over fifteen years !
At the end of 60-s, the top secret exhibition of military technique achievements was held in the town of Severomorsk. "Uspekh" system was exhibited there as well. The exhibition was visited by Nikita Khrushchyov, the leader of the state. When explaining to him the principle of the system, Kudryavtsev underlined that the higher an aircraft with on-board RLS system was flying, the more effective the system could be.
-You mean, that antenna should be put as high as possible?, - asked Khrushchyov.
-Yes !
-Then put it upon a satellite!
Kudryavtsev needed strongly this very suggestion - new prospects appeared, the required means were allotted and the work started. This time the result was evaluated with Lenin Prize.
Kudryavtsev managed to organize at his institute all necessary scientific researches for development of main technical means, including computer equipment.

Judge for yourself, using your own definition of most advanced anti-ship missile.

Also, a little question for Jonesy, Granit is a SeaSkimmer, only one missile up. Doesn't that make it as "unseen" as your harpoon? Except for that one missile up, you'll indeed be warned by that, but as long a you don't see any more missiles, you can only guess from where they are coming and how many of them are there.

Srbin

9th November 2004, 22:34

But is it worth the effort ??

A modern warship with RAM (for example) could still cope with a small number of such missiles.
On the other hand the latest Harpoon, Exocet, Penguin or Kormoran missiles are going to close to supersonic speed and make some evasive maneuvers to throw of the aim of CIWS.

In the end I would prefer to fire 2 subsonic missiles comapred to one supersonic.

Although I must admit that Alfa is a very ound concept.

evasive maneuvers? Since you simply do not think supersonic missiles would not work, you are all about subsonic sea skimmers, well the Alfa is a subsonic sea skimmer than at the last few kms it speeds up past m2, which not only increases it chances of survival since it has a bigger chance of hitting and not being destroyed but it also increases it's lethality of sinking a ship since combined with the size of it's warhead, I don't simply know how this supersonic boost is a disadvantage?

Now as for NSM, how can you think about sinking any sort of carrier group with NSMs which are subsonic, and have a smaller warhead, forget it's longer range, same with Uran. A Alfa with 200kg warhead and supersonic boost will have 3-4 times bigger chance of sinking anything better, and especially hitting it. As for Uran, yes the NSM is better than it and an all around missile since it is lighter and longer ranged.

Now to be honest(and I am not pro Russian) I too am starting to wonder and question all these supersonic Russian AshMs, which on radar and IR will be heat beacons and should be pretty easy to intercept, this is talking about especially against USN which probably puts up best Anti-Ship defenses anywhere in the World.(I am excluding Uran and the Alfa which are subsonic low level sea skimmers[Alfa is only difference since it boosts at final stages of flight]). I mean HOW vulnerable is a supersonic Yakhont or a Moskit to being detected and destroyed(I assume moskit will be harder to detect and destroy since it flies lower)? Also, what is the maximum speed a SM-2, ESSM or CIWS can intercept a supersonic missile. Can they possibly intercept a m5+ Kh-15S.

Let's look at some possible scenarios of a Carrier group being attacked by air launched or whichever Anti-Shipping missiles. Let's say the Carrier group is well protected and such. How many SM-2s, ESSMs and possibly CIWS does a typical US Carrier group employ all together. At what distances would they be able to DETECT and intercept supersonic missiles like Yakhont or Moskit?

Srbin

9th November 2004, 23:53

BTW, how did the tests with the MA-31 go? I have read that the AEGIS could not intercept the MA-31 supersonic drone.

nuke1

10th November 2004, 00:02

well, Jonesy, when you say that you try to do better to explain to the others you are really serious!

But the problems remains. So, i could say several points:

- the norwegian NSSM or whaterever, is coming now in service. For teh cold war it wasn't available! And we agree that hte Cold war is the golden age for the anti-ship missiles.

-you say that the HARM missiles are good for anti-ship: incidentally, the soviets thinked the same FAR before than teh norwegian, nothing to say bad about these latter, but this was the thing. you could agree, eventually, that the Penguin is a bit shorlegged and despite its passive IR searchehad, the Soviets didn't so happy to have this insthead of a granit, as example. Even if it is certainly cheaper.

-Another point: let's say that the battle was between the RN and the AV- MF aviation. Let's say that the battle was because teh soviets deployed a Backfire sqn. in Argentina to help teh Argentinians ( let's say that US didn't nothing about, as deploy carriers or so ). What could happened to the RN expeditionary naval force? what happened to the Invincible or the Hermes despite their Sea dart couver?? I think that nor Sea harrier, nor Sea dart, nor Sea slug could done enough: do you imagine how teh backfires were treatened by that defences? I think not enough.

-the problem is also another. Perhaps that the harpoon or the exocet is a better cost-effective weapon, sure they are better as flexibility, and with many advantages also for tactical deployements. But is better for what kind of Threat? Is better to have a potentially 400 Km supersonic missile inshtead of many of 50-100 km ( i think that the harpoon is better than the exocet, however, except in the sub-launched role ), when the launcher plane is likely to be shot down by Tomcats or Phantoms well before that it can launch it's missiles ( and what? How many? the super etendard have ususally only one missile). You seems to believe that a short range cruise missile is better, but seriously, do you think that a B-52 with Harpoons or a Bear with harpoonsky can do its job better than a Backfire with Ktichens? I think not, against a carrier US group i mean. The B- 52 could be downed well before. Not against a different naval group, included soviet navy. but it can be not enough. Potentially a B-52 must fly 20 minuts over a Backfire to fire the Harpoons more than a Backfire, Blinder or Badger to fire its As-4 or As-6.

-the growth of the soviet anti-ship missiles in performances is due because the treath to fight and the specifications needed. On the other hand, also te US carriers growthn in size and power. If one don't remind this, why he can understand the meanings of a such monster like the Granit? Is like to imagine the existance of the T.Rex without thinking to teh brontosaurus type- lizards. So now the huge anti-ship missiles are oversized and costly. But without reminding the US CVG this this seems wrong.

-I'm however agree, the small anti-ship missiles are better to counter to a medioum-small vessel. They are also cheap. If the delhi class has 16 SSN 25 they are still much cheaper than 8 SSN 22. But i don't think that soviets haevn't clues of the needings for a anti-ship missile, only they were focused by the main threat of the cold war: the CVGs.

-often i hear about the vulnerability of the supersonic beasts like the Kh-22 against the AEGIS vessels. But is it the trhuth? Also the subsonic SSMs are vulnerable, both for the Ciws and the Aegis as well. Atleast in theory. More, when the US patriots downed iraquis scuds, how comes the things? 140 missiles fired to shoot down not more than 45 missiles. but the kithcen was capable to manouver over to fly high and fast. I don't think that a Aegis vessel can really manage to shot down so many misiles like a Tu.22 M regiment can fire, even if the system could have teh theoric capability to do that. More, the CVG is a treaht and also a target so interesting that no effort could be seen wasted to reach the goal. It's more likely that the attackers don't lock the target or the missiles were jammed bu ECMs, but ECms are also the perfect target for any HARM missile, a thing usually never said ( while it is said the idiotic thing that a Harm missile is a serious danger for a AWACS, but here isn't the right place to say it: perhaps another topic )
-i'm also for a smaller missiles for antiship roles, after all teh harpoon has teh same range of the Sunburn, but, before the development of the real answer to this, the sthealt tecnology, how to surclass the Aegis defence? or teh fighets of the CAP? The big missiles were a needing of the period, now the AS-17 or the SSN 25 are better answers to the needings. the Klub or the other post-USSR missiles are now questionable, and force the navies to have adeguate answers to counter these limited treats , so the "normal" missiles are outclassed by these, but i think that when a navy has a stuff like the moskit or apha the potential enemy should think twince before attack. The psicologic war isn't secondary.

-another point is the damaging power: what to sink with a HE warhead a CV wiht a harpoon? how nay missiles are needed to atleast take out the carrier? with a granit is simple: perhaps one.

So we could get away for more time to discuss, but these discussions are merely theoric. expecially in the cold war contest. Luckly. Every solution have disavantages and advantages, perhaps that a Kh 22 could do better than 20 exocets in a certain constest, in other not. Perhaps that in some occasions the aircraft with harpoons are downed before they could launch the missiles while the As-4-Tu-22 are more than enough.
The only real naval war battled was the falkalnds with the argentinians attacking with mainly bomb armed fighters aginst a old navy like the RN. How well in hte San Carlos waters a Aegis ship could done, it's a guess without a real answer. The only real battles inviìolving aegis ships are the downing of an Airbus, the cruiser alsmost sunk by a mine and a destroyer almost sunk by a explosive craft. Also, the exocet has successully attacked ships US and british while in other occasions it wasn't enough to hit anithing or it hitten targets not already intended.

So this question about the real efficency of a SSM-ASM vs a warship is and will be a open question. All what it can be said is that is someone comes enough close to fire a missile, there are possibilities that this can hit the target and no defences are enough to surely counter such treath. A vessel is still a valuable target even if it is not so huge.

Srbin

10th November 2004, 00:35

Obviously 3 Exocets/Harpoons/Urans/NSMs are the best for use against ships that are not so well protected, these missiles are good all around and can be launched from anywhere, but you seriously cannot expect to use them to attack and sink a Carrier group. An aircraft like a Flanker might be able to mount some 6 of these low level sea skimmers, but them getting through stuff like CIWS is highly doubtful, not only that but they are slow and have small warheads to do any significant damage to anything bigger like a Carrier. But by far the NSM seems to be the best in it's class as an all around missile compared to Harpoon, Uran or Exocet.

I would seriously like to know more about the MA-31 tests and how they went in order to judge better higher flying supersonic missiles like Yakhont, Kh-22M and Kh-31A and judge their effectiveness.

Jonesy

10th November 2004, 00:37

Sev,

Hmm, Kondor-E similar to this and where did you get that idea? Seen images of it? Any specifics on it as to have same accuracy, resolution?

The information I got was from a USCC report. It suggested Kondor-E was a modular spacecraft capable of being fitted with either a 1m resolution SAR or an EO payload. The only image I've seen of it is an artists impression of the EO variant. Apparently the system is intended to be ready for deployment by 2006. 1m resolution will obviously return significantly higher quality imagery than for the Space Imaging platform but the field of view at that resolution is going to be a small one.

If proven in service and in operational conditions, can you show me any case of NSM doing this? I had contact with the Commander of KNM Skjold, the first ship to be fitted with this system, yet he said they didn't test it yet...

They tested it in June of this year. The seeker worked, the flight control system worked - with a zigzag course being flown to target and the engine delivered the range promised.

Granit is a SeaSkimmer, only one missile up. Doesn't that make it as "unseen" as your harpoon? Except for that one missile up, you'll indeed be warned by that, but as long a you don't see any more missiles, you can only guess from where they are coming and how many of them are there.

Harpoon?. When did I say I thought Harpoon was a particularly good weapons system?. All Harpoon has going for it is that its cheap, has a decent range and can be carried 4 to a Hornet!.

For your Granit question the lead missile is a giveaway, but, the target worthy of a P700 has Hawkeyes up that will detect the skimmers anyway so the situation isnt really comparable. What I was talking about with NSM was an attack against an opponent without organic AEW seeings its a fairly rare capability not found in most fleets. You and Garry were complaining about me focussing on US vs Russia after all! :)

Srbin,

Now as for NSM, how can you think about sinking any sort of carrier group with NSMs which are subsonic, and have a smaller warhead, forget it's longer range, same with Uran. A Alfa with 200kg warhead and supersonic boost will have 3-4 times bigger chance of sinking anything better, and especially hitting it. As for Uran, yes the NSM is better than it and an all around missile since it is lighter and longer ranged.

You will not sink a carrier with a Klub, Moskit or Yakhont any more than you will with an NSM. Even Granit or Kh-22 will not offer a high percentage of actually sinking a supercarrier so anything lighter is 'only' chipping bits off to a greater or lesser degree.

This sounds great news for the carrier at first - until the point is made that operating aircraft aboard ship is a very intricate process and that having a number of 250lb warheads detonate amongst aircraft on the flight deck or slam into the island or the hangar is a pretty good way of stopping those aircraft operations!. Sinking a carrier is not the only way to take it out of a fight.

Also, what is the maximum speed a SM-2, ESSM or CIWS can intercept a supersonic missile. Can they possibly intercept a m5+ Kh-15S.

This image is taken from an SM-2 blkIV as it intercepted a tactical ballistic missile target.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/space/systems/images/na3.jpg

Answer your question?

Srbin

10th November 2004, 00:41

Jonesy, I just love it when people like you touch upon some points but not others fearing it might actually prove them wrong.

Jonesy

10th November 2004, 01:04

Srbin,

Which bit do you want answered specifically? We started this off discussing the 'accepted viewpoint' that Russian antiship missiles are all powerful. I have disputed that and have written lengthy posts as to why, in todays threat environment, I have made such an obviously popular statement.

I really enjoy it when I make such an effort to explain the real environment and it simply gets ignored by people who cant see past an impressive bunch of stats and a sexy picture on some website!.

In your case, from what you've written the only 'new question' you have posted is on the performance of the MA-31 in US tests. This you made when I was actually writing a reply to one of your earlier questions and to some of Sevs!?.

The other questions from the posts you've made, about intercepts and the vulnerability of certain missiles to shipboard detection I have already answered in the thread and I think I repeat myself enough on this board already.

I did have some details about the MA-31 trials somewhere, from memory, the Russians sold the Americans some very dodgy examples of the weapon that performed so poorly that AEGIS never got the chance to engage 4 of the 5 missiles trialled as the missiles didnt make it that far. I'll check that up though and get back to you - provided, of course, thats not too poor a service for you!.

Severodvinsk

10th November 2004, 11:40

hm, I read the Duma denied that sale... And that US made its own copy of the Kh-31, which did not perform as well as the original one anyway.
The Kondor-E satellites have already be launched... maybe only Active in 2006 and but there are some birds up already.
It was rumored that China and Iran are together working on a new guidance system for Yakhont because they didn't want to accept Kondor-E (or was it too pricey? Or too dependant on Russia?).
Harpoon?. When did I say I thought Harpoon was a particularly good weapons system?.
Hmm, I thought that was your damn statement you tried to defend. If Harpoon isn't good, then you mean the RUssian stuff is rubbish, since you try to say Harpoon is better than Russian missiles...
I think Nuke was quite right when he mentioned the Argentine conflict... And beating back the British CVBG would be an unpayable victory! No money should stand in the way for accomplishing that. Of course they would still have the SSNs around, but by flying in your troops via air, you can get rid of UK...
And those heroic harriers wouldn't keep it that long if the Argentines would have pushed a bit harder. I don't think the British CVBG had E-2C in the air... Yet it would be worth a Granit attack.

They indeed tested NSM, but not from Skjold yet. (Since she's in drydock for rebuilding her to the new serial production units, (yet had to be decided whether they were going to change the bow or not))

Severodvinsk

10th November 2004, 11:56

I've been taking a closer look to that NSM again, was some time ago... I don't see what your point is comparing this to Brahmos... That has certainly been the point in some Russian missiles too. But how reliable is GPS? I've seen some very examples of that, by doing some parallel indexing on our radar and then comparing it to the GPS...3miles off-track to starboard? No, 2miles off-track to port, I'm quite sure this difference could make the missile miss its target. I think the heat-seeker is easier to fool than the Brahmos seeker... Just pull a empty hulk behind you and fill it with some old tanker cargo heater and water! That ship will look very nice or better, just start blowing flares from the ship, creating a huge heat-wall in front of your ship. I'm thinking about an Ogon variant for this. Or put some bunker with a heat source near the coast.

Sexy pictures are important too ;) (btw can you send me that Kondor-E impression you have seen?)

bubulle

10th November 2004, 14:37

Guys, I am very impressed by your expertises. My opinion is that the US navy battle groups/expeditionary groups will be more and more difficult to attack since they will be equipped with the ultra-long range SM-6 and the E-2E Advanced Hawkeye from 2010.That plus the CEC sytem and the FA-18E/F equipped with APG-79 and AIM-120C7 and AIM-120D should give at least a very robust defense capability against even the best russian sea-skimmers in about four or five years.

Severodvinsk

10th November 2004, 14:45

Of course because then the Russian Sea Skimmers will then be about 20 years old... Unless the Russians (and Chinese or Indians by that time) come with something new that is...
And at what price is US going to get all that? How much deeper are they going to make their moneypit? And of course What For? Who's threatening them? They'll loose their "superpower" status anyway, on economic grounds, and what are they going to do then? Invade China? Kinda childish don't you think?

seahawk

10th November 2004, 17:49

The funny thing is that people keep thinking about a Cold war scenario and ase talking about using ASMs to wreck an american carrier. Well if you are out to do this, then you should buy the huge supersonic missiles with the sea recon satelittes and all the stuff. It might be the only real chance to get a carrier.

But who is going to have to try this today ?? Apart from China I see no nation on the globe that could have a need for such a capbility and that could afford buying and operating it.

Jonsey and I are just saying that most of those super supersonic missiles are dinosaurs left over from the cold war, which have no real use today. How many navies could bring up a carrier group that could not be rendered operational ineffective by harpoon or excocet or NSM missiles ??

So in that scnario the question is, do you invest all the money in systems you are not gonna need, or a are you going to buy a larger stock of "slow and small" ASMs that you can attach to nearly all your tactical aircraft and use in a time of need.

On the supersonic dash. The high speed reduces the time the missile spents within the range of the ships air defenses. However the supersonic speeds means it will fly a straight line. Phalanx, Goalkeeper and other western CIWS are designed to handle supersonic and straight flying ASMs. They are tested to do the job they were build for. The highspeed makes it also more easy for RAM style IR missiles to lock on the missile as it will be hoter.

The NSM with some RCS reducing thoughts spent on it ( I think they did) however would be very hard to detect before being dangerously close to the ground, as the missile gives no warning of its presence. Flares might decoy the plane, but I think it would be easy to tell the missile to disregard any heat source travelling in the vertical axis. IR emitters might work. And towing a hull to decoy the missiles would render the ship operational ueless for all other missions.

dionis

10th November 2004, 18:53

Uhh, the Russians could do it. They've got over 150 bombers for it, plus all the tactical aircraft.

Jonesy

10th November 2004, 19:06

I'm not being funny here guys, but, we are debating the point Srbin initially made about Russian technical superiority in the field of antiship missiles here aren't we?.

How does the potential performance of the RN against a squadron of Backfires with Kh-22s in 1982 come into this debate?. If you want to debate that issue by all means start a new thread for it and I'll willingly participate in that as I know that, against a single squadron, the RN would have performed far better against that high-altitude threat than it did against the sea-skimmer threat we actually faced. Otherwise doesnt that issue just confuse the course of this thread which is meant to be dealing with more contempory scenarios.

Hmm, I thought that was your damn statement you tried to defend. If Harpoon isn't good, then you mean the RUssian stuff is rubbish, since you try to say Harpoon is better than Russian missiles...

I've never said Harpoon is better than Russian missiles. I know I've never said this because I dont believe it is. I said NSM is better than ANY other missile, wherever it came from, because its more practical, versatile, capable and employable in any real world scenario you choose to explore. I said that comparing Klub and Yakhont to Harpoon/Exocet was unjust as both those systems were just entering service where the US and French systems were 20 and 30 year old designs. That doesnt mean I think Harpoon and Exocet are any more effective than any other Active Radar Homer though!.

I've been taking a closer look to that NSM again, was some time ago... I don't see what your point is comparing this to Brahmos...

Sev when have I EVER compared NSM to Brahmos/Yakhont???. I have been saying all along that the supersonic weapons of the Yakhont type are insufficient to the task of engaging the one target set that they make any kind of sense to have been developed for. I have then gone on to say that the kind of weapons system that will be practical, economical and, most importantly, actually useful would be lighter, more deployable, multirole weapons of which the NSM is currently top dog.

This being the case I do not agree that Russian aniship missiles are the best, because, simply put the Norweigians have one thats better.

I think the heat-seeker is easier to fool than the Brahmos seeker... Just pull a empty hulk behind you and fill it with some old tanker cargo heater and water! That ship will look very nice or better, just start blowing flares from the ship, creating a huge heat-wall in front of your ship. I'm thinking about an Ogon variant for this. Or put some bunker with a heat source near the coast.

This comes back to the point of warning time Roel I've been banging on about for days though mate!. ESM detection of the active seeker gives the ships crew facing the Brahmos more time to employ chaff, floating decoys, jamming techniques and initiate maneovering. A ship facing NSM has no ESM assistance and consequently less time to deploy softkill.

Also anti-radar decoys have been developed and refined over several decades. Decoys for IIR seekers are not anywhere near as evolved though. In fact I can only think of the kind of multispectral smoke grenades used by tanks as a counter for NSM and employing that type of system to screen a frigate will not be simple - especially not in the maritime environment. Plus, as tested, NSM can fly a waypoint course to approach a target from an oblique axis. A vessel would have to be screened over 360 degrees for the duration of an attack for softkill to be effective against the weapon - no easy feat that one!.

As to your comments on GPS it sounds like your ships techies need to check the calibration of the radar or the GPS unit!. I've used commercial GPS for marine navigation and for hill walking and never found myself anywhere near that far off. The GPS system aboard a missile is hardly going to use commerial GPS resolution either!.

Dionis,

Uhh, the Russians could do it. They've got over 150 bombers for it, plus all the tactical aircraft.

Think about this one for a bit. Then go back and read the thread again. If your antiship weapons require a fleet of 150 bombers to be successful then what use are they for countries without 150 bombers?. How can superiority be claimed for weapons that only one country can get near properly employing and are not, as bubelle so eloquently described, anymore capable of engaging the heavily defended targets than equivalent subsonic weapons.

ink

10th November 2004, 19:45

Apologies in advance for what is going to turn out to be a pretty vague post:

I remember reading an article (can't remember where hence can't dig it out for the forum) about the potential for the Russians developing controllable ballistic missiles (using some kind of ram jet). They suggested that these missiles, once properly developed could theoretically be fitted with all kinds of seekers and used to perform pin-point strikes. Assuming that this turns out to be true it is possible that ballistic missiles could be targeted at warships.

Does this ring any bells, any at all, with anyone?

Severodvinsk

10th November 2004, 20:19

I'm not being funny here guys
You are always funny Steve :D

This comes back to the point of warning time Roel I've been banging on about for days though mate!. ESM detection of the active seeker gives the ships crew facing the Brahmos more time to employ chaff, floating decoys, jamming techniques and initiate maneovering. A ship facing NSM has no ESM assistance and consequently less time to deploy softkill.
ANd at what range did Mr Steve think ESM detection would work? Isn't there some kind of horizon for a Missile's active radar too? If that missile flies about 15m above sealevel, wouldn't that radarhorizon be something like 18-20miles? for a high mounted mastreceiver a range of let's say 30 miles? Wouldn't that be quite a short range considering that missile goes about 700m/s? If your missile is going something like 300m/s (Harpoon type), wouldn't that give you almost equally much time to deploy your CM? Or am I missing something here?

As to your comments on GPS it sounds like your ships techies need to check the calibration of the radar or the GPS unit!. I've used commercial GPS for marine navigation and for hill walking and never found myself anywhere near that far off. The GPS system aboard a missile is hardly going to use commerial GPS resolution either!.

It was calibrated, we never quite figured out what the problem was... Afterwards it seemed to work fine... (we don't use ship techies, we're no Navy sissies that need ten people for every single job. It's the officer's task to do that, well sometimes the electrician when it's a technical systemfailure)

Anyhow, GPS can be jammed, proven by the French. Even if it has higher resolution, don't you think such a jamming would quite waste your waypoint thingie? Also, you still have to rely on that one very unreliable country, nl. US. Russia could do this too with their missiles probably... But if you have NSM, then you'll have to calculate the GPS development costs in it too (if your country really wants to stand on its own legs), otherwise your missile is worth nothing. (well maybe the INS will keep your missile somewhere operating but I wouldn't trust that too much though). That's the same as Yakhont without Kondor I suppose. (ouch that one was below the belt wasn't it? ;) )

Severodvinsk

10th November 2004, 20:37

Can't be the radar either, since we had two of them, both in use back then, both giving same result... Was inside the Japanese waters. (eek, they were jamming us)

Srbin

10th November 2004, 22:00

What happend to the MA-31 info jonesy?

Jonesy

10th November 2004, 23:23

You are a lucky boy aren't you Srbin. I've found some stuff but not the NAVSEA report that I originall read. This news article roughly covers it though.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=17330

The significant paragraph being:

Despite the allegations of corruption, the Russian missile has another serious problem -- a limited range of 16 miles. Recent tests conducted at Point Mugu, California and the Atlantic Fleet Weapons Test Facility in Puerto Rico show the MA-31 missile unable to fly 50 miles for the Navy target drone requirements. U.S. Navy officials confirmed that they are working to extend the range of the Zvezda MA-31 missile.

Googling around a little shows that it was 4 missiles fired in the first test series at Point Mugu not 5 as I remembered. The short range limitation was a known issue as was the weapon seperation issue that immediately precluded the drone's release from a manned aircraft. This was the reason for a QF-4 as a launching platform.

Either way one missile out of the four was actually released and flew all the way to target and would have got under the AEGIS/SM-2 defence. The USN were very quick to point out that a small supersonic weapon launched a mere 16nm from target was not exactly an honest test of an area-defence AAW missile though. That kind of target being generally in the territory of a lighter point-defence missile. At least one other missile only managed to fly for about 8km then crashed and, ufortunately, I cant recall what happened to the other two.

Sev,

ANd at what range did Mr Steve think ESM detection would work? Isn't there some kind of horizon for a Missile's active radar too? If that missile flies about 15m above sealevel, wouldn't that radarhorizon be something like 18-20miles? for a high mounted mastreceiver a range of let's say 30 miles? Wouldn't that be quite a short range considering that missile goes about 700m/s? If your missile is going something like 300m/s (Harpoon type), wouldn't that give you almost equally much time to deploy your CM? Or am I missing something here?

What range ESM gets picks up the seeker depends on the profile of the active radar missile I suppose. If its on a lo-lo then it will be at whatever range that weapon is programmed to popup to illuminate its targets. I think someone has mentioned a popup at about 50nm from target for Brahmos on another thread. This would see the initial detection at nearly 3 minutes out. NSM gives no ESM warning so initial detection is when the weapon crosses the sensor horizon. A 70ft masthead radar mount will detect NSM at about 15nm and so will have about 1.5 minutes to initiate countermeasures IF they detect the weapon the second it crosses the horizon!.

Srbin

11th November 2004, 01:22

Yes but what happend to the improved MA-31 that US engineers improved? AFAIR after the launches, they were not able to intercept the supersonic missile.

Jonesy

11th November 2004, 01:29

They never completed the improvement package and the whole deal fell through as far as I know.

GarryB

11th November 2004, 11:50

The USN is reacting to the changed strategic situation and saving money by not maintaining the capabilities to fight the cold war all over again. You would expect the Russians, with their funding issues, to have grasped this just a bit more seriously.

The reality is that air defences for naval vessels have improved... not gone backwards since the early 80s. Why would the russians ignore a technology they spent quite a bit of money creating? The main rival remains the US whether the cold war is over or not... why else would the USAF need F-22s?

One would expect older AEGIS class cruisers being freed up for export by more capable designs... both exported handmedowns and new and improved replacements would all warrant continued development of the weapons designed to defeat them.

What would the Argentinians have had to buy to operate Moskit off?. What platform could they have used to provide OTH targetting for it?.

A submarine with maybe 2-4 rounds instead of the number Russians would fit to their subs. And for guidance passive radar homing with active radar homing for terminal backup homing.
The Moskit was designed specifically to engage AEGIS class vessels and it would be wasted on most other vessels, but that doesn't make it useless... even if it is overkill... it is still KILL.

I find it astounding how the 'internet-forum world' has latched on to missile debris-strikes so vehemently as a guaranteed ship mission-killer. There is every bit as much 'chance' of the heavier, pain inducing, bits of debris punching through the funnel group or somewhere else non-critical as trimming off a vital sensor or weapons system.

No, you are right... a 4,500kg missile would be easily blown from the sky by a little cobbled together missile based on components from Sidewinder, Stinger and Hellfire.

Most advanced western services decided that the best way to sink heavily SAM'd up high value units was with a heavyweight torpedo.

And the best way to destroy a heavy bunker is with a large nuclear weapon but what if that option is not available?

As I've already said - how long does this evolution take? If its near terminal phase update is their a risk that the missiles pass the terminal phase threshold without update?

The instant the lead missile stops transmitting another will replace it.

Anything that tips off a group of warships that missiles are inbound more than a couple of minutes out is a bad thing as it lets them start decoying.

They are for use against your super dooper all seeing all hearing USN carrier group with fifty squillion km range AWACS and uber Phoenix missiles. At launch or soon thereafter it is assumed they will be detected anyway.

Plus how much development would you put in on the F-22 if you were only likely to be facing MiG-21's?.

So what you are saying is that because the US carrier groups are now somehow less capable that all the weapons designed to deal with them should be reengineered to be less capable? Like making an F-22 and then finding it is overkill and redesigning it into an F-35? Wouldn't it be cheaper to just keep the F-22 and just use them longer without updating them?

Might you not be tempted to develop more of a multirole aircraft, like a JSF say, so that, once the MiG's have been splatted, you can go off and do a little damage ashore?.

So dump the F-22 and create a whole new type of aircraft... they are doing that too... the F-35 was already being designed, but while F-22s are expensive and have both advantages and disadvantages they are ready for use and can still do some jobs no other type can do as well.

Would the USAF be more or less capable if they withdrew the F-22 after all the time and effort they invested in it and just bought a very small number of extra F-35s? (Assuming that the F-35 will be any good and that noone will find and exploit a weakness in its design or its intended use).

Your suggesting that to get these missiles working reliably and usefully that a full space surveillance system has to be developed (or at least evolved from the former systems) and launched!.

But it has already been developed... it no doubt just needs to be launched when needed.

There is absolutely no guarantee that even a conventional warhead the size of that on a P-700 would actually cause uncontrollable damage to a big bulk carrier or supertanker.

Against a known target there is no reason why a diving supersonic missile with a warhead of 1,000kgs could not split a boat in two with the right fuse setting. Against an unprotected target then multiple hits from subsonic missiles with incendiary warheads might prove more cost effective, but I think 1 ton of HE plus the kinetic impact of such a large weapon would be more likely to cause it to sink. With a modern multisensor guidance system the engine room could be specifically targetted for maximum effect.

Would you use one against a couple of thousand tons of light frigate equipped with a basic single fire-channel PDMS?.

Few threats to a nations territory consist of one light Frigate. In such a case a subsonic or just a light AShM would suffice of course. The Kh-31 is hardly an expensive weapon too.

So in any case you need a modern sea surveilance system. MPAs and satelittes would be a must.

But wouldn't you want those things anyway?

You make it sound like you can take on any navy you like with a few subsonic AShMs like Harpoon, but buy a Supersonic AShM and you will bankrupt your fleet and all of a sudden you are facing a USN carrier group fresh from the cold war.

On the other hand the latest Harpoon, Exocet, Penguin or Kormoran missiles are going to close to supersonic speed and make some evasive maneuvers to throw of the aim of CIWS.

Name one gun only CIWS that can engage sea skimming supersonic targets. I am guessing they can all take on sea skimming subsonic targets (unless they have no role whatsoever).

The wide deployability of NSM coupled with its secondary 140km precision land attack capability just makes it far too versatile for any other current system to come close in my mind.

And the multisensor Yakhont-M with a 300km range and a precision land attack capability would be useless?

With the failiure of the RORSAT component of the Legenda system (thanks to some suspect nuclear powerplants IIRC) they kept on with the passive EOSATs and have modified them with a low-powered surveillance radar.

These are the US-PU series of which - according to the below report - they only keep one in orbit at any one time.

Wonder why they are wasting scarce resources to maintain a satellite in orbit that according to you has no use????

You and Garry were complaining about me focussing on US vs Russia after all!

My criticisms were based on your using post cold war conditions to criticise cold war designed weapon systems.

Phalanx, Goalkeeper and other western CIWS are designed to handle supersonic and straight flying ASMs.

Really? Where is the data for that? The only mention I have seen of supersonic targets engaged by Phalanx involve a target diving from 15km altitude at supersonic speed. A relatively easy target... no clutter from wavetops.

The USN were very quick to point out that a small supersonic weapon launched a mere 16nm from target was not exactly an honest test of an area-defence AAW missile though.

Very amusing... I am sure all targets will oblige the USN and not attack from short range. I remember when the Robo cruiser shot down that airbus they had problems launching their Standard Missiles and they delayed the launch by over 1.5 minutes... with a subsonic airliner it was no problem but if it had really been a supersonic F-14 as they supposedly thought it was then perhaps they might have been in trouble.

Severodvinsk

11th November 2004, 12:07

Seahawk, did you miss the point? Supersonic for missiles does not at all mean it's straight flying, as I said earlier the Moskit does sharp-S-shaped turns before it blows into its target.

nuke1

11th November 2004, 13:51

excuse me js, but what's wrong to example as a backfire vs british cariers? We discuss about the russian-and soviet- missiles, how do that without talking about their intended target? why to mean only the US carriers? soviets didn't feared only the US CBG?

Jonesy

11th November 2004, 15:39

Garry,

The reality is that air defences for naval vessels have improved... not gone backwards since the early 80s. Why would the russians ignore a technology they spent quite a bit of money creating? The main rival remains the US whether the cold war is over or not... why else would the USAF need F-22s?

This is partly my point as well though. Air defence HAS moved on since the 80's - not only that shipborne sensors, both radar and EO, have improved exponentially in terms of capability, ship design impact and affordability. What I am saying is that the approaches developed for defeating Cold War defences now offer little guarantee of success without resorting to saturation fire. A new approach is required to defeat todays defences and the Russians know that hence 3M-54E - a weapon I've already said looks very scary IF it works reliably. Something that has not been shown yet.

One would expect older AEGIS class cruisers being freed up for export by more capable designs... both exported handmedowns and new and improved replacements would all warrant continued development of the weapons designed to defeat them.

AEGIS with SPY-1/SPG can be defeated by subsonic saturation fire though - we know there are limits to the number of SAMs that the SPG-99 director component can actually provide illumination for in the endgame. Further BAe are on record as pointing out the limitations of APAR to a saturation attack down a single bearing to overload a single APAR panel. A saturation attack with subsonics will surely require more weapons to be launched, as more are likely to be intercepted, but smaller missiles are easier to deploy in large numbers.

A submarine with maybe 2-4 rounds instead of the number Russians would fit to their subs. And for guidance passive radar homing with active radar homing for terminal backup homing.

So, to make this work, the Argentines would have had to get the Soviets to develop a sub-launched Moskit, an SSG new-build design AND some manner of getting accurate offboard targetting to deploy 4 missiles. Instead they could buy a dozen light strike fighters off the shelf complete with antiship weapons. One seems like a very fearsome capability the other looks like a practical, affordable soluton.

No, you are right... a 4,500kg missile would be easily blown from the sky by a little cobbled together missile based on components from Sidewinder, Stinger and Hellfire.

How very silly of me - the weapon is 4500kgs of solid steel isnt it? A little peashooting RAM wouldnt make a dent!. Perhaps your forgetting about the slightly vulnerable control surfaces, seeker electronics, fuel tank etc, etc?. Plus everyone always talks about the massive kinetic energy that these antiship weapons store up on their flight. What kind of energy release are we talking about IF a RAM happens to physically hit the inbound weapon?.

And the best way to destroy a heavy bunker is with a large nuclear weapon but what if that option is not available?

You used Iran as an example. Whats easier for them to achieve?. They could acquire a platform to launch P-700 or pay for its modification to a land-based role then deploy it and the infrastructure to employ it. Alternatively they could station one of their Kilo SSK's in or around the Hormuz Strait. Your call!.

The instant the lead missile stops transmitting another will replace it.

That would suggest that the lead missile is continuously transmitting data all through the flight. I work in data-networking and datalinks use what are called link-update notifications, known as 'keepalives', which are sent every 5 or 10 seconds or so (any more frequently than that starts to impact bandwidth). Most links rely on 'missing' at least four or five of these keepalives to drop the connection as faulted. I would be amazed if P700 didnt use an equivalent system with a holdtime in place to verify linkdown state. The alternative is that any little interruption in comms from the lead missile would initiate the succession protocol. There would be false alarms all the time!.

There will be some latency between the loss of the lead missile and the establishment of the secondary, if nothing else, due to the altitude change for the secondary weapon. How long that latency period is will be significant especially for missiles travelling so fast. 30 seconds for missiles travelling at 500m/s means 15km without guidance update.

They are for use against your super dooper all seeing all hearing USN carrier group with fifty squillion km range AWACS and uber Phoenix missiles. At launch or soon thereafter it is assumed they will be detected anyway.

But doesnt this bring us back to the original point?. We're not discussing an antship missile's value against a carrier strike group as the benchmark of how good it is as. Even the biggest, most supersonic, most kitted out weapon is not guaranteed to reach target and only a very few nations could afford the infrastructure to successfully deploy it against one of today's CVSG's. By any objective standard this cannot place it as a superior weapon in today's environment.

But it has already been developed... it no doubt just needs to be launched when needed.

The US-PU satellite was developed out of the failiure of the Legenda system. It combines a passive ELINT capability with a low-ish powered surveillance radar (the Russians determined earlier that a RORSAT required a nuclear power source to be effective hence the US-A RORSAT component of Legenda). You would need quite a constellation of these and, with a spacecraft lifespan of about 2 years max, you would need significant expenditure to maintain the capability.

Against a known target there is no reason why a diving supersonic missile with a warhead of 1,000kgs could not split a boat in two with the right fuse setting. Against an unprotected target then multiple hits from subsonic missiles with incendiary warheads might prove more cost effective, but I think 1 ton of HE plus the kinetic impact of such a large weapon would be more likely to cause it to sink. With a modern multisensor guidance system the engine room could be specifically targetted for maximum effect.

Garry Sev sails on the bloody things. He knows what he's talking about. Also where are the 'modern multisensor guidance system' seekers your talking about?. Are they tested yet and what capabilities do they incoporate!?.

Few threats to a nations territory consist of one light Frigate. In such a case a subsonic or just a light AShM would suffice of course.

This is quite the point though - take Europe, North America and Japan out of the picture and only a few nations poses more than a few light frigates!

Name one gun only CIWS that can engage sea skimming supersonic targets. I am guessing they can all take on sea skimming subsonic targets (unless they have no role whatsoever).

Contraves Millenium and Bofors Mk3/3P are two.

And the multisensor Yakhont-M with a 300km range and a precision land attack capability would be useless?

No, but, where is it?. If its capable of low-alt all the way and terminal IIR only operation then it is useful. Low approac for Yakhont is 130km range not 300 though and NSM can do the same in a much smaller, more deployable and cheaper airframe?.

Wonder why they are wasting scarce resources to maintain a satellite in orbit that according to you has no use????

Very thin evidence of good performance that Garry!. Plus even you must accept that a single ELINT bird orbitted isnt much use for ESM triangulation.

My criticisms were based on your using post cold war conditions to criticise cold war designed weapon systems.

We ARE post cold war though Garry and some of these other lads on the thread dont seem to be able to make the distinction between a weapon that had value in the cold war sporting a nuke tip and a weapon that has value in todays environment.

Very amusing... I am sure all targets will oblige the USN and not attack from short range. I remember when the Robo cruiser shot down that airbus they had problems launching their Standard Missiles and they delayed the launch by over 1.5 minutes... with a subsonic airliner it was no problem but if it had really been a supersonic F-14 as they supposedly thought it was then perhaps they might have been in trouble.

This would be the world where all Russian antiship missiles work perfectly every time and all American/Western defensive systems fail with grim regularity is it?. Isnt it more likely that both sides systems are vulnerable to the vagueries of technology?

Nuke,

Dont misunderstand me there is absolutely nothing wrong with discussing that topic, in fact it is definitely an interesting one, but this debate is on the relevance of these weapons now - not twenty years ago. On this thread I'd rather try and keep the focus on that point without wandering even further off topic!

Severodvinsk

11th November 2004, 15:53

Yeah Garry, a merchie ship isn't an easy target as you think. The engine room isn't a garanty for killing it either. It'll have no propulsion anymore it won't be sunk. The merchant ships are built to surivive two fully flooded compartments. Engine room included. Even trying to explode an LPG carrier might be hard. It has inerted spaces all around the tanks and liquid gas doesn't really burn, only the fumes would ignite.
As for a supersonic weapon, indeed it might have a better chance for doing so, because a subsonic one probably won't get through the inerted spaces. The supersonic one might, by its kinetic energy, get into the tank and explode. Yet this is only one single type, the most dangerous (a large LPG-carrier is about as strong as 2 Hiroshima nukes when it explodes)/vulnerable type of ship. A large Bulkcarrier will probably not even feel the impact of a Granit, only when it strikes a vulnerable part maybe, but considering the ship only has about the last 30m of its 200-300m length as vulnerable, that chance is small. Yeah I'm safe when you come in my area ;) . I can survive this hit, yet you won't survive a collision with these ships. I always wondered what a warship would do when we went straight at them...

How very silly of me - the weapon is 4500kgs of solid steel isnt it? A little peashooting RAM wouldnt make a dent!. Perhaps your forgetting about the slightly vulnerable control surfaces, seeker electronics, fuel tank etc, etc?. Plus everyone always talks about the massive kinetic energy that these antiship weapons store up on their flight. What kind of energy release are we talking about IF a RAM happens to physically hit the inbound weapon?.

As for Jonesy, Gary's correct on that. It's of course not a full 4.5tons of steel, yet if you Consider your RAM-Granit case, the mass of RAM is quite impuny compared to the mass of Granit, hence it will probably not stop the missile. As I already said here, if a Styx (albeit lucky) survived a hit of an OSA-MA, a missile comparable to SeaSparrow, and still hit its target, a RAM will probably not stop Granit either. I also have said that the vulnerable parts are protected by titanium, I suppose these include the fuel tank and maybe parts of the seeker...

seahawk

11th November 2004, 17:36

Seahawk, did you miss the point? Supersonic for missiles does not at all mean it's straight flying, as I said earlier the Moskit does sharp-S-shaped turns before it blows into its target.

Sorry, but I doubt that a missile flying at supersonic speeds is capable of doing any noticeable turns during the final engagement phase.

seahawk

11th November 2004, 17:44

Another thing to remember we are seeing more and more capable but smaller ships entering service. We see frigates taking over from destroyers and destroyers taking over from cruiser and even some corvette that have a meaningfull air defense capability.
Many of these ships are having an imrpoved capability to intercept an incoming ASM, regardless of type. However those ships have fewer rounds available then the earlier ships. So would it not be more sensible to use more cheap and small missiles instead of few huge and expensive ones ?? I do think so.

On the 4500 Granit. How much of the weight will be left when coming close to the ship. How much of the total weight is fuel that is used up during the flight ??

@ Jonsey : Do you also feel surounded ?

Severodvinsk

11th November 2004, 17:59

I think a lot of Granit's weight is preserved, it has 750kg of explosives, the seeker, engine and Body left. Its launch weight is 7t, so probably some 2 or 3t of that is left when it comes in.
Hmm Corvettes and frigates, that's all a matter of designation, back in the days a frigate was 1,200t, now it's 3 or 4,000t (the weight a destroyer was before). Zeven provincien is a frigate... Although it should indeed be said that the small ships have increased weaponry. But that mostly gives them 8 SSMs instead of 4 and RAM instead of some guns.

nuke1

11th November 2004, 21:41

i think too that the weapon weight is a lot despite the los of the fuel during the flight. The granit has a name that well explains itself. I think that the weight is still 3 tons or more even without fuel at all. In every chase, it's a lot of kinetic energy, someone knows its speed? In every chase, such beast couldn't not reliably stopped by a ciws capable to shot down a missile at not more than 1 km. It could function vs a subsonic, but a supersonic missile should be downed by a longer range weapon. The Ram is a good choice, but no defence could function everytime as expected. The Ecms or the long range SAm could be a better answer. Better more, destroing the launch platform.

Frigate and brothers. The navies jokes with definitions, so Seahwk could be right and wrong. If the newer ships are generally more powerful it's really true that teh frigates of the 70's were 2000-3000 tons while the so called actual frigate are more than 5000. A small cruiser, in truth. Nothing like a type 21, and the same as the cost, so not undervalue this aspect as well.

About the RN vs teh backfires and so: i have stated that i am interested to see the historical worth of the giant missiles of soviets. It's for many reasons, differently one could think that actually the SS 18 were a waste of money and teh Scud a success, and think that soviets should built more SS 21 and less SS 25.

Becasue this topic is strongly debated, however, that's no problem to restart this in another topic (new), even if i don't see nothing bad to think how vs smaller naval forces the big red missiles could worked.

Finally, the idea of the granit as iranian defence is not so bad. But it's like the plans to buy hundreds of new aircrafts or so. Perhaps that they could function, but the cost and the complexity could be too high. If the iranians would modernize their missiles, they should start by the AA defence (read: better to have S-300 than the granits. This because the C-801 could work quite well while the Sa-2 and the older Hawks are now totally inadeguate).

And let me say this too.

Someone know something about the SSN 9?

regs.

Severodvinsk

12th November 2004, 10:33

SSN9? A submarine?
Or the Malakhit missile? If the Malakhit missile, it's used by the Charlie II submarines and Nanuchka missile craft. It's somewhere between Exocet and Harpoon in performance.

seahawk

12th November 2004, 17:23

Don´t forget Granit will be engaged by SM-2s, ESSMs, RAM and/or CIWS before hitting a target. It might be overly dangerous when it comes to within 1 km pf a ship, but it has to get there first.

nuke1

12th November 2004, 17:42

sure, but who is perfect? with such assumptions i'd say tha the enemy vessels must first survive at some enemy minefield , a thing that could worry the US skippers

seahawk

12th November 2004, 18:06

No I´m talking about engagement times. Granit is huge radar target flying at high level. NSM is a small target dlying at low level. If we say that the detection range for Granit is 3 times the detection range (assuming the Ship has the radr turned on), then the time both missiles spent within the envelope of the ships defenses is similiar.

Severodvinsk

12th November 2004, 18:53

I think you haven't really read the thread did you Stefan? Most Granits fly low, only a single one is up. As long as those low missiles stay there, they're safe. You might get a good assumption that they are there, but you won't see them, neither will you be capable of engaging them. Neither do you know the number of coming missiles, unless you have that E-2C up, but then you need the carrier again... And even then, i don't think the SM-2 is that much of great low-altitude attacker at such long ranges...
And before you ask, when the high flying one is shot down, indeed the second one climbs up.

seahawk

12th November 2004, 20:21

And that is what I call a perfect set-up for AEGIS. The illuminator will not limit the system. It can attack the missile with 2-3 SM2. Wait for the result kill the next.

And all that is assuming that the intra-missile datalink works without failure. that the low flying ones are not confused by the destruction of the high missile. That the datalink is save to jamming etc.

Furthermore I can see no target except a CBG, that would warrant firing a bunch of Granits on.

GarryB

13th November 2004, 02:17

And that is what I call a perfect set-up for AEGIS. The illuminator will not limit the system. It can attack the missile with 2-3 SM2. Wait for the result kill the next.

The group is closing at very high speed... how long before you target and destroy all of them even if you do detect them at maximum range? Once you detect them... they detect you because the radar emissions used to engage the first missile will identify the AEGIS ships in your group... and the Granit... even the top one will stop emitting... when you stop emitting, which means that you have detected the target and taken the time for a missile to be launched form your ship and travelled all the way out to that first target to destroy it... how much closer will the other supersonic missiles be to your ship?

And all that is assuming that the intra-missile datalink works without failure. that the low flying ones are not confused by the destruction of the high missile. That the datalink is save to jamming etc.

Assuming the inter missile datalink fails is like assuming the AEGIS tracking system doesn't fail... both are design to work and assuming everything will fail is hoping against that 99.9% possibility. ...what if the warhead of the Standard missile fails to detonate and just lands in the water?
Assuming the datalink beween missile might be jammed is akin to assuming that the AEGIS radar might be jammed... if that were so easy then why would the US be seeking to further make its forces (Net centric) if jamming datlinks was so easy you'd think that creating more would be stupid and also unstealthy.

Furthermore I can see no target except a CBG, that would warrant firing a bunch of Granits on.

A bit like expecting only a city sized target would warrant a nuclear warhead... of course nuclear warheads were designed for many targets from large open areas to very small but very dangerous targets... or difficult to find targets (like subs).

Any group of modern ships with systems like Aster and other weapons can be very well protected enough to warrant a powerful anti ship missile like Granit. If you are defending youself no calibre is too big as long as you can use it effectively.

Severodvinsk

13th November 2004, 10:59

Any group of modern ships with systems like Aster and other weapons can be very well protected enough to warrant a powerful anti ship missile like Granit. If you are defending youself no calibre is too big as long as you can use it effectively.

Good one.

And that is what I call a perfect set-up for AEGIS. The illuminator will not limit the system. It can attack the missile with 2-3 SM2. Wait for the result kill the next.

Won't it? I do think it will. 10 seconds for each illuminator, means you can only take 3 missiles each 10 seconds with a Burke. That also means you have to have all the missiles in the air already. Otherwise the time taking for 3 missiles will be much more.
And as Gary said, these things are supersonic. It's assumed that the high flying Granit can go up to Mach 2.5, the lower ones at Mach 1.5. If they were subsonic I would somewhat believe your statement, but with these missiles I don't. If there are about 50 of them coming your way...
Jonesy's point on this is a good point, how long it takes for one Granit to replace the other I don't know. That's probably beyond our scope too, since we don't know the reaction time of those missiles on the kill of the high-flying one, we don't know how fast it can climb, etc.

Another question for Jonesy, the NSM, You will somewhat need an off-board targetting too... How are you otherwise going to know what the coordinates for your GPS guidance will be? I don't think Skjold can find a surface ship 160km away. And I'm sure you know it can't. So, again you'll need a helicopter/Plane to find these ships. It's not a direct targetting, but nonetheless you have to find your targets and by this, give them again an indication that they are found and that a strike might be inbound. It might be a broad seeker too, but don't you think that by its slow speed, the target might have already vanished when the missile reaches the site? If for example your target is a Skjold type, going at 60kts... Kind of the same problem of TASM if you ask me. Unless, of course, that seeker is a very broad angled one...

Jonesy

13th November 2004, 15:31

Roel,

There is a vast difference between a missile requiring the kind of targetting support that Uspekh or Legenda was required for to provide prelaunch data to the Russian ships and for example, an intermittent ESM contact passed from a patrolling MPA being sufficient to launch NSM on irrespective of the target environment.

The difference is Roel that P-700, Yakont, Klub, Kh-22 and all the rest cannot be practically employed without offboard targetting. They all have to be fired at identified targets. While I would agree that NSM could be better used with offboard support the weapon can still be employed without it which is a VERY considerable advantage. To give you an illustration of this the Argentine Neptune that cued in their Etendards at the RN taskforce in 82 was patrolling over the Belgrano wreck hundreds of miles away popping up to get intermittent ESM fixes - it was never seen as a threat to the group. This platform would not have provided accurate enough data to launch heavy Russian weapons on from that range. Had the Argentinians been equipped with NSM, that day, though the RN would have been facing numerous weapons inbound that they would have had no clue were on the way until 15nm out from the first picket. That would have been a slaughter.

Any group of modern ships with systems like Aster and other weapons can be very well protected enough to warrant a powerful anti ship missile like Granit. If you are defending youself no calibre is too big as long as you can use it effectively.

Low altitude approach for Granit is 100ft and its the size of a small aircraft. This is NOT a hard target for any modern area or point defence SAM. That profile is within the envelope of elderly systems like Sea Dart and SM-1 let alone Aster, ESSM, SM-2. It is not an uninterceptable weapon by a long reach. P-700 isnt doing 700m/s at low altitude either its closer to 500m/s. Thats perhaps 50% faster than a high-subsonic weapon and its visible a hell of a lot farther out!.

All this and it STILL does not address the major problems - those of employment and targetting. The exact same ones you are all trying so very hard to ignore. Irrespective of how powerful the weapon may or may not be to employ it you need a Kirov, Kuznetsov or Oscar class vessel or you need to develop a new, and BIG, platform to deploy it from.

Then to target and fire them, before the weapons systems that the US Navy will be fielding in a decade or so can be launched, you need to acquire or develop the capabilities to put surviveable, high-endurance, surveillance coverage out to a depth of 400-600nm from your coastline.

Who can afford any of that Garry?. More so who can afford that who would see the need for such systems?.

P-700 is a weapon that today cannot be used by the people who developed it as they have a) no likely target and b) no comprehensive targetting ability. It cannot be used by anyone else as no-one has the units or targetting infrastructure to employ them. In short what value is there in a weapon no-one can practically use???.

GarryB

13th November 2004, 16:13

P-700 is a weapon that today cannot be used by the people who developed it as they have a) no likely target and b) no comprehensive targetting ability.

That is not true. They are maintaining a satellite in orbit to support these missiles... you posted yourself that an earlier satellite failed and was replaced.

There is no reason why a large power like India couldn't sow the Indian Ocean with hydrophone sensors that would give it knowledge of naval traffic in the area out to very great distances. Using GLONASS satellites or this new European system proposed the Granit could be modified to fly to the target area without any warning. It is the year 2004 and new methods and technologies can be applied. A large UAV or aerostat could also be used, or even an over the horizon back scatter radar much like that aussie radar could also be used to detect surface vessels and any aircraft operating from them or with them.

Jonesy

13th November 2004, 18:17

Gary,

One solar-powered surveillance radar is hardly a COMPREHENSIVE targetting capability is it!. Go back and read the article I posted again. That satellite has a 93 minute orbital period!. Great you have a relatively low-powered radar that can get a hit on your targets once a bloody hour, IF, you can maintain the track! It has an ELINT capability but what bloody use is a single satellite for passive triangulation ?.

That satellite is a cueing asset to steer other platforms in. Localisation and tracking, to provide targetting data, will require another platform entirely. That satellite, by itself, is not a targetting-capable platfrom!.

There is no reason why a large power like India couldn't sow the Indian Ocean with hydrophone sensors that would give it knowledge of naval traffic in the area out to very great distances. Using GLONASS satellites or this new European system proposed the Granit could be modified to fly to the target area without any warning. It is the year 2004 and new methods and technologies can be applied.

Yes Garry BUT they havent sown the IO as such and, for a comprehensive network, you would be looking at an expenditure that would dwarf the US SOSUS arrays - a very expensive undertaking.

The Indians, in this example, would have to be damn sure that they were going to have to face down the US Navy before embarking on that kind of expenditure. They certainly wouldnt have to go that far to counter anyone else!. In fact the only reason I can think of for deploying that kind of system would be for the employment of a missile like P-700!. Like I said - expensive missile!.

OTH-B at 10MHz gives a range resolution of about 10km and an angular resolution of about 1.5km and it can only do this under the correct atmospheric conditions. I can quite see the poor officer in charge of the site explaining to his superiors that he's terribly sorry but he cant target the American fleet today because the ionospheric conditions aren't right!. Even if the ionosphere is playing along with the team it still offers insufficient resolution to target missiles from, so is just another cueing asset that requires an additional platform to augment, and, besides anything else, costs quite a lot to field. Additional costs for the weapons system there.

seahawk

13th November 2004, 19:40

And I always wonder how a flight of Granits works. Assuming that the high flying missile must be faster then the low flying ones, because of the different alltitudes it must also have a higher range.
If it is destroyed however,, one of the low flying missiles must tkae the place, which means that it will use fuel to climb to alltitude.
Keeping that formation in order is a rahter complex undertaking, if you do only relly on the upper missile for target detection.

Only if you have a good fix on the enemies exact position then this would not be of major importance, which would bring us back to the points Jonsey mentioned.

Severodvinsk

13th November 2004, 20:22

Yes, the off-board targetting is completely different, but what did you say, NSM doesn't really need any MPA coming there? Not true if you ask me, we both know that the surface ship's surfaceradar will only go as far as 20-30miles, that wouldn't allow you to use that NSM very good would it? If your enemy then is a Kirov with his targetting helicopter up, I'd like the result of your engagement... ESM bearing will not give you any good coordinates, you can be miles off, miles that the missile can't travel or miles that the missile might be going wrong...
So,the MPA or "accidentely" passing plane or helo IS necessary to use the NSM in an accurate way. Not till the last phase as the Legenda/Uspekh system, yet still necessary.

Stefan, I don't think we'll ever know how it really works. We have a grasp of it, but the details... The only thing I got loose from a Russian was: "nothing about this system on the net is wrong". Nothing more, nothing less.

Jonesy

13th November 2004, 22:12

Sevvy,

Ships carry ESM systems too. Surface seach radar, certainly the newer Russian sets, use longer frequencies to bend over the horizon. ESM sets can resolve a target bearing to within a few degrees and have been able to do that for years - they will also be able to do that before the radar gets enough of a return to counterdetect. NSM can be fired on a single bearing intercept with reasonable chances of success. If time permits then the NSM platform can turn on a baseleg for a triangulation. The weapon can be employed from a totally passive platform.

Cant you see the difference in a system that MUST have offboard targetting assistance to a system that works better with offboard targetting?. Cant you see the difference between a system that requires a tie in to a specific targetting system and a system that can take a bearing from any asset in theatre however intermittent its contact?.

GarryB

14th November 2004, 08:37

One solar-powered surveillance radar is hardly a COMPREHENSIVE targetting capability is it!.

Would agree with you if it used active radar to mark ships for a semi active radar homing antiship missile to home in on, but it doesn't. Every 90 odd minutes it covers all the areas the Soviets are interested in... unless your carriers can fly how far can they move in that time? There positions will be logged every 85 minutes or so and a particular vessel can be tracked for probably 5-6 minutes while it is in view. That is easily enough information to datalink down to a sub or other forces to launch a weapon on a bearing to intercept a group of ships.

Yes Garry BUT they havent sown the IO as such and, for a comprehensive network, you would be looking at an expenditure that would dwarf the US SOSUS arrays - a very expensive undertaking.

Hahahahaha... yes, I promised it would be cheap... spend a fortune on a large expensive high speed missile and that is all you need... everything else will be free. For a country like India 5-6 lines of hydrophones perpendicular to their coastline sticking out into the Indian Ocean would be sufficient to triangulate naval targets within 600 odd nautical miles of the indian coast. As a defensive screen that would be adequate, but as the US is no real threat then such expenditure is not warranted. It could be done at less cost than a carrier group and maintainence costs would be lower. A land attack version of Granit as well would offer full land based anti carrier capability and a single sub in the Oscar II range would offer a deployable land attack capability if they wanted to extend their reach.

In fact the only reason I can think of for deploying that kind of system would be for the employment of a missile like P-700!. Like I said - expensive missile!.

Not expensive missile... expensive goal to defend from carrier groups.

Even if the ionosphere is playing along with the team it still offers insufficient resolution to target missiles from, so is just another cueing asset that requires an additional platform to augment, and, besides anything else, costs quite a lot to field.

Again the radar would not be to designate targets but to identify a potential attack group and give general coordinates. Even if precise coordinates are known at launch time the targets will have moved by the time the first missiles arrive anyway.

Cant you see the difference between a system that requires a tie in to a specific targetting system and a system that can take a bearing from any asset in theatre however intermittent its contact?.

What is the range of the NSM? Just having a bearing via ESM suggests a very long range... what if the ESM signal came from 500km away... how would you know if you are just firing on a bearing? Equally a Granit can't just be fired on a bearing because?

The Satellite or OTH-B radar or both could be used for early warning of an attack that could then be investigated by Bear or Backfire or large UAV... ie detect a large group of ships steaming toward you send up a few UAVs or Bears or Orions or Mays or Backfires... they will either confirm they are not a threat or be shot down... leading you to work out that there is a threat, then locational info from any surviving UAv or air asset along with data from the radar on the ground or in space would allow a rather large number of shore based Granits to be launched in the appropriate direction... data from any surviving Bear or UAV would allow an all low flight path for all missiles... remember the time overhead for the satellite could be as much as 5-6 minutes which might allow it to be used for monitoring the targets.
Since the development of the Granit rocket technology has certainly moved on as has electronics and materials... a new much lighter or similar weight smarter weapon with much greater range and higher speed could be designed but as I have repeatedly mentioned there is no imminent need.

Severodvinsk

14th November 2004, 10:53

Well, Steve, here's your bearing, where are you going to send your Missile? If you only have bearing, which I think is what Garry also means, you don't have range. Are you going to send your missile to A? B? What if you ship is in C? If your missile arrives in A, I suppose it won't see a target in C anymore would it? Or is it that broad-angled seeker?
Or is your missile, sent on the track to A, going to bend towards C if it detects a target there? Wouldn't that make it a very unreliable missile if your target is in A(IR protection) and a fishing trawler (no IR protection)is in C?
Since you were talking about the bending over the horizon. Don't you think that those same, non-perfect atmospheric conditions you talked about, wouldn't disturb that in certain circumstances?
And yes, Russian weapons are prone to failures, but so are US weapons. You seem to think those SM-2, ESSM, RAM etc. are 100% proof, why develop ANY anti-ship missile then? Then I suppose NSM will be as easily intercepted too...
And I agree, when you have more external, off-board targetting support, you have more chances to failure or defect. And it's more expensive, but if those systems allow you to avoid developping a $100blln fleet, I suppose it's ok and maybe even cheaper.

Jonesy

14th November 2004, 15:12

Roel,

Have to do the maths to back up that analysis mate!. MBDA lists the speed for NSM as M0.9 and the current, tested, range of the weapon is 140km from a surface launch. That gives a flight-time to max range of 7.5 minutes give or take a few seconds.

Now, and this is the important bit, passive targetting and seeker give the target no reason to believe they are under attack. They are unlikely therefore to be steaming at anything above cruise speed - who wants to unnecessarily deplete their bunkers when approaching a danger zone?. 14knts is a reasonable upper-end cruise speed.

14knts for 7.5 minutes gives a target motion of 1.75nm or about 3000m during flight time. Now there are no figures listed for the wide-angle capability of the NSM seeker, but, that movement is well within the search parameters of the Storm Shadow IIR seeker so I see no reason why NSM couldnt easily cope with it seeings as it is optimised to deal with shipping targets.

Wouldn't that make it a very unreliable missile if your target is in A(IR protection) and a fishing trawler (no IR protection)is in C?

This is exactly why NSM is so superior though Roel. NSM could end up on the wrong course with a fishing vessel in its seeker FoV. With an active radar weapon that fishing vessel is in deep trouble and a propaganda coup in waiting for the opposition. NSM though wlll correlate its target picture against its onboard threat database and, in this example, find no fishing vessel and discontinue the attack. IIRC it will climb and attempt a re-attack if it has the endurance remaining to do so.

And yes, Russian weapons are prone to failures, but so are US weapons. You seem to think those SM-2, ESSM, RAM etc. are 100% proof, why develop ANY anti-ship missile then? Then I suppose NSM will be as easily intercepted too...

Addressed the reliability side of this a few posts back to Garry:

This would be the world where all Russian antiship missiles work perfectly every time and all American/Western defensive systems fail with grim regularity is it?. Isnt it more likely that both sides systems are vulnerable to the vagueries of technology?

Garry,

Would agree with you if it used active radar to mark ships for a semi active radar homing antiship missile to home in on, but it doesn't. Every 90 odd minutes it covers all the areas the Soviets are interested in... unless your carriers can fly how far can they move in that time? There positions will be logged every 85 minutes or so and a particular vessel can be tracked for probably 5-6 minutes while it is in view. That is easily enough information to datalink down to a sub or other forces to launch a weapon on a bearing to intercept a group of ships.

Yes, those numbnuts good 'ole boys that the USN lets command its CVSG's will be blissfully unaware of the period when this satellite is overhead and would never come upon the idea of ooh...erm....changing course and speed when theyre under surveillance!. Simply returning to base course at maximum speed as soon as its over the horizon!. Remember Garry 30knts is 30 nautical miles travelled in an hour. The USN, and many others, have been playing decoy games with Russian satellites for decades and these US-PU sats are a long way from the power output of the US-A's.

Hahahahaha... yes, I promised it would be cheap... spend a fortune on a large expensive high speed missile and that is all you need... everything else will be free.

Garry you seem to be on a seperate crusade here pal. To restate this AGAIN the debate here is if the Russians are the champs of the antiship missile. How can P-700 be used as an example of this 'superiority' when it costs so much to field, deploy and utilise. How many nations need it and how many could afford it? Answer: few and fewer. You may make a case that these were the best weapons yesterday - but not today.

As a defensive screen that would be adequate, but as the US is no real threat then such expenditure is not warranted. It could be done at less cost than a carrier group and maintainence costs would be lower. A land attack version of Granit as well would offer full land based anti carrier capability and a single sub in the Oscar II range would offer a deployable land attack capability if they wanted to extend their reach.

5 or 6 rows of hydrophones 600 miles offshore stretching the length of their coastline is a LOT or hydrophones and a LOT of cabling!. Far more than the US has deployed in all of its SOSUS nets put together. Even developing the capability to field the system would be pricey and for what return?. You may say that fielding a few carrier groups would cost a bit more, but, you would get a hell of a lot more use out of them!

What is the range of the NSM? Just having a bearing via ESM suggests a very long range... what if the ESM signal came from 500km away... how would you know if you are just firing on a bearing? Equally a Granit can't just be fired on a bearing because?

Range of NSM is listed as 'greater than 150km'. Its been tested as far as 140km from a surface launch so thats the value I'm using until they report a revised figure.

A ship mounted ESM receiver does not suggest very long range detection against a ship mounted surface search set. 150km would be about a practical limit and that would be some radar in the first place!.

Granit cant practically fire on ESM as no range means no seeker activation offset and no seeker rangegate. Granit may have ISAR capability in the seeker, something that hasnt been verified afaik, so it may be able to identify a specific target but, if it cant, you're firing missiles that cannot be replenished-at-sea in the blind. NSM's you can afford to waste on vague targets - P-700's you cant!.

The Satellite or OTH-B radar or both could be used for early warning of an attack that could then be investigated by Bear or Backfire or large UAV... ie detect a large group of ships steaming toward you send up a few UAVs or Bears or Orions or Mays or Backfires...

Bears, Orions, Mays that you may have already but might just be occupied with the ASW duties they were intended for?. Backfires are a bit of a luxury item for most.

High Endurance UAV's I'm a big fan of, but, instead of spending all that money on satellites and heavy calibre missiles etc isnt it simpler, cheaper and more efficient to develop the UAV into a carrier for a battery of light (350kg or so) AShMs i.e NSM?. This means your sevices can standardise on one simple antiship missile for its ships, helicopters, shore batteries, aircraft and UAV's allowing for larger stocks to be acquired more cheaply and supported more cheaply and efficiently. Also, if you wanted it, means you have a standoff precision land-attack capability inherent with the UAV/NSM combination. Hell of a flexible weapon system - something Granit is NOT without a lot of further development if they can afford to do it!.

seahawk

14th November 2004, 16:37

Severodvinsk

14th November 2004, 17:19

Sorry, Jonesy, Weren't clear on this one I suppose. I wasn't talking about the target MOVING from A to B or C, I were talking about your bearing... The ESM bearing you said, is just a bearing, no range. Or does it give range too? I'm not sure, things move quickly. But if it isn't, then I suppose, with the drawing I wanted to show a bearing, without range, hence your target, seen from your plane, could be in A, B or C. If you give the launch information to your ship, that wouldn't still allow your ship to shoot then, since it doesn' t know to shoot to A, B or C....
So, no motion was taken in account there. As for motion, in my example this might give you the advantage, or disadvantage, Moving away or towards your missile, or neutrally perpendicular to your missile's heading.

nuke1

14th November 2004, 17:42

Someone could appreciate that if a navy, whetever it can be, is facing with a stuff like the Granit it could be ..."scared" by that even if the exocet or the deus ex machina NSM could be more praticat? It's not a so small advantage even if theoric, a 500 km range 8and a ipotetical Nuke warhead)

seahawk

14th November 2004, 17:49

Or the other way round, it makes your Granit capable assets a primary target. Senn from another standpoint it is more difficult to take out a biggr number of lesser capable launch platforms, then taking out a small numer of dedicated Granit launchers.

This is no missile you can hang onto an average tactical aircraft. You would need a SU-27 type at least.

Severodvinsk

14th November 2004, 21:37

Hmm, the huge size of Granit makes you build a huge launcher for it. Mostly these huge launchers have a huge spare space and buoyancy, hence more SAMs. If you look at the surface ships that fire Granit, they all have more than 300 SAMs and several guidance radars for all that...

seahawk

14th November 2004, 21:52

But a surface ship needs more then SAMs. It needs a good (very good) ASW screen and you would want at least 2 such ships to have one ready if one is done for refit.

Furthermore a SuAG will be even more hard pressed to get a target solution, then airplane based solution.

Severodvinsk

14th November 2004, 22:12

dionis

15th November 2004, 03:30

Havent's some Udaloys been reconfigured for purposes other than ASW?

Jonesy

15th November 2004, 04:26

Nuke,

Someone could appreciate that if a navy, whetever it can be, is facing with a stuff like the Granit it could be ..."scared" by that even if the exocet or the deus ex machina NSM could be more praticat? It's not a so small advantage even if theoric, a 500 km range 8and a ipotetical Nuke warhead)

Seahawks' got this dead right. Before entering into an action any professional service will perform a threat reduction exercise. This is an evaluation of what assets the opponent has, what their strengths and weaknesses are, and how best to deny the situations that give advantage to the enemies systems. Sounds obvious you might think. Facing the P-700 you know that the targetting platform is the key to the systems operation - knock them down and you are unlikely to see any Shipwrecks.

Further you know that unless you are sailing towards Mother Russia the opponent doesnt have many, readily deployable, missiles. The North Korean Peoples Navy might take delivery of 4 Oscars, for example, but theyre unlikely to have more than a couple deployable at any one time. There, simply, arent all THAT many P700 shooting plaforms in existence. Knowlegde of the likely scale of an attack is VITAL to the disposition of your defensive assets to counter it.

Facing an adversary with NSM the threat reduction exercise is a horror story. Essentially any platform you see, however distant or seemingly innocuous, could be targetting you. As Seahawk described any old day fighter capable of of carrying a pair of 350kg weapons and a datalink could pose a serious threat. As such developing tactics to defeat a specifc threat is nearly impossible. Your forces simply have to be ready to counter any threat from almost any axis, at any time, with very little warning time.

Sevvy,

Hmm, the huge size of Granit makes you build a huge launcher for it. Mostly these huge launchers have a huge spare space and buoyancy, hence more SAMs. If you look at the surface ships that fire Granit, they all have more than 300 SAMs and several guidance radars for all that...

I'm sure I dont need to tell you that several developed navies exist that dont have 300 SAMs in their total inventories let alone sending one ship out with that warload. Nice for those who can afford it, but, today just who is that?.

I wasn't talking about the target MOVING from A to B or C, I were talking about your bearing... The ESM bearing you said, is just a bearing, no range. Or does it give range too? without range, hence your target, seen from your plane, could be in A, B or C.

Aah yes I see what you mean. I thought you were meaning geometric plane instead of plane = aircraft!.

No matter. In your case with an additional asset up you would be attempting for a triangulation between the NSM shooter, say a frigate, and the aircraft. If you correlate a bearing of, for example, 060 from the ship and 300 from the aircraft (see diag attached - position A) the warfare team aboard the ship, knowing the position of the aircraft, will be able to plot the intersection and derive a set of target coordinates and range.

As shown also in the diagram (position B), either asset, ship or aircraft, can steer an offset course for a fixed distance to give themselves a baseleg for triangulation. This obviously will take more time and, if available, the aircraft can resolve to coordinates and link them back much quicker. Hopefully the diagram shows though that a single surface vessel can achieve targetting coordinates all by themselves and completely passively. In the real world defensive scenario you would, probably, have several ships spread out, at the extent of their comms capability, plus choppers, plus Marpat assets so any ESM contact would be fixed by multiple receivers very quickly.

Severodvinsk

15th November 2004, 11:09

Ah, I see, yes plane= aircraft...
But then, your ship has to be capable of taking an ESM bearing at 160km, is that possible? Don't have a clue about that, we don't use that in Merchie. We use a different system, for positioning, also receiving signals from a shore-based sender, yet we've thrown it overboard in the Indian Ocean, we never came close enough to shore to receive any of that, so I doubt the ranges of such things...
Yes the plane could do such things, yet that plane will probably get detected.

Not many navies can afford P-700, but the ones that do, will have to build ships with a depth of about 10m, meaning you'll have a huge freeboard, or some draft, with such draft you'll have to build a big ship... Big ship with lots of SAM possibilities. You might try to take out the launch platforms, but with what? Your Harpoon shippies? Go ahead and give it a try...
For me the most advanced SSM is the missile that can do the job, be it a frigate, corvette or carrier. A Harpoon or NSM can't simply sink a carrier, P-700 might. Of course in my definition, the price and difficulty of the system isn't taken in account. But I suppose that's a matter of comprehension, what is "most advanced"? according to you it's something different and I can of course live with that.

nuke1

15th November 2004, 14:13

hi,

Ok,

Js and Seahawk you need a mid-correction update to your statements.

let's make it clear: If let's say N.K. or Iran let's say buy SSN 19 ( that you so much dislike forgetting that they were already 20 years ago while this s..t of NSM is only coming now and this for me IT'S a difference) this NOT MEAN that they must buy a Kirov or Oscar. In this case you should be right 100%, but not forget how a single vessel in the history has made a strong deterrent ( the Yavuz, the Tirpiz).

Why, inshtead, they simply cannot buy a (ipothetical) version of the Shipwreck?

Should i remenber to you that the argentinians fielded a improvised version land launched of hte Exocet, derivated by a naval mount (and not with out success)??
and that this launchers were used after by english in the Gibilterra fortress?

So, what's the strange to imagine a SSN 19 coastal version for Iran or N.K. or China?

There weapons could be "vulnerable?" Laughing for xx minuts. Have you present the "success" of the SCud hunting in DS and OIF? Do you find that a truck with a single SSN 19 is more vulnerable that a truck with 2 exocet but that it must be in the 20-30 Km range from the shores? Have you have present the "little difficults" to fly deep in Iran for 400 km before to reach some SSN 19 mobile launchers?
Have you present that the SSN 19 could be used as nuclear attack supersonic long range missile in a manner that NO norwegian s....y missiles can eventually do?

Excuse me for the fough but i cannot see why the stuffs should been seen so crappy as system, .but it's so. For many, if the soviet made cheap harware, they were in wrong because they made too cheap systems, if they made sophistied system they were wrong because they made too sophistied systems and the western types were simpler. Whetetver they done ,they were wrong. They were defeated at the end, perhps as a providence justice

Jonesy

15th November 2004, 17:40

Sevvy,

But then, your ship has to be capable of taking an ESM bearing at 160km, is that possible? Don't have a clue about that, we don't use that in Merchie. We use a different system, for positioning, also receiving signals from a shore-based sender, yet we've thrown it overboard in the Indian Ocean, we never came close enough to shore to receive any of that, so I doubt the ranges of such things...

There are several surface search sets that claim to be capable of utilising 'atmospheric propagation', presumably they mean ducting, to bend lower-frequency radar energy over-the-horizon at get detections at ranges on the order of 150km. If they can get a detection at 150km then a halfway capable ESM system will start to get twitches at detection threshold plus 20km!

Yes the plane could do such things, yet that plane will probably get detected.

Like I said earlier we detected the Argentine Neptune that directed their Etendards against the Sheffield, but, it was so far away it wasn't considered a threat. Had that been a Bear-D with an emitting Big Bulge radar instead the threat would have been instantly detected and the SHAR CAP vectored in with all deliberate speed. See the difference?.

Not many navies can afford P-700, but the ones that do, will have to build ships with a depth of about 10m, meaning you'll have a huge freeboard, or some draft, with such draft you'll have to build a big ship... Big ship with lots of SAM possibilities.

So you accept that the costs of the weapons, the costs of the surveillance and targetting assets and the costs of the acquisition, operation and maintenance of some very significant hulls all come into the system cost-to-deploy equation.

Against this NSM could be deployed by any airforce operating a handful of F-5E's, A-4's, Mig-27's or virtually any tactical fighter you care to name that can carry 700kgs of underwing ordnance or more and has a databus that can be modified to input target coordinates or bearing data to the missile.

It can be deployed with any Navy possessing a few Combattante sized vessels or more. It can give a coastal precision land attack capability to any Navy possessing a few frigates, especially ones with a helicopter capability and it is already being developed in a coastal defence version.

Basically the equation is simple - NSM is an enabling technology that allows a nations armed services to get more functionality out of the existing platforms it already has. P-700 or any of these other big supersonic weapons require new platforms and new capabilities to be developed, acquired and supported to deploy them. Which one is the most cost-effective and, therefore, the most employable?.

For me the most advanced SSM is the missile that can do the job, be it a frigate, corvette or carrier. A Harpoon or NSM can't simply sink a carrier, P-700 might. Of course in my definition, the price and difficulty of the system isn't taken in account.

Roel we've already covered the fact that P-700 cant sink a supercarrier for the same reason it cant sink a supertanker. Those big ships have too much mass for any conventional warhead weapon to put them on the bottom and doing enough damage to stop a carriers flying programme doesnt need a 1000kg supersonic warhead.

For me price and employability factors of a weapons system are critical to its value.

As an illustration, its a decade from now, you are the CinC DPRK Navy and have a recently acquired a pair of Oscars as insurance against the nasty Yankee carriers. Ones in refit and the others on patrol halfway across the Pacific. The US 7th fleet chooses this time to launch Fasthawk-derived hypersonic land-attack missiles at your nuclear facilities from the middle of the Sea of Japan. What good are P-700's then?.

Nuke

let's make it clear: If let's say N.K. or Iran let's say buy SSN 19 ( that you so much dislike forgetting that they were already 20 years ago while this s..t of NSM is only coming now and this for me IT'S a difference)

Do I have to say this again mate?. Myself and Seahawk have been saying all along that the problem with P-700 is that its a 20 year old missile designed to meet a threat that existed 20 years ago. Is it the missiles fault that its usefulness disappeared with the Cold War - no of course it isnt. The fact remains that without a US carrier strike group to engage the weapon is not worth the cost of the upkeep of the platforms required to fire it.

this NOT MEAN that they must buy a Kirov or Oscar. In this case you should be right 100%, but not forget how a single vessel in the history has made a strong deterrent ( the Yavuz, the Tirpiz).

Why, inshtead, they simply cannot buy a (ipothetical) version of the Shipwreck?

A shore based P-700 is exactly what you described though - hypothetical. It does not exist. You can't claim superiority for a weapon that isnt even a design on a drawing board somewhere.

As I said above as well the threat reduction exercise against a large low unit number threat is very much easier to complete than that against a distributed threat that can engage you with little or no warning.

Have you present that the SSN 19 could be used as nuclear attack supersonic long range missile in a manner that NO norwegian s....y missiles can eventually do?

Who has a requirement for a 400km nuclear cruise missile today?. Who is there that could afford to pay the Russians to develop the Granit system into a land attack weapon and make it ground deployable?. Who would offer so much money as to make the Russians violate the non-proliferation treaty?.

Without any of these answers its just another paper tiger - a hypothetical capability with no grounding in reality. Not something that you can make a claim for superiority of Russian antishipping weapons with.

For many, if the soviet made cheap harware, they were in wrong because they made too cheap systems, if they made sophistied system they were wrong because they made too sophistied systems and the western types were simpler. Whetetver they done ,they were wrong.

I agree that is a terrible irony. For a 'fan' of Soviet hardware I can see how infuriating that would be. Doesnt alter the fact that it is the truth though!.

seahawk

15th November 2004, 17:55

hmm ASW screen is mostly provided by the Udaloys, also,the Kirovs themselves have a VDS and bowmounted sonar and of course three helicopters of which two are dedicated ASW helos. It's ten torpedo tubes also allow it to use SS-N-15 and SS-N-16 anti-sub rocket-torpedoes and of course regular 533mm torps.

You know that having 2 such taskforces is more then 90% of the world navies could ever afford and do operate ??

For me the most advanced SSM is the missile that can do the job, be it a frigate, corvette or carrier. A Harpoon or NSM can't simply sink a carrier, P-700 might. Of course in my definition, the price and difficulty of the system isn't taken in account. But I suppose that's a matter of comprehension, what is "most advanced"? according to you it's something different and I can of course live with that.

And what is good for ?? If you sink a carrier or damage it enough to force it to withdraw makes no difference. Any missile hit an an american carrier would be a huge PR victory, you don´t need to sink it. And a carrier won´t come close until the captian is sure enough to have cleared away the biggest threat to the task force. A SuAG or a sqn of Granit carrying planes is relative easy to clear away. NSms hanging from the tactical fighters, corvettes, frigates and even helicopters are much harder to take out of the game and therefore have a much better chance to get a shot at the carrier.

let's make it clear: If let's say N.K. or Iran let's say buy SSN 19 ( that you so much dislike forgetting that they were already 20 years ago while this s..t of NSM is only coming now and this for me IT'S a difference) this NOT MEAN that they must buy a Kirov or Oscar. In this case you should be right 100%, but not forget how a single vessel in the history has made a strong deterrent ( the Yavuz, the Tirpiz).

And those ships usually took away more resources, then they were worth operationally.

So, what's the strange to imagine a SSN 19 coastal version for Iran or N.K. or China?

There weapons could be "vulnerable?" Laughing for xx minuts. Have you present the "success" of the SCud hunting in DS and OIF? Do you find that a truck with a single SSN 19 is more vulnerable that a truck with 2 exocet but that it must be in the 20-30 Km range from the shores? Have you have present the "little difficults" to fly deep in Iran for 400 km before to reach some SSN 19 mobile launchers?
Have you present that the SSN 19 could be used as nuclear attack supersonic long range missile in a manner that NO norwegian s....y missiles can eventually do?

Even land based you are still looking at the targeting problem. If land based systems can triangulate the postion of a carrier strike group exactly enough, you are most liekly well within the range of NSM.
Secondly I bet that having missile silos all around your cost is no option if you have longer coatline to defend. So you would look at mobile systems. Grnait is huge and unlike a SCUD it has to move towards the target before eganging. Given the needed trailer size I bet it would be a nice target on a JSTARS. It could be possible, but I would prefer more, smaller missiles.

Severodvinsk

15th November 2004, 18:13

Sorry there Jonesy, they weren't wrong at all, and it even resulted in a still higher knowledge in certain areas. The Soviets have paid for their too many designs too little ships politics. They developed Papa, built one unit, developed Alfa, built 5 units, designed Sierra, built two units, developped Sierra II, built two units. This isn' t the right way, but it does give you some very good information. (and of course many many economical factors too) But that's not the discussion here is it?
Hmm, sorry Steve but again you are wrong, a supertanker and a carrier are something completely different. I was talking about not hitting anything in the supertanker, the carrier would be the adverse, plenty of stuff to hit and plenty of that that is explosive. The supertanker would only survive if the missile would hit an empty part. If that tanker is filled... You could take "Luxembourg" as an example, a terrorist attack in the Gulf against this VLCC. The thing got completely wrecked. What emerged later, The tanker only had two tanks filled, and the terrorists seemed to have land-based contacts and knew which tanks it were, hence their boat full of explosives exploded just next to a filled tank. Otherwise this attack would probably not have sunk the tanker. In a carrier, all parts are filled, with mostly dangerous things, wouldn't want any missile hit in the propulsion part, nor would I like to see a missile protruding into the hangar and explode in the middle... I mean, if you hit an empty tank and protrude into it, there's nothing that will be wrecked except for the walls and top, for a carrier, there are planes that could be hit a propulsion plant that could be hit (yes, on a tanker that's only a very small part in the back of the ship, in a carrier and other naval vessels that's something running from amidships to the back). And yes I've heard the "It's compartmentized to death" argument a lot. But how fast do you think you can close all your compartments? This missile might hit as many as three compartments, do you think you can close all those doors? Are there watertight doors in all those bulkheads? I suppose not. And you don't really have to sink the carrier to kill it, I suppose a hangar hit a-la-Sum of all Fears, is good enough to stop air operations.

So you accept that the costs of the weapons, the costs of the surveillance and targetting assets and the costs of the acquisition, operation and maintenance of some very significant hulls all come into the system cost-to-deploy equation.

Sure I do Sir! Because they were developed to destroy even more valuable targets. If those carriers weren' t there, Granit wouldn't have ever been developed, they would have stayed with the slow bunch like Siren/Malakhit, Switchblade/Uran.
Yet as I already said, I don't care about costs. Being cheap doesn't make your missile more superior. It's probably the same as saying a Sovremenny is more advanced than a Burke, since it costs several $100mllns less. Poor countries could also buy more Sovremennies than Burkes then. But I don't think that makes a Sovremenny more advanced than a Burke... (as I'm sure you will agree).

Severodvinsk

15th November 2004, 18:21

BTW, Dionis, no, only one Udaloy was built as ASuW ship, not converted. It had a complete new weapons suite, including two Kashtans instead of the AK-630s, Moskit instead of Rastrub, AK-130 instead of the two single 100mm turrets. This unit however is still classed as a ASW vessel, because of its good sonar suite and helo and torpedo capabilities. The other units are all still in their original role.

Seahawk,
A Harpoon would not kill a carrier, I'm almost sure it would not even disturb air ops that much. Yes a hit would be a good PR case, but a kill would be much better. And coming close enough with your NSM to shoot at a carrier... Well I don't think that will be a good way.
I think your carrier group will be VERY busy if you want to clear that ASuW task force out of the way, including all those Oscars (of which you don't know how many there are around you, let alone WHERE they are, except for the ones starting their launch(and then it's too late), or found by luck).
I don't think it's easy to take out the Kirov and Kuznetsov with its escorts at all... And I'm sure Jonesy will even agree on that!

bubulle

15th November 2004, 18:34

The SS-N-19 warhead is frequently quoted at 750 kg. However, I wonder if that figure is the warhead total weight or only the explosive filling weight. For example, the AGM-86C CALCM has a warhead that weighs about 3000 lbs but the actual explosive weight is about 1000 lbs..

seahawk

15th November 2004, 19:05

Jonesy

15th November 2004, 19:38

They developed Papa, built one unit, developed Alfa, built 5 units, designed Sierra, built two units, developped Sierra II, built two units. This isn' t the right way, but it does give you some very good information. (and of course many many economical factors too) But that's not the discussion here is it?

Interesting viewpoint Roel. They built a Papa then found out it was too expensive to develop into a class so they went with the cheaper, less capable, Charlie design. They built half a dozen Alfa's then realised that the operational concept was flawed, that the reactor technology was less than reliable and then had to dispense with them. THEN they repeated the Papa mistake with the Sierra's - they designed a highly capable SSN but, after a couple of units, realised that they couldnt afford a whole class and switched to the cheaper Akula hull.

You think this is a positive naval development strategy?. Its hugely wasteful in resources, ties up R&D funding and obstructs yards building dead-end designs. Who would wish to emulate that?.

You could take "Luxembourg" as an example, a terrorist attack in the Gulf against this VLCC. The thing got completely wrecked.

Luxembourg was holed at and, more importantly, below the waterline. The effect of that blast more closely resembles that of a shallow-running torpedo than a large antiship missile. I've already said that the best way to sink a large vessel like this is to put a spread of heavyweight torpedoes into the hull.

And yes I've heard the "It's compartmentized to death" argument a lot. But how fast do you think you can close all your compartments?

Standard procedure, in every Navy I've got any knowledge of, is to close up the ship when setting defence watches or general quarters or action stations or whatever that particular service calls its maximum readiness condition. This is why operating in Defence Watches for any length of time is such a real pain in the stern end. It means that every time you want to go from your duty station to your bunk, or the galley, or the heads, or for a smoko etc you have to undog every hatch and redog it after you - an annoying and time consuming ritual!

Sure I do Sir! Because they were developed to destroy even more valuable targets.

Repeating my previous point those 'valuable targets' are not still targets are they?.

Being cheap doesn't make your missile more superior.

Being cheap doesnt make an individual missile technologically superior. Being able to field more of them as a whole weapons system does. A limited inventory of inflexible weapons does not make for an effective weapons system however miraculous the individual missile may be. Again as I've said - just how superior can an unuseable missile system be?

It's probably the same as saying a Sovremenny is more advanced than a Burke, since it costs several $100mllns less. Poor countries could also buy more Sovremennies than Burkes then. But I don't think that makes a Sovremenny more advanced than a Burke... (as I'm sure you will agree).

False analogy Roel. How many nations have Soveremenny's GP capability (antiship missiles, SAMs, medium calibre gun, chopper and decent sensor fit) on a frigate or low-end destroyer sized hull. Arleigh Burke is closer, in capability terms, to a Slava just without the big AShMs. There are more nations operating Burkes - or lightened versions than there are nations wanting Slava's - as I'm sure you'll agree!

Severodvinsk

15th November 2004, 19:38

Jonesy

15th November 2004, 20:41

hmm, and how far are your J-7s going to fly? If that carrier is smart, it waits for another two carriers to arrive, then with their combined force, they can stay well out of the range of your J-7s and send their Air Group to slaughter the planes first. Like you said, pave the way for the carrier to get close enough for land-attack ops.

Hang on Sev you are shifting the goalposts here in a big way!.

First off NSM was no good countering an aircraft carrier - now it wont stand a prayer against the combined airgroups of three!.

What would?. What targetting asset would be able to get close enough to provide launching coordinates for P-700?. How long would a Bear or May survive. How close would a huge twin-screw, twin reactor, submarine like Oscar get to a group that would have 4 or more SSN's, 3 squadrons of Vikings and a brace of towed-array ships in its screen and, most likely, a SURTASS a ship in support.

A Kirov might pack a mighty arsenal of SAMs but how many can it guide simultaneoulsy if two full attack squadrons launch Harpoon attacks from multiple axis whilst another two ride shotgun on them keeping any landbased air cover busy?

How many Backfire's will get airborne if their bases are subject to hypersonic land attack strikes from 600nm out?.

Lastly who, apart from Russia, would have Oscars, Kirovs, Backfires and P700's in the first place!. Russia is NOT likely to be fighting USN carrier strike groups anytime in the forseeable future so what value are any of those systems even if they were likely to be successful?

seahawk

15th November 2004, 21:07

Severodvinsk

15th November 2004, 21:12

Haha Steve, the three carriers are just a measure of insurance. Who has the money to send 500 J-7s with 1,000 NSMs in a single role? Same question guys... Still quite expensive. Even then, your J-7s can't actually do anything when that carrier just stays far enough out to allow its own planes to go out and raid.
Hypersonic attack on airfields? Are we going to make our battleground bigger? Basically, you are supposing Russia will not see anything coming... We are not playing Red Storm Rising here...
I'm not saying apart from Russia, they can't sell the thing anyway. Don't ask me why, since US can sell Tomahawk to UK... Anyhow, how many countries have NSM??? I think less than Granit at the moment.
How many have Klub, Kh-31, Kh-35? Indeed several more.

Severodvinsk

15th November 2004, 21:15

You guys are unbelievable... You don't see my point in this matter, so I'll leave it like that. As I previously mentioned.
The carrier isn't the target anymore Steve, but the Granit can also kill frigs, destroyers and every ship you can come up with. And Since I don't take price in account, they are all equially valuable for my missile to spend one on.

Severodvinsk

15th November 2004, 21:29

Sorry, didn't see your first post. The Papa was equally important to Alpha, it was the high speed hydrodynamics and propulsion test. Of course it's not a good development strategy, I never said that either. I don't even believe that. Since every single unit, costs a LOT. The single Papa will have cost a LOT more than the Victor units.
As for Sierra and Akula, Akula was chosen over Victor. There is always a high-end and low end in their developments. Kirov had Slava as low end, Mike was the high end of Victor. Sierra was the high end of Akula (I think, or was it the other way around). Anway, this way did give them some advantages for research and I think they might know a lot more about submarines then US, the latter hasn't really come up with anything "stunningly new". And of course, they could use the Sierra I design for the Sierra II. If they would, like you suggest think after building a Sierra, that it was a failure and impossible to build more of them, why do you think they developped Sierra II then?
This as a side note. As I suppose, the Sierra's and all other experimental craft have given them a huge research project, yet didn't add to their strength, and as Jonesy said, took a lot of money that could have been used for more "successful projects".

Seahawk, how much do three CVBGs cost? I know, probably 10 times the price of my SuAG... Yet I do still stand a chance, considering I have the long-range missiles and still quite a good AD. While your J-7s in that same situation. Well, they wouldn't even be capable of launching a single NSM.

Jonesy

16th November 2004, 00:36

Hang on Sev YOU introduced the 3 carrier groups mate!. Me and Seahawk have been the ones that have been making the point that no-one, apart from China in the very long term perhaps, is looking at anticarrier weapons anymore.

You cannot introduce a new item to the dicussion then claim that it costs so much more than the Granit solution that it supports your claim that Granit is a worthwhile system!. Using your 3 CVSG's costing though I wonder how many NSMs could be bought for the same money?.

NSM is not an anticarrier weapon that has to be agreed. A P-700 weapon, as has been stated repeatedly, will only ever be applicable to the strategic situation facing one or two navies. IF even those services would ever be interested (something I doubt). Most navies, as you know, are tasked with local sea control, SLOC defence and low-intensity force projection. This they have to achieve this within what is usually a modest budget at best. It is hard to see how, within those parameters, any professional would arrive weapon like Shipwreck or Yakhont as the optimal system to fit their tasking requirements.

This fact, on its own, automatically prevents P-700 being a superior weapons system TODAY. Simply put no-one wants or needs it!. NSM, by comparison, is obviously being bought by Norway and has already been linked with a Malaysian order - very sensible given their maritime environment. IMO these are just the first two to express an interest. I can imagine Turkey or Greece, a couple of the Gulf states, more SE Asian states than just Malaysia and another European state or two being attracted by the capabilities on offer in view of their maritime environments and the helicopter deployment option!.

Hypersonic attack on airfields? Are we going to make our battleground bigger? Basically, you are supposing Russia will not see anything coming... We are not playing Red Storm Rising here...

The US has been involved in research into time critical strike ashore since 1994. Money has been, apparently, put into the FY2005 appropriation for further technology demonstration under the RATTLR and Hypersonic Strike Missile projects. A weapons capability isnt going to be deployed resulting from this work tomorrow, but, its value as a transformational weapon system is well appreciated. The DARPA and ONR funded HyFly research project, from which RATTLR and HySM is leveraging, saw Aerojet successfully test a full-spec engine for a Mach6.5 air vehicle in Feb 2003. Science fiction this is not!.

Yet I do still stand a chance, considering I have the long-range missiles and still quite a good AD. While your J-7s in that same situation. Well, they wouldn't even be capable of launching a single NSM.

Roel, without targetting you do not stand a chance of doing any meaningful damage to a US carrier group in blue water. As was proven by the Serbians in Allied Force though its very hard to totally nail down every tactical aircraft and every mobile missile system ashore. Sooner or later the US fleet would have to move inshore with their amphibs if the mean to effect a forced entry. This is the point that a volume strike with shore-based, helicopter-launched and, perhaps, even aircraft launched 140km ranged missiles could be effective. NSM being easier to employ in this situation owing to its lack of reliance on targetting assistance and greater countermeasure resistance than an ARH weapon.

The US Navy appreciated this threat in 1998 when its R&D report listed the development of passive IIR antiship weapons and lack of development of IIR countermeasures as a primary challenge to operations in littoral environments. As yet I've not seen any evidence that that report has generated any mature, deployable, countermeasure to the kind of threat NSM presents.

nuke1

17th November 2004, 13:35

Jonesy

17th November 2004, 20:16

the problems that still, you aren't capable to understund the psicological value to face or to have a powerful system is different to have a very powerful system. After all, teh range of teh SSN 22 isn't bigger than the harpoon, not? So, how to explain the fear about it?

This is a common misunderstanding that I hope we can get rid of right now Nuke. Professional warfare officers are only truly afraid of weapons that they know they have a less-than-convincing defence against. Any weapon who's characteristics are known and that you posses countering systems for become a matter of training and system uptime to defeat. Harpoon, Exocet, Moskit, Kh-22, P-700 and a raft of other ARH's have all had countering systems developed and operationally matured for a long time. Knowing you have decoys and weapons systems aboard that can defeat a specific weapon goes a very long way to reducing your fear of it.

The targetting problems of the SSM land based batteries are present both for exocet and shipwreck. But the exocet is also with the addicitonal problem of the surviving before the launch or after that. You say that the SSN 19 are costly vs other missiles, but how many medioum missiles are needed to defence, let's say, a Iran shores? And how near to the shores?

The targetting problems are the same for Exocet and P-700 thats for sure. As I've described though they are not the same for NSM. Also the effect of the targetting problem is much more severe on the P700 than the Exocet system as the whole point behind P700 is to be able to strike at range. Remove that range ability and the extra money spent on developing the system is wasted.

More, with a exocet or NSMISM if the enemy is oveer 100+ Km he is avble to bomb you with fighters bombers when you cannot do nothing versus even if you lock him.

If the opponents airpower is strong enough to be contesting your airspace you are not going to be using airborne radar to target his carriers. Without that how do you propose to fire your Shipwrecks?.

Plus, you have to remember that Russian anticarrier tactics called for the salvo fire of two or three SSGN's worth of these missiles to overwhelm USN defences. Squirrelling away a handful of major-sized launch vehicles (as would be necessary for a 30ft long P700) may be possible, but, concealing 40 or 50 in such a fashion that they could ALL be brought to readiness at short notice would be an entirely different matter.

The RBS-15, a much larger weapon than NSM, is truck mounted on a fairly standard Volvo cab/trailer rig so, presumably, you would be looking at a multiple NSM launcher mounted on a fairly mundane sized truck so you're looking at a sytem that would be far easier to conceal and deploy in numbers.

So, JS, you don't se the needing for a supersonic cruise missile? Ok, the ballistic are also good for targetting surface targtes. But with this, i think that many could be happy to have a system that can be used in SSM roles on heart and on the sea.

I'd imagine many more would be happy with a weapon that they could actually deploy with their existing assets!.

Names? I'd say India, Pakistan, NK, China, Iran etc.

MTCR muddies the waters, but, even ignoring that none of those nations has the capability to target hostile shipping at 400km.

India is heading in the right direction with MALE-type UAV's and documented research into netcentric capability but has a long road ahead, IMO, before it can reliably employ its 300km weapons in a non-permissive environment. Pakistan would, IMO, be one of the nations that would most benefit from buying NSM not P700!. North Korea needs Kilo's and mine warfare vessels before it needs Shipwrecks. Iran is, apparently, investing in MMW guided helicopter-launched light AShMs to address its antishipping requirement in the cluttered Persian Gulf environment - that is a professional service using its budget in order to address an operational requirement in an extremely sensible fashion IMO. None of them have expressed the slightest interest in a P700-sized weapon.

I could say also, that the countries that are ordered the the modified scuds or the new russian missiles could be very happy, inshtaed, if they can have SS 12 or 22 or 23 if only they could be avilable, or i should think that a scud is better than a SS-23 only because this latter was phased out for political reasons?

If, by this, you are stating that P-700 could be modified to give it a land-attack capability, perhaps a GLONASS precision-guidance capability, I would say that this was the absolute first thing that the Russians should have done with the system post cold war. OK it would only give the ability to hit pinpoint pre-designated ground targets, but, it could provide some usefulness for the system and it would pack a hell of a punch against a hardened target. As for acquiring the system solely for surface-surface strike I'd imagine that there are TBM's that could do the same job far more cheaply.

Severodvinsk

17th November 2004, 20:38

Hmmm, I'll give it a last try... I indeed introduced that 3 carrier case, yet afterwards I have explained myself by saying it was only an insurance. I gave you the example of a single carrier afterwards. It can do basically the same job, yet with 3 carriers it takes a little less long.
[quote]Roel, without targetting you do not stand a chance of doing any meaningful damage to a US carrier group in blue water. As was proven by the Serbians in Allied Force though its very hard to totally nail down every tactical aircraft and every mobile missile system ashore. Sooner or later the US fleet would have to move inshore with their amphibs if the mean to effect a forced entry. This is the point that a volume strike with shore-based, helicopter-launched and, perhaps, even aircraft launched 140km ranged missiles could be effective. NSM being easier to employ in this situation owing to its lack of reliance on targetting assistance and greater countermeasure resistance than an ARH weapon.

[quote]

I think you are forgetting something. I suppose that if you fire a Granit in a certain direction, it might find its target by itself if it's not too far off. This is only an assumption. What the real point is, these ships all carry their own helicopter. If a Kirov would launch its helicopter and that helo stays within the S300F cover, it can still guide the missiles and be relatively safe. For Kuznetsov, the helo even has the cover of the Su-33. So, the satellites can even be ruled out for this case. The Oscars of course need the satellites, but when, given the late-Soviet way of thinking they are just below the surface group to protect the SSBNs, they can use the helos of Kuznetsov and Kirov.
With your NSM on the other hand. I have only mentioned the GPS mistakes, what I didn't mention and what I cannot even STRESS enough, is the fact that GPS is controlled by US!!! This is what is told at school for 1,000 times now. That's the reason why we learn to use those stars and charts. If you're in the Gulf, and there is a Gulfwar going, your GPS will say you are somewhere in antarctica. US changes the frequencies of the GPS system and there you go. We also noticed that in our cars back then. Also when there's a sunstorm (or whatever that is called in English) the GPS gets a bit cluttered.
Now, you imagine you want to use NSM against US... Do you think you can use it? NO
Against one of US allies (or at that moment seen as US allies for certain reasons)? NO
Basically the only country that will use that weapon in a reliable way is US itself... GPS is controlled by them. Hence no other country will always be able to rely on it.

Severodvinsk

17th November 2004, 21:17

This one's for Steve, from a Polish mag.

Blackcat

17th November 2004, 22:44

Steve,

can u tell me abt the flight profile of NSM which gives it 150 Km..... is it a fully sea-hugging cruise range or a high-lo range. Same abt the 180 Km Exocet.

BTW i think ur convinently ignoring some factors and banking upon the Helo based OHT for ur whole theory.

Klub can also be fired w/o that Helo support if the ship can find it, I think thats the same case with NSM. But the OTH gives the Klub and PJ-10/Yakhont to utilize its full potential is its range.

Srbin

17th November 2004, 22:52

What about other GPS like the European Galileo or the Russian GLONASS? Does US have control over those?

Jonesy

18th November 2004, 01:17

Sevvy,

I think you are forgetting something. I suppose that if you fire a Granit in a certain direction, it might find its target by itself if it's not too far off.

Granits' an active radar seeker, its rumoured to have ISAR capability in the seeker, but, for an anticarrier weapon, what resolution would the seeker really need?. We cant even take a guess that it would be able to distinguish between a cruiser sized target and an equivalent-sized merchant?. Without that ability, unless you are completely sure that there are no non-combattants around (or just dont care!) firing the weapon would be dodgy on RoE grounds. Remember what I said about an unuseable weapon....!.

If a Kirov would launch its helicopter and that helo stays within the S300F cover, it can still guide the missiles and be relatively safe. For Kuznetsov, the helo even has the cover of the Su-33.

IF were talking, like you still seem to be, about a Red Banner Fleet engagement with a SIOP-tasked USN carrier strike fleet just off the North Cape, in otherwise empty waters, then yes the Ka-31 or Ka-25 would be able to do what you suggest. Neither of those helicopters can provide identification of the surface contacts that they detect beyond simple size though. That one fact means that in an environment where non-combattants could be inadvertently hit those missiles cannot be employed. As I said ages ago for one its very bad PR to sink cruise liners and point two its a real waste of missiles.

I have only mentioned the GPS mistakes, what I didn't mention and what I cannot even STRESS enough, is the fact that GPS is controlled by US!!!

NSM is able to use GPS to set a string of waypoints to fly deceptive courses to target. It is capable of complex navigation without GPS though by using terrain matching through the seeker. Even if the flight is completely overwater, with no reference points, the missile can still fly a direct path course to target. Not as clever, but still an operational weapons system.

Thanks for those Klub images BTW. Very interesting to see the scale comparison (and obvious design heritage) between Klub and the earlier Granat!.

Cat,

http://www.kongsberg.com/eng/kda/products/Missiles/mainframe.asp?Id=8050

Its a skimmer all-the-way and has terrain following capability. Its course can actually take it on a sea-skimming profile then up and over an island terrain-following and then back down to sea-skimming! Further it can cross-reference such landmarks for navigation en route to target reducing its dependence on GPS.

The 'new' Exocet uses a turbojet sustainer replacing the solid propellant rocket of earlier weapons. I've read that there may well be a crossover between NSM and Exocet blk3 in the area of propulsion. Regardless of this MBDA claim that the flight profile of the block 3 weapon is also sea-skimming all-the-way.

BTW i think ur convinently ignoring some factors and banking upon the Helo based OHT for ur whole theory

Sure. Apart from some absolutely sterling work from SeaHawk and some solid comments from bubulle I've been quite outnumbered on this one and have had to explain quite a bit!. If I've missed something, or not explained something properly by all means let me know.

I'm expressely NOT banking on chopper OTH targetting for anything I'm saying here. In fact I've even drawn a diagram to illustrate how a single hull on its own could passively detect an opponent without any offboard support whatsoever. What I did state was very impressive was that NSM could be launched from a shipboard chopper, of suitable size of course, and therefore give a fairly low-end vessel a stand-off precision land-attack capability.

Klub can also be fired w/o that Helo support if the ship can find it, I think thats the same case with NSM. But the OTH gives the Klub and PJ-10/Yakhont to utilize its full potential is its range.

Precisely my point Cat. Klub/Yakhont CAN be fired from a shipboard radar contact IF that ship can identify its target and at a very much reduced range from the 300km or so they are credited with - this questioning the value of the 300km range in the first place. Given that the missiles active seeker is not guaranteed to tell the difference between a 70,000ton merchant and a 90,000ton CVN, let alone a 9000 ton DDG and an 8000ton ferry, very great care will have to be taken firing any such weapon without great certainty of where the weapon will go and what its likely to hit.

NSM has been designed with precisely this problem in mind and its seeker will actually reject any target that appears in its wide-angle seeker that doesnt meet its threat parameters. It will even seek to reattack a valid target if it realises its missed. This is a MAJOR advantage over anything with an active seeker in the nose as it means that the targetting solution, prior to launch, can be very vague indeed and the missile will prevent any unpleasantness with civvy-packed ferries.

Nitin_V

18th November 2004, 07:07

Jonesy,

India is not merely undertaking documented research in netcentric warfare.;)
Its already inducting the same. The IN has already networked its ships sensors, critical data together, they are now working on bringing the weapons stats online. The IAF is already using netted fighters- datalinks etc and the ADGES upgradatinon being carried out is enabled for the same. The IA is already testing a BMS. The Artillery is getting ACCS- c3I for artillery, even ATGM assets are being netted together.
Added to the above are UAV's and a bunch of other sensors, radars, ELINT etc.
The IAF and IA have already submitted a proposal for a common sat to handle joint data handling etc, its up for approval...
So the sensor network is getting knocked into place. With Phalcons and Indian AWACs , 300 km acquisition and targetting is not such a big deal. They are talking of 1500 km now!

GarryB

18th November 2004, 08:00

Without that ability, unless you are completely sure that there are no non-combattants around (or just dont care!) firing the weapon would be dodgy on RoE grounds. Remember what I said about an unuseable weapon....!.

You are thinking in western terms. The west goes to war because it wants to... to ensure commercial or political goals. If used for self defence... Say by Iran to fend off a potential attack from any western force what would they care about collatoral damage. Indeed the US could care less about Iranian airbusses being shot down... it was in a "conflict zone". Is it really sensible to suggest that the iranians who were feeling threatened by the US would be upset if a missile they fired hit an oil carrier or civilian vessel in the region? It would be fired in a war zone afterall. I doubt the risk of hitting non military targets would make them not use such a weapon so suggesting it is an unusable wapon is being a little naieve.

Severodvinsk

18th November 2004, 09:56

Jonesy, warships are easy to find. When we entered the Gulf, I could pick them out from 50 radarcontacts. They sail at abnormal speeds, too close together (wouldn't want to try that with a merchie) and constantly alter course (mostly avoided in Merchant, only done when very very very necessary, slows you down and gives a shock to the shaft as you probably know.) also the contacts can be disciminated by radarsignature. The Warships had a very remarkable signature compared to the Merchant vessels. I could even pick out the Burke (which I didn't know was there, but soon heard JMSDF Kongo was around, afterwards saw her in Jebel Ali). On our very simple radars, I could recognise a containership too. Maybe the Missile bases its selection on that too. It would easy too fool when you know it, but of course it's probably secret.
Here's the rest of the page, has nothing to do with this, but I don't want to keep it for myself :D

seahawk

18th November 2004, 18:16

But those warships did not feel threatened by your presenece, nor did they try to hide from you, nor did they try to keep you away.

Do you believe that they would allow an enemy ship to come so close ?? Even for land based Granits, you need to have the ability to fix the position of a carrier group operating near your coast. Earth bound solutions won´t cut it. So you will be looking at an airborne solution. So you need an AWACS style plane with a good range or an MPA with the same range. That would not mean you find the enemy task force, as enemy fighters would try to down your important targeting assets however.

So before you can make use of Granit even land based :

- airborne recon assets that are able to fix the position of the carrier group within 200-300 kms of your coast

- SAMs and or fighters to keep those assets save

- near realtime data transfer to your launcher units so that they can use the position you have fixed

Well for most countries this is either unaffordable or worthless.

Iran would be mich better of to buy land based cruise missiles to attakc the airbases in the Gulf States, rather then investing in such a carrier destroyer system. Because for them it will be important to hit the amphibs and that can be done by lots of cheap and shorter ranged missiles.

India could do it, but the long coastline means that they would need lots of launchers

China could do it

NK could never afford it

Severodvinsk

18th November 2004, 18:34

So it has terrain comparisons too, like Tercom? How many countries are capable of that? The Galileo will take a lot of time and money to get active. If it's developed for missiles, then at least a certain part of the costs should be taken in account.
Russian Glonass is only fully active since last year, I think they launched the 17th or 18th satellite this year. It's less accurate than GPS and most civil systems use both of them. When a Glonass sat is around, you can use it together with the GPS sats. Of course in wartime, you wouldn't be able to use either of them.

seahawk

18th November 2004, 18:47

It - what it. I´m not saying NSM is the solution for Iran, I´m just saying that there might be projects which would make more sense for them, then a Granit system.

Severodvinsk

18th November 2004, 20:42

SOrry, it was a reply to Jonesy's post... (I'm just ignoring you :p ;) ) And it, was indeed meant as NSM.

nuke1

18th November 2004, 21:17

Ok, i decide for the retreat. This topic has becoming so similar to discuss the sex of angels that i think furhter discussion could only worsered the quality of the results.

Nobody will-luckly- will never know how effective could be the Granit or the Kithcen missile in their original role or newer scenarios.

But let me concede atleast these few observations:

- i think that with all the countries that are still deployng missiles like Stix or MM 38 exocet, if they could choice to excange them (ipotheitcally, don't worry) with Granit i think they could be all but afraid for that

-i think that a weapons that can reach a target atleast tehorically is always still dangerous indepentently by the real targetting capabilitites (V-1 onward).

-i think that Iran is in the best geographic condition to defend itself by CVG attacks that any other country and if a long range supersonic weapon could be available for both hte employs-lands and sea- they could be only happy

- i think also that even the best defence tecnology isn't necessarly a guarantee for the target. So, even if a Aegis could defend itself by supersonic missiles this not means that everything will be always so (see also the seawolf in Falklands).

-This is axpecially true in a real multiple treath enviroment,so the variables are too high to be easily handed. As example, think to the Cole(a non conventional war: why not?-think to the sinking of the St. Istvan in WWI).

-Think to the importance of the psicology: how were noisy the iraquis missiles launchs in Ds and OIF. If your missiles can theorically reach a certain tartget or distance there is no way to absolotely deny this possibility in real wars. Differently, is like to still believe that B 2 were able to hunt ICBMs mobile launchers in Urss (after DS a thing HARD to believe)

-If the US navy should start a war with a country with Granit alike missiles be SURE that they must be much more carefully afraid than approx to enemy shores defended by stix or exocet. No "Yankee station" there.

This is rougly what i think

ink

18th November 2004, 22:36

It - what it. I´m not saying NSM is the solution for Iran, I´m just saying that there might be projects which would make more sense for them, then a Granit system.

Actually I'm rather curious about this. Theoretically speaking, could a new sensor fit on the Granit (or Yakhont etc) not make them equally useful to the NSM but with greater range and leathality?

Also, a small note on GPS guidence for course guidence. As far as I understood the concept, civilian GPS is a great deal less accurate than military GPS but (correct me if I am wrong) it would still be easily accurate enough to provide way points for a missile on route to a target. The missile isn't using GPS guidence for the final attack and so this wouldn't affect accuracy. Therefore, if I'm right, a missile system coould use GPS course guidence without being dependent on the US for military GPS codes.

Severodvinsk

18th November 2004, 22:41

Hmm, well indeed it's not accurate. Yet, the US GPS codes are different. They rule EVERYTHING. Also the Civil part. They just change the frequencies, by which some receivers don't receive the right times.
So, for a weapon, it could be sent to a completely different place, and hence not find its target anymore.
Pretty much like the example my teacher gave, a ship in the Gulf could get the coordinates of the Artic... Same would apply for the missile.
Yes, probably, if they gave it Glonass guidance in the beginning, it would be more accurate nowadays.

Jonesy

19th November 2004, 02:16

Nitin,

India is not merely undertaking documented research in netcentric warfare.

The only informtion I had was that the capability was developmental so thats all I felt confident in posting!. Contrary to some belief I only post definitives when I'm sure of myself!. I read the news article that you posted up for us on the 'IN News thread' with interest.

The critical sensor netting sounds very much like an NTDS equivalent which is a hell of a capability for a fleet to deploy. There are two levels involved here though which get blurred under the general 'net-centric' heading. First is the intra-fleet tactical datalinking capability that allows ships and aircraft to link their sensor pictures within local 'tactical' comms range. The second level is the enabler for theatre targetting capability though - this is the ability to disseminate a tactical picture to platforms in the wider battlespace. This means major realtime satcomms capacity and platforms that have the capability to tie-in to a wide area ISTAR system. I have no doubt that India posses the technology and skills to deploy the former capability. Its the second level that, from what I can see, still raises more questions than there are, open source, answers for.

The IAF and IA have already submitted a proposal for a common sat to handle joint data handling etc, its up for approval...So the sensor network is getting knocked into place. With Phalcons and Indian AWACs, 300km acquisition and targetting is not such a big deal. They are talking of 1500 km now!

That certainly addresses one question on the availability of dedicated satellite bandwidth!. Whats interservice rivalry like in the Indian forces? Will the IN get a look in at the IA/IAF's new satellite when it happens or will the other two close ranks?. 300km full coverage ISTAR is a VERY big deal and is a capability very, very few nations posses - UK might barely be able to achieve it!. 1500km is dreamland for the anyone but the US at the moment and the US is only at the start of that kind of capability now with Global Hawk, OTH-B, TARS, 30-odd E-3's, all manner of satellite recon and comms capability, SOSUS, SURTASS, a few E-2 carrying carrier task groups and various high-capacity, established, C3 centres. Anyone else is barely playing the same game let alone being in the same league!

Garry,

You are thinking in western terms. The west goes to war because it wants to... to ensure commercial or political goals. If used for self defence... Say by Iran to fend off a potential attack from any western force what would they care about collatoral damage.

In return you are thinking in Russian terms. The Iranians aren't the Russians and aren't daft. As the map below shows even a 500km missile will not challenge a US CVSG far out into the Arabian Sea. It also forces the deployment of the weapons into a very limited and predictable geographic area - as the map shows somewhere in he Chah Bahar region. Where do you think the US ISTAR, TLAM and Hornet squadrons would be focussed prior to entering that zone?. 40 or so TEL's of sufficient size to launch a 30ft long weapon, in a geographically limited area, all held in a near-ready to fire condition to allow for salvo fire is a much less difficult target than the Iraqi Scuds popping up in threes or fours.

If your proposing that Iran wouldnt need to care about targetting I think you've missed a trick on the value of world and, more importantly, regional opinion. If the US decides to move on Iran after finishing with Iraq world condemnation will be stronger even than Iraq engendered. There was a large, if quiet, amount of support for the Iraq campaign globally as many believed Saddam had it coming. Iran though have not 'got it coming' and are engaging in meaningful dialogue (I for one would oppose military action against them and you'll recall my views before the Iraq operation). If they started spraying heavy antishipping missiles into the Arabian Gulf they become not only loose cannons, but, loose cannons aiming at the worlds economic heart. That would cost them dearly in terms of support and could even open up bases in Oman, Pakistan and other local states to the Americans. Major own goal for what advantage - an attack that stands only a marginal chance of breaking through US defensive fire IF the missiles find the target in the first place!. They are not that daft. Look at the weapons systems they are actually acquiring. These are largely weapons to deal with FAC's and Corvettes in the non-permissive environment found in the Gulf - those guys know what they are doing.

Sevvy,

Jonesy, warships are easy to find. When we entered the Gulf, I could pick them out from 50 radarcontacts.

What range are we talking about though?. 20 miles maybe 30?. Radar resolution is a function of range. What you could make out at that range cannot be duplicated from 3 or 4 times further off. Some of stories of miss-identifications of surface contacts from US and RN are legendary!. Remind me to tell you the story a E-2 radar op told me about their TASM trials sometime!.

GarryB

19th November 2004, 09:31

In return you are thinking in Russian terms.

Not Russian terms... non western... or shall I dare? Defensive terms...

The Iranians aren't the Russians and aren't daft.

No, they'd welcome a US attack with open arms because the US is on such good terms with iran it would never bomb them or interfere with their political system... again.

As the map below shows even a 500km missile will not challenge a US CVSG far out into the Arabian Sea.

It would keep a US CVSG 500km offshore, which would limit its ability to come in close to extend the range of any strike aircraft launched from it.

It would also greatly reduce the likelyhood of a US AEGIS or any other type of naval vessel entering Iranian waters and shooting down Iranian airbus's.

It also forces the deployment of the weapons into a very limited and predictable geographic area - as the map shows somewhere in he Chah Bahar region.

They probably won't even camouflage them... just sit them out in the open like the iraqis did with their Scuds. How many scuds did the US get by the way?

If the US decides to move on Iran after finishing with Iraq world condemnation will be stronger even than Iraq engendered.

And if it was 50% stronger what exact difference will that make? "World" condemnation seems to get US presidents extra votes.

There was a large, if quiet, amount of support for the Iraq campaign globally as many believed Saddam had it coming. Iran though have not 'got it coming' and are engaging in meaningful dialogue (I for one would oppose military action against them and you'll recall my views before the Iraq operation).

So Iran will not be attacked because you wouldn't agree with such an attack? How close are you to GWB? Do you really have his ear? Bush convinced himself that Saddam was a threat to the world. What makes you think he won't do the same to Iran? He doesn't need a burning bush as a sign for invasion a little bombing of a few facilities the CIA mark as nuclear related could be done on a whim.

If they started spraying heavy antishipping missiles into the Arabian Gulf they become not only loose cannons, but, loose cannons aiming at the worlds economic heart.

And they have never done that before... I agree they don't seem to have any ambitions of hurting their neighbours, but when defending oneself who knows what they are capable of? Human wave attacks to stop the Iraqis springs to mind...

Major own goal for what advantage - an attack that stands only a marginal chance of breaking through US defensive fire IF the missiles find the target in the first place!.

A major effect on the world economy will hurt the US rather more than you suggest, and the threat of such a reprisal might make an attack unthinkable.

BTW your map shows Granits could engage anything in the Persian Gulf and the Gulf of Oman and a significant distance out into the Arabian sea. A land attack version with the seeker and guidance system beng developed for the Yakhont-M giving land attack capability would make it a very capable system for targeting ports in Saudi and Iraq and Oman.

Jonesy

19th November 2004, 14:30

Garry

No, they'd welcome a US attack with open arms because the US is on such good terms with iran it would never bomb them or interfere with their political system... again.

What? I said Iran isnt Russia and it isnt!. The strategic situation facing Iran, the geographical constraints on an attacker and the military infrastructure available for their defence are all completely different. The defensive strategy will reflect that. How is that hard to misunderstand?.

It would keep a US CVSG 500km offshore, which would limit its ability to come in close to extend the range of any strike aircraft launched from it.

It will keep a US CVBG 500km off shore if these, still non-existant, P-700 TELs are parked on the beach right next to the Iranian/Pakistan border. Seeings that may make them a bit easy to find one would presume that they would be deployed in the high-ground a bit further inland in the same area.

They probably won't even camouflage them... just sit them out in the open like the iraqis did with their Scuds. How many scuds did the US get by the way?

Dont let your sarcasm mask your intelligence Garry. You do yourself a dis-service. You know full well that US ISTAR capability has moved on a long way in the 13 years since Desert Storm and is developing new high endurance capabilities to address just the kind of threat system you are talking about. Global Hawk, A-160 Hummingbird etc, etc

And if it was 50% stronger what exact difference will that make? "World" condemnation seems to get US presidents extra votes.

...but denied the use of Turkish bases for Iraqi Freedom didnt it?.

And they have never done that before... I agree they don't seem to have any ambitions of hurting their neighbours, but when defending oneself who knows what they are capable of? Human wave attacks to stop the Iraqis springs to mind...A major effect on the world economy will hurt the US rather more than you suggest, and the threat of such a reprisal might make an attack unthinkable.

You seem to think that Iran is more threatening to world security than I do!. Interesting. Theres an oddity!. You do realise that the Iranians inducting a weapon like P-700 - that it can pretty much only use as an indiscriminate 'terror' weapon - might make it MORE likely to be subject to attack than it would otherwise?.

Good job they are a bit smarter than that isnt it!. They have the capability to slam the Hormuz Strait shut at will with submarines and mine warfare already. Why attract more attention by adopting a weapon system they have no strategic or tactical need for?. As I've said, several times, the weapons they are acquiring make sense for their environment and are within their budget. They seem absolutely oblivious to all the virtues that a P700 could offer them, don't they Garry, how remiss of them!. :rolleyes:

BTW your map shows Granits could engage anything in the Persian Gulf and the Gulf of Oman and a significant distance out into the Arabian sea. A land attack version with the seeker and guidance system beng developed for the Yakhont-M giving land attack capability would make it a very capable system for targeting ports in Saudi and Iraq and Oman.

So a missile thats not developed yet (surface launch Granit) could use a seeker thats, afaik, not developed yet to become a fearsome land-attack weapon. This is your argument to support Srbin's assertion that Russian antiship missiles are the best in the world is it Garry?. Not being funny pal, but, I don't think you're helping his case much do you?.

Ink,

Could an NSM-style seeker turn P-700 into a useful weapons system?. Honestly I dont know - the pro's and con's seem to balance each other out a bit.

Pros - Missile is more employable. Targetting would be a very much lesser problem and the flight profile could potentially be modified to provide a high-altitude higher-endurance passive area-search attack option. Against a target fleet under EMCON such an attack, from an emission-silent heavy weapon diving down at speed from altitude, could well be successful. Especially if you consider the relative immunity from countermeasures that such a weapon would posses.

Cons - Its still a big ole missile!. Its a big radar target and a big IR target. Its seaskimming profile is limited to about 100ft and its not all THAT fast on the deck!. This means if it IS detected by a vessel with a decent radar/area SAM combination then it stands a fair chance of being tracked and intercepted. Plus it would still need a big naval platform or a new ground launcher to be developed to employ it.

Bottom line though Ink is that its all hypothetical. This weapon hasnt been adapted for ground launch and hasnt been developed with an IIR seeker. This development isnt real likely either as there is no requirement for it from any client state and the Russians aren't really in the carrier-killing game anymore because the Americans arent in the SIOP game anymore!.

Its an interesting theoretical exercise, but, that isnt the same as a demonstrated capability like that NSM has.

BTW I've not forgotten about the question you raised about terminal-guided ballistic RV's. I did read something a couple of years back about that kind of weapon, but, cant find anything beyond the Pershing II RADAG system at the moment. RADAG not being applicable to naval targetting. I'll keep looking and get back to you when I find something ok?

ink

19th November 2004, 15:23

Nice one Jonesy,

Interesting idea though, a Granit with a new sensor package. Ok, granted, it is still a big ol' missile but if you're a big country with big boats and (more importantly) the requirement to kill other big boats (or at least scare them a bit)then it would be more useful than the NSM - although, theoretically, you could operate them both.

Srbin

20th November 2004, 00:15

Jonesy

20th November 2004, 01:51

YourFather

20th November 2004, 03:09

Been following this thread. Just to clarify, but am I right to say that , gathering from your back posts, in your opinion the NSM is just as capable as Russian missiles when both are launched from 160km, if not more capable? And that the Russian missiles are not capable/not worth the expense because they cannot be reliably targeted from beyond a range of around 160km anyway? Thanks.

Oh, yes, does the story you're referring to about the E-2C providing targeting for the TASM somehow end with the E-2C targeting their own warship or something like that? Please share the story with us :)

GarryB

20th November 2004, 03:52

It will keep a US CVBG 500km off shore if these, still non-existant, P-700 TELs are parked on the beach right next to the Iranian/Pakistan border. Seeings that may make them a bit easy to find one would presume that they would be deployed in the high-ground a bit further inland in the same area.

Or they could do what the Iraqis did with Scud reload missiles and mount them in School busses. Or they could design their own launchers that can be submerged in shallow water... with a few dummy submerged launchers set to explode if tampeed with as a nice anti SEAL feature. Their range of options are as wide as their imaginations.

Dont let your sarcasm mask your intelligence Garry. You do yourself a dis-service. You know full well that US ISTAR capability has moved on a long way in the 13 years since Desert Storm and is developing new high endurance capabilities to address just the kind of threat system you are talking about. Global Hawk, A-160 Hummingbird etc, etc

And camouflage and misinformation have stood still and are always defeated by technology rather than improved by it. The ability of NATO to find targets in Kosovo shows there is always room for improvement.

...but denied the use of Turkish bases for Iraqi Freedom didnt it?.

Look at a map... if it is old put a few stars and stripes all over Iraq and then work out how much the US will need Turkish bases to attack Iran.

You seem to think that Iran is more threatening to world security than I do!.

Yes, I am suggesting that they are intending world conquest by developing a defencive system to stop the US from bombing them... Everyone who resists the US is a threat to world security... Admit it Jonesy... you ARE GWB!!!!

You do realise that the Iranians inducting a weapon like P-700 - that it can pretty much only use as an indiscriminate 'terror' weapon - might make it MORE likely to be subject to attack than it would otherwise?.

If Iran introduced any new weapons it is seen as a threat to stability and peace in the region according to the US State department... unless it is american companies selling the equipment of course. The US will assume the worst no matter what, so why base your own defence purchases on the opinion of an enemy? Did the Americans decide not to introduce nuclear armed cruise missiles or Nimitz class carriers because such an introduction might increase tensions during the cold war?

They have the capability to slam the Hormuz Strait shut at will with submarines and mine warfare already.

You criticise the Granit for being unselective yet you mention Mines as an alternative? And it is something they have used in the past, so such measures have a history in the region.

They seem absolutely oblivious to all the virtues that a P700 could offer them, don't they Garry, how remiss of them!

You are assuming Granits have even been offered to them. All I am saying is that the Granits were designed to take on carriers and that the Iranians have been threatened and are under threat today by US carrier.

So a missile thats not developed yet (surface launch Granit) could use a seeker thats, afaik, not developed yet to become a fearsome land-attack weapon. This is your argument to support Srbin's assertion that Russian antiship missiles are the best in the world is it Garry?. Not being funny pal, but, I don't think you're helping his case much do you?.

So the Norwegian Navy which doesn't have the NSM in service yet either is the worlds best armed navy whenit comes to AShMs? Anyone with a decent carrier with fighters that can outrange 150km could kick their butts even if they had NSM in widespread service. That would include the Yak-38M!!!!

The fact that the Granit has extensive future growth potential is actually a positive thing. They already have sub surface and sea surface launchers. They have vehicle launchers developed for everything from URANs and MOSKITs through to TOPOLs... I doubt Granit would be a problem.

Cons - Its still a big ole missile!. Its a big radar target and a big IR target.

The IR problem you can't do much about, but physical size has little to do with RCS.

NSM is more relevant, more useful and more efficient.

Ummm... yes... you seem to think we are talking about finding the best individual missile in the world and then declaring the maker of that missile the best defended in the world. The Granit is a specialised weapon and one of many different types the Soviets and Russians developed. The Norwegians have a few missile designs but they lack more than a few types that the Russians have. Even a Harpoon type is lacking indigenous to the Norwegian Navy. The Russians have many types with many different features and advantages and disadvantages. The important thing is that they have a tool for every job. That is not to say every tool they have is perfect. But together they present the most formidible set of tools for the job when used together. (Much the same that the USN has the best Navy force even if their current main fighter isn't that wonderful and may be found wanting against some opponents.. the reality is that no other navy has better in numbers enough to matter, nor do they have the complete team... ie AEW, jammers, tankers etc)

Jonesy

20th November 2004, 05:34

YourFather

Just to clarify, but am I right to say that , gathering from your back posts, in your opinion the NSM is just as capable as Russian missiles when both are launched from 160km, if not more capable? And that the Russian missiles are not capable/not worth the expense because they cannot be reliably targeted from beyond a range of around 160km anyway? Thanks.

Essentially yes that is a major aspect of it. The other aspects are the advantages of the IIR/TRA seeker and the fact that the larger weapons offer greater, more detectable, targets to defending systems.

Oh, yes, does the story you're referring to about the E-2C providing targeting for the TASM somehow end with the E-2C targeting their own warship or something like that? Please share the story with us

Something like that yes!. The story was told to me by an ex-USN Cdr in 1998 and dates back to the mid 80's IIRC. The short version is that his E-2 was tasked with range overwatch on an autonomous long range TASM shot. BGM-109B/TASM employed a passive/active seeker and a 3D 'snake' profile flightpath to localise a target with a passive radar seeker then switch to a J-band active seeker in the endgame. The weapon could be mid course guided using the Outlaw Hunter system, a targetting/comms package fitted to P-3C's, unfortunately though his E-2 wasnt so fitted.

Picture the scene as the missile is fired towards its simulated target several hundred kilometres away, it drops into its flight plan and commences maneovres initiating its passive RF detection phase. On the E-2 screen the missile is noticed to be gradually banking away from the bearing to the simulated target and settles on bearing to a distant surface contact. Picture the even merrier scene when that distant target resolves as being the Fleet UNREP vessel coming out to re-store the carrier the Cdr had earlier launched from and it was determined that the UNREP ship was just within range of the TASM!. This was reported to the range officer with all deliberate haste who promptly failed that test launch and, IIRC, self-destructed the missile via radio relay from the E-2.

Proves, for me, that its one thing to list a weapons range in a Janes book or on a slick website, but, its quite another to have a proven deployable capability with it!

Garry,

Will look at your post tomorrow. No time right now!.

Srbin

20th November 2004, 07:12

its quite another to have a proven deployable capability with it!

NSM is not proven either, so don't give me that crap, it's not proven therefore not good.

I think Garry summed it up, the NSM is just the best all around AshM, it cannot be effectively used against a Carrier group, not only will it have a smaller chance of passing through CIWS, but it's too slow and it's warhead is too small to actually damage anything in a meaningful size, don't talk about a carrier. Same can be said about Uran, Harpoon and Exocet.

YourFather

20th November 2004, 09:48

Hmm, Jonesy, do you happen to be Stuart Slade on Warships1.com? Because much of what you say conforms to an excellent aricle written by him.

Here's the article.

[on www.warships1.com, in response to a statement about
Russian supersonic anti-ship missiles]

Don't hold your breath. Statements like that are an absurd
over-simplification. The Russian anti-ship missiles represent one set of
technical solutions to penetrating anti-missile defenses. They are not
the only set of solutions to those requirements nor are they necessarily
the best.

The Russian attention to hypersonics had its costs. The missiles are big
and heavy. limiting the number that can be carried. Their high speed
causes severe airframe heating that prevents them using infra-red
guidance. It also commits them to a straight run-in course (or, at best,
gentle curves). They have a heat plume that a thermal sight can detect
while the missile is still kilometers over the horizon.

There are such things as adaptive and iterative guidance systems that can
be applied to subsonic missiles that simply cannot be used on the
hypersonics. Subsonics have much lower signatures so can be more
difficult to spot. They don't guzzle fuel like hypersonics so can deliver
equal punch in a much smaller airframe. And so it goes.

For your information; Russian-style hypersonics are known as "streakers",
Western style highly agile subsonics as "dancers". Both have their place
but their relative merits are still being evaluated with great passion.

What is startling is how few of their naval weapons the Russians have
actually sold. P-270 Moskit has gone to China and they have sold 96 Kh-35
Harpoonski to Algeria. Contrary to your repeated assertions, they have
not sold any of their naval weapons to the US. They have sold a small
number of M-31 target drones to the US via Boeing on the simple logic
that it was cheaper to buy the actual missile in question than to spend
money developing a simulator. M-31 is a version of Kh-31, a short-range
air-to-surface missile, roughly equivalent to Maverick.

As a point of factual accuracy, neither the US nor the UK nor any other
major western sea power has adopted or has any plans to adopt any Russian
designed weapons system.

As a point of factual accuracy, according to SIPRI, Russia is now the 5th
largest arms supplier in the world in terms of value of signed contracts
and its relative position is declining.

I would like to revise my first sentence. please do hold your breath
while waiting, you'll find the experience instructive

Stuart [Slade]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Streakers and dancers complicate intercept in two ways. If we take the
intercept window of a crude, basic anti-ship missile (subsonic,
straight-in) as a baseline there are two options. The first is to use the
Russian approach and get the missile to cross that intercept zone as
quickly as posisble. This means adopting the shortest path across it and
flying that path as fast as possible. Hence P-270. This is a perfectly
viable approach.

The second is to stretch the time the CIWS needs to destroy the missile
to the longest possible point. In effect, this (a) reduces the percentage
chance of the system killing the missile and (b)reduces the number of
inbound systems a single CIWS can engage. One way of doing this is to use
an iterative guidance system in the missile. This works by giving the
missile a fine-cut radar receiver which picks up and localizes the
emissions from the CIWS fire control system. The missile knows its own
coure and speed, it now knows the position of the CIWS (and can work out
the course and speed of the target). The computer in the missile knows
the algorithms used by the closed loop tracking system in the CIWS to
correct the aim of the CIWS. it can therefore work out what the firing
correction applied by the CIWS will be and alter the missile's flight
path to be somewhere else. This system is a service reality.

A third method is to physically shrink the envelope. The outer edge of
the intercept window is set by the maximum range at which the inbound
missile can be spotted, the inner edge is the range at which wreckage
from the shot-down missile will still strike the target ship. We can push
the outer edge in by flying the missile lower, by making it more
difficult to spot and by reducing its emissions. We can pull the inner
edge outwards by making sure the shot-down wreckage travels faster.

Putting all this together means that existing streakers fulfill
rerquirement (a) very well at expense of (b). In terms of (c), the
significantly pull the inner edge back (from 1 km to around 2.5) but have
major sacrifices in the outer edge. Their level of airframe heating,
their heat plume, the altitude at which they fly, their active radar
emissions, all mean they can be detected well over the horizon.

On the other hand, dancers make major gains in (b) at cost of performance
in (a). They sacrifice the inner edge of the engagement zone but achieve
major gains in reducing the outer edge by being inconspicuous. Typically,
they come in with their radars off (homing on command or IR), they are
coated with RAM (which streakers can't use since it burns off), they have
little airfrme heating and only a limited plume.

In summary, streakers move fast but have a larger, more distant intercept
zone. dancers move more slowly and evasively and have a much smaller
intercept zone, closer to the target ship. Close your eyes and visualize
it, you'll see what I mean.

This leads to a curious point which comes back to the Soviet's lack of
systems analysis. They designed P-270 to exploit certain weaknesses in
the SPY-1 radar performance. This it does, but by looking at a single bit
of equipment in isolation, they neglected to evaluate the target system
as a whole. Had they done so, they'd have found they'd managed to push
the intercept envelope back into an area where AEGIS works very, very
well. Once Standard SM-2 had been given an IR auxiliary homing system,
it was more than capable of shooting the P-270s out of the sky. Its
essential to think system-to-system NOT weapon-to-weapon.

On average a P-270 weighs about 4.5 times as much as a Harpoon. This
loads the odds in favor of Dancers - remember effectiveness is related to
squares of numbers.

Your comments about Yakhonts containers do not represent new technology
or anything particularly unusual - most western missiles have been
delivered that way since the late 1960s. We treat them as "wooden rounds"
- get them, slip them into the rails, hook them up, run a self-diagnostic
then adjust people's attitude with them.

Sadly, I can deny the Russians are achieving a lot of success; I say
sadly because I thought they were going to do a lot better than they
have. Their equipment has stirred up a lot of interest but relatively
little of that has translated into sales. Where it has, it is usually
because of a lack of any opposition. Malaya represents the only case
where Russian equipment has secured an order in the face of Western
competition.

Stuart

Its an old article, so some points may not be that relevant, but the gist of it still holds true...

seahawk

20th November 2004, 16:34

The thing about the NSM is that it's too short ranged. Now matter how stealthy, low observable and etc, it's 160km range is just too short to attack a CARRIER group. At 160kms, your launch platforms like Helicopters, fixed wing aircraft, surface vessels and etc will probably be detected before then, even if you use these and launch them from lower altitude. You need something longer ranged at least 250kms to kind of stay out of Carrier defences. If you get too close, you'll really have to tangle with E-2Cs and F-18E/Fs(which is a rather poor interceptor)

If fighting a carrier group even 250 kms is too short if you consider the CAPs and the picket ships.

With the new AMRAAMS reaching up to 100km range (in the near future) you would need at least 350 km range to avoid them. However that is only if you can use a multiple axis approach to the carrier. If you are only able to come from one threat axis the CAP can be postioned to look for that axis only and you would look at a >350km stand-off range. However even if you have the range, do you have the targeting abilities to maken a succesfull launch on the carrier group ?? Especially without being forced to fly high and use active radar searches to pin-point the exact location of the carrier ?? Especially with relative dumb weapons like Granit, who only go for the biggest target. Launching them blindly into the believed position of the carrier is a waste of resources and very risky, as you might hit civilian ships.
In fact the time of the cold war is over, so the the logic that any ship that does not belong to your side, does belong to the other side and can be hit, is truely flawed today. Even for the NKs, hitting a chinese freighter would not help their case in any way.

And that all is apart from the fact, that long range is only usefull as long as you can pinpoint the target at that long ranges.

Srbin

20th November 2004, 16:44

so can deliver equal punch in a much smaller airframe. And so it goes.

There is no way a subsonic Harpoon or NSM with it's small warhead can be as lethal as a same missile with much faster speed. In case of Moskit, not only it's 2-3 times faster, but it's also much bigger and it's warhead is much larger. I would say a Moskit, if hits something like a Carrier, has probably at least a 5 times bigger chance of sinking a carrier than a Harpoon or NSM ever would.

If you actually don't like the Moskit or the Yakhont, compare the Alfa to the NSM or the Harpoon.

seahawk

20th November 2004, 17:16

However it ialso 4-5 times bigger, so smaller numbers can be carried.

Srbin

20th November 2004, 17:56

Yes, thats the thing, but in open seas like Pacific, Atlantic or Indian oceans, protecting the Carrier on different axis will be very hard because Flankers armed with Yakhonts or Alfas can come from many different directions. Same with subs, a Carrier will have a hard time looking for subs that can launch Klubs or something in a 250km radius. However, it's another thing finding the carrier and knowing where to position your stuff.

seahawk

20th November 2004, 18:49

And operating such subs would also be a bit expensive. Especially if they are a known threat and would have to face hunting US SSNs and P-3s.

Same with Flankers. Operating large numbers of Flankers is only an option to very few countries in the world.

I think the discussion is over anyway. Most people seem to agree on the fact that the russian missiles are your best option if you are out to sink an US carrier. Even Jonsey and me are not discussing that fact. However I think that most people also agree on the fact, that they are pure overkill if you are not planing on fighting a US carrier.

Jonesy

20th November 2004, 23:38

YF,

Hmm, Jonesy, do you happen to be Stuart Slade on Warships1.com? Because much of what you say conforms to an excellent aricle written by him.

I remember Stuart, and his 'Gong Shows' (a particuarly amusing way of dealing with board trolls), from Warships1 going back about 5 years. He is, or was, a Defence Analyst in the Washington Beltway then and a certifiable guru!.

Needless to say I am not him I'm afraid. For one thing he was even more right-wing than me!.

I got a bit fed up with Warships back in about '99, just after the time Stuart Slade, Andy Pico, Joe Frye and few of the other 'originals' dropped off the scope and I've not been back much since!. I hadnt seen that article either but the contents dont surprise me!. That chap has forgotten more about defensive AAW than I know!.

Garry,

Or they could do what the Iraqis did with Scud reload missiles and mount them in School busses. Or they could design their own launchers that can be submerged in shallow water... with a few dummy submerged launchers set to explode if tampeed with as a nice anti SEAL feature. Their range of options are as wide as their imaginations.

Cool. How does that change the situation regarding saturation fire though?. You know the volume that the Soviets determined was necessary to penetrate a carrier screen. A convoy of 40 school buses heading for identified potential firing sites might just be a bit of a giveaway as to what was really going on. Plus it is hardly addressing the initial point of the thread is it?. Srbin stated that Russian antiship missiles are the best. Shore based Granit doesnt exist.

And camouflage and misinformation have stood still and are always defeated by technology rather than improved by it. The ability of NATO to find targets in Kosovo shows there is always room for improvement.

I dont know in what ways deception technology may have advanced. In fact things like GPS and advanced radar jammers would seem to be retrograde steps in terms of concealment. The terrain cover is dependent on havig suitable terrain in the first place - the south western corner of Iran is hardly that found in the former Yugoslavia!. The whole point of these high endurance ISTAR UAV's is to counter defensive movements an opponent may attempt to make by having wide area surveillance up over a threat zone as near to permanently as possible.

Look at a map... if it is old put a few stars and stripes all over Iraq and then work out how much the US will need Turkish bases to attack Iran.

Public opinion in Turkey restricted the availability of bases that were vital to the operational plan. You asked what value public opinion had - well theres a good example.

Yes, I am suggesting that they are intending world conquest by developing a defencive system to stop the US from bombing them... Everyone who resists the US is a threat to world security... Admit it Jonesy... you ARE GWB!!!!

My command of English is that bad?!. Thanks very much Garry!. I dont know about resisting the US but there would be a lot of countries, particularly in the Far East, who might be looking for a 'coalition of the very willing' should Iran start launching indiscriminate antishipping attacks in the gulf!.

If Iran introduced any new weapons it is seen as a threat to stability and peace in the region according to the US State department... unless it is american companies selling the equipment of course. The US will assume the worst no matter what, so why base your own defence purchases on the opinion of an enemy? Did the Americans decide not to introduce nuclear armed cruise missiles or Nimitz class carriers because such an introduction might increase tensions during the cold war?

Tortured logic there!. I've not seen any scare stories about Iranian development of Chinese chopper launched AShMs. Likewise I've not seen much said, apart from in the evangelical right wing American press, about Iranian adoption of heavier Chinese C-80x antiship missiles?. Lots of people inside and outside the US would be concerned about the intent behind an Iranian P-700 purchase though.

You criticise the Granit for being unselective yet you mention Mines as an alternative? And it is something they have used in the past, so such measures have a history in the region.

Not all mines are simple moored jobbies with contact horn exploders Garry. There are combined influence models out there, cheaply available, that are capable of selecting a target based on combined accoustic and magnetic signature (very difficult to decoy) and can even count hulls to detonate after MCM or escort vessels have passed to catch 'heavies'. Selectivity isnt necessarily a problem.

You are assuming Granits have even been offered to them. All I am saying is that the Granits were designed to take on carriers and that the Iranians have been threatened and are under threat today by US carrier.

I'm assuming that, if they wanted them, they wouldn't have waited for them to be offered. I appreciate what your saying about the Iranians facing a potential carrier threat, but, you have to appreciate that they dont have the assets to co-ordinate a long-range antiship missile strike in a cluttered environment. This obviating any possible advantage they might get with a very long range weapon.

So the Norwegian Navy which doesn't have the NSM in service yet either is the worlds best armed navy whenit comes to AShMs? Anyone with a decent carrier with fighters that can outrange 150km could kick their butts even if they had NSM in widespread service. That would include the Yak-38M!!!!

The missile is successfully tested and is scheduled for service entry next year!. As to the 'anyone with a decent carrier' comment your well off the mark Garry. I can conceive a number of tactical situations that could give an advantage to a defender over an attacking force with a single CVA.

The fact that the Granit has extensive future growth potential is actually a positive thing. They already have sub surface and sea surface launchers. They have vehicle launchers developed for everything from URANs and MOSKITs through to TOPOLs... I doubt Granit would be a problem.

What if it never gets developed any further Garry, isnt that equally likely?. They have an opportunity to give the weapon GLONASS precision guidance, turn it into the mother of all JDAM's and give their Oscars a meaningful role - they havent done so according to anything I've seen or read. Why?. They have no real requirement for it, they have no global foreign policy aims that justify the expenditure. If they wanted to withdraw the Oscars and maintain a vestige of coastal anti-carrier defence I could understand the development of shore battery versions, the money they'd save on the Oscars would make it finiancially sensible. They arent doing that either though.

What they are doing is fighting a nightmare in Chechnya and investing in the maintenance of their strategic nuclear capability to preserve their territorial integrity. Hell of a sensible approach when the pockets aren't that deep.

Ummm... yes... you seem to think we are talking about finding the best individual missile in the world and then declaring the maker of that missile the best defended in the world.

I'm not interested in the best defended country. I'm talking about finding the best all round antiship missile in the world.

The Granit is a specialised weapon and one of many different types the Soviets and Russians developed. The Norwegians have a few missile designs but they lack more than a few types that the Russians have. Even a Harpoon type is lacking indigenous to the Norwegian Navy. The Russians have many types with many different features and advantages and disadvantages. The important thing is that they have a tool for every job. That is not to say every tool they have is perfect. But together they present the most formidible set of tools for the job when used together.

I agree, to an extent, but we are debating whether the Russians have the best antiship missiles in the world. The simple answer to that is no they dont. Most nations who operate modest navies on a budget cant afford to have half a dozen different types of missile just for antiship duties in addition to all the other types they have to support. Malaysia is case in point operating MM38, MM40 and Otomat and wishing to standardise on a single type for efficiency. This is the kind of real-world advantage that I rate so much higher in a weapon than supersonic this or amoured that.

Srbin

21st November 2004, 01:30

I agree, to an extent, but we are debating whether the Russians have the best antiship missiles in the world. The simple answer to that is no they dont. Most nations who operate modest navies on a budget cant afford to have half a dozen different types of missile just for antiship duties in addition to all the other types they have to support. Malaysia is case in point operating MM38, MM40 and Otomat and wishing to standardise on a single type for efficiency. This is the kind of real-world advantage that I rate so much higher in a weapon than supersonic this or amoured that.

Depends what kind of jobs, the NSM is a great all around missile like the Uran, Harpoon and Exocet, however thats all West has to offer, and thats light subsonic sea skimmers. However Russia has all around Klub/Alfa(air launched), the Yakhont, Sunburn/Moskit(air launched), then there are the other air launched AshMs like Kh-31A, Kh-22M and then there are the specific surface launched ones like Granit, Bazalt and etc. When you look at the Klub/Alfa and the Yakhont, they are just a step ahead of Uran, NSM, Harpoon and Exocet, especially Alfa.

Jonesy

21st November 2004, 05:04

Srbin,

Depends what kind of jobs, the NSM is a great all around missile like the Uran, Harpoon and Exocet, however thats all West has to offer, and thats light subsonic sea skimmers.

Now you're getting there - it depends on what kinds of jobs. What kind of job does the Brazillian Navy need to do with its AShM's, what job does the Portguese Navy, Italian Navy, Greek Navy, Egyptian Navy, Saudi Navy, Malaysian Navy, South Korean Navy, Australian Navy, South African Navy etc, etc need their antiship missiles to do?.

Sink carriers?. No not one of them.

Switch it round - which navies ARE likely to need more capability than that offered by volume NSM attack?. China, India, North Korea and Iran. Of these China and India have adopted supersonics, hit up against the targetting barrier, and are now pushing the development of ISTAR assets and a netcentric backend to try and use them properly. North Korea hasnt the need for them owing to a developed submarine capability and perfect waters for them and mine warfare. Iran is in a similar position - it has deeper open water to worry about in the arabian gulf. Most of its coastline, though, is north of a chokepoint that they can close with available assets.

So in the first case, give or take, we are looking at two or three nations that have supersonics, but, cant employ them reliably at their advertised extended ranges. In the second case we are looking at potentially dozens of services that could find a use for NSM and need nothing more than the assets they already have to employ them and get a much improved capability than they had with Exocet, Otomat, Harpoon, Sea Eagle or any of the other current generation active-radar homers.

What weapon does Russia build that offers all that?.

Essentially Indian1973 hit this one square on target in the fourth post of the thread. A spread of Type65 torpedoes is the only reliable, non-nuclear, way to sink a CVN. Missiles, of whatever size and speed, just chip bits off a ship of that mass.

Farbod

21st November 2004, 08:48

Jonesy:

Just one clarification, its the Persian Gulf as per UN charter (official name of the body of water between Iran and Saudi Arabia due to the length of Iran's coast line and officially recognised by all member states.). The historic name dating back to the time of Roman historian accounts is also Persian Gulf. The body of water beteen Iran and oman however is known as the Oman sea or the Arabian Sea where it meets with the Indian Ocean. Please see the following links as well:

http://marzeporgohar.org/folders/folder_10/PersainGulf1.pdf

http://marzeporgohar.org/folders/folder_10/Persiangulf.pdf

Srbin

21st November 2004, 16:02

yes, but you also have some other Navies that don't have aircraft carriers, yet have good navies with good AAW capabilities. Look at the French, British, Spanish, Italian, German, and other powerful navies where sometimes even a shorter ranged subsonic sea skimmer will not be enough. You ALWAYS want to stay a step ahead of your enemy. Acquiring something like Alfas or Yakhonts will ensure you are that one step ahead of them. I would rather obviously choose to have a Club on any of my subs than a Uran, no matter if I am facing the North Korean or the French navy. Yes, the Club might be more expensive and I wouldn't be able to put it on my helicopters, small patrol boats or even coastal batteries, but if I can put it on any submarine or decent sized ship, I will want it when I can target my enemies some 100kms longer than with the Uran despite it being almost 1.5 tones heavier.These would be my frontline assets for tackling my enemy's navy.

Jonesy, do you have access to ACIG?

Jonesy

21st November 2004, 16:11

Farbod,

Good point thanks for the correction. In my defence I was concentrating more on the missiles than the geography, but, sloppiness detracts from clarity and it seems I have enough problems making myself clear as it stands!.

By the term 'Arabian Gulf' I was loosely trying to define the stretch of water at the mouth of the Persian Gulf where the Arabian Sea flows into the Gulf of Oman.

Farbod

21st November 2004, 17:41

No probs mate!
Thanks for understanding!

Jonesy

21st November 2004, 17:53

Srbin

yes, but you also have some other Navies that don't have aircraft carriers, yet have good navies with good AAW capabilities. Look at the French, British, Spanish, Italian, German, and other powerful navies where sometimes even a shorter ranged subsonic sea skimmer will not be enough.

If you look at the AAW assets that those European navies are inducting though you are looking at systems like APAR and PAAMS directing ESSM/Standard and Aster weapons. Systems especially optimised to deal with supersonic diving and sea-skimming threats.

Given that the target vessels in those navies you list are deploying systems capable of neutralising the specific threat Yakhont and Moskit pose then evaluating the success of an attack, using those weapons, becomes a calculation that boils down to the number of weapons that can be fired simultaneously.

You ALWAYS want to stay a step ahead of your enemy. Acquiring something like Alfas or Yakhonts will ensure you are that one step ahead of them.

Why will they though?. Naturally I agree that any service requires weapons that exploit the weaknesses in an adversaries defensive systems, but, I dont see how Yakhont or Moskit do this?. Both of those systems have been countered by precisely the AAW capability you state that they are required to defeat!. The 3M54E variant of Klub is a different story of course, but, as we dscussed earlier there remains little public source information on the weapons service status and operational reliability.

I would rather obviously choose to have a Club on any of my subs than a Uran, no matter if I am facing the North Korean or the French navy. Yes, the Club might be more expensive and I wouldn't be able to put it on my helicopters, small patrol boats or even coastal batteries, but if I can put it on any submarine or decent sized ship,

If the requirement is for an offensive system and strictly limited to major surface combattants and submarines only and my choices are Uran, Harpoon, Exocet, Otomat, RBS15 or Klub (with guarantees of 3M54E's performance) I would agree with you. Klub looks like a very smart capability package offering, as it does, standoff ASW, land-attack and antiship in a standard VLS. For me the IN needs to look at a second Talwar batch with an additional 8/16 Klub VLS cells replacing the RBU-6000 for LACM/ASW missiles.

If I had access to NSM though I could standardise the weapon across ALL platforms in my naval service from the smallest missile boat to the largest surface combattant to every ships helicopter flight. I could standardise the type through my airforce across helicopter, light and heavy tactical fighters and low or high end MPA's. Further I could use it to introduce a 'Storm Shadow-lite' standoff precision strike capability for my airforce in a completely non-maritime role.

Klub is versatile and efficient there is no doubt about that. NSM is just even more so.

I will want it when I can target my enemies some 100kms longer than with the Uran despite it being almost 1.5 tones heavier.These would be my frontline assets for tackling my enemy's navy.

Question is though when you can acquire the ability to achieve reliable targetting at that extra 100km standoff from target? Otherwise that range advantage over a Uran sized weapon is a useless asset.

Jonesy, do you have access to ACIG?

I used to be quite involved with ACIG. At one stage I was extremely honoured to be asked to look after the NCIG component of the site. Owing to a lack of time I had to let that slip a bit to concentrate on this site. I think in the process I let Tom Cooper and Eric Palmer down quite badly which is something I sincerely regret as both are good lads in every respect. Now I'm unsure of the reception I would get there so I tend to stay away.

seahawk

21st November 2004, 19:26

Jonsey you would get a very warm reception - no doubt about that.

I fail to see which country could be threatened by any european navy that has enough money to buy Granit and friends in the first place. No european nation has to capability to take on a seriously equipped enemy alone. If facing a combined european force with carriers and submarines you are looking at a force that is only slightly weaker then a US carrier battle group.

So what use would a supersonic and heavy ASM offer to a country ??

In regards to Iran. The purchase of such ASMs could be very contraproductive for them. Those missiles would be seen as a direct threat to the economy of all other Gulf States, as neither as a capability to fight those systems. Would that not mean, that they would be much more willing to open there bases for an US attack then. I think yes.

Severodvinsk

21st November 2004, 21:44

Mr Jonesy would be banned from NCIG, the moderators over there are real pain-in-the-ass-guys (Talwar is going his own way, thinking his own doctrines and even finding his own uses of certain weapons :rolleyes:, the other one Anaconda isn't saying anything, only when there's something about Russian Navy )I mostly stay out of that section too, it's quite boring, there's no traffic whatsoever, but the Archive of older topics is quite good.
Tom and Eric probably wouldn't mind, they are quite busy on the Wingy-thingy stuff, haven't seen them in the Naval section.

seahawk

21st November 2004, 22:13

Be sure that we all look into NCIG every day. However if you don´t like Talwars opion ou can always discuss his views with him. That is what a forum is for.

Jonesy

21st November 2004, 22:52

Guess that means all sins forgiven then eh Sevvy?. Still dont have lots of time, but, I'll try and get there more often. Sounds like I've a bit of work to do there also! :D

Srbin

22nd November 2004, 01:42

I don't agree that the NSM is more versatile than Harpoon, Exocet or Uran when it comes to deploying it from different platforms, however the NSM is just a better missile, with better electronics, longer range and lighter weight. It's range is only some 30kms better than that of Uran. As for Alfa/Klub, yes it is a different story, as for targeting data past 150-200+kms, well there are quite a lot of ways of detecting and targeting ships over those ranges.

Anyways, we have discussed somethings on ACIG regarding AshMs and Carriers. ppl over there share different views.
http://www.acig.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=2795&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0

Jonesy

22nd November 2004, 03:43

Srbin,

Essentially with the deployablity issue I was really comparing NSM to the bigger Yakhont, Kh-22 and P-700 sized weapons instead of Harpoon/Exocet/Uran.

as for targeting data past 150-200+kms, well there are quite a lot of ways of detecting and targeting ships over those ranges.

Standard surface search radars can detect ships at those ranges IF you have sufficient airborne assets to mount continuous patrols around multiple sectors of your coastline (assuming a defensive scenario). There are precisely four ways of identifying ship types at long range though. These are:

1, ISAR radar imagery
2, EO/IIR imagery
3, Passive sonar accoustic profiling
4, ESM intercept.

All of these methods have limitations. 1 and 2 offer better resolution only with shorter range to target with obvious consequences for the targetting platform. 3 can be messed up by a Prairie/Masker type system or by excessive ambient subsurface noise and 4 is dependent on the opponent emitting on a militarily identifiable set and not sending one ship off on its own, on a decoy course, emitting away merrily to draw off defending forces!.

This is not, of course, to say that very long range targetting is impossible against ship targets. Just that its a LOT more difficult than most appreciate and it imposes limits on the abilty of a service to exploit the range advantage of these 200-300km weapons.

Anyways, we have discussed somethings on ACIG regarding AshMs and Carriers. ppl over there share different views.

I've been through all three pages over there and can't see many different views from those that have been explored here! In fact it seems that you and Sevvy are the main players on the thread!. What views do you see there that myself, Seahawk, cru or bubulle havent already addressed here?.

Srbin

22nd November 2004, 04:59

Ok for example, at how far off might an E-2C 2000 or Phalcon or P-3C or a Su-30MKI with Bars detect a LARGE aircraft Carrier and be able to target it to guide an AshM at it?

Severodvinsk

22nd November 2004, 11:22

I told you a thousand times Steve, you're always welcome!!! We regretted your leave, but we aren't angry about it, everyone has his own life and time to spend!
Yeah, it's remarkable to see every forum following the others. Quite boring in fact, same sh!t different day...

seahawk

22nd November 2004, 17:36

Ok for example, at how far off might an E-2C 2000 or Phalcon or P-3C or a Su-30MKI with Bars detect a LARGE aircraft Carrier and be able to target it to guide an AshM at it?

The better question would be. How near could a E-2C, Phalcon or P-3C come to a carrier. Remember that the ESM can always detect your signals before you can detect the target.

Srbin

22nd November 2004, 22:05

There are MANY ways to find a carrier and target it, however that was just one example, besides you can always give these aircraft aerial protection. In the case of USN, which is far by currently the only Navy that can put up decent number of AWACS + Fighters to protect their fleet(with perhaps French Navy included) and possibly other targets. With the F-18E/F which will be USN's main fleet defender(F-35's will be tasked with interdiction), it is a mediocore fighter, it's rather slow which will make it a pretty bad interceptor.

YourFather

23rd November 2004, 07:44

Proliferation fears spark interest in sea-skimming weapon

The US Navy is considering acquiring Russian NPO Mashinostroyenhe P-900 "Alfa" supersonic sea-skimming missiles for conversion into targets amid fears the weapon will soon begin to proliferate on the world market.

If a commercial purchase is not possible, the USN is studying potential development of a hybrid surrogate target that would combine the airframe and power plant of the Raytheon BGM-109 Tomahawk cruise missile with a supersonic final stage derived from either the Raytheon SM-2 Medium Range 2+ or MIM-23B Hawk missiles.

USN officials say the P-900, also known by the Russian industry designation 3M51, is not capable of being effectively modelled by any existing supersonic targets in the US inventory. Capt Richard Walter, programme manager US Navy aerial targets and decoys, says the Russian weapon is a "threat totally in its own category".

The USN operates a small number of modified Russian Zvezda-Strela missile design bureau KH-31 supersonic sea-skimming missiles as targets. Boeing is the prime contractor for that programme, with the target version designated MA-31. The USN has given the P-900 the unclassified designation of Threat D in statements on options to counter the perceived threat.

Speaking last week at the US National Defence Industrial Association's annual targets and ranges conference in Charleston, South Carolina, Walter said: "Just like with MA31 [where] we went out and bought the real item, we are considering that on Threat D. We are working through all the different groups you have to do that.

"We are working through those issues and getting ready to contact the embassy. If the country is interested in doing this we will probably try to set up a foreign comparative test type activity, the same as we did with MA-31."

Walter told the conference that the USN has been actively studying development of a P-900 equivalent for at least four years with the Office of the Undersecretary for Defense initiating preliminary studies in 2000. That resulted in recommendations to explore evolving a surrogate target from the Tomahawk airframe to replicate the cruise phase flight profile of the Russian missile, and integration of a high-speed final stage to replicate its terminal phase behaviour.

A follow on risk reduction study was carried out by Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory during 2003-4.

Apparently the USN feels the same way as Jonesy does on the Alfa.... just that they aren't banking on it being unreliable...

GarryB

20th December 2004, 06:33

If fighting a carrier group even 250 kms is too short if you consider the CAPs and the picket ships.

Always amazes me how carrier groups are at the same time completely invisible and always able to detect enemy formations at maximum range and have fighters in the right position to engage them.

With the new AMRAAMS reaching up to 100km range (in the near future) you would need at least 350 km range to avoid them.

What will the PK performance of these future AMRAAMs be at 100km range?

Are the attackers allowed no electronic support aircraft... or indeed any decoys like towed systems or UAVs? Or even fighter support?

Launching them blindly into the believed position of the carrier is a waste of resources and very risky, as you might hit civilian ships.

During heightened tensions the sea ways out to a thousand kms of your coast could be called a military testing ground where all civilian traffic is banned... any violators that happen to be hit would be very unfortunate but you were warned well in advance...

In fact the time of the cold war is over, so the the logic that any ship that does not belong to your side, does belong to the other side and can be hit, is truely flawed today.

But if you ain't with us then your agin us... isn't that how it goes?

And that all is apart from the fact, that long range is only usefull as long as you can pinpoint the target at that long ranges.

Who said they can't do that? A neutral trawler or civilian aircraft could be used, or UAV or other asset.

However it ialso 4-5 times bigger, so smaller numbers can be carried.

But the difference is that CIWS currently can't stop supersonic AShMs... they can stop subsonic ones.. that is what they are designed for.

However I think that most people also agree on the fact, that they are pure overkill if you are not planing on fighting a US carrier.

And that would be important if they only had supersonic anti ship missiles...

They have a range of weapons for a range of targets and threat situations... something everyone else lacks... isn't that a reason to suggest they are the best equipped regarding AShMs? The fact that the Flanker might be individually better than an individual fighter aircraft used by an American armed force doesn't mean that American armed force isn't the best available... armed forces are more than just individual aircraft or weapon specs.

Cool. How does that change the situation regarding saturation fire though?. You know the volume that the Soviets determined was necessary to penetrate a carrier screen. A convoy of 40 school buses heading for identified potential firing sites might just be a bit of a giveaway as to what was really going on.

And how many potential firing sites were there in the iraqi desert? Will this US attack likely be a seaborne invasion with huge support or will it be a coordinated air attack on nuclear facilities? In the case of the latter will they be trying to blow up every coastal instalation or just plan flight routes around them to reach their targets? How about 5 School buses, 25 fuel tankers, 10 container trucks. There is no reason why they couldn't be stored at the launch area inside a prefabricated building designed to be used as a school or hospital. The building with the missile could be the big boiler room that no kids or staff ever went into.

If the export ever came to light then big obvious fake missiles could be placed around the place for the Americans to fixate on. Even if they never had to use them it would have some deterrent effect on its own. A few hints in the media that some might have nuclear warheads would probably stop all talk of attacks at once. If Israel attack... then some balsa wood models are destroyed and Iran is the victim instead of the aggressor.

Plus it is hardly addressing the initial point of the thread is it?. Srbin stated that Russian antiship missiles are the best. Shore based Granit doesnt exist.

Taken together as systems they are. One missile design alone is not adequate against lots of targets.

The whole point of these high endurance ISTAR UAV's is to counter defensive movements an opponent may attempt to make by having wide area surveillance up over a threat zone as near to permanently as possible.

Yet it can't reach down and pull back a tarp to see what is underneath let alone search a container truck.

Public opinion in Turkey restricted the availability of bases that were vital to the operational plan. You asked what value public opinion had - well theres a good example.

Which would be relevant if the US needed Turkeys help to attack Iran. The fact that the Turkish government listens more to its own people than its allies says more about its allies and the Turkish government than anything relevant to this subject. Suffice to say the US has a long history of ignoring anyones opinion... even their own.

I dont know about resisting the US but there would be a lot of countries, particularly in the Far East, who might be looking for a 'coalition of the very willing' should Iran start launching indiscriminate antishipping attacks in the gulf!.

Ignoring my point and jumping back on this idea that anti ship missiles must be indiscriminate. Funny how Mine technology has moved on to allow it to recognise the sound signature of a target yet Radars in the nose of Missiles the size of a small fighter cannot do the same with an active sensor...

Lots of people inside and outside the US would be concerned about the intent behind an Iranian P-700 purchase though.

The P-700 is an anti carrier weapon... only those that threaten with carriers need fear that... and who cares if they do fear that? Where has doing as you have been told gotten Serbia?

There are combined influence models out there, cheaply available, that are capable of selecting a target based on combined accoustic and magnetic signature (very difficult to decoy) and can even count hulls to detonate after MCM or escort vessels have passed to catch 'heavies'. Selectivity isnt necessarily a problem.

And if one fails or malfunctions? And exactly how many would you need to cover the Persian gulf out to the maximum range of any strike aircraft a Nimitz class carrier might deploy? That is a LOT of mines and they are for the most part in international waters and therefore stealable... not to mention liable to move with currents.

I appreciate what your saying about the Iranians facing a potential carrier threat, but, you have to appreciate that they dont have the assets to co-ordinate a long-range antiship missile strike in a cluttered environment.

So develop the expensive detection assets first and then buy the weapon to go with it? Why not buy the weapon first and rely for the time on the deterrent effect of it to protect you till you have sorted out your other problems.

As to the 'anyone with a decent carrier' comment your well off the mark Garry. I can conceive a number of tactical situations that could give an advantage to a defender over an attacking force with a single CVA.

And one could place a single nuclear mine in the panama canal as you sail through with sensors to kill the next Nimitz class carrier that goes through, but it is hardly something you can rely on as a matter of course or doctrine.
There is no such thing as a perfect defence... remember that Russian aircraft that overflew a US carrier when the US carrier was refuelling with no aircraft in the air? Sure it is not during a time of tensions, but no one is alert 24/7, and coming from surprise directions or times can work wonders.

What if it never gets developed any further Garry, isnt that equally likely?.

If no export orders are forthcoming then it is very unlikely that any further work would be done on them, but then the work done on newer models could be retrofitted to older systems to improve their performance. Just look at the Kh-22M and the Kh-32. Externally identical but the latter is faster and has twice the range due to improvements in rocket fuel and engine design... not to mention reduced electronics weight and size. the Yakhont-M will get a multi sensor (ie radar and optics) guidance package that should allow land attack capability... such a seeker could be used on larger older missiles too, not to mention improved propulsions like scramjet technology...

They have an opportunity to give the weapon GLONASS precision guidance, turn it into the mother of all JDAM's and give their Oscars a meaningful role

They are maintaining the satellite guidance system it requires to operate in service... even though up until recently they had been neglecting their Glonass system. Doesn't that tell you they are maintaining their anti carrier capability?

I'm talking about finding the best all round antiship missile in the world.

That is not what this thread is about. No one anti ship missiles with achieve all goals. A range of different weapons with different capabilities is what you need and the Russians certainly have that. If passive subsonic was all that wonderful then the Russians have had the AS-18 in service since the 80s... TV command guided missile with a 115km range. A minor change to give it a combined TV/IIR seeker for optimum target discrimination and taadaa!!!

but we are debating whether the Russians have the best antiship missiles in the world. The simple answer to that is no they dont. Most nations who operate modest navies on a budget cant afford to have half a dozen different types of missile just for antiship duties in addition to all the other types they have to support.

Hang on are you saying the USN is crap because no other country on the globe could afford to operate it for a day using their whole years budget?

Make up your mind... first you are looking for the best all round AShM, then deciding if the Russians have the best AShMs in the world, and then you start blabbing about affordability. That is three very different things in my book... perhaps that is why our discussions last so long.

This NSM seems nice but how all weather is it? How useful is it really? I personally think the Club with the supersonic warhead section should be first, simply because it is actually difficult to intercept by CIWS yet offers all the other benefits of low and slow turbojet missiles. It is fully all weather.

Regarding AShMs the Russians certainly have the supersonic end cornered and are the only navy to have ever seriously looked like threatening the USN Carrier Groups. How can you be the best in the business if you can't look the other guy square in the eye without blinking... or blubbing like a little girl.
And finally if cost is so important then as I mentioned above the AS-18 Kazoo has been in service for some time and you can distract smaller boats with weapons like Uran and AS-17, or that interesting 200km range variant of the AS-11 (Kh-58) with MMW radar guidance for anti ship use.

Malaysia is case in point operating MM38, MM40 and Otomat and wishing to standardise on a single type for efficiency. This is the kind of real-world advantage that I rate so much higher in a weapon than supersonic this or amoured that.

Except the small point that if your anti ship missiles can't help you defend your country they aren't much use to you really.
A Malaysian Su-30 with a single Moskit or three Yakhonts backed up by surface launched missiles like Exocet would be treated with more respect by an opposing fleet commander. Rather more is known about Exocets and they are easier to intercept with missiles or CIWS.

What weapon does Russia build that offers all that?.

AS-18, and various passive radiation homing versions of their existing supersonic weapons.

A spread of Type65 torpedoes is the only reliable, non-nuclear, way to sink a CVN.

Your list of those that need to sink carriers is short but those who might want a carrier to go away or not come in the first place is very long.

little public source information on the weapons service status and operational reliability.

Yet a weapon to go into service next year is the worlds best?

The better question would be. How near could a E-2C, Phalcon or P-3C come to a carrier. Remember that the ESM can always detect your signals before you can detect the target.

Only useful if you are fast enough to move away to avoid detection or for mounting an attack. Carriers can move quite quickly, but not that fast and mounting an attack will only confirm your presence.

If a commercial purchase is not possible, the USN is studying potential development of a hybrid surrogate target that would combine the airframe and power plant of the Raytheon BGM-109 Tomahawk cruise missile with a supersonic final stage derived from either the Raytheon SM-2 Medium Range 2+ or MIM-23B Hawk missiles.

Commercial purchase is about as likely as a US sale of a B-2 to Antey for SAM tests.

Severodvinsk

20th December 2004, 12:19

Wow, someone wants a fight in here... Have you also noticed Jonesy has been quiet lately? I suppose you want to get him back online isn't it?
Personally I only will give you one comment. It doesn't take too many mines and that is caused by the fact that a current is very predictable. You can also add to that that depth and sealevel are predictable, with the obvious consequences...

Srbin

20th December 2004, 17:29

I think the NSM is the best all around missile, to be installed on Helicopters, Ships, Fixed Wing aircraft, Coastal Defences and etc, however it cannot in anyway sink a carrier group no matter how stealthy it is, it's just too slow and it's warhead is too small. You need much bigger weapons like Moskit, Alfa and whatever.

I would agree with Garry, I think the Klub/Alfa is much better than any Yakhont or Moskit and such, it will have a much better chance of sinking a carrier than a Yakhont would since it will come down low and slow then once it's found it will speed up and drop even lower making it even harder for defences to detect it unlike the Moskit and Yakhont which will be going supersonic all the way and lighting up enemy screens. If you compare the air launched Yakhont to air launched Klub, the Klub maybe shorter ranged by some 50kms, but it would be launched at a lower altitude, and not only that but it weighs almost a tonne less. Even this, but it comes in a submarine launched version too, and even a land attack(300km, 1780kg launch weight, while Yakhont is 3000kg for 300km) and ASW versions too.

An aircraft like Su-30MK should be able to carry 3 Yakhonts, while some 5 Alfas. A mig-29M should be able to carry a single Yakhont while up to 3 Alfas may be configured.

Jonesy

20th December 2004, 20:00

Garry

Always amazes me how carrier groups are at the same time completely invisible and always able to detect enemy formations at maximum range and have fighters in the right position to engage them.

Why does this amaze you?. Its what a battlegroup is designed to do. The E.O.O.B of a CVSG is considerable and the 'seven seas' are really very big and, for the most part, quite easy to get yourself lost in. There's no rocket science in this its just good tactics and good systems employment.

During heightened tensions the sea ways out to a thousand kms of your coast could be called a military testing ground where all civilian traffic is banned... any violators that happen to be hit would be very unfortunate but you were warned well in advance...

Ask Roel whether this is true or not!. The 'Tanker War' was called so because it was civvie tankers that were targetted. In 1982 we mistakenly drew a bead on a couple of merchies, but, RoE's saved the day. There is NO WAY that you can get around the problem of indiscriminancy in an active radar seeker. The RN is, or was, removing the sub-Harpoons from its Fleet subs because they are so seeker-limited and such useless weapons in a non-permissive environment. This is not analysis, not derivation and not supposition on my part Garry its plain fact!.

But if you ain't with us then your agin us... isn't that how it goes?

Nope. CNN sees to that.

But the difference is that CIWS currently can't stop supersonic AShMs... they can stop subsonic ones.. that is what they are designed for.

'Cant stop supersonic AShMs' is a bit of a definitive isnt it Garry?. Goalkeeper was tested by NAVSEA against supersonics and it certainly proved capable of engaging such targets, even Phalanx is said to be capable of making the intercept, but, at a range that might make the fact academic. Its a dishonest comparison really though, as you well know, because the NATO answer to heavy supersonics was the Point Defence Missile System i.e Sea Sparrow, Sea Wolf, Crotale Naval and NOT any CIWS system.

They have a range of weapons for a range of targets and threat situations... something everyone else lacks... isn't that a reason to suggest they are the best equipped regarding AShMs? The fact that the Flanker might be individually better than an individual fighter aircraft used by an American armed force doesn't mean that American armed force isn't the best available... armed forces are more than just individual aircraft or weapon specs.

Go on and list the range of antiship weapons they have actually in service Garry. Navally its Bazalt, Granit, Moskit and Uran that I can think of off the top of my head and how much does it cost to keep the former two operational in weapons and platform terms (and for how much benefit), Moskit is past its heydey and is distinctly interceptable and Uran is little improvement over AGM-84. Thats a 'superior' capability is it?. Compare that to NSM and, apart from a CVN, there is no target that those weapons can tackle that NSM cannot and in one missile type. That one missile being swingrole on the pylon for antiship and precision land-attack.

And how many potential firing sites were there in the iraqi desert?

Its a desert - quite a lot.

Will this US attack likely be a seaborne invasion with huge support or will it be a coordinated air attack on nuclear facilities? In the case of the latter will they be trying to blow up every coastal instalation or just plan flight routes around them to reach their targets?

Relevance?. What does it matter if the USN choses to engage some targets or not?.

How about 5 School buses, 25 fuel tankers, 10 container trucks. There is no reason why they couldn't be stored at the launch area inside a prefabricated building designed to be used as a school or hospital. The building with the missile could be the big boiler room that no kids or staff ever went into.

Yeah Garry and it'd be really cool if you could get the on site swimming pool to slide over and reveal launching silos like in Thunderbirds....!. Garry you're making stuff up to support a made up premise!. The FACT is the Iranians aren't trying to acquire a very long range antiship missile capability despite the fact they've had years to try and do it. Why - because they know that, in their environment, targetting out into blue water, reliably, is beyond their means.

Taken together as systems they are. One missile design alone is not adequate against lots of targets.

How do you arrive at that conclusion?. NSM is perfectly capable of engaging lots of different targets at sea and onshore - this is one of the main points I've been making. The Russians dont have such a weapon, yet, which is the other main point I've been making!.

Yet it can't reach down and pull back a tarp to see what is underneath let alone search a container truck.

Granted, but, why would it need to?. Are you suggesting that a P-700 TEL could be made to look like a container truck?. Even if you are, for whatever point that may serve, you still have the point that shore-based Granit DOES.....NOT......EXIST!!!.

Which would be relevant if the US needed Turkeys help to attack Iran. The fact that the Turkish government listens more to its own people than its allies says more about its allies and the Turkish government than anything relevant to this subject. Suffice to say the US has a long history of ignoring anyones opinion... even their own.

What fantastically pointless drivel!. The point very, very clearly was that public opinion had a significant effect on the prosecution of a military campaign in one very notable, recent, instance. That is also a distinct FACT Garry not vapid supposition.

Ignoring my point and jumping back on this idea that anti ship missiles must be indiscriminate. Funny how Mine technology has moved on to allow it to recognise the sound signature of a target yet Radars in the nose of Missiles the size of a small fighter cannot do the same with an active sensor...

Not really. Mines have the luxury of letting their targets come to them. They dont have to do any tracking or hunting. Besides there is a galaxy of difference between identifying a target from accoustic and magnetic profile passively than it is to do it actively with a radar seeker.

The P-700 is an anti carrier weapon... only those that threaten with carriers need fear that... and who cares if they do fear that? Where has doing as you have been told gotten Serbia?

Changing your tune now a bit arent you?. You were the one noting how little damage a western subsonic would do to 100,000tons of supertanker and how much relative damage a Shipwreck would inflict!. Dont understand your point about Serbia?.

And if one fails or malfunctions? And exactly how many would you need to cover the Persian gulf out to the maximum range of any strike aircraft a Nimitz class carrier might deploy? That is a LOT of mines and they are for the most part in international waters and therefore stealable... not to mention liable to move with currents.

They would not attempt to mine that far out. It would take every asset in their navy to try and maintain such a field. They could set individual fields to try and draw in US SSNs and the like, but, in Irans case the main fields would be laid around Hormuz, probably in the shallower waters to the northern end of the straits. It still means a LOT of mines but theyre hardly expensive compared to a P-700 type weapon and its delivery platform.

So develop the expensive detection assets first and then buy the weapon to go with it? Why not buy the weapon first and rely for the time on the deterrent effect of it to protect you till you have sorted out your other problems.

LOL how many opposing professionals would be deterred by a weapon they plainly couldnt use in their theatre of operations. The thing with the detection assets is that they are a force-multiplier for legacy systems as well as targetting assets for a heavy supersonic missile system. It makes staggeringly little sense to buy the missiles before the sighting system!.

There is no such thing as a perfect defence... remember that Russian aircraft that overflew a US carrier when the US carrier was refuelling with no aircraft in the air? Sure it is not during a time of tensions, but no one is alert 24/7, and coming from surprise directions or times can work wonders.

By that token though you might as well say Navies are useless. That an opponent could put a 5Mt device on the ocean floor off Norfolk and wipe out the US Atlantic Fleet in one fell swoop. Alternatively you could say that the Russians developing the Su30-whatever was pointless as some muppet could stand at the end of a runway with a Stinger and shoot them down on training flights. The reason what you've written is wrong is that all military installations use a gradiated system of alert levels. Had there been the slightest chance those Russian aircraft could launch or drop anything unpleasant that USN group wouldnt have been at such a low alert state.

If no export orders are forthcoming then it is very unlikely that any further work would be done on them, but then the work done on newer models could be retrofitted to older systems to improve their performance. The Yakhont-M will get a multi sensor (ie radar and optics) guidance package that should allow land attack capability... such a seeker could be used on larger older missiles too, not to mention improved propulsions like scramjet technology...

The point is 'could be retrofitted' and 'will get a multisensor...' and 'could be used on'. How many, if any, of these systems have been fielded and proven under anything near operational trials conditions?.

They are maintaining the satellite guidance system it requires to operate in service... even though up until recently they had been neglecting their Glonass system. Doesn't that tell you they are maintaining their anti carrier capability?

To what purpose though?. SIOP tasked CVBG's disappeared a decade ago, the 'vaunted' space targetting system has atrophied to the point that it provides little more than basic surveillance functions and the heavy 'anticarrier' missiles are countered by naval AAW systems that were first fielded two DECADES ago.

That is not what this thread is about.

I am disputing Srbins comment that Russia makes the worlds best antiship missiles. Nothing in this thread has persuaded me that his point is valid.

No one anti ship missiles with achieve all goals. A range of different weapons with different capabilities is what you need and the Russians certainly have that.

Eh?. Most European navies have standardised on a single weapon be that Harpoon, Exocet, Otomat, RBS15 or whatever. If they dont have a dedicated anticarrier weapon it means either they intended to use other weapons (HWT's for one!) for the engagement of such targets or they dont count, amongst their requirements the need to target CVN's. One AShM type IS more than adequate for most services.

If passive subsonic was all that wonderful then the Russians have had the AS-18 in service since the 80s... TV command guided missile with a 115km range. A minor change to give it a combined TV/IIR seeker for optimum target discrimination and taadaa!!!

Agree. Given such a 'minor' change the AS-18 could become a very dangerous system. Like the earlier comment though its not been done has it?. Same for Uran, same for Yakhont etc. Fair weapons systems, but, they stop short of being the 'best'.

Hang on are you saying the USN is crap because no other country on the globe could afford to operate it for a day using their whole years budget?

How the hell did you get that interpretation from the quote?!. The USN is the size it is due to the nature of tasks it performs. The Russian anticarrier weapons are the way they are due to the target set they were required to service, BUT, that target set is no longer something the Russians can, or have a need to, engage. No-one else on the planet, China excepted perhaps, has a need for such systems. I ask again what value is there in a weapon that no-one can use?.

Make up your mind... first you are looking for the best all round AShM, then deciding if the Russians have the best AShMs in the world, and then you start blabbing about affordability. That is three very different things in my book... perhaps that is why our discussions last so long.

I'm used to things like weapon availability rates, servicing schedules and the suchlike. Its my opinion that a weapon that requires a service to add or maintain extra support personnel and infrastructure in return for marginal capabilities is a poor weapon. Granit, Kh-22 and the like fall into that category for me.

This NSM seems nice but how all weather is it? How useful is it really? I personally think the Club with the supersonic warhead section should be first, simply because it is actually difficult to intercept by CIWS yet offers all the other benefits of low and slow turbojet missiles. It is fully all weather.

You've hit on the only major drawback the NSM weapons system has that I can see. The weather conditions would have to be very adverse to impact the system though. I dont think heavy rain would be sufficient to degrade the seeker as I've used a Radamec IIR sensor in such conditions and been able to see a merchant vessel at horizon range. A fog bank would probably be quite effective at knocking out the targetting solution, but, seeings as its almost invulnerable to chaff and jamming I think, if there is only a fog-limitation against the weapon, its a quantum leap further on than an ARH.

Regarding AShMs the Russians certainly have the supersonic end cornered and are the only navy to have ever seriously looked like threatening the USN Carrier Groups.

That was yesterday Garry. What do those missiles do for the Russians today?. Give them a sabre to rattle nice and hard at the Americanski's. Who cares?. I think they have far more important things to spend their money on myself!.

And finally if cost is so important then as I mentioned above the AS-18 Kazoo has been in service for some time and you can distract smaller boats with weapons like Uran and AS-17, or that interesting 200km range variant of the AS-11 (Kh-58) with MMW radar guidance for anti ship use.

This is also my point though!. Thats 4 missile systems with all their spares infrastructures, maintenance personnel training requirements and operational trainig requirements that NSM could replace with a single weapon AND could be used in more roles besides. Efficiency is an important factor.

Except the small point that if your anti ship missiles can't help you defend your country they aren't much use to you really. A Malaysian Su-30 with a single Moskit or three Yakhonts backed up by surface launched missiles like Exocet would be treated with more respect by an opposing fleet commander. Rather more is known about Exocets and they are easier to intercept with missiles or CIWS.

I've said before that I dont rate Western active-radar homing weapons any higher than their Russian counterparts. Its the ARH seeker I think is obsolescent more than any particular weapon. If I'm an anti-air warfare officer sat aboard a warship intruding into Malaysian waters I'm going to be scared if I know that they have antiship missiles I am unlikely detect via any of my onboard, organic, systems until they cross my sensor horizon. If I know they have Yakhonts, Exocets and any of the other ARH weapons I've got my best guys on ESM watch, all chaff and decoy launchers loaded and cocked, and I'm feeling more confident that there is actually defensive action I can take to defeat the inbound.

AS-18, and various passive radiation homing versions of their existing supersonic weapons.

Not yet it doesnt. If the funding to develop on IIR seeker and the onboard computer/TRA software doest materialise it may never do. NSM's in the final stages of its trials by comparison.

Srbin

20th December 2004, 20:15

I don't think Western countries ever needed large anti-carrier AshMs, because the Russians simply never had large aircraft carrier fleets, even in the late 1980s there was the Kuznetsov protected by various ships, but it was still probably not significant enough to build large and heavy AshMs like the Russians have been doing for past 50 years.

Jonesy

20th December 2004, 20:25

Thats a fair point Srbin, but, ever since good old Sergei took the reins of the Soviet Navy they developed ships that could challenge NATO for control of the Atlantic. Ships that were heavily outfitted with SAMs.

Maybe NATO didnt have to tackle CVBG's, but, it did have some very hard targets to crack. By the logic Garry puts forward NATO should have developed heavy supersonic long-range missiles to knock out Kirov's, Moskva's, Kievs, Kara's and all the rest. The fact that half a dozen nations independently didnt arrive at that solution suggests heavyweight supersonics may not be the best way to target heavily defended naval vessels!.

Srbin

20th December 2004, 21:08

It's because many Western countries would've rather used their subs to crack these heavy targets, that was their plan for most of the way. Do you think that a Harpoon armed Ticondoroga could crack an Granit armed Kirov or even anything Moskit armed?

Jonesy

20th December 2004, 21:27

That being exactly my point Srbin!

Srbin

21st December 2004, 06:30

Yes, thats why they dont need such longer ranged weapons, the Soviets just could not rely completely on subs and torpedos to sink Carrier groups, so therefore they built long range AShMs. That is why West has not had a reason to build heavy and long ranged AshMs, cuz they relied on subs and such.

If the Soviets back then would've had large carrier groups and very good ASW capabilities, I'd bet West would've built large and long ranged AshMs too to counter these because no longer it would've been able to rely on subs+torpedos.

GarryB

21st December 2004, 06:44

There's no rocket science in this its just good tactics and good systems employment.

I'm am very skeptical... discussions regarding CGs always seem to assume all detection systems on to detect attackers at max range and all active detection systems off to make them invisible. Talk about having cake and eating it too...

is NO WAY that you can get around the problem of indiscriminancy in an active radar seeker.

Perhaps the MMW seeker on the proposed Kh-58 variant might solve taht problem. MMW radar is very high frequency and is able to identify armoured vehicles by profiling their turrets and counting wheels. It can determine whether the target is tracked or wheeled. Such information along with size and range info would make identification of targets relatively straight forward I would think... and weather independant.

even Phalanx is said to be capable of making the intercept, but, at a range that might make the fact academic.

The only kill by Phalanx I am aware of of a supersonic target was a target diving from a range of 15km away at a 30 degree angle or so.
In the brochure it claimed that made it the only all gun CIWS in the world able to bring down supersonic targets. It didn't mention they didn't try for a sea skimming target because of the terrible problems the Phalanx has with radar returns with very low targets.

Its a dishonest comparison really though, as you well know, because the NATO answer to heavy supersonics was the Point Defence Missile System i.e Sea Sparrow, Sea Wolf, Crotale Naval and NOT any CIWS system.

Hope the PK for Seasparrow is better than for the air launched version...

Go on and list the range of antiship weapons they have actually in service Garry. Navally its Bazalt, Granit, Moskit and Uran that I can think of off the top of my head and how much does it cost to keep the former two operational in weapons and platform terms (and for how much benefit),

So the Kh-22M has been withdrawn? The Termit, Kh-29, Kh-25, Vikhr, Kh-35, Kh-31, Kh-65, Kh-15, Kh-58, Kh-59, Ataka. Plus coastal defence missiles like Bal and Redut.

Moskit is past its heydey and is distinctly interceptable and Uran is little improvement over AGM-84.

The moskit is no longer perfect for taking on AEGIS class cruisers, that doesn't make it useless. There are plenty of in service ships that can't stop a mach 2.2 missile flying at less than 7m above the wave tops. Uran doesn't need to be better than Harpoon. The US Navy seems happy with Harpoon.

Thats a 'superior' capability is it?.

A missile they don't have, and another missile as good as the one they don't have... YES... that is superior.

Compare that to NSM and, apart from a CVN, there is no target that those weapons can tackle that NSM cannot and in one missile type. That one missile being swingrole on the pylon for antiship and precision land-attack.

So a missile they might get next year is superior? The Yakhont-M will have land attack capability and will no doubt have a very similar set of sensors as the NSM... but it will have a larger warhead and much higher speed. Your comparison is flawed in that the Yakhont-M will have the same swing role on the pylon capability. Its seeker could certainly be fitted to a Kh-35 too if that were necessary... but it seems it is not.

Relevance?. What does it matter if the USN choses to engage some targets or not?.

If the US wanted to invade they'd more than likely do it from land... from Iraq, and military bases along the coast might be attacked. If it was a strike against nuclear facilities then military bases will likely be ignored unless they pose a threat. It might also force the carriers closer to shore to extend the range of their strike aircraft flying at the deeper targets. There is a difference between strike packages flying through and airpower trying to get air control over a large area.
Of course even with full air control they didn't stop low flying AShMs fired at Kuwaite.

The Russians dont have such a weapon, yet, which is the other main point I've been making!.

The Russian carrier based aircraft don't carry antiship missiles... why would they carry dual use anti ship missiles? Besides they have the reverse... air to surface missiles capable of taking on ships... AS-18, AS-14, AS-10, AS-11, and AS-17. Unless they wanted to send ships to blow the crap out of countries half way around the world why bother? They already have land attack versions of the club missiles, which they are very unlikely to ever need.

Are you suggesting that a P-700 TEL could be made to look like a container truck?.

That depends upon what a P-700 TEL looks like...

Even if you are, for whatever point that may serve, you still have the point that shore-based Granit DOES.....NOT......EXIST!!!.

And the Point that NSM does not exist anywhere in the world in service with any navy... how can it be the best?

The point very, very clearly was that public opinion had a significant effect on the prosecution of a military campaign in one very notable, recent, instance.

Public opinion also stopped the Vietnam war... eventually. What makes you think public opinion would be against continuing the war against terrorism? As supporters of Hezbulla (spelling) Iran has more to answer for in supporting terrorism than Saddam ever did. Most Americans still seem to think the invasion of Iraq was part of the war on terrorism!!!

...That is also a distinct FACT jonesy not vapid supposition.

Besides there is a galaxy of difference between identifying a target from accoustic and magnetic profile passively than it is to do it actively with a radar seeker.

Yes, a whole galaxy between signal processing sound data and signal processing returned radar wave data...

Changing your tune now a bit arent you?. You were the one noting how little damage a western subsonic would do to 100,000tons of supertanker and how much relative damage a Shipwreck would inflict!. Dont understand your point about Serbia?.

Not changing my tune at all. I only suggested the p-700 for Iran because they need some stick that the USN will respect. For most other things it is overkill... for the costs involved a very slow cheaper missile like an SS-N-2 ripoff would do the job against an unprotected tanker just as well and be cheaper to buy and use.
The point about serbia is that they were eventually made to bow to the wests will... now that they are doing as they are told it is a land of milk and honey, they are treated with respect and have become inundated with investment and money... not.
It doens't pay to pi$$ off those in the west... but it doesn't pay that much better to roll over and play like a good b!tch either.

It still means a LOT of mines but theyre hardly expensive compared to a P-700 type weapon and its delivery platform.

And would that stop the US carriers launching strike aircraft against Iran? If it doesn't then what is the point?

LOL how many opposing professionals would be deterred by a weapon they plainly couldnt use in their theatre of operations.

You mean like Scuds that are so inaccurate they can't be used in modern warfare either because they might hit civilians?

It makes staggeringly little sense to buy the missiles before the sighting system!.

And where did I say they wouldn't establish a sighting system? They don't need to see the world... just their patch of ocean.

Had there been the slightest chance those Russian aircraft could launch or drop anything unpleasant that USN group wouldnt have been at such a low alert state.

Yet one of the reasons behind NMD is that a disgruntled Russian officer might fire a few at the ole US. If they were surprised by a couple of Russian aircraft what would have happened if they had turned out to be North Korean?

How many, if any, of these systems have been fielded and proven under anything near operational trials conditions?.

Exactly the same number of NSMs at the moment...

the 'vaunted' space targetting system has atrophied to the point that it provides little more than basic surveillance functions and the heavy 'anticarrier' missiles are countered by naval AAW systems that were first fielded two DECADES ago.

The false praise of using the word 'vaunted' is a bit of a waste isn't it? Atrophied suggests it doesn't work... wonder why they'd spend any money at all on it if it didn't work?
I guess by the same token I could describe the USNs forces to have atrophied and offer very few things that the USAF provides and much greater cost than the USAF. No stealth aircraft at all.

I am disputing Srbins comment that Russia makes the worlds best antiship missiles. Nothing in this thread has persuaded me that his point is valid.

This thread only turned naval due to a misunderstanding... the Shkval-M electro optical system on the Su-25TM mistaken for the Shkval torpedo...

One AShM type IS more than adequate for most services.

So Sea Skua, Hellfire, and other weapons like that, like Maverick that are also used by forces around the world don't exist? I saw video footage of JDAMs hitting an LST... wonder why they bothered... they have Harpoon don't they?

Agree. Given such a 'minor' change the AS-18 could become a very dangerous system. Like the earlier comment though its not been done has it?. Same for Uran, same for Yakhont etc. Fair weapons systems, but, they stop short of being the 'best'.

As I have mentioned Yakhont-M will be tested next year with a multisensor seeker for land attack and anti ship use.

No-one else on the planet, China excepted perhaps, has a need for such systems. I ask again what value is there in a weapon that no-one can use?.

Are you going to tell the Iranians they don't need nuclear powerplants too? And of course what is the value to whom? We are not discussing who needs what, we are talking about the best equipped regarding AShMs.

in return for marginal capabilities is a poor weapon.

So the trillions of dollars sunk into AEGIS... which has killed one airbus and what else in real combat is good? How does a weapon capable of sinking pretty much anything afloat equate to marginal capabilites?

Granit, Kh-22 and the like fall into that category for me.

Kh-22 is a tactical ASM. Some are used for the antiship role, but they are also used for the theatre strike role.

A fog bank would probably be quite effective at knocking out the targetting solution, but, seeings as its almost invulnerable to chaff and jamming I think, if there is only a fog-limitation against the weapon, its a quantum leap further on than an ARH.

There is something to be said for cross pollenation... Soviet tanks had in the 80s smoke generating grenades that were opaque to IR light as well as visible light. Just thumbing through Russia's Arms 2001-2002 it lists rockets with smoke warheads for IR and optical coverage as well as rockets with flare and chaff distraction warheads...

That was yesterday Garry.

Todays reality is that the US is not russia's friend. NATO expansion and American rhetoric make that pretty plain. Further development of high speed antiship missiles into areas like scramjet propulsion will lead to economic as well as practical improvements and benefits.

Thats 4 missile systems with all their spares infrastructures, maintenance personnel training requirements and operational trainig requirements that NSM could replace with a single weapon AND could be used in more roles besides. Efficiency is an important factor.

Yes, and Assault rifles will replace machineguns, submachineguns and rifles... NOT. A bit of unification regarding sensors and launch systems is a good idea but only having one type of weapon in each class cost you Blue Steel. Applying it now would probably have cost you ALARM. Why bother with Javelin when there is Stinger? Or even Challanger II, Leopard 5, Leclerc, when there could be M1A3s all round? Why bother with this new CVN... why not just buy an old Nimitz?
Of the four missiles I mentioned... Uran, AS-11, AS-17, and AS-18... all four are already actually in service anyway so the maintainence and support network is already there. The AS-11 is used on Mig-25s and Mig-31BMs, AS-17 is used on many platforms too, and the AS-18 can pretty much target anything including something it can't see as long as visible objects are nearby... ie a non contrasting camouflaged bridge can be hit as long as the road leading up to it is visible, or it has something next to it that is visible.

Not yet it doesnt. If the funding to develop on IIR seeker and the onboard computer/TRA software doest materialise it may never do. NSM's in the final stages of its trials by comparison.

The AS-18 entered full service in 1988 and includes waterborne targets amongst its uses. Target recognition and aquisition software is already fully used in this weapon... it also has a datalink to the launch aircraft so that not only is there a human in the loop to identify the target they can also select by dragging a crosshair what part of the target is hit. Flying at 1,100m for optimum view of the target area if the target is eyes open radars on then ARMs can be used for a passive engagement... Most of their radar homing missiles have passive radar homing ability. If the targets radar is off then optical is fine.

The fact that half a dozen nations independently didnt arrive at that solution suggests heavyweight supersonics may not be the best way to target heavily defended naval vessels!.

Or it could have been a smug self belief that carrier aircraft and the chokepoints any Soviet vessel would have to negotiate would be enough... not to mention superiority in attack subs for most of the cold war.

That being exactly my point Srbin!

Except that your suggestion that modern SAMs can defeat very high speed low level AShMs also suggests that subsonic missiles will have even less of a chance. Equally with land attack roles air defence networks have for some time been able to shoot down low flying subsonic targets... a Mach 3 low level target is much more of a challange... especially with hills to hide behind...

Srbin

21st December 2004, 06:57

Compare that to NSM and, apart from a CVN, there is no target that those weapons can tackle that NSM cannot and in one missile type. That one missile being swingrole on the pylon for antiship and precision land-attack.

Thats a very good point Jonesy, against a Navy with capable Air Defenses and AIR COVER like the Russian, French, British or US Navies and now Indian and Chinese, the NSM would not be a good choice because you will want to stay as far back as possible and a weapon like Alfa would be a good option. Against everything else, the NSM is the best weapon. The Uran, Exocet and Kh-35 being right after it.

BTW, is there a planned submarine launched NSM?

Jonesy

22nd December 2004, 02:09

Garry,

I'm am very skeptical... discussions regarding CGs always seem to assume all detection systems on to detect attackers at max range and all active detection systems off to make them invisible. Talk about having cake and eating it too...

This is precisely the reason why I've always gone nuts about the need for offboard surveillance platforms like the Hawkeye. Tactics exist that mean the active detection system that the enemy has plotted and is 'giving away the CVBG position' might be 100nm away from the actual group (and sat overtop of an AEGIS ship SAM trap!).

Perhaps the MMW seeker on the proposed Kh-58 variant might solve taht problem. MMW radar is very high frequency and is able to identify armoured vehicles by profiling their turrets and counting wheels. It can determine whether the target is tracked or wheeled. Such information along with size and range info would make identification of targets relatively straight

forward I would think... and weather independant.

You'd be suprised mate. MMW frequencies have a crossover with the so called 'far IR' frequencies. Have a look at a frequency spectrum and you'll see the correlation. MMW radar is attenuated by adverse weather conditions in a similar fashion to IR. Also the FoV possible with MMW radar is very restricted. This means its perfectly capable of employment in anti-armour weapons etc where the target is easily designated prior to launch, but, for any real search capability, like NSM's wide angle IIR seeker offers, MMW is of little use. The Kh-58 looks to offer the most practical capability the Russians have for antiship in a non-permissive environment though. What platforms have been cleared to operate the MMV variant of the weapon?.

The only kill by Phalanx I am aware of of a supersonic target was a target diving from a range of 15km away at a 30 degree angle or so. In the brochure it claimed that made it the only all gun CIWS in the world able to bring down supersonic targets. It didn't mention they didn't try for a sea skimming target because of the terrible problems the Phalanx has with

radar returns with very low targets.

Well you know the old joke as to what CIWS really stands for I'm sure!. NAVSEA has recently evaluated the MK15 system and declared it capable against supersonic diving and skimming profile targets.

So the Kh-22M has been withdrawn? The Termit, Kh-29, Kh-25, Vikhr, Kh-35, Kh-31, Kh-65, Kh-15, Kh-58, Kh-59, Ataka. Plus coastal defence missiles like Bal and Redut.

Well I did say 'navally' didn't I?. As far as I'm aware virtually all the weapons you've listed are air-launched. I didnt make any mention of those weapons as there were so many I thought it best to leave them to you. You have to accept that there's a lot of support infrastructure required to keep that range of weaponry in an operational inventory. To most that would be impossible through budget constraints and I'd expect Russia to be very close to that category!.

The moskit is no longer perfect for taking on AEGIS class cruisers, that doesn't make it useless. There are plenty of in service ships that can't stop a mach 2.2 missile flying at less than 7m above the wave tops.

Problem is that AEGIS capability level vessels, and better, are fast appearing in many of the more advanced navies around. Moskit would have a challenge against vessels in the US, Spanish, Japanese, Dutch, German navies currently and soon you could add the UK, France, Italy, South Korea, Australia, Singapore and several others to the list. Moskit could, shortly, be a cracking system for engaging the Portugese or Brazillian Navies I suppose!.

A missile they don't have, and another missile as good as the one they don't have... YES... that is superior.

Right. Can we get rid of this whole NSM isnt in service yet issue now?. The image attached below is from the last test series of the weapon. Brahmos is little further on in its development yet its taken as either an in-service or, at least, a near-service weapons system. NSM should be considered little different. Can you provide a similar image of a Yakhont-M test firing?.

Public opinion also stopped the Vietnam war... eventually. What makes you think public opinion would be against continuing the war against terrorism? As supporters of Hezbulla (spelling) Iran has more to answer for in supporting terrorism than Saddam ever did. Most Americans still seem to think the invasion of Iraq was part of the war on terrorism!!!

...That is also a distinct FACT jonesy not vapid supposition.

You still really enjoy spinning these arguments don't you?. The point initially was that Iranian indiscriminate antiship missile use might cost them local and global public opinion. You suggested that this was valueless because public opinion carried no weight. I've shown you a pertinent example of why thats not always the case and you're bringing up Vietnam and Hez'bollah?.

Yes, a whole galaxy between signal processing sound data and signal processing returned radar wave data...

Yep, but, the difference isnt in the signal processing. Its in the data being processed.

Not changing my tune at all. I only suggested the p-700 for Iran because they need some stick that the USN will respect.

They need powerful friends then not P700's!. They're starting along this route with the nuclear agreements, if they maintain such a course they place the US in a position where they would be forced to act completely unilaterally if they chose military intervention. You may think the US would try that - I don't.

The point about serbia is that they were eventually made to bow to the wests will... now that they are doing as they are told it is a land of milk and honey, they are treated with respect and have become inundated with investment and money... not.

Quote from the CIA World Factbook:

After the ousting of former Federal Yugoslav President MILOSEVIC in October 2000, the Democratic Opposition of Serbia (DOS) coalition government implemented stabilization measures and embarked on an aggressive market reform program. After renewing its membership in the IMF in December 2000, Yugoslavia continued to reintegrate into the international community by rejoining the World Bank (IBRD) and the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD). A World Bank-European Commission sponsored Donors' Conference held in June 2001 raised $1.3 billion for economic restructuring. An agreement rescheduling the country's $4.5 billion Paris Club government debts was concluded in November 2001; it wrote off 66% of the debt.

I dont recall anyone suggesting they'd turn Serbia into a land of milk and honey?. They have gotten rid of a regime that was prosecuting some very nasty policies, keeping the world community of their backs and they've not done too badly financially out of it at all!. In my opinion they are very much on the plus side of the ledger post-Milosevic.

And would that stop the US carriers launching strike aircraft against Iran? If it doesn't then what is the point?

P-700's are hardly likely to stop US carriers being able to launch strike aircraft either!. Mining Hormuz stops US carriers getting into the northern Gulf. Lots of Iran up there that couldnt be reached from a position in the Gulf of Oman!.

You mean like Scuds that are so inaccurate they can't be used in modern warfare either because they might hit civilians?

Scuds that were deployed as precision weapons or as an attempt to do any damage possible to generate a political reaction?. What relevence they have to antiship missiles operating in the most difficult targetting environment on the planet escapes me I'm afraid?.

Yet one of the reasons behind NMD is that a disgruntled Russian officer might fire a few at the ole US. If they were surprised by a couple of Russian aircraft what would have happened if they had turned out to be North Korean?

Is it?. I thought the point was reestablish some form of security in the post MAD world. MAD obviously not being operative when the opposing country can 'only' scrape together a handful of ballistic launchers and a few dozen deliverable intercontinental warheads. First I've heard of a Russian missile officer being capable of independently launching a couple of armed missiles on his own 'initiative'.

As to the issue of whether they'd been North Koreans or whomever else if they painted the carrier with radar and flown in on an attack profile they would, presumably, have been challenged by the escorting vessel and potentially shot down if the situation warranted. I wonder if the Flanker pilot, who dogged that EA-6 that the Kittyhawk launched, would have been quite so happy to have done so if he'd known that there was the slightest chance that the SAMs aimed at him would be fired.

Exactly the same number of NSMs at the moment...

Oh?. So there is one of these Russian systems that you've listed that is in late operational trials?. Which one?. Any photo's?

The false praise of using the word 'vaunted' is a bit of a waste isn't it?

Is it?. I refer you to Srbins earlier claim that Russian antiship missiles, particularly the heavies, are the 'best in the world'. As you know Legenda was an integral part of those missile complexes. I think 'vaunted' was an entirely appropriate comment!.

Atrophied suggests it doesn't work... wonder why they'd spend any money at all on it if it didn't work?

Atrophied suggests wasted away. Working but at reduced capability. I think that fits the current Russian satellite ocean recon capability dont you?.

I guess by the same token I could describe the USNs forces to have atrophied and offer very few things that the USAF provides and much greater cost than the USAF. No stealth aircraft at all.

Yes you could. Then again though you could only do that if you were trying to take part in some kind of US vs Russia p1ssing contest. Which we're not...well I'm not anyway. Remember NSM aint American.

This thread only turned naval due to a misunderstanding... the Shkval-M electro optical system on the Su-25TM mistaken for the Shkval torpedo...

OK....and your point is what?. It DID turn naval - Srbins comment is there. I'd just as easily stop this discussion right now as I've made all the points I think I need to. I actually agree with Srbins last comment here - that the best all round missile is NSM and, as 90+% of naval services require no more capability than NSM offers its top dog. For those services that need a little extra range and have/can afford the assets to deploy it Klub, 3M54E at least, is a worthy alternative.

So Sea Skua, Hellfire, and other weapons like that, like Maverick that are also used by forces around the world don't exist? I saw video footage of JDAMs hitting an LST... wonder why they bothered... they have Harpoon don't they?

Confused here Garry I thought we were talking about antiship missiles primarily?. Besides NSM could see the end of many lightweight AShM's like AS15TT, Skua and Penguin as it can be deployed on an NH90 sized chopper.

As I have mentioned Yakhont-M will be tested next year with a multisensor seeker for land attack and anti ship use.

So thats a first flight test next year?.

And of course what is the value to whom? We are not discussing who needs what, we are talking about the best equipped regarding AShMs.

A missiles' paper capabilities do not make it effective. The ability to deploy in theatre, be supported in service without disproportionate budgetary effect on other systems and hold at threat likely target sets make a weapon effective. It is not enough to state that because a weapon can do mach daft and make a bloody great hole in a CVN its valuable.

So the trillions of dollars sunk into AEGIS... which has killed one airbus and what else in real combat is good? How does a weapon capable of sinking pretty much anything afloat equate to marginal capabilites?

The AEGIS system can stand alone and provide a powerful antiaircraft screen for any high value unit. Its been and is being exported widely as a system in its own right. It is still, therefore, providing a return on its development investment. Who's buying Granit or platforms capable of employing it?.

There is something to be said for cross pollenation... Soviet tanks had in the 80s smoke generating grenades that were opaque to IR light as well as visible light. Just thumbing through Russia's Arms 2001-2002 it lists rockets with smoke warheads for IR and optical coverage as well as rockets with flare and chaff distraction warheads...

Yes, I mentioned multispectral smoke as an IIR defence myself a long time ago on this thread or another like it. Problem is with MS that popping a few grenades to shield a tank from a single threat axis is a very much simpler proposition than trying to screen a 3000 ton frigate or 6000 ton destroyer with the same system. Especially in maritime environmental conditions.

Todays reality is that the US is not russia's friend. NATO expansion and American rhetoric make that pretty plain. Further development of high speed antiship missiles into areas like scramjet propulsion will lead to economic as well as practical improvements and benefits.

Equally though NATO rhetoric has made it plain that they dont view Russia as an enemy any more. In fact I'd say many view Russia as an emerging market rather than everything else. If they want to leverage some of their experience in hypersonic air vehicles for commercial gain perhaps they should rid themselves of the role-less Oscar-II's, Kirovs and the stupid bloody great missiles they carry and invest the millions they save on them into commercial R&D!.

Of the four missiles I mentioned... Uran, AS-11, AS-17, and AS-18... all four are already actually in service anyway so the maintainence and support network is already there.

The RN had Sea Eagle and MM38 Exocet in service. They had full infrastructure to support the weapons but they still withdrew those weapons from service. Why?. They cost money to keep operational. They need servicing, they require trained personnel to keep them operational etc. We determined that there was an insufficient target set to warrant the expenditure on keeping those weapons in the inventory when compared to other funding requirements. The maintenance of a few hundred, total, medium antiship weapons of two types would cost pennies compared to that of upkeep of the range of surface and air-launch antishipping weapons in the Russian inventory. See the point?.

The AS-18 entered full service in 1988 and includes waterborne targets amongst its uses. Target recognition and aquisition software is already fully used in this weapon... it also has a datalink to the launch aircraft so that not only is there a human in the loop to identify the target they can also select by dragging a crosshair what part of the target is hit.

Would like to see a source for an automtic target recognition capability for Kh-59 that dates back much beyond the last couple of years. It was my understanding that the weapon was originally an optical scene-locker and the datalink was there for standoff manual acquisition as the only method of long-range targetting.

GarryB

22nd December 2004, 04:21

This is precisely the reason why I've always gone nuts about the need for offboard surveillance platforms like the Hawkeye. Tactics exist that mean the active detection system that the enemy has plotted and is 'giving away the CVBG position' might be 100nm away from the actual group (and sat overtop of an AEGIS ship SAM trap!).

Yes, and no adversary would expect a navy with Hawkeyes to use such tactics?
A Jammer aircraft and some SEAD equipped aircraft along with a few fighter escorts couldn't possibly have a chance because in the battle between ships and aircraft the ships always win.

Also the FoV possible with MMW radar is very restricted.

The moving antenna in the Arbalet and the Kristanthema both give 360 degree views. The Arbalet also operates in a CM wave for weather issues.

What platforms have been cleared to operate the MMV variant of the weapon?.

The MMW version is not known to be operational.
Likely platforms would be pretty diverse as the Kh-58 was intended for most fighter bombers, including the Su-25TM, right up to dedicated SEAD aircraft like the Mig-31BM.

You have to accept that there's a lot of support infrastructure required to keep that range of weaponry in an operational inventory.

No. Most are operational rounds that don't require maintainence over their shelf life.

Termit, Bal, Redut, Ataka, Vikhr, and Kh-35 are or can all be fired from land or sea. Kh-22M, Kh-29, Kh-25, Kh-31, Kh-58, Kh-59, Kh-65, and Kh-15 are not dedicated anti ship weapons but dual use system for different roles. The 317kg shaped charge warhead of the Kh-29 is a bit of overkill for a MG post or light bunker, but is good for medium sized buildings or destroying the concrete foundations of a large bridge or a heavy bunker. etc etc.

To most that would be impossible through budget constraints and I'd expect Russia to be very close to that category!.

But then having the right tool for the job is actually a good thing. There is an old Russian proverb that states "If the only tool you have is a hammer then treat every problem like a nail". Not every problem is a nail.

Problem is that AEGIS capability level vessels, and better, are fast appearing in many of the more advanced navies around. Moskit would have a challenge against vessels in the US, Spanish, Japanese, Dutch, German navies currently and soon you could add the UK, France, Italy, South Korea, Australia, Singapore and several others to the list. Moskit could, shortly, be a cracking system for engaging the Portugese or Brazillian Navies I suppose!.

The SS-N-22 sunburn which it is based upon entered service in 1980. Do you think it might have evolved since then? Certainly the electronics have gotten smaller and engine technology has certainly improved. Imagine a scramjet powered Moskit flying at mach 5 at 7m?

Right. Can we get rid of this whole NSM isnt in service yet issue now?. The image attached below is from the last test series of the weapon. Brahmos is little further on in its development yet its taken as either an in-service or, at least, a near-service weapons system. NSM should be considered little different. Can you provide a similar image of a Yakhont-M test firing?.

When did I mention Brahmos? And Yakhont-M is a Yakhont with a new sensor... in other words a new seeker for a mature in service missile system.

The point initially was that Iranian indiscriminate antiship missile use might cost them local and global public opinion. You suggested that this was valueless because public opinion carried no weight. I've shown you a pertinent example of why thats not always the case and you're bringing up Vietnam and Hez'bollah?.

They don't have global public support... and if the US attacks and Iran tries to defend itself and accidently hits a few civy vessels then I am sure those that oppose Iran will condemn them as evil anyway and those that support Iran will call it collateral damage... much the same as what happens when the Soviets shoot down a korean airliner and the US shoots down an iranian airbus.

Yep, but, the difference isnt in the signal processing. Its in the data being processed.

So they are basically the same except different data is being processed?
How can that make them a galaxy apart?

A factory putting out blocks of cheese can't change ingredients and make blocks of soap?

They need powerful friends then not P700's!.

Which powerful friends would you suggest? The Russians were friends with the serbs... didn't stop NATO intervention... the only "friends" they could have in the region with any influence over the US is ISRAEL... Hahahaha.

they place the US in a position where they would be forced to act completely unilaterally if they chose military intervention. You may think the US would try that - I don't.

Of course you don't... GW would never act unilaterally... and his b!tches like australia and Britain would never follow them into invading a country in the middle east based on 45 minute warnings and WMDs. :diablo:

P-700's are hardly likely to stop US carriers being able to launch strike aircraft either!.

As you say... they don't have the assets to detect an approaching carrier force... The P-700s wouldn't be there to prevent if they are hidden... they would be the to punnish (or if they fail to annoy).

Scuds that were deployed as precision weapons or as an attempt to do any damage possible to generate a political reaction?. What relevence they have to antiship missiles operating in the most difficult targetting environment on the planet escapes me I'm afraid?.

The Scuds were aimed but were so inaccurate they could have hit anything. They were fired because they didn't have anything better. The P-700 is much less likely to hit nothing of importance in the sense that it is better guided... they could even alter the design and fit a couple out as a high flying fast UAV to be launched when US aircraft drop bombs or take out Iranian radar stations... the information beamed back could be used to target the remaining fully functional P-700s to engage targets. Obviously a powerful long range surface serach radar would be needed and three or four launched just to make sure the areas the hit targets could have been hit by carrier based aircraft from are checked... Slower UAVs could follow up these hgh flying high speed drones and determine friend from foe with optical and IR sensors that would be invisible to any of the radar and radio silent ships.

First I've heard of a Russian missile officer being capable of independently launching a couple of armed missiles on his own 'initiative'.

As with the US system if a Russian missile officer ordered his missiles launched that would be about 600 warheads on their way. (most people manning ICBM sites are quite isolated and were chosen because they follow orders).

As to the issue of whether they'd been North Koreans or whomever else if they painted the carrier with radar and flown in on an attack profile they would, presumably, have been challenged by the escorting vessel and potentially shot down if the situation warranted.

But then an attack doesn't require a flyover or other cooperation.

I wonder if the Flanker pilot, who dogged that EA-6 that the Kittyhawk launched, would have been quite so happy to have done so if he'd known that there was the slightest chance that the SAMs aimed at him would be fired.

It is called rubbing it in...

Oh?. So there is one of these Russian systems that you've listed that is in late operational trials?. Which one?. Any photo's?

The Yakhont is a mature system... the Yakhont-M features a new sensor head.
Very much like a SLAM upgrade for Harpoon.

Atrophied suggests wasted away. Working but at reduced capability. I think that fits the current Russian satellite ocean recon capability dont you?.

When did they have hundreds of ocean recon satellites? They are hardly going to monitor the entire world. Atrophied suggests neglected and unused and unmaintained. Components of the system are maintained and operational.

Yes you could. Then again though you could only do that if you were trying to take part in some kind of US vs Russia p1ssing contest. Which we're not...well I'm not anyway. Remember NSM aint American.

The nationalities are irrelevant... if the US example upsets you then the Royal navy is the most atrophied navy in the world... from flat decks pre 80s to withdrawn harriers now.

Besides NSM could see the end of many lightweight AShM's like AS15TT, Skua and Penguin as it can be deployed on an NH90 sized chopper.

Except for the cost of a modern IIR seeker probably not making it the cheapest weapon in the armoury.

So thats a first flight test next year?.

What is the rush? Best antiship missile capability includes future development too surely?

A missiles' paper capabilities do not make it effective. The ability to deploy in theatre, be supported in service without disproportionate budgetary effect on other systems and hold at threat likely target sets make a weapon effective. It is not enough to state that because a weapon can do mach daft and make a bloody great hole in a CVN its valuable.

It is also relevant that now that CIWS can shoot down any supersonic weapon with impunity and all modern vessels are better than AWACs that a puny weapon like NSM could be king... apart from its passive seeker it really is not much better than a slightly longer ranged exocet... a seeker that could be fitted to any aircraft.

It is still, therefore, providing a return on its development investment. Who's buying Granit or platforms capable of employing it?.

Only a westerner would think of return on investment. If return on investment was important then lets build all our systems for the very low income market... hey lets just make Ak-47s...

We will never know what return the granits might have given as they were not needed to be used. Suggesting they didn't need to try to counter the US carrier groups is stunning. The cost of the Granits is rather less than the cost of 13 carrier groups with all the resources and money that would require... that would certainly have been retired now.
I guess it would make more sense for the Soviets to have not spent on defence and just hoped the US didn't start anything?

Yes, I mentioned multispectral smoke as an IIR defence myself a long time ago on this thread or another like it. Problem is with MS that popping a few grenades to shield a tank from a single threat axis is a very much simpler proposition than trying to screen a 3000 ton frigate or 6000 ton destroyer with the same system. Especially in maritime environmental conditions.

4-6 smoke rockets fired toward the incoming missile could generate a smoke screen that would easily cover even the largest vessel. The rocket used have a max range of 6km and burst 100m in the air or higher and the burning smoke generating material falls down still burning creating a curtain or smoke... unless there is a typhoon it would set up very quickly... and CADS can use MMW radar and CM wave radar to see through it and still engage the incoming missiles.

Equally though NATO rhetoric has made it plain that they dont view Russia as an enemy any more.

They don't view her as a friend either... and they are a military organisation that has made it clear there is no room for Russia. In addition new NATO members are not that friendly to Russia either... that is why they joined NATO.

The RN had Sea Eagle and MM38 Exocet in service. They had full infrastructure to support the weapons but they still withdrew those weapons from service. Why?. They cost money to keep operational. They need servicing, they require trained personnel to keep them operational etc. We determined that there was an insufficient target set to warrant the expenditure on keeping those weapons in the inventory when compared to other funding requirements.

So did they withdraw the more expensive missile or the home made one?
Equally the Sea Eagle and Exocet are almost the AKM M16 of missiles... 6 of one and half a dozen of the other. If they decided to get rid of Sea Skua as well then you might have a case.

The maintenance of a few hundred, total, medium antiship weapons of two types would cost pennies compared to that of upkeep of the range of surface and air-launch antishipping weapons in the Russian inventory. See the point?.

Of course money can be saved with standardisation, but only if the one weapon you standardise to can do all the jobs you need it to. I don't doubt a Sea Eagle can perform any mission an Exocet can. I do doubt an Uran can do what a Kh-31 can do and vice versa. Both use standard pylons and are treated as rounds... ie no ongoing maintainence.

Would like to see a source for an automtic target recognition capability for Kh-59 that dates back much beyond the last couple of years. It was my understanding that the weapon was originally an optical scene-locker and the datalink was there for standoff manual acquisition as the only method of long-range targetting.

The Shkval-M fitted to the Su-25TM which first flew in 1988 has such a system. The same system is used in the Ka-50 Hokum... how else could a single pilot use Vikhr laser beam riding missiles...

SOC

22nd December 2004, 04:33

Did somebody say P-700? :D

dionis

22nd December 2004, 09:53

****! that missile has officially never been seen in public.. well until now i guess..

can the AGM-84E SLAM attack ships?

ink

22nd December 2004, 13:57

After the ousting of former Federal Yugoslav President MILOSEVIC in October 2000, the Democratic Opposition of Serbia (DOS) coalition government implemented stabilization measures and embarked on an aggressive market reform program. After renewing its membership in the IMF in December 2000, Yugoslavia continued to reintegrate into the international community by rejoining the World Bank (IBRD) and the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD). A World Bank-European Commission sponsored Donors' Conference held in June 2001 raised $1.3 billion for economic restructuring. An agreement rescheduling the country's $4.5 billion Paris Club government debts was concluded in November 2001; it wrote off 66% of the debt.

I dont recall anyone suggesting they'd turn Serbia into a land of milk and honey?. They have gotten rid of a regime that was prosecuting some very nasty policies, keeping the world community of their backs and they've not done too badly financially out of it at all!. In my opinion they are very much on the plus side of the ledger post-Milosevic.

Just an off-topic correction to make here, apologies. They have done very badly financially out of it all - the '99 air-campaign caused an estimated $12 billion of damage to the economy. After the air-campaign the western powers promised the Serbs as a nation that this damage would be repaid as soon as Milosevic was replaced and a democratic (which, in this case, means pro-western) government was set up. After Milosevic was ("illegally") sent to the Hague the US government saw fit to reward the Serbian people with a financial aid package worth $40 million - all of which, one way or the other, ended up in the coffers of the Democratic Party (one of a number of parties in the DOS Coalition which overthrew Milosevic - the most pro-western one). They proceded to spend the money on some new offices and BMWs for their party members.

legolas

22nd December 2004, 19:19

Any way after all these lengthy discussions about attack capabilities of Russia. I dont think we will ever have a war between Russia and AMerica not while both these countries have these huge ICBM and SLBM arsenals. According to a Defence study in Late 80, in any war between these two no land based aircrafts or Ships were expected to survive after 72 hours. only harriers(land based) and Submarines were expected to be the major surviving component apart from infantry and armor

Srbin

22nd December 2004, 21:44

Anyways, the NSM is better than the Harpoon, Kh-35 or Exocet but however those latter 3 are no slouches either. There is going to be a much longer ranged 180km version of Exocet, and Harpoon will probably be furtherly developed too. The Kh-35 I think is being developed into the Kh-35E1 with 250km range. These are all around missiles that can be installed on ships, coastal batteries, aircraft, helicopters and etc.

However, if there is something like a medium sized Missile Boat, I would rather have it armed with like 4 220 km Klubs than 8 160km NSMs or 8 130km Urans or 8 125km Harpoons or whatever. I will have obviously less armament, but I could easily stay at a much greater distance and the Klub will probably have a much greater chance of hitting any sort of larger ship than anything smaller would. The closer I get, the bigger chance there is that something will destroy me.

Same with a larger aircraft like the Su-30M, I would rather arm it with like 3 Alfas than with like 8 Kh-35s, because the Alfas will certainly have a much easier time hitting something and sinking it. I can also fire it at a shorter range.

Fonk

22nd December 2004, 21:50

:eek: Better force the attack to abort before launch.
Range 300 km. Speed M 3.5.

Srbin

22nd December 2004, 22:43

What missile is that? Its either the Moskit or Yakhont, and to me it looks neither like the two,

Jonesy

23rd December 2004, 03:08

Srbin,

The missile in the picture is a mockup of Yakhont. The speed value (M3.5?) seems to get more and more impressive every time you hear of the weapon though!.

However, if there is something like a medium sized Missile Boat, I would rather have it armed with like 4 220 km Klubs than 8 160km NSMs or 8 130km Urans or 8 125km Harpoons or whatever. I will have obviously less armament, but I could easily stay at a much greater distance and the Klub will probably have a much greater chance of hitting any sort of larger ship than anything smaller would. The closer I get, the bigger chance there is that something will destroy me.

Remember that targetting issue though!. Missile boats dont carry big missiles and helicopters its one or the other!. Without organic aviation for OTH targetting the missile boat has little guarantee of being able to detect a target 250-300km away!.

Garry,

Yes, and no adversary would expect a navy with Hawkeyes to use such tactics?
.

You asked the question of how a battlegroup could use active sensors for surveillance and still keep the bulk of the surface fleet under emission control and undetected. Airborne radar offsetting is how its done and is the reason I dislike chopper AEW so much, obviously, choppers cannot offset very far or get to station very quickly. Would an enemy expect such tactics...yes they would because its been used for decades. That fact does not diminish the effectiveness of the tactic though.

A Jammer aircraft and some SEAD equipped aircraft along with a few fighter escorts couldn't possibly have a chance because in the battle between ships and aircraft the ships always win

That does rely on the fact that the opponent KNOWS that a SAM trap has been set up covering the Hawkeye though?. The alternatve is that he sends out a full strike package against any Hawkeye station he detects. With CEC in the USN fleet and soon to be joining several others that could be costly for the opposition in strike aircraft.

The moving antenna in the Arbalet and the Kristanthema both give 360 degree views. The Arbalet also operates in a CM wave for weather issues.

Arbalet having a concurrent centimetric capability off the same antenna as a MMW system is a good trick. Got any links for that system?. I know its used on Ka-52 in similar fashion to Longbow on AH64 and, if it does have dual cm/mmw capability as you state, has real possibilities for leverage of the technology over to a seeker role. Seeings as the relevant point here was about missile seekers now though its hard to see where Arbalet actually applies to the discussion isnt it?.

The MMW version is not known to be operational.Likely platforms would be pretty diverse as the Kh-58 was intended for most fighter bombers, including the Su-25TM, right up to dedicated SEAD aircraft like the Mig-31BM.

What a suprise - one more Russian paper weapon!.

No. Most are operational rounds that don't require maintainence over their shelf life.

You dont honestly believe all that 'wooden round' bullmess do you?. All missiles require periodic maintenance, all electronics are vulnerable to component failiure especially when they spend a lot of time in the high vibration, rough handling environment found on a warship or combat aircraft. Those servicings cost money, the spares holdings cost money, training and retaining skilled personnel to work on the weapons cost money etc, etc.

But then having the right tool for the job is actually a good thing. There is an old Russian proverb that states "If the only tool you have is a hammer then treat every problem like a nail". Not every problem is a nail.

IF that is Russian philosophy why are they developing their single role tactical aircraft into multirole types now? Why are they not keeping the Flanker, Fulcrum and Foxhound designs as pure air-air types and developing new aircraft to replace MiG-27, Su-22 and Su-24 strikers?. The shift from single-role to multirole systems is established and universal in every major service I can think of.

The SS-N-22 sunburn which it is based upon entered service in 1980. Do you think it might have evolved since then?

You're guessing its been updated based on what? Your belief that it just has to have been? Thats just a little on the thin side given the depth of evidence I've had to put forward in defence of my position!.

Imagine a scramjet powered Moskit flying at mach 5 at 7m?

I'm trying to imagine the missile body that could cope with the kinetic heating of Mach5 speed at that altitude!. Also, I'd have to check, I dont think a scramjet would function at that altitude. Plus, yet again, youre making stuff up to support your argument. Is your position really that weak that you have to continually dream up new and wonderful systems that might come about?. Can't you just stick to real systems for a bit?.

When did I mention Brahmos?

I mentioned Brahmos to illustrate the double standards that were being used. Brahmos, seemingly because its a Russian-inspired supersonic and 'sexy' system, is accepted as being a near-service weapon. NSM for some reason, despite being at a similar phase in its testing schedule, is not accorded the same status.

... much the same as what happens when the Soviets shoot down a korean airliner and the US shoots down an iranian airbus.

The fact that you would attempt to equate chasing a Korean airliner halfway across your airspace to shoot it down with the accidental engagement of an Airbus flying directly at a ship already at a high alert state proves your point with remarkable clarity I suppose!.

So they are basically the same except different data is being processed? How can that make them a galaxy apart?

Put simply the quality of input information processed by the passive accoustic and magnetic sensors is far higher than the raw data return from an active radar seeker. That superior level of input data gives the mine a higher probability of resolving an accurate targetting solution.

Which powerful friends would you suggest? The Russians were friends with the serbs... didn't stop NATO intervention... the only "friends" they could have in the region with any influence over the US is ISRAEL... Hahahaha.

The whole EU for a start, China, India, Russia, the Gulf states. Essentially nations that could raise the political cost of an operation past the level the administration is willing to pay, i.e the UK, Japan, Australia etc and nations who could make the actual deployment of US forces a practical nightmare i.e Kuwait, Saudi, Oman.

Of course you don't... GW would never act unilaterally... and his b!tches like australia and Britain would never follow them into invading a country in the middle east based on 45 minute warnings and WMDs.

You know that there were good reasons to go into Iraq and that they were nothing to do with any 45 minute readiness. I'd ask you as well how you know that you can be sarcastic about the lack of WMD?. Is it becuase of the 10 years UNSCOM and UNMOVIC were in there hunting for them or is it because of the 10 months the ISG were in there with full and free access nationwide post invasion?.

But then an attack doesn't require a flyover or other cooperation.

Precisely my dear Watson!. Now you see how two fighters can overfly a carrier without it suggesting that the vessel is wide open to all comers. The two aircraft, according to the USN, were plotted and tracked. The fleet intel brief would've set the low threat context and ESM would've indicated the aircraft coming in nose cold or, at least, not in a targetting mode. With fighters at Alert30 and no chance of getting an intercept in the best they could do was clear the cat by shooting off the Prowler and start the Alert launch evolution.

The UNREP that was being performed would've been interrupted on safety grounds anyway (with two fastjets careening 200ft overhead fuelling would be rapidly discontinued for obvious reasons). The lines were cleared and the carrier accelerated to get wind over the deck for the launch series. Perfectly normal stuff!.

The Yakhont is a mature system... the Yakhont-M features a new sensor head.Very much like a SLAM upgrade for Harpoon.

I'm not sure if the lads who developed Harpoon into SLAM would have been quite happy with test firing a Harpoon and using it as proof that SLAM would work!.

When did they have hundreds of ocean recon satellites? They are hardly going to monitor the entire world. Atrophied suggests neglected and unused and unmaintained. Components of the system are maintained and operational.

They had a system of passive EORSATs and active RORSATs. From that to degenerate down to a single EORSAT with a bolt on active radar system I'd call an atrophy of the capability.

The nationalities are irrelevant... if the US example upsets you then the Royal navy is the most atrophied navy in the world... from flat decks pre 80s to withdrawn harriers now.

Well that much we'd agree on then. Dont quite see how this relates to the topic we were discussing anymore than when you were having your diatribe against the US though?.

What is the rush? Best antiship missile capability includes future development too surely?

Yes, but, within some bounds of common sense surely?. 3M-54E Klub is reasonable - despite no-one having seen evidence of its real performance - because the weapon has actually been ordered. Likewise Brahmos and NSM are reasonable as they've both been demonstrated as being near operational service. Who's ordered Yakhont-M, whats its testing schedule, when could it be readied for service entry?. See the difference?.

Only a westerner would think of return on investment. If return on investment was important then lets build all our systems for the very low income market... hey lets just make Ak-47s...

Whats your objective standard of weapons system's merit then?. Failing proven battle credentials which, despite a few AEGIS cruisers lobbing TLAMs, neither weapons system has how do you quantify value?. The only indicators to a weapons value, I can think of, are the systems an opponent is forced to develop to counter it, the number of customers who choose it to address their requirements and its longevity. AEGIS forced the Russians into fielding Moskit, has sold to Spain, Norway, Japan and South Korea and is currently lead candidate, some two decades after its service entry in the USN, in the Australian AAW escort programme.

The cost of the Granits is rather less than the cost of 13 carrier groups with all the resources and money that would require... that would certainly have been retired now.

Certainly true, but, how much would their SSN program have benefitted from the funding that went into P-5 through P-700, the Legenda and Uspekh systems that supported it and the vessels developed to deploy the weapons?. Failing that how much would the carrier program they had have benefitted from the same resources?.

4-6 smoke rockets fired toward the incoming missile could generate a smoke screen that would easily cover even the largest vessel. The rocket used have a max range of 6km and burst 100m in the air or higher and the burning smoke generating material falls down still burning creating a curtain or smoke... unless there is a typhoon it would set up very quickly... and CADS can use MMW radar and CM wave radar to see through it and still engage the incoming missiles.

Strong winds or precipitation would degrade the smokescreen. The screen would also cover just a single axis and NSM posses a re-attack capability and a waypoint course ability to make oblique axis attacks. The other big problem is that the vessel would have to come to a crash stop to remain screened by the smoke rockets, or, it would have to turn stern-on to the missiles course to keep the screen between the missile and the ship and, thusly, mask its forward antiair/missile weapons. Not very smart if the missile just flew straight through the cloud and reaquired!

So did they withdraw the more expensive missile or the home made one?
Equally the Sea Eagle and Exocet are almost the AKM M16 of missiles... 6 of one and half a dozen of the other. If they decided to get rid of Sea Skua as well then you might have a case.

They withdrew both systems. They standardised on GWS60 - our version of Harpoon. As for Sea Skua there hasnt really been a weapon capable of embarkation on a mid-weight chopper, such as Lynx, that could serve as effectively as a primary ships SSM. There is now simple as that.

I do doubt an Uran can do what a Kh-31 can do and vice versa. Both use standard pylons and are treated as rounds... ie no ongoing maintainence.

The maintenance thing I've covered, if memory serves, Kh-31 is a kerosene-fuelled ramjet weapon. If so it will definitely require periodic defuelling and overhaul of the propulsion system in addition to its electronics servicing. I see your point about Kh-31 and Uran being two different approaches to achieving the same goals. I disagree that that actually means very much though. This is because, despite the different profiles, to a defending ship both are counterable in much the same way. As ARH weapons both are susceptable to jamming and decoys and neither uses an approach thats novel in any way to present problems to defensive hardkill systems.

The Shkval-M fitted to the Su-25TM which first flew in 1988 has such a system. The same system is used in the Ka-50 Hokum... how else could a single pilot use Vikhr laser beam riding missiles...

Exactly the same way that A-10 pilots were able to employ optically guided AGM-65 Mavericks. Scene Locking an optical sensor is nothing new and slaving a laser designator to that optical sensor is basic stuff. Shkval-M, from what I've read, can automatically track a target that the optronic sensor has been locked to by the pilot. Its a long way from automatic target recognition.

Srbin

23rd December 2004, 04:49

Remember that targetting issue though!. Missile boats dont carry big missiles and helicopters its one or the other!. Without organic aviation for OTH targetting the missile boat has little guarantee of being able to detect a target 250-300km away!.

Targeting? The same way anyone plans to use weapons like the Yakhont or Klub. How do the Indians plan to target something 220 kms away with their Kilo? So how will a Skjold with 8 NSMs target targets 160kms away? There are a lot of ways of targeting a large destroyer and such from 300kms away.

Jonesy

23rd December 2004, 12:38

No Srbin there are not a lot of ways, open to the commander of a medium sized missile boat, to target a large destroyer at 220km!. The data gethering capabilities of such a vessel is limited in the extreme. They can be fitted with a datalink and can take a tactical plot from a surveillance asset, but, what happens if that surveillance asset cant descriminate between warships and civvy vessels at standoff range, what happens if the surveillance platform is intercepted and brought down?.

What happens is that those missiles stay in their launch cannisters on the missile boat until the commander can get a reliable firing solution for them. There's your range advantage evaporating!.

The advantage NSM offers, in this scenario, we covered a few pages back.

Srbin

23rd December 2004, 16:05

So, then how will the missile boat commander track a destroyer at 130kms to fire his Kh-35? Or even 160kms to fire his NSM?

Jonesy

23rd December 2004, 16:26

With the Kh-35s I'd doubt very much he would unless he knows that the 130km between him and the target is totally empty of neutrals and friendlies. If he is certain that he's not going to hit anything embarrasing he may try a bearing-only attack on a sighting or ESM intercept, but, its an imprecise science as it relies completely on the discrimination of the active seeker to pick out the right targets.

With NSM's target recognition capability preventing attacks on invalid targets the max range bearing-only attack is a much more reliable, much more employable, solution. The likelihood then is that the NSM commander could be in a position to launch his weapons at longer range and with a much greater confidence of hitting the right targets.

YourFather

23rd December 2004, 16:28

Hey guys, since we're on this thread, I recommend reading this book I managed to get my hands on - "Seapower and Space", by Norman Friedman. Its a treasure trove of info for what is being discussed here, basically the evolution of the systems fielded for OTH-T by both sides. Shows some of the assumptions held by both sides (which really had some funny consequences too) Relevant chapters in the book to this thread are :

1. Passing the Word: Reliable Communications
2. Finding Targets: Reconnaissance
3. A New Kind of Naval Warfare
4. Dealing with the Emerging Soviet Threat
5. Enter Tomahawk: OTH Targeting
6. Defending the Fleet: The Outer Air Battle
7. The Global Positioning System

GarryB

24th December 2004, 04:47

That does rely on the fact that the opponent KNOWS that a SAM trap has been set up covering the Hawkeye though?. The alternatve is that he sends out a full strike package against any Hawkeye station he detects. With CEC in the USN fleet and soon to be joining several others that could be costly for the opposition in strike aircraft.

I would expect jamming aircraft and ARM carrying aircraft would be part of a package to engage a carrier group as a matter of course whether it was actively engaging is a SAM trap tactic or not... an AEGIS class cruiser is expected to be part of the group and any land based target with strong SAM defences would be "softened" with SEAD aircraft as a matter of course too... fighter escorts of course included because it is a carrier group, and of course aircraft with missiles to sink ships as well.

Seeings as the relevant point here was about missile seekers now though its hard to see where Arbalet actually applies to the discussion isnt it?.

Arbalet has a moving antenna... an antenna in a missile the size of an AS-11 could have a moving antenna too.

What a suprise - one more Russian paper weapon!.

They are the cheapest. :p
The potential technology for a MMW radar guided missile has already been developed in the Krisanthema MMW radar guided anti tank missile... there are not obvious problems preventing it being fitted to the high speed rocket powered 120km range AS-11.

IF that is Russian philosophy why are they developing their single role tactical aircraft into multirole types now?

Because obviously not every problem can be treated the same way and having the right tool for the job makes the job much easier.

The shift from single-role to multirole systems is established and universal in every major service I can think of.

Yet often the requirement for a specialist tool remains for many with special needs...

You're guessing its been updated based on what? Your belief that it just has to have been? Thats just a little on the thin side given the depth of evidence I've had to put forward in defence of my position!.

It has not entered service to my knowledge. If it were to enter service then it would no doubt make more sense to build it with current technologies than the technologies and materials of the 1980s... not belief... just common sense... Of course with Yakhont doing basically the same thing for less weight the likelyhood of the MOSKIT entering service is a little small.

Is your position really that weak that you have to continually dream up new and wonderful systems that might come about?. Can't you just stick to real systems for a bit?.

Is your position so weak that my indicating one potential growth direction or future potential upgrade path leads you to panic and restrict our discussion to tested inservice weapons entering service next year?

It seems that the trend in Russian CIWS is for optical and MMW radar and CMW radar detection systems that if they are on at the time will detect even teh NSM at max range and kill them. I think a completely radar (in every wavelength) and IR invisible subsonic missile would be just as hard to create as a very high speed low flying missile. Development of hypersonic low flying missiles for anti tank use (the speed of the missile is used for terminal kinetic performance on armour) suggests very high speed rocket fuels are being worked upon... targets of 2,500m per second are being aimed for for weapons launched at low altitude at targets on the ground...

I mentioned Brahmos to illustrate the double standards that were being used.

By whom?

Brahmos, seemingly because its a Russian-inspired supersonic and 'sexy' system, is accepted as being a near-service weapon.

By Whom?

NSM for some reason, despite being at a similar phase in its testing schedule, is not accorded the same status.

You brought up operational status, not me. Unless there is an urgent need in the next 5 years it doesn't really matter much anyway as far as I am concerned.

The fact that you would attempt to equate chasing a Korean airliner halfway across your airspace to shoot it down with the accidental engagement of an Airbus flying directly at a ship already at a high alert state proves your point with remarkable clarity I suppose!.

The fact that you ignore the fact that the Soviets were at home with their airspace being violated, while the Americans were sailing into Iranian waters and shot down an airliner on an approved civil route... and with the most capable air defence system in the world... at the time claimed able to identify a target by counting the turbine blades... couldn't tell a climbing airbus from a descending F-14...

Put simply the quality of input information processed by the passive accoustic and magnetic sensors is far higher than the raw data return from an active radar seeker. That superior level of input data gives the mine a higher probability of resolving an accurate targetting solution.

I have seen high frequency radar imagry that rivals optical imagry...
through smoke and cloud.

The whole EU for a start, China, India, Russia, the Gulf states.

The whole of the EU agreeing on something? Kuwaite will agree to anything the Americans do, and Israel would love the US to do something about Iran no matter what the situation. China, India, and Russia have less influence on the US than I do.

Essentially nations that could raise the political cost of an operation past the level the administration is willing to pay, i.e the UK, Japan, Australia etc and nations who could make the actual deployment of US forces a practical nightmare i.e Kuwait, Saudi, Oman.

At what stage of the operation though? Bush jnr might just decide to send in some bombers to take out all the places the CIA just thinks might have nuclear weapons making potential. Hardly an invasion... it could be prepared for in secret and initiated overnight and be finished in the morning before breakfast.

You know that there were good reasons to go into Iraq and that they were nothing to do with any 45 minute readiness.

No I don't if you will remember correctly. The number of Iraqis killed since the attack is probably far worse than when Saddam was in control and everyone did as they were told. Now I see the Kurds want an independant state via a referendum... it is only just getting started.

Is it becuase of the 10 years UNSCOM and UNMOVIC were in there hunting for them or is it because of the 10 months the ISG were in there with full and free access nationwide post invasion?.

The fact that no one credible has come forth and said I have worked with them is a bit of a clue. The fact that he didn't use any was another.

Now you see how two fighters can overfly a carrier without it suggesting that the vessel is wide open to all comers. The two aircraft, according to the USN, were plotted and tracked. The fleet intel brief would've set the low threat context and ESM would've indicated the aircraft coming in nose cold or, at least, not in a targetting mode. With fighters at Alert30 and no chance of getting an intercept in the best they could do was clear the cat by shooting off the Prowler and start the Alert launch evolution

Yeah, of course... getting caught with your pants down and you make it sound like they should get medals... hahahaha.

I guess low flying North Korean aircraft with cold noses because their radars didn't work could have flown to 10km range and fired half a dozen TV guided ASMs and then ******** off then the air defences of the carrier group would only have to light up their radars find and target the weapons, get a lock and then launch their missiles and hope they hit before it is too late and then turn and try to engage the receeding fighterbombers. The other option could be i the Kamikazi tradition with fully bombed up fighterbombers crashing into the flight deck...

I'm not sure if the lads who developed Harpoon into SLAM would have been quite happy with test firing a Harpoon and using it as proof that SLAM would work!.

So using a proven design is no good then I wonder why they didn't just develop it from scratch and get a better more optimised weapon?
First standardisation is the only way and now it is risky?

They had a system of passive EORSATs and active RORSATs. From that to degenerate down to a single EORSAT with a bolt on active radar system I'd call an atrophy of the capability.

Then you need to look up the word in a dictionary because you are wrong. They had a system in place to perform a role. That role has largely disappeared as you stated the role for the US carriers has changed... rather than scrapping the system they are maintaining it and adapting it for other purposes.

Well that much we'd agree on then. Dont quite see how this relates to the topic we were discussing anymore than when you were having your diatribe against the US though?.

It relates to the fact that you are misusing the word atrophied. While short of funding the British Navy is still quite capable and certainly exceeds the defence needs of Britain at the moment or for their forseable future.

Who's ordered Yakhont-M, whats its testing schedule, when could it be readied for service entry?. See the difference?.

The land attack capability is probably for use on Tu-22M3 aircraft and existing Yakhont armed vessels with upgraded surface attack and conventional roles. As the only thing tested will be the seeker then it should not take long to test at all as most of the previous testing would still be valid. Testing is unlikely to be completed overnight but then it is not exactly needed overnight either.

The only indicators to a weapons value, I can think of, are the systems an opponent is forced to develop to counter it, the number of customers who choose it to address their requirements and its longevity.

If it is never used then its percieved performance in the eyes of your enemies can be enough. This can of course backfire for example the Mig-25 forced the development of the F-15 and later the F-16, which in turn meant the Su-27 and Mig-29 had to be built. Equally constantly flying jet bombers over military parades and rolling empty missile containers created the percieved bomber and missile gaps respectively... that cost was enormous to both sides for the cost of a little aviation fuel and some diesel.

Certainly true, but, how much would their SSN program have benefitted from the funding that went into P-5 through P-700, the Legenda and Uspekh systems that supported it and the vessels developed to deploy the weapons?. Failing that how much would the carrier program they had have benefitted from the same resources?.

So now they would have had more SSNs with old reactors to deal with or more carriers to sell off.

Strong winds or precipitation would degrade the smokescreen. The screen would also cover just a single axis and NSM posses a re-attack capability and a waypoint course ability to make oblique axis attacks. The other big problem is that the vessel would have to come to a crash stop to remain screened by the smoke rockets, or, it would have to turn stern-on to the missiles course to keep the screen between the missile and the ship and, thusly, mask its forward antiair/missile weapons. Not very smart if the missile just flew straight through the cloud and reaquired!

That is assuming only one screen can be fired at a time... equally turning stern on and engaging with vertical launch SAMs would offer both minimum target and decent chance of a shootdown.

They withdrew both systems. They standardised on GWS60 - our version of Harpoon. As for Sea Skua there hasnt really been a weapon capable of embarkation on a mid-weight chopper, such as Lynx, that could serve as effectively as a primary ships SSM. There is now simple as that.

So what you are saying is that the RN had three subsonic anti ship missiles of similar size and weight offering similar launch platforms and ranges/warloads and they decided to scrap two of them to save money. Well it doesn't take a genius to work out that that makes sense, but how can you use that to suggest that a Club and an Kh-31 are similar? Which helo can carry a Club? Each of teh anti ship missiles I suggested are different and offer advantages and disadvantages in different situations and platforms. Kh-31s aren't surface or subsurface launched and need a fighterbomber to launch them. Their shorter range is compensated by their high speed which creates a list of sensible targets and non sensible targets for them. The list for the Club is different as is its performance and intended targets etc etc.

The Russian systems are like a pistol, a rifle, a sniper rifle, and a light machine gun and a machinegun. The RN system seems to be a pistol and three rifles. They got rid of two rifles and have standardised on one... and good for them.

Shkval-M, from what I've read, can automatically track a target that the optronic sensor has been locked to by the pilot. Its a long way from automatic target recognition.

Nope, during a mission the Shkval-M system is turned on at about 12-15km range from the target area. The system detects and puts boxes around targets it identifies. The pilot merely identifies the target as being the target he was sent to engage and confirms or switches to the next target detected till the required target is found to engage.