Anti-Ship Missiles Thread

TR1 wrote:I wonder what the point is.
There is already Kh-31 with extended range for example.

Kh-31 is a decades old design that has been upgraded and re-upgraded. It can not be upgraded much more. While the Brahmos is new and has much more future potential. I bet the smaller missile, if it indeed is produced, will have a superior range compared to Kh-31 and be just as fast.

How is a missile which has same range, same speed and 2-3 times smaller warhead for 2-3 times more missiles per aircraft not worth it?

When there is a missile already in service with similar flight parameters... the latest model Kh-31 in the anti ship/anti radiation model has a flight range of 250km, a flight speed of about mach 3, yet weighs about 650kgs... the Mig-35 could probably carry at least 6 of them, perhaps 8.

Redesigning it for scramjet propulsion could result in a significant increase in speed and range.

Not suggesting a smaller lighter Brahmos is a bad idea... just saying it already exists in the form of the late model Kh-31.

I honestly dont think the shkval is an effective weapon now and wont be in the future due to:
1. its extremely short range. A seahawk helicopter would destroy the submarine long before its in range to fire the shkval.
2. Its too noisy and will emmediately uncover the submarines approximate location.

The export model Shkval is unguided and is a short range self defence weapon that should be very effective as most counter measures take time to deploy.

Shkval is but one tool in the tool kit... in a few years time submarines could be equipped with the sub equivalent of the 9M100, the land based version is called Morfei... it will be an imaging infrared guided missile with lock on after launch capability... that sea hawk has a very noisy engine...

Longer range... better guidance... higher speed... it has a lot of potential.

I think AshMs like the klub and very long range high calibre torpedos are far more useful than submerged rockets.

Think of it in terms of aircraft... as everyone moves to more stealthy aircraft designs, then the usefulness of long range missiles diminishes because there is no point in having 500km range AAMs if the enemy planes can't be detected till they are within 10km... in which case the Shkval suddenly becomes a very potent weapon.

Kh-31 is a decades old design that has been upgraded and re-upgraded. It can not be upgraded much more. While the Brahmos is new and has much more future potential. I bet the smaller missile, if it indeed is produced, will have a superior range compared to Kh-31 and be just as fast.

I really don't see how that can be true... the current model Kh-31s use new fuels and new ramjet engines and new materials... there is nothing in the design of the Yakhont that makes it a better missile apart from scale allowing a larger warhead.

The new model Kh-31 anti ship version has a range of 250km in its export model... to scale down the Brahmos they would need to take out fuel and warhead and make a smaller seeker.... and basically make a Kh-31.

GarryB wrote:
The new model Kh-31 anti ship version has a range of 250km in its export model... to scale down the Brahmos they would need to take out fuel and warhead and make a smaller seeker.... and basically make a Kh-31.

That is all news to me. What credible link supports those numbers? All i've found so far is kh31ad version - http://eng.ktrv.ru/production_eng/323/512/564/ where it claims 715 kg weight, 110 kg weight of warhead, 160 km max theoretical range. Practical ranges fired from 10 km altitude and with sea skimming last phase would be less, as also pointed out at the website. So where did 250 km figure come from? That is some newest version? kh31adm or whatever?

And it is wishful thinking that mig29/35 would carry more than 4 such missiles in any real world mission.

http://eng.ktrv.ru/production_eng/323/511/565/

As you can see the airframes range has no problem with 250km.


Anyways this "small" Barhmos is vaporware so far. When it actually appears, we can compare.

Ballistic range is irrelevant here. Missiles for s300 complex were tested in late 80s going over 300 km in pure ballistic profiles. Aim-54 could reach 300 km in a ballistic profile when properly launched but that is an useless figure.

Those same pages give actual, more useful ranges in practice, up to 160 km for actual antishipping range of actual antishipping variant. Why cling on a figure taken as theoretical maximum of an airframe? It is there black on white, why pick a different set of figures on purpose, figures that are not meant to be interpreted as practical range values?

It is much more useful to have a missile that will stay below the radar horizon for the whole 300 km of its flight range than one that will have to be fired at 15 km altitude, at mach 1,5, then go into a climb and painfully glide to squeeze out all energy to reach 250 km, leaving no energy for course correction (which may not even be efficient if missile is fyling too high) no energy for end manouvers and overall little chance of doing its mission since it was flying over the radar horizon, in a straight and steady trajectory, and took some 5-6 minutes to do it all, exposing itself to the target and possible interceptors.

A 1200-1500 kg brahmos-lite stands much better chances of actually completing its mission, and doing it from somewhat longer range.

eridan wrote:Ballistic range is irrelevant here. Missiles for s300 complex were tested in late 80s going over 300 km in pure ballistic profiles. Aim-54 could reach 300 km in a ballistic profile when properly launched but that is an useless figure.

Those same pages give actual, more useful ranges in practice, up to 160 km for actual antishipping range of actual antishipping variant. Why cling on a figure taken as theoretical maximum of an airframe? It is there black on white, why pick a different set of figures on purpose, figures that are not meant to be interpreted as practical range values?

It is much more useful to have a missile that will stay below the radar horizon for the whole 300 km of its flight range than one that will have to be fired at 15 km altitude, at mach 1,5, then go into a climb and painfully glide to squeeze out all energy to reach 250 km, leaving no energy for course correction (which may not even be efficient if missile is fyling too high) no energy for end manouvers and overall little chance of doing its mission since it was flying over the radar horizon, in a straight and steady trajectory, and took some 5-6 minutes to do it all, exposing itself to the target and possible interceptors.

A 1200-1500 kg brahmos-lite stands much better chances of actually completing its mission, and doing it from somewhat longer range.

The Brahmos will most certainly not be achieving 300km range if it is flying low for the entire flight path.

Why would the AS variant not be able to do 250km, when the anti-radiation variant can do that much vs smaller targets?
Mind you these are all export range figures. Would not be shocked in the least that the Russian anti-ship variant can hit past 250km assuming a favorable launch profile.

I agree here with Eridan.

Here is Kh-31AD airborne anti-ship guided

- missile weight 715kg
- missile range up to 160km when launched from H=15km, M=1.5

This are the numbers for export version of course and we can expect better ones with the Russian one, but still
as with every missile, range shrinks with speed/denser air/time in such conditions etc

Having air launched "small" Brahmos with the up to 1500kg weight (double the Kh-31AD weight) would mean:

- larger range (because of more fuel)
- bigger warhead (double the weight in comparison with Kh-31AD, can afford it)
- more demanding fight profiles with less range penalty (in relative values in comparison with Kh-31AD)
- 3 "small" Brahmos missiles per Su-30 and 2 per MIG-29.

eridan wrote:Ballistic range is irrelevant here. Missiles for s300 complex were tested in late 80s going over 300 km in pure ballistic profiles. Aim-54 could reach 300 km in a ballistic profile when properly launched but that is an useless figure.

You are mixing oranges and apples.

Ballistic range when talking S-300 is important and in no way connected with the continuation of your story about Kh-31.

TR1 wrote:
Why would the AS variant not be able to do 250km, when the anti-radiation variant can do that much vs smaller targets?
Mind you these are all export range figures. Would not be shocked in the least that the Russian anti-ship variant can hit past 250km assuming a favorable launch profile.

Because the Anti-Ship variant has to carry the radar which adds weight and occupies space. The AR version of the Kh-31 had always a greater range than the AS version.

Ballistic range is irrelevant here. Missiles for s300 complex were tested in late 80s going over 300 km in pure ballistic profiles. Aim-54 could reach 300 km in a ballistic profile when properly launched but that is an useless figure.

Air breathing missiles rarely have "ballistic" ranges.

The range given of 180-250km is determined not by kinematic range and ballistic range, but by altitude and speed at launch.. which means it is not much different from Brahmos.

Those same pages give actual, more useful ranges in practice, up to 160 km for actual antishipping range of actual antishipping variant.

That is the launch range limit and is based mainly on detection range of the seeker and launch platform.

It is much more useful to have a missile that will stay below the radar horizon for the whole 300 km of its flight range than one that will have to be fired at 15 km altitude, at mach 1,5, then go into a climb and painfully glide to squeeze out all energy to reach 250 km, leaving no energy for course correction (which may not even be efficient if missile is fyling too high) no energy for end manouvers and overall little chance of doing its mission since it was flying over the radar horizon, in a straight and steady trajectory, and took some 5-6 minutes to do it all, exposing itself to the target and possible interceptors.

A low all the way Brahmos is a mach 1.5 missile, which is still a very difficult target, but it wont be a 300km distant target either.

Ramjets love the thin cold air up high... most jet engines do.

Both missiles are designed for use against the USN and it is assumed that they will have AWACS aircraft and early detection... the purpose of the high speed is to minimise their reaction time so they don't have much time to do anything about it.

A 1200-1500 kg brahmos-lite stands much better chances of actually completing its mission, and doing it from somewhat longer range.

For the vast majority of targets either missile would be fine... for many targets Kh-35 subsonic Uran is overkill.

Please keep in mind that the Kh-31 we have data for is for EXPORT... the export model of the Kh-38 is listed as having a range of 40km on the website above, yet Russian military personel have stated that the domestic version will have a range of 80km.

Even assuming a 160km missile range for the antiship model of Kh-31, what sort of magic are you expecting for a mini brahmos?

Both are ramjet powered missiles... they have different weights and different payloads and different ranges but the same basic design. When you reduce the weight of the brahmos you will just end up with Kh-31 and to be honest if you want an effective mini missile it would make rather more sense to scale up a Kh-31 than to scale down a Brahmos because scaling down everything in size and weight is harder and more expensive than fitting a slightly larger warhead and adding more fuel to the Kh-31.

300km is not some magic figure that will make the launch aircraft safe... flying at mach 1.5 at 15km altitude 140km from a target makes you pretty safe from most sea targets.

And it is wishful thinking that mig29/35 would carry more than 4 such missiles in any real world mission.

Why? If the target has to be saturated to ensure a kill there is no reason why a Mig-35 couldn't carry 6 or more.

Because the Anti-Ship variant has to carry the radar which adds weight and occupies space. The AR version of the Kh-31 had always a greater range than the AS version.

The new model ARMs carry broad band antennas to detect a wide range of signals and computers for signal processing to locate the emitter with an autopilot in case the emitter turns off during the attack... after the first anti ship missile has been fired it would actually make a lot of sense to fire a few ARMs at the ships to mix things up.

Yes, I know it is just a model...



But it is a model that shows on the side closest to the camera what appears to be a 1,500kg guided bomb, an AS-11 anti radiation missile and a TV guided Kh-29 missile. The Kh-29 is over 600kgs, as is the Kh-58 (AS-11), and of course the KAB-1500 is also well over 600kgs, so I would expect a load of 6 Kh-31s should be possible with an R-77 and R-73 on each wing for self defence would be a very practical load for the Mig-35.

Make a missile that is 1.2 tons and it will likely only be able to carry two or perhaps three.

The whole point in making it smaller is to either carry more, or be able to deploy it on a wider range of platforms... or both.

Kh-31 allows more to be carried than a 1-1.2 ton mini Moskit.

Kh-35 anti-ship missile

Onyx :

OMG what are you guys even talking about?  
Like - hellooo? The Steregushchiy class corvettes carry the Kh-35 Switchblade

Let's not forget the air launched version either. Hell, it can even be launched from a helicopter (Ka-52 in the future maybe?).
Although I don't know if this version has been ordered/is in service.

Give some love for it; not every target needs a high-supersonic ship-buster with a half-ton warhead. The Kh-35 is cheap, short, light and can be launched from a greater variety of platforms than anything else.

flamming_python wrote:OMG what are you guys even talking about?  
Like - hellooo? The Steregushchiy class corvettes carry the Kh-35 Switchblade

Well...only the Steregyshy does, none of the others do.

Also there are none in the Black Sea

TR1 wrote:

flamming_python wrote:OMG what are you guys even talking about?  
Like - hellooo? The Steregushchiy class corvettes carry the Kh-35 Switchblade

Well...only the Steregyshy does, none of the others do.

Also there are none in the Black Sea

Oh I see.
But wait - aren't all the Steregushchiy class vessels meant to be equipped with it? (Gremashchiys don't count)

The 120km range flight profile of the Moskit was purely for anti AEGIS use and when launched on that flight profile the maximum height it achieves is 300m to find its target where it drops down to below 7m which is the altitude it flys at for the rest of the attack.

AEGIS used Standard missiles in the 1980s which couldn't hit targets below 7m above the wave tops... Phalanx can't hit targets at that height either so the AEGIS class vessel is dead meat.

That was what Moskit was designed for from the outset.

flamming_python wrote:

TR1 wrote:

flamming_python wrote:OMG what are you guys even talking about?  
Like - hellooo? The Steregushchiy class corvettes carry the Kh-35 Switchblade

Well...only the Steregyshy does, none of the others do.

Also there are none in the Black Sea

Oh I see.
But wait - aren't all the Steregushchiy class vessels meant to be equipped with it? (Gremashchiys don't count)

No only the first ship has Uran, the rest are all UKSK equipped, starting with first serial unit - Soobrazitelny.

No. No UKSK on Soobraz, Boiky, SToiky. They are equipped with Uran and Redut SAM.
The updated ones, Gremyashy onwards will have the UKSKs plus the Redut SAM.

Well...only the Steregyshy does, none of the others do.

Also there are none in the Black Sea

But the Navys goals are standardisation and unification of weapons and systems and propulsion and sensors... so eventually even the vessels of the Black Sea will have Klubs and Onyxs or better... subs, and corvettes to carriers.

They are equipped with Uran and Redut SAM.

Ironically the Rif-M can be targetted against ground/surface targets, so while its 150kg warhead might be rather less than a Granit, at mach 6 it would be one of the faster missiles you could fire at targets up to 400km away.

What would stop them from theoretically integrating the Uran into the UKSK launch cell too? It's shorter, lighter and narrower than the Klub and Onyx; so it shouldn't be a problem with a little modification.

TheArmenian wrote:No. No UKSK on Soobraz, Boiky, SToiky. They are equipped with Uran and Redut SAM.
The updated ones, Gremyashy onwards will have the UKSKs plus the Redut SAM.

Lord, I am embarassed. long day...

Armenian is completely right, uran on all 20380. I somehow turned the foreward Redur VLS battery into UKSK.

Steregushy ofc doesn not have Redut either.

flamming_python wrote:What would stop them from theoretically integrating the Uran into the UKSK launch cell too? It's shorter, lighter and narrower than the Klub and Onyx; so it shouldn't be a problem with a little modification.

What's the point of doing that?
Keep the Kalibr or Yakhont/Onyx in the UKSK. They are more potent than the smaller Uran.

Having a special tube for Uran or Uranium, would be the complete assimilation of all Russian anti ship missiles into the UKSK design... except of course the Granit and Vulkan.

It would mean all Russian ships and boats could be fitted with one and only one type of missile launcher that can deal with ships, Subs, and land targets.

For the ship it means a much wider range and choice of weapons can be used from her standard tubes.

For the missile it means that it can be deployed to any Russian port and rapidly fitted to any Russian vessel.

Having a dedicated Kalibr launcher means only vessels fitted with that launcher can attack land targets... only specific Soviet Subs had missiles able to hit land targets and none of them were conventionally armed.

New Russian ships and subs will have the choice of a range of missiles for the purpose of land attack, anti ship use, or anti sub use.

Adding Uran to UKSK makes Uran more widely usable without modification, and it makes UKSK more capable as well as the ships that use it.

Because of the size difference you could probably fit 8 Uran missiles in a single UKSK tube... which makes things rather more flexible.

Of course Uran is a light multi use anti ship missile including air launched models. I remember early on there were mini Urans proposed for lighter aircraft like Ka-226T with a reduced weight and range as a similar weapon to the British Sea Skua. Something that could be used by border patrol without nuking a non cooperative vessel. A 25-50kg warhead being the key here.

Onyx :

Hachimoto good one..  
Ultimate rocket show.
There are some points to consider.

1. Iskander now has some competitors like UKSK caliber and also Onyx modified in to canisters.
  The truck vehicle hiding the missiles in the box like fashion.

2. Other things are like Klub
  Novator 3M54 in the canisterised version hav subsonic speed  in majority part of its flight.
  The onys is supersonic throught its flight path.The newset Calibur with 2600 kms supersonic flight range,
  is still being tested due to the delay of the Pr 885 and other warships.Its designation is still secret.


3. The Iskander-M has been removed from export and it now available only for Russian units for next 2-3 years.

4,The onyx and Iskander vehisles are almost similar in their outer looks.
Someting similar to MZKT-79221 truck from Belarus.

5.Yakhont, Onyx missiles are still developed from 1970 technology.There is one thing the during the flight the
 Onyx missiles fly at very low altitude of 50-100 meteres from Ground level.
 The radar systems amd seekers have been upgraded
 to allow manueveres and flight paths above land , suburban, city and all terrain following. On th contrary
Iskander flight paths are hypersonic and its trajectory and manuevers are still classified