Anti-Ship Missiles Thread

https://thaimilitaryandasianregion.blogspot.com/2018/05/russian-mod-to-upgrade-32-kh-22-long.html

Came across this slightly dated item. Why only 32 missiles, is it for a subset of older TU-22s? The cost (about 6M) for 32 of these seems super cheap, considering they probably have HUGE inventory of KH-22 (over 3000 built) I would expect they would do more.

mnztr wrote:https://thaimilitaryandasianregion.blogspot.com/2018/05/russian-mod-to-upgrade-32-kh-22-long.html

Came across this slightly dated item. Why only 32 missiles, is it for a subset of older TU-22s? The cost (about 6M) for 32 of these seems super cheap, considering they probably have HUGE inventory of KH-22 (over 3000 built) I would expect they would do more.

Kh-32 is in production. Those kh-22 should be the last build and good for another 10-15 years.

They have new hypersonic missiles for bombers. Maybe it's a sign they will stop kh-32 production once they have a good stock including those kh-22.

They have newer and better hypersonic missiles coming for their upgraded bombers. That would be logical.

Isos wrote:

Kh-32 is in production. Those kh-22 should be the last build and good for another 10-15 years.

They have new hypersonic missiles for bombers. Maybe it's a sign they will stop kh-32 production once they have a good stock with thise kh-22.

They have newer and better hypersonic missiles coming for their upgraded bombers. That woukd be logical.

Yes I know KH-32 is in production, since 2016, so why bother with upgraded KH-22 and if the upgraded KH-22 has such impressive specs why only 32 of them ? That is my question. Of course logically air launched version to Tsirkon will be the best choice, a TU-22 can probably launch 4 Kinzhal and up to 8 Tsirkon, maybe 4 Kinzhal and 4 Tsikon will be a full load, WOW!! That is insanely deadly.

mnztr wrote:

Isos wrote:

Kh-32 is in production. Those kh-22 should be the last build and good for another 10-15 years.

They have new hypersonic missiles for bombers. Maybe it's a sign they will stop kh-32 production once they have a good stock with thise kh-22.

They have newer and better hypersonic missiles coming for their upgraded bombers. That woukd be logical.

Yes I know KH-32 is in production, since 2016, so why bother with upgraded KH-22 and if the upgraded KH-22 has such impressive specs why only 32 of them ? That is my question. Of course logically air launched version to Tsirkon will be the best choice, a TU-22 can probably launch 4 Kinzhal and up to 8 Tsirkon, maybe 4 Kinzhal and 4 Tsikon will be a full load, WOW!! That is insanely deadly.

Because they need to modernize actual bombers or buy new pak da to use new hypersonic missiles. So for now the only available missiles are kh-32 and kh-22. And the modernization of tupolevs goes slowly so they still need kh-22/32 until they have enough new bombers to use mainly new hypersonic missiles. That should be the case for the next 10 years.

Upgrading kh-22 is cheaper than buying new kh-32. So why not. Good move they save money.

They are also upgrading Onyx missiles with the new high energy fuels developed for Zircon to improve performance and extend range... externally the Kh-22M looks identical to the Kh-32... they basically use the same airframe so I suspect performance improvements would be similar to new build missiles.

The Kh-22M has two rocket motors... one a cruise motor and one a high thrust acceleration and climb motor, so really the fact that the Kh-32 flys much faster and much further than the Kh-22M is because of the improved fuel and motor design... upgrading an old model should allow you to get much better performance using already produced missiles.

In the case of Onyx its ramjet propulsion limits its top speed to mach 5-6 or so, which means even with complete replacements it wont fly at mach 10 like zircon does no matter what you do... but mach 5-6 is good enough most of the time... why wouldn't you?

Also making 32 of them might be a test batch... they normally upgrade all previous viable models to new designs where practical...

GarryB wrote:They are also upgrading Onyx missiles with the new high energy fuels developed for Zircon to improve performance and extend range... externally the Kh-22M looks identical to the Kh-32... they basically use the same airframe so I suspect performance improvements would be similar to new build missiles.

The Kh-22M has two rocket motors... one a cruise motor and one a high thrust acceleration and climb motor, so really the fact that the Kh-32 flys much faster and much further than the Kh-22M is because of the improved fuel and motor design... upgrading an old model should allow you to get much better performance using already produced missiles.

In the case of Onyx its ramjet propulsion limits its top speed to mach 5-6 or so, which means even with complete replacements it wont fly at mach 10 like zircon does no matter what you do... but mach 5-6 is good enough most of the time... why wouldn't you?

Also making 32 of them might be a test batch... they normally upgrade all previous viable models to new designs where practical...

Didn't they make the warhead smaller on the Kh-32?

Or at least, they replaced all the electronics and sensors with much lighter modern ones

flamming_python wrote:

GarryB wrote:They are also upgrading Onyx missiles with the new high energy fuels developed for Zircon to improve performance and extend range... externally the Kh-22M looks identical to the Kh-32... they basically use the same airframe so I suspect performance improvements would be similar to new build missiles.

The Kh-22M has two rocket motors... one a cruise motor and one a high thrust acceleration and climb motor, so really the fact that the Kh-32 flys much faster and much further than the Kh-22M is because of the improved fuel and motor design... upgrading an old model should allow you to get much better performance using already produced missiles.

In the case of Onyx its ramjet propulsion limits its top speed to mach 5-6 or so, which means even with complete replacements it wont fly at mach 10 like zircon does no matter what you do... but mach 5-6 is good enough most of the time... why wouldn't you?

Also making 32 of them might be a test batch... they normally upgrade all previous viable models to new designs where practical...

Didn't they make the warhead smaller on the Kh-32?

Or at least, they replaced all the electronics and sensors with much lighter modern ones

Probably the latter. Like the difference between TV's and computer monitors of the 90's and their flat-screen counterparts of the 2010's.

GarryB wrote:They are also upgrading Onyx missiles with the new high energy fuels developed for Zircon to improve performance and extend range... externally the Kh-22M looks identical to the Kh-32... they basically use the same airframe so I suspect performance improvements would be similar to new build missiles.

The Kh-22M has two rocket motors... one a cruise motor and one a high thrust acceleration and climb motor, so really the fact that the Kh-32 flys much faster and much further than the Kh-22M is because of the improved fuel and motor design... upgrading an old model should allow you to get much better performance using already produced missiles.

In the case of Onyx its ramjet propulsion limits its top speed to mach 5-6 or so, which means even with complete replacements it wont fly at mach 10 like zircon does no matter what you do... but mach 5-6 is good enough most of the time... why wouldn't you?

Also making 32 of them might be a test batch... they normally upgrade all previous viable models to new designs where practical...

Speaking about Onyx, officially theirs something 50 Bastion-P Launcher vehicles, and lets say the modernized version of Onyx is simply fuel replacement (higher energetic/caloric fuel), which means theirs already 50 vehicles ready for the missiles. Simple but effective upgrade for Bastion-P, however another simple upgrade could take Bastion-P to much greater level....the introduction of a taller truck bed could triple the number of available missiles on hand.

Take a look at the Bastion-P complex launcher compartment. As it is, the launch prone/ready TEL could approximately fit a third missile in between the two existing Onyx AshM's 



With a taller carriage you could fit 6 improved Onyx missiles with Mach 5 speed and 1000km range would be quite formidable.

I know its the Drive but an interesting article on the US purchasing Kh-31 from the Russian manufacturer and using them as a target to test their defences.

It's extremely important for any military to make its training regimens as realistic as possible to give its forces the best sense of the threats they might face in combat and how to respond to them. Unfortunately, developing high-quality surrogates for the weapons and other systems that potential adversaries might employ is not always easy and in some cases, it ends up being possible to just go to the source of the threat itself.

The U.S. Navy faced just this predicament in the 1990s when it went looking for a high-speed target to simulate supersonic anti-ship and anti-radiation missiles and ultimately decided to just buy the MA-31, a derivative of Russia's air-launched rocket-ramjet-powered Kh-31 missile.

In 1995, McDonnell Douglas first received a contract to deliver modified Kh-31A missiles as part of a Foreign Comparative Test (FCT) to see if they could meet the Navy's requirement for a Supersonic Sea-Skimming Target (SSST). The American company subsequently worked with the Russian manufacturer, Zveda-Strela, to develop the MA-31.



https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/33337/navy-needed-targets-to-mimic-supersonic-anti-ship-missiles-so-they-bought-real-ones-from-russia

JohninMK wrote:I know its the Drive but an interesting article on the US purchasing Kh-31 from the Russian manufacturer and using them as a target to test their defences.

It's extremely important for any military to make its training regimens as realistic as possible to give its forces the best sense of the threats they might face in combat and how to respond to them. Unfortunately, developing high-quality surrogates for the weapons and other systems that potential adversaries might employ is not always easy and in some cases, it ends up being possible to just go to the source of the threat itself.

The U.S. Navy faced just this predicament in the 1990s when it went looking for a high-speed target to simulate supersonic anti-ship and anti-radiation missiles and ultimately decided to just buy the MA-31, a derivative of Russia's air-launched rocket-ramjet-powered Kh-31 missile.

In 1995, McDonnell Douglas first received a contract to deliver modified Kh-31A missiles as part of a Foreign Comparative Test (FCT) to see if they could meet the Navy's requirement for a Supersonic Sea-Skimming Target (SSST). The American company subsequently worked with the Russian manufacturer, Zveda-Strela, to develop the MA-31.



https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/33337/navy-needed-targets-to-mimic-supersonic-anti-ship-missiles-so-they-bought-real-ones-from-russia

The USA bought even S-300 from Russia in the 90s.

Russia cancelled the sell quickly.

The MA-31 was amusing... I enjoyed that period of time it was so fun... because at the time there were plenty of pro America netzines telling me that the US already had supersonic targets and there was no way the USN needed the Soviets to make some supersonic targets for them to test against.

They posted all sorts of drawings and mockups of all sorts of US equivalents of the Kh-31... but none of them came before the Kh-31, and none of them had the same level of performance.

Most amusing is that the programmed for a supersonic target was aimed at getting the Russians to hand over Moskits... SS-N-22 Sun burn anti ship missiles, but the Russians weren't stupid... they entered a downgraded early model Kh-31, which still beat all the US competitors...

The Russians were happy to sell old model Kh-31s because they were primarily Air Force weapons generally used for anti radar use, so the Navy didn't care if their design was compromised.

The real funny thing is that the French/German ANS was suggested as being comparable... even though at the time it was still only a paper project that was heavier and slower and shorter ranged than the Soviet missile that had been in service for ten years by the time this debate had started.

I seem to remember the ANS disappearing without being put in to service.

GarryB wrote:
The Russians were happy to sell old model Kh-31s because they were primarily Air Force weapons generally used for anti radar use, so the Navy didn't care if their design was compromised.

The U.S purchased the Kh-31

https://hushkit.net/2019/11/19/the-soviet-missile-used-by-the-us-navy/

Isos wrote:British and french are also working on a new model called Sea Venom in english and ANL in french.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_Venom_(missile)

What's the need for this missile - Sea Venom? Kongsberg's Naval Strike Missile already exists. So, what are the gaps they intend to fill with the Sea Venom?

jhelb wrote:

Isos wrote:British and french are also working on a new model called Sea Venom in english and ANL in french.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_Venom_(missile)

What's the need for this missile - Sea Venom? Kongsberg's Naval Strike Missile already exists. So, what are the gaps they intend to fill with the Sea Venom?

This is a small light anti ship missile intended for use by helicopters.

Naval strike missile is much bigger. Not the same class.

Both countries also have an industry that needs new projects to surivive, they won't buy something from a third country.

Isos wrote:

This is a small light anti ship missile intended for use by helicopters.

Naval strike missile is much bigger. Not the same class.

Are Small anti-ship missiles effective? I get it that a number of them need to be fired but generally speaking anti-ship missiles tend to be Large. Look at Russian anti-ship missiles...they are large.

jhelb wrote:

Isos wrote:

This is a small light anti ship missile intended for use by helicopters.

Naval strike missile is much bigger. Not the same class.

Are Small anti-ship missiles effective? I get it that a number of them need to be fired but generally speaking anti-ship missiles tend to be Large. Look at Russian anti-ship missiles...they are large.

You won't sink a carrier with one but there are plenty of tarets that can be destroyed by such missile without using exocet or harpoons like supply civilian vessels, speed boat, missile boat, corvettes would be mission killed at least.

French and UK ships carry only 8 anti ship missiles which is very limited so having such missile allow them to destroy more targets.

The range of the missile would make an helicopter dead meat against a ship with air defences but plenty of ship have no air def or guns.

I remember an exercice during which US helicopters fired around 25 hellfire atgm against a frigate to sink it. There was no crew to fight the fire  but it gives you idea of how fire can destroy a ship. The heat makes the metal to lose strenght and the ship just collapse.

Isos wrote:I remember an exercice during which US helicopters fired around 25 hellfire atgm against a frigate to sink it.

let me guess..  this frigate didn't shoot back?  

Yeah. Sure.  Lets imagine a real world setting where helos with short range ATGMs attack a minor combatant armed with a competent CIWS like navalised Tor or Pantsir.  This encounter ends with the Pentagram tearing a few pages out of its tactical doctrine and issuing a purchase order for replacement helos.  

Not saying such missiles are useless, far from it. In the Falklands war, British Lynx helos used Sea Skuas to disable an Argie SSK by blowing holes through its sail, but a sub (usually) can't shoot back so its a near-zero risk mission for the attacker. Situational specifics are all important.

The U.S purchased the Kh-31

The missile they actually bought was an early model Kh-31 that was basically the early model anti radiation version that was intended to fly at high altitude most of the way to the target.

It was not intended to fly low all the way to the target, so the MA-31 missiles as the Americans designated their missiles had much shorter flight range at low altitude than the Kh-31 weapon could actually achieve in combat.

They didn't care of course... it was their first access to a combined rocket ramjet powered missile so they had a lot to learn... but the missiles they received were obsolete.

Are Small anti-ship missiles effective? I get it that a number of them need to be fired but generally speaking anti-ship missiles tend to be Large. Look at Russian anti-ship missiles...they are large.

As long as you respect the fact that these are light missiles they actually make a lot of sense.

The alternative to these missiles effectively would be using anti tank missiles like Hellfire or Ataka, which are missiles with at best 8-10km range and 6-10kgs HE warhead. In comparison these light missiles have a range of about 20-30km with 30-50kg warheads which makes the launch platform safer because 20-30km is outside manpads range and 30-50kg HE frag warheads will be rather more effective.... while the 100-200kg missile weight is still in the range of most helicopters can operate with.

I remember an exercice during which US helicopters fired around 25 hellfire atgm against a frigate to sink it. There was no crew to fight the fire but it gives you idea of how fire can destroy a ship. The heat makes the metal to lose strenght and the ship just collapse.

25 Hellfires is pretty much the equivalent of a 250kg cluster bomb with 25 x 10kg bomblets all starting fires. Submarines during WWII often came to the surface and used deck mounted guns to sink ships that could not defend themselves and were not fast enough to get away... I have read about a Soviet sub using 47mm AA rounds to sink ships... it takes a while but can certainly be done easily enough.

Yeah. Sure. Lets imagine a real world setting where helos with short range ATGMs attack a minor combatant armed with a competent CIWS like navalised Tor or Pantsir. This encounter ends with the Pentagram tearing a few pages out of its tactical doctrine and issuing a purchase order for replacement helos.

US spy ships are equipped with 50 cal HMGs... that US spy ship the Israelis attacked repeatedly because they claimed they thought it was an Egyptian freighter had two 50 cal HMGs for protection... a helicopter hovering 5km away could hammer it with Hellfires and there is no way it could shoot back or escape...

And why waste an expensive missile when lots of smaller lighter cheaper missiles will do.

The Sea Skua had a 50kg HE payload so five would be the equivalent of 25 Hellfires... which means three helicopters with Sea Skuas (2 each) could achieve what would normally take two Apaches with 16 missiles each, but that is not too bad... you could save the Hellfires for shore targets or smaller speed boat type targets.

Big_Gazza wrote:

Isos wrote:I remember an exercice during which US helicopters fired around 25 hellfire atgm against a frigate to sink it.

let me guess..  this frigate didn't shoot back?  

Yeah. Sure.  Lets imagine a real world setting where helos with short range ATGMs attack a minor combatant armed with a competent CIWS like navalised Tor or Pantsir.  This encounter ends with the Pentagram tearing a few pages out of its tactical doctrine and issuing a purchase order for replacement helos.  

Not saying such missiles are useless, far from it.  In the Falklands war, British Lynx helos used Sea Skuas to disable an Argie SSK by blowing holes through its sail, but a sub (usually) can't shoot back so its a near-zero risk mission for the attacker.  Situational specifics are all important.

It was a an SINKEX. They tested weaponery against a real ship to see results. They do it often. And yes of course the ship didn'y fired back. At that range the ship could have used it gun to destroy the helicopter well before it came in range to fire.

But the point is to show that even smallerwarheads can do lot of dammage and they would most likely be used against unprotected ships if it is possible.

There isn't lot of small ships using pantsir. Only the russians are using them. Other nation's small boats or corvettes have nothing to deal with a 20km range small missile. Even some frigates wouldn't be safe.

Well as far as helicopter missiles go won't there be a thermobaric version of the hermes? That could be reasonably effective against
various small craft and even proper corvettes.

Actually with hermes 100km range a Russian heli carrier could perform stand off attacks against an LCS or any other similar ship.

Can someone provide the info about the exercise where the ship was sunk by the 25 AGM-114 ? Thanks

AFAIK the standard model Hermes has a 30kg HE warhead, while the anti tank model has at least two full calibre HEAT warheads.

I seem to remember in the 70s or 80s that a European missile... was highly rated because its warhead was a high explosive incendiary warhead designed to spread burning material around the ship that it hit. Don't think it has actually be used but the idea sounds pretty sound to me.

Submariners often say that a torpedo is more effective than an anti ship missile because a torpedo lets water into the ship, while an anti ship missile lets in air.

Both are pretty unfair... a modern torpedo will generate an enormous bubble of air below the hull of a ship and as it rises up it will effectively lift the ship out of the water... but without even support along the ship that will break the hull of a ship and snap it in half which will sink it quickly.

Conversely an anti ship missile doesn't let air in the top of a ship it introduces fire which is far more deadly in any vehicle of any type...

Many countries around the world don't take air defence seriously... and that includes the US Navy who expect their aircraft carriers to provide aircraft protection for their ships which does not always happen.

Even quite large vessels like Mistrals are protected effectively only with HMGs or light cannon and MANPADS... which means most helicopters will be perfectly safe from ranges of 10km or more most of the time and could sit at stand off ranges and just launch attack after attack with missiles or even rockets... 70mm or 80mm aircraft rockets angled upwards could be fired at a ship sized target with a reasonable chance of getting a hit more often than not... an Mi-17 helicopter with wing pylons with six twenty shot 80mm rocket pods with a laser range finder and stabilised optics in the current versions could potentially fire 120 x 80mm rockets fairly rapidly at a naval target with a reasonable chance for hits. Against a target like that US spy ship in the gulf that the Israelis almost sank you could launch some ATGMs to take out the two 50 cal HMGs and then close in to about 6km range and loft unguided rockets at them all day long... the rockets are cheap enough...

Can someone provide the info about the exercise where the ship was sunk by the 25 AGM-114 ? Thanks

It does sound hard to believe, but as I mentioned, submarines during WWII often went to the surface to attack surface targets that were largely unarmed and sank them using their deck gun and that included anti aircraft deck guns of 37mm and 45mm calibre too.

GarryB wrote:

Can someone provide the info about the exercise where the ship was sunk by the 25 AGM-114 ? Thanks

It does sound hard to believe, but as I mentioned, submarines during WWII often went to the surface to attack surface targets that were largely unarmed and sank them using their deck gun and that included anti aircraft deck guns of 37mm and 45mm calibre too.

Yes, it sound hard, very hard to believe.

The instances about WWII naval battles of which i have memory ,and i have read a lot on the subject, never mention the sinking of even a medium displacement ship exclusively from low power ordnances.

Obviously if we talk of a small patrol boat or a not military vessel ,constructed with civil grade steel with low strenght and tensile resistance it is possible to sink it also with 3 or 4 AGM-114 hits.

Otherwise i have a very hard time in believing in this claim.


Obviously if that come from the mouth of the typical western self-embarassing, only supposed, naval expert ,that would explain more than a thing

I think to something such the assertions of the Special Assistant to the Chief of Naval Operations and Director of his Commander’s Action, Bryan Clark, on the tests of NSM -Naval Strike Missile- and comparison of its capability ,always in its unlucky brain, with the........ DF-21 anti-ship ballistic missile !!!

"Compared with China's DF-21 "carrier-killer" missile, the NSM has a shorter range but better precision targeting, enabling it to destroy an enemy vessel rather than just damage it, as the DF-21 is built to do"

Nothing obviously that the DF-21's warhead, i repeat : only the warhead ! ,has a mass 1,5 times bigger than the entire NSM.


In the statements of those kind of self-embarrassing ignorant chauvinists "experts", even 5,56 mm rounds could become the best anti-bunker ammunitions because the rifle shooting it has been integrated in a new integrated management system allowing increased "Situation Awareness-TM"

This is the reason i ask for the origin of this information.