Kh-32 thread

Hole wrote:The trick is, they won´t need 40 to get trough to the carrier.

Hole wrote:Around 80 in Service + 60 - 80 in storage.

One squadron of 10 Tu-22M3 could carry between 10 and 30 Kh-32´s. 20 should be more than enough for one carrier group.

Isos wrote:KH 32 would be seen at very long range. It is meant to fly at 40 km in altitude while most standard missile can engage taret at max 20-30km

The air defence on arleig burks and tico can engage it only when it dive for attack in the last part of its flight. So depend on the angle of attack it can or can't be intercepted.

If it has a 90° attack then it will hit on the top of the ship so it can't be intercepted.

If it dives slowly at small angle then it become an easy target because it flies at 40km so it will go a long way untill it hits the target. But most ground or sea radars can only see at 30km in altitude. If the burke wants to see it, it will need to activate its ABM capabilities to see higher. When doing this it can't see at low altitude if I'm not wrong. So if you lunch also some oniks they will go through easily undetected.

GarryB wrote:Indeed, but the Kh-32 is the old rocket propelled weapon, and Kinshal is the next generation scramjet powered hypersonic missile that is twice as fast and has double the range...

Kh-32 is very under rated in the west because it looks exactly like a Kh-22M which has been in service for some time... ironically making the Backfire seem not so dangerous...

GarryB wrote:Just looking at the diameter of the Kinzhal on the MiG-31s I rather suspect it would only be able to be carried externally, so we are talking four at most... though with a big rear mounted solid rocket booster it could be further accelerated so that a lower flying slower aircraft like Tu-22M3 could get the same range and speed performance as from a MiG-31...

The internal weapon bay of the Tu-22M3 would be free to launch the new cruise missiles they were developing for it with 1,500km range too... so 4 Kinzhals and 6 cruise missiles would be quite a payload...

One 40km altitude airburst high radiation nuke bomb to blind radar for a few minutes while low flying missiles sneak in...

GarryB wrote:If land based Russian aircraft are engaging US carrier groups you can be sure the mission of those carrier groups is not to shoot down some Tu-22M3s... it is probably to attack land targets or naval bases in Russia... so it is going to be a nuclear war anyway...

The Tu-22M3 can carry three Kh-22M missiles which externally look identical to the Kh-32, so I suspect three would be the max payload of the current aircraft.

GarryB wrote:

They can carry no more then 3x KK32s which weight close to 6T each. But how many Kinzhal missiles can they carry that weight about 1.5T.

Not really just about weight though... the three Kh-32s would go under the two main wing pylons and a central position where the internal weapon bay is located with the third missile semi recessed.

An alternative would be to have two Kh-32s and use the rotary launcher in the internal bay for 6 x Kh-15 rocket powered short range attack missiles or a similar reduced size weapon they might be developing.

Because of the diameter of the Kinzhal you would have to mount them externally so there are four main external weapon positions... two on the wings and two on the engine intakes where normally multiple ejector racks are used for carrying large numbers of iron bombs... there is talk of fitting 8 cruise missiles on these four positions but I have never actually seen anything but MERs and bombs there.

And the US refuses so Russia decides it has to extract payback. I don't think that would go nuclear..but it would be very dangerous and close.

The Americans would claim the Russians were killed because they were located with the enemy, whereas an intentional Russian attack deliberately intended to kill US personnel is something rather different and would likely be considered an act of war.

Such an attack of retribution is rather unlikely... it would be more likely that a US manned position in Syria would be attacked with something like Iskander... or perhaps a Tu-160 delivering a Father Of All Bombs... to a location known to include US "advisers". The US wont be able to bleat about it because officially there were no US personnel there in the first place...

Open sources provide no data on the range of Standard-6 homing warhead. The size and weight of the missile can suggest that it can see an aircraft with five square kilometer effective echoing ratio at a distance of 15-20km. Kh-32 missile effective echoing ratio is 0.5 square kilometers, so the range of Strandard-6 warhead is 8-12 kilometers. The fire at attacking antiship missiles will be naturally held at head-on courses. It means the missiles will approach each other at a speed of 2200-2330 meters per second which leaves only three-four seconds for the approaching maneuver. The hit probability is low specifically at altitudes above the limit where rarefied atmosphere considerably decreases maneuvering capabilities. It means Standard-6 has to be launched with an error not exceeding 30-40 meters to successfully hit Kh-32 at the flying section. The hit probability of a nosediving KH-32 in the dense layers of the atmosphere is also limited by little time of the flight to the mission point - 20 seconds.

Calculations show the hit probability of Kh-32 by one Standard-6 can hardly exceed 0.05-0.08 even in favorable conditions and aiming directly from the carrier. Hit probability by data from an AWACS aircraft is close to zero (0.01-0.02) because of errors in determining the location of the carrier and the targeting source and the time to exchange information. It means the most effective US and NATO Standard-6 missile has a low capability to hit Kh-32. One can object and say the Americans fired from a Ticonderoga-class cruiser and hit a satellite flying at a speed of 27 thousand km/h at an altitude of 240 km. But it did not maneuver and its position was precisely determined after a long observation which helped bring the missile directly to the target. There will be no such possibilities in repelling an attack by a maneuvering Kh-32.

It is necessary to estimate the probability of Ticonderoga-class cruiser or Arleigh-Burke-class destroyer to hit Kh-32. The range of their radars to detect Kh-32 at an altitude of 40 km can be estimated at 230-270 km. It means the missile will approach the target in less than three minutes after it is detected. The Aegis system operational time is 30-35 seconds between the detection and launch. In the remaining time two universal Mk.41 launchers can fire 20-30 guided missiles capable of destroying the attacking Kh-32.

The hit probability by Vulcan Phalanx is next to nothing. Therefore, Ticonderoga or Arleigh-Burke can potentially destroy one of two Kh-32. It means two such warships can destroy two-four Kh-32.

There is also electronic warfare of active deception and passive jamming. There is sufficient time for it and their complex engagement can disrupt the targeting to a major extent. The operational time of electronic warfare weapons of a warship and their expected efficiency result in a maximum probability hit of 0.3-0.4. In case of fire at a group it is highly probable that the homing warhead would lock on another target. During Falkland hostilities a British aircraft carrier engaged passive jamming and the attacking Exoset missile changed the target and hit and sank the Atlantic Conveyers container ship. Kh-32 speed may leave no time for another warship in a formation on which the warhead may lock to engage electronic warfare and divert it.

It means a group of two cruisers or destroyers is incapable of repelling a strike from two Tu-22M3 bombers carrying two Kh-32 missiles each even in favorable conditions. At least one warship would be damaged with a 0.6-0.7 probability. A strike by a wing of three aircraft with six Kh-32 will definitely destroy both warships.

A salvo of 24 Kh-32 at an aircraft-carrying force would be fatal. The probability to destroy or sink an aircraft carrier with two-three escort ships is 0.75-0.85. Russian aircraft will attack from outside the operational zone of adversary seaborne fighter jets. It means a strike by 12 Tu-22M3 with two missiles each will be sufficient to destroy an aircraft-carrying force with a high probability.

A group of two-three aircraft carriers can be destroyed by a strike of two regiments of Tu-22M3 with 72 Kh-32. They can fire from a distance of two-three thousand kilometers from the Russian coast, i.e. long before the aircraft-carrying force arrives at the distance of seaborne aircraft engagement.

Even limited long-range aviation forces can considerably neutralize US aircraft-carrying formations. However, they have to be properly aimed at the targets and defended from adversary coastal fighter jets. If it is not provided, the Kh-32 potential will not be implemented.

The United States is actively developing hypersonic missiles but so far there is no data about the design of weapons similar to Kh-32. Russia is likely to dominate in the sphere for ten years and more.
Still it is necessary to arm the aviation with a sufficient number of such missiles. The troops need at least 250-300 of them. But the navy and the air force are unlikely to get such a number of missiles because of the state of the economy and the defense industry, as well as upcoming conversion. It means Kh-32 will remain an excellent but rare Russian weapon.

The serial production of Kh-32 means a revolution in the naval arts. The relative parity in the offense-defense balance will be replaced by a situation when the attack potential will considerably surpass the defense capability.

The review analyzed the most perfect foreign arms. The capabilities of other weapons are considerably inferior to Aegis and Standard-6.

It is necessary to design new methods and forms of naval warfare, in particular, the destruction of surface forces of the adversary and promotion of combat sustainability of your own forces. Adequate increase of the air defense potential of warships will likely demand to review the conceptual basis of such systems. It will take 10-15 years or may be more, expert Konstantin Sivkov writes in the Military-Industrial Courier.

George1 wrote:That article says : "In 2016 the anti-ship Kh-32 missile for Tu-22M3 bombers became operational. "

KomissarBojanchev wrote:

George1 wrote:That article says : "In 2016 the anti-ship Kh-32 missile for Tu-22M3 bombers became operational. "

Would the Kh-32 be vulnerable to AMRAAMs being shot from F-18s?