Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues
Isos wrote:They have projects of guided rockets. Fit them with laser guidance, some ailerons to correct their trajectory and keep the same body as former rockets. They can be used from longer ranges with smaller salvos.
It's not new, only the name is.
Werewolf wrote:Isos wrote:They have projects of guided rockets. Fit them with laser guidance, some ailerons to correct their trajectory and keep the same body as former rockets. They can be used from longer ranges with smaller salvos.
It's not new, only the name is.
So you mean it is Ugroza guidance kit? Was thinking about it, but since those are news from 2018 I would assume it was mentioned here before. Haven't been active for to long so I am not uptodate.
Isos wrote:Anyone has the specification of the air lunched Kalibr ? It seems smaller than sea launched ones.
GarryB wrote:Kalibr is not actually a very big missile... there were two models from memory... one was 8m long and the other was about 6 metres long and they were both 533mm calibre...
That's numbers from wiki but they must be correct.
IMO the ship lauched version has a much longer range.
Isos wrote:IMO the ship lauched version has a much longer range.
GarryB wrote:Have seen CGI video of an air launched Kalibr that is held in a tube which is launched and then the missile itself comes out of the tube.
I rather suspect only the navy would be interested in an air launched Kalibr as the Kh-101 already has almost double its range, though at 2.5 tons and 7.4 metres long it is probably too big for tactical aircraft use... but they would probably use Kh-555s anyway.
The current Kalibr missiles for domestic use have a range of about 2,500km, and would expect the anti ship missiles to have similar range in the domestic version though probably knock 1,000km range off them both because the supersonic terminal portion effectively makes the "warhead" quite heavy, while the subsonic all the way missile has a larger conventional warhead to deal with ships... so both would have shorter range than the land attack model.
LMFS likes this post
George1 and thegopnik like this post
С 2010 года вовсю идёт разработка современной ракеты «Х-50», известная так же как «изделие 715» в конструкторском бюро «Радуга».
Ее создание в основном направлено для «Ту-22М3», ведь отсек для бомб у этих бомбардировщиков маловат для «Х-101».
Длина крылатой ракеты около 6 м, а вес - полторы тонны. Дабы повысить аэродинамические характеристики и улучшить незаметность в радарах противников, корпус решили немного приплюснуть и сделать определенные углы.
Позаботились и об объеме грузоотсека для бомб «Ту-22М3», выбрав лучшую форму самой ракеты.
С «ТРДД-50АТ» - турбореактивным двигателем, ракета без труда сможет пролететь более полутора тысяч км на скорости 950 км в час. «Х-50» способна передвигаться на небольшой высоте, что позволит избежать перехвата со стороны ПВО противников.
На сегодняшний день планируется выпуск боевой части в трёх вариантах:
•кассетном
•осколочно-фугасном
•ядерном
Есть сравнить крылатую ракету с «Х-59МК2», то можно заметить сходство в силовой установке и системе управления. Кроме того, она оснащена инерциальной, навигационной и электронно-оптической корреляционной системе наведения.
Since 2010, the development of the modern X-50 missile, also known as the "715 product" in the Raduga design bureau, has been in full swing.
Its creation is mainly aimed at the Tu-22M3, because the bomb bay of these bombers is too small for the Kh-101.
The cruise missile is about 6 meters long and weighs one and a half tons. In order to increase aerodynamic characteristics and improve invisibility in enemy radars, they decided to flatten the hull a little and make certain angles.
We also took care of the volume of the cargo compartment for the Tu-22M3 bombs, choosing the best shape for the rocket itself.
With "TRDD-50AT" - a turbojet engine, the rocket can easily fly over 1,500 km at a speed of 950 km per hour. "Kh-50" is capable of moving at low altitude, which will avoid interception by enemy air defenses.
To date, it is planned to release the warhead in three versions:
• cassette
• high-explosive fragmentation
• nuclear
If you can compare a cruise missile with the Kh-59MK2, you can see similarities in the power plant and control system. In addition, it is equipped with an inertial, navigation and electro-optical correlation guidance system.
LMFS likes this post
medo wrote:https://zen.yandex.ru/media/id/5cd99ef65bca0f00b018fa04/h50--novaia-krylataia-raketa-dlia-tu22m3-5f546524f7495128e48960f5
Not exactlly tactical air to surface missile, but still interesting. Russia is testing new stealth cruise missile Kh-50 for Tu-22M3 bombers. It will weight around 1500 kg, have a range of more than 1500 km and speed of 950 km/h. Missile will be 6 m long. Considering its mass of around 1500 kg, this missile will be also perfect for Su-30SM, Su-34 and Su-35 fighters to carry one or three of them. With modernization Su-33 could use it as well. This missile would give them great stand off capabilities for strikes against important targets.
I think the AShM version with supersonic warhead would be a massive improvement for MA-VMF, but the Su-33 has been badly neglected until recently in the strike role, recently they are starting to receive the equipment needed for that role so maybe there could be changes in the future.
The missile can go below the radar horizon of any surface unit and perform the terminal approach so fast with such manoeuvring that interception is far from solved today.
And given the speed as we have argued, it is much more likely to hit the part of the ship it intends, despite countermeasures (inertia of the ship does not allow to substantially change course in the few seconds time from detection to impact).
With 300 km range, added to that of a naval fighter, it can strike very far away of the plane's carrier.
I am not sure the land attack version has so much value in air launched version, since the surface or sub launched ones already have the range needed in most cases.
The surface launched, supersonic version has a range of 600 km from what I have read. Therefore an air launched version would be actually very useful.
Found this missile at another forum.....Anyone know what it is?
The chines at the nose have apparently been removed, below the old version
This kh-69 doesn't look official or real.they already tested the kh-59mk2 in Syria but the image wasn't of good quality to see which version it was (mk2 or kh-69).
We also took care of the volume of the cargo compartment for the Tu-22M3 bombs, choosing the best shape for the rocket itself.
With "TRDD-50AT" - a turbojet engine, the rocket can easily fly over 1,500 km at a speed of 950 km per hour. "Kh-50" is capable of moving at low altitude, which will avoid interception by enemy air defenses.
Not exactlly tactical air to surface missile, but still interesting. Russia is testing new stealth cruise missile Kh-50 for Tu-22M3 bombers. It will weight around 1500 kg, have a range of more than 1500 km and speed of 950 km/h. Missile will be 6 m long. Considering its mass of around 1500 kg, this missile will be also perfect for Su-30SM, Su-34 and Su-35 fighters to carry one or three of them. With modernization Su-33 could use it as well. This missile would give them great stand off capabilities for strikes against important targets.
GarryB wrote:Nah... the whole point of subsonic turbofan powered carrying stage is to add range... if the range is 1,500km then it makes sense but if it is only 600km then you would be better off with an Onyx with the new fuel flying high but at mach 5 and 800km range plus... and Zircon on the way to double the speed and increase the range even further in an air launched model.
GarryB likes this post
GarryB wrote:Keep in mind even if the Russian Air Force or Aerospace Defence Force are not interested the Russian Navy has Su-30s and other platforms including MPAs that could carry these weapons around the place... and surface launched models are a given as well...
The main point with this weapon is its mach 2.9 flight speed at sea level... you really need a powerful rocket motor to achieve this... a short range AAM like Sidewinder has a flight speed of about mach 2.5 but launched from low altitude at a low altitude target its speed is more like Mach 1.5 and its effective range is dramatically reduced... it would not be able to chase down this missile for example.
This might sound weird but the initial scan from the missiles radar alerting the target that it might be under attack would be interesting because most ships captains wont light up all their radars if they detect a radar signal from 1,000km away
... but the might start turning the ship so that it is either bow or stern on to the potential threat... just as a precaution to make the ship a smaller target....
but the speed of this missile means it will fly low all the way and when it gets close it rapidly accelerates remaining very low until impact... the kinetic energy of such an impact will cause it to penetrate multiple sections of the ship... but if it is side on the risk is that it might punch right through and come out the other side before the warhead explodes... hitting the bow or stern means it has the full length of the ship to penetrate and explode in causing much more damage.
300km is the export model with range limited to 300km...
Being similar to the Kh-555 I don't think they would be enormously useful... though being able to fly 1,000km on a tangent so it attacks the target from a different direction could be valuable... like flying down from Iran to where Yemen is before launching a missile at Saudi Arabia for instance...
Nah... the whole point of subsonic turbofan powered carrying stage is to add range... if the range is 1,500km then it makes sense but if it is only 600km then you would be better off with an Onyx with the new fuel flying high but at mach 5 and 800km range plus... and Zircon on the way to double the speed and increase the range even further in an air launched model.
OK... that is a bit of a let down... 1,500km range I was expecting but 950km/h means it will be traveling at a similar speed to the aircraft that launched it... so it certainly is not a Kh-16 type mach 5 nuclear warhead armed weapon to clear enemy air defences ahead of the bomber...
1. Speed achieved by the scramjet demonstrator: Mach 6
2. Altitude of flight : 30 km.
3. Duration of flight >22 seconds.
Certainly, the coastal protection is mostly solved with a variety of means, it is the power projection that until now Russia has not been in a condition to take care of. I am pretty sure this will change in the medium term.
Based in all the detection complications as discussed in our doctrine thread, the AD system in the ship has no time to react... and of course the very interceptors are challenged because the target is almost as fast or even faster than themselves. Their advantage is that they are placed directly at the target, but vigorous manoeuvring by the AShM partially counters that.
I really don't think the ship can do too much, in case of passive targeting from first radar contact to impact you hay have from 30 secs at best to less than ten at worst. Ship's crew needs to be 100% focused 100% of the time to even be capable to react and order course change etc.
I am assuming a lighter air launched version. As seen, if the plane approaches below radar horizon the needed missile range is quite small actually, probably the cruise subsonic section could be even removed altogether.
600 km is nice but does not keep a VMF ship outside of the range of similar enemy weapons, while a naval fighter could carry it 1000 km and launch it well beyond the engagement range of the enemy missiles.
It is the kind of long range tactical CM that Russia was needing... I see nothing wrong with that. There are higher performance missiles but you need a weapon you can use in numbers and that can be used by tactical bombers and Tu-22M3 in stand-off range. Most enemies cannot stop properly planed and executed CM attacks once their AD has started being degraded, and many can not do it even in top conditions.
GarryB wrote:Well to be fair a ship on its own is horribly vulnerable because by the time they detect it on the horizon it has probably just gone terminal and is rapidly accelerating like only a rocket can... which will make it easier to spot optically because it will be spewing ionised rocket fumes, but interception points will be shifting rapidly so on detection the interception point might have been 2km in front of it, but three seconds later when your missile launches it might be 10km in front of the missile and inside your minimum engagement range for that missile...
A very clever combination of two different attack strategies to make the most from each.
I was referring to the initial radar lock by the missile after it is launch from the fighter...
Ie assuming 1,500km range for the missile the pilot is given the coordinates of the target and its speed and direction so a rough calculation suggests a general location about an hour later when the missile will be arriving at low speed.
Why bother with a complicated combined rocket boosted turbojet powered missile with a rocket terminal phase weapon with a range of 600km when a missile roughly the same size and weight with a combined rocket ramjet engine can fly 600km at mach 5 all the way in the form of an upgraded Onyx?
Or indeed in a few years time a Mach 10 Zircon whose surface launched model reaches over 1,000km...
If the Kalibre supersonic anti ship missile had a flight range of 1,500km where 1,470kms is at subsonic speed and the last 30km were mach 2.9 under rocket power then it would make sense to deploy it and use it... it would be sneaky and clever, but with a range of only 600km in the domestic model why would you put one in a UKSK tube when you could put Onyx or soon a Zircon into that same tube? Or with tactical aircraft an air launched version of either...
And I agree with that too... to be useful the low flying subsonic missile needs range to be useful and 600km doesn't really cut it... more than double that range and you have something interesting... but why does it need a plane to achieve that.... these are 533mm calibre weapons... the ship launched model could do with extra fuel tanks and perhaps new rocket fuel to double the range of the terminal portion perhaps.... or even a scramjet terminal portion that just keeps accelerating...
Yes, I realise I am being unfair... it was only ever speculation that suggested a mach 6 speed and for use as a replacement for the Kh-15...
There is no need for hypersonic cruise missiles. Traveling at Mach 6 - Mach 10 at best it will deliver what a 500 lbs warhead at best. ICBMS will travel at Mach 20 and above and deliver a 10 ton warhead.GarryB wrote:Nice... at mach six that means in 22 seconds it would have covered at least 40km... as the speed and flight time ratchet up the distances become even more impressive...
x_54_u43 dislikes this post
It is even worse, from what I have found the reaction time of the AEGIS fire control system (from first detection to first missile launched) is ca. 10 seconds... at 3 M that is the time for the missile to cover 10 km. Even in normal conditions (standard radar horizon of a 18 m high radar vs AShM flying 5 m above the surface is 14 km) it means a SM will be close to minimum engagement distance. In conditions of reduced radar horizon (there are instances below 7 km) there is not even time to launch the first interceptor...
Indeed, that is why the USN classified it as "critical" risk. They were afraid the two-speed flight course would fool their fire control systems and make them calculate wrongly the interception points... not even considering they would not have the material time to detect and launch missiles, as we see could be the case without an increased detection range. As of today, I think they do not have the practise target needed to properly model Threat D, though there were several attempts to kick-off a program with that intent. Maybe I am wrong but the last news I saw is that they had been cancelled.
I assume the Oniks is bigger, even the air launched version was something like 2.5 t. 3M54 with newer technology would probably be faster, lighter and/or longer ranged.
Of course an air launched Tsirkon would be a total nightmare... imagine the range when air launched at high speed, added to the range of the carrier... it is a weapon potentially capable of closing the theater to any opposing surface fleet...
3M54 is faster (in its terminal phase) than the original Oniks... as said we would need to see what an upgrade version would be capable of. But of course having Tsirkon you don't want anything else, the only question is price.
With a plane you get a lot of added flexibility. Maybe you can take it 1000 km away and launch from there, instead of making huge missiles with huge fuel tanks taking a lot of space in the VLS.
GZUR isn't it? That will come too, they have lots of hypersonic weapons in the pipeline...
There is no need for hypersonic cruise missiles. Traveling at Mach 6 - Mach 10 at best it will deliver what a 500 lbs warhead at best. ICBMS will travel at Mach 20 and above and deliver a 10 ton warhead.
Fair enough. I was only referring to the point that you made about using hypersonic cruise missiles.GarryB wrote:The missile I am talking about... Gzur, is a short range attack missile that is a nuclear armed high speed missile that strategic bombers would use during a nuclear war to basically clear a path to where it needs to get to to launch its long range cruise missiles.
Home
Latest images
Register
Log in
