I just noticed that when you quote another post in your reply and include their hotlink,  if the hotlink isn't formatted perfectly the field border expands to the full script width of the hotlink. WUWT?

 

______________________________________________

 

The rest is long.

 

 

"http://yarchive.net/mil/russian_missiles.html"

 

[quoting]

 

[on , 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 t

Please pardon my newbie fumbles - I noticed the links I inserted did not get posted - I will try again with quotes around the link - hopefully it will work. The FOIA documents are available online.

 

"http://www.softwar.net/3m82.html" - Sunburn FOIA docs

 

"http://www.softwar.net/kh31p.html" - Krypton FOIA docs

 

I also noted during my reading of all the FOIA materials that there were clear weaknesses in both systems electronically speaking.  I suspect a determined effort at ECM and some chaff in the right place (soft kill) may prove to be more successful in defeating a Sunburn than a hard kill using a Standard SM-2.

 

What bothered me about the whole affair was the Clinton people knew exactly what they were doing and who they were dealing with.  They just did not seem to care that our money and technology would be pointed back at us one day.

 

The Kh-31 is more akin to HARM than Maverick - it is an anti-radiation missile designed to chase radar emitters.  The ramjet powered Krypton is also referred to as the mini-sunburn.  The original version had a hi-lo range of about 35 miles with a lo-lo of less than 15.  This lack of legs was the killer when the USN was testing the Krypton for use in the SSST target program.  The requirement was 50 miles in the low altitude run (30 feet).  Even the aging Sea Snake - modified Talos missiles - could do 45+ miles in the low profile.

 

The contractor Boeing worked out ways of extending that range to 50+ miles in the low level attack profile, passing that data on to the Russians during the 1990s.  This was an effort to get the SSST contract from the Navy. 

 

Today, the P version is reported to capable of a hi-lo profile of nearly 80 to 100 miles.  The Russians have sold the improved Kh-31 to China and India.  They have also offered it to Iran.

 

Sorry, I should have caught that. I think Stuart was thinking range and flight profile as opposed to actual tactical employment.

 

 

Regards your conclusion about softkill; I agree. Given a SSAShCM's inability to easily correct vector in the endgame, once it commits, a decoy/distract/misdirect engagement is as good as a hard kill engagement as long as you can get it to fuse off harmlessly without acquiring a secondary target. There are a lot of ways to run the BANZAI game.

 

Herald        

I agree on the "political" issue - dumb is not a party specific trait so lets stick to the tech issues - those pesky missiles!

 

At one point reading the FOIA docs from the Pt. Mugu folks (who were to test the Sunburn) they noted that it was very sensitive to firing angle.  The plan was to test it from a land hard point but they noted only one launch pad could meet the needs.  Apparently, they figured the missile could not compensate at low speed after booster burn out to more than a 9 degree slope to the waterline.  In short, the thing would end up nosing right into the drink without a gentle drop.

 

I do agree with the evaluation about system v. weapons and his eval of why go subsonic over supersonic.  The entire attack profile of a Moskit is to dash in past the defenses.  Still, the best solution is not to kill the arrow but the bowman - much like we did in WWII with the Betty bombers carrying Oka rocket suicide planes.  Shot 'em down before they get in range.

 

This does not always apply to the real world.  The shooter during peacetime is usually a throw away - the Sovremenny class is much like the Kreska class - a ship built to last one round. 

Russians actually know that, and that's probably why they also have tones of Kh-35, Kh-59 and especially 3M54 series. Among them, 3M54E is probably the deadliest.

"http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/NAVY/Klub.html"

 

Some of that information is quite accurate.

 

Herald