SSN-27 "Sizzler"

[rabs]

I was wondering if any of you had some more information on this missile, i tried wikipedia and didn't get anything. I'm curious because of a sniper i saw on another message board whose facts seem to line up.

The U.S. Navy, after nearly six years of warnings from Pentagon testers, still lacks a plan for defending aircraft carriers against a supersonic Russian-built missile, according to current and former officials and Defense Department documents.
The missile, known in the West as the ``Sizzler,'' has been deployed by China and may be purchased by Iran. Deputy Secretary of Defense Gordon England has given the Navy until April 29 to explain how it will counter the missile, according to a Pentagon budget document.
The Defense Department's weapons-testing office judges the threat so serious that its director, Charles McQueary, warned the Pentagon's chief weapons-buyer in a memo that he would move to stall production of multibillion-dollar ship and missile programs until the issue was addressed.

On final approach, the missile ``has the potential to perform very high defensive maneuvers,'' including sharp-angled dodges.
This is a very low-flying, fast missile.


Is this missile truly a threat to the USN and do no countermeasures exist against it?

[stryker NZ]

if you type in SS-N-27 you get more info heres a link i found

http://www.sinodefence.com/navy/navalmissile/3m54.asp

its not much but you should be able to start here and find more info

[JBodnar39]

I don't see the big hoopla over this missle. I doubt if the guidance system si any better (or even as good as) that on the Harpoon Blk2. Its range is attributed to its larger size. Sure it is probably a good missle, but nothing "super advanced" like these littel news releases always try to make them out to be

[Chrom]

I don't see the big hoopla over this missle. I doubt if the guidance system si any better (or even as good as) that on the Harpoon Blk2. Its range is attributed to its larger size. Sure it is probably a good missle, but nothing "super advanced" like these littel news releases always try to make them out to be
Hmm, so "super advanced" in your understanding is restricted exactly ONLY to "super advanced guidance unit"? A bit shortsighted IMO. Besides, you dont even know - guidance unit may be INDEED super advanced %) After all, even 25 years ago USSR managed to field cooperative target recognition guidance for "Granit" and "Basalt" missiles. These attack in "wolf pack" when one missile could take the "guide" high-flying role detecting and distributing targets to low-flying missiles. If this "guide" is destroyed, another missile is delegated to that role. This is just example of what could be achieved. Dont underestimate russians.

[DoC_FouALieR]

Dont underestimate russians.
Neither overestimate them. Guidance system of the SS-N-27 may or may not be super advanced. A reliable statement can only be made with live testing.
Sure it is a good missile because of its multi-platform and multi-payload capability, but concerning the guidance system, we haven't enough information yet. (or give good sources plz!:cool:)

And concerning the wolf pack capability of the Granit, from a algorithmic and logical way, it remains simple. That is not the case for advanced ECCM/discrimination/target recognition algorithms.

[tphuang]

according to Kanwa back when PLAN was purchasing klub, it only demonstrated successful hits on 15 out of 20 attempts. And they also had some problem going from subsonic to supersonic. Anyway, guidance is definitely not the greatest out there.

[JBodnar39]

I guess the point I was trying to make, is that we see a lot of these press releases from producing countries on things like the SS-N-27 and the Brhamos, stating that they are the end all to anti-ship missles, and we just don't know. I have little doubt that they are effective systems. The Russians have always produced some great weapons systems and India's defense industry is coming along. However, Russia - historically - has not produced weapons systems that are as advanced as those made by the west.

I must admit that I am certainly no expert on the defense industry, however it seems to me that a country's ability to make sophisticated weapons sytems on a large production scale is going to be related to the country's industrial base, experience in the defense industry, and economic structure.

Harpoon works. To my knowledge a harpoon has never missed its target (albiet in low intensity situations) with one exception and that was against an Iranian missle boat that had sunk so far that what was left of it above the water did not give the missle a target. We do not know it the Russian ASMs work, because they have not be used in combat.

[Waylander]

Styx ASMs have been used by Egyptian missile boats and sank a Israeli destroyer (Or was it a frigate?) in the past.

[Rich]

I guess the point I was trying to make, is that we see a lot of these press releases from producing countries on things like the SS-N-27 and the Brhamos, stating that they are the end all to anti-ship missles, and we just don't know. I have little doubt that they are effective systems. The Russians have always produced some great weapons systems and India's defense industry is coming along. However, Russia - historically - has not produced weapons systems that are as advanced as those made by the west.

Ive been around defense since the '70s. It always been hard to gauge the effectiveness of Russian systems because "they" over-sell them", and we "over-sell" them, in order to get taxpayer money for the new gee-whizes of our industry. Add to that the Industrial/Military/Govt. feeling that the end justifies the means which means they also will downgrade a threat. Feeling as they do that they dont want to alarm the public, or even worse, put in danger the systems they have attached their careers to.

In other words there's a lot of horse manure flung around in this industry. We see many shades of grey and its hard to get a true picture.

I must admit that I am certainly no expert on the defense industry, however it seems to me that a country's ability to make sophisticated weapons systems on a large production scale is going to be related to the country's industrial base, experience in the defense industry, and economic structure.

Yes and no. Much depends on what systems they are applying their available resources to. The Russians have always been pretty good at stealing technology, making do with what they have and improvising, and absolutely applying their largest resources on systems they have identified as top priority to their defense. Ashm's have always been high on that list, as have launch platforms. In fact, you could call these missiles and their platforms THE Doctrine of their conventional naval forces.

Harpoon works. To my knowledge a harpoon has never missed its target (albiet in low intensity situations) with one exception and that was against an Iranian missle boat that had sunk so far that what was left of it above the water did not give the missle a target. We do not know it the Russian ASMs work, because they have not be used in combat.

Yes, Harpoon-ll is a very good missile. Best of all its far smaller then the Russian AshMs and we can both carry and shoot gobs of them on gobs of platforms. We have variations of Harpoon that have a much longer range, and, between all the variations they have about every guidance type system we own. In other words any country taking us on would be facing a arsenal of 6,000 Harpoons/Slam/Slam'ers that can be launched by almost every warship we own, by every carrier attack aircraft, and by B-52 versions.

The Harpoon-ll is so good we can tell it exactly where on the ship to hit. Its very good against ships in port or in littorals and since its RCS is far smaller then the big Russian missiles it can be a problem to spot. Best of all an enemy is going to get a few dozen heading their way. We could easily use hundreds against an enemy.

I know the Russians are making a version of this missile for their Kilo submarines but its far smaller with far less range. And the boat would still have the problem of penetrating a Carriers protective screen, with the whole shebang whizzing around at 25 knots, and getting within 30 or 40 clicks to fire it.

The longer range versions have the same problems other Russian missile platforms have always have. What good is a 300 KL range missile when a Yank submarine, super-Hornet, or surface ship is destroying your firing platform 500 KLs from the carrier? Besides, almost all the countries the Russians are selling these things to will never know where in hell the carriers are in the first place.

And a missile that only goes supersonic in its end game is going to have to get by protective assets while still in subsonic mode. And we aint stupid enough to put a super carrier into littoral waters so hazardous during war time. Thats why we have Bombers and Allies we can stage the USAF from.

So really this new gee-whiz missile is just a new chapter to an old game. We have been playing this game of chess a long time with the Russians and now with ESSM-SeaRam coming on line it will be their turn to move the pieces. Besides actually shooting down the AshM isn't the only way we have of defeating it. We have decoys, chaff clouds...ect Truth is we've been practicing against super-sonic missiles for awhiles.

And its not like a war with the USN would be a missile vs missile war. An enemy would have to take on the combined Intel/Targeting/Networkcentric/stealth/firepower assets of the entire US Military.

A threat? Yes! A reason to run around the table, screaming with your hair on fire, gulping Prozac? No!

[JBodnar39]

Rich,

Thanks for the insight

[tphuang]

I think you are getting a little too excited here. Agree with most of your points, but.

I know the Russians are making a version of this missile for their Kilo submarines but its far smaller with far less range. And the boat would still have the problem of penetrating a Carriers protective screen, with the whole shebang whizzing around at 25 knots, and getting within 30 or 40 clicks to fire it.

This part is not true. The sub launched version is not any smaller or have less range.

And a missile that only goes supersonic in its end game is going to have to get by protective assets while still in subsonic mode. And we aint stupid enough to put a super carrier into littoral waters so hazardous during war time. Thats why we have Bombers and Allies we can stage the USAF from.

actually, it makes a lot more sense to go subsonic before the last 30nm. Going supersonic would just force it to go high altitude for most of the way, making it much easier to detect. I mean it can be intercepted in its cruise mode travelling low and subsonic, but just harder.

So really this new gee-whiz missile is just a new chapter to an old game. We have been playing this game of chess a long time with the Russians and now with ESSM-SeaRam coming on line it will be their turn to move the pieces. Besides actually shooting down the AshM isn't the only way we have of defeating it. We have decoys, chaff clouds...ect Truth is we've been practicing against super-sonic missiles for awhiles.

you still must treat this threat seriously. And remember, there is no reason it can only be used against a carrier. Any of the other escorts are also fair game.

[Galrahn]

uhm.

The USN doesn't actually use the Harpoon II, the US exports the Harpoon II to allies but does not have an inventory itself. Look it up.

Otherwise the Harpoon II is considered one of the best anti-ship missiles in the world. There are good debates regarding supersonic vs subsonic, with strengths and weaknesses of both.

The US version of the Harpoon I is substancially upgraded and comes in various modes. In FY2006 the USN began R&D funding for the Harpoon III.

The Harpoon I has missed targets, in Operation Preying Mantis (1987) the Iranians fired a Harpoon at the USN cruiser Bainbridge at short range, the missile was averted by the Cruiser's use of Chaff. The Cruiser then sunk the attacking Iranian ship with 3-4 Standard missiles.

As for the SS-N-27 I personally think it is a good concept combining the best of supersonic and subsonic missile systems, but I have no information regarding the weapons systems electronic kit. No matter how fast or how massive the payload is of an anti-ship missile, the weapons effectiveness in modern naval combat today is almost always determined by its electronic kit, not speed or payload.

[Rich]

This part is not true. The sub launched version is not any smaller or have less range.

Yes and no. They make two versions. One of which, the subsonic variant, has longer range. While the one that goes supersonic at the end has shorter range. While there are differences in the weight and size of the different types of the missile, overall I'd say you are right and I made a mistake.
http://www.sinodefence.com/navy/navalmissile/3m54.asp

[Chrom]

Neither overestimate them. Guidance system of the SS-N-27 may or may not be super advanced. A reliable statement can only be made with live testing.
Sure it is a good missile because of its multi-platform and multi-payload capability, but concerning the guidance system, we haven't enough information yet. (or give good sources plz!:cool:)

And concerning the wolf pack capability of the Granit, from a algorithmic and logical way, it remains simple. That is not the case for advanced ECCM/discrimination/target recognition algorithms.
Huh, but by you own logic anything USA produces also cant be named "advanced" as we dont know yet and require proof bla-bla-bla. At least for SS-N-27 we have hard facts about them - they superior speed. About Granits we have facts about "wolf-pack" attack and on-board ECM suite (which other missile have that?).

What facts we have about Harpoon? Manufacturer claims what its guidance unit is "super-advanced" and "ECM-protected"? Claims about "ECCM/discrimination/target recognition algorithms" (what other missile DONT have that?)? How much advanced is "advanced"? See my point?

In these unsertain cases we should use common logic and past experience. Past experience with declassiffied stuff showed what USSR was able to match USA in guidance systems 40 years ago, 30 years ago, and 20 years ago. There is absolutly no reason why Russia will be behind now.

[Chrom]

I However, Russia - historically - has not produced weapons systems that are as advanced as those made by the west.

I must admit that I am certainly no expert on the defense industry, however it seems to me that a country's ability to make sophisticated weapons sytems on a large production scale is going to be related to the country's industrial base, experience in the defense industry, and economic structure.
.
It is a very right phrase.
But, learn history better. In many cases Russia produced high-tech weapons what was decades ahead of West examples. Only few for you: HMS, off-boresight missiles, phased arrays radars on fighters, datalink on fighters, composite armor on tanks (lol chobham), APFSDS (huh), SAM's, ASM's (Yea!), gun-launched ATGM's, ERA, active IFV protection systems, etc, etc.

You are very wrong assuming what USSR industry was behind West, Its was certainly behind in civilian light industry sector, but not in military and heavy industry sector. Not in scientific sector. By the early 80x USSR GDP was about 60% of USA GDP - and much larger percernt was spend on scientific, military and heavy industry needs.

[rabs]

If your trying to say that the USSR was ahead of the US in all those areas you are sadly sadly disillusioned.

The Russians have yet to build anything comparable to front line Abrams or Apaches. Even some Russian scientist agree that thier electronics are nearly a decade behind. Were is the AESA equipped Russian production fighter, that people have actually seen. Or a truly VLS warship.

[Chrom]

If your trying to say that the USSR was ahead of the US in all those areas you are sadly sadly disillusioned.

The Russians have yet to build anything comparable to front line Abrams or Apaches. Even some Russian scientist agree that thier electronics are nearly a decade behind. Were is the AESA equipped Russian production fighter, that people have actually seen. Or a truly VLS warship.
Yes USSR was ahead in fielding these technological achievments. However should you ask me if USSR was ahead of USA in general tank building - then no, generally not ahead. But not behind either. Sometimes russian tanks was much better than USA ones (later 60x,70x). Sometimes they was nearly equal (later 80,90) . Some things was better on russian tanks, other was better on american. T-80B and T-64B was undoublty both better armored and armed than base M1, T-80U was more than a match for M1A1. Hind is a class of its own in attack helos - i could safely also say what West dont have anything comparable. Again, SOME USA weapons was/is better than russian, SOME Russian weapons was/is better than american.

[Rich]

You are very wrong assuming what USSR industry was behind West, Its was certainly behind in civilian light industry sector, but not in military and heavy industry sector. Not in scientific sector. By the early 80x USSR GDP was about 60% of USA GDP - and much larger percernt was spend on scientific, military and heavy industry needs.

Quoting Soviet GNP is like doing a magicians trick. The Russians in the Old Soviet Union had a saying, "they pretend to pay us, and we pretend to work". "Behind in the civilian industry sector"? Their entire industry sector was mismanaged and produced sub level products.

On the other hand they were quite brilliant at making do with what they had and improvisation. And for any defense industry manager avoiding the Gulag was a powerful incentive. They had a knack for designing fine simplicity and making the simplicity work.

They have generally been behind the west in aircraft, submarines, carriers, radars, targeting, software, communications, EL INTEL, and just about every other high tech area. In the 50's, 60's, and even into the 70's, that wasnt as much of a problem, nor was there as much disparity. But now? In the 21'st? Its a sure way to lose a modern war.

[Chrom]

Quoting Soviet GNP is like doing a magicians trick. The Russians in the Old Soviet Union had a saying, "they pretend to pay us, and we pretend to work". "Behind in the civilian industry sector"? Their entire industry sector was mismanaged and produced sub level products.
That is wrong. Most products was as good as any other West products. Of course, USSR lacked high-quality CIVILIAN goods becouse of they political system (no rich mans, little luxury) - but how many peoples in the West actually buys these high-quality goods? I'm sure 80% just buy usuall cheap stuff. But in the cases where quality DID matter USSR was perfectrly able to match and surpass West in quality. Space program is one example, aviation is another, SAM's, etc.

On the other hand they were quite brilliant at making do with what they had and improvisation. And for any defense industry manager avoiding the Gulag was a powerful incentive. They had a knack for designing fine simplicity and making the simplicity work. You know, GULAG was closed after Stalins death, ya? More than 50 years ago? Besides, if russian enginiers was that good 30 years ago, why they should suddently become that much worse now?

They have generally been behind the west in aircraft, submarines, carriers, radars, targeting, software, communications, EL INTEL, and just about every other high tech area. In the 50's, 60's, and even into the 70's, that wasnt as much of a problem, nor was there as much disparity. But now? In the 21'st? Its a sure way to lose a modern war. Define "generally". Russian civilian airlines was as good as West ones. They passenger flow was comparable with any developed country, 40% of ALL civilian aircrafts by year 1980 was produced in USSR or affillated countries. If it is not success when i dont know what is. Again, radar. Show me electronically scanned arrays radar on any USA fighter 25 years ago? 10 years ago? Hum? Yes, after 20-years development USA finally was able to field something better than old soviet PESA. Really ahead, ya! Again, datalinks, HMS, etc - all these are PURE ELECTRONIC AND AVIONICS. USA was DECADES behind USSR in fielding these technologies. So, dont be fooled by common BBC & Fox News propaganda.

[DoC_FouALieR]

What facts we have about Harpoon? Manufacturer claims what its guidance unit is "super-advanced" and "ECM-protected"?
Hey, I did not say that! I never claimed that Harpoon was so advanced. But look, if I were a destroyer designer, and that I have to choose between two ASuW missiles, the Harpoon II and the SSN 27...
The Harpoon made its proof during multiple real engagments, not the SSN 27, so I'm not going to run a risk by installing SSN 27 on my Destroyer, I will choose Harpoon (which is lighter moreover)! But the fact is I am French, so instead I will choose Exocet MM40 Block 3 for political reasons and standardisation. But perhaps its a mistake, because even if MBDA is claiming its Exocet as being a very advanced missile, it has not been war proven yet!

what USSR was able to match USA in guidance systems 40 years ago, 30 years ago, and 20 years ago.
I don't really understand that point when F-15 with Amraam active missiles (wich are fire-and-forget) were fielded besides Su-27 that only operate the Alamo series of semi-active guided missile.

But I do agree that the R-73 combined with the Helmet targeting capability was great.

[Rich]

Define "generally". Russian civilian airlines was as good as West ones. They passenger flow was comparable with any developed country, 40% of ALL civilian aircrafts by year 1980 was produced in USSR or affillated countries. If it is not success when i dont know what is.

Soviet airline safety records were generally considered atrocious. Not that they published any of them mind you, but they exported enough that we were able to glean an overall picture. In case your to young to remember the Soviet Union was a Police state that severely restricted travel of its citizens. To even suggest a comparable travel flow rate with western societies is insane.

And before you start speaking in absolutes I suggest you study the history of air to air engagements between Soviet warplanes and western ones. Again, there are other factors involved, but overall one gets a picture of superiority in western systems.

We make better submarines. Period!

You know, GULAG was closed after Stalins death, ya? More than 50 years ago? Besides, if russian enginiers was that good 30 years ago, why they should suddently become that much worse now?

Really? So what did they call the work farms and insane asylums they put screwups and nonconformists after Stalin croaked? Jails?

That is wrong. Most products was as good as any other West products. Of course, USSR lacked high-quality CIVILIAN goods becouse of they political system (no rich mans, little luxury) - but how many peoples in the West actually buys these high-quality goods? I'm sure 80% just buy usuall cheap stuff. But in the cases where quality DID matter USSR was perfectrly able to match and surpass West in quality. Space program is one example, aviation is another, SAM's, etc.

Chrom read this again on your own and then tell me whats wrong with it.

[Chrom]

Soviet airline safety records were generally considered atrocious. Not that they published any of them mind you, but they exported enough that we were able to glean an overall picture.
Soviet safety records is available NOW for public use. Mind you, they was also available 25 years ago. So, we dont need to guess anything. We have facts - soviet safety records was at least as good as in Western countries. You can check it YOURSELF. Please, dont repeat cheap propaganda here.

In case your to young to remember the Soviet Union was a Police state that severely restricted travel of its citizens. To even suggest a comparable travel flow rate with western societies is insane.
Yes, it restricted travel OUTSIDE of USSR. There was NO restriction INSIDE. Still, i dont see you point here. What relation have any restrictions to number of passengers traveled and airlines quality?

And before you start speaking in absolutes I suggest you study the history of air to air engagements between Soviet warplanes and western ones. Again, there are other factors involved, but overall one gets a picture of superiority in western systems.
Yes, lets bring it here. The history of soviet airplanes with SOVIET plots inside. Else we should seek comparable enemies - ex. Iran-Iraq war will do, or Korean war also will do.

We make better submarines. Period!
Nope, period!


Really? So what did they call the work farms and insane asylums they put screwups and nonconformists after Stalin croaked? Jails? Please learn history and dont watch Fox News. Even western propaganda counted only like 500 "political" prisoners in later 70x in USSR. However, try going before White House and start crying about how USA should install communist goverment, preferable by force. You will notice wonderfull things about USA free speech rights....
Chrom read this again on your own and then tell me whats wrong with it. Enouth?

[Chrom]

We got pretty much off-topic here. So i will not continue discussion for anything unrelated to Navy.

[JBodnar39]

[quote=Chrom;96776]Huh, but by you own logic anything USA produces also cant be named "advanced" as we dont know yet and require proof bla-bla-bla. At least for SS-N-27 we have hard facts about them - they superior speed. About Granits we have facts about "wolf-pack" attack and on-board ECM suite (which other missile have that?).

What facts we have about Harpoon? Manufacturer claims what its guidance unit is "super-advanced" and "ECM-protected"? Claims about "ECCM/discrimination/target recognition algorithms" (what other missile DONT have that?)? How much advanced is "advanced"? See my point?

I am not knocking Russian made systems, but truth be told, US missle systems have had practical use in real combat situations that prove that they work - many Russian systems have not. Here is a listing:

TANKS
The US M1A1 and UK Challenger have fought Russian desinged T-72's and won lopsided victories - and it had much more to do with than crew capabilities. The western tanks - proven in combat - had better ranged guns, better armor, better servicabilty and reliablilty, and were more suvivable if hit

ATTACK HELOs
The US AH-64 has proven itself in combat time and timer again as an advanced, survivable DAY-NIGHT attack helo. If I am not mistaken, until the fielding of the Ka-50 and Mi-28 (and how many of those are in service) Russia did not produce a true day-night capable AH

ANTI-SHIP MISSLES
The only demonstrated combat use of Russian designed/made SSMs were in the 70's. The Harpoon has been used effectively time and time again

CAS AC
The Su-25 is good, but it is inferior to the A-10 in all aspects.

FIGHTERS
Russia has made the Su-15, MiG-23, MiG-29, Su-27, and MiG-31 for these roles. None have a proven combat record. The west has produced the MIrage, F-15, F-16, F-18 - all have a very successful and proven combat record

I guess my point is that the proof is in the pudding

[Chrom]

I am not knocking Russian made systems, but truth be told, US missle systems have had practical use in real combat situations that prove that they work - many Russian systems have not. Here is a listing:
Most USA systems also did not saw any combat. F-22 is just recent exapmple. Some Russian or russian derived system saw combat - and they were proved to be perfectly capable destroying ships.

TANKS
The US M1A1 and UK Challenger have fought Russian desinged T-72's and won lopsided victories - and it had much more to do with than crew capabilities. The western tanks - proven in combat - had better ranged guns, better armor, better servicabilty and reliablilty, and were more suvivable if hit
In Iran-Iraq war tT-72 fought USA produced M-48, M-60 and Centurions with very good results - we could almost call them "won lopsided victories". Besides, fiighting 25-years older vehicles is NOT something i would call "combat proven".
ATTACK HELOs
The US AH-64 has proven itself in combat time and timer again as an advanced, survivable DAY-NIGHT attack helo. If I am not mistaken, until the fielding of the Ka-50 and Mi-28 (and how many of those are in service) Russia did not produce a true day-night capable AH
Mi-24 has proven itself in combat time and time again.... etc,etc. Thermals indeed was a problem in USSR, but 1 feature is not "end-all-everything".

ANTI-SHIP MISSLES
The only demonstrated combat use of Russian designed/made SSMs were in the 70's. The Harpoon has been used effectively time and time again
Its already enouth. Besides, what Harpoons demonstrated? Absolutly horrific quality in Falklands war? Give me ONE example where Harpoons was used in real conditions against real opponent - not just 50-years old barge-wanna-be-frigate. Most training exercises are much harder than that.

CAS AC
The Su-25 is good, but it is inferior to the A-10 in all aspects.
Name these aspects. Actually, in most aspects Su-25 was BETTER. We already had a comparasion discussion here about Su-25 and A-10 in aviation subforum. If you feel like having something to say - read http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=5469 and we can continue discussion.

FIGHTERS
Russia has made the Su-15, MiG-23, MiG-29, Su-27, and MiG-31 for these roles. None have a proven combat record. The west has produced the MIrage, F-15, F-16, F-18 - all have a very successful and proven combat record
Again, most of these "records" was against outdated old aircrafts in very favorable conditions. I wouldn't call that "battle proved" as any other fighter, even battle proved Mig-21 (or F-4 for that matter) would do just as fine in these cirumstances. Besides, noone (except may be you) doubt what Mig-29 and Su-27 was perfectly capable shooting down F-15 and F-16 in 80x. Now, when West examined these aircrafts and surpassed them in technology everyone safely admits it.

I guess my point is that the proof is in the pudding Heh.

[Rich]

Yaknow I think I'm going to put you on ignore.

[JBodnar39]

Most USA systems also did not saw any combat. F-22 is just recent exapmple. Some Russian or russian derived system saw combat - and they were proved to be perfectly capable destroying ships.
In Iran-Iraq war tT-72 fought USA produced M-48, M-60 and Centurions with very good results - we could almost call them "won lopsided victories". Besides, fiighting 25-years older vehicles is NOT something i would call "combat proven".

The M-48/60 are completley different machines than the M1. The T-80 and T-90 are little more than T-72's with a little better fire control and a little better armor. They still have an under-ranged main gun, are less reliable, and have than small three man turret that goes BOOM when it is hit.

Mi-24 has proven itself in combat time and time again.... etc,etc. Thermals indeed was a problem in USSR, but 1 feature is not "end-all-everything".

Actually if you have a helo that can operate at night as well as day, that makes it available for use 50% more of the time.

Its already enouth. Besides, what Harpoons demonstrated? Absolutly horrific quality in Falklands war? Give me ONE example where Harpoons was used in real conditions against real opponent - not just 50-years old barge-wanna-be-frigate. Most training exercises are much harder than that.

The Harpoon was never used in the Falklands War. It was used by the Saudi's to sink an Iraqi ship in 1991, it was used by the US to sink Iranian ships in 1988, AND it was used to sink Iraqi ships in 1991. Has the SS-N-25 or SS-N-27 ever been used in combat - NO.

Name these aspects. Actually, in most aspects Su-25 was BETTER. We already had a comparasion discussion here about Su-25 and A-10 in aviation subforum. If you feel like having something to say - read http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=5469 and we can continue discussion.

The A-10 is beter armored, it has more Chaff/flares for self defense, it has a bigger gun with more rounds, it has a longer loiter time, AND is is capable of employing a greater variety of weapons.

Again, most of these "records" was against outdated old aircrafts in very favorable conditions. I wouldn't call that "battle proved" as any other fighter, even battle proved Mig-21 (or F-4 for that matter) would do just as fine in these cirumstances. Besides, noone (except may be you) doubt what Mig-29 and Su-27 was perfectly capable shooting down F-15 and F-16 in 80x. Now, when West examined these aircrafts and surpassed them in technology everyone safely admits it.
Heh.

The MiG-29 is a very manueverable AC, however it has little Air-Ground capablity and it has very short range. The Su-27 is a fine interceptor with great range, but it cannot employ A-G munitions like the F-16 of F-18

[Chrom]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/1581018.stm
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F0DE3DB163CF93BA3575BC0A9629C8B 63&sec=travel&spon=&pagewanted=print
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/07/10/world/main1787177.shtml

Pls bring statistic here, not indivdual catastrophes. Every year DOZEN of Boing 757, 767, 737 crash.

http://www.flightlevel350.com/Tupolev_TU-154_aircraft_facts.html

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,906640,00.html?promoid=googlep
Please bring FACTS HERE, not pure unfounded propaganda. Say, the safety records of T-154 compared to Boing 757, 737. Even better if you bring it here for Soviet times - as obviosly in 90x the safecty declined - what have nothing to do with aircraft quality. But still, bring it even for that bad period.

http://www.cyberussr.com/rus/aeroflot.htmlhttp://www.planecrashinfo.com/Airline/AL%20Aeroflot.htm

Yaknow I think I'm going to put you on ignore.
Please bring FACTS, i repeat - FACTS (got it???) here. Not propaganda.

[Chrom]

The MiG-29 is a very manueverable AC, however it has little Air-Ground capablity and it has very short range. The Su-27 is a fine interceptor with great range, but it cannot employ A-G munitions like the F-16 of F-18
Sure it cant... but then it did not need to be. USSR was perfectly happy with Su-24, Mig-27, Su-25, Tu-22M, etc. Besides, F-16E was developed somewhat later than base Mig-29 / Su-27 and should be better compared with Mig-29M and Su-27M which had comparable ground attack capability. F-18A also wasnt that good as bomber and could be roughtly compared to basic Mig-29 in ground strike capability.

P.S. Remember, USSR stopped fielding (but not developing) new stuff around later 80x. So we must draw a comparasion line there for in-service aircrafts. Later we can only compare developed proposals like Mig-29M, Su-27M, etc.

[DoC_FouALieR]

Wow!
Are we going to make a full review of western and eastern weapon systems since the 70's?
Or shall we continue on the SS-N 27 case?

[Rich]

Wow!
Are we going to make a full review of western and eastern weapon systems since the 70's?
Or shall we continue on the SS-N 27 case?


Yeah your right. What was I thinking?:confused:

[Chrom]

Wow!
Are we going to make a full review of western and eastern weapon systems since the 70's?
Or shall we continue on the SS-N 27 case?
OK, SS-N-27 case: Club-S is quite unique missile as it can be launched from standard 533mm tubes. It have very good kinematic perfomance for this ability. Also, its qutie expencive missile - i've seen figures about 5mil $ each.

[JBodnar39]

OK, SS-N-27 case: Club-S is quite unique missile as it can be launched from standard 533mm tubes. It have very good kinematic perfomance for this ability. Also, its qutie expencive missile - i've seen figures about 5mil $ each.

Okay on its face the SS-N-27 is a good weapon that gives a unique twist to ASM missles in that its larger version (the 54E) has a terminal booster phase that gives it a Mach 2.9 velocity for the last 20 or so km. It outranges the Harpoon (400 vs 100km for the subsonic 54E1 version and 200km for the supersonic terminal 54E version. The 54E has a comparable warhead weigfht at 200 kg, while the 54E1 has a much larger warhead than the Harpoon at 300kg). IF its guidance system and ECCM is equal to the Harpoon then it is indeed a better performer.

However, the advantage in range is only useful when
1) You can locate and target out that far
2) You are not fighting in littoral envinroments
In an open ocean battle, if you have the assets to accurately locate and target at such ranges (and I have never ever ever heard of an SSM being used against a target beyond 40 or 50 km much less out to 300), then it is a huge asset.

AND... The Harpoon is shorter (4.5m v 6.2m), narrower (342mm v 533mm) and lighter (661kg v 1780 kg for the 54E1 or 2300 kg for the 54E).

That means that the Harpoon is a smaller target for PDWS, is much easier to stow and deploy and fit on ships or stored in subs and can also be air-lauched. A much more versatile wepon in my opinion

[Dae JoYoung]

Navy Lacks Plan to Defend Against `Sizzler' Missile (Update1)

By Tony Capaccio

March 23 (Bloomberg) -- The U.S. Navy, after nearly six years of warnings from Pentagon testers, still lacks a plan for defending aircraft carriers against a supersonic Russian-built missile, according to current and former officials and Defense Department documents.

The missile, known in the West as the ``Sizzler,'' has been deployed by China and may be purchased by Iran. Deputy Secretary of Defense Gordon England has given the Navy until April 29 to explain how it will counter the missile, according to a Pentagon budget document.


I wonder if Iranians have these already? I've always said those aircraft carriers are a sitting duck.

[Chrom]

I wonder if Iranians have these already? I've always said those aircraft carriers are a sitting duck. No, they dont have any. Club-S is sold only in package with Russian subs, Club-N is designed for foreign-produced subs, there is also variant for coastal defence. Either way, Iran dont have these.

[JBodnar39]

I wonder if Iranians have these already? I've always said those aircraft carriers are a sitting duck.

It would a number of those missles (if they can get through the SAM and PDMS defenses provided by the AEGIS equipped Cruisers and Destroyers that are escorting the carrier) to sink a carrier.

The carriers are far from being sitting ducks

[DoC_FouALieR]

The carriers are far from being sitting ducks
Or ducks sitting right in a middle of a mine field ! :D

[contedicavour]

Or ducks sitting right in a middle of a mine field ! :D

Exactly, why bother buying expensive Club cruise missiles when they can disrupt naval traffic close to Hormuz with good old fashioned mines plus a few obsolete Silkworm and eventually C-802s ... Unless allied ships escort every single tanker going through Hormuz, a Silkworm is enough to blow up a loaded supertanker leaving the Gulf :shudder

Back to topic, which of the new classes of Russian escort ships (such as the 22350, the 20380 ...) carry the Yakhont/Onyx ? So far only India seems to be committed to placing Brahmos on most of its new ships.

cheers

[Dae JoYoung]

It would a number of those missles (if they can get through the SAM and PDMS defenses provided by the AEGIS equipped Cruisers and Destroyers that are escorting the carrier) to sink a carrier.

The carriers are far from being sitting ducks

A stealth, diesel sub can easily take out a carrier. So can a multiply launched missiles. If you launch enough missiles at the same time, no defensive shield will keep up. It's just a game of numbers.

I'm no expert, but there are plenty of experts who will tell you they are nothing but a sitting duck for a major power, and they still haven't found an answer for Sizzler.

[Chrom]

Exactly, why bother buying expensive Club cruise missiles when they can disrupt naval traffic close to Hormuz with good old fashioned mines plus a few obsolete Silkworm and eventually C-802s ... Unless allied ships escort every single tanker going through Hormuz, a Silkworm is enough to blow up a loaded supertanker leaving the Gulf :shudder

Back to topic, which of the new classes of Russian escort ships (such as the 22350, the 20380 ...) carry the Yakhont/Onyx ? So far only India seems to be committed to placing Brahmos on most of its new ships.

cheers
22350 is equipped with Onyx. New "rocket corvettes" 12300/123001 are also planned with Onyx. Upgraded 1241 could be equipped with Onyx. Besides, any ship what is equipped with Sunburn can be easely upgraded with Onyx as they use virtually same launcher.

[contedicavour]

22350 is equipped with Onyx. New "rocket corvettes" 12300/123001 are also planned with Onyx. Upgraded 1241 could be equipped with Onyx. Besides, any ship what is equipped with Sunburn can be easely upgraded with Onyx as they use virtually same launcher.

Ok thks. Quite a sizeable missile if it uses a launcher the size of Sunburn... the Russians are sticking to their philosophy of massive SSMs despite the occasional copy of Harpoon (Uran)...
Has anybody heard of contracts for the Uranium or improved Uran ?

cheers

[Chrom]

Ok thks. Quite a sizeable missile if it uses a launcher the size of Sunburn... the Russians are sticking to their philosophy of massive SSMs despite the occasional copy of Harpoon (Uran)...
Ya, Onyx is quite large missile. It is still slightly smaller than Sunburn/Moskit but can use same launcher with minor modifications.

Has anybody heard of contracts for the Uranium or improved Uran ?

cheers

[Rich]

A stealth, diesel sub can easily take out a carrier. So can a multiply launched missiles. If you launch enough missiles at the same time, no defensive shield will keep up. It's just a game of numbers.

I'm no expert, but there are plenty of experts who will tell you they are nothing but a sitting duck for a major power, and they still haven't found an answer for Sizzler.

Ive yet to find a true expert who ever said such a thing. Please point me to one?

[Grand Danois]

Yet another supersonic seaskimmer that all of a sudden will sweep the naval might of the USN from the seas. :rolleyes:

Not as if the Sizzler is another variant of the Klub komplex and really doesn't bring anything new that hasn't been dealt with...

[KGB]

Doesn't GF ofen say in his posts that the USN has no problems with supersonic AShMs?

[Aussie Digger]

Doesn't GF ofen say in his posts that the USN has no problems with supersonic AShMs?

No, what he says is that Supersonic AShM's are well understood by the USN and have been countered.

They are not as great a threat as people like to assume, to the USN at least anyway.

[Todjaeger]

Doesn't GF ofen say in his posts that the USN has no problems with supersonic AShMs?

What people often seem to forget with regards to the supersonic AShM vs. USN CBG argument is the layered defences the USN uses. While a supersonic AShM would be very dangerous to a CVN by itself, that isn't the doctrine the USN employs.

On the surface, a CVN will have a number of accompanying escorts, usually Aegis equipped Ticonderoga-class CG or Arleigh Burke-class DDG, as well as OHP-class FFGs. All carrying Standard SAMs and equipped with datalinks to share targeting data.

Under the surface, there is an SSN lurking nearby which a potential enemy sub needs to be wary of when trying to close to missile or torpedo range.

In the air, there would be the aircraft assigned the the carrier as well as helicopters aboard the escorts. There would be aircraft able to be routed to intercept attacking aircraft or missiles, as well as situational awareness from circling E-2 Hawkeye AWACs. In the future, MH-60R 'Romeo' Seahawks whose sea search radar has been used to monitor air traffic in parts of Mexico and Texas during test flights over the Gulf of Mexico.

Given the abundance of potentially detecting sensors and the ranges at which they are available, a single or even small number of AShM aren't likely to score hits on a CBG. If fired in quantity, they might be able to overwhelm the defences of course, but there aren't very many militaries that are large enough to potentially carry that out.

-Cheers

PS I believe the Israeli destroyer was the Eilat.

[extern]

Some good pictures

[extern]

More pics

[Ares]

It also appears the the Persian military for its Kilo class has the submarine launched variant.

[FSMonster]

ANTI-SHIP MISSLES
The only demonstrated combat use of Russian designed/made SSMs were in the 70's. The Harpoon has been used effectively time and time again
Incorrect once again. Where do you pull this nonsense with such certainity? Ever heard of a Soviet ASM called 'Styx'? It was used successfuly in 1967 but I'll let you dig up other details on it. You're in need of adopting such a useful habbit it seems.

[Dae JoYoung]

Ive yet to find a true expert who ever said such a thing. Please point me to one?


You would disagree with the navy? You don't have to be a genius to figure out that Aircraft Carriers are a 'sitting duck.' There've been many, many test military exercises where subs have sunk aircraft carriers.

The recent Chinese sub incident was no accident.


Navy Lacks Plan to Defend Against `Carrier-Destroying' Missile

Tony CapaccioFri Mar 23, 12:18 AM ET

March 23 (Bloomberg) -- The U.S. Navy, after nearly six years of warnings from Pentagon testers, still lacks a plan for defending aircraft carriers against a supersonic Russian-built missile, according to current and former officials and Defense Department documents.

The missile, known in the West as the ``Sizzler,'' has been deployed by China and may be purchased by Iran. Deputy Secretary of Defense Gordon England has given the Navy until April 29 to explain how it will counter the missile, according to a Pentagon budget document.

The Defense Department's weapons-testing office judges the threat so serious that its director, Charles McQueary, warned the Pentagon's chief weapons-buyer in a memo that he would move to stall production of multibillion-dollar ship and missile programs until the issue was addressed.

``This is a carrier-destroying weapon,'' said Orville Hanson, who evaluated weapons systems for 38 years with the Navy. ``That's its purpose.''

``Take out the carriers'' and China ``can walk into Taiwan,'' he said. China bought the missiles in 2002 along with eight diesel submarines designed to fire it, according to Office of Naval Intelligence spokesman Robert Althage.

A Pentagon official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said Russia also offered the missile to Iran, although there's no evidence a sale has gone through. In Iranian hands, the Sizzler could challenge the ability of the U.S. Navy to keep open the Strait of Hormuz, through which an estimated 25 percent of the world's oil traffic flows.

Fast and Low-Flying

``This is a very low-flying, fast missile,'' said retired Rear Admiral Eric McVadon, a former U.S. naval attache in Beijing. ``It won't be visible until it's quite close. By the time you detect it to the time it hits you is very short. You'd want to know your capabilities to handle this sort of missile.''

The Navy's ship-borne Aegis system, deployed on cruisers and destroyers starting in the early 1980s, is designed to protect aircraft-carrier battle groups from missile attacks. But current and former officials say the Navy has no assurance Aegis, built by Lockheed Martin Corp., is capable of detecting, tracking and intercepting the Sizzler.

``This was an issue when I walked in the door in 2001,'' Thomas Christie, the Defense Department's top weapons-testing official from mid-2001 to early 2005, said in an interview.

`A Major Issue'

``The Navy recognized this was a major issue, and over the years, I had continued promises they were going to fully fund development and production'' of missiles that could replicate the Sizzler to help develop a defense against it, Christie said. ``They haven't.''

The effect is that in a conflict, the U.S. ``would send a billion-dollar platform loaded with equipment and crew into harm's way without some sort of confidence that we could defeat what is apparently a threat very near on the horizon,'' Christie said.

The Navy considered developing a program to test against the Sizzler ``but has no plans in the immediate future to initiate such a developmental effort,'' Naval Air Systems Command spokesman Rob Koon said in an e-mail.

Lieutenant Bashon Mann, a Navy spokesman, said the service is aware of the Sizzler's capabilities and is ``researching suitable alternatives'' to defend against it. ``U.S. naval warships have a layered defense capability that can defend against various missile threats,'' Mann said.

Raising Concerns

McQueary, head of the Pentagon's testing office, raised his concerns about the absence of Navy test plans for the missile in a Sept. 8, 2006, memo to Ken Krieg, undersecretary of defense for acquisition. He also voiced concerns to Deputy Secretary England.

In the memo, McQuery said that unless the Sizzler threat was addressed, his office wouldn't approve test plans necessary for production to begin on several other projects, including Northrop Grumman Corp.'s new $35.8 billion CVN-21 aircraft-carrier project; the $36.5 billion DDG-1000 destroyer project being developed by Northrop and General Dynamics Corp.; and two Raytheon Corp. projects, the $6 billion Standard Missile-6 and $1.1 billion Ship Self Defense System.

Charts prepared by the Navy for a February 2005 briefing for defense contractors said the Sizzler, which is also called the SS-N-27B, starts out flying at subsonic speeds. Within 10 nautical miles of its target, a rocket-propelled warhead separates and accelerates to three times the speed of sound, flying no more than 10 meters (33 feet) above sea level.

Final Approach

On final approach, the missile ``has the potential to perform very high defensive maneuvers,'' including sharp-angled dodges, the Office of Naval Intelligence said in a manual on worldwide maritime threats.

The Sizzler is ``unique,'' the Defense Science Board, an independent agency within the Pentagon that provides assessments of major defense issues, said in an October 2005 report. Most anti-ship cruise missiles fly below the speed of sound and on a straight path, making them easier to track and target.

McQueary, in a March 16 e-mailed statement, said that ``to the best of our knowledge,'' the Navy hasn't started a test program or responded to the board's recommendations. ``The Navy may be reluctant to invest in development of a new target, given their other bills,'' he said.

`Aggressively Marketing'

The Sizzler's Russian maker, state-run Novator Design Bureau in Yekaterinburg, is ``aggressively marketing'' the weapon at international arms shows, said Steve Zaloga, a missile analyst with the Teal Group, a Fairfax, Virginia-based defense research organization. Among other venues, the missile was pitched at last month's IDEX 2007, the Middle East's largest weapons exposition, he said.

Zaloga provided a page from Novator's sales brochure depicting the missile.

Alexander Uzhanov, a spokesman for the Moscow-based Russian arms-export agency Rosoboronexport, which oversees Novator, declined to comment.

McVadon, who has written about the Chinese navy, called the Sizzler ``right now the most pertinent and pressing threat the U.S. faces in the case of a Taiwan conflict.'' Jane's, the London-based defense information group, reported in 2005 in its publication ``Missiles and Rockets'' that Russia had offered the missile to Iran as part of a sale in the 1990s of three Kilo- class submarines.

That report was confirmed by the Pentagon official who requested anonymity. The Office of Naval Intelligence suggested the same thing in a 2004 report, highlighting in its assessment of maritime threats Iran's possible acquisition of additional Russian diesel submarines ``with advanced anti-ship cruise missiles.''

The Defense Science Board, in its 2005 report, recommended that the Navy ``immediately implement'' a plan to produce a surrogate Sizzler that could be used for testing.

``Time is of the essence here,'' the board said.



People didn't think much of Styx until it sunk a Israeli warship during the Arab-Israeli War, 1967. 'May wanna Google. I don't understand the limitations of pasting links?

If Iran had these missiles, US would be in serious trouble.

[Todjaeger]

You would disagree with the navy? You don't have to be a genius to figure out that Aircraft Carriers are a 'sitting duck.' There've been many, many test military exercises where subs have sunk aircraft carriers.

The "sitting duck" analogy isn't all that accurate, since a CVN isn't deployed by itself. As mentioned before, it has escort ships and a submarine (potentially more than one) as well as the aircraft carried aboard the different CBG vessels. Of course, it isn't impenetrable but "sitting duck" implies an easy undertaking against a helpless target, which is not at all the case with a CBG.

The recent Chinese sub incident was no accident.

Of course it wasn't, but when referencing that, one might also want to take a look at the other threads that have mentioned that. Remember, one incident, that occurred in an area where the PLAN knew the US would be conducting an exercise, does not indicate that the PLAN has the ability to strike a CVN or CBG. Never minding the question of whether or not the USN already knew the PLAN sub was there or not and has just chosen to keep mum.

If Iran had these missiles, US would be in serious trouble.

Yes, Iran having these missiles could cause problems for the US and allied governments. Particularly if the US conducted operations the way Iran would want the US to do so. One mustn't forget though, that there are a limited number of platforms Iran has that would be able to actually deploy these weaposn from. If Iran actually started to make use of them, how long before the US and/or allies destroyed those platforms? The US could easily slip a SLCM carrying SSN into the Gulf or in that general area, or send a B-2 overhead to conduct strikes. Either way, Iran would be hard pressed to see or stop the strike. And once the platforms are damaged or destroyed, no more SSN-27 'Sizzler' threat.

-Cheers

[Rich]

You would disagree with the navy? You don't have to be a genius to figure out that Aircraft Carriers are a 'sitting duck.' There've been many, many test military exercises where subs have sunk aircraft carriers.

The recent Chinese sub incident was no accident.

How do you know? Were you there?

And again, post your "experts" who said "carriers are sitting ducks." I see nothing in your post about any "expert" calling them "sitting ducks".


People didn't think much of Styx until it sunk a Israeli warship during the Arab-Israeli War, 1967. 'May wanna Google. I don't understand the limitations of pasting links?

If Iran had these missiles, US would be in serious trouble.

Any AshM in the confined waters of the Gulf would be a serious threat. Our navy, or yours, just wasnt built to operate in such waters. We generally want carriers out in open ocean, wheeling around at 30 knots, with layers of protection strung out miles around it. None of this is news. We are building the LCS with littorals and shallows in mind, arming it with SeaRam, and, we build alliances and agreements with other nations to base land based air assets in times of conflict. And You saw how willing the Iraqi's were to turn on their radars.

So, I'm still waiting for your "sitting duck" expert.

[PERSPOLIS]

Hi everyone , I am new here and I had this info , I am wondering if this 350 km range they are talking about is the same Sizzler , notice here in the article there is no mention of super sonic attack. So may be something else,
However this whole Sizzler talk showed up after this manouver !


8 February 2007

TEHERAN - Iran’s elite Revolutionary Guards successfully test-fired on Thursday a land-to-sea missile with a range of about 350 kilometres (210 miles), state television reported. The firing came on the second day of war games by the Guards’ air force and naval divisions amid mounting tensions with the West over Iran’s nuclear programme.


“We have successfully test fired a cruise missile called SSN4, or Raad, hitting targets 300 kilometres (180 miles) away in the Sea of Oman and northern Indian Ocean,” deputy air force commander, Ali Fadavi was quoted as saying.

“This missile has the final range of 350 kilometres and can hit all kinds of big warships in all of the Persian Gulf, Sea of Oman and northern Indian Ocean.

“It can carry a 500 kilo (1,100 pounds) warhead and can fly at low altitude, evading radar jammings and immune to electronic measures.”
Iranian television showed footage of the missile being fired and hitting its target.

In January 2004, then defence minister Ali Shamkhani said Teheran would proceed with production of a new line of Raad missiles to be deployed in the Gulf region.

The Guards on Wednesday successfully test-fired a new Russian-made air defence missile system, whose delivery last month sparked bitter US criticism.

TOR-M1 surface-to-air missiles were shown being fired from mobile vehicle launchers and successfully taking out their targets.

In 2005, Teheran and Moscow signed a contract for the purchase of 29 TOR-M1 missile systems estimated to be worth 700 million dollars (540 million euros).

The United States had urged Russia to cancel the sale, saying it was a mistake when the UN Security Council had imposed sanctions against Iran’s ballistic missile industry as part of measures against its nuclear drive.

Iran’s leaders have repeatedly said the country’s armed forces are ready for any eventuality in the current standoff with the West over its nuclear programme.

Although the United States has said it wants the standoff solved through diplomacy, Washington has never ruled out military action to thwart Iran’s atomic drive.

The United States accuses Iran of seeking a nuclear weapon. Teheran vehemently denied that, insisting its atomic programme is peaceful in nature