Go Back   Defense Technology & Military Forum > Global Defense & Military > Navy & Maritime
Forgot Password? Join Us! Its's free!

Defense News
Land, Air & Naval Forces






Military Photos
Latest Military Pictures

Miramar_14_MV-22_1965a.JPG

Miramar_14_MV-22_0358a.JPG

Miramar_14_GR4_1646a.JPG

Miramar_14_LF_0221a.JPG
Defense Reports
Aerospace & Defence







Recent Photos - DefenceTalk Military Gallery





Sunburst: The Invincible?

This is a discussion on Sunburst: The Invincible? within the Navy & Maritime forum, part of the Global Defense & Military category; I have read in several places that the Sunburst anti-ship cruise missile (ASCM) of Russian origin is one of the ...


Closed Thread
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rating: Thread Rating: 1 votes, 5.00 average.
Old December 14th, 2006   #1
Defense Enthusiast
Corporal
Khairul Alam's Avatar
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 134
Threads:
Sunburst: The Invincible?

I have read in several places that the Sunburst anti-ship cruise missile (ASCM) of Russian origin is one of the most powerful of its kind. So powerful that it can even defeat the US Aegis system. It is also reported that Iran possesses 16 of these missiles.
Is the Sunburst really so capable? Can it spell the end of US naval supremacy?
Khairul Alam is offline  
Old December 14th, 2006   #2
The Wanderer
Major
robsta83's Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Norway
Posts: 909
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Khairul Alam View Post
I have read in several places that the Sunburst anti-ship cruise missile (ASCM) of Russian origin is one of the most powerful of its kind. So powerful that it can even defeat the US Aegis system. It is also reported that Iran possesses 16 of these missiles.
Is the Sunburst really so capable? Can it spell the end of US naval supremacy?
Well 16 wouldn't. Additionally IMO the USN aware of such a devasting weapon, would quickly create a countermeasure.
What is the power that you speak of to defeat a aegis system? Does it contain a powerful ecm system or is it just fast?
________________
Si Vis Pacem, Para Bellum
robsta83 is offline  
Old December 14th, 2006   #3
Defense Enthusiast
Corporal
Khairul Alam's Avatar
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 134
Threads:
Yes, it is reported that the Sunburst is ultra fast and flies very very low. Too fast to be shot or gunned down. Moreover, the Sunburst is reported to have an erratic flight path, which prevents accurate tracking and lock-on.
Khairul Alam is offline  
Old December 14th, 2006   #4
Defense Enthusiast
Captain
Musashi_kenshin's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Great Britain
Posts: 668
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Khairul Alam View Post
Yes, it is reported that the Sunburst is ultra fast and flies very very low. Too fast to be shot or gunned down. Moreover, the Sunburst is reported to have an erratic flight path, which prevents accurate tracking and lock-on.
Sure it's reported as being all that - but has it been tested against a sophisticated defence system yet? Certainly not in combat. Every new missile is claimed to be able to beat any AAW platform these days....

The US (and other navies) have been updating their inventory to deal with these sorts of threats - e.g. ESSM, SM-2, Aster, etc. Until a situation arises where they can be tested against each other we won't know.
Musashi_kenshin is offline  
Old December 14th, 2006   #5
Defense Professional / Analyst
Master Sergeant
No Avatar
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Upstate NY
Posts: 333
Threads:
First the Sunburn was invincible, now the Sunburst is invincible.

I think Raytheon needs to hire whatever Russian PR dept. is behind all the hype Russian ASCMs get, because that group can advertise their tail off.
Galrahn is offline  
Old December 14th, 2006   #6
Banned Member
Major General
No Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 2,045
Threads:
The advent of AN/SPY-3 and ESSM were made to counter this very kind of threat. If it spells the end of anything it will most likely be the conventional applications of CIWS. It will force the need for point defense lasers as a typical CIWS platform and the appropriate electric-drive systems to power them.
Big-E is offline  
Old December 14th, 2006   #7
Entertainer
General
Grand Danois's Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: CPH
Posts: 3,297
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Galrahn View Post
First the Sunburn was invincible, now the Sunburst is invincible.

I think Raytheon needs to hire whatever Russian PR dept. is behind all the hype Russian ASCMs get, because that group can advertise their tail off.
Supersonic anti ship missiles has been part of the USN threat environment for decades.
________________
"Of course, the whole point of a Doomsday Machine is lost, if you keep it a secret! Why didn't you tell the world, eh?"
Grand Danois is offline  
Old December 14th, 2006   #8
Defense Enthusiast
Corporal
No Avatar
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 159
Threads:
yeah, i also read the reports of iran having 16 sunbursts. its also here:

http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita.../iran/navy.htm

at global security. this article says the transfer occured in the early 90's from the ukraine. despite this the article states that irans real naval threat is in mines, with the vast array they have available.

if the past is an indicator, iran's missiles (anti shipping) would be used against tankers anyway, which is probably why they also bought older styx missiles. as such, the missiles really dont need to be that fast nor that capable, as the tankers are defenceless unless proteced by the navy (us), in which case the missiles and their platforms will be of rather limited use, particularly in such a small number. so from the point of iran, it isnt that much of a threat, with the platforms being so vulnerable anyway. Iran might be better off buying larger numbers of older missiles, as their real card to play would be volume of fire against shipping, rather than for their navy to take on another navy. improving delivery systems would help in a naval confrontation, though the potential threat at the moment is the us, which means that the navy will be of very little use in this role anyway.

having said that, the uss stark incident shouldnt be forgotten, nor the lessons of the falklands war, where asm played a surprisingly (at the time) important and big part.

the incident with the c802 during the recent war in lebanon also caught me by surprise, so itd be interesting to see the role of the asm in the next relevant confrontation.
wittmanace is offline  
Old December 15th, 2006   #9
Grumpy Old Man
General
gf0012-aust's Avatar
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 14,821
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by wittmanace View Post
the incident with the c802 during the recent war in lebanon also caught me by surprise, so itd be interesting to see the role of the asm in the next relevant confrontation.
everyone was surprised by the C802 as they assumed that the Israelis were in full alert mode. they weren't, and the subsequent debriefs make it patently clear that the vulnerability was human and not system related.


Quote:
Originally Posted by wittmanace View Post
So powerful that it can even defeat the US Aegis system. It is also reported that Iran possesses 16 of these missiles.
16 missiles? even if they were all fired at once they are well within the detection range of an Appache Longbow - let alone an Aegis System. As a small exercise, add up all the available counter responses available in a typical CVN and support fleet. 1 against "nn".

The USN have been training against Mach 3 to Mach 6 ASM/ASuM's since the 1960's. The battlespace response envelope has improved dramatically - and yet, one discrete system without the benefit of multiple attack capability, without the benefit of mutiple defeat systems is a new "you beaut" threat?

Somehow, I have a doubt.
________________
A corollary of Finagle's Law, similar to Occam's Razor, says:

"Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity"
http://au.linkedin.com/pub/gary-fairlie/1/28a/2a2
http://cofda.wordpress.com/
gf0012-aust is offline  
Old December 15th, 2006   #10
Defense Enthusiast
Corporal
No Avatar
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 159
Threads:
that second quote is from where i read the info and linked to, so show where i had read it, not my personal opinion there.

to be honest, im also expecting some similar info coming out of the declassification of the falklands incident reports....some is coming out this year, and some came out earlier this year.

but i these weapons clearly still pose a threat, though it seems it is limited. the fact is that this sort of weapon has been used time and again and has had success, though it is always because of this type f reason it seems. but they have had a few successes, clearly.

as is tated, i think we can agree that iran's use would primarily be against tankers and commercial shipping, anyway. i dont think anyone seriously thinks 16 missiles constitute a grave threat on their own to the us navy, more to shipping in the region.
wittmanace is offline  
Old December 15th, 2006   #11
Grumpy Old Man
General
gf0012-aust's Avatar
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 14,821
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by wittmanace View Post
that second quote is from where i read the info and linked to, so show where i had read it, not my personal opinion there.
I did notice the change in commentary style, so assumed that it was a quote but not bracketed.


Quote:
Originally Posted by wittmanace View Post
to be honest, im also expecting some similar info coming out of the declassification of the falklands incident reports....some is coming out this year, and some came out earlier this year.
I would imagine that quite a few analysts as well as historians will also be reading keenly.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wittmanace View Post
but i these weapons clearly still pose a threat, though it seems it is limited. the fact is that this sort of weapon has been used time and again and has had success, though it is always because of this type f reason it seems. but they have had a few successes, clearly.
Not trivialising the threat. I do get a bit antsy at some commentary you see sometimes where sweeping statements are made about new theatre changing weapons systems - and when the commentary ignores some logical and available examples of why enthusiasm should be tempered.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wittmanace View Post
as is tated, i think we can agree that iran's use would primarily be against tankers and commercial shipping, anyway. i dont think anyone seriously thinks 16 missiles constitute a grave threat on their own to the us navy, more to shipping in the region.
Noticed the pattern of successful strikes seems to fall into some common baskets:
  • approp defending systerm either inactive or inert due to a human intervention issue
  • the target vessel was incapable of responding (eg auxilliary vessels etc)
  • that some cavalier assessments had been made prior, or that good intel was not passed on or acted upon.
again, not making excuses or trivialising, but some clarity also needs to be included.

often you see comments where some people may talk about a counter to another system (eg) Aegis ship etc, but then ignore basic info like fleet management, CEC, emergence of ForceNET, counter systems etc....
________________
A corollary of Finagle's Law, similar to Occam's Razor, says:

"Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity"
http://au.linkedin.com/pub/gary-fairlie/1/28a/2a2
http://cofda.wordpress.com/
gf0012-aust is offline  
Old December 15th, 2006   #12
Defense Enthusiast
Corporal
Khairul Alam's Avatar
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 134
Threads:
I am getting a feeling that people are simply ruling out the Sunburst as an effective weapon without giving any hard evidence about its true capabilities.The Sunburst sale to Iran wouldnt have created so much chaos in US military circles had it been so bogus a missile.
Khairul Alam is offline  
Old December 15th, 2006   #13
Grumpy Old Man
General
gf0012-aust's Avatar
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 14,821
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Khairul Alam View Post
I am getting a feeling that people are simply ruling out the Sunburst as an effective weapon without giving any hard evidence about its true capabilities.The Sunburst sale to Iran wouldnt have created so much chaos in US military circles had it been so bogus a missile.
thats easy - give us a technical explanation how its effective against a typical CSF with all of their current systems.
  • lets use normal fleet disposition but on alert status.
________________
A corollary of Finagle's Law, similar to Occam's Razor, says:

"Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity"
http://au.linkedin.com/pub/gary-fairlie/1/28a/2a2
http://cofda.wordpress.com/
gf0012-aust is offline  
Old December 15th, 2006   #14
Deaf talker?
General
Todjaeger's Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: New England
Posts: 3,098
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by gf0012-aust View Post
thats easy - give us a technical explanation how its effective against a typical CSF with all of their current systems.
  • lets use normal fleet disposition but on alert status.
Agreed, a USN CSF would have at least 1 carrier with radar, a Hawkeye airborne, and at least 1 Ticonderoga or Arleigh Burke, in addition to other picket/escort ships. Each warship and the AWACS would have search radars active and they would be linked to each other for co-operative engagement. Against that many radar arrays, even stealthy missles could be hard put to escape detection long enough to get into CIWS range.

IIRC the planned Soviet tactic was long range air launches of large numbers of AShM. Enough so that either the air defense ships couldn't engage all the incoming missles fast enough, or that the magazines aboard ran out of missles.
For that, the Soviets planned on a strike using 100+ missiles. 16 might penetrate the defensive screen around a CSF, and therefore might do some damage. But IMO the probability is not likely assuming the crew is alert.

As for some of the issues with AShM during the Falklands, part of that I think stems from Cold War over specialization. The two main SAM systems the RN had at the time was the Sea Wolf and Sea Dart, and I believe more of the Sea Dart systems were on station (I think Sea Wolf was only on the Broadsword class frigates IIRC) The Sea Dart system was designed primarily to engage Soviet naval aviation and AShM, which at the time were high-speed, high altitude missiles, dropping to low altitude for terminal approach. The Sea Darts were therefore designed according to engage distant, high altitude targets. It wasn't really designed to engage low or sea skimming missiles that were used by NATO and allies. The RN ran into similar problems with the Argentinian Air Force Skyhawks, who did low altitude attacks, precisely because they too had the Sea Dart system and were aware of the performance issues at low altitude.

-Cheers
________________
"I'm doing the same thing I do every night, Pinky..." comment from one lab mouse to another.
Todjaeger is offline  
Old December 15th, 2006   #15
Just Hatched
Private
lastsalvo's Avatar
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 4
Threads:
Is the Sunburst you guys r talkin about simply the NATO name given to the 3M-54 Klub? (I kno the Nato coding for it is the SS-N-27, but no name was given to it on the page http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...ussia/club.htm)
lastsalvo is offline  
Closed Thread

Thread Tools
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:16 AM.