Iran says tests missiles able to sink "big warships"
- Thread starter Ths
- Start date
And what does your response have any thing to do with the topic:nutkick .
see how easy i can point a finger to.
Any how back to the topic
Reason i said that if commander Bush cant get permission there cant be any war.
i will leave R-77 for air forces forum.
But as for sunburn not being in top 5, even staying from Western anti-ship missiles, I can list Yakhont/Brahmos, Klub, P-700, YJ-62, YJ-83 and YJ-12. For western ones, I'd pick latest harpoon and MM-40 Exocet ahead of sunburn too.
Absolutely agree.
Except I don't know much about the YJ-12, that one caught me off guard.
What is that? Is that the new supersonic chinese missile to replace the sunburn?
General Ali
New Member
If they can
If they can big warships had it
If they can big warships had it
hey Galrahn, don't really have much information on it. From what I heard, YJ-1x series seem to be the next generation of Chinese anti-ship missile and that it's likely to be ramjet powered like Yakhont rather than sunburn. The exact designation of PLAN AShM is quite murky, YJ-12/62 have both been mentionned as the AShM on 052C.
Either way, you nailed the main point. I believe the Sunburn is probably the most overrated weapon in the world, and has perhaps the best PR department of any conventional weapon system never deployed in combat.
contedicavour
New Member
Oh well it's the usual old perception that supersonic is necessarily better than subsonic and the remaining myth (dating back to Cold War times) that the Russian SSMs were the main threat to US carrier groups... though those SS-N-19 Shipwreck really inspired fear back then :shudder , much more than Sunburn with its much lower range.
Back on topic, given the small size of the Persian Gulf, if the Iranians just want to generate havoc all they need is a bunch of naval mines and C802s targeting big tankers and the whole place turns into a mess. No need for a Sunburn.
cheers
DoC_FouALieR
New Member
I absolutely agree. Mining the Persian Gulf will disrupt oil traffic and turn the world economy into a serious crisis.
In the Iran / Iraq war Exocet missiles were a nuisance to general shipping in the gulf. In fact, in 1987 an Exocet nearly destroyed a US Frigate - the USS Stark (supposedly mistaken for an Iranian tanker).
Given the history of the region, I can't see any reason why Iran wouldn't invest in anti-ship missiles, which could in could be problematic for warships in the area.
Given the history of the region, I can't see any reason why Iran wouldn't invest in anti-ship missiles, which could in could be problematic for warships in the area.
Funny enough that Tphuang being the one mentioning that Sunburn is one of the most over-rated missiles out there but that it is chinese missiles that tops it in every aspect 
I admitt that there is a hype conerning the Moskit, but its hardly over-rated. It was revolutionary and superior to anything else when first introduced and if you look simply to the statistics (which sadly most of you ever do) it still outperforms all non-russian SSMs. In fact only missiles that really out performs it in its over chategory is Yakhont which altough orginally started as a competitor to the Moskit ended up being its replacement.
But we shouldn't be looking the statistics alone but actually paying attention to the doctrines and the idea of how the missile was mented for being used.
Moskit is the main weapon of the soviet BRK (large rocket ship) concept. Its basicly the orginal idea of destroyers adopted to present day (then) armed with missiles instead of torbedoes and mented for attacking against surface ships. This seems quite locigal and many of you might think that Duh...so does every other surface warships. Well no. It isen't so. Western navies have somewhat given away the anti-surface ship role from surface ships and their destroyers are despite their names completely different ships and mented for different tasks.
Unlike western navies, soviets adopted the SSMs for the conceptual replacement of torbedoes onboard destroyers as well. Soviet thinking called large missiles as they tought that the needed damage against the large surface ships was larger than eventually was the case (as showed in the Falklands war). Also the performance requirements for the missiles were of such that smaller missiles woudln't be adequate. So thus came the Moskit. It was succesor to the Termit and in someway to surface launched Malakhits. Altough there were supersonic SSMs existing back then, but none in the size/concept cathegory of the Moskit.
In general its bit naive to compare/make top 5 list of missiles from different chategories but IMO its unwise to jump over the doctrines as well. If you take Moskit for example from its orginal concept and try to fit it in to something completely different philosofy and tacktics, you wont end up good. I admitt that the western missiles, due their far smaller size makes then bit more versitale and at least more suitable to various western naval strategies but then again no western nor even chinese missiles are suitable for the soviet/russian ideas.
But if we humour our younger ones and stick solely in the narrow perspective of "globalsecurity" worldview and look only for the specs, I still bit wonder the top 5 list of Tphuangs...exspecially the strong emhasis over chinese missiles (well In reality I don't wonder it at all ). What makes Yj-83, Yj-62 and Yj-12 better than Moskits?
Range? Well yeas, perhaps. At least on paper all those missiles, except Yj-12 has a longer range than Moskit. Thats natural as they all have completely different propulsion mehtods compared to the Moskit. They all have small turbojet engines which is good for the range, but not for the speed and power needed for the supersonic flight of Moskit. Yj-83 at least in chinese circles enjoys the terminal supersonic speed, but IMO this is just hype and boasting. The concept of the missile just doesen't allow this. Only other SSM with turbojet as the sole propulsion is supersonic and that is the huge Bazalt which is completely different chategory missile. No other missile ever been in service, even in the size of Moskits, fitted with turbojets can go supersonic.
3M-54 has a turbojet and is only slightly larger than Yj-83, but it's terminal supersonic speed is made possiple with the solid rocket engine that takes over after the last stage of the missile departs from the rest.
So is the range, which would require extensive OTH targetting to be achived in effectual means anyway really that cruisal factor in modern naval warfare? Well here we end up back to the larger picture and then we would have to take the doctrines and concepts along again...and that is apparently just too booring for the rest of you...or is it?
I admitt that there is a hype conerning the Moskit, but its hardly over-rated. It was revolutionary and superior to anything else when first introduced and if you look simply to the statistics (which sadly most of you ever do) it still outperforms all non-russian SSMs. In fact only missiles that really out performs it in its over chategory is Yakhont which altough orginally started as a competitor to the Moskit ended up being its replacement.
But we shouldn't be looking the statistics alone but actually paying attention to the doctrines and the idea of how the missile was mented for being used.
Moskit is the main weapon of the soviet BRK (large rocket ship) concept. Its basicly the orginal idea of destroyers adopted to present day (then) armed with missiles instead of torbedoes and mented for attacking against surface ships. This seems quite locigal and many of you might think that Duh...so does every other surface warships. Well no. It isen't so. Western navies have somewhat given away the anti-surface ship role from surface ships and their destroyers are despite their names completely different ships and mented for different tasks.
Unlike western navies, soviets adopted the SSMs for the conceptual replacement of torbedoes onboard destroyers as well. Soviet thinking called large missiles as they tought that the needed damage against the large surface ships was larger than eventually was the case (as showed in the Falklands war). Also the performance requirements for the missiles were of such that smaller missiles woudln't be adequate. So thus came the Moskit. It was succesor to the Termit and in someway to surface launched Malakhits. Altough there were supersonic SSMs existing back then, but none in the size/concept cathegory of the Moskit.
In general its bit naive to compare/make top 5 list of missiles from different chategories but IMO its unwise to jump over the doctrines as well. If you take Moskit for example from its orginal concept and try to fit it in to something completely different philosofy and tacktics, you wont end up good. I admitt that the western missiles, due their far smaller size makes then bit more versitale and at least more suitable to various western naval strategies but then again no western nor even chinese missiles are suitable for the soviet/russian ideas.
But if we humour our younger ones and stick solely in the narrow perspective of "globalsecurity" worldview and look only for the specs, I still bit wonder the top 5 list of Tphuangs...exspecially the strong emhasis over chinese missiles (well In reality I don't wonder it at all
). What makes Yj-83, Yj-62 and Yj-12 better than Moskits?Range? Well yeas, perhaps. At least on paper all those missiles, except Yj-12 has a longer range than Moskit. Thats natural as they all have completely different propulsion mehtods compared to the Moskit. They all have small turbojet engines which is good for the range, but not for the speed and power needed for the supersonic flight of Moskit. Yj-83 at least in chinese circles enjoys the terminal supersonic speed, but IMO this is just hype and boasting. The concept of the missile just doesen't allow this. Only other SSM with turbojet as the sole propulsion is supersonic and that is the huge Bazalt which is completely different chategory missile. No other missile ever been in service, even in the size of Moskits, fitted with turbojets can go supersonic.
3M-54 has a turbojet and is only slightly larger than Yj-83, but it's terminal supersonic speed is made possiple with the solid rocket engine that takes over after the last stage of the missile departs from the rest.
So is the range, which would require extensive OTH targetting to be achived in effectual means anyway really that cruisal factor in modern naval warfare? Well here we end up back to the larger picture and then we would have to take the doctrines and concepts along again...and that is apparently just too booring for the rest of you...or is it?
The problem with Russian AshMs is that there are way too many types, which means less resources and time spent to debug each and every one of them as compared to having only a few, if not one single standardized type. The result of having too many designs also leads to lack of rationalization, high cost due to lack of volume, forces invention of too many different fire control systems, and inability to adapt to different platforms. The Moskit is only ship launched, and not all ships, being two destroyer classes and some FAC classes. The air launched version is still born, and is frankly too heavy for most aircraft. No sub launched version, its too big. Quite inflexible. Its not likely you can set waypoints for it in order to attack from a direction without trying to give away the original location of the shooter or from a direction not expected by the target or at an aspect that is the weakpoint of the target. The sheer weight of the missiles is going to force the ship's design to be build around this missile as its main consideration, and stunt the other mission roles of the vessel. For example I have a hard time seeing how you can design a proper air defense and ASW destroyer while loading the ship with this missile. The Moskit lays too many design consequences.
Misconception. Only if you mix generations.
00s operational: 3M54E
90s operational: 3M24/Kh-35; 3M55
80s operational: 3K10/Kh-55; 3M80/3M82; 3M45
70s operational: 9K85; 4K77/4K80/3M70
60s operational: 3M44; 4K66
50s operational: 4K40/4K51
Looks a lot cleaner, doesn't it?
And it's not like it's different in the West. Germany currently operates Kormoran 2, Sea Eagle, Exocet MM38, Harpoon Block 1C, RBS-15 Mk III.
I think that should say Sea Skua for the Lynx's. As far as I know, the only exports for Sea Eagle where to Chile, India and the Saudis.We have Sea Eagle? On which platform?
Aaaah, I'm such an amateur in this field.
Last edited:
BAe Dynamics Sea Eagle Anti-ship missile
Waylander I found this hope it helps.
BAe Dynamics Sea Eagle Anti-ship missile
Anti-shipping missile was developed under the designation P3T and was a follow-on to the Active Radar Martel project. Sea Eagle was originally fitted to RAF Bucanneer and Tornado types, but can now be fitted to Merlin, Sea King, Sea Harrier and Jaguar. Some variants of the Hawk can carry Sea Eagle. Sea Eagle is sea-skimming, powered by a Microturbo turbojet and fitted with an armour piercing warhead for use against the new generation of Soviet warships.
For helicopter launch, Sea Eagle is fitted with a pair of boost rocket motors. A longer ranged version, Golden Eagle, was intended to use an imaging Infra-Red seeker and datalink, but was cancelled.
The example in the photograph is on display at the Bristol Collection at Kemble Airfield. Note that the two lower wings are missing.
Link
http://www.skomer.u-net.com/projects/seaeagle.htm
Waylander I found this hope it helps.
BAe Dynamics Sea Eagle Anti-ship missile
Anti-shipping missile was developed under the designation P3T and was a follow-on to the Active Radar Martel project. Sea Eagle was originally fitted to RAF Bucanneer and Tornado types, but can now be fitted to Merlin, Sea King, Sea Harrier and Jaguar. Some variants of the Hawk can carry Sea Eagle. Sea Eagle is sea-skimming, powered by a Microturbo turbojet and fitted with an armour piercing warhead for use against the new generation of Soviet warships.
For helicopter launch, Sea Eagle is fitted with a pair of boost rocket motors. A longer ranged version, Golden Eagle, was intended to use an imaging Infra-Red seeker and datalink, but was cancelled.
The example in the photograph is on display at the Bristol Collection at Kemble Airfield. Note that the two lower wings are missing.
Link
http://www.skomer.u-net.com/projects/seaeagle.htm