SSN-27 "Sizzler"

[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]

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/fullpa...0A9629C8B63&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 Aeroflot.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?

 

[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 !

 

[contedicavour]

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

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.