SSN-27 "Sizzler"

contedicavour

New Member
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

New Member
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

Member
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

Entertainer
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...
 
A

Aussie Digger

Guest
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

Potstirrer
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.
 
Last edited:

Ares

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

FSMonster

New Member
JBodnar39 said:
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

New Member
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.
 
Last edited:

Todjaeger

Potstirrer
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

Member
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

New Member
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
 
Top