Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 11/17/2003 1:46:42 PM EDT
They pose a real danger to our Carrier Battle Groups. Syria and Iran have just acquired Sunburn missiles, didn't they?

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/steveseymour/joeviallscouk/myahudi/Ariel_U4.gif
Link Posted: 11/17/2003 1:49:23 PM EDT
I've not been in the Navy since 1996, but I do remember that the Sunburn scared the ever-lovin' SHIT out of us.

Back then, there was simply no way to knock them down. To low for missiles, too fast for CIWS. It was a classic tale of it being imperetive to kill the archer before he loosed his arrows.

Hopefully something new has come up in the past 7 years to counter them.
Link Posted: 11/17/2003 1:51:01 PM EDT
Say they're 10 years behind us....10 years ago we could kick some serious ass.

Since they are free market now, they will strive to build competative armaments.
Link Posted: 11/17/2003 1:57:01 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Zaphod:

Hopefully something new has come up in the past 7 years to counter them.



It's hard to believe the Ruskies improved on the Sunburn, apparently the next generation, the Onyx is a big improvement.

I think only really aggressive picket ships that can pop the launch platform....beit sub, surface or air could counter the Sunburn at this time. Our choices in point defenses are kinda limited.

Is the Aircraft Carrier a thing of the past with these missiles out there? I'm sure we'd hate to find out firsthand.

BTW, do we have an ALCM or SLCM in the works that is comparable in performance to these ruskie missiles?
Link Posted: 11/17/2003 2:05:36 PM EDT
The only ASM's in our inventory are the Harpoon and the Tomahawk, unless something new popped up since I left.

The harpoon is 70's tech and the Tomahawk is 80's.

With no other navy to threaten us, and seeing as the ones we have are quite effective against any foreseable threat, I doubt it's a priority right now...
Link Posted: 11/17/2003 4:07:02 PM EDT
16" Flechette rounds to make a wall of outgoing.



Link Posted: 11/17/2003 4:10:19 PM EDT
*AHEM*

http://www.swordsmen.org/aviat-gall/tomcat10.jpg
Link Posted: 11/17/2003 4:12:33 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Phil_in_Seattle:
16" Flechette rounds to make a wall of outgoing.

pic5.picturetrail.com/VOL77/858902/2680110/38434239.jpg




I love pics of BB's in action!

Too bad they are all mothballed. :( :( :(

Zaphod, the Ruskies are gunning to punch holes in our CVN's. Sunburns aren't good for anything else. Of course, the platforms launching these missiles are older tech frigates, dd's and missile boats.....as well as the Akula's and Oscar's......
Link Posted: 11/17/2003 4:13:12 PM EDT
Ooooh, but wait. They are getting rid of them. Never mind!

http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Usa/Tests/Umbrella1946c5.jpg

And what the hell. I didn't know Su-33Ds could carry those suckers...
Link Posted: 11/17/2003 4:16:31 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 11/17/2003 4:23:23 PM EDT by raven]
Israel and the US have developed laser defenses that can shoot down katushya rockets in midflight. I'm sure they'll be developed for a naval version that can shoot these Russian anti-ship missiles down.
Link Posted: 11/17/2003 4:18:17 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Blackjack272:
Ooooh, but wait. They are getting rid of them. Never mind!

http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Usa/Tests/Umbrella1946c5.jpg

And what the hell. I didn't know Su-33Ds could carry those suckers...



Buhahaha! That's a lil bit of overkill, donchaknow?!

Yup, you can see on the centerline weapons position there is a big, fat Sunburn underneath. The new Onyx will fit there too.
Link Posted: 11/17/2003 4:21:01 PM EDT
We just need to offer all the Rooskie seamen their own apartment, a lifetime supply of Smirnoff, and a lifetime subscription to Hustler. They'll forget all about the ASMs.
Link Posted: 11/17/2003 4:21:08 PM EDT
Link Posted: 11/17/2003 4:21:30 PM EDT
I hope to GOD that F-14B aircrews get those 'blue' upgrades. As far as I know, the normal air defense weaponry WILL NOT and CANNOT down such a weapon.

Hence the need to prevent the launch aircraft from getting there in the first place.

Besides, if the do have a launch, the aircraft already on CAP are the only chance that carrier has.

But WAIT! I forgot, planes cost too much money! Let's cut the funding for I can get my new gold golf cart..
Link Posted: 11/17/2003 4:27:17 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Scht0nk:
Zaphod, the Ruskies are gunning to punch holes in our CVN's. Sunburns aren't good for anything else. Of course, the platforms launching these missiles are older tech frigates, dd's and missile boats.....as well as the Akula's and Oscar's......



That's been their entire naval strategy since the Cuban Missile Crisis, when our navy put theirs completely to shame.

The problem with relying on "shooting the archer" is that you need intel and the ability to strike first.

Unfortunately, neither Iran nor Syria need to mount a regimental Backfire raid in order to put holes in our CVNs. They can launch from a single platform over land. Not much room to maneuver in the Persian Gulf...

Send in the SEALs. Destroy the missiles. Destroy the planes. Kill the crews. Problem solved.
Link Posted: 11/17/2003 4:27:20 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 11/17/2003 4:32:24 PM EDT by Scht0nk]

Originally Posted By Blackjack272:
I hope to GOD that F-14B aircrews get those 'blue' upgrades. As far as I know, the normal air defense weaponry WILL NOT and CANNOT down such a weapon.

Hence the need to prevent the launch aircraft from getting there in the first place.

Besides, if the do have a launch, the aircraft already on CAP are the only chance that carrier has.

But WAIT! I forgot, planes cost too much money! Let's cut the funding for I can get my new gold golf cart..



The ALCM's don't really bug me......you can always see the platform beyond the horizon.....the Sub launched suckers are the boogeyman! The SSN-25 will be deployed on fast attacks and guided missile boats like the Oscar.

BTW, anyone have info on that superfast rocket torpedo the Ruskies have now.....the Shkval? I know they're unguided......that might change soon tho.....
Link Posted: 11/17/2003 4:33:41 PM EDT
Send in the SEALs, and cause an international incedent. Not cool.

OTOH, I would like to see one of those suckers go up in smoke, as well as the planes, but the planes should go DOWN in smoke, if you see what I'm sayin'.

1: Bring back up VF-84 as well as VF-103 - those two squadrons ( with Toms ) had extremely impressive missile test results at mirimar.

2: Send in some ultra-cool CIA doods to destroy the missiles, the plants, the plans, and the planes.

3. Have the SEAL teams mine Russian harbors whenever their old Kilos get a little antsy. Blame it on terrorists.
Link Posted: 11/17/2003 4:34:05 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 11/17/2003 4:39:18 PM EDT by stator]
Sunburn is a nuke... no need to score a direct hit , just get it into the vicinity. Their new one is a bigger nuke with much greater standoff range. The Soviets always used nuclear weapons as the primary strike weapon against the USA carrier fleet. The old days, whether it was an aircraft or submarine, the firing platform was simply "one-fire" only. The cold war version of the kamakaze.
Link Posted: 11/17/2003 4:36:38 PM EDT
And I believe we got some special planes out of the deal, as a result of them making Backfires with nukes, yes?

I can see another Cold War - with Iran!
Link Posted: 11/17/2003 4:37:18 PM EDT
with a range of (200+) Kilometers, the launching aircraft would have to get reaaaaaaaly close to the AA screening ships in a battlegroup, much less the battlegroup aircraft. Not as suicidal as trying to launch Exocets (what, 30 mile range?) at a modern US ship.

Carriers are meant for the wide open spaces like the south china sea or the north Atlantic, not the Arabian/Persian Gulf.

Yeah, sub launched missles are MUCH more dangerous.

All the same, I wonder how many useful launch platforms are available among those we might have to fight other than China. I would imagine a country like Iran or Syria would risk these as much as we might risk a carrier.
Link Posted: 11/17/2003 4:46:29 PM EDT
The new Onyx can penetrate a CVN's thick backside with sheer velocity.

"Though SS-N-25 deployment might seem like giant overkill, this is far from being the case, because Onyx differs from Sunburn in one utterly crucial way. So great is the kinetic energy at the point of impact on the target, that Onyx can sink an American aircraft carrier using only a conventional penetrating warhead. Calculate the impact energy of 5,500 pounds of missile striking a carrier at a terminal velocity of 2,460 feet per second. Onyx means that Russia or China can sink American aircraft carriers at will without ever having to escalate to nuclear warfare, which gives both countries a massive strategic advantage."

-Janes
Link Posted: 11/17/2003 4:49:15 PM EDT
Which is not good.

What action is the SECNAV taking? Is the Pentago doing anything?
Link Posted: 11/17/2003 4:49:30 PM EDT
The Iraqis were chucking land-based ASMs at the Navy's fleet during the spring war... Fortunately, said missiles were really crappy, and missed...

As for the Sunburn/Onyx, I'd guess they have a conventional version for export, and I'd guess they have a land-based launcher available...

I wonder if the RAM (rolling airframe missile) point-defense system that's supposed to replace the CIWS can handle these things???

Other than that, the best possible defense I can think of is to spot them far enough out that you can get an interceptor on them...

Sub launched stuff like this would be a real PITA, as they could pop them off close-in, reducing the chance of defense.... So if the Russians sell them to China, we have problems...
Link Posted: 11/17/2003 4:51:03 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Phil_in_Seattle:
16" Flechette rounds to make a wall of outgoing.

pic5.picturetrail.com/VOL77/858902/2680110/38434239.jpg




That didn't save the Musashi vs USN dive bombers. It wouldn't help vs cruise missiles...

Link Posted: 11/17/2003 4:53:45 PM EDT
... Mid-Infrared Advanced Chemical Laser (MIRACL)
Link Posted: 11/17/2003 4:53:46 PM EDT
This could help...

http://www.anft.net/f-14/f14-detail-aim54-02.htm
Link Posted: 11/17/2003 4:59:50 PM EDT
The laser weapon would be ideal for defense of a carrier. The biggest problem with lasers is a power source, well there is NO shortage of power from a nuclear reactor. Also they have been able to hit Artillery shells in flight.

I read recently that the U.S. is in development of hypersonic cruise missle, something we should have had long ago but got shitcanned in the 1990's.

I still like 2 scenarios of if we had to duke it out with the PRC over Taiwan.
1. We use carriers, the carriers get mauled by missles due to the relatively close nature of Taiwan to the PRC.

2. Was we unleash our SSN's, in a week the PRC Navy's new home is on the bottom of the South China Sea and our SSN's return to Pearl Harbor with brooms hanging off the masts!
Link Posted: 11/17/2003 9:26:07 PM EDT
CIWS is pretty ineffective against these, even if they explode it out at almost max range, you have a dump truck load of scrap metal and propellant and explosive slamming along at a pretty good lip.

Get them before launch is the best bet. I proposed S-3s as missile carriers back in '76 and nearly got lynched over it.

If they get to the former client states in the MidEast then we got problems. Hopefully, the Russlies never let loose of them.

That said you still need to find and target the target which is not an easy task and most little countries have neither the experience or capability to do it. And if they start practicing to get the necessary experience and/or to develop the capability we will know.

The only good thing is that these things are so damn expensive they aren't going to too many places. OOPS, unless they produce oil.
Link Posted: 11/17/2003 9:31:45 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 11/17/2003 9:35:01 PM EDT by pogo]

Originally Posted By eodtech2000:
The laser weapon would be ideal for defense of a carrier. The biggest problem with lasers is a power source, well there is NO shortage of power from a nuclear reactor. Also they have been able to hit Artillery shells in flight.




I read a news item several years ago that all future US surface combatant designs would be turbo electric driven, to be able to retrofit directed energy weapons when they become practical.

This means, for a carrier, all 280,000 shp of electicity is available instantly on demand and does not have to be a dedicated up-and-running generator.

I thought it was a more significant news item than the blurb I read, as it indicated most of the fleet would be considered obsolete when these things became practical and a new threat emerged.
Link Posted: 11/18/2003 3:08:53 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 11/18/2003 3:11:39 AM EDT by Winston_Wolf]
... That's the name of the game in "this business" fellas. Weapons we once dominated the worlds battlefields eventually become reversed engineered making ours outdated. The brutally sobering truth is, our adversaries are busy planning yours and my deaths 24/7.

... In addition to the Mid-Infrared Advanced Chemical Laser (MIRACL) and other laser weapons system, we're investing research dollars in autonomous airborne weapons and surveillance platforms that manage threats and make the best use of information in real time. Largely made successful by the huge advances in computing speeds and technologies.

... Our goals now are to enable both connectivity between these different platforms and ensure interoperability between different systems on the battlefield, air, high seas and of course space.

... These imminent threats aren't just imagined; they're real. The vast majority of our liberal (and most democratic) brothers and sisters don't want to believe it. They want to wish it away. They want a leader in office next year that will severely cut DARPA funding and put that money towards social programs that ensure illegal aliens get fair treatment, drivers licenses and a bigger government role on how you live your life in America.

... You have a bigger responsibility on the magnitude the threat these nasty missiles pose against our men and women in uniform than you may realize. I hope you remember that come the second Tuesday in November 2004.
Link Posted: 11/18/2003 7:06:22 AM EDT
Sunburn is a capable missile that is dedicated to much less capable platforms. Basically the only platforms outfitted for it are the Sovremmenyj class destroyers and the Flanker derivatives.

The Onyx is the SS-N-26, not the SS-N-25. The SS-N-25 is Zubr and was a prototype competitor (subsonic) for the same role that the Sunburn now fills.

None of these missiles are yet adapted to sub-launch and are too big in diameter to fit into a torpedo tube (even the big 650mm tubes).

Also, the idea that you can sink a carrier with one of these missiles is pure fantasy. A single missile might sink or disable a destroyer; but it would take several missiles and multiple platforms to effectively attack a carrier - not that being hit with just one would be fun for the carrier.

Finally, the problem with a Mach 2/3 missile is you have a hard time packing enough fuel into one to get very far. 60nm sounds like a long way; but it terms of carrier battle groups it means you have to get pretty close.

I definitely wouldn't discount or ignore the missile. It is a modern threat and one to be concerned about; but at the end of the day the U.S. Navy will still go anywhere it wants to go and this missile system is not yet in a position to change that.
Link Posted: 11/18/2003 8:18:55 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Bartholomew_Roberts:
Also, the idea that you can sink a carrier with one of these missiles is pure fantasy.



You don't need to sink it, just knock it out of action.

Also, the biggest threat to a carrier isn't flooding, it's FIRE, and one of these can cause all kinds of hell to break loose on a bird farm.

If even one of these gets through, it will be a very sorry day...
Link Posted: 11/18/2003 8:29:19 AM EDT
SS-N-25 Switchblade
SS-N-26 Onyx

Same missile, different performance and platform.

This missile, in times when we need to be in narrow straits means we won't have the ability to roam at will. If we're in a conflict with PRC and need to insert ourselves between PRC and Taiwan, the presense of these missiles will mean WE WON'T GO THERE.

We need to wake up to the fact that Russia is still on PAR with our technology and maybe surpasses it in some areas. I'd hate to find out the hard way if the CVN will go the way of the BB.
Link Posted: 11/18/2003 9:16:14 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 11/18/2003 9:20:29 AM EDT by Bartholomew_Roberts]
Zaphod:

Also, the biggest threat to a carrier isn't flooding, it's FIRE, and one of these can cause all kinds of hell to break loose on a bird farm.


Yeah, firing a missile into a carrier will do that. I'm not implying that its a nerf missile. I am saying it will take a lot of them to sink a carrier and that the existing platforms for the missile will be very fortunate to close to launch range in a wartime environment.

Scht0nk:

SS-N-25 Switchblade
SS-N-26 Onyx

Same missile, different performance and platform.



Different missiles, different performance and platforms.

The Sunburn and Switchblade missile programs were authorized for development by the Kremlin in 1973 to pursue a twin-track of anti-ship missile development. The SS-N-25 was the project of the Zvezda-Strela GNPTs to pursue a smart, subsonic anti-ship missile similar to the one the U.S. Navy adopted ten years later as the Harpoon.

The Sunburn was a not-as-smart supersonic, quick reaction missile project of the Raduga Design Bureau (now NPOMash) with a big kick in the seat from a Russian scientist named Chelomoy.

The SS-N-25 is a 480kg, 42cm wide, 3.75m long subsonic missile.

The SS-N-26 is a 3,000kg, 67cm wide, 8.9m long supersonic missile.

Different design bureaus, different projects (or proyekts if you prefer), different missiles.


This missile, in times when we need to be in narrow straits means we won't have the ability to roam at will. If we're in a conflict with PRC and need to insert ourselves between PRC and Taiwan, the presense of these missiles will mean WE WON'T GO THERE.


As a matter of habit, carrier groups avoid confined spaces when possible anyway. In the case of a Taiwan/China conflict, there is little point in driving a carrier group into the straits when you have a large unsinkable carrier in the form of Taiwan.

BR, former CTI2(9201)
Link Posted: 11/18/2003 9:53:11 AM EDT
I'm not much worried about the "Oscars" and the like as we're unlikely to fight the Russians. However, does anyone know if these missiles can launched from a KILO ??

5sub
Link Posted: 11/18/2003 10:20:39 AM EDT
F-14's will be gone in two years. Why spend the money on them. Spend it on the F-18.


Originally Posted By Blackjack272:
I hope to GOD that F-14B aircrews get those 'blue' upgrades. As far as I know, the normal air defense weaponry WILL NOT and CANNOT down such a weapon.

Hence the need to prevent the launch aircraft from getting there in the first place.

Besides, if the do have a launch, the aircraft already on CAP are the only chance that carrier has.

But WAIT! I forgot, planes cost too much money! Let's cut the funding for I can get my new gold golf cart..

Link Posted: 11/18/2003 11:21:18 AM EDT

However, does anyone know if these missiles can launched from a KILO ??


No, they cannot be launched from a Kilo at this time.

The only sub I'm aware of that can fire the Sunburn or the Onyx (a faster, longer ranged version) was a Charlie class sub that was specially converted for the job and then scrapped before sea trials could be conducted.

Sub-launched Sunburns are probably not a very profitable line of development for NPOMash since likely customers either don't have the need (India) or a suitable platform (China) for such a product.
Link Posted: 11/18/2003 3:28:34 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Bartholomew_Roberts:
Also, the idea that you can sink a carrier with one of these missiles is pure fantasy. A single missile might sink or disable a destroyer; but it would take several missiles and multiple platforms to effectively attack a carrier - not that being hit with just one would be fun for the carrier.



Oh? Put a nuclear warhead is one. A carrier is definitely worth a nuke.
Link Posted: 11/18/2003 3:34:14 PM EDT
Why spend it on the F/A-18s when test pilots at Pax river found them less capable in all dimentions ( ask them for proof - not me ).
Link Posted: 11/18/2003 3:34:42 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Bartholomew_Roberts:

However, does anyone know if these missiles can launched from a KILO ??


No, they cannot be launched from a Kilo at this time.




Good, very good.
Link Posted: 11/18/2003 3:35:11 PM EDT

Originally Posted By stator:
Sunburn is a nuke... no need to score a direct hit , just get it into the vicinity. Their new one is a bigger nuke with much greater standoff range. The Soviets always used nuclear weapons as the primary strike weapon against the USA carrier fleet. The old days, whether it was an aircraft or submarine, the firing platform was simply "one-fire" only. The cold war version of the kamakaze.



This information is incorrect. There may be nuke versions but the primary variant is conventional.
Link Posted: 11/18/2003 3:48:34 PM EDT
The SS-N-25 is known as the Harpoonski. A knockoff of the American Harpoon with some supposed improvements.

The only Anti Ship Missiles left in the US inventory are the Harpoons. The Tomahawk Anti Ship Missiles (TASMs) have long been phased out and refitted to become TLAMs.

Anti Ship Missiles with a long range(200+ miles) may sound impressive, but they require a non-manuevering target. Ships have the tendancy to change course from time to time.

There are defenses both active and passive against an SS-N-22 and its newer counterpart. The missiles do present a tactical challenge, but they aren't invincible. Most of what I've been taught about SS-N-22 defense has been in a room with no windows in a middle of a building. Since my ass is on the line out there I don't plan on sharing too much on an internet board.

One ally against Russian anti ship missiles is the poor quality control during construction; another is poor maintenance. Unfortunately, that both are allies you can't rely on.
Link Posted: 11/18/2003 4:18:20 PM EDT
I'm not a missile expert by no means but if one of those fuckers hits my house when I'm home I will be very dead.
Man, I hope I'm not home.
Link Posted: 11/18/2003 5:07:09 PM EDT
The S-3 suggestion was made at Pensacola. Needless to say it was heresy in a fighter world that something other than a fighter can carry AAW missiles. As the Forrestal, Oriskany, Franklin, found out fires can knock a carrier out of the game without sinking it. And carriers are fires waiting to happen.

I hope nobody knowing some of the cures doesn't slip on here.

I agree that some of the long term DARPA and similar projects have promise in this and other areas. Killing off DARPA is a bad idea.

I even saw MIRACL one time.
Link Posted: 11/18/2003 5:20:42 PM EDT

Originally Posted By PaDanby:

... I agree that some of the long term DARPA and similar projects have promise in this and other areas. Killing off DARPA is a bad idea.

I even saw MIRACL one time.



... Thank you for reading my posts PaDanby, this is the business I'm in. It's stressful, but it's rewarding in so many ways.
Link Posted: 11/18/2003 6:34:53 PM EDT
The 3M-80 Moskit (SS-N-22) "Sunburn" is one of the most capable anti-ship cruise missiles (ASCMs) in the world. It has been in production by the Raduga Bureau since the early '80s. I remember when I got my first CIA briefing on this beast way back when...and we had very little to go on then...except fear. It was then and remains now a formidable weapon.

The Sunburn is a very innovative design utilizing a large solid fuel rocket to boost the missile to supersonic speed sufficient enough to permit the liquid fueled ramjet to kick in for the duration of the flight. The booster is actually carried inside the shell of the ramjet afterbody, thus reducing overall length and reducing weight...neat!

Max speed of the Sunburn is about M3 or something over 2,000 mph. That's about 37 miles a minute! For you landlubbers, that means on a standard radar day with no atmospheric ducting, from the time your ship detects the incoming missing until impact is something on the order of 45secs. That is NOT a lot of time to react. The Sunburn has a max range of about 100nmi. The Sunburn is a sea-skimming missile.

Several years ago, we learned that upgraded models of the Sunburn were being fielded and that Russians had extended the range and dropped the terminal altitude, making it an even more formidable threat. This model also has some capabilities specifically designed to defeat the defenses of the target ship including any missiles it may have fired. Low altitude, low radar signature and terminal maneuvers when combined, make any missile especially hard to defeat.

The Sunburn was thought to be nuclear capable at one time, but that capability has most likely been deleted since the early '90s.

Here is a web site with some good info (Note who is running it. ) www.sinodefence.com/navy/weapon/3m80.asp

The Russians also put a smaller version of the Sunburn into production some years ago...the Kh-31 (AS-17 Krypton). This missile is basically an air launched version of the Sunburn...with some mods to make it more effective. It can fly a couple of different profiles including a sea-skimmer and high-diver-to-sea-skimmer. It too is a formidable anti-ship missile.

The 3M-24E, also known as the Kh-35 Uran (SS-N-25 Switchblade) is not really a follow-on to the Sunburn. Rather, it is the Russian version of our Harpoon; a subsonic (M.95) sea-skimming anti-ship cruise missile. Not so say that the 3M-24E isn't dangerous, it most certainly is, but it's flight and technical characteristics are far different from the Sunburn. Here is a web page for the 3M-24E (SS-N-25) Swichblade. www.bharat-rakshak.com/NAVY/3M-24.html

If you think those above are dangerous...try these out:

The 3M-55 Yakhont (SS-N-26) is a new-generation missile...and a very bad dude.

www.milparade.com/1998/26/020.htm & here...www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/missile/row/ss-n-26.htm

Then there is this little sweetheart...the 3M-54 (SS-N-27) Novator Alpha also known as the "Klub". This missile comes in several variants and has several missions. This missile flies a couple of different flight paths and has a small terminal sea-skimming third stage that attacks the target ship at something over M3. This missile has other characteristics and capabilities that make it extremely dangerous to any navy. It is generally considered to be one of the most dangerous ASCMs in the world. I would fear it, were I still serving.

Here is the web site for the Klub: www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/missile/row/club.htm...and here: www.bharat-rakshak.com/NAVY/Klub.html

Sorry for all the links...but I'm on the road and my hotel room link isn't working all that well, and I've got some real work to do.

BTW...once fired...I know of no aircraft or aircraft fired missile that is effective against any of the missiles I mentioned above. That means of course...we must shoot the archer first...or kill the missile from the target ship or a consort...always a dicey proposition.

FWIW, I served 28 years as a USN surface warfare officer. I spent years studying these nasty things when we had to learn them rote so as to be able to fight our ships. Now, I work for a university lab and we are still in the biz...

BTW...just to ease the fears of those suspicious minds among us...NOTHING I have mentioned above is classified. On the contrary, you could look it up!
Top Top