Military Review

Brimstone missile against Iranian speedboats

34
Brimstone missile against Iranian speedboats



June 25 X-year of the British fighter Tornado launched a Brimstone rocket at a high-speed small armed boat and successfully hit the target. The Brimstone rocket used its own radar to track the target. The capabilities of the rocket, implementing the principle of "shot and forget," allow aircraft to operate outside the zone of destruction of any weapons these small boats and allow them to quickly and safely destroy many of these high-speed torpedo boats. This is not surprising, since Brimstone was the most outstanding air-to-surface missile used during the Libyan campaign last year, and for the most part it was used for the same reasons.



The British fifty-five kilogram Brimstone rocket was originally developed as an updated version of the American Hellfire. As a result, Brimstone inherited from Hellfire only a general form. Weighing about the same as Hellfire (48.5 kg), Brimstone can be used with high-speed carriers (fighter-bomber), and not just as Hellfire from helicopters and unmanned aerial vehicles. The aircraft can carry several such light missiles. They are ideal for the destruction of small objects, including vehicles that must be destroyed, without causing collateral damage to nearby civilians or their troops. This is what made Brimstone so popular in Libya.



One of the main success factors of Brimstone is its excellent guidance system. Four years ago, Britain added a dual-mode (radar and laser) homing head to the Brimstone. Initially, Brimstone was supposed to be a complete likeness of the American Hellfire, equipped with a British MSS (miniature millimeter-wave radar) and have the ability to launch from aircraft. Brimstone got a chance to demonstrate its effectiveness only in Afghanistan and Libya. The tactical and technical characteristics of Brimstone turned out to be particularly impressive in Libya, which is why the rocket was used so often. After that, the Americans and the French also became interested in using this rocket as a very effective anti-car weapon for equipping their jet fighter-bombers.

The Hellfire guided missile was developed three decades ago as a helicopter anti-tank weapon, but it also turned out to be very useful in fighting enemy infantry hiding in buildings and caves. Later, Hellfire proved to be the ideal weapon for use on large UAVs. The current version has a range of eight kilometers, and Brimstone has a range of 12 km.



Brimstone radar seeker allows you to use the "shot and forget" rocket. Laser GOS is more accurate (up to a meter or two from the aiming point). There is a special device for the suspension of three Brimstone missiles (instead of one large rocket) under the planes of jet fighters.

The nine-kilogram Brimstone warhead can destroy vehicles without causing civilian casualties. British fighter pilots achieved quite a big success in destroying individual vehicles from Brimstone missiles from low altitude. Carrying dozens of Brimstones, a fighter-bomber can easily apply them all in one flight, all the while staying out of range of air defense.
Originator:
http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htairw/articles/20120716.aspx
34 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. kapitan_21
    kapitan_21 19 July 2012 08: 24 New
    +3
    Let's hope that one Amer aircraft carrier or destroyer will be smaller in the world before they can use their Brimstone! )))
    1. Tirpitz
      Tirpitz 19 July 2012 09: 13 New
      +3
      Hopefully, BUT will not be like that. Aircraft carriers in the Persian Gulf will not enter in the event of an operation on Iran. Will operate from the Arabian Sea.
      I have already spoken about this more than once.
      1. kapitan_21
        kapitan_21 19 July 2012 09: 30 New
        +1
        Respected Tirpitz,
        "... an aircraft carrier or a destroyer ..." !!! Destroyers, too, will not enter the Persian Gulf ??? Or do you think that Iran is not capable of destroying an American eminent like "Arleigh Burke" ??? By the way, there are still very good targets for Iranian missile boats - these are helicopter carriers of the "Wasp" class!
        1. Beck
          Beck 19 July 2012 10: 18 New
          +6
          Captain. Where is the logic of comparisons? How can I put an aircraft carrier on one board, and on the contrary a boat. By your logic, in the Second World War, the Japanese should not have built aircraft carriers and battleships, but fought with America by building boats. Nonsense. But in fact, military action against Iran may not be the case at all. The economic sanctions of the civilized world will force Iran to accept the conditions for the peaceful development of the atom. But, if suddenly it comes to armed confrontation. That military tasks in Iran are fundamentally different from those in Iraq. In Iraq, the task was to overthrow the dictatorial, bloodthirsty, anti-people regime of Saddam Hussein. Iran will face the challenge of depriving Iran of the possibility of creating nuclear weapons. For this purpose, troop entry is not needed .. Five aircraft carriers will be pulled to the shores of Iran, and this is an average of 350 combat aircraft versus about 100 Iranian ones outdated. Tomahawks will be destroyed by Iranian air defense. Then the planes will bomb Iran’s nuclear infrastructure. And that’s all. And no one will send troops to Iran. But to counteract aircraft carriers with boats is laughter and sin. As well as ridicule the modern British missile that neither China nor India can create at this stage of its development. And the American destroyer was damaged only because there was no martial law on a neutral state raid. It was a ter.act. In the event of martial law, this bombed boat would never have approached the destroyer. Just as Iranian boats will be destroyed on their shores with Brimstone missiles.
          1. kapitan_21
            kapitan_21 19 July 2012 11: 35 New
            +5
            Dear Beck!

            Quote: Beck
            How can I put an aircraft carrier on one board, and on the contrary a boat


            In world history there is a very good example of the use of missile boats! For example, the destroyer of the Israeli Navy "Eilat" sunk by the Egyptians in 1967, which became the first ship in the world sunk by missile weapons from a missile boat!

            Quote: Beck
            By your logic, in the Second World War, the Japanese should not have built aircraft carriers and battleships, but fought with America by building boats


            This is not my logic, but your speculation! The Second World War is not a local conflict! Japan had imperial plans to dominate all of Asia + Australia! Iran’s goal is much simpler - protecting its territory (homeland)! Therefore, I believe that the position of the Iranian leadership on the development of its Navy, taking into account the limited military budget, which is several times, if not more inferior to the American one, is right!

            Quote: Beck
            Also how to ridicule the modern English rocket


            Read carefully what I wrote above! Nobody ridicules the Brimstone rocket! And for a number of reasons and specifics of work, I very well imagine the characteristics and consequences of using a Hellfire rocket!

            Quote: Beck
            ... this boat with a bomb ...


            Incidentally, we are talking about missile boats in the arsenal of the Navy of Iran!
            1. Common sense
              Common sense 21 July 2012 15: 14 New
              -2
              For example, the destroyer of the Israeli Navy "Eilat" sunk by the Egyptians in 1967
              This is only in name "Eilat" is on a par with the American destroyers "Orly Burke". In fact, "Eilat" by modern standards is a corvette, and even an artillery one.

              In fact, Beck is right, the chances of any real number of missile boats to resist the AUG are near zero. Therefore, even the Chinese Navy is moving to larger platforms. Not to mention the USSR, where underwater missile carriers, and not thousands of boats, were intended to fight the Americans at sea.
          2. Vyalik
            Vyalik 19 July 2012 12: 04 New
            +7
            And you yourself even believe that the amers will not enter Iran. There is oil, which means they go to oil as the hero of the cartoon Roquefort to cheese.
          3. Insurgent
            Insurgent 20 July 2012 20: 57 New
            +2
            Do not carry chyush, in Saudi Arabia according to your humane regime or in Qatar)))
            The thing is that the gardens were not a son of a bitch, and because your Iran would be idle, he would have time to fire at the bases, and raise the Shiites east in Iraq, even if he lost the war and the amers with their satellites would receive musyars
        2. Basarev
          Basarev 27 December 2013 21: 35 New
          0
          I wonder why no one built helicopter carriers not as landing ships, as is now the case everywhere, but as helicopter carriers?
  2. Averias
    Averias 19 July 2012 09: 20 New
    +8
    Here's what I noticed. Media and TV constantly tell us about all kinds of "miracle super weapons" that NATO and the starry striped ones invented. I get the impression that they are trying to pass off wishful thinking (lightning settings, climatic, etc.). And not a word about the shortcomings and failures of this very "miracle" of weapons. Although the same stealth bombers (about which they say they are invulnerable) have been knocked down decently since the days of Kosovo. Yes, with the Raptor project, not everything is in order, as I understand it - it was covered, as well as the F-35, it turned out to be far from ideal. But such countries as Russia, China, India - for some reason they are silent about them, and why. What's this? a deliberate ignore, like us, and you shouldn't take it into account, or such an information blockade. Or everything is much simpler, why should we, China and others, boast about something (and all these demonstrations of the West cannot be called boast and bravado), we know what we can do. And they know about it, so they boast. Although I can't help but admit the fact that they have excellent designs. But for some reason, Israel comes to mind, with their rifle complexes for conducting combat in a city.
  3. Leisure
    Leisure 19 July 2012 09: 22 New
    +3
    A good rocket proved it in real life.
  4. Black Colonel
    Black Colonel 19 July 2012 09: 53 New
    +3
    And who says before the wedding that his daughter is slanting in one eye? When a car is driven into the car market, no one says that her body is rotten and the engine does not pull up. So here - no one will ring about the flaws of this rocket. Perhaps not all of its shortcomings have been identified. And no one will say that someone similar products are better and cheaper. Market, you know ... And prestige too.
    1. Professor
      19 July 2012 10: 01 New
      0
      And no one will say that someone similar products are better and cheaper.

      Can you give an example? Including combat experience? It’s interesting to learn.
      1. Dimon Lviv
        Dimon Lviv 19 July 2012 21: 11 New
        0
        The Shturm-M1 missile was especially successfully sold in Iraq, including for the destruction of the vaunted American Abrams. As practice shows, ALL more or less massive Russian weapons similar to American classes are cheaper than that of the United States.
        1. Windbreak
          Windbreak 19 July 2012 23: 57 New
          +1
          You are about the literature of the writer Shityakov http://skyfireavia.narod.ru/weap/shturm_iraq/shturm_iraq.htm. Where the M109 miraculously drives under 75 km / h and a bunch of other bugs
          1. Dimon Lviv
            Dimon Lviv 20 July 2012 09: 07 New
            -1
            The original text of the letter from you: "You mean the literature of the writer Shityakov http://skyfireavia.narod.ru/weap/shturm_iraq/shturm_iraq.htm. Where the M109 miraculously drives at 75 km / h and the four-barreled machine gun YakB-12,7 turned into non-existent three-barreled YakBK-14,5. And a bunch of other mistakes "- tell me, is the photo not the same" nonexistent "experimental YakBK 14,5: http://worldweapon.ru/images/vertuski/mi24/mi24_01.jpg?
            1. Windbreak
              Windbreak 20 July 2012 12: 24 New
              0
              http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Mi-24_flown_by_ATEC_at_Roving_Sands_2000.jpg
              http://www.airwar.ru/history/locwar/lamerica/mi24/mi24_usa.html "В процессе эксплуатации вертолеты подверглись некоторым доработкам - в частности в 1996 году ЯкБ-12,7-мм пулемет был заменен на 20-мм пушку M197" а M197 трехствольная
  5. B_KypTke
    B_KypTke 19 July 2012 09: 59 New
    +3
    They feed us with fairy tales ... If there is such a good rocket that it is launched and forgotten, and even at ranges that allow you not to enter the affected area .. well, let’s say this is at least 100 km. With such a small mass of a rocket and an energetically maneuvering target, no momentum of the rocket will be enough to work off the target's escape. Moreover, in the cartoon they showed the use of laser illumination for a direct hit in Stoyanaya !!! target.
    1. Professor
      19 July 2012 10: 31 New
      +3
      This refers to the air defense of ground vehicles and the mentioned boats. Where there is serious air defense and missiles, others are used.
  6. Pacifist
    Pacifist 19 July 2012 10: 40 New
    +2
    MDA ... what
    a serious machine ... I hope technical intelligence has been working in this area for a long time and countermeasures are being developed. Otherwise, such a toy can seriously naughty ...
    The laser is not very serious, especially for a maneuvering target, but the work of x radar at the entrance to the affected area ... this is more serious.
    1. Stealth
      Stealth 19 July 2012 12: 38 New
      +1
      The main countermeasures are the Pantsir air defense missile system (range 20 km) and the Tor air defense system (range 12 km), both capable of shooting down the carrier aircraft itself and already fired missiles, the main thing is the correct tactics in the use of weapons.
      1. Pacifist
        Pacifist 19 July 2012 12: 59 New
        +1
        This is indisputable, I’m talking about something else ... it would be nice to have radiation characteristics for developing measures to counter electronic warfare against these missiles on the battlefield. Because In this case, there will be no need to spend BP on racing for missiles. We put in interference, throw out the veil and fuck them in milk.
        1. Stealth
          Stealth 19 July 2012 23: 48 New
          0
          I am sure that this issue has already been worked out, but besides the hindrances, there is also the Arena KAZ, just from such toys. Recently there was news that it appeared in a new seriously modernized and very attractive form http://sdelanounas.ru/blogs/19317/
  7. Anatoli_kz
    Anatoli_kz 19 July 2012 11: 03 New
    +1
    So the range seems to be written in the article: "... Brimstone has a firing range of 12 km."
  8. Brother Sarych
    Brother Sarych 19 July 2012 11: 46 New
    0
    And what, has a war been declared? Why is this act of international robbery so proudly reported? Or was there nothing like that, but is it just an empty idle talk?
    And what kind of TV .. then it will crucify about injustice and terrorism when their gut is unwound somewhere for their tourists?
  9. Chemist
    Chemist 19 July 2012 11: 51 New
    +2
    The range of 12 km is the area of ​​work of the Shell, Chestnut, Cortica, which, in principle, can be installed on MRK.
  10. Vyalik
    Vyalik 19 July 2012 12: 10 New
    +2
    In the cinema I didn’t see shooting at a maneuvering target, I didn’t even see shooting at a sea target, even creeping at least. But the aiming is very long, is that what I need, let go and forget?
    1. Professor
      19 July 2012 12: 22 New
      +3
      Long not aiming, but target recognition. There are no such problems at sea. I would like to see a target capable of "maneuvering" from a missile flying at a supersonic speed of Mach 1.3 ...
      1. 755962
        755962 19 July 2012 14: 24 New
        +2
        Dear professor. Please show strikes on the target (maneuvering) sea. Skip the video. The missile is wonderful for ground targets, but for sea targets ... And you promised about the Gabriel anti-ship missile system. If not difficult. Regards.
        1. Professor
          19 July 2012 14: 44 New
          +1
          I don’t possess videos of firing at sea targets, only at ground targets.
          http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q5uPsUCU7Nk

          About Gabriel I will do.
          1. 755962
            755962 19 July 2012 22: 46 New
            +2
            Thank you in advance. I know you keep your word. For the video +.
      2. Arkan
        Arkan 20 July 2012 17: 50 New
        0
        Professor Judging by how the last armored personnel carrier was destroyed - the rocket still requires keeping the crosshairs on the target - the rocket "lay down" next to the target, obviously, through the fault of the operator (possibly from excitement). Or is it firing some other missiles?
        1. Professor
          20 July 2012 17: 56 New
          0
          As noted in the article, the rocket has two GOS including a laser one. IMHO if the operator "missed" putting a laser mark, then the missile will miss.

          PS
          By the way, I did not notice a miss.
          1. Arkan
            Arkan 20 July 2012 20: 42 New
            0
            I didn’t speak about a miss, there was a cover of the target but not a direct hit. The rocket obviously followed the "marker" and fell 2-3 meters from the target (however, this is not essential, the armored personnel carrier was probably out of order). - the operator hit the first targets quite confidently, but on the last ones - it looks like the handles began to tremble. Most likely, he realized that he had been in the air defense zone for a long time, which at any moment could "wake up" and "give back". One thing is to destroy a passenger car a car with a "terrorist", or to drive a missile into the desired window (here, of course, you can keep the target without fear of opposition), another thing is armored vehicles, it would be wiser to destroy it using the "fire and forget" option (more precisely, from the kill zone) since it is. Hence the question: Is the Brimstone radar as effective as it is advertised when pilots have to rely on laser illumination in ideal conditions for radar? And how does the selection work when attacking group targets? (video that you posted below).
  11. KAZAKHSTAN
    KAZAKHSTAN 19 July 2012 15: 28 New
    -1
    Hello everyone! Range 12 km ?! FUNNY ... What kind of rocket is this? What is the use of the guidance system if the HANDS are SHORT? :) It’s better to have an adjustable air bomb than this New Year’s firework.
  12. yacht
    yacht 19 July 2012 17: 11 New
    +1
    Understand the simple truth of this Brimstone rocket intended for specific purposes in which it will be applied. If you think that there are idiots who will equip the plane Brimstone alone and under the cries of "banzai" they will go to destroy "Armor" and "Buki" although Iran does not have them, but not the essence, but as an example, then you are deeply mistaken. On the other hand, there is no need to make the same idiots out of Persians, for sure they worked out the issue of countering such attacks in the first place.
  13. Dimon Lviv
    Dimon Lviv 19 July 2012 21: 14 New
    +1
    "A fighter-bomber can easily use all of them in one sortie, while staying out of the air defense zone all the time" - but air defense can be different. I understand that this fighter will not reach the Igla, but what about the Buk?
  14. LAO
    LAO 2 August 2012 19: 30 New
    0
    It is advisable to supplement the GOS missiles with an infrared sensor and a sensor of the visible range for protection against electronic warfare.
  15. arslan1339
    arslan1339 14 August 2012 16: 53 New
    0
    This rocket is designed to destroy ground targets.
    It’s a ride if the air defense of this country is not developed. Because, the radius of damage is only 12 km.
    Large objects can not destroy.
  16. Bledonene2012
    Bledonene2012 24 October 2013 15: 51 New
    0
    And the Iranians can hardly be opposed to this rocket.