Elusive Destroyers and Their Enemies

41
Elusive Destroyers and Their Enemies

We will talk about the well-known confrontation between missiles and anti-missiles, and this was inspired by none other than the representative of the command of the Ukrainian Air Force, Yuriy Ignat, who is well known to us for his, shall we say, ambiguous statements.

This time, something short-circuited somewhere from the usual accusations and overcame Ignat unexpectedly gave out a very surprising thing: it turns out that some Russian missiles cannot be intercepted, even with the help of even if not the most modern, but rather advanced NATO anti-aircraft missile systems.



Well, there is the usual classic: who is cooler, a missile or an anti-missile.

And here we will consider two lists. The first is to evaluate the capabilities of foreign and Ukrainian air defense systems in terms of the ability to intercept high-speed and maneuverable targets, the second is data on some missiles used by the Russian army in the NMD.

Let's start with air defense systems and immediately remove MANPADS from the huge list of what was dragged into Ukraine from all over the world. They are good for working at close range on airplanes and helicopters, UAVs, but alas, on missiles. We also remove cannon artillery, it is clear why.

In addition, we dismiss the air defense systems created on the basis of missiles for MANPADS: FV4333 Stormer, M1097 Avenger. We send the old Soviet S-125s, Osa-AKM and Strela-10, which simply cannot work against such targets, and non-Soviet MIM-23 Hawks there.

So, we still have a bunch of air defense systems under consideration, in which we are interested in two parameters: the range of work and the speed of the target that the complex can hit. We translate the speed into more familiar km / h.


1. "Tor-M". The very first modification of this complex, the range is 12 km, the target flight speed is up to 2500 km/h.


2. S-300. Here the spread is huge, it all depends on the modification of the air defense system and the missiles used, but on average, for 5V55K and 5V55R missiles (there is nowhere to take more modern ones), the data is as follows: range up to 75 km, target speed up to 4 680 km / h.


3. "Crotale" (France). Range up to 15 km, target speed up to 3 km/h. A very good old man got the Ukrainians.


4. MIM-104 "Patriot" PAC-2 (USA). Range up to 100 km, for ballistic targets up to 25 km. Target speed up to 5 km/h.


5. "Buk-M1". Range up to 25 km, target speed up to 2 km/h.


6. IRIS-T SLM (Germany). Range up to 40 km, target speed up to 4 km/h.


7. NASAMS-2 (Norway/USA). Range up to 20 km (AMRAAM ER missile - 40 km), target speed up to 3 km/h.


8. Skyguard-Aspide (Switzerland/Italy). Range up to 20 km, target speed up to 4 km/h. It is worth making a reservation right away, the Italians frankly overestimate the performance characteristics, the Aspide rocket lost all the competitions of the American AIM-300 AMRAAM.

The set, of course, is not small, moreover, there are frankly worthy complexes, the question, of course, is their number and the direct hands of the operators.

However, we will not draw any conclusions yet and look at what these complexes should intercept. Which, as they say, became a stumbling block on the way of the air defense systems of NATO countries to an unconditional and final victory in the sky over Ukraine.

1. X-22 "Storm" and X-32

Here it is necessary to consider together and separately at the same time, and here's why: X-32 is a direct continuation of the X-22 theme and is assembled in the same case, but the filling is different. Outwardly, it is almost impossible to distinguish missiles.

X-22 "Storm".


A monster weighing 5,6-5,7 tons, flying at speeds up to 5 km / h, works from a height of 700 km, that is, from a zone practically inaccessible to air defense systems. Having reached an altitude of 25-22 km, the rocket begins a dive and so approaches the target. It is clear that the speeds at which the final segment of the trajectory occurs do not imply interception.

The rocket has a very big minus: the guidance system. In general, the X-22 is an anti-ship missile, that is, it works on a high-contrast target, which is a ship at sea. The use of a seeker with a passive inertial reference system, a dual-mode autopilot and a radar guidance system in the final segment over areas gives simply fantastic deviations from the target.

But intercepting a missile diving at speeds over 5M is very difficult.

X-32


This nightmare, flying 800-1000 km at speeds up to 5 km/h, was developed for a very long time, from the 400s of the last century until it was put into service in 80. As a result, a new engine was installed in the X-2016 hull, the weight of the warhead was reduced, fuel tanks were increased in return, but most importantly, a new guidance system. It is radar-inertial with radio command correction and reference to the terrain from a radio altimeter. Instead of an autopilot, an automatic control system was installed.

That is, until the moment the RGSN is turned on (this is 200-300 km from the target), the missile goes through the INS, with adjustments through external channels. Next, herself. The accuracy is much higher than that of the X-22.

The carriers of this horror are big guys like Tu-22M, Tu-95 and Tu-160.

2. X-31PM


This is an anti-radar (X-31P) or anti-ship (X-31A) missile, which, depending on the target, can be equipped with either an active RGSN (option A) or a passive (option P) seeker.

This rocket is not like the previous ones, weighs ten times less, flies only 160-250 km at a speed of 3 km/h. But this missile can be suspended by anyone, from the MiG-600 to the Su-29. And to figure out where this pleasure will come from is not as easy as the same X-34, the launch of which from a heavy bomber can be tracked if you closely monitor the carrier. But the X-23 can be launched by anyone, which makes it problematic to detect.

The rocket is vile not only in speed and small size, but also in the ability to fly at low altitudes (from 10 m) with enveloping the terrain and then diving at the target. And to convey to the target an argument weighing 110 kg of the warhead.

3. P-800 "Onyx"


This anti-ship missile also showed itself very well in terms of attacks on ground targets. What is shipboard, what aviation (shorter by 2 meters due to the lack of a launch stage) options are practically not intercepted by air defense systems.

"Onyx" flies for 300 km, along a combined trajectory, "Onyx-M" for 800 km. Flight speed at altitudes up to 3 km/h, near the surface 200 km/h.

Like any normal anti-ship missile, Onyx climbs to a height of up to 14 m on the march and goes there according to the data of the inertial reference system and radio altimeter. The final section is about 000 km, the rocket descends to a height of 50-10 meters and uses an all-weather monopulse active-passive radar, which, moreover, very calmly looks at possible effects on it from electronic warfare.

4. X-47M2 "Dagger"


Airborne aeroballistic missile. It is used from aircraft, in fact - Iskander, which starts from an aircraft. The rocket rises to 20 km, and from there, maneuvering, descends on the target.

Range up to 2000 km, speed at the end of the trajectory up to 14 km/h, warhead weight 000 kg plus kinetic energy. ANN guidance with the possibility of correction from the GLONASS system, AWACS aircraft, the optical seeker is switched on at the finish line.

The Armed Forces of Ukraine reported on the successful interception of the Kinzhal, according to one of the operators of the Patriot air defense system, who allegedly carried out the interception, the speed of the intercepted on May 4, 2023 at the terminal section of the Kinzhal trajectory was 3 km/h, which is significantly lower than stated by representatives of the Russian Federation minimum 700 km/h.

Considering that absolutely no evidence of this event, except for the fairings from the Kh-555 missiles, was presented, there is not much to comment on here. "Patriot" is a very good air defense system, but evidence is needed a little more weighty than unsubstantiated words.

In total, even without taking into account the “Daggers”, which, it must be said, are used infrequently, we can say that the Russian army has more means of confident destruction at its disposal than the Ukrainian countermeasures.

Moreover, even taking figures as a basis like this, one cannot be sure of the result. The same MIM-104 "Patriot" looks very confident in theory and cannot do anything with the same "Onyx" (it's not me, it's Ignat says). Why? Because despite the fact that the Onyx, although it flies at a speed that makes it possible for the Patriot to capture and hit the target, it flies at such a height, and even maneuvering, which greatly complicates the very possibility of its interception.

So the numbers are half the battle, and the second is just everything together. And together, even a very advanced air defense system is not able to intercept a missile flying at high speed and at low altitude. Or vice versa, ballistic missiles flying at a high dive angle down at hypersonic speeds (and all ballistic missiles are more or less hypersonic in the final segment) are also too tough for computers and air defense radars.

And here it is worth paying attention to the fact that, in addition to the Kh-47, all missiles from our hit parade are products of the Soviet defense industry. We can say that older ones, like the Kh-22 and P-800, nevertheless, do not have effective opposition from the enemy. This says a lot. At the same time, of course, it’s just wonderful that our fathers and grandfathers developed such a wonderful weapon, on the other hand, sooner or later the enemy will step forward and be able to neutralize such an advantage.

This unpleasant moment should be pushed as far as possible, first of all, due to new developments. Moreover, the direction is already clear: either hypersonic missiles, cruise or aeroballistic, or supersonic, but super-maneuverable.

The practice of CBO has clearly shown in which direction to move, it remains only to start moving.
41 comment
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +20
    31 July 2023 06: 03
    Well, why play "giveaway". Most often, our troops use "Caliber" and all possible X = 101, 55, 555 ... And the enemy has learned to intercept them, if not all, but nonetheless. So don't rest on your laurels. It must be understood that at some point, this "leapfrog" with a variety of air defense systems that are difficult to combine into a single air defense system will be completed, simply because of the departure from the arena of all the old Soviet systems and it will become much easier for them to create such a system, especially considering that support provided by our "former partners"
    1. -1
      31 July 2023 17: 34
      They usually rest in products knocked down from boards. A pillow under the head, so that the dream would be as deep as possible.
    2. +1
      2 August 2023 04: 27
      Quote: svp67
      which are difficult to combine into a single air defense system

      Moreover, this is the key vulnerability of the Ukrainian air defense system. It is this factor that determines the result by 90%.

      Py.Sy. The author swims in materiel, especially delivered a pearl about "optical guidance" at a speed of 14.000 km / h. Anyone even theoretically imagine how to ensure this?
  2. +2
    31 July 2023 06: 10
    A good overview ... It becomes clear that 40 km is the most common air defense coverage area, and the presence of anti-radar missiles allows you to "hammer the bolt" on some systems.
    The practice of CBO has clearly shown in which direction to move, it remains only to start moving.

    The practice of SVO clearly showed that it is necessary to fight not by numbers, but by skill, and that a bullet is a fool, bayonet "Dagger" ("Iskander", "Caliber", "Geranium", "Lancet") - well done ... in capable hands ...
    True, the methods of anti-sabotage and anti-terrorist work need to be polished ...
    * * *
    In wartime, “humane executions” should be used, and not be content with forgiveness and references to zombies.
    1. -1
      2 August 2023 09: 25
      Judging by the tightening of the screws in the Russian Federation with the draft, they are going to fight in numbers.
  3. +5
    31 July 2023 06: 27
    The author essentially stated a clear contradiction in our society. Between labor skills, knowledge of specialists, And the absolute idiocy of mass social psychology.

    Modern society is absolutely incapable of fighting thieves and traitors, but it suspects that its troubles are "from humanism, shitty intelligentsia, Gulags, doctors who make epidemics, etc." That is, ".... from isms ..."

    As a result, a herd of many millions allowed the traitors to destroy their country even in peacetime 32 years ago ....
    BUT for some reason he thinks that at a difficult moment he will be saved by missiles and anti-missiles.
    Nothing and no one can save them.
    1. +6
      31 July 2023 10: 02
      Quote: ivan2022
      As a result, a herd of many millions allowed the traitors to destroy their country even in peacetime 32 years ago ....

      This needs to be clarified!!!
      32 years ago, the CAPITAL MULTI-MILLION HERD itself abandoned its country.
      All revolutions are made in the capital.
      There is absolutely no opportunity to somehow influence from the province on what is being done in the capital city.
      Even just the passage of information is a few days.
      Tell me how the events of 32 years ago could have been influenced by the inhabitants of the cities: Labytnangi
      Mound
      Vorkuta
      Aktyubinsk
      Biysk
      Bratsk
      Tynda
      ???????
      And these are cities!
      And if you take villages and villages!??!?!? Here you don’t even need to go beyond the Urals! 500 km from Moscow is already a wilderness, for example, Shushkodom or Udomlya.
  4. +7
    31 July 2023 06: 37
    With a high probability, my question will remain unanswered, since the author of this publication avoids communicating with readers. But still, dear author, how is the French Crotal superior to the Osa-AKM air defense system, as well as the Us Hawk and the modernized S-125?
  5. +3
    31 July 2023 06: 43
    We need more AWACS and GBU-39 gliding ammunition with a range of more than 100 km. Then all Ukrainian air defense:
    A) can be destroyed
    B) They will not care even in working condition
    C) If you destroy it, then at least bomb every forest belt with free-falling FABs
    1. +1
      31 July 2023 21: 04
      Quote: Krasnodar
      We need more AWACS

      what recourse I don’t hear about progress ... I don’t hear at all ...
      Quote: Krasnodar
      and planning ammunition type GBU-39 with a range of more than 100 km.

      Such a range is possible only with an auxiliary engine, such ones have not yet been heard of, and they should also be cheap - for the sake of mass production.
      Although it seems to be not so difficult to attach a small engine to the ass of a winged FAB ... but you have to work. With such a range, it is possible to take out all air defense and operational / tactical rear services of the Armed Forces of Ukraine in one gate.
      Quote: Krasnodar
      then, at least with free-falling FABs, bomb every forest belt

      Yes True air supremacy is a great boon.
      1. -1
        1 August 2023 17: 24
        Quote: bayard
        I don’t hear about progress ... I don’t hear at all ...

        I hope they are
        Quote: bayard
        This range is only possible with an auxiliary engine

        As far as I know, the Israelis rise from the GBU-39 to a certain height, switch to supersonic and release planning ammunition, I have not heard about special stages
        Quote: bayard
        True air supremacy is a great boon.

        This is to put an end to the enemy's regular army, as such
  6. 0
    31 July 2023 06: 51
    I thought that this was Linnik's article on air defense, but it turned out to be Skomorokhov, however.
    1. 0
      31 July 2023 10: 21
      Quote: Amateur
      I thought that this was Linnik's article on air defense, but it turned out to be Skomorokhov, however.

      You really are. Skomorokhov began to guess from the first lines. Like suite 16.
      I like this.
      1. +5
        31 July 2023 12: 52
        Quote: Grim Reaper
        I like this.

        Excuse me, but what exactly do you like?
        1. +3
          31 July 2023 17: 04
          Quote: Bongo
          Quote: Grim Reaper
          I like this.

          Excuse me, but what exactly do you like?

          Style. Ease of reading. The fact that Roman is sometimes wrong .... Well, there is a wiki if you doubt why we are given a smartphone? :)
          I'm sorry that so many great topwar writers are gone. And, nevertheless, Roman is one of the few who can "stir up" us. He used to write like this. It's much, much better now.
          1. +3
            1 August 2023 05: 11
            Quote: Grim Reaper
            Style. Ease of reading.

            Well, you also need to understand what you are writing about, and here you need knowledge.
            Quote: Grim Reaper
            I can write an article as an AN12 navigator, I can write as a cop, I can write as an electrician.

            Well, if you have an idea about the work of a navigator, then never write that there is a globe in the lower cockpit of the An-12, with the help of which magnifiers determine the location of the aircraft. If you are an electrician, then with a blue eye you will not claim that you can measure the current strength in the outlet with an ammeter, if you were a policeman, then you know that black powder is not used in PM cartridges. Unfortunately, Roman's blunders are of exactly this level, and I feel Spanish shame about this. It is strange that you are ready to approve this for the sake of "ease of reading". request
            1. +1
              2 August 2023 04: 35
              Quote: Bongo
              Unfortunately, Roman's blunders are of precisely this level, and I feel Spanish shame about this.

              This is a worldwide epidemic of journalism. I don’t know if it’s laziness or haste, but everyone sins with this, 99% of articles from “general profile” journalists sin with profanity in specialized topics.
            2. 0
              2 August 2023 16: 18
              If you are an electrician, then with a blue eye you will not claim that you can measure the current strength in the outlet using an ammeter,
              ...

              You will be very surprised, but the current in the "socket" is still measured with an ammeter. And not only in the outlet, but also on serious objects. Well, not quite with the help of an ammeter, but the meaning is the same. (The main difference is not to burn out)
              To determine short-circuit currents in the "phase-zero" circuit. And often on such measurements the machines work. So here it is...
              Ps. Okay, let me explain. They measure the maximum possible current in the farthest outlet "from the shield" if suddenly someone inserts an ammeter there :) for well, or a knitting needle ..... to be sure that the fuse will work.
              Initially, everything is calculated according to all sorts of pue, consumption, ptb, etc., and is designed and made without any measurements. But, at the time of delivery of the object, as well as after how many years - measurements are carried out. And yes, these measurements are exactly: insert an ammeter (though very hardy) into the outlet. :)
          2. +1
            1 August 2023 19: 43
            The fact that Roman is sometimes wrong ....

            Not only always, I would even say, almost never, he is right.
    2. 0
      31 July 2023 10: 39
      And today I read one article in the "Opinions" section and initially it seemed to me that Roman Skomorokhov wrote it. But no! The author of that article is Alexander Staver. So here it is...
    3. +7
      31 July 2023 12: 53
      Quote: Amateur
      I thought that this was Linnik's article on air defense, but it turned out to be Skomorokhov, however.

      Thank you, of course, but as in the article devoted to the hypothetical use of Ukrainian S-200 air defense systems against ground targets, this one is also full of mistakes. sad
      1. 0
        31 July 2023 17: 20
        There will always be bugs
        I can write an article as an AN12 navigator, I can write as a cop, I can write as an electrician. There will be bloopers. I think the main thing is to be interested. And blunders, well, what can you do, there are always critics :)
  7. +4
    31 July 2023 06: 53
    "either hypersonic missiles, cruise or aeroballistic, or supersonic, but super-maneuverable" .......... We need both !!!
  8. +3
    31 July 2023 08: 04
    Now let's talk about geraniums. Because it is they who now make up the bulk of the "rockets"
    1. The comment was deleted.
  9. 0
    31 July 2023 10: 16
    You know, I have been on the topvar for 12 years already (yes, there used to be a different nickname) And I want to note the much increased prof. Roman. As an author. Roman, thanks for the interesting article. Keep it up!
  10. -2
    31 July 2023 11: 14
    The article is interesting, thanks to the author.
    it would be interesting if Roman writes how our air defense copes with enemy UAVs, with converted S-200s, Swifts, and other missiles and drones.
    But, in addition to air targets (missiles), marine-type drones have also become frequent.
    With the latter, we have just a big problem, in terms of defense, and enemy air targets very often reach our territories.
  11. +2
    31 July 2023 12: 45
    I am beginning to be surprised by the universality and categoricalness of the author. Well, it's really unique.
    1. +2
      1 August 2023 19: 44
      I am beginning to be surprised by the universality and categoricalness of the author. Well, it's really unique.

      Very round author
  12. +12
    31 July 2023 13: 26
    Everyone who writes about maneuvering missiles in the air as anti-aircraft maneuvers ...
    Did you go to school?
    Have you yourself ever seen this, except for the implementation of the slide at the anti-ship missiles?
    There is no maneuvering in the air other than changing course...

    There are no anti-aircraft and other "Indian dances" ...
    And there wasn’t.
    Never.
    1. +5
      31 July 2023 17: 14
      Everything is as in the comment, the commentator is a plus. The anti-aircraft maneuver is not embedded in the "brains" of the missile, it simply does not need it. Conditional "invincibility" is achieved in other ways, using false targets, combined interference, increasing speed in the final section, etc. Will the enemies and we learn to shoot down such complex targets? Yes, it's a matter of time, the only thing that matters here is who will be the first.
      1. 0
        31 July 2023 20: 39
        Quote: Uncle_Misha
        Anti-aircraft maneuver is not included in the "brains" of the missile

        There are missiles in the brains of which the anti-missile and / or anti-aircraft maneuver is not embedded, there are - in which ...
    2. -3
      31 July 2023 20: 35
      Quote: SovAr238A
      Everyone who writes about maneuvering missiles in the air as anti-aircraft maneuvers ...
      Did you go to school?
      Have you yourself ever seen this, except for the implementation of the slide at the anti-ship missiles?

      "Gorka" is an anti-aircraft maneuver.
      Quote: SovAr238A
      There is no maneuvering in the air other than changing course

      Maneuvering is a deliberate change in movement.
      Quote: SovAr238A
      There are no anti-aircraft and other "Indian dances" ...
      And there wasn’t.
      Never.

      Anti-aircraft maneuver - a maneuver to reduce the likelihood of an aircraft being hit by anti-aircraft artillery fire. Anti-missile maneuver - a maneuver to reduce the likelihood of an aircraft (or other object) being hit by guided missiles.
      1. +2
        31 July 2023 22: 29
        Quote: Comet
        Quote: SovAr238A
        Everyone who writes about maneuvering missiles in the air as anti-aircraft maneuvers ...
        Did you go to school?
        Have you yourself ever seen this, except for the implementation of the slide at the anti-ship missiles?

        "Gorka" is an anti-aircraft maneuver.
        Quote: SovAr238A
        There is no maneuvering in the air other than changing course

        Maneuvering is a deliberate change in movement.
        Quote: SovAr238A
        There are no anti-aircraft and other "Indian dances" ...
        And there wasn’t.
        Never.

        Anti-aircraft maneuver - a maneuver to reduce the likelihood of an aircraft being hit by anti-aircraft artillery fire. Anti-missile maneuver - a maneuver to reduce the likelihood of an aircraft (or other object) being hit by guided missiles.

        The slide is not an anti-aircraft maneuver.
        Increasing the flight altitude from 5 meters to 150-300, for the subsequent dive on the target, only worsens the security of the missile.
        A slide is being made to improve the quality of hitting a target. And that's it.
        1. -2
          1 August 2023 23: 20
          Quote: SovAr238A
          The slide is not an anti-aircraft maneuver.
          Increasing the flight altitude from 5 meters to 150-300, for the subsequent dive on the target, only worsens the security of the missile.

          A hill, more precisely, a "hill" maneuver performed by a rocket - not an increase in flight altitude from 5 to 150-300 m, but a climb with a subsequent descent with a normal overload of more than 1. A flight with a normal overload of more than 1 cannot degrade the missile's protection against compared to normal overload 1.
          Quote: SovAr238A
          A slide is being made to improve the quality of hitting a target. And that's it.

          For the Kyrgyz Republic, this is also an anti-aircraft maneuver.
    3. +1
      2 August 2023 04: 42
      Quote: SovAr238A
      Everyone who writes about maneuvering missiles in the air as anti-aircraft maneuvers ...
      Did you go to school?

      Quote: SovAr238A
      There are no anti-aircraft and other "Indian dances" ...

      Most of the inhabitants draw an analogy with the somersaults of the Su-35 in aerobatic performances.
      They need to be angry that at a speed of 2-3 km / s, a 1-2 degree deviation maneuver causes lateral overloads on the rocket body in a dozen Gs.
  13. +5
    31 July 2023 15: 15
    At the same time, of course, it’s just wonderful that our fathers and grandfathers developed such a wonderful weapon, on the other hand, sooner or later the enemy will step forward and be able to neutralize such an advantage.
    As for the "elusive destroyers" in the article, there is a clear exaggeration. Alas, in fact, a certain part of our UAVs and missiles are consistently shot down by the air defense forces of the Armed Forces of Ukraine.
  14. 0
    31 July 2023 16: 51
    Why, with massive rocket attacks, our aviation does not work in parallel on the air defense radar, when they begin to work actively and they can be detected?
    1. +4
      31 July 2023 17: 21
      The probable reason is the lack of suitable PRRs in range. Loitering ammunition could help at short ranges, but nothing is heard about them at all. By and large, the suppression of air defense is difficult in terms of preparation, a very costly task, it is difficult to give an unambiguous answer to your question.
  15. +2
    31 July 2023 18: 26
    Quote: Krasnodar

    C) If you destroy it, then at least bomb every forest belt with free-falling FABs

    Too rosy picture. There will be MANPADS in the forest belt, you will have to bomb from a height of 3 km and above - the accuracy is appropriate. Just dumping old bombs for recycling and burning fuel?
    1. 0
      2 August 2023 00: 08
      Well, there is a UMPC. What's the problem with bombing from a distance?
  16. +4
    31 July 2023 20: 04
    Skyguard-Aspide (Switzerland/Italy). Range up to 20 km, target speed up to 4 km/h. It is worth making a reservation right away, the Italians frankly overestimate the performance characteristics, the Aspide rocket lost all the competitions of the American AIM-300 AMRAAM.

    In favor of the AIM-120, the development of the Aspide Mk.2 was abandoned at the time.
    But later, the rocket was heavily upgraded to the Aspide 2000 version, which is used in the Skyguard-Aspide and Spada 2000 complexes.
    The Italian Wikipedia characterizes the Aspide 2000 as follows
    Aspide 2000 - anti-aircraft version of the Aspide Mk.1 used in the Spada 2000 [2] system, with significantly improved performance and similar to the Sparrow ESSM
    Aspide 2000 - Versione superficie-aria dell'Aspide Mk.1, usata nel sistema Spada 2000[2], con prestazioni molto incrementate e simili allo Sparrow ESSM

    https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aspide_(missile)
    If Aspide 2000 is really close to ESSM, then the characteristics of the rocket should be quite good.