The use of P-35 anti-ship missiles by mobile DBK "Redut" and stationary DBK "Utyos" against ground targets on the territory of Ukraine

31
The use of P-35 anti-ship missiles by mobile DBK "Redut" and stationary DBK "Utyos" against ground targets on the territory of Ukraine
Firing from a stationary coastal missile system (BRK) "Utyos" in Crimea in July 2019


The Ukrainian publication Defense Express reported that on January 18, Russia used P-35 anti-ship missiles (ASM) for the first time against ground targets located on the territory of Ukraine. Presumably, the P-35 anti-ship missile could have been fired by the launcher of the Redut mobile coastal missile system or the launcher of the stationary Utes coastal missile system, located in Crimea.




Wreckage passed off by Defense Express as the remains of the X-35 anti-ship missile

It is impossible to establish the reliability of this information, since the condition of the wreckage, presented by Defense Express as the wreckage of the P-35 anti-ship missile, does not allow them to be unambiguously determined, and Russian official structures do not comment on the situation. At the same time, the possibility of using P-35 anti-ship missiles using the Redut or Utes missile launchers cannot be completely ruled out, especially since this looks like a completely justified decision.

Anti-ship missiles P-35, DBK "Redut", DBK "Utes"


Adopted by the Navy fleet (Navy) of the USSR in 1962, the P-35/P-6 (4K44) anti-ship missile system was developed by OKB-52 as a development of the P-5 (4K34) anti-ship missile system, intended for armament of submarines. If the P-35 anti-ship missiles were to be used from surface ships and coastal missile systems, then the P-6 anti-ship missiles were intended for use from diesel-electric submarines (diesel-electric submarines) of Project 651 and nuclear submarines (SNB) of Project 675, located on the surface. The carriers of the P-35 anti-ship missiles were Project 58 cruisers, equipped with two quadruple rotary launchers SM-70.


Carriers of the P-6 anti-ship missiles - diesel-electric submarines of project 651 (left, top) and project 675 submarines (left, bottom), as well as the carrier of the P-35 anti-ship missiles - cruiser of project 58 (right)

A little later, ground-based launchers were developed - the mobile DBK "Redut" and the stationary DBK "Utes". If the P-6 underwater anti-ship missile carriers, as well as the P-35 surface anti-ship missile carriers, are no longer in service, then the Redut ballistic missile launchers, according to data for 2022, remained in service with the Russian Armed Forces about 8 units.


Self-propelled gun SPU-35B BRK "Redut". Image by Mil.ru

Also in 2016, the stationary DBK “Utyos”, located in Crimea, was restored, earlier, during the period of “independence” of Crimea, abandoned by the Armed Forces of Ukraine (AFU) and falling into disrepair.


PU DBK "Utes"

For their time, anti-ship missiles of the P-35 family were quite advanced weapons. The rocket was launched from a sealed launch container using two solid rocket boosters. The flight speed of the P-35 missile, equipped with a KRD-26 turbojet engine, reached 1,8 M (M-speed of sound), the flight altitude varied from 400 to 7 meters, and the range, based on the flight profile, ranged from 000 to 100 kilometers .

On the final section, up to 20 kilometers long, the flight altitude could be up to 100 meters. The warhead could be conventional, weighing 560 kilograms, or nuclear, with a yield of about 20 kilotons.

During the cruising phase, the flight adjustment of the P-35 anti-ship missiles could be carried out by the operator using a radio command guidance system; before approaching a target (group of targets), the operator selected targets based on data from the active radar homing head (ARLGSN) of the missile, after which the guidance to the selected target was carried out by the missile independently with the help of ARLGSN. Potentially, the P-35 anti-ship missiles could also attack ground targets at the operator’s commands, but it is doubtful that the effectiveness of such attacks with conventional warheads could be high (if a nuclear warhead were used, the P-35 anti-ship missiles would be more than effective against any type of target).

For surface targets, the P-35 anti-ship missiles could also be used in a fully autonomous mode, but in this case the effectiveness dropped significantly, since these anti-ship missiles could not independently select targets.


Anti-ship missiles P-35. Image by Vadim Indeikin

In 1982, the modernized 3M44 Progress anti-ship missile system was put into service, whose flight range increased to 460 kilometers. The 3M44 Progress anti-ship missile system had increased noise immunity of the communication channel with the ship, and the altitude of the final flight segment, up to 50 kilometers long, was reduced to 25 meters.

It can be assumed that in our time the effectiveness of the P-35 anti-ship missiles, even in the modernized version 3M44 Progress, is insufficient to destroy modern warships, and therefore anti-ship missiles of this type were used by the Russian Navy only to simulate enemy anti-ship missiles during exercises.

However, the conduct of the Russian Special Military Operation (SVO) in Ukraine makes us look at many things differently, including prospects for the use of seemingly outdated weapons systems.

P-35 anti-ship missiles in Ukraine


Is it possible to use P-35 anti-ship missiles in Ukraine?

Yeah why not? When firing anti-ship missiles with a range of about 300–460 kilometers from stationary launchers of the Utyos DBK, Odessa, Nikolaev, Kherson, Krivoy Rog, and Dnepr are in the affected area.


Estimated reach zones of the P-35 anti-ship missiles at a range of about 300–460 when launched from stationary launchers of the Utes ballistic missile system

In the case of the use of mobile launchers of the Redut DBK, the affected area will increase as much as the close the Redut DBK launchers can be moved to the line of combat contact (LCC). In this case, Kharkov, Kyiv and other Ukrainian cities are in the affected area, and most importantly, transport facilities on the Dnieper.


Estimated reach zones of P-35 anti-ship missiles (for a range of about 460 kilometers) when launched from Redut mobile missile launchers

The main question is in what capacity (if used) are the P-35 anti-ship missiles used?

The firing accuracy of a conventional, unmodified P-35 anti-ship missile is not sufficient to effectively engage ground targets, of course, unless we are talking about the use of a tactical nuclear charge. Thus, the only option for using unfinished P-35 anti-ship missiles is to use these missiles to open or distract enemy air defense systems. Not the most effective use case, but it is better than if these missiles are used for Russian Navy exercises to repel attacks by anti-ship missiles, which the enemy simply does not have (the enemy is now using low-flying, stealthy anti-ship missiles, the analogue of which the P-35 is certainly not).

On the other hand, we have an example of the Ukrainian Armed Forces, which used modified Soviet jet unmanned aerial vehicles Tu-141 “Strizh” and Tu-143 “Flight” to carry out strikes on Russian territory, while the accuracy of these UAVs was brought almost to the accuracy of modern ones high-precision cruise missiles (CR).

It can be assumed that the P-35 anti-ship missiles and the 3M44 Progress anti-ship missiles can be modified in a similar way, after which they can be effectively used against pinpoint ground targets on the territory of Ukraine.

A powerful warhead weighing about 500 kilograms, combined with a fairly high flight speed, potentially makes it possible to use these anti-ship missiles for destruction of transport structures on the Dnieper, to whom for some reason we have an inexplicable “loyalty”. This also includes the so-called decision-making centers in Ukraine, which for some inexplicable reasons are also taboo for striking them with long-range precision weapons – but it’s time to pay Ukraine for the attacks on our cities.

Considering that information on the use of various types of weapons in the Northern Military District zone is often closed, it is impossible to completely exclude the possibility of using P-35 anti-ship missiles and 3M44 Progress anti-ship missiles in a modified form for high-precision destruction of ground targets, but so far this information has not been confirmed, however, as well as the very fact of using these anti-ship missiles.

The warhead of the P-35 anti-ship missile system could potentially be modified by turning it into a cluster one, including the use of incendiary combat elements - we have previously discussed the possibility of such modification in relation to the X-22 anti-ship missile system in the material “Blow for blow: cluster warheads on long-range precision weapons”.

Cluster warheads, including those with incendiary warheads, can be used against area targets, such as power plants and electrical substations, data centers, fuel storage facilities and many others.


A cluster incendiary warhead does not require high accuracy, but can cause significant damage to the enemy

In general, there will be work for the modified P-35 anti-ship missiles in the Northern Military District zone.

Why not use the Kh-35 missile system, the Kalibr complex missile system, the Oniks anti-ship missile system, the Kh-101/Kh-22 anti-ship missile system, the Iskander OTRK or hypersonic missiles of the Kinzhal complex instead of the outdated P-32 anti-ship missiles?

Because the question is not “instead”, but “together”. In this war, the number of long-range precision weapons will never be sufficient, so it is necessary to modernize and refine everything we have, including the P-35 anti-ship missiles, which can become a formidable weapon after a relatively minor modification of the control/guidance system.

Conclusions


At the moment, there is no official confirmation that the P-35 anti-ship missiles were used in the Northern Military District zone, but there is also no reliable refutation of this. If the P-35 anti-ship missiles were used, it is unknown whether they were used only to open or distract enemy air defense systems, or whether they were modified to hit pinpoint ground targets.

Considering the power of the warhead and the flight speed of the P-35 anti-ship missiles, the best solution would be to modify them to hit particularly important targets as part of the joint use of various types of long-range precision weapons, such as the Kh-101 missile, the Kalibr complex missile, and the Oniks anti-ship missile ", anti-ship missiles Kh-22/Kh-32, OTRK "Iskander" and hypersonic missiles of the "Dagger" complex.

In addition to the refinement and use of the P-35 anti-ship missiles, we should not forget about the imminent end of the careers of such anti-ship missiles as “Basalt”, “Vulcan” and “Granit”, the development and use of which should be in many ways comparable to those required by the P-35 anti-ship missiles . We previously spoke about the refinement and use of these anti-ship missiles against ground targets in the material "Disposal by shot: the use of anti-ship missiles "Basalt", "Volcano" and "Granit" to destroy especially important targets on the territory of Ukraine".


Anti-ship missiles "Basalt", "Vulcan" and "Granite" are waiting in the wings...

As the offensive potential of the Ukrainian Armed Forces dries up, they will pay more and more attention to striking deep into the territory of our country. It is necessary not just to snap back, but to ensure a qualitative and quantitative increase in the number of strikes delivered by long-range, high-precision weapons against targets located deep in the territory of Ukraine, and for this, all means are good.
31 comment
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +1
    25 January 2024 04: 25
    the enemy is now using low-flying, stealthy anti-ship missiles, of which the P-35 is certainly not an analogue
    It’s not that I’m against this point of view, but the Japanese adopted, although not exactly an analogue, the supersonic anti-ship missile ASM-3A.

    The P-35 anti-ship missile warhead could also potentially be improved by converting it into a cassette weapon
    But this is a prozhekt - the warhead for such a missile is by no means a simple thing, especially a cassette one, and it must either separate or some flaps in the body of the missile must open. Utopia, whether in time or means...
    Increasing hit accuracy seems to be a much simpler solution.
    1. 0
      25 January 2024 08: 18
      Quote: Vladimir_2U
      But this is a prozhekt - the warhead for such a missile is by no means a simple thing, especially a cassette one, and it must either separate or some flaps in the body of the missile must open. Utopia, whether in time or means...
      Increasing hit accuracy seems to be a much simpler solution

      Agree ! It is possible to remake “old stuff”, but it takes time, intellectual and production resources! But in this case, is the “game worth the candle”? Isn't it better to "focus" on the development and production of new types of weapons? If you decide to “reconstruct” the P-35 anti-ship missiles (and other..."basalts", "granites"), then with minimal and reasonable "costs"! To do this, it is enough to replace the active radar seeker with a thermal imaging seeker! And the rest..."everything is there!" And INS, and radio correction, and data transmission from the seeker to the operator! IR.GSN can be taken both from domestic ones (what is available...) and borrowed from, for example, the Iranians!
  2. +2
    25 January 2024 04: 45
    The modernization of the P-35, which the author is talking about, must be done quickly, while the Armed Forces of Ukraine are in progress. Whether industry and the military are ready for this is not obvious to me.

    Regarding the disposal of "Basalts", "Vulcans" and "Granites". There, in addition to modernizing the missile, it is also necessary to protect the ground launcher. The question of timing is also relevant.
    1. +3
      25 January 2024 06: 06
      On the Black Sea, it seems, there are still carriers of granites and volcanoes. It’s a pity Moscow sank, we could have salvaged it
    2. 0
      25 January 2024 17: 45
      Why? There are stationary systems and a certain number of missiles for disposal. In a complex attack, why not??? Even if it doesn’t break through to the target, it will distract the anti-missile systems of the air defense system.
  3. +1
    25 January 2024 04: 51
    Soon the tale is affected, but it is not done soon.
  4. +8
    25 January 2024 05: 51
    The data, well, very outdated anti-ship missiles, with a huge reflection area in modern times, is best used, and most likely it was used as a decoy. and That’s right, if this missile lures a couple of missiles onto itself, it will already pay for its existence
  5. +1
    25 January 2024 06: 16
    the best solution would be to refine them

    And if you put a turbine from the T-1111 tank on the (unpatriotic) VAZ 80 "Oka", you will get such a supercar that Schumacher will specially recover in order to drive it.
    1. 0
      25 January 2024 08: 38
      Quote: Amateur
      VAZ 1111 "Oka" install a turbine from the T-80 tank, you will get such a super car that Schumacher will specially recover in order to drive it.

      What for ? When can you find something else?
  6. +5
    25 January 2024 06: 20
    Rather than disposing of it, it’s easier to launch it, especially since there’s someone to target... but as a decoy target or as a missile to hit a target, depending on the situation
  7. 0
    25 January 2024 06: 38
    Apart from the weight of the charge, almost nothing is said about the type of charge. It is unlikely that the anti-ship missile charge will be armor-piercing, concrete-piercing, cumulative or thermobaric. Most likely this is a high-explosive fragmentation grenade, which is hardly suitable for hitting fortified (buried) structures, including railway bridges and overpasses. Even great weight does not give hope for a powerful high-explosive effect. And it has not yet been said how the anti-ship missile flies at the final part of the trajectory: it descends above the surface and hits the target on the side or makes a “slide” and attacks the target from above. In both options, the missile can cause great damage to a modern ship, but in the first option, when attacking a ground target, the damage will be minimal.
    1. 0
      25 January 2024 08: 41
      Quote: Yuras_Belarus
      It is unlikely that the anti-ship missile charge will be armor-piercing, concrete-piercing, cumulative or thermobaric.

      It was precisely the warheads for large Soviet anti-ship missiles that were either semi-armor-piercing or cumulative. Because the design bureaus were forced to take into account the presence of air forces and even battleships at the most likely enemy.
    2. +4
      25 January 2024 12: 12
      Quote: Yuras_Belarus
      It is unlikely that the anti-ship missile charge will be armor-piercing, concrete-piercing, cumulative or thermobaric.

      It’s just that the “old” Soviet anti-ship missiles often had high-explosive cumulative warheads!
      1. -2
        25 January 2024 17: 23
        the “old” Soviet anti-ship missiles had warheads that were often high-explosive-cumulative!

        It's lost in translation

        High-explosive and cumulative parts have different operating principles

        Cumulative - - necessary measure, only against armored vehicles and fortifications. Wherever it is necessary to make a hole in an obstacle, at any cost

        With the same caliber cum. ammunition contains significantly less explosives and destructive elements (due to design features - funnel, lining)

        The use of a cumulative effect in an anti-ship missile warhead would mean wasting energy on creating a useless cumulative jet. Which is also easily dispersed in open space, because. godfather the jet exists only in the thickness of the metal
        1. +1
          25 January 2024 23: 34
          Quote: Santa Fe
          High-explosive and cumulative parts have different operating principles

          My God! Where do you get people like that from? What a translation, if this is what is indicated in Soviet reference books about Soviet missiles! You will also say that there are no “cumulative fragmentation” and “cumulative fragmentation” ammunition! (After all, in your opinion, cumulative and fragmentation ammunition have “different principles of operation”!) Type in a search engine: “high-explosive cumulative warheads of missiles, ammunition”... and the Internet will dump you a bunch of article headlines mentioning “high-explosive cumulative” and “ cumulative high-explosive" combat units! Figure it out! Learn "materiel"! And don't fool me! Mlyn! What day is it today? Either two idiots give me minuses for the correct classification of LMUR... then another “gifted” one ignorantly lectures!
          1. 0
            26 January 2024 09: 04
            Nikolaevich, don’t get excited!

            From the very beginning you confuse cause with effect

            The cumulative-fragmentation weapons you mentioned are, first of all, cumulative. In which they tried to somehow use the remaining energy of the explosion. It didn’t turn out very well, to put it mildly; and therefore this type of b/p did not receive distribution. The reasons were discussed in the comments above.

            As for the idea of ​​adding a cumulative function to anti-ship missile warheads against completely unarmored targets - no one in their right mind would dare to do this. Loosen and ruin ammunition out of the blue

            Reduce the content of explosives, weaken the high-explosive effect - for the sake of an unnecessary attempt to create a cumulative jet, which will immediately disappear in open space (how ineffective a cumulative charge is when detonated in the air - examples of anti-cumulative gratings on tanks show)

            And everyone reprints the phrase about the high-explosive cumulative warhead of Soviet anti-ship missiles, without even going into its essence.
            1. +2
              26 January 2024 11: 14
              I agree... I got excited! Please excuse me for that! I just had a "hard day"!
              (I had to deal with one attempted raider takeover by “persons with a criminal past”... at the same time they threatened me...)
    3. -2
      25 January 2024 19: 44
      None of our weapons can be effective when firing at bridges and important overpasses, since with such thoughts they simply evaporate from warehouses.
      Regarding the effectiveness of such anti-ship missiles, ask the Pakistanis, for whom the Indians destroyed the port of Karachi to pieces with several P-15s in the early 70s, which they then extinguished for several days.
  8. +3
    25 January 2024 06: 48
    When such topics are discussed, the question always arises: how many of these missiles are left? If there are only a few dozen of them, or a couple of hundred, then you don’t need to bother, just shoot at some area targets (such as a factory or an oil depot, or a railway station) and end this story. If there are a thousand of them, then you should seriously think about modernization and modifications.
    1. 0
      25 January 2024 08: 34
      So maybe this was a test run?
  9. 0
    25 January 2024 09: 53
    this is the second article on P-35 in the last XNUMX hours

    back in 2022 they talked about disposing of old missiles by sending “gifts”, but the conversations remained just conversations: i.e. no improvement work - increasing accuracy - was done
    but still, such recycling saves the state money
  10. +5
    25 January 2024 11: 13
    Also in 2016, the stationary DBK “Utyos”, located in Crimea, was restored, earlier, during the period of “independence” of Crimea, abandoned by the Armed Forces of Ukraine (AFU) and falling into disrepair.

    More precisely, of the entire “Sotka”, only the second division was restored, which in the Ukrainian Armed Forces was considered mothballed and therefore lost only non-ferrous metal.
    The first division (near the village of Oboronnoye) was completely plundered, down to the concrete, and was not restored.
  11. +3
    25 January 2024 12: 24
    On the latest versions of the Progress, the last 50 km to the target, it could travel at an altitude of 25-50 meters, the maximum flight range of the missile was increased to 450 km, the coordinates of the target on the shore were entered before the missile was launched. High-explosive-cumulative warhead weighing 930 kg. Marching speed at an altitude of 400 m at a temperature of about 0 degrees is approximately 350-360 m/sec. Quite a tool for opening air defense facilities, for example, in Odessa and Nikolaev.
    1. 0
      25 January 2024 17: 15
      High-explosive-cumulative warhead weighing 930 kg.

      The power of Soviet-era missiles good

      One hit can knock down a nine-story building
  12. 0
    25 January 2024 17: 20
    A few days ago, a “source” from the Ministry of Defense confirmed the use of several of these missiles to strike air defense targets in Odessa. He told RIA Novosti that the remote control system was used successfully, which, despite its age, showed itself to be good. The source did not go into details and did not say that the P-35s themselves attacked the air defense system or they were aimed at the radar contrasting objects, and strikes were made against, say, the Kh-31 systems, which were attacked by them.
  13. +1
    26 January 2024 02: 13
    For surface targets, the P-35 anti-ship missiles could also be used in a fully autonomous mode, but in this case the effectiveness dropped significantly, since these anti-ship missiles could not independently select targets.

    With the operator, target selection also had big problems. In 1980, during training firing with Admiral Golovko, the P-35, at the operator’s choice, hit the minesweeper Kherson Komsomolets, which was guarding the firing area.
    In general, old anti-ship missiles without satellite navigation are of little use for firing at targets far from the coastline, since they have extremely low accuracy in such conditions.
    1. 0
      26 January 2024 17: 33
      Quote from solar
      In general, old anti-ship missiles without satellite navigation are of little use for firing at targets far from the coastline, since they have extremely low accuracy in such conditions

      One of the options for upgrading the P-35 into surface-to-surface missiles is replacing the active radar seeker with a GPS navigator...
  14. 0
    26 January 2024 11: 15
    Dear author! Both you and the comrades at "V.o." asked the right questions: 1. How many old anti-ship missiles can fly? 2. Why launch them along the shore, including with the aim of overloading the air defense? And ideally, berths and oil depots, warehouses and crane facilities, with transformer substations and railways. arrows? "Clamshells" - nuclear submarines pr. 675 MU, MK and MKV are long gone. There remain surface ships that will not be allowed into the Black Sea. Neither the P-500 nor the P-1000 can be launched from the Reduta installation without significant modification of the launch container. Different lengths (+90 cm to length) and diameter of the rockets. Accelerators are different. That is why on the MK and MKV the light hull of the boats was redesigned and the container gas exhaust system was redesigned. And the ZIL-Baz is not the fastest and most passable tractor. One more thing, “Basalt” and “Vulcan” are titanium and, perhaps, it is more economically profitable to dispose of them by cutting them and handing them over in colored metal than by shooting them at the ports of Odessa and Nikolaev.
  15. -1
    1 February 2024 08: 58
    The use of anti-ship missiles against ground targets is a crime. There are other tools for this. One gets the impression that they want to leave the coast without these PCRs. If there are not enough specialized missiles to work against ground targets, then these missiles will soon be wasted. And then the coast will be left without the protection of anti-ship ground systems.
  16. 0
    1 February 2024 12: 23
    Well, installing the GLONASS module should not be a big problem. And we also need to restore the y points. I hope they haven't been cut down yet
  17. 0
    April 9 2024 15: 33
    but was there a boy (the launch was more precisely according to junk. So they were shooting somewhere in the sea and even electronic “launches”....)))) the division was to protect the SHORE, from ships)) and was sent to the sea and back for itself mountains, somewhere there... it’s unlikely that he’ll shoot. and if you shoot it out into the sea and turn around on the way to Hochland, then where will it “fly” there) and recently, supposedly from the Crimea...they were shooting zircons)))))) and) just one of its two carriers came into the sevas) Nuclear submarines from the Northern Fleet.... they probably launched along the rivers))) most likely... in the underwater... because the cruiser couldn’t possibly get to the Black Sea))) I watch the victory and parades (analoguenet) our everything .