Military Review

Sea winged guard

17

Fire harpoon

Harpoon is an American competitor and an analogue of the Russian tactical missile X-35 "Uranus". Subsonic, has a range of 315 km. It has options for sea and air basing. Harpoon Modifications for Onshore Complexes assigned RGM-84 Index

Despite all the upheavals that the Russian military industrial complex has experienced in recent years, promising missile systems continue to be created in our country. However, the problem of choosing one design or another or their optimal combination largely depends on how politicians and the military see the scope of these tools.

Coastal anti-ship missile systems (BNCRC) are only one particular case of using anti-ship cruise missiles, but using this “particular” as an example, it’s quite possible to see how design concepts and views on the use of this type of weapon in the littoral zone with participation of Russia.

Recently, in the press, you can find allegations that likely military conflicts off the coast of Russia will not be a more pressing task to combat large-scale surface targets, but, on the contrary, to oppose small ships at close range. In such a situation, the advantage could be given to low-speed, but easier light-duty, anti-ship tactical class Uranian anti-ship missiles.

Finally, it is worth noting the promising development of the Novator Design Bureau, a mobile bomber Kalibr, better known under the export name Club-M. The 3M-54E rocket used in the complex passes a marching segment at subsonic speed, and at the stage of approaching the target, the warhead carries a detachable supersonic stage.

At the same time, despite the fact that projects to create supersonic cruise missiles existed in different countries, today it is Russia that is practically a monopoly manufacturer and supplier of winged "supersonic" to the world arms market. America is quite costly with subsonic Tomahawk and Harpoon rockets, which, however, are constantly being improved.

Sea winged guard

Light "Uranus"
The X-35 “Uranus” cruise anti-ship missile was developed at the Zvezda Design Bureau and is designed to destroy ships up to 5000 t. A launching shipboard, coastal and helicopter design uses a detachable solid fuel accelerator. After the required speed has been set, the turbojet engine begins to work. Shot range - 130 km. The flight is carried out at altitudes 10 – 15 m, and after the target is captured by a radar homing head, the device is reduced to 3 – 5 m. The coastal tactical missile system “Bal-E” was created to control the coastal zone based on the X-35 rocket. The photo below shows the active X-35E radar homing head in the section.


Crushing molecules

To tell about the advantages and disadvantages of supersonic and subsonic cruise missiles “PM” asked B.N.Natarov, the lead designer of the military-industrial complex “NPO Mashinostroeniya”

“I would not want to put this question in terms of opposition,” says Boris Natarov. “Both missiles have their advantages. But each option has its limitations, imposed on designers by the laws of physics.

The fact is that a subsonic object will always win in range and in weight efficiency, that is, with the same range on a cruise missile flying at subsonic speed, it will be possible to deliver a more massive warhead to the target. And the provision of a greater range for a supersonic cruise missile is achieved with great difficulty.

As you know, the flight range of the winged vehicle is directly proportional to both speed and aerodynamic quality (AK). Aerodynamic quality is the ratio of the lift coefficient to the drag coefficient. Modern subsonic passenger liners of the Boeing-747 or A 380 type have an aerodynamic quality of about 17–18, which allows them to make record non-stop flights over a distance of more than 20000 km. But as soon as we move on to supersonic (and this, of course, concerns how aviationand cruise missiles), a contradictory situation arises. With increasing speed, AK begins to fall. Specialists in aerodynamics know the so-called Kyukheman hyperbole, which shows that when the speed reaches 1M, the AK value rapidly decreases and stabilizes only in the region of 2-3M.

This is explained very simply. At supersonic energy there is a significant dissipation. At first it is just heating, energy consumption for gas dissociation starts after 3М - further fragmentation of air molecules. And all this without the slightest benefit to the winged apparatus. "

This graph looks somewhat different (AKs on supersonic and hypersound increases by 1 – 2 units) only for one class of aircraft — for wave flyers using the so-called compression lifting force. Projects of this type exist (for example, Boeing X-51A), but there is not a single truly flying vehicle, since the wave-gun is set to a strictly defined flight speed, and to others it loses to devices of all other types.



Supersonic "Bastion"
The mobile coastal SCRC "Bastion-P" is equipped with Onyx ("Yakhont") rockets, which retain a supersonic speed over the entire flight path. When firing at a combined (combining high-altitude stretch and shaving flight) trajectory, the range is more than 300 km. The complex provides the autonomy of combat use ("shot - forgot")


Our choice is supersonic

In the days when the Soviet military leadership decided what to oppose to the American "Tomahawk", V.N.Chelomey - the creator and then head of the Reutovsky Design Bureau - gave a report at a meeting in the presence of the highest ranks of the Navy. His performance was extremely impulsive, and the pathos was akin to the well-known statement of the leader of the world proletariat: “We will go the other way!” The ideas of the general designer were accepted, and in spite of the Tomahawks of the USSR began to develop supersonic cruise missiles, in particular, “Meteorite” ", Which, however, did not enter service.

It is interesting to compare the strategic subsonic Tomahawk with the operational-tactical supersonic "Onyx". With approximately the same length, the American rocket is 2,5 times lighter than the Russian, while the weight of the warhead of the first is more than two times that of the 453 kg versus Onyx 200 kg. Tomahawk is able to fly a distance of 2500 km, "Onyx" - about 300 km.

By the way, the decision made in 1970-s to counter domestic supersonic with American developments was not the first attempt of this kind. Back in the late 1940s — early 1950s, North American Aviation began developing the SM-64 Navaho, a strategic supersonic cruise missile.
In response, in 1954, the Lavochkin Design Bureau began to design an intercontinental winged projectile, which became known as the “Storm”. Even then, the rigid constraints associated with supersonic structures became apparent. The engineers of KB Lavochkin managed to achieve an amazing result for that time –– to create the lightest glider, but the weight of the fuel was 70% of the flight weight of the device. But even with such a huge fuel reserve it was possible to reach the range of the entire 6500 km. Approximately the same result was in the American Navaho. The project "Storm" slowed down the work on the creation of a suitable rocket engine, and at this time there was significant progress in the field of ballistic missiles. It became clear that it was ballistic missiles that would allow the USSR to get ahead in the strategic arms race, and the Storm project, along with Navaho, of course, became only pages stories engineering sense.




Otomat MKII
The Italian cruise missile with a range of more than 180 km is designed to combat surface ships, as well as to bombard the coast. Created by Oto Melara in collaboration with the company Matra (France). Developing a speed close to the speed of sound, the Otomat MKII rocket became the basis for the Otomach supersonic project, which, however, was not implemented. The missile was in service with coastal complexes, set in the Arab countries.


Who will hit first?

“Besides that, with comparable characteristics of the range and mass of the warhead, the supersonic device is more massive,” continues Boris Natarov, “it is much more difficult to ensure the inconspicuousness of the latter. Both for subsonic and supersonic, various types of absorbing coatings are used, but a supersonic rocket heats up more and strongly “radiates”. It is not so easy to 'pay off' some elements of the structure, especially the air intake. By the way, in the latest version of Tomahawk, the advanced technology of the non-protruding air intake is used, which really reduces the visibility of the device. On the other hand, the supersonic machine is less adapted for maneuver. For some reason, many believe that the higher the speed of the device - the better handling. In this case, I recommend these people to get behind the wheel of a car and test this hypothesis in practice. With rocket technology, the same story takes place - in supersonic, the bends radii grow tenfold. The overloads remain very serious.

However, the most serious disadvantage of subsonic structures is obvious - they get to the target too slowly. The cruising speed of the Tomahawk rocket is in the 0,65 M region, which is comparable to the speed of a medium-haul passenger aircraft. Thus, a supersonic rocket will have a significant advantage in the probability of achieving the goal, because the enemy will have much less time to attempt to intercept it and shoot it down.

It turns out that, having a supersonic rocket of the 'Onyx' type, we win at the expense of speed in the opposite conflict situation. If we and the enemy have 'long arms' and at the same time received a warning about the beginning of a conflict, then a supersonic rocket is a formidable and effective weapon. But the question always remains open - will the conflict scenario be exactly one that will allow us to take advantage of our weapons. ”



Penguin that flies
Tactical anti-ship missile Penguin Mk2 (AGM-119B) manufactured by the Norwegian company Kongsberg. It is used in coastal anti-ship missile systems (can be installed on a tracked and wheelbase), and also has options for sea (pictured) and airborne. Firing range - up to 30 km. The basic version of the Penguin rocket was created in the 1972 year, the Mk2 modification was done in the 1980.


Everything is under control

All the arguments about which coastal anti-ship complex will be more effective or how operational-tactical and tactical systems will be able to interact, abut against the military-political model of threats that we intend to confront. If we are talking about a conflict with an adversary with high-tech weapons, such as those at the disposal of NATO countries, then it is clear that coastal SCRCs themselves are not able to repel such a threat. According to the calculations of American military experts, in the event of a conflict in the coastal area, the US Army will be able from the minimum 750 km distance to begin the destruction of coastal defensive systems using cruise missiles, stealth aircraft and UAV drums. And before these systems are finally suppressed, not a single large ship will enter the enemy's coastal PKRC.

“The problem also lies in the fact,” explains Boris Natarov, “that the radar means assigned to the Bal-E, i'Bastion-P 'complexes do not provide complete information to targets that are within or nearing their range. Yes, we are working to create operational-tactical strike systems of ever-increasing range and crushing power, but it would be nice to pay attention to the American experience, which emphasizes the principle of the three 'C'– Command, Control, Communication (control – control – communication). It makes no sense to swing heavy fists, seeing nothing and not hearing around.

As you know, NATO countries have excellent intelligence support and a powerful, extensive combat command and control system - Aegis ('Aegis'). In our country, such a system has not been created, although attempts of this kind have been made.

Everything should be decided at that moment when we realize that there is no point in spending money on UAVs for the regimental or battalion level. It's cheap, you can buy it abroad, but no one will sell us the Global Hawk long-range altitude reconnaissance UAV or the shock Reaper. We will have to do the technique of this class ourselves.

We need an analogue of the sea intelligence officer - the Compass Cope UAV, in order to fly over the sea for hours and days and provide protection for the whole zone. In the alert and reconnaissance regimes we will have to go much further from the coast and, of course, attract the fleet. Only then the already created rocket systems will be able to show everything that they are capable of. ”



Popular Frenchwoman
Exocet is a French cruise anti-ship missile. Developed by Aérospatiale. Solid fuel modification 2007 g. MM.40 blok 3 is equipped with a turbojet engine. The rocket is intended both for launches from surface ships and for coastal PKRC. Range to 80 km. During the Falkland War (1982), the Argentine destroyer, with the help of Exocet, sunk the British destroyer Sheffield.
Author:
Originator:
http://www.popmech.ru
17 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Ataman
    Ataman 8 June 2013 10: 33 New
    +7
    I do not think that in this situation Russia should chase after the Americans and create the same fleet of destroyers URO with the same number of subsonic cruise missiles. The answer should be asymmetrical and efficient. These are submarines and long-range bombers with supersonic missiles. I am for Chelomei.
    1. Atrix
      Atrix 8 June 2013 11: 59 New
      +2
      Quote: Ataman
      I do not think that in this situation Russia should chase after the Americans and create the same fleet of destroyers URO with the same number of subsonic cruise missiles. The answer should be asymmetrical and efficient. These are submarines and long-range bombers with supersonic missiles. I am for Chelomei.

      Well, it’s better to create submarines, how many 36 missiles does Ash have there? And he probably also gives remarkable target designation? And probably it costs less than a destroyer? Russia needs ships that will be comparable or better in combat performance with Arly Burke (90-96 missile, Aegis system, 2 helicopters with anti-submarine weapons, etc.) and in the number of 30 pieces. By versatility, destroyers are superior to submarines by head and will cost less than a submarine .
      According to the article, I didn’t understand that it’s still better to go above the sound rockets or before the sound. To supersonic it can be attributed the advantages of this approach time and less time to shoot down, cons a small radius, more visibility, less maneuverability. And now 300-400 km is not the radius that is needed.
      1. Ataman
        Ataman 8 June 2013 17: 02 New
        +7
        With pleasure I will answer you:
        Ash has 32 missiles of various modifications of the "Caliber" complex. The fastest anti-ship weapon develops a target speed of 2.9M.
        The Arleigh Burke-class destroyer is armed with up to 90 Tomahawk missiles, the target speed is 0.7M.
        About versatility:
        The Arleigh Burke-class destroyer is designed to shoot defenseless Libyans, Iraqis and Syrians who do not have modern air defense systems and navy.
        Ash is designed to shoot Arleigh Burke-class destroyers.
        About the high cost:
        Yes, indeed, it is cheaper to send a couple of long-range bombers to shoot the Arlie Burkes.
        About supersonic rockets or subsonic rockets:
        You are right, for supersonic missiles there is less time to shoot down, but the question is how many times. The missile at the target flies at a height of 10 m, i.e. goes beyond the horizon (at sea) at a distance of 10-15 km from the target. 10-15 seconds are left until the meeting. During this time, Aegis must at least twice determine the coordinates of the rocket, calculate the speed and direction from two points ... understand that it is too late to launch an anti-aircraft missile, and it’s already 5 seconds to live ... to cross.
        For subsonic missiles, this time is about a minute; there is time for several attempts to shoot down a rocket.
    2. Vashestambid2
      Vashestambid2 8 June 2013 17: 30 New
      +1
      Quote: Ataman
      The answer must be asymmetrical and effective.

      You, as I understand it, are the new "Effective Manager" !!
      laughing laughing laughing laughing

      Quote: Ataman
      The missile at the target flies at a height of 10 m, i.e. goes beyond the horizon (at sea) at a distance of 10-15 km from the target. 10-15 seconds to meet


      You forgot about the aircraft carrier and AWACS !! smile

      1. Ataman
        Ataman 8 June 2013 22: 41 New
        +1
        Quote: Vashestambid2
        You forgot about the aircraft carrier and AWACS !!

        In this case, you have forgotten about the Bulava, the destroyers will not shoot them, and they will not regret one thing for the aircraft carrier.
        Thus, both sides understand how this will end and do not get involved in a direct conflict with each other.
  2. Fofan
    Fofan 8 June 2013 13: 22 New
    +2
    Quote: Atrix

    Well, it’s better to create submarines, how many 36 missiles does Ash have there? And he probably also gives remarkable target designation? And probably it costs less than a destroyer? Russia needs ships that will be comparable or better in combat performance with Arly Burke (90-96 missile, Aegis system, 2 helicopters with anti-submarine weapons, etc.) and in the number of 30 pieces. By versatility, destroyers are superior to submarines by head and will cost less than a submarine .
    According to the article, I didn’t understand that it’s still better to go above the sound rockets or before the sound. To supersonic it can be attributed the advantages of this approach time and less time to shoot down, cons a small radius, more visibility, less maneuverability. And now 300-400 km is not the radius that is needed.

    and where to put them 30 elephants?
    in terms of and do not need to understand anything. the next generation will combine speeds. up to 100 km at subsonic speed, then supersonic, possibly already hypersonic.
    by the way, funny, but it was precisely 2 phalanxes that stood as the main air defense of Sheffield. and they did not reflect 1 subsonic first-generation PCR. Pichal ......
    1. laurbalaur
      laurbalaur 8 June 2013 21: 00 New
      +1
      Well, let's say they did not try! If you believe a bunch of material written about this, then at the time of the attack, the detection and interference systems were disconnected — there was a communication session between Sheffield and the admiralty! So Exocet flew into the destroyer, as in a dash! And he drowned not at all from the damage caused by the rocket, but from a many-hour fire, although the result is important here!
  3. Atrix
    Atrix 8 June 2013 13: 32 New
    +2
    Quote: Fofan
    and where to put them 30 elephants?

    Well, let's look at 2 large fleets, the Northern and Pacific Fleets. We divide by the floors 15 pieces per fleet, then one part is in sailing, the other part is getting ready for swimming, the third part is being repaired. And it turns out that 15 pieces are not so much.
  4. Fofan
    Fofan 8 June 2013 13: 37 New
    +1
    Quote: Atrix
    Quote: Fofan
    and where to put them 30 elephants?

    Well, let's look at 2 large fleets, the Northern and Pacific Fleets. We divide by the floors 15 pieces per fleet, then one part is in sailing, the other part is getting ready for swimming, the third part is being repaired. And it turns out that 15 pieces are not so much.

    the problem is not how to divide them between the fleets, but against whom to use them. we have all the friction associated with the usa. but open conflict with them is impossible, for comp. and the question arises, who should they tan with these destroyers? geyropu? doubtful. UAE and the like? or maybe israel? against whom to use them then?
    1. Atrix
      Atrix 8 June 2013 18: 35 New
      +2
      Quote: Fofan
      Quote: Atrix
      Quote: Fofan
      and where to put them 30 elephants?

      Well, let's look at 2 large fleets, the Northern and Pacific Fleets. We divide by the floors 15 pieces per fleet, then one part is in sailing, the other part is getting ready for swimming, the third part is being repaired. And it turns out that 15 pieces are not so much.

      the problem is not how to divide them between the fleets, but against whom to use them. we have all the friction associated with the usa. but open conflict with them is impossible, for comp. and the question arises, who should they tan with these destroyers? geyropu? doubtful. UAE and the like? or maybe israel? against whom to use them then?

      Then you have another question arising from your answer. For whom then are we building destroyers, nuclear submarines Ash, fighter jets, tanks in such quantities? After all, if you count, by your logic, no one needs such an amount. Only a nuclear conflict is possible with NATO; China also needs only nuclear weapons.
  5. bublic82009
    bublic82009 8 June 2013 15: 54 New
    +3
    To launch missiles over a distance of more than 750 km, you need a reliable target designator. gunners, beacons and so on. and their ships themselves will be susceptible to attacks. For this, we also have missiles of different classes and aviation. the question is different. what to do if we lose our intelligence capabilities.
  6. sergey261180
    sergey261180 8 June 2013 17: 33 New
    +1
    Solid fuel modification 2007 MM.40 blok 3 equipped with a turbojet
    I don’t get it, something like that?
    1. Atrix
      Atrix 8 June 2013 18: 30 New
      -1
      Quote: sergey261180
      Solid fuel modification 2007 MM.40 blok 3 equipped with a turbojet
      I don’t get it, something like that?

      What bothers you? The same Tomahawk with turbofan F-107 flies for a long time.
      1. sergey261180
        sergey261180 9 June 2013 13: 35 New
        +2
        He does not work on solid fuel.
  7. not good
    not good 8 June 2013 20: 23 New
    +3
    Unfortunately, until real-life lighting systems are created, and not only far, but also all necessary, and there will be no way to receive timely target designation, the speed and range of missiles will not give great advantages over an adversary who possesses even subsonic missiles, but will be able to sneak up unnoticed.
  8. Zomanus
    Zomanus 9 June 2013 04: 14 New
    +2
    The problem is voiced correctly, and it is urgent not only for anti-ship gunfire. Communication and detection with intelligence is lame in our country. We are building "Voronezh" against the big ones, so far there are no obvious moves against the little things. But target designation and guidance is the pinnacle and the most important part of the use of modern weapons.
  9. 1c-inform-city
    1c-inform-city 9 June 2013 10: 28 New
    0
    Actually, now the group of navigational targeting satellites has been restored, although the problems are even higher than the roof. I just want the missiles to be compared more correctly. For example, the Tomahawk cannot be used against ships except against a fixed barge. All attempts by Amers to modernize it for this purpose have failed. Therefore they are now testing a new missile. All of their ships have powerful air defense and the ability to strike along the coast, but have weak anti-ship weapons. And this is one of the reasons for the increased development of supersonic. By the way, even without a warhead, a supersonic missile turns the ship into garbage. On this site was an article about the tests of Mosquito. This is to the question of the size of the warhead.
    1. Know-nothing
      Know-nothing 9 June 2013 13: 07 New
      +2
      Quote: 1c-inform-city
      reconstructed group of navigational targeting satellites

      What?

      Quote: 1c-inform-city
      Tomahawk cannot be used against ships

      Can.

      Quote: 1c-inform-city
      All of their ships have powerful air defense and the ability to strike along the coast, but weak anti-ship weapons

      The "main caliber" of the Americans is the air group. The rest of the ships are needed mainly to protect the carrier of the "main caliber".
  10. 1c-inform-city
    1c-inform-city 9 June 2013 10: 45 New
    -1
    And yet. In the conflict between us and the United States there will be no external target designation, for some reason everyone forgets about it. A few jabs from both our side and them will shut up all the satellites and auxes. And here I think the advantage will get over the sound. (The first will be restored short range targeting systems)
  11. 1c-inform-city
    1c-inform-city 9 June 2013 16: 51 New
    0
    The tomahawk control system is inertial, an attempt to put a multi-mode homing head on it failed. The project on this topic was closed. The last test was last year (unsuccessful)
    1. Know-nothing
      Know-nothing 10 June 2013 07: 51 New
      +1
      Anti-ship Tomahawk 109B with active radar seeker, similar to the Harpoon was adopted by 30 years ago. With the departure of the former Soviet Navy from the World Ocean, they were transformed into the more popular Land-Attack (the Tomahawks have a modular system, it is enough to change the warhead).

      And the latest Tactical Tomahawk can provide anti-ship capabilities.
      If you are talking about him, then it would be nice to give a link about testing and closing the project.