It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Russia tests new missile for sale to China

page: 1
<<   2 >>

log in


posted on Jul, 6 2005 @ 02:21 PM
Russian missile makers have recently tested a new weapon they hope to sell to China. The newly developed Russian missile is designed to attack naval targets, and well suited for attacks against U.S. carriers.
Flight testing is underway on a variant of Russia's Raduga Kh-59M (NATO AS-18 Kazoo) anti-ship missile. Flight trials of the modified Kh-59 began in 2004, using a SU-30MK2 aircraft already sold to Beijing.

The Chinese naval (PLAN) air arm began taking delivery of the first batch of 24 SU-30MK2s strike-fighters in mid-2004. The newly modified missile has been fitted with an active radar seeker, advanced guidance systems and a special computer interface allowing it to use targeting data from the Su-30MK2 fighter.The modified Kh-59 missile is fitted with a Saturn 36MT turbojet engine and its range has been extended to 186 miles or 288 KM.

"The Russians badly need the hard currency that their deteriorating arms industry can provide, but do not help their own defense posture on their eastern flank by selling them to the Chinese," stated John Shaw, former deputy under secretary for international technology security in the George W. Bush Defense Department.

"Look for lots of sales of last generation equipment, but recognize that others can provide upgrades that are better than the state of the art in Russia-for a fat fee," concluded Shaw.

Read full article ......(large)

well i suppose that China recieving state of the art Russian equipment is the shape of things to come. The Russians want money and Chinese want weapons and looks like that's what will happen for a long time.

[edit on 6-7-2005 by Stealth Spy]

posted on Jul, 6 2005 @ 02:39 PM
Stealth Spy,
Are you sure that you poster correctly, the Kadhoo anti-ship missile has a "turboJet" engine ?
A turbo jet engine is one which has blades and an axial compressor, but from your pic it looks like it has a solid motor rocket.
BTW a Turbojet engine looks like this:

posted on Jul, 6 2005 @ 02:40 PM
Even if China is buying these with the intent to attack the US at sea. They still have to get pretty close into their range to attack. It'd be unreasonable for them to do that. We could simply scramble our own fighters and shoot it down. No biggie. China more than likely would use this on Taiwan if problems with them persist.

posted on Jul, 6 2005 @ 02:54 PM

Originally posted by IAF101
Stealth Spy,
Are you sure that you poster correctly, the Kadhoo anti-ship missile has a "turboJet" engine ?

That's what the link says, check it out yourself.

posted on Jul, 6 2005 @ 03:16 PM
Okay here's what I learnt:

Kh-59 has a canard layout with the developed wing and destabilizers which are folded for transport and during carriage. The missile has two solid propellant motors: a jettisonable boost engine at the rear, and two-nozzle sustainer (the return to two lateral nozzles was caused by the datalink antenna block in the tail section), the first of which fires during the initial autopilot stage, and then is jettisoned by pyrotechnic charges, freeing the datalink antennas. Flight continues with the aid of the second stage sustainer rocket engine, which has a small specific impulse supporting subsonic speed in the order of 285 m/s. For the protection of the television seeker head window from the dust and insects (especially a problem in low altitude flight) in flight under the carrier Kh-59 has a light metallic spinner AMG-6, jettisoned during launching and deployment of the canard “whiskers”. The warhead is explosive, with penetrating action, weighing 148 kg, that ensures the damage of basic targets - shelters, depositories, staffs and other protected construction.

As in Kh-58, control of the missile is achieved by electromechanical steering drives, which feed from an onboard storage battery and converter. For the realization of low-altitude flight it has a radio altimeter. Basic structural materials are light alloys and high-strength stainless steel. VNS-2 in the aggregates of fuselage, wings welded from the light alloy AMG-6 with the longerons from VKL-3. For guaranteeing the heat insulation loading compartment and apparatus sections Kh-59 are covered over by the layer of synthetic material, and fairing with reinforcement and installation of power supply for increasing the hardness is flooded by foam plastic together with the plaits established in it and by joints. For the suspension and the launching of Kh-59 serves the standardised aircraft ejection device AKU-58-1.

So that solves it, it has both rocket motor and turbofan but i have looked many sources say that it is Turbojet and some say its Turbofan, maybe the russians dont make the distinction between the low-bypass ans high by-pass like the rest of us do!

Also the later variants of the Kahdoo supposedly have greater range compared to the original which was developed in 1984! That is way old!
Also;Original Kh-59: rocket motor
Kh-59M: R-95-300 turbojet for 3x the range
Kh-59MK: new 36MT turbofan engine, active seeker head instead of TV guidance, uses upgraded ARGS-35 seeker (ARGS-35 is used on the Kh-35).
And the specs go like:

Developer: Raduga
Producer: Smolensk aircraft factory
Length: 5.368-5.37 m
Diameter: 380 mm
Span: 1.26m (1.17m)
Weight: 760-790 kg
Speed, 285 m/s (250-300)
CEP: 2-3 m (3-5)
Range: 40km
Warhead: 147-148 kg explosive-cumulative
Guidance system: TV+command
Carrier aircraft: Su-24M, Su-17M4, Su-30MK

The airborne launcher:
Type: AKU-58-1
Number of rockets on launcher: 1
Developer: Vympel
Weight, empty launcher: 185 kg
Length: 3810 mm
Width: 130 mm
Height: 220 mm" target='_blank' class='tabOff'/>

Finally, one question to ponder is why get the Kh-59mk when the chinese can get the Kh-101 with 5000 or the kh-55 with 3000kms range~!

posted on Jul, 6 2005 @ 06:07 PM
maybe this has been talked about already but after the US retires the F-14 tomcat which saddens me deeply, what will the US Navy have to shoot down incoming missile to its fleet

posted on Jul, 6 2005 @ 06:18 PM
SEA Ram and a whole batch of new missiles fired from ships not aircrafts. The only fighter which has a good chance at shooting down missiles for the US military is the F/A-22.

posted on Jul, 7 2005 @ 11:42 AM
There are those in Moscow who from the mid-1990s have criticized the decisions of the Russian government, Rosoboronexport and others to keep selling advanced weapon systems to the PRC, sharing technological know-how and allowing Chinese engineers, technicians and scientists to study at some of Russia’s most advanced design bureaus and research centers. This criticism stems from the fear that by arming and building the technological base of a country that once lagged 20 or more years behind Russia’s industry, perhaps a monster is being created that will come back to haunt them.

But at the same time there is the reality that money from sales to Beijing has been keeping parts of Russia’s defense industry alive in a time of anemic national military budgets. For several years China has been Russia’s number-one arms buyer and accounts for close to 40 percent of the nation’s multibillion-dollar annual trade in weapons exports.

For the immediate future the Russians have no major worries, as “China is incapable of developing these military technologies and production on its own,” said one U.S. defense analyst.

But Moscow’s motivation for maintaining its cozy ties with China extends beyond money. Despite the reassuring knowledge that Russia is not regarded by the Chinese as their chief military threat, there remains the real fear of any downturn in relations with the PRC. A Russian military analyst who refused to be identified stated that Russian military has an unspoken fear of the consequences of relations with China going sour. According to him, Russian MoD analysts had run war games and concluded that China would win in any conventional war against Russia.

Chinese industry, it was said at an official ceremony on the opening day of the exposition, “would never forget” the debt it owed to Russia.


posted on Jul, 7 2005 @ 06:32 PM
i dont think china could win against Russia, i just dont see it happening, but maybe it will being that both russia and china want US out of the Area, and that there is oil in that area that china wants maybe the Two will fight for it, if they do i strongly hope the US would support Russia

posted on Jul, 7 2005 @ 06:39 PM
It won't matter. Though many things I have read regarding Russian technology is almost tops comapared with US, US has advanced aviation high speed technology not from the Human race.

Which simply places delivery timing and accuracy above the clouds.



posted on Jul, 10 2005 @ 09:00 PM
The missile in the picture is a 9M714, known to the West as the SS-23 SPIDER. For the Kh-59M, look here:

The Kh-59M series (AS-18 KAZOO) uses turbojet propulsion, the Kh-59 Ovod (AS-13 KINGBOLT) from which it was derived uses rocket propultion.


posted on Jul, 10 2005 @ 11:43 PM

Originally posted by Dallas

It won't matter. Though many things I have read regarding Russian technology is almost tops comapared with US, US has advanced aviation high speed technology not from the Human race.

Which simply places delivery timing and accuracy above the clouds.


Can you say that over again in English?

Also relating to the subject, who are the so called people who can sell China better then the top of the line Russian military technology.

[edit on 10-7-2005 by Rit]

posted on Jul, 11 2005 @ 12:10 AM
All that rubbish regarding "non-human" sources of tech has another forum for it..

posted on Jul, 11 2005 @ 12:42 AM

Nothing which comes in subsonically in quads (the maximum the Su-30 could launch, if it abandoned all heavy ARM or AAM) will be able to beat down the combination of SM.2IV and RIM-116/RIM-162 (RAM and Evolved Sea Sparrow). Even the CIWS has a pretty good chance of bagging a couple.

OTOH, the Alpha/Yakhont and 3M80 Moskit as well as the AShM version of the AS-17 Krypton are all superior weapons because the come it at anywhere from Mach 2+ to 3.5 and higher which _severely_ compresses the horizon:impact time for any SARH or AA-ARM biased weapon.

Alpha (also known as Brahmos in it's Indian form) is particularly interesting because it uses hybrid propulsion to achieve long range (ca. 350-500km in the AShM form, 900km in the landattack) while maintaining a terminal profile which is rocket-assist supersonic.

Ironically, the SS-23 Spyder shown in the photo is _exactly_ the class of system China _should_ be using in (say) a Formosa Strait/Taiwanese confrontation. Because it allows you to use over the horizon radar to put a target box around X-square of ocean. And then loft a Mach 5 to Mach 8 weapon which will transit the distance inbetween in /minutes/ rather than the HOURS between ASST (Anti Ship Surveillance and Targeting) and ASUW (Anti Surface Unit Warfare) attack that is more typical for say an MPA (Maritime Patrol Aircraft) 'shadowing' a fleet asset (picket ship) and then calling in strikers.

Even ignoring the threat to the spotter platform, there is simply WAY too much that can happen in the interval to screw things up as you are effectively giving the USN especially TWO CHANCES to clip the inbounds as a function of intercepting both the midcourse bus platform (the Su-30MKK) and the weapon itself.

The words 'Betty and _Baka_' come to mind here as the AShM are heavy and will effect flight performance, even if the PLAAF/N pilots are up to the challenge of fighting us as BVR atlatl warriors.

Such is not problem for a round with a 1,000km reachout @ 100,000ft or more because the OAB or Outer Air Battle is effectively denied to any and all 'fighter' weapons systems. Even as the SM2.IVa with the LEAP based KKV is no longer in active development for midcourse intercept and so you are looking _only_ at conventional SM.2s hitting the weapons in the final stages of terminal stoop profile as the equivalent to guided Iraqi SCUDs come screaming down at incredible velocities.

At which point it all comes down to numbers. For I can launch an SS-23 off the back of a MAZ truck or even a reinforced semi trailer which costs perhaps 500 grande. If each SS-23 class system (or a bit larger) runs 2 million per round, that's roughly a 17-20:1 purchasing advantage over the Super Flanker. And since the only way to get the TELs (Transport Erector Launchers) is to come _over the beach and into China proper_ with your own PS&T (Precision Surveillance and Targeting) platforms, the defensive vs. offensive advantage becomes OUR (USN) 'hours to fly there, hours more to search' problem of timing vs. ranged flyout into a defensive IADS.

The AS-18 Kazoo is a stupid weapon. Being based on the AS-13 Kingbolt (which was entirely rocket propelled) it is a kind of 'building block' (slap this on that) approach to getting better range from what was originally intended to be the equivalent to our GBU-15/AGM-130 (i.e. overland) standoff glide weapons.

As such, it continues to make silly tradeoffs in warhead weight and fuel tank volumetrics for the stupid rocket booster segment (utterly unnecessary in an air launch weapon) with a a huge signature (turbojet depending below fuselage as a separate podded propulsor) and limited agility/profile control in the popup phase.

Given the AS-20/Kh-37 Kayak 'Harpoonski' does effectively the same job and is more appropriate for the mission (greater range, tube-launch option for subs and surface applications), I can only assume this is another case of warring factory complexes in the Russian mil-industrial base being egged on by a parent government interested in selling two tiers of weapons to the Indians and Chinese. What amazes me is that (apparently) the richer PRC forces are getting the short end of the stick. Of course they share a big border with Russia but even so, money talks. Or walks. And I would not be stuck with this crap if the Indians were getting 'the best we never built' in the form of the Alpha etc. weapons.

Heck, even the big old AS-4/6 and aeroballistic AS-16 are superior _penetrating_ AShM compared to this crap. What, are Chinese generals just cash proud, IQ poor? Or are they buying junk off the foreign arms dealers to provide a 'market index' of their capabilities entirely out of line with the path that home-development (DF-15/30 followons, with guidance) is choosing to go?


posted on Jul, 11 2005 @ 07:52 AM
If China is ever going to fight USN then MKK would only be a minor AShM launcher because JH-7/A would be delivering the most missiles to its target. It would be a huge wave of YJ-12s, C-80X from all platforms, Kazoos, Moskits Es and possibly even land based TEL launched weapons.

I have no idea why China is investing in the Kazoo either. Since China cracked the coding of the Flanker radar in 2001, pretty much all weapons can be launched from a flanker with the coding upgrade from a disk. YJ-12 and YJ-91 would be much superior to the Kazoo too
Maybe PLAAF and PLANAF is just buying the Kazoo because 6 of them can be launched from a MKK at a time?

posted on Jul, 13 2005 @ 02:11 PM
I suppose, if they thought that they could better keep an optical seeker MITL slaved to a real target instead of a 'floater' (decoy) and/or if they were anticipating most of their Kazoo shots to in fact be taken over the beach and the secondary RF-on-a-slow-boat option was in fact chosen as something like an (all weather or night vice day-restricted EO) 'BAT mode' for functional relief (on the radar data processor) of a fixed landward target set from high clutter on a subsonic approach...

Then it makes some sense.

Otherwise, I would use a Sea Search slaved AMSTE equivalent on a pure inertial (hypervelocity) system with a single 'squirt' coded secondary/sideband uplink and EO (targeting pod) backup for the main RF search mode. It simply doesn't take that much to get a function kill on cruiser and smaller targets.

Indeed, IMO, 'tiz better to slam a missile at a mile per second through a memorized threat spatial volume occupancy for which 'evasion' has no real meaning than it is to try and make a clever seeker steer in compensation through a wall of RBOC, jam and HPM cooperative interference.

Since the likelihood of link-defeating even a single 4,000 ton and upwards electrical generation capacity in an EA-as-CEC full court press is rather small and DEWs may well first-deploy to sea for much the same reasoning, even EO weapons just don't have that big a 'golf bag' advantage, IMO.

It may be that I am biased as I have no faith or belief of need in the use of airborne shooter platforms in any kind of an inshore/litoral engagement zone for which coastal AShM box launchers can provide equivalent coverage. Just sling a Granit or equivalent clone without sucking up transit time and sortie 'reboot' or reconfiguration to swing the jet off of ASUW onto something more useful.

Antiship is a mission set won by getting masses of weapons going down the threat bearing /soonest/. Any time wasted in getting to a release condition (from further inland) is simply not worth the questionable range/self escort extension of a manned platform assist.

Going blue water is a bit different but I don't think the PLAN have any pressing need for this option either. Not until they decide to tackle India in the SCS and beyond.

One other thing you need to keep in mind here is (again) that everybody has to get their weapons 'through the gate' of a common MPA or similar (ISAR) standoff threat lane sort _ASAP_ upon receipt of individual target allocations.

If you have a mixed bag of range and Mach enabled missiles coming off a further hodge podged conglomerate of fast/slow airpower; this may be a bit of a stone beach to walk on.


Simply 'amazing' how much that YJ-12 looks like a clone of the ANF-

Is that how the French bought their way out of the ROC Mirage 2000/MICA conflagration or does Chinese development of the type predate the European startup?

Does it also have a nuclear option? What about box/VLS modes?

posted on Jul, 13 2005 @ 04:29 PM
this is cheap light air launched missile, for real naval warfare they have moskits

posted on Jul, 14 2005 @ 04:31 AM
I must say, YJ-12 does have similarities to the ANF, such as the dual side rectangular ram-jet intakes and the ramjet engines but if you look at the back of the YJ-12 and the tail of the ANF, there are definite differences because there are stabilizers for the ANF and YJ-12 doesn't and YJ-12's intakes goes all the way to the end of the missile unlike the ANF. YJ-12's developement is actually ahead of the ANF as YJ-12 is in service on the Type 052C class of destroyers, so we know at least the naval surface version is in service with no info on the TEL based or the fighter/bomber based versions.

YJ-12 is supposed to be REALLY REALLY advanced and out performs all current AShM systems that exists today just like what the ANF is promising, maybe a secret co-operation between France and China in terms of technology and design just like how we co-operated on sonars and AIP tech to Germany?

posted on Jul, 14 2005 @ 05:45 AM
Some forums say that France secretly sold their own missile and YJ-12 is its chinese designation. France have speculatively sold some Helicopter tech too to China.

And the YJ-12 is not as good as the BrahMos anti-ship missile IMO.

posted on Jul, 14 2005 @ 07:00 AM
YJ-12 according to what I have read will blow your mind away but I shall restrain myself from posting that just to keep away another flame war always started by some people (wink wink).

As I like to say off the net, "believe what you want to believe and let your mind sorrow StealthSpy".

Helicopter tech? China had always co-operated with Eurocopter over China's own designs, your point is?

If France sold China ANF designs then wouldn't China be the one thats lagging behind in the development with the new missile? China certainly is not when you compare the YJ-12s developement and the ANFs development, ANF states that it wishes to enter service in 2010 while YJ-12 is already in service on two destroyers with unknown induction dates on the air launched, TEL based and sub based versions (they might've already entered service or they might not, there is not enough information to discuss this).

top topics

<<   2 >>

log in