is the US navy unbeatable???

Originally posted by StellarX

Originally posted by urmomma158
shooting them down would be considered an act of war.

Not when their flying over a carrier at low level which they did not manage for 30 years untill the recent spate of events.


Stellar

Actually quite to the contrary, the CO was quoted saying the the Russians did this often right from the 60s to the 80s but then stopped during the 90s.

Such incidents were common during the Cold War but have became rarer since it ended.

"While these types of overflights were commonly conducted by Soviet aircraft from the 1960s to the 1980s, the frequency has diminished during the past 10 years as our relations and level of cooperation have improved.

P.S: This article claims that the fighters were not Russian but Chinese. Although I think that is a ridiculous claim. Who's the Brother Jon anyways? Seems pretty shady..

www.brojon.org...

Originally posted by Daedalus3
Actually quite to the contrary, the CO was quoted saying the the Russians did this often right from the 60s to the 80s but then stopped during the 90s.

Well he had to say SOMETHING and if it happens all the time then it aint so bad. As far as i could figure out/research the question no US carrier was overflown in that way in a 30 years period before the latest 2-3 incidents so and it covered that in my previous post.

Such incidents were common during the Cold War but have became rarer since it ended.

I really do not want to go back and search for where those to claims came from ( Yawn*) so please just save me reading that all AGAIN by being a bit more specific. Thanks...

P.S: This article claims that the fighters were not Russian but Chinese. Although I think that is a ridiculous claim. Who's the Brother Jon anyways?

Seems pretty shady..

www.brojon.org...

Well if you can not find support of the claim in more mainstream media then it's going to be hard to talk about it with any credibility even on this forum. I have been to some seriously odd sites in my life but i only use the information towards finding material in mainstream sites which then makes serious discussion possible.

Anyways fact is this all happened within a year of the alleged plasma stealth generators being built and that is what first got my attention.

Stellar


[edit on 16-4-2006 by StellarX]

Originally posted by iskander

I agree, a Sunburn by it self can not sink a carrier, but as we all know, it doesn't always take an overwhelming force to achieve a desired goal.

LOL, you agree now, so the last couple of pages where you posted in this tread was waffle and completely unfounded. I've seen kindergarten kids pick up things far quicker than that.

[quoteWhat I am suggesting is that by compromising the keel, given the facts at hand it is more then capable to initiate a break up chain reaction, using the weight of the carrier against it rather then trying to pulverize the whole thing in a massive explosion or punch a hole big enough to sink it from flooding.

You have yet to prove how on earth a SUnburn is going to break the back of a carrier. Quite frankly your crackpot ideas have been comperehensively proved wrong, a Sunurn cannot penetrate from the deck t the keel. Not forgetting of course that the advantages the Sunburn has are negated by using a top attack - the adavantage of the Sunburn lies in it's ablitiy to cruise above the ocean underneath enemy radar. But hey keep on wearing those blinkers, don't let fact get in the way.

David vs. Goliath type of scenario, which proves to be an effective one time and time again.

Erm, so that's the whole basis of your argument ?

Australian tests of underwater "gas bubble" detonation under the keel of a ship proved it to be a "sure shot" ship killer, by raising the hull out of the water just enough to cause the keel to break up under the whole weight of the ship.

Erm yes ? That was using a mK-48 torpedo against an old destroyer escort, several thousand tonnes at the very most - hardly comparable to a carrier.

Sunburn shares a similar principle, much as a concept of a shaped charge verses a huge cannon verses the armor of the tank.

WTF ? The Sunburn has absolutely nothing to do with that principle - where did you get that from.

Unlike cannon shells, bombs and other conventional weapons, guided munitions are designed to attack the weakest part of their targets.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but all the Sunburn does is aim for the center of a target illuminated by its radar - it DOES NOT guide itself to the vulnerable parts of a ship. please adhere to at least a little fact.

Sunburns kinetics allow it to get to the weakest part, the keel, and even if the damage caused will not sink the vessel immediately, a ship with a broken keel is a goner. Can't tow it, can repair it, it's a salvage at best.

LOL, the Sunburns " kinetics " DO NOT allow it to reach a carriers keel. As has beens tated previously, it dosn't have the power to reach the keel, not to mnetion ithat sort of attack goes against the reason why the missile was developed. What don't you understand about " sea-skimming " ?

Instead of busting through all the decks, what would the deceleration values be if it attacked the keel by going through the water for example, will it reach the keel given the attack angle, what would the affected area be, etc.

For a start if the Sunburn attempted to attack the keel through water, then it would be ripped to pieces. Bullets rip themselves apart after entering water and they are far more robust than a Sunburn.

Let's get actual instead of going in circles again and again.

Hmm, the only person going round in circles is you ignoring facts and bleating the same old fantasy of yours. I don't know how many times people prove your statements wrong, yet you ignore tha naswers as though they aren't there. That's why this thread is going round in circles wih you

Again, the main question is, will Sunburn deliver the damage necessary to initiate the break up of the keel/hull, not where ever it will make it to its target or blast a hole big enough to sink it from flooding.

Erm duh, how many times do people have to say NO. you ar ethe only one who has this fanatsy and you have been completely unable to provide anything to back yourself up Making up bizarre scenarios IS NOT proof.

edit:splng

[edit on 13-4-2006 by iskander]

Originally posted by StellarX


I really do not want to go back and search for where those to claims came from ( Yawn*) so please just save me reading that all AGAIN by being a bit more specific.

Thanks...



[edit on 16-4-2006 by StellarX]

Well if you're looking for who actually said these things then well the first quote was taken from the BBC article. I'm not sure if the USN spokesperson (at the time)Admiral Pietropaoli said it or it was Pentagon spokesman Kenneth Bacon.

BBC Source

The second quote was from Capt. Kevin Wensing:

Capt. Kevin Wensing, a Pacific Fleet spokesman, said yesterday the Kitty Hawk battle group tracked the two planes by radar and "took appropriate action."
"In each case, the carrier and its escorts were aware of the Russian aircraft presence and tracked them throughout and appropriate actions were taken," Capt. Wensing said. "While these types of overflights were commonly conducted by Soviet aircraft from the 1960s to the 1980s, the frequency has diminished during the past 10 years as our relations and level of cooperation have improved.

Source

Plasma stealth aye?? hmm... Wouldn't work as a theory if they've been doing it(buzzing carriers) for decades..

Originally posted by WestPoint23
As to the Super Bug Vs. Tomcat debate let me just say this, the F-14 was a great fighter when it came out but today it can be replaced with the Super Hornet.

Maybe this is off topic.. but westy, how would you rate the F-14's ability to fight an F-18? I've heard in tests the F-14 took out F-16's with ease.

Originally posted by Daedalus3
Well if you're looking for who actually said these things then well the first quote was taken from the BBC article. I'm not sure if the USN spokesperson (at the time)Admiral Pietropaoli said it or it was Pentagon spokesman Kenneth Bacon.

Thanks, but Russian( and i think Western) sources makes it quite clear that this is not in fact the norm referred to above.

The second quote was from Capt. Kevin Wensing:
Plasma stealth aye?? hmm... Wouldn't work as a theory if they've been doing it(buzzing carriers) for decades.

Well the Russians says they have not done what they did that time for 30 years before so what gives? Are they simply lying for the good press ( it never made the press) or what?

Stellar

Originally posted by StellarX
And you have qualifications making your speculation somehow more valid and above suspicion?
Stellar

Stellar,

I am not going to identify myself, but on this forum I only tend to comment Naval technology, tactics, and strategy and there is a reason. I have no intention of identifing my identity, and wouldn't expect anyone else to do the same. Judge my comments however you wish.

The simplistic way to look at the Moskit is to guage it against other anti-ship missiles. I think it would be difficult to compare anti-ship missiles of western and eastern designs, because each was designed with different tactics in mind, so I'll try to keep the comparisons strictly to the Russian side and attempt to show the differences between Western thoughts.

Any Anti-Ship missile should be guaged on the following merits:

Size of weapon
Speed
Range
Payload
ECM
Terminal Targeting

A simple comparison between 2 different Russian Anti-Ship missiles:

P-270 MOSKIT (SS-N-22 SUNBURN)

Size of weapon -
wingspan 2.1 meters 6 feet 11 inches
length 9.74 meters 32 feet
total weight 4,500 kilograms 9,920 pounds
warhead weight 320 kilograms 705 pounds

Speed: Mach 3 at high altitude, Mach 1.5 at Sea Skimming altitude

Range: 90 kilometers or 55 MI / 45 NMI

Payload: Conventional: 320kg warhead or nuclear

ECM: none

Terminal Targeting: Active radar seeker, Passive seeker to active jammer.


3M54 KLUB (SS-N-27)

Size of weapon -

length 6.20 meters 20 feet 4 inches
body diameter 53.3 centimeters 21 inches
total weight 1,780 kilograms 3,925 pounds
warhead weight 400 kilograms 880 pounds

Speed: Mach .6 -.8 ; Mach 2.9 terminal

Range: 300 kilometers 185 MI / 160 NMI

Payload: 220kg

ECM: RAM, Jammer

Terminal Targeting: IR/ Passive/Actice Radar, ARGS-54 seeker

Above illistrates the changes that have been made in Russian techniques to penetrating ship defense systems. In 1981, when the Moskit entered service, it was the most dangerous missile in any Navy. It was designed to take advantage of the weaknesses of the SPY-1A radar system, specifically the SPY-1A weakness of RF backscatter from wavetopsea skimming cruise missiles, the lack of coordination between CISM block 0 and AEGIS by reducing the engagement time-envelope of hard point defense systems.

Russian tactics would saturate a target with overwhelming firepower at high speed to insure complexity of defense. It was a valid and could have been a highly effective tactic in the 80s.

But the limitations the Moskit has made it difficult, and by 1989, with the AN/SPY-1D phased array radar and Block 1 CIWS upgrade, things changed. The new SPY-1D could better track sea skimming missiles than the 1A because its digital signal processors had been upgraded with faster CPUs that could filter out RF backscatter from wavetops. The Block 1 CIWS upgrade increased CIWS's rate of fire by 25% (4500r/min, pneumatic gun drive) and extended its engagement envelope past 2 nautical miles with subcaliber Tungsten teflon-saboted ammunition (14mm penetrator) which increased the potency of hard defenses.

Also upgraded was the internal search radar, although this was not as significant, given that AEGIS CIWS is slaved to the SPY, and usually doesn't even spin up its own internal search radar. Today, even these advances have been upgraded to included CEC, SeaRAM, and much improved capability for IR detection which greatly improves targetting and tracking of super-sonic missiles. That last point is a big deal in the case of the Moskit.

The main technological advancement of the Russian Moskit came at the expense of 3 important things in anti-ship missile strategy. First, the missile creates an enormous heat plume that allows it to be detected well over the horizon. This allows IR seeking anti-missile systems to target the Moskit before its own radar detects incoming interceptors. Second, the high speed of the missile prevents the missile from using IR tracking itself, leaving it only able to utilize radar seekers, which makes it easier to detect when used as a fire and forget missile, since it must maintain radar homing active to aquire a target at low altitude. Finally, the high speed (heat) prevents it from turning much, at high speeds the attempt to do radical turns tears a missile apart, so avoidance isn't a jerky pattern, rather a gentle roll.

As a large missile, it has a larger cross section able to be detected by radar, and gives off enormous heat which makes it easier to detect. It has very short range, considering a carrier CAP starts at about 400nm out, forcing an attacker to close within 350 nm under the carrier CAP just to take a shot. It is limited to radar only guidence and like all fast missiles, does not turn easily. But it sure is fast!

Now compare that to the 3M54 KLUB. The KLUB has a tiny radar cross section and a RAM coating, making it among of the stealthiest anti-ship missiles in the world. Able to be fired at 110nm further than the Moskit by a greater number of platforms, the KLUB is ideal for standoff attack against a CSG. The KLUB can approach at subsonic speeds while sea skimming, then rise up to aquire a target via active radar at a range of 60km over a 45 degree angle. The KLUB then goes into a terminal dive with jammers enabled to prevent electronic interference as it homes in on a target with either active/passive radar or IR, and has a final stage burn over the last 15-20km up to speeds around Mach 2.9.

So you tell me which is better, a non stealthy heat plume Moskit designed against the weakness of the AN/SPY-1A, or the stealthy sub-sonic with terminal phase options KLUB desgned for deep, long range penetration of surface groups.

Against todays US Navy Carrier Strike Group, the KLUB would be a major competitor, while the Moskit would not. In a CEC task force like the USS Reagan CSG or USS Lincoln CSG, a Moskit is going to require a nuclear weapon to be effective, and even then it may need a good hit within a few km. Never mind technology issues like the high speed of the Moskit making it easily detectable, the short range makes it unlikely to even be used against a CSG.

Some additional Reading:

yarchive.net...
I know the writer, he used to be a USAF intel officer out of Tinker and is a consultant today for Raytheon. This was written after retiring from public service but prior to going private.

worldaffairsboard.com...
Originally written by the alias "Stokes Pennwalt" at www.sciforums.com...

His homepage is here: www.ll.mit.edu...
A closer look into his background gives more detail as to his expertise on the subject, which is respectable and includes 3 years at the Naval War College studying these type of scenarios.

CEC basic info:
www.raytheon.com...

CEC is critical to this discussion, as it represents the latest technology as a result of the super-sonic sea skimming scenaios of the early 80s. CEC task forces made Navies of most nations obsolete overnight, and change the conventional thinking regarding missile defense from independent layers of capability into structured, coordinated layers of interoperablity.

As for my comments about Iskander, I'll stick to my statements. He is not a Navy person, it is very clear from his comments and how he places priority on certain elements that are in defiance of the engineering of Naval vessels and ignorant of the technologies used for warfare. Mad Scientist appears to have finally caught him in his nonsense.

unbeatable?? maybe in combat the US navy will always go into a conflict as ''favorites" but 'UNBEATABLE'

besides after next year the US won't have the best warships of the sea anymore when the first of (possible 12) UK type45's come into service,

don't britain also have new subs/carriers/f-35's in development too? - and with the typhoon, watch out..

60 years later the empire COULD strike back















[edit on 17-4-2006 by Sepiroth]

Originally posted by iskander
I'm sorry what? Shards?

The shrapnel from the missile when it explodes as it passes through the hull, IE how its desgined to detonate..

warhead passes through the warhead?

My typing error, the warhead detonates as it passes through the hull

How does that work and why is it funny?

As I said typing error , what I find funny is your trying to say the missile will detonate on the keel even though it detonates as it passes through the hull.

The missile has to pay the target money to penetrate it? What is this? Are you feeling ok there chap?

Trying to type quick before you leave for sea is difficult while multitasking, what I meant is that the missile penetrates the targets and explodes as it passes through the targets hull. The "charge" is an explosive charge IE the warhead, sorry if this does not make sense its just the scottish way of saying things.

Originally posted by Daedalus3
I missed this and so I'm going to respond.
You honestly think that the best the Russians can still do TODAY, even in a COUNTER N-strike is just make two or three US cities glow? Maybe China's a little less capable than Russia but still they can do more damage than just 2 or 3 cities in a counter strike. It runs into 10s and 20s at least. And that's only ballistic delivery. Its all there for you to look up. Numbers, warheads yields, detonations patterns,delivery methods etc. etc.

Umm mate.....I am actually on your side in this....I was pointing out which side would come out worse: the us or the chinese IE which country has more nukes and better guidance.

Originally posted by Sepiroth
unbeatable?? maybe in combat the US navy will always go into a conflict as ''favorites" but 'UNBEATABLE'

besides after next year the US won't have the best warships of the sea anymore when the first of (possible 12) UK type45's come into service,

don't britain also have new subs/carriers/f-35's in development too? - and with the typhoon, watch out..

60 years later the empire COULD strike back

[edit on 17-4-2006 by Sepiroth]

O really go look up the DDX arleigh burke is getting old. Well no navy is unbeatbale thats a no brainer. We are also getting the JSF.





[Mod Edit: fixed quote]

[edit on 4/18/2006 by 12m8keall2c]

Getting old? We're still building them! And do to the designs high reliance on modern computing power, it can and will continue to recieve software updates throughout it's useful life to counter ever changing tactics. Wait another fifteen years on calling them old, and even then I feel you'll be premature.

Well the CGX and DDX are both coming out as well as the LCS so i was only stating how our navy is evolving.

Originally posted by urmomma158
Well the CGX and DDX are both coming out as well as the LCS so i was only stating how our navy is evolving.

Vaporware until they are built. Don't be shocked when the Navy builds 2 different DD(X) designs as prototypes with no follow on vessels, then doesn't build anymore. The CG(X) however, is more likely starting about 2015 to be deployed by 2021.


Ironically enough, the "new" 313 US Navy plan looks a hell of a lot like the 300 ship fleet recommended in the 1997 QDR. (see page 2 on link)

For example, the oldest DDG in the US Navy is 15 years, which means the first of 62 DDGs to retire won't occur until 2026. While the "new" US Navy 313 plan is interesting, you can just see Congress getting ready to torpedo it. The Navy is going to have to do one hell of a sell job too, because if you add up the VLS on the 22 CG-52s, 62 DDG-51s, and 4 SSGNs, you end up with over 9,600 VLS cells, which combined with 400+ harpoons gives the Navy 10,000 missiles to launch.

Do the math, that exceeds the missile capacity on the 366 major surface combatants found in the world’s next 17 largest navies.

The US Navy 313 ship plan establishes the US Navy's top priority to further increase the number of VLS cells through FY 2021 by commissioning seven DD(X)s (560 additional VLS cells) and three CG(X)s (384 additional VLS cells) before retiring the first of the 22 Ticonderoga-class guided missile cruisers currently in service. That is simply rediculous by any standard.

With Sea Basing as a new priority, an increasingly expensive SSN problem, there are other more pressing issues the Navy should address. Experts have already started pointing out, if the Navy goes ahead with DD(X)/CG(X) program as is, it will require the Navy to simultaneously attempt to recapitalize amphibious ships, auxiliaries, DDGs, SSGNs, SSBNs, and future LCS ships in 2030.

That is not possible without a 25+ billion dollar shipbuilding budget, which would be 15 billion more than it is today.

Additional Info:
www.house.gov...
www.house.gov...
www.house.gov...

Well heres my opinion on the original question,

Yes the U.S. Navy can be beaten, any navy can be beaten, and there are too many variables to say that one Army, Navy, Air Force, or military entity is better than the other.

However it would be hard to beat the U.S. Navy, I dont mean to gloat but we do have the aegis systems as well as some of the best fighter multirole fighter aircraft in the world.

But our fleet formations right now can be defeated (Please not this is only my personal opinion) By tactical nuclear weapons.

Alone the navy cant win a war and nor can the army, this is one of the reasons japan lost in WW2; all seperate branches of the military have to work together. Technology alone cant dictate the outcome of a war, like I said before theres hundreds of variables.

Now of course theres going to be people saying I'm wrong, or my information is flawed but again this is just my personal opinion.

You guys are still at it?

Take a look at ch1466s post here;

www.abovetopsecret.com...

I couldn't have put it better my self, so knock yourselves out.

darksided, hey now, I took the time to read you post and formulate a response, and then I read the last paragraph.

You are not a very considerate person.

Just because I don't post for couple of days doesn't mean you can crapp all over me, you know.

But you are right, I'm not a "Navy person", I'm more of a "Air Force person".

I'll follow your example and won't identify my self either, but if someone tells me how to post a picture, just for laughs I'll be more then happy to put up a scan of some AFOSI memorabilia I have just laying around.

btw, I've read the first paragraph of this link

yarchive.net...

It also commits them to a straight run-in course (or, at best,gentle curves). They have a heat plume that a thermal sight can detect while the missile is still kilometers over the horizon.

With all do respect to your friend Stuart, I have to ask how old is his post? From 1991 sometime?

What's all this about Moskit? I though we were on the subject of Sunburn. Anyway.

So you tell me which is better, a non stealthy heat plume Moskit designed against the weakness of the AN/SPY-1A, or the stealthy sub-sonic with terminal phase options KLUB desgned for deep, long range penetration of surface groups.

Good point, Russians use both, we do not.

devilwasp, you're a scoot? Well I'll be. I'll drink to that then you stubborn bugger, I should have known

Keep it neat mate!



p.s.

A personal note to mad scientist.

Your attack is juvenile and empty, warranting only silence in response.

But I'm a friendly fellow, so yet again I'll share what I've already been through.

Do the math my friend, and if can't then educate your self, because it is a fool that mocks what he does not understand, and it is a quibbler that mocks what he does understand.

Growing up never ends so use your time wisely, because we don't have that much of it at all, and dying as a fool is worse then dying as a sinner.

All the silly people, where do they all come from?

Originally posted by iskander
darksided, hey now, I took the time to read you post and formulate a response, and then I read the last paragraph.

You are not a very considerate person.

Point taken, I apologize for being a rude prick. I just don't see how a supersonic missile breaks the back of a large warship, particularly a warship the size of a carrier. Your theory doesn't make sense.

As an knowledgable person in matters of the air force, you know how anti-air missiles work, you know the good ones don't even hit the plane before they explode. As a knowledgable Navy person, I know that delayed detonation of warheads for missiles smaller than 1000lbs is not designed to create a massive explosion in the ship, they are designed to ignite fires inside a ship instead of outside the surface. The warhead damage of most conventional anti-ship missiles isn't the payload, the fires caused by the weapon is the payload.

Keep in mind, the HMS Sheffield burned for 5 days, still didn't sink, was placed under tow, got waterlogged, still didn't sink, and after realizing it was too heavy to tow with all the water inside, the Royal Navy had to sink the ship themselves. All from a missile whose warhead didn't even explode.

That has been the case in every naval missile battle since WWII, from Israel in the 70s, the Falklands in the early 80s, the tanker wars of the mid 80s, and finally in Operation Preying Mantis in the late 80s. Explosions never sank large ships, the fires did.

The theory the USN is stressing about weapons from the 1980s era Soviet Union cold war inventory isn't valid anymore, sure there is concern but in the case of those weapons, the US Navy is dealing with the known. The US Navy is more prepared for those weapons today than anyone.

The worry is the new stuff and the unknowns that come with them, SS-N-27s for example which are programed into the new Chinese Kilo class, AIP technology that allows a conventional sub to remain underwater for very long periods of time without snorkeling, underwater mines that launch rockets, reposition themselves at sea, can be launched by conventional rocket launchers over 5km from a speed boats position, mines that have sensors able to determine friendly ships from enemy ships and choose specific targets, and the new longer range anti-ship missiles designed to cluster bomb a ship with armor piercing titanium based incenerary munitions.

Info on the KLUB in serveice with the IN:

SS-N-27 KLUB AShCM/LACM(SS-N-25)

The Sindhugosh Class submarines are being equipped with the Klub-S (the 3M-54E variant), while the three Talwar Class frigates will be equipped with the Klub-N (the 3M-54E variant, in VLS mode). Induction of the Klub ASCM, makes India the first export customer and also gives the Indian Navy it's first under-water launched missile capability. The Indian Navy is truly excited about this missile and calls it the Russian Tomahawk. Admiral Sushil Kumar (Retd.), former Chief of Naval Staff, has said, "The missile will give us unsurpassed reach and kill capability. The Klub fits into the torpedo tubes of the submarine and can target ships and land targets." This indicates that the Indian Navy might have possibly acquired the 3M-14E variant as well. In July 2002, Jane's Defence Weekly (JDW) reported that the INS Sindhugosh might also be equipped with the 3M-14E, in addition to the 3M-54, during her mid-life refit. No reliable info exists on whether the Indian Navy intends to acquire the 91RE1 or 91RE2 anti-submarine torpedoes. In December 2001, India Defence Consultants reported that up to 200 Klub ASCMs are being supplied for the Sindhugosh Class submarines being refitted and for the future needs for the Project 17 Class frigate and the Bangalore Class destroyers.

Acceptance trials conducted by the Indian Navy for its modernised Sindhugosh Class submarines, resulted in six successful 3M-54E test launches which demonstrated both minimum (20km) and maximum (220km) range capability against surface targets. During a test launch, in an Indian Ocean test range, a 3M-54E missile launched from INS Sindhushastra failed to hit its target. Upon further investigation it was revealed that the fault was with the target on the test range and not with the ARGS-54 seeker. An anchored target with a corner radar reflector simulating a frigate-class surface ship was displaced and the reflector began to radiate signals in a direction perpendicular to a flight trajectory of the missile's third supersonic stage. As a result, the ARGS-54 seeker failed to acquire the target. During qualification tests conducted for the Talwar Class frigates, a 3M-54E missile completed a successful live-fire test in the Barents Sea, demonstrating its maximum operational range of 220 km. The missile performed flawlessly and accurately hit the target.

Reportedly, an air-launched variant is being examined by the Indian Navy to arm it's long-range Tu-142M maritime patrol aircraft. The 3M-24E (NATO: SS-N-25) AShM remains the most likely replacement for the BAe Sea Eagle AShM. The 3M-51 with it's heavier warhead, longer range and much higher terminal velocity will compliment rather than compete with the Sea Eagle's successor. The 3M-51 reportedly uses a high-level cruise profile, with a dive to low level followed by the discarding of the main motor assembly. It's not clear how far along the missile is in the platform integration and testing cycle. Given the strong visual similarities, existing design history, and available reports it seems likely that the same two stage approach and active seeker seen in the supersonic 3M-54E would also be used in the 3M-51. A truck-mounted version of the missile, for coastal defence, is planned by the Novator Design Bureau.

Anything new on those Kilo (636) subs that the PLAN got last year?
Any tests? I'm esp. interested to know the situation as there were reports that the earlier Kilos(877EKM) with the PLAN suffered problems due to inexperienced crews.

The Iranian Kilos were rumored to be in an even more dire situation.

Am i right in saying that only 3 indian submarines can fire the Club missile?

Originally posted by Daedalus3
Anything new on those Kilo (636) subs that the PLAN got last year?

Chinas has the 636M which have the 3M-54E1 which has 300km range and a bigger warhead. But apart from weapons china was the first to get the 636 and has a much improved C4ISR system system. I have pictures to compare to indian kilos




Which is a vast improvment from this

Any tests? I'm esp. interested to know the situation as there were reports that the earlier Kilos(877EKM) with the PLAN suffered problems due to inexperienced crews.

Those reports are so old. I think it was 2002 or even earlier. It was from Kanwa so the reliability of the claims is kinda of low considering what Kanwa claims. But here are some pictures of the 877s during the chinese and russian Peace Mission

image2.sina.com.cn...
image2.sina.com.cn...
image2.sina.com.cn...
image2.sina.com.cn...
image2.sina.com.cn...


The 8 submarines china ordered are the 636M models which are said to be faster and more stealthier

India has a mix of Type 636 and type 877EKM Kilos.
Both can fire the KLUB, although the 636 is tweaked here and there in onboard electronics, sonar etc etc.. In terms of anti-acoustic construction, both are more or less the same. Also as the above pic pointed out the aesthetics of the 636 are better than the original EKMs. But one must note that the EKMs in service with the IN have undergone a mid-life refit. They were first inducted in 1986 I think.
The pic shown above of the 877EKM is an 80s pic obviously.

Refit schedule for IN Kilos:

INS Sindhugosh S55 (30 April 1986) - Refit Complete
INS Sindhuvaj S56 (12 June 1987)
INS Sindhuraj S57 (20 October 1987) - Refit Complete
INS Sindhuvir S58 (26 August 1988) - Refit Complete
INS Sindhuratna S59 (22 December 1988) - Refit Complete
INS Sindhukesari S60 (16 February 1989) - Refit Complete
INS Sindhukirti S61 (04 January 1990)
INS Sindhuvijay S62 (08 March 1991) - Undergoing Refit
INS Sindhurakshak S63 (24 December 1997)
INS Sindhushastra S65 (19 July 2000) Type 636 Kilo Class

Add 2 more Kilos (636) which were reportedly deleivered in 2005.