Protection from the antiship missile "Yakhont" does not exist

the Russian producers of sea armaments they present in the world armorer market the version of antiship missile with artificial intelligence "Yakhont".As the experts of the academy of military sciences reported today Itar- TASS, "Yakhont" it was intended for dealing with the sea aircraft-carrying groupings and has the most perfect guidance system:with the salvo fire of the rocket they themselves classify targets/purposes according to the importance, are selected the tactics of attack and the plan/layout of its conducting.After destroying main target/purpose, rockets attack the other craft according to diagram "one ship - one rocket".During the next decades not one fleet of the world will have the combat means with this Russian weapon.According to the tactical-technical characteristics the "Yakhont" considerably exceeds rockets like the "harpoon" (USA), "otomat" (Italy), "Exocet" (France)."Yakhont" weighs 3 tons (length - 8,9 m, diameter - 0,7 m).Flying range - is more than 300 km at the speed almost three times of that exceeding the speed of sound.The weight of the warhead of the rocket - 200 kg. with the target approach "Yakhont" is reduced above the sea surface to 1,5 m. in the opinion of experts, "Yakhont" will not have competitors on the world market for weapon into nearest quarter of century.

Lol! There isn't even defence for the Moskit "Sunburn"! Yakhont is smaller, faster and more advanced and it will smoke a carrier before the battle group even detect it. The new Sovremenny can carry 12 of those babies. They are more than enough to take out a carrier battle group (2 or 1 if a good hit for the carrier, 1 each for the escort). There is NO WAY to stop it. It (and the Moskit) is designed to counter the AEGIS system. Which the U.S. Navy relies very heavily on and is the best right now availble. I think the Yakhont is Mach3 at high alt and Mach2 sea skimming (dunno about the exact specs but Moskit is M3 high and M2.2 sea skimming). It is probably the most lethal missile in the world. 3 times as fast as the Harpoon and is far more advanced than the Exocet. In fact, Russia is at least one generation ahead of the U.S. in missile and supersonic torpedos (yes, supersonic. The Kursk was testing it when it went down.) Besides being fast, it has violent end game maneuvers and a fire-and-forget (anti-jamming) system to make countering it even more impossible. The chinese gov't is currently buying some Yakhont and many incorporate the tech into their own missiles. This is a clear warning to the U.S. to mind their own biz and if the U.S. send carrier battle groups to Taiwan. The U.S. navy can consider them as lost.

P.S. The Yakhont is land attack capable. Imagine Bush's Star War defending against these missiles fired from a submarine (underwater firing version likely).

Your post is based on opinion and semi-factual information. Countermeasure tactics have been developed and are in place.

www.milparade.com... read this.

Good article.

Looking over that and doing a few calculations, once the seeker goes active at 50km, the battle group has approx 2 min to react. This is if they just pick up the seeker. Give that the missile requires OTHT (over the horizon targeting), the battle group can be prepared to counter such a threat. A well trained battlegroup can drastically reduce the effectiveness of this type of engagement.

I don't know much about the Yakhont but I do know that it is considerably better than the lethal Moskit. A target only has 20 seconds accoring to many defence analysts to counter it (doesn't mean it will work). The Moskit is designed to evade countermeasures and is impossible to stop. The defences the U.S. navy can use are:
1) Jamming
2) Shoot it down (missiles)
3) Close in defence
Provided its speed, Mach2.2 sea-skimming (I believe the Yakhont has to be faster, most times estimates are way too low) and the fact that it is a sea-skimmer (much harder detection), it is impossible to intercept. A missile, provided that it has time to launch. Will have to be SO accurate and has to be extremely smart to strike at the Moskit when it goes into its maneuvers when it closes in on a target. In other words, intercepting it will be impossible. Also, there is no way to detect a launch since I believe the missile travels from launch ship to target in a matter of a few minutes.

Jamming is impossible because of Moskit (and Yakhont)'s 100% fire-and-forget system

Close in defence is impossible because of the maneuvers and its speed. It is designed to beat any U.S. close in defence.

In short, there is no defence against the Moskit and logically the Yakhont. The U.S. gov't tried to buy a few Moskit to test it againt U.S. defences but failed. THe U.S. did test an older supersonic anti-ship missile that has none of the "goodies" the Moskit have and the U.S. Navy was "shocked" at the result. Defending against a supersonic missile is very hard and in the case of the Moskit and Yakhonts, I would say impossible. The Taiwanese, in response to China's acqusistion of both missile developed a strategy to counter it. The strategy is to "try not get into the range of one of the Sovremennys".

I will grant you that those missiles are the hardest to defend against that are on the free market today. However, a few comments:

You are talking like an "expert" on this topic, but what are your credentials? Read my signature - if you don't know what those acronyms mean, then you don't know the basics of this field.

The "20 seconds" you are referring to is when the missile enters it's terminal homing phase. In order for this to happen, a chain of detectable events has to occur. Once these events have been detected, i.e., OTHT radar intercept, etc., preparations can be made. Look at any engagement scenario for an anti-ship missile and you'll notice that the missile just doesn't "pop in out of nowhere" to strike a ship. (Miliraty Tactics 101)

"Fire-and-Forget" does not mean the system is impervious to jamming via electrical or mechanical means. It means that the rough coordinates (along with waypoints) are programmed into the missile as to where the target most likely will be and the terminal guidenace phase is set to a range window. When the missile gets to this range window, the seeker will turn on and look for targets. (Missile Basics 101)


There you go - two free lessons regarding this topic. I could go on and on picking apart your last post and correcting it but I have neither the time nor desire. Here's a quick run-down of what I could talk about:
- No mention of chaff
- For close in defense, I assume you mean Phalanx, RAM or both?
- Your knowledge of weapons system integration and operation is obviously slim to none.

Feel free to post a reply - when I have time, I'll get back at you.

Respectfully,

SeaBass
fmr. Electronic Warfare Technician, USN

Good post!

You need to visit the Pravda board and set some of those "experts" strait.

engforum.pravda.ru...

Gotta do my homework before I talk about some of the non-naval stuff on that site.

Damn reading this post made me realize I forgot where I put my grandpa's "Blue Jacket Manual".

Which has to be worth something at least historically since it was printed during wartime WW2.

Phew just found it lol...

Ok...how fast are these two missiles? I didn't think that the fastest ones yet had topped mach 5...or maybe it was mach 2 or something.

Either way, to presume that anything is "indefensible" is presumptuous at best.

Hello Seabass...good to see thee.

China certainly has the Moskit- I'm not sure that anyone actually has the Yakhont yet.

Decent, economical, trustworthy link to the nasty machines in Putin's Dept. store, here: www.nti.org...

First, i gotta admit I am not a expert or even close to one on missiles. But I do read the articles of reporters and defence analysts in this area. I first got interested in the Moskit 2 years ago with the sell of the Sovremenny and how it was nicknamed the "AEGIS killer". Everything I said was what the experts said. I only use the data they gave me and I use those to argue my point. I never read an article on the Moskit that says it is crap and one that says it is easy to defend against. So, logically I would believe it is NOT crap and HARD to defend against. I am not saying what you (Seabass) is wrong. In fact, you might be right and you are not like all those bunch of idiots who just jump onto the bandwagon. I am just saying lots of pips with credantials out there believe it is the other way around. Here is an article on the Moskit:



By Charles Smith
� 2000 WorldNetDaily.com


WorldNetDaily has learned that a multi-billion-dollar anti-missile system proposed by the Clinton administration and intended to protect America against a nuclear missile strike is vulnerable to attack from Russian-made supersonic cruise missiles.

"The Aegis ABM interceptor is not designed to deal with the supersonic cruise missile threat," explains Baker Spring, a defense analyst for the Heritage Foundation. "It is designed for exo-atmospheric (outside the earth's atmosphere) intercept only."

"The supersonic cruise missile threat is a Navy problem," stated Spring. "The Navy will have to deal with the cruise missile threat no matter what the mission -- whether it's ABM defense or sea control."

The U.S. Navy Aegis warships are reported to be unable to defend themselves against the latest Russian supersonic cruise missiles, the Raduga Moskit and the Mashinostroyenya Yahont.


Aegis missile cruisers cannot defend against newly developed Russian supersonic cruise missiles such as the Yahont and Moskit.


Both Russian cruise missiles are huge, weighing nearly five tons each, and both can fly only a few feet over the surface at over twice the speed of sound -- faster than a rifle bullet. In July 1999, Richard Fisher, a senior fellow at the Jamestown Foundation, wrote an evaluation of the Russian-built Raduga Moskit missile that was recently sold to China. Fisher says the U.S. Navy cannot stop the Moskit.

"The Raduga Moskit anti-ship missile is perhaps the most lethal anti-ship missile in the world," wrote Fisher in a review of the Chinese navy.

"The Moskit combines a Mach 2.5 speed with a very low-level flight pattern that uses violent end maneuvers to throw off defenses. After detecting the Moskit, the U.S. Navy Phalanx point defense system may have only 2.5 seconds to calculate a fire solution -- not enough time before the devastating impact of a 750-lb. warhead."

The Moskit missile has been sold to China for use on a Russian-built Sovremenny destroyer serving in the People's Liberation Navy. The Chinese navy is expected to take delivery of a second Sovremenny destroyer in the fall of 2000. The Chinese Moskit missiles are reported to carry a 200-kiloton nuclear warhead -- packing a punch 10 times more powerful than the atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima.

There is evidence from the U.S. Navy itself that the Aegis warships are vulnerable to the Moskit. The Navy's Aegis system failed to defend itself in live-fire tests against a similar U.S.-made supersonic target missile called the Vandal. Vandal target drones, flying as low as 10 feet over the ground at speeds of over 1,500 miles per hour, defeated the Aegis defenses and scored direct hits on simulated Navy targets.

The only U.S.-made missile capable of simulating the Moskit, the Sea Snake, was canceled by the Clinton administration in September 1999. The U.S. Navy SSST or Super-Sonic Sea Skimming Target project ended eight years of study without a selection, leaving the service without a means to test the multi-billion dollar Aegis missile air defense system.

According to an internal memo from Navy defense contractor Logicon, Clinton's move to cancel the Sea Snake "will have significant impact upon future SSST testing."

Logicon is the U.S. Navy contractor responsible for testing the Aegis warship air defenses. The Logicon Corp. memo also noted that Russia will benefit from the move. The Clinton administration cancellation of Sea Snake allowed the Navy to close a deal with Russian missile maker Zvezda for a new target drone. Russia is now providing the U.S. Navy its only supersonic target missile -- the Zvezda MA-31.


The U.S. Navy bought the Russian Zvezda MA-31 supersonic target missile and now depends on Russia for all its future Aegis targets.

According to the Logicon memo, the Navy "plans to procure 37 additional (Russian Zvezda) MA-31 targets in FY00, providing politics does not stop the procurement."

The Zvezda missile deal with Moscow is reportedly flawed. Official U.S. Navy sources noted the 1,100-pound MA-31 does not replicate the massive 9,920-pound Moskit threat, and the missile does not carry any Russian electronics. Documentation obtained from the Navy through the Freedom of Information Act shows the Russian target drone being equipped with U.S.-made radio beacons to assist the Aegis missile system.

In response to allegations that the MA-31 could not replicate the Moskit threat, the U.S. Navy recently announced a program to acquire Moskit anti-ship missiles from Russia. The second U.S. Navy purchase of Russian-made missiles, including the no. 1 threat against the Aegis warships, moved Congress to pass legislation and seek hearings.

"The Russians should not be selling the Moskit to anyone, including us," stated Al Santoli, national security advisor to Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, R-Calif. "This is an example of the criminal abandonment of essential military Research and Development by the Clinton administration. The Clinton administration is responsible for this lapse in critical research. We have known about the Moskit for years. We could have, and should have developed a counter before this."

Santoli noted that Rohrabacher recently introduced a bill that would withhold debt re-scheduling with Russia unless the Russian military discontinues sales of the Moskit missile to China.

"The Moskit sales are most damaging to the U.S./Russian relations. As long as communist China is the Clinton administration's 'strategic partner,' the missiles will continue to be a threat," noted Santoli.

WorldNetDaily has learned that Russian missile makers are now offering China the very latest in supersonic killing technology, the NPO Mashinostroyenya Yahont. The Yahont ramjet missile is nearly 30 feet long, over 2 feet in diameter, and weighs in at 8,598 pounds.

"The Yahont is fast, compact, and lethal," stated defense analyst Richard Fisher. "You can place a large number of them on a very small platform."


The Russian Yahont flies at over twice the speed of sound only a few feet above the surface.

The Yahont is powered by an air-breathing ramjet engine giving it a top speed of Mach 2.6 at 45,000 feet. The Yahont is reported to deliver a 440-pound warhead at an impact velocity of 2,460 feet per second -- faster than a rifle bullet.

According to defense intelligence sources, Russia is offering to sell China up to eight more Sovremenny destroyers armed with eight nuclear-tipped Moskit missiles each. In addition, the Sovremenny will also be armed with Yahont missiles and a naval version of the SA-10C advanced surface-to-air defense missile.

U.S. defense analysis indicates that Yahont comes in a nuclear-tipped land attack version, enabling it to strike ground targets such as the Clinton proposed land-based missile site in Alaska or U.S. cities. Each Yahont is produced in a sealed launch canister, enabling the missile to be fired from simple and low cost platforms such as a diesel submarine or a common truck.

The appeal of a supersonic robot bomb is enhanced by the fact that the supersonic cruise missile is ignored in political circles. International arms control treaties do not cover the small, deadly and accurate weapons. The low maintenance cost and compact size associated with cruise missiles such as the Yahont appeal greatly to third-world militaries. North Korea, Iran, Syria, Vietnam and India are all considering supersonic cruise missile purchases from Russia.

The Clinton administration has also ignored the supersonic cruise missile. With cancellation of the Sea Snake, the American military arsenal has no weapon to match the Yahont or the Moskit. The U.S. Air Force ALCM, and the U.S. Navy Tomahawk missiles fly at low subsonic speeds. Both U.S. cruise missiles are no longer armed with nuclear warheads, and both missiles have been shot down by conventional anti-aircraft fire in Iraq and Serbia.

"We need a Mach 3 Tomahawk to overcome new surface-to-air defenses. Kosovo and the recent deployment of advanced Russian air defenses like the SA-10 Grumble showed that we need a hypersonic replacement for our cruise missiles," stated Fisher.

Newly developed Russian air defense missiles such as the SA-10C are capable of defeating Tomahawk and ALCM attacks. The Russian maker of the SA-10C states that it has a kill ratio ranging from 0.8 to 0.98 against Tomahawk-class cruise missiles. Russia is exporting large numbers of the new air defense missile. Russia has exported the SA-10C to China where it is produced under license and has made offers to North Korea, India, Syria and Cyprus.

Spring points out that, flawed or not, the U.S. Navy does have a cruise missile defense program in place. In contrast, a U.S. national ballistic missile defense program remains stalled in President Clinton's arms-control talks with Russian President Putin and American election-year politics.

"The V-1 Buzz Bomb and the V-2 rocket of World War II fame are very much alive in the 21st century," said Spring. "We need to be able to defend against both."

"Cruise missile defense is something the U.S Navy can work on," concluded Spring. "Unlike the ABM treaty with the former Soviet Union, there is no paper that Clinton can cling to in order to deny America defense against airborne cruise missiles. On the other hand, nuclear-tipped ballistic missiles can strike America from space and we have no means to stop them."


>>>There are also many articles on this by Richard Fisher.

Also, no one said $tranger and me are experts here. Everyone are quoting from others. So, everyone can stop dumping # on others (cough, energy wave) and admit the reality that most, if not all of us are basically copying what others are saying (defence analysts and others). I mean, who here has even SEEN a Yakhont (not on TV or net of course).

I have never seen a Yakhont, but have seen Moskits in their tubes on board a Sovremenny while I was in Vladivostok.

I have had quite a bit of experience in this area and wanted to share my views on the subject.

As far as defense analysts go, most do not have a technical degree or any experience in their area beyond what they read. While what they write is correct, it misses many of the finer points and (of course) omits any classified information.

I never said that the Moskit or Yakhont were "crap", just that they were NOT impossible to defeat. The fatalist attitude of these artilces is meant to get the attention of the powers that be to award contracts to companies to develop such countermeasures.

some pics





[Edited on 15-5-2003 by $tranger]

Existing anti-missle defence systems for just such a threat...

MK 15 Phalanx Close-In Weapons System (CIWS)

Phalanx is a point-defense, total-weapon system consisting of two 20mm gun mounts that provide a terminal defense against incoming air targets. CIWS, without assistance from other shipboard systems, will automatically engage incoming anti-ship missiles and high-speed, low-level aircraft that have penetrated the ship primary defense envelope. As a unitized system, CIWS automatically performs search, detecting, tracking, threat evaluation, firing, and kill assessments of targets while providing for manual override. Each gun mount houses a fire control assembly and a gun subsystem. The fire control assembly is composed of a search radar for surveillance and detection of hostile targets and a track radar for aiming the gun while tracking a target. The unique closed-loop fire control system that tracks both the incoming target and the stream of outgoing projectiles gives CIWS the capability to correct its aim to hit fast-moving targets, including ASMs.

The gun subsystem employs a gatling gun consisting of a rotating cluster of six barrels. The gatling gun fires a 20mm subcaliber sabot projectile using a heavy-metal (either tungsten or depleted uranium) 15mm penetrator surrounded by a plastic sabot and a light-weight metal pusher. The gatling gun fires 20mm ammunition at either 3,000 or 4,500 rounds-per-minute with a burst length of continuous, 60, or 100 rounds.

www.fas.org...

Current point defence anti-missle missle systems.

web.ukonline.co.uk...

Never mind the fact that in the event that the Russian launch is detected, an F-14 with the Phoenix missile can easily take it down in midair, as it was designed to do.

Primary Function: Long-range air-launched air intercept missile
Contractor: Hughes Aircraft Co. and Raytheon Co.
Unit Cost: $477,131
Power Plant: Solid propellant rocket motor built by Hercules
Length: 13 feet (3.9 meters)
Weight: 1,024 pounds (460.8 kg)
Diameter: 15 inches (38.1 cm)
Wing Span: 3 feet (.9 meters)
Range: In excess of 100 nautical miles (115 statute miles, 184 km)
Speed: In excess of 3,000 mph (4,800 kmph)
Guidance System: Semi-active and active radar homing
Warheads: Proximity fuse, high explosive
Warhead Weight: 135 pounds (60.75 kg)
Date Deployed: 1974

www.chinfo.navy.mil...

Forgive me if I sound a bit incoherent, I'm very tired

Any missile launch would have to be made well outside the CBG as the launching platform would be destroyed if it were closer.
For the missile to hit the carrier it would have to traverse several belts of defence from ships in the outer screen right down to the carrier's CIWS. Let alone try to get past one of the AEGIS cruisers lurking in the inner screen. CBG's during the Cold War trained to defend against attacks of over 100+ Soviet AS-4 and AS-6 heavy antiship missiles. A few Moskits and Yakhonts aren't going to worry a CBG.
All these claims made by the Russians are completely untested and are most probably exagerated so they can sell these weapons for top dollar. Besides the Russians would not be aware of the full capabilities of a CBG to defend itself.

I have heard that they maybe close to developing a CIWS based on laser technology. They have achieved adequate power with which to destroy threats at close range, the main challenge remains to reduce the size of the equipment for ships.

AEGIS isn't designed to take on supersonic anti-ship missiles. The Moskits and Yakhonts are different from the AS-4 and AS-6 in many ways. I don't know if the AS-6 is sea skimming but Moskits and Yakhonts are. They also have violent maneuvers to make them very hard to defend against. Remember I said HARD, so Seabass, u don't have to scream "NO!" again. Anyway, the Russians are very good with missiles and torpedos and I also happen to find that the U.S. Navy don't know the full capabilities of the Moskit or Yakhont to defend itself agianst them .. Basically no one know what will happen. I suggest we all close this post until China attacks Taiwan and we are fool enough to send a couple of carriers there to defend an island about the size of Puerto Rico (might be a bit bigger but still, u get the point).

All I have to say is Russian missile technology is untested against US defences. They may try and simulate certain expected conditions but they really have no idea what to expect.

You can be damn sure the development of the Phalanx hasn't been idle it's been around for 20 years. It is a much more potent weapon now.

The AEGIS can detect see skimming targets out to the horizon any further out would be covered by an E-2 Hawkeye. They have a look down capability out to several hundred miles.