Posted on 03/24/2007 9:43:20 AM PDT by Cicero
Bloomberg does not allow posts. Anyone interested in this important article should go to the source and have a look:
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601070&sid=a5LkaU0wj714&refer=home
Delay long enough that their national celebration gets some airtime, then we can follow-up with some smoking Hiroshima moonscape type pictures.
Fifth sentence, second paragraph of your post seems to state Mach 3.
"Rear Adm. McVadon's testimony on this issue was a little over a year ago; but it's an eye opener."
Ahh... More "Window of Opportunity" crap. We have been hearing this for 50 years.
Nope.
Check out the specs for the 3M-54E model:
KLUB (SS-N-27) ASCM
Special Thanks to Jane's Missiles & Rockets
The Yekaterinburg-based Novator Design Bureau has developed a new cruise missile system designated Klub (NATO: SS-N-27) and is sometimes referred to as the Club, Biryuza and Alpha/Alfa. The Klub ASCM (anti-sub/ship cruise missile) has been designed to destroy submarine and surface vessels of all known types and also engage static/slow-moving targets, whose co-ordinates are known in advance, even if these targets are protected by active defences and electronic countermeasures. There are presently, two 'known' modifications of the system; Klub-S (for submarines) and Klub-N (for surface vessels). The latter can be installed in vertical launch cells or in angled missile boxes, depending upon operational requirements. Both systems are based on common hardware, the only difference being the design of the missile launchers and the missile transport-launching containers. Both modifications come in the supersonic 3M-54E or the subsonic 3M-54E1 AShM (anti-ship missile) variant and the 3M-14E LACM (Land Attack Cruise Missile) variant. Klub-S can also be armed with the 91RE1 anti-submarine torpedo and Klub-N with the 91RE2 anti-submarine torpedo.
|
- |
| - | 3M-54E | 3M-54E1 | 3M-14E | 91RE1 | 91RE2 |
| Length {m} | 8.22 | 6.2 | 6.2 | 8.0 | 6.5 |
| Diameter {m} | 0.533 | 0.533 | 0.533 | 0.533 | 0.533 |
| Launch Weight {kg} | 2,300 | 1,780 | 1,770 | 2,050 | 1,300 |
| Maximum Range {km} | 220 | 300 | 275 | 50 | 40 |
| Speed {Mach} | Depends on flight mode (1) | 0.6 - 0.8 (2) | 0.6 - 0.8 (3) | 2.5 (4) | 2.0 (5) |
| Warhead Weight {kg} | 200 | 400 | 400 | 76 | 76 |
| Control System | Inertial plus Active Radar Homing |
Inertial plus Active Radar Homing |
Inertial | Inertial | Inertial |
| Flight Altitude over Sea Surface |
Not Known | Not Known | 20 meters | Not Known | Not Known |
| Flight Altitude over Ground Surface |
Not Known | Not Known | 50 - 150 meters | Not Known | Not Known |
| Flight Path | Low-Flying | Low-Flying | Low-Flying | Ballistic | Ballistic |
|
- |
|
(1) Subsonic Mode: Mach 0.6 - 0.8, Supersonic Mode: Mach 2.9 |
Quote: "This second stage then accelerates to Mach 3 to defeat ship defences."
I knew they were exaggerating. It's only Mach 2.9!
city? Just one?
Or country, depends on our mood.
Jack
Nope-there are around 5 variants in this missile family-something like 2 land attack variants(subsonic),1 anti-sub & 1 anti-ship variant with a range of 220 kms with a supersonic terminal stage.All of these look very similar to the Tomahawk & hence can be deployed from modified torpedo tubes of the Kilo class boats(India & China) or vertical launch tubes from Frigates(Indian navy).
Here's some food for thought.
You cannot be sure whether Iran has got these missiles yet.Their Kilo class subs well need to have their torpedo tubes modified to carry these missiles.That's not very simple for the Iranians to do.
Until they get within 10km they are going subsonic. Why can't they be detected and shot down before then?
Pre-emption is the only viable option.
The 100 mile range is also a limitation the CSG can work to avoid. The Kilo has to get that close and then have adequate and accurate targeting information...both of which are likely to be denied them in a war footing situation.
Lots of things don't add up here...
China bought 8 diesel submarines to fire the missiles? and the US military and intelligence services can't keep track of 8 diesel submarines?
Russian missiles traditionally have been designed to rely on a massive central control elements, which track the targets and feed the missiles tracking information.
Where might that central control center be?
How is this missile guided? inertial plus active radar seems to be the answer. Inertial is not enough against a moving target, and radar can be spoofed or jammed.
As I understand it, it is subsonic except for the last 6 miles or so.
I would hope that the navy protects its carriers for a radius of more than 6 miles!
No question. The same has also been said if China decides it's ready to defy us and invade Taiwan. The obvious thing to do would be to nuke our carrier groups first, and maybe it's a question what our response would be if they also have the ICBMs that clinton sold them targeted on Los Angeles and other cities on the west coast, or possibly the whole of ConUS.
Traditionally, that's the only good news in this entire story.
Muslims are totally incapable of maintaining hi-tech machinery of any kind, for any length of time.
That suggests that, if they get the missiles, they better use them quickly, or make sure that they have Russian or Chinese technicians on hand to do the maintenance.
This reminds me of the first hand story I heard from a friend working in Egypt in the 70s. Two hundred new school buses were "donated" by the US.
Within one year 50% were inoperative, and within 3 all of them were parked.
China didn't just buy the 8 Kilos for these missiles-they are upgrading their sub fleet massively & their domestic products are not upto scratch,as yet.The Kilo can only carry a maximum of 4 or 6 of these weapons for launch from it's tubes.D/E subs are not too easy to track once on their batteries & besides these are probably deployed very close to Chinese waters with adequate cover from the PLAN.
About the missile,I think it could get midcourse updates from helicopters or other platforms,though that's easier said than done in combat.The land-attack versions as of now seem to be specifically for use against fixed targets.
"I believe, if a war goes nuclear, it will go nuclear at sea first in an attempt to get our carriers."
BTTT. I'm sure that the DoD has thought of that in their myriad contingency plans, but that is the most likely scenario to me, too.
Given the state of the nation, it would be an awful blow militarily, one that would likely result in a division of the hawks and doves immediately. I fear for America if the doves win. Worst part is the doves would not have a hard time spinning the foreign attack as righteous pre-emption if the carriers were sitting off another nation's coast (as they so often are) to impose a threatening presence, and casting America as hypocritical if it attacks. I can certainly see something like this coming from Iran, and again, given the divided country that is America right now, I can see the argument to withdraw might even work.
God help us if it does. A return to a more isolationist policy would in my view be a good thing, but running scared back home, tail firmly between legs, after getting a nuke dropped on us, that is not the same thing at all as choosing a less entangled foreign policy.
They could be detected and shot down over long distances but that assumes 100% efficiency on our part. If our carrier was in the gulf or other tight confines (for a carrier) and a barrage of 50 or more of these things were launched I am not optimistic we could shoot them all down before they hit the fleet. If they used several submarines they could probably get one or more within the envelope.
In the barrage scenario we have to be right 50 times and they only have to be right once. This was the Russian strategy to deal with our carriers using lots of long range bombers and submarines launching multiple missiles.
The cost comparison is ridiculously cheap for the other side compared to the cost of our carriers, crew, and aircraft on board.
The best defense for a carrier is lots of open water but as you get further from the area of operations you decrease the effectiveness of your attack aircraft (time on target and fewer sorties). Our strategy to protect our carriers should constantly evolve and be a top priority for the Navy.
The loss of even one carrier would be a devastating blow to our psyche as much as our ability to prosecute a war. That is especially true in our present political climate where the democrats would be more likely to play the blame game and direct their anger towards the President than towards our foes.
A Kilo wouldn't be able to carry more than 6 of these missiles & the Iranians have only 3 of those subs,which,according to publicly available info still hasn't got this weapon.They also don't have the kind of surveillance assets to exploit it's range.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.