Can you check this one to be sure I've complied with the rules for Bloomberg? Thanks.
To defend against a Sizzler one must build a giant sneeze guard.
I was reading about this the other day. The Iranians need to be dealt with before they acquire these, if they haven't already.
Something doesn't add up here. Terminal phase (within 10nm) accelerates to mach 3 and is able to do defensive moves.....not at mach 3!
I read this yesterday linked from Drudge. It is frightening and the lack of aggressive action to address this by the Navy is disappointing and puzzling.
Aircraft carriers are awesome weapons but I have always questioned their ability to survive a massive attack by skimmer missiles. The high closing speed attributed to these skimmers makes it much more likely one would slip through.
See http://www.sinodefence.com/navy/navalmissile/3m54.asp
In 2005~06, the PLA Navy (PLAN) received six improved Project 636M (Kilo class) diesel-electric submarines which are fitted with the advanced ‘Club’ anti-ship weapon complex designed by Russian Novator Bureau. The system features the 3M-54E (NATO codename: SS-N-27 Sizzler) subsonic anti-ship cruise missile (ASCM) with a maximum range of 220~300km. The ‘Club’ weapon system is available in two versions: the surface-ship-based Club-N and the submarine-based Club-S, both of which employs unified combat assets – two types of anti-ship cruise missiles and a type of ballistic anti-submarine missile.
The ‘Club’ weapon system includes a number of different variant missiles including the anti-ship variants 3M-54 and 3M-54E1, and the anti-submarine variant 91RE1. It is still not clear which variant the PLAN is operating on its Project 636M Kilo class submarines. The 3M-54E1 is a 300km-range subsonic anti-ship cruise variant similar to the U.S. Tomahawk. The 3M-54E variant with a shorter range is based on the subsonic stage of the 3M-54E1 but use a rocket-propelled second stage which is released 20~60km from the target. This second stage then accelerates to Mach 3 to defeat ship defences. Both missiles in the ‘Club’ weapon complex use a common active radar guidance system and both fly a low-altitude sea-skimming mission profile. The missile is launched from the torpedo tubes of the submarine.
SPECIFICATIONS
3M-54E
|
3M-54TE
|
3M-54E1
|
3M-54TE1
|
91RE1
|
91RE2
|
|
Length (m) | 8.220 | 8.916 | 6,200 | 8,916 | 8,000 | 6,500 |
Diameter (m) | 0.533 | 0.645 | 0.533 | 0.645 | 0.533 | 0.533 |
Weight (kg) | 2,300 | 1,951 | 1,780 | 1,505 | 2,050 | 1,300 |
Warhead (kg) | 200 | 200 | 400 | 400 | 76 | 76 |
Range (km) | 220 | 220 | 300 | 275 | 50 | 40 |
Max speed (Mach) | 0.6~0.8; (terminal 3) | 0.6~0.8 | 0.6~0.8 | 0.6~0.8 | 0.6~0.8 | 0.6~0.8 |
Guidance |
Inertial + active radar
|
Inertial
|
||||
Flight profile |
Low altitude sea-skimming
|
Ballistic
|
This page was last updated 27 April 2006
Here's some food for thought.
Pre-emption is the only viable option.
good article, mach speed is determinate on sea level and altitude, if the straights are 21 miles from shore, simple speed and time division scenarios make this a tough missle to beat. the chicom tendency to reverse engineer or create knock-offs makes this an exigent threat.
Well, the reply would have to be along the lines of the phalanx system - gatling-type shotgun with tungsten or depleted uranium projectiles. The thing to work on is the time to the maximum speed of the automatic fire burst - it ought to be decreased to a fraction of a second, together with the deneral agility of the system. Sounds like doable work.
Post or FReepmail me if you wish to be enlisted in or discharged from the Navair Pinglist.
This is a low volume pinglist.
Would laser systems that are being developed for Israel work to defeat these? At the speed of light, evasive techniques would be useless.
Guess it doesn't make any difference.
As long as the Democrats control the Congers, our best offense is going to be to run away as fast as we can.