May be a dumb question but I want to ask how feasible is a two stage ALCM with a supersonic dart (like the two-stage 3M54 anti-ship Klub) for strategic missions. I.e. something big like the Kh-101 but consisting in a subsonic low-flying sustainer for travelling around 2000 km plus a terminal stage supersonic dart that will fly the last 50-60 km to the target at near mach 3.
I think such a system will be a nightmare even for the mighty S-400.
By: Raad - 1st June 2011 at 22:29
Terminal dash can be achieved by varying grain configuration in solid propulsion
There are three types of burns that can be achieved with different grains.
Progressive Burn
Usually a grain with multiple perforations or a star cut in the center providing a lot of surface area.
Digressive Burn
Usually a solid grain in the shape of a cylinder or sphere.
Neutral Burn
Usually a single perforation; as outside surface decreases the inside surface increases at the same rate.
By: Arabella-Cox - 30th May 2011 at 05:51
Why can’t one have afterburners on cruise missiles like in fighter jets for terminal dash?
By: Raad - 3rd May 2011 at 21:43
yes the idea is possible & has been in planning for the R-74 missile. I believe instead opting for sort-off multi-darts configuration; huge missiles like R-33 rocket motors can be used to envelop small short-range IR missiles like Archer which can be released closer to the enemy targets where IR guidance work more formidably (being passive) & these missile are optimised for short range kills meaning can pull higher G’s..upto 12G’s
In this way old long range AWACS killer radar guided missiles can be put to use…though the newer missile will be bulky!!
By: i.e. - 3rd May 2011 at 21:28
Actually One of the Chinese AShCM has taht concept, except in terminal stage it is a solid rocket engine that seperate the 2nd stage.
In the other extreme spectrum, one of the AshBM concept was to release SRAM missile(s) as pay load by a solid rocket missile with a a rather flat trajectory.
By: Rodolfo - 3rd May 2011 at 20:01
No. I don’t mean a SRAM atop a cruise missile. A mean a supersonic low flying dart no very different from the one of the 3M54E AShM.
I know, a weapon of this class will have some technical problems that will need to be solved but may be some of the technology developed for the 3M54E can be “extrapolated” to the two-stage ALCM. If the Kh-101 have a range around 5000 km, may be a two stage ALCM of the same size will have around 2000 km range (or jus may be I am mad, quite likely 🙂 ).
Finally I concede you. 50-60 km of a super-sonic low-flying profile is too much. Reduce it to 30-40 km.
In the end such a weapon will be more interesting for Western powers than for Russia. Russian ALCM have not the need to confront complex and powerful combos like S-400s nested with Tunguskas and so on.
By: Distiller - 3rd May 2011 at 17:27
A SRAM atop a cruise missile? Weight problems. At least two additional points of failure (separation, ignition). And I think 50-60km would be too long. It could be of interest if SA-15/-22 style point defence systems become *really* good. But then only to overwhelm the reaction time of such systems, meaning half the range would be just fine. But I guess due to weight constraints I’d use only nuclear warheads, and like three “darts” to make it more difficult for point defence. Still would need to be analyzed vs the UAV-SRAM approach.
Sign In
May 3, 2011 at 3:31 pm