nothing new really it was a silly stunt prob to make people think spending soo much money on the apache was a good Idea because it can go on top gear.

and its ugly.

Isn’t that article from JED Online matt? Odd that they say no photographs of the Granit have been published- I’ve seen three: one from the wreck of the Kursk, and two other display style photos. The description is wrong- they actually look like big fat versions of Oniks/ Yakhont/ Brahmos.

Yeah i found it whilst googling for granite information i thought i would share it.

Well i am not surprised the description is wrong and that they say their are not pictures of the system. some one on this forum posted pictures of the granite iirc, but its janes arrogant as ever if they havent posted them then it does not exist. ho hum…

SS-N-19 ‘SHIPWRECK’
(P-700 GRANIT)
Type
Long-range anti-ship missiles.

Development
While the Raduga Design Bureau dominated the field of medium range, rocket-propelled anti-ship missiles for the Soviet Navy it was the V N Chelomey Design Bureau (originally Experimental Design Bureau 51) which dominated the long-range, air-breathing (‘cruise’) missile field. The bureau was established in 1944 to design unmanned aerial vehicles and until 1953 it focused on developing the captured German V-1 (Feisler FzG 76), the first weapon being smuggled out of Poland by Soviet Intelligence in 1944. Air, land and submarine-launched versions were developed without success and A I Mikoyan succeeded briefly in having the bureau closed and placed under his direction between 1953 and 1954.
In the meantime there were a number of submarine missile projects including a ramjet weapon (P-40) from the Lavochkin Bureau for the Project 624 (a derivative of the Project 611 or ‘Zulu’ class) designed from 1949 onwards and later also proposed for the Project 63 cruiser (a derivative of the project 68bis or ‘Sverdlov’ class). Neither project developed beyond the design stage. In 1956 the Beriev and Ilyushin Bureaux began designing submarine-launched weapons as the P-10 and P-20 systems but development was protracted and they were cancelled in 1957 and 1960 as neither showed any advantages over the Chelomey-designed P-5.
Chelomey had been quickly restored to favour and in 1954 he exploited his experience in submarine-launched weapons to develop the Project 5 (P-5) system with Sever weapon control subsystem and 4K95 missile. This was successfully tested from the Project 613 (‘Whiskey’ class) submarine S-146 (‘Whiskey Single Cylinder’) between August 1957 and January 1959 and was accepted for service in June 1959 for use against land targets. The system was installed in converted Project 644 (‘Whiskey Twin Cylinder) and Project 665 (‘Whiskey Long Bin’) Cruise Missile Submarines all of which were decommissioned by 1969, the system receiving the NATO designation SS-N-3a ‘Shaddock’. In improved version, P-5D was accepted for service in 1962 and equipped the Project 659 Atomic-Powered Cruise Missile Submarine (‘Echo I’ class), the missiles being removed by 1969 and the ships converted to conventional role as Project 659T. A coast-defence version was also produced as SSC-1a ‘Shaddock’. Chelomey also produced a successor system as P-7 but development ended when the Politburo decided in August 1965 to concentrate the navy’s land-attack capability on ballistic missiles. It should be noted that the term Cruise Missile used in the official designation of the submarines carrying this missile does not mean the missiles are `air breathing’ but appears to refer to their trajectory.
On 17 August 1956 the Politburo ordered the development of long-range anti-ship missiles and to meet this requirement Chelomey adapted the P-5 system into the P-6 for submarine-launch (with 4K48 missile) and the P-35 for surface ships (with 4K44 missile), the latter possibly having the system designation 4M44. The P-6 appears to have entered service first, probably in 1961 and received the NATO designation SS-N-3c ‘Shaddock’ with the Project 675 Atomic-Powered Cruise Missile Submarine (‘Echo II’ class) carrying a mixture of P-5 and P-6 missiles until 1965 and then only anti-ship missiles. The Project 651 Cruise Missile Submarine (‘Juliett’ class) may also have carried both missiles although Russian sources refer only to P-6 missiles. The P-6 platforms were assigned the task of engaging surface task groups threatening Soviet waters and so important was this task that between 1962 and 1967 the `Echo IIs’ were the only nuclear-powered submarines constructed in Soviet yards. The P-35 system was selected for both the Project 58 and Project 1134 Rocket Cruisers (‘Kynda’ and ‘Kresta I’ class missile cruisers respectively), the ‘Krestas’ later being redesignated Large Anti-Submarine Ships, and entered the inventory with the commissioning of the ‘Kynda’ class Grozny on 30 December 1962.
However, there remained major problems with over-the-horizon targeting and developing a system which could be integrated with fixed-wing (and later rotary-wing) aircraft was not completed until 1965 when the system was formally accepted for state service. The P-35 system received the NATO designation SS-N-3b ‘Sepal’ the name assigned to a coast defence version which was designated Redut (Redoubt) with the NATO designation SSC-1b. In 1974 development began of an improved P-35 system as 3M44 Proygress with trials from 1976. The system was formally accepted into state service in 1982 and replaced the P-35 in both classes of Rocket Cruiser as well as in coast defence batteries. Some P-35 missiles were produced as unmanned aerial vehicles for reconnaissance.
Development of a long range, submarine-launched, anti-ship missile to replace the P-6 was authorised by the Politburo on 28 February 1963, in a decree which also authorised development of the P-120 Malakhit/SS-N-9 ‘Siren’ (qv). This system, P-500 Bazal’t (Basalt) and possibly 4M80 with 4K80 missile was essentially an upgraded version of its predecessor. Although the outline design was completed by December 1963 ballistic trials were not carried out until October 1969 and the system was not accepted for service until 1975. It was used to re-equip half the Project 675 Cruise Missile Submarines (‘Echo II’ class) which became Project 675M, and re-equipped all the Project 651 Cruise Missile Submarines (‘Juliett’ class). All were withdrawn from service by 1994. Meanwhile the value of the system for surface combatants had been recognised by the Soviet Navy which was adopting a new strategy of creating bastions for SSBNs. The Project 1143 Large Anti-Submarine Cruiser, later Tactical Aircraft-Carrying Cruiser (‘Kiev’ class aircraft carrier), which was originally to have had ‘Styx’ (P-15M) and Project 1164 Rocket Cruiser (‘Slava’ class missile cruisers) were to protect these bastions and the new missile was regarded as an ideal means of striking major ASW units. It entered the inventory when the Kiev was commissioned on 28 December 1975 but was not formally accepted for surface warships until 1977 and received the NATO designation SS-N-12 ‘Sandbox’. The submarine versions, which could be launched only from the surface and required 20 minutes to complete preparations, were withdrawn from service by 1994.
The improved US ASW defences around carrier battlegroups during the 1970s increasingly restricted the effectiveness of Soviet submarines carrying the SS-N-7/9 `Starbright/`Siren’ (Ametist/Malachit) (qv). At the same time the Soviet Navy wished to strengthen the defences of its SSBN bastions and this led in 1969 to a requirement for a new system, P-700 Granit (Granite), which would equip the Project 949 Atomic-Powered Cruise Missile Submarines (‘Oscar’ class) submarines and Project 1144 Orlan Atomic Rocket Cruisers (‘Kirov’ class) emerged in the late 1960s and development work began in 1969. This system (possibly 3M45) which included the 3K45 missile and trials were prolonged, beginning in November 1975 and being completed in August 1983. However, the system was formally selected for service on 12 March 1983 but had entered the inventory of the Soviet Navy with the commissioning of the cruiser Kirov on 30 December 1982. It was given the NATO designation SS-N-19 ‘Shipwreck’. The system has also been used to equip the Project 949A Anteiy (‘Oscar II’) class submarines and the Project 1143.5 Orel Tactical Aircraft-Carrying Cruiser Admiral Kuznetsov.

A ‘Sepal’ missile being fired from the stern launcher of a ‘Kynda’ class cruiser (2000)

Description
SS-N-3b ‘Sepal’ (P-35)

The P-35 anti-ship system consists of the 4K44 missile, a fire control director, and the SM-70 launcher. The 4K44 missile is a long slim cylinder with pointed nose and a split air scoop midway under the fuselage. It has short swept-back wings which fold, and a clipped delta tail plane under the rear of the fuselage. Also at the rear are two moving tail surfaces low down on the fuselage and two slim, rectangular stabilisers in `V’ shaped configuration high up. A twin-booster pack weighing some 800 kg is attached underneath on either side of the tail.
No official data is available about the internal configuration but the missile appears to have a radar seeker in the nose and it appears the 513 kg high explosive warhead (an alternative 200 kT nuclear device was withdrawn under international treaty), is behind it with the guidance package in the following compartment. Kerosene-type fuel tanks and a turbo-jet engine, a derivative of the KRD-26 used in the P-5, are in the rear of the missile together with actuation systems. The guidance system employs an autopilot and radio altimeter.
The fire-control director system is based upon the Binom (`Scoop Pair’) E-band (3 GHz) fire-control radar. This consists of two elliptical lattice antennas each 4.2 m long and mounted above and below a spherical housing at the end of a sponson. Each antenna, which has a balance vane, is illuminated by a double horn assembly on a boom below the upper one and above the lower one. It is believed the original fire-control system was an electro-mechanical unit. The launcher system in surface ships consists of four sealed launch rails inclined at an angle of about 30º. The SM-70 launchers are 5 m high, 11.5 m long and 8 m wide and they are trainable about 250° in azimuth in the ‘Kynda’ class (they were fixed in the `Kresta I’ class). The launchers may be reloaded from a magazine in the superstructure. Each magazine has four reload missiles, one for each launcher, these missiles being unfuelled unlike those in the launchers.
Targets were originally detected by high frequency direction finding stations until the development of reconnaissance satellite systems. Once targets were detected the area was searched by a pair of Tu 95RT `Bear D’ reconnaissance aircraft using `Big Bulge’ I-band (8-10 GHz) radars, which have a reported range of 230 n miles (425 km), and video data from this sensor could be transmitted either to a shore-based headquarters or the ships via a Uspekh-U radar down-link together with audio location, course, bearing and composition reports. The targets would then be allocated to the ships.
The ship fire control director preprogrammes the autopilot with data from the radar fire-control system, the launcher is then raised to a 25° angle and the boosters are initiated. The missile climbs steeply to an altitude of 3,000-4,500 m and the turbo-jet cuts in before the boosters are ejected, the missile then enters the cruise phase at an altitude of some 4,000 m and at a speed of Mach 1.4. Each Binom radar can guide two missiles. For long-range operations (350 km) the missile travels at 500 m/s and for medium range operation (250 km) it travels at 480 m/s. The high altitude ensures the efficient use of the missile’s radar seeker which reportedly has a large range gate to allow for target movement after launch. This is reportedly switched on after the missile has travelled some 90 n miles (165 km) and looks down at an angle of about 20º. It can acquire the target at a range of 40-50 n miles (75-90 km) and drops down to a height of 100 m before making a low angle dive attack.
Some reports suggest a data link transmits raw video from the missile radar back to the launch platform for target selection while other reports indicate that the Tu 95, nicknamed `The Master of Ceremonies’, transmits radar video over the A346Z video data link to the ships but for the purposes of mid-course correction. Ka 25 `Hormone B’ or Ka 27 `Helix B’ helicopters may also be used for this function. The over-the-horizon air support for SS-N-3 is also used for SS-N-12 and SS-N-19.
The 3M44 Proygress system features improved ECCM performance for the seeker, electrical actuation replacing the hydraulic units and an electronic fire control director.

SS-N-12 ‘Sandbox’ (P-500 Bazal’t)

The P-500 anti-ship system consists of the 4K80 missile, the Argument radar and the SM-241 launcher. While no photographs of the 4K80 have been released, Russian sources indicate it is externally similar to the 4K44 missile of SS-N-3b ‘Sepal’ although it is slightly longer to accommodate extra fuel. The internal configuration is similar to that of the 4K44 with radar seeker in the nose (this having improved ECCM performance) and the Argon guidance system which was the first Soviet system to feature an on-board digital computer and which, in the terminal mode, allows the seeker to select specific targets. A larger, 750 kg (some sources suggest 1,000 kg) hollow-charge high explosive warhead is installed and it is believed there was an alternative 350 kT nuclear warhead but this has now been removed. In the rear is the KP-17-300 turbojet.
The missile is associated with the Argument (`Front Door’) F-band (3-4 GHz) missile guidance radars whose submarine version, `Front Door C’ (formerly `Trap Door’), was housed in a casing with the antenna on the inside cover of the casing which hinged back when required to expose the antenna. The radar has a rectangular array mesh antenna with horn feed at the top. Target data is acquired in the same way as with SS-N-3b ‘Sepal’ but the Argument system may also receive updated targeting data from Kasatka (Killer Whale) satellites through the Tsunami (‘Punch Bowl’) satellite data receiving system and this data may also be provided during flight through the Argument system while manned aircraft can also be used for over-the-horizon targeting. The system operation was similar to that of SS-N-3b ‘Sepal’ but the low altitude terminal approach phase is longer and at a lower altitude. Since the late 1990s the Russian company Granit has been offering an anti-ship missile targeting system integrating satellite-based radars with shipborne and airborne (fixed-wing and rotary-wing aircraft) sensors. The system can also receive inputs from ESM sensors with the data displayed in a stand-alone console. Publicity material for this capability suggests that both ‘Sandbox’ and ‘Shipwreck’ are the major beneficiaries of this capability.
In the ‘Kiev’ class (Project 1143) the launcher system consisted of four SM-241 twin-launchers inclined at an angle of some 30º, the missile being held in place by a top-centre mount with two rails at 65° from the top of the launcher. There is a reload for each launcher believed to be stored horizontally in a two-level magazine between the launchers and to be moved on a rail system which fed them inboard to a lift which carried them to the main deck. There they are transferred to a rail-mounted cradle which reloads the forward tubes from the rear and the rear tubes from the front. In the `Slava’ class (Project 1164) the paired SM-241 launcher tubes are fixed at an angle of some 30º in a mounting which probably includes an efflux venting system, and the missiles are rarely removed from the launcher.

SS-N-19 ‘Shipwreck’ (P-700 Granit)

The P-700 anti-ship system consists of the 3K45 missile, a fire control director and SM-233 launchers. No photographs of `Shipwreck’ have yet been published but the missile is derived from the 4K80 and is believed to have a broad cylinder body with pointed nose. Half way along the body is an air inlet for the KR-93 turbojet which is used in the cruising phase after the missile has been launched with the aid of an intregal solid propellant booster in the tail. There are two sharply swept-back wings and two swept-back tail fins with a similar stabiliser on the underside of the missile. The seeker is reported to operate in ESM, J-band (10-12 GHz) and K-band (27-40 GHz) modes, using the last in the terminal phase to select specific targets. The warhead is believed to be the same as the 4K80.
In contrast to its predecessors none of the `Shipwreck’ launch platforms appears to carry a missile guidance radar. The missile appears to be fitted with a digital inertial guidance system but it appears to be capable of receiving in-flight updates from manned aircraft. Surface-ship systems probably receive ESM Ocean Surveillance Satellites (EORSAT) data from Tsunami (`Punch Bowl’) satellite communications systems but targets can also be acquired by ship sensors, either radar or sonar, the bearing and range data then being fed into the missile inertial guidance system. The submarine fire-control system is apparently based upon the Kremlin 2 (`Rim Hat’) ESM system which is similar to `Bald Head’ (see SS-N-7 Starbright/SS-N-9 `Siren’) but is associated with the Tobol (`Snoop Pair’) radar forming a sensor/data-link system with back-to-back antennas, one for radar and the other for ESM/data link.
In surface ships the SM-233 launcher system consists of pairs of silos organised into five rows with each launcher having a 3.5 x 2.5 m hatch and as the weapons are vertically launched there are no reloads. It is possible that the silos are inclined at an angle of 40º just as the submarine launch tubes are reported to be. In submarines the missiles are carried in pairs of launch tubes between the pressure hull and the casing, a hinged hatch protecting each pair. The launch tubes are arranged in two rows each of six pairs, each pair covered by a 7 m long hatch.
After target and platform location data have been inserted into the guidance system the silo hatch is lifted and the missile is fired. The rocket booster carries it to a pre-designated height (it also permits underwater launch) at which point the turbojet then comes into operation to a height of 20,000 m where it enters the cruise phase. In the terminal phase the radar seeker is used to acquire the target, possibly being first cued in by the ESM element which may also provide a home-on-jam capability. It would appear the missile does not have a low-level approach capability and completes the terminal phase with a high angle dive.

Operational status
Production of the SS-N-3 ‘Shaddock/Sepal’ appears to have been concluded in the mid-1980s with some 80 systems being built (20 P-5, 45 P-6 and 15 P-35 type and about 1,000 missiles). Production of the SS-N-12 (P-500) and SS-N-19 (P-700) systems also appears to have been concluded with 40 and 15 respectively produced with 500 and 300 missiles. The systems are in service only with the Russian Navy in the following ships:

Ship class
Type
Missile
Launchers/
Search radar

missiles

‘Oscar II’
SSN
SS-N-19
2/12
Snoop Pair/Snoop Half

Admiral Kuznetsov
CV
SS-N-19
1/12
Strut Pair

‘Kirov’
CG
SS-N-19
2/20
Top Plate

‘Slava’*
CG
SS-N-12
8/16
Top Steer/Top Plate

`Kynda’
CG
SS-N-3b
2/8
Plinth Net

Note:* The former Russian ‘Slava’ class cruiser Admiral Lobov is reported to be completed by the Ukrainian Navy as the Ukraina by November 2000 and should be equipped for SS-N-12, although whether or not any are made available by the Russian Navy remains to be seen.

SS-N-3b
SS-N-12
SS-N-19

Length (m)
10.2
11.7
10

Diameter (cm)
97.5
88
85

Wing span (m)
3.7
2.1
N/K

Weight (kg with boosters)
5,300
4,800
3,250

Range (max)
160 n miles (300 km)
296 n miles (550 km)
240 n miles (445 km)

Speed
Mach 1.4
Mach 1.7
Mach 1.6

Guidance
Command and active radar
Command and active radar
Inertial with command update and active radar

can they not just use the laser in development with the ISRAELI’s into the 747’s ? That laser has worked and has even knocked down small diameter rockets iirc such as the KUTUSHYA.

PLA..I guess we’ll goto the old policy of ignoring ppl who arent here for love of aviation..who hide there cheap shots behind sarcasm and indirect speech….

HUH ?? you sound like a bad dialogue from a even worse HINDI TV Serial! listen to yourself!

Love of aviation ? is that why you only post in threads relating to PA/PAF/PN ?

For all the complaining you two do , I do not remember a single thread started of by either one of you, that was not related to manifestation of subconscious nationalistic fervour.

If this is proven wrong ill be happy!

And again, why is this news even posted up ONCE MORE ? who is resurrecting old threads that should have died out in the flames ?

This is of little importance since pakistan already has under its hat the purchase of the FC-1, since the mentioned aircraft is purported to be more advance then the F-16 blk 15’s.

I say use the money on Airdefence networks.

hey google, np if u cant post iot full and tks, if i failed to mention that in earlier post 🙂 …anyway the least i’d like to see is someone getting into trouble coz of me…

Indian 1973,

frankly am hearing the amt of leasing for the first time, where did u get that from??….asnd only for a month?…. I guess the A-50s wree here for more than a month … and abt the requirements and the testing I’ve been waiting to hear … can some one post abt the IAF’s finding of the A-50 leasing and … yes I do believe IAF did make a mistake by becoming the perfect ‘bakra’…. else IAF too cud have gone the MKI way, after all there was no MKI when IAF went searching, so in case of A-50’s too i guess it cud have been possible, and as Vympel posted two news items it mentioned abt the AESA under develpment and to be tested in 2004, so the monetary part from the Indian side (begning 99) cud have made the A-50MKI come to life by now or atleast by 2005 …. and thats what i’, saying…..

and what the hell are the Isreali’s doin for the first one to be delivered 44 months??….. they are not making the a/c for sure, and the integration once made for the Chinese order and repeating it for Indian one takes 44 months??… i just cant digest that one….. and this has become some sort of craze with the indians as Isreali’s the best friends etc etc ….. if that was so the much needed AWACS sud have been in the hands of IAF when the IAF needed it most during the 2001 period and the Phalcon deals started right after 99 kargil and so did the Chinese order cancelled in 200….so what the Hell was the Isrealis doing wth the A-50I, … they cud have helped us with a speedy delivery of the system …… but thats not the caser, coz Unkil wants to save their ally and Isreal did its job – after all what else an a parasite do other than that? – and thats what i don like …… and if the IAF wanted (bariif the political immaturity) the Russians wud have leased their systems though not top notch as IAF wud have liked for the emergency use, but that not the case with anyother ones and ISreal proved it real good, and still guys fail to understand that …….many guys simply critize the Russians but they fail to remember that an OLD friend is ALWAYS BETTER than two NEW friends!

but whatever it is can u say with conviction that the Phalcon wont be blocked??….can anyone gaurantee that there wont be any more actions on the border, and also those advocating peace now wont be there when the men in uniform wud be the ones to suffer ‘humiliation’ time and again from the media …. those pretty b—– knows only to live under the very blanket of protection that these men in uniform (which ever bracnh it maybe) provide.

any of the guys here , can u provide me with more info abt the A-50 leasing by the IAF and also the ‘findings’ of the IAF, which model was leased – A-50U or the new A-50Eh thats been reported to be what PLAAF is getting/got ??

tks in advance….

Blackcar it is going to be a MKI’d AEW