Obviously 3 Exocets/Harpoons/Urans/NSMs are the best for use against ships that are not so well protected, these missiles are good all around and can be launched from anywhere, but you seriously cannot expect to use them to attack and sink a Carrier group. An aircraft like a Flanker might be able to mount some 6 of these low level sea skimmers, but them getting through stuff like CIWS is highly doubtful, not only that but they are slow and have small warheads to do any significant damage to anything bigger like a Carrier. But by far the NSM seems to be the best in it’s class as an all around missile compared to Harpoon, Uran or Exocet.

I would seriously like to know more about the MA-31 tests and how they went in order to judge better higher flying supersonic missiles like Yakhont, Kh-22M and Kh-31A and judge their effectiveness.

But is it worth the effort ??

A modern warship with RAM (for example) could still cope with a small number of such missiles.
On the other hand the latest Harpoon, Exocet, Penguin or Kormoran missiles are going to close to supersonic speed and make some evasive maneuvers to throw of the aim of CIWS.

In the end I would prefer to fire 2 subsonic missiles comapred to one supersonic.

Although I must admit that Alfa is a very ound concept.

evasive maneuvers? Since you simply do not think supersonic missiles would not work, you are all about subsonic sea skimmers, well the Alfa is a subsonic sea skimmer than at the last few kms it speeds up past m2, which not only increases it chances of survival since it has a bigger chance of hitting and not being destroyed but it also increases it’s lethality of sinking a ship since combined with the size of it’s warhead, I don’t simply know how this supersonic boost is a disadvantage?

Now as for NSM, how can you think about sinking any sort of carrier group with NSMs which are subsonic, and have a smaller warhead, forget it’s longer range, same with Uran. A Alfa with 200kg warhead and supersonic boost will have 3-4 times bigger chance of sinking anything better, and especially hitting it. As for Uran, yes the NSM is better than it and an all around missile since it is lighter and longer ranged.

Now to be honest(and I am not pro Russian) I too am starting to wonder and question all these supersonic Russian AshMs, which on radar and IR will be heat beacons and should be pretty easy to intercept, this is talking about especially against USN which probably puts up best Anti-Ship defenses anywhere in the World.(I am excluding Uran and the Alfa which are subsonic low level sea skimmers[Alfa is only difference since it boosts at final stages of flight]). I mean HOW vulnerable is a supersonic Yakhont or a Moskit to being detected and destroyed(I assume moskit will be harder to detect and destroy since it flies lower)? Also, what is the maximum speed a SM-2, ESSM or CIWS can intercept a supersonic missile. Can they possibly intercept a m5+ Kh-15S.

Let’s look at some possible scenarios of a Carrier group being attacked by air launched or whichever Anti-Shipping missiles. Let’s say the Carrier group is well protected and such. How many SM-2s, ESSMs and possibly CIWS does a typical US Carrier group employ all together. At what distances would they be able to DETECT and intercept supersonic missiles like Yakhont or Moskit?

If you don’t like supersonic missile high on the IR, why dont you look at the Alfa. It’s subsonic throughout it’s whole flight profile and then it speeds up for last few kilometres. I don’t see how the NSM or an other low level skimmer thats subsonic whole way can cope with that.

Wow you guys are listing all the things that are needed to sink a Carrier YET you cannot do ANYTHING with the subsonic Harpoons or Exocets or NSMs. Their lethality is just that much lower when compared to also lower flying supersonic missiles. A Flanker can carry either 2 Kh-41 Moskits or 3 Alfas or Yakhonts, it’s up to you to choose which one you want.

You are slightly missing the point here I fear. There has been no convincing news that I can find that the supersonic terminal phase version of Klub has entered service anywhere. The 3M54E1 variant has been delivered to the IN and tested with varying degrees of success, but, the -54E1 is the pure-subsonic antiship version of the weapon and quite a different beastie than -54E. The subsonic variant is still powerful but is, essentially, little more than a big, long ranged, Uran.

Also, to be fair, comparing 3M-54E to Harpoon is a bit like comparing an Su-30 to an F-5E. The Russian aircraft is, obviously, superior BUT the US type was designed several decades ago, is much cheaper and not intended for the same mission!. Now if you want to compare 3M-54E to NSM, IMO, the Norweigan/European missile takes the prize every time.

http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/showthread.php?t=3492&highlight=3M-51
That clarifies the difference between 3M-54E/54E1/51

The Air launched 3M-51 is the development of the surface launched 3M-54E.

According to http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/NAVY/Klub.html
The 3M-54E is surface launched, 220km range, subsonic flight with supersonic final attack stage, 2300kg launch weight, 200kg warhead. Then the 3M-54E1 is also surface launched, has no supersonic final attack stage, it is purely subsonic the whole time, it has a launch weight of 1780kg, warhead weight of 400kg and a range of 300km. It is meant to be installed on smaller ships I guess. 3M-54E1 is said to be compatable with the 3M-54E.

The 3M-51 is the Air Launched variant, it will probably have a final supersonic attack stage like the 3M-54E. However the specifications at the bottom are very unlikely. If it was developed from 3M-54E, it will have certainly longer range(since it’s launched from the air), not just be lighter. If it’s developed from 3M-54E1 then it should be lighter than 1780kg or about the same and have a even longer range, but highly unlikely. So the Air Launched Club HAS to be developed from the 3M-54E. Besides everything points out that the air launched variant has the final supersonic attack stage, so thats another reason why it would be developed from 3M-54E.

I would expect the 3M-51 to be much lighter than 2300kg and have a much longer range than 220km. It may have a bigger warhead but it may not.
I also searched this forum for the 3M-51
http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/showthread.php?t=32690&highlight=3M-51
So as it appears the air launched 3M-51 has a launch weight of 1600kg, probably a max range of 250kms and has a supersonic final attack stage. It should retain the same 200kg warhead or maybe have a bigger one.

As for NSM, it clearly is better than the Exocet or Harpoon. The surface launched NSM has a range of 160kms and launch weight of 410kgs, while the Air launched has a 348kg launch weight and same range. They have a 120kg warhead. The surface launched Kh-35 has a range of 130kms and a launch weight of 630kgs with a warhead of 145kgs. The fixed wing air launched Kh-35 has also the same range and warhead weight but weighs 480kgs while the helicopter launched one is similar as the surface launched one. Obviously just when you look at the range and weights you’ll know.

As for the Clubs, they are in a totally different weight and performance class compared to NSM.

Still, the air launched Klub, the Alfa is ages ahead of any Harpoon or Exocet. The P-900 Alfa has a launch weight of something like 1570-1700kg and it reports on global security of a 450kg warhead. For most of it’s flight it flies some 10-15ms above sea level and then for last 20-60kms it drops down to 5 kms and speeds up past mach 3. The Air launched version is reported to have a range of some 250-300kms.

Its ages ahead of Exocet and Harpoon in terms of range and lethality.

Not only has Russia a similar equivelant to the Harpoon and Exocet, the Uran, they also have a wide array of many other missiles, a low flyin long range Alfa which speeds up to m3+ on last 20 kms, then the 300km high flying supersonic Yakhont, or 130km when going low, the 250-300km low flying supersonic Moskit, supersonic 100km high flying Kh-31A/AD/AM, the 500 km supersonic Kh-22M, mach 5 aeroballistic 150km Kh-15P and a **** load of others.

I doubt a few IC Mig-23s can make a difference to those French F1s since they are flown by much superior pilots probably.