Friday, August 30, 2013

Syrian Order of Battle. The P-800 Yakhont Missile.



*  Syria reportedly has 72, P-800 Yakhont missiles.
*  They have a range of 120km if surface launched, 300km if air launched.
*  If surface launched they have a speed of Mach 2.
*  It supposedly has a low radar cross section to make interception more difficult.
*  Sea skimming up to sea state 5.
*  Has active countermeasures to defeat jamming, spoofing and chaff.
*  Served as the basis for the Russian-Indian Brahmos missile.

Normalcy Bias Experts will say no big deal.  Our Navy can easily handle these "vampires".  I simply ask.  When was the last time a Navy had to deal with inbound antiship missiles?

That's right.  The Israelis against a C-802 launched against a SAAR-5 by Hezbollah.  The results?  The ship was badly damaged.  The excuse given to the world was that the automated defense systems were switched off.  I say poppycock.  The Israeli Navy might be the smallest of their services but they're thoroughly professional.  I'm not buying it.  Additionally what kind of propaganda victory would the Hezbollah grab if it was admitted that their missiles easily defeated an Israeli warship?

Before that skirmish the only other example we have is the Falklands War.  A bloody messy affair....and the Argies only had a handful of Exocet missiles.  The Syrians have 72 P-800s.

15 comments :

  1. Wasn't the Israeli strike on 1 Aug 2013 against Yakhonts? Ok, so maybe they missed a few but you would think we have drones over Syria 24/7, don't we have a decent idea where the remaining ones are?

    http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jul/14/israel-accused-russian-missiles-syria

    Also, the pictures released of the damaged SAAR-5 showed limited damage, I thought it would have sunk if it really hit it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. they attempted the strike but never claimed success. the Israelis usually aren't shy about successful missions...for example when they struck the syrian nuke facility in the desert.

      Delete
    2. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    3. A little mistake Yakhonts range is 300km if surface launched in Hi-Lo flight profile. And 120km L0-Lo flight profile.

      Domestic Russian version named Onyx has obviously longer range. At height of low altitude range being no less then 340 Km stated by NPO mash personel

      at 0:47 mark http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=clWZCNaZpeE

      The Hi-Lo flight profile of Onyx has been said by an insider at balancer.ru forum to be at 500 Km range.

      He also gave us the range of domestic version of what you know as klub missiles to be 375km for the Klub/Kalibr with supersonic stage and the land attack veriant to have a range of 2600 km.


      Which has been proved to be accurate since few naval personel have mentioned ranges of domestic versions of Klub/Kalibr to be exactly that.

      For example

      Here is a Russian admiral specifically addressing Kalibr range, when the weapon was first launched from the Dagestan corvette.

      It's in Russian

      http://bmpd.livejournal.com/255530.html


      Delete
    4. Damage to Israeli Sa'Ar 5 was reported repaired within 30 days...

      Delete
    5. There's some pretty good analysis that the missile hit a loading crane at the end of the superstructure which acted like spaced armor, detonating the warhead before it penetrated into the ship itself.

      Delete
  2. When was the last time a Navy had to deal with inbound antiship missiles?

    Theres also the attack on the USS Missouri in 1991.

    "...The heavy pounding attracted Iraqi attention; in response to the battleship’s artillery strike, the Iraqis fired two HY-2 Silkworm missiles at the battleship, one of which missed,[31] while the other was intercepted by a GWS-30 Sea Dart missile launched from the British air defence destroyer HMS Gloucester[5] within 90 seconds and crashed into the sea roughly 700 yd (640 m) in front of Missouri.[32]"

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. to be honest i didn't even know about that one. and i thought i was good on gulf war one history. still i kinda wish it had a chance to hit the Missouri. i wonder if it would have even noticed the hit . note i say this in jest.

      Delete
    2. That Sea Dart interception was the first time a ship fired missile had ever successfully engaged another missile in combat. In fact I think it remains the only successful engagement under combat conditions (at least at sea)

      Delete
    3. What happens afloat and at sea stays afloat and at sea. Many events occur that are never spoken of it's easy to do when Crews are aboard a ship cut off from the media.
      Want an Example? US Navy loses a Hydrogen bomb loaded on Navy Aircraft off the shores of Okinawa Japan 1965. when did the world discover this event?
      1989.

      Delete
  3. One thing about the Israeli anti-ship missile incident. From the report I read, Israel was not aware Hezbollah was operating with such capability in the area, so the ship-defenses were no activated.

    "The Israeli ship possessed sophisticated multi-layered missile defense capability: a Phalanx CIWS gun, Barak 1 anti-missile missiles, Chaff and ECM. These should have been able to prevent an anti-ship missile attack such as the YJ-82, but according to the Israeli military, these were intentionally disabled at the time of the alleged missile hit due to:

    -a lack of intelligence indicating Hezbollah possessed such a missile;

    -the presence of many Israeli Air Force aircraft conducting operations in the vicinity of the ship which might have accidentally set off the ship's anti-missile/aerial threats system, with the danger of shooting down a friendly aircraft. However, the ship has an (optionally installed, especially during wartime) Identification friend or foe interrogator system to prevent attacking friendly aircraft."

    ReplyDelete
  4. Solomon, thanks for posting this threat from ever advancing shore-defenses !

    1. It solidly underscores the need to keep any ARG/MEU well offshore to protect Amphibs and troops, in need be well beyond 100nm, in rare cases 200nm.

    2. You'd only use a heavy-lift go-fast 'Connector' like LCU-F with an apparent air-draft of no more than 10 feet, likely too low for 'sea-skimming' systems - if defenders see them coming (?) and want to launch a volley against 12+ (per ARG/MEU) incoming LCU-F with GCE and AH/UH ACE assets ready to return fire.

    3. Without fat targets on the horizon, how would defenders want to use their systems ?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I should have add this, Sol.

      With you urgently pointing at such shore-defenses available from a limited power such as Syria, your stead-fast insistence across a zillion Threads here on getting a fine new APC that allows you to ride slow-poke fashion at 8mph max from the ARG/MEU placed just 12nm from shore seems a bit 'anachronistic'.

      Yes, yes, the proposal is to place the Carrier Strike Group close nearby for the 'umbrella'... assuming it ain't half an ocean away when you suddenly want to activate the MEU to leverage a tactical opening that would save lives and treasure. And assuming there are no subs'-a-lurking on the mid-tech end of things. Or on the very-low-tech end waves of garage-built Kassam-type rockets thrown at you with just a leaker or two getting through. Dumb midget-subs to find you this close inshore ?

      You want to reassert the unique characteristic USMC core-mission - amphibious assault warfare - you'll need fast heavy-lift Connectors, preferable types that are actually quite hard to see/'acquire', target and hit. And those will allow keep ARG/MEU out of reach of most high-tech shore-defenses way Over-The-Horizon.

      Your preferred vision of bobbing along in an APC for hours until all GCE-infantry inside is green in the face seems...well.. you know...

      Delete
  5. USS Vincennes CG-49 did a bang up job on a suspected in bound missile or F-14 of course later it was found to be an airliner, but the ships missile did intercept and destroy it's target!

    ReplyDelete
  6. About the Sa'ar 5. Hezbollah shot two C-802 Chinese missile purchased by Iran and give to Hezhollah. The Sa'ar 5 DID NOT have on any of electronics package that could have detected, attempted to jam, fired chaff, and then attempted lastly shoot down in incoming missile. The Israeli's were worried about shooting down a friendly aircraft and did not believe that Hezbollah had these missiles. They were EMCOM within visual range of the shore, not smart.

    Instead the Sa'ar 5 has a moderately stealth shaped hull, and also has a large completely unstealthy crane on the back. The missile targetted the larger crane not the hull of the ship. In essence the crane acted as a sacrificial target and the missile detonated against a guide wire above the flight deck.

    The second missile hit and sank a freighter out to sea in the Med that was just unlucky.

    ReplyDelete

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.