41 ms·
Always fascinated by these. Are the large tubes torpedo tubes on top?
by 3327 14y ago
Always fascinated by these. Are the large tubes torpedo tubes on top?
- 3327 14y agoi wonder how performance is on waves and choppy water.
- rdtsc 14y agoSo so. Remember reading an article in a Russian technical journal about it a while back. Apparently that is why one of the prototypes crashed, choppy sea. The pilots pulled up (as that is the typical instinct of a pilot) and that disrupted the ground effect and it crashed.
- 3327 14y agocatastrophic stall !! nose plant into water at 300 km/h!
- jcurbo 14y agoNo, those are jet engines.
- dabeeeenster 14y agoNo they are they engines!
- masklinn 14y agoThe angled ones on the body top yes, but they're not torpedoes they're ramjet anti-ship missiles: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P-270_Moskit http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P-270_Moskit 320kg warhead flying at mach 3. They're comparable to the Harpoon except carry 50% more payload and fly 3 times as fast. On the sides of the cabin are the engines.
- 3327 14y agowow 320kg warhead. thats lots of explosive power, and speed... that is a heavy duty missile. Good luck to Phalanx and sea sparrow stopping a a half dozen of these (apparently china bought them)...
- icegreentea 14y agoThat's why we have AEGIS cruisers and destroyers. The entire concept was developed during the cold war specifically to counter this class (large supersonic sea-skimming missiles) of threats.
- cstross 14y agoITYM "large subsonic sea-skimming missiles". Moskit was specifically designed to punch through US Aegis defenses faster than they could intercept. While things have moved on, there's still some question over whether western naval defense missiles such as Standard or Aster can intercept a Moskit -- especially whatever version the Russians are using, as opposed to selling to Iran and China. The MD-160 was intended (in the 1980s) to be a can-opener for US carrier battle groups -- able to close at 300 knots in nap of earth, evading detection, then launch six Moskits at once. (By way of comparison a Tu-22M or Tu-95 could only carry one or two Moskits.) Luckily the USSR ran out of money before they could build more than one of the things, which now sits in mothballs (despite various proposals to build more as, e.g., passenger ferries or high speed mobile disaster-relief hospitals).
- 3327 14y agoThey totally could have been a can opener. Imagine how many missiles it would take to disable or sink a carrier - short of a nuclear device. Battle groups are too sophisticated (if im not mistaken 2 anti-submarine destroyers). To actually find and takedown a carrier today requires huge effort and firepower. >While things have moved on, there's still some question over whether western naval defense missiles such as Standard or Aster can intercept a Moskit In April 2012, the French Navy successfully shot and downed an American GQM-163 Coyote target. The GQM-163 Coyote was simulating a sea-skimming supersonic anti-ship cruise missile traveling at speeds of Mach 2.5 (3000 km/h) with an altitude of less than 5 meters. The Aster 30 missile was fired by the Horizon class frigate Forbin (D620), also present during the shoot was Forbins sister ship Chevalier Paul (D621). The successful shooting represents the first time a European missile defence system has intercepted and destroyed a supersonic, sea-skimming "missile". The trial was described as a "complex operational scenario". But, 2.5 mach and "test case" with your own hardware, can never know what a Russian missele is programmed to do.