Iran may have the Russian Sizzler (anti carrier) missiles

[seemorgh]

Sorry for misspelling the title. It should read Russian not Rissian! (could a mod correct this please)

http://www.articlediscovery.com/blog/2007/03/26/iran-may-have-aircraft-carrier-destroying-missile/

[Janbaz]

Your link is not correct.. please check again and post it.

[Alex]

ok i have fixed the title. and here is the article seemorgh tried to post.

Iran May Have Aircraft Carrier Destroying Missile

The Russian state owned arms manufacturing firm Novator Design Bureau in Yekaterinburg was aggressively marketing the “Sizzler” anti ship missile at last month’s IDEX 2007, said Steve Zaloga, a missile analyst with the Teal Group, a Fairfax, Virginia-based defense research organization. The IDEX is the Middle East’s largest weapons exposition.


The Sizzler is a weapon that the US Navy has known about for six years but still has not developed a proven defense system to counter the threat. The Sizzler is a unique highly dangerous missile. Conventional anti ship missiles fly at sub sonic speeds and fly in a straight line. They therefore can be tracked and brought down by multi layed anti missile defense systems deployed on American aircraft carriers.

The Sizzler is a much more capable and dangerous weapon. “This is a carrier-destroying weapon,” said Orville Hanson, who evaluated weapons systems for 38 years with the Navy. “That’s its purpose.”

The Sizzler can be launched from a new class of silent diesel powered submarines. It starts out at subsonic speeds but about ten miles from a target the warhead separates from the projectile and a rocket fires increasing the missiles velocity to three times the speed of sound, about 2,000 miles per hour. As if the high speed didn’t present enough of a challenge to an aircraft carrier’s defense system the Sizzler is capable of sharp high speed evasive maneuvers that makes it highly difficult to defend against.

The Chinese are known to have deployed these missiles. If the Chinese ever decide to invade Taiwan American aircraft carriers at their current level of protection may prove to be defenseless against the Sizzler threat.

The Russians are known to have had talks with the Iranians about selling them Sizzler missiles. With tensions in the Gulf region heating up one would guess that the Iranians would convert some of their oil money into Sizzler missiles. With Sizzler missiles deployed the multi billion dollar United States aircraft carriers with their 5,500 man crews would be extremely vulnerable not only to crippling attacks but to being completely destroyed.

The Sizzler was developed with one thing only as its mission. That is to destroy aircraft carriers. Aircraft carriers are at the heart of any US offensive warfare strategy.

If indeed the carriers safety is gravely endangered by the Sizzler missile, and in the event of a conflict even one US carrier was lost, the prospect of an immediate escalation to nuclear weapons on the part of US naval battle groups would be high. Since the Sizzler is fired from a new class of fast and silent diesel powered submarines a “ring of fire” would likely be laid down by any remaining US aircraft carriers in the area in an effort to “clear” the area of any remaining threats.

The deployment of Sizzler missiles by countries that are potentially hostile to the US is a Pentagon war planners nightmare. No doubt a serious carrier incident in the Straits of Hormuz or in the Straits of Taiwan would have a lasting long term effect on US strategic planning.

The age of multi billion dollar aircraft carrier battle groups being able to quickly project American might into areas of the world defended by Sizzler missiles or perhaps more advanced future missile systems would likely come to an abrupt end.

For more on this story see “Sizzler Missile Story Hits a Nerve”

http://www.articlediscovery.com/blog/2007/03/26/iran-may-have-aircraft-carrier-destroying-missile/

[froggy]

So what is the follow up of this news? And how much does this cost a piece?

[rabs]

The sizzler is a dangerous missile sure, but counter measures are already in place. RAM has the ability to make rapid maneuvers to counter high speed evaise targets.


but about ten miles from a target the warhead separates from the projectile and a rocket fires increasing the missiles velocity to three times the speed of sound, about 2,000 miles per hour.

The E-2C would pick it up long before it reached the 10 mile zone. With Sm-2s engaging it, even if it does go super sonic the US has been intercepting evasive super sonic drones for years.

[Mohmar 'Deathstrike']

I think these anti-ship missiles are only effective when saturating a fleet's defenses. Each ship probably has like 2 Standard Missiles, 8 Evolved Sea Sparrows and 42 RAM (each launcher has 21) missiles. So if the success rate of those missiles is anywhere between 10% to 90%, you'd need to fire 7 to 56 missiles...at EVERY ship... simultaneously. Each missiles could probably only completely destroy a corvette, significantly damage destroyers and inflict minimum damage to an aircraft carrier.

Yes, I made all this up but it's meant to incite you to think and research about how to defeat a fleet :)

[rabs]

hink these anti-ship missiles are only effective when saturating a fleet's defenses. Each ship probably has like 2 Standard Missiles, 8 Evolved Sea Sparrows and 42 RAM (each launcher has 21) missiles.

Burke Class has over 60 Standard Missiles and does not carry the evolved sea sparrows, those are out fitted on the carriers. As far as RAM i have no idea how many there are on a launcher.

[coolieno99]

There's some unknown factor here. If the Russians coat the Sizzler with Radar Absorbent Material, then it would reduces its Radar Cross Section to almost nil, then it would becomes extremely difficult to detect and track.

[rabs]

There's some unknown factor here. If the Russians coat the Sizzler with Radar Absorbent Material, then it would reduces its Radar Cross Section to almost nil, then it would becomes extremely difficult to detect and track.

Negative, It's speed along with the fact its not shaped stealthy will give it an obvious RCS. Radar absorbing matériels can help but they can not make something stealthy that isn't designed to be stealthy in the first place.

Plus the pure power of the SPY-1 system can will get a return, it gets a return off of a B-2 at 25 miles although it cant get a firing solution for it, it still gets a return, its a beastly system. Combined with the integrated information network of a US CBG, Fighters,Frigates,Cruisers, E-2s etc it truly is an almost unbreakable airspace.

As far as your analogy goes, If I coated my car with RAM it would still be picked up on radar cause its just not stealthy, its RCS would be smaller but it would still be there.

[Mohmar 'Deathstrike']

Burke Class has over 60 Standard Missiles and does not carry the evolved sea sparrows, those are out fitted on the carriers. As far as RAM i have no idea how many there are on a launcher.I meantthe number standard missiles that can be fired nearly simultaneously, without reloading. The additional 50 or so missiles in the bay won't help against a saturated anti-ship missile attack.Negative, It's speed along with the fact its not shaped stealthy will give it an obvious RCS. Radar absorbing matériels can help but they can not make something stealthy that isn't designed to be stealthy in the first place.

Plus the pure power of the SPY-1 system can will get a return, it gets a return off of a B-2 at 25 miles although it cant get a firing solution for it, it still gets a return, its a beastly system. Combined with the integrated information network of a US CBG, Fighters,Frigates,Cruisers, E-2s etc it truly is an almost unbreakable airspace.How can a high-flying E-2 pick up a sea-skimming missile?

[EvilCapitalist]

I meantthe number standard missiles that can be fired nearly simultaneously, without reloading. The additional 50 or so missiles in the bay won't help against a saturated anti-ship missile attack.How can a high-flying E-2 pick up a sea-skimming missile?

It can task it's RADAR to search out targets on the ground, the same way an F-16 can see a tank on RADAR from BVR.

The RAM missile can easily intercept missiles going at mach 2.5+...

[Mohmar 'Deathstrike']

It can task it's RADAR to search out targets on the ground, the same way an F-16 can see a tank on RADAR from BVR.
Because metal reflects differently from dirt/water/asphalt/grass?

The RAM missile can easily intercept missiles going at mach 2.5+...Not if 22 missiles are launched at one RAM launcher. In this case, it's failure rate will be 100%.

[EvilCapitalist]

Because metal reflects differently from dirt/water/asphalt/grass?
Correct. And the RADAR wave reflects a few millionths of a second faster, because it is a little higher then water. And it's speed makes it stick out like a sore thumb to computers who normally might not detect it.

Not if 22 missiles are launched at one RAM launcher. In this case, it's failure rate will be 100%.
...the SeaRAM missile system was built to destroy multiple incoming missiles. With the threats being detected far away by EA-6b aircraft or other US RADAR installations, it is clear that two SeaRAM missile batteries (each armed with 11 missiles) could take out all 22.

The only countries who could truly have the capability to destroy US ships with these missiles is China and Russia.

[rabs]

Correct. And the RADAR wave reflects a few millionths of a second faster, because it is a little higher then water. And it's speed makes it stick out like a sore thumb to computers who normally might not detect it.

Bingo, the Hardware on US ships is updated every so often, but the software is upgraded almost every time there in port. Not to mention the data form the plane is automatically crossed referenced with the escorts SPY-1 data by the AEGIS system automatically. Set in "god mode" (full automation of classification, identification, and engagement) it will automatically compare that data to all other sources of information available. Rather that be other escorts, planes, F-18s, helicopters or other US assets in the area. Software flaws have almost been a eliminated from the system over the years. AEGIS will then decide the best engagement profile (shoot, shoot, look) and then engage with almost no human involvement.

I meantthe number standard missiles that can be fired nearly simultaneously, without reloading. The additional 50 or so missiles in the bay won't help against a saturated anti-ship missile attack.

Huh? A Burke can empty her magazines in a minute or two and can track and engage hundreds of targets, and if there is over flow the tasking can be tasked off to other ships or assets. So one a Burke might fire a SM-2, and a E-2 pick up the over the horizon guidance.

I don't know what you mean in the bay from what I understand from a Fire control officer over at defense talk the VLS works this way

[x] = Stored missile
[/] = firing missile

|
\/ = column
[x][x][x]<- Row
[x][x][/]
[x][/][x]
[/][x][x]
[x][x][x] = possible

[x][x][x]
[/][x][/]
[x][x][x]
[/][/][/]
[x][/][x] = Impossible

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v436/Rabs/mk-41-vls_ddg-62_050903-n-1332y-146.jpg



Essentially No missile can be fired from the same row or column in each sub section so roughly 6 missiles can be fired from the front of the ship and 6 from the rear at the same time or in short short secession. That is extremely unlikely though considering how quickly the ship would deplete its supplies.

Then as soon as the venting system cycles through (several seconds) another salvo can be fired.

[Mohmar 'Deathstrike']

Correct. And the RADAR wave reflects a few millionths of a second faster, because it is a little higher then water. And it's speed makes it stick out like a sore thumb to computers who normally might not detect it.


...the SeaRAM missile system was built to destroy multiple incoming missiles. With the threats being detected far away by EA-6b aircraft or other US RADAR installations, it is clear that two SeaRAM missile batteries (each armed with 11 missiles) could take out all 22.

The only countries who could truly have the capability to destroy US ships with these missiles is China and Russia.Each launcher is actually armed with 22 missiles. So if MORE than 22 missiles are launched at one battery, which is the scenario I described above, it is IMPOSSIBLE for every one to be intercepted by the RAM alone. Also, I highly doubt that each RA Missile would hit its target. Have extensive tests about this ever been published?Burke Class has over 60 Standard Missiles and does not carry the evolved sea sparrows, those are out fitted on the carriers. As far as RAM i have no idea how many there are on a launcher.I meantthe number standard missiles that can be fired nearly simultaneously, without reloading. The additional 50 or so missiles in the bay won't help against a saturated anti-ship missile attack.

Huh? A Burke can empty her magazines in a minute or two and can track and engage hundreds of targets, and if there is over flow the tasking can be tasked off to other ships or assets. So one a Burke might fire a SM-2, and a E-2 pick up the over the horizon guidance.

I don't know what you mean in the bay from what I understand from a Fire control officer over at defense talk the VLS works this way

[x] = Stored missile
[/] = firing missile

|
\/ = column
[x][x][x]<- Row
[x][x][/]
[x][/][x]
[/][x][x]
[x][x][x] = possible

[x][x][x]
[/][x][/]
[x][x][x]
[/][/][/]
[x][/][x] = Impossible

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v436/Rabs/mk-41-vls_ddg-62_050903-n-1332y-146.jpg



Essentially No missile can be fired from the same row or column in each sub section so roughly 6 missiles can be fired from the front of the ship and 6 from the rear at the same time or in short short secession. That is extremely unlikely though considering how quickly the ship would deplete its supplies.

Then as soon as the venting system cycles through (several seconds) another salvo can be fired.
According to wikipedia, the Burke class DOES carry Evolved Sea Sparrow missiles. If what you say is true, 13 anti-ship missiles would need to be fired simultaneously at a Burke class destroyer to have a guaranteed penetration of the ESS/Standard defense screen.

[EvilCapitalist]

Each launcher is actually armed with 22 missiles. So if MORE than 22 missiles are launched at one battery, which is the scenario I described above, it is IMPOSSIBLE for every one to be intercepted by the RAM alone. Also, I highly doubt that each RA Missile would hit its target. Have extensive tests about this ever been published?
According to wikipedia, the Burke class DOES carry Evolved Sea Sparrow missiles. If what you say is true, 13 anti-ship missiles would need to be fired simultaneously at a Burke class destroyer to have a guaranteed penetration of the ESS/Standard defense screen.
American naval vessels rarely operate alone...

...by the time you fire off enough missiles to breach the defense screen, your firing position has been found and struck, probably by F-18's flying CAP missions.

[rabs]

According to wikipedia, the Burke class DOES carry Evolved Sea Sparrow missiles. If what you say is true, 13 anti-ship missiles would need to be fired simultaneously at a Burke class destroyer to have a guaranteed penetration of the ESS/Standard defense screen.

Why is that? Assuming that the carrier group is even a little prepared the missiles would be detected far away allowing times for multiple salvos. Your right about the ESSM though, I was a dumb ***.

A Power point
http://www.fmp.navy.mil/FMPACTIVE/BusinessPolicy/FMPDocuments/Documents/parm/parm_31aug/01 AEGIS MOD CAPT DAVE GALE (PMS400F).ppt
(http://www.fmp.navy.mil/FMPACTIVE/BusinessPolicy/FMPDocuments/Documents/parm/parm_31aug/01 AEGIS MOD CAPT DAVE GALE (PMS400F).ppt)




There was a great debate on this over at defense talk with people that work in the industry are active naval personnel and procurement managers and the such. E
Though this debate was mainly about China, scale down Chinas capabilities by a factor of roughly 10 and you have Iran.

Anyway I'l go ahead and post some interesting parts here or if you want you can just go over read it.

http://www.****************/forums/showthread.php?t=3328&page=2

Pay particular attention to anything gf-aust says, hes probably the deepest networked guy there and has more classified information on him than a cia desk jockey and is very very rarely wrong.


F-18's would already be flying CAP. SM-2 can take out anyone that gets past the F-18's. Each carrier has 80 F-18's. The CVBG is spread out over hundreds of kilometers of ocean, all the ships are networked so they share common data, including the E2C Hawkeye's radar. The CVN can direct the DDG's missiles from hundreds of kilometers away. We have real time sat surveillance of your bases. We saw you take off, and we know you're coming. We scrambled the F-18's when you took off, so we'll meet you halfway...

SM-3 just completed the 5th successful intercept of a BM. SM-2 is not tasked for sea-skimming anti-ship missiles. We have Sea Sparrow, RAM, ESSM and Phalanx for that. Also ECM, decoys, etc. SM-2 will shoot down the AC that tries to launch the cruise missile at the CVN, if an AMRAAM doesn't get him first.. A CVBG can throw up a defensive screen 1000km. Your Sunburn has a 150km range. Not to mention that you are flying into the most heavily jammed airspace on the planet. Your radar is a blank screen. You are blind, but the CVBG and every asset in the fleet sees you just fine.

[DehdaR]

Story:

http://en.rian.ru/onlinenews/20060530/48833304.html

Evidence:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-324294841727623684

Question:

Has any countermeasures been tested against SS-N-27B and SS-N-22? Nope.

Conclusion:

It's a waste of time denying that U.S. carriers are vulnerable.

[EvilCapitalist]

Story:

http://en.rian.ru/onlinenews/20060530/48833304.html

Story: Exactly that. Iran also claims to have a cure for AIDS! lmao

Evidence:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-324294841727623684

Evidence?! Do you honestly think that is a real form of proof? It could have just as easily been filmed by a high flying aircraft while the ship was entering port...
Question:

Has any countermeasures been tested against SS-N-27B and SS-N-22? Nope.
Question: has the SS-N-27B and SS-N-22 been tested against American defenses?

Nope.

Conclusion:

It's a waste of time denying that U.S. carriers are vulnerable.
Conclusion:

It is a waste of time denying that U.S. carriers are vulnerable, because the Russian's couldn't take out a carrier with anything short of 100 missiles lobbed at the carrier all at the same time, and then they probably wouldn't even sink the ship!

[DehdaR]

Story: Exactly that. Iran also claims to have a cure for AIDS! lmao


Evidence?! Do you honestly think that is a real form of proof? It could have just as easily been filmed by a high flying aircraft while the ship was entering port...

Question: has the SS-N-27B and SS-N-22 been tested against American defenses?

Nope.


Conclusion:

It is a waste of time denying that U.S. carriers are vulnerable, because the Russian's couldn't take out a carrier with anything short of 100 missiles lobbed at the carrier all at the same time, and then they probably wouldn't even sink the ship!

What a mature response.

[Zraver]

Iran does not hav ethe Sun Burn or Sizzler, she was place dunder an absolute arms embargo back by all 5 member sof the UNPSC in December 2006.

That bieng said, the Sizller simply requires a larger number of escorts per carrier so the outer defensive ring can be pushed past the 10 mile limit with more dedicated ASW and AAA assets in close, and CAP flights farther out with missiels capable of doing anti-sea skimmer work.

[wxtornado]

Story:

http://en.rian.ru/onlinenews/20060530/48833304.html

Evidence:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-324294841727623684

Question:

Has any countermeasures been tested against SS-N-27B and SS-N-22? Nope.

Conclusion:

It's a waste of time denying that U.S. carriers are vulnerable.

This has been debunked a long time ago - use the search function here. This is a non-issue.

[Vladimir80]

I meantthe number standard missiles that can be fired nearly simultaneously, without reloading. The additional 50 or so missiles in the bay won't help against a saturated anti-ship missile attack.

Standard missiles can be rippel fired for as many targets as the system can engage at once. It is far more than two and more like a dozen or more with the upgraded software.


How can a high-flying E-2 pick up a sea-skimming missile?

Top down radar, best way to do it.

[Mohmar 'Deathstrike']

Why is that? Assuming that the carrier group is even a little prepared the missiles would be detected far away allowing times for multiple salvos. Your right about the ESSM though, I was a dumb ***.

A Power point
http://www.fmp.navy.mil/FMPACTIVE/BusinessPolicy/FMPDocuments/Documents/parm/parm_31aug/01 AEGIS MOD CAPT DAVE GALE (PMS400F).ppt
(http://www.fmp.navy.mil/FMPACTIVE/BusinessPolicy/FMPDocuments/Documents/parm/parm_31aug/01 AEGIS MOD CAPT DAVE GALE (PMS400F).ppt)




There was a great debate on this over at defense talk with people that work in the industry are active naval personnel and procurement managers and the such. E
Though this debate was mainly about China, scale down Chinas capabilities by a factor of roughly 10 and you have Iran.

Anyway I'l go ahead and post some interesting parts here or if you want you can just go over read it.

http://www.****************/forums/showthread.php?t=3328&page=2

Pay particular attention to anything gf-aust says, hes probably the deepest networked guy there and has more classified information on him than a cia desk jockey and is very very rarely wrong.

How come the URL is censored?

If the airspace is jammed for whoever "you" is, how come it's not jammed for US radio and radar?

Do we know anything about success rates of US anti-anti-ship weapons (the whole lot of ship-based ones: SM, ESS, RAM, Phalanx CIWS) or are they classsified?

[rabs]

How come the URL is censored?

If the airspace is jammed for whoever "you" is, how come it's not jammed for US radio and radar?

That exact same question was asked over there and answered



Ever hear of AESA? Spread Spectrum technology? China's best radars use passive phased arrays. Twt tubes and ferrite phase shifters. They operate on static frequencies, and can be jammed by saturating the twt tubes with signals. AESA radar elements have their own t/r modules (MMICs). They can shift frequencies electronically, and all the elements can be working together on separate frequencies. i.e. They can ignore the jamming signals.


No matter what I do the thing is sensored but

www.defensetalk.com

go the forums. naval subsection 4th page about midway down youll see a thread entitled Is Is China capable of crippling US CSF's in Chinese ses?

[Mohmar 'Deathstrike']

That exact same question was asked over there and answered





No matter what I do the thing is sensored but

www.defensetalk.com

go the forums. naval subsection 4th page about midway down youll see a thread entitled IsAh so the jamming signal is broadcast to all friendly units so they know what exactly they need to filter out (by "they" I mean data processors of course)?
Pretty cool technology, this AESA is. Seems to be heavily dominated by American companies with only a few European, Israeli, Japanese and Russian models. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Active_Electronically_Scanned_Array

[PERSPOLIS]

supersonic sub launched long range jam proof heavy warhead missile

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q5KhMXsE4T0&mode=related&search=

[PERSPOLIS]

check it at 3 seconds.

it looks like the missile swims under water and then exits the water at a right angle to the swim path. thus no one can detect the sub lauching position.

[Nubian Warrior]

I wonder how deep the submarines can go and what is their range.

[PERSPOLIS]

USN BMSub launch from 30 feet underwater at 3 knots.