good read...Enjoy

utelore

Junior Member
VIP Professional
Last July, they dubbed it operation Summer Pulse: a simultaneous mustering of US Naval forces, world wide, that was unprecedented. According to the Navy, it was the first exercise of its new Fleet Response Plan (FRP), the purpose of which was to enable the Navy to respond quickly to an international crisis. The Navy wanted to show its increased force readiness, that is, its capacity to rapidly move combat power to any global hot spot. Never in the history of the US Navy had so many carrier battle groups been involved in a single operation. Even the US fleet massed in the Gulf and eastern Mediterranean during operation Desert Storm in 1991, and in the recent invasion of Iraq, never exceeded six battle groups. But last July and August there were seven of them on the move, each battle group consisting of a Nimitz-class aircraft carrier with its full complement of 7-8 supporting ships, and 70 or more assorted aircraft. Most of the activity, according to various reports, was in the Pacific, where the fleet participated in joint exercises with the Taiwanese navy.

But why so much naval power underway at the same time? What potential world crisis could possibly require more battle groups than were deployed during the recent invasion of Iraq? In past years, when the US has seen fit to "show the flag" or flex its naval muscle, one or two carrier groups have sufficed. Why this global show of power? The news headlines about the joint-maneuvers in the South China Sea read: "Saber Rattling Unnerves China", and: "Huge Show of Force Worries Chinese." But the reality was quite different, and, as we shall see, has grave ramifications for the continuing US military presence in the Persian Gulf; because operation Summer Pulse reflected a high-level Pentagon decision that an unprecedented show of strength was needed to counter what is viewed as a growing threat in the particular case of China, because of Peking's newest Sovremenny-class destroyers recently acquired from Russia.

"Nonsense!" you are probably thinking. That's impossible. How could a few picayune destroyers threaten the US Pacific fleet?" Here is where the story thickens: Summer Pulse amounted to a tacit acknowledgement, obvious to anyone paying attention, that the United States has been eclipsed in an important area of military technology, and that this qualitative edge is now being wielded by others, including the Chinese; because those otherwise very ordinary destroyers were, in fact, launching platforms for Russian-made 3M-82 Moskit anti-ship cruise missiles (NATO designation: SS-N-22 Sunburn), a weapon for which the US Navy currently has no defense. Here I am not suggesting that the US status of lone world Superpower has been surpassed. I am simply saying that a new global balance of power is emerging, in which other individual states may, on occasion, achieve "an asymmetric advantage" over the US. And this, in my view, explains the immense scale of Summer Pulse. The US show last summer of overwhelming strength was calculated to send a message.

The Sunburn Missile

I was shocked when I learned the facts about these Russian-made cruise missiles. The problem is that so many of us suffer from two common misperceptions. The first follows from our assumption that Russia is militarily weak, as a result of the breakup of the old Soviet system. Actually, this is accurate, but it does not reflect the complexities. Although the Russian navy continues to rust in port, and the Russian army is in disarray, in certain key areas Russian technology is actually superior to our own. And nowhere is this truer than in the vital area of anti-ship cruise missile technology, where the Russians hold at least a ten-year lead over the US. The second misperception has to do with our complacency in general about missiles-as-weapons probably attributable to the pathetic performance of Saddam Hussein's Scuds during the first Gulf war: a dangerous illusion that I will now attempt to rectify.

Many years ago, Soviet planners gave up trying to match the US Navy ship for ship, gun for gun, and dollar for dollar. The Soviets simply could not compete with the high levels of US spending required to build up and maintain a huge naval armada. They shrewdly adopted an alternative approach based on strategic defense. They searched for weaknesses, and sought relatively inexpensive ways to exploit those weaknesses. The Soviets succeeded: by developing several supersonic anti-ship missiles, one of which, the SS-N-22 Sunburn, has been called "the most lethal missile in the world today."

After the collapse of the Soviet Union the old military establishment fell upon hard times. But in the late1990s Moscow awakened to the under-utilized potential of its missile technology to generate desperately needed foreign exchange. A decision was made to resuscitate selected programs, and, very soon, Russian missile technology became a hot export commodity. Today, Russian missiles are a growth industry generating much-needed cash for Russia, with many billions in combined sales to India, China, Viet Nam, Cuba, and also Iran. In the near future this dissemination of advanced technology is likely to present serious challenges to the US. Some have even warned that the US Navy's largest ships, the massive carriers, have now become floating death traps, and should for this reason be mothballed.

The Sunburn missile has never seen use in combat, to my knowledge, which probably explains why its fearsome capabilities are not more widely recognized. Other cruise missiles have been used, of course, on several occasions, and with devastating results. During the Falklands War, French-made Exocet missiles, fired from Argentine fighters, sunk the HMS Sheffield and another ship. And, in 1987, during the Iran-Iraq war, the USS Stark was nearly cut in half by a pair of Exocets while on patrol in the Persian Gulf. On that occasion US Aegis radar picked up the incoming Iraqi fighter (a French-made Mirage), and tracked its approach to within 50 miles. The radar also "saw" the Iraqi plane turn about and return to its base. But radar never detected the pilot launch his weapons. The sea-skimming Exocets came smoking in under radar and were only sighted by human eyes moments before they ripped into the Stark, crippling the ship and killing 37 US sailors.

The 1987 surprise attack on the Stark exemplifies the dangers posed by anti-ship cruise missiles. And the dangers are much more serious in the case of the Sunburn, whose specs leave the sub-sonic Exocet in the dust. Not only is the Sunburn much larger and faster, it has far greater range and a superior guidance system. Those who have witnessed its performance trials invariably come away stunned. According to one report, when the Iranian Defense Minister Ali Shamkhani visited Moscow in October 2001 he requested a test firing of the Sunburn, which the Russians were only too happy to arrange. So impressed was Ali Shamkhani that he placed an order for an undisclosed number of the missiles.

The Sunburn can deliver a 200-kiloton nuclear payload, or: a 750-pound conventional warhead, within a range of 100 miles, more than twice the range of the Exocet. The Sunburn combines a Mach 2.1 speed (two times the speed of sound) with a flight pattern that hugs the deck and includes "violent end maneuvers" to elude enemy defenses. The missile was specifically designed to defeat the US Aegis radar defense system. Should a US Navy Phalanx point defense somehow manage to detect an incoming Sunburn missile, the system has only seconds to calculate a fire solution not enough time to take out the intruding missile. The US Phalanx defense employs a six-barreled gun that fires 3,000 depleted-uranium rounds a minute, but the gun must have precise coordinates to destroy an intruder "just in time."

The Sunburn's combined supersonic speed and payload size produce tremendous kinetic energy on impact, with devastating consequences for ship and crew. A single one of these missiles can sink a large warship, yet costs considerably less than a fighter jet. Although the Navy has been phasing out the older Phalanx defense system, its replacement, known as the Rolling Action Missile (RAM) has never been tested against the weapon it seems destined to one day face in combat. Implications For US Forces in the Gulf

The US Navy's only plausible defense against a robust weapon like the Sunburn missile is to detect the enemy's approach well ahead of time, whether destroyers, subs, or fighter-bombers, and defeat them before they can get in range and launch their deadly cargo. For this purpose US AWACs radar planes assigned to each naval battle group are kept aloft on a rotating schedule. The planes "see" everything within two hundred miles of the fleet, and are complemented with intelligence from orbiting satellites.

But US naval commanders operating in the Persian Gulf face serious challenges that are unique to the littoral, i.e., coastal, environment. A glance at a map shows why: The Gulf is nothing but a large lake, with one narrow outlet, and most of its northern shore, i.e., Iran, consists of mountainous terrain that affords a commanding tactical advantage over ships operating in Gulf waters. The rugged northern shore makes for easy concealment of coastal defenses, such as mobile missile launchers, and also makes their detection problematic. Although it was not widely reported, the US actually lost the battle of the Scuds in the first Gulf War termed "the great Scud hunt" and for similar reasons.

Saddam Hussein's mobile Scud launchers proved so difficult to detect and destroy over and over again the Iraqis fooled allied reconnaissance with decoys that during the course of Desert Storm the US was unable to confirm even a single kill. This proved such an embarrassment to the Pentagon, afterwards, that the unpleasant stats were buried in official reports. But the blunt fact is that the US failed to stop the Scud attacks. The launches continued until the last few days of the conflict. Luckily, the Scud's inaccuracy made it an almost useless weapon. At one point General Norman Schwarzkopf quipped dismissively to the press that his soldiers had a greater chance of being struck by lightning in Georgia than by a Scud in Kuwait.

But that was then, and it would be a grave error to allow the Scud's ineffectiveness to blur the facts concerning this other missile. The Sunburn's amazing accuracy was demonstrated not long ago in a live test staged at sea by the Chinese and observed by US spy planes. Not only did the Sunburn missile destroy the dummy target ship, it scored a perfect bull's eye, hitting the crosshairs of a large "X" mounted on the ship's bridge. The only word that does it justice, awesome, has become a cliché, hackneyed from hyperbolic excess.

The US Navy has never faced anything in combat as formidable as the Sunburn missile. But this will surely change if the US and Israel decide to wage a so-called preventive war against Iran to destroy its nuclear infrastructure. Storm clouds have been darkening over the Gulf for many months. In recent years Israel upgraded its air force with a new fleet of long-range F-15 fighter-bombers, and even more recently took delivery of 5,000 bunker-buster bombs from the US weapons that many observers think are intended for use against Iran.
 

Dizasta

New Member
Registered Member
This is indeed a very intriguing article. Informative and thought provoking! Question is whether the Chinese are taking a leaf out of Russian book and directing attention toward enhancing indigenously, the sea skimming cruise missle technology!?

moderators edit: in future, don't use the thickness in the whole text
 
Last edited by a moderator:

bd popeye

The Last Jedi
VIP Professional
Interesting article. Could you please post the source? Thanks.

I wish I could refute some of the claims made in the article like some of the techno geeks in this forum do. But I can't. I'm not that geeky.:eek:

It is stupid to talk about the Gulf War and bring up what failed and what did not work then. Technology has advanced so mch in the last 15 years. And he is guessing that Russian cruise missile technology is ten years ahead of the US?..Speed is not everything. A single Sunburn could not sink a USN CVN. The US has been preparing for this sort of confrontation for some time.

This is intriguing though...
The US Navy has never faced anything in combat as formidable as the Sunburn missile. But this will surely change if the US and Israel decide to wage a so-called preventive war against Iran to destroy its nuclear infrastructure. Storm clouds have been darkening over the Gulf for many months. In recent years Israel upgraded its air force with a new fleet of long-range F-15 fighter-bombers, and even more recently took delivery of 5,000 bunker-buster bombs from the US weapons that many observers think are intended for use against Iran.

Espically considering that all of the Iranian top military commanders were killed today in a plane crash!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


Coincidence? A covert operation? Or a precursour to war? I hope not.
 

jatt

Junior Member
But they have tested against Mach 5 missiles and Krypton. Its not speed alone thats gonna beat the USN or keep them at bay. It has to be massive missile attacks. Like the Soviets were going to do with Backfires armed with AShM. That and Iran probabily doesn't have enough to threaten the USN. But all this aside does the USN even need to do anything? They already have troops in Afganistan and Iraq with operational bases. Those Sunburns would be knocked out by the initial airstrike in the even of a war.:)
 

utelore

Junior Member
VIP Professional
here ya go Popeye
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


Very far left site but the artical was interesting although its intent is to scare the individiual reader from supporting a surgical strike against Iran
 

crazyinsane105

Junior Member
VIP Professional
Agreed with Utelore. However, it is still a very interesting read. I read this article before, but I always forgot to post it here.:confused: Anyway bd popeye, technology for shooting down missiles sure has improved over the last 15 years, but so has technology that makes missiles more stealthy. So even though the author is very extreme, he does get his point across that the Sunburn is a deadly missile, but the US most likely does have some sort of defense against it.
 

bd popeye

The Last Jedi
VIP Professional
utelore said:
here ya go Popeye
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


Very far left site but the artical was interesting although its intent is to scare the individiual reader from supporting a surgical strike against Iran

Those left wing nut cases just keep smokin' that weed don't they? What a bunch of dribble. They are nothing but alarmist. Twisting fiction into facts. I was reading a post about the movement of CV's making it sound like the US was ready bach in March '05 to attack Iran. I found it intresting that the deaths of the Iranian military high command were not posted. I guess they don't want facts to goof up their fantasy world.

Anyway bd popeye, technology for shooting down missiles sure has improved over the last 15 years, but so has technology that makes missiles more stealthy. So even though the author is very extreme, he does get his point across that the Sunburn is a deadly missile, but the US most likely does have some sort of defense against it

I agree 100%!..Anybody got any video of a Sunburn sinking what ever it sank? Love to see that!!
 
Last edited:

utelore

Junior Member
VIP Professional
yep dribble......buuuuuut those supersonic ASM sure do scare the hell out of me. I think the kenitic force caused by the speed could do massive damage. Look at the falklands were many of the exocet did not explode but caused damgage By KE and rocket fuel and they were not even Supersonic. Myself I dont think Carrier would enter the gulf when such strike happens later this year. I think it will be carried out by cruise missile and B-2......cheers ute.
 

Indianfighter

Junior Member
The maximum speed of cruising of the Brahmos missiles is Mach 2.9 as compared to Mach 2.1 of the Sunburn during high-altitude cruise.

Besides, the range of the Brahmos is 290 kms as compared to 100kms for the Sunburn. The reason is that the Brahmos carries a warhead of 200 kgs, whereas 750 pounds is carried by the Sunburn missile.

The guidance of the Brahmos is by GPS/INS and by Active radar and Artificial Intelligence (for cluster attack). A high-speed datalink between UAV and Brahmos is being developed.

The guidance of the aerial version of the Sunburn missile is by auto-pilot from the source aircraft, with possible course correction by the pilot(Source Fas.org).

Thus, the Sunburn missile is not a true Fire-and-forget missile, whereas the Brahmos is, and can guarantee pin-point accuracy of hitting the target.

But, the development of a continuous datalink between the UAV and the Brahmos missile is under development(similar to the sunburn missile).
 

Red not Dead

Junior Member
VIP Professional
Indianfighter said:
The maximum speed of cruising of the Brahmos missiles is Mach 2.9 as compared to Mach 2.1 of the Sunburn during high-altitude cruise.

Besides, the range of the Brahmos is 290 kms as compared to 100kms for the Sunburn. The reason is that the Brahmos carries a warhead of 200 kgs, whereas 750 pounds is carried by the Sunburn missile.

The guidance of the Brahmos is by GPS/INS and by Active radar and Artificial Intelligence (for cluster attack). A high-speed datalink between UAV and Brahmos is being developed.

The guidance of the aerial version of the Sunburn missile is by auto-pilot from the source aircraft, with possible course correction by the pilot(Source Fas.org).

Thus, the Sunburn missile is not a true Fire-and-forget missile, whereas the Brahmos is, and can guarantee pin-point accuracy of hitting the target.

But, the development of a continuous datalink between the UAV and the Brahmos missile is under development(similar to the sunburn missile).


The Sunburn is fearsome, but has it's problems...the missiles sold to the Iranians were silo-oriented. Thus they couldn't be moved as easily as a mobile Unit. Now if russia has played a fair game to the US the sunburn silos would be a primary target. If the russians have sold mobile units then I think you could have the very same trouble Israel got with Scuds back in 1991.

And It's amazing how some in the US crowd seem to totally ignore the other side. If you made progress in EWS maybe the Iranians too figured out a way to insure a better striking ability to their missiles.

And turning fiction in facts has been a US conservative habit lately.:rolleyes:
 
Top