The old Soviet Charlie class and Oscar-class cruise missile nuclear submarines (SSGN) were designed to launch a bunch of large anti-ship cruise missiles from hundreds of miles out (if they could coordinate with spotting aircraft or satellites to mark targets over the horizon). The Oscar subs carry 24 × P-700 Granit (SS-N-19 Shipwreck) cruise missiles with 750 kilograms (1,650 lb) HE or 500 kt nuclear warheads.

Project 949 (Granit) and Project 949A (Antey) are Soviet Navy/Russian Navy cruise missile submarines (NATO reporting names: Oscar-I and Oscar-II respectively).

Project 949 submarines were the largest cruise missile submarines in service, until the Ohio-class SSGN cruise missile submarine converted from SSBN and returned to service on October 15, 2007. They are the fourth largest class of submarines in terms of displacement and length. Only the Typhoon-class Soviet/Russian submarines, the American Ohio-class ballistic missile submarines and the Russian Borei-class submarines are larger.

The first submarine of Project 949 was laid down in the mid-1970s and was commissioned in 1980. In 1982 an updated and larger version (Project 949A) replaced the earlier version. In total thirteen submarines were constructed. The Oscar class was designed to attack NATO carrier battle groups using long-range SS-N-19 "Shipwreck" anti-ship missiles and targeting data provided by the EORSAT satellite system. In the financial problems that followed the fall of the Soviet Union the Oscar class was prioritized by the Russian navy and when many older submarine classes were retired the Oscar class remained active in both the Northern and Pacific fleets. In 2011, five submarines are currently active with several more in reserve or waiting for repairs. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oscar-class_submarine

USS Ohio SSGN Conversion. "040315-N-0000H-001 Bremerton, Wash. (March 15, 2004) - Night falls at Puget Sound Naval Shipyard and Intermediate Maintenance Facility, Bremerton, Wash., as work continues on the strategic missile submarine USS Ohio (SSGN-726). The USS Ohio is one of four Trident Submarines undergoing conversion to a new class of guided missile submarines. The SSGN conversion program takes Ohio-class ballistic missile submarines through an extensive overhaul that will improve their capability to support and launch up to 154 Tomahawk missiles. They will also provide the capability to carry other payloads, such as unmanned underwater vehicles (UUVs), unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) and Special Forces equipment. This new platform will also have the capability to carry and support more than 66 Navy SEALs (SEa, Air and Land) and insert them clandestinely into potential conflict areas.

- USS Ohio being converted from an SSBN to an SSGN in March 2004.

Omsk, with her missile hatches open. Sister ship of the Kursk. Both are Russian Project 949A Antey class guided missile submarines, NATO designation Oscar II class. http://chrisjnugent.com/2015/03/05

http://www.forbes.com/sites/markadomanis/2015/05/01/many-western-firms-are-still-cautiously-optimistic-about-the-russian-market/

>Surely with the way the Russian economy is they ain't going to build a dedicated aircraft carrier killer submarine?

Meanwhile, in America... we've been proposing much the same as part of the SSBN-X and SSN-X prigrams...

>>18952
66 SEAL's on one Sub? Holy crap where do they fit them!

>>19082
it's on an SSGN variant, where the tirdent missile tubes are replaced with a higher number of smaller-dimension Tomahawk missile tubes, This frees up extra space for more or better electronics equipment and berthing for SEAL/s for special insertion missions and iniital invasion support.

>>19082
US Ohio ballistic missile submarine refitted to transport 66 SEALs & 154 cruise missiles.

US SEAL insertion submarine.

This is some James Bond stuff.

US SSN-774 Virginia-class new attack submarine Centurion graphic.

  About submarines and QT3.14 electronics tech.

>>19084
I don't get why they opted for Tomahawks

They have an insane 1000 mile range and 1000 pound warhead whereas the point of subs is parking immediately next to the coast dominating littoral space, attacking soft targets to help the formation of beachheads

I can get having a few Tomahawks on board for special missions such as going around defenses or striking deeply... but wouldn't it help invasions more for the sub to be able to fire shorter ranged lighter missiles with smaller warheads of which ten times more than Tomahawks can be carried?

A sub carrying 150 Tomahawks could carry 700 Harpoons... imagine the independence of operation, imagine not having to rearm and providing continuous support for the entire invasion

>>19092
To keep the subs away from danger and Tomahawks are pretty much the only cruise missile the US navy has. They have a land attack version of the Harpoon (launched by aircraft like the F/A-18 Hornet).

US subs can launch Harpoon sea-skimming anti-ship missiles from their torpedo tubes.

I read a while back the navy was experimenting with a drone bomber version of the Tomahawk that flies out to the target, drops small bombs on it and flies back to the launching area (airfield, aircraft carrier or a capture net on a frigate). This would halve the range, but having a reusable cruise missile is advantageous and cost-effective.

- US SSN-688 Los Angeles-class attack submarine with her 12 Tomahawk VLS doors open.
A portside bow view of the fore section of USS Santa Fe tied up at the pier in February 1994: The doors of the Mark 36 vertical launch system for the Tomahawk missiles are in the "open" position.

Los Angeles-class submarines carry about 25 torpedo tube-launched weapons, as well as Mark 67 and Mark 60 CAPTOR mines and were designed to launch Tomahawk cruise missiles, and Harpoon missiles horizontally (from the torpedo tubes). The last 31 boats of this class also have 12 dedicated vertical launching system (VLS) tubes for launching Tomahawks. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Los_Angeles-class_submarine

The Soviet and Russian cruise missile subs have gigantic anti-ship missiles with lesser range, such as this Soviet Oscar-I Class nuclear-powered cruise missile attack submarine. Each Oscar sub is equipped with 24 SS-N-19 (NATO designation Shipwreck) P-700 Granit 550-kilometer-range missiles.

The Granit/Shipwreck missiles weigh 7,000 kg (15,400 lb), have a length of 10 m (33 ft), a diameter of 0.85 m (33 in), a warhead weight of 750 kg (1,653 lb), HE (unknown composition, probably RDX or similar) or a 500 kiloton fission-fusion thermonuclear weapon. Operational range of 625 km (388 mi), speed Mach 1.6 (low altitude) - 2.5+ (high altitude).

US Harpoon missiles weigh 1,523 lb (691 kg) with booster, length Air-launched: 12.6 ft (3.8 m); Surface- and submarine-launched: 15 ft (4.6 m), diameter of 13.5 in (34 cm), and have a warhead of 488 pounds (221 kg). Operational
range in excess of 67 nmi (124 km) depending on launch platform, speed 537 miles per hour (864 km/h)(240 m/s).

US Tomahawk cruise missiles weigh 2,900 lb (1,300 kg), 3,500 lb (1,600 kg) with booster, length without booster: 18 ft 3 in (5.56 m) and with booster: 20 ft 6 in (6.25 m), diameter 20.4 in (0.52 m), with a W80 nuclear warhead (retired) or a conventional warhead weighing 1,000 pounds (450 kg) of high explosive or a submunitions dispenser with BLU-97/B Combined Effects Bomb or PBXN. Operational range: Block II TLAM-A – 1,350 nmi (1,550 mi; 2,500 km) Block III TLAM-C, Block IV TLAM-E – 900 nmi (1,000 mi; 1,700 km), Block III TLAM-D – 700 nmi (810 mi; 1,300 km), Speed: subsonic; about 550 mph (890 km/h).

- An elevated port side view of the forward section of a Soviet Oscar Class nuclear-powered attack submarine. (Soviet Military Power, 1986)

When playing Cold War naval wargames, Oscar subs are ruinously destructive to fleets, convoys, and carrier battlegroups. You have to destroy them before they get within missile launching range (388 miles). They can launch while submerged and if a bunch of Oscars are ganging up on a fleet, they can present serious problems.

  Ah yes Russian anti-ship missiles. Fun stuff.

>>19106
gifified

>>19122
Military ppl usually stuff these targets with a ton of explosives to amplify the damage and actually mask the extent of destrusction so I guess the bigger exlosion was just one of the secondaries. As far as I understand, the real purpose of anti-ship missile isn't actually explode it to the tiny bits, but break it's hull and set it on fire.

The difference between a Harpoon and the P-270 Moskit used in the video;

The Harpoon carries a warhead weighing 220kg (about 480lbs) going 850km/h (about 530mph). The longest ranged Harpoon flies 315km, the latest model 280km.

While the Moskit carries a 300kg (660lbs) warhead going about Mach 3 (whatever that is in normal-people speed) for a max range of about 240km.

Ofcourse the Moskit is an older design and has been superseded, at least in theory, by the P-800 Oniks and in the near future by the BrahMos.

>>19124
>ton of explosives
Like the ones you would find on a warship?

>>19124
That's actually a cargo ship target and the explosion is a minimal fuel fire not the actual warhead

Moskit has a small 750lb warhead, an impact from a 1700lb Granit or 2200lb heavy anti-carrier missile warhead would have been something to see

>>19126
> Mach 3 (whatever that is in normal-people speed)

Thats 3 675 km/h.

Thats why Moskit so fucking huge.

Harpoon is poor choice nowadays, because its subsonic and get raped by ship's CIWS and SAM instantly. Same goes for tomohawk.

Russian missles are fucking fast and they have .... fucking armor, to protect from anti-missle fragmentation warheads.

P-700 has inter-pack datalink, they prioritize and distribute target between themselves, without help of launching platform.

>>19141
>fucking armor, to protect from anti-missle fragmentation warheads.

[citation needed]

nothing ive read indicated armor, or even hinted at it

>>19158
It's not commonly known, or even much talked about, I'll give you that
Bazalt was first, Vulkan is an improved version with titanium armor, and Granit is a cheaper development of the previous two
paralay.iboards.ru/download/file.php?id=16677
Nowadays instead of fitting armor they fit ECM and moar speed because its cheaper weight-wise

>>19141
It is the old ironic tale of the road not taken, western development in this area is crippled because western nations are the ultimate at naval air combat

The American navy has a history of using aircraft to kill ships so American initial forays into anti ship munitions were light and aircraft-mountable, similar to guided tiny tims
And this focus on Naval Aviation continued as some kind of ingrained tradition if you consider Exocet, Robotsystem 15 and Harpoon were all built to be dropped off aircraft
This unfortunately limits size, room for improvement, and capability small fuel tanks = low range/speed, light weight = anemic warhead etc to such an extent that modern glide bombs can often outperform such light anti ship missiles

Conversely Eastern navies didn't do much in the way of naval aviation to attack enemy ships, so their first and last anti-ship systems were torpedoes
As a direct result, Soviets initial forays into guided anti ship missiles and subsequent traditions gave birth to missiles such as Termit, which looked more like huge airborne torpedoes
This, by pure chance, translated into more room for speed, warhead, armor, ecm, guidance systems which Soviets could take advantage of later on

>>19158
> Vital parts of the missile are armored to increase penetration against fire from Phalanx-type close-in weapon systems and against fragments of closely exploding air-defense missiles.

http://warfare.be/db/catid/312/linkid/2082/title/ss-n-19-shipwreck-/-p-700-granit/

>>19218
The Russians apparently felt that tactical missile systems could do an aircraft's job in case the skies above the target could not be sufficiently secured for a successful run while the US Airforces felt that every problem should be solved by sending in more pilots.

Meaning that the Russians probably wouldn't do Wild Weasle either - they'll just send in a teaser and have missiles drop submunitions on the region once the teaser has a positive lock on the SAM site or its radar.

>>19218
My understanding is that the Russians were fairly reliant on air-dropped ASM systems, especially nuclear-tipped ones as standoff weapons to kill shipping. Their surface navy was never hugely impressive and had limited bluewater capability (the Kirovs are a neat concept, though), so a lot of their shipping raid capability was in the Tu-22M "Backfire" armed with Kh-22 missiles and Tu-95s as missile trucks with more Kh-22s. That, and their subs, which I understand scared the hell out of NATO.

>>19435
The reason why America developed the SEAD doctrine is because pretty much anyone we attack would have to be across an ocean, so we needed to risk using airplanes to destroy anti-air defenses

The Soviets don't need to risk that, so their version of SEAD is just their regular army under the cover of their own SAM umbrella, and putting some anti radiation missiles on support aircraft
It's simultaneous, basically by the time the Russians finish SEAD their tanks are also in your capital

>>19441
The first Soviet attempts at ALCM was AS-1, an absolute shit missile
The engine on it was often sheathed in fuel so any malfunction would result in fires
It wouldn't separate properly because it was fixed in the lateral axis but not vertical, and as it flew at the same speed as the bomber it would yoyo back into the launching aircraft after separation
It was decided to be mounted on wings instead of belly to minimize chances of hitting the fuselage, but the missile was so heavy that turning with it would result in bomber wings falling off, which reduced flight parameters of early bombers
The problem was eventually solved by making missiles faster than aircraft so the aircraft launching it wouldn't be hit by any movement from the missile, but by that time Soviet aircrews hated the thing and would call it the little devil
The AS-2, 3, 4 and 5 were at least rocket boosted then jet sustained, but all were much faster than launching aircraft

Eventually Soviets said fuck it and put AS-1 on ground launchers
No weight limitation meant they started experimenting with improving it with active radar and a bunch of other junk, from this they eventually scaled it up to make P-1 which is their first large ship-mounted anti-ship missile, and where our story really takes off
Soviets discovered they like ground launchers a lot and this is how their love affair with TELAR and shipborne AShMs began

As for Soviet bomber pilots... well they learned not to trust missiles, in order to carry the much improved replacements for AS-1 the Russian bombers had to have a commissar on board to assure the aircrews
To my knowledge Soviets didn't try to put anti ship missiles on a smaller jet until the AS-13, although even that was mounted on the Su-24 bomber

Meanwhile America had very successful airborne systems right out of WWII and more confidence with Bombers
The LBD Gargoyle already had a much sleeker look than AS-1 many years previous, and the wildly successful AGM-12 Bullpup was capable of taking on shipping from a tiny jet like the Skyhawk
The only time America came close to following in the footsteps of Soviet large missiles was project Hound Dog... if we had ported that to ships we would have much more capable surface combatant armament today

>>19442
Playing the board (or living room carpet) wargame Harpoon, the old 1955 AS-1 Komet (NATO reporting name: Kennel) anti-ship missile was not very effective, but could at least be used as decoys when flying along with more dangerous bombers and missiles. Slow, short-ranged and inaccurate, but ships cannot ignore them. F-14 Tomcat interceptors groan to discover that they expended their Phoenix missiles downing Komets when more dangerous AS-18 Kazoo missiles were following.

- Kh-59M Ovod-MK2 (AS-18 'Kazoo') anti-shipping variant with a turbojet engine and larger warhead. Range 115 km.

>>19443
Oops!
The Kh-59M is the AS-18 Kazoo, but the Kh-59MK2 Stealth Standoff (also Kh59M2?) AS-22 stealth standoff version, rocket or turbofan engine, shown in MAKS 2015. Light compact tactical stealth ALCM with a range of 290km (for export) and 550km (for internal) versions. Rumors have told that India will get "special" export version with a range extended up to 350km.

MAKS 2015: KTRV showcases Kh-59MK2 aircraft guided missile upgrades
Nikolai Novichkov, Moscow - IHS Jane's Defence Weekly
02 September 2015 http://www.janes.com/article/53970/maks-2015-ktrv-showcases-kh-59mk2-aircraft-guided-missile-upgrades
Among the most significant weapons to be exhibited at MAKS 2015 was an updated version of the Kh-59 stand-off land attack missile, called the Kh-59MK2.

Developed by the Raduga Design Bureau, part of Russia's Tactical Missiles Corporation (KTRV), the new variant - about to enter flight testing - has been configured to fit in the internal weapons bay of the Sukhoi PAK FA (T-50) fighter aircraft. Additionally, the body of the missile has been optimised for a reduced radar cross section (RCS).

The new, stealthy Kh-59MK2 is 4.2 m long, has a wingspan of 2.5 m, and a 0.4x0.4 m cross section with its wings and fins folded. Although currently designated as part of the Kh-59 family, it is expected to receive an entirely new designation in the future.

As for the original Kh-59, the missile is intended to strike a variety of fixed ground targets, including targets with low radar, infrared (IR), and optical background contrast, known position co-ordinates, and target area information features.

Powered by a Saturn 37-04 bypass turbojet (or a 50MT turbojet for export), the modernised Kh-59MK2 has an acknowledged range of 290 km. It incorporates an INS and a satellite guidance system (GPS and GLONASS) that can provide mid-course guidance, and an electro-optical (EO) terminal guidance system that gives a circular error probable of 3 m in either day or night operations. One or more missions can be loaded into that system to provide optional guidance on different targets.

The missile can fly as low as 50 m over the ground, with warhead options including a 310 kg penetrator or submunitions.

This thread is interesting to me in light of the widely discussed speech last month given in Russia:

http://www.unz.com/article/the-implications-of-russias-new-weapons/

https://www.globalresearch.ca/newly-revealed-russian-weapons-systems-political-implications/5631579