Original Posted By Artikel
Greetings to all readers and passerby.

As the title said.. i'm now thinking a bit about new generation of anti ship missiles. However now i have difficulties to decide WHICH should i considered "the best".. Well why "which" because my thought end up in two kinds of missile and each of them has their own merit.

These are Subsonic and Supersonic missile. Although general consensus may regard that subsonic AsHm ..in front of today's modern ship defense may have even lower survivability than her supersonic sibling..they can be stealthier..having more efficient and smaller turbojet or turbofan engine and can make use of lifting body airframe(although this may be achieved in expense of weapon integrations lifting body may require special launcher) ..which is efficient (means having higher Lift to drag ratio)in low altitude..and lower RCS than axisymmetric (dat cylindrical of typical missile layout). Subsonic weapons can also be smaller while essentially having same range or even slightly above their supersonic sibling (Turbofan > Ramjet in ISP-period) thus can be carried in greater number in small ship (say corvettes).

However the weaknesses of subsonic weapon lies in their long time of flight, usually longer than weapons having supersonic speed, this increases probability of enemy spotted this weapon in flight thus exposure time to enemy firepower is likely higher than her supersonic sibling. During terminal engagement Low RCS may be meaningless as the radar return is stronger as the missile is getting closer to the target.. unless the missile carries some sort of countermeasure or able to saturate enemy defenses (multiple number).. then the missile will be killed.

Now we head to the supersonic sibling.

Well all i said for above mentioned characteristics of subsonic missiles most are essentially the opposite for supersonic. She will be larger, heavier, maybe shorter ranged but much faster than subsonic sibling although this may cost of high infra red signature, that could be detected from a great distance.RCS may not be a problem..one can have low RCS for supersonic platform.

However once entering terminal engagement.. Enemy reaction time (thus exposure to enemy firepower)would be severely cut.. especially when multiple weapons are used.. in single weapon engagement however.. she would fare no better than her subsonic sibling.

Another difficulty lies in firepower.. as we know to achieve long firing range.. typical supersonic AsHm's are larger than her subsonic sibling to carry necessary fuel thus limiting firepower. Cost may also be higher depending on how big the missile and the material used for construction.. typically longer range missile may cost higher than smaller one.

Ok now we have visited some well overgeneralized characteristics of today's anti ship missiles..and their respective tradeoffs.
Now let's visit the FUTURE

So as far as i can see.. there are still two major trends... but quite different... the subsonic sisters got stealthier while supersonic sisters got faster..evolved to hypersonic sister. These two trends however despite their "route" have similar goal, to cut enemy reaction time and survive all the way to its target.

Nonetheless .. these two trends aren't come in cheap (RAM=Expensive and so are the alloy for hypersonic girls).. while affordability is one of my goal. For my requirement essentially i need a "universal AshM" (can be carried and launched by planes, subs,ships and ground based installations be it mobile or static batteries) which weighs around 1-3 tons at most..carrying 300 Kg of warhead.. can be fired from torpedo tubes of 650mm caliber and range of 400 Km and can be carried by most ships including FAC (fast attack craft) and ground based launchers based on truck. Guidance are anything that can get the missile to the target and hit....no limitations but it will likely that radar guidance will trump as hero...while other form guidance like IIR or radiometer are the sidekick.

Survivability of both launch platform and the missiles are imperative requirement..the launching platform must be able to carry at least eight of this missiles for successful saturation strike of typical modern frigate equipped with Standard Missile type weapons and Phalanx/goalkeeper CIWS.

Shape and other properties of the missile ? well kinda sketchy but some things are clear.
-Missile's length is determined by availability of space on board.. which likely limit the length to 8 meters max
-Missile's diameter is 640mm at most.. any appendages such as wings or perhaps engine inlet have to be folded.
-For platform integration reason.. lifting body may not be applicable..thus leaving axisymmetric airframe as viable alternative.
-Total weight of the armament would be around let's take three tonnes at most leaving us with 24 tons of weight (correction..actually it's more like 3,7 ton per missile).. for the safe side we should add the launching system's weight .. likely add another 5-10 tons of hardware depending on the launch method to the ship.
-In order to achieve covertness of operation, optimum cruise altitude is limited to sea skimming in ALL flight phase (Boost,Mid Course and Terminal) with maximum altitude of 30m. Obviously Ramjet and materials DOES NOT LIKE this kind of altitude..optimum Ramjet performance occurs at some 12-15 Km altitude. This leave jet engines or rocket to achieve necessary performance.
-Flight time for 400 Km range is around half an hours for all subsonic flight assuming mach speed of 0,8 for supersonic article with speed of Mach 2 (2448 Kph) time of flight is around 9 minutes.

Ok that's the requirement and the characteristics of the missile.

So what should i do ?

Modern Supersonic and subsonic tradeoff above clearly state that it seems i'm looking for a speed of ferrari, range of jetliner, RCS of a bird and survivability of rhino crashing defenseless man, integration and compatibility level as best as a couple having sex during honeymoon. All in one platform.

Supersonic sibling in all low altitude flight will face degraded engine performance unless turbojet engine or low bypass turbofan with afterburner is fitted..which give another penalty in shape of perhaps excessive fuel requirement, thus requiring larger tank, which add more mass and size for the missile. Another penalty is drag as we know the famous drag equation "D=Cd*Q*S" where Cd is the drag coefficient, Q is dynamic pressure (1/2*Air Density*V^2) and S is the reference area which in the missile is the area of the missile when viewed head on (if the missile is circular then the reference area is the area of that circle).. so larger missile with high speed will face higher drag in lower altitude (hence large Yakhont have more range in high altitude than lower one at supersonic speed).

Rocket engine is ruled out as it will have too low ISP's (around 250 for solid propellant while liquid may have around 300-400) to achieve the necessary range..leaving jet engine only as my solution

Another penalty comes in materials.. as we know that air is denser in lower altitude than higher one.. it would means more air molecules will be available to contribute itself to increase heat signature of the missile..and this may require sophisticated materials like nickel superalloy or insulators like quartz paint to counter the heat all the way to target.. increasing cost of the missile and well.. unless the range requirement is relaxed we may have no satisfactory solution for supersonic sibling.

Subsonic sibling's penalty will come mainly from the attempt to increase her survivability during half an hour flight to target.. by application of RAM (Radar Absorbent Materials), as well as low emissivity paint, and may also suffer some minor thrust loss due to use of non optimum nozzle designed mainly to reduce IR Signature and flush in air inlet.

Platform integration may also suffer..a little as i mentioned above by desire to drive up L/D (paid off by less fuel needed to cover range) unconventional airframe shape must be used, thereby requiring specially shaped launcher..which of course precludes installation on Submarine. Regular axisymmetric airframe would do but may still require RAM application and limit even more survivability in terminal phase.

Well that are my concern regarding the missile... so what can i do ? well it's not my idea however..but it's indeed CLEVER one

The idea is simple :
Two staged missile that have subsonic phase during mid-course and Supersonic terminal kill stage.

Courtesy or Novator Design Bureau Russia.

And THAT will be what our next gen missile look alike

Why i consider such layout beautiful ?
It's basically combined the best of both world in Subsonic and Supersonic realm... that missile can have long range and stealth of the subsonic sibling while the supersonic kill stage will deliver the killing performance.

And talking about killing performance.. the kill stage DOES NOT NEED to be a rocket (like what SS-N-27 Sizzler or 3M54 KLUB does) but it can be a homing supercavitating torpedo.. adding more survivability as currently there are no countermeasure available for 200 Knot underwater keel hunter monster...and well this is well within the reach of realism..especially in Russia perhaps who already operate Skhval supercavitating torpedoes for quite a time.

Well that's all i can say for now..So i have defined here.. what my nextgen AShM look alike.. now i'm only need to make the missile, statblock, storyline and of course her platform.

That may serve as medicine (Not enough perhaps.. but it must do)to treat my "other" concern related to my inferiority in making decent looking art.