Ukrainian Cruise Missile Development and Deployment

Forest Green said:
Probably a test of sorts.
Click to expand...

That’s my guess, if true, but I wonder what drove the target selection then. There’s no shortage of things that could be blown up in Crimea, assuming you want to use such a long range weapon on such a close target. I would guess there was some mechanism of directly observing the impact at this location; that’s the only reason I can think of for such a close target of no consequence.
 
Josh_TN said:
That’s my guess, if true, but I wonder what drove the target selection then. There’s no shortage of things that could be blown up in Crimea, assuming you want to use such a long range weapon on such a close target. I would guess there was some mechanism of directly observing the impact at this location; that’s the only reason I can think of for such a close target of no consequence.
Click to expand...
Some rumors says the target data comes from US / European aircraft flying over the Black Sea.
 
Josh_TN said:
That’s my guess, if true, but I wonder what drove the target selection then. There’s no shortage of things that could be blown up in Crimea, assuming you want to use such a long range weapon on such a close target. I would guess there was some mechanism of directly observing the impact at this location; that’s the only reason I can think of for such a close target of no consequence.
Click to expand...
There is some sort of controversy around the project - it's competing against established MIC(i.e. army's own long range strike program), and there is corruption/money laundering inquiry by now famous senator of Naboo NABU.
They needed to produce tangible results. The lower the risk of interception, the better.
 
 
Kalush is in the Carpathians. I remember reading about missile production being concentrated there (for obvious reasons), but nothing excludes that the building shown in the videos was merely a storage facility, considering the Ukrainians are big on underground manufacturing.
 
NMaude said:
IMO I think that Ukraine should negotiate licence production agreements with NATO countries to produce the Sampsan and Flamingo missiles both as a means of production security and to build up a stockpile more quickly.
Click to expand...
Yep, TBH Europe could do with a battlefield SRBM anyway, sooner rather than by current schedules. Could even work towards a full ballistic version of Sapsan with a SWERVE-style MaRV for 1,000+km range.
 
NMaude said:
IMO I think that Ukraine should negotiate licence production agreements with NATO countries to produce the Sampsan and Flamingo missiles both as a means of production security and to build up a stockpile more quickly.
Click to expand...
Forest Green said:
Yep, TBH Europe could do with a battlefield SRBM anyway, sooner rather than by current schedules. Could even work towards a full ballistic version of Sapsan with a SWERVE-style MaRV for 1,000+km range.
Click to expand...
With additional upgrades to the Flamingo and Sapsan, is it possible Ukraine could produce and export both missiles to NATO countries in Europe?
 
Christopher Wang said:
With additional upgrades to the Flamingo and Sapsan, is it possible Ukraine could produce and export both missiles to NATO countries in Europe?
Click to expand...
under current situation with Russia
Ukraine should licence the Flamingo and Sapsan to Europe Nation for Mass production
And import them to Ukraine...
 
Christopher Wang said:
With additional upgrades to the Flamingo and Sapsan, is it possible Ukraine could produce and export both missiles to NATO countries in Europe?
Click to expand...
The problem with Flamingo is that while it's performance is pretty decent, it's also relatively crude and likely not that survivable. If you start redesigning it to be useful, you end up throwing everything out and making a new missile (which would probably be significantly more expensive, though not a bad idea IMO.)

The other issue for Europe is that "only" 3000km and launching from EU territory means that many targets are out of reach for an EU launched missile that aren't for one launching from (for example) Sumy Oblast. You end up wanting about 4000-5000km.
 
NMaude said:
IMO I think that Ukraine should negotiate licence production agreements with NATO countries to produce the Sampsan and Flamingo missiles both as a means of production security and to build up a stockpile more quickly.
Click to expand...
It's possible that Nightfall will be Sampsan a.k.a Hrim and produced in the UK.
 
whatismoo said:
The problem with Flamingo is that while it's performance is pretty decent, it's also relatively crude and likely not that survivable.
Click to expand...

While you raise good points the Ukrainians needed something good enough to do the job and to be able to be put into mass-production, Ukraine has made it clear it intends to be build up a large stock before using it so that would take into account any attrition of launched Flamingos.​
 
whatismoo said:
The problem with Flamingo is that while it's performance is pretty decent, it's also relatively crude and likely not that survivable. If you start redesigning it to be useful, you end up throwing everything out and making a new missile (which would probably be significantly more expensive, though not a bad idea IMO.)

The other issue for Europe is that "only" 3000km and launching from EU territory means that many targets are out of reach for an EU launched missile that aren't for one launching from (for example) Sumy Oblast. You end up wanting about 4000-5000km.
Click to expand...
Maybe EU could do something like this.
Much smaller and convetional, with a range of 4000-5000km.
Escanear0049.jpg
 
NMaude said:
While you raise good points the Ukrainians needed something good enough to do the job and to be able to be put into mass-production, Ukraine has made it clear it intends to be build up a large stock before using it so that would take into account any attrition of launched Flamingos.​
Click to expand...
I'm saying Flamingo is fine for Ukraine but anyone in a less extreme position could do much better with a bit more effort.
 
alejandrogrossi said:
Ukraine
Will need a longa range aerial launch missile.
Click to expand...
But what's the benefit?

Aerial launch platforms are by default vulnerable - yes, Ukraine manages to keep small launcher fleet alive. It isn't much of relief.
Why add unnecessary launch stages, when disposable launch ramp does the job.

Embrace bluefor jihad.
 
NMaude said:
While you raise good points the Ukrainians needed something good enough to do the job and to be able to be put into mass-production, Ukraine has made it clear it intends to be build up a large stock before using it so that would take into account any attrition of launched Flamingos.​
Click to expand...
Better is the enemy of good enough.
 
Ainen said:
But what's the benefit?

Aerial launch platforms are by default vulnerable - yes, Ukraine manages to keep small launcher fleet alive. It isn't much of relief.
Why add unnecessary launch stages, when disposable launch ramp does the job.

Embrace bluefor jihad.
Click to expand...
You can have both.
 
Using timed out engines would be a natural cost saving move. The missile has a maximum endurance of four hours, and quite honestly you could easily just roll the dice on a timed out engine that still turned over if the engine was the single most expensive subassembly in an unmanned platform. You do not have to be that lucky to get four more hours out of an engine.
 
Last edited:
Josh_TN said:
Using timed out engines would be a natural cost saving move. The missile has a maximum endurance of four hours, and quite honestly you could easily just roll the dice on a timed out engine that still turned over if the engine was the single most expensive subassembly in an unmanned platform. You have to be that lucky to get four more hours out of an engine.
Click to expand...

And I do believe that they said they're looking at restarting the AI25 production line for when they run out of timed out AI25 engines but if these new-build AI25s have a limited design-life of, say, 10 hours then that should dramatically lower the production cost.
 
NMaude said:
And I do believe that they said they're looking at restarting the AI25 production line for when they run out of timed out AI25 engines but if these new-build AI25s have a limited design-life of, say, 10 hours then that should dramatically lower the production cost.
Click to expand...

I think it would make more sense to use a different engine in the same class that is equally prolific in the global market, be it civilian or military. Building fresh engines seems like a huge extra cost input. I think there are other prolific engines that might fit the bill, possibly even J85.
 
whatismoo said:
The problem with Flamingo is that while it's performance is pretty decent, it's also relatively crude and likely not that survivable. If you start redesigning it to be useful, you end up throwing everything out and making a new missile (which would probably be significantly more expensive, though not a bad idea IMO.)

The other issue for Europe is that "only" 3000km and launching from EU territory means that many targets are out of reach for an EU launched missile that aren't for one launching from (for example) Sumy Oblast. You end up wanting about 4000-5000km.
Click to expand...

It's the right approach for this specific war. The Russian air defence is now no longer as capable against missiles as it supposed to be. This war showed, that cheap mass produced weapons are superior than fewer high developed weapons.

The air defence of the future might also use a high number of relatively cheap AI controlled drones instead of super expensive anti missiles systems.

I'm sure, all military strategist are making wild new plans, because the current wars are not being fought the way any big army has been prepared for...
 
Regardless of other considerations, a cheaper high mileage engine is…cheaper. No one builds short hours engines in the 2000-3000 lb thrust class, and even if they did, buying times out engines from the civilian market, or even other military markets, is going to be far cheaper than new builds. Not sure if J85 has enough thrust, but there will be a V lot of them available shortly as the T38 fleet retires.
 
Josh_TN said:
I think it would make more sense to use a different engine in the same class that is equally prolific in the global market
Click to expand...

That is a good point.

Josh_TN said:
I think there are other prolific engines that might fit the bill, possibly even J85.
Click to expand...

A J85 would be good but aside from the ones in service with the T-38 Talon how many decommissioned F-5 Freedom Fighters are there lying around?
 
T38 is about to leave service as it is replaced by T7, and there are two per airframe plus any spares or high mileage examples the USAF held on to. Though again, not sure it has sufficient performance for this roll, and it obviously would require a redesign of the missile to some extent.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom