Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    Naval Weapon Systems & Technology

    Share

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15470
    Points : 16177
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Naval Weapon Systems & Technology

    Post  GarryB on Wed Aug 24, 2016 10:55 am

    This being a naval weapons thread I assume you mean the naval model of OSA, in which case the vast majority of targets you will lock will be anti ship missiles that wont know they are being targeted.

    A helo or close by aircraft will detect your search radar scanning for them and once detected it will detect the tracking radar (which operates at a different frequency) tracking them.

    That will tell they they are likely under attack.

    The tracking radar continually updates the precise location of the target while also tracking the outgoing missile and sending course corrections to that missile.

    New models would allow optical tracking of the target and missile but that is not all weather day night and its accuracy and range performance is not as good as radar but it is at least passive.


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order

    nastle77
    Junior Sergeant
    Junior Sergeant

    Posts : 137
    Points : 179
    Join date : 2015-07-25

    Re: Naval Weapon Systems & Technology

    Post  nastle77 on Wed Aug 24, 2016 10:50 pm

    Are anti ship missiles like Harpoon able to hit targets when they are hidden by land or islands e.g in the earlier version of harpoon if launched from the sea on one side of a peninsula can it travEl overland and hit a naval target at sea on the other side of the peninsula? Provided this target is within its max range e.g of 60nm

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15470
    Points : 16177
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Naval Weapon Systems & Technology

    Post  GarryB on Thu Aug 25, 2016 11:25 am

    Very few have the radar range to detect their target at launch and so the general location is given to the missile and it flys to the target location and turns on its own radar to scan for the target.

    Some can be fed the targets general location, while others have to climb and scan for the target and then drop down to very low altitude for the flight to the target area.

    As long as the island is not between the missile and the target when it turns on its radar to scan for the target it should be able to fly past islands and other items to get to a position to scan for the target.

    Some longer range missiles can have way points so they actually approach their target from an unexpected direction.


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order

    Isos
    Master Sergeant
    Master Sergeant

    Posts : 306
    Points : 310
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Re: Naval Weapon Systems & Technology

    Post  Isos on Thu Aug 25, 2016 8:53 pm

    GarryB wrote:Very few have the radar range to detect their target at launch and so the general location is given to the missile and it flys to the target location and turns on its own radar to scan for the target.

    Some can be fed the targets general location, while others have to climb and scan for the target and then drop down to very low altitude for the flight to the target area.

    As long as the island is not between the missile and the target when it turns on its radar to scan for the target it should be able to fly past islands and other items to get to a position to scan for the target.

    Some longer range missiles can have way points so they actually approach their target from an unexpected direction.


    Some new missiles have GPS guidance to hit the target in its base. Because their are lot of buildings and ships there, they can't use radar.

    nastle77
    Junior Sergeant
    Junior Sergeant

    Posts : 137
    Points : 179
    Join date : 2015-07-25

    Re: Naval Weapon Systems & Technology

    Post  nastle77 on Thu Aug 25, 2016 10:21 pm

    Isos wrote:
    GarryB wrote:Very few have the radar range to detect their target at launch and so the general location is given to the missile and it flys to the target location and turns on its own radar to scan for the target.

    Some can be fed the targets general location, while others have to climb and scan for the target and then drop down to very low altitude for the flight to the target area.

    As long as the island is not between the missile and the target when it turns on its radar to scan for the target it should be able to fly past islands and other items to get to a position to scan for the target.

    Some longer range missiles can have way points so they actually approach their target from an unexpected direction.


    Some new missiles have GPS guidance to hit the target in its base. Because their are lot of buildings and ships there, they can't use radar.
    did the 80's version of harpoon have that feature ?

    nastle77
    Junior Sergeant
    Junior Sergeant

    Posts : 137
    Points : 179
    Join date : 2015-07-25

    Re: Naval Weapon Systems & Technology

    Post  nastle77 on Thu Aug 25, 2016 10:24 pm

    GarryB wrote:Very few have the radar range to detect their target at launch and so the general location is given to the missile and it flys to the target location and turns on its own radar to scan for the target.

    Some can be fed the targets general location, while others have to climb and scan for the target and then drop down to very low altitude for the flight to the target area.

    As long as the island is not between the missile and the target when it turns on its radar to scan for the target it should be able to fly past islands and other items to get to a position to scan for the target.

    Some longer range missiles can have way points so they actually approach their target from an unexpected direction.
    Thanks for the explanation, was 80s version of harpoon capable of distinguishing targets in the littorals if there is a lot of rocks coves and cliffs ?

    Isos
    Master Sergeant
    Master Sergeant

    Posts : 306
    Points : 310
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Re: Naval Weapon Systems & Technology

    Post  Isos on Thu Aug 25, 2016 11:17 pm

    nastle77 wrote:
    Isos wrote:
    GarryB wrote:Very few have the radar range to detect their target at launch and so the general location is given to the missile and it flys to the target location and turns on its own radar to scan for the target.

    Some can be fed the targets general location, while others have to climb and scan for the target and then drop down to very low altitude for the flight to the target area.

    As long as the island is not between the missile and the target when it turns on its radar to scan for the target it should be able to fly past islands and other items to get to a position to scan for the target.

    Some longer range missiles can have way points so they actually approach their target from an unexpected direction.


    Some new missiles have GPS guidance to hit the target in its base. Because their are lot of buildings and ships there, they can't use radar.
    did the 80's version of harpoon have that feature ?

    I don't think so. However they made new stocks of harpoons today. You will not found a harpoon from the 80s in US stock. Even if they don't really use them. Few ships of the US navy are armed with anti ship missile. They use their f18 with air lunched harpoons for anti ship missions.

    nastle77
    Junior Sergeant
    Junior Sergeant

    Posts : 137
    Points : 179
    Join date : 2015-07-25

    Re: Naval Weapon Systems & Technology

    Post  nastle77 on Fri Aug 26, 2016 1:10 am

    Isos wrote:
    nastle77 wrote:
    Isos wrote:
    GarryB wrote:Very few have the radar range to detect their target at launch and so the general location is given to the missile and it flys to the target location and turns on its own radar to scan for the target.

    Some can be fed the targets general location, while others have to climb and scan for the target and then drop down to very low altitude for the flight to the target area.

    As long as the island is not between the missile and the target when it turns on its radar to scan for the target it should be able to fly past islands and other items to get to a position to scan for the target.

    Some longer range missiles can have way points so they actually approach their target from an unexpected direction.


    Some new missiles have GPS guidance to hit the target in its base. Because their are lot of buildings and ships there, they can't use radar.
    did the 80's version of harpoon have that feature ?

    I don't think so. However they made new stocks of harpoons today. You will not found a harpoon from the 80s in US stock. Even if they don't really use them. Few ships of the US navy are armed with anti ship missile. They use their f18 with air lunched harpoons for anti ship missions.
    reason I asked was because I was interested in the capabilities of harpoon in service with Japanese navy in the 80s

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15470
    Points : 16177
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Naval Weapon Systems & Technology

    Post  GarryB on Fri Aug 26, 2016 11:16 am

    Some new missiles have GPS guidance to hit the target in its base. Because their are lot of buildings and ships there, they can't use radar.

    Actually launching a Harpoon or other AShM at a target in port surrounded by other things like fishing boats or Piers etc would be a very rare thing that most AShMs will never have to deal with.

    If you can find a target in a cluttered environment... identify it, and calculate its coordinates to use GPS guidance then good on you... with the flight time of missiles and the fact that targets can move I don't think GPS would be the sole method of guidance.

    did the 80's version of harpoon have that feature ?

    I rather doubt it. Harpoon finds its targets with its radar... which isn't perfect but should be good enough to distinguish a target ship compared with an island or sand bar.

    Thanks for the explanation, was 80s version of harpoon capable of distinguishing targets in the littorals if there is a lot of rocks coves and cliffs ?

    Lots of radar reflectors would make locating the target difficult but not totally impossible. The missiles brain would be not particularly sophisticated, but as shown in the Falklands war one problem not often discussed is that in war time you often put into service non military vessels... ie civilian vessels are put to use as troop transports or supply vessels and when the enemy start firing missiles at your ships like exocets then when you military vessels fire off chaff and decoys and jammers and the incoming missiles lose lock it is all together possible they might acquire those undefended civilian vessels and blow up your supply of heavy helicopters or ammo or your troop ships...

    reason I asked was because I was interested in the capabilities of harpoon in service with Japanese navy in the 80s

    Being subsonic it would have trouble against the Soviet navy, but against the Chinese navy of the period or pretty much any other navy in the region they should be capable.

    Again... with the Falklands... the UK had Exocets in their own inventory so they should have been familiar with its capabilities yet they suffered.


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order

    Isos
    Master Sergeant
    Master Sergeant

    Posts : 306
    Points : 310
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Re: Naval Weapon Systems & Technology

    Post  Isos on Fri Aug 26, 2016 3:34 pm

    GarryB wrote:
    Some new missiles have GPS guidance to hit the target in its base. Because their are lot of buildings and ships there, they can't use radar.

    Actually launching a Harpoon or other AShM at a target in port surrounded by other things like fishing boats or Piers etc would be a very rare thing that most AShMs will never have to deal with.

    If you can find a target in a cluttered environment... identify it, and calculate its coordinates to use GPS guidance then good on you... with the flight time of missiles and the fact that targets can move I don't think GPS would be the sole method of guidance.

    You are wrong. With observation sattelites you can easily identify and find coordinates of a ship in a port. Military ships are not parked with fishing boats in ports so it's not a problem. Even with Google earth you can do that.

    If they are in port it means their radars are off. 1 missile per ship is enough. And in a surprised and coordinated attack you can make lot of dammage to a navy as your sattelite will give you real time situation and your ships can go like 20km (international waters) from a country.

    medo
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 3051
    Points : 3149
    Join date : 2010-10-24
    Location : Slovenia

    Re: Naval Weapon Systems & Technology

    Post  medo on Fri Aug 26, 2016 6:20 pm

    If the ship is in port, that it is better to use TV guided missile like Kh-59MK2, where the operator will recognize correct ship on his TV screen.

    nastle77
    Junior Sergeant
    Junior Sergeant

    Posts : 137
    Points : 179
    Join date : 2015-07-25

    Re: Naval Weapon Systems & Technology

    Post  nastle77 on Fri Aug 26, 2016 7:43 pm

    Isos wrote:
    GarryB wrote:
    Some new missiles have GPS guidance to hit the target in its base. Because their are lot of buildings and ships there, they can't use radar.

    Actually launching a Harpoon or other AShM at a target in port surrounded by other things like fishing boats or Piers etc would be a very rare thing that most AShMs will never have to deal with.

    If you can find a target in a cluttered environment... identify it, and calculate its coordinates to use GPS guidance then good on you... with the flight time of missiles and the fact that targets can move I don't think GPS would be the sole method of guidance.

    You are wrong. With observation sattelites you can easily identify and find coordinates of a ship in a port. Military ships are not parked with fishing boats in ports so it's not a problem. Even with Google earth you can do that.

    If they are in port it means their radars are off. 1 missile per ship is enough. And in a surprised and coordinated attack you can make lot of dammage to a navy as your sattelite will give you real time situation and your ships can go like 20km (international waters) from a country.
    did Japan have GPS and satelite guidance for its ashm in the 80's ?

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15470
    Points : 16177
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Naval Weapon Systems & Technology

    Post  GarryB on Sat Aug 27, 2016 10:49 am

    You are wrong. With observation sattelites you can easily identify and find coordinates of a ship in a port. Military ships are not parked with fishing boats in ports so it's not a problem. Even with Google earth you can do that.

    If your anti ship missile is using GPS coordinates for targeting then it is not an anti ship missile it is a cruise missile.

    the flight time of most anti ship missiles can mean quite a few minutes pass between detection and launch and impact... if the ship moves even 20m before missile impact then the missile will miss.

    You obviously have a very low opinion of radar... the Kh-35 reportedly uses a high resolution MMW radar that can not only detect ships but also identify them based on their shape/radar signature.

    As such even a large group of ships would not defeat its guidance and it could single out its target and home in on it even in a fairly cluttered environment.

    If they are in port it means their radars are off. 1 missile per ship is enough. And in a surprised and coordinated attack you can make lot of dammage to a navy as your sattelite will give you real time situation and your ships can go like 20km (international waters) from a country.

    If they are in port the ports air defence system and local air force offer rather better protection than their own air defence systems could offer.

    could it also be that the Termits export version had no IR versions and had down graded seekers ?

    Export versions of Termit were either radar or IR guided but not both. I believe India used the IR versions to good effect hitting Pakistani oil storage tanks. The sun had heated the tanks to the point where they were rather warm... when the sun went down the ground cooled faster than all that oil in those tanks so after dark the oil was still a warm target in a sea of cold land...

    did Japan have GPS and satelite guidance for its ashm in the 80's ?

    AFAIK only the Soviets had satellite guided AShMs in the late 1970s and 1980s.


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order

    Isos
    Master Sergeant
    Master Sergeant

    Posts : 306
    Points : 310
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Re: Naval Weapon Systems & Technology

    Post  Isos on Sat Aug 27, 2016 3:56 pm

    GarryB wrote:
    You are wrong. With observation sattelites you can easily identify and find coordinates of a ship in a port. Military ships are not parked with fishing boats in ports so it's not a problem. Even with Google earth you can do that.

    If your anti ship missile is using GPS coordinates for targeting then it is not an anti ship missile it is a cruise missile.

    the flight time of most anti ship missiles can mean quite a few minutes pass between detection and launch and impact... if the ship moves even 20m before missile impact then the missile will miss.

    You obviously have a very low opinion of radar... the Kh-35 reportedly uses a high resolution MMW radar that can not only detect ships but also identify them based on their shape/radar signature.

    As such even a large group of ships would not defeat its guidance and it could single out its target and home in on it even in a fairly cluttered environment.

    If they are in port it means their radars are off. 1 missile per ship is enough. And in a surprised and coordinated attack you can make lot of dammage to a navy as your sattelite will give you real time situation and your ships can go like 20km (international waters) from a country.

    If they are in port the ports air defence system and local air force offer rather better protection than their own air defence systems could offer.


    1) Antiship missiles are cruise missile with radar. The name you gave to the missile won't change it's capacities.

    2) The flight time : I said its usefull for a surprise Attack from 20-30 km of the target not for max range. So for a speed of 800km/h it's nothing, the target won't move. Even if, you can send the new coordinates to the missiles or activate the radar mode.

    3) I never spoke about radar. I just said some have gps guidance. Of course I know that Kh-35 use radar and has a very good one. But harpoons and others are not upgraded with gps for nothing. I don't think it's the case for the kh-35 however.

    4) Depend what country you are atacking. If it's armed by NATO country, its ships will have better air defence systems than land forces. West countries have really poor air defence systemes. They are mostly protected by their navy and air force. And I don't think they will have time to anything against a big surprise attack of 50 missiles just with 2 or 3 fighter meant to protect all the country.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15470
    Points : 16177
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Naval Weapon Systems & Technology

    Post  GarryB on Sun Aug 28, 2016 3:37 am

    1) Antiship missiles are cruise missile with radar. The name you gave to the missile won't change it's capacities.

    Not really.

    An anti ship missile is optimised to kill ships and has a radar for that purpose fitted in its nose.

    They generally have a relatively short range... 70-200km or so in the 1980s... except of course the big heavy long range anti carrier missiles the Soviets had.

    A cruise missile generally flies a series of way points to a fixed coordinate.

    They are generally much longer ranged weapons with flight ranges of 1,500km to 3,000km or so in the 1980s.

    Mixing the two is of no value because the radar in the AShM is expensive and if you are just firing at a point in space next to a pier then you are much better off using a real cruise missile with no radar in its nose and much much better range performance.

    2) The flight time : I said its usefull for a surprise Attack from 20-30 km of the target not for max range. So for a speed of 800km/h it's nothing, the target won't move. Even if, you can send the new coordinates to the missiles or activate the radar mode.

    Who is getting within 30km of an enemy port... and what makes you think the missile will get past the ports defences?

    3) I never spoke about radar. I just said some have gps guidance. Of course I know that Kh-35 use radar and has a very good one. But harpoons and others are not upgraded with gps for nothing. I don't think it's the case for the kh-35 however.

    GPS is not used to turn Harpoons into Tomahawks... it is used for flight navigation to the target area.

    Once it gets to attack position it will use its onboard radar to find the target and fly into it.

    4) Depend what country you are atacking. If it's armed by NATO country, its ships will have better air defence systems than land forces. West countries have really poor air defence systemes. They are mostly protected by their navy and air force. And I don't think they will have time to anything against a big surprise attack of 50 missiles just with 2 or 3 fighter meant to protect all the country.

    So when has this ever been done?

    Where are these 50 missiles coming from?

    The US attack on Libya used about 200 cruise missiles in total and afterwards they had problems replacing them in stores... do you really think they will fire 50 missiles at targets in a port?

    If the enemy has only 2-3 aircraft to defend it... do they have any ships worth taking out this way?

    In the Falklands the British didn't start by destroying the entire Argentine fleet in port.

    Has that ever actually been done with anti ship missiles?


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order

    George1
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 9443
    Points : 9935
    Join date : 2011-12-22
    Location : Greece

    Re: Naval Weapon Systems & Technology

    Post  George1 on Wed Aug 31, 2016 4:52 pm

    Russian naval air defense in trouble

    There have long been reports that the ongoing delays with the commissioning of the Admiral Gorshkov frigate have to do with defects in its air defense systems. These were thought to be primarily related to problems with integration of the Poliment Redut air defense missile system. The Poliment system was designed to be Russia’s answer to AEGIS, with four phased array antennas that are able to track 16 targets at the same time. The Redut system consists of four or eight vertical launch systems that launch three types of missiles. The 9M100 is the short-range missile, with a range of up to 15km. The 9M96M is the medium-range missile, with a range of 40-50km. Finally, the 9M96 long-range missile is supposed to have a range of up to 150km.

    It now appears that the Redut’s problems are much more serious than just integration. A recent report notes that the Ministry of Defense has stopped trials of the system because of continuing problems with the 9M96 long-range missile. Specifically, the missiles appear to fail after three seconds of flight. Some reports indicate that the Redut system works well hitting targets up to 40km away, but fails in the long range. The implication is that the short and medium range missiles work well, but the long range missile does not. Nevertheless, this may be an improvement over previous results, as trials of the Redut system on the Steregushchiy class corvettes in 2014 showed that they were only able to hit targets at distances of up to 15km because the medium-range Furke-2 radar system was not functioning properly.

    Instead of further trials, the problems will now be sorted out by an inter-agency commission, a sure sign that the problems are serious and are not expected to be fixed any time soon. The problems stem from issues at the design bureau, which is reportedly not up to the task of designing a missile with the requirements provided by the Defense Ministry. The Fakel machine design bureau, which is developing the missiles is supposedly in relatively poor condition, using technologies and equipment left over from the Soviet period.

    Redut systems are supposed to be installed on both the Admiral Gorshkov frigates and the Steregushchiy class corvettes. The corvettes that have been commissioned so far with partial Redut systems that are not able to strike long-distance targets. It looks like the Russian military is now facing a choice regarding how long it is willing to wait to commission the already long-delayed first ship of the Admiral Gorshkov frigate class. So far, the Defense Ministry has not been willing to commission the frigate without a fully functional air defense system, though this may change as the delays grow longer.

    https://russiamil.wordpress.com/2016/07/28/russian-naval-air-defense-in-trouble/


    _________________
    "There's no smoke without fire.", Georgy Zhukov


    Project Canada
    Lieutenant
    Lieutenant

    Posts : 529
    Points : 538
    Join date : 2015-07-20
    Age : 28
    Location : Canada

    Re: Naval Weapon Systems & Technology

    Post  Project Canada on Wed Aug 31, 2016 5:14 pm

    George1 wrote:Russian naval air defense in trouble

    There have long been reports that the ongoing delays with the commissioning of the Admiral Gorshkov frigate have to do with defects in its air defense systems. These were thought to be primarily related to problems with integration of the Poliment Redut air defense missile system. The Poliment system was designed to be Russia’s answer to AEGIS, with four phased array antennas that are able to track 16 targets at the same time. The Redut system consists of four or eight vertical launch systems that launch three types of missiles. The 9M100 is the short-range missile, with a range of up to 15km. The 9M96M is the medium-range missile, with a range of 40-50km. Finally, the 9M96 long-range missile is supposed to have a range of up to 150km.

    It now appears that the Redut’s problems are much more serious than just integration. A recent report notes that the Ministry of Defense has stopped trials of the system because of continuing problems with the 9M96 long-range missile. Specifically, the missiles appear to fail after three seconds of flight. Some reports indicate that the Redut system works well hitting targets up to 40km away, but fails in the long range. The implication is that the short and medium range missiles work well, but the long range missile does not. Nevertheless, this may be an improvement over previous results, as trials of the Redut system on the Steregushchiy class corvettes in 2014 showed that they were only able to hit targets at distances of up to 15km because the medium-range Furke-2 radar system was not functioning properly.

    Instead of further trials, the problems will now be sorted out by an inter-agency commission, a sure sign that the problems are serious and are not expected to be fixed any time soon. The problems stem from issues at the design bureau, which is reportedly not up to the task of designing a missile with the requirements provided by the Defense Ministry. The Fakel machine design bureau, which is developing the missiles is supposedly in relatively poor condition, using technologies and equipment left over from the Soviet period.

    Redut systems are supposed to be installed on both the Admiral Gorshkov frigates and the Steregushchiy class corvettes. The corvettes that have been commissioned so far with partial Redut systems that are not able to strike long-distance targets. It looks like the Russian military is now facing a choice regarding how long it is willing to wait to commission the already long-delayed first ship of the Admiral Gorshkov frigate class. So far, the Defense Ministry has not been willing to commission the frigate without a fully functional air defense system, though this may change as the delays grow longer.

    https://russiamil.wordpress.com/2016/07/28/russian-naval-air-defense-in-trouble/

    Isnt the malfunction supposed to have been fixed according to an earlier post last week?

    Isos
    Master Sergeant
    Master Sergeant

    Posts : 306
    Points : 310
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Re: Naval Weapon Systems & Technology

    Post  Isos on Wed Aug 31, 2016 5:32 pm

    With Klub K you can put how easily 50 missiles on one cargo ship.

    They are not meant to be use like tomahawks but they can be. I've red in the description of new exocet that they can be fired against coastal target with the gps (2nd possible role even if its primary role is antiship).

    Any ship can go 30 km from a military port if it's in the international waters. You can check on Google earth and see that in any  big miitary port (in any country) there ar many ships. With electronic warfare instrument you can know what type of radars are there. If there just civillian radars you can attack.
    Like it happened to Israel with the chinese missile. No radars ready, the attack succed.


    The US attack on Libya used about 200 cruise missiles in total and afterwards they had problems replacing them in stores... do you really think they will fire 50 missiles at targets in a port?

    If the enemy has only 2-3 aircraft to defend it... do they have any ships worth taking out this way?

    In the Falklands the British didn't start by destroying the entire Argentine fleet in port.

    Has that ever actually been done with anti ship missiles?

    The US attack was on Lybia not lybian port. So ...

    IF there are 10 ships (5 billion$) in the port, 50 kh-35 (around 35 million$) are worth it. Can be less if you want.

    In the Falkland they didn't because it would have been suicide as they declared war and Argentinian airforce was ready for war. I said surprise attack If argentinian navy had gps guided missile and did what I said before taking the falklands they would have them now.

    No it didn't happened because their is no more conventional war these days and these missiles are new. But you can be sure Israel would use a strategy like that if it has to face a bigger navy. A succesfull attack like this can end a war before it start if the opponents are separated by sea however.  




    While I'm here, is it possible to make a navalized sub lunched R-77 with a bigger warhead (65kg) and a range of 40-50 km to use in mass attack against battlegroup by a new diesel clas sub ( a little oscar II). Like 40 missiles per subarine. Mach 3-4 sea skeaming. 65*40= 2600kg of explosives. I knwo it can't destroy them (If it's one or two ship it can) but it would dammage them badly and they could be finished by torpedo.


    magnumcromagnon
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 4468
    Points : 4659
    Join date : 2013-12-05
    Location : Pindos ave., Pindosville, Pindosylvania, Pindostan

    Re: Naval Weapon Systems & Technology

    Post  magnumcromagnon on Thu Sep 01, 2016 2:16 am

    George1 wrote:Russian naval air defense in trouble

    There have long been reports that the ongoing delays with the commissioning of the Admiral Gorshkov frigate have to do with defects in its air defense systems. These were thought to be primarily related to problems with integration of the Poliment Redut air defense missile system. The Poliment system was designed to be Russia’s answer to AEGIS, with four phased array antennas that are able to track 16 targets at the same time. The Redut system consists of four or eight vertical launch systems that launch three types of missiles. The 9M100 is the short-range missile, with a range of up to 15km. The 9M96M is the medium-range missile, with a range of 40-50km. Finally, the 9M96 long-range missile is supposed to have a range of up to 150km.

    It now appears that the Redut’s problems are much more serious than just integration. A recent report notes that the Ministry of Defense has stopped trials of the system because of continuing problems with the 9M96 long-range missile. Specifically, the missiles appear to fail after three seconds of flight. Some reports indicate that the Redut system works well hitting targets up to 40km away, but fails in the long range. The implication is that the short and medium range missiles work well, but the long range missile does not. Nevertheless, this may be an improvement over previous results, as trials of the Redut system on the Steregushchiy class corvettes in 2014 showed that they were only able to hit targets at distances of up to 15km because the medium-range Furke-2 radar system was not functioning properly.

    Instead of further trials, the problems will now be sorted out by an inter-agency commission, a sure sign that the problems are serious and are not expected to be fixed any time soon. The problems stem from issues at the design bureau, which is reportedly not up to the task of designing a missile with the requirements provided by the Defense Ministry. The Fakel machine design bureau, which is developing the missiles is supposedly in relatively poor condition, using technologies and equipment left over from the Soviet period.

    Redut systems are supposed to be installed on both the Admiral Gorshkov frigates and the Steregushchiy class corvettes. The corvettes that have been commissioned so far with partial Redut systems that are not able to strike long-distance targets. It looks like the Russian military is now facing a choice regarding how long it is willing to wait to commission the already long-delayed first ship of the Admiral Gorshkov frigate class. So far, the Defense Ministry has not been willing to commission the frigate without a fully functional air defense system, though this may change as the delays grow longer.

    https://russiamil.wordpress.com/2016/07/28/russian-naval-air-defense-in-trouble/

    Your a moderator, you should know better than to post garbage from Dmitry Gorenburg. It's not just me saying this, it's sepheronx, it's kvs, it's big_Gazza. Dmitry Gorenburg is as trustworthy as a Jeffery Damer veggie burger!!!

    kvs
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 2525
    Points : 2658
    Join date : 2014-09-11
    Location : Canuckistan

    Re: Naval Weapon Systems & Technology

    Post  kvs on Thu Sep 01, 2016 3:53 am

    Instead of further trials, the problems will now be sorted out by an inter-agency commission, a sure sign that the problems are serious and are not expected to be fixed any time soon. The problems stem from issues at the design bureau, which is reportedly not up to the task of designing a missile with the requirements provided by the Defense Ministry. The Fakel machine design bureau, which is developing the missiles is supposedly in relatively poor condition, using technologies and equipment left over from the Soviet period.

    Smell the dead rat in this analysis. If I recall in the case of the Bulava it was manufacturing defects that were the real problem and not
    performance of the design bureau. Yet here we are supposed to believe what amounts to proof by assertion. The only "sure sign" here
    is that we have blogger crap speculation being passed off as facts.

    Fakel is part of Almaz-Antey as of 2002. The above blogger crap is claiming that Alamaz-Antey is still using pre-1991 equipment. This
    is pure and fetid lying.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ugk3Cu5h4kA

    Oh my, so little automation. Almaz-Antey surely must be crap.

    http://soft.bashny.net/t/en/159248

    Is that new NC machinery I see....

    airstrike
    Junior Sergeant
    Junior Sergeant

    Posts : 119
    Points : 119
    Join date : 2016-07-13

    Re: Naval Weapon Systems & Technology

    Post  airstrike on Thu Sep 01, 2016 12:30 pm

    Russia to modernize its carrier-based Su-33 jets

    http://echelon-defense.com/2016/09/01/russia-to-modernize-its-carrier-based-su-33-jets/

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15470
    Points : 16177
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Naval Weapon Systems & Technology

    Post  GarryB on Thu Sep 01, 2016 12:51 pm

    With Klub K you can put how easily 50 missiles on one cargo ship.

    Yes, you can, but the first time you use such a surprise technique then any and all potential enemy forces have a clear reason to sink any Russian or neutrally flagged shipping in their vicinity... that would be expensive.

    Experience in the falklands war showed civilian ships used as warship auxiliaries (ie cruise ships turned into troop ships, and transports in conflict areas) are at extreme risk because there is no design for battle damage and no self defence systems.

    It makes them a liability in a war zone.

    They are not meant to be use like tomahawks but they can be. I've red in the description of new exocet that they can be fired against coastal target with the gps (2nd possible role even if its primary role is antiship).

    Not likely to be used against ships in port however... more likely to be used against port infrastructure or coastal and slightly inland targets.

    Any ship can go 30 km from a military port if it's in the international waters. You can check on Google earth and see that in any big miitary port (in any country) there ar many ships. With electronic warfare instrument you can know what type of radars are there. If there just civillian radars you can attack.

    Yes, they can of course go to a position at that distance, but what happens if the enemy has radars turned on scanning for threats?

    Russian OTH radars operate all the time covering 6,000km ranges, and there will be plenty of other radars of all sorts of types looking for targets or just civilian air traffic or shipping.

    Any attempt to jam radar will raise suspicion and attract attention.

    A one off surprise attack might succeed but you can't base a missile design off such a strategy as a standard weapon. Cruise missiles in shipping crates allow a surprise attack via a large ship at sea or the potential to have an enormous attack potential at a train yard pretty much anywhere in your country... but when you sit them on the backs of your corvettes they are no longer "surprise" weapons.
    A Russian Corvette with blue shipping crates on the rear deck will be clearly perceived as the threat it is... whether it is 30km from a port or 1,000km from a port.

    Like it happened to Israel with the chinese missile. No radars ready, the attack succed.

    And do you think the Israelis will let that happen again?

    Do you think the other navies of the world will ignore what happened then and do nothing?

    The US attack was on Lybia not lybian port. So ...

    They struggled to manage 200 missiles for the air defence structure of Libya... do you think they will spare even a single missile for each rust bucket in port?

    IF there are 10 ships (5 billion$) in the port, 50 kh-35 (around 35 million$) are worth it. Can be less if you want.

    If they are worth half a billion US dollars each they probably have air defence systems that can defend themselves. Western navies are not that good at surprise attacks.

    Most of the countries the west attacks don't have a worthy enough fleet to even bother with.

    If argentinian navy had gps guided missile and did what I said before taking the falklands they would have them now.

    First of all GPS is a US system and they can turn it off in any location any time they want.

    During the Georgian invasion of South Ossetia the GPS system in the area was turned off so GPS systems would be of no use... and the chances of the Argentine navy sailing up to the UK and sinking the British fleet in port would be rather unlikely.

    No it didn't happened because their is no more conventional war these days and these missiles are new. But you can be sure Israel would use a strategy like that if it has to face a bigger navy. A succesfull attack like this can end a war before it start if the opponents are separated by sea however.

    I think you are misunderstanding the use of such weapons.

    An Exocet is an anti ship missile. Adding GPS guidance allows it to hit fixed land targets, but it is not likely to be used to allow the missile to hit ships in port.

    If you are going to use a missile to hit a ship in port in a fixed location surely it is easier to launch a Kalibr from 2,500km than to launch a Klub from 50km... both can be deployed from the same vessel but a vessel firing a Klub from 50km covers the first 2,450km at about 20knts and the last 50km at high subsonic speed, while a Kalibr covers the 2,500km range at high subsonic speed well out of air defence range of any country.



    While I'm here, is it possible to make a navalized sub lunched R-77 with a bigger warhead (65kg) and a range of 40-50 km to use in mass attack against battlegroup by a new diesel clas sub ( a little oscar II). Like 40 missiles per subarine. Mach 3-4 sea skeaming. 65*40= 2600kg of explosives. I knwo it can't destroy them (If it's one or two ship it can) but it would dammage them badly and they could be finished by torpedo.

    To be honest a sub would be better off attacking that battle group with heavy torpedoes.

    The idea of subsurface launched anti aircraft missiles is interesting.

    The Morfei, or 9M100 is a short range IIR guided missile designed to be carried internally in aircraft and launched via data link at targets it cannot see when launched.

    By definition such a missile must acquire its target after it has been launched so it is fired and then it looks for its target itself.

    Such a seeker would be very very interesting.

    Such a seeker could be used for a sub launched anti aircraft missile... so sonobouys start splashing in the water... which tells you there is an aircraft looking for you... release a pod that floats to the surface with a pack of 5 missiles... one missile with its nose exposed looking for targets... if it spots a helo or MPA or UAV it can launch the other four missiles on the platform and itself at any or all targets detected... if there is nothing it can be recovered later by the sub.

    For very long range missiles like the 300km range R-37M such a seeker would be very valuable as it is totally passive so you can launch the missile in the general direction of an enemy air field.

    As it flys at mach 5-6 it can be looking for targets all the way without emitting radar like an ARH missile would... targets spotted could be identified and information sent back to the launch platform.. priority targets can be engaged automatically... like a recon suicide drone...


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order

    George1
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 9443
    Points : 9935
    Join date : 2011-12-22
    Location : Greece

    Re: Naval Weapon Systems & Technology

    Post  George1 on Thu Sep 08, 2016 4:12 pm

    New ship-to-air missile system to be built in Russia — Almaz-Antey

    Performance specifications for construction of an air defense system for surface ships protection is currently being prepared, Almaz-Antey spokesman has announced

    Russian Navy may receive shipborne version of Tor antiaircraft missile system in 2018-2019

    KUBINKA (Moscow Region), September 8. /TASS/. Russia’s Navy is developing performance specifications for construction of a new ship-to-air missile system, a spokesman for the Almaz-Antey defense concern told journalists on Thursday at the Army-2016 forum.

    "The Research Institute of Shipbuilding and Armament of the Navy is currently preparing performance specifications for construction of an air defense system to protect surface ships, in line with an instruction from the Chief Command of the Navy," the spokesman said.

    Earlier, Almaz-Antey said the Navy is interested in an opportunity to build a naval version of the Tor air defense missile system to replace the outdated Kinzhal and Osa systems. The concern said the new modification may be ready in 2018-2019.


    More:
    http://tass.com/defense/898688


    _________________
    "There's no smoke without fire.", Georgy Zhukov


    Isos
    Master Sergeant
    Master Sergeant

    Posts : 306
    Points : 310
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Re: Naval Weapon Systems & Technology

    Post  Isos on Thu Sep 08, 2016 9:52 pm

    I see what you mean GarryB and I think you understood what I meant so lets end it.


    To be honest a sub would be better off attacking that battle group with heavy torpedoes.

    The idea of subsurface launched anti aircraft missiles is interesting.

    The Morfei, or 9M100 is a short range IIR guided missile designed to be carried internally in aircraft and launched via data link at targets it cannot see when launched.

    By definition such a missile must acquire its target after it has been launched so it is fired and then it looks for its target itself.

    Such a seeker would be very very interesting.

    Such a seeker could be used for a sub launched anti aircraft missile... so sonobouys start splashing in the water... which tells you there is an aircraft looking for you... release a pod that floats to the surface with a pack of 5 missiles... one missile with its nose exposed looking for targets... if it spots a helo or MPA or UAV it can launch the other four missiles on the platform and itself at any or all targets detected... if there is nothing it can be recovered later by the sub.

    For very long range missiles like the 300km range R-37M such a seeker would be very valuable as it is totally passive so you can launch the missile in the general direction of an enemy air field.

    As it flys at mach 5-6 it can be looking for targets all the way without emitting radar like an ARH missile would... targets spotted could be identified and information sent back to the launch platform.. priority targets can be engaged automatically... like a recon suicide drone...

    I know about these missiles. Germans are doing this work to their iris-t missiles.

    But about what I said I was thinking of a smaller missile that could be used in really big mass attack with torpedos. Chinese had developed such a weapon for their subs but the navy didn't accepted it. It was 20km range and 30 kg warehead (Something liike that)the name was tl-10 IIRC. Their was someone here who said a smaller KH-35 was designed, I would like to see the picture of it if it's possible. It's far enough for intercepting and damaging ships in a battle group and make them more vulnarable to futur attacks as it would destroy some of their systems.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15470
    Points : 16177
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Naval Weapon Systems & Technology

    Post  GarryB on Fri Sep 09, 2016 2:03 pm

    Earlier, Almaz-Antey said the Navy is interested in an opportunity to build a naval version of the Tor air defense missile system to replace the outdated Kinzhal and Osa systems. The concern said the new modification may be ready in 2018-2019.

    That is good news... the new TOR missiles will be cheap and relatively small so carrying them in large numbers should be easy.

    Their command guidance and manouver performance should be very good and their range should be extended like the land based equivalents.

    I know about these missiles. Germans are doing this work to their iris-t missiles.

    Kilos have had MANPADS mounts since the 1980s.

    But about what I said I was thinking of a smaller missile that could be used in really big mass attack with torpedos. Chinese had developed such a weapon for their subs but the navy didn't accepted it. It was 20km range and 30 kg warehead (Something liike that)the name was tl-10 IIRC. Their was someone here who said a smaller KH-35 was designed, I would like to see the picture of it if it's possible. It's far enough for intercepting and damaging ships in a battle group and make them more vulnarable to futur attacks as it would destroy some of their systems.

    Such a missile would be bad for use against a carrier group... a carrier group will have plenty of anti sub helos... you really don't want to have to sail within 20km of a carrier group to fire a missile... most carrier groups will at the very least have a SSN escort that would be an enormous threat to your subs closing to within 20km of the group.

    The small Kh-35 based missile was for lighter patrol ships and helos and had a 70km range and a smaller warhead than the original... I will have a look to see if I can find the photo....

    Actually the new air to ground Hermes missile would actually fit your description... it has a range of guidance options including radar, passive laser homing, GLONASS, and IIR/TV and would have a range of about 30km with a 30kg warhead.

    A bit too light to be effective against a modern ship however.


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order

    Sponsored content

    Re: Naval Weapon Systems & Technology

    Post  Sponsored content Today at 3:25 pm


      Current date/time is Wed Dec 07, 2016 3:25 pm