Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    Naval Weapon Systems & Technology

    Share

    KomissarBojanchev
    Lieutenant Colonel
    Lieutenant Colonel

    Posts : 986
    Points : 1139
    Join date : 2012-08-05
    Age : 19
    Location : Varna, Bulgaria

    Re: Naval Weapon Systems & Technology

    Post  KomissarBojanchev on Fri Oct 14, 2016 9:10 am

    magnumcromagnon wrote:
    KomissarBojanchev wrote:

    Is this a correct representation on the effectiveness of aegis vs supersonic missiles? It says that for each aegis equipped ship you need over 25 AShMs to bring it down, not counting any additional support it might have. Can the Russian navy bring that kind of firepower?

    You shouldn't be so easily swayed by crude black propaganda. The HMS Sheffield was sunk by a "1" Excocet missile in the Falklands War, and the HMS Sheffield has a displacement of 4,820 tons, compare that to the Arleigh Burke classes 9800 tons. For it to take 25 AShMs, you would need a 100k ton displacement, and keep in mind P-800 Onyx warhead is almost 100kg's heavier (Exocet 165kg's, Onyx 250kg's). Theoretically speaking it would only need 1 to 2 Onyx to sink a Arleigh Burke destroyer, and is it mere coincidence that the Bastion-P launcher (that fires Onyx AShM's from a land vehicle) has a standard load of 2 Onyx missiles?...I think not!
    I'm talking about the number of missiles that the target will destroy until one missile gets through.

    Isos
    Master Sergeant
    Master Sergeant

    Posts : 304
    Points : 308
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Re: Naval Weapon Systems & Technology

    Post  Isos on Fri Oct 14, 2016 4:57 pm

    KomissarBojanchev wrote:

    Is this a correct representation on the effectiveness of aegis vs supersonic missiles? It says that for each aegis equipped ship you need over 25 AShMs to bring it down, not counting any additional support it might have. Can the Russian navy bring that kind of firepower?

    https://defencyclopedia.com/2014/12/27/explained-how-the-us-navy-can-shoot-down-the-deadly-brahmos-missile/

    An other analyse that is according to me better done.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15450
    Points : 16157
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Naval Weapon Systems & Technology

    Post  GarryB on Sat Oct 15, 2016 9:20 am

    You shouldn't be so easily swayed by crude black propaganda. The HMS Sheffield was sunk by a "1" Excocet missile in the Falklands War, and the HMS Sheffield has a displacement of 4,820 tons, compare that to the Arleigh Burke classes 9800 tons. For it to take 25 AShMs, you would need a 100k ton displacement, and keep in mind P-800 Onyx warhead is almost 100kg's heavier (Exocet 165kg's, Onyx 250kg's). Theoretically speaking it would only need 1 to 2 Onyx to sink a Arleigh Burke destroyer, and is it mere coincidence that the Bastion-P launcher (that fires Onyx AShM's from a land vehicle) has a standard load of 2 Onyx missiles?...I think not!

    I would add one critical piece of information... of all the Exocets that sank several boats in the falklands conflict... AFAIK none of them were believed to have actually exploded. Most just burned until the fire set off ammo or fuel...

    If you look at OS's signature picture to see what sort of damage a fast moving missile can create... one hit will be enough.

    Also keep in mind that Granit is a 7 ton missile at launch... even when it arrives on target it is several tons moving as fast as most rifle bullets and it has an armoured warhead that shrapnel or even 20mm cannon shells are rather unlikely to set off.

    Some models actually hit the water 20m short of hitting the ship and detonate when it penetrates the hull... which would direct all the blast into the ship as the sea water behind it wont compress...

    When tested against actual sea skimming targets the Phalanx was found to be useless despite claiming it was capable against mach 2.5 Vandal targets it seems that very low flying targets create multipath returns with the radar off the wavetops... hense Sea RAM was developed... but I personally doubt it has the hitting power for the job.

    I would say the country with the most experience with supersonic anti ship missiles are the Russians... and they fit CIWS based on 30mm cannon and short range missiles in large numbers on all their vessels...


    _________________
    “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

    KomissarBojanchev
    Lieutenant Colonel
    Lieutenant Colonel

    Posts : 986
    Points : 1139
    Join date : 2012-08-05
    Age : 19
    Location : Varna, Bulgaria

    Re: Naval Weapon Systems & Technology

    Post  KomissarBojanchev on Sat Oct 15, 2016 9:28 am

    GarryB wrote:
    You shouldn't be so easily swayed by crude black propaganda. The HMS Sheffield was sunk by a "1" Excocet missile in the Falklands War, and the HMS Sheffield has a displacement of 4,820 tons, compare that to the Arleigh Burke classes 9800 tons. For it to take 25 AShMs, you would need a 100k ton displacement, and keep in mind P-800 Onyx warhead is almost 100kg's heavier (Exocet 165kg's, Onyx 250kg's). Theoretically speaking it would only need 1 to 2 Onyx to sink a Arleigh Burke destroyer, and is it mere coincidence that the Bastion-P launcher (that fires Onyx AShM's from a land vehicle) has a standard load of 2 Onyx missiles?...I think not!

    I would add one critical piece of information... of all the Exocets that sank several boats in the falklands conflict... AFAIK none of them were believed to have actually exploded. Most just burned until the fire set off ammo or fuel...

    If you look at OS's signature picture to see what sort of damage a fast moving missile can create... one hit will be enough.

    Also keep in mind that Granit is a 7 ton missile at launch... even when it arrives on target it is several tons moving as fast as most rifle bullets and it has an armoured warhead that shrapnel or even 20mm cannon shells are rather unlikely to set off.

    Some models actually hit the water 20m short of hitting the ship and detonate when it penetrates the hull... which would direct all the blast into the ship as the sea water behind it wont compress...

    When tested against actual sea skimming targets the Phalanx was found to be useless despite claiming it was capable against mach 2.5 Vandal targets it seems that very low flying targets create multipath returns with the radar off the wavetops... hense Sea RAM was developed... but I personally doubt it has the hitting power for the job.

    I would say the country with the most experience with supersonic anti ship missiles are the Russians... and they fit CIWS based on 30mm cannon and short range missiles in large numbers on all their vessels...

    What if those 20mm shells destroy the engine or slice off the P-700's wing?

    Sponsored content

    Re: Naval Weapon Systems & Technology

    Post  Sponsored content Today at 2:41 pm


      Current date/time is Sat Dec 03, 2016 2:41 pm