Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    Standard Missiles vs Russian AShMs

    Share
    avatar
    KomissarBojanchev
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 1119
    Points : 1274
    Join date : 2012-08-05
    Age : 19
    Location : Varna, Bulgaria

    Standard Missiles vs Russian AShMs

    Post  KomissarBojanchev on Fri Aug 10, 2012 2:32 pm

    The SM-2-6 standard is the most powerful AD weapon almost all NATO standard warships have and they carry hundreds of them which have high performance and excellent range(not to mention AS capability as well) But I'm wondering how do russian AshMs fare against it. Being subsonic I'm assuming the Kh-35 and subsonic klub have very little chance to evade these SAMs even if they can do some maneuvers while while the onyx while supersonic is still too slow and unmaneuverable(I may be wrong about that) to evade a SAM going at Mach 4+ and able engage targets on sea level over horizone. Same problems have P-1000 and P-700(Correct me if I'm wrong).

    So is there a way to hit a ships that has SM-2s or SM-6s without having to waste 100+ AshMs attack  for it?
    avatar
    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 16007
    Points : 16664
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Standard Missiles vs Russian AShMs

    Post  GarryB on Sat Aug 11, 2012 1:29 am

    Sunburn during the 1980s was a definite threat to US ships... SM-2 couldn't hit targets flying below 7m above the water so it couldn't stop SS-N-22s.

    The main issue with AEGIS class cruisers is the number of directors they are fitted with... most have 2-3, so missile number 4-5 has a really good chance of getting through. Just because AEGIS has hundreds of SAMs doesn't mean it can launch them all at once and guide them all.

    During the 80s when a US AEGIS class cruiser shot down an Iranian airbus there was a film crew on board during the engagement and it was clear that they had a malfunction with their SM-2 and it took a minute and a half before they actually finally fired.

    If that had been a Soviet attack they would have been dead.

    BTW the mach 4+ speed of SM-2 comes from its flight profile... if it is being directed at a low flying target close to the ship it will not reach that sort of speed.

    The faster an object flys the further ahead you have to aim to intercept it, and the more g forces are needed to perform a given turn.A Klub missile coming in at 800km/h till it gets to the horizon and then launching a Mach 2.9 "warhead" means that if the warhead is 1km from the ship the interceptor will likely hit the ship.

    Of course large Soviet and Russian anti ship missiles are reported to have a range of defence penetration equipment including chaff and flare dispensors and jammers... and indeed armour plate.

    The British didn't think they would lose any ships in the Falklands war because the Sea Wolf and Sea Dart were excellent weapons... and they certainly were.


    _________________
    “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
    avatar
    KomissarBojanchev
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 1119
    Points : 1274
    Join date : 2012-08-05
    Age : 19
    Location : Varna, Bulgaria

    Re: Standard Missiles vs Russian AShMs

    Post  KomissarBojanchev on Sat Aug 11, 2012 7:15 am

    Very interesting information that fanboys omit thumbsup But I've heard the newer SM-6 can destroy any target above sea level(0m+) and its AWACS guided. Do you think there is a way of evading these?

    Whats the situation on the kh-22 and kh-15? Are they supersonic throughout their trip? How close to the target do they start to dive at mach 4-5?
    Can the SM-2 engage easily targets moving at 25000m and 40000m respectively?

    I think that in current times of layered ADS subsonic missiles are useless. I'm pretty sure a klub would get shot down long before releasing its payload(not to mention the fully subsonic club with 400kg warhead). Same with the kh-35.

    Does the P-700 and P-1000 stay supersonic at mach 2,5-8 throughout its flightime?

    Most people think of the aegis as some kind superpower weapon that is the silver bullet to all of the missiles the soviets could muster. Fanboys would make " our f*cking aegis will shoot down all of your soviet missiles and our F-14s would shoot down all your missile trucks from 300miles away while our AWACS would detect you from 500 miles away so keep on dreaming rus" type comments.

    Off Topic I once saw a particularly idiotic comment that said the only ways to destroy a CBG you would need a submarine or drop a dumb bomb from high altitude

    Also one person said that in a possible attack on a CBG the soviets would bombard it with dumb bombs. When someone pointed out the silliness of his statement that other guy said "then why did soviet bombers always fly high above our CBG" or a statement of similar sort
    avatar
    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 16007
    Points : 16664
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Standard Missiles vs Russian AShMs

    Post  GarryB on Sun Aug 12, 2012 1:05 am

    But I've heard the newer SM-6 can destroy any target above sea level(0m+) and its AWACS guided. Do you think there is a way of evading these?

    I would say shoot down the AWACS...

    Whats the situation on the kh-22 and kh-15? Are they supersonic throughout their trip? How close to the target do they start to dive at mach 4-5?
    Can the SM-2 engage easily targets moving at 25000m and 40000m respectively?

    The Kh-22M has two rocket chambers and operates on the lower power chamber to climb and fly to the target area and then lights up the high power rocket nozzle and accelerates to top speed when it approaches the target area.

    The Kh-15 is a solid rocket fuelled weapon that would fly at high speed all the way, but there is some question as to whether an anti ship model actually entered service or not.

    The Kh-15 was primarily a defence penetration weapon that dives at mach 5 on enemy radar and communication sites and would be used by either strategic bombers to take out major SAM or radar sites or major airfields in its path, or by the Tu-22M3 on a similar theatre mission into europe. The standard warhead would be nuclear.

    I think that in current times of layered ADS subsonic missiles are useless. I'm pretty sure a klub would get shot down long before releasing its payload(not to mention the fully subsonic club with 400kg warhead). Same with the kh-35.

    So what you are saying is that western anti ship capability is currently impotent?

    The problem with paper warfare is that it excludes the real world from the calculations.

    The Sheffield was destroyed by an exocet missile. If we had discussed this in 1981 you would have said that the British have Exocet missiles in their arsenal and are very familiar with them and there was no way an exocet missile would penetrate British naval air defences in this day and age... Seawolf can intercept individual 114mm artillery shells... and exocet would be dead meat.

    Does the P-700 and P-1000 stay supersonic at mach 2,5-8 throughout its flightime?

    At altitude... and mach 2.5 is a good approximation of their speed. Brahmos II will increase this speed to mach 5-7, but will also be at high altitude.

    Most people think of the aegis as some kind superpower weapon that is the silver bullet to all of the missiles the soviets could muster. Fanboys would make " our f*cking aegis will shoot down all of your soviet missiles and our F-14s would shoot down all your missile trucks from 300miles away while our AWACS would detect you from 500 miles away so keep on dreaming rus" type comments.

    Yes, the US ships combine the magic properties of being able to see everything but at the same time be invisible and stealthy... Funny thing is that the Russians are spending money on their satellite network... Twisted Evil

    BTW F-14s and Phoenix missiles cannot engage targets over a wide field of regard, so it could engage high targets or low targets but not both at the same time. Also I rather doubt its performance against high speed targets flying at 25,000m like Kh-22M missiles...

    Also one person said that in a possible attack on a CBG the soviets would bombard it with dumb bombs. When someone pointed out the silliness of his statement that other guy said "then why did soviet bombers always fly high above our CBG" or a statement of similar sort

    Hahaha... Soviet "bombers" attack CBGs were not carrying bombs and would not fly within bombing range anyway.

    Still I guess the Kh-22M and other missiles could be considered bombs when used in steep dives on carriers in the final stage of their attacks.

    Imagine how effective the SM-6 will be in the middle of a storm in the north atlantic?

    The advantage of being the attacker is that you get to choose when and where.

    Of course one of the more interesting ideas I have had is a variation of the container cruise missile idea the Russians developed. Tens of thousands of container ships lose containers in storms and because of their weight and the trapped air inside them they tend to float a few metres below the surface... a serious danger to shipping.

    Imagine replacing that land attack cruise missile with an anti ship cruise missile... and purposely dropping hundreds into the water ahead of a CBG you know is sailing to intervene somewhere. These missiles are not 300km export missiles, these can be domestic 1,500/2,500km range weapons so with these floating about when a satellite passes overhead it can send an encrypted signal to a large expanse of open water. That signal could be a simple burst transmission identifying the approaching ships, their speed and course. The containers themselves can be left to float with Glonass receivers telling them where they are and from that they can plot an interception course. The satellite comes over again about an hour and a half later with information about an approaching storm and the containers... using local time to determine night time can launch a missile every 20 minutes on the task force. In fact it could vary between 10 minutes and an hour at random.

    Imagine the situation for the captain of that task force... unknown source of threat. No enemy platforms to target or engage. Your forces on their toes continuously because they don't know if they have 5 minutes or 2 hours before the next attack. The attacks seem to come from random places in the open ocean without warning, ranging from a few hundred kms away to a thousand... that is a big area of water. Soon attacks start coming from behind as well.

    Even if every single incoming missile is dealt with... what about the logistics tail that is following you?

    You send out helos with dipping sonar to investigate the launch sites but there is nothing there. Submarines detect the launch noises followed hours later by an impact noise several kms below on the sea bed.

    What sort of state will that CBG arrive on station in?

    Imagine the stress and panic.

    Eventually a few containers are detected as the carrier group pass by a few... which have not been fitted with cruise missiles... but Shkval torpedoes...


    _________________
    “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: Standard Missiles vs Russian AShMs

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Tue May 23, 2017 1:18 am