Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    Scenario: Russia vs NATO aircraft carrier and its standard carrier battle group

    Share

    Mindstorm
    Captain
    Captain

    Posts : 737
    Points : 920
    Join date : 2011-07-20

    Re: Scenario: Russia vs NATO aircraft carrier and its standard carrier battle group

    Post  Mindstorm on Sun Mar 23, 2014 3:14 pm

    Deep Throat wrote:Nothing wrong with it but the questions related to jamming of cruise missiles were not asked .


    I fear that you have not read it attentively or integrally....

    To resume in the simpler way the main concept about the subject in question : any Navy a world (and even more US Navy) is perfectly aware of a series of inescapable technical problems related to jamming modern AshM and much more high supersonic ones.

    Those factors differentiate substantially ECM warfare in Naval operations from Aerial ones.


    1) A very basic concept  Smile  : not radiating radars are obviously completely immune to active jamming interference  Very Happy.
    Now a less obvious and widely known concept : to the contrary of what usually portrayed in low level debates on this subject (usually by part of people completely oblivious of the fundamental discriminating factors between defensive radar's jamming operation  in air and naval operations) sophisticated high-supersonic anti-ship missiles not actually radiate AT ALL in theirs terminal phase of the engagement .

    Those missiles simply proceed , executing contextually high G evasive maneuvers and employing a vast array of active and passive countermeasures, toward a pre-computed intercept point  - coming from a composite radar "picture" originating from a multi-point , data sharing and crossing , pseudo random short-burst pulses by part of missiles in the pack carrying on very brief and far over the horizon pop-out maneuvers acting as momentary "missiles swarm leaders" (see under.....)- that theirs slow ,clumsy and hundreds-meters-long targets are totally incapable to avoid by any mean.    

    2) Jamming signal density at radiating point follow the square function of distance , therefore the widely increased range at which an high-supersonic AshM swarm can begin to proceed toward unavoidable intercept points ,without the requirements of any further target positional update, generate exponentially bigger interference's radiated power requirements and moreover easily simplify , in particular for modern adaptive high-noise amplifiers - efficiency of signal-to-noise data selection s' algorithms and active side lobe cancellation
    What up said, combined with the forced area's density compression , limited mobility and..... constant altitude plane....... of the high RCS targets composing a CVBG also terribly complicate ,or even negate "tout court", if we talk of very up-to-date AShM specimens, chances to conduct successfully jamming attempts in the only effective window of exposure (pseudo-random pop-out maneuver by part of the momentary active tracking swarm's leading missiles) by part of third part assets placed on different planes and/or azimuth, like airborne one at example, for the possibility to capitalize in Dolph-Tschebysheff side lobes highly selective DoA signal processing and rejections algorithms.
    This mean that the active jamming systems on board of the same targeted ships become very often the unique possible ECM option against high supersonic missiles in theirs window of exposure.  


    3) Active jamming chances of success against modern arrays are highly "time-sensitive" ; therefore the multi direction, pseudo-random, short-burst pulses employed by part of the high supersonic maneuvering missiles ,popping out momentarily from radar horizon to contribute at create the "composite" radar picture of the enemy naval group, immensely exacerbate the already titanic problems up exposed facing the ECM systems defending a CVBG.


    For all the reason cited naval operations defenses against highly supersonic missiles capable of swarm attacks must forcibly rely almost exclusively on hard kill neutralization of the menaces and also here the very high speed and maneuvering performances and active countermeasure of such AShMs enormously contribute at render very very difficult the task.

     
    Deep Throat wrote:This guy is from the US Army . What will he know about the Navy ? His comments are frankly  sophomoric in nature .


    Do you have even only listened what it actually said ?  Very Happy  Very Happy

    It  has cited a statement of US Navy Admiral Hyman G. Rickover the same father and conceiver of US Navy nuclear fleets !!
    In spite of that cold awareness of theirs clear vulnerability in an open war against an high-end opponent it remained  the bigger defender  of the nuclear powered supercarriers …….and at reason, under an aggressive and expansionistic POV,  seeing the immense military influence’s pressure that the US has exerted in all those years just thanks to expeditionary capability of its CVBGs.

    Vann7
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 3236
    Points : 3360
    Join date : 2012-05-16

    Re: Scenario: Russia vs NATO aircraft carrier and its standard carrier battle group

    Post  Vann7 on Mon Mar 24, 2014 10:10 am

    The question should be what are the probabilities for US to defend an aircraft carrier in the Black sea.?
    The answer .ZERO.. not a chance to survive a wave of 3-4 missiles fired at the same time that approach from different directions.




    Navy Lacks Plan to Defend Against

    ``This is a very low-flying, fast missile,'' said retired Rear Admiral Eric McVadon, a former U.S. naval attache in Beijing. ``It won't be visible until it's quite close. By the time you detect it to the time it hits you is very short. You'd want to know your capabilities to handle this sort of missile.''
    On final approach, the missile ``has the potential to perform very high defensive maneuvers,'' including sharp-angled dodges, the Office of Naval Intelligence said in a manual on worldwide maritime threats.

    The Sizzler is ``unique,'' the Defense Science Board, an independent agency within the Pentagon that provides assessments of major defense issues, said in an October 2005 report. Most anti-ship cruise missiles fly below the speed of sound and on a straight path, making them easier to track and target.

    http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=a5LkaU0wj714



    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7IZ4Ac0duP4

    Its worth to know that one top Russian official from the defense told than even their S-400s have a lot of
    trouble to handle them. IN his words is a missile nearly impossible to defeat. Think it was the Defense minister.
    and in the black sea.. Russia can launch them from safety of land..





    RTN
    Sergeant
    Sergeant

    Posts : 185
    Points : 170
    Join date : 2014-03-24
    Location : Fairfield , CT

    Re: Scenario: Russia vs NATO aircraft carrier and its standard carrier battle group

    Post  RTN on Mon Mar 24, 2014 11:15 am

    Vann7 wrote:
    Its worth to know that one top Russian official from the defense told than even their S-400s have a lot of
    trouble to handle them. IN his words is a missile nearly impossible to defeat. Think it was the Defense minister.
    and in the black sea.. Russia can launch them from safety of land..

    The Naval version of the S 400 was actually designed keeping missiles like Yakhont in mind . So ideally the naval S 400 will be able to intercept such cruise missiles .

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15490
    Points : 16197
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Scenario: Russia vs NATO aircraft carrier and its standard carrier battle group

    Post  GarryB on Tue Mar 25, 2014 10:30 am

    Does the name Naval Strike Missile ring a bell ?

    Gee , and it was me , who was accused of trolling .

    I didn't accuse anyone of trolling.

    But I am becoming certain you don't know what you are talking about.

    How long have the Russian forces had this Naval Strike Missile in service?

    It is a Norwegian anti ship missile so they don't... which kinda makes it irrelevant to this discussion.
    Especially as it is a coastal missile system to be used near the coast and islands where tercom can be used but must be used with INS and satellite guidance to check the missiles position for the flight to the target.

    Very simply put a US carrier group will not get within 300km of the coast of the country it is attacking unless something is seriously wrong... this means that the missiles you fire at the US carriers need to be long range missiles... not coastal missiles designed to avoid flying into islands or mountains on its way to its target.

    the only Russian Anti Ship missile with Tercom would be Brahmos because it is also a cruise missile for use against land targets and AFAIK it is not in service in Russia. the Onyx has no land attack capability. Kalibr is a land attack cruise missile with terminal guidance but AFAIK has no anti ship capability. The anti ship models of Klub (one subsonic and one supersonic... the latter called Sizzler) don't have land attack capability AFAIK so would not have tercom guidance either.

    the Black Sea is Tiny and would be a trap for a carrier group... The Kuznetsov sometimes visits but would never be based there for obvious reasons... it is too dangerous... and there is no point because land based aircraft can do the job.

    AFAIK the naval version of the S-400 is not yet in service... and Yakhont is the downgraded export model of the Onyx... Russia would not launch Yakhonts at the US Navy... though Syria might.


    _________________
    “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

    Deep Throat
    Junior Sergeant
    Junior Sergeant

    Posts : 100
    Points : 132
    Join date : 2013-05-22

    Re: Scenario: Russia vs NATO aircraft carrier and its standard carrier battle group

    Post  Deep Throat on Tue Mar 25, 2014 5:48 pm

    GarryB wrote:I didn't accuse anyone of trolling.

    I wasn't referring to you either , but the individual who said that I was trolling .


    GarryB wrote:But I am becoming certain you don't know what you are talking about.

    You are welcome . And I am certain that any observation that is even minutely interpreted albeit incorrectly as anti Russia in this forum is treated with disdain and shouted down even if those observations are made by  the forum owner .

    Compare the two statements that you made

    First , you said

    GarryB wrote:anti ship missiles use inertial guidance and satellite guidance because there is no terrain at sea to substitute to allow TERCOM.

    And now you say

    GarryB wrote:the only Russian Anti Ship missile with Tercom would be Brahmos


    Now notice the inconsistency in your own statements . First you said anti ship missiles do not use TERCOM only to contradict it later by saying that Brahmos uses TERCOM .

    On a side note , the Russian Navy does not have Brahmos and they don't need Brahmos . They already have the more potent Onix . Brahmos is basically Yakhont with the Indians developing a seeker and to a lesser degree the guidance system .



    GarryB wrote:How long have the Russian forces had this Naval Strike Missile in service?

    It is a Norwegian anti ship missile so they don't...


    Again , I never said that Naval Strike Missile is Russian . I said the Naval Strike Missile uses TERCOM . Or to be more precise a TERCOM equivalent .

    RTN wrote:The Naval version of the S 400 was actually designed keeping missiles like Yakhont in mind . So ideally the naval S 400 will be able to intercept such cruise missiles .

    But now the US and China are both developing hypersonic cruise missiles .

    flamming_python
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 3192
    Points : 3320
    Join date : 2012-01-30

    Re: Scenario: Russia vs NATO aircraft carrier and its standard carrier battle group

    Post  flamming_python on Tue Mar 25, 2014 9:18 pm

    I think that aircraft carriers can be reasonably survivable, and perfectly useful in a full-scale war. After all, they have not only their escort battle group, but also their entire air wing to protect them, and that airwing, equipped with anti-ship, anti-sub, air-to-air weapons - does have the range to intercept almost all types of threats before those threats get within range of the carrier itself. The key is to detect those threats ahead of time

    And also, to use the carriers right.

    Sailing them right into the Black Sea, or anywhere near the coast of a powerful, advanced adversary is not using carriers right  What a Face 
    It's the equivalent of sending your armour forces in single file through a steep narrow canyon or a city with no infantry support.

    In a full-scale war those aircraft carriers will function best for securing airspace in certain sea sectors, or closer to ones own borders, or alternatively - for confrontation with enemy naval groups in the open ocean.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15490
    Points : 16197
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Scenario: Russia vs NATO aircraft carrier and its standard carrier battle group

    Post  GarryB on Thu Mar 27, 2014 1:36 am

    Now notice the inconsistency in your own statements . First you said anti ship missiles do not use TERCOM only to contradict it later by saying that Brahmos uses TERCOM .

    On a side note , the Russian Navy does not have Brahmos and they don't need Brahmos . They already have the more potent Onix . Brahmos is basically Yakhont with the Indians developing a seeker and to a lesser degree the guidance system .

    There is no terrain at sea... TERCOM is used over land. Russia had no anti ship missile that had built in land attack capability till the Brahmos was jointly developed with India.

    TERCOM is used in this Norwegian missile to avoid hitting terrain features on its way to the target... tercom compares the terrain where the missile is currently flying with a digital map in its memory and uses that information to work out where it is based on the shape of the land below it as it passes. WTF use is that at sea?

    Brahmos has it because it is also a land attack cruise missile.

    This Norwegian missile has it because it can be used near islands or coastline which means it can update its position based on the island it just flew over in case it has no GPS reception.

    Onyx has no land attack capability which would be a reason for the Russian Navy to use Brahmos instead of Onyx because unlike Onyx, Brahmos can be used against ground and sea targets.

    You are welcome . And I am certain that any observation that is even minutely interpreted albeit incorrectly as anti Russia in this forum is treated with disdain and shouted down even if those observations are made by the forum owner .

    Again... you clearly don't know what you are talking about... it is not US carriers that would not be safe in the Black Sea... it would be any carriers... even Russian ones would be too vulnerable in the Black Sea...  Rolling Eyes 

    How can even 80 ship based aircraft deal with S-400s and an enemy air force of several hundred modern fighters?

    Now notice the inconsistency in your own statements . First you said anti ship missiles do not use TERCOM only to contradict it later by saying that Brahmos uses TERCOM .

    Anti ship missiles don't use TERCOM. Missiles that have a land attack capability that can also be used against ships benefit from TERCOM guidance in the land attack role ONLY. There is no use for TERCOM guidance for missiles designed only to sink US carriers.

    Again , I never said that Naval Strike Missile is Russian . I said the Naval Strike Missile uses TERCOM . Or to be more precise a TERCOM equivalent .

    You said;

    Russian / Chinese cruise missiles will use terrain contour matching (TERCOM) Digital Scene Matching Area Correlation (DSMAC) to home in on a target , just like NATO cruise missile.

    Please enlighten us as to which valleys the Russian and Chinese missiles will follow to find US Carriers? Maybe they will find a main highway and follow that all the way?


    Again , I never said that Naval Strike Missile is Russian . I said the Naval Strike Missile uses TERCOM . Or to be more precise a TERCOM equivalent .

    No... you are asking how Russian forces would sink a US Carrier in the Black Sea, and when discussing it you stated that Russian and Chinese anti ship missiles use TERCOM guidance.

    When challenged to that point you bring up a multirole missile that can be used against naval targets, but also against land targets uses a type of TERCOM, that Russia would never use as it has not got it in service and likely never will.

    Bravo... and I am being anti American for pointing that out am I?

    But now the US and China are both developing hypersonic cruise missiles .

    The S-500 can intercept satellites... how fast do you think the hypersonic cruise missiles will be able to fly?

    I think that aircraft carriers can be reasonably survivable, and perfectly useful in a full-scale war.

    There is no such thing as invincible... everything has a weakness or can be defeated.

    Carriers appear big and vulnerable and of course if you take them into stupid places like a small enclosed sea then they will be vulnerable, but used sensibly they greatly extend the reach and vision of naval units.

    Claiming aircraft carriers are vulnerable is the same as declaring the Air Force main air bases are Vulnerable and we shouldn't have an air force.



    _________________
    “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

    Vann7
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 3236
    Points : 3360
    Join date : 2012-05-16

    Re: Scenario: Russia vs NATO aircraft carrier and its standard carrier battle group

    Post  Vann7 on Tue Apr 01, 2014 3:33 am

    Actually the Russian Navy will not use Brahmos ,they are twice expensive (for being multi purpose warhead) and limited range (300km) than their cruise missiles. Brahmos cost $3millions each missile. American old Tomahawks cost 1.5 million each.

    For land attack Russia have Kalibrs (3m-14) domestic Land attack version..  [the anti-ship version is 3m-54]

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3M-54_Klub

    3M-14 launched from submarines and 3m-14T launched from surface warships.(but also could be launched from custom trucks with very little change overnight in case Russia at war). up to 900km range (wiki) up to 2600km according to Russian navy sources.



    Price have to be less than $1 million the land attack version.
    With 2600km range Russia can launch Kalibrs from warships from the safety of the caspian sea and hit any part of the middle east ,most of Europe ,cover Syria or IRAN in case they at war and invaded.. Russia enemies will not see the missiles from where they come ,only will see they being bombed with very accurate hits.. IF brahmos accuracy test is any indication of the technology Knowledge that Russia have ,they could do Direct hits on a building and even make it enter through its main door and explode inside. Perhaps the near perfect accuracy have something to do with its enormous price.

    With a hundred of Kalibrs antiship missiles Russia can pretty much defeat any strong NATO carrier fleet in the black sea and several aircraft carriers. That is using 3x-4x missiles per destroyer warship and about 6-8x per aircraft carrier. This is why this topic premise is wrong.. The worst place and worse way to fight Russia is with a navy and from the black sea.

    RTN
    Sergeant
    Sergeant

    Posts : 185
    Points : 170
    Join date : 2014-03-24
    Location : Fairfield , CT

    Re: Scenario: Russia vs NATO aircraft carrier and its standard carrier battle group

    Post  RTN on Wed Apr 09, 2014 9:44 am

    Mindstorm wrote:
    1) A very basic concept  Smile  : not radiating radars are obviously completely immune to active jamming interference  Very Happy.
    Now a less obvious and widely known concept : to the contrary of what usually portrayed in low level debates on this subject (usually by part of people completely oblivious of the fundamental discriminating factors between defensive radar's jamming operation  in air and naval operations) sophisticated high-supersonic anti-ship missiles not actually radiate AT ALL in theirs terminal phase of the engagement .

    Those missiles simply proceed , executing contextually high G evasive maneuvers and employing a vast array of active and passive countermeasures, toward a pre-computed intercept point  - coming from a composite radar "picture" originating from a multi-point , data sharing and crossing , pseudo random short-burst pulses by part of missiles in the pack carrying on very brief and far over the horizon pop-out maneuvers acting as momentary "missiles swarm leaders" (see under.....)- that theirs slow ,clumsy and hundreds-meters-long targets are totally incapable to avoid by any mean.    

    You say it executes high-G manoeuvres, which for a ramjet driven airframe is challenging because of the airflow required to maintain the ramjet . I imagine that it could perform no more than 6-9g. You say it does not radiate . But that is not possible because there are sensors on-board, if so it's accuracy will be much reduced compared to an active seeker, even using a 'fused' picture.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15490
    Points : 16197
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Scenario: Russia vs NATO aircraft carrier and its standard carrier battle group

    Post  GarryB on Wed Apr 09, 2014 11:59 am

    But now the US and China are both developing hypersonic cruise missiles .

    Russia has the Kh-32 in service (it replaces the Kh-22M), and is getting the Zirconium ready for service use and has the Brahmos II in development...

    Actually the Russian Navy will not use Brahmos ,they are twice expensive (for being multi purpose warhead) and limited range (300km) than their cruise missiles. Brahmos cost $3millions each missile. American old Tomahawks cost 1.5 million each.

    They might adapt the new electronics developed for the multipurpose Brahmos and stick it into a longer range Onyx missile and get the best of both worlds with a longer range heavier warhead land attack and anti ship missile.

    Yakhont cost 800K and I would expect the Onyx to be a similar price... especially in the near future when most Russian Navy vessels will have UKSK launchers and the missiles can be put into mass production.

    A Brahmosed Onyx would give them a 500km range mach 2.8 land attack cruise missile as well as anti ship missile... well worth the money till the Zircon is in service.

    3M-14 launched from submarines and 3m-14T launched from surface warships.(but also could be launched from custom trucks with very little change overnight in case Russia at war). up to 900km range (wiki) up to 2600km according to Russian navy sources.

    And shipping container launchers... and the 2,600km range is more accurate.

    the Kalibr is a conventional warhead development of the nuclear armed Granat (SS-N-21). (not to be confused with the SS-N-19 Granit...)
    the Kalibr has terminal guidance accurate enough to allow a conventional warhead to be used.

    You say it executes high-G manoeuvres, which for a ramjet driven airframe is challenging because of the airflow required to maintain the ramjet .

    Only in the last few seconds of flight in the last 3-4km to the target... where CIWS will be trying to shoot it down... a few hard manouvers are enough to make the Phalanx like systems spray their fire in all directions with unpredictable flight paths meaning continuous bursts of fire needed and even then success is unlikely.

    You say it does not radiate . But that is not possible because there are sensors on-board, if so it's accuracy will be much reduced compared to an active seeker, even using a 'fused' picture.

    The fact that an anti ship missile carries a radar does not mean it must continually radiate energy and give away its position.

    the Moskit for instance (SS-N-22) climbs to 300m on launch and scans for its target 120km away. When it gets a lock it drops down to below 7m above the water and flys to its target at high speed. Once the target appears over the horizon a quick scan to see how far the target has moved and then the radar is turned off and the missile closes the last 20 odd kms at very high speed allowing almost no time for the target to move... terminal manouvers meaning few or no hits from 20mm cannon shells before impact.

    If the target is alert and scanning for targets then those emissions can be used to determine the targets position without emitting radar signals at all.


    _________________
    “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

    RTN
    Sergeant
    Sergeant

    Posts : 185
    Points : 170
    Join date : 2014-03-24
    Location : Fairfield , CT

    Re: Scenario: Russia vs NATO aircraft carrier and its standard carrier battle group

    Post  RTN on Sat Apr 12, 2014 11:09 am

    GarryB wrote:If the target is alert and scanning for targets then those emissions can be used to determine the targets position without emitting radar signals at all.

    So what you are saying is that missiles like the BRAHMOS have Initial & Command Guidance .

    It can be passive and share info from other in the salvo launch presumably engaging the same target and it can be active to, illumining the target when there are no convenient active emission or the target is moving .

    I doubt it can use terrestrial transmitters like radio mast for location .

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15490
    Points : 16197
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Scenario: Russia vs NATO aircraft carrier and its standard carrier battle group

    Post  GarryB on Sun Apr 13, 2014 10:57 am

    So what you are saying is that missiles like the BRAHMOS have Initial & Command Guidance

    I don't know what Initial guidance is and they are certainly not command guidance as there is no human control during the terminal phase.

    Onyx is the successor to Granit and Moskit... Granit has a wolf pack homing design... I can't remember if it was 8 or 12 missiles can be launched and they work together as a team. At launch they will have a radar picture of the target via satellite (ie Legenda). They know where the target is roughly and they know where they are launched from so all 8-12 missiles will fly at medium height to maximise range. When they approach the radar horizon of the target all but one will drop down to remain unseen by the target and the one missile remaining high will scan the target and then drop down to fly with the other missiles. It will process the scan, pick out the targets and assign the other missiles to each target depending on the information in the radar return... so a small ship might get one missile while a large target might get 3-4 missiles targeting it including any nuclear armed missiles in the group. If the lead missile is shot down one of he other missiles will climb and get a radar image of the target and perform the command role of allocating individual missiles to targets. When they cross the radar horizon another scan will take place and the updated data will be data linked to the other missiles which will remain radar silent to impact.

    If one of the target vessels is emitting it will be targetted passively like an anti radiation missile.

    Some missiles will carry active jammers and decoy dispensers.

    Granit is a supersonic missile but uses a turbojet engine for propulsion... which means it carries a lot of fuel for the job.

    The Onyx is a ramjet powered supersonic missile and because of the much more efficient propulsion and more modern, lighter structure instead of 7 tons like the Granit, it is 3.5 tons. Both have armour plate to protect the main warhead from CIWS cannon fire, the Onyx uses titanium armour for reduced weight.

    I suspect the Zirconium will use scramjet propulsion and a ceramic armour plate.

    I doubt it can use terrestrial transmitters like radio mast for location

    Initial data is from satellite or recon platform.

    The main platform for Granit was the Oscar class SSGN which would fire upon targets 500-700km distant using data via satellite.

    It is believed the missiles could uplink target data to the launch platform too.


    _________________
    “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

    RTN
    Sergeant
    Sergeant

    Posts : 185
    Points : 170
    Join date : 2014-03-24
    Location : Fairfield , CT

    Re: Scenario: Russia vs NATO aircraft carrier and its standard carrier battle group

    Post  RTN on Sun Apr 13, 2014 11:12 am

    Thanks GarryB . My Vote .

    navyfield
    Senior Sergeant
    Senior Sergeant

    Posts : 211
    Points : 168
    Join date : 2013-05-27

    Re: Scenario: Russia vs NATO aircraft carrier and its standard carrier battle group

    Post  navyfield on Sun Apr 13, 2014 12:15 pm

    in granit nuclear warhead was 2x lighter then conventional one, so they put a titanium shield in font of it ,not only to ballance missile but add protection, if a tactical nuke exploded 10km of the ship it would destroy other granit missiles and ship might survive. so only those granit missiles had protection not conventional ones.
    you dont need to activate warhead, destroying control surfaces with ciws is good enough to make missile plunge into water.
    each missile has specific frequency radiated ,and designater number from 1-24 on its operating frequency ,they pulse this frequency from time to time to establish rank, so number one will from inertial data pop- up first around 70-100km from the target and send radar data to other missiles,in case its destroyed then number 2,3,4,.... depending on radar return 3-4 missiels will go to highest radar signature ,then others are assigned 1-2 apiece depending on number of targets.

    collegeboy16
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 1207
    Points : 1234
    Join date : 2012-10-05
    Age : 20
    Location : Roanapur

    Re: Scenario: Russia vs NATO aircraft carrier and its standard carrier battle group

    Post  collegeboy16 on Sun Apr 13, 2014 1:32 pm

    afaik it would be hard if not impossible to initiate uncontrolled detonation of nuke warhead. Its like a shaped charge warhead, you botch up the liner cone/ physics package and it doesnt form a jet/nuke explosion that powerful or even at all.
    Also i believe that such missiles capable of wolfpacks can alter their approach to the target ie as lead missile heads on to the target the others speed up and skirt the enemy radar as much as possible then go in from several directions at once.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15490
    Points : 16197
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Scenario: Russia vs NATO aircraft carrier and its standard carrier battle group

    Post  GarryB on Mon Apr 14, 2014 11:00 am

    in granit nuclear warhead was 2x lighter then conventional one, so they put a titanium shield in font of it ,not only to ballance missile but add protection, if a tactical nuke exploded 10km of the ship it would destroy other granit missiles and ship might survive. so only those granit missiles had protection not conventional ones.

    Nuclear warheads don't detonate when they are shot or damaged... actually quite the opposite.. they don't properly detonate if they are damaged.

    Most nuclear weapons rely on the precise bringing together of very heavy elements... usually explosives slam pieces of Uranium 235 together to form critical mass and a fission explosion. More modern weapons will encase that Fission trigger with hydrogen elements an exotic form to generate a fusion reaction that generates a much more powerful blast. Either way they don't like even small arms fire which could misalign materials and greatly reduce the yield or even prevent critical mass.

    The Titanium shields are to stop the roughly 50 cal DU projectiles from Phalanx CIWS and they would stop such rounds at distances that mattered.

    A 750kg HE warhead exploding 300m or less from a ship would have devastating consequences and shooting off a control surface would not have the effect you seem to believe most of the time. Shooting off a fin would not instantly make the incoming 3-4 ton missile suddenly veer off into the sea... a low level and high speed it might start to veer but the remaining control surfaces will try to compensate and in the last few seconds before impact it probably wont matter too much with the ship still being hit and seriously damaged.

    The Granit in its nuclear form was designed to take out the whole carrier group in one shot... a 10km miss would be very unlikely... even Scud could do better than that and it is not guided.

    you dont need to activate warhead, destroying control surfaces with ciws is good enough to make missile plunge into water.

    Look at Soviet/Russian CIWS vs US/Western... the Soviets go for heavier calibre guns for extra range and they use HE Frag shells instead of armour piercing DU sub calibre slugs the main reason is that the Soviets/Russians know that just hitting an incoming missile is not good enough and the best way to stop a high speed anti ship missile is by obliterating it and the easiest way of obliterating it is to set off its warhead at a safe distance. Anything inside about 500m is not safe for conventional explosives and probably 10-15km or more for nukes depending on the type and size.

    Also i believe that such missiles capable of wolfpacks can alter their approach to the target ie as lead missile heads on to the target the others speed up and skirt the enemy radar as much as possible then go in from several directions at once.

    The Granit was using datalinks and satellite targeting in the early 1980s... one can only imagine what Zirconium is capable of.

    the new propulsion will allow smaller lighter missiles that can be much more widely deployed and produced in much greater numbers.


    _________________
    “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

    navyfield
    Senior Sergeant
    Senior Sergeant

    Posts : 211
    Points : 168
    Join date : 2013-05-27

    Re: Scenario: Russia vs NATO aircraft carrier and its standard carrier battle group

    Post  navyfield on Wed Apr 16, 2014 8:31 pm

    there is still a chanse nuclear warhead might detonate , or be deactivated (missile is uselles then) ,so shield was needed in both cases.. Rolling Eyes 

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15490
    Points : 16197
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Scenario: Russia vs NATO aircraft carrier and its standard carrier battle group

    Post  GarryB on Thu Apr 17, 2014 7:46 am

    there is still a chanse nuclear warhead might detonate , or be deactivated (missile is uselles then) ,so shield was needed in both cases.

    All the granit types had shields.


    _________________
    “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

    navyfield
    Senior Sergeant
    Senior Sergeant

    Posts : 211
    Points : 168
    Join date : 2013-05-27

    Re: Scenario: Russia vs NATO aircraft carrier and its standard carrier battle group

    Post  navyfield on Fri May 23, 2014 5:45 pm

    you should stop spreading nonsense

    http://i59.fastpic.ru/big/2013/1029/96/fb110ca47335d0843f00ccf396bf0a96.jpg

    where will you put the shield , when incoming projectiles destroy active radar guidance and everything of electronics , missile is defeated. there is no point in shielding warhead , or you plan to put titanium in front of radar dish ??  Laughing tongue 

    macedonian
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 1086
    Points : 1121
    Join date : 2013-04-29
    Location : Skopje, Macedonia - Скопје, Македонија

    Re: Scenario: Russia vs NATO aircraft carrier and its standard carrier battle group

    Post  macedonian on Fri May 23, 2014 5:48 pm

    navyfield wrote:you should stop spreading nonsense

    http://i59.fastpic.ru/big/2013/1029/96/fb110ca47335d0843f00ccf396bf0a96.jpg

    where will you put the shield , when incoming projectiles destroy active radar guidance and everything of electronics , missile is defeated. there is no point in shielding warhead , or you plan to put titanium in front of radar dish ??  Laughing tongue 
    How old are you kid?

    navyfield
    Senior Sergeant
    Senior Sergeant

    Posts : 211
    Points : 168
    Join date : 2013-05-27

    Re: Scenario: Russia vs NATO aircraft carrier and its standard carrier battle group

    Post  navyfield on Fri May 23, 2014 5:50 pm

    that is a personal question.

    macedonian
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 1086
    Points : 1121
    Join date : 2013-04-29
    Location : Skopje, Macedonia - Скопје, Македонија

    Re: Scenario: Russia vs NATO aircraft carrier and its standard carrier battle group

    Post  macedonian on Fri May 23, 2014 6:08 pm

    navyfield wrote:that is a personal question.

    I know

    Stealthflanker
    Major
    Major

    Posts : 808
    Points : 894
    Join date : 2009-08-04
    Age : 28
    Location : Indonesia

    Re: Scenario: Russia vs NATO aircraft carrier and its standard carrier battle group

    Post  Stealthflanker on Sat May 24, 2014 9:42 am

    RTN wrote:

    You say it executes high-G manoeuvres, which for a ramjet driven airframe  is challenging because of the airflow required to maintain the ramjet .

    Which is the reason why we have that kind of inlet in Yakhont. The axisymmetric inlet is beautiful since it has high AOA performance and being compact although it may somewhat take more volume inside, but it works.

    There we have your high G maneuver


    I imagine that it could perform no more than 6-9g. You say it does not radiate . But  that is not possible because there are  sensors on-board, if so it's accuracy will be much reduced compared to an active seeker, even using a 'fused' picture.

    Does the sensor need to radiate to work ? Why it can't listen and home in to enemy radar emission ?

    As far as i read Oniks missile does that, it'll only radiate in very short time, enough just to update course and predict target movement. After that it'll go passive.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15490
    Points : 16197
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Scenario: Russia vs NATO aircraft carrier and its standard carrier battle group

    Post  GarryB on Sat May 24, 2014 12:03 pm

    you should stop spreading nonsense

    Perhaps if you took the time to think things through and actually listened properly and asked questions before jumping to conclusions and making silly statements you might not be asked how old you are...

    where will you put the shield , when incoming projectiles destroy active radar guidance and everything of electronics , missile is defeated. there is no point in shielding warhead , or you plan to put titanium in front of radar dish ??

    When the driver of a truck carrying 30 tons of explosives that is driving into a building at high speed and you shoot the driver as he crosses the footpath do you think the building is saved?

    A very high speed 7 ton missile doesn't just fall vertically from the sky when you shoot out its radar... in fact the best way to stop such an object is to set off its warhead which will utterly destroy it.

    It is not new... during WWII US sailors found heavy calibre guns that obliterated the incoming Japanese suicide attack aircraft were more effective than rifle calibre machineguns that might kill the pilot but not stop the enemy plane or the explosives loaded on board from hitting their ship.

    Whether the warhead is high explosive or nuclear there is every reason to protect it with a shield... if it goes off inside the target it will be devastating... if it is hit at 1,500m from the target ship because Phalanx or Goalkeeper set off the warhead in the case of a HE payload or the sensitive nuclear warhead is damaged and it therefore wont explode even if it makes it to the target then it will be a failure.

    Even if Phalanx destroys the HE warhead at 300m or less Granit would be devastating to any modern ship... Phalanx rounds bouncing off a shield in front of the warhead means warhead intact so even if the missile starts to dive out of control with no vision of the target there is still a very good chance it will hit the target... the radar doesn't generally operate at such close range anyway so it will be flying on inertial guidance at where it thinks the target is... shattering the seeker means nothing at this stage... the only salvation is detonating the HE warhead at more than 800m or damaging the nuke warhead so it wont detonate properly.

    You say it executes high-G manoeuvres, which for a ramjet driven airframe is challenging because of the airflow required to maintain the ramjet .

    The manouvers are in the terminal phase to reduce the effectiveness of CIWS gatlings... a flame out at that speed would not effect performance very much at all.

    I imagine that it could perform no more than 6-9g.

    Why? Do you think the pilot on the Onyx or Granit might black out at higher g?


    _________________
    “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

    navyfield
    Senior Sergeant
    Senior Sergeant

    Posts : 211
    Points : 168
    Join date : 2013-05-27

    Re: Scenario: Russia vs NATO aircraft carrier and its standard carrier battle group

    Post  navyfield on Sat May 24, 2014 8:18 pm

    When the driver of a truck carrying 30 tons of explosives...

    i stoped reading after that... unless you worked in machinestroenia production factory or have some kind of proof i dont belive it.

    Sponsored content

    Re: Scenario: Russia vs NATO aircraft carrier and its standard carrier battle group

    Post  Sponsored content Today at 5:39 pm


      Current date/time is Sat Dec 10, 2016 5:39 pm