You have to remember that the Kh-15 does not maneuver.
The Kh-15 was designed as an anti radiation missile for the Tu-22M3 to allow it to fly through heavily defended airspace by taking out all the main radar bases and SAM sites.
The standard warhead was a 200Kt nuclear device.
The Anti ship model uses a conventional warhead and there is no reason to believe it doesn't manoeuvre during its descent. All the large anti ship missiles before and after it were designed to fly snake like turns during the terminal phase.
In fact in many ways the anti ship version of Kh-15 is very much like an air launched Iskander. Mach 5, 300km range, solid fuelled, it only weighs about 2 tons but then it is air launched which greatly reduces the requirement for fuel weight to get the missile moving.
And as I have said before, I've already did all the calculations, 25 km detection range, 25 second to impact. Please stop telling me stuff I already knew ._.
I didn't tell you, I asked you a question whose answer you knew to remind you of the figure you calculated because that number is interesting compared to the real world example I gave.
Pff. Again, this is NOT A SIMULATION ABOUT HOW IT'D GO DOWN IN REAL LIFE. We are comparing AShMs v.s. AEGIS, get that straighten out before talking further
I think it is rather useless to compare a single AShM with the air defence of an entire CBG. Anyone wanting to attack will not sail up to a CBG and fire a single missile of any kind and expect it to succeed.
These missiles were designed with AEGIS in mind but were never intended to be fed to the AEGIS cruisers one at a time. There is a reason the Oscar class subs carry 24 Granits. There is a reason why Granits have datalinks that allow multiple missiles share information and pass that information to satellites and other platforms.
There is a reason AEGIS is designed to handle lots of contacts at once, but then in a busy shipping lane with lots of commercial shipping present it can't just blaze away at everything it detects either.
Experience in the Falklands show that sometimes ships need to operate near islands and with other less well protected vessels and that even if your AEGIS destroy can decoy away some missiles, if those missiles hit the transport ship carrying all your tanks then the intervention force you are part of might have just failed.
Again, WE ARE NOT COMPARING RUSSIA V.S. WORLD, We're comparing AShM's v.s. AEGIS, and please read this sentence over and over again before you get it through your corrupted mind, AEGIS.
That is funny. This thread is about the Iskander-E missile and I thought we started talking about using it as an antiship missile because all the other antiship missiles the Russians have are crap. I think keeping in perspective that not every naval target the Russians want to sink is a USN CBG that most of their missiles will do fine and there is no need to convert the Iskander into a naval weapon afterall.
Ergo, Phalanx operates automatically.
Only when there is a perceived threat. Also it will rarely be set to open fire on its own due to the risk that it might start opening fire on friendlies (like the returning ships helo). Also Phalanx is useless against supersonic sea skimming missiles.
Another ergo, that is assuming everything is done with a hand held pace, these are very big and fast computers we're talking here. A firing solution can be calculated within seconds.
Can be calculated in seconds for a ballistic or non manouvering target. Has to be calculated in real time for manoeuvring targets.
Maneuvers will be of no use to 50 kg+ fragmentation warheads.
Wonder why they are spending money on the RIM-174 Standard ERAM (SM-6), an upgraded version of the SM-2 under development designed to target both aircraft and high performance cruise missiles
Afterall if existing Standard missiles can already engage high speed low flying missiles what need is there for RIM-174?
Yes, Navies in RL do not operate perfectly, but we're comparing 2 Systems here, in a perfect world, so please rewrite your programming to adapt to those changes.
A system that works only in a perfect world is not much good to anyone. That is why the Russians intend to fire off lots of missiles at targets like CBG. They might fire a single missile at a lower value target, but for most high value well defended targets they will launch as many as they can.
That really will be irrelevant if I could just spot you from hundreds of km up via Optical satellites.
Can optical satellites see through cloud?
The problem with optical satellites is that there are millions of ships at sea at any one time... probably hundreds of millions actually. You can either scan large areas with low detail or you can zoom right in so you can ID a target... in which case it will be like looking for a carrier through a straw.
Computers and software can speed things up, but they can't make clouds invisible.
The other problem of course is that in a real conflict how many satellites will remain operational?
24 Missiles per Oscar II x 2 = 48 Missiles total. The problem again is numbers, the Russians do not have enough Subs to engage every single(or at least most) U.S. CBGs. And Air launch wise, even without Phoenix missiles, a super bug will still be able to engage the Flankers or Backfires.
According to wiki (not the best source I know) they have 5 operational Oscar and Oscar II subs.
They don't need to engage every US carrier battle group... just the ones near their country. And Flankers can carry 3 Klubs and Backfires can carry 10 missiles per aircraft. Is that enough?
Same could be said for the Klub. It has never seen combat against an entire U.S. CBG, how do we know it isn't overhyped Soviet-krap?
No. The USN actually tested Phalanx against very low flying missiles and it failed because of radar returns from the sea surface. They put an IR system for aiming at very low flying targets to solve the problem. However when they tested it against very low flying very fast targets they found that it was ineffective and so they developed SEA RAM to replace phalanx.
Sizzler might be overhyped soviet crap but the people talking it up the most are the USN.
I would disagree with that. With an Eastern European Missile shield being set up, that would only put more precedence to Russia to develop more Iskanders. Developing the Brahmos would be over kill, as it's just a slightly faster Moskit and is inferior to the Klub.
Development of the Brahmos makes sense. It is already faster than Moskit and with a scramjet engine instead of a ramjet engine would make speeds of mach 6-8 possible with the ability to throttle and manoeuvre.
The Russian army will likely continue work on Iskander too and if a European BM shield is built without their participation I could see Russia withdrawing from the INF treaty to allow longer range ballistic missiles to be developed.
Did I say we should make a solid fuel missile for SSBMs?
No, you are suggesting naval use of an army weapon. The makers of Iskander also make anti tank missiles and Iglas. Now they might have some experience in navalising their weapons... SHTURM and ATAKA are fitted to some small patrol craft and Igla is certainly used at sea as well, but the point I am raising is that assuming that a land based system can be navalised easily can be a mistake.
Because we weren't even discussing about the Onyx, Vulkan or Moskit, we were discussing the Shipwreck.
I thought we were comparing a potential naval Iskander with currently used equivelents. That would have to include all of the currently available missiles wouldn't it?
There is a small possibility that the friction or the tracer ignites the fuel, but that's a quite small chance.
The DU rounds the Phalanx fires would rapidly ignite material if the target were stationary. You couldn't start a fire with a blowtorch if you were trying in a wind blowing at mach 2. Equally a fire isn't enough... it would quickly blow out. You would need a suddenly large volume of oxygen in the fuel tank to get an explosion. In the 2 seconds a mach 2 missile is within firing range of a Phalanx I just don't think it is possible.
But on that note, I should also say that even with an armored warhead, I doubt that the Russians are stupid enough to fit enough armor to survive a 20 mm DU round.
The Russians are not stupid, the armour is specifically designed to stop the few rounds that might actually hit the missile in the last 2 seconds before impact. The entire purpose was the DU shells from a 20mm cannon. The combination of speed, moderate manoeuvre, and armour renders the Phalanx useless. Goalkeeper fires a heavier round out to longer range and might have a better chance, and there are other defence systems that might do better... like KASHTAN-M with its two 30mm gatlings and missiles, but the current standard will be missiles to defeat Granit like targets.
Of course that's assuming you're engaging it at 300 m. Raytheon tests with the Phalanx had a M. 2.5 diving AShM(and last I remember, the Granit is a M. 2.5 diver) diving at the Phalanx, and the Phalanx opened fire at about 3.4 km and ended with a kill at 1.4 km.
A nice 45 degree dive makes it a much easier target because it can be detected from much further out and there is no interference from the sea surface... and of course the Vandal target the USN uses has no armour and does not manoevre.
The Granit can go low all the way to target.
Maybe so, but as far as ELINT goes, I could care less. It's really all irrelevant if I could see a CBG with a satellite.
Only two countries in the world with satellites capable of reliably tracking surface vessels and one of them is the US. Considering the state of the Russian navy it makes sense for the USN to go around not broadcasting its presence till it wants to.
The idea is that the carrier just turns up offshore in a trouble spot to sabre rattle. Being able to track it is the first step in being able to defeat it so why give everyone that first step?
Again, we're not doing a war simulation. Comparing AShM v.s. AEGIS, I shouldn't have to say this again
I am sorry but just looking at one missile and one AEGIS vessel is not very practical or interesting to me. Perhaps we should just end the discussion here?
The Russians will not use one missile and AEGIS is not designed to stop one missile. They weren't designed in a vacuum and they weren't meant to be used that way either.
The whole purpose of a carrier group is to have multiple platforms that support an airgroup. The aircraft contribute to the defence and form the main attack component as does the AEGIS ships (with SAMs and LACMs respectively) and SSNs that operate with them.