Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    Εffectiveness of naval missiles

    Share
    avatar
    Peŕrier

    Posts : 286
    Points : 286
    Join date : 2017-10-15

    Re: Εffectiveness of naval missiles

    Post  Peŕrier on Wed Dec 06, 2017 12:29 pm

    What's the use of dozens of missiles when operating within home waters and with two or three weeks Endurance?

    Any engagement will last an handful of hours if not minutes anyway, and It will end with one side being disabled or sunk by an handful of missiles.

    In both cases, being the winner or the Lost, the Mission will be over and if being the winning side a port call to rearm and refuel will be at hand.

    Greater numbers of weapons and ammunition are required for long off-shore missions, not for home waters defense.

    About specialization in in large ships, first AAW missions require highly specialized hardware, second AAW ships have their specific geographic position in a Battle Plan.

    So whatever the ship engaged with AAW missions, most of times It will find itself in a location where performing ASW missions will be hard or impossible.

    The same applies to ASW ships as well.

    Having antiship weapons could be ubiquitous, even having stand off Land attack capabilities could be ubiquitous, but AAW and ASW missions should be kept well distinct between them both functionally and phisically, i.e. in different hulls.

    Udaloys are the ASW assets up to now and are fine ships, but Sovremennys are likely useless and need a replacement ASAP in my hopinion.
    Isos
    Isos

    Posts : 2867
    Points : 2863
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Re: Εffectiveness of naval missiles

    Post  Isos on Wed Dec 06, 2017 2:07 pm

    Peŕrier wrote:What's the use of dozens of missiles when operating within home waters and with two or three weeks Endurance?

    Any engagement will last an handful of hours if not minutes anyway, and It will end with one side being disabled or sunk by an handful of missiles.

    In both cases, being the winner or the Lost, the Mission will be over and if being the winning side a port call to rearm and refuel will be at hand.

    Greater numbers of weapons and ammunition are required for long off-shore missions, not for home waters defense.

    About specialization in in large ships, first AAW missions require highly specialized hardware, second AAW ships have their specific geographic position in a Battle Plan.

    So whatever the ship engaged with AAW missions, most of times It will find itself in a location where performing ASW missions will be hard or impossible.

    The same applies to ASW ships as well.

    Having antiship weapons could be ubiquitous, even having stand off Land attack capabilities could be ubiquitous, but AAW and ASW missions should be kept well distinct between them both functionally and phisically, i.e. in different hulls.

    Udaloys are the ASW assets up to now and are fine ships, but Sovremennys are likely useless and need a replacement ASAP in my hopinion.

    That's why you need lot of missiles. If the oponent lunch lot of antiship missiles you need to be able to reply everytime. That won't necesserly last few hours if you manage to destroy the incoming missiles then you will need to go reload because you won't have anydefence left and the oponent too will go. So the battle isn't over. If you have more missiles you don't need to go back and can follow him and destroy him before he goes back.

    But if you used all your missiles and there is a sub out there that lunch at you two more harpoons then your dead. And that's if you fight near your shores.

    Destroyers and frigates are meant to go patrol far and be able to fight by their own. With the new VLSs you can easily put more missiles on a ship. When you look how little space VLS took on gorshkov you ask yourself why they didn't put more of them.
    avatar
    Peŕrier

    Posts : 286
    Points : 286
    Join date : 2017-10-15

    Re: Εffectiveness of naval missiles

    Post  Peŕrier on Wed Dec 06, 2017 6:51 pm

    So, your opponents after having sailed thousand of miles, and having almost no chance to rearm, launches an all out attack against your corvettes?

    Why?

    To get a mission kill against itself depleting its own weapons?

    In naval warfare experience, a lesson learned is that if an attack fail, it is mostly because the opponents ECM defeated missiles sensors, and the right answer is to change type of weapon and or try to change/trim your weapons' tracking system behavior.

    The first is the only option at hand while already engaged in a fight, the second being implemented only with time available.

    So nobody would launch again and again missiles that have already failed to hit the target, only to hope someone would finally hit something different from water.

    And against minor vessels like corvettes and attack boats, AAW defenses being minimal, even a saturation attack, to overcome SHORAD and CIWS if ECM was not the cause of failures, would require a little more than an handful of missiles.

    In the end, either your missiles overcame enemy's ECM and AAW defenses, while yours succeeded in defeating incoming missiles, or no amount of missiles embarked will save small vessels against an enemy task force of larger vessels, with more ECMs, more and more powerful sensors, more kind of weapons and so on.

    At sea, size does matter.

    The real alternative would be to have several different kind of weapons, that was what Soviet Union did in the past, so to give enemy a real headache trying to defeat several different kinds of pattern of attack and guidance systems.
    Singular_Transform
    Singular_Transform

    Posts : 728
    Points : 722
    Join date : 2016-11-13

    Re: Εffectiveness of naval missiles

    Post  Singular_Transform on Wed Dec 06, 2017 7:15 pm

    Peŕrier wrote:So, your opponents after having sailed thousand of miles, and having almost no chance to rearm, launches an all out attack against your corvettes?

    Why?

    To get a mission kill against itself depleting its own weapons?

    In naval warfare experience, a lesson learned is that if an attack fail, it is mostly because the opponents ECM defeated missiles sensors, and the right answer is to change type of weapon and or try to change/trim your weapons' tracking system behavior.

    The first is the only option at hand while already engaged in a fight, the second being implemented only with time available.

    So nobody would launch again and again missiles that have already failed to hit the target, only to hope someone would finally hit something different from water.

    And against minor vessels like corvettes and attack boats, AAW defenses being minimal, even a saturation attack, to overcome SHORAD and CIWS if ECM was not the cause of failures, would require a little more than an handful of missiles.

    In the end, either your missiles overcame enemy's ECM and AAW defenses, while yours succeeded in defeating incoming missiles, or no amount of missiles embarked will save small vessels against an enemy task force of larger vessels, with more ECMs, more and more powerful sensors, more kind of weapons and so on.

    At sea, size does matter.

    The real alternative would be to have several different kind of weapons, that was what Soviet Union did in the past, so to give enemy a real headache trying to defeat several different kinds of pattern of attack and guidance systems.


    It is true for blue navy operation, but in coastal defence the small vessels are part of the defence system.
    Isos
    Isos

    Posts : 2867
    Points : 2863
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Re: Εffectiveness of naval missiles

    Post  Isos on Wed Dec 06, 2017 8:08 pm


    In naval warfare experience, a lesson learned is that if an attack fail, it is mostly because the opponents ECM defeated missiles sensors, and the right answer is to change type of weapon and or try to change/trim your weapons' tracking system behavior.

    At sea, size does matter.

    Small boat were always desstroyed by aviation. That's also in naval warefare exerience. Bigger ships could survive even hit.

    Shorad and ciws are the last line of defence, not the defence itself. If you don't have proper anti air capabilities like a shtill or redut, they are useless.


    In the end, either your missiles overcame enemy's ECM and AAW defenses, while yours succeeded in defeating incoming missiles, or no amount of missiles embarked will save small vessels against an enemy task force of larger vessels, with more ECMs, more and more powerful sensors, more kind of weapons and so on.

    That's why I think they should put more missiles on their ships. If you think russian navy will send on ship against an enemy task force you're totally wrong. They will send many of them but if they have not enough missile for engaging all the missiles and fighter going at them they will loose.

    A missile can go through your ECM, but in some situation also not. A missile can destroy antiship missiles, in some situation it won't because it depend of the situation.

    ECM are not magic. missiles have ECCM and can go passively with home on jam. Jaming needs to turn the jammer at the missiles and if you have 4 missiles comming at you fromo 4 different side you won't jam all of them. And if you have just few missiles to shoot them and you don't succed, you will lose the ship.

    Having more missiles means that you can shoot more missiles at a target and increase the Pk for anti shhip or anti air missiles. And you can jam or destroy with CIWS the one or two that went through your AA systems.

    The typical tactic of air defence forces is to engage a same target from different direction, like a missiles going higher than the target and one going from the bottom so that ECM and evasive manœuvre won't work on both the same way and one of them will hit the target.

    This will be always used, with S-300 or Buk or Tor.

    Naval battles are more complicated than what you are saying.
    kvs
    kvs

    Posts : 3943
    Points : 4044
    Join date : 2014-09-11
    Location : Canuckistan

    Re: Εffectiveness of naval missiles

    Post  kvs on Sun Dec 10, 2017 5:52 am

    The point is not to replace main battleships conceived before WWII with tiny toy boats requiring zero enemy resources to take out.
    The point is to disperse the target and make it more difficult to take out. A point clearly not coming through the knee jerk wall of
    dismissal. Endurance does not require super sized ships, it requires nuclear propulsion. Nowhere was that excluded. Russian
    nuclear icebreakers are not all vast in scale (in fact it is only the recent Arktika class that have started an upsizing trend).

    The moving goal posts about the non-example of armata take the cake. Let's keep on changing the subject, shall we? Because
    anyone who does not worship oversized 1910s dinosaur concepts is automatically wrong. And really, WTF has the armata to do with
    oversized gunboats? It's not an oversized tank and the fact that tanks have not been made obsolete has no relevance to the
    fact that oversized gunboats from the brain activity of 1910s are obsolete. Recall the stellar success of the Japanese
    and German super battleships from WWII. In reality, and not knee jerk rejection fantasy land, they served as some target practice
    and got sunk toute de suite. Making essentially zero contribution to the war effort of Japan and Germany but sucking up precious
    war time resources and thousands of wasted lives. If the enemy can deploy enough resources to take out your precious oversized
    boats, then there is really nothing more to discuss, is there? And that was back during WWII.
    Big_Gazza
    Big_Gazza

    Posts : 1467
    Points : 1469
    Join date : 2014-08-25
    Location : Melbourne, Australia

    Re: Εffectiveness of naval missiles

    Post  Big_Gazza on Sun Dec 10, 2017 7:25 am

    A modernised PtG and Ad.N, with one allocated to each of Northern and Pacific fleets, will provide a flagship around which those respective fleets can assemble a taskforce should the need ever arise. Destroyers aren't as effective in this role, and Frigates are even less so.  

    That in itself is enough to justify the cost and expense of modernising these vessels.  There are many things a big ship can do that a number of small ships can't and those capabilities simply add another layer of icing to the Kirov-class cake.

    Edit:  If the 1144s aren't updated to fill this role, which ships will serve?  The 1164 Atlant/Slava?  Possibly but the 1164 don't have the upgrade potential that the 1144 have.  Udaloys and Sovremmenny don't fit the bill, and Russia has no new Destroyer design ready to roll (and the engines are still not quite available).
    The-thing-next-door
    The-thing-next-door

    Posts : 526
    Points : 562
    Join date : 2017-09-18
    Location : Soviet Interdimentional Command

    Re: Εffectiveness of naval missiles

    Post  The-thing-next-door on Sun Dec 10, 2017 11:54 am

    kvs wrote:The point is not to replace main battleships conceived before WWII with tiny toy boats requiring zero enemy resources to take out.
    The point is to disperse the target and make it more difficult to take out.    A point clearly not coming through the knee jerk wall of
    dismissal.    Endurance does not require super sized ships, it requires nuclear propulsion.   Nowhere was that excluded.   Russian
    nuclear icebreakers are not all vast in scale (in fact it is only the recent Arktika class that have started an upsizing trend).  

    The moving goal posts about the non-example of armata take the cake.    Let's keep on changing the subject, shall we?  Because
    anyone who does not worship oversized 1910s dinosaur concepts is automatically wrong.   And really, WTF has the armata to do with
    oversized gunboats?  It's not an oversized tank and the fact that tanks have not been made obsolete has no relevance to the
    fact that oversized gunboats from the brain activity of 1910s are obsolete.    Recall the stellar success of the Japanese
    and German super battleships from WWII.    In reality, and not knee jerk rejection fantasy land, they served as some target practice
    and got sunk toute de suite.   Making essentially zero contribution to the war effort of Japan and Germany but sucking up precious
    war time resources and thousands of wasted lives.    If the enemy can deploy enough resources to take out your precious oversized
    boats, then there is really nothing more to discuss, is there?    And that was back during WWII.

    The reason that facist battlesips were eliminated was the sever lack of air defence systems.

    I do not recall many US battleship losses to aircraft... maby this is because they were packed with 20mm Oerlikons and 40mm Bofors. So clearly a big ship with good air defence is an exeption to argument of a typical pro western retard saying that aircraft can kill anything and the big Russian ships are obsolete becasue look at how airpower could defeat thoes facist battleships that just so happend to have poor air deffence.

    What do you think will hapen if a sauron of whatever attempts to attack a Kirov class cruiser? All the missiles they fire will be intercepted and they will likely be shot down by its long range missiles.

    Today Russia has the best defense systems and they are only going to get better so I do not see a single carrier group defeating a Russian battlegroup that includes a heavy missile cruiser. The cruiser will alow it and its smaller ships to survive the enemy attacks then hunt down and eliminate the enemy carrier group.

    A missile cruiser provides a vast increase in situational awherness in all areas meaning it will boost the battlegroups performance against every type of enemy threat wether it be an air assault, a carrier group, a submarine or an emeny missile attack.

    A crusier is not going to be on its own it will provide a significant amount of protection against air attack wich would be invaluble against nato carrier groups.
    kvs
    kvs

    Posts : 3943
    Points : 4044
    Join date : 2014-09-11
    Location : Canuckistan

    Re: Εffectiveness of naval missiles

    Post  kvs on Sun Dec 10, 2017 4:14 pm

    The-thing-next-door wrote:
    kvs wrote:The point is not to replace main battleships conceived before WWII with tiny toy boats requiring zero enemy resources to take out.
    The point is to disperse the target and make it more difficult to take out.    A point clearly not coming through the knee jerk wall of
    dismissal.    Endurance does not require super sized ships, it requires nuclear propulsion.   Nowhere was that excluded.   Russian
    nuclear icebreakers are not all vast in scale (in fact it is only the recent Arktika class that have started an upsizing trend).  

    The moving goal posts about the non-example of armata take the cake.    Let's keep on changing the subject, shall we?  Because
    anyone who does not worship oversized 1910s dinosaur concepts is automatically wrong.   And really, WTF has the armata to do with
    oversized gunboats?  It's not an oversized tank and the fact that tanks have not been made obsolete has no relevance to the
    fact that oversized gunboats from the brain activity of 1910s are obsolete.    Recall the stellar success of the Japanese
    and German super battleships from WWII.    In reality, and not knee jerk rejection fantasy land, they served as some target practice
    and got sunk toute de suite.   Making essentially zero contribution to the war effort of Japan and Germany but sucking up precious
    war time resources and thousands of wasted lives.    If the enemy can deploy enough resources to take out your precious oversized
    boats, then there is really nothing more to discuss, is there?    And that was back during WWII.

    The reason that facist battlesips were eliminated was the sever lack of air defence systems.

    I do not recall many US battleship losses to aircraft... maby this is because they were packed with 20mm Oerlikons and 40mm Bofors. So clearly a big ship with good air defence is an exeption to argument of a typical pro western retard saying that aircraft can kill anything and the big Russian ships are obsolete becasue look at how airpower could defeat thoes facist battleships that just so happend to have poor air deffence.

    What do you think will hapen if a sauron of whatever attempts to attack a Kirov class cruiser? All the missiles they fire will be intercepted and they will likely be shot down by its long range missiles.

    Today Russia has the best defense systems and they are only going to get better so I do not see a single carrier group defeating a Russian battlegroup that includes a heavy missile cruiser. The cruiser will alow it and its smaller ships to survive the enemy attacks then hunt down and eliminate the enemy carrier group.

    A missile cruiser provides a vast increase in situational awherness in all areas meaning it will boost the battlegroups performance against every type of enemy threat wether it be an air assault, a carrier group, a submarine or an emeny missile attack.

    A crusier is not going to be on its own it will provide a significant amount of protection against air attack wich would be invaluble against nato carrier groups.

    And what is the defense against anti-ship missiles today?

    That's right, there is none. So oversized hulks have exactly zero value just as they did in the case of Japan and Germany.

    Clearly, people are still thinking in WWII terms. Time to learn something about missile warfare.
    The-thing-next-door
    The-thing-next-door

    Posts : 526
    Points : 562
    Join date : 2017-09-18
    Location : Soviet Interdimentional Command

    Re: Εffectiveness of naval missiles

    Post  The-thing-next-door on Sun Dec 10, 2017 6:54 pm

    kvs wrote:And what is the defense against anti-ship missiles today?

    Are you serousisly unawhere of the existance of CIWS systems? There is also the more advanced anti air missiles.
    Singular_Transform
    Singular_Transform

    Posts : 728
    Points : 722
    Join date : 2016-11-13

    Re: Εffectiveness of naval missiles

    Post  Singular_Transform on Sun Dec 10, 2017 7:11 pm

    The-thing-next-door wrote:
    kvs wrote:And what is the defense against anti-ship missiles today?

    Are you serousisly unawhere of the existance of CIWS systems? There is also the more advanced anti air missiles.


    CIWS has around 2 seconds to react to an incoming ASM.

    150 bullet on 2000 meters has to hit a 0,35-0,7m big target, manoeuvring like madman, and as fast as the bullets at the muzzle of the gun.


    So, if the CIWS fire a bullet when the missile is at 2000 m then it will meet the missile halfway, at 1000m. If the missile doesn't do unpredicted manoeuvrer : )

    It doesn't needs to be big,meter off from the predicted position means the ship wrecked.

    The miracle is if any of them hit the missile.


    similar issues with the SAMs.


    The best defence is the ECM , decoys and fool the missiles / command systems.
    avatar
    Azi

    Posts : 229
    Points : 225
    Join date : 2016-04-05

    Re: Εffectiveness of naval missiles

    Post  Azi on Sun Dec 10, 2017 7:16 pm

    Singular_Transform wrote:
    The-thing-next-door wrote:
    kvs wrote:And what is the defense against anti-ship missiles today?

    Are you serousisly unawhere of the existance of CIWS systems? There is also the more advanced anti air missiles.


    CIWS has around 2 seconds to react to an incoming ASM.

    150 bullet on 2000 meters has to hit a 0,35-0,7m big target, manoeuvring like madman, and as fast as the bullets at the muzzle of the gun.


    So, if the CIWS fire a bullet when the missile is at 2000 m then it will meet the missile halfway, at 1000m. If the missile doesn't do unpredicted manoeuvrer : )

    It doesn't needs to be big,meter off from the predicted position means the ship wrecked.

    The miracle is if any of them hit the missile.


    similar issues with the SAMs.


    The best defence is the ECM , decoys and fool the missiles / command systems.
    Absolutely correct thumbsup but...

    Don't forget that NATO missile like Harpoon or Tomahawk are still ALL subsonic in terminal phase.
    Singular_Transform
    Singular_Transform

    Posts : 728
    Points : 722
    Join date : 2016-11-13

    Re: Εffectiveness of naval missiles

    Post  Singular_Transform on Sun Dec 10, 2017 10:03 pm

    Azi wrote:
    Absolutely correct thumbsup but...

    Don't forget that NATO missile like Harpoon or Tomahawk are still ALL subsonic in terminal phase.

    Of course, it is magnitude easier to kill an incoming tomahawk/harpoon missile.

    And the CCCP/russian CIWS are bigger / faster than the american ones.

    Actually, to to protect a carrier against onyx missiles the destroyers has to be filled up with sam missiles. A lot of sams, actually.

    And that guarantee only to protect it against one small corvette .
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 19891
    Points : 20443
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Εffectiveness of naval missiles

    Post  GarryB on Mon Dec 11, 2017 3:38 am


    And what is the defense against anti-ship missiles today?

    That's right, there is none. So oversized hulks have exactly zero value just as they did in the case of Japan and Germany.

    Well if there is no reliable defence against anti ship missiles then even small ships are dead too so don't have any ships at all.... just have subs and aircraft.

    There are still EMP weapons and lasers... systems better fitted to large vessels than to smaller ones.

    Equally with replenishing at sea a cruiser can operate for months away from home base... a corvette not so much.

    Besides.... if you are part of a task force going to the south atlantic or south pacific to wage serious war a cruiser could tow an enormous barge filled with thousands of SAMs and land attack cruise missiles.... once it is empty you can send a large transport ship to resupply your forces with a new barge full of stuff... the transport can bring aviation fuel and supplies and perhaps some replacement crews and it could tow down a full barge with more weapons with the loadouts adapted to what has been used and the old barge towed home for reloading.

    That would be difficult with corvettes.

    The-thing-next-door
    The-thing-next-door

    Posts : 526
    Points : 562
    Join date : 2017-09-18
    Location : Soviet Interdimentional Command

    Re: Εffectiveness of naval missiles

    Post  The-thing-next-door on Mon Dec 11, 2017 1:09 pm

    GarryB wrote:

    Well if there is no reliable defence against anti ship missiles then even small ships are dead too so don't have any ships at all.... just have subs and aircraft.

    There are still EMP weapons and lasers... systems better fitted to large vessels than to smaller ones.

    Equally with replenishing at sea a cruiser can operate for months away from home base... a corvette not so much.

    Besides.... if you are part of a task force going to the south atlantic or south pacific to wage serious war a cruiser could tow an enormous barge filled with thousands of SAMs and land attack cruise missiles.... once it is empty you can send a large transport ship to resupply your forces with a new barge full of stuff... the transport can bring aviation fuel and supplies and perhaps some replacement crews and it could tow down a full barge with more weapons with the loadouts adapted to what has been used and the old barge towed home for reloading.

    That would be difficult with corvettes.


    Lasers will not be an effective weapon any time soon.

    As for a missile barge I prefer my idea of a modified container ship with around 100 UKSK 8 cell VLS systems and a heavy load of air defence equipment just imagine the firepower of 800 cruise missiles it could wipe out an entire enemy fleet and their port before running out.
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 19891
    Points : 20443
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Εffectiveness of naval missiles

    Post  GarryB on Tue Dec 12, 2017 3:49 am

    As for a missile barge I prefer my idea of a modified container ship with around 100 UKSK 8 cell VLS systems and a heavy load of air defence equipment just imagine the firepower of 800 cruise missiles it could wipe out an entire enemy fleet and their port before running out.

    A barge could do the same job at a fraction of the cost... it could be unmanned and largely disposable, and being just launch tubes it should be much much smaller than any container ship.

    You could fit it with the Sub version of the UKSK so it could operate semi submerged or completely submerged...and therefore would need no CIWS protection.

    You could fit it with rocket decoy systems to develop decoy clouds of chaff and flares above itself that would form very quickly yet not put itself under threat...

    you could give it ballast tanks to make it semi submersable in the operations area but surfaced for higher speed transit.
    avatar
    Peŕrier

    Posts : 286
    Points : 286
    Join date : 2017-10-15

    Re: Εffectiveness of naval missiles

    Post  Peŕrier on Tue Dec 12, 2017 10:01 pm

    Singular_Transform wrote:
    Azi wrote:
    Absolutely correct thumbsup but...

    Don't forget that NATO missile like Harpoon or Tomahawk are still ALL subsonic in terminal phase.

    Of course, it is magnitude easier to kill an incoming tomahawk/harpoon missile.

    And the CCCP/russian CIWS are bigger / faster than the american ones.

    Actually, to to protect a carrier against onyx missiles the destroyers has to be filled up with sam missiles. A lot of sams, actually.

    And that guarantee only to protect it against one small corvette .

    Problem is that U.S.Navy does not plan to go vis a vis against enemy's surface vessels.

    It's the job of aircrafts to take away enemy vessels, unless we are speaking of some dwarf navy with an handful of outdated ships.

    As a veritable proof of different approaches to naval fighting, european navies rely far more on embarked AShM, and as a consequence they took very seriously defences against incoming missiles, even supersonic ones.

    Aster, Dardo, Goalkeeper, CAAM and so on give european ships a multi-layered defense more similar to the soviet/russian approach.

    Still, SM-6 and SM-3, the latter against missiles with diving from above terminal profile of flight, are defenses to not dismiss too easily.
    Vladimir79
    Vladimir79

    Posts : 2566
    Points : 3446
    Join date : 2009-07-10

    Re: Εffectiveness of naval missiles

    Post  Vladimir79 on Tue Dec 12, 2017 11:16 pm

    The-thing-next-door wrote:

    As for a missile barge I prefer my idea of a modified container ship with around 100 UKSK 8 cell VLS systems and a heavy load of air defence equipment just imagine the firepower of 800 cruise missiles it could wipe out an entire enemy fleet and their port before running out.

    What assets will be available for targeting?  The true cost of an arsenal ship is its missiles that must be cycled every 4-5 years.  Maintaining 800 would be more costly than keeping up a Charles de Gaulle class CVN.
    avatar
    Peŕrier

    Posts : 286
    Points : 286
    Join date : 2017-10-15

    Re: Εffectiveness of naval missiles

    Post  Peŕrier on Wed Dec 13, 2017 12:58 am

    kvs wrote:

    And what is the defense against anti-ship missiles today?  

    That's right, there is none.   So oversized hulks have exactly zero value just as they did in the case of Japan and Germany.  

    Clearly, people are still thinking in WWII terms.   Time to learn something about missile warfare.

    First line of defense against incoming missiles are long to medium range SAMs, expecially high-G ones.

    The more so when AAW defenses are coordinated by dedicated AAW ships, so that incoming threats could be prioritized irrespectively of their intended target and engaged automatically by any weapon in any ship belonging to the task force having the best position to shoot succesfully.

    Then come the ECM, the decoys and eventually protective screen against IR backup seekers.

    Last,, very last, come CIWSs, some of them being not really CIWS anymore having effective ranges in excess of 4 Km, but more close to SHORAD systems.

    When all goes wrong and the missile hit anyway its target, well the larger the hull the better for ship, systems and crew.

    French-italian FREMM, displacing more than 6K tonnes, have a large passageway running all along the hull, just at the waterline. Its internal wall is armoured and back the armoured wall there even an antispalling layer, quite like in a MBT. Whatever missile hit the hull, it's likely to detonate either while piercing the hull or within the passageway where there is a really big space to waste the shock wave, with the internal armoured wall stopping or limiting further damage to ship's internal spaces.

    Barring old school AShM with more than a tonnes warhead, a direct hit would cause really serious damage and a mission kill, but the ship itself is likely not only not to sink or burn, but to be able to sail back home by itself, saving most of its crew.

    The usual 3k to 4k tonnes frigates, as built in the seventies ot eighties, would get heavy damages up to the most internal spaces of the hull, with far more casualties and less chances to survive for the ship as a whole.

    This is what an oversized hull buys you, among many other advantages and "nice to have" things.

    At sea, size does matter, ever.
    Isos
    Isos

    Posts : 2867
    Points : 2863
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Re: Εffectiveness of naval missiles

    Post  Isos on Wed Dec 13, 2017 7:10 am

    Vladimir79 wrote:
    The-thing-next-door wrote:

    As for a missile barge I prefer my idea of a modified container ship with around 100 UKSK 8 cell VLS systems and a heavy load of air defence equipment just imagine the firepower of 800 cruise missiles it could wipe out an entire enemy fleet and their port before running out.

    What assets will be available for targeting?  The true cost of an arsenal ship is its missiles that must be cycled every 4-5 years.  Maintaining 800 would be more costly than keeping up a Charles de Gaulle class CVN.

    That's true for every ship. I've read on french forum that aster VLS on charles de gaulle are half empty and according to the numbers they don't even have enough missiles to reload their VLS in the fleet not just on the carrier, that's a real issue. Carriers also don't carry max load (fighters, bombs ...). But having space means you can load missiles when you think you will need them.
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 19891
    Points : 20443
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Εffectiveness of naval missiles

    Post  GarryB on Wed Dec 13, 2017 9:30 am

    Most of those tubes could be loaded at sea by underway refuelling and rearming support ships.
    kvs
    kvs

    Posts : 3943
    Points : 4044
    Join date : 2014-09-11
    Location : Canuckistan

    Re: Εffectiveness of naval missiles

    Post  kvs on Thu Dec 14, 2017 6:18 am

    Peŕrier wrote:
    kvs wrote:

    And what is the defense against anti-ship missiles today?  

    That's right, there is none.   So oversized hulks have exactly zero value just as they did in the case of Japan and Germany.  

    Clearly, people are still thinking in WWII terms.   Time to learn something about missile warfare.

    First line of defense against incoming missiles are long to medium range SAMs, expecially high-G ones.

    The more so when AAW defenses are coordinated by dedicated AAW ships, so that incoming threats could be prioritized irrespectively of their intended target and engaged automatically by any weapon in any ship belonging to the task force having the best position to shoot succesfully.

    Then come the ECM, the decoys and eventually protective screen against IR backup seekers.

    Last,, very last, come CIWSs, some of them being not really CIWS anymore having effective ranges in excess of 4 Km, but more close to SHORAD systems.

    When all goes wrong and the missile hit anyway its target, well the larger the hull the better for ship, systems and crew.

    French-italian FREMM, displacing more than 6K tonnes, have a large passageway running all along the hull, just at the waterline. Its internal wall is armoured and back the armoured wall there even an antispalling layer, quite like in a MBT. Whatever missile hit the hull, it's likely to detonate either while piercing the hull or within the passageway where there is a really big space to waste the shock wave, with the internal armoured wall stopping or limiting further damage to ship's internal spaces.

    Barring old school AShM with more than a tonnes warhead, a direct hit would cause really serious damage and a mission kill, but the ship itself is likely not only not to sink or burn, but to be able to sail back home by itself, saving most of its crew.

    The usual 3k to 4k tonnes frigates, as built in the seventies ot eighties, would get heavy damages up to the most internal spaces of the hull, with far more casualties and less chances to survive for the ship as a whole.

    This is what an oversized hull buys you, among many other advantages and "nice to have" things.

    At sea, size does matter, ever.

    You are talking about under 4k ton frigates, so you clearly miss my point completely.

    Actually, size does not matter for current hypersonic anti-ship missiles and Onyx variants can take out an aircraft carrier on kinetic energy alone. And the layers of defenses you cite can't stop them.

    Having three 10k ton ships instead of one 30k ton ship makes prefect sense in the missile era.
    The-thing-next-door
    The-thing-next-door

    Posts : 526
    Points : 562
    Join date : 2017-09-18
    Location : Soviet Interdimentional Command

    Re: Εffectiveness of naval missiles

    Post  The-thing-next-door on Thu Dec 14, 2017 8:39 am

    kvs wrote:
    Peŕrier wrote:
    kvs wrote:

    And what is the defense against anti-ship missiles today?  

    That's right, there is none.   So oversized hulks have exactly zero value just as they did in the case of Japan and Germany.  

    Clearly, people are still thinking in WWII terms.   Time to learn something about missile warfare.

    First line of defense against incoming missiles are long to medium range SAMs, expecially high-G ones.

    The more so when AAW defenses are coordinated by dedicated AAW ships, so that incoming threats could be prioritized irrespectively of their intended target and engaged automatically by any weapon in any ship belonging to the task force having the best position to shoot succesfully.

    Then come the ECM, the decoys and eventually protective screen against IR backup seekers.

    Last,, very last, come CIWSs, some of them being not really CIWS anymore having effective ranges in excess of 4 Km, but more close to SHORAD systems.

    When all goes wrong and the missile hit anyway its target, well the larger the hull the better for ship, systems and crew.

    French-italian FREMM, displacing more than 6K tonnes, have a large passageway running all along the hull, just at the waterline. Its internal wall is armoured and back the armoured wall there even an antispalling layer, quite like in a MBT. Whatever missile hit the hull, it's likely to detonate either while piercing the hull or within the passageway where there is a really big space to waste the shock wave, with the internal armoured wall stopping or limiting further damage to ship's internal spaces.

    Barring old school AShM with more than a tonnes warhead, a direct hit would cause really serious damage and a mission kill, but the ship itself is likely not only not to sink or burn, but to be able to sail back home by itself, saving most of its crew.

    The usual 3k to 4k tonnes frigates, as built in the seventies ot eighties, would get heavy damages up to the most internal spaces of the hull, with far more casualties and less chances to survive for the ship as a whole.

    This is what an oversized hull buys you, among many other advantages and "nice to have" things.

    At sea, size does matter, ever.

    You are talking about under 4k ton frigates, so you clearly miss my point completely.  

    Actually, size does not matter for current hypersonic anti-ship missiles and Onyx variants can take out an aircraft carrier on kinetic energy alone.   And the layers of defenses you cite can't stop them.  

    Having three 10k ton ships instead of one 30k ton ship makes prefect sense in the missile era.    

    Clearly you are just one of thoes people who view large scale millitary equipment as obsolete I realy see no further point in this conversation.

    This attitude is typical of a western person following trends and popular belief but having little ability to actulay think for themself. (I am not saying KVS has this just that his attitude to cruisers reminds me of this)

    Singular_Transform
    Singular_Transform

    Posts : 728
    Points : 722
    Join date : 2016-11-13

    Re: Εffectiveness of naval missiles

    Post  Singular_Transform on Thu Dec 14, 2017 10:44 am

    The-thing-next-door wrote:

    Clearly you are just one of thoes people who view large scale millitary equipment as obsolete I realy see no further point in this conversation.

    This attitude is typical of a western person following trends and popular belief but having little ability to actulay think for themself. (I am not saying KVS has this just that his attitude to cruisers reminds me of this)


    I think the discussion is about completely different things.

    The small 1k ships are in reality replacing the shore based anti ship defence systems.

    Say each ship carry 8 missile, that is 120 tons per missile weight, not cheap but can move faster and further than the bastion .

    all that it can do is to supplement the shore defence systems.
    avatar
    Peŕrier

    Posts : 286
    Points : 286
    Join date : 2017-10-15

    Re: Εffectiveness of naval missiles

    Post  Peŕrier on Thu Dec 14, 2017 11:28 pm

    kvs wrote:

    You are talking about under 4k ton frigates, so you clearly miss my point completely.  

    Actually, size does not matter for current hypersonic anti-ship missiles and Onyx variants can take out an aircraft carrier on kinetic energy alone.   And the layers of defenses you cite can't stop them.  

    Having three 10k ton ships instead of one 30k ton ship makes prefect sense in the missile era.    

    Sorry, but I have to say your are two times wrong.

    In general terms, because weapons become ever and ever effective, ships need to scale up their hard (weapons) and soft (electronics, decoys, chaffs) defenses just to keep the same chance of survival their predecessors enjoyed twenty years before.

    Frigates are a perfect case study, generation after generation frigates since the end of II WW have become larger and larger not because they needed more firepower, but for the opposite reason: the increase of opponents' firepower, being it from air or from surface vessels, dictated even more complex sensors, countermeasures and defensive weapons to maintain a fair chance of survival.

    In specific terms, speaking of supersonic or hypersonic missiles, they are in no way game changers.

    They could made several defensive weapons obsolete, but in no way they will made a ship obsolete.

    Defense being a matter of sensors, electronics and finally weapons, large vessels are and always will be more susceptible to adopt new systems and weapons.

    As modern airborne targeting sensors, clutter resistant look down/shoot down radar and light AShM made the fast attack boats obsolete, i.e. hopelessy unable to survive even the encounter with an isolated helicopter,, but neither frigates or destroyers let alone cruisers and aircraft carriers, new weapon systems will made obsolete those ships unable to integrate new/supplemental weapons and sensors.

    Typically those ships too small, without enough room and power generation capacity, not those supposedly "too large".

    A third aspect comes in mind anyway: speed help overcome enemy's defenses, but is of little use to increase the amount of damage inflicted.

    The real damage is generated by warhead dimensions and specific characteristics, and by the residual fuel.

    Hitting the hull at 300 m/s or at 900 m/s doesn't mark a huge difference in the amount of damage inflicted: it's the fuze that will decide when to detonate the warhead, and it will be more or less always at the same deep inside the hull whatever the speed, because the aim will always be to detonate it within the hull before damages suffered from the penetration could severely damage the warhead itself. If the missile has to penetrate multiple walls, severe casing fractures and deformations could happen degrading the detonation effectiveness.

    So, hull's dimensions will always be related to the amount and severity of damages received from a hit.

    And no hypersonic missile, per se, could disable a carrier 300 meters long and displacing more than 100K tonnes, except the case of really lucky hits.

    The hull is simply too large to get too extensive damage from a single hit.

    It's the same as with a 500 kg bomb dropped upon an hamlet: it will destroy a building, cause more or less serious damage to nearby buildings, but it would do nothing, absolutely nothing, in turning the hamlet as a whole, "no longer functional" or unfit to be lived within and to conduct a normal life.

    Sponsored content

    Re: Εffectiveness of naval missiles

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Wed Mar 20, 2019 3:01 am