Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    Εffectiveness of naval missiles

    Share
    Singular_Transform
    Singular_Transform

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

    Re: Εffectiveness of naval missiles

    Post  Singular_Transform on Fri Dec 15, 2017 12:36 am

    Peŕrier wrote:

    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.


    Quick back on the envelope calculation doesn't support your assessment.

    Say missiles speeds are : 333 m/s , 1000 m/s , 2000 m/s.

    Missile warhead to full mass ratio is 1 : 4 , explosive TNT.

    Damages:
    subsonic :95% of damage done by warhead, the kinetic energy maybe enough to penetrate the hull.
    supersonic : 66% of damage coming from explosive, 34% kinetic. The missiles are so long if the explosive is in the tail then it can detonate practically in the middle of the carrier , or on the opposite side of the destroyer : )
    Hypersonic: 33% coming from explosive,e 66% from kinetic.

    Means in the case of zircon the only reason is to have explosive is to spread the parts and make a conical hole in the ship hull. Actually, the decrease in the power of missile is marginal even with the removal of the warhead.


    Just for record: 1000kg , 2km/sec means 2 gigajoule , and that is enough to evaporate 1000 kg of steel. it is 1.6m of steel armour equivalent.
    So, the onyx missile at impact can evaporate 500 kg of steel, it is enough to penetrate 0.4 meter of armour .

    The harpoon can penetrate 15-20mm of armour.
    avatar
    Peŕrier

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

    Re: Εffectiveness of naval missiles

    Post  Peŕrier on Fri Dec 15, 2017 1:41 am

    Kinetic energy helps in perforating hard targets, not in spreading damages.

    If you hit a vessel with an hundred APDSFS, all you will get will be an hundred holes, and just if some of them encountered along their trajectory some equipment they will inflict significant damage.

    If just a single HE shell detonate inside the hull, whatever is contained within the same space of detonation will be destroyed or severely damaged, and if shrapnels and shock wave will be able to overcome walls, even adjacent spaces will receive more or less significant damage.

    It is not that if you carve a 3m x 3m hole in a hull you are disabling a ship, unless some really vital system is along the trajectory.

    Unfortunately, most if not all of major warship have redundant systems, critical equipment contained in armoured citadelles made as little as possible, and often they bury them well under the waterline, where no missile will ever reach them.

    It was not by chance that missiles as K-10S were nuclear tipped, and their conventional counterparts sported warhead well in excess of one tonne HE.

    Because their primary target were the carriers, they needed warheads able to at least disable them if not sinking them.

    The standard sized medium AShM with 300 to 400 Kg warheads is still able to inflict real damage, but far less "resolutive" than those ad hoc designed weapons, when employed against very large target.

    Speed won't change this, it will increase mainly the probability to overcome the defenses but at the end, radius of damages inflicted would change very little, and it's the radius that determines mainly to what degree the target's capability will be degraded or if the hit will result in a mission kill.
    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 Fri Dec 15, 2017 7:43 am

    Mission kill is what its all about. One decent AShM hitting a carrier will likely prevent it from launching and recovering aircraft, and that means a 100kT hugely expensive warship becomes a liability rather than an asset. A damaged inoperable carrier needs to be protected and her crew potentially transferred. Valuable assets need to be assigned to protecting the stricken vessel instead of actually fighting.
    Isos
    Isos

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

    Re: Εffectiveness of naval missiles

    Post  Isos on Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:22 am

    If you hit a vessel with an hundred APDSFS, all you will get will be an hundred holes, and just if some of them encountered along their trajectory some equipment they will inflict significant damage.

    It will start a big fire and destroy the ship eventualy. Us navy has tested ATGM agasint a frigate and they needed 20 of them to destroy it. There was a video showing that even 20mm gun started a big fire on the ship.

    Frigates today are far less armoured than in WW2. One big 152mm round and they are dead.

    It is not that if you carve a 3m x 3m hole in a hull you are disabling a ship, unless some really vital system is along the trajectory.


    Most of them are programmed to hit a the limite of the water so that even if the warehead doesn't explode it will allow the water to go in the ship and sink it. A hole of 3x3m will be better for that than just a hole representing the exocet "picture" (i.e 30 cm hole).

    It was not by chance that missiles as K-10S were nuclear tipped, and their conventional counterparts sported warhead well in excess of one tonne HE.

    That's wrong. Nuclear missiles were supposed to explode in the middle of the group so that it makes a mission kill and destroy the fighters on the deck and kill the crews. A nuclear warehead is not a normal warehead, if it goes through a target there are lot of chances that it doesn't explode because you have like 20 safty mecanisme to overpass before the detonation so if one of them is dammaged during the hit it won't be effective. So the best way to use them is to make it explode in the air.

    Speed won't change this, it will increase mainly the probability to overcome the defenses but at the end, radius of damages inflicted would change very little, and it's the radius that determines mainly to what degree the target's capability will be degraded or if the hit will result in a mission kill.

    There are lot of video showing supersonic missiles hiting the ship making their warehaed explode and damaging the other side. Not true for subsonic. Speed will allow you to hit deeper so its more effective and it increase the dammage.
    Singular_Transform
    Singular_Transform

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

    Re: Εffectiveness of naval missiles

    Post  Singular_Transform on Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:27 am

    Peŕrier wrote:K

    Speed won't change this, it will increase mainly the probability to overcome the defenses but at the end, radius of damages inflicted would change very little, and it's the radius that determines mainly to what degree the target's capability will be degraded or if the hit will result in a mission kill.

    Mate, you haven't read that I wrote about the kinetic energies?
    A harpoon will detonate practically on the hull, outside of it.

    An onyx/granit will penetrate it, and it will detonate inside the ship.
    The zircon will dug itself deeply into the ship, and will detonate practically at the centre of it.


    Maybe not visible first time, but the speed increase exponentially the inflected VOLUME of damage.


    Meany you need two-three tomahawk to inflict as much damage as on onyx, and five-ten to inflict as much as a zircon.


    and at the end of the day the target of the antiship missiles is to disable the ship, make it impossible to move fast ( or to move at all) , to operate the defence systems, and to launch aircraft.

    To sink the ship the submarine will come closer to it, and will fire four -ten torpedoes, or the aircrafts will drop torpedoes .


    That will sink the carrier/capital ship, not the tomahawk/onxy/zircon : )


    And the equitations work inverse as well, say the Chinese carriers practically unsinkable for the US, considering that the US doesn't have any effective anti ship weapon.
    avatar
    Peŕrier

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

    Re: Εffectiveness of naval missiles

    Post  Peŕrier on Fri Dec 15, 2017 12:34 pm

    I have read all from both, and to put it simply I do not agree with anyrhing, last but not least that a single AShM could accomplish a mission kill against a Carrier. It could happen, of course, but it is far from being assured even with a direct hit.

    Over and cose.
    avatar
    Azi

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

    Re: Εffectiveness of naval missiles

    Post  Azi on Fri Dec 15, 2017 2:17 pm

    Singular_Transform wrote:
    Peŕrier wrote:K

    Speed won't change this, it will increase mainly the probability to overcome the defenses but at the end, radius of damages inflicted would change very little, and it's the radius that determines mainly to what degree the target's capability will be degraded or if the hit will result in a mission kill.

    Mate, you haven't read that I wrote about the kinetic energies?
    A harpoon will detonate practically on the hull, outside of it.

    An onyx/granit will penetrate it, and it will detonate inside the ship.
    The zircon will dug itself deeply into the ship, and will detonate practically at the centre of it.


    Maybe not visible first time, but the speed increase exponentially the inflected VOLUME of damage.


    Meany you need two-three tomahawk to inflict as much damage as on onyx, and  five-ten to inflict as much as a zircon.


    and at the end of the day the target of the antiship missiles is to disable the ship, make it impossible to move fast ( or to move at all) , to operate the defence systems, and to launch aircraft.

    To sink the ship the submarine will come closer to it, and will fire four -ten torpedoes, or the aircrafts will drop torpedoes .


    That will sink the carrier/capital ship, not the tomahawk/onxy/zircon : )


    And the equitations work inverse as well, say the Chinese carriers practically unsinkable for the US, considering that the US doesn't have any effective anti ship weapon.
    No! And simply no!

    A warships consist of more than 1 section. Bigger ship...more sections! And even the sections are divided in smaller parts!!! Destroying one section or maybe two will not destroy a big ship! A Zirkon can explode deep inside the ship and it will not sink, maybe a mission kill, not more. By the way, Harpoon explodes inside the ship, it goes through the hull like warm knife through butter. Kinetic energy is high enough to penetrate the outside hull and explode inside. There are many good videos (some very old) showing the destructive power of a Harpoon. In some you can very good see in slowmo the penetration of hull, a short delay and the big boom inside.

    Effect of Zirkon, Onyx, Kalibr, Tomahawk and Co is the same...they ALL penetrate easy the hull go inside and explode after few meter inside the ship.

    Danger of a Zirkon is because it's difficult to impossible for AD systems to intercept Zirkon. This means a salvo of Harpoon could be defeated, but a salvo of Zirkon means pure destruction!

    To complete destroy a carrier a salvo of Zirkon missile is needed or a direct hit of the nuclear reactor. Nuclear reactors are the biggest danger for big warships in time of hypersonic weapons, so maybe it's better to power a Lider class or a carrier not with a reactor!?

    Hey...
    But why sink a carrier? A mission kill is the best you can do!!! You save the life of hundreds of enemy sailors and the enemy can do nothing more. The enemy must go back and repairs could take months. So the mission kill is the A and O and the Zirkon garantuees a mission kill. Mission kill for a carrier means the WHOLE carrier battlegroup must go home by the way Wink
    Isos
    Isos

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

    Re: Εffectiveness of naval missiles

    Post  Isos on Fri Dec 15, 2017 2:44 pm

    A warships consist of more than 1 section. Bigger ship...more sections! And even the sections are divided in smaller parts!!! Destroying one section or maybe two will not destroy a big ship! A Zirkon can explode deep inside the ship and it will not sink, maybe a mission kill, not more. By the way, Harpoon explodes inside the ship, it goes through the hull like warm knife through butter. Kinetic energy is high enough to penetrate the outside hull and explode inside. There are many good videos (some very old) showing the destructive power of a Harpoon. In some you can very good see in slowmo the penetration of hull, a short delay and the big boom inside

    Exocet successfully sunk a frigate in the Malvinas but in other cases it simply damage the ships like the US one Attack by Iraquis exocet. You will never be sure of the result of an Attack and it will always depend on how your missiles hit the target and where. But if an exocet has such result then we can conclude that a much bigger missiles with much biger warehead will do more damage.

    Carriers will be in great danger if they are hit because they carry hundreds of tonnes of muntions and oïl and toxic things like nuclear combustible. During a war they are full which means you can be sure at 100% that if the missile hit it, it will touch one of those things.

    If it was only the carrier, empty, then no missile on the world would sunk it with one hit that's for sure. There is even a chinese study for how much they need to sink Nimitz class ( Something like 6-11 torpedos or xx missiles or ...) you can find on the net the real conclusion of the study I don't remember the numbers.

    But why sink a carrier? A mission kill is the best you can do!!! You save the life of hundreds of enemy sailors and the enemy can do nothing more. The enemy must go back and repairs could take months. So the mission kill is the A and O and the Zirkon garantuees a mission kill. Mission kill for a carrier means the WHOLE carrier battlegroup must go home by the way Wink

    No admiral on the world would let it go after a mission kill. It would be either destroyed by aviation lunch missiles safely all the day until all the ships around are destroyed or captured by leting the crews know that if they don't surrender ships would be destroyed.
    avatar
    Azi

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

    Re: Εffectiveness of naval missiles

    Post  Azi on Fri Dec 15, 2017 4:21 pm

    Isos wrote:
    Exocet successfully sunk a frigate in the Malvinas but in other cases it simply damage the ships like the US one Attack by Iraquis exocet. You will never be sure of the result of an Attack and it will always depend on how your missiles hit the target and where. But if an exocet has such result then we can conclude that a much bigger missiles with much biger warehead will do more damage.

    Carriers will be in great danger if they are hit because they carry hundreds of tonnes of muntions and oïl and toxic things like nuclear combustible. During a war they are full which means you can be sure at 100% that if the missile hit it, it will touch one of those things.

    If it was only the carrier, empty, then no missile on the world would sunk it with one hit that's for sure. There is even a chinese study for how much they need to sink Nimitz class ( Something like 6-11 torpedos or xx missiles or ...) you can find on the net the real conclusion of the study I don't remember the numbers.
    Sure! That's clear. Luck is an important factor in war. One serious hit in the nuclear section and it's game over for the carrier.

    And of course..saturation attacks are mostly successful!

    Isos wrote:No admiral on the world would let it go after a mission kill. It would be either destroyed by aviation lunch missiles safely all the day until all the ships around are destroyed or captured by leting the crews know that if they don't surrender ships would be destroyed.
    Depends on whether it's worth it. If you have the advantage...why not!? But normally mission kill is ok, if the attacker retreats it's fine.

    My point of view is from defender and the carrier (plus battle group) is the agressor. Normally the defender has less assets to strike the battle group. A concrete example...I think Russia is able to defends it's coast, but to chase and annihilate more than 10 carrier battle groups is something different. So the priorities could be different, focusing on the next attacker before chasing the mission kill carrier.

    Another point would be a boiling nuclear reactor near the own coast, somewhere in the deep of the ocean!? Suspect Is it worth it?

    Who knows...? I don't wanna see it in reality!


    Last edited by Azi on Fri Dec 15, 2017 4:29 pm; edited 1 time in total
    George1
    George1

    Posts : 12823
    Points : 13310
    Join date : 2011-12-22
    Location : Greece

    Re: Εffectiveness of naval missiles

    Post  George1 on Fri Dec 15, 2017 4:26 pm

    "We are aiming for 2021.We shall strive for this." Head of United Shipbuilding Corporation(OSK) Aleksey Rakhmanov states that Pr.1144(.4) Admiral Nakhimov's overhaul, modernization & transfer(!-a bit doubtful) to the MoD(VMF) is to be completed by 2021.

    http://www.militarynews.ru/story.asp?rid=0&nid=469235
    Singular_Transform
    Singular_Transform

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

    Re: Εffectiveness of naval missiles

    Post  Singular_Transform on Fri Dec 15, 2017 7:37 pm

    Azi wrote:
    No! And simply no!

    A warships consist of more than 1 section. Bigger ship...more sections! And even the sections are divided in smaller parts!!! Destroying one section or maybe two will not destroy a big ship! A Zirkon can explode deep inside the ship and it will not sink, maybe a mission kill, not more. By the way, Harpoon explodes inside the ship, it goes through the hull like warm knife through butter. Kinetic energy is high enough to penetrate the outside hull and explode inside. There are many good videos (some very old) showing the destructive power of a Harpoon. In some you can very good see in slowmo the penetration of hull, a short delay and the big boom inside.

    Effect of Zirkon, Onyx, Kalibr, Tomahawk and Co is the same...they ALL penetrate easy the hull go inside and explode after few meter inside the ship.

    Danger of a Zirkon is because it's difficult to impossible for AD systems to intercept Zirkon. This means a salvo of Harpoon could be defeated, but a salvo of Zirkon means pure destruction!

    To complete destroy a carrier a salvo of Zirkon missile is needed or a direct hit of the nuclear reactor. Nuclear reactors are the biggest danger for big warships in time of hypersonic weapons, so maybe it's better to power a Lider class or a carrier not with a reactor!?

    Hey...
    But why sink a carrier? A mission kill is the best you can do!!! You save the life of hundreds of enemy sailors and the enemy can do nothing more. The enemy must go back and repairs could take months. So the mission kill is the A and O and the Zirkon garantuees a mission kill. Mission kill for a carrier means the WHOLE carrier battlegroup must go home by the way Wink


    Check the harpoon videos.

    At least half of them exploding outside of the hull, few penetrating the hull of small ships , IF the angle is right , the hull is thin, and there is no beam.

    The onyx/zircon/granit works like a long kinfe, increase the chance of hitting something critical, and creating path for water , igniting fire in compartments.

    Actually, say the carrier has 500 section, if you penetrate one, or say fifteen makes qualitative difference.

    Interesting reading :
    https://s3.amazonaws.com/CHINFO/USS+Fitzgerald+and+USS+John+S+McCain+Collision+Reports.pdf

    That ship carried way less energy than an anti ship missile, but it scraped a lot of compartment on the fitzgerald.


    Sinking the ship:
    The US policy is to destroy all possible assets of the enemy, with preferably all life force as well.They sink all ships that was disabled.
    During the second world war after disabling the weapons of a Japanese reinforced fortifications they filled up the upper levels with amfo and killed everyone in them.
    There was a reason of the lack of Japanese POWs : )


    Reactor : it is not as big danger as many think. The reactor is quite well protected, the ship has two, and in the case of emergency all that it need is full flooding.

    Actually it is quite hard to make anything with the reactor than can be dangerous for the whole ship.
    Singular_Transform
    Singular_Transform

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

    Re: Εffectiveness of naval missiles

    Post  Singular_Transform on Fri Dec 15, 2017 9:46 pm

    Harpoon
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ObtBjoDGPiA


    Visibly one harpoon detonated outside the hull.
    Two penetrated the hull, and few more the superstructure.

    Brahmos:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zl48bwYBDfA
    2:22 - conical shaped hole in the ship, the entry point sized like the missile, exit extremely big.
    4:00 - 800 tons ship disappeared from one brahmos.

    avatar
    Peŕrier

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

    Re: Εffectiveness of naval missiles

    Post  Peŕrier on Sat Dec 16, 2017 1:44 am

    Right, an 800 tons ship would be disintegrated.

    A 10.000 ship would likely risk to sink.

    A 100.000 tons ship would get serious damage.

    What is a fault assumption is that a missile could penetrate at will walls.

    It can't, because the warhead casing would get in turn serious damage with degradation of detonation properties or even only partial detonation.

    Warheads are made of highly inert explosives, without the right impulse of heat and pressure they won't detonate, and collapsing against an armoured bulwark would in no way make the warhead detonate, but could damage or destroy the warhead.

    So any missile, even if hypersonic, is fused to detonate with tenths of second after the first impact, to protect the warhead itself.

    There would not be a detonation 20 meters inside the ship, because it would be too much probable that the warhead would be degraded or destroyed trying to get so deep inside the hull.

    At the same time, it is a false assumption that a large warship like a carrier is full of dangerous items.

    Ammunition and fuel are stored under the waterline, no missile could reach them.


    Ammunitions' elevators and fuel piping run within armoured ducts, well within the hull.

    Arming and refuelling happens on the flight deck only, no weapon and almost no fuel are allowed in the hangar.

    It is not like naval engineers do not know how AShMs work.

    There is only limited scope for passive countermeasures in smaller vessels, but as size goes up plenty of opportunities open up to the engineers to negate reach to critical parts and systems of the ship.

    Like a II WW battleship was able to withstand a hit from a 381 or 406 mm armour piercing shell weighting between almost one ton to more than 1,2 tons, those being really armoured projectiles made only of steel and explosives, a modern day warship displacing far more than a II WW battleship would be able to withstand an incoming missile.

    The same applies for any very large warship, it is just that a 300 to 400 kg warhead, terrific as it could seems, has just so much destructive power and radius, and as the hull grows in size, so grows the length the shockwaves have to run before reaching any vital part, ultimately being like outrun if the point of impact is not ideal.
    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 Sat Dec 16, 2017 2:23 am

    FFS this is so far Off Topic its absurd.

    While OT, I'll defend my previous claim that a single heavy AShM hit on a large carrier is sufficient to achieve a mission kill. Damage the flight deck and set fire to aircraft and munitions like in the Forrestal accident and she WILL be out of action. Check out the pics of the incident. Does anyone really think a flat-top will keep fighting a battle in a situation like that?



    Yeah sure... you can argue damage control is improved, and the Forrestal didn't have a automatic deck-edge spray system, but the Forrestal incident was from a single small air-launched Zuni rocket and caused a near loss of vessel. Think of what a Kalibre or Oniks could do by comparison, let alone a Granit/Sandbox.

    Now lets cut the endless BS speculation and leave the thread to discussions of the Nahkimov....
    GarryB
    GarryB

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

    Re: Εffectiveness of naval missiles

    Post  GarryB on Sat Dec 16, 2017 7:29 am

    The simple facts are that Russia has multiple but limited access to the sea and open ocean... she has a very long voyage for ships between her fleet bases and that for the future she will be limited in the size of her navy... specifically in the number of ships she can maintain in service.

    If she chooses to have a fleet of small frigate sized vessels with no large vessels then she will never be a blue water navy, there will be few missions to other places like central or south america or africa etc and she will be a land bound power.

    If instead she maintains a modest number of destroyer sized vessels and some large cruiser sized vessels and a couple of medium sized carriers she will be able to operate for long periods away from her ports around the world in a capacity beyond just sending missile armed subs.

    When people talk about new anti ship missiles making large ships obsolete, it reminds me of people claiming new SAMs making aircraft obsolete, and other people claiming missiles made tanks obsolete too.

    They change the way such systems are deployed and used and designed but at the end of the day you need land vehicles of all types to operate and that includes infantry transport and infantry support and vehicles to fight enemy armoured vehicles.... ie you need tanks.

    The value of being able to take control of airspace and use it to your advantage and to deny the enemy the same means aircraft are necessary too.

    They have gotten more stealthy and have gotten the support of satellite based imagery and new weapons that allow them to attack an air defence network and weaken it until it can be defeated... and the best way to stop someone defeating your air defence network is with your own aircraft and your own weapons.

    Right now there are a few technologies that are going to get a lot of attention... scramjet engines make very high speed missiles possible and soon very high speed aircraft, but those same engines can be fitted to defensive missiles too or attack missiles that can destroy the vessels attacking with the missiles in the first place.

    It is like the introduction of nuclear weapons... a nuclear weapon does not make you invincible.... there is no way you can say having one nuke makes you safe from attack, in fact having a new makes you a target for attack and there is no rule that says one side that uses nukes more effectively can't survive an encounter with a side that does not use their nukes well.
    Singular_Transform
    Singular_Transform

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

    Re: Εffectiveness of naval missiles

    Post  Singular_Transform on Sat Dec 16, 2017 11:46 am

    Peŕrier wrote:

    What is a fault assumption is that a missile could penetrate at will walls.

    It can't, because the warhead casing would get in turn serious damage with degradation of detonation properties or even only partial detonation.

    Warheads are made of highly inert explosives, without the right impulse of heat and pressure they won't detonate, and collapsing against an armoured bulwark would in no way make the warhead detonate, but could damage or destroy the warhead.

    So any missile, even if hypersonic, is fused to detonate with tenths of second after the first impact, to protect the warhead itself.

    There would not be a detonation 20 meters inside the ship, because it would be too much probable that the warhead would be degraded or destroyed trying to get so deep inside the hull.



    Few interesting fact:
    1. The currently employed onyx / granit of the russia navy has higher IMPACT velocity than the MUZZLE velocity of the WWII battleship armor piercing ammunition .(depending on trajectory)
    2. The Kirov class battle cruiser has twenty rounds of Granit, each of them carry as big or heavier round then the armor piercing rounds of the WWII 16 inch naval guns.Each granit carry the explosives in an armour piercing steel alloy casing.
    3.The current US/Russians/Chinese destroyers/cruisers/carriers practically has no armour compared to the WWII battleships.


    Additionally ,your logic has flaws.
    IF the harpoon can penetrate the side of the ship ( the structurally strongest part ) THEN why the onyx has to detonate prior of the impact?


    Additionally, the detonation command is not depending on the depth, but the acceleration of the round.
    Means if the round has higher armour, then it will be set to higher acceleration, means the explosion will be at higher depth.

    Interesting information: the WWII armour piercing rounds can penetrate 9 meters of concrete.

    SO , the garnit / onyx CAN penetrate any carrier from any direction, practically in any deep.
    Each of them precisely guided munitions, they can penetrate the flight deck at 45 degree and hit the reactor at the bottom of the ship and disable it.

    And it is easier to kill he AP round from an iowa class battlecruiser than to kill a granit .
    Singular_Transform
    Singular_Transform

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

    Re: Εffectiveness of naval missiles

    Post  Singular_Transform on Sat Dec 16, 2017 11:50 am



    Armour piercing round of the granit.

    They can increase the casing:explosive ratio to overcome any protective armour.
    avatar
    Peŕrier

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

    Re: Εffectiveness of naval missiles

    Post  Peŕrier on Sat Dec 16, 2017 1:50 pm

    No, it's not that a missile could not pierce a ship's hull, it'that after penetration it will be fused. There would be a delay, of course, but it won't penetrate at will internal bulwarks.

    Quire the opposite, modern warships, at least from destroyer's size upward have armoured bulwarks, often doubled, i.e.two separate bulwarks separated by a small liner, typically a fire resistant/insulating one.

    If the Onyx warhead seems impressive, take a look to any AP shell from II WW.

    It's like comparing a nutshell with an anvil: the nutshell seems hard to knack just until you do not hit against an anvil.

    Modern warships,the larger ones, are in no way less protected than those serving in II WW.

    They have only changed protection's philosophy to best counter new weapons' characteristic.

    Now most if not all of peripheral hull is designed to act as a large spaced armour around the citadel containing all of vital systems.

    That is true for ships like aircraft carriers, but is still true for smaller vessels.

    It's always the struggle between sword and shield, as always has been, and no weapon has been or will be risolutive.

    It's not that larger vessels are immune from weapons, it's just that weapons could not assure a mission kill with a single hit, let alone a sink.

    Maybe they will, but there is no assurance about it.

    By the way, after the U.S. Forrestal accident, the U.S. Navy revised and changed armament procedures on the flight deck, recognising previous one were faulty.

    The first lesson learned is that mishaps and weak points could always arise after years of routine,nothing is engraved in stone.

    Present day's damage prevention in western ships could prove faulty, but the effort and technology to counter threats,specifically russian and chinese weapons, both present ones and those speculated to enter service in the near future, have been very significative.
    Singular_Transform
    Singular_Transform

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

    Re: Εffectiveness of naval missiles

    Post  Singular_Transform on Sat Dec 16, 2017 4:17 pm

    Peŕrier wrote:No, it's not that a missile could not pierce a ship's hull, it'that after penetration it will be fused. There would be a delay, of course, but it won't penetrate at will internal bulwarks.

    Quire the opposite, modern warships, at least from destroyer's size upward have armoured bulwarks, often doubled, i.e.two separate bulwarks separated by a small liner, typically a fire resistant/insulating one.

    If the Onyx warhead seems impressive, take a look to any AP shell from II WW.

    It's like comparing a nutshell with an anvil: the nutshell seems hard to knack just until you do not hit against an anvil.

    Modern warships,the larger ones, are in no way less protected than those serving in II WW.




    My point is quite simple: the cheapest part of the granit/zircon/onyx is the AP warhead. Nothing prevent the Russians to put into it a WWII 18" AP round, apart from that there is no ship on the oceans that needs it since the decommissioning of the Iowa battleships.


    And NO the modern warships are NOT comparable to the WWII battleships in the respect of armour.
    The Fizgerald had a hit from a container ship,and become disabled/ and was close to sink. Compared to the onyx the container ship has small energy and damage inflicting capability.

    The carriers practically has no armour, - they depending on the aircraft to protect it from any enemy ship. C'mon, the US carriers hasn't got even self defence systems .

    Frankly, your reasoning sounds like a motivational training for a freshly recruited US navy sailor.
    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 Sat Dec 16, 2017 7:51 pm

    The P-700 Granits warhead is like a WWII armor piercing high explosive round that trades penetration for explosive power Since modern ships don't have 300mm stell armor.

    avatar
    Peŕrier

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

    Re: Εffectiveness of naval missiles

    Post  Peŕrier on Sat Dec 16, 2017 8:50 pm

    Again it is not true.

    While modern warship gave away with large caliber artillery,because it was made obsolete by guided missiles, at the same time they gave away with heavy armoured belts because no longer threatened by heavy AP shells.

    Nobody is saying modern warships would be better protected against a 381 mm AP shell than an equivalent warship from II WW. What is true is that modern warships are designed to cope with modern AShMs.

    And larger vessels DO have armoured bulwarks, irrespective of whatever else people think.

    Just they are designed a different way from old armoured belts, because the threat is different.

    And it's not feasible to increase at will warhead's casing thickness, because it in turn will only make less effective the warhead itsels reducing the amount of explosives.

    The very same problem afflicted II WW heavy shells: the AP ones could pierce enemy's warships armoured belts, but caused relatively little damage because of the little warhead, on the other hand HE ones had devastatinf effects if only they could pierce enemy's armoured belts, which they mostly couldn't do.

    So the problem stay alive: heavy AP warhead with little explosive and little radius of destruction vs heavy warhead Not really AP (mostly they are semi perforating warheads, not true AP ones) with larger explosive and destruction radius.

    The first could try to penetrate several bulwarks and explode as deep as possible in the ship, with little destructive power and the danger to just overshoot the target if hitting some soft spot without the expected amount of bulwarks.

    The second will have a far greater destructive radius, but could't try to penetrate several bulwarks because the casing won't resist that long, so they should be fused just after first penetration is performed.
    Singular_Transform
    Singular_Transform

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

    Re: Εffectiveness of naval missiles

    Post  Singular_Transform on Sat Dec 16, 2017 9:15 pm

    Peŕrier wrote:Again it is not true.

    While modern warship gave away with large caliber artillery,because it was made obsolete by guided missiles, at the same time they gave away with heavy armoured belts because no longer threatened by heavy AP shells.
    ...


    This is not WWII naval warfare, these things can hit the enemy ships quite precisely.


    You can put onto the missiles different warheads for different ships, or you can decide warhead type for different trajectories / angles / target positions .

    Example you can target two onyx with heavy armour piercing warheads into the carrier reactors, and few light round into the aircraft hangars.
    Why not? What prevents the Russian navy from it?
    avatar
    Peŕrier

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

    Re: Εffectiveness of naval missiles

    Post  Peŕrier on Sat Dec 16, 2017 11:25 pm

    It is prevented by several constraints:

    Missile radars have decent/good resolution only at short distances, when little time and space is left to manoeuvre.

    Countermeasures and decoys will likely degrade the target recognition in turn giving the incoming missile only a broad image of the target.

    The target itself is not a static one, it manouvres and a warship is incredibly agile when needed, so the missile can't really choose the point of impact, at most can choose height of point of impact above the waterline.

    The target will NEVER stay passive against an incoming missile, so nobody could plan in advance where the impact should happen.

    And even if already remarked, it could be useful to repeat that reactors, weapons depots, fuel tanks in a carrier are all placed under the waterline, so no missile will likely reach them.

    Naval engineers are always studying, day by day, the best ways to counter threats, and any new ship's class adopt new ideas and technology to mitigate or nullify opponents weapons' letality.

    It is enough to actually hit the enemy, the real option is if aiming to the hull or the superstructure, not if hitting left or right size, one third from the stern or halfway from aft and stern.
    avatar
    hoom

    Posts : 1589
    Points : 1579
    Join date : 2016-05-06

    Re: Εffectiveness of naval missiles

    Post  hoom on Sun Dec 17, 2017 3:07 am

    Armour piercing round of the granit.
    Wow Shocked
    Never actually seen that before, heard rumors but also counter-rumors doubting the existence.

    May be better to call it a semi-AP but is definitely very much more a piercing warhead than normal.
    Some anti-ship missiles do use shaped charges apparently & even multiple self-forging penetrators.

    The Fizgerald had a hit from a container ship,and become disabled/ and was close to sink. Compared to the onyx the container ship has small energy and damage inflicting capability.
    Not strictly true, the kinetic energy of a 30,000ton freighter at 18kt is really really big: 252,000,000 kg m/s vs only 933,450 kg m/s for a US superheavy 16" at muzzle velocity.

    Nevertheless both the 2 recent freighter hits & the older Cole bombing seem to me to have caused a lot more severe damage (to ships that are supposedly better protected than previous post-WWII generations) than I'd have expected.


    This whole conversation stems back to the question of if a modernised Kirov is a valid ship.
    I say yes: modernised Nakhimov will be unquestionably the most powerful surface combatant ever, with both massive anti-surface & air-defense capability, it will create a very strong core to Russian taskforces.

    I am also sympathetic to the small missile boat argument but tempered by the similarity of that argument to the Jeune Ecole argument that Torpedo Boats invalidate BBs & Cruisers and the fact there is an existing combat record for missile boats.
    In both cases (torpedo boats and missile boats) historic combat examples have shown both some very successful operations & some severe limitations/shortcomings proving that it can't be relied on solely.

    I like that Russia is building good missile boats but also modernising the two Kirovs.
    Eventually hopefully there will be a decent number of Frigates that can both provide backbone to missile boat swarms & be the swarm around a Kirov core.
    GarryB
    GarryB

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

    Re: Εffectiveness of naval missiles

    Post  GarryB on Sun Dec 17, 2017 9:01 am

    This idea of a swarm attack somehow being more effective than a heavy powerful group of vessels is amusing....

    Just set up a case where little speed boats with HMGs and light rockets attacks a large well armed vessel and you will see how quickly those light speed boats are dealt with... even just launching a helo like a Ka-52K with Vikhr-m missiles would make short work of even a rather large group of boats, let alone a fully automatic 30mm gatling gun and 130mm guns firing at 120 rpm with each 33kg shell able to obliterate a speed boat sized vessel with one hit or even a near miss.

    Modern guns and weapons plus modern fire control systems and sensors make swarms less useful... not saying a speed boat is not dangerous if it gets in close.... the simple fact is that it is never likely to get that close and air power would destroy a light force of small vessels very very quickly even if they are very well armed.


    A MiG-29K operating from the K with four Kh-31s and four R-73s could easily take on four corvettes at a time 500km away from the SAG it is operating from... how many attacks could it make against those corvettes as they close with the SAG and what sort of fight will those corvettes have by the time they get to sensor range of that SAG?

    Any missiles those corvettes fire could be engaged with R-73s by the MiGs on their way back to rearm and refuel...

    Sponsored content

    Re: Εffectiveness of naval missiles

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Wed Mar 20, 2019 3:02 am