Russia Defence Forum

Would you like to react to this message? Create an account in a few clicks or log in to continue.

Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


+53
Sujoy
mnztr
PapaDragon
Cyberspec
dino00
Hole
hoom
Admin
Azi
The-thing-next-door
Peŕrier
Tsavo Lion
Singular_Transform
GunshipDemocracy
zg18
AK-Rex
Book.
Isos
Arrow
kvs
Stealthflanker
Rmf
2SPOOKY4U
jhelb
Mindstorm
JohninMK
Big_Gazza
chicken
max steel
artjomh
sepheronx
nastle77
magnumcromagnon
Mike E
collegeboy16
Werewolf
etaepsilonk
runaway
flamming_python
medo
Rpg type 7v
George1
gaurav
Hachimoto
coolieno99
eridan
TR1
TheArmenian
Austin
SOC
Viktor
GarryB
KomissarBojanchev
57 posters

    Anti-Ship Missiles Thread

    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 30619
    Points : 31149
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Anti-Ship Missiles Thread - Page 9 Empty Re: Anti-Ship Missiles Thread

    Post  GarryB Thu Dec 29, 2016 8:51 am

    They knew the US forces could detect their missiles from long distances... the purpose of high speed is to reduce the time they have to do something about it.

    The early models of missile were not sea skimming... they flew at 50m altitude or so.
    The new missiles however are fully sea skimming and can hit land targets now too.

    They are working on scramjet motors for the new missiles, but currently the fastest missile they have has a rocket propelled speed of mach 2.9 for the terminal phase of the attack.

    Moskit is reportedly able to fly at mach 2.2 at low altitude. Granit at mach 1.6 at the start of its flight and mach 2 near the end when it is much lighter having burned off several tons of fuel.

    Granit has titanium armour to protect the warhead and would be rather difficult to shoot down.

    Singular_Transform
    Singular_Transform

    Posts : 929
    Points : 915
    Join date : 2016-11-13

    Anti-Ship Missiles Thread - Page 9 Empty Re: Anti-Ship Missiles Thread

    Post  Singular_Transform Thu Dec 29, 2016 7:12 pm

    GarryB wrote:They knew the US forces could detect their missiles from long distances... the purpose of high speed is to reduce the time they have to do something about it.

    The early models of missile were not sea skimming... they flew at 50m altitude or so.
    The new missiles however are fully sea skimming and can hit land targets now too.

    They are working on scramjet motors for the new missiles, but currently the fastest missile they have has a rocket propelled speed of mach 2.9 for the terminal phase of the attack.

    Moskit is reportedly able to fly at mach 2.2 at low altitude. Granit at mach 1.6 at the start of its flight and mach 2 near the end when it is much lighter having burned off several tons of fuel.

    Granit has titanium armour to protect the warhead and would be rather difficult to shoot down.


    If you check the three missile ( moskit/700/800) engine inlet the range and purpose of them become quite obvious.


    The 700/800 has a conical inlet, adjustable ( I expect) the moskit has a fixed inlet.

    Means that the moskit was designed for one altitude, the 700/800 felxible about the altitudes .

    If the 700 engine data true then the maximum speed of it could be around 1.7 match sea level, but it means that the maximum speed of it should be 4-6 match 24000 meter altitude.

    I don't think that the granit has titanium in the warhead.They have to had the inlet cone moving motor,and the radar in the front of the rocket.
    The CIW has very small chance to hit it, so why they should bother with any armour?


    If they updated the electronics of the rockets that means they have 100-300 kg extra weight allowance for the rockets.

    I think the attack profile of th 700/800 flexible, and they can decide the best based on the distance and attacker profile.

    And the true range of the 700/800 should be around 1500-2500 km.

    Based on this if the attacker launch them from 600km distance then they have enough allowance to make a full circle around the target , around 200 km, to synchronise all wolf.

    Tsavo Lion
    Tsavo Lion

    Posts : 5731
    Points : 5721
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    Anti-Ship Missiles Thread - Page 9 Empty Re: Anti-Ship Missiles Thread

    Post  Tsavo Lion Fri Dec 30, 2016 10:13 pm

    Перед самым выходом российских кораблей к берегам Сирии Северный флот показательно провел учения, в ходе которых атомная подводная лодка проекта 949 «Антей» поразила «Гранитами» еще и несколько наземных целей. Transl.: Just before sailing to the coast of Syria, the Northern Fleet conducted exercises during which nuclear submarine Project 949 "Antey" [Oskar SSGN] struck with "Granite" a few ground targets. http://izvestia.ru/news/654331#ixzz4UMFphf7A
    So, will they keep & expend them in that role even after they r replaced in anti-ship role with newer missiles?
    Singular_Transform
    Singular_Transform

    Posts : 929
    Points : 915
    Join date : 2016-11-13

    Anti-Ship Missiles Thread - Page 9 Empty Re: Anti-Ship Missiles Thread

    Post  Singular_Transform Fri Dec 30, 2016 10:38 pm

    Tsavo Lion wrote:Перед самым выходом российских кораблей к берегам Сирии Северный флот показательно провел учения, в ходе которых атомная подводная лодка проекта 949 «Антей» поразила «Гранитами» еще и несколько наземных целей. Transl.: Just before sailing to the coast of Syria, the Northern Fleet conducted exercises during which nuclear submarine Project 949 "Antey" [Oskar SSGN] struck with "Granite" a few ground targets. http://izvestia.ru/news/654331#ixzz4UMFphf7A
    So, will they keep & expend them in that role even after they r replaced in anti-ship role with newer missiles?

    These are heavy, 7 tons monsters.

    With upgraded electronics the range of them should be higher than before OR they can have more electronic countermeasure than before OR additional capabilities that fit few hundred (max 500) kg.


    Just for reference, a MIG-21 is 8.8 tons, a granit is 7 tons.

    These are small fighter jet sized missiles.
    Isos
    Isos

    Posts : 7878
    Points : 7862
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Anti-Ship Missiles Thread - Page 9 Empty Re: Anti-Ship Missiles Thread

    Post  Isos Fri Dec 30, 2016 10:50 pm

    Singular_Transform wrote:
    Tsavo Lion wrote:Перед самым выходом российских кораблей к берегам Сирии Северный флот показательно провел учения, в ходе которых атомная подводная лодка проекта 949 «Антей» поразила «Гранитами» еще и несколько наземных целей. Transl.: Just before sailing to the coast of Syria, the Northern Fleet conducted exercises during which nuclear submarine Project 949 "Antey" [Oskar SSGN]   struck with "Granite" a few ground targets. http://izvestia.ru/news/654331#ixzz4UMFphf7A
    So, will they keep & expend them in that role even after they r replaced in anti-ship role with newer missiles?

    These are heavy, 7 tons monsters.

    With upgraded electronics the range of them should be higher than before OR they can have more electronic countermeasure than before OR additional capabilities that fit few hundred (max 500) kg.


    Just for reference, a MIG-21 is 8.8 tons, a granit is 7 tons.

    These are small fighter jet sized missiles.

    Electronics have nothing to do with range and Mig-21 at mach 1.5-2 will have simiar or shorter range than granit. Granit is a really good missile but its lunch plateform are very expensive.

    For the original question, if they replace them, they will destroy them because their are 3 types of vessel that carries them. If they don't replace them I don't think they wil use them in land atack mode (unless nuclear strike). They need all granits for attacking carriers.
    Tsavo Lion
    Tsavo Lion

    Posts : 5731
    Points : 5721
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    Anti-Ship Missiles Thread - Page 9 Empty Re: Anti-Ship Missiles Thread

    Post  Tsavo Lion Fri Dec 30, 2016 11:09 pm

    Can they all be modified to LACMs & still be AShMs? I expected this development-the Oskar SSGNs can now also strike land targets- it makes them a force multiplier. They now have 8 active(some undergoing modernization), so if all get those LACMs, 8 x72 each'll carry=up to 576 extra missiles to project power ashore!
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oscar-class_submarine#Project_949A_Antey


    Last edited by Tsavo Lion on Sat Dec 31, 2016 12:25 am; edited 1 time in total
    Isos
    Isos

    Posts : 7878
    Points : 7862
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Anti-Ship Missiles Thread - Page 9 Empty Re: Anti-Ship Missiles Thread

    Post  Isos Fri Dec 30, 2016 11:45 pm

    In theory they can. But it's simplier to use kalibr on different corvette and submarines + air lunched kh 101/55 which are in full production so cheaper.

    I don't think they still produce granit, the stocks from cold war are enough for a war against carriers but not for land attacks. They are like Tu-95, still used but if they lost them they can't replace them wit a new one. I'm not sure about that, however if it's true the good qestion would be: with what would be armed the Slavas, kirov and Oscar if the granit are no more useable ??
    Tsavo Lion
    Tsavo Lion

    Posts : 5731
    Points : 5721
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    Anti-Ship Missiles Thread - Page 9 Empty Re: Anti-Ship Missiles Thread

    Post  Tsavo Lion Sat Dec 31, 2016 12:09 am

    The Admiral Nakhimov will carry the P-800 Oniks supersonic AShM. https://sputniknews.com/military/20140124186878185-Russia-Begins-Nuclear-Powered-Missile-Cruiser-Overhaul/
    I expect the other Kirov CGNs, Slavas, and Oscars will in due time too.
    http://www.janes.com/article/60518/russia-initiates-multiyear-plan-to-modernise-oscar-ii-ssgns
    Big_Gazza
    Big_Gazza

    Posts : 2735
    Points : 2735
    Join date : 2014-08-25
    Location : Melbourne, Australia

    Anti-Ship Missiles Thread - Page 9 Empty Re: Anti-Ship Missiles Thread

    Post  Big_Gazza Sat Dec 31, 2016 1:33 am

    Tsavo Lion wrote:The Admiral Nakhimov will carry the P-800 Oniks supersonic AShM. https://sputniknews.com/military/20140124186878185-Russia-Begins-Nuclear-Powered-Missile-Cruiser-Overhaul/
    I expect the other Kirov CGNs, Slavas, and Oscars will in due time too.
    http://www.janes.com/article/60518/russia-initiates-multiyear-plan-to-modernise-oscar-ii-ssgns

    The 949M looks to be a signficant upgrade. Apart from 72 kalibre/Oniks, it also includes "fire-control, communications, sonar, radar, and electronic intercept equipment. The modernisation will also include updated Omnibus-M combat information and Simfoniya-3.2 navigation systems."
    avatar
    nastle77

    Posts : 229
    Points : 307
    Join date : 2015-07-25

    Anti-Ship Missiles Thread - Page 9 Empty Re: Anti-Ship Missiles Thread

    Post  nastle77 Sat Dec 31, 2016 3:07 am

    I wonder how much killing power does exocet and harpoon have? Compared to soviet era ASM

    Uss stark was stuck by 2 still managed to stay afloat

    The Iranian corvette in  praying mantis  was stuck by several before it sank

    Hypothetically how many harpoon would be needed to sink a average soviet cruiser like kresta II ?
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 30619
    Points : 31149
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Anti-Ship Missiles Thread - Page 9 Empty Re: Anti-Ship Missiles Thread

    Post  GarryB Sat Dec 31, 2016 7:16 am

    Most of the western reports and opinions during the cold war seemed to suggest that NATO weapons like Exocet and Harpoon were designed for mission kills rather than actually sinking a vessel.

    Soviet missiles on the other hand were designed to be used against very very large ships and therefore could be assumed to sink most smaller vessels.

    The western tactics likely included multiple hits as part of their strategy...


    Means that the moskit was designed for one altitude, the 700/800 felxible about the altitudes .

    Moskit was designed to defeat AEGIS and it did this by flying at a maximum altitude of 300m to acquire the target and the rest of the flight below the 7m minimum height altitude of the STANDARD naval SAM system used in the AEGIS class cruisers.

    Later models got extended ranges by being able to fly high to improve range performance.

    I don't think that the granit has titanium in the warhead.They have to had the inlet cone moving motor,and the radar in the front of the rocket.
    The CIW has very small chance to hit it, so why they should bother with any armour?

    the HE warhead is protected because the easiest way to defeat the missile is to make the warhead explode prematurely. In article discussing interception attempts by MiG-31s they mentioned that two R-33s were needed for the interception and suggested it was because of the armour around the warhead...


    Based on this if the attacker launch them from 600km distance then they have enough allowance to make a full circle around the target , around 200 km, to synchronise all wolf.

    Actually for AEGIS it would be better to attack from one direction as the number of engagement (ie SAM guidance channels) would be reduced and of course other defences like jammers and decoys would be less effective...

    So, will they keep & expend them in that role even after they r replaced in anti-ship role with newer missiles?

    That would be a cheap and effective way to use some up... though as targets simulating an enemy system would also be useful too.

    Can they all be modified to LACMs & still be AShMs? I expected this development-the Oskar SSGNs can now also strike land targets- it makes them a force multiplier.

    I suspect they are basically adapting the guidance systems along the same lines as they adapted the Yakhont to make it Brahmos...

    So I would expect fully dual purpose guidance.

    I'm not sure about that, however if it's true the good qestion would be: with what would be armed the Slavas, kirov and Oscar if the granit are no more useable ??

    Oscars are being adapted for Kalibr/Onix... AFAIK the Granit is out of production but they might have the Vulcan still in production as an alternative.

    I wonder how much killing power does exocet and harpoon have? Compared to soviet era ASM

    Just look at Ominus Squids signature... when the missile is supersonic even wing parts become effective fragmentation... not just parts accelerated by the warhead.
    Singular_Transform
    Singular_Transform

    Posts : 929
    Points : 915
    Join date : 2016-11-13

    Anti-Ship Missiles Thread - Page 9 Empty Re: Anti-Ship Missiles Thread

    Post  Singular_Transform Sat Dec 31, 2016 7:34 pm

    GarryB wrote:

    Actually for AEGIS it would be better to attack from one direction as the number of engagement (ie SAM guidance channels) would be reduced and of course other defences like jammers and decoys would be less effective...

    I used to read popular science mags from the 30s.

    Based on the popsci papers from 1938 the most advanced military aircraft detection system was like this:


    The reality was like this


    So, the description of the working of weapons can be interesting, but usually it come from an untrusted source.

    Neither the Russians, neither the US has interest to share any real and valid information about own/enemy weapon systems.

    So, based on this, the bandwidth /channel limitation is technical, it is easy to increase the number of control channels with the rockets.

    However if the rockets attack from different direction then it become theoretically impossible to make minimal SAM engage strategy .

    Of course I haven't calculated it, and I haven't spent too much time with it.
    so any attack profile can be good.

    But without too much time spent I think the best strategy should be to spread the rockets as wide as it possible.
    medo
    medo

    Posts : 4219
    Points : 4303
    Join date : 2010-10-24
    Location : Slovenia

    Anti-Ship Missiles Thread - Page 9 Empty Re: Anti-Ship Missiles Thread

    Post  medo Sat Dec 31, 2016 7:57 pm

    I have a question regardin airborn anti-ship missiles. In Syria we could have seen a picture of Su-34 armed with Kh-35 missile. Are they in armament of RuNAVY Su-30SM and MiG-29K? Also Kh-59MK anti-ship missile is also integrated with Su-30 fighters. Are they in russian armament or they are used only with foreign users like China?

    For now it was said that naval Su-30SM will be armed with Kh-31AD anti-ship missiles. They need Kh-35 and Kh-59MK as well as they have around 300 km range. Kalibr missiles will be real ultimate anti-ship weapon with around 500 km range.
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 30619
    Points : 31149
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Anti-Ship Missiles Thread - Page 9 Empty Re: Anti-Ship Missiles Thread

    Post  GarryB Sun Jan 01, 2017 1:52 am

    Radars and missiles big enough to detect targets at very long ranges will be huge and expensive... and will therefore will be included in the targets assigned to SLBMs and ICBMs.

    By the time the bombers get to their launch positions such targets will be vapour.

    The US does not have an IADS system and would have to triple its defence budget for the next 20 years to get one...

    Not going to happen.

    Neither the Russians, neither the US has interest to share any real and valid information about own/enemy weapon systems.

    Even an amateur like me can look at the new model of the AS-11 with two lower IR optical ports and work out that they have added a thermal channel for guidance...

    In Syria we could have seen a picture of Su-34 armed with Kh-35 missile. Are they in armament of RuNAVY Su-30SM and MiG-29K? Also Kh-59MK anti-ship missile is also integrated with Su-30 fighters. Are they in russian armament or they are used only with foreign users like China?

    I would suggest that would be a safe assumption... such a missile would be more useful to naval aircraft though the multifunction nature of new Russian aircraft and weapons would suggest usefulness against ground targets too.

    For now it was said that naval Su-30SM will be armed with Kh-31AD anti-ship missiles. They need Kh-35 and Kh-59MK as well as they have around 300 km range.

    Kh-31AD is reported to have the slightly shorter range of about 240km and a flight speed of mach 3.... I would think all three missiles would be useful...

    For now it was said that naval Su-30SM will be armed with Kh-31AD anti-ship missiles. They need Kh-35 and Kh-59MK as well as they have around 300 km range.

    Kalibr is a subsonic land attack missile and has a range of more than 2,500km...

    Onix has a range of 500km at mach 2.5 or there-abouts...
    avatar
    Peŕrier

    Posts : 275
    Points : 273
    Join date : 2017-10-15

    Anti-Ship Missiles Thread - Page 9 Empty Re: Anti-Ship Missiles Thread

    Post  Peŕrier 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 : 7878
    Points : 7862
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Anti-Ship Missiles Thread - Page 9 Empty Re: Anti-Ship Missiles Thread

    Post  Isos 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 : 275
    Points : 273
    Join date : 2017-10-15

    Anti-Ship Missiles Thread - Page 9 Empty Re: Anti-Ship Missiles Thread

    Post  Peŕrier 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 : 929
    Points : 915
    Join date : 2016-11-13

    Anti-Ship Missiles Thread - Page 9 Empty Re: Anti-Ship Missiles Thread

    Post  Singular_Transform 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 : 7878
    Points : 7862
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Anti-Ship Missiles Thread - Page 9 Empty Re: Anti-Ship Missiles Thread

    Post  Isos 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 : 10657
    Points : 10804
    Join date : 2014-09-11
    Location : Canuckistan

    Anti-Ship Missiles Thread - Page 9 Empty Re: Anti-Ship Missiles Thread

    Post  kvs 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 : 2735
    Points : 2735
    Join date : 2014-08-25
    Location : Melbourne, Australia

    Anti-Ship Missiles Thread - Page 9 Empty Re: Anti-Ship Missiles Thread

    Post  Big_Gazza 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 : 982
    Points : 1034
    Join date : 2017-09-18
    Location : Uranus

    Anti-Ship Missiles Thread - Page 9 Empty Re: Anti-Ship Missiles Thread

    Post  The-thing-next-door 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 : 10657
    Points : 10804
    Join date : 2014-09-11
    Location : Canuckistan

    Anti-Ship Missiles Thread - Page 9 Empty Re: Anti-Ship Missiles Thread

    Post  kvs 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 : 982
    Points : 1034
    Join date : 2017-09-18
    Location : Uranus

    Anti-Ship Missiles Thread - Page 9 Empty Re: Anti-Ship Missiles Thread

    Post  The-thing-next-door 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 : 929
    Points : 915
    Join date : 2016-11-13

    Anti-Ship Missiles Thread - Page 9 Empty Re: Anti-Ship Missiles Thread

    Post  Singular_Transform 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.

    Sponsored content

    Anti-Ship Missiles Thread - Page 9 Empty Re: Anti-Ship Missiles Thread

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Wed Sep 22, 2021 8:29 pm