Anti-Ship Missiles Thread

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.

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?

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.

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

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...

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.

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.

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.

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.

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-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.

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

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.