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


    Anti-Ship Missiles Thread

    avatar
    Azi

    Posts : 427
    Points : 423
    Join date : 2016-04-05

    Anti-Ship Missiles Thread - Page 10 Empty Re: Anti-Ship Missiles Thread

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

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

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


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

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


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

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

    The miracle is if any of them hit the missile.


    similar issues with the SAMs.


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

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

    Posts : 830
    Points : 818
    Join date : 2016-11-13

    Anti-Ship Missiles Thread - Page 10 Empty Re: Anti-Ship Missiles Thread

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

    Azi wrote:
    Absolutely correct thumbsup but...

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

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

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

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

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

    Posts : 26600
    Points : 27140
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Anti-Ship Missiles Thread - Page 10 Empty Re: Anti-Ship Missiles Thread

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

    That would be difficult with corvettes.

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

    Posts : 863
    Points : 913
    Join date : 2017-09-18
    Location : Uranus

    Anti-Ship Missiles Thread - Page 10 Empty Re: Anti-Ship Missiles Thread

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

    GarryB wrote:

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

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

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

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

    That would be difficult with corvettes.


    Lasers will not be an effective weapon any time soon.

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

    Posts : 26600
    Points : 27140
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Anti-Ship Missiles Thread - Page 10 Empty Re: Anti-Ship Missiles Thread

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Posts : 281
    Points : 279
    Join date : 2017-10-15

    Anti-Ship Missiles Thread - Page 10 Empty Re: Anti-Ship Missiles Thread

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Posts : 2950
    Points : 3826
    Join date : 2009-07-10

    Anti-Ship Missiles Thread - Page 10 Empty Re: Anti-Ship Missiles Thread

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

    The-thing-next-door wrote:

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

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

    Posts : 281
    Points : 279
    Join date : 2017-10-15

    Anti-Ship Missiles Thread - Page 10 Empty Re: Anti-Ship Missiles Thread

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

    kvs wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    At sea, size does matter, ever.
    Isos
    Isos

    Posts : 6620
    Points : 6610
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Anti-Ship Missiles Thread - Page 10 Empty Re: Anti-Ship Missiles Thread

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

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

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

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

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

    Posts : 26600
    Points : 27140
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Anti-Ship Missiles Thread - Page 10 Empty Re: Anti-Ship Missiles Thread

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

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

    Posts : 7436
    Points : 7585
    Join date : 2014-09-11
    Location : Canuckistan

    Anti-Ship Missiles Thread - Page 10 Empty Re: Anti-Ship Missiles Thread

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

    Peŕrier wrote:
    kvs wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    At sea, size does matter, ever.

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

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

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

    Posts : 863
    Points : 913
    Join date : 2017-09-18
    Location : Uranus

    Anti-Ship Missiles Thread - Page 10 Empty Re: Anti-Ship Missiles Thread

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

    kvs wrote:
    Peŕrier wrote:
    kvs wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    At sea, size does matter, ever.

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

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

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

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

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

    Singular_Transform
    Singular_Transform

    Posts : 830
    Points : 818
    Join date : 2016-11-13

    Anti-Ship Missiles Thread - Page 10 Empty Re: Anti-Ship Missiles Thread

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

    The-thing-next-door wrote:

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

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


    I think the discussion is about completely different things.

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

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

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

    Posts : 281
    Points : 279
    Join date : 2017-10-15

    Anti-Ship Missiles Thread - Page 10 Empty Re: Anti-Ship Missiles Thread

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

    kvs wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Posts : 830
    Points : 818
    Join date : 2016-11-13

    Anti-Ship Missiles Thread - Page 10 Empty Re: Anti-Ship Missiles Thread

    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 : 281
    Points : 279
    Join date : 2017-10-15

    Anti-Ship Missiles Thread - Page 10 Empty Re: Anti-Ship Missiles Thread

    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 : 2134
    Points : 2136
    Join date : 2014-08-25
    Location : Melbourne, Australia

    Anti-Ship Missiles Thread - Page 10 Empty Re: Anti-Ship Missiles Thread

    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 : 6620
    Points : 6610
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Anti-Ship Missiles Thread - Page 10 Empty Re: Anti-Ship Missiles Thread

    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 : 830
    Points : 818
    Join date : 2016-11-13

    Anti-Ship Missiles Thread - Page 10 Empty Re: Anti-Ship Missiles Thread

    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 : 281
    Points : 279
    Join date : 2017-10-15

    Anti-Ship Missiles Thread - Page 10 Empty Re: Anti-Ship Missiles Thread

    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 : 427
    Points : 423
    Join date : 2016-04-05

    Anti-Ship Missiles Thread - Page 10 Empty Re: Anti-Ship Missiles Thread

    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 : 6620
    Points : 6610
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Anti-Ship Missiles Thread - Page 10 Empty Re: Anti-Ship Missiles Thread

    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 : 427
    Points : 423
    Join date : 2016-04-05

    Anti-Ship Missiles Thread - Page 10 Empty Re: Anti-Ship Missiles Thread

    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
    Singular_Transform
    Singular_Transform

    Posts : 830
    Points : 818
    Join date : 2016-11-13

    Anti-Ship Missiles Thread - Page 10 Empty Re: Anti-Ship Missiles Thread

    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 : 830
    Points : 818
    Join date : 2016-11-13

    Anti-Ship Missiles Thread - Page 10 Empty Re: Anti-Ship Missiles Thread

    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.


    Sponsored content

    Anti-Ship Missiles Thread - Page 10 Empty Re: Anti-Ship Missiles Thread

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Tue Nov 24, 2020 2:00 am