Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    Anti-Ship Missiles Thread

    Sujoy
    Sujoy

    Posts : 941
    Points : 1099
    Join date : 2012-04-02
    Location : India

    Anti-Ship Missiles Thread - Page 12 Empty Re: Anti-Ship Missiles Thread

    Post  Sujoy on Sat May 09, 2020 2:10 pm

    GarryB wrote:
    The Russians were happy to sell old model Kh-31s because they were primarily Air Force weapons generally used for anti radar use, so the Navy didn't care if their design was compromised.
    The U.S purchased the Kh-31

    https://hushkit.net/2019/11/19/the-soviet-missile-used-by-the-us-navy/

    jhelb
    jhelb

    Posts : 865
    Points : 974
    Join date : 2015-04-04
    Location : Previously: Belarus Currently: A Small Island No One Cares About

    Anti-Ship Missiles Thread - Page 12 Empty Re: Anti-Ship Missiles Thread

    Post  jhelb on Sat May 09, 2020 4:41 pm

    Isos wrote:British and french are also working on a new model called Sea Venom in english and ANL in french.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_Venom_(missile)

    What's the need for this missile - Sea Venom? Kongsberg's Naval Strike Missile already exists. So, what are the gaps they intend to fill with the Sea Venom?
    Isos
    Isos

    Posts : 5272
    Points : 5264
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Anti-Ship Missiles Thread - Page 12 Empty Re: Anti-Ship Missiles Thread

    Post  Isos on Sat May 09, 2020 6:12 pm

    jhelb wrote:
    Isos wrote:British and french are also working on a new model called Sea Venom in english and ANL in french.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_Venom_(missile)

    What's the need for this missile - Sea Venom? Kongsberg's Naval Strike Missile already exists. So, what are the gaps they intend to fill with the Sea Venom?

    This is a small light anti ship missile intended for use by helicopters.

    Naval strike missile is much bigger. Not the same class.

    Both countries also have an industry that needs new projects to surivive, they won't buy something from a third country.
    jhelb
    jhelb

    Posts : 865
    Points : 974
    Join date : 2015-04-04
    Location : Previously: Belarus Currently: A Small Island No One Cares About

    Anti-Ship Missiles Thread - Page 12 Empty Re: Anti-Ship Missiles Thread

    Post  jhelb on Sat May 09, 2020 6:36 pm

    Isos wrote:

    This is a small light anti ship missile intended for use by helicopters.

    Naval strike missile is much bigger. Not the same class.
    Are Small anti-ship missiles effective? I get it that a number of them need to be fired but generally speaking anti-ship missiles tend to be Large. Look at Russian anti-ship missiles...they are large.
    Isos
    Isos

    Posts : 5272
    Points : 5264
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Anti-Ship Missiles Thread - Page 12 Empty Re: Anti-Ship Missiles Thread

    Post  Isos on Sat May 09, 2020 7:34 pm

    jhelb wrote:
    Isos wrote:

    This is a small light anti ship missile intended for use by helicopters.

    Naval strike missile is much bigger. Not the same class.
    Are Small anti-ship missiles effective? I get it that a number of them need to be fired but generally speaking anti-ship missiles tend to be Large. Look at Russian anti-ship missiles...they are large.

    You won't sink a carrier with one but there are plenty of tarets that can be destroyed by such missile without using exocet or harpoons like supply civilian vessels, speed boat, missile boat, corvettes would be mission killed at least.

    French and UK ships carry only 8 anti ship missiles which is very limited so having such missile allow them to destroy more targets.

    The range of the missile would make an helicopter dead meat against a ship with air defences but plenty of ship have no air def or guns.

    I remember an exercice during which US helicopters fired around 25 hellfire atgm against a frigate to sink it. There was no crew to fight the fire  but it gives you idea of how fire can destroy a ship. The heat makes the metal to lose strenght and the ship just collapse.
    Big_Gazza
    Big_Gazza

    Posts : 1913
    Points : 1915
    Join date : 2014-08-25
    Location : Melbourne, Australia

    Anti-Ship Missiles Thread - Page 12 Empty Re: Anti-Ship Missiles Thread

    Post  Big_Gazza on Sun May 10, 2020 3:09 am

    Isos wrote:I remember an exercice during which US helicopters fired around 25 hellfire atgm against a frigate to sink it.

    let me guess..  this frigate didn't shoot back?  Suspect

    Yeah. Sure.  Lets imagine a real world setting where helos with short range ATGMs attack a minor combatant armed with a competent CIWS like navalised Tor or Pantsir.  This encounter ends with the Pentagram tearing a few pages out of its tactical doctrine and issuing a purchase order for replacement helos.  lol1

    Not saying such missiles are useless, far from it. In the Falklands war, British Lynx helos used Sea Skuas to disable an Argie SSK by blowing holes through its sail, but a sub (usually) can't shoot back so its a near-zero risk mission for the attacker. Situational specifics are all important.
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 24411
    Points : 24953
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Anti-Ship Missiles Thread - Page 12 Empty Re: Anti-Ship Missiles Thread

    Post  GarryB on Sun May 10, 2020 8:41 am

    The U.S purchased the Kh-31

    The missile they actually bought was an early model Kh-31 that was basically the early model anti radiation version that was intended to fly at high altitude most of the way to the target.

    It was not intended to fly low all the way to the target, so the MA-31 missiles as the Americans designated their missiles had much shorter flight range at low altitude than the Kh-31 weapon could actually achieve in combat.

    They didn't care of course... it was their first access to a combined rocket ramjet powered missile so they had a lot to learn... but the missiles they received were obsolete.

    Are Small anti-ship missiles effective? I get it that a number of them need to be fired but generally speaking anti-ship missiles tend to be Large. Look at Russian anti-ship missiles...they are large.

    As long as you respect the fact that these are light missiles they actually make a lot of sense.

    The alternative to these missiles effectively would be using anti tank missiles like Hellfire or Ataka, which are missiles with at best 8-10km range and 6-10kgs HE warhead. In comparison these light missiles have a range of about 20-30km with 30-50kg warheads which makes the launch platform safer because 20-30km is outside manpads range and 30-50kg HE frag warheads will be rather more effective.... while the 100-200kg missile weight is still in the range of most helicopters can operate with.

    I remember an exercice during which US helicopters fired around 25 hellfire atgm against a frigate to sink it. There was no crew to fight the fire but it gives you idea of how fire can destroy a ship. The heat makes the metal to lose strenght and the ship just collapse.

    25 Hellfires is pretty much the equivalent of a 250kg cluster bomb with 25 x 10kg bomblets all starting fires. Submarines during WWII often came to the surface and used deck mounted guns to sink ships that could not defend themselves and were not fast enough to get away... I have read about a Soviet sub using 47mm AA rounds to sink ships... it takes a while but can certainly be done easily enough.

    Yeah. Sure. Lets imagine a real world setting where helos with short range ATGMs attack a minor combatant armed with a competent CIWS like navalised Tor or Pantsir. This encounter ends with the Pentagram tearing a few pages out of its tactical doctrine and issuing a purchase order for replacement helos.

    US spy ships are equipped with 50 cal HMGs... that US spy ship the Israelis attacked repeatedly because they claimed they thought it was an Egyptian freighter had two 50 cal HMGs for protection... a helicopter hovering 5km away could hammer it with Hellfires and there is no way it could shoot back or escape...

    And why waste an expensive missile when lots of smaller lighter cheaper missiles will do.

    The Sea Skua had a 50kg HE payload so five would be the equivalent of 25 Hellfires... which means three helicopters with Sea Skuas (2 each) could achieve what would normally take two Apaches with 16 missiles each, but that is not too bad... you could save the Hellfires for shore targets or smaller speed boat type targets.
    Isos
    Isos

    Posts : 5272
    Points : 5264
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Anti-Ship Missiles Thread - Page 12 Empty Re: Anti-Ship Missiles Thread

    Post  Isos on Sun May 10, 2020 10:27 am

    Big_Gazza wrote:
    Isos wrote:I remember an exercice during which US helicopters fired around 25 hellfire atgm against a frigate to sink it.

    let me guess..  this frigate didn't shoot back?  Suspect

    Yeah. Sure.  Lets imagine a real world setting where helos with short range ATGMs attack a minor combatant armed with a competent CIWS like navalised Tor or Pantsir.  This encounter ends with the Pentagram tearing a few pages out of its tactical doctrine and issuing a purchase order for replacement helos.  lol1

    Not saying such missiles are useless, far from it.  In the Falklands war, British Lynx helos used Sea Skuas to disable an Argie SSK by blowing holes through its sail, but a sub (usually) can't shoot back so its a near-zero risk mission for the attacker.  Situational specifics are all important.

    It was a an SINKEX. They tested weaponery against a real ship to see results. They do it often. And yes of course the ship didn'y fired back. At that range the ship could have used it gun to destroy the helicopter well before it came in range to fire.

    But the point is to show that even smallerwarheads can do lot of dammage and they would most likely be used against unprotected ships if it is possible.

    There isn't lot of small ships using pantsir. Only the russians are using them. Other nation's small boats or corvettes have nothing to deal with a 20km range small missile. Even some frigates wouldn't be safe.
    The-thing-next-door
    The-thing-next-door

    Posts : 623
    Points : 659
    Join date : 2017-09-18
    Location : Soviet Interdimentional Command

    Anti-Ship Missiles Thread - Page 12 Empty Re: Anti-Ship Missiles Thread

    Post  The-thing-next-door on Sun May 10, 2020 10:35 am

    Well as far as helicopter missiles go won't there be a thermobaric version of the hermes? That could be reasonably effective against
    various small craft and even proper corvettes.

    Actually with hermes 100km range a Russian heli carrier could perform stand off attacks against an LCS or any other similar ship.

    avatar
    Mindstorm

    Posts : 941
    Points : 1108
    Join date : 2011-07-20

    Anti-Ship Missiles Thread - Page 12 Empty Re: Anti-Ship Missiles Thread

    Post  Mindstorm on Sun May 10, 2020 11:17 am


    Can someone provide the info about the exercise where the ship was sunk by the 25 AGM-114 ? Thanks Wink
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 24411
    Points : 24953
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Anti-Ship Missiles Thread - Page 12 Empty Re: Anti-Ship Missiles Thread

    Post  GarryB on Sun May 10, 2020 11:18 am

    AFAIK the standard model Hermes has a 30kg HE warhead, while the anti tank model has at least two full calibre HEAT warheads.

    I seem to remember in the 70s or 80s that a European missile... was highly rated because its warhead was a high explosive incendiary warhead designed to spread burning material around the ship that it hit. Don't think it has actually be used but the idea sounds pretty sound to me.

    Submariners often say that a torpedo is more effective than an anti ship missile because a torpedo lets water into the ship, while an anti ship missile lets in air.

    Both are pretty unfair... a modern torpedo will generate an enormous bubble of air below the hull of a ship and as it rises up it will effectively lift the ship out of the water... but without even support along the ship that will break the hull of a ship and snap it in half which will sink it quickly.

    Conversely an anti ship missile doesn't let air in the top of a ship it introduces fire which is far more deadly in any vehicle of any type...

    Many countries around the world don't take air defence seriously... and that includes the US Navy who expect their aircraft carriers to provide aircraft protection for their ships which does not always happen.

    Even quite large vessels like Mistrals are protected effectively only with HMGs or light cannon and MANPADS... which means most helicopters will be perfectly safe from ranges of 10km or more most of the time and could sit at stand off ranges and just launch attack after attack with missiles or even rockets... 70mm or 80mm aircraft rockets angled upwards could be fired at a ship sized target with a reasonable chance of getting a hit more often than not... an Mi-17 helicopter with wing pylons with six twenty shot 80mm rocket pods with a laser range finder and stabilised optics in the current versions could potentially fire 120 x 80mm rockets fairly rapidly at a naval target with a reasonable chance for hits. Against a target like that US spy ship in the gulf that the Israelis almost sank you could launch some ATGMs to take out the two 50 cal HMGs and then close in to about 6km range and loft unguided rockets at them all day long... the rockets are cheap enough...
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 24411
    Points : 24953
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Anti-Ship Missiles Thread - Page 12 Empty Re: Anti-Ship Missiles Thread

    Post  GarryB on Sun May 10, 2020 11:20 am

    Can someone provide the info about the exercise where the ship was sunk by the 25 AGM-114 ? Thanks

    It does sound hard to believe, but as I mentioned, submarines during WWII often went to the surface to attack surface targets that were largely unarmed and sank them using their deck gun and that included anti aircraft deck guns of 37mm and 45mm calibre too.
    avatar
    Mindstorm

    Posts : 941
    Points : 1108
    Join date : 2011-07-20

    Anti-Ship Missiles Thread - Page 12 Empty Re: Anti-Ship Missiles Thread

    Post  Mindstorm on Sun May 10, 2020 12:38 pm

    GarryB wrote:
    Can someone provide the info about the exercise where the ship was sunk by the 25 AGM-114 ? Thanks

    It does sound hard to believe, but as I mentioned, submarines during WWII often went to the surface to attack surface targets that were largely unarmed and sank them using their deck gun and that included anti aircraft deck guns of 37mm and 45mm calibre too.


    Yes, it sound hard, very hard to believe.

    The instances about WWII naval battles of which i have memory ,and i have read a lot on the subject, never mention the sinking of even a medium displacement ship exclusively from low power ordnances.

    Obviously if we talk of a small patrol boat or a not military vessel ,constructed with civil grade steel with low strenght and tensile resistance it is possible to sink it also with 3 or 4 AGM-114 hits.

    Otherwise i have a very hard time in believing in this claim.


    Obviously if that come from the mouth of the typical western self-embarassing, only supposed, naval expert ,that would explain more than a thing Very Happy

    I think to something such the assertions of the Special Assistant to the Chief of Naval Operations and Director of his Commander’s Action, Bryan Clark, on the tests of NSM -Naval Strike Missile- and comparison of its capability ,always in its unlucky brain, with the........ DF-21 anti-ship ballistic missile !!!

    "Compared with China's DF-21 "carrier-killer" missile, the NSM has a shorter range but better precision targeting, enabling it to destroy an enemy vessel rather than just damage it, as the DF-21 is built to do"

    Nothing obviously that the DF-21's warhead, i repeat : only the warhead ! ,has a mass 1,5 times bigger than the entire NSM.


    In the statements of those kind of self-embarrassing ignorant chauvinists "experts", even 5,56 mm rounds could become the best anti-bunker ammunitions because the rifle shooting it has been integrated in a new integrated management system allowing increased "Situation Awareness-TM" Laughing

    This is the reason i ask for the origin of this information.

    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 24411
    Points : 24953
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Anti-Ship Missiles Thread - Page 12 Empty Re: Anti-Ship Missiles Thread

    Post  GarryB on Sun May 10, 2020 3:43 pm

    Always healthy to be skeptical...

    And from memory the story of the Soviet sub that sank the ship with 47mm gun fire was certainly a civilian transport type unable to defend itself.

    Apparently the main deck gun was jammed so they used the 47mm AA gun and took hours to sink the target with hundreds of shots...
    Isos
    Isos

    Posts : 5272
    Points : 5264
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Anti-Ship Missiles Thread - Page 12 Empty Re: Anti-Ship Missiles Thread

    Post  Isos on Sun May 10, 2020 3:51 pm

    Yes, it sound hard, very hard to believe.

    The instances about WWII naval battles of which i have memory ,and i have read a lot on the subject, never mention the sinking of even a medium displacement ship exclusively from low power ordnances.

    Obviously if we talk of a small patrol boat or a not military vessel ,constructed with civil grade steel with low strenght and tensile resistance it is possible to sink it also with 3 or 4 AGM-114 hits.

    Atgm penetrates tank's armour. Ship's steel is not a problem. The hollow charge is similar to antiship hollow charges. Then if you start 20 fires in a ship instead of 1 big you can just burn the ship while the smoke will kill the crew or make them impossible to fight the fires.

    Mindstorm wrote:
    Can someone provide the info about the exercise where the ship was sunk by the 25 AGM-114 ?  Thanks Wink

    https://www.navy.mil/submit/display.asp?story_id=96657

    "The boat sank in 5 hours after sustaining 22 missile hits, finally succumbing to hellfire missiles shots by the "Golden Falcons" of HSC 12."


    Edit: Maybe I'm wrong. I have a doubt here. They talk about some gliding bombs in the text and the word hellfire could be used as an adjective.

    Edit2: there is this video also that may prove it happened.

    avatar
    Mindstorm

    Posts : 941
    Points : 1108
    Join date : 2011-07-20

    Anti-Ship Missiles Thread - Page 12 Empty Re: Anti-Ship Missiles Thread

    Post  Mindstorm on Sun May 10, 2020 5:01 pm

    Exactly Isos  Wink

    The ship has been hit by at least 2 harpoon anti-ship missiles (from what i have read four ,two from USS Benfold and two from the USS John S. McCain), several - from the accounts of a participant 8- AGM-65F Maverick delivered from P-3 and F/A-18 , a JSOW C-1 delivered by am F/A-18, and finally several AGM-114 delivered from MH-90s and sunk after 5 hours.




    https://www.stripes.com/news/sink-exercise-takes-down-retired-frigate-near-guam-1.428943

    https://www.navysite.de/ffg/FFG46.HTM

    Now SO the story is more credible.

    You do NOT sink a ship constructed with military grade steel with AGM-114 , period .

    Maybe after much, much more powerful ammunitions have heavily damaged its hull and put it already in sinking state, it is possible for several of those mosquito missiles to produce some minor damages on the military ship.
    jhelb
    jhelb

    Posts : 865
    Points : 974
    Join date : 2015-04-04
    Location : Previously: Belarus Currently: A Small Island No One Cares About

    Anti-Ship Missiles Thread - Page 12 Empty Re: Anti-Ship Missiles Thread

    Post  jhelb on Sun May 10, 2020 7:59 pm

    GarryB wrote:these light missiles have a range of about 20-30km with 30-50kg warheads which makes the launch platform safer because 20-30km is outside manpads range and 30-50kg HE frag warheads will be rather more effective.... while the 100-200kg missile weight is still in the range of most helicopters can operate with.

    But in the anti ship role these helicopters can easily be targeted by ship based SAMs like 3K95 Kinzhal or even Barak 8 ER that have a range of 50kms +.

    Also if they are engaging ships with smaller Sea Venom missiles, under what circumstances do they intend to use helicopter, fighter launched Naval Strike Missile?

    Sea Venom does have some good features like:

    (1) sea skimming and pop up/top attack; and

    (2) track-via-missile guidance via data-link option that provides the missile with an an autonomous engagement capability
    Isos
    Isos

    Posts : 5272
    Points : 5264
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Anti-Ship Missiles Thread - Page 12 Empty Re: Anti-Ship Missiles Thread

    Post  Isos on Sun May 10, 2020 8:09 pm

    Maybe after much, much more powerful ammunitions have heavily damaged its hull and put it already in sinking state, it is possible for several of those mosquito missiles to produce some minor damages on the military ship.

    Well you can. You will need plenty of them but if each of them starts a fire that grows then the ship will be destroyed. But that's only theory. In practice that woukd be a dailed mission because range is too short against frigate's or destroyer's weapons.

    Against small missile boats or light corvette 2-4 atgm would easily destroy it or at least damage enough to not be repairable fast.
    JohninMK
    JohninMK

    Posts : 7374
    Points : 7451
    Join date : 2015-06-16
    Location : England

    Anti-Ship Missiles Thread - Page 12 Empty Re: Anti-Ship Missiles Thread

    Post  JohninMK on Mon May 11, 2020 12:49 am

    Mindstorm wrote:

    Yes, it sound hard, very hard to believe.

    The instances about WWII naval battles of which i have memory ,and i have read a lot on the subject, never mention the sinking of even a medium displacement ship exclusively from low power ordnances.

    Definitely happened a few times when U-boats were attacking WW2 merchant shipping. Especially daytime if no escorts were around and after a torpedo had damaged the target but not enough to sink it. They wouldn't want to waste a valuable torpedo. On the BBC last week there was an interview with a guy who was a gunner on merchant ships and he mentioned it, also the Germans took photos.

    Not heard of a U-boat going for an undamaged ship with its gun, too risky.
    JohninMK
    JohninMK

    Posts : 7374
    Points : 7451
    Join date : 2015-06-16
    Location : England

    Anti-Ship Missiles Thread - Page 12 Empty Re: Anti-Ship Missiles Thread

    Post  JohninMK on Mon May 11, 2020 1:05 am

    GarryB wrote: Against a target like that US spy ship in the gulf that the Israelis almost sank you could launch some ATGMs to take out the two 50 cal HMGs and then close in to about 6km range and loft unguided rockets at them all day long... the rockets are cheap enough...

    Assume you are talking about the USS Liberty Garry, it was in the Med not the Gulf just outside Egyptian territorial waters. The Israelis hit it so that the US wouldn't find out until it was too late that Israel was attacking Syria the next day. Then the US basically hushed it up due to a secret 'gift' of an operating Egyptian SA-3 system, captured by the Israelis, which was then used to design jammers to stop the huge loss of US aircrew in Vietnam. The jammers worked.

    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 24411
    Points : 24953
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Anti-Ship Missiles Thread - Page 12 Empty Re: Anti-Ship Missiles Thread

    Post  GarryB on Mon May 11, 2020 11:41 am

    Atgm penetrates tank's armour. Ship's steel is not a problem.


    ATGMs make finger width penetrations into heavy armour but they don't set the metal on fire, they normally set fuel or ammo on fire or just fittings like seats and padding and material inside the tank on fire.

    The hollow charge is similar to antiship hollow charges.

    For ATGMs the key is to penetrate the heavy outer armour layer to get into the flammable and explosive material inside, for anti ship missiles the intent is normally to get through as many armoured layers as possible to spread any fire and damage as far as possible... similar but not the same.

    Then if you start 20 fires in a ship instead of 1 big you can just burn the ship while the smoke will kill the crew or make them impossible to fight the fires.

    There is no assurance that all 20 hits will start fires... a ship is a totally different thing from a tank... there is a lot more empty space that is not filled with fuel or ammo and on a ship each of those parts is separately armoured (the military ships anyway).

    "The boat sank in 5 hours after sustaining 22 missile hits, finally succumbing to hellfire missiles shots by the "Golden Falcons" of HSC 12."

    I think you are confusing something many navies do with something that might be a useful tactic.

    When you have a ship you want to sink instead of scrap and you don't want to pay to have her scuttled, you use her as target practise... so you attack it with all sorts of things. A somali pirate boat might have thousands of rounds of small arms fire shot into her hull and a few RPGs and well and perhaps even some bursts of 30mm from the ships gatling... but that does not mean this is a new way of dealing with the air defences of an AEGIS class cruiser... because there is no way they have more SAMs than Russia has RPGs...


    Edit: Maybe I'm wrong. I have a doubt here. They talk about some gliding bombs in the text and the word hellfire could be used as an adjective.

    Against a civilian vessel it would probably be fine, and civilian vessels get called in for military use all the time...

    Not really the basis for a new anti ship tactic however... instead of 24 Ka-52Ks with Vikhrs or Hermes missiles it would be rather more effective and efficient to send 6 Ka-52Ks with two Kh-35s and two Kh-31s each...

    The ship has been hit by at least 2 harpoon anti-ship missiles (from what i have read four ,two from USS Benfold and two from the USS John S. McCain), several - from the accounts of a participant 8- AGM-65F Maverick delivered from P-3 and F/A-18 , a JSOW C-1 delivered by am F/A-18, and finally several AGM-114 delivered from MH-90s and sunk after 5 hours.

    That is quite impressive that it took that much to sink her... and a bit of a lesson... each of those Mavericks will have payloads of about 50kgs like a Sea Skua and the Harpoons four times bigger...

    But in the anti ship role these helicopters can easily be targeted by ship based SAMs like 3K95 Kinzhal or even Barak 8 ER that have a range of 50kms +.

    A 50kg warhead is not going to sink anything bigger than a Corvette anyway and what have HATO Corvettes got to protect themselves?

    I have also mentioned the Mistrals... armed with MANPADS and HMG mounts...

    [qutoe]Also if they are engaging ships with smaller Sea Venom missiles, under what circumstances do they intend to use helicopter, fighter launched Naval Strike Missile?[/quote]

    NSM would be used against better defended (to get hits without the launch platform being shot down) and larger vessels (the bigger warhead would make it more effective in sinking bigger ships). Sometimes you just want to stop a ship and don't want to sink it... in which case a smaller lighter missile with a weaker warhead is better.

    Against small missile boats or light corvette 2-4 atgm would easily destroy it or at least damage enough to not be repairable fast.

    It would quickly and effectively neutralise a threat from small vessels without costing too much... and without killing everyone on board... if you are wrong then this is an important factor...


    Then the US basically hushed it up due to a secret 'gift' of an operating Egyptian SA-3 system, captured by the Israelis, which was then used to design jammers to stop the huge loss of US aircrew in Vietnam. The jammers worked.

    Why should they give a damn about their bomber crews they clearly didn't give a shit about their sailors...
    avatar
    Mindstorm

    Posts : 941
    Points : 1108
    Join date : 2011-07-20

    Anti-Ship Missiles Thread - Page 12 Empty Re: Anti-Ship Missiles Thread

    Post  Mindstorm on Mon May 11, 2020 2:26 pm

    JohninMK wrote:
    Mindstorm wrote:

    Yes, it sound hard, very hard to believe.

    The instances about WWII naval battles of which i have memory ,and i have read a lot on the subject, never mention the sinking of even a medium displacement ship exclusively from low power ordnances.

    Definitely happened a few times when U-boats were attacking WW2 merchant shipping. Especially daytime if no escorts were around and after a torpedo had damaged the target but not enough to sink it. They wouldn't want to waste a valuable torpedo. On the BBC last week there was an interview with a guy who was a gunner on merchant ships and he mentioned it, also the Germans took photos.

    Not heard of a U-boat going for an undamaged ship with its gun, too risky.


    Sure, merchant ships (i image of very low tonnage) in the '40 years, absolutely possible.

    The problem is when you instead take into account military ships , with military grade steel with even a percentage of high yield steel, you need very high potential of the warhead and ,even better, high kinetic impact energy of the missile to delaminate the hull and several meters of the internal structure before the detonation.  


    The extensive employment of this high tensile grade steel in military ships construction render today so difficult to sink them, in particular employing subsonic anti ship missiles.

    You can see in the US's SINKEX exercices how old generation ships of the light frigate type, with the lower percentage of high yield steel -HY-80- among US's military surface ships (about 10% of the steel in the hull, against at example the 51% -about 6% HY-80 and 45 % of HY-100-of an aircraft carrier) is capable to remain afloat after an enormous amount of hit by part of ship and air delivered ammunitions of various potential.

    Situation today is obviously much worse, because even structural, not armoured, steel and steel alloys (for not talk of new low cost composites and metamaterials that provide absurd level of tensile strenght) show mechanical characteristics often very near or even superior those of low percentage of armoured steel that render so resilient those old ships to subsonic amminutions !

    The new generation of armoured steel in shipbuilding (always not taking into account new composites...) ,in particular in domestic military ships construction, where new generations has been developed,  has characteristics widely superior even to US counterparts not used in theirs military naval construction (Hy-130 with its 900  MPa tensile resistance).

    Only to provide an example : пр. 971 and 1144 in the '70 years extensively used third generation of armoured АК-32 steel with a strength of 980 MPA, for comparison today Virginia use YU-80 with strength of about 550 MPa; some warheads that would completely delaminate the latter would barely damage the formers ;

    https://msk-metall.com/stati/marki-vysokoprochnyh-staley.html  

    Domestic shipbuilding construction employ today fourth and fifth generation steel laminate and obviously composites.

    Anyone can easily figure, having as reference the SINKEX exercises against old US frigates with very low percentage of vastly inferior armoured steel, the outcome of attacks with subsonic ammunitions against an up to date domestic unit that actively defend itself (and also those defensive systems vastly surpass in performances foreign counterparts)

    AGM-114 in anti-ship role ? Oh please.......[/b]


    Last edited by Mindstorm on Mon May 11, 2020 11:10 pm; edited 2 times in total
    magnumcromagnon
    magnumcromagnon

    Posts : 5774
    Points : 5925
    Join date : 2013-12-05
    Location : Pindos ave., Pindosville, Pindosylvania, Pindostan

    Anti-Ship Missiles Thread - Page 12 Empty Re: Anti-Ship Missiles Thread

    Post  magnumcromagnon on Mon May 11, 2020 4:42 pm

    JohninMK wrote:
    GarryB wrote: Against a target like that US spy ship in the gulf that the Israelis almost sank you could launch some ATGMs to take out the two 50 cal HMGs and then close in to about 6km range and loft unguided rockets at them all day long... the rockets are cheap enough...

    Assume you are talking about the USS Liberty Garry, it was in the Med not the Gulf just outside Egyptian territorial waters. The Israelis hit it so that the US wouldn't find out until it was too late that Israel was attacking Syria the next day. Then the US basically hushed it up due to a secret 'gift' of an operating Egyptian SA-3 system, captured by the Israelis, which was then used to design jammers to stop the huge loss of US aircrew in Vietnam. The jammers worked.


    Those jammers worked so well....that they still lost nearly 10,000 aircraft, including B-52's. Rolling Eyes Embarassed Razz
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 24411
    Points : 24953
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Anti-Ship Missiles Thread - Page 12 Empty Re: Anti-Ship Missiles Thread

    Post  GarryB on Tue May 12, 2020 4:34 am

    Jammers are not perfect... the US lost at least one F-16 to SA-3s in Iraq in the 1991 gulf war, and of course the F-117 was shot down by an SA-3... it is nice the SA-2 got the U-2 Scalp and the SA-3 got the F-117. We just need to engineer a situation where a B-2 is flying near an SA-4... going to be tricky.... Twisted Evil

    Regarding sinking ships, this was training and target shooting, I would expect if the attack was a proper coordinated attempt to sink the ship that all the attacks could have been focussed and centralised in one place to make sinking much quicker and much more likely.

    Small Russian patrol boats have Ataka missile mounts for use at sea because such weapons can be useful. Normally they have about 6 missiles mounted and I suspect they don't expect that to sink anything, but many ships have HMGs as well for dealing with light enemy boats like inflatables and speed boats... or even surfaced mines...
    Big_Gazza
    Big_Gazza

    Posts : 1913
    Points : 1915
    Join date : 2014-08-25
    Location : Melbourne, Australia

    Anti-Ship Missiles Thread - Page 12 Empty Re: Anti-Ship Missiles Thread

    Post  Big_Gazza on Tue May 12, 2020 10:00 am

    GarryB wrote:Small Russian patrol boats have Ataka missile mounts for use at sea because such weapons can be useful. Normally they have about 6 missiles mounted and I suspect they don't expect that to sink anything, but many ships have HMGs as well for dealing with light enemy boats like inflatables and speed boats... or even surfaced mines...
    Might I suggest that another reason for patrol boats to carry ATGMs is in case they need precision strikes on land vehicles?  Terrorist VBIED perhaps?

    Keep in mind the original Buyan was designed for supporting shore actions and landings.

    Sponsored content

    Anti-Ship Missiles Thread - Page 12 Empty Re: Anti-Ship Missiles Thread

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Fri May 29, 2020 9:06 am