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
    Arrow

    Posts : 707
    Points : 707
    Join date : 2012-02-12

    Anti-Ship Missiles Thread - Page 16 Empty Re: Anti-Ship Missiles Thread

    Post  Arrow on Tue Jul 14, 2020 4:26 pm

    Mindstorm wrote:

    Obviously when you attempt to modify a similar ground attack missile to render it an anti-ship one (to the contrary of cruise missiles the layout of which is instead designed, since the first drafts drawing board, to be employed against ships) its range decrease drammatically above all for subsonic designs for the additional sensor, ECCMs, marine environemnt shielding and navigation equipment required and ,even more, for the modifications to the airframe and aerodynamic actuators in need for proceed at low altitude in a marine environment and manoeuvring to hit the moving target in the final stage of the engagement.


    Mindstorm or Zircon designed to attack ground targets could have a longer range than the anti-ship version? According to your statement, these missiles can vary depending on whether Zircon will attack ground targets or ships?
    Singular_Transform
    Singular_Transform

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

    Anti-Ship Missiles Thread - Page 16 Empty Re: Anti-Ship Missiles Thread

    Post  Singular_Transform on Tue Jul 14, 2020 6:31 pm

    Just remark, the Russian VLS cells bigger and longer than the USA Mark 41 cells, means the missiles launched from them will have smaller mass, diameter, wings .

    It means that the Russian ships will have (until the retirement of mark 41) range / capability advantage regards of missiles compared to the USA.

    There is no ship in the USA inventory that can launch Oniks type, long range medium sized supersonic cruise missile.

    dino00 likes this post

    avatar
    Mindstorm

    Posts : 1023
    Points : 1190
    Join date : 2011-07-20

    Anti-Ship Missiles Thread - Page 16 Empty Re: Anti-Ship Missiles Thread

    Post  Mindstorm on Tue Jul 14, 2020 7:40 pm


    Arrow wrote:Mindstorm or Zircon designed to attack ground targets could have a longer range than the anti-ship version? According to your statement, these missiles can vary depending on whether Zircon will attack ground targets or ships?


    Yes, 3M22 if employed against ground targets with known coordinates will surely boast a expanded range of engagement; obviously this difference will be lower than with lower speed cruise missiles because the area of uncertainty of target's position will be much lower and it will not need a sea-wake altitude approach in order to penetrate ship defences and ECCM performances (and therefore size) necessary for its terminal homing systems would be much lower.

    dino00 likes this post

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

    Posts : 864
    Points : 914
    Join date : 2017-09-18
    Location : Uranus

    Anti-Ship Missiles Thread - Page 16 Empty Re: Anti-Ship Missiles Thread

    Post  The-thing-next-door on Tue Jul 14, 2020 8:26 pm

    Singular_Transform wrote:

    There is no ship in the USA inventory that can launch Oniks type, long range medium sized supersonic cruise missile.

    There is no such missile for them to launch...

    If the pindos decide to standardise on a bigger VLS that would mean scrapping their entire fleet of destroyers and they will not be able to replace them 1 to 1, they can't replace all their fighters with the f35 why chance do they have of replacing all their destroyers.

    Thier best bet is modernising their current fleet so that they can keep the numerical advantage over the Russian navy and compete with the Chinese for a while, building a new fleet from scratch would result in Russia having a similar number of large surface combatants.

    They cannot compete with Russia technologically they can't even out do the Moskit, thier only way of maintaining superiority is to stick with their style of big, simple and easily thrown together ships with huge numbers of VLS cells.
    Isos
    Isos

    Posts : 6641
    Points : 6631
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Anti-Ship Missiles Thread - Page 16 Empty Re: Anti-Ship Missiles Thread

    Post  Isos on Tue Jul 14, 2020 8:39 pm

    US bets on their carrier avitiation and submarines for antiship missions. They don't need oniks like missiles.
    Singular_Transform
    Singular_Transform

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

    Anti-Ship Missiles Thread - Page 16 Empty Re: Anti-Ship Missiles Thread

    Post  Singular_Transform on Tue Jul 14, 2020 8:53 pm

    Isos wrote:US bets on their carrier avitiation and submarines for antiship missions. They don't need oniks like missiles.

    The USA strategy developed in the 40s, since many thing changed in the technology.
    Isos
    Isos

    Posts : 6641
    Points : 6631
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Anti-Ship Missiles Thread - Page 16 Empty Re: Anti-Ship Missiles Thread

    Post  Isos on Tue Jul 14, 2020 9:10 pm

    Singular_Transform wrote:
    Isos wrote:US bets on their carrier avitiation and submarines for antiship missions. They don't need oniks like missiles.

    The USA strategy developed in the 40s, since many thing changed in the technology.

    Submarines are the best way to destroy ships. They can hide very well and taret a ship unoticed almost.

    Air launched missiles benefit from the fighter's range. Also fighter's radars can spot ships 200-300km away whule the fighter can go 500-700km from the carrier.

    That's a good tactic but not perfect and costly.

    But the 70 US sub are hard to counter. They are very good.
    Hole
    Hole

    Posts : 3379
    Points : 3377
    Join date : 2018-03-24
    Age : 44
    Location : Merkelland

    Anti-Ship Missiles Thread - Page 16 Empty Re: Anti-Ship Missiles Thread

    Post  Hole on Tue Jul 14, 2020 9:11 pm

    The problem No. 1 for the murican leadership of today is that they believe their own propaganda. The F-35 is invincible and can easily use guided bombs to destroy every russian or chinese ship so there is no need for a decent anti-ship missile. Rolling Eyes

    ahmedfire and Big_Gazza like this post

    Isos
    Isos

    Posts : 6641
    Points : 6631
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Anti-Ship Missiles Thread - Page 16 Empty Re: Anti-Ship Missiles Thread

    Post  Isos on Tue Jul 14, 2020 9:23 pm

    Hole wrote:The problem No. 1 for the murican leadership of today is that they believe their own propaganda. The F-35 is invincible and can easily use guided bombs to destroy every russian or chinese ship so there is no need for a decent anti-ship missile. Rolling Eyes

    LRASM is very good and dangerous. It has a passive targeting mode with IIR or passive radar and incorporates stealth technology. If your ship has its radars turned off for not being detected you will see it too late.
    kvs
    kvs

    Posts : 7467
    Points : 7616
    Join date : 2014-09-11
    Location : Canuckistan

    Anti-Ship Missiles Thread - Page 16 Empty Re: Anti-Ship Missiles Thread

    Post  kvs on Tue Jul 14, 2020 11:40 pm

    Isos wrote:
    Hole wrote:The problem No. 1 for the murican leadership of today is that they believe their own propaganda. The F-35 is invincible and can easily use guided bombs to destroy every russian or chinese ship so there is no need for a decent anti-ship missile. Rolling Eyes

    LRASM is very good and dangerous. It has a passive targeting mode with IIR or passive radar and incorporates stealth technology. If your ship has its radars turned off for not being detected you will see it too late.

    So yet another weapon designed for colonial enforcement operations and not superpowers like Russia.

    BTW, by any objective metric Russia is a superpower. This includes its economy which is autonomous and
    can import substitute anything on the market today. BS metrics based on nominal exchange rates and
    assigning physical economy status to the fake financial sector (50% of US GDP) cannot delete this reality.

    Big_Gazza likes this post

    Singular_Transform
    Singular_Transform

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

    Anti-Ship Missiles Thread - Page 16 Empty Re: Anti-Ship Missiles Thread

    Post  Singular_Transform on Wed Jul 15, 2020 12:36 am

    Isos wrote:

    Submarines are the best way to destroy ships. They can hide very well and taret a ship unoticed almost.

    Air launched missiles benefit from the fighter's range. Also fighter's radars can spot ships 200-300km away whule the fighter can go 500-700km from the carrier.

    That's a good tactic but not perfect and costly.

    But the 70 US sub are hard to counter. They are very good.

    Means high cost, big ships doesn`t make sense any more. Suprise, the USA has that type of ships.


    And the Virignias are more similar to a nuclear power Kilo subrmarine .

    The main advantage of the Virginias is the cost, all other capability metrice is inferrior.

    How thez can kill ships ? with torpedo ?
    That means the submarine has very short lifespan.

    Isos wrote:

    LRASM is very good and dangerous. It has a passive targeting mode with IIR or passive radar and incorporates stealth technology. If your ship has its radars turned off for not being detected you will see it too late.


    The short range CIWS can destroy the LRASM.

    That needs to detect them in 5-6 km, very easy job. They doesn't need the main radar for early detection, the LRASM is a slow target.
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 26627
    Points : 27165
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Anti-Ship Missiles Thread - Page 16 Empty Re: Anti-Ship Missiles Thread

    Post  GarryB on Wed Jul 15, 2020 12:43 pm

    One of the kalibr missile is an anti ship variant with subsonic speed all the time. Its range should be greater than the one with terminal supersonic speed.

    The whole purpose of the subsonic flight and then supersonic terminal attack is to combine the long range of subsonic flight via turbofan with the ability to penetrate enemy air defences with a high speed terminal section.

    If they could make a supersonic missile with better range than the subsonic/supersonic model then the latter would be completely redundant.

    The export Club missile with the supersonic terminal phase has a range limited by missile export agreements, so its range is about 290km or so (has to be less than 300km and with a warhead of 500kg or less). The domestic model however is not limited in range so like the Onyx domestic model has a much greater range than the export version called the Yakhont... the Onyx flys to about 500km or so... which means a subsonic/supersonic missile is redundant if its range is less than that because flying super sonic all the way gets to the target much faster. From what I can find the subsonic Club with the supersonic terminal portion domestic version has a range of about 1,200-1,500km... but all but the last 30km is at subsonic speeds with the last 30km being covered rather quickly at mach 2.9 with solid rocket propulsion...

    The upgraded Onyx with new fuel flying at mach 5 to about 800km is very potent, but the subsonic/supersonic club domestic model still makes sense as a first attack weapon because as it flys at low altitude they might not notice it until it is screaming in at almost mach 3 just 2-3m above the wave tops... launching a volley of Onyx to come over the radar horizon just before these low flying sneaky Clubs come over would be an interesting attack method... especially if you used the long range of the Clubs to attack from a different direction entirely... they might be coming from the south while your Onyx missiles are coming from the East... surprise...

    But the longer is range the harder us to find a target at such ranges. Even harder to keep tracking the targets because the target will detect you. Redut are getting 400km range missiles so they could destroy any AWACS tracking them. The anti ship missiles would be left with no mid course updates.

    You bring up an important point that I hinted at... A Buyan operating in Russia waters wont detect much that is happening 500km away, but ground based over the horizon radars wont detect anything within 150km of their location but they can detect low flying cruise missiles out to 3,000km so a volley of Tomahawks being launched from 2,000km away will be detected rather quickly... so the Buyan will find out that these missiles are on their way... they wont know that they are the target but the fact that they all seem to be heading for the ship would mean it would hold its ground and try to shoot as many as possible with the thought that they are intended for land based targets and you happen to be in the right place to take some down... land based fighters could be armed and scrambled in the hours it would take for those missiles to even get close and any other ships nearby would be moved closer to help deal with the deluge... and of course the ships that launched the attack will be located and MiG-31s will be loaded with Kinzhal and will be awaiting the order to prevent a second strike.

    Russia should equip its ships with fake targets (equipped with RCS lenses) that it could release into water and get away. They could attract at least half of the missiles.

    Indeed active jammers and decoys and chaff is carried by all small and large ships of the Russian Navy, most of their ships are better armed than western ship equivalents.

    Well oops I thought the tomahawk had a similar range to the Kalibr, I guess I underestimated pindostanski inferiority.

    The Tomahawk is a naval land attack weapon and not really considered a strategic missile. The Calibre was based on a strategic missile... the SS-N-21 Grannat that was only equipped with a nuclear warhead because it had no terminal guidance and had a CEP of about 250m. The Calibre has terminal guidance and is mainly deployed with a conventional warhead now...

    Grannat was withdrawn... just like Kh-15 Kickback... because they had nuclear warheads as standard. Kalibre is now used because it uses a conventional warhead... and Tomahawk is being reintroduced as an anti ship missile because it is cheaper to use Tomahawk than it is to try to quadruple the range of Harpoon which is what they traditionally relied on for anti ship use from an attack aircraft. Improved Russian air defences on ships and on land have made air power much less effective and much more risky so they are not looking at overwhelming defences with lots of cheap missiles... except being American they aren't cheap either.

    The irony of course that that all their huge number of missile cells on their ships now need to carry more and more anti ship missiles to be effective having a dramatic effect on their ability to defend themselves from enemy attack as they have fewer and fewer cells for SAMs.

    I suppose that an anti ship tomahawk would then likely be outranged by an Oniks.

    You do understand that submarines are not threatened by Tomahawks or Onyx missiles so the range is not that important...

    Because in the event of such a conflict thoes SLBMs will be needed in western cities.

    A single 650mm torpedo with a 20Kt nuke warhead could do the job easily enough too...

    That is quite irrelevant as by the time a carrier is engaged the west will be ash and the Russian navy would be tasked with cleaning up the oceans in order to minimise damage they can do to Russia in return.

    You don't think Russian captains would hunt the usn for sport do you?

    Russia will get plenty of damage too... enough to make the sport not fun.

    Russian captains will likely try to keep Russian waters safe for as long as they can... they wont go exploring...

    You claimed that Buyan Ms would be deployed to the Russian coasts for defence and not hunting enemy surface vessels,

    I didn't claim anything of the sort. Their mission will be based on the nature of their weapon load out... if they have 8x 91ER1 then they are not going to be hunting ships... they will be looking for submerged targets. Conversely if they have Onyx and 91ER1 then they will likely try to engage any hostile ships or subs that enter the area they are tasked with defending.

    I pointed out that they cannot provide air defence for the Russian coastline (the task implied by defending the coastline but not hunting enemy ships) unless you meant protection from amphibious landings your statement was silly.

    To which I replied why send a man with a Makarov pistol to provide squad fire support... a Buyan is not designed to protect anything from enemy air power except itself... if you want something to provide air defence for an area then you deploy a cruiser or a carrier or you use land based SAMs linked to the Buyans sensors.

    A land based S-400 battery located near the beach with a Buyan located 100km out to sea could be quite a potent arrangement with the Buyan sending target data back to the S-400 battery to engage detected threats.

    It could also call in aircraft that could fly out and defend an attack for a period of time too.

    If they could make a tank that could conquer europe on its own for a reasonable cost and commitment of resources why shouldn't they?

    If they could then they should but they can't so they don't.

    Russia can make a corvette that can wipe out carrier groups from half way across the planet for a reasonable commitment of money and resources, why should they unnecessarily limit the firepower of their navy?

    They can load 8 Zircon missiles in to a Corvette which makes it a very potent threat against even the best defended ships and land based targets, but they can't fit 500 x S-350s on it as well... so it is always going to be an egg shell in terms of vulnerable... but is that really a surprise... there is no such thing as invulnerable... except in Hollywood.

    Why would they not want a button the could push to put the us navy on the bottom? All of the components exist they need only be combined and every single surface fleet in service of Russia's enemies would be rendered obsolete, is that what you would call a waste of effort?

    Yes... because what ever you do to achieve it... they will eventually be able to do that too and parity will be restored... now everyone will have mach 20 hypersonic manoeuvring anti ship missiles... and MAD is restored.

    Another "Frankenstein" being the reported use of the SM-6 in the anti-ship role, in the lack of a true supersonic AShM in the USN.

    Yeah, American fanboys have been claiming that one for decades... but the mostly ballistic flight path would make it relatively easy to shoot down and if you made it manouver to make it harder to hit you dramatically reduce its flight range...

    This improvised use of weapons outside of their intended purpose is by now an established trend in US armed forces, with many examples in all the services, and by the rushed way in which those are being proposed and brought to operation, indeed forced by adversaries and not by own initiative. Nobody should expect great results when development of military equipment is based on cutting corners...

    They might get lucky and accidently stumble on something good, but it is all done in panic and fear... we are behind and we will even copy to catch up... welcome to what Russia and China and the Soviet Union felt... but they have much more class...

    The sensor search requirements for Zircon would probably be too high to do such a "blind attack" into the general area where enemy naval assets are expected. It would require a intact over horizon targeting capability.

    Zircon will be flying at 40-60km altitude so targeting should not be a problem... remember the idea is speed no stealth so it can scan all it wants because the expectation is that it will be detected early on in its attack... the point is high flight speed reducing reaction time... very high altitude limiting the weapons that can be used to engage it till the terminal dive, and of course the ability to perform very high speed manouvers in the dive to make interception rather difficult...

    Mindstorm or Zircon designed to attack ground targets could have a longer range than the anti-ship version? According to your statement, these missiles can vary depending on whether Zircon will attack ground targets or ships?

    Probably not... they will likely have Zircons that can be used against sea or ship targets which means combining land attack and anti ship guidance... both of which will likely include terminal guidance sensors to ensure a precise hit and kill.

    As Mindstorm mentions, they might get a slight range boost because they can fly a much higher flight profile, but I personally don't think the difference would be dramatic.

    Putin said Zircon has a range over 1,000km... which I would guess would mean 1,200km perhaps with a conventional warhead. A smaller lighter nuke warhead might extend the range of 1,500km perhaps...

    Certainly an air launched Zircon could have greater range.

    We need to wait to find out whether Zircon is a 750mm calibre missile like an Onyx/Yakhont missile or a 533mm calibre missile for use through a torpedo tube... I rather suspect the former, but either way being released from an aircraft in flight and already at altitude means its solid rocket booster can accelerate it further and allow it to climb higher earlier in its flight which will allow it to get to higher speeds and much greater distances even without adding the flight radius of the launch aircraft.

    US bets on their carrier avitiation and submarines for antiship missions.

    They are looking to Tomahawk because their confidence in Harpoon is not high....

    The problem No. 1 for the murican leadership of today is that they believe their own propaganda. The F-35 is invincible and can easily use guided bombs to destroy every russian or chinese ship so there is no need for a decent anti-ship missile.

    But that is a good thing... when they realise they are not superior... they will spend America into oblivion... which might lead to them collapsing and dissolving or it might lead to WWIII starting as an act of collective suicide...

    LRASM is very good and dangerous. It has a passive targeting mode with IIR or passive radar and incorporates stealth technology. If your ship has its radars turned off for not being detected you will see it too late.

    On paper the SS-N-14 was super dangerous too... it used IR guidance when used against ships and it was subsonic and low flying too... though its range was not amazing... it carried a 533mm torpedo plus an extra 300kg warhead on board the missile...

    The short range CIWS can destroy the LRASM.

    That needs to detect them in 5-6 km, very easy job. They doesn't need the main radar for early detection, the LRASM is a slow target.

    Aircraft are getting all sorts of visual systems that provide 360 degree views around the aircraft for pilot and crew and I am sure ships will be getting much the same sort of optronic systems for detecting attacks and threats...

    Sailing around with your main radars blazing is an invitation to get attacked from long range but many MMW radar sensors only reach 20-30km so their continuous use would be fine for self defence... it is the sort of thing tanks and armoured vehicles use in their APS self defence systems....
    Isos
    Isos

    Posts : 6641
    Points : 6631
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Anti-Ship Missiles Thread - Page 16 Empty Re: Anti-Ship Missiles Thread

    Post  Isos on Wed Jul 15, 2020 12:57 pm

    I wouldn't underestimate subsonic missiles. Exocet hit a US frigate protected against such missiles. It also destroyed too many UK ships in the Malvinas for the number used. Single missile launched by Hezbollah hit the Israeli corvette protected against such missiles. A number of soviet build ships with ak-630 were destroyed by subsonic missiles...

    For modern radar mach 0.8 or mach 2 isn't a big difference.

    It's not because you have a better superonic antiship missile than the enemy that the enemy misile is useless.
    Singular_Transform
    Singular_Transform

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

    Anti-Ship Missiles Thread - Page 16 Empty Re: Anti-Ship Missiles Thread

    Post  Singular_Transform on Wed Jul 15, 2020 4:53 pm

    Isos wrote:I wouldn't underestimate subsonic missiles. Exocet hit a US frigate protected against such missiles. It also destroyed too many UK ships in the Malvinas for the number used. Single missile launched by Hezbollah hit the Israeli corvette protected against such missiles. A number of soviet build ships with ak-630 were destroyed by subsonic missiles...

    For modern radar mach 0.8 or mach 2 isn't a big difference.

    It's not because you have a better superonic antiship missile than the enemy that the enemy misile is useless.


    PRoblem for the USA navy is the Russian ships has better short/medium range air defence, and they have better attack missiles.

    Means the a small russian corvette can engage an USA destroyer ,and has better chances than the Burke .

    And it scalling up quickly.

    The Burke has to launch dozens of subsonic missiles to have the same chance to destroy like the corvette with eight supersonic missile.


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

    Posts : 864
    Points : 914
    Join date : 2017-09-18
    Location : Uranus

    Anti-Ship Missiles Thread - Page 16 Empty Re: Anti-Ship Missiles Thread

    Post  The-thing-next-door on Wed Jul 15, 2020 6:43 pm

    Singular_Transform wrote:

    Means the a small russian corvette can engage an USA destroyer ,and has better chances than the Burke .


    It is even more hilarious than that, the Russian corvettes can have Oiks, the anti ship Kalibr and soon the Zirkon, all of which can outrange the ASHMs available to the burke.
    So Russian corvettes can sink destroyers with impunity.

    GarryB wrote:but they can't fit 500 x S-350s on it as well... so it is always going to be an egg shell in terms of vulnerable...

    Just like with a missile silo it deos not matter if the missiles have already been launched.

    I was suggesting the use if ultra long ranged nuclear ASHMs, these could be fired at the locations of enemy ships the moment the war started, if you are not tracking enough enemy ships simply unload on thier ports and cities.

    GarryB wrote:Yes... because what ever you do to achieve it... they will eventually be able to do that too and parity will be restored... now everyone will have mach 20 hypersonic manoeuvring anti ship missiles... and MAD is restored.

    Considering how rapidly the us MIC has declined I doubt they will be able to achieve parity with current Russian missiles any time soon and if they continue do decline at this rate they will never have anything that will surpass the Moskit.

    Why should Russia chose parity over victory? Rather than counting on the good will and sanity of the pindos they should focus on advancing the the point when pindostan is no longer a threat.

    GarryB wrote:You do understand that submarines are not threatened by Tomahawks or Onyx missiles so the range is not that important...

    Yes I do and I always did, but are surface ships not expected to engage other surface ships too? If not please explain the existence of the Orlan, Atlant and Sarych.

    My suggestion was about introducing missiles that could hit enemy ships from across an ocean to allow missile cruisers to engage enemy well beyond any conceivable enemy anti ship missile.

    Put these on a missile cruiser with one of the new OTH radars and you can wipe out enemy fleets without the need for any radar satellites or AWACS platforms. It would not be invulnerable, but good luck getting within firing range of it when it is reporting your location to every other Russian vessel in the same ocean.
    Only submarines would be safe, but then again all the Russian ASW ships hunting them would be safer under the umbrella of radar coverage provided by the OTH radar equipped cruiser.

    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 26627
    Points : 27165
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Anti-Ship Missiles Thread - Page 16 Empty Re: Anti-Ship Missiles Thread

    Post  GarryB on Wed Jul 15, 2020 7:26 pm

    I wouldn't underestimate subsonic missiles.

    I don't, and neither do the Russians... a US aircraft carrier might have two Phalanx mounts to protect it, while the Soviet/Russian equivalent will have a minimun of 8 Kashtans and another four or six AK-630s plus almost 200 TOR missiles...

    A number of soviet build ships with ak-630 were destroyed by subsonic missiles...

    Which ones exactly?

    If you mean Syrian or Egyptian ships fighting Israel, well there tended to be issues with fighting Israel with Soviet air defence systems in that period...

    It also destroyed too many UK ships in the Malvinas for the number used.

    I remember the British official saying clearly that the Exocet had been very effective against the British ships used, but it was OK because Exocet is a sea skimming anti ship missile and the Soviets didn't have any of those types of missile.

    Harpoon in comparison flys at about 30 feet above the water... the SS-N-22 operates below 7 metres... or below about 22 feet...

    For modern radar mach 0.8 or mach 2 isn't a big difference.

    Detection isn't the issue... it is what can you use to defend yourself with and how does it work.

    For US AEGIS class cruisers their main defence was the Standard SAM system which could not hit targets below 7m above the water... which is why Granit and Sunburn both operated below 7m above the water... which meant the only thing protecting US ships that are alert and aware of the attack is their Phalanx gatling guns... which fire 12.7 calibre DU chunks of metal at a rate of about 4,500rpm with an effective range from about 600m out to about 1,800m. A quick calculation with a target moving 320m/s and one moving at over 800m/s tells me that half the number of rounds will be fired at the Soviet missile making its chances of penetrating enemy air defences much much better.

    Not to say subsonic missiles are not dangerous, but the whole point of an IADS is to stop mass attacks and such systems obviously work best against slower threats.

    Hole
    Hole

    Posts : 3379
    Points : 3377
    Join date : 2018-03-24
    Age : 44
    Location : Merkelland

    Anti-Ship Missiles Thread - Page 16 Empty Re: Anti-Ship Missiles Thread

    Post  Hole on Wed Jul 15, 2020 8:50 pm

    Air defence of ships with the help of land-based radars was tested a few years ago in the Caspian. The Dagestan and 3 Buyan-M´s were attacked by low-flying Su-24M´s and a Podsolnukh radar detected them and send the data to the ships which were able to defend themselfs.

    LMFS likes this post

    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 26627
    Points : 27165
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Anti-Ship Missiles Thread - Page 16 Empty Re: Anti-Ship Missiles Thread

    Post  GarryB on Thu Jul 16, 2020 4:40 am

    The only purely naval SAM was the SA-N-3 Goblet... all the rest are based on either missiles of the Air Force (S-300P, S-350, S-400) and the Army (TOR, OSA, BUK, Strela)...

    The Russians are working to integrate all their IADS together so air force and navy and army can share sensors, weapons, information, situational awareness.
    avatar
    mnztr

    Posts : 592
    Points : 622
    Join date : 2018-01-21

    Anti-Ship Missiles Thread - Page 16 Empty Re: Anti-Ship Missiles Thread

    Post  mnztr on Fri Jul 17, 2020 5:23 am

    Isos wrote:
    For modern radar mach 0.8 or mach 2 isn't a big difference.


    The radar is not what is gonna stop the missle, reaction time is 27 sec at mach 2 vs 69 at mach 0.8, at mach 3 you have less then 19 seconds. Speed is not a guarantee, but it is a valuable feature in penetration. Naval radar is limited by horizon. You have 27 second from detection to tracking, to defeating. And that is if there is one missile.

    dino00 likes this post

    ahmedfire
    ahmedfire

    Posts : 1429
    Points : 1607
    Join date : 2010-11-11
    Location : The Land Of Pharaohs

    Anti-Ship Missiles Thread - Page 16 Empty Re: Anti-Ship Missiles Thread

    Post  ahmedfire on Fri Jul 17, 2020 12:52 pm

    mnztr wrote:
    Isos wrote:
    For modern radar mach 0.8 or mach 2 isn't a big difference.


    The radar is not what is gonna stop the missle, reaction time is 27 sec at mach 2 vs 69 at mach 0.8, at mach 3 you have less then 19 seconds. Speed is not a guarantee, but it is a valuable feature in penetration. Naval radar is limited by horizon. You have 27 second from detection to tracking, to defeating. And that is if there is one missile.

    That's right but the subsonic missile could be designed to be more stealthy than supersonic missile which means it also has an advantage to sneak giving low detection time for the enemy to detect and react ,so by some how subsonic stealthy missile is also dangerous .

    It's possible to make a supersonic missile stealthy, but much more difficult, & expensive. It's particularly difficult to reduce the IR signature .

    So we do have two desgin schools here . 1) subsonic+stealth . 2) LO+super/hypersonic

    But Russians added more advantage for their philosophy ,they made their missiles to engage with high maneuverability ,it's not a straight line end-game approach ,as example the Moskit and Yakhont/Brahmos can do 15g .

    Radars can detect beyond the horizon too so both sides would have a clear awarness for the situation ,so i would put my money on Russian designs.

    dino00 likes this post

    avatar
    mnztr

    Posts : 592
    Points : 622
    Join date : 2018-01-21

    Anti-Ship Missiles Thread - Page 16 Empty Re: Anti-Ship Missiles Thread

    Post  mnztr on Fri Jul 17, 2020 4:59 pm

    Stealth is less effective at closer ranges and different angles, manuvering and speed changes definitely make the task more difficult. If a missile is headed at you at mach 3, and it if it a large one like the Granit or Vulcan, if your explode the warhead 300 m before impact it is still gonna be pretty unpleasant as hundreds of pounds of supersonic debris hit your ship like gods personal shotgun. If LRASM is launched from several directions it is deadly. Heck even old silkworm missiles launched in volume from multiple directions are very dangerous

    ahmedfire likes this post

    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 26627
    Points : 27165
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Anti-Ship Missiles Thread - Page 16 Empty Re: Anti-Ship Missiles Thread

    Post  GarryB on Sat Jul 18, 2020 8:10 am

    That's right but the subsonic missile could be designed to be more stealthy than supersonic missile which means it also has an advantage to sneak giving low detection time for the enemy to detect and react ,so by some how subsonic stealthy missile is also dangerous .

    The attacks on the Saudi Arabian oilfields show if you don't see it coming it does not matter how fast or how low you can't stop it... but when the Soviets were formulating their attack strategies against the USN they quickly worked out that with aircraft carriers and AWACS aircraft and of course the many powerful radars and sensors on AEGIS cruisers that there is no chance of sneaking up on a carrier group... and land based OTH backscatter radars and satellites it is getting even worse.

    The solutions they came up with are numbers and speed... but they also go for stealth as well... there is still a subsonic antiship Club based on the supersonic model but with slightly better range and twice the HE payload.

    The point is that modern ships are bristling with sensors and equipment... it is only during peace time like conditions when most of those systems are turned off that a single attack might sneak through... but after that when everyone is vigilant such attacks become much less effective.

    It's possible to make a supersonic missile stealthy, but much more difficult, & expensive. It's particularly difficult to reduce the IR signature .

    Well that is true, but if you are not expecting an attack you generally have your radars turned off or just listening for signals... how many western aircraft have IRST systems... how many of their ships can detect a missile attack from a large distance based only on IR signals?

    Kh-32 flys at 40km altitude... you wont know it is coming for you until it starts to dive and it dives at mach 5... and it manouvers as it dives...

    Stealth is less effective at closer ranges and different angles, manuvering and speed changes definitely make the task more difficult. If a missile is headed at you at mach 3, and it if it a large one like the Granit or Vulcan, if your explode the warhead 300 m before impact it is still gonna be pretty unpleasant as hundreds of pounds of supersonic debris hit your ship like gods personal shotgun. If LRASM is launched from several directions it is deadly. Heck even old silkworm missiles launched in volume from multiple directions are very dangerous

    Actually most of the time when AA and SAMs hit incoming missile targets they take out wings and control surfaces and the target flys into the water and explodes... with a supersonic target you could blow off the fins and wings within 800m and it will probably still hit you anyway... intact.

    ahmedfire likes this post

    ahmedfire
    ahmedfire

    Posts : 1429
    Points : 1607
    Join date : 2010-11-11
    Location : The Land Of Pharaohs

    Anti-Ship Missiles Thread - Page 16 Empty Re: Anti-Ship Missiles Thread

    Post  ahmedfire on Sat Jul 18, 2020 10:40 pm

    Kh-32 flys at 40km altitude... you wont know it is coming for you until it starts to dive and it dives at mach 5... and it manouvers as it dives...

    I think EM railgun will play a role to defend against supersonic missiles . it's projectile can reach from zero to 6 Mach in 10 milliseconds ,giving it a safe impact distance away from the ship .
    Isos
    Isos

    Posts : 6641
    Points : 6631
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Anti-Ship Missiles Thread - Page 16 Empty Re: Anti-Ship Missiles Thread

    Post  Isos on Sat Jul 18, 2020 11:25 pm

    ahmedfire wrote:
    Kh-32 flys at 40km altitude... you wont know it is coming for you until it starts to dive and it dives at mach 5... and it manouvers as it dives...

    I think EM railgun will play a role to defend against supersonic missiles . it's projectile can reach from zero to 6 Mach in 10 milliseconds ,giving it a safe impact distance away from the ship .

    Not really.

    You need radars that can provide targeting data for your rail gun. If the missiles are hypersonic and your railgun launches rounds at hypersonic speeds, the interception will be very hard because :

    - the high speed means the processing speed of your fcs needs to be very fast

    - but also if your round isn't really exiting the gun at the speed your FCS think it is, then at the speed they travel, it will miss in best case by few meters the calculated interception point and miss the missile.

    A round can't correct its trajectory like a missile.

    Lasers and some sort of hard kill (like on tanks) are the future.

    ahmedfire likes this post

    magnumcromagnon
    magnumcromagnon

    Posts : 6453
    Points : 6604
    Join date : 2013-12-05
    Location : Pindos ave., Pindosville, Pindosylvania, Pindostan

    Anti-Ship Missiles Thread - Page 16 Empty Re: Anti-Ship Missiles Thread

    Post  magnumcromagnon on Sun Jul 19, 2020 1:32 am

    ahmedfire wrote:
    Kh-32 flys at 40km altitude... you wont know it is coming for you until it starts to dive and it dives at mach 5... and it manouvers as it dives...

    I think EM railgun will play a role to defend against supersonic missiles . it's projectile can reach from zero to 6 Mach in 10 milliseconds ,giving it a safe impact distance away from the ship .

    The shell would still have to correct it's trajectory to intercept it. Also Russian AshM's like P-500/700 as part of it's ECM suite allows it's on board radar to actually projects/reflects their radar image off the top of the surface of the ocean, making it appear several hundred meters closer than it actually is. Russian AshM's have been known to be armored with titanium to make them resistant to shrapnel.

    ahmedfire likes this post


    Sponsored content

    Anti-Ship Missiles Thread - Page 16 Empty Re: Anti-Ship Missiles Thread

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Thu Nov 26, 2020 5:05 am