PDA

View Full Version : AShM Question.



Asad
09 Sep 03,, 02:20
I know very little about anything "Navy." I was wondering if there were any AShMs in existance that employed the same approach to hitting a ship as the Hellfire ATGM.

For those who don't know what that means, the hellfire missile approaches target tanks in a unique manner. It goes towards the tank and then when its at a certain distance from the tank, it goes vertically up in the air and comes down on the tank from the top.

Now if an AShM did the same, would it be able to avoide those anti-missile guns and maybe even other missiles trying to hit it? Will coming down from the top sink the ship or just kill more sailors?

Sensible input will be appreciated.

-3BSD

Praxus
09 Sep 03,, 02:46
The Harpoon already does this. It flys a few meters off the ground and then pops up and then comes down right into the ship. So do many other Anti-Ship missiles.

It makes it harder to hit but the SeaRAM had a 95% success rate against a variaty or targets dueing many different manouvers and different speeds.

Asad
09 Sep 03,, 02:51
I see. So I was trying to re-invent the wheel. Oh well, I'm glad the idea came to be before I knew that there were AShMs already doing it. :D

-3BSD

UnitedDiversity
09 Sep 03,, 03:07
To: [3BSD]

well, I'm not an expert at this and I don't know why but for all I know, the higher the missile flies, the easier it is for CIWS to hit it.

Designers of AShCMs are trying to make the missile to fly as low as possible so it could avoid detection. The Hellfire missiles go straigh up during the terminal phase because a tank is the weakest from the top, and that's the only reason. Now the terminal manuver of a AShCM involves doing 20G turns to throw off the CIWs, but going high up into the air? I'm not sure about that.

Praxus
09 Sep 03,, 03:11
well, I'm not an expert at this and I don't know why but for all I know, the higher the missile flies, the easier it is for CIWS to hit it.

Designers of AShCMs are trying to make the missile to fly as low as possible so it could avoid detection. The Hellfire missiles go straigh up during the terminal phase because a tank is the weakest from the top, and that's the only reason. Now the terminal manuver of a AShCM involves doing 20G turns to throw off the CIWs, but going high up into the air? I'm not sure about that.

That is only so it avoids detection by the Ships radar not the radar on the CIWS. The more manouvering it does the harder it is to hit with CIWS.

Bill
09 Sep 03,, 04:00
The terminal pop up's primary reason for existence is to get the missile to hit a good spot at a good angle.

If it didn't pop up, it would just plow a big hole in the side of the hull, leaving the top side undamaged, and not threaten the water tight integrity of the hull(which is hard to do at all with a missile of any kind).

At least if the missile slams the superstructure, it will take out most of the radars, maybe the bridge. That's the theory behind the pop up manuever.

Phalanx(most CIWS in general) probably is unaffected by anything but the most violent of target manuevering. Phalanx for instance is slaved to a phased array millimeter wave AESA radar. It is a very precise system, and the Phalanx mount has a very high traverse and elevation rate. Coupled with Phalanx's ROF of 4,500rpm, it is unlikely that a terminal pop up would make much difference at all. If anything, it will just expose it to the Phalanx(or whatever) for more time.

bigross86
09 Sep 03,, 12:39
What about LGB's? If they were stealth coated they could be used as effective AShM's, couldn't they?

UnitedDiversity
09 Sep 03,, 19:35
To: [bigross86]

yea only that your plane will be shot down before you even get close to the target ship.

Praxus
09 Sep 03,, 20:18
In all likelyhood that is true. Stealth reduces the RCS, it doesn't make it go away.

Bill
09 Sep 03,, 21:41
US Warplanes used laser guided bombs on the Libyan navy in the 80's, as well as the Iranian navy.

In 1991, an S-3 Viking used Mk82 500lb GP bombs to destroy an Iraqi patrol vessel.

Against a ship with a comprehensive defensive suite however, it would be unwise to get that close.

bigross86
09 Sep 03,, 22:09
Why? Toss the LGB's from about 100,000 feet. Plenty of gliding room there. Have a laser designator somewhere beyond AShM range. As long as there is LOS it should work...

Asad
09 Sep 03,, 22:10
Alright, how about this:

An AShM that flies the usual "sea skimming" flight towards the target vessel and then when it is about 500m from the ship, dives into the water and goes into torpedo mode and either hits the ship and detonates or explodes on proximity.

I'm not saying that this is a good idea now and today, but in the future there could be AShMs like this, no?

-3BSD

bigross86
09 Sep 03,, 22:46
There is one like that. It's an old Soviet thing, SS-N-16 "Stallion", I think it was. Anybody here know what I'm talking about?

Praxus
09 Sep 03,, 22:50
An AShM that flies the usual "sea skimming" flight towards the target vessel and then when it is about 500m from the ship, dives into the water and goes into torpedo mode and either hits the ship and detonates or explodes on proximity.

I'm not saying that this is a good idea now and today, but in the future there could be AShMs like this, no?

Well if you made a missile that could survive going from 800 mph to about 50 mph in about 2 seconds, then yah I guess in theory you could do this.

bigross86
09 Sep 03,, 22:53
Yeah, I was right. SS-N-16 Stallion. Quote from FAS.org:


The SS-N-16 (Stallion) is a Russian 650mm calibre anti-ship missile capable of being fitted with a 10-20 kT warhead or a Type 40 torpedo. The SS-N-16 Stallion ASW system was deployed in 1979-1981. This non strategic weapon has a range variously estimated at between 50 kilometers and 100-120 kilometers. The SS-N-16 concept is a unique antiship cruise missile that can carry alternatively a high-explosive charge to destroy surface ships or a torpedo for use against submarines.


USA Code Name:
SS-N-16A - Torpedo Warhead
SS-N-16B - Nuclear Depth Charge

Bill
10 Sep 03,, 01:18
"An AShM that flies the usual "sea skimming" flight towards the target vessel and then when it is about 500m from the ship, dives into the water and goes into torpedo mode and either hits the ship and detonates or explodes on proximity."

ASROC does the same thing as the Stallion- so they both do that. ASROC flies a ballistic trajectory though.

It would be a neat idea to develop an AShM that released an ADCAP for either LR antisubmarine(and i mean like 90-100 miles), or for antisurface attack.

That would be a nasty missile....but also extremely large.

bigross86
10 Sep 03,, 14:10
The Mk-48 ADCAP carries 700 lbs of explosives, plus 40 miles of wire, plus a shitload of Ottp fuel. But I think the missile would be more long than big.

Wouldn't a Mk-46 or a Mk-50 be more feasible? Those are light torpedoes, but are still quite deadly.

Asad
11 Sep 03,, 12:00
Well I didn't mean for the missile to be anti-submarine and anti-ship at the same time. Why I wanted it to dive into the sea before hitting its target was for it to avoid getting shot down by the ship's anti-missile defence system and do maximum damage.

-3BSD

bigross86
11 Sep 03,, 13:54
Thats what the Stallion does. As it approaches the target it submerges and finishes the attack as a submarine. I think ASROC does the same thing.

Bill
12 Sep 03,, 06:48
ASROC has a payload of one Mk46 Mod6 lightwieght ASW torpedo. Of dubious value against a major warship, but it would do lots of damage to a frigate.

bigross86
13 Sep 03,, 18:02
Two or three Mk-46's could probably cripple a large ship. Don't know how effective against a carrier or LPH, though.

Bill
14 Sep 03,, 00:50
Mk46 only has a 100lb warhead.

It would probably take a dozen to cripple a carrier.

bigross86
14 Sep 03,, 12:02
The ADCAP has a 700 pound warhead. One of those in the rear of the ship could mission kill a carrier.

Bill
14 Sep 03,, 17:05
Without doubt. But 7x100lb impacts is most certainly not the same as 1x 700lb impact.

bigross86
14 Sep 03,, 19:30
Definetely. What are the chances of the ChiComms or anyone using Russkie weapons getting through the CVBG's Anti-Sub net of S-3s, SSNs, Escort ships and Nixie and launching a couple SET-53's at the carrier? Almost impossible, right?

Bill
15 Sep 03,, 22:22
Forget the S-3's....they're being retired.

What are the chances of a sub slipping through?

I dunno, according to the dolphins, ours do it all the time.

bigross86
16 Sep 03,, 06:41
They're retiring the S-3's also? What's gonna get the ASW job? Plastic bugs?

What if a Kilo or some other SSK with a minimal expertly trained crew on a suicide mission waited in front of a CVN's path with torpedo doors open and torpedos loaded. Could they then salvo off 4 or 8 torps and try to make a dash for it?

Bill
16 Sep 03,, 07:24
The MH-60S will be the sole airborne ASW component of a USN CVBG. The S model has a new dipping sonar to improve it's capabilities.

The S-3's, while still in service, have had their ASW gear removed some time ago, and now perform in the scout/light attack role.

I think it's stupid, but i don't write the checks.

bigross86
16 Sep 03,, 08:41
What about long range ASW? How far can a MH-60 possibly go? On the other hand, choppers do have hover capability...

What about that scenario I wrote? Do you think it's at all feasible?

Bill
16 Sep 03,, 21:23
"What if a Kilo or some other SSK with a minimal expertly trained crew on a suicide mission waited in front of a CVN's path with torpedo doors open and torpedos loaded. Could they then salvo off 4 or 8 torps and try to make a dash for it?"

Sure, it could happen, why not? It's unlikely, but possible.

LR ASW is performed by the land based P-3.

bigross86
17 Sep 03,, 13:33
And if you're out of range of a P-3? You just hope the ASW suite on one of the CVN's escorts picks it up?

Bill
17 Sep 03,, 15:11
THat and the MH-60's....and the LA 688i or three that is a normal part of a CVBG anyway.

P-3's have really long range though, and ridiculously long endurance. There aren't all that many places they can't cover if they're forward deployed. They also carry a ton of weapons.

bigross86
17 Sep 03,, 18:50
What can they carry aside from Popeye's, Harpoons, Mk-46/50?

Bill
17 Sep 03,, 22:18
Nuclear depth charges for one.

Stinger
17 Sep 03,, 22:44
Originally posted by M21Sniper
Nuclear depth charges for one. Damn I need one of those next time I go fishing.... oh the fun.... :devil2

bigross86
18 Sep 03,, 08:22
Wow, I didn't know those even existed. I know of nuclear tipped torpedoes.

Bill
18 Sep 03,, 15:41
They exist all right.

bigross86
19 Sep 03,, 09:55
When would they be loaded? Under what DEFCON? 2 or 1?

Bill
19 Sep 03,, 16:43
They were there for the old WWIII scenario.

I doubt they'd be loaded for anything else.

The DEFCON system no longer exists.

TopHatter
19 Sep 03,, 20:21
President George H. Bush ordered the removal of all tactical nuclear weapons from US ships back in 1991 (IIRC). The only nuclear-tipped weapons on USN ships are the Trident SLBMs on the Ohio-class SSBNs. I don't know how long it would take to reload them, probably quite awhile, plus getting the operators trained up again.

bigross86
20 Sep 03,, 18:14
So that means that in the event of a nuclear strike it would still take at least 24 hours to retaliate?

sw55
04 Jan 05,, 13:36
Why? Toss the LGB's from about 100,000 feet. Plenty of gliding room there. Have a laser designator somewhere beyond AShM range. As long as there is LOS it should work...

I wonder what kind of range you could get doing that? I have wondered if that is why we keep the gravity nuclear bombs at all; put a lazer guidence package on it, toss it as far as is possible to stand off the defenses and let the laser get it close enough...,

sw55
04 Jan 05,, 13:45
Well if you made a missile that could survive going from 800 mph to about 50 mph in about 2 seconds, then yah I guess in theory you could do this.

The B-83 was meant to be "layed down" from low level at mach 1.4

http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Usa/Weapons/B83deploy.html

http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Usa/Weapons/B83.html

Using the same high speed dragshutes I doubt there would be a problem here.

What would be the best technique to attack a well defended surface group from the air? Harm's launched at long range coordinated to arrive with a salvo of Harpoons, followed by Mavericks and LGBs? For argurment's sake lets assume the majority of whatever is left of any significance in the RUssian Northern fleet; Uddloys, Sovremmeneys, and a couple Kirovs, their best newest stuff...

Bill
04 Jan 05,, 19:06
B-52 saturation Harpoon attack.

sw55
05 Jan 05,, 01:21
B-52 saturation Harpoon attack.

"G" maybe( they been retired ),,,

"H" version????

Franco Lolan
05 Jan 05,, 03:18
Harpoon doesn't impress me: subsonic and range isn't that great = easy intercept.


I wouldn't assume our ASW capabilities are that great: Australians, Dutch, and Canadians have slipped through with subs, and their subs are in no way top tier.

Bill
06 Jan 05,, 01:16
""H" version????"

Yep, two squadrons of em, one each tasked to the Atlantic and Pacific.

Bill
06 Jan 05,, 01:18
"Harpoon doesn't impress me: subsonic and range isn't that great = easy intercept."

It flies low, and it don't often miss. One B-52 carries 16 of em. One squadron of B-52s carries 12 of em.

That's 192 missiles.

Shoot down 90% of em, and you're fleet's still gonna get slammed by 20 missiles.

Game over, man. Game over. ;)


"I wouldn't assume our ASW capabilities are that great: Australians, Dutch, and Canadians have slipped through with subs, and their subs are in no way top tier."

Not with the US CVBG on wartime footing they havn't.

Franco Lolan
06 Jan 05,, 03:27
So unless used in saturation attack Harpoon is easily intercepted?


"Not with the US CVBG on wartime footing they havn't." I sincerely hope they haven't.

Bill
06 Jan 05,, 18:05
That's not what i said, or even the question that was asked.

Harpoon is what it is, a subsonic, highly accurate sea skimmer.

It's success rate in actual combat is very close to 100%.

dave angel
06 Jan 05,, 20:30
its not totally relevant to the way this topic is going, but warhead size in anti-shipping is probably less important than some think. during the falklands war most argentine bombs that hit surface vessels didn't go off - while some ships just kept on fighting with chuffing great holes in the side, many were put out of action and and the HMS Sheffield was lost to fire, despite the exocet missile warhead not exploding.

lesson No. 1: ships burn well.

Bill
06 Jan 05,, 23:37
lesson No. 2: they burn EXCEPTIONALLY well when they're ignited by solid rocket fuel. Solid rocket fuel cannot be extinguished, it must simply burn itself out entirely.