PubFather

Which is best???

There are lots of ex-Soviet supersonic on the market - Sunburn, Yakhont, Klub, and now theres the Indo-Russian BrahMos as well.

On the other hand - we have the newer 180 km range Exocet MM40 and the venerable Harpoon.

The question is - which is more capable? The supersonics with their devastating speed or the sub-sonics with their lower RCS?

Which is the greater threat to Western navies?

Should Western navies be thinking of ASurfaceM at all - or concentrating on Anti-radar missiles??

Stick to long-range for this discussion please...

My view is sub-sonic but increasing stealthy missiles... You can carry more of them but the end result is the same.

__________________
Nemo Me Impune Lacessit - Scottish Motto

"They that approve a private opinion, call it opinion; but they that dislike it, heresy; and yet heresy signifies no more than private opinion” Thomas Hobbes - Leviathan

ArmchairGeneral

Since when does the MM40 have 180 km range? Last I heard, it was something like 40 or 50 mi, which is something like 80 km. Is this an improved version?

__________________
"Apocalyptic thought is curiously pleasurable."
-Theodore Dalrymple

Anon

The hard part about anti-surface warfare is accurate OTH targeting.

It is very hard to use all the range these missiles offer if you're concerned about civvie traffic or the enemy is sailing at a high rate of speed.

This was the reason the USN removed TASM from service years ago despite it's fantastic range of 470 nautical miles. All that range means nothing if you can't use it. But then, the flip side is that if you use a BIG missile with lots of fuel from short range you're going to have a LOT more rocket fuel on board at impact, and in honesty, the onboard solid rocket fuel is a much bigger threat in many cases than the actual warhead.

Solid rocket fuel cannot be extinguished even in a vacuum. It burns(at an ungodly hot temp that will burn through steel plate with ease) until it expends itself, and there's not a damned thing anyone can do about it.

I wonder if anyone considered that when TASM was withdrawn. I suspect no.

Fireball

Most of the supersonic cruise missiles are basically of Soviet origin. they knew their missile launches will be detected and tracked the moment they are launched, so they relied on speed and kinetic energy to get the target.

but the current trend is to go for stealthier, datalinked missiles that cannot be detected till the last moment.

both type of cruise missiles are cool, depends on how they are used in the battlefield.

A salvo of sunburn/ brahmos is as hard to counter as its any other susonic cruise missile.

PubFather

Yeah - Exocet MM40 Block 2 had a range of about 80 km
MM40 Block 3 has a listed range in excess of 180 km should be IOC later
this year (also has a coast-attack mode as well).

After thinking a bit more about this topic - I think the greatest threat to ships is from new gen ARMs, like the German ARMIGER. With a ~200km range, low flight profile and speeds of Mach 4, missiles like these could be launched in greater numbers from fast moving jets. Absolute max, I would think 4 subsonic or 2 supersonic missiles fired from a fighter type platform (i.e Typhoon, F18, Su30) - but you could probably cram 6 (or even 8) ARMs onto the same platform.

High speed, low flight mode and sheer numbers would swamp Aegis. The ARMs dont need to sink the ships, just destroy the radars. Then the conventional ASuMs could come flying in without being intercepted. Even if the point-defences survived, how well would they cope with large numbers of missiles?

Galrahn

First, the R/UGM-109E can target ships, it just isn't advertised. Your not going to find any information online about it, but it can target ships.

However, because some think an online source is validation, I'll point you to the Defense Technical Information Center (DTIC) from 2004, which is available online.

For more information go to the library and specifically look for information on the TTWCS (developed by Lockheed Martin Integrated Systems & Solutions) integrations into the E model, and look at the ship identification technology built into the DSMAC system.

Anyway, I did quite a bit of research last year on subsonic vs super sonic missiles, and I'm not convinced one is better than the other. Both have strengths and weaknesses, and it really depends on who, with what, and where you are fighting to determine which is better to use.

A couple of points.

1) There is no such thing as a supersonic stealth missile. The biggest problem with supersonic is the enormous heat generated, and the requirement for a heavy heat resistant missile capsule makes supersonic missiles easy to detect on radar. This gigantic heat signature of supersonic missiles is the main reason IR was developed for the Standard Missile.

2) Inertial guidance or GPS in-flight command guidance capabilities help the shooter more than the shot. What this means is, by changing approach vectors using Inertial guidance or GPS in-flight command helps conceal the shooters firing location, but very few AShMs have the range to maneuver outside an enemies threat vector enough to approach via a gap in the detection coverage of a dedicated defense of a modern Navy.

3) Speed is good and bad. Speed can decrease the chances of detection, but once a missile is detected, speed is the aspect that defines the number of layered options in defense. Example, a supersonic missile like the Sunburn might be detected at 50km OTH by an AEGIS ship, but the AEGIS ship is only going to have 66 seconds to react, with first intercept of a standard possible when the missile is around 30 seconds from the ship. If the Standard misses, and a new missile is launched at that point, results won't be calculated until 10 seconds from impact, meaning only self defense weapons will remain if the second shot misses. Keep in mind, with only 66 seconds the scenario described above is a best case scenario.

If a subsonic missile is detected at 50km, the ship will have at least 3 minutes to react. Using the scenario above, the Standard will reach the target with more than 2 minutes prior to the AShM reaching the ship, which leaves plenty of time for future shots.

However, the supersonic missile has a much greater chance of detection at 50km than the subsonic missile, mostly due to the enormous heat and radar signature supersonic missiles have in general. In fact, supersonic missiles without ECM can be detected organically at over 150km, and with additional organic detection like AEW aircraft, detection often occurs at launch during massive booster ignition and tracking occurs regardless of ECM quality. In general, ECM doesn't help supersonic missiles too much, if any, which might be why ECM was reportedly removed from the Chinese sunburns to make room for improved terminal systems.

4) Imaging/IR is best Terminal Seekers. While Active Radar works, unless the ECM suite is advanced, most defense systems are designed to counter active radar terminals effectively. Imaging and IR are much more difficult to counter, and if utilized with GPS without radar at all, countermeasures are limited to defensive weapons only.

5) The vast majority of AShMs in service today are based on cold war era terminal radar technology. This has 2 effects, it makes stealth very valuable on a ship, and it makes the new missiles the Russians and French (which includes India thanks to Russia) are producing very dangerous.

An interesting story. When the French originally marketed the stealth capability of the La Fayette class to Taiwan and Saudi Arabia, they put an export MM39 terminal radar seeker on a plane and flew over a La Fayette class that dispensed chaff at 20km away. The result, the seeker could not find the ship, and the location the seeker thought the ship was ended up about 2km from where it actually was.

While I have no idea the effects of stealth on the La Fayette class has on modern radar terminal seekers, since the C-802, Exocet MM39, and the vast majority of older Russian missiles including the Sunburn and shipwreck use that older cold war technology radar seeker, stealth certainly seems to count for something.

In my opinion, this leaves the new variable speed AShMs the Russians have, specifically subsonic speed approach with supersonic terminal capability as one of the most capable AShMs today. Additionally, the Western style subsonic AShMs that include the best ECM and terminal phase seeker combinations extremely dangerous by combining the powerful combination of stealth and accuracy.

Everything else in my opinion is in a reduced threat category against a modern Navy that fields PAAMS, APAR, AEGIS defense systems, including weapons like the Sunburn which combines the flawed combination of easier detection, old terminal radar technology, weak ECM, and limited range. To me, the only strength of the Sunburn is the speed.

Anon

First, the R/UGM-109E can target ships, it just isn't advertised. Your not going to find any information online about it, but it can target ships.


TACTOM has IR man in the loop terminal homing. It can steer precisely into the bridge of an enemy ship if desired. TACTOM is a HUGE upgrade.

Dago

Regarding the TacTom;


Challenges of Using the TTWCS and TC2S to Enable Retargeting of TACTOM Missiles Against a Moving Target

• Tomahawk Weapon System, Baseline IV
• Tomahawk Strike Network (TSN)
• Problem of Applying to Large Moving Targets
• Theoretical Implementation
• Assumptions Used for Study
• Simulation Program
• Study Results
• Further Recommendations
• Conclusions

Specifications,

* Tomahawk employs GPS as main flight guidance system
* The Block IV All Up Round can be redirected after launch
* Three methods of redirection
are possible
***o Flex
***o Retarget
***o Aimpoint Update
* Communications
possible throughout
900 NM flight range


Tomahawk Against Moving Targets,

Tomahawk Strike Network (TSN)

* Uses standard 5 kHz UHF DAMA circuits
* Messages are divided up into packets that can be sent at approximately 9 second intervals
* A complete Aimpoint Update message can fit into a single packet

Problem of Applying Tomahawk Missiles to Large Moving Targets

* How far can a target depart from its original
track in a given amount of time?
* What are the critical issues?
o Target Maneuverability
o Target Size
o GPS/Targeting
Errors

Conclusions

* Calculations show that Tomahawk has a possibility of successful attack against slowly moving targets the size of modern warships
* Probability increases with low detection rates of the incoming missile by the intended target
* Off-board fire control solution can be used with no modifications to Baseline IV TWS
* Further study and research (with more detailed data) can determine the most appropriate operational employment constraints

PubFather

So TacTom does have an anti-shipping ability.

Is surface launched Harpoon a dead duck? I'm asking this simply because with the TacTom and Standard missile both having an anti-shipping capability, what purpose is really served by Harpoon any more? I would guess its overkill to use it against smaller surface threats - choppers equiped with Penguin or its successor would be the obvious choice...

Puressence

Harpoon can be carried by smaller aircraft like fighters. Also, it can be mounted on much smaller ships without the need for VLS. It can be fired from torpedo tubes. It's range is getting longer, but has a large warhead for its size (1/2 that of Tomahawk). Its seekers are becoming more and more advanced. And the Navy has 2000 of them in inventory.

Apparently, the US Navy has refused the Block II but encouraged development of Block III. So Harpoon will be in their plans for decades to come.

----------

A. MISSION DESCRIPTION AND BUDGET ITEM JUSTIFICATION:
FY 2007 New Start Program. The Harpoon Block III Weapons System is intended to upgrade and expand the capabilities of the Navy’s only anti-ship, all weather missile to improve its precision in a
congested, littoral environment. Modification of the RGM-84D Harpoon 1C baseline missile will provide for Global Positioning System (GPS) accuracy, target selectivity in a littoral environment, and in-flight
target position update solutions as well as positive terminal control. Specific improvements provide for significant target discrimination as well as minimized target-to-shore separation capability, Battle Hit
Indications (BHI), connectivity with future network architecture, and Land Blanking capability. Harpoon Block III will provide for a concept of operations which will support existing ISR Platform target detection;
target & weapon position update (ie. UAV, Helo, Fixed wing), and ISR Platform to Weapon Correlation Mapping.
This development effort will lead to a procurement of 400 Harpoon Block III upgrade kits, beginning in FY 2009, that will retrofit existing Harpoon USN missile inventory.

http://131.84.1.34/descriptivesum/Y2...y/0604227N.pdf

rickusn

TACTOM doesnt look very effective to me:

"Calculations show that Tomahawk has a possibility of successful attack against slowly moving targets the size of modern warships."

Anon

Very intersting info Dago, thanx for posting it.

So i think my appraisal on a MOVING warship was a 'tad' optomistic. They could certainly fly a TACTOM right through the bridge window of one sitting dockside or immobile(such as one that's just been mission killed by SM-2s) though. So- great capability- and will only get better as the 'refresh' rate of 9 seconds is improved upon. If they can get that down to about 4 seconds.....oh boy.

Anon

Think about finishing one off we just mission killed with SM-2s rick.

Would be a nice 1-2 punch.

You could launch the TACTOM and salvo of SM-2s all at the same time.

The SM-2s would get there much faster, in fact you'd probably have time to direct a second wave before TACTOM got there. At which time the enemy target is likely either dead in the water- or hopefully barely mobile. And in any case, it's sensors should be shattered at that time.

Now if they get the refresh rate down to 4 secs or less...

PubFather

Thank ye for the info - I hadnt realised the USN was still developing it.

Anon

Harpoon II can hit land targets too.(GPS style guidance i believe).

Nice way to give a ship a powerful dual role land-naval attack capability from one octuple launcher unit.(admittedly, it's in an 'either or' sort of way)