Originally Posted by KRON1
http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2004rangeop...Braucksick.pptTypical Anti-ship missile profile: Mach 2.5 at 20 feet sea-skimming
Typical Anti Radiation Missile (ARM) profile Mach 3.5 at 48,000 feet
http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/m-163.htmlAnd thats the supersonic MA-31 Target vehicle that was not selected.
http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/m-163.htmlIn the terminal approach phase, the GQM-163A will fly at Mach 2.5 at 5 m (16 ft) altitude.
May be its due to different doctrine, experience.
From the blog you quote
Comparing the sunburn to latest block of the exocet missile is strage, if the comparisons are made to more recent missiles, exocet comes up short on speed and damage capability, and most guidance systems use GPS-GLONASS, INS and resistance to EW, and neither missile systems will escape the radar once its inside the horizon.Guidance is also critical. The best weapon systems utilize multiple options for guidance in a weapon system, whether it is IR, radar, GPS, Inertial, etc.., the more options for guidance the more effective the weapon system. There are various decoys and electronic warfare options for non kinetic defense against simplistic guidance systems, which is why it is becoming more common to see more complicated guidance capabilities on weapons.
Applying these basics, it becomes easy to debunk myths propagated in articles like the defense update article. For example, the SS-N-22 Sunburn (a.k.a. 3M-82 Moskit a.k.a. P270 Moskit) is the most overrated anti-ship missile you will ever read about. First, it is easily detected not only via IR but by its radar system. The missile has virtually no stealth at all. The missile only has radar guidance, making it easier to defeat without kinetic intercept, and finally the Sunburn has a very limited range and has no countermeasures. In other words, in the various technical categories that determine whether the weapon used to evaluate the capability of a weapon technology, the Sunburn ranks kindof low in each category but speed.
Compare the Sunburn to the latest Exocet missiles. The Exocet has inertial guidance that helps prevent jamming, the missile has protection from EW, it has more than twice the range of the Sunburn, and it has excellent stealth.
The integration of Klubs fire control system on old submarines had a problem. INS Sindhushastra was testing the missile back in 2000-2002 and reported no problems based on which the 200 to 300 missile order for inclusion of this submarine in the upgrade was placed. The news reports that the blog bases its comments upon have been dissmissed as BS sensationalism.
Last edited by kuku; 27 Aug 09, at 17:20.
cheers
I was thinking about your comment for a bit - wouldnt a iron dumb bomb or even a PGM made from a dumb bomb be harder to stop with a CIWS than a missile?
A fragmentation missile round may damage it enough to cause a sympathetic detonation, but it seems to me that weapons systems like a phalanx would only damage the outer casing before the bomb impacted.
You know JJ, Him could do it....
Yes it is, but the aircraft has to get close enough to use it. Expl. even a Spruance class DD / The range of the ESSM would be 30 miles, and then you get a few pops with the 5in Dp-guns, which would be 4.5 to 6 nm. Then you have the RAM missile system 5nm range. and last the CIWS. Now that sounds like enough to stop a aircraft. I do see your point and agree it would be a great weapon to use, but my question to you is can it get into range to use them?
Even a O.H.P with the SM-1
"Peace through Power" Late Ronald Reagan
Very true, the plane has to get close enough. No small task by any means, especially with the accuracy of AAW systems. Perhaps a B-2 and a couple of Prowlers providing some jamming might be able to get within range, but even then the bomb has to outmanuver a ship. No small task either.
The only real use of heavyweight dumb bombs or PGM's from aircraft against ships I can really think of would be against an enemy capital ship, or something similar which would warrant the risk and planning required.
You know JJ, Him could do it....
Glide bombs - long range, cheap, could be made stealthy, heavy, and attacks from high altitude.
"Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.
^^ Throw a drone into the mix able to do it and presto!
You know JJ, Him could do it....
Tomahawk anyone?
Might not be the fastest of the bunch, or the most powerful, but it sure can fly far, and low.
Hay gents
Im a soldier and not a sailor, so I do not claim to be to knowledgeable about this matter and naval tactics.............
But as much as there are some very advance, big, powerful and high speed anti-ship missile which command respect (BrahMos, Shipwreck, Sunburn etc....), is there any information out there which looks at the pure combat facts of the missile/guided bombs which have been used and proven in actual combat.
For example the Soviet's/Russian's have some scary anti-ship missile which scare the sh*t out of me in terms of their speed, multiple-guidance capability, high mach speeds, long range and massive warheads, which no other country can mach in both the numbers of type or the R&D in which they have devoted.
But out of the large verity of the true ship-killer giants how many Soviet/Russian type of anti-ship missile have been combat tested and proven???
In my opinion it would be good to make up an account of this matter in the missile that have been used in combat - the likes of the Harpoon, Exocet, Tomahawk, Hs-293, Sea Skua, Silkworm, Styx, Martel, SS.12 and AS.12, Gabriel and Sea Killer ...................
How many war shoots fired/released?
How many targets hit?
How many miss fires/misses (although this may be a little hard!!)
Have any anti-missile defences (passive or active) worked against anti-ship missiles in actual combat?
Regards
Pioneer
Even if they are not stealthy, just throw a lot of them and make the ship spend all of its anti air defence missiles on them.
Better than throwing a bunch of million dollar missiles at them.
cheers
Two, P-15 (first use of ASM after WWII, Eilat) and P-120 in 2008 was used to sink Georgian boats in Black sea.
Some people say "No combat record is the best combat record"In my opinion it would be good to make up an account of this matter in the missile that have been used in combat - the likes of the Harpoon, Exocet, Tomahawk, Hs-293, Sea Skua, Silkworm, Styx, Martel, SS.12 and AS.12, Gabriel and Sea Killer ...................
Combat use of ASM is even more rare then use of long range AA missiles. And usually those who lost the ship say something like "We was not looking.'" "Our air defense was off." "We did not thought we are at war." and etc.How many war shoots fired/released?
How many targets hit?
How many miss fires/misses (although this may be a little hard!!)
Have any anti-missile defences (passive or active) worked against anti-ship missiles in actual combat?
My guess is - those long range high altitude, stealthy and high mass "glide bombs" usually have a name like F-22 and their cost is astronomical.
Last edited by NUS; 28 Aug 09, at 07:00.
I was talking about dropping a lot of these anti ship glide bombs, would empty out any super Anti Air warfare ships arsenal.My guess is - those long range high altitude, stealthy and high mass "glide bombs" usually have a name like F-22 and their cost is astronomical.
A lot of nations are working on these stealthy Bombers and UCAV's.
Last edited by kuku; 28 Aug 09, at 07:22.
cheers
Put on a rocket booster to increase the range. That is an option with the LS-6, I believe.
A paper on subsonic vs supersonic missiles:
Subsonic and supersonic antiship missiles : An effectiveness and utility comparison
It is a bit old though, from 1997.The paper reviews the advantages and disadvantages of supersonic speed for the antiship missile application. Specifically, the supersonic speed benefits of reduced defensive reaction time and relaxed navigation accuracy are contrasted against limitations of range, payload, cost, electronic counter counter-measures performance, and signature. The paper concludes that, for the immediate future, subsonic advantages are likely to continue to outweigh the two major supersonic benefits. This view is reflected in the current lack of development being applied to supersonic antiship missiles.
L2
The exocet missles did a job in the Faulklands. That is until the French gave up the codes.
Fortitude.....The strength to persist...The courage to endure.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Reply With Quote
Share this thread with friends: