The Ship Model Forum

by **Werner** » Tue Nov 13, 2007 1:33 am

Not to mention that since 2001 they have had a great deal of difficulty getting any of their impressive array of submarine launched ballistic missiles to go more than 100km or so down range before dumping into the ocean, and remember what their new torpedo did to the Kursk.

by **Sean Hert** » Mon Nov 12, 2007 11:49 pm

Add to Seasick's comments the tendency for Russian export weapons to have somewhat, ah, lessened capabilities?

by **Seasick** » Mon Nov 12, 2007 11:32 pm

Mr. Guest: I know that the Russian missile is little more than a bullet point too. The Russian (ex-Soviet) anti-ship missiles have been known to have their capabilities exagerated. Back in the 1967 war the Egyptain Navy sank an Israeli destroyer with a Styx missile. The destroyer was obsolete by the standards of the day. The ship had no defense against it. Shortly there after the Israelis figured out how to confuse the missile and get it to attack an empty spot of ocean. The Alfa class Soviet sub was treated like it was the end of the world when in fact it was a lemon.

by **Werner** » Mon Nov 12, 2007 7:41 pm

Chuck, you act as if our posts are the substance of the argument. At the same time, you sweep away these positions with equally vague, but negative generalizations. Do you expect Seasick's response to be an engineering document full of the secret details of weapons and policy? If so, then you ought to back up your disparaging claims similarly.

by **Guest** » Mon Nov 12, 2007 6:32 pm

Seasick wrote:The USN has been keeping up with the missile threat. .......

The trouble with these kind of rousing bullet point list is that it reads like a features list on a car advertisement. It is long on claims, acronyms, and designations, and short on context. At best it tells you what the supporters thinks the weapon can do, at worst it tells you what the supporters would like you to think what the weapons can do (Which is not the same as the first). It never applies the proper discount to the spec sheet claims in order to account for the wit, skill, and cleverness of the enemy, or the big gap between our vision and omniscience, arrive at a more realistic estimate of what it actually will do.

by **Seasick** » Mon Nov 12, 2007 5:56 pm

The USN has been keeping up with the missile threat.
1. The F/A-18E/F fighters in production have switched from the AN/APG-73 to the AN/APG-79. The AN/APG-79 is a more powerful electrically scanned version of the AN/APG-73. This gives the Super Bug a greatly increased capability to target and provide midcourse guidance to the AIM-120D. The AIM-120D has a good active homing capability already.
2. More important than RAM is the Evolved Sea Sparrow missile (ESSM). The ESSM is a highly agile missile with little in common with the earlier NATO Sea Sparrow. On Aegis ships the missile operates simillary to the standard missile. The missile needs terminal illumination for only a few seconds before intercept.
3. The Standard missile has been upgraded multiple times to deal with advanced threats. The current version of the standard missile, SM-2MR Block IIIB is improved low altitude capabilities.
4. The two current versions of Aegis the AN/SPY-1B and AN/SPY-1D(V) have upgraded low altitude capabilities against high clutter.
5. Another item is the AN/SPQ-9B, this radar in an advanced version of the earlier AN/SPQ-9A. This version will be able to share data with the Aegis system. The AN/SPQ-9B is a high resolution surface search radar that can be used for surface gunfire and detecting sea-skimming missiles.

by **Werner** » Mon Nov 12, 2007 11:15 am

Again, we depart from what little we have in details to the realm of complete speculation. There is no point discussing a putative philosophy centered around hiding unknown vulnerabilities. Perhaps the Roswell aliens helped with the current designs. To say so would be at the same level of debate.

by **Guest** » Mon Nov 12, 2007 10:56 am

I think it is a matter of survival that USN never reveal the fundamental degree to which its primary assets are vulnerable since not only does that encourage the enemy, it would also dovetail fatally with the particular American perception that any asset that is not invulnerable is not worth having. Therefore it is always compelled to put out partial, skewed stories to create the impression that essentially all is well in hand. This also compels it to periodically contrive circus like atmosphere of hysteria around individual enemy weapon systems in order to pin all vulnerability onto one enemy weapon, thus both create the impression that USN assets really are quite invulnerable except for this, and therefore a large infusion of funds to counter this would make all peachy again.

by **Guest** » Mon Nov 12, 2007 10:45 am

Werner wrote:Bob, I can't speak for the experts. I am certainly not an expert myself.

You just use the tone of a very egotistical one.

by **Werner** » Sun Nov 11, 2007 4:06 pm

Bob, I can't speak for the experts. I am certainly not an expert myself.

It seems like the chief difference for the Sizzler is that it is a subsonic surface skimmer until it is about 15Km from the target, at which time the warhead separates and a large rocket motor ignites and accellerates the small warhead to Mach 3-4. Given this profile, there can't be a lot of room left for control surfaces, vectored thrust, Chuck's decoys and so on.

The USN has progressed at least one generation of countermeasures since 1992. The iron rule is there is never much technological distance between the weapon and the countermeasure. The only real question is "who's on top"? It may be the current debate is deceptive, to make the enemy complacent in their developments.

In regard to the RAM, it must represent some sort of advance since the Sea Sparrow and Phalanx were implemented, else why would the Navy bother? Similarly, the SM-2 has gone at least two generations since the end of the Cold War.

by **bengtsson** » Sun Nov 11, 2007 3:57 pm

Werner wrote:Returning to the Russian cruise missile, I still think there is little chance of it's ability to penetrate the screen and CAP unless the Hawkeyes are grounded. Having two AWACS aircraft, one on either side of the threat across several hundred miles downrange makes it unlikely any airborne threat will survive to meet the carrier's point defense systems.

In addition, Ronald Reagan already has RAM, and the rest of the fleet is to equipped with RAM launchers in the next five years. The great benefit of RAM is that it is designed to home on the IR signature of an incoming cruise missile. This means it's interception performance will be unaffected by the intense Radar jamming involved with defending against the Sizzler.

The original design of AEgis specified it be able to defeat a saturation missile attack by a regiment of TU-22M, whose Kitchen missiles achieve Mach 4 during their terminal mode. In fact, the only real difference between this threat and the new Sizzler is, in effect, the midcourse performance and altitude. In terminal attack they would represent much the same threat to the self-defense systems.

Your comments made me re read the original article I posted. Why don't your claims match up with the numerous high level weapons experts in the US defense establishment? They clearly state the new missile is unique, i.e. not like the others we have faced. Also ,it was said that there is no evidence [other than faith] that the Aegis system can either detect or shoot down this missile system. Concern amoung the men whose job is our defence carries more water with me than Faith based defence. We better get on the stick and find out can we counter the system. Technology moves on. Ask the Battle Ship admirals at Pearl Harbor and Taranto and the captain of Yamato

Bob B.

by **Werner** » Sun Nov 11, 2007 3:44 pm

Chuck wrote: A infrared flare capsule is a little larger than 2 coffee cups stacked on top of each other. It seems eminently possible for any operator with very modest technical skills to fit a sea skimmer with a few flare tubes to launch when the missile passes within line of sight of the task force.

I don't understand why people go Oooo and Ahhhh when we see American missiles go into a window, and then blithely assume our opponent can't achieve something comparable. We've only been fighting third world countries for too long.

As usual, Chuck knows more than the rest of us, the developers and the operators combined. Futher, implicit in the last statement is that the USA may have had a technical lead in 1992, but has been totally static since then. Since it hasn't been plastered on the front pages of the newspaper, it is not credible.

A cruise missile does not have merely to defeat the point defenses of the carrier, it has to defeat the multiple layers of defense stemming from satellite, aircraft, escort ships, decoys and so on extending for hundreds of miles before it gets to the point where it may be a target for the carrier's point defense missile system. Furthermore, the total number of Sizzler missile launchers available to any one country will number in the low dozens. No matter how effective the missile is, this is hardly a saturation attack for a carrier task force with �gis, CES, Hawkeye, AIM120s, AIM9X, SM-2ER, SM-2MR, SM-3, Sea Sparrow, RAM, Phalanx, Nulka, RBOC, and a suite of active and passive countermeasures at it's disposal.

Since 1945 the religeon of the USN has been "protect the carrier".

by **bengtsson** » Sun Nov 11, 2007 3:38 pm

Still the Serbs shot it down. And they used obsolete equipment to do it. That doesn't say circumstances didn't help, but, we have not faced a modern weapons system for decades. We have no idea how well our systems work in a modern battlefield environment. The serbs did what they were told they couldn't do. Also the air campaign against the Serbian army was a hoax. Weeks of bombing and few losses amoung their ground forces. Just see what a few trees can do! Every battlefield is not gonna be an Iraq cake walk. We need to be ready for losses when the next war starts.

Bob B.

by **Guest** » Sun Nov 11, 2007 3:02 pm

The F-117 shoot down also had to do with the aircraft opening bomb bay doors when the Serbian missile was homing.

by **Guest** » Sun Nov 11, 2007 3:00 pm

Werner wrote:Returning to the Russian cruise missile, I still think there is little chance of it's ability to penetrate the screen and CAP unless the Hawkeyes are grounded. Having two AWACS aircraft, one on either side of the threat across several hundred miles downrange makes it unlikely any airborne threat will survive to meet the carrier's point defense systems.

In addition, Ronald Reagan already has RAM, and the rest of the fleet is to equipped with RAM launchers in the next five years. The great benefit of RAM is that it is designed to home on the IR signature of an incoming cruise missile. This means it's interception performance will be unaffected by the intense Radar jamming involved with defending against the Sizzler.

The original design of AEgis specified it be able to defeat a saturation missile attack by a regiment of TU-22M, whose Kitchen missiles achieve Mach 4 during their terminal mode. In fact, the only real difference between this threat and the new Sizzler is, in effect, the midcourse performance and altitude. In terminal attack they would represent much the same threat to the self-defense systems.

A infrared flare capsule is a little larger than 2 coffee cups stacked on top of each other. It seems eminently possible for any operator with very modest technical skills to fit a sea skimmer with a few flare tubes to launch when the missile passes within line of sight of the task force.

The ability of RAM missiles to home in on a radically menuvering target is also unknown. The hype about current generation of short range AAMs not withstanding, many anaylsts still believe no missile can hit an aircraft snapping a high G turn during close missile approach, and ASM will be able to snap a much higher G turn than any aircraft, and furthermore its turn would be much more effective against an RAM than an fighter's against an sidewinder to start with due to it being a head-on engagement.

I think if an enemy platform successfully launches ASM from within the operational envelope of the ASM, then we will take multiple hits.

Modern ASM also should be sophisticated enough to maintain altitude to very high precision, and be able to detonate at very precise moments. A sea skimming ASM ought to be able pull up just enough to raise itself above carrier deck height, and then detonate just as it passes over the carrier deck in order to wreck and burn the carriers on deck and kill deck personnel, it also might have sufficient target discrimination, especially if it had some sort of infrared imaging capability, to go for the island of the carrier. It might indeed even have the capability to go for elevator doors.

I don't understand why people go Oooo and Ahhhh when we see American missiles go into a window, and then blithely assume our opponent can't achieve something comparable. We've only been fighting third world countries for too long.

by **Werner** » Sun Nov 11, 2007 2:18 pm

Returning to the Russian cruise missile, I still think there is little chance of it's ability to penetrate the screen and CAP unless the Hawkeyes are grounded. Having two AWACS aircraft, one on either side of the threat across several hundred miles downrange makes it unlikely any airborne threat will survive to meet the carrier's point defense systems.

In addition, Ronald Reagan already has RAM, and the rest of the fleet is to equipped with RAM launchers in the next five years. The great benefit of RAM is that it is designed to home on the IR signature of an incoming cruise missile. This means it's interception performance will be unaffected by the intense Radar jamming involved with defending against the Sizzler.

The original design of AEgis specified it be able to defeat a saturation missile attack by a regiment of TU-22M, whose Kitchen missiles achieve Mach 4 during their terminal mode. In fact, the only real difference between this threat and the new Sizzler is, in effect, the midcourse performance and altitude. In terminal attack they would represent much the same threat to the self-defense systems.

by **Tim Jacobs** » Sun Nov 11, 2007 2:04 pm

The F-117 shoot down was a lot of things coming together, and I don't mean just the aircraft and the SA-3. The flight profile was used repeatedly so the Serbs had a good idea where to watch. Flight times were the same every night, so they knew when to watch. The night was something like 85% moonlit, so visual observers with Mk I eyeballs or binoculars could see the birds against the star/moon background.

Then remember stealth means "low observable," not invisible. All it does is cut down detection range. Almost any radar can detect a stealth aircraft if it is close enough. That is why flight planning is so important, you have to avoid detection range. Move in three SAM batteries along that flightpath you've seen used several times and you have a good shot at getting one next time around.

by **Werner** » Sun Nov 11, 2007 1:42 pm

In regard to the F-117 that was shot down, my understanding is that the Serbs had received the entire flight tasking profile from someone on the inside. If that's true, the kill was not quite the technical achievement it is made out to be.

by **bengtsson** » Sun Nov 11, 2007 12:08 pm

Tim Jacobs wrote:
Anonymous wrote:That depends on if the 200kg warhead puts the flight deck out of action.

Experience shows the flight operation could be severely disrupted with comparatively little physical damage to the carrier herself.

These are sea skimmers and go for the hull. A sea skimmer at 3m above the surface is not going to hole the flight deck 30m above the waterline. To hit the flightdeck, they would have to execute a pop-up maneuver and then plunge onto the deck. The missile would be exposed to CIWS and other fire during that maneuver and as well as bleed off a lot of that much vaunted mach 3 velocity, making it even more difficult for a 200 kg weapon to penetrate the flight deck.

I understand from a Russian source that this missile does indeed do the pop-up maneuver if it is programed in at launch. I doubt that they would look for a flight deck hit though. I would never expect one missile to sink a carrier , the idea is to send her packing. One hit should do that, after penetrating at super sonic speed, then the warhead goes up along with the fuel load left onboard. You have a nice start to ending flight operations. Ship board fire will be the main threat. Depending who the enemy is, you could face only one missile or many.
It isn't the end of the world, but only a fool believes that he is invulnerable to attack. ECM is a good game to be in, but so is the enemy.
The Serbs using old out of date Soviet era missiles and radars shot down a stealth aircraft in the NATO war against Serbia. The Russians told them how to do it, I felt that that was their way of sending us a message. That being, "Two can play at these games". Technonlgy is a game that all can play. We here in the US have not faced any modern weapons since the air-war in Vietnam. Plenty of planes went down then. I expect our forces had better be prepared for losses if we engage an enemy with modern weapons systems.

Bob B.

by **Tim Jacobs** » Sat Nov 10, 2007 10:55 pm

Anonymous wrote:That depends on if the 200kg warhead puts the flight deck out of action.

Experience shows the flight operation could be severely disrupted with comparatively little physical damage to the carrier herself.

These are sea skimmers and go for the hull. A sea skimmer at 3m above the surface is not going to hole the flight deck 30m above the waterline. To hit the flightdeck, they would have to execute a pop-up maneuver and then plunge onto the deck. The missile would be exposed to CIWS and other fire during that maneuver and as well as bleed off a lot of that much vaunted mach 3 velocity, making it even more difficult for a 200 kg weapon to penetrate the flight deck.

The Ship Model Forum

Anti Ship Missile concerns

Post a reply

Expand view Topic review: Anti Ship Missile concerns