Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Surface Forces Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: Tomahawk The Sometimes Ship Killer
SYSOP    5/21/2015 5:10:18 AM
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: 1 2 3 4   NEXT
keffler25       5/21/2015 12:02:08 PM
Or we could be stupid and buy BRAHmos and FIX it for our enemies like we did Yakhont under Clinton. 
 
Quote    Reply

trenchsol       5/21/2015 3:04:25 PM
Any comments or opinions on LRASM ?
 
 
Quote    Reply

HR    trenchsol   5/21/2015 3:47:21 PM
A lot of this has to do with politics... the manufacturer. There is a push to simplify and have the ship carry just one missile for several roles instead of three missiles like it does now. So every manufacturer and its paid-congressman is pushing for theirs to be the one. Tomahawk is a good thing but I do not believe that it can overwhelm a ship defenses... I have seem a lot more promise with some of the AA missiles being able to hit ships; they are super fast and despite their smaller warheads they have been known to cause terrific fires and disable ships (not sink them).
 
Quote    Reply

JFKY    HR, you realize,    5/21/2015 4:21:07 PM
right that a SAM means a close-range fight right, within the radar horizon of the launching ship..."I can see you, you can see ME."?  The beauty of Tomahawk or Harpoon is the the OVER THE HORIZON capacity of the weapon.
 
Quote    Reply

keffler25       5/21/2015 4:41:36 PM
And besides that obvious element, the troll does not address the three tiers that the USN actually pursues (politics not being one of them.). The 'common missile' is the replacement for air launched and ship launched HARPOON, not Tomahawk. That missile in the interim is the LRASM based off the LockMart JASSM-ER ( a missile with a troubled history)  It is apparently 'fixed' (read a piece of crap that sort of works) and will do for now.  
 
The real replacement follow on is a competition for something called the Offensive Anti-surface warfare missile (OASuW). Aforesaid candidates are an 'improved Tomahawk' and Raytheon with J-SOW-ER  and of course JASSM- ER.
 
The JSOW is a missile family that has never failed the US in battle. So who do you think will get the contract?  
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

trenchsol       5/22/2015 10:31:16 AM
Anti ship missiles are a bit confusing topics, they are not used very often. I tried to make some sort of summary and I'd like someone to comment it.
 
First, it seems that they hit the target more often than not. So far we have seen 'dumb' missiles in action, like Silkworm and Exocet. By 'dumb' I mean relatively simple. They are fired in the direction of the ship and fly until their own sensors can lock on the target. Proved rather lethal, so far.
 
Second, anti-missile defenses fail more often than not. I have found few short notes about how defenses, when active, interfere with normal functioning of the ship, so they are often off-line. I think the only time when missile was intercepted was in Persian Gulf by Royal Navy ship which took it down with Sea Dart missile.
 
There are several new concepts. Russians are trying to overwhelm anti-missile defenses, which don't seem to work great, anyway. They want to fire swarms of missiles with great velocity in terminal phase. Also they develop some systems where missiles communicate with each other inside the swarm, which looks like over-engineering to me. None of these systems are tested in battle, and 'dumb' missiles are still in use.
 
There is an idea of ballistic anti-ship missile with guidance in terminal phase. Allegedly everyone works on it, but Chinese are the ones who talk about it more often. 
 
Then there is a concept of stealth anti-ship missile. Sounds reasonable, anti missile defenses can't work if missile is not detected. No need for massive effort to overwhelm the ship defenses, which seem to be overwhelmed already. No need to fire missiles in the space in order to hit the target.
 
US Navy deployed laser weapons on some ships. It is not clear if those are supposed to be used against anti-ship missiles. I believe that those lasers are more capable and versatile than Navy is willing to disclose, and that they are deliberately vague about it. Officials are often eager to highlight the features of new systems to justify the money spent on them. Not this time. There was some notes about how cost effective they are, but very little about their purpose.
 
 
Quote    Reply

keffler25       5/22/2015 1:34:52 PM
Let's take this in order....
 
trenchsol       5/22/2015 10:31:16 AM
Anti ship missiles are a bit confusing topics, they are not used very often. I tried to make some sort of summary and I'd like someone to comment it.
 
And here we go: 
 
First, it seems that they hit the target more often than not. So far we have seen 'dumb' missiles in action, like Silkworm and Exocet. By 'dumb' I mean relatively simple. They are fired in the direction of the ship and fly until their own sensors can lock on the target. Proved rather lethal, so far.
 
This is not accurate.  Some Western missiles have routinely hit targets, but often not the targets they were intended to hit, (The Atlantic Conveyor instead of the Invincible) or the missile failed to function as intended.  (Example is Exocet in Sheffield and Stark incidents. Something appears to be wrong with the fusing, for the missile after impact often fails to detonate the warhead. About 50% fail rate.  Chinese missiles used in combat have shown the same exact fail rate. INS Hanit incident).
 
Russian missiles have earned a lousy reputation for reliability (Styx) but the Indians (Operation Trident) have shown that in the hands of skilled operators and under the right conditions, these missiles are as deadly as their western opposites.
  
Second, anti-missile defenses fail more often than not. I have found few short notes about how defenses, when active, interfere with normal functioning of the ship, so they are often off-line. I think the only time when missile was intercepted was in Persian Gulf by Royal Navy ship which took it down with Sea Dart missile.
 
In the two times in naval warfare where relatively missile armed surface forces clashed, (Latakia and Karachi) the side that knew their weapons better and knew what they were doing, crushed their enemy almost completely unharmed. In both cases, shoot-first was a guaranteed you are dead in the return volley. In both cases the difference was COUNTERMEASURES (Israeli and Indian[Russian]) that worked and seduced off the enemy's (Syria and Pakistan) first shot. And in both cases the missiles (Israeli [cough American cough] and Indian [cough Russian cough]) crippled the opponent who was finished off by bombs and gunfire at leisure. 
  
There are several new concepts. Russians are trying to overwhelm anti-missile defenses, which don't seem to work great, anyway. They want to fire swarms of missiles with great velocity in terminal phase. Also they develop some systems where missiles communicate with each other inside the swarm, which looks like over-engineering to me. None of these systems are tested in battle, and 'dumb' missiles are still in use.
 
[cont]
 
Quote    Reply

keffler25       5/22/2015 2:12:56 PM
There are several new concepts. Russians are trying to overwhelm anti-missile defenses, which don't seem to work great, anyway. They want to fire swarms of missiles with great velocity in terminal phase. Also they develop some systems where missiles communicate with each other inside the swarm, which looks like over-engineering to me. None of these systems are tested in battle, and 'dumb' missiles are still in use.  
 
These methods have been tested in op-eval and battle. Boy have they been tested.
 
From combat we've learned the following.
 
Israeli missiles work and hit at what they are steered. Russian countermeasures in the hands of idiots don't work. (1972 War)   
 
Russian missiles work and will hit provided the western countermeasures designed to thwart them are in the hands of idiots who don't know what they are doing. (India Pakistan War of 1971) Indian (Russian) countermeasures worked in the hands of Indians, but have consistently failed everywhere else---> especially in Russian hands in recent combat in Georgia and the Ukraine. A lot of people would like to know why that is so, because in Western hands the Russian countermeasure systems are fairly good.  
 
French systems work sort of well (manufacturer defects produce a lot of duds). British passive countermeasure systems were/are designed fundamentally wrong and don't work as intended. (Falklands)  
 
American systems blank out enemy acquisition radars from launch platforms and weapons. (Oil tanker war, the Persian Gulf Wars, the bump and scrape war), but to be effective, these active systems have to be turned on and that does produce interference with AEGIS. Infra-red countermeasures have not really been tested, but radio seduce and decoy is fairly robust and very effective (proven in battle).  
 
Naturally recent Russian missiles have emphasized infrared detection and homing. And naturally I don't think these missiles are much of a threat, provided the defender has his countermeasures turned on and knows what to do. The Chinese have stuck with radar and they stubbornly cling to semi-active radar homing (needs an independent radar offboard the missile to paint the target. The missile chases the coded reflected signal) because they know that is one method that is hard for (American) countermeasures to blank.    
 
The Russians had SARH for some of their Backfire and Blackjack aircraft launched antiship missiles. But they put the illuminator radar into a convoy missile. The idea was to shoot at furthest standoff range at launch on bearing a flock of missiles (first USN encountered and confirmed in the Russian's Arctic wargames in 1974.) with the different missiles mixed as radar illuminators and SARH missiles traveling together. The radar missiles would look down and paint the Americans topdown and then the killer missiles would plunge onto the reflected radar signals. This is still in use by the way, as it is the most effective attack profile the Russians ever invented. It's rather frightening. US countermeasures against radio steered missiles (1976) date from this era, much as US decoys (1970) date from just before Latakia and Israeli combat experience.                 
 
[cont.]
 
Quote    Reply

keffler25       5/22/2015 2:27:33 PM
There is an idea of ballistic anti-ship missile with guidance in terminal phase. Allegedly everyone works on it, but Chinese are the ones who talk about it more often. 
 
This was first tested by the US Army in the Lance missile system (1974?) when it was apparent that a guided high trajectory (parabola trajectory) artillery rocket would be needed to hit Russian field mobile Scuds and Frogs. In the original case, the look-down was to be supplied by USAF tactical recon aircraft who would paint the Russian Tels firing beyond normal counter-battery range. It was further refined and deployed in the Pershing and Pershing II systems (1980 and 1984) and tied into satellites when the shooting ranges became IRBM level. It is STILL in use.  
 
The Chinese DF-21 is just their version of it. The defenses against it have been tested but not in battle, yet. Hopefully we'll never see if the passive and active measures work for real.  
 
Then there is a concept of stealth anti-ship missile. Sounds reasonable, anti missile defenses can't work if missile is not detected. No need for massive effort to overwhelm the ship defenses, which seem to be overwhelmed already. No need to fire missiles in the space in order to hit the target.
 
It's easy to hide a slow missile. Hard to hide a fast one (heat). Defenses are not tested in exercise where the enemy can sniff your signals (the Russians never learned that one) and the encounters between foes in peacetime  of course mean that you will not be on a war footing (example; how would you like to encounter a Sovremeney with its tracking radars lit up? The Arleigh's  Aegis will light up and then things become very tense. There are rules about such things. Don't light up, because that is a provocation. If you do light up, then don't be surprised if the other guy spools up his tracking on you.)      
 
US Navy deployed laser weapons on some ships. It is not clear if those are supposed to be used against anti-ship missiles. I believe that those lasers are more capable and versatile than Navy is willing to disclose, and that they are deliberately vague about it. Officials are often eager to highlight the features of new systems to justify the money spent on them. Not this time. There was some notes about how cost effective they are, but very little about their purpose.
 
Lasers are used. Have been used, but NOT the way the press reports it. Would be interesting if some of the recent Iraqi and Afghan stuff would be declassified. But I can guess as to how lasers would/should be used. Not to destroy, but to BLIND. Machines have 'eyes', too.      
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

trenchsol       5/22/2015 4:01:42 PM
Keffler, thank you. You have provided me with lot to read and even more external references to check and study. I will be busy for some time.
 
Quote    Reply
1 2 3 4   NEXT



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics