US Cruise Missiles Thread

Seems like American are already in an advanced stage with S-400 killer.

This is JASSM and JASSM-ER , it is fast , very stealthy , has great stand off range and can fly very low altitude and can reprogram in flight. Amazing Stuff

http://vpk.name/news/73795_ubiica_sovetskoi_pvo_zavershaet_ispyitaniya.html

TO be more accurate, the title is killer of Soviet PVO, not modern Russian .

Flying low will castrate its range greatly, it gets the best figures when deployed from a fast aircraft flying high up.

JASSM and JASSM-ER used as DEAD weapons ?



A similar level of tabloid-like ,low amateurish coverage of a military subjects in an article should be punished with a very expensive fine to the media producing it.


Stand-off subsonic cruise missiles attacks is a concept very very old in the doctrine of leading military powers worldwide and theirs CONOPS has been widely debated and established within military planner rooms since '70 years : in a conventional scenario theirs employment, against a major opponent, is limited for unescapable temporal reasons, ,to the neutralization of critical fixed enemy assets and installations through concentrated saturating attacks in the hopes that some will pass the defense's layers (at least for the NATO side ).

JASSM and JASSM-ER, in this kind of weapons ,represent moreover nothing more than projects aimed at develops widely scaled-down samples of stand-off cruise missiles that was possible to mount also on tactical/strike aircraft instead of strategic bombers only , platforms that obviously immensely greater weight and volumetric limits in respect to ground/naval based ones.


Theirs employment against highly time-sensitive targets (for remain silent ,of course, of dispersable vehicles capable of times of deployment/undeployment inferior to 5 minutes ) is an idea as laughable as totally absurd ; in facts in the sick idea to execute a DEAD missions , even only against a single battery of enemy mobile, AD systems using similar weapons someone should committ an enormous, concentrated amount of those critical and very costly assets in a stand-off "journey" of one hour/one hour and half in enemy territory (where naturally ,for unescapable radars gain and radiated energy dispersion at ranges, the purpose to mantain target-position update link with those cruise missiles against the enemy active and passive EW enemy assets present in the in the hundreds of km covered would appear pathetically comical ) with the result that :


- admitted that the battery reveal itself nothing more than a decoy battery (Kosovo situation multiplied 10.000 times anyone ? )
- admitted that the battery ,in the meantime, has not changed completly its position at least 3-4 times
- admitted that the battery's elements don't disperse momentarily "disappearing" under a pair of layers of heavy Radar/IR dispersing camonets.


to this AD battery would be sufficient in the last 5-6 minutes of arrival of the concentrated ,saturating subsonic cruise missile salvo to enter in the most near mouth of an Air Defense redeploying tunnel, civilian undergound parking ,road tunnel or even between civilian buildings to reduce this immensely costly offensive in a nuissance of no more of 6-7 minutes single ; and all without even waste a single, bullet ,SAM or specialized EW system air delivered missile at theirs destruction !!!


Was just for this reason that stand-off ground based cruise missiles - with vastly superior parameters and capable naturally to quiclky disperse ,disappear anywhere, reload and attack over and over and over all the day long....- was prohibited in NATO-URSS agreements while air force delivered ones not, in fact ironically are just the Air Force assets at being incredibly vulnerable to concentrated ,stand-off cruise missile attacks .

A single attack against those targets very big ,totally fixed and well known, full of very soft skinned vehicles ,concentrated munition depots and high flammable fuel's reserves and you will be forced and find the pieces of your air-delivered cruise missile offensive plan among countless of flaming scraps of metal dispersed in a desolating field of smoking craters and blazing silos

Is best to leave the "copyrigth" of similar absurd as laughable "creative" CONOPS for cruise missiles to thread on F-16 . net and similaria.

Thanks Garry and Mindstorm for clarifying this , seems JASSM has its own shortcoming and is not as strong as its made out to be.

Of course against a third world country it makes it a push button war because most fixed centres of communication, and command centres and communication hubs, major military bases, etc etc would all be fixed and fairly well known in advance, and the performance of the defending AD would leave much to be desired... and of course no means to retaliate in kind is a huge bonus for the west as well.

Exactly GarryB ,is not possible to express this concept with better words


The point with several US weapon system projects is that them are obviously developed to respond to the requirements dictated by theirs specific military/economic influence expansionist doctrine that naturally don't even foresee a conflict against a powerful opponent but a progressive direct or indirect annexion and control of area hosting foreign strategic resources.

As previously explained ,those weapon optimizations designed against enemies completely incapable to react, wouldn't cancel that the same foundations of a similar US air centric doctrine, moreover devoid of even only the most elementary guise of defense structure and single systems designed and deployed to defeat typical offensive means used by military powerful enemies , would reveal itself quickly self defeating against any major opponent in a conflict not influenced by the nuclear factor.

Anyone can image what would be the disturbing effects that would have even a little salvo of Chinese DH-10 on this tender scenario of Diego Garcia AB







May be that it is only mine eyes , but here i are completely incapable to see even the most elementary guise of any type of passive or active defense for literally any primary and secondary AB element.

My scarce sight ,memory and lack of imagination ,moreover, prevent also to me to detect and remember, at this moment, the precise position and ....the name..... of the US corresponding of TOR-M1/2 ,Pantsyr or even only of Tunguska-M1 batteries of point defences committed at the defense of this strategically important AB, and a strange mental block prevent to me to identify too, at the moment, where the other layers of the IADS - as the immense area around it covered by the purposely optimized US corresponding of MiG-31 ,for remain completely silent of the hundreds of Km covered by overlapping and fully mobile layers of medium ,long and very long range defenses, point and area EW assets, ELS, defense aid systems etc..etc..- at protection of this key asset would be ...taking also in consideration that it is completely insulated in plain Ocean.


That happen ,obviously, when your doctrine ,strategic stance and force organization is constructed around the chance to project quickly and efficiently your military and political influence very far from your borders against vastly inferior opponents; against any enemy so advanced to have the chance to capitalize the enormous fragility which come from a similar strategic stance and force organization you can always point on the thermonuclear MAD factor (at the end of the day it is well proven if it managed to prevent Warsaw Pact's Forces to conventionally crush you , for over 40 years).

Came across this Official Ratheyon video which shows USN Tomahawk Block 4 targeting RuN Cruiser and S-300 batteries

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wluabEE1ls8


The capabilities of block 4 like loitering capability over target , Satcom communication and inflight retargetting are very nice , wish some day RuN Club has it as well

Runavy uses Kalibr, pretty sure it has Satcom link.

GarryB wrote:
Loiter near an enemy ship with a subsonic cruise missile... are you serious?

Not really a ship but around land targets , Since Block 4 has MMW radar it can very well image a land target among clutter and while they loiter they also gather intelligence and relay it in real time via satcom or a UAV.

Its more like Loiter , Gather Intelligence and then pounce on the target which were seems very critical from the intelligence gathered.

Its a nice capability to have basicly they act like UAV closer to enemy but with ability to attack as well.

Austin wrote:

GarryB wrote:
Loiter near an enemy ship with a subsonic cruise missile... are you serious?

Not really a ship but around land targets , Since Block 4 has MMW radar it can very well image a land target among clutter and while they loiter they also gather intelligence and relay it in real time via satcom or a UAV.

Its more like Loiter , Gather Intelligence and then pounce on the target which were seems very critical from the intelligence gathered.

Its a nice capability to have basicly they act like UAV closer to enemy but with ability to attack as well.

Good luck with that

Shooting practice.

Viktor wrote:

Austin wrote:

GarryB wrote:
Loiter near an enemy ship with a subsonic cruise missile... are you serious?

Not really a ship but around land targets , Since Block 4 has MMW radar it can very well image a land target among clutter and while they loiter they also gather intelligence and relay it in real time via satcom or a UAV.

Its more like Loiter , Gather Intelligence and then pounce on the target which were seems very critical from the intelligence gathered.

Its a nice capability to have basicly they act like UAV closer to enemy but with ability to attack as well.

Good luck with that

Shooting practice.

I`m going to assume this will only be used on incompetent 3rd world armies rather then any modern, well trained and equiped force?

GarryB wrote: numbers game... they had rather more platforms that could carry Harpoon than Tomahawk so it made sense to go with the numbers missile.

Also the technological superiority of US cruise missiles .

Lockheed's long range Anti Ship missile uses (1) Passive Radio Frequency ; (2) Mid Course Guidance and (3) IR terminal homing.

Now is there any anti cruise missile system deployed in any Russian or Chinese or Indian battleships that can counter such a missile ? Obviously not .

NickM wrote:

GarryB wrote: numbers game... they had rather more platforms that could carry Harpoon than Tomahawk so it made sense to go with the numbers missile.

Also the technological superiority of US cruise missiles .

Lockheed's long range Anti Ship missile uses (1) Passive Radio Frequency ; (2) Mid Course Guidance and (3) IR terminal homing.

Now is there any anti cruise missile system deployed in any Russian or Chinese or Indian battleships that can counter such a missile ? Obviously not .

Cruise Missiles are very slow and such targets are rather "easy" to intercept by ships and their defensive capabilities they possess.
Kashtan and before that TOR missiles which were designed to intercept incoming threats. Unless those missiles are not Iskander type in engagement or phase-end guiding than its not a bigger threat than russian cruise missiles would be to US ships, actually it's vice versa since defensive technologies in russia have a higher priority and there for a higher capabilities than in any other country.

Nah Werewolf, its American, it cant be countered by teh Asiatic missile systems.

Asians are famously bad at math so they can't make systems to hit moving targets.

NickM wrote:
Also the technological superiority of US cruise missiles .

Lockheed's long range Anti Ship missile uses (1) Passive Radio Frequency ; (2) Mid Course Guidance and (3) IR terminal homing.

Now is there any anti cruise missile system deployed in any Russian or Chinese or Indian battleships that can counter such a missile ? Obviously not .

1.Been in feature of Russian missiles since 1960's perhaps
2.See above
3.See above

I don't see those 1,2,3 features are preventing US missiles from being intercepted by AK-630 or Shtil.

Stealthflanker wrote:

NickM wrote:
Also the technological superiority of US cruise missiles .

Lockheed's long range Anti Ship missile uses (1) Passive Radio Frequency ; (2) Mid Course Guidance and (3) IR terminal homing.

Now is there any anti cruise missile system deployed in any Russian or Chinese or Indian battleships that can counter such a missile ? Obviously not .

1.Been in feature of Russian missiles since 1960's perhaps
2.See above
3.See above

I don't see those 1,2,3 features are preventing US missiles from being intercepted by AK-630 or Shtil.

Especially when the cruise missiles are large and slow targets. The LRASM isn't going to do much for the Navy, just a simple replacement of the outdated Tomahawk.

Mike E wrote:

Stealthflanker wrote:

NickM wrote:
Also the technological superiority of US cruise missiles .

Lockheed's long range Anti Ship missile uses (1) Passive Radio Frequency ; (2) Mid Course Guidance and (3) IR terminal homing.

Now is there any anti cruise missile system deployed in any Russian or Chinese or Indian battleships that can counter such a missile ? Obviously not .

1.Been in feature of Russian missiles since 1960's perhaps
2.See above
3.See above

I don't see those 1,2,3 features are preventing US missiles from being intercepted by AK-630 or Shtil.

Especially when the cruise missiles are large and slow targets. The LRASM isn't going to do much for the Navy, just a simple replacement of the outdated Tomahawk.

But surprisingly enough no supersonic anti-ship missiles in US inventories.

I think the US Navy values air-defense over anything else when it comes to their "destroyers". That would explain the lack of advanced supersonic AShMs, and their focus on the ESSM and SM-6 etc. That being said, I believe that they rely on their sub fleet to do the "dirty work" and sink other fleets (not saying they could or couldn't).

Supersonic AShMs also tend to have less range, which is something the US navy likes. 

With all of that in mind, I have no clue why the Navy doesn't even bother to develop better AShMs. If war were to ever break out between the U.S. and Russia, that is one area where RU has a huge advantage over them. Another weird thing, is that RU still has better SAMs in their Navy fleets versus the US Navy. Sort of backwards considering all the work the US Navy is putting into that area. 

 

Mike E wrote:I think the US Navy values air-defense over anything else when it comes to their "destroyers". That would explain the lack of advanced supersonic AShMs, and their focus on the ESSM and SM-6 etc. That being said, I believe that they rely on their sub fleet to do the "dirty work" and sink other fleets (not saying they could or couldn't).

Supersonic AShMs also tend to have less range, which is something the US navy likes. 

With all of that in mind, I have no clue why the Navy doesn't even bother to develop better AShMs. If war were to ever break out between the U.S. and Russia, that is one area where RU has a huge advantage over them. Another weird thing, is that RU still has better SAMs in their Navy fleets versus the US Navy. Sort of backwards considering all the work the US Navy is putting into that area. 

 

Long range is a good attribute, except the missiles have to be able to hit their targets, and subsonic missiles are much easier to engage, and considering how attack subs are the main vehicle for that as you said it actually makes more sense to develop them for your subs than for your surface fleet. Having supersonic AShM's for attack makes more sense because the U.S. attack sub fleet is already considered a stealthy asset already, and the supersonic AShm's will be harder targets to neutralize and will also have superior penetration compared to subsonic Harpoons due to increased kinetic energy. A U.S. attack sub could fire 6 newly developed supersonic AShM's with 300 km range, and while that's not as good as a AShM Tomahawk range of 450 km (which is measly compared to land attack Tomahawk), by the time the supersonic AShM hits a surface vessel a U.S. attack sub could be long gone. Range is good, but speed is better!

And I agree, the US Navy should develop better AShM's, because they're one of the more cost-effective systems a navy could have! The cost of buying, building, maintaining a carrier fleet for a year would cost a lot, the same amount of money spent on AShM's would buy you enough missiles to sink all the world's carrier fleets several times over!

The best is a mixture of both range and speed. Imagine something like a "supersonic tipped" Kalibr that has a range of over 1000 km!

 - You hit the nail on the head. The US navy must be smoking something!