Probability of Russian Anti-Ship missiles to hit/destroy an AEGIS equipped target

Sunburn during the 1980s was a definite threat to US ships... SM-2 couldn't hit targets flying below 7m above the water so it couldn't stop SS-N-22s.

The main issue with AEGIS class cruisers is the number of directors they are fitted with... most have 2-3, so missile number 4-5 has a really good chance of getting through. Just because AEGIS has hundreds of SAMs doesn't mean it can launch them all at once and guide them all.

During the 80s when a US AEGIS class cruiser shot down an Iranian airbus there was a film crew on board during the engagement and it was clear that they had a malfunction with their SM-2 and it took a minute and a half before they actually finally fired.

If that had been a Soviet attack they would have been dead.

BTW the mach 4+ speed of SM-2 comes from its flight profile... if it is being directed at a low flying target close to the ship it will not reach that sort of speed.

The faster an object flys the further ahead you have to aim to intercept it, and the more g forces are needed to perform a given turn.A Klub missile coming in at 800km/h till it gets to the horizon and then launching a Mach 2.9 "warhead" means that if the warhead is 1km from the ship the interceptor will likely hit the ship.

Of course large Soviet and Russian anti ship missiles are reported to have a range of defence penetration equipment including chaff and flare dispensors and jammers... and indeed armour plate.

The British didn't think they would lose any ships in the Falklands war because the Sea Wolf and Sea Dart were excellent weapons... and they certainly were.

Very interesting information that fanboys omit But I've heard the newer SM-6 can destroy any target above sea level(0m+) and its AWACS guided. Do you think there is a way of evading these?

Whats the situation on the kh-22 and kh-15? Are they supersonic throughout their trip? How close to the target do they start to dive at mach 4-5?
Can the SM-2 engage easily targets moving at 25000m and 40000m respectively?

I think that in current times of layered ADS subsonic missiles are useless. I'm pretty sure a klub would get shot down long before releasing its payload(not to mention the fully subsonic club with 400kg warhead). Same with the kh-35.

Does the P-700 and P-1000 stay supersonic at mach 2,5-8 throughout its flightime?

Most people think of the aegis as some kind superpower weapon that is the silver bullet to all of the missiles the soviets could muster. Fanboys would make " our f*cking aegis will shoot down all of your soviet missiles and our F-14s would shoot down all your missile trucks from 300miles away while our AWACS would detect you from 500 miles away so keep on dreaming rus" type comments.

But I've heard the newer SM-6 can destroy any target above sea level(0m+) and its AWACS guided. Do you think there is a way of evading these?

I would say shoot down the AWACS...

Whats the situation on the kh-22 and kh-15? Are they supersonic throughout their trip? How close to the target do they start to dive at mach 4-5?
Can the SM-2 engage easily targets moving at 25000m and 40000m respectively?

The Kh-22M has two rocket chambers and operates on the lower power chamber to climb and fly to the target area and then lights up the high power rocket nozzle and accelerates to top speed when it approaches the target area.

The Kh-15 is a solid rocket fuelled weapon that would fly at high speed all the way, but there is some question as to whether an anti ship model actually entered service or not.

The Kh-15 was primarily a defence penetration weapon that dives at mach 5 on enemy radar and communication sites and would be used by either strategic bombers to take out major SAM or radar sites or major airfields in its path, or by the Tu-22M3 on a similar theatre mission into europe. The standard warhead would be nuclear.

I think that in current times of layered ADS subsonic missiles are useless. I'm pretty sure a klub would get shot down long before releasing its payload(not to mention the fully subsonic club with 400kg warhead). Same with the kh-35.

So what you are saying is that western anti ship capability is currently impotent?

The problem with paper warfare is that it excludes the real world from the calculations.

The Sheffield was destroyed by an exocet missile. If we had discussed this in 1981 you would have said that the British have Exocet missiles in their arsenal and are very familiar with them and there was no way an exocet missile would penetrate British naval air defences in this day and age... Seawolf can intercept individual 114mm artillery shells... and exocet would be dead meat.

Does the P-700 and P-1000 stay supersonic at mach 2,5-8 throughout its flightime?

At altitude... and mach 2.5 is a good approximation of their speed. Brahmos II will increase this speed to mach 5-7, but will also be at high altitude.

Most people think of the aegis as some kind superpower weapon that is the silver bullet to all of the missiles the soviets could muster. Fanboys would make " our f*cking aegis will shoot down all of your soviet missiles and our F-14s would shoot down all your missile trucks from 300miles away while our AWACS would detect you from 500 miles away so keep on dreaming rus" type comments.

Yes, the US ships combine the magic properties of being able to see everything but at the same time be invisible and stealthy...  Funny thing is that the Russians are spending money on their satellite network...  

BTW F-14s and Phoenix missiles cannot engage targets over a wide field of regard, so it could engage high targets or low targets but not both at the same time. Also I rather doubt its performance against high speed targets flying at 25,000m like Kh-22M missiles...

I noticed there was no major discussion/poll like this out there, so here we go! The RIM-116 Rolling Airframe Missile definitely seems like a threat to Russian missiles, so with this system included, what do you think the possibility of a successful hit is? I would like to note that this includes all current/near-future ships, missiles, CIWS etc. Keep in mind the RAM is only on a few US ships, but on almost every German warship.

I know Navy officials have stated that the new Kalibr (Klub) equipped with the "supersonic warhead" is their biggest concern in the missile department, but unfortunately I can not find that article.

Also, it would be cool be if this topic could also be on developments of the naval Pantsir system, and CIWS in general.

Thanks, in advance.

- Mike E.

This is a misleading topic.

The topic and participation in its discussions may create the illusion in some readers that there is a real possibility that, let's say, Aegis can shoot down an Oniks.

Technically, the probability of Aegis shooting down an Oniks is, literally, less that shooting the Oniks down by someone throwing a piece of rock at the missile.

Doesn't mean it absolutely can't. The Ticonderogas only have two Phalanx systems, as do some Burkes, which means they stand almost no chance against the Oniks.

Don't forget this topic is meant to include all AEGIS ships and ships with software like AEGIS. Including the Type 45 etc.

That being said, the RAM seems like a "decent" system.

Morpheus Eberhardt wrote:This is a misleading topic.

The topic and participation in its discussions may create the illusion in some readers that there is a real possibility that, let's say, Aegis can shoot down an Oniks.

Technically, the probability of Aegis shooting down an Oniks is, literally, less that shooting the Oniks down by someone throwing a piece of rock at the missile.

Precisely ! But still I am the one voted 60-80% because there is a substantial chance of malfunction or misfire. Now if we talk about 4-5 simultaneous launches....

Then they would stand no chance, almost!

RAM is a nice looking missile... the Russians will have a similar missile in service in a few years time based on the 9M100 AAM/Morfei SAM.

The question really is... is RAM accurate enough to get the sort of hit that will bring down an Onyx missile.

Patriot showed in the Gulf War that hitting the target alone is simply not enough... a very high speed ballistic target with titanium armour might be too difficult for the Sea RAM to deal with.

GarryB wrote:RAM is a nice looking missile... the Russians will have a similar missile in service in a few years time based on the 9M100 AAM/Morfei SAM.

The question really is... is RAM accurate enough to get the sort of hit that will bring down an Onyx missile.

Patriot showed in the Gulf War that hitting the target alone is simply not enough... a very high speed ballistic target with titanium armour might be too difficult for the Sea RAM to deal with.

And Onyx's kinetic energy alone could probably sink most smaller ships.

hmm an additional material :

https://www.scribd.com/doc/267396243/Naval-Engineers-Journal-Volume-109-Issue-1-1997-J-F-McEachron-Subsonic-and-Supersonic-Antiship-Missiles-An-Effectiveness-and-Utility-Comparison

Basically outlines consideration and design of anti ship missile. This seems explain well why US stick with Harpoon for so long and replace it with another subsonic LRASM-A and Kongsberg NSM.

Is this a correct representation on the effectiveness of aegis vs supersonic missiles? It says that for each aegis equipped ship you need over 25 AShMs to bring it down, not counting any additional support it might have. Can the Russian navy bring that kind of firepower?

We talking about the same AEGIS class cruiser that penetrated Iranian waters in the late 1980s and was almost destroyed by an Airbus?

I doubt we can be sure until an actual attack is successfully repulsed, but the Kh-32 and Onyx and Moskit would not be easy beats... we were told Patriot could shoot down Scuds remember...

KomissarBojanchev wrote:

Is this a correct representation on the effectiveness of aegis vs supersonic missiles? It says that for each aegis equipped ship you need over 25 AShMs to bring it down, not counting any additional support it might have. Can the Russian navy bring that kind of firepower?

You shouldn't be so easily swayed by crude black propaganda. The HMS Sheffield was sunk by a "1" Excocet missile in the Falklands War, and the HMS Sheffield has a displacement of 4,820 tons, compare that to the Arleigh Burke classes 9800 tons. For it to take 25 AShMs, you would need a 100k ton displacement, and keep in mind P-800 Onyx warhead is almost 100kg's heavier (Exocet 165kg's, Onyx 250kg's). Theoretically speaking it would only need 1 to 2 Onyx to sink a Arleigh Burke destroyer, and is it mere coincidence that the Bastion-P launcher (that fires Onyx AShM's from a land vehicle) has a standard load of 2 Onyx missiles?...I think not!

KomissarBojanchev wrote:

Is this a correct representation on the effectiveness of aegis vs supersonic missiles? It says that for each aegis equipped ship you need over 25 AShMs to bring it down, not counting any additional support it might have. Can the Russian navy bring that kind of firepower?

I've seen a few of this guy's videos now... and they're pretty bad. I think what makes it worse is that he poses as a Russian.

OminousSpudd wrote:

KomissarBojanchev wrote:

Is this a correct representation on the effectiveness of aegis vs supersonic missiles? It says that for each aegis equipped ship you need over 25 AShMs to bring it down, not counting any additional support it might have. Can the Russian navy bring that kind of firepower?

I've seen a few of this guy's videos now... and they're pretty bad. I think what makes it worse is that he poses as a Russian.

Yeah I'm starting to believe he isn't Russian. He tries to be balanced but he honestly goes full retard especially in his Russia vs turkey video by not taking into account Russian land based cruise missiles, and considering the T-72B as terrible while the M60 as "adequate".

magnumcromagnon wrote:

KomissarBojanchev wrote:

Is this a correct representation on the effectiveness of aegis vs supersonic missiles? It says that for each aegis equipped ship you need over 25 AShMs to bring it down, not counting any additional support it might have. Can the Russian navy bring that kind of firepower?

You shouldn't be so easily swayed by crude black propaganda. The HMS Sheffield was sunk by a "1" Excocet missile in the Falklands War, and the HMS Sheffield has a displacement of 4,820 tons, compare that to the Arleigh Burke classes 9800 tons. For it to take 25 AShMs, you would need a 100k ton displacement, and keep in mind P-800 Onyx warhead is almost 100kg's heavier (Exocet 165kg's, Onyx 250kg's). Theoretically speaking it would only need 1 to 2 Onyx to sink a Arleigh Burke destroyer, and is it mere coincidence that the Bastion-P launcher (that fires Onyx AShM's from a land vehicle) has a standard load of 2 Onyx missiles?...I think not!

I'm talking about the number of missiles that the target will destroy until one missile gets through.

KomissarBojanchev wrote:

Is this a correct representation on the effectiveness of aegis vs supersonic missiles? It says that for each aegis equipped ship you need over 25 AShMs to bring it down, not counting any additional support it might have. Can the Russian navy bring that kind of firepower?

https://defencyclopedia.com/2014/12/27/explained-how-the-us-navy-can-shoot-down-the-deadly-brahmos-missile/

An other analyse that is according to me better done.

You shouldn't be so easily swayed by crude black propaganda. The HMS Sheffield was sunk by a "1" Excocet missile in the Falklands War, and the HMS Sheffield has a displacement of 4,820 tons, compare that to the Arleigh Burke classes 9800 tons. For it to take 25 AShMs, you would need a 100k ton displacement, and keep in mind P-800 Onyx warhead is almost 100kg's heavier (Exocet 165kg's, Onyx 250kg's). Theoretically speaking it would only need 1 to 2 Onyx to sink a Arleigh Burke destroyer, and is it mere coincidence that the Bastion-P launcher (that fires Onyx AShM's from a land vehicle) has a standard load of 2 Onyx missiles?...I think not!

I would add one critical piece of information... of all the Exocets that sank several boats in the falklands conflict... AFAIK none of them were believed to have actually exploded. Most just burned until the fire set off ammo or fuel...

If you look at OS's signature picture to see what sort of damage a fast moving missile can create... one hit will be enough.

Also keep in mind that Granit is a 7 ton missile at launch... even when it arrives on target it is several tons moving as fast as most rifle bullets and it has an armoured warhead that shrapnel or even 20mm cannon shells are rather unlikely to set off.

Some models actually hit the water 20m short of hitting the ship and detonate when it penetrates the hull... which would direct all the blast into the ship as the sea water behind it wont compress...

When tested against actual sea skimming targets the Phalanx was found to be useless despite claiming it was capable against mach 2.5 Vandal targets it seems that very low flying targets create multipath returns with the radar off the wavetops... hense Sea RAM was developed... but I personally doubt it has the hitting power for the job.

I would say the country with the most experience with supersonic anti ship missiles are the Russians... and they fit CIWS based on 30mm cannon and short range missiles in large numbers on all their vessels...

GarryB wrote:

You shouldn't be so easily swayed by crude black propaganda. The HMS Sheffield was sunk by a "1" Excocet missile in the Falklands War, and the HMS Sheffield has a displacement of 4,820 tons, compare that to the Arleigh Burke classes 9800 tons. For it to take 25 AShMs, you would need a 100k ton displacement, and keep in mind P-800 Onyx warhead is almost 100kg's heavier (Exocet 165kg's, Onyx 250kg's). Theoretically speaking it would only need 1 to 2 Onyx to sink a Arleigh Burke destroyer, and is it mere coincidence that the Bastion-P launcher (that fires Onyx AShM's from a land vehicle) has a standard load of 2 Onyx missiles?...I think not!

I would add one critical piece of information... of all the Exocets that sank several boats in the falklands conflict... AFAIK none of them were believed to have actually exploded. Most just burned until the fire set off ammo or fuel...

If you look at OS's signature picture to see what sort of damage a fast moving missile can create... one hit will be enough.

Also keep in mind that Granit is a 7 ton missile at launch... even when it arrives on target it is several tons moving as fast as most rifle bullets and it has an armoured warhead that shrapnel or even 20mm cannon shells are rather unlikely to set off.

Some models actually hit the water 20m short of hitting the ship and detonate when it penetrates the hull... which would direct all the blast into the ship as the sea water behind it wont compress...

When tested against actual sea skimming targets the Phalanx was found to be useless despite claiming it was capable against mach 2.5 Vandal targets it seems that very low flying targets create multipath returns with the radar off the wavetops... hense Sea RAM was developed... but I personally doubt it has the hitting power for the job.

I would say the country with the most experience with supersonic anti ship missiles are the Russians... and they fit CIWS based on 30mm cannon and short range missiles in large numbers on all their vessels...

What if those 20mm shells destroy the engine or slice off the P-700's wing?

What if those 20mm shells destroy the engine or slice off the P-700's wing?

The P-700 is moving at almost a kilometre a second... how many rounds do you actually think will even get a hit.

Even if it took both wings completely off at 1km or less range it is an object weighing several tons... it will keep going the way it was going... it will likely hit something the size of a large ship anyway.

The projectiles from Phalanx are 12.7mm calibre slugs of DU designed to penetrate armour... not remove limbs or appendages... if they hit anything they will punch little holes in things... if the hit the core body of the incoming missile they will likely be deflected by the Titanium armour protecting the warhead.

KomissarBojanchev wrote:

What if those 20mm shells destroy the engine or slice off the P-700's wing?

The Phalanax muzzle velocity is 1km/sec. The bullets of it won't capable even theoretical to hit granit/onyx from behind.
Means if it start to fire at 2km distance then if the targeting was OK the bullets will meet the granit/onyx one second later , midway.

Of course if the missile is so nasty to use up this one second do say move only 2 meter off from the calculated position, then the bullets will kill the air.

If the granit/onyx has 20g manoeuvring capability then the phalanx will miss it by 600 something meter at 2 km, and at the collision with target it will miss it by 60 meters.

Only chance to kill it if it is so kind to not to manoeuvre.

Only thing that has chance to kill is the mid range RIM-162 Evolved SeaSparrow Missile.

The long range missiles with active seeker won't have chance to kill it, all of them has same speed like the missile, and the active head prompt the missile to do evasion manoeuvres ( unless the russians left out this 10 000 $ option from the 3 000 000 000 $ missile)

But the granit/onyx will do evasion here as well as soon as it feel the X band illuminators, so the high kill chance will be around 14 km distance from the ship at the end of the ESSM boost phase, out of that range it will decrease dramatically.

I spent same time to research the chances to kill a supersonic missile with a SAM.

Interesting result.

The Antley -2500 gladiator SAM has 0.6 chance to kill a non manoeuvring Lance ballistic missile.
http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-Giant-Gladiator.html#mozTocId912634

Say if it has 0.4 chance to kill a manoeuvring target then it needs 5 rocket for 90% kill chance.

The gladiator is a monster, 10 meters long, 6 tons heavy.

The advanced sea sparrow 3.6 meters long and 280 kg.


The gladiator is designed against fast moving supersonic targets.


What can be the kill chance of a sea sparrow against a granit or onyx? 0.2 ?

Realistic it means the aegis has to launch 160 rocket against a 16 onyx salvo to kill 14 of them.

However the kill chance smaller if the target is out of the optimal engagement range ( if the acceleration of the sea sparrow is 7 g then it will be around 14 km) , so 160 SAM will let through 4-8 onyx by quite high chance.

In the time of the heated debate around the complex Х-47М2 "Кинжал" is interesting to read this article about the ,by now, strangely overlooked X-32 complex already in combat duty since several years, examining its chances to achieve destruction of US CVBG defended by Aegis system with the most advanced SM-6 interceptors.


https://vpk-news.ru/articles/41779