Anti-Ship Missiles Thread

JohninMK wrote:
Would it be correct to assume that wolf pack operation is unlikely to be very important for shore based systems as the single prime target, the carrier, is unlikely to be within range of Russian shore batteries?

GarryB wrote:

Did the Sepal also dropped to a low altitude when engaging its target ? but not a sea skimmer ? but I'm assuming was a lot more vulnerable given it could not be ripple fired like bazalt and it was also a lot slower ?

They would not be fired one at a time at targets... they would be coordinated. They were not sea skimmers in the tradition sense but an enemy ship approaching the Russian coastline wont be broadcasting its position with radars operating all the time so the threat of an incoming missile would be significant... turning on SAMs to defend the vessel would broadcast the vessels position to all in the region....

GarryB wrote:They knew the US forces could detect their missiles from long distances... the purpose of high speed is to reduce the time they have to do something about it.

The early models of missile were not sea skimming... they flew at 50m altitude or so.
The new missiles however are fully sea skimming and can hit land targets now too.

They are working on scramjet motors for the new missiles, but currently the fastest missile they have has a rocket propelled speed of mach 2.9 for the terminal phase of the attack.

Moskit is reportedly able to fly at mach 2.2 at low altitude. Granit at mach 1.6 at the start of its flight and mach 2 near the end when it is much lighter having burned off several tons of fuel.

Granit has titanium armour to protect the warhead and would be rather difficult to shoot down.

Tsavo Lion wrote:Перед самым выходом российских кораблей к берегам Сирии Северный флот показательно провел учения, в ходе которых атомная подводная лодка проекта 949 «Антей» поразила «Гранитами» еще и несколько наземных целей. Transl.: Just before sailing to the coast of Syria, the Northern Fleet conducted exercises during which nuclear submarine Project 949 "Antey" [Oskar SSGN] struck with "Granite" a few ground targets. http://izvestia.ru/news/654331#ixzz4UMFphf7A
So, will they keep & expend them in that role even after they r replaced in anti-ship role with newer missiles?

Singular_Transform wrote:

Tsavo Lion wrote:Перед самым выходом российских кораблей к берегам Сирии Северный флот показательно провел учения, в ходе которых атомная подводная лодка проекта 949 «Антей» поразила «Гранитами» еще и несколько наземных целей. Transl.: Just before sailing to the coast of Syria, the Northern Fleet conducted exercises during which nuclear submarine Project 949 "Antey" [Oskar SSGN]   struck with "Granite" a few ground targets. http://izvestia.ru/news/654331#ixzz4UMFphf7A
So, will they keep & expend them in that role even after they r replaced in anti-ship role with newer missiles?

These are heavy, 7 tons monsters.

With upgraded electronics the range of them should be higher than before OR they can have more electronic countermeasure than before OR additional capabilities that fit few hundred (max 500) kg.


Just for reference, a MIG-21 is 8.8 tons, a granit is 7 tons.

These are small fighter jet sized missiles.

GarryB wrote:

Actually for AEGIS it would be better to attack from one direction as the number of engagement (ie SAM guidance channels) would be reduced and of course other defences like jammers and decoys would be less effective...

Peŕrier wrote:What's the use of dozens of missiles when operating within home waters and with two or three weeks Endurance?

Any engagement will last an handful of hours if not minutes anyway, and It will end with one side being disabled or sunk by an handful of missiles.

In both cases, being the winner or the Lost, the Mission will be over and if being the winning side a port call to rearm and refuel will be at hand.

Greater numbers of weapons and ammunition are required for long off-shore missions, not for home waters defense.

About specialization in in large ships, first AAW missions require highly specialized hardware, second AAW ships have their specific geographic position in a Battle Plan.

So whatever the ship engaged with AAW missions, most of times It will find itself in a location where performing ASW missions will be hard or impossible.

The same applies to ASW ships as well.

Having antiship weapons could be ubiquitous, even having stand off Land attack capabilities could be ubiquitous, but AAW and ASW missions should be kept well distinct between them both functionally and phisically, i.e. in different hulls.

Udaloys are the ASW assets up to now and are fine ships, but Sovremennys are likely useless and need a replacement ASAP in my hopinion.

Peŕrier wrote:So, your opponents after having sailed thousand of miles, and having almost no chance to rearm, launches an all out attack against your corvettes?

Why?

To get a mission kill against itself depleting its own weapons?

In naval warfare experience, a lesson learned is that if an attack fail, it is mostly because the opponents ECM defeated missiles sensors, and the right answer is to change type of weapon and or try to change/trim your weapons' tracking system behavior.

The first is the only option at hand while already engaged in a fight, the second being implemented only with time available.

So nobody would launch again and again missiles that have already failed to hit the target, only to hope someone would finally hit something different from water.

And against minor vessels like corvettes and attack boats, AAW defenses being minimal, even a saturation attack, to overcome SHORAD and CIWS if ECM was not the cause of failures, would require a little more than an handful of missiles.

In the end, either your missiles overcame enemy's ECM and AAW defenses, while yours succeeded in defeating incoming missiles, or no amount of missiles embarked will save small vessels against an enemy task force of larger vessels, with more ECMs, more and more powerful sensors, more kind of weapons and so on.

At sea, size does matter.

The real alternative would be to have several different kind of weapons, that was what Soviet Union did in the past, so to give enemy a real headache trying to defeat several different kinds of pattern of attack and guidance systems.

In naval warfare experience, a lesson learned is that if an attack fail, it is mostly because the opponents ECM defeated missiles sensors, and the right answer is to change type of weapon and or try to change/trim your weapons' tracking system behavior.

At sea, size does matter.

In the end, either your missiles overcame enemy's ECM and AAW defenses, while yours succeeded in defeating incoming missiles, or no amount of missiles embarked will save small vessels against an enemy task force of larger vessels, with more ECMs, more and more powerful sensors, more kind of weapons and so on.