VMF vs. USN scenarios

hoom wrote:

So, you saying that 8 harpoon=8 Onxy , and 1 tomahawk = 1 Onyx?

I meant it purely quantitatively.
Qualitatively Onyx & Sizzler would obviously be rated higher than Harpoon.

But if you're only sending 8 vs a Burke it probably wouldn't make a difference which type you send.
16* Onyx/Sizzler maybe.

As pointed out above US does have Mach 2.5 sea-skimming drones & shoots them down successfully with ABs.
Russian AA missiles mostly have quoted max target speeds well over Mach 2.5 also.

No one saying that it is not possible to shoot a supersonic missile.


The century old question is how many SAM you need to kill a tomahawk , and how many to kill an onyx?

We know that a vintage BUK with low training level operators killed one popeye with two rocket.


Means one SAM has quite high, probably 90-95% chance to kill a tomahawk.


The question is the onyx.

The US military publicly consider 4 SAM to kill one onyx.

Means that the chance to kill is somewhere between 50-80%.

The chance to kill depend on a lot of things that can be controller by the attacker , like weather, attack pattern , amount of rockets , software, evasion tactics and so on.

So, if we say the onyx has 50% chance to kill by one medium range SAM then the chance to kill the onyx is 6.25% if you shoot four SAM onto it.
If you use 5 SAM per onyx then the chance to kill is 3.12%.

It clarify the tactics of the attacker : shortest way to the target distributed as far as possibly from each other.


So optimal tactics is to have four attacker ship on four side of the AB or the carrier battle group , launching 16-64 rockets at the same time, number depending on weather, type of ship, information about the target and so on.



Means that from 16 onyx one will pass the air defence AT LEAST.


Say the short range defence stuff on the ship has 50 % chance to kill the intruder as well ( I think it is lower than that, but without having access to the extremely highly classified test data I can't make assessment) then you need 32 onyx to hit with one the ship .


See? If you change the tactics/programming/weather then this chance can go up or down.Example using chaff on the onyx, or ECM , or whatever that one million man-year can found to counter the defence of the enemy ships. Of course the enemy ship can use similar tactics.

Could say the same about Russian vessels when Hypersonic Zircon enters service...

A Gorshkov with Zircon will still only have 16* max while an AB can have anything up to 96* LRASM.
That switch from separate inclined launchers to Mk41 VLS is a big step up.
(I never understood why they didn't at least make a VLS Harpoon )

The US military publicly consider 4 SAM to kill one onyx.

Didn't know that, makes an 8* Onyx salvo quite a lot more scary than I'd been giving credit for.

hoom wrote:while an AB can have anything up to 96* LRASM.

There is zero chance the Uh'Murikkkanz would load-out a Burke with nothing but AShMs. No SAMs?  No land-attack?  pfftt... no chance.

If Burkes ever need to combat Russian forces within range of Russian land-based strike aviation and SSGNs you can bet they will place great emphasis on SAMs.

There is zero chance the Uh'Murikkkanz would load-out a Burke with nothing but AShMs. No SAMs? No land-attack? pfftt... no chance.

Not for a practical loadout but they could since all its VLS are compatible.
They did load one with all Tomahawks for attacking Libya, escorted by a couple with normal AA loadout. It'd obviously have made more sense to split the Tomahawks between the 3* Burkes but they didn't.

[quote="hoom"Didn't know that, makes an 8* Onyx salvo quite a lot more scary than I'd been giving credit for.[/quote]

It showing that you never spend time to consider/calculate the chances for this type of missile.



Basic rule is every unit has to use 4 sam for one target.

By the historical experiences the SAM has quite low hit probability, the Israel iron dome has something like 70-90% against subsonic non manoeuvrable, ballistic targets.

Here you have manoeuvring, supersonic ( 2-4 match ) fast , high G capable small radar cross section targets, that can see the incoming missiles as well ( if not now then after a electronic pack update) .

The Onix is at the end of its trajectory, means it can accelerate by 2 g with its engine, and can turn by dozens of gs.

And the ship has 50 seconds to do anything about it, means if it can launch say 4 SAM / seconds, then it can have 200 in due time, but it will be a bit difficult to illuminate all targets for the 200 sam, considering that the AB has only 5-10 illuminator.


Means that if you consider the realistic scenarios then the best chance for the ship to survive is if it using chaff and ECM .

And that is the reason why they communicate with each other and prioritise the targets : )

The subsonic is a bit different, in that case the ship can launch 600 rocket, means that by simple calculation it can kill at least 3 times more subsonic rocket than supersonic ones.

Project Canada wrote:Is there a Russian counterpart of the LRASM that is in the works?

For what inexplicable reason would be necessary to return significantly backward in the technological scale only to reproduce the limited capabilities of a foreign air launched land attack cruise missile rush-adapted for the anti-ship role only for the effect of a wide technological gap in the field.

That would be absurd and even humiliating for domestic Institutes like being forced to quickly adapt an Х-555 - a missile, exactly like AGM-158, with an aerodynamic layout and sensor suit conceived for cruise at optimal altitude ,acquire and strike fixed ground targets avoiding area covered by enemy air defenses, not for sudden over horizon pop up target acquisition, sea skimming approach at few meters from wakes, wolf-pack data sharing and flight approach, pseudo-random violent terminal maneuvring to attempt to dodge interception by the unavoidable medium and close range defenses present on the target, pre-computed variation of altitude and angle of illumination of the target to minimize effect of decoy and ECMs etc...-to anti-ship role because no other long range missile of any kind, even less an anti-ship missile of level superior to П-120 «Малахит», would be available to cover the role.

Posing a similar question in a room at Mашиностроения or Новатор would be taken as a failed attempt at joking or an open provocation.

A missile like today 3M-54 is ,in the anti-ship role, under a mere technical content and performance metrics aggregate,  head, shoulder, waist, knees, feets and 5-6 meters above the level of a stop-gap rushed adaptation like LRASM.

We will see what will be the true choice for the next decade by part of US Navy with OASuW increment II selection.

Mindstorm wrote:pseudo-random violent terminal maneuvring to attempt to dodge interception by the unavoidable medium and close range defenses present on the target

Mindstorm, can you elaborate on this part as to how a missile performs such manoeuvres? Also, which missile are you referring to - П-120 «Малахит»? Thanks.

Thank you for making my point... a new Russian FRIGATE will have 16 hypersonic (ie mach 8+) anti ship or land attack missiles vs a US CRUISER with 96 subsonic anti ship missiles... no wonder they rely on their carriers...

The point was whether or not Gorshkov has at least 1/2 the firepower of an AB.
I'm saying that in total number of missiles yes 1/2.
In number of anti-ship missiles, currently 2* AB but that won't last, its not an insult to Gorshkov or Russian missiles, just a numerical fact.

assuming that the Dzirkiy corvettes are armed with both Poliment Redoute

Redut but not Poliment.
Poliment is the radar on Gorshkov, 20386 will have a different radar system 'Zaslon' (Barrier) so it'll be Zaslon-Redut.

96 Subsonic missiles that don't get through a ships defences are not better than 16 supersonic missiles that do

Even PtG is not going to be able to handle that kind of salvo coming in simultaneous & multi-direction.
Gorshkov certainly won't be shooting down 96* with only 32 SAMs.

GarryB wrote:96 Subsonic missiles that don't get through a ships defences

There are no such defences.

Dennis_3003 wrote:Does anyone know when the Gorshkov is finally going to be commissioned?

They're working on its defences. Apparently needs to intercept 96 Tomahawks, harpoons and SM-6s.

hoom wrote:

assuming that the Dzirkiy corvettes are armed with both Poliment Redoute

Redut but not Poliment.
Poliment is the radar on Gorshkov, 20386 will have a different radar system 'Zaslon' (Barrier) so it'll be Zaslon-Redut.

96 Subsonic missiles that don't get through a ships defences are not better than 16 supersonic missiles that do

Even PtG is not going to be able to handle that kind of salvo coming in simultaneous & multi-direction.
Gorshkov certainly won't be shooting down 96* with only 32 SAMs.

People give too little credit to missiles being high-subsonic. Its far from easy to hit something flying at 850ish km/h few m above sea surface. I am actually doubtful any ship in the would would survive 12 missile salvo of Harpoons, one would go through no matter what.

hoom wrote:

assuming that the Dzirkiy corvettes are armed with both Poliment Redoute

Redut but not Poliment.
Poliment is the radar on Gorshkov, 20386 will have a different radar system 'Zaslon' (Barrier) so it'll be Zaslon-Redut.

96 Subsonic missiles that don't get through a ships defences are not better than 16 supersonic missiles that do

Even PtG is not going to be able to handle that kind of salvo coming in simultaneous & multi-direction.
Gorshkov certainly won't be shooting down 96* with only 32 SAMs.

It has 128 short range SAM max.

The AB has four in one VLS as well from short range ones.

So the Gorshkov actualy can kill max 128 Tomahawk.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Admiral_Gorshkov-class_frigate
32 (4 × 8 ) Redut VLS cells housing 9M96, 9M96M, 9M96D/9M96DM(M2) family of missiles and/or quad-packed 9M100 short range missiles


So, it has chance to survive a 96 rocket Tomahawk salvo.

And the AB has no chance to survive in that case the 4 onyx salvo that the G can send back, considering it has only 96 launch canister.

Militarov wrote:

hoom wrote:

assuming that the Dzirkiy corvettes are armed with both Poliment Redoute

Redut but not Poliment.
Poliment is the radar on Gorshkov, 20386 will have a different radar system 'Zaslon' (Barrier) so it'll be Zaslon-Redut.

96 Subsonic missiles that don't get through a ships defences are not better than 16 supersonic missiles that do

Even PtG is not going to be able to handle that kind of salvo coming in simultaneous & multi-direction.
Gorshkov certainly won't be shooting down 96* with only 32 SAMs.

People give too little credit to missiles being high-subsonic. Its far from easy to hit something flying at 850ish km/h few m above sea surface. I am actually doubtful any ship in the would would survive 12 missile salvo of Harpoons, one would go through no matter what.

Good, so if you think that no ship can survive a 12 missile salvo, then what do you think aout the survival chance against 2.5-5 mach fast missile salvo?

if 12 harpoon enought, then 2-4 onix should be enought against any ship : )


Means the Kuznetsov can single handed kill a complete carrier group.

Singular_Transform wrote:if 12 harpoon enought, then 2-4 onix should be enought against any ship : )


Means the Kuznetsov can single handed kill a complete carrier group.

The Kuz won't even reach within 1,000 km of any US carrier group, I mean the ship right now is busy trashing its own air group. Jokes aside these old Soviet missiles are known quantity for NATO and can be promptly jammed/baited, especially at the extreme end of their operational envelope. Which is about 500 km really.

There is little difference in intercepting a Mach 0.9, 1.0 or even 2.0 target. Speed is secondary, flight profile is the essence and loosing tracking of the target by the wolf pack is what will make the difference. In an EW-heavy environment and given the de facto superiority of long-range USN AEW&C assets, the latter can be highly influenced and rendered useless.

Also once those 12 or so silver bullets are launched, the launching platform will be trashed. 10, 20 or 30 cruise missiles will come its way.

Singular_Transform wrote:

Militarov wrote:

hoom wrote:

assuming that the Dzirkiy corvettes are armed with both Poliment Redoute

Redut but not Poliment.
Poliment is the radar on Gorshkov, 20386 will have a different radar system 'Zaslon' (Barrier) so it'll be Zaslon-Redut.

96 Subsonic missiles that don't get through a ships defences are not better than 16 supersonic missiles that do

Even PtG is not going to be able to handle that kind of salvo coming in simultaneous & multi-direction.
Gorshkov certainly won't be shooting down 96* with only 32 SAMs.

People give too little credit to missiles being high-subsonic. Its far from easy to hit something flying at 850ish km/h few m above sea surface. I am actually doubtful any ship in the would would survive 12 missile salvo of Harpoons, one would go through no matter what.

Good, so if you think that no ship can survive a 12 missile salvo, then what do you think aout the survival chance against 2.5-5 mach fast missile salvo?

if 12 harpoon enought, then 2-4 onix should be enought against any ship : )


Means the Kuznetsov can single handed kill a complete carrier group.

Lets look at it this way, what are chances of Kuz ever getting into position of using Granits aganist USN? Quite slim IMHO.

Carrier groups are often over 20 ships in wartime actually.

Militarov wrote:

Singular_Transform wrote:

Militarov wrote:

hoom wrote:

assuming that the Dzirkiy corvettes are armed with both Poliment Redoute

Redut but not Poliment.
Poliment is the radar on Gorshkov, 20386 will have a different radar system 'Zaslon' (Barrier) so it'll be Zaslon-Redut.

96 Subsonic missiles that don't get through a ships defences are not better than 16 supersonic missiles that do

Even PtG is not going to be able to handle that kind of salvo coming in simultaneous & multi-direction.
Gorshkov certainly won't be shooting down 96* with only 32 SAMs.

People give too little credit to missiles being high-subsonic. Its far from easy to hit something flying at 850ish km/h few m above sea surface. I am actually doubtful any ship in the would would survive 12 missile salvo of Harpoons, one would go through no matter what.

Good, so if you think that no ship can survive a 12 missile salvo, then what do you think aout the survival chance against 2.5-5 mach fast missile salvo?

if 12 harpoon enought, then 2-4 onix should be enought against any ship : )


Means the Kuznetsov can single handed kill a complete carrier group.

Lets look at it this way, what are chances of Kuz ever getting into position of using Granits aganist USN? Quite slim IMHO.

Carrier groups are often over 20 ships in wartime actually.

It needs to get 600-1000km distance.

not impossible feat.

But it can not kill a 20 ship group alone. 16 granit is not enought for that.

It can kill a 5-6 ship group alone : )


And I think you miss the point: IF 12 harpoon enough to kill any ship then what can be the effect of 16 granit?

Considering the harpoon has something like 50-70 km range, the granit has 500-1000 km range.


The granit has as big range as the nimitz f/a-18 with the harpoon together .


Simple math, isn't it?

KiloGolf wrote:The Kuz won't even reach within 1,000 km of any US carrier group

You're full of **it KG.... You know very well that the K will be used defensively in any future conflict with the US, so for any USN CBG to come within 1000 clicks of the K they need to come within 1000 clicks of Russian land-based strike aviation, coastal submarines and land based missiles. A US CBG will severely degraded by stand-off weapons before they even get close.....

Sink just one US flattop and you will shred the fake aura of invulnerability that the Yankistanis have cultivated around themselves. The sight of a flatop turned turtle, full of 5000 good-old boy Uh'Murikkkan sailors, and blazing from stem to stern will be a 1st class PR disaster for Exceptionalistan. The USN brass KNOWS that their vaunted carriers are big slow hulking targets in an open ocean that stick out like dogs balls with a huge welcome mat to modern high-supersonic (or hypersonic) stand-off weapons. Its traditionally easier to attack than defend, and if anyone really thinks that modern Russian AShMs are not effective they need their heads read. The Soviets had developed wolf-pack capabilities for SS-N-12s & 19s back in the late 70s. You think modern weapons won't have far superior networking, intelligently flexible targetting and ECCM capabilities?

NWO/NATOstani establishment wet-dreams about taking down the Kuznetsov in any future war shows how simple-minded our brain-washed Corporate NWO enforcers truly are. Russia is building her modernised military not to project power to the 4 corners of the planet in mimicry of Pax Uh'Murikkkana but to TARGET the points of weakness of the enemies conventional strength. China is doing the same, and judging by the near-panic within USN circles about their upcoming inability to operate in Chinas near abroad, they know the writing is on the wall.

KiloGolf wrote:

Singular_Transform wrote:if 12 harpoon enought, then 2-4 onix should be enought against any ship : )


Means the Kuznetsov can single handed kill a complete carrier group.

The Kuz won't even reach within 1,000 km of any US carrier group, I mean the ship right now is busy trashing its own air group. Jokes aside these old Soviet missiles are known quantity for NATO and can be promptly jammed/baited, especially at the extreme end of their operational envelope. Which is about 500 km really.

There is little difference in intercepting a Mach 0.9, 1.0 or even 2.0 target. Speed is secondary, flight profile is the essence and loosing tracking of the target by the wolf pack is what will make the difference. In an EW-heavy environment and given the de facto superiority of long-range USN AEW&C assets, the latter can be highly influenced and rendered useless.

Also once those 12 or so silver bullets are launched, the launching platform will be trashed. 10, 20 or 30 cruise missiles will come its way.

Maybe the US military and the laws of physics doesn't share your view.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_SR-71_Blackbird
Maximum speed: Mach 3.3
The SR-71 had a radar cross-section (RCS) of around 10 square meters.
During aerial reconnaissance missions, the SR-71 operated at high speeds and altitudes to allow it to outrace threats. If a surface-to-air missile launch was detected, the standard evasive action was simply to accelerate and outfly the missile.

So, it was next to impossible to kill the blackbird with the strategic air defence.

The onyx(or gránit) faster,smaller, more agile,and attack in synchronised manner. (onyx thrust to weight:2.0-3.0, SR-71: 0.5)


What is the chance to kill one with one SAM? or 4? or 10 ?


Considering that the U2 was easy to kill, the SR-71 was impossible to kill.


So?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_SR-71_Blackbird

Singular_Transform wrote:

KiloGolf wrote:

Singular_Transform wrote:if 12 harpoon enought, then 2-4 onix should be enought against any ship : )


Means the Kuznetsov can single handed kill a complete carrier group.

The Kuz won't even reach within 1,000 km of any US carrier group, I mean the ship right now is busy trashing its own air group. Jokes aside these old Soviet missiles are known quantity for NATO and can be promptly jammed/baited, especially at the extreme end of their operational envelope. Which is about 500 km really.

There is little difference in intercepting a Mach 0.9, 1.0 or even 2.0 target. Speed is secondary, flight profile is the essence and loosing tracking of the target by the wolf pack is what will make the difference. In an EW-heavy environment and given the de facto superiority of long-range USN AEW&C assets, the latter can be highly influenced and rendered useless.

Also once those 12 or so silver bullets are launched, the launching platform will be trashed. 10, 20 or 30 cruise missiles will come its way.

Maybe the US military and the laws of physics doesn't share your view.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_SR-71_Blackbird
Maximum speed: Mach 3.3
The SR-71 had a radar cross-section (RCS) of around 10 square meters.
During aerial reconnaissance missions, the SR-71 operated at high speeds and altitudes to allow it to outrace threats. If a surface-to-air missile launch was detected, the standard evasive action was simply to accelerate and outfly the missile.

So, it was next to impossible to kill the blackbird with the strategic air defence.

The onyx(or gránit) faster,smaller, more agile,and attack in synchronised manner. (onyx thrust to weight:2.0-3.0, SR-71: 0.5)


What is the chance to kill one with one SAM? or 4? or 10 ?


Considering that the U2 was easy to kill, the SR-71 was impossible to kill.


So?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_SR-71_Blackbird

All I said was that Mach 2.5 is not what makes the Onyx special. I fact you have the SM-6 which can be launched from ABs and target ships as well as cruise missiles and it has a speed of Mach 3.5 with over 350 km range. So it's unwise to think certain Soviet legacy weapons have any serious relevance anymore, beyond being the standard naval threat that they are for the USN. Their capabilities used to be impressive, not anymore. And yes there's are ways in dealing with Onyx-equipped vessels, physics is not a problem here.

Here we go again with kilo being a retard.

No, Onyx isn't well known to NATO since it was introduced in the 90'S not so much earlier. Second, its speed is what gives it strength, next to its ability to operate in a jamming environment. So maybe 2 will be what can do. And harpoon/tomahawk has been jammed before, see Yugoslavia.

So as usual, your full of yourself and your lack of knowledge is showing. Better grow up kid.

KiloGolf wrote:

All I said was that Mach 2.5 is not what makes the Onyx special. I fact you have the SM-6 which can be launched from ABs and target ships as well as cruise missiles and it has a speed of Mach 3.5 with over 350 km range. So it's unwise to think certain Soviet legacy weapons have any serious relevance anymore, beyond being the standard naval threat that they are for the USN. Their capabilities used to be impressive, not anymore. And yes there's are ways in dealing with Onyx-equipped vessels, physics is not a problem here.

Great, so the AB has long range rocket with similar capabilities ,and chances to kill an over the horizon aircraft like the 1950s vintage SA-75 that shoot down the U-2 in 1960.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S-75_Dvina

Speed Mach 3.5

So, what is your point?

It was impossible to shoot down the SA-71 with a 3.5 match SAM , but it is possible to shoot doen a 3-4 match small ,agile rocket with a 3.5 match SAM?


Why ? Can you explain it?

Due to the nationality of the SAM?
Maybe it has a passport,and if the front of it contain the worlds "U.S.A." then laws of physic give allowance?

miketheterrible wrote:No, Onyx isn't well known to NATO since it was introduced in the 90'S not so much earlier

Introduced in the 90s basically means it's a Soviet weapon, over a quarter of a century old technology.
If Iran managed to procure Kh-55s back then, one can only guess what the USA and others did as well. It's a standard, old and known threat for the USN.