Aegis and supersonic antiship missiles. . .

If the target has plenty of aircraft it might try to overwhelm the carrier group.

the first and formost priority of the Carrier wing is to protect itself and then conduct strike missions , there is always a section of the force ready to launch into CAP to protect the wing. Furthermore try to imagine in the current scenario what would a strike package need to be to get past with a dozen or so(more but i’m taking the lower range) F-18E/F’s and F-18C ,D’s (f-35’s in the future) , a huge search and track active and passive detection system , AEW assets , AEGIS , ESSM , Phalynx , dedeicated sat. coverage and reports from other assets and then factor in that it would only be logical for the USAF and USN to conduct dedicated Strike missions (using host of stealthy and non stealthy assets,cruise missiles etc ) to destroy the enemies capability to launch large offensive packages to threaten anything , and even then the airspace would require the clearence of the USAF’s and USN’s assets that is to stay up and do anything worthwile the enemy would have to destroy USAF and USN assets that are dedicated to just one thing – destroying anything that goes up in the air capable of doing any sort of damage .

Remember the USN never goes to war alone .

A carrier group has a job to do. That is normally a strike role rather than to maintain CAP over foreign countries. Many of the fighters will be tied up protecting strike aircraft on missions and protecting the ships in the carrier group. That might leave support vessels… that carrier groups rely on vulnerable to attack. If the target has plenty of aircraft it might try to overwhelm the carrier group. Or it might attempt to use civilian air and sea traffic to mask an attack. Tactics cannot be ignored. The great raids of WWII include the Dambusters and what else? Kursk was more a tactic than a conventional battle (it was a trap). In open ocean a carrier group is formidible, but to deploy strike aircraft without local basing for tankers the group might need to travel in vulnerable places. For some targets in the ME the group might even need to enter the Persian Gulf. To give a sensible attack plan you need specifics but you can also develop a counter plan based on the same specifics. Those who might be on the receiving end of AEGIS would no doubt have at least looked at their options.

And of course the thread is about AEGIS and supersonic missiles… there are countries now with AEGIS class cruisers but no carriers.

Yeah, but those fighters really don’t stack up against every airforce on the planet.

Thats an interesting comparison , the fighters are not going to be going in by themselves , the USN will use them to defend its carriers (if it is an offensive op there will be tremendously more USN,USAF and coalition assets involved) , now the carriers are going to be located 100’s of miles from base , lets see which threat of the US can actually project credible force hundereds of miles offshore to defeat the fighter,Aegis etc defence ..

The number you can fit on a ship is not great, and the number you can get airborne at one time is even less. Jammers could simply be used as part of a trap to lure the carrier groups fighters away into a SAM or Fighter trap.

Can those interceptors close with the jamming target and destroy it quickly enough to get back to the fleet to prevent supersonic missiles taking out the only place for some distance where they can land? The jammer could be a decoy… and how many jammers will they have? Having one operating at a time could tie up the CAP screen for quite some time.

Again that is a bit onesided , you are assuming that the opposition uses great tactics while the defenders are dumbfounded , a good scenario but not a fair one IMO . If one uses great tactics and the other side is completely dumbfounded then we can talk about scenarios how the F-15’s are going to kill raptors and what not .

And aircraft carriers have these neat things called aircraft that can make life for those jammers REALLY exciting.

Yeah, but those fighters really don’t stack up against every airforce on the planet. The number you can fit on a ship is not great, and the number you can get airborne at one time is even less. Jammers could simply be used as part of a trap to lure the carrier groups fighters away into a SAM or Fighter trap.

Can those interceptors close with the jamming target and destroy it quickly enough to get back to the fleet to prevent supersonic missiles taking out the only place for some distance where they can land? The jammer could be a decoy… and how many jammers will they have? Having one operating at a time could tie up the CAP screen for quite some time.

Don’t know. (and niether do you) Today? Yeah.

But I do know. You don’t think the Russians just made up some specs on a whim? The known performance of the Standard I and Standard II then in service were used to develop the flight profiles of their anti ship weapons. The Kh-22M climbed to very high altitude as an option to overfly Phoenix while the SS-N-22 SUNBURN flew under Standard II.
When the Americans found out when the cold war ended they extended the capability of Standard II, however during the cold war the AEGIS was vulnerable.

I don’t recall Iran having aerial fleets of Brahmos toting Flankers escorted by ARM carrying attack aircraft. Maybe you know something we don’t?

Even if it did do you think that would effect the situation on the USN part? One irrational captain out to prove his robo cruiser (USN nickname given by other ships in region at time) would have waited for support before blundering into Iranian waters after a few speed boats armed with light unguided rockets and HMGs. If he couldn’t wait for F-14s from a nearby carrier groups why would he wait for a carrier group to support him. Besides one ship straying into Iranian waters could be claimed a mistake… a whole carrier groups straying into Iranian waters would be an act of war.

You’re kidding right?

No, I am not kidding. I have said supersonic anti ship missiles are better than an equivelent subsonic missile. I have not said all ships are made obsolete by these weapons.

might not make it to launch range with Phoenix armed Tomcats patrolling hundreds of miles out in front of the group.

Sorry to burst your bubble but the F-14s are gone.

BTW any idea if Alfa is dead? I keep hearing about Klub and Yakhont/Brahmos but Alfa I’ve heard nothing of lately.

I find the subject very confusing… the Club with the supersonic terminal portion was what I had assumed was Alpha. Otherwise Alpha is a 2-3,000km range cruise missile with a supersonic terminal phase to defeat defences around the target area. As such it seems to have lost out to the Kh-102.

Of course the USN has thought about tactics to defend its various assets but please allow the potential enemy some credit for also using their brains too.

How about where you said:

Quote:
It’s kind of amusing to see people portray supersonic antiship missiles as the end of the surface fleet and then read that Aegis was tagging them 30 years ago.

And? I was pointing out that the US had the capability to shoot down supersonic antiship missiles 30 years ago. Nothing more. One thing I’m surprised you didn’t jump on like a fly on stink is that it was a TEST ship. The first Aegis ship didn’t arrive in the fleet until the 80s. Then again neither did the first SS-N-19s. During that 1975 test if I had to guess I’d say they were simulating an SS-N-12.

Hawkeye can’t be jammed or decoyed?

Sure it can. With what? To get out where the Hawkeye is it’s going to have to be on an aircraft or a ship and Hawkeyes CAN detect where jamming is coming from. And aircraft carriers have these neat things called aircraft that can make life for those jammers REALLY exciting. So how are you going to keep jamming in place long enough to move your aerial armada in close enough to attack a carrier? Your best bet would be to pop up under that with a sub and forget the aerial BS altogether. Of course then you have to contend with SSNs and sub hunting helicopters but I’d say the chances are better there.

By a Standard II deployed in the 80s?

Don’t know. (and niether do you) Today? Yeah.

The Aegis cruiser that shot down the airbus in Iran was on its own and it steamed into Iranian waters after boghammers also on its own.

I don’t recall Iran having aerial fleets of Brahmos toting Flankers escorted by ARM carrying attack aircraft. Maybe you know something we don’t? :rolleyes:

And who here has said they are super dooper unstoppable weapons?

You’re kidding right?

Someone stated subsonic missiles are better than supersonic missiles. You seem to agree that Supersonic missiles are more of a challange… as long as they follow the sam flight profile that subsonic missiles have to fly. (ie a ballistic supersonic missile will be spotted at long range, but so would a subsonic missile on a ballistic flight profile, so I assume we are comparing apples with apples and assume both as sea skimmers)

Yep. Something that flies at altitude until say the last 20 – 30 miles and then becomes a sea-skimmer. Thing is though, honestly, if you’re going against a carrier it’s air defenses are going to reach out a LONG ways. You figure Backfires were going to be launching AS-4s as far as 300 miles out and even then their was a distinct possiblity they might not make it to launch range with Phoenix armed Tomcats patrolling hundreds of miles out in front of the group. I would NOT want to be in a Flanker attempting to fire Brahmos at a carrier battle group. BTW any idea if Alfa is dead? I keep hearing about Klub and Yakhont/Brahmos but Alfa I’ve heard nothing of lately.

Lets get facts straight –

* given all things equal are supersonic sea skimmers harder to shoot down then their subsonic counterparts – YES

* Are supersonic sea skimmers like moskit , brahmos , more expensive to plan a defence against -YES

* does the standard missile have a capaility to shoot it down – YES

* has the capability been demonstrated (SM and ESSM) – YES

* Did the SM-1 shoot down a supersonic attack missile in the 70’s – YES

* Was the supersonic missile representative of the tecnhology of today – NO

* was the standard missile representive of standard missiles of today – NO

* Have supersonic missiles of today advanced beyond that point – YES

* Has the AEGIS become better technology and performace wise since then – YES

Thats all that there is really!!!!

For US right from WW2 the reliance has been more on air worthy assets deployed at sea than the firepower of the surface vessels . The question is if a navy like USN finds itself in a situation where it envisages strong supersonic odds the antidote will straightly be in the sinking of the missile carrier before it poses any trouble or taking out surface launching capability deployed on coasts at night time . So IF the vessel remains by the time it can be a challenge to any surface vessel there is a big IF in that case . Besides Aegis dont wander around they are part of carrier groups .

Missiles like Shipwreck were extremely fast but then again too fat to avoid detection even when flying low and Russians knew that they just believed when the ship will know it will be too late considering it was to carry a nuke warhead right into a carrier . But Carrier groups have changed over the years so has the radar and missile cover. Missiles like Club , Moskit , Yahkont are fast , midcourse changes and like the new generation of russian missiles immune to most of jamming capabilities . India and China can surely threaten their neighboring “less armed” navies with these but they do not have any global challenging effect . As far as China is concerned Taiwanese have touted a supersonic anti ship missile program in the form of HF-3 wonder what chinese have to protect themselves from a supersonic missile .
India will not have to worry about it from Pakistan`s side .

Really? Where did I say or even imply that?

How about where you said:

It’s kind of amusing to see people portray supersonic antiship missiles as the end of the surface fleet and then read that Aegis was tagging them 30 years ago.

Maybe you could explain how you’d get this mess past a Hawkeye without being seen?

Hawkeye can’t be jammed or decoyed?

You’re right, Aegis is obviously much better now.

Moskit was designed to deal with a specific threat. Since the Moskit was compromised AEGIS has been upgraded to counter the threat Moskit poses. No great surprises here.

Vandals fly (and get hit) as low as 3m.

By a Standard II deployed in the 80s?

Sure, Aegis ships sometimes are on their own but it’s unlikely they’d put themselves in that kind of environment while solo.

The Aegis cruiser that shot down the airbus in Iran was on its own and it steamed into Iranian waters after boghammers also on its own.

So no, supersonic antiship missiles are not the sure-fire, unstoppable weapons some think they are.

And who here has said they are super dooper unstoppable weapons?

Are they more difficult than a subsonic missile? Obviously. Are they invulnerable? Hardly.

Someone stated subsonic missiles are better than supersonic missiles. You seem to agree that Supersonic missiles are more of a challange… as long as they follow the sam flight profile that subsonic missiles have to fly. (ie a ballistic supersonic missile will be spotted at long range, but so would a subsonic missile on a ballistic flight profile, so I assume we are comparing apples with apples and assume both as sea skimmers)

I agree with most part garry , the missile that was tested against the talos would probably have a very very low chance to interecept missiles (supersonic sea skimmerS) of today however the Standard missile isnt what it was years ago , not to mention the systems aboard ships , the umbrella cover from STANDARD ., ESSM , Phalynx etc etc in addition to other access denial tools such as an air wing etc etc

The point I was trying to make is that they were able to hit supersonic low-flying targets 30 years ago with SM-1s. There is nothing sacred or magic about a supersonic sea-skimmer and as you have pointed out there have been improvements on both sides. The chief advantage of a supersonic sea skimmer is the low available reaction time. Well Mach 2.2 in 1975 was no slower than Mach 2.2 today. Of course some would argue about improvements in RCS of the antiship missiles but then radar has improved as well. So no, supersonic antiship missiles are not the sure-fire, unstoppable weapons some think they are. Are they more difficult than a subsonic missile? Obviously. Are they invulnerable? Hardly.

i think the question is about aegis and supersonic ashm and not on deploying hawkeyes 24/7 all around the world where a us-aegis ship is deployed. so WisePanda asked a lot of interessting questions.

The thing is what kind of target would warrant the resources he outlined? Most likely it would be a carrier. And guess what’s going to be in the air providing radar coverage for a carrier? Sure, Aegis ships sometimes are on their own but it’s unlikely they’d put themselves in that kind of environment while solo.

I find it kinda amusing that some people think that a test thirty odd years ago of a missile system has anything at all to do with potential combat performance now.

You’re right, Aegis is obviously much better now.

This Talos supersonic target might have flown low but how low did it fly? 200m might have been considered low. Standard 2 cannot hit targets below 7m. Moskit flew below 7m for just this reason.

Vandals fly (and get hit) as low as 3m.

Maybe you could explain how you’d get this mess past a Hawkeye without being seen?

i think the question is about aegis and supersonic ashm and not on deploying hawkeyes 24/7 all around the world where a us-aegis ship is deployed. so WisePanda asked a lot of interessting questions.

Since when?

Since Garry declared it so :diablo:

how fast & low-RCS was Talos….was it comparable to todays kit ?

how much advance warning did the Aegis ship receive ?

was it lo-lo-lo attack limiting the ships radar to LOS engagement as missile comes over
horizon or hi-hi-lo giving better warning time?

was it a salvo attack by 6-8 missiles as would be in real life ?

was the missile homing directly on the ship, presenting a very small x-section or
flying in a crossing engagement ?

were agile anti radiation missiles in the area forcing the ships radar to be shut down
periodically ?

I think the scenario outlined above in the real stress test of ships combat system….
….

Maybe you could explain how you’d get this mess past a Hawkeye without being seen?

Err, this thread was started by Sferrin claiming the “problem” of Supersonic missiles was solved 30 years ago.

Really? Where did I say or even imply that?

And ESSM and Rolling Airframe Missile.

Err, this thread was started by Sferrin claiming the “problem” of Supersonic missiles was solved 30 years ago. How many RAMs and ESSMs were operational in the 1980s when Moskit entered service?

so even the patriots sophisticated surveillance radar can make huge mistakes like this…

it was the fault of the IFF as the report clearly states , I believe i have also posted earlier reports regarding the IFF not being up to the mark ( reports dated pre OIF and i also posted contact signed by the DOD to improve the IFF) . As the investigating team found out that there were several reasons why they took place –

* the automated targetting of threats is something that is for an enviroment where there are hoards of threats of different types comming in fast and trying to saturate the system , the computer software is designed in a way as to respond to these threats in the best and quickest possible manner . However in this case they only had 9 threats in 30 days therefore the system operator should have been able to adress the issue and gain more control over what the system does .

* there were 41,000 sorties (freindly) against 9 targets , the sheer no. of sorties flown , varying with type of aircraft , ammount of ordinance that was flying around gave a probability that something might go wrong however the FF incidents were more then what should have been.

* The NC capability was not what everyone expects in this war – we see systems being feilded which link up everything however it will take some time before those system are in mass no.s to show total result .

* They were asked to destroy these missiles quickly (quicker then usual) and at higher altitudes because of the threat from Chemical weapons etc

All in all the Patriot did perform much much better then the PAC-1 in DS , and much much will improve as we transition into MEADS , the PAC-3 missile itself will be made much better , and the system will be completely changed slowly but surely , the US aint just going to start buying entire MEADS setups like the european partners will but will upgrade their current standard to MEADS equipment.

I find it kinda amusing that some people think that a test thirty odd years ago of a missile system has anything at all to do with potential combat performance now.

I agree with most part garry , the missile that was tested against the talos would probably have a very very low chance to interecept missiles (supersonic sea skimmerS) of today however the Standard missile isnt what it was years ago , not to mention the systems aboard ships , the umbrella cover from STANDARD ., ESSM , Phalynx etc etc in addition to other access denial tools such as an air wing etc etc

Standard 2 cannot hit targets below 7m

Since when?

The only defence the AEGIS class cruiser has against Moskit is decoys.

And ESSM and Rolling Airframe Missile.

It’s kind of amusing to see people portray supersonic antiship missiles as the end of the surface fleet and then read that Aegis was tagging them 30 years ago. And the first Talos kill was with an SM-1 no less (Norton Sound didn’t fire it’s first SM-2 until the following year).

I find it kinda amusing that some people think that a test thirty odd years ago of a missile system has anything at all to do with potential combat performance now.

This Talos supersonic target might have flown low but how low did it fly? 200m might have been considered low. Standard 2 cannot hit targets below 7m. Moskit flew below 7m for just this reason. The only defence a Standard 2 armed AEGIS class cruiser had agaisnt a Moskit in the early 80s was its phalanx, and at 4,500 rpm against an 800m/s target with a 1,600m to about a 600m kill zone range how many rounds will the Phalanx fire between effective range and impact. The only defence the AEGIS class cruiser has against Moskit is decoys.

BTW AAA has been shooting down aircraft since WWI so I guess all aircraft are obsolete…

Two of these incidents involved Patriot firings at coalition aircraft that in one case was classified as an attacking anti-radiation missile and an attacking tactical ballistic missile.

so even the patriots sophisticated surveillance radar can make huge mistakes like this…I would have thought the speed differential alone between plane,ARM and BM would aid successful tagging.

=> no form of defence system is infallible. initiative is always with attacker to
come up with ‘probes’ and find weak spots. thats why any good navy like USN always takes fight to the enemy via SLCM/CVA