FalconDudeCarriers are anything but inert Falcon. They contain lots of stuff that will explode or burn given the slightest provocation.
A P700 isn’t going to sink a medium sized carrier any more than a subsonic will…so any missile strike is just varying degrees of mission kill. Realistically all you need do is stop air operations…a few subsonics in the hangar, flyco etc will achieve that quite adequately.
In contrast a large container ship is a lot of deadweight that isn’t very reactive. So making the most big holes possible would be the order of the day.
Right, we are just repeating things I and others have already said. So once again…
USSR heavy missiles were developed as a means to counter US carrier battle groups. These came with a compliment of planes, destroyers and cruisers with the sole purpose of protecting the carrier. The carrier itself is a pretty hard target.
I said before most missiles , supersonic or not, will NOT sink the target, providing it is of corvette size and up. Only heavy torpedoes and mines can do that.
So by definition the mission kill is the objective of the ASM.
Supersonic missiles have the pro that reduce reaction time, range, and kinetic energy. These are not exclusive to them of course, but as Andraxxus already said, whatever argument exists in favour of the SR-71 (which a lot of americans still maintain was un-interceptable) then they exist for the supersonic ASM too. It is not only about the altitude, it is about the window of time you have available to intercept.
People keep forgetting that missiles do not work as advertised. What if the missile coming to you is supersonic and the missile you fired at it, doesn’t hit? How much time have you got then? Obviously the other way round too, but you catch my drift. ..
A Bramhos going 3000km/h (slower than its top speed) at 2.5 tonnes of weight will have 868 MJ of kinetic energy (if I got my math right on my tiny phone) .. that is not something you wanna mess with .. in comparison a harpoon will have 19.9MJ of kinetic energy.
FalconDudeEdit. The only other very specific role for a large supersonic is that Blue Apple notes in his admirably concise contribution. That of engaging a very large target that is, normally, uncooperatively inert like a large merchant container hull. Why you would use a missile on such a target though eludes me.
Carrier ………….
FalconDudeNonsense. Sea Wolf is a point defence system. ESSM is a point defence system. Uragan/Shtil is a point defence system. Point defence means a weapons system designed to defend the point it is sat on….be that a ship or a vehicle or a coffee table. It is designed to engage a zero-low bearing rate (head-on) target.
You are possibly mixing terms with CIWS. Meaning, presumably, light calibre radar guided AAA. I’d not totally agree with that assessment either. I’d happily sail into a low-volume supersonic threat environment on a ship possessing three things (1) Decent ESM, (2) a good long range IRST like Sagems EOMS-NG and a current spec OTO 76SR with 3AP capability. If you step up the pay scales and add in the newer systems evolved to deal with supersonics…like RAM, FLAADS, ESSM, VL MICA you see that it doesnt take a hell of a lot to roll back the threat from lumbering supersonics quite dramatically.
Supersonics generally present themselves very early to their target by virtue of 2 things. First the need to fly high in the early phase of a long range flight…the public story was Brahmos, as an example, dropped to terminal phase at about 50km from target. Detecting something honking along at M2.daft at altitude at 55km is within the capability of several naval IR search/track sensors today. The second thing is targeting…generally you need to have a pretty good idea of what you’re shooting at with a supersonic before you fire it. It wont do too much autonomously as its seeker acquisition/eval window is limited by time of flight. That encourages POSID on target prior to launch, to prevent wasting expensive missiles if nothing else, and gives the target greater chance at counter detection.
It has been proven in the Falklands, in the Gulf and off Beirut that the way to successfully hit a warship is to deny it information that it is actually under attack until the very last minute. Andraxxus is trying to contrive a situation where the supersonic isnt detected until 30km out to provide that advantage in his piece. I dont think that is particularly realistic for the reasons noted above. An alert ship will have missiles in the air intercepting at 30km not just be waking up to the fact they have inbounds to deal with. The answer to prosecuting the attack without alerting the target is passive area search, passive track/ID and passive seeker missiles. As a PWO that scares the life out of me as I know my first alert, unless I’m going active, is when a number of small stealthy missiles cross the visual horizon and get picked up by my IRST.
For the ‘which aircraft’ question originally posed I think the F-35C, with its advanced ESM and top notch EOTS systems, coupled to LO missile carry offers some very interesting operational concepts for zero-emission high-confidence antiship profiles.
Do not agree on a number of those. First of all larger supersonic missiles have the inertia advantaged against point defence systems. You hit them even about a km out and the debris will spray your ship like a shotgun hitting ducks. You are forgetting that a lot of the supersonic missiles may come from behind land formations like islets or islands. Targeting information may be even passed by other means so the plane needs not be exposed or reveal itself via EM.
A single missile has no advantage against a frigate and up type ship. There is however a critical mass of missiles that will overcome a ships defences and for most ships that mass is not that many missiles.
FalconDudeI am sorry to disagree with you FalconDude but there are several diferences btw the A-10 and the Su-25.Lets take a look at them:
-The A-10 is much more armored and resistent to damage than the Su-25
-The position of the engines of the A-10 makes it harder to shoot down with a single shot than the Frogfoot…it also hides its IR signature.This was one of the reasons why the A-10 won the A-X competition on the 1970s(it also makes the engine less vulnerable to FOD).
-You forget to tell readers off your post that the ukrainian AF lost 3 Su-25s in August but in the same month also lost 2 Mig-29s Fulcrum(we all know that more Su-25 are in use for gound attack and that they spend more time in contact it enemy ground forces)
-Also not mentioned is the fact that the SU-25 of the UAF where rushed in to service and lack modern avionics and counter-mesures
-Not mentioned also is the fact that Mig-21s,Mig-23s and Su-24s(all very fast jets) have been dropping like flies in Syria
The A-10 and the Su-25 follow a kind of similar philosophy in design. They both protect the pilot and they both have separated engines to increase survivability, the separation of the engines is wider in the A-10 if memory serves but not that much wider. Also a reason why manpads are a danger to any plane is that they offer little warning, and are usually fired when the aircraft is en route or begins its run or as it disengages from a drop.
I didn’t advocate the use of fast jets. I advocated the use of the big boys. I think B-1s and B-52’s should take the bulk of the operations against IS. I think they have the range and loiter times and the precision munitions to carry out the task.
All this of course has to do with how IS fights now. If they switch from full force head on attacks to insurgent type strikes then I would advocate the use of other types of assets.
The way they fight now is to bring large formations of men and attack. A formation of A-10s would likely disperse the troops as they move but kill only a few. A single B-1 would annihilate every single soul in that column of men and vehicles.
You can’t stop IS by killing 20 men at a time. You need big massive losses and quickly.
I may be wrong and I am open to discussion on that.
FalconDudeA-10 may be costly to operate, but it would be far costlier if you lose a Scorpion/UAV/Grippen or two in the process. A-10 is pretty much invincible againist small arms fire and very likely to make it back home should it be hit by a MANPAD or AAA fire.
SU-25s have similar armour and yet have been downed easily by manpads in Ukraine.
FalconDudeAccording to the wiki article, the A-10 has a service ceiling of 45000′, this is well enough to launch from altitude. The A-10 carries the sniper pod, so it is as good as any other plane.
The difference is that the A-10 can be more effective to support ground troops at low altitude if necessary. And there is no threat of MANPADS now, so no problem at all getting low.
I find it hard to believe that IS tanks have not been already all taken out. They should be relatively easy targets to find, contrarily to smaller vehicles like pickups armed with heavy MGs.
Destroying their tanks would significantly degrade their ability to attack.
Are there enough sniper pods to go around for a couple of wings of A-10s ? Maybe there are which makes them a consideration. As for Manpads, perhaps the IS is holding back their use against the Syrian airforce as they know significant airstrikes may come. Can you imagine the seriousness of IS shooting down half a dozen allied aircraft and capturing or killing their pilots?
I am not sure how many IS tanks were destroyed, there have been recent photos of them next to their tanks….
FalconDudeThe combination of the Eurofighter’s unaffordability and the unwillingness of the program’s key backers to provide adequate resources is having disastrous results on the program.
Spot on
FalconDudeFirst, find a target.
This is not a wrong statement, however if I understand the IS way of fighting both in Syria and Iraq, they are not insurgents. They are almost fighting a tactical war.
In most cases they have approached villages and towns en masse and have laid siege to some from key positions firing artillery and heavy weapons to weaken the resistance.
They have even had tank battles with the Syrian army. This means that you do not necessarily need to pin point a truck with a high value Taliban in this case. You can pretty much level an entire hillside they use to shell a town with relative certainty that there are no other casualties (due to the nature of IS which pretty much guarantees they have killed anything else in their path or close).
A-10/Su-25s up high are not as effective. That is not what they were meant for. You can’t use them as CAS if you don’t have certainty that use of manpads is a calculated risk and not a surprise, which would require boots on the ground which the west doesn’t have at the moment.
FalconDudeI vote for cluster bombs and napalm. 🙂
Second that
FalconDudePhotoshop ?
FalconDudeThe answer is B-52 on call- the mountainside from which IS is bombarding Kobani should be levelled as a show of force.
My thoughts exactly. This needs lots of UAVs finding targets and plenty of large payload high altitude deathbringers levelling entire mountain ranges if need be. Isis has no high value assets that will cripple their operation if hit. Their one and only asset is people. I am sad to say this but to halt Isis one would need to kill lots and lots of fighters. Neither A-10 or Su-25 can do this as well as ….the big boys.
FalconDudeSafe to say, no one has anything to add on topic then? For what it’s worth the MiG 1.44 does look exactly like it was produced in the 1960s.
Now, if it had cool j20 black stealth paint we would all know it for the 5th generation fighter it really was.
How about this question. Did the Soviet Union talk about SR71 incursions during the Cold War? We’re there any? And does that communication or lack of it have any bearing on how Russia might behave if it couldn’t stop overflights today?
photoshop it and paint it any colour you want. It still won’t look any better. There was nothing smooth about this plane. Nevermind VLO, I still remember reading about it when it was unveiled and I remember feeling that it looked dated, uninspired, something they put together to look futuristic in a 60’s movie.
suffice to say that it only did a handful of test flights (not even that i think) so we don’t know if it was the graceful bird of the skies it was supposed to be.. right?
FalconDude…Oh, there was one other missing link. In the short and sharp S-duct, guide vanes are required to facilitate pressure recovery to the first stage fan. I have claimed (to the consternation of some) that in the official patent ‘Device 9’ (Устройство 9) which, remember, only “partially obscures” and is offset from the compressor- has a dual function of a guide vane and ‘blocker’.
Evidence/precedent of this dual function?….Yip:
The text reads ” Inlet Guide Vanes. Development of layered reinforcing carbonfibre (i.e CNT) package, providing absorption of radar waves”.
C/o fimv.
Why is there a 29 shown? Is it meant for that plane? Does this mean it is meant to be retrofitted to any jet as a signature reduction aid and not specifically for the 50?
FalconDudeThis is probably one of the very first 5th Gen fighter:
[ATTACH=CONFIG]232174[/ATTACH]
I always thought it looks like something that could have been designed in the 60’s. It likely had few rcs reduction considerations but nothing more than that. It even looks less smooth and elegant than the MiG-29
FalconDudeA-10s and Su-25s would be dropping like flies without someone making sure the ISIS wouldn’t start using Manpads.
The people who make sure are high altitude bombers….
Sign In
