Seahawk, did you miss the point? Supersonic for missiles does not at all mean it’s straight flying, as I said earlier the Moskit does sharp-S-shaped turns before it blows into its target.

Sorry, but I doubt that a missile flying at supersonic speeds is capable of doing any noticeable turns during the final engagement phase.

The funny thing is that people keep thinking about a Cold war scenario and ase talking about using ASMs to wreck an american carrier. Well if you are out to do this, then you should buy the huge supersonic missiles with the sea recon satelittes and all the stuff. It might be the only real chance to get a carrier.

But who is going to have to try this today ?? Apart from China I see no nation on the globe that could have a need for such a capbility and that could afford buying and operating it.

Jonsey and I are just saying that most of those super supersonic missiles are dinosaurs left over from the cold war, which have no real use today. How many navies could bring up a carrier group that could not be rendered operational ineffective by harpoon or excocet or NSM missiles ??

So in that scnario the question is, do you invest all the money in systems you are not gonna need, or a are you going to buy a larger stock of “slow and small” ASMs that you can attach to nearly all your tactical aircraft and use in a time of need.

On the supersonic dash. The high speed reduces the time the missile spents within the range of the ships air defenses. However the supersonic speeds means it will fly a straight line. Phalanx, Goalkeeper and other western CIWS are designed to handle supersonic and straight flying ASMs. They are tested to do the job they were build for. The highspeed makes it also more easy for RAM style IR missiles to lock on the missile as it will be hoter.

The NSM with some RCS reducing thoughts spent on it ( I think they did) however would be very hard to detect before being dangerously close to the ground, as the missile gives no warning of its presence. Flares might decoy the plane, but I think it would be easy to tell the missile to disregard any heat source travelling in the vertical axis. IR emitters might work. And towing a hull to decoy the missiles would render the ship operational ueless for all other missions.

Looks like the plane of Goldmember.

Herzlichen Glückwunsch ihr DDR fans.

Isn´t a DSLR sexy ??

Nice pics for a first try.

Well for which scenario other then a anit US CVBG mission requires a Granit or Yakhont ??

I mean if you can spent the money to bring all neccessary systems to fully use those missiles into service, you should have so much money that you should easily wipe smaller navies with ease.

Just the costs of building the satelittes and the launch system would probably exceed the whole budget of a normal adversary.

Just to give you an example of capabilities the German F-123 Sachsen AAW frigate with SM-2, ESSM and RAM is designed to be capable of handling up to 8 sea skimming ASMs with high rate of success. But how many similiar ships are fielded by smaller nations ?? How many do field a AEGIS system ??
How many will be able to do so in the future ?? And how many could form a decent surface action group centred around such a vessel, which includes escorts and ASW ships ??

Nearly every Navy world wide (except for the biggest) would be hard pressed to handle 12 incoming modern subsonic ASMs. And in todays world hitting a ship is as good as killing, as damage repair ciycles make it highly unlikely that a damaged shup would return to service before a conflict ends, because of external pressure to end the conflict.

For the cold war scenario. We are always assuming that it would be only a one CVBG battle group, but I doubt that one carrier would sail close to the enemy shores alone, when facing such a strong defense. The US planed to use at least 3 carriers before venturing close to the Soviet coast line.