JonSAnother Falklands example…….
It was not the Exocet Warhead that took out HMS Sheffield, infact it failed to detonate. What did the damage was the rocket motor, which causes extensive fires.
fire fighting capability of modern vessels are far better than vessels in falkland era (automated sprinklers etc). The Speed of meteor could cause structural damage. As for meteor Asuw capabilities the seekers on AAM arent that potent or smart compared to ashm counterpart they can easily get jammed or decoyed away not to mention their hi and predictable flight path will make them pretty easy to intercept by most CIWS.
JonSThe Russian SA-N-11 Grison is the basic navalised 9M311 missile. The 9M311-1ME is I would assume a slightly improved version, possibly with better range. Perhaps based on the improved 57E6-E missile which is used by the Pantsir-S1. I am not 100% sure. I don’t think this missile will be used in the VLS module.
9M311-1ME is the 10 km ranged variant of 9M311 missile its part of the upgraded kashtan-m1 system, the same missile is used in tunguska-m1. I believe the russian corvette under construction will be first vessel to be fitted with it. Anyway blackcat was probably referring to SA-11/17 not SA-N-11 when he was talking about vls.
The article states the use of 9M38M1 in the VLS, and this at first got me confused too. However, the guys here state that it will be the 9M317, and NOT the 9M38 used on the P15A. The 9M38 family is SA-N-7 Gadfly, or the navalised SA-11. While the 9M317 is the SA-N-12 Grizzly, or the navalised SA-17.
they probably got the missile designations confused.
I am unable to fanthom why having a single AAA/SAM system allows for better coordination between missile and AAA?
because CIWS systems operate autonomously when there is multiple inbound targets the missile system and AAA could be engaging the same target.
see what works better seperate SAM and seperate AAA mounts or a gun/missile combo
u cant compare a vessel equipped with single CIWS system like goalkeeper and a SAM system like RAM with a single kashtan for starters their total cost and deck space is equivalent to two kashtans and u can fit in two of those in their place. In that case the latter is far superior.
JonSGorshkov will mainly be utlisied for interdiction of enemy fighter planes and i doubt IN will venture beyond IAF’s air support. Assuming those two factors, mig-29 or even SHAR with bvr capability will more than be capable of dealing with major threats faced in south asia. This mainly because carrier borne fighter planes used in air defense have only to deal with enemy figher aircrafts carrying light AA missile armament or none at all and also enemy fighter aircrafts in Asuw cant afford get into dogfight with carrier borne fighters because of risk of using up fuel and likely hood of ground based reinforcements to interdict them on the way back.
JonS
more photos at
http://www.marina.difesa.it/diario/2004/cavour/
JonS054 FFG, 052B/C DDGs. Only 2 of the latter are being better and 10+ 54 ffg? Anyway dont know china is only building 2 of each class for destroyers seems rather pecular mainly it means less quality.
JonSThe other argument was also about the efficacy of two separate SAM systems for the single PDMS mission rather than a single missile solution.
thats bit redundant question the solution is pretty obvious a single AAA/SAM system is cheaper and takes up less space, better coordination between missile and AAA.
So there is a 50% improvement right there.
assuming u have 2 guidance radars for sea wolf and both the targets come in two different hemispheres.
JonS,
How far will an OTHT helo who is hanging around the horizon run?
what do u mean u mean how high helo needs to fly inorder to look over the horizon?
There was no Kashtan on the Gorshkov but Kashtan is the standard for their newer Corvettes, which are going to be their mainstay coz they found (?) it to be more suitable for making the under deck more utilizing.
The reason why the russians are fitting kashtan into the newer corvettes as their primiary air defense system its because its cheaper and is supposed to temporary armament. Russia reportedly wants yakhont missiles VLS to be fitted onto were the kashtan is and tor is likely to be fitted amidship along with 2 ak-630.
JonSJonS For the senario I suggested there is no need for another platform to guide the missile at all. I made no mention of any AEW.,
dont understand what u are saying u cannot just blindly fire ARH missile at a target 30 km by the time missile gets there and enters terminal phase and turns on the seeker the target wont be there u need some sort of midcourse guidance to update the location of the target.
I am completely mistified by this argument that Kashtan is necessarily better because it also has a gun system. Why cant a ship that has Barak, Seawolf or RAM also have a gun??? You know like the Saar V has Barak and Phalanx. Sachsen with RAM and RM 20mm. Or Amatola with Umkhonto and the LIW 35mm. etc
the argument was over advantage of SAM+AAA like kashtan as opposed to just a single SAM based CIWS system.
How many can Seawolf+Goalkeeper engage in the same time?
goalkeeper as with all gun systems can intercept only 1 target at a time and sea wolf is 2 based on t-23 configuration.
JonSThe Scuds are ballistic missiles, quite a different thing to hit than an anti-ship missile. I don’t remember the speed of these Scuds on target approach, but at least I’ve heard the difficulities of hitting ballistic missiles being compared to trying to hit a bullet with another bullet..
correcting what i said its SS-N-2 not 1. Anyway SS-N-2 is obsolete antiship missile cruises it flies at like 1000 ft the iraqis modified it for land attack they didnt use any scub during GW II.
The SAM’s you mention does have a secondary anti-ship capability, but carry very small warheads. Also, they probably need radar gudiance all the way to the target, which means you have to get awfully close unless something else can provide mid course guidiance.
they have larger kill capability because of their greater KE nearly 9 times more than cruise missile (assuming they can travel at mach 2.5). Its typically the force from the impact not the warhead that is responsible for most ashm kills u typical 100 kg ashm warhead is only enough damage not sink a vessel. USS cole withstood 500 kgs+ of c4 hiting at the waterline. In other hand 2 ton object moving at mach 3 object hitting a vessel is split apart any hull.
The development of EW/ECM as well as weapons has gone a long way since the Yom Kippur war, just like air-air missiles, the margin of error is much smaller. One mistake and you are going to get hit.
there is very small margin of error with soft kill mechnaism unlike hard kill option most of them are guaranteed to work 99.9%.
JonSHave we reached the point today where the western warship would be unable to penetrate the defences of a similar opponent, even while firing the entire salvo?
there is no such thing as perfect defense US had dozens of patroit batteries thruout kuwait that still didnt stop some dozen are so obsolete SS-N-1 missiles from hiting some targets on kuwait. Also PLAN nor IN or Russian navy (with exception of cruisers) have a vessel with ability to shoot down 2 or more low flying misile with rate greater than 90% as opposed to some western naval DDgs.
Recent developments in the Indian and Chinese navies points towards a strategy of surface warships with strong anti-air capability and up to 16 supersonic anti-ship missiles. These ships are undoubtly planned to be capable of taking on enemy warships themselves, with or without aircover.
actually Luhai i believe was the first plan vessel fitted with 16 missiles probably the decision to do that was influenced by IN fitting 16 urans on delhi its one navy copying the other. I betting taiwan will soon follow that only matter time b4 everyone in asia have vessels fitted with 16 missiles.
Has the Western navies lost their ability to operate against these Eastern navies without aircraft or nuclear submarines?
its not about how many missiles a vessel carries most western vessel air defense systems can also be used against incoming vessels (SM-2, ESSM) also as israelis demonstrated during yom-kippur war i believe you can win even when ur opponent has more and better missiles than you. Israel navy vessels (most were just fishing trailers modified as missile boats) equipped with gaberial were outgunned and outranged by OSA missile boats but were able to win primarily because they were equipped with crude EW/ECMs that rendered the styx useless i believe more than 20 were launched and not one even came remotely close to hiting a israeli vessel. Also considering how far Electronic warfare systems have progressed, these systems are designed to deal with most salvo attack atleast on paper.
JonSNo reason why the missile could not be directed to the horizon whereafter the missile acquires the hidden target with its own seeker. Case I have in mind is a OTHT helo tracking you by keeping itself around the horizon and popping below it for safety from SARH SAMs. ARH/PRH/IIR SAMs could be quite useful in that case.
No aster cannot be guided by any other platform rather than vessel that fires it just like SM-2 or any other missile that uses mid course guidance. In order to pull off what ur saying the AEW most be able to track the inbound target and pass it the data to the vessel for mid course gudiance of the missiles sounds simple but its impossible pull off because AEW must have continous link with ships in order to do that and airborne platform itself must have ability connect with all the friendly vessels that are in vicnity this means u need lot of power and will require it to fly it in hi altitude this means that platform needs to be large aircraft like E-3. USN has working on mechanism like that for a quite while.
Regarding CIWS: At the end of the day Sea Wolf, RAM, Barak each do the job that requires a combination of klinok/Kortik. A Russian ship that missed with the klinok will follow up with a kortik, a western one will follow up a SeaWolf with another SeaWolf. Which is simpler?
Problem with missile system such as sea wolf, barak and ram is that they have min intercept range is typically around 1km+ this usually is not major concern when dealing with 1 or 2 subsonic target were u have the chance to fire to off multiple missiles but against supersonic target or saturation attacks this is of major drawback. So gun system which has no min range is great assest. Thats one of the reasons why orders for RAM havent exactly sky rocketed and why USN is spending $$ on metal storm based CIWS.
Why do you have such a large number of missiles and CIWS? To deal with saturation attacks. A gun missile complex sharing the FCS will engage half the number of targets an independent PDMS and AAA will engage.
Each kashtan system can intercept 2 targets at the same time they have both radar and can utilize command guidance via TV.
JonSAnd said that I consider the Kashtan more useful in saving deck space, as the the Klionk and Barak like wud have to dig itself on the deck where as the Kashtan unit can be placed on the superstructure of the ships there by freeing the deck space …….. but the likes of Klinok and Barak if place on height wud find reloading difficult (?)
kashtan is not saving deck space in fact one of the major drawback with kashtan was that it requires extensive deck penetration for storage of 24 missiles below deck. In other barak can be strapped onto anyvessel.
ARH/IIR/PRH missiles unlike SACLOS or SARH ones are theoretically not limited by the radar horizon.
no aster or any other arh or IIR homing missile like mica still have limitations of horizon because they require mid course guidance from the vessel.
Sign In
