Are there really likely to be many Amish websites?. Wouldve thought that a contradiction!???

Garry,

I’m am very skeptical… discussions regarding CGs always seem to assume all detection systems on to detect attackers at max range and all active detection systems off to make them invisible. Talk about having cake and eating it too…

This is precisely the reason why I’ve always gone nuts about the need for offboard surveillance platforms like the Hawkeye. Tactics exist that mean the active detection system that the enemy has plotted and is ‘giving away the CVBG position’ might be 100nm away from the actual group (and sat overtop of an AEGIS ship SAM trap!).

Perhaps the MMW seeker on the proposed Kh-58 variant might solve taht problem. MMW radar is very high frequency and is able to identify armoured vehicles by profiling their turrets and counting wheels. It can determine whether the target is tracked or wheeled. Such information along with size and range info would make identification of targets relatively straight

forward I would think… and weather independant.

You’d be suprised mate. MMW frequencies have a crossover with the so called ‘far IR’ frequencies. Have a look at a frequency spectrum and you’ll see the correlation. MMW radar is attenuated by adverse weather conditions in a similar fashion to IR. Also the FoV possible with MMW radar is very restricted. This means its perfectly capable of employment in anti-armour weapons etc where the target is easily designated prior to launch, but, for any real search capability, like NSM’s wide angle IIR seeker offers, MMW is of little use. The Kh-58 looks to offer the most practical capability the Russians have for antiship in a non-permissive environment though. What platforms have been cleared to operate the MMV variant of the weapon?.

The only kill by Phalanx I am aware of of a supersonic target was a target diving from a range of 15km away at a 30 degree angle or so. In the brochure it claimed that made it the only all gun CIWS in the world able to bring down supersonic targets. It didn’t mention they didn’t try for a sea skimming target because of the terrible problems the Phalanx has with

radar returns with very low targets.

Well you know the old joke as to what CIWS really stands for I’m sure!. NAVSEA has recently evaluated the MK15 system and declared it capable against supersonic diving and skimming profile targets.

So the Kh-22M has been withdrawn? The Termit, Kh-29, Kh-25, Vikhr, Kh-35, Kh-31, Kh-65, Kh-15, Kh-58, Kh-59, Ataka. Plus coastal defence missiles like Bal and Redut.

Well I did say ‘navally’ didn’t I?. As far as I’m aware virtually all the weapons you’ve listed are air-launched. I didnt make any mention of those weapons as there were so many I thought it best to leave them to you. You have to accept that there’s a lot of support infrastructure required to keep that range of weaponry in an operational inventory. To most that would be impossible through budget constraints and I’d expect Russia to be very close to that category!.

The moskit is no longer perfect for taking on AEGIS class cruisers, that doesn’t make it useless. There are plenty of in service ships that can’t stop a mach 2.2 missile flying at less than 7m above the wave tops.

Problem is that AEGIS capability level vessels, and better, are fast appearing in many of the more advanced navies around. Moskit would have a challenge against vessels in the US, Spanish, Japanese, Dutch, German navies currently and soon you could add the UK, France, Italy, South Korea, Australia, Singapore and several others to the list. Moskit could, shortly, be a cracking system for engaging the Portugese or Brazillian Navies I suppose!.

A missile they don’t have, and another missile as good as the one they don’t have… YES… that is superior.

Right. Can we get rid of this whole NSM isnt in service yet issue now?. The image attached below is from the last test series of the weapon. Brahmos is little further on in its development yet its taken as either an in-service or, at least, a near-service weapons system. NSM should be considered little different. Can you provide a similar image of a Yakhont-M test firing?.

Public opinion also stopped the Vietnam war… eventually. What makes you think public opinion would be against continuing the war against terrorism? As supporters of Hezbulla (spelling) Iran has more to answer for in supporting terrorism than Saddam ever did. Most Americans still seem to think the invasion of Iraq was part of the war on terrorism!!!

…That is also a distinct FACT jonesy not vapid supposition.

You still really enjoy spinning these arguments don’t you?. The point initially was that Iranian indiscriminate antiship missile use might cost them local and global public opinion. You suggested that this was valueless because public opinion carried no weight. I’ve shown you a pertinent example of why thats not always the case and you’re bringing up Vietnam and Hez’bollah?.

Yes, a whole galaxy between signal processing sound data and signal processing returned radar wave data…

Yep, but, the difference isnt in the signal processing. Its in the data being processed.

Not changing my tune at all. I only suggested the p-700 for Iran because they need some stick that the USN will respect.

They need powerful friends then not P700’s!. They’re starting along this route with the nuclear agreements, if they maintain such a course they place the US in a position where they would be forced to act completely unilaterally if they chose military intervention. You may think the US would try that – I don’t.

The point about serbia is that they were eventually made to bow to the wests will… now that they are doing as they are told it is a land of milk and honey, they are treated with respect and have become inundated with investment and money… not.

Quote from the CIA World Factbook:

After the ousting of former Federal Yugoslav President MILOSEVIC in October 2000, the Democratic Opposition of Serbia (DOS) coalition government implemented stabilization measures and embarked on an aggressive market reform program. After renewing its membership in the IMF in December 2000, Yugoslavia continued to reintegrate into the international community by rejoining the World Bank (IBRD) and the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD). A World Bank-European Commission sponsored Donors’ Conference held in June 2001 raised $1.3 billion for economic restructuring. An agreement rescheduling the country’s $4.5 billion Paris Club government debts was concluded in November 2001; it wrote off 66% of the debt.

I dont recall anyone suggesting they’d turn Serbia into a land of milk and honey?. They have gotten rid of a regime that was prosecuting some very nasty policies, keeping the world community of their backs and they’ve not done too badly financially out of it at all!. In my opinion they are very much on the plus side of the ledger post-Milosevic.

And would that stop the US carriers launching strike aircraft against Iran? If it doesn’t then what is the point?

P-700’s are hardly likely to stop US carriers being able to launch strike aircraft either!. Mining Hormuz stops US carriers getting into the northern Gulf. Lots of Iran up there that couldnt be reached from a position in the Gulf of Oman!.

You mean like Scuds that are so inaccurate they can’t be used in modern warfare either because they might hit civilians?

Scuds that were deployed as precision weapons or as an attempt to do any damage possible to generate a political reaction?. What relevence they have to antiship missiles operating in the most difficult targetting environment on the planet escapes me I’m afraid?.

Yet one of the reasons behind NMD is that a disgruntled Russian officer might fire a few at the ole US. If they were surprised by a couple of Russian aircraft what would have happened if they had turned out to be North Korean?

Is it?. I thought the point was reestablish some form of security in the post MAD world. MAD obviously not being operative when the opposing country can ‘only’ scrape together a handful of ballistic launchers and a few dozen deliverable intercontinental warheads. First I’ve heard of a Russian missile officer being capable of independently launching a couple of armed missiles on his own ‘initiative’.

As to the issue of whether they’d been North Koreans or whomever else if they painted the carrier with radar and flown in on an attack profile they would, presumably, have been challenged by the escorting vessel and potentially shot down if the situation warranted. I wonder if the Flanker pilot, who dogged that EA-6 that the Kittyhawk launched, would have been quite so happy to have done so if he’d known that there was the slightest chance that the SAMs aimed at him would be fired.

Exactly the same number of NSMs at the moment…

Oh?. So there is one of these Russian systems that you’ve listed that is in late operational trials?. Which one?. Any photo’s?

The false praise of using the word ‘vaunted’ is a bit of a waste isn’t it?

Is it?. I refer you to Srbins earlier claim that Russian antiship missiles, particularly the heavies, are the ‘best in the world’. As you know Legenda was an integral part of those missile complexes. I think ‘vaunted’ was an entirely appropriate comment!.

Atrophied suggests it doesn’t work… wonder why they’d spend any money at all on it if it didn’t work?

Atrophied suggests wasted away. Working but at reduced capability. I think that fits the current Russian satellite ocean recon capability dont you?.

I guess by the same token I could describe the USNs forces to have atrophied and offer very few things that the USAF provides and much greater cost than the USAF. No stealth aircraft at all.

Yes you could. Then again though you could only do that if you were trying to take part in some kind of US vs Russia p1ssing contest. Which we’re not…well I’m not anyway. Remember NSM aint American.

This thread only turned naval due to a misunderstanding… the Shkval-M electro optical system on the Su-25TM mistaken for the Shkval torpedo…

OK….and your point is what?. It DID turn naval – Srbins comment is there. I’d just as easily stop this discussion right now as I’ve made all the points I think I need to. I actually agree with Srbins last comment here – that the best all round missile is NSM and, as 90+% of naval services require no more capability than NSM offers its top dog. For those services that need a little extra range and have/can afford the assets to deploy it Klub, 3M54E at least, is a worthy alternative.

So Sea Skua, Hellfire, and other weapons like that, like Maverick that are also used by forces around the world don’t exist? I saw video footage of JDAMs hitting an LST… wonder why they bothered… they have Harpoon don’t they?

Confused here Garry I thought we were talking about antiship missiles primarily?. Besides NSM could see the end of many lightweight AShM’s like AS15TT, Skua and Penguin as it can be deployed on an NH90 sized chopper.

As I have mentioned Yakhont-M will be tested next year with a multisensor seeker for land attack and anti ship use.

So thats a first flight test next year?.

And of course what is the value to whom? We are not discussing who needs what, we are talking about the best equipped regarding AShMs.

A missiles’ paper capabilities do not make it effective. The ability to deploy in theatre, be supported in service without disproportionate budgetary effect on other systems and hold at threat likely target sets make a weapon effective. It is not enough to state that because a weapon can do mach daft and make a bloody great hole in a CVN its valuable.

So the trillions of dollars sunk into AEGIS… which has killed one airbus and what else in real combat is good? How does a weapon capable of sinking pretty much anything afloat equate to marginal capabilites?

The AEGIS system can stand alone and provide a powerful antiaircraft screen for any high value unit. Its been and is being exported widely as a system in its own right. It is still, therefore, providing a return on its development investment. Who’s buying Granit or platforms capable of employing it?.

There is something to be said for cross pollenation… Soviet tanks had in the 80s smoke generating grenades that were opaque to IR light as well as visible light. Just thumbing through Russia’s Arms 2001-2002 it lists rockets with smoke warheads for IR and optical coverage as well as rockets with flare and chaff distraction warheads…

Yes, I mentioned multispectral smoke as an IIR defence myself a long time ago on this thread or another like it. Problem is with MS that popping a few grenades to shield a tank from a single threat axis is a very much simpler proposition than trying to screen a 3000 ton frigate or 6000 ton destroyer with the same system. Especially in maritime environmental conditions.

Todays reality is that the US is not russia’s friend. NATO expansion and American rhetoric make that pretty plain. Further development of high speed antiship missiles into areas like scramjet propulsion will lead to economic as well as practical improvements and benefits.

Equally though NATO rhetoric has made it plain that they dont view Russia as an enemy any more. In fact I’d say many view Russia as an emerging market rather than everything else. If they want to leverage some of their experience in hypersonic air vehicles for commercial gain perhaps they should rid themselves of the role-less Oscar-II’s, Kirovs and the stupid bloody great missiles they carry and invest the millions they save on them into commercial R&D!.

Of the four missiles I mentioned… Uran, AS-11, AS-17, and AS-18… all four are already actually in service anyway so the maintainence and support network is already there.

The RN had Sea Eagle and MM38 Exocet in service. They had full infrastructure to support the weapons but they still withdrew those weapons from service. Why?. They cost money to keep operational. They need servicing, they require trained personnel to keep them operational etc. We determined that there was an insufficient target set to warrant the expenditure on keeping those weapons in the inventory when compared to other funding requirements. The maintenance of a few hundred, total, medium antiship weapons of two types would cost pennies compared to that of upkeep of the range of surface and air-launch antishipping weapons in the Russian inventory. See the point?.

The AS-18 entered full service in 1988 and includes waterborne targets amongst its uses. Target recognition and aquisition software is already fully used in this weapon… it also has a datalink to the launch aircraft so that not only is there a human in the loop to identify the target they can also select by dragging a crosshair what part of the target is hit.

Would like to see a source for an automtic target recognition capability for Kh-59 that dates back much beyond the last couple of years. It was my understanding that the weapon was originally an optical scene-locker and the datalink was there for standoff manual acquisition as the only method of long-range targetting.

Aah I get it now!. Didnt recognise the gentleman in question, but, its a very interesting photo given his credentials!. Sounds very much like the Indian counterpart of our venerable Cdr Nigel Ward!.

Is there a public version of his impressions of Rafale-M compared to SHAR anywhere and, most importantly, has he been able to get a ride in a -29K yet?. Would be very interested in seeing his views on the two designs!.

Lastly do you know when the Rafale shot was taken?. Before or after the Gorshkov decision was taken?.

Thanks again mate!

Garry

Always amazes me how carrier groups are at the same time completely invisible and always able to detect enemy formations at maximum range and have fighters in the right position to engage them.

Why does this amaze you?. Its what a battlegroup is designed to do. The E.O.O.B of a CVSG is considerable and the ‘seven seas’ are really very big and, for the most part, quite easy to get yourself lost in. There’s no rocket science in this its just good tactics and good systems employment.

During heightened tensions the sea ways out to a thousand kms of your coast could be called a military testing ground where all civilian traffic is banned… any violators that happen to be hit would be very unfortunate but you were warned well in advance…

Ask Roel whether this is true or not!. The ‘Tanker War’ was called so because it was civvie tankers that were targetted. In 1982 we mistakenly drew a bead on a couple of merchies, but, RoE’s saved the day. There is NO WAY that you can get around the problem of indiscriminancy in an active radar seeker. The RN is, or was, removing the sub-Harpoons from its Fleet subs because they are so seeker-limited and such useless weapons in a non-permissive environment. This is not analysis, not derivation and not supposition on my part Garry its plain fact!.

But if you ain’t with us then your agin us… isn’t that how it goes?

Nope. CNN sees to that.

But the difference is that CIWS currently can’t stop supersonic AShMs… they can stop subsonic ones.. that is what they are designed for.

‘Cant stop supersonic AShMs’ is a bit of a definitive isnt it Garry?. Goalkeeper was tested by NAVSEA against supersonics and it certainly proved capable of engaging such targets, even Phalanx is said to be capable of making the intercept, but, at a range that might make the fact academic. Its a dishonest comparison really though, as you well know, because the NATO answer to heavy supersonics was the Point Defence Missile System i.e Sea Sparrow, Sea Wolf, Crotale Naval and NOT any CIWS system.

They have a range of weapons for a range of targets and threat situations… something everyone else lacks… isn’t that a reason to suggest they are the best equipped regarding AShMs? The fact that the Flanker might be individually better than an individual fighter aircraft used by an American armed force doesn’t mean that American armed force isn’t the best available… armed forces are more than just individual aircraft or weapon specs.

Go on and list the range of antiship weapons they have actually in service Garry. Navally its Bazalt, Granit, Moskit and Uran that I can think of off the top of my head and how much does it cost to keep the former two operational in weapons and platform terms (and for how much benefit), Moskit is past its heydey and is distinctly interceptable and Uran is little improvement over AGM-84. Thats a ‘superior’ capability is it?. Compare that to NSM and, apart from a CVN, there is no target that those weapons can tackle that NSM cannot and in one missile type. That one missile being swingrole on the pylon for antiship and precision land-attack.

And how many potential firing sites were there in the iraqi desert?

Its a desert – quite a lot.

Will this US attack likely be a seaborne invasion with huge support or will it be a coordinated air attack on nuclear facilities? In the case of the latter will they be trying to blow up every coastal instalation or just plan flight routes around them to reach their targets?

Relevance?. What does it matter if the USN choses to engage some targets or not?.

How about 5 School buses, 25 fuel tankers, 10 container trucks. There is no reason why they couldn’t be stored at the launch area inside a prefabricated building designed to be used as a school or hospital. The building with the missile could be the big boiler room that no kids or staff ever went into.

Yeah Garry and it’d be really cool if you could get the on site swimming pool to slide over and reveal launching silos like in Thunderbirds….!. Garry you’re making stuff up to support a made up premise!. The FACT is the Iranians aren’t trying to acquire a very long range antiship missile capability despite the fact they’ve had years to try and do it. Why – because they know that, in their environment, targetting out into blue water, reliably, is beyond their means.

Taken together as systems they are. One missile design alone is not adequate against lots of targets.

How do you arrive at that conclusion?. NSM is perfectly capable of engaging lots of different targets at sea and onshore – this is one of the main points I’ve been making. The Russians dont have such a weapon, yet, which is the other main point I’ve been making!.

Yet it can’t reach down and pull back a tarp to see what is underneath let alone search a container truck.

Granted, but, why would it need to?. Are you suggesting that a P-700 TEL could be made to look like a container truck?. Even if you are, for whatever point that may serve, you still have the point that shore-based Granit DOES…..NOT……EXIST!!!.

Which would be relevant if the US needed Turkeys help to attack Iran. The fact that the Turkish government listens more to its own people than its allies says more about its allies and the Turkish government than anything relevant to this subject. Suffice to say the US has a long history of ignoring anyones opinion… even their own.

What fantastically pointless drivel!. The point very, very clearly was that public opinion had a significant effect on the prosecution of a military campaign in one very notable, recent, instance. That is also a distinct FACT Garry not vapid supposition.

Ignoring my point and jumping back on this idea that anti ship missiles must be indiscriminate. Funny how Mine technology has moved on to allow it to recognise the sound signature of a target yet Radars in the nose of Missiles the size of a small fighter cannot do the same with an active sensor…

Not really. Mines have the luxury of letting their targets come to them. They dont have to do any tracking or hunting. Besides there is a galaxy of difference between identifying a target from accoustic and magnetic profile passively than it is to do it actively with a radar seeker.

The P-700 is an anti carrier weapon… only those that threaten with carriers need fear that… and who cares if they do fear that? Where has doing as you have been told gotten Serbia?

Changing your tune now a bit arent you?. You were the one noting how little damage a western subsonic would do to 100,000tons of supertanker and how much relative damage a Shipwreck would inflict!. Dont understand your point about Serbia?.

And if one fails or malfunctions? And exactly how many would you need to cover the Persian gulf out to the maximum range of any strike aircraft a Nimitz class carrier might deploy? That is a LOT of mines and they are for the most part in international waters and therefore stealable… not to mention liable to move with currents.

They would not attempt to mine that far out. It would take every asset in their navy to try and maintain such a field. They could set individual fields to try and draw in US SSNs and the like, but, in Irans case the main fields would be laid around Hormuz, probably in the shallower waters to the northern end of the straits. It still means a LOT of mines but theyre hardly expensive compared to a P-700 type weapon and its delivery platform.

So develop the expensive detection assets first and then buy the weapon to go with it? Why not buy the weapon first and rely for the time on the deterrent effect of it to protect you till you have sorted out your other problems.

LOL how many opposing professionals would be deterred by a weapon they plainly couldnt use in their theatre of operations. The thing with the detection assets is that they are a force-multiplier for legacy systems as well as targetting assets for a heavy supersonic missile system. It makes staggeringly little sense to buy the missiles before the sighting system!.

There is no such thing as a perfect defence… remember that Russian aircraft that overflew a US carrier when the US carrier was refuelling with no aircraft in the air? Sure it is not during a time of tensions, but no one is alert 24/7, and coming from surprise directions or times can work wonders.

By that token though you might as well say Navies are useless. That an opponent could put a 5Mt device on the ocean floor off Norfolk and wipe out the US Atlantic Fleet in one fell swoop. Alternatively you could say that the Russians developing the Su30-whatever was pointless as some muppet could stand at the end of a runway with a Stinger and shoot them down on training flights. The reason what you’ve written is wrong is that all military installations use a gradiated system of alert levels. Had there been the slightest chance those Russian aircraft could launch or drop anything unpleasant that USN group wouldnt have been at such a low alert state.

If no export orders are forthcoming then it is very unlikely that any further work would be done on them, but then the work done on newer models could be retrofitted to older systems to improve their performance. The Yakhont-M will get a multi sensor (ie radar and optics) guidance package that should allow land attack capability… such a seeker could be used on larger older missiles too, not to mention improved propulsions like scramjet technology…

The point is ‘could be retrofitted’ and ‘will get a multisensor…’ and ‘could be used on’. How many, if any, of these systems have been fielded and proven under anything near operational trials conditions?.

They are maintaining the satellite guidance system it requires to operate in service… even though up until recently they had been neglecting their Glonass system. Doesn’t that tell you they are maintaining their anti carrier capability?

To what purpose though?. SIOP tasked CVBG’s disappeared a decade ago, the ‘vaunted’ space targetting system has atrophied to the point that it provides little more than basic surveillance functions and the heavy ‘anticarrier’ missiles are countered by naval AAW systems that were first fielded two DECADES ago.

That is not what this thread is about.

I am disputing Srbins comment that Russia makes the worlds best antiship missiles. Nothing in this thread has persuaded me that his point is valid.

No one anti ship missiles with achieve all goals. A range of different weapons with different capabilities is what you need and the Russians certainly have that.

Eh?. Most European navies have standardised on a single weapon be that Harpoon, Exocet, Otomat, RBS15 or whatever. If they dont have a dedicated anticarrier weapon it means either they intended to use other weapons (HWT’s for one!) for the engagement of such targets or they dont count, amongst their requirements the need to target CVN’s. One AShM type IS more than adequate for most services.

If passive subsonic was all that wonderful then the Russians have had the AS-18 in service since the 80s… TV command guided missile with a 115km range. A minor change to give it a combined TV/IIR seeker for optimum target discrimination and taadaa!!!

Agree. Given such a ‘minor’ change the AS-18 could become a very dangerous system. Like the earlier comment though its not been done has it?. Same for Uran, same for Yakhont etc. Fair weapons systems, but, they stop short of being the ‘best’.

Hang on are you saying the USN is crap because no other country on the globe could afford to operate it for a day using their whole years budget?

How the hell did you get that interpretation from the quote?!. The USN is the size it is due to the nature of tasks it performs. The Russian anticarrier weapons are the way they are due to the target set they were required to service, BUT, that target set is no longer something the Russians can, or have a need to, engage. No-one else on the planet, China excepted perhaps, has a need for such systems. I ask again what value is there in a weapon that no-one can use?.

Make up your mind… first you are looking for the best all round AShM, then deciding if the Russians have the best AShMs in the world, and then you start blabbing about affordability. That is three very different things in my book… perhaps that is why our discussions last so long.

I’m used to things like weapon availability rates, servicing schedules and the suchlike. Its my opinion that a weapon that requires a service to add or maintain extra support personnel and infrastructure in return for marginal capabilities is a poor weapon. Granit, Kh-22 and the like fall into that category for me.

This NSM seems nice but how all weather is it? How useful is it really? I personally think the Club with the supersonic warhead section should be first, simply because it is actually difficult to intercept by CIWS yet offers all the other benefits of low and slow turbojet missiles. It is fully all weather.

You’ve hit on the only major drawback the NSM weapons system has that I can see. The weather conditions would have to be very adverse to impact the system though. I dont think heavy rain would be sufficient to degrade the seeker as I’ve used a Radamec IIR sensor in such conditions and been able to see a merchant vessel at horizon range. A fog bank would probably be quite effective at knocking out the targetting solution, but, seeings as its almost invulnerable to chaff and jamming I think, if there is only a fog-limitation against the weapon, its a quantum leap further on than an ARH.

Regarding AShMs the Russians certainly have the supersonic end cornered and are the only navy to have ever seriously looked like threatening the USN Carrier Groups.

That was yesterday Garry. What do those missiles do for the Russians today?. Give them a sabre to rattle nice and hard at the Americanski’s. Who cares?. I think they have far more important things to spend their money on myself!.

And finally if cost is so important then as I mentioned above the AS-18 Kazoo has been in service for some time and you can distract smaller boats with weapons like Uran and AS-17, or that interesting 200km range variant of the AS-11 (Kh-58) with MMW radar guidance for anti ship use.

This is also my point though!. Thats 4 missile systems with all their spares infrastructures, maintenance personnel training requirements and operational trainig requirements that NSM could replace with a single weapon AND could be used in more roles besides. Efficiency is an important factor.

Except the small point that if your anti ship missiles can’t help you defend your country they aren’t much use to you really. A Malaysian Su-30 with a single Moskit or three Yakhonts backed up by surface launched missiles like Exocet would be treated with more respect by an opposing fleet commander. Rather more is known about Exocets and they are easier to intercept with missiles or CIWS.

I’ve said before that I dont rate Western active-radar homing weapons any higher than their Russian counterparts. Its the ARH seeker I think is obsolescent more than any particular weapon. If I’m an anti-air warfare officer sat aboard a warship intruding into Malaysian waters I’m going to be scared if I know that they have antiship missiles I am unlikely detect via any of my onboard, organic, systems until they cross my sensor horizon. If I know they have Yakhonts, Exocets and any of the other ARH weapons I’ve got my best guys on ESM watch, all chaff and decoy launchers loaded and cocked, and I’m feeling more confident that there is actually defensive action I can take to defeat the inbound.

AS-18, and various passive radiation homing versions of their existing supersonic weapons.

Not yet it doesnt. If the funding to develop on IIR seeker and the onboard computer/TRA software doest materialise it may never do. NSM’s in the final stages of its trials by comparison.

The SSM launcher is definitely a quintuple mount not a quad. The mounting is made up of individual missile cannisters and, allegedly, the top row of three has been replaced, at various times, with a multiple launch rocket system. You might be doing well to find an image of the launcher in this configuration!.

Where’s that police chopper….I want a race!.

The Japanese Kamikaze attack was effectively a method to place a large amount of high explosive onto a ship target with maximum efficiency.

Today guided missiles replicate that function. Seeker technology replaces the man at the stick. Modern warships are well equipped to deal with antiship missile attack and an antiship missile is a much harder target to engage than an aircraft. Airborne suicide attacks against warships therefore offers little prospect of success.

The USS Cole was hit, in many respects, by a kamikaze attack performed by hostiles in a light boat. That was a one shot deal though and force protection is now a primary consideration for warships transitting choke point areas. As an antiship tactic Kamikaze, therefore, offers little potential for success.

Ironically Kamikaze tactics have been proven viable, today, in asymmetric warfare against undefended targets. Think World Trade Centre for any verification on that one. There will always be more vulnerable, non-combattant, targets than defensive sysytems to protect them so, on face value, the Kamikaze technique would appear to a long way from irrelevent in todays world.

Doesnt look like anything ‘official’. In fact it looks a lot like a couple of folded tarps lashed to the guardrail!.

Could be an improvised antenna for a commercial ‘after market’ comms fit. I heard a while back that some Russian vessels were using commercial VHF sets to communicate with NATO and other vessels at sea for some reason. I guessed at the time that Soviet warships may not set the standard channel 16 watch prescribed by International Maritime Law but never looked into it much.

Sailors have a habit of improvising systems as and when the idea strikes!. I remember that the crew of HMS Euryalus rigged up a TV aerial in the Ikara tracker so that they could pick up local stations whenever they were sailing close to shore. This guardrail mounted object could be something very similar!.