Since I was talking about 100 Harpoons vs Kirov, this is the only relevant one; pop up maneuver is not equal to evasive maneuvering. Pop-up attack is pretty counterproductive for attacking a ship with defensive capabilities; it allows better target acquistion for the missile, but opposite is also true.

no it actually reduce doppler effect and may even go out of ciws radar cover angle thus make interception much harder
iam talking about subsonic anti ship missile so rbs-15 block ii , excocet block iii , NSM all relevance

Either way, point I am making is; there are supersonic AShM that are certainly known to make evasive maneuvers, so your point about “supersonic missiles are easier to hit” is plain wrong. Look at it this way, Russian AShM evolution go towards faster missiles with each generation; why so? They could have easily packed 4 Harpoon-like missiles in place of 1 Moskit on a Sovremenny, or 8 missiles in place of single P-500 or P-700, why waste effort if it doesn’t provide any benefits, let alone providing only drawbacks? Were the russians really incapable of building a harpoon-ski? Or the logic behind such move is that a single fast flying missile provides a capability 8 slower missiles cannot?

the same argument could be make on why western decide to make stealth , subsonic missile instead of supersonic anti ship missile ( they used to have supersonic missile such as ASMP , ASMP-A, AGM-69, AQM-37C , AGM-78 , AGM-88 ,ASALM , Hyfly ,GAM-87 Skybolt but never think about their application as anti ship ,even the supersonic LRASM-B was cancelded while the subsonic LRASM-A was keep) , may be because stealth subsonic missile is alot more effective

Lift formulae says othervise; Plus, a supersonic missile can pull exponantially greater amount of Gs, making it a much difficult target. Missiles are rated for “target Gs” and not “target turn radius etc” for a reason
I wont get into boring explainations, apart from this;
an object flying at 800 km/h, making 30 degree turn will deviate from its original intercept position by 333 meters in 3 seconds, an object flying at 3000 km/h, making just 15 degree turn will deviate from its original intercept position by 645 meters in 3 seconds. A missile trying to intercept (which is expected to fly for ~10 seconds to reach its target), has to make much greater corrections for a supersonic target. Same also applies to a CIWS firing bullets which has its time to impact; greater the deviation from original course, much harder it is to predict where to shoot. As a most extreme example, there is no CIWS system that could intercept ballistic missiles, even though they fly on the most predictiable flight path. Plus, missile seeker has its limits, I highly doubt an AShM could put 30 degree to its target without losing target lock, but it could certainly put 15 degrees.

EXCEPT that p-700 ,yakhont is not going to turn that hard ,since it 3 time faster than NSM , assume the 2 missile can sustain same G force mean while NSM can turn 30 degree , your supersonic anti ship missile can turn maximum of 5 degree , and since p-700 ,yakhont significantly bigger it even more unlikely that they can make suddent due to sth called momentum

1- Jamming is a very complex part of discussion. Speaking of jamming by attacker, Jamming requires direct LOS, and jamming platform needs to fly outside the SAM envelope of the target. Trying to jam a MR-800 or a SPY-1 (or any radar with equivalent power output) at 200-250 km is plain laughable, as jammer’s power output degrades by ^2 and relevance of RCS by ^4. We are talking about detection at 20 km range. Try to jam a Slava/Kirov from any closer range, and you will recieve a 48N6 fired on TVM, or 5V55 fired on home-on-jam. Same would apply to a Tico/Burke when jamming platform will be easily punished by a SM-6 shot. However if target lacks a true area defense, (like Udaloy or a Neustrashimny classes) then you are right, jamming does matter, a jamming platform could close to 20 km range, and actually delay the VLO missiles’ detection time.

MALD-J = stand in jamming
APG-81 , ALQ-99 = screen jamming
NSM , JSM are stealth so jamming will be alot more effective
SAM have home-on-jam capability will then all home on the decoys +jamming aircraft instead of the anti ship missile that they are mean to intercept

Jamming from defensive platform is more problematic, as most of the current AShM have home-on-jam capability, and anti-radiation capability.

that mean if there was sth like this
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nulka
then AShM have home-on-jam capability will be lure aways 😎

2-What sea clutter are you talking about? Radar will simply set a very high pulse repetition frequency, and as missile is the only thing that causes such doppler shift, it will shine brightly on the screen. Even the most archaic pulse doppler radars will not have slightest problem distinguishing a missile from sea clutter. VLO won’t matter at 20 km. 300 kW peak output from MR-710, something like 500 kW peak output from MR-800.

doppler can help but not going to solve the problems of clutter , it will be even more problematic if target have very low RCS
a normal destroyer have RCS of about 100000 m2 but Zhuk AE despite being a very modern doppler radars can only detect said destroyer at 200 km , while it capable of detect air target with RCS = 10 m2 from much longer range ,that is due to clutter

Rechecked, you are right its ARH doesn’t lock at that range. At 300 km it detects target emissions, kinda Anti-radiation mode, irrelevant of target RCS.

AESA radar are LPI

The link you have provided does not open, but I think I know the source book; it says something like this “the associated pomia something processor carries 20 target tracks” isn’t it? If the book is the same, please read the complete page, you will find something like “20 target tracks are carried by each workstation, number can be increased by an order of magnitude by increasing the number of workstations”.

Krivak series with sole MR-755 radar carry 8 baget series workstations, totaling at 160 target tracking capability. Now to be honest, I don’t know how many workstations a Kirov possess, but considering it has two main masts (MR-800 and MR-710), it should be at least double the Krivak’s, meaning 320 target tracking capability. Add to that 1- MR-710 is the bigger version of MR-755 with the purpose of scanning greater volumes, demanding more workstations 2-Kirov/slava classes actually use MR-710 as its medium range radar, and rely on MR-800 for long range scans, which should necessitate much greater target tracking capability 3-Unlike Krivak class, Kirov has long range air defense mission demanding much more emphasis on target tracking than krivak, 4-Unlike krivak class, Kirov has a role as a SAG centerpiece, which demands much greater SA. 5-tracking is related to processing power of workstations, baget series workstations are known to be open architecture and pretty much upgradable as a home pc, its illogical to think ships still operate with same computer hardware designed in 1967. If you want my estimation, Kirov’s target tracking capability can easily be 1000 targets, even more. Same is true for UYK-43 upgraded AEGIS ships, way over 1000; but I will simply stick 100+ for both occasions.

what work station you talking about ?

can you point them out in the picture ?

Range isn’t the issue, a M2.5 missile covers 0,83 km by each second. 30 km? you have 25 seconds, to make the missile stop.

here is where you extremely wrong
again SPY-1 radar height of about 17 meter above the sea
P-270 Moskit in sea skimming mode fly at 20 meter above the sea thus the radar horizon is 35 km , Moskit reaches Mach 3 at a high altitude and its maximum low-altitude speed is M2.2 , so in sea skimming mode it take 47 seconds from detection until missiles hit
http://fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/missile/row/moskit.htm

P-500 BAZALT in sea skimming mode fly at about > 10 meter above the sea thus the radar horizon is 30 km , P-500 reaches Mach 2 at high altitude , while low-altitude speed is Mach 1.5
so in sea skimming mode it take 59 seconds from detection until missiles hit
http://www.vectorsite.net/twcruz_7.html

P-700 GRANIT in sea skimming mode fly at about > 10 meter above the sea thus the radar horizon is 30 km , P-700 reaches Mach 2.5 at high altitude , while low-altitude speed is Mach 1.6
so in sea skimming mode it take 55 seconds from detection until missiles hit
http://www.vectorsite.net/twcruz_7.html

also BrahMos according to their officials website can reached mach 3 , however cruise altitude is 15 km ( only at terminal phased it reduced to 10 meter)
thus the radar horizon is 522 km so it take 513 seconds from detection until missiles hit
http://www.brahmos.com/content.php?id=10&sid=10

AS-16 Kickback climbs to an altitude of about 40,000 m (130,000 ft) and then dives in on the target, accelerating to a speed of about Mach 5 , thus the radar horizon is 841 km so it take 496 seconds from detection until missiles hit
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AS-16_Kickback

Kh-22 In low-altitude mode, it climbs to 12,000 m (39,000 ft) and makes a shallow dive at about Mach 3.5, making the final approach at an altitude under 500 m (1,600 ft) thus the radar horizon is 468 km so it take 394 seconds from detection until missiles hit
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AS-4_Kitchen

Kh-20 Flight ceiling 20 km thus the radar horizon is 600 km, it have Speed of Mach 2.0 so it take 885 seconds from detection until missiles hit
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kh-20

NSM ,JSM ,RBS-15 block III , EXCOCET block II , Harpoon in sea skimming mode fly only 1 meter above water thus the radar horizon is 21 km , with speed of mach 0.95 it take 65 seconds from detection until missiles hit , in reality the ship may not be able to detect the stealth missile by radar and have to wait until it come to visual horizon about 18 km aways thus they only have 55 seconds to react
http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=4S3h8j_NEmkC&pg=PA529&lpg=PA529&dq=mach+0.95+nsm&source=bl&ots=hJSsPU2Zd_&sig=7N5SfMaK-fmvAiIDXqzhQ4mtvUo&hl=en&sa=X&ei=XyY1VI_BLJPIggTypIDwBw&ved=0CCoQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=mach%200.95%20nsm&f=false
http://members.home.nl/7seas/radcalc.htm

No, no-one would waste billions of $ on covering hundreds of missiles with as-effective RAM, and waste an additional few billion $to specialized storage facilities. Difference between RCS of harpoon and JSM would be more similar to the difference between Rafele and F-16.

Compared to f-16 , RAFALE may have better RAM But it dont really have shaping, while compared to harpoon ,NSM Have both shaping and RAM , Difference between RCS of harpoon and JSM would be more similar to the difference between f-15 and f-22
also small objects already have small RCS , IT also alot easier to reduce their RCS , AGM-88 Have Big wing but it’s rcs is only 0.1 m2 ,A multiple independently targetable reentry vehicle (MIRV ) have average frontal rcs of only 0.01 m2 , both of them dont have RAM or shaped to reduce RCS
f-35 and stealth UAV don’t requires specialized storage facilities so stealth missiles wont require that either

Plus, said to have and actually has is a lot of different things. It would be miracle if F-22 has 0,01 RCS on average at its front semisphere

that your opinion , and very unlikely to be true

Then US Ship designers are plain idiots to accomodate SPG-62?

it still needed for ESSM
Also we didnt have SM-6 and SM-2 Didnot have IIR seeker when the ship was designed

You are wrong about all of these, not knowing the working principles, and what you post is useless adverstisment; electronic scanning allows beam steering in miliseconds, it doesnt mean covering entire volume in seconds.

You want to scan 90 degree part of the ship with 50 degree elevation, you have 148 individual modules. Radar can cover that region in milliseconds, but the resolution you get will be 16 by 9. Radar will not actually see anything. Instead in real life, radar will form much tighter beams, covering smaller areas with a resolution where it could actually detect targets. MR-800 requires 3 passes to cover all elevations in interleaved mode, so it takes 15 seconds to cover full 360 degrees for all target types. Its reasonable to assume what limits antenna rotation speed is the signal proccessing of the vertical scanning. Then, it is also reasonable if it had electronic scanning, it would still need 15 seconds to cover full rotation, limited by the signal processing speeds. With improved signal processing, antenna could be rotated faster so it would take less time to detect targets.

Considering the signal processing power limitations apply, time to cover entire 360 degree volume for SPY-1 should be not much different than MR-800 or MR-710. SPY-1 is faster only because, US was generally ahead of Soviets in processing power, but milliseconds? or even 2-4 seconds? Not THAT fast. A clear advantage SPY-1 do brings is that when it detects potentially dangerous targets, it could leave few modules each to track them, and operate rest of the modules to keep scanning the area. A feature MR-800 cannot follow, its blind when its not looking at the targets direction; that is why Russians have specialized tracking radars for their missiles.

no ,you dont understand the different between mechanically steered radar and electronically steering radar
that search time may be true for MR-800 which is mechanically steered radar
but spy-1 is AESA Radar so it steering electronically and always produces sharp beam
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XIm59P5BNSQ
http://www.ausairpower.net/aesa-intro.html there is no way you can rotate a mechanically steered radar so that it can track as fast as AESA or PESA

30 km detection = 25 seconds engagment interval, 8-10 seconds to detect, additional 4-8 seconds to react. Around 15 seconds passed, AShM are at 12 km, 10 seconds remaining. No datalink, no inertial guidance, there is only SARH guidance for SM-2 or ESSM. No guidance sharing, they are already at their terminal phase right off the VL tube; Likevise there is no datalink for SM-6 either; its SARH guided (or preprogrammed autopilot -if its capable of such thing) to lock its ARH just like a Maddog AIM-120. I understand your theory as a SM-6 locked on, more targets can be engaged, but there is simply not enough time; lets assume additional 3-4 seconds elapsed for launch, acceleration rotation and target acquistion by SM-6 or whatever missiles, enemy AShM are at 8 km, 7 seconds remaining. Like I’ve said an AEGIS ship without any support will have one shot of 3 missile salvo againist M2.5+ AShM then it has to rely on Phalanx.

30 km detection = 55 seconds engagement again P-700 , 59 seconds again p-500
P-270 Moskit fly at 20 meter above the sea thus the radar horizon is 35 km , Moskit reaches Mach 3 at a high altitude and its maximum low-altitude speed is M2.2 , so in sea skimming mode it take 47 seconds from detection until missiles hit
NSM ,JSM ,RBS-15 block III , EXCOCET block II , Harpoon fly only 1 meter above water thus the radar horizon is 21 km , with speed of mach 0.95 it take 65 seconds from detection until missiles hit

SM-2 , SM-6 BOTH have command guider ( basically data link ) and Inertial guidance the SARH is only for terminal phased , new sm-2 have IIR Seeker , SM-6 have active radar
RAM work automatically , ESSM have Midcourse datalink and Terminal semi-active radar homing
the detect and reaction time is about 1-2 seconds rather than

8-10 seconds to detect, additional 4-8 seconds to react

Really? saturate what? and saturated by what? In 1960s there wasnt even a such thing called saturation attacks, as there was nothing to saturate, ships then were completely defensless againist anti-ship missiles. Original AEGIS was designed as an intergated combat system that would have quick enough reaction time to defeat the -then subsonic- Soviet anti-ship missiles.

Original AEGIS was designed to defeat saturate attack of tu-95 , tu-160 and tu-22 again carrier fleet using missile such as AS-16 Kickback,AS-4 Kitchen,Kh-20,AS-11

Agreed 100%, but success in saturation primarily depends on the defensive response time of its target then anything else;
In other words, if window of opportunity for shooting down missiles is 20 seconds, and ship’s response time is 10 seconds, and will be able to fire 3 missiles in 10-15 second intervals, 4 missiles will effectively saturate defenses of the ship, irrespective of Pk of SAMs it launch(as in non-ciws arleigh burke versus P-700 example)

where did you get the information that AEGIS equip ship response time is 10 seconds ??? fully automatic mode may take 2-4 seconds top, also missiles launch interval is alot faster than 10-15 second , may be 1-2 seconds top
P-700 will be detected from 30 km , with speed of mach 1.6 it will take at least 55 seconds , even the BrahMos fly at mach 2.8 at only 3 meter above the sea , will be detected 25 seconds before it hit

Torpedoes -when compared to AShM or even artillery- are pretty silly way for attacking surface targets; They are slow, short ranged, easily evadable (even by the means of maneuvering or just going at full speed), and easily divertable (by the means of ship launched decoys, or decoy carrying anti-submarine rockets) and easily destroyable (by any artillery -if close to surface-, or anti-submarine rockets -if submerged-)

In fact primary use of Udav-1 or similar systems is defense againist torpedoes. Speaking of Udav-1, It fires 111SO decoy rockets and 111SZ proximity fused mines along the way of the torpedo as soon as its detected. If both fails, it can fire 111SG rockets with depth charges at close range.

i agree that torpedo can be divertable by decoy , but the same can be said for anti ship missiles especially the supersonic one because they are much less maneuver
and yes i agree that ship can out run a torpedo
but there no way you can intercept a torpedo by artillery or anti-submarine rockets , the depth charge you talking about are to be used again submarine not torpedo

And no; an AEGIS destroyer or Arleigh burke class specifically, wont survive 100 AShM, not by a long shot: No matter how many SAMs it carry, it can provide 3 Guidance channels due to fact it has 3 SPG-62 guidance radars. New ARH SAMs do not require terminal guidance, but they still require mid-course updates which is still provided by SPG-62.So only after first salvo of 3 missiles acquire their targets, another 3 can be launched, no more, not sooner. Due to curvature of earth, there is a such thing called radar horizon. With ~17m height of SPY-1 radars, its radar horizon is approximately 14,2 km. Time required for a M2.5 AShM to cover this distance is 16,5 seconds; AEGIS is fast and mostly automated, but it would be a real miracle can detect 3 different targets (that also involves differentiating from ground clutter if any), track and identify them, conclude them as threat to the ship, get missile launch authorization from the operator, direct CW guidance radars to target, and launch the missiles. Its not impossible, but re-engaging targets if not destroyed or launching another 3 set of missiles to different targets in that time? That is pretty impossible to me. 4 supersonic missiles will likely to mission-kill a non CIWS Arleigh burke, 5 or 6 will mission kill a CIWS variant.

this is wrong on so many level
firstly, radar horizon not only depend on radar altitude but also target altitude:
SPY-1 height is about 17 meter
Supersonic antiship missiles like P-800 Oniks , P-700 fly at about > 10 meter above the sea
thus the radar horizon is 30 km
P-270 Moskit fly at 20 meter above the sea
thus the radar horizon is 35 km
http://members.home.nl/7seas/radcalc.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P-800_Oniks
even with the new BrahMos that is said to be able to fly 3 meter above the sea the radar horizon is still 24 km

secondly , anti ship missiles speed when they fly at high altitude is really different from when they fly at low altitude because the air is alot thicker thus
the speed is significantly less
Example :p-800 Oniks fly at mach 2.6 at high altitude but at low altitude that reduced to only mach 2
P-700 fly at mach 2.5 at high altitude but at low altitude that reduced to mach 1.6

Thirdly , AEGIS can guide a missile using the Interrupted Continuous Wave Illumination technique , with mean mid course guide can be done by SPY-1 ,SPG-62 only needed for terminal phase just before impact , and the fact that SM-2 , RAM both have IR seeker and SM-6 have active radar guider that mean only ESSM need SPG-62 for terminal phase , SPY-1 can track and lock 100 targets at the same times so 3 missiles wouldnt be that big of a problem

Last but not least
Supersonic missiles are any thing but stealth , they all have high RCS and high IR signature + they fly very high from the sea which mean alot easier to distinguish from clutter , also since Arleigh burke have reduce RCS measure missiles cannot detect it from further than 24 meter so supersonic missiles will actually be quite useless here because they cannot turn tight enough to attack Arleigh burke at that distance

Kirov is said to be able to theoratically survive an attack by 100 harpoons is another story; MR-800 3D search radar is located exactly 48 meters from S/L, covering 24,7 km range at sea level. With stated 864 km/h speed, it takes 103 seconds for Harpoon to cover the this distance. This radar does not provide missile guidance, it certainly provides tracking data to fire-control subsystems and alerts the crew. Now the impressive part; Each of two Volna systems can guide 8 missiles to 4 different targets in the air, with 4 in command guidance mode, and another 4 in terminal SARH or TVM mode. It takes 3 seconds for rotating dispanser to get into position (due to cold launch system it simply rotates the octuple missle magazine), so new missiles will be launched in command guidance. Which means, kirov can utilise all 12 of its SA-N-6 rotating launchers, engaging 8 different targets, with additional 8 in mid course update. 5V55R/U missiles reach 7200 km/h speeds, so time between launch and missile detonation (succesful or not) is roughly 10 seconds; At the end of 10 seconds, 8 missiles have reached their targets, another 8 will be in the air (now switched to SARH) and another 8 are just launched. Even by worst assumptions, kirov can fire and deplate its entire SA-N-6 magazine againist incoming harpoons in ~60 seconds. Add to that, when remaining inbound missiles close into 12 km comes the SA-N-9 system. By that time 3R95 which already detected tracked, prioritized and selected its targets, and guides 8 missiles to 4 different targets. Theoratically, kirovs are supposed to carry two of these radars and 192 SA-N-9 missiles. System as a whole puts 16 missiles againist 8 targets. It could operate in the same fasion as above, putting close to hundred missiles in the air if needed. Then there is SA-N-4s, each system can engage 2 different targets with relatively lower Pk againist missiles, and 8x AK-630 or 6xKashtan-Ms, each module of the latter can engage two different targets at the same time. What should limit a kirov battlecruiser is the fact that its not truly network centric; independent systems can operate in full automatic mode, they can also get information from MR-710 and MR-800 search radars, but they have no connection with other systems, at 8-9 km, a single harpoon can be engaged by all of the SA-N-6, SA-N-9 SA-N-4 and SA-N-11 systems, wasting tracking channels and ammunition.

Kirov radar track less target , lock less target at the same time compared to SPY-1 ,all the missiles it carry is SARH thus rely on illuminator , the only advantages it have is that the radar is put higher , but then Subsonic missiles fly alot lower and have less RCS than supersonic one so i dont see how Kirov survive JSM , LRASM any better than Arleigh burke survive P-700 , P-800

The ones that had a nuclear option were optimised for a strategic target set in the main. A carrier battle GROUP. You understand the difference between a strategic and tactical tasking?. Initially the thread here suggested a single AAW ship as a target. Not really a strategic mission knocking out a single CG/DDG?.

how about nuclear tipped option for stealth missiles like LRASM , JSM again strategic target ( they obviously better than supersonic missiles because they can get closer to target

Please note difference in size, performance, warhead weight and attack profile between an ASW LWT such as a Mk46 and something intended to kill surface ships…virtually any 21″ heavyweight you care to select.

Heavyweight torpedoes sink ships and are carried by submarines or another surface ship for a reason. Missiles are all very nice and flashy. They can make holes and set fires. They don’t generally sink ships of any real scale though.

the point here is that torpedo even the light weight one cannot be shot down by air defense missiles or cannon , thus anti ship missiles with torpedo warhead will face much less resistance when they attack a ship

My (no doubt faulty) memory is that the number is based upon Kirov having escorts (with their own SAMs) as well
The huge number (I’m with you thinking its 100 but as I say it’s been a while) is to cover doing enough damage after many have been shot down

i have an idea , just put a nuclear warhead on the anti ship missiles , and program the missiles to explode when the seeker detect any SAM launch at it , an nuclear explosion at 1 km aways will be quite dangerous to the ship
a stealth , very low flying stealth missiles like JSM would be idea for that task cause it can come very close to the ship

Subsonic missiles also use radar guider, but supersonic missiles have better chance to come through ship defense. By this definition, anti-ship missiles are now useless as non can sink a modern ship.

Supersonic anti ship missiles only use radar while subsonic one use variety of different sensor
Harpoon , Exocet use Radar seeker + GPS , INS
Spear use SAL , IIR , MMW radar + GPS , INS
JSM use IIR + GPS , INS
..etc

the more LR high speed missiles it carry the marrier

i dont know
air defense have been tested and shown to be able to shot down supersonic drone many time but they havenot done the same again low RCS missiles like JSOW or JASSM , so a subsonic stealth ASM may work better
also aircraft can carry alot more Subsonic missiles compared to supersonic one ( in theory F-16 can carry 4 times more SPEAR than HARMs ) subsonic missiles also have variety of different sensor thus more resistance to jamming

Russian Navy Su-30SM with 3M-54 Klub missiles which have around 600 km range, but air launched version could have even longer range. With Bars-R radar, modern data link connection to C4ISR and long range of plane, this is very potent combination.

the disadvantage of Supersonic missiles is that all of them using radar guider , ship now a day are start to use jamming and they have pretty low RCS thus missiles seeker can only detect the ship at about 3 meter => very useless