does it adds edge if a anti-ship rocket is flying at 2-3M?
sounds a little out of date but supersonic anti-ship missiles can be surprisingly powerful in war. after all how many hits can a carrier take, if the attcking missile are Russia/China's Sunburn?
why doesn't America interest in them.

Because of the premise of the Carrier Task Force. The United States has a set piece flotilla with the carrier as it's centerpiece, ensuring maximum protection beneath, via submarine, surface coverage from destroyers and crusiers, and always has a couple of fighters flying top cover. Due to the AEGIS radar array, (theoretically) no inbound aircraft would be able to reach missile range before being neutralized.

Also, carriers are very big, and you'd be surprised at how much punishment they can take.

[edit on 25-2-2005 by Reality Czech]

Originally posted by youtakeit
does it adds edge if a anti-ship rocket is flying at 2-3M?
sounds a little out of date but supersonic anti-ship missiles can be surprisingly powerful in war. after all how many hits can a carrier take, if the attcking missile are Russia/China's Sunburn?
why doesn't America interest in them.

The main advantage of a supersonic cruise missile is penetration capability - i.e. it's harder to shoot down the same target at Mach 2 than Mach .8 . However, in exchange for this speed you must use much more fuel to travel the same distance, making the practical warhead size and/or range much smaller. Guidance is also going to be more difficult (given that the target will be moving) - so you can't count on hitting the right part of the ship either. Also, given the low altitude these systems operate at, it is pretty difficult to shoot down a cruise missile anyway.

The only naval system that I am aware of that has a proven ability to destroy low-altitude subsonic cruise missiles is the US Aegis system. (Before I get flamed, yes most fighter aircraft can also shoot down a cruise missile, however the US is also the only country that has the ability to keep top-notch fighters around it's ships at all times). If you're the US, why develop a missile to combat a threat that only you pose, especially when you sacrifice warhead size, range and accuracy?

Now what they really need to worry about is supercavitation torpedoes....

Originally posted by Reality Czech
Now what they really need to worry about is supercavitation torpedoes....

1 or 2 would probably get through, but I wouldn't want to be on the submarine that fired them ....

Reminds me of a quote I heard prior to the Iraqi war. Some US general was asked about the problems that all of the GPS jammers were going to cause, making US precision weapons useless ( ), and he noted that anyone giving off a signal can be tracked and target. The quote was something along the lines of "If I was in the Iraqi army and a war started, GPS jammer would not be a job I would want". The noise caused by firing a torpedo would be instantly traceable, my guess is there would be multiple anti-submarine weapons targeting them in the water before even a very fast torpedo would hit it's target.

Point. But what if you could come up with a way to 'soft launch' a supercav torp? Really, really improbable, given the way it works, but who knows?

The only known missile to missile kill in a warzone was of a missile heading for a US battleship. It was shot down by a Sea Dart during the 1st Gulf War (HMS Glouster i think?). Way to go RN!!!


Supercavitating torpedo's are a last chance weapon. They have limited range and to date can only travel in a straight line (as you as you turn it u lose the cavitation bubble). The easiest defence against them is just to put the helm hard over and get out of the way

Supersonic anti-ship cruise missiles (ASCM's) as designed to do one thing: reduce the reaction time of the defending ship.

Example: an air-launched AM-39 Exocet travels at about mach 0.8, at an altitude of about 7 meters. These were the weapons that the Argentinians used effectively against the RN in the Faulklands. Typically, the defending ship's first indication of attack will be when the terminal homer of the ASCM activates and begins to scan the target area for the defender. If the defender's EW crew is alert, they will intercept and classify the signal in maybe 5-10 seconds. Assuming seeker activation occurs anywhere from 2-5 nm away from the defender, this leave the defender's crew anywhere from 30-90 seconds to react and defend. This is (usually) enough time to do the following:

1. Alert the crew and other units in formation
2. Adjust course and speed (Con! Emergency flank!) to unmask batteries, reduce radar cross section, get the hell outta Dodge City
3. Launch chaff, floating decoys, and IR decoys
4. Select the appropriate ECM countermeasure and activate
5. Transfer threat bearing to fire control computers
6. Active fire control radars (assuming your aren't lucky enough to be an an Aegis-equipped vessel) and search for target
7. Lock onto an extremely low RCS target in a high-clutter enviroment (hope it isn't raining out or rough seas)
8. Get a few birds offf the rail and out to the target
9. If your gun mounts are automatic, or happen to be manned, slew out to threat bearing and start blasting away.
10. Poop your pants
11. Take the safeties off your close-in weapon system (Phalanx, Goalkeeper, butt-saver) and listen to the roar of 30mm shells speeding out to a missile making terminal-evasive maneuvers as it speeds to your location.
12. Pray

Now, that same missile travelling at mach 2.5 will reduce your reaction time from initial attack indication to about 10-20 seconds.

How many of the above steps do you think you can do in 10-20 seconds?



[edit on 25-2-2005 by Pyros]

double post..view post below..

[edit on 25-2-2005 by Daedalus3]