It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Ideal payload for anti ship cruise missile

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 18 2006 @ 02:08 PM
link   
this section seems to be moving quite slow. im board so lets discuss the following :


we often hear talk about "this or that" missile will destroy a carrier or ship but i've actually seen pictures and read articles which have shown pictures of ships that have survived multiple hits from a ASCM missile.

people often talk about the sunburn missile as a threat, lets say it does hit will it really do anything to an aircraft carrier apart from blow a hole in the side. i dont think it can sink or destory a carrier becuase a carrier is just so much bigger then some of the ships that have been hit with these types of missiles.

what size payload is needed to destory/sink a modern aircraft carrier considering the following specs :

-medium/large aircraft carrier(american/russian types)
-assuming it gets through to the target.
-has a payload of about 488lbs(harpoon)/~300kg(sunburn/moskit)


chinas been massing a huge quantity of missiles and so has iran. now lets say everything goes perfect for them and somehow missiles get through :

how many missiles do you think it will take to kock out a aircraft carrier or how much of a single payload would be required.




posted on Feb, 18 2006 @ 02:38 PM
link   
Don´t forget the Norwegian Stealth NSM (Naval Strike Missile).


Kongsberg: Naval Strike Missile - NSM



NSM is the only fourth generation missile in existence as per today.

[---]

the world's most sophisticated stealth strike missile

[---]

Its excellent sea-skimming ability and random manouvres in the terminal phase make it virtually impossible to stop.

How many of those are needed to sink a carrier? I don´t know, but maybe they can test it on the Kitty Hawk this summer?



Channelnewsasia.com: US to hold mammoth naval operations in Pacific

Four carriers would be involved in three military maritime exercises -- one of them touted as the world's largest -- between June and August in the region, Commander of the US Pacific Fleet Admiral Gary Roughead said in Washington.

Aside from the Japan-based Kitty Hawk, the other carriers to be involved in the exercises are the San Diego-based Ronald Reagan and one more each from the Pacific and Atlantic fleets.



posted on Feb, 18 2006 @ 03:06 PM
link   
untill we have a the post action reports , such questions are IMHO a pissing contest -

there are soo many factors which determine what the outcome of battle damage to a warship will be

incompetant damage control and bad luck - cf HMS ark royal - saw her go down after just one torpedo

blindingly good luck and good damage control - cf USS yorktown IIRC kept her afloat untill she could be taken under tow and stabilised

ships like HMS hood and USS arizona - exploded when a single " golden bullet " struk a vital area and led to a catastropic chain reaction

i realise this is not heplfull in determining the question " can weapon x deep six ship y "

but historic experience prooved that the outcome was inposible to judge effectivly - so what makes people think that the efficiency of new wepons will be any easier to judge ?



posted on Feb, 18 2006 @ 03:23 PM
link   
One factor you have to consider. You have to trade off warhead size with performance issues. TO make the weapon effective it has to have decent range and speed in addition to its punch.

If the warhead is so big as to sink a super carrier but has to be launched close in the carrier of the missile would have to get dangerously close to the target to fire it. Conversely, if the cruise missile is massive, it becomes an easy target for the carriers defences and land based installations can come under attack.

Most cruise missiles like the Sunburn et al. were designed around the scheme of saturating a carriers multi layered defences hoping that several would get through to thier targets.

Remember that if you damage a carrier to the point that it is unable to conduct flight operations, its the same as sinking it in the short term.



posted on Feb, 19 2006 @ 12:35 AM
link   
The makers of the Harpoon missile claimed that 5 hits would diable/sink a carrier. Thi was back in the early 80's, so I'm not sure if they would maintain the same stance.



posted on Feb, 19 2006 @ 01:33 AM
link   
Don't forget the Franklin either Ape. Three or four kamikaze hits, plus at least one or two bombs, and sailed all the way back to Virginia under her own power from the Western Pacific.

The official record is 2 500 pounders, plus her own planes and ordinance on the hangar and flight deck. Something in the order or 36,000 gallons of fuel, and 50 tons of bombs/rockets/ammo. 13 degree list, but they got four boilers lit and sailed back to Pearl Harbor, then on to NY under her own power.

[edit on 2/19/2006 by Zaphod58]



posted on Feb, 19 2006 @ 10:59 AM
link   
where the navy subsequently took one look at her and said "Scrap it".

A large ship, with good compartmentilisation and excellent crew training in damage control (such as the Franklin) can withstand an absurd amount of punishment.

As for tactics with the Sunburn, it's really designed more around being so fast that ship operators won't have time to respond before it arrives. Cheaper missiles, such as the styx, are better suited for saturation attacks.

I believe the Sunburn also carried a 20 Kiloton nuke at one point, which I'm fairly certain will sink any ship afloat.



posted on Feb, 20 2006 @ 07:54 AM
link   
Iqonx,

>>
We often hear talk about "this or that" missile will destroy a carrier or ship but i've actually seen pictures and read articles which have shown pictures of ships that have survived multiple hits from a ASCM missile.
>>

Read _The Sixth Battle_ and you'll get some idea of what an AS-4 or 6 (Duuuh, IIRR) will do to carrier's flight deck. Conventional attack, 13,000lb weapon, 2,200lb warhead, Mach 3++ high angle dive = 30 foot wide hole in an armored flight deck with almost /nothing/ left of the spaces below.

>>
People often talk about the sunburn missile as a threat, lets say it does hit will it really do anything to an aircraft carrier apart from blow a hole in the side. i dont think it can sink or destory a carrier becuase a carrier is just so much bigger then some of the ships that have been hit with these types of missiles.
>>

Holes Blow Out. Water Rushes In. No more flight deck ops with a major list and no knots.

>>
What size payload is needed to destory/sink a modern aircraft carrier considering the following specs :

-medium/large aircraft carrier(american/russian types)
-assuming it gets through to the target.
-has a payload of about 488lbs(harpoon)/~300kg(sunburn/moskit)
>>

They vastly over enumerated the amount of U235 required to make Little Boy work. As I recall it was on the order of 2.5 times critical mass for a total of about 64kg. Because of the materials involved and some eficiency issues with the gun method, they 'only' achieved about 13-17KTyield whereas Fat Man (Pu bomb of about 13kg but with a massive implosive lens penalty of about 2,500kg of mixed IHE/TNT. Mind you, the gun assembly necessary to withstand the gun/target accelerations without breakup was itself no small thing.

But again, using _TSB_ as point, we can now create 'SKINC' or Sub Kiloton Insertable Nuclear Components which have the equivalent blast of .2KT or about 4-5 Mk.84 bombs in a depth charge sized container similar to the 500lb B57.

I would assume perhaps half this yeild, spread over a wave attack of 10-20 missiles (more for penetration value than anything related to 'aimpoint', would be more than sufficient. Similarly, a Deep Swimmer Device which could 'creep' underneath a CVSF _at full yield_ (5-10KT for a 500lb B57) would likely generate a sufficient water column effect to break a CV's spine.

In the Cod War it would have worked because Russia was 'already there' in any Continental fight she cared to play in and naval power is worthless if it takes longer (or is easier to kill in trying) to bring the fight over the water than in-place or rail transfered assets can resolve it.

China is a mercantile trade nation with limited and somewhat containable sea access so she cannot afford to say things like "You can sink my entire surface fleet, I'll even give you the coordinates...but don't light the nuclear candle."

>>
China has been massing a huge quantity of missiles and so has iran. now lets say everything goes perfect for them and somehow missiles get through :

how many missiles do you think it will take to kock out a aircraft carrier or how much of a single payload would be required.
>>

I wouldn't willingly put a carrier within 500nm of Chinese Shores if I had a choice. Free Willy's parading a CVBG up and down the Formosa straight was nothing short of pure arrogance ammounting to a death wish, even from 'conventional' threats.

That said, the real problem is period interval between the arrival of the carrier in theater. It's general tagging by OTH radar or overhead assets. And it's arrival at a point able to generate a _numbered sortie_ useful 'sphere of influence' around the boat.

Vs. Your ability to do realistically precise ASST from whatever asset you choose (a buoy or long line/SOSUS as much as a Badger or Islander). And from that -moment- create a flyout on a missile of sufficient speed as to make a subsequent area search and refinement unnecessary.

IMO, the only realistic way to achieve this, from a landward position, is with ballistic or aeroballistic devices and 'rod from god' MARV capability.

However; an alternative does exist, both as a direct attack on the CV itself and through graduated reduction/rollback of her companions.

And that is to _go micro_. Specifically by taking a submunition that could be dense packed like TGSM and yet had performance on the order of LOCAAS, if not MALD.

And packing 8-10 deep in a weapon equivalent to our T-16/20 precursors to the ATACMS.

You see, so long a 'every wolf listens' _only one_ needs howl. While sensors like LIDAR can characterize literal aim 'points' within a larger signature outline that are subsequently stack attackable as specific vulnerability zones of combat specific systems. Whose loss will reduce any combatant to the level of a lousy-accomodations unifomed cruise liner.

Any VLS. The navbridge and vultures row from whch air ops are run. The Cat Tracks and CDP mounts. The sensor/comms masts. The bomb garden. And of course the specific aircraft themselves (since we persist in STUPIDLY using the flight deck as a plane park). It is even theoretically possible to fly into a hangar and 'sharp left' strike at additional aircraft, filled fuel/HPS lines and elevator mechanisms.

The only real requirement being that you keep the numbers vs. approach window sufficiently high and short respectively as to void conventional (non DEW) mechanical defenses while allowing for overall range sufficient to short-pop the delivery bus away from (and under) convenient midcourse defense by SM-3 or 6.

Again, 'in theory' you can even do mixed environment attacks with weapons like dolphin bombs or SCT CAPTORs or 'militarized jetskis' emplaced as conventional mines using timed surface cable antenna extension and buoyancy tanks sufficient to keep under any April Showers or equivalent volume sea search. Before popping up to take a targeting handoff as soon as the COEA had been established. This would bring left the operational standup window by potentally letting you avoid development of the bus system as an intra-combat (penetrating) vehicle altogether. Throw them over the side of a tramp steamer or PCI.

Concentrating solely on the munition and surveillance/targeting methods to keep things 'simple'.

Would any of the above work?

Couldn't tell you. Like I say, I wouldn't fight China with aircraft carriers. At least not as more than decoy forces. How ironic that they are 'so valuable' that every nation which looks at one automatically assumes they /must/ be useful for 'something' wicked-this-way-comes.


KPl.



posted on Feb, 20 2006 @ 10:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by ch1466
They vastly over enumerated the amount of U235 required to make Little Boy work. As I recall it was on the order of 2.5 times critical mass for a total of about 64kg. Because of the materials involved and some eficiency issues with the gun method.


Not sure what your point is, but the Little Boy weapon was overengineered purposely, hence why they didn't even bother proof testing it. Gun-type weapons improved greatly in effiency over the next decade as can be evidenced by the 280mm nuclear artillery shells, one of which was proof tested with Shot Grable - 15 Kt.


But again, using _TSB_ as point, we can now create 'SKINC' or Sub Kiloton Insertable Nuclear Components which have the equivalent blast of .2KT or about 4-5 Mk.84 bombs in a depth charge sized container similar to the 500lb B57.


0.2Kt = 200 Tonnes of TNT
4-5 Mk84 bombs = 4-5 Tonnes of HE


I would assume perhaps half this yeild, spread over a wave attack of 10-20 missiles (more for penetration value than anything related to 'aimpoint', would be more than sufficient. Similarly, a Deep Swimmer Device which could 'creep' underneath a CVSF _at full yield_ (5-10KT for a 500lb B57) would likely generate a sufficient water column effect to break a CV's spine.


You don't say
A deep swimmer device is what exactly ? A glorified name for a nuclear torpedo.

BTW - You do realise the 6th Battle is a work of fiction ? Is this where all your ideas come from, especially the acronyms from technothrillers ?

I found this comment to be particularly amusing -


If you have served in the US Navy and want a book that tells you that you're fantastic, look no further.
If however you're looking for a good war novel / thriller, keep on moving.
It's a puff piece. In a novel about a conflict of this scale hardly any other US armed service even gets mentioned.

That's an aside. What really makes it painful is that this book has some of the most untalented writing that I have ever seen in print.
The dialog is very poor; the characterisation is appalling (Tillman seems to have great difficulty in writing about characters with different perspectives than his own, but don't worry, he wastes no oportunity to tell us that he's right); the domestic politics of this conflict are barely touched upon, and the depiction of the President is so infantile as to actually be very funny.

www.amazon.com...=1140452963/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/103-6341215-6577433?s=books&v=glance&n=283155



We often hear talk about "this or that" missile will destroy a carrier or ship but i've actually seen pictures and read articles which have shown pictures of ships that have survived multiple hits from a ASCM missile.


These ' articles ' you've read wouldn't happen to be from the Sixth Battle would they ?


[edit on 20-2-2006 by rogue1]



posted on Jan, 24 2009 @ 04:31 PM
link   
reply to post by iqonx
 


Please, the Sunburn is primarily supposed to contain a nuclear payload, it's why even the biggest Russian cruisers only carry a handful of the damn things. Not only do they actively evade countermeasures (weave to evade SM-2's, Sea Sparrow, and other anti-missile defenses) but it can go high and end in a terminal dive (hard to stop) stay low to hit low, or pop up over the target and detonate. Only in the last case would there likely be anything left of the carrier unless its CIWS systems manage to not only stop the missile but damage the warhead before detonation such that it fails or fizzles.

Russian anti ship missiles, particularly the Sunburn and Kitchen series are just too freaking big. Even without nuclear warheads they are serious trouble if used in significant numbers. or with accompanying EW support. In comparison ours are slow, have tiny warheads (short of a SKINC), and are supplied in entirely too few numbers, with the exception of the new Ohio class cruise missile sub, which carries about 150 or so of them.



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join