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.
Umm.. Some have ranges almost twice that (300km) and travel at supersonic speeds (Mach 2.5+) at sea skimming levels.
Originally posted by Travellar
Ships would do much better, they have far better sensors, are purpose built for 24 hour operation, don't hang out in the same place waiting to get shot at, and tend to keep a not inconsiderable open killing field between them and the launch sites.
No weaving through mountains to sneak up on them.
and as stated above, the article posted is delusional fantasy.
It states a few erronious arguments about the vulnerability of warships, then uses that as justification to say "see, no need for a navy."
Most anti ship missiles I've ever heard of have ranges not much over 100 miles.
Anything longer wouldn't be useful as even the slowest target will move by the time it arrived.
And aircraft can fly further than that, even without refueling.
Of course, the article also seems to hinge on an enemy willing to start a nuclear war for one pop-shot at the US Navy.
Sink a carrier with a nuke? That would be tragic, but we've got eleven more, and your country now glows in the dark.
Originally posted by WestPoint23
Well, the greater the range the bigger the missile, the bigger the missile the easier it will be to detect and destroy.
Originally posted by StellarX
Well they also seem to be getting faster and i am not sure what the logic is that leads you to believe that a bigger missile means it will be easier to shoot down.
That extra speed and inertia means your defenses will have less time to respond and that i will also need more stopping power to actually destroy the warhead/missile.
"Navy a liability?
Ok mate, just then asking how do we defend our merchant ships? "
There is only rumour about the Shkval II and even that seems more like fantasy how big would the torpedo have to be to be able to reach 60 miles. the standard 533mm Shkval can barely reach 7km with it's rocket duel, you can imagine the corresponding upscale in size to reach 60 miles. Also how would it be guided ? Complete and utter bunk.
I am amazed at how wrong most of the things stated in that article are. Almost like it is falsified or something.
once again absolutely no fact just guess work. There is no information whatsoever except what is repeated verbatim on other sites, that the Russians announced they have a Shkval II, which may or may not be true. The more I read the more unlikely it seems.
and as stated above, the article posted is delusional fantasy. It states a few erronious arguments about the vulnerability of warships, then uses that as justification to say "see, no need for a navy."
Originally posted by iskander
Air refueling can only be conducted in secure area. Both AWACS and refueling tankers are primary targets, and can not operate with in the strike zone of the enemy.
Combat Shadow flies clandestine or low visibility, low-level missions into politically sensitive or hostile territory to provide air refueling for special operations helicopters. Source
Originally posted by iskander
Hmm, obviously haven't heard of mid air refuelling.
Air refueling can only be conducted in secure area. Both AWACS and refueling tankers are primary targets, and can not operate with in the strike zone of the enemy.
There is only rumour about the Shkval II and even that seems more like fantasy how big would the torpedo have to be to be able to reach 60 miles. the standard 533mm Shkval can barely reach 7km with it's rocket duel, you can imagine the corresponding upscale in size to reach 60 miles. Also how would it be guided ? Complete and utter bunk.
Shkav II will most likely rely on a sea-skimming ramjet delivery module with GPS/Internal guidance, deploying the torpedo upon reaching its deployment zone. Before attempting to dispute, please consider widely available information on the topic discussed.
I am amazed at how wrong most of the things stated in that article are. Almost like it is falsified or something.
It never seized to amaze that some people attempt to discredit statements made by government officials by presenting their own baseless "opinions."
once again absolutely no fact just guess work. There is no information whatsoever except what is repeated verbatim on other sites, that the Russians announced they have a Shkval II, which may or may not be true. The more I read the more unlikely it seems.
The factual existence of F-117 was not "announced" to the Russians for decades for obvious reasons. Its very designation as a fighter is misleading. Considering that there is Shkval 1, which is more then 2 decades old, only a fool will believe that the Shkval 2 does not exist only because Russian did not care to show us one and tell us everything about it.
In the case of Shkval, I only have to download a video to watch it in operation.
A nuclear warhead is not necessary to destroy a carrier by a single weapon. A charge detonated directly under a ship creates a massive gas bubble that lifts the ships out of the water which breaks its back under its own weight. 450 kilos of HE does that quiet effortlessly.
I appreciate factual contribution brought to this debate by StellarX and others, and also urge all to follow the very goal of the ATS forums - "Deny Ignorance"
"Even the 20mm Phalanx CIWS has enough stopping power to shoot down any missile, if a round hits. They fire DUsabot slugs at over 1 km/s, if one of those round hits, something coming in at the same speed in the opposite direction, it's dead. "
Not true in many conflicts tanker aircraft moved into hostile territory to help aircraft.
Anti shipping technology has faded a bit with the ending of the cold war.
However, just as you rightfull point out that arrogance is often the cause of military blunders, so is overestimating the focers arrayed against you.
The Iranian rocket torpedo or the oft touted Bhramos missile, the Sunburn etc are perpetualy touted as a carrier killer but the proof as they say is in the pudding. THe error I see in this is the assumption that the USN (hidebound for sure) is in a state of static development. If India or Iran can develop a novel anti ship system is it not resonable that the USN does the same?
Originally posted by StellarX
If you read the article you would have noticed it mentioning that 10 000 American navy personal have tested positive for banned substances between i think 2001 and 2003. If you think you can build the best navy in the world on that basis i imagine we have different standards entirely. History has shown that numbers rarely wins the day when it's all you bring to the party.
Originally posted by iskander
Can some one please explain to mad scientist why 30mm frag is better then 20mm AP(S), and why it is actually rather difficult to literally hit a bullet with a bullet. I don't have it in me.
Exactly, it's a desperate measure, not a standard deployment. You're point being?
All of those weapons have been REPEATEDLY and OPENLY tested to make SELLING point at arms trade shows, and because US media does not show such ADVERTISING clips of torpedoes and missiles tearing their targets to shreds, it certainly does not mean that their effectiveness is "over hyped". It's only a matter of public opinion, which in combat is just as useful as a boom box.
For the public the only "proof as they say is in the pudding" will be a CNN report showing the rescue operation of survivors from a sunk carrier. Then "I told you so" can only insult the memory of lost sailors, because somebody didn't do their job.
I have absolutely no doubt that we can make the best of anything, yet bureaucracy bribery and corruption seem to form basis of our defense system, so which comparable anti-ship weapons USN has put in service?
Chris Cox, R -Calif., now working for a Washington-based think-tank, says the U.S. Navy cannot stop the Sunburn.
With an effective range of just under 1,500 meters, the Phalanx is a marginal weapon against the Sunburn, due to the high speed of the missile (770 meters a second). Even a destroyed missile could still spray the ship with fragments – damaging radars, weapons, and causing casualties. It would not be as bad as a direct hit, but it still would require the ship to undergo repairs.
“Nonsense!” you are probably thinking. That���s impossible. How could a few picayune destroyers threaten the US Pacific fleet?”
Here is where the story thickens: Summer Pulse amounted to a tacit acknowledgement, obvious to anyone paying attention, that the United States has been eclipsed in an important area of military technology, and that this qualitative edge is now being wielded by others, including the Chinese; because those otherwise very ordinary destroyers were, in fact, launching platforms for Russian-made 3M-82 Moskit anti-ship cruise missiles (NATO designation: SS-N-22 Sunburn), a weapon for which the US Navy currently has no defense. Here I am not suggesting that the US status of lone world Superpower has been surpassed. I am simply saying that a new global balance of power is emerging, in which other individual states may, on occasion, achieve “an asymmetric advantage��� over the US. And this, in my view, explains the immense scale of Summer Pulse. The US show last summer of overwhelming strength was calculated to send a message.
The Sunburn Missile
I was shocked when I learned the facts about these Russian-made cruise missiles. The problem is that so many of us suffer from two common misperceptions. The first follows from our assumption that Russia is militarily weak, as a result of the breakup of the old Soviet system. Actually, this is accurate, but it does not reflect the complexities. Although the Russian navy continues to rust in port, and the Russian army is in disarray, in certain key areas Russian technology is actually superior to our own. And nowhere is this truer than in the vital area of anti-ship cruise missile technology, where the Russians hold at least a ten-year lead over the US. The second misperception has to do with our complacency in general about missiles-as-weapons –– probably attributable to the pathetic performance of Saddam Hussein���s Scuds during the first Gulf war: a dangerous illusion that I will now attempt to rectify.
Many years ago, Soviet planners gave up trying to match the US Navy ship for ship, gun for gun, and dollar for dollar. The Soviets simply could not compete with the high levels of US spending required to build up and maintain a huge naval armada. They shrewdly adopted an alternative approach based on strategic defense. They searched for weaknesses, and sought relatively inexpensive ways to exploit those weaknesses. The Soviets succeeded: by developing several supersonic anti-ship missiles, one of which, the SS-N-22 Sunburn, has been called “the most lethal missile in the world today.”
At the same time American engineers and Russian engineers improved the Krypton, the Clinton/Gore administration turned down a Russian offer to buy all of its SS-N-22 Sunburn supersonic cruise missiles. The SS-N-22 Sunburn is considered "the most lethal anti-ship missile in the world" and the No. 1 threat to U.S. Navy aircraft carriers. The improved Krypton was intended to simulate the SS-N-22 Sunburn.
"Nevertheless, defense analysts agree that the U.S. is fully a decade behind Russia in high-speed cruise missile designs. Russia currently deploys and exports the supersonic SS-N-22 Moskit cruise missile, NATO codenamed "Sunburn." The SS-N-22 is considered the most lethal anti-ship missile in the world, and flies at over 2.5 times the speed of sound only a few feet from the surface of the water." [This speed amounts to almost 1,700 miles per hour, or 28 miles per minute].
"The Russians should not be selling the Sunburn to anyone," stated Al Santoli, national security advisor to Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, R.-Calif.
"This is an example of the criminal abandonment of essential military research and development by the Clinton administration," he said. "The Clinton administration is responsible for this lapse in critical research. We have known about the Sunburn for years. We could have, and should have, developed a counter before this."
Santoli is not the only defense analyst who is concerned about the new Sunburn missile. According to two top China experts, the Sunburn missiles and the new Russian destroyers are a significant threat to the U.S. Navy.
Last July, defense analyst Richard D. Fisher also wrote an evaluation of the Russian-built Sunburn missile being sold to China. Fisher, a former defense analyst for Rep. Chris Cox, R -Calif., now working for a Washington-based think-tank, says the U.S. Navy cannot stop the Sunburn.
Originally posted by iskander
devilwasp I appeal to you, please, please make some sense once in a while, and if in doubt, google is your friend.
USN has NEVER tested the Sunburn, it only simulated its approach vectors by using Krypton which was purchased for such tests.
So once again, USN is NOT invincible, until enormous resources and drastic restructuring are committed to its modernization.
The SEA RAM Anti-Ship Missile Defense System under development by RSC and RAMSYS is an evolved Close-In Weapon System (CIWS) comprising key attributes of both the existing Phalanx CIWS and the RAM Guided Missile Weapon System. SEA RAM is designed to extend the battle space of the CIWS and enable the ship to effectively engage multiple targets.
Leveraged technology from Phalanx and RAM integrates elements of each system into the self-contained SEA RAM System. An 11-missile round RAM guide assembly, loaded with RAM Block 1 guided missiles, replaces the 20 mm gun of Phalanx.
SEA RAM combines the superior accuracy, large intercept range and high maneuverability of RAM with the high resolution search-and-track sensor system and reliable quick response capability of Phalanx Block 1B.
navysite.de...
Unless it carried a nuke and I dont think anyone with a nuke would willingly use it on an american carrier.
Originally posted by iskander
"Even the 20mm Phalanx CIWS has enough stopping power to shoot down any missile, if a round hits. They fire DUsabot slugs at over 1 km/s, if one of those round hits, something coming in at the same speed in the opposite direction, it's dead. "
Can some one please explain to mad scientist why 30mm frag is better then 20mm AP(S), and why it is actually rather difficult to literally hit a bullet with a bullet. I don't have it in me.