Sizzler to sizzle US Carriers?

With talk of the US Navy not capable of defending itself against such anti ship Missles such as the Sizzler, is it all bunkum or is there a real threat of missiles getting through and sinking the Carriers stationed in the ME?

Im sure the US navy has nothing to worry about from a chain of mediocre steakhouses aka The Sizzler,

However if you are fereing to the the SS-N-27 then we can talk.

The 3m-54E variant which has almost Mach 3 speed has a range of about 2200 km. The longer range -54E1 is strictly subsonic. Two other variants are fast but have a limited rage.

To target a CBG you would need to get within the firing envelope of the weapon via aircraft, surface ship or submarine. To do so you would

1) have to get past the submarine and SOSUS nets
2) Get past the standing BARCAP and whatever other a/c were in the air
3) Aegis will have alot to say about both the platform launching the missile as well as the inbounds.
4) Closer in you will have to get past Sea Sparrow and the CIWS and RAM that comprise the close in defence (plus chaff)

Add to the soon to be deployed AESA radar systems on the F-18E/F's which can hunt stealth cruise missiles.

It can be done, but as you see trying to take down a CBG is not like trying to hit the Queen mary.

Great post on the subject FredT

Many dont realize that is not just a Carrier you have to get passed but rather the entire Carrier group (including aircraft) to strike at its heart the Carrier. They defense of the whole group is intergrated one outer ship can defend the inner ones.

From what the public is shown its a three layer defense in the following order

-Upgraded Sea Sparrows
-RAM Missile
-Phalanx cannon

Not even getting into Aircraft

You also have to remember they arent telling the public every trick they have up their sleeve as well. We already have prototype laser systems that can be mounted in planes that can knock out ICBM and land based version that can knock out artillery shells in mid flight.

The very nature of a large naval ship lends itself to such systems much more easily then a airplane for example (large size, nuclear power source) and can be a very important part of current or future ship defense.

Very good point from both of you but just how do aricraft sitting on a carrier react to a missile travelling at m3. If the weapons were lunched off the coast of Iran you would have 4 to 5 seconds to respond to the threat, so how does one do that.

Two factors in this.

Iran is not going to place these missiles on thier coast but further back as they do have a decent range.

Unless the CBG is trailing its tails right off the shore of Iran they will be at least 100-150 miles away from the Iranian Coast which will give them time. Thats not to say they wont get hit transiting the straights of Hormuz mind you. But you can bet the aircraft would have sanitized that area first.

Close in to Qutar and SA, they would come under the umbrella of the PAC-3 and if in service THAAD. Plus a host of USAF a/c for CAP support as well.

However, if in an active shooting war with Iran, why risk a CBG in such confined waters? Station them in the Red Sea or Indian Ocean and still be able to hit targets with ease.

this is the same kind of topic as in the thread "USAF bobing Chinese" though in a different context. The billionns of dollars invested in CBG is so mcuh that they are never going to directly risk a carrier. Infact thats the whole point of a carrier, instead of sending big ships in close to take targets out, the ships stand back and act as platform for launching cheaper more expendable aircraft, which can do just as good a job with less risk top the big expensive ships.

Often technology is touted as the only way CBG can be defended, and often when theirs a missle zeroing in at mach 3 it is. However, a lot of defence can also be created by simply changing tactics and strategies.

CBGs rarely travel with all their aircraft sitting on deck. They usually have some kind of patrol airborne to respond quickly to threats, and they have at least two sitting on the catapults, engines running, pilots in them ready to launch if they're in a high threat area.

Phalanx is useless against M3 missiles - the engagement range of phalanx is around 2000 yards - less than 1.5 seconds flight time for an M3 missile

mach 3 = 2283 mph (ish)

which is 38 miles per minute

which is 0.6333 miles per second

0.633 miles is 1145 yards.

so this racing terminal lump of metal will have ~60 rounds shooting at it.

and IF any hit then the explosion and wreckage will still sweep the flight deck (inertia and momentum here).

And you just spelled out the reason that Phalanx is being replaced by the Rolling-Airframe Missile (RAM). Phalanx never was nearly as good as most folks thought, but it did have the virtues of being easily mounted (Unlike the more effective Goalkeeper system, Phalanx didn't require deck openings, and it was / is relatively lightweight), and being better than nothing.

Also, any discussion of carrier groups and their vulnerability has to start (as one poster above pointed out) with the difficulty of prosecuting an engagement against the carrier. I do find it odd that this thread has contained references to the CAP (Combat Air Patrol, for those who don't speak acronym), Sea Sparrow (short-ranged Surface to Air missile), and Phalanx / RAM (both last-ditch anti-missile systems), but seems to have overlooked the defensive abilties of the Standard series of surface-to-air missiles that are the mainstay of fleet air defense. Any hypothetical missile attack that *does* get launched (not an easy thing in itself) will start facing defensive fire from the carrier's escorts long before it reaches the range where Sea Sparrow or Phalanx are an issue.

This isn't to say that a carrier is immune to attack...simply to point out that it's not an easy target to hit...and it's an even harder target to kill.

Nor has anybody bothered to mention the virtues of what is probably the most effective way to defend against this threat - the "soft kill".

Active electronic countermeasures coupled with chaff and flares is really quite effective against ASCM threats, if properly deployed. Today's modern EW suites are comprised of warning receivers that scan all frequencies simultaneously, with computer assisted threat identification and engagement. Once the incoming ASCM activates its active seeker, it is a matter of seconds before the emitter is indetified, classified, plotted, and engaged. Active ECM of the proper moduclation, power, and "technique" can then be instantly brought to bear against the threat.

Russian ASCMs are certainly fine examples of airborn weaponry, but if they have a weakness it will be in their avionics.

Actually the best defence any sea going vessel has is the sea itself - any carrier force is small in size in comparison to the rather large ocean - say 30 miles accross for a CBG (which of course has been renamed depending on the task)


30 miles in comparison to 1000`s of miles for the ocean - makes a RORSAT have to work to find them

then what - you have to track the course of the group and plan decoy`s and dummy runs before deciding which direction to send your bombers in to actually shoot these things - and the further away you fire them the lower the chance that when they arrive at the pre programmed squre they will find anywaything = unless they have in flight gps updates


as has been said - if the carrier has to start shooting then its allready gone wrong - your Arleigh Burke`s will have allready emptied there magazines starting at 100 miles out for the incoming `vampires` then its down to other sea sparrow armed ships to shoot , then the point defence missiles - the brits have a great system actually with Sea Wolf, rapid reaction but short range missiles , hence why CIWS are being replaced by something similar

but even in the hey day of the CBG there will be `leakers` and something will get hit and hurt. and thats the likes of `Kingfish` and not even the new kit.

chaff , combat maneuvering from the ships (what you think when they have incoming they stay nicely in formation at 20 knots??) and finally CIWS


so as has been said - if the CIWS on the carrier tracks and fires - its allready too late.

[edit on 26/3/07 by Harlequin]

You will not find it on Janes Defence, but the US carriers are likely also defended by missiles that generate localized EMP bursts to disrupt inbound missiles.

It has the advantage of not needing hit-to-kill technology. Now, the latest missiles may be well-shielded, so this is no guarantee. The other benefit is that a swarm of missiles (as would be needed to sink a carrier) can be targeted with only a few weapons.

But....most fire and forget missiles meant to hit a moving target must need their own onboard sensors, meaning IR and radar.

You cannot really shield radar apparatus. To do so could render the radar useless (it's own protection would limit it) you just have to make the components tough enough to absorb the energy and keep on ticking.

Any missile produced outside of the US, Israel, Western Europe or Russia likely would fail immediately. Only a system like Tomahawk that is designed to deliver nuclear payloads would have some protection.

Given that few, if any, missile radars are designed to handle the energy, it could prove to be a bit of a magic shield until the rest of the world catches up.

Even if the components survived the pulse, EMP would most likely cause enough havoc in the computer systems onboard to render it ineffective.

Any program that is stored on an eeprom or IC would potentially get wiped, trigger a reboot of the onboard systems. This is probably enough to end the threat.

I always find it amusing that in these threads we always get treated to exotic systems like EMP Standards and laser defense systems that are not in service yet or in limited experimental deployments at best.

"Sizzler" is a real threat due to it's flight profile - low and slow with a Mach 3 final dash. This may be the toughest of the current AShCM's to defeat. Fortunately I've never seen it confirmed that Iran actually has any.

As far as "sanitizing" hundreds of miles of coastline of mobile launchers - good luck with that. The "Scud Hunt" in the first Gulf war was a good object lesson in just how difficult a task this actually is.

A CVBG is a very densely protected force, but no defense is 100% effective.
I wouldn't assume anything. So in response to the OP's question, IMHO yes, there is a real chance of a carrier taking hits in a confrontation in the Gulf.

[edit on 3/28/07 by xmotex]

How local is 'local'?
Also how exactly is this EM burst generated? There aren't many sources by which a strong enough EM burst can be created for such purposes..

lol. EMP bursts? sure. if you buy some "canisters" or have already
duplicated the mostly unbalanced canister tech which the soviets
had in the later stages of cold war... yeah.. how come im not convinced.


(might work against normal stuff. but as "faradays cage" is incorporated by most of our vital military tech, i dont beleve that it would be
a lasting ansver to ship defence)

the sea-sparrow and RAM missiles are the best bet to tacle
the "sizzler".

however. it seems that the late state mach3 acceleration
of that missile is a biggie.

as for costal defence we use the RBS missiles. they are
also sea-skimming but they dont accelerate.
instead they have advanced ECCM package and
approach planning with evasive manovers.

[edit on 29-3-2007 by Lempo]

They do have Russian Sunburn missiles though. Sunburns apparently have a nasty trick of approaching low, and at the last second kicking them selves up and over, presumably to strike the deck as opposed to the hull.

China has these babys also. They are nuke capable and carried 8 to a distroyer. They dont sound like Tonka Toys to me!

p.s a quick look at wiki on this says So I may of been going about the same missile - Doah!

Really? I see you are a bit short on your physics. There are many ways to generate an small EMP effect over a short range. How far away would a missile really need to be? There are conventional bursts that will propagate over a mile or so, and that is enough to have the desired effect.

All of the posters on this site want to believe Russian weapons actually work. They do well enough to get a submarine to complete a cruise without sinking itself. Every battle between modern US designed weapons and Russian weapons has been a very one-sided affair.

Pick any Arab-Israeli conflict
Iraq (round I and II)
Serbia
Libya (multiple occasions)

Even in Korea and Vietnam, before US technological supremacy really took hold the US held very lopsided kill ratios vs Russian aircraft. The only difference is that US aircraft are 500% more capable now and Russian aircraft just have not kept up.

There is a fundamental difference in philosophy among US and Russian designers. US designers expect performance at 125-200% of specification if the engine is rated at 1500hp, it better be able to peak at 1800. If crush depth is 3000m, it will do 4000 in a pinch.

On the Russian side it has been the exact opposite. If it hit a target once at 2000 yards under perfect test conditions, it was rated at 2000 yards.

Once you throw the elements at the system, including untrained operators and unexpected combat situations, the US systems perform admirably. Russian systems simply do not.

You can yell and scream all you want, but serious observers know this.

Go ahead and get yourselves into a frenzy about another useless superweapon, you are exactly who the propaganda is aimed at....

unfortunately the above poster doesn`t understand teh amount of energy required for an emp pulse that will actually do anything


short of a nuke then you won`t get any short/medium/long range effects of any significance - since the sunburn et al are emp hardened.

and if the US is so `advanced` then how come they lose carriers`s frequenly against diesel boats in exercise

mfsheldon
Could you point to me a single occasion after 1950's where first line, non-export model Russian gear has been used against USA? Because no arab country has recieved the same tech as russian army, there are significant differences between exports and Russian systems.

I seriously doubt that US CBG can do much with ECM/EMP/ETC. against russian missiles, the targeting systems use old-school highpower electronics instead of computer components in western missiles. Older components need higher voltages and currents to operate => power needed to jam them is allso higher.

Maybe this is surprisingly obvious, but, yeah, theoretically Iran could sink a carrier, but why piss off Uncle Sam? Better just to play the waiting game; Iraq is the property of Iran once America leaves which all indications point to as being very soon.