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.

 

Does the West have an answer to the Sunburn?

page: 1
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 17 2004 @ 11:11 PM
link   
Disregarding the blatent anti-west/anti-semetic undertones, this author does have a good point about how the Sunburn is a very capable weapon. Claims a recent test clocked it at 22 feet, and mach 2.0+. Does the west have a answer to this weapon of doom


www.joevialls.co.uk...

(sorry if a post on this already exists, please send me there I tried searching but found nothing)

RAMS and ARROW arent even up and running yet.. russia has deployed sunburns all over the damn place. Big limiting factor on US operations.

[edit on 17-8-2004 by RealisticPatriot]




posted on Aug, 18 2004 @ 12:15 AM
link   
RAM is up and in the next 6 years free electron laser will start to show up on US navy vessels.



posted on Aug, 18 2004 @ 12:24 AM
link   
The Vulcan based CIWS ws built to knock down Soviet AS-4 and AS-6 ASM's. These would be travelling at mach 3.



posted on Aug, 18 2004 @ 12:51 AM
link   
The short answer is no, they do not have an equivelent counterpart at this time, however, it is kind of a cold war relic. The sunburn was designed to make things very interesting for a carrier battle group. The US and UK navies do relly feel they need this weapon at this time.



posted on Aug, 18 2004 @ 12:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by mad scientist
The Vulcan based CIWS ws built to knock down Soviet AS-4 and AS-6 ASM's. These would be travelling at mach 3.


They can hit it, the problem was that at that speed, the ship was still hit by debits and fragments due to its momentum the RAM and the eventual laser will push the intercept range out a bit.

The CIWS is an awesum weapon. Can be used on planes and ships as well as missiles.



posted on Aug, 18 2004 @ 01:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by FredT
The CIWS is an awesum weapon. Can be used on planes and ships as well as missiles.


For a second I had a vision of a cruise missile with a CIWS sitting on top of it



posted on Aug, 18 2004 @ 03:30 AM
link   
You are forgetting that Navy does't relly only on their ship based radars.
Sunburns could be jammed long before reaching Carrier, if Hawkeyes and GlobalHawks are in the air it is quite easy to detect them hundreds of miles away (from the top view) and then standart antimisille rockets could be used. Soviets calculated during the cold war that Sunburns (moskits) could be only effective against CBG when fired in salvos (20-30 at once).



posted on Aug, 18 2004 @ 03:36 AM
link   
I'm sure we have some type of way to defend against them now. Just wait 5-6 years till we start getting chemical/solid state lasers on our ships or possibly some metal storm guns
After all the sunburn is really old and by now you would think we have something to stop it



posted on Aug, 18 2004 @ 03:56 AM
link   
Also don't think Suburn has only advantages it is much bigger, havier and has much shorter range (900 km VS 2500+km) when compared to Tomahawk.

Also I heard about some concepts to put afterburner on Harpoon misille. Than the modified Harpoon should be able to travel very fast during the end phase of flight. Is it true?


E_T

posted on Aug, 18 2004 @ 04:05 AM
link   
Some very big errors there, where are they going to launch those Harpoons to Tehran?
From Caspian sea?


Harpoon is also sea-skimmer capable of flying very close to surface.
Actually total weight of Harpoon's warhead is 488 pounds.
And those light weight small yield tactical nukes couldn't really be used to destroy big cities effectively, they would be good only for "point targets" like command centers and productino plants.



Originally posted by FredT

Originally posted by mad scientist
The Vulcan based CIWS ws built to knock down Soviet AS-4 and AS-6 ASM's. These would be travelling at mach 3.

They can hit it, the problem was that at that speed, the ship was still hit by debits and fragments due to its momentum

That's always better option than direct hit.



posted on Aug, 18 2004 @ 05:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by RealisticPatriot
Disregarding the blatent anti-west/anti-semetic undertones, this author does have a good point about how the Sunburn is a very capable weapon. Claims a recent test clocked it at 22 feet, and mach 2.0+. Does the west have a answer to this weapon of doom


www.joevialls.co.uk...

(sorry if a post on this already exists, please send me there I tried searching but found nothing)

RAMS and ARROW arent even up and running yet.. russia has deployed sunburns all over the damn place. Big limiting factor on US operations.

[edit on 17-8-2004 by RealisticPatriot]


Few Arrows are already stationed in Israel, being the first line of defence against ballistic missiles (the second line is the Patriot missiles).

Hmmm. heh, "smart" author btw: "brilliantly managed and highly successful holocaust industry", "their known hatred of anything even remotely related to Islam or Arabs", "religious fanatic obsessed with killing Muslims and stealing their land"...


And his ideas are not even logical. There are thousands of arabs in Tel-Aviv and in Haifa. Russia will never strike Israel, and in order to perform a nuclear strike Israel will be able to use new Jericho missiles in the future and not missiles launched from a submarine, but we will probably never even use them on anybody.

Nuclear attack from Russia will destroy Israel, but it will also destroy dozens of sacred sites (to muslims and christians) and also thousands of arabs and Palestinians.

But ok, I guess thsi thread is about the Sunburn missiles, and not about the article itself.



posted on Aug, 18 2004 @ 08:36 AM
link   
The SS-N-22 was designed originally as an ASCM, and the Navy has been dealing with the threat since the mid 1980's.

Today's Naval weapon and sensors systems can be used to defeat the Sunburn, but of course it all depends on the type of vessel and operator proficiency. And of course, this works both ways. The individuals/unit launching the SS-N-22 must also have the bebefit of a) knowing how to best employ the weapon b) having a weapon that has been properly maintained and is in good working order c) having good intelligence and targeting information, as the SS-N-22 is a long range, OTH weapon system d) having acceptable weather conditions that won't interfere with the flight of the weapon.

On the other hand, the defender must also have a few things going his way, such as a) a properly trained crew with experience in dealing with advanced ASCM threats b) modern radar, EW and weapon systems that can detect, track, classify and engage an inbound ASCMs and that are properly maintained and in good working order c) the benefit of intelligence or EW that would alert them to the presence of a shooter in the vicinity d) effective tactics specifically tailored to defeat such weapon systems.

So as you can see, there are dozens of factors that can make or break the effectiveness (or lack thereof) of any given ASCM versus any given naval vessel. The SS-N-22 is not some new superweapon with no know defense. It has been around for over 20 years and its capabilities are well known. That in of itself does not diminish it's capabilities - it is a scary weapon on all accounts and is the current benchmark in which most modern ASCMs are measured. But it is not infallable. Even simple techniques like changing course and speed (early in the engagement), launching large amounts of chaff and decoys, and good old ECM can easily defeat the SS-N-22 on a good day. Its all about capabilities, training, and a little luck. And its also all about the system being upgraded and improved, and then the defense doing the same, in a never-ending dance of point and counterpoint.

Personally, the whole mach 2.5 thing at 22 feet to me is not so important. Those qualities are important if you are firing a salvo of 4-8 missiles and are trying to overload a defense, which will allow leakers to penetrate and wreak havoc. In a one-on-one engagment, I would rather have a subsonic ASCM with an advanced LPI terminal seeker, which is ECM resistant, and have good targeting intel prior to launch.



[edit on 18-8-2004 by Pyros]



posted on Aug, 18 2004 @ 03:28 PM
link   
The US Navy has always relied on naval air more then ASM.



posted on Aug, 18 2004 @ 03:32 PM
link   
Well, what i meant by "answer" was do we have somthing to defend against this weapon, not do we have anything comparable. Pyros good reply. I suppose ECM's would be the most effective, but how could we test that they actually work.. did we ever get our hands on one?


E_T

posted on Aug, 18 2004 @ 04:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by RealisticPatriot
I suppose ECM's would be the most effective, but how could we test that they actually work..

Most effective way is always to deny enemy change to shoot by destroying lauch platform before it can launch or preventing it getting enough data for launching missiles properly.

That's what for Tomcat/Phoenix combination was.



posted on Aug, 19 2004 @ 08:23 AM
link   
The most probable way to test our ECM capabilities against the SS-N-22 would be to obtain and "exploit" an actual working model. Since the Sunburn is sold internationally, I must presume that the DoD has already obtained working examples and has reverse-engineering the terminal seeker to determine its capabilities and vulnerabilities.

In fact, the USN was ready to purchase some Sunburns from Russia not too long ago (to be used as high-speed target drones), but the sale fell through.......

The workings of said exploitation and the resultant ECM techniques devised are undoubtedly classified and held close to the vest by the Navy.



posted on Aug, 20 2004 @ 01:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Pyros


In fact, the USN was ready to purchase some Sunburns from Russia not too long ago (to be used as high-speed target drones), but the sale fell through.......

The workings of said exploitation and the resultant ECM techniques devised are undoubtedly classified and held close to the vest by the Navy.



There is growing evidence that the Russian and Chinese partnership also means increased weapons sales from Moscow to Beijing. And adding insult to injury, on Tuesday (Apr. 25), the WorldNetDaily reported that the U.S. Navy intended to purchase Russian missiles -- the same type previously sold to China. The Chinese missiles are reportedly armed with nuclear warheads.

Weldon promised to hold "classified" hearings on U.S. Navy attempts to buy Russian-made 3M82 Moskit (NATO code-name SS-N-22 Sunburn) anti-ship missiles (the 3M82 Moskit anti-ship cruise missile, NATO code-named "Sunburn"). Weldon questions whether the U.S. Navy can stop the supersonic cruise missile.

We are ready to hold hearings, including classified sessions, to study the Sunburn issue. I don't think we can defend ourselves against this kind of technology. The Russians are said to be bankrupt and backwards, yet here we are buying the leading edge of weapons technology from Russia, said Weldon.

In July 1999, defense analyst Richard D. Fisher wrote an evaluation of the Russian-built Sunburn missile being sold to China. "The Raduga Moskit (Sunburn) anti-ship missile is perhaps the most lethal anti-ship missile in the world," wrote Fisher in a review of the Chinese navy. Fisher thinks the U.S. Navy cannot stop it.

"The Moskit combines a Mach 2.5 speed with a very low-level flight pattern that uses violent end maneuvers to throw off defenses. After detecting the Moskit, the U.S. Navy Phalanx point defense system may have only 2.5 seconds to calculate a fire solution -- not enough time before the devastating impact of a 750-lb. warhead."


warfare.ru...



It's an evil lookin sucker



posted on Aug, 20 2004 @ 01:47 PM
link   
Looks like they have a smaller version of the Sunburn called the AS-17 Krypton; and the Cubans have them.


  • propulsion: integral rocket booster with ramjet
    sustainer (4-inlets disposed around
  • the body, 12 AOA limit)
  • First seen: Dubai 1991
  • length: Kh-31A mod 1 4.7 m. (15.42 ft.)
    Kh-31A mod 2 5.23m. (17.17 ft.)
    Kh-31P mod 1 4.7 m. (15.42 ft.)
    Kh-31P mod 2 5.23 m. (17.17 ft.)
  • span: 1.15 m. (3.77 ft.)
  • diameter: 30.96 cm. (12.19 in.)
  • weight: Kh-31P @ 650 kg (1433 lbs)
    Kh-31A @ 600 kg (1323 lbs.)
  • warhead wt: 90 kg. Blast Frag. (198 lbs.)
  • range: Kh-31A mod 1 @ 05 to 50 km. (3 to 31 miles)
    Kh-31A mod 2 @ 05 to 69 km. (3 to 43 miles)
    Kh-31P mod 1 @ 10 to 150 km. (6 to 93 miles)
    Kh-31P mod 2 @ 10 to 200 km. (6 to 125 miles)
  • profile: considered to high cruise 40,000 ft. @ 5.0 Mach
  • launch alt: 165 to 49,200 ft
  • speed: 2.9 Mach with terminal impact speed of >1.0 Mach
  • aircraft: MiG-27, MiG-29/33, Su-30/33/34/35,
    Su-25, Su-24, Su-22
  • exports: Cuba (1992)





    warfare.ru...



posted on Aug, 20 2004 @ 08:46 PM
link   
Def one mean lookin mofo... ECM or metalstorm may be our only hope.



posted on Aug, 21 2004 @ 01:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by RealisticPatriot
Def one mean lookin mofo... ECM or metalstorm may be our only hope.


Lasers baby Lasers! Thats why the navy is investing in research for this very reason.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join