U.S. Supersonic Anti-ship Guide Missile?

Although US navy is the biggest and strongest navy on the would, but I am worried that the frame of US navy has never been changing since WWII.
Since WWII, the weapons which equiped on aircrafts and fightingships have had a great change. Guide missiles was instead of cannonball which has become a main lance. If guide-missile which equiped in a fighting ship or submarine will be instead of aircraft-carrier like aircraft-carrier was instead of battleship in WWII, US navy will face a huge risk.
So many guide-missiles from Roussia like SS-N-19 for example are supersoic missiles which very hard to intercepte. I just wondered why U.S. has no project to develop such a superior lance using anti ship, except the Talos has anti-ship capibility but out of service.

[edit on 26-7-2005 by emile]

u have to look up on the weapons update on the U.S. Navy's weapons development and upgrades. we have the weapon called the Harpoon.
also the U.S. Navy likes to improve, they aint standing idly.

www.fas.org...

The US does have supersonic ramjet powered decoy missiles that could be enlarged and used a an anti ship missile. There is also the Standerd, Harpoon, Tomahawk, JDAM. The US Navy does not want a supersonic antiship missile. They already have a supersonic weapon in the F/A-18.

[edit on 7/26/05 by jetsetter]

Go look up the GQM-163A "Coyote" Supersonic Sea-Skimming Missile the Navy is currently working on it.

Originally posted by WestPoint23
Go look up the GQM-163A "Coyote" Supersonic Sea-Skimming Missile the Navy is currently working on it.

www.globalsecurity.org...

its a target drone - as has allready been mentioned in this thread

and its a copy of the Moskit

nowdays i am begining to favor sub or small ship missle platforms
they are very useful in todays battlefield
carriers are big targets , maybe too big

ever play that old game "Janes Fleet Command" or any other Janes simulator for that matter?

btw i am confidant the US Navy has a few missles they dont tell us about; for national security purposes

((if the enemy dont know u have it; how can they steal it?))

Originally posted by Harlequin

Originally posted by WestPoint23
Go look up the GQM-163A "Coyote" Supersonic Sea-Skimming Missile the Navy is currently working on it.

www.globalsecurity.org...

its a target drone - as has allready been mentioned in this thread

and its a copy of the Moskit

It is not a copy of the Moskit. The US Navy bought a few Moskits, improved them over the Russian version and then Russia took the designs, produced more and sold them to China. The US Airforce and Navy has alot of experience with the Ramjet and high supersonic technology.

The Harpoon is currently the only sub/ship launched ASM in the US inventory. The TASM was phased out of service a long time ago.

The USN along with Germany I beleive developed the RAM point defence system to deal with the threat of supersonic ASM's. The Phalanx system could ttrack and hit an inbound, but the ship would still get fragged. Including the oft touted Bhramos (which seems to have developed some sort of mythological standing here on ATS)

SeaRAM gentlemen, SeaRAM:
Russian "Sunburn" anti-ship missile threat neutralized
SEA RAM System Test on Royal Navy Destroyer HMS YORK

More here:
SeaRAM

US naval surface ships have layered anti-missile, anti-air capabilities.




seekerof

Originally posted by FredT
The Harpoon is currently the only sub/ship launched ASM in the US inventory. The TASM was phased out of service a long time ago.

The USN along with Germany I beleive developed the RAM point defence system to deal with the threat of supersonic ASM's. The Phalanx system could ttrack and hit an inbound, but the ship would still get fragged. Including the oft touted Bhramos (which seems to have developed some sort of mythological standing here on ATS)

The SM-2 can be used in the antishiping role. The antishiping versions of the Tomahawk have been converted to be used in the ground attack role but it seems that Tomahawks can be converted.

[edit on 7/26/05 by jetsetter]

US hasn't improved nothing YOU just made that up to feel good.

Originally posted by jetsetter
[The SM-2 can be used in the antishiping role. The antishiping versions of the Tomahawk have been converted to be used in the ground attack role but it seems that Tomahawks can be converted.

[edit on 7/26/05 by jetsetter]

Yes, its intial design was to provide a standoff shore bombardment weapon, but it could be used in the ASM role as well. However, I wonder about its quidence for such a strike.

I do not see a return of the TASM. Unless the PLAN ramps up in the next decade and puts forth a true blue water navy with big deck carriers, thier fleet will always be at risk from our CBG's and subs before they can get into sunburn/bhramos range.

Originally posted by SiberianTiger
US hasn't improved nothing YOU just made that up to feel good.

Im going to cut you some slack but you really ought to do a bit of research before you pop off like that

*ahem*


Land Attack Standard Missile [LASM]

The CNO decided in late 1998 to modify the Standard missile for a surface-to-ground strike role. Studies determined LASM as the most cost-effective way to provide a rapid response, and all weather strike capability in support of military power projection ashore. The LASM mission will provide the required range, lethality, responsiveness and accuracy needed to support Marine Corps Fire Support requirements for Operational Maneuver from the Sea. This version of the Standard Surface-to-air missile is be reconfirmed for use against targets ashore at ranges up to 200 miles. The land-attack Standard missile (LASM), fitted with an advanced warhead and guided by GPS and its own inertial navigation system, will put at risk targets up over 150 nm inland.
www.fas.org...

There is also the Affordable Weapon

The Affordable Weapon was recently tested on desert ranges in the Western United States. All the capabilities needed to field it were demonstrated:

The Affordable Weapon was launched at 45 degrees from a short rail of the kind that will be used in its shipping container once it’s operational.
The weapon flew to a target designated before launch, guided by GPS.
The weapon correctly responded to a forward observer’s command to divert from a pre-designated target and loiter instead.
It accepted a new target from the forward observer via a data link.
At the end of its test flight, the missile was recovered by parachute.
The Affordable Weapon is now ready for prototype production. The airframe will be modified slightly to carry a larger payload, which will allow it to carry an existing warhead, further saving time and development costs. The modification will also add about 200 miles to the Affordable Weapon’s range. "The plan is to field 100 missiles, 80 warheads, and their shipping containers by the end of September 2003. Payloads will vary from weapons to surveillance packages,” says Dr. Tom Taylor, ONR program manager. Work will be performed mainly in San Diego, CA, and other testing facilities and is expected to be completed by April 2004.

www.globalsecurity.org...
www.onr.navy.mil...

An antiship version of the JASSM would be nice.

[edit on 7/27/05 by jetsetter]

[edit on 7/27/05 by jetsetter]

All of the supersonic anti-ship missiles you tell me are multi-role missile, which fight-position is smaller than Rassian missiles, range is shorter as well.
So could I get a conclution which means Rassian missiles using this way always more advanced than U.S.?
Something like Coyote even is a target!

As good as SeaRAM is , Yahkont or Bolid could very get passed it before any reaction time - Bolid is a sub launched weapon after all!

The Yakhont's max speed is mach 2.5 why would RAM be able to stop it? The sub would have to get close enough to fire its missiles so that the RAM can’t react to it, good luck doing that.

I think the Future of naval combat willl be completely stealth warfare.
Not to mention robotic. The USN ships that are ment for the "next generation" all deal heavily on stealth.
The aim apparently is to be so stealth that the enemy doesnt know what to fire the snti-ship missile against!
Thats what I'm talking about, let them Russians and the rest spend all their money on supersonic, hypersonic or even warp speed weapons but they cant shoot what they dont see

IAF

Originally posted by WestPoint23
The Yakhont's max speed is mach 2.5 why would RAM be able to stop it? The sub would have to get close enough to fire its missiles so that the RAM can’t react to it, good luck doing that.

you tell me , which DEPLOYED ships , as of right now , use SeaRAM.

And the chinese will use Bolid on the diesel boats - which , have a remarkable ability to get passe the seawolf and sink a carrier - ask the Brits AND the australians , they have both done it in exercies! - the AUS have done it recently , and several times as well.

And in comparison - little submarine , huge ocean - nothing can be detected all of the time - the russian TK20 has given the slip to attack boats many times , and its not exactly small or as quiet as a diesel boat.

Speed does not equate technical superiority.

Repeat the mantra.......

Speed does not equate technical superiority.

In terms of defending against ASCM's, low observability represents a far greater challenge than pure speed. So does a robust terminal seeker with advanced features such as effective ECCM, HOJ, dual-seeker technology, and advanced terminal maneuvering logic.

I would be willing to argue that some other advanced techniques, such as towed decoys and jettisonable submunitions/decoys are far more technically challenging than pure speed.

Russian ASCMs have always relied on speed since the advent of the SS-N-3 Shaddock. They knew that their seeker technology was unreliable and vulnerable to expoitation and ECM. To mitigate this vulnerability, they tried to take away vunerability to ECM by reducing the amount of time that ECM and other defenses could be brought to bear against them. Hence high flight speeds. They also believed in the theory of barrage attacks, knowing that a single-salvo shot against a NATO target had an excellent chance of a) being taken out by ECM and/or decoys, and b) weapon failure due to bad manufacturing and QC. Thus the ripple-launch doctrine.

Russian ASCM's have improved dramatically over the years, both in sophistication of technology and quality of manufactuing and materials. Reliability rates have undoubtedly increased. However, speed is still not the most important threat characteristic of an ASCM.

Remember, speed is a two-edged sword.

One the one hand, a mach 2.5 ASCM takes away valuable reaction time from the intended target. It could also be argued that there is greater damage inflicted from the added kinetic energy.

On the other hand, high-speed ASCMs require precise targeting data, especially at OTH ranges. Quicker flight times to the target and high air speeds also mean that there is less time for:

- mid-course guidance inputs from the launch platform or surveillance platform

- the internal logic of the weapon to detect, identify, and counter advanced jamming and decoys

- detecting and countering changes in weather and sea state that could affect flight performance

It is also true that air targets flying at very high speeds are much more vulnerable to relatively minor damage & shock waves produced by AAA or SAMs. So, speed is not everything.