I've found the most "cost effective" way of dealing with large packs of subsonic missiles is to simply intercept them with fighters, pull up on them at close range and shoot them with 25mm cannon. Two fighters can blow away 40 Kelt cruise missiles with ammo to spare. That way your missile frigate can save those high precision AA missiles for when it really counts!
But how do you get close to them without them firing their AA missiles?
In the mission options, set the dropdown menu to 'Fire in self-defense only.'Originally Posted by Ruyter M.
The thing that bugged me is I thought Harpoon on warships was going to be replaced by Tomahawk Anti Ship Missiles.
They have longer range if not faster than the Harpoon missiles. Harpoon is so slow....slower than even Exocet missiles.
Does the US even have supersonic anti ship missiles? I cannot believe USN would still use subsonic anti ship missiles by 2030.
"A society that robs an individual of the product of his effort, or enslaves him, or attempts to limit the freedom of his mind, or compels him to act against his own rational judgment-a society that sets up a conflict between its edicts and the requirements of man's nature-is not, strictly speaking, a society, but a mob held together by institutionalized gang-rule. Such a society destroys all the values of human coexistence, has no possible justification and represents not a source of benefits, but the deadliest threat to man's survival" -Ayn Rand. Read about the nature of Singapore regime on 'Singapore dissident' or 'exposingsingapore' blog
The only US supersonic anti-ship missile program I know about is LRASM-B, and it's not anywhere near completion.
We have it (very speculatively) in the database.
Obviously, some missiles in the Standard family can target surface ships. This is implemented in the game.
Why not? USN doctrine only includes anti ship missiles as an afterthought when it includes them at all.
Ah yeah the dilemma of setting a future setting for a game which tries to follow real life parameters.
It would mean US would be undergunned. A supersonic missiles are harder to defend against, deadlier(the speed translates to more impact force) and quicker to reach their target even quicker than planes off carrier.
Subsonic missiles would be relatively easy to dispatch(destroy) with systems like the CIWS and AAM compared to their supersonic counterpart.
Without supersonic anti ship missiles US would be underhanded. Even India and South East Asia nations are beginning to deploy supersonic anti ship missiles into their naval armament.
"A society that robs an individual of the product of his effort, or enslaves him, or attempts to limit the freedom of his mind, or compels him to act against his own rational judgment-a society that sets up a conflict between its edicts and the requirements of man's nature-is not, strictly speaking, a society, but a mob held together by institutionalized gang-rule. Such a society destroys all the values of human coexistence, has no possible justification and represents not a source of benefits, but the deadliest threat to man's survival" -Ayn Rand. Read about the nature of Singapore regime on 'Singapore dissident' or 'exposingsingapore' blog
Like JanH has said the US Navy has the LRASM program ongoing which will create two missiles: one very stealthy version LRASM-A with long range(~ 1000 km) but sub-sonic, and another supersonic variant LRASM-B which will probably travel at Mach 3+ but with less range and stealth.
We should see the first live firing by 2013, the program is funded until the research, construction(first phase) and test phase(second phase) has gone:LRASM-A will be fired in two tests while the supersonic LRASM-B will be used in 4 tests).
After the phase 2 normally should start phase 3 meaning production but this is not at all certain, given the US Navy past history,(especially with supersonic anti-ship missile programs) that it will go ahead in the current form.
I have to say I am at a loss for words explaining the past 10 years of hesitations and u-turns in the us anti-ship missile technology, even with a doctrine based on large aircraft carriers there is still a need for supersonic anti ship weapons because you can't just assume you'll always have a carrier near by(there are after all only 10 carriers in the us navy).
Yeah this.
They must have assumed everything not in a carrier battlegroup is expendable. The thing is in real WWIII scenario, carriers would be top priority and with smart and capable enemies you can be sure some of them will be sunk immediately. In the end some battlegroup may be forced to be formed without the presence of an aircraft carrier. Not equipping them with supersonic anti ship missiles would be a folly.
"A society that robs an individual of the product of his effort, or enslaves him, or attempts to limit the freedom of his mind, or compels him to act against his own rational judgment-a society that sets up a conflict between its edicts and the requirements of man's nature-is not, strictly speaking, a society, but a mob held together by institutionalized gang-rule. Such a society destroys all the values of human coexistence, has no possible justification and represents not a source of benefits, but the deadliest threat to man's survival" -Ayn Rand. Read about the nature of Singapore regime on 'Singapore dissident' or 'exposingsingapore' blog
Quick answer: Size vs speed vs range.
Long answer:
Engagement envelope: Have you see the size of a SS-N-19 or SS-N-22 vs a Harpoon? Those thing are huge, it's like a small airplane. While it is fast and long range. A high flight profile large size target can be engaged 100+ miles from the ship whereas you'll be lucky to be able to engage a sub-sonic very small target at sea-skimming level at 20 miles out.
Engagement time. A high Mach target that can be engaged 100+ miles give a similar engagement time as a sub-sonic target that can be engaged 20 miles out.
Accuracy: Yea a faster moving target should be harder to hit but it make minimal difference when it's coming straight at you. Arguably, the larger size more than offset the speed penalty.
I think a lot of people is under estimating how hard it is to hit a Harpoon. I think taking a look at how many CIWS systems you see on the last generation of Russian ship gives you an idea how big a threat they felt it is.
Last edited by Wiz33; 27-04-2012 at 20:52.
Made sense only that why can't you have the small size of the Harpoon+the speed of the Russian supersonic missiles . Given that Harpoon is a much older design, research should be able to come out with a better missiles which is supersonic with little or no reduction in range(mini scram jet missile propulsion anyone?). People are saying they already have one under testing but it seems US is a little late in this.
With advances in radar power and resolution, I don't think it's going to be too hard to detect non stealth Harpoon missiles than it used too, say 20 years ago. At sea detection is really at maximum compared to detection on land with changing terrain conditions.
As for the numbers of CIWS on Russian warships, it is only understandable as they expect their ships to fight against enemy of superior numbers so it's not because the Harpoon is that hard to shoot down. This is the reasons Russians like to put maximum firepower and defenses on any hull.
Last edited by Mighty Heart; 28-04-2012 at 03:28.
"A society that robs an individual of the product of his effort, or enslaves him, or attempts to limit the freedom of his mind, or compels him to act against his own rational judgment-a society that sets up a conflict between its edicts and the requirements of man's nature-is not, strictly speaking, a society, but a mob held together by institutionalized gang-rule. Such a society destroys all the values of human coexistence, has no possible justification and represents not a source of benefits, but the deadliest threat to man's survival" -Ayn Rand. Read about the nature of Singapore regime on 'Singapore dissident' or 'exposingsingapore' blog
That's the problem with setting the game in the future while relying on mostly today's info and not having access or able to use classified info. You just can't predict what will be available by then. Some people was trying to make sure the RIM-116 RAM or SM6 is in the game but I'm actually looking for Laser based CIWS and Railguns ;-P
Aye railgun and laser CIWS have all been developed at least in prototype. There might even airborne [huge] laser equipped plane like the Boeing 737 to target warships and formation of enemy strategic bombers.
Yeah it's difficult to judge which and if any those fancy new weapons are going to be deployed and even if likely their paramaters.
"A society that robs an individual of the product of his effort, or enslaves him, or attempts to limit the freedom of his mind, or compels him to act against his own rational judgment-a society that sets up a conflict between its edicts and the requirements of man's nature-is not, strictly speaking, a society, but a mob held together by institutionalized gang-rule. Such a society destroys all the values of human coexistence, has no possible justification and represents not a source of benefits, but the deadliest threat to man's survival" -Ayn Rand. Read about the nature of Singapore regime on 'Singapore dissident' or 'exposingsingapore' blog
I read somewhere that the USN's primary means of dealing with surface threats is to use either aircraft or submarines to take them out rather than with surface ships. It made sense to me...after all any conflict zone with significant enemy surface combatants will be bound to attract a carrier task group. If a flight of F/A-18's can kill surface ships long before they can threaten the CVBG then there's probably not much reason to spend money developing a supersonic anti-ship missile. By contrast, the Soviets didn't have carriers and couldn't match the USN symmetrically, so it made sense for them to have long range, high speed ASMs that they could fire from ships and aircraft at long distance.
As for the Tomahawk ASM, last I heard they're all being converted into land-attack missiles. Considering how often we've seen the TLAM used lately compared to the TASM, I'd say this makes sense too.
In a WWIII scenario, the USN (And everyone else) breaks out the nukes and once that happens conventional weapons becomes rather superfluous.
Oh not really WWIII isn't likely to start straight with everyone launching nukes. That wouldn't make sense. Why? Simply because no one would risk full nuclear war(aka WWIII) right from the start because that would mean mutual destruction for both sides.
WWIII would start by one side thinking the other would not risk escalating the war. Thus the war would probably progress from limited conflict to a wider and wider one PROGRESSIVELY until one of the side began using NUCLEAR out of desperation when the stakes were considered too high to lose.
WWIII wouldn't start with an all out nuclear attack. That is almost certain
Hence the importance of conventional arsenal still including conventional missiles. At least until everyone started to launch their nukes. If it came to that.
Nuclear arsenal is a paradox. Nuclear weapons work or most beneficial when they ARE NOT USED and CEASED to offer its benefits when they are used. They are the missiles which are doing their killing THE MOST when sitting in their silos. I'm sure they have killed hundreds if not thousands of hostile intents and plots and saved hundreds of thousands if not millions of lives just by sitting there. The day they are launched in the future is the day they have failed.
Last edited by Mighty Heart; 28-04-2012 at 13:44.
"A society that robs an individual of the product of his effort, or enslaves him, or attempts to limit the freedom of his mind, or compels him to act against his own rational judgment-a society that sets up a conflict between its edicts and the requirements of man's nature-is not, strictly speaking, a society, but a mob held together by institutionalized gang-rule. Such a society destroys all the values of human coexistence, has no possible justification and represents not a source of benefits, but the deadliest threat to man's survival" -Ayn Rand. Read about the nature of Singapore regime on 'Singapore dissident' or 'exposingsingapore' blog
I can only advocate the maintenance of nuclear weapons to counter the threat of other nuclear nations, but their main objective in my eyes is to dissuade foreign nuclear powers. For this reason, I think it is logical to continue all-party nuclear disarmament. In Britain's case at least, nuclear capabilities are pointless: while the U.S. maintains it's own nuclear project, the UK essentially holds onto the same safeguard of nuclear dissuasion. Let's save ourselves some £££ by cancelling the Vanguard/Trident fleets, and push for faster global disarmament.
Going back to the topic's original post, I've been finding that it's possible to use helicopters to down cruise missiles with their guns as well. Granted it's not always possible to get these slow-as-molasses contraptions into the missiles' flight path before they pass me by, but if my helo is in the right position and at minimum altitude, then with some micro I can just zap those missiles one after another like an airborne CIWS.
The SLAM-ER can be used against naval targets as well.
http://www.boeing.com/defense-space/...slam/index.htm
http://www.navy.mil/navydata/fact_di...&tid=1100&ct=2
While the LRASM is a ways out, it doesn't seem like it is too far out. 2030 is a long way, even for an acquisition program.
http://www.defpro.com/daily/details/736/
SLAM-ER can blow up ships, indeed (also in the game), but its speed is "high subsonic" and it is air-launched only.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
