Raytheon Studies Supersonic Tomahawk

Originally posted by WestPoint23
I don't see what you're asking here, Midway was won because of aircraft, not cruise missiles. It's one of the key battles that established the carrier as the pre dominant force in naval warfare.

Midway was won because the IJN dropped the ball in several regards (I reccomend Reading "Shattered Sword". But yes carriers were the key issue.

Jutland is the last such example IMHO for for large capital ships to fight each other. In real terms, aircraft and missiles (not to mention submarines) will be the main combatants against enemy ships. I for one would not want to go toe to toe with say a Kirov class armed with the 5" gun on most USN ships.

The last real example IMHO (and can be seen in the History Channel's show dogfights) Was the battle between the U.S. SEVENTH FLEET TASK UNIT 77.4.3 (aka Taffy 3) and the IJN center body which was bent on destroying the US invasion force in the Leyte Gulf.



[edit on 7/2/07 by FredT]

Yes, but with the advent of the modern cruise missile, the future of carriers is in doubt too. They are close to becoming like the big battle wagons of WWII: outdated. Think about it, a $5 Billion dollar carrier vulnerable to a $5M dollar cruise missile.

The future is going to be submarines and smaller ships carrying drones with maybe a carrier or two to support any land operations.

Originally posted by pinchy417
Yes, but with the advent of the modern cruise missile, the future of carriers is in doubt too.

Not for awhile, its that old classic offence versus defence battle. For now CVN's are faily robust and well protected. Even against threats like the Sunburn or the near [sarcasm]mythological[/sarcasm] Bhramos ASM to take out a carrier you have to chew through the Aegis system, then the ESSM, then RAM, and finaly the CIWS. It is expected that the next generation of carriers may field close in laser weapons to deal with these threats.

Now if someone develops a hypersonic seaskimming cruise missile, I may agree with you.

Even then, we are still talking hypothetically. Aegis is a powerful system, but has yet to be used under real combat conditions. Same with the Sunburn.

Still, I'm projecting out 15 - 20 years (about how long it takes to design and build new ships as in the Ford Class at $13B for the first one.) By the time the USS Ford comes online, no telling what will be out there against the US.

Personally I'm of the opinion that the future is smaller drone carriers.

Fred - CIWS is uselesss against mach3 missiles , and is doubtful against subsonic ones - from maximum engaement range to impact is 1.5 seconds - thast 60 rounds fired and pure kinetic energy means teh missile will still hit the target (uss stark , the IAF frigate are 2 examples , with just excuses as to why the system failed to work as intended even against subsonic rounds)


and AEGIS with SM3 - hmmm closing speeds is the issue here with engagement range - its a closing speed in excess of 1 mile per second - which leaves little margin of error

The SM-3 has hit 8 out of 10 test targets, some of them being complicated separating multi stage BMs.

CIWS and the RAM are not intended to compliment each other, the RAM is designed as a replacement for the PHALANX because it is so ineffective. The RAM is extremely agile and has a much longer range an hit probability.

The second line of defense is the ESSM, which is specifically designed for supersonic, evading cruise missiles.

By the time the Ford class comes out, the Navy might be deploying the SM-6 SAM:

www.globalsecurity.org...

Slap an AMRAAM seeker on the SM-2 and improve propulsion and you have the SM-6. The missile is designed to hit targets outside the ships radar horizon.

actually SM3 wouldn`t be the missile of choice - althogh it could do teh job , its not designed for low altitude high speed maneuvering targets (with onboard ecm) , so that would fall to ESSM , or more likely - SM2 which is teh common deployed missile

sea ram - has a range of 8200 yards (7.5km) or there abouts

now for the math - if a brahmos can close the full engagement range of CIWS in 1.5 seconds (2000 yards) - the range of ram is 8200 yards - so if it closes 2000 yards in 1.5 seconds it can close 8200 yards in

6.5 seconds

thats 6.5 seconds to aquire , track lock on and fire on the target.

i wouldn`t put all my faith in a system which has that little time to hard kill a target - and if its not fired within 4 seconds your back to the same situation as CIWS - kinetic energy of the missile will still hit the target.


best not let its get within 5 miles then......

Originally posted by BlackWidow23
The second line of defense is the ESSM, which is specifically designed for supersonic, evading cruise missiles.

Actually not quite, the defensive layers go along the lines of...

1. CAP (Take Out Launching Platforms) 180-200 nm
2. Picket Ships (Again, Take Out Launching Platforms) 100-150 nm
3. Currently SM-2 Block IV (Long Range Missile/Aircraft Intercept) 150 Miles
Circa 2010 SM-6 (Beyond Horizon Missile/Aircraft Intercept) 150-200 Miles
4. ESSM (Intermediate Range Missile Intercept) 30-33 Miles
5. RAM/Sea (Short Range Missile Intercept) The Current Version RAM Block I has a range of 5.75 Miles. I know Wiki says otherwise but more reliable sources prevail here. Anyway, circa 2011 the new RAM Block II will have more, and larger, control surfaces as well as a bigger boost/rocket motor. These changes will make it more maneuverable as well as increase overall range.

6. Currently CIWS but in the future it may be some form of close in laser system, not unlike several systems currently operational today.

Underlying all of this are ECM, EW and hard countermeasure features...

As for RAM, linked with AEGIS and the ships sensors it can track and lock via radar way before the missile is in the kill envelope. It does not have to wait until the missile is within 5nm to launch either. Calculated trajectory means it can be launched sooner to achieve a stand off intercept. Also, the RAM is designed to be launched in salvos...

Originally posted by Harlequin
...closing speeds is the issue here with engagement range - its a closing speed in excess of 1 mile per second - which leaves little margin of error...

While not ideal for cruise missiles the SM-3 was designed (and has demonstrated) the ability to hit endo-atmospheric targets flying very fast (see high hypersonic) while too closing with a speed near Mach 10.

there is a massive difference between a balistic target @ mach 10 and a maneuvering target at ultra low altitude at M3 - SM3 won`t hit the brahmos - you said it your self - its not the job of that system.

I'm not sure many people understand what maneuvering at Mach 3 means...the SR-71 took the whole state of Alabama to make a 180 degree turn and that would be mid-high G.

If you try to significantly maneuver something at Mach 3 the airframe will literally fold in half. It cant outmaneuver an ESSM. And it cant significantly evade anything at those speeds, especially at low altitude where the air is thickest.

i do believe you might not understand either - that at M3 a 1 degree course change can throw off delta vee from 1000 feet - which is enough to miss.

These cruise missiles can withstand much more stress than any manned aircraft, in the 30G range. They are specially built to withstand high energy maneuvers at high speed. Still, their large size and slow speed compared to anti-missile systems means that they cannot be more maneuverable. Figures range from 40G for the SM-2 to 60G for the ESSM and RAM. So in reality the SR-71's turn radius does not really apply here. Also, the faster the speed less maneuvering, time and course change is required to correct for any vector change. Which is why missiles such as the SM-2 and ESSM has a speed near or over Mach 4.

[edit on 2-7-2007 by WestPoint23]

Originally posted by Harlequin
Fred - CIWS is uselesss against mach3 missiles , and is doubtful against subsonic ones -

I agree it is after all a last dirch weapon. In theory it can hit a Mach 3 target. the problem with it is that its envelope of engagment is so close to the ship that a mach 3 missile even if destroyed has enough momentum its going to frag the ship. RAM or rolling airframe missile (Basicaly its a sidewinder missile with a stinger seeker head) is designed to engage at a range that will keep the ship from getting fragged. Many ships still have both

The thing is , everything im reading about SeaRAM is that it won`t be refitted to replace CIWS amoungst the general fleet - carriers yes(or to supplement CIWS) and '___', LHD and LPD classes but on the majority of ships - theres no word of refittting it.

That's because those ships are currently the most vulnerable while also being the most valuable hence prime targets. They lack many of the other defensive layers and capabilities DDG class ships has for example. As such they are priority and will get RAM first. Eventually as those retrofits happen and as we phase out the Phalanx other ship classes will also get RAM systems.

Ok, so if a Mach 3 cruise missile enters the engagement envelope of the RAM and evades at 30G...you say at 1 degree it will go wildly off course...but do you see the problem here? At mach 3, its not going to have enough time to move back into the killzone...it will be well off course before it can...and even if it did get back on course, the RAM is designed to be ripple fired, so even if the Mach 3 missile miraculously evades, by the time its back on course a second sea RAM is on its way, and if the missile tries to evade again its going to miss.

You are also forgetting that it wouldnt be the Gs that would destroy the missile, it would be the air. Bernoulli's principal applies here. Say it pulls up...the top would whip back and the engines at the back would push forward, folding the thing like a piece of paper. What missile can withstand THAT? Not to mention the TREMENDOUS heat generated from low level mach 3, further weakening the structure.

This is not an attack or an argument, I'm actually curious.

[edit on 4-7-2007 by BlackWidow23]

let me explain a little more detail -


the incoming missile (A) is targetting a ship - the defence missile (B) is fired at A at a range of 60 miles - thats 1 minute out and over the horizon.

I would put good money on the new generation M3 missiles having a radar warning reciever on them slaved to the on board brain - but no matter .

so missile A wants to ih t ship - it knows `roughly` where it is thanks to mid course updates so flies that way - but as it gets closer it starts making small `bounces` only a few feet or so - now the complicated part (and oh for a picture)

missile B will see a bounce and will have to recompute the delta vee for the intercept so whereas missile A only has a bounce of 5 feet at a range of (say) 30 miles

www.brianmac.demon.co.uk...

ok its a picture but the further away from the target the more distance you will need to travel to intercept it - so `yeah wonderful` SM whatevere can hit at massive miles , but the more `bouncing` the target does the harder the hit - ever notice all the figures quoted for ballistic hits? thats cause the whole flight can be plotted and the shot made accordingly , which you can`t do for a low altitude `bouncing (or `jinking` target)

next the low altitude - at 15 feet above the sea - at 10 miles , missile a bounces up 10 feet - missile B bounces up 100 feet to compensate - missile a bounces down 10 feet straight away = missile b flies into the water - there goes your lovely SM missile - whilst the computers might be fast , changes of direction are not.

so in summary , a low alititude target constantly chaning delta vee at longer ranges makes for a nightmare anyway - add in the speed factor (1 mile per socnd) and it gets much harder , which is why they added an aim9 seeker to stinger - the seeker has to keep track of the target fast enough to allow for all of the above.


won`t say its a wonder system though - and i still think that the day a carrier gets sunk will be the shock of the world.


you mention density of air and high G? well that *might* be an issue for the intercepting missile as it has the longest distance to move through the air - the flight won`t be straight - imagine a 3d rollercoaster as this thing travels bouncing up and down and left to right as it closes to the target.

Harlequin, long range anti ship cruise missiles only maneuver in the terminal phase. As such the further out you can target them the easier they will be to destroy. As for your post, I'm not sure that's how a real scenario will play out...

a little erratum

the defence missiles won`t fire till 30 miles using AEGIS - the horizon gets in the way and that IS terminal phase westy. so unless you have 24/7 awacs in the area data linked to the AEGIS you won`t get alot of warning the first thing will be a recon aircraft folllowed by climbing bombers on your radar screen - the vampires are allready incoming.

You are over simplifying something which is classified, don't think that an AEGIS radar is limited to only 30 miles against cruise missiles. Anyway, this is a war scenario no? As such OTH radars giving early warning of enemy platforms in combination with CAP, AWACS and ships spaced accordingly apart can offer more than ample coverage against cruise missiles. Not to mention the different seeker modes of anti - missile systems...