Raytheon Studies Supersonic Tomahawk

yes of course AEGIS now has magically properties and see through the curvature of the earth from a height of 30meters

*slap* oh how wrong i was to think a silly thing like the planet can get in the way of the `imba` AEGIS.

reality check please - the planet gets in the way - and before you scream OTH - the AN/TPS-71 ROTHR (Relocatable Over-the-Horizon Radar is not exactly a small system by any stretch of the imagination

www.fas.org...


and has limited range and is not designed for tracking aircraft or missiles.


awacs? you would need them up 24/7 - which doesn`t happen for a fleet as crews get tired and need replaceing.

cap? same - thats 2 hours at a time - you gonna keep your flight crews port and starboard indefinately? after 72 hours you`ll have a seriously reduced-in-capability fighting force.

even in war you have to have stabd downs just so your crew can rest and sleep.

True, the relative horizon is an important issue however:

Most formations have a ship running a picket line ahead of the main formation.

Flight profile is also important. The lower the a/c or missile the poorer the fuel consumption thus effecting range. That why when you look at bomber specs the sometimes include HI-LO-HI and HI-LO-LO etc that describes ranges based on flight profiles. So if the missile has a high altitude approach that will also increase its detection range.

In the event of war, it is not unreasobnable to have a E-2 up 24/7. Also the USAF can be used as well to fill in gaps.

Harlequin, you do not think the AEGIS system is capable of OTH coverage? This is where you an I run into a classified field. You will be hard pressed to find any information of true radar capabilities and systems of the USN in this type of scenario. Still, one key point comes to mind how is the OPFOR going to target US ships with the same limitations in mind? Their launch platforms will not be able to easily get by CAP, AEW and picket ships stationed at extended ranges beyond missile range. Not only will they have to get by those systems but they will need to somehow track US ships from that long of a distance...

[edit on 4-7-2007 by WestPoint23]

Not only does AEGIS have OTH, so the the interceptors. The SM-6 missile uses an AMRAAM seeker and switches to autonimous guidance which can be well out of range of the AEGIS radar. How do I know this? Because the range of the SM-2 and SM-6 is further than the range of the AEGIS radar.

Second, these hops of five feet or so might be possible, but the SM-2 and especially the ESSM can pull the Gs to recover. And an also, by the time the incoming cruise missile has moved far enough to throw the ESSM of course its swimming, they cant hop that fast. When the missile hops slowly, the ESSM hops slowly, because it doesnt have to drastically change its course to keep on an intercept course.

Thirdly, when the ESSM closes in, those hops wont help at all, it has a proximity fuse.



[edit on 4-7-2007 by BlackWidow23]

Actually as I said before, the faster an object is moving the less direction change and time is required to accomplish a certain vector change. This actually works to the benefit of faster interceptor missiles when running point intercept.

I don't think (in case there's really a serious threat by supersonic cruise missiles) that there would be problem to simply use unmaned high flying airship with AWACS class radar. Such airship could fly 7 days without refuelling (and in case of need to refuel it doesn't need carrier it can just refuel hoovering over supply ship) and act as permanent fleet guardian - no cruise missile would be able to escape it's radar.

Longbow, you mean a system like this using amongst other things airships like this?

Finally the “dancers’ debate is over.

Great to see that speed is life even with cruise missiles.

I can only wonder when hypersonic “concept” will be finally adopted as a standard.

Russian did it decades ago.

Right here;

www.abovetopsecret.com...

It seems that as the technolgy of missles gets better and faster, the way to defeat them gets better and able to see them from far out. If the defence system of a carrier battle group works as planned no missle should ever get through. I think a geater threat to a carrier is a submarine, in the last couple of years clever captains have been able to get their subs in closer than most would like, the ones we know of our Chinise and South Africa, they seem to be a bigger threat than a missle.

Has any nation ever hit one of the US carriers since WW2?
I don't think so, that would be big news.

If the defence system of a carrier battle group works as planned no missle should ever get through.

Says who? US NAVY official statements say exactly the opposite. In fact, a few years back US NAVY purchased Russian made ramjet powered Kh-31 anti-ship missile, specifically in order to develop a countermeasure to it.

As it stands, not a single US NAVY system is advertised to offer effective protection against supersonic family of Soviet-era medium size anti-ship weapons, much less a large supersonic Granit class system with a separating HYPERsonic warhead.

Has any nation ever hit one of the US carriers since WW2?

Not a single nation US went to war with ever possessed an anti-ship missile with enough range to reach a carrier.

Iraq did fire P-15 “termites” on US NAVY ships, Phalanx did engage the targets, missed all of them, and struck friendly ships in the process.

Mind you, P-15 was one of the first Soviet anti-ship missiles back from the 50s, yet US NAVY defensive systems completely failed to track, target and destroy them.

That’s after Israelis developed effective countermeasures in 1973 war, which were successfully used against Egyptian/Syrian P-15s.

Then again, there was an incident when Russian strike aircraft managed to overly US carrier THREE times in a row, in a single month.

Further more, they flew so close and low that they took digital pictures of the deck crew running around, and then e-mailed then to the carriers web site.

F-18 Hornets that were scrambled to intercept the intruders failed to catch them every time.

Originally posted by fritz
Thanks Westy. At least somebody responded.

As for Midway, yes indeedy the battle was largely fought from carriers, but I thought there were other more significant actions where ships fought directly with each other.

Nope. There were no surface engagements during the Midway engagement. The only USN ships that came close enough to make visual contact with the Japanese fleet were submarines.

[Perhaps I was thinking of the Yamato or some other sea battle. The question Westy still stands. Is the USN now, by and large, a ground support arm for the Army or Marines?]

Unless you're thinking of the Yamato (along with Nagato, Kongo, and Haruna) beating the fish sauce out of Taffy-3 at Samar, you aren't thinking about Yamato at all...as far as I know, that was the only time she fired her main battery at an American warship....not exactly a pivotal naval engagement.

I wouldn't say that the USN was a support arm for the Army or the Marine Corps (My cousin might, but he's a Marine *grin*) I would say that the nature of warfare has changed, as has the nature of likely opposition. As things currently stand, the odds of a mass carrier vs. carrier engagement like Midway are pretty remote.

Is there no scenario where ship will be pitted against ship, captain against captain, each testing the other's seamanship and tactical awareness?

Not very many. In fact, the scenario you're describing hasn't been common since the age of 'wooden ships and iron men', and even in those days, the individual combats were usually in the context of a larger fleet action. Well before World War One (never mind Two), tactics were fleet-oriented rather than ship oriented. This isn't to say that there haven't been some very impressive examples of tactical ship-handling, or to imply that there won't be more in the future...but one-on-one engagements aren't likely at this point.

Do you not remember when every Admiral worth his 'salt' maneouvred his fleet to be in a position where he would be able to cross the 'T'?

Not personally. I'm old, but I'm not that old!

Why the need for supersonic tomahawk?
Simple, it’s SPEED. It just works, because speed allows higher probability of getting through enemies defenses.
Even though it’s a couple of decades late, since the 80s it’s been all about hypersonic propulsion.
Let’s recap;

Their launch platforms will not be able to easily get by CAP, AEW and picket ships stationed at extended ranges beyond missile range. Not only will they have to get by those systems but they will need to somehow track US ships from that long of a distance...

Wrong! Not only US NAVY has never been able to set up a test which displays our ACTUALL defense capability against SUBsonic anti-ship missiles, they can’t even stop the Russians from catching them with their pants off, three times in a single month.

Russian flyover takes Navy by surprise?
Ship personnel say incident more serious threat than Pentagon admits

www.worldnetdaily.com...

DoD News Briefing
Mr. Kenneth H. Bacon, ASD PA
Thursday, December 7, 2000 - 2:08 p.m. EST
[Excerpts]
Q: Ken, as part of this game of "gotcha" that the Russians have been playing with the Kitty Hawk -- and we get all these new versions of exactly how long it took to react -- one, can you give us the latest version of how events unfolded? And two, is it true that the Russians e-mailed photos that their aircraft took of the Kitty Hawk to the Kitty Hawk? And three, if that's true, can we have them?
Bacon: There were actually three incidents. One was on October 12th, one was on October 17th, and I believe the last was on October 9th (sic).
Staff: (Off mike.)
Bacon: I'm sorry. November 9th? November 9th. And the first incident, on the 12th, they were a number of nautical miles away from the Kitty Hawk. On the second, on the 17th, they were actually quite close, and I have to admit that I misspoke about this last time, based on misinformation. They did fly very close to the carrier, within several hundred feet. They had been acquired by radar well in advance, as I said earlier, but they flew closer than I said last time.
They did take some pictures. They did e-mail the pictures to the Navy, and -- to the ship, actually. And I would refer you to the Navy for those pictures. But those are the facts at this stage.

Full transcript here; cryptome.org...

I don't think (in case there's really a serious threat by supersonic cruise missiles) that there would be problem to simply use unmaned high flying airship with AWACS class radar. Such airship could fly 7 days without refuelling (and in case of need to refuel it doesn't need carrier it can just refuel hoovering over supply ship) and act as permanent fleet guardian - no cruise missile would be able to escape it's radar.

Before we try to get into unmanned AWACS concept, let’s try and button up what we have so far.

As long as Russians can get away with flying their strike aircraft directly over our carriers, time and time again with out us being able to stop them, as long as Chinese subs keep casually popping up right next to our carriers, no amount of supersonic Tomahawks will help the reputation of our fleet.
I can’t help to wonder when will we get around to “looking” into HYPERsonic systems, since direct energy weapons are already challenging supersonic systems.
I can’t resist.

*SNIP*

Mod Edit: Reduced External Quote.

[edit on 20/9/2007 by Mirthful Me]

Wrong! Not only US NAVY has never been able to set up a test which displays our ACTUALL defense capability against SUBsonic anti-ship missiles, they can’t even stop the Russians from catching them with their pants off, three times in a single month.

Freedom Jets is a company that uses BD-5 jets to simulate cruise missle attacks on military targets. I do know they had contracts with the military. I modified the instrument panels for two of them to accept an EFIS package. For anyone unfamiliar with the BD-5. It was the jet used in the movie Octopussy.

As for the Navy getting caught with their pants down I think it is inexcusable. I thought you were supposed to train like you planned to fight.

[edit on 20-9-2007 by assassini]

Freedom jet has changed names to SMART-!
web site can be found at www.smart-1.us...

[edit on 20-9-2007 by assassini]

reply to post by tomcat ha


I agree. We could have developed a supersonic long range ascm(s) if we had needed them. Air-launched harpoons were (and still are, for now) adequate at the time. But we need to develope them now, if for no other reason than to check equivalent missiles that the Russians have developed and are selling to potential future foes (China, Iran). I understand Darpa has funded a research program for a 2000lb, hypersonic, 680 mile range anti-ship missile (that's the requirement, and a hell of a requirement it is with just a 2000lb weight limit). It should be capable of being fired by f/a-18, f-35, ships and subs. They want it by 2015. That would be some serious deterence. Not to mention it would make all of our naval units (planes, ships and subs) deadly long range ship killers and reduce our reliance on carrier planes. Along with all our other naval advantages (quantity, quality, geography, allies), I can't see anyone challanging us with such a missile in place. We would have no weaknesses relative to everyone else.

Its one thing for a russian aircraft to sneak up on a aircraft carrier group EM COLD.

But you can not launch antiship weapons EM cold.

International rules are that its a hostile act to "paint" a ship or aircraft with weapons actuation and targeting radar. EM HOT

If the russian aircraft had tried to sneak up and then went EM HOT.
he would have found himself "painted" with every weapons actuation and targeting radar in the carrier battle group before he could launch a missile. WEAPONS HOT
this would amount to suicide mission for the hostile aircraft.

This is the ROE for US warships.

By the way Brother Stormhammer there still are WOODEN SHIP AND IRON MEN sailors in the US Navy
They man the US Navy mine-warfare ships
They are also known as minesweep sailors

Mine Counter-Measures Ships

* USS Avenger (MCM-1)
* USS Defender (MCM-2)
* USS Sentry (MCM-3)
* USS Champion (MCM-4)
* USS Guardian (MCM-5)
* USS Devastator (MCM-6)
* USS Patriot (MCM-7)
* USS Scout (MCM-8)
* USS Pioneer (MCM-9)
* USS Warrior (MCM-10)
* USS Gladiator (MCM-11)
* USS Ardent (MCM-12)
* USS Dextrous (MCM-13)
* USS Chief (MCM-14)

anned
wooden ships and rusty crusty old iron men
USS Enhance MSO 437
Operation Endsweep Haiphong Harbor North Vietnam


[edit on 21-10-2008 by ANNED]

[edit on 21-10-2008 by ANNED]