Does the West have an answer to the Sunburn?

Entrusted defense concepts have a time-told tendency to be shattered by the product of unrecognized martial evolution. When this happens the confidence of the losers is usually a casualty. Let's look back a few years...

Maginot Line: Bypassed.

Look at the first missile ship war between Israel and the Arabs.

'Impregnable' Fort Eban Emmael: Infiltrated in an unheard-of way: Glider Troops.

Polish Hussars: Met German panzers.

Repulse and Prince of Wales: Total proof that airpower > seapower.

Soviet Air Superiority over Afghanistan: Crashed and burned when insurgents obtained Stingers.

Teutonic Knights vs. Mongels: Absolutely hilarious if it wasn't so tragically horrid for the Europeans, who had never practiced mounted archery, the use of smoke screens, large-scale maneuvering, etc. Only slightly less disasterous for the Mongel knights who fought the European steel knights in a foot fight.

...what all of these disasters have in common was human failure in the form of overconfidence. People knew the Maginot Line could be bypassed, people knew that the Prince of Wales and Repulse were little more than bomb practice for the Japanese. People knew America had an advanced anti-aircraft myself ideal for the mujahadeen. But too many times the warnings were not heard and instead the disaster felt. Too often caution is associated with cowardice and bravado associated with heroism.

The USS Stark was hit with an Exocet the crew never even saw. Detecting missiles skimming the ocean at any speed is difficult in training exercises under optimum conditions. Just like in a fight it's usually the hit you don't see that gets you, so is it in major defense disasters.

One of the most amazing fights in history, I think, is where two fighters came out with a new technological development at the same time and fought each other - the Monitor and the Merrimack for example. But this is way more rare than someone using new, unknown tech against old tech.

Originally posted by FredT

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.

It would take an extremely powerful laser to be able to knock down a cruise missile. The capability just isn't there to knock down hard targets. The Israeli's have hbd some success knocking down Soviet style Katyusha's, let alone a violently manouvering supersonic ASM.

The problem isn't the kill device it's the tracking of the target to allow the kill device to function appropriately.h

SeaRam.......
Soviet Sunburn Missile Nulifies the US Navy Effectivness
Russian "Sunburn" anti-ship missile threat neutralized



seekerof

Unfortunately the SeaRam is unproven against a missile with the capabilties of the ' Sunburn '. A missile on missile engagement even of this order is has the same technological problems of the US ABM program ( of course to a lesser degree ).

Bearing in mind of course any versions the US Navy may have been able to aquire would be export versions only.

Maybe so madscientist, but of course, I am failing to find where Sunburn has been tested against any type Western standard anti-ship missile system.....as such, this makes me wonder if some of the vaunted claims of the Sunburn aren't along the lines of some to most of the high stats and claims the West is used to hearing from the USSR/Russia.

I am in no way discounting this particular missile, but also, unfortunately, the same claim made against the SeaRAM can seemingly be leveled at the Sunburn?



seekerof

True but if there's one thing the Soviets/Russians are good at in naval technology, it's ASM's. There whole strategy for the last 60 years has been to develop these systems to deny US Naval supremacy of the worlds oceans.

Bearing in mind that even there vintage 1970's AS-4 and AS-6's would be hard to stop and would easily cripple a capital ship with one hit.

Any future naval conflict between the US and China/Russia would result in these missiles being used on mass, not in single or duel shots as tests always seem to do.

Originally posted by mad scientist
It would take an extremely powerful laser to be able to knock down a cruise missile. The capability just isn't there to knock down hard targets.

Agreed. I posted an article on the Navy just getting a 10 ghz laser oeprational and hope to have 100 ghz laser in a few years. At that point we can get serious. However, the RAM should be able to do the trick in the mean time. Its always a battle between defence and offence....

There comes a point if a missle is fast and can vary it trajectory then a defence becomes like a game of chicken. First the Sunburn goes right and our countermeasure follows then the Sunburn goes left. You see what I mean. I have yet to hear of any cruise missle being sucessfully interdicted. Not the Harpoon, Sunburn or whatever the Chinese have. This reminds me of the battle of the black boxes (encoders) during WWII. The German developed an encoder and we would make one of our own. Back and forth, missle and counter measure. What will they think up next?

Very interesting stuff guys, Thanks. What about those miniguns that fired 5000rpm? if you could lock onto a missle with one (or maybe more than one) of those would there be a good chance of stopping it?

Sunburn:
Range - 90 Miles
Speed - Mach 2.5 at sea level
Warhead - 750 LB. Conventional OR 200 Kiloton nuclear


RUSSIAN MA-31 Krypton:
Range - 125 Miles
Speed - Mach 2.7 at sea level
Mach 3.5+ at high altitude
Warhead - Any 220 lb warhead







Chineese have licence to produce these missile:

Originally posted by RealisticPatriot
Very interesting stuff guys, Thanks. What about those miniguns that fired 5000rpm? if you could lock onto a missle with one (or maybe more than one) of those would there be a good chance of stopping it?

stopping missile flying Mach 2.7.... i dont think so

What about "the only good defence is a strong offence" stay outside that attack radius and develop more power cruise missiles that will go longer, and farther then theirs.

Chineese have licence to produce these missile:

Is it me or do these look really similar to a Bloodhound SAM ?

Originally posted by titus

Originally posted by RealisticPatriot
Very interesting stuff guys, Thanks. What about those miniguns that fired 5000rpm? if you could lock onto a missle with one (or maybe more than one) of those would there be a good chance of stopping it?

stopping missile flying Mach 2.7.... i dont think so

The problem is not hitting it. The Phalanx can spit out 5000 rounds a minute and the radar is pretty accurate. The problem is that at that speed, the derbits are going to frag the ship pretty good. Better than an actual hit mind you, but with the soft superstructure of teh ships these days, it can wreak havoc. The Arleigh Burke class DD were designed with this treat in mind, with a metal superstructure and Kevlar Armor protecting vital areas.

As one person pointed out above, the key to defending these types of attacks is going to be getting the shooters first and using you defences to stop any leakers as they approach the CBG.

Originally posted by RealisticPatriot
What about "the only good defence is a strong offence" stay outside that attack radius and develop more power cruise missiles that will go longer, and farther then theirs.

Could a Tomahawk be heavily modified to do this as it has a much longer range than the Harpoon?

Originally posted by Hyperen

Originally posted by RealisticPatriot
What about "the only good defence is a strong offence" stay outside that attack radius and develop more power cruise missiles that will go longer, and farther then theirs.

Could a Tomahawk be heavily modified to do this as it has a much longer range than the Harpoon?

The short answer is yes. the CALCM has a much longer range. The future hypersonic missile may have a really looong range. I stareted a thread a while back about the AF talking about non nuclear ICBM's. Fast and global, these waepons could hit targets anywere on the globe in 1/2 hour. Also do not forget the SSGN's that will come on line in a year or so. a sub with 150 Tommahawks could sneak up and volley off a few.

However, if the Sunburn is sub launched then its a ASW issue anyway

I suppose the problem is that even if the US had a high speed, nuclear armed missile like the Sunburn, would even they be willing to fire it first before they were fired upon in a pre emptive nuclear strike.

Arrow missed its mark today, 8th trial of the complete system. This one failed to intercept a incoming missile.

Originally posted by Hyperen


Could a Tomahawk be heavily modified to do this as it has a much longer range than the Harpoon?

The Tomahawk is already doing this, there is a version for ship attacks and it has range of 2500 km, while the best Sunburns have range 900 km.

Originally posted by longbow

Originally posted by Hyperen


Could a Tomahawk be heavily modified to do this as it has a much longer range than the Harpoon?

The Tomahawk is already doing this, there is a version for ship attacks and it has range of 2500 km, while the best Sunburns have range 900 km.

The Tomahawks are lumbering beheamoths easilt destroyed by a modern navies air defences.
For the record ASM versions of the Tomahawk only have a range of 450km only the nuclear tipped variant can travel 2500km.