Protection from the antiship missile "Yakhont" does not exist

No more comments from me, except for a few more:

Mad scientist - great last couple of posts. A lot of what I wanted and meant to say in previous posts.

Aeroking - Good points made and glad to see you changed your absolute stance on things.

We're starting to get into that "gray area" where I must stop talking so as not to divulge any potentially classified info.

Cheers,

SeaBass

but one defense system being ignored is the eventual (and likely sooner than later) implementation of HELs (High Energy Lasers), which of course, moves at light speed to knock a missile out.

Defense against all Russian-built ASCM's is available, but not yet widely distributed to the fleet.

Next -generation EW equipment will soon be on all new Burke-class DDG's and retrofitted to all other fleet units as well. This equipment will automatically detect, classify and engage ASCM's with ECM, chaff, flares, and transfer targetting data to FCS for automated engagement. This technology was being implemented in the late 1980's in the CG, DDG, and FFg class warships in the fleet with systems such as AEGIS, SQP-9, MK 92 FCS and SLQ-32.

The new DD(X) class destroyers will have a tremedous ability to evade and destroy these Russian-built threats:

1. low observability
2. heterogeneous intelligence/data link capability
3. SPY-3 multi-function radar
4. vetical launch Evolved Sea Sparrow Missile / SM-3 / SM-5
5. Enhanced EA capabilities

Russian systems have a tendancy to look great on a brochure or on a CIA intel estimate, but the fact of the matter is that in the field they tend to perform poorly due to lack of flexibility and substandard parts and construction.

Trust Uncle Sam.

The system you're referring to is most likely the SLY-2, the successor to the SLQ-32 variants, namely the V3 system that has passive and active capabilities. Along with this, there is the RAIDS system that assigns a FCS asset to take out a detected missile. Currently the RAIDS system is in testing on board DD-963 platforms.

Nope. The system I am referring to is the AN/SPY-3 Multi-Function Radar. This is a new x-band phased array system, similar to AEGIS, but operating at a much higher frequency range and output power. It is fully automated, can perform multi-tasks (as the name implies), and will absolutely be CLO capable.

BTW, the new EW system for the fleet is the AIEWS, which will eventually replace the SLQ-32's. This is coming from an ex-EW1 (SW) with an 1734 NEC....../wink

Originally posted by Pyros
Nope. The system I am referring to is the AN/SPY-3 Multi-Function Radar. This is a new x-band phased array system, similar to AEGIS, but operating at a much higher frequency range and output power. It is fully automated, can perform multi-tasks (as the name implies), and will absolutely be CLO capable.

BTW, the new EW system for the fleet is the AIEWS, which will eventually replace the SLQ-32's. This is coming from an ex-EW1 (SW) with an 1734 NEC....../wink

Cool, ex-EW1 here as well (NECs 1738, 9527) and I think the AN designation for the AIEWS is the SLY-2, but that may have changed. Haven't kept up on too much in this area. Too busy finishing up my BSEE and designing an active ADCS (Attitude Determination and Control System) for a nanosatellite.

[Edited on 30-5-2003 by SeaBass]

As soon as i read this i laughed. Firstly to the person who replied 1st. Supersonic torpedoes? Are you aware that the speed of sound underwater is almost twice that in air? Do you have any idea how much power would be required to make something go this fast underwater. And if it did it would be useless because its onboard sonar would not work.

And to the impression that a fast missile could get past AEGIS. Well AEGIS means SM-2s which have a range exceeding 40nm so its academic which would win. (My bets on AEGIS) Yes a mass attack might work but the point of AEGIS is to defend aircraft carriers which can deploy aircraft to get rid of any platform cabable of launching one of these.

dellarb -

A few points...

The AEGIS system uses the SPY-1 radar to detect and track airborn threats. This system operates in the 3 GHz band and is designed to detect conventional aircraft (bombers, fighters) at very long ranges. However, against very small targts flying at very high speeds, it's capabilities are very limited. At that low frequency, small targets get lost in the radar clutter.

This new Russian missile probably has a radar cross section somewhere in the -20 to -30 dbsm range (I'm sure Naval Intelligence could give you a better figure) which gives it the RCS of a small ball bearing.

Because this missile is so fast and so stealthy, the fact remains that the AEGIS system, even if it did detect the threat, would not have enough time to evaluate the threat and launch a counter-strike. The SM-2 ER missile has a range WELL past 40 nm, but if you don't see the threat until it is

Originally posted by dellarb
As soon as i read this i laughed. Firstly to the person who replied 1st. Supersonic torpedoes? Are you aware that the speed of sound underwater is almost twice that in air? Do you have any idea how much power would be required to make something go this fast underwater. And if it did it would be useless because its onboard sonar would not work.

Check out this thread dellarb, this might clear up the issue of supersponic underwater weapons.

When the Russian submarine K-141 Kursk sank last August, rumors rapidly arose that the mysterious blasts that sent the big boat to the bottom of the Barents Sea were connected to testing of an ultrahigh-speed torpedo. Several months earlier, when American businessman Edmond Pope was arrested in Moscow on charges of espionage, it was said that he had been trying to buy the plans for an ultrahigh-speed torpedo. Although the details surrounding both the tragic naval accident and the celebrated spy case remain unsettled, evidence does suggest that both incidents revolved around an amazing and little-reported technology that allows naval weapons and vessels to travel submerged at hundreds of miles per hour - in some cases, faster than the speed of sound in water. The swiftest traditional undersea technologies, in contrast, are limited to a maximum of about 80 mph.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

A "supersonic torpedo" is pretty much impossible given the properties of water and our current understanding of physics.

What the previous poster might have meant for a "supersonic torpedo" might have been along the lines of the SS-N-14 missile "Starfish" (if I remember correctly) was a missile that carried a torpedo payload that would fly towards the target, drop the torpedo and do a "double whammy" on the target with a missile and a torpedo. It's very possible they developed a supersonic version of the same.

Just my thoughts . . . . (again)

Never mind the fact that in the event that the Russian launch is detected, an F-14 with the Phoenix missile can easily take it down in midair, as it was designed to do.

I was going to say that... Further more you're assuming the fighters/bombers can get within range to launch the missiles in the first place. Carrier based fighters would undoubtedly engage well before a launch range was achived.

If sub launched, there are amble measures to dected and destroy the enemy sub.


Also, I don't see how a torpedo can break the sound barrier underwater... I'm not saying it doesn't exist, but if it does it uses some very exotic technology. My knowledge of hydrodynamics tells me that any prop driven machine would start cavitating long before it reached high speeds - let alone the sound barrier. The prop would tear itself apart...

By the way... Does anyone know how fast the sound barrier is underwater?

Are you aware that the speed of sound underwater is almost twice that in air?

This doesn't make any sense... Wouldn't it be slower? Water is more thick than air.

[Edited on 11-6-2003 by tacitblue]

tacitblue check this thread

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by mad scientist

Originally posted by dellarb
As soon as i read this i laughed. Firstly to the person who replied 1st. Supersonic torpedoes? Are you aware that the speed of sound underwater is almost twice that in air? Do you have any idea how much power would be required to make something go this fast underwater. And if it did it would be useless because its onboard sonar would not work.

Check out this thread dellarb, this might clear up the issue of supersponic underwater weapons.

When the Russian submarine K-141 Kursk sank last August, rumors rapidly arose that the mysterious blasts that sent the big boat to the bottom of the Barents Sea were connected to testing of an ultrahigh-speed torpedo. Several months earlier, when American businessman Edmond Pope was arrested in Moscow on charges of espionage, it was said that he had been trying to buy the plans for an ultrahigh-speed torpedo. Although the details surrounding both the tragic naval accident and the celebrated spy case remain unsettled, evidence does suggest that both incidents revolved around an amazing and little-reported technology that allows naval weapons and vessels to travel submerged at hundreds of miles per hour - in some cases, faster than the speed of sound in water. The swiftest traditional undersea technologies, in contrast, are limited to a maximum of about 80 mph.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

A supersonic torp. is a "pipe dream" as some might say, and impossible given the current understanding of the laws of physics. A supersonic torpedo is not required to take out a ship. F*ck it . . . . when you people get a clue, respond.

Originally posted by SeaBass
A supersonic torp. is a "pipe dream" as some might say, and impossible given the current understanding of the laws of physics. A supersonic torpedo is not required to take out a ship. F*ck it . . . . when you people get a clue, respond.

It didn't say that a torpedo could be supersonic just that some objectsa may exceed the speed of sound underwater using supercavitation. Other aplications of this technology which have been considered are projectiles fired from a helicopter to destroy underwater mines.

Unfortunately due to the cavity formed around a projectile control rudders cannot guide the projectile esssentially making it a dumb weapon.

Personally, the Russians have been trying to change their long held philosophies of numbers vs. quality. This is just another aspect of that change.

Russia's new goal is "if you can't beat them, then lets out sell them." If one really looks at the current trend of Russian military designs one will notice that the focus and purpose is one leaning mainly towards "sellability."
China is currently "eating it up."

IMHO, we, the US, need to seriously reconsider the amount of billions that the Russian's are recieving via the US taxpayer! I am of firm belief that this money is being "guided" to many such "projects."

Again, this current project or development has not gone unnoticed by the US military. And I am of the opinion that nothing is "full-proof". The US is currently studying or, in fact, has begun deploying "lasers" on a variety of military platforms........the demensions of tomorrows battlefield have yet to be fully implimented or realized.......by any side.

regards
seekerof

The US is actually trying to develop a supersonic torpedo at this time. It works by releasing bubbles at the nose so the torpedo travels through air, not water.

read about the Shkval underwater rocket in google

You shouldnt talk about things that you dont know a thing about.. Even exocet missile is allmost impossible to intercept by even newest countermeasures excluding jamming.. And this missile is sub-sonic and has way more bigger radar signal than Yakhont.. and what comes to the missile defence in general.. or in combat in reality during gulf war 1991 not a single ss-1 (scud) series missile was shoot down by patriot missiles.. as americans and jews (israelis) first claimed "we shoot down every incoming missiles" by today they have reduced their claim to "we interceptet and shoot down 1 of every 10 incoming missiles" But I have seen a Gulf war document in witch Norman Schwarzkopf disannounces these claims totally and says "I dont belive that we shoot down even single scud"

[Edited on 14-7-2003 by Uninen]

Uninen..

In 1987 I participated in a missile exercise off the coast of Puerto Rico. A German destroyer (Rommel) shot a number of Exocet missiles (sans warheads) at a target sled which was being towed about 1.5 nm away from our formation of ships.

All our ships (Perry FFG, Ticonderoga CG, Spruance DD, and Belknap CG) detected the missile(s) via radar and ESM well in advance. Each ship took turns shooting at the various Exocets. The oldest ship in the formation (USS Josephus Daniels) obtained a "skin-to-skin" hit with an obsolescent fire control system and SM-1 missiles.

The MM-40 and AM-40 will have no chance against our fleet assets when systems like the SPY-3 radar and ESSM missile are introduced.

Today's systems can handle them fair enough.