Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Surface Forces Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: Does the west need a better anti-ship/land attack missile...
BLUIE006    8/20/2007 5:33:18 AM
After reviewing a number of anti-ship missiles.....i conclude the the US & west needs a better, high speed anti-ship missile? Any takers? Comments?
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
gf0012-aust       8/20/2007 6:17:11 AM

After reviewing a number of anti-ship missiles.....i conclude the the US & west needs a better, high speed anti-ship missile?
Any takers? Comments?
why and what were your conclusions based upon?  why do you think hi-speed AShM are essential?  There's a reason why the west hasn't gone to supersonic missiles.
btw, I disagree.

 
Quote    Reply

Rasputin       8/20/2007 7:52:33 AM
But in other threads about the Bramhos missile, and the Chinese version of the "sunburn" supersonic missiles. It has been mentioned that US is also doing R & D for a supersonic speed anti-ship missile, conducting trials using ramjets (possibly aussie ones).
 
Quote    Reply

gf0012-aust       8/20/2007 7:59:53 AM

But in other threads about the Bramhos missile, and the Chinese version of the "sunburn" supersonic missiles. It has been mentioned that US is also doing R & D for a supersonic speed anti-ship missile, conducting trials using ramjets (possibly aussie ones).


The USN has been running supersonic training mules for decades - and they trained against a far more competent (faster, and more saturated delivery) supersonic threat than anything currently touted as a missile wunderkind.
 
the Talos hybrids/Vandal et al are used to train against a threat - they aren't AShM in their own right.
 
As for AShM, the next step is hypersonics, and we're not that far away from realising a deliverable solution.  The US (and some allies) are planning for the next stage - I just don't see supersonic AShM's as deal breakers.  I'm yet to be convinced and tend to see that US based comments are more geared towards ensuring funding for the hypersonic programes, electric armour, seduction systems etc....
 
 
Quote    Reply

YelliChink       8/20/2007 3:01:06 PM
There are two types of supersonic AShMs: large and heavy versus nimble but short-range.
 
For the USN and western navies, it makes nonsense to deploy such missiles. Only the USN can deploy meaningful number of naval assets, and those Russian supersonic AShMs are desparate attemps to challenge US's sea dominance. I don't know why India deploy Brahmos, but some of their defense projects make not much sense either. For ship-to-ship engagement, most navies reliant on ship-borne ISR while some have sattelite and other recon platforms. However, target recognition in busy water ways usually decrease the distance of engagement, and the USN & friends have other means to deal with that situation other than fire & forget AShMs that might hit something they shouldn't.
 
Besides, there is still no threat to justify the funding for such projects.
 
Taiwan is different case. We've already started from half-baked ALVRJ and some people happened to solve a critical problem in weaponization. So, the question evolved from why to why not. The ROCN will use HF3 primarily as shore-launched system rather than a platform-based system due to the size and weight of the missile. The advantage of such system is to complicate PLAN's fleet air defense plan. If the USN wants such weapon on their Areigh Burke destroyers, they know where to look for.
 
As for hypersonic vehicles, it's only practical if somebody needs to shoot down a floating fortress in high attitude. It's really hard to cool things down at that speed near sea-level.
 
Quote    Reply

gf0012-aust       8/20/2007 7:46:36 PM


As for hypersonic vehicles, it's only practical if somebody needs to shoot down a floating fortress in high attitude. It's really hard to cool things down at that speed near sea-level.

a hypersonic is more than viable if used on a loitering BAMS UAV, similarly, its more than useful for surface to air - the issue for SAM roles is the staging - hence why I make repeated comments in other posts about multi-staging hypersonics.
 
At a surface to surface level, its again going to be an issue of how effective the primary impulse stage is to get the hypersonic stage active.  at that point, if they don't kill it in the primary stage, then its as good as over for the target vessel. (for 99% of the worlds fighting vessels) - more so if they are on their own or outside the umbrella of overlapping systems.

 
 
Quote    Reply



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics