Read the forum code of contact
By: - 31st August 2009 at 01:19 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
By "efficient" do you mean the highest probability of kill?
Pk requires all links in the kill chain -- find, fix, target, track, engage, assess.
Find-fix-target-track-assess is simpler to implement on the shooter rather than the missile, so missile speed probably isn't a big discriminator for these tasks.
Track-engage are missile tasks that I believe are easier for subsonics to accomplish than super/hypersonics for the following reasons:
"Track" involves sensor capability and the ability to discriminate target features while rejecting countermeasures. I would give the advantage to subsonics because super/hypersonics cannot carry sensors with sufficient range to assure timely terminal maneuvers or sensor mode changes to reject countermeasures.
"Engage" involves surviving the target's defenses and final maneuvers to hit the required spot on the target. Super/hypersonics are hot IR targets that can be detected at great distance. High speed also makes them stand out for doppler and severely limits maneuverability (pretty much a straight line to the target). Super/hypersonics tend to be large because of the large quantity of fuel needed to loft them. Large size also limits the number of super/hypers that can be carried by a shooter.
OTOH, subsonics can be programmed to follow circuitous routes to the target, making a multi-axis simultaneous saturation attack easy to accomplish. If the subsonic is stealthy, the time between its detection and target impact is small, limiting the ability of defensive measures. Subsonics also tend to be smaller, allowing more to be carried by a shooter.
By: - 31st August 2009 at 01:55 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
...what he said!.
A supersonic attempts to defeat countermeasures by minimising its exposure window through the targets defensive-systems envelope. The inherent problem with that is that it simultaneously reduces the available window of opportunity for the missiles seeker to do all the things it needs to do. .
Historically, therefore, supersonics have had to be fairly tightly locked in before launch. This places onus on the launch platform to develop the track and hold it long enough for the launch sequence to complete. Exposing a launch platform in this fashion can increase risk and defeat the potential for tactical suprise.
The most efecctive technique for getting a missile through a targets defenses is not supersonic or subsonic it is suprise!. Sheffield, Stark, Hanit....all warships that could and should have defeted the missiles fired at them. All hit because they weren't ready to cope with the threat.
Seeings as modern defensive systems have evolved to cope with supersonic-profile streaming attacks engaging a prepared, contemporary, naval target is a function of simple saturation. Firing more missiles than the target can defeat and decoy. Again as described deploying the, generally, smaller subsonics in volume is a simpler proposition than equivalent volumes of supersonics.
By: - 6th September 2009 at 19:54 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
JASSM
Well, this author seems to be sceptical to subsonics in general and JASSM in particular:
After 13 long years in development, the $7.1 billion Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missile (JASSM) was reported still to be missing its target 40 percent of the time in early 2009 testing.This problematic program was in jeopardy two years ago, and at the 2007 Paris Air Show, the head of U.S. Air Force procurement was evaluating Europe's Taurus and Storm Shadow cruise missiles as possible JASSM replacements.
JASSM's test failure rate since December 2006 had been 42 percent, along with cost overruns reported to Congress. Of roughly 600 JASSMs then fielded, more than 500 were estimated to have flaws lurking in their GPS guidance systems. JASSM barely survived cancellation by Congress in 2008.
Fast forward to 2009: The Air Force is withholding production funding pending the results of last month's scheduled Lot 6 testing, which has now been delayed to allow for replacement of still more faulty components.
We've been there before: Problems two years ago included engine, warhead, power, electrical and other systems, and detonation failure. In a UPI Internet Outside View Webcast on Oct. 25, 2007, Steven Barnoske, Lockheed Martin's JASSM program director, promised that "technical teams have dissected data from test failures, identified root causes and developed corrective action plans that we have validated in a series of laboratory and field tests."
But since then, 50 percent of Lot 5 testing failures has stemmed from poor quality signal cabling, with another 25 percent from more faulty fuses. During one of the most recent tests, a JASSM well into its strike profile suddenly departed controlled flight and crashed.
"We have been unable to duplicate [the anomaly] at this time," said Col. Steve Demers, the Air Force's JASSM program manager, in an interview in the July 27 issue of Aviation Week & Space Technology.
Now, consider that a missile originally expected to cost roughly $400,000 is currently going for almost $1 million apiece, despite its dismal performance. Over the last two years, the diminution in failure rate has been a minuscule 2 percentage points, from 42 percent in 2007 to 40 percent in 2009. Meanwhile, the total program cost has risen from $5.8 billion estimated in 2007 to $7.1 billion in 2009. For what? For more promises, and a growing stockpile of faulty missiles that are already obsolete.
Obsolete? Barnoske asserted, "It is ... the only cruise missile in the world to incorporate state-of-the-art stealth technologies."
While JASSM may have some stealth qualities, it cruises at Mach 0.8 and can be acquired visually. In one test flight, according to the July 2000 issue of Armed Forces Journal International, it took 22 minutes to cover 210 miles. It would have been an easy target for layered, networked, multisensor air defense systems employing Russian-made S-300PMU, SA-10D surface-to-air missiles and their SA-N-6 ship-based counterparts. These and more advanced point-defense systems are now deployed by Russia, China, Iran and others.
Question: What has happened to the cutting-edge research and development at which we once excelled? Why are we attempting to produce this increasingly unaffordable, flawed subsonic standoff cruise missile when France, Russia, China and India have fielded far more advanced and more survivable supersonic equivalents?
A partial sampling: France's inertially guided, ramjet-powered Mach 2-3 ASMP standoff (200-mile-range) nuclear armed cruise missile entered service 23 years ago.
India's air-launchable Mach 2.5+ BrahMos ramjet land-attack and antiship cruise missile (a Russia-India joint venture), with 80- to 200-mile range depending on altitude, carries a 660-pound warhead and employs preset inertial navigation with alternating inertial/active radar terminal guidance. Being considered for export to South Africa, Chile, Malaysia, Kuwait and the United Arab Emirates, it is in service with India's Navy and Army.
Then there's Russia's Kh-41 Moskit, launchable from variants of the Sukhoi Su-27 Flanker supersonic fighter jet in service with both China and Russia. Moskit is a version of Russia's highly respected SS-N-22 Sunburn, a sea-skimming Mach 2.5 carrier-busting ramjet cruise missile with a range of 100 miles and a 660-pound high explosive warhead (with alternate 200-kiloton nuclear capability).
Incredibly fast and maneuverable on the deck, it needs no stealth enhancement. Operational for 25 years in various forms, it has been deployed by Russia, China and Iran. According to Combat Fleets of the World, it is a "very sophisticated weapon against which other navies have yet to develop an effective countermeasure." The United States included.
Meanwhile, out of the program goal of 4,900 missiles, 779 JASSMs have been delivered but many await new fuses and other replacement parts. Further testing (and production) cannot occur until recent glitches are fixed, and even then our obsolete JASSM will approach its targets at perhaps one-third the speed of the foreign counterparts mentioned above.
What we need is a supersonic standoff missile that is, like the Moskit, ground- or wave-hugging and highly maneuverable in a Mach 2.5 terminal phase.
http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=4266173&c=FEA&s=COM
I am a bit surprised about his negativity towards stealthy subsonic missiles.
L
By: - 6th September 2009 at 22:59 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
JASSM isn't a sea-skimming anti-ship missile. It's designed to hit fixed hard targets. It's therefore not relevant to this thread.
And if the USAF wants a missile that works, all they have to do is get on the phone to MBDA & ask for some Storm Shadow/Scalp, or ask the Germans for some Taurus. :diablo:
By: - 6th September 2009 at 23:07 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
When last did the Americans relay on the outside world for weapons....I can think of the Harrier.
By: - 6th September 2009 at 23:38 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
While JASSM may have some stealth qualities, it cruises at Mach 0.8 and can be acquired visually. In one test flight, according to the July 2000 issue of Armed Forces Journal International, it took 22 minutes to cover 210 miles. It would have been an easy target for layered, networked, multisensor air defense systems employing Russian-made S-300PMU, SA-10D surface-to-air missiles and their SA-N-6 ship-based counterparts. These and more advanced point-defense systems are now deployed by Russia, China, Iran and others.
All that would be true if JASSM didn't have the RCS of a marble. By the time the acquisition radar finds the incoming missile, it will be danger close. And with multiple missiles inbound for simultaneous impact from different directions, there will not be enough time to engage them all.
JASSM isn't a sea-skimming anti-ship missile. It's designed to hit fixed hard targets. It's therefore not relevant to this thread.And if the USAF wants a missile that works, all they have to do is get on the phone to MBDA & ask for some Storm Shadow/Scalp, or ask the Germans for some Taurus. :diablo:
If the guys in Troy, Alabama can solve the rash of fuse failures and pass the current series of reliability tests, the plan is to develop software upgrades to allow the IR imaging seeker to ID, track and engage moving targets, specifically ships. The USN hates that idea because it allows USAF to creep into the sea control mission that USN has tightly held for decades.
By: - 7th September 2009 at 00:20 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
When last did the Americans relay on the outside world for weapons....I can think of the Harrier.
There are actually a lot more, e.g. T-45, M777, LAV, Bofors 57mm naval gun, C-27J, French mortars . .
The USA tends to re-name foreign weapons, build them under licence, & often modify them, so their non-US origin is usually not obvious.
By: - 7th September 2009 at 04:02 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
A supersonic missile, e.g. Brahmos, SS-N-22 Sunburn, maybe even a hypersonic missile like the Fasthawk is far superior to a subsonic one, e.g. Harpoon, Tomahawk, AS-15 Kent.
The advantage of speed is critical nowadays on today's 21st Century battlefields, where time-sensitive targets have to be hit.
A Fasthawk can cover the same distance in eight minutes as the Tomahawk can do the same in one hour.
By: - 7th September 2009 at 07:46 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
A supersonic missile, e.g. Brahmos, SS-N-22 Sunburn, maybe even a hypersonic missile like the Fasthawk is far superior to a subsonic one, e.g. Harpoon, Tomahawk, AS-15 Kent.The advantage of speed is critical nowadays on today's 21st Century battlefields, where time-sensitive targets have to be hit.
A Fasthawk can cover the same distance in eight minutes as the Tomahawk can do the same in one hour.
If you read some of the earlier posts in this thread you'll notice one key advantage to the modern subsonic cruise missiles: Stealth. Harpoons are old news, I believe US surface ships don't even install them anymore. You would probably want something like this instead:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naval_Strike_Missile
L
By: - 7th September 2009 at 11:09 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I think in the end it depends on doctrines and the concrete situation. What I see emerging is a new class of new non-kinetic weapons, especially with HPM warheads with frequencies and pulses shaped for specific targets. Things that will come out of DARPA, the USAF CHAMP programme, or the industry, as a lot of people are working on that technology currently. For everything un-shielded/hardened there are tough times ahead, and protective measures are not easily retrofitted into existing designs. For the anti-ship scenario this could mean staged explosions of HPM-warhead equipped missiles to disable the ship's defence, and then a missiles with conventional going straight for the target. The speed of the missile might then be more dictated by desired reaction time than any other consideration.
By: - 7th September 2009 at 11:44 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
A supersonic missile, e.g. Brahmos, SS-N-22 Sunburn, maybe even a hypersonic missile like the Fasthawk is far superior to a subsonic one, e.g. Harpoon, Tomahawk, AS-15 Kent.The advantage of speed is critical nowadays on today's 21st Century battlefields, where time-sensitive targets have to be hit.
A Fasthawk can cover the same distance in eight minutes as the Tomahawk can do the same in one hour.
Yes, but when they weigh so much that most of your aircraft can't carry them, & those that can can only carry one or two, while the stealthy subsonic missiles can be carried by everything down to light fighters & helicopters, you're going to be firing far, far fewer of them. That makes it easier for the defence. Also, spotting them a long way out reduces that time advantage. A low-observable subsonic sea-skimmer will be a lot closer before it's seen.
A Su-30 could carry (pylons permitting) 6 NSMs in place of a single Brahmos. That allows saturation attacks. A Tejas could carry infinitely more NSM, as it couldn't possibly take off with even one Brahmos.
The Moskit has even fewer potential launch platforms.
Note that some navies, e.g. the RN, prefer submarine-launched torpedoes for large targets. They may be even slower than the slowest missiles, but by the time you hear them coming, it's usually too late to do anything.
By: - 7th September 2009 at 14:55 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
A supersonic missile, e.g. Brahmos, SS-N-22 Sunburn, maybe even a hypersonic missile like the Fasthawk is far superior to a subsonic one, e.g. Harpoon, Tomahawk, AS-15 Kent.The advantage of speed is critical nowadays on today's 21st Century battlefields, where time-sensitive targets have to be hit.
A Fasthawk can cover the same distance in eight minutes as the Tomahawk can do the same in one hour.
Not one of those missiles are fast enough to avoid defensive fires, but ALL of them are fast enough to light up like a christmas tree on defensive sensor systems and provide comparatively enormous warning/reaction time.
It is noteworthy that even the builders of the "superior" supersonic missiles have invested heavily in "Harpoonski" subsonic missile copies.
:)
By: - 7th September 2009 at 16:16 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Not one of those missiles are fast enough to avoid defensive fires, but ALL of them are fast enough to light up like a christmas tree on defensive sensor systems and provide comparatively enormous warning/reaction time.It is noteworthy that even the builders of the "superior" supersonic missiles have invested heavily in "Harpoonski" subsonic missile copies.
:)
Haha, come on now. . . What sensors is the supersonic Klub going to light up that Tomahawk and Harpoon won't around the same time?
By: - 7th September 2009 at 21:03 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Not one of those missiles are fast enough to avoid defensive fires, but ALL of them are fast enough to light up like a christmas tree on defensive sensor systems and provide comparatively enormous warning/reaction time.It is noteworthy that even the builders of the "superior" supersonic missiles have invested heavily in "Harpoonski" subsonic missile copies.
:)
Perhaps a look at the weight and size of the missile should answer your question.
Yes, but when they weigh so much that most of your aircraft can't carry them, & those that can can only carry one or two, while the stealthy subsonic missiles can be carried by everything down to light fighters & helicopters, you're going to be firing far, far fewer of them. That makes it easier for the defence. Also, spotting them a long way out reduces that time advantage. A low-observable subsonic sea-skimmer will be a lot closer before it's seen.A Su-30 could carry (pylons permitting) 6 NSMs in place of a single Brahmos. That allows saturation attacks. A Tejas could carry infinitely more NSM, as it couldn't possibly take off with even one Brahmos.
The Moskit has even fewer potential launch platforms.
Note that some navies, e.g. the RN, prefer submarine-launched torpedoes for large targets. They may be even slower than the slowest missiles, but by the time you hear them coming, it's usually too late to do anything.
AAW Ships like the Type-45 have very evolved and powerful sensors and the required computing power, can a surface skimming LO missile be effective in hiding itself up close with in the visual/radar horizon?
How many nations consider their AF's for striking naval targets?
By: - 7th September 2009 at 21:51 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
AAW Ships like the Type-45 have very evolved and powerful sensors and the required computing power, can a surface skimming LO missile be effective in hiding itself up close with in the visual/radar horizon?How many nations consider their AF's for striking naval targets?
Plenty of nations use their air forces for striking naval targets. There are aircraft designed for it like the Nimrod and P8.
And a stealthy missile would probably have more chance against a Type 45 than a fast one. These ships were designed to fight supersonic missiles because that is the route most of our potential adversaries have gone down, where as our allies are going down the stealthy route so there is less need to protect against them until our potential adversaries go down that route.
By: - 7th September 2009 at 22:52 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I think the Klub has got the right idea. A pretty conventional subsonic main stage boosting a supersonic KV. All you have to do is redesign the missile to maximize stealth and you have something that has all the advantages of both schools of thought with little drawbacks.
Such a missile would be light enough for most fighters to carry in good numbers and cheap enough to spam. They will have decent range for their size, and give the defender very little warning. The once within detection range, it can ditch the main stage and go supersonic for the kill to minimize reaction time of the point defences even more. And if you spam them then its as close to an assured kill as you are likely to get.
By: - 7th September 2009 at 22:57 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I think the Klub has got the right idea. A pretty conventional subsonic main stage boosting a supersonic KV. All you have to do is redesign the missile to maximize stealth and you have something that has all the advantages of both schools of thought with little drawbacks.Such a missile would be light enough for most fighters to carry in good numbers and cheap enough to spam. They will have decent range for their size, and give the defender very little warning. The once within detection range, it can ditch the main stage and go supersonic for the kill to minimize reaction time of the point defences even more. And if you spam them then its as close to an assured kill as you are likely to get.
I thought the Klub was a heavy beast, making it hard to launch a saturation attack (which by the way T45 is also designed to fight).
Also thought the main point of this argument was that you can't have it both ways stealthy and fast. You've effectively made this discussion pointless by saying you make it stealthy...and supersonic. I'd guess that isn't possible so there would be major drawbacks in doing it your way.
By: - 8th September 2009 at 04:14 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Why cant you have stealth and speed ?
It would be an expensive system to reduce LO yet be supersonic.
Isnt F-22 stealth and speed , compared to F-117 which is subsonic and stealth ?
Is there any law of physics which prevents to have both stealth and speed ?
By: - 8th September 2009 at 04:28 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Haha, come on now. . . What sensors is the supersonic Klub going to light up that Tomahawk and Harpoon won't around the same time?
IRST.
;)
By: - 8th September 2009 at 04:33 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Perhaps a look at the weight and size of the missile should answer your question.
What question did I ask?
AAW Ships like the Type-45 have very evolved and powerful sensors and the required computing power, can a surface skimming LO missile be effective in hiding itself up close with in the visual/radar horizon?How many nations consider their AF's for striking naval targets?
Laws of physics still apply and the Earth was still curved the last time I checked. The horizon that you can see on the ocean is about 7 kilometres away at sea level.
Now radar and IRST sensors are mounted higher than sea level on a warship but the curvature of the earth still imposes limits that cannot be overcome no matter how advanced the radar or EO sensor system.
As I said above, it is no coincident that the suppliers of these "amazing" supersonics still produce sea-skimming subsonic missiles...
Posts: 3,280
By: Loke - 30th August 2009 at 18:23
So, what is the most efficient and lethal?
A stealthy, subsonic cruise missile?
Or a supersonic missile?
This is from a 1997 paper on antiship missiles:
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/122188575/abstract
L