A2/AD - How to Kill a Carrier Outside the Persian Gulf

[AmirPatriot]

The main problem with low altitude flight is that sensors, no matter which type, are line-of-sight (LOS) limited. So if the target has X seconds to react, it also means the attacker has the same X seconds to acquire it. AWACS changed the equation in favor of the defender by extending the detection horizon one-way.

These Russian missiles fly at high altitude for most of the flight, I presume to extend but this would also allow them to keep the target in sight. Forgive me for not giving a source (I tried to find it), but I read somewhere that the Sunburn hunts in packs - a group of sunburns would attack together. Once in low level flight, one sunburn would "pop up" to re-acquire the target, share the information with the other missiles, then go back down to low level flight. If the "spotter" is destroyed, another one in the pack can take its place.

You can point out on paper all the limitations of an AWACS but in reality, the moment that aircraft is airborne, the wise commander would assume the worst -- the AWACS sees all -- and prepare compensating tactics, if there are any

Well in this doctrine, air defence destroyers and fighter aircraft would attempt to keep the AWACS far away and busy enough that it does not detect the Mach 3 cigar flying at low altitude. I understand that AWACS has a very long range, but this is a relatively small target flying very low.

Also, the idea is that it would appear over the horizon too late and be too difficult to destroy for CIWS and RAMs to shoot it down. These have their own radars and FCS.

Are you sure about Mach 13. The air resistance allow on re-entry would pull it down a couple of notches. Hypersonic at best but Mach 13 is farr to fast to be true.

That's probably true. There is no data concerning ballistic missile terminal speed at impact, so I just went with the largest figure. But Mach 13, Mach 10, Mach 8 are all very high speeds.

I think I know the missiles you are referring to but, these missiles do not have the range capable for A2/AD outside of gulf of Oman at the very best.

We have the technology!

We can mount these sorts of guidance systems on any missile. The Chinese have mounted it on their DF-21 MRBM.

 

[BHarwana]

these type of the torpedo can change their path but for that they must move in jumping pace , something russian did with newer generation of shkval and the problem is not speed the problem is the supracavitation at the tip of the torpedo , it disrupt sonar

Yes super cavitation is the issue for tracking but I did not wanted to extend discussion in that direction.

 

[Torch_v2.0]

@AmirPatriot Tremendous work !!!!

 

[Tokhme khar]

Listen to me.........there have been two documented incidents of subsonic Ashm's being fired in anger in recent naval warfare. In both cases the Ashm's scored direct hits on the adversaries, and created unsustainable damage. In both cases the AD radars were fully operational and not only did the AD radars failed to detect incoming subsonic Ashm;s, but the engagement/ acquisition radars of the CIWS failed to acquire and let alone stop the Ashm's!

In the case of the USS Stark, which is well documented, the Iraqi Am.39 was not at all detected, until impact!

can you imagine, the real life scenario vs hocus pocus? And trying to counter a Sunburn or the Yakhont or for that matter a brahmos, good luck with that.

Okay lets talk on facts RADAR uses micro waves that travel close to the speed of light and missile which is super sonic will travel at mach 3. To make it more simple for you it you give CIWS few seconds it will take out a missile and an air craft carrier has many types of CIWS. Only hypersonic system can disrupt the timing of CIWS and take out a carrier from a group supersonic stands a 40% chance of achieving a kill. What is difficult in making a super sonic missile? Place a good seeker in front of a solid rocket motor and you are good to go but then why Countries take the effort of making cruise missiles ? Please be practical. If CIWS cannot detect you it cannot kill you.

 

[BHarwana]

Listen to me.........there have been two documented incidents of subsonic Ashm's being fired in anger in recent naval warfare. In both cases the Ashm's scored direct hits on the adversaries, and created unsustainable damage. In both cases the AD radars were fully operational and not only did the AD radars failed to detect incoming subsonic Ashm;s, but the engagement/ acquisition radars of the CIWS failed to acquire and let alone stop the Ashm's!

In the case of the USS Stark, which is well documented, the Iraqi Am.39 was not at all detected, until impact!

can you imagine, the real life scenario vs hocus pocus? And trying to counter a Sunburn or the Yakhont or for that matter a brahmos, good luck with that.

I am not at all saying that super sonic will be unsuccessful every time. But every thing depends on probability here.

if there are 5 supersonic missiles fired then one will hit a carrier.
if there are 3 sub-sonic missiles fired then one will hit a carrier.
but if there are 2 torpedoes fired there is a chance both will hit the carrier.

Super sonic give heat signature and can be detected more easily. where are subsonic don't give heat signature and will be detected less. when ever a projectile is traveling at super sonic speed it's body also becomes heated and generate a heat signature.

Where are Sub sonic are more stealthy than super sonic and can accomplish the required job with much higher probability. For example in Syria. USA fire sub sonic cruise missiles on Syrian Air base and only 25% were intercepted. Israel fired super sonic missiles on the so called Irani base near Damascus and all were intercepted now why did that happened?

 

[Tokhme khar]

Don't get carried away!........coming up with statistics is a propaganda ruse. When the Iraqi war in 1991 was going on, the pentagon claimed 99% of Iraqi scuds were 'successfully' intercepted. Now we know for a fact that less than 10% were in fact intercepted.

No one can say how many IDF missiles were intercepted or how many tomahawks were intercepted or shot down!

From my info, more than 60% of tomahawks were purportedly intercepted in the anti-Syrian attack!

No one knows these figures for sure. All conjecture, which inevitably become propaganda. However, it is just common sense that the faster a missile travels, obviously the harder it is to intercept it.

I am not at all saying that super sonic will be unsuccessful every time. But every thing depends on probability here.

if there are 5 supersonic missiles fired then one will hit a carrier.
if there are 3 sub-sonic missiles fired then one will hit a carrier.
but if there are 2 torpedoes fired there is a chance both will hit the carrier.

Super sonic give heat signature and can be detected more easily. where are subsonic don't give heat signature and will be detected less. when ever a projectile is traveling at super sonic speed it's body also becomes heated and generate a heat signature.

Where are Sub sonic are more stealthy than super sonic and can accomplish the required job with much higher probability. For example in Syria. USA fire sub sonic cruise missiles on Syrian Air base and only 25% were intercepted. Israel fired super sonic missiles on the so called Irani base near Damascus and all were intercepted now why did that happened?

 

[BHarwana]

Don't get carried away!........coming up with statistics is a propaganda ruse. When the Iraqi war in 1991 was going on, the pentagon claimed 99% of Iraqi scuds were 'successfully' intercepted. Now we know for a fact that less than 10% were in fact intercepted.

No one can say how many IDF missiles were intercepted or how many tomahawks were intercepted or shot down!

From my info, more than 60% of tomahawks were purportedly intercepted in the anti-Syrian attack!

No one knows these figures for sure. All conjecture, which inevitably become propaganda. However, it is just common sense that the faster a missile travels, obviously the harder it is to intercept it.

I am not using any propaganda but just stating the facts. One thing you need to understand here is that subsonic cruise missiles are very maneuverable and super sonic are not that maneuverable and thus it is more easy to project their flight path. About the scuds have different trajectory and they can be more difficult than super sonic cruise missiles plus the incoming war head is very difficult for the RADAR to detect. You can take out a carrier with BM more easily than a supersonic cruise missile.

 

[Tokhme khar]

Mid course/ terminal phase maneuvering for both ballistic let alone cruise missiles is a common feature nowadays. For Russia, this feature has been in service since the early 70's. Decoy deception multiple MIRV's maneuvering warheads and what not are a thing of the past. How far Iran has progressed here is up for debate however. Keep in mind the Topol M/ Rs-24 warhead manages 15,000mph, and maneuvers and Russia is proud to say it can overcome the best the US ABM has to throw at it. A super fast missile gives u absolutely fukk all time to react, the bottom line!:

http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zon...st-new-tech-to-defeat-missile-defense-systems

I am not using any propaganda but just stating the facts. One thing you need to understand here is that subsonic cruise missiles are very maneuverable and super sonic are not that maneuverable and thus it is more easy to project their flight path. About the scuds have different trajectory and they can be more difficult than super sonic cruise missiles plus the incoming war head is very difficult for the RADAR to detect. You can take out a carrier with BM more easily than a supersonic cruise missile.

Have a read about the latest Russian Ashm's here:

http://www.ausairpower.net/Analysis-Regional-ASCM.html

Clearly stated about the Moskit from the above article:

The Raduga 3M-80, 3M-82 and Kh-41 Moskit (SS-N-22 Sunburn) are all variants of the same 4.5 tonne supersonic rocket-ramjet missile. This weapon is the primary armament of the 956E Sovremennyy class destroyer used by China and is credited with a range between 50 and 120 nautical miles.


Unlike subsonic Western anti-ship missiles such as the Harpoon and Exocet, the Moskit is a supersonic sea-skimmer. It can be programmed to fly a high altitude trajectory at Mach 3, or a sea-skimming trajectory at Mach 2.2. If the sea skimming mode is chosen, the missile will be first detected by a warship under attack when it emerges over the horizon at a distance of about 15 to 25 nautical miles. This provides the defences on the ship with about 25-60 seconds of warning time before impact. Moreover the speed of the Moskit makes it a challenging target for many shipboard defences.

 

[Beny Karachun]

For example in Syria. USA fire sub sonic cruise missiles on Syrian Air base and only 25% were intercepted. Israel fired super sonic missiles on the so called Irani base near Damascus and all were intercepted now why did that happened?

Because they weren't intercepted

Also, none of the American Tomahawks were intercepted.

 

[raptor22]

We have the technology!

We can mount these sorts of guidance systems on any missile. The Chinese have mounted it on their DF-21 MRBM.

Persian Gulf ASBS uses its fins for final homing as quasi BM but when you say any missile I can not find any other missile similar to it..

 

[AmirPatriot]

Persian Gulf ASBS uses its fins for final homing as quasi BM but when you say any missile I can not find any other missile similar to it..

I mean active radar homing and anti-radiation homing systems can be used on any missile.

 

[zartosht]

excellent work amir on a very interesting subject.

the biggest damage to the americans from losing a carrier might just be psychological.

If Iran manages to sink a carrier (which it has a very good chance of). It will have won the war period. (barring some kind of genocidal nuclear strike or all out invasion to change the government) nothing the americans do after that will remove the humiliation and psycological blow and shock that would come from a sunken carrier with possibly thousands of casualties. carriers are the pride, and symbol of power for the US Navy (And arguably their entire armed forces) it would be an absolute shock. and might even be a watermark moment in history where people cite it as the moment American unilaterism ended , and the world re-entered a bipolar era

for that reason, I doubt the US would risk any of their carriers. or even be stupid enough to directly challenge iran in a war for that matter . Iran will be fighting in its own territory, with a defence doctrine specifically designed to counter American aggression. This wont be a "war" of pushing buttons on defenseless people. This will be a war the americans will definitely feel

 

[AmirPatriot]

Russia's Dagger Reveals Potential in Iran's Zolfaqar

By Amir Friday, March 02, 2018
Just yesterday, Russia revealed a stunning anti-ship missile in the form of the Khinzal, or Dagger. A Mach 10, 2000 km ranged, air launched ASBM.

Like I said. The King of A2/AD.


Khinzal being launched from a MiG-31

So what has this got to do with Iran?

Well, while I was writing my previous post about how Iran could implement an A2/AD strategy, I was thinking it may be a good idea to modify the Zolfaqar missile into an air launched ASBM. After all, it is slightly smaller and lighter than the Sunburn, and would likely be faster, have a longer range, and be easier to develop as far as the actual missile is developed. The Russian Dagger is also suspected to be based on the Iskander TBM, which has a 500 km range.

There have been air launched ballistic missiles before. The Americans even dropped a Minuteman ICBM out of a C-5 Galaxy. But I reckoned that there is no precedent of any nation deploying such weapons, nor developing an anti-ship version of such a missile. Furthermore, I thought it would be difficult and expensive to make a small vessel carry VLS cells for a surface variant of this ballistic missile.

Then Russia made headlines with this missile. Not only does it have incredible capabilities and statistics, it has already been deployed near the Black Sea. It is within Iran's missile capabilities. It is launched from a tactical aircraft, not a strategic bomber. It is probably cheaper to design, develop and manufacture than a ramjet powered, supersonic ASCM.



Zolfaqar


Surely, these are all worth the costs? In fact, it may be cheaper than developing a Ramjet powered missile of similar range.

Of course, there are some caveats. That 2000 km range is dependent on how the MiG-31 carrier aircraft is flying. And it may actually be a theoretical estimate. Another caveat that Iran doesn't have and isn't going to have a MiG-31 like aircraft. The best we can realistically have is an Su-30SM, which is 0.8 mach slower than a MiG-31 and flies about 10,000 ft lower. Furthermore, we don't know what modifications the Russians have made to the Iskander to turn it into an ASBM - the modifications may have made it far more capable than the standard version.

Having said all this, it is likely Iran would still be able to get at least a 1000 km range out of such a missile (if we're being optimistic, 1500 km), and it would not be an outrageously difficult modification. It could prove to be a potent option. Iran could even have a mix of air launched Zolfaqar ASBMs, and surface launched supersonic ASCMs, in keeping with my earlier point that having mixed threats would be better at overwhelming and confusing enemy defences.

https://irangeomil.blogspot.com/2018/03/russias-dagger-reveals-potential-in.html

 

[Muhammed45]

@AmirPatriot How about this :

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K-300P_Bastion-P

 

[AmirPatriot]

@AmirPatriot How about this :

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K-300P_Bastion-P

I've already mentioned that in my blog post on the first page. The Bastion is based on the Yakhont. The problem is acquiring the Yakhont, and if possible, extending its range from the export limited 300 km to something closer to the ranges I suggested.