Anti-missile weapons

[phavoc]

Well, the lates generation of anti ship missiles where developed to defeat AEGIS cruisers so they have some interesting capabilities:

+ Higher speeds reducing the time to engage and making gun-based Close in systems less useful. The faster a missile the further will it's debris travel and still be dangerous. And since gun based CIWS can't get too big (They need to be fast moving/tracking) there is a limit in caliber/range

+ Acting as a swarm instead of independent missiles. This includes one missiles sacrificing itself for better target data. The missiles come in as sea skimmers (with a very limited sensor range due to earth) and one of them "pops up" to take a sensor lock and broadcasts the data. It will most likely get killed but the swarm gets an update. The swarm also transmits "I will go for ship x" data between the missiles keeping them from attacking the same target

+ Maneuverable missiles. Some modern ASM are cruise missiles using ramjets instead of rockets. They are bigger but have better ranges that allow them to take a less than direct attack route and even try a reattack

+ (Deceptive) Jammers and stealth. Modern missiles use jammers to confuse the enemy. This works best against the current generation of Air-Air Missiles that use an on-board radar (Lower powered/less capabel than the fighter or ship based units)

+ Loitering missiles. The ALARM anti radiation missile can loiter if the enemy switches of the radar waiting for him to come active again. This has the double benefit of increasing the hit chances against mobile systems like SAM-15 Gauntlet (The HARM won't work here since it attacks the "last known position) and may convince the enemy to keep a system switched off (Clancy has a nice description in Red Storm Rising/Island part) allowing other weapons to go through

And finally (as the US Navy learned in more than one NATO exercise) quantity has a quality all of it's own. The missile defences can be swamped by firing enough missiles at them. Combined with targeting the air/missile defence ships this can strip the main defences (AEGIS ships in case of NATO) away leaving the target open for a second wave

Oh and some Russian ASM have a "home on jammer/home on radar" targeting mode. Definitly build to go after the air defence ships

According to the public spec, Aegis is capable of engaging 100 targets simultaneously out to 100 nautical mailes (190km), taking control of all the launchers in the fleet. Any defense system can probably be swamped by enough offensive fire power. That's just a numbers game. But first the Russkies (assuming they don't sell the SS-N-21 Sunburn and the equivalent air-launch equivalent) to others, the big question is can they get close enough to overwhelm the defenses?

Carrier battlegroups have airborne radar, flying above the horizon, which means you aren't going to sneak up on them. Before the got rid of F-14s and Phoenix, the aircraft would have shot down the bombers outside of attack range, and been the first line of defense against any launched cruise missiles. The Russkies could conceivably launch a combined air/surface/sub-surface attack, but just as they would come into range of a battlegroup, so to would they come in range. The converted SSBN cruise missle carriers of the Ohio class carry 150+ cruise missiles, and the surface ships of a battlegroup are also armed with Tomahawks and Harpoons. Not to mention the planes that can deliver stand-off missiles to the enemy. Then lets not forget the ECM capabilities of the battlegroup.

I think while it is possible to overwhelm Aegis, only one country in the world has the power to do so, and only if they commit a huge chunk of their battlefleet to do so. And there are 13 carrier battlegroups. I'm not sure if they have done simulations on getting multiple battlegroups together to see what sort attack would it take to swamp their defenses.

There are many fervent discussions on boards devoted to things like this that are an interesting read!

 

[rust]

According to the public spec, Aegis is capable of engaging 100 targets simultaneously out to 100 nautical mailes (190km), taking control of all the launchers in the fleet. Any defense system can probably be swamped by enough offensive fire power.

It does not have to be offensive fire power, sometimes a nearby coast-
line can do the trick to almost disable an Aegis system:

The system is designed for blue water and littoral operations
however AN/SPY-1 configuration must be modified to look above the
terrain to avoid causing excessive false targets from land clutter. These
configuration changes may increase ship susceptibility to low and fast
targets.

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ship/weaps/an-spy-1.htm

 

[phavoc]

I totally agree about getting close to the coast. But, with few exceptions, those missile boats are extremely vulnerable to destruction, plus they don't carry the really deadly hypersonic cruise missiles.

Airborne radar, not to mention an E-8 STARS aircraft could easiily pick up the ships when they moved out. Picking them off would be pretty easy with air-launched harpoons using over-the-horizon attacks.

Plus the SPY-1 radar system has been upgraded, and the Arleigh-Burke DD's have the SP-2 system.

But electric boats... yeah, I agree, hard as hell to detect. And no modern surface combatant can take a torp hit like the old-style armored ships of WW2.

 

[DFW]

This includes all components (Batterie subs are REALLY quiet compared to a nuke job)

Germany has REALLY nasty and capable littoral subs.

 

[phavoc]

This includes all components (Batterie subs are REALLY quiet compared to a nuke job)

Germany has REALLY nasty and capable littoral subs.

You talking about the 209, 212 or Dolphin class? The Dolphin's have the bigger tubes to handle Harpoons. Though even the Dolphin is only about 1800 tons. Small, but capable enough for short cruises and coastal defence.

 

[DFW]

You talking about the 209, 212 or Dolphin class? The Dolphin's have the bigger tubes to handle Harpoons. Though even the Dolphin is only about 1800 tons. Small, but capable enough for short cruises and coastal defence.

Yes, with the air independent engine.

 

[DFW]

Germany never had Class 209, those where export boats.

Yes, I know. Israel got 2-3. Two are now nuke armed with one currently cruising the Black Sea. I wonder why...

 

[Egil Skallagrimsson]

So, back to the question, we seem to agree that there are effective anti-missile missiles, and these have been available for 20+ years (I seem to remember pictures of a Sea Wolf missile intecepting a 4.5 inch shell, though that may have been a publicity stunt), and though there has never been a widespread test under combat conditions (because that would have been WWIII) there has been limited successful use. Effectively this is top end TL7, or low TL8. We also agree that tactical tactors, esp the presence of land mass create a lot of problems. Basically, the problem is about horizon, a low flying missile will be below the radar horizon until the last 12 or 15 miles, so forcing the defenders to react very quickly.

Now, back to space. No real horizons unless you are in atmospheric combat, infact, a clear vacuum in which the hot space ship and missile show up very clearly. Obviously, there is ECM to worry about (on both sides) and probably sub-munitions and dodging missiles. You also have very power radar/lidar (look at the detection ranges for even standard sensors) and excellent computers, which will probably be implementing Agent programmes to run all this.

Result, widespread use of missiles, anti-missiles and point defence.

Egil

 

[DFW]

a clear vacuum in which the hot space ship and missile show up very clearly. Obviously, there is ECM to worry about (on both sides)

There is no ECM for the hot missile.

 

[Egil Skallagrimsson]

a clear vacuum in which the hot space ship and missile show up very clearly. Obviously, there is ECM to worry about (on both sides)

There is no ECM for the hot missile.

I was imagining something like flares or chaff thrown out by missile as it detected a nearby anti-missile, but bascially that is the point, detecting missile will be easy, and the best decoy is likely to be another missile, so you might as well just fire two missiles (or better still, 200), and seek to overwhealm the defence.

Egil

 

[DFW]

I was imagining something like flares or chaff thrown out by missile as it detected a nearby anti-missile, but bascially that is the point, detecting missile will be easy, and the best decoy is likely to be another missile, so you might as well just fire two missiles (or better still, 200), and seek to overwhealm the defence.

Egil

Yep, swarming is the way to go. If you fire only a handful, lasers can pick them off easily.

 

[rust]

I was imagining something like flares or chaff thrown out by missile as it detected a nearby anti-missile, but bascially that is the point, detecting missile will be easy, and the best decoy is likely to be another missile, so you might as well just fire two missiles (or better still, 200), and seek to overwhealm the defence.

More likely less missiles with more warheads, I think. A "shotgun missile"
could transport a high number of comparatively tiny warheads, released
at high speed at a distance from the target, that act like cluster bombs,
creating a three-dimensional conical "kill zone". It should not be too dif-
ficult to overload the taget's defensive systems this way.

 

[Egil Skallagrimsson]

I was imagining something like flares or chaff thrown out by missile as it detected a nearby anti-missile, but bascially that is the point, detecting missile will be easy, and the best decoy is likely to be another missile, so you might as well just fire two missiles (or better still, 200), and seek to overwhealm the defence.

More likely less missiles with more warheads, I think. A "shotgun missile"
could transport a high number of comparatively tiny warheads, released
at high speed at a distance from the target, that act like cluster bombs,
creating a three-dimensional conical "kill zone". It should not be too dif-
ficult to overload the taget's defensive systems this way.

Yes, once the missile has got close (whats close in space, 50km, 100km?), or a nuclear warhead to create "bomb pumped" laser. However, if you can intercept the attacking missile with your anti-missile missile further out, hundreds or even thousands of km, then you are much safer.

Egil

 

[DFW]

More likely less missiles with more warheads, I think. A "shotgun missile"could transport a high number of comparatively tiny warheads, releasedat high speed at a distance from the target, that act like cluster bombs, creating a three-dimensional conical "kill zone". It should not be too difficult to overload the taget's defensive systems this way.

Trav missiles are FAR too small to incorporate sub-munitions that are large enough, or powerful enough to damage a spaceship hull.

 

[rust]

Trav missiles are FAR too small to incorporate sub-munitions that are large enough, or powerful enough to damage a spaceship hull.

The torpedoes described in High Guard have a volume of 2.5 dtons, about
34 cubic meters, easily big enough to carry a number of warheads as they
are used on the smaller missiles.

 

[DFW]

Trav missiles are FAR too small to incorporate sub-munitions that are large enough, or powerful enough to damage a spaceship hull.

The torpedoes described in High Guard have a volume of 2.5 dtons, about
34 cubic meters, easily big enough to carry a number of warheads as they
are used on the smaller missiles.

My confusion. Your post stated "missiles" not "torpedoes"...

 

[rust]

My confusion. Your post stated "missiles" not "torpedoes"...

I have to admit that I seriously dislike the term "torpedo" for a kind of
space missile, and therefore tend to avoid it ...

 

[BP]

Yep, Heavy Missile seemed to convey the right thing, but it looked like the terminology was changed at some point (given the errors in HG).

 

[AndrewW]

Yep, Heavy Missile seemed to convey the right thing, but it looked like the terminology was changed at some point (given the errors in HG).

High Guard does state:

Torpedoes are heavy anti-ship missiles (and some navies often refer to them as heavy missiles).

 

[BP]

Yep, Heavy Missile seemed to convey the right thing, but it looked like the terminology was changed at some point (given the errors in HG).

High Guard does state:

Torpedoes are heavy anti-ship missiles (and some navies often refer to them as heavy missiles).

Yep, which makes it sound even more like a late edit/change that resulted in the inconsistent tables in the original printing. I'm with rust on the 'seriously dislike the term "torpedo" for a kind of space missile'. Increases the 'cheese' factor...