HI Guys, I have been thinking about the effectiveness of anti

The problem with OTH ASuW missiles isn't just that

You need to know where the ship is, which means unless it's within visual range of the shore, you need to see it with a platform that can also see you.

>You need to ID the enemy
>You need its range, the bearing to shoot down, and if you want a high chance of the missile actually finding the target, heading and speed
>finding this information is far harder than you'd think

Throw in what you say with the past few decades working on missile defense, and you can see why they're only a part of the tool kit and not an actual fight winner.

The US is currently doing its best now to improve the effectiveness of OTH firing through drones and sensor improvements.

File: fun2.png (1MB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1920x1080px

>>32348758
Are hypersonic top down attacks better able to penetrate defenses than those agm 84 lawn mowing sub sonic piles of trash?

>>32350026

You'd have to know where to overfly, so targeting concerns are the same

They'd also be easy to track and shoot down simply because everyone can see them

>>32348240
>HMS Sheffield due not to the warhead, but the resultant fire from extra rocket fuel
Sheffield also didn't have CIWS, and it missile defence missiles were older, semi-active homing

>>32348758
Ahhh, thank you for that! It is clear that if the enemy ship is trying not to be hit then OTH missiles are no where near as deadly as most posters on this board would have me believe.

>>32350026
The way I understand it, the faster the missile is going the less time it has to separate the real target from noise, and thus the missile becomes more susceptible to ECM, chaff and decoys. As it stands subsonic missiles with just ECM, chaff and decoys AShMs have a record of 1 hit out of 50 launches for a pHit of 2%. If you're going 5 times faster you have 1 fifth the time to find the real signal amidst the noise. Plus as >>32348758
said, if you are aiming at a ship OTH with a hypersonic missile and you get their heading or speed wrong you could be off by 50nmi or more.

>>32350774
True, even still it amazes me that just ECM, Chaff, and decoys drops the pHit by a factor of 24.

https://www.scribd.com/document/267396243/Naval-Engineers-Journal-Volume-109-Issue-1-1997-J-F-McEachron-Subsonic-and-Supersonic-Antiship-Missiles-An-Effectiveness-and-Utility-Comparison

Hey OP, here some extra stuff to help you out.

>>32351504
Thank you very much!

>>32351821
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eZ5cJ-167lU

One more thing for you. The guy here talking about the NSM/JSM missile saying that smart, stealthy, subsonic missiles will be more successful than supersonics.

the D-21 will destroy american rat ships off south china sea! lol we got your drone and we use it to reverse target your ships now american burger shit. China will guide missiles of tremendous power from the heavens to annihilate all american rate ship who oppose superior Chinese communist party.

>>32350774
>>32351089
mmmm I sorta disagree that semi-active homing is inferior to active homing. Both have their advantages and disadvantages.

For anti air defense an active homing missile will always have a weaker radar system simply because it is too small to carry the electronics and powersupply needed to do everything. Their main advantage is being fire and forget and terminal guidance homing.

For semi-active specifically track-via-missile guidance the launcher will always have the more powerful systems to guide the missile to the target so the missile itself can be smaller and cheaper to make but equally powerful. Modern semi-active air defense systems use this and its very powerful. Trade off is the line of sight and lack of OTH targeting.

Its a tradeoff.

>>32351996
Gotta love the Chinese government posting. The US Navy could level your entire Navy with its sub fleet alone. That coupled with Aegis and obvious air superiority would lead to a clear and decisive US victory. Go and Google "Tienamen square massacre" and get black bagged, faggot

>>32352122
Just ignore it. Chinese stole a commercial drone that some rich universities use for marine and ocean research programs. Shits commercial and has zero technical value outside the data it collected.

>>32352131
You're right, it's just maddening to see them on boards

>>32348240
It is worth mentioning that ECM is stupidly effective. Look at the recent missile launches against the ship off Yemen, and the Battle of Latakia.

You're also forgetting that the Sheffield was a defenseless target. Instead, if you want to look at Praying Mantis.

>>32352004
>For anti air defence an active homing missile will always have a weaker radar system simply because it is too small to carry the electronics and powersupply needed to do everything.
Yeah, but inverse square law is a thing, an active homer has a transmitter closer to the target than an semi-active.

>>32351089
>Plus as >>32348758 #
>said, if you are aiming at a ship OTH with a hypersonic missile and you get their heading or speed wrong you could be off by 50nmi or more.

I mean, the same is just as or more true with a subsonic AShM if it doesn't have mid-course correction, and its just as if not more susceptible to jamming

There's pros and cons to each, the general pros to fast AShMs being they generally are more powerful, they are less susceptible to active countermeasures like jamming and hardkill, the time to target is less, and they tend to be able to make more dramatic manuvers. Disadvantags as you said are the potential for them to miss due to limited targeting calculation time (Something I'm not sure if it's an issue anymore, honestly) and limited mid-course correction ability due to less flight time

Overall I like the fast AShMs better because of a e s t h e t i c s

>>32353095
so the way I understand it based on >>32351504
>>32351951
>>32348758
and my research is that ECM, Chaff, and decoys complicate the target acquisition process, but if you have more time you can sort out the real from the fake, by seeing how they change over time. (the real signal should stay roughly constant while all the rest should change like a kalediscope). It's not computation time, but measurement time for the missile seeker in order to collect the data necessary to be analyzed. Hence it is exactly the opposite of
>fast AShMs being they generally are more powerful, they are less susceptible to active countermeasures like jamming
however you are right about fast missiles being less susceptible to hardkill measures.

>Overall I like the fast AShMs better because of a e s t h e t i c s

They do look sweet! However, I really like the small sleek look of the NSM as can be seen here:>>32351951

>>32352728
According to my research HMS Sheffield used Chaff which is a softkill countermeasure. Is this incorrect?

Even with the Sheffield being hit, it still shows that chaff and ECM effectively reduce pHit to such absurdly low values that even without a hardkill system your boat is probably safe.

Also is there a missile that successfully penetrated an ECM, Chaff, decoy, or hardkill defense that I missed from operation praying mantis?

>>32350026
>agm 84 lawn mowing
you are know aware that the Harpoon does a pop up maneuver for its attack.

My pleasure to educate you.

>>32355279
HMS Sheffield was not fitted with ECM and was not very prepared to deal with the incoming missile.

>>32355279
>According to my research HMS Sheffield used Chaff which is a softkill countermeasure. Is this incorrect?

what

Seriously

what

HMS Sheffield WASN'T EVEN AT ACTION STATION

What kind of """"research"""" have you been looking at?

>>32356534
reports such as this:https://archive.org/stream/analysisofhistor00schu#page/18/mode/2up
and because of >>32356363
I have been looking for a less redacted after action report about the Sheffield and found one here: http://clashofarms.com/files/BOI_Rpt_HMS_Sheffield_May82.pdf
This has a portion not redacted that applies to the situation at hand.
>Chaff was not fired
I assume this is referring to the Sheffield, but again redaction is bitch when it comes to getting precise info on what happened. This suggests the Sheffield was a defenseless target, so the original numbers are modified a bit.

Defenseless target, or defenses turned off.:
95 out of 113, pHit = 84.1% for 65 ships OOA and 28 sunk

Maneuvering but otherwise defenseless target:
32 out of 67, pHit of 47.8% for 16 OOA and 12 sunk

with ECM, chaff, and anti missiles: 0 hit out of 57 launches, pHit: 0%,

This really makes ECM and softkill measures seem to be very super effective! There have been in the history of the world exactly zero successful strikes against a target using any kind of soft or hardkill defense.

>>32356534
do you have a better source, ie less redacted, about the sheffield sinking? I'd love to make sure it gets added to the proper category!

>>32355279
>Also is there a missile that successfully penetrated an ECM, Chaff, decoy, or hardkill defense that I missed from operation praying mantis?
The Iranian ship sunk by Harpoons launched decoys, to my knowledge. Same thing happened in the Gulf of Sidra, IIRC.

>>32356881
>This really makes ECM and softkill measures seem to be very super effective! There have been in the history of the world exactly zero successful strikes against a target using any kind of soft or hardkill defense.
There is a very good reason why all nations stringently limit their emissions during international and even intermural exercises (never know who's sucking up those 'trons), why when things like the Donald Cook getting buzzed happen they don't light them the fuck up and instead very carefully record all emissions the aggressor is directing toward them, why the USN and USAF spend so much time and effort getting boats, recon aircraft and satellites over adversary exercises and tests, and why EW is second only to the crypto shack as far as secret shit NO ONE gets to see/talk about unless they're cleared to work with it on USN ships.

EW intel is a huge part of the reason why the coalition was able to roll up the Iraqi IADS in 1991 with seemingly not much effort in the air war. An ELINT failure is part of the reason an F-117 was shot down in Yugoslavia. EW is a huge part of the reason none of the merchant or navy traffic off Yemen has been hit since the initial AShM strike. EW is the giant yet invisible 1,000 pound gorillia in the room softly chuckling whenever any civilians/politicians/journalists talk about modern naval warfare. No one mentions him, knows what he does, or in many cases even really knows what he does, but he plays a MASSIVE part in any war planning on any side.

The truth of the matter is that you can argue about probability of intercept figures and magazine loadouts all day when gaming AShM saturation strikes, but the biggest and most effective shield will always be the dozens of available options that fall under EW. None of which anyone outside of a naval intelligence office can really be remotely accurate in game planning because the balance changes almost hourly based on most recent intelligence of enemy operating capabilities.

>>32356988
>or in many cases even really knows what he does
That should read "knows that he exists" but I was too sleep deprived to get it right.

>>32356881

For a good solid overview from the US perspective try this: handle.dtic.mil/100.2/ADA133333

And for stuff which has the least amount of redacted stuff? You'll find it in books or on UK defence forums (posts from people who were actually on board and part of the task force), I won't be able to point you to anything specific, but I'll pass you some links if you want?

>>32357022
>handle.dtic.mil/100.2/ADA133333
Great fuckin' link. Thanks.

Glad I lurked this thread now.

File: 3B209B3000000578-0-image-a-30_1481102992951.jpg (302KB, 962x763px) Image search: [Google]

302KB, 962x763px

>>32356881
>>32357022

Off the top of my head:

Thinkdefence.co.uk
Arrse.co.uk
https://www.navy-net.co.uk/community/
defencetalk.com (section navy - Royal Navy)
http://warships1discussionboards.yuku.com (Royal Navy and NavWeaps)
https://ukdefenceforum.net/

Trust me, there's a huge wealth of underrated knowledge in these communities. You'll find great tipbits if you dig around.

>>32357041

No problem brother.

File: chaff.gif (2KB, 254x137px) Image search: [Google]

2KB, 254x137px

>>32357022
>handle.dtic.mil/100.2/ADA133333
thanks! I'm trying to build a full picture of naval warfare involving AShMs and would love to have more resources to fully flesh out the picture!

>>32356984
can you point me towards a source? all the opertaion praying mantis info I have talks about chaff, decoys, and ECMs used by the US to defeat missiles. The three largest iranian vessels were the Sahand, which was sunk by aircraft, the Salaband, which was struck by a single laser guided bomb, and the Joshan frigate, which doesn't come with decoys. Did the iranians retrofit the Joshan with decoys?

>>32356988
This is what I'm finding out. because the only successful AShM strikes have been against ships which either do not have, or are not using any form of electronic warfare. I just wish it wasn't so secretive so I cold learn more about the effectiveness of the myriad of different naval doctrines out there.

>>32357093
Thanks! I'll look through them presently!

>>32357463

No worries do some digging and you'll hit pretty much a solid gold mine of obscure/unpublished information. May take a while given the size of the mega threads, but there's some with easier access like.

http://warships1discussionboards.yuku.com/topic/33871/Major-loss-of-firepower-for-Royal-Navy

>>32357473
Warships1 was the very first website I ever went to. Back in 1997. Jesus, has it really been 20 years?

As I remember it, they were a good community with very knowledgeable folks.

>>32357501

Yeah, my general rule of thumb is

more ugly the site = better and more informed community

>https://www.workboat.com/news/bluewater/hsv-2-swift-wrecked-yemen-missile-attack/attachment/swift-2/

>ECM

>>32357523
>https://www.workboat.com/news/bluewater/hsv-2-swift-wrecked-yemen-missile-attack/

>Full Article

>>32348240
How do rail guns affect this? I suppose proper testing hasn't been done yet since I don't think they've installed it on that one ship yet. But I can only imagine that the best way to beat current defense measures is by producing a brand new style of weapon.

How about a torpedo that is actually just a missile delivery system, once it enters a certain range it releases the missile (which has the closeness factor to reduce misses and also a surprise factor (it hasn't been used yet afaik and it can be used in tandem with above sea attacks to try and overwhelm defense measures).

>>32357523
>>32357534

Are you implying that ECM was deployed and failed because ECM, as a concept sucks?

Because we don't even know if it was.

File: So+husky+retriever+mr+peanutbutter+_8d349b4bcd7c6743a3935e35acf729c6.jpg (49KB, 533x584px) Image search: [Google]

49KB, 533x584px

>>32357553
Or even a torpedo that is a missile delivery system AND a torpedo.

OooOOoOoOOOoo...

>>32357584
We need to go deeper

>>32357606
What about missiles that will pull off and try again if they get confused? Or even give them memory of the target before the confusion?

>>32357606
How about a missile

That shoots a cannon at the target

File: adats.jpg (44KB, 500x375px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 500x375px

>>32356988
>this

same for the fighter vs fighter dick waving threads, 9/10 it's which side has the better network like AWACS and EW assets

File: 1481681197711.gif (3MB, 174x200px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 174x200px

>>32356988
screencap'd your post

>>32359710
>>32360547
*tips cover

Now I wish I hadn't derped the fuck out of that sentence in the middle of it.

>>32357606
A Cruiser missile that stops short of the target to drop a torpedo, which travels underwater until it stops and launches a ballistic missile

>>32359222
>yeah, hello, Raytheon? It's me.
>we're going forward with operation turducken
>the one with the cannon
>yeah
>no yeah, he got trips. the DOD is already authorizing the funds

>>32359222
>>32360777
Uh, sir, that's a double negatory on the trips. Only quads can unfuck this horsefarm fuckpuddle.

Nah

File: i3eTxXhf.jpg (18KB, 400x400px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 400x400px

>>32359222
>>32360777
shit is gonna get real

>>32357515
NAVWEAPS has recently recieved a facelift.

>>32360801
>Implying you wouldn't want a terminal phase gun launched projectile dodging all CIWS

>>32350026
>Are hypersonic top down attacks

No. Radars can see you much earlier and fire much more countermeasures at you.