Posted on 08/08/2013 4:24:05 PM PDT by sukhoi-30mki
Good while ago I read about the SS-N-22 Sunburn being able to attack in a group with most down low to avoid interception, with one flying up high for targeting info. The high bird would update the low ones. If it got shot down, one of the low ones would move up and take it's place.
Be interesting to know just how well that worked and how often they did live fire testing to prove it out. Sounded like one helluva programming accomplishment at the time, so I wondered.
Can the Ruskies build a sub that will survive long enough to launch?
Pretty impressive missile role play there. Meanwhile, back in the U.S. our president closes embassies after abandoning Americans to die at one. That sums up 0bama’s terms well: abandonment and surrender.
Will they be allowed to fire if the hatch is closed?
bkmk
So they destroy elk, deer and other ungulate herds in the Northern Rockies? They wipe out entire flocks of sheep in a single night? They have Northeastern eco-nut groups like the Defenders of Wildlife sticking up for them?
Just being a smarta**...sorry, couldn't help it.
Scouts Out! Cavalry Ho!
The next full scale naval conflict is going to be a bloody mess.
There is a joke in there somewhere but I cannot think right now because I am laughing!
Build 5000 drone subs, each carrying 2 missiles. One is long range and nuclear and one is anti ship. Drop them on the floor of the ocean and leave them there until it is time to unleash them.
Start praying for another Battle of Midway.
LOLOL.
Thank you so much!
No real defense for that, right?
I take Russians more seriously. Their subs dive much deeper than ours, have a current version of our Subroc, which is nuclear tipped, and we retired ours. Shkval rocket torpedo is the fastest on the planet. As well as the Russian version of every type of torpedo and cruise missile we have, they also have made much progress in silencing. And all their weapons seem to have a nuclear version, unlike the US Navy which has essentially de-nuked itself except for the Trident strategic weapons.
Ironically, they now have fewer subs than we do, but they are not to be underestimated.
I never make light of Russian capabilities. I just found it amusing that the name of this missile is ‘onyx’.
Onyx, is FR-famous.
“Ironically, they now have fewer subs than we do, but they are not to be underestimated.”
If the Russian and Chinese subs are working together in a conflict with the US, how do the number stack up to us?
After reading about their SIZZLER and SUNBURN missiles, any new weapon we must take seriously.
If their subs are quieter, its very serious.
The Onyx devices are capable of being fired from underwater, and they fly at a speed of 2,460 feet per second, carrying a devastating, high-explosive warhead weighing half a ton. The missiles have a range of more than 372.8 miles.So, when the missile is launched and broaches the surface, it is very likely, if the task force they are attacking is alerted and combat ready, that this (as well as the others from the "pack") will be noticed.
The Onyx is guided to its target by a navigational system that operates on target designation data provisionally input to the missile before it is launched. At a predetermined point in the trajectory (15–50 miles), the missile’s homing device is briefly activated and determines the precise location of the target.
The next time the homing device is activated is after a sharp reduction in altitude to 15–50 feet, just seconds before it hits the enemy. This is to ensure that, when the enemy detects the missile’s launch, it cannot “jam” the missile with electronic countermeasures.
Then the things, as it says, at a certain point, have to themselves acquire the target. The US can be jamming these things from the moment of launch, right through that time period. Therefore, if the acquisition is successfully jammed, they cannot acquire their target.
Then, the thing flies ate a certain altitude and then changes that altitude well out from the target to sea skimming. US antio-missile missiles have the range to hit them before they ever lower their altitude. So there is another segment of the engagement that can be employed to defeat them.
Then, once the thing is coming in at very low level, the Close IN systems will have time to also attempt to shoot them down. These are the RAM, SeaRAM< and Phalnx systems. Another point of potential defeat.
Finally, the US will employ close in countermeasures of both the decoy "chaff" variety, and electronics to defeate them. Passive electronics to spoof them or jam them, and now active electronics to fry their circuitry.
So, there are numerous defenses that will be employed.
The faster and more difficult the trajectory, the harder the intercept. And, the more missiles coming at once, the harder the intercept.
But the AEGIS system is designed, and constantly upgraded against new threats precisely to do this. In the end, if, God forbid, it ever comes to a shooting war, we will find out who is really ahead of the technology curve.
One last thing. In any combat situation, the US forces will be scouring the sea with aircraft and attack submarines to find these vessels to...to try and interdict them before they ever launch.
Can we jam then from launch? Can CIWS deal with multiple fast-moving targets?
I did some looking around, these numbers might not be completely accurate, but they are good ballparks, I think (I don’t have access to Jane’s)
Russian Total: 49 Nuclear, 19 Diesel
Nuclear-powered Ballistic Missile Submarines (SSBN) 13
Nuclear-powered Guided Missile Submarines (SSGN) 8
Nuclear-powered Attack Submarines (SSN) 19
Nuclear-powered Special Mission Submarines (SSAN) 8
Special Purpose Submarines (SSA) 1
Attack Submarines (Diesel) (SS) 19
China Total: 19 Nuclear, 52 non-nuclear (as of 2011, they probably have a couple more now)
Nuclear-powered Ballistic Missile Submarines (SSBN) 4
Nuclear-powered Guided Missile Submarines (SSGN) 8
Nuclear-powered Attack Submarines (SSN) 7
Attack Submarines (Diesel) (SS) 52 (mix of older diesels with a few modern ones mixed in)
US Total: 75 (all nuclear, all modern)
Nuclear-powered Ballistic Missile Submarines (SSBN) 18
Nuclear-powered Guided Missile Submarines (SSGN) 4
Nuclear-powered Attack Submarines (SSN) 53
Nuclear-powered Special Mission Submarines (SSAN) Unknown; possibly 2-4
Japan
Attack Submarines (Diesel) (SS) 16 (all modern)
Australia Totals
Attack Submarines (Diesel) (SS) 6 (all modern)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.