Comparison of Point missle defense systems

JBodnar39

New Member
Hello everybody. I'm new on this post. I have read a great deal on naval systems but I have no practical experience (no military on industry experience).
I've read through many of your posts, and I am truely impressed with your collective technical knowledge. I wanted some imput on the advantages/disanvantages of some of the close range SAm systems that are currently deployed throughout the world> I've listed what I have on these systems below. Any input would be appreciated and certainly educational to me:

SEAWOLF - Only capable of engaging single target per illuminator

BARAK - Has capability of engaging two targets per illuminator, but someone told me on another post that it does not have a supersonic intercept capability like Sea Wolf

SA-N-9 - Also has capability of engaging two targets per illuminator

SA-N-11 on CADS-N-1 - Honestly I know very little about this system - single
target per illumintor?

MISTRAL - IR guided. Does it have midcourse guidance/datalink for engagement of multiple targets like ESSM?

RAM - Same question as to midcourse guidance/datalinks as Mistral. How does it compare more specifically to Mistral?

UMKHONTO - Same class as Mistral?

I did not include ASTER-15 and ESSM in this list because both seem to have longer ranges that put them in a different class.

Thank you.
 

rickusn

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
Barak info:

www.israeli-weapons.com/weapons/missile_systems/sea_missiles/barak/Barak.html

It uses CLOS guidance(Command to line-of-sight) which is supposedly immune to ECM. As does the UK Seawolf system and the French Crotale system supposedly is now too. It used to be a beam-rider.

Barak speed is M 1.6 vice M 2.5 for the others I mention here. ESSM is supposedly M 3.5.

RAM and Mistral(IR-homing/lazer proximity back-up) do not have command guidance AFAIK. RAM employs a much larger missle and homes on active radiation from the target then IR-homing/lazer fusing for terminal attack apparently. RAM is a much larger missle with almost double the range.

SEA RAM is a beam-rider using the Phalanx radar.

The Seawolf system can control two-missle salvos.

Sources are not always clear and sometimes conflict on these systems which are constantly being updated. So the info Ive presented is far from definitive.

Reccommend further "google" searches on the various systems.

Combat Fleets of the World may be useful for comparisons and further info on specs. And another book from USNI on world naval weapons should also prove useful.
 
Last edited:

Nautilus

New Member
Interesting topic..

RAM seems to be the most capable out of the bunch, especially with its Block 1 upgrade. Gotta wonder why the USN isn't upgrading all its surface units with this system.

Phalanx seems to be somewhat unable to counter supersonic ASM's. Let's say it has a range of 3km (guesstimated :) ) then a missile travelling at 2000km/h only needs about 1.5s from engagement range to impact. Even if it is successfully intercepted, fragments of the destroyed ASM would hail down onto the ship.
 

knightrider4

Active Member
I'd be interested if anyone here has any info on the mistral/sadral system as chosen by the RAN for it's point defence system.
 

Nautilus

New Member
The Mistral system has been mentioned in several articles I've seen as upgrade for the Anzac class. Since the Anzac's now get Harpoon canisters in front of the bridge, that leaves only the top of the hangar as possible place to install it.

This link shows a launcher with 6 missiles

http://www.mbda.net/site/FO/scripts/siteFO_contenu.php?lang=EN&noeu_id=164

Personally, I'd say this system is weak compared to RAM. The missile itself is less capable and the laucher has only up to 6 missiles where RAM has 21!
 

EnigmaNZ

New Member
Personally I would have gone for RAM in front of the bridge, harpoon where they were meant to go between the masts, plus add the additional 8 VLS cells the Anzac was designed for but not fitted with, with SM-2's, along with the ESSM's, MU-90's, extra director etc.
 

Nautilus

New Member
To effective utilize SM-2, a new radar and electronics would be necessary which would make these ships quite a bit more expensive.

The Harpoon's where not installed on the top because of top weight restrictions - especially for the Indian Ocean you want these ships to be as stable as possible.
 
A

Aussie Digger

Guest
Nautilus said:
To effective utilize SM-2, a new radar and electronics would be necessary which would make these ships quite a bit more expensive.

The Harpoon's where not installed on the top because of top weight restrictions - especially for the Indian Ocean you want these ships to be as stable as possible.
I'm wondering about this. HMAS Warramunga was fitted with her Harpoon launchers in December 04. Harpoon was meant to be operational on the entire ANZAC fleet by Decemer 05, IIRC.

HMAS Warramunga, however to the best of my knowledge is STILL the only ANZAC frigate currently fitted with the Harpoon launchers. Given it's nearly September, either the remainder of the fleet will be equipped very quickly, or the program is running late. I'd personally bet that the program is running late, and if so, is the cause of this because the RAN is re-considering the positioning of the Harpoon launchers, or because Harpoon is proving difficult to integrate?

The original design included Harpoon missile launchers in the middle of the ship and that's the best place for them if you ask me... Would the designers have been unsure of the weight of the Harpoon system? I doubt it...
 

Nautilus

New Member
You bet it's possible to install them on top but is it worth the loss in seakeeping?? The more top heavy a ship is, the more it tends to roll.

The delay could also have to do with Tenix being busy with the NZ building program or the availibility of funds ;)

Upgrading the Anzac's doesn't seem to be top priority. Most of them still use the older SeaSparrow, don't have the SeaSprite (good weather) helicopter and no Harpoon.
 

armage

New Member
Doesn't the SA-N-11 Grisom, work with the Kashtan? Or can it be deployed sperately...? But I would go with SEAWOLF, which is the only battle proven out of those (is it?)...
 

alexsa

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
EnigmaNZ said:
Personally I would have gone for RAM in front of the bridge, harpoon where they were meant to go between the masts, plus add the additional 8 VLS cells the Anzac was designed for but not fitted with, with SM-2's, along with the ESSM's, MU-90's, extra director etc.
The Seawolf is quite a capable and accurate system. The new block 2 builds on the combat proven original which did well in the Falklands war, howver compared to RAM it takes quite a bit more space so retrofit is more difficult. In respect of top weight of the ANZACs and the reason the Harpon is now in front of the bridge this may be due to proposals to fit CEAFAR in a new mast housing (I say may because I am guessing) that would replace the lattice fore mast with a solid structure. (I put some pictures of the mast in the RAN enhancements thread).


The RN web page information about the block II seawolf is quite informative

javascript:popImage('img/proj/CEAFAR/photo1.jpg','CEAFAR - Photo 1')​
http://www.royal-navy.mod.uk/rn/content.php?page=1&article=933

The Royal Navy has accepted into service the Seawolf Block 2 air-defence missile, making Seawolf one of the most potent and technologically advanced naval air-defence systems in the world and which is available for fitting to Type 23 and Type 22 frigates.

The missile was procured under a £370 million programme managed by the Defence Logistic Organisation (part of the Ministry of Defence) Ship Missile Systems (SMS).

The missile features a powerful new ‘electronic brain’ and forms an integral part of a fully automatic, fast reaction, high speed, defence missile system. This offers the Royal Navy a highly effective counter to multiple missile attacks.

Michael Kipp, the team leader of the SMS said: “Seawolf Block 2 represents a significant project success for the integrated project team and the armaments manufacturers MBDA. Its delivery will mean that my team can satisfy Royal Navy requirement for Seawolf missiles well into the future.â€

The state-of-the-art weapon has proved highly effective in shooting down a wide variety of air threats such as fast sea-skimming and high-angle supersonic missiles to strike aircraft. It even has the accuracy to shoot down 4.5-inch artillery shells, and has done!

The missile system is initiated once the surveillance radar has detected targets. The ship’s command system evaluates them and prioritises the threat. Designated high-threat targets are then automatically passed to the Seawolf tracker system which searches for and locks onto the target. The system automatically decides upon missile launch and guides the Seawolf missile to intercept using highly accurate command to line of sight guidance software.

This is the latest update to the Seawolf missile system, which was first introduced with the Royal Navy in 1979 and saw action in the Falklands conflict. More than 1,000 Seawolf missiles of various types have been fired by the Royal Navy so far.

The contract was awarded to MBDA by the Ministry of Defence in 2000 for the supply of Seawolf Block 2 missiles to replenish the Royal Navy’s stockpile. Seawolf, in both its conventional and vertical launch variants, is fully integrated in Royal Navy Type 22 and Type 23 frigates, respectively, and is currently the UK’s standard naval point defence weapon.

Vertically launched Seawolf is the third generation in the Seawolf air-defence weapon system and is in service on all Type 23 frigates. Each ship has 32 missiles in sealed vertical canisters ready for firing. Conventional Seawolf is deployed on Type 22 frigates and has a trainable launcher.

The up-dated Seawolf has been designed to overcome obsolescence in many of the components and to reduce through-life cost by the use of an innovative solid-state technology. The missiles will be loaded to RN ships as required.

Alongside the new programme, the Seawolf mid-life update project will provide to the front line the upgrade required to ensure Seawolf continues to defeat evolving threats. This will improve the performance of the ship-based tracking radar. A key development which will provides the required leap in capability is the addition of an electro-optic camera.
 
Top