Sunburst: The Invincible?

[powerslavenegi]

Just my two paisa's.

While people are talking about a prominent IR sig of Yakhont and Sunburn they seem to forget that at the end of the day the detection or tracking is gonna be of no use if one fails to achieve a successful intercept (for any SAM system probabilty of interception would reduce with increase in the speed of the target ,although marginal but crucial)

Imho while Yakhont or Sunburn might not be as small as Excocet or other Western s-skimmers they are more than twice as fast so it is just a case of playing to ones strengths.

EOD.

 

[Todjaeger]

A skimmer is a warship that floats for normal work - ie the opposite from a sub

it typically used to be a DE or DDG.

Ah, got it, thanks. Now I understand the "poor sucker" comment. Skimmer when working properly. Sinker once missle is intercepted...

Out of curiousity, would a helicopter be able to spoof a missle into thinking it was another ship? I mean, effectively without getting destroyed.

-Cheers

 

[gf0012-aust]

Just my two paisa's.

While people are talking about a prominent IR sig of Yakhont and Sunburn they seem to forget that at the end of the day the detection or tracking is gonna be of no use if one fails to achieve a successful intercept (for any SAM system probabilty of interception would reduce with increase in the speed of the target ,although marginal but crucial)

Imho while Yakhont or Sunburn might not be as small as Excocet or other Western s-skimmers they are more than twice as fast so it is just a case of playing to ones strengths.

EOD.

we get back to some fundamentals here.

the USN has been training against mach 3-6 saturated attack opponents 20+ years ago, they were trained to deal with mach 3 incomings 45 years ago - the battlespace management at fleet level is far more sophisticated now than ever before - and the response times of defensive systems is greater.

Yakhont/Brahmos would make a mess of an unsophisticated target - but against a ForceNET/CEC/war footing alert?

eg: any asset with AESA at an air level effectively expands the sensor net.

The marketing doesn't stand up against a cold hearted review of what the fleet has available to it.

Its certainly not EOD by a long shot (NPI)

 

[merocaine]

The ranges in the persian gulf are much smaller than say then south china sea, or the pacific. Added to this the mountainous character of the Iranian coast line. How much of an effect does this have on the intercept and tracking capabilites of the carriar task force.
I'm curious to know what kind of effect those conditions would have on a fleets layered defence, if we are talking about ranges of 75k to a 100k (or even less).

 

[gf0012-aust]

The ranges in the persian gulf are much smaller than say then south china sea, or the pacific. Added to this the mountainous character of the Iranian coast line. How much of an effect does this have on the intercept and tracking capabilites of the carriar task force.
I'm curious to know what kind of effect those conditions would have on a fleets layered defence, if we are talking about ranges of 75k to a 100k (or even less).

battlespace management is holographic - it doesn't matter whether its flat as denmark, lumpy like Norway and New Zealand or narrow like the Straits.

If the assets are up, they're going to pick up the leakers. In addition, the US has space based battle management advantages. They have the satellite redundancy to layer a target area so as to add more depth to the monitoring suite.

Thats not meant to trivialise the threat issue, its just that I get really jack about the notion that all of a sudden supersonic anti shipping weapons are a re-emergent threat. They're not. The americans were up against a serious cashed up outfit during the cold war where money and national will and intent was no obstacle to their enemies committment to savage their fleets.

even at the peak of soviet maritime capability, they were never confident of winning the maritime conflict and were decidedly disadvantaged at the ASW level, and the soviets were just not good at ASW themselves. (the point being that eg: the Iranians are not the Soviets in either capability or platform flexibility, let alone fusion issues)

the oft quoted "sub 20sec response times = you're dead" assumes that there is a cretin in command or an injection of technical luddites at the controls.

against a modern tier 1 fleet I seriously question the merit and levels of enthusiasm held out for the capability of these revitalised 35 year old system concepts - even with guidance upgrades.

 

[merocaine]

battlespace management is holographic - it doesn't matter whether its flat as denmark, lumpy like Norway and New Zealand or narrow like the Straits.

If the assets are up, they're going to pick up the leakers. In addition, the US has space based battle management advantages. They have the satellite redundancy to layer a target area so as to add more depth to the monitoring suite.

Thats not meant to trivialise the threat issue, its just that I get really jack about the notion that all of a sudden supersonic anti shipping weapons are a re-emergent threat. They're not. The americans were up against a serious cashed up outfit during the cold war where money and national will and intent was no obstacle to their enemies committment to savage their fleets.

even at the peak of soviet maritime capability, they were never confident of winning the maritime conflict and were decidedly disadvantaged at the ASW level, and the soviets were just not good at ASW themselves. (the point being that eg: the Iranians are not the Soviets in either capability or platform flexibility, let alone fusion issues)

the oft quoted "sub 20sec response times = you're dead" assumes that there is a cretin in command or an injection of technical luddites at the controls.

against a modern tier 1 fleet I seriously question the merit and levels of enthusiasm held out for the capability of these revitalised 35 year old system concepts - even with guidance upgrades.

Oh I dont doubt you, or any of the posters on this thread (who all know way more than me!), it was just the question does the geography of the persian gulf make the supersonic anti shipping missle a more effective weapon? I would imagine that the shorter ranges in the Gulf would make the detection tracking and destruction of supersonic missles that bit more problematic.

The very developement of the ASW assets the US Navy hold suggest it is a threat they take seriously. As a point of interest how many times has the US navy come under attack from anti shipping missles (or any navy for that matter), say from the 60's.

 

[gf0012-aust]

Oh I dont doubt you, or any of the posters on this thread (who all know way more than me!), it was just the question does the geography of the persian gulf make the supersonic anti shipping missle a more effective weapon? I would imagine that the shorter ranges in the Gulf would make the detection tracking and destruction of supersonic missles that bit more problematic.

The very developement of the ASW assets the US Navy hold suggest it is a threat they take seriously. As a point of interest how many times has the US navy come under attack from anti shipping missles (or any navy for that matter), say from the 60's.

Caveat Emptor:

I should add, that I certainly don't see the USN driving into a pond where the risk goes up commensurately.

The order of business is to decapitate and destroy threats from a distance, and to degrade an enemies ability to visit harm upon your assets before you commit the more valuable ones up close.

You don't invite trouble per se.

 

[powerslavenegi]

GF I just wanted to convey the idea that in a true Anti Ship role speed is definitely an added advantage as compared to a subsonic sea-skimmer(for one does not have the luxury of ravines and hills to hide behind unlike a LACM ).How well a Navy is equipped to counter such a threat is always a issue up for debate (I do not wish to be part of that due my lack of knowledge in the same).

We should evaluate a weapon system strictly on its merit and not what it can do to a USN Carrier group.For likewise how would you evaluate Harpoon,Exocet or RBS15 ?

 

[merocaine]

I imagine the use of anti shipping weapons by Iran will be a threat that effects neutral shipping first and foremost. I cannot imagine they would believe they could win any engagement, of any kind with the US Navy, but the denial of the the Straits using mines might force the US Navy in sooner than they would like.
It is in that kind of situation where there has not been time to prepare the battlefield that Iran might be able to spring a suprise or two. But at what cost to themselfs...

 

[gf0012-aust]

GF I just wanted to convey the idea that in a true Anti Ship role speed is definitely an added advantage as compared to a subsonic sea-skimmer(for one does not have the luxury of ravines and hills to hide behind unlike a LACM ).How well a Navy is equipped to counter such a threat is always a issue up for debate (I do not wish to be part of that due my lack of knowledge in the same).

I agree with you actually, my point was mainly to show that its far more complex than a sub 18 second event on a helpless target.

Yakhont/Brahmos will definitely hurt - but they aren't going to be able to hurt everything.

in US terms though, the reality is that no USN strike force is going to place itself in what is effectively a swimming pool (in manouvre terms) without getting other friendly assets to decapitate and degrade the threat first.

 

[gf0012-aust]

I imagine the use of anti shipping weapons by Iran will be a threat that effects neutral shipping first and foremost. I cannot imagine they would believe they could win any engagement, of any kind with the US Navy, but the denial of the the Straits using mines might force the US Navy in sooner than they would like.
It is in that kind of situation where there has not been time to prepare the battlefield that Iran might be able to spring a suprise or two. But at what cost to themselfs...

The data on sea-mines is compelling. IIRC it was estimated at one point that approx $150k in sea mines (and 80% were regarded as WW1 contact mine technology) had caused over $300m worth of damage over the last 25 years.

Its why there was a hue and cry in some quarters about how far werstern navies had degraded their mine warfare capability.

Any doubt as to the ability of a committed enemy to launch mines under duress was hilighted by the efforts of the Iraqis over a period of 10-15 years.

I agree that the primary target would be commercial shipping - but sea mines don't discriminate - and I suspect that if a Chinese tanker was holed that they would risk losing an oblique but important trading partner.

 

[merocaine]

I agree that the primary target would be commercial shipping - but sea mines don't discriminate - and I suspect that if a Chinese tanker was holed that they would risk losing an oblique but important trading partner.

The US's best bet in bringing about peaceful resolution to the Iranian nuclear issue is using PRC nudge Iran along. As important as the PRC view's its relationship with Tehran, it would (and never has) allowed that to effect its relationship with the US. The Chinese have always drawn back from Iranian relations when they sensed that it was going to sour a very profitable US relationship(silkworms in the 80's, nuclear tranfer in the 90's).
In any future conflict I would be very suprised to see Chinese made missles being used on shipping. China has never over played its Iranian card. Tehran understands that, Chinas reaction will be foremost in Iranian considerations in any conflict.

Its why there was a hue and cry in some quarters about how far werstern navies had degraded their mine warfare capability.

has there been any efforts to reverse that trend?

 

[Rich]

in US terms though, the reality is that no USN strike force is going to place itself in what is effectively a swimming pool (in manouvre terms) without getting other friendly assets to decapitate and degrade the threat first.

An interesting study is The 1981-1988 Tanker War, which was part of the Iraq/Iran war. There were well over 500 commercial vessels damaged by missiles, mines, and gunboats during this time causing both the Soviet and Yank navies to re-flag tanker ships, belonging to friendly Gulf nations, and escort them out of the Gulf. We had one frigate attacked by a plane launched Iraqi Exocet with great loss of life and another frigate damaged badly by a Iranian mine. If you remember this period then you remember the USS Vincennes also shot down that Iranian civilian airliner by mistake with one of her SMs.

So in effect the study of history gives us some answers and expectations for the coming conflict. One of which is there is no way we can allow Iran to shut down the Gulf, which they would surely try and do. The next lesson is that we would be forced to send into the Gulf DDs and FGs to help protect shipping, as well as mine warfare units.

Hopefully we will have control of the air space. You can bet any regional air fields we would be using would come under heavy missile attack by the Iranians.

 

[merocaine]

Hopefully we will have control of the air space. You can bet any regional air fields we would be using would come under heavy missile attack by the Iranians.

I have often wondered about that, some of the more recent long range missles are quite accurate, they could cause a lot of problems if used in significant numbers aganist US airbases.

but maybe it wont come to that looks like that idiot Ahmadinejad is in real trouble.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/iran/story/0,,1991316,00.html

 

[Rich]

I have often wondered about that, some of the more recent long range missles are quite accurate, they could cause a lot of problems if used in significant numbers aganist US airbases.

but maybe it wont come to that looks like that idiot Ahmadinejad is in real trouble.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/iran/story/0,,1991316,00.html

In foreign policy and military matters he is not even a figure head. The real power in Iran lays in the hands of The Supreme Leader who is elected by the Assembly of experts. Sounds good so far right? Well here's the rube, The Assembly of Experts is Picked by the Guardian Council and the Guardian Council is picked by The Supreme Leader.: Iran is a Dictatorship pure and simple.

And in order to even be considered for the Assembly of Experts you have to be a Mullah in the first place. Ahmadinejad is a goof ball, but hes also a figurehead goof ball. He has some input on domestic policy but even that can be over ruled by Ali Khamenei, the Supreme Leader. If there is anything to be fearful of is that this lunatic is the mouth piece of the Mullahs who actually have the power in Iran.

So whatever happens to Ahmadinejad is completly irrelevant concerning military or foreign policy matters.

 

[merocaine]

So whatever happens to Ahmadinejad is completly irrelevant concerning military or foreign policy matters.

Well it looks like the the Supreme leader is the lesser of the two lunatics with
Ahmadinejad on his way out the door.
Anyway America has never had to much of a problem dealing with dictatorships, and even becoming quite cosy, as long as they did'ent ruffle to many feathers.
Ah sure before yea know it you'll be selling F16's and radar systems and racking in the cash if the Iranians agree to suspend there Nuclear developement. I know the Chinese would be quite keen on that result.
Anyway heres to selling weapons to oppressive mid eastern goverments.

Cheers

 

[chrisrobsoar]

Are we getting a tad off topic here guys?

Chris

 

[merocaine]

yeah sorry about that....

 

[Khairul Alam]

The US's best bet in bringing about peaceful resolution to the Iranian nuclear issue is using PRC nudge Iran along. As important as the PRC view's its relationship with Tehran, it would (and never has) allowed that to effect its relationship with the US. The Chinese have always drawn back from Iranian relations when they sensed that it was going to sour a very profitable US relationship(silkworms in the 80's, nuclear tranfer in the 90's).
In any future conflict I would be very suprised to see Chinese made missles being used on shipping. China has never over played its Iranian card. Tehran understands that, Chinas reaction will be foremost in Iranian considerations in any conflict.

I wont agree to that 100%. China would probably use the "Iranian card" to say to the US to stop being nosy in Taiwan issues. China is already aiding Iran more than any other country in developing its ASCMs. Beside the C-801/802s, China has also exported or passed knowhow of the C-701, TL-6, and TL-10. I doubt China can keep an eye on all these missiles.
One thing is clear: in the event of a war commercial shipping in the Gulf is going to pay the most and oil prices are going to reach the stars!!

 

[Grand Danois]

To get back to the topic of supersonic ASMs vs an air warfare destroyer or frigate.

The Sunburns (and Yakhonts) are quite dangerous - not to be ridiculed. Here is an imaginative scenario: An unsupported Burke patrols the Gulf 40 nm off the coast of Iran. A salvo of 8 Sunburns is launched in a radiolinked swarm to arrive at roughly the same time. Although the IR sensors of the Burke will detect the heat plumes of the missiles and provide early warning of what's up, it is first when the radars of the Burke begin to track the missiles they can be engaged.

Considering the relatively low above sea level height of the AN/SPY-1D(V) it will be the AN/SPS-67(V)3 that will do the early engagements. Being conservative and for the ease of calculation I'll assume the Burke is able to get 8 SM-2's or ESSMs off. Conservatively assuming a Pk of 0.9 for the SAMs, there is a 57% (1-0.9^8) chance of one or more Sunburns getting through to the CIWS/ECM.

Alright, pessimistic. But what do you think? Sorta highlights what doctrine and supporting assets mean.