Alternatives to Anti-Ship Missiles

G

gforce

New Member
1. Is there a Navy that has used or experimented on Anti-Tank guided missiles modified and launched from a warship for Anti-Ship use?

This is in reference to what I read in http://www.timawa.net/forum/index.php?topic=2692.0;wap2 and in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spike_(missile)...

Spike-ER is the extended range or extra long range version of the weapon. It was formerly also known as the NT-Dandy or NT-D. It has a maximum range of 8,000 meters. It has a larger diameter and is heavier than the other systems, and is usually vehicle mounted. It is used by infantry, LCVs, and helicopters. The Finnish Coastal Jaegers also operates the version in the anti-ship role. The weight of the missile is 34 kg, the launchers are 30 kg and 55 kg respectively for the vehicle and air-launched versions. Penetration is around 1000mm of RHA.
Click to expand...
2. Is there a Navy that still uses warship-launched Anti-Ship torpedoes? Is it still effective and what is a modern warship's defense against torpedo attacks?

I know in WW2 that most warships and the PT boats used torpedoes to destroy other warships but I am referring to modern day use and in reference to what I found about the Chinese YU-1 in http://www.sinodefence.com/navy/weapon/yu1.asp...

The Yu-1 is China’s first indigenously made torpedo. A Chinese copy of the Soviet 53-51 non-homing torpedo, the Yu-1 is designed to be launched from Type 033 (Romeo class) submarine and Type 25 (Huchuan class) torpedo fast attack craft (FAC). The torpedo is obsolete and has been replaced by the more capable indigenous and imported designs. The improved Yu-1A uses passive acoustic-homing and is still in service.
Click to expand...
3. Is there a Navy that has used or experimented on cheaper unguided rockets launched from a warship for Anti-Ship use?

I found this online article about unguided rockets fired from warships: http://www.pt-boat.com/rocket/rocket.html but I think this rocket system is for coastal bombardment not to attack other ships?
 
Last edited:
K

kato

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
gforce said:
1. Is there a Navy that has used or experimented on Anti-Tank guided missiles modified and launched from a warship for Anti-Ship use?
Click to expand...
ATGM are too short-ranged to be useful other than in tight inshore areas such as restricted to fjords and those thousands of tiny islands in Scandinavia.

gforce said:
2. Is there a Navy that still uses warship-launched Anti-Ship torpedoes?
Click to expand...
Plenty. Almost all modern torpedoes - except, notably, certain US designs - are dual-usage, i.e. capable of being used against both surface and submarine targets.

Pure torpedo boats... let's see, China has a couple dozen still i think. North Korea, Iran... Denmark and Germany dismounted the torpedoes from their FACs about 10 years ago, but they're just in storage - can always be mounted on them again. Torpedo boats are mostly useful in littoral waters, or at least they were until anti-ship missiles were invented that didn't crash against the next mountain when you fired them in confined inshore waters.

gforce said:
3. Is there a Navy that has used or experimented on cheaper unguided rockets launched from a warship for Anti-Ship use?
Click to expand...
Iran uses BM-21 multiple rocket launchers on speedboats since the mid-80s.
 
J

Juramentado

New Member
The last documented use I recall of an ATGM against a naval target was the UK in the Falklands. One of the Marine Commando detachments in South Georgia got a Karl Gustav 84mm round off against ARA Guerrico (corvette) who got close enough to engagement range. They were able to get the round off because the majority of the corvette's guns jammed at a most inopportune time. Otherwise, too close a range to be useful except in knife-fighting. You need something a bit more stand-off, otherwise the other guy gets to put his two cents into you as well. Same applies to an RBU or Hedgehog style (free-flight rocket) weapon.

The Cheonan incident gives pause; a lot of the institutional memory about the damage torpedos can do passed on with most of the WWII veterans. PTMs can stir up a lot of trouble if they can get in close, and with self-guiding torpedos, the Pk goes up immensely when compared to the older munitions.

I think you're still referring to the RPN in the context of this thread, yes? It's an overly expensive cost to enable missile armed combatants. It's not just the cost of procuring a suitable platform, it's the maintenance and on-going use. If you haven't already, be sure to check the Timawa.net forums for the AFP modernization threads. There's a lot of detail in there about why there are more important priorities than missile boats.
 
Last edited:
W

Waylander

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
Not only TOWs but they also eyperimented with Hellfires on CB90s IIRC.

Our SEAL equivalent also uses MILAN against sea targets if the needs/opportunity arises.
 
G

gforce

New Member
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #6
Juramentado said:
I think you're still referring to the RPN in the context of this thread, yes? It's an overly expensive cost to enable missile armed combatants. It's not just the cost of procuring a suitable platform, it's the maintenance and on-going use. If you haven't already, be sure to check the Timawa.net forums for the AFP modernization threads. There's a lot of detail in there about why there are more important priorities than missile boats.
Click to expand...
Yes! because I believe that the 76mm Oto Melara gun that the RPN wanted to install on all its planned upgrades and modernization programs cannot do it all.

I am curious about that Spike ER Anti-Tank guided missile which is used by Finland as its coastal defense against foreign warships. It has a 8km range.

The link below shows a picture of a twin Spike ER missile launcher installed on what appears to be a gun turret of an unknown naval vessel.

http://sitelife.aviationweek.com/ve...093a481-21f7-4276-adcd-8ae91bdf5c07.Large.jpg
 
G

gforce

New Member
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #8
Aussie Digger said:
The US Navy utilises MH-60 Romeos, as it's primary anti-submarine/anti-surface helicopter. Hellfire air to surfance missiles being it's primary air to surface weapon...

http://www.sflorg.com/aviation/images/imav033106_01_01.jpg

Australia may well end up with this combination too...
Click to expand...
You might not be on-topic but have they tried launching such missiles on board U.S. warships?

In 2004, the Royal Norwegian Navy conducted tests (including a live fire exercise) to evaluate the effectiveness of the SB90N as an aiming and launching platform for the Hellfire missile. One SB90N was equipped with stabilized Hellfire launcher based on the PROTECTOR M151, and its machine gun was replaced with a gimbal-mounted sensor package containing visible-light and infrared cameras and a laser designator. Although the tests were successful, there is currently no indication that the Royal Norwegian Navy will actually deploy SB90Ns armed with Hellfire missiles in regular service. The Hellfire can still be carried on the boats without launching platforms and be fired from shore with the Portable Ground Launch System.
 
A

Aussie Digger

Guest
gforce said:
You might not be on-topic but have they tried launching such missiles on board U.S. warships?
Click to expand...
Not sure if any actual launches have occurred from USN ships, but Hellfire II missiles certainly have the capability to be launched from naval vessels. If one were to operate them from a ship-board helo as well, direct logistical benefits could be had...

http://www.lockheedmartin.com/data/assets/mfc/Photos/MFC_HELLFIRE_ProductCard.pdf


Here is a video of the Norwegian ship launched testing...

http://www.lockheedmartin.com/data/assets/mfc/MFC-HF_Boats_Norway_Edited.mpg
 
Todjaeger

Todjaeger

Potstirrer
gforce said:
You might not be on-topic but have they tried launching such missiles on board U.S. warships?

In 2004, the Royal Norwegian Navy conducted tests (including a live fire exercise) to evaluate the effectiveness of the SB90N as an aiming and launching platform for the Hellfire missile. One SB90N was equipped with stabilized Hellfire launcher based on the PROTECTOR M151, and its machine gun was replaced with a gimbal-mounted sensor package containing visible-light and infrared cameras and a laser designator. Although the tests were successful, there is currently no indication that the Royal Norwegian Navy will actually deploy SB90Ns armed with Hellfire missiles in regular service. The Hellfire can still be carried on the boats without launching platforms and be fired from shore with the Portable Ground Launch System.
Click to expand...
The Israeli Super Dvora-class FAC can/do mount Hellfires as SSMs. Such missiles are potentially quite effective against other FAC, and/or for close in-shore fire support. In terms of mounting such weapons aboard a vessel, they are really only suitable for being mounted on smallcraft, for use against other smallcraft. They have limited range (~8 km +/-) and have comparatively small warheads relative to what else is available in terms of AShM. This means that for a FAC armed with Hellfires or something similar, it would need to close to well within visual range to be able to target/fire them. Additionally, given that such weapons have small warheads (~15 kg usually), unless there was a lucky/fortunate shot which damages sensors, comms or similar to achieve a mission kill, such weaponry would likely only achive minor results, unless employed en masse.

Now FAC armed with LWT's is another story. For one thing, LWT's are typically larger, and have warheads approaching the weight of an entire ATGM like Hellfire. They also can have longer ranges approaching 12 km, which can help the launching ship survive the attack. Perhaps more importantly (apart from the increase in warhead size) is how a torpedoe is used against a ship, compared to how missiles impact ships. A torpedoe would normally be used against the hull exploding either on impact or when nearby but underneath to create a pressure bubble, Such a bubble effect can disrupt the buoyancy of the vessel and/or cause the hull to break apart. Such an effect appears to have been what caused the South Korean naval vessel Cheonan to split in half and sink.

In the end though, it becomes a question of what and where the vessels are operating, and who/what they need to be able to deal with.

-Cheers
 
S

swerve

Super Moderator
Todjaeger said:
The Israeli Super Dvora-class FAC can/do mount Hellfires as SSMs. Such missiles are potentially quite effective against other FAC, and/or for close in-shore fire support. ...
Click to expand...
Back in the 1960s, France sold quite a few FACs with SS.12 missiles, heavy anti-tank missiles with similar range to Hellfire.
 
K

KonTim

New Member
As far as torpedoes,Iran has developed modern FACs(PTs) with torpedos as their primary armament.Some sources says that those FACs have been armed not only by conventional torpedoes but with the Iranian version of Russian Skhval rocket-propelled torpedo named Hoot as well.

Iran has also developed or aquired submersible torpedo boats with North Korean help.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top