AShM doctorine

[Ozzy Blizzard]

Can anyone explain the differance between sub sonic and super sonic anti ship missile doctorine. What are the advantages of of sub sonic missiles? Why have western designers opted for sub sonic over super sonic AShM's? What are the advantages of sub sonic AShM's?

 

[Chrom]

Can anyone explain the differance between sub sonic and super sonic anti ship missile doctorine. What are the advantages of of sub sonic missiles? Why have western designers opted for sub sonic over super sonic?

Becouse West couldnt have it all. Simply. Besides, West (well, USA as anyone else didnt have proper resources) relied much more on naval aviation for anti-ship role. Prior to 80x even USSR didnt had supersonic air-launched AShM with good range. After fall of USSR the development of many weapons intented for "big" war greatly slowed among main players - tanks, planes, bombers, etc - all recived only fairly moderate upgrades or slowly continued development started before Cold War ends. During the Cold War we would already have a 2nd generation change.

 

[Grand Danois]

Western and Soviet doctrine were different, with the West relying on air power, while the Soviets relied on heavily armed cruisers as centrepieces of their surface groups. They were also working on hypersonics for their SSN.

Today subsonic cruise missiles rely on stealth and maneuver to penetrate the defences of their target, whilst supersonics rely on speed only.

It seems stealthy missiles have higher chance vs high end defences.

Supersonic ASMs are in the Western tech portfolio, but have deliberately not been fielded as there are good redundancy of antishipping capability anyway.

 

[Chrom]

Western and Soviet doctrine were different, with the West relying on air power, while the Soviets relied on heavily armed cruisers as centrepieces of their surface groups. They were also working on hypersonics for their SSN.

Today subsonic cruise missiles rely on stealth and maneuver to penetrate the defences of their target, whilst supersonics rely on speed only.

It seems stealthy missiles have higher chance vs high end defences.

Supersonic ASMs are in the Western tech portfolio, but have deliberately not been fielded as there are good redundancy of antishipping capability anyway.

Hmm, i'm pretty much 100% sure what average "stealth" subsonic cruise missile didnt offer any more difficulties to detect than supersonic missile for modern (80x and newer) ADS systems. Besides, all post 70x missiles incorporate some kind of RCS reduction.

 

[Grand Danois]

Hmm, i pretty much 100% sure what average "stealth" subsunic cruise missile didnt offer any more difficulties to detect than supersonic missile for modern (80x and newer) ADS systems.

I would suggest that the JASSM, NSM and Scalp variants that will arrive in the near term, will be stealthy enough.

But fair enough on the Harpoons and Exocets.

 

[Distiller]

When talking about doctrine, the question of ISR (wide area surveillance, long range target detection, long range target acquisition) and communication with the shooters is even more important than the speed of the missile. The question if it's a supersonic or subsonic is more important for the end game, and there a stealthy subsonic missile might even have advantages over supersonic missiles with their prominent IR siganture.

 

[Chrom]

I would suggest that the JASSM, NSM and Scalp variants that will arrive in the near term, will be stealthy enough.

But fair enough on the Harpoons and Exocets.

Nope, you cant design 100% radar stealthy missile with current technology no matter what. And designing optical and IR stealthy missile is pure fantasy in foreseeable future. Current radars with huge processing powers can pick up air turbulences leaved by missile. Modern metric wave radars achieved enouth precision to guide missiles - and you cant hide missile from that waveband. Modern mm wave radars can detect a newspaper - let alone something as reflective as missile. So, while stealth is certainly usefull anti-AWACS and anti-ARH feature, i very much doubt it will help much against close range naval SAM's/CIWS.

 

[Chrom]

When talking about doctrine, the question of ISR (wide area surveillance, long range target detection, long range target acquisition) and communication with the shooters is even more important than the speed of the missile. The question if it's a supersonic or subsonic is more important for the end game, and there a stealthy subsonic missile might even have advantages over supersonic missiles with their prominent IR siganture.

Of course supersonic offer huge advantage here as it requite much less time to reach spotted target. Very often there are not much time you can keep target aquisition, for example sattelite will simply overfly target area, or recon plane will have only several minutes till it must return to base/flee from enemy fighters/ etc. And IR advantage over sea... i wouldnt count on that very much.

 

[Grand Danois]

Nope, you cant design 100% radar stealthy missile with current technology no matter what. And designing optical and IR stealthy missile is pure fantasy in foreseeable future. Current radars with huge processing powers can pick up air turbulences leaved by missile. Modern metric wave radars achieved enouth precision to guide missiles - and you cant hide missile from that waveband. Modern mm wave radars can detect a newspaper - let alone something as reflective as missile. So, while stealth is certainly usefull anti-AWACS and anti-ARH feature, i very much doubt it will help much against close range naval SAM's/CIWS.

I'll agree radars can be very good and detect all sorts of stuff. But yes you can hide a missile from a radar - also the high frequency ones (thinking about it, isn't the F-35 optimised for this part of the spectrum?). Not 100% of course, but enough. I would be unhappy to rely on CIWS.

Supersonics have way to big a signature. Everything you can see you can kill. A stealth missile you detect when it has closed on you - giving you less reaction time than what you have with a supersonic.

Think of it... The JASSM is a third of the size of a Yakhont, but extremely stealthy, approaching head on. With only a small turbojet powering it. It will get soo close before getting picked up by radar or EO.

Hard one for the area defences.

 

[Chrom]

I'll agree radars can be very good and detect all sorts of stuff. But yes you can hide a missile from a radar - also the high frequency ones (thinking about it, isn't the F-35 optimised for this part of the spectrum?). Not 100% of course, but enough. I would be unhappy to rely on CIWS.

Supersonics have way to big a signature. Everything you can see you can kill. A stealth missile you detect when it has closed on you - giving you less reaction time than what you have with a supersonic.

Think of it... The JASSM is a third of the size of a Yakhont, but extremely stealthy, approaching head on. With only a small turbojet powering it. It will get soo close before getting picked up by radar or EO.

Hard one for the area defences.

F-22 is optimised against sm wave radars. mm wave radars can be shielded even easer, but they have much better resolution than sm wave radars and as such can do many tricks to detect "black hole" what sm wave radars cant. JASSM will be most likely detected the same time as Yahont - i.e. as sson as it leaves radar horizont or slighly later. Either way, even if JASSM will be detected at 3 !!! times lesser range than Yahont it will be still in huge disadvantage - the time-to-prepare will be the same for both missiles (JASSM being almost 3 times slower) but time-to-intercept for CIWS and close SAM's will be 3 times greater. Also, CIWS are VERY ineffective against supersonic targets what moving almost as fast as shells. Note, we assumed here what JASSM will be detected 3 times later and its still at disadvantage.

 

[Grand Danois]

F-22 is optimised against sm wave radars. mm wave radars can be shielded even easer, but they have much better resolution than sm wave radars and as such can do many tricks to detect "black hole" what sm wave radars cant. JASSM will be most likely detected the same time as Yahont - i.e. as sson as it leaves radar horizont or slighly later. Either way, even if JASSM will be detected at 3 !!! times lesser range than Yahont it will be still in huge disadvantage - the time-to-prepare will be the same for both missiles (JASSM being almost 3 times slower) but time-to-intercept for CIWS and close SAM's will be 3 times greater. Also, CIWS are VERY ineffective against supersonic targets what moving almost as fast as shells. Note, we assumed here what JASSM will be detected 3 times later and its still at disadvantage.

Both the F-22 and the F-35 are VLO against fire control radar frequencies with any range.

I understand that the range of MMW radars is very short due to attenuation (and absorption in the atmosphere, but these frequencies are probably not used). Even when playing tricks detecting black holes they still have to detect a VLO missile with a frequency that performs poorly with range. Rain or high humidity and MMW performance drops and is even more compromised.

I'm guesstimating MMW radar detection at just below 10 km under the best of circumstances.

Anyway Yakhont should never make it to a target, as they are to be picked up by off board sensors and shot down without ever seeing their target. A fate the VLO JASSM is spared of. This of course depend on who the supersonic is used against.

Btw, I think you're right re the close in SAMs and their time window to engange a VLO missile.

Both approaches are dangerous to any adversary and probably makes the best of what a navy has available of assets.

 

[Chrom]

Both the F-22 and the F-35 are VLO against fire control radar frequencies with any range.

I understand that the range of MMW radars is very short due to attenuation (and absorption in the atmosphere, but these frequencies are probably not used). Even when playing tricks detecting black holes they still have to detect a VLO missile with a frequency that performs poorly with range. Rain or high humidity and MMW performance drops and is even more compromised.

I'm guesstimating MMW radar detection at just below 10 km under the best of circumstances.

Anyway Yakhont should never make it to a target, as they are to be picked up by off board sensors and shot down without ever seeing their target. A fate the VLO JASSM is spared of. This of course depend on who the supersonic is used against.

Btw, I think you're right re the close in SAMs and their time window to engange a VLO missile.

Both approaches are dangerous to any adversary and probably makes the best of what a navy has available of assets.

Ya, but keep in mind - due to radar horizont average FC radar only need like 10 km effective range. And in that range just about ANY radar will detect stealth target. Again, with Yahont its not as simple as they are very hard to intercept - most system have big problems intercepting M 2.5 low-flying target, and that not even accounting reaction time and second-shot-apportunity.

 

[Grand Danois]

Ya, but keep in mind - due to radar horizont average FC radar only need like 10 km effective range. And in that range just about ANY radar will detect stealth target. Again, with Yahont its not as simple as they are very hard to intercept - most system have big problems intercepting M 2.5 low-flying target, and that not even accounting reaction time and second-shot-apportunity.

Don't agree to the range of the radar horizon, but do agree on that as far as JASSM et al are concerned (almost) any naval radar will detect at 10 km.

Yakhont is a hard target. As you mentioned, they're fast and reaction times for a layered defence is 6-8 minutes. This means only very capable defence systems will have a chance at shooting them down.

Most high-end navies only have partial completeness of some of the layers that the USN employs.

 

[Rich]

If I may go back to the original question, tho I do like reading all this technical stuff. The actual "doctrine" for the Soviet missiles centered around the Cold War and 2 Soviet goals for their navy and maritime strike force. Of course #1 was to sink Yank and NATO carriers. #2, and just as important, to interdict the NATO North Atlantic re-supply route in time of war on the continent.

#1, to sink a carrier, was a constant chess game between them and the Yanks. We would constantly strive to enlarge the defensive perimeter around our carriers, "and I could call that the 360% area around the ship that we controlled from sea bottom to atmosphere top". And the Soviets would constantly strive to penetrate that perimeter.

So Danois is correct. However I would word it as the Soviets used the AshM as the centerpiece and everything else was just a vessel to carry them to their launch point. Eventually they deployed huge Oscar class SSGNs centered around very large and fast AshMS like the SS N 19, strike air craft like the Backfire, their CVs, heck even their air craft carriers were loaded up with AshMs and were built to protect AshM assets.

We Yanks/NATO, on the other hand, kept deploying better and better systems to enlarge that 360%. Systems like F-14 and Phoenix missiles, Aegis and SM, Phalanx, sea sparrow, better ASW, and better SSNs. And like the Soviets we developed our AshMs based on need vis-a-vis the perceived threat. Not on a perceived need to match them in style and size. Certainly the world has seen that sub sonics like Harpoon and Exocet really work. The newest Harpoon is a very lethal missile in the Littorals or in clutter as well.

So the AshM one goes out and buys now is an evolutionary weapon from the Cold War. Not to underestimate the threat of these missiles but I believe most people overestimate them and underestimate a carrier battle groups ability to protect itself. Out in the open ocean a carrier commander pretty much controls the 360% around him out to about 600 NMs. I know there has been much ado about that Chinese SSK that popped up near one, but generally, its not all that easy to get close to one.

 

[Ozzy Blizzard]

Thanx guys. But if a supersonic AShM is going to be better than a sub sonic equivelant why bother with a sub soonic missile? Are All super sonic AShM's (apart from the latest ones) High to mid altitute, and thus detectable at longer ranges? Would a sea skimming Super sonic AShM be more dangerous that a sub sonic one (excluding JASSM, i'm thinking of harpoon)? If so why would you opt for one. Is it as simple as the only navies that you need Super sonic AShM's to defeat are NATO or equivelant and russian or equivelant navies can be penitrated by sub sonic AShM's? By the way does tomahawk still have an AShM role?

 

[Grand Danois]

There is also another thing to consider. Subsonics are cheaper, easier to deploy and employ, and are on basically every surface vessel and many subs and aircraft.

A typical subsonic weighs a ton vs 3 ton for a supersonic. That put limitations on what ships, subs and aircraft that can use them. The subsonics are much more proliferated.

IIRC part of Western doctrine is to bleed the defences, using not only saturation/compression but also wearing the adversary battlegroup down over time.

 

[Chrom]

Thanx guys. But if a supersonic AShM is going to be better than a sub sonic equivelant why bother with a sub soonic missile? Are All super sonic AShM's (apart from the latest ones) High to mid altitute, and thus detectable at longer ranges? Would a sea skimming Super sonic AShM be more dangerous that a sub sonic one (excluding JASSM, i'm thinking of harpoon)? If so why would you opt for one. Is it as simple as the only navies that you need Super sonic AShM's to defeat are NATO or equivelant and russian or equivelant navies can be penitrated by sub sonic AShM's? By the way does tomahawk still have an AShM role?

Becouse subsonic AShM are :
1. Much cheaper
2. Smaller
3. Much easer/cheaper to develop
4. Much easer to carry

Still, all countries plans to develop supersonic AShM in the near future

 

[Chrom]

There is also another thing to consider. Subsonics are cheaper, easier to deploy and employ, and are on basically every surface vessel and many subs and aircraft.

A typical subsonic weighs a ton vs 3 ton for a supersonic. That put limitations on what ships, subs and aircraft that can use them. The subsonics are much more proliferated.

IIRC part of Western doctrine is to bleed the defences, using not only saturation/compression but also wearing the adversary battlegroup down over time.

Hmm, hard to tell. In many cases its either-or. You must do it in the 1st stike or you will be killed by enemy next strike.

 

[Ozzy Blizzard]

what do you mean CBG vs CBG? or land based air assets or SSK's/SSN's?

 

[Rich]

Thanx guys. But if a supersonic AShM is going to be better than a sub sonic equivelant why bother with a sub soonic missile? Are All super sonic AShM's (apart from the latest ones) High to mid altitute, and thus detectable at longer ranges? Would a sea skimming Super sonic AShM be more dangerous that a sub sonic one (excluding JASSM, i'm thinking of harpoon)? If so why would you opt for one. Is it as simple as the only navies that you need Super sonic AShM's to defeat are NATO or equivelant and russian or equivelant navies can be penitrated by sub sonic AShM's? By the way does tomahawk still have an AShM role?

Thats a technical question for one of the "missile guys". I will say however that you dont develop a ASM to keep up with the next guys missile. You develop it to counter a threat. Harpoon wasn't developed to attack Soviet AshMs ; It was developed to attack an enemies warships.

For instance, we had an upgrade plan for Harpoon, if I remember right, that would give the missile a longer range and a reattack capability. This version was shelved because the Soviet Union broke up, which meant there wasnt a sufficient threat to justify spending that kind of $$ for the new Harpoon. I am guessing up to this time it was also decided the threat isn't there to justify expending the $$ to rush a supersonic ASM into production. Think about it? What other navy is a real threat to the USN at this time? In the open ocean environment we excel at fighting in?

And the speed of the missile is only one facet of its effectiveness. The world has seen numerous conflicts of NATO standard systems and Soviet standard systems going toe to toe and who has won? I know there are qualifiers in my last statement but you must admit Yank/NATO Technology, and ability to use it, has far out shined anything made in Russia. So why doubt our Harpoon and the doctrine behind it?

Its only a matter of time before we get a SS AshM, as far as I know there are no plans for a subsonic follow on to Harpoon, and I'm sure it will be in the field when the threat is serious enough to need it. Its costs a fortune to outfit a military machine like we have with a new dedicated missile and "keeping up with the other guy" just isn't a good enough reason to do so.