Stealth warships to form core of Singapore navy
-
Rare glimpse of S'pore's naval research given by Defence Ministry, which says homegrown technology is a must
By David Boey
SINGAPORE'S new fleet of stealth warships will form the backbone of the 'next generation navy', carrying the latest in weapons and sensors.
To add firepower to the six 110m warships, which will come into service from 2007, defence planners are looking into arming them with more agile anti-ship missiles that fly faster than the speed of sound.
The first of the Republic of Singapore Navy's new squadron of frigates is still being constructed in France and the others here.
Yesterday, Permanent Secretary for Defence Peter Ho lifted the usual veil of secrecy from some of Singapore's ongoing research into new naval technologies.
The RSN's future would be underpinned by developments in areas to do with stealth, electronic warfare, unmanned systems and guided weapons.
In his opening speech at the 9th Naval Platform Technology Seminar yesterday, Mr Ho said that the Ministry of Defence would continue investing in certain areas of defence research and development, even though new technologies can be bought from the world's arms market.
Mr Ho, a government scholarship holder who was trained as a naval officer, spoke to more than 500 navy officers and defence engineers from 30 countries at the seminar.
While Singapore buys whatever and whenever it can off-the-shelf, he said there was an 'irreducible' minimum that the country had to invest in such research to stay ahead, even if the technologies later become available on the market or obsolete.
'That is a price we have to pay in order to develop and sustain our defence technology capability,' he said.
For example, in the 1980s, DSO National Laboratories developed an unguided bomb made into a smart weapon by fitting it with a camera to direct it to its target. This became a 'learning project' for DSO's young engineers and scientists, just out of university.
'It was not rocket science,' he said, and the outcome was simply a prototype.
But it gave the engineers and scientists an excellent learning opportunity in design, testing and evaluation.
Now a project to develop a rocket-powered target drone, which could be used as a 'live' target for guns and missiles, has also reached the prototype stage.
That project helped engineers build up knowledge in specialised areas of weapons engineering linked to aerodynamics, flight control, navigation and guidance, all crucial to developing unmanned systems.
Mindef has examined the scope for using a high altitude, long endurance unmanned aircraft as a flying radar station.
'Investments in time and resources have to be made now to seek innovative responses,' said Mr Ho.
http://straitstimes.asia1.com.sg/topstories/story/0,4386,219436,00.html? -
ZaoBao also had an article talking about the aster on our ships
http://www.zaobao.com/sp/sp005_121103.html
babelfish translated version
http://babelfish.altavista.com/babelfish/urltrurl?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.zaobao.com%2Fsp%2Fsp005_121103.html&lp=zh_en&tt=url -
Hope they will reveal something about the stealth covettes (ala the swedish visby) one of these daysOriginally posted by cavsg:SINGAPORE'S new fleet of stealth warships will form the backbone of the 'next generation navy', carrying the latest in weapons and sensors.
Btw, this David Boey is like the ultimate insider - i mean, he gets the scoops on military news and was also an important source for huxley's book on SAF. Have to admit that i envy that guy - doing something that most of us nuts can only fantasize abt
-
I think we are heading towards Stealth warfare in both air, land and sea
-
Well, it seems that this confirms the Aster SAM on the Delta Frigates that we so constantly read from other publications. The only thing that is unclear from this particular article is that will RSN also purchase Aster 30 and field a mix of Aster 15 and Aster 30 on each ship?Originally posted by cavsg:ZaoBao also had an article talking about the aster on our ships
http://www.zaobao.com/sp/sp005_121103.html
babelfish translated version
http://babelfish.altavista.com/babelfish/urltrurl?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.zaobao.com%2Fsp%2Fsp005_121103.html&lp=zh_en&tt=url
In the ST version, I wonder if ST Marine is also secretly building or designing a new class of stealth corvettes for the RSN on top of the Delta frigates. I felt that there were some subtle hints but I don't know if I am being overly "sensitive" or this is indeed the case. -
What missiles do you think they were referring to in the passage, the part which said they were investigating supersonic anti-ship missiles? IIRC, there are currently no western anti-ship missile which is supersonic, and I dont think there is any planned, right? Those that were planned, like the NSM, were canceled, is it not?
-
What missiles do you think they were referring to in the passage, the part which said they were investigating supersonic anti-ship missiles? IIRC, there are currently no western anti-ship missile which is supersonic, and I dont think there is any planned, right? Those that were planned, like the NSM, were canceled, is it not?
-
Well, the French's Anti-Navire Futur (ANF) anti-ship missiles might have been shelf - it doesn't mean that the French will not provide Singapore some technical know-how to develope one.... at a cost of cost... It should not be impossible to extend a MM-40 Exocet to fly above Mach 1 given it is already doing 0.9 Mach.Originally posted by YourFather:What missiles do you think they were referring to in the passage, the part which said they were investigating supersonic anti-ship missiles? IIRC, there are currently no western anti-ship missile which is supersonic, and I dont think there is any planned, right? Those that were planned, like the NSM, were canceled, is it not?
RSN may also explore the possibility of getting one from other source such as the Taiwanese Hsiungfeng-3 missiles, or Indian's Brahmos. -
IMO , both are rather new and unstable plateform. In view of known technology collaboration with our two western allies , it is undoubtable that our future ASM will certainly be from either the French or the American source.Originally posted by Joe Black:RSN may also explore the possibility of getting one from other source such as the Taiwanese Hsiungfeng-3 missiles, or Indian's Brahmos.
The French system is relatively flexible as Singapore had gone upfront to sent up long term scientific researches with our french counterparts. The last time i heard about the ANF is that it was shelved due to funds and security problems. Singapore can retrigger that project by injecting funds and researchers into that much needed pool. With so much talks about intimate collaborations with france , i believe we can tailor the ANF to meet our interest as well as their's.
Some other missile plateforms to consider for our Deltas is the Exocet Bk3 , the Harpoon Bk2 and the Polyphem-S to replace our Gabriel SSM. -
Pardon my ignorance....when I was reading that statement on acquiring supersonic missiles....the first thing that popped into my mind was the SS-N-22 SunburnOriginally posted by YourFather:What missiles do you think they were referring to in the passage, the part which said they were investigating supersonic anti-ship missiles? IIRC, there are currently no western anti-ship missile which is supersonic, and I dont think there is any planned, right? Those that were planned, like the NSM, were canceled, is it not? -
The Sunburn is a Russian supersonic Anti-ship missile. As far as the general media is concern , russia is a eastern country , not a western country.Originally posted by solaris:Pardon my ignorance....when I was reading that statement on acquiring supersonic missiles....the first thing that popped into my mind was the SS-N-22 Sunburn -
Well yes that is true but in the article itself there was no mention that the weapon would have to be from a western source. It is not unprecendented that the SAF might use Russian equipment. If the Israelis can successfully integrate Russian equipment, there is no reason why DSTA would be unable to do so with the help of foreign expertise. Is there a operational Western supersonic SSM? I do not think the SAF would develope a de novo a supersonic SSM and hence it must be purchased commerciallyOriginally posted by foxtrout8:The Sunburn is a Russian supersonic Anti-ship missile. As far as the general media is concern , russia is a eastern country , not a western country. -
Frankly speaking , i never heard of the israelis intergrating russian equipment ( missile?) onto their ships before. If it is true , it surely a fresh news for me.Originally posted by solaris:Well yes that is true but in the article itself there was no mention that the weapon would have to be from a western source. It is not unprecendented that the SAF might use Russian equipment. If the Israelis can successfully integrate Russian equipment, there is no reason why DSTA would be unable to do so with the help of foreign expertise. Is there a operational Western supersonic SSM? I do not think the SAF would develope a de novo a supersonic SSM and hence it must be purchased commercially
Speaking abt Singapore's ASMs , i will certainly not put my bet on the russian SSMs. Firstly , intergrating the Russian equipment on board our western builded ship is relatively troublesome compare to just adopting western models which in my opinion aint inferior to the russian models.
Secondly, Russian equipments (their naval missiles)are rather unstable (IMO) , untested and we do not have a hand in them. I believe that the ASM on board the Delta will undoubtfully be a french or american model. I will say that models from those two countries will be attractive because of the collaboration between Singapore , france and US. Not very much on the Yankee's side, but for the French , they might even willing to let us manufacture their missiles here in Singapore(Who knows yeah?). Of course end to end we still have to look at their missile's capabilities. As far as i know , the current Exocet and Harpoon are one the world most recognised and deadly missiles in the market. Lets not forget that the French had their research on the ANF , if the acticle is true on our need for supersonic missiles, i will put much bet on the ANF. But i doubt the ANF will surface so soon , so a ASM will still have to be adopt as a gap cover.
Thirdly , i doubt the whole article itself. I believe as far as our region is concern , i dun see a need for supersonic ASM. I do not know how accurate such missiles are , but the number of ships in our SLOC plus the number of islands fringing our water will make such engagement a dangerous one. Not unless u are engaging in the open south china sea , doubt we will have much chance firing one.
On russian Naval missiles :
http://www.wonderland.org.nz/rnss.htm -
so will these ships be headmasters or powermasters?
man i spoil every topic -
Logical prognosis.... but I would like to add some thoughts to this...Originally posted by foxtrout8:Frankly speaking , i never heard of the israelis intergrating russian equipment ( missile?) onto their ships before. If it is true , it surely a fresh news for me.
Speaking abt Singapore's ASMs , i will certainly not put my bet on the russian SSMs. Firstly , intergrating the Russian equipment on board our western builded ship is relatively troublesome compare to just adopting western models which in my opinion aint inferior to the russian models.
Secondly, Russian equipments (their naval missiles)are rather unstable (IMO) , untested and we do not have a hand in them. I believe that the ASM on board the Delta will undoubtfully be a french or american model. I will say that models from those two countries will be attractive because of the collaboration between Singapore , france and US. Not very much on the Yankee's side, but for the French , they might even willing to let us manufacture their missiles here in Singapore(Who knows yeah?). Of course end to end we still have to look at their missile's capabilities. As far as i know , the current Exocet and Harpoon are one the world most recognised and deadly missiles in the market. Lets not forget that the French had their research on the ANF , if the acticle is true on our need for supersonic missiles, i will put much bet on the ANF. But i doubt the ANF will surface so soon , so a ASM will still have to be adopt as a gap cover.
Thirdly , i doubt the whole article itself. I believe as far as our region is concern , i dun see a need for supersonic ASM. I do not know how accurate such missiles are , but the number of ships in our SLOC plus the number of islands fringing our water will make such engagement a dangerous one. Not unless u are engaging in the open south china sea , doubt we will have much chance firing one.
On russian Naval missiles :
http://www.wonderland.org.nz/rnss.htm
1. Exocets MM40 mk3 were unofficially announced as the ASM for the Deltas. The mk3 version is the latest, longest range, and meanest ASM from France. It has a 90KM? range and a speed far higher than Harpoon. > 0.9 Mach.
2. Supersonic ASM doesn't mean one has to fly at Mach 2. What about one that flies at Mach 1.1 to Mach 1.4? The whole idea is to ensure that missiles will arrive the target before the sonic boom to alert the enemies. Furthermore, one that flies faster also mean harder for the CWIS or SAMs to intercept, not to mention, "I can whack you before you return your punch" philosophy.
3. Why is it so difficult to develop and interim ASM? France can certainly push Exocet a little faster, DSTA can assist in development and research. DSTA can secretly learn to assemble and build, say the Taiwanese supersonic ASM. Afterall, it is very much Harpoon like in appearance anyway, wouldn't raise any suspicion.
4. Why can the Deltas carry a mix of supersonic and subsonic ASMs? Certainly can.
5. RSN is fast developing a green water, if not blue water navy. Its theatre of operation is non longer just Singapore Straits and the Melacca Straits. We should expect RSN to operate in the open seas of Indian Ocean and South China Sea. RSN has the obligation and tasks to protect Singapore's SLOC which is not just the mere 2 straits....
Just my 2 cents worth. -
1. Exocets MM40 mk3 were unofficially announced as the ASM for the Deltas. The mk3 version is the latest, longest range, and meanest ASM from France. It has a 90KM? range and a speed far higher than Harpoon. > 0.9 Mach.
The Mk3 have a range of 180km and with a land ( coastal ) attack capability.2. Supersonic ASM doesn't mean one has to fly at Mach 2. What about one that flies at Mach 1.1 to Mach 1.4?
Actually most russian supersonic ASM can attain a speed of 2.4 mach which is imcredible. By cruising at such speed , u can evade interception and even radar detection(?) , however the main point which i wanna say here is not about evading SAMs or CIWS but about how useful is such missiles in our crowded SLOC and neighbouring waters.I can whack you before you return your punch" philosophy.
Yes , but that is a philosophy of vast water surface. But in our regional content , it will be a ' i score a civilian hit ' fact of life.4. Why can the Deltas carry a mix of supersonic and subsonic ASMs? Certainly can.
Take a look at our Gunboats now. Even with the subsonic Harpoon missiles , our MGB have to be armed with Gabriel SSM for precision engagement in crowed SLOC.
U will see that the subsonic harpoon aint suitable for some of the engagement in our region and now u wanna intergrate Supersonic missiles? I doubt the supersonic missile will have any suitable chance for engagement in our region.5. RSN is fast developing a green water, if not blue water navy. Its theatre of operation is non longer just Singapore Straits and the Melacca Straits. We should expect RSN to operate in the open seas of Indian Ocean and South China Sea.
Yes , but u have to understand that the subsonic Harpoon and Exocet also have the capability to engage targets in vast water , it aint obsolete. Look at the western navies who patrol international water more frequent ly than the eastern navy , do they have to adopt supersonic missiles? No.
Did the arm race during the cold war period make the Americans develope supersonic missiles? No. So the conclusion is , i agree that supersonic missiles are harder to intercept , harder to evade.But we must understand our needs and our wants. We must ask the following questions :
Do we really need supersonic missiles during our main patrol of the south china sea , the Singapore strait and the Malacca Strait?
How useful are such missiles?
Is supersonic missiles a need for power projections as a blue water navy? Why aint developed navies of the world replacing subsonic missiles with supersonic missiles?
Wat are the problems if we intergrate supersonic missiles , subsonic missiles and wire guided missiles onto our ship? Does that make sense?
Cheers,
My 5 cents. -
Lets see this senario in the vast ocean :
A Delta Class Frigate was at a range of 200km from a destroyer armed with 8 sunburn missiles. The Sunburn missiles have a range of 150km , it can attain a speed of 2.4mach while cruising at wave level. If the sunburn was fired at our delta , it will certianly be high to intercept.
When our Delta frigate was within range of the sunburn, our ship was still safe becauseour stealth delta frigate cant be detected at that range of 150km. When our Delta Frigate was at 120km from the destroyer , the destroyer was within our Harpoon engagement range and we engage.
If we will to purchase the Exocet bk3 , we can engage at a range of 180kms , 30kms ahead of the Sunburn. Thus u can see that even without the long range of supersonic missiles , our stealthy Delta Frigate with good countermeasure system is still at the upperhand.
Second senario in a crowded SLOC :
Our MGB was patrolling the crowded strait of Malacca. A Destroyer armed with 8 Sunburns. At the range of 200kms , the destroyer detected our MGB and ordered an engagement at 150km. Within range, the sunburn was launched but due to it's supersonic nature , it scored a civilian hit.
At a range of 120kms , the commander ordered a harpoon engagement to the destroyer but was adviced not to as the destroyer is cruising among international ships , taking them as shields. The MGB streaked 40km from the Destroyer and launched a Garbriel missile , beautifully guiding the missile into the destroyer crippling it and order it's surrender.
Thus u can see that the use of supersonic missiles in crowded SLOC is almost impossible. With ships crowding the area and with the electronics on board our ships , a score from such missile is close to zero.
Conclusion , with high end electronic systems and stealthy features. Our ships armed with subsonic missiles aint at the losing end compare to large unstealthy ships with supersonic missiles. We can also concluded that short range wire guided missile is still a vital element in naval engagement in our region. -
Surface to Surface Missile Systems are the eaisest to integrate, because there is literally none. Everything is BVR or OTH?
From the detection side, all you get is the GPS or old fashion lat long coordinates from your spotters. The spotter isn't going to paint it with microwave or laser is it?
From the control side, all you need is the operator terminal.
Supersonic anti-ship missiles is something RSN has been tossing around for years. IMHO it has nothing to do with "hit you before you can hit me". It all has to do with the magical moment when the missile pops up on the horizon to impact. The shorter the interval, the lesser time the target has to react.
Sure the deck guns and anti-missiles have their hit probability. They are of no use if they are not fired. -
Deleted.
-
my 2 cents worth --
what's been established so far, is that shorter range wire guided missiles are still impt for engagements in crowded SLOCs like malacca straits and sg straits. that's very true. i think its why gabriel missiles are still carried by the smaller MGBs -- small enuf to wave in and out of merchant shipping, evade enemy fire and shoot them while they miss and blast some merchantman... MCVs may be a bit too big and used in more open waters, thats why they carry harpoon.
the new frigates are intended more for power projection in south china sea and indian ocean... so they need long-legged fast antiship missiles
but in my view what many ppl miss is harpoon is actually getting quite lousy compared to the new ones like Brahmos and sunburn. it's big and slow - vulnerable - and active radar guidance means the enemy knows once a harpoon tries to find him. i think any existing CIWS can chew down a harpoon easily. exocet may be harder, but no way u can stop a brahmos at the moment...
now alot of ppl must be thinking "but americans make the best weapons in the world, how come harpoon so lousy?? to this we must remb the americans make weapons for their own perceived needs, not anyone else's. one must bear in mind there is no navy with anywhere near the number of USN's major surface combatants, so USN doesnt expect too much antiship battles and isnt primarily an antiship navy.
To foxtrout8, this is my opinion ur qn – the big navies don’t expect ship-to-ship combat anytime soon, since their opponents don’t really have so many big frigate-size and bigger ships. Besides they have carriers, which are much more effective vs ships IMO. As far back as WWII most ships were sunk by carrier a/c and subs, not other ships…
look at USNÂ’s destroyers and cruisers -- burke and tico-class carry 90 and 120 SM-2s/tomahawks respectively but only 8 harpoons. theyre more geared towards land attack and air defense from soviet bombers carrying massive antiship cruise missiles. if anything the antiship burden is borne by their all-owning attack subs.
who are they defending then? their precious carriers of course. USN are basically carrier-centric, and their antiship doctrine doesnt say to sail up a cruiser within harpoon range of enemy ship and kill it. no they send up an F-18 sqn from the carrier and saturate-attack the enemy fleet. thats why they can afford not to upgrade their harps... coz they have lots of those already and can afford saturation attacks. there was a harpoon upgrade (block 2) recently that increased range, but they didnt buy it. thier surface ships' role in life is to protect their carriers and shoot tomahawks, not kill other ships.
but we cant afford to do what they do. cant afford to buy so many harpoons, and lousy subs. a monkey will come out of my asshole before we get an aircraft carrier.
so US doesnt bother to make a modern antiship missile and french cancelled theirs. now i said earlier abt USN defending vs soviet cruise missiles. thats what the soviets are good at -- they made their missiles to get past SM2, sea sparrow, seawolf, CIWS and whatever NATO used...
its wrong to say that everything american is better than russian. some things (like WVR AAMs – archer!!) they are actually better simply coz they put more effort and money in them to beat NATO's weak points. so in this case barhmos/sunburn may not be a bad chioce, i expect them to be among the leading contenders. hsiungfeng 3 too. whatever the case, no more harpoon. expensive and lousy. it's time to move to the next generation - supersonic antiship missiles, which i feel are underrated and long overdue... MINDEF is spot on here. -
I don't have much knowledge about anti-ship missiles, so following this thread has been an educational experience.
Anyway, it seems that some of the pple here have raised the problem of using supersonic missiles in a crowded environment like our surrounding waters. I was wondering if satellites would be able to help solve this problem by providing realtime info on the target? Just throwing an idea about.....
-
To wd1 :
Dear pal , i disagree generally with u.
1) I agree that Supersonic missile have way much advantages than subsonic missiles in terms of evading interception and detection. U had said a great deal abt it , however i had already illustrated that such supersonic missiles aint the optimum choice for our Frigate. Basically , it cant engage precise targets in crowded environment of our region and without supersonic missiles , we aint at all at the lower end. So why supersonic missiles for Singapore?
2) U had stated that our Frigates are for power projections and they need 4 legged missiles. I believe u had missed the importance of wire guilded missile on our the frigates which are suspose to replace our MGBs. If our MGBs had been replaced by the Frigates and if the Frigate aint armed with wire guided missiles , who will do the close range cum very precise engagement?
3) I stated that supersonic missiles aint an reliable aspect in naval engagement currently. It can be justifiy as we see that the western navies ( in fact most of the world navies ) do not arm their ships with such weapons. U debated that the reason why Americans aint investing into such system because their unmatchable naval fleet is able to give cover to their ships ( am i right here ? ). However , i wonder do the British navy , the Spanish Navy , the Japanese Navy etc think likewise that their fleet air arm can cover their ships , thus not investing into supersonic missiles?
4) U had stated that the supersonic is almost unstoppable when it is fired. However i had already stated that our Frigates stealthy design cum advance electronic make us virtually 'not there' at a range of 200 to 300km away. U had not thought on wats the use when our enemy's ships were destroyed b4 they can even detect our ships?
My illustration ( above )had said that our ships first look capability will certainly give us a first kill capability. Even if our ships were detected early , we still have the capability to shoot first and kill first using NG-subsonic missiles such as the Exocet Bk3 against most of our enemy's ships (armed with most of the general supersonic missiles except afew). -
So my stand is that not until that Supersonic missiles are more 1) Reliable , 2) Agile , 3) Accurate , 4) Manovearable and 5) proven , i doubt MinDef will buy the idea.
At most , i believe Mindef is onli interested in engaging into supersonic missile research , but not a straight intergration onto our flagship Frigate due next Jan. -
Though officially stated that the Deltas are the replacement for the MGBs, I believe that RSN will hold on to the MGBs till another similar platform of that size and capability is introduced. The RSN will be at the lossing end in littorial warfare without the MGBs and its Gabriel. The actual replacement could be in the form of ST Marine OPVs armed with short to medium range SSMs or fitting Gabriels permanently on our PVs.
-
I agree that the US builds its weapons based on its perceived needs first and foremost - to not do so would be stupid. But to write off the Harpoon as expensive and lousy, that's underrating it. I cannot proclaim to be an expert on ASMs, but let me give you a post on another forum by one who is well versed...Originally posted by wd1:my 2 cents worth --
what's been established so far, is that shorter range wire guided missiles are still impt for engagements in crowded SLOCs like malacca straits and sg straits. that's very true. i think its why gabriel missiles are still carried by the smaller MGBs -- small enuf to wave in and out of merchant shipping, evade enemy fire and shoot them while they miss and blast some merchantman... MCVs may be a bit too big and used in more open waters, thats why they carry harpoon.
the new frigates are intended more for power projection in south china sea and indian ocean... so they need long-legged fast antiship missiles
but in my view what many ppl miss is harpoon is actually getting quite lousy compared to the new ones like Brahmos and sunburn. it's big and slow - vulnerable - and active radar guidance means the enemy knows once a harpoon tries to find him. i think any existing CIWS can chew down a harpoon easily. exocet may be harder, but no way u can stop a brahmos at the moment...
now alot of ppl must be thinking "but americans make the best weapons in the world, how come harpoon so lousy?? to this we must remb the americans make weapons for their own perceived needs, not anyone else's. one must bear in mind there is no navy with anywhere near the number of USN's major surface combatants, so USN doesnt expect too much antiship battles and isnt primarily an antiship navy.
To foxtrout8, this is my opinion ur qn – the big navies don’t expect ship-to-ship combat anytime soon, since their opponents don’t really have so many big frigate-size and bigger ships. Besides they have carriers, which are much more effective vs ships IMO. As far back as WWII most ships were sunk by carrier a/c and subs, not other ships…
look at USNÂ’s destroyers and cruisers -- burke and tico-class carry 90 and 120 SM-2s/tomahawks respectively but only 8 harpoons. theyre more geared towards land attack and air defense from soviet bombers carrying massive antiship cruise missiles. if anything the antiship burden is borne by their all-owning attack subs.
who are they defending then? their precious carriers of course. USN are basically carrier-centric, and their antiship doctrine doesnt say to sail up a cruiser within harpoon range of enemy ship and kill it. no they send up an F-18 sqn from the carrier and saturate-attack the enemy fleet. thats why they can afford not to upgrade their harps... coz they have lots of those already and can afford saturation attacks. there was a harpoon upgrade (block 2) recently that increased range, but they didnt buy it. thier surface ships' role in life is to protect their carriers and shoot tomahawks, not kill other ships.
but we cant afford to do what they do. cant afford to buy so many harpoons, and lousy subs. a monkey will come out of my asshole before we get an aircraft carrier.
so US doesnt bother to make a modern antiship missile and french cancelled theirs. now i said earlier abt USN defending vs soviet cruise missiles. thats what the soviets are good at -- they made their missiles to get past SM2, sea sparrow, seawolf, CIWS and whatever NATO used...
its wrong to say that everything american is better than russian. some things (like WVR AAMs – archer!!) they are actually better simply coz they put more effort and money in them to beat NATO's weak points. so in this case barhmos/sunburn may not be a bad chioce, i expect them to be among the leading contenders. hsiungfeng 3 too. whatever the case, no more harpoon. expensive and lousy. it's time to move to the next generation - supersonic antiship missiles, which i feel are underrated and long overdue... MINDEF is spot on here.
"Don't hold your breath. Statements like that are an absurd
over-simplification. The Russian anti-ship missiles represent one set of
technical solutions to penetrating anti-missile defenses. They are not
the only set of solutions to those requirements nor are they necessarily
the best.
The Russian attention to hypersonics had its costs. The missiles are big
and heavy. limiting the number that can be carried. Their high speed
causes severe airframe heating that prevents them using infra-red
guidance. It also commits them to a straight run-in course (or, at best,
gentle curves). They have a heat plume that a thermal sight can detect
while the missile is still kilometers over the horizon.
There are such things as adaptive and iterative guidance systems that can
be applied to subsonic missiles that simply cannot be used on the
hypersonics. Subsonics have much lower signatures so can be more
difficult to spot. They don't guzzle fuel like hypersonics so can deliver
equal punch in a much smaller airframe. And so it goes.
For your information; Russian-style hypersonics are known as "streakers",
Western style highly agile subsonics as "dancers". Both have their place
but their relative merits are still being evaluated with great passion.
What is startling is how few of their naval weapons the Russians have
actually sold. P-270 Moskit has gone to China and they have sold 96 Kh-35
Harpoonski to Algeria. Contrary to your repeated assertions, they have
not sold any of their naval weapons to the US. They have sold a small
number of M-31 target drones to the US via Boeing on the simple logic
that it was cheaper to buy the actual missile in question than to spend
money developing a simulator. M-31 is a version of Kh-31, a short-range
air-to-surface missile, roughly equivalent to Maverick.
As a point of factual accuracy, neither the US nor the UK nor any other
major western sea power has adopted or has any plans to adopt any Russian
designed weapons system.
As a point of factual accuracy, according to SIPRI, Russia is now the 5th
largest arms supplier in the world in terms of value of signed contracts
and its relative position is declining.
I would like to revise my first sentence. please do hold your breath
while waiting, you'll find the experience instructive
Stuart [Slade]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Streakers and dancers complicate intercept in two ways. If we take the
intercept window of a crude, basic anti-ship missile (subsonic,
straight-in) as a baseline there are two options. The first is to use the
Russian approach and get the missile to cross that intercept zone as
quickly as posisble. This means adopting the shortest path across it and
flying that path as fast as possible. Hence P-270. This is a perfectly
viable approach.
The second is to stretch the time the CIWS needs to destroy the missile
to the longest possible point. In effect, this (a) reduces the percentage
chance of the system killing the missile and (b)reduces the number of
inbound systems a single CIWS can engage. One way of doing this is to use
an iterative guidance system in the missile. This works by giving the
missile a fine-cut radar receiver which picks up and localizes the
emissions from the CIWS fire control system. The missile knows its own
course and speed, it now knows the position of the CIWS (and can work out
the course and speed of the target). The computer in the missile knows
the algorithms used by the closed loop tracking system in the CIWS to
correct the aim of the CIWS. it can therefore work out what the firing
correction applied by the CIWS will be and alter the missile's flight
path to be somewhere else. This system is a service reality.
A third method is to physically shrink the envelope. The outer edge of
the intercept window is set by the maximum range at which the inbound
missile can be spotted, the inner edge is the range at which wreckage
from the shot-down missile will still strike the target ship. We can push
the outer edge in by flying the missile lower, by making it more
difficult to spot and by reducing its emissions. We can pull the inner
edge outwards by making sure the shot-down wreckage travels faster.
Putting all this together means that existing streakers fulfill
rerquirement (a) very well at expense of (b). In terms of (c), the
significantly pull the inner edge back (from 1 km to around 2.5) but have
major sacrifices in the outer edge. Their level of airframe heating,
their heat plume, the altitude at which they fly, their active radar
emissions, all mean they can be detected well over the horizon.
On the other hand, dancers make major gains in (b) at cost of performance
in (a). They sacrifice the inner edge of the engagement zone but achieve
major gains in reducing the outer edge by being inconspicuous. Typically,
they come in with their radars off (homing on command or IR), they are
coated with RAM (which streakers can't use since it burns off), they have
little airfrme heating and only a limited plume.
In summary, streakers move fast but have a larger, more distant intercept
zone. dancers move more slowly and evasively and have a much smaller
intercept zone, closer to the target ship. Close your eyes and visualize
it, you'll see what I mean.
This leads to a curious point which comes back to the Soviet's lack of
systems analysis. They designed P-270 to exploit certain weaknesses in
the SPY-1 radar performance. This it does, but by looking at a single bit
of equipment in isolation, they neglected to evaluate the target system
as a whole. Had they done so, they'd have found they'd managed to push
the intercept envelope back into an area where AEGIS works very, very
well. Once Standard SM-2 had been given an IR auxiliary homing system,
it was more than capable of shooting the P-270s out of the sky. Its
essential to think system-to-system NOT weapon-to-weapon.
On average a P-270 weighs about 4.5 times as much as a Harpoon. This
loads the odds in favor of Dancers - remember effectiveness is related to
squares of numbers.
Your comments about Yakhonts containers do not represent new technology
or anything particularly unusual - most western missiles have been
delivered that way since the late 1960s. We treat them as "wooden rounds"
- get them, slip them into the rails, hook them up, run a self-diagnostic
then adjust people's attitude with them.
Sadly, I can deny the Russians are achieving a lot of success; I say
sadly because I thought they were going to do a lot better than they
have. Their equipment has stirred up a lot of interest but relatively
little of that has translated into sales. Where it has, it is usually
because of a lack of any opposition. Malaya represents the only case
where Russian equipment has secured an order in the face of Western
competition.
Stuart "
The Standard which he was referring to is the SM-2 Block IIIB... I believe that after reading his post, one can conclude that the seemingly much poorer performance Harpoon may not necessarily be that bad when compared to its Soviet counterparts..