Tomahawk Cruise Missile Able To Hit A Moving Target (Ship)

Discussion in 'Warfare / Military' started by APACHERAT, Nov 1, 2017.

  1. APACHERAT

    APACHERAT Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2013
    Messages:
    38,029
    Likes Received:
    16,024
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    The Tomahawk cruise missile was never successfully able to hit a moving target like a ship at sea.

    But a couple of years ago there was scuttlebutt that one was in development.
    Last year the USNI reported they were in the pipeline and will soon be entering the fleet.

    But it's not what you think.

    FYI:
    There's a video. At 2:32 I said to myself "Holey King Neptune Green Amphibious ****...is that what I think it is !!!" Did they accidentally leave someone on board of the target ship ?

     
    US Conservative likes this.
  2. Questerr

    Questerr Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2007
    Messages:
    63,175
    Likes Received:
    4,961
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The problem is that they are slow as hell.

    Also wasn't the Tomahawk originally fielded as an anti-ship missile in addition to a nuclear strike cruise missile?
     
  3. APACHERAT

    APACHERAT Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2013
    Messages:
    38,029
    Likes Received:
    16,024
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    All of America's anti ship missiles are sub sonic.

    If I remember correctly the Tomahawk originally was designed for the Air Force and was suppose to be a bomber launched nuke and that when they launched the tomahawks most would be unarmed, just decoys. The Soviets wouldn't know which one was actually a nuke. It was during the Carter administration.

    Mushroom mentioned a while back there was at one time an anti ship Tomahawk. How successful were they ??? They seem to have been pulled out of service.

    excerpt:
     
  4. Dayton3

    Dayton3 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 3, 2009
    Messages:
    15,865
    Likes Received:
    3,597
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    And I've looked at the video thoroughly. While it at first appears there is someone standing near the shipping container as the Tomahawk hits it. Turns out to be just a mixture of shadows and debris.
     
  5. APACHERAT

    APACHERAT Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2013
    Messages:
    38,029
    Likes Received:
    16,024
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    It was two birds, seagulls I believe.

    At 2:53 they slow down the video and you clearly see they were bids.

    Then they put up on the screen "The Survived" to prevent a massive demonstration by the left outside of the Point Mugu NAS main gate.
     
  6. waltky

    waltky Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2009
    Messages:
    29,831
    Likes Received:
    1,000
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Now we got a missile dat can knock out a whole buncha enemy ships at once...
    [​IMG]
    B-1B's Long Range Anti-Ship Missile Strikes Multiple Targets in New Test
    15 Dec 2017 | The U.S. military is prepping for anti-surface warfare to make a comeback, and it's moved one step closer with another successful test of the latest air-launched Long Range Anti-Ship Missile.
     
  7. Mushroom

    Mushroom Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2009
    Messages:
    9,553
    Likes Received:
    765
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I think that is more a matter of doctrine than anything else.

    The main intent for ship launched anti-ship missiles is to either destroy singular targets, or as a stand-off weapon to make enemy ships keep their distance. And in the era before CIWS that was often more than enough. There was little a ship could do to defeat such a weapon back then. For our strike capabilities the tactic was to use aircraft firing salvos of missiles, to overload any defensive systems the enemy ships might have.

    And there is one Anti-Ship missile that has been in service for over 30 years that us supersonic. The AGM-88 HARM can reach MACH 2, but it is intended to attack the RADAR of a ship, rendering it combat ineffective, not to actually sink a ship. But in modern naval combat, that would be enough. With no long range RADAR, a ship is limited to only what it's short distance defensive RADAR can see, it can not take offensive actions (unless it wants to make a mad dash and try to go broadsides with it's CIWS systems).

    And with the advent of smarter missiles, the line between anti-ship and ground attack missiles is shrinking. I have heard rumors that the AGM-130 has been going through a redesign to make it supersonic and to operate with an internal LASER guidance system. Essentially it is a rocket pack that is strapped onto a 2,000 pound bomb. Designed to attack land targets, with LASER guidance there is nothing stopping it from attacking ships.
     
    APACHERAT likes this.
  8. APACHERAT

    APACHERAT Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2013
    Messages:
    38,029
    Likes Received:
    16,024
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male

    What I have recently read in "Proceedings" and other military trade publications that the Russians super sonic Mach 2.5 anti ship missiles sound scary but they are traveling so fast that a large percentage of the incoming missiles will miss their targets.

    That America's anti ship missiles are sub sonic for a reason, they are more accurate and will have a higher percentage of hitting their targets.

    The Navy's and Air Force newest air launched anti ship missiles just entering service are sub sonic.

    I read that an Air Force B-1 just tested one of the new sub-sonic anti ship missile last week. I believe it has a 1,000 lb warhead.

    Naval surface warfare doctrine and tactics are always changing. The era of "crossing the T" is history and would only be used when all anti-ship missiles have been expended and guns vs. guns come into play.

    One destroyer captain told me that when a ship detects an incoming anti-ship missile that the ship quickly maneuvers and puts its stern into the incoming threat making a smaller target.
     
  9. Mushroom

    Mushroom Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2009
    Messages:
    9,553
    Likes Received:
    765
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Speed has a major impact on accuracy, especially if it is only traveling in 2 dimensions with a hard surface. A very different environment than trying to attack an aircraft. Of course, the Russians have always preferred the brute force approach.
     
    APACHERAT likes this.
  10. tkolter

    tkolter Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,075
    Likes Received:
    577
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Then there are attack subs where there are two threats other subs and targets (everything floating on the surface) and they also can fire tactical missiles. So the surface ships aren't always the real threat. And are subs aren't outdated and hardly easy to deal with.
     
  11. Kash

    Kash Member

    Joined:
    May 19, 2016
    Messages:
    187
    Likes Received:
    19
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Neg. US opened two projects for shipkiller, the LRASM-A and LRASM-B.
    B - version was to be supersonic. But the development stalled and was shut down.
    US is very strong in slow, fuel efficient, long range missiles, Russians are good at trans and hyper sound speeds. Both sides placed their bets where they are good at.

    Why on Earth does that supposed happen? Why on Earth a 2d guidance should be less accurate than 3d guidance?
     
  12. Kash

    Kash Member

    Joined:
    May 19, 2016
    Messages:
    187
    Likes Received:
    19
    Trophy Points:
    18
    No. This is ridiculous, speed does not affect precision. Command and guidance system affect precision. The command and guidance systems can be effective and can be ineffective. If the missile has an effective control and guidance system, the precision with be within needed parameters, the speed does not matter.


    We absolutely do not know that. It is very possible that “crossing the T” is applicable to modern missile combat, for the same reason as it was with guns.


    Newer really understood these destroyer captains. The missile happily directs itself to the stern of the ship and hits the ship in or above the engine, the most critical part of the ship there is. If the missile does not explode (for some reason), the missile will not just fall out on the other side, but it will rather wreck its way through the entire ship from stern to bow.
     
  13. Kash

    Kash Member

    Joined:
    May 19, 2016
    Messages:
    187
    Likes Received:
    19
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Modern sub will “hear” a Carrier class contact from like 200kilometers. From 200 kilometers the sub can launch its LRASM or Granit missiles and go home quietly. If the sub receives external guidance (like from a satellite), it can nail the CV from 900 – 500 kilometers. The sub is not really outdated, generally speaking the sub is the future. Though it has plenty of drawbacks compared to a ship.
     
  14. waltky

    waltky Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2009
    Messages:
    29,831
    Likes Received:
    1,000
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Granny says, "Dat's good...

    ... mebbe dey can use `em...

    ... to shove up dem jihadi's butts...

    ... as dey runnin' away."
     
  15. Mushroom

    Mushroom Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2009
    Messages:
    9,553
    Likes Received:
    765
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Which are both modern-future weapons. I am talking about past and current doctrine. Current doctrine has aircraft being the main strike weapon, as you can send the aircraft and attack out of the range of our own ships, keeping them safe as we sink their ships.

    If our ships are in range to use their missiles, the enemy is in range to do the exact same thing.

    Because if you are trying to hit a target that is up, you can move in every single direction.

    In the case of traditional anti-ship missiles, they really are only traveling in 2 dimensions. They have to stay low, to avoid detection and interception by the target vessels. They also can not go down, because that is the water obviously. They fly in a very narrow operational window, and can only change course in terms of direction to target.

    And speed plays into accuracy because of the ways an intercept can occur. You can constantly steer towards it, and you can also always see it. Your target is in the sky, so is impossible to hide. You know exactly where it is at all times.

    In an anti-ship missile, the target is actually invisible until the terminal phase of the attack. You are shooting based on where it is when you shoot, or where you think it will be if it is out of the line of sight of the attacker.

    This all deals with the horizon and line of sight. Sea skimmer missiles do not have that until the very end.

    Yes, actually it does.

    Remember, we are talking about sea skimmer missiles. Especially with one like the BrahMos, that can hit speeds close to MACH 3 (MACH 7+ in the BrahMos II). It is screaming along at roughly 4 meters over the surface, which gives it a relatively narrow field of view over the horizon.

    These essentially fly a course that is programmed in before launch. And it is expecting to see the target when it gets within range. And as soon as the launch is detected, all ships are going to immediately start evasive movements.

    So by the time the missile actually gets to the target (around 10 minutes), odds are the target is a mile or so in a different direction. And it is not going to "pop up" until the final minute of it's attack. By that time, it may very well be in a position that because of the speed it can not turn sharp enough to intercept it.

    When you are talking about aircraft and missiles traveling at speeds like this, the turn radius is insane. To give an idea, at MACH 3, the SR-71 required 145 miles, taking 4 minutes to accomplish a 180 degree turn. Cut that in half assuming a similar performance for a BrahMos, a 90 degree turn would take 90 miles and 2 minutes.

    Now do you have an idea what is meant by loss of accuracy?

    Wow, and I thought I was joking when I discussed going broadsides with CIWS.

    No, there is no "Crossing the T". That went obsolete in the middle of the 19th century with the advent of the turret. Even in the big battleships of the mid-20th century, that was no longer needed.

    It is even less needed with missiles. They literally can be fired from pretty much any position (especially since so many today are vertically launched). The missile goes straight up in leaving the tube, then angles toward it's target.

    It has a lot to do with 2 things.

    First of all, RADAR cross-section. The larger the target, the farther away you can see it. The smaller the target, the closer you have to be to see it. Also it is the use of countermeasures. The smaller the target area, the greater chance that CM and ECM will be effective and cause the missile to miss the target.

    And finally, it presents the longest axis of the ship for attack. A powerful missile might even be able to penetrate both sides of a destroyer or frigate, causing not one but two holes. By hitting the stern, that would not happen. So damage control only has a single hole to deal with.

    And when it comes to damage control, when the hole is in the bow or stern, it makes flooding easier to control. You only have to deal with the pitch of the ship front to back, not the roll that if uncontrolled can cause a capsize.

    I hope this makes sense to you.
     
    APACHERAT likes this.
  16. Kash

    Kash Member

    Joined:
    May 19, 2016
    Messages:
    187
    Likes Received:
    19
    Trophy Points:
    18
    I would agree absolutely a year ago. I would say that the fleet would have its supersonic missile in 5 years time from the moment they wanted it because that’s not such a big issue. Now I have doubts. The hyperspeed project – failed, the supersonic – failed, even the railgun failed (nothing to do with missiles, but a lot to do with technical risks and budget assessments). Now I do not know what to say…
    This is Russian “Phalanx”, or last line…
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kashtan_CIWS
    Two Gatlings, not one. 30mm heavy rounds not 20mm. Eight fast reload missiles, no comments. Flir, Optical and radio channels. All designed against a shipkiller. And this system is 30 years old, it is considered Outdaited! It will be replaced with a better one. Where the old systems will go? They will be sold left and right.
    And the US fleet is still working on a subsonic shipkiller? And considers it “advanced”?


    The only question is the intercept envelope? In 2d you have no worry about 3rd channel which is altitude. The target is basically stationary (compared to your speed). You have no need to estimate your and targets energy, no need to counter its evasive maneuvers, as in areal intercept you are newer flying towards a target, you are flying towards the intercept point which can change dramatically when the target is maneuvering. The only task is to add structural hardness to the missile, so it will be able to turn tightly when the target appears on the horizon.

    This is SR71
    https://books.google.ru/books?id=rv...zAq0Q6AEISTAE#v=onepage&q=sr-71 max g&f=false

    As you see, its maximum G load is 1.5 G when supersonic. This means, that this airplane is incapable of tight turns. Blackbird is not actually an airplane, it is a Stradivari hurled through air at mach3. It is incredibly fragile, it lacks structural hardness to support its weight on the ground (during take off) with fully loaded fuel tanks.
    On the contrary, the air to air Python missile can do a 40-70G turn (depending on version)
    Granit can do a 7G-10G turn. (Granit can always deploy one missile out of the pack for radar observation to place the target into the middle of the envelope).
    Brahnmos is a question, it is less complicated than Granit, it needs to have the target within Radar and Manuvering envelope to turn towards the target when it appears above horizon. But why do we think this is an issue? Brahmos is much more modern than Granit (new materials), and the only limit to its turning rate is the dissension of its designer. They can afford to give it 10-20-30 G turn structural strength. It does not depend on the speed, it depends on the radar envelope and desired turn envelope.

    Crossing the T has two meanings. One is turning 90 degrees to the enemy to allow port salvo. The other is allowing maximum of your turrets, to fire on minimum of enemy turrets.
    Japs showed Russians what is means in Tcusima battle in 1905. Where the “-“ was the Jap fleet. The “I”, was the Russian fleet. Which allowed majority of Jap fleet to engage one or two ships of the Russian fleet. And sink them one by one.
    With nowadays AA and Jamming, the missiles should be launched in salvos to overwhelm AA. And the Salvo means to bring maximum of your launchers versus minimum of enemy launchers. And this applies not only to a single ship, but to entire battle groups.

    When you are a sea skimmer. You will see the enemy ship from 20 miles or so. Coming closer, a half or two thirds of the ship will be above radar horizon. Taking into account that you can easily lock on a ship from 60-80km (40 years ago), decreasing radar cross section by 50-70% within 20 miles is useless.

    I have already posted:

    Disregard second missile, look on the first one that failed to detonate.
    Imagine it is the aft that it hits, it wrecks engine, penetrates other side below water line, that’s it. The ship is mission killed, but floating, you can fight to save it.
    If the missile would hit aft among the centerline, it would wreck engine AND would wreck center of the ship were auxiliary diesel is normally located. With no auxiliary power you cant pump water to regulate centerline, you cant fight fire, you cant return fire (no power). The chances of surviving have decreased.
     
  17. APACHERAT

    APACHERAT Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2013
    Messages:
    38,029
    Likes Received:
    16,024
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Excellent video.



    Navy Warships Get New Heavy Missile: 2,500-Lb LRASM

    It’s a big day for the 2,500-pound Long-Range Anti-Ship Missile, LRASM. This morning, contractor Lockheed Martin announced an $86.5 million contract to build the first 23 production missiles – as opposed to test weapons – for use by Navy Super Hornet fighters and Air Force B-1B bombers. Lockheed also announce this afternoon that it had, for the first time, successfully test-fired a modified LRASM from the kind of launchers used on Navy ships.

    Ship-borne launchers dramatically expand the ways the US military can use the missile. LRASM has come a long way from its origins in the air-to-ground JASSM program (Joint Air To Surface Standoff Missile). While aircraft can carry missiles further and faster than warships, they can’t carry nearly as many, which means what ships lack in agility they make up for in striking and staying power. At the very maximum, with nothing held back for defense (which would be tactical insanity), an entire carrier air wing of 44 fighters could only carry 88 LRASMs, while a single Arleigh Burke destroyer could carry 96.

    Until recently, the only missile Navy ships could fire at enemy ships was the aging Harpoon, whose 70 to 150 mile range (depending on model) is badly outranged by newer Russian and Chinese weapons. Last year, the Pentagon’s Strategic Capabilities Office modified the Navy’s SM-6 Standard Missile, originally designed for anti-aircraft and missile defense, to hit ships. The SM-6 has better range than the Harpoon – “over 200 miles” is as specific as the Navy gets — but it also has a much smaller warhead. Harpoon delivers almost 500 pounds compared to SM-6’s 140, which is adequate for downing planes and incoming cruise missiles, but a little light to sink an enemy ship.

    Now LRASM comes along with long range – “over 200 miles” again — and a huge warhead, 1,000 pounds. Admittedly, the subsonic LRASM is slower than the SM-6, which reaches Mach 3.5 to catch enemy missiles, or than the Russian Klub, which accelerates to Mach 2.9 for its final approach. But the Navy deliberately opted for a slower but stealthier and smarter missile. The LRASM is designed to navigate autonomously around enemy radar and defenses, with enough artificial intelligence aboard that it can change course without human supervision or satellite guidance. (The Lockheed video at the top of this article vividly lays out this approach).

    source -> https://breakingdefense.com/2017/07/navy-warships-get-new-heavy-missile-2500-lb-lrasm/
     
  18. APACHERAT

    APACHERAT Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2013
    Messages:
    38,029
    Likes Received:
    16,024
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    [​IMG]

    US Navy anti-ship missiles are badly outranged by Russian, Chinese, and Indian counterparts.
     
  19. Mushroom

    Mushroom Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2009
    Messages:
    9,553
    Likes Received:
    765
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Not when you take into account CM and ECM.

    Where do you think the engine is in ships, in the tail? These are not classic Volkswagen Beetles.

    [​IMG]

    See the two stacks, placed midships? The engines are below that. And there are many blast doors between the aft of the ship and the engines.
     
    APACHERAT likes this.
  20. APACHERAT

    APACHERAT Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2013
    Messages:
    38,029
    Likes Received:
    16,024
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    :rock_slayer:

    [​IMG]


    The best destroyer to ever to go to war. It was able to take numerous hits even from gun cruisers, bombs and torpedoes and stay afloat and keep on fighting.

    [​IMG]
     
    Mushroom likes this.
  21. Kash

    Kash Member

    Joined:
    May 19, 2016
    Messages:
    187
    Likes Received:
    19
    Trophy Points:
    18
    The music and the 3d modeling is excellent, description of weapon capabilities is for 6 year olds

    And what do you expect them to say? Sorry, we spent the long range budget on the railgun, on the Zumwalt, on the laser and on the 800k$ smart shell that even US Navy cannot afford?
     
  22. Kash

    Kash Member

    Joined:
    May 19, 2016
    Messages:
    187
    Likes Received:
    19
    Trophy Points:
    18
    If the missile can lock from 60km to a 10sqm target. Than it can lock from 20km to a 3.3sqm target. That is what we know from geometry. Dependence of radar gain from distance versus the ECM source power from distance is a question. Hopefully we will never know who will prevail as only practice will tell :).

    I am a dummy! Of course the ship will try to hide its bow engine behind the aft engine. I should have figured that out myself :). Many thanks for the tip :)
     
  23. APACHERAT

    APACHERAT Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2013
    Messages:
    38,029
    Likes Received:
    16,024
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    And two weeks ago the Navy's second Zumwalt class destroyer broke down. just like the first Zumwalt destroyer.

    Each round for the Zumwalt's pop gun cost $800,000. :eyepopping:
     
  24. Baff

    Baff Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2016
    Messages:
    9,469
    Likes Received:
    1,983
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Out of date.
    Anti missiles systems are effective vs subsonic munitions.

    Naval technology is the slowest to change. Naval battles are rare. Once in a century.
    So ships get upgraded far less often than say planes or tanks.

    With regards to where you need to hit a ship with a missile, basically anywhere.
    Exocet kills famously superheated the entire superstructure of the ship.

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    A torpedo on the other hand snaps the hull in two from below.

    [​IMG]

    There is nowhere to hide on a ship.
     
    Last edited: Dec 27, 2017
  25. APACHERAT

    APACHERAT Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2013
    Messages:
    38,029
    Likes Received:
    16,024
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    In less than two decades the U.S.Navy has become the most politically correct navy to ever sail on the seven seas.
    Well today only capable of sailing on two of those seas at any given time.

    The U.S. Navy has turned warships into love boats.

    Sexist politically incorrect urinals have been replaced with PC gender friendly commodes.

    Sailors who leave the toilet seat up will find themselves in front of a Captains Mast.

    Sailors utility uniforms have been replaced with plumbers overalls.

    All Marine ship detachments have been removed for all navy ships ignoring Admiral David Porter when he said "A ship without MARINES is like a garment without buttons."

    U.S. Navy training no longer turns out real sailors who can navigate and maneuver a ship at sea without running into other ships.

    That's a lot of changes in just a short time.


    It seems a sailor can hide on a ship for at least one week.

    Missing' US Navy sailor found hiding in ship's engine room

    A U.S. Navy sailor who was presumed lost at sea – but had actually been hiding in the engine room of his ship the entire time – was charged last week with dereliction of duty.

    Petty Officer 3rd Class Peter Mims, who was working on the USS Shiloh, admitted last week he actively avoided searches while military officers were looking for him, 7th Fleet spokesman Lt. Paul Newell told Fox News.

    Mims, 23, was reported missing June 8 while the ship was near Okinawa, Japan, sparking a wide ocean search. He was thought to have gone overboard.

    Military officials said they spent 50 hours searching for him in an area that covered 5,500 square miles. The search was suspended three days later, but the crew continued looking for him onboard the vessel.

    Crew members were planning a memorial service for Mims when he was found in the engine room on June 15...

    http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/07/1...ngine-room-charged-with-dereliction-duty.html
     
    MMC likes this.

Share This Page