Missiles. Long range vs short range

PanCotzky

New Member
Good day!

There was an argument that I've encountered, concerning differences between naval tactics of NATO and soviet tactical legacy. The NATO ships are using mainly subsonic anti-ship missiles like "Harpoon" while russian (for example) missile cruisers are armed with supersonic long range missiles, hitting its targets in a range of almost thousand of kilometers. One of the sides argued that the high-speed long range missile is clearly better because, first, it will be fired earlier, second, it will be harder to shoot down. While the other side insisted that modern anti-missile systems totally capable of shooting down supersonic projectiles and the long range of a missile just gives the anti-missile system (provided it has a long range radar) more time to track the target. While the short range missiles gives almost no time to react and if used properly can be much deadlier.

I'm just an enthusiast and I don't know who's wrong and who's right. Both sides has their point on my opinion. But how is it actually works? What tactics are used? How this missiles should be deployed to be effective? Do you have any ideas?
 
This is a good question, and is really not a case of an argument but rather of application. It is all about the doctrines, the NATO naval (and in this case I really mean the US Naval forces) have a fairly large projection of power around each aircraft carrier group in the form of sub/aegis+sm/ram and other defenses, to really take out a ship that gets close you can launch fighters with Air to surface missles or harpoons from the destroyers. However, the projection of power is done via the aircraft on the carriers.

On the other hand you have the Soviet/Russian doctrine, which is based around deterrence of the US Naval groups - the goal there is to take out a carrier group as far away as possible, and to get the missile to it as quickly as possible (thus the range and speed combination ) .

The danger originally was that a carrier based aircraft can carry nuclear ordnance to a target in the soviet/russian heartland. However, this can be accomplished now with a ballistic or cruise missle. However, keep in mind anti surface (ship and ground) missiles are usually carried by ships, strategic aviation (tu-160/tu-22m3), and submarines ( 949xx ) - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oscar-class_submarine - which add range to the missile platform itself.

The soviet subs historically were too noisy to be undetected (although yes a few of the subs have surfaced near or among fleets). So missiles were really the only option to deal with a naval threat for the Soviets. And the missiles were made smarter, and tried to use countermeasures as well ..

The missile, when fired in a swarm (group of 4–8) has a unique guidance mode. One of the weapons climbs to a higher altitude and designates targets while the others attack. The missile responsible for target designation climbs in short pop-ups, so as to be harder to intercept. The missiles are linked by data connections, forming a network. If the designating missile is destroyed the next missile will rise to assume its purpose. Missiles are able to differentiate targets, detect groups and prioritize targets automatically using information gathered during flight and types of ships and battle formations pre-programmed in an onboard computer. They will attack targets in order of priority, highest to lowest: after destroying the first target, any remaining missiles will attack the next prioritized target.[6][7] Such description received some doubts.[8] The missile has a means of countering the attacking anti-missiles. Also, onboard computer has data to counter the enemy's electronic warfare and tactics of evasion from the fire of air defense.[9​
] Ref: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P-700_Granit

The salvo firing and high speed would increase the chance of a hit on a group,

https://youtu.be/nhj8ITvp-pw?t=21s

and keep in mind the naval projection was always much larger on the NATO/US side, so Soviet/Russia had to have a lot more missles, where as the US side really didnt have to worry about a naval threat from the Soviet Side, and anything that came along the water would be taken out by subs, planes, harpoons, etc..

Hopefully this makes sense and helps, perhaps the rest of the good folks at the forum can chime in!

Plaz


Good day!

There was an argument that I've encountered, concerning differences between naval tactics of NATO and soviet tactical legacy. The NATO ships are using mainly subsonic anti-ship missiles like "Harpoon" while russian (for example) missile cruisers are armed with supersonic long range missiles, hitting its targets in a range of almost thousand of kilometers. One of the sides argued that the high-speed long range missile is clearly better because, first, it will be fired earlier, second, it will be harder to shoot down. While the other side insisted that modern anti-missile systems totally capable of shooting down supersonic projectiles and the long range of a missile just gives the anti-missile system (provided it has a long range radar) more time to track the target. While the short range missiles gives almost no time to react and if used properly can be much deadlier.

I'm just an enthusiast and I don't know who's wrong and who's right. Both sides has their point on my opinion. But how is it actually works? What tactics are used? How this missiles should be deployed to be effective? Do you have any ideas?
 

StobieWan

Super Moderator
Staff member
Good day!

There was an argument that I've encountered, concerning differences between naval tactics of NATO and soviet tactical legacy. The NATO ships are using mainly subsonic anti-ship missiles like "Harpoon" while russian (for example) missile cruisers are armed with supersonic long range missiles, hitting its targets in a range of almost thousand of kilometers. One of the sides argued that the high-speed long range missile is clearly better because, first, it will be fired earlier, second, it will be harder to shoot down. While the other side insisted that modern anti-missile systems totally capable of shooting down supersonic projectiles and the long range of a missile just gives the anti-missile system (provided it has a long range radar) more time to track the target. While the short range missiles gives almost no time to react and if used properly can be much deadlier.

I'm just an enthusiast and I don't know who's wrong and who's right. Both sides has their point on my opinion. But how is it actually works? What tactics are used? How this missiles should be deployed to be effective? Do you have any ideas?
Supersonic vs subsonic is a tradeoff - given both types are sea skimmers which run at low altitude, where the air is dense, the supersonic missiles will take less time to cover the distance from horizon to target which cuts into reaction times. However, they will also be a fairly easy to spot target as they'll be quite hot from friction heating, and can't easily make changes in heading at that speed. I know the literature suggests that the Russian stuff can arrive at Mach 3 and then jink all over the place but in reality, making course changes at that speed without over stressing the missile is difficult (there's a famous case of a Blackbird making an egress from target at M3 and missing their tanker by 100 miles despite making their tightest turn possible)

The US have been drilling against various threats for decades and from all I can gather, the ones to worry about are stealthier more agile missiles like the Norwegian NSSM.

One point I suspect that not a lot of people are aware when discussing threats - the USN has one Spruance class rigged as a test ship - they can run the whole thing by remote and actually fire missiles directly at it (the actual target is a test barge towed behind it but it's not unknown for pieces of the missile to impact the test ship as well)

So, if the USN says, for instance, that RAM can hit a supersonic missile, then that's been tested in a very practical manner.
 

colay1

Member
Can't post a link but the RAN achieved a successful series of intercepts a couple of years back vs a variety of missile threats, including supersonic missiles, presumably Coyote.


Missile first for Navy


The Royal Australian Navy (RAN) and the Defence Materiel Organisation (DMO) have recently completed the final Operational Acceptance Trial for the Australian-designed Phased Array Radar and Combat Management System upgrades to the Anzac Class frigate Anti-Ship Missile Defence (ASMD) system.

The trial included a number of successful Evolved Sea Sparrow Missile (ESSM) firings from HMAS Perth at the Pacific Missile Range Facility (PMRF) in Hawaii. During the trials, the ASMD system was challenged by a number of demanding firing scenarios. These included successful missile engagements against multiple sea-skimming targets including, for the first time in the RAN, an engagement by an ESSM against one of the world’s most advanced supersonic targets...
 

Toblerone

Banned Member
Even with a system that has 100% success rate in intercepting incoming missiles during tests, the possibility of a successful saturation attack is there, correct?

The russians must have run simulations and made plans for dozens of missiles fired against a carrier group. Even expending 200 legacy cruise missiles to destroy a US carrier would be well worth it, one would think.
 

John Fedup

The Bunker Group
Even with a system that has 100% success rate in intercepting incoming missiles during tests, the possibility of a successful saturation attack is there, correct?

The russians must have run simulations and made plans for dozens of missiles fired against a carrier group. Even expending 200 legacy cruise missiles to destroy a US carrier would be well worth it, one would think.
I am sure both sides have made such simulations. I am not expecting the results to be made public anytime soon. The importance the US is giving to energy directed weapons may be a clue.
 

Ranger25

Active Member
Staff member
Even with a system that has 100% success rate in intercepting incoming missiles during tests, the possibility of a successful saturation attack is there, correct?

The russians must have run simulations and made plans for dozens of missiles fired against a carrier group. Even expending 200 legacy cruise missiles to destroy a US carrier would be well worth it, one would think.
And remember USN tactics are not just to sit back and intercept incoming threats, but to take out the archer at long range
 

StobieWan

Super Moderator
Staff member
Even with a system that has 100% success rate in intercepting incoming missiles during tests, the possibility of a successful saturation attack is there, correct?

The russians must have run simulations and made plans for dozens of missiles fired against a carrier group. Even expending 200 legacy cruise missiles to destroy a US carrier would be well worth it, one would think.
Back in the cold war, the major snag was finding the carrier, but yes, they did rehearse multiple aircraft striking against a group and it was generally held that they'd be losing half or more of the participating aircraft even if the attack was unsuccessful

I'm sure if you throw enough missiles at a carrier group then you'd nail it but I'm not sure right now that the Russians have enough missile carriers to do the trick.

.
 

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Back in the cold war, the major snag was finding the carrier, but yes, they did rehearse multiple aircraft striking against a group and it was generally held that they'd be losing half or more of the participating aircraft even if the attack was unsuccessful

I'm sure if you throw enough missiles at a carrier group then you'd nail it but I'm not sure right now that the Russians have enough missile carriers to do the trick.

.
And of course today's shipboard sensors, SAM systems, C4 and CIWS is a lot better than what it was during or at the end of the Cold War. Having said that AShM technology has improved at the same or a similar rate as well.
 

StobieWan

Super Moderator
Staff member
The russians must have run simulations and made plans for dozens of missiles fired against a carrier group. Even expending 200 legacy cruise missiles to destroy a US carrier would be well worth it, one would think.
Just coming back to this - "legacy cruise missiles" won't be any use against a ship, not at all - you need to fire something with a sensor capable of acquiring and tracking a moving target. TLAM BLock IV does that but a missile designed to go to one point in space and then hit that target will not be effective as the carrier group will have moved in any one of a number of directions or changed speed etc.
 

colay1

Member
The Lexington Institute came out with a position paper at a recent Naval Strike Forum that addresses the CSG's ability to operate in the modern threat environment.
Can't post the link but anyone interested may google "what it takes to successfully attack an american aircraft carrier".
 

Belesarius

New Member
The Lexington Institute came out with a position paper at a recent Naval Strike Forum that addresses the CSG's ability to operate in the modern threat environment.
Can't post the link but anyone interested may google "what it takes to successfully attack an american aircraft carrier".
Great read. Thanks. :)
 

Rimasta

Member
Even with a system that has 100% success rate in intercepting incoming missiles during tests, the possibility of a successful saturation attack is there, correct?

The russians must have run simulations and made plans for dozens of missiles fired against a carrier group. Even expending 200 legacy cruise missiles to destroy a US carrier would be well worth it, one would think.
I think a priority for US/NATO forces would be to look for the platforms. The Russians may have plenty of missiles to spare, but a much more limited number of recon aircraft, tankers, and long range aviation assets. I'm assuming if Ivan fires 200 missiles, it's an air attack.

The novel by Tom Clancy "Red Storm Rising" had a chapter called "Dance of the Vampires" in which Russian naval aviation pulled off an interesting and successful attack on the Nimitz Carrier group. The Russians used swarms of drones with transponders that made them look like bombers on radar so that NATO fighters would waste their AAM's on BVR targets before realizing they'd been had. A work fiction, but one that can give ideas.

Deception can be a force multiplier.
 

CB90

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
I am sure both sides have made such simulations. I am not expecting the results to be made public anytime soon. The importance the US is giving to energy directed weapons may be a clue.
The reason for interest in DEWs is that they're ridiculously cheap per engagement.

While the upfront cost may be more expensive, when your magazine is literally your fuel bunker, you get a lot of shots, without paying a whole lot of money (order of magnitude in the $100's vice $1M's per engagement).

This is especially nice against "cheap" threats, like lower end missiles, UAVs, etc.

But missiles are actually in some ways better against large salvo attacks. You can launch missiles pretty rapidly, with each X number of missiles returning an expected "kill."
Lasers on the other hand, are engaging their targets one at a time, and in that kind of environment, having to engage for even several seconds at a time means the other missiles of the "swarm" are getting closer.
Additionally, lasers draw a lot of power. Which leads to the challenge of power storage ("batteries") vs power generation and handling.
 

Toblerone

Banned Member
A question about lasers as point defense. The adversary can launch several AshM during stormy conditions, their onboard radar should be relatively unaffected, correct? But the lasers will be almost useless because I'd expect the beam to be really weakened with all the water it will have to go through.

And what about cloud overcast above the ship? How is the laser supposed to beam through the clouds to a cruise missile darting in its top speed towards it? And do more than just heat it up a little?

Also what if missiles get retrofitted with ceramic-protected tips/surfaces. Won't they then be drastically more resistant to laser beams?

I've always disregarded this star wars technology as impractical but it seems it may be going into actual service soon, weird, heh.
 

CB90

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
A question about lasers as point defense. The adversary can launch several AshM during stormy conditions, their onboard radar should be relatively unaffected, correct? But the lasers will be almost useless because I'd expect the beam to be really weakened with all the water it will have to go through.

And what about cloud overcast above the ship? How is the laser supposed to beam through the clouds to a cruise missile darting in its top speed towards it? And do more than just heat it up a little?

Also what if missiles get retrofitted with ceramic-protected tips/surfaces. Won't they then be drastically more resistant to laser beams?

I've always disregarded this star wars technology as impractical but it seems it may be going into actual service soon, weird, heh.
Radar is still affected by weather. Heavy seas leads to surface chop, which is something the radar has to filter out while looking for its target. But yes, if the laser is traveling through water/fog it will have its power on target reduced significantly.

Cloud overcast impact would depend on how thick the cloud cover is. However, many anti ship missiles also use IR seekers for terminal guidance...presenting yet another issue that cuts both ways.

Ceramics retrofitted to missiles is probably impractical. In a theoretical sense, yes you could use ceramics, but as missiles are often going to be experiencing pretty rough handling, it would seem to not be a very practical material for the job. Additionally, I'm not sure how suitable ceramics would be for a radome.
 

PanCotzky

New Member
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #17
Wow! That's a whole lot of information! Thank you!

There is a logical question. Is there a soviet/russian analogies for an AEGIS system or a similar defence concepts? I tried to find an information about this but the only thing I've found is that russians have planes on developing one and some bullcrap (excusez mon français) from some unreliable sources like RT channel and veteranstoday.com about anti-AEGIS systems. Does someone know about such systems (aegis-like and anti-aegis)? Had they ever existed or at least being developed?

Correction. I've found out that the source speaking about russian AEGIS analog (sputniknews.com) is also a department of RT. So it is also presumably unreliable.
 
Last edited:

CB90

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Wow! That's a whole lot of information! Thank you!

There is a logical question. Is there a soviet/russian analogies for an AEGIS system or a similar defence concepts? I tried to find an information about this but the only thing I've found is that russians have planes on developing one and some bullcrap (excusez mon français) from some unreliable sources like RT channel and veteranstoday.com about anti-AEGIS systems. Does someone know about such systems (aegis-like and anti-aegis)? Had they ever existed or at least being developed?

Correction. I've found out that the source speaking about russian AEGIS analog (sputniknews.com) is also a department of RT. So it is also presumably unreliable.
Aegis is just the name given to the whole air defense package, which happens to be highly automated.

Russian Kirov, Udaloy, and Gorshkov all seem to have some of the stuff on the surface that could do the job reasonably well (in other words, it has the weapons and radars). Further comparison would require knowledge of the computer systems and software within, which is what makes a detailed comparison impossible.
 

colay1

Member
Also, while AEGIS gets most of the attention, non-AEGIS ships like Carriers and Gators can also rely on their own Ship Self Defense System. SSDS integrates the ship's sensor, weapons and countermeasures to provide organic air defense.
 

PanCotzky

New Member
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #20
Ok. I've asked the wrong question. Does russian fleets rely on any type of self defense network and measures similar to those used in american carrier battle groups? I assume that there is one but it newer addressed in any argument. Most of the time people discus soviet/russian military ships only by their offensive capabilities, trying to change the subject each time, whenever defense is addressed.
 
Top