Kh-15S "fast" death to ships

[Pilotasso]

Topol-M, try to loose yourself from the idea of russian weapons being made to target american CVG's. Only way to attack CVG's with a possibility to actually hurt them are torpedos, and then best would be nuclear torpedos.

 

Russia wants to sell this weapons to countries wich advesaries don't have the latest and greatest ADs around. Cold war is LOOOOONG over.

 

A more suitable debate would be: How can a Pakistani or Indian ship be defended against the Kh-15S and not a SM-6 equipped, gold plated USN DD ;)

 

Agreed, the louder a goverment talks about its weapons the more likely it is to be merchadising them and less likely they actualy are the most capable weapons arround. Those who do have them are mostly quiet about it. :)

 

Truth is that current russian adminsitration is the most armamantist since the fall of USSR and its armed forces are far from being up to par despite efforts to modernise it. When the current mandate ends it will loose momentum.

 

Europe and US continue to reduce its efectives at the same time they are modernised. They are gradualy losing expressivity in terms of raw numbers.

 

 

Asia is the place currently on an arms race wich is both a blessing and a curse. I can see vast arsenals growing, numericaly speaking they are aproaching the largest nations of NATO but with a rather rag tag mix of copied, hybrid and comercialy avaiable set of technologies in their units, though I suspect in the long term this situation might be much improved and possibly Asian nations such as India and china and the other smaller nations toguether might surpass NATO some day. Hope not.

Edited August 18, 2009 by Pilotasso

[Groove]

I`m far from the idea of Russia vs US military conflict. At least not in close future. But i disagree that the customers of russian weaponry wouldn`t use it against US hardware in case of war actions. There are many big customers with billions of dollars of orders and contracts. I don`t want to politicize the matter but the possibility of such weapons to be used against US assets exists. To say: "We are not interested in what missiles you guys have, cause we have missiles too." is not serious. So to say you should be prepared for all kind of attacks with all means. In reality what i believe we are trying to find out here is how ships currently in service are prepared to deal with a threat like Kh-15S or similar missiles. When you think of it not all US military ships are part of the Aegis system and not all have top notch defence from all types of threats meaning you shouldn`t send them here and there without additional support thinking they are invulnerable. You can find examples of badly damaged US ships in the gulf due to missile fire and those were not Kh-15S...

 

Im not quite sure you got my message, although you love to play the cold war scenarios.

 

But coming up with your several missile hits of USN Ships i can remember of only one which was the USS Stark hit by one Exocet. IIRC USS Starks defense system were turned OFF.

 

Additionally i would like to know which country in your opinion would be, lets call it "brave" enough to attack an USN with ASMs.

[topol-m]

Direct copy from wiki:

"The ship was struck on May 17, 1987, by two Exocet antiship missiles fired from an Iraqi Mirage F1 fighter during the Iran–Iraq War. The fighter had taken off from Shaibah at 20:00 and had flown south into the Persian Gulf. The fighter fired the first Exocet missile from a range of 22.5 nautical miles, and the second from 15.5 nautical miles, at about the time the fighter was given a routine radio warning by the Stark.[1] The frigate did not detect the missiles with radar and warning was given by the lookout only moments before the missiles struck.[2] The first penetrated the port-side hull; it failed to detonate, but spewed flaming rocket fuel in its path. The second entered at almost the same point, and left a 3-by-4-meter gash—then exploded in crew quarters. Thirty-seven sailors were killed and twenty-one were injured. [2] No weapons were fired in defense of Stark. The Phalanx CIWS remained in standby mode, Mark 36 SRBOC countermeasures were not armed, and the attacking Exocet missiles and Mirage aircraft were in a blindspot of the defensive STIR (Separate Target Illumination Radar) fire control system, preventing use of the ship's Standard missile defenses. The ship failed to maneuver to bring its weapons batteries to bear prior to the first missile impact.[2]"

Edit: the bold is mine

Very instructing scenario. Take note that Exoset missile was developed in the 70s. While many factors play role in such scenario lets not speak of invulnerability, perfect air defences, etc. Every weapon system has its week spot.

About the "brave" nation - every nation that`s in hypothetical full scale war with US and has anti ship capabilities will use these capabilities. I don`t see anything strange about that fact :huh:

[Pilotasso]

MEkO class multipurpose and other ships of similar standards posess only basic anti missile defenses and they are the most widespread types in NATO.

 

These defenses consist basicaly in quadruple seasparrow launcher and a single Phalanx/goalkeeper turret.

 

Seasparrow has a reported maximum range of 30Km and "some" anti missile defense capability meaning is permeable to some extent to anti ship missiles such as Kh-15S.

 

Kh-15S is probably being marketed in asia where many ships of similar or less capability proliferate.

 

Furtunatly I dont think theres even 1 Kh-15S per ship. :)

[GGTharos]

So which part of what you quoted contradicts anything whatsoever?

 

The attack was not at all expected.

The radar was off for maintenance.

The weapons were off for maintenance.

Neither missile was in fact launched into a blindspot.

 

Do you think any these conditions will be a factor when attacking an Aegis fleet that's prepared for combat?

 

I wouldn't compare an OHP to an Aegis umbrella, but I also wouldn't use surprise scenarios as a metric of anything.

 

Direct copy from wiki:

"The ship was struck on May 17, 1987, by two Exocet antiship missiles fired from an Iraqi Mirage F1 fighter during the Iran–Iraq War. The fighter had taken off from Shaibah at 20:00 and had flown south into the Persian Gulf. The fighter fired the first Exocet missile from a range of 22.5 nautical miles, and the second from 15.5 nautical miles, at about the time the fighter was given a routine radio warning by the Stark.[1] The frigate did not detect the missiles with radar and warning was given by the lookout only moments before the missiles struck.[2] The first penetrated the port-side hull; it failed to detonate, but spewed flaming rocket fuel in its path. The second entered at almost the same point, and left a 3-by-4-meter gash—then exploded in crew quarters. Thirty-seven sailors were killed and twenty-one were injured. [2] No weapons were fired in defense of Stark. The Phalanx CIWS remained in standby mode, Mark 36 SRBOC countermeasures were not armed, and the attacking Exocet missiles and Mirage aircraft were in a blindspot of the defensive STIR (Separate Target Illumination Radar) fire control system, preventing use of the ship's Standard missile defenses. The ship failed to maneuver to bring its weapons batteries to bear prior to the first missile impact.[2]"

Edit: the bold is mine

Very instructing scenario. Take note that Exoset missile was developed in the 70s. While many factors play role in such scenario lets not speak of invulnerability, perfect air defences, etc. Every weapon system has its week spot.

About the "brave" nation - every nation that`s in hypothetical full scale war with US and has anti ship capabilities will use these capabilities. I don`t see anything strange about that fact :huh:

Edited August 18, 2009 by GGTharos

[Groove]

You can find examples of badly damaged US ships in the gulf due to missile fire and those were not Kh-15S...

Please, bring them on.

 

Additionally you forgot to add a very interesting phrase of the whole article about the USS Stark inicident:

 

Citing lapses in training requirements and lax procedures, the board of inquiry relieved Captain Brindel of command and recommended him for court-martial, along with Tactical Action Officer Lieutenant Basil E. Moncrief

 

Maybe because of the parts i marked red?

 

The Phalanx CIWS remained in standby mode, Mark 36 SRBOC countermeasures were not armed, and the attacking Exocet missiles and Mirage aircraft were in a blindspot of the defensive STIR (Separate Target Illumination Radar) fire control system, preventing use of the ship's Standard missile defenses.

Edited August 18, 2009 by Groove

[topol-m]

The attack was not at all expected.

 

Ah so this ship wasn`t there for war. ;)

 

The radar was off for maintenance.

The weapons were off for maintenance.

 

Otherwise it would have been a disastrous PR to assume a battle ready OHP was neutralized so easily. So the whole ship was in maintenance they say. Ok :thumbup:

 

Do you think any these conditions will be a factor when attacking an Aegis fleet that's prepared for combat?

 

I wouldn't compare an OHP to an Aegis umbrella.

 

No i don`t. Nor will I compare it to an Aegis umbrella. The fact is there aren`t so many Aegis umbrellas to cover every single US military ship all over the globe. That`s what i`m saying. I`m also saying that even Aegis BMDS is not all powerfull and invulnerable. It may require different tactics to penetrate it, it may require combination and bigger quantity of weapons but it can be beaten. While i got the feeling you are trying to state the opposite.

Edited August 18, 2009 by topol-m

[GGTharos]

Ah so this ship wasn`t there for war. ;)

 

More lie someone wasn't. ;)

 

Otherwise it would have been a disastrous PR to assume a battle ready OHP was neutralized so easily. So the whole ship was in maintenance they say. Ok :thumbup:

 

The radar system was. Are you aware of the principle of Occam's Razor?

I suggest following it, makes you less of a conspiracist ;)

 

No i don`t. Nor will I compare it to an Aegis umbrella. The fact is there aren`t so many Aegis umbrellas to cover every single US military ship all over the globe. That`s what i`m saying. I`m also saying that even Aegis BMDS is not all powerfull and invulnerable. It may require different tactics to penetrate it, it may require combination and bigger quantity of weapons but it can be beaten.

 

Then say that - because your example is like me saying that a MiG-29A shooting down a cessna proves the MiG-29A is a capable fighter.

 

Two ships to date, that I know of, have found themselves relieved of their Captains for inadequate security measures. Stark was one of them, Coleman the other, IIRC. Occam's razor.

 

We don't really know if exocet would have been intercepted if those systems were operational, that is certainly true.

[X-man]

The US wasnt at war in 87, and they probably felt a little too comfortable and decided to have a maintenance day. Who would be stupid enough to engage an US frigate, right? :music_whistling:

[Vekkinho]

MiG-29A shooting down a cessna proves the MiG-29A is a capable fighter.

 

Well, I remember Cessna landing at a Red Square so please don't underestimate it! ;)

[GGTharos]

Now I'm scared of cessnas! :P

[topol-m]

It turned out i was wrong about other US ships in the gulf being damaged by missiles, they were damaged by mines, oh well. :( Maybe because they weren`t fired at with the right weapons? Or maybe the enemy didn`t try hard enough to find which ones were doing maintenance. :)

 

That cessna could have been shot several times before landing.

Edited August 18, 2009 by topol-m

[Vekkinho]

 

That cessna could have been shot several times before landing.

 

So why wasn't it?!

[GGTharos]

Well you see the RUAF's weapons weren't able to lock onto its cool, non-metallic airframe... :D

[Vekkinho]

...and there was no Foxbat's around that day :P

[topol-m]

MEkO class multipurpose and other ships of similar standards posess only basic anti missile defenses and they are the most widespread types in NATO.

 

These defenses consist basicaly in quadruple seasparrow launcher and a single Phalanx/goalkeeper turret.

 

Seasparrow has a reported maximum range of 30Km and "some" anti missile defense capability meaning is permeable to some extent to anti ship missiles such as Kh-15S.

 

^^^ This info :thumbup: . Seasparrow definitely cannot replace PAC-3 and has limited anti-missile capabilities. Which comes to show that the majority of the NATO fleet is not that well protected. Exactly my point.

[GGTharos]

Sea Sparrow has evolved a bit more than most people think at this point - it's gone from anti-aircraft defense to something else these days.

[topol-m]

So why wasn't it?!

 

There were visual contacts established with the target several times and it was not considered a threat.

 

Sea Sparrow has evolved a bit more than most people think at this point - it's gone from anti-aircraft defense to something else these days.

 

:) Let`s not start with: Is it capable of hitting a Kh-15?

Edited August 18, 2009 by topol-m

[Vekkinho]

Yeah I know, I was joking on that matter, I see Cessnas flying every day over my head and I don't wake guys from air defense to shoot them for me...

 

:P

[GGTharos]

:) Let`s not start with: Is it capable of hitting a Kh-15?

 

It's possible, but it wouldn't be the optimal weapon for doing so. You want to engage a Kh-15 further away. ESSM is reasonably long ranged, features or will feature TVC (I forget) and they are starting to work on an ARH seeker for it. It is nothing like the AIM-7 you know and love. ;)

[topol-m]

Yeah I know, I was joking on that matter, I see Cessnas flying every day over my head and I don't wake guys from air defense to shoot them for me...

 

:P

 

This guy though should have been forced to land sooner and if refused to comply - blown to pieces. At least that`s what i would have done :mad:

[Pilotasso]

certainly arrested. To kill a civilian for threatening a "strategic target" by simply landing on it with a sessna is a bit extreme isnt it? ;)

[topol-m]

certainly arrested. To kill a civilian for threatening a "strategic target" by simply landing on it with a sessna is a bit extreme isnt it? ;)

 

He should have been killed in this situation: a fighter is approaching him, trying to make him land or change course and he refuses. That`s when he should get blown to pieces. The failure of radio equipment can be pressumed. That`s why he shouldn`t get a SAM in the a.. But if he continues his flight the way he likes it - bye, baby, bye. :gun_rifle:

[Pilotasso]

Well, was there any fighter there?

[topol-m]

There was. But i don`t think it tried to communicate with the cessna. Man that guy should have at least spent much more time in jail...