Anti Ship Missiles
- Thread starter AMDR
- Start date
fatman17
PDF THINK TANK: CONSULTANT
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2007
- Messages
- 32,563
- Reaction score
- 98
- Country
- Location
Anti-Ship Missile Evolution
By
Jon Lake
-
January 10, 2020
Lockheed Martin's Long Range Anti-Ship Missile during testing in May 2018.
The anti-ship missile has come a long way since the crude guided weapons first witnessed during the Second World War.
There are a bewildering array of weapons systems optimised for the destruction of surface vessels. At the height of the Cold War, the RAF’s Blackburn Buccaneer aircraft had an arsenal that included TV- and radar-guided Matra Martel missiles, longer-range BAE (now MBDA) Sea Eagle anti-ship missiles, Texas Instruments (now Raytheon) Paveway laser-guided bombs and tactical nuclear weapons, while during the Falklands War, the courageous and highly skilled Argentinian pilots wreaked havoc on Britain’s naval task force – largely using unguided ‘iron bombs’. The Royal Navy (RN) was saved from disaster largely because some of these weapons had not fused by the time they hit their targets. During an engagement between the US Navy and Iranian forces in 1988 (Operation Praying Mantis), US aircraft attacked enemy vessels using AGM-84 Harpoon missiles, AGM-123 Skipper rocket-propelled bombs, Walleye TV-guided bombs, and unguided 1,000lb (453kg) bombs.
But with the increasing sophistication and lethality of today’s anti-aircraft defences, anti-ship attacks are better carried out without having to overfly the target, and ideally from significantly greater stand-off range, and to do this requires the use of (ideally guided) anti-ship missiles (AShMs).
These range from small weapons intended for use against fast and agile small boats to ballistic missiles that are designed to take out a capital ship. There are systems that can be fired from other ships, or from land-based platforms, or from helicopters or fixed wing aircraft, while some missiles have variants for each of these classes of firing platform. These various anti-ship weapons employ different types of guidance, use different warhead types and sizes, and follow a wide variety of flight profiles.
During the Second World War, allied anti-shipping aircraft used cannon, unguided rockets, bombs and homing torpedoes against enemy ships, but Germany did develop the first operational anti-ship missiles, which used radio command guidance. Weapons like the Henschel Hs 293 and the unpowered, armour-piercing Fritz X gained some success, especially in the Mediterranean Theatre, from 1943–44, sinking or heavily damaging at least 38 ships including the Italian battleship Roma and the cruiser USS Savannah. The wire-guided Hs 293B and the television-guided Hs 293D variants were developed to counter allied radio jamming, but neither reached operational service.
On the Allied side, the US Navy deployed the ASM-N-2 Bat radar-guided glide bomb, which was claimed to be the world’s first autonomously-guided, radar-homing anti-ship weapon, and used it operationally against the Japanese in April 1945. The powered McDonnell LBD-1 Gargoyle saw no operational use.
During the Cold War, Western Navies were more concerned with tackling airborne and underwater threats than with engaging enemy warships, since the Russian Navy’s ‘blue water’ capabilities were relatively limited, while the anti-ship mission tended to fall to submarines, using torpedoes, and to airborne platforms – particularly fast jets – using much the same weapons as they employed against ground targets. For many years, missile technology was insufficiently advanced to allow the development of effective anti-ship missiles, though some larger aircraft (like the Soviet Tu-16 ‘Badger’ and Tu-95 ‘Bear’) did carry large cruise missiles (usually nuclear-armed) intended for use against large naval targets like US aircraft carriers.
Modern anti-ship missiles came to prominence following the sinking of the Israeli destroyer Eilat (the former HMS Zealous) by Egyptian missile boats in 1967, while air launched anti-ship missiles were used in the 1982 Falklands War. Five Exocet missiles had been delivered to Argentina before the war, and these were used to sink the British Type 42 destroyer HMS Sheffield on 4 May 1982. The official Royal Navy Board of Inquiry Report stated that evidence indicated that the warhead had not detonated – demonstrating the lethality of modern AShMs. A single Exocet which failed to explode left a destroyer dead in the water, and which sank four days later. Two Exocets were then used to sink the 15,000-ton container ship Atlantic Conveyor on 25 May.
During the long Iran–Iraq War in the 1980s, Iran and Iraq targeted one another’s merchant shipping and especially oil tankers in what became known as the Tanker War. The Iraqi Air Force used MiG-23s, Mirage F1s and Super Frelon helicopters armed with Exocet anti-ship cruise missiles during the first phase of this campaign, before France supplied Dassault Super Etendards in 1984, allowing Iraq to increase the range of its anti-shipping Exocet strikes. A Liberian tanker, Neptunia, was hit by an Iraqi Exocet in February 1985, becoming the first tanker to sink as a result of a missile strike. In 1987, a US Navy guided-missile frigate, USS Stark, was hit by an Exocet anti-ship missile fired by an Iraqi Mirage F1.
Most early air-launched anti-ship missiles were derivatives of weapons originally developed for ship-against-ship combat, including the US AGM-84 Harpoon, the Chinese YJ-83, the French AM39 Exocet, the Italian Marte, the Norwegian Penguin, Russia’s Zvezda Kh-35 and the Swedish RBS-15, although some dedicated air-launched missiles were also developed and deployed, including the Anglo-French Martel and its active radar-homing, turbojet-powered Sea Eagle derivative.
While early anti-ship missiles used radio command guidance, most modern missiles are ‘fire and forget’ and use infrared or active radar homing, often in conjunction with inertial guidance.
Sea-skimming
Most anti-ship missiles follow a flat sea skimming trajectory, often with a final highly supersonic ‘dash’ to the target, though some ballistic missiles have been re-purposed or designed for an anti-ship role, especially by China’s People’s Liberation Army Navy. Anti-ship ballistic missiles would approach their targets at enormous speed, with sufficient kinetic energy to cripple or destroy a large naval ship (including the largest aircraft carriers) with a single hit, even with a conventional warhead, as well as being very difficult to intercept.
Because a direct hit is required to be effective, they would need a precise and high-performance terminal guidance system. Such weapons can be air launched. Russia’s Kh-47M2 Kinzhal, for example, was developed to hit ballistic missile defence ships and can be carried by Tu-22M3 bombers or MiG-31K interceptors.
A Mig 31K interceptor of the Russian Air Force carries a Kh-47M2 Kinzhal air launched ballistic missile on a flypast during the 2018 Moscow Victory Day Parade.
Whether ballistic or sea-skimming, modern anti-ship missiles are hard to evade, outrun or out-turn once a target has been acquired. To counter the threat, the modern surface ship has to avoid being detected, or has to decoy or destroy all of the incoming missiles or their missile launch platforms – ideally destroying the latter before missiles have even been fired.
An incoming missile does not have things ‘all its own way’, however, and will have to overcome multi-layered defences, perhaps beginning with patrolling carrier- or land-based fighter aircraft carrying long-range missiles. Its target will probably be equipped with integrated computer fire-control systems for agile surface-to-air missiles (SAMs) guided by powerful and agile radar systems, and may be able to simultaneously track, engage, and destroy several incoming anti-ship missiles or hostile aircraft. The missile will also have to cope with electronic countermeasures, chaff, and decoys, and an ‘inner layer’ of missile defences, using short-range missiles like the Raytheon Sea Sparrow or the Rolling Airframe Missile (RAM). Even the target ship’s own main gun armament may be used defensively, as well as dedicated close-in weapons systems (CIWS), using rapid firing guns.
The aircraft carrier USS Theodore Roosevelt (CVN 71) launches a rolling airframe missile (RAM) during a live-fire exercise.
The development of new air-launched anti-ship missiles slowed following the end of the Cold War, as navies increasingly operated in the littoral zone, and as the need to prepare for peer-on-peer engagements gave way to a need to engage small, manoeuvrable boats and other asymmetric threats – even including suicide bombers using jet skis. This did, however, lead to the development of a whole new class of cheap, lightweight missiles for use against this class of target. The chance of peer or near-peer engagements (increasingly entailing ship-against-ship maritime warfare) seemed to grow with increasing tensions between the USA and its allies on one side, and China and Russia on the other, and this led to some renewed emphasis on the development and procurement of bigger anti-ship missiles.
Most of the new generation of AShMs are stealthy, highly supersonic and autonomous, and many of them carry large warheads – sufficient to inflict a manoeuvre kill on even the largest targets, and able to saw smaller vessels in half. They come screaming in at sea-skimming heights, giving defences little time to react and presenting a difficult target for defensive systems.
The joint Russian-Indian PJ-10 BrahMos has a 660lb (300kg) warhead, and is claimed to be the fastest low-altitude missile in the world, while also enjoying a 500km range. Brahmos is powered by a two stage power-plant, with a solid-fuel rocket providing the first stage, accelerating the missile to supersonic speeds and with a liquid-fuelled ramjet as the second stage, accelerating it to Mach 2.8 at wavetop height. The BrahMos-II, now under development, is a hypersonic version with a speed of Mach 7-8. It is due to begin testing by 2020.
BrahMos-II
China’s CASIC YJ-12 is similar to BrahMos, with a 550lb (250kg) warhead and an integrated liquid fuel ramjet engine and a solid rocket booster conferring a cruise speed of Mach 2.5-3.5 and a range of 150-400km. In service with the PLA Navy’s Xian H-6J and H-6L ‘Badger’ bombers the YJ-12 will also be carried by the Shenyang J-16 (a derivative of the Su-30MKK) and is being offered to export customers as the CM-302.
Japan’s new ASM-3 has completed testing, and is expected to enter service imminently, initially equipping the JASDF’s Mitsubishi F-2 fighters, and perhaps later the F-35A and Kawasaki P-1. The XASM-3 is a stealthy sea-skimming missile with hypersonic performance, its solid-fuelled rocket and integrated ramjet powering it to speeds of up to Mach 5. Range is being boasted to 400km, but exact warhead weight remains classified.
Less speed; more stealth
But not all new AShMs are hypersonic or even highly supersonic. Norway’s Kongsberg Naval Strike Missile (claimed to be the world’s first 5th generation anti-ship missile) relies on stealth rather than speed, and is claimed to be ‘fully passive,’ not using active sensors to track targets and not emitting infrared or radar that could be detected by enemy ships. The missile is powered by a small turbofan (after an initial rocket boost) and has a range of 185km. It carries a 275lb (125kg) warhead. A derivative, the developmental Joint Strike Missile, is designed to be capable of both air to ground and anti-ship missions. The JSM will fit the internal weapons bay of the Lockheed Martin F-35 Joint Strike Fighter.
Another relatively slow mover is the American Long-Range Anti-Ship Missile (LRASM), intended as a successor to and replacement for the ageing AGM-84 Harpoon. LRASM is a derivative of the JASSM-ER cruise missile used by US Air Force bombers, and is stealthy and jam-resistant, producing no trackable radar return and no real IR signature. LRASM will use this low observability and its autonomous capabilities to detect and attack targets while evading their defences. LRASM has a range of more than 500 miles, compared to 67 miles for Harpoon. It can deliver a 1,000lb (453kg) penetrating warhead, hitting targets with an accuracy of within three metres.
For the US and its allies, LRASM promises to be a useful means of addressing the growing threat posed by Chinese naval forces in the Western Pacific, protecting international shipping routes and preventing China from turning the area between its coast and the island chain stretching from the Japanese archipelago to the Philippines into a no-go area for allied ships and a sanctuary for its own.
At the other end of the scale, the development and refinement of weapons like the MBDA Brimstone and Sea Venom has produced a new generation of short-range missiles for use against maritime targets, replacing lighter weight AShMs like the Aerospatiale AS 15 TT and the MBDA Sea Skua. The Sea Venom is a lightweight Anglo-French anti-ship missile (formerly known as the Future Anti-Surface Guided Weapon (Heavy)) that was designed to equip Royal Navy Wildcat helicopters and French Navy Panther and NH90 helicopters. The weapon is expected to enter service with the Royal Navy in late 2021.
by Jon Lake
By
Jon Lake
-
January 10, 2020
Lockheed Martin's Long Range Anti-Ship Missile during testing in May 2018.
The anti-ship missile has come a long way since the crude guided weapons first witnessed during the Second World War.
There are a bewildering array of weapons systems optimised for the destruction of surface vessels. At the height of the Cold War, the RAF’s Blackburn Buccaneer aircraft had an arsenal that included TV- and radar-guided Matra Martel missiles, longer-range BAE (now MBDA) Sea Eagle anti-ship missiles, Texas Instruments (now Raytheon) Paveway laser-guided bombs and tactical nuclear weapons, while during the Falklands War, the courageous and highly skilled Argentinian pilots wreaked havoc on Britain’s naval task force – largely using unguided ‘iron bombs’. The Royal Navy (RN) was saved from disaster largely because some of these weapons had not fused by the time they hit their targets. During an engagement between the US Navy and Iranian forces in 1988 (Operation Praying Mantis), US aircraft attacked enemy vessels using AGM-84 Harpoon missiles, AGM-123 Skipper rocket-propelled bombs, Walleye TV-guided bombs, and unguided 1,000lb (453kg) bombs.
But with the increasing sophistication and lethality of today’s anti-aircraft defences, anti-ship attacks are better carried out without having to overfly the target, and ideally from significantly greater stand-off range, and to do this requires the use of (ideally guided) anti-ship missiles (AShMs).
These range from small weapons intended for use against fast and agile small boats to ballistic missiles that are designed to take out a capital ship. There are systems that can be fired from other ships, or from land-based platforms, or from helicopters or fixed wing aircraft, while some missiles have variants for each of these classes of firing platform. These various anti-ship weapons employ different types of guidance, use different warhead types and sizes, and follow a wide variety of flight profiles.
During the Second World War, allied anti-shipping aircraft used cannon, unguided rockets, bombs and homing torpedoes against enemy ships, but Germany did develop the first operational anti-ship missiles, which used radio command guidance. Weapons like the Henschel Hs 293 and the unpowered, armour-piercing Fritz X gained some success, especially in the Mediterranean Theatre, from 1943–44, sinking or heavily damaging at least 38 ships including the Italian battleship Roma and the cruiser USS Savannah. The wire-guided Hs 293B and the television-guided Hs 293D variants were developed to counter allied radio jamming, but neither reached operational service.
On the Allied side, the US Navy deployed the ASM-N-2 Bat radar-guided glide bomb, which was claimed to be the world’s first autonomously-guided, radar-homing anti-ship weapon, and used it operationally against the Japanese in April 1945. The powered McDonnell LBD-1 Gargoyle saw no operational use.
During the Cold War, Western Navies were more concerned with tackling airborne and underwater threats than with engaging enemy warships, since the Russian Navy’s ‘blue water’ capabilities were relatively limited, while the anti-ship mission tended to fall to submarines, using torpedoes, and to airborne platforms – particularly fast jets – using much the same weapons as they employed against ground targets. For many years, missile technology was insufficiently advanced to allow the development of effective anti-ship missiles, though some larger aircraft (like the Soviet Tu-16 ‘Badger’ and Tu-95 ‘Bear’) did carry large cruise missiles (usually nuclear-armed) intended for use against large naval targets like US aircraft carriers.
Modern anti-ship missiles came to prominence following the sinking of the Israeli destroyer Eilat (the former HMS Zealous) by Egyptian missile boats in 1967, while air launched anti-ship missiles were used in the 1982 Falklands War. Five Exocet missiles had been delivered to Argentina before the war, and these were used to sink the British Type 42 destroyer HMS Sheffield on 4 May 1982. The official Royal Navy Board of Inquiry Report stated that evidence indicated that the warhead had not detonated – demonstrating the lethality of modern AShMs. A single Exocet which failed to explode left a destroyer dead in the water, and which sank four days later. Two Exocets were then used to sink the 15,000-ton container ship Atlantic Conveyor on 25 May.
During the long Iran–Iraq War in the 1980s, Iran and Iraq targeted one another’s merchant shipping and especially oil tankers in what became known as the Tanker War. The Iraqi Air Force used MiG-23s, Mirage F1s and Super Frelon helicopters armed with Exocet anti-ship cruise missiles during the first phase of this campaign, before France supplied Dassault Super Etendards in 1984, allowing Iraq to increase the range of its anti-shipping Exocet strikes. A Liberian tanker, Neptunia, was hit by an Iraqi Exocet in February 1985, becoming the first tanker to sink as a result of a missile strike. In 1987, a US Navy guided-missile frigate, USS Stark, was hit by an Exocet anti-ship missile fired by an Iraqi Mirage F1.
Most early air-launched anti-ship missiles were derivatives of weapons originally developed for ship-against-ship combat, including the US AGM-84 Harpoon, the Chinese YJ-83, the French AM39 Exocet, the Italian Marte, the Norwegian Penguin, Russia’s Zvezda Kh-35 and the Swedish RBS-15, although some dedicated air-launched missiles were also developed and deployed, including the Anglo-French Martel and its active radar-homing, turbojet-powered Sea Eagle derivative.
While early anti-ship missiles used radio command guidance, most modern missiles are ‘fire and forget’ and use infrared or active radar homing, often in conjunction with inertial guidance.
Sea-skimming
Most anti-ship missiles follow a flat sea skimming trajectory, often with a final highly supersonic ‘dash’ to the target, though some ballistic missiles have been re-purposed or designed for an anti-ship role, especially by China’s People’s Liberation Army Navy. Anti-ship ballistic missiles would approach their targets at enormous speed, with sufficient kinetic energy to cripple or destroy a large naval ship (including the largest aircraft carriers) with a single hit, even with a conventional warhead, as well as being very difficult to intercept.
Because a direct hit is required to be effective, they would need a precise and high-performance terminal guidance system. Such weapons can be air launched. Russia’s Kh-47M2 Kinzhal, for example, was developed to hit ballistic missile defence ships and can be carried by Tu-22M3 bombers or MiG-31K interceptors.
A Mig 31K interceptor of the Russian Air Force carries a Kh-47M2 Kinzhal air launched ballistic missile on a flypast during the 2018 Moscow Victory Day Parade.
Whether ballistic or sea-skimming, modern anti-ship missiles are hard to evade, outrun or out-turn once a target has been acquired. To counter the threat, the modern surface ship has to avoid being detected, or has to decoy or destroy all of the incoming missiles or their missile launch platforms – ideally destroying the latter before missiles have even been fired.
An incoming missile does not have things ‘all its own way’, however, and will have to overcome multi-layered defences, perhaps beginning with patrolling carrier- or land-based fighter aircraft carrying long-range missiles. Its target will probably be equipped with integrated computer fire-control systems for agile surface-to-air missiles (SAMs) guided by powerful and agile radar systems, and may be able to simultaneously track, engage, and destroy several incoming anti-ship missiles or hostile aircraft. The missile will also have to cope with electronic countermeasures, chaff, and decoys, and an ‘inner layer’ of missile defences, using short-range missiles like the Raytheon Sea Sparrow or the Rolling Airframe Missile (RAM). Even the target ship’s own main gun armament may be used defensively, as well as dedicated close-in weapons systems (CIWS), using rapid firing guns.
The aircraft carrier USS Theodore Roosevelt (CVN 71) launches a rolling airframe missile (RAM) during a live-fire exercise.
The development of new air-launched anti-ship missiles slowed following the end of the Cold War, as navies increasingly operated in the littoral zone, and as the need to prepare for peer-on-peer engagements gave way to a need to engage small, manoeuvrable boats and other asymmetric threats – even including suicide bombers using jet skis. This did, however, lead to the development of a whole new class of cheap, lightweight missiles for use against this class of target. The chance of peer or near-peer engagements (increasingly entailing ship-against-ship maritime warfare) seemed to grow with increasing tensions between the USA and its allies on one side, and China and Russia on the other, and this led to some renewed emphasis on the development and procurement of bigger anti-ship missiles.
Most of the new generation of AShMs are stealthy, highly supersonic and autonomous, and many of them carry large warheads – sufficient to inflict a manoeuvre kill on even the largest targets, and able to saw smaller vessels in half. They come screaming in at sea-skimming heights, giving defences little time to react and presenting a difficult target for defensive systems.
The joint Russian-Indian PJ-10 BrahMos has a 660lb (300kg) warhead, and is claimed to be the fastest low-altitude missile in the world, while also enjoying a 500km range. Brahmos is powered by a two stage power-plant, with a solid-fuel rocket providing the first stage, accelerating the missile to supersonic speeds and with a liquid-fuelled ramjet as the second stage, accelerating it to Mach 2.8 at wavetop height. The BrahMos-II, now under development, is a hypersonic version with a speed of Mach 7-8. It is due to begin testing by 2020.
BrahMos-II
China’s CASIC YJ-12 is similar to BrahMos, with a 550lb (250kg) warhead and an integrated liquid fuel ramjet engine and a solid rocket booster conferring a cruise speed of Mach 2.5-3.5 and a range of 150-400km. In service with the PLA Navy’s Xian H-6J and H-6L ‘Badger’ bombers the YJ-12 will also be carried by the Shenyang J-16 (a derivative of the Su-30MKK) and is being offered to export customers as the CM-302.
Japan’s new ASM-3 has completed testing, and is expected to enter service imminently, initially equipping the JASDF’s Mitsubishi F-2 fighters, and perhaps later the F-35A and Kawasaki P-1. The XASM-3 is a stealthy sea-skimming missile with hypersonic performance, its solid-fuelled rocket and integrated ramjet powering it to speeds of up to Mach 5. Range is being boasted to 400km, but exact warhead weight remains classified.
Less speed; more stealth
But not all new AShMs are hypersonic or even highly supersonic. Norway’s Kongsberg Naval Strike Missile (claimed to be the world’s first 5th generation anti-ship missile) relies on stealth rather than speed, and is claimed to be ‘fully passive,’ not using active sensors to track targets and not emitting infrared or radar that could be detected by enemy ships. The missile is powered by a small turbofan (after an initial rocket boost) and has a range of 185km. It carries a 275lb (125kg) warhead. A derivative, the developmental Joint Strike Missile, is designed to be capable of both air to ground and anti-ship missions. The JSM will fit the internal weapons bay of the Lockheed Martin F-35 Joint Strike Fighter.
Another relatively slow mover is the American Long-Range Anti-Ship Missile (LRASM), intended as a successor to and replacement for the ageing AGM-84 Harpoon. LRASM is a derivative of the JASSM-ER cruise missile used by US Air Force bombers, and is stealthy and jam-resistant, producing no trackable radar return and no real IR signature. LRASM will use this low observability and its autonomous capabilities to detect and attack targets while evading their defences. LRASM has a range of more than 500 miles, compared to 67 miles for Harpoon. It can deliver a 1,000lb (453kg) penetrating warhead, hitting targets with an accuracy of within three metres.
For the US and its allies, LRASM promises to be a useful means of addressing the growing threat posed by Chinese naval forces in the Western Pacific, protecting international shipping routes and preventing China from turning the area between its coast and the island chain stretching from the Japanese archipelago to the Philippines into a no-go area for allied ships and a sanctuary for its own.
At the other end of the scale, the development and refinement of weapons like the MBDA Brimstone and Sea Venom has produced a new generation of short-range missiles for use against maritime targets, replacing lighter weight AShMs like the Aerospatiale AS 15 TT and the MBDA Sea Skua. The Sea Venom is a lightweight Anglo-French anti-ship missile (formerly known as the Future Anti-Surface Guided Weapon (Heavy)) that was designed to equip Royal Navy Wildcat helicopters and French Navy Panther and NH90 helicopters. The weapon is expected to enter service with the Royal Navy in late 2021.
by Jon Lake
DF41
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- Mar 20, 2022
- Messages
- 1,003
- Reaction score
- -18
- Country
- Location
A hit from Chinese AShCM will be sufficient for it to be over for any USA carrier.
Estimated China got 3000++ of AShCMs, not to talk about 350++ DF21s DF26s
But it is more likely Chinese be firing 100 such missiles at single USA carrier. As well as raining DF21s DF26s from high above.
No shit about bulkheads and spaces to contain the hellfire that will likely engulf the entire carrier.
And not just the warhead, there will be 2–3 tons of missiles coming behind the warhead at Mach 3 tearing into the bulkheads and ordnance and aviation fuel and the poor men and women in the carrier. Those 2–3 tons of missile body will be tearing in the bulkheads faster and more deadly then APFSDS. Andf carrying its own unburned fuel to add to the fun.
Even steel will burn when hit with hell fire and tons of steel and debris coming in at Mach 3. The aviation fuel, and paint on walls, the bombs and ordnance will all cook off and add to the huge huge fire inside the carrier. Regardless if carrier under Condition Zebra or Donkey or Jackass.
The brave sailors in those carriers will not care or worry and be happy that their carrier not sinking. And only burning and burning from one end to the other end.
Chinese have about 3,000 of these kind of AShCMs.
In the form of Mach 3–4 YJ-12s carrying 400–500 semi shaped charge warheads, fired outside the AEGIS cover. The YJ-12 can also do evasive maneuvers to avoid anti-missile threats.
YJ-12 - Wikipedia
There is also the YJ-18 with reach exceeding Aegis cover. YJ-18 will start off at sub Mach 1. Until about 20 km from target , it will sprint at Mach 3–4 to deliver good news to the carrier .
China's YJ-18 Supersonic Anti-Ship Cruise Missile: America's Nightmare?
This Chinese description relates that the missile’s great strength is its “亚超结合的独特动力” [subsonic and supersonic combined unique propulsion]. Another term applied to this design is “双速制反舰导弹” [dual speed control ASCM]. As explained in the article, it is projected that YJ-18 would have an initial subsonic phase estimated at .8 Mach similar to the Klub of about 180km, but 20km from the target would unleash the supersonic sprint vehicle at speed of Mach 2.5 to 3. The “dual speed” function allows the system to realize certain advantages of subsonic cruise missiles, such as their “relatively long range, light weight and universality …” but also takes the chief advantage of supersonic ASCMs as well, namely the ability to “大幅压缩敌方的反应时间” [radically compress the enemy’s reaction time].
The Chinese article relates another advantage of the “dual speed” approach. Just as the missile comes into contact with the ship’s defenses, it “sheds the medium stage …,” thus simultaneously and dramatically altering both its speed and also its radar reflection, “which would impact the fire control calculation.” The likelihood that YJ-18 improves upon the Klub missile’s “digitization, automation, as well as providing more intelligent flight control and navigation technology” is attributed in the Chinese article to a recent Jane’s report.
Estimated China got 3000++ of AShCMs, not to talk about 350++ DF21s DF26s
But it is more likely Chinese be firing 100 such missiles at single USA carrier. As well as raining DF21s DF26s from high above.
No shit about bulkheads and spaces to contain the hellfire that will likely engulf the entire carrier.
And not just the warhead, there will be 2–3 tons of missiles coming behind the warhead at Mach 3 tearing into the bulkheads and ordnance and aviation fuel and the poor men and women in the carrier. Those 2–3 tons of missile body will be tearing in the bulkheads faster and more deadly then APFSDS. Andf carrying its own unburned fuel to add to the fun.
Even steel will burn when hit with hell fire and tons of steel and debris coming in at Mach 3. The aviation fuel, and paint on walls, the bombs and ordnance will all cook off and add to the huge huge fire inside the carrier. Regardless if carrier under Condition Zebra or Donkey or Jackass.
The brave sailors in those carriers will not care or worry and be happy that their carrier not sinking. And only burning and burning from one end to the other end.
Chinese have about 3,000 of these kind of AShCMs.
In the form of Mach 3–4 YJ-12s carrying 400–500 semi shaped charge warheads, fired outside the AEGIS cover. The YJ-12 can also do evasive maneuvers to avoid anti-missile threats.
YJ-12 - Wikipedia
There is also the YJ-18 with reach exceeding Aegis cover. YJ-18 will start off at sub Mach 1. Until about 20 km from target , it will sprint at Mach 3–4 to deliver good news to the carrier .
China's YJ-18 Supersonic Anti-Ship Cruise Missile: America's Nightmare?
This Chinese description relates that the missile’s great strength is its “亚超结合的独特动力” [subsonic and supersonic combined unique propulsion]. Another term applied to this design is “双速制反舰导弹” [dual speed control ASCM]. As explained in the article, it is projected that YJ-18 would have an initial subsonic phase estimated at .8 Mach similar to the Klub of about 180km, but 20km from the target would unleash the supersonic sprint vehicle at speed of Mach 2.5 to 3. The “dual speed” function allows the system to realize certain advantages of subsonic cruise missiles, such as their “relatively long range, light weight and universality …” but also takes the chief advantage of supersonic ASCMs as well, namely the ability to “大幅压缩敌方的反应时间” [radically compress the enemy’s reaction time].
The Chinese article relates another advantage of the “dual speed” approach. Just as the missile comes into contact with the ship’s defenses, it “sheds the medium stage …,” thus simultaneously and dramatically altering both its speed and also its radar reflection, “which would impact the fire control calculation.” The likelihood that YJ-18 improves upon the Klub missile’s “digitization, automation, as well as providing more intelligent flight control and navigation technology” is attributed in the Chinese article to a recent Jane’s report.
White and Green with M/S
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Oct 29, 2020
- Messages
- 7,946
- Reaction score
- -3
- Country
- Location
your almost all anti ship missiles are based upon either western designs or RussianA hit from Chinese AShCM will be sufficient for it to be over for any USA carrier.
Estimated China got 3000++ of AShCMs, not to talk about 350++ DF21s DF26s
But it is more likely Chinese be firing 100 such missiles at single USA carrier. As well as raining DF21s DF26s from high above.
No shit about bulkheads and spaces to contain the hellfire that will likely engulf the entire carrier.
And not just the warhead, there will be 2–3 tons of missiles coming behind the warhead at Mach 3 tearing into the bulkheads and ordnance and aviation fuel and the poor men and women in the carrier. Those 2–3 tons of missile body will be tearing in the bulkheads faster and more deadly then APFSDS. Andf carrying its own unburned fuel to add to the fun.
Even steel will burn when hit with hell fire and tons of steel and debris coming in at Mach 3. The aviation fuel, and paint on walls, the bombs and ordnance will all cook off and add to the huge huge fire inside the carrier. Regardless if carrier under Condition Zebra or Donkey or Jackass.
The brave sailors in those carriers will not care or worry and be happy that their carrier not sinking. And only burning and burning from one end to the other end.
Chinese have about 3,000 of these kind of AShCMs.
In the form of Mach 3–4 YJ-12s carrying 400–500 semi shaped charge warheads, fired outside the AEGIS cover. The YJ-12 can also do evasive maneuvers to avoid anti-missile threats.
YJ-12 - Wikipedia
There is also the YJ-18 with reach exceeding Aegis cover. YJ-18 will start off at sub Mach 1. Until about 20 km from target , it will sprint at Mach 3–4 to deliver good news to the carrier .
China's YJ-18 Supersonic Anti-Ship Cruise Missile: America's Nightmare?
This Chinese description relates that the missile’s great strength is its “亚超结合的独特动力” [subsonic and supersonic combined unique propulsion]. Another term applied to this design is “双速制反舰导弹” [dual speed control ASCM]. As explained in the article, it is projected that YJ-18 would have an initial subsonic phase estimated at .8 Mach similar to the Klub of about 180km, but 20km from the target would unleash the supersonic sprint vehicle at speed of Mach 2.5 to 3. The “dual speed” function allows the system to realize certain advantages of subsonic cruise missiles, such as their “relatively long range, light weight and universality …” but also takes the chief advantage of supersonic ASCMs as well, namely the ability to “大幅压缩敌方的反应时间” [radically compress the enemy’s reaction time].
The Chinese article relates another advantage of the “dual speed” approach. Just as the missile comes into contact with the ship’s defenses, it “sheds the medium stage …,” thus simultaneously and dramatically altering both its speed and also its radar reflection, “which would impact the fire control calculation.” The likelihood that YJ-18 improves upon the Klub missile’s “digitization, automation, as well as providing more intelligent flight control and navigation technology” is attributed in the Chinese article to a recent Jane’s report.
DF41
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- Mar 20, 2022
- Messages
- 1,003
- Reaction score
- -18
- Country
- Location
USA need not worry too much of DF26s DF21s any more.
Or even of the 3000++ AShCMs of China, including many Mach3s
As long as USA carriers and Burkes and Ticos stay out of 2nd Island Chain, they will remain safe.
Meet the latest. Sorry cannot even give a name to that as that so new
China ship fired anti-ship hypersonic ballastic missile
That likely can reach beyond 2nd Island Chain to the 3rd island chain of Wake Island and Pearl Harbout.
That I called here in forum as DF-XX until a proper name provided by China
Lo and behold
Or even of the 3000++ AShCMs of China, including many Mach3s
As long as USA carriers and Burkes and Ticos stay out of 2nd Island Chain, they will remain safe.
Meet the latest. Sorry cannot even give a name to that as that so new
China ship fired anti-ship hypersonic ballastic missile
That likely can reach beyond 2nd Island Chain to the 3rd island chain of Wake Island and Pearl Harbout.
That I called here in forum as DF-XX until a proper name provided by China
Lo and behold
DF41
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- Mar 20, 2022
- Messages
- 1,003
- Reaction score
- -18
- Country
- Location
Something I just received from my whatsapp.
So therefore not verified.
I posting that here even though nothing to do with DF21s or DF26 or anyother missiles.
But pertinent to whatever being carried on USA carriers
And just as there are many ways to skin a cat, there might be other ways to crippled USA carriers as they make their phony FONOP in waters not theirs instead of doing their FONOP off California or in Frisco bay.
Mu puerile curiosity got fired up and begging to be satisfied if this actually occurred and buried by Whitehouse and NED and all the MSMs in thrall to Sleepy Joe.
A request from better experts here to verify or to pooh pooh so that this can be consigned to where sun and moon do not shine
=====================================================================================
*US fighter jets flew over the South China Sea again, but were strangely instructed to return to the fleet/Bakaran immediately. *
*Unexpectedly, he lost control halfway. America has finally admitted one thing. *
Boss 2 days ago Click the blue font above to see more information l
* Recently, the US CNBC website reported that multiple US "Growler" electronic fighters were mysteriously attacked when they flew into the South China Sea again. *
*The fighter jets were all out of control halfway through, and the pilots could not control these fighter jets for a few seconds, so the US military ordered all air forces flying over the South China Sea to resign and return to the fleet. *
*In this case, the U.S. was confused as to why this happened, and finally they mobilized a reconnaissance satellite and found a lot of electronic jamming equipment on the South China Sea islands and reefs. *
*This device caused a temporary loss of control of the U.S. Military Air Force. *
*According to the pilots, all the instruments in the cabin went out of control when they were electronically attacked. *
*The warrior is completely out of control, unable to contact the outside world, but has no idea what happened. what happened . *
ccf818d724da84a8abe8e22aaf40191b.png
* After the accident, the United States negotiated with China to immediately dismantle the electronic equipment, but was refused. *
*This electronic device is an important part of China's maritime defense and is not an offensive weapon, so the dismantling request by the US military is unreasonable. *
*So why are these electronic devices so scary for America? *
*First, this is an electronic jamming device that can bypass enemy radio systems. *
* Soldiers who are attacked will lose control. Because of their uncontrollability, these fighter jets would crash very quickly. *
Second, the attack method is unpredictable
* Compared to conventional anti-aircraft missiles, the electronic jamming system is more stealthy. *
*Enemy fighter jets are often mistakenly hit due to the way the attack interferes with the radio. At the same time, this type of attack is nearly impossible to block. *
*This is why the U.S. military is asking China to dismantle these weapons. *
af36e69cb9134fa34b424178e7d62a3e.png
* On the same day, former U.S. Pacific military commander Swift finally admitted that the U.S. military has lost its best time to control the South China Sea. *
* He believes that China has deployed a large number of Hongqi 9 air defense missiles, 6K fighter jets and electronic jamming systems on the islands and reefs. *
*Defense can be said to be solid. If US fighter jets enter the South China Sea rashly , they may encounter " Waterloo " . *
*In fact, the living space for US fighter jets and warships has shrunk since China's island development and reef defense began. *
* If China continues to develop like this, the United States will have no chance of winning! ! ! *
eb1c9fe7823cd8202efde347d48e96a0.png
*Whether it's an island, a reef, or an electronic jamming system, it's part of our defense system. *
* Chinese electronic jamming systems cover more than half of the South China Sea, according to the U.S. military. *
*It can be seen from this that American warplanes must be careful when entering the South China Sea. *
* "The rise and fall of the world is everyone's responsibility." *
*I hope every Chinese can forward this article, so that more Chinese can pay attention to the national news. Make the country stronger and stronger and support all patriotic groups. * iAt
So therefore not verified.
I posting that here even though nothing to do with DF21s or DF26 or anyother missiles.
But pertinent to whatever being carried on USA carriers
And just as there are many ways to skin a cat, there might be other ways to crippled USA carriers as they make their phony FONOP in waters not theirs instead of doing their FONOP off California or in Frisco bay.
Mu puerile curiosity got fired up and begging to be satisfied if this actually occurred and buried by Whitehouse and NED and all the MSMs in thrall to Sleepy Joe.
A request from better experts here to verify or to pooh pooh so that this can be consigned to where sun and moon do not shine
=====================================================================================
*US fighter jets flew over the South China Sea again, but were strangely instructed to return to the fleet/Bakaran immediately. *
*Unexpectedly, he lost control halfway. America has finally admitted one thing. *
Boss 2 days ago Click the blue font above to see more information l
* Recently, the US CNBC website reported that multiple US "Growler" electronic fighters were mysteriously attacked when they flew into the South China Sea again. *
*The fighter jets were all out of control halfway through, and the pilots could not control these fighter jets for a few seconds, so the US military ordered all air forces flying over the South China Sea to resign and return to the fleet. *
*In this case, the U.S. was confused as to why this happened, and finally they mobilized a reconnaissance satellite and found a lot of electronic jamming equipment on the South China Sea islands and reefs. *
*This device caused a temporary loss of control of the U.S. Military Air Force. *
*According to the pilots, all the instruments in the cabin went out of control when they were electronically attacked. *
*The warrior is completely out of control, unable to contact the outside world, but has no idea what happened. what happened . *
ccf818d724da84a8abe8e22aaf40191b.png
* After the accident, the United States negotiated with China to immediately dismantle the electronic equipment, but was refused. *
*This electronic device is an important part of China's maritime defense and is not an offensive weapon, so the dismantling request by the US military is unreasonable. *
*So why are these electronic devices so scary for America? *
*First, this is an electronic jamming device that can bypass enemy radio systems. *
* Soldiers who are attacked will lose control. Because of their uncontrollability, these fighter jets would crash very quickly. *
Second, the attack method is unpredictable
* Compared to conventional anti-aircraft missiles, the electronic jamming system is more stealthy. *
*Enemy fighter jets are often mistakenly hit due to the way the attack interferes with the radio. At the same time, this type of attack is nearly impossible to block. *
*This is why the U.S. military is asking China to dismantle these weapons. *
af36e69cb9134fa34b424178e7d62a3e.png
* On the same day, former U.S. Pacific military commander Swift finally admitted that the U.S. military has lost its best time to control the South China Sea. *
* He believes that China has deployed a large number of Hongqi 9 air defense missiles, 6K fighter jets and electronic jamming systems on the islands and reefs. *
*Defense can be said to be solid. If US fighter jets enter the South China Sea rashly , they may encounter " Waterloo " . *
*In fact, the living space for US fighter jets and warships has shrunk since China's island development and reef defense began. *
* If China continues to develop like this, the United States will have no chance of winning! ! ! *
eb1c9fe7823cd8202efde347d48e96a0.png
*Whether it's an island, a reef, or an electronic jamming system, it's part of our defense system. *
* Chinese electronic jamming systems cover more than half of the South China Sea, according to the U.S. military. *
*It can be seen from this that American warplanes must be careful when entering the South China Sea. *
* "The rise and fall of the world is everyone's responsibility." *
*I hope every Chinese can forward this article, so that more Chinese can pay attention to the national news. Make the country stronger and stronger and support all patriotic groups. * iAt
DF41
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- Mar 20, 2022
- Messages
- 1,003
- Reaction score
- -18
- Country
- Location
USA need not worry too much of DF26s DF21s any more.
Or even of the 3000++ AShCMs of China, including many Mach3s
As long as USA carriers and Burkes and Ticos stay out of 2nd Island Chain, they will remain safe.
Meet the latest. Sorry cannot even give a name to that as that so new
China ship fired anti-ship hypersonic ballastic missile
That likely can reach beyond 2nd Island Chain to the 3rd island chain of Wake Island and Pearl Harbout.
That I called here in forum as DF-XX until a proper name provided by China
Lo and behold
Finally got a name.
Not DF-XX
This baby is call the YJ-21 , 鹰击-12 or Eagle Strike 21
https://www.19fortyfive.com/2022/04/yj-21-chinas-new-anti-ship-missile-will-make-the-navy-sweat/
YJ21 in this video is not first testing in 055, The missile was fired during a normal training exercise.
It shows that YJ21 has already been massive equipped on the 055 destroyer.
WANG SUI WANG WANG SUI 萬歲 萬 萬歲
White and Green with M/S
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Oct 29, 2020
- Messages
- 7,946
- Reaction score
- -3
- Country
- Location
Still in a testing phase
Finally got a name.
Not DF-XX
This baby is call the YJ-21 , 鹰击-12 or Eagle Strike 21
https://www.19fortyfive.com/2022/04/yj-21-chinas-new-anti-ship-missile-will-make-the-navy-sweat/
YJ21 in this video is not first testing in 055, The missile was fired during a normal training exercise.
It shows that YJ21 has already been massive equipped on the 055 destroyer.
All missiles equipped by the Chinese Navy on warships must be tested on special test ships before they can be put into use.
http://www.mdc.idv.tw/mdc/navy/china/970-2.jpg
http://www.mdc.idv.tw/mdc/navy/china/892-9.jpg
DF41
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- Mar 20, 2022
- Messages
- 1,003
- Reaction score
- -18
- Country
- Location
Super Falcon
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2008
- Messages
- 15,815
- Reaction score
- -8
- Country
- Location
Devastating Ukrainian Neptune Missile hit Moskava battle cruiser
DF41
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- Mar 20, 2022
- Messages
- 1,003
- Reaction score
- -18
- Country
- Location
If only president of USA be like Richard Black, a man of honor and integrity. Instead of Sleepy Geriatric Joe or crooked Dotard, the world be a much better and peaceful place
Richard Black considered opinion the missile used not Neptune Missile. Likely to be NATO missile and likely to be fired by the French in Ukraine under direction of Whitehouse as not likely that special missile be risked to the Ukrainians who might well just want to sell that to highest bidder.
FuturePAF
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Dec 17, 2014
- Messages
- 10,546
- Reaction score
- 24
- Country
- Location
The US is finally going to field a hypersonic anti-ship cruise missile, called the “Hypersonic Air Launched Offensive Anti-Surface (HALO)” to be launched from navy carrier aircraft.
We can expect the Chinese will probably put together their own version of what the US has been building to counter such a missile, but with additional Over the horizon radars in their country (processed by supercomputers) to watch the entire Indo-Pacific domain; from Djibouti out to Hawaii. The US is also building up OTH radars across the pacific.
OTH radars similar to the Australian JORN radar
We can expect the Chinese will probably put together their own version of what the US has been building to counter such a missile, but with additional Over the horizon radars in their country (processed by supercomputers) to watch the entire Indo-Pacific domain; from Djibouti out to Hawaii. The US is also building up OTH radars across the pacific.
OTH radars similar to the Australian JORN radar
Last edited:
Similar threads
