A2/AD - How to Kill a Carrier Outside the Persian Gulf

[BHarwana]

In the final stages of its flight, an anti-ship missile dives down to a very low level until it is "sea skimming". The Sunburn actually flies at just 20 metres. This is so low that you don't even need stealth - the missile just hugs the horizon and is out of line of sight, therefore cannot be detected by radars. It is only until it approaches to very close range that it passes the horizon and is visible. But at this stage, the ship's defences only have 25 seconds to react because the missile is flying at Mach 2.2. The Sunburn can also pull 10 g in this stage.

Speed is absolutely necessary to attack ships, hypersonics are a whole different ball game and only Russia is working on a hypersonic ASCM (note: cruise missile).

When the missile is high in air that is where the Aegis system takes is out but if to some what reasons the Aegis fails then Phalanx CIWS comes into action and takes out the system but in any case there are chances of success and failure. The Best example is of Israeli Ship being destroyed by Hezbollah using a Chinese missile system. That is the most recent example and of an Advance ship being taken out by a missile.

 

[AmirPatriot]

1.) Does Iran have a platform to launch the Hoot from, or is it still in development? (i.e: Fateh Sub.)

The Hoot can be launched from 533 mm torpedo tubes, so it's possible even a Ghadir midget sub could carry them.

2.) Brig. Gen. Hossein Salami said in an interview that Iran has equipped telemetric targeting systems on its BM's; i.e: allowing them to hit Carrier's vertically upon re-entry. Would this be better than an ASBM Sejjil?

I haven't heard that statement and I'm not sure what this "telemetric targeting system" is, but I would say that a targeting system is a subsystem making a part of a missile - it cannot replace the missile on its own.

The Best example is of Israeli Ship being destroyed by Hezbollah using a Chinese missile system. That is the most recent example and of an Advance ship being taken out by a missile.

And that was just a subsonic C-802...

 

[N_Al40]

The Hoot can be launched from 533 mm torpedo tubes, so it's possible even a Ghadir midget sub could carry them.



I haven't heard that statement and I'm not sure what this "telemetric targeting system" is, but I would say that a targeting system is a subsystem making a part of a missile - it cannot replace the missile on its own.



And that was just a subsonic C-802...

Watch the whole thing:

*He speaks about telemetric systems from 2:40

 

[BHarwana]

And that was just a subsonic C-802...

So you see subsonic are more effective. that is why USA it's self uses subsonic cruise missile for anti ship roles. Pakistan can buy super sonic missiles from China and can also manufacture supersonic missile but have you ever thought why is Pakistan using subsonic missiles for anti-ship role?

 

[AmirPatriot]

So you see subsonic are more effective.

This is just false. Of course a faster missile is harder to intercept. A C-802 has a diameter of 36 cm, a Sunburn has an 80 cm diameter. It's not exactly a massive target once it is heading towards you. And the fact that it travels 2-3 times faster makes it harder, not easier, to intercept. I have no idea where you have learnt this.

that is why USA it's self uses subsonic cruise missile for anti ship roles.

Different naval doctrine, based on aircraft carriers. Aircraft taking off from carriers can't easily carry these large missiles.

Pakistan can buy super sonic missiles from China and can also manufacture supersonic missile but have you ever thought why is Pakistan using subsonic missiles for anti-ship role?

Because they wouldn't fit. Supersonic missiles are much bulkier and heavier than subsonic ones and to fit them on a ship would require a serious redesign.

Better question, why do you think China and Russia themselves developed supersonic missiles? I don't think you are more knowledgeable on cruise missiles than the combined military-scientific might of China and the Soviet Union/Russia.

 

[Cthulhu]

There's no point in using a ballistic missile against a carrier if it's armed with a conventional warhead.

 

[BHarwana]

This is just false. Of course a faster missile is harder to intercept. A C-802 has a diameter of 36 cm, a Sunburn has an 80 cm diameter. It's not exactly a massive target once it is heading towards you. And the fact that it travels 2-3 times faster makes it harder, not easier, to intercept. I have no idea where you have learnt this.



Different naval doctrine, based on aircraft carriers. Aircraft taking off from carriers can't easily carry these large missiles.



Because they wouldn't fit. Supersonic missiles are much bulkier and heavier than subsonic ones and to fit them on a ship would require a serious redesign.

Better question, why do you think China and Russia themselves developed supersonic missiles? I don't think you are more knowledgeable on cruise missiles than the combined military-scientific might of China and the Soviet Union/Russia.

Okay watch this video plz.

 

[AmirPatriot]

Watch the whole thing:

*He speaks about telemetric systems from 2:40

I think you are a bit confused, the telemetric system was just to log data from the missile and target. Hence, it was gathering telemetry.

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/telemetry

the science or process of collecting information about objects that are far away and sending the information somewhere electronically

 

[BHarwana]

Now below is the best ship defence system in the world. This is a Russian System

 

[AmirPatriot]

Okay watch this video plz.

A promotional video by Raytheon, a private company trying to sell its products.

And those products were shooting down helicopters, a subsonic Harpoon missile, boats, and even a subsonic A-4 jet. None of which are supersonic, or even close to the speed of a Sunburn.

 

[BHarwana]

@AmirPatriot The higher the speed of the incoming missile the higher will be it's heat signature and as you know light travels faster than sound it is easier to detect before the missile reaches it's target. The slow missiles are stealthy because the don't give infrared signature plus they are RADAR evading designed and they can maneuver more and have a better approach at target.

 

[N_Al40]

There's no point in using a ballistic missile against a carrier if it's armed with a conventional warhead.

If it's a big warhead (850kg-1ton) it could screw it up big time.

Look at what a misfired ZUNI did to this AC:

So if this little guy can do that; heavy conventional warheads should be cool

I think you are a bit confused, the telemetric system was just to log data from the missile and target. Hence, it was gathering telemetry.

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/telemetry

the science or process of collecting information about objects that are far away and sending the information somewhere electronically

Ahhh right, yeah that makes sense now!

What did you think of Salami's comments?

 

[HannibalBarca]

But you know actually occupying UAE/ Iran port you control the passage of all oil from Gulf



UAE is like little innocent girl , have no man power just have some big buildings and some Indians running around in Honda civic

If I was a dictator , UAE would be history

Underestimating UAE... is a grave mistake...
UAE is not KSA... It's not Qatar...It's not Oman etc...
UAE is actually the only TRUE capable Armed force in the Arab Region & Near beyond...

You have better chance to win against KSA+Qatar+Kuwait+Oman+Bahrain combined than UAE alone...

 

[AmirPatriot]

There's no point in using a ballistic missile against a carrier if it's armed with a conventional warhead.

The DF-21D has a terminal speed of Mach 10 with an estimated 600 kg warhead. The United States Naval Institute theorised it could destroy a carrier in a single hit.

The Sejjil has a terminal speed of Mach 13 and a warhead weighing an estimated 650 kg.

Can you imagine the incredible damage a 600-700 kg object can do, when it is impacting the deck of a ship at Mach 13? That's 4.5 km a second. Now take that object, and fill it with explosives...

Even if it doesn't sink it, that carrier isn't going to work for a very long time. I expect it would be quite the uproar for the ultimate symbol of American power to be towed back to port with a giant gaping hole in the middle, not to mention all the casualties...

 

[Tokhme khar]

Mate, a sunburn screaming in at Mach 3 gives you a fraction of response time compared to a joker like Harpoon or exocet. Much harder to detect let alone intercept or acquire on your engagement radars for the CIWS.

It's just common sense. You don't even need a warhead on something as large as a sunburn as naval experts imply in many columns. Just the sheer kinetic impact will cut a small warship in half!

Hard to believe what you are writing here. The Sunburn is a game changer!

So you see subsonic are more effective. that is why USA it's self uses subsonic cruise missile for anti ship roles. Pakistan can buy super sonic missiles from China and can also manufacture supersonic missile but have you ever thought why is Pakistan using subsonic missiles for anti-ship role?