gambit
PROFESSIONAL
- Joined
- Apr 28, 2009
- Messages
- 28,569
- Reaction score
- 148
- Country
- Location
True.Guys....... This is a JFT thread, not an anti-ship missile thread. Please open one up and this conversation can be taken to its respective thread.
To answer the bold part, can a ship withstand one missile's hit? YES, but why would anyone fire ONLY one missile onto a target as rich as an Indian AC (if you were the PN or the PAF)??
But you also need to remember...,this isn't a "Cruise missile" that hits at sub-sonic speed or in some cases, a little over Mach 1. This specific system hits at Mach 4. What that means, is that it can pierce through a LOT of hull just by its sheer kinetic force gained through high velocity. Now add high explosives to it, whatever ship it'll hit, it will ruin a significant portion of the ship.
The goal behind these weapons isn't to entirely "sink" every ship they are fired at. One missile may not flip a ship over and sink it, but it will leave it useless for many weeks till it goes back to the port and gets fixed up.
What that also means is that ships electronic systems will get compromised also. So the ship may not sink but (1): it can be damaged severely that its useless for ongoing operations and (2): a secondary attack will take it out as many (if not all) of its electronic systems were already dead or semi-useless due to the previous attack. Either way, the loss is at the ship's level if a missile at mach 4 pierces through the hull. So you better try to stop it before it penetrates.
To further push the point of how difficult it is to sink a ship, here are a few notes from a post WW II exercise...
Sinkex videos
WW II was the first time naval fleets fought against each other without being in line-of-sight (LOS) of each other -- air power. Despite the fact that US Army General Billy Mitchell showed that ships can be sunk by way of an aerial assault, his experiment back in Jun/Jul 1921 were conducted under tightly controlled conditions with time on his side. The experiment was more to prove Mitchell's point that air power could be a threat to ships more than it was whether ships can be sunk by weapons delivered from above. Remember, this was a time when the experience of air power contained mostly of ground troop harassment and romanticized individual combats between pilots. Mitchell had greater vision for air power than what we gained from WW I.
In RIMPAC 2000 SINKEX, the USS Worden sank after 34 hrs of aerial assault. The USS Gen. Hugh J. Gaffey, a WW II era design ship, sank after nearly 10 hrs. From Mitchell's experiment back 1921 to RIMPAC 2000, can a ship be sunk by air power alone ? Yes, but it will require a lot of resources in terms of men, fighters, ordnance, and time.
Then what is the best weapon against a ship ? The torpedo.
Then why do we not use it ? Because a ship to ship engagement is relatively slow and time consuming in terms of meeting the enemy as far away from one's position as possible, whether that position is home shore or an area in the sea off home shore. It is far better to degrade the ability of the enemy ship to conduct battle than it is to actually sink it from as far away as possible. It is the proverbial "two out of three ain't bad" position.
What does it take in terms of mechanisms to actually sink a ship, whether it is from bombs delivered from above or a torpedo delivered from below ?
easts.info/on-line/journal/vol2no1/21003.pdf
A torpedo below the waterline upset the equilibrium of all those factors, especially item 4, the availability of empty space that water can occupy to create an imbalance of load distribution.
If an air dropped bomb does not penetrate the lowest part of the hull to allow water in, the ship will suffer severe internal damage to enough to degrade its ability to contribute to the battle, but it will not sink.
Can we stop damaged ships sinking?
- BIMCO
Warships and cargo ships are no different from each other in terms of design to minimize water intake in the event of hull compromise. A torpedo can create that 'raking damage' on a hull under the right condition of approach angle and explosive yield.
So in terms of tactical considerations, it is better to target a ship's superstructure that contains vital components like sensors and communication arrays than it is to go after the hull, even though the hull is a large and tempting target area. Hit the hull area that is the helipad will do what ? Deny the ship's ability to conduct air operations. But a small yield missile flying a little higher to destroy or damage the radar array will blind the ship and if this ship is a component in a network of ships, there is now a hole in that network.
Sinking a ship is no longer a priority in naval warfare, even though there is no greater morale booster with that event.
