Military Review

Surface ships: repel an anti-ship missile strike

81

Article Goals and objectives of the Russian Navy: destroy half of the enemy fleet The prospect of deploying large groups of reconnaissance satellites and high-altitude unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) capable of providing round-the-clock and year-round observation of the entire surface of the planet was considered.


Many consider this assertion unrealistic, referring to the high cost and complexity of deploying the Legend and Liana global satellite maritime reconnaissance and target designation systems (MCRTs), as well as the lack of such systems in a potential enemy at the present time.

Surface ships: repel an anti-ship missile strike
The fact that an isotope nuclear reactor (with an electric power of only 3 kW) was required to power the satellites of the active radar reconnaissance system "Legend" does not mean that it is necessary for modern satellites of a similar purpose - the laws of physics have not changed, but the production technologies have changed, the energy consumption of electronic components, signal processing algorithms and much more

Why doesn't the USA have such a system? The first reason is because while the global satellite reconnaissance system is too complex and expensive. But this is based on yesterday's technologies. Today, new technologies have appeared, and the development of promising reconnaissance satellites on them is probably already underway - do not forget, the article was about a time period of twenty (+/- 10) years.

The second reason - and against whom 10-20 years ago the United States needed such a system? Against the rapidly aging naval fleet (Navy) RF? For this, even the existing US fleet is deliberately redundant. Against the Chinese Navy? But they are just beginning to pose a threat to the US Navy and, perhaps, will turn into a threat in just twenty years.

However, the first reason should be considered the main one. If the US global satellite reconnaissance system is not yet needed to track the Russian Navy and the PRC Navy, then it is more than necessary to track Russian (and Chinese) mobile ground-based missile systems (PGRK) of the Topol or Yars type and ensuring the possibility of delivering a sudden disarming strike.

As they say, time will tell. In any case, we will return to this issue more than once - we will talk about energy sources, target designation, covert communication systems with UAVs and much more.


Space technology advances rapidly - Northrop Grumman launches its second MEV service station to fuel satellites into orbit

Closing our eyes to the fact that already in the medium term, surface ships (NK) with a high probability will be detected and tracked by the enemy in real time, it is possible to create a fleet, the inevitable fate of which will be heroic death when attacked by long-range anti-ship missiles (ASM).

At an intermediate stage, a situation of uncertainty will arise when it will be impossible to understand whether a surface ship is being tracked or not due to the large number of satellites in orbit, maneuvering orbital platforms, high-altitude UAVs, autonomous unmanned underwater vehicles (AUV) and unmanned surface ships (BNC). How, then, will the planning of a covert advance towards the enemy be carried out?

In the articles of Alexander Timokhin, the need to fight for the first salvo is often mentioned - as a way to win in the confrontation between fleets. So, space reconnaissance assets and stratospheric UAVs are the most effective way to fight for the first salvo.

Does this mean that surface ships are no longer needed? Far from it, but their concept and objectives could change significantly.

Active defense


On different historical stages, it is often possible to identify some distinctive feature that characterizes the development of attack or defense technologies. Once it was the strengthening of armor protection, then the widespread use of technologies to reduce the visibility became mainstream. In our time, active defense means - anti-missiles, anti-torpedoes, active defense systems, and so on - are becoming the dominant means of increasing the survivability of military equipment.

Since the appearance of anti-ship missiles, surface ships have always relied on systems of "active protection" - anti-aircraft missile systems (SAM) / anti-aircraft missile and artillery systems (ZRAK), systems for setting camouflage curtains, electronic warfare systems (EW). Counteraction to torpedo armament is carried out by rocket-propelled bombs, anti-torpedoes, towed by hydroacoustic jammers and other systems.

If the enemy is able to continuously track the NK and issue long-range anti-ship missiles target designation, the threats to surface ships will increase many times over. This will require a corresponding strengthening of NK protection measures, expressed both in design changes and in a shift in emphasis to defensive weapons.

As now, the main threat to surface ships will be aviation... For example, the Tu-160M ​​missile-carrying bomber can carry 12 Kh-101 cruise missiles (CR) in its internal compartments. Upgraded Tu-95MSM bombers are capable of carrying 8 Kh-101 type missile launchers on the external sling and another 6 Kh-55 missile launchers in the inner compartment.

The United States Air Force (Air Force) is testing the ability of the B-1B bomber to carry an additional 12 JASSM cruise missiles on external sling, in addition to 24 missiles placed in the internal compartments, as a result of which one B-1B will be able to carry a total of 36 JASSM cruise missiles or anti-ship missiles LRASM. In the medium term, the B-1B will be replaced bombers B-21, whose ammunition capacity is unlikely to be much less.


The capabilities of strategic bombers allow concentrating hundreds of anti-ship missiles in a salvo

Thus, 2-4 American strategic bombers can carry 72-144 anti-ship missiles. If we are talking about aircraft carrier or naval strike groups (AUG / KUG), then for their attack the enemy may well attract 10-20 bombers, which will carry 360-720 anti-ship missiles with a launch range of 800-1000 kilometers.

Based on the foregoing, it can be assumed that a promising surface ship should have air defense (air defense) means capable of repelling a blow delivered by 50-100 anti-ship missiles. Is this possible in principle?

The threat of an air defense breakthrough is relevant not only for surface ships, but also for stationary objects. This threat and ways to counter it were previously discussed in the article Breakthrough of air defense by exceeding its ability to intercept targets: solutions.

There are several main problems in the reflection of the "star" raid of anti-ship missiles:

- short time to repel a strike against low-flying targets;
- lack of guidance channels for anti-aircraft guided missiles (SAM);
- Exhaustion of the SAM ammunition.

Look into the distance


It is possible to increase the time for repelling a strike inflicted by low-flying anti-ship missiles, possibly by increasing the altitude of the detection radar station (radar). Of course, the best solution here is a long-range radar detection aircraft (AWACS), but its presence is possible only near its shores or when the NK is in the AUG.

Another option is to use an AWACS helicopter on the ship. In itself, the presence of an AWACS helicopter on the ship is good, but the problem is that it cannot be used constantly. That is, in the event of a sudden strike, there will be no benefit from it - it is necessary to ensure that the radar is almost continuous in the air.


AWACS helicopters cannot provide round-the-clock coverage of NK from attacks by low-flying anti-ship missiles

Continuous air vigilance can be implemented with the help of promising unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) AWACS of a helicopter or quadrocopter (octa-, hexa-copter, etc.) type, the electric motors of which will be powered via a flexible cable from the carrier ship. This possibility was discussed in detail in the article Ensuring the work of the air defense system on low-flying targets without involving Air Force aviation.


Currently, a huge number of commercial electric UAVs with a carrying capacity of several tens to several hundred kilograms are being developed.

With an anti-ship missile flight altitude of 5 meters and a radar station located at an altitude of 200 meters, the line-of-sight range will be 67,5 kilometers. For comparison: with a radar height of 35 meters, as on the British destroyer Dering, the line-of-sight range will be 33 kilometers. Thus, the UAV AWACS will at least double the detection range of low-flying anti-ship missiles.

Confront the flock


The lack of missile guidance channels can be compensated for in several ways. One of them is to increase the capabilities of the radar in terms of the number of simultaneously detected and tracked targets through the use of active phased antenna arrays (AFAR), which is now becoming mandatory for promising NDTs.

The second method is the use of missiles with active radar homing heads (ARLGSN). After the issuance of the primary target designation, the missiles with ARLGSN use their own radar for additional search and targeting. Accordingly, after the issuance of target designation of the missile defense system, the ship's radar can switch to tracking another target. Another advantage of the SAM with ARLGSN is the ability to attack targets outside the radio horizon. The disadvantage of missiles with ARLGSN is their significantly higher cost, as well as less noise immunity of their radar in comparison with the powerful radar of the ship.

In the Russian air defense systems of the near zone, radio command or combined (radio command + laser) missile guidance is used. This largely limits the number of targets fired at the same time - for example, the Pantsir-M anti-aircraft missile and artillery complex (ZRAK) can simultaneously fire no more than four (according to some sources, eight) targets. It is possible that the use of AFAR as part of a target tracking radar will significantly increase the number of simultaneously attacked targets.

The third method is the maximum decrease in the reaction time of the air defense missile system and at the same time the maximum increase in the speed of the missile defense system. In this case, the sequential destruction of the approaching anti-ship missiles will be carried out as they approach the ship.

An ideal solution would be both increasing the "channel" of the air defense missile system due to the use of radar with AFAR and increasing the capabilities of radio command / laser guidance units, as well as reducing the response time of the air defense missile system in combination with an increase in the flight speed of the air defense missile system.

For the near zone, the possibility of developing an air-to-air missile system R-73 / RVV-MD with an infrared homing head (IR seeker) may be considered, the target designation of which can be issued by the main shipborne radars with AFAR. At the same time, for medium and long-range air defense systems, the transition to missiles only with ARLGSN is inevitable.


The R-73 air-to-air missile (RVV-MD) can become the basis for a promising Russian near-field air defense system - an analogue of the American RIM-116 air defense system

Exhaustion of ammunition


The problem of exhaustion of air defense ammunition, no matter how trite it sounds, must first of all be solved by increasing it to the detriment of other weapons, primarily the anti-ship missiles and anti-ship missiles.

It can be assumed that the main task of promising surface combat ships will be the task of protecting themselves and a certain zone around them from aviation and air attack weapons. At the same time, the execution of strike missions will fall on nuclear submarines - carriers of cruise and anti-ship missiles (SSGNs).

At the moment, the British destroyer 45 "Dering" can be considered an exemplary surface ship of this type, whose design was originally intended for solving air defense missions.


The concept of the British destroyer Dering is as close as possible to the concept of promising surface ships

Refusal to deploy strike weapons will significantly increase the number of missiles in the ammunition load. In addition, it is necessary to provide an optimal combination of ultra-long, long, medium and short-range missiles. Of course, the ability to destroy an air target at a distance of 400-500 kilometers is very attractive, but in fact it will not always be possible to implement it - for example, the enemy can launch an anti-ship missile system either from an even greater distance, or when the carrier is below the radio horizon level. Therefore, the number of long-range and ultra-long-range missiles should be limited in favor of short and medium-range missiles, which in some cases can be accommodated in four units instead of one "large" missile.


Instead of one long-range or medium-range missile, four 9M100 short-range missiles with IR seeker can be placed as part of the Redut air defense system


The dimensions of the 9M100 SAM can potentially be developed on the basis of the R-77 air-to-air missile (RVV-SD) with ARLGSN

For the Pantsir-SM close-range anti-aircraft missile and cannon system, small-sized Gvozd missiles are being developed (developed?), Accommodating 4 missiles in one standard transport and launch container (TPK). Initially, the Nail missiles are designed to destroy inexpensive UAVs, and their estimated range should be about 10-15 kilometers. However, the option of using such missiles to destroy low-flying anti-ship missiles at the last line, at a distance of up to 5-7 kilometers, could potentially be considered. At the same time, due to a decrease in the range, the mass of the warhead can be increased, and the increased probability of destruction should be ensured by the simultaneous launch of two or four conventional SAM "Gvozd-M" on one anti-ship missile system. Do not forget that a surface ship can also be subjected to a massive attack by inexpensive UAVs.


Small-sized SAM "Nail"

For self-defense against anti-ship missiles at short range, surface ships are equipped with automatic rapid-fire cannons of 20-45 mm caliber. The Russian Navy uses 30mm cannons. It is believed that their effectiveness is insufficient to combat modern low-flying anti-ship missiles. On some ships of the US Navy, automatic multi-barreled guns of 20 mm caliber have already been replaced with the RIM-116 air defense system.

However, there is a possibility that the effectiveness of cannon armament could be significantly improved. The simplest solution is to use shells with remote detonation at the target. In Russia, 30-mm projectiles with remote detonation on the trajectory were developed by the Moscow-based NPO Pribor. A laser beam is used to initiate ammunition at a given range. According to information from open sources, in 2020, ammunition with remote detonation passed state tests.

A more "advanced" option is the use of guided projectiles. Despite the fact that the creation of guided projectiles in the caliber of 30 mm is rather difficult, similar projects exist. In particular, the American company Raytheon is developing the MAD-FIRES (Multi-Azimuth Defense Fast Intercept Round Engagement System) project. Within the framework of the MAD-FIRES project, guided projectiles for automatic cannons with a caliber of 20 to 40 mm are being developed. MAD-FIRE ammunition must combine the accuracy and control of missiles with the speed and rate of fire of conventional ammunition of the appropriate caliber. These issues are discussed in more detail in the article. 30-mm automatic guns: sunset or a new stage of development?.


MAD-FIRES guided projectile prototype

In addition to kinetic damage, there are other ways to protect surface ships from attacking anti-ship missiles - we will talk about them in the next article.
Author:
Photos used:
bastion-karpenko.ru
81 comment
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Machito
    Machito April 26 2021 18: 23
    +5
    Good article. Optimistic. Everything in it is aimed at the future. Timokhin and Klimov write about the current state of the Navy and the military-industrial complex.
    1. tlauicol
      tlauicol April 26 2021 18: 34
      +2
      Quote: Bearded
      Good article.

      where can i read? throw off the link
    2. Titus_2
      Titus_2 April 26 2021 19: 01
      +14
      Timokhin and Klimov write understanding the essence of the issue and the theme of the fleet, thanks to such authors, is very interesting, and this author just writes to be in trend. Especially my personal opinion, but as they say nowadays it has not gone.
      1. Doccor18
        Doccor18 April 26 2021 20: 22
        +2
        Quote: Titus_2
        Timokhin and Klimov write understanding the essence of the issue and the theme of the fleet, thanks to such authors, is very interesting ...

        I absolutely agree.
        But such comparisons are incorrect.
        Why doesn't the USA have such a system? The first reason is because while the global satellite reconnaissance system is too complicated and expensive ...

        the development of promising reconnaissance satellites on them is probably already underway ...
      2. Boa kaa
        Boa kaa April 26 2021 21: 20
        +6
        Quote: Titus_2
        this author just writes to be in trend.

        The author would write for the "trend" ... (graphomania is not a big vice) there would be no harm.
        But why sculpt a hunchback? What has the US Air Force SAC air-to-ground missile system and our NKs to do with it? Well, the X-101 and JASSM do not "fly" on ships. Only by naval base ...
        1. Shopping Mall
          April 27 2021 08: 03
          0
          Quote: BoA KAA
          ... What has the US Air Force SAC air-to-ground missile system and our NKs to do with it? Well, the X-101 and JASSM do not "fly" on ships. Only by naval base ...


          The United States has a JASSM and in its dimensions (based on it) the LRASM anti-ship missile. When they write about the number of "ammunition-places" in bombers, they often talk about JASSM, and not LRASM anti-ship missiles.

          The same applies to us. We do not yet have anti-ship missiles for the Tu-160M, but if they appear, they will most likely occupy the same places on the launcher as the Kh-101. In this connection, they are mentioned.
  2. Basarev
    Basarev April 26 2021 19: 18
    0
    It is impossible to reflect the impact of anti-ship missiles. Especially now, when the enemy is capable of firing both 200 and 300 missiles in one salvo. Only a mythical arsenal ship carrying hundreds of missiles can cope with this. This is the only way to fulfill the main condition - for one enemy missile there should be at least 2-3 of ours. But such a ship also needs external target designation. Very long-range, ideally - to track the launch in real time in order to fire your missiles as early as possible. But such a ship is beyond our strength. Such an ammunition load cannot fit into 900 tons.
    1. Kalmar
      Kalmar April 26 2021 19: 57
      +4
      Quote: Basarev
      It is impossible to reflect the impact of anti-ship missiles

      Why so categorically? While we are talking about a new round of the eternal competition between the shield and the sword. On the fly, the following can be noted:

      1. Do not focus on the fact that ships in our time do not go one by one. One ship will not repel a massive attack, but it will be much more difficult to "stammer" the KUG.

      2. The electronic warfare factor has been missed: there is no need to shoot down anti-ship missiles if there is an opportunity to "divert" them from the target. And here, too, a lot of things can be thought of, including attracting the same UAVs, etc.

      3. The means of satellite reconnaissance can also be counteracted. For example, by releasing dozens of drifting and self-propelled decoys capable of imitating real ships (much like MALD missiles do): let the enemy puff, looking for real targets among dozens of "marks".
      1. Boa kaa
        Boa kaa April 26 2021 21: 01
        +6
        Quote: Kalmar
        3. The means of satellite reconnaissance can also be counteracted. For example, by releasing dozens of drifting and self-propelled decoys capable of imitating real ships (much like MALD missiles do): let the enemy puff, looking for real targets among dozens of "marks".

        Colleague, you are speaking correctly ... Here are just "wake trails" (of a certain width and length), how will they imitate? And not one warship will become a barge for such BKShch, but NUO is yesterday's day. Then you need to provide an IR signature of a certain wavelength ... This has already been passed. They even sprayed foil into the gas ducts to create a cloud in which to hide from the AGM-84 seeker ... Everything was ... And they took and switched to the UV signature ...
        So ... not a fact. hi
        1. Kalmar
          Kalmar April 26 2021 21: 09
          0
          Quote: Boa constrictor KAA
          Here are just a "wake" (of a certain width and length), how will they imitate?

          I'm not sure that the radar station, even from a low orbit, will be able to distinguish the wake, especially when the sea is rough. Optical reconnaissance satellites could, but they have their own limitations: sensitivity to weather conditions, small viewing angle when shooting with high resolution, etc.
        2. arkadiyssk
          arkadiyssk April 26 2021 22: 39
          -5
          Arlie Burke himself can change his wake as he pleases, he has cunning systems that supply water to the tips of the propeller blades (in the propeller blades there are cavities along which water is drawn by pumps and blown out from their ends) and air supply under the bottom.
    2. Passing
      Passing April 26 2021 19: 59
      +6
      No one will produce a hundred CDs per ship - one American anti-ship missile costs 3 million dollars, 100 pieces, respectively, 300 million. bucks, which for a goal costing the same $ 300 million (22350 costs so much) is an unacceptable overpricing even for Americans.
      1. Shopping Mall
        April 26 2021 20: 14
        0
        On 22350, that much is not required - 20-30 pcs. that's enough. But what if it's something like a modernized Peter the Great? There, the price tag is completely different.
        1. Boa kaa
          Boa kaa April 26 2021 21: 07
          +1
          Quote: AVM
          On 22350, that much is not required - 20-30 pcs. that's enough.

          Andrey, you would first read our naval forum sites or something ...
          20-30 RCC for 22350 is too much! A maximum of ten, and then, if the outfit of forces from the Yankees will be aviation. And if you hit the heel, then there will be nothing to worry about ... and not about anyone ...
          AHA.
          1. Shopping Mall
            April 26 2021 21: 30
            +1
            Quote: BoA KAA
            Quote: AVM
            On 22350, that much is not required - 20-30 pcs. that's enough.

            Andrey, you would first read our naval forum sites or something ...
            20-30 RCC for 22350 is too much! A maximum of ten, and then, if the outfit of forces from the Yankees will be aviation. And if you hit the heel, then there will be nothing to worry about ... and not about anyone ...
            AHA.


            This is understandable, let's say, I took the most optimistic scenario, when all missiles with ARLGSN, electronic warfare and air curtains worked well, all equipment was brought to the maximum capabilities. AWACS helicopter, etc.

            In fact, no matter how you read it now, there is no certainty about anything - only a real conflict can test the capabilities of weapons. Maybe all Onyxes will fly into the void when attacked by Arlie Berks, shot down by electronic warfare. Or maybe the American destroyers won't have time to squeak, everything will work as it should, the electronic warfare won't help, the Standards will fly by ... I hope that I won't get answers to questions in this way ...
      2. Kalmar
        Kalmar April 26 2021 20: 39
        +3
        Quote: Passing by
        100 pcs, respectively 300 mln. bucks, which for a target costing the same $ 300 million (22350 costs so much) is an unacceptable overpricing even for Americans

        The economy of war is a delicate thing. It is necessary to consider not only the cost of the target, but also the approximate cost of the damage that it can cause. If a frigate gets dangerously close to valuable allied ships, no one will save on missiles.
        1. Passing
          Passing April 26 2021 21: 34
          +3
          Quote: AVM
          But what if it's something like a modernized Peter the Great?

          Quote: Kalmar
          The economy of war is a delicate thing.

          Theoretically, in a vacuum, when the enemy is at the gate, and all reserves are exhausted, then yes, anything is possible. But, I doubt that the United States is seriously considering scenarios for the salvo launch of hundreds of anti-ship missiles. Therefore, we should not tear the veins to the detriment of everything else, such as to ensure this very interception of hundreds of anti-ship missiles at any cost.
          I'll clarify my arguments:
          1) The healthy logic of a wealthy military man implies that if the current anti-ship missile system is too much to cope with its task, i.e. one rocket - one ship, then a new rocket is needed.
          2) The same logic says that if there is an effective missile, then it is pointless to waste resources on the maintenance of an ineffective one.
          Therefore, IMHO, in the paradigm of US logic, there is no place for the concept of "throwing a million of all kinds of junk at the enemy." Therefore, IMHO, we need to focus not on the number of reflected targets, but on the quality of protection. Specifically for the defense of ships - to counter a dozen or so hypersonic units.
          1. Kalmar
            Kalmar April 26 2021 21: 56
            +3
            Quote: Passing by
            one rocket - one ship

            This ratio has never been met. Even the most advanced and invulnerable missile can malfunction. Plus all sorts of external factors like inaccurate control center, for example. And a large ship with one non-nuclear missile simply cannot be destroyed.

            Quote: Passing by
            if there is an effective rocket, then it makes no sense to waste resources on the maintenance of an ineffective

            First, efficiency is a thing, let's say, context-dependent: for some targets, a missile may be ineffective, for others - quite suitable. And here the very economy of war comes into play again: why waste expensive missiles on targets that can be easily destroyed with cheap ones.

            Second, the final efficiency is a function of the quantity и quality. Moreover, the lack of one characteristic can be compensated by the excess of another. And there it is already necessary to look in detail, which is easier: to deliver to the target a dozen "super-duper-missiles" or fifty simpler.

            Quote: Passing by
            in the paradigm of US logic, there is no place for the concept of "throwing the enemy with a million of all kinds of junk"

            Strange as it may seem, there is: they plan to return UGM-84 (old "Harpoons" underwater launch) to Los Angeles. In the end, this "old" has an important advantage over new products - it already exists, and new missiles in sufficient quantities have yet to be riveted.

            Quote: Passing by
            we need to focus not on the number of targets reflected, but on the quality of protection. Specifically for the defense of ships - to counter a dozen or so hypersonic units.

            I remember the old joke: It's a shame when you are wearing a cool bulletproof vest, and they hit you in the face... Protection must be created from the weapons that the enemy has. An air defense system capable of shooting down hypersonic units may, for example, be prohibitively ineffective against small low-flying subsonic anti-ship missiles.
          2. Titus_2
            Titus_2 April 26 2021 22: 25
            -2
            Plus, I'll bet, but I disagree for a number of reasons. One rocket per ship, I believe that no one in their strategy so lays ... especially since a large number is already in service and, for that matter, one arley berk will be enough for our entire fleet. You yourself indicated in your 1nd chapter about a million junk, after all, you can use it by getting tired of our air defense and just use up the missiles of the air defense missile system and only then ... In fact, our opponents are not very good at intercepting missiles.
    3. sevryuk
      sevryuk April 26 2021 20: 03
      0
      Another thing is that the stocks of anti-ship missiles are also not infinite. In the event of NATO aggression against Yugoslavia, it was practically over in a couple of months.
      1. Avior
        Avior April 26 2021 22: 22
        +4
        Another thing is that the stocks of anti-ship missiles are also not infinite. In the event of NATO aggression against Yugoslavia, it was practically over in a couple of months.

        Can you write in more detail about the use of RCC in that conflict?
        Taking into account the fact that Serbia has no access to the sea, I cannot remember a single case of the use of anti-ship missiles.
    4. 971
      971 April 27 2021 23: 53
      -1
      Quote: Basarev
      It is impossible to reflect the impact of anti-ship missiles

      more than possible
      Quote: Basarev
      Especially now, when the enemy is capable of firing both 200 and 300 missiles in one salvo

      an extremely simple question - how do you imagine it
      DRAW
      1. Basarev
        Basarev April 28 2021 09: 47
        0
        Very simple. Ships gather in a heap. 5, 10, I suspect that if it is really necessary, the States can collect even a hundred ships ... And all together they release such an incredible number of missiles that no air defense will help. The truth is, over-saturating air defenses is much easier than shooting down all the missiles. I believe that in the future, the ship's air defense will finally disappear, as it will become completely useless. Roughly like land air defense. Following the example of Israel, it is clear that with the right tactics, no complex is a serious obstacle. That is, you need to prepare not to shoot down missiles on the way - we will still not be able to reflect everything, because it is impossible in principle - but survive multiple hits. And this is where armor comes to mind. Kaptsov wrote very convincingly that no modern and promising anti-ship missile system would be able to break through a good belt, since it was structurally very fragile. And I share his views.
        1. 971
          971 April 28 2021 10: 08
          -1
          Quote: Basarev
          Very simple. Ships gather in a heap. 5, 10, I suspect that if it is really necessary, the States can collect even a hundred ships ... And all together they release such an incredible number of missiles that no air defense will help.

          DRAW it
          VALLEY STRUCTURE
          taking into account the capabilities of launchers, OMS, EMC

          but after that there will be a substantive conversation on air defense
          and in many respects amazing
          1. Basarev
            Basarev April 28 2021 10: 43
            0
            Volley structure. What is it? I thought it was just that all the cells were filled with anti-ship missiles and were simultaneously launched from all ships. Hundreds of missiles in a salvo that no one can handle. Maybe thousands. The possibilities of the States are endless.
            1. 971
              971 April 28 2021 10: 47
              -1
              Quote: Basarev
              Hundreds of missiles in a salvo that no one can handle. Maybe thousands

              tens, hundreds of thousands lol
              Quote: Basarev
              The possibilities of the States are endless.

              lol
              PS do not confuse the States with
          2. Shopping Mall
            April 28 2021 12: 55
            +1
            Quote: 971
            Quote: Basarev
            Very simple. Ships gather in a heap. 5, 10, I suspect that if it is really necessary, the States can collect even a hundred ships ... And all together they release such an incredible number of missiles that no air defense will help.

            DRAW it
            VALLEY STRUCTURE
            taking into account the capabilities of launchers, OMS, EMC

            but after that there will be a substantive conversation on air defense
            and in many respects amazing


            The question is not for me, but I will intervene. As I understand it, speaking of the structure of the salvo, you mean the interval of the launch of the anti-ship missile system? When I spoke about "hundreds" of missiles, I meant aviation. 10 B-1B is now 240 LRASM, after modernization of the external suspension (if any) - 360 LRASM. The reset interval will not exceed 10 seconds, i.e. in 4-6 minutes, all anti-ship missiles will go to the target.

            In the latest artillery systems it is possible to ensure the simultaneous fall of shells on the target, using the modularity of the charge and the inclination of the barrel. I do not know if the LRASM anti-ship missiles can adjust their flight speed, or it is kept constant, but by changing the flight trajectory and a small attendant loss of range, they can be brought to the target at the same time. Or use the range margin and the difference in the moment of launching the anti-ship missile system for an attack from several directions.
            1. 971
              971 April 28 2021 12: 57
              0
              Quote: AVM
              Reset interval will not exceed 10 seconds

              for air defense it's just heavenly conditions
              Quote: AVM
              can be brought to the goal at the same time

              can
              but there already other restrictions begin
            2. Sasha_rulevoy
              Sasha_rulevoy 8 May 2021 05: 07
              0
              I read an American report on exercises with B-52s with "Harpoons" in the 90s, and it said that they managed to launch missiles every half an hour (so much time was spent on preparing data for firing).
        2. timokhin-aa
          timokhin-aa April 28 2021 18: 22
          0
          And this is where armor comes to mind. Kaptsov wrote very convincingly that no modern and promising anti-ship missile system would be able to break through a good belt, since it was structurally very fragile. And I share his views.


          The mosquito would have flashed Iowa just like that.
          1. Basarev
            Basarev April 28 2021 18: 30
            0
            You overestimate the armor penetration of missiles. I remember there were experiments - they fired rockets at the unfinished Stalingard. A battlecruiser, a ship of a smaller class, with much thinner armor ... And none of them were able to penetrate.
            1. timokhin-aa
              timokhin-aa April 28 2021 18: 36
              0
              What is it that you misunderstand.
              1. I don’t remember what kind of rockets they hit at Stalingrad. They shot him in the 50s. What kind of anti-ship missiles did we have then? KS-1 only in 1954 went to the tests for the Black Sea Fleet and moreover.

              2. One KS-1 was enough to sink a light cruiser, firing SAMs at one of the 68bis showed that she was sewing everything there like paper.

              3. Kinetic energy is proportional to the square of the speed, if anything. This is the question about the Mosquito.
              1. Basarev
                Basarev April 28 2021 18: 57
                0
                Don't compare the pathetic light cruiser to the overweight battleship. Light cruisers were armless even then. And most importantly, the speed of the SAM and the main caliber projectile is incomparable. The shells were already confidently taking hypersound, 2-3 km / s were for sure. And the missiles, even now, are mostly subsonic.
                1. timokhin-aa
                  timokhin-aa April 28 2021 19: 07
                  0
                  Yes, they considered armor penetration for missiles. And they checked. Don't argue with that.
                  1. Basarev
                    Basarev April 28 2021 19: 14
                    -1
                    And this is definitely not propaganda? It's just that it fits into the Soviet myths, in which small ships - frigates and destroyers, famously let AUGs, Iowa, and in general everything that floats not by the will of the USSR with their missiles. But in fact - the usual black envy. Themselves, the aircraft carriers were not mastered, as well as the battleships. Neither a carrier-based AWACS aircraft, nor a BIUS comparable to Aegis - nothing. Some small, half-blind pelvis, which the Americans simply allowed to walk in the ocean.
                2. Glad
                  Glad 22 May 2021 15: 51
                  0
                  The shells were already confidently taking hypersound, 2-3 km / s were for sure.

                  Wonderful are your deeds, O Lord ... 2 - 3 km / s in those days? In the 50s? Can you give more details. And then I, a sinner, only know that the initial speed was 700 - 900 m / s, and the final speed was at a distance of 35 - 40 km 400 - 500 m / s for the shells of the main caliber of battleships.
            2. Glad
              Glad 22 May 2021 15: 40
              0
              You overestimate the armor penetration of missiles.

              Well no. You underestimate her. The design of the anti-ship missile warhead is what it is, only for one simple reason - it corresponds to the purposes for which the anti-ship missiles will work.
              There will be other targets (armored) - there will be other warheads. That's all science.
              Yes ... And one more nuance ... In order to make a ship incapable of combat, it is not at all necessary to beat at least some kind of armor on it. It is enough to "free" it from antenna posts and from other means of fire control. And for this you do not need to pierce the armor. Enough fragmentation warhead with GGE.
  3. mark1
    mark1 April 26 2021 19: 48
    0
    The simplest solution is to use shells with remote detonation at the target. In Russia, 30-mm shells with remote detonation on the trajectory
    Small-caliber projectiles are effective against anti-ship missiles only in the event of a direct hit, exclusively with an armor-piercing projectile. Volcano-Falanx provides a direct hit in many cases, ours is much worse. In Soviet times, as a way out was the use of a larger caliber - at least 76 mm (57 mm did not justify itself, as an example - the death of "Monsoon" in 1973)
    1. Shopping Mall
      April 26 2021 21: 25
      -1
      Quote: mark1
      The simplest solution is to use shells with remote detonation at the target. In Russia, 30-mm shells with remote detonation on the trajectory
      Small-caliber projectiles are effective against anti-ship missiles only in the event of a direct hit, exclusively with an armor-piercing projectile. Volcano-Falanx provides a direct hit in many cases, ours is much worse. In Soviet times, as a way out was the use of a larger caliber - at least 76 mm (57 mm did not justify itself, as an example - the death of "Monsoon" in 1973)


      Vulkan has yes - BOPS, but we use a high-explosive HE-84 incendiary projectile weighing 0,39 kg, explosive weight 48,5 g.

      Vulcan's capabilities cannot be improved in any way, maybe that's why they change it to RIM-116? But in a caliber of 30 mm, with an increase in the probability of defeat due to remote detonation at the target, can the firing distance be increased (due to damage at a greater range)? I'm not talking about guided projectiles, all the same, in 20 years.
      1. bayard
        bayard April 27 2021 03: 46
        +2
        They forgot about combat lasers, which have already reached a power sufficient to shoot down a UAV, an aircraft, and also a CD, although at a distance of about 5 km. (strong attenuation in an environment especially saturated with salts and water vapor). But they can replace rapid-fire artillery, and with an increase in power by another strand - and short-range air defense systems.
        To resolve the issue of power supply of such lasers, the Chinese put their "destroyers" 055 on electric propulsion, when four turbines of 35 hp each run on generators, and propulsion units on electric motors. At the same time, a large power reserve was deliberately created, which can be redirected to powering combat lasers to reflect a massive anti-ship missile raid.
        If it were not for the recent successes of such lasers in the defeat of heavy UAVs in Libya (the Turks distinguished themselves), one could not attach importance to this. But lasers with a power of tens of kilowatts of radiant energy already exist, and such lasers are already being installed on US ships for trial operation. In China, they are preparing for the same.
        We should also think.
        And you should never neglect strike weapons in favor of means of protection, otherwise warships will lose their meaning of existence. The imbalance that we observe in the NATO countries and Japan is understood simply - they must constitute an escort for the (additional) American AUG, as well as engage in the hunt for Russian submarines and at the same time fight off our missiles and aircraft. The strike functions are assumed by the United States - with its aviation and the CD.
        We do not have such wealth (as in NATO), so ships must be optimized in their strike capabilities to inflict maximum damage on the enemy. With reasonable provision of air defense and anti-aircraft defense.
        1. max702
          max702 April 27 2021 07: 35
          0
          Well, we have Peresvet which type of satellites moget (doubts) .. So the developments are a matter of efficiency ..
          1. bayard
            bayard April 27 2021 07: 48
            0
            There is no more information about "Peresvet" than about "super-duper" nuclear-powered missile systems, so there are questions, but it looks like the power will probably be more than that of the Turks on the armored jeep. And those heavy Chinese UAVs failed.
            But so far there is nowhere to put - large ships are not mortgaged here.
        2. Shopping Mall
          April 27 2021 07: 59
          +1
          Quote: bayard
          They forgot about combat lasers, which have already reached a power sufficient to shoot down a UAV, an aircraft, and also a CD, although at a distance of about 5 km. (strong attenuation in an environment especially saturated with salts and water vapor). But they can replace rapid-fire artillery, and with an increase in power by another strand - and short-range air defense systems.
          To resolve the issue of power supply of such lasers, the Chinese put their "destroyers" 055 on electric propulsion, when four turbines of 35 hp each run on generators, and propulsion units on electric motors. At the same time, a large power reserve was deliberately created, which can be redirected to powering combat lasers to reflect a massive anti-ship missile raid.
          If it were not for the recent successes of such lasers in the defeat of heavy UAVs in Libya (the Turks distinguished themselves), one could not attach importance to this. But lasers with a power of tens of kilowatts of radiant energy already exist, and such lasers are already being installed on US ships for trial operation. In China, they are preparing for the same.
          We should also think.
          And you should never neglect strike weapons in favor of means of protection, otherwise warships will lose their meaning of existence. The imbalance that we observe in the NATO countries and Japan is understood simply - they must constitute an escort for the (additional) American AUG, as well as engage in the hunt for Russian submarines and at the same time fight off our missiles and aircraft. The strike functions are assumed by the United States - with its aviation and the CD.
          We do not have such wealth (as in NATO), so ships must be optimized in their strike capabilities to inflict maximum damage on the enemy. With reasonable provision of air defense and anti-aircraft defense.


          Lasers, electronic warfare, false targets - in the next article, it has already been submitted.
      2. mark1
        mark1 April 27 2021 05: 41
        +1
        Quote: AVM
        But in a caliber of 30 mm, with an increase in the probability of defeat due to remote detonation at the target

        He's just weak against an armored head. Examine the death of the "Monsoon", there even 57 mm did not help with a close detonation.
        1. Serg65
          Serg65 April 27 2021 08: 41
          +1
          Quote: mark1
          Examine the death of the "Monsoon", there even 57 mm did not help with a close detonation.

          57 mm where?
        2. Shopping Mall
          April 27 2021 09: 31
          0
          Quote: mark1
          Quote: AVM
          But in a caliber of 30 mm, with an increase in the probability of defeat due to remote detonation at the target

          He's just weak against an armored head. Examine the death of the "Monsoon", there even 57 mm did not help with a close detonation.


          I have no doubt that it is unlikely to detonate a warhead. But the problem with the "not detonated" warhead is that it is too close to the ship, ie. the defeat of the BOPS anti-ship missile system still occurs at a distance of less than 1000 m, or even 500 m - the anti-ship missile or its fragments will fly to the ship by inertia. At the same time, potentially rapid-fire 30-mm cannons can shoot down anti-ship missiles at a distance of 2000-4000 meters. Another question is that at such a distance the dispersion will already be great and the probability of defeat will be scanty.

          The existing 30-mm HE shells are equipped with a contact fuse. It is clear that at the moment of collision, the fragmentation field will not be of optimal shape, many fragments can simply fly past the anti-ship missile system. In this case, BOPS is guaranteed to be better.

          By using projectiles with remote detonation on the trajectory, calculated and experienced, it is possible to achieve a significant increase in the probability of defeat, ensuring the optimal moment of detonation of the projectile. At the same time, the projectile may not even hit the anti-ship missile (this is not required), but its fragmentation field, formed at the optimal moment, will provide a high probability of hitting the control surfaces, guidance system or other critical elements of the anti-ship missile system with multiple fragments or GGE.
        3. Shopping Mall
          April 27 2021 11: 09
          0
          Quote: mark1
          Examine the death of the "Monsoon", there even 57 mm did not help with a close detonation.


          I read about Monsoon. There, in general, the topic is muddy - the anti-ship missile system "survived" after being hit by the "Wasp" air defense missile system. And 57 mm did not get anywhere at all, most likely. And in this case, at least armor-piercing, at least some shells - there will be no use. It is necessary to increase the probability of hitting.

          And this is already a question of the effectiveness of missiles. And was there even a hit on the target?
  4. Taoist
    Taoist April 26 2021 21: 50
    +4
    In my opinion, hitting guided munitions with guided munitions is a path to nowhere ... Well, in fact, to create a fragmentation projectile field in the near zone that destroys anti-ship missiles before it hits ... IMHO is more promising. again, there is a place for booking (to reflect secondary debris). By and large, long-range missile launchers are only needed to defeat anti-ship missile carriers - but "metal cutters" in combination with an effective electronic warfare system to blind the seeker are the right combination.
    1. YOU
      YOU April 26 2021 23: 04
      -1
      In general, everything is correct. Only shells need armor-piercing. The defeat of the rocket occurs in the near zone of no more than 3 km. And this is the best case. The destruction of the missile itself, which has already reached the "home stretch" at such a distance, that is, the trajectory of defeat, which has completed all the maneuvers, with the engine already running out, does little. Debris from the warhead will continue to fly by inertia, and the armor-piercing warhead has every chance of hitting the ship. T. that an armor-piercing projectile, capable of destroying a warhead, and even better to cause a detonation. Therefore, it will hardly be possible to make a guided armor-piercing projectile.
      1. Shopping Mall
        April 27 2021 11: 01
        0
        Quote: YOU
        In general, everything is correct. Only shells need armor-piercing. The defeat of the rocket occurs in the near zone of no more than 3 km. And this is the best case. The destruction of the missile itself, which has already reached the "home stretch" at such a distance, that is, the trajectory of defeat, which has completed all the maneuvers, with the engine already running out, does little. Debris from the warhead will continue to fly by inertia, and the armor-piercing warhead has every chance of hitting the ship. T. that an armor-piercing projectile, capable of destroying a warhead, and even better to cause a detonation. Therefore, it will hardly be possible to make a guided armor-piercing projectile.


        Fully guided ammunition can hit targets at a greater distance, of the order of 3-4 km, with an acceptable probability, or even more.

        The question is also in the type of attacking anti-ship missiles. It's one thing - a huge "Granite", another - "Harpoon" or LRASM. The first one is easier to hit, but more difficult to shoot down, and low-flying Harpoon and LRASM are more difficult to detect and hit, but their survivability will also be much lower. I doubt that an anti-ship missile flying at an altitude of 5 meters will fly over 1 km by inertia. In the worst case, the fragments will ricochet on the water.
        1. Taoist
          Taoist April 27 2021 21: 19
          0
          Subsonic missiles are generally not the most difficult target for autonomous guided metal cutters. And if also with guidance over several channels, including optics ... at a distance from 0 to 20 cables, it makes little sense to use the SD for interception. This version of "Curtains" only in the ship version will definitely be cheaper. The question is again the price. How much will a hundred heavy anti-ship missiles cost compared to the target for which such an outfit will be involved?
          1. Shopping Mall
            April 28 2021 10: 21
            0
            Quote: Taoist
            Subsonic missiles are generally not the most difficult target for autonomous guided metal cutters. And if also with guidance over several channels, including optics ... at a distance from 0 to 20 cables, it makes little sense to use the SD for interception. This version of "Curtains" only in the ship version will definitely be cheaper.


            Yes, something is always said about the opposite - our automatic cannons do not particularly shoot down even outdated, large, relatively high flying subsonic targets, Klimov recently wrote about this again. And Shells with guns do a poor job with UAVs in Syria, and they are simpler than anti-ship missiles - all cases of successful defeat were received by missiles.

            Quote: Taoist
            The question is again the price. How much will a hundred heavy anti-ship missiles cost compared to the target for which such an outfit will be involved?


            If the cost of one anti-ship missile is $ 1-4 million, then 100 pcs. this is $ 100-400 million.

            A destroyer of the Arlie Burke class is worth $ 2,2 billion, the Zamwault is $ 4,4 billion, that of the Peter the Great type is $ 1 billion (earlier, now it will be more likely under $ 2 billion), EM Doering - $ 1,3 billion . $ (in my opinion, with incomplete armament, with a backlog for the future).


            Frigate 22350 is somewhere around $ 250-300 million, but it won't even need 100 missiles.
            1. Taoist
              Taoist April 28 2021 18: 25
              0
              Well, I would not compare an anti-ship missile system with a UAV ... - and the size and, most importantly, there is a question of reach in height ... it is clear that at 4-5 km firing from cannons is not particularly effective ... This is just about low-flying - subsonic and the range of fire is no longer maneuvering targets.
  5. Niko
    Niko April 26 2021 22: 33
    -1
    It's always interesting to me when considering such scenarios: miracle satellites of one side see, track, give target designation for thousands of kilometers in real time, etc. And the other side, crawling with its aircraft carrier groupings (and more advanced both technically and financially), has no satellites from the word AT ALL. He is not able to track the takeoff of flocks of heavy bombers from well-known airfields, although even now, in the case of stationary objects such as the bases of strategic aviation, it is quite realistic to track not even the takeoff of large groups, but already pre-takeoff preparation (and without much fiction)
    1. YOU
      YOU April 26 2021 23: 49
      -1
      "I'm always interested when considering such scenarios: the miraculous satellites of one side see, track, give target designation for thousands of kilometers in real time, etc. And the other side is crawling with its aircraft carrier groups (and more advanced both technically and financially) There are no satellites from the word AT ALL "And here is an interesting question, I think the American LRASM rocket, also probably has a correction through the satellite of the flight path, depending on the change in the coordinates of the moving target (ship, order). With target designation from a satellite, drone, reconnaissance aircraft. And here it will be so, who will knock down these controls and target designation earlier, and so on. And most likely both sides will do this mutually. And then something like this, it is not clear how, but without the far hand. Only with the help of reconnaissance. aviation or newly launched long-range drones. But they will also be shot down, jammed. And time to fly to the place of events. So that the scenario we all see, and what we want to start up, is hardly possible. At least not everywhere. Apparently realizing that the enemy is also "moget" and create ZG radar.
      1. max702
        max702 April 27 2021 07: 42
        -1
        There is only one problem in the conflict scenario you described, the planet Earth will live for 30-45 minutes ..
        Well, if the satellites began to shoot down and so on, then EVERYTHING .. The strategic nuclear forces have already left the launchers carrying heat and light to the whole world .. Therefore, no one will twist satellites, but it is possible to wrestle some forces with the help of these toys with a big stretch, because somehow it is necessary justify the costs of all those horse circuses ..
      2. Shopping Mall
        April 27 2021 07: 58
        -2
        Quote: YOU
        "I'm always interested when considering such scenarios: the miraculous satellites of one side see, track, give target designation for thousands of kilometers in real time, etc. And the other side is crawling with its aircraft carrier groups (and more advanced both technically and financially) There are no satellites from the word AT ALL "And here is an interesting question, I think the American LRASM rocket, also probably has a correction through the satellite of the flight path, depending on the change in the coordinates of the moving target (ship, order). With target designation from a satellite, drone, reconnaissance aircraft. And here it will be so, who will knock down these controls and target designation earlier, and so on. And most likely both sides will do this mutually. And then something like this, it is not clear how, but without the far hand. Only with the help of reconnaissance. aviation or newly launched long-range drones. But they will also be shot down, jammed. And time to fly to the place of events. So that the scenario we all see, and what we want to start up, is hardly possible. At least not everywhere. Apparently realizing that the enemy is also "moget" and create ZG radar.


        In order to hit the ZGRLS, you only need cruise missiles. And to shoot down satellites is a whole problem. I have covered satellite reconnaissance issues in several articles:

        Find an aircraft carrier: space reconnaissance
        https://topwar.ru/176991-najti-avianosec-kosmicheskie-sredstva-razvedki.html

        Capella Space's All-Seeing Eye: Harbinger of the Satellite Intelligence Revolution
        https://topwar.ru/178436-vsevidjaschee-oko-kompanii-capella-space-predvestnik-revoljucii-v-sputnikovoj-razvedke.html

        Достучаться до небес
        https://topwar.ru/178994-dostuchatsja-do-nebes.html

        Orbital Cleaners
        https://topwar.ru/179365-orbitalnye-chistilschiki.html
        1. YOU
          YOU April 27 2021 09: 51
          -1
          In general, the discussion about the defeat of the satellite and the radar ZG. This is what the Armor and Projectile competition is all about. You can hit everything, including the means of destruction themselves. Let's better talk about [quote] [Thus, 2-4 American strategic bombers can carry 72-144 anti-ship missiles. If we are talking about aircraft carrier or naval strike groups (AUG / KUG), then for their attack the enemy may well attract 10-20 bombers, which will carry 360-720 anti-ship missiles with a launch range of 800-1000 kilometers. / Quote] Purely theoretically, even more than 2 dozen missiles in one salvo, and how they will lead among themselves. In terms of interaction? And there is no risk simply that a certain amount will collide in flight? Not to mention a few dozen. That is, under a hundred.
          1. Shopping Mall
            April 27 2021 10: 19
            -1
            Quote: YOU
            ... Purely theoretically, even more than 2 dozen missiles in one salvo, and how they will lead among themselves. In terms of interaction? And there is no risk simply that a certain amount will collide in flight? Not to mention a few dozen. That is, under a hundred.


            I don't think there will be any problems. In any case, the planes will advance in echelon, the discharge is carried out sequentially, with a short time interval. The flight program will provide for an attack from several directions according to a given scenario, with a change in the course and speed of the anti-ship missile system.

            To attack the AUG in Soviet times, it was planned to use several Tu-22M3 regiments, which is about 40 vehicles, i.e. 40-120 anti-ship missiles in a salvo.
            1. YOU
              YOU April 27 2021 10: 48
              -1
              It is clear, then it is really necessary to create ships with echeloned highly productive air defense. But the question is why such a ship that will carry only an air defense system, air defense and air defense. Or create ships, one striker, one anti-submarine and an arsenal with air defense, but this is too expensive. And then only alternative emitters of energy come out, with REB. Or hedgehogs bristling with high-tempo speed-shooters, which, in general, is also not cheap, and unlikely.
              1. Shopping Mall
                April 27 2021 10: 55
                -1
                Quote: YOU
                It is clear, then it is really necessary to create ships with echeloned highly productive air defense. But the question is why such a ship that will carry only an air defense system, air defense and air defense ...


                To keep the sky above the water area, not allowing PLO aviation to work. And all strike weapons should be placed on SSGNs such as existing upgraded Project 949AM or new SSGN 955K based on Project 955 SSBNs.
                1. YOU
                  YOU April 27 2021 11: 13
                  0
                  In general, an option. Moreover, with the advent of hypersound, the number of missiles can be significantly smaller. Consequently, there are fewer boats. The appearance of means of intercepting hypersound will appear, apparently, far from tomorrow.
  6. Boa kaa
    Boa kaa April 26 2021 23: 19
    +4
    Quote: Passing by
    But, I doubt that the United States is seriously considering scenarios for the salvo launch of hundreds of anti-ship missiles.
    But it depends on the goal. If the target is a group target, with a strong missile defense / air defense system, then a salvo of 10-15 anti-ship missiles for one ship of the order is quite possible, and up to 20 units. RCC to the main target. There are nomograms, there are machine calculations ... So your doubts are not very well founded. And the launches will be as dense as possible in time (the range of the salvo), from different heights and directions, in order to "pull apart" the AIE on the sides, clog the target channels, disrupt the escort, etc.
    if the current anti-ship missile system is very much unable to cope with its task, i.e. one rocket - one ship, then a new rocket is needed.
    These are removed from service and transferred to the BP as targets or for disposal ...
    if there is an effective missile, then it is pointless to waste resources on the maintenance of an ineffective one.
    Well, history knows examples when art. shells of the WWII period were disposed of through the barrel of the LK by the BC Libya.
    And a second example. On May 2, 1982, the British nuclear submarine HMS Conqueror attacked and sank the only Argentine cruiser General Belgrano (C-4) with three torpedoes on target designation by US space reconnaissance. torpedoes, abandoning the use of new ones.
    if anti-ship missiles fly at us, then it will be a few, dozens at most, difficult to intercept missiles.
    To strike the business center, the Yankees plan to use 5-7 thousand CRBDs. On ships at sea - up to 70% of anti-ship missiles on board in the first salvo ...
    we need to focus not on the number of targets reflected, but on the quality of protection. Specifically for the defense of ships - to counter a dozen or so hypersonic units.
    It is logical. But you shouldn't forget about the bad old Harpoons and tactical Axes either. In war, and a nail can come in handy. Anything can happen.
    AHA.
  7. Yuri V.A
    Yuri V.A April 27 2021 03: 24
    +3
    As indicated in the article, the number of attack missiles on ships and aircraft is constantly increasing, therefore, the fight against anti-ship missiles, developing, of course, means of self-defense, must be seen in neutralizing the carriers of these missiles, and only a full-fledged aircraft carrier can provide the maximum combat stability of the ship group today.
  8. Peaceful SEO
    Peaceful SEO April 27 2021 05: 20
    +1
    Quote: Basarev
    It is impossible to reflect the impact of anti-ship missiles. Especially now, when the enemy is capable of firing both 200 and 300 missiles in one salvo. Only a mythical arsenal ship carrying hundreds of missiles can cope with this. This is the only way to fulfill the main condition - for one enemy missile there should be at least 2-3 of ours. But such a ship also needs external target designation. Very long-range, ideally - to track the launch in real time in order to fire your missiles as early as possible. But such a ship is beyond our strength. Such an ammunition load cannot fit into 900 tons.

    Nobody will launch 900 missiles at the 200-ton ship. Maximum 2 and then, they will think 100 more times
  9. evgen1221
    evgen1221 April 27 2021 07: 13
    +2
    Considering how the young talents of Russian education overheated the aircraft in the design and metal, some doubts arise in the domestic science and production of the future after the departure of personnel from Soviet education and experience.
  10. Pavel57
    Pavel57 April 27 2021 15: 39
    0
    The author writes -
    The second method is the use of missiles with active radar homing heads (ARLGSN). After the issuance of the primary target designation, the missiles with ARLGSN use their own radar for additional search and targeting

    And what about radio correction, does it need channels? Or is the range considered to be slightly greater than the ARGS capture range?
    1. Shopping Mall
      April 28 2021 11: 21
      0
      Quote: Pavel57
      The author writes -
      The second method is the use of missiles with active radar homing heads (ARLGSN). After the issuance of the primary target designation, the missiles with ARLGSN use their own radar for additional search and targeting

      And what about radio correction, does it need channels? Or is the range considered to be slightly greater than the ARGS capture range?


      Desirable, and for this we need radar with AFAR.
  11. Dante Alighieri
    Dante Alighieri April 27 2021 20: 44
    0
    Why doesn't the USA have such a system? The first reason is because while the global satellite reconnaissance system is too complex and expensive. But this is based on yesterday's technologies.

    A bit wrong. The United States has NORAD, which controls the airspace of the N American continent 24/7 and also, I strongly suspect, the Northern Hemisphere in general. The amount of data received from the satellites of this system is quite enough for them today to control the vast majority of targets on the territory of potential adversaries, which, again, are entirely concentrated in this region. So why establish surveillance over those countries that are also south of the equator? In case of sending expeditionary troops to the next banana republic or to Antarctica? Isn't it too wasteful? Especially considering the fact that, if necessary, you can always adjust the orbit of existing satellites?
    1. Shopping Mall
      April 28 2021 11: 21
      0
      Quote: Dante
      Why doesn't the USA have such a system? The first reason is because while the global satellite reconnaissance system is too complex and expensive. But this is based on yesterday's technologies.

      A bit wrong. The United States has NORAD, which controls the airspace of the N American continent 24/7 and also, I strongly suspect, the Northern Hemisphere in general. The amount of data received from the satellites of this system is quite enough for them today to control the vast majority of targets on the territory of potential adversaries, which, again, are entirely concentrated in this region. So why establish surveillance over those countries that are also south of the equator? In case of sending expeditionary troops to the next banana republic or to Antarctica? Isn't it too wasteful? Especially considering the fact that, if necessary, you can always adjust the orbit of existing satellites?


      The question is how the satellites will orbit and what their energy capabilities will be. Roughly speaking, will they work on radiation continuously (if it is active radar), or part of the orbit (recharging the batteries the rest of the time). It may turn out that the observation of those areas that do not seem to be needed will be a "bonus".
  12. 971
    971 April 27 2021 23: 57
    -1
    1. If the author, speaking about the impact of the anti-ship missile system with the title illustration, puts an explosion torpedoes , it's all clear what this is wassat author lol
    2. "Nails" on the PKR, it's not even amateurism, it's just a kindergarten
    3. ...
    4. ...
    ...
    1. Shopping Mall
      April 28 2021 11: 41
      -1
      Quote: 971
      1. If the author, speaking about the impact of the anti-ship missile system with the title illustration, puts an explosion torpedoes , it's all clear what this is wassat author lol


      I didn’t think it was important, all the more so if an anti-ship missile with a powerful armored warhead hit and a delay in detonation would have a similar effect.

      Quote: 971
      2. "Nails" on the PKR, it's not even amateurism, it's just a kindergarten


      Not "Nails", but a conditional small-sized anti-ship missile "Nail-M" based on them, with a reduced range, but with an increased warhead, as a replacement / addition to small-caliber artillery, if its effectiveness turns out to be insufficient - the last frontier.
      1. 971
        971 April 28 2021 11: 44
        -1
        Quote: AVM
        I didn’t think it was important, all the more so if an anti-ship missile with a powerful armored warhead hit and a delay in detonation would have a similar effect.

        eh ...
        just put a smile belay
        Quote: AVM
        Not "Nails", but a conditional small-sized anti-ship missile system "Nail-M" based on them,

        fool
        apparently warheads for real missiles that work on anti-ship missiles, the developers are "foolish" and "from the flashlight" "draw" lol
        where are they skinny for such an expert lol
        1. Shopping Mall
          April 28 2021 11: 58
          0
          Quote: 971
          Quote: AVM
          Not "Nails", but a conditional small-sized anti-ship missile system "Nail-M" based on them,

          fool
          apparently warheads for real missiles that work on anti-ship missiles, the developers are "foolish" and "from the flashlight" "draw" lol
          where are they skinny for such an expert lol


          There are a lot of anti-ship missiles, and the mass of warheads they have is from 10 to 1500 kg. In the same RIM-116 warheads 10-13 kg, the Pantsir missiles have about 20 kg.

          It is far from a fact that the defeat of an anti-ship missile system with a single missile with a warhead weighing 20 kg will have a greater probability than two or four small-sized missiles with a warhead weighing 5 kg. In addition, the potential "Nail-M" can have a warhead of 10 kg, but at the expense of reducing the range to 5 km. As already mentioned - ZAK replacement / addition.
          1. 971
            971 April 28 2021 12: 04
            -1
            Quote: AVM
            There are a lot of anti-ship missiles, and the mass of warheads they have is from 10 to 1500 kg. In the same RIM-116 warheads 10-13 kg, the Pantsir missiles have about 20 kg.

            fool
            do not smash nonsense, it hurts !!!
            "nails" are made against the UAV !!!
            Quote: AVM
            It is far from the fact that the defeat of an anti-ship missile system with one missile with a warhead weighing 20 kg will have a greater probability than two or four small-sized missiles with a warhead weighing 5 kg.

            just nonsense
            1. issue price
            2. "expediency" wassat "multiple" "picking" RCC

            PS You are not tired of spanking nonsense?
            At the same time, there are quite reasonable things in your articles. Just "Occam's razor" (common sense) should be included more often
            1. Shopping Mall
              April 28 2021 12: 44
              0
              Quote: 971
              "nails" are made against the UAV !!!


              "Nails" - yes, but Stingers and Sidewinders were also not made against anti-ship missiles, but, nevertheless, RIM-116 is made on their basis. We are talking about a concept - small-sized NK short-range self-defense missiles.

              Quote: 971
              Quote: AVM
              It is far from the fact that the defeat of an anti-ship missile system with one missile with a warhead weighing 20 kg will have a greater probability than two or four small-sized missiles with a warhead weighing 5 kg.

              just nonsense
              1. issue price
              2. "expediency" wassat "multiple" "picking" RCC


              1. And what is the cost of getting RCC into NK? Moreover, the "Nails" are just considered as the most inexpensive missiles.

              2. Expediency arises from the fact that even the best missiles will not defeat anti-ship missiles with a probability of 1,0. If one "Nail-M" will have a probability of hitting anti-ship missiles of the order of 0,5, then for two nails it will be 0,75, for four - 0,94, and further:
              - one "Nail-M" - the probability of hitting anti-ship missiles of the order of 0,6, for two nails - 0,84, for four - 0,97.
              - one "Nail-M" - the probability of hitting anti-ship missiles of the order of 0,7, for two nails - 0,91, for four - 0,99.
              - one "Nail-M" - the probability of hitting anti-ship missiles of the order of 0,8, for two nails - 0,96, for four - 0,9984.
              1. 971
                971 April 28 2021 12: 58
                0
                Quote: AVM
                Expediency arises from the fact that

                You can't even imagine the degree of your ignorance ...
                1. Shopping Mall
                  April 28 2021 13: 00
                  0
                  Quote: 971
                  Quote: AVM
                  Expediency arises from the fact that

                  You can't even imagine the degree of your ignorance ...


                  Well, can you share your innermost knowledge? And then only nerves and profound hints of their awareness ...
                  1. 971
                    971 April 28 2021 13: 03
                    0
                    Quote: AVM
                    Well, can you share your innermost knowledge?

                    Read
                    adequate literature on the network is enough
                    I will return to the air defense issue in a couple of dozen articles (in the plan, while there is something else)
                    Quote: AVM
                    And then only nerves yes

                    hysterical here YOU
  13. Kostadinov
    Kostadinov 16 July 2021 10: 35
    0
    With an anti-ship missile flight altitude of 5 meters

    When flying the anti-ship missile at a height of up to 50-100 meters, it is better to create a mine barrage on the way of the anti-ship missile.
    This, in the worst case, will cause the RCC to rise.