Page 2 of 2
RE: Future US Navy Anti ship capability
Posted: Tue Oct 15, 2013 2:41 am
by MR_BURNS2
ORIGINAL: mikmyk
I think 2-3 is as far as this class is going. Be interesting to see how useful they end up being.
Mike
Indeed, but surely more useful than the 2 LCS. I don“t see the point of them, i rather have 1 Zumwalt then 20 of these LCS ships.
RE: Future US Navy Anti ship capability
Posted: Thu Nov 07, 2013 11:01 am
by Rudd
RE: Future US Navy Anti ship capability
Posted: Thu Nov 07, 2013 8:19 pm
by Wiz33
You really need to see the live harpoon test with the pop up terminal engagement. There is not much out there that can stop one and anything smaller than a Slava will be a mission kill with a single shot. Most people just does not realize how much the Harpoon scares the USSR when it appeared. Just look at all the Soviet ship design that comes out afterward. Look at the number of CIWS mounts on the Udaloy, Slava, Kirov, Kuznetsov, etc. That's what the Soviet think they'll need in order to have a chance to survive against a carrier strike group using Harpoons. (10 x A-6E with 4 Harpoon each). People have to realize that there are sea skimmers and then there are sea skimmer. There is a reason for the slow speed and large control fins. Given the same CPU for flight control. The faster you fly, the higher you have to fly just to have time to adjust you flight path against wave motion, wind, etc. The Harpoon is the lowest flying SSM of that generation and none of the Soviet long range naval SAM system can engage it.
RE: Future US Navy Anti ship capability
Posted: Thu Nov 07, 2013 9:14 pm
by MR_BURNS2
Does the higher speed of supersonic missiles effect detectability due to higher closure/Doppler effect or is there, apart from higher flight level, another consideration too?
RE: Future US Navy Anti ship capability
Posted: Tue Nov 12, 2013 3:43 am
by Dimitris
ORIGINAL: Wiz33
The Harpoon is the lowest flying SSM of that generation and none of the Soviet long range naval SAM system can engage it.
That's a hefty claim, considering that the SA-10/SA-N-6 was designed explicitly with terrain-hugging/sea-skimming cruise missiles as one of its primary targets. The SA-N-4's land analog, SA-8, although designed before modern cruise missiles, has also proved quite capable of engaging them too.