Posted on 10/09/2014 8:32:08 PM PDT by Navy Patriot
Some folks question why the U.S. Navy would need such exotic weapons as the Phalanx and SeaRAM systems, or even electromagnetic rail guns. These Russian-made, radar-guided anti-ship missiles are two such reasons.
The P-270 Moskit and P-800 Oniks have caused so much consternation that the Navy has begun developing a helicopter-based electronic warfare system—the Advanced Offboard Electronic Warfare (AOEW)—to defend against the threat. Both are ramjet-propelled cruise missiles, both carry 550 to 710 pounds of high explosive in their warheads, and neither is one you want to see streaking towards your ship.
(Excerpt) Read more at gizmodo.com ...
I was surprised how easily the Argentines sunk a British ship using the Exocet. they also sunk some using dumb bombs.
Really, Andrew? Who would those folks be, pray tell?
Oh, yeah; America's enemies.
Got it.
IIRC, the warhead failed to explode, and it was the rocket motor exhaust that set the aluminum on fire, not to mention that the kinetic impact broke the fire suppression supply main.
These are four orders of magnitude above the Exocet.
They can be launched from land, aircraft, ship or submarine, and can coordinate from all platforms to arrive at target simultaneously, or in waves, from several different directions.
Worse, they can be coordinated with the Chinese land launched, ship killer ballistic missile which has a much larger range.
The Royal Navy didn’t have airborne early warning E-2C aircraft.
An A-4 w/exocets or dumb bombs wouldn’t have made it within a hundred miles of an American CV.
But we have GENIUSES on this site that tell us Russia is a PAPER TIGER and the Polish Calvary will save Ukraine now that they’re part of NATO (and therefore we start start WW3 against Russia).
I wonder who’s right.
Someone needs to tell the author that SeaRAM and Phalanx aren’t exactly exotic, and that the prototype rail guns have never been intended to counter incoming missiles. Stupid. Really stupid.
Conur, idiotic article on a very serious subject.
The way to best defeat incoming arrows has always been to kill the archer.
Agree, but you need a longer-range bow of your own to accomplish that.
The only middle they should be concerned about is the Obamamissle
And these are rather old Soviet systems that have been around for decades.
AND originally they were armed with thermonuclear warheads.
I love reading about these things though. It is a reminder that if we ever went up against the Russians it would not go as easily for us as our most recent conflicts. If that was easy.
Absolutely.
I would prepare for war, and then inform Russia that Russia and the US have some common interests (energy, safe seaways, economic growth, disease control), then point out that we have some common enemies, moderate through radical Islam, socialism, crony capitalism (Fascism). I would then suggest that we should be strong competitors rather than strong enemies.
With the Obola warhead.
The only way to successfully "kill the archer", is to massively initiate hostilities.
Japan tried that.
Two CIWS against twenty missiles arriving at the same time? Not good odds. 3,600 meter range against hypersonic missiles and long reload times means it is not the answer.
Wow, a person that thinks EXACTLY like me. We have plenty of others here that simply want to see how far we can push Russia into a corner, because they’re CONVINCED the country is a paper tiger.
I don’t think they are and I’d rather not find out, either way.
There’s a trade-off involved here, which is why Western navies and even ones like China still develop subsonic anti-ship missiles.
The Exocet is significantly smaller (can be launched from the torpedo tubes of an SSK or a 250T missile boat), can be retargeted and has better sea-skimming capabilities aka stealth. These Russian weapons don’t have those capabilities.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.