"Warship Vulnerability to air and missile attacks" Topic

Came across this one and thought others might be interested in the information and especially the photos . Robert

Warship Vulnerability

Technical Report APA-TR-2005-0701

by Dr Carlo Kopp, SMAIAA, SMIEEE, PEng
July, 2005
Updated July 2008
Updated November 2010

"Surface warships and transport vessels are highly vulnerable – and susceptible – to air and missile attacks. This ugly reality has been demonstrated repeatedly since the early 1940s, but the message seems to be forgotten with remarkable regularity.

The advent of modern anti-ship cruise missiles, especially types with sea-skimming trajectories, adds a further dimension to an issue which was well proven during the Second World War. It is worth observing that a large number of Allied vessels were sunk or damaged by German Fritx-X and Hs-293 guided glidebombs during that period [Click for more …].

The first 'modern' casualty of an antishipping missile attack was the Israeli destroyer Eilat, sunk by four Styx ASCMs launched by Soviet supplied fast missile boats, operated by Egypt.

It is also worth observing that the last major campaign involving sustained aerial and missile attacks on a surface fleet was during the Falklands conflict, 23 years ago. It represents the only genuinely useful case study since the Second World War. While AAW and ASMD systems have improved considerably since then, so have the anti-ship cruise missiles in the global market.

British losses in warships and lives would have been considerably greater were it not for the persistent problems experienced by the Argentines with fusing in the Exocet ASCMs and 1,000 lb dumb bombs used in these attacks.

It is of importance that many of the key problems experienced in the Falklands are inherent to the use of warships without protective AEW&C, aerial refuelling tanker and fighter cover, and thus cannot be wished away by putting bigger radars and more defensive systems on warships. In this type of combat, the initiative always lies with the attacker [Click for more …].

Suffice to say the lethality of first generation sea-skimmers and 1,000 lb dumb bombs cannot compare against the contemporary weapons being acquired across the Pacific Rim and Indian Ocean regions [Click for more …].

This webpage will display examples of damage effects inflicted on surface vessels by anti-shipping cruise missiles, and air delivered bombs."

link

Air power advocate declares Australia needs more aircraft shocker!

The problem is that this article is by Carlo Kopp, who is widely discredited in the military analysis community, especially with his connections to Air Power Australia, which is widely seen as a joke. I just can't read anything by him and take it seriously.

Makes me happy that I am retired. Missile attacks are no joke.

Does that mean that the information and photos presented is flawed TGerritsen?

I liked the photos and the Anti-Shipping Strike Combat Losses – Guided Munitions in World War II and Anti-Shipping Strike Combat Losses – Post 1966 listings. Is there anything wrong about them? Robert

I once attended a brief/update on Anti Ship Missile Defence, where the briefing team ran through a long litany of current ASMDs, and their signatures, and corresponding soft and hard kill countermeasures. As time was short, the format was straightforward – missile – signature – softkill defence option – hardkill defence option. Anyway, so on down the list…

Then all I heard was SUNBURN – signature blah blah – right chaps thats your lot then….

'Excuse me Sir', up I pipe, 'I'm afraid I missed the ASMD countermeasure drills on that last one…'
'Oh don't worry son, you didn't miss anything – there aren't any!'

Oh thats allright then!

Not necessarily, Kaos, the info could be good, but it's like getting ice cream from the man in the unmarked white van. He might be just a nice man selling ice cream, but that doesn't make the source any less questionable.

Hmm. OK. Well I'll take the Lists and Photos as creditable and the observations as suspect then. Robert

Everyone naturally leaves out the hardest part of modern naval warfare and that is finding your opponent. Yes, a Sunburn will more than likely ruin your day if you're anything smaller than a CV/LHA, but the launching platform needs targeting info. That means aircraft may have to brave a anti-air defensive zone, a sub needs to locate the target and pass data back, or you need to get close enough for surface search systems. Satellites will get either knocked out or you can maneuver around their searches, but finding the enemy is tough, especially if it's a US CVBG.

Having only 5%, or less, of the speed of your opponents is a recipe for disaster.

Even bombs dropped ballistically are a big threat, and ASMs really up the ante.

Greetings

I'm not convinced the lists are accurate (eg they miss out the 1973 action, Intrepid appears to have been sunk by Ju-88 by bombs) and they lack context (eg # sorties, missed attempts, successful countermeasures etc). I'm also puzzled why the WW2 listings are just guided weapon losses while post 1966 includes iron bombs?

Regards

Edward

Which CVN was it that made a mess of a Turkish destroyer with an accidental Sea Sparrow launch? That wasn't even an ASM.

aegiscg47 wrote:

Everyone naturally leaves out the hardest part of modern naval warfare and that is finding your opponent.

Quite right. Carry on.

All the best,

John.

So that 1 out of approx. 55 entries looks like so far Edward. So take with a grain of salt ala Wiki it looks like. Robert

It was the Saratoga:

link

For near-future, drones will become a serious issue. If a foe is able to send up repeated and persistent drone formations, it may only be a matter of time before something has active eyes on your fleet. It may devolve into a "he that spots first, wins" type of engagement where the opponents really don't get much of a chance once found. Phalanx-type systems can intercept a lot..but…well.

At the cost of a typical surface vessel, not to mention fleet, versus tens, hundreds, potentially thousands of incoming projectiles, one starts to wonder what a navy will look like 50 years from now.

At the cost of a typical surface vessel, not to mention fleet, versus tens, hundreds, potentially thousands of incoming projectiles, one starts to wonder what a navy will look like 50 years from now.

More Aegis ships, and some kind of 'long arm' drone carrying AIM120D in large-ish quantities to attempt to splash bombers before they launch.

How big do you think a Soviet incoming wave was in Red Storm Rising? Talking ~10 birds per bomber.

"…one starts to wonder what a navy will look like 50 years from now".

Conventional submarine, and/or some off take of a SHADO Skydiver, mixing subs with the ability to launch aircraft, or at least missiles and drones from underwater.

Much safer down there, at least for now.

Of course, that'll change too.

War's getting downright dangerous…

<It is also worth observing that the last major campaign involving sustained aerial and missile attacks on a surface fleet was during the Falklands conflict, 23 years ago. >

Not trying to be pedantic, but it was 31 years ago! I was but a lad of 19 at the time.

I can't believe it was that long ago either.

Makes me feel ancient.

Not trying to be pedantic, but it was 31 years ago! I was but a lad of 19 at the time.

The article was written in 2005.

"Conventional submarine, and/or some off take of a SHADO Skydiver, mixing subs with the ability to launch aircraft, or at least missiles and drones from underwater."

Oh, THAT old idea again. Just like it was the rage 20, 30, 40, 50 years ago…

…..or about 75, or so.

The difference is today, we probably have the tech to make it work reasonably well.

In WWII, it was a bit iffy, but the Japanese soldiered on, anyway.

Heck, if the I400 class hadn't run afoul of branch politicking, there would likely have been a very different result to the war. No Panama Canal to take a couple months off the transit time!

Lockheed has been pushing their Cormorant submarine-launched UCAV since 2005 at the latest, after all.

Given "The Coot's" (my nickname for the F-35) program delays, they just might get some funding, if they can prove their designs a bit more quickly than for the manned jets.

Hasn't the USS Minnesota been testing launching UAVs and UUVs? Robert