Approximately what year did ship launched anti-ship missiles overtake guns and torpedoes as the primary weapon of warships? I know the Fritz X heralded the age of the aircraft borne AShM, but what about the shipborne AShM? What was THE system that brought about naval warfare as we now know it?
>>6499130839BC the Greeks were using Greek fire and catapults.
P-15 Termit
>>64991308Some point before 1967.
>>64991308It was the late 1970s, say 1978 if you want a year. The Falklands war a few years later showed this in live fire.
>>64991308You would either need to pick a country or put forth some sort of way to weigh the importance of the major navies before someone could even begin to approach giving you a reasonable answer.
>>64991308>>64991362I would argue the P-5 is the turning point because it was the first missile to really be the main armament of a competitive major surface combatant, but the P-15 is the missile that proved the viability of the concept with the destruction of Eilat.US doctrine was aircraft first and used non-carrier surface combatants principally as air defense assets, so we were not crucial in the development of surface launched anti ship missiles.
>>64991308americans didn't have a dedicated ship to ship missile until the harpoon but they could reliably use things like the rim 2 against ships at longer ranges than guns which had an effective range of whatever the radar horizon was. a lot of ships didn't get the rim 2 or standard missiles. when they got the harpoon, it was easy enough to put it on all the ships they could physically fit the launchers on. every american ship was potentially a major surface combatant. if you shot them, they could and by safe assumption, would retaliate. unlike the soviets who had a lot of ships without any dedicated anti ship missiles and had to cross the radar horizon to fight back. the soviets were buck broken by focusing on the carriers rather than just getting a modest and compact missile system that everything could carry.
>>64991308battle of latakia was the exact tipping point between guns and missiles (ussr p15 vs israeli gabriel)
>>64991362Pretty much.
>>64991915We need an OSINT guy to start making comic sans infographics that are also SMASHED and SLAMMED it's fucking kino.
>>64991915Was the Gabriel indigenous?
VAMPIRE VAMPIRE VAMPIRE
>>64991915>Israel dabbing on Syria, Part 574.
>>64996040yesalso sold to taiwan, at the same time that israel was selling pythons to china
>>64991915an important note here is the the styx didnt miss magically, this is the first use of electronic warfare ever in naval combat
>>64991852>>64991308>>64991582Have a look at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:USN_missilesOne of the reasons its confusing is because after WWII everything significant was nuclear. Any ship, or fleet etc. was getting a megaton nuke thrown at it since the economics of nukes become compelling very fast. For USN such missiles were also there even though USN has carriers as primary offensive force on force.Those nuclear weapons got dropped out of the AShM classification for some reason. AShM now is downwards percolation of precision guided missiles into non-nuclear navies and low-intensity warfare, nuclear weapons were separated.
>>64997606Even the talos could go nuclear.What's fucked up is the soviets wouldn't be able to distinguish because the nuclear variant uses the same fire control radar. Any weapons launch could provoke a nuclear response.
>>64997382taiwan is an island in china israel is selling the pythons and gabriels both to china>>64997349there was another 'battle' that was basically the syrians camping in their port and shooting missiles/guns and israelis trying to ragebait them out, doing some damage and retreating. syrians count this as a 'victory'
>>64997630>What's fucked up is the soviets wouldn't be able to distinguish because the nuclear variant uses the same fire control radar.>Any weapons launch could provoke a nuclear response.TALOS was before the doctrine of MAD was established. And it was mostly an air target weapon anyways, the W30 was a popgun by nuclear standards, not something that would have lead to a general exchange in the 1950s and early 1960s. No one's kicking off WWIII for a spicy SAM until the nuclear hyperaggression of Regan becomes SOP.>>64997606Basically the only thing on that list that was both deployed and could be considered a surface launched antiship missile was the Regulus, and even then Regulus wasn't designed to deploy canned sunshine against surface combatants, it's land attack missile that is able to be repurposed, not a dedicated antishipping weapon.
>>64991308>TermitI argue, the SS-N-3 Shaddockit was good enough that the Soviets felt comfortable using it as the main armament on their Kynda-class cruiser right offat Mach 1.3 with a range from 25-300km and a 650kg HE SAP warhead, it would have been difficult to stop as even the best anti-air NATO warships of the time were only capable of shooting down high subsonic aircraftit's somewhat ludicrous to think that NATO only came up with a response by a full decade later, in the form of the Exocet>>64991852>rather than just getting a modest and compact missile system that everything could carrydifferent combat doctrine. the Soviets didn't believe that anything could shoot down something going Mach 2 or 3. for most of the Cold War they were right. it's only in 1983, when USS Ticonderoga hit the water, that they'd be wrong.
>>64999840>No one's kicking off WWIII for a spicy SAM until the nuclear hyperaggression of Regan becomes SOPReagan had the benefit of being US President precisely at the tipping point when NATO could finally outfight the Warpact conventionally, which is when and why he changed the rules of the gameup to that point the Soviets were happily using their conventional strength to salami slice democratic countries across the world, i.e. domino "theory"let me tell you, Americans sitting pretty farthest away from the action and defended by two oceans might call it a fucking "theory", but it wasn't a fucking theory as far as we were concerned, watching the Commie regimes get closer and closerNATO's only reliable options for knocking out Soviet bomber and tank regiments was tac nukes, and it was not worth destroying the world for the sake of one country after anotheralthough it's true that it took the work of the previous 2 decades to come up with the full suite of weapons and vehicles that turned the tide, Reagan deserves credit for having the balls to use it to threaten the Soviets with
1967, when a jew (anglo) destroyer got hulled by 3 p-15/ss-n-2 missiles fired from we wuz missile boats. this is generally the event that kicked the naval missile age off.prior to this, the very deadly torpedo boats could be managed by destroyers or secondary armaments of cruisers and battleships. missile boats mostly changed everything.
>>64998026>taiwan is an island in china israel is selling the pythons and gabriels both to chinaWest Taiwan needs to stfu
>>65000756>e wuz missile boatsDon't meme about it - call them what they were. The Kang Class.
>>64991308Pic related an early British cruise missile. Before this anyone still relevant after WWII were using converted V-1s as testbeds. Also remember anyone still relevant after WWII had depreciated aircraft carriers which was the logical way at the time to attack ships, so most of this stuff was developmental. Those US >>64997606missiles were focused on submarine launch, I guess they wanted to expand the capability of submarines in anti-shipping role.
>>65000868>Those US missiles were focused on submarine launch, I guess they wanted to expand the capability of submarines in anti-shipping roleThe US was in the position to invest in more or less everything, and operated the Bullpup and Walleye before the Harpoonthe British (like most European countries) were so poor after WW2, what with reconstruction needs, nuclear deterrence and throwing up some kind of conventional deterrence in Germany, that they couldn't really actually catch up with modern missile systems until the 70s, and that also at the expense of the civilian economy. by then they could buy Martel (air launch) and Exocet (surface launch).
>>65000767Lol
This is a pretty straightforward discussion without any shilling, what gives? This is a lot more like old /k/
>>65000043This desu. Both doctrines are remarkably coherent if I think about it:>US leverages naval aviation to get harpoons closer to the enemy>USSR keeps US ships at standoff ranges by having big long range missiles.I think you're also right on the money about the Tico, but I'd add that the same development also keeps planes further away. For me? It's the Silex
>>65002359>Both doctrines are remarkably coherent if I think about it:>US leverages naval aviation to get harpoons closer to the enemy>USSR keeps US ships at standoff ranges by having big long range missilesthe real reason is because the Soviet surface fleet has always been the least-funded arm of the USSR military, so even the US didn't bother investing much into anti-ship strike. Harpoon was designed to attack surfaced submarines, hence the name: harpoons are for hunting whalesthe actual reason the USSR Navy adopted fuckhueg missiles is because they couldn't invest in carriers until the Cold War was nearly over, so they made do with missiles. for putting ordnance on a target there's nothing that beats a deck load strike from a supercarrier, even if it's "only" Mk82s and Bullpups.pictured here is the first Russian guided-missile warship, the Kanin-class destroyer, first ship completed 1960, which really made NATO sit up and pay attention. in practice the SS-N-1 was so shit that they actually put the guns back on in the refit, but it spurred NATO anti-ship guided missile development all around.>It's the SilexI love Udaloys
>>65002495>surfaced submarineswhy would a nuclear sub ever surface?
>>65002552all early submarines had to surface to launch their missiles
>>65002495Payload wise you're right re bombs away. But it requires you to be close to the target and we had two converging lines:>cost of aircraft>effectiveness of missilesSo transitioning to missiles lke the harpoon/exocet (or tasm I guess) makes good sense especially given potential crew replacements on those aircraft. Easier to refill a missile launcher than to replace an airwing.Ironically I think we have gotten back to a point where UAV/CCAs and glide bombs may actually be more efficient and effective than trying to build bigger and better missiles.
>>65002560>surfacing to launchCouldn't be me
>>65002572>But it requires you to be close to the targetthe A-6 Intruder had a strike range of a thousand milesI won't bother looking up Soviet missile ranges>transitioning to missiles lke the harpoon/exocet (or tasm I guess) makes good sensewhen SAMs started getting more effective, but in the early days a carrier wing could still pretty much overwhelm any Soviet surface groupspecially when you're looking at the 60s fit for AA missiles and you realise they can only track one target at a time and it takes like a minute or even two to shoot down each aircraft and that's why automatic radar-laid 3" and 6" were actually still pretty important AA weapons at the time>Easier to refill a missile launcher than to replace an airwingeven a Kirov class carried only twenty anti-ship missiles>we have gotten back to a point where UAV/CCAs and glide bombs may actually be more efficient and effective than trying to build bigger and better missilesdepending on the launch platform, yessomething that is lost on the "bigger is better" crowd who can't see the value of SDB2s
>>65002612I meant that the A-6 had to be over the target to bomb it. As in you're risking the plane to bomb it. Which may or may not be worth it as we both agree on air defenses. I do wonder though what the soviets plan was to actually target US ships that far away even if they did manage to deal with aircraft attacking them. Like a 300 NM range Sandbox is devastating if you catch it, but how are you gonna find, track and target a ship like that without GPS, datalink or even satellites. Or their 1970s tech anyway.
>>64996061BEARING 138NEWAIRCONTACT DETECTEDNEWAI-NE-NEWAIR CONTACT DETECTED
>>65002681High Command's theoretical warplan: Soviet naval aviation, Soviet surface antiship and Soviet sub antiship will coordinate TOTs to find and overwhelm carrier strike groups north of the G-I-UK with literal hundreds of antiship missiles in a single strikereality: inter-branch coordination was ratshit so each of these three groups above only practised finding and killing its own targetsSoviet recon satellites never progressed beyond sending data home by re-entry capsule so the kill chain even in the 80s was slow and totally dependent on recon aircraft and substhe greatest threats therefore were the land-based Badgers and Backfires, and they practised finding and launching a hundred antiship missiles against American carriers. that was the magic number they believed could overwhelm a CSG's air defences, Tomcats or not, and Soviet doctrine placed that many bombers east or west, Murmansk or Vladivostok, in relation to where each US carrier was located, ideally in that ratio.the next after that was submarines which could both torpedo a carrier or report its location. in the latter case the sub probably could not coordinate a TOT but it would provide valuable recon for the eventual airstrike.the last was Soviet surface groups which mainly played a defensive ASW role and weren't really expected to do much. Kirovs were intended to be primarily air-defence ships and their anti-ship missile silos were almost opportunistic weapons: "if a carrier just so happens to wander in range, good for you".although to be fair, if a CSG did happen to appear in striking range, it would probably have been worth having a Kirov and a couple of Sovremennys and Udaloys making an attack run. fifty high-supersonic anti-ship missiles is worth gambling on, combined with whatever bomber or sub is available.
>>65002681p.s.>I meant that the A-6 had to be over the target to bomb itI know. in the grand scheme of things twenty A-6s is well worth it when you consider the ordnance they can unleash. they can also fly low, greatly reducing Soviet air defence effectiveness.compare against how many crewmen are on board a warship when making the kind of risky attack run described above?flip the problem on its head: how would one feel about sending three or four NATO destroyers in order to launch fifty Tomahawk TASM instead of twenty A-6s?it's cold-blooded, but you really do more with less, when it comes to the A-6s
>>65002759I was going for the same cost/benefit analysis. Like how many F-35s would I trade for a type 55 sinking?>>>65002734>Backfires and BadgersWhatever happened to huge EW aircraft? I may be mixing up my tom clancy with actual existing aircraft so forget I said anything if they didn't have a bomber sized standoff jammer based on the badger.Did the electronics and power requirememts go down so much that a Growler or Prowler is justasgood or even better because smol?
>>65002697>Every agm-84 targets an already burning John boat next to the Kiev class
>>65002998>Whatever happened to huge EW aircraft?on the Soviet side they had the Bear-D variant dedicated to long-range recon, maybe it had jammers. I'm not sureAmerican electronics pulled ahead of Soviet beginning in the early 70s, TL;DR we managed to tech up to microelectronics and they didn'tso in the 60s maybe our tech was on par, and it would have taken time for stuff to trickle down from the R&D labs to the front line, but by the 80s I'm sure our EW capability would have been betterin fact the Soviets did not have high-altitude jammers, and sightings would have been radioed in by Morse code as they believed it was unjammable - can anyone check me on that?>Did the electronics and power requirememts go down so much that a Growler or Prowler is justasgood or even better because smol?probablyminiaturisation is a hell of a thing
>>65002734Well reality on the USN side during the cold war was that AEGIS wasn't able to hit supersonic anti-ship missiles reliably, so even a single plane or destroyer launching a salvo at a carrier would have resulted in a hit, and a likely mission kill as a result.
>>65002998>I was going for the same cost/benefit analysis. Like how many F-35s would I trade for a type 55 sinking?The 055 was primarily developed as a carrier escort. It would by definition have air cover of at least AWACS overhead.If we limit ourselves to operations near the Chinese shore with support of land-based aircraft, which is currently the main focus of the PLAN, it would also operate under the cover of long-range high altitude AWACS drones using bistatic VHF triangulation and modern SAR to track F-35 with ease.Not to mention satellites.Under these conditions the F-35 would likely be tracked from launch to weapons release, probably have to deal with J-20 harassing the tankers, and the 055 would not be alone - it would have at least one other 055 and 2-3 052D, if not more, in the same CSG.It would take several 100 F-35 to carry enough anti-ship weapons to achieve a hit on a 055 under such conditions, simply because the munitions are very easy to shoot down under such conditions and there is a lot of warning time.A lone 055 without any air cover? No AWACS? Relying on the mast radar and optical sensors to track LRASM at wave height level?Different story. Easy to imagine a lucky hit with very few deployed weapons.
>>64991308As a former EW, I was taught that it was the Styx missile.
>>65003541>AEGIS wasn't able to hit supersonic anti-ship missiles reliablySM1, sureSM2MR was a killer
>>65000964>>65000868The funny thing about that missile is, they seem to have been trying to make it mostly recoverable. IDK what they were thinking - a pretty narrow use case. Maybe antishipping. Maybe poverty.
>>65003713>recoverablewdym?
>>65003969Look at the diagram. It kind of bombs the target and parachutes down its engines and guidance afterward
>>65003547That is what I was talking about:>aircraft become more expensive>ship defenses become betterThe calculation is different based on the timeline, force composition and replacement cost/time. Losing a flight of A-6s to destroy a Kresta? Pricey but reasonable. Losing half an airwing but sinking a Kirov? Worth the discussion at least. Given the more constrained environment today the answer is probably a bit of everything but sacrificing planes becomes less useful because of the time and resources it takes to replace them and their crews. Meanwhile sinking a chinese ship is obviously worth it tactically, but given how fast they build ships I am visualizing this race where:>time to replace munitions and aircraft + crewIs longer than>time to launch replacement ship and train new ship crewDon't even want to consider the opposite.
>>64997401The brits were using electronic jamming to block the guidance of fritz x guided bombs and hs 293 guided missiles back in 1943, to the point the germans were reverting back to wire guidance.
>>65004218The British and Germans had been on an electronic warfare escalation spiral since 1939.It's not really talked about very much, but both sides used jamming, decoys, diversions, fake signalling, etc. The whole thing. I guess Window gets talked about from time to time.Jamming the Fritz X or Hs 293 or Wasserfall SAMs was just the latest development of this.Unrelated, but the Germans had put a captured centrimetric radar (because German research on cavity magnetrons had been stalled by idiocy, yet another hilarious story) on a plane along with a bunch of radios and an air defence coordinator, the very first AWACS.It was never used operationally before the war ended.
>>65002495>I love UdaloysShe is a 7,500 ton large anti-submarine ship, not your waifu.
>>65004275>he doesn't know
>>65004544Ship posting is for the mentally ill
>>65004552>*taps sign*
>>65004189>>time to replace munitions and aircraft + crew>Is long1 F-35 every other day! 192/year! In _peace_time_production !Someone in a previous thread (sept25) told 350 pilots/year production.
>>65004863We're talking naval aviation though. So that's 10-20 F-35C tops. Same for naval aviation crews. Meanwhile a douple hundred LRASM (exact no. Unknown because combined production is 1000 split between JASSM and LRASM) and 40 (max capacity 100) JSM.Meanwhile chang builds 2 type 055s per year.I guess we still have to agree on the amount of A/C and munitions a strike would cost.>peacetime productionGoes both ways
>>65003640>SM2MR was a killerThat one struggled with subsonic Houthi missiles fired in singles or by the handful in 2016 after being upgraded multiple times.The 1980's cold war version had little chance against soviet Mach 3 sea skimmers.
>>65005034>Meanwhile chang builds 2 type 055s per year.That's the half of it, they also shit out 5-7 type 052D per year.They build 5 at once in the same huge drydock that usually does a commercial container ship or tanker.The military is merely one of many customers to their huge (state owned) ship building industry.If they have no military contract, they build a tanker instead.The military is only buying 5-10% of the total capacity, so they could easily ramp their ship building to ludicrous quantities if they wanted to.Ofc since these companies are state owned, the military is a priority customer which is accommodated when needed.They actually subsidize their military builds with civilian contracts sometimes, since the military buys at fixed price contracts and well if that doesn't give you a profit, tough luck, gotta charge some civilian customer a bit more to finance these destroyers.>>peacetime production>Goes both waysNot really, US is really struggling hard to ramp production. The reasons are very complex.
>>65005034Rapid Dragon exists and Chinese wartime shipbuilding is constrained by the exploding shipyard problem.
>>65005241The US has less missiles than the Chinese have shipyards.Have you looked at a shipyard? What do you want to blow up there?There is nothing there which isn't trivially fixed.You would need dozens of missiles to blow up ... cranes? Welding carts?They send a couple new welding carts and fix the cranes, then continue building ships.Have you seen the machinery used to machine prop shafts and such? They're several 100 tons of cast iron.You think lobbing a 500kg HE warhead nearby is going to destroy such machines?They'll need some new cables and a new computer display or something that's it.There isn't even anything flammable really, most things are concrete and steel.Besides the idea you're going to get anywhere near china with a C-17 is kind of ludicrous.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-GTpBMPjjFcChina already has SAR GMTI/AMTI constellations in orbit. High value assets like C-17 are already tracked 24/7.They will vector J-36 with PL-21 to intercept it from 600km away.While low-flying cruise missiles are hard to track and shoot down, once you know launch time and place, you can predict the flight path and vector AWACS to detect them as well.Most will be shot down before they get close to any targets.The US will never start a war with china, they would get ass raped so unbelievably hard and they know it.
>>65005201>struggledsure it did, chang
>>65005270>What do you want to blow up there?What keeps a dry dock dry, again? And what happens if it floods?How about the people who know who needs to do the work and when? Or the computers tracking everything>welding carts will fix the cranes in a day or twoYou *really* don't know how high-stress steel works, do you? I mean I know there's a reason so much shit winds up on liveleak but Jesus.>>65005270>Besides the idea you're going to get anywhere near china with a C-17 is kind of ludicrous.Perhaps you don't remember, because they weren't detected. But two Growlers so completely shut down air detection and defense in the hottest sector of the Chinese AD grid it couldn't pick up a giant-ass boat of a transport with an extremely humiliating cargo swanning in and landing, then leaving, with days of advanced notice.
>>65005270>The US has less missiles than the Chinese have shipyards.I'm pretty sure the US has more than 200 missiles.
>>64991308>Approximately what year did ship launched anti-ship missiles overtake guns and torpedoes as the primary weapon of warships?1958-1963. It's the years that the USSR introduced the P-5, P-15 (its first AShMs) and the Kynda class (its first guided missile cruiser. It's also the years that the US introduced its own AShMs in the form of the Talos and refit cruisers (CL and CA/CH) into guided missile cruisers, initially retaining some guns but then dropping them. Talos was a capable AShM, but more on that below. More importantly, even before then, no one was laying down any gun based surface combatants, Svedlame autism aside. Everyone already knew it was over for guns as a primary weapon, they were just busy developing the alternatives.>I know the Fritz X heralded the age of the aircraft borne AShM, but what about the shipborne AShM? What was THE system that brought about naval warfare as we now know it?More on Talos as an AShM here: https://www.okieboat.com/Talos%20firing%20operations.htmlYou'll note that's not how AShM is generally done now with ARH, not anti-radiation or SARH, so it's P-5 or P-15, but I don't think Terrier and Talos should be written off as AShM. Note also the section on the terminal effects of a Talos hit vs a HC battleship shell both with and withour explosives and remember it next time someone has a battleship thread and says "Yeah but we could just build spaced armor, why did we stop armoring ships, harpoons are tiny!".
>>65006652https://www.okieboat.com/Talos%20antiradiation%20shot.html>what remained of the trailer was lying on its side at the edge of a 30 foot diameter craterSuper cool. These things were way more versatile than I would have given them credit for.
>>65006652Talos here has the benefit of going at 3x the speed of Harpoon. And a side-hit wouldn't be as devastating as a pop-up-and-dive hit. It took more than one Harpoon, as well as other ordnance, to kill IRIS Sahand.The last battleships were built with enough armour to defend against low-velocity 1000lb bombs. The Harpoon's warhead is tiny in comparison. A Harpoon hit would be akin to a penetrating 500lb bomb hit, which would be nasty, but far from instant death for a battleship. In WW2 battleships managed to survive quite a few bomb hits, it was torpedoes that were their bane.
>>65006652>"Yeah but we could just build spaced armor, why did we stop armoring ships, harpoons are tiny!".These same people forget that a skilled WSO could drive a Maverick tightly enough to put it through the third window from the right on a city bus. Or more pertinently, mix one of their two tv-guided Mavs in with a wave of half a dozen Harpoons and have the second one on standby when they switch it to bulldog mode, and whatever else in the strike package is active can do the same.
