Extending the range of anti-ship missile.

WS-2D long range rocket have the range of 400km, better than most anti-ship missiles. How bout modify the anit-ship missile and launch like a rocket and get that range. It's like hybrid of a missile and a rocket. They can use as decoy also.

WS-2D is a considerably large rocket. Just think of it's length.

lilzz said:

WS-2D long range rocket have the range of 400km, better than most anti-ship missiles. How bout modify the anit-ship missile and launch like a rocket and get that range. It's like hybrid of a missile and a rocket. They can use as decoy also.

Click to expand...

Are you describing ramjet/scramjet propulsion? This has become something of a rage in recent years, though ramjet propulsion has been in regular service in aircraft beginning with the A-12/SR-71 Blackbird. From what I've read, and you may be able to broaden my education on this, simplistically speaking, the faster a ramjet goes, the faster that it wants to go. This has obvious utilities for long-range anti-ship missiles, and isn't this what powers many of the larger, newer Russian models?

Mind you, if I understand what you are proposing, a semi-ballistic trajectory for at least part of the missile's flight, isn't this what the Tomahawk already uses (albeit for a short distance)?

lilzz said:

WS-2D long range rocket have the range of 400km, better than most anti-ship missiles. How bout modify the anit-ship missile and launch like a rocket and get that range. It's like hybrid of a missile and a rocket. They can use as decoy also.

Click to expand...

WS-2D is MLRS system, not a precision strike or smart weapon like cruise missiles. If your MLR's CEP is good enough, I suppose you could use it to hit stationary ships in port.

The future AShM needs more than just range. It needs to hide from radar and evade an array of CIWS weapons. KDN's NSM is a good example:

adeptitus said:

WS-2D is MLRS system, not a precision strike or smart weapon like cruise missiles. If your MLR's CEP is good enough, I suppose you could use it to hit stationary ships in port.

Click to expand...

Suppose this scenario, my radar and GPS staellite detect your ship and I fire my long range rocket based not at the GPS position but on the projected position, an offset calculated based on proximation. Yeah, it not that accurate, but it should would land near your very vincity. I am sure your aegis defense system would engage right, try to knock it out of the sky.

I think they are perfect for decoy saturation attack weapons because they are cheap. It's not really economic to do a missile saturation attack. Once your defense system is too busy with my cheapie rockets then I snick in my expensive missiles to your ship.


Another possibility is install a simple radation seeker on the rocket and also allows it mauverable during its terminal phase so it can modify its path and seek the warship.

^ That's a good idea but I don't think long-range rockets are that cheap. Once you get past a certain range, jet or propeller propulsion is cheaper. For what you are describing, I can see maybe using small turbojets on short-ranged UAV decoys.

What he is describing is a modernized version of the principle of old style battleship engagement. The problem is that a single WS-2D would cost you a lot more than a single battleship shell and you only have one salvo to launch. You're going to have problems once the targets start a customary zig zag. Now if you put seekers on each of the rockets, that may solve that problem.

If the other guy tries to shoot their SAMs to knock out the MLRS out of the sky, they would end up being defenseless for a different attack. This scheme may be good if you're trying to bait the other guy in using up his SAMs.

One of the main reasons why the US withdraw its long range tomahawk cruise missiles is the difficulty of targeting over such a huge distance. The farther the target, the harder it is to hit even with precision munitions.

The question I ask for you is why increase the range?
The longer range the missile, the lower the probability it will hit its target and the greater the probability that it will hit neutral shipping.

I have a feeling we already had a discussion here concerning identification at long ranges and hitting neutral shipping. Or was that another forum board? Anyway, why increase the range? Why had russians kept increasing it? Cause that was the only way their ships/planes could have any realistic chance of even hitting US surface fleets.

Naturally, no one should be just lobbing a missile out there and hoping its gonna find, identify and lock on a proper target on its own. But, that being said, airborne radars are becoming quite good at identifying ships of certain sizes at large distances (be it through sheer improvement in resolution or by scanning techniques like ISAR or SAR ). While exact data is not public, i would venture a guess that if USAF's JSTARS could, by their own admission, identify tank columns in iraqi desert from 100 km away in 1991, the ability to tell a destroyer from a cargo ship/tanker/fishing ship etc in 2007 is quite realistic at even longer ranges.

Besides, only ships out there in a war situation would be real warships and real decoys. Russians didn't have the identification tech available today in 70s and 80s and they still relied on their 400+ km missiles as their weapon of choice. I'm not saying that was necesarrily a good way to go, but in light of other options of the time, it certainly seemed the best one available.

UAVs armed with multiple AShM.... it would serve as the hunter, identifier and killer.... >