No videos of actual interceptions of maneuvering anti-ship missiles are released. They are all secret.
Without these videos, it's not possible to compare the performance envelope of the anti-ship missiles with the performance envelope of the intercepting missiles. That would be the only objective way to judge how many interceptors are needed for each anti-ship missile.
Since this information is all withheld and secret, I can make my own judgment about the performance envelopes.
I've seen some video's of what you describe. But on another note, I've never seen a video of a Moskit, Onyx, or any Chinese anti-ship missile hit any targets at all. I think I've seen 1 C-802 missile hit a static barge target with no movement nor any simulated FC radars. So I'm sure you must question there reliability...right? Sorry, but videos of those kinds are even less available then what we put out. And we put out stuff that shows success. And are not afraid to admit when things need to be reworked. I don't see the same openness from either Russia or China regarding their developments. They would give nothing significant away by doing so.
Remember the defending system is always operating at a delay compared to the maneuvering of the anti-ship missile. Not only does it take time to recognize a high-G maneuver and keep a lock on it, it takes time for the interceptor missile to mechanically adjust its flight controls. With just a 0.1 second delay, the anti-ship missile can be far far away from the last place you saw it. So the defending system always has to overcome this basic obstacle -- it has to lead the target somehow -- it has to cover the performance envelope of the missile by about 0.1 to 0.5 second (depending on the RCS of the anti-ship missile and other conditions).
Your knowledge about how anti-ship missiles maneuver in the terminal phase is incorrect. They do maneuver, but not how you think. When maneuvering, you have to trade up part of your flight performance envelope to do so. The more jinking maneuvering you do, the more energy bleed you see. You totally impact your performance envelope in a negative fashion jinking with these maneuvers. This is physics 101 here. Thus, the Russians programmed their missiles with those trade offs in mind. Seriously, terminal maneuvering is not what you think it is. Even with the supersonics. They're not magic maneuvers that guarantee a hit. There are trade-offs with their uses. And they don't maneuver they way you think they do. And there are ways to limit the effect of what they track based on these maneuvers. They are designed to help get the missile through. I'm certain that they do increase probability of a successful hit on a ship. But no, they do not guarantee anything. Also, the anti-ship missile has something in these jinking maneuvers called inertia. It's not much in the time that missile movement is impacted, but again we're talking about time frames in the thousandths place right of the decimal for some events in sequence. Not just tenths. And don't forget proximity fused warheads on defending missiles. I can see you're trying to imagine this sequence, but you're leaving out alot of stuff, including the realistic terminal maneuvering employed by ASM's and ther performance impacts. This is way more complex than how you're thinking about it.
This is actually a very big envelope to cover. We know that in practices, 2 missiles are fired at each missile (yes, the 70's era missiles like the Moskits, not Harpoons). I expect in real life, against a modern anti-ship missile, it would take at least 5 interceptors to guarantee success.
Yeah, but that's not from any observable events. Where there have been events, 5 interceptors fired at one target would be overkill, and a complete waste of resources. Your also wrong about what happens in practice. You don't necesarily need to fire two interceptors at one target in practice. In fact, you may not need to fire any at some targets if they've been successfully countered electronically. The "shoot, shoot, look, shoot" principle is not always the rule.
No.... SeaRAM replaces the CIWS. You can have up to 2 of either one (either SeaRAM or CIWS), but not 2 of both.
Actually, configuring to anything like this is within the realm of possibilities. Although, mixing and matching RAM and CIWS guns would compound problems of where to put supporting equipment, and adding personnel trained for both. But it's not out of bounds of possibilities. And the supporting equipment and crew does not add that much complexity. I never saw RAM in my service days, so I don't know exactly what they require. I'm sure it's not significantly more than what CIWS requires in space, support and crew.
Guns on US ships cannot intercept any incoming missiles.
CIWS can. And the 5 inchers have a limited utility in this role. Although I've never seen it.
You can't have that many ESSMs for point defense or else the carrier would be left undefended.
Sure you can. And the carrier would be even more heavily defended. ESSM is totally suited for this role. The more you have, the more defensive potential you have. The carriers have their own as well. Maybe you don't know ESSM is a primary AAW weapon? It's another layer of AAW protection. And many can be carried. Maybe you don't realize they have sufficient range for medium range engagements? The unclassified range of their engagement range is beyond 50 Km. Again, that's unclassified. And are not considered point defense weapons? Although they can perform that way as well. ESSM is not the old Sea Sparrow version. I think you're confusing yourself with those missiles.
Let's say with 90 cells, you use 20 for Tomahawks, 10 for ASROC, you have 60 left.
Let's say you use 40 for standards and 20 for ESSM.
That's 100 missiles for each AB.
Nope. The MK41 VLS is fully configurable for any mission requirements it meets. We always embarked with different loadouts depending on what we were doing or training for. If you want to pack them all with ESSM, you can do that. Which is 360 missiles. If China or Russia could successfully engage CBG's with any sizable missile salvo's, you would easily see 3 to 4 Burke DDG's in a battlegroup with 50 quad packs. And the rest stuffed with Standard, ASROC, and Tomahawk. And 1 Tico with near 70 with the rest in a varied configuration. Don't forget US CVN's all have ESSM as well. That's 280 missiles for the Tico and 200 for each of the Burkes. using 100 cells in this configuration on the Tico gives you 400 potential AAW missiles for the battlegroup on that ship alone. Ensuring success against these numbers is beyond the abilities of PLAN or especially Russia's navy currently. You have no idea how difficult it is to saturate a group like this. Especially when they have such long ranged air potential in support. And not all your missiles will be fired, some will be susceptible to EW, and not all will work as advertised. Trust me, this is how this stuff works in a purposefully vague kind of way.
Even the PLAN has anti-ship missile with ranges exceeding 300 km. Some say up to 1500 km.
300 Km is not going to escape a squadron of Super-hornets with all their AAW potential and hardpoints. Nor can they hide from E-2 support. And utilizing your entire 300 Km is not realistic. All the battlegroup would have to do to defend is turn directly away from the attack, and go all ahead flank to negate range. That's why most air missile attacks will be well within range of Standard. Their design range requirement hasn't changed recently as far as I know. And what is this fictional 1500 Km ASM of the PLAN? Firing something from that long of a range will give you a horrendous probability of hitting anything (time and distance considerations). No doubt China's got some good missiles in it's arsenal, but they also have their own limitations in deploying them successfully. And they face a very daunting task trying to engage and saturate any battlegroup with large numbers of naval air support, sizable numbers of missiles, and long range surveillance.
