Sea Dog said:
Yea...I read about it on Global Security. It makes me a lot more confident about USN capabilites-more time to engage and kill incomings, another layer of defence. I'll watch that you tube vid now.
Supersonic AShM VS. Subsonic AShM
- Thread starter big toothbrush
- Start date
Yea...I read about it on Global Security. It makes me a lot more confident about USN capabilites-more time to engage and kill incomings, another layer of defence. I'll watch that you tube vid now.
Does the Sunburn SSM have the capacity to SeaSkim like a Harpoon? Also, on the SM-3/SM-6 - From the SM-3 (I think, someone correct me please), onwards, they will apparently all have strike cruise missile capability
On the SM2 as an SSM option. It's my understanding that they are effective as a 'last resort' anti ship option. They are not exactly going to sink the ship, but they will give it the irates.
On the SM2 as an SSM option. It's my understanding that they are effective as a 'last resort' anti ship option. They are not exactly going to sink the ship, but they will give it the irates.
Robert said:
The SM2 has been used to sink Iranian navy ships during Operation Praying Mantis. Though its 100 lb blast fragmentation warhead does not pack the initial punch to sink the ship outright. Its Mach 4 kinetic energy and solid rocket fuel (which burns without the need for oxygen and cannot easily be put out) will definately do catastrophic damage to a destroyer size target. Also, each US ship carries like 100 of them per ship, which means they can ripple fire them on a single target.
Furthermore, ships, especially the ones designed by the Russia, has a lot of ordinance on relatively unprotected areas. The RBU anti-sub rockets come to mind. A Standard Missile's warhead can light those up rather easily.
IDonT said:
To add to what Idont said, I would like to add that a one-two punch of SM-2s hitting a ship and disabling or damaging its radars and defences followed by Harpoon/s which would be very difficult to stop in the ships damaged state.