I think the Russian air-launched antiship missiles were supersonic but dived in from medium or high altitudes.
Much more effective. The 2012 group could use them to hit the ships of the 1992 group, knocking out their RADARs and communication gear at 240km and could use them to shoot down any strike force at extreme range. Keep in mind that the E-2D can guide the SM-6 (something the E-2C cannot do with the SM-2) and the SM-6 also has an active seeker, thus enhancing its accuracy and allowing the 2012 group to engage more targets at once.
Good way of thinking about it is comparing the SM-2 to the SM-6 is a lot like comparing the Sparrow to the Amraam
So the 1992 group has little to no chance of doing much damage in an air attack(keeping in mind the supior air-to-air missiles of the 2012 fighters) and the Virginia will likely destroy the 688Is. This means that we need to figure out how much damage the 2012 airgroup can do( the ships in the 2012 carry relatively few ASMs). Does the 1992 group still carry TASMs? How deadly are they vs. the 2012 group?
Supposedly, the TASM was still in service as late as 2001. I think it would only be fair to assume the '92 group has them though. As for their effectiveness: the E-2D will see them coming a long ways off and with SM-6, they could be intercepted a long ways off as well. On the flip side, the only way for the 2012 group to sink the '92 one is to knock out the '92 group's RADARs with SM-6 strikes and use air launched munitions against the ships (bombs, ATGMs, etc...). The Virginia could potentially sink the carrier but that's a whole other argument entirely.
So the 2012 CG's and DG's are going to sail 700 from their starting position (23hrs @30kn) , penetrate 170 miles (4.8hrs @35kn) into the 92's air warfare zone without being detected or attacked so that you can get into range to launch your SM-6? Remember, you started out 1000 miles apart, unless you move the CV and close the distance, you'll be well past the 400nm combat radius of the F/A-18E. At that range your 5 squadron attack wing is now a 2 squadron attack wing with 2 squadrons acting as tankers for both your attack aircraft and their escorts as well as the Growlers. It solves the 92 group's problem for them, the surface warfare ships just got handed to the 688I on a silver platter. They's just need to move for 12hrs and just park themselves in their path and sit there not moving, or making a sound until the torpedoes and missiles start flying. And the cruisers and destroyers will sail right past them and never see them.
No, that isn't what I said. But the 2012 group will dominate the air and for either group to sink the other, they will have to get closer. Any air attack by the '92 group will also be at a severe disadvantage and likely to be, rather unsuccessful.
One thing though. While the 2012 grp has better missiles the 92 group might actually have more anti-ship missiles. In particular the Spruance class. in 86, the navy put a 61 VLS for launching Tomahawks and ASROCs. Depending on what got loaded when they left port, that group could have over 270 Harpoons and Tomahawks plus the ones intended for use by the carrier's air wing.
Oh, the '92 group most definitely has more ASMs, but the 2012 group has a superior ability to intercept those missiles.
And 2012 ESSM is probably at least as good against sea skimmers as 1992 SM-2 Talking to a Raytheon guy (next door neighbor) and sounds like there might be an active ESSM in the future
What's the launch to hit rate on the Sea Sparrow? Actual hit rate, without target enhancements and massaging from the manufacturer and the program personnel. If they are anything like their air launched relations, one might need to launch 109 RIM-7's to knock down a Harpoon barrage from just 10 A-6's
The later models of the air-launched sparrow had pretty good hit rates( remember they were improving the sea sparrow too) and the essm is a different beast. Also, the 2012 group can do the same thing with its super bugs and the A-6s will have close to launch, which is an iffy proposition even at low level with the E-2D guiding SM-6s down on them.
Active seekers seem to be finding their into every missile is not it ? Seems like pure semi active guidance may become a thing of the past ?
Define good hit rate? So far the only ones I've come across are not much different from the ones the company published for the AIM-7's. And those numbers did not have much in common with the actual results when they were actually used in combat. If you take the hit rates that the company claims and multiply them by 0.75, you'd have a hit rate that's closer to actual performance.
The ESSM was designed to replace CIWS to defeat Sea Skimmers . . .As such, you have to expect a pretty damn good kill rate
90% would be higher than the rates achieved during carefully controlled tests by the manufacturer. Results achieved during controlled test are seldom if ever duplicated during combat. A more likely hit rate would be 42%.
Ahh. . .the missiles will achieve .00001% hit guy Harpoon, Exocet, and Tomahawk are relatively slow targets.There is no information on them having active countermeasures. Might change in the future of course. Biggest problem seems to be knowing they are coming and be ready to shoot them down beforehand. http://navysite.de/launcher/ram.htm The Block 1 upgrade program was successfully completed in August 1999 with a series of operational tests to demonstrate the system's introduction maturity. In 10 scenarios, real Anti-Ship Missiles and supersonic Vandal target missiles (Mach 2.5) were intercepted and destroyed under realistic conditions. RAM Block 1 achieved first-shot kills on every target in its presented scenarios, including sea-skimming, diving and highly maneuvering profiles in both single and stream attacks. With these test firings RAM demonstrated its unparalleled success against today's most challenging threats. Cumulatively to date more than 180 missiles have been fired against anti-ship missiles and other targets, achieving a success rate over 95%.
Now who made it and what were the hit rates they claimed for their previous missiles? Now what were the hit rates they actually achieved in combat?
I don't think that any of the current SAM and CIWS systems on USN ships have been used in combat so until they do there is nothing to say if the numbers are correct or not.
No, but you can extrapolate their most likely performance by looking at the companies past claims about their product and comparing it to the products actual performance. So AIM-7 Sparrow test result claims vs AIM-7 Sparrow actual combat record. AIM-120 test result claims vs AIM-120 combat record. Patriot test result claims vs Patriot actual record (multiple launches and 0 actual kills btw) That gives me an idea of how close to reality the company's sales pitch is. And no, I'm not Mr .00001% hit guy, I'm Mr. I take everything the company tells me with a large grain of salt because they consistently fed us a line of BS in the past guy. Take the common measurement, the PK of a missile. Say the company say's that the missile has a PK of 95% The way the company usually defines it, it's if the missile's warhead detonates close enough to the target to destroy it, this is the probability that the target will be destroyed. What it does not say is that if they launch 100 missiles, and 90 of them never come close enough to damage the target the missile still has a PK of 90% if of the 10 missiles that hit 9 of them destroyed the target. The measurement I look at is simpler. How many missiles launched, how many hit, how many destroyed their target.
