Navy Lacks Plan to Defend Against `Sizzler' Missile

Navy Lacks Plan to Defend Against `Sizzler' Missile

By Tony Capaccio

March 23 (Bloomberg) -- The U.S. Navy, after nearly six years of warnings from Pentagon testers, still lacks a plan for defending aircraft carriers against a supersonic Russian-built missile, according to current and former officials and Defense Department documents.

The missile, known in the West as the ``Sizzler,'' has been deployed by China and may be purchased by Iran. Deputy Secretary of Defense Gordon England has given the Navy until April 29 to explain how it will counter the missile, according to a Pentagon budget document.

The Defense Department's weapons-testing office judges the threat so serious that its director, Charles McQueary, warned the Pentagon's chief weapons-buyer in a memo that he would move to stall production of multibillion-dollar ship and missile programs until the issue was addressed.

``This is a carrier-destroying weapon,'' said Orville Hanson, who evaluated weapons systems for 38 years with the Navy. ``That's its purpose.''

[excerpted]

[moose1am]

Scary thought

Originally Posted by Wxman

Navy Lacks Plan to Defend Against `Sizzler' Missile

By Tony Capaccio

March 23 (Bloomberg) -- The U.S. Navy, after nearly six years of warnings from Pentagon testers, still lacks a plan for defending aircraft carriers against a supersonic Russian-built missile, according to current and former officials and Defense Department documents.

The missile, known in the West as the ``Sizzler,'' has been deployed by China and may be purchased by Iran. Deputy Secretary of Defense Gordon England has given the Navy until April 29 to explain how it will counter the missile, according to a Pentagon budget document.

The Defense Department's weapons-testing office judges the threat so serious that its director, Charles McQueary, warned the Pentagon's chief weapons-buyer in a memo that he would move to stall production of multibillion-dollar ship and missile programs until the issue was addressed.

``This is a carrier-destroying weapon,'' said Orville Hanson, who evaluated weapons systems for 38 years with the Navy. ``That's its purpose.''

[excerpted]

[Tchocky]

That's the Klub, innit?

U.N. Council imposes sanctions on Iran

UNITED NATIONS (Reuters) - The U.N. Security Council voted unanimously on Saturday to impose new sanctions on Iran for its nuclear ambitions by targeting Tehran's arms exports, state-owned bank and elite Revolutionary Guards.

Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki immediately rejected the council's demand to suspend uranium enrichment, which can be used for making bombs and for peaceful energy uses.

[this is an excerpt]

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

Originally Posted by Tchocky

That's the Klub, innit?

I don't understand why they are still giving those lame NATO names these days when everyone has access to the Russian names now. The Cold War NATO names are still dominant, but the post Cold War? Who really remembers the SA-20 Gargoyle better than the S-300PMU? The SA-21 Growler instead of the S-400? And for some reason SA-23 is the S-300VM even though the S-300VM came almost a decade before the deployment of the S-400 (just starting right about now).

[Bort]

I'm guessing they meant the Sunburn, not the Sizzler.

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

Originally Posted by Bort

I'm guessing they meant the Sunburn, not the Sizzler.

The subsonic stage is no harder than defending against say a Tomahawk, but the supersonic stage is at least as hard as Moskit - it is faster, smaller and probably more maneuverable, though maybe a higher IR signature because of the rocket engine vs ramjet.

The NATO designated SS-N-27B "Sizzler" are missiles are armed with a 70-kilogram HE warhead and can reach a target 16 nautical miles away. The missile flies near the surface of the ocean at subsonic speed until it nears its target, when it becomes supersonic and flies in an evasive flight path specifically designed to defeat the Aegis weapons systems that the aircraft carrier’s escorting ships are equipped.

In comparison the Russian-made 3M-82 Moskit, NATO designation SS-N-22 "Sunburn", is a anti-ship cruise missile. This is a weapon for which the US Navy currently has no defense. It can deliver a 200-kiloton nuclear payload, or: a 750-pound conventional warhead, within a range of 100 miles, more than twice the range of the Exocet. The Sunburn combines a Mach 2.1 speed with a flight pattern that hugs the deck and includes "violent end maneuvers" to elude enemy defenses. The missile was specifically designed to defeat the US Aegis radar defense system. Should a US Navy Phalanx point defense somehow manage to detect an incoming Sunburn missile, the system has only seconds to calculate a fire solution not enough time to take out the intruding missile. The US Phalanx defense employs a six-barreled gun that fires 3,000 depleted-uranium rounds a minute, but the gun must have precise coordinates to destroy an intruder "just in time."

The Sunburn missile has never seen use in combat, to my knowledge, which probably explains why its fearsome capabilities are not more widely recognized. Other cruise missiles have been used, of course, on several occasions, and with devastating results. During the Falklands War, French-made Exocet missiles, fired from Argentine fighters, sunk the HMS Sheffield and another ship. And, in 1987, prior to the Iran-Iraq war, the USS Stark was nearly cut in half by a pair of Exocets while on patrol in the Persian Gulf. On that occasion US Aegis radar picked up the incoming Iraqi fighter (a French-made Mirage), and tracked its approach to within 50 miles. The radar also "saw" the Iraqi plane turn about and return to its base. But radar never detected the pilot launch his weapons. The sea-skimming Exocets came smoking in under radar and were only sighted by human eyes moments before they ripped into the Stark, crippling the ship and killing 37 US sailors.

Ships presently in the Gulf already have come within range of even more-advanced SS-NX-26 Yakhonts missiles, also Russian-made (speed: Mach 2.9; range: 180 miles) deployed by the Iranians along the Gulf's northern shore. Every US ship in the Gulf is presently exposed and vulnerable to this threat.

Saddam Hussein's mobile Scud launchers proved so difficult to detect and destroy over and over again the Iraqis fooled allied reconnaissance with decoys that during the course of Desert Storm the US was unable to confirm even a single kill. This proved such an embarrassment to the Pentagon, afterwards, that the unpleasant stats were buried in official reports. But the blunt fact is that the US failed to stop the Scud attacks. The launches continued until the last few days of the conflict. Luckily, the Scud's inaccuracy made it an almost useless weapon. At one point General Norman Schwarzkopf quipped dismissively to the press that his soldiers had a greater chance of being struck by lightning in Georgia than by a Scud in Kuwait.

[Iceman]

Seems like the only to to defend against something like that is as is stated...detection....then choice of response...I like those machine guns that burp out so much lead per second...or what about a weapon like on the Matrix that discharges a local EMP so no matter where or what maneuver it is performing it will drop out of the sky..? may damage the ship electronically but people saved and equipment can be fixed eaiser than rebuilding the whole ship I would think...my 2 cents...kinda a last resort panic button that kicks in automatically possibly.

[Torpedo Fodder]

The Sunburn missile has never seen use in combat, to my knowledge, which probably explains why its fearsome capabilities are not more widely recognized. Other cruise missiles have been used, of course, on several occasions, and with devastating results. During the Falklands War, French-made Exocet missiles, fired from Argentine fighters, sunk the HMS Sheffield and another ship. And, in 1987, prior to the Iran-Iraq war, the USS Stark was nearly cut in half by a pair of Exocets while on patrol in the Persian Gulf. On that occasion US Aegis radar picked up the incoming Iraqi fighter (a French-made Mirage), and tracked its approach to within 50 miles. The radar also "saw" the Iraqi plane turn about and return to its base. But radar never detected the pilot launch his weapons. The sea-skimming Exocets came smoking in under radar and were only sighted by human eyes moments before they ripped into the Stark, crippling the ship and killing 37 US sailors.

First of all, as an O.H. Perry-class frigate, the Stark did not have an Aegis system; just a basic SPS-49 air search radar and four missile directors. As a relativly-low powered L-band radar, it's not terribly effective at detecting missles, unlike the S-band SPY-1 used by the Aegis system.

Second, although the Sunburn is still a good missile, it's reputation as a nigh-unstoppable superweapon is grossly overstated. Unlike subsonic sea-skimmers (like the aforementioned Klub), while fly at under 10 meters, the Sunburn flies at over 50m, meaning it will be detected much further out (especially by a radar as massively powerful as the SPY-1). And although it can pull limited evasive maneuvers, it is still a big missile and it's high speed gives it a huge IR signature. And although Phalanx would not be terribly effective (since even if it killed the missile at maximim range, buring wreckage would still hit the ship), that is hardly the first line of defence, and point-defence SAMs like RAM and ESSM most certainly would be able to out-maneuver a Sunburn.

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

Originally Posted by Torpedo Fodder

First of all, as an O.H. Perry-class frigate, the Stark did not have an Aegis system; just a basic SPS-49 air search radar and four missile directors. As a relativly-low powered L-band radar, it's not terribly effective at detecting missles, unlike the S-band SPY-1 used by the Aegis system.

On the negative side, the weight of the SPY-1s force them to hunker low. There's a reason why they wanted a SPS-49 to supplement the SPY-1 on the CG-47s.

Second, although the Sunburn is still a good missile, it's reputation as a nigh-unstoppable superweapon is grossly overstated. Unlike subsonic sea-skimmers (like the aforementioned Klub), while fly at under 10 meters, the Sunburn flies at over 50m, meaning it will be detected much further out (especially by a radar as massively powerful as the SPY-1).

Actually, the Sunburn AFAIK flies at 20m cruise, 3-7m terminal. Even the ancient Sandbox can hack 30m.

Second, what you really want is PROCESSING. Just throwing radar energy at the water just means you have to sort through more sea clutter. Because the Sunburn also has a passive tracking mode, your choice of active defence also means that you can stop hoping on your soft-kill measures - hmm, nice radar source+ECM (Nulka decoy) vs nice radar source + ECM + massive SPY-1 radar emission ... tough decision. Further, to kill something with Aegis, the SPG-62 must manage to illuminate the target clearly in the endphase.

And although it can pull limited evasive maneuvers, it is still a big missile and it's high speed gives it a huge IR signature.

If your radars are your primary means of acquisition, that won't matter. When the Soviets built it, they were probably counting on the American reliance on radar.

And although Phalanx would not be terribly effective (since even if it killed the missile at maximim range, buring wreckage would still hit the ship), that is hardly the first line of defence, and point-defence SAMs like RAM and ESSM most certainly would be able to out-maneuver a Sunburn.

ESSM relies on the radar. As for RAM, you still want the radar to point the RAM launcher in the right direction and it is based on Sidewinder. Its speed and kinematics are thus relatively poor. A missile can maneuver a lot harder than a aircraft. Fortunately, the Sunburn is a relatively simple weapon, and still uses preplanned jinks (the Yakhont graduates to using RWR to control the dodging).

[Torpedo Fodder]

Second, what you really want is PROCESSING. Just throwing radar energy at the water just means you have to sort through more sea clutter. Because the Sunburn also has a passive tracking mode, your choice of active defence also means that you can stop hoping on your soft-kill measures - hmm, nice radar source+ECM (Nulka decoy) vs nice radar source + ECM + massive SPY-1 radar emission ... tough decision. Further, to kill something with Aegis, the SPG-62 must manage to illuminate the target clearly in the endphase.

On the other hand, the Sunburn's IR plume is so large that it's probably visable over the horizon, and the SM-2 now has an auxiliary IR homing capability. I also imagine the newer SPY-1D(V) is much more effecive in picking out sea-skimmers from wave clutter.

Further, to kill something with Aegis, the SPG-62 must manage to illuminate the target clearly in the endphase.

And? You can prove that would be a problem, especially for the newer version of Aegis.

ESSM relies on the radar. As for RAM, you still want the radar to point the RAM launcher in the right direction and it is based on Sidewinder.

Given that standard ROE fires four RAMs against each incoming missile on slightly different vectors, I'm not too worried about it's capability to intercept Sunburns. As for ESSM, once again, can you prove that the the Aegis system would be incapable of keeping up with the missile's maneuivers, especially the latest versions?

[LoBlo]

Rumors abound that the Phalanx is too short ranged to handle the Sunburn. SeaRam's been rumored to be the next generation CIWS capable of handling the supersonic sunburn type missiles with very good results in testing (but of course totally unconfirmed).

http://209.157.64.200/focus/f-news/966345/posts
http://www.raytheon.com/products/ste...s01_055726.pdf

I've never read any reports about the effectiveness of SeaRam on a two stage missile like the SS-N-27. Its probably not the speed of the missile that complicates the intercept, but the fact that the target you were tracking suddenly splits in two (the terminal phase and the residual of the subsonic phase) with not much time to respond to the sudden high speed addition of the terminal warhead.

I don't understand why they are still giving those lame NATO names these days when everyone has access to the Russian names now. The Cold War NATO names are still dominant, but the post Cold War? Who really remembers the SA-20 Gargoyle better than the S-300PMU? The SA-21 Growler instead of the S-400? And for some reason SA-23 is the S-300VM even though the S-300VM came almost a decade before the deployment of the S-400 (just starting right about now).

I don't understand it either. I think we should start calling the Akula sub the "Bars" and the Typhoon sub the "Akula" like Russia intended... going to confuse the heck out everyone though

[Torpedo Fodder]

Rumors abound that the Phalanx is too short ranged to handle the Sunburn.

It's not just a rumor, it's simple physics: At the speed Sunburn travels at, even if it was killed at the CIWS maxiumum range of 1,500 meters, flaming wreckage from the missile would still reach it's target.

SeaRam's been rumored to be the next generation CIWS capable of handling the supersonic sunburn type missiles with very good results in testing (but of course totally unconfirmed).

Sea RAM has actually been around since the mid '80s: Phalanx was actually orignally only intended as a stop-gap before Sea RAM was ready. But since Phalanx was cheaper, guess which one Congress was most willing to pay for?

Anyway, another promising future CIWS is the 57mm Mk.110 that will be used by the DD-1000, which has ten times the effective range of Phalanx, and double the range of even Sea RAM! Although it has a much slower ROF than Phalanx, it's high range coupled with it's ability to use fragmentation shells more than compensates for that.