Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

[ArmChairCivvy]

whilst posts dissing the T26 compared to the USN ships is allowed, corrections of that have a habit of being deleted

While I have no comment to make on your narrative, I have been intrigued by some of my comments disappearing (as well as some others, like within 5 mins... taken a "snapshot" of them - if I've been lucky enough to be on the spot -) but something that does make me wonder:

Who is it, actually, backing this forum?
And, further:
Is there a bias. On my part, I would focus that on non-action on my numerous complaints about (negative) trolling. I know about the 2nd most active member here of the early days pulling off, totally, which is not the course I have chosen.

And to lend some gravitas to my query, the absence from here for the last quarter of 2017 was because my time was taken up by grading the neo-nazi sites in Western Europe: Proper Black Shirt, just a "brown shirt"... must be losers then, and so along
- one of them even awarded me https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ ... collar.jpg for my 2000 postings, at the tender age of 4 months, for turning every stone and finding immature techno-freaks and other such socially dangerous species... under every 4th stone or so

[bobp]

But most observers, on this forum and elsewhere, continue to focus on the wrong things

Are you suggesting that our radar detection of small targets and tracking, is superior to that of the US. Secondly are you suggesting that our soft kill systems are quite effective in diverting inbound targets.

As for the latter never see them discussed on these forums is it because they are secret, or is it because no one has any knowledge of how they work.

[Caribbean]

I did discover an interesting document on the internet that analysed a large number of missile attacks on ships. Softkill accounted for around 32 missiles (IIRC) vs 1 hardkill (Sea Wolf). I will see if I can find it again

[ArmChairCivvy]

Are you suggesting that our radar detection of small targets and tracking, is superior to that of the US

Does not need to be "our" - e.g. why is the Legend contender in the FFG(X) fitted with an Ozzie radar? Why has the Indian single-engine fighter competition been skewed towards SAAB winning it?

The answer is that gallium nitride- (GaN-) based amplifiers are well suited to displace incumbent technologies near-term in L-, S-, and C-band and longer-term in X-, Ku-, and Ka-band radar systems.

Why? Combine sensitivity and raw processing power, to filter out the noise:
Increased Sensitivity – enabling radar systems to capture small objects previously indistinguishable with older technology.
+
Image Enhancement – Higher resolution images are being generated using advancements in computer processing and enhanced transmit and receive technologies.

[ArmChairCivvy]

analysed a large number of missile attacks on ships. Softkill accounted for around 32 missiles (IIRC) vs 1 hardkill (Sea Wolf)

I am sure the study is "correct"... but there were the days when just dispensing chaff was an effective countermeasure, too
- things do move on

[Caribbean]

I am sure the study is "correct"... but there were the days when just dispensing chaff was an effective countermeasure, too - things do move on

Agreed, things do move on, but there are still a fair few last- and current-generation missiles out there in second-tier navies (and even in the hands of non-state actors) for current generation soft-kill to be significant. I guess it's effectiveness is being assisted and prolonged by moves to lower radar signature structures (the better to hide in the clutter created) and, in the future, focussed EW

[Lord Jim]

Launchers these days dispense far more than just chaff including floating inflatable decoys for example. Directional jamming has also come along way, so I think the value of "Soft" defence is very valid. I also think the idea of swarm attacks with missiles though still a threat if a far smaller one than say back in the 1980s and 90s. Few nations have this capability for launching dozens of missiles at a target. If a single vessel by itself comes under attack by a large number of missiles it shouldn't have been there in the first place, and that is on the heads of the Admirals.

[bobp]

So from the above whilst we have been concentrating on things like Launch Cell numbers, Gun Sizes etc. These are just a small part of the overall defence system of a ship. Which got me wondering just how many of these soft kill systems are in place on say the QE class or the new River OPV.

[Timmymagic]

I am sure the study is "correct"... but there were the days when just dispensing chaff was an effective countermeasure, too
- things do move on

I don't think Sea Wolf has actually ever intercepted an enemy missile. Sea Dart has, but not Sea Wolf. What about Avengers alleged 4.5 inch hit....no-one is sure about that though..

[shark bait]

Secondly are you suggesting that our soft kill systems are quite effective in diverting inbound targets.

That has been the case for a long time. Old missiles are incredibly dumb, just a moth following a bright light, with terrible resolution and terrible field of view. Defense Aid Suite engineers have long exploited how thick they are by distracting them with an even brighter light.

However the missile engineers are now fighting back, with much smarter missiles, and higher fidelity sensors that can recognize a decoy, and stand a better chance of staying on the right target.

This makes hard kill systems more important, as decoys are becoming less effective.

Another approach is to hide the platform, to try and maintain the effectiveness of existing decoys. The last option is develop new decoys, which we don't see happening much in the maritime domain, but the RAF is certainly working on that to keep non stealth platforms effective.

[Timmymagic]

So I would conclude that the RN learned the lesson from 1982 and has concentrated on the aspects that mattered
The USN is trying to learn those same lessons from other battles but has not yet succeeded.

But most observers, on this forum and elsewhere, continue to focus on the wrong things

It would be interesting to see what lessons the US took out of the Artist radar programme. The UK went on and developed Sampson and Artisan, not much on what the US did. If I remember it was partially focused on radar performance in complex environments, particularly useful in the Gulf and littoral seas.

Are you hinting that the RN has a better watch system/devolved responsibility for action over the USN? IIRC HMS Gloucesters Sea Dart kill of a Silkworm was partly because of that.

[Lord Jim]

My thought are that the RN has had a knack for developing effective Radar and other sensors on its warships giving them a better situational awareness pre individual ship that say the USN. They on the other hand have a far better co-operative picture of what is going on. Maybe we need to learn lessons form each other, especially as to how to operate Carrier groups again when it comes to the RN. It was one thing to operate a small carrier with a couple of escorts in the past, but the QEs are huge assets and hoe to operate and protect such vessels has long been out of the RNs how to manual.

[Tempest414]

I think the big thing the UK took from the Falklands was the need of the big picture as most the ships lost were down to lack of AEW forcing the need for picket ships stationed away from the main force and once the landings started ships were stationary and relying on the Harrier CAP and pilots eyes. so for a CSG or a single ship to defend it self first it has to see the threat and so radar is key followed by a good mix of hard and soft kill options

[Caribbean]

I don't think Sea Wolf has actually ever intercepted an enemy missile

You are, of course, correct - brainfart on my part! My apologies. The 4.5 incident is an interesting one - I remember it being reported at the time (something along the lines of "we don't know if we hit it, but fired at it and it disappeared off radar"), but no real comment (that I have seen) about it since.

The paper that I was referring to above is http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/b192139.pdf. Caveats: It covers incidents between 67 and 92 (so may be a bit outdated) and targets of < 7000t

I guess the most significant statement in it is:

"Softkill measures employed against anti-ship missiles were extremely successful,
seducing or decoying every missile they were used against. In every engagement where a
defender was alert and deployed softkill measures, every missile salvo was entirely
defeated.
Hardkill measures were not as successful, with only one case confirmed. This is
understandable since hardkill measures used to date have primarily consisted of manual
firing systems. More data is needed to assess the combat capabilities of modem hardkill
systems."

[RetroSicotte]

Hard-kill has shown to have improved dramatically as of late though. Look at the Arleigh Burkes in the Gulf.

As ever, the important thing is having both of them. They aren't mutually exclusive.

[90inFIRST]

[quote="RetroSicotte"]Hard-kill has shown to have improved dramatically as of late though. Look at the Arleigh Burkes in the Gulf.

What did they do?

[shark bait]

Possibly referring to the Houthis firing Iranian missiles at the US Navy, a handful missed and fell into the sea, with a couple being intercepted / decoyed successfully.

Depending who you believe, the Saudis have also been busy with the Patriot missile system, with successful intercepts.

The Americans are certainly collecting some good data for sure.

[Caribbean]

Presumably the USS Mason incidents. The first involved two missiles (some reports say fired about 60 minutes apart), both of which "fell into the sea" (2 SM-2, one ESSM and Nulka soft-kill used, allegedly) and the second involved a single missile that missed after USS Mason "deployed countermeasures" (can't find any details of what they were, but to me, the phrase implies decoys). Interestingly the USN doesn't seem to know which system worked (or more likely, doesn't want to say)

[90inFIRST]

That's my point the hard kill didn't work

[RetroSicotte]

That's my point the hard kill didn't work

How in the world did you come to that conclusion? It's extremely difficult to tell which got them in the end.

There were three separate incidents:

Incident 1 - 9th October 2016
Two missiles launched at USS Mason.
Two SM-2 and 1 ESSM launched along with Nulka countermeasures deployed.
Both missiles defeated, US Navy uncertain if it was missile interception or the soft-kill that got them.

Incident 2 - 12th October 2016
Two missiles launched at USS Mason.
Unknown number of missiles launched by USS Mason.
One missile is uncertain if it was intercepted or fell into the sea. The other missile was confirmed as being hit by the USS Mason's missile by the US Navy.

Incident 3 - 15th October 2016
Five missiles launches at USS Mason.
"Several" SM-2 missiles launched, with soft-kill countermeasures deployed by USS Mason. Soft-kill countermeasures also deployed by nearby USS Nitze.
All missiles confirmed being intercepted by SM-2 missiles, or neutralised by the countermeasures.

So saying "the hard kill didn't work" is not only a massive leap in logic, it's also factually incorrect. The missiles did their job just fine. As did the ship's countermeasures.

You work with both, you reap the benefits of both, and they both have a very important part to play. When its not ancient missiles, and is something that is resistant to EW, you're going to be direly wanting to have a missile of your own to ram into the thing and put a hard stop to it.

[Caribbean]

Do you have any links for the 2nd and 3rd incidents? All the ones that I can find for the 2nd vary from "not even certain that Mason was attacked" to "at least one" (ah - just realised that I confused one report that says two attacking missiles with a report on the first incident - mea culpa). I also can't find anything explicit about missiles being used or credited with the kill. I can find mentions of the incident on the 15th (again with the "not sure if we were actually attacked" line, but nothing on the details of numbers of attacking missiles or the response.).
As the study above notes - hard kill was in it's infancy at the time the report was compiled, so it would be good to get some more recent info.

[90inFIRST]

Hi Retro

I'm the same, I cant find any sources for the 2 last incidents where do you get your information from?

[RetroSicotte]

Incident 1:
https://news.usni.org/2016/10/11/uss-ma ... les-attack

Incident 2:
https://www.stripes.com/news/aegis-defe ... n-1.433974
"On Wednesday, during the second attack on the Mason, the Aegis system detected and tracked the missile and the ship’s crew responded and destroyed it, the officials said."

Incident 3:
https://www.navytimes.com/news/your-nav ... on-ribbon/
A few days after that incident, the Mason’s crew once again countered a Houthi missile threat. This time, rebels fired five anti-ship cruise missiles, according to the Navy. The Mason fired off a radar decoy, an infrared decoy and several SM-2s in response. But that only took care of four of the missiles. The fifth was incoming on the accompanying destroyer Nitze. The Mason’s crew alerted Nitze to the threat, and she utilized a radar decoy.

[90inFIRST]

I stand corrected!

[Caribbean]

Thanks @Retro - not sources that I have on my list - now bookmarked!
The first incident was two incoming missiles and is inconclusive about whether it was the missiles/ decoys or missile malfunction/ misuse that lead to the attack failing. Interesting, because it looks as if it may have been the first time that the SM-2 was used in anger against a target that it was originally designed for (older cold-war era cruise missiles). From the fact that they also launched ESSM and decoys, it seems that SM-2 may not have performed as expected (or the crew didn't) in this first instance.
For the second incident, the Stars and Stripes article confirms one incoming missile and a confirmed hit on the incoming missile (no mention of defending missile type, unfortunately - would be good to know if it was SM-2 or ESSM)
The Navy Times article confirms 5 incoming missiles and, reading between the lines, two hardkill and three softkill (Nitze only used decoys)
So, in summary three confirmed softkill, three confirmed hardkill, two probably NOT hardkill but not definitely softkill (could be malfunction) - does that seem like a fair summary?
Clearly there has been a marked improvement in the hardkill side, but on this evidence, I would still say that decoys and softkill are slightly ahead (as in, if funds are limited, equip with decoys etc first, then add missiles when they can be afforded, rather than the other way around). An "interesting" test would be both systems up against a latest-generation ASuM in real-world conditions (I confess that I would not enjoy the prospect of being on the target ship).