Ukraine Invasion - Please do not post videos showing attacks/similar

[Firestar_3x]

I know the arc royal's radar can track 2-3000 tennis ball sized drones simultaneously (public info), but incoming MACH 8 is a different tennis ball entirely

I'd imagine the odds of actually hitting the ship are incredibly small.

 

[NickK]

I seem to remember reading about the fact the US Navy had very recently war gamed a Taiwan scenario with the Navy using existing tactics and the opposing force innovating using the available weapons the PRC has. The US Navy got smashed. This got presented as a bad thing but actually for the US it's a great way of understanding their vulnerabilities. With modern IT rather than a layered defensive bubble approach that has been the mainstay for decades they were suggesting dispersed co-ordinated assets was a way forward. The risk from Hypersonics is then reduced because it is harder to get the weapon targeted the right place and less assets are at risk and defences can less easily be overwhelmed. Much like the Gulf War in 91 I think the next war (should one ever happen) will show how technology and tactics have progressed and the side that mastered the combination being successful.

One concern was not explosive warheads but chemical/bio weapons in small drones contaminating the ship. At a bare minimum it reduces the effectiveness of the ship's operation. With large hangers and deck lifts, there's a higher risk and scope of impact.

Simple white phosphor/thermite burst warheads would pose a serious risk to hangers - people, planes, armaments and infrastructure. Not to mention simply making 1/2 of them timed mines/proximity mines.

 

[Washout]

To hit a ship at those speeds they'd have to be flying very straight for a prolonged period. I'd have thought no material could take the forces if it suddenly tried to change direction. So yah, a carrier with lots of escorts 'should' be about as well protected from them as you can get.

 

[NickK]

Aviation Week did report that the MOD has said a Russian Hypersonic missile has hit a sea target. I can only see the headline so it's not clear of parameters of the test or the performance.

 

[Washout]

... our media is just as state controlled if not more so... the media can't even report on a lot of things....

Can you imagine the Russian media going after Putin about the levels of corruption or sleaze over there. No, because reporters that do end up in a body bag after killing themselves jumping from their balcony and shooting themselves on the way down.
Here, the government are held to account when they do stupid things. Which they do, a lot. As it should be! If the news was state controlled do you think they'd be getting such a hard time?

 

[Rroff]

I know the arc royal's radar can track 2-3000 tennis ball sized drones simultaneously (public info), but incoming MACH 8 is a different tennis ball entirely

They won't be incoming at Mach 8 though - and if they were the tinniest accuracy error would mean missing the target by 100s of meters (unless nuclear payload).

The latest incarnations of US and UK ship air-defence systems can track and calculate a solution on incoming targets, with a proven ability to hit, well above Mach 2 and HMS Dragon with the latest software demonstrated the ability to defeat sea skimming missiles at up to Mach 3 and ability to track and calculate intercepts for long range ballistic missiles travelling up to Mach 16.

Aviation Week did report that the MOD has said a Russian Hypersonic missile has hit a sea target. I can only see the headline so it's not clear of parameters of the test or the performance.

In a controlled test against a static target with no air-defences, that is the one which managed just under Mach 7 (peak) in a successful end to end test.

The other complication is they need to know where the target is with a good deal of precision - not something a surface fleet is going to make easy.

 

[do_ron_ron]

80% of our media support the Tories so they do not need control. On occasion they will kick the Govt. The Telegraph if they think the Tories are mot right wing enough, the Murdoch press if the boss thinks they are going to hurt his empire in some way.

 

[NickK]

They won't be incoming at Mach 8 though - and if they were the tinniest accuracy error would mean missing the target by 100s of meters (unless nuclear payload).

The latest incarnations of US and UK ship air-defence systems can track and calculate a solution on incoming targets, with a proven ability to hit, well above Mach 2 and HMS Dragon with the latest software demonstrated the ability to defeat sea skimming missiles at up to Mach 3 and ability to track and calculate intercepts for long range ballistic missiles travelling up to Mach 16.

In a controlled test against a static target with no air-defences, that is the one which managed just under Mach 7 in a successful end to end test.

The question is - will hypersonics outpace the technology advancements of defence. Typically it's faster to bring missile evolution than refit a ship (most defensive missile upgrades need some form of return-to-base refit).

You're correct. It's early days and I agree hypersonics have the issue of not being able to simply make intermediate/short range course adjustments without complications (not to mention processing speed). The cost of a hypersonic missile is prohibitive thus the number in use would be low - requiring both ship refit for it and use reserved for larger targets. It is more likely a give away that the specialised ship is detected on an intercept course way before it's in ship-launched hypersonic range.

 

[GGizmo]

I'm still not sure about my opinion of this potential conflict.

I'm not 100% sure we should even be sending our armed forces there.

What's the mood of the thread/forum? Should we be getting involved or not?

 

[Metalface Mark]

We shouldnt be involved in any war that doesnt directly involve any of our territory unless its part of the UN imho. Same goes for any country.

 

[StriderX]

We promised Ukraine help if it's sovereignty was under assault and it has been for the last 8 years now.

 

[Rilot]

Equipment and aid, sure. Fighting men and women, nope.

 

[XeNoN89]

I'm still not sure about my opinion of this potential conflict.

I'm not 100% sure we should even be sending our armed forces there.

What's the mood of the thread/forum? Should we be getting involved or not?

We aren't sending our armed forces to Ukraine. Only to NATO countries

 

[alchal]

The issue is that being in a war theatre allows the option to live test. And it only takes a sub 100% success ratio to take out a carrier (ie more than one missile launched and one missile achieves it's purpose). However that also assumes that the missile strike is 100% effective.

Be interesting to see how electronic countermeasures can work against them, the French navy relies on electronic countermeasures I believe and has no phalanx type hard kill.

 

[StriderX]

Equipment and aid, sure. Fighting men and women, nope.

Saarland, Sudetenland, Bohemia, Moravia-Silesia, Austria, Poland.

Perhaps there won't be a choice?

 

[Rroff]

Be interesting to see how electronic countermeasures can work against them, the French navy relies on electronic countermeasures I believe and has no phalanx type hard kill.

Contrary to what is often banded about - if you have a good enough fire control system with enough precision to track a hypersonic missile accurately and the computer power even CIWS can take out a hypersonic missile as long as you can get out ahead of it. (It is quite a feat but it is possible).

 

[Roar87]

Contrary to what is often banded about - if you have a good enough fire control system with enough precision to track a hypersonic missile accurately and the computer power even CIWS can take out a hypersonic missile as long as you can get out ahead of it.

The best tactic is to just not get hit by it, going so fast they aren't terribly accurate on moving targets

 

[Rroff]

The best tactic is to just not get hit by it, going so fast they aren't terribly accurate on moving targets

Yeah the hyped manoeuvrability is all relative - it isn't like they are pulling crazy turns, etc. and the time to target while short is still long enough a target can move quite a distance in the time between launching and impact - in a conceptual engagement scenario something like a Type 45 can be more than 300m away from the initial point by impact (and realistically more how they are more likely to be used).

 

[Roar87]

Yeah the hyped manoeuvrability is all relative - it isn't like they are pulling crazy turns, etc. and the time to target while short is still long enough a target can move quite a distance in the time between launching and impact - in a conceptual engagement scenario something like a Type 45 can be more than 300m away from the initial point by impact (and realistically more how they are more likely to be used).

Even aircraft carriers travel at over 30 knots and are relatively maneuverable, people think they're sat stationary in the water

youtube.com/watch?v=ob2HMH3GnJw&ab_channel=USMilitaryPower

 

[NickK]

Yeah the hyped manoeuvrability is all relative - it isn't like they are pulling crazy turns, etc. and the time to target while short is still long enough a target can move quite a distance in the time between launching and impact - in a conceptual engagement scenario something like a Type 45 can be more than 300m away from the initial point by impact (and realistically more how they are more likely to be used).

A carrier is slow (in a per second rate) in both speed and change of speed/direction. We're talking >1mile for a turn. At distance the missile only requires a small adjustment in vector to still hit the centre mass. Therefore the time between detection and arrival simply means any form of ship-based manoeuvring is not going to solve a problem. Counter measures presents a problem - given the missile knows that the ship can't manoeuvre massively during it's terminal phase, it has the option of simply carrying on to previous target - allowing the speed achieve the minimal movement of target to hit.

The down side of these missiles is that they're big and fragile - if the missile hits shrapnel at MACH8 it will cause enough damage the missile will tear itself to pieces due to the air resistance. You could also trigger a misflow of air through shockwaves. Essentially make the missile hit a shockwave, there's a chance the scramjet may fail or flame out but also cause overpressure. There's patents on using hypersonic shockwaves for anti-missile tank protection. Such countermeasures could be via slow persistent drones rather than anti-missile missiles.
Lasers also provide a good defence - thermally overloading the nose of a hypersonic missile would lead to both sensor failure and due to the loss of aerodynamics, loss of the the missle.

Also there's situations such as rain, or fog or metal dust that may increase the air density to prevent the missile from operating correctly.

Lots of ideas out there. The technology, although fast, isn't foolproof.