Which one is the best anti ship missile?

New and old developments in aviation technology.

Which missile is best to penetrate a ship air defense

Rocks
2
22%
Sm-6
3
33%
ASM-3A
4
44%
 
Total votes : 9

  • Author
  • Message
Offline

eloise

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2015
  • Joined: 27 Mar 2015, 16:05

Unread post10 May 2021, 19:58

Among the following type, which one is the best anti ship missile?. And by best I mean have the highest chance of intercepting air defense
Rocks
Top speed: Mach 5
Max range: 300 km
Guidance: EO, passive anti radar seeker, GPS, INS
Advantages: the fastest among the the three, using EO seeker mean it can be immune to jamming
BC7A9E21-1E5E-4C24-8BB6-37FB674EA836.jpeg


Air launched SM-6
Top speed: Mach 4.8
Max range:465 km
Guidance: active radar seeker, INS, GPS (no direct datalink to aircraft)
Advantages: the one with longest engagement range, multi role, possibly the most agile one as it is in fact an anti air missile
12D7BC72-74E3-4CF6-A6A3-B45979B94180.png


ASM-3A
Top speed: Mach 3
Max range: 400 km
Guidance: active radar seeker, INS, GPS, datalink
Advantages: using ramjet engine mean it can keep a high average speed compared to the other two, the only one capable of sea skimming, the only one with datalink as well
B8C2C0D8-311D-4CBC-8951-D59E26F41B30.jpeg
Offline

wrightwing

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3924
  • Joined: 23 Oct 2008, 15:22

Unread post11 May 2021, 00:44

The SM-6 in its current configuration has a >500km range, in the ASBM mode, and it has 2 way datalinks with aircraft, for targeting over the horizon. The upcoming SM-6 1B upgrade will likely have a range of >1500km, and hypersonic speeds. The other missiles likely have larger warheads, but won't hit with the kinetic energy, hypersonic speeds bring.
Offline

Corsair1963

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 8007
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post11 May 2021, 01:43

wrightwing wrote:The SM-6 in its current configuration has a >500km range, in the ASBM mode, and it has 2 way datalinks with aircraft, for targeting over the horizon. The upcoming SM-6 1B upgrade will likely have a range of >1500km, and hypersonic speeds. The other missiles likely have larger warheads, but won't hit with the kinetic energy, hypersonic speeds bring.



Sounds like the USN needs more SM-6's for their Surface Combatants! :wink:
Offline

eloise

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2015
  • Joined: 27 Mar 2015, 16:05

Unread post11 May 2021, 03:04

wrightwing wrote:The SM-6 in its current configuration has a >500km range, in the ASBM mode, and it has 2 way datalinks with aircraft, for targeting over the horizon. The upcoming SM-6 1B upgrade will likely have a range of >1500km, and hypersonic speeds. The other missiles likely have larger warheads, but won't hit with the kinetic energy, hypersonic speeds bring.

SM-6 lack a datalink to connect directly with aircraft, it use the S-band uplink datalink to connect with Aegis system. The . In OTH mode, the aircraft transfer data back to the ship then the ship send data to the missile.
It is also questionable whether SM-6 block IB will be integrated to aircraft as well, it use a 21 inches rocket body, so probably much heavier than the Block IA version
1.jpeg
Offline

Corsair1963

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 8007
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post11 May 2021, 04:24

Successful F-35, SM-6 Live Fire Test Points to Expansion in Networked Naval Warfare

A Monday test pairing a Lockheed Martin F-35B Lighting II Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) with an Aegis Combat System armed with a Raytheon Standard Missile-6 is the latest step in expanding how the Navy and Marine Corps will share data on future battlefields.

Using targeting information transmitted from the Marine Corps F-35B, the Navy’s Aegis test site at the White Sands Missile Range, New Mexico launched an SM-6 anti-air missile and struck a Beechcraft MQM-107 target representing an adversarial fighter.

“The way I’d describe it was a center of mass hit,” said Dana Potts with Lockheed Martin said in a Tuesday conference call with reporters.
“It absolutely disintegrated the target.”

The unmodified F-35 picked up the target with its own sensors and routed the track via the fighter’s Multifunction Advanced Data Link (MADL pronounced: MAHdel) to the Navy’s USS Desert Ship (LLS-1) test platform running the Baseline 9 Aegis Combat System. Lockheed and the Navy attached a MADL antenna to the combat system to receive the track information that fed the information to the SM-6.

The test is an expansion of the Navy’s Naval Integrated Fire Control-Counter Air concept (NIFC-CA) – a scheme designed to tie together data from the ships and aircraft in a carrier strike group to create a network of sensors and shooters – a proverbial kill web.

For example, targeting data collected from a Northrop Grumman E-2D Advanced Hawkeye can be beamed to a guided missile cruiser or destroyer in the strike group. That ship could then launch an SM-6 at the target only using the E-2s track and not its own radar.


For now, the E-2D remains the key node in the NIFC-CA program-of-record acting as the quarterback for the carrier’s air war but Monday’s test shows the Navy the art of the possible, said Anant Patel, major program manager for future combat systems in the Program Executive Office for Integrated Warfare Systems (PEO IWS) said in the conference call.

“This was a demonstration to show that within the NIFC-CA architecture we can add another sensor. As long as it meets the quality of service, we can engage the target,” Patel said.
“We have F-18s, F-35s all of those sensors we have to consider and that’s a future effort we’re going to have to do as part of our NIFC-CA capability growth.”

The addition of the MADL to the mix of the program of record links NIFC-CA now uses – like Cooperative Engagement Capability (CEC) and Link-16 – the test is a move away from a carrier-centric construct.

While the F-35 is billed and branded as a strike fighter, it also possesses a little discussed electronic warfare capability that gives it an exceptional awareness of its surroundings.

To that end NIFC-CA has included F-35 as a planned sensor node in carrier strike group model – acting as a stealthy forward arm but that would route targeting information back to the CSG through the E-2, USNI News reported in 2014.

However, using MADL direct to the Aegis ships weren’t part of the plan.

The difficult to detect and intercept MADL was designed for F-35s to talk to F-35s and not intended to share information beyond other JSFs, Bran Clark, a retired Navy officer, the former special assistant to the Chief of Naval Operations (CNO) and now a senior fellow at CSBA, told USNI News on Tuesday.


“Originally we didn’t think F-35s would use through datalinks directly to ships… This gives them the ability to talk directly to the ship with a very hard to detect very hard to jam MADL link,” Clark said.

Lockheed began studying routing the MADL data out from the JSF loop in 2013 with $15 million in internal funds before winning approval from the Navy’s chief weapons buyer, Sean Stackley, Potts said.

Last year, a Lockheed Skunk Works, Aegis, F-35 technical team did tests at Lockheed’s JSF plant in Fort Worth, Texas last year to pull MADL data to a ground station that would represent the link to a Baseline 9 cruiser or destroyer, Potts said.

“It was absolutely breathtaking, the Aegis display in our labs as soon as [the test F-35] turned his radar on looking north… He picked up the conga line, if you will of aircraft going into [Dallas Fort Worth Airport],” he said.
“The display just exploded with hundreds of ranged tracks, so we knew it would work.”
However, the fact linking the F-35s powerful EW suite was such is such a late addition to NIFC-CA is an “indictment of the original planning process that lead to the F-35,” Clark said.
New Combinations
An F-35B Lightning II takes off from the flight deck of the amphibious assault ship USS Wasp (LHD-1) on May 25, 2015. US Navy Photo

An F-35B Lightning II takes off from the flight deck of the amphibious assault ship USS Wasp (LHD-1) on May 25, 2015. US Navy Photo

The MADL linkage to Aegis and potentially other ground stations opens up the potential for a greater networked battlespace for U.S. forces and potentially U.S. allies.

In addition to the Navy’s F-35Cs and Marine Corps F-35Bs, the Air Force’s F-35As will be able to share its air tracks with a Baseline 9 ship.

“Eventually when we start linking everything that’s relevant on the airplane off to the ship to a ground base, the commanders are going to be able to see and understand the battle space in a much more robust way,” Potts said.

For example, a direct link to a Baseline 9 cruiser or destroyer from a Marine F-35B operating as part of an amphibious ready group could open up the air defense possibilities for the ARG, allowing SM-6 cueing for air threats.

Additionally, U.S. allies can further share information.

Japan, South Korea and Australia are not only acquiring F-35s but also other key nodes the U.S. uses for NIFC-CA. The South Korean Navy and the Japanese Maritime Self Defense Force are buying ships with the Baseline 9 backbone for NIFC-CA. Japan is also buying E-2Ds and Australia has purchased EA-18G Growler electronic warfare aircraft that are already part of a U.S. NIFC-CA construct.

The test come as Naval Sea Systems Command and Naval Air Systems Command are in talks to combine their two separate networked weapons efforts.

“From our perspective, they just have the aircraft but we have the entire combat systems, Aegis and SSDS (Ship Self-Defense System), so how do we integrate all that into overall Navy?” Patel told USNI News in June.
“And then you look at what threat sets you’re going after, they have different requirements and we have separate requirements, so basically understanding each other, what are the requirements, what the capabilities are, where are we today, what are our plans for the future, and then how do we consolidate?”
In terms of the future of the NIFC-CA construct, NAVSEA said there are several other opportunities to explore to expand the network.

“The more sensors, the better off we are,” Patel said on Tuesday.


https://news.usni.org/2016/09/13/video- ... al-warfare
Offline

eloise

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2015
  • Joined: 27 Mar 2015, 16:05

Unread post11 May 2021, 08:58

Corsair1963 wrote:Su
The unmodified F-35 picked up the target with its own sensors and routed the track via the fighter’s Multifunction Advanced Data Link (MADL pronounced: MAHdel) to the Navy’s USS Desert Ship (LLS-1) test platform running the Baseline 9 Aegis Combat System. Lockheed and the Navy attached a MADL antenna to the combat system to receive the track information that fed the information to the SM-6.

The test is an expansion of the Navy’s Naval Integrated Fire Control-Counter Air concept (NIFC-CA) – a scheme designed to tie together data from the ships and aircraft in a carrier strike group to create a network of sensors and shooters – a proverbial kill web.

For example, targeting data collected from a Northrop Grumman E-2D Advanced Hawkeye can be beamed to a guided missile cruiser or destroyer in the strike group. That ship could then launch an SM-6 at the target only using the E-2s track and not its own radar.


For now, the E-2D remains the key node in the NIFC-CA program-of-record acting as the quarterback for the carrier’s air war but Monday’s test shows the Navy the art of the possible, said Anant Patel, major program manager for future combat systems in the Program Executive Office for Integrated Warfare Systems (PEO IWS) said in the conference call.

“This was a demonstration to show that within the NIFC-CA architecture we can add another sensor. As long as it meets the quality of service, we can engage the target,” Patel said.
“We have F-18s, F-35s all of those sensors we have to consider and that’s a future effort we’re going to have to do as part of our NIFC-CA capability growth.”

The addition of the MADL to the mix of the program of record links NIFC-CA now uses – like Cooperative Engagement Capability (CEC) and Link-16 – the test is a move away from a carrier-centric construct.

While the F-35 is billed and branded as a strike fighter, it also possesses a little discussed electronic warfare capability that gives it an exceptional awareness of its surroundings.

To that end NIFC-CA has included F-35 as a planned sensor node in carrier strike group model – acting as a stealthy forward arm but that would route targeting information back to the CSG through the E-2, USNI News reported in 2014.

However, using MADL direct to the Aegis ships weren’t part of the plan.

The difficult to detect and intercept MADL was designed for F-35s to talk to F-35s and not intended to share information beyond other JSFs, Bran Clark, a retired Navy officer, the former special assistant to the Chief of Naval Operations (CNO) and now a senior fellow at CSBA, told USNI News on Tuesday.


“Originally we didn’t think F-35s would use through datalinks directly to ships… This gives them the ability to talk directly to the ship with a very hard to detect very hard to jam MADL link,” Clark said.

Lockheed began studying routing the MADL data out from the JSF loop in 2013 with $15 million in internal funds before winning approval from the Navy’s chief weapons buyer, Sean Stackley, Potts said.

Last year, a Lockheed Skunk Works, Aegis, F-35 technical team did tests at Lockheed’s JSF plant in Fort Worth, Texas last year to pull MADL data to a ground station that would represent the link to a Baseline 9 cruiser or destroyer, Potts said.

“It was absolutely breathtaking, the Aegis display in our labs as soon as [the test F-35] turned his radar on looking north… He picked up the conga line, if you will of aircraft going into [Dallas Fort Worth Airport],” he said.
“The display just exploded with hundreds of ranged tracks, so we knew it would work.”
However, the fact linking the F-35s powerful EW suite was such is such a late addition to NIFC-CA is an “indictment of the original planning process that lead to the F-35,” Clark said.
New Combinations
An F-35B Lightning II takes off from the flight deck of the amphibious assault ship USS Wasp (LHD-1) on May 25, 2015. US Navy Photo

An F-35B Lightning II takes off from the flight deck of the amphibious assault ship USS Wasp (LHD-1) on May 25, 2015. US Navy Photo

The MADL linkage to Aegis and potentially other ground stations opens up the potential for a greater networked battlespace for U.S. forces and potentially U.S. allies.

In addition to the Navy’s F-35Cs and Marine Corps F-35Bs, the Air Force’s F-35As will be able to share its air tracks with a Baseline 9 ship.

“Eventually when we start linking everything that’s relevant on the airplane off to the ship to a ground base, the commanders are going to be able to see and understand the battle space in a much more robust way,” Potts said.

For example, a direct link to a Baseline 9 cruiser or destroyer from a Marine F-35B operating as part of an amphibious ready group could open up the air defense possibilities for the ARG, allowing SM-6 cueing for air threats.

Additionally, U.S. allies can further share information.

Japan, South Korea and Australia are not only acquiring F-35s but also other key nodes the U.S. uses for NIFC-CA. The South Korean Navy and the Japanese Maritime Self Defense Force are buying ships with the Baseline 9 backbone for NIFC-CA. Japan is also buying E-2Ds and Australia has purchased EA-18G Growler electronic warfare aircraft that are already part of a U.S. NIFC-CA construct.

The test come as Naval Sea Systems Command and Naval Air Systems Command are in talks to combine their two separate networked weapons efforts.

“From our perspective, they just have the aircraft but we have the entire combat systems, Aegis and SSDS (Ship Self-Defense System), so how do we integrate all that into overall Navy?” Patel told USNI News in June.
“And then you look at what threat sets you’re going after, they have different requirements and we have separate requirements, so basically understanding each other, what are the requirements, what the capabilities are, where are we today, what are our plans for the future, and then how do we consolidate?”
In terms of the future of the NIFC-CA construct, NAVSEA said there are several other opportunities to explore to expand the network.

“The more sensors, the better off we are,” Patel said on Tuesday.


https://news.usni.org/2016/09/13/video- ... al-warfare

And as you see, the aircraft sent the track back to the ship, then the ship control the missile
The aircraft doesn't control the missile directly
Offline

glennwhitten

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 29
  • Joined: 12 May 2017, 18:42

Unread post11 May 2021, 10:23

The F-35 just potentially turned our allies Air Forces into ISR nodes for the US Battle Management Systems. We would probably need to buy hundreds of drones to provide the same benefit if these aircraft were not being purchased by our allies. Sometimes I think WE should pay THEM to operate F35's. The F-35 is a multi-role aircraft, but that is an understatement. It can fulfill MORE roles than any other aircraft. It should be called a super multi-role aircraft!!
Offline

Corsair1963

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 8007
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post11 May 2021, 10:37

eloise wrote:
The aircraft doesn't control the missile directly



Which, is why I posted it......
Offline

hornetfinn

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3761
  • Joined: 13 Mar 2013, 08:31
  • Location: Finland

Unread post11 May 2021, 10:53

I'd be surprised if dedicated anti-ship missile wasn't the best anti-ship missile out of three. SM-6 is definitely best against aerial targets and ROCKS against fixed land targets, but I'd bet ASM-3A is superior against ships. Especially the seeker and guidance systems should be far more optimized for the task and targets. I bet there is no serious speed difference either in terminal phase and actually ASM-3A is likely fastest especially in longer range engagements due to ramjet keeping the speed up. Not to say that SM-6 or ROCKS can't be used effectively against ships but that ASM-3A is likely even better.
Offline
User avatar

ricnunes

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3522
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2017, 14:29

Unread post11 May 2021, 11:11

If you ask me "Which missile is best to penetrate a ship air defense?" and with only those three answers/options in mind, my straight answer would be:
- None of the above (none of those 3 missiles)! For instance and IMO, LRASM and JSM are better (LRASM being even better than JSM) but this has been thoroughly debated in another thread.

If I have to forcibly choose between those same three answers/options than I would choose the ASM-3A for the exact same reasons that hornetfinn mentioned.
“Active stealth” is what the ignorant nay sayers call ECM and pretend like it’s new.
Offline

mixelflick

Elite 4K

Elite 4K

  • Posts: 4588
  • Joined: 20 Mar 2010, 10:26
  • Location: Parts Unknown

Unread post11 May 2021, 15:24

I'm not as well versed in these weapons as I am the aircraft, but I voted for the SM-6.

Primarily for its versatility. Surface to air, surface to surface and ship to ship. Frankly I'm surprised it hasn't been explored as an air to air weapon. It goes back quite aways, so its inability to fit inside stealth aircraft wouldn't have been the issue it is today. Maybe it was, I dunno.

It looks cool too :)
Offline

krieger22

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 134
  • Joined: 10 Jul 2018, 22:02

Unread post11 May 2021, 19:13

Please remind me which one is actually in mass production and has warshots loaded someplace
Offline

eloise

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2015
  • Joined: 27 Mar 2015, 16:05

Unread post12 May 2021, 04:11

ricnunes wrote:If you ask me "Which missile is best to penetrate a ship air defense?" and with only those three answers/options in mind, my straight answer would be:
- None of the above (none of those 3 missiles)! For instance and IMO, LRASM and JSM are better (LRASM being even better than JSM) but this has been thoroughly debated in another thread.

If I have to forcibly choose between those same three answers/options than I would choose the ASM-3A for the exact same reasons that hornetfinn mentioned.

I'm looking for some quick reaction weapon though, sort of like a poor man near-hypersonic weapon
hornetfinn wrote:I'd be surprised if dedicated anti-ship missile wasn't the best anti-ship missile out of three. SM-6 is definitely best against aerial targets and ROCKS against fixed land targets, but I'd bet ASM-3A is superior against ships. Especially the seeker and guidance systems should be far more optimized for the task and targets. I bet there is no serious speed difference either in terminal phase and actually ASM-3A is likely fastest especially in longer range engagements due to ramjet keeping the speed up. Not to say that SM-6 or ROCKS can't be used effectively against ships but that ASM-3A is likely even better.

That make sense, though I prefered Rocks simply due to the EO seeker that can offer RF jamming immunity
It would be kinda cool if we can have a Siaw delivered from Thor-er
Offline
User avatar

ricnunes

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3522
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2017, 14:29

Unread post12 May 2021, 14:33

eloise wrote:That make sense, though I prefered Rocks simply due to the EO seeker that can offer RF jamming immunity


Well datalink will definitely help to overcome enemy RF jamming.

If you can place the missile very close to the enemy ship (which is what datalink allows you to do) than its active radar seeker should definitely overcome any enemy RF jamming.
“Active stealth” is what the ignorant nay sayers call ECM and pretend like it’s new.
Offline

wrightwing

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3924
  • Joined: 23 Oct 2008, 15:22

Unread post12 May 2021, 16:38

ricnunes wrote:
eloise wrote:That make sense, though I prefered Rocks simply due to the EO seeker that can offer RF jamming immunity


Well datalink will definitely help to overcome enemy RF jamming.

If you can place the missile very close to the enemy ship (which is what datalink allows you to do) than its active radar seeker should definitely overcome any enemy RF jamming.

Datalinks, active radar, HOJ, INS, GPS.......and coming in at a ballistic trajectory, makes it very survivable as well.
Next

Return to Technology

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests