• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

USN: Beware the "Carrier-Killer" Sizzler Missile!

CougarKing

Army.ca Fixture
Inactive
Reaction score
0
Points
360
The US Navy reportedly has not developed a defense to this new "Aircraft Carrier Killer" missile used by both the Russians and Chinese. The Chinese PLA Navy's 8 Kilos can reportedly launch the missile. If the USN 7th Fleet is wiped out by the PLAAF/PLAN in the defense of Taiwan, what's to stop the Chinese from dominating the rest of East and Southeast Asia? (please let's not debate over whether it's in China's national interest to dominate East Asia beyond Taiwan)

http://news.yahoo.com/s/bloomberg/20070323/pl_bloomberg/ako7y_orw538

Navy Lacks Plan to Defend Against `Carrier-Destroying' Missile
Tony Capaccio
Fri Mar 23, 12:18 AM ET

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.''

``Take out the carriers'' and China ``can walk into Taiwan,'' he said. China bought the missiles in 2002 along with eight diesel submarines designed to fire it, according to Office of Naval Intelligence spokesman Robert Althage.

A Pentagon official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said Russia also offered the missile to Iran, although there's no evidence a sale has gone through. In Iranian hands, the Sizzler could challenge the ability of the U.S. Navy to keep open the Strait of Hormuz, through which an estimated 25 percent of the world's oil traffic flows.

Fast and Low-Flying

``This is a very low-flying, fast missile,'' said retired Rear Admiral Eric McVadon, a former U.S. naval attache in Beijing. ``It won't be visible until it's quite close. By the time you detect it to the time it hits you is very short. You'd want to know your capabilities to handle this sort of missile.''

The Navy's ship-borne Aegis system, deployed on cruisers and destroyers starting in the early 1980s, is designed to protect aircraft-carrier battle groups from missile attacks. But current and former officials say the Navy has no assurance Aegis, built by Lockheed Martin Corp., is capable of detecting, tracking and intercepting the Sizzler.

``This was an issue when I walked in the door in 2001,'' Thomas Christie, the Defense Department's top weapons-testing official from mid-2001 to early 2005, said in an interview.

`A Major Issue'

``The Navy recognized this was a major issue, and over the years, I had continued promises they were going to fully fund development and production'' of missiles that could replicate the Sizzler to help develop a defense against it, Christie said. ``They haven't.''

The effect is that in a conflict, the U.S. ``would send a billion-dollar platform loaded with equipment and crew into harm's way without some sort of confidence that we could defeat what is apparently a threat very near on the horizon,'' Christie said.

The Navy considered developing a program to test against the Sizzler ``but has no plans in the immediate future to initiate such a developmental effort,'' Naval Air Systems Command spokesman Rob Koon said in an e-mail.

Lieutenant Bashon Mann, a Navy spokesman, said the service is aware of the Sizzler's capabilities and is ``researching suitable alternatives'' to defend against it. ``U.S. naval warships have a layered defense capability that can defend against various missile threats,'' Mann said.

Raising Concerns

McQueary, head of the Pentagon's testing office, raised his concerns about the absence of Navy test plans for the missile in a Sept. 8, 2006, memo to Ken Krieg, undersecretary of defense for acquisition. He also voiced concerns to Deputy Secretary England.

In the memo, McQuery said that unless the Sizzler threat was addressed, his office wouldn't approve test plans necessary for production to begin on several other projects, including Northrop Grumman Corp.'s new $35.8 billion CVN-21 aircraft-carrier project; the $36.5 billion DDG-1000 destroyer project being developed by Northrop and General Dynamics Corp.; and two Raytheon Corp. projects, the $6 billion Standard Missile-6 and $1.1 billion Ship Self Defense System.

Charts prepared by the Navy for a February 2005 briefing for defense contractors said the Sizzler, which is also called the SS-N-27B, starts out flying at subsonic speeds. Within 10 nautical miles of its target, a rocket-propelled warhead separates and accelerates to three times the speed of sound, flying no more than 10 meters (33 feet) above sea level.

Final Approach

On final approach, the missile ``has the potential to perform very high defensive maneuvers,'' including sharp-angled dodges, the Office of Naval Intelligence said in a manual on worldwide maritime threats.

The Sizzler is ``unique,'' the Defense Science Board, an independent agency within the Pentagon that provides assessments of major defense issues, said in an October 2005 report. Most anti-ship cruise missiles fly below the speed of sound and on a straight path, making them easier to track and target.

McQueary, in a March 16 e-mailed statement, said that ``to the best of our knowledge,'' the Navy hasn't started a test program or responded to the board's recommendations. ``The Navy may be reluctant to invest in development of a new target, given their other bills,'' he said.

`Aggressively Marketing'

The Sizzler's Russian maker, state-run Novator Design Bureau in Yekaterinburg, is ``aggressively marketing'' the weapon at international arms shows, said Steve Zaloga, a missile analyst with the Teal Group, a Fairfax, Virginia-based defense research organization. Among other venues, the missile was pitched at last month's IDEX 2007, the Middle East's largest weapons exposition, he said.

Zaloga provided a page from Novator's sales brochure depicting the missile.

Alexander Uzhanov, a spokesman for the Moscow-based Russian arms-export agency Rosoboronexport, which oversees Novator, declined to comment.

McVadon, who has written about the Chinese navy, called the Sizzler ``right now the most pertinent and pressing threat the U.S. faces in the case of a Taiwan conflict.'' Jane's, the London-based defense information group, reported in 2005 in its publication ``Missiles and Rockets'' that Russia had offered the missile to Iran as part of a sale in the 1990s of three Kilo- class submarines.

That report was confirmed by the Pentagon official who requested anonymity. The Office of Naval Intelligence suggested the same thing in a 2004 report, highlighting in its assessment of maritime threats Iran's possible acquisition of additional Russian diesel submarines ``with advanced anti-ship cruise missiles.''

The Defense Science Board, in its 2005 report, recommended that the Navy ``immediately implement'' a plan to produce a surrogate Sizzler that could be used for testing.

``Time is of the essence here,'' the board said. 

It makes me wonder whether any Marcom Frigate could stand a chance of defending itself against this without support of a US Navy Carrier battlegroup that our Frigates sometimes form part of on joint exercises/operations.

Doesn't the USN use a more advanced version of the SM2 than the ones on the 3 DDHs we have?
 
I thought this weapon was the primary reason the USN had gone from Phalanx to RAM as in tests they confirmed Phalanx was absolutely useless as a CIWS.


Matthew.    ???
 
Considering the CPFs are equipped with the Phalanx 1B what do you think?

Folks this is not a reason to be alarmed, yes it is a matter of concern. What it will mean is the USN will be more aggressive in ASW and chances are if they ID a non nuclear submarine in their vacinity chances are more likely they will engage and sink it if tension rises. The Chinese know this. The USN is not one to tie up over a potential threat and neither is our navy. Its not the end of the world.
 
Any Chinese attack upon the USN is an act of war and would be taken to a level that the Chinese dont want to face. Second its one thing to have a cruise missile its quite another to be able to deploy it.During the cold war the USN knew the Russians were going to target our carriers so the CAP's mission was to keep Russian bombers +200 miles from the carrier. Carriers also operate with multiple fast attack subs to counter the sub threat. The USN excels in the ECW game and it remains to be seen if Chinese missiles are immune.
 
From the above article:

"which is also called the SS-N-27B,"
 
There are several types of SS-N-27 Sizzler. One is the mach 2.9 version and the other is subsonic.
The cruise missile has long been the one weapon that the Navy fears. The only real defense is to destroy the launch vehicle prior to launch - a tall order. Ultimately deterrence is the best defense. The loss of a carrier would cause a war.
 
Ex-Dragoon said:
Considering the CPFs are equipped with the Phalanx 1B what do you think?

Folks this is not a reason to be alarmed, yes it is a matter of concern. What it will mean is the USN will be more aggressive in ASW and chances are if they ID a non nuclear submarine in their vacinity chances are more likely they will engage and sink it if tension rises. The Chinese know this. The USN is not one to tie up over a potential threat and neither is our navy. Its not the end of the world.

If you were responding to me, the attached appears to be commentary on the article I had read previously.


Matthew.  :salute:

What is significant about this anti-missile defense system is that it can defeat the Mach 2.5 Russian "Sunburn" anti-ship missle. Until the rollout of the SeaRAM, the Russians have enjoyed a very dangerous advantage in anti-ship missile technology. In order to destablize the power of the United States, the Russians have been selling the Sunburn missles to China. The Russians have refused to sell them to the West, and despite the best efforts of it's spies, the west has very little information on them. (Thanks Klinton for passing up the deal when they were offered!)

The Sunburn missles are capable of delivering conventional and nuclear warheads to sea-based targets.

The standard US Navy anti-missle defense system is too slow to engage the Sunburn. This system, called the Phalanx, has only about 2.5 seconds to react to the Sunburn. In multiple tests, the Phalanx failed to engage high speed missiles in time to protect a ship.

Speed aside, the other threat the Sunburn poses is it's destructive force. The Sunburn skims the sea and pops up at the last seconds to slam down on the decks of ships. The combined speed and warhead payload would be devastating to all ships in the US arsenal.

The Chinese have purchased a number of Sunburn missiles from the Russians and are counting on them to neutralize the threat from the United States Navy in any scenario involving Tiawan.

One has to do some digging to find out how effective the system is. Raytheon isn't really saying much about it's performance, but I've managed to dig up some info.

"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%"

The SeaRAM is a drop in replacement for the Phalanx system. The RAM missle itself is a mach 2, second generation derivative of the Sidewinder and Stinger missles. It features BOTH infrared and radar based target tracking, allowing for use against future low radar cross section (stealthy) anti-ship missles.

. . . .

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/966345/posts
 
And look at my commentary below of what you bolded CB...

Yes the Sizzler is a threat to feel otherwise then you are only kidding yourself, but what do you expect the Western navies to do, stay tied up until we have a counter or a defence against it?
 
Ex-Dragoon said:
And look at my commentary below of what you bolded CB...

Yes the Sizzler is a threat to feel otherwise then you are only kidding yourself, but what do you expect the Western navies to do, stay tied up until we have a counter or a defence against it?

I think if we know that RAM block 1 is significantly superior at defeating a threat that Phalanx of any block is incapable of due to limitations of the 20mm ammunition, and considering the fact that Sea-RAM is a literally a bolt-on system, I think we should upgrade all CPF's to Sea-RAM (ballpark cost would be $10 million per ship).


Matthew. 
 
IIRC Sea Ram was not designed to engage the small boat threat, Phalanx 1B is.

Now if we got the HAS upgrade to the Block 1 variant of the RAM then I might agree with you...but seeing how its still on the drawing board the the Phalanx 1B can take on the small boat threat then I think we should stick with the Phalanx. Has anyone seen anything that states the RAM is a defence against the SS-N-27?
 
Ex-Dragoon said:
IIRC Sea Ram was not designed to engage the small boat threat, Phalanx 1B is.

According to Raytheon's Product Data Sheet (http://www.raytheon.com/products/stellent/groups/public/documents/content/cms01_055726.pdf), it does list the following:

Threat Coverage
Anti-ship cruise missiles, surface craft, helicopters, UAVs, fixed wing aircraft (all types)

Your guess is as good as mine as to whether "surface craft" includes small, rhib-sized boats.
 
OK, So the PLN has a new missile. Big Deal!
The PLN is not a blue water navy, they aren't in the power projection game, nor are they likely to be in the future. Ergo, aren't they being given more credit than is thier due?
 
The USN plans to deploy the SM-6 missile to provide defense against the over the horizon cruise missile threat.Flight testing in 08.

http://www.raytheon.com/products/stellent/groups/public/documents/content/cms04_014817.pdf
 
Just remember in the cruise missile game, the longer range the bad guy has to shoot at you from, the more time you have to react.
That is what makes the Persian Gulf a nightmare for navies,. The Iranians are who we should be focusing on.
 
This may get peeled of onto a separate thread, but based on reading some of this stuff I'm going to have to pile on to what Ex-Dragoon has been saying for a while re: the need for Air Defence Destroyers.

My take is that we should look at two options based on perceived budget availability.

Option 1)  Pursue FELEX Upgrade - Defer Single Combatant program.
Provide ESSM upgrade to all vessels to increase self-defence capability.
SCSC becomes a 2015-2020 program.

Pro's:  Provides larger number of semi-capable ships which should allow single ship deployments with relative safety.
Con's:  No theatre defence capable.  Limited ASM capability (detection and interception range)

Option 2)  Cancel FELEX - Fast-Track Alternate Program
CPF's get Sea-RAM H.A.S. only starting in 2008.  Focus shifts to anti-Submarine specialization.
SCSC moved to research project only with implementation date 2020ish with objective of replacing CPF.
Submit tenders for domestic production of existing types (other than assembly, 100% offsets not required and usual regional offsets, aboriginal offsets, etc. are all null and void).

Objectives:
1)  Re-build the Canadian shipbuilding industry so that we can domestically produce the SCSC when its time comes.  Of note, DND and the navy need to design and get approved a strategic shipbuilding plan for the next 25-years.  It's not that it can't be done....it's that it takes good planning....something that with an actual stable budget thanks to the Conservatives may once again be possible.  (I can't even imagine trying to plan for procurement under the Liberals.  Good Lord.  I'm suprised that NDHQ still has some people with hair left!)
2)  Save the money usually associated with customization that we seem to like to squander, but that we cannot afford (note - novel idea: Bonuses for bureaucrats who get the project in on-time and on-budget and no raises for those who fail to meet those objectives).  As an adjunct, as per a reply I added to a previous thread on naval procurement, customization, etc. - there was an article I read the other day that quoted the price of USN software systems integration of upgrades at $400 million per vessel.  Bottom Line:  Customizing sensor suites and command & control is a HUGE expense and if there are existing models that are tested that we know "the wheel ain't broke", then let's buy those systems "as is" and re-task some of those bureaucrats to other projects.

Invited to bid (bid issued in late-2007 once forward budgets are approved):
De Zeven Provincien-class (Netherlands - proven)
Sachsen-class (Germany - proven)
Arleigh Burke-class (United States - proven)
Kongo-class (Japan - based on Arleigh Burkes - proven)
Hobart-class (Australia - based on Arleigh Burkes - in-process)
KDX-III-class (South Korea - based on Arleigh Burkes - in-process)
Type 45-class (UK - in-process)

Notes:
1)  Almost all vessels would need to have hangar structures modified with the exception of the Type-45 which is designed to accommodate the Merlin which is in the same class as the H-92/CH-148.
2)  Type-45 would use different weapons systems than we're used to but the UK will have already paid for sensor/data integration with USN standards, so as long as Aster works as well as SM-2/SM-6, it should warrant examination.  And if Aster doesn't match up well, the class is eliminated during review.  Repeat:  The focus is on buying an integrated ship with no customization with the exception of the helicopter hanger as needed.

Pro's:  Add's theatre defence to our capability list.  Improves ability to target and eliminate Sizzler-esque and other missile threats.  Eliminates the concern over C&C space in the CPF's which now retasked to ASW and support operations should have the bridge space requred. 
Con's:  Need to deploy minimum of (2) ships to each theatre in order to provide full-threat spectrum protection (although that protection would be significantly superior to (2) FELEX'd CPF's....



Matthew.  :salute:
 
Jammer said:
Just remember in the cruise missile game, the longer range the bad guy has to shoot at you from, the more time you have to react.

Not quite......

The flight profile of most sea-skimming ASM places them at a height above the waves that is under ship-based radars until the last moment.  If the shooter is beyond the radar horizon of the target ship, warning of an attack will be minimal.
 
I don't think the lookdown radars can pick them out of the ground clutter, can they?
 
Cruise missiles can be detected by radar. The detection of these systems has not been the problem, stopping them has been. Automatic weapons controlled by a computer is the only way a ship is going to get a skimmer or top attack missile. The HMS Sheffield lacked any such system and only after that experience we saw the birth of Phalanx and Goal Keeper. The AWACS radar is so sensitive for example it can track ground vehicles and require software to screen that out of the system. There are space based radar systems but they only are good when flying over the target area. The USN Aegis system is also quite good.
 
tomahawk6 said:
Cruise missiles can be detected by radar.

"CAN" being the operative word.

Automatic weapons controlled by a computer is the only way a ship is going to get a skimmer or top attack missile.

This i agree with 100 percent.  Human reaction is too slow.


The HMS Sheffield lacked any such system and only after that experience we saw the birth of Phalanx and Goal Keeper.

T6, what happenned to HMS Shefield is a combination of alot more than just its lack of CIWS.


The AWACS radar is so sensitive for example it can track ground vehicles and require software to screen that out of the system.

So-called "look-down" radars work by the doppler principle, using the target's own movement to detect it vice standard pulsed radar methods.

The USN Aegis system is also quite good.

Would you care to define what you mean by " quite good" ?  Like any other system , AEGIS has its limitations.  For reference, AEGIS is not in itself the Radar, but it is the intergrated combat system throughout the ship.  The SPY-1A ( Ticonderoga) and SPY-1D ( Arleigh Burke) are the radar systems that are part of the AEGIS combat system.
 
Back
Top