Russian warship with hypersonic Zircon missiles on drills in Atlantic
I suppose she it would have some kind of magic cloak of invisibility.
Going dark by minimising emissions is quite effective I believe. The effort expended trying to find ships that want to be found suggests knowing the precise whereabouts of a vessel at all times is not as easy as post #12 implied.
Surely passive sonar will give you a bearing but not a range unless different sensors are combined (unless the SM is close enough to be in trail). Satellite imagery is intermittent, the claim was that the precise whereabouts was known at all times. Likewise, I would have thought ELINT and radar woud require a shadow vessel to provide reliable data.
Guest
I think this discussion needs a smattering of fog of war and reality to enter the mix.
Technical discussions on paper soon enter the waste basket in war. We lost enough high tech naval assets to relatively low tech delivered munitions in the Falklands to remind us of that.
An interesting comment was that "If we had taken our stored WW2 Barrage Balloons with us we may not have lost so many ships" is interesting.
Rules of war.
The enemy will do something you have not anticipated.
Plans vary rarely go to plan.
If the enemy can get through (our defences) it will get through.
Most importantly, never underestimate the enemy.
Technical discussions on paper soon enter the waste basket in war. We lost enough high tech naval assets to relatively low tech delivered munitions in the Falklands to remind us of that.
An interesting comment was that "If we had taken our stored WW2 Barrage Balloons with us we may not have lost so many ships" is interesting.
Rules of war.
The enemy will do something you have not anticipated.
Plans vary rarely go to plan.
If the enemy can get through (our defences) it will get through.
Most importantly, never underestimate the enemy.
Seems possible that the Doppler could be processed along with a bearing from a passive sonar array to give a track perhaps? I don't know enough about sonar but remember seeing waterfall displays showing the frequency shift as a target moved relative to the sensors. No idea how this can be processed though.
What's the visible horizon from a periscope, though? Can't be far, can it? Knowing where a ship like this was to within a dozen miles is more than good enough if you're not interested in sinking it, just keeping a tail on it's whereabouts.
Edited:
Just had a poke around on the web. No idea how far out of the water a periscope pokes, but if it was 10ft then the horizon limit is about 4 miles. If it's 20ft the horizon limit is about 6 miles. If it was 30ft the horizon limit is just over 7 miles. Less than I thought. May be periscopes poke a lot higher out of the water though. A 50ft high one could see out to a bit over 9 miles. 50ft seems high to me, could well be wrong though.
Edited:
Just had a poke around on the web. No idea how far out of the water a periscope pokes, but if it was 10ft then the horizon limit is about 4 miles. If it's 20ft the horizon limit is about 6 miles. If it was 30ft the horizon limit is just over 7 miles. Less than I thought. May be periscopes poke a lot higher out of the water though. A 50ft high one could see out to a bit over 9 miles. 50ft seems high to me, could well be wrong though.
Last edited by _Agrajag_; 26th Jan 2023 at 13:03. Reason: Added a bit
What's the visible horizon from a periscope, though? Can't be far, can it? Knowing where a ship like this was to within a dozen miles is more than good enough if you're not interested in sinking it, just keeping a tail on it's whereabouts.
Edited:
Just had a poke around on the web. No idea how far out of the water a periscope pokes, but if it was 10ft then the horizon limit is about 4 miles. If it's 20ft the horizon limit is about 6 miles. If it was 30ft the horizon limit is just over 7 miles. Less than I thought. May be periscopes poke a lot higher out of the water though. A 50ft high one could see out to a bit over 9 miles. 50ft seems high to me, could well be wrong though.
Edited:
Just had a poke around on the web. No idea how far out of the water a periscope pokes, but if it was 10ft then the horizon limit is about 4 miles. If it's 20ft the horizon limit is about 6 miles. If it was 30ft the horizon limit is just over 7 miles. Less than I thought. May be periscopes poke a lot higher out of the water though. A 50ft high one could see out to a bit over 9 miles. 50ft seems high to me, could well be wrong though.
Just had a poke around on the web. No idea how far out of the water a periscope pokes, but if it was 10ft then the horizon limit is about 4 miles. If it's 20ft the horizon limit is about 6 miles. If it was 30ft the horizon limit is just over 7 miles. Less than I thought. May be periscopes poke a lot higher out of the water though. A 50ft high one could see out to a bit over 9 miles. 50ft seems high to me, could well be wrong though.
On the wider point, target-motion analysis as a method for estimating range from passive sensors has been around in crude form since before the 2nd world war. On modern submarine with automated analysis it is much more sophisticated.
Seems to be a lot of kidding going on by the media. The Zircon is simply a very expensive way to deliver a warhead to a target faster than a non-hypersonic missile. While hypersonic missiles are more difficult to defend against, the warhead carried is similar to non-hypersonic missiles.
The reasoning:
(1) All that speed (and attendant friction) doesn't come from nothing - need to carry more fuel.
(2) Hypersonic means surrounded by plasma, so no guidance corrections until it slows down near target. At which point it can be engaged just like any supersonic missile at close-in range.
If the design chooses not to slow down, then:
(1) The warhead must give up some of its HE weight to a heat shield, and
(2) It will not be GPS accurate. So ironically, it could really use a bigger warhead.
Perhaps this last point can be solved with some clever optical terminal guidance, but it certainly won't be easy to do, with the nose cone busy trying not to melt.
Those figures are for waterline visibility. If you add in the height of the ship, then they look more realistic (e.g. a periscope at a height of 20ft can see a 70ft warship out to 13Nm.
On the wider point, target-motion analysis as a method for estimating range from passive sensors has been around in crude form since before the 2nd world war. On modern submarine with automated analysis it is much more sophisticated.
On the wider point, target-motion analysis as a method for estimating range from passive sensors has been around in crude form since before the 2nd world war. On modern submarine with automated analysis it is much more sophisticated.
Thanks. Makes sense. I had a feeling there were ways to get range as well as bearing from passive sonar, just didn't know how it was done. Presumably modern signal processing makes that easier and more accurate.
Kasha.
If she suddenly sank in rough weather, that would not look very good.