Anti-shipping Tactics...

[SCFalken]

WRT Antishipping tactics: The goal being to prevent an offensive attack on your Forces/Nation by a seaborne threat, such as a Naval Infantry landing or Air/Missile strike.

 

1) Are they viable against a asymmetric threat. I.e. a uber-Navy such as the USN or RN, where the defending (non-expeditionary) Nation has no comparitive ability to project power offshore?

 

2) What is more efficient:

 

Land-based Anti-Ship Missiles.

Coastal tube-artillery.

Air-launched Anti-Ship Missiles ala Exocet/SUNBURN.

or betting the farm on a couple of SSK's with off-the-shelf Russian Torpedos?

 

3) What is the best bang-for-the-buck shipkiller missile on the market. Cost vs. capability-wise?

 

 

Falken

[Guest Hans Engström]

Depends a lot on geography. I'd say the Finns, Norwegians and Swedish Navies have a decent chance of keeping the USN (the Brits really aren't large enough o rank in the same ballpark) off the coast reasonably. FAC with a good ASM, supported by subs (preferably) and a good long range air launched missile with a coastline that's easy to hide in can give anybody a real headache.

[Guest Hans Engström]

An excellent example for ASMs is the latest Mark of the Rbs15, which can be launched from either sea, land or air at either land or sea targets.

 

http://products.saab.se/PDBWeb/ShowProduct...7&MoreInfo=true

[KingSargent]

Simple. Do NOT p!ss off the US.

[Guest aevans]

I think the joker here is, as always, the relative strength of the offense and defense, not any perticular technological solution. Having to suppress anti-shipping missiles and/or coastal guns and/or coastal subs is a question of tactical and technical proficiency, magnified by the resources available. Any small country that thinks it has a giant killer -- and relies on it as a certain defense -- is in for a nasty surprise in the end, even if they get a few licks in in the process.

[Corinthian]

Mines. Lots of them. Of different types. Will give not only surface ships problems, but also subs that try to slip closer. And lay them indiscriminately. I heard that with the end of the Cold War, US anti-mine and even ASW proficiency has suffered. "Offensively", keep any FACs under camo (or hiding among the 'hostaged' foreign merchies) and wait for the main strike force to appear off the coast. Target the amphibs. Land-based cruise missiles in trucks sound very nice - doesn't Iran have a few Silkworms in such launchers?

[Guest aevans]

Mines.  Lots of them.  Of different types.  Will give not only surface ships problems, but also subs that try to slip closer.  And lay them indiscriminately.  I heard that with the end of the Cold War, US anti-mine and even ASW proficiency has suffered.  "Offensively", keep any FACs under camo (or hiding among the 'hostaged' foreign merchies) and wait for the main strike force to appear off the coast.  Target the amphibs.  Land-based cruise missiles in trucks sound very nice - doesn't Iran have a few Silkworms in such launchers?

126950[/snapback]

 

Uh-huh. Ganbatte!

[Scott Cunningham]

Mines is the way. Simple, cheap, effective. Shuts the coast down to your stuff as well, but the USN will not risk billion dollar ships (all lightly built) in mined waters.

[DavT]

Hey, didn't the Iraqis used this FAC/land-based SSM/mine combo in Desert Storm? Didn't work too well for them, since the first two component couldn't stand up to allied air attacks. I think the need for air superiority in this tactic needs to be emphasized.

[SCFalken]

Hey, didn't the Iraqis used this FAC/land-based SSM/mine combo in Desert Storm? Didn't work too well for them, since the first two component couldn't stand up to allied air attacks. I think the need for air superiority in this tactic needs to be emphasized.

126992[/snapback]

 

 

How much of that was due to Iraqi incompetence and unwillingness to take the initiative?

 

 

Falken

[SCFalken]

Hmmm, good shot regarding air superiority/parity.

 

I've got a question about that, but it deserves it's own subject.

 

 

Falken

[Scott Cunningham]

Iraqi mines hit two US ships. They also damn near got the USS Missouri with a Silkworm

[Corinthian]

That's the problem - air superiority. The country can deny the coast by mines, but if they can't deny the air as well, it's hopeless. Mines will at the most postpone the inevitable. Mobile SAMs and AAA will have to be moved quite a lot along with their radars if they are to survive a modern USN CVBG. Unless the country has lots of SAMs in supply, they'll eventually run out of missiles and/or launchers whilst the superbugs will be running out of targets to bomb with their munitions.

 

If the country wants to give the USN a really bloody nose, it'll have to keep its best assets hidden until the amphib force comes in. Then do kamikaze strikes at the amphibs and beachhead - assuming there are still planes and FACs left.

[Guest Hans Engström]

What navies (aside from ours) use mine girdles on their subs? I seems to be an excelelnt way of mining approaches.

[RETAC21]

If you are really, really ruthless, you put a fishing boat on the path of the incoming battlegroup filled to the top with TNT and just ram the carrier. You aren't going to sink it, but may damage it enough for it to be sent to the barn. No need to target them off your shores either, any strait, canal or similar will do, like Gibraltar, Malaca, or the Suez.

[Jim Martin]

Amazing, that's what I was thinking when I read the topic header...don't engage in piracy, don't support terrorism, don't invade other countries in expansionist wars, don't threaten lives of US nationals, don't oppress your citizenry. In short, don't act like an international jerk. Heck, you can even engage in a lot of the above activities without a visit from the USN, but you should know you're on the short list....

 

 

Simple.  Do NOT p!ss off the US.

126900[/snapback]

[Guest Lurch]

Don't discover oil beneath your country!

[Keith L]

I'm not sure a silkworm would have done much damage to the Missouri, any one able to give more data on this?

[Josh]

I'm not sure a silkworm would have done much damage to the Missouri, any one able to give more data on this?

127129[/snapback]

 

No hard stats, but a single missile is unlikely to kill a ship of that size with any armor or compartmentalization.

[R011]

No hard stats, but a single missile is unlikely to kill a ship of that size with any armor or compartmentalization.

127134[/snapback]

Barring a golden BB, almost certainly not. There is a decent chance that a single hit might result in a mission kill, though perhaps only for a few days or less.

 

The armour, is of much less significance than the compartmentation.

[Sami Jumppanen]

If you are really, really ruthless, you put a fishing boat on the path of the incoming battlegroup filled to the top with TNT and just ram the carrier. You aren't going to sink it, but may damage it enough for it to be sent to the barn. No need to target them off your shores either, any strait, canal or similar will do, like Gibraltar, Malaca, or the Suez.

127058[/snapback]

 

I'm quite sure that ramming is not needed for that IIRC those mine hits during GW1 caused much damage even in those cases when mine detonated away from ship. So fishing boat with several tons of explosives shoud do damage from longer distances.

[SCFalken]

Didnt Soviet ASM tactics basically boil down to "use the Bears and Backfires to lob a swarm of missiles at the CVBG's"? Does missile-swarming have a good chance in the face of Aegis/CAP/phalanx/Ram layered defenses?

 

 

Falken

[Guest aevans]

Didnt Soviet ASM tactics basically boil down to "use the Bears and Backfires to lob a swarm of missiles at the CVBG's"?  Does missile-swarming have a good chance in the face of Aegis/CAP/phalanx/Ram layered defenses?

Falken

127145[/snapback]

 

And which small or even medium sized country has the resources to do this, and the tactical ability to carry it off? That's the problem with theoretical discussions like this -- they are divorced from reality.

[Josh]

I'm quite sure that ramming is not needed for that IIRC those mine hits during GW1 caused much damage even in those cases when mine detonated away from ship. So fishing boat with several tons of explosives shoud do damage from longer distances.

127141[/snapback]

 

Against a CV you'll have to be closer because 1). the target is bigger 2). CV's have a TDS 3). the craft would be above water, and the reason mines have such damage potential is due to the gas bubble and mechanical wave they generate specifically because they are submerged.

 

In any case, I doubt you'll be able to position a craft near a CV even in peacetime, and it wartime it would likely be impossible even inside a port. I do think you'll find the USN is fairly proactive vis-a-vis the security of CV's, especially after the Cole incident.

[Josh]

Didnt Soviet ASM tactics basically boil down to "use the Bears and Backfires to lob a swarm of missiles at the CVBG's"?  Does missile-swarming have a good chance in the face of Aegis/CAP/phalanx/Ram layered defenses?

Falken

127145[/snapback]

 

This was basically their tactic, though there were SSN's and SSGNs that would also take the CVBGs to task. As to effectiveness its all highly theoretical and situational and more over the timeframe would have to be considered. All in all, the Soviets seemd to have a poor ability to do the necessary tracking to engage a CVBG.

 

For your consideration:

 

http://www.navweaps.com/index_tech/tech-031.htm