Western subsonic antiship missiles

Read the forum code of contact

Member for

19 years 4 months

Posts: 268

why USA and West went for the subsonic antiship missiles and is still continue its use

  • RBS 15
  • Exocet
  • Otomat
  • Naval Strike Missile - NSM
  • AGM-84 Harpoon

When russia was going for the supersonic antiship missiles like
  • Moskit/SS-N-22 Sunburn
  • 3M-54 Klub/SS-N-27
  • Zvezda Kh-31/AS-17 Krypton

what were the reasons behaind this????????????

Original post

Member for

18 years 2 months

Posts: 2,814

Due to limitations in Soviet naval power.

Unlike the Soviet air forces and Soviet army, the Soviet naval surface fleet (as opposed to the Soviet submarine fleet, which was a different matter) was considerable less well equipped and smaller than the NATO forces. It was probably felt that the provision of supersonic anti-ship missiles would somehow address this imbalance.

Member for

19 years 4 months

Posts: 268

Due to limitations in Soviet naval power.

Unlike the Soviet air forces and Soviet army, the Soviet naval surface fleet (as opposed to the Soviet submarine fleet, which was a different matter) was considerable less well equipped and smaller than the NATO forces. It was probably felt that the provision of supersonic anti-ship missiles would somehow address this imbalance.


So they thought that supersonic anti-ship missiles are better then subsonic anti-ship missiles?

Member for

17 years 6 months

Posts: 682

This debate between subsonic and supersonic missiles is a never ending game, the debate has been done once here, please go through archives.

bottomline, my personal preference,

Antiship missiles - Supersonic but low flying.
Tactical Land attack missiles - Subsonic.

Member for

20 years 2 months

Posts: 3,187

Where is Jonesy and Nick :D

Member for

19 years 4 months

Posts: 3,396

Due to limitations in Soviet naval power.

Unlike the Soviet air forces and Soviet army, the Soviet naval surface fleet (as opposed to the Soviet submarine fleet, which was a different matter) was considerable less well equipped and smaller than the NATO forces. It was probably felt that the provision of supersonic anti-ship missiles would somehow address this imbalance.


I dont think Soviet naval power was limited. they had those Backfires and Su-24. Western Navies would have hard time in defeating Soviet surface with those small short range subsonic missiles when all aircraft carrier fleet is involved in defending against bombers.

Member for

24 years 2 months

Posts: 3,857

I think its a matter of different strategies the two sides had in mind for their fleets and their perception of the strengths and weaknesses of each other. The West relied primarily on their carriers for offensive ops, while their surface ships and subs are used mainly to protect the carriers from threats. The west viewed the vast soviet sub forces and soviet air power as the primary threat to its fleets, thus the priorities on tackling and countering these first. You have dedicated carrier interceptors, AWACS and ageis cruisers all tasked with destroying soviet attack ac before they can get within missile range. For the subs, the west had its own formidable sub fleet and dedicated sub hunting destroyers.

All of the above don't come cheap and took up the lion share of western naval budgets. AShMs were low on the priority list as it was flet that a typical western fleet's strike ac and sub components were sufficient to kill any surface threats long before they can get within AShM range.

The soviets also realised the above, and recognised that the carriers were the heart and soul of western naval power, so they built their navy to try and kill carriers. Because the soviets never really had true carriers of their own in survice until the very end of the cold war, they could not rely on tactical air support when attacking a western fleet, and needed to rely on long range strategic bombers who were the only things with the range to go carrier hunting from land bases. This also give them greater payload capacity which made heavy AShMs a more reasonable option.

But the main weapon the soviets hoped to use was its sub fleet, and its surface fleet was tasked with supporting the sub fleet for most of the cold war. Again, because of a lack of carriers, the soviet surface fleet only had AShMs to use against hostile surface ships, thus AShMs got far higher priority and funding, which allowed the development and feilding of very expansive supersonics.

In short, the west didn't really think they needed supersonic AShMs, and relied on their carriers and subs to kill enemy surface ships. The soviets didn't have the luxury of being able to rely on carriers, thus they needed their surface ships to be able to take care of businesses themselves, so they invested more in the primary ship-to-ship weapon and that is AShM, and they took the next logical step and made the missiles faster and faster and increased the range time and again to improve kill probability and reduce enemy reaction time.

Member for

20 years 2 months

Posts: 3,187

Present Russian Subsonic:

3M-54E1
Kh-35

Plus, I think there were several in the past. Notably the P-15

The US have several supersonic test programs I think - RATTLRS, HyFly, X-51. In the past there was Vought ALVRJ/STM.

Then their was the French-German ANF

In the east, you get Japan, ROK, PRC with locally built subsonic ASCM. ROC have both supersonic & subsonic.

ROK - SSM-700K (sub)
Japan - ASM-1, ASM-1B, ASM-1C, ASM-2, SSM-1, SSM-1B (all sub)
ROC - HF-2 (sub), HF-3 (Super & mysterious. You get all sorts of rumours about this)
PRC - YJ-8/81/82 (Sub), YJ-62 (sub), YJ-83 (Said to have a supersonic terminal phase, but no one seems to know the specifics for sure). Rumoured YJ-12 (Supersonic)
PRC : Light - C-701, C-704, TL-10, TL-6 (All sub) , FL-7

Member for

18 years 11 months

Posts: 9,683

The US have several supersonic test programs I think - RATTLRS, HyFly, X-51. In the past there was Vought ALVRJ/STM.

None of these are antiship missiles. Not yet anyway. The US could have fielded Condor back in the 70's but decided it wasn't worth the $$$. Faster than Brahmos and with a bigger warhead yet because of it's relatively light 2100lbs could have easily been carried in multiples by the A-6, A-7, and F-14. Talos could be used in the antiship role (as could Terrier, Tarter, and Standard) but not as a skimmer back then.

Member for

20 years 2 months

Posts: 3,187

None of these are antiship missiles. Not yet anyway. The US could have fielded Condor back in the 70's but decided it wasn't worth the $$$. Faster than Brahmos and with a bigger warhead yet because of it's relatively light 2100lbs could have easily been carried in multiples by the A-6, A-7, and F-14. Talos could be used in the antiship role (as could Terrier, Tarter, and Standard) but not as a skimmer back then.

Wasn't HyFly eyed with an anti-ship role as well?

Hype Correction: Wow.....wait wait wait! Obviously the visit to the dentist has drilled a hole in my brain as well. :eek: I was confusing the old Fasthawk idea with the HyFly and others (Yeah, I know, pathetic http://www.thesmilies.com/smilies/mad0235.gif). But, hole in the brain seems to heeling. :D :o :D

Member for

19 years 4 months

Posts: 268

None of these are antiship missiles. Not yet anyway. The US could have fielded Condor back in the 70's but decided it wasn't worth the $$$. Faster than Brahmos and with a bigger warhead yet because of it's relatively light 2100lbs could have easily been carried in multiples by the A-6, A-7, and F-14. Talos could be used in the antiship role (as could Terrier, Tarter, and Standard) but not as a skimmer back then.

i am not looking for debate between subsonic and supersonic missiles only but also want to discuss why US and NATO and their allies went for subsonic antiship missiles when they have technology to build supersonic antiship missiles as pointed out by sferrin

Member for

20 years 2 months

Posts: 3,187

i am not looking for debate between subsonic and supersonic missiles only but also want to discuss why US and NATO and their allies went for subsonic antiship missiles when they have technology to build supersonic antiship missiles as pointed out by sferrin

My apologies for missing the mark.....:o

Member for

18 years 8 months

Posts: 1,327

In general, the west has not had many ship targets, unlike the Russians. One of the biggest missions for the Russians was always to disable NATO warships, especially the American carriers, and this demanded high performance missiles. In contrast, the west never really considered sinking Russian surface shipping high on the priority list, and thus cheaper subsonic missiles made much more sense. Also, as people have mentioned, there were already supersonic missiles which could be used against ships, notably the Standard missiles, and air-launched HARMs etc...

Basically, the west (rightly) placed far less emphasis on anti-shipping, since the primary threat was from aircraft and submarines. The Russians, in contrast, placed great emphasis on anti-shipping, since that was their biggest threat. The result has been that the Russians fielded a wide range of different missile types, whereas the west generally fielded only one or two missile types, generally of differing sizes. For example: Sea Skua and Sea Eagle for the UK, AS-15 and Exocet for France etc.... It is not a lack of capability at all, the west could field supersonic anti-ship missiles very quickly if it wanted to, but the truth is that there is no perceived need to do so.

Member for

24 years 2 months

Posts: 4,875

Hyper

Where is Jonesy and Nick

Cant speak for Nick but, on this one, I'm in a deep dark place in the archive trying to get shot of the nervous twitch after last time!.

Jawad,

In addition to what others have said the US and UK largely considered their SSN force to be the primary antiship weapons system in their fleets.

If Ed will forgive me there were NATO countries REALLY concerned by Soviet surface ships in terms of seaborne invasion. They similarly chose the submarine, in the form of small coastal SSKs, as primary ASuW weapons systems as well. These though being backed by fully layered mine-warfare and coastal fast missile craft.

So, essentially, there was no percieved need for a Soviet-type heavyweight supersonic antiship missile for any of the NATO services hence none was ever seriously considered.

Member for

18 years 8 months

Posts: 1,327

Sorry Jonesy, forgot Denmark in particular (and Norway to a slightly lesser extent), D'Oh! Mind you, I think their biggest targets were really the coastal types, more than Krivaks or Kirovs, hence they were happy with small(er) subsonic missile types, like the Harpoon and Penguin.