Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!ames!pasteur!ucbvax!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!rutgers!bellcore!faline!thumper!ulysses!att!cbnews!tek@CS.UCLA.EDU From: tek@CS.UCLA.EDU (Ted Kim (ATW)) Newsgroups: sci.military Subject: Re: popup maneuvers Message-ID: <6198@cbnews.ATT.COM> Date: 3 May 89 03:12:50 GMT References: <5977@cbnews.ATT.COM> <6157@cbnews.ATT.COM> Sender: military@cbnews.ATT.COM Organization: UCLA Computer Science Department Lines: 64 Approved: military@att.att.com From: tek@CS.UCLA.EDU (Ted Kim (ATW)) On the subject of sea-skimmers and popups ... In article <6034@cbnews.ATT.COM> sw@cbnewsl.ATT.COM (Stuart Warmink) writes: > ... >No sea-skimming missile hits below the waterline, so it is unlikely to sink >a ship that way. They *do* home in towards the central command & control >centers as stated by a previous poster. > ... They don't really "home in" on the CIC, since the CIC does not emit anything. They usually are active radar homing and merely aim for the centroid of the radar contact. That, of course, is where many CICs are. I don't know of any passive radar homing sea-skimmers. Such a missile would be like the air launched ARMs. They could knock out radar and sensors (via air-burst) but would not do much, if any, structural damage. That is, unless, somebody reworked the guidance logic (to aim below the mast level of the radars) or used a hybrid system. There are some (mostly Soviet) infra-red homing sea-skimmers. I am not sure if they tend to hit in a different pattern. Again, it would depend on the quality of their guidance logic. (eg recognize the ship, ignore the stack plume) In article <6157@cbnews.ATT.COM> henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes: > ... >As I recall, the pop-up maneuver was aimed at trying to do more damage. >It has become unpopular recently because of the increased exposure. The >modern version is to drop to wavetop height (*really* low, as opposed >to rather low) for final approach, to make interception harder. I believe Henry is (generally the case) correct. But I think it should be pointed out, pop-up still works real well against (older) ships that don't have CIWS. >I'm slightly surprised that nobody has yet built a heavy antiship missile >that simply carries a heavy torpedo and drops it 1-2 km out. This avoids >*all* the close-in defences, and explodes the warhead in a more effective >place too. There are one or two antisub missiles that drop an aircraft >torpedo, but nothing designed for antiship use. The Sea Lance carries Mk50, which is only for ASW use. The SS-N-16 carries a Type E. While it was probably meant for ASW use in this configuration, I think Type Es are anti-ship capable. However, I suspect, you are calling for a "real" torpedo (like Mk48), though perhaps with shorter range and bigger warhead. This poses some serious design problems with weight and size of a missile that can carry a big torpedo. On the other hand, the Soviets already have those massive AS-4s and AS-6s. Others have chosen to make their missiles faster (ie supersonic) to make them harder to intercept, but have paid in terms of size or range due to increased fuel consumption. I think maybe the trick is to use a compromise solution. The missile travels subsonic until making its attack run at which point it uses a terminal booster to go in fast. The idea is to make it harder to intercept without paying too much in terms of fuel consumption. Ted Kim ARPAnet: tek@penzance.cs.ucla.edu UCLA Computer Science Department UUCP: ...!ucbvax!cs.ucla.edu!tek 3804C Boelter Hall PHONE: (213) 206-8696 Los Angeles, CA 90024 ESPnet: tek@ouija.board