Destroyers' effectiveness against Supersonic or Stealth Fighters

Originally Posted by balance

Hello,

My user is Balance, and I would like to say hello to SD community. This is my first post, and I hope that this thread can bring us closer to each other, and also edify my military knowledge.

I have a question about the effectiveness of destroyer against fighters.
China has invested so much in destroyers (both indigenous and foreign purchase), such as Sovremenny, etc.

The main purpose of destroyer is to fight submarines, and secondarily to fight warships. But if US stealth or supersonic fighters can penetrate Chinese radar, then all these destroyers suddenly are rendered useless. One or two precision-guided munition is more than enough to cripple the Moskit-loaded Sovremenny.

What's behind all this big invesment in destroyers and navy power?
The opponents' airforce can just blow up the destroyers first, before invade the mainland China.

Please educate me on this

Thanks

Stealth OR supersonic???? NBeing supersonic doesn't have much impact on the PLAN's capability to intercept an aircraft in itself. Stealth is more of a factor though.

Stealth aircraft are definately a major challenge against which the PLAN has no clear counter. But it should be noted that none of the current stealth aircraft in service or imminently entering service have an anti-ship missile capability. The closest an F-22 or F-35 can come to (stealthy) shipping strike (at least in the next few years) is JDAMs and SDBs, neither of which are well suited to this role. These weapons are primarily GPS aimed which is inherently limited for attacking a moving target like a ship - so the PGM would probably be laser guided which in itself would alert the PLAN warship that it is under attack. On paper at least most recent PLAN major warships are more than capable of shooting down any LGBs that are lobbed at them provided they know they are coming (LGBs aren't stealthy BTW).


The PLAN are lucky that anti-ship strike isn't high on the list of needs when the F-22 and F-35 were designed. The F-35 is of course slated to get a Harpoon capability but these would be carried externally.

On a lesser point, many/most current destroyers are designed first and foremost as anti-air platforms with ASW as secondary.

Planeman,

Thanks for the info.
Can you explain to me why can't a F-22/35 drop a bomb on a destroyer or frigate, while it can drop a bomb on a ground target? What is the difference between fighting a land and sea targets?

Originally Posted by planeman

Stealth OR - so the PGM would probably be laser guided which in itself would alert the PLAN warship that it is under attack. On paper at least most recent PLAN major warships are more than capable of shooting down any LGBs that are lobbed at them provided they know they are coming (LGBs aren't stealthy BTW).

And that's part of the rub. If there is an effective EW component as part of the strike element, and it is effectively utilized, PGM's are more than capable to do the job. Same thing, if you got a B-2 that can carry and dispatch more than 100 SDB's on a single target, that would be enough. We do know that CVN Hornets flying ASuW strikes against enemy fleet actions will use an EW component to get Harpoons or whatever they'll use to destroy enemy ship platforms through.

I actually think Stealth SSN's would be the most effective and gravest threat to any PLAN ship. I actually think that if necessary, Virginia's, FLT III LA's, or Seawolf would be the most likely hunter of any PLAN ship in any real confrontation. Not necessarily aircraft or missiles. Just MHO.

Can you explain to me why can't a F-22/35 drop a bomb on a destroyer or frigate,

They can.

Welcome aboad BTW.

In the right circumstances an F-22 or F-35 sure can drop a bomb on a ship, but in general hitting a moving target is harder than hitting a static one. GPS guided weapons such as JDAMs and SDBs have several advantages but they are not well suited against moving targets beause they home in on a given GPS coordinate. Conceptually you could monitor the movement of the target (ship) and use a datalink to change the GPS target coordinates in the bomb as it's in flight but that isn't a current capability and would increase complexity, cost etc.

Laser Guided bombs are better suited but they are not "fire and forget" and have difficulty in bad weather (lasers and clouds don't mix). But laser waringing recievers are established technology in Chinese service (on the Flanker fighter for example) so it seems reasonable to say that top-end PLAN warships will have similar warning recievers; so when the aircraft points its targeting laser at the warship they are also forewarning that warship of the immediate air-threat.

The next prob,em is that JDAMS/LGBs are dropped from medium/high altitude and are relatively slow and fly in a generally* ballistic trajectory making them compariatively easy to shoot down with better SAM systems (certainly the SA-N-9, S-300 and HQ-9 which are in PLAN service) and CIWS if the SAMs fail.

One wildcard is the capability of the F-35s planned laser weapon in the anti-ship role, but that's some years away anyway.

SeaDog, I agree on the final outcome, the USN could demolish the PLAN whether they chose to do it by throwing a silly number of LGBs at them or whether they chose more obvious means such as the SSNs you mention. My thoughts are more that the current crop of stealth aircraft are not in themselves the obvious or uncounterable solution.

Latest and future USN weapons, such as the TACTOM and its supersonic ramjet-powered stealthy replacement (yet to fly of course) will be very effective against PLAN or anyone else for that matter.

Also, when an airplane enters range to drop bombs, it will become within range of weapons other than missiles; guns. Against stealth aircraft, the airplane will still be warmer than the surrounding air, due to aerodynamic resistance against the body of the airplane and the exhaust of the airplane's engine. A good infra-red search and track sensor will pick this up from the surrounding air, which means that the sensor could aim a gun and expose the airplane to enemy gunfire.

Originally Posted by Pointblank

Also, when an airplane enters range to drop bombs, it will become within range of weapons other than missiles; guns. Against stealth aircraft, the airplane will still be warmer than the surrounding air, due to aerodynamic resistance against the body of the airplane and the exhaust of the airplane's engine. A good infra-red search and track sensor will pick this up from the surrounding air, which means that the sensor could aim a gun and expose the airplane to enemy gunfire.

DO you really think the US has not though of that?

The B-2 cannot be detected by infra-red due to the frictional heating of its leading edges as well as its exhaust. The B-2's low observability is derived from a combination of reduced infrared, acoustic, electromagnetic, visual and radar signatures.

A JDAM can take out a moving ship

http://www.strategypage.com/gallery/...am_vs_ship.wmv

http://www.strategypage.com/military...200412181.aspx

The U.S. Air Force is conducting naval tests of its AMSTE (Affordable Moving Surface Target Engagement) system. This is an attempt to use airborne radar to continuously track a moving surface target, then drop a JDAM that can have its target location continuously updated by radio, so that the JDAM will be able to hit and destroy the moving target. After three years of effort, the air force got this to work against a ground target last year.

I agree with PointBlank that to drop a bomb, you have to be within the distance of the destroyers' air-defence system (super high altitude will create a friction and will deviate the bomb's course).
Even if the infra-red cannot detect planes like B-2, they still leave a smoke trail in the daylight, visible to the naked eyes. This is why B-2 always conducted its mission at night (like the video you just referred)
If B-2 conducted its mission at night, the radar can still read the smoke trail left behind (though harder)
In the end, fighting a moving target is much harder than fighting a ground target.
Please advise.

I guess one also has to consider the effectiveness of the destroyers' own stealth characteristics in ensuring their survival against air attacks, stealth or otherwise.
We've seen many reports on how difficult it is to detect stealth aircraft, but I think much less on the effectiveness of stealth on ships considering most new warship designs these days have stealth features of some kind.

Originally Posted by balance

I agree with PointBlank that to drop a bomb, you have to be within the distance of the destroyers' air-defence system (super high altitude will create a friction and will deviate the bomb's course).
Even if the infra-red cannot detect planes like B-2, they still leave a smoke trail in the daylight, visible to the naked eyes. This is why B-2 always conducted its mission at night (like the video you just referred)
If B-2 conducted its mission at night, the radar can still read the smoke trail left behind (though harder)
In the end, fighting a moving target is much harder than fighting a ground target.
Please advise.

Lol. Someone is vastly underestimating what modern infrared CCD tyoe sensors can do. Infrared sensors can detect and image an object that is mere 10 or 5 degrees cooler or hotter than the background. Let's say an object 55 degrees from an ambient background as cold as 50 degrees.

The sky is a lot colder than this and any flying plane no matter what heat reductions can do, cannot lower this enough.

Originally Posted by Schumacher

I guess one also has to consider the effectiveness of the destroyers' own stealth characteristics in ensuring their survival against air attacks, stealth or otherwise.
We've seen many reports on how difficult it is to detect stealth aircraft, but I think much less on the effectiveness of stealth on ships considering most new warship designs these days have stealth features of some kind.

Let's not talk about how to track a B-2 shall we. That is another thread all to itself. The B-2 is more than just radar low observable, but also includes infrared, acoustic, electromagnetic, and visual (flying at night). These signatures make it practically impossible for defensive systems to detect, track and engage the B-2.

The JDAM has a range of 5-15 miles, depending on the altitude of weapons release. Data will be feed by a third party (usually E-3 or E-8) to the B-2 and the JDAM for mid course guidance and have its target location continuously updated. A 2,000 lb JDAM bomb will have an accuracy within 3 meters.

Stealth measures on ships, like the Arleigh Burke Class, reduce its radar signature. This means that a 9500 ton ship will look something like a 1000 ton ship on radar. Now radar range (AWACS) is directly proportional to the size of the radar signature of a tracked target. An E-3, with a radar range of over 700 miles, will have no problem tracking a PLAN destroyer at "tactical" ranged. A B-2, with a radar signature the size of a marble, cannot be detected until it is directly over the ship, if ever.

Originally Posted by crobato

Lol. Someone is vastly underestimating what modern infrared CCD tyoe sensors can do. Infrared sensors can detect and image an object that is mere 10 or 5 degrees cooler or hotter than the background. Let's say an object 55 degrees from an ambient background as cold as 50 degrees.

The sky is a lot colder than this and any flying plane no matter what heat reductions can do, cannot lower this enough.

IR detection systems also are effective to only certain ranges with lower observable signatures. You won't be able to see IR signatures out to infinity, especially when the background IR signature is very small. At or near ranges will give you more success. But something like B-2 or small UAV's, you're not going to see them until their pretty close. And the sky being such a huge volume of air makes searching for these signatures iffy at best. If the defenders launch or chase every IR signature they come across, they're going to waste alot of missiles and utilize alot of resources chasing ghosts. Did you know there are naturally occuring sources of IR signatures in the atmosphere? The limitations into IR search and track systems are a known quantity.

IDonT:

A JDAM can take out a moving ship
[...]
The U.S. Air Force is conducting naval tests of its AMSTE (Affordable Moving Surface Target Engagement) system. This is an attempt to use airborne radar to continuously track a moving surface target, then drop a JDAM that can have its target location continuously updated by radio, so that the JDAM will be able to hit and destroy the moving target. After three years of effort, the air force got this to work against a ground target last year.

I think if the JDAM comes in close to it's target, the position update link can be jammed, and the INS doesn't help all that much then. So perhaps outfit the bomb with an additional sensor ? I mean then it could get close to the vessel via GPS and finally look for it.

I don't really see why you'd want to use a stealth fighter to drop a guided bomb on target ship, when you could use strike aircraft armed with anti-ship missiles?

But yes, it's possible for almost any aircraft to drop bombs on a target (ships or otherwise). During the Falklands war the Argentine AF even used transport planes and had people push bombs out the back.

From the ship's defensive point of view, modern CIWS system, gun or SAM based, would have to have the capability to detect and intercept guided bombs, as well as AShM's.

Also, I think these days Frigates are used for ASW and Destroyers for AD/AAW. The chance that one warship would engage another via SSM's is pretty low.