I made a mistake; a 57mm shell is comparable to an ATGM in terms of explosive weight, but I'm revising that thought as that might be more applicable to smaller ATGMs like 1st-gen Metis.

The Spike NLOS might be more comparable with a 76mm shell or a Hellfire missile. Still, although Hellfires can destroy small boats it still doesn't kill ships.

Phalanx is used on land to shoot down mortar bombs, artillery shells, and large rockets. A large artillery shell is about the size of a Spike missile body not counting the fins, so it would probably be engageable by Phalanx. I'd guess that RAM could do it too, because the fins are quite a large target.

INS Hanit survived a hit from a real antiship missile, a C-802, and managed to return to port. It's about the size of a Kedah class.

A good hit might cause some fatalities, maybe knock down a radar, but the warhead is so small that it probably won't do much more than that. Again, you're depending mainly on luck.

I dunno, a helicopter-sized UAV might be more useful. It can give better surveillance from the air, and it could carry a larger missile.

Link to news: Greek navy takes initial reactivated P-3B



Link to news: Boeing kicks off design work for EA-18G upgrade

https://m.malaysiakini.com/news/476828

Read more: https://www.nst.com.my/news/nation/2019/05/...package-30-jets

This post has been edited by azriel: May 22 2019, 06:13 PM

Excellent example. The INS Hanit survived given where the warhead landed. The ensuing fires crippled the propulsion system on board the ship, etc. Did not I not prove my point? I said that all that is needed is a mission kill. The INS Hanit has to go back to port and not continue fighting. In a real war scenario, it becomes a sitting duck and unable to fulfil whatever mission that was given to it.

I'm also of the view that a warhead of an anti-tank missile is probably more penetrative.

Here is a real case study of how a Kornet ATGM completely destroyed a 26m naval/coast guard vessel. How does a gaping 26-30m firey inferno looks for a naval ship? Still can fight? It may well sink a Kedah or Lekiu class ship. How about 2 ATGMS? How about 4 ATGMS?



http://www.navyrecognition.com/index.php/n...ornet-atgm.html

The difference is that the missile which hit Hanit was about 20 times larger than an ATGM. 3 times faster as well which affects interception and hit probability and kinetic energy.

And a Kedah class OPV is about 3 times longer than a boat of that size, taller too, again affecting the chance of hitting something. Vulnerable systems are more spread out and it has more damage control capability.

Sure you MIGHT be able to hit something if you're very very lucky. And then again, you might not.

Compare this against say an armed helicopter or couple of armed UAVs which could carry more powerful and longer ranged missiles, see further and be more versatile in capability?

End of the day, are two remote speedboats which carry ATGMs worth the exchange for, eg, an S-70 Seahawk like the Formidables carry?

This post has been edited by KLthinker91: May 22 2019, 08:51 PM

Today got 50 Thai Navy cadets came to my place... I was tasked to deliver a brief to them about Malaysia subs... u know what, being cadets are always cadets.... I just finished my corporate video & half of them already slept. And I was surprised also, they spend 8 years of training before commissioning as officers.

So what if the kedah class is 3 times larger? Can it continue the fight with that kind of blast? I do not knoe how many times i need to iterate this - the objective is to achive a mission kill. If the kedah sinks, it is an added bonus.

And why wont hard to detect 2 USVs not worth an exchange with a large ship? They are supposrd to shoot and scoot! An S-70 may have an higher larger rcs let alone the possible loss of lives. And why cant an S-70 not work with the USVs to take out a target? I know this may seem distant in RMN but many navies in the world are networked for a fight.

they tired maybe...come a long way from tomyam land...

their will get next sub from china right??so they visit here only or will try some of our sub training?

Its just cadet SEA tour.... being a cadet, just like me before.... even during push up or standing also can sleep

apa lagi side roll, front roll sama back roll bejemaah laa

Vulnerable areas are more spread out, the ship might be less structurally affected, damage control capability would be much higher. So you might be able to hit something if you're very very lucky. And then again, you might not. You might damage something critical beyond repair, and then again, you might not.

It might, because as I say again, the blast from an ATGM is quite small. There's a good reason why you don't see antiship missiles of this size other than the LCS's Hellfire.


Better to achieve a total kill than settle for a mission kill.

Read properly, I'm talking about bringing 2 USVs to the fight versus bringing a helicopter.


However an S-70 is more capable, can accomplish many other missions such as ASW and transport and aerial surveillance, isn't potentially affected by jamming, has much more range, and can carry much larger missiles or torpedoes to achieve a total kill.

Because the Vanguard 130 only has room for a helicopter hanger OR a USV hangar, it can't carry both.

Geng2 tomoi tu

kadet jaa
kita suruh roll deme roll la

pastu lain la cerite kekeke

For those concerned, for all it's size the penetration point (i.e the hole) for an ATGM the size of a Hellfire missile is about 20-30mm only.

ATGMs are all about the penetration ability, not the power of the blast itself to destroy its target.



Ironically, in a shaped charge warhead, the majority of the explosive power of the warhead will vent to the rear, with the explosion mostly used only to vaporise and 'push' the shaped charge's copper lining forward and turn it into a jet of superheated plasma. Thus the explosive power of the missile itself will actually only minimally affect the target, with only the plasma jet (probably no more than the size of a pencil) projecting forward, penetrating the metal armor like an overpowered blowtorch cutting through metal.

Also, most of the damage done to the interior of a vehicle penetrated by a shaped charge will come from the 'spalling', the spray of molten armor metal, melted by heat of the superheated plasma jet rather than the penetrating plasma jet itself. The plasma jet itself will dissipate quite rapidly after penetrating the armor.




This post has been edited by MilitaryMadness: May 23 2019, 07:49 AM

can pierce dual military hull? against corvette size vessel?

Of course can penetrate, but probably be a waste though. A shaped charge warhead is good for pinpoint armor penetration, but pretty useless for general demolition duty. That's why Anti-ship missiles use a HE-Frag warhead (usually with an incendiary casing sleeve) for the best results. The small size of a tank's interior causes the small impact of the plasma jet penetrator to do a lot of damage, but warships are large enough to absorb that kind of damage. Most of the damage done on a shaped charge warhead penetration is caused by the spalling of molten armor metal rather than the penetrator itself.

IMO, hitting a warship with a missile with a shaped charge (like an ATGM) will probably cause much, much smaller damage than a similar-sized missile with an HE-Frag warhead. In terms of damage, the impact from a ship's medium-caliber cannon is probably far more damaging to a warship than an ATGM.

also atgm is sub-sonic right? can be taken down by ciws? or too small signature?

Some ATGM are supersonic (I think Hellfire reach 1 mach+) but I think most problematic is most ATGM is either line of sight or at least need to be launched at a relatively short range so that the launcher's targeting laser is unaffected by the earth's curvature. In naval terms, 30 km is considered 'short-range' already and any attacker would already be inside a decent warship's defensive envelope.

Damen shipyards launches the first of two Pakistan Navy Corvettes in Galati, Romania



The first of two corvettes on order for the Pakistan Navy (PN) has been launched at the facilities of Dutch shipbuilder Damen in Galati, Romania.

The service announced on its Facebook page that the 2,300-ton vessel, which had been previously described as an offshore patrol vessel (OPV), entered the water on 17 May in a ceremony held at the shipyard in Romania and attended by PN Vice Admiral Abdul Aleem, among others.

The contract for the two vessels was signed in June 2017, with the first corvette expected to enter service by the end of 2019, and the second one set to be delivered by mid-2020, according to the navy.

Vice Adm Aleem was quoted as saying during the ceremony that these platforms "will act as force multipliers in enhancing [the] navy's capability of safeguarding maritime frontiers and will offer more flexibility in the conduct of [the] Pakistan Navy's initiative of independent Regional Maritime Security Patrols in the Indian Ocean Region".

The multirole corvettes have been previously described by the PN as "state-of-the-art vessels" especially suited for anti-surface, anti-air, and maritime security operations.

Each of them features a helicopter pad to facilitate search-and-rescue missions, as well as surveillance and intelligence-gathering operations. No further details were provided about the systems or weapons set to be fitted onto the class.

sos



Clearly OPVs, but still call them Corvettes? Whatever floats your boats la.