Warfare Could a modern warship mangage simultanneous attack of 17 planes?

Ok, so for the simulation.
The swarm was composed of Fencer and Su-30 according to the reports

The missions will be played on the Russian side, the computer controlling the T-45 - ROE "hold fire until fired at" then weapon free!.

The Russian swarm (The planes loadout is correct to the Russian OrBat in 2018) :
1x fencer E Elint SRS14
3x Fencer D ARM (2xKh-31P )
8x Fencer D ASuW (2x Kh-59P)
2 x Su 30SM ARM (2x Kh-31P)
5 x Su30 SM ASuW (2x Kh-59P)

1 - scenario full stand off: Kripton - missile -range max 60nm - firing a 2/3 of the max range (40nm). First ARM missile then 15sec later all the anti surface missiles.
three run of the simulation will be conducted:
1.a Attack on one axis
1.b 2 axis attack (90 deg)
1.c multi axis attack

2 - Scenario stand off (ARM weapons fired at 40mn) and close range 6mn antiship missile (Kh-29P or L)
2.a Attack on one axis
2.b 2 axis attack (90 deg)
2.c multi axis attack

For those interested, I will upload the missions files, and a link to the a youtube video of the first scenario (1a).

Stunning work Galileo . To reiterate mokordo's view I look forward to the results .
 
Don't worry, it will come.
It take some time to create a realistic flight plan for the Russian missions, so all type of missiles are designed to impact at the same time - ToT (even if in Command there is a wonderful military grade tool to help designing it).

And I have also to edit the video since I presume you don't want to watch the planes take off, assemble, ....
You want just to see the weapons launch and actions taken by the Duncan.
 
Ok, here some results from the engagements (some caveats like the one axis attack become a mult axis when the aircraft have to dodge the Aster 30 launched by the Duncan then reenter the arena).
The missiles were fired between 41 and 39nm at an altitude of 20,000"

All stand off attack results in the Duncan to sink hit by one or more AS-18 (usually 2 missiles but from 1 to 3 - when it sank the other missiles didn't impact).

Here an example of the damage:
4/22/2019 20:32:13: Weapon: AS-18 Kazoo A [Kh-59M] #180 has impacted D 35 Duncan.
4/22/2019 20:32:13: 90% penetration achieved
4/22/2019 20:32:13: D 35 Duncan has suffered weapon damage:
4/22/2019 20:32:13: D 35 Duncan damage report: CONTRALTO-V [SLAT] has been heavily damaged.
4/22/2019 20:32:13: D 35 Duncan damage report: Pad (1x Medium Aircraft (12.1-18m Long)) has been heavily damaged.
4/22/2019 20:32:13: D 35 Duncan damage report: IRAS [IR] has been destroyed!
4/22/2019 20:32:13: D 35 Duncan damage report: IRAS [CCD] has been heavily damaged.
4/22/2019 20:32:13: D 35 Duncan damage report: Type 1047 has been heavily damaged.
4/22/2019 20:32:13: D 35 Duncan damage report: IRAS [Laser Rangefinder] has been heavily damaged.
4/22/2019 20:32:13: D 35 Duncan damage report: Aster Command Datalink [DDG] has been moderately damaged.
4/22/2019 20:32:13: D 35 Duncan damage report: Outfit DLH has been heavily damaged.
4/22/2019 20:32:13: Weapon: AS-18 Kazoo A [Kh-59M] #178 has impacted D 35 Duncan.
4/22/2019 20:32:13: 100% penetration achieved
4/22/2019 20:32:13: D 35 Duncan has suffered weapon damage:
4/22/2019 20:32:13: D 35 Duncan is sinking!!!
4/22/2019 20:32:13: D 35 Duncan damage report: Link 14 has suffered additional moderate damage.
4/22/2019 20:32:13: D 35 Duncan damage report: Aster Command Datalink [DDG] has suffered additional damage!
4/22/2019 20:32:13: D 35 Duncan damage report: 2x Wärtsilä 12V200 Diesels, 2x Rolls-Royce WR-21 Gas Turbines, CODOG has suffered additional heavy damage.
4/22/2019 20:32:13: D 35 Duncan damage report: UHF Radio [Secure] has suffered additional heavy damage.
4/22/2019 20:32:13: D 35 Duncan damage report: Type 2170 has suffered additional damage!
4/22/2019 20:32:13: D 35 Duncan damage report: Link 10 has suffered additional moderate damage.
4/22/2019 20:32:13: D 35 Duncan damage report: Link 16 MIDS has suffered additional damage!
4/22/2019 20:32:13: D 35 Duncan damage report: Stingray Mod 1 [Helicopter Magazine] has suffered additional light damage.
4/22/2019 20:32:13: D 35 Duncan damage report: Link 16 MIDS has suffered additional heavy damage.
4/22/2019 20:32:13: D 35 Duncan damage report: Aster Command Datalink [DDG] has suffered additional heavy damage.
4/22/2019 20:32:13: D 35 Duncan damage report: Type 2170 has suffered additional heavy damage.
4/22/2019 20:32:13: D 35 Duncan damage report: Link 11 has suffered additional heavy damage.


The Russian lost between
3 to 5 Su-24M2 Fencer D
1 to 3 Su-30SM Flanker G

How the Duncan used the weapons?:

The Duncan expended all the Aster 30 (32) as soon the first Russian missile was fired - in the ROE I specified that any hostile action put the Russian on the HOSTILE mark. The ship targeted first the missiles - with 95% of success - then the aircraft. Then when the missile reach the 20mn from the ship, the Aster 15 (18) join the playground with interception around 15nm.

After that his canon (55 Mk8) start firing rounds (with very success success - the % of hitting a Kh-31 is below 5%!) at the last resort, the TALOS(IR) CM spoofed some missiles but not enough to get the ship unhurt.

What I had to do:

I had to fire manually the ARM missile from the Russian side, they didn't want to fire at the ship! :eek:
I add an A-50 to pinpoint the ship (in reality it was shadowed by a frigate)
All the planes were launched and recovered from the Sevastopol international airport, in reality they should have come from Novofedorivka.

I am still editing one of the video so be patient.
 
Last edited:
When the incident with HMS Duncan happened, I did myself that question, could she? How?

But the question is not only with the HMS Duncan, but with any modern ship, especifically AAW especialized ships.

To remember:

The question is too broad and depending of too much variables.

Detection of the ship by attacking planes vs detection of the planes by the ship
Single axis of attack vs multiple axes of attack
Speed of inbound missiles vs speed of self defence response
Detection of inbound missiles
Quality of CiC operators
Quality of Response of EW systems of the ship (decoys etc)
Quality of fire control and damage control teams of the ship

Remember that it was assessed that you needed two interceptor missiles for each inbound missiles to protect an Aegis cruiser (theorically) which makes a flight of more than 24 opfor missiles a theorical kill in all cases

Remember that you can have the best ship with best electronica suit, if it is blind (because systems are off, weather is bad, the coast or waves are hiding incoming missiles) you are in bad position

In a best situation, a T45 can intercept 24 missiles thoerically (plus an handfull with its CIWS)
More and it is a toast. But it is all theorical
One missile getting though the defence system, especially the heavy russian ones, is enough to ensure at least a mission kill if not a ship kill
 
@Mordoror:
The "sho-shot-watch" of the early Aegis system is no more a standard , the evolution of radar, computer and missile seeker make this engagement configuration falling in the Pessimistic side of engagement. Now with the modern systems, there is the Optimistic rule: "one shot - one kill" (on the paper :cool:). That's why modern ships have 2 kind of missiles long range and short range (ASTER 30/15 or RIM 174/116 or 162).

Here an example with the Ducan intercepting a "stupid" (stupid in term of attack choices - One axis, high altitude ingress, using radar too early, slow missiles, .... ) swarm.
The result : The English ship ended with no more Aster 30 and only 5 Aster 15 but with no damage. The Russian side lost all his inflight missile and few Su-24.

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Other tests with "smarter" attack profile (using topography, some with multi axis and with different altitude, active jamming, .... ) resulted in the lost of the ship.
 
isn't that what the AEGIS was developed for ?
 
Those who want to have a nice idea about missile attack and defense in modern war can read the chapter 11 (Modern Tactics and Operations) of Fleet Tactics and Coastal Combat by Capt. Wayne P. Hughes Jr., USN (Ret.).

51s5FA1JjXL._SX331_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg
 
Two things:

1) Surprising the Russians were able to get 17 warplanes up at the same time for this.

2) Both sides gained electronic intelligence from this encounter.

Pretty Ignorant, Russian VMF and VKS are pretty modern by most standards and pretty 'ready' also..... If Russia ever decides to have a go of say US Carrier Groups or else it will a lot more serious than this example, indeed both groups would coordinate with other Assets..


"Homing" means a missile is riding a beam to the target. Like the HAWK (Homing All the Way Killer) missile.
"Illuminating" means marking a target with a radar in this case.

Btw, how many of these missiles you mentioned does the Russian naval aviation and airforce actually have in their stock? A couple hundred Urans and not a single Onyx from what I get.
I am quite sure plenty Onyx are in service as by what it seems....
 
Pretty Ignorant, Russian VMF and VKS are pretty modern by most standards and pretty 'ready' also..... If Russia ever decides to have a go of say US Carrier Groups or else it will a lot more serious than this example, indeed both groups would coordinate with other Assets..



I am quite sure plenty Onyx are in service as by what it seems....

Not being ignorant, just surprised they were able to get 17 aircraft in the air is all. No need for name calling. The naval aviation operations in Syria were pretty disastrous, losing 2 aircraft, one because it ran out of fuel and I believe the other to a landing accident.
 
Not being ignorant, just surprised they were able to get 17 aircraft in the air is all. No need for name calling. The naval aviation operations in Syria were pretty disastrous, losing 2 aircraft, one because it ran out of fuel and I believe the other to a landing accident.

No Intent to name call just talking of the Post itself. Naval Aviation was limited by that of Kuznetsov not by fault of the Aircraft or their serviceability.
 
Moved this thread from the Question Forum to this Forum and created a prefix for 'Warfare', seems like this discussion could go on for a while :)
 
@AAR Galileo
I understand your pov. I however never bought the ad leaflets of military hardware providers. The 100% interception is too optimistic for me. Attack missiles have also improved in term of speed, attack profile, decoys and stealth.
It s the eternal shield vs spear fight. A 50% to 75% of interception seems reasonable if not overly optimistic to me
 
Its more like single Su-30 carrying couple of Urans or one Onyx will be enough to sink it.
the best joke I heard latlley
the russian can sink everything, they even sunk mighty kuznetzov
 
I think also the others understood

ok sir
i will resume on posting pictures and that"s it
 
Last edited:
I think also the others understood

I dont know who 'The Others' are but what I will say is your comment offered nothing to the discussion but fuel in the fire. You talk of trolls and yet every Russian comment, you jump all over. That is not cool or very intelligent mate. It has got to stop
 
Not being ignorant, just surprised they were able to get 17 aircraft in the air is all. No need for name calling. The naval aviation operations in Syria were pretty disastrous, losing 2 aircraft, one because it ran out of fuel and I believe the other to a landing accident.
You do realize USAF and USN lose dozens of aircrafts due to technical failures each year, right?
 
Back
Top