Modern warships are necessarily equipped with anti-aircraft systems of various classes and types. Depending on the tasks of the ship, artillery or missile systems are used. At the same time, large surface ships, designed to protect whole orders from air attacks, receive long-range anti-aircraft missile systems. The leading countries are armed with such systems, which are distinguished by high performance and perfection. The publication The National Interest studied modern shipborne air defense systems with the highest characteristics and tried to determine which one is better.
On November 11, the Buzz and Security columns published a new article by regular contributor Charlie Gao, Russia's Naval S-300 vs. America's Standard Missile (SM): Which Is Better? " - "Russian complex S-300 against the American SM: which is better?" The title of the article was accompanied by an intriguing subtitle: "And the winner is …"
Starting his article, Ch. Gao recalls that one of the main elements of a warship's equipment is air defense equipment. An aircraft with anti-ship missiles or other guided munitions is a deadly threat to the ship, and therefore the latter needs protective equipment. At the same time, the ship is one of the most convenient platforms for placing anti-aircraft missile systems, including those with high performance. So, the ship differs from land platforms in less strict restrictions on the dimensions and weight of the installed systems.
The main element of the air defense of a modern warship, as the author recalls, is an anti-aircraft guided missile (SAM). The main missiles of the United States Navy belong to the Standard Missile / SM family. Various products of this family have been in service since the sixties of the last century. Raytheon, which produces modern modifications of the SM, is extremely positive about its products. She calls her missile "the world leader in the field of air defense of the fleet." Standard Missile of various modifications were launched from ships using rotary guides or using universal vertical launchers.
The main air defense system in the Russian navy is a missile defense system, developed on the basis of elements of the S-300 land complex, which was originally used by the air defense forces. The S-300F ship complex developed in parallel with the land-based S-300. The author is interested in how the Russian long-range shipborne missile shows itself in comparison with the American counterpart. In particular, he asks which approach to weapons development has advantages. Do SM missiles have the advantage of being originally built for the navy? What positive qualities does the S-300F complex give the ability to track multiple targets, obtained from land-based predecessors?
C. Gao proposes to start comparing missiles with the methods of placement on carrier ships. The main carriers of American "Standard Missiles" are ships of the Ticonderoga and Arleigh Burke projects from the US Navy. The ships of these projects are equipped with a universal vertical launcher of the Mk 41 type. SM products correspond to the modular armament concept. Thus, the ship can receive the required number of missiles of different types. SM missile ammunition can be increased by reducing the number of other weapons. From the point of view of the composition of the ammunition, the Mk 41 installation is an array of cells, each of which can contain the desired weapon. Shooting is carried out in random order.
The S-300F anti-aircraft complex also uses a vertical missile launch. This is due to the fact that the S-300 land-based complexes launch missiles from vertically installed containers. Unlike the American complex, the Soviet / Russian uses a revolving mount with a vertically oriented rotating drum for storing ammunition. The launch is carried out only from one drum cell located under the corresponding hatch. Before the next launch, the drum must turn around its axis and place a new rocket under the hatch.
Ch. Gao points out the difference between the two methods of missile deployment and the associated features of application and characteristics. The use of a drum with missiles leads to a slight decrease in the rate of fire in comparison with a vertical launcher. In addition, ships with the S-300F do not have the same versatility as the Mk 41 and SM carriers. In their case, the space occupied by anti-aircraft missiles and other means of the complex cannot be given over to weapons for other purposes.
The author notes that the newest Russian ships receive universal vertical launchers, suitable, among other things, for the use of anti-aircraft missiles of various types. Nevertheless, the heavy-class missiles from the S-300 family are still used only in conjunction with drum installations. According to The National Interest, the naval version of the S-400 land-based air defense system should retain this design feature.
Moving from launchers to the missiles themselves, Ch. Gao points out another curious feature of American weapons. He believes that the US missile systems have advantages due to the fact that the SM series has been developed for a long time. Serious experience has been accumulated, allowing you to improve weapons.
At the same time, Russian complexes have advantages in the form of principles for their development. The C-line shipborne anti-aircraft missiles are largely unified with land-based systems of a similar purpose. As a result, it becomes possible to simultaneously modernize ground and ship complexes, aimed, for example, at increasing the range.
Using existing SM-2 Block IV missiles, United States Navy ships can attack enemy aircraft at ranges of up to 240 km. The new rocket received such opportunities thanks to the long-term but successful development of the promising Mk 72 engine. It is this product that gives the rocket high performance characteristics and provides a solution to problems at significant ranges. The SM-2 Block IV missile entered service in 2004.
The author considers the Russian product 48N6DM to be the answer to the American missile defense system. This missile was originally developed for the S-400 land complex. In 2015, it was modified for use on the upgraded project 1144 Admiral Nakhimov heavy nuclear missile cruiser. The 48N6DM missile's firing range reaches 250 km.
Nevertheless, according to Ch. Gao, by the time the Russian 48N6DM missile appeared, the American fleet had been operating the newest SM-6 product for four years. The exact characteristics of this ship-based missile have not yet been published. It is only known that it is equipped with an active radar homing head, which provides advantages over other weapons. The presence of ARGSN, combined with the ability of the naval forces to conduct combat operations using network-centric systems, gives the missile special capabilities. According to some estimates, the firing range of the new SM-6 missile, due to its characteristic advantages, can be increased to 370 km.
Charlie Gao believes that American ship-based long-range anti-aircraft missiles have developed faster than Russian ones, as a result of which they are superior in terms of firing range and basic capabilities. The reasons for this are simple. The US Navy initiated the development of missile weapons of the Standard Missile family with increased characteristics in connection with the desire to obtain complexes that have a serious advantage over potential threats. The SM missile family was intended for the fleet and is not included in the unified programs for the unification of the army's weapons, but this fact does not interfere with its operation and further development.
In the case of the Russian complexes of the "C" series, the maximum possible unification of the ship and land systems took place. The latter, unlike the American SMs, had no incentives for rapid development and a sharp increase in characteristics, which led to a certain lag behind them. As a result, the S-300F differs from modern SMs in a shorter firing range, however, apparently, the command considers such a lag to be acceptable. According to Ch. Gao, this is due to the fact that the strategy of the Russian Navy is defensive in nature. This fact reduces the need for long-range missiles and allows you to continue to use the existing ones.
***
The figures cited in a recent article by The National Interest do not look very optimistic in terms of the Russian navy and its combat capabilities. From the material authored by Ch. Gao, it follows that the US Navy has more advanced shipborne missiles with an increased range, and therefore are distinguished by great potential in the context of air defense. Certain design solutions were also criticized. At the same time, however, an explanation of the reasons for this situation is provided.
At the same time, there are some errors that distort the real picture. So, it is argued that the SM-2 Block IV missile, thanks to a new power plant, is capable of hitting targets at ranges up to 240 km. However, open sources indicate more modest characteristics. The range of this rocket reaches only 180 km. The range of 240 km was obtained only in the subsequent SM-6 project. A further increase in the range is planned, but there is still no exact information on the implementation of such plans.
In other words, the foreign author, trying to show the superiority of, in general, good missiles of the Standard Missile family, overestimated their real parameters. In the case of the S-300F air defense systems, only tabular data of relatively old missiles were used, although the modern 48N6DM was mentioned.
However, on one of the topics one has to agree with Ch. Gao. He points to the imperfection of the vertical drum launcher. Indeed, such a system is seriously inferior to a vertical installation with separate cells. With the same ammunition, the Mk 41 installation module has about 1.5 times less volume in comparison with the S-300F revolver system.
The development of new launchers of a more efficient design began back in the days of the USSR, but for a number of reasons it was completed with a significant delay. The introduction of such systems has also been delayed. As a result, the S-300F complexes received a limited number of ships, some of which, moreover, cannot continue to serve, at least until the repair is carried out.
The author of The National Interest points out that the American command planned to provide superiority over potential threats, and this led to the active development of shipborne missiles. Russian plans looked different, with the result that the S-300F lags behind the SM family in terms of its characteristics. It is easy to see that the development of Russian air defense systems for the fleet continues, although it is not carried out in the way that one would expect. On the basis of the S-300 land systems, the S-300F and S-300FM complexes were previously created. The new S-400 "shared" some missiles with the naval air defense system, but did not become the basis for a full-fledged complex. The promising S-500 system, expected in the near future, according to various estimates, will again be able to become the base for the ship's anti-aircraft complex, which will have to show high performance.
As a result, a picture is emerging that is similar to a kind of arms race in the field of naval anti-aircraft systems. For a number of well-known reasons, in the recent past, the United States took the lead with the Standard Missile series of missiles. However, in the future, after the emergence of a new complex, Russia will be able to become the leader in this area. Naturally, this will be a pretext for new publications in the foreign press.
