NationStates Jolt Archive

[OOC: I have been planning a Harpoon-equivalent missile for a long time, but when I saw information about the Russian 'Sunburn' missile, I decided to use it instead. Constructive feedback is welcomed.]

At the request of the Incorporated Sarzonian Navy, the Portland Iron Works and Windham & Green Defense Industries have been developing a new surface-to-surface missile of Sarzonian design for use in the new Johnston-class AA destroyer currently in development by PIW.

The ISN's requirements for the missile include supersonic speed, high payload, and optimal effectiveness for deployment against most monohulled ships. The 'Scorcher' SSM fits these requirements to a 'T.' With its high speed and its long range, it is capable of destroying monohulled ships as large as fleet carriers. Like the missile on which this is based, the 'Scorcher' uses an abrupt pop-up maneuver upon its terminal approach to throw off anti-missile defenses.

The 'Scorcher' missile will enter service with the ISN upon the commissioning of the ISS Johnston, the name ship of the new class of AA destroyer. Upon its entry into service, the Portland Iron Works will offer it for sale alongside its other weapons systems. All sales of the 'Scorcher' will be subject to a background check into the prospective purchaser. In addition, production rights will only be granted to most favoured and trusted nations.

SPECIFICATIONS
Warhead: 825 lb (374.2 kg) conventional or 225 kiloton nuclear
Range: 95 miles (152.9 km)
Wing Span: 6.85 feet (2.09 m)
Diameter: 2.5 feet (76 cm)
Length: 32.1 feet (9.78 m)
Weight: 10,210 pounds (4631.26 kg)
Engine: Integrated Rocket Booster Ramjet Sustainer
Guidance: Active Radar and LADAR-capable Homing Sea Skimmer
Speed: Mach 2.625 at sea level

[OOC: I had another (IMO better) post typed up and ready to submit, but Jolt logged me out and I lost it. UGH! :(]

Tag

Low altitude yes, but probably not seaskimming, not at that speed. Air is very thick down there, it's hard to stay that fast. Not to mention that since it's going to be active, this restricts it's sight range. Perhaps think about linking all the missiles together and have one fly slightly higher to act as a spotter for the others like the Shipwreck system.

Also, you might consider making it truely multistaged. A preliminary, rocket stage to get it out of the launcher and up to speed, then have the ramjet take over.

While that's an impressive payload and would signifigantly damage any RL ship, heavily armored NS capital ships will shrug that off.

I'm also assuming the length you have written is a typo... it's wider than it's long.

[OOC: Yes, the 2.1 feet length was a typo. I meant 32.1 feet, so I corrected that.

I based my information off the known specifications for the Sunburn missile according to this website (http://www.softwar.net/3m82.html). It may be true that this is not really a "sea skimmer" in the literal sense, but that's how the Sunburn was described.

This would not be designed to deal with ships like the Doujin or the other Trimaran capital ships out there. I realize that those would shrug these off. Even an Iowa might be able to survive these better than the current ships out there now. That's why I specified "most monohulled ships." Against countries that use U.S. ships or purely modern tech, this would be devastating.

Thanks for your feedback though. I appreciate it.]

[OOC: GPS/INS guidance initially, or datalinks with targetting helicopters or drones, or, as Verdant Archipelago suggested and as the Russians missiles do, have one missile fly higher to act as a spotter, which is how my Pelican missiles (based on the Yakhont/Oniks missile) work. Active/passive radar guidance for final approach. Mach 2.6 is possible at that altitude, but at significantly reduced range.]

[As a general aside, has anyone thought of introducing RHA values for ships? I've tried to present that in my armour ratings. Just wondering.]

Press Release from the UKIN Ministry of Defence

The Royal Isselmere-Nieland Navy is greatly intrigued by this new product from Windam & Green Defense Industries and wishes our Sarzonian allies the best fortunes for its development and application.

Sincerely,

Sir Owen Saunders
Director, Naval Systems
Defence Procurement Agency
Admiralty Department
Ministry of Defence
UKIN

OOC: Bah! You and your trimarine mafia. A Monohull man I am and a Monohull man I shall remain. And I'd bet the Admiral Laffite against any trimarine of equivelent displacement. But that's for another thread.

Anyway, overall, a very nice job. Include something about the terminal attack manouvers in the description. And ECM packages. People like that.

OOC: Bah! You and your trimarine mafia. A Monohull man I am and a Monohull man I shall remain. And I'd bet the Admiral Laffite against any trimarine of equivelent displacement. But that's for another thread.

Anyway, overall, a very nice job. Include something about the terminal attack manouvers in the description. And ECM packages. People like that.

Great Scott! Another person who's not a trimaran fan! I'm not alone! *Breaks down and weeps for joy*

Sorry. Sarz, lookin good man, nice piece of kit. You couldn't provide metric units for those of us not so savvy with imperial could ya?

I'll do metric conversions sometime today unless laziness or family obligations get in the way.

Ramjet=Impossible without airintake. Make it a Saturn V style Hydrogen Fueled rocket.

Doesn't that require 1) a lot of liquified hydrogen 2) a large amount of liquid oxygen and 3) a rather large oxidisation chamber, hence the fairly capacious dimensions of the Saturn V?

Ramjet=Impossible without airintake. Make it a Saturn V style Hydrogen Fueled rocket.

OOC: There's no problem for an air intake. It would be behind the radar nosecone, similar to a MiG-21, various Sukhoi fighters (Su-7,11, etc.), as well as the Yakhont missile. The Moskit/Sunburn has four inlets along the side of the missile, affixed to which are the fins. Either solid rocket propellant (safe but with diminishing returns of manoeuvrability at long ranges) or ramjet are the only real options (liquid rocket fuel is just too nasty to deal with).

Storing liquid hydrogen is a right pain... epsecially since it starts eating away at the metal containers and makes them horribly brittle... you DON'T want that stuff on a warship. Use other liquid fuels for your rockets if you really must, but remember, you need to fuel them up before you launch or live with the knowledge that a lot of highly combustable liquids are gurgling around right below warheads.

Or a solid fueled, either way.
A jet intake IMO is superfluous for a rather shortranged missile.

Except most anti shipping missiles with that sort of rnage are either turbojet or ramjet powered both of which require air inlets.

Ramjet is msot definatly the way to go.

Well, the ramjet could be used, if you made this slightly larger, as a longer ranged missle.

As to the use of the ramjet with this range, it is good, but I personally would not use it.

For my current generation SSM I took the Sunburn and added better computers, guidance, and improved powerplants to allow for a slightly longer range.

As to this, nice design.

*Metric conversions added in parentheses next to U.S. measurement values*

Great Scott! Another person who's not a trimaran fan! I'm not alone! *Breaks down and weeps for joy*

Sorry. Sarz, lookin good man, nice piece of kit. You couldn't provide metric units for those of us not so savvy with imperial could ya?I converted them for you.

I think staying with monohulled ships instead of Trimarans is the 21st century equivalent of insisting on wooden sailing ships as opposed to iron and steel ships powered by steam back in the 1860s onward. But that could just be me. Though I doubt it. :p

Tag

Yes, indeed.

I converted them for you.

I think staying with monohulled ships instead of Trimarans is the 21st century equivalent of insisting on wooden sailing ships as opposed to iron and steel ships powered by steam back in the 1860s onward. But that could just be me. Though I doubt it. :p

Cheers man. A lot easier for me that way. BTW, I disagree wholeheartedly; trimarans are big, complex, and most obviously unproven, offering increased stability and hull area perhaps but at the price of huge cost and much more difficult construction, as well as the difficulty of operating an object that has a turning circle of three supertankers.

Cheers man. A lot easier for me that way. BTW, I disagree wholeheartedly; trimarans are big, complex, and most obviously unproven, offering increased stability and hull area perhaps but at the price of huge cost and much more difficult construction, as well as the difficulty of operating an object that has a turning circle of three supertankers.

Amen

Not to mention that FASTSHIP hullforms allow monohull freighters to reach 45 knots.... even in heavy seas. And remember, since you're increasing hull surface area, you'll actually need more hull plating and armor for a given displacement.