Key military sites air defence against stealth bomber bombing.

[lilzz]

I thinking borrow a page from the NAvy and install the CIWS, close in battle system. On each key military site erect a tall structure and at least put one CIWS system, a phallanx gun guided by IR and radar.

bomber ultimately have to drop the bomb, but when the bomb approaching the building and site, the CIWS would turn on and blast those falling metal bombs to pieces before they could land much like the close in defense utilized in the NAVY ship.

[RedMercury]

And if the B-2 drops a swarm of SDB?

[lilzz]

It just take a bullet to ruin the bomb, each phallanx like guns can fire 3000+ rounds per min. How many SDB bombs you are dropping on a given site?
For an important site, they can install multiple CIWS stations.

Once you drop your first bomb, AWACS /w anti-stealth radar and fighter /w long range AAM would go up and prosecute the snail-like B-2s.

[planeman]

I don't think this renders you immune to incoming weapons, especially not from stealth aircraft, but it is the way forward for point defence. But China doesn't rally need point defence - who's about top attack China????

The US C-RAM has proved relatively effective in Iraq against sporadic mortar fire - the impressive bit is sustained readiness IMO.
C-RAM
http://aviationweek.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/2007/05/16/cram.jpg

The Oerlikon SkyShield is also fully automated and has anti-missile A-HEAD ammo:
http://www.rheinmetall-immobilien.de/img/skyshield_schuss.jpg


And lastly but not least, China's very own LD2000
http://img525.imageshack.us/img525/8695/000200641823202644753eiwr0.jpg

[balance]

[QUOTE=planeman;79659]I don't think this renders you immune to incoming weapons, especially not from stealth aircraft, but it is the way forward for point defence. But China doesn't rally need point defence - who's about top attack China????
My question is:
1. what makes it not immune especially with regard to stealth? Is the bomb stealthy? The plane is stealthy but the bombs are not, nor are the air to ground missiles.

2. Why doesn't China need a point-defense? Stealth bombers and fighters are still a concern for China air-defense strategy. Point-defense will be a cheaper and effective alternative to expensive SAM?

3. This question is to everybody:
a. How do you counter stealth cruise missiles with CIWS or point-defense weapon?
b. How effective will CIWS against the incoming anti-radiation missile directed to a radar or SAM site?

Thank you Planeman and everybody.

[Pointblank]

I wonder how you are going to defend against 80 Mk82 bombs... or substitute the bombs for cluster munitions, and you got a real doozy.

[lilzz]

80 MK32 bombs, like I say before, Phallanx 3000+ per min, it will rip them aprt in no time.

as for cruise missile or anti-radiation missile, when it's approaching its target, the CIWS 's IR detector will spot and destroy it.

[IDonT]

80 MK32 bombs, like I say before, Phallanx 3000+ per min, it will rip them aprt in no time.

as for cruise missile or anti-radiation missile, when it's approaching its target, the CIWS 's IR detector will spot and destroy it.

At 3,000+ rounds a minute, you have less than 30 seconds worth of sustained fire before your barrels melt. SO you may destroy 2 (highly doubtful). What are you going to do with the other 78 bombs.

[RedMercury]

Let's do a ballpark estimate shall we? Let's say, optimistically that a CIWS takes 1 sec to eliminate 1 target within its range, and it shoots to 3km. So 80 targets need to be eliminated within 3000 meters. So 3000/80 secs is about 37 m/s or 135 kph. So if the bombs were traveling faster than that, at least one would get through.

It is not efficient to attack munitions; far more efficient to attack platforms.

[lilzz]

At 3,000+ rounds a minute, you have less than 30 seconds worth of sustained fire before your barrels melt. SO you may destroy 2 (highly doubtful). What are you going to do with the other 78 bombs.

LoL, it doesn't work that, You don't lock in and kill one bomb at one time. It's more like thousands of bullets attacking that whole group of bombs.

[IDonT]

LoL, it doesn't work that, You don't lock in and kill one bomb at one time. It's more like thousands of bullets attacking that whole group of bombs.

You are shooting at a bomb not a missile. There is no fuel tank you can rupture or any other volatile. If 2000 lbs bomb's timer can withstand a shock of 20 meters penetration of steel reinforce concrete before exploding, those bullets will have a hard time exploding those bombs.

Secondly, you are assuming that the B-2 will fire all its weapons at one go.

Thirdly, a shock of a 2000 lbs bomb explosion, along with the shrapnel will destroy your CIWS even at 3,000 meters.

[Pointblank]

It is not efficient to attack munitions; far more efficient to attack platforms.

Exactly; that has been the manta of the US military; focus on finding and killing the platforms, so you don't have to worry about the munitions.

[juli.mafia]

why not use both point defence (fallanx) and modern S.A.M. China is growing to a world superpower.It's G.D.P. is expected to surpass the U.S. G.D.P. in about 2030 (you have already surpassed Germany's,which uses both systems in air defence)

[Troika]

80 MK32 bombs, like I say before, Phallanx 3000+ per min, it will rip them aprt in no time.

as for cruise missile or anti-radiation missile, when it's approaching its target, the CIWS 's IR detector will spot and destroy it.

:roll: Check out how many round the Phalanx actually carries. Work out the targeting ability of the fire control system. Consider how fast you'd have ot move the damned thing to fire at all different targets.

A modern assault rifle have cyclic rate over 600 rounds per minute, doesn't mean you CAN fire 600 rounds at 20 men coming at you 20 at a time.

[Quickie]

Thirdly, a shock of a 2000 lbs bomb explosion, along with the shrapnel will destroy your CIWS even at 3,000 meters.

Opps, mistyping the zeros?

[rhino123]

why not use both point defence (fallanx) and modern S.A.M. China is growing to a world superpower.It's G.D.P. is expected to surpass the U.S. G.D.P. in about 2030 (you have already surpassed Germany's,which uses both systems in air defence)

Yes, GDP is an important factor to judge your military. But u must also take into consideration of the size of the country, the sea route, the land, the airspace. Also the overall size of your army, navy and air force. As compare to Germany, China had a much bigger military thus the cost of maintaining this military is higher and thus the higher GDP spending on military wares.

[lilzz]

Are some of the doubters here think that a stealth bomber get close enough to an Aegis defensive ship and drop a bunch of bombs and that it would kill the ship? Dub, that's so genius??

[IDonT]

Are some of the doubters here think that a stealth bomber get close enough to an Aegis defensive ship and drop a bunch of bombs and that it would kill the ship? Dub, that's so genius??

A 2000lb JDAM drop at 40,000 ft by a B-2 traveling at 600 mph has a range between 10-15 miles. 10-15 miles is not close enough for any radar detect, track, and target a B-2 at night.

[crobato]

A 2000lb JDAM drop at 40,000 ft by a B-2 traveling at 600 mph has a range between 10-15 miles. 10-15 miles is not close enough for any radar detect, track, and target a B-2 at night.

I doubt that. The B-2 is designed to foil against the long frequency radars the Soviet Union uses to scan its borders. Its not designed against shorter frequency fire control radars.

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2007/06/12/214539/speed-bump-usaf-sets-modest-goals-for-new-bomber.html

"Taking the next step in stealth could be the biggest technological risk. The USA has made significant strides in stealth technology since the B-2, particularly in LO maintainability with the Lockheed F-22 and F-35, but these fighters are designed to evade higher-frequency fire control, or "shooter", radars more than lower-frequency, longer-range surveillance radars.

To penetrate and persist in the presence of integrated air defences "the next-generation bomber will have signature reduction well below the F-22 and F-35," says Muellner. He adds: "They are good at shooter frequencies, but not at low frequencies. The B-2 is good at low frequencies, but not at shooter frequencies. The next-generation bomber will be really good at all frequencies."

[juli.mafia]

Is there any possible electromagnetic or laser alternative to air defence.I mean using electromagnetic waves (possibly high frequency ones)to jam the navigation and targeting systems of the platforms or ammunition.Another thing could be the laser.It is unleashed countinously and covers a great sky palne surface so it increases the possibility to damage the electronic systems of the platforms or the ammunition.(i am not an arms expert,just an observer,so don't mind for the poor technical details)

[IDonT]

I doubt that. The B-2 is designed to foil against the long frequency radars the Soviet Union uses to scan its borders. Its not designed against shorter frequency fire control radars.

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2007/06/12/214539/speed-bump-usaf-sets-modest-goals-for-new-bomber.html

"Taking the next step in stealth could be the biggest technological risk. The USA has made significant strides in stealth technology since the B-2, particularly in LO maintainability with the Lockheed F-22 and F-35, but these fighters are designed to evade higher-frequency fire control, or "shooter", radars more than lower-frequency, longer-range surveillance radars.

To penetrate and persist in the presence of integrated air defences "the next-generation bomber will have signature reduction well below the F-22 and F-35," says Muellner. He adds: "They are good at shooter frequencies, but not at low frequencies. The B-2 is good at low frequencies, but not at shooter frequencies. The next-generation bomber will be really good at all frequencies."

If that is the case, you still need to know where to point your "shooter".

How close was that Serbian SAM site that shoot down the F-117?

[lilzz]

A 2000lb JDAM drop at 40,000 ft by a B-2 traveling at 600 mph has a range between 10-15 miles. 10-15 miles is not close enough for any radar detect, track, and target a B-2 at night.


You haven't answer the question, does the aegis ship killed by the B-2's bomb??

[adeptitus]

I think CIWS gun systems would be useful against a very small number of high-valued munitions, but not against 80 falling bombs. I doubt your typical CIWS tracking radar could even actively track that many targets and attack them.

If your opponent drops a single 2,000 lb LGB on your base, a CIWS gun can probably shred that bomb with streams of hot metal.

The PLA already has the Type 730, LD-2000, and Type 90 AAA. If they can acquire or domestically develop AHEAD type munitions for the Oerlikon *** 35mm gun, it'd make the system more efficient and possibly bring it to ***-006 standard.

The gun could also be mounted on older MBT chasis (T-59?) via Marksman style turret to make a SPAAG:
http://img174.imageshack.us/img174/4223/1084521911itpsv904as.jpg

[lilzz]

well, whether CIWS is effective against the bombs is debatable, but it sure will be effective as last line of defense against tomahawk, or rogue missiles like hangfeng, brahmos..

[Pointblank]

You can always saturate the target area with munitions, providing more targets than the defences can cope with. Also, there are decoy drones out that that can emulate a certain radar signature, which again can help saturate the target area, or keep the defenders off balance.

[NightHook]

How close was that Serbian SAM site that shoot down the F-117?
Not very close :-)

Thirdly, a shock of a 2000 lbs bomb explosion, along with the shrapnel will destroy your CIWS even at 3,000 meters.

I survive this bomb exploding about 25-27 meters from me. I was not even wounded only little shocked. Two days after I was again (and equipment too)in my unit.
B-2 are problems for big country like Russia or China. For any small country with barrely good air-defence they practicaly present same threat as as B-1 b.
Why? Crobato is pretty close.
well, whether CIWS is effective against the bombs is debatable

It's not debatable. Debatable is cost - efectivnes ratio. Are you aware how much this systems cost. Be sure - MUCH. So this systems can be very useful around smal number of key - instalations, but they can not be real answer to bombs. btw some guys from AAA unit which cover one bridge managed to shot down 3 guided misiles without any radar or thermal control! Only MK4 eyeball, but I will never say that WW2 style AAA are efective weapon against bombs or missiles.

[crobato]

If that is the case, you still need to know where to point your "shooter".


The point is, when the B-2 was conceived, the target was the Soviet air defense perimeter, which is hardly dense. With only that many radar units and an enormous boundary to cover, the Soviet Union has to use very long range, very long frequency radars.

Long frequency volume search radars would only cue short frequency, fire control radars to the target.


How close was that Serbian SAM site that shoot down the F-117?

It is likely to be within range of its IRST, as the Gecko is noted to have electro-optical upgrades available. Thermal detection and tracking can easily go up to 50km, even more, under ideal conditions, but in this case, its probably about 10 to 15 km, given that its a short ranged missile.

These SAMs are mobile though, which means they can relocate easily. Even if you want to bomb them, it has to assume you have to know where they are exactly when you arrive to the target point, and they may not exactly be there when you do.

[NightHook]

The point is, when the B-2 was conceived, the target was the Soviet air defense perimeter, which is hardly dense. With only that many radar units and an enormous boundary to cover, the Soviet Union has to use very long range, very long frequency radars.

Long frequency volume search radars would only cue short frequency, fire control radars to the target.




It is likely to be within range of its IRST, as the Gecko is noted to have electro-optical upgrades available. Thermal detection and tracking can easily go up to 50km, even more, under ideal conditions, but in this case, its probably about 10 to 15 km, given that its a short ranged missile.

These SAMs are mobile though, which means they can relocate easily. Even if you want to bomb them, it has to assume you have to know where they are exactly when you arrive to the target point, and they may not exactly be there when you do.

What Gecko? Numbers of SA-8 in our army was 0. This F-117 was shot down with s-125 (and another heavily damaged), there is no secret about this. Some Neva's have thermals but majority have only original TV sight.

[lilzz]

The problem /w B-2 is its very slow, it drop its first bomb, the fighters will go up and prosecute it.

[crobato]

What Gecko? Numbers of SA-8 in our army was 0. This F-117 was shot down with s-125 (and another heavily damaged), there is no secret about this. Some Neva's have thermals but majority have only original TV sight.

Oh sorry I mistyped. I meant Goa. Ordinary TV sight will do just fine, especially in full moonlight.

[NightHook]

Oh sorry I mistyped. I meant Goa. Ordinary TV sight will do just fine, especially in full moonlight.

Yes modern (with provision for mounting image intensifier)TV can somewhat usable even at night. Original sight was useful only on clear day.
Still, Thermals, TV, and sound microphones, milimetric band radars, and ordinary observers are way to go only for small country (with area comparative to that of Serbia). For big countries like China, this is simply unpractical. You will need hundreds of thousends devices. Even cost is not biggest problem, but organization and integration of many small units. Integrated Air defense network sounds good but practical implementation is problem of enormous difficulty. Because of this your main sensor still will be radars, but thermals and observers are more then useful aid for primary network.

[NightHook]

Oh sorry I mistyped. I meant Goa. Ordinary TV sight will do just fine, especially in full moonlight.

Yes modern (with provision for mounting image intensifier)TV can somewhat usable even at night. Original sight was useful only on clear day.
Still, Thermals, TV, and sound microphones, milimetric band radars, and ordinary observers are way to go only for small country (with area comparative to that of Serbia). For big countries like China, this is simply unpractical. You will need hundreds of thousends devices. Even cost is not biggest problem, but organization and integration of many small units. Integrated Air defense network sounds good but practical implementation is problem of enormous difficulty. Because of this your main sensor still will be radars, but thermals and observers are more then useful aid for primary network.

[NightHook]

Yes modern (with provision for mounting image intensifier)TV are somewhat usable even at night. Original sight was useful only on clear day.
Still, Thermals, TV, and sound microphones, milimetric band radars, and ordinary observers are way to go only for small country (with area comparative to that of Serbia). For big countries like China, this is simply unpractical. You will need hundreds of thousends devices. Even cost is not biggest problem, but organization and integration of many small units. Integrated Air defense network sounds good but practical implementation is problem of enormous difficulty. Because of this your main sensor still will be radars, but thermals and observers are more then useful aid for primary network.