Issues on Intercepting Hypersonic Missile.

[lilzz]

As the missiles getting faster and faster, would that physcial limit on interepting that either using weapons like SeaRAM and CIWS.

sure, the radar and IR detection can track the missile but can they knock it out as its speed increases.

Alot of current antiship missile can travel mach1 to mach 2 but what if they are traveling Mach5 to Mach6.

Let me illustrate a point. first talk about the CIWS.
the radar detects the missile at point A, now the gun is not going to shoot point A because by the time the bullets reach point A, the missile already left that point. So, the CIWS computer has to make extrapolation on where to shoot the missile at point B. But how does the system determine point B?
the missile might not travel at constant speed. so this extrapolation leave room for error.


secondly, on the intercepting missile like SeaRAM. let say SeaRAM has its radar and IR detection, and incoming missile also has its onboard radar, therefore, both missile are aware of each other. SeaRAM can't go too fast else they will pass the intercepting point before the target arrived. SeaRAm has to slow down and wait for the target come to the intercepting point.

Now, the target missile awares of the SeaRAM presence therefore, when it almost arrive at the intercepting point, it suddently increase its speed from MAch5 to Mach6 and zoom pass that intercept point...

Now SeaRAM has to catch up the target but it's slow and no match in speed against the hypersonic missile which feature special type of engines.

Therefore for hypersonic missile with variable speed and has onboard radar for situation awareness, it will give the SeaRAM and CIWS system trememdous headaches.

[man overbored]

CIWS has two radars on the mount. One tracks the incoming missile while the other tracks the outgoing stream of rounds. The fire control solution is pretty simple, make the two tracks collide. CIWS also has an outboard IR sensor precisely for use against the high mach missiles. The two great drawback of missiles like 3M80 or Kh-31 are their inability to maintain the low sea skimming altitudes of missiles like Harpoon or Exocet, and their great speed means their skin temps are so high they glow like the sun to a decent IR seeker. The IR seeker was added to CIWS as an additional source of aim point data, since it can sometimes see the missile before the radar might. Also, RAM has outstanding performance against such missiles. It's IR seeker is extremely good at discriminating a target from surface clutter and has plenty of range to do the job. RAM also has a passive RF seeker that will home on the radar emissions of the incoming missile's seeker if it uses active homing as 3M80 is known to use. RAM needs no fire control information from the ship to operate, it is fire and forget.
Btw, the USN operated Kh-31's purchased from Russia in the mid 1990's as a target drone. In actual use the missile never came close to achieving it's advertised performance and the Russian supplied missile rails were unsafe in our judgement. We had to modify some of our rails for the Kh-31 ( we called it MA-31 ) but the advertised speed and range were unobtainable. A high mach run burned so much fuel that max range was only 15nm. For our training we needed a minimum 45 nm flight. Boeing suggested five changes to the Russians to make the missiles meet our minimum requirements. These were rejected and the USN chose another system to simulate the notional high mach sea skimmer. The last two MA-31 were fired last year from Point Mugu.

Here is a page on it's replacement, the Orbital Sciences Coyote, a mach 2.8 target system.

http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/m-163.html

Here is an article on MA-31 showing it being fired from a QF-4 from Point Mugu. Notice the Russian launch rail on the wing of the Phantom. You can also see the missile sitting on real US Navy "yellow gear". Notice the paragraph about the drone "lacking the range and flight path accuracy", in other words it could not maintain the low altitudes we needed for training and weapons testing. Piece of crap.

http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/app4/ma-31.html

Russian supersonic "sea skimmer" cannot manage to fly below about 15 meters ( not feet but meters ) while a Harpoon flies at 2 meters. This and the low IR signatures are why the USN sticks with subsonic cruise missiles. They are actually far harder to detect than 3M80.

[crobato]

I think it was called Kh-31MA or something like that.

MA as in "Monkey Amerikanski".

[lilzz]

CIWS has two radars on the mount. One tracks the incoming missile while the other tracks the outgoing stream of rounds. The fire control solution is pretty simple, make the two tracks collide. .

Let's analyze the situation in better detail. as for your quicky line, I don't quite get it.

Because your bullet tracking radar always looking for the previous launched round of bullets as reference and relaunch a corrected new round. So you talking about time for launch first round of missed bullet+ launch new round of bullet... there fore it's alway takes more time and lacking behind the radar tracking the missile, which doesn't have to launch anything mechanically and wait for feedback.

therefore, bullet tracking radar is the weaklink. so even if you intersect the two, you still have room for error especially against high Mach missile.


secondly, because the Missile has onboard radar which aware of the seaRAM closing in. How do you account when the target missile suddenly change speed and make a speed dash just when SeaRAM is just about the hit the interception point. You calculate the interception point based on the target missile's previous speed.

[crobato]

You're confusing the forms of tracking. There is lag tracking, where the track lags the target; prime tracking, where the tracking is maintained at the target's center; and lead tracking, where the radar anticipates the target's track and leads the target.

What the fire control system does is to take the readings of the track, get its velocity and direction, runs an algorithm then makes a guess where the target is supposed to be next. So it anticipates the target. Tracking algorithms have become a lot sharper over the years and so is the computing power to run them. With scans going ever faster, so is the number of readings, and the more readings you have, the higher the resolution, the more accurate is the lead track. Simply said, you get the best results when you have the most info.

Of course, it is not completely foolproof since the computer is making predictions and guesses. All this is happening in electronic speeds, and to an electron, something like a Sunburn would appear awfully slow.

As for your second question, yes, the missile can have its own measures that can be used to defeat defenses using evasive tactics. It can have an onboard radar receiver or RWR. Receivers can detect defensive radars and determine the state they are, because the waveforms of search, tracking, tracking for locking, target illumination, and whether its illumination by a surface illuminator for a SARH missile or the illuminator onboard an active guided missile. A change in the radar state can command the missile to do an evasive action, and remember this is electronic reflexes.

The answer to smart defenses are smart missiles. From here on, its anybody's guess who will win. Further along the evolutionary path, things like LPI techniques may also affect the fates for both attacker (LPI on seeker) and defender (LPI on surface radars and defensive missile guidance). ECM and RCS reduction are also factors.

[lilzz]

You're confusing the forms of tracking. There is lag tracking, where the track lags the target; prime tracking, where the tracking is maintained at the target's center; and lead tracking, where the radar anticipates the target's track and leads the target.

What the fire control system does is to take the readings of the track, get its velocity and direction, runs an algorithm then makes a guess where the target is supposed to be next. So it anticipates the target..

How does this relate to man overbored bullet tracking and missile tracking?
Let me guess.

prime tracking=target missile tracking ??
lead tracking=fire control system prediction??
lag tracking=bullet tracking ??

so, man overbored 's idea of intersection of missile radar + bullet radar=
prime tracking + lag tracking??
what's his idea of intersection relate to yours? would they ever interesect

also what if the missile throttle or vary its speed when it's being illumainated. therefore the fire control system can't predict what's next.

[crobato]

Bullets will fire in a stream ahead of the target, so they are trying to anticipate where the target is.

The anticipation may not be completely foolproof which is why you want to put as much lead into the air to increase your chances. Helping to increase your chances and reduce probability of errors include having guided projectiles and exploding projectiles in proximity (flak). Nothing is absolutely certain with errors and evasion and all, but you want to have the odds as much as in your favor.

[lilzz]

Bullets will fire in a stream ahead of the target, so they are trying to anticipate where the target is.

The anticipation may not be completely foolproof which is why you want to put as much lead into the air to increase your chances.


I see, it's also a prediction. Man overbored make it sound as if automatic with certainty. therfore I was confused for a moment.

like I say, if the missile vary its speed when illuminated, then make it harder to predict its next point. so the point the bullets anticipate could be wrong.

also, within the CIWS range, the target missile evasion action can be throttle its speed or slow down a bit and let the bullets fly by ahead. It's onboard radar can sense bullets are coming.

[man overbored]

Ok, one point at a time.

"secondly, because the Missile has onboard radar which aware of the seaRAM closing in. How do you account when the target missile suddenly change speed and make a speed dash just when SeaRAM is just about the hit the interception point. You calculate the interception point based on the target missile's previous speed."

The incoming anti-ship missile has no means to sense RAM. RAM uses passive guidance, IR and RF. It does not emit. The anti-ship missile senses the reflections of it's guidance radar off the side of the ship and homes on the reflected energy. The dives and spirals are programmed into the guidance package and the missile performs these at a certain range from it's intended target. The missile has no way to sense an inbound RAM and because they are so small these missiles do not carry the heavy pods of flares or other countermeasures that might spoof a RAM. By the way, these missiles with the exception of Klub whose testing so far has been somewhat unsuccessful, all travel at a constant speed on their run in. They do not accelerate or decelerate in flight, their turbojet fuel controls are very simple valves, on and off. Solid fuel rockets as used in C-801 and MM-38 for example cannot be throttled at all, they burn full power until exhausted. RAM uses proportional guidance like Sidewinder so it never engages in a tail chase.
CIWS has one radar that scans for the incoming missile. It has another missile that follows the outgoing stream of tungsten. The fire control solution is to rapidly bring the outgoing stream of tungsten on a collision course with a missile that is flying pretty much dead on at the gun. It isn't flying by the gun but directly at it. If the missle climbs or corkscrews the two radars follow their respective targets while the fire control moves the gun until the outgoing stream of tungsten meets the incoming missile.
One last point. All of this ignores electronic countermeasures. In all likelihood, if history is any guide, a missile will be spoofed by electronic countermeasures before things like RAM and CIWS come into play. During Operation Praying Mantis the Iranians shot quite a few Standard missiles at our ships and we used the SLQ-32 to decoy them all. We never had to use the CIWS. In the 1973 Arab Israeli war, the Israeli's defeated over 50 Egyptian and Syrian Styx missiles who's range exceeded Gabriel by 10nm through the use of electronic countermeasures. CIWS and RAM are not the first defense against incoming missiles. First comes the carrier's air wing, then EW, then the missiles and guns.

[King_Comm]

The biggest problem engaging hypersonic missile is reaction time, Mach 6 means the missile is traveling at 2km per second, the reaction time for a CIWS is around 7-8 seconds, the maximum engage distance for is usually 2km, so the CIWS has to be able to find, and lock on to the target 18km away, and it has less than one second to shoot at the target, if the missile is large and armoured, the rounds fired in that time may not be sufficient to bring it down. RAM is slightly better, it has a range of 6km, so it has 3 seconds to shoot at the target.

[lilzz]

Ok, one point at a time.

"The incoming anti-ship missile has no means to sense RAM. RAM uses passive guidance, IR and RF. It does not emit.

why not? the body of the seaRAM is metal , it will reflect radar wave right?
Also, it's exhaust is also be detected by IR sensor. Unless you telling me SeaRAM is constructed like a B-2.

Target missile is active homing therefore no datalink, EW is no use.

As for CIWS, the question I like ask is do you need prediction?
If you asnwer No it will become a different ballgame. Yes or No is sufficient for this question.

[Scratch]

... if the missile is large and armoured, the rounds fired in that time may not be sufficient to bring it down. RAM is slightly better, it has a range of 6km, so it has 3 seconds to shoot at the target.

Never, ever, will a missile be armoured. Weight is an important issue, and armor is just not feasable therefore. A missile going M5+ at such low altitudes needs a LOT of fuel to travel any meaningfull distance, therefore it will already be big and heavy anyway. Unless a revolutionary new propulsion is discovered. That weight and extreme speed will also affect the missiles maneuverability and restrict evassive action.
If such a missile gets that close however, there will of course be a lot of debris hitting the ship with high momentum, even if it's hit by the CIWS bullets.


why not? the body of the seaRAM is metal , it will reflect radar wave right?
Also, it's exhaust is also be detected by IR sensor. Unless you telling me SeaRAM is constructed like a B-2.
If an AShM detects it's being engaged, and if that'll even work, what do you exspect it to do? Evade the incoming RAM only seconds before the AShM hits the target? If it does, it pretty sure won't regain contact with the ship and miss. That's a win for the RAM. Furthermore, there's not much space on a missile for a powerfull EW suite, so jamming the RAM with a AShM is also somewhat theoretical.

Target missile is active homing therefore no datalink, EW is no use.
Of course EW is of use. EW is not restricted to jamming data links, but also (active) radars, and a lot of other things. Your missile might then perhaps answer with home on jam. But that doesn't guarantee success either.

[lilzz]

If an AShM detects it's being engaged, and if that'll even work, what do you exspect it to do? Evade the incoming RAM only seconds before the AShM hits the target? If it does, it pretty sure won't regain contact with the ship and miss.

Of course EW is of use. EW is not restricted to jamming data links, but also (active) radars, and a lot of other things. Your missile might then perhaps answer with home on jam. But that doesn't guarantee success either.

what it will do when it senses SeaRAm is coming close. like varying its speed, so make it hard for you to predict its next point. or accelerate and make a dash in sudden move to pass your predicted interception point which is based on previous speed.

how do you jam a LPI radar which featured on board?

[Scratch]

Adjust to varying target speed is not a difficult task for an anti air missile, it constantly and nearly simultaneously calculates the intercept point and maneouvers accordingly.

A ship has enough space to carry a sophisticated ESM and EW suit. I'm absolutely no expert in that. But LPI does not mean it's impossbile to detect or jam it. A hypersonic AShM is way into the future, and over time there will also be new techniques available.

With that speed, I'm wondering if the missile won't create a plasma cone around the nose anyway. That would then interfere with the radar I guess.

[lilzz]

Adjust to varying target speed is not a difficult task for an anti air missile, it constantly and nearly simultaneously calculates the intercept point and maneouvers accordingly.

With that speed, I'm wondering if the missile won't create a plasma cone around the nose anyway. That would then interfere with the radar I guess.

Yes, the target missile and the interceptor missile both can adjust the speed.
but remember, the target missile is the initiator, the interceptor is the reactor,
the target missile wait till the interceptor very close and then suddenly acclerate, so it's too late for interceptor to adjust, its' already overshoot and past the interception point. It's momentum will carry it far .. it's too late, the seaRAM can't recover once it past the point. It cannot try to turn around and try to chase down the hypersonic missile.

therefore, at close distance where the reaction time is small, the initiator has all the advantage espeically the "dumb" seaRAM where the SPY 1 radar has to feedback the information back to interceptor missile and then activate its speedchange and direction.

Well even if you make SeaRAM "smart" by having active homing, and has onboard cumpter to recalculate and predict a new interception point, it still reacting, it might not have enough reaction time if "sudden move" excuted by the target missile at close distance.

as for plasma, the radar doesn't have to be in the tip. It can be install underneath the missile's mid-section belly.

[man overbored]

No, once fired missiles have no way to adjust speed. Solid fuel rocket motors cannot be throttled, and besides their burn time is measured in seconds. The fuel is right against the skin of the missile so the missile body cannot tolerate much more heat than this. You guys really have never been anywhere close to guided missiles.
The small gas turbines of something like a MM-40 Exocet, Harpoon or TASM have simple solenoid operated fuel controls that are either on or off. They make full power or no power, that's it. Once either a solid fuel rocket or turbojet cruise missile is fired it's speed is set.
One point is correct, the high mach cruise missiles take so much room to maneuver and burn fuel so fast that reattack is impossible. Something like Harpoon or SLAM-ER, if spoofed off it's intended target by countermeasures has multiple seekers ( Block 3 Harpoon and all versions of SLAM-ER ) that enables them to come around and reattack. This is a specific design feature.
In the notional RAM vs Sunburn engagement, there is no way for the Sunburn to sense a RAM. Sunburn, like other active homing missiles, locks on to a target and then performs a pre-programed set of evasive maneuvers before striking the target. There is no provision for evading defensive missiles, and as pointed out, any evasive maneuver would be a win for the ship as it would put the missile off of it's target.
EW is useless against RAM, it homes on RF emissions ( ever hear of "home on jam" ) and has a very advanced IR seeker. Even a passive homing missile like C-802 with it's anti-radiation homing seeker is successfully engaged by RAM.
We practice defending against target simulators like the mach 2.8 ( and that is mach 2.8 at ten meters altitude, significantly faster and lower than 3M80 will manage ). These are high fidelity simulations of major threat systems. In actual practive RAM nails over 95% of these fast movers on the first engagement.
You folks also keep ignoring that these are head on engagements. The missile is heading directly at the RAM of CIWS. There isn't as much lateral movement as you imagine in these engagements. It is not that complicated a fire control solution to bring a stream of tungsten into a collision course with a missile that is coming straight at the gun. RAM has plenty of time for the engagement and will get better with rocket motor improvements. RAM Block 2 is quite a missile with double the propellant and much greater maneuverability and it fits in the original launcher.

http://www.deagel.com/news/Rolling-Airframe-Missile-Block-2-Completes-First-Wind-Tunnel-Test_n000003437.aspx

[crobato]

I see, it's also a prediction. Man overbored make it sound as if automatic with certainty. therfore I was confused for a moment.

like I say, if the missile vary its speed when illuminated, then make it harder to predict its next point. so the point the bullets anticipate could be wrong.

also, within the CIWS range, the target missile evasion action can be throttle its speed or slow down a bit and let the bullets fly by ahead. It's onboard radar can sense bullets are coming.


Even if the throttles are fixed, its simple for a missile to vary its speed. That's through altitude changes. If you go high, it slows down, if you go down, it speed ups. Flipping up and down might be part of its evasive routine, and so if jinking side to side, which also causes some slowdown.

AshM's radar isn't going to sense incoming bullets, which have too small an RCS. Needs high frequency (X band at least) too much power and scan rate and AshM seeker radar isn't meant for that.

[man overbored]

I will say again, based on working with actual military rockets, that you cannot alter the speed of an incoming missile. Missile flight controls are very simple. Complexity adds weight and reduces performance. You are perfectly free to delude yourself otherwise however :-) Missiles at very low altitudes will have a lower speed on the same thrust than the same missile at high altitude, something most often ignored when people like to quote the supposed high top speeds of certain missiles. Low fliers loose a lot of their speed.

[lilzz]

AshM's radar isn't going to sense incoming bullets, which have too small an RCS. Needs high frequency (X band at least) too much power and scan rate and AshM seeker radar isn't meant for that.

what about IR seeker? can it sense the heat from the bullets?

[lilzz]

I will say again, based on working with actual military rockets, that you cannot alter the speed of an incoming missile. Missile flight controls are very simple..

In order to achieve Mach 5 or Mach 6, it needs more than common simple rocket type. Maybe a Scramjet engine. Changing direction or maneveur is hard for such high speed, but accelerate or deccelerate should be fairly straightforward.

It believe the sunburn can accelerate duing terminal phase, but probably lacks the sensors for incoming interceptors like I described.

[lilzz]

Finishing thoughts on this missile design.

I would design the shape of missile with reflection stealth feature shape, like I talked on the design of low cost stealth fighter.

I would put a subsonic booster stage which enable the missile range of 450km to 500 km range. During booster stage it's travling at subsonic. The missile stealth faceting feature would allow it go undetected like the F-22.

At beginning of interceptor range, booster off, the missile turn its engine and begin to go mach 2. Interceptor come in close and target aware of that, make an acceleration to mach3, zoom past the interception point.

at 20km, CIWS turns on and firing the bullets, target's IR sensor aware of bullets coming in and make another dash from mach3 to mach4 bypass the bullets and CIWS probably got one shot at that and missed.

Kaboom, the missile hit the ship.

[Scratch]

several points regarding RAM

... the target missile wait till the interceptor very close and then suddenly acclerate, so it's too late for interceptor to adjust, its' already overshoot.
I think the missile has a proximity fuse(?), so if it comes very close as you say, it might already detonate and release a lot of shrapnel impacting the AShM with high speeds.
Furthermore, your missile can't just "suddenly accelerate" from M3-M4. ManOverboard already stated the on/off part of missiles. Even if you could produce such a complex system in a missile (and high complexity isn't alway good) to accelerate that fast, you'd need an enormous amount of reserve energy.
I don't think a ramjet, or any airbreating engine could react that fast. That means additional rocket boosters, wich are again only dead weight before firing and also increase size.

therefore, at close distance where the reaction time is small, the initiator has all the advantage espeically the "dumb" seaRAM where the SPY 1 radar has to feedback the information back to interceptor missile and then activate its speedchange and direction.
Also the RAM isn't dumb at all, it is smart. It doesn't need the SPY, or any other foreign sensor at all once fired.
It's passive RF seeker senses the radar output of the AShM, and it's IR seeker sees the glowing skin of the missile body due to it's speed. That's all it needs, active radar homing is not necessary.
It makes all the calculations itself, and that takes rather milliseconds or even less. A M4 missiles "only" travels 1,3m in 1ms.

as for plasma, the radar doesn't have to be in the tip. It can be install underneath the missile's mid-section belly.
If you put it there, that means you have something like a small pod, wich also "stands in the wind". The flowing air will heat up there as well and maybe create a plasma.

If you want a cruise booster for subsonic speeds, the best/most efficient way is a small turbojet/fan. So in your case you might want to launch a small UAV wich carries and launches one AShM once in range. That UAV could then be designed stealthy.
Then the missile might be launched with a rocket booster that seperates, and the missile might start it's ramjet.
Besides the point that I find it hardly beliveable an onboard IR sensor would reconize incoming bullets, I already said I also don't believe you can just go from M3-M4 in a second.
Furthermore, the missile is trying to hit a ship, and the CIWS is on that ship. ManOverboard already said that's rather a head on engagement. If the missile accelerates, it will only fly faster into the bullets coming towards it.

[tphuang]

Finishing thoughts on this missile design.

I would design the shape of missile with reflection stealth feature shape, like I talked on the design of low cost stealth fighter.

I would put a subsonic booster stage which enable the missile range of 450km to 500 km range. During booster stage it's travling at subsonic. The missile stealth faceting feature would allow it go undetected like the F-22.

At beginning of interceptor range, booster off, the missile turn its engine and begin to go mach 2. Interceptor come in close and target aware of that, make an acceleration to mach3, zoom past the interception point.

at 20km, CIWS turns on and firing the bullets, target's IR sensor aware of bullets coming in and make another dash from mach3 to mach4 bypass the bullets and CIWS probably got one shot at that and missed.

Kaboom, the missile hit the ship.
you can't just accelerate from mach 3 to mach 4. The Russians had a bunch of problem with Club going from subsonic to supersonic from I read. And you are asking the missile to accelerate at least 3 times from your post. That takes a lot of processing and more importantly a lot of fuel.

Sunburn, as it is, is the most overhyped but far from the most useful missile in service with PLAN. Look at how huge it is to even travel at mach 2.5. If you want to make a missile that flies at mach 3 or 4, you have to get it to fly lo-hi-lo profile and it will still be huge. So in end up with something that's easy to detect, a large target. Modern CIWS can counter it. Especially something like Type 730 CIWS. A while back, I remember reading Phalanx getting modified to handle ballistic missiles going at mach 6. What you are mentioning is not any different.

[lilzz]

several points regarding RAM


I think the missile has a proximity fuse(?), so if it comes very close as you say, it might already detonate and release a lot of shrapnel impacting the AShM with high speeds.
Furthermore, your missile can't just "suddenly accelerate" from M3-M4. ManOverboard already stated the on/off part of missiles. Even if you could produce such a complex system in a missile (and high complexity isn't alway good) to accelerate that fast, you'd need an enormous amount of reserve energy.
I don't think a ramjet, or any airbreating engine could react that fast. That means additional rocket boosters, wich are again only dead weight before firing and also increase size.


Also the RAM isn't dumb at all, it is smart. It doesn't need the SPY, or any other foreign sensor at all once fired.
It's passive RF seeker senses the radar output of the AShM, and it's IR seeker sees the glowing skin of the missile body due to it's speed. That's all it needs, active radar homing is not necessary.
It makes all the calculations itself, and that takes rather milliseconds or even less. A M4 missiles "only" travels 1,3m in 1ms.


If you put it there, that means you have something like a small pod, wich also "stands in the wind". The flowing air will heat up there as well and maybe create a plasma.

If you want a cruise booster for subsonic speeds, the best/most efficient way is a small turbojet/fan. So in your case you might want to launch a small UAV wich carries and launches one AShM once in range. That UAV could then be designed stealthy.
Then the missile might be launched with a rocket booster that seperates, and the missile might start it's ramjet.
Besides the point that I find it hardly beliveable an onboard IR sensor would reconize incoming bullets, I already said I also don't believe you can just go from M3-M4 in a second.
Furthermore, the missile is trying to hit a ship, and the CIWS is on that ship. ManOverboard already said that's rather a head on engagement. If the missile accelerates, it will only fly faster into the bullets coming towards it.

proximity fuse? ----the blast radius of rocket /w explosive is about 30 ft.
how far do you want you missile explode?


Acceleration?---- OK, maybe not be Mach3 -4 but let's say it accelerate. With non-constant rate


RAM calculated by itself within milliseconds? ----now that's a bit carried away. You are assuming a full set of computer on the small SeaRAM to do the mathmatical calculation. and then able readjust your fly pattern. Didn't man overbored says SeaRAm cannot adjust speed and direction. For CIWS 's its reaction is 6 seconds, S-300 20 seconds. from getting data to calculation prediction to launching missile.
where on earth you getting SeaRAM calculated for a firing solution within miliseconds? definitely give me some references and link pls.:)


As for CIWS, as soon as bullets launched which detect by target's IR sensor, it again accelerate on non costant rate. Target past the interception pt at time 0 whereas bullets lag behind and arrive at time1. Therefore missed.

[tphuang]

proximity fuse? ----the blast radius of rocket /w explosive is about 30 ft.
how far do you want you missile explode?


Acceleration?---- OK, maybe not be Mach3 -4 but let's say it accelerate. With non-constant rate


RAM calculated by itself within milliseconds? ----now that's a bit carried away. You are assuming a full set of computer on the small SeaRAM to do the mathmatical calculation. and then able readjust your fly pattern. Didn't man overbored says SeaRAm cannot adjust speed and direction. For CIWS 's its reaction is 6 seconds, S-300 20 seconds. from getting data to calculation prediction to launching missile.
where on earth you getting SeaRAM calculated for a firing solution within miliseconds? definitely give me some references and link pls.:)


As for CIWS, as soon as bullets launched which detect by target's IR sensor, it again accelerate on non costant rate. Target past the interception pt at time 0 whereas bullets lag behind and arrive at time1. Therefore missed.

for naval guns, please read how the latest penetration shells operate and not make statements like this. There are different technologies solving all of this problems.

[lilzz]

you can't just accelerate from mach 3 to mach 4. The Russians had a bunch of problem with Club going from subsonic to supersonic from I read. And you are asking the missile to accelerate at least 3 times from your post. That takes a lot of processing and more importantly a lot of fuel.


Isn't the Sunburn using Ramjet engine. The hypersonics is using scramjet engine. If you don't accelerate? how do you get from mach3 to mach4?
Let's say for Mach6 capable missile, it can't travel at slower speed and jump up to higher speed?
OK, let's just say it accelerate not necessary those numbers and it's nonconstant rate.

[lilzz]

for naval guns, please read how the latest penetration shells operate and not make statements like this. There are different technologies solving all of this problems.

just imagine the bullets as a mini-missile. the prinicple should works the same.

[crobato]

I will say again, based on working with actual military rockets, that you cannot alter the speed of an incoming missile. Missile flight controls are very simple. Complexity adds weight and reduces performance. You are perfectly free to delude yourself otherwise however :-) Missiles at very low altitudes will have a lower speed on the same thrust than the same missile at high altitude, something most often ignored when people like to quote the supposed high top speeds of certain missiles. Low fliers loose a lot of their speed.

If the missile is jinking, which means it will take an angular redirection in any four directions other than straight ahead, you will lose forward speed, which becomes tangent to the angled direction. Feel free to rewrite physics text books if you wish :)

[crobato]

what about IR seeker? can it sense the heat from the bullets?

It can but can it identify them as bullets?

[crobato]

Let me clarify something about RAM. It has two modes, IR only, which is IR all the way, and IR Dual Mode, which is passive RF leading to IR on the later stage. It has no Passive RF all the way. In dual mode, the passive RF leads the missile to the general acquisition basket of the IR seeker, and then the IR seeker takes over.

Actually, passive RF against an antiship missile all the way is a very bad idea. Why? The way an antiship missile scans, it does it at frequencies and rates that is fine against big, slow moving ships, but is totally useless against small fast flying objects. And it cuts both ways, because that sort of radar isn't going to provide the tracking rates needed for a passive SAM (you will do better trying to passively track the radar of an active guided SAM or AAM). The general resolution is quite loose and big for a direct target, but at least it is enough to fall into the circular radius of an IR seeker's acquisition range.

[man overbored]

"RAM calculated by itself within milliseconds? ----now that's a bit carried away. You are assuming a full set of computer on the small SeaRAM to do the mathmatical calculation. and then able readjust your fly pattern. Didn't man overbored says SeaRAm cannot adjust speed and direction. For CIWS 's its reaction is 6 seconds, S-300 20 seconds. from getting data to calculation prediction to launching missile.
where on earth you getting SeaRAM calculated for a firing solution within miliseconds? definitely give me some references and link pls."

RAM flies to it's target using proportional navigation. Ring lazer gyros provide the attitude reference necessary for the seeker since the missle body is rolling in flight, just like Stinger and it's predecessor Redeye. You can find lots of good explanations of proportional navigation on line, just look around. RAM and all the other similar IR missiles using proportional navigation are analog systems. Their guidance systems make continuous rather than discrete course corrections. It does this by maintaining a constant angularity between the gyro mounted optics that hold the seeker element and the target. If as the open source literature maintains that RAM shares the more complex seeker from Stinger, which makes sense since it has to pick it's target out of surface clutter. Imaging IR missiles, those with a staring planar array such as AIM-9X and Python 5 among others have on board computers that are unbelievably powerful. They actually memorize the pixel shape of the object the pilot locks on and ignor countermeasures.
One point I agree with, making hard turns with these fast missiles is difficult. The materials used on the steerable surfaces, whether a canard or rear wing, are very special. Aluminum and most steels would just fold flat on the first turn! Companies have literally gone bankrupt trying to make missile canards to US Navy specs.
Solid fuel rockets are more than sufficient to accelerate to and sustain a missile at overt Mach 5. Phoenix exceeded mach 5. It was a very big missile too.
Something I have to remind all of you, these intercepts are over in two or three seconds. Most anti-aircraft missiles have a flight time measured in less than ten seconds, and things like IR missiles that can only "see" out to maybe ten miles have at most a two to three second flight time. There isn't anything resembling a dog fight between the missile and RAM, it is over in a blink.

Read down in this link to the paragraph labeled "Description" which talks about the seeker.

http://www.janes.com/defence/air_forces/news/jlad/jlad001013_2_n.shtml

It's amazing the stuff you sign papers not to discuss, only to see the exact material in open sources! Now, dig this....

http://www.aselsan.com.tr/urun.asp?urun_id=109&lang=en

Amazing what one finds on the internet today. That is a modern IR guidance section.

[lilzz]

It can but can it identify them as bullets?


By process of elimination, build a IR profile of the missile, bullets and put in the system. and the bullet profile should look different.
so when it encounter a stream of bullets coming toward it at least knows they are not missile, got to be one of the two.

but the thing is whether missile or bullets, the evasive action is the same;acceleration at nonconstant rate.

[lilzz]

"Something I have to remind all of you, these intercepts are over in two or three seconds. Most anti-aircraft missiles have a flight time measured in less than ten seconds, and things like IR missiles that can only "see" out to maybe ten miles have at most a two to three second flight time. There isn't anything resembling a dog fight between the missile and RAM, it is over in a blink.

what over in 2 or 3 seconds? let's say your missile traveling at 1km/s. so your engage distance is only 2 to 3km. that's CIWS range. So which one you like to use? RAM or CIWS? or both.

If the target missile seeing this RAM is coming in, it will accelerate at non-constant rate , then the RAM will have to make all kind of hard airo-dynamic adjustment in midair. who knows, maybe will break its back by doing so.

anyway, the RAM is as good as what it predicts, but non-constant acceleration by target makes it very tough to predict. who knows? maybe the RAM will predict wrong.

Here's a quote from your reading.

They process the IR energy received from the target in the 4.1 to 4.4 µm wavelength region to determine its relative angle and then, by using a proportional navigation guidance technique, continually predict an intercept point.

anyway, maybe we have to find out if there's good algorithm to predict a object's next position when its varying the rate of speed increase. that's 2nd order derivative and its nonconstant.

I also read some of the russiam antiship missile preprogrammed so the missile would follow a very eratic path, zigzag , roll up and down during its terminal phase. make it very hard to predict. what's US's solution to that.

[Scratch]

what over in 2 or 3 seconds? let's say your missile traveling at 1km/s. so your engage distance is only 2 to 3km. that's CIWS range. So which one you like to use? RAM or CIWS? or both.
If have to take into account the speed of the incoming AShM also, let's say travaling at M2.5, it will close with the RAM at around 1,5km/s, that means a 5km distance is covered in 3,2... seconds.

If the target missile seeing this RAM is coming in, it will accelerate at non-constant rate , then the RAM will have to make all kind of hard airo-dynamic adjustment in midair. who knows, maybe will break its back by doing so.
I don't understand why you keep mentioning the acceleration. If a car is straight in front of you and comes directly at you at 50 km/h, you'd have to shoot straight ahead to hit it. If it accelerates to 100km/h, you'd have to shoot in exactly the same direction. No need to calculate anything. (Exacpt for the distance, wich is a non issue in the RAM case, since the missile is not completely ballistic compared to gun bullets.)
And since the AShM is much heavier it's also more likely to breake due to the G-forces in evasive maneouvers.

anyway, the RAM is as good as what it predicts, but non-constant acceleration by target makes it very tough to predict. who knows? maybe the RAM will predict wrong.

Here's a quote from your reading.

They process the IR energy received from the target in the 4.1 to 4.4 µm wavelength region to determine its relative angle and then, by using a proportional navigation guidance technique, continually predict an intercept point.

I also read some of the russiam antiship missile preprogrammed so the missile would follow a very eratic path, zigzag , roll up and down during its terminal phase. make it very hard to predict. what's US's solution to that.
AAMs can hit maneouvering targerts for decades now. In a missile to missile engagement, the priciple is the same. It has only become faster. But processors have also improved a lot over time you know.
It's not as if those CIWS / RAM are death proof. But they are far from helpless either.

[lilzz]

I like to expand alittle more on the reaction time . Yeah, if you have onboard processor which is operating at Mhz range therefore you able to calculate thousands of instructions per second. No doubt it should able compute numerous new interceptiond points in one second.


However, how many times can it move its canard mechanically adjust to the new solution in one second. Probably only once in one second.

Therefore the bottleneck is how fast the canard can move. not the processor and sensor.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Also, some folks doubt target missile can accelerate in 1 second,
well, consider this, I consider the engine stage is like a multistage pipeline.
missile already activate this series pipeline a few seconds ahead, so everything got filled up except the final output stage.

So, what you see "accelerate in 1 second" is actually the visual output of the final stage. but in reality what you don't see is the internal stages being filled up and primed. in actually it "start accelerate in 4 second" but seeing "start accelerate in 1 second".

[lilzz]

I don't understand why you keep mentioning the acceleration. If a car is straight in front of you and comes directly at you at 50 km/h, you'd have to shoot straight ahead to hit it. If it accelerates to 100km/h, you'd have to shoot in exactly the same direction. No need to calculate anything.

It's more like sideway, not straight in front of. Space is three dimensional[x,y,z]

That's unrealistic to ask the interceptor to be dead in sync with interceptor
same y, same z, but only need to worry about the varying x.

Do you think that's possible?? [varying x, same y, same z]

A more realistic scenario is I am driving down in the freeway 100mile per hour.
and you hiding on the side and then drive your car and try ram and ambush me on the side. Not only 100mile at current speed, but I see you coming from side then accelerate on top of that.

you probably wishing you are coming from the same freeway but from opposite way.

Your ship is sitting in the ocean, and target missile can come from any angle, attiude and direction.

[Scratch]

A more realistic scenario is I am driving down in the freeway 100mile per hour.
and you hiding on the side and then drive your car and try ram and ambush me on the side.

That's exactly the point where I disagree. If you in your car are the AShM, and I on the side am the RAM in the launcher, that means that I also mark the position of the ship, since the launcher is obviously placed on the ship.
Now, if you bypass me, that also means you bypass the ship and don't threaten it at all. Because if you want to hit the ship, you must fly towards it, and since the launcher is on the ship, it means the missiles must also fly towards the CIWS launcher .
That's what was already stated earlier in the thread when it was said there's hardly any latteral movement.
And it doesn't make any difference from wich direction the missiles comes, it must always head for the ship, and therefore also to the launching CIWS.

[Roger604]

These are high fidelity simulations of major threat systems. In actual practive RAM nails over 95% of these fast movers on the first engagement.

This is pure exaggeration. It's only true when the anti-ship missile does not maneuver in terminal flight.

An incoming anti-ship missile is not flying in a predictable pattern. It will corkscrew and weave while still heading toward the ship. At mach 3, these maneuvers create a huge window of possible vectors it can take.

A missile with very poor maneuverability like the SeaRAM would find that a slight "jitter" in the anti-ship missile's vector suddenly takes it out of the SeaRAM's engagement envelope since the missile is 100 meters away from where it was expected!

A CIWS has about 1 second to engage a mach 3 anti-ship missile, there is simply no time to "move" your targeting to hit the missile. It's not like the missile is just going to wait suspended in the sky! If your first burst of bullets fail to accurately lead the missile, it will make a big hole in the side of the ship.

And even if a bullet hits the missile at the last minute, it's still far too late since the momentum of the missile will still definitely still tear a big hole in the side of the ship. :D

[lilzz]

That's exactly the point where I disagree. If you in your car are the AShM, and I on the side am the RAM in the launcher, that means that I also mark the position of the ship, since the launcher is obviously placed on the ship..



Isn't your launcher is fix location ? If my missile coming from behind , do you mean moving your launcher and launch in the behind.

how you guarantee your missile in direct staring of of the target missile?

consider this I am running toward a house in arbitary direction, and you come out from a house to intercept me. how you guarantee you get to spot and see me dead on eye and eye and run opposite of me, and we butt heads. Isn't it more logically you come from side try to ram me down sideway.:)

[Scratch]

If your coming towards a house where I'm coming out, we naturally close in "head on". Running at M2, you can't just make a 90° turn putting the target on your three or nine o'clock position, run a quarter circle around it and turn back after you eveded a missile, when you're only few seconds out.
And it doesn't really make a difference if the launcher is 50 in one or the other diretion on the ship, it's still rather head on.

[lilzz]

However we interpret, head on or not head on. keep in mind the interceptor and target missile 's path is going to intersect once and only once at a very specific time.
It's not the like the two pathes overlapped each other, if you miss that point at that very specific time, you won't have another opportunity, Do you agree on that?

Your concept is equivalent to you standing and blocking the path of target missile therefore if you don't get out of way, the target missile has no way to go through.

[Roger604]

Oh geez, the anti-ship missile is not aiming for the barrel of the CIWS where all the bullets spit out. In that case, it would be heading straight for the bullets! The stream of lead from a CIWS can cover only one range of vectors that would hit the ship... others would miss entirely.

Besides, by the time a mach 3 missile is within 1 or 2 kilometers, it's momentum will punch a hole in the ship anyway, regardless of whether or not it's "intercepted" by a CIWS.

[crobato]

I am thinking what would be the best position for a CIWS so an AshM attacking the ship would be as "head on" as possible.

1. Kind of like 054, the CIWS is directly in the middle of the ship, where the AshM is prone to seek for the hit.

2. Or do it like the 052B/C, where you have two CIWS each at both ends of the ship. That way, the two CIWS can form an X or crossfire with their bullet streams.

[man overbored]

Oh geez, the anti-ship missile is not aiming for the barrel of the CIWS where all the bullets spit out. In that case, it would be heading straight for the bullets! The stream of lead from a CIWS can cover only one range of vectors that would hit the ship... others would miss entirely.

Besides, by the time a mach 3 missile is within 1 or 2 kilometers, it's momentum will punch a hole in the ship anyway, regardless of whether or not it's "intercepted" by a CIWS.

These geometry of these engagements in not what you imagine. A missile like Exocet or Moskit is aimed at the ship's beam where it has a good radar return, so things like CIWS or RAM are shooting more or less head on at the incoming round. Not preceisely but close enough. CIWS can definitey follow a missile that is corkscrewing or making the climb for a terminal dive. RAM has more than sufficient control authority to ourmaneuver a corkscrewing supersonic missile like Coyote and shoot it down. We do this in exercises.
Regarding the debris punching holes in ships, this is simply not true. In training exercises we shoot down target drones such as Coyote at mach 2.8 that is programmed to fly all the expected terminal maneuvers we know about that threat systems like Moskit fly. Coyote is pretty close in size and mass to a Moskit, actually flies faster and lower, and mimics Moskit in every way. We shoot them down in training exercises using live rounds of Standard, RAM and CIWS. Real all up ordinance is fired and these drones are blown to bits. No debris touches the ship. How that idea gained currency is beyond me. We also have Chukar to mimic things like C-802, MM-40 and certain subsonic versions of Klub with great fidelity. We shoot these down too. Debris hitting the ship is a non problem, it does not happen.
Missiles like RAM do not have to impact their target, that is why they carry proximity fuses of some discription. A near miss is actually what they require, so the rods in the warhead can chop into the missile.
In fleet testing RAM hits a supersonic target on the first try over 95% of the time. We've shot over 150 of these things and that is the actual success rate. Usual practice is to fire two missiles at each target to guarantee a kill. You guys debate as if the USN never actually fires a live round at a supersonic missile. We do, we know the geometry of these engagements and our systems are well designed to defeat known threats. There is a RIMPAC exercise going on in the Pacific right now, and at least 50 Chukar's are being expended, shot down by US and allied warships in these engagements. This is typical of a RIMPAC exercise, they occur semi-annually. Hundreds of drones are expended each year for training and weapons testing.
In any event, most of these missiles will be spoofed by the SLQ-32 and Nulka long before they enter the engagement envelope for RAM or CIWS.

[lilzz]

These geometry of these engagements in not what you imagine. A missile like Exocet or Moskit is aimed at the ship's beam where it has a good radar return, so things like CIWS or RAM are shooting more or less head on at the incoming round. Not preceisely but close enough. CIWS can definitey follow a missile that is corkscrewing or making the climb for a terminal dive. RAM has more than sufficient control authority to ourmaneuver a corkscrewing supersonic missile like Coyote and shoot it down. We do this in exercises..

Does this depend on the fire control's prediction algorithm? which is written by programmer. I am just curious if the missile follows a eratic path, how do you guarrantee you will predict correctly?

[Jeff Head]

Does this depend on the fire control's prediction algorithm? which is written by programmer. I am just curious if the missile follows a eratic path, how do you guarrantee you will predict correctly?Both radar and infrared returns tell what the missile's path is as it happens and the ability for the computers monitoring the returns and sending updates to the missile (or for it to do so itself) hundreds or thousands of times a second if neccessary, and the missile's agility and manueverability are the key components.

A manuevering missile is still occupying the space it does from instant to instant and that space is being tracked and responded to by the tracking radar and thus the missile. With a proximity fuse, it is not likely that it could be eradic enough in some final manuever to escape the blast radius.

That's my read on it.

[man overbored]

Does this depend on the fire control's prediction algorithm? which is written by programmer. I am just curious if the missile follows a eratic path, how do you guarrantee you will predict correctly?

The math is written by some of the best engineers ( not programmers but experienced engineers ) in the business based on our observations of threat systems in operation. There is a good reason our units shadow the exercises and test evolutions of other nations. We rely on our intellegence assets to give us data on a threat system, then our engineers use this to develope our response. The response is then tested thoroughly. Have a look.

http://www.nawcwpns.navy.mil/nawcwd/media_galleries/movies.htm

Stuff blowing up in the desert, you have to love it.

[lilzz]

In training exercises we shoot down target drones such as Coyote at mach 2.8 that is programmed to fly all the expected terminal maneuvers we know about that threat systems like Moskit fly. Coyote is pretty close in size and mass to a Moskit, actually flies faster and lower, and mimics Moskit in every way. .

What's highest march missile with evasive actions you folks ever shot down during training exercise?

In my discussion, hypersonic missile at mach 6 , I don't think it can do corkscrew action, therefore I limit it to acceleration.

[man overbored]

The biggest problem engaging hypersonic missile is reaction time, Mach 6 means the missile is traveling at 2km per second, the reaction time for a CIWS is around 7-8 seconds, the maximum engage distance for is usually 2km, so the CIWS has to be able to find, and lock on to the target 18km away, and it has less than one second to shoot at the target, if the missile is large and armoured, the rounds fired in that time may not be sufficient to bring it down. RAM is slightly better, it has a range of 6km, so it has 3 seconds to shoot at the target.

All of this is academic. There are no hypersonic missiles to be shot down. 3M80 and Kh-31 can only achieve the high mach speeds in the neighborhood of mach 2.5 at 40,000 feet. Once they come down to the sea surface they slow down well below mach 2. The technology is not there to make a hypersonic anti-ship missile.
In real life we shoot down Coyote's at around mach 2.5. Besides RAM all our missiles including Standard SM-2 and ESSM have shot Coyote down. The launch platform for a 3M80 has to make it through the carrier's air wing before it encounters SM-2. If it survives this and gets it's missile off SM-2, then ESSM, then RAM, and finally CIWS can engage it, plus the SLQ-32 will work with Nulka to spoof it off it's target. Have at it!

[tphuang]

Oh geez, the anti-ship missile is not aiming for the barrel of the CIWS where all the bullets spit out. In that case, it would be heading straight for the bullets! The stream of lead from a CIWS can cover only one range of vectors that would hit the ship... others would miss entirely.

Besides, by the time a mach 3 missile is within 1 or 2 kilometers, it's momentum will punch a hole in the ship anyway, regardless of whether or not it's "intercepted" by a CIWS.

all you need to is to have a missile explode near the AShM, the impact of blast will knock the AShM into a different path, possibly into the ocean. And think about this, if something pierces or does something to a supersonic missile from 1 km out, that may damage its seeker, that may knock it from its path. You don't even need a full connection to render an AShM useless.


All of this is academic. There are no hypersonic missiles to be shot down. 3M80 and Kh-31 can only achieve the high mach speeds in the neighborhood of mach 2.5 at 40,000 feet. Once they come down to the sea surface they slow down well below mach 2. The technology is not there to make a hypersonic anti-ship missile.
In real life we shoot down Coyote's at around mach 2.5. Besides RAM all our missiles including Standard SM-2 and ESSM have shot Coyote down. The launch platform for a 3M80 has to make it through the carrier's air wing before it encounters SM-2. If it survives this and gets it's missile off SM-2, then ESSM, then RAM, and finally CIWS can engage it, plus the SLQ-32 will work with Nulka to spoof it off it's target. Have at it!

you are actually wrong on this point. I believe Sunburn maintains a lo flying profile through out at around 20 m. It should be flying at mach 2 and probably faster (mach 2.5) at terminal phase. With something like Club, it cruises at subsonic speed and then speeds up to mach 2.9 in terminal phase. In both cases, the terminal phase should be under 20 m. So, technology for this does exist. Now, that doesn't mean it's hard for USN to shoot down, but going mach 2.5 at close to sea level is possible.

[lilzz]

Once they come down to the sea surface they slow down well below mach 2. The technology is not there to make a hypersonic anti-ship missile.!

Brahmos is mach4 isn't it? it's an antiship missile.
Even if it can't like you mentioned consider this, flying at high mach at high attitude, at this terminal phase, the missile will dive and shoot straight down , it's own acceleration+ force of gravity.
If it's Mach 6 missile, with aid of the gravity it might achieve Mach8-Mach9 during terminal dive down phase.

Maybe this is the better way to go, during its high attitude flight it will have better chance against interception.

[PrOeLiTeZ]

Brahmos is mach4 isn't it? it's an antiship missile.
Even if it can't like you mentioned consider this, flying at high mach at high attitude, at this terminal phase, the missile will dive and shoot straight down , it's own acceleration+ force of gravity.
If it's Mach 6 missile, with aid of the gravity it might achieve Mach8-Mach9 during terminal dive down phase.

Maybe this is the better way to go, during its high attitude flight it will have better chance against interception.
no sorry brahmos is about mach ~2.9 max about 3+ times faster then harpoon...gravity acceleration eventually levels out and the increasing velocity begins to slow and then slow to constant velocity it doesnt keep increasing...

im assuming you do know that mach9 is 10, 739km/h or 2983m/s so if brahmos has max range say 290km it would take 1min 39 secs for it reach 290km....(think this right, hope my physics isn't too rusty)

[lilzz]

..gravity acceleration eventually levels out and the increasing velocity begins to slow and then slow to constant velocity it doesnt keep increasing...

im assuming you do know that mach9 is 10, 739km/h or 2983m/s so if brahmos has max range say 290km it would take 1min 39 secs for it reach 290km....(think this right, hope my physics isn't too rusty)

This gravitational acceleration is concept for the hypersonic missile I am proposing at this thread, it's not meant for Brahmos.

Why would it slow to constand velocity? R U thinking freefall and reach terminal velocity? Well, this is not just free fall, its missile buring fuel to acclerate downward + the force of gravity. It will continue to accelerate as long as there are fuel to burn.

[PrOeLiTeZ]

This gravitational acceleration is concept for the hypersonic missile I am proposing at this thread, it's not meant for Brahmos.

Why would it slow to constand velocity? R U thinking freefall and reach terminal velocity? Well, this is not just free fall, its missile buring fuel to acclerate downward + the force of gravity. It will continue to accelerate as long as there are fuel to burn.
the change in atmospheric pressure alters the amount of fuel being burnt, the higher the altitude the thinner the air becomes, reverse when lower the altitude the thicker the air becomes.... sorry yeah was thinking of freefal for terminal velocity :) told you my physics was rusty ^.-

[Quickie]

I would think maneuverbility is more important (of course, this's about the subject of evasion only and not about the missile's effectiveness.) than speed or acceleration if the missile is coming directly at the target. (Which has to be the case during the terminal phase, albeit starting at a farther distance away for a speedier missile.) A missile coming directly at a target does not have much sideways movement in relation to the target. i.e. less error correction to be made. I doubt the weight of the missile contribute much to the final speed of the missile. What is more, with the angle of attack being much more horizontal than vertical. i.e. not coming exactly straight down. What is the thrust to weight of the missile anyway?

[Scratch]

All nice future wishes, but I guess by the time a hypersonic AShM is operational, there will also be DEW weapons (on the big ships). Then high speed is again rendered rather useless, once you're easily seen by flying high or glowing like a meteroid.

[crobato]

I don't see being hypersonic an important issue in the future of AshMs. I see stealth, as in RCS reduction, as well as thermal reduction, an issue. I also see part of the stealth equation, the use of LPI, such as spread spectrum, frequency agility, pulse compression and sidelobe suppression. I see something like the German Taurus in mind.

[Roger604]

The math is written by some of the best engineers ( not programmers but experienced engineers ) in the business based on our observations of threat systems in operation.

LOL. They must be mighty good engineers to predict the future.

Look, let's not let exaggerations blind us to reality. There's no way to predict the trajectory of a target doing a randomized corkscrew or weave.

And there's no reason why a randomized end-game maneuver sequence cannot be programmed in to an anti-ship missile. Just because the US doesn't exercise with them doesn't mean they don't exist!

all you need to is to have a missile explode near the AShM, the impact of blast will knock the AShM into a different path, possibly into the ocean. And think about this, if something pierces or does something to a supersonic missile from 1 km out, that may damage its seeker, that may knock it from its path. You don't even need a full connection to render an AShM useless.

Yes of course anything "may" happen, depending on how lucky the defending ship is.

Still, the brute fact is that a small-caliber bullet from a CIWS does not have enough mass to alter the trajectory of an anti-ship missile when the missile is within 1 km.

[Jeff Head]

LOL. They must be mighty good engineers to predict the future.

Look, let's not let exaggerations blind us to reality. There's no way to predict the trajectory of a target doing a randomized corkscrew or weave.

And there's no reason why a randomized end-game maneuver sequence cannot be programmed in to an anti-ship missile. Just because the US doesn't exercise with them doesn't mean they don't exist!



Yes of course anything "may" happen, depending on how lucky the defending ship is.

Still, the brute fact is that a small-caliber bullet from a CIWS does not have enough mass to alter the trajectory of an anti-ship missile when the missile is within 1 km.Using the high speed tracking and communication capabilities of the AEGIS (or similar) system, coupled with the agility of the missile, and the proximity blast of its warhead, a good AAW missile can counteract a random flying attack missile.

No need to predict the future. It is where it is in each instant of time and the processing and communicating capabilities of the tracking systems are nearly instantaneously communicated so the defending missile can adjust its course accordingly.

If ithe attacking missile flies too extremely, it will miss its target, so there is a realtive small window for adjustment the closer it gets in to target. But, even in that case, the defending missile will follow it anyway within the parameters of its fuel, and still go after it should it turn back. If it stays relatively on course to impact, there is a very good likelihood that the defending missile will get close enough with its proximity blast to completely destroy it or damage it and deflect it.

The US Navy conducts training in just these types of scenarios...and with AEGIS, standard missiles and RAM, has a good operational track record of defeating targets that mimic what potential adversaries are producing, and, I might add, what they are likly to produce. They do not stop at just what they know is out there.

Anyhow, let's all hope and pray that such exercises remain just that and that the premise does not have to be tested in real life conflict.

[lilzz]

Using the high speed tracking and communication capabilities of the AEGIS (or similar) system, coupled with the agility of the missile, and the proximity blast of its warhead, a good AAW missile can counteract a random flying attack missile.

No need to predict the future. It is where it is in each instant of time and the processing and communicating capabilities of the tracking systems are nearly instantaneously communicated so the defending missile can adjust its course accordingly.
.

Man overbored said they only excercised missile up to 2.5Mach. Missile will higher Mach is unknown.

Are you saying there's no prediction involed, well that's wrong, Even Man overbored also said the prediction program was written experienced engineer.

Priediction is involved in every interception and you can't get away from that doesn't matter how sophisticated your computer and hardwares are.

When your sensor detect target at point A, then you not going to shoot at point A, you need to predict next point B, and shoot at B instead of A.
You can't get away from the fundamentals.

[Jeff Head]

Man overbored said they only excercised missile up to 2.5Mach. Missile will higher Mach is unknown.

Are you saying there's no prediction involed, well that's wrong, Even Man overbored also said the prediction program was written experienced engineer.

Priediction is involved in every interception and you can't get away from that doesn't matter how sophisticated your computer and hardwares are.

When your sensor detect target at point A, then you not going to shoot at point A, you need to predict next point B, and shoot at B instead of A.
You can't get away from the fundamentals.This is true, but when the location at point A is communicated to the missile so quickly, the amount of departure between point A and point B is minimized. This is particularly true when the ability to track between point A and point B and point C, etc. is enhanced by the speed and sophistication of the hardware doing the acquisition and tracking and the comm gear communicating those results to the interceptor.

Man overboard also spoke quite eloquently and directly regarding the capanbilities in this area.

Then, particularly as the missile and the interceptor close range, or as the missile closes range on target...there is less and less room for eradic movement on the part of the missile if it wants to hit the target, and less and less adjustment required for the iterceptor.

My point is simply this, with the speed and sophistication of tracking and communicating, coupled with the speed and agility of the missile, the task is simplified. Those factors are equally important to the intercept.

Those are also fundamental s of the defense systems the US (and other nations) employs that cannot be avoided. That's all.

[lilzz]

This is true, but when the location at point A is communicated to the missile so quickly, the amount of departure between point A and point B is minimized. This is particularly true when the ability to track between point A and point B and point C, etc. is enhanced by the speed and sophistication of the hardware doing the acquisition and tracking and the comm gear communicating those results to the interceptor.
.

We have discussed in the thread some of the reaction time.
for example, the CIWS from initial detection to firing is about 6s.
let say it's 5km away, this will take another 3 to 4s for interceptor reach there. So you looking at 9-10s. That's the type of ball number we looking at.
They are not CPU speed operating at Mhz range.

[Jeff Head]

We have discussed in the thread some of the reaction time.
for example, the CIWS from initial detection to firing is about 6s.
let say it's 5km away, this will take another 3 to 4s for interceptor reach there. So you looking at 9-10s. That's the type of ball number we looking at.
They are not CPU speed operating at Mhz range.The RAM and Standard missiles systems may well have faster reaction times...but the point is, that once away, the missile and its tracker communicate very quickly that close to the vessel.

Even 9-10 seconds becomes a long time at those tracking and communication speeds. With the acquisition and tracking capabilities of modern US DDGs and CGs, my bet is they will know about the intruder long before that and the attack missile will have had to pass through several layers of defense before the CIWS has to react.

...and at that point the solution will be passed off to the CIWS should a leaker get through.

That has been discussed as well.

[lilzz]

The RAM and Standard missiles systems may well have faster reaction times...but the point is, that once away, the missile and its tracker communicate very quickly that close to the vessel.


In 2 seconds, how many times do you the canard can be adjusted mechanically? Let say the missile's computer able to predict continuously 15 new positions in 2 seconds but how many new pts can the missile actually execute. Probably, only able to execute 2 to 3 new positions out of 15.

Therefore, it's limited by the physical limitation of mechanically adjustments.
computer is fast but mechanical movement is slow.

[Jeff Head]

In 2 seconds, how many times do you the canard can be adjusted mechanically? Let say the missile's computer able to predict continuously 15 new positions in 2 seconds but how many new pts can the missile actually execute. Probably, only able to execute 2 to 3 new positions out of 15.

Therefore, it's limited by the physical limitation of mechanically adjustments.
computer is fast but mechanical movement is slow.There are physical limitations to be sure...but your numbers are conjecture and the number may well be quite higher.

Coming in on terminal approach, the incoming missile has the same type of limitations, and a proximity warhead will make up for significant variance closer in.

The RAM is one of the most successful CIWS out there and it is constantly improving.

Anyhow, as I said, lets all hope that the equations, the solutions, and the training all remain academic and that the superiority and quality of the systems themselves serve to prevent their actual use...but should they be needed, well, Semper Paratus!

[tphuang]

In 2 seconds, how many times do you the canard can be adjusted mechanically? Let say the missile's computer able to predict continuously 15 new positions in 2 seconds but how many new pts can the missile actually execute. Probably, only able to execute 2 to 3 new positions out of 15.

Therefore, it's limited by the physical limitation of mechanically adjustments.
computer is fast but mechanical movement is slow.

you have to realize that the supersonic missile has to face the same problems and it has far more to deal with in terms of the stealthy shape of ship, the ESM of ship. Everytime it changes direction, it has to locate the ship again and not get in the water. That's a lot to ask for the small seeker and processor of the missile. The intercepting missiles have the much larger radar of the mother ship to help it locate the AShM for the most part of the missile.

[Scratch]

It's not as if an interceptor missile computes one intercept point, then steers to it and flies straight towards it, and then does the cycle again.
The computing and steering is done continuously, the controll surfaces can be moved all the time at rather high rates.
Furthermore, the interceptor doesn't compute an actual intercept point in space, but tries to make the two flight pathes intersect somewhere. Where that point exactly is, isn't really important.

[Roger604]

Coming in on terminal approach, the incoming missile has the same type of limitations, and a proximity warhead will make up for significant variance closer in.

The RAM is one of the most successful CIWS out there and it is constantly improving.

Please, RAM is not a CIWS. A CIWS is a gattling gun. RAM is a point defense missile.

The one point you simply fail to understand is that a fast moving missile can easily maneuver outside of the envelope of an intercepting missile like a standard or ram. A sudden pitch, for example, will put the faster missile beyond the reach of the slow missile -- EVEN IF THE SLOW MISSILE TRIES TO PITCH TOO SIMPLY BECAUSE THE FASTER MISSILE TRAVELS FURTHER!

Your explanation of the AEGIS system is grossly misleading to say the least. Your interceptors do not travel at the speed of light! They are even slower than the incoming missiles and therefore are at a huge disadvantage if the trajectory of the incoming missile cannot be accuracy predicted.

[Scratch]

CIWS - Close In Weapons System - does not specify the weapon used in the role as a gun. The Kashtan CIWS uses a missile/gun combo. And the MANPAD like range of the RAM makes it rather a "close in" weapon than a point defence missile. So, RAM is one CIWS, while e.g. Phalanx is another.

And being faster doesn't neccessarily lead to a better envelope, in fact turn radii will likely increase, whereas the slower missile can turn in a closer space.

[Jeff Head]

Please, RAM is not a CIWS. A CIWS is a gattling gun. RAM is a point defense missile.CIWS stands for Close in Weapons System. Your desire and attempt to relegate that to purely a gun system is not in step with what is happening out in the real world. The Russians, the US, and others mix the two quite regularly (missiles and guns), and the RAM was meant to be close in, particularly SEA-RAM.

The one point you simply fail to understand is that a fast moving missile can easily maneuver outside of the envelope of an intercepting missile like a standard or ram. A sudden pitch, for example, will put the faster missile beyond the reach of the slow missile -- EVEN IF THE SLOW MISSILE TRIES TO PITCH TOO SIMPLY BECAUSE THE FASTER MISSILE TRAVELS FURTHER!This has already been adequately and directly addressed throughout this thread. Interceptor missiles can account for the turning and pitching and regularly do in real, live-fire testing.

Your explanation of the AEGIS system is grossly misleading to say the least. Your interceptors do not travel at the speed of light! They are even slower than the incoming missiles and therefore are at a huge disadvantage if the trajectory of the incoming missile cannot be accuracy predicted.No, the explanations on this thread of AEGIS are not misleading. They are spot on. What I spoke of was the speed of the processing within the system to acquire and track the threat (which electronically does in fact travel very, very fast) and then the speed of the communication between the system and its missile...which is also very fast.

Sorry you misunderstood. None of these systems (either offensive or defensive) are perfect or ever will be. But the AEGIS system is very, very good, and the most tested and most proliferated system out there and there is good reason for it. That's all.

[tphuang]

Please, RAM is not a CIWS. A CIWS is a gattling gun. RAM is a point defense missile.

The one point you simply fail to understand is that a fast moving missile can easily maneuver outside of the envelope of an intercepting missile like a standard or ram. A sudden pitch, for example, will put the faster missile beyond the reach of the slow missile -- EVEN IF THE SLOW MISSILE TRIES TO PITCH TOO SIMPLY BECAUSE THE FASTER MISSILE TRAVELS FURTHER!

Your explanation of the AEGIS system is grossly misleading to say the least. Your interceptors do not travel at the speed of light! They are even slower than the incoming missiles and therefore are at a huge disadvantage if the trajectory of the incoming missile cannot be accuracy predicted.

take a look at the predator and prey problem and you will see how one missile can catch up to another. Now, consider that you send two predators up there and you know exactly where the prey is going. Now, consider that the predator only has to get to a spot close enough to the predator to knock it off the path. You will see exactly how two intercepting missiles can intercept even faster targets. Again, the AShM is always going to face a greater task at searching for the ship than the other way around.

Same with guns, you know exactly where the missile is going to. In short burst, it can fire off at rate 70 rounds/s and the muzzle velocity for these things reach mach 3 or mach 4 depending on the round being used. And when the rounds reach the approximate target, they can either seek for the target or disperse into many small fragments and cover great area. You form these walls in the approximate area where the target is coming in. Net result, target gets pierced.

[Roger604]

take a look at the predator and prey problem and you will see how one missile can catch up to another. Now, consider that you send two predators up there and you know exactly where the prey is going. Now, consider that the predator only has to get to a spot close enough to the predator to knock it off the path. You will see exactly how two intercepting missiles can intercept even faster targets. Again, the AShM is always going to face a greater task at searching for the ship than the other way around.

Well of course it's possible for two missiles to intercept a faster target! Your point about EW spoofing is particularly well taken.

That's all in the realm of reality. I merely pointed out that what is not in the realm of reality are certain "claims" that SeaRAM (or other systems) can reliably defeat with ease ("over 95%" success) every single incoming supersonic anti-ship missiles in a salvo attack, and render any attack futile.

The reality is that successful defense all depends on the relative maneuverability of the anti-ship missile and the interceptor -- their flight envelopes determine whether or not interception is possible. An anti-ship missile that is much faster and much more maneuverable than the interceptors will be VERY DANGEROUS to the target ship. It's entirely misleading to "forget" about this point and only bring up how fast the ship's radars can engage and track the incoming missile, since that's a given.

So I encourage fellow formites to take a more objective look at your claims and not exaggerate too much. It's not known publicly how maneuverable the standard and the RAM are relative to a supersonic anti-ship missile, so it's rather groundless to the point of exaggeration to claim that an AEGIS destroyer has a "near perfect" defense.

[Jeff Head]

Well of course it's possible for two missiles to intercept a faster target! Your point about EW spoofing is particularly well taken.

That's all in the realm of reality. I merely pointed out that what is not in the realm of reality are certain "claims" that SeaRAM (or other systems) can reliably defeat with ease ("over 95%" success) every single incoming supersonic anti-ship missiles in a salvo attack, and render any attack futile.

The reality is that successful defense all depends on the relative maneuverability of the anti-ship missile and the interceptor -- their flight envelopes determine whether or not interception is possible. An anti-ship missile that is much faster and much more maneuverable than the interceptors will be VERY DANGEROUS to the target ship. It's entirely misleading to "forget" about this point and only bring up how fast the ship's radars can engage and track the incoming missile, since that's a given.

So I encourage fellow formites to take a more objective look at your claims and not exaggerate too much. It's not known publicly how maneuverable the standard and the RAM are relative to a supersonic anti-ship missile, so it's rather groundless to the point of exaggeration to claim that an AEGIS destroyer has a "near perfect" defense.You fail to realize that the attackers, in an attack of say, 50 missiles against a carrier battle group, would settle for a 95% rate...which would mean 2-3 missiles get through to target.

In a cost benefit analysis, this would be wildly successful.

BTW, due to the operational testing that has gone on, and there is a lot of it like man overboard explained, it is in fact known what the manueverability and flight characteristics of the two engaging missiles are. They are tested, evaluated, and documented all the time.

That information is then put to good use improving the system.

It's not perfect. No one said it is. It is just very good.

I pray we never have to find if it is good enough.

[Kongo]

Roger doesn't quite seem to want to accept how good the RAM is. Originally the mode of operation was to launch 2 missiles per target, but performance was so good that now only 1 missile is to be assigned per target. So far it's around 180 trials with a 95% success rate. Around 90% of which were skin-to-skin hits even though it's not a system designed for contact kill as the kill mechanism. Trials which included supersonic (mach 2.5), sea skimming and violently maneuvering Vandal targets. Scenarios included stream attacks as well. During techeval it scored a perfect 11 out of 11 kills. The reality is that RAM has performance which is proven, with actual intercepts against targets designed to emulate the supersonic systems Roger holds in awe. In some ways those targets even exceed the performance of those missiles they are to emulate. And supersonic missiles are not very maneuverable at all. Because they are so big and fast, all they manage are gentle curves unlike the more abrupt maneuvering that smaller subsonic missiles can afford. In any case, for supersonic missiles, trying to maneuver is actually defeating the purpose of their speed in the first place.

Let me clarify something about RAM. It has two modes, IR only, which is IR all the way, and IR Dual Mode, which is passive RF leading to IR on the later stage. It has no Passive RF all the way.

It has. That particular mode was demonstrated during Techeval.

[IDonT]

Here are some of Aegis intercepts that the USN has conducted. There are 42 videos that include ballistic missile intercepts, simultaneous ballistic missile and cruise missile intercepts, multiple ballistic missile intercepts, and even some that involves the Japanese Kongo destroyers.

The US systems are continously proven in near real life scenarios.

http://www.youtube.com/profile_videos?user=AegisBMD&p=r

[lilzz]

. Trials which included supersonic (mach 2.5), sea skimming and violently maneuvering Vandal targets. .

Mach 2.5 is low end spectrum of supersonic, the thread is about hypersonic, mach5 or above.

[Kongo]

the thread is about hypersonic, mach5 or above

There is no hypersonic sea skimming anti-ship missile, and there might never be one. But there is hypersonic high diving missiles. The Kh-22 and the generic short range ballistic missiles are some of them. To emulate the high diving Kh-22, the AQM-37 is used, reaching speeds of around mach 4. These are old school threats that is exactly what AEGIS was designed to handle and it handles them exceedingly well. Higher speed hypersonic ballistic missiles have been intercepted, one just recently. Check out the link Idont provided, look specifically for FTM-14.

[lilzz]

The Kh-22 and the generic short range ballistic missiles are some of them. To emulate the high diving Kh-22, the AQM-37 is used, reaching speeds of around mach 4. These are old school threats that is exactly what AEGIS was designed to handle and it handles them exceedingly well. Higher speed hypersonic ballistic missiles have been intercepted, one just recently. Check out the link Idont provided, look specifically for FTM-14.

Those missile have sensors to detect incoming interceptor missile and take evasive actions like I described in this thread? Porbably Not.

FOr BMD the operator mentions the operation will take 166 seconds. almost 3 minutes. It's like an eternity for awaring target missile to take corrective action.
See how the SM-2 has to steady itself during terminal phase by shooting 4 steams of exhaust out to balance itself in the space.

Well, during this delicate, very slow juggling maneuvor by SM-2, the target missile can take sudden actions and acclerating away.

This type of BMD is excellent tool against obsolete parts like Taepondong-2.

[Jeff Head]

Well, during this delicate, very slow juggling maneuvor by SM-2, the target missile can take sudden actions and acclerating away.

This type of BMD is excellent tool against obsolete parts like Taepondong-2.If the potentially aggressive missiles have such counter measure sensors, and have been in the field for any length of time, it is likely that the US NAvy is practising and training against similarly configured attack profiles.

In addition, any "sudden" movement by a hypersonic missile is apt to destroy it if it is truly "sudden". If it is less extreme (which is has to be at those speeds), then even a small move, at those speeds, will throw it off course enough, that not many of them would defeat its purpose in any case.

Finally, the attacking missile, short of data link from an observing platform of some type (which if it were that close to a carrier stirke group would probably be splashed anyway), is not going to be able to house a very large or powerful counter sensor for oncoming missiles in the type of ECM environment it will be flying into once an oncoming threat is observed by a US group.

Not saying it cannot have a decent sensor, just that in the proximity of the much, much more powerful sensors on the vessels being attacked, it is likely that the effectiveness of that sensor is going to be seriously retarded.

[IDonT]

Those missile have sensors to detect incoming interceptor missile and take evasive actions like I described in this thread? Porbably Not.

FOr BMD the operator mentions the operation will take 166 seconds. almost 3 minutes. It's like an eternity for awaring target missile to take corrective action.
See how the SM-2 has to steady itself during terminal phase by shooting 4 steams of exhaust out to balance itself in the space.

Well, during this delicate, very slow juggling maneuvor by SM-2, the target missile can take sudden actions and acclerating away.

This type of BMD is excellent tool against obsolete parts like Taepondong-2.

Can you tell me the name of the missile that does all the things that you claim it to do? (Hyper-sonic sea skimming, extremely manueverable, with RWR to enable it to detect the radar signiture of an interceptor missile)

If I'm not mistaken, this missile does not exist...yet. So why are comparing current level US technology with something imaginary? By the time such missiles are in operation, the current crop of interceptor missiles would be replaced by directed energy weapons. (yes they are still in development stage)

[lilzz]

Can you tell me the name of the missile that does all the things that you claim it to do? (Hyper-sonic sea skimming, extremely manueverable, with RWR to enable it to detect the radar signiture of an interceptor missile)

If I'm not mistaken, this missile does not exist...yet.)

No I didn't claim that like highly manueveable, and sea skimming.
I just propose a high attitude flying hypersonic missile capable of accleration with onboard radar and IR sensor to detect incoming interceptor.

On it's terminal phase, it will execute gravity acceleration. therefore it wouldn't slow down when drop to low attitude.

It's within today's technology.

[Roger604]

Roger doesn't quite seem to want to accept how good the RAM is. Originally the mode of operation was to launch 2 missiles per target, but performance was so good that now only 1 missile is to be assigned per target. So far it's around 180 trials with a 95% success rate. Around 90% of which were skin-to-skin hits even though it's not a system designed for contact kill as the kill mechanism. Trials which included supersonic (mach 2.5), sea skimming and violently maneuvering Vandal targets. Scenarios included stream attacks as well. During techeval it scored a perfect 11 out of 11 kills. The reality is that RAM has performance which is proven, with actual intercepts against targets designed to emulate the supersonic systems Roger holds in awe. In some ways those targets even exceed the performance of those missiles they are to emulate. And supersonic missiles are not very maneuverable at all. Because they are so big and fast, all they manage are gentle curves unlike the more abrupt maneuvering that smaller subsonic missiles can afford. In any case, for supersonic missiles, trying to maneuver is actually defeating the purpose of their speed in the first place.

(Yawn) Please provide some links for these claims, particularly the claim that the supersonic targets engaged in randomized flight maneuvers. And do please continue to believe what the defense industry claims about its products in techevals. And certainly do believe their estimated price tag too.

Here are some of Aegis intercepts that the USN has conducted. There are 42 videos that include ballistic missile intercepts, simultaneous ballistic missile and cruise missile intercepts, multiple ballistic missile intercepts, and even some that involves the Japanese Kongo destroyers.

The US systems are continously proven in near real life scenarios.

http://www.youtube.com/profile_videos?user=AegisBMD&p=r

If you care to read this thread for the past few pages, you would see that we're discussing maneuverable anti-ship missiles.

It's not nearly so impressive to intercept an object that flies in a predictable trajectory, even if it is extremely fast. Even China can intercept ~mach 10 objects in space!

But to be able to intercept a supersonic missile flying an unpredictable path? That's a much higher level of technology that nobody has mastered.

[Kongo]

From your reaction, it is clear that there is simply no point in providing any source, since you'd just dismiss them out of hand. But I'll try. The info came mainly from "Stopping power - RAM goes head on with new threats", Jane's Navy International, Feb 2008. And no, TechEvals and OpEvals are not conducted by defense contractors, but the USN. So the results cannot be manipulated by the contractors. If you want to cast doubt, please try to be credible by showing that you are clear on the facts involved.

But to be able to intercept a supersonic missile flying an unpredictable path?

Done with regularity against Vandal targets. Closing your eyes and wishing facts away doesn't change anything. A skin-to-skin contact isn't needed. That's why warheads are placed on missiles. A bigger warhead means a larger kill radius, which allows for a greater miss distance.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_pnav/is_200207/ai_3738778026

"The following day, Lassen also participated in two vandal exercises (VANDALEX) involving missile launches. The exercise is designed for ships to intercept hostile missiles with their own missiles. In both exercises, shore launched, remote-controlled drones were used to simulate the hostile missiles. One of the drones closed in on the ship at a speed of Mach 2.1 (approximately 1,500 miles per hour) grazing 50 feet above the ocean's surface. Lassen's SM-2 surface-to-air standard missile successfully intercepted the drone six miles from the ship."

[IDonT]

If you care to read this thread for the past few pages, you would see that we're discussing maneuverable anti-ship missiles.



If you cared to watch all the videos then you would see that part of that exercise involves maneuvering anti-ship missiles. In particular one video shows an Aegis cruiser simulating shooting down a cruise missile and a ballistic missile at the SAME time. Then an actual shooting of 2 cruise missiles and 2 more with jammers.

It's not nearly so impressive to intercept an object that flies in a predictable trajectory, even if it is extremely fast. Even China can intercept ~mach 10 objects in space!


A satellite flies in a predictable trajectory. A ballistic missile is only predictable if you know where it is aimed at. If shooting down ballistic missiles were so simple, how come Russia or China has not shown such weapon systems.

[man overbored]

Please, RAM is not a CIWS. A CIWS is a gattling gun. RAM is a point defense missile.

The one point you simply fail to understand is that a fast moving missile can easily maneuver outside of the envelope of an intercepting missile like a standard or ram. A sudden pitch, for example, will put the faster missile beyond the reach of the slow missile -- EVEN IF THE SLOW MISSILE TRIES TO PITCH TOO SIMPLY BECAUSE THE FASTER MISSILE TRAVELS FURTHER!

Your explanation of the AEGIS system is grossly misleading to say the least. Your interceptors do not travel at the speed of light! They are even slower than the incoming missiles and therefore are at a huge disadvantage if the trajectory of the incoming missile cannot be accuracy predicted.

No, Standard, ESSM and RAM are faster than known anti-ship missiles, Standard significantly so. Standards successfully shoot down Mach 2.8 Coyote targets in fleet exercises. Standard practice ( no pun intended ) is to use two Standards per incoming missile. The targets emit the exact same emissions as the threat systems, have special coatings applied ( can't say much more ) that gives them the RCS of the threat, their AFCS is programmed to fly the same flight profile as the threat system, complete with corkscrews and terminal dives. Standard is excellent in actual use, so is RAM.
To answer one comment, RAM does not rely on any shipboard system. It is possible to cue it from the Mk-23 TAS but this is not necessary. The missile tube cap is popped off and from that point on the missile's own seeker can detect the target and manage it's intercept autonomously. Recall what I said eariler, RAM like other IR missiles flies to it's target using proportional navigation, trying to maintain a constant angle between it and the target. If you look at RAM Block 2 is has a larger rocket motor for greater acceleration and range, and now used four canards to steer ( requiring more control actuators and thus adding weight and complexity ) to increase control authority, plus it is unclear if an IIR seeker has been fitted.
Standard would deal with the great majority of a massed missile attack. You all forget that RAM and CIWS are the final lines of defense. Standard and ESSM would attrite most of this notional massed missile attack well beyond the range of RAM. RAM would take care of the few leakers left over. In real life, the carrier's air wing will shoot down a very large proportion of the missile shooters long before they reach missile launch points, and Standard would engage them out at it's maximum range. A notional Flanker armed with 3M80 still has to come inside the hemisphere of Standard coverage to get at the carrier, since the Standard equipped escorts screen the carrier from well over the horizon from the carrier. When you have weapons with ranges exceeding 50 miles there is no need to group the escorts close to the carrier as in WWII. In actual practice the carrier doesn't see all of her escorts most of the time, but they are out there.
Ah ballistic missiles. The SM-3 is the version of Standard that uses thrust vectoring to maneuver the kill vehicle. Other versions of Standard do not do this. They have large blast fragmentation warheads so close is actually very good indeed. SM-3 requires a direct hit on the target. It uses IR terminal guidance since fast moving missiles, even in space, are very hot objects and thus more easily tracked this way. The impact point of a ballistic missile can be calculated accurately in seconds after being acquired by the Aegis radar. They are very predictable in flight actually. A maneuverable warhead so far has not materialized. The upcoming technology is to use multiple kill vehicles per missile to deal with mass ballistic missile attacks.

Here is an interesting article on Standard SM2 and SM3, discussing the possible use of SM2 against ballistic missiles entering the atmosphere. It discusses the degree of maneuverability of Standard against sea skimming missiles and the USN's outstanding battle management expertise. I will quote one paragraph before posting the link:

"The captain points out that after years of facing numerous antiship cruise missile threats, the Navy has honed its battle management/command, control, communications, computer, intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (BM/C4ISR) to state-of-the-art technologies and skills. Forced into developing expertise to handle simultaneous missile and aircraft combat operations within a given battlespace, the Navy perfected an early warning and simultaneous target engagement capability. Salient real-time Navy planning functions also are available to meet U.S. ballistic missile defense requirements, he emphasizes."

http://www.afcea.org/signal/articles/templates/SIGNAL_Article_Template.asp?articleid=355&zoneid=6

If the USN thinks Standard SM2 has the energy to take out a ballistic missile warhead consider then how high it's performance must be. SM2 is the anti-aircraft version, not the BDM version.

[Roger604]

"The following day, Lassen also participated in two vandal exercises (VANDALEX) involving missile launches. The exercise is designed for ships to intercept hostile missiles with their own missiles. In both exercises, shore launched, remote-controlled drones were used to simulate the hostile missiles. One of the drones closed in on the ship at a speed of Mach 2.1 (approximately 1,500 miles per hour) grazing 50 feet above the ocean's surface. Lassen's SM-2 surface-to-air standard missile successfully intercepted the drone six miles from the ship."

:rofl:That's your "source"??

It just says that some drones were launched at the ship and shot down. How can you possibly claim that these drones engaged in randomized evasive maneuvers? The article certainly doesn't! :rofl:

Please... do try to get a clear idea of what we're talking about before making some silly, exaggerated claims.

If you cared to watch all the videos then you would see that part of that exercise involves maneuvering anti-ship missiles. In particular one video shows an Aegis cruiser simulating shooting down a cruise missile and a ballistic missile at the SAME time. Then an actual shooting of 2 cruise missiles and 2 more with jammers.

See my comment to Kongo above.

Your videos show some successful interceptions of missiles with predictable targets. NONE show anything remotely resembling an interception of a supersonic missile doing a randomized evasive maneuver.

You show me actual video footage of a supersonic missile doing a randomized evasive maneuver -- and a standard or ram or ciws intercepting it -- and I'll concede the argument to you.

Otherwise, please refrain from making claims that YOUR OWN VIDEOS don't back up! :D

A satellite flies in a predictable trajectory. A ballistic missile is only predictable if you know where it is aimed at. If shooting down ballistic missiles were so simple, how come Russia or China has not shown such weapon systems.

A ballistic trajectory is simple physics... like how artillery can figure out where their shells will land when they fire something into the air.

You need to have good radar systems to acquire and track the ballistic missile, and then you'll know the exact trajectory it will take and calculate an interception point. This is not the case for a maneuvering target.

The targets emit the exact same emissions as the threat systems, have special coatings applied ( can't say much more ) that gives them the RCS of the threat, their AFCS is programmed to fly the same flight profile as the threat system, complete with corkscrews and terminal dives.

Go ahead and show me an actual video of a supersonic missile doing random evasive maneuvers, and the interceptor tracking it, following its movements and finally hitting it.

Here is an interesting article on Standard SM2 and SM3, discussing the possible use of SM2 against ballistic missiles entering the atmosphere. It discusses the degree of maneuverability of Standard against sea skimming missiles and the USN's outstanding battle management expertise. I will quote one paragraph before posting the link:

LOL. This article says nothing about degree of maneuverability of standard!

It says, "This two-stage SM-2 Block IV, for use against highly evasive aircraft and cruise missile targets, is in development and low-rate production, with limited but growing deployment at sea."

Which obviously means that the current blocks of standards out there can't capable of intercepting evasive missile! My point is proven perfectly. Even the navy itself, once you get past all the bravado and exaggerations that seem pretty typical of these types of people... recognizes that its defenses have a glaring weakness.

[Kongo]

Roger, are you being deliberately daft? The source for shooting down of manoevering targets is from ""Stopping power - RAM goes head on with new threats", Jane's Navy International, Feb 2008". The Lassen shootdown is just proof that supersonic missiles can be engaged. You want to see sea skimming supersonic and manoevering targets engaged?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o1qzrj5oT-Q

But I know where you will go with this. Even when given video proof, you will then accuse the target of not engaging in 'randomised' manoever, so you will demand us to give you the software and hardware circuitary as 'proof'. Your way is to ask for proof way beyond what anybody can reasonably give, and far beyond the level of proof that's commonly accepted on this board with respect to Chinese systems. If that's how you want to play it, fine, do feel free to carry on believing that supersonic weapons are invincible. Even China must be stupid for getting more subsonic missiles that can be shot down and forsaking supersonic antiship missiles when supersonic missiles are so invincible.

[Pointblank]

Go ahead and show me an actual video of a supersonic missile doing random evasive maneuvers, and the interceptor tracking it, following its movements and finally hitting it.

One acryoynm for you: OPSEC.



LOL. This article says nothing about degree of maneuverability of standard!

It says, "This two-stage SM-2 Block IV, for use against highly evasive aircraft and cruise missile targets, is in development and low-rate production, with limited but growing deployment at sea."

Which obviously means that the current blocks of standards out there can't capable of intercepting evasive missile! My point is proven perfectly. Even the navy itself, once you get past all the bravado and exaggerations that seem pretty typical of these types of people... recognizes that its defenses have a glaring weakness.
Block IV was deployed in 1999 FYI... the article is a little dated by around 6 years.

And I suggest you cool it; you are on the verge of flaming.

[Roger604]

ou want to see sea skimming supersonic and manoevering targets engaged?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o1qzrj5oT-Q

Taking a look at the video, the final approaches to the testing ships are all pretty much straight flying approaches.

Take a look at time signature 3:16 to 3:22 -- as the subsonic missile is launched, it goes through some maneuvers hundreds of miles away from the ship and then goes low to sea skimming altitude. But the final approach is straight toward the ship.

The video 3:29-3:32 shows a successful intercept for that missile (because it came close enough to destroy it with a proximity blast), but the video shows that the missile was actually traveling straight when the intercept occurred!

The next tests were supersonic missiles traveling in a sea skimming and high dive profile. I never disputed that an AEGIS ship is capable of intercepting these kinds of threats, since even the illustration in the video (3:49 to 3:52) shows that they were traveling straight toward the ship.

The only test that comes close to appearing to be a maneuvering, supersonic target missile is the one that appears at time signature 4:22.

The narrator says that the targets were two supersonic missiles executing a 10G weave. But taking a look at time signature 4:22, it's clear that between each "turn" the missiles actually travel straight for more than a hundred miles! Each lateral movement between turns is as long as the length of Santa Cruz Island depicted in the video!

I don't believe it is outside the capability of ESSM to engage a supersonic missile as it is traveling laterally (from the perspective of the ship) in a straight line for more than a hundred miles. But it's a totally different story to find a video of ESSM (or RAM or standard) that's rolling and maneuvering along with the target missile as it's in the middle of executing high G maneuvers.

But maybe that's the strength of the ESSM (and other missiles) -- they are relatively weak at interception when the target is the middle of a high G maneuver, but they will catch the target when it is traveling in a straight line!

[Pointblank]

Taking a look at the video, the final approaches to the testing ships are all pretty much straight flying approaches.

That's because if the missile is making its final approach, it HAS to fly straight at the target otherwise it would loose its lock and would miss...

[Kongo]

The narrator says that the targets were two supersonic missiles executing a 10G weave. But taki