Issues on Intercepting Hypersonic Missile.

[IronsightSniper]

But that leads me to a question, if Brahmost happens to be deployed against a Type 052C, are they going to just shoot HQ-9s at it? Type 730s aren't going to be very effective against Supersonic seaskimmers anyways.

 

[Roger604]

Of course Type 730 CIWS can defend against supersonic sea skimmers. It has a high rate of fire just like the Phalanx and Goalkeeper. The FL-3000N should be even more effective however.

Ultimately, the bottom line is that Type 052C of course can defend against supersonic ASM. It can defend against even a large salvo of them. But there is no adversary that can launch a supersonic ASM in enough numbers to threaten PLAN other than USA.

 

[IronsightSniper]

Here's a post I made on another forum in regards to CIWS v.s. Supersonic seaskimmers:

So, I was reading a Raytheon brochure about the Phalanx today, and I noticed this:

[/IMG]

A couple things to notice. The first is that the Phalanx in question is engaging a MQM-Vandal drone which is a variant of the RIM-8 Talos. Next, the drone was about 17,500 ft(5,300 m) in altitude, coming down at an angle of 30 degrees which gave it a velocity of about Mach 2.4 or 815 meters per second. Next, the drone was engaged(detected) at about 25,000 feet(7.6 km), the Phalanx opened fire at about 10,000 feet(3 km) and the target was destroyed at about 3,000 feet(900 meters).

So, accordingly, here is the fact advertised by Raytheon in their brochure: Phalanx destroyed a super sonic high-g maneuvering missile.

Now, if you were Zyvexal or me and found that from forums discussing the effectiveness of the 3M80 Moskit(SS-N-22 Sunburn) against AEGIS equipped CBG's, you might have thought that Raytheon meant, "Moskit", when they said, "high- g maneuvering missile". This, is simply untrue. The drone that was used in that test is not a sea-skimmer, and is only a diver. Diving AShMs are less effective against Ships in that they would be easily detectable from their altitude.

You can easily see that fact in the picture I have provided. The Phalanx was only able to detect a missile comparable in size to the Moskit from about 7.6 km away while the target was at 5.3 km up, which anybody who knows a tit about radars will tell you that a target that is 5.3 km up is easier to track than a sea-skimmer. The Moskit travels at around 5 meters(15 feet) to 20 meters(60 feet) above sea level, which will severely hinder any Radar's ability to detect it(the reason why we flew Apaches at low-level to first strike Iraqi radars during the Gulf wars).

Next, the MGM-8 Vandal was only able to achieve Mach 2.4 speeds while diving. It's quite obvious that angle of attack would provide extra velocity for penetration, however, the Moskit travels around Mach 2.2-2.5 while at it's sea-skimmer mode. The Anti-radiation missile mode of the Moskit goes to high altitude where it cruises at Mach 3, and it's closing velocity is unknown, but as you can expect, it would be augmented by a 30 degree dive.

Finally, the Moskit is a high-g maneuvering missile. I suspect that it has thrust-vectoring engines to provide for it's zig-zag terminal motion. This will also hinder the Phalanx's ability to intercept it. A missile going straight is only worst when you do not know where it will hit.

So, when it all adds up, one can conclude that a Moskit has a fair-excellent chance of penetrating AEGIS(at least the Gun part of it). Improved American CIWS like the Evolved Sea Sparrow would diminish the Moskit's lone effectiveness, but this can be solved with it's salvo-fired technique or newer missiles like the faster and smaller 3M-54 Kub.

If you do not believe me, reread this post again, Phalanx engaged a high altitude diving target from 7.6 km away and ended with a kill at 0.9 km away. The Moskit is not a high diving missile. It's advanced capabilities will yield a very close RF track from the Phalanx, which when all added up, will culminate to a very close-range kill of the Moskit or kill of the ship.

Gun-based CIWS will all fail, Russian, Chinese, American, against anything moving at Mach 2 at 10 meters altitude or lower.

 

[ZTZ99]

The capabilities of the Type 052C is ample evidence. For example, did you know it uses AESA radars more advanced than Arleigh Burke's PESA SPY-1?

You personally don't know the capabilities of the Type 052C and therefore have no evidence to offer, much less sufficient evidence to throw out a ridiculous number like "40". Even if the Type 052C is equipped with AESA, this means nothing. Actually it means less than nothing because it leads people who are susceptibel to wishful thinking into making silly conclusions. The real strength of the SPY-1 is not the radar itself but the software behind it (AEGIS) as well as the CEC that uses Link 13 to datalink the entire fleet together into one single complete sensor and weapon. You seem to confuse SPY-1 with AEGIS, especially in some of your other posts. You have no idea whether Type 052C's radar is actually even AESA rather than PESA. This is just a claim made by people on the internet. Even if it is AESA, you have no idea whether the radar is backed up by an AEGIS-like combat data system. Everything we know about it is just speculation. You have no idea whether the PLAN has anything like CEC software. Even if you knew the PLAN had both AEGIS and CEC-like capabilities, you have no idea what the actual capabilities of AEGIS and CEC are. Despite all this lack of knowledge, you somehow still managed to come up with "40". That's amazing.

 

[PanAsian]

I think this is the proper existing thread to make this post but moderators please correct me if I am wrong.

Does anyone have any insight into how China's Type 730, AK630, or RAM might fare as defense against JDAMs, Tomahawks, various Standard missiles, or Taiwan's Hsiung Feng?

As an educated guess would it be similar to how the Chinese weapons' Western and Russian counterparts performed in various conflicts?

 

[harishkumar09]

What is the effectiveness of a SeaRAM or its Chinese equivalents against 40 Brahmos class missiles interweaving and doing S-maneuvers in their terminal approach. Will the RAMs be able to maintain their IR-lock when missiles cross each others path when they interweave?

 

[harishkumar09]

The capabilities of the Type 052C is ample evidence. For example, did you know it uses AESA radars more advanced than Arleigh Burke's PESA SPY-1?


Russian controls the ramjet technology to Brahmos and hasn't agreed to share it. I doubt India will be doing any development on its own other than tagging along with Russia and trying to learn something along the way.

I really don't believe India got nothing out of it. If we weren't going to get anything we could have simply purchased the Yakhonts or Oniks with the range shortened. I think some knowledge transfer might have happened. Russia might have benefited in using Indian money for some R&D to make missiles with better seekers than the Yakhont family. The seeker and software is Indian, and India might have learnt something from Russian seeker technology and Russia might have benefited from some new software. Since Russia is ahead of India in seeker and software for it, I guess they joined the consortium to do R&D using Indian money, and India might have got something in return as well.

As for Ramjet technology, the Akash SAM already uses it and the missile is almost identical to the one used on the Pechora. Ramjet is not very high-tech, its just a question of metallurgy and India has the knowledge base and manufacturing base to make a Ramjet Engine.

 

[IronsightSniper]

Actually, I think SeaRAMs are possibly the most effective anti-supersonic AShMs out there as of yet. I can't remember what type of IR array we have in our RIM-116s, but assuming it's anything like the ones we have on our AIM-9X, that means it'll give it a full 180 degree scan in azimuth, which would mean that if you want to escape being located by a SeaRAM, your maneuvering must be evasive (and I mean evasive). So yeah, my best guess would be that a SeaRAM would be able to catch up with a BrahMos.

40 BrahMos is a different problem however. At that point it'll all depend on how much SeaRAMs you have and how much time is left.

 

[harishkumar09]

Of course Type 730 CIWS can defend against supersonic sea skimmers. It has a high rate of fire just like the Phalanx and Goalkeeper. The FL-3000N should be even more effective however.

Ultimately, the bottom line is that Type 052C of course can defend against supersonic ASM. It can defend against even a large salvo of them. But there is no adversary that can launch a supersonic ASM in enough numbers to threaten PLAN other than USA.

Well, India will have enough Brahmos in a few years from now to do that.

Regarding Roger604 claim that AESA is better than PESA. I find a lot of people making that claim. Its wrong to presume that even in a one on one combat scenario, an AESA is going to give some advantage over PESA. PESA is good enough. It can time-share different modes while AESA allows spatial sharing and time-sharing as well. There are other variables as well, such as the discriminating capabilities of the software, the sophistication of algorithms which hand-over and prioritize targets, etc...

In all Indo-Pak wars, India had weapons which were a generation or even a couple of generations behind Pakistan's American equipment, but we handed them a resounding defeat each time. Tech is not everything. Tactics and coordination matter a lot.

I agree IR-seekers are now technologically mature and a SeaRAM will have no difficulty in intercepting a single brahmos, however violently it maneuvers. But with too many supersonic AShMs, then even with enough RAMs, it is going to be a problem. The best is to destroy the launch platform, or as he said deny targeting information.

 

[IronsightSniper]

Btw, ever thought of making a single large post? :V