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."
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.
