Issues on Intercepting Hypersonic Missile.

Kongo said:

Your patience is admirable, but it is unadulterated ignorance you're dealing with. Roger demonstrably has no idea how missile interception works. He actually believes that interception ability is dependent on prior knowledge of what maneuvers the anti ship missile is to make! :rofl: How does one deal with such a level of ignorance?

Click to expand...

NO PERSONAL ATTACKS PLEASE- BIG BROTHER MODS ARE WATCHING YOU. Just some friendly advice.

And Roger please give it a rest.

Now continue with the discussion.

I tell you a story. When I graduated from Highschool, I had a pretty good GPA. around 3.95, I thought about maybe getting into US military, maybe Navy, So I applied. I also applied for normal college. Later I decided to go to normal university, but boy, those Navy recruiter were relentless. They came to my house number of times and explained the benefit joing the US armed forces. They were very aggressive tried to recruit me because my high GPA. I found later most students joined the armed forces had rather mediocre academics track record..That why they were so fanatic into my case.

Those armed service men has some experiences and have been indoctrinated to believe their systems are infallible. But they aren't the one designing the weapons, just operators. They R too gunkho into believing their invincible systems. patriotism at its finest

lilzz said:

I tell you a story. When I graduated from Highschool, I had a pretty good GPA. around 3.95, I thought about maybe getting into US military, maybe Navy, So I applied. I also applied for normal college. Later I decided to go to normal university, but boy, those Navy recruiter were relentless. They came to my house number of times and explained the benefit joing the US armed forces. They were very aggressive tried to recruit me because my high GPA. I found later most students joined the armed forces had rather mediocre academics track record..That why they were so fanatic into my case.

Those armed service men has some experiences and have been indoctrinated to believe their systems are infallible. But they aren't the one designing the weapons, just operators. They R too gunkho into believing their invincible systems. patriotism at its finest

Click to expand...

I also disagree about believing that systems are perfectly infallible, but its also both ends. Sooner or later, even T-rex meets its match and history has always shown what has been perceived as the invincible had also fallen.

Yet I must point out that you don't take this personally. This is a learning process and just because you don't get what you want, it means you don't get what you want. School is about hard knocks, acceptance of hard realities. You will be better in the long run if you accept this.

Looking at the arguments, I would say that "defense" here has strong iron clad arguments on their side. Even if uncertainty exists due to evasive movement, the probabilities are high for the defender's side, since all the computers need to do is cover all moves within the expected flight performance envelope. Even evasion has its limits, and that's with the flight performance envelope of the missile. The big ones like Moskit, would have more trouble than the little ones like Urans, but even then I would say the defenders are also trying to close the gap even on Harpoon class sea skimmers.

I am close to agreeing with Sea Dog here, that in fact, the traditional dominance of the conventional antiship missile, whether its supersonic or subsonic sea skimmer, is seriously threatened.

If you like to know what is in the future, I'm surprised that you don't see the answer staring at you right in the face. Its smaller, with much smaller RCS, much faster, and a ship can carry huge loads of them, 32, 48, 64, or even more right to the low hundred. Compared to 8 AshMs and 16 at best.

That's right, turn the same SAMs used for missile interception to a ship mission killer. They won't sink a ship, but if you get one to hit another ship, it means serious damage with disablement and the ship won't carry out its mission. The future looks to a joint or unified missile that will serve both interceptor and antiship purposes into one.

BTW. There is also no excuse in branding people in one general term because both stupid _and_ smart exists in any military. This is not acceptable behavior. No matter what, you have to respect people, especially people who have seen service.

NO PERSONAL ATTACKS PLEASE- BIG BROTHER MODS ARE WATCHING YOU. Just some friendly advice. One more time and you are getting an official warning.

lilzz said:

I tell you a story. When I graduated from Highschool, I had a pretty good GPA. around 3.95, I thought about maybe getting into US military, maybe Navy, So I applied. I also applied for normal college. Later I decided to go to normal university, but boy, those Navy recruiter were relentless. They came to my house number of times and explained the benefit joing the US armed forces. They were very aggressive tried to recruit me because my high GPA. I found later most students joined the armed forces had rather mediocre academics track record..That why they were so fanatic into my case.

Those armed service men has some experiences and have been indoctrinated to believe their systems are infallible. But they aren't the one designing the weapons, just operators. They R too gunkho into believing their invincible systems. patriotism at its finest

Click to expand...

So, you take you own experience, make a judgement about it and then extrapolate that out to fit the entire military?

Sorry, but that is terribly flawed thinking. The US military is filled with volunteers, but they are not at all, or any large majority of them medicore or low in intelligence as your post implies.

There are plenty of VERY smart and intelligent people in the US Military, both with high GPAs from high school and those who did not necessarily pass that muster...but who pass muster in different ways.

A high High School GPA, or even one from college does not promise intelligence or smarts. It says an individual was good at correlating information to questions and getting them right., and perhaps (I say perhaps because the US public school system has been severely limited by social engineering that boils the education down to the lowest common denominator in many cases) that the person has a strong sense of dedication and achievement

But, there is a whole lot more to true smarts, and particularly to true wisdom than that. Those other qualities are equally important.

When it comes to the recruitment of high GPAs, the military academies are full of those.

Anyhow, my point is simply this, and it is free advise so you are certainly free to do whatever you want with it, but be careful about taking a perceived data point and extrapolating it too widely.

I wouldn't say dedicated anti-ship missiles are dead in the water, but the multi-purpose SAM/anti-ship missile could effectively serve a complementary role with them, especially for anti-defense work.

That's how the US industrial-military complex works. It try absorb the best technical talents into designing the weapons on the industrial side, and alot of of those engineers are ethnic minoritites. And then have the FBI to watch them like a hawk, cases like Mak chi, Wen chen Ho, Gowadia..

My personal feeling is academic success is not really due to smartness but dedication and most importantly concentration and peace of mind..
My personal experiences and also from others feel military areas are too racist for ethnic minorities (non-black, non-hispanic)and definitely can hamper and disturb the peace of mind necessary for the concentration for study.

So it's not about smartness & dumb in military, it just doesn't have the right type atmosphere for alot of the minorities(non-black, non-hispanic). People said they face discrimination in normal society, maybe 2x or more in miliatary areas. anyway, that's how some of us minorities perceive the US military areas.

Its too bad that you feel that way. I think that no sector of American society can truly be free from racism and never will. But as an institution, there are relatively more minorities in the US military than the proportion of minorities in the US civilian society. Its easy for immigrants for example to enter the military since it does not require a green card. I don't think its possible to erase racism and prejudice, but the US military is more rainbow across the board than any institution I know. Look at the generals, you see famous names like Colin Powell and Eric Shinseki that are minorities. Remember the three star general that did the Abu Garaib investigation? He's an ethnic Filipino. You might like to compare how the upward progression (promotion) of minorities in the US military vs. let's say in US corporations.

If you really like to talk more about this issue, and from someone with a first hand experience, talk to one of our mods here. He's both in the US military and a minority.

crobato said:

Looking at the arguments, I would say that "defense" here has strong iron clad arguments on their side. Even if uncertainty exists due to evasive movement, the probabilities are high for the defender's side, since all the computers need to do is cover all moves within the expected flight performance envelope. Even evasion has its limits, and that's with the flight performance envelope of the missile. The big ones like Moskit, would have more trouble than the little ones like Urans, but even then I would say the defenders are also trying to close the gap even on Harpoon class sea skimmers.

I am close to agreeing with Sea Dog here, that in fact, the traditional dominance of the conventional antiship missile, whether its supersonic or subsonic sea skimmer, is seriously threatened.

Click to expand...

I don't doubt that if you fire 5 or more intercepting missiles at one incoming anti-ship missile (a good one one like the maneuverable sea skimmers), you will very likely cover all moves within the performance envelope, but this depletes the ship's munitions significantly.

An AB, for example, has about 90 interceptor missiles. That means it can take on about 18 incoming missiles before it runs out. This is within the capabilities of, for example, the PLAAF and the PLAN.

Extending this to a squadron of AB's. You need to generate a salvo of 72 missiles to defeat it. This is doable by 12 H-6K's, for example.


Also, let's not forget that in the past 100 years, relatively simple but reliable weapons have proven superior in practice over reliance on technology fads. Experience shows that when a fresh technology is put to actual combat for the first time, things are never as they planned. There is always a big discount in combat effectiveness between real life and controlled testing conditions.

That's why reliable anti-ship missiles, I think, will still prevail over even the most highly touted ship missile defense systems. Just one glitch in the system (and you can bet there will be) and disaster strikes.

Where do you get the certainty from that one needs 5+ SAMs to intercept a modern AShM? Do you have any empirical/ mathematical data to say so, or do you believe that's what it'll take?
Modern AShM are complex either, how can you say there won't be failures, too.
Furthermore, aditionally to the 90 SM-2 / ESSM, a AB also carries 42 RAMs I think, 5" gun rounds and several thousand (?) 20mm rounds for the CIWS.

To launch those missiles, you must also take into consideration that the launch platforms must come into range, wich is something that hasn't even been really discussed yet.

I also wouldn't say that hich tech was generally less succesfull in the past then lower tech. Desert Storm is, IMO, an outstanding example to the contrary.

Roger604 said:

Also, let's not forget that in the past 100 years, relatively simple but reliable weapons have proven superior in practice over reliance on technology fads. Experience shows that when a fresh technology is put to actual combat for the first time, things are never as they planned. There is always a big discount in combat effectiveness between real life and controlled testing conditions.

Click to expand...

Those instances are exceptions to the rule. Almost all of the time the one with the technology fad wins.

Where did you get your "it takes 5 missile to take out 1 anti-ship missile?" I want actual hard proof of a modern SAM system missing one sea skimmer with 4 missiles and hitting it with a 5th.

For your Burke calculation, did you factor in jamming, decoys, and other soft kill systems. In actual combat, decoys and other soft kill systems have defeated more anti-ship missiles than actual intercepts.