Issues on Intercepting Hypersonic Missile.

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!

Click to expand...

I really wouldn't believe anyone's so stupid as to take the drawing literally and to scale... Roger, you never fail to impress. Go on, try your best to deny what everyone's pointed out so clearly. I wish you good luck. Over and out.

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...

Click to expand...

Thanks for pointing out what's painfully obvious to everyone but Roger.

Roger604 said:

: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.



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!



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.



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.



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.

Click to expand...

Roger, I work on these things for a living. I know target drones. The videos you wish to see are not for public release. A BQM-74E can be programmed to fly exactly like an MM-38,39 or 40, C-801/802, Otomat and the subsonic 3M54E1 "Tomahawkski". There are ways to make the drone emit what each of these missile's seekers will emit and there are ways to change the drone's RCS to mimick that of the threat system we are simulating. The drone flies the same sort of profile the threat system flies, including the the various spirals and terminal dives. The Fire Control Tech on the ship sees something coming at his or her ship that appears to them to be the read deal. These drones cost a third of a million bucks a pop and are re-used several times in many cases. As long as the center section survives the engagement the drone can be rebuilt.
Coyote flies the same profile as 3M80. Before Coyote we used converted Talos missiles. The warhead and guidance sections were removed and replaced with a new programmable autopilot and scoring equipment. This is what is called a "Vandal". When these were expended we used Kh-31's bought from Russia while Coyote was developed. In actual use, the Russian missile was junk. It never met it's advertised performance and the Russians refused to consider five modifications suggested after a study of the missile's shortcomings by Boeing. Coyote is a actually lower and faster flying than 3M80 or Kh-31 ever will be because the Russian altitude hold system is complete kludge.
Here is something everyone is missing. A subsonic missile can fly lower to the sea surface, has a far smaller radar cross section, much lower IR signature and can perform more violent maneuvers than the supersonic missiles. Modern subsonic sea skimmers like Exocet and Harpoon cruise at an altitude of two meters over the water. These are actually much harder to shoot down than the supersonic missiles. Counterintuitive but true. 3M80 and Kh-31 fly at 10 to 15 meters. They are no where near as maneuverable as a Harpoon or similar missile. Worse still, since they fly high they are much more easily detected on radar, and their IR signature is significantly higher than a subsonic missile. When a supersonic missile is decoyed it does not have the fuel or maneuverability to come around and re-attack. SLAM-ER and Harpoon Block 3 are specifically designed to reattack if they are decoyed off target on the first run.
There is a good reason the USN, after experimenting with a high supersonic missile back in the 1970's the USN chose to go with Harpoon and TASM instead. We had the rough equivalent of a 3M80 before the Soviets fielded 3M80, tested it, and abandoned the idea in favor of slower and lower flying more maneuverable missiles.



One last thing. No current missile makes "random evasive maneuvers". There are no current missiles that can sense an incoming missile aimed to shoot them down. What some missiles can do I believe is to use a variation of Crosseye ( I say believe because who does what in this regard is classified ) to spoof a continuous wave fire control radar by reflecting part of the ew signal off of the sea surface in a way that disrupts the phase relationships CW radars use, but this can only be done by the real low fliers, not the higher flying supersonic missiles and not on rough sea surfaces. This EW tactic is not effective against an IR or passive RF seeker at all or one with an active seeker. The terminal maneuvers, the spirals and dives, are pre-programmed into the missile before it is launched. At a certain distance from the target it starts it's dance. After enough observation of these systems in exercises ( the reason the EP-3 exists ) we pretty well know all the dance moves of each system. Drones reproduce these moves for our FC's to shoot at. Our folks are real good at nailing these things. Believe it.

^ I'm glad to see you know what you're talking about.... unlike other folks who obviously never heard of "violent endgame maneuvers".

Anyway, what happens if new endgame maneuvers are programmed into the missile right before an attack? They you can't rely on the drills you talk about where the coyotes and vandals are preprogrammed and their "dance moves" assumed to be known.

man overbored said:

These drones cost a third of a million bucks a pop and are re-used several times in many cases. As long as the center section survives the engagement the drone can be rebuilt.

Click to expand...

I'm curious as to how these drones are retrieved? Are they programmed to make a "soft landing" at sea or ?

man overbored said:

Roger, I work on these things for a living. I know target drones. The videos you wish to see are not for public release.

Click to expand...

Here's a great video that was released publically about the recent intercept by the Navy of the ballistic missile. Many have seen portions of this, but it displays a lot of technology, from the VLS launch, to the ballistic missile launch from a US vessel, to the intercept itself. I particularly like the last track of the intercept through the clouds.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

If you read the last few posts, you'll see that we've already discussed this.

There's nothing impressive about a ballistic missile interception since the missile travels in a predictable trajectory. An unpredictably maneuvering anti-ship missile is more difficult to intercept than the 60's style scud missiles currently used as targets by the US. (Of course trying to intercept a ballistic missile with decoys is a whole other story!)

I'm still waiting for somebody to show that that USN ships can intercept a randomized maneuvering missile! Just because the USN goes off and "records" what it thinks are the "pre-programmed" maneuvers used by in the missiles of other countries doesn't mean that they can't be re-programmed before an actual shooting war.

If this is the artificial way the USN conducts its exercises, I think it might be a little bit surprised if it ever got into an actual conflict when the adversary's anti-ship missiles have different end-game maneuvers than they had expected!

Roger604 said:

If you read the last few posts, you'll see that we've already discussed this.

There's nothing impressive about a ballistic missile interception since the missile travels in a predictable trajectory. An unpredictably maneuvering anti-ship missile is more difficult to intercept than the 60's style scud missiles currently used as targets by the US. (Of course trying to intercept a ballistic missile with decoys is a whole other story!)

I'm still waiting for somebody to show that that USN ships can intercept a randomized maneuvering missile! Just because the USN goes off and "records" what it thinks are the "pre-programmed" maneuvers used by in the missiles of other countries doesn't mean that they can't be re-programmed before an actual shooting war.

If this is the artificial way the USN conducts its exercises, I think it might be a little bit surprised if it ever got into an actual conflict when the adversary's anti-ship missiles have different end-game maneuvers than they had expected!

Click to expand...

You really ought to give it a rest Roger. I posted that link to Man Overboard for the stated reason. It is a neat video and shows a capabality that no other nation has, that of intercepting a ballistic missile (not a anti-shipping missile) in flight from a naval vessel as a part of the US Ballistic Missile Defense program.

You may talk all you wish about how easy it is...but people know that it is not easy and several nations are now looking to the US to add this capability to their US AEGIS technology vessels themselves.

The missile you are discussing does not exist, but the US Navy is already defeating anti-shipping missiles that are programmed to perform evasive manuevers on terminal approach that do exist, and they are doing it regularly and with great success (some of them at relatively high mach speeds, albeit not hypervelocity), as has also been adequately discussed.

The naval vessels defending themselves are not going to know which evasive manuever an attacking missile is going to take when it comes in, so for all intents and purposes, the manuever is unpredictable. The systems are being improved to reliably intercept whichever one happens and there is a robustness to that beyond specific manuevers. The US Navy factors all of this into its research, testing, development, deployment, and training.

In addition, at hypervelocity, because of the physics, fuel issues, and other points already discussed on this thread, the incoming missile is extremely limited into what type of manuevers it can perform and still maintain its target acquisition and have a chance of hitting that target.

But all of that is beside the point as regards this particular post and has already been thoroughly hashed out on this thread. The post I made was simply informative to man overboard for those who wanted to look at it. It happened, and is an impressive capability that many other nations (understandably) want to emulate.

Jeff Head said:

The naval vessels defending themselves are not going to know which evasive manuever an attacking missile is going to take when it comes in, so for all intents and purposes, the manuever is unpredictable.

Click to expand...

That's completely contradicts what manoverboard said. He said that the USN purchased (for example) some Moskits and also observed them during exercises, and so they know exactly what maneuvers are programmed into them.

Clearly, even if the defending ships didn't know before hand what the pre-programmed maneuvers are when this was first tried ... like back in the 70's when the Moskit was first deployed... they certainly know them now!!!

Manoverboard has repeatedly said that USN knows these preprogrammed maneuvers very well and so the AEGIS system is also adapted to counter them.

Now let's get to the meat of the issue here....

Does anybody really think that the Russians (or anybody else for that matter) are incapable of programming different end game maneuvers into their newest anti-ship missiles if an actual shooting war starts? :rofl:

And what happens to all those exercises done with the Coyote and the Vandals, which are designed to mimic what the USN expects an anti-ship missile will do?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Roger604
If you read the last few posts, you'll see that we've already discussed this.

There's nothing impressive about a ballistic missile interception since the missile travels in a predictable trajectory. An unpredictably maneuvering anti-ship missile is more difficult to intercept than the 60's style scud missiles currently used as targets by the US. (Of course trying to intercept a ballistic missile with decoys is a whole other story!)

I'm still waiting for somebody to show that that USN ships can intercept a randomized maneuvering missile! Just because the USN goes off and "records" what it thinks are the "pre-programmed" maneuvers used by in the missiles of other countries doesn't mean that they can't be re-programmed before an actual shooting war.

If this is the artificial way the USN conducts its exercises, I think it might be a little bit surprised if it ever got into an actual conflict when the adversary's anti-ship missiles have different end-game maneuvers than they had expected!

You really ought to give it a rest Roger. I posted that link to Man Overboard for the stated reason. It is a neat video and shows a capabality that no other nation has, that of intercepting a ballistic missile (not a anti-shipping missile) in flight from a naval vessel as a part of the US Ballistic Missile Defense program.

You may talk all you wish about how easy it is...but people know that it is not easy and several nations are now looking to the US to add this capability to their US AEGIS technology vessels themselves.

The missile you are discussing does not exist, but the US Navy is already defeating anti-shipping missiles that are programmed to perform evasive manuevers on terminal approach that do exist, and they are doing it regularly and with great success (some of them at relatively high mach speeds, albeit not hypervelocity), as has also been adequately discussed.

The naval vessels defending themselves are not going to know which evasive manuever an attacking missile is going to take when it comes in, so for all intents and purposes, the manuever is unpredictable. The systems are being improved to reliably intercept whichever one happens and there is a robustness to that beyond specific manuevers. The US Navy factors all of this into its research, testing, development, deployment, and training.

In addition, at hypervelocity, because of the physics, fuel issues, and other points already discussed on this thread, the incoming missile is extremely limited into what type of manuevers it can perform and still maintain its target acquisition and have a chance of hitting that target.

But all of that is beside the point as regards this particular post and has already been thoroughly hashed out on this thread. The post I made was simply informative to man overboard for those who wanted to look at it. It happened, and is an impressive capability that many other nations (understandably) want to emulate.

Click to expand...

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?

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...

Oh wait, aren't you the guy who claimed that an antiship missile can only fly straight at its target on final approach?

Even though your clever personal attacks humiliate me so much, you should be aware that our forum rules are enforced by very capable mods.