ASBM with anti-missile defensive mini missiles

AssassinsMace said:

You're forgetting the speed. The ASBM is not traveliing Mach 2. It's travelling a far greater speed. So what "mini" missile or any regular AAM is going to travel faster.

Click to expand...

Imagine this, from a fast running train, you shoot an arrow forward. You don't think the arrow be ahead of the train when it launched Maybe eventually when the arrow loses momentum due to drag. From Einstein's relativity theory. The arrow initially relative to the train (moving at fast speed) are stationary due to travling at the same speed. Therefore even the train is moving very fast, the arrow see the train as only stationary. When the arroaw is launched from "stationary" train, it would make sense the arrow is travling faster.

AssassinsMace said:

The ASBM will be travelling at a speed that will cause stress and heat. Do you think the mini-missile will survive?

Click to expand...

I assume the mini-missiles are inside the internal bay of ASBM. therefore it's protected before launch. Initial entry into the atmosphere is the most critical. After launch, it should be no different than a jet fighter launching an AAM.

AssassinsMace said:

Do you believe the technology of your mini-missile that will work exist today? And if so, why hasn't anyone done this?

Click to expand...

The technology needed are advance software control. I don't see that as the stumbling block that prevents this be implemented.

Imagine this, from a fast running train, you shoot an arrow forward. You don't think the arrow be ahead of the train when it launched Maybe eventually when the arrow loses momentum due to drag. From Einstein's relativity theory. The arrow initially relative to the train (moving at fast speed) are stationary due to travling at the same speed. Therefore even the train is moving very fast, the arrow see the train as only stationary. When the arroaw is launched from "stationary" train, it would make sense the arrow is travling faster.

Click to expand...

Are you forgetting that no AAM travels nearly at the same speed of a ballistic missile? The ASBM warhead will be traveling relatively nearly in a straight line. Your mini-missiles will be manuevering to intercept the SM-3. So explain how will your mini-missile travel faster than the ASBM in order to intercept the SM-3? Atmosphere or in space, your mini-missile ain't going faster than the ASBM. If you have a fighter traveling at mach 1 and a missile that travels at mach 2, it doesn't mean when the missile is launched it's going at mach 3. If the traveling speeds were reversed, the missile is slowing down not going faster. You have it wrong.

I assume the mini-missiles are inside the internal bay of ASBM. therefore it's protected before launch. Initial entry into the atmosphere is the most critical. After launch, it should be no different than a jet fighter launching an AAM.

Click to expand...

What happens when they leave their internal bay? The stress and heat levels are still going to be the same of the ASBM. Jet fighters and AAMs don't travel at ballistic missile speed.

The technology needed are advance software control. I don't see that as the stumbling block that prevents this be implemented.

Click to expand...

Software only? What about all the physical stresses to the AESA radar you have on the ASBM. And you didn't explain how is all of it going to fit on the ASBM? And we haven't even gotten to the mere seconds all of this will have to happen in order for it to work. When the ASBM warhead separates from the missile, where's your mini-missile system going to be. Falling in a different direction going miles away every fraction of a second. How do you solve that? The guidance and propulsion system that now has to be included on you mini-missile system with AESA radar?

You haven't really thought it out because there's nothing mini about it. All that and you have only one shot for it to work to destroy a missile. Sounds expensive since all that high tech can't be used again. What's the point? If you can get all that to work, there are far more better applications for that technology than to go after a missile. I'd rather use the space of all that wasted high technology on the ASBM and add more MIRVed warheads.

IMO, this idea is not entirely impossible and is a matter of whether some of the inherent problems can be solved.

The ballistic missiles would have to slow down a lot - during the terminal or near terminal phase - for this to work. Smaller missiles have a relatively larger drag than bigger missiles in relation to their masses. Question is how to slow down a ballistic missile specifically during the later part of the trajectory? A carrier cruise missile may be an easier choice to implement this.

Quickie said:

IMO, this idea is not entirely impossible and is a matter of whether some of the inherent problems can be solved.

The ballistic missiles would have to slow down a lot - during the terminal or near terminal phase - for this to work. Smaller missiles have a relatively larger drag than bigger missiles in relation to their masses. Question is how to slow down a ballistic missile specifically during the later part of the trajectory? A carrier cruise missile may be an easier choice to implement this.

Click to expand...

Maybe if you had a feel for the difficulty modern engineers have today making a missile bay door and ejection mechanism for a Mach 2.5 stealth fighter that must operate in every conceivable flight regime the fighter operates in. The stresses on the release mechanisms and the missiles themselves are already so high that equipment damage is routine and frustrating. Missiles take enormous abuse, damaging and even ripping off wings and fins off, damaging seeker heads and the like. The buffeting in the weapons bay is spectacular. Read up on what in WWII was called "Bomb bay resonance", then up the speed a couple of orders of magnitude.

AssassinsMace said:

You haven't really thought it out because there's nothing mini about it. All that and you have only one shot for it to work to destroy a missile. Sounds expensive since all that high tech can't be used again. What's the point? If you can get all that to work, there are far more better applications for that technology than to go after a missile. I'd rather use the space of all that wasted high technology on the ASBM and add more MIRVed warheads.

Click to expand...

Guess what, the ASBM most likely be intercepted by SM-3 during the mid-flight phase when its outside of the atmosphere because once the ASBM enters the terminal phase at ballastic speed, the SM-3 would have very tough time to take it out.

The min-missiles would have no issues of what you mentioned at outside of atmosphere.

Defending the ASBM at mid-flight is the most critical at which the SM-3 has the most chance to shoot it down.

You still haven't explained how will your mini-missiles travel faster than the ASBM to intercept the SM-3 because your wrong about speed being added on top of it. And tell me how your mini-missiles, AESA radar, and all the other technology that will allow it to track and target the SM-3 will fit on an ASBM. Hitting a missile with a missile... Why doesn't every fighter have the capability to knock down missiles? Why not have an H-6 bomber loaded with mini-missiles and AShMs? Any fighter that tries to shoot it down will be countered with your mini-missiles. The H-6 will be a lot steadier and stable platform than an ASBM. Why haven't they done it?

And unless the AEGIS has exact knowledge of where and when an ASBM will be launched, the ASBM and SM-3 will not meet at mid-flight. The ASBM travels far faster than the SM-3.

AssassinsMace said:

You still haven't explained how will your mini-missiles travel faster than the ASBM to intercept the SM-3 because your wrong about speed being added on top of it. And tell me how your mini-missiles, AESA radar, and all the other technology that will allow it to track and target the SM-3 will fit on an ASBM. Hitting a missile with a missile... Why doesn't every fighter have the capability to knock down missiles? Why not have an H-6 bomber loaded with mini-missiles and AShMs? Any fighter that tries to shoot it down will be countered with your mini-missiles. The H-6 will be a lot steadier and stable platform than an ASBM. Why haven't they done it?

And unless the AEGIS has exact knowledge of where and when an ASBM will be launched, the ASBM and SM-3 will not meet at mid-flight. The ASBM travels far faster than the SM-3.

Click to expand...

For the speed issue, I already use einstein theory to explain that but if you still disagree on that, then let's let it at that.

The current Ballistic missile all have radar for active homing, so changing to aesa is just upgrade of tech.

AS for why the fighter doesn't counter missile with mini-missile, I think alot has to do with direction. fighter's radar can track front and 45 degree up and down. It can't track other angles. Alot of times missiles are coming from behind.

As for ASBM flight path , doesn't the early warning radar can detect the ASBM is coming during its mid flight?

The current Ballistic missile all have radar for active homing, so changing to aesa is just upgrade of tech.

Click to expand...

What current ballistic missile? So you can use radar jammers to stop an ICBM from accurately hitting its target? I don't think that's how it works.

AS for why the fighter doesn't counter missile with mini-missile, I think alot has to do with direction. fighter's radar can track front and 45 degree up and down. It can't track other angles. Alot of times missiles are coming from behind.

Click to expand...

Sounds like the same problem with your mini-missile system. So your AESA for the mini-missiles has 360 degree view? Why can't you put that on a fighter? Won't the mini-missile be just as effective on enemy fighters coming in firing their missiles? If it's small enough for the ASBM, it has to work for a fighter.

As for ASBM flight path , doesn't the early warning radar can detect the ASBM is coming during its mid flight?

Click to expand...

The ASBM is land mobile. So the Aegis would have to get into position for the best results. Which is one of the reasons why they say ABM systems might not work because in real war conditions you don't know where and when that missile is being fired.

AssassinsMace said:

What current ballistic missile? So you can use radar jammers to stop an ICBM from accurately hitting its target? I don't think that's how it works.
.

Click to expand...

The current DF-21 has radar inside.

AssassinsMace said:

Sounds like the same problem with your mini-missile system. So your AESA for the mini-missiles has 360 degree view? Why can't you put that on a fighter? Won't the mini-missile be just as effective on enemy fighters coming in firing their missiles? If it's small enough for the ASBM, it has to work for a fighter.
.

Click to expand...

I can't imagine the SM-3 intercept the ASBM from behind. It would have to come from the front unlike air fighter scenario,which could be any angles.

lilzz said:

The current DF-21 has radar inside.



I can't imagine the SM-3 intercept the ASBM from behind. It would have to come from the front unlike air fighter scenario,which could be any angles.

Click to expand...

And the same problem you said why fighters can't knock missiles is the same here. If the technology did exist, it would be no problem installing it on a fighter. No missiles will ever hit the fighter. It will have to separate from the warhead because again there's nothing mini about your missile system. If you're using a DF-21 as an example... you actually think your mini-missile system with AESA radar is going to fit on that along with a warhead? Your AESA radar will have to be 360 because your mini-missiles will not be a part of the ASBM warhead. Because if it's not then your AESA will need to be controlled and directed towards the SM-3.

This is only scratching the surface of the multitude of problems that will have to be overcomed for your idea to work. Do you understand that there will be nothing "mini" about your system? That alone says it's not going to happen.