Do most Antiship missiles use IR seekers that laser blinders could exploit?
Discussing future and (im)possible carrier technology
- Thread starter Kurt
- Start date
Do most Antiship missiles use IR seekers that laser blinders could exploit?
Honestly, I don't know really. I just "feel" that later models seem to go for IR / EO more so than for radar. That is, however, not true for those honking big M2 monsters, these still seem to stick with some kind of radar seeker.
But maybe I will be corrected on that topic here shortly ...
Anyway, if an AShM is using radar, one can't really armor up the nose cone against lasers without imparing on the radar's function, I assume. So again, if your not exploding the missile, maybe you're frying it's electronics.
But maybe I will be corrected on that topic here shortly ...
Anyway, if an AShM is using radar, one can't really armor up the nose cone against lasers without imparing on the radar's function, I assume. So again, if your not exploding the missile, maybe you're frying it's electronics.
Kurt
Junior Member
You're sure the missile won't follow the laser-guidance?
Concerning future defense, each ship could operate her own escort group via USV with close-in defense and imitation capability on board. It's really not bad if an antiship missile hits such an USV because the USV is likely much cheaper. Problem is energy supply, well, I suggest to have a direct tow, high energy and information link to each USV, so you have to care less about their individual capability maintenance.
I suggest to start now and use likewise the current USV Protector (one towed per merchant ship) to erase the pirate threat.
Considering multi-hull designs, the idea has often been tested and found fast and sea-worthy, but quite expensive for a vessel that is meant to hold as much tonnage as possible. I would only consider trimaran designs for fast boats, never a carrier, except my small parasite carrier idea.
Earlier I mentioned a rectangular design to work around the multi-hull problems to achieve their stability advantage that is suitable for a sleek long commando carrier (look at Canberra class). The other new thing that would actually solve the old multi-hull problems and create a real break through is the M-shaped hull design (with high dynamic stability), as currently built with M 80 Stiletto. Let's see how this thing can grow.
Considering armoured missiles, who says a missile has just one warhead and uses one type of sensor? The more sensors you combine, including radar, the hard to fool, while multiple missiles can use a hard to jam short range communication with sensors and armoured warheads separated. They could employ a most efficient pattern attack, like locating close-in weapons and jammers for the first wave of multiple light warheads and evaluate the outcome with remaining sensors. It could play out similar to the complex aircraft attack tactics on ships.
Last edited:
The soft-kill dazzler has high enough intensity to damage the IR sensors.
I'm not so well versed in electrics. But I'd say that if your laser is powerfull enough to engulf (wich should be easy) the whole seeker in glare, meaning intensity is at the max the seeker can handle throughout it's field of view, there's no contrast for see seeker to spot and, therefore, no further guidance information to be retrieved. If anything, I'd exspect the missile to go simply straight ahead then.
I don't really believe in ships towing around more ships to act as decoys. I think it's just a burden placed on the primary vessels wich want to be maneuverable themselves.
Again, looking at were laser tech is today and how fast it's progressing, I do belive that in a few years time, lasers will be available wich are strong enough to fry the electronic circuits in seekers, multispectral or not.
Sure you can go complex in your approach, and there are very sophisticated methods of attacking ships around. But that also increases the burdon on the attacker to master the TTPs and provide and maintain the assets required. And that in itself already defeats quite a few wanne be opposers ...
I don't really believe in ships towing around more ships to act as decoys. I think it's just a burden placed on the primary vessels wich want to be maneuverable themselves.
Again, looking at were laser tech is today and how fast it's progressing, I do belive that in a few years time, lasers will be available wich are strong enough to fry the electronic circuits in seekers, multispectral or not.
Sure you can go complex in your approach, and there are very sophisticated methods of attacking ships around. But that also increases the burdon on the attacker to master the TTPs and provide and maintain the assets required. And that in itself already defeats quite a few wanne be opposers ...
Kurt
Junior Member
If you cover and overpower the sensitive seekers of a missile you just open a new door for a low tech guidance system that can handle huge amounts of guidance energy. The effect of the laser is in so far defensive as long as it requires upgraded munitions.
You can be even very mean and send an unguided missile that is then guided by enemy laser defense. The spiral of defense and attack measures countering each other is endless.
You can be even very mean and send an unguided missile that is then guided by enemy laser defense. The spiral of defense and attack measures countering each other is endless.
The Osprey would not take off with cats at all...they would VTOL from other spots entirely away from the cats...and land in the same manner.Jeff, I certainly support the idea of having organic long range ASW capability on a CSG.
I do, however, wonder if a SH-22 might have a negative influence on aviation operations on a carrier.
The old S-3, as a conventional fixed wing airplane, would fit into launch & recovery operations fairly nice. The Osprey is different, though. It would need maybe even the space of both bow cats for launch and might take longer at that than a normal shot. Landing is also different. And most importantly, that Osprey can't really just fold up her wings and move around like all the other planes on the deck, therefore requireing significantly more space on deck, I'd imagine. So maybe there's actually some carrier folks arguing against an Osprey cluttering up their precious flight deck.
But then again there's no alternative on the horizon for this important task. And since I just picked up again a previous hobby of 3D modeling, here's another one.
Their wings and props do fold though.
In the end, they would be excellent for the LHA, LHD. CVH, CVL STOVL carriers...buit could also work on the big CATOBAR carriers with adjustment to deck handling...and without really fouling the cats.