Issues on Intercepting Hypersonic Missile.

From manoverbored: 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...

Obviously roger still doesn't get it. :rofl:

Kongo said:

From manoverbored: 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...

Obviously roger still doesn't get it. :rofl:

Click to expand...

Now now.... please don't embarrass yourself even more. It's hurting now.

You know the old saying about being "...opening your mouth and removing all doubt."

http://www.sinodefenceforum.com/showpost.php?p=83739&postcount=90

Roger604 said:

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?

Click to expand...

I'm a veteran who served on USS John S. McCain. What you speak of here is a totally negligible consideration. The actual maneuvering sequence of anti-ship missiles (how they maneuver, which way they turn, how they load and unload g forces, which way and how often they pitch) is not programmed into defending ship systems. The missiles, sensors, and command algorithms are able to handle the flight envelopes of anti-ship missiles. The missiles themselves are designed against threat performance envelopes of various threat systems. Not specific terminal maneuvers. So called "end-game" maneuvers is not something the missile system looks at as the primary concern. By the way, as you load and unload g forces, you're tweaking the performance envelope negatively. When I was in the 7th fleet, Moskit was considered just another threat system to deal with. Even before the Internet, and it's sensationalist writers, we could deal with that specific threat system. The missile is really not all that complex in it's terminal maneuvers. If they so desire, Russia can change terminal sequences until they're blue in the face. But they can't so easily change flight envelope characteristics.

And yes Roger604. At some point the missile will have to fly directly toward the ship if it hopes to have a chance to hit it. It's going to be hard to avoid RAM in this phase of it's flight.

Sea Dog said:

. At some point the missile will have to fly directly toward the ship if it hopes to have a chance to hit it. It's going to be hard to avoid RAM in this phase of it's flight.

Click to expand...

How do you handle if the missile acclerate? no data has shown by US capable of shooting down a Mach5 or above acclerating missile.

lilzz said:

How do you handle if the missile acclerate? no data has shown by US capable of shooting down a Mach5 or above acclerating missile.

Click to expand...

There is no current threat system in existence that performs in this way. Current systems are already accounted for in current and planned systems. If you wish to speculate on futuristic systems that's a whole other matter. The US would incorporate changes to deal with this hypothetical/non-existent system if they needed to do so. Why incorporate capabilities to your defenses for something that doesn't exist?

Sea Dog said:

The missiles themselves are designed against threat performance envelopes of various threat systems. Not specific terminal maneuvers. So called "end-game" maneuvers is not something the missile system looks at as the primary concern.

Click to expand...

Yes, of course it all comes down to the performance envelope of the anti-ship missile compared to the interceptor missiles. How many G's can the anti-ship missile pull and how many can the interceptor pull?

Obviously the physical limits of the interceptor missile -- its performance envelope -- is not publicly revealed information.

It's a pity that we can't see the videos of the missiles actually pushing the limits of its performance envelope to catch a violently maneuvering anti-ship missile... only then can we really know how well the system actually performs against the current crop of anti-ship missiles.

Until there's some proof, we just have no information other than bald claims from valued forum members like, "it works good, really."

(PS: the Moskit should be left out this since we all know it's obsolete 70's era technology and both Russia and China have much much better systems -- at least Russia has the Onyx and China seems to be leaning toward some harpoon-like system)

Roger604 said:

Yes, of course it all comes down to the performance envelope of the anti-ship missile compared to the interceptor missiles. How many G's can the anti-ship missile pull and how many can the interceptor pull?

Obviously the physical limits of the interceptor missile -- its performance envelope -- is not publicly revealed information.

It's a pity that we can't see the videos of the missiles actually pushing the limits of its performance envelope to catch a violently maneuvering anti-ship missile... only then can we really know how well the system actually performs against the current crop of anti-ship missiles.

Until there's some proof, we just have no information other than bald claims from valued forum members like, "it works good, really."

(PS: the Moskit should be left out this since we all know it's obsolete 70's era technology and both Russia and China have much much better systems -- at least Russia has the Onyx and China seems to be leaning toward some harpoon-like system)

Click to expand...

I do know the defense systems work from personal experience. I also know that there are no current or foreseen threat systems in existence that are guaranteed against USN platforms. Including Russia's newest Onyx missile system or anything China has in their pipeline. I have seen some of these systems in action against a series of maneuvering targets, warhead removed from interceptor, multiple engagement kills. I was not part of the exercise, but we were in the area as monitor. Of course, you're free to believe otherwise. But I can tell, from some of your posts, that you don't truly understand this topic, nor do you have any actual experience in naval weapons, naval systems, their performance, and especially their limitations. This comes especially from your views that seem to show you believe anti-ship missiles are an invincible element in naval warfare, when their actual uses are quite limited. And their statistical probability of actually being used successfully is going down over time. While ASM's are a good option in some scenarios, they are not very viable in many other scenarios. Anybody in this day and age that is going with anti-ship missile warfare as a primacy, is behind the curve.

lilzz said:

How do you handle if the missile acclerate? no data has shown by US capable of shooting down a Mach5 or above acclerating missile.

Click to expand...

Additionally, a Mach 5 or faster missile would be one big bloody missile... it would stick out like a very sore thumb, and would also require a very large launch platform that is easily intercepted.

Pointblank said:

Additionally, a Mach 5 or faster missile would be one big bloody missile... it would stick out like a very sore thumb, and would also require a very large launch platform that is easily intercepted.

Click to expand...

It's multi-stage boosters would come off by the time approaching intercepting range.

Roger604 said:

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?

Click to expand...

No...it does not contradict Man Overboard at all. It compliments what he said.

The fact is, we do know what types of terminal manuevers these agressor systems are capable of based on what we have gleaned. That doew not mean we know exactly which one(s) will be used during a specific attack.

If a missile system is only capable of one, then we are prepred for that missile...but if various versions of the missile are capable of differing manuevers, or if a system is capable of being programmed to perform one of several, then we must be prepared for them all, or at least the characteristics that define them. And that is principally what the Navy prepares for, the overall condiitons which then encompass the known threats or those conceivably extrapolated for the future. (Just as Sea Dog stated).

That certainly does not mean we know which exact one will be programmed or used beforehand in a specific attack and Man Overboard (at least as I read it) never implied we were. So, the statements do not contradict each other at all.

My point was that a defending vessel will not know this until it occurs. They may know the various manuevers they are capable of, but that does not mean they will know exactly which one is performed during a given attack, but they train for the conditions..

They have to be ready for as many as possible, and the systems have to be able to engage as many as possible...and that is what the Navy trains its people to do, and designs its systems to do...and then exercises them up the yang yang to ensure that they can.

This type of approach prepares the defenders for exactly what you are talking about, for whatever an agressor might program into their attack.

Cleary from this discussion, that answers your last question/statement, as well which to me, was already a given.