Issues on Intercepting Hypersonic Missile.

lilzz said:

Yes, the target missile and the interceptor missile both can adjust the speed.
but remember, the target missile is the initiator, the interceptor is the reactor,
the target missile wait till the interceptor very close and then suddenly acclerate, so it's too late for interceptor to adjust, its' already overshoot and past the interception point. It's momentum will carry it far .. it's too late, the seaRAM can't recover once it past the point. It cannot try to turn around and try to chase down the hypersonic missile.

therefore, at close distance where the reaction time is small, the initiator has all the advantage espeically the "dumb" seaRAM where the SPY 1 radar has to feedback the information back to interceptor missile and then activate its speedchange and direction.

Well even if you make SeaRAM "smart" by having active homing, and has onboard cumpter to recalculate and predict a new interception point, it still reacting, it might not have enough reaction time if "sudden move" excuted by the target missile at close distance.

as for plasma, the radar doesn't have to be in the tip. It can be install underneath the missile's mid-section belly.

Click to expand...

Neither missile can adjust speed. There is no technology to throttle a solid fuel rocket such as that in RAM, and throttling a ducted rocket ramjet is nothing short of diabolical. Such ramjets are excruciatingly difficult to design and operate, and they operate in a very narrow speed range, dictated by the necessity to maintain an airflow through the ramjet.
For hypersonic flight, you are also talking about an engine with a supersonic airflow, something that is not well understood and something that has been achieved only a couple of times in sustained flight (measured in seconds by the way).

harishkumar09 said:

I am shocked about this talk of illuminators. I thought with the coming of PESA/AESA, there was no longer this division of detection,tracking,engagement/illuminator radars. The PESA/AESA would be able to perform all roles. In PESA it will be time-sharing, and in AESA, the radar surface itself can be divided into different spatial zones, with one set of TR modules performing detection, another zone tracking, another engagement/illuminator roles apart from provision for time-sharing.

A PESA could illuminate several tens of missiles by jumping its beam around, illuminating each missile for a few milliseconds. An AESA faced with a saturation attack could easily transition the entire radar surface area to illumination mode, and direct multiple beams on multiple incoming missiles and defeat all of them . I am sure a SPY-1 AEGIS radar with its large surface area could illuminate at least 20 missiles simultaneously and if it uses time-sharing mode as well, at least double that number.

Click to expand...

AN/SPY-1 cannot illuminate a target for terminal semi-active guidance. That is accomplished by the Mk-99 target illumination radars, each of which can illuminate more than one target at a time assuming they targets are aligned very close to each other.
SM-6 with active terminal homing (AMRAAM seeker) eliminates any need for terminal guidance, and will expand the capabilities of AEGIS enormously.
What the AN/SPY radars can do is to provide mid course guidance updates to each missile in flight, but not terminal illumination.
AESA's, however, can create a target illumination beam while continuing to scan in a search mode. Again, active terminal homing makes this capability sort of obsolete even before it's widespread use in the world's more advanced navies.

But Ambivalent, aren't missiles with active terminal homing capability very costly? Isn't it better to use target illumination from main radars? Also PESA's themselves should be capable of switching rapidly from scanning to illuminating targets, more so the AESA's and I think that is cheaper.

If Mk-99 can illuminate more than one target, and that too only when they are closely spaced, then certainly the CVBG is vulnerable to saturation attacks.

The P-700 Granit is capable of sharing information, and if they can also share information about radar reflections, they can eliminate the false positives created by decoys and more will get through. I wonder how Mk-99s with their limited capability are going to handle saturation attacks. I think AESA will be the cheap and best alternative, however, terminal active homing is even better, but very costly.

lilzz said:

Yes, the target missile and the interceptor missile both can adjust the speed.
but remember, the target missile is the initiator, the interceptor is the reactor,
the target missile wait till the interceptor very close and then suddenly acclerate, so it's too late for interceptor to adjust, its' already overshoot and past the interception point. It's momentum will carry it far .. it's too late, the seaRAM can't recover once it past the point. It cannot try to turn around and try to chase down the hypersonic missile.

therefore, at close distance where the reaction time is small, the initiator has all the advantage espeically the "dumb" seaRAM where the SPY 1 radar has to feedback the information back to interceptor missile and then activate its speedchange and direction.

Well even if you make SeaRAM "smart" by having active homing, and has onboard cumpter to recalculate and predict a new interception point, it still reacting, it might not have enough reaction time if "sudden move" excuted by the target missile at close distance.

as for plasma, the radar doesn't have to be in the tip. It can be install underneath the missile's mid-section belly.

Click to expand...

Thats where differential calculus comes in with its concept of infinitesimals. As the time intervals become shorter and shorter until they approach zero, you get the differential at that point. Therefore the interception missile always knows in advance where the initiator will be, by analyzing its rate of turn. It can then calculate in advance, and compensate for the fact it is the reactor, by turning even further. These calculations happen every instant, and thats what derivatives are all about.

The mathematics behind two intercepting missiles was figured out by Sir Isaac Newton and Libnitz some 300 years ago. So also the physics. The problems we face are purely related to engineering. How many missiles can be detected successfully, how many can we deal with simultaneously?

The way to successfully disable/destroy a CVBG would be to avoid detection and saturation.

harishkumar09 said:

If Mk-99 can illuminate more than one target, and that too only when they are closely spaced, then certainly the CVBG is vulnerable to saturation attacks.

Click to expand...

The emphasis back then was on detecting and destroying the launch platforms before they had a chance to open fire. Any remaining platforms that survived and were able to launch their weapons could be easily be mopped up by the escorts.

Pointblank said:

The emphasis back then was on detecting and destroying the launch platforms before they had a chance to open fire. Any remaining platforms that survived and were able to launch their weapons could be easily be mopped up by the escorts.

Click to expand...

This was a possibility in the Old Soviet days when Soviet SSGNs were noisy and their aircraft could be easily detected. Today the Russian subs are quieter and when it comes to electronic warfare, due to easy availability of chips in open market, the Russians are as good as the Americans. I don't think how you could survive today unless you develop the capability of dealing simultaneously with at least 50-100 missiles.

I am unable to understand the difficulty any ship under attack should have in detecting the Harpoon well in advance. Water is by nature an absorbent of IR radiation and the engine of the harpoon, notwithstanding its subsonic speed is pretty hot. As such it should easily show up in an IR sensor mounted high on board a ship. IR heat seeking missiles can then be dispatched to knock out the harpoon. Brahmos is even easier to detect though destruction will need a very good SAM of the AEGIS or SA-N-7 Gadfly quality. Or SeaRAM or any missile with a good IR seeker and sufficient speed to match the Mach 3 speed and high turning rate of the Brahmos.

As far as I know, Brahmos only achieves that Mach 3 speed by diving. Phalanx has intercepted Mach 3 diving AShMs before, quite easily too.

Responding to the OP's question, even at Mach 5, a missile cruising at 3 meters above sea level, CIWS will still have 14 seconds to intercept it. If all else fails, aim Phalanxes at general area of the missile and pray and spray.

That wouldn't work as well if you sent more than one missile, though.

harishkumar09 said:

This was a possibility in the Old Soviet days when Soviet SSGNs were noisy and their aircraft could be easily detected. Today the Russian subs are quieter and when it comes to electronic warfare, due to easy availability of chips in open market, the Russians are as good as the Americans. I don't think how you could survive today unless you develop the capability of dealing simultaneously with at least 50-100 missiles.

Click to expand...

I should have been more specific.

What was done was that a lot of emphasis was placed on the detection of the hostile launch assets, and the targeting systems themselves. For example, in the old Soviet Naval Aviation system, regiments of Tu-16 or Tu-22 bombers armed with long range missiles operated with Tu-95 maritime recon aircraft which provided the targeting for the regiment. Therefore, you can do one of two things; kill the missile launchers, or kill the targeting aircraft. Identifying the targeting aircraft is relatively easy because in all likelihood, they are using active sensors, which means easy identification. All that is needed is to run a fighter out to the recon aircraft and bag him. If the recon aircraft isn't using active sensors, then they have the whole ocean to painstakingly conduct a visual search. Again, the targeting information is denied to the enemy meaning no launch.

Killing the launch platforms can involve of all sorts of trickery used. For example, one can lay a missile trap using a Tico or a Burke right where the strike regiment is climbing to launch altitude. When the time comes, the ship will light up with its radars and its game over for the regiment. Since the Soviets had roughly 1 SNA regiment per carrier, the elimination of a regiment meant a lot of headaches for the Soviets in a hot war, as it means no second strike.

And even if the group is localized, it now depends on how much warning a carrier group has. If a carrier group has sufficient advanced warning, they could send some AAW ships towards the threat axis, while the carrier hightails it in the opposite direction, launching fighters. When SNA regiment arrives, the carrier is now nowhere to be found, and that SNA regiment is now facing a missile and fighter trap. Again, game over for the SNA regiment.

And note that submarines aren't that much better; submarines that are sent out to find a carrier group needs to have some idea as to where to look. Deny him that information, and in the open ocean, it is virtually impossible for a submarine to find that carrier group by itself unless the carrier group happens to run over the submarine by random chance.

The key concept is in naval warfare is that one must try to deny the other information as to where one's ships are. If you are able to deny the enemy that information, or give him false information upon they act upon, you can either slip right through, or you can have a lopsided battle where the enemy is destroyed before they have a chance to respond.

IronsightSniper said:

As far as I know, Brahmos only achieves that Mach 3 speed by diving. Phalanx has intercepted Mach 3 diving AShMs before, quite easily too.

Responding to the OP's question, even at Mach 5, a missile cruising at 3 meters above sea level, CIWS will still have 14 seconds to intercept it. If all else fails, aim Phalanxes at general area of the missile and pray and spray.

That wouldn't work as well if you sent more than one missile, though.

Click to expand...

You got it wrong!

Brahmos can do Mach 3 in linear mode. It has two modes.

A High-Low profile in which it climbs to the stratosphere, travels high above and dives at the target ship. Range in this flight profile is 300 km.

A Low-Low mode in which it flies straight to the target travelling 5 m above sea-level. Range 120 km.

In both modes, the speed is Mach 3 throughout the flight profile.

Well, in that case, it's basically a Klub then lol.

I doubt Phalanx could catch a Klub or Mode 2 of Brahmos, but then again, that high-low mode might seem attractive for a Stand-off fight. Either way, I don't see Brahmos as anything "game changing". It's Hypersonic mode is the only thing I'm looking forward to in that program.

Brahmos can't do much damage to a CVBG, unless at least a hundred of them are launched in the low-low mode. The High-Low mode means easy detection and destruction when it is around a 100 km from the CVBG. But then getting 120km from the CVBG is the challenge.

At any rate, the Brahmos was not designed to take down American CVBGs. They will be used against Pakistani and Chinese ships and they will be very very effective in taking them out. Pakistani ships don't stand a chance against a agile Brahmos with terminal maneuvering capabilities even when launched in the High-Low mode. All they can do is just wait for their death, counting down from 300 to zero. A single Brahmos is enough to knock out a Pakistani frigate/destroyer. Given its 300 kg HE warhead, the ship will be in two pieces even if it does not hit a weapon magazine.

With Chinese ships which are much better, it may be necessary to launch 3-4 or 4-5 Brahmos per ship to destroy it.

Huh.

Well, I always tend to compare everything against American stuff, just a quick note.

So, if there's any chance that Pakistan will get an AEGIS-esque system, I'll talk more