IronsightSniper
Junior Member
But that leads me to a question, if Brahmost happens to be deployed against a Type 052C, are they going to just shoot HQ-9s at it? Type 730s aren't going to be very effective against Supersonic seaskimmers anyways.
So, I was reading a Raytheon brochure about the Phalanx today, and I noticed this:
[/IMG]
A couple things to notice. The first is that the Phalanx in question is engaging a MQM-Vandal drone which is a variant of the RIM-8 Talos. Next, the drone was about 17,500 ft(5,300 m) in altitude, coming down at an angle of 30 degrees which gave it a velocity of about Mach 2.4 or 815 meters per second. Next, the drone was engaged(detected) at about 25,000 feet(7.6 km), the Phalanx opened fire at about 10,000 feet(3 km) and the target was destroyed at about 3,000 feet(900 meters).
So, accordingly, here is the fact advertised by Raytheon in their brochure: Phalanx destroyed a super sonic high-g maneuvering missile.
Now, if you were Zyvexal or me and found that from forums discussing the effectiveness of the 3M80 Moskit(SS-N-22 Sunburn) against AEGIS equipped CBG's, you might have thought that Raytheon meant, "Moskit", when they said, "high- g maneuvering missile". This, is simply untrue. The drone that was used in that test is not a sea-skimmer, and is only a diver. Diving AShMs are less effective against Ships in that they would be easily detectable from their altitude.
You can easily see that fact in the picture I have provided. The Phalanx was only able to detect a missile comparable in size to the Moskit from about 7.6 km away while the target was at 5.3 km up, which anybody who knows a tit about radars will tell you that a target that is 5.3 km up is easier to track than a sea-skimmer. The Moskit travels at around 5 meters(15 feet) to 20 meters(60 feet) above sea level, which will severely hinder any Radar's ability to detect it(the reason why we flew Apaches at low-level to first strike Iraqi radars during the Gulf wars).
Next, the MGM-8 Vandal was only able to achieve Mach 2.4 speeds while diving. It's quite obvious that angle of attack would provide extra velocity for penetration, however, the Moskit travels around Mach 2.2-2.5 while at it's sea-skimmer mode. The Anti-radiation missile mode of the Moskit goes to high altitude where it cruises at Mach 3, and it's closing velocity is unknown, but as you can expect, it would be augmented by a 30 degree dive.
Finally, the Moskit is a high-g maneuvering missile. I suspect that it has thrust-vectoring engines to provide for it's zig-zag terminal motion. This will also hinder the Phalanx's ability to intercept it. A missile going straight is only worst when you do not know where it will hit.
So, when it all adds up, one can conclude that a Moskit has a fair-excellent chance of penetrating AEGIS(at least the Gun part of it). Improved American CIWS like the Evolved Sea Sparrow would diminish the Moskit's lone effectiveness, but this can be solved with it's salvo-fired technique or newer missiles like the faster and smaller 3M-54 Kub.
If you do not believe me, reread this post again, Phalanx engaged a high altitude diving target from 7.6 km away and ended with a kill at 0.9 km away. The Moskit is not a high diving missile. It's advanced capabilities will yield a very close RF track from the Phalanx, which when all added up, will culminate to a very close-range kill of the Moskit or kill of the ship.
You personally don't know the capabilities of the Type 052C and therefore have no evidence to offer, much less sufficient evidence to throw out a ridiculous number like "40". Even if the Type 052C is equipped with AESA, this means nothing. Actually it means less than nothing because it leads people who are susceptibel to wishful thinking into making silly conclusions. The real strength of the SPY-1 is not the radar itself but the software behind it (AEGIS) as well as the CEC that uses Link 13 to datalink the entire fleet together into one single complete sensor and weapon. You seem to confuse SPY-1 with AEGIS, especially in some of your other posts. You have no idea whether Type 052C's radar is actually even AESA rather than PESA. This is just a claim made by people on the internet. Even if it is AESA, you have no idea whether the radar is backed up by an AEGIS-like combat data system. Everything we know about it is just speculation. You have no idea whether the PLAN has anything like CEC software. Even if you knew the PLAN had both AEGIS and CEC-like capabilities, you have no idea what the actual capabilities of AEGIS and CEC are. Despite all this lack of knowledge, you somehow still managed to come up with "40". That's amazing.The capabilities of the Type 052C is ample evidence. For example, did you know it uses AESA radars more advanced than Arleigh Burke's PESA SPY-1?
The capabilities of the Type 052C is ample evidence. For example, did you know it uses AESA radars more advanced than Arleigh Burke's PESA SPY-1?
Russian controls the ramjet technology to Brahmos and hasn't agreed to share it. I doubt India will be doing any development on its own other than tagging along with Russia and trying to learn something along the way.
Of course Type 730 CIWS can defend against supersonic sea skimmers. It has a high rate of fire just like the Phalanx and Goalkeeper. The FL-3000N should be even more effective however.
Ultimately, the bottom line is that Type 052C of course can defend against supersonic ASM. It can defend against even a large salvo of them. But there is no adversary that can launch a supersonic ASM in enough numbers to threaten PLAN other than USA.