Issues on Intercepting Hypersonic Missile.

IronsightSniper said:

Btw, ever thought of making a single large post? :V

Click to expand...

Well IronsightSniper, I am posting from my workplace, and I have to make violent evasive maneuvers every time my boss turns up at the horizon, to avoid getting "killed". So I can't risk being visible on this site for too long, I have turn on and turn off my radars, too often, to avoid the risk of detection. Short "radar on" times means, I cannot make long posts -

harishkumar09 said:

Well IronsightSniper, I am posting from my workplace, and I have to make violent evasive maneuvers every time my boss turns up at the horizon, to avoid getting "killed". So I can't risk being visible on this site for too long, I have turn on and turn off my radars, too often, to avoid the risk of detection. Short "radar on" times means, I cannot make long posts -

Click to expand...

Been there, done that.

IronsightSniper said:

Gun-based CIWS will all fail, Russian, Chinese, American, against anything moving at Mach 2 at 10 meters altitude or lower.

Click to expand...

That article is plain wrong. A supersonic ASM gives you 30 seconds time from the time it pops up over the horizon. That's assuming you don't have helicopters to give you more advanced warning (China has them), or if your long-range SAMs haven't taken it out yet beyond the horizon (China has ~200 km range HHQ-9). 30 seconds is plenty of time for Type 730 or Phalanx to shoot it down. I'm not worried about a single supersonic ASM. Type 052C can handle that.

ZTZ99 said:

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.

Click to expand...

Okay, so you were not even aware that Type 052C has AESA. Of course there is a huge difference between PESA SPY-1 and Type 052C's AESA. HHQ-9 should be active homing like the future SM-6 not semi-active homing like the current SM-2.

Yes, we can conjecture what the capabilities of Type 052C by reference to its technology and specifications. You don't like speculation why are you on this internet forum?

harishkumar09 said:

Well, India will have enough Brahmos in a few years from now to do that.

Click to expand...

I really doubt that. India has no platform to fire the Brahmos. No aircraft, no ships and no submarines. It only has a truck. India has never even tested an anti-shipping Brahmos. It would be 2020 or 2030 years before India is capable of firing 40 Brahmos at the same time.

A single Type 052C can handle that many supersonic ASM, can you imagine how powerful a fleet of Type 052C (and future Type 052D) will be?

harishkumar09 said:

What is the effectiveness of a SeaRAM or its Chinese equivalents against 40 Brahmos class missiles interweaving and doing S-maneuvers in their terminal approach. Will the RAMs be able to maintain their IR-lock when missiles cross each others path when they interweave?

Click to expand...

That interweaving maneuver is a figment of the imagination. Russian supersonic ASMs have endgame maneuvers (PLAN has them too) but each missile is independent. They cannot do a joint maneuver like you are describing.

harishkumar09 said:

I really don't believe India got nothing out of it. If we weren't going to get anything we could have simply purchased the Yakhonts or Oniks with the range shortened. I think some knowledge transfer might have happened.

Click to expand...

Yes, I'm sure India got something out of it, but Russia withheld the core technology.

harishkumar09 said:

As for Ramjet technology, the Akash SAM already uses it and the missile is almost identical to the one used on the Pechora. Ramjet is not very high-tech, its just a question of metallurgy and India has the knowledge base and manufacturing base to make a Ramjet Engine.

Click to expand...

Yes, but the Russians wouldn't part with the metallurgy.

harishkumar09 said:

I agree IR-seekers are now technologically mature and a SeaRAM will have no difficulty in intercepting a single brahmos, however violently it maneuvers. But with too many supersonic AShMs, then even with enough RAMs, it is going to be a problem. The best is to destroy the launch platform, or as he said deny targeting information.

Click to expand...

Well Type 052C already has the ~200 km range HHQ-9, which is capable of taking out any aircraft carrying the Brahmos ... even though no such platform will exist anytime soon.

Roger604 said:

Okay, so you were not even aware that Type 052C has AESA. Of course there is a huge difference between PESA SPY-1 and Type 052C's AESA. HHQ-9 should be active homing like the future SM-6 not semi-active homing like the current SM-2.

Click to expand...

He never said he didn't know 052C had AESA, but the massive boost in capability you imply leads ZTZ99 to say "even if it had AESA" implying the boost in capability isn't as great as you believe.

Yes, we can conjecture what the capabilities of Type 052C by reference to its technology and specifications. You don't like speculation why are you on this internet forum?

Click to expand...

Speculation is all well and good but it's irritating when members start throwing numbers around like it's fact. Roger, you have well over a thousand posts, for the casual visitor to this site he or she would be quite mis informed by some of your statements.

I really doubt that. India has no platform to fire the Brahmos. No aircraft, no ships and no submarines. It only has a truck. India has never even tested an anti-shipping Brahmos. It would be 2020 or 2030 years before India is capable of firing 40 Brahmos at the same time.

Click to expand...

This is what I mean...

Indian Navy Shivilak and Talwar classes can fire the Brahmos, Rajput class destroyers, the upcoming Kolkata class destroyers... and previous older frigates and destroyers are all being retrofitted to fire the Brahmos.

A single Type 052C can handle that many supersonic ASM, can you imagine how powerful a fleet of Type 052C (and future Type 052D) will be?

Click to expand...

Come on let's not turn this into a China vs India thread, espicially as they are BANNED...
And we can't imagine how a fleet (six hardly counts as a fleet btw, which is the projected number right now. And it's not like all six will be operating in one theatre so don't exaggerate the numbers in this hypothetical scenario) of 052Cs would perform when we don't even know the details of how well one can perform (sure we know it has a long ranged SAM, AESA MFR, probable CEC, an advanced combat system, but you can't take away the kind of conclusion that you are getting from only vague tidbits)

Well Type 052C already has the ~200 km range HHQ-9, which is capable of taking out any aircraft carrying the Brahmos ... even though no such platform will exist anytime soon.

Click to expand...

Arrgghhashgl; aj...

Anytime soon??? Dude are you serious?

Is 2012 not "anytime soon"? haven't you heard about all the hype on how the IAF Su-30MKIs are getting modified to fire a single Brahmos from beneath their fuselag?? 2012 is the projected time of induction by the IAF...

And Brahmos has a range of 290 km -- with the right guidance a Flanker can fire it without getting into the HHQ-9's range. (And the 200km should be taken with a grain of salt-- previous posters like Crobato has voiced scepticism at that, even though sinodefence.com gives a 200 km slant range. Just don't go around boasting "oh we have SAM of 200 km range oh ho!")

------------------

I think we should take this debate back into less platform/weapon/country specific scenarios.

We've had the discussion of supersonic ASM before, and supersonic missiles don't offer any massive benefits to sub sonic ones (despite all the hype surrounding them). Supersonic missiles would have much greater IR trails, a bigger RCS, it won't have a "second chance" shot if it misses due to it's speed, they're big and unwieldy not to mention much more expensive than subsonic missiles...

If we're talking about intercepting them, most modern ciws are able to take out sea skimmers and long range SAMs can take them out before they descend to sea skimming terminal mode. And the IR signature will allow modern IRST systems to easily track and subsequently engage them with ciws.

Phew.

Roger604 said:

Okay, so you were not even aware that Type 052C has AESA.

Click to expand...

Don't be ridiculous. I said YOU don't know if the PAR on the 052C is AESA or PESA. And you don't. And that's as much a fact as the fact that the earth circles the sun. Until the Chinese military officially comes out and says yes, this radar is AESA not PESA, everything else is just speculation. Your problem is that you have absolutely no qualms about accepting anything that might make the Chinese military more awesome in your eyes. You do not possess any kind of logic or common sense filter. If another internet fanboy speculates that the Type 052C is armed with photon torpedoes, I have no doubt you will be harping on the massive destructive capabilities of those photon torpedoes in your next post. This willingness to fantasize extends to your penchance for spouting off nonsense numbers like 40 missiles when you have absolutely no clue exactly how many missiles a Type 052C could simultaneously defeat at the same time. "20" or "60" are equally as arbitrary as "40". You simply don't know and yet you are vehemently trying to talk down harishkumar like you actually know what you are saying.

Roger604 said:

Of course there is a huge difference between PESA SPY-1 and Type 052C's AESA. HHQ-9 should be active homing like the future SM-6 not semi-active homing like the current SM-2.

Click to expand...

Do you even vaguely understand what you are talking about? What does AESA or PESA have ANYTHING to do with whether HHQ-9 is active or SARH? Not a damn thing. It's the frequency of the radar that will clue you in as to whether the HHQ-9 is active or semi-active, and you personally don't have this piece of information. If the radar emits in X- or C-band, there's a good chance the PAR will be serving in the role of terminal illumination because no search radar will willingly give up search range for precision unless terminal illumination is to be a main role. If the radar emits in S- or L-band, there's a good chance the HHQ-9 will have to rely on its own active terminal homing since S- and L-band radars will not provide accurate targeting precision AND we do not see any evidence of FCR's on the deck of the 052C. But you didn't know any of that, or you would not have posted what you just did.

Roger604 said:

Yes, we can conjecture what the capabilities of Type 052C by reference to its technology and specifications. You don't like speculation why are you on this internet forum?

Click to expand...

I don't like ridiculous speculation based on pure desire and nothing else. You have no clue as to what the "technology" and "specifications" of the Type 052C are and your speculations are therefore based on pure desire. If you make enough of these nonsense posts, you will get called out. Like now. I've seen mods rebuke you for this type of behavior already, so why do you persist? If you have some kind of insider knowledge which leads you to 40 rather than 24, or 69, or 113, I'd like to see it. Claiming that the 052C is AESA therefore 40 is the appropriate number is just plain ridiculous.

ZTZ99 said:

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.

Click to expand...

I didn't want to make a whole post dedicated to this, but I feel it's valid for a reply.

The 052C probably does have some CEC capability, though probably not as mature as AEGIS.
I say this because Varyag has the same radar as 052C and (as of yet) there are no HHQ-9 VLS on it yet, which would lead me to believe it can be used to guide HHQ-9 from other ships (052C working in a battle group). Of course my whole argument would collapse if it turns out Varyag is installed with HHQ-9 but as of yet it isn't.

EDIT:
I think it's generally accepted that the radar on 052C is AESA. Crobato made a series of good posts last year on that in the 052C thread before he vanished.
http://www.sinodefenceforum.com/navy/ddg-052c-thread-20-2358.html
I'm not saying Roger's "40 missile" claim is right, but there's been more... "evidence" indicating it's AESA than anything else. kk.

Bltizo said:

I didn't want to make a whole post dedicated to this, but I feel it's valid for a reply.

The 052C probably does have some CEC capability, though probably not as mature as AEGIS.
I say this because Varyag has the same radar as 052C and (as of yet) there are no HHQ-9 VLS on it yet, which would lead me to believe it can be used to guide HHQ-9 from other ships (052C working in a battle group). Of course my whole argument would collapse if it turns out Varyag is installed with HHQ-9 but as of yet it isn't.

Click to expand...

I would be surprised if the PLAN didn't have SOME kind of CEC capability. But note that CEC is not directly related to AEGIS. It is a separate program. It can link AEGIS ships to each other and to non-AEGIS ships (like carriers and OHP frigates). I would be equally surprised if PLAN's CEC-type capability were as mature as the USN's.

The Varyag having the same PAR as the Type 052C doesn't necessarily mean it would be used to guide HHQ-9's. As I said, it all depends on the frequency of this PAR. I would actually personally prefer an S-band search & track only radar (long search range), meaning those HHQ-9's will likely have to be active-homing. This would allow greater engagement capability compared to SARH and terminal illumination via the 052C PAR, though I'm not personally prepared to ridiculously spout off some random number as to how many enemy missiles it could engage. Even if the HHQ-9 were active-homing, the PAR would probably serve in the role of mid-course updater meaning there will still be a software limit in terms of how many it could guide at once.

Bltizo said:

EDIT:
I think it's generally accepted that the radar on 052C is AESA. Crobato made a series of good posts last year on that in the 052C thread before he vanished.
http://www.sinodefenceforum.com/navy/ddg-052c-thread-20-2358.html
I'm not saying Roger's "40 missile" claim is right, but there's been more... "evidence" indicating it's AESA than anything else. kk.

Click to expand...

You mean it's generally accepted by the internet community. This isn't saying much. OTOH I also believe the radar is more likely AESA than PESA, but that's just my opinion. Unlike others, I don't hold up personal opinion and try to pass it off as fact. Neither do I take that speculation and start to spin off random numbers and then try to pass those off as fact as well. That was the point of my other posts.

Bltizo has given the answers which I wanted to give. Brahmos is already deployed, mating it to SU-30 MKI should be done by the end of 2011, I don't think it is such an insurmountable technological challenge. And SU-30 MKI can fly low (30m ASL) and launch the Brahmos in lo-lo mode. It might also take out the observation helos, prior to launching and so while you can guess a salvo of Brahmos is on its way, you wont know which direction and won't have targeting data until it is very close.

When I am contesting the ability of SeaRAM or its Chinese equivalent to knock out a salvo of 40 Brahmos, I am not talking about the superiority of my weapons or downgrading the capabilities of the AEGIS or the Chinese destroyer.

I am just looking at it from the engineering perspective. Is technology mature enough to handle such a salvo? We know the maths and physics (which itself was contested by the person who began this thread), I am asking does the engineering capability exist, assuming we have 120 SeaRAMs on board ready to be launched. What are the challenges we will face? At least the RAMs have to be initially guided to their acquisition baskets before their IR seekers can lock on, plus can they maintain their lock when so many missiles interweave and criss-cross their path. This does not require swarm intelligence of any kind. They can be programmed to independently do it, though it can sometimes result in fratricide.

ZTZ99 said:

Don't be ridiculous. I said YOU don't know if the PAR on the 052C is AESA or PESA. And you don't. And that's as much a fact as the fact that the earth circles the sun. Until the Chinese military officially comes out and says yes, this radar is AESA not PESA, everything else is just speculation.

Click to expand...

There are lots of Chinese language reports about the PLA discussing specifications and capabilities. These are good sources. Not my problem if western observers like yourself ignore them.

ZTZ99 said:

AND we do not see any evidence of FCR's on the deck of the 052C. But you didn't know any of that, or you would not have posted what you just did.

Click to expand...

Actually, we noticed that back in 2004.

ZTZ99 said:

If you have some kind of insider knowledge which leads you to 40 rather than 24, or 69, or 113, I'd like to see it. Claiming that the 052C is AESA therefore 40 is the appropriate number is just plain ridiculous.

Click to expand...

It's an internet forum called "Sinodefence." People here have the freedom to speculate on the capabilities of Chinese weapons. If you don't like it, why are you here?

Speculation needs to be based on technological capabilities present as of now. I doubt whether current radars have the capacity to simultaneously cue in 40 anti-missile projectiles to their targets, leave alone simultaneously illuminate 40 targets. I actually thought such technology existed, but it appears it may not exist. I do not know. I wonder if it is even possible for current radars to simultaneously engage 40 aircrafts. One way of accomplishing this could be to have two AESA/PESA radars, one dedicated to volume search, detection and maintaining of tracks, another dedicated to terminal illumination. Do such dual platforms exist?

Pointblank answered my questions by saying that modern navies try to deny information and take out targeting platforms and thus solve the problem of dealing with multiple salvos. This of course means that probably, from open source information, AEGIS class destroyer on its own wont be able to handle 40 supersonic sea skimmers simultaneously. USN tactics however ensure that these destroyers will never have to face such a situation.