Issues on Intercepting Hypersonic Missile.

Bltizo said:

Which countries do you refer to here? I only know of Russia and India who are still pursuing supersonic anti ship missiles -- all the other big players; US, UK, France, China, Japan, what not... they all seem to be sticking to subsonic AShMs...

Click to expand...

China also has Supersonic AShMs. But yeah, generally, we Westerners don't want Supersonics.

Finn McCool said:

Great discussion guys. I missed the hardware nerds, they're the heart and soul of this site.

My 2 cents of the top of my head is that with long range anti-air missiles, it generally pays to subtract a few miles off of their "maximum" range to get a real sense of their effectiveness. This goes for A2A missiles and SAMs. From what I understand, it's rare that they are fired at their absolute max range.

Click to expand...

Yeah, me and a Russian fan boy had this argument a long time back, and we eventually concluded that if you want the maximum ranges for your missile, test them in Space! :nana:

But generally, not every missile intended for Point Defense is going to be mounted on a Mach 2 flying Fighter cruising at 20 km to try to get it's maximum range. They're usually fired low altitude (from a Ship-like platform) so generally, I take the ranges of SAMs as they are.

Spartan95 said:

Excellent post backed up by good analysis.

And that is the reason why quite a few countries are now developing and deploying super-sonic missiles. Most (all?) of the current CIWS have not been tested against a supersonic missile that is representative of the threat and demonstrated a decent chance of stopping it, much less stopping more than 1.

Also, the issue of taking out supersonic missiles in-flight seems over simplified, particularly for sea skimmers. The biggest issue is how to cue the anti-missile missiles towards the sea skimmers so that terminal guidance can lock on to the target. No terminal guidance means no long range intercept.

Even with terminal guidance locked on, there will not be 100% kill. I don't think there is any missile in the world that has a 100% kill record.

As for IR-guided missiles, there is a reason why IR sensors are used for short range missiles only, and not mid or long range missiles. This is because of the IR absorption in the atmosphere, which reduces the effective range of IR sensors. Oh, rain, mist and fog will screw up IR tracking too. Good luck trying to use IR guidance in those conditions.

Click to expand...

Of course, that is why Missile based CIWSs, in particular, the RIM-116 have more than one modes of operation, either SARH or IR, the former for bad weather conditions and BVR tracking, and the latter for terminal guidance.

Hybrid CIWSs (as far as I know, I'm actually just referring to the Kashtan/Palma), achieve what I'd say to be an above average Kill ratio by combining multiple forms of Point Defense (12 barrels on 2 guns and a missile) when compared to singular forms of Point Defense.

ZTZ99 said:

It doesn't matter if there are Chinese language reports, because 1) if anything those fanboys tend to be even more speculative and nonsensical than you, and 2) they are still nothing more than internet speculation. Finally 3) you have NEVER EVER been able to justify "40" this whole time.

Click to expand...

I don't need to give you some kind of mechanical formula. That is merely your assumption.

I reminded you 052C is an advanced air-defense destroyer with 48 ~200 km range HHQ-9 (active homing), AESA panels (probably EW capable), helicopter pad for AEW helicopter, Type 730 CIWS and probably HQ-10 in the latest block. Type 052C destroyer can probably handle a salvo of <40 supersonic Russian ASM, I think. If you don't like people airing their opinions, why are you on an internet forum?

harishkumar09 said:

What do you mean future ships. Shivalik and Talwar are current ships. Brahmos is already in service with the IN. I just hope to God the Chinese Intelligence knows about this!

Click to expand...

Brahmos has never been test fired from an Indian Navy ship. Prove it if you say otherwise. This is more of those future plans that always ends up being delayed because the Russians do things slowly.

harishkumar09 said:

This is amazing! Flankers don't have ground attack capability!

Click to expand...

Amazing indeed. India's MKIs only have A2A radars. They don't have the A2G radars that other country like for example China's MKK have. It was a decision India made: they wanted something with canards for air superiority.

Again, show me the MKI test firing the Brahmos. Until that they happens, its just wishful thinking.

harishkumar09 said:

And so how do you think Russians planned to attack ground targets in the event of a war? Use Mig-29s ? Flanker has been in service with ground attack mode for more than 25 years.

Click to expand...

There is a big difference between India and Russia, I'm afraid. MKI are not multirole. Other flankers can do multirole. Why deny this fact?

harishkumar09 said:

Yes. And you are going to have AWACS all over the world, shadowing your fleet all over the Bay of Bengal and the Indian ocean? Do you even know how wars are fought?

AWACS cannot detect any aircraft taking off beyond 500 km.

Click to expand...

China does not shop at Russia's toy factory. We build our own indigenous AWACS and that's why we also have an AEW helicopter already.

In any case, I doubt India can locate a fleet in blue waters to launch any sort of attack. It just doesn't have the sophisticated radars, sonars and satellites. Purchases from Russia and US help somewhat, but it's not enough to bridge the gap.

harishkumar09 said:

You don't need to be stealthy. We could use AWACS killers like Novator.

Click to expand...

Show me a test firing of Novator from MKI or any Indian aircraft? Or is this still in the concept stage?

harishkumar09 said:

India and the World is looking for the development, testing and deployment of hypersonic Brahmos II. Brahmos I is ready and deployed and it is very old news.

Click to expand...

Well that is up to Russia if they want to keep India on-board their development programs. They didn't even share the crucial ramjet metallurgy technology the first time. You can skip right to hypersonics if you can do without Russia.

IronsightSniper said:

Long range SAMs aren't going to help you if their minimum altitude isn't low enough to catch a sea-skimming plane, nor can a HQ-9 catch a Brahmos/Klub.

Click to expand...

That's silly. That's a basic capability of the active homing HHQ-9 as well as the land version HQ-9.

You misunderstand missile limits, just because it's ARH doesn't mean it can go 3 meters above the water without freaking out. And as I've already said, the math comes in, the 052C is a good destroyer but it's not well rounded for a SAM platform. It has Long range missiles and it has CIWS but that's it. Nothing for short ranges, nothing for medium ranges, nothing for ballistic ranges. A salvo of 40 Klubs will absolutely sink the 052C and leave enough missiles to sink 3 more. Do your math again, the engagement times don't add up. You can't kill 40 missiles that move at 1 km per second, while at 3 meters above sea level, while doing S maneuvers with 2 gun-based CIWSs and 48 SAMs.

The only ships that can handle 40+ supersonic missiles at the moment, in my opinion are Kuznetsov carriers, Kirov battlecruisers, Ticonderoga cruisers, and Arleigh Burke destroyers. The Kuznetsov and Kirov both have long range (S-300), Medium range (Kinzhal), Short range (9M311 and Osa), and CIWS (Kashtan, AK-630). Ticonderogas and Arleigh Burkes both have modular VLS systems which allow them to be outfitted with SM-3s (long range, ballistic), SM-2 (long/medium range), ESSM (short range), and 2 Phalanxes (CIWS). This large array and multiple redundancy system of Air Defense guarantees defense against a spam of missiles, supersonic or not.

The 052C on the other hand, only have 2 options, HQ-9s and Type-730s. As I have discussed before, Gun based CIWS are absolutely rubbish against Supersonic AShMs. If you want, I can discuss using HQ-9s to shoot down AShMs. Problem comes when the fact that it takes 5 seconds to launch a single HQ-9, so you'll nick 6 or so Brahmoses before they sink themselves a 052C.

Just to clear some misunderstanding that Roger might have (before this thread turned into a who has better equipment thingy).

1) Su-30MKI was a multi-role fighter (). And yes, I am using the wikipedia as my reference because I am too lazy to go deeper into the net to search for something that I believe what can easily be achieved.

2) Without any real sources or references, it is not responsible to throw figures around as if it is a fact. To date, PLAN or any navy in the world had never test their destroyer's system against salvo of 40 or more, or 20 or 100 ASM (supersonic or subsonic) and so no one can say for sure if their system could defend a warship from such an onslaught.

So please refrain from throwing in figures like 40 or more than 40 missiles without solid fact. Pure looking at spec is simply not enough. Many variable are out there... like many experience forumers had pointed out.

And finally can we get back to the main idea of this thread and quit the whose penis is bigger contest?

Roger604 said:

I don't need to give you some kind of mechanical formula. That is merely your assumption.

Click to expand...

Nobody asked for a mechanical formula. I asked for a cogent analysis of "40". You've just essentially confirmed that you pulled this number out of your ass.

Roger604 said:

I reminded you 052C is an advanced air-defense destroyer with 48 ~200 km range HHQ-9

Click to expand...

You haven't the first clue if the range is 200km.

Roger604 said:

(active homing),

Click to expand...

You haven't the first clue if the HHQ-9 is active homing.

Roger604 said:

AESA panels

Click to expand...

You haven't the first clue if the radar is AESA.

Roger604 said:

(probably EW capable)

Click to expand...

Do you have ANY conception under heaven what you are talking about here???

Roger604 said:

helicopter pad for AEW helicopter

Click to expand...

What in the world makes you think China's limited order of AEW Ka's would ever be put on a destroyer rather than on the Varyag where they belong? Destroyer helo's are usually tasked for ASW and SAR.

Roger604 said:

Type 730 CIWS and probably HQ-10 in the latest block.

Click to expand...

OMFG somebody needs to shut you up already. HQ-10 in the latest block? And you got this information where exactly? Same dark location where you pulled "40" out of?

Roger604 said:

Type 052C destroyer can probably handle a salvo of <40 supersonic Russian ASM, I think.

Click to expand...

Hey I know, how about I pull a number out of my ass too, just like you? "24". What makes your "40" more right than my "24"? Go ahead, make my day.

Roger604 said:

If you don't like people airing their opinions, why are you on an internet forum?

Click to expand...

I already told you. You've already read why. But here it is again for the slow of mind: I don't mind people airing their opinions. I mind you airing yours.

^ It's childish and petulant to keep harping about some estimate I made. The spirit of the forum is discussion. It's distracting to other people to read your macho / angry posts. Ask me by PM if you want to more details.

Now let's get back to topic, everybody!

Roger604 said:

^ It's childish and petulant to keep harping about some estimate I made. It's distracting to other people to read your posts. Ask me by PM if you want to more details.

Now let's get back to topic, everybody!

Click to expand...

Thanks for acknowledging that you have no idea how to back up anything you say. From the other posts it seems everybody else also recognizes this. I have no need to PM you because I know you do not have the ability provide "more details". There is no need to "get back to topic" because the missile interception capability of the Type 052C is directly relevant to the subject at hand. For your own sake I suggest that in the future you refrain from making more of these grandiose claims for which you can provide no backup.

rhino123 said:

2) without any real sources or references, it is not responsible to throw figures around as if it is a fact. To date, plan or any navy in the world had never test their destroyer's system against salvo of 40 or more, or 20 or 100 asm (supersonic or subsonic) and so no one can say for sure if their system could defend a warship from such an onslaught.

So please refrain from throwing in figures like 40 or more than 40 missiles without solid fact. Pure looking at spec is simply not enough. Many variable are out there... Like many experience forumers had pointed out.

Click to expand...

exactly.

IronsightSniper said:

Of course, that is why Missile based CIWSs, in particular, the RIM-116 have more than one modes of operation, either SARH or IR, the former for bad weather conditions and BVR tracking, and the latter for terminal guidance.

Hybrid CIWSs (as far as I know, I'm actually just referring to the Kashtan/Palma), achieve what I'd say to be an above average Kill ratio by combining multiple forms of Point Defense (12 barrels on 2 guns and a missile) when compared to singular forms of Point Defense.

Click to expand...

Be that as it may, I would say that it is important to note that the most advanced CIWS developers have not attempted to show any results of their systems defeating 1 threat-representative supersonic anti-ship missile (such as the Brahmos).

While the results from the shooting down of the Vandal supersonic target is interesting, I'm not entirely convinced that this is representative of the effective of CIWS against supersonic anti-ship missiles.

Another bit of interesting news that I came across:

US embarks on study into future anti-ship missile family
07 December 2010

The US Navy is set to kick off a wide-ranging analysis of alternatives (AoA) study intended to shape the characteristics of a new generation of long-range anti-ship guided weapons.

The Joint Resource Oversight Council approved the Offensive Anti-Surface Warfare (OASuW) initiative in early November after a capabilities-based assessment was signed off in May and an Initial Capabilities Document Requirements Review Board completed in August. A request for information (RfI) was issued to industry on 2 December for information to feed into the AoA.

According to Naval Air Systems Command (NAVAIR), which is managing the OASuW effort, the AoA will "specifically address the OASuW engage gaps in the Find, Fix, Track, Target, Engage, Assess [F2T2EA] kill chain and will recommend a preferred system concept for an OASuW weapon family of systems [FoS] – with common subsystems/components – to support the Joint Force Commander's requirement to "gain and sustain access to the maritime battlespace".

Although NAVAIR has not released any specifics of the performance required of OASuW weapons, or of the existing guided weapons the new capability could replace, it characterises the FoS as "required to be mission effective in satellite-enabled, satellite-constrained, and satellite-denied environments to maximize lethality at critical points in the OASuW battle".

201 of 361 words
Copyright © IHS (Global) Limited, 2010
End of non-subscriber extract

Click to expand...

Perhaps this will be the impetus for a supersonic/hypersonic replacement of the Harpoon?

True that most CIWSs manufacturers have not provided proof of the downing of a Supersonic seaskimmer like the Klub, however, I'd argue that'd be because the majority of AShM threats out there are posed by cheap, subsonic, missiles, such as a Termit or a Silkworm or an Exocet to a Harpoon.