Issues on Intercepting Hypersonic Missile.

lilzz said:

Man overbored said they only excercised missile up to 2.5Mach. Missile will higher Mach is unknown.

Are you saying there's no prediction involed, well that's wrong, Even Man overbored also said the prediction program was written experienced engineer.

Priediction is involved in every interception and you can't get away from that doesn't matter how sophisticated your computer and hardwares are.

When your sensor detect target at point A, then you not going to shoot at point A, you need to predict next point B, and shoot at B instead of A.
You can't get away from the fundamentals.

Click to expand...

This is true, but when the location at point A is communicated to the missile so quickly, the amount of departure between point A and point B is minimized. This is particularly true when the ability to track between point A and point B and point C, etc. is enhanced by the speed and sophistication of the hardware doing the acquisition and tracking and the comm gear communicating those results to the interceptor.

Man overboard also spoke quite eloquently and directly regarding the capanbilities in this area.

Then, particularly as the missile and the interceptor close range, or as the missile closes range on target...there is less and less room for eradic movement on the part of the missile if it wants to hit the target, and less and less adjustment required for the iterceptor.

My point is simply this, with the speed and sophistication of tracking and communicating, coupled with the speed and agility of the missile, the task is simplified. Those factors are equally important to the intercept.

Those are also fundamental s of the defense systems the US (and other nations) employs that cannot be avoided. That's all.

Jeff Head said:

This is true, but when the location at point A is communicated to the missile so quickly, the amount of departure between point A and point B is minimized. This is particularly true when the ability to track between point A and point B and point C, etc. is enhanced by the speed and sophistication of the hardware doing the acquisition and tracking and the comm gear communicating those results to the interceptor.
.

Click to expand...

We have discussed in the thread some of the reaction time.
for example, the CIWS from initial detection to firing is about 6s.
let say it's 5km away, this will take another 3 to 4s for interceptor reach there. So you looking at 9-10s. That's the type of ball number we looking at.
They are not CPU speed operating at Mhz range.

lilzz said:

We have discussed in the thread some of the reaction time.
for example, the CIWS from initial detection to firing is about 6s.
let say it's 5km away, this will take another 3 to 4s for interceptor reach there. So you looking at 9-10s. That's the type of ball number we looking at.
They are not CPU speed operating at Mhz range.

Click to expand...

The RAM and Standard missiles systems may well have faster reaction times...but the point is, that once away, the missile and its tracker communicate very quickly that close to the vessel.

Even 9-10 seconds becomes a long time at those tracking and communication speeds. With the acquisition and tracking capabilities of modern US DDGs and CGs, my bet is they will know about the intruder long before that and the attack missile will have had to pass through several layers of defense before the CIWS has to react.

...and at that point the solution will be passed off to the CIWS should a leaker get through.

That has been discussed as well.

Jeff Head said:

The RAM and Standard missiles systems may well have faster reaction times...but the point is, that once away, the missile and its tracker communicate very quickly that close to the vessel.

Click to expand...

In 2 seconds, how many times do you the canard can be adjusted mechanically? Let say the missile's computer able to predict continuously 15 new positions in 2 seconds but how many new pts can the missile actually execute. Probably, only able to execute 2 to 3 new positions out of 15.

Therefore, it's limited by the physical limitation of mechanically adjustments.
computer is fast but mechanical movement is slow.

lilzz said:

In 2 seconds, how many times do you the canard can be adjusted mechanically? Let say the missile's computer able to predict continuously 15 new positions in 2 seconds but how many new pts can the missile actually execute. Probably, only able to execute 2 to 3 new positions out of 15.

Therefore, it's limited by the physical limitation of mechanically adjustments.
computer is fast but mechanical movement is slow.

Click to expand...

There are physical limitations to be sure...but your numbers are conjecture and the number may well be quite higher.

Coming in on terminal approach, the incoming missile has the same type of limitations, and a proximity warhead will make up for significant variance closer in.

The RAM is one of the most successful CIWS out there and it is constantly improving.

Anyhow, as I said, lets all hope that the equations, the solutions, and the training all remain academic and that the superiority and quality of the systems themselves serve to prevent their actual use...but should they be needed, well, Semper Paratus!

lilzz said:

In 2 seconds, how many times do you the canard can be adjusted mechanically? Let say the missile's computer able to predict continuously 15 new positions in 2 seconds but how many new pts can the missile actually execute. Probably, only able to execute 2 to 3 new positions out of 15.

Therefore, it's limited by the physical limitation of mechanically adjustments.
computer is fast but mechanical movement is slow.

Click to expand...

you have to realize that the supersonic missile has to face the same problems and it has far more to deal with in terms of the stealthy shape of ship, the ESM of ship. Everytime it changes direction, it has to locate the ship again and not get in the water. That's a lot to ask for the small seeker and processor of the missile. The intercepting missiles have the much larger radar of the mother ship to help it locate the AShM for the most part of the missile.

It's not as if an interceptor missile computes one intercept point, then steers to it and flies straight towards it, and then does the cycle again.
The computing and steering is done continuously, the controll surfaces can be moved all the time at rather high rates.
Furthermore, the interceptor doesn't compute an actual intercept point in space, but tries to make the two flight pathes intersect somewhere. Where that point exactly is, isn't really important.

Jeff Head said:

Coming in on terminal approach, the incoming missile has the same type of limitations, and a proximity warhead will make up for significant variance closer in.

The RAM is one of the most successful CIWS out there and it is constantly improving.

Click to expand...

Please, RAM is not a CIWS. A CIWS is a gattling gun. RAM is a point defense missile.

The one point you simply fail to understand is that a fast moving missile can easily maneuver outside of the envelope of an intercepting missile like a standard or ram. A sudden pitch, for example, will put the faster missile beyond the reach of the slow missile -- EVEN IF THE SLOW MISSILE TRIES TO PITCH TOO SIMPLY BECAUSE THE FASTER MISSILE TRAVELS FURTHER!

Your explanation of the AEGIS system is grossly misleading to say the least. Your interceptors do not travel at the speed of light! They are even slower than the incoming missiles and therefore are at a huge disadvantage if the trajectory of the incoming missile cannot be accuracy predicted.

CIWS - Close In Weapons System - does not specify the weapon used in the role as a gun. The Kashtan CIWS uses a missile/gun combo. And the MANPAD like range of the RAM makes it rather a "close in" weapon than a point defence missile. So, RAM is one CIWS, while e.g. Phalanx is another.

And being faster doesn't neccessarily lead to a better envelope, in fact turn radii will likely increase, whereas the slower missile can turn in a closer space.

Roger604 said:

Please, RAM is not a CIWS. A CIWS is a gattling gun. RAM is a point defense missile.

Click to expand...

CIWS stands for Close in Weapons System. Your desire and attempt to relegate that to purely a gun system is not in step with what is happening out in the real world. The Russians, the US, and others mix the two quite regularly (missiles and guns), and the RAM was meant to be close in, particularly SEA-RAM.

Roger604 said:

The one point you simply fail to understand is that a fast moving missile can easily maneuver outside of the envelope of an intercepting missile like a standard or ram. A sudden pitch, for example, will put the faster missile beyond the reach of the slow missile -- EVEN IF THE SLOW MISSILE TRIES TO PITCH TOO SIMPLY BECAUSE THE FASTER MISSILE TRAVELS FURTHER!

Click to expand...

This has already been adequately and directly addressed throughout this thread. Interceptor missiles can account for the turning and pitching and regularly do in real, live-fire testing.

Roger604 said:

Your explanation of the AEGIS system is grossly misleading to say the least. Your interceptors do not travel at the speed of light! They are even slower than the incoming missiles and therefore are at a huge disadvantage if the trajectory of the incoming missile cannot be accuracy predicted.

Click to expand...

No, the explanations on this thread of AEGIS are not misleading. They are spot on. What I spoke of was the speed of the processing within the system to acquire and track the threat (which electronically does in fact travel very, very fast) and then the speed of the communication between the system and its missile...which is also very fast.

Sorry you misunderstood. None of these systems (either offensive or defensive) are perfect or ever will be. But the AEGIS system is very, very good, and the most tested and most proliferated system out there and there is good reason for it. That's all.