Issues on Intercepting Hypersonic Missile.

tphuang

tphuang

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
VIP Professional
Registered Member
Roger604 said:
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.
Click to expand...

take a look at the predator and prey problem and you will see how one missile can catch up to another. Now, consider that you send two predators up there and you know exactly where the prey is going. Now, consider that the predator only has to get to a spot close enough to the predator to knock it off the path. You will see exactly how two intercepting missiles can intercept even faster targets. Again, the AShM is always going to face a greater task at searching for the ship than the other way around.

Same with guns, you know exactly where the missile is going to. In short burst, it can fire off at rate 70 rounds/s and the muzzle velocity for these things reach mach 3 or mach 4 depending on the round being used. And when the rounds reach the approximate target, they can either seek for the target or disperse into many small fragments and cover great area. You form these walls in the approximate area where the target is coming in. Net result, target gets pierced.
 
Roger604

Roger604

Senior Member
tphuang said:
take a look at the predator and prey problem and you will see how one missile can catch up to another. Now, consider that you send two predators up there and you know exactly where the prey is going. Now, consider that the predator only has to get to a spot close enough to the predator to knock it off the path. You will see exactly how two intercepting missiles can intercept even faster targets. Again, the AShM is always going to face a greater task at searching for the ship than the other way around.
Click to expand...

Well of course it's possible for two missiles to intercept a faster target! Your point about EW spoofing is particularly well taken.

That's all in the realm of reality. I merely pointed out that what is not in the realm of reality are certain "claims" that SeaRAM (or other systems) can reliably defeat with ease ("over 95%" success) every single incoming supersonic anti-ship missiles in a salvo attack, and render any attack futile.

The reality is that successful defense all depends on the relative maneuverability of the anti-ship missile and the interceptor -- their flight envelopes determine whether or not interception is possible. An anti-ship missile that is much faster and much more maneuverable than the interceptors will be VERY DANGEROUS to the target ship. It's entirely misleading to "forget" about this point and only bring up how fast the ship's radars can engage and track the incoming missile, since that's a given.

So I encourage fellow formites to take a more objective look at your claims and not exaggerate too much. It's not known publicly how maneuverable the standard and the RAM are relative to a supersonic anti-ship missile, so it's rather groundless to the point of exaggeration to claim that an AEGIS destroyer has a "near perfect" defense.
 
Last edited:
Jeff Head

Jeff Head

General
Registered Member
Roger604 said:
Well of course it's possible for two missiles to intercept a faster target! Your point about EW spoofing is particularly well taken.

That's all in the realm of reality. I merely pointed out that what is not in the realm of reality are certain "claims" that SeaRAM (or other systems) can reliably defeat with ease ("over 95%" success) every single incoming supersonic anti-ship missiles in a salvo attack, and render any attack futile.

The reality is that successful defense all depends on the relative maneuverability of the anti-ship missile and the interceptor -- their flight envelopes determine whether or not interception is possible. An anti-ship missile that is much faster and much more maneuverable than the interceptors will be VERY DANGEROUS to the target ship. It's entirely misleading to "forget" about this point and only bring up how fast the ship's radars can engage and track the incoming missile, since that's a given.

So I encourage fellow formites to take a more objective look at your claims and not exaggerate too much. It's not known publicly how maneuverable the standard and the RAM are relative to a supersonic anti-ship missile, so it's rather groundless to the point of exaggeration to claim that an AEGIS destroyer has a "near perfect" defense.
Click to expand...
You fail to realize that the attackers, in an attack of say, 50 missiles against a carrier battle group, would settle for a 95% rate...which would mean 2-3 missiles get through to target.

In a cost benefit analysis, this would be wildly successful.

BTW, due to the operational testing that has gone on, and there is a lot of it like man overboard explained, it is in fact known what the manueverability and flight characteristics of the two engaging missiles are. They are tested, evaluated, and documented all the time.

That information is then put to good use improving the system.

It's not perfect. No one said it is. It is just very good.

I pray we never have to find if it is good enough.
 
K

Kongo

Junior Member
Roger doesn't quite seem to want to accept how good the RAM is. Originally the mode of operation was to launch 2 missiles per target, but performance was so good that now only 1 missile is to be assigned per target. So far it's around 180 trials with a 95% success rate. Around 90% of which were skin-to-skin hits even though it's not a system designed for contact kill as the kill mechanism. Trials which included supersonic (mach 2.5), sea skimming and violently maneuvering Vandal targets. Scenarios included stream attacks as well. During techeval it scored a perfect 11 out of 11 kills. The reality is that RAM has performance which is proven, with actual intercepts against targets designed to emulate the supersonic systems Roger holds in awe. In some ways those targets even exceed the performance of those missiles they are to emulate. And supersonic missiles are not very maneuverable at all. Because they are so big and fast, all they manage are gentle curves unlike the more abrupt maneuvering that smaller subsonic missiles can afford. In any case, for supersonic missiles, trying to maneuver is actually defeating the purpose of their speed in the first place.

Let me clarify something about RAM. It has two modes, IR only, which is IR all the way, and IR Dual Mode, which is passive RF leading to IR on the later stage. It has no Passive RF all the way.
Click to expand...

It has. That particular mode was demonstrated during Techeval.
 
I

IDonT

Senior Member
VIP Professional
Here are some of Aegis intercepts that the USN has conducted. There are 42 videos that include ballistic missile intercepts, simultaneous ballistic missile and cruise missile intercepts, multiple ballistic missile intercepts, and even some that involves the Japanese Kongo destroyers.

The US systems are continously proven in near real life scenarios.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 
K

Kongo

Junior Member
the thread is about hypersonic, mach5 or above
Click to expand...

There is no hypersonic sea skimming anti-ship missile, and there might never be one. But there is hypersonic high diving missiles. The Kh-22 and the generic short range ballistic missiles are some of them. To emulate the high diving Kh-22, the AQM-37 is used, reaching speeds of around mach 4. These are old school threats that is exactly what AEGIS was designed to handle and it handles them exceedingly well. Higher speed hypersonic ballistic missiles have been intercepted, one just recently. Check out the link Idont provided, look specifically for FTM-14.
 
L

lilzz

Banned Idiot
Kongo said:
The Kh-22 and the generic short range ballistic missiles are some of them. To emulate the high diving Kh-22, the AQM-37 is used, reaching speeds of around mach 4. These are old school threats that is exactly what AEGIS was designed to handle and it handles them exceedingly well. Higher speed hypersonic ballistic missiles have been intercepted, one just recently. Check out the link Idont provided, look specifically for FTM-14.
Click to expand...

Those missile have sensors to detect incoming interceptor missile and take evasive actions like I described in this thread? Porbably Not.

FOr BMD the operator mentions the operation will take 166 seconds. almost 3 minutes. It's like an eternity for awaring target missile to take corrective action.
See how the SM-2 has to steady itself during terminal phase by shooting 4 steams of exhaust out to balance itself in the space.

Well, during this delicate, very slow juggling maneuvor by SM-2, the target missile can take sudden actions and acclerating away.

This type of BMD is excellent tool against obsolete parts like Taepondong-2.
 
Last edited:
Jeff Head

Jeff Head

General
Registered Member
lilzz said:
Well, during this delicate, very slow juggling maneuvor by SM-2, the target missile can take sudden actions and acclerating away.

This type of BMD is excellent tool against obsolete parts like Taepondong-2.
Click to expand...
If the potentially aggressive missiles have such counter measure sensors, and have been in the field for any length of time, it is likely that the US NAvy is practising and training against similarly configured attack profiles.

In addition, any "sudden" movement by a hypersonic missile is apt to destroy it if it is truly "sudden". If it is less extreme (which is has to be at those speeds), then even a small move, at those speeds, will throw it off course enough, that not many of them would defeat its purpose in any case.

Finally, the attacking missile, short of data link from an observing platform of some type (which if it were that close to a carrier stirke group would probably be splashed anyway), is not going to be able to house a very large or powerful counter sensor for oncoming missiles in the type of ECM environment it will be flying into once an oncoming threat is observed by a US group.

Not saying it cannot have a decent sensor, just that in the proximity of the much, much more powerful sensors on the vessels being attacked, it is likely that the effectiveness of that sensor is going to be seriously retarded.
 
I

IDonT

Senior Member
VIP Professional
lilzz said:
Those missile have sensors to detect incoming interceptor missile and take evasive actions like I described in this thread? Porbably Not.

FOr BMD the operator mentions the operation will take 166 seconds. almost 3 minutes. It's like an eternity for awaring target missile to take corrective action.
See how the SM-2 has to steady itself during terminal phase by shooting 4 steams of exhaust out to balance itself in the space.

Well, during this delicate, very slow juggling maneuvor by SM-2, the target missile can take sudden actions and acclerating away.

This type of BMD is excellent tool against obsolete parts like Taepondong-2.
Click to expand...

Can you tell me the name of the missile that does all the things that you claim it to do? (Hyper-sonic sea skimming, extremely manueverable, with RWR to enable it to detect the radar signiture of an interceptor missile)

If I'm not mistaken, this missile does not exist...yet. So why are comparing current level US technology with something imaginary? By the time such missiles are in operation, the current crop of interceptor missiles would be replaced by directed energy weapons. (yes they are still in development stage)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top