Modern Carrier Battle Group..Strategies and Tactics

With CEP of more than 30 meters at a moving target the size of Ford class carrier (Length: 337 m, Beam: 78 m) is not very assuring for a kill. At 30kts the ship can be within a 460m box in the 30 second window you had specified,that's roughly a 26,286m^2 target within a 202,500 m^2 box meaning a 7.5% probability with a 0 m . The calculation is based on probability of location with no consideration for course correction in terminal phase within the atmosphere which will lower the accuracy tremendously due to various other variables.

SamuraiBlue said:

With CEP of more than 30 meters at a moving target the size of Ford class carrier (Length: 337 m, Beam: 78 m) is not very assuring for a kill. At 30kts the ship can be within a 460m box in the 30 second window you had specified,that's roughly a 26,286m^2 target within a 202,500 m^2 box meaning a 7.5% probability with a 0 m

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

. The calculation is based on probability of location with no consideration for course correction in terminal phase within the atmosphere which will lower the accuracy tremendously due to various other variables.

Click to expand...

Well the entire point of AShBM is that it will have both midcourse datalink and correction as well as terminal maneuvering and terminal guidance.

Also, any RV will likely make use of a cluster munition and to maximize dispersion of submunitions at a suitable detonation altitude. E.g.: the 450kg CBU-87 has a foot print of 200x400m (80,000m^2).

I'm not sure why you think terminal course correction will lower the accuracy of the RV compared to an RV without terminal course correction. Pershing II had a 30m CEP with terminal nose pull up and subsequently maneuvred onto target.

Bltizo said:

Well the entire point of AShBM is that it will have both midcourse datalink and correction as well as terminal maneuvering and terminal guidance.

Also, any RV will likely make use of a cluster munition and to maximize dispersion of submunitions at a suitable detonation altitude. E.g.: the 450kg CBU-87 has a foot print of 200x400m (80,000m^2).

I'm not sure why you think terminal course correction will lower the accuracy of the RV compared to an RV without terminal course correction.

Click to expand...

I believe most advanced ballistic missiles have terminal course correction, that is why they have been mass improvements in CEP compared to first/second generation missiles BUT that is against a stationary target we are now talking about a moving target.
It' like a sniper shooting a man that is not moving compared to a shooting a man that is running, ducking and turning. You can't anticipate anything so you need to constantly compensate against variables while entering a new target position every time.

SamuraiBlue said:

I believe most advanced ballistic missiles have terminal course correction, that is why they have been mass improvements in CEP compared to first/second generation missiles BUT that is against a stationary target we are now talking about a moving target.
It' like a sniper shooting a man that is not moving compared to a shooting a man that is running, ducking and turning. You can't anticipate anything so you need to constantly compensate against variables while entering a new target position every time.

Click to expand...

To use the sniper analogy: a 50 cal bullet against a man that is running, ducking and turning would be the equivalent of a missile with no midcourse and terminal guidance.

A 50 cal "smart"/guided bullet akin to what DARPA has developed (with an onboard optic sensor), would be more in line with what AShBM is meant to be.

But a sniper bullet analogy ain't quite right -- after all, a ballistic missile has a ballistic and "indirect" path. More like artillery, or even the flight profile of a guided bomb dropped from a strike aircraft. A better analogy would be using a guided artillery shell or a guided bomb trying to hit a moving vehicle, where the moving vehicle is about 220 times slower than the shell or bomb (mach 10 vs 30 knots, aka 3,400 m/s vs 15.4 m/s gives us a 220 ratio in speed).

Of course, we expect the AShBM's RV to do a tilt up maneuvre which will slow its speed down a bit, which would make it a little more vulnerable to terminal ABM defence, but also allow it to home onto a moving target easier given it'll have more time for terminal course adjustments and for the terminal sensor to work.

I also do appreciate the vast difference in sensor and flight control demands at AShBM speeds versus that of a guided bomb or artillery shell (both our analogies are somewhat flawed), but the principle of terminal maneuvre has been demonstrated like you said, on existing ballistic missiles for years.
The question is whether terminal guidance can be accurate enough to give the RV's maneuvreing control the ability to steer on a slow moving target at those speeds. Plasma build up would be a particular problem.

I keep asking here (the last time on 12-14-2013, 07:44 PM) "how the CSS-5 would hit the desired ship (and not for example a tanker which just happened to join the group) while approaching at about Mach 5"
(why I said M5 now? because

But it’s more likely a medium-range ballistic missile with an independently-guided warhead that does not fly faster than Mach 5.

Click to expand...

I found in )
I recall somebody like answered this question by saying "poor tanker"

Bltizo said:

To use the sniper analogy: a 50 cal bullet against a man that is running, ducking and turning would be the equivalent of a missile with no midcourse and terminal guidance.

A 50 cal "smart"/guided bullet akin to what DARPA has developed (with an onboard optic sensor), would be more in line with what AShBM is meant to be.

But a sniper bullet analogy ain't quite right -- after all, a ballistic missile has a ballistic and "indirect" path. More like artillery, or even the flight profile of a guided bomb dropped from a strike aircraft. A better analogy would be using a guided artillery shell or a guided bomb trying to hit a moving vehicle, where the moving vehicle is about 220 times slower than the shell or bomb (mach 10 vs 30 knots, aka 3,400 m/s vs 15.4 m/s gives us a 220 ratio in speed).

Click to expand...

Yes I believe your analogy would be more accurate if the vehicle is anticipating a strike and taking evasive actions, but artillery shells only traverse at Mach 4 making it easier to make tighter turns(never heard of making a kill in those conditions though). At Mach 7~10 you need either 4 times the radius to steer or 4 time the amount of power for lateral thrusters in which I do not believe either is probable. By the way the guided artillery shells are maneuvered with pop-up wings which is not possible with a RV at those speeds.

Bltizo said:

Of course, we expect the AShBM's RV to do a tilt up maneuvre which will slow its speed down a bit, which would make it a little more vulnerable to terminal ABM defence, but also allow it to home onto a moving target easier given it'll have more time for terminal course adjustments and for the terminal sensor to work.

Click to expand...

The biggest problem with this concept is you need the same amount of heat shielding on the side as well as at the tip making it less maneuverable. Bad move either way.

SamuraiBlue said:

Yes I believe your analogy would be more accurate if the vehicle is anticipating a strike and taking evasive actions, but artillery shells only traverse at Mach 4 making it easier to make tighter turns(never heard of making a kill in those conditions though). At Mach 7~10 you need either 4 times the radius to steer or 4 time the amount of power for lateral thrusters in which I do not believe either is probable. By the way the guided artillery shells are maneuvered with pop-up wings which is not possible with a RV at those speeds.

Click to expand...

I believe Pershing II had both jet vanes and steerable air fins. The fins are pretty obvious on the Pershing II's RV.

The biggest problem with this concept is you need the same amount of heat shielding on the side as well as at the tip making it less maneuverable. Bad move either way.

Click to expand...

Not to repeat myself, but Pershing II used the tilt up function itself, and was equipped with a terminal guidance and maneuvering system too.

The two questions we end up with, are: what kind of terminal guidance would work for tracking a slow moving target, and whether Pershing II's level of terminal maneuverability would have been enough to hit a 30 knots target.
(Of course, it isn't out of the question for AShBM to use a more advanced terminal maneuvering mechanism)

In the end, for the purposes of previous discussion, the assumption was that a suitable terminal guidance and terminal maneuvering system had been developed for AShBM, leading to the question of how it can be realistically tested without firing it into the western pacific, which would not only cause a ruckus but also give away unnecessary flight data.

I believe if the terminal maneuvering and guidance was developed, it could be tested by firing the missile in a way where a non terminal guidance trajectory would put it 460m away from a carrier sized land target, and see if it is able to home in onto the target in the short time of terminal re entry.

The real thing would likely be maneuvering a lot during the time of terminal phase, and the only way I can imagine testing that on land is if they take four remote drivable vehicles, arrange them in a 300m x 77m rectangle pattern, and set them off at 56km/h in a maneuvering formation. And maybe take a massive piece of black cloth and tie each corner to a vehicle to simulate a flight deck for the RV's terminal guidance (assuming it is optical in nature).

In the end it still comes down to the guidance and the ability to maneuvre at terminal phase speeds. If both work, then it's fair to think an RV would be able to hit a target moving 220 times slower than itself the same way a laser guided bomb with a terminal velocity of mach 1 can hit something maneuvering at 1m per second.

Bltizo said:

I believe Pershing II had both jet vanes and steerable air fins. The fins are pretty obvious on the Pershing II's RV.
Not to repeat myself, but Pershing II used the tilt up function itself, and was equipped with a terminal guidance and maneuvering system too.

The two questions we end up with, are: what kind of terminal guidance would work for tracking a slow moving target, and whether Pershing II's level of terminal maneuverability would have been enough to hit a 30 knots target.
(Of course, it isn't out of the question for AShBM to use a more advanced terminal maneuvering mechanism)

In the end, for the purposes of previous discussion, the assumption was that a suitable terminal guidance and terminal maneuvering system had been developed for AShBM, leading to the question of how it can be realistically tested without firing it into the western pacific, which would not only cause a ruckus but also give away unnecessary flight data.

I believe if the terminal maneuvering and guidance was developed, it could be tested by firing the missile in a way where a non terminal guidance trajectory would put it 460m away from a carrier sized land target, and see if it is able to home in onto the target in the short time of terminal re entry.

The real thing would likely be maneuvering a lot during the time of terminal phase, and the only way I can imagine testing that on land is if they take four remote drivable vehicles, arrange them in a 300m x 77m rectangle pattern, and set them off at 56km/h in a maneuvering formation. And maybe take a massive piece of black cloth and tie each corner to a vehicle to simulate a flight deck for the RV's terminal guidance (assuming it is optical in nature).

In the end it still comes down to the guidance and the ability to maneuvre at terminal phase speeds. If both work, then it's fair to think an RV would be able to hit a target moving 220 times slower than itself the same way a laser guided bomb with a terminal velocity of mach 1 can hit something maneuvering at 1m per second.

Click to expand...

Pershing II was not capable to hit a moving target with it's rudimentary targeting system that is one thing for sure.
At the end it ends up to how capable is the targeting system, how agile is it able to maneuver and how fast is the targeting computer doing all the calculations in nano seconds to constantly correct calculations. I would say the biggest challenge would be the targeting system in which GPS would be mostly useless, radar would be either too broad or too narrow to maintain lock on a moving target depending on the band width, infrared would be useless due to it's own heat. So it would need to be a combined system with optical at terminal stage but again even at terminal stage it would be at least 10,000 meters away (3 seconds before impact) making visual acquisition mostly impossible.

As for testing it can be done through partial virtual test in which you feed the targeting on board computer with simulated coordinates and see compare it with where it lands within the designated 450 by 450 m box. If the coordinates match it would be a hit.

I have no idea how the physics of potential seekers would work at that kind of speed and how it would interact with the atmosphere either, so I won't even try speculating, although a few years ago I heard that it might feature some kind of multi mode seeker.

But we agree that terminal sensor and terminal maneuverability are the key determinants of the viability of this weapon. I think the processing needed shouldn't be a challenge -- if an ABM kinetic kill vehicle can hit an exoatmospheric missile using its terminal guidance with its onboard processors at the speeds they're going at, then it shouldn't be a big challenge for a medium hypersonic RV to process the sensor returns of a 15 m/s 300m x 76m flight deck and translate that into flight controls. But that depends on the quality of seeker returns and being able to distinguish targets from decoys.

Bltizo said:

I have no idea how the physics of potential seekers would work at that kind of speed and how it would interact with the atmosphere either, so I won't even try speculating, although a few years ago I heard that it might feature some kind of multi mode seeker.

But we agree that terminal sensor and terminal maneuverability are the key determinants of the viability of this weapon. I think the processing needed shouldn't be a challenge -- if an ABM kinetic kill vehicle can hit an exoatmospheric missile using its terminal guidance with its onboard processors at the speeds they're going at, then it shouldn't be a big challenge for a medium hypersonic RV to process the sensor returns of a 15 m/s 300m x 76m flight deck and translate that into flight controls. But that depends on the quality of seeker returns and being able to distinguish targets from decoys.

Click to expand...

A target in space and in an atmosphere is a ocean width in difference. No friction heat to defuse radar and/or other targeting mechanism, the complete opposite for RV where radar would not be much use due to diffusion making it difficult to maintain acquisition at early stage in re-entry.

On-board processors would also have a limitation in power so it can't be too fast in processor speed. Again ABM has far less variables to make correction in terminal phase since there is no atmosphere.