Modern Carrier Battle Group..Strategies and Tactics

Blitzo

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member
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.

I did acknowledge the caveat in my last sentence, that processing power necessary to make the microadjustments at terminal maneuvres relies on the quality of the seeker detecting the target. But my comparison with ABM was to point out that the speeds of a vehicle and its target are not an inherent bottleneck for onboard processing -- or rather, they are not the only one.
 

Engineer

Major
The concept's success or failure requires the components of the chain to work both collectively and successively and not independently or individually. Until there is demonstration that the product can deliver its end result you don't have a product - just components of a product.

That statement is a contradiction. By working in a chain, components are not working collectively but sequentially.

fBvpLFD.jpg

C4ISR for support of ASBM was completed in 2007.

WSwI47N.jpg

Methods for detection, localization and tracking of ships were developed, enabling space space surveillance system in direct support of long distance strike systems. The text stresses the importance of the resulting system in monitoring movements of 19 capital ships.

mR2H4tD.jpg

The text in this diagram mentions two means of locating ships. One is through triangulation of EM emission. The other is through the stitching and processing of multiple satellite images. Both methods are completely automated, as in no human intervention. The latter method achieved 98% accuracy in automatically identification of 19 capital ships. Most importantly, ASBM has already gone through a full scale test as a result.

uWkatFj.jpg

In addition to ELINT and optical imaging platforms, the system also incorporates the use of Radar Satellites. The system is already in use, with applications in monitoring of world wide hot spots, Diaoyudao, and natural disasters.
 
Last edited:
how you doing, SamuraiBlue? I wonder about this particular part:

..., 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.

...

would it be possible to use an Inertial Navigation System first to get the Targetable Reentry Vehicle "reasonably close" to the target and then switch its Active Seeker (Radar) on? I mean why use radar "at early stage in re-entry"??

P.S. I have no estimate of what "reasonably close" would be :)
 

Blitzo

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member
how you doing, SamuraiBlue? I wonder about this particular part:



would it be possible to use an Inertial Navigation System first to get the Targetable Reentry Vehicle "reasonably close" to the target and then switch its Active Seeker (Radar) on? I mean why use radar "at early stage in re-entry"??

P.S. I have no estimate of what "reasonably close" would be :)

That would be the entire point of mid course data links and mid course flight correction.
So by the terminal phase, your seeker has a much smaller area it needs to search.
 

SamuraiBlue

Captain
how you doing, SamuraiBlue? I wonder about this particular part:



would it be possible to use an Inertial Navigation System first to get the Targetable Reentry Vehicle "reasonably close" to the target and then switch its Active Seeker (Radar) on? I mean why use radar "at early stage in re-entry"??

P.S. I have no estimate of what "reasonably close" would be :)

I believe GPS would be more accurate in midflight stage, after all no one is going to shoot a missile blind and would probably have coordinates before firing the missile.
The active seeker radar would have much interference due to plasma generated by the heat to gain an accurate reading the main reason why CEP will never be 0 even on a stationary target.
 
I believe GPS would be more accurate in midflight stage, after all no one is going to shoot a missile blind and would probably have coordinates before firing the missile.

now I see I actually meant GPS (not INS) :) what I meant (but didn't say) was that a friendly submarine or drone could detect (presumably at some very long range) a hostile CVBG (its approximate position, maybe speed, direction) and you could gamble that info is accurate and send the Targetable Reentry Vehicle accordingly

The active seeker radar would have much interference due to plasma generated by the heat to gain an accurate reading the main reason why CEP will never be 0 even on a stationary target.

I think you'd need several sensors to make sure you'll hit what you really would like to hit (for example not to slam the vessel with the highest Radar Cross Section you found -- this could belong, within measurement uncertainties, to an innocent tanker which happened to be in the area)
 

Blitzo

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member
now I see I actually meant GPS (not INS) :) what I meant (but didn't say) was that a friendly submarine or drone could detect (presumably at some very long range) a hostile CVBG (its approximate position, maybe speed, direction) and you could gamble that info is accurate and send the Targetable Reentry Vehicle accordingly

Any mid course guidance for AShBM would likely involve beidou, and real time tracking of the target by ESM or optical satellites, and maybe drones and MPAs, which would all contribute to update the flight path of the missile before it reaches terminal phase

I think you'd need several sensors to make sure you'll hit what you really would like to hit (for example not to slam the vessel with the highest Radar Cross Section you found -- this could belong, within measurement uncertainties, to an innocent tanker which happened to be in the area)

It probably isn't as big an issue as you make it to be: for one, over the horizon ashms for years have operated on active radar and have not had to worry about accidentally hitting civilian ships, and also, at terminal phase when the terminal seeker kicks in, there isn't a very large distance the CV can move in that time, so unless there happens to be a tanker within a kilometre of a CVBG, differentiating between RCS returns shouldn't be much of a problem (ignoring ECM)

That said, a multimodal seeker makes the most sense, if such a seeker can be developed.
 
Any mid course guidance for AShBM would likely involve beidou, ...

now just for complete amateurs like me :) beidou:
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


It probably isn't as big an issue as you make it to be: for one, over the horizon ashms for years have operated on active radar and have not had to worry about accidentally hitting civilian ships, and also, at terminal phase when the terminal seeker kicks in, there isn't a very large distance the CV can move in that time, so unless there happens to be a tanker within a kilometre of a CVBG, differentiating between RCS returns shouldn't be much of a problem (ignoring ECM)

...

glad to hear this, thanks
 
Top