Modern Carrier Battle Group..Strategies and Tactics
- Thread starter Kampfwagen
- Start date
Re: how realistic is concept of modified ballistic missile against carrier group
That's true. But we also need to note that the existing ICBM warhead has radar already, to improve its precision. The Plasms effect happens in the middle of fall, above or after it you still can have a radar working.
From the technical point of view, a ballistic missile warhead designed to hit a carrier doesn't need any explosive payload, the sheer weight and speed will do the job. So the sensor volume and weight is not limited probably, sensor itself is part of the payload, not like in strategic ICBM warhead case in which sensor doesn't contribute to damage effect.
As a comparing, the radar on a fighter can see a carrier 150km away easily, and that radar is not very heavy.
That's true. But we also need to note that the existing ICBM warhead has radar already, to improve its precision. The Plasms effect happens in the middle of fall, above or after it you still can have a radar working.
From the technical point of view, a ballistic missile warhead designed to hit a carrier doesn't need any explosive payload, the sheer weight and speed will do the job. So the sensor volume and weight is not limited probably, sensor itself is part of the payload, not like in strategic ICBM warhead case in which sensor doesn't contribute to damage effect.
As a comparing, the radar on a fighter can see a carrier 150km away easily, and that radar is not very heavy.
Re: how realistic is concept of modified ballistic missile against carrier group
It find this interesting.. So it essentially becoming a ballastic version of cluster bomb against the carrier. I am thinking mutiple warheads inside the ballistic missile and then inside each the warhead exists alot of those little bomblets. The individual warhead would release little bomblets right after re-enter the atmosphere just above range of the anti-ballistic missile defence, the Raytheon system. Hundreds of bomblets released, and then another ballistic missile /w conventional warheads follows....
It find this interesting.. So it essentially becoming a ballastic version of cluster bomb against the carrier. I am thinking mutiple warheads inside the ballistic missile and then inside each the warhead exists alot of those little bomblets. The individual warhead would release little bomblets right after re-enter the atmosphere just above range of the anti-ballistic missile defence, the Raytheon system. Hundreds of bomblets released, and then another ballistic missile /w conventional warheads follows....
Last edited:
Roger604
Senior Member
Re: How Do You Sink A Carrier?
I doubt you need to worry that much about "ballistic missile defense". By definition, we're talking about maneuvering warhead, which are well beyond the capability of any "ballistic missile defense" system.
The amount of spread you need just depends on how late you can update the warhead with the latest targeting information. Is half a minute? Or a minute? And then saturate that area with enough warheads or enough submunitions to be sure to damage the flight deck.
Fishhead, I'm not sure why you say that plasma effect only happens in the middle of reentry. It's caused the hypersonic object super-heating the air. The air just gets denser as you go down to sea level. Other space craft, like a space shuttle or a reentry capsule, slows down so that's why the plasma effect recedes. If an object keeps moving a hypersonic speeds until it strikes the surface, the plasma effect would remain.
I doubt you need to worry that much about "ballistic missile defense". By definition, we're talking about maneuvering warhead, which are well beyond the capability of any "ballistic missile defense" system.
The amount of spread you need just depends on how late you can update the warhead with the latest targeting information. Is half a minute? Or a minute? And then saturate that area with enough warheads or enough submunitions to be sure to damage the flight deck.
Fishhead, I'm not sure why you say that plasma effect only happens in the middle of reentry. It's caused the hypersonic object super-heating the air. The air just gets denser as you go down to sea level. Other space craft, like a space shuttle or a reentry capsule, slows down so that's why the plasma effect recedes. If an object keeps moving a hypersonic speeds until it strikes the surface, the plasma effect would remain.
Re: How Do You Sink A Carrier?
Well, if you read the re-entry process of ZhenZhou-6, you see the plasma effect happened at 80km above the sea level, disappeared at 40km. The lower part of atmosphere doesn't generate "plasma effect" even your speed is high since "大气的电离程度在减弱". It's due to that re-entry speed is not an acceleration process, but the other way. Speed actually reduces due to the air density increases.
Well, if you read the re-entry process of ZhenZhou-6, you see the plasma effect happened at 80km above the sea level, disappeared at 40km. The lower part of atmosphere doesn't generate "plasma effect" even your speed is high since "大气的电离程度在减弱". It's due to that re-entry speed is not an acceleration process, but the other way. Speed actually reduces due to the air density increases.
Last edited:
Pointblank
Senior Member
Re: How Do You Sink A Carrier?
What do you think the USN is firing their SM-3's at? At a actual ICBM. The target missile is derived from the U.S. Air Force's LGM-30A/B Minuteman I missile.
What do you think the USN is firing their SM-3's at? At a actual ICBM. The target missile is derived from the U.S. Air Force's LGM-30A/B Minuteman I missile.
Roger604
Senior Member
Re: How Do You Sink A Carrier?
They've been using the Ares rocket. This year they managed to get the interceptor to lock on to it using the interceptor's own IR sensors (with ground radar help, of course). Before, they had to put a homing beacon on the target. They never did any test where the target underwent warhead separation from the rocket (and the interceptor still hit it). They never did any test where the target had decoy warheads. And, of course, they never did any test where the target warhead did any sort of maneuvers.
Look, I know the standard reply is, "They're getting there eventually, they're just taking this step by step." But I think they're deliberately doing "successful testing" for propaganda purposes by setting up easy but unrealistic tests. Decoys are old technology that's been around since the 60's, so it's almost like SM-3 is made obsolete by 60's era technology unless they can deal with decoys. And apparently it's theoretically impossible given existing technology to deal with decoys.
So trying to deal with a modern hypervelocity, stealthy, maneuvering warhead with decoys is so far beyond the capability of any technologically feasible ABM system it's safe to say ABM is not going to be much of a factor against an anti-ship ballistic missile.
Hi Fishhead, you're right. I grabbed an article off the internet that explains it like this. The blackout is caused by electrons in the plasma. As you go down to sea level, the plasma sheath increases in density, but the electrons collide with more neutral particles, thus tending to alleviate the blackout effect. Depending on other factors, blackout effect may still remain.
The article says there are some theoretical ways of countering blackout, like mounting a sharp, slender probe behind the RV that could maintain satellite communication because it is caught in the "wake" of the plasma flow, which is relatively less dense than other surfaces on the RV. Using this design, NASA made an electrostatic rake to measure ion densities in the plasma shock layer.
They've been using the Ares rocket. This year they managed to get the interceptor to lock on to it using the interceptor's own IR sensors (with ground radar help, of course). Before, they had to put a homing beacon on the target. They never did any test where the target underwent warhead separation from the rocket (and the interceptor still hit it). They never did any test where the target had decoy warheads. And, of course, they never did any test where the target warhead did any sort of maneuvers.
Look, I know the standard reply is, "They're getting there eventually, they're just taking this step by step." But I think they're deliberately doing "successful testing" for propaganda purposes by setting up easy but unrealistic tests. Decoys are old technology that's been around since the 60's, so it's almost like SM-3 is made obsolete by 60's era technology unless they can deal with decoys. And apparently it's theoretically impossible given existing technology to deal with decoys.
So trying to deal with a modern hypervelocity, stealthy, maneuvering warhead with decoys is so far beyond the capability of any technologically feasible ABM system it's safe to say ABM is not going to be much of a factor against an anti-ship ballistic missile.
Hi Fishhead, you're right. I grabbed an article off the internet that explains it like this. The blackout is caused by electrons in the plasma. As you go down to sea level, the plasma sheath increases in density, but the electrons collide with more neutral particles, thus tending to alleviate the blackout effect. Depending on other factors, blackout effect may still remain.
The article says there are some theoretical ways of countering blackout, like mounting a sharp, slender probe behind the RV that could maintain satellite communication because it is caught in the "wake" of the plasma flow, which is relatively less dense than other surfaces on the RV. Using this design, NASA made an electrostatic rake to measure ion densities in the plasma shock layer.
Last edited:
Pointblank
Senior Member
Re: How Do You Sink A Carrier?
See tests FTM 04-2 (FM-8) FTM-10, FTM-11, and FTM-12. All targets were a separating, medium range, ballistic missile. The system properly identified the reentry vehicle and intercepted it with the SM-3 missile.
See tests FTM 04-2 (FM-8) FTM-10, FTM-11, and FTM-12. All targets were a separating, medium range, ballistic missile. The system properly identified the reentry vehicle and intercepted it with the SM-3 missile.
Re: How Do You Sink A Carrier?
It doesn't matter if SM-3 can hit a warhead or not. What matters is that a CV, plus its airplanes, plus a few thousands of crew, have too much value to afford a risk of an interception failure, which guarantees to happen. The equation will be so asymmetric that even not worth to make a try.
It doesn't matter if SM-3 can hit a warhead or not. What matters is that a CV, plus its airplanes, plus a few thousands of crew, have too much value to afford a risk of an interception failure, which guarantees to happen. The equation will be so asymmetric that even not worth to make a try.
Roger604
Senior Member
Re: How Do You Sink A Carrier?
I should have been more specific, I meant that SM-3 has never intercepted a modern warhead RV -- one that is detached from any rocket motor. All the tests you listed use a dummy missile called the "Medium Range Target". Let's see what the MRT looks like.
In video, you can see the MRT through the interceptor's sensor. Go to time signature 4:01.
This "separated RV" of the MRT looks just like the second stage of the ! So if the MRT is based on primitive missiles like the Taeopodong, that means the "separated RV" of the MRT is basically the second stage of the Taepodong, which is ~16 meters tall!
Now compare the size and shape of the MRT to a . You see that a modern warhead is only about 1.5 meters tall. This means a modern warhead is far harder to intercept, and far harder to engage by either ground radar or the interceptor's own seeker.
In other words, SM-3 and ABM is at a very primitive level of development, currently only useful against very primitive missiles like a Taepodong.
I should have been more specific, I meant that SM-3 has never intercepted a modern warhead RV -- one that is detached from any rocket motor. All the tests you listed use a dummy missile called the "Medium Range Target". Let's see what the MRT looks like.
In video, you can see the MRT through the interceptor's sensor. Go to time signature 4:01.
This "separated RV" of the MRT looks just like the second stage of the ! So if the MRT is based on primitive missiles like the Taeopodong, that means the "separated RV" of the MRT is basically the second stage of the Taepodong, which is ~16 meters tall!
Now compare the size and shape of the MRT to a . You see that a modern warhead is only about 1.5 meters tall. This means a modern warhead is far harder to intercept, and far harder to engage by either ground radar or the interceptor's own seeker.
In other words, SM-3 and ABM is at a very primitive level of development, currently only useful against very primitive missiles like a Taepodong.