PLAN Anti-ship/surface missiles

Gloire_bb

Captain
Registered Member
Against small, stealthy ships, like say, a Tuo Chiang corvette, you would need more powerful seekers to deal both with the reduced RCS but also their lower ship profile and the sea clutter. That's why there is no such thing as 'enough' as ships continually reduce their own RCS ala stealthy frigates and corvettes, and combine that with their onboard ECM.
Seeker fittable in the upper half of the dome probably can arguably be made strong enough, esp. with newer signal processing.
And fuzing two makes it inherently harder to achieve a soft kill against the attacking missile.
Furthermore, such a missile appears to be more universal(environment/background/type of target).

Whatever the case, right now all 3 approaches are in existence, so argument IMHO is moot. All 3 do work.
 

davidau

Senior Member
Registered Member
While EW is sort of a black box, and so I won't get into anything specific, I'd like to note that the upcoming SEWIP and its SLQ-32(V)6 make multi-modal guidance very useful. A seeker only needs to be able to acquire and home onto a target, and if a full-size seeker is overcompensating for a non-jamming target, but isn't capable of out-EPing a jamming target, multi-modal guidance is the happy medium.


I think you're overestimating it lol, I picked it up in a couple years when I was younger, and our linguists pick it up in a year flat, with fluency in 1.5-2 years easy.
Hmm, are you a rocket scientist or are you boasting? Why don't you open a school in yankee land and teach them Chineses language, oral and written, and its culture! you'll be a millionaire overnight!

Also, may I ask, where did you learn your Chinese?
 

tphuang

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
VIP Professional
Registered Member
Hmm, are you a rocket scientist or are you boasting? Why don't you open a school in yankee land and teach them Chineses language, oral and written, and its culture! you'll be a millionaire overnight!

Also, may I ask, where did you learn your Chinese?

Do you really need to be this rude? If non-native Chinese speakers can pick it up quickly (at least the portion relevant to their profession), that's a great thing.
 

Gloire_bb

Captain
Registered Member
Do you really need to be this rude? If non-native Chinese speakers can pick it up quickly (at least the portion relevant to their profession), that's a great thing.
1.5-2 yrs is doable for public conversation fluency if you're really devoted(i was not, but got somewhere around there...eventually).
For professional topics - they're kinda plug&play afterward, learn the necessary vocabulary and with some practice it works ok.
Furthermore, Chinese(written) is convenient in this case - quite often you can just guess your way out of an unknown word. ;)
 

Tam

Brigadier
Registered Member
Seeker fittable in the upper half of the dome probably can arguably be made strong enough, esp. with newer signal processing.
And fuzing two makes it inherently harder to achieve a soft kill against the attacking missile.
Furthermore, such a missile appears to be more universal(environment/background/type of target).

Whatever the case, right now all 3 approaches are in existence, so argument IMHO is moot. All 3 do work.

You still have the physical problem of the IIR canted seeker blocking the upper radar array. The radar array needs to have look down, and you need to have some kind of gimbal on the array in order for the array to point down. AESA on a missile is not a guarantee to happen; there are still advantages to using a mechanically scanning slotted wave guided planar antenna, such as cost, packaging, simplicity, and its mechanical gimbal flexibility to allow for wide FOV.

IMG_4116.jpg

This becomes apparent when you see the anatomy of radar guided seekers.

56960d4ff70d237d.jpgimages (4).jpeg0de60d5007875c81.jpg


To the other side of things, if you use a longer infrared wavelength, a larger lens and sensor on the missile, with better ---- resulting in bulkier electronics and a bigger camera that ends up occupying the nose --- you may also extend your IIR range. This can let you accomplish both antiship and antiland on the same IIR seeker. The requirement for the seeker should be around 30 to 40km for its terminal range, so it needs to be be able to spot and ID the target at those ranges.
 
Last edited:

Gloire_bb

Captain
Registered Member
You still have the physical problem of the IIR canted seeker blocking the upper radar array. The radar array needs to have look down, and you need to have some kind of gimbal on the array in order for the array to point down. AESA on a missile is not a guarantee to happen; there are still advantages to using a mechanically scanning slotted wave guided planar antenna, such as cost, packaging, simplicity, and its mechanical gimbal flexibility to allow for wide FOV.
Swashplate?
Maneuverable missiles with IR seekers need it anyways(or who'll track the target) - you may temporarily just switch downwards sensor this way.
joint-strike-missile-kongsberg_45031.jpg
 

Tam

Brigadier
Registered Member
Swashplate?
Maneuverable missiles with IR seekers need it anyways(or who'll track the target) - you may temporarily just switch downwards sensor this way.
joint-strike-missile-kongsberg_45031.jpg

An active radar seeker won't have enough range anyway, and using it to search for a target would deplete the missile's battery reserves, leaving it less for the IR phase.

Wide angle IR missiles uses a pivoting or gimbal missile head.

FIM-92_seeker_DSCN4271.jpeg

If you want to do a dual seeker, it can look as awkward as this.

gsn.jpg
 

Gloire_bb

Captain
Registered Member
An active radar seeker won't have enough range anyway, and using it to search for a target would deplete the missile's battery reserves, leaving it less for the IR phase.
We have a turbojet onboard in this particular case, thus power will be available for a full duration of flight...
 
Top