alwaysfresh
New Member
That is super cool, how far from the ship did you fly the RC plane?
The design of a super-stealthy asymmetric anti-ship cruise missile..
- Thread starter lilzz
- Start date
That is super cool, how far from the ship did you fly the RC plane?
Pointblank
Senior Member
how about discharging flares, IR-signiture morphing, and radar decoys in attack phase? Plus multiple independant warheads?
I till think the idea of dropping a torpedo is better though
That's going to be one hell of a big missile...
RedMercury
Junior Member
Technical quibble: Fuzzy Logic has very little to do with Bayesian probability. Fuzzy Logic actually is an alternative to probability theory, a school of thought that is no longer popular.
I'm curious as to why don't CIWS systems use active infrared, i.e. IR floodlights.
Maybe, but not necessarily. Flares, chaff and decoys can be very compact.
IR-signature morphing would I guess involve two or three heat sources that rotate in different directions and varying speeds around the axis of the aircraft - would that confuse basic IIR missiles and sensors? (of course, keeping it secret from the enemy would help, I'm sure it could be overcome if the enemy had years to build the countermeasures).
I suppose a lot of what is being said here applies to reducing signature from the side and top profile. It must be said that the main threat against the missile would be towards the front aspect. So the measures are facing the law of diminishing returns here because they are not applied where the main threat is most likely to be, which is the front.
The main cross section of any missile is owned up by a radome. Today's radomes, made of carbon composite, are also radio selective. Which means they only let the frequency used by the missile to get through. Any other frequency is absorbed. This kills a few birds with one stone, as it improves the signal gain of the missile's radar, blocks off noise and ECM interference, and at the same time, reduce the missile's radar cross section. Any conventional cruise missile or AshM can be regarded to have a radar cross section > then its physical diameter.
Thermally an AshM is also hard to catch because it flies low over the water, and water vapor would seriously attenuate certain IR wave bands. And besides, the main heat source is on the rear end.
The reason I don't like using a flying wing is that it takes up too much space on an launching aircraft or ship. You want the missile to be as compact as possible so your platform can carry more of them. A flying wing missile would also have some very serious flight consequences on the aircraft that is carrying them.
There are low RCS missile designs like the German Taurus, but some of the benefits are still arguable. Having a squared off and angular design like that can mean increased drag, which can have penalties on the missile's range and flight performance, and not just on the missile but also on the plane carrying them. Round and cylindrical forms are against low RCS, but these forms also have less "wetted" area compared to angular or squared forms, which means better streamlining and less aerodynamic drag. These rounded and cylindrical form also offers the lightest structural weight.
When it comes to missile design, the following principles must apply.
Keep it simple.
Keep it small.
Keep it light.
Keep it cheap.
Simple---the simpler it is, the less likely a malfunction would happen.
Small---the smaller, the more missiles you can carry. Small and light has its disadvantage when it comes to range, but for any given range requirement, its best to achieve that with the most optimally smallest and lightest sized package.
Light---the lighter missile can mean less mass, which means more range for any given size. It means a more agile missile as well, for evasive purposes or catching up with an evading target. A lighter missile means more can be carried by the platform.
Cheap---Because it's meant to be expendable.
All these factors serve to align and reinforce each other.
The main cross section of any missile is owned up by a radome. Today's radomes, made of carbon composite, are also radio selective. Which means they only let the frequency used by the missile to get through. Any other frequency is absorbed. This kills a few birds with one stone, as it improves the signal gain of the missile's radar, blocks off noise and ECM interference, and at the same time, reduce the missile's radar cross section. Any conventional cruise missile or AshM can be regarded to have a radar cross section > then its physical diameter.
Thermally an AshM is also hard to catch because it flies low over the water, and water vapor would seriously attenuate certain IR wave bands. And besides, the main heat source is on the rear end.
The reason I don't like using a flying wing is that it takes up too much space on an launching aircraft or ship. You want the missile to be as compact as possible so your platform can carry more of them. A flying wing missile would also have some very serious flight consequences on the aircraft that is carrying them.
There are low RCS missile designs like the German Taurus, but some of the benefits are still arguable. Having a squared off and angular design like that can mean increased drag, which can have penalties on the missile's range and flight performance, and not just on the missile but also on the plane carrying them. Round and cylindrical forms are against low RCS, but these forms also have less "wetted" area compared to angular or squared forms, which means better streamlining and less aerodynamic drag. These rounded and cylindrical form also offers the lightest structural weight.
When it comes to missile design, the following principles must apply.
Keep it simple.
Keep it small.
Keep it light.
Keep it cheap.
Simple---the simpler it is, the less likely a malfunction would happen.
Small---the smaller, the more missiles you can carry. Small and light has its disadvantage when it comes to range, but for any given range requirement, its best to achieve that with the most optimally smallest and lightest sized package.
Light---the lighter missile can mean less mass, which means more range for any given size. It means a more agile missile as well, for evasive purposes or catching up with an evading target. A lighter missile means more can be carried by the platform.
Cheap---Because it's meant to be expendable.
All these factors serve to align and reinforce each other.
Quickie
Colonel
Actually IR radiation (in comparision to radar) is rather short range under the best atmospheric conditions. It's another thing when it comes to a radiation source as powerful as a cosmic source and to the question of the vaccum of space.
Right. Also, I like the idea of a rather large and therefore long range anti-ship missile which - when nearing its terminal phase - morphs into 3 or more super-maneurable subminiture missiles each with its own guidance and warheads.
Reading this, I just had the idea of an anti-ship "drone" wich flies to the target for 150+ nm, and then releaes some small missiles around 30-40nm from the target, those could be ARM and other small missiles wich engage the ships sensors and superstructures at Mach3 or so. This might render the ship inoperable without the need to sink it.
But that's also a rather complex and big thing. Perhaps not worth the effort.
But that's also a rather complex and big thing. Perhaps not worth the effort.
In reality, cruise missiles have very low RCS as it is from the front. They have radar frequency selective radome in front, and that would absorb radar waves. Often they would use body of carbon composite so that too absorbs radar waves. Exhaust masking will be the best way to deal with thermal emissions, although at a slight cost of the missile's flight performance. Does not take a genius to figure this out, you mix cold air with your exhaust by rerouting, and this is a technique already used in many ships.
If there is no counter to stealthy missiles, then you reach the end game. There would no counter to stealthy missiles, not even 5th generation fighters or the latest SAM systems. There would be no balance between offense and defense. When everything is heavily imbalanced to offense, the only real good defense is a good offense. Which means the only way to stop the other guy's missiles is to hit him first with your own.
Every other platform would become obsolete, since the answer to everything, is to destroy his base. Achieve aerial superiority by destroying his air base first. Achieve naval superiority by destroying his naval base first. Achieve land superiority by destroying his army bases first. No point in making planes, ships and tanks. Just build lots of lots of missiles and hit the poor sucker with them in a massive first strike.
This condition appeared early in the Cold War. The weapon in question is the Ballistic Missile + Atomic Bomb. With only one weapon you own your enemy. So the best counter was to build your own and build more than the other guy. This lead to a condition of stand off. Even today when ABM systems have been technologically demonstrated, I doubt anything could stop a massive swarm of ICBMs by the hundreds.
That is why defensive systems have to raise their level to meet new challenges. Its not the Raptor that will spur this. The next great threat will be even stealthier cruise missiles, because such CMs can be built much more affordably by rogue countries, and easy for the techs to proliferate. And by extension, if you are able to intercept stealthy missiles, you will be able to intercept stealthy aircraft.
If there is no counter to stealthy missiles, then you reach the end game. There would no counter to stealthy missiles, not even 5th generation fighters or the latest SAM systems. There would be no balance between offense and defense. When everything is heavily imbalanced to offense, the only real good defense is a good offense. Which means the only way to stop the other guy's missiles is to hit him first with your own.
Every other platform would become obsolete, since the answer to everything, is to destroy his base. Achieve aerial superiority by destroying his air base first. Achieve naval superiority by destroying his naval base first. Achieve land superiority by destroying his army bases first. No point in making planes, ships and tanks. Just build lots of lots of missiles and hit the poor sucker with them in a massive first strike.
This condition appeared early in the Cold War. The weapon in question is the Ballistic Missile + Atomic Bomb. With only one weapon you own your enemy. So the best counter was to build your own and build more than the other guy. This lead to a condition of stand off. Even today when ABM systems have been technologically demonstrated, I doubt anything could stop a massive swarm of ICBMs by the hundreds.
That is why defensive systems have to raise their level to meet new challenges. Its not the Raptor that will spur this. The next great threat will be even stealthier cruise missiles, because such CMs can be built much more affordably by rogue countries, and easy for the techs to proliferate. And by extension, if you are able to intercept stealthy missiles, you will be able to intercept stealthy aircraft.