US Triple Threat Terminator (T3) Program (New Long Range Anti-air missile)

S

stardave

Junior Member
Re: 054 Series Frigate Thread 2

Mysterre said:
If hostilies are imminent or even likely, a Hawkeye will be patrolling the skies above the carrier group along with its escorts 24/7. It will know if any missiles or fighters are trying to sneak their way by hugging the curve of the earth. The only way to deal with this is to call in the air force and send in a J-20 or four. After all I believe this is the J-20's raison d'etre. Great frontal stealth, crappy rear stealth, and abundant fuel storage potential only means one thing to me: sneak in from long range, do the dirty, and when the jig's up and people already know you're here, run like the dickens. AWACS and tankers will likely be the J-20's prey of choice. Outside of that, nothing is sneaking through to a carrier if an E-2 is up.
Click to expand...

Yes, under war situations, no way those missile would be undetected by the Israeli warships, whatever can they shot it down before impact is another discussion, but detecting it is not a problem for any nation's modern navy.

As for J-20 too bad China don't have a 200km+ anti ship missile that can be fitted within it's weapon bay, because if they do... it will be a bigger threat than the DF-21D.
 
Jeff Head

Jeff Head

General
Registered Member
Re: 054 Series Frigate Thread 2

Totoro said:
F14 may have been better at some things, but loiter time against Superhornet isn't one of them. Superhornet with 2 sidewinders and 3 tanks can do 3070 km. F14d with two tanks can do 2949 km. With all five tanks Superhornet could do a bit more than that. (at least launched from c13-2 catapults)

f14d max mission time carrying 4 phoenixes, 2 sparrows and 2 sidewinders (with both tanks) is two and a half hours.
f18e mission time carrying 4 amraams and 2 sidewinders (with 3 out of 5 tanks) is 3 hours and ten minutes.

So one could either get a bit more loiter time for Superhornet, perhaps close to 3 and half hours, if number of missiles/cruise speed is sacrificed further, or do Tomcat's loiter time but with 8 amraams and 2 sidewinders.

And while aim54c does have longer reach than amraam-d, 100 nm or so (highest number i found was 110 nm in testing), amraam-d isnt that hopelessly behind. Usual range numbers for it go from 65 to 85 nm. That amounts to amraam-d having some 29% less range.

So 20% or so less loiter time for tomcat and 30% or so less range for amraam. It doesn't read like SH/amraam combo being much worse off.
Click to expand...
Yes, but the F-14 was further out there with two tanks and carried that full load with missiles that reached further still. The entire idea was to be able to intercept Soviet TUs before they could launch their 250-300 mile range missiles.

Newer versions of the AMRAAM are increasing their max range...but they still are not up to what the Phoneix could do. What we needed was a LRAAM...and they are slowly converting the AMRAAM into that I guess.

Right now, we have what we have, and that's the Superhornet with the AMRAAM...which, as Mysterre said, can also, like the Phoenix, perform in the anti-missile role.

I feel the same way about shelving the S-3s. They provided a long range ASW reach and loiter that the helos just cannot provide and could literally scouer the path of the oncoming carrier group. We lost significant and critical ASW protection in that decision and IMHO, it is simply foolhardy to let that go without a viable replacement for such crticial assets. A ASW version of the V-22 is desperately needed...but it still probably will not have the range and loiter of the the S-3. Perhaps it would...but it would certainly be better than any helo trying to perform tyhat function.

Oh well, I believe we'll slowly make up this ground too as we are doing with the F/A-18E/F and the AMRAAM.
 
S

stardave

Junior Member
Re: 054 Series Frigate Thread 2

I have see AIM-54 in person, that thing is as big as a fuel tank, and more than twice the size of AMRAAM, I am sure US can develop a long range version of AMRAAM and still be much lighter and smaller than AIM-54.
 
Jeff Head

Jeff Head

General
Registered Member
Re: 054 Series Frigate Thread 2

asif iqbal said:
But Jeff don't you think this layered defence relys on seeing the enemy aircraft and missiles, in the case where the element of suprise is preserved a few if these layers can be penetrated, and then it's down to just short range and point defence

In 2006 the Israeli navy Saar 5 was hit by a anti-ship missile, the warhead didn't go off but had it exploded a high probability is it would have sunk, it's point defence failed and it was using the Phalanx and crucially the C802 had the element of surprise

Obviously carrier battle groups have far more dedicated air defence but layers of defece rely on first detecting and then successfully engaging the threat, if right tactics are employed I think loop holes can be found and exploited
Click to expand...
The Israli example is a good example of precisely what not to do. Foolish mistakes were made and their defences, in a hot zone I might add, were turned off.

Any vessel that does that, is asking to be smacked.

The layered defence doctrine provieds for multiple layers, working at different ranges, and altitudes, uingf multiple frequencies, and with the AEW capabilities of a carrier, it is not likely that anything is getting through...and the ships are not all bunched up. There will be vessels many miles away from the carrier with their sensors watching and gathering data so if someone does try to sneak in, it is likely that they will be seen, even if they are low and somewhat stealthy.

The new E-2Ds are much better at finding even those, and, IMHO, it is not likely that an aircraft like the J-20 will penetrate it.

With all the link capabilities and the cooperative engagement capabilities, on the surface and in the air, the opportunities for detection and for response are very strong and give a very strong advantage to the defender.

The Soviets understood this even back in the 1980s and their plan from the air, which stood some chance of working was simply to brute force it with regimental waves of TUs coming in succesively and hammer home through the defenses to the carrier...and they spent the money and developed the doctrine to do this almost anywhere on the high seas.

That's an expensive tactic...and one not sure to work...but stands a better chance, IMHO, to this day, than a few aircraft attacking from different azimuths or together.

To this day, the largest threat, IMHO, by far is the sub surface threat.

Now, if someone sucker-punches the US Navy in peace time, it's still not clear they will get through, but if they do, a big hurt wagon will be coming back their way.

---------- Post added at 06:14 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:11 PM ----------
stardave said:
I have see AIM-54 in person, that thing is as big as a fuel tank, and more than twice the size of AMRAAM, I am sure US can develop a long range AMRAAM and still be much lighter and smaller than AIM-54.
Click to expand...
Oh yes they can.

I have seen them as well. Look when they were developed.

Yes, the ALRAAM was supposed to be developed, that was the name of the replacement for the Phoneix (Advanced Long Range Anti Air Missile)...but now with the improvements to the AMRAAM the pressure is not on.

I still believe they should do it and come up with an ALRAAM with a 150nm range. With today's tehcnology, IMHO, it is doable.

But...guys, we are WAY off topic form the Type 054A and its capabnilites. We drigfted when talking about the missiles that ship employs and I believe we more or less settled that discussion. So, before the mods reign us in, maybe we should get back to the Type 064 Frigates.

I will look for an article on the status of the ALRAAM and the AMRAAM developments and post it as a seperate thread. it's a good discussion.
 
Mysterre

Mysterre

Banned Idiot
stardave said:
Yes, under war situations, no way those missile would be undetected by the Israeli warships, whatever can they shot it down before impact is another discussion, but detecting it is not a problem for any nation's modern navy.

As for J-20 too bad China don't have a 200km+ anti ship missile that can be fitted within it's weapon bay, because if they do... it will be a bigger threat than the DF-21D.
Click to expand...
The J-20's main (probably only) role is anti-air, so any small antiship missiles that could fit in that bay would only be big enough to take out small corvettes or large OPV's. Ships the size of 054A or larger would not be seriously threatened.

Jeff Head said:
The layered defence doctrine provieds for multiple layers, working at different ranges, and altitudes, uingf multiple frequencies, and with the AEW capabilities of a carrier, it is not likely that anything is getting through...and the ships are not all bunched up. There will be vessels many miles away from the carrier with their sensors watching and gathering data so if someone does try to sneak in, it is likely that they will be seen, even if they are low and somewhat stealthy.

The new E-2Ds are much better at finding even those, and, IMHO, it is not likely that an aircraft like the J-20 will penetrate it.

With all the link capabilities and the cooperative engagement capabilities, on the surface and in the air, the opportunities for detection and for response are very strong and give a very strong advantage to the defender.
Click to expand...
The E-2D's do not have anti-stealth detection as their forte, but rather greater number of tracks and improved air control. Anti-stealth will be somewhat enhanced by a more powerful AESA, but it just means that perhaps the J-20 would be detected at something like 35-40km out instead of 30-35km. Of course, that just means that the J-20 will never get detected. Rather, it's incoming anti-radiation missiles will be what gets detected. Also, the E-2D will not be able to rely on multiple sensors such as those from other ships. This is because they will almost certainly be strict EMCON. Even if they were emitting, the E-2D will be much further out along the threat axis, possibly even a few hundred km out, while escort ships would be no further out than a few dozen km (from the carrier). Against stealth targets we are talking about detection ranges in the few tens of km, give or take a few, which would render the escorts useless as additional detection nodes against an incoming J-20. What will be interesting to see is how the E-2D defends itself from missiles. Can it fry them with its AESA is the $1 million question that I want to know; the rumor is that the F-22's AESA can do this. If the PLAN thinks it can, the J-20's will likely be tasked to follow their missiles in and attack with cannon if they see their missiles getting zapped. This would obviously expose them to much greater danger from the E-2's escorts. I would love to see how this hypothetical attack unfolds, but of course that would mean devastating war.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Jeff Head

Jeff Head

General
Registered Member
Mysterre said:
it just means that perhaps the J-20 would be detected at something like 35-40km out instead of 30-35km. Of course, that just means that the J-20 will never get detected. Rather, it's incoming anti-radiation missiles will be what gets detected.
Click to expand...
I will hold off on the J-20's true stealth capabilities until they are in production and we begin to get some real reads on what it emmitts and is capable of stealth wise. I know that those two engines sticking out of its backside the way the do are going to cut down on it significantly, even frontal for sensors with the computing and resolution to see their heat signature even from the front.

Lot's of intersting tech going on in that all aspect detection field.

Anyhow, the T3 missile, or something similar is certainly on the US NAvy's and US Airforce's radar screen. Next year there is supposed to be a full-up live treest of the T3 so we shall see. Raytheon looks like the prime and Boeing is out.
 
F

Franklin

Captain
The Soviets understood this even back in the 1980s and their plan from the air, which stood some chance of working was simply to brute force it with regimental waves of TUs coming in succesively and hammer home through the defenses to the carrier...and they spent the money and developed the doctrine to do this almost anywhere on the high seas.
Click to expand...

Or... you could invest in conventional EMP weapons that cripples the electronic circuits on these ships making them sitting ducks in the water and you could destroy them at you're leisure.
 
Jeff Head

Jeff Head

General
Registered Member
Franklin said:
Or... you could invest in conventional EMP weapons that cripples the electronic circuits on these ships making them sitting ducks in the water and you could destroy them at you're leisure.
Click to expand...
Well, you could try that, but since all modern US naval vessels are hardened against nuclear EMP, it is unlikely that a convetnioal EMP source (which is not going to be as powerful as a nuclear EMP weapon) is going to break through their hardening.

The US has already developed and deployed battlefield EMP weapons and they work great on non-hardened targets...but against hardened tagets which were set up to survive nuclear EMPs...they do not scratch the surface.
 
bd popeye

bd popeye

The Last Jedi
VIP Professional
I did not want to start a separate thread on the ROK Aegis equipped ship....Yulgok Yi I (DDG-992) has successfully completed a series of trials for the ship's Aegis Combat System.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


KAUAI, Hawaii, July 16, 2012 –The Republic of Korea ship Yulgok Yi I (DDG-992), supported by the U.S. Navy and Lockheed Martin (NYSE: LMT), successfully completed a series of trials for the ship's Aegis Combat System.

The at-sea Combat System Ship Qualification Trials (CSSQT) took place at the Pacific Missile Range Facility off the Hawaiian island of Kauai. The trials are the final tests of system design, hardware and software integration, ship construction and crew training.

"These trials validate Yulgok Yi I’s Aegis Combat System, ship and crew and their ability to execute Combat System missions," said Doug Wilhelm, director of international programs at Lockheed Martin’s Mission Systems & Sensors business unit. "This ship will be a significant addition to the air defense, anti-submarine, anti-surface and self-defense capabilities of the Republic of Korea Navy. We look forward to building on our longstanding partnership with the Republic of Korea Navy through our work on this program.”

During the CSSQT, the ship's combat system was evaluated for combat readiness through comprehensive multi-mission warfare exercises, as well as thorough testing of the system's tactical data link capabilities. The anti-air warfare exercises included manned aircraft raids, electronic attack scenarios and live air-defense engagements.

Yulgok Yi I is the second of three Korean Destroyer eXperimental (KDX-III) program destroyers being built by the Republic of Korea; the ship was commissioned in August 2010. The first KDX-III destroyer, Sejong the Great, deployed in 2009. At 8,500 tons standard displacement and 11,000 tons fully loaded, these destroyers are the largest surface warships carrying the Aegis Combat System.

The Aegis system includes Lockheed Martin's SPY-1 radar, the Navy's most advanced multi-function radar system. When paired with the MK 41 Vertical Launching System, it is capable of delivering missiles for every mission and threat environment in naval warfare.

The Aegis Combat System is deployed on more than 100 ships around the globe. In addition to the U.S. and the Republic of Korea, Aegis is the weapon system of choice for Australia, Japan, Norway and Spain. Aegis-equipped ships have more than 1,200 years of at-sea operational experience and have launched more than 3,800 missiles in tests and real-world operations.

Headquartered in Bethesda, Md., Lockheed Martin is a global security and aerospace company that employs about 123,000 people worldwide and is principally engaged in the research, design, development, manufacture, integration and sustainment of advanced technology systems, products and services. The Corporation's net sales for 2011 were $46.5 billion.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top