SM-3? Kinetic exatmospheric one?
If you meant prospective SM-6 blk Ib - it's probable(never at such ranges, though), but sm-3 won't intercept anything within atmosphere.
Last edited:
USN Burke Class - News, Reports, Data, etc.
- Thread starter Jeff Head
- Start date
If you meant prospective SM-6 blk Ib - it's probable(never at such ranges, though), but sm-3 won't intercept anything within atmosphere.
Jura The idiot
General
you've created an incredible bubble Brumby LOL!
Brumby
Major
I am merely pointing out that the AMDR effectively expands the kill web of the USN. This will complicate the Chinese calculus. Bear in mind the Chinese is developing the PL XX to go after the supporting aerial assets. In order to launch for maximum distance, the launch attitude needs to be at high attitude and that will be to the AMDR advantage (due to earth curvature). In order to avoid detection they have to ingress at sea level but then it degrades their approach and the range they can realistically achieve with the PL XX. Also the Chinese is developing a tactical stealth bomber which I suspect is primarily to go against the CVNBG. This expanded kill web even against VLO will potentially degrade the utility of such a future asset. .
Jura The idiot
General
did your post perhaps imply an AMDR would, loosely speaking, see stealth aircraft at a considerable distance, as in your sentence Saturday at 3:58 AM
:
?
(now I ask nitpickers not to tell me "stealth" means signature reduction, don't ask me what's "a considerable distance" and ... .... thank you very much)
Brumby
Major
I have already provided the facts and the conclusion rest on the facts. You are at liberty to challenge the facts and insist they are completely BS.
I don't believe that there is universal agreement as to what RCS profile qualify as VLO but generally a RCS of 0.1 M2 is considered to meet such a definition. You are free to insist it starts from 0.01 M2 and lower. Well according to a Russian brochure I have seen, the SU-57 only has a reading of 0.5 M2 if I understand Russian correctly.
LO and VLO depends on the frequency.
Something designed to be LO or VLO against X-band radars, like fighters, isn't going to be LO against longer wave radars, like S-band, L-band and metric wave. SPY-6 is an S-band radar. So is SPY-1D, Type 345X, SAMPSON, Top Plate and a whole bunch of others.
While longer wave radars can see and loosely track LO and VLO objects, in order to obtain missile quality high resolution tracking, you still need C-band, X-band and Ku-band (for gun quality tracking) radars. This is where the X-band VLO optimized design pays off. It ends up being able to see the target, but being unable to shoot it down. The result is that you merely end up seeing what is going to kill you.
Unfortunately, every mid to long ranged SAM missile in existence, relies on X-band radars. That means including every SM-2, SM-3, SM-6, every S-400, every S-300, Shtil, Buk, Aster, and so on. That includes AAMs too. It does not matter if its TVM, SARH or ARH is used for homing. Few missiles use C-band, namely Patriot and HQ-9, but sloped angles also affect the C-band too.
Using an X-band radar against a fighter will only trip the fighter's RWR. Missiles use CWI or Continuous Wave Illumination, which is a type of waveform different from Pulse radar, to home in on their targets, and RWRs can differentiate CWI from Pulse (Search) radar, and tell you that a missile is on its way for you, allowing you to take countermeasures.
Bombers, like flying wing designs such as B-2, are meant to be LO against longer frequency radars.
Something designed to be LO or VLO against X-band radars, like fighters, isn't going to be LO against longer wave radars, like S-band, L-band and metric wave. SPY-6 is an S-band radar. So is SPY-1D, Type 345X, SAMPSON, Top Plate and a whole bunch of others.
While longer wave radars can see and loosely track LO and VLO objects, in order to obtain missile quality high resolution tracking, you still need C-band, X-band and Ku-band (for gun quality tracking) radars. This is where the X-band VLO optimized design pays off. It ends up being able to see the target, but being unable to shoot it down. The result is that you merely end up seeing what is going to kill you.
Unfortunately, every mid to long ranged SAM missile in existence, relies on X-band radars. That means including every SM-2, SM-3, SM-6, every S-400, every S-300, Shtil, Buk, Aster, and so on. That includes AAMs too. It does not matter if its TVM, SARH or ARH is used for homing. Few missiles use C-band, namely Patriot and HQ-9, but sloped angles also affect the C-band too.
Using an X-band radar against a fighter will only trip the fighter's RWR. Missiles use CWI or Continuous Wave Illumination, which is a type of waveform different from Pulse radar, to home in on their targets, and RWRs can differentiate CWI from Pulse (Search) radar, and tell you that a missile is on its way for you, allowing you to take countermeasures.
Bombers, like flying wing designs such as B-2, are meant to be LO against longer frequency radars.
Tvzvezda is a TV channel...