would MLRS and PGMs be a deterrent force in the taiwan strait against carrier group?

Re: would MLRS and PGMs be a deterrent force in the taiwan strait against carrier gro

Well, to detect and track a missile before impact makes sense.
But why do you now pretent that there's no time to do that at all? The USN has recently for the second time intercepted a SRBM inside the atmosphere using a SM-2 IV.
It has been done, an succesfully so.



And should the target slightly adjust it's flight path, that doesn't mean that the radar track and interception course are trash and the process needs to be done all over again. The system then just calculates a small update.

Re: would MLRS and PGMs be a deterrent force in the taiwan strait against carrier gro

^ That is plainly and utterly wrong.

It was intercepting a BM with an SM-3 and a cruise missile with an SM-2.

If you were under this wholly mistaken impression that two BM's were used for FTM-14, no wonder you've been claiming the BMD capabilities of SM-2!

"A small update" sounds easy enough, doesn't it? Radars aren't magic, it takes time for them to get a good lock on an object flying as fast, as far away, and as small as an ASBM.

(There's a huge difference in size between an ASBM and a Scud. The ASBM (presumably) is just a warhead, a Scud has the rocket attached.)

Once the ASBM has passed the optimal area for targeting, trying to target it again for another interception solution becomes even more difficult.

Re: would MLRS and PGMs be a deterrent force in the taiwan strait against carrier gro

Ok, could you then please explain to me why the MDA and navy links say that FTM-14 in June '08 used two moded SM-2 IV to intercept one SRBM and FTM-11 in apr '07 was the only "dual intercept" where a SM-3 IA intercepted a SRBM and a SM-2 IIIA a BQM-74?
The other dual intercept(s) I think only were 2 BMs.
Aegis BMD has also already intercepted seperating targets, wich basicly are just the warheads.

Also, what is the optimal area of targeting, and why do you need to target again when leaving that area instead of just continiously targeting?

Re: would MLRS and PGMs be a deterrent force in the taiwan strait against carrier gro

^ After taking a look at video, you're right: I got FTM-14 confused with FTM-11. That's the one that used an SM-3 for ballistic and SM-2 for cruise missile at the same time.

Yes, this one is a test against terminal phase BM. But if you take a look at the "threat representative missile" used in the test... guess which one it is?

Hint:

I had forgotten about another point, this reminded me: the "threat representative missile" is very primitive compared to the DF-15 or DF-21 class. It strikes the target at about mach 3. DF-15 SRBM strikes at about mach 6. DF-21 MRBM strikes at about mach 8.


So the SM-2 Block IV successfully hitting it, that's definitely a big step... putting it on par with PAC-3, I think. But its not a defense against ASBM based on DF-15 or DF-21.


As for the targeting... you can see from publicly available information that even targets flying a simple ballistic path needs time to get a radar lock on. It doesn't happen instantly. The range, RCS of the target, speed, any changes in trajectory... that all changes the effectiveness of the targeting. Of course more detailed information is not in public sources.

I think at the speed and RCS of an ASBM, the range limit of targeting is somewhere between 50 to 100 km. And even then you can still lose the target if it makes a sufficiently unexpected change in course.

Re: would MLRS and PGMs be a deterrent force in the taiwan strait against carrier gro

SAMs can target PLAAF aicraft while they're crossing the strait, since they will be the ones forced to cross the strait in order to carry out the invasion. The ROCAF and USN are much better off fighting further inland.

Re: would MLRS and PGMs be a deterrent force in the taiwan strait against carrier gro

As for the targeting... you can see from publicly available information that even targets flying a simple ballistic path needs time to get a radar lock on. It doesn't happen instantly. The range, RCS of the target, speed, any changes in trajectory... that all changes the effectiveness of the targeting. Of course more detailed information is not in public sources.

I think at the speed and RCS of an ASBM, the range limit of targeting is somewhere between 50 to 100 km. And even then you can still lose the target if it makes a sufficiently unexpected change in course.[/QUOTE]

In this scenario, the cost of sending ballistic missiles is much cheaper than the cost of defending against it. It is a bad business for the defender.
By the way, how much is each SRBM cost? How much is the SM-2 or PAC3?

Re: would MLRS and PGMs be a deterrent force in the taiwan strait against carrier gro

By the way, how much is each SRBM cost? How much is the SM-2 or PAC3?

Click to expand...

I've no idea about BM costs, i'm sure they range widely. As for SAM costs, since both pac-3 and sm-3 are fairly new missiles produced in relatively small quantities, they're rather prices.



Article is from 1999., so one has to take into account both lowered costs due to bigger production numbers and increased costs due to inflation



In short, pac-3 is around 3 million a pop, that's operative cost with other equipment. It's likely to come down a bit in the next several years. SM-3 is pricier than that, being the newest missile but is also bound to get cheaper in the next decade or so...

I've no idea if modern short range ballistic missiles cost 10 million or 100 thousand dollars.