actually, a Chinese magazine interview with a weapons developer basically admitted that this is already developed. At least the part about hitting moving targets. We haven't seen any kind of official admittance for OTH targeting. That you would have to check SOC's blog for his analysis and see if you believe it or not.The USN already has a defense to this threat that doesn't even exist yet. Ironical, isn't it?
Anti-ship Ballistic Missile
- Thread starter zoolander
- Start date
USAF pilot admits shooting at UFO. Aliens exist!
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...rdered-24-rockets-UFO-flying-East-Anglia.html
What does that have to do with anti-ship ballistic missiles?USAF pilot admits shooting at UFO. Aliens exist!
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...rdered-24-rockets-UFO-flying-East-Anglia.html
Stay on topic.
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
Depending on the OTH radar, some of them can detect aircraft circling an airport to land, and some have been used to track a moving ground target etc... It depends very much on the system used. However, AFAIK OTH radars do not product sufficiently accurate data for targeting purposes.
In essence, they can be used as a 'tripwire' or to queue other assets that a potential target is within a given area (the size of which is not public domain). Then the other assets, be they MPA, AEW, etc can detect the target (hopefully) and provide the needed quality of data for targeting purposes.
-Cheers
Whether or not an OTH radar provides good enough data for targeting is dependant upon sensor on the missile itself. A ballistic missile should have fairly good idea of the general area it's descending upon. On issue of seekers, the US already put an active radar seeker on Pershing-II and it was ages ago. On issue of targeting, it seems a combination of SAR, IR, ELINT and visual recon satellites supported by orbital communications net would be the best bet for targeting. After all, this has been done historically by the Soviet Union although merely combining radar and ELINT satellites.
See brochure of new Italian COSMO-SKYMED satellite for reference:
http://www.telespazio.it/pdf/Cosmo_eng_0708.pdf
Check out picture of a tanker on page 5 specifically.
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
Umm... No. As I understand it, target quality data is such that no additional sensors are needed to guide a weapon onto the target. As such, if the seeker upon the missile is needed then the OTH radar does not know exactly where the target is. If the seekers upon the missile are needed, then not only does their detection capability become important, but also their ability to manuever once the target is detected.
As for the Soviet tactics, IIRC they were somewhat different. They were to use recon sats and other intel means to plot the approximate course of a fleet or convoy. This was then to be shadowed by Tu-95 Bears to provide an approximate location that Tu-22 Backfires and SSNs would then be vectored to launch attacks. In the case of the ALCM from the Tu-22s, they would use their onboard seekers to detect the target once within ~100 miles to actually detect their individual targets. Given their flight profile, that allowed sufficient time for manuevering to strike a target.
-Cheers
It was actually given a nickname by some in NATO. aka "beating the bushes"
Well, Kuznetsov, Oscars & Kirovs are armed with supersonic AshMs that can talk to each other and capable of striking targets 500 [-550]km away .
If modified & put atop BMs, they can use onboard sensors to locate, assign, and strike CTF ships. As mentioned earlier, the Russians are already developing maneuverable warheads for ICBMs to by-pass BMD interceptors.
The pdf article below is long, but:
If modified & put atop BMs, they can use onboard sensors to locate, assign, and strike CTF ships. As mentioned earlier, the Russians are already developing maneuverable warheads for ICBMs to by-pass BMD interceptors.
The pdf article below is long, but:
So, if the objective is to strike CTF & it is known to be in the open ocean area of up to 550km in radius, I don't see why BMs can't be aimed at the center of that circle. And should there be more possible circles, launch more BMs. BTW, the escorts with BMD capability will have to spread out farther from their CVN and will be easier to detect.
Last edited:
The answer to detection is simple:
You send a BM into the general area, wait for the SM-3 to raise and track it back to its launch platform. Then you target that point with a MIRVed BM with 8-12 nuclear warheads saturating an X-pattern to 20-30 miles out from the target point. Impact within 10 minutes, so it'll be less than 5 miles away. And if you want to be sure, do it again. With a different pattern.
Problem solved.
You send a BM into the general area, wait for the SM-3 to raise and track it back to its launch platform. Then you target that point with a MIRVed BM with 8-12 nuclear warheads saturating an X-pattern to 20-30 miles out from the target point. Impact within 10 minutes, so it'll be less than 5 miles away. And if you want to be sure, do it again. With a different pattern.
Problem solved.
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
The problem with this suggestion is that it ignores the fundamental differences in the flight profile of a BM vs. an ALCM, and the resulting effect on targeting requirements.
An ALCM is in powered flight the whole way, while a BM is typically in an unpowered terminal descent with a limited manuevering capability (MIRVs particularly). This means that the greater the difference between the impact point and the intended target, the sooner the BM or warhead needs to start correcting its course to adjust for any movement of the target.
Now, I readily admit I am a bit out of practice doing projectile motion calculations and some of the calculations are dependent on the specific BM used. Having said that, my off the cuff estimate would be that short of maneuvering starting at the BM zenith, it might well not be able to correct more than 10km, if that. Given the greater range (and height of the Zenith) of an ICBM, then it likely would be able to manuever farther.
This of course assumes that the BM can get the needed level of accurate targeting data either form onboard sensors or via datalink to offboard sensors, and that the BM is not carrying a WMD. If a WMD is used, the situation becomes a bit different because the AoE of the warhead, particularly a nuclear one, is typically such that it far exceeds the CEM of a BM, and there would then be less need to get as close to the targeted vessel.
-Cheers
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
Wrong in virtually all cases. The only one which might work would be to have a re-entry vehicle which is an ALCM. At present however I know of no design in service.
As above, one of the issues with a BM is that there is very limited maneuvering capability, largely due to the flight path being a ballistic one. This means that there is little or no additional kinetic energy that the warhead can exert to alter its flightpath, most of the kinetic energy at this point is going to come from gravity (hence the ballistic nature). Also, depending on the range of the BM, with the greater the range possible, the greater the altitude the BM will reach before assuming a ballistic trajectory. If the altitude is very great, as would be the case for IRBM or ICBM, and IMV anything over 1,000km, then the projectile would be approaching at very high velocity by the time it reaches Ground Zero. The greater the velocity, the more potential difficulty the projectile will have maneuvering and therefore the sooner it would need to do so in order to strike a given point.
As for ASROC/SUBROC, those are not anti-ship ballistic missiles. Rather they are short-ranged ballistic missiles to deliver a weapon system (in this case a torpedoe or depth charge) into an area. Essentially, the ballistic missile was just a delivery vehicle. Once the torpedoe or depth charge was in the area, it operated as it otherwise normally would have. Since the target was enemy submarines, either the firing vessel would have detected the possible contact with their sensors, or possibly a nearby MPA of ASW helicopter or other vessel. Keep in mind also that this was a fairly short-ranged weapon, SUBROC had a range of ~25-30 miles.
-Cheers
Remember Buran 20 years ago? It made 2 orbits in space, reentered & landed authomatically, and even corrected for wind shear. Why can't a capsule of modified AshMs reenter after separating from a BM? Shutes could be used on descent to slow it down if the speed is too high. At the right velocity, those missiles would eject and start their own powered flight.
Last edited:
On issue of the manouverability needed, that's an issue one can analyze fairly easily. If we assume maximum speed of the carrier to be 30kts, then the maximum distance carrier can travel from the launch of a MRBM to impact is 7.5 NM, or roughly 14km's. However, the location carrier can occupy within 15 minutes is not a circle with radius of 7.5 NM's from the last known location, provided that heading and speed are provided by cueing sensor. In space of 15 min's there's definite limits how fast a carrier can decelerate or turn.
If, and it's a big if, there's a working datalink between cueing sensor (a satellite, preferably) and the ballistic missile the manouverability problem becomes even smaller as modern gyro systems are, AFAIK, extremely easy to reprogram. Thus the need for actual RV manouverability becomes smaller as necessary corrections can be fed in even during the boost phase.
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
I have not forgotten the Buran, but the Buran was a space shuttle/plane and therefore the re-entry flight would be quite different than that of a BM.
As for creating a capsule to deploy some form of ALCM, it might (repeat, MIGHT) be possible. To my knowledge, no one else has successfully done so. In point of fact, I am not aware of any project or program where someone has attempted to do so (any DefPro able to chime in here?).
There are a number of potential issues which I forsee causing problems, if such an engineering design were to be attempted. The first would be at what altitude, velocity and angle of approach would the ALCM be able to safely/reliably deploy on its own? All of this would effect the methods used to retard the ALCM to allow for launch. I would expect that the greater the kinetic energy of the inbound ALCM, and/or the higher the altitude needed for deployment, the larger something like a parachute would need to be. It might possibly be too larger for parachutes to be effective. IIRC for air-dropped lightweight torpedoes (as from ASW helicopters or MPA) those dropped from the P-3 Orion cannot be dropped from higher than 12k ft, otherwise the 'chute is unable to slow the descent of the torpedoe sufficiently. The case for an ALCM might be similar. Another issue would be to ensure that either the ALCM sensor code has the correct vector to detect the target, or having a sufficiently reliable datalink to guide the ALCM to the target, or to where it can detect the target on its own with onboard sensors. Otherwise a BM carrying an AShM/ALCM fired at a ship or target off the East Coast could end up with the ALCM heading west once it exits the inbound capsule...
Do not forget, in order to deliver something like the US AGM-84 Harpoon (air-launched version) the capsule would need to capable of carrying an object that is 500+ kg, and ~4m x .35m, in addition to whatever would be needed for allowing the ALCM to deploy.
The last issue is just how effective would such a system be, assuming everything worked correctly compared to other means? By effective I mean both in terms of successful strikes, as well as cost. IMO such a system would not effective in terms of cost per successful mission when compared to other methods of carrying out such a strike. Given the number of long ranged ALCM or AShM designs available, using a BM to deliver one would only make sense if one did not have a long-ranged ALCM, or if the range was such that an ALCM could not reach the target, even the long-ranged ones. For the first, I would expect that the engineering and manufacturing issues would be such that it would be less expensive to develop or by the rights to make a long-ranged ALCM. For the second, then one is likely talking about taking intercontinental BM shots. That, whether or not it would be successful, adds an entirely new element into the idea.
Assuming a country were to do so, then the US, Russia and likely France, the UK, Australia and possibly China & Japan would detect the ICBM being fired. Given the 'normal' warhead used in an ICBM, the countries with nuclear weaponry that detect such an attack would, for their own security, begin preparations to launch their own nuclear strikes as part of MAD. This in turns leads to the possibility of an accidental nuclear exchange because someone was taking a shot at some ship somewhere using a BM.
-Cheers
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
Okay, I will need to break out my physics book and teach myself the relevant calculations again. It will likely take a little while. Then determinations would need to be made about the range between shooter and target, the angle of flight of the BM, the velocity, etc. All of the without any regard to the requirements for sensor to shooter queuing.
As for the ease (or lack thereof) for reprograming a gyro system, that is not really the concern I had. What I was thinking of had more do to with what methods are available to manuever an object with the aerodynamic properties of a rock moving at high speed. I can easily see, if too drastic a maneuver is attempted, then the capsule/BM/warhead/whatever going tumbling out of control as the control surfaces are perhaps sheered off or fail. Or alternatively, the object remains under control, but is just unable to perform the manuever requested. Not unlike trying to make a car turn in a 5m radius when its turning radius is actually 13m...
-Cheers
Someone already mentioned that BMs will not only be detected, but their aimpoints/impact areas calculated as well. No need to worry about accidental nuclear exchange. As technology matures, at some point it may be feasible to use BMs against CTFs, even if there is none such BM/AShM combination now. Non-lethal EMP and GPS jamming can be substituted for nuklear/coventional warheads to disable CAWs- no need to know precise location of a CVN.
As for AShM/UAV ranges, transport aircraft with in-flight refueling could be modified to carry and launch a few dozens of them in a short period of time.
In reality, IMHO, only in an all-out war would CTFs be targeted 1,000s of miles from their potential land targets. In other types of conflicts, once they are within striking range of their CAWs, they will be easier to find and engage. BTW, before they are in range, a few BMs impacted in the water could be enough to prevent any closer approach.
As for AShM/UAV ranges, transport aircraft with in-flight refueling could be modified to carry and launch a few dozens of them in a short period of time.
In reality, IMHO, only in an all-out war would CTFs be targeted 1,000s of miles from their potential land targets. In other types of conflicts, once they are within striking range of their CAWs, they will be easier to find and engage. BTW, before they are in range, a few BMs impacted in the water could be enough to prevent any closer approach.
Last edited:
March 31, 2009 Report: Chinese Develop Special "Kill Weapon" to Destroy U.S. Aircraft
Report: Chinese Develop Special "Kill Weapon" to Destroy U.S. Aircraft Carriers
Advanced missile poses substantial new threat for U.S. Navy
U. S. Naval Institute
March 31, 2009
https://www.usni.org/forthemedia/ChineseKillWeapon.asp
Any rumors of advances this in area?
I thought this was a no-go with a convential warhead. Impossible to target a moving carrier with a ballistic re-entry vehicle?
Report: Chinese Develop Special "Kill Weapon" to Destroy U.S. Aircraft Carriers
Advanced missile poses substantial new threat for U.S. Navy
U. S. Naval Institute
March 31, 2009
https://www.usni.org/forthemedia/ChineseKillWeapon.asp
Any rumors of advances this in area?
I thought this was a no-go with a convential warhead. Impossible to target a moving carrier with a ballistic re-entry vehicle?
localhost127
Member
pretty good timing, with the defence budget issues coming up. does anyone else think a coincidence/fear-tactic...or does there seem to be some new credible evidence on a new, functional weapon?