Intercepting Cruise Missiles

[major_sam47]

Intercept speed of a ground based SA system would be a critical factor. Are there Anza analogs of Stingers developed and deployed by PK ? Could not a 750 m/s Stinger analog be extended to 1.00 or 1.25 km/s.

AWACs currently seem to be the only effective airborne early warning platform, which can incidentally can detect multiple incoming projectiles (600 simultaneoulsy according to one reference I read).

PK doesn't have the AWACs. What can be said of the feasibility in developing a scaled down, AWAC equivalent, in terms of a group of medium altitude UAVs, that are man-portable, and that would form a radar network, in which each element of say 4-5 UAVs contributes look-down sensory information, on incoming cruise missiles or other low altitude missiles to appropriate ground based, man portable, intercept systems, with capabilties between the Stinger and SLAMRAAM systems.

Has PK developed an intercept missile like that ? Mach 3.0 speed or greater ? And man portable ? If not, is it technically feasible ? What would be the current limitations in making a such man-portable system - rocket motor ?

What kind of sensor package would be needed on these hypothetical UAVs to be able to provide good early warning sensory information to the man-portable ground SA intercepters to enable successful destruction of an incoming cruise missile, such as a Sunburn ?

This needs to be developed by PK. How can this be technically analyzed ? Is there software available to test the concept ?

 

[aaaditya]

Intercept speed of a ground based SA system would be a critical factor. Are there Anza analogs of Stingers developed and deployed by PK ? Could not a 750 m/s Stinger analog be extended to 1.00 or 1.25 km/s.

AWACs currently seem to be the only effective airborne early warning platform, which can incidentally can detect multiple incoming projectiles (600 simultaneoulsy according to one reference I read).

PK doesn't have the AWACs. What can be said of the feasibility in developing a scaled down, AWAC equivalent, in terms of a group of medium altitude UAVs, that are man-portable, and that would form a radar network, in which each element of say 4-5 UAVs contributes look-down sensory information, on incoming cruise missiles or other low altitude missiles to appropriate ground based, man portable, intercept systems, with capabilties between the Stinger and SLAMRAAM systems.

Has PK developed an intercept missile like that ? Mach 3.0 speed or greater ? And man portable ? If not, is it technically feasible ? What would be the current limitations in making a such man-portable system - rocket motor ?

What kind of sensor package would be needed on these hypothetical UAVs to be able to provide good early warning sensory information to the man-portable ground SA intercepters to enable successful destruction of an incoming cruise missile, such as a Sunburn ?

This needs to be developed by PK. How can this be technically analyzed ? Is there software available to test the concept ?

iam sure that it would be possible to develop a man portable mach3 missile ,but the missile would first have to be launched and then the motor ignited.

i believe the french mistral can achieve mach 3.5

 

[major_sam47]

Hi Aaaditya,

Do you know if the French have developed a man-portable version of the Mistral ? Are there any spec sheets available ?

Also, why would the rocket motor have to be ignited post-launch for such a missile.

Cheers,

major_sam47

 

[aaaditya]

Hi Aaaditya,

Do you know if the French have developed a man-portable version of the Mistral ? Are there any spec sheets available ?

Also, why would the rocket motor have to be ignited post-launch for such a missile.

Cheers,

major_sam47

mistral is a shoulder fired(man portable) surface to air missile system developed by france.

there are two more version of this missile a naval version known as the simbad and a attack helicopter launched missile known as the atam(air to air missile),this missile is very much comparable to the stinger.

i will try to find a link and post it.you can also try www.globalsecurity.com

 

[major_sam47]

How exactly would a stinger would have to intercept a cruise missile in order to successfully destroy it. Raytheon claims in their specifications for Stingers that cruise missiles can be intercepted by a Stinger, but how ? What angle, aspect, and in what response time window, if fired from the ground to air ?

If other MANPADS like the Mistral can move up to Mach 3.5, which should be enough speed for good reaction to an incoming supersonic cruise missile, at what altitude would an appropriate UAV radar have to be situated in order to successfully detect an incoming cruise missile within a 15 km radius, in a look down radar mode ? Does anybody know ? Can MANPAD missiles compete with a cruise missile employing a circuitous, ground hugging route ?

Does a heat seeking Stinger need to be coming in from behind a cruise missile to be successfully guided to the target using its heat signature ? What aspect would increase the probability of success ?

If the cruise missile was stealth, what maximum ranges are available on currently developed visual day and night UAV radars ?

Aaaditya, do you know the answers to any of these questions ?

Cheers,

major_sam47

 

[aaaditya]

it would be impossible for a stinger or mistral to intercept a brahmos missile but there is a very limited chance of these missiles being able to intercept a subsonic cruise missile ,provided that they have been integrated to a sensor and early warning grid ,because of their short range and low sensor capability they can only be used as a final line of defence when all other options have failed ,and even then success is not guaranteed another method is to use them in combination with ad guns.but in most cases even if the cruise missile is hit the warhead will still be able to glide down to its target and kill it.

 

[major_sam47]

Whatever the type of cruise, Sunburn or whatever, if a MANPAD could take out a Jumbo jet, why not a cruise missile ? Also, I'm talking about defending a specific ground target, not an entire airspace, sorry if I confused you.

What do you say on that ?

Cheers

(I personally don't believe in the word 'impossible'

 

[Waylander]

Ähm, a 747 has a little bit different signature than a CM. And Jumbos normally don't try to follow the terrain as close and fast as possible.

 

[aaaditya]

Whatever the type of cruise, Sunburn or whatever, if a MANPAD could take out a Jumbo jet, why not a cruise missile ? Also, I'm talking about defending a specific ground target, not an entire airspace, sorry if I confused you.

What do you say on that ?

Cheers

(I personally don't believe in the word 'impossible'

well as a simple example the jumbo would have the radar signature of an elephant and the cruise missile of a small,starved house mouse.

the jumbo cannot manouevere as much as cruise missile.

 

[Berserk Fury]

well as a simple example the jumbo would have the radar signature of an elephant and the cruise missile of a small,starved house mouse.

the jumbo cannot manouevere as much as cruise missile.

Not to mention the heat signature and speeds...
Jumbo's don't go supersonic.
btw, i haven't looked into this but has anyone considered Patriot PAC-3's?

 

[gf0012-aust]

tw, i haven't looked into this but has anyone considered Patriot PAC-3's?

PAC-3 is able to be used as an anti-CM weapon.

 

[turin]

Concerning PAC-3, I am still little bit confused about the range of that missile. Any official/solid information on that one? Most claims I read about put it in a rather short range.

 

[Berserk Fury]

Actually, I think the range of PAC-3's are significantly less than PAC-2's or PAC-1's.
PAC-1 PAC-2 PAC-3
Max range 70 km 70-160? km 15 km

it weighs about 1/3 less than PAC-2/1 but you can put 8 per launcher vs. 4 per launcher.

 

[turin]

Indeed the 15 to 20 km figure is the one I'm usually seeing on the net. Still I was not sure and there seems to be no official figure at all.

 

[Awang se]

The PAC-3 was developed following by what many says as the ineffectiveness of PAC-1 and PAC-2 during GW1. Now, the burden for high altitude interception (some say up to suborbital level) are shouldered by THAAD, and PAC-3 will take over the interception at medium altitude.

I think the real problem with CM is not intercepting it. Most CM are subsonic flyers and shouldn't be much of a problem for Modern AD. i believe the real problem will be of detection. Most of a modern cruise missile fly by terrain following method and will stay below radar horizon most of the way.

 

[aaaditya]

The PAC-3 was developed following by what many says as the ineffectiveness of PAC-1 and PAC-2 during GW1. Now, the burden for high altitude interception (some say up to suborbital level) are shouldered by THAAD, and PAC-3 will take over the interception at medium altitude.

I think the real problem with CM is not intercepting it. Most CM are subsonic flyers and shouldn't be much of a problem for Modern AD. i believe the real problem will be of detection. Most of a modern cruise missile fly by terrain following method and will stay below radar horizon most of the way.

detecting a cruise missile is not a problem if you have low level transportable radars.

the real problem is intercepting them,the cruise missile have various features designed to improve their survivability:

1)they are much more manoueverable than the ballistic missiles(the french asura air launched cruise missile can perform terminal manouveres of upto 40g's)

2)their trajectory is difficult to predict,since they can rotate around a target and strike it from any point of the compass,they can carry out pop-up manouveres.

3)they carry advanced countermeasures ,and and are mostly of composite construction.

4)they are usually smokeless,so their point of launch cannot be easily detected or destroyed,they also do not leave a smoke trail.

5)they have warhead release capability ,which enables them to release their warheads at substantial distance from the target,then overfly the target collecting valuable information(bda,target info for future strikes) etc,before they make their final suicidal dive to totally destroy the target(apache casom)

6)some cruise missiles have wolfpack capability(brahmos),that is let us say 10 missiles are fired at 10 different targets (ships)at long range,one missile missile will serve as an airborne control missile,it will use its radar to detect the targets and will pass down the information to the other missiles and the control room,this will enable the other 9 missiles to destroy 9 targets or to choose a single most threatening target and destroy it first and then home on to the rest ,then after all the targets are destroyed the 10th missiles will home on to the final target.in simple words the remaining 9 missiles can attack their respective targets without having to switch on thei radars and using only the information gathered from the 10th missile,this will make these missiles much more difficult to detect thus ensuring a successful completion of their mission.the missiles are capable of discussing their options amongst themselves and the ground control.

7)they can be carried on any platform like aircrafts,bombers.submarines and warships because of their light weight ,this is a featureis not available on the ballistic missiles.

the reason why the cruise missiles are so deadly is because of the kind of flexibility that they offer is unmatchable by the ballistic missiles.