Formidable Class Frigate

[Transient]

The disadvantage of end game illumination for SARH missiles is only a problem if you are in a plane, not a ship. SARH requires that you have to stay there. Without it the plane can evade. But a ship isn't going to fly away soon.

It is an advantage for SARH missiles to go terminally early. That gives them more time to lock up, especially in an EW fog environment. The illuminator should have no problem picking the most threatening target, usually the one first heading towards you. Going early is best.

You consistently ignore time required for illumination, and how that affects the number of targets engageable, which is critical when engagements are taking place close to the ship. for example, in a scenario of inbound sea-skimming supersonics.

If I have four missile guidance datalink channels, and each illuminator can light up two targets, I can already have 8 missiles in the air, four of whom are already terminally committed, and four in the datalinks. As four targets are destroyed, I commit the next four misisles into terminal as four new targets are lighted, and I concurrently launch another four missiles and put them into datalinks.

Time. You keep ignoring the crucial element of time. Also note that this illustrates another drawback of SARH. Illuminators are limited. A ship may have 4 illuminators, as in the case of the 054A, bit in any one direction only 2 can be in use. A saturation attack from one bearing will see the system being overwhelmed more easily whereas a system using ARH suffers no such drawbacks whether the attack is from one or from multiple bearings.

That illuminators are even required is in itself also a drawback, in terms of space, weight, power and stealth tradeoffs. Failure in any of the illuminators also bring about a great loss in capability of the system. Systems relying on ARH missiles suffer no such drawbacks.

Not really. As long as the missile isn't terminal, it still hogs that datalink. Its only when it goes terminal when it can be released, and then you have to launch the next SAM. I cannot do what I described above. It makes a difference when a missile goes terminal at 40km compared to 20km.

In this case it simply is a matter of which system can support more datalinks for mid course guidance, which isn't really a problem or relevant to a SARH vs ARH comparison since it is simply a matter of increasing the capability of the shipboard electronics, which is upscaleable in equal ways for both ARH and SARH systems. In place you can do the similar to the SARH system and increase the number of guidance channels, but then the limitation exists in the time available for illumination which has to take place sequentially in a SARH system.

If its too close to the ship, the ARH SAM doesn't really work that way either when it is VLS launched. It goes up to the air, and then you need the command datalink to turn it around and downward and turn the seeker on. Now this is where my previous arguments about surface clutter and beam intensity will come into play.

Still tring to ignore the fact that surface clutter and ECM have not been deemed a serious problem with respect to the use of ARH missiles? I have already said that ECM is much less a problem when engagements are taking place near the warship, and that if surface clutter affects the ARH SAM, then the SARH would not escape it too if the ASM is flying low over the water.

 

[crobato]

You consistently ignore time required for illumination, and how that affects the number of targets engageable, which is critical when engagements are taking place close to the ship. for example, in a scenario of inbound sea-skimming supersonics.

And you seem to ignore about the time you needed to lock. How fast you can lock depends on the quality of the signal received. To put it simply to you, the degree of power an illuminator can produce over a missile seeker can be by a magnitude.

You also seem to have no idea that illuminators using electronic scanning can illuminate a number of targets simultaneously. You think its only one on one?

Time. You keep ignoring the crucial element of time. Also note that this illustrates another drawback of SARH. Illuminators are limited. A ship may have 4 illuminators, as in the case of the 054A, bit in any one direction only 2 can be in use. A saturation attack from one bearing will see the system being overwhelmed more easily whereas a system using ARH suffers no such drawbacks whether the attack is from one or from multiple bearings.

Wrong again. Read electronic scanning, which by the way most current illuminators are. One illuminator can light up multiple targets.

That illuminators are even required is in itself also a drawback, in terms of space, weight, power and stealth tradeoffs. Failure in any of the illuminators also bring about a great loss in capability of the system. Systems relying on ARH missiles suffer no such drawbacks.

That is the one drawback of illuminators. Not to mention being a potential ARM bait.

However, ARH systems also suffer from their own problems including greater fratricide potential. Try launching your ARH missiles when you have carrier aircraft taking off or landing nearby, or helicopters or MPA in patrol above. That is one reason why ARH missiles have to stay longer in the datalink channel, then make sure all friendly targets are cleared before the seeker goes live.

In this case it simply is a matter of which system can support more datalinks for mid course guidance, which isn't really a problem or relevant to a SARH vs ARH comparison since it is simply a matter of increasing the capability of the shipboard electronics, which is upscaleable in equal ways for both ARH and SARH systems. In place you can do the similar to the SARH system and increase the number of guidance channels, but then the limitation exists in the time available for illumination which has to take place sequentially in a SARH system.

A SARH system will do faster liberating missiles from hogging your available datalink channels. Sure we can add more channels to compensate. But in the end, your ARH misisles will still end up 90% flight guided, and only in the last 10% it can be truly autonomous. Not much of an advantage over pure command guided missiles in fact, which at least if using EO sensors (IRST directed like the Croatale) would have been totally and guaranteed ECM proof, not to mention being VLO proof.

Still tring to ignore the fact that surface clutter and ECM have not been deemed a serious problem with respect to the use of ARH missiles? I have already said that ECM is much less a problem when engagements are taking place near the warship, and that if surface clutter affects the ARH SAM, then the SARH would not escape it too if the ASM is flying low over the water.

None of these argument make ARH a better system engaging targets at terminal range. The argument using technology to patch things up isn't proof of technical superiority. For that matter, if I were to update a SARH missile with more modern electronics, you will have correspondlngly greater advantages as a result.

It is still a serious problem because ECM cuts both ways. Your own ECM can still affect the missile. ECM don't come with data tags that identify nationality.

Apparently you don't understand how the angle of emission affects your clutter. The more downward your radar direction is to the ground, the greater is your surface clutter. The lower the difference between the distance of the objects creating the clutter (water surface) is to the target, the greater the difficulty of differentiating the target from the clutter. If your beam angle is facing downward, launched from VLS, then turning downward, you got potentially greater clutter, the shipboard illuminator emitting from the surface.

Coming from above, the emission will hit the water surface at an angle that has a higher incidence will ensure greater reflection back to the emitting source. But if you're shining from a much lower angle, the clutter reflection will in fact, reflect away. At the same time, from the low angle of the ship emitter, there isn't much objects back of the target, but from a high airborne angle the sea surface becomes the back of the target.

 

[Transient]

And you seem to ignore about the time you needed to lock. How fast you can lock depends on the quality of the signal received. To put it simply to you, the degree of power an illuminator can produce over a missile seeker can be by a magnitude.

You also seem to have no idea that illuminators using electronic scanning can illuminate a number of targets simultaneously. You think its only one on one?

And why will time needed to lock be important in a system where end game illumination is concurrent?

Sure, increasing the illuminator capability by making it electronically scanned is possible. But that increases other disadvantages like cost.

Read electronic scanning, which by the way most current illuminators are.

Oh? How many are? Other than CEAPAR and APAR, the rest cannot do as you described. The Orekh is electronically scanned, but only in elevation, so unless two targets are in the same azimuth all the way, it is still a one target at a time proposition.

That is the one drawback of illuminators. Not to mention being a potential ARM bait.

However, ARH systems also suffer from their own problems including greater fratricide potential. Try launching your ARH missiles when you have carrier aircraft taking off or landing nearby, or helicopters or MPA in patrol above. That is one reason why ARH missiles have to stay longer in the datalink channel, then make sure all friendly targets are cleared before the seeker goes live.

Lame. The active radar seeker doesn't activate until within the vicinity of the target. What's the chance that friendlies are within the very near vicinity of an inbound ASM? Sure doesn't stop the french from putting the Aster on the CdG though. I'm sure they wished they consulted guru Crobato here.

A SARH system will do faster liberating missiles from hogging your available datalink channels. Sure we can add more channels to compensate. But in the end, your ARH misisles will still end up 90% flight guided, and only in the last 10% it can be truly autonomous. Not much of an advantage over pure command guided missiles in fact, which at least if using EO sensors (IRST directed like the Croatale) would have been totally and guaranteed ECM proof, not to mention being VLO proof.

Comparing a command guided system which hogs a fire channel all the way to a system which is intermittently updated mid course? I think you are the one who "really don't understand what is going on."

Apparently you don't understand how the angle of emission affects your clutter. The more downward your radar direction is to the ground, the greater is your surface clutter. The lower the difference between the distance of the objects creating the clutter (water surface) is to the target, the greater the difficulty of differentiating the target from the clutter. If your beam angle is facing downward, launched from VLS, then turning downward, you got potentially greater clutter, the shipboard illuminator emitting from the surface.

Coming from above, the emission will hit the water surface at an angle that has a higher incidence will ensure greater reflection back to the emitting source. But if you're shining from a much lower angle, the clutter reflection will in fact, reflect away. At the same time, from the low angle of the ship emitter, there isn't much objects back of the target, but from a high airborne angle the sea surface becomes the back of the target.

Sure I do understand that incidence reduces the proportion of energy reflected. But you are the one trunpeting how much power advantage the illuminator has over the active seeker. So proportion may be low, but in effect the energy received by the SARH seeker isn't going to be much lower, if at all it is lower.

 

[crobato]

And why will time needed to lock be important in a system where end game illumination is concurrent?

Sure, increasing the illuminator capability by making it electronically scanned is possible. But that increases other disadvantages like cost.

True but compared to the cost of the ship being sunk...

This is also offset by the cost of the SAMs. ARH missiles cost a lot more than SARH missiles. An AMRAAM costs over 800,000US, but the Sparrow only 250,000.

The shape of the illuminators like the Orekhs tell that they should be PESA. This also includes advantages like narrowing and focusing the beam to achieve greater range and luminosity against low RCS targets.

Oh? How many are? Other than CEAPAR and APAR, the rest cannot do as you described. The Orekh is electronically scanned, but only in elevation, so unless two targets are in the same azimuth all the way, it is still a one target at a time proposition.

Huh? We're talking about illuminators here, how many illuminators do you know. We don't know what the new version of Orekhs are capable of, and the ones in the 054A are unlikely to be Russian originals.

Lame. The active radar seeker doesn't activate until within the vicinity of the target. What's the chance that friendlies are within the very near vicinity of an inbound ASM? Sure doesn't stop the french from putting the Aster on the CdG though. I'm sure they wished they consulted guru Crobato here.

And thats the precise reason why they don't activate until within the vicinity of the target, sometimes even well within their range of the sekers. Chances are good actually that friendlies may be in the flight path of incoming AshMs, at least within the hemisphere view. Helos and MPAs patrolling for subs for example. It does not stop the French from putting the Asters but I doubt it helped their reaction times. If you want to think what is the possible acquisition basket of a seeker, draw a spherical bubble with a radius of 20km. That's a freaking big space, a lot of things can be put inside it.

Comparing a command guided system which hogs a fire channel all the way to a system which is intermittently updated mid course? I think you are the one who "really don't understand what is going on."

Lol. Intermittently updated or not, once the system is committed to a channel it stays that way hogging that channel no matter how often the update happens. When you have 90% control on your flight path, compared to 100%, then in the end, doesn't make much of a difference does it?

Sure I do understand that incidence reduces the proportion of energy reflected. But you are the one trunpeting how much power advantage the illuminator has over the active seeker. So proportion may be low, but in effect the energy received by the SARH seeker isn't going to be much lower, if at all it is lower.

You apparently don't seem to understand the power from a shipboard illuminator is in the megawatts, possibly in double digits. Fighter radars can produce already as much as 5 megawatts. Now imagine what a shipboard illuminator can do powered off from generators off the ship's gas turbines. Compare that to the output of a portable seeker running on batteries. Somehow the difference of a magnitude escapes your vocabulary. You also fail to notice the beam shaping illuminators can do using phase shifting, which enables you to concentrate all that energy, while missile emitters are basically behind a focal plane marked with slotted wave guides.

 

[Transient]

True but compared to the cost of the ship being sunk...

we're comparing systems, not cost of ship relative to system.

This is also offset by the cost of the SAMs. ARH missiles cost a lot more than SARH missiles. An AMRAAM costs over 800,000US, but the Sparrow only 250,000.

Using the early cost of the Sparrow to compare with current cost of AMRAAM? According to deagel.com, the ESSM costs USD$640,000 while the AMRAAM C costs USD$430,000.

The shape of the illuminators like the Orekhs tell that they should be PESA. This also includes advantages like narrowing and focusing the beam to achieve greater range and luminosity against low RCS targets.

PESA, but elec scanning only in elevation.

Huh? We're talking about illuminators here, how many illuminators do you know.

well, since you are the one claiming that most in service illuminators are electronically scanned, do back yourself up by providing examples.

We don't know what the new version of Orekhs are capable of, and the ones in the 054A are unlikely to be Russian originals.

You don't know yet you talk as if you know?

And thats the precise reason why they don't activate until within the vicinity of the target, sometimes even well within their range of the sekers. Chances are good actually that friendlies may be in the flight path of incoming AshMs, at least within the hemisphere view. Helos and MPAs patrolling for subs for example. It does not stop the French from putting the Asters but I doubt it helped their reaction times. If you want to think what is the possible acquisition basket of a seeker, draw a spherical bubble with a radius of 20km. That's a freaking big space, a lot of things can be put inside it.

You really don't know anything don't you? The detection zone of the missile is a cone extending from the missile, which as you have said would be facing downwards. Certainly not a 'spherical bubble'. And I would like you to know where you cooked up the 20km figure?

Lol. Intermittently updated or not, once the system is committed to a channel it stays that way hogging that channel no matter how often the update happens.

As does the SARH missile. The SARH missile is pdated intermittently the same way the ARH missile is. Until now you still don't sem to get that the need to sequentially provide end game illumination for SARH missiles is a drawback. If a missile raid of 10 Sunburns are going to hit the ship in 30 seconds, and the illumination time spent on each ASM is 5 seconds, then with just one illuminator, only 6 ASMs can theoretically be intercepted (actually less, because there is a minimum intercept range), even if a hundred missiles is fired and can be supported mid phase via datalink. On the other hand with ARH missiles, every missile fired can conduct its own intercept as long as the datalink supports their mid phase updating requirements.

When you have 90% control on your flight path, compared to 100%, then in the end, doesn't make much of a difference does it?

LOL, going by your logic then, what's the big difference between a system relying on ARH or a SARH missile?

You apparently don't seem to understand the power from a shipboard illuminator is in the megawatts, possibly in double digits. Fighter radars can produce already as much as 5 megawatts. Now imagine what a shipboard illuminator can do powered off from generators off the ship's gas turbines. Compare that to the output of a portable seeker running on batteries. Somehow the difference of a magnitude escapes your vocabulary. You also fail to notice the beam shaping illuminators can do using phase shifting, which enables you to concentrate all that energy, while missile emitters are basically behind a focal plane marked with slotted wave guides.

More power means more energy reflected from the surface into the SARH missile's receiver even though the percentage of energy reflected is less.

 

[crobato]

we're comparing systems, not cost of ship relative to system.



Using the early cost of the Sparrow to compare with current cost of AMRAAM? According to deagel.com, the ESSM costs USD$640,000 while the AMRAAM C costs USD$430,000.

I wasn't talking about the early cost. The AMRAAM C you have there, that is the early cost.

PESA, but elec scanning only in elevation.

Old version of the Orekh for the old version of the Shtil which unlike the newer version, does not have time sharing.

well, since you are the one claiming that most in service illuminators are electronically scanned, do back yourself up by providing examples.

Well, isn't the SPG-62 a phase array?

You really don't know anything don't you? The detection zone of the missile is a cone extending from the missile, which as you have said would be facing downwards. Certainly not a 'spherical bubble'. And I would like you to know where you cooked up the 20km figure?

Lol it is a hemisphere, or like a flattened oval, but one that moves across in space. so in effect it is a tunnel. 16km is for the R-77 but since the AMRAAM or the Aster should have a better seeker, 20km should be feasible, maybe even up to 25km. If the target happens to be a VLO target, and there is a ship or friendly aircraft nearby that has a larger RC signature...guess what may happen...

As does the SARH missile. The SARH missile is pdated intermittently the same way the ARH missile is. Until now you still don't sem to get that the need to sequentially provide end game illumination for SARH missiles is a drawback. If a missile raid of 10 Sunburns are going to hit the ship in 30 seconds, and the illumination time spent on each ASM is 5 seconds, then with just one illuminator, only 6 ASMs can theoretically be intercepted (actually less, because there is a minimum intercept range), even if a hundred missiles is fired and can be supported mid phase via datalink. On the other hand with ARH missiles, every missile fired can conduct its own intercept as long as the datalink supports their mid phase updating requirements.

The problem with the ARH, longer locking times; surface clutter issues; the potential for multiple missiles to lock on to the same target---you fire six missiles against six targets, and 3 of the missiles decide to lock on to the same target. They also have minimum ranges.

LOL, going by your logic then, what's the big difference between a system relying on ARH or a SARH missile?

When it comes to a SAM, not much at all.

More power means more energy reflected from the surface into the SARH missile's receiver even though the percentage of energy reflected is less.

Somehow you fail to consider that the angle of emission. 5 degrees vs 50 degrees against the surface make quite a difference where the sea clutter reflections go to.

 

[Transient]

I wasn't talking about the early cost. The AMRAAM C you have there, that is the early cost.

It says here, unit cost per missile from FY04 onwards lies in the 450,000 per unit cost vicinity.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/budget/fy2005/usaf/Missile_Procurement_FY_05_PB.pdf

Old version of the Orekh for the old version of the Shtil which unlike the newer version, does not have time sharing.

You have any proof that the new Orekh scans in elevation as well?

Lol it is a hemisphere, or like a flattened oval, but one that moves across in space. so in effect it is a tunnel. 16km is for the R-77 but since the AMRAAM or the Aster should have a better seeker, 20km should be feasible, maybe even up to 25km. If the target happens to be a VLO target, and there is a ship or friendly aircraft nearby that has a larger RC signature...guess what may happen...

What this means is that the seeker is more directional and thus discriminative than you make it out to be. And I see you have sidestepped a response to a scenario which highlights the drawbacks of the SARH, and the silliness of exhorting a greater illumination time as an advantage.

Well, isn't the SPG-62 a phase array?

It is not. And even if it was, throwing out one example doesn't prove your statement one bit.

The problem with the ARH, longer locking times; surface clutter issues; the potential for multiple missiles to lock on to the same target---you fire six missiles against six targets, and 3 of the missiles decide to lock on to the same target. They also have minimum ranges.

If the ASMs were that close to each other, than the illuminator would face the same problems of illuminating multiple targets too. And no, electronic scanning is not the pure domain of illuminators, ARH missiles will in future get seekers capable of e-scanning too. The research is already well underway.

When it comes to a SAM, not much at all.

So says guru Crobato.

Somehow you fail to consider that the angle of emission. 5 degrees vs 50 degrees against the surface make quite a difference where the sea clutter reflections go to.

But with the high power of the illuminator, even if a proportionately lower amount of energy is reflected to the SARH seeker as in the case of the ARH, the much greater energy of the illuminator means that more energy from surface clutterwill likely reach the SARH seeker. And as said before, surface clutter isn't much of a problem at all now.

 

[crobato]

It says here, unit cost per missile from FY04 onwards lies in the 450,000 per unit cost vicinity.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/budget/fy2005/usaf/Missile_Procurement_FY_05_PB.pdf

Certainly not what Taiwan paid for it.

You have any proof that the new Orekh scans in elevation as well?

No i don't but it won't be the first Russian phase array to scan in elevation. Or a naval one too. Remember the RIF-M?

What this means is that the seeker is more directional and thus discriminative than you make it out to be. And I see you have sidestepped a response to a scenario which highlights the drawbacks of the SARH, and the silliness of exhorting a greater illumination time as an advantage.

Only if the seeker focal plane is fixed. I forgot to tell you this isn't true if the focal plane array is set on a gimbal and can mechanically turn around. If your seeker has a fixed focal plane, FOV is limited which means there is a good chance it can be evaded. If it is gimballed or servoed to enable it to pursue more agile targets, there is a good chance the acquisition zone is near spherical.

It is not. And even if it was, throwing out one example doesn't prove your statement one bit.

Are you sure? It does wonders if this is non electronically steered.

If the ASMs were that close to each other, than the illuminator would face the same problems of illuminating multiple targets too.

Not with pencil beam shapes.

Illuminators don't scan widely for targets. They're already locked on to it. They don't enter into a hunting phase where the seeker leaves midphase and enters terminal mode. When it starts hunting for targets it better be the right one. Of course, the shipboard radar can hold the missile off from going terminal until it is close enough that the target would be the dominant object in the seeker's FOV. In that case, it lengthens the midphase stage and shortens the autonomous stage of the missile.

Hence a decreased difference between ARH and SARH/TVM.

And no, electronic scanning is not the pure domain of illuminators, ARH missiles will in future get seekers capable of e-scanning too. The research is already well underway.

And the reason why it is more difficult is, one ESA has more side scanning issues (loss of signal at the side scan, limited FOV, heat generation, higher power requirements). This hurts a missile more than a shipboard illuminator.

So says guru Crobato.

Usually when you're insulting, I know I've won.

But with the high power of the illuminator, even if a proportionately lower amount of energy is reflected to the SARH seeker as in the case of the ARH, the much greater energy of the illuminator means that more energy from surface clutterwill likely reach the SARH seeker. And as said before, surface clutter isn't much of a problem at all now.

You seem to miss that much of the clutter would have reflected in a distance away from the missile's receiver. There will be some clutter return yes, but the target return would be much stronger. If the emitter is coming from a high incidence, much of the clutter is returned back to the receiver, along with the valid target return. So you have to work harder to discriminate the target from the clutter.

As to being a problem or not, it's only relative. Less of a problem with high RCS objects, but more and more so as the RCS goes down. Guess which system I would much prefer if I have to deal with the next generation of low RCS very low sea skimmers, not big legacy high above the water missiles like your Sunburns.

Let's say I got a smart AshM here that has onboard RWR. If an ARH missile goes live, the AshM detects the CWI signal and gets a rough bearing on the direction and speed of the incoming missile. With electronic reflexes, the AshM will attempt to evade the attacker based on the known direction of the SAM. If its a SARH, the AshM knows only its being CWI'ed, but the direction is from a ship. It will not know where the missile is coming from,. because the attacking missile isn't emitting anything.

 

[Transient]

Certainly not what Taiwan paid for it.

What has Taiwan got to do with anything?

Only if the seeker focal plane is fixed. I forgot to tell you this isn't true if the focal plane array is set on a gimbal and can mechanically turn around. If your seeker has a fixed focal plane, FOV is limited which means there is a good chance it can be evaded. If it is gimballed or servoed to enable it to pursue more agile targets, there is a good chance the acquisition zone is near spherical.

And what makes you think it is that hard to have gimbal limits set in the acquisition phase to limit cases of inadvertant acquisition of same targets?

Are you sure? It does wonders if this is non electronically steered.

You're not sure yet you claimed it was?

Of course, the shipboard radar can hold the missile off from going terminal until it is close enough that the target would be the dominant object in the seeker's FOV. In that case, it lengthens the midphase stage and shortens the autonomous stage of the missile.

Hence a decreased difference between ARH and SARH/TVM.

You're not making sense. This is the only part I get from your ramblings. This is exactly what I am talking about. With a system supporting the same number of missiles in mid phase, the system will be more capable of taking on high speed ASMs in saturation attacks using ARH missiles than SARH missiles.

Usually when you're insulting, I know I've won.

Yeah, guru Crobato won an internet debate. Too bad for the fools who wasted their time developing different guidance techniques when guru Crobato claims they are not much different at all.

You seem to miss that much of the clutter would have reflected in a distance away from the missile's receiver. There will be some clutter return yes, but the target return would be much stronger. If the emitter is coming from a high incidence, much of the clutter is returned back to the receiver, along with the valid target return. So you have to work harder to discriminate the target from the clutter.

As to being a problem or not, it's only relative. Less of a problem with high RCS objects, but more and more so as the RCS goes down. Guess which system I would much prefer if I have to deal with the next generation of low RCS very low sea skimmers, not big legacy high above the water missiles like your Sunburns

Yeah? HF-3 and the YJ-83 are all high speed sea skimmers like the Sunburn in the terminal phase. Not so legacy anymore.

Let's say I got a smart AshM here that has onboard RWR. If an ARH missile goes live, the AshM detects the CWI signal and gets a rough bearing on the direction and speed of the incoming missile. With electronic reflexes, the AshM will attempt to evade the attacker based on the known direction of the SAM. If its a SARH, the AshM knows only its being CWI'ed, but the direction is from a ship. It will not know where the missile is coming from,. because the attacking missile isn't emitting anything.

Since when did RWRs give an indication of target speed? If the missile was to be capable of doing something like that it would require target range as well. Are you going to put a pilot inside as well? Why don't you add yourself inside the ASM so you get the ASM to evade the SAM?
nfloorl:

 

[crobato]

What has Taiwan got to do with anything?

Taiwan bought phase 7 AMRAAM C remember? I kind of doubt that Phase 7 missiles are the price given. The original AMRAAM Cs are just fin cropped AMRAAM Bs, but a lot has changed after successsive Phase updates.

And what makes you think it is that hard to have gimbal limits set in the acquisition phase to limit cases of inadvertant acquisition of same targets?

And actually limit the missile's ability to acquire targets per se?

Lol.

You're not sure yet you claimed it was?

Honestly I thought it was phase array. Sometimes I underestimate what you can do with a simple mechanical array.

You're not making sense. This is the only part I get from your ramblings. This is exactly what I am talking about. With a system supporting the same number of missiles in mid phase, the system will be more capable of taking on high speed ASMs in saturation attacks using ARH missiles than SARH missiles.

In theory and paper yes. But not in practice, once various factors are involved---IFF interrogration, avoidance of fratricide, longer lock times. The last remains crucial. When it hits terminal, the SARH missile already has the target illuminated by external means. The ARH still has to do a minor hunt for it.

Yeah, guru Crobato won an internet debate. Too bad for the fools who wasted their time developing different guidance techniques when guru Crobato claims they are not much different at all.

No one says ARH isn't useful for OTH target engagements as well as ABM defense.

But for me, under 40km within radar horizon engagements, its very hard to beat a system that has proven itself with not just tests, but well over 2 decades of service and experience.

Yeah? HF-3 and the YJ-83 are all high speed sea skimmers like the Sunburn in the terminal phase. Not so legacy anymore.

That's different. The Sunburn still flies relatively high in its midphase and only drops a little in the terminal phase. It does not fly as low as sea skimmers like the Gabriel, Harpoon or the YJ series. If the YJ series goes supersonic, it would be from a very low level. True all flight phase supersonic missiles cannot fly as low as subsonic ones because of the sheer low level turbulence would shake the missile to pieces and the speed offers less margin to correct for errors. It makes a mistake, it would hit the water while a subsonic missile can still correct it.

Since when did RWRs give an indication of target speed? If the missile was to be capable of doing something like that it would require target range as well. Are you going to put a pilot inside as well? Why don't you add yourself inside the ASM so you get the ASM to evade the SAM?
nfloorl:

Fairly easy. You can get an rough approximate of target speed passively by comparing X radar emission at A time vs. X radar emission at B time. Simply said, you can get a rough speed by comparing the signals by their different locations at different time intervals. You can get rough distance by signal strength or amplitude or frequency modulation or pulse frequency. You can get rough angular resolution by comparing the signals recieved from at least two different antenna points within the body, whose entire body can act as an aperture. Its fairly easy. RWRs don't require the precision needed for target locking, all they need is what it takes to evade the incoming missile.

 

[Transient]

Taiwan bought phase 7 AMRAAM C remember? I kind of doubt that Phase 7 missiles are the price given. The original AMRAAM Cs are just fin cropped AMRAAM Bs, but a lot has changed after successsive Phase updates.

And what do you have as a basis for your doubt? The document I provided shows unit costs for AMRAAMs even for current and future years. The USAF has already started purchasing C5 and C7 models.

And actually limit the missile's ability to acquire targets per se?
Lol.

As long as the target is still within the acquisition cone, the missile's ability to acquire the target is not limited. In fact, acquisition time is increased.

In theory and paper yes. But not in practice, once various factors are involved---IFF interrogration, avoidance of fratricide, longer lock times. The last remains crucial. When it hits terminal, the SARH missile already has the target illuminated by external means. The ARH still has to do a minor hunt for it.

Hardly a problem you make it out to be. Take an intercept window of 30 secs. A sequential system like the SARH missiles, if a 5 second illumination time is needed per target and only one illumination channel is available, will mean only 6 targets engaged. An increase of 1 second illumination time means a drop in possible number of targets engaged by 1. Even if each ARH missile individually took longer to acquire the target, say by 1 sec, it does not matter significantly since they will all be entering terminal phase concurrently. This is why a system relying on ARH missiles is much better able to handle saturation attacks at close range, assuming all other things are equal.

No one says ARH isn't useful for OTH target engagements as well as ABM defense.

But for me, under 40km within radar horizon engagements, its very hard to beat a system that has proven itself with not just tests, but well over 2 decades of service and experience.

Then that is just your opinion is it not?

That's different. The Sunburn still flies relatively high in its midphase and only drops a little in the terminal phase. It does not fly as low as sea skimmers like the Gabriel, Harpoon or the YJ series. If the YJ series goes supersonic, it would be from a very low level. True all flight phase supersonic missiles cannot fly as low as subsonic ones because of the sheer low level turbulence would shake the missile to pieces and the speed offers less margin to correct for errors. It makes a mistake, it would hit the water while a subsonic missile can still correct it.

The less the engagement time available, the stronger the argument for ARH missiles.

Fairly easy. You can get an rough approximate of target speed passively by comparing X radar emission at A time vs. X radar emission at B time. Simply said, you can get a rough speed by comparing the signals by their different locations at different time intervals. You can get rough distance by signal strength or amplitude or frequency modulation or pulse frequency. You can get rough angular resolution by comparing the signals recieved from at least two different antenna points within the body, whose entire body can act as an aperture. Its fairly easy. RWRs don't require the precision needed for target locking, all they need is what it takes to evade the incoming missile.

No. You cannot establish a target location with just one bearing plot and with just one platform without a long baseline between separate receivers. A missile isn't long or wide enough to do that. Without establishing a target location, one cannot establish target speed, not even a very rough estimation. I'd like you to stop wasting time dreaming things up to support your position.

 

[crobato]

And what do you have as a basis for your doubt? The document I provided shows unit costs for AMRAAMs even for current and future years. The USAF has already started purchasing C5 and C7 models.

Taiwan bought theirs for a price much higher than that.

As long as the target is still within the acquisition cone, the missile's ability to acquire the target is not limited. In fact, acquisition time is increased.

But the target is not within the cone, then that is the problem. If you narrow the cone, then that becomes the problem.

Hardly a problem you make it out to be. Take an intercept window of 30 secs. A sequential system like the SARH missiles, if a 5 second illumination time is needed per target and only one illumination channel is available, will mean only 6 targets engaged. An increase of 1 second illumination time means a drop in possible number of targets engaged by 1. Even if each ARH missile individually took longer to acquire the target, say by 1 sec, it does not matter significantly since they will all be entering terminal phase concurrently. This is why a system relying on ARH missiles is much better able to handle saturation attacks at close range, assuming all other things are equal.

And yet no platform on earth, whether on the air or surface, prefers to use ARH for close range engagement. The problem is that the situation is not a easy as you think it is on paper, just like your paper example over there. You have not pegged the question what if missiles are acquiring the same target simultaneously. What if friendly targets are within the acquisition zone? An acquisition cone can have a total FOV from 60 to 90 degrees if the focal plane is fixed and more if moved. What can you use to distinguish friendlies from foes within an acquisition zone 20 to 25km?

The less the engagement time available, the stronger the argument for ARH missiles.

Hardly, locking time and ability to distinguish targets in terminal phase is the issue. Maybe you failed to notice what is the comparable RCS of an AshM at 3m altitude vs. an 8000ton destroyer within that basket.

No. You cannot establish a target location with just one bearing plot and with just one platform without a long baseline between separate receivers. A missile isn't long or wide enough to do that. Without establishing a target location, one cannot establish target speed, not even a very rough estimation. I'd like you to stop wasting time dreaming things up to support your position.

Lol. Target location? I am referring to a missile attacking the AshM, so this is an evasive response, not a target locking. For the platform being targeted, all it needs to know is the attackers location relative to the platform, and every emission already gives you direct bearing. And from there, a second location will give you speed relative to the platform. A missile is more than long and wide enough than it needs to be, if the attacker is emitting X or K band frequencies.

 

[Transient]

Taiwan bought theirs for a price much higher than that.

What does Taiwan have to do with anything? Is this an attempt to divert attention from your mistake?

But the target is not within the cone, then that is the problem. If you narrow the cone, then that becomes the problem.

As long as the acquisition cone of the ARH is big enought to cover the volume of space the target is likely to be within, then there isn't a problem.

And yet no platform on earth, whether on the air or surface, prefers to use ARH for close range engagement. The problem is that the situation is not a easy as you think it is on paper, just like your paper example over there. You have not pegged the question what if missiles are acquiring the same target simultaneously. What if friendly targets are within the acquisition zone? An acquisition cone can have a total FOV from 60 to 90 degrees if the focal plane is fixed and more if moved. What can you use to distinguish friendlies from foes within an acquisition zone 20 to 25km?

These problems exist for illuminators too. If an friendly lies within the illumination beam of the target, (which would likely be the case if an active missile similarly had a chance to acquire a friendly platform), then the SARH missile too has a chance of acquiring the friendly platform instead. As I said, why do you arbitratily insist that ARH missiles have an acquisition zone of 60 to 90 degrees, when the actual zone can be specified within boundary limits as required? You are trying to cook up deficiencies in ARH missiles to support your argument again aren't you?

Hardly, locking time and ability to distinguish targets in terminal phase is the issue. Maybe you failed to notice what is the comparable RCS of an AshM at 3m altitude vs. an 8000ton destroyer within that basket.

The location of the target can be specified and acquisition gates programmed into the missile. Just because guru Crobato hasn't thought of something as simple as this doesn't mean missile designers have not.

Lol. Target location? I am referring to a missile attacking the AshM, so this is an evasive response, not a target locking. For the platform being targeted, all it needs to know is the attackers location relative to the platform, and every emission already gives you direct bearing. And from there, a second location will give you speed relative to the platform. A missile is more than long and wide enough than it needs to be, if the attacker is emitting X or K band frequencies.

Without the SAM location how would you measure it's speed? In fact, without it's location how would you evade the SAM? Your desperate attempts to cook things up to support yourself is getting tiresome. I see that nothing is going to convince you that a system using ARH missiles has advantages which make it no less capable than one using SARH missiles, perhaps until the PLAN comes up with a similar system in future.

 

[crobato]

What does Taiwan have to do with anything? Is this an attempt to divert attention from your mistake?

That's because they bought theirs at 800,000us a piece.

As long as the acquisition cone of the ARH is big enought to cover the volume of space the target is likely to be within, then there isn't a problem.

You cannot have an acquisition cone that is small enough not to detect friendlies, but big enough to be combat effective at foes. The smaller the acquisition cone the greater the chance you may not acquire at all, and the greater you can lose a target once you're locked and it evades.

These problems exist for illuminators too. If an friendly lies within the illumination beam of the target, (which would likely be the case if an active missile similarly had a chance to acquire a friendly platform), then the SARH missile too has a chance of acquiring the friendly platform instead.

And how? The illuminator would be pointing at the first target, and with the main lobe at that, the target would also be the most brilliantly lit. Think of the illuminator as a flashlight, the one you intend is the one you lit.

As I said, why do you arbitratily insist that ARH missiles have an acquisition zone of 60 to 90 degrees, when the actual zone can be specified within boundary limits as required? You are trying to cook up deficiencies in ARH missiles to support your argument again aren't you?

60 to 90 degrees is usually the coverage of a radar's main lobe.

The location of the target can be specified and acquisition gates programmed into the missile. Just because guru Crobato hasn't thought of something as simple as this doesn't mean missile designers have not.

Yes you can do that too. Track while scan. Just have the ship radar bring the missile closest to the intended target. Seekers (other than TVM) are brutally simple minded because they are made to overexcel at a one very simple task, detect, lock and kill whatever is out there, in the quickest way possible without discrimination. Its not going to ask, say, "I'm not supposed to kill A, but head to B." Its the radar's job to cue the missile seeker at the target and closest to the target. if multiple missiles have locked on to one target by mistake, your best hope is that once the target is eliminated, the missiles will seek another target.

That's why missiles are ripple fired with set time intervals from each other, not blasted simultaneously like an MLRS like in some cartoon. If you're firing misisles close to one another, the intention is to have both missiles locked on to the same target to achieve higher rates of kill. The other missile serves a backup.

Without the SAM location how would you measure it's speed? In fact, without it's location how would you evade the SAM?

You don't know how RWRs work do you? RWRs will give you the SAM or AAM's bearing, above or below you, and can give you an approximate distance. An ARH and a SARH CWI has distinct signatures on their own, which is why a RWR can tell if a SAM is fired and locked at you, or an ARH BVRAAM just went terminal not far from your position. They have been doing this since Vietnam.

Your desperate attempts to cook things up to support yourself is getting tiresome. I see that nothing is going to convince you that a system using ARH missiles has advantages which make it no less capable than one using SARH missiles, perhaps until the PLAN comes up with a similar system in future.

Lol, it is said that the 052C uses ARH missiles, and there appears to be proposals using the PL-12 as a VLS SAM. But I'm still not convinced in principle that ARH makes a better close defense system.

 

[Transient]

That's because they bought theirs at 800,000us a piece.

And that is an arbitratry price which has nothing to do with the actual price of manufacture (or at least the price of purchase by home country), which should be the price we use to compare. you just hate to admit you were wrong, don't you?

You cannot have an acquisition cone that is small enough not to detect friendlies, but big enough to be combat effective at foes.

And why are they mutually exclusive properties?

The smaller the acquisition cone the greater the chance you may not acquire at all, and the greater you can lose a target once you're locked and it evades.

the acquisition cone can be made smaller than the actual gimbal limits, the full extent of which would then be fully utilised when the target is locked on. Is that so hard to understand, guru Crobato? As for the acquisition cone being smaller, this can be made variable according to the circumstances. If there are friendlies in the area or if the targets are in close proximity, then the cone can be made smaller as is required. Also, there are maximum probabilities upon which the target can be counted on to be within a certain amount of space. The acquisition come can be tailored to that.

And how? The illuminator would be pointing at the first target, and with the main lobe at that, the target would also be the most brilliantly lit. Think of the illuminator as a flashlight, the one you intend is the one you lit.

If a friendly ship or a friendly aircraft is within so close a proximity as to be in danger of getting locked on by an ARH missile, then it would also be in danger of being illuminated by the illuminator beam in a situation where SARH missiles was used instead.

60 to 90 degrees is usually the coverage of a radar's main lobe.

a missile radar seeker main lobe with 60 to 90 degrees of off bore coverage without gimbal? I request proof.

Yes you can do that too. Track while scan. Just have the ship radar bring the missile closest to the intended target. Seekers (other than TVM) are brutally simple minded because they are made to overexcel at a one very simple task, detect, lock and kill whatever is out there, in the quickest way possible without discrimination. Its not going to ask, say, "I'm not supposed to kill A, but head to B." Its the radar's job to cue the missile seeker at the target and closest to the target. if multiple missiles have locked on to one target by mistake, your best hope is that once the target is eliminated, the missiles will seek another target.

That's why missiles are ripple fired with set time intervals from each other, not blasted simultaneously like an MLRS like in some cartoon. If you're firing misisles close to one another, the intention is to have both missiles locked on to the same target to achieve higher rates of kill. The other missile serves a backup.

have already addressed this earlier.

You don't know how RWRs work do you? RWRs will give you the SAM or AAM's bearing, above or below you, and can give you an approximate distance. An ARH and a SARH CWI has distinct signatures on their own, which is why a RWR can tell if a SAM is fired and locked at you, or an ARH BVRAAM just went terminal not far from your position. They have been doing this since Vietnam.

The more you talk the more you sound as if you don't even know the meaning of your own words. As you said, RWRs (the less sophisticated ones) only give bearing. It also gives VERY approximate distance. That is not useful in determining speed or location which is needed for closed loop evasive maneuvers with respect to an ARH missiles, which was what you sugested. If the subtle change in your position now, which is that the ASM can evade from the missile now because it has warning that the ARH has turned terminal (meaning a non-closed loop evasive system), then the ASM can do the same even if the SAM is a SARH type, since target illumination provided by the iluminators provide the same warning needed.

 

[crobato]

And why are they mutually exclusive properties?

Oh and tell me why they should be? I never heard of a SAM or AAM whose FOV have to be stunted to reduce the possibiltiy of friendly targeting. As a matter of fact, the FOV is being maximized every which way they can.

the acquisition cone can be made smaller than the actual gimbal limits,

And why should you? You cannot be absolutely be precise of the missile's location and the target location when the missile goes terminal. By limiting your acquisition cone, you limit the missiles ability to find the target.

the full extent of which would then be fully utilised when the target is locked on. Is that so hard to understand, guru Crobato? As for the acquisition cone being smaller, this can be made variable according to the circumstances. If there are friendlies in the area or if the targets are in close proximity, then the cone can be made smaller as is required. Also, there are maximum probabilities upon which the target can be counted on to be within a certain amount of space. The acquisition come can be tailored to that.

HTF you made this up? How can you arbitrariily narrow the radar cone on a missile that is on a terminal stage? At 20km you only got seconds to hit the target. You can't put all these complications in the final seconds. You're supposed to discriminate the targets long before that, and that's the job of the fire control radar. A SARH would be STTing its minded target in a crowd long before the missile reaches terminal.

If a friendly ship or a friendly aircraft is within so close a proximity as to be in danger of getting locked on by an ARH missile, then it would also be in danger of being illuminated by the illuminator beam in a situation where SARH missiles was used instead.

And how you made this up? The illuminator is guided by the radar. so in the first place, its already positioned to point at the target. And it won't be pointed at the target if the IFF has not authorized to be so. In a missile going live, it has to hunt for the target as it has to take account of circular errors (CEP) that it and the target may not be in the exact place as it should be due to inertial navigation inaccuracies and radar errors. In a SARh situation, the target would already be lit before hand giving a heads up advantage.

a missile radar seeker main lobe with 60 to 90 degrees of off bore coverage without gimbal? I request proof.

Lol. I am talking of all radars in general. What makes a radar seeker any different. In general, the shape of any radar's main lobe, unless sharpening is applied, is 60 to 90 degrees. Beyond that you have the petals of the sidelobes.

The more you talk the more you sound as if you don't even know the meaning of your own words. As you said, RWRs (the less sophisticated ones) only give bearing. It also gives VERY approximate distance.

That is what I meant by rough.

That is not useful in determining speed or location which is needed for closed loop evasive maneuvers with respect to an ARH missiles, which was what you sugested.

No. That is actually useful for making evasive maneuvers. When you recieve the ARH CWI, you know it should be >20km of you. And you already got your bearing.

If the subtle change in your position now, which is that the ASM can evade from the missile now because it has warning that the ARH has turned terminal (meaning a non-closed loop evasive system), then the ASM can do the same even if the SAM is a SARH type, since target illumination provided by the iluminators provide the same warning needed.

What change in position? RWRs can tell an ARH and a SARH (fighter based) CWI. The thing is, a plane can use STT on a target without even firing its missile, and the target has no way of knowing if its fired upon or not. Basically, if you received an STT, you know you have been target locked, but you dont' know if the missile is fired or not, and where it is, when it is indeed fired, only assume that it did and the missile is around there somewhere. Unless you have a missile warning reciever, which is optically or thermally based. RWRs can tell if it has been locked on from a TWS mode, which indicates an ARH about to be fired. Its just the same thing. Except that ARh gives you a big warning when the seeker goes live.

 

[Tasman]

This may be a very interesting debate but how does it all relate to the Formidable Class frigate?

Perhaps it is just that my lack of technical knowledge prevents me from seeing the relationship but this seems to be getting way OT to me!

Cheers

 

[Transient]

Oh and tell me why they should be? I never heard of a SAM or AAM whose FOV have to be stunted to reduce the possibiltiy of friendly targeting. As a matter of fact, the FOV is being maximized every which way they can.

And why should you? You cannot be absolutely be precise of the missile's location and the target location when the missile goes terminal. By limiting your acquisition cone, you limit the missiles ability to find the target.

HTF you made this up? How can you arbitrariily narrow the radar cone on a missile that is on a terminal stage? At 20km you only got seconds to hit the target. You can't put all these complications in the final seconds. You're supposed to discriminate the targets long before that, and that's the job of the fire control radar. A SARH would be STTing its minded target in a crowd long before the missile reaches terminal.

FOV is being maximised. But the acquisition cone need not utilize the full extent of the FOV. Are you so slow you cannot understand that? Say the ASM location is determined to within 50m by 50m by 50m. Even if the SAM's ARH seeker can have a FOV that encompass a volume of say 20km by 20km by 20km (just an example), that doesn't mean that it is going to lock onto any target within that FOV of 20*20*20km! The seeker's acquisition cone can be limited to the box of 50m by 50m by 50m within which the ASM lies. What's so hard to understand with that?

Lol. I am talking of all radars in general. What makes a radar seeker any different. In general, the shape of any radar's main lobe, unless sharpening is applied, is 60 to 90 degrees. Beyond that you have the petals of the sidelobes.

Oh, so you're saying that the beamwidth of so many radars reach 60 to 90 degrees? Since you have so many examples, pick one missile seeker radar with that characteristic you described and show me proof?

No. That is actually useful for making evasive maneuvers. When you recieve the ARH CWI, you know it should be >20km of you. And you already got your bearing.

It can be anywhere within 5 to 30km, and it can be coming at any speed. How is that going to help in a closed loop evasive system? The desperate lengths you go to justify some silly idea made up to support your crumbling position is appalling.
nfloorl:

What change in position? RWRs can tell an ARH and a SARH (fighter based) CWI. The thing is, a plane can use STT on a target without even firing its missile, and the target has no way of knowing if its fired upon or not. Basically, if you received an STT, you know you have been target locked, but you dont' know if the missile is fired or not, and where it is, when it is indeed fired, only assume that it did and the missile is around there somewhere. Unless you have a missile warning reciever, which is optically or thermally based. RWRs can tell if it has been locked on from a TWS mode, which indicates an ARH about to be fired. Its just the same thing. Except that ARh gives you a big warning when the seeker goes live.

In a SARH system where missiles are illuminated only in their terminal phase, that is indication enough of the SAM's state, and open loop evasive maneuvers can be conducted against the SAM just as it can against ARH missiles. As said before, closed loop evasive maneuvers against SAMs by ASMs is a crobatorian fantasy. Nice try cooking something, but its not going to convince anybody who knows better.

 

[crobato]

FOV is being maximised. But the acquisition cone need not utilize the full extent of the FOV. Are you so slow you cannot understand that? Say the ASM location is determined to within 50m by 50m by 50m. Even if the SAM's ARH seeker can have a FOV that encompass a volume of say 20km by 20km by 20km (just an example), that doesn't mean that it is going to lock onto any target within that FOV of 20*20*20km! The seeker's acquisition cone can be limited to the box of 50m by 50m by 50m within which the ASM lies. What's so hard to understand with that?

You must have crap flowing out of your ears. What is the operational advantage of extending your FOV if not to extend your acquisition cone. The greater your acquisition cone by any means, the greater the PK.

Another thing is that you don't seem to realize that a missile's flight can have navigational, flight and radar errors. Thus when the missile turns terminal, it may not necessarily be where it hopes to be in relation to the target. That's why it has to search and scan for the target, before it locks on to it. If a missile is so accurate you say it only has to acquire through a narrow FOV cone, there is no point in having terminal onboard guidance, because one of the points of having terminal guidance is that it essentially corrects errors produced by midphase guidance.

Oh, so you're saying that the beamwidth of so many radars reach 60 to 90 degrees? Since you have so many examples, pick one missile seeker radar with that characteristic you described and show me proof?

Jeezuz Christ, why don't you pick any radar period. The shape of main lobes in average cover 60 to 90 degrees without using sharpening.

It can be anywhere within 5 to 30km, and it can be coming at any speed. How is that going to help in a closed loop evasive system? The desperate lengths you go to justify some silly idea made up to support your crumbling position is appalling.
nfloorl:

Assuming if the SAM signal has been compromised by intel (ELINT, espionage), assuming you know the baseline strength and frequency of the SAM's emission, you can get distance by the signal strength, and closure rate by frequency modulation. The fact that seekers use CWI with FM for distance resolution won't make this any harder.

In a SARH system where missiles are illuminated only in their terminal phase, that is indication enough of the SAM's state, and open loop evasive maneuvers can be conducted against the SAM just as it can against ARH missiles. As said before, closed loop evasive maneuvers against SAMs by ASMs is a crobatorian fantasy. Nice try cooking something, but its not going to convince anybody who knows better.

You try to maneuver yes, but the SARH missile will not reveal its location, nor its distance or closure rate which an ARH missile can do. Guess which one you will have a better chance of evading.

And quit the insults please. It not only demonstrates your sheer arrogance, but does show you are out of arguments.

 

[Schumacher]

........And quit the insults please. It not only demonstrates your sheer arrogance, but does show you are out of arguments.

The guy is only trying to have the last word in at all costs. Why not just let him have it & be done with ?