SM-3 to test against multiple targets.

I’ve never heard of a mode in the Aegis software that allows for the generation of a CCIP (Continuously Computed Impact Point) to give the missile the correct deflection to hit target.

I think the only change in the engagement sequence is the loss of SPG guidance in the terminal phase. It doesn’t seem like any change in the data-transfer load is necessary. What is known is that the SPY arrays are already accurate enough at range to bring the missile close enough to the target that only illuminators are needed for end game guidance. ie the SPG-62s only illuminate, unlike other FCRs like the Orekhs which need to re-acquire the target. With the SPY radar getting more accurate at closer ranges that might compensate a little for the lack of SPG guidance, though a loss in terms of accuracy and thus a drop in Pk is inevitable.

Yep my mistake. I’d heard that the Burkes were scheduled to be fitted with SSDS.

Thats news to me. Didn’t know they ever wanted to overlay SSDS over AEGIS.

Umm, I think I heard something similar from aegisFC, that if necessary the SPY-1 could provide the necessary guidance.

Yeah I’d like to hear his view on this. As I said to work in this fashion the SPY radar would have to keep its beam steered on the target track and providing almost continual updates to the missile. I’ve never heard of a mode in the Aegis software that allows for the generation of a CCIP (Continuously Computed Impact Point) to give the missile the correct deflection to hit target. I could only presume, as stated, that the target would have to be complicit in its own destruction by flying directly at the array and not manoevering – essentially similar to early Radio Command to Line Of Sight operation albeit with far more advanced technology!.

Isn’t the SPQ-9A installed only on the Ticos so far, with them projected to be upgraded to SPQ-9Bs? AFAIK, the Burkes don’t have SPQ-9s, though they’ll be projected to get them as upgrades. The reason for it, as I understand, is that they’ll need the SPQ-9B for horizon ASM detection because of the BMD surveillance role the Burkes will be getting, so radar resources will have to be shared and the SPQ-9B is there to compensate for that.

Yep my mistake. I’d heard that the Burkes were scheduled to be fitted with SSDS. Checking into again now it seems that this is unfunded and, reading between the lines, it looks like Sperry dont want the integration challenge!.

Where on earth did you hear that Pit?.

First off I dont understand the point about the target needing to be “inside low altitude radio-horizon”?. Altitude, provided its within SPY coverage, should not make any difference whatsoever. SPY-1 will hand-off any track to Aegis automatically and update that track as per its programming. Thinking about this further if your track is close aboard at low altitude its probably not even the SPY-1 that holds the contact…AN/SPQ-9B was installed on most Aegis vessels to cover that sector after SPY-1’s performance was found to be marginal within those parameters. As a 30rpm rotator AN/SPQ-9B most definitely does not have sufficient update rate to MCG a missile straight to prox with target.

As to whether MCG from SPY-1 can provide sufficient resolution to actually put the missile inside proximity fuse range of a target would depend, I would imagine, more on the nature of the target and the update rate of the MCGU than anything to do with range and angular resolution. Simply put, if your target is manoevering, forget it, there is a reason why Continuous Wave Illumination is continuous, and that is to provide flowing updates for the missile to generate its computed impact point (CCIP). If the target is plugging along fat, dumb and stupid and the datarate from the SPY-1 can be set incredibly high, near-ICWI rates, then perhaps SPY-1 may be able to simulate some kind of RCLOS system and ‘talk’ the missile onto target. Its going to tie-up the SPY-1 panel performing the ‘RCLOS guidance’ fairly heavily though!.

Umm, I think I heard something similar from aegisFC, that if necessary the SPY-1 could provide the necessary guidance. Isn’t the SPQ-9A installed only on the Ticos so far, with them projected to be upgraded to SPQ-9Bs? AFAIK, the Burkes don’t have SPQ-9s, though they’ll be projected to get them as upgrades. The reason for it, as I understand, is that they’ll need the SPQ-9B for horizon ASM detection because of the BMD surveillance role the Burkes will be getting, so radar resources will have to be shared and the SPQ-9B is there to compensate for that. I’m just a lousy landlubber, so forgive me if I'[m wrong anywhere..:o

Where on earth did you hear that Pit?.

From a theoretical PoV, opinion of one INDRA’s PhD Radar designer, talking about the topic.:)

Let me ask him again, just to be clear, and will pass again his conclusions.

If the targets are near Aegis ship (inside low altitude radio-horizon), SPY-1D can guide till impact the missiles (SM-2MR BLockIIIA/B) without need of the SPG-62 CWI…the guidance error of the MCGU would not be that great to not avoid the missile’s warhead to do its job (big blast!)…

Further is the target, bigger is the tracking error, you need the CWI further to enhance the pK.

Where on earth did you hear that Pit?.

First off I dont understand the point about the target needing to be “inside low altitude radio-horizon”?. Altitude, provided its within SPY coverage, should not make any difference whatsoever. SPY-1 will hand-off any track to Aegis automatically and update that track as per its programming. Thinking about this further if your track is close aboard at low altitude its probably not even the SPY-1 that holds the contact…AN/SPQ-9B was installed on most Aegis vessels to cover that sector after SPY-1’s performance was found to be marginal within those parameters. As a 30rpm rotator AN/SPQ-9B most definitely does not have sufficient update rate to MCG a missile straight to prox with target.

As to whether MCG from SPY-1 can provide sufficient resolution to actually put the missile inside proximity fuse range of a target would depend, I would imagine, more on the nature of the target and the update rate of the MCGU than anything to do with range and angular resolution. Simply put, if your target is manoevering, forget it, there is a reason why Continuous Wave Illumination is continuous, and that is to provide flowing updates for the missile to generate its computed impact point (CCIP). If the target is plugging along fat, dumb and stupid and the datarate from the SPY-1 can be set incredibly high, near-ICWI rates, then perhaps SPY-1 may be able to simulate some kind of RCLOS system and ‘talk’ the missile onto target. Its going to tie-up the SPY-1 panel performing the ‘RCLOS guidance’ fairly heavily though!.

With a large qualifier. Back in the day four directors on a Leahy meant four missile could be in flight at a time- at best. With Aegis the rounds are intertially guided (with updates) for most of the flight, only requiring illumination for the final seconds of flight, the result being Aegis can keep MANY more rounds in the air at once than the older system (I’ve seen the figure “24” mentioned on several occasions).

Granted. More rounds can be in the air and the directors can service rounds much more rapidly than before, BUT, the number of targets simultaneously engaged is still limited by terminal phase director availability…which was the point!.

Thing that gets me is why did they drop the number of directors on the Burkes to two effectively cutting the number of missiles they can guide in HALF? They can’t be THAT expensive. Seems like jumping over a dollar to pick up a dime.

Exactly. If you ever find the answer to that one I’d be obliged if you’d share. Fantastic example of a false economy if a Burke ever has to face a saturation attack and is lost for the want of the extra director.

If the targets are near Aegis ship (inside low altitude radio-horizon), SPY-1D can guide till impact the missiles (SM-2MR BLockIIIA/B) without need of the SPG-62 CWI…the guidance error of the MCGU would not be that great to not avoid the missile’s warhead to do its job (big blast!)…

Further is the target, bigger is the tracking error, you need the CWI further to enhance the pK.

How do they work ESSM into the mix? From a guidance standpoint does it behave basically like an SM-2? (Yes I know they’re both SARH but I’m talking more specifically).

If the targets are near Aegis ship (inside low altitude radio-horizon), SPY-1D can guide till impact the missiles (SM-2MR BLockIIIA/B) without need of the SPG-62 CWI…the guidance error of the MCGU would not be that great to not avoid the missile’s warhead to do its job (big blast!)…

Further is the target, bigger is the tracking error, you need the CWI further to enhance the pK.

Aegis/SM-X system seems to be the most efficient and prospective system between all Americans ones. Its evolutionary upgrades seems right to me. On the other hand, for land based systems, it seems that there are many projects (Patriot PAC-X, THAAD, …), many (sometimes diverging) specifications and so on. I wonder if its no better to previously define a unified systems and work around it to evolutionary improve its performance, just like with the Aegis/SM-X. Just an opinion.:o

It being worthy of note, in context, that far from being ‘in the old days’ the description above is an accurate representation of the SPY-1/SPG/SM-2 system utilised in present generation US, Spanish, Japanese, Korean etc AAW escorts!.

With a large qualifier. Back in the day four directors on a Leahy meant four missile could be in flight at a time- at best. With Aegis the rounds are intertially guided (with updates) for most of the flight, only requiring illumination for the final seconds of flight, the result being Aegis can keep MANY more rounds in the air at once than the older system (I’ve seen the figure “24” mentioned on several occasions). SM-6 will change this further and also allow offboard cueing for OTH shots. Thing that gets me is why did they drop the number of directors on the Burkes to two effectively cutting the number of missiles they can guide in HALF? They can’t be THAT expensive. Seems like jumping over a dollar to pick up a dime.

In the old days of semi-active-radar (SAR) missiles guided by mechanically steered radars, the number of targets that could be engaged was limited by the number of target-illumination radars….

It being worthy of note, in context, that far from being ‘in the old days’ the description above is an accurate representation of the SPY-1/SPG/SM-2 system utilised in present generation US, Spanish, Japanese, Korean etc AAW escorts!.

Aegis Flight Test Standard Missile-13 (FTM-13) took place on 6 November. The first target was launched at approximately 6:12 p.m. Hawaii Standard Time, followed by the second “moments later”. About two minutes after target launch, the cruiser Lake Erie’s crew fired two SM-3 missiles, and successfully intercepted both targets outside the earth’s atmosphere.

Computer simulation, including hardware-in-the-loop testing, had done much to reduce the number of missiles fired during development.

In the old days, one the missile had demonstrated that it could fly and guide to a target, engineers fired dozens of rounds against progressively more difficult targets.

Today, much of that work is done by simulation, and missile testing rapidly moves to highly-stressing engagements that explore the limits of the system’s capabilities. If it can tackle these successfully, there’s little point in trying less-demanding shots.

In the case of the German A-4 (V-2), thousands were fired during the development programme (I seem to recall reading that the number of development firings exceeded the 3,000+ fired in combat).

By the 1970s, a missile development programme would probably involve less than 50 rounds, and one UK design team seriously proposed to conduct only 12 development firings (but in practice needed at least twice that number).

As an example of a present-day programme, the entire process to complete development for the Meteor air-to-air missile then integrate the missile onto the Gripen, Typhoon and Rafale is expected to involve 30-40 firings.

Firing dozens of targets against most SAM systems would saturate the defence. The factor that limits a system’s ability to cope with saturation attacks has traditionally been the ground or ship-based guidance hardware.

Semi-active command to line of sight (SACLOS) systems are limited by the number of guidance channels available on the ground – some fire units could use radar guidance to engage one target and an electro-optical channel to simultaneously engage a second.

In the old days of semi-active-radar (SAR) missiles guided by mechanically steered radars, the number of targets that could be engaged was limited by the number of target-illumination radars and the number of ready-to-fire missiles on the launch rails.

With electronically scanned radar arrays and vertical launchers, a greater number of simultaneous engagements is possible. The limiting factor is probably the data-processing power of the radar electronics, and that can be tested by simulation.

Mercurius Cantabrigiensis

So, again, do test for anti air missiles do real life tests against dozens of targets? Sure, they’re expensive, but so are real life casulties, which may or may not be products of faulty testing process. If certain articles are to be believed, soviets used to do live tests of their anti air systems against dozens of targets at a time – but that was back in the 50s. So, is something like that still practiced or have computer simulations replaced tests against many targets altogether?

Are there many other, nondisclosed tests for various anti air missiles? Cause all we can ever read is X system tested against 2 or 3 or so missiles at once… I do hope they’re all tested against true saturation attacks of dozens of incomings at the same time…

When it comes to testing anything you walk before you run. Most people fail to realize that. The dumbest arguement of all is “it’s a poor test because they knew it was coming”. As if ANY missile system could shoot down a target without knowing there was a target to shoot down. Another thing to keep in mind is testing is EXPENSIVE, especially missile defense testing (it’s not as though you can use a cheap RC model for a target) so you want to maximize the data collected on EVERY test.

Are there many other, nondisclosed tests for various anti air missiles? Cause all we can ever read is X system tested against 2 or 3 or so missiles at once… I do hope they’re all tested against true saturation attacks of dozens of incomings at the same time…