Has ASTER ever been tested against supersonic targets?

Except that SEA RAM didn’t exist a that time… SEA RAM was developed at a time when the US suddenly realised that a gun alone is not much good against supersonic sea skimming targets and missiles would be better for that particular type of target.

ie SEA RAM was part of the solution for Moskit… As was the new model of Standard.

Both programs were launched by Germany at first. Those ASMs were most dangerous for DDs and FFs in littoral waters foremost, when the USN jumped that waggon too. But that was the ‘hard-kill’ side only.

Leaving aside RAM, sea-state and all ‘softkill’ measurements.

Except that SEA RAM didn’t exist a that time… SEA RAM was developed at a time when the US suddenly realised that a gun alone is not much good against supersonic sea skimming targets and missiles would be better for that particular type of target.

ie SEA RAM was part of the solution for Moskit… As was the new model of Standard.

The altitude the MOSKIT flys at is quite intentional… below 7m. That was to evade the Standard naval SAM of the time which could not engage targets below 7m altitude. Even if an AEW aircraft picked out a MOSKIT and transmited that info to an AEGIS class cruiser in the mid 80s there would be nothing the cruiser could do till the targte reached Phalanx range… and at mach 2.5 and with Phalanx’s minimum and max effective range and rate of fire in consideration that ship is in trouble.

Leaving aside RAM, sea-state and all ‘softkill’ measurements.

what I want to know *today* is can ships fire off active-radar high-G SAMs even before seeing the inbound ASM on their radar/IRST(Sirius) high up on their mast. I was told the LOS is around 40km from the radar’s height.

can it use INS to reach a certain place then switch on active radar to acquire the ASM?

Your posting shows, you have no real idea about the flight profiles of different ASMs and their seeker-heads.
Rodionow, B.I. and Nowitschkow, N.N. in Naval ASMs, wrote,
“not the flying height of the ASM, but the height of the sensors from the defender is most important for reaction-time or chance of defence.”
Simply stick to your AEW part.

The altitude the MOSKIT flys at is quite intentional… below 7m. That was to evade the Standard naval SAM of the time which could not engage targets below 7m altitude. Even if an AEW aircraft picked out a MOSKIT and transmited that info to an AEGIS class cruiser in the mid 80s there would be nothing the cruiser could do till the targte reached Phalanx range… and at mach 2.5 and with Phalanx’s minimum and max effective range and rate of fire in consideration that ship is in trouble.

@sens: for the technical term the height of the target and the height of the radar is equal important but there is no way to increase the flight level of an enemy ashm so the own radar has to be mounted as high as posssible.

Except that most decent sized vessels can carry helo based AEW at the very least and when operating in a dangerous environment will almost certainly have air support in the form of AEW and interceptors.

Amusing that the post above describes 50ft as grazing the sea surface… at 15 metres or so that would fly above many small boats without even hitting them. MOSKIT flys at less than 1/3rd that height, as does the much slower Kh-35.

Your posting shows, you have no real idea about the flight profiles of different ASMs and their seeker-heads.
Rodionow, B.I. and Nowitschkow, N.N. in Naval ASMs, wrote,
“not the flying height of the ASM, but the height of the sensors from the defender is most important for reaction-time or chance of defence.”
Simply stick to your AEW part.

The U.S. approach to the line-of-sight and horizon problem is netcentric warfare. Surface based multi-sensor/shooters, orbital sensors (expanding rapidly in numbers and capability), E-2C and CAP, Global Hawk loitering 24/7.
Very hard to suprise and hit (conventially that is) a USN CBG in blue waters.
And won’t go into litoral waters with some pro-active defense first.

Well,the vandal exercises don`t take place streaming the missle right in to the ships participating in the exercise, of course,and that means the “drones”
don`t take evasive manners like the real vampires and in reality they don`t get fired on stationary platforms far away,which means real supersonic missilers closes on the ship in a lo-lo mode then just climb up once to shoot and just run away outside the ships weapon evenlope,which means the ship has little time to react,and it is very possible it`ll be at least 4~5 vampires closing on the ship the same time.

The Standard is said to have a range of over 80nms,but the range won`t have any merit because all missiles these days have sea-skimming capabilities,which means the Ship`s AA rader can`t spot the missile,until it closes on the ship(roughly around 30nms?) as farther detection range means more extra space and handicaps for the missile to exploit.And the Standard is certainly not designed for intercepting supersonic missiles,as missiles with secondary boosters can`t gain sudden thrust right after it takes off,
and it would be very FATAL as the mach2.0+@ Vampires would be first detected only about 35~40km away which means there is only one chance to knock off the missile before the ships CIWS and ECM are activated.

The theory proved in the VANDALEX would be practical only if the Ship has caught the missile miles and miles away(At full dectection range),giving enough time for the SM-2 to react and close on the target,but in reality it would`nt be pretty like that.

I seriously doubt the VANDALEX took place simulating almost the real thing like by shooting mutiple drones on the ship directly and being first detected only a few tenfold miles away. Well,if there are AEW planes like the E-2C Hawkeye or E-3,they might catch the missile the instant it`s fired,but if it comes only like a solo Standard armed AA Ship Vs Supersonic missilier,the AA ship is likely to be doomed.

ASMs that does not fly in a hi-hi mode can be NEVER detected from the full range of the AA raders which renders the awesome range of the SM-2 useless.I`m pretty sure the the Lassen was backed up by any type of AWACS to exploit the chances of intercepting the drones on their full range,which means ships that don`t have the support of any sort of AEW armed with Standards is likely to be history(like the KDX Ships with out the support of ROKAF`s AWACs we don`t have,for instance)

That`s why some ship designs just being offered in some European states have only ESSMs for defense,realizing the reality and the fraud of “long range SAMs can start their intercept at maximum range.

Go download the ESSM vs Vandal video. Those Vandals don’t just drone in in a straight line. They can fly all kinds of flight profiles. Also you’d need a LOT of missiles to overwhelm an Aegis ship.

First of all, please cite your sources that substantiate your claims below.

Well,the vandal exercises don`t take place streaming the missle right in to the ships participating in the exercise, of course,and that means the “drones” don`t take evasive manners like the real vampires and in reality they don`t get fired on stationary platforms far away,which means real supersonic missilers closes on the ship in a lo-lo mode then just climb up once to shoot and just run away outside the ships weapon evenlope,which means the ship has little time to react,and it is very possible it`ll be at least 4~5 vampires closing on the ship the same time.

The Standard is said to have a range of over 80nms,but the range won`t have any merit because all missiles these days have sea-skimming capabilities,which means the Ship`s AA rader can`t spot the missile,until it closes on the ship(roughly around 30nms?)

Before shooting those sea-skimmers you have to look over the horizon to find targets to attack. That means an MPA directing ASM-shooters must establish line-of-sight to the target. Long range SAM can deny the shadower the ability to gather information. If the shadower stays low to avoid detection, it cannot see its target either. Of course, carrierborne fighters and AEW aircraft are the ultimate solution in air defence at sea.

If sea-skimmers pop up from the sea (in other words sub-launched), then faster reaction is more important than range.

[snip]

I seriously doubt the VANDALEX took place simulating almost the real thing like by shooting mutiple drones on the ship directly and being first detected only a few tenfold miles away. Well,if there are AEW planes like the E-2C Hawkeye or E-3,they might catch the missile the instant it`s fired,but if it comes only like a solo Standard armed AA Ship Vs Supersonic missilier,the AA ship is likely to be doomed.

ASMs that does not fly in a hi-hi mode can be NEVER detected from the full range of the AA raders which renders the awesome range of the SM-2 useless. I`m pretty sure the the Lassen was backed up by any type of AWACS

Please substantiate your claim with verifiable sources.

[snip]

ASMs that does not fly in a hi-hi mode can be NEVER detected from the full range of the AA raders which renders the awesome range of the SM-2 useless.

Except that most decent sized vessels can carry helo based AEW at the very least and when operating in a dangerous environment will almost certainly have air support in the form of AEW and interceptors.

Amusing that the post above describes 50ft as grazing the sea surface… at 15 metres or so that would fly above many small boats without even hitting them. MOSKIT flys at less than 1/3rd that height, as does the much slower Kh-35.

The point is this, the USN is designed to fight a war far away on the high seas, while all other navies are there to defend with very limited true offensive capability far from home. So, USN has the standard, ESSM, and RAM to cover three distinct range regimes. Most navies don’t really need the standard missile. All they need is the ESSM and the RAM. So i don’t understand why some here is comparing the Aster to Standard when it should’ve been ESSM vs Aster. This is because nothing from the EU is in the Standard class. Think of the long range Aster version as an ESSM with a booster. You’re not going to see that being offered soon because in the USN, that would’ve been the job of the Standard, which can handle that much better with its range.

SM-6 (i.e SM2-IV + amraam active seeker) should fix the current lag in the SM2 wrt to specs of Aster30. I wouldnt be surprised if they added a TVC nozzle also.

the only navies currently with supersonic ASMs are russia, china and india. If we look at Aster customers (france, italy, singapore, saudis) none are likely in immediate future to need a supersonic interception capability simply because nobody in the world (except one nation) actively schemes of going to war against any of these three in short and medium term future. now that said nation is free to buy (as opposed to free handouts from US) aster30, 50, 70…..if they can afford it.

the SMs because missiles like that whould be fired about50~60nms away

[snip]

Please elaborate and cite your sources.

http://www.news.navy.mil/search/print.asp?story_id=2532&VIRIN=1883&imagetype=1&page=1

“The following day, Lassen also participated in two vandal exercises (VANDALEX) involving missile launches. The exercise is designed for ships to intercept hostile missiles with their own missiles. In both exercises, shore launched, remote-controlled drones were used to simulate the hostile missiles. One of the drones closed in on the ship at a speed of Mach 2.1 (approximately 1,500 miles per hour) grazing 50 feet above the ocean’s surface. Lassen’s SM-2 surface-to-air standard missile successfully intercepted the drone six miles from the ship.”

Well,the vandal exercises don`t take place streaming the missle right in to the ships participating in the exercise, of course,and that means the “drones”
don`t take evasive manners like the real vampires and in reality they don`t get fired on stationary platforms far away,which means real supersonic missilers closes on the ship in a lo-lo mode then just climb up once to shoot and just run away outside the ships weapon evenlope,which means the ship has little time to react,and it is very possible it`ll be at least 4~5 vampires closing on the ship the same time.

The Standard is said to have a range of over 80nms,but the range won`t have any merit because all missiles these days have sea-skimming capabilities,which means the Ship`s AA rader can`t spot the missile,until it closes on the ship(roughly around 30nms?) as farther detection range means more extra space and handicaps for the missile to exploit.And the Standard is certainly not designed for intercepting supersonic missiles,as missiles with secondary boosters can`t gain sudden thrust right after it takes off,
and it would be very FATAL as the mach2.0+@ Vampires would be first detected only about 35~40km away which means there is only one chance to knock off the missile before the ships CIWS and ECM are activated.

The theory proved in the VANDALEX would be practical only if the Ship has caught the missile miles and miles away(At full dectection range),giving enough time for the SM-2 to react and close on the target,but in reality it would`nt be pretty like that.

I seriously doubt the VANDALEX took place simulating almost the real thing like by shooting mutiple drones on the ship directly and being first detected only a few tenfold miles away. Well,if there are AEW planes like the E-2C Hawkeye or E-3,they might catch the missile the instant it`s fired,but if it comes only like a solo Standard armed AA Ship Vs Supersonic missilier,the AA ship is likely to be doomed.

ASMs that does not fly in a hi-hi mode can be NEVER detected from the full range of the AA raders which renders the awesome range of the SM-2 useless.I`m pretty sure the the Lassen was backed up by any type of AWACS to exploit the chances of intercepting the drones on their full range,which means ships that don`t have the support of any sort of AEW armed with Standards is likely to be history(like the KDX Ships with out the support of ROKAF`s AWACs we don`t have,for instance)

That`s why some ship designs just being offered in some European states have only ESSMs for defense,realizing the reality and the fraud of “long range SAMs can start their intercept at maximum range.

Well,because of the delay of the ANF/Horizon Program,the completion of the Aster system is rumored to be postponed..

Aster development program is not coupled with ANF (do you mean the supersonic SSM project, which is long dead?) or Horizon. SAAM, Systeme de defense surface-Air AntiMissile, started in the late 1980’s, several years before the start of Horizon. SAAM-FR which uses Aster15 and ARABEL is operational on the carrier Charles de Gaulle since 2001-2002. Aster30 is not operational anywhere yet.

To know more about the histories of SAAM, Horizon and PAAMS, read my article on the next issue of Military Review or here http://cafe.daum.net/NTDS.

[QUOTE==Lazz=]the SMs because missiles like that whould be fired about50~60nms away

[snip]

because of a nasty habit of gobbling up precious time igniting their engines.

Please elaborate and cite your sources.

http://www.news.navy.mil/search/print.asp?story_id=2532&VIRIN=1883&imagetype=1&page=1

“The following day, Lassen also participated in two vandal exercises (VANDALEX) involving missile launches. The exercise is designed for ships to intercept hostile missiles with their own missiles. In both exercises, shore launched, remote-controlled drones were used to simulate the hostile missiles. One of the drones closed in on the ship at a speed of Mach 2.1 (approximately 1,500 miles per hour) grazing 50 feet above the ocean’s surface. Lassen’s SM-2 surface-to-air standard missile successfully intercepted the drone six miles from the ship.”

Well,because of the delay of the ANF/Horizon Program,the completion of the Aster system is rumored to be postponed..just studying the specs,the Aster can almost outwit the Standard(SM-2) on a coin because of it`s awesome manuever ability of some 50Gs while the US equilvalent can`t make more than 30Gs.That isn’t a problem when dealing with subsonic SSMs,but when it comes to supersonic SSMs(Like Mosquitos,Bramos or Sunburn) which cruise at a speed of almost 2.5machs,there`s a major problem for the SMs because missiles like that whould be fired about50~60nms away which means it takes only a a handful of minutes to slam home,and even considering their simple attack pattern,SMs will have a hard time not only because of their inferior manueverability but also because of a nasty habit of gobbling up precious time igniting their engines.Well,that isn`t an problem with the US because
they usually have the air and fire power to take out the suspected platforms before they attack but for countries that can`t do that but have to rely on old versions of Standard missles,Aster could be a good choice.Dunno if the Aster can intergrate with US AEGIS systems or not.Anyway,at least the Aster is better dealing with supersonic targets then other systems,while the ESSM should be the only competive around.
————————————————————————-
Cry “Havoc!” and let silp the dogs of war!
-Jullius Caesar-

South Korea
http://cafe.daum.net/hanryulove

Not that I know of, but it’s designed to do that.

Here’s the sales pitch from MBDA
http://www.mbda.net/site/FO/scripts/siteFO_contenu.php?lang=EN&noeu_id=88

and here
http://www.eurosam.com/room/index.htm

OK, so it’s not proven in real tests yet.

Not that I know of, but it’s designed to do that.

Here’s the sales pitch from MBDA
http://www.mbda.net/site/FO/scripts/siteFO_contenu.php?lang=EN&noeu_id=88

and here
http://www.eurosam.com/room/index.htm