Not blindly arguing my case but I’m not sure what you’re saying discounts the argument for ARM guidance Jonesy.
The initial targeting issue is moot. You can fire an ARM using exactly the same launch triggers as a regular AR anti-ship missile. In both cases they are LOAL even at relatively short ranges. So the ARM approaches the target as per an AR missile then scans for emissions.
And the multi-platform solution you describe is truly a best-case scenario that only relatively few navies can hope to emulate for many years to come. If your enemy is USN, well whatever you try is up against stiff competition, but if your neighbour has a modest navy, well 24-7 UAV coverage and good comms discipline are well, less likely.
Another assumption would be that ARMs actually target the antenna. Altitude offsets/lateral (to hit the optimum part of the ship) and coupling with IIR tech is just SOFTWARE. It’s cheep and easy except for testing.
Scenario. ARM-AShM is launched following similar profile to regular anti-ship missile. The enemy fleet has numerous measures to detect the missile, or part of it’s launch (illumination from launch platform or targeting platform, radio altimeter emissions, etc etc). The enemy detects the attack and either:
a) turns on all it’s AD radars, attempts to illuminate the attacking missile for intercept with guns and missiles.
b) does nothing.
In case A) it has made itself a beacon. In B), well that’s hardly what a commander would do(?).
Sign In
