YourFatherIs like fighting fire with fire. The cruise missile by nature(relatively small size, stubby wing, buried engine, ground hugging profile) it’s a stealth weapon, but can be further made more stealthy by constructing it with composite materials and applying RAM over its entire surface. By then its RCS might even be smaller than the F-22.
Nobody said it was an easy target, but it’s not an intractable problem. If it were, there won’t be any need for ship based anti-missile defenses as they’d be useless anyway. As long said, stealth != totally undetectable. The anti-cruise missile detection platforms would be out in front screening against cruise missiles for early detection and engagement. The AESA equipped F-15 unit was found in tests to be successful in the anticruise missile role, and that is indeed one of the unit’s main roles. The F-22’s speed and detection capabilities only make it more capable. JLENS in future will allow over the horizon search, targeting and fire control for SAMs against cruise missiles. For the enemy, the main problem would be getting assets close in enough to launch cruise missiles in the first place. That’s assuming enemy airbases survive the cruise missile strike on them which might disable the cruise missile carrying aircraft.
YourFatherYup, that caught my eye too, that’s why I specially listed it down. I think it may be referring to the ALMDS, as the ALMDS has been mentioned to be capable in the ASW role in the littorals as well. The only problem is that the ALMDS pod goes onto Sierra models and not Romeo ones. The release brochure only said LIDAR though.
YourFatherAnd that is to destroy the airbase where the F-22s are stationed (via cruise missiles like KH-555 or ballistic missiles like Iskander-E).
What makes you think that would be any more successful? F-22s are very effective anti-cruise missile platforms, and in future that role would be handed off more to JLENS. Ballistic missiles will have to pass a very elaborate BM shield consisting of SM-3s, THAAD and then PAC-3s.
YourFatherSpiral Alpha phase 1 of the LCS ASW Mission Package unveiled today. Spiral Alpha phase 1 contains the Multi-static Offboard Source, the Unmanned Towed Array Sonar, and the Unmanned Dipping Sonar on 2 USVs. The MH-60R is included and will have LIDAR capabilities. 1 Firescout included too.
Phase 2 will come in 2011, and will add the Multi Function Towed Array and Remote Towed Active Source on 2 additional RMMVs. Phase 2 will see all of Spiral Alpha’s main components in place, with Phase 3 being where all the components are matured and in full production.
YourFatherEcho’s idea of the best fighter must be the AWACs. Big engines for big power to big radar. What better fighter could there be? 😀
YourFatherDoes anybody have any idea how the performance of RAM Block 2 compares with the original RAM missile?
Increase in motor diameter will be from 5 to 6.25 inches, necessitating slight mods to the launch canister. Only software mods needed for launcher. Expected performance increases will be 50% increase in effective range and 3 times the maneuverability of earlier RAM.
YourFatherIf the MiG-31 is operating using GCI control it won’t have to radiate, and the Blackbird probably won’t know it’s there to try and avoid it.
That’s what the DEF systems are there for – to deny sensor information, either to GCI radars or the sensors of the Mig-31s. From the accounts of over a 1000 unsuccessful missile launches and numerous fighter intercept attempts against it, I’d say it works.
MIG-31 does not need to go closer to Blackbird. All it have to do to paint blackbird within no escape zone of missiles. It is claimed with hypersonic intercepts. more like Mach 6.
And the speed and altitude advantage of the SR-71 makes the NEZ of the missiles that much worse. Mach 6? Where did that come from?
YourFatherEndurance, number of Migs available and time to get to position would be serious issues. The maneuverability issue is not a problem when placed in context of trying to change direction to place the Mig-31 in an impossible intercept situation.
YourFatherMach 2.83 at around 70,000 feet…you can visually acquire a jet flying 10,000 feet above you no problem, especially if you’re vectored in on the right intercept by GCI.
That’s some serious deficiency when trying to intercept something that’s travelling at M3.2 and 85,000 ft. Even with GCI it’s extremely hard to pull off. Almost impossible, come to think of it. Assuming the SR-71 doesn’t maneuver and travels only in a straight line, with a lower max speed and altitude for the Foxhound, that means that it cannot be vectored in from anywhere within the aft sector or flank of the SR-71. It has to already be in the front of the SR-71, and in a small cone in front of the SR-71 at that. Now when you take into account the fact that the SR-71 can maneuver…
Being able to step up your altitude as the airframe lightens and if the conditions are nominal is a far cry from being able to use a max power zoom climb to 95,000 feet as a SAM countertactic.
If it can stay above 90,000 feet without the need for a zoom climb, so much the worse for the interceptor. 0.5 mach + 20k ft advantage isn’t anything to sniff at.
YourFatherYeah no. But they did get high enough and close enough to visually acquire them.
Is there any proof of the intercept? Lots of claims but very little evidence. The Foxhound’s lack of performance superiority over the SR-71 makes a successful intercept extraordinarily hard to achieve.
And a pop-up to 95K feet? Not sure if I buy that one.
Actually, looking at the flight manual, it seems that at around 20,000lbs of fuel remaining and provided the conditions are optimal, the SR-71 can travel at 93~94,000 ft while at M3.3, without the need for a zoom climb. 😮
http://www.sr-71.org/blackbird/manual/6/6-16.php
http://www.sr-71.org/blackbird/manual/6/6-15.php
http://www.sr-71.org/blackbird/manual/6/6-19.php
YourFatherUS-A and US-P use (ed) nuclear power and are very powerfull satelites in lower earth orbit.
to hide a carrier??? hahahaa…..
Oh? Tell me what’s the power output of the reactor then? Nuclear power was used because the satellite had to be placed in a low orbit for best possible resolution. And at that orbit solar panels would cause too much drag and caused the orbit to decay too quickly.
Hide a carrier? As Jonesy said, turn the carrier perpendicular to the orbit of the sat. Or targets could be inserted to spoof the radar, which was what they were researching and this capability was, IIRC, supposed to be in the cancelled AIEWS system.
YourFatherJust because a satellite has a SAR radar doesn’t mean it can be used to track aircraft carriers. You should find out more on how US-A work, or at least, was intended to work. And on it’s deficiencies (inherent in sat based SAR targeting) which the US intended to exploit. You might also be interested to know that the US worked on sat SAR radar spoofing till the 90s. 2 SAR satellites? Get around 24 and we might call that a plausible targeting system.
YourFatherAlaska… not US mainland
So Alaska is less sovereign than Guam, Hawaii or Washington? What’s important in that article is that the US recognises and adheres to the 12 mile boundary, and it certainly does not have any ridiculous ‘200 nm shoot-down zone’ conceived by cows. Unauthorised planes getting too close to the 12 mile boundary get escorted out. Only after an incursion and failure to heed repeated warnings and maybe even warning shots would we ever see a shootdown. If armed force was so cavalierly resorted to we would see a sunken Han class sub, which was caught in Japanese territorial waters.
Washington is already giving Russian **** for even thinking about basing bombers in Cuba.
If you cannot see the radically different implications that strategic bombers and unarmed ELINT planes bring in having them off your coast, then nothing can help you.
YourFatherIf I’m not mistaken, US has the 200 nm shoot-down zone. So, it would be different if a Chinese aircraft flew that close.
Cow manure.
http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/Sky-News-Archive/Article/20082851286622
Russian Bombers Threaten US Airspace
2:18pm UK, Tuesday October 02, 2007Russian warplanes staged at least seven exercises outside US airspace near Alaska this summer and each time US or Canadian fighter jets were dispatched to escort them, US military officials have said.
A Canadian fighter escorts a Russian bomber away from US airspace
The latest exercise came on September 19 and involved two planes flying somewhere off the coast of Canada, said Major Allen Herritage, a spokesman for the Alaska region of the North American Aerospace Defence Command.They were met by Canadian planes from North American Aerospace Defense Command or NORAD, which is jointly operated by the US and Canadian militaries.
At least five exercises by the Russian Tu-95 Bear heavy bombers have taken place off Alaska’s Aleutian Islands and other historic Cold War outposts, such as Cape Lisburne and St. Lawrence Island, according to NORAD records.
All occurred beyond the 12-mile boundary that constitutes US airspace and have involved two to six aircraft. Each time, Russia alerted the US through reports in Russian news agencies, Herritage said.
The bombers have been met by fighter jets, usually F-15s.
The exercises come amid troubled relations between Russia and the West and are seen by some as intimidating moves by an increasingly assertive Russia, but Herritage said the exercises are not a cause for alarm.
President Vladimir Putin announced in August that Russia was resuming long-range bomber flights over the Pacific, Atlantic and Arctic oceans for the first time since the break up of the Soviet Union.
Russian Air Force officials in Moscow could not be reached for comment after hours. They have repeatedly said that the planes were not violating any nation’s airspace or any international agreements.
But in mid-September, British and Norwegian jets intercepted Russian military aircraft after they breached NATO airspace close to the UK and Finland.
And on a handful of occasions this year, NATO nations including Britain and Norway have sent fighters to escort Russian bombers nearing their territory.
Video
1:48
Oct 02,2007Frosty Reception For Russia’s Cold War Tactics
YourFatherEither way that was just being used as an example. That’s a tiny system comparatively speaking, are we supposed to believe that a system that is far larger with far more power has the same capability? I think not.
you can boost power, but then there’s the extent of the ducting to consider.
You don’t understand. Alternating frequencies can be used to operate the radar in the conditions that are present. With enough of a frequency range you can operate 24/7/365. Your main problem will likely be varying atmospheric ionization. Switching frequencies allows you to “tune that out”, so to speak.
One can’t just change frequencies and expect the problem to go away. The ionosphere is not a reflector at all frequencies. If it was we won’t have any use for satellites.
No matter. Home in on the signal to find the general location of the CVBG. Use the active seeker to find the largest emitting (or even non-emitting, it’ll still be in the same area) target, because that’ll be your CVN.
First, the CVBG is not what you see in a photo shoot. It can and is spread apart geographically. 2. Try thinking through the problems of the seeker on the ASBM. IR seekers won’t work. Active seekers have a great problem – the warhead’s touted reentry speed is very much a minus in this respect.
Then let’s see those individuals provide hard evidence as to why it is impossible.
I’ll copy and paste what one of them said regarding the problem of ASBMs here.
“The problem is target location. The missile descending has a very limited manoeuver envelope, its guidance system is intended for fine corrections, not for radical changes in course. Therefore, to use the missile the location of the target at the time the missile arrives at that target must be known. This is OK for stationary targets but carriers move around, usually pretty quickly (like 20 – 30 knots). So, the question is whether the command control loop can cope with said target.
Essentially, the surveillance system has to
find the target
get the information back to the missile control
Missile control has to decide what to do and who is to do it
The orders must be sent to the missile battery
The missiles must be give their new target locations
The missile has to be fired
It has to get to its target
Adding all that up is pretty scary. It is more than likely that the whole process will take more than an hour, by which time the target location transmitted to missile control will be that amount outdated. The carrier group will have moved up to 30 miles in any direction. That means it will almost certainly be out of the guidance systems footprint. The Soviets never solved that problem.
Also, the probability is that existing US air warfare systems can handle this threat, such as it is. SM-2 has a limited capability against inbound missiles of this type, SM-3 has a very good capability indeed. We’ve already got destroyers and cruisers equipped with SM-3s out there. So we’ve countered this thing before it even enters service.
Overall, I’d describe this as a big bad scare weapon. Impressive at a superficial glance but it gets less so the closer its examined.”
Really? The AEGIS NMD system is proven against MaRVs?
No such thing as radically maneuvering warheads. Aerodynamic forces will tear the warhead apart. And if you want to get started on decoys like the China-rah-rahs, you’ll have to put up an example of an ASBM with decoys on board. 😀
Sign In
