And guess what? A towed array is a cable. You know what a cable is do you? And what does a towed array have to do with a SAM application? The planes are flying above, not flying underwater stoopid. What you need is a towed buoy with an aerial on the buoy. That’s still a cable attached to a sub, with all the movement restriction, attendant drag and wake noise that goes along with it.

A UK sourced RTOF buoy is to be tested on a SSGN next year. It will feature near zero cable tension upon deployment (meaning no wakes from the buoy), allowing for movement at speed and depth, within cable length limits, of course. That is not so big a concern, since a SSGN isn’t going to be zipping about at high speed anyway.

There has been oblique references to ‘other’ uses other than ABM use. ABL most probably can be used for ASAT work. It is actually better suited than ground based systems since it is already in the atmosphere where the air is thinner and the laser experiences less attenuation.

Meanwhile, an operational ASAT capability is already fielded. The CCS CounterCom program jams satellite communications. If one gets past the excitement of having things blow up, it is evident that it is a far more flexible system than hard-kill systems.

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

The B-52 was over-engineered, that’s why it could last this long. The F-15 won’t. Simple as that. Using the B-52 as an example of what to do with the F-15 isn’t wise.

Take note of the “Notional Unclassified” under the screens.

Because of the eternal constraint – $. But there are tentative plans to field it across the fleet.

Good trick there, deleting your post and replacing it with another one! What? I thought you found it a complement? Changed your mind because it hit too close to the truth? 😀

Francois is the smartest of us all. He knew this would happen so he couldn’t even be bothered with them at all. :dev2: They simply cannot be bothered to find out the limitations inherent in the systems they are advocating, and what the USN already has in place to defeat an earlier iteration of such a system. All they can rely on is ‘technology has moved on’, but somehow the technology available to the USN has remained in place. Oh yes, lets not forget that all American tactics and procedures are also conveniently known to the PLAN for them to study and neutralise. :rolleyes: Plawolf’s the best. He even used googleearth as evidence that target identification is noo problem. 😀 Astounding!! :p