YourFatherWhich lately is also being toned down to reduce political offense to the Chinese government. The Chinese government will still complain anyway, though not as bad.
What has that got to do with not mentioning something which likely never happened?
But these lack the sensors and the intel.
You cannot seriously believe China is the only one with spies? Chen did give an uncomfortably close number of ballistic missiles aimed at Taiwan. And how did you think Japan knew about Pyongyang’s firing of missiles over it?
It can be conducted completely first in land, or targets at the North Sea area, which is generally where they practice antiship missile testing.
Where exactly is ‘north sea area’? Obviously your definition of North Sea is quite different from the internationally accepted definition of North Sea.
Like I said, Taiwan and Japan are not authorities you can rely on, and the US has reasons at the moment not to come out fully on this yet. The US is hinting on this through other channels that have close contacts to the government and the DOD, mainly the think tanks. You can see the way the US mention things belatedly and hides things it knows because the Chinese had two failed ASAT tests before the successful one, and the US never disclosed anything about these tests until only after the successful one is made.
Or it could more likely be that no test was conducted at all. What exactly is your position on this? Do you share plawolf’s position that a test was conducted, despite the lack of evidence pointing so?
That’d imply that it is not the DF-15 variant everyone was worked up about…
I’ve heard of both the DF-21 and DF-15s as candidates for ASBMs. Seems very nebulous. The important thing to remember is that counters to both of them already exist, with the SM-3 covering SRBMs to IRBMs. When the SM-3 Blk IIA comes, even ICBMs will be covered.
YourFatherAww, don’t cry. Just provide some proof and I’ll give you a lollipop. 😀
YourFatherThat remains to be seen. Like I said, there may be a purpose about not revealing it so far right now. China ASBM literature is not official PLA literature by the way, but the work of scholars that are assumed to be connected with the PLA. But then so did the mention of the ASAT.
I meant official pentagon literature.
They also didn’t know about the ASAT test, so they can join the club of the clueless, which also includes Russia, whose defense minister actually denied it having taken place when interviewed the next day.
Why would they not know? A ballistic missile isn’t all that discrete.
And these are the people who are the last ones on Earth that is going to admit anything at all.
So you believe missile tests are conducted without regard to safety of commercial ships using the seas?
The basic point is, despite insistence from some quarters here that China has conducted an ASBM test, there is zero evidence to indicate so. And without any indication from Taiwan, Japan and America on such a test, there exists a possibility that it was kept under wraps, but the far more likely reason would be that none took place at all.
YourFatherWhich does not mean that the US intel will announce all their results in public. What they actually know and what they want you to know are two very different things. They will release whatever and whenever becomes politically convenient and timely, and not with a special reason. At least for us observers, the US is willing to talk about these tests once in a while, while the PLA would barely admit to anything. And for what the US is not willing to admit, you just have to read the body language to see what they imply.
The ASAT test was determined by US sensors; the Chinese did not admit to it until after 12 days. Somehow in the last arc of the journey the satellite made a course deviation that took it 20km higher, meaning it received a command when it was line of sight to the station in south west China. US sensors also determined the test range value of the YJ-83 to be higher than what the Chinese were willing to advertise, which implies they can also detect and track air born missile tests. US sensors also determined that the rocket testing being done in China are also at levels unmatched since the Cold War.
It’s true that the US may not release all the informationit gets. But there has been no mention of any ASBM test despite all the mentions of Chinese work on ASBMs in officila literature. There has also been no mention of any ASBM test from Taiwan or Japan. There has also been no mention of any test by China, an announcement of which has to be done if it intends to do live firing testing, for the sake of safety.
On the other hand, despite his insistence that ASBM tests were conducted, plawolf cannot come up with proof. Unless you regard fins on warheads as incontrovertible proof of an ASBM. :rolleyes:
YourFatherI think we can agree that’d be the point of such a system. Given that, and the fact that an AShBM may be rendered moot in about a decade when the ABM variant of the AEGIS system is operationally fielded, it is possible that China sees this new capability as a means to a victory, taking the primary threat of US Naval power out of the equation by either deterrence or destruction. So, China has a limited window where they could theoretically actually go into Formosa and win, possibly without even having to take on the USA.
The AEGIS BMD ver 3.0 is already fielded, with the next version 3.6 to be fully fielded by 2009. SM-2 Blk IV is already contracted to be upgraded with a anti-TBM capability.
2. A well publicized test firing into the Pacific of an AShBM system would indicate that China wants the US to know about the system’s capabilities, just like the publicized ASAT test. That could potentially indicate that China is warning the US of the potential consequences of military involvement.
They cannot do a firing without the US not knowing about it. There are just too many sensors in that area. Even the ASAT test wasn’t publicised by the Chinese, it was the US which observed the test and publicised it, if I’m not wrong.
YourFatherFor what reasons would you put fixed fins on an already operational missile?
As SOC said, it could very well be nothing more than a MARV.
No attempt to find out anything, merely desperate attempts to explain away things you do not like.
Do you even know which missile the PLA used in its ASAT test? Applying your sad denial tactics and you could find all sorts of excuses to deny the existence of most of the PLA.
You do? Provide us with a source then. We’re still waiting.
Oh really? Is that why the US missile defense programme has suffered so may failures then
The US BMD program’s problems are with integration of all the various elements. Not the actual act of hitting the target.
That statement just shows now empty-headed you are. How fast does a carrier travel at? How fast does a ballistic missile?
This statement just shows what you do not appreciate.
In the time it would take for a ballistic missile to cover th distance between the two, the carrier would have been able to move such a small distance that its movement become largely irrelevant for a missile with pinpoint accurate terminal guidance.
Except more than the time of missile flight will have to be factored into account. Something you do not appreciate. Targeting data will be late and ambiguous, and add to that the time needed to set up the missile for firing etc.
The real problem with using ASBMs against carriers is finding them, but once they have been located and its co-ordinates send to a missile battery, the carrier’s only chance is to either intercept the missile or for it to miss.
Finding and identifying the carrier is the greatest problem. That’s what introduces the time delay into the ASBM system. You’ve never heard of decoys meant to simulate the carriers?
Problem being that statistic means precisely nothing. They are not firing the missile blind at a set of co-ordinates so the missile will only hit that precise point. Whatever means (most likely a spysat) that was used to find the carrier would be able to keep track of it for the time needed for the missile to fly to it.
Why don;t you find out more about satellites and their limitations with respect to targeting first, silly. Satellites keeping track of a target in real time? Hah!
As I have already explain in length before, the mere fact that the ASAT weapon was able to hit a 3m2 target 800km in orbit is as good a piece of evidence as you can get that the missile had mid-course course updates and was able to maneuver with extreme precision. Thus it means that the same technology could be applied to an ASBM to allow the missile to be guided and have its course corrected until impact.
The exact intercept point of the satellite could already be calculated prior to launch. Hence an ASAT’s seeker already knows where to start searching for the target. An ASBM’s seeker has to search a far wider area, a virtual impossibility in the limited time available to the ASBM.
Again, that merely shows your lack of knowledge. There is a time delay when you are using spysats to target things like tanks, but that is more a logistical problem then a technical one, it takes time for somebody to work their way to that tank from a huge list of other targets they have to manage and assign an asset to hit it. But spysats have long been able to provide real-time imagery and live feeds, so the technology for live course updates is far from new or revolutionary (the soviets had such a system in operation decades ago since the SS-N-3 Shaddock).
Oh? Do tell which satellite provides real time imagery and live feeds? Too much hollywood logic in your brain perhaps? Even the Legenda suffered from many limitations, namely a low refresh rate, ease of deceiving the system etc.
How the missile was guided has no baring on this discussion since its clearly evident that the PLA have cracked that nut already.
To someone who doesn;t know the differences between the two cases, I guess it would seem that PLA has cracked the nut. 😀 Interestingly, the fact that the SM-3 has intercepted targets on multiple occasions hasn’t seemed to quite get through your nut.
There might be issues if the weapon was guided using off-board sensors, but that is hardly an insurmountable challenge. They can send whatever they used to guide it on the ground into space. Weight and size of the equipment would not be a major limiting factor since China already have pretty advanced space tech and can send the equipment up in parts and assemble them in orbit.
Your ignorance is insurmountable. Care to provide us with how many launches China will need to assemble a system which can provide real time targeting data? Weight and size are not constraints…. hah! Try telling that to any rocket designer.
Besides, what makes you think the orbital equipment which might be needed (since you can’t be sure that is really is needed) will cost billions? What more, those assets would be able to perform a whole range of other tasks while they are up there, and China has big plans about space as it is, so the additional cost is not going to be anywhere near that high. Even if it was, with over a trillion in savings, I think China can just about afford it with the interest America pays it annually for its generosity.
Try looking at the projected cost of the SBR. Especially the configuration needed to provide a 5min target refresh rate.
A notional contellation of 9 satellites which doesn’t provide real-time update information costs an estimated US$28 billion. This with the space competancy already achieved by American industry.
Statement by Owen Cote – “Space is not the ideal location to detect targets,” he said. “The orbits that allow you to dwell and persist are close to earth. That means you need about 60 satellites in lower orbit. There are limits to what space can do.”
Go look up on the number if AMRRAMs fired and targets destroyed and do a little basic maths.
Provide us with the statistics then. You cannot even back yourself up on this?
Well I’m sorry that you are such nit picker, but if you go that line of argument, why not add in things like bullets and shells and toothbrushes?
The context that we were discussing was clearly in the area of cutting edge revolutionary technology. My bad for assuming that you would try to reason instead of merely word lawyering to twist things to suit your goals. Guess I should have known better.
How about the Sensor Fused Weapon then? It clearly shows that having been proven wrong, you are trying to squirm your way out of having to eat your words. 😀 Besides, we are talking about American defense manufactures, not toothbrush making Chinese defense companies. :rolleyes:
Yet more nit picking word lawyering.
So says those who find their foot in their mouth.
‘Unfair’ judged by whom? Please use your head.
Some projects are quite plainly lost courses, that the technology is just too far beyond what the company is capable of. In such cases, the military is not going to waste its precious budget on an obviously fruitless endeavor.
Lost cause that congress reinstated money to get it back into production?
Because it was not presented to the world as a sales pitch? What we see with the ASAT test are results, not claims, and they are independently verified. There is no spin on the data because none of it came from the Chinese government, PLA or the company that made the missile.
No ASBM test. One ASAT test. As opposed to multiple SM-3 test firings and successes. LOL.
The ASAT test already proved the China has the means to target and hit a 3m2 target 800km away. How much bigger is a carrier?
The logic of the simple minded…
Because the question was how many missile can you get for the price of a fully functional carrier. You need reading lessons or something?
And you asked the wrong question. The question should be how many carriers can you get for an ASBM system which includes all the targeting elements needed to make it work, if even possible.
So a SAM operator suddenly becomes an expert in ballistic missiles now?
He understands the mechanics of missile interception and the limitations of the systems required for an ASBM to work far better than you do.
And Stuart Slade is little different from all the other dime a dozen think-tank ‘experts’ who has no actual specialized knowledge in this field.
Let’s see. As I understand, he worked as a naval systems analyst, and for a period was as a nuclear weapons targeteer, meaning if China was ever stupid enough to lob a missile at America, you would see some of his work achievements.
So the orbital sensor network is going to follow the SRBMs into the atmosphere and try to hit the carrier itself now?
The sensor network is a fixed asset that will not loose value with each use.
Yet another simplistic answer. No ASBM will work without such a targeting system. Without such a targeting system they are nothing more than pretty objects to give PLA fanboys hard-ons. Hence why its cost must be included.
You seem to be unable to grasp the concept of orbital speeds and distances.
When your target is moving at 24,000km/h and your missile is closing on high mach itself, the missile needs extremely good agility to respond to unexpected internal or external factors that will change its course by tiny factions, but which could easily mean the missile would be thrown off course by hundreds if not thousands of meters by the time it reaches its target height.
Its like asking an Olympic shooter to hit a moving elephant instead of a stationary bullseye. Its probably an easier task.
The problem is not hitting the target. It is searching for the target that’s the problem. The seeker on the ASBM simply will not have enough time to search for target, distinguish the correct target from the decoys and acquire it. Incidentally, you seem to have extreme faith in the viability of high speed hit-to-kill interception, but cannot accept the same fact when it is done by Americans – even when that feat was demonstrated far earlier than China ever did, and on multiple occasions. Goes much to show about the depth of denial you are in.
YourFatherHitting 3m2 that circling the earth at thousand of km/hr is definitely much more difficult than hitting 1000 m2 at speed of 30km/hr It just doesn’t require much intelligence to recognize that But the problem with you is that you are such a rabid anti China and buried your head in the sand I read you posting in Singapore military forum where you belittle every Chinese achievements. Well if you want to live in dream world dream on man!
Hitting a satellite in a predictable orbit, or a ballistic missile on a predictable path means the issue of targeting is greatly simplified. The difficulties behind hit to kill technology has been greatly exaggerated by missile defense critics. You are just buying into the words of these critics with a failed agenda.
YourFatherGo look at the pic of the DF15B launching again if you somehow managed to miss it.
Sferrin already pointed out that fins do not mean an ASBM.
And when was that? Things have moved on you know.
LOL. You don’t even know if the DF-15B has a terminal seeker, all you know is it has fins, it might have a seeker and therefore it must be an ASBM. “Things have moved on” is that lame evidence you can come up with?
Also, The PLA have just recently demonstrated that it has the ability to hit a 3m2 object 800km away. No operational AShM have anything like that degree of accuracy. Even if they can only achieve a tenth of that kind of accuracy against earth based targets it will still be plenty to be able to hit carriers with.
Perhaps what I have said previously did not get through. A satellite’s trajectory is very predictable, silly. Hence the area of uncertainty of its position at any point in time (even in a point of time in future) is very close to zero. That makes an interception relatively easy. Incidently, the same goes for ballistic missiles. They follow a predictable path.
A Carrier, however, moves unpredictably. As I said before, in just 15 minutes, the area of uncertainty in which it could be in could reach more than 50nm2.
Did you miss the link I put up about PLA SAR spysats?
No I didn’t. Unlike you, I and many here know the limitations of using spysats for targeting. Hint: They provide time-late data. Emphasis on the ‘late’.
If the ASAT weapon was self guided, then targeting is of little concern.
Ignorant fool. :rolleyes: Please explain why the sovremmenys have Mineral ME radars if targeting is not a concern with self-guided missiles? Do you even understand how extremely limited the search capability of a notional ASBM is as a result of the warhead’s extreme re-entry speed you are so enamored with?
If off board sensors were used to guide it, the PLA would need to put a similar system in orbit first. The fact that they are conduction live fire trials with new terminal guided ASBM (anti surface ballistic missile) strongly suggests that they already have ground targeting means. Even if they do not, its going to be a far easier task putting one in space then for anyone to come up with a reliable anti-ballistic missile defense system that has a 5 minute detection to engagement cycle, high kill ratio against m6 targets, and compact enough to put on warships never mind start fielding them.
You mean putting up a multi-billion dollar radar satellite network equivalent to the SBR is easier than installing a couple of upgraded SM-2 Blk IVs? You cannot even prove that tests were conducted on an ASBM.
AMRAAM did poorly in both gulf wars and Kosovo, with many missiles being needed to bring down blinded and toothless opponents who, more often then not, did not even have a self defense suit, let alone an up to date one.
the effectiveness of the JDAM is hard to independently verify. But the weapon itself is also a very low tech system that uses primarily off the shelf systems, thus is hardly cutting edge stuff.
The Tomahawk is a rare exception that did perform very well and was revolutionary when it first came out. But the exceptions do not break a rule.
Provide evidence that the AMRAAM performed poorly. The JDAM is regarded as an unmitigated success, cutting edge or not is irrelevant to your stand that Manufacturers oversell their product. Part of its excellence was its cost, which came under what the company promised. Anyway, I provided three, and I can provide more. You should consider eating your own words now, plaloser.
Maybe you need a reality check before acting like an even bigger idiot. With every weapons procurement programme, the manufacture AND the military are fighting congress and other branches of the military for funds.
Oh, so now you are trying to backtrack when you earlier said that manufacturers design the tests and design it easy?
The MDA has to fight for funds, yes. But that doesn’t mean that just because they have to fight for funds their system is oversold. In the US, there are many independent bodies which provide oversight, GAO among them.
On the other hand, what does China have? And does China’s military not have to fight among themselves for scarce funds? What makes you think the ASBM is not just a means to secure more funding, and is not oversold?
The general view within the military is that it is better to get a sub-par system then not have one at all. They will not break the tests by making them too easy, but it is not unknown for the military to set test conditions that are likely to produce a favorable outcome so their opponents cannot use failed tests to get the programme scrapped. This is especially true when there is only one vendor making a system that is close to the heart of people high up in the chain of command.
Do explain why the ASPJ was cancelled then, when the reason why it was cancelled was because of unfairly high test requirements.
China is not trying to sell the technology to you, so why should they give you anything? If you are waiting for the Chinese to submit a report to congress, then maybe you should just not bother reading any of the Chinese related threads, because you are never going to get that kind of info until decades after the weapon has been fielded, or more likely, retired.
Neither are they selling it to you, why then would the SM-3 be oversold then?
I am saying that it is generally much harder to develop defensive systems then it is to develop offensive systems, because the defensive system needs to have a far higher success rate then the offensive system.
To the simple minded it seems so. Until one figures out the difficulties involved behind the targeting problem that must be solved for an ASBM to work in this case.
The guy has to be stupid or suicidal if he is happy to see 1000 missiles flying towards him. And typical that you choose the highest number you can regardless of common sense. :rolleyes:
Then why bother to bring out 1000 as a figure? The guy understands the problem behind targeting ASBMs, so much so that he has even stated that the whole concept is unworkable. When he and Stuart Slade are in agreement, it’s time for you to lay out your credentials.
So how much does a Nimitz class go for these days? How much for the air wing? The munitions stored? How much to train a replacement crew? You think that is going to be a number smaller or greater then the cost to make 1000 SRBMs? Not that it will take anything close to 1000 SRBMs. Even with unmodified DF15s, if you fire 1000 of them at a carrier, sheer luck alone would give you a very hight probability that at least one missile will hit it.
A carrier is going to be far cheaper than 1000 SRBMs and the targeting system needed to back it up. Far cheaper.
With modified ones, even if they only have the accuracy of the Pershing II, 100 would be overkill never mind 1000.
It seems that you still don’t know the difference between hitting a stationary target and a moving one.
YourFatherThe proof has already been posted.
Where?
I take back the bit earlier about you doing stand up, since it is clear that you can only fluke humor and cannot master it.
Anyways, the fins clearly indicate that the missile has guidance beyond that of standard SRBMs, very likely to be terminal guided with a very small CEP.
The Pershing II has fins, is known to have terminal guidance, and has a very small CEP. But it’s no ASBM. But you want it to be an ASBM, so it must be one. Comfort yourself with that thought.
I have already explained before why the movement of a carrier is largely irrelevant in this case. The speed of the missile would not allow a carrier time to make any meaningful course changes.
Apparently the problem of targeting is not appreciated by you.
Oh really? Give me three examples then.
JDAM. AMRAAM. Tomahawk.
This is usually done by carefully designing the tests to maximize the success rate.
So sayeth the fool. Tests are not designed by the firms, silly. At least, not in US. Maybe this is how it’s done in China after some renminbi exchanges hands? 😀
The other issue is, of those 9 successful intercepts, how many were against m6+ weapons on a re-entry approach?The other issue is, of those 9 successful intercepts, how many were against m6+ weapons on a re-entry approach?
Medium range ballistic targets have a reentry speed far higher than mach 6, at speeds of 4km/s. The targets used were designed to simulate them.
They were designed to shoot down missiles in the ascent stage, when they are slow and none-maneuvering.
SM-3 is not an ascent phase interceptor. If you are going to make conclusions on system performance, at least do yourself a favour and find out about them first. KEI is the one which is meant to handle ascent phase interceptions.
Except the Chinese have never given a kill ratio for their weapon, so whats the point?
Neither has Raytheon nor MDA. The difference is that Raytheon and MDA have demonstrated that their system works. While all China has is vaporware. But of course China’s ASBM works better. :rolleyes:
And no-one is claiming that ASBMs can kill a ship with every missile launched. The major difference is the level of confidence the two opposing systems need. A defensive system needs to be as close to 100% effective as possible. An offensive weapon, on the other hand, only need to penetrate enemy defenses once. So the question then becomes, how many missiles is a carrier worth? 100? 1000? More? Thus even if China used 100 ASBMs to sink a carrier, it will still be worth their while. And this is different from other missiles because an ASBM does not need the launch platform to run the gauntlet of the carrier’s defenses, so the risks are far lower for the attacker.
Right now, a carrier’s ability to stop even one ASBM is highly suspect. Throw in 10 or 20 or more and you are statistically guaranteed hits and a kill.
There are still many question marks over as fully functional ASBM, but the carrier’s ability to stop the missile is not high in that list.
Your silly logic doesn’t work. Are you then saying that any anti-ship missile will always triumph over any defenses, since ‘all it takes is one to get through’? 1000 ASBMs? I know of a canadian ex-SM-2 fire control technician who would be happy to see that. That would be a lot of money spent on junk concept. Ballistic missiles aren’t cheap, if you didn’t know that.
YourFatherYou mean a 3 level vaporware system?
Thus far, only one of those three levels is anywhere near deployment, and its reliability is highly suspect.
The SM-2 Blk IV upgrade contract was just awarded, meaning its deployment is very near term. SM-6 will arrive around 2012. SM-3 is already deployed, and is a proven capability on 9 occasions.
Ha, you should do stand up. So the system all works now does it? Its all integrated and ready to deploy is it?
LOL, You look infinitely silly. Yes, it is integrated, and was already deployed in its version 3.0. Aegis BMD is now transitioning to version 3.6 which will provide the ability to conduct simultaneous BMD and AAW missions.
It is not a claimed launch, it is a proven one. Either you are too dense to realize the difference, or you are being a little overzealous with your spindoctoring.
So proven you cannot provide proof? 😀
I have already written in length before about how the ASAT tech could be adapted to an ASBM use. The recently ‘leaked’ pictures of PLA missiles not only show that an ASBM weapon is far enough down the development cycle to be test fired, but also indirectly implies that it is either operational or very close to being so. The PLA has never before voluntarily unveiled a weapon system the west did not already know about before it has reached at the very least limited operational status, and there is zero evidence that this is the exception.
All you have are pictures of warheads with tiny fins on them. Ooooh. ASBMs they must be.
:rolleyes:
And no, ability to intercept ASATs do not transfer to having the ability to hit carriers. unlike satellites which travel in highly predictable orbits, a carrier pat is unpredictable. That has many serious consequences which puts the whole ASBM concept’s viability in doubt.
Provide me one single case in history were a manufacture has understated the capacity of its newest weapons. In virtually ever case everywhere, the capacity of the weapon has been overstated and do not match up with operational experience. What makes you think that the SM3 is going to be any different?
They may not often understate their products capability, but it is also not rare that their weapons live up to their claims. What makes you think the SM-3 specifically is overhyped? If you are going to adopt this thinking, then why are you not applying this mentality to China’s ASBM claims? Especially when you have not heard even one instance of a successful test?
YourFatherRagingwire, if you noticed, the articles do not disparage the SM-3 system. The criticism is levelled at the GMD system, which is coming along nicely, with a successful interception already demonstrated.
YourFatherSo you think an 82% successful intercept rate is good enough as a warship’s only defence? And that is not taking into account the very limited and restricted conditions of some of the tests. The manufactures always overstate the kill rate, its been like that for every weapon ever made.
Secondly, how do you know the ASBM has not successfully hit one target? We have evidence that at least one launch has been conducted, do you have proof that it missed? Else the above is just baseless hot air.
Only? The SM-3s can provide high altitude defense, while lower altitude interceptions can be covered by SM-2 Blk IVs, and in future by SM-6. Add in decoys into the mix. By the time an operational ASBM concept is in place (if it can even be made to work, which some well-placed people doubt) the ABM might already be operational. How’s a 3 level hard kill defense system sound to you?
These interceptions do not indicate intercept rate. They indicate the system works, which is more than can be said for any vaporware ASBM concept. You are the one who claimed the ASBM concept worked – on what is your belief based on if you don’t even know if that one launch which you claimed occured was successful? If you are even able to do so, do furbish us with the evidence that an ASBM test was conducted. :diablo: On the other hand, what evidence do you have that the manufacturer overstated the kill rate of the SM-3?
YourFatherI was refering to the interceptors, as of now and in the forseeable future, their kill ratio is just not good enough.
And that judgement is based on an operational system with 9 out of 11 successful SM-3 intercepts under its belt? As opposed to some ASBM vaporware that hasn’t even successfully hit one target yet?
:rolleyes:
YourFatherThe ASBM is an overblown concept. There are severe deficiencies with it, and some people who really are in the know doubt whether the whole concept is actually feasible. I know of one who actually hopes China will sink money into ASBM R&D, and find it all for naught.
Look at the DF-15, for example. Assuming a terminal RF seeker with a range of 100km (might be even shorter ranged, given ionisation effects?). From 100km, the time to impact is roughly 1 min, at the re-entry speed of 2km/s. That leaves just a few seconds to scan the area where the carrier could be in, find the targets and distinguish the desired target from the decoys. (Decoys can be expected. SBIRS will give timely warning of any launch) That’s because the later the target is acquired, the more the warhead will have to maneuvre, and a ballistic missile’s warhead has very limited maneuverability. Those small fins will not help at high altitude, which is where the warhead should already be orienting itself to the target position. One could put in thrusters, but a warhead is already very weight and volume limited. You won’t get much maneuverability out of that.
Now go back to the area of uncertainty in carrier is in, and that is the area the terminal seeker must search. With the Carrier moving at ~25kts, and up to 30kts when alerted of a threat, in just 15 minutes the area of uncertainty the carrier can be in will reach more than 50nm squared. (OTH surveillance systems are usually time-late. Not even the American GCCS-M information dissemination system distributes target tracks in real time.) Good luck getting the seeker to acquire the target within the time frame of a couple of seconds.
Looking at the ASBM concept, it is very much like Russian ASMs, which tried to compress the engagement timeline available to western ship combat systems. It also suffers from the same drawbacks, where the decreased time available for interception is a double-edged sword. In fact, with the ASBM detectable by SBIRs and other systems at lauch, the ASBM is even more susceptible to countermeasures, which are already available. The SM-2 Blk IV was just upgraded to handle TBMs. It’s successor, the SM-6 will be made even more capable of handling TBMs. The SM-3 has a pretty stellar demonstrated record of interceptions. Puzzling how some cast doubt on the viability of a system which has demonstrated hits on multiple occasions, but place faith in a ASBM system which they haven’t even seen work once yet!
YourFatherand because of it’s not possible to get any classified data, slq-32 could not have failed? who about the other way round: why is there no such notice in the report if it was a human fault? they listed a lot of human faults so why not this one? a sentence like “the ew operator was not able to read out the missile information listed on the slq-32 screen” would be free of any classified information but they didn’t mentioned something like that.
because it is not possible to get classified data upon which we can make a reliable conclusion, it is not possible to make a firm declaration that the SLQ-32 failed (as you did). It is only possible to speculate that the SLQ-32 failed.
do we have any indications that there are two types of alarms?
and furthermore how likely is it that a trained ew operator, which is highly alerted by a “high pitch sound” indicating a lock on from an emitter is not able to find any information on a screen if we assume that the data was on this screen?
of course non of us can clarify this situation but imho it is much more probable that there was no data about the exocet on this screen.
None. 😀 I will freely admit is was pure, baseless speculation on my part. Another thing is, was the Exocet radar data in the SLQ-32 library at that point in time?
sorry but the other way round is true. they thought that stir is masked, so they used the cas-tracker to lock on to the mirage. so the cas search radar was not masked!
if my calculation is right, sps-49 should have made 12-13 revolutions between missile start and impact. the minimum range is claimed to be less than 1nm (global security: 0.5nm), so this is not that important because nobody could react in these last three seconds. it would not speak for a good performance of the sps-49 if it was not able to detect the exocet within 12 revolutions.
do you have some more information on the stir “horizon search”. thales speaks about sector search but no information on scan angels or areas. however because stir was masked, it could not had helped in this situation (which shows again the weakness of the ohp design).
That will teach me to rely on my memory in future! 😀
so maybe now you agree to my first statement that numbers like range and performance in a high gloss advertising brochure may vary from real world combat situations?
Certainly I agree. Max ranges are very often not achievable.
Sign In
