China can produce seeker for Ashm YJ-82/83/8/62/12 large size (even HQ-2, HQ-9, DF-21, KT-1, JL-2) , they mostly contain electronic circuits with large size, China can easily copy, but for the small seeker as R-27/77, AIM-120, China is not likely, because a tiny circuit sizes are difficult to copy the design, performance of China’s missile arsenal as PL 9/10/11/12 is also a big question mark?
seeker C-704 & R-77
Ashm (C-802) is larger more than A2A (SD-10)
[ATTACH=CONFIG]234432[/ATTACH]
No warship has armor as thick as the heaviest tank frontal arc arrays- they would weigh far too much.
But that would not be an issue. The HEAT stream of typical ATGMs has a relatively “short” reach. Warships have many spaced decks and bulkheads and hull layers.
HEAT warheads are meant to penetrate a really dense small array, not the great amount of space warships have to absorb a hit.
Further the stream is really localized, so unless someone happened to be right behind the hull where it hit….it probably wouldn’t do anything.So yeah, no ATGM used today is anywhere near big enough to do anything substantial.
All we know the modern warship designed not as durable as WW2 warship shells or MBT. Take a look at the level of ATGM piercing
AT-14 RHA 1000–1300 mm
AT-16 Wicher-M 1200 RHA mm
TOW2A 1000 mm RHA
AGM-114 >> 900 mm RHA
ERYX >900 mm RHA
HJ-8 > 800 mm RHA
HJ-9 1100 – 1200 mm RHA
HJ-12 1100 mm RHA
Spike-ER 1000 mm RHA
And remember always comes HEAT warhead with a blast, just 5-10 ATGM focus on one target it will have devastating greater than 1 quantity of explosives used to bomb the USS Cole
The Sensor Becoming the Shooter
After decades of relying exclusively on laser and GPS for precision attack, the military and US special operations community is slowly opening to consider Electro-Optically (EO) guided weapons, gaining strike precision at extended range. In a recent test conducted by NAVSEA, six Spike EO guided missiles were launched from an USV-PEM unmanned boat, engaging targets 1.9 nautical miles (3.5 km) away. Such capabilities will further develop as EO guidance techniques become feasible and affordable, relying on matured image processing techniques, Micro-Electro Mechanical Systems (MEMS), miniaturized imaging sensors, navigation and communications derived from commercial off the shelf technologies.
This trend is correlated with a shift in military focus, from traditional linear battles toward asymmetric warfare. Different from the hardened, well-protected and distinct military targets of the past that could be neutralized by massive penetrating warheads today’s targets are vulnerable, yet illusive. They lack distinct signatures pursued by automatic target recognition, but are clearly recognized by the human operator, hence, bringing back ‘man in the loop’ control. Such control has been realized as imperative for modern asymmetric warfare, facilitating maximum flexibility in seizing short term opportunities while eliminating engagement of innocent people which the enemy often use as ‘human shields’, when briefly exposed in the open.
Outside the USA EO guided missiles became much more popular, with the Israeli Spike missile with its four variants leading the way for more than 20 armies worldwide, including the largest forces in NATO. Spike was developed and produced by Rafael Advanced Defense Systems. This weapon offers the most advanced level of EO guidance, dubbed ‘4th Generation’. The Israeli Tamuz – also known as Spike NLOS, was fielded by the IDF two decades ago, became the first land-based missile to strap a thermal imaging sensor to enable the operator to ‘see’ the target from the missile’s point of view. For the first time, the lengthy and complex ‘sensor to shooter’ coordination cycle was reduced into minutes and seconds.
Subscribe or Log-in to Defense-Update read the full version of this analysis
The Spike developer RAFAEL considers the system should maintain its development course as an EO system – enhancing the system through the improvement phased improvements – introducing Miniature Electro-Mechanical Systems (MEMS), large matrix imaging sensors and versatile actuating systems enabling manufacturers to drive weapons cost to the level of laser guided weaponry, shrinking the size to introduce smaller and lighter precision weapons, and enabling the warfighters on land, at sea and in the air to carry out their missions much more effectively, while remaining safe at stand-off distance.
Spike LR Missile launched from a Typhoon weapon station on an Israel Navy Super Dvora Mk 2. A similar configuration was recently tested by the US Navy, from an unmanned surface vessel (USV-PEM). Photo: RAFAEL
Spike LR Missile launched from a Typhoon weapon station on an Israel Navy Super Dvora Mk 2. A similar configuration was recently tested by the US Navy, from an unmanned surface vessel (USV-PEM). Photo: RAFAEL
http://defense-update.com/20121031_the-sensor-becoming-the-shooter.html#.VFRHL8k2SZ8
Sweden and Norway have used Hellfire for coastal defense for decades.
USN uses SM2 against air and surface targets.
Its a matter of proper guidance, fuzing and warhead effects against the target of choice.
Sweden and Norway have used Hellfire for coastal defense for decades.
USN uses SM2 against air and surface targets.
Its a matter of proper guidance, fuzing and warhead effects against the target of choice.
Thank 🙂
Maybe HEAT ammo could against the warship hull ! Modern ships like the CG-47 class ships or the Aegis system fitted similar in design weight reduction. Therefore, they do not focus on armor, but for the Russian warships, they still focus on armor, I was reading the Kirov Battlecrusier class has 100mm armor hull on both sides, inside protected some place with 50-76mm armor …..
BQM-74E penetrate the hull USS Chancellorsville (Ticonderoga class)
Think about CG-62 accident damaged by drone BQM-74. Aegis system still shows weaknesses and need to be overcome
http://www.informationdissemination.net/2013/11/uss-chancellorsville-new-details-tell.html
This is the official press release by the US Navy.
PACIFIC OCEAN (NNS) — An aerial target drone malfunctioned and struck guided missile cruiser USS Chancellorsville (CG 62) off the coast of Southern California at approximately 1:25 pm local time today, Nov. 16, while the ship was conducting a radar tracking exercise during routine training at sea.No Sailors were seriously injured, but two Sailors were treated for minor burns. The ship remains capable of operations, however it did sustain some damage and will return to its homeport of San Diego to have the damage assessed. The Navy is investigating the cause of the malfunction.
That is very vague, so what if we add a bit of factual detail?
PACIFIC OCEAN (NNS) — A BQM-74 aerial target missile drone malfunctioned and struck a direct hit in the port side of the guided missile cruiser USS Chancellorsville (CG 62) off the coast of Southern California at approximately 1:25 pm local time today, Nov. 16, while the ship was conducting a radar tracking exercise of the BQM-74 during routine training at sea. USS Chancellorsville (CG 62) is currently conducting Combat System Ships Qualification Trials for Baseline 9 of the AEGIS combat system – the most advanced version of the AEGIS combat system. USS Chancellorsville is currently the only US Navy ship certified with the latest version of the AEGIS combat system.
No Sailors were seriously injured by the direct hit of the missile tracked all the way into the hull of the cruiser, but two Sailors were treated for minor burns. The ships officers and crew may or may not have bravely and intelligently attempted to defend itself from the rogue drone, but what’s really important enough to mention is that the ship and technology on the ship remains capable of operations. However it did sustain some damage from the direct hit that put a two foot hole in the port side of the ship, and as a result USS Chancellorsville (CG 62) will return to its homeport of San Diego to have the damage assessed. The Navy is investigating the cause of the malfunction.
So how is it exactly that the one ship on the planet with the most advanced version of the worlds best anti-missile combat system took a direct hit from a rogue missile drone?
The Navy tells us the drone malfunctioned, and apparently the combat system on the ship had no problems if the ship remains capable of operations, so based on those details of the press release the officers and crew of the USS Chancellorsville tracked the target missile drone – during the radar tracking exercise – apparently as it scored a direct hit into side of the ship.
But the ship was unable to defend itself? I get it that the safety systems were probably engaged that would prevent the full capabilities of the AEGIS combat system from being employed against the rogue drone, but what about the independent close-in point defenses of the cruiser?
The official story, based on the details as released officially, is that the most advanced AEGIS warship in the world tracked a direct hit by a missile drone and was apparently unable to defend itself successfully. Did the ship even try to defend itself from a rogue drone? We don’t know, because the press release focuses on telling the public the technology of the ship is sufficient enough for the ship to conduct normal operations, but tells us no details at all regarding what the crew did or did not do to defend the ship from a direct hit.
There is a detail that is omitted in the official press release, and because it is a detail of the incident known at the time of the press release, we can only assume the omission is intentional for purposes of protecting a reputation. The ships officers and crew apparently did try to defend the ship. The CIWS apparently fired at the BQM-74 but was unsuccessful in defending the ship. That detail matters, because the omission of that detail is the difference between protecting the reputation of the ships officers and crew who tried to defend the ship, or protecting the reputation of a piece of technology that was unsuccessful – for unknown reasons – in performing the technologies primary role as the last line of defense for the ship.
Let’s hope that while the Navy investigates the drone malfunction they also look into why the CIWS was unsuccessful in engaging the rogue drone in defense of the ship. It seems to me the CIWS investigation is much more important than an investigation into the malfunction of a target drone.
Based on where the rogue drone hit the ship, had it been a real ASCM – it could have easily been a mission kill for the ship. This is a very serious incident involving the most advanced AEGIS warship in the US Navy, and the Navy has started the incident with a press release that intentionally omits a critical detail – that the ship tried to defend itself and the specific technology designed to defend the ship for this specific situation failed.
This incident is a big deal, and on the first day there is already a deception effort underway to conceal key details of the incident – an omission that only serves to cast doubt upon the reputation of sailors for purposes of protecting the reputation of a piece of technology. Why did the Navy conceal from the public that the point defense system of the most advanced AEGIS ship in the US Navy failed to protect the ship from a direct hit from a rogue drone?
Sign In
