Does Formidable Class need CIWS?
-
I still do not understand by people are amaze with the g-number !!!
Who care how the missile twist and turn !!! it can for all i care fly all over the sky and smell " happy birthday" for all i care !!!In the end or the spelling show, it still have to head to you which is just 2 tennis court length !!! You just put a few walls in to its path ... frankly it is better then chasing it all round !!!
-
The CO of every ship ought to lean some Magi-magic and cast a power-glyph in front of the ship.
-
*Casts Shield*
Gains Cover bonus and caster is immune against magic missiles.
-
Originally posted by kotay:
POINT 2 - CLOS GUIDANCE
Firstly, I did not say that a CLOS guided Strales DART is better than a ARH/SARH missile ... go read my post carefully. What I did say is that the Strales DART is good enough to do it's job. Don't change the argument just because you can't disprove the point.
Back to CLOS guided missiles.
Your opinion will matter if it is credible and this is where my respect for the credibility of your opinion takes another nose dive. How much do you actually understand of CLOS guidance of Surface-to-Air Missiles (SAM)? Do you have any idea what you are talking about when you spew such nice technical terms as "3-point guidance"?
Your post seems to imply that the Target, The tracker and the Missile must all fall in a straight line ... if the missile deviates from this straight line, it loses the beam and becomes an unguided dart. If that is what you are saying, you couldn't be further from the truth.
CLOS of missiles relies on a "3-beam guidance" principle. The 3 beam implies a Wide Beam, a Medium beam and a Narrow beam. The wide beam, as the name implies, is a broad beam that is meant to cover a large cone and allow the missile to remain in guidance when the beam moves violently - such as when tracking a high-g/speed target. As the missile flies along the Wide beam, it attempts to navigate progressively towards the more focused, and accurate, narrow beam - which is focused on the target itself.
This basic "3-beam guidance" principle is why CLOS SAMs do work. It is rather disingenious of you to only quote ATGMs and try to delude people into thinking that beam riders do not work against fast moving targets. You seem to be either ignorant of or have deliberately "forgotten" about a whole family of CLOS SAMs from the RBS70 to the most recent StarStreak.
Nice try but please stop the BS-ing.
The issue with CLOS SAMs is NOT as you claim, the inability of the missile to follow the beam. The actual problem is rather to do with the ability of the operator to keep the beam on the target. Given that the Strales uses a Ka band radar to guide the beam, maintaining the beam locked on the missile is not a problem for the Strales Dart.
Go have a read on "Post-flight Analysis and Design Improvement in Command Guidance System for a Short-range Surface-to-air Missile System - Defence Research & Development Laboratory, 2005".
I’m wondering who put “ Think of it in terms of a Semi-Active homing missile ... heck, it practically is a semi-active missile. If you think that is a problem, what do you think the mainstay of the USN missile defence - standard and ESSM - are? SARH!” Bsing 1st . now back paddled.
Yap, CLOS used for MANPAP, a good compliment to ATGM, and RB700, hardly impressive compared to SM-2/ESSM or any other capable SAM/AAM like AIM-120/AIM-9X using proportional Guidance that also find in SEA-RAM. I think one doesn’t need specific knowledge to know CLOS is the simplest and most incapable to handle though targets compared to the one used in RAM and other major AAM/SAMs
Also wondering how a plain explanation on CLOS arrives you the guidance is as good as the modern ones. The Ka band is a narrow one, the CW tracking the Target is a narrow beam only compared to the one tracking the Dart round is “wider “. The bottom line is LOS is rotating especially trying to track a high speed, maneuverable target, that put any slight beam angel change a dramatic misalignment of the missile. Any misalignment demands the most of the interceptor’s turn rate to correct it. As a matter of fact, the CLOS compared to proportional guidance, demands much higher turn rate of the interceptor compared to Proportional guidance used by majority Anti-air missiles including SEA-RAM if the target is in high speed and maneuverable.
-
Originally posted by kotay:
POINT 3 – ENERGY STATE
Sigh …. Where do I start?
“Your max 20-25g maneuver only happens at the very beginning when the round has the highest initial speed …blah blah blah”
First things first, since when is a G-of-maneuver measured solely on speed alone?
G-m relies on 2 components – speed and angle of turn. Actually there are other factors that affect this, such as aerodynamic, structural, and buffet limits, but let’s keep it simple for now.
What I'm trying to get at is that you can pull a 9g at 450knots just as you can pull a 9g turn at 750knots … the only difference will be the turn radius.
Basic physics … don’t believe me? 2 words for you to google … “Centripetal Acceleration”.
Second thing about this statement. The DART round is effectively a Fin Stablised Discarding Sabot (FSDS) round. Go google up a ballistics calculator and figure out how much a 15:1 dart with an ogive nose loses in air speed over 5km … only about 6%. The DART round actually has an unguided range of up to 38km against other targets ,,, this gives you an indication that the ballistics degradation is not as severe as you imply it to be.
38kms, yap, areodynamic matter can be calculated by a geunis like u, quote a source from OTO to put someone's foot into his mouth, wondering why OTO till now now achieve the Dart round of guidable distance of 5km +, source from OTO website, only don't be disturbed by the word"beyond" as one wonder why don't put 6/7kms "beyond"
http://www.otobreda.it/news/news.asp?id=22
29th November 2005 – Within the Strales program, Oto Melara, a Finmeccanica company, has successfully performed some important firing trials in PISQ (Poligono Interforze Salto di Quirra), an Italian interservice firing range located in Sardinia.
The Strales system, currently in full scale engineering development under the funding of the Italian Navy, is based on the installation on the 76 SR Oto Melara gun of a Radio Frequency (RF) guidance beam capable to steer a burst of sub-calibre DART projectiles against subsonic and supersonic antiship missiles with excellent manoeuvre capability.
During the firing trials, the DART projectiles have correctly entered and followed the guidance beam manoeuvring with the required and expected accuracy beyond a range of 5 Km.
This important result is a decisive milestone since it has experimentally proved the capability of a high speed subcalibre projectile to be guided with the highest accuracy.
The end of the development is foreseen in 2007.
Got something on, will revert tomorrow for the rest
-
Post by 38
I’m wondering who put “ Think of it in terms of a Semi-Active homing missile ... heck, it practically is a semi-active missile. If you think that is a problem, what do you think the mainstay of the USN missile defence - standard and ESSM - are? SARH!” Bsing 1st now back paddled.
Talk about smoke and mirrors ... no one has back paddled more in this thread than you have. First the bit about AHEAD for 76SR, then getting your G-of-maneuver parameters wrong, then that BS about SEA-RAM boosting all the way to terminal phase and the piece de resistance, getting the nature of CLOS guidance beams wrong. People living in glass houses shouldn't throw bricks.
If you want to quote people, quote them in context. The above comment by me was in answer to a post on how the DART has a small brain relative to the ship's "brain". I was trying to show by way of example that if relatively small brained SARH missiles are effective enough to form the mainstay of the USN missile defense, why should there be any issues with the DART?
It's a bit rich for someone like you to make all those gaffes and then try to misquote other people to drag them down to your depths.
I am now beginning to understand your nature. You are one of those people that like to cherry pick your quotes. Zeroing in on little sentences/paragraphs and interpreting them outside of the context of the whole article. Your next 2 paragraphs clearly shows more of such behaviour.
Post by 38
Yap, CLOS used for MANPAP, a good compliment to ATGM, and RB700, hardly impressive compared to SM-2/ESSM or any other capable SAM/AAM like AIM-120/AIM-9X using proportional Guidance that also find in SEA-RAM. I think one doesn’t need specific knowledge to know CLOS is the simplest and most incapable to handle though targets compared to the one used in RAM and other major AAM/SAMs
Oh so now you suddenly remember the RBS70? Don't forget to mention that the RBS70 is one of the first generations of CLOS guided SAMs from waaaaaaay back in the 1970s. Don't forget to mention StarStreak which went operational in 1997 with a new improvement, StarStreak II, that just went operational in 2007. So now you want to backtrack on your claim that CLOS is only good enough for ATGMs? Remember - people in glass houses shouldn't ... ???
In any case, since you seem to be having problems reading through my long post, I will repeat again - no one, except yourself, is arguing that CLOS is better than ARH/SARH. All I’ve been saying is that the 76SR is good enough to do the job required. Stop trying to change the topic just because you're losing this one.
Seriously, since you have previously asked others to "look carefully", can you please take your own advice and please go read through other peoples post carefully?
I'll tackle the issue of proportional guidance below your next paragraph quoted below ...
Post 38
Also wondering how a plain explanation on CLOS arrives you the guidance is as good as the modern ones. The Ka band is a narrow one, the CW tracking the Target is a narrow beam only compared to the one tracking the Dart round is “wider “. The bottom line is LOS is rotating especially trying to track a high speed, maneuverable target, that put any slight beam angel change a dramatic misalignment of the missile. Any misalignment demands the most of the interceptor’s turn rate to correct it. As a matter of fact, the CLOS compared to proportional guidance, demands much higher turn rate of the interceptor compared to Proportional guidance used by majority Anti-air missiles including SEA-RAM if the target is in high speed and maneuverable.
First up, the Ka band radar is not the guidance beam ... Jeez, can you read properly? As was said in my previous post, the Ka Band Radar GUIDES the guidance beam. The guidance beam is actually a seperate 4-lobe RF transmitter.
You really are quite the charlatan ... first throwing up the spiel about how "the intercepting missile has to be at least 4-5 times G load than the missile it suppose to catch" and now this bit about "proportional guidance".
Can you stop throwing out all this catchphrases and please sit down and try to understand what you are quoting ... for once?
For those who do not already know, Proportional guidance refers to an intercept algorithm for missiles to lead the target instead of aiming directly at the target. Undoubtedly this is relevant as all missiles will expend unneccesary energy chasing after the target if it was aimed directly at it ... think in terms of how when you throw a ball at someone running across from you (hamtam bola), you lead them and not throw directly at them. If you throw directly at them, your ball will pass behind them. If your ball was a missile, it will have to expend energy to turn and chase after the target.
Here comes the interesting bit about proportional guidance that 38 doesn't seem to understand. If someone in hantam bola is running directly at you, do you have to lead them? The answer is obviously NO! Proportional Guidance is only relevant when the target is crossing the path of the missile doing the chasing. In the case of a front-on or rear-on engagement, proportional guidance is IRRELEVANT!
Now 38, stop being so dense for a moment and start thinking about what I said in my last post about how the end game for an AShM has one overriding directive ... it must hit the f**king target. Which means it must start to come head-on relative to any stuff flying out from the target ... which means Proportional engagement is a lot less relevant for a CIWS/CIGS/CIMS … which means the latest Red Herring that you've thrown out is just another lot of pure unadulterated BS again.
You seem to be caught up in all these "rules" that you've read about air-to-air combat and trying to apply it to a AShM - Ship engagement. Can you not understand that these 2 scenarios have very different parameters and that some of your carefully memorised rules do not apply here?
Take for instance the bit about how the intercepting missile has to be 4-5 times more maneuverable than the target ... do you even understand the parameters behind this *ahem* "rule"? In a crossing intercept, yes the interceptor must pull a heck of a lot of Gs to catch a target turning into it. This represents a worst case scenario.
In a rear-on intercept, the interceptor does not need to be 4-5 times more maneuverable. Depending on the speed differential, it only needs to be about 2-3 times more maneuverable to prevent it from overshooting the target while attempting to turn with the target.
A front-on intercept represents a best case scenario for an interceptor. It only needs to match the maneuverability of the target. I did some simple maths using your case of a 15G, 700m/s AShM and a 20G, 1200m/s DART when I got home ... guess what, your AShM is toast. Just to help you out, the angle rate of turn of the AShM in the above case is 12 degree/sec while the DART is 10 degree/sec. Go do the maths yourself if you don't believe me ... I’ve done the hard bit for you, all that’s left is for you to do some simple sine & cosine.
Please for goodness sake ... understand that air-to-air combat is not the same ball game as AShM shootdown. The parameters are quite different. As I've asked before, please provide concrete proof of the nature of this evasive maneuvers being carried out by your HighG AShMs. How many turns do you think a 700m/s, 15G missile can complete from 6,000m out ... the answer will surprise you.
-
Post by 38
38kms, yap, areodynamic matter can be calculated by a geunis like u, quote a source from OTO to put someone's foot into his mouth, wondering why OTO till now now achieve the Dart round of guidable distance of 5km +, source from OTO website, only don't be disturbed by the word"beyond" as one wonder why don't put 6/7kms "beyond"
http://www.otobreda.it/news/news.asp?id=22
*snip*
During the firing trials, the DART projectiles have correctly entered and followed the guidance beam manoeuvring with the required and expected accuracy beyond a range of 5 Km.
Bloody amazing … you’ve just scored an own goal! :D
You are so hell bent on reading your own meaning into your cherry picked quotes that you missed out one very important word in the part that you’ve highlighted in red … accuracy BEYOND a range of 5km.
Ermmmm … you have a dictionary handy? Care to look up the meaning of the word “Beyond”. Please be very disturbed indeed.
The reason why 5km+ is quoted is because 5km is the standard engagement range. Engagement parameters become more restrictive after that. Nonetheless, it is capable of guidance up to 10km.
In any case, I do have sources for my claims. Go pick up a copy of Defence Technology International – December 2007. In it’s article on “Fast, Lethal Ship Defense” it covers the Strales DART in detail. The article mentions …
- The Ka Band radar guiding the 4 RF guidance beams
- Gives the sub-calibre dimensions as 42x670mm, weighs 3.4kg w/o sabot with a 2.5kg warhead containing the 3AP fuse and pre-fragmented steel body with tungsten pellets. Lethal radius of the round is 10m
- At standard engagement range of 5km, the DART is capable of pulling 20-25g throughout. Keepout range is >2,000m.
- Unguided range is 35km and guided range is 10km
- pKill of a 3-4 round burst is >95%
- There is no limit to the number of rounds that can be simultaneously guided
Other publications I’m pulling my info from include “Forecast International – The Naval Surface Warfare Market Report” which contains detailed info on the 76/62 family and their sales history and forecasted sales. Papers from various "International Symposium on Ballistics" for ballistics info and Please don’t forget the paper I quoted on CLOS 3 beam guidance. See, I’m not restricted to just company brochures.
So … since you’re asking people for quotes and sources … where the fcuk are yours? You ask, I give … have the courtesy to return the favour will ya?
Also don’t forget, there are a couple of questions that I asked you which you haven’t answered. Since you’ve asked questions and I’ve answered, can you also be courteous enough to answer the questions that people ask you … stop trying to duck them with another smoke and mirrors show.
WRT to the genius comment, like I said in my previous post, there are ballistics calculators available online … go google them and plug the figures in before you go around complimenting people and calling them genius.
-
Originally posted by Shotgun:
*Casts Shield*
Gains Cover bonus and caster is immune against magic missiles.
*cast sanctuary*
I'm getting tired of his BS.
-
Wah... so chim, proportional guidance... WOOT!
I just call it, "Lead-Pursuit." Or rather, in the case of missiles, "pure pursuit." The missile will calculate sufficient lead to bring it on a collision course with the target.
If you guys really appreciate the mathematics, dydx behind it, please follow this link.
http://books.google.com.sg/books?id=NVEtqShrgvkC&pg=PA182&lpg=PA182&dq
I believe i saw it Singapore Polytechnic's Central Library once.
I don't appreciate the maths of it. I prefer to shoot the missile and consider the rest of it "voodoo." I don't have to calculate the dydx to know that the bright speck out there missile with my name painted on it. If its bearing is constant and doesn't change significantly, you WILL KNOW the missile is coming at you.AShM's can be a little tricky though. Sometimes when the target is well within the missile's max range, and if the missile supports it ( eg later blocks of Harpoons), the missile can be set to fly multiple waypoints to confuse tracking radars. With a good number of these slimy bastards coming in, it can screw up target prioritization.
Of course, a good system like the AEGIS would probably just blow everything else up.
-
With all the discussion here, I am still NOT convinced that Formidable is able to handle saturated attacks by AShMs (both supersonic ones and transonic ones) without a dedicated CIWS as the last resort. 5 or more missiles targetting a single formidable, I think at least 1 may get through.
As much as I would like to believe the new guided shell fired from 76 OTO gun is a good anti-missile weapon, I still strongly believe in a wall of lead principle. Otherwise, why would the USN, RoKN and JSDF Navy continue to employ Phalanx?
I can accept that SeaRAM as a replacement of Phalanx, but at the current state of the Formidable weaponary, I just find that it is a little short and last ditch hit-to-kill measures in place.
-
Originally posted by Joe Black:
With all the discussion here, I am still NOT convinced that Formidable is able to handle saturated attacks by AShMs (both supersonic ones and transonic ones) without a dedicated CIWS as the last resort. 5 or more missiles targetting a single formidable, I think at least 1 may get through.
As much as I would like to believe the new guided shell fired from 76 OTO gun is a good anti-missile weapon, I still strongly believe in a wall of lead principle. Otherwise, why would the USN, RoKN and JSDF Navy continue to employ Phalanx?
I can accept that SeaRAM as a replacement of Phalanx, but at the current state of the Formidable weaponary, I just find that it is a little short and last ditch hit-to-kill measures in place.
With 5 or more missiles aiming for a ship, I think any ship would be hard-pressed to protect itself.
Brace brace brace!
-
Originally posted by Joe Black:
Otherwise, why would the USN, RoKN and JSDF Navy continue to employ Phalanx?
Flight IIA Arleigh Burke DDGs are no longer being built with Phalanx. That's close to 20 hulls launched since ~2000. New designs like the San Antonio LPD likewise have ditched Phalanx for RAM. Future builds like the Zummwalt will likewise not mount Phalanx. Quite a few new build European designs likewise have ditched the small calibre Phalanx/Goalkeeper CIWS.
[edit: I'm not too sure, but IINM, the Zumwalt does not even carry RAM but instead has opted for a CIGS in the form of the Bofor 57]
I won't claim this is indicative of a trend but it is food for thought.
One thing to consider about the 76SR is that for a space constrained small vessel like a Corvette of Light Frigate, it provides the ability to cover both ASu and AA roles in one neat package. Whether 76SR is better or lousier than the RAM is not the issue. When you have only got space for one system, what are your choices?
-
Originally posted by 16/f/lonely:
With 5 or more missiles aiming for a ship, I think any ship would be hard-pressed to protect itself.
Brace brace brace!
I remember hearing an anecdote about a wargame pitting the entire MGB (or was it MCV) squadron against x Formidable(s) ... was fun :D -
shhhhh not public domain.
-
Originally posted by Joe Black:
With all the discussion here, I am still NOT convinced that Formidable is able to handle saturated attacks by AShMs (both supersonic ones and transonic ones) without a dedicated CIWS as the last resort. 5 or more missiles targetting a single formidable, I think at least 1 may get through.
As much as I would like to believe the new guided shell fired from 76 OTO gun is a good anti-missile weapon, I still strongly believe in a wall of lead principle. Otherwise, why would the USN, RoKN and JSDF Navy continue to employ Phalanx?
I can accept that SeaRAM as a replacement of Phalanx, but at the current state of the Formidable weaponary, I just find that it is a little short and last ditch hit-to-kill measures in place.
Only thing i want to know is, under what kind of scenario, will you be able to successfully target 5 missiles on a formidable without getting yourself kicked in the face with Aster / Harpoon/ Whitehead first.
-
When the formidable's gundam mode fails to come online... eh... oops, i said too much already.
-
Originally posted by CM06:
Only thing i want to know is, under what kind of scenario, will you be able to successfully target 5 missiles on a formidable without getting yourself kicked in the face with Aster / Harpoon/ Whitehead first.
Littoral ambush -
Originally posted by Joe Black:
With all the discussion here, I am still NOT convinced that Formidable is able to handle saturated attacks by AShMs (both supersonic ones and transonic ones) without a dedicated CIWS as the last resort. 5 or more missiles targetting a single formidable, I think at least 1 may get through.
As much as I would like to believe the new guided shell fired from 76 OTO gun is a good anti-missile weapon, I still strongly believe in a wall of lead principle. Otherwise, why would the USN, RoKN and JSDF Navy continue to employ Phalanx?
I can accept that SeaRAM as a replacement of Phalanx, but at the current state of the Formidable weaponary, I just find that it is a little short and last ditch hit-to-kill measures in place.
Frankly even if you have the CIWS if is only as good if the ship radar is able to detect and track multiple targets and co-ordinates the actions of each CIWS.
The chance of anyone firing 5 missile at a frigate is a very unlikely event, but in this case - we would assume the missile all will be coming from different angle. Yes the 76mm does have its blind spot - it cannot cover the rear of the ship, other then that, i think it will have no problem putting up wall of lead in between the missiles and the ships. For those blind spot and missile that may get through, we just have to depend on the decoys to auto deploy to draw away the missiles. -
Post by 38
2nd, a worse than Beam rider's CLOS guided round will have tremendous difficulty ... such a guidance is never to be used to intercept high-G/high speed target in modern days except for slow moving one's like tank.Doh! ... slipped my mind and totally forgot to mention this ... Sea Wolf.
Sea Wolf is a CLOS guided SAM designed for point defense against aerial targets in the 1970's. Let me say again .. 1970's. It performed admirably well in the Falklands in 1982, shooting down low flying, maneuvering aircrafts. It recorded 2 confirmed + 3 probables from 8 launches. Mind you, this was a 70's tech missile, around the same time when AAMs in Vietnam were recording single digit percentile success.
What this is meant to show is that 40 years ago, CLOS SAMs have been able to ride their guidance beam succesfully to hit maneuvering aircraft. And you still want to insist this is not possible?40 years on, refinements have been made to it's algorithm and guidance modules to further enlarge it's engagement envelope against faster, more maneuverable targets. The concept of a CLOS guided dart as opposed to a powered missile is not new either. StarStreak is effectively 3 unpowered FSDS darts (like the Strales DART) and has been in service since 1997.
And yet there are doubting Thomases that still insist that a CLOS guided dart/missile is unable to maintain beam guidance when doing hard maneuvers.
For 38, before you get carried away, I will stress again, this is not about whether RAM is better or not. It's simply about whether the 76SR can do it's job as advertised ... something you have been insisting that it can't.
Let me help you out here, if you really want to argue against CLOS SAM solutions, you are barking up the wrong tree by insisting that it can't handle high speed/maneuvering targets because it can. What you really want to argue about is it's ability to handle saturation attacks. -
38's FIXATION ON HIGH-G ANTI SHIP MISSILES
I'm still waiting for your clarification with regards to your insistence on High-G AShM in the terminal phase. Namely -
i) What proof do you have that AShM engage in agressive high-G maneuvers while in the terminal phase?
ii) What value do you ascribe to a AShM conducting high-G evasive maneuvers while in the terminal phase?
The reason why I question you in this way is because I strongly doubt the applicability of the high-g/speed theory that you keep repeating. My reasons are simple.
a) PHYSICS
The physics involved in turning an aircraft/missile at high speed limits the effectiveness of such maneuvers, especially when you consider the tight constraints on the terminal phase of an inbound AShM.
Taking your parameters of a 15G, 700m/s missile at 5,000m from the target. The AShM can complete only a single turn of ~26 degrees off axis before it must start turning back ~60 degrees in order to hit the target. That is a single turn of 26 degrees, in a highly predictable sinosuidal curve. Hardly something that will tax the ability of any CIWS to take out.
If you want to talk about multiple jinks than the amplitudes will have to be much smaller. Where the amplitudes are much smaller, the missile is likewise much easier to engage.
b) PREDICTABILITY
AFAIK, no AShMs currently have the ability to detecting incoming rounds/missiles and take reactive evasive maneuvers. All AShMs evasive maneuvers are currently non-reactive and pre-programmed. I heresay that Exocet was developing a model that would exploit the closed loop targeting algorithm of the Phalanx but AFAIK, nothing came of that either.
Because the AShMs evasive maneuvers are non-reactive, they are less effective. You really can't take your precious "rules" based on reactive air combat maneuvers and transplant them here.
What is even more important is that the closer the missile gets to the target, the more it's maneuvers become predictable since it must start turning back into the target or miss altogether. Where the maneuvers become predictable, it becomes much more within the algorithm of the CIWS to intercept, hit and kill.
c) SELF DEFEAT
What I find most interesting about your trumpeting of High-G/Speed maneuvering is your lack of realisation that it is ultimately self defeating.Don't believe me? A presentation by Raytheon on the Phalanx Blk 1B upgrade showed a rather interesting test result. Raytheon presented that the CIWS was actually more effective against a maneuvering supersonic AShM than a non-maneuvering AShM.
When one thinks about this logicaly, there are various reasons why this may be true:- A maneuvering AShM spends more time in the lethal zone of the CIWS as compared to a straight running AShM. More time equates more engagement cycles equates more kills.
- A maneuvering AShM presents a larger target to the CIWS. When it turns, it presents more of it's flank and becomes a bigger target whereas a head-on AShM presents only the cross-section as a target area.
- More importantly, a maneuvering AShM is rarely pointed at the target. What this means is that if a hit by the CIWS only suceeds in taking out the seeker head, the non-maneuvering AShM will still cary on flying straight and true towards the target. The maneuvering AShM OTOH, if it suffers a hit on the seeker head or control surfaces will no loger be able to pull itself back to the target and will most probably miss. In other words, a non-maneuvering AShM will require a catastrophic hit to take out while a maneuvering AShM will only require a partial hit to m-kill it.
So based on all the above, I will ask you again, why do you keep insisting on agressively High-G maneuvers by AShM in it's terminal phase? Is there something we don't know or are you spouting more textbook nonsense? -
Originally posted by kotay:
Flight IIA Arleigh Burke DDGs are no longer being built with Phalanx. That's close to 20 hulls launched since ~2000. New designs like the San Antonio LPD likewise have ditched Phalanx for RAM. Future builds like the Zummwalt will likewise not mount Phalanx. Quite a few new build European designs likewise have ditched the small calibre Phalanx/Goalkeeper CIWS.
Kotay, you've got a point there, but I believe FlightIIA still retains the Phalanx.See these photos:
I also believe that CIWS like Phalanx and SeaRAM continue to have their place onboard ships. SeaRAM continue to be maintained as the primary CIWS. The LM LCS International version for Israel has Phalanx as the primary CIWS well.
-
Originally posted by kotay:
Doh! ... slipped my mind and totally forgot to mention this ... Sea Wolf.
Sea Wolf is a CLOS guided SAM designed for point defense against aerial targets in the 1970's. Let me say again .. 1970's. It performed admirably well in the Falklands in 1982, shooting down low flying, maneuvering aircrafts. It recorded 2 confirmed + 3 probables from 8 launches. Mind you, this was a 70's tech missile, around the same time when AAMs in Vietnam were recording single digit percentile success.
...Lol, another no clue!
Sea wolf is a beam rider similar to SM-1, the difference is it got eyes(seekers" and brains like any normal anti-air missile), totally different from the Dart round without any eyes or poor brain(no drain if u consider the RF reciever a non-AI unit)
-
joe>
If FlightIIA refers to the newer Burkes with the submerged smoke stacks, then the picture you showed us is not of the new Burke.
-
ok, according to http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ship/ddg-51-flt2a.htm, Flight IIA starts from DDG 79 and the one in the photos is DDG 81.
-
Originally posted by kotay:
POINT 3 – ENERGY STATE
Sigh …. Where do I start?
“ Basic physics … don’t believe me? 2 words for you to google … “Centripetal Acceleration”.
Second thing about this statement. The DART round is effectively a Fin Stablised Discarding Sabot (FSDS) round. Go google up a ballistics calculator and figure out how much a 15:1 dart with an ogive nose loses in air speed over 5km … only about 6%. The DART round actually has an unguided range of up to 38km against other targets ,,, this gives you an indication that the ballistics degradation is not as severe as you imply it to be.
...
The statement of a mach 3 unpowered projectile near sea level only lost 6% of its initial speed over 5kms really showcase you have no clue about aerodynamics yet want to talk like expert.
Air drag coefficient Cx considered almost constant when the projectile flies at low speed ( generally below 250m/s), and increases near exponentially along with the increase of speed which is near or over speed of the sound.
http://www.answers.com/topic/sonic-barrier?cat=technology
Sharp rise in aerodynamic drag that occurs as an aircraft approaches the speed of sound. At sea level the speed of sound is about 750
When the projectile’s speed is in the supersonic region. Because of the sharp rise in Cx, the projectile approaching sound speed will have to break sound barrier. Actually any unpowered supersonic projectile lost speed exponentially faster during its flight in supersonic region than it does in low speed region. Remember, it lost speed exponentially, 6% is not a exponential result considering the dart round already flied 5kms.
Obviously your lack of knowledge leads to your totally incompetent to talk something you really don’t understand.
So it’s totally unsurprised you don’t understand what I have quoted from OTO’s website: “the DART projectiles have correctly entered and followed the guidance beam manoeuvring with the required and expected accuracy beyond a range of 5 Km.”
Why it’s so difficult to achieve a Dart round to just entering the guidance beam in just 5+kms distance? Because the Dart round has already lost most of its speed during supersonic flight ( from m3 inital speed to sub-sonic), and when it's in sub-sonic, the sharp drop in air drag still allows it fly much longer, that’s why it still can achieve a 38kms range, but the sharp drop in speed doesn’t allow the round to have enough kinematic to perform manoeuvring that required to keep the round in the beam.