Aegis vs Ashm

Read the forum code of contact

Member for

10 years 9 months

Posts: 194

Aegis systems: AN/SPS-49, AN/SPY-1/2/3, SM-2/6/3, ESSM, RAM, CIWS Phalanx vs Ashm (Anti-ship missile): Harpoon, Exocet, YJ-82/83/Noor, Kh-31/YJ-91, Moskit, Yakhont, Kh-22/Kh-SD, Brahmos I/II, LRASM, Granit, Bazalt, DF-21D....

The weakness of the SM-2, ESSM is dependent on the radar AN/SPY, they use SARH mode, so this is possible weaknesses when many ashm attacking at once
http://www.ausairpower.net/Analysis-Regional-ASCM.html

Another important thing, shipborne radar can be affected by the sea clutter. Although not to the degree of risk than airborne radar
http://books.google.com.vn/books?id=vAkFCnbHKw0C&pg=PA268&lpg=PA268&dq=radar+clutter+sea+look+down&source=bl&ots=UzOZ_7AR2r&sig=snshekPW6QP_jh8NfwQZCoAS8i0

http://israel-companies.com/images/pic/600014609f.jpg

Here we use only 1 ashm to attack DDG

Platform
DDG-51 Flight IIA (DDG-79) vs Type 45, Horizon, Type 052C/D, F-14A/F-4 (Iran), JH-7, Su-30, Sovremenny, Tu-22M3, Su-30MKI, DDG-51 flight III, Kirov, Slava, vehicle base....and a few submarine platform

For DDG-1000 no top radar / radar tower (AN/SPS-49) should be completely eliminated in this match

Results:

Aegis systems vs Harpoon: Aegis (very easy), because of Harpoon speed is slow, its lowest range is only 124km, SM-2/6 is easily shot down it (first stage)

Aegis systems vs Exocet: Aegis (aleatory), but with difficult routes and low altitude Exocet Block 3 (180km), aegis will need ESSM and CIWS to beat it (Last stage)

Aegis systems vs YJ-82 & variants: Aegis (risk), because the scope of Exocet clone has improved more than the French Exocet, YJ-82/83 is 120-220 (surface-launcher) /250km (air-launcher), low ceiling 5m, improved Speed (Mach 2 for YJ-83). Was beat the Phalanx system (using variations Hezbollah export C-802 assault ship INS Hanit in 2006).

Aegis systems vs Kh-31/YJ-91: Aegis (hard), because of the Kh-31 speeds up to Mach 3 range 70-250km, YJ-91 (50-120km) speed is Mach 4.5. U.S. Navy failed each test SM-2 interceptor version bought from Ukraine or Russia Kh-31/MA-31 ago. But ESSM, Phalanx can be a lucky shot with a Kh-31 or YJ-91 mean with Kh-31/YJ-91 attack alone

Aegis systems vs Moskit: Aegis (very hard), similar to the results of the Kh-31, but it will be difficult for ESSM, RAM, CIWS because P-270 has great maneuverability up to 10G and 7m in height for the last phase of the attack.

Aegis systems vs Yakhont: Aegis (difficult) or Yakhont , similar to the results of the P-270, 300km range, Mach 2-2.6, will also cause difficulties for ESSM, CIWS

Aegis systems vs Kh-22/SD: Aegis or Kh-22 similar to the results of the Yakhont

Aegis systems vs Brahmos I/II: Aegis (extremely difficult) or Brahmos I, Brahmos II certainly defeat aegis. Because BrahMos II (range 300km) reach Mach 7 speeds, radar AN / SPY can not continuous tracking targets such speeds, the ability to intercept SM-2/6, ESSM, RAM, CIWS absolutely zero, time to prepare to intercept it can not match the ESSM or SM-2ER mach 4 Blk 4 Mach 2.5-3.5. Ramjet engine maintains the speed of Mach 7 at any altitude and flight journey Brhamos I / II

Aegis systems vs LRASM: Aegis or LRASM. Supersonic speed, low RCS, guidance multi system and complex way, LRASM is the answer to BrahMos and is a threat to any ship, similar BrahMos

Aegis systems vs DF-21D (first ASBM): Multi guidance systems (Satellite, UAV, radar active of warhead, optical, INS) , multi-warhead, the warhead strength of 500kt, max speed mach 10-11 (terminal phase), 3000-5500km range. Aegis + DDG absolutely no chance of survival. SM-3 Block IA / IB / IIA / IIB is the only hope.

http://i1094.photobucket.com/albums/i441/somnath30/DF21dvsBRA2missiles.jpg

To against missile Ashm high speed, need to use the AEW / AWACS or top radar similar MR-331 Mineral (support OTH mode). And the defense system efficient operation together (radar AN/SPS + AN/SPY + SM-3/2/6 + ESSM + RAM + CIWS) . Some weapons platforms like Klub (3M54, 3M14) anti-ship missiles for submarine Kilo, torpedoes supersonic VA-111 (Aegis can not against torpedo, Cheonan is a prime example)

Original post

Member for

10 years 9 months

Posts: 194

Think about CG-62 accident damaged by drone BQM-74. Aegis system still shows weaknesses and need to be overcome

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/--obuhfyfVJc/Uor9Z8eE4oI/AAAAAAAAKC0/m3LHO_rXAwM/s640/USS-Chancellorsville-Drone-Accident.jpg

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?

Member for

24 years 2 months

Posts: 4,875

Worth re-iterating the old joke about Phalanx at this point....the fact that the acronym CIWS doesnt mean "Close In Weapons System" as is commonly thought. It actually stands for 'Captain, It Wont Shoot'.

Joking aside there is nothing really odd about the Phalanx not engaging. The mount uses closed-loop tracking...there is a finite time span required for the mount to pick up the inbound....develop a track...open fire and then converge the tracks. If the crew have only released the CIWS mount at the last moment it may have had time to fire, but, not complete the track-converge sequence. You'd need to know more about the specific status of the weapon to know whether there was blame to attach there.

Interesting thing to me is the location of the impact point. Perhaps just a coincidence but its right at the point of the hull where the RF signature climbs owing to the bridge superstructure construction. if memory serves the Stark was hit in a very similar section of the hull. I would have taken a guess that the object that made this hole was following an active RF seeker in.

Member for

10 years 9 months

Posts: 194

MISSILE THREATS GROW AND GROW
By SOF Editor on Mon, 07/28/2014 - 10:52am
Printer Friendly VersionPrinter Friendly VersionSend to a FriendSend to a Friend

China, Russia Deploying Deadlier Missiles
By SOF

China and Russia have been developing new missiles that could not only threaten the United States, but some could also be flaunting arms-control treaties. The threats include both cruise missiles and ballistic missiles.

According to a report in the Washington Free Beacon, Admiral Jonathan Greenert, the Chief of Naval Operations, issued the warning about China’s during a security conference in Aspen, Colorado. General Martin Dempsey also spoke at the conference last week, where he stated the United States was planning to take down the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL), also known as the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS).

During a speech, Greenert said, “They have an extraordinary selection of cruise missiles, and a ballistic missile force that they developed.” Greenert particularly expressed concern over the DF-21D anti-ship ballistic missile, which has a range of 930 miles. The DF-21D could be countered by the RIM-161 SM-3 missile, but that would take up cells in the Mk 41 Vertical Launch Systems on Ticonderoga-class cruisers and Arleigh Burke-class destroyers.

The growing ChiCom arsenal of missiles could place American bases on Guam and Okinawa at risk of attack. China has been acquiring new ships, and its fleet of H-6 Badger bombers are being upgraded to carry as many as a half-dozen cruise missiles.

Russia, however, has not been standing still. According to a report by National Review Online, two new Russian missiles, the RS-26 Rubezh, and the Iskander K, are being developed – and both are blatant violations of the INF Treaty signed in 1987. The treaty bans all land-based missiles with ranges between 500 and 5500 kilometers (300 to 3,300 miles).

The 9K270 Iskander M is capable of flying at speeds up to Mach 7, and can deliver a 700-kilogram high-explosive warhead against targets as far away as 250 miles. The Iskander K reportedly has been tested at unidentified ranged that would violate the treaty. The RS-26 was reportedly tested with a single warhead at a range of 5,600 kilometers, but when additional warheads are added, the missile’s range decreases to those proscribed by the treaty.

http://www.sofmag.com/missile-threats-grow-and-grow

Member for

16 years 6 months

Posts: 1,348

Blackadam, I am puzzled by your posting, which seems to be predicting the likely outcome of various forms of ASM attack, but gives no indication of how these predictions were derived. I would doubt whether any reliable conclusions could be reached without the use of classified models of ASM engagements, and classified performance data on the hardware involved - including the relevant self-protection EW systems and decoys.

Can we really draw any general conclusions from the Hanit incident? Two nights ago I stumbled badly on the stairs to my bedroom, but that says nothing in general about my ability to tackle stairs. In both incidents, poor decision making under unusual conditions played its part in an unhappy result, so we should not read too much into either event.

Regarding the CG-62/BQM-74 accident, you seem to be overlooking that fact that this was a radar tracking trial. Shipboard SAM and other self-defence systems were probably not have been in a readied condition. In my experience, range rules are much stricter when live ordnance is involved, but more relaxed for tracking trials.

Member for

10 years 4 months

Posts: 2,014

Aegis systems: AN/SPS-49, AN/SPY-1/2/3, SM-2/6/3, ESSM, RAM, CIWS Phalanx vs Ashm (Anti-ship missile): Harpoon, Exocet, YJ-82/83/Noor, Kh-31/YJ-91, Moskit, Yakhont, Kh-22/Kh-SD, Brahmos I/II, LRASM, Granit, Bazalt, DF-21D....

The weakness of the SM-2, ESSM is dependent on the radar AN/SPY, they use SARH mode, so this is possible weaknesses when many ashm attacking at once
http://www.ausairpower.net/Analysis-Regional-ASCM.html

Another important thing, shipborne radar can be affected by the sea clutter. Although not to the degree of risk than airborne radar
http://books.google.com.vn/books?id=vAkFCnbHKw0C&pg=PA268&lpg=PA268&dq=radar+clutter+sea+look+down&source=bl&ots=UzOZ_7AR2r&sig=snshekPW6QP_jh8NfwQZCoAS8i0

Here we use only 1 ashm to attack DDG

Platform
DDG-51 Flight IIA (DDG-79) vs Type 45, Horizon, Type 052C/D, F-14A/F-4 (Iran), JH-7, Su-30, Sovremenny, Tu-22M3, Su-30MKI, DDG-51 flight III, Kirov, Slava, vehicle base....and a few submarine platform

For DDG-1000 no top radar / radar tower (AN/SPS-49) should be completely eliminated in this match

Results:

Aegis systems vs Harpoon: Aegis (very easy), because of Harpoon speed is slow, its lowest range is only 124km, SM-2/6 is easily shot down it (first stage)

Aegis systems vs Exocet: Aegis (aleatory), but with difficult routes and low altitude Exocet Block 3 (180km), aegis will need ESSM and CIWS to beat it (Last stage)

Aegis systems vs YJ-82 & variants: Aegis (risk), because the scope of Exocet clone has improved more than the French Exocet, YJ-82/83 is 120-220 (surface-launcher) /250km (air-launcher), low ceiling 5m, improved Speed (Mach 2 for YJ-83). Was beat the Phalanx system (using variations Hezbollah export C-802 assault ship INS Hanit in 2006).

Aegis systems vs Kh-31/YJ-91: Aegis (hard), because of the Kh-31 speeds up to Mach 3 range 70-250km, YJ-91 (50-120km) speed is Mach 4.5. U.S. Navy failed each test SM-2 interceptor version bought from Ukraine or Russia Kh-31/MA-31 ago. But ESSM, Phalanx can be a lucky shot with a Kh-31 or YJ-91 mean with Kh-31/YJ-91 attack alone

Aegis systems vs Moskit: Aegis (very hard), similar to the results of the Kh-31, but it will be difficult for ESSM, RAM, CIWS because P-270 has great maneuverability up to 10G and 7m in height for the last phase of the attack.

Aegis systems vs Yakhont: Aegis (difficult) or Yakhont , similar to the results of the P-270, 300km range, Mach 2-2.6, will also cause difficulties for ESSM, CIWS

Aegis systems vs Kh-22/SD: Aegis or Kh-22 similar to the results of the Yakhont

Aegis systems vs Brahmos I/II: Aegis (extremely difficult) or Brahmos I, Brahmos II certainly defeat aegis. Because BrahMos II (range 300km) reach Mach 7 speeds, radar AN / SPY can not continuous tracking targets such speeds, the ability to intercept SM-2/6, ESSM, RAM, CIWS absolutely zero, time to prepare to intercept it can not match the ESSM or SM-2ER mach 4 Blk 4 Mach 2.5-3.5. Ramjet engine maintains the speed of Mach 7 at any altitude and flight journey Brhamos I / II

Aegis systems vs LRASM: Aegis or LRASM. Supersonic speed, low RCS, guidance multi system and complex way, LRASM is the answer to BrahMos and is a threat to any ship, similar BrahMos

Aegis systems vs DF-21D (first ASBM): Multi guidance systems (Satellite, UAV, radar active of warhead, optical, INS) , multi-warhead, the warhead strength of 500kt, max speed mach 10-11 (terminal phase), 3000-5500km range. Aegis + DDG absolutely no chance of survival. SM-3 Block IA / IB / IIA / IIB is the only hope.

To against missile Ashm high speed, need to use the AEW / AWACS or top radar similar MR-331 Mineral (support OTH mode). And the defense system efficient operation together (radar AN/SPS + AN/SPY + SM-3/2/6 + ESSM + RAM + CIWS) . Some weapons platforms like Klub (3M54, 3M14) anti-ship missiles for submarine Kilo, torpedoes supersonic VA-111 (Aegis can not against torpedo, Cheonan is a prime example)

high speed doesn't always equal shorter reaction time adam
again SPY-1 radar height of about 17 meter above the sea
P-270 Moskit in sea skimming mode fly at 20 meter above the sea thus the radar horizon is 35 km , Moskit reaches Mach 3 at a high altitude and its maximum low-altitude speed is M2.2 , so in sea skimming mode it take 47 seconds from detection until missiles hit
http://fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/missile/row/moskit.htm

P-500 BAZALT in sea skimming mode fly at about > 10 meter above the sea thus the radar horizon is 30 km , P-500 reaches Mach 2 at high altitude , while low-altitude speed is Mach 1.5
so in sea skimming mode it take 59 seconds from detection until missiles hit
http://www.vectorsite.net/twcruz_7.html

P-700 GRANIT in sea skimming mode fly at about > 10 meter above the sea thus the radar horizon is 30 km , P-700 reaches Mach 2.5 at high altitude , while low-altitude speed is Mach 1.6
so in sea skimming mode it take 55 seconds from detection until missiles hit
http://www.vectorsite.net/twcruz_7.html

also BrahMos according to their officials website can reached mach 3 , however cruise altitude is 15 km ( only at terminal phased it reduced to 10 meter)
thus the radar horizon is 522 km so it take 513 seconds from detection until missiles hit
http://www.brahmos.com/content.php?id=10&sid=10

AS-16 Kickback climbs to an altitude of about 40,000 m (130,000 ft) and then dives in on the target, accelerating to a speed of about Mach 5 , thus the radar horizon is 841 km so it take 496 seconds from detection until missiles hit
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/russia/as-16.htm

Kh-22 In low-altitude mode, it climbs to 12,000 m (39,000 ft) and makes a shallow dive at about Mach 3.5, making the final approach at an altitude under 500 m (1,600 ft) thus the radar horizon is 468 km so it take 394 seconds from detection until missiles hit
http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/russia/bomber/as-4.htm

Kh-20 Flight ceiling 20 km thus the radar horizon is 600 km, it have Speed of Mach 2.0 so it take 885 seconds from detection until missiles hit
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kh-20
http://www.testpilot.ru/russia/mikoyan/kh/20/kh20_e.htm
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/russia/as-3.htm
DF-21 will give aegis like 30 minutes of warning because it a ballistics missiles

NSM ,JSM ,RBS-15 block III , EXCOCET block III , Harpoon in sea skimming mode fly only 1 meter above water thus the radar horizon is 21 km , with speed of mach 0.95 it take 65 seconds from detection until missiles hit , in reality the ship may not be able to detect the stealth missile by radar and have to wait until it come to visual horizon about 18 km aways thus they only have 55 seconds to react
http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=4S3h8j_NEmkC&pg=PA529&lpg=PA529&dq=mach+0.95+nsm&source=bl&ots=hJSsPU2Zd_&sig=7N5SfMaK-fmvAiIDXqzhQ4mtvUo&hl=en&sa=X&ei=XyY1VI_BLJPIggTypIDwBw&ved=0CCoQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=mach%200.95%20nsm&f=false
http://members.home.nl/7seas/radcalc.htm
http://forum.keypublishing.com/showthread.php?131952-Which-is-the-best-anti-ship-aircraft/page4&highlight=
many other point you missing such as BrahMos II not existed yet and ramjet doesnt mean you can fly mach 7 at any altitude ,Aegis is an anti ballistic missiles defense system , it was designed to deal with mach 15-20 ballistic missiles so mach 7 is really nothing significant
P-270 was never rated for 10 G , it would be miracle if it can do 4G
MR-331 Mineral is not a OTH radar, it can see over horizon when super refraction effect occurred due to special weather conditions ,but all radar can do that , that doesn't really gave them any advantages because super refraction is very very rare to happened and super refraction doesn't allow you to get fire solution so it can only served as early warning

Member for

16 years 6 months

Posts: 1,348

Wikipedia is not a reliable source, and some of those missile approach heights seem questionable. For example, Exocet flies at around 100m until it gets to within seeker range of the target. Once it has lock-on (perhaps around 15-10km from its victim), it descends to some 10-15m above sea level, and only gets down to lower heights in the final part of its run. That final approach can be anything from 8 - 2m, depending on sea state.

Member for

10 years 4 months

Posts: 2,014

Wikipedia is not a reliable source

ok fixed now , i was just being lazy
and some of those missile approach heights seem questionable. For example, Exocet flies at around 100m until it gets to within seeker range of the target. Once it has lock-on (perhaps around 15-10km from its victim), it descends to some 10-15m above sea level, and only gets down to lower heights in the final part of its run.
That final approach can be anything from 8 - 2m,

from what i understand earlier version of exocet (before block III ) used rocket engine so quite limited in range , it was also designed in the time that radar wasn't very good at detect , track missiles at long distance that why it could afford to cruise at relatively high altitude to saved fuel
modern subsonic missiles dont have that problems because they have quite long range (around 200-400 km )


depending on sea state.

totally agreed , if the sea is calm (sea state 1-3) then missiles can cruise lower , if there was alot of high waves (sea state 5 and higher)then they will have to go much higher for sure
even a relatively old missile like gabriel mk ii can fly at 1-3 meter depending on sea state
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=Y8kePYFK1L8C&pg=PA142&lpg=PA142&dq=gabriel+mk+ii&source=bl&ots=hOB7EHugwa&sig=OPGA1ENlz1h3AjJx4YlMzWktFdw&hl=en&sa=X&ei=jA2_VNLsMMPVaviQgIgC&ved=0CFwQ6AEwDA#v=onepage&q=gabriel%20mk%20ii&f=false
it kind of making me curious whether calm sea or high sea state is better for ASM , obviously low sea state equal low cruise altitude equal shorter radar horizon , on the other hand high sea state mean a lot high waves with significant radar return , thus can create strong clutter to mask the missiles

btw Kongsberg said unlike normal ASM their NSM ,JSM capable of wave adapt super sea skimming , does it really means anything special or just mean lower altitude ? ( i think their missiles by using IIR sensor along with radar altimeter can take advantages of high waves just like penetration bomber use mountain to mask themselves , but surely that is just speculation ) http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2014PSAR/albright.pdf

Member for

10 years 9 months

Posts: 194

Wikipedia is not a reliable source, and some of those missile approach heights seem questionable. For example, Exocet flies at around 100m until it gets to within seeker range of the target. Once it has lock-on (perhaps around 15-10km from its victim), it descends to some 10-15m above sea level, and only gets down to lower heights in the final part of its run. That final approach can be anything from 8 - 2m, depending on sea state.

Oh, my friends, do not feel troll (mig31bm)

I found that the ability Aegis combat system is easy to Torpedo or Ashm be launched from submarines (Klub-S, YJ-18, P-800) can through and beat down it, in addition to the weapons as Iskander-K, BM25 Musudan, DF-21D CJ-10 / YJ-100, P-800, BrahMos is completely impenetrable shield Aegis with their speed. Most of the radar warning, radar searching/scan, FCR is sufficient to detect and track them but only the reaction rate is a few seconds and distance detection is usually very close to the warship by sea-skimming capability of anti-ship missile. It is not enough to cause significant damage if the rocket attacks follow the majority

Aegis system is not completely integrated to ASW, Fleet carriers rely on ASW MH60 if located in areas that range P-3/8 can not be reached

ASW is another war, a very complex

French delete evidence US carrier was 'sunk' by sub in drill

http://rt.com/usa/238257-french-submarine-us-carrier/

Chinese Song-class sub surfaces near USS Kitty Hawk undetected

http://www.timawa.net/forum/index.php?topic=10032.5;wap2

Russian Submarine in Gulf of Mexico Raises Concerns

http://global.christianpost.com/news/russian-submarine-in-gulf-of-mexico-raises-concerns-80126/
http://www.naval-technology.com/news/newsrussian-nuclear-submarine-sails-in-gulf-of-mexico-undetected

The ASBM as: DF-21D, R-27K, BM25, Persian Gulf (likely ASBM) at a speed too fast (almost the speed of Mach 3-10) and top-attack, so the defensive measures electronic like ESM, ECM, chaff is completely useless , however Aegis system can detect by radar range, but only if they were really falling into the orbit of the earth as it is similar to supersonic speeds Ashm fired from submarines, speed and handling aegis of the reaction rate, the interception of SM2ER, SM3 block IIB will be factors in determining whether they are protected the CG-47 class, DDG-51 class or aircraft carrier

Member for

16 years 7 months

Posts: 3,765

Oh, my friends, do not feel troll (mig31bm)

I found that the ability Aegis combat system is easy to Torpedo or Ashm be launched from submarines (Klub-S, YJ-18, P-800) can through and beat down it, in addition to the weapons as Iskander-K, BM25 Musudan, DF-21D CJ-10 / YJ-100, P-800, BrahMos is completely impenetrable shield Aegis with their speed. Most of the radar warning, radar searching/scan, FCR is sufficient to detect and track them but only the reaction rate is a few seconds and distance detection is usually very close to the warship by sea-skimming capability of anti-ship missile. It is not enough to cause significant damage if the rocket attacks follow the majority

Aegis system is not completely integrated to ASW, Fleet carriers rely on ASW MH60 if located in areas that range P-3/8 can not be reached

ASW is another war, a very complex

French delete evidence US carrier was 'sunk' by sub in drill

http://rt.com/usa/238257-french-submarine-us-carrier/

Chinese Song-class sub surfaces near USS Kitty Hawk undetected

http://www.timawa.net/forum/index.php?topic=10032.5;wap2

Russian Submarine in Gulf of Mexico Raises Concerns

http://global.christianpost.com/news/russian-submarine-in-gulf-of-mexico-raises-concerns-80126/
http://www.naval-technology.com/news/newsrussian-nuclear-submarine-sails-in-gulf-of-mexico-undetected

The ASBM as: DF-21D, R-27K, BM25, Persian Gulf (likely ASBM) at a speed too fast (almost the speed of Mach 3-10) and top-attack, so the defensive measures electronic like ESM, ECM, chaff is completely useless , however Aegis system can detect by radar range, but only if they were really falling into the orbit of the earth as it is similar to supersonic speeds Ashm fired from submarines, speed and handling aegis of the reaction rate, the interception of SM2ER, SM3 block IIB will be factors in determining whether they are protected the CG-47 class, DDG-51 class or aircraft carrier

a) Your english is even worse than mine, its almost impossible to understand your texts.

b) I doubt that Mercurius wants to "feel" a Troll, nevermind feeding one and neither Mig31 or Mercurius are Troll´s

c) Wikipedia, rt.com, Christianpost, etc, are not considered particulary good sources around here

D) I am entirely puzzled by your posts, you are predicting the likely outcome of engagements between an huge number of diferent types of weapons and an AEGIS equiped ship based on what? "Eyemeter"?

Member for

10 years 9 months

Posts: 194

NATO ashm almost impossible to cause damage to the system Aegis and the DDG-51 Flight IIA class, by their warheads very small majority eg: NSM (warhead NSM 125kg vs warhead 320kg P-270), Harpoon, Exocet. They subsonic speeds, the only advantage is the ability to stealth, but that is not enough, most of the fields surrounded RCS will increase many times over (eg: the Exocet, Harpoon are conventional missile with a cylindrical body, pointed nose and cruciform wings in the middle and at the rear). Radar small capacity of CIWS can detect them from afar. NSM also use wing fins, similar canard of aircraft Rafale, Typhoon or Su-30MKI, it is increase RCS up multiple times

http://www.navy.gov.au/sites/default/files/news/20120606ran8504474_007.jpg
http://fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/missile/row/AM-39missle.jpg
http://media.defenceindustrydaily.com/images/ORD_NSM_Kongsberg_Test_Launch_Coastal_lg.jpg

Member for

10 years 9 months

Posts: 194

U.S. Navy destroyer nears islands built by China in South China Sea

http://news.yahoo.com/u-navy-send-destroyer-within-12-miles-chinese-175837956.html

China expresses anger at US warship entering South China Sea, sends own destroyers in response

http://www.news.com.au/technology/innovation/china-expresses-anger-at-us-warship-entering-south-china-sea-sends-own-destroyers-in-response/story-fnpjxnlk-1227584826436

What if: DDG-82 (Lassen) against both of warship Type 052C (Lanzhou) & Sovremenny (Taizhou) ?

DDG-82 strength

VLS mk41: 96 x SM-2ER missile
SPY- 1 D( V) radar: SPY-1D(V), the Littoral Warfare Radar, was an upgrade introduced in 1998 with new track initiation processor for high clutter near-coast operations, where the earlier "blue water" systems were especially weak. The wave form is coded and signal processing is improved (but just useful in Aegis system for Carrier battle group)
Speed: exceeds 30 knots (56 km/h; 35 mph)

DDG-82 weakness:

No add anti-ship missile: Harpoon, NSM, LRASM....
High radar reflectivity, similar Sovremenny class
No add ESSM, Sea RAM

The strength of the Type 052C mixture (Lanzhou) & Sovremenny (Taizhou):

Radar's Sovremenny farther than range radar AN / SPY-1, however it is not a 3D radar, Type 052C is equipped with AESA radar. However, with a shorter range than the AN / SPY-1D (V)
Anti-ship missile: P-270 and YJ-62, both of missiles a range of over 200 km, Mach 0.8 (YJ-62) and Mach 3 (P-270)

Member for

16 years 7 months

Posts: 3,765

I would be astounded to discover that either, or both, the PLAN or the US Navy would choose to engage an adversary surface combatant with another surface combatant when both field extensive undersea and air power.

Member for

10 years 9 months

Posts: 194

Many parts that supersonic missiles are vulnerable to detection by infrared signature. I suppose this is true but major shortcomings

- It's easy to be detected, but at close range (10km<), the electronic-optical system of the CIWS can detect large IR signature, if the target speed as the YJ-18, PJ-10 reached Mach 2 or more.

+ However in scope 10km <, it is difficult to intercept the target Mach 3

+ Large infrared signatures only used to detect ICBM, does not apply to supersonic sea-skimming anti-ship missiles

Member for

11 years 4 months

Posts: 137

Problem is reaction time. There are a few seconds to react. And if one does not destroy the warhead of the missile, it has enough kinetic energy to reach the ship and impact, despite wrecked missile.

Member for

8 years 3 months

Posts: 1,081

SPY- 1 D( V) radar: SPY-1D(V), the Littoral Warfare Radar, was an upgrade introduced in 1998 with new track initiation processor for high clutter near-coast operations, where the earlier "blue water" systems were especially weak. The wave form is coded and signal processing is improved (but just useful in Aegis system for Carrier battle group)

what make you think it only useful for carrier group ?
DDG-82 weakness:

No add anti-ship missile: Harpoon, NSM, LRASM....
High radar reflectivity, similar Sovremenny class
No add ESSM, Sea RAM


US navy use SM-2 along with Harpoon for anti ship role

NATO ashm almost impossible to cause damage to the system Aegis and the DDG-51 Flight IIA class, by their warheads very small majority eg: NSM (warhead NSM 125kg vs warhead 320kg P-270), Harpoon, Exocet. They subsonic speeds, the only advantage is the ability to stealth, but that is not enough, most of the fields surrounded RCS will increase many times over (eg: the Exocet, Harpoon are conventional missile with a cylindrical body, pointed nose and cruciform wings in the middle and at the rear). Radar small capacity of CIWS can detect them from afar. NSM also use wing fins, similar canard of aircraft Rafale, Typhoon or Su-30MKI, it is increase RCS up multiple times

Do you have any figure to support that statement ? i have to say i share same opinion with Sintra , seem like you just making random things up as you post
as far as i know NSM and similar missiles use composite fin which is practically transparent to radio wave
Problem is reaction time. There are a few seconds to react.

in term of reaction time supersonic missiles often have to fly at higher altitude so they are often detected by radar from much longger distance than their subsonic cousin thus offset their velocity advantage
anyways regardless of the missiles you use , few seconds reaction times is simply wishful thinking , almost a child dream , however far from reality

And if one does not destroy the warhead of the missile, it has enough kinetic energy to reach the ship and impact, despite wrecked missile.

IMHO that not physically possible , the drag at sea level is simply too high
Drag force (Newtons) = 0.5 x P x V^2 x Cd x A
P = Density of Air (kg/m^3) ; ~1.29 kg/m^3 @ sea level
V = Velocity (m/s) ; Mach 1 = 340 m/s @ sea level
Cd = Co-efficient of Drag
A = Sectional Area (m^2)

even an small air to air missiles with sectional area (m^2) ~ 0.025 m^2 , Cd of 0.7 , the drag force at mach 2 , sea level is easily over 5,219 Newtons Newtons
the fragment from an anti ship missiles will have much bigger sectional area and Cd so the chance that they can still fly far enough to damage the ship after break apart is practically zero , unless the distance is really close like 200-300 meters

Member for

10 years 4 months

Posts: 2,014

b) I doubt that Mercurius wants to "feel" a Troll, nevermind feeding one and neither Mig31 or Mercurius are Troll´s


dont bother with OP ,he a real troll , just looks through his post here and you will see :D literally a copy of JSR lol

Member for

10 years 9 months

Posts: 194

SM-6 vs DF-21D

I've heard of SM6, capable of defeating DF21D (according to the US Navy ad)

However SM6 has some drawbacks:

Depend on AWACS to increase range (>400km with E2D)

http://img.bemil.chosun.com/nbrd/data/10044/upfile/201103/20110322083219.jpg

E-2D is a big target (RCS) easily downed by AWACS Killer missile, like K-100, PL-15, R-33/37/37M

Member for

8 years 2 months

Posts: 50

Advertisers think you're stupid. :applause:

Member for

8 years 3 months

Posts: 1,081

However SM6 has some drawbacks:

Depend on AWACS to increase range (>400km with E2D)

http://img.bemil.chosun.com/nbrd/data/10044/upfile/201103/20110322083219.jpg


. The purpose of AWACS or 3 party guide is to extend radar horizon again low altitude targets ( this is the same case for all kind of surface launched missiles not just SM-6). In case of DF-21, it is a ballistic missiles, ballistic missiles do not, in any situation, cruising at low altitude, so third party guide for SM-6 isnot necessary ( at the altitude that DF-21 flying, radar horizon will be in order of thounsands km) .
p/s : OP, no offense but i think your understandingof basic physics is very shallow so you really should improve it first , otherwise everyone here will just keep making fun of you, which personally i find it not very nice.

Member for

20 years 4 months

Posts: 4,674

SM-6 (same goes for ESSM Blk2) is quite limited as interceptor against ballistic missiles. The AMRAAM seeker is severely range limited, which means in a head-on scenario the closing rate of ballistic missile and SM-6 ia high and there is *very* little time to acquire the target and correct the flight path for an intercept. And since the SM-6 does not have lateral piff-paff thrusters flight path corrections are purely aerodynamic, meaning sluggish reaction in the upper atmosphere. And then the warhead is blast-frag which is an issue against high rate of closure ballistic warheads.

Edit: The answer to non-nuclear ABM defence (and saturation attack defence) is probably short(ish) range missile salvos with rapid-acceleration command guided hitiles; or: good old massed AAA of no less than 57mm, rapid fire - the shotgun approach. But the kill zone has to be so far away from the ship that there are no kinetic leakers.