It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

is the US navy unbeatable???

page: 8
0
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 1 2006 @ 01:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by chinawhite
The mis-conception here is the missiles that were developed were not developed faster and faster they were developed to be more sopishticated.

The AEGIS was designed to defeat a saturated attack from mach 3, 500km missiles like the AS-6, AS-4 while the moskit has been designed to beat the AEGIS system by out manuvering the countering missiles.

The "Kitchen" was programed to be fired in volleys and the first missile guided the rest, when the leading missile got destroyed the second in line was then the leader until it destroyed its target or got destroyed themselves.

While the Moskit is a fast sea skimmer that manuvers to the target. I think the approch was high-low or low-low. eg it tries to null out the CWIS which is now being replaced by the RAM system or the evolved sea sparrow.


But all this is based on the moskit not being detected


Which is why the Navy has been improving the SM-2, and is developing the SM-6. It's a constant game of move and countermove.



The Block II version of SM-2 includes a signal processor to provide less vulnerability to ECM, an improved fuze and focused-blast fragment warhead to provide better kill probability against smaller, harder targets, and new propulsion for higher velocities and maneuverability.

A Block III version of SM-2 provides improved capability against low altitude targets.

Block IIIA, a modification to this version, extends capability to even lower altitudes. RIM-66C Block IIIA includes a new warhead that imparts greater velocity to warhead fragments in the direction of the target.

Block IIIB is the next step in the continuing evolution of the Standard Missile family, incorporating an infrared (IR) guidance mode capability developed in Missile Homing Improvement Program (MHIP) with the radio frequency (RF) semi-active guidance system of the proven SM-2 Block IIIA. The MHIP dual-mode RF/IR guidance capability is being incorporated to counter a specific fielded and proliferating electronic warfare systems in existing aircraft and ASCM threats. OPEVAL of SM-2 Block IIIB was conducted during April 1996, with missile firings by an Aegis cruiser that was completing workup training for deployment. Based on OPEVAL results, SM-2 Block IIIB is operationally effective and suitable.

These SM-2 versions are provided as medium range (MR) rounds that can be fired from Aegis rail launchers, Aegis vertical launch systems (VLS), and Tartar rail launchers.

The Block IV version was developed to provide extended range [ER], improved cross-range and higher altitude capability for Aegis VLS ships, as well as improved performance against low RCS targets and against complex ECM. The SM-2 Block IV is a kinematic improvement beyond the SM-2 Block III, incorporating a thrust-vector controlled booster, a more robust airframe, and guidance and control modifications for improved altitude/range/cross-range coverage against high-performance, low radar cross-section threats in a stressing electronic countermeasures (ECM) environment. Standard-2 ER incorporates the same midcourse guidance as the MR version.

www.globalsecurity.org...


In response to the evolving threat and an expanding mission, Raytheon and the U.S. Navy are developing the next generation of Extended Range Anti-air Warfare Missile (ERAM). This weapon will take advantage of the proven capabilities of the Standard Missile airframe and semi-active guidance technology, merged with the advanced seeker technology of Raytheon’s AMRAAM Air-to-Air missile. The combination of these two technologies will provide the Navy with the ability to engage challenging targets, at extended ranges, well into the future.

The Extended Range Active Missile (ERAM), tentatively designated SM-6, will add an extended range, overland cruise missile defense capability. The Navy's recommended strategy, based on a market analysis, is to pursue a sole-source acquisition through Raytheon Missile Systems. This low-risk approach relying on Non-Developmental Items will support an FY 2010 IOC. This approach will utilize the existing production active seeker from AMRAAM Phase III, utilize the existing production airframe from the Standard Missile-2 Block IV, leverage multi-service investments in future technology growth path, and leverage existing production infrastructures and workforces.

A robust extended range (ER) anti-air missile with engage-on-remote capability is key to providing flexible firepower throughout the battle space using a variety of targeting platforms. To that end, we are developing the Extended Range Active Missile (ERAM), which uses an SM-2 Block IV propulsion stack with an active Advanced Medium Range Air-to-Air Missile (AMRAAM) seeker to provide enhanced capabilities. ERAM is an active missile that can use the full kinematic capability of the missile to greatly expand the battlespace. ERAM will leverage the significant investment made by the Defense Department in the AMRAAM seeker.

www.globalsecurity.org...




posted on Apr, 1 2006 @ 03:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by chinawhite
The mis-conception here is the missiles that were developed were not developed faster and faster they were developed to be more sopishticated.

The AEGIS was designed to defeat a saturated attack from mach 3, 500km missiles like the AS-6, AS-4 while the moskit has been designed to beat the AEGIS system by out manuvering the countering missiles.

The "Kitchen" was programed to be fired in volleys and the first missile guided the rest, when the leading missile got destroyed the second in line was then the leader until it destroyed its target or got destroyed themselves.

While the Moskit is a fast sea skimmer that manuvers to the target. I think the approch was high-low or low-low. eg it tries to null out the CWIS which is now being replaced by the RAM system or the evolved sea sparrow.


But all this is based on the moskit not being detected


It isn't the AS-4 which is guided like that, it's the P-700 Granit or AS-19 Shipwreck ASM.

www.vectorsite.net...

Oh yeah Iskander, I know you've chosen to ignore me, obviously for proving many of your statements wrong, however for the benefit of other people. You said that chinawhite is absolutely correct with the above statement. So where does all this BS you keep on going on about Mach 7 cruise missiles and how according to you they are just about to come into service
I've seen people contradict themselves, but you really take the cake

[edit on 1-4-2006 by rogue1]



posted on Apr, 1 2006 @ 10:55 AM
link   


Which is why the Navy has been improving the SM-2, and is developing the SM-6. It's a constant game of move and countermove.


Precisely.

And yes, Chinawhite is correct, the later supersonic ASChCM's have been designed for lower altitude flight profiles, better terminal maneuvering, better ECM, all to reduce their chances of being intercepted. None of which makes them invulnerable to interception, all of which make them more difficult to intercept. See the difference?

And yes, the SM-2 is capable of intercepting supersonic sea-skimmers, it's been modified several times to increase it's performace against these threats. And the Navy is continuing to develop it's capabilities against them, including purchasing KH-31's direct from Russia and using them as test articles (as MA-31) and now producing the GQM-163A "Coyote" supersonic sea-skimming target missile.

As for my "conduct", all I've done is react to a unjustifiably condescending attitude with hostility, as might be expected. I don't know why these military fora tend to attract emotionally stunted monomaniacs who react to any disagreement as a direct attack on their virility, but it seems to be a pattern.

I've had almost the exact same arguments with people who say the F-22 is unbeatable by SAM's and totally undetectable by radar, almost as if it were an article of religious faith. The truth is these things are matters of degree: the F-22 is harder to detect with radar, not impossible. The Moskit is harder to intercept, not impossible to intercept.

Now if you can produce any useful data, I might be inclined to listen, however all you've done is produce emotion driven personal attacks that have no bearing on the issues at hand.

[edit on 4/1/06 by xmotex]



posted on Apr, 1 2006 @ 09:42 PM
link   
The US Navy is not invincible. But it is certainly the strongest by a factor of 10. There really is no navy in the world that can match the US Navy with the technological quality and quantity needed to defeat it. Plus US Navy service members typically spend more time at sea getting experience than any other service.

Realistically, we can discount the European navies simply because they are allied nations. But if they were enemies, they would come the closest. Thank the lord we are on the same team. The USN and European naval forces are likely to fight alongside eachother as allies in any potential global warfare. I'm sorry, but I won't speculate USA vs. European because we aren't enemies. For you US guys::: Eurofighter, Type 45 DDG, Trafalgar SSN, Horizon FFG, etc is your friend. For you Europeans::::Arleigh Burke, F-22, B-2, Ticonderoga, Seawolf SSN etc are your friends.

Right now Russia has no ability to put adequate surface or sub-surface forces in place to be able to compete globally for sea supremacy. I think they're running 2 active Slava's, 1 active Kirov, 4-5 Udaloys, 7 or so Sovremenny, a couple active Oscars, and a few (10?) Akula's. 1 aircraft carrier. And most of this hardware spends over 250 days in port with crews receiving little to no adequate training. Plus the quality of maintenance on this hardware is questionable. The US Navy pretty much has a checkmate on Russia's Navy.

China's Navy is growing, but still pretty weak. They're heavily dependant on older ship concepts (examples: Luhu, Luda, Luhai) as the bulk of it's naval forces. China is also reliant on Rusia for know-how. China's technological base is built on copying and reverse-engineering. The newer type 051C's and Type 054 frigates aren't in operational service and I question their quality. China also lacks any ability to use their subs in open ocean conflict because most of their subs are diesel-electrics which are largely suited to slow-speed littoral operations. Their Han SSN is a total failure. Noisy and unreliable. Much more vulnerable and of limited utility in blue-water ocean areas. China's navy wouldn't even last a week if the US Navy conducted warfare operations against it.

Right now, nobody is in any kind of position to challenge US Navy sea supremacy.



posted on Apr, 1 2006 @ 10:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by xmotexNone of which makes them invulnerable to interception, all of which make them more difficult to intercept. See the difference?


Its all about the reaction times. the soviets figured by the time the western radar figured where the moskit was (30-40km) the moskit would be close enough to the target where the CWIS would be effective hence the manuvers at the end to throw them off.

The other missiles could reach 3.5 at altitude but the speed would decrease as they went lower. I think the moskit is as fast as they are at high altitude, having a speed of 2.5 at low level


When slower missiles, like the French Exocet are used, the maximum theoretical response time for the defending ship is 150-120 seconds. This provides time to launch countermeasures and employ jamming before deploying "hard" defense tactics such as launching missiles and using quick-firing artillery. But the 3M82 "Mosquito" missiles are extremely fast and give the defending side a maximum theoretical response time of merely 25-30 seconds, rendering it extremely difficult employ jamming and countermeasures, let alone fire missiles and quick-firing artillery.

Global Security



Originally posted by rogue1
It isn't the AS-4 which is guided like that, it's the P-700 Granit or AS-19 Shipwreck ASM.


. My mistake, i was refering to the wrong missile. But in short it was designed to defeat no missile in particular but very fast long range anti ship missile/s


Originally posted by Zaphod58
Which is why the Navy has been improving the SM-2, and is developing the SM-6. It's a constant game of move and countermove.


One other reason is to kill the missile before it reaches the ship.

The phalanx engages at 5km and should have finished it at 1km. If the missile is killed it still leaves sharpnel flying at mach 3 at you.



posted on Apr, 2 2006 @ 12:23 AM
link   
The idea that speed is a critical element in anti-ship missiles is a myth created by amatures without much Naval experience. Speed is nice, but with speed you sacrfice many things, from stealth to counter measures to targetting. Many countries are trying to overcome the limitations of speed on anti-ship missiles, but you don't see the results. India and Russia are probably the closest, although there are several projects.

An example of how speed isn't the most important issue can be found by comparing an Exocet and a Sunburn.

Exocet has anti-jamming, target correction, and is difficult to detect as both a radar signiture and heat source. If a target deploys chaff or some other counter-measure, if the Exocet is able to burn through the chaff or countermeasure, it can reaquire original target. The slow speed matters in that case, because that process can take between 3-8 seconds. A faster missile could not adjust.

Sunburn has virtually no jamming, has a large radar cross section, and has an enormous heat signiture. As a fast moving missile, if it is distracted by chaff of other counter measures, it is moving too fast to reaquire a real target once deflected to a decoy, particularly since it is limited by a radar terminal guidence system. The terminal guidence is not impressive on the Sunburn, or most fast anti-ship missiles for that matter, largely due to the missiles speed, it has a hard time adjusting coarse in flight.

If you ever look at pictures of the Chinese Sunburns and compare them to the Russian versions, you'll notice the Chinese remove the jamming module on the warhead, and reinforce the warhead with titanium. The reason is simple, to reduce the effect of flak and improve lethality upon impact. Since the hit rate is lower, the Chinese intend to insure every hit counts.

The only fast missile ever built that the USN should be worried about is the shipwrecks that were updated in the mid 80s. The Shipwreck is a large missile, so easier to shoot down, but it has much better guidence and counter-measures than any other supersonic Russian missile, and the warhead would do massive damage. It is actually older than the sunburn, but the updates to the missile in the 80s improved the terminal system. While it is fast missile, it slows down upon terminal guidence, which makes it effective against countermeasures and decoys deployed from ships and allows the missile to adjust coarse easier. Additionally, the Shipwreck uses a combination of IR and radar in terminal guidence, where the Sunburn only uses radar in terminal guidence. In the end, the USN would have to shoot down the shipwreck, luckily for the US it is a large missile, so should be easier to shoot down than against a missile like the Kh-55 Granat, which is perhaps the best Russian made anti-ship missile.

The Kh-55 Granat is a slower missile, much like the much exported French Exocet, US Harpoon, and Russian Switchblade systems with the lower radar cross section and heat signiture, not to mention good jamming and terminal guidence, just like its exported sub sonic counterparts. THe US Navy proposed Harpoon block III, which may or may not happen, does not increase the speed of the missile, but would make it one of the most lethal in the world due to accuracy, guidence, and countermeasures. The US knows, like the rest of the worlds Navies, that speed is not the most important design feature, not even close in fact. In the end, only amatures will tell you otherwise, but they will lack any evidence to prove it, since the world has continues to buy subsonic.



posted on Apr, 2 2006 @ 01:48 AM
link   
darksided,

You have a picture of chinese moskits?. Please share



posted on Apr, 2 2006 @ 03:07 AM
link   

The Chinese navy, however, has responded to American moves to defend against the C-801 and C-802 by acquiring the most lethal anti-ship missile in the world. The Chinese navy recently purchased the supersonic 3M82 Moskit cruise missile, NATO codenamed Sunburn from Russia.

WorldNetDaily first broke the Chinese Moskit missile story last year in an exclusive interview with William Triplett, author of "Red Dragon Rising." Triplett asserted that the new Chinese missiles were armed with nuclear warheads.

Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, R-Calif., has submitted a bill designed to halt the Russian missile sales to China, called the "Russian Anti-Ship Missile Nonproliferation Act." The bill notes that the Chinese Moskit missile could be armed with a "200-kiloton" Russian-made nuclear warhead.

In July 1999, defense analyst Richard Fisher wrote an evaluation of the Russian-built 3M82 Moskit missile sold to China. Fisher says the U.S. Navy cannot stop the Moskit.

"The Raduga Moskit (Sunburn) anti-ship missile is perhaps the most lethal anti-ship missile in the world," wrote Fisher in a review of the Chinese navy.

ads.wnd.com...




posted on Apr, 2 2006 @ 03:32 AM
link   
That picture is not a chinese moskit. I am pretty sure no picture has been taken of it with a good view of its goodies



posted on Apr, 2 2006 @ 05:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by chinawhite
darksided,

You have a picture of chinese moskits?. Please share


Ine Chinese Sunburn missile.




posted on Apr, 2 2006 @ 06:20 AM
link   
chinawhite - you are SERIOUSLY mistaken about the engagement range of ANY ciws:


HMS Ark Royal is armed with three Mark 15 Phalanx close-in weapon systems (CIWS) from Raytheon and General Dynamics. Each Phalanx CIWS has one 20mm M61A1 Vulcan Gatling-principle gun which fires 3,000 rounds/min at a range of 1.5km.



HMS Invincible and Illustrious each have three Thales Nederland (formerly Signaal) Goalkeeper CIWS. Goalkeeper's Gatling principle 30mm gun provides a maximum firing rate of 4,200 rounds/min with a range of 1,500m.


www.naval-technology.com...

maximum range of 1.5km`s - usually the first rounds arrive at under 1km to target , and if its not a kill with the first five to 10 rounds then even hitting the incoming is still classed as a hit.

globalsecurity are wrong about the phalanx as it was NOT used by the brits in the falklands.

[edit on 2/4/06 by Harlequin]



posted on Apr, 2 2006 @ 07:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by devilwasp

Originally posted by iskander
"No it doesnt you specifically said it would beat any "english" ship , that is strictly not true and has never happened."

devilwasp, you're ether dyslexic, which I'll understand given your effort to deal with it, or you're not processing data very well. Read the post again, repeat as needed.

Thats pretty damm offensive I'd say, please take that "dyslexic" part back. Some of my best friends are, it makes no bearing on thier reasoning or thier mental ability. Now I understood your point you said an english ship had been beaten with phalanx or had generalised both british and american ships as being unable to defend themselves from missile attack with CIWS, which is untrue since no RN ship has been lost to anti ship missile attack when fitted with CIWS.


devilwasp, here is where the buck stops, literally. Since you are so found of this "absolutely revolutionery" 21ct century concept of sequential muzzule loading, would you care to invest in Metal Storm Limited stock?

Your bringing in "economics" into this I dont care for them, I care for the practical capabilities of this weapon system.



The contract is GONE, and any sensible adult with the basic understanding of finance clearly sees that the whole "Metal Storm" concept is nothing more then the another scheme to separate taxpayers from their defense dollars, and make a play or two on the stock under the umbrella of bribe based contracts engineered for the sole purpose of stock manipulation.

This the sensible basic understanding of finace that bought the F-22 and the JSF?



That happens when a fleecing plan has runs its curse, and the last drops are squeezed out as golden parachutes.

Economics my friend, don't lie, people do.

Economics can be spun, twisted, changed and mended to suit what ever situation, agenda or task that is needed of it same with people.
I am more interested in WHAT this weapon can and WILL be able to do, not how much money I will make out of it.





devilwasp, I'm familiar with this cycle all to well. Lets count them off;

You dispute with out grounds, assume, conjure and "opinions", you do not accept or acknowledge answers provided, think that if someone disagrees with your views they must have something to prove, all while expecting everything to be given to you on a silver platter.

Is that your best physcological opinion, well thank you for it but well I'm sorry if you think I expect everything on a "silver" platter yet want proof of something that I am told is true.
But hey, your an adult right....that means you know better and you are wiser, sorry but I dont buy that one bit.




To your baseless questions and uninformed assumptions, take the time and look up hypersonic missiles for your self.

With respect I have along with the laser weaponry, I would like to see what shielding that a hypersonic weapon has, no doubt something that can withstand 5600 F, mind you ballistic missiles come in at over 2,000 °C and the ballistic missile defence laser is supposed to be able to abilterate that.
Is it so hard to think that they could not managed another 1000 odd degrees off a nuclear generator or something smaller? Mabye even multiple lasers.


[edit on 26/02/2005 by devilwasp]


5600 F

Here is the link to a high temperature ceramic lens which >focuses< a 1mw beam, reaching temperatures of 55000°F.

Follow me on this one >reverse the cone



posted on Apr, 2 2006 @ 08:13 AM
link   
Here is the source for the possible coating of the "laser hardened" munition.

www.tms.org...

www.grc.nasa.gov...

Turbine blades have been coated this this stuff for some time now.

That's just the coating.

Electron-beam welding, controlled detonation welding of dissimilar metals, ion-beam coating, height density ceramics (7.85 gm/c - greater then steel), metal matrix composites, nanomolecular composites, etc.

Given manufacturing technologies available today, modern missile are by default "laser hardened", simply because considering the speeds at which they travel require exotic materials which are able to withstand enormous stress and heat.

Burning up a Kathusha and setting off a fuse on a artillery shell (all unguided) is far from burning up a high speed, highly maneuverable missile designed to withstand incredible stresses.



posted on Apr, 2 2006 @ 08:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by chinawhite
darksided,

You have a picture of chinese moskits?. Please share


Used to be on the China-Defense forum, but since their 'issue' I can't find the pics. There are dozens of pics on kanwa, but you have to have ID to get on there. I haven't checked Janes, but I bet they have info on it too, since the titanium tip thing was discussed in detail in 2004.

Not sure when the China-Defense forum will have the pics restored, but it is a safe bet they will restore eventually, since they run so many dedicated pic threads.



posted on Apr, 2 2006 @ 09:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by iskander
Here is the source for the possible coating of the "laser hardened" munition.

www.tms.org...

www.grc.nasa.gov...

Turbine blades have been coated this this stuff for some time now.

That's just the coating.

Electron-beam welding, controlled detonation welding of dissimilar metals, ion-beam coating, height density ceramics (7.85 gm/c - greater then steel), metal matrix composites, nanomolecular composites, etc.


Seems you have completely misread the articles, they mention nothing of the materials being bale to withstand high energy lasers
They use a YAG laser to deposit the coating, for items such as golf clubs etc LOL

I suggest in future you read the articles until you understand exactly what they are saying.
Having a coating which can withstand temperatures of 800C hardly makes it hardened to lasers


I've got no idea what welding techniques have in relation to laser hardened coatings, either



Given manufacturing technologies available today, modern missile are by default "laser hardened", simply because considering the speeds at which they travel require exotic materials which are able to withstand enormous stress and heat.


Not really at all, a missile by definition is a fragile object. Artillery shells are far tougher than any missile and are designed to withstand thousands of g's, not only that their casings are an order of magnitude tougher than any missile



Burning up a Kathusha and setting off a fuse on a artillery shell (all unguided) is far from burning up a high speed, highly maneuverable missile designed to withstand incredible stresses.


LOL, the laser does not set off the fuse in the artillery shell, you think they can precisely focus the beam on something a cm or 2 across
In actual fact the laser burns through the shell casing, even though the shell is spinning at thousands of revolutions a minute. Missiles such as ASCM's DO NOT spin and present the same side to the laser, making a kill that much quicker.

Do a little more research next time



[edit on 2-4-2006 by rogue1]



posted on Apr, 2 2006 @ 09:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by iskander
Here is the source for the possible coating of the "laser hardened" munition.

www.tms.org...

www.grc.nasa.gov...

Turbine blades have been coated this this stuff for some time now.

That's just the coating.

Electron-beam welding, controlled detonation welding of dissimilar metals, ion-beam coating, height density ceramics (7.85 gm/c - greater then steel), metal matrix composites, nanomolecular composites, etc.

Given manufacturing technologies available today, modern missile are by default "laser hardened", simply because considering the speeds at which they travel require exotic materials which are able to withstand enormous stress and heat.

Burning up a Kathusha and setting off a fuse on a artillery shell (all unguided) is far from burning up a high speed, highly maneuverable missile designed to withstand incredible stresses.



MTHEL. Do a search and look at the videos from the testing. It's a US/Israeli laser system that has been shooting down everything from mortar shells to missiles for several years. It was cancelled in 2004 by the US, because it failed to meet the "Mobile" portion of the system. The laser portion of it works great though.

[edit on 4/2/2006 by Zaphod58]



posted on Apr, 2 2006 @ 11:54 AM
link   


t's a US/Israeli laser system that has been shooting down everything from mortar shells to missiles for several years. It was cancelled in 2004 by the US, because it failed to meet the "Mobile" portion of the system. The laser portion of it works great though



Proving what? That by projecting a focused beam of light one can set things on fire? Archimedes had a pretty good idea how that "might" work, and?

That the "mobile portion" is the enormous power requirement of high powered lasers, something that has been known for as long lasers existed?

I'm not following you here.

Edit: quote brackets

[edit on 2-4-2006 by iskander]



posted on Apr, 2 2006 @ 12:17 PM
link   
Rogue1 I agree with you statements in regards to the information iskander posted. He hasn't proven anything and I question the relevance of his links. Anyways, I hope to see some more of your excellent posts. Cheers.


Iskander, do you have any actual real evidence to back up your assertions ? You seem to be using more fantasy than fact or so it seems



posted on Apr, 2 2006 @ 12:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by mad scientist

Iskander, do you have any actual real evidence to back up your assertions ? You seem to be using more fantasy than fact or so it seems


What exactly interest you? I'm not following, please clarify.



posted on Apr, 2 2006 @ 01:48 PM
link   
^^^ Maybe fantasy was the wrong word. I was just agreeing to Rogue1's respnse to your post about hardening missiles against lasers. Rogue makes a good argument that artillery shells are far tougher to damage than missiles, as well as a few other points that's all.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join