Well, I didn't say 76mm SR gun is NOT for AA purpose either, on the contrary, I think the gun is more for AA, but a AA gun just cannot act as a CIWS role by default and close examination shows it doesn't fit the shoe well. if you think about the topic, it is wether theFormidable class need a CIWS or not, my view is definitely a YES, no more no less,
Originally posted by 16/f/lonely:
...But it is wrong to say that the 76mm has no eye and poor brain. It is also wrong to say that the 76mm is simply incapable of doing its primary AA role. And where the 76mm lacks in rpm, it more than makes up in the type of munition used. And for a gun that trains at 60 degree per second, why can't it engage more than 1 missile at any one time?
....
Look carefully, I said the munition of 76mm gun doesn't have brain & eyes, not the system as a whole, this is the fundamentally difference in playing the CIWS role between such no brain/eyes munition and the AA missiles with on board CPU & seeker
Originally posted by 38�Ž:Look carefully, I said the munition of 76mm gun doesn't have brain & eyes, not the system as a whole, this is the fundamentally difference in playing the CIWS role between such no brain/eyes munition and the AA missiles with on board CPU & seeker
The 76mm munition have fuses which explode when it comes close to the missile. And do share with me why it does not fit the shoes well. From what I know, it is rather handy against missiles.
As for my stand on the topic, I would say no, we do not need a CIWS, but having it would be a boon.
Originally posted by 16/f/lonely:
The 76mm munition have fuses which explode when it comes close to the missile. And do share with me why it does not fit the shoes well. From what I know, it is rather handy against missiles.As for my stand on the topic, I would say no, we do not need a CIWS, but having it would be a boon.
Well, Proximity Fuse only activates at a farely close range, u seems still don't get what I mean, how your munition can auto close in a AshCM performing a 15G manuver at terminal stage, by Inertia flight? the SEA-RAM can close in because it has the IR/UV seeker and its onboard cpu can resolve the incoming AshCm's trajectory and autopilot the missile close into the intecepting target by the missile's aerodynamic design( Rotating). What's your munition's eyes and brain in play except the proximity fuse?
Originally posted by 38�Ž:
Well, Proximity Fuse only activates at a farely close range, u seems still don't get what I mean, how your munition can auto close in a AshCM performing a 15G manuver at terminal stage, by Inertia flight? the SEA-RAM can close in because it has the IR/UV seeker and its onboard cpu can resolve the incoming AshCm's trajectory and autopilot the missile close into the intecepting target by the missile's aerodynamic design( Rotating). What's your munition's eyes and brain in play except the proximity fuse?
You don't fire 1 bullet for 1 missile.
That's the theory behind all guns.
Originally posted by 38�Ž:
Well, Proximity Fuse only activates at a farely close range, u seems still don't get what I mean, how your munition can auto close in a AshCM performing a 15G manuver at terminal stage, by Inertia flight? the SEA-RAM can close in because it has the IR/UV seeker and its onboard cpu can resolve the incoming AshCm's trajectory and autopilot the missile close into the intecepting target by the missile's aerodynamic design( Rotating). What's your munition's eyes and brain in play except the proximity fuse?
hey relax relax....
yes the Sea-ram is a good CIWS. it was designed for that particular role as a CIWS and thus it will do it's job as a CIWS. No one can disagree with you on that and that including 16/f/lonely.
however i cant disagree with 16/f/lonely about the 76mm A gun that is linked to the EO and FCR. with it's rate of fire (120rpm) and it's proximity fused munition, i cant see why it cant be use as a defence against anti ship missiles. yes it wont perform as well as those dedicated system (goalkeeper, Sea-ram etc) but it is still relevant.
Originally posted by foxtrout8:
hey relax relax....yes the Sea-ram is a good CIWS. it was designed for that particular role as a CIWS and thus it will do it's job as a CIWS. No one can disagree with you on that and that including 16/f/lonely.
however i cant disagree with 16/f/lonely about the 76mm A gun that is linked to the EO and FCR. with it's rate of fire (120rpm) and it's proximity fused munition, i cant see why it cant be use as a defence against anti ship missiles. yes it wont perform as well as those dedicated system (goalkeeper, Sea-ram etc) but it is still relevant.
No worries no worries......I believe I benefit from all the posts here.
Originally posted by 16/f/lonely:
No worries no worries......I believe I benefit from all the posts here.
haha, i will actually propose the metal storm system for our frigate. one that can deliver a wall of munitions at a very high rate of fire. the range of munitions available for the metal storm can be so wide to include rounds for hard kill as well as chaff and flare for decoy purposes. the high rate of fire will also be useful against a saturated missile or even rocket attack.
Well, A.H.E.A.D will be the correct munition for 76mm gun to play the role should no other means of CIWS available.
Originally posted by 38�Ž:
Well, Proximity Fuse only activates at a farely close range, u seems still don't get what I mean, how your munition can auto close in a AshCM performing a 15G manuver at terminal stage, by Inertia flight? the SEA-RAM can close in because it has the IR/UV seeker and its onboard cpu can resolve the incoming AshCm's trajectory and autopilot the missile close into the intecepting target by the missile's aerodynamic design( Rotating). What's your munition's eyes and brain in play except the proximity fuse?
The concept of anti-air craft guns are - their rounds are set to explore sending a wall of lead into the path of the incoming missile & planes - at the speed of the framents & missile or plane - any impact with any fragments will result in the missile or plane go totally out of control or even destory.
It is the same concept of CIWS - which machine gun throw out a wall of bullets , while the 76mm - just shoot bigger rounds that fragment into a wall of lead. Will the 76mm longer range - think the missile will hitting the wall of lead before even the terminal stage.
Yes the sea-ram sound great - missile hit missile . But so far from most of the modern wars - the anti-aircraft guns seem to have perform better in bring down planes than missile system. Think the navy and others which choice to relies on 76mm - have their reasons .
Originally posted by 38�Ž:not a 76mm gun shooting munitions with no eye and poor brain
Sigh ... one more time ... Strales DART. Akan Datang ... go read about it
Originally posted by kotay:Sigh ... one more time ... Strales DART. Akan Datang ... go read about it
Sigh !!! the brain is the radar and computer in the ship - which determine where to best shoot the rounds so that it have the highest chances of putting up a wall of fragments .... !!!
Your little missile brain is so much smaller then the ship brain. Yep the missile can change course, instead of try to chase it - the ship just shoot another round into the new path to counter it.
If people can shoot clay pigeon .... the brain is in the shooter - not the round , and it is very effective !!!
Originally posted by storywolf:Sigh !!! the brain is the radar and computer in the ship - which determine where to best shoot the rounds so that it have the highest chances of putting up a wall of fragments .... !!!
Your little missile brain is so much smaller then the ship brain. Yep the missile can change course, instead of try to chase it - the ship just shoot another round into the new path to counter it.
If people can shoot clay pigeon .... the brain is in the shooter - not the round , and it is very effective !!!
Which only goes to show that there are people in this forum who do not bother to read up on what others have posted and just blindly reply.
Strales
DART is a guided round that closes at ~M3.5 and is capable of 20-25g
maneuvers to follow the guidance beam onto a maneuvering target/missile. This is a performance envelope as good as most of the anti-missile missiles in the market.
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!
Originally posted by 38�Ž:Well, A.H.E.A.D will be the correct munition for 76mm gun to play the role should no other means of CIWS available.
And in what way is AHEAD different or better than the current 76/60 MOM round with the 3A Plus fuze? This round has been mentioned quite a few times in this thread ... but apparently people just want to argue what they want to ...
AHEAD is a development primarily for small calibre AA guns with relatively low ROF. The programmable fuzing allows them to deliver ABM which effectively mimics the "wall of lead" much higher ROF multi-barrel CIWS guns currently put up.
Originally posted by foxtrout8:
haha, i will actually propose the metal storm system for our frigate. one that can deliver a wall of munitions at a very high rate of fire. the range of munitions available for the metal storm can be so wide to include rounds for hard kill as well as chaff and flare for decoy purposes. the high rate of fire will also be useful against a saturated missile or even rocket attack.
Problem with the metal storm system is their relatively short range ... I think it is even shorter than a 25-30mm canon.
An even bigger problem is the reload time. The Metal Storm is basically a one-shot system. Unless you maintain large banks of them, you will lack the ability to handle persistent threat environments.
Hmmm, has anyone actually seen the success rate of the R2D2 in shooting down high-speed AShMs? Not very promising either...
Originally posted by kotay:Which only goes to show that there are people in this forum who do not bother to read up on what others have posted and just blindly reply.
Strales DART is a guided round that closes at ~M3.5 and is capable of 20-25g maneuvers to follow the guidance beam onto a maneuvering target/missile. This is a performance envelope as good as most of the anti-missile missiles in the market.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!
For those only believe the commercial brochure and be ignorant enough to think a simplest and most outdated CLOS guided round is as good as the AA missiles with active homing or SARH with much improved guidance, Sigh ... Akan Datang ... go read more basics.
1st, your max 20-25g maneuver only happens at the very beginning when the round has the highest initial speed and the g load decrease exponentially when the distance increase, so just in a short distance like 4-5kms, the maneuverability of your Dart has already bled like a hell and won’t have much capacity to catch a high g AshCM. Any basic guidance law will tell you the intercepting missile has to be at least 4-5 times G load than the missile it suppose to catch, ESSM or SEA-RAM all have tremendous max G loads not at beginning, but most likely somewhere at the terminal stage because those AA missiles are propellant powered
2nd, a worse than Beam rider’s CLOS guided round will have tremendous difficulty to keep target/tracker/Dart round 3 points in a line in order to fulfill the 3 point guidance, such a guidance is never be used to intercept high G/high speed target in modern days except for slow moving one like tank, Yes, a lot of ATGMs are still using LOS guidance to engage tanks, the bottom line is if the ATGM somehow flop out of the LOS, the ATGM won’t catch a damn, yap, that’s against big, heavy slow moving tank. Not a small, sea skimming, near sound speed anti-ship missile.
Because of this, the Strales Dart so far only managed to keep the dart round in line of sight for a maximum 5kms, repeatability and real field performance is somewhat questionable. There’s still no confirmed customer for that and let alone, if such a system is adopted, additional hardware installation will be inevitable.
Originally posted by kotay:Problem with the metal storm system is their relatively short range ... I think it is even shorter than a 25-30mm canon.
An even bigger problem is the reload time. The Metal Storm is basically a one-shot system. Unless you maintain large banks of them, you will lack the ability to handle persistent threat environments.
yap the current munition that they are playing with are rather short ranged. i believe the calibre of munition used now is just a prove of concept and with the same technology, i am optimistic that large calibre of munitions can be use.
the metal storm technology being electrically fired allows the munition to be stack up. in the stack up mode, layers of munition can be laid to be fired up one after another at a very fast rate.
Originally posted by 38�Ž:For those only believe the commercial brochure and be ignorant enough to think a simplest and most outdated CLOS guided round is as good as the AA missiles with active homing or SARH with much improved guidance, Sigh ... Akan Datang ... go read more basics.
1st, your max 20-25g maneuver only happens at the very beginning when the round has the highest initial speed and the g load decrease exponentially when the distance increase, so just in a short distance like 4-5kms, the maneuverability of your Dart has already bled like a hell and won’t have much capacity to catch a high g AshCM. Any basic guidance law will tell you the intercepting missile has to be at least 4-5 times G load than the missile it suppose to catch, ESSM or SEA-RAM all have tremendous max G loads not at beginning, but most likely somewhere at the terminal stage because those AA missiles are propellant powered
2nd, a worse than Beam rider’s CLOS guided round will have tremendous difficulty to keep target/tracker/Dart round 3 points in a line in order to fulfill the 3 point guidance, such a guidance is never be used to intercept high G/high speed target in modern days except for slow moving one like tank, Yes, a lot of ATGMs are still using LOS guidance to engage tanks, the bottom line is if the ATGM somehow flop out of the LOS, the ATGM won’t catch a damn, yap, that’s against big, heavy slow moving tank. Not a small, sea skimming, near sound speed anti-ship missile.
Because of this, the Strales Dart so far only managed to keep the dart round in line of sight for a maximum 5kms, repeatability and real field performance is somewhat questionable. There’s still no confirmed customer for that and let alone, if such a system is adopted, additional hardware installation will be inevitable.
Reasons for choosing to "trust" brochures. I have seen with my eyes the effectiveness of the 76mm MOM rounds.
2ndly, AA guns with flak-type rounds prove time and again to be much more effective against any form of air-threats. This however does not apply to high-altitude targets.
Post by 38
be ignorant enough to think a simplest and most outdated CLOS guided round is as good as the AA missiles
First up, this thread is about "Does Formidable need CIWS". For this, there are 2 rather simple answers -
a) Yes, it needs one.
b) No, it does not need one.
It is not about what CIWS is the best. Did I or anyone in this thread mention that CIGS is superior to Close in Missile Systems (CIMS) like SEA-RAM? Since you cannot be bothered to read other people's post, I'll summarise my postings in this thread for you.
i) Traditional small calibre CIWS, like Phalanx, are fast becoming ineffective against modern AShM threats.
ii) The current trend for inner-layer final protection against missiles is starting to tend towards medium calibre CIGS or Missile systems (which I will hereafter call Close in Missile Systems or CIMS) ;)
iii) The Oto Melera 76SR mounted by the Formidables is actually a very effective CIGS.
iv) As such, the Formidable does not need to mount a CIWS as it already has one in the form of the 76SR CIGS.
If you wish to start your own argument that a CIMS is the best solution than kindly start your own thread.
If you wish to question whether the Oto Melara 76/62 is an effective CIGS, as advertised, than I'll be more than happy to discuss this further since it will relate directly to the question of "Does Formidable need CIWS".
So now to a point by point answer to your above diatribe
POINT 1 - BROCHURE BASHING
Posted by 38
For those only believe the commercial brochure and ... , Sigh ... Akan Datang ... go read more basics.
Mate, it's not about quoting brochures.
I seriously doubt that anybody in milnuts@sgforums is a person senior enough in the defence industry to be able to be taken at their word. The rest of us anoraks will just have to contend with open domain sources to substantiate our stand. These open domain sources can take the form of brochures, trade publications, professional journals, combat performance, test performance, indirect evidence, etc.
Lowest on the list of credible sources is our own opinions.
u seems still don't get what I mean, how your munition can auto close in a AshCM performing a 15G manuver at terminal stage, by Inertia flight?
You have questioned the ability of the OM 76/62 based on your own understanding of how things are supposed to work ... Your statement alone belies the fact various DoDs have invested Billions of dollars in platforms that use the OM 76/62 as a CIGS system in lieu of a CIWS. Surely 53 navies employing close to 1,000 OM 76/62 guns can't be that far wrong.
This is pretty strong indirect evidence that it does work ... despite your not understanding how it can.
That's quite a few thousand people in the various navy's program management teams with countless doctorates, degrees and millions of dollars at their disposal ... against the opinion of one man ...
Maybe you are overdue a Stephen Hawkins award
POINT 2 - CLOS GUIDANCE
Posted by 38
For those only believe the commercial brochure and be ignorant enough to think a simplest and most outdated CLOS guided round is as good as the AA missiles with active homing or SARH with much improved guidance, Sigh ... Akan Datang ... go read more basics.
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.
Post by 38
2nd, a worse than Beam rider’s CLOS guided round will have tremendous difficulty to keep target/tracker/Dart round 3 points in a line in order to fulfill the 3 point guidance, such a guidance is never be used to intercept high G/high speed target in modern days except for slow moving one like tank, Yes, a lot of ATGMs are still using LOS guidance to engage tanks, the bottom line is if the ATGM somehow flop out of the LOS, the ATGM won’t catch a damn, yap, that’s against big, heavy slow moving tank. Not a small, sea skimming, near sound speed anti-ship missile.
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".
POINT 3 – ENERGY STATE
Post by 38
1st, your max 20-25g maneuver only happens at the very beginning when the round has the highest initial speed and the g load decrease exponentially when the distance increase, so just in a short distance like 4-5kms, the maneuverability of your Dart has already bled like a hell and won’t have much capacity to catch a high g AshCM. Any basic guidance law will tell you the intercepting missile has to be at least 4-5 times G load than the missile it suppose to catch, ESSM or SEA-RAM all have tremendous max G loads not at beginning, but most likely somewhere at the terminal stage because those AA missiles are propellant powered
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.
“ESSM or SEA-RAM all have tremendous max G loads not at beginning, but most likely somewhere at the terminal stage because those AA missiles are propellant powered”
Let’s not talk about ESSM since that a 50km missile and not really in the same systems category as 76SR/SEA-RAM. Let’s talk about SEA-RAM.
You sound like you are under some kind of impression that AAMs and SAMs boost continuously up till their max range. If you thought so, you couldn’t be further from the truth. All solid propellant Missiles boost for only the first few seconds of their flight profile. The larger the missile, the longer it will boost for, but invariably, by mid-phase, almost all of them are unpowered missiles. This is why they all have a variable range engagement envelope that is highly dependant on their launch altitude, launch speed since these 2 factors impart more energy to missile then the booster alone can.
SEA-RAM is based on the rocket motor and body of the AIM-9 Sidewinder AAM. The SEA-RAM missile is also about 2.8m long. Do you have any idea what the rocket motor burn time of a ~2.8m AIM-9 is? Let me clue you in … 2.2 seconds.
What this boils down to is that the SEA-RAM, at about 2,000m, becomes an unpowered missile, like the Strales DART. Even worse, it actually has a a lower velocity at the 2km mark compared to the Strales DART, which implies it actually has a lower energy state compared to the Strales DART. The SEA-RAM has one saving grace, it has bigger control surfaces which gives it a better angle of turn rate than the DART.
At the end of the day, both SEA-RAM and DART are really only capable of 1 high-g corrective maneuver to intercept the incoming AShM. Given their energy states, they both are unable to come around for a second try. So even if we assume that a single DART has a pKill of 70%, a volley 3-4 of them will have a pKill of 95% which is as good as a salvo of 2 SEA-RAM and a damn sight cheaper.
Because of this, the Strales Dart so far only managed to keep the dart round in line of sight for a maximum 5kms, repeatability and real field performance is somewhat questionable. There’s still no confirmed customer for that and let alone, if such a system is adopted, additional hardware installation will be inevitable.
I honestly have no idea why you think the Strales DART has a range of only 5km. The actual operational parameter is not open domain but I’ve read that the capability extends to as far as 10km.
Of course we have no combat record to prove the effectiveness of the Strales DART, that’s because it’s in the operational test phase. But then again, is there any real field or combat review for the SEA-RAM?
I don’t understand the comment on additional hardware. Yes, additional equipment will have to be fitted but it is backward compatible with the 76SR, which means that the existing user base will be able to easily upgrade and increase their effectiveness. Seriously, as if the SEA-RAM in itself does not represent additional equipement … :rolleyes:
POINT 4 - AShM TERMINAL PHASE MANEUVERS
Post by 38
how your munition can auto close in a AshCM performing a 15G manuver at terminal stage, by Inertia flight?
Post by 38
won’t have much capacity to catch a high g AshCM
You seem to be building your argument around the concept that a AShM will be maneuvering violently in the terminal phase. Since this point is central to your arguements, I'd really appreciate it if you produce some links r\or quotes to back this up.
The reason why I choose to doubt your claims is simple. An AShM in it’s terminal phase is very different from a fighter doing evasive maneuver.
The fighter has no envelope restrictions and is free to maneuver across all axis and end states. The AShM must conduct all maneuvers with one overriding prerogative, it must hit the target. The closer it gets to the target, the more restricted it’s maneuvers must become in order not to miss the target.
At the engagement distances and closing speed that we’re talking about, I seriously doubt that the high-g maneuvers you are talking about will result in a significant miss distance beyond the capability of the burst radius of the SEA-RAM missile or the DART round.
I will appreciate any maths or proof of your claims.
p/s: do not forget that your SEA-RAM is operating under the same end-game energy restrictions as the Strales DART.
What the fascination with the G-Numbers?
Those missiles lose smash when making huge turns. The lesser smash a missile has, the easier it is to intercept...
As kotay explained, even an AMRAAM will be hard pressed to kill anything if it has to make a high-g turn at terminal phase. It loses so much energy that it can no longer get into a decent range for proximity sensor to kill.