Very interesting read indeed. He seems to be suggesting that the missile's active seeker cone may not be able to acquire certain fast moving targets at high aspect. That aspect problem being generated by the target missile's change in manuevering or airspeed to disrupt hard kill systems.
Tracking multiple aircraft is not difficult for the radar. The question is whether the radar can track multiple "vampires" that maybe traveling at high supersonic speeds.
I have always suspected the French screwed with us on their sale of the frigates, and what he has written raises my suspicion even further.
The truth is, stealth has always had limitations, and at the end of the day, nothing really beats an excellent combat system like the Aegis, versus a boat with 'small radar cross section'.
Of course, it might be just good enough against our neighbours, or maybe no one in DSTA or DSO ever considered the fact that Russian jamming systems are known for quite possibly pure power, aside from being very broadband.
Originally posted by Shotgun:Very interesting read indeed. He seems to be suggesting that the missile's active seeker cone may not be able to acquire certain fast moving targets at high aspect. That aspect problem being generated by the target missile's change in manuevering or airspeed to disrupt hard kill systems.
Tracking multiple aircraft is not difficult for the radar. The question is whether the radar can track multiple "vampires" that maybe traveling at high supersonic speeds.
The contention has some flaws. The author makes the assumption that the missile is required to make acquisition which is only partially correct. Acquisition is made by the radar onboard and transmitted to the missile via uplink until missile lock is achieved. Hence the effectiveness of the missile seeker is less relevant to the ship's radar.
The assumption of 60rpm as being ineffective for high speed tracking is correct. However, the author fails to take into account that the refresh rate is definitely higher to achieve lock on (ie the radar stops rotating, faces the threat and emits high power signals to maintain acquisition which is definitely effective for high speed vamps approaching the ship unless the vamps can maneuver faster than the ship's radar can turn which is a confirmed no.)
Once the ship radar acquires the target, the missile (like the hawk system) only has to follow the illuminated path until its own seeker is able to lock on. The paucity of the missile seeker only means that the missile will have to travel further using onboard guidance before lock. It will not be high aspect for the ship's radar which should point to the target to ensure that the missile seeker does not end up with a high aspect view. Whether a target can break a missile lock is another issue. So is the ability of the target to jam the ship's radar. In examples such as the I-hawk, cwar signals have been proven to be incredibly difficult to jam though not impossible.
The ability to handle multiple bogeys is only a factor of how fast the missile can lock for each target. It is likely that the ship radar can achieve lock on multiple bogeys faster if in one vector. If in another vector, the ship's radar will need to rotate (which is 1 sec per rotation) to reacquire target on another vector.
The strategypage discussion is technical but incomplete.
The Aster15/30 missile carries an Active-Radar seeker which is supposed to take over tracking past a certain point. THe ship radar is supposed to provide initial guidance allowing the missile to fly in the general direction, and provide sporadic in-flight updates before the missile seeker locks on. I suspect the author is non-plussed rather at the algorithms employed to direct the missile, because the lower refresh rate of the radar is supposed to be compensated by the use of Active Radar seekers. Otherwise, you would need to constantly illuminate the target if the missile in question uses a semi-active radar seeker which is what the SM-2/3 uses. The SM-6 is suppoesd to do away with that and use an active-radar seeker.
And I seriously doubt you can simply shut off the rotation motor of the radar and simply have it face the target. With it rotating that fast, it takes a finite time to stop the radar, and thus, in that span of time, the supersonic missile would have travelled a substantial distance. Also, if it's an all round attack (which should be done to tax the limits of the system), there's no way you can simply stop it from rotating. This will be of particular importance say against the Klub missiles which go supersonic Mach 3 in the terminal engagement. The Klub reputedly can also maneuver wildly to dodge incoming missiles.
The SM-6 (like the amraam and aster 30) also has a semi-active mode. The reason for this should be obvious.
One can calculate the speed of radar rotation. Assuming that the diameter of the radar is 3m, circumference would be ~9m (2 x pi x radius). That's 9.4 m/s or 34 km/h. Consider how long one takes to stop a car which is 20 times the weight of a radar, travelling at 35km/h, next time one drives on the road. Too fast to stop but too slow to track? I'd leave it to others to decide.
Mach 3 is ~800m/s (~2880km/h). How much distance it will cover n enough or not enough is a question of fact.
As to manouvreing wildly, that's beyond technical discussion.
What he was saying is that in the mid course update, when the missile reaches what I call "pitbull" or autonomous mode, its limited seeker cone and lack of seeker range, may not be sufficient to intercept a missile that is moving at mach 3.
Of course, the question here which I believe he also mentions is the target's aspect to the missile. I think he claims that in a situation where there is high heading crossing angle, and a supersonic target, the Aster may be asked (mid course guidance) to "look" or "spotlight" a target that may have already passed or not there yet. Looking at it from a 3 dimensional perspective, this may have to do with the Aster's flight profile where it MAY be lofted up vertically into a lead-pursuit trajectory, before switching to a pure-pursuit for intercept. Against an inbound target at high supersonic speeds, it may create a high heading crossing angle situation where the seeker's limited FOV will cause it to miss.
However, I don't see how this cannot be corrected with changes to the missiles algorithm....
Also do note that the problem occurs when the Herakles is forced to work with more than 4 inbound per threat axis. As for the Formidable, it is not configured to be a AAW type of role and is not likely to deal with that sort of situation.
How the missile achieves missile lock is a function not only of missile seeker but also of mid-course guidance.
Agreed that if a target is out of view of missile seeker, there would be no possibility of it achieving missile lock. That applies to any missile.
However, the assumption that the target would be out of view is to assume that the ship guidance cannot bring the missile to an intercept cone.
How many threats a FFG can handle is defined by its heading, attacker vector, missile load of attacker vs defender, accuracy of missile, intercept time. It is clear that the aster system has a max limit of 32 targets (cos that's the no of missiles equipping the frigate). Intercept times are improved as inbound vamps approach the target.
The scenario envisages a lone ship. If there is more than one frigate/corvette present, that allows allocation of task to each threat vector. We also know that defending counter-air may also be present. Lastly, the frigate also has other defences beyond the aster (76mm, dagaie decoys, ew, etc).
How practical the assumptions/scenarios are in real life is entirely subjective. I don't think the scenario is sufficient to condemn the aster to mediocrity.
Originally posted by weasel1962:How the missile achieves missile lock is a function not only of missile seeker but also of mid-course guidance.
Agreed that if a target is out of view of missile seeker, there would be no possibility of it achieving missile lock. That applies to any missile.
However, the assumption that the target would be out of view is to assume that the ship guidance cannot bring the missile to an intercept cone.
How many threats a FFG can handle is defined by its heading, attacker vector, missile load of attacker vs defender, accuracy of missile, intercept time. It is clear that the aster system has a max limit of 32 targets (cos that's the no of missiles equipping the frigate). Intercept times are improved as inbound vamps approach the target.
The scenario envisages a lone ship. If there is more than one frigate/corvette present, that allows allocation of task to each threat vector. We also know that defending counter-air may also be present. Lastly, the frigate also has other defences beyond the aster (76mm, dagaie decoys, ew, etc).
How practical the assumptions/scenarios are in real life is entirely subjective. I don't think the scenario is sufficient to condemn the aster to mediocrity.
Not really, that applies to missile with a active radar seekers particularly. SARH missiles may still reacquire via updates. So his argument is not against ARH missiles in general but that the MICA based seeker on the Aster being inferior due to its restricted seeker view and range. Hence, the concept of an ARH missile system for anti-missile defense isn't flawed, just the missile.
Again, his argument is directed at the selection of the Aster for the UK's leading AAW destroyer where the radar, processors and missiles WILL have to work in a target saturated environment. It may also be the one or two AAW DDG in a flotillar. An anti-air warfare destroyer that cannot work in a target saturated environment is essentially a piece of junk.
The formidable is a different story. It is not declared to perform such a role, nor is such a threat (multiple inbound supersonic anti-ship missiles from multiple threat axis) likely in the near future. Most of the navies in the region have yet to acquire such missiles and capabilities to target such missiles. So to speak, the Formidable's Herakles/Aster combination would unlikely to fail in such "low intensity" modes.
I share the same sentiment...
The issue is that Formidable does not have a CIWS system be it SeaRAM or Phanlax/Goalkeeper type systems. Surely it is not that expensive to have SeaRAM or Phanlax installed and integrated onto the Formidables.
Only ~US$11m per mk 15 system based on Korean acquisition for FFX who also got the RAM for US$17m.
Phalanx is not a 360 weapon so its not full coverage.
Most navies, like RSN, pick the cheaper 76mm super rapido or compact naval gun (~$2m) which can fire the DART/Davide munition for anti-missile capability + multi purpose.
http://www.spacewar.com/news/2004/milplex-102804-1614-35.html
Originally posted by Shotgun:Not really, that applies to missile with a active radar seekers particularly. SARH missiles may still reacquire via updates. So his argument is not against ARH missiles in general but that the MICA based seeker on the Aster being inferior due to its restricted seeker view and range. Hence, the concept of an ARH missile system for anti-missile defense isn't flawed, just the missile.
Again, his argument is directed at the selection of the Aster for the UK's leading AAW destroyer where the radar, processors and missiles WILL have to work in a target saturated environment. It may also be the one or two AAW DDG in a flotillar. An anti-air warfare destroyer that cannot work in a target saturated environment is essentially a piece of junk.
The formidable is a different story. It is not declared to perform such a role, nor is such a threat (multiple inbound supersonic anti-ship missiles from multiple threat axis) likely in the near future. Most of the navies in the region have yet to acquire such missiles and capabilities to target such missiles. So to speak, the Formidable's Herakles/Aster combination would unlikely to fail in such "low intensity" modes.
Flawed is a highly subjective word. Its like saying the AIM-9M is flawed cos it can see only X deg and has a range of Y km whereas the AIM-9X can see X+15 deg and has a range of Y+15 km. There are limitations. All missiles have.
The scenario highlighted is a crossing vamp rather than an inbound vamp so how likely a target saturated scenario will involve only crossing vamps is not exactly clear.
The explanation of 4 missile limitation was not really explained. Accepting it at face value is an assumption.
As to launching 4 or more long range anti-ship missiles at a time at a target from 2 a/c or more flying differing vectors, I think many airforces in this region have the capability. That includes RMAF (F-18s with AGM-84s, Migs/Suks with KH-31). RTAF (AGM-84s). VNAF/IAF/PLAAF/ID-TNI (Su-30s with KH-31s, Chinese H-6s/J-10/JH-7s with C-602s, C-803s).
Is there any post or link or article that suggest that RSN has procured DART/Davide munitions?
Is there a 'difference' in definition and terminology at work here? "soft-kill" on an anti ship missile will be to confuse or distract the seeker head so that it will miss its target etc with ECM or chaff.
A 'hard-kill' is to destroy the missile. Some ships uses a gun (20mm or 30mm gratling type guns, like Goalkeeper etc) or a missile, like Sea Wolf, RAM, Aster 15, NATO Sea Sparrow etc.
Some Platforms have BOTH missile and gun CIWS. like for example the US aircraft carriers and i think the Spruance class destroyers have both Sea Sparrow and 20mm CIWS.
I guess the Singapore Navy decided to go for the missile as the CIWS.
As to why it didn't decide to install a gun-based CIWS as well?? good question. I think a 76mm gun is more versatile, it can be used for anti-ship weapon or a shore bombardment weapon.
A 20mm or 30mm is basically just a single use anti-missile defense system. or maybe with the proper software as 'anti-boat' weapon againist sucide boats.
Also, the although the most 'formidable' warship in the RSN, the Formidables FFG is just a 3,000 to 3,500 platform. How much more can you possibly sequeeze into a hull. the RSN also cannot afford to have multiple 'specialized' platform for multiple task, as such a 76mm gun with multiple use and a Aster 15 system with both medium range SAM and short-range anti-missile roles seems to be a good balance IMHO.
I usually keep quiet and just read all the postings - all though I've been around at SGForums.
However, I think this topic is getting a tad unrealistic. As the previous poster has pointed out, while the "Formidable Class" frigates may be the flagships (are they actually? I still see the LSTs going to the Gulf of Aden; but perhaps that's due to the need for size), they are still Frigates.
Perhaps, we should consider what the frigates are around for, rather than treat them as flagships and must have "everything".
Heck, I'm in favour of that too, but if we go along this route then we'll need destroyers, and pretty soon, a big beautiful carrier.
IMO, our frigates are still not 'blue water' yet. We can't even re-supply them. Until the point where the SG Navy is a true blue water navy, then worry about these. As long as it remain within reach of the RSAF's CAP, I don't see major issues. Good to have yes, but not necessary.
Ok. enough rambling. I have to work tomorrow.
The HE-mom munition for the 76mm.
http://www.otomelara.it/EN/Common/files/OtoMelara/pdf/business/naval/development/MOM-T.pdf
Hi Guys,
Need your help at sgforums Malaysia Corner "Malaysian come into S'pore forum & lecture Singaporeans ".
Many thanks.
Originally posted by weasel1962:Flawed is a highly subjective word. Its like saying the AIM-9M is flawed cos it can see only X deg and has a range of Y km whereas the AIM-9X can see X+15 deg and has a range of Y+15 km. There are limitations. All missiles have.
The scenario highlighted is a crossing vamp rather than an inbound vamp so how likely a target saturated scenario will involve only crossing vamps is not exactly clear.
The explanation of 4 missile limitation was not really explained. Accepting it at face value is an assumption.
As to launching 4 or more long range anti-ship missiles at a time at a target from 2 a/c or more flying differing vectors, I think many airforces in this region have the capability. That includes RMAF (F-18s with AGM-84s, Migs/Suks with KH-31). RTAF (AGM-84s). VNAF/IAF/PLAAF/ID-TNI (Su-30s with KH-31s, Chinese H-6s/J-10/JH-7s with C-602s, C-803s).
Yes, these are missiles' limitations. What he contends is that there are better missiles such as AMRAAM based ones that have better FOV and seeker capabilities. He's on a crusade against the Aster so to speak.
Contentious on two points. Firstly, his argument at the end of the day is that the Aster is not good enough to be the PAAMs of the UK's type 45 AAW Destroyer. AAW Destroyers are meant to provide anti-air and anti-missile cover for a flotilla its escorting. Hence its capabilities HAVE to be able to deal with high aspect crossing shots from multiple threat axes. Secondly, in three dimensional terms, even inbound shots are "crossing" shots. This is because the computers drive these ARH missiles to a point where it has maximum energy to make a pure-pursuit intercept. Hence missiles will usually be shot up and above the target's altitude so that it can "dive" down for the intercept. The high-aspect crossing would come from the point where the missile is trying to look down and acquire the target with its own active radar.
The concern is not really subsonic anti-ship missiles in saturation. The concern he raises is about multiple supersonic AShMs from different directions. The speed which the AShMs travel and the number of directions, he argues, overloads the processing capability to direct the Asters to an appropriate intercept. Driving them to a point either too late or too early; therein, causing the limited FOV seeker of the Aster to not acquire the target.
Chief Of RSN said in the interview leading to Navy Open House--
Frigate is practicing against 20 aircrafts in recent EX.
as reported by STimes. read column 3 at news--
search "Navy looks to add unmanned vessels to fleet" + Jermyn Chow
Straits Times, 22.05.2010, article title as above by Jermyn Chow
http://www.dso.org.sg/cmsresource/20100603523261759022.pdf
Most anti submarine defense is done via air assets in the US Navy, by the Seahawks, Vikings and the Orions as in Japan.
These systems work in the theatre and launches from base or the aircraft carrier and carry a stand off detaction passive and active systems to listen and to detect. Anything in from 23 km is already too little too late to defend against, especially torpedoes. You can see the lapse of this kind of operation in Yellow Sea area in Korea, the Harpoon equipped vessel have stealth features, but once you operate not as an integrated system, you are vulnerable.
I think Singapore Defense Thinking has very good top brains on the job, it needs time for architecture to build the system. With the Fokkers, the new AWACs and the Seahawks in place, I think we are getting there. Besides, we have some real good attack subs with very well trained crews too.
No worries mate, your money is safe in this country.
Pfft. I do not suffer fools gladly, and I mince not my words when dealing with them.
Darth_Revan
----------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------------------
“Pfft” ???
You mincing words ?? Hah ! Quiet the opposite in fact . It is clear that you are at a loss for words and have no better response other than to offer a guttural utterance from your drooling mouth.
Coming back to the more civil discussion regarding the Aster………………….
Aster is probably an excellent anti aircraft system and my doubts are in its anti missile capabilities against the new generation of AntiShipMissiles ( ASMs ) such as the Russian supersonic missiles and Exocet Block 3.
True anti missile missile systems such as RAM, Seawolf, Barak and Umkhonto were designed specifically against the ASM threat . They are probably much more effective than Aster which is more of an all round system with the primary role of being an anti aircraft weapon rather than being a true antimissile missile system despite the claims of the manufacturer.
Consider the role of subs in ASW ops.