sunburn

The only problem is that this may still be too slow to get the sunburn before it hits, do you know how long it look from detection to destruction for the auto-special to work there? Because if you hit it half way between where it was detected and your ships then I think that's probably too slow.

The Phalanx system does fine shooting down slower missile but when it come to supersonic sea skimming missiles the Phalanx does poorly. The USN has a new system for shooting down the sunburn its called SeaRAM, test have show that it can react quick enough to down the Sunburn.

The standard US Navy anti-missile defense system is too slow to engage the Sunburn. This system, called the Phalanx, has only about 2.5 seconds to react to the Sunburn. In multiple tests, the Phalanx failed to engage high speed missiles in time to protect a ship.

In 10 scenarios, real Anti-Ship Missiles and supersonic Vandal target missiles (Mach 2.5) were intercepted and destroyed under realistic conditions. RAM Block 1 achieved first-shot kills on every target in its presented scenarios, including sea-skimming, diving and highly maneuvering profiles in both single and stream attacks."

"With these test firings RAM demonstrated its unparalleled success against today's most challenging threats. Cumulatively to date more than 180 missiles have been fired against anti-ship missiles and other targets, achieving a success rate over 95%

SeaRAM

The Phallanx isn't really designed to 'shoot down' incoming missiles per se, it's designed to damage them enough that they can either no longer track the ship or that they can't control their flight. When you have a missile coming in at supersonic speeds and you punch some holes in it with 20mm DU you ruin the aerodynamics of the missile. It will no longer fly straight and might end up getting torn to shreds by the drag induced by the damage. When using phallanx you stand a chance of getting hit by supersonic debris, but again, that's better than being hit by an intact missile and having it detonate it's warhead inside the ship's hull.

SEARAM is supposed to be used with DD(x). I don't know if it will get put on the DDG's as a backfit or not. Phallanx is an awesome defense, and SEARAM was the next logical step by using small rolling airframe missiles instead of a gun.

Phallanx is tested by having lear jets tow dummy missiles toward the ship for phallanx to engage. Anyone who's been on a ship with Phallanx can tell you stories about how they completely shred the missile and start shooting the cable that it was towed with.

Why not put SeaRAM on a carrier?
And PeanutButterJellyTime since you know more about the USN’s current programs than I do I have to ask, is the Navy considering or experimenting with lasers as a missile defense system?

And let's not forget that ESSM is currently being fielded to protect against low-flying, high speed, manuvering ASCM's.

Although ESSM is also vertically launched it has thrust vectoring to immediately turn over and accelerate to the incoming target.

Building off of PBJ's response that gives the fleet a defense of Air CAP, SM2, ESSM, CIWS (Either SeaRam or Phalanx) as well as electronic countermeasures.

I heard a lot about ESSM, then suddenly nothing. We don't have any equipment for it at my sight and to the best of my knowledge my sight doesn't train the CIC crews on it. I don't know if it was ever fielded or not, though I can find out when I go to work tomorrow.

ESSM is the Enhanced Sea Sparrow Missile. Sea Sparrow is a modified Sparrow AAW missile and has been around for a while to protect ships like carriers, transports, frigates, etc. ESSM is a vertically launched Sea Sparrow. If I remember right, four of them could be placed in one VLS cell. They don't climb as high as SM-2's when launched and they're more manueverable so they are better at hitting sea skimmers.

To answer West Point's question about lasers, check out this and this.
Here's a quote from the first article:

while the “lethality mechanisms” of high energy weapons are classified, “Our bottom line is that if we can put millions of joules of energy onto a target, something will happen.”

In an interview with Sea Power, McGinnis described a variety of effects from these weapons, including “the burning and blinding of an optical system, or cutting an [airplane’s] wing off, or causing a fire that results in an explosion.”

Thanks for the laser info and links, cant wait till we see one winged jets spiraling to the ocean.

Originally posted by WestPoint23
Thanks for the laser info and links, cant wait till we see one winged jets spiraling to the ocean.

I'll probably end up working on DD(x) in the future because Aegis won't be around long enough for me to retire off of. DD(x) will. Hopefully I'll get to see that first hand.

Hopefully the company I work for will still be the prime supplier of naval weapons for DDX too!!

ESSM has been fielded but as for exact quantities I don't know. Although it is fired vertically from AEGIS class ships it doesn't have to be. The seasparrow side launchers on carriers and the such can fire ESSM as well.

As far as I understand ESSM is more than just a small upgrade over SeaSparrow. It was specifically made to counter threats such as Sunburn. It has improved guidance, larger warhead, larger rocket motor and is more manuverable than the missile it is replacing.

Additional Information:
www.designation-systems.net...
www.globalsecurity.org...

Also, here is a test firing of an ESSM that shows it turning over right after a veritcal launch.
www.navy.gov.au...

I found out ESSM isn't officially certified for Aegis, but it will be soon. It's also on the German Aegis frigates.

Originally posted by PeanutButterJellyTime
The B-2 is partially reverse engineered from WWII German Luftwaffe designs.

That is not entirely correct;

The Northrop B-2's design originally came from a "form follows function" philosophy, and is claimed by the Chief Designer of Northrop's B-2 (Irv Waaland) to have originated on Northrop's ATB drawing boards after 6 weeks of design analysis to meet the requirement of both stealth, heavy lift capabilities and low altitude penetration.

Mr. Waaland's claim disassociates Northrop's B-2 from not only the Horten designs but also from the Northrop YB-49 design - YB-49 test pilots were questioned about YB-49 flight test experiences and ground handling... but this came after the B-2 design was decided upon.

The B-2A design developed at Northrop's own version of Skunkworks, known as the Advanced Design Area and was probably influenced by all flying wing designs, but not developed from or based on any of the earlier flying wing designs.

The original drawing-board concept of the B-2 was actually diamond shaped, but it underwent a major re-design to the now familiar "ww" trailing edge bat-shape due to a change in USAF stated mission profile requirements from high altitude target ingress to low altitude TFR ingress.

Two other factors to consider that are key to the B-2's design, that were for all intents and purposes non-existent during the days of Horten's and Jack Northrop's early 'wings', are digital computers and composite material technology. These, combined with the tail-less planform, make the B-2 what it is - stealthy.

One additional note in a book by Jay Miller on the B-2 the following touching anecdote is mentioned:

"Jack Northrop was still alive but in poor health early in the ATB/B-2 program.
He was around 86 years old. He was not consulted on the ATB/B-2 design, but
Northrop corporate management requested special clearance for Jack to see the
B-2 design. The USAF granted this request as an honor to Jack. In a small
luncheon in the Hawthorne Advanced Design Area, they showed Jack Northrop a
small model of the ATB/B-2 design. He of course was quite touched and he asked
lots of questions about the ATB/B-2 and people were impressed as he contrasted
it with the details of the YB-49, which he still remembered. Jack said that
now he knew why he had been kept alive all these years. He died one year later."


Information from...
A post by Intelgurl - Feb. 2004
&
Book Title: NORTHROP B-2 STEALTH BOMBER
Writer: MILLER, JAY
Publisher: AEROFAX
ISBN: 0-933424-56-6

Just a slight detour..The most dangerous non/anti US missile out there is considered to be the supersonic Brahmos, a Yakhont upgrade..
At least under 'cruise missile' in wikipedia, its labelled as so..

en.wikipedia.org...

I'm not sure if its better than the sunburn in 'every' aspect but a comparision may be in order..

So should the USN develop counter(s) for both the sunburn and brahmos?..
Or just work on the better one and the resulting system will be able to deal with the inferior one as well?

Here's a ATS thread on the Brahmos:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

[edit on 21-4-2005 by Daedalus3]

I still believe that the Shipwreck AScMs are much bigger of a threat than Brahmos and Yakhonts. The swarm tactics of 550Km ranged M1.6 missiles cruising at an altitude of 5 meters with follow the head tactics are dangerous and I say again DANGEROUS.

Originally posted by COWlan
I still believe that the Shipwreck AScMs are much bigger of a threat than Brahmos and Yakhonts. The swarm tactics of 550Km ranged M1.6 missiles cruising at an altitude of 5 meters with follow the head tactics are dangerous and I say again DANGEROUS.

Well to be effective at 550km they would need sme type of over the horizon targetting ie. plane or satellite. That for a start poses problems for all but a few nations.
Secondly as far as I know they aren't manouverable so they would make fairly easy targets, also the speed of M1.6 is far less than the Sunburn.

As for the Brahmos isn't it an Indian/Russian collaboration ? Therefore you would imagine the Russians would keep their best technology for indiginously built weapons such as the Sunburn. It seems to be far more capable than any Chinese ASCM missile ( apart from the Sunburn ) which has been fielded.

Originally posted by rogue1


Well to be effective at 550km they would need sme type of over the horizon targetting ie. plane or satellite. That for a start poses problems for all but a few nations.
Secondly as far as I know they aren't manouverable so they would make fairly easy targets, also the speed of M1.6 is far less than the Sunburn.

As for the Brahmos isn't it an Indian/Russian collaboration ? Therefore you would imagine the Russians would keep their best technology for indiginously built weapons such as the Sunburn. It seems to be far more capable than any Chinese ASCM missile ( apart from the Sunburn ) which has been fielded.

The russians need money for these projs and others too..
Keeping tech to themselves is not a priority anymore..
As long as they know they're dealing with nations which wont rev engg their stuff and sell it under some other name to third party countries
(esp. west aligned countries)
Also the sunburn is with the chinese also, so your theory of restricted tech transfer is not followed there as well..
The Brahmos/Su-30 MKI intellectual rights are owned by Russia only i think..

[edit on 21-4-2005 by Daedalus3]

Originally posted by COWlan
I still believe that the Shipwreck AScMs are much bigger of a threat than Brahmos and Yakhonts. The swarm tactics of 550Km ranged M1.6 missiles cruising at an altitude of 5 meters with follow the head tactics are dangerous and I say again DANGEROUS.

The problem with Shipwreck is that it's extremely heavy and bulky when compared to the other misiles. It needs to be on ships or subs and
a/ I don't think ship would be able to get close eough to use it.
b/ the only sumbarines able to carry it are Oscar class nuclear subs and they can be tracked by SSNs long before they reach the area. Besides noone exept russians is using them.

Speed and manueverability aren't the only factors that make an anti-ship missile deadly. The subsonic Harpoon is a classic example.

Originally posted by PeanutButterJellyTime
Speed and manueverability aren't the only factors that make an anti-ship missile deadly. The subsonic Harpoon is a classic example.

All ASM's are deadly if they are able to get through the defenses. The Harpoon however is slow allowing any half decent CIWS to knock it down. It also has a smaller warhead.

Originally posted by rogue1

As for the Brahmos isn't it an Indian/Russian collaboration ? Therefore you would imagine the Russians would keep their best technology for indiginously built weapons such as the Sunburn. It seems to be far more capable than any Chinese ASCM missile ( apart from the Sunburn ) which has been fielded.

I would probably be more conservative with that Statement...

The chinese have developed their own series of anti-ship missiles for years with the C-XX series being the latest incarnations

The Chinese YJ-12 rammjet powered missile is the latest proposal though... rumored to be more capable than the russian sunburn and might already be fitted to the latest chinese warships

YJ-12 is already developed and running although there have been no pictures of test fires. 170 and 171 have them, future ships shall have them too, not too sure about 115 and 114-116.

Its hard to patrol a 550Km radius no matter how advanced you are. A nation thats able to fire the shipwreck much have logistics, tons because its a good missile and only good navies would have them (friends of russians). The best thing about Shipwrecks are they can be fired in salvos of dozens at a time. The slava can fire 12 shipwrecks in one salvo and they would travel under follow the leader tactics where one missile would stay above all the others to allow for better use of its onboard radars, datalinks and would be used to fool enemy radars. I.E you see 1 missile coming at you when there is 12 coming fast. They can share one datalink as a radar would transmit co-ordinates to the leader missile and the leader missile shares it with the rest of the pack.

lasers will be the next in line for anti missile weapon. cheaper to fire per shot probably 10,000 buks per shot instead of a million dollars per missile to fire against another missile.