How effective are modern anti-missile defenses?
Because they seem to be pretty effective looking at their tests. To the point you would need to swarm enemy ships with missiles to hit.
>>28048999
>How effective are modern anti-missile defenses?
Most threat profiles are handled pretty well, both ballistic and aerodynamic, both subsonic and supersonic.
Subsonic saturation attacks (unless completely overwhelming) have also been something that can now be handled as most modern radars have moved to active phased arrays (APAR, Poliment, AMDR) and can handle more uplinks.
The type of threat that we have very little experience with is something called "Threat D", a subsonic target that suddenly becomes supersonic. USN and other Western navies do not currently have a target drone to simulate that sort of threat profile and it their sensors are currently not optimized for it.
Other than that, air defenses have seen a huge upswing in potential in the last 15 years. And while offense has also improved, it's not so dire as it was in the 70's.
So far it seems like they're better at blue-on-blue than doing their actual job.
Just sayin'.
>>28049922
>1987
Yeah, man. Nothing changed in 30 years.
>>28049675
What's the challenge in this case? If you can track a sub- and a supersonic threat, why is the regime change so dangerous?
>>28049675
>AMDR
Won't be a thing for at least another 10 years
>>28049675
>their sensors are currently not optimized for it.
Practically every radar past the 70s can easily handle supersonic and subsonic targets. What do you think makes this so hard?
>>28050657
Subsonic and supersonic on their own is not a problem. It's the sudden change between the two that fucks up the plot.
Google Threat D, there are some explanations out there for why the sensors are having trouble adjusting to this
>>28050266
Well, even PESA like Aegis or TOMB STONE are ok, it still has all the advantages of a phased array
>>28048999
more or less this guy
>>28049675
other than that you should consider, ships usually are not alone (unless its low or none threat situations ) they are part of some formation, that formation provide certain area of sea and air control so even to engage said ships you are putting your lunch platform in danger
this is why ship based anti ship missile systems are not considered to be really serious threat to other ships as it requires to much and to assets to be effective
so
what is most dangerous for ships ?
1- torpedos from attack submarines
2 - ASM from attack submarines
3 - missiles from strike aircraft
4 - missiles from marine patrol aircrafts
5 - land based missiles
6 - missiles from other ships
7 - guns from other hips
9 - torpedos from other ships
I work on some fire control systems in the navy, and as we are made to understand, they are pretty effective. Most ships have at least two layers of anti missile defense, and aren't alone very often on top of that. Carriers have three, and destroyers and cruisers screening them on top of that. Hardly 100% effective, but they do a dam good job
>>28050043
Different anon here, pulling a wild guess out my ass-
A big part of target tracking is in the software. If a target is subsonic, the software expects it to stay that way and acts accordingly. Same with supersonic. The software probably has routines for handling a target transitioning from fast to slow, e.g. fuel burnout.
A target that transitions from slow to fast probably fucks with the software a little. It's expecting to see the target at X location, based on past data. No target there, but now there's a new target at Y. So now the software keeps looking for X target, while also keeping tabs on Y target.
Have enough targets doing this, the system freaks out and gets all indecisive.
You know, I bet a missile that does sprint and drift cycles would be a bitch to counter.
Anyhow, that's my take on it. Based on zero knowledge of how these things work.
>>28048999
I don't have an answer but I do have a webm.
>>28050916
>>28050707
That makes no sense unless the software was deliberately coded to be retarded. Software executes quite a bit faster than rockets can accelerate.
>>28050916
>Based on zero knowledge of how these things work.
it shows
>>28050916
Hi, Different Anon.
You are more or less correct, but another thing to consider here is that Threat D (which is actually a codename for Russian Kalibr ASM) is actually a multi-stage missile.
The supersonic terminal spring occurs when the second stage is dropped and the missile accelerates to 2-3 Mach with a 3rd final stage. The change in velocity and the separation of a stage create confusion in battle management computers who do no expect a new bogie to appear all of a sudden.
I'll just quote DoD here: http://www.acq.osd.mil/dsb/reports/ADA441466.pdf
>Threat D: Threat D is a Russian sea-skimming, anti-ship cruise missile
with a unique flight profile. It starts with subsonic flight, but as it nears its ship
target, the vehicle separates into two sections, and the warhead stage flies a
supersonic, sea-skimming profile to the target. This subsonic-supersonic
transition and the separation of the vehicle into two pieces may present a source
of confusion to a ship’s defense system. A test target that emulates this unique
target profile is needed.
>>28048999
They're the last line of defense for a reason.
>>28051099
Well that's a programming issue
>>28051035
>Software executes quite a bit faster than rockets can accelerate.
>>28050916 here again. Pulling more guesswork out of my ass.
The software execution speed isn't the problem. It's the input that the software receives that causes the hangups. The software has to be written within certain parameters, to avoid things like locking on to seagulls and the like. So, it's written to expect certain behaviors from a target. If a target doesn't behave that way, it's invalid. But then the target exhibits other, valid, threat behavior. The software starts cycling between valid/invalid target. System freeze.
I suppose it's mostly a software issue, although tweaking the sensors that feed the software might be necessary, as well.
>>28052285
This is not really a problem. Flight profile of a bird is significantly different from any missile, mainly in speed. Even the slowest missiles out there are going to be doing 400mph+ which no bird can do.
Computation limitations come from path prediction, of not just the target but yourself in relation to the target. Complexity has a linear relation to forward time because the number of variables is always constant. Algorithm complexity is not a problem, because it is not a function of a limited set thus it has an inverse linear relation with effectiveness. Kinematics is simple, however there is going to be more than just kinematics involved in path prediction. Mainly in maneuvering targets that make flight judgement. This variables can not be practically deduced. So the only other alternative in this case is statistical prediction. Unpredictability is a function of a limited set, and thus effectiveness has an inverse exponential relation.
There are physical limitation on the CIWS themselves. Rotary gun systems are not super tight enclosure with super solid barrels. You are always going to have a relatively large spread. Intercepting missiles have to have relatively large amount of delta v for complex maneuvers as well as be able to carry sensor package on board.
Sensor capacity can be a limit on the smaller CIWS rockets.
IMO
>>28053257
>Sensor capacity can be a limit on the smaller CIWS rockets.
To be fair, at the point where you have to use short range missiles, the incoming missile is already on terminal approach and won't be maneuvering if it wants any chance to hit the target.
>>28053278
Really because, I have heard a lot about end stage maneuverability missiles.
>>28048999
When laser technology get's good enough, missile warfare as we know it will be obsolete and MAD a thing of the past.
When are we going to have stealth missiles that move at 50-100 miles per hour with the RCS of a small bird??
>>28049922
Yep. 0 missile intercepted by gun-based CIWS outside of tests, but many incidents.
>>28053403
When the visual cross section is smaller than an ant.
>>28053415
There haven't bee that many missiles attacks on systems with CIWS.
But we have had some of this.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Gz0LssslcA
>>28053369
Lasers are a dead end for ABM.
Miniaturization of guidance and tracking components will be the death of missiles.
Small kinetic energy interceptors.
Think cluster bombs, but with anti missile missiles.
Already on satellites.
>>28053449
Dat sound
I want me one of those
I would love to see what a phalanx does to a flock of seagulls.
They should widen the parameters for entertainment value.
>>28053403
AGM-129 was here.
>>28053257
>You are always going to have a relatively large spread.
Make that a virtue that works for the system. Instead of DU solid shot, make each round a fragmentation round with a superquick prox fuse.
>>28053449
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=__OaITubFd8
The Type 1130 CIWS
11 barrels, 30mm tungsten APDS abnd HE-Frag munitions.
10,000 rounds per minute. 97% interception rate for supersonic missiles.
Type 1130 combined with HHQ-10 Point Defense Missile System means that everything within up to 10km will get shreked.
>>28053369
Why is that video recorded at 300 FPS when the human eye can only perceive up to 60? :^)
Why not use ship radar to fry/jam incoming missiles?
>>28053369
>HEL BEAM
Hell beam.
They really fucking did that.
>>28053824
>Miniaturization of guidance and tracking components will be the death of missiles.
Explain? Wouldn't this just simply make supersonic missiles far more viable, as it becomes easier to guide them?
>>28050769
>7 - guns from other hips
Are those even really a threat anymore? Relatively small range and caliber.
>>28055788
>97% interception rate for supersonic missiles.
Got a reputable source for that? All I'm finding is recycled propaganda, with no hard facts.
>>28056768
well they are rapid fire and if you get in range they can mess your day, but as you said not really a treat, not that they lack a range, more in they way how modern naval combat plays out
>>28051470
this. plus the supersonic sprint is meant for when they go above the horizon, so more often than not the ships own radars dont spot it when its subsonic.
>>28053824
Are we talking battlestar galactica but on a viable scale? Because this expands the dong
>>28053824
Can't stop a shell friendo, the case is too thick.
>>28053824
50mm EAPS soon
basically an autocannon that fires semi active homing projectiles
>>28053449
The utter terror in that voice always gets me
>>28058467
>meanwhile, in pastaland
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OTO_Melara_76_mm#DART
>>28055964
The video was recorded at 300fps and played back at standard 30fps, this slows everything down by a factor of ten, meaning 10 seconds of video translates to 1 second of actual recording.
>>28060383
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OTO_Melara_76_mm#DART
Pasterinos may be shit at war but they can make some really good shit
>>28049922
The ship didn't even have its goddamn CIWS turned on, how is that an example?
>>28060383
>ship borne ammunition
>only sucessfully tested for the first time a year ogo
