Defending against anti-ship balistic missiles

New and old developments in aviation technology.
  • Author
  • Message
Offline

hornetfinn

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2818
  • Joined: 13 Mar 2013, 08:31
  • Location: Finland

Unread post17 Dec 2015, 14:41

Thanks popcorn! I was thinking that the idea is so simple that somebody has to have already thought about that... :D

I think it should be easy to add IR blocking ingredients. AFAIK, Pandarra fog works also against infrared and other optical systems.
Offline
User avatar

popcorn

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 7704
  • Joined: 24 Sep 2008, 08:55

Unread post17 Dec 2015, 16:10

hornetfinn wrote:Thanks popcorn! I was thinking that the idea is so simple that somebody has to have already thought about that... :D

I think it should be easy to add IR blocking ingredients. AFAIK, Pandarra fog works also against infrared and other optical systems.

Presumably Pandarra Fog would also screw with the sensors aboard Navy ships ie. would it render AEGIS ineffective? Maybe not if they have à E-2D circling above and it's datalink is somehow able to penetrate the obscurant..
"When a fifth-generation fighter meets a fourth-generation fighter—the [latter] dies,”
CSAF Gen. Mark Welsh
Offline
User avatar

popcorn

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 7704
  • Joined: 24 Sep 2008, 08:55

Unread post19 Dec 2015, 01:18

The Navy wants a smarter Nulka.

http://www.seapowermagazine.org/stories ... arris.html
U.S. Navy Awards Harris $54 Million Electronic Warfare Contract

MELBOURNE, Fla. — Harris Corp. has received a three-year, $54 million ceiling, single-award contract from the U.S. Naval Research Laboratory to provide electronic warfare (EW) technology and engineering services for the Advanced Decoy Architecture Project (ADAP). The indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity contract was awarded during the first quarter of Harris' fiscal 2016, the company announced in a Dec. 17 release.

Harris will provide ADAP payloads designed to lure missiles away from their intended targets with advanced electronic techniques. The ADAP payloads are an upgrade to the existing Nulka decoy, currently in service with the U.S. Navy, Coast Guard, Royal Australian Navy and Royal Canadian Navy. Harris also will provide research engineering services to help advance the Navy's capabilities to meet current and future EW mission requirements.

“Programs like ADAP help ensure that the Navy’s tactical EW capabilities remain at the cutting edge as the threat landscape continues to evolve,” Rich Sorelle, president of the Harris Electronic Warfare Systems business unit, said in the release. “By supporting the rapid deployment of this new capability, Harris continues to demonstrate its commitment to Navy EW and mission success in the electromagnetic spectrum.”
"When a fifth-generation fighter meets a fourth-generation fighter—the [latter] dies,”
CSAF Gen. Mark Welsh
Offline
User avatar

count_to_10

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3283
  • Joined: 10 Mar 2012, 15:38

Unread post19 Dec 2015, 03:39

popcorn wrote:
hornetfinn wrote:Thanks popcorn! I was thinking that the idea is so simple that somebody has to have already thought about that... :D

I think it should be easy to add IR blocking ingredients. AFAIK, Pandarra fog works also against infrared and other optical systems.

Presumably Pandarra Fog would also screw with the sensors aboard Navy ships ie. would it render AEGIS ineffective? Maybe not if they have à E-2D circling above and it's datalink is somehow able to penetrate the obscurant..

If you have AEGIS ships out in front of it, they won't have a problem.
Einstein got it backward: one cannot prevent a war without preparing for it.

Uncertainty: Learn it, love it, live it.
Offline
User avatar

popcorn

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 7704
  • Joined: 24 Sep 2008, 08:55

Unread post19 Dec 2015, 04:32

count_to_10 wrote:
popcorn wrote:
hornetfinn wrote:Thanks popcorn! I was thinking that the idea is so simple that somebody has to have already thought about that... :D

I think it should be easy to add IR blocking ingredients. AFAIK, Pandarra fog works also against infrared and other optical systems.

Presumably Pandarra Fog would also screw with the sensors aboard Navy ships ie. would it render AEGIS ineffective? Maybe not if they have à E-2D circling above and it's datalink is somehow able to penetrate the obscurant..

If you have AEGIS ships out in front of it, they won't have a problem.

Yeah but then they become tàrgets ala pickets off Okinawa in 1945. Pesumably PF could protect a CSG or solo combatants providing distributed lethality. Anyway, Navy will work out apropriate CONOPs.
"When a fifth-generation fighter meets a fourth-generation fighter—the [latter] dies,”
CSAF Gen. Mark Welsh
Offline

zero-one

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2179
  • Joined: 23 Jul 2013, 16:19
  • Location: New Jersey

Unread post19 Aug 2019, 09:28


Interesting video on ASuW. I think the channel is one of the better researched military channels out there compared to it's contemporaries.

But I'm not sure why most people consider the AGM-158C inferior to the latest anti ship missiles.
My argument is, no matter how fast, if you're missile relies on data links pre terminal stage then that data link can be jammed, If its not stealthy then its easier to target and hit.

There is a notion that fast missiles are impossible to hit. Is this true? the US navy has the GQM-163 which is said to be capable of replicating the Brahmos, Klub and even DF-21 ballistic missiles.

It was successfully intercepted by the French Aster 30
(https://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/gq ... ses-03155/)
missiles which is roughly an analogue of the SM-2

and was again intercepted by SM-6 missiles
(http://www.navyrecognition.com/index.ph ... le&id=2073)

So to me Stealth missiles which do not rely on data links is really the way to go.
Online
User avatar

sferrin

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5414
  • Joined: 22 Jul 2005, 03:23

Unread post19 Aug 2019, 18:26

zero-one wrote:There is a notion that fast missiles are impossible to hit. Is this true? the US navy has the GQM-163 which is said to be capable of replicating the Brahmos, Klub and even DF-21 ballistic missiles.


No. Coyote simulates Brahmos and Klub. Ballistic missile targets simulate DF-21. And AQM-37C (which have also been shot down) are WAY faster than Coyote.

http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/m-37.html
"There I was. . ."
Offline

fidgetspinner

Banned

  • Posts: 67
  • Joined: 17 Nov 2018, 02:27
  • Warnings: 2

Unread post20 Aug 2019, 04:18

"the US navy has the GQM-163 which is said to be capable of replicating the Brahmos, Klub and even DF-21 ballistic missiles."

"No. Coyote simulates Brahmos and Klub."

Since the Brahmos is based off the onyx I believe there is a slight problem I need to address before something is called comparable. But below is the export yakhont.

Image

Here is an example of the coyote missile.

https://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/gq ... ses-03155/

Rail-launched from Navy test and training ranges, the highly maneuverable Coyote achieves cruise speeds of over Mach 2.5, with a range of approximately 60 nautical miles at altitudes of less than 20 feet above the sea surface

Aug 13/10: High Diver. The first flight test of the Coyote SSST High Diver variant was successful. During the naval test at San Nicolas Island, CA, the Coyote High Diver vehicle was rail-launched from the ground, then boosted by its Variable Flow Ducted Rocket (VFDR) solid rocket motor to ramjet-takeover speed. It ascended to 35,000 feet and Mach 3.3 cruise under ramjet power, and executed the planned 40-degree unpowered dive to its objective point near the ocean’s surface at the end of its 110 mile journey.
Aerojet’s VFDR is also used in the original SSST configuration, but the CQM-163 needed guidance software modifications that let it operate at altitudes up to 50,000 feet.

http://members.home.nl/7seas/radcalc.htm

I am assuming for H2 the ship radar would be 30 meters and I put 5 meters for H1 got a radar horizon of 31.81kms. The coyotes 60 nautical mile below 20 ft altitude journey is 111.2kms. So- 79.39kms it will definitely not be seen but at a 35,000ft altitude with H2 remaining as 30 meters the radar horizon is 448kms. The next problem is the 40 degree dive.

https://m.blog.naver.com/PostView.nhn?b ... gle.com%2F
"Range is at 300 km in a hi-lo profile or at 120 km at altitudes of 5-15 metres, in a lo-lo profile. A regular mid-course phase of the flight occurs at 15 km."

The problem is yakhont as a longer low altitude range than coyote as well as overall range assuming the 110 mile journey is max 177kms. The bigger problem is that the onyx comes with twice the range and this is what the brahmos is based off of. If the max flight attitude is 10-14kms so putting 14kms for h1 the radar horizon is 500kms. So lets assume the low-low profile for the onyx is twice that of yakhont than the low altitude profile would be 220kms. which would mean ships can still track the target but at a way lesser time before re-appearing again. Also there is a bigger problem than this is that they made the dive more steep so there is no telling what range the long low altitude range would be. Wiki is showing me that even the speeds have changed on brahmos.

I am assuming that the coyote based of its range was meant to replicate the brahmos missile variant that came before india signing to be a part of the MTCR. and regarding the klub missile I assuming that they are referring to export version because the domestic version goes by the name kalibr. And boy the supersonic version of the kalibr missile has a max range of 440-660kms with a max flight ceiling being 1km put that on h1 than it is very safe to assume that a ship out at sea will not know the presence of a incoming kalibr missile and if its 15ft low profile altitude is correct as well than 31.4km is the max range and if the speed is mach 2.9 in which its basically 1km/s than 31.4 seconds is the only time the kalibr missile will show itself to any ship so it makes sense why the Navy only referenced klub instead of kalibr. klubs and brahmos variants(before MTCR) have around 300km ranges although it would be nice to try out against supersonic targets that have longer ranges instead of ones below 300kms.

We have hit ballistic missiles before as well be it IRBMs or MRBMs the problem regarding the future is that scramjet flight ceilings are much lower along with other certain factors that make it a more difficult target if anyone is interested in hearing that as well?
Offline

zero-one

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2179
  • Joined: 23 Jul 2013, 16:19
  • Location: New Jersey

Unread post20 Aug 2019, 04:31

sferrin wrote:No. Coyote simulates Brahmos and Klub. Ballistic missile targets simulate DF-21. And AQM-37C (which have also been shot down) are WAY faster than Coyote.

http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/m-37.html

Aug 1 3/1 0: High Diver. The first flight test of the Coyote
SSST High Diver variant was successful. During the naval
test at San Nicolas Island, CA, the Coyote High Diver
vehicle was rail-launched from the ground, then boosted
by its Variable Flow Ducted Rocket (VFDR) solid rocket
motor to ramjet-takeover speed. It ascended to 35,000
feet and Mach 3.3 cruise under ramjet power, and
executed the planned 40-degree unpowered dive to its
objective point near the ocean's surface at the end of its
1 1 0 mile journey.

Aerojet's VFDR is also used in the original SSST
configuration, but the CQM-163 needed guidance
software modifications that let it operate at altitudes up
to 50.000 feet.

There are cruise missiles that execute supersonic pop up and dive attacks at the end of their flight, but not from 50,000 feet and not usually at shallow trajectories. Anti-ship ballistic missile like China’s Dong Feng 21D on the other hand, may have just found their target analogue.

https://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/gq ... s-03155/0p
Offline

Corsair1963

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5729
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post20 Aug 2019, 06:19

zero-one wrote:Interesting video on ASuW. I think the channel is one of the better researched military channels out there compared to it's contemporaries.

But I'm not sure why most people consider the AGM-158C inferior to the latest anti ship missiles.
My argument is, no matter how fast, if you're missile relies on data links pre terminal stage then that data link can be jammed, If its not stealthy then its easier to target and hit.

There is a notion that fast missiles are impossible to hit. Is this true? the US navy has the GQM-163 which is said to be capable of replicating the Brahmos, Klub and even DF-21 ballistic missiles.

It was successfully intercepted by the French Aster 30
(https://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/gq ... ses-03155/)
missiles which is roughly an analogue of the SM-2

and was again intercepted by SM-6 missiles
(http://www.navyrecognition.com/index.ph ... le&id=2073)

So to me Stealth missiles which do not rely on data links is really the way to go.



The AGM-158C (LRASM) is hardly inferior to the latest Anti-Ship Missiles. As a matter of fact I would say the opposite.... :twisted:
Online
User avatar

sferrin

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5414
  • Joined: 22 Jul 2005, 03:23

Unread post20 Aug 2019, 12:56

fidgetspinner wrote:"the US navy has the GQM-163 which is said to be capable of replicating the Brahmos, Klub and even DF-21 ballistic missiles."

"No. Coyote simulates Brahmos and Klub."

Since the Brahmos is based off the onyx I believe there is a slight problem I need to address before something is called comparable. But below is the export yakhont.

Image

Here is an example of the coyote missile.

https://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/gq ... ses-03155/

Rail-launched from Navy test and training ranges, the highly maneuverable Coyote achieves cruise speeds of over Mach 2.5, with a range of approximately 60 nautical miles at altitudes of less than 20 feet above the sea surface

Aug 13/10: High Diver. The first flight test of the Coyote SSST High Diver variant was successful. During the naval test at San Nicolas Island, CA, the Coyote High Diver vehicle was rail-launched from the ground, then boosted by its Variable Flow Ducted Rocket (VFDR) solid rocket motor to ramjet-takeover speed. It ascended to 35,000 feet and Mach 3.3 cruise under ramjet power, and executed the planned 40-degree unpowered dive to its objective point near the ocean’s surface at the end of its 110 mile journey.
Aerojet’s VFDR is also used in the original SSST configuration, but the CQM-163 needed guidance software modifications that let it operate at altitudes up to 50,000 feet.

http://members.home.nl/7seas/radcalc.htm

I am assuming for H2 the ship radar would be 30 meters and I put 5 meters for H1 got a radar horizon of 31.81kms. The coyotes 60 nautical mile below 20 ft altitude journey is 111.2kms. So- 79.39kms it will definitely not be seen but at a 35,000ft altitude with H2 remaining as 30 meters the radar horizon is 448kms. The next problem is the 40 degree dive.

https://m.blog.naver.com/PostView.nhn?b ... gle.com%2F
"Range is at 300 km in a hi-lo profile or at 120 km at altitudes of 5-15 metres, in a lo-lo profile. A regular mid-course phase of the flight occurs at 15 km."

The problem is yakhont as a longer low altitude range than coyote as well as overall range assuming the 110 mile journey is max 177kms. The bigger problem is that the onyx comes with twice the range and this is what the brahmos is based off of. If the max flight attitude is 10-14kms so putting 14kms for h1 the radar horizon is 500kms. So lets assume the low-low profile for the onyx is twice that of yakhont than the low altitude profile would be 220kms. which would mean ships can still track the target but at a way lesser time before re-appearing again. Also there is a bigger problem than this is that they made the dive more steep so there is no telling what range the long low altitude range would be. Wiki is showing me that even the speeds have changed on brahmos.

I am assuming that the coyote based of its range was meant to replicate the brahmos missile variant that came before india signing to be a part of the MTCR. and regarding the klub missile I assuming that they are referring to export version because the domestic version goes by the name kalibr. And boy the supersonic version of the kalibr missile has a max range of 440-660kms with a max flight ceiling being 1km put that on h1 than it is very safe to assume that a ship out at sea will not know the presence of a incoming kalibr missile and if its 15ft low profile altitude is correct as well than 31.4km is the max range and if the speed is mach 2.9 in which its basically 1km/s than 31.4 seconds is the only time the kalibr missile will show itself to any ship so it makes sense why the Navy only referenced klub instead of kalibr. klubs and brahmos variants(before MTCR) have around 300km ranges although it would be nice to try out against supersonic targets that have longer ranges instead of ones below 300kms.

We have hit ballistic missiles before as well be it IRBMs or MRBMs the problem regarding the future is that scramjet flight ceilings are much lower along with other certain factors that make it a more difficult target if anyone is interested in hearing that as well?


For a target it doesn't matter if the range is shorter. All that matters is it replicates the amount of difficulty. And Coyote is probably faster than Brahmos/Onyx (they don't do Mach 2.8 on the deck). Coyote would have difficulty replicating Sizzler's dart.

As for the D-21, what we don't know is how fast it's RV is coming in. If it's as slow as Mach 3 (which would astonish me) then yeah, Coyote could replicate it. I'd still think you'd want to go with an AQM-37C as it can fly higher, faster, further, and is cheaper than Coyote. In fact they used AQM-37C on a (relatively) recent SM-6 test.

"Some of the latest AQM-37Cs have further improved heat insulation, and can also be used to simulate ballistic missile threats, being able to fly ballistic trajectories to an altitude of 100 km (330000 ft) and a range of 425 km (265 miles), with terminal speeds of Mach 5."
"There I was. . ."
Online
User avatar

sferrin

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5414
  • Joined: 22 Jul 2005, 03:23

Unread post20 Aug 2019, 12:59

zero-one wrote:
sferrin wrote:No. Coyote simulates Brahmos and Klub. Ballistic missile targets simulate DF-21. And AQM-37C (which have also been shot down) are WAY faster than Coyote.

http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/m-37.html

Aug 1 3/1 0: High Diver. The first flight test of the Coyote
SSST High Diver variant was successful. During the naval
test at San Nicolas Island, CA, the Coyote High Diver
vehicle was rail-launched from the ground, then boosted
by its Variable Flow Ducted Rocket (VFDR) solid rocket
motor to ramjet-takeover speed. It ascended to 35,000
feet and Mach 3.3 cruise under ramjet power, and
executed the planned 40-degree unpowered dive to its
objective point near the ocean's surface at the end of its
1 1 0 mile journey.

Aerojet's VFDR is also used in the original SSST
configuration, but the CQM-163 needed guidance
software modifications that let it operate at altitudes up
to 50.000 feet.

There are cruise missiles that execute supersonic pop up and dive attacks at the end of their flight, but not from 50,000 feet and not usually at shallow trajectories. Anti-ship ballistic missile like China’s Dong Feng 21D on the other hand, may have just found their target analogue.

https://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/gq ... s-03155/0p


That's some journalist's opinion. Until we know how fast DF-21s RV is traveling once it's in the atmosphere you can't really make that judgement. Personally, I'd think it would be coming in a HELL of a lot faster than Coyote (which is why they used the faster AQM-37 in recent SM-6 testing).
"There I was. . ."
Offline

fidgetspinner

Banned

  • Posts: 67
  • Joined: 17 Nov 2018, 02:27
  • Warnings: 2

Unread post21 Aug 2019, 03:08

@sferrin

"All that matters is it replicates the amount of difficulty."

Do not worry this will be my last post and its apologies on my part for not offering you a demonstration earlier to what I mean.

My previous source gave that the range of the coyote missiles journey is 177kms and having a 111km low altitude flight. Although I disagree with the 110mile/177km range I believe it is somewhere around 300km in range in order for it to effectively simulate a brahmos or a klub missile. 177-111= 66kms of no low altitude flight. So if Coyote is launched and covers a range of 66kms or is about to enter the low altitude flight profile at the 111km range mark. The SM-6 with mach 3.5/ 1.2km/s would cover 79.2kms. Now there is a very important feature on the SM-6 and that it the fact it has a host radar system. http://eng.ktrv.ru/production/military_ ... -35ue.html if the Russians can acquire a 50km autonomous lock on to targets and their companies KRET and RTI say they are 5-10 years behind in MMIC technology along with the fact that the SM-6 is much newer than this anti-ship missile. Than I definitely believe the SM-6 will have no problem acquiring a 42km lock on the coyote missile that has already currently entered the low altitude flight profile.

Again I honestly don't believe the Coyotes max range to be 177kms I believe it to be rather 300kms which would mean 189kms before it enters its final low altitude flight profile. I honestly believe that the ships radar does not even have to use the host radar on the SM-6 to intercept the coyote before it begins its dive or it is during its dive. For example when SM-6 111 divide by 1.2 would mean the missile is already at 111kms at 92.5 seconds and since coyote is spot on 1km/s assuming its range is 300kms the distance covered by coyote would mean it is 207.5km/s away from the ship. I am guessing the coyote missile is 1.about to ascend to 35,000 ft. 2. is at 35,000ft. 3. is currently descending with its 40 degree dive but not low enough to reach 111kms meaning the ships radar is still tracking the coyote missile. So in the next 44-45 seconds the interception occurs between the 160-162km range mark and even at this range I do not even think the SM-6 has to use its host radar because I believe the radar horizon for the ship would still be able to track it.

I believe it replicates the early brahmos or klub variants. But some newer or better variants would either 1. be tracked partially by the ship but quickly descend in which the ships radar wont track it and the SM-6 host radar is unable to track it because its too faraway. 2. be as good as the kalibr missile and not let the ship even know you are there until you are around 30kms which the ship would have to immediately track you, plan and interception than launch the SM-6 in which reaction time will bring the kalibr closer to the point that CIWS would have to be used. Although I got into a huge argument with someone from another aviation forum about the deployment of radar balloons https://forum.keypublishing.com/forum/m ... sams/page3 and I am not going into too much detail about it here because I will definitely get slapped with a banned sign here if I did.

AQM-37C being faster does not always mean its going to be more difficult to intercept because travelling in an arc allows ship radars to track you way longer and give enough time for a planned interception.

http://www.wsmr-history.org/AQM37CDrone.htm

"The AQM-37C(EP) extended performance target capable of flying at 100,000 ft altitude at a speed of MACH 4 was launched from an F-4 aircraft at 50,000 ft altitude traveling at MACH 1.5. Eight of these targets were specially modified for flight safety purposes to be flown at WSMR as targets for the Standard Missile program SM-2 Block IV in 1993."

Are you referring to this or you have another source about the 100km altitude or you mistaken the measurements for 100,000ft? If this was launched from an F-4 as its testing phase at 50,000ft, ascends to 100,000ft than descends back towards the ship. Than the ship gets the entire 425kms to track this missile without a doubt but I have no idea how long it flies at mach 4 or mach 1.5 when air launched according to this source

Did you happen to use wiki as a quick reference? "These variants were intended to simulate different classes of threats, such as sea-skimming antiship missiles or high-altitude naval attack missiles, or provide better performance. One high-performance variant with improved thermal protection attained a speed of Mach 4.7 and an altitude of over 112,000 feet (34 kilometers) on a ballistic trajectory. The final US Navy variant was designated AQM-37C."

I am assuming you are speaking about the air launched version being ascended? Rather if it is mach +1 or +2 faster it has an added 125km or 248kms(assuming 177kms is the max range for coyote) distance to cover which makes it seem it is still tracked longer than a coyote missile depending if it was air launched. Besides kalibr missiles which if sources are correct offer ships a less tracking time with its 1km flight ceiling and long range low altitude flight profile lets look at another threat for ships in the future.

https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news ... cification

According to Russians or Putin specifically they say mach 9 with a 1000km range flight ceiling 30-40kms. Still in testing phase.

Image

Zircon if sources are right is slightly faster and has a little longer range than a SRBM. Comparing 30-40kms flight ceiling to the 200km flight ceiling of a SRBM there is definitely going to be less radar tracking. Says to have either a plasma shield or cloud to further reduce RCS or the ability to get tracked. There have been many people that I have run into that claim its feasible or not feasible to hit its targets with the plasma feature but I am not looking for another argument based on this especially on this forum so don't shoot the messenger. And the next thing to worry about is does it maneuver in every phase of its flight like what was claimed on the kinzhal to throw off planned interceptions of fire control radar guidance or does it only maneuver on the terminal phase like the silver sparrow(again don't shoot the messenger)? People can go add in their suggestions here if they want but remember don't shoot the messenger here I just quote the sources where I find the information.

I hope I was of some help.
Online
User avatar

sferrin

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5414
  • Joined: 22 Jul 2005, 03:23

Unread post21 Aug 2019, 12:54

fidgetspinner wrote:@sferrin

"All that matters is it replicates the amount of difficulty."

Do not worry this will be my last post and its apologies on my part for not offering you a demonstration earlier to what I mean.

My previous source gave that the range of the coyote missiles journey is 177kms and having a 111km low altitude flight. Although I disagree with the 110mile/177km range I believe it is somewhere around 300km in range in order for it to effectively simulate a brahmos or a klub missile.


It's range isn't that long and it doesn't have to be. If it's a sea-skimmer, 20 miles is no different than a thousand when you're trying to find it from a ship. (Radar horizon.)
"There I was. . ."
Offline

madrat

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2308
  • Joined: 03 Mar 2010, 03:12

Unread post21 Aug 2019, 13:21

The flight time of an IRBM is one of the biggest threats. Six minutes is enough time to cover thousands of miles. Not much room for error.

I can imagine sensor fusion projecting into the future means you can afford to probe with drones and cruise missiles to triangulate attacks with ballistic missiles. You don't need hard kills to drive off fleets, just the ability to threaten them.
PreviousNext

Return to Technology

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 3 guests