Forum: Technology

Hi boys,
Do you think it would be possible, using an appropriate software, to link aircraft control surfaces, hi definition radar and fast firing M61A2, to intercept an incoming enemy a2a missile, as an MK 15 Phalanx Close-In Weapons System ??

F-16.net Sponsor

in short: no.

Active Member Joined: Aug 28, 2006 - 05:58 AM Posts: 191

A phalanx sits almost still on a ship in relative terms, some rocking at about thirty miles per hour. Each can be easily accounted for with stabilization. The inbound missile may make a few S's or alter course slightly, but basically comes straight in. 1 phalanx vs 1 missile in actual wartime conditions? I don't know the answer but I would think 50/50.

Now move the ship at 700 knots while climbing and turning. Yikes! The first problem is to just get the servos to move fast enough to slew with each motion. In short I think it can't happen, though maybe it could on an attack helo. It has a gun anyway. The 360 degree traverse is an issue, but if it can detect an inbound missile, perhaps it can slew it's gun as an additional defense measure. 2 problems, one, most helos don't detect missiles (yet) they use something like a AN/ALQ-146, ie, a jammer. It has no idea a missile is on it's way, it just jams all the time. 2) the weight and complexity to see the missile and slew the gun which by these standards fires pretty slow. Also this only protects from below, (fighter has the same problem)

Heavy, problematic, unreliable, and likely ineffective. The same theory with directed energy weapons is on the table I believe though. Perhaps in a generation.

So do you think even a direct energy weapon won't be usefull against an incoming amraamsky?

I think the AAM vs AAM intercepts are certainly possible in the future. No make that likely. And that is the likely developement not a gun based CIWS rig. If this becomes effective, then one may see micronized AAMs whose specific duty is to intercept AAMs at close range. A range of 1~3km would be sufficient and the interceptor won't even need to be as fast as the inbound since it won't have to chase it under any circumstance. The interceptor missiles may end up being flare sized or just a bit larger -- like the size of a few soda cans stacked vertically. It may be dropped like flares with the evading aircraft pulling a turn to a perdenicular vector to the inbound. The interceptor(s) dropped then pitches towards the target, boosts towards it and hopely detonate its ring charge warhead within a few meters of the inbound destroying the in bound or damaging it enough to cause it to miss. In principle it is not that much different from active kill anti-RPG/ATGM systems now appearing on tanks.

Active Member Joined: Aug 28, 2006 - 05:58 AM Posts: 191

A) Direct energy weapons remain to be seen. (size, weight, effectiveness, cost,& reliability) They sound a little too cute, or like a sales pitch for me right now. I'll believe it when I see it.
B) AA Missile to AA missile? Also a ways off. Hitting a big missile with a big missile it still questionable. The Arrow looks like the best system deployed so far. It's huge, designed to hit MRBM from essentially fixed (mobile) sites. Now mount something small enough for a fighter to carry, launch at 800 knots and hit a maneuvering target doing 2000 knots launched from an aircraft doing 900 knots? A target 7 inches across? It may be likely, but not for quite some time to come, a decade or more at a minimum to deploy.
C)Active anti-RPG? In the old days that was called an infantryman. A few more of those in the mix are a damn site better that whatever idiot box being sold to the pentagon. THAT is indictitive of our fatal flaw in our military system. The latest gadget that will save our bacon rather than doing it the hard way the first time and getting it done right the first time. Boots on the ground, or a marine in a bad mood will beat that stupid box any day. No offense...,

Its not that hard to hit an incoming AAM. Unlike ABM systems, you don't have to achieve hit-to-kill accuracy. All you need is to get within a few meters of it and blast it with a ring charge warhead. AAMs are fragile enough that they'll be destroyed or they'll be damaged enough to miss.

Active Member Joined: Aug 28, 2006 - 05:58 AM Posts: 191

If it's not that hard, it would have bee done already. Doing it reliably enough to justify the added weight of the system remains to be seen.

I think it wouldn't need any added weight since F22 or even F35 are already able to fly in a precise direction (the direction of incoming aam's trajectory), is already able to calculate this direction and is also already able to fire whit it's gun at very hi fire ratio..
It would need just a software that put together all these features (well, i think so Smile

)

Elite 1K Joined: May 26, 2005 - 08:39 PM Posts: 1496

Quote:

I think it wouldn't need any added weight since F22 or even F35 are already able to fly in a precise direction (the direction of incoming aam's trajectory), is already able to calculate this direction and is also already able to fire whit it's gun at very hi fire ratio..
It would need just a software that put together all these features (well, i think so Smile )

Think about that for a second. You have an incoming AAM heading straight at you with a Very Large closing velocity. Even if you DO hit the missile and it explodes you still have fragments of a former AAM coming at you at a Very Large closing velocity. Aircraft aren't quite as tolerant to small high velocity fragments as ships are and the effective range of a "Phalanx type system" is not very far.

dwightlooi wrote:

Its not that hard to hit an incoming AAM. Unlike ABM systems, you don't have to achieve hit-to-kill accuracy. All you need is to get within a few meters of it and blast it with a ring charge warhead. AAMs are fragile enough that they'll be destroyed or they'll be damaged enough to miss.

Let's just say that if *we* already have said capability with the 120's then it wouldn't be made public.

Guysmiley wrote:

Quote:

I think it wouldn't need any added weight since F22 or even F35 are already able to fly in a precise direction (the direction of incoming aam's trajectory), is already able to calculate this direction and is also already able to fire whit it's gun at very hi fire ratio..
It would need just a software that put together all these features (well, i think so Smile )

Think about that for a second. You have an incoming AAM heading straight at you with a Very Large closing velocity. Even if you DO hit the missile and it explodes you still have fragments of a former AAM coming at you at a Very Large closing velocity. Aircraft aren't quite as tolerant to small high velocity fragments as ships are and the effective range of a "Phalanx type system" is not very far.

Yes, i agree with you about this.. it would need at least a 5 - 8 Km effective range to guarantee aircraft safety assuming that after firing it should pull a fast turn avoiding this fragment..

if an incoming AAM is approccing at.. well let's calculate whit easy number.. say 3600 Km/h (so 1 Km/sec) hit's fragment would take 8 secs (an eternity!) to reach a static target (but the target (the Raptor) is also mooving forward at about 1500Km/h..) is also true that once AAM get hit, hit's fragment start to quickly decelerate, since there's no longer any propulsion ad drag drastically increase.

Elite 1K Joined: May 26, 2005 - 08:39 PM Posts: 1496

And since 20mm cannons don't have a "5 - 8 Km effective range", you just answered your own question.

An M61A2 20-mm Vulcan is definitely not a good candidate for a system like the Phalanx, just the velocity of incoming warhead which when it chases a highspeed fighter would roll and bank and turn more rapidly than an ASM on course towards a naval vessel like a carrier. Not only that, but it wouldn't be cost effective.

As for destroying air to air missiles with other weapons its risky fighters like has been stated are not armored shells impervious to destruction they are very suceptable to hits from just fragments of weapons (AAA for instance). No I think the good old run faster and cut harder than the missile can is still the best chance to get a missile away from you. Not just that, but jamming, chaff, and flares are better than trying to pepper a missile out of the air with ordnance.

As far as I am concerned until a reliable lightweight and cost effective Anti-missile system is developed for fighter mounting we'll stick to just mounting that tech onboard warships.

Active Member Joined: Aug 28, 2006 - 05:58 AM Posts: 191

Towed decoys, better smarter chaff and flares, perhaps as far as air mines, but no more than that for the foreseeable future.

Forum: Technology

M61A2 20-mm like Phalanx