F-35 best loadout combination to penetrate Type 055 defense

[hornetfinn]

Here is some very interesting info from Raytheon:
https://ndiastorage.blob.core.usgovclou ... 514889.pdf

They used two different models (their own and SADM from BAE Systems Australia). It definitely seems like there are good simulation tools and environments to estimate the effectiveness of both anti-ship missiles and ship based defences in high fidelity. I think really realistic exercises can be held only in simulated environments or better yet LVC environments with many things done only in virtual domain. You can use real world F-35s to shoot say 8 simulated LRASM against real world Arleigh Burke Flight II ship which simulates Type 055. Those simulated LRASM would engage the ship which uses all the weapon systems and countermeasures it has but only in virtual domain (not much problem with security etc). Maneuvering would be done in real world. Progression of the engagement would be calculated in the simulation. I'm sure such things have already been done.

Detection of sea skimming subsonic anti-ship missile occurred about 15 nautical miles away from the ship when modeling phased array radar in these simulations by Raytheon. Interception took place about 10-15 seconds after that, probably pretty realistic estimate as it takes time to actually track and ID the target, decide engagement and calculate interception parameters before shooting. It's also shown that the defensive systems can also do up to three engagements against a subsonic anti-ship missile and two in the case of supersonic missile. Add some jamming and such and engagment windows will be rather short. Of course these simulations expect that every system and crew are working and alert of the threat. That might not be the case in real world environment where equipment break and crew become fatigued for example. Of course the same thing is true with anti-ship missiles which are not 100% reliable and can lock on to wrong things.

[eloise]

It's also shown that the defensive systems can also do up to three engagements against a subsonic anti-ship missile and two in the case of supersonic missile

Where is this part?, I can't find it

[hornetfinn]

It's also shown that the defensive systems can also do up to three engagements against a subsonic anti-ship missile and two in the case of supersonic missile

Where is this part?, I can't find it

Just take a look at tables in pages 15 and 16 where ship SAM system Pk=0 (they never hit the incoming anti-ship missiles). There you can see those SAM1, SAM2...SAM6 with launches from about 13nm, 6-7nm and 2-2.8nm for subsonic threat. They used mostly two missiles for every engagement.

[ricnunes]

It definitely seems like there are good simulation tools and environments to estimate the effectiveness of both anti-ship missiles and ship based defences in high fidelity.

Yes, I agree. There are indeed military grade simulations that have very high fidelity.

However I don't think that's the case with CMANO. What I've seen posted here reminds me exactly of Harpoon a similar game/simulator also for PC which I played alot during the 1990's which modeled late 1980's and early 1990's systems and there the air defense warships (cruisers and destroyers) own air defense systems were equally and just as effective as those shown by eloise in CMANO which means that there's something 'wrong' (note the quotes) with these simulators which could be due to a number of factors such as:
- Gameplay balance - since these games revolve around naval assets which are obviously less numerous then aircraft they were 'artificially' modeled as being harder to be destroyed by anti-ship missiles by 'pumping up' their air defenses which makes them much more effective than their real counterparts.
- Factors such as the the missiles being harder to be detected against the sea/water background and/or ID, tracking or reaction time not being modeled or accurately modeled.
- etc...

Detection of sea skimming subsonic anti-ship missile occurred about 15 nautical miles away from the ship when modeling phased array radar in these simulations by Raytheon. Interception took place about 10-15 seconds after that, probably pretty realistic estimate as it takes time to actually track and ID the target, decide engagement and calculate interception parameters before shooting.

And I gather that 15 nautical mile value would be against a non-stealth sea skimming subsonic anti-ship missile such and namely as the AGM-84 Harpoon, no?
I also gather that against a stealth LRASM or JSM that the detection range (and therefore engagement range) would be even shorter (hence why these missiles are being built as stealth), no?

[wrightwing]

Detection of sea skimming subsonic anti-ship missile occurred about 15 nautical miles away from the ship when modeling phased array radar in these simulations by Raytheon. Interception took place about 10-15 seconds after that, probably pretty realistic estimate as it takes time to actually track and ID the target, decide engagement and calculate interception parameters before shooting.

And I gather that 15 nautical mile value would be against a non-stealth sea skimming subsonic anti-ship missile such and namely as the AGM-84 Harpoon, no?
I also gather that against a stealth LRASM or JSM that the detection range (and therefore engagement range) would be even shorter (hence why these missiles are being built as stealth), no?

Exactly! LRASM/JSM will get much closer before being detected (if they're detected at all).

[usnvo]

Detection of sea skimming subsonic anti-ship missile occurred about 15 nautical miles away from the ship when modeling phased array radar in these simulations by Raytheon. Interception took place about 10-15 seconds after that, probably pretty realistic estimate as it takes time to actually track and ID the target, decide engagement and calculate interception parameters before shooting.

And I gather that 15 nautical mile value would be against a non-stealth sea skimming subsonic anti-ship missile such and namely as the AGM-84 Harpoon, no?
I also gather that against a stealth LRASM or JSM that the detection range (and therefore engagement range) would be even shorter (hence why these missiles are being built as stealth), no?

Exactly! LRASM/JSM will get much closer before being detected (if they're detected at all).

Not necessarily. As indicated, the radar horizon for a sea skimming target is somewhere around 15nm but recognize that is not the maximum detection range of the radar against the target but rather the maximum range the radar can detect the target because of the radar horizon. So let’s use some made up numbers to illustrate the problem.

Let’s say a radar has a maximum detection range against missile 1, a fast but gigantic supersonic missile like a Sunburn, of 100nm. The radar could first detect the missile at 15nm when it flew over the radar horizon. Actual detection range is determined by a variety of other factors but I digress.

Let’s say the maximum detection range against missile 2, a super whammodyne, subsonic, stealthy missile like LRASM, is only 20nm, one fifth as far! Then it could be detected, wait for it, at 15nm when it flies over the horizon.

So while missile 2 has a shorter detection range than missile 1, it doesn’t mean anything in practical terms. Both missiles can be detected as soon as they cross the radar horizon. Note that as the missiles probably fly at different altitudes, the radar horizon will be slightly different for each missile.

But let’s say missile 1 has a maximum detection range of 50nm, then it could be detected at 15nm as before since the maximum detection range is more than the radar horizon. But, if missile 2 had the same 1/5 detection range as missile 1, it could only be detected at 10nm since the maximum detection range is closer than the radar horizon.

So it depends.

[ricnunes]

.
@usnvo,

What you say would only apply if "both missiles" while flying had the sky as background, this relative to the ship's radars.
The 'problem' with the sea skimming missiles is that while they are flying towards the target ship they don't have the sky as background but instead they have the sea/water surface as background, this relative to the ship's radars which makes sea skimming missiles much harder to be detected.
You can read the following in one of hornetfinn's posts in the last page of this thread:

Basically the sea clutter results in power gain of about -30 dB when the missile is flying at very low levels (below 20 meters ore so).

(and missiles like the JSM and LRASM fly much, much lower than 20 meters)

The sea/water background (sea clutter) acts as a sort of ECM for the sea skimming missile if you will and this effect benefits much more stealth missiles (such as LRASM or JSM) than non-stealth missiles (such as Harpoon or Exocet) just like an ECM will benefit more a stealth aircraft than a non-stealth aircraft.

Again, it's no wonder why stealth sea skimming anti-ship missiles are being developed in countries like the USA and Norway! Or and again, do you think that if such ship air defenses "best case predictions/scenarios" were minimally accurate that multi-million dollar missiles like the LRASM or JSM would be developed at all? Wouldn't these countries/companies develop supersonic missiles instead?

[wrightwing]

.
@usnvo,

What you say would only apply if "both missiles" while flying had the sky as background, this relative to the ship's radars.
The 'problem' with the sea skimming missiles is that while they are flying towards the target ship they don't have the sky as background but instead they have the sea/water surface as background, this relative to the ship's radars which makes sea skimming missiles much harder to be detected.
You can read the following in one of hornetfinn's posts in the last page of this thread:

Basically the sea clutter results in power gain of about -30 dB when the missile is flying at very low levels (below 20 meters ore so).

(and missiles like the JSM and LRASM fly much, much lower than 20 meters)

The sea/water background (sea clutter) acts as a sort of ECM for the sea skimming missile if you will and this effect benefits much more stealth missiles (such as LRASM or JSM) than non-stealth missiles (such as Harpoon or Exocet) just like an ECM will benefit more a stealth aircraft than a non-stealth aircraft.

Again, it's no wonder why stealth sea skimming anti-ship missiles are being developed in countries like the USA and Norway! Or and again, do you think that if such ship air defenses "best case predictions/scenarios" were minimally accurate that multi-million dollar missiles like the LRASM or JSM would be developed at all? Wouldn't these countries/companies develop supersonic missiles instead?

Exactly. The VLO missiles IF detected, would be more likely at single digit kilometers, than double digit nautical miles.

[ricnunes]

The X-band radar on Type 055 is a multifunction radar, so it can search/track/guide missile to target, similar to how a fighter radar can do all these tasks. It isn't an CW illuminator like SPG-62 so there no need to wait for a seperate search radar to track target first. X-band radar is is used as fire control system because you can have narrower beam width with higher frequency, narrower beam lead to more accurate shot. But it is also better for detection of target at low altitude, because you can use smaller antenna for higher frequency to get the same Gain, and it is easier to put smaller radar to greater height. X-band is also better for multi path detection.

I wanted to reply the above earlier but somehow I forgot. Anyway:

First, are you sure that the X-Band radar is a 'multifuction' radar and not an illuminator like the SPG-62?
I'm also asking this because the SPG-62 is also an X-band radar despite being a CW illuminator, here:
https://www.radartutorial.eu/19.kartei/ ... 47.en.html

I would say that probably the diference between the SPG-62 and the Chinese X-band radar of the Type 055 destroyer is that the former is mechanically steered while the later is electronically steered but otherwise they are essentially the same kind/type of radar.

Secondly, yes there are some fire control radars that can search for targets but this search is always very limited in terms of field of view. Basically and in order to work properly/efficiently the fire control radar always requires a search radar with a much bigger field of view to detect incoming targets and then cue the fire control radar at the direction of the incoming targets.
So even if this X-Band radar of the Type 055 destroyer that we're talking about has any search capabilities, this search would always be extremely limited in terms of field of view and thus would be very limited in detecting (first) any incoming stealth (or even non-stealth) sea skimming missiles.

Third, it's also known that stealthy shapes like the ones applied to the LRASM and JSM have better results against X-Band radars so this together with the point above makes the X-Band radar of the Type 055 destroyer inefficient (at best) against stealthy and sea skimming LRASM and JSM.

[eloise]

I wanted to reply the above earlier but somehow I forgot. Anyway:
First, are you sure that the X-Band radar is a 'multifuction' radar and not an illuminator like the SPG-62?
I'm also asking this because the SPG-62 is also an X-band radar despite being a CW illuminator, here:
https://www.radartutorial.eu/19.kartei/ ... 47.en.html
I would say that probably the diference between the SPG-62 and the Chinese X-band radar of the Type 055 destroyer is that the former is mechanically steered while the later is electronically steered but otherwise they are essentially the same kind/type of radar.
Secondly, yes there are some fire control radars that can search for targets but this search is always very limited in terms of field of view. Basically and in order to work properly/efficiently the fire control radar always requires a search radar with a much bigger field of view to detect incoming targets and then cue the fire control radar at the direction of the incoming targets.
So even if this X-Band radar of the Type 055 destroyer that we're talking about has any search capabilities, this search would always be extremely limited in terms of field of view and thus would be very limited in detecting (first) any incoming stealth (or even non-stealth) sea skimming missiles.
Third, it's also known that stealthy shapes like the ones applied to the LRASM and JSM have better results against X-Band radars so this together with the point above makes the X-Band radar of the Type 055 destroyer inefficient (at best) against stealthy and sea skimming LRASM and JSM.

Firstly, yes I'm sure the X band on Type 055 is a multi function radar and not just an illuminator like SPG-62. Type 055 basically use the same intergrated mast setup as Raytheon AMDR

The fact that it is an AESA also give a lot of flexibility to the waveform that it can use, it can also perform several role simultaneously
Secondly, a fire control radar have thinner beam than a search radar so they find target slower than a search radar (because they have to go over higher number of beam position). But that doesn't mean they can't work properly alone.Remember that at the end of the day, Type055's X-band is still an electronic scanned array, which can scan extremely fast because they scanned by wave interference instead of hydraulic part. The fire control radar on fighter aircraft are used as search radar all the time because they can't carry more than 1 radar.
Thirdly, yes stealth missiles likely work better against X-band, but we are also talking about extremely short distance here.

[ricnunes]

Firstly, yes I'm sure the X band on Type 055 is a multi function radar and not just an illuminator like SPG-62. Type 055 basically use the same intergrated mast setup as Raytheon AMDR

The fact that it is an AESA also give a lot of flexibility to the waveform that it can use, it can also perform several role simultaneously

Just because the X band radar on Type 055 destroyer looks like the Raytheon AMDR (SPY-6) it doesn't mean that it works like or that it has the same/similar capabilities as the AMDR/SPY-6!
While the Chinese are certainly catching up in terms of technology they still don't have the same level of technology as the USA (or even as other western countries like the UK or France).

Secondly, a fire control radar have thinner beam than a search radar so they find target slower than a search radar (because they have to go over higher number of beam position). But that doesn't mean they can't work properly alone.Remember that at the end of the day, Type055's X-band is still an electronic scanned array, which can scan extremely fast because they scanned by wave interference instead of hydraulic part. The fire control radar on fighter aircraft are used as search radar all the time because they can't carry more than 1 radar.

Even if you're right above, this radar would still be far more limited in terms of scan volume compared to the Type 346B AESA Radar.
Together with the above (the Chinese still lags behind the US in terms of technology) would/should make the X-Band radar even more limited when it comes to search capabilities.

Thirdly, yes stealth missiles likely work better against X-band, but we are also talking about extremely short distance here.

And again and as mentioned earlier, the sea clutter compensates the shorter (detection and tracking) distance.

[eloise]

Just because the X band radar on Type 055 destroyer looks like the Raytheon AMDR (SPY-6) it doesn't mean that it works like or that it has the same/similar capabilities as the AMDR/SPY-6!
While the Chinese are certainly catching up in terms of technology they still don't have the same level of technology as the USA (or even as other western countries like the UK or France).

The inherent nature of AESA is multi functions because they don't have the same constrain as mechanical array, and It doesn't take higher level of technology to just put what basically an enlarged fighter AESA on the mast, we aren't talking about a new type of radar, just very basic AESA like the one used on fighter aircraft.
I don't think France and UK have better technology than China. Neither able to make their own stealth aircraft while China already manufacture J-20 and J-31. UK didn't even make any fighter AESA while China already have working AESA on their J-10C. We can claim China copied alot from US and Russia but it doesn't change the fact that they already made these system and China also have very high military funding second only to USA.

Even if you're right above, this radar would still be far more limited in terms of scan volume compared to the Type 346B AESA Radar.
Together with the above (the Chinese still lags behind the US in terms of technology) would/should make the X-Band radar even more limited when it comes to search capabilities.

Fire control radar doesn't have smaller field of regard than a search radar, they just have smaller beamwidth, so it takes them a bit longer to fully scan 360 sectors. The scan rate of electronic scanned array otherwise pretty much only limited by the time pulses go out then come back (aka speed of light).

And again and as mentioned earlier, the sea clutter compensates the shorter (detection and tracking) distance.

Possible, I will put data in the AESA calculator to see

[ricnunes]

The inherent nature of AESA is multi functions because they don't have the same constrain as mechanical array, and It doesn't take higher level of technology to just put what basically an enlarged fighter AESA on the mast, we aren't talking about a new type of radar, just very basic AESA like the one used on fighter aircraft.

For example the Fire Control Radar of a SA-3 (S-125), the SNR-125 isn't AESA and yet it can search for and detect targets. However its field of view/regard is quite small.
That's why fire control radars are always and whenever possible, 'coupled' with search radars that allows much better field of regard scanning and detection of targets.

Regarding AESA (or MSA or PESA for that matter) fighter aircraft radars (something that you also mentioned in your previous post), yes they are fire control radars and yes they can also scan for targets (like the SNR-125 example above) but there's something that we have to keep in mind regarding this:
- Whenever possible fighter aircraft are always 'coupled' with AWACS and/or GCI radars/stations. Yes, 'technically' modern fighter aircraft could operate 'alone' without GCI/AWACS support but in this case they will always be much less effective again due to the limitations of fire control radars in terms of search. For instance the F-35 overcomes this by merging up all the information coming from all sensors (and not only radar!) from all F-35s in the theater together with information from other allied assets.
- Due to the 'nature' of fighter aircraft which are much more faster and more numerous while having a much, much shorter endurance they usually are sent to perform missions going from point A to point B and perform the mission in point B so the limitation of only being able to scan in a smaller field of regard (frontal sector in fighter aircraft) is a well accepted tradeoff. But this is not the case with much, much slower and less numerous warships (while having a hugely bigger endurance) which and due to these reasons must be able to effectively scan 360º around the ship and that's why they usually carry those huge search radars such as the Type 346B radar in the Type 055 destroyer.

I don't think France and UK have better technology than China. Neither able to make their own stealth aircraft while China already manufacture J-20 and J-31. UK didn't even make any fighter AESA while China already have working AESA on their J-10C. We can claim China copied alot from US and Russia but it doesn't change the fact that they already made these system and China also have very high military funding second only to USA.

Just because France and UK still doesn't have Stealth Fighters doesn't mean that they don't have the technology and better than China BTW, to develop their own Stealth fighters. Actually and currently they are developing their own stealth fighters (NGF and Tempest respectively). The only reason why France and UK came late to the stealth fighter aircraft game is because these countries suffered from major defense spending cuts (a stance totally and completely opposite to China) together with the economic factor of wanting to manufacture and sell/export more Rafales and Typhoons respectively (which is related to the major defense spending cuts).
The UK already has a fighter with AESA radar, it's called the F-35B. However, I think that here you're mentioning the Typhoon and an own (UK) developed AESA radar, right? Well, the reason for this is essentially the same as stated in the paragraph above.
Moreover and since we're talking about warships as well, the UK already uses AESA radars (on warships) for quite some time and apparently earlier than China. An example of this is the SAMPSON radar on the Type 45 destroyer which entered in service earlier than the Type 346A AESA in the Type 052D destroyer which kinda and IMO proves the points above.

Fire control radar doesn't have smaller field of regard than a search radar, they just have smaller beamwidth, so it takes them a bit longer to fully scan 360 sectors.

Which in practical terms basically means the same as having a smaller field of regard.
Either (with a Fire control radar) you have a big field of regard which takes longer to scan and therefore basically makes the radar ineffective in a search role or you have the radar scanning a much smaller field of regard which makes it more effective within that small field of regard but with the tradeoff which obviously (and also) makes it ineffective to search for targets in wide fields of regard such as 360 degree (required for what we're talking about).

The scan rate of electronic scanned array otherwise pretty much only limited by the time pulses go out then come back (aka speed of light).

AESA certainly allows faster scanning speed/rate compared to MSA radars, no question about that. However despite being very fast, the AESA doesn't instantly scan an entire volume/air space or scans an entire field of regard at the speed of light. As you're probably aware, an AESA radar sends several pulses and not all of them at the same time, this in order to scan in a certain field of regard.
For instance the APG-81 (F-35's radar) takes a full 9 seconds to scan/detect 23 targets in it's field of regard (120 degrees) and probably none of those 23 targets were stealthy like a JSM or LRASM missile.
Here:

[madrat]

Its only a matter of time until someone comes out with curved AESA arrays where they can broaden the view to 180 degree or more. Ships could get full 360 degree coverage with redundancy off two curved arrays, maybe keep overlap to increase redundancy or reduce scan times by going three or four. Or maybe they disperse a bunch or smaller arrays on their own sub-quadrants and within their own power zones within the ship to increase warfighting capacity when critically bad things happen on board, like a PGM strike. I noticed each generation of new ship seems to get further and further away from that redundancy concept when it really should go the opposite. Maybe they'd have fewer collisions if more sets of eyes were involved with tracking traffic high and low.

[ricnunes]

Its only a matter of time until someone comes out with curved AESA arrays where they can broaden the view to 180 degree or more. Ships could get full 360 degree coverage with redundancy off two curved arrays, maybe keep overlap to increase redundancy or reduce scan times by going three or four. Or maybe they disperse a bunch or smaller arrays on their own sub-quadrants and within their own power zones within the ship to increase warfighting capacity when critically bad things happen on board, like a PGM strike. I noticed each generation of new ship seems to get further and further away from that redundancy concept when it really should go the opposite. Maybe they'd have fewer collisions if more sets of eyes were involved with tracking traffic high and low.

There's no need for "curved arrays" on ships. Just distribute something like 4 large arrays/antennas around the ship's superstructure which covers 360's degrees around the ship like happens with the Chinese Type 055 and other modern warships (from other countries) like you can see in one of the pictures shared in one of eloise's posts and which I'll repost below:



The solution above allows the ship to maintain a lower RCS due to the straight lines of the ship's superstructure while a curved array would require a curved superstructure or a curved tower/antenna which by its turn would increase the ship's RCS.