Modern Naval Vessels

@boogieman

SPY-6 is not X-band radar there was proposal for X-band version but in future.

So as S-band radar it can't be accurate enough to guide SM-6 with datalink against LO/VLO target which could also be quite fast.

Type-055 looks quite impressive:

@boogieman

SPY-6 is not X-band radar there was proposal for X-band version but in future.

So as S-band radar it can't be accurate enough to guide SM-6 with datalink against LO/VLO target which could also be quite fast.

I think you're confusing the SPY-1D initially used on the Arleigh Burke with the newer SPY-6. The SPY-6 operateds in both S and X band frequencies.

https://missilethreat.csis.org/defsys/amdr/

Radars like MF-star operate in the S band and are used to guide Barak ship-based SAMs. Multi-function radars are the "in-things" today.

@boogieman

SPY-6 is not X-band radar there was proposal for X-band version but in future.

So as S-band radar it can't be accurate enough to guide SM-6 with datalink against LO/VLO target which could also be quite fast.

S-band radar can definitely be accurate enough given large enough antenna and large ships have enough room for such an S-band antenna. S-band antenna needs to have 3 times the diameter an X-band antenna has to give the same angular resolution. IIRC, AN/SPY-6 has something like 4 to 6 meter diameter depending on version. So it should not have problems with resolution to guide SAMs to any target.

That would be quite useful, I didn't think S-band can be used agianst LO/VLO fast targets, becuase other newest destroyers all have AESA X-band fire control radars (british Type 45, chinese Type 055).

But now when I think there are SAM systems which used S-band for fire control.

What is interesting more is usage of AWACS radar to guide AAM. E-3 and A-50/100 work in S-band, A-100 is also AESA so it could be quite useful to guide R-37 but why not 9M96 missiles.

That would be quite useful, I didn't think S-band can be used agianst LO/VLO fast targets, becuase other newest destroyers all have AESA X-band fire control radars (british Type 45, chinese Type 055).

But now when I think there are SAM systems which used S-band for fire control.

What is interesting more is usage of AWACS radar to guide AAM. E-3 and A-50/100 work in S-band, A-100 is also AESA so it could be quite useful to guide R-37 but why not 9M96 missiles.

I would think you would know that LO/VLO design missile and fighter is all about good against x-band. The type 45 use S band for fire control because Aster use active seeker. The x-band still useful for point defense vs LO/VLO anti ship missiles and that why type 55 have it. Long range radar for ship is always S band nowadays. It is better against LO/VLO target than x-band.

Was reading this piece recently about the Kh31/MA31 target missile:

In 1995, McDonnell Douglas first received a contract to deliver modified Kh-31A missiles as part of a Foreign Comparative Test (FCT) to see if they could meet the Navy's requirement for a Supersonic Sea-Skimming Target (SSST). The American company subsequently worked with the Russian manufacturer, Zveda-Strela, to develop the MA-31.

Zveda-Strela had first begun the development of the Kh-31-series in the late 1970s in what was then the Soviet Union. The original requirement was for a high-speed anti-radiation missile that would be able to home in on and destroy the radars associated with then-new and emerging western air defense systems, such as the U.S. Army's Patriot surface-to-air missile system and the U.S. Navy's Aegis combat system...

...The MA-31's days had already been numbered due to factors beyond Boeing's control. In 2001, Russia, under its then-new President Vladimir Putin, had imposed new export restrictions that led to delays. President George W. Bush's decision to pull out of the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty in December of that year also chilled relations between Washington and Moscow. By 2005, Boeing had only been able to make 18 of the contracted 34 MA-31s due to political and bureaucratic hurdles, according to a report from the Defense Science Board's Task Force on Aerial Targets.

The success of the GQM-163A was the final nail in the coffin for the MA-31. The Navy eventually expanded all of these Kh-31-based targets it had acquired and canceled the program for good in 2007.

The Coyote, which remains in use today, is yet another rocket-ramjet-powered design. Orbital Sciences, which evolved first into Orbital ATK and is now Northrop Grumman Innovation Systems, was able to keep the cost of the target low by using established components from proven Standard Missile 1 and 2 variants and the smaller AQM-37D supersonic target.

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/3 ... rom-russia

It's a really interesting story that ultimately gave rise to the GQM-163 used today. Would love to hear from members on the board who can provide insight on how the Kh31 performed and what was learned from it?

Presumably the SSST initiative has been invaluable in testing and validating a variety of systems (SM2/6, ESSM, RAM etc) over the last 15 years or so. That said I suspect a new generation of super/hypersonic targets will be needed in due course to emulate weapons like Tsirkon, Kinzhal, YJ-18 and DF-21D/26.

https://ndiastorage.blob.core.usgovclou ... cksick.ppt

what was learned from it? [/b]

That the US had little to fear from Russian supersonic cruise missiles (aside from Threat D)
if the KH-31 was at all representative of the threat.

Presumably the SSST initiative has been invaluable in testing and validating a variety of systems (SM2/6, ESSM, RAM etc) over the last 15 years or so.

Why presumably?

That said I suspect a new generation of super/hypersonic targets will be needed in due course to emulate weapons like Tsirkon, Kinzhal, YJ-18 and DF-21D/26.

You mean a VFDR can't emulate a MaRV? Was anyone suggesting it could?

That the US had little to fear from Russian supersonic cruise missiles (aside from Threat D)
if the KH-31 was at all representative of the threat.

That is welcome news. What are you basing that on out of interest? A source would be great.

Why presumably?

Why not?
Because it appears to have produced the most modern target missile (GQM-163) for USN emulation of supersonic sea-skimming ASMs(?)

You mean a VFDR can't emulate a MaRV? Was anyone suggesting it could?

Happy to plead ignorance on both counts You raise a fair point though - weapons like Kinzhal and the Chinese ASBMs follow a ballistic profile AFAIK, so perhaps they could be emulated using existing BM targets (whatever is used for testing SM3/THAAD perhaps? Honestly don't know - my Google-fu has failed me).

Tsirkon and possibly YJ18 may be a bit different though, as I am not sure of exactly what kind of flight profile the former uses, while the latter is a sea skimming subsonic cruise/supersonic-maneuvering-terminal-sprint weapon akin to the Russian Klub. I believe the GQM-173 would have replicated this sort of thing had it been brought to fruition. Perhaps the GQM-163 was seen as sufficient?

Supersonices: Generally AQM-37. I think they are looking for a replacement. GQM-173 - for klub (ground launched).

I was under the impression GQM-173 got canned. I think it's GQM-163 in that space for now.

I was under the impression GQM-173 got canned. I think it's GQM-163 in that space for now.

It was canned. They are adding a chaff kit to GQM-163 to simulate Threat D's staging.

That the US had little to fear from Russian supersonic cruise missiles (aside from Threat D)
if the KH-31 was at all representative of the threat.

That is welcome news. What are you basing that on out of interest? A source would be great.

Why presumably?

Why not?
Because it appears to have produced the most modern target missile (GQM-163) for USN emulation of supersonic sea-skimming ASMs(?)

You mean a VFDR can't emulate a MaRV? Was anyone suggesting it could?

Happy to plead ignorance on both counts You raise a fair point though - weapons like Kinzhal and the Chinese ASBMs follow a ballistic profile AFAIK, so perhaps they could be emulated using existing BM targets (whatever is used for testing SM3/THAAD perhaps? Honestly don't know - my Google-fu has failed me).

Tsirkon and possibly YJ18 may be a bit different though, as I am not sure of exactly what kind of flight profile the former uses, while the latter is a sea skimming subsonic cruise/supersonic-maneuvering-terminal-sprint weapon akin to the Russian Klub. I believe the GQM-173 would have replicated this sort of thing had it been brought to fruition. Perhaps the GQM-163 was seen as sufficient?

On the KH-31, it's just informal conversations with some of the people who worked on the program.
Virtually all of the work on it is public domain. I don't know if KH-31 is truly representative of the state
of late-Soviet/Russian ASCMs though I've read some of the various Russian military sites that are adamant
that it is not.

The big issue is the dive angle/RCS for some of the threat weapons; not sure if GQM-163 can emulate that or the
RCS of a MaRV.

Interesting, thanks for the input. Can I just clarify what is meant by threat D? I vaguely remember seeing it mentioned online some time ago but haven't managed to find a reference to it since.

Out of interest, have any of your sources shed any light on how the USS Mason's systems performed against Houthi C802 attacks? AFAIK the inbounds were defeated but it was not clear whether hard or soft kill measures were responsible for defeating them.