US ABM Systems

I have a question about AEGIS BMD. Since AN/SPY-1 radar range is 185km what is the usefulness of sm-3 missile range of 500 km?

I have a question about AEGIS BMD. Since AN/SPY-1 radar range is 185km what is the usefulness of sm-3 missile range of 500 km?

1) AN-SPY-1 (D/DV) detection range is significantly greater than 185 km.
2) AN-SPY was designed almost exclusively as an air-defense asset.
3) SM-3 missile,at which you refere, is a dedicated AB missile (you could organize an happy meeting of 1950's Cessna around it without any fear or peril )
4) AN-SPY-1 ,in order to capitalise at maximum the exo-atmospheric range of SM-3 need cooperative/third person target detection ,tracking and designation by part of ground and space based anti-ballistic assets.


Hope to be useful.

Mindstorm wrote:
1) AN-SPY-1 (D/DV) detection range is significantly greater than 185 km.

how much?

how much?

More than double of that figure for few square meters targets.


In particular for the ABM -Anti-Ballistic-Defense- task (Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense), in the ABMD 4.0.1 version has been implemented, as previously said, a critical launch on remote with third party track/designation.

In this stage (4.0.1) spiral improvement program aimed at AN/SPY-1DV (already capable since several years of the so called "single-beam, multi-object tracking" and to create a wideband synthetic radar image of sub-clutter targets) has been integrated also a special BMD Signal Processor (BSP) designed purposely for ballistic defense and capable of timing management of new waveform bursts ,to obtain not only best in-EMI (Electro Magnetic Interference) performances ,but also better clutter penetration (also thanks to a new modeled signal processor with recorded clutter mapping and mitigation algorithms) contributing for a significant increase in the detection/tracking range.

SOC any reason why they are using a two colour seeker over FPA/IIR seeker for the new SM-3 , are two colour seeker good enough to discriminate between targets and decoys is what they think ?

Austin wrote:SOC any reason why they are using a two colour seeker over FPA/IIR seeker for the new SM-3 , are two colour seeker good enough to discriminate between targets and decoys is what they think ?

It's a two-color IIR seeker. "Two-color" denotes the seeker sensitivity, not the seeker type.

SOC wrote:It's a two-color IIR seeker. "Two-color" denotes the seeker sensitivity, not the seeker type.

SOC , which ever report i read it speaks of two colour IR seeker and not IIR seeker.


http://defense-update.com/20120511_sm3_block1b_aegis_bmd_401_intercept.html

The SM-3 Block IB interceptor features a two-color infrared seeker, which improves sensitivity for longer-range target acquisition and high-speed processing for target discrimination.

Austin wrote:

SOC wrote:It's a two-color IIR seeker. "Two-color" denotes the seeker sensitivity, not the seeker type.

SOC , which ever report i read it speaks of two colour IR seeker and not IIR seeker.

SM-3-IA used a one-color IIR seeker. SM-3-IB uses a two-color IIR seeker. Half the time the news reports mention the one but not the other, because they're focusing on the difference between the two. When you see the black and white footage that looks like TV downlinked from the seeker head, that's your clue that IIR is being used.

SOC wrote:SM-3-IA used a one-color IIR seeker. SM-3-IB uses a two-color IIR seeker. Half the time the news reports mention the one but not the other, because they're focusing on the difference between the two. When you see the black and white footage that looks like TV downlinked from the seeker head, that's your clue that IIR is being used.

Thanks , Never read of any one using dual colour IIR seeker ...SM-3IB perhaps is the only one out there.

BTW why are they not conducting test with few decoys around them wont that be more realistic test ? I find even Indian ABM test are done without decoys but they are mostly done in high atmosphere at 70 and 20 km respectively

IIR has an image... like the image formed on a thermal imager.

An ordinary IR seeker sees hotspots but more like a radar display than a TV image.

Within a field of view a retreating fighter in full AB might appear as two dots or areas of heat with a third hotspot in the sky that is the sun. Old IR missiles chased the hottest biggest thing they could see, which usually meant the sun. To prevent the IR seekers chasing the sun they got filters and if they saw several hot things to not chase the hottest one, which led pilots to carry Flares of different intensities.

Late model IR guided missiles like R-73 and AIM-9M had much more sensitive seekers and saw an aircraft as a collection of hotspots and were never locked onto the hottest spot... they could lock onto the front of an aircraft at closer range. That is when flares had to be released in batches to form patterns in the sky to distract the missiles.

The IR seeker designers then went to two colour models that looked in IR and UV... because a front on lock on a warm spot on an aircraft wont be broken by flares because the front of fighters might have a signal in IR but no signal in UV,while the flares had a signal in both frequencies. The missile simply homed on to the locked on IR spot on the front of the aircraft and ignored anything giving off UV light (ie burning material).

DIRCM was the solution and IIR an attempt to defeat DIRCM by using filters that blocked polarised laser waves etc etc etc...

SOC - do you know how many missiles one THAAD battery can guide at once at how many targets?

Same for patriot?

Patriot can generate nine simultaneous guidance commands per radar. One or two missiles (selectable in the ECS) per target for PAC-2 and two per target for PAC-3.

THAAD shoots one per target, using shoot-look-shoot doctrine. Not sure if it can send more up at once, or how many simultaneous intercepts it can manage, but it did kill two targets simultaneously in a late 2011 test, so that's probably the minimum figure.

SOC wrote:Patriot can generate nine simultaneous guidance commands per radar. One or two missiles (selectable in the ECS) per target for PAC-2 and two per target for PAC-3.

THAAD shoots one per target, using shoot-look-shoot doctrine. Not sure if it can send more up at once, or how many simultaneous intercepts it can manage, but it did kill two targets simultaneously in a late 2011 test, so that's probably the minimum figure.

So per battery for each system and only BM targets we have:

So for Patriot we have:

PAC-2
- 9 channels for max 9 BM targets
PAC-3
- 9 channels for max 4 BM targets (2 missiles per target)

For THAAD we have:
- x channels for min 2 BM targets max =?
(I have read that during Deasert Storm US targeted SCUDS with 4 PAC-2 missile per SCUD so based on that I think there is certainly an option to target BM with more than one missile)

S-300V (export version)
- 12 channels for max 6 targets (has specialized sector radar Imbir just for BM detection)

S-300P (export version)
- 12 channerls for max 6 targets

Viktor wrote:I have read that during Deasert Storm US targeted SCUDS with 4 PAC-2 missile per SCUD so based on that I think there is certainly an option to target BM with more than one missile

Possibly, but they also could've been targeting missiles from multiple batteries.

SOC wrote:

Viktor wrote:I have read that during Deasert Storm US targeted SCUDS with 4 PAC-2 missile per SCUD so based on that I think there is certainly an option to target BM with more than one missile

Possibly, but they also could've been targeting missiles from multiple batteries.

There was one reported event about I read that Al Hussein which was Iraq SCUD modification performed badly in a way that

re-entry angle was got wrongly so missiles would fell apart all by itself. On that reported event missile broke on 14 pieces each of them

being shoot at by 4 Pac-2 missiles throwing 50 million $ in the wind (of course US could not know about flawed Al Hussein missiles)

As THAAD has active guidance in terminal phase radar needs to keep missile on track only during midcourse and until terminal phase of

approach making radar business much easier. Thats why I think I has no problem guiding more than one missile, beside the thing that

no missile in battle conditions have 100% accuracy so to achieve it you will want to fire more than one missile per target.

Actually it wasn't the angle... the whole missile was flawed in that they extended the range by quite a margin, but didn't make any structural changes to the design. The resulting extended range meant the missile was coming in at much higher speeds than it was designed for and was breaking up... which would have happened at any angle it came in at.

Even for shorter ranged shots however the main problem for Patriot was fusing... Patriot was an anti aircraft missile, not an anti missile missile, so it tended to hit the centre of mass, or more accurately the warhead was exploded near the centre of mass, which for a modified Scud was the rear area with the engines and fuel tanks. Of course a ballistic missile uses its engines and fuel to climb up and then it pretty much follows a ballistic path and falls on the target... shredding the engine and fuel tanks has very little effect on the rocket... though sometimes it might result in a change in trajectory and effect its impact point, it doesn't stop the missile.

When the warhead explodes the fragments from the explosion are rapidly accelerated but as they move through the air they rapidly decelerate, so if the warhead has passed its warhead then most of the fragment damage will be to the middle to rear of the missile so it has little chance of setting off the warhead, which is the best way to defeat an incoming missile.

GarryB wrote:Actually it wasn't the angle... the whole missile was flawed

Actually it has a great track record in shooting down NATO aircrafts .

Actually it has a great track record in shooting down NATO aircrafts .

The Patriot does, but then again one of the targeted aircraft managed to fire a HARM and defeat Patriot. The narrow beam would be a difficult target for HARM except when it is directed at the aircraft the HARM is mounted on.
I would think that late model S-300 and S-400 would have been able to shoot down a HARM as well as the aircraft that launched it.

the sm-3 missile have a range of more than 500km, as today, or in the future they expect to have?

dino00 wrote:
the sm-3 missile have a range of more than 500km, as today, or in the future they expect to have?

SM-3 can shoot only ballistic missiles, its like THAAD specialized system. 

No fighters, planes, winged missiles, bombs etc

Thanks.
But my question is realy the range.
I don´t understand if, today, the range is 500 km or only in the future.
Can it today shoot(imaginary)Iranian ICBM.

dino00 wrote:Thanks.
But my question is realy the range.
I don´t understand if, today, the range is 500 km or only in the future.
Can it today shoot(imaginary)Iranian ICBM.

Yes 500+ range and 200km in altitude. 
SM-3 cant shoot ICBM and Iranians dont have ICBMs.  But SM-3 should be able to shoot down Sahab-3 (2000-300km range).

+1
Thanks for the answers.
I don´t believe Iran wants ICBM.
If they have 500 km range how it will be diferent in future the sm-3 block II.
In term of the range SM-3 is , until, S-500 the best.
I am only talking about the range.

Key U.S. missile interceptor test fails, Pentagon says

A test of the only U.S. defense against long-range ballistic missiles failed on Friday, the third consecutive failure involving the interceptor system managed by Boeing Co, the Defense Department said.

"Program officials will conduct an extensive review to determine the cause or causes of any anomalies which may have prevented a successful intercept," it said in a statement.

The military has tested the so-called ground-based midcourse defense system 16 times. It has succeeded eight times, with the last intercept in December 2008.

Isnt this operational GBI that is failing to intercept ?

Are we back to MKV concept now ?

Pentagon Seeks Common Missile ‘Kill Vehicle’