Posted on 06/21/2011 12:53:47 AM PDT by sukhoi-30mki
New British missile three times as fast as current weapons
Travelling at three times the speed of sound and skimming the sea at wave top enemy sailors will have just three seconds to react before they are hit by the latest British-designed missile.
By Thomas Harding, Defence Correspondent in Paris
7:00AM BST 21 Jun 2011
The Perseus missile will be the most sophisticated weapon in its class travelling at Mach 3 or 2,000 miles an hour, three times the speed of existing weapons.
In midflight it can deploy a further two baby missiles that can help it straddle a ship with devastating firepower or seek out extra targets or confuse surface-to-air missile batteries.
One engineer on the project unveiled at the Paris Air Show, said: "This is the stealth bomber of missiles and can penetrate enemy defences like nothing else."
The £800,000 Perseus, designed to replace the existing Exocet and Storm Shadow weapons, will
(Excerpt) Read more at telegraph.co.uk ...
I wonder if it leaks as much oil as my Cousin's old Austin Healy?
I agree — please don’t let it be Lucas, prince of darkness.
Interesting. In particular the so called ‘baby missiles.’
The Soviet-built SS-N-22 Sunburn is an ASM that Russia has had in it’s arsenal since the 1970’s that can do Mach 3. Back in 1999, Russia sold four destroyers armed with these missiles (which are designed primarily to kill American aircraft carriers) to China.
3 seconds is a very, very long time for modern computers.
That is true, however it still gives the missile a far better chance against most countermeasures. The ship defenses have to perform perfectly, particularly if more than one missile is incoming.
More importantly, compare that with the response time for ship defenses against the American Harpoon and/or the French Exocet - 120 to 150 seconds. 3 seconds versus 150 seconds is a substantive difference. In one case the defenses have to work perfectly the first time (and far out enough to ensure that shrapnel and fuel from a successfully destroyed missile do not effect a soft kill on the ship by taking out antennae etc on top of the ship), while in the other case 150 seconds is enough time to try several times (and in several ways).
3 seconds reaction time doesn't make a missile invincible, but then what does that say about the ASM Tomahawk, Harpoon and Exocet?
If my math is correct, 2000 MPH = 2933 feet per second. In three seconds, the missiles would travel 1.67 miles. Even if I buy the article’s premise that a person would only have 3 seconds to react before it’s too late, who says a person has to make the decision? Given 3 seconds, a computer has more than enough time to evaluate velocity, altitude, trajectory, etc., determine if flight characteristics fall into “unfriendly” parameters, check for valid IFF replies, and set onboard defense systems to fire. However, I find it hard to believe ships can’t detect something traveling at 2000 MPH until it’s 1.67 miles away. The things have to fly at least a few feet above the highest waves, so pulse doppler should be able to pick them up.
For how many hours?
The 3 seconds must be the time from detection to a firing decision. The designers must be counting on delaying detection until the missile is much closer than existing missiles. So it’s fast and stealthy. Stealth is relative, and speed is relatively insignificant in the computer world. I think something traveling at better than Mach 2 would stand out like a sore thumb on pulse Doppler systems. That’s not even counting such things as skin temperature (hotter than surrounding at that velocity) and detection on the electromagnetic spectrum (active targeting system?).
As for sticking out like a sore thumb ...a Harpoon or Exocet coming in at high-subsonic will stick out just as much as this British missile (and other supersonic, and soon to be hypersonic, missiles screaming in) when it comes to viable detection on a radar system. Both will be very easily detected and tracked (now, if the Exocet or Harpoon was inching forward at 2 feet an hour you may have a point, but that is not the case ...thus if the Brit missile is sticking out 'like a sore thumb' then the Harpoon/Exocet would be sticking out 'like a sore index finger').
The same applies to IR detection ...sure, the frontal cone temperature of an approaching multiple-Mach projectile will be significantly higher than that of a high-subsonic projectile, but both in terms of IR radiation will be high enough to be detected by any (US or foreign) IR systems. Once again, using the 'sore finger' hypothetical-subjective scale, if one is a sore thumb, the other in this case would be a sore little finger (at least not index finger like the radar scenario) ...but unfortunately very clearly detectable.
Long and short is that either missile, supersonic (or even hypersonic) vs high sub-sonic, is very easily detectable to the 3 main types of detection: i) radio-frequency, ii) electrical-optical and iii) infrared visibility. Very easily. Which is why future missiles are taking two approaches ...the first is sub-sonic stealthy missiles (primarily RCS and IR reduction), while the second approach is speed (supersonic and hypersonic approach). Some people like the Norwegians have taken the stealthy route for their next-gen ASM (in particular, the stealthy NSM). Others have gone for the other camp, and these include the Russians, the Chinese, the Indians, the Taiwanese, and now the British (article above), and the United States are working on the super/hypersonic angle. Yes, the US is working on the LRASM-B, which is a super-sonic ramjet powered missile to be used in the vertical launcher of ships. Interestingly, that is what they decided to use on ships, rather than LRASM-A which was a sub-sonic stealthy variant that they opted not to include on ship-strike but rather as an aircraft carried weapon. Pic of LRASM-B attached below. It seems that there is a much larger consensus about the survivability of a supersonic (and hypersonic) incoming projectile. Again, it does not make the weapons invincible by any means (and future anti-missile technology will get better, e.g. work on laser based defense systems), but they are FAR more survivable than sub-sonic missiles. 3 seconds versus over a hundred seconds is a lot of difference, and future ASM work and investment seems to be cognizant of that difference.
I agree. Compared to existing missiles, something that is faster and more stealthy is better. It increases the odds of a successful hit (which, even then, doesn’t necessarily mean a kill). Also, just because every attack can be thwarted by a defense system, it doesn’t mean every country will be able to field the necessary defensive technologies. The best strategy is probably one that involves many different kinds of offensive and defensive systems.
The article has it’s share of marketing/optimistic BS, but gets more real when it mentions in passing that the missile will be ready in 2030 — 20 years from now! UK and US may not even exist in current form — 20 years from now.
Let me say something off-tangent ...looking at some of the systems the US is currently developing (particularly the few projects by DARPA that have made it to the light of day, which can be taken as a tacit sign that there are more/better projects hidden in the nebulous dark), it does seem that the US is preparing for any eventuality, including conflagration against a near-peer adversary. While Congress yaps that current weapon systems are too expensive (e.g. the F-22, and now the F-35) and many systems get cancelled (e.g. the Crusader), there are other solutions being worked on that are more ‘out there’ and bode greated potential and effect. Which makes me wonder that, even as the Dems say cut weapons (and even as us FReepers worry about the future capability of the US military machine), that there are still systems working that ensure the capability and edge of the US is still far beyond almost anything else out there. I know we like to look at things in terms of black and white (Dems bad, Pubs good), but when it comes to certain things there is a lot of gray (eg Cheney killing the F-14 upgrades when he was Sec of Def, and the Raptor getting its throat slashed and heart stabbed when Bush was president ...Obama simply nailed the coffin and lowered it 6 ft). For instance, the cancellation of the F-117 may have seemed bad when it happened, but it was because better technology was available (and the NightHawk was already obsolete to enemy detection as shown in Serbia). Maybe I am too optimistic, but I have a feeling that (even as we complain about the attrition of US capability) that should a near-peer (read: CHINA) ever try anything funny, they may get some surprises that are not too good for them. One last example ...we know how good the F-22 is (absolute dominance in the A2A regime, high kinematics, all-aspect stealth, all that and a bowl of relish), but a story came out a couple of months ago about some tests the USAF was running where they were working on AESAs that could detect the Raptor. I took that to be a dig at the Chinese J-20 (i.e. if we can detect the Raptor at viable ranges we can detect YOU at ranges that have considerable kill efficacy). Again, if that information is being released, and we are discussing it on an open forum like FR, then what else is lurking behind knowing minds and sealed lips that we do not know? If I know some of the vulnerabilities of the AEGIS system, then how much more do those in the real know (as opposed to us internet folk) know (both in terms of real capabilities, as well as counter-measures to any vulnerabilities)? If you know of the short-comings of the Harpoon to current and future Chinese phased radar systems, then how much more do those in the real know know, and how far have they come towards defeating those naval PESAs and/or AESAs? As I said, off tangent, but I think if we knew the sheer extent of what is going on we would probably sit down and either laugh or cry (depending on whether one is pro US or anti US). I have a nagging suspicion that the pro US side would be laughing, and laughing hysterically. Yes, I am also an optimist.
That three seconds includes slewing and firing a CIWS or RIM-116 point defense weapon to the firing solution, engaging the target, and destroying it.
Also, at Mach 3, even if you hit the missile the supersonic shrapnel will make for a bad day onboard the targeted ship.
The terminal attack profile of the latest block of Exocets is a randomized spiral - extraordinarily difficult for fire control systems to follow.
Or a whole bunch o' cheap slow, unstealthy missiles that simply overwhelm the maximum engagements the target ship can manage at once.
Yes.
Not only do you have 3 seconds to react, the incoming missile has to deal with targeting issues in 3 seconds.
The terminal attack profile of supersonic missiles like the Moskit and the Klub are also randomized zig-zags ...only at supersonic speed. Makes it even harder than that of an Exocet/Harpoon. Much harder for fire control systems to follow (and more importantly, much harder for hard-kill countermeasures to destroy ...in particular impossible for gun systems like the Phalanx to intercept due to the supersonic erratic terminal approach, hence the slow shift to missile-based CIWS as opposed to gun-based Phalanx types).
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.