Anon

BTW, you overlooked jamming again.

Kidd's have tremendously powerful multi-band jammers.

lurker

And Sunburns are practically jammer-proof. The same thechnology that is been used in AEGIS/Standard - S-300 - Granit/Sunburn - have been around for years.

__________________
Long time we thought that a million monkeys in front of a million typewriters would eventually type William Shakespeare's complete works.
After invention of the Internet, we understand that it's not true.

lurker

Btw, MA-31 is modified version of the old russian X-31 missile :D :D :D
I'ts at least 5 times lighter than Sunburn and slower.

There is at least 3 versions newer than that (and China bought a license on X-31P (AS-17 Krypton D).

p.s. I was pointing at SM2 ballistic trajectory with the speeds - means missile have max speed only at the beginning. I'ts never constant. Just look at any gun projectile ballistics.

Besides, ballistic trajectories means that missiles will attack sea-skimmers from above. And if target is heavily maneuvering - any jiggle in contols will mean miss.

Anon

"Btw, MA-31 is modified version of the old russian X-31 missile
I'ts at least 5 times lighter than Sunburn and slower."

I know, we don't use it anymore. We use the Vandal. The MA-31 is faster than Sunburn though, Mach 3.5

"p.s. I was pointing at SM2 ballistic trajectory with the speeds - means missile have max speed only at the beginning. I'ts never constant. Just look at any gun projectile ballistics. "

No, missiles do not have most speed at the beginning. They have to accelerate first. Missiles have the absolute most speed the instant the booster burns out. However, flying on a ballistic trajectory, a missile(or any object) begins to reaccelerate on it's descent phase, all the way down until it acheieves it's terminal velocity.

Flying such a profile SM-2MR Block IIIA(the exact model used by the Kidd) has a terminal attack velocity of Mach 3.5
This speed will of course be reduced if the missile has to manuever on it's descent phase, but against a slow moving target like a ship it will be quite minimal.

"Besides, ballistic trajectories means that missiles will attack sea-skimmers from above."

The ballistic profile is only executed for extreme long range anti-aircraft or antiship strikes. For closer ranges it flies a semi-ballistic trajectory and begins to home directly on the target when it reaches the zenith of it's trajectory. This is done to greatly increase range.

"And if target is heavily maneuvering - any jiggle in contols will mean miss. "

Ho hum. You do realize it's EASIER to target an object on the deck when attacking from above because you only need to compute a 2 dimensional intercept, right?

BTW, SM-2 has a proximity fuze(actually it is a variable laser fuze with VT, Q, and D modes), so direct hits are not required against a missile or aircraft anyway. SM-2MR Block IIIA has a 165lb continuous rod blast/fragmentation warhead. More than enough to prox kill any missile it might encounter.

SM-2MR Block IIIB(The Aegis version), also adds a IR sensor for autonomous terminal homing, and has a full vectored thrust booster for extreme agility in close range point engagements.

SM-2ER Block IV retains the capability of SM-2MR Block IIIB, but extends range to 130 nautical miles with the use of a 2nd stage booster, and increases speed to Mach 3.75+(Some say Mach 4).

SM-3 is the next generation Standard, acting as a dedicated boost phase intercept ABM, and has a range of 160 miles(third stage booster), and a max flight speed of Mach 8.2 at altitude. At this time SM-3 has no antiaircraft capability.

Just figured i'd put all that info out there in case someone was interested.


"And Sunburns are practically jammer-proof. The same thechnology that is been used in AEGIS/Standard - S-300 - Granit/Sunburn - have been around for years."

LOL, and you know this HOW exactly? Might i point out that no Sunburn has ever been fired in anger, and therefore has not proven that claim whatsoever?

There is no such thing as jammer proof. Ask anyone who's ever ran up against an EA-6B....

Oh, and the russians have no comparable technology to Aegis. Sorry.

lurker

All the russian sources (which are much more informative btw) are stating speeds in around 2.5M for X-31. And MA-31 should have the same thing.

I don't think that Vandal is sea-skimming? At least Talos wasn't.

Btw, dont' you think that all the russian AAM systems haven't been tested against targets similar to MA-31 or beter? Since MA-31 is based on a missile comissioned 15 years ago (in 1988)?

(so much for "untested technology")

Lol. Why do they need it?
Ever heard of S-300? Which can shot down even ballistic missiles? Capability that Aegis does not have?

Aegis maybe good, or was good. But on todays market it looks kind of rusty.

p.s. I'll look tech. details on jammer-proofing.

Stinger

Its ok Lurker, I understand.... sure everyone has these kinds of delusions.... just make sure you take you medication and listen to what ol' Doc Snipe has been saying....

__________________
Your look more lost than a bastard child on fathers day.

bigross86

LOL! btw- whats the S-300? Snipe, do you think the Israeli Chetz (Arrow) could be implemented effectively on AEGIS warships?

__________________
You're a naughty girl, go to my room!

lurker

rofl :D The same I can say about my opponent :D :D

Old cruise missiles, (with removed warhead) magically start to fly "faster, much faster", and so on...

I think that the most of that is propaganidstic crap, and have nothing to do with the real situation.

p.s. too much Clancy

lurker

Here:
http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/russia/airdef/s-300pmu.htm
http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/russia/airdef/s-300v.htm

It's the same system, installed mostly on cruisers (Kirov class, Slava class and others).

bigross86

Oh. The SA-10. I know that one. What about my Chetz question? Anyone have any answers?

Anon

"All the russian sources (which are much more informative btw) are stating speeds in around 2.5M for X-31. And MA-31 should have the same thing."

Sure, try these links...

http://www.boeing.com/news/releases/1999/news_release_991217n.htm

"The MA-31 target is capable of preprogrammed, sea-skimming and high altitude flight profiles at speeds up to mach 3.5."

http://www.softwar.net/kh31.html

"PAYLOAD - 100 KG. - 220 POUNDS
RANGE - 16 MILES LOW ALTITUDE SEA SKIMMER
DIAMETER - .36 METERS (1.2 FEET)
LENGTH - 4.7 METERS (15.4 FEET)
WEIGHT - 600 KG. (1,320 LB.)
ENGINE - KEROSENE RAMJET
GUIDANCE - ACTIVE/PASSIVE R/F SEEKER - ARM VERSION
SPEED - MACH 2.7 (1,785 KEAS OR 3,010 FPS) AT 30 FEET
MACH 3.5+ AT ALTITUDE"

http://www.aerotechnews.com/starc/1999/122399/Boeing_MA31.html

"is capable of preprogrammed, sea-skimming and high altitude flight profiles at speeds up to mach 3.5."

LOL, oops, eh?

"I don't think that Vandal is sea-skimming? At least Talos wasn't."

It is. Talos was a Ramjet powered SAM.

"Btw, dont' you think that all the russian AAM systems haven't been tested against targets similar to MA-31 or beter? Since MA-31 is based on a missile comissioned 15 years ago (in 1988)? "

No, they can't afford it. These tests cost millions of dollars per run. They've been tested, but to nowhere the same level of equivelant US systems. Most US systems have of course passed the umtimate 'test' on many occasions...War.

"(so much for "untested technology")"

Indeed.

Quote:
Oh, and the russians have no comparable technology to Aegis. Sorry.


"Lol. Why do they need it?
Ever heard of S-300? Which can shot down even ballistic missiles? Capability that Aegis does not have?"

SM-2ER Block IV and MR Block IIIA/B are all fully SRBM capable. ER Block IV is reported to be IRBM capable.

Obviously, SM-3 is ICBM capable.

So the SA-10 can shoot down an SRBM, so can lots of things. Aegis included.

"Aegis maybe good, or was good. But on todays market it looks kind of rusty."

Errrr, the latest Aegis can remote launch from any sensor in the fleet, can control all the weapons of the fleet, and coordinates all engagements to reach maximum efficiency. The Russians or Chinese have N O T H I N G comparable, get it?

LOL, you really are clueless, aren't ya?

"p.s. I'll look tech. details on jammer-proofing."

I can hardly wait... :-(

Anon

"It's the same system, installed mostly on cruisers (Kirov class, Slava class and others)."

No, it's not the same system. It's the same basic MISSILE operated from very DIFFERENT systems. :roll:

Anon

"rofl The same I can say about my opponent "

Sure, you can say it....you'd look like a fool, but you could say it.

"Old cruise missiles, (with removed warhead) magically start to fly "faster, much faster", and so on... "

Oh, you saw the three links i posted listing a Mach 3.5 speed, right?

LOL.

BTW genious, if you remove several hundred pounds(Warhead/fuze assys) of mass from a powered vehicle, what happens?

Oh, that's right....it's faster.

"I think that the most of that is propaganidstic crap, and have nothing to do with the real situation."

Probably because you can't admit US tech is far better than the Russians or Chinese.

"p.s. too much Clancy"

Too much Pravda.

lurker

Who needs unreal speeds on high altitude, since it's skimming? What it will do there? Count crows?

Sure, you look like a guy who may need that. :D

rofl, sea skimming AA missile? To chase low profile flying crows, I presume? :D

Sure they can't. Even before 1991 about 50% of WNP was spent on army.
But surely you know better.

What SM3 missile? This SM3 missile?ttp://www.raytheon.com/feature/sm3/

"The Standard Missile-3 (SM-3) under development by Raytheon Company..."

There is no SM3 missile yet in the inventory.

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/missile/sm-2.htm
"On January 24, 1997, the Navy successfully demonstrated a Theater Ballistic Missile Defense capability when a ballistic missile target was shot from the sky for the first time using a new version of the Standard missile family."

Oh, really... from 1997

http://www.chinfo.navy.mil/navpalib/weapons/missiles/standard/standard.html

"The modified STANDARD Missile 2 Block IV (SM2 Blk IV) which destroyed the Lance TBM target this morning adds a state-of-the-art infrared seeker to the Navy's existing SM2 Block IV...

Surely you can count crows, but can you read?

SM3 is not yet there. SM2 block IV needed modifications to do that.
But surely it's IRBM capable 5 times out of 8.

Some systems can do more, some don't. S-300 system is modular AA defence (not, it's not a missile) it can use system-integrated radars, and provide tracking data to the weapons.
Radars can be anything from Mig-31 radars, AWACS planes and helos, to ship based or mobile land based.
The same with the weapons.

Can Aegis be easily integrated into the land-based defences?
Can it provide data to the land based SAM's?

Sure. And I can't count crows :D

But surely you know how to pass a time.

Captain C

Let's clarify a few things:

1. The Kidd class will know where the Chinese ships are well before the Chinese ships will know they are there. The Kidd class radars are that much better, and that was with the radars they were equipped with when they were decommissioned. Since those radars were taken off and used on other ships, they will likely have much better when reinstalled. Let's not forget U.S. help in locating Chinese ships either. The electronics systems on these ships are only a small margin behind Aegis, in some scenarios, such as surface search, were better than early Aegis ships. While (I believe) only two Kidds were fitted with NTU at Decom time, you can bet your backside they will have that or better when they come back online.

2. In a wartime cruising situation, the Kidds will have missiles on the rails at all times. So we are talking four missiles already set to fire. You will have four more in a few seconds; I think 8 seconds is what they admit to, not what they will do it in……. The SM2 missiles only require terminal guidance for the last 4 seconds of flight time, so you can have many more than four missiles in the air at any given time. The SM1 missiles are the ones that require terminal guidance all the way from launch to the target….

3. I've never heard of a Russian missile that was hard to jam, when did that happen????? The ECM of the Kidd class will wreak havoc with the Sunburn undoubtedly, you also have chaff and Phalanx. Phalanx might get replaced with SeaRam which will greatly improve the chances of downing the Sunburn outside of the range where fragments of the missile could hurt the ship.

4. The Taiwanese have a rather nice antiship missile as well. This may used to supplement or replace the Harpoon. The HSIUNG FENG III is a supersonic ASM so the Chinese had better look out.

5. The reliability of the Kidd class equipment is much higher than anything Russian, which is in turn, much higher than anything run by the Chinese. The Taiwanese are professional sailors, not uneducated conscripts.

6. The Chinese only have two Souveremeny's currently and are looking to buy only two more as far as I know. The Taiwanese are guaranteed the four Kidds.

7. The Souveremeny has two one arm bandits for their main AAW and they are short ranged missiles. The Souveremeny is much more susceptible to be destroyed than the Kidd. Besides, aircraft or subs will probably kill the Souveremeny class ships before another ship does……

8. The latest and greatest SM2-ER missiles that are fired from the Mk 41 VLS are too long to fire from the Mk 26 launchers. They can only fire the SM2-MR with the 70 mile range….. Three times the range of the Soviet AAW missiles…..

These are just a few things off the top of my head. Maybe later I can do a more in depth analysis of all the threads..... BTW, the Kidds were only 15 years old at the time of Decommision. Lots of life left in them, lots of life!!!!

:S :ph34r

__________________
Revelation 16:16 And he gathered them together into a place called in the Hebrew tongue Armageddon.
(Been There)