Officer of Engineers

Not by a long shot.

The 2nd Artillery Corps is believed to have between 400 (IISS) and 1000 nukes (JDW). Only 12 JL-12 missiles has been seen on the XIA (thought to be 3-4 MIRV capable but no evidence has been seen thus far).

ICBM count is between 20 (IISS) and 60 (JDW) with the rest in IRBM/MRBM/SRBM/tac nuke/air drop/mine form.

SSBN counts a very small portion of the 2AC arsenal.

__________________
Chimo

bigross86

Are the nukes on the Xia ICBM/LRBM's or are they SRBM's?

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

Officer of Engineers

Damn you're lazy.

China Military Guide

And no such thing as a LCBM it's

ICBM - Inter-Continental Ballastic Missile
IRBM - Intermediate Range Ballastic Missile
MRBM - Medium Range Ballastic Missile
SRBM - Short Range Ballastic Missile
SLBM - Submarine Launched Ballastic Missile

bigross86

I didn't write LCBM's, I wrote LRBM's. As for me being lazy, guilty as charged :D 8) :twisted: :p :Dbanana

lurker

Looked closer at Kidd, found out that it have only two SPG-55D target illuminators.

Means it can attack only 2 targets at once.

__________________
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.

bigross86

Yeah, but the Kidd can salvo and than switch targets in flight.

lurker

Nope.

bigross86

I don't know too much about this, I'm just a civvie. Snipe or RickUSN will come here and explain it to you.

rickusn

AFAIK the Kidd class could illuminate 3 air targets with the their two SPG-51D illuminators and one dual -purpose SPG-60 illuminator. AFAIK they had to illuminate the target for the entire engagement unlike AEGIS which only needs to illuminate the target for the terminal phase("for the last few seconds before the missle detonates"). Thus while AEGIS can attack up to 20 targets simultaneously, the Kidd class can only attack 3.

SPG-55 illuminators were on older DDG(Coontz), CG(Leahy & Belknap) and CGN(Long Beach, Truxton & Bainbridge) for use with Standard ER missles.

Also its interesting to note that the California class CGN had 4 SPG-51 illuminators plus one SPG-60, while the Virginia class CGN had only 2 SPG-51 and one SPG 60.

Anon

Hey Rick, good to see ya came back for a second helping of GR.

Canuckian, if you can motivate BR away from laziness, you are a much finer officer than i gave you credit for.

"Looked closer at Kidd, found out that it have only two SPG-55D target illuminators.

Means it can attack only 2 targets at once.""

As rick pointed out, it's three illuminators.

Rick, you sure the NTU needs constant illumination? I was under the impression it only needs the 4 second terminal illumination as CapnC stated.

I'll haveta look into the SM-2MR Block IIIA, cause that is probably the deciding factor. I didn't think the IIIA was still a beam rider like the older blocks were. I think it's command guidance, meaning it needs only the last 4 seconds of illumination, flying on autopilot until terminal.

Anon

Here we go...

http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/m-66.html

"SM-2 (Standard Missile 2) was developed as the missile component of the U.S. Navy's Aegis fleet air defense system. The SM-2 missile uses semi-active radar homing only in the terminal intercept phase, and has a new inertial guidance unit and a new programmable MK 2 autopilot to guide it near the projected point of intercept. On Aegis ships, this autopilot is command-guided to the target by the launching ship, which can track multiple targets with the Aegis' powerful AN/SPY-1 radar (current version is AN/SPY-1D). When used on earlier Tartar ships, SM-2 uses pre-launch settings and its inertial guidance system to find its way to the target. Not needing SAR guidance through all its flight-path, effective intercept range of the SM-2MR is 60 percent greater than for the SM-1MR. The command guidance allows a more energy-efficient flight path, and the illuminator radar (e.g. AN/SPG-62) can provide effective illumination at almost doubled target ranges (because illumination immediately after launch is especially power-demanding, when the radar beam has to travel all the distance from ship to target and back). A further improvement in the SM-2 is the new monopulse seeker for terminal homing, which provides better ECM resistance."

"SM-2MR Block II introduced an improved Thiokol MK 104 rocket motor, to deal with faster and more manoeuverable targets. The effective range is almost doubled, reaching the limits of illuminator power. Block II also has a new high-velocity fragmentation warhead. The RIM-66G is the Aegis version, RIM-66H is for vertical launch on Aegis ships with MK 41 VLS (Vertical Launch System), and RIM-66J is for Tartar ships. SM-2MR Block II entered service in 1983."

"SM-2MR Block III introduced an improved MK 45 MOD 9 TDD (Target Detecting Device) for better performance against low-altitude targets. Block III A has a new MK 125 warhead with heavier grain explosive, and Block III B (for Aegis/VLS only) incorporates an MHIP (Missile Homing Improvement Program) combined radar/IR seeker for terminal homing. The IR sensor is in a side fairing of the missile. The MHIP seeker was also intended for the cancelled AIM/RIM-7R Sparrow missile. The designation RIM-66K applies to Tartar system missiles (RIM-66K-1 Block III, RIM-66K-2 Block III A), RIM-66L is the Aegis missile (RIM-66L-1 Block III, RIM-66L-2 Block III A), and RIM-66M is the Aegis missile for the MK 41 VLS (RIM-66M-1 Block III, RIM-66M-2 Block III A, RIM-66M-5 Block III B). Block III production began in 1988, with the Block III A following in 1991. Blocks III A and B are the current production versions."

lurker

So there is no mid-course guidance for SM2 on ships without AN/SPY-1?

... that surely helps a lot.

rickusn

Even though SM-2 doesnt need illumination all the way to the target, in NTU ships I believe the illuminator still has to be dedicated to a single target. Unlike AEGIS which can track a # of targets and outgoing missles simultaneously I dont think NTU can do this. Because if it could what would be the purpose of AEGIS? But Im still checking.

I stand corrected apparently. See below


The whole Aegis thing is being rather misinterpreted in the news. The Kidd class is an NTU platform (almost the same weapon systems as my ship except we had different launchers.) The NTU system stands for "New Threat Upgrade." This name is a blatant lie. It was a completely new system that was sold to congress as an upgrade to the older system with which it has nothing in common. It was developed under Reagan and fielded under Bush and while it is different than Aegis, it would not be correct to say it is inferior. It is actually a newer system than the Aegis. There are a couple of main things that a ship's anti-air warfare system do and make these good systems, I will compare them briefly.

1. Track while scan large numbers of targets. Both NTU and Aegis do this with virtually no difference.

2. Control large number of airborne missiles automatically across 360 degrees, use fire control directors for only terminal guidance. This is true of both systems (in fact by the time the fire control director illuminates a target there is only about 5 seconds before impact for both systems.)

3. Operate against Electronic Warfare jamming. Both have good frequency agility and the SPY-1 phased array radar of the Aegis has some rather nifty burn through features. The 48E radar on the NTU does much of what the Aegis does (it is actually very similar to the SPY-1 except it is a rotating radar vice a four panel fixed radar like the SPY-1) plus NTU also has a lower frequency SPS -49 radar (2D) which is very hard to jam. NTU evaluates tracks from both radar's and chooses the best one. The Aegis system takes whatever it gets from the SPY--1 as gospel. The SPS-49 radar is better at looking over land than either the SPY-1 or the 48E so for close to land operation (which is what the Taiwanese are looking to do) NTU is generally the superior system.

4. Hit a wide variety of targets and/or attack profiles. This is somewhat a mixed bag. The Aegis system is a little better for some of the high flyer/diver shots (these were the big threat in the '70's when the Aegis was developed.) It is this capability that makes it a candidate for turning into an anti-ballistic missile platform. Obviously that would be a very useful upgrade but it is still an idea, not a system. The NTU uses the same missile and a very similar fire control director so there aren't a lot of differences. There are a couple of shots that the NTU can make that the Aegis won't and vise versa but it comes real close to a pick'em. (To be honest the Aegis is probably on balance a slightly better system for some reasons I'm not going into here, but the differences are very small and it does depend on what you want to do.)

Ill post the link later. Im still doing some searching.
Heres the link
http//www.gigo-soapbox.org/gigo/2001/04/25.shtml

I was lead to believe that AEGIS was orders of magnitude better than NTU.
From what Ive been reading that isnt neccessarily true. Although NTU cant shoot down ballistic missles and most AEGIS ships have VLS which I understand is a great improvement over the older launchers.

Also I found this at www.globalsecurity.org about the Kidds

"AAW Anti-Air Warfare
The ship is obviously derived from the Spruance class vessels, the main difference being the mounting of two twin-arm launchers for SAMs, as opposed to the ASW equipment of the Spruances. There are only two directors fitted on the ship to illuminate for the SAMs, which means that whilst the Kidds can fire off missiles at the same rate as the early Ticonderogas, they can only engage half the number of targets. However, to redress this, the SPG-60 director for the 5" guns may instead be used as a third SAM illumination radar."

Anon

I would redirect you gentlemen to the previously linked excerpt:

"When used on earlier Tartar ships, SM-2 uses pre-launch settings and its inertial guidance system to find its way to the target. Not needing SAR guidance through all its flight-path, effective intercept range of the SM-2MR is 60 percent greater than for the SM-1MR. The command guidance allows a more energy-efficient flight path, and the illuminator radar (e.g. AN/SPG-62) can provide effective illumination at almost doubled target ranges (because illumination immediately after launch is especially power-demanding, when the radar beam has to travel all the distance from ship to target and back)."

Clearly, Kidd's(Tartar type ship) SM-2MR Block III uses prelaunch settings and INS, and therefore doesn't need continuous illumination.

Anon

"There are only two directors fitted on the ship to illuminate for the SAMs, which means that whilst the Kidds can fire off missiles at the same rate as the early Ticonderogas, they can only engage half the number of targets. However, to redress this, the SPG-60 director for the 5" guns may instead be used as a third SAM illumination radar."

This is something i feel a need to adress.

The way these illuminators work(as per a previous discussion with SEER Stuart of David Newton's board), is that they illuminate a CORRIDOR of airspace, NOT individual missiles.

Therefore, the multiple FCR's serve to increase the total amount of 360 degree illumination coverage, not the number of missiles inflight themselves.

Each FCR illuminator has in the vicinity of a 30 degree illumination beam. All missiles in that cone are illuminated simultaneously. This beam can be narrowed to as sharp as 1 to 1 1/2 degrees to overcome intense jamming or to illuminate at maximum emmiter range. A narrow beam is obviously limited in the number of tracks it can illuminate for, which is why in a general attack the illuminator's will be configured to cover the full 30 degree arc. When SEER gave me this explanation he stated this was the SPG-62 he was referring to.

What multiple illuminators do is allow you to engage attacks from various points of the compass more quickly, and at greater ranges.

What controls the total number of missiles that can be in the air at once is illuminator availability on any given bearing, and most importantly, the air warfare computer's maximum processing power. The air warfare suite has to remember exactly where and exactly when to train the illuminators to provide terminal guidance for the various inflight missiles. On Aegis, the Mk7 itself also controls the missiles flights themselves directly through a datalink, so it requires massive processing power.

That's where the Aegis has 'em all beat.....it's got more brains than the competition.