french stratege
6/19/2007 8:24:49 AM
|
|
Singapore has a competent armed force close to Oz by quality and an indigenous competent and high tech R&D establishment.
They could have gone with german or spanish frigate proposal with SM2/ESSM.
They prefer french offer on Aster and it says quite long on the magnitude superiority of Aster in intercepting seakimmer supersonic missile in an environment where such missile threat exist (China, India etc..).
Still wait for Herald answer to the 600 only SM2 last versions for the whole US fleet! Less than a dozen per ship!LOL
|
| |
|
|
|
|
Herald1234
6/19/2007 9:22:35 AM
|
1. Not every VLS missile cell in the US fleet is filled with STANDARDs
2. Not every STANDARD is a STANDARD SM-2 IIIB
Why the six rounds per second SYLVER launch rat5e is propaganda.
a. missile fraticide. At 166 milliseconds apart the missiles are caught in each others exhaust plumes and tumble and collide.
b. DTAE cycles. You have to feed the missiles the data. The computers are fast but they aren't that fast. With the two second lag in the update time cycle and the 4 missile semi active beam steering limit for Herakles as well as ARABEL the actual missiles the French can put into the air AND CONTROL is 4 in a minute using Herakles or ARABEL.
OBSERVE;
Aster 15 test. Note the failur...
Aster 30 fired in land based m...
Note the violence of the hot launch? At 1/6th of a second of a second the ASTER is at 80 meters altitude. Its plume is washing the the entire launcher cell array. The second missile climbs into that plume according to FS and BW a soxth of a second later?.
I've given good evidence why that is BS. And I've given technical rweasons for why the ASTER is a crap missile as well as why the MBDA propaganda is so much baloney. I'm restraining myself at this point but the more these two desperate posters.
If you grab stuff off the internet and can't explain it, then I have no respect for you. You are no better than a propagandist and a parrot.
If you are not objective then you are not worth me taking seriously.
This was long the case with the FS/BW baloney I read about the RAFALE. Same with the MICA. Now I read it with the ASTER. They can't do the computation so they instead rely on internet regurgitation. ARABEL can detect 100 targets but they ignore the FACT that it can only ENGAGE four and that only with a 25% PK per ASTER missile controlled because of refresh lag..
If you can't do the math or figure out the process cycle after I explain it to you simply then you are hopelessly locked in a sierra tango uniform P1 delta loop.
Herald
.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
Phaid
6/19/2007 9:46:34 AM
|
All of these USN missile numbers are nonsense.
There is no such thing as a Standard SM-2 Block IIB.
All of the USN's Standard missiles for air defense (not Ballistic Missile Defense) are currently either SM-2 Block III/IIIA/IIIB and some SM-2 Block IV.
The Block IIIB has been in production since 1998. The total program is for 1,500 Block IIIB AUR (All-Up Round, new production missiles) and 1,100 upgrades of Block III / IIIA, and procurement is scheduled to end in FY 2013. Those numbers are only for the IIIB version, there are thousands of Block III/IIIA in service.
There are 160 SM-2 Block IV in service as well, although the Block IV line is no longer in production.
Both the Block III series and the Block IV will be replaced by the SM-6, which includes a seeker derived from the AMRAAM program.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
Herald1234
BW lucks out. 6/19/2007 9:47:06 AM
|
He did mistype CBG when I read it as CdG. One thing of note; a Forbin carries 48 ASTER in its SYLVER cells mixed about half and half 15's and 30s. Add the 32 on the CdG to that and you can see that BW doesn't even know what he writes about either.
It also reveals a glaring defect in SYLVER. You can carry either a single ASTER 15 or an ASTER 30 per cell. You can't double or triple up.
The Mark 41 though you can quadruple up if you need too, with ESSMs. So as a fact you can take a 98 cell Tico or a 64 cell Arleigh and cram 48 STANDARDS 8 Tomahawks 32 ESSMs and instead of the MISTRAL equipped SADRAL or the equally useless CROTALE, you can install a pair of 21 cell RAMs to take care of those 15 second endgamers that the first two missile defense zones missed at 300 and 100 seconds respectively.
Maybe our two alleged "experts" never learned how to mathematically visualize a problem?
One thing you should notice, by the way. Do you think if ASTER could be launched one sixth of a second apart that MBDA would at least have a video of that to trumpet it as a selling point instead of the carefully edited video that is out there?
Why are American STANDARD systems beating ASTER in head to head competition?
Why?
Herald
.
.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
caltrop
follow-up 6/19/2007 10:14:17 AM
|
a. missile fraticide. At 166 milliseconds apart the missiles are caught in each others exhaust plumes and tumble and collide. Aster 15 test. Note the failur...Aster 30 fired in land based m...Note the violence of the hot launch? At 1/6th of a second of a second the ASTER is at 80 meters altitude. Its plume is washing the the entire launcher cell array. The second missile climbs into that plume according to FS and BW a soxth of a second later?. Okay, that seems logical. How far apart are the box launchers on the CdG? Could they space out which launcher fires to allow more separation between salvoes from a launcher yet maximize overall firing rate?
I looked at the video links and have 2 comments:
My untrained eye does not note the failure of the ASTER15.
Could the "short range" of the ASTER 30 video merely be the desire of the video's producers to have the target destruction be within visual range of the camera?
There does seem to be some discrepancy (or marketing / propaganda) in terms of the maximum launch rate of VLS.
From MBDA's own website:
" PAAMS: high firing rate (8 missiles within 10 seconds), and the capability to engage up to 12 targets simultaneously"
The FAS website notes the maximum salvo rate for Mk41 VLS is less than 2 seconds.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
nominoe
6/19/2007 10:49:16 AM
|
Where do you see a failure in the ASTER 15 video? it seems to work perfectly.
About the range of ASTER 30, you don't REALLY believe that it was it's max range on that video? |
| |
|
|
|
|
Herald1234
BW lucks out. 6/19/2007 10:59:39 AM
|
In reading and educating myself on this thread, a question comes to mind. You said previously:
The Sylver VLS launcher spits out one missile every 15 seconds as opposed to the Mark 41’s 10 seconds.
Detect Acquire Track Engage cycle. The STANDARD can clear the M-41 launch cell in about 180 milliseconds meaning theoretically you could fire four per second bit you would find out that the fraticide problem with STANDARD is greater then it is with ASTER. MUCH MORE powerful rocket motor in the first stage.
A quick search of the Internet (admittedly a dangerous exercise), I saw several times noted for the launch rate of the Sylver VLS. Several sites seemed to indicate that several missles could be fired per second. I did see one site claiming a 6 missile per minute launch rate but the site also contradicted itself as saying 6 per second. I hope you or someone esle could enlighten me on this subject.
DTAE cyclics as opposed to ignition cyclics. The two are not the same.
I read elsewhere that in contrasting the differences between the SM2 and the ASTER, that one advantage the SM2 could be perceived to have was in being semi-active, the SM2 could be directed all the way to a target of choice. Since the ASTER is active radar homing, the missle decides what target to atttack in its terminal phase and thus it could be possible 2 or more ASTERS might seek to engage a single inbound cruise missile if there are multiple targets in close proximity.
The seeker on ASTER is myopic. That means it can't see very far. Travelling at about 1200 meters per second at burnout it has to aerodynamically maneuver past burnout which is about 6-8 seconds for the 15 and about 10-12 seconds for the combined stage burn times for the 30. maneuvering is limited to 600 meters per second shove so you can meaure how much deflection you get in a second of travel at MACH 4. Its about 500 meters sideways for every 100 meters of Forward travel The 15 kg paltry warhead means the blast fragmentaion offset at the kill merge can be no more than 25 meters[actually much less]. Now you take shove and forward velocity per second and you and take the hypotenuse and divide that by lethal blast radius to get your time deviation at the merge. Its 0.53 second early or late. If you backtrack that up the FoV cone about 7000 meters or about 5 seconds you can see that if you get there a second early or late, the ASTER won't even SEE what it is supposed to hit when it gets there as the inbound will be outside its MICA type seeker field of view.as it drops. Now co consider that most of the radars that ASTER is designed to work with have refresh rattes measured in either one or two seconds in the PAST. What does that do to steering the missile?
STANDARD has a bigger blast fragmentation warhead which gives it about a forty to fifty meter miss cushion, it is updated more than six times a second and it has the bonus feature of in the later models of STANDARD being able to auto steer at about the last three seconds to home in on HEAT due to a sidelooking infra red seeker. It is not in THEORY as agile as an ASTER but it is decoy and jamproof. The illuminated target will reflect launching ship coded pulses that the STANDARD will recognize that no enemy jammer can duplicate. Decoys don't put out a signal that is time coded close enough to register as a legitimate target on a STANDARD's receiver. So for now the PK of a standard battle proven is better than an ASTER's as tested .
The USN has always assumed a 75% success rate in paired launches against a single enemy inbound missile per STAMDARD fired. That works out to about 50% per individual missile PK if fired in singletons.That 50% rate is what I assumed when i crunched numbers for about how many missiles a US task force could handle with just SAMs..
The Numbers for ASTER were based on the fact that I knew the French went with the crap MICA radar and GCU architecture for their ASTER active seeker. This included the actual radar and the fusing option as well as the telemetry antenna and steering GCU. Those numbers we have for MICA are at about 50%-75% for paired launches against maneuvering drones. MICA showed a surprisingly high susceptibility to decoying and jamming of the radar seeker version. The |
| |
|
|
|
|
Herald1234
BW lucks out. 6/19/2007 11:13:58 AM
|
Where do you see a failure in the ASTER 15 video? it seems to work perfectly.
About the range of ASTER 30, you don't REALLY believe that it was it's max range on that video?
Drops into the sea=failure.
ASTER 30 vapor trail indicates no radical altitude fall break in the engagement profile at the video edit cut.when it impacts.
And there is this.
PRESS RELEASE
First Qualification Firing of the Aster PAAMS System
(Issued June 6, 2006)
PARIS --- The first qualification firing of the PAAMS system,
based on an EMPAR radar and a naval ASTER 30 missile, was performed on
23 May 2006.
The
firing was carried out from an Italian Navy ship against a sub-sonic
Mirach target engaged at mid-range ( 35 km approx.) and medium altitude
( 7 km approx). All the system components of PAAMS were used, including
the EMPAR radar, the associated fire control function, the ASTER 30
missile and the Sylver A50 launcher.
ASTER 30 registered a direct hit in intercepting the target.
This successful firing is the result of a sustained cooperation between
the major industrial contractor teams involved - MBDA, SELEX and THALES
- under the supervision of the EUROSAM consortium, acting as prime
contractor for the whole system. This latest success also puts on track
further qualification firing operations for the PAAMS EMPAR system.
The ASTER PAAMS system has been ordered by the Royal Navy, as well as
the French and Italian Navies, to provide their respective platforms
with area and self-defence capabilities, and also the capability to
protect neighbouring surface vessels against sub-sonic or supersonic
threats, such as missiles, aircraft and UAVs. This system will be
installed on board the French and Italian Horizon class frigates and on
the British Type 45 destroyers.
The PAAMS (Principal Anti-Air Missile System) is an advanced naval
defence system programme developed under EUROPAAMS prime
contractorship, an international Joint Venture owned by MBDA (75%) and
Thales (25%). The programme was launched on 11 August 1999, with the
notification of a contract by the DGA (the French Armament Procurement
Agency) on behalf of the three nations: France, Italy and the UK.
With an annual turnover exceeding EUR 3.5 billion, a forward order book
of over EUR 14 billion and over 70 customers world wide, MBDA is a
world leading, global missile systems company. MBDA currently has 45
missile system and countermeasure programmes in operational service and
has proven its ability as prime contractor to head major multi-national
projects.
MBDA is jointly owned by BAE Systems (37.5%), EADS (37.5%) and Finmeccanica (25%).
-ends-
QED.
Herald
|
| |
|
|
|
|
Yimmy
6/19/2007 12:51:07 PM
|
Er, Herald, the missiles didn't "drop into the sea", they were hitting simulated sea skimming targets.
I really do not understand your hatred of ASTER. You seem to argue most topics in a well reasoned manner, but quite frankly ASTER is clearly a superb missile system, and your constantly trying to slate it only gives the impression of your arguing with the French members of the forum for the Hell of it.
I the past I have taken the time to read your so called evidence against the missile, yet all I am actually reading are successful trials and praise. Give it a rest.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
Herald1234
6/19/2007 1:46:29 PM
|
Er, Herald, the missiles didn't "drop into the sea", they were hitting simulated sea skimming targets.
I really do not understand your hatred of ASTER. You seem to argue most topics in a well reasoned manner, but quite frankly ASTER is clearly a superb missile system, and your constantly trying to slate it only gives the impression of your arguing with the French members of the forum for the Hell of it.
I the past I have taken the time to read your so called evidence against the missile, yet all I am actually reading are successful trials and praise. Give it a rest.
Computer validation against a nonexistent target?
What kind of test is that again, Yimmy?
Herald
|
| |
|
|
|
|
