You know, it's not very hard to polish or coat the surface of a missile so that at least 95% of optical intensity will be reflected or scattered.

Hence the gun launched guided projectiles, you polish up a missile to the point it would reflect or scatter a high energy laser it would have a very clear radar return making it the perfect target for a PGM.

The laser would handle stealthy or high speed leakers while the PGM's, especially the 127 and 155mm, could be developed with semi active or even active seekers allowing them to be lofted in the direction of the incoming threat then individually guided onto the targets.

 

The last ditch defence would be something akin to the Millenium with AHEAD type ammunition.

 

Radar waves and laser waves are different animals. It is actually possible to make something very reflective while possess very little radar cross section.

Contrary to what you believe, artillery PGM  isn't cheap and actually not very affordable. The primary advantage is space and weight efficiency, not delivery cost. The reason is that, you have put use parts that can survive 25,000G and still functioning, and you want to make sure that 10,000 units ordered will have malfunction rate lower than certain percentage.

 

Anti-Ship missiles aren't very effective against fully alarmed and fully-equipped surface combatants already. Most surface combatants have all kinds of jammers to defeat sensors of wide spectrum. Historically, AShMs makes very good ambush weapons, but otherwise not quite effective. The Australian launched jammers can defeat most of them anyway.

 

That's why you have ESSM onboard as well.

I'm wondering about another form of countermeasures: an active EW "killer" emitter.

We're learning about how it's anticipated that the F-22's and F-35's AESA radars will have a DEW capability that, effectively, allows them to "cook" an adversary's unshielded electronics systems with pulsed or continuous wave bursts of microwave energy (expect a majority of future such radars to adopt similar capabilities).

In effect: portable, on-demand, highly-directional, EMP-type-effects weapons.

 

Since any given naval vessel capable of mounting large sensor systems (phased array radars), CIWS, and powerplants obviously is going to be able to generate far more kW/MW of electrical power than any tactical fighter aircraft,

it only seems natural that someone would develop a similar hard kill EW system

that allows a future CIWS to do just that.

All the optically reflective surfaces in the world aren't really going to do much

in the way of deflecting a strong enough EM wave that's disabling circuitry every second.

(I had a fool friend who once tried putting a TV remote in the microwave for barely a couple seconds, on a drunken bet, and even two seconds of that level of EM rad at those freqs made the remote dead in the water.

On another dare, batteries don't belong in microwaves either, so missile electrical power supplies would also be jeopardized by such a system...)

 

Is it hard to envision a far more powerful system that can short out, at considerable range,

 the electronics of incoming missiles and PGMs, enemy aircraft, even adversary naval vessels?

 

Yes, ordnance and systems can be made more resilient to the effects of EMP, but it takes time to implement it in the design (not really a quick fix add-on kit that can be done in the field in a short span of time), as well as money to do it (get the EMP-proof stuff fielded fast enough).

 

Not a bad idea doggtag, an advantage would be as the missile gets closer the beam intensity would increase and beable to inflict more damage. Having an attack mode on the radar makes me wonder if the same could be done with the laser, have it as an element of the electo optical sensor setup where it is initially used to paint targets for guided projectiles at range but then has a high energy burst mode as the target missile closes. The sensors / guidence systems would effectively provide an additional layer or layers of defence.

 

Yellichink, I am not talking about developing these guided projectiles but rather suggesting that once the systems currently being developed / projected are perfected, that a medium sized surface combatant could dispense with VLS and rely on guns.

Typical 5" or 155mm projectile weighs about 40-60kg, and is mostly consisted of steel.

 

A single ESSM packs 10kg warhead. A single SM2 packs about 62kg warhead. Both missiles carry expending rod warhead, but there is no reason that it can't be swapped for high explosives.

 

And there are cruise missiles that pack 250kg, 500kg warheads. 

 

Now you see why we need a spectrum of weapons.

 

Also, you can't launch ASROC from a gun.

 

There is no single solution to defeat enemy defense. Always think of combined armed approach.

 

 

Thats why you have helicopters, and not many navies use ASROC anyway, the RAN doesnt for one.
You are the one advocating missiles, missiles, missiles.

 

Stephen