# American military technology updates and general discussion



## F-22Raptor

Related discussion: https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/the-...ship-ballistic-missiles.684218/#post-12688458



Figaro said:


> I just wanted to add something here. Just because we do not have photographic evidence of the DF-26 or DF-21D hitting a moving target on the sea does not mean it has not hit one on land. It is almost 100% certain the PLARF has set moving targets on land as to avoid intel collection and possibly provoking other countries. Do these jokers really think they would not test these missiles on moving targets when it is literally designed to hit moving targets? Also, there are rumors that the two launched last week did indeed strike a moving target (IIRC some decommissioned ship).



FYI

*The Navy's Secretive And Revolutionary Program To Project False Fleets From Drone Swarms*

*The advanced electronic warfare program uses swarms in the air and sea to cooperatively fool a wide variety of sensors dispersed over a large area.*

November 7, 2019

The U.S. Navy has been quietly developing what could be one of the most important, transformative, and fascinating advances in naval combat, and warfare in general, in years. This new electronic warfare "system of systems" has been clandestinely refined over the last five years and judging from the Navy's own budgetary documents, it may be operational soon, if it isn't already. This secretive new electronic warfare "ecosystem" is known as Netted Emulation of Multi-Element Signature against Integrated Sensors, or NEMESIS.

NEMESIS is not just some 'paper program.' From publicly available, but obscure documents we've collected, it's clear that, for years, the Navy has been developing and integrating multiple types of unmanned vehicles, shipboard and submarine systems, countermeasures and electronic warfare payloads, and communication technologies to give it the ability to project what is, in essence, phantom fleets of aircraft, ships, and submarines. These realistic-looking false signatures and decoys have the ability to appear seamlessly across disparate and geographically separated enemy sensor systems located both above and below the ocean's surface. As a result, this networked and cooperative electronic warfare concept brings an unprecedented level of guileful fidelity to the fight. It's not just about disrupting the enemy's capabilities or confusing them at a command and control level, but also about making their sensors tell them the same falsehoods across large swathes of the battlespace.

Another way of looking at it is NEMESIS shifts from traditional electronic warfare tactics, in which multiple electronic warfare systems execute individual electronic attacks on multiple enemy sensors to achieve largely individual or localized effects, to a very diverse set of networked electronic warfare systems cooperatively making electronic attacks on huge portions of an enemy's sensor network. That network may stretch across large distances and multiple warfighting domains. In doing so, it achieves a cohesive set of far more unified, powerful, and convincing effects.

It sounds like science fiction, but it is anything but—it's the next quantum leap in the quiet, but ferocious struggle to control the invisible domain of electronic warfare.

*The Invisible War*
Electronic warfare (EW) has become an essential part of military strategy over the better part of the last century. This has only become more pronounced in recent decades as military systems have increasingly migrated into the digital age.

NATO's simplest definition of electronic warfare is as follows:

_The purpose of EW is to deny the opponent the advantage of, and ensure friendly unimpeded access to the electromagnetic spectrum. EW can be applied from air, sea, land, and space, and target communication and radar systems. It involves the use of electromagnetic energy to provide improved understanding of the operational environment as well as to achieve specific effects on the modern battlefield._

Electronic warfare encompasses a huge variety of operations and tactics, such as disrupting enemy communications and preventing your own from being disrupted. Maybe the most well-known form of EW has to do with jamming enemy radar systems, but there are many forms of electronic warfare that don't involve traditional jamming. These include detecting, spoofing, and distracting enemy sensor systems and denying them the opportunity to successfully target friendly forces to varying degrees.

Cyberwarfare tactics and the ability to actually disrupt enemy sensors, networks, and command and control systems at the software level are a highly critical emerging realm of warfare that in some cases can cross over and become blended with electronic warfare tactics. Even the use of directed energy weapons can be part of a force's electronic warfare bag of tricks.

Although it is the least visible component of a present-day military's order of battle and overall capabilities, and much of the details of exactly what capabilities exist and how they are realized remains in the shadows, electronic warfare is becoming one of the most important facets of modern warfare. As a result, future combat will occur just as much in this invisible spectrum as the visible one.

*The Cold War Gave Birth To Modern Electronic Warfare*
Electronic warfare, as we understand it today, is not new. The U.S. military has been deploying EW technologies that go beyond simple jamming since at least the mid-20th Century. Stealth technology would never have been so successful without electronic warfare backstopping it during combat operations. In fact, the only engagement in which an F-117 was ever shot down occurred on the only night of the aircraft's use during Operation Allied Force when electronic warfare support was not available.

EW, at least how we understand it in modern, advanced terms, dates back much farther, to the height of the Cold War when the CIA launched the PALLADIUM project, which deployed radar spoofing systems and submarine-launched balloons carrying metallic radar reflectors in order to stimulate and probe Cuba's Soviet-made air defenses. The effort was part of a grander objective to understand how vulnerable the A-12 Oxcart—the CIA's progenitor of the SR-71 Blackbird and the first aircraft to integrate stealthy attributes as a driving factor in its design—would be to enemy air defenses. You can read all about this fascinating bit of history in this past piece of ours.






An A-12 Oxcart.

Considering that the CIA possessed the capability 65 years ago to clandestinely launch airborne radar reflectors from submarines and combine them with electronic warfare capabilities that could simulate or spoof the presence of American fighter aircraft on the most advanced Soviet radar systems of the era, it isn't hard to use one's imagination to ponder what is possible today. We know that EW capabilities have evolved drastically in step with advances in sensor, emitter, and computer processing technologies and the increasingly potent data networks that integrate and fuse their capabilities with other systems and platforms. NEMESIS is the next evolutionary leap in this regard, and a particularly huge one at that.

*Electrons Not Bombs*
The U.S. Navy's leadership has stated repeatedly that developing a major leap in EW capabilities has been a vital area of research over the last decade. On Oct. 29, 2013, then-Chief of Naval Operations (CNO) Admiral Jonathan Greenert, the service's top officer, said as much when he spoke at a convention of the Association of Old Crows (AOC).

At the conference, Greenert told attendees that the Navy was looking for ways to move away from traditional weaponry and turn instead more heavily towards electronic warfare and information warfare. “We've got to evolve this paradigm,” he said, adding that electronic warfare could essentially replace kinetic warfare in many situations:

_"We're using the electromagnetic spectrum as a domain and as a means, and we understand and grasp it. We have to figure out how we can beat things electronically first. Why do we spend all this money kinetically if we can jam, spoof, or do otherwise? We need to prepare the fleet to enact an electronic warfare plan the same way they think of a communications or surface warfare plan."_

In 2015, the _National Interest_ published an op-ed titled “Winning the Airwaves: Sustaining America's Advantage in the Electromagnetic Spectrum,” in which authors Bryan Clark and Mark Gunzinger wrote that America had failed to maintain its electromagnetic spectrum (EMS) superiority since the end of the Cold War. This failure had allowed “China, Russia and other rivals with an opportunity to field systems that target vulnerabilities in sensor and communication networks the U.S. military has come to depend on. As a result, America’s once significant military advantage in the EMS is eroding, and may in fact no longer exist,” they said.

The same authors produced a 2015 white paper for the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments (CSBA) think tank detailing how America could regain EMS superiority, writing that the Department of Defense “now has the opportunity to develop new operational concepts and technologies that will allow it to 'leap ahead' of its competitors and create enduring advantages in EMS warfare.” The document lists NEMESIS as one such technology, but does not disclose any further details about the program.

Two years earlier, however, budget documents show that the Navy was beginning to develop a highly integrated constellation of next-generation systems for spoofing or fooling distributed sensors and the platforms that host them.

*NEMESIS Genesis*
An electronic warfare development program known as Netted Emulation of Multi-Element Signature against Integrated Sensors or “NEMESIS” first emerged in Navy Research, Development, Test & Evaluation Budget Item Justification documents in the service's budget proposal for the 2014 Fiscal Year, which it published in April 2013. In that and subsequent budget requests, NEMSIS appeared under the program elements “PE 0602271N / Electromagnetic Systems Applied Research” and “PE 0603271N / Electromagnetic Systems Advanced Technology.”

In these budget documents, the Navy describes NEMESIS as a “System of Systems (SoS) able to coordinate distributed EW resources against many adversary surveillance and targeting sensors simultaneously” which “will benefit the warfighter by providing platform protection across the battlespace against many sensors, creating seamless cross-domain countermeasure coordination, and enabling rapid advanced technology/capability insertion to counter emerging threats.”

More specifically, the Fiscal Year 2014 Electromagnetic Systems Applied Research RDT&E Budget Item Justification states that NEMESIS “addresses the need to generate the appearance of a realistic naval force to multiple adversarial surveillance and targeting sensors simultaneously.”






Later in that same document, a more detailed description of the program states that NEMESIS consists of “reconfigurable and modular EW payloads, Distributed Decoy and Jammer Swarms (DDJS), effective acoustic countermeasures (CM), and Multiple Input/Multiple Output Sensor/CM (MIMO S/CM) for false force generation to both above and below water sensors.”

The 2018 and 2019 budget justifications state that "Nemesis expendable decoys and prototype system hardware will be completed and delivered for field testing" and that demonstrations of these expendable decoys "will be conducted during fleet experimentation, as well as during focused field and laboratory tests."






*A Shadowy NEMESIS*
There is little publicly available information surrounding NEMESIS aside from these unclassified budgetary documents and a few publications and presentations that mention the program, usually to a very limited degree. Many specifics about the NEMESIS system remain unknown, but the documents help add context to the budget line item justifications we've presented above.

On April 9, 2014, Bob Smith, Director of Disruptive Technologies at the Office of Naval Research (ONR) gave a presentation at the National Defense Industrial Association’s 15th Annual Science and Engineering Technology Conference that described several innovative Navy prototype research programs, or INPs. A slide from the presentation offered a basic, but absolutely impressive overview of the NEMESIS program while of course stating “Additional details classified.”






The presentation stated that NEMESIS worked against distributed sensor systems in order to confuse or spoof an enemy force's surveillance and targeting systems. That document also said that the NEMESIS system “enables rapid advanced technology/capability insertion for emerging threats”, meaning that NEMESIS could be quickly modified and upgraded to counter the latest capabilities that are still under development.

At the time, ONR said that NEMESIS addressed current limitations of traditional EW systems and multiple items on the United States Pacific Command (PACOM) Integrated Priority List (IPL), a list of the Pacific Command's highest priorities for ensuring its forces are capable of accomplishing their missions.

According to the same ONR presentation, NEMESIS consisted of "modular and reconfigurable EW payloads" including "decoy and unmanned air and surface platforms" based on the ONR's Science & Technology and Future Naval Capabilities programs. NEMESIS combined functionality and capabilities from Code 31: Information, Cyber and Spectrum Superiority; Code 33: Mission Capable, Persistent and Survivable Naval Platforms; and Code 35: Aviation, Force Projection and Integrated Defense.

Shortly after that ONR presentation, the publicly available 2015 Navy Program Guide offered a definition of NEMESIS in its appendix, stating that NEMESIS could “synchronize electronic warfare (EW) affects across a variety of distributed platforms to create coherent and consistent EW effects" and that "NEMESIS emphasis is on the coordination and synchronization of EW capabilities and tactics against sensors in many scenarios.”

That same guide also stated that development of NEMESIS began in 2014 and was an interdisciplinary project involving well-known research centers, such as the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) and ONR:

_In 2013 the Navy approved NEMESIS as a FY 2014 INP New Start. Initial NEMESIS activity involved planning discussions among the Office of Naval Research, the Office of the Chief of Naval Operations, fleet commands and analysts, acquisition programs of record, government laboratories and warfare centers, the Defense Advanced Research Programs Agency, and federally funded research and development centers and university affiliated research centers.

To ensure NEMESIS is addressing current and future threats to naval battle group operations, threat assessments were initiated with the Intelligence Community, and a Navy Warfare Development Command NEMESIS war game will be conducted in 2015._






On Feb. 4, 2015, Dr. Thomas Killion, then-Director of Technology at the Office of Naval Research, gave a presentation at the ONR Naval Future Force Science and Technology Expo. In that presentation, NEMESIS is listed as a current Innovative Naval Prototype (INP) program alongside some of the Navy's most important leading-edge weapons development initiatives, including the Electromagnetic Railgun, the Large Displacement Unmanned Underwater Vehicle, the Integrated Topside information operations and communications suite, and the Autonomous Aerial Cargo Unmanned System.






The Navy’s 2015 Program Guide also mentions that the Navy conducted a war game in 2015 to test the NEMESIS system. Another budget document, the 2017 RDT&E Project Justification document for the Navy's "Space and Electronic Warfare (SEW) Architecture/Engineering Support" program, states that this war game took place in late February 2015:

*NEMESIS War Game*_: This Office of Naval Research (ONR) sponsored war game was conducted by NWDC and completed 23-26 Feb 2015. The primary purpose of the war game was to obtain fleet stakeholder input into the requirements for and design of a classified ONR Innovative Naval Prototype. The results of this effort will be used to design prototypes that could eventually be fielded as a Navy program of record._

That document also states that the NEMESIS war game which took place in 2015 "consisted of multiple events designed to explore innovative concepts and technologies associated with EMW", or electromagnetic warfare, and "obtain fleet stakeholder input into the requirements for and design of a classified ONR Innovative Naval Prototype." The descriptions of this war game appear to describe a seminar or "tabletop" exercise designed to formulate initial ideas for developing such a system, but exact details of the war game remain unknown.

The 2017 Navy Program Guide states that dedicated hardware for NEMESIS was developed in 2016 and that NEMESIS was expected to be demonstrated at full capability in late 2018:

_NEMESIS has been in development since 2014, including close collaboration with the Office of Naval Research, the Office of the Chief of Naval Operations, fleet commands and analysts, acquisition programs of record, government laboratories and warfare centers, the Defense Advanced Research Programs Agency, and federally funded research and development centers and university-affiliated research centers. During 2016, NEMESIS capabilities began hardware development, technique and software migration and field testing at the sub-system level. In FY 2017-2018 flight and at-sea testing will be conducted on integrated system level capabilities in preparation for graduation demonstrations in late FY 2018._

The guide goes on to list the NEMESIS system’s developers: Georgia Tech Research Institute, Johns Hopkins' Applied Physics Lab, Massachusetts Institute of Technology's (MIT) Lincoln Lab, the Naval Undersea Warfare Center, the Office of Naval Research, and the Space and Naval Warfare Systems Command. The Navy just recently rebranded Space and Naval Warfare Systems Command as the Naval Information Warfare Systems Command.






*EW Swarms*
While the exact components of the NEMESIS system remain unknown, there are some hints about what types of decoys and swarms could make up such a system. In a 2017 Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments (CSBA) white paper titled “Winning in the Gray Zone: Using Electromagnetic Warfare to Regain Escalation Dominance," authors Bryan Clark, Mark Gunzinger, and Jesse Sloman described the various elements that made up EW ecosystems then in development, such as NEMESIS and DARPA's System of System Integration Technology and Experimentation (SoSITE).

The document described swarms of expendable unmanned aerial systems that “incorporate cognitive processing and coordinate their actions through communication networks,” meaning they can share data in real-time and operate semi-autonomously to jam an adversary’s sensors, act as or release decoys, gather targeting information, and detect and map air defense networks.





A DARPA SoSITE concept graphic of networked expendables, showing what appear to be small unmanned systems similar to the Nomad rotor-propelled drone, larger unmanned combat air vehicles reminiscent of the Northrop Grumman X-47B, and another unknown small UAV flying in concert with an F-35 Joint Strike Fighter and an E-2 Hawkeye.

Launching waves of these UAVs could extend U.S. forces’ sensor networks, confuse or obscure enemy defenses, provide a resilient communications network, coordinate and assign targets for weapons salvos, and even “provide targets to hypersonic weapons that have a very short time-of-flight," the paper explained.

Aside from providing fire and communications support, the NEMESIS system was said to be capable of creating viable false targets that would "increase the number of potential targets" an adversary would have to engage. These false targets would "mimic the RF emissions and radar returns of real platforms" and include infrared decoys and "concepts and capabilities to simulate the computer network activity of deployed forces." The NEMESIS system even included underwater "high-fidelity acoustic decoys" which can generate "additional targets for the enemy to investigate or attack," according to the CSBA white paper. These acoustic decoys could include radio emulators and simulate propeller noise or other propulsion systems, as well as specific equipment on surface ships and submarines.
The CSBA said these decoys could increase the size of the forces or amount of munitions an enemy force would have to respond with, ideally making that adversary less willing to risk a larger use of its assets. What that means is that this EW system can not only disrupt an adversary's tactics, but to some extent also dictate his battlefield decision-making.

The CSBA report described how these effects could be achieved using small unmanned EW systems launched from either high altitude balloons or undersea platforms, such as submarines or unmanned underwater vehicles (UUVs) to create these electronic warfare effects:

_Launching EMW expendables at higher altitudes is another approach to extending their ranges and endurance. Launching small EMW UAVs, missiles, or munitions from very high altitude (60,000 to 120,000 feet) balloons could be a less expensive option than using a missile. High altitude balloon technologies are very mature and may cost significantly less than other delivery methods. Furthermore, defeating balloon-delivered EMW expendables would likely require SAMs that can reach very high altitudes. Using these expensive SAMs to defeat large numbers of balloons—some which might be decoys—could be costly and operationally impractical for aggressors.

Another innovative delivery method for EMW expendables could be from undersea platforms, which may be the best use of undersea payload capacity in general. [...] Undersea platforms could be one of the most effective methods to deliver EMW expendables because they can closely approach enemy coastlines and targets. This allows shorter-range expendables to be employed, which are less expensive, smaller, and can be carried in higher numbers than larger payloads like cruise missiles. _

Numerous sea and submarine-launched UAVs and autonomous swarm systems have already been developed or are in development. Small drone swarms can also be launched from virtually any type of ship and from shore, and even aircraft, as well. In fact, the Navy already has a swarming electronic warfare capability in the form of the ever-evolving Miniature Air Launched Decoy (MALD). But pairing various platforms, from radar reflector and electronic warfare payload-carrying balloons and swarms of drones of different sizes and performance capabilities, and networking them together to work cooperatively to confuse, spoof, and/or blind enemy sensors dispersed over a wide area is clearly what this system is all about.

The Office of Naval Research has been testing a small, low-cost rotary-wing drone known as Nomad, described as “a highly affordable expendable design” that can be deployed without the need to ensure it returns to its parent vessel. The Nomad can be launched from tubes using a CO2 ejection system that can fit on a variety of platforms and tests of this compact UAV have found that “multiple Nomads can safely operate in the same airspace and fly in a coordinated fashion.”





Nomad undergoing testing.

One of the only non-Navy mentions of the NEMESIS program found online is in a NavalDrones.com article from 2017, which describes the Nomad specifically as being part of the NEMESIS system. While that claim is unconfirmed on an official level, the Naval Research Laboratory has publicly disclosed tests of the Nomad system without mentioning NEMESIS. Still, given that many of the NEMESIS documents state that “Distributed Decoy and Jammer Swarms (DDJS)” are an integral part of the system, it’s possible, if not probable, that Nomad and swarms of other small drones are part of this highly sophisticated and networked electronic warfare capability.

The 2017 CSBA paper also cites a wide range of other unmanned systems that could hypothetically be integrated into the NEMESIS system, although it remains unknown which specific expendables are used:

_Small expendables in development or use today include the Switchblade precision missile, which is in use with Special Operations Forces; small UAVs such as the Coyote UAV, used in the Navy’s Low-Cost UAV Swarming Technology (LOCUST) program; and loitering munitions like the Lockheed Martin Fire Shadow. Expendables have also been integrated with launch platforms. The Navy is developing a submarine-launched version of the Blackwing UAV, which is similar to the Switchblade. Furthermore, the U.S. Air Force has deployed the Miniature Air-Launched Decoy (MALD) since the 1990s._

The aforementioned LOCUST would be one of the most obvious platforms to execute major parts of the NEMESIS concept. The Navy has been experimenting with this highly deployable swarming drone capability for years and the airframes are highly adaptable and can be launched from almost anywhere.














Lockheed Martin has been also developing small unmanned aerial vehicles such as the tiny Outrider micro-aircraft, which can be launched from canisters that fit inside submarine missile tubes. The Naval Research Laboratory has tested all-electric folding wing drones designed to launch from torpedo tubes using existing launch systems. Glimpses of other similar systems in development have been offered over the last few years, including ones designed to carry infrared and electro-optical payloads.

Northrop Grumman has tested electronic warfare drones dropped from EA-18G Growlers inside canister deployment systems and air-launched electronic warfare enabled swarming munitions are set to become a major staple of aerial warfare.

Earlier this year, the Office of Naval Research issued a special notice for a research opportunity to develop a “Long Endurance Advanced Off-board Electronic Warfare Platform,” or LEAP. This program was listed under two of the same codes as NEMESIS, ONR Code 35: Aerodynamics, Autonomy, Flight Dynamics & Control, as well as Code 31: Electronic Warfare. The proposed vehicle design to be researched was for a ship-launched, long-range expendable decoy that can carry modular EW payloads.

Swarms of small unmanned surface vessels and even undersea vessels seem to fulfill aspects of NEMESIS' cross-domain capability as well. But leveraging swarms of smaller and somewhat expendable aerial drones and munitions that can work in conjunction with larger, less numerous, and more advanced platforms allows the NEMESIS concept to cover large geographical areas associated with modern naval combat and to distribute EW capabilities in a more resilient and decentralized manner than in the past. In doing so, it also allows for these swarms and the various dissimilar nodes that can make up the NEMESIS system at any given time to create fleets of ships and aircraft that aren't really there across a huge area as well as execute more mundane tasks, such as jamming individual enemy emitters or working as sacrificial decoys for enemy weapons themselves.

All of this could, and eventually will, also be networked with existing, more traditional electronic warfare systems such as those mounted on the Navy's surface combatants. In particular, this could be networked with the SLQ-32 SEWIP and the new and shadowy SLQ-59 that has recently arrived on some of the Navy's vessels. The Navy's EA-18G Growler could also act as a major component in this EW ecosystem and as a forward command and control node.

It's also worth remembering that NEMESIS, or at least parts of it, would also be an incredible and obvious intelligence collecting tool when it comes to probing and evaluating an enemy's defenses and recording its electronic order of battle. This could be done even in peacetime, very much in the same vein of PALLADIUM so many years ago, but on a much larger and more elaborate scale.

*Evolution Of A Revolution*
In Fiscal Year 2015, the NEMESIS program expanded beyond the Navy’s PE 0602271N / Electromagnetic Systems Applied Research program and began appearing in the budget line justification documents of several additional programs in subsequent fiscal years. During the next fiscal cycle, the Navy’s Electromagnetic Systems Applied Research program continued to work on NEMESIS as it had in prior years. Then, in Fiscal Year 2017, the program’s budget increased significantly “due to hardware procurement and conducting field experiments of NEMESIS technologies.”






The Fiscal Year 2017 RDT&E Project Justification for the NEMESIS work conducted by Navy program PE 0603271N / Electromagnetic Systems Advanced Technology states that Fiscal Years 2017 and 2018 are dedicated to “the integration and demonstration of these new technologies”.






In Fiscal Year 2018, NEMESIS appeared on two new Navy research program elements titled “PE 0602792N / (U)Innovative Naval Prototypes(INP) Applied Research” and “PE 0603801N / (U) Innovative Naval Prototypes (INP) Advanced Technology Development.” Those programs' goals for that fiscal cycle, respectively, were:

*PE 0602792N / (U)Innovative Naval Prototypes(INP) Applied Research*_: Complete the Nemesis project by finishing research efforts to develop and mature technologies in multiple areas that will be used to assess the feasibility of Nemesis to coordinate Electronic Warfare (EW) operations across distributed EW systems. Technologies being matured include swarming vehicle operations, distributed resource mission control, multi-domain coordinated operations and advanced RF component and subsystems technologies. These emerging technologies are being designed and developed for prototype Nemesis systems which will be capable of performing coordinated EW operations across distributed EW systems.

*PE 0603801N / (U) Innovative Naval Prototypes (INP) Advanced Technology Development*: Complete the Nemesis project, previously funded in 0603271N Electromagnetic Systems Advanced Technology Development, by designing and building prototype Nemesis payloads that implement industry standards for software, hardware, and firmware interfaces. Nemesis expendable decoys and prototype system hardware will be completed and delivered for field testing. Demonstrations of Nemesis platforms and payload will be conducted during fleet experimentation, as well as during focused field and laboratory tests._

These budgetary documents state that the Innovative Naval Prototype programs "represent game-changing technologies with the potential to revolutionize operational concepts. They are disruptive in nature as they would dramatically change the way naval forces fight. INPs push the imagination of our nation's technical talent to deliver transformational warfighting capabilities."






In Fiscal Year 2019, funding continued to decrease in both the PE 0603271N / Electromagnetic Systems Advanced Technology and PE 0602271N / Electromagnetic Systems Applied Research programs due to the fact that the NEMESIS program was now being developed under the Innovative Naval Prototypes programs, suggesting it has advanced beyond research and development and is now working towards an operational state.

*Electronic Warfare: The Next Generation*
The very existence of NEMESIS proves that a revolution in electronic warfare is well underway. If the capabilities we've described can be gleaned from scant publicly available information, there are no doubts that more advanced NEMESIS components and capabilities remain classified. It is also likely that some components of the system have existed long before they began to be integrated with other platforms under the NEMESIS program. Above all else, that is what NEMESIS does: it pulls together various leading-edge EW concepts and networks them together for a combined electronic warfare fight the likes of which we have never seen before.

As more nations develop and refine their advanced integrated sensor networks, next-generation EW "systems of systems" such as NEMESIS will become more vital to protecting the U.S. and allied assets and for giving them a leg up by being able to directly manipulate what the enemy believes is occurring on the battlespace based on their own sensors' data. As such, NEMESIS can help level the playing field against increasingly capable sensor networks, whether by blinding certain parts of those networks while spoofing others or by having the enemy fire its treasured weaponry at ghosts in the sea and in the air. Even a formation of what appears to be an incoming bomber force on radar and a puzzling group of bright signatures on infrared sensors could draw the enemy's attention away from critical parts on a real offensive.

Yes, much of this sounds almost like magic, and it is probably the closest thing the military has to it, but going by even the limited information we were able to uncover about NEMESIS, it really does represent the evolutionary next great leap in electronic warfare—one that will elevate this murky art from a supporting aspect of military operations to a primary offensive and defensive one.

LINK: https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zo...e-capability-will-change-naval-combat-forever

China's ASBM battle concepts have already been defeated and most don't even realize it.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## LeGenD

Related discussion: https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/the-...has-failed-forbes.702676/page-7#post-12985484



GumNaam said:


> acha chalo, I'll put my point across in a different way, maybe my point of view is wrong & you can show me where I'm wrong. I'll ask a few questions, tell me if you agree:
> 
> 1. the f35's primary aim is to create total situational awareness of the contested theater from relatively safe distance because of all the sensors it is proliferated with, do you agree?
> 
> 2. even the u.s. admits that the heat/ir/thermal signature is almost impossible to mask so best to create an aircraft that can manage everything & attack or facilitate the attack of air & ground targets without being in the range of ir guided or thermal guided weapon systems, do you agree?
> 
> 3. the u.s. also admits that it is impossible to be stealthy against all bands of radars so it is best to be stealthy against radar bands that can pose a direct threat in combat so the radar networks on L band can see the aircraft all they want from afar, because they'll not be able to reach it let alone kill it, do you agree?


*1.* YES; the F-35 is excellent for creating situational awareness of the theater - you got this right.

The 'relatively safe distance' part of your statement suggest a certain type of mission in which the F-35 is relocated to the battle management role and facilitate other war-machines in doing their job. This is certainly possible and extensively tested employment dynamic.

But the aforementioned role is not a requirement; the F-35 is a well-equipped war-machine in itself and a true VLO design on top. If a mission necessitate strikes on multiple targets and internal payload of the F-35 is the limiting factor, then solution is in "numbers."

Essentially this:





[1]

*2.* True VLO design is supposed to be LO in a range of spectrums such as Electromagnetic, Infrared, Visual, and Acoustic.

The F-35 is LO in infrared spectrum as well:





[1]





[2]





[2]





[2]





[2]





[3]

There is a limit to how many photos I can post in one reply so I would suggest you to dig into limitations of infrared imaging.

*3.* Do you know that it is possible to make an aircraft LO across all bands? B-2A Spirit was a FIRST.

The S-400 system is equipped with several radar systems to facilitate its target acquisition process. Therefore, solution is to make an aircraft LO across all bands with appropriate mix of design-related considerations and RAM applications. This is true for F-35 in fact.

I will give you a hint:





[4]

Now check this revelation:





[5]

What does it tell you? That the S-400 system can detect, track, and engage the F-35 around 21 miles mark given its sensor fidelity. On the flip side, VLO characteristics of the F-35 reduced target acquisition and engagement capacity of the S-400 system to this level in its case. And this is the point all along; the F-35 is supposed to make it possible for the pilot to engage and KILL the S-400 system much earlier. Mission accomplished.

Even if the S-400 system is linked to additional number of A2/AD arrangements in the vicinity, they will be useless because they do not match S-400 system in sensor fidelity to begin with.

Dedicated LF radar systems such as YJ-27 class can make it possible for the S-400 system to detect, tack, and engage the F-35 at earlier distances such as around 30 - 50 KM mark subject to positioning and level of integration but even this enhancement is of limited benefit and both types of assets will be taken out. Even if you have limited knowledge of NATO conventional warfare methods, you will know as much.

*REFERENCES*

[1] Link: https://www.scribd.com/document/381450409/Norway-and-F-35-7-nov-2013

[2] Link: https://basicsaboutaerodynamicsandavionics.wordpress.com/

[3] Hamstra, J. W., & McCallum, B. N. (2010). Tactical aircraft aerodynamic integration. _Encyclopedia of Aerospace Engineering_.

[4] Link: https://slideplayer.com/slide/12976539/

[5] Link: https://www.airforcemag.com/article/f-15ex-vs-f-35a/

Reactions: Positive Rating Positive Rating:
1


----------



## LeGenD

Related discussion: https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/df-2...sile-for-pakistan.706779/page-2#post-13050986



Abid123 said:


> A lot of american equipmtent is overrated.


Dear Abid, American equipment have lived up to expectations in numerous hands, environments and battles around the world on average. There are examples of American equipment under-performing in certain situations and/or environments initially but becoming much better subject to technical revisits from relevant manufacturer(s).



Abid123 said:


> American patriot defence system failed to intercept yemeni houthi missiles.


Saudi have repeatedly mentioned numerous intercepts of incoming ballistic missiles and UAV in the course of their conflict with Houthi rebels but they have not made much information Public in this regard.

Saudi did show raw footage of successful intercepts of a recent strike package from Houthi rebels.









Saudis Say They Intercepted Houthi Missile Attack Over Capital (Published 2021)


The strike came a day after a mysterious explosion struck an Israeli-owned ship in the Gulf of Oman.




www.nytimes.com













Supersonic collision: Watch the moment a Houthi missile is intercepted by Saudi air defence


Ballistic missiles can now be intercepted despite travelling at speeds of more than 2 kilometres per second




www.thenationalnews.com













Saudi Arabia says it intercepts missile attack over capital


Saudi-led military coalition says Iran-allied Houthis launched a ballistic missile toward Riyadh and three booby-trapped drones toward the province of Jizan, with a number of other drones being monitored.




www.trtworld.com





The ballistic missile that was intercepted in this case of strikes is believed to be the latest Burkan 3 variant which is a decent MRBM with good speed and CEP. Iran is known to help Houthi develop increasingly sophisticated weapons in fact. Other targets that were intercepted were reportedly UAVs. Patriot battery in use defeated the entire strike package in fact.

Intercept possibilities vary according to radar coverage and fidelity on the ground, and also due to the intercept envelope of interceptors in use. Patriot is a low-tier American A2/AD solution which provides much smaller intercept envelope for BMD than other American A2/AD solutions.






Patriot is becoming much better in its class of A2/AD solutions nevertheless.






Performance levels will - significantly - vary according to launcher configuration, number of radar systems and fidelity, and the type of interceptors sourced. The A2/AD arrangements might be very good in some areas but not necessarily in all areas because big-ticket A2/AD items are expensive to procure and network in large numbers. Interested customers can strive for excellence in this matter but there can be political situations and/or upheavels at times.









WSJ News Exclusive | Biden Trimming Forces Sent to Mideast to Help Saudi Arabia


The Pentagon will begin removing some military capabilities and forces from the Gulf region in the first steps of an effort to realign the U.S. global military footprint away from the Mideast.




www.wsj.com





Now there is not much to see in the case of Russian big-ticket A2/AD items and their foreign derivatives; no offense to these groups. Both S-300 and S-400 systems do not have much to show in Syria for instance. Armenian S-300 systems under-performed in war with Azerbaijan which is another reminder.









This is how Azerbaijan destroyed Russian S-300s with Israeli suicide drones


The Azerbaijani military used decoy aircraft to lure out the air-defence systems deployed in Nagorno-Karabakh




www.middleeasteye.net













The Hunt for Armenia’s S-300: Assessing Azerbaijan's Most Sensational SAM System Hit in The Ongoing War - Edam


THE HUNT FOR ARMENIA’S S-300: ASSESSING AZERBAIJAN’S MOST SENSATIONAL SAM SYSTEM HIT IN THE ONGOING WAR Dr. Can Kasapoglu, Director of Security & Defense Research Program, EDAM, Sine Ozkarasahin, Researcher, EDAM Location of the reported Armenian S-300 SAM Site What Happened? On September...




edam.org.tr





Modern NATO naval A2/AD arrangements are vastly superior defensive applications however. Patriot (and the sort) will feel and look underwhelming in comparison to these applications in particular. USA and Japan have done much technical homework in recent years and outcomes are promising for them.



Abid123 said:


> Yugoslav army unit (The 3rd Brigade of the 250th Air Defense Missile Brigade) shot down the "stealth" F-117A by using soviet S-125 Neva/Pechora surface-to-air missile.


The F-117 sortie-to-loss ratio in global conflicts for reference:

Operation Just Cause = 6 - 0
Operation Desert Storm = 1219 - 0
Operation Allied Force = 743 - 1
Operation Iraqi Freedom = 87 - 0

*1. *Yugoslavia was in the position to draw valuable lessons from the Persian Gulf War (1991) in which a new generation of American equipment and technologies surprised much of the world. Yugoslavia committed to a high degree of portability and scores of Russian VHF radar systems to help shape its A2/AD arrangements.






Revisiting the Lessons of Operation Allied Force


APA Analysis Paper APA-2009-04; Title:Revisiting the Lessons of Operation Allied Force; Abstract:The first key lesson the campaign produced, was that an opposing ground force must be driven out from cover, to induce the concentration of force required to facilitate efficient targeting and...



www.ausairpower.net





If you check reports of the time, NATO was under no illusion.









NATO faces a tough, tight Yugoslav Army - Serbia


Analysis in English on Serbia and 1 other country; published on 22 Mar 1999 by CSMonitor




reliefweb.int







https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/inatl/daily/april99/forces040399.htm



*2.* The F-117 that was shot down in Yugoslavia - this incident happened in the 4th day of Operation Allied Force _but_ was a one-time achievement as well and this wasn't easy either.

"Consequently, despite inputs from the VHF acquisition radar, the X-band* engagement radar of Dani’s SA-3 battery was able to track the F-117 only at a distance of 8 miles (13 km), obtaining a lock and launching two missiles towards it only on the third attempt (the colonel would order his men to switch the engagement radar on for no more than 20 seconds for each attempt in order to avoid being targeted by NATO electronic warfare aircraft)."









The F-35 vs. The VHF Threat


Amid the debate over the F-35’s effectiveness, Yugoslavia offers some interesting insights into the VHF threat.



thediplomat.com





This might surprise you but the F-117 was *not* provided onboard EW capabilities - a shortcoming. This shortcoming was mitigated with support of EA-6B Prowler in some missions. The F-117 is obsolete in comparison to other American stealthy aircraft in fact.

B-2A Spirit was/is a vastly superior VLO design with formidable onboard EW capabilities. F-22A Raptor and F-35 Lightning II are a significant leap from the F-117 as well with superior VLO design, sensor fusion, formidable onboard EW capabilities and particularly designed for A2A engagements. B-2A Spirit demonstrated intimidating performance in Operation Allied Force (this aircraft damaged Yugoslavia more than any other strike platform in a total of only 50 sorties), and F-22A Raptor did very well in Syria in view of Russian defenses.



Abid123 said:


> The DF-21D/DF-26 poses a real threat to american aircraft carriers in the South China sea:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, China’s 'Aircraft-Carrier Killer' Missiles Are a Real Threat
> 
> 
> Road-mobile and maneuverable, they could truly create a crisis in a hurry.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nationalinterest.org


Indeed.

There must also be 'support infrastructure' in place for the ASBM to strike at ships in the Pacific. This support infrastructure is expected to encompass Ground stations, OTH radars and resulting coverage, BeiDou guidance and active reconnaissance platforms to facilitate Chinese military operations in the Pacific. KILL CHAIN components in short.

Americans have done much homework in relation. They hinted disrupting the KILL CHAIN of ASBM back in 2013. They have significant investments in surveillance and Electronic Warfare (EW) technologies. They have developed and adopted a variety of Hard-kill* and Soft-kill technologies to help counter a wide range of perceived threats to the USN in passing years.

*Examples provided below.

*1.* Footage of a live-intercept event (*FTM-21*) for reference:






USS Lake Erie (CG-70) neutralized a complex ballistic missile simulating target (ARAV-C++) via an SM-3 class interceptor. You can see how speedy this target missile is/was at take-off.

*2.* Documentary of a live-intercept event (*FTM-25*) for reference:














FTM-25 missile defense flight test


A Standard Missile-3 (SM-3) Block IB guided missile is launched from the USS John Paul Jones (DDG-53) during a Missile Defense Agency and U.S. Navy test over the Pacific Ocean by the Aegis Baseline (BL) 9.C1 (BMD 5.0 Capability Upgrade) Weapon System configured ship. The SM-3 Block IB...




www.dvidshub.net





USS John Paul Jones (DDG-53) neutralized a Strike Package of 1 x ballistic missile simulating target (ARAV-B) via an SM-3 class interceptor and 2 x sea-skimming cruise missile types via SM-2 class interceptors.

*3.* Classified live-intercept event (*FTM-27 E2)* for reference:

"The agency called the test “complex” but would not elaborate. It was designated Flight Test Standard Missile-27 Event 2 (FTM-27 E2) and seemed to mirror many elements of the first salvo SM-6 test intercept of an MRBM target in Dec.2016.

That test, FTM-27, had two SM-6s fired in immediate succession. The first interceptor was unarmed and designed to only collect test data while the second interceptor carried an explosive warhead and intercepted a Lockheed Martin-built target missile in its terminal stage (_Defense Daily, Dec. 15, 2016_). MDA did not confirm by publication time if this test copied that test style.

The Missile Defense Advocacy Alliance, a nonprofit that advocates for missile defense advances and deployment, said at the time that the target in FTM-27 emulated a Chinese Dong-Fen 21 (DF-21) ballistic missile equipped with a maneuverable re-entry vehicle and designed to destroy American aircraft carriers."









MDA Completes Second SM-6 Medium Range Missile Intercept Test - Defense Daily


The Missile Defense Agency (MDA) conducted its second successful missile defense flight and intercept test of a Standard Missile-6 (SM-6) against a




www.defensedaily.com





USS John Paul Jones (DDG-53) neutralized a complex ASBM simulating target via SM-6 class interceptor(s). This particular target was capable of replicating Flight performance and characteristics of the Chinese DF-21D ASBM.

Americans are well-versed in Rocket Science. Let us not forget this.



kris said:


> Any source for this?


Well-documented examples are following.

*1.* *Operation Burnt Frost* in 2008

Intercept altitude: 240 KM above Earth
Target and velocity: USA 193 spy satellite @ 7.8 KM/sec
Interceptor and velocity: SM-3 Block 1A @ 3.0 KM/sec











This wasn't standard a HTK intercept either but the hydrazine fuel tank of USA 193 spy satellite was to be struck in order to vaporize it. This was akin to hitting a particular spot on the bullet with another bullet - such was the level of precision demonstrated in this case.

This was absolutely ambitious call back in 2008:

"To carry out Operation Burnt Frost, the United States had to go where no Aegis – or any other navy’s – warship had gone before. The technical and operational challenges posed by the decision to destroy this satellite were significant. The school bus-size satellite was to be engaged higher and at a faster speed than any target engaged during years of testing the national BMDS and Aegis BMD systems, and the satellite’s hydrazine tank – the target’s aim point – was only a fraction of the overall mass of the satellite.

Given the higher closing velocities due to the satellite’s speed of greater than 17,000 miles per hour, a successful intercept would require longer radar and missile-seeker ranges, extended missile flight time and greater guidance accuracy. The Navy’s BMD warships were the assets of choice – the only assets capable of destroying the satellite reliably and efficiently.

Three Aegis warships – the Lake Erie (CG 70), Russell (DDG 59) and Decatur (DDG 73) – were tasked to participate in the satellite shoot down, with Lake Erie designated as the principal firing ship. Following extensive materiel, electronic and training preparations (including critical, one-time modifications to the SM-3 missiles), on Feb. 20, 2008, Lake Erie launched a single SM-3 missile, which intercepted the satellite at an altitude higher than 150 miles and a closing speed greater than 22,000 miles per hour."









U.S. Navy Missile Defense: Operation Burnt Frost | Defense Media Network


A history story on Operation Burnt Frost, the successful shoot down of a non-functioning satellite by a U.S. Navy Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense ship.




www.defensemedianetwork.com





*2.* Live-intercept event (*FTM-44*) in 2020

Target: ICBM-T2 (three-stage*)
Interceptor: SM-3 Block 2A

*Following as per MDA:

Stage 0 = Trident C4 (901 kN Thrust Vac)
Stage 1 = Orion 50-S XLT (667 kN Thrust Vac)
Stage 2 = Orion 50 XLT (194 kN Thrust Vac)






USS John Finn (DDG-113) neutralized an ICBM-class target via an SM-3 class interceptor.

Check following animation:






- to understand how different technologies and systems come together to make ambitious BMD missions a reality in modern times.

Reactions: Positive Rating Positive Rating:
1


----------



## LeGenD

Related discussion: https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/df-2...sile-for-pakistan.706779/page-2#post-13051550



The Accountant said:


> At what stage ? Most of the interception takes place before terminal stage or mid course which is easier job specially in intercontinental range missile due to availability of time.
> 
> Medium range and short range ballistic missiles can be far too dangerous due to less reaction time and slightly manuverable warhead in comparison to traditional missiles.


Fundamental consideration for a (credible) BMD solution is to ENABLE intercept possibilities for incredibly fast-moving targets in _time-constrained_ situations. It would not be much of a BMD solution otherwise.

I have discussed AEGIS at length below to help potential readers understand this system in a better way and draw realistic conclusions about it.

*RAPID INTERCEPTOR LAUNCH CAPABILITY*

Following footage disclose ACTUAL interceptor launch speed of an AEGIS-based platform:






WE merely blink and the interceptor is gone (well-up in the air in pursuit of a target).

SM-3 class interceptors have neutralized SRBM, MRBM, IRBM and ICBM class targets in various live-intercept situations and events thus far. I have highlighted two live-intercept events above in which an SM-3 class interceptor took care of a speedy SRBM class target (*FTM-21* and *FTM-25* respectively).

Easier job specially in intercontinental range missile due to availability of time? Bro, are you kidding me?

ICBMs = massive ballistic trajectory approaching extreme altitudes in Midcourse phase + incredibly fast in Midcourse phase through Terminal Phase.

ICBMs necessitate herculean levels of investment and technical efforts to counter them - only USA have managed to conceptualize and demonstrate BMD capability against ICBMs and it took many years to develop and hone interceptors for the needful.

GBI inventory = 44
SM-3 Block IIA inventory = Classified

*MOTIVATION*

You might have knowledge of the fate of INS Eliat?









Sinking Eilat destroyer – 50 years on


Eilat was the first vessel to be sunk by a missile boat in wartime




www.egypttoday.com










P-15 Termit (SS-N-2 Styx) – Missile Defense Advocacy Alliance







missiledefenseadvocacy.org





It was the incident of INS Eliat that motivated *foundation* of AEGIS to help neutralize (maneuverable) threats in _time-constrained_ situations.

"One of the drivers for the development of SPY-1 was the need to address the low-altitude anti-ship cruise missile threat, which stresses the engagement time-line of the combat system because threats emerge from behind the Earth’s horizon at relatively short ranges from the ship." - O'Haver et al (2018)

AEGIS took over 10 years to develop and first AEGIS-based warship was rolled out in 1983:

"By 1981, the USS Ticonderoga (CG 47) became the Unites States’ first AEGIS-guided missile cruiser. It was a game-changer. Even new advances in Soviet missile technology could not keep pace with the new defensive capabilities of the AEGIS, providing the United States with a critical new asset in the all-important strategic chess game at sea. On January 22nd, 1983 when Ticonderoga was commissioned, the rallying cry was: “Stand by, Admiral Gorshkov, AEGIS is at sea!”" - Lockheed Martin

- with (revolutionary) *AN/SPY-1A *radar system at its core:

"The AMFAR demonstrator was conceived, designed, fabricated, and tested by APL between 1964 and 1969 and served as the advanced development model for technologies incorporated into the Aegis AN/SPY-1A radar. It brought all elements of the radar system together and demonstrated the feasibility of automatic detection and tracking with resistance to environmental clutter through computer control. Key technology areas addressed by the AMFAR program included tube-based transmitter design, planar phased-array design, electronic counter-countermeasures (now known as electronic protection) development, automatic detection and tracking, and computer control. The major experimental subsystems included a high-power transmitter, a phased-array antenna, a signal-processor system, and a computer control system." - O'Haver et al (2018)

O'Haver, K. W., Barker, C. K., Dockery, G. D., & Huffaker, J. D. (2018). Radar development for air and missile defense. _Johns Hopkins APL Tech. Digest_, _34_(2), 140-153.

But it wasn't the end of story.

*CONTINOUS MODERNIZATION*

AEGIS modernization efforts continued beneath the hulls in passing years.

Persian Gulf War (1991) motivated transformation of AEGIS into a BMD-capable A2/AD solution.

"During Operation Desert Storm (1991), Iraqi forces used ballistic missiles against military and civilian targets with sufficient effect to spur the U.S. Navy to pursue a BMD capability. Initial studies by APL verified the feasibility of modifying the Aegis Combat System, including the AN/SPY-1 radar and Standard Missile-2 Block IV, to add an Area BMD endo-atmospheric engagement capability to protect ports and forces ashore against ballistic missile threats such as the Scud variety seen in Desert Storm.

Key AN/SPY-1 advances necessary to support the new Area BMD mission included the ability to respond to cues from offboard sensors, increased sensitivity, new surveillance approaches for early detection of threats, new tracking approaches, and new functionality to discriminate ballistic missile warheads. APL worked closely in the early to mid-1990s with the Aegis prime contractor, Lockheed Martin, and the Naval Surface Warfare Center Dahlgren Division to incrementally design and field-test each of these capabilities." - O'Haver et al (2018)
















What do you think *Common Source Library* is? Meaningful (classified) information about a wide range of (Foreign) offensive applications*** is stored in there to help INFORM _intercept possibilities_ against them.

*TERMINAL PHASE DEFENSES*

Terminal phase defenses of AEGIS have come a long way since 1983 as one of the outcomes of continuous modernization drive (see above).

Different types of targets were introduced to stress-test terminal phase defenses of AEGIS in passing years:






However:









Obscure 23-Year Old Navy SAM Was So Ahead Of Its Time That It's Still In High Demand Today


The SM-2 Block IIIB's dual-mode guidance system is still unique among the missiles the Navy's fleet uses to defend against aerial threats.




www.thedrive.com





Capability to intercept (maneverable) hypersonics was FIRST demonstrated in the *FTM-27 E2* live-intercept test which was carried out in *2016*. The target in this case was capable of replicating Flight performance and characteristics of the Chinese DF-21D ASBM*, and it was defeated in Terminal phase via SM-6 class interceptor(s). The target is assumed to be (very impressive) MRBM-T3c2 with classified MaRV.

*USA is remarkably well-versed in Rocket Sciences. They have developed some of the most sophisticated ballistic missiles and commercial-purpose rockets in the world. Just check the brochure of Northrop Grumman for instance - this company have produced numerous rocket motors (different types and specifications). And Northrop Grumman is but one American company involved in this business. Multiple American companies are involved in this business in fact. They can develop (any) kind of missile for "target practice." Keep this fact in mind.

Key enablers:

1. Very impressive sensor fidelity of AEGIS of AN/SPY-D(v) radar system

"The Aegis Combat System is controlled by an advanced, automatic detect-and-track, multi-function three-dimensional passive electronically scanned array radar, the AN/SPY-1. The SPY-1 is a 6 megawatt radar that is able to perform search, tracking, and missile guidance functions simultaneously with a tracked object capacity of well over 100 targets at more than 100 nautical miles."






Aegis ballistic missile defense SM-3 Block IIA (RIM-161D)


Aegis ballistic missile defense to attempt ICBM intercept SM3 Block IIA



ermandouglas.com





2. Cooperative Engagement Capability (CEC)






*NOTE:* USN is the only naval force in the world with credible CEC; all claims to the contrary are merely semantics of fanboys in Public discourses (bewakoof bana rahey hain). CEC is completely another level of sensor-netting in comparison to standard network-centric considerations in which all (enabled) assets can share and see the same battlefield picture. This is very expensive and difficult undertaking and majority of the countries do not have funds for the needful.

3. Rapid interceptor launch capability of AEGIS-based platform (see above)

"The Defense Department is eyeing Raytheon's Standard Missile-6 as a counter-hypersonic interceptor, a weapon already effective against "advanced maneuvering threats" and now slated for a flight test against a hypersonic boost-glide target in fiscal year 2023."






DOD eyes SM-6 for counter-hypersonic mission, test against glide-vehicle target in FY-23 | InsideDefense.com


The Defense Department is eyeing Raytheon's Standard Missile-6 as a counter-hypersonic interceptor, a weapon already effective against "advanced maneuvering threats" and now slated for a flight test against a hypersonic boost-glide target in fiscal year 2023.




insidedefense.com





HGVs are incredibly difficult to intercept but SM-6 class interceptors have (unspoken) potential against these threats.

If their are capability gaps in the present, these will be bridged in passing years.






Document Likely Shows SM-6 Hypersonic Speed, Anti-Surface Role | Aviation Week Network


The terse reference in a written submission by Navy officials to the House Armed Services Committee on March 11 also likely offers the first proof that the SM-6 Block 1B remains in development.




aviationweek.com





**INTEL FACTOR*

USN did not reach the stage of having countermeasures for a wide range of increasingly sophisticated threats out of the blue. There is *decades* worth of background research* and surveillance techniques** involved in this matter (courtesy of the pressures of the Cold War), which helped shape industries and INFORM development of incredibly sophisticated A2/AD solutions which could make it possible to defeat a wide range of increasingly sophisticated threats in modern times.

*To achieve in-house capability to develop sophisticated missiles of all shapes and sizes.

**To monitor (and document) flight characteristics of all types of ballistic missiles tested and/or fielded by other countries in passing years with support of incredibly sophisticated Spaceborne assets such as DSP and SBIRS.

"In 2019, the SBIRS satellites were able to detect almost 1,000 missile launches, according to the company. McCormick said this is a two-fold increase as compared to the past two years."






Space Force Receives Fifth SBIRS Satellite


Space Force Receives Fifth SBIRS Satellite




www.nationaldefensemagazine.org





*SOFT-KILL TECHNOLOGIES*

AEGIS-compliant interceptors are not like bullets which are cheap to mass-produce; these are expensive technologies in short and simple terms.

Soft-kill technologies create a separate layer for defeating a wide range of increasingly complex threats as well, and significance of these technologies is vastly understated in Public discourses. There are numerous pointers in FIRST post of this thread. Do give it a read as well.

I am providing some pointers as well.
























American Destroyer Packed New Electronic Warfare System During Black Sea Mission


Arguably a U.S. Navy surface combatant's most important weapon deals in electrons not high-explosives, and it's more important now than ever.




www.thedrive.com





*NEXT LEAP*

AEGIS-based platforms will receive a significant sensor package upgrade in the form of AN/SPY-6 radar systems.






Word is that AN/SPY-6 is much more sensitive than the already very impressive AN/SPY-1D(v) radar system.

*THE BOTTOM LINE*

This discussion is focused on AEGIS-mediated defensive applications of USN in large part but scope is limited to surface combatants. Following bloc diagram provided an overview of AEGIS-mediated functions and payload on surface combatants such as destroyers and cruisers.






There is much to say about offensive options of well-equipped surface combatants, incredibly sophisticated submarines and incredibly sophisticated aircraft (bringing different types of payload to the equation) but this discussion is for another time. There is much to say about tactics and exposure levels as well. There is much about USN that is not made public and will not be made public anytime soon; this is often mentioned in American military sources and talks.

I would simply say that picking fights with USN is (very) bad idea.

Reactions: Positive Rating Positive Rating:
1 | Like Like:
1


----------



## The Accountant

LeGenD said:


> Related discussion: https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/df-2...sile-for-pakistan.706779/page-2#post-13051550
> 
> 
> Fundamental consideration for a (credible) BMD solution is to ENABLE intercept possibilities for incredibly fast-moving targets in _time-constrained_ situations. It would not be much of a BMD solution otherwise.
> 
> I have discussed AEGIS at length below to help potential readers understand this system in a better way and draw realistic conclusions about it.
> 
> *RAPID INTERCEPTOR LAUNCH CAPABILITY*
> 
> Following footage disclose ACTUAL interceptor launch speed of an AEGIS-based platform:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WE merely blink and the interceptor is gone (well-up in the air in pursuit of a target).
> 
> SM-3 class interceptors have neutralized SRBM, MRBM, IRBM and ICBM class targets in various live-intercept situations and events thus far. I have highlighted two live-intercept events above in which an SM-3 class interceptor took care of a speedy SRBM class target (*FTM-21* and *FTM-25* respectively).
> 
> Easier job specially in intercontinental range missile due to availability of time? Bro, are you kidding me?
> 
> ICBMs = massive ballistic trajectory approaching extreme altitudes in Midcourse phase + incredibly fast in Midcourse phase through Terminal Phase.
> 
> ICBMs necessitate herculean levels of investment and technical efforts to counter them - only USA have managed to conceptualize and demonstrate BMD capability against ICBMs and it took many years to develop and hone interceptors for the needful.
> 
> GBI inventory = 44
> SM-3 Block IIA inventory = Classified
> 
> *MOTIVATION*
> 
> You might have knowledge of the fate of INS Eliat?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sinking Eilat destroyer – 50 years on
> 
> 
> Eilat was the first vessel to be sunk by a missile boat in wartime
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.egypttoday.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P-15 Termit (SS-N-2 Styx) – Missile Defense Advocacy Alliance
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> missiledefenseadvocacy.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It was the incident of INS Eliat that motivated *foundation* of AEGIS to help neutralize (maneuverable) threats in _time-constrained_ situations.
> 
> "One of the drivers for the development of SPY-1 was the need to address the low-altitude anti-ship cruise missile threat, which stresses the engagement time-line of the combat system because threats emerge from behind the Earth’s horizon at relatively short ranges from the ship." - O'Haver et al (2018)
> 
> AEGIS took over 10 years to develop and first AEGIS-based warship was rolled out in 1983:
> 
> "By 1981, the USS Ticonderoga (CG 47) became the Unites States’ first AEGIS-guided missile cruiser. It was a game-changer. Even new advances in Soviet missile technology could not keep pace with the new defensive capabilities of the AEGIS, providing the United States with a critical new asset in the all-important strategic chess game at sea. On January 22nd, 1983 when Ticonderoga was commissioned, the rallying cry was: “Stand by, Admiral Gorshkov, AEGIS is at sea!”" - Lockheed Martin
> 
> - with (revolutionary) *AN/SPY-1A *radar system at its core:
> 
> "The AMFAR demonstrator was conceived, designed, fabricated, and tested by APL between 1964 and 1969 and served as the advanced development model for technologies incorporated into the Aegis AN/SPY-1A radar. It brought all elements of the radar system together and demonstrated the feasibility of automatic detection and tracking with resistance to environmental clutter through computer control. Key technology areas addressed by the AMFAR program included tube-based transmitter design, planar phased-array design, electronic counter-countermeasures (now known as electronic protection) development, automatic detection and tracking, and computer control. The major experimental subsystems included a high-power transmitter, a phased-array antenna, a signal-processor system, and a computer control system." - O'Haver et al (2018)
> 
> O'Haver, K. W., Barker, C. K., Dockery, G. D., & Huffaker, J. D. (2018). Radar development for air and missile defense. _Johns Hopkins APL Tech. Digest_, _34_(2), 140-153.
> 
> But it wasn't the end of story.
> 
> *CONTINOUS MODERNIZATION*
> 
> AEGIS modernization efforts continued beneath the hulls in passing years.
> 
> Persian Gulf War (1991) motivated transformation of AEGIS into a BMD-capable A2/AD solution.
> 
> "During Operation Desert Storm (1991), Iraqi forces used ballistic missiles against military and civilian targets with sufficient effect to spur the U.S. Navy to pursue a BMD capability. Initial studies by APL verified the feasibility of modifying the Aegis Combat System, including the AN/SPY-1 radar and Standard Missile-2 Block IV, to add an Area BMD endo-atmospheric engagement capability to protect ports and forces ashore against ballistic missile threats such as the Scud variety seen in Desert Storm.
> 
> Key AN/SPY-1 advances necessary to support the new Area BMD mission included the ability to respond to cues from offboard sensors, increased sensitivity, new surveillance approaches for early detection of threats, new tracking approaches, and new functionality to discriminate ballistic missile warheads. APL worked closely in the early to mid-1990s with the Aegis prime contractor, Lockheed Martin, and the Naval Surface Warfare Center Dahlgren Division to incrementally design and field-test each of these capabilities." - O'Haver et al (2018)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What do you think *Common Source Library* is? Meaningful (classified) information about a wide range of (Foreign) offensive applications*** is stored in there to help INFORM _intercept possibilities_ against them.
> 
> *TERMINAL PHASE DEFENSES*
> 
> Terminal phase defenses of AEGIS have come a long way since 1983 as one of the outcomes of continuous modernization drive (see above).
> 
> Different types of targets were introduced to stress-test terminal phase defenses of AEGIS in passing years:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> However:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Obscure 23-Year Old Navy SAM Was So Ahead Of Its Time That It's Still In High Demand Today
> 
> 
> The SM-2 Block IIIB's dual-mode guidance system is still unique among the missiles the Navy's fleet uses to defend against aerial threats.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.thedrive.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Capability to intercept (maneverable) hypersonics was FIRST demonstrated in the *FTM-27 E2* live-intercept test which was carried out in *2016*. The target in this case was capable of replicating Flight performance and characteristics of the Chinese DF-21D ASBM*, and it was defeated in Terminal phase via SM-6 class interceptor(s). The target is assumed to be (very impressive) MRBM-T3c2 with classified MaRV.
> 
> *USA is remarkably well-versed in Rocket Sciences. They have developed some of the most sophisticated ballistic missiles and commercial-purpose rockets in the world. Just check the brochure of Northrop Grumman for instance - this company have produced numerous rocket motors (different types and specifications). And Northrop Grumman is but one American company involved in this business. Multiple American companies are involved in this business in fact. They can develop (any) kind of missile for "target practice." Keep this fact in mind.
> 
> Key enablers:
> 
> 1. Very impressive sensor fidelity of AEGIS of AN/SPY-D(v) radar system
> 
> "The Aegis Combat System is controlled by an advanced, automatic detect-and-track, multi-function three-dimensional passive electronically scanned array radar, the AN/SPY-1. The SPY-1 is a 6 megawatt radar that is able to perform search, tracking, and missile guidance functions simultaneously with a tracked object capacity of well over 100 targets at more than 100 nautical miles."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Aegis ballistic missile defense SM-3 Block IIA (RIM-161D)
> 
> 
> Aegis ballistic missile defense to attempt ICBM intercept SM3 Block IIA
> 
> 
> 
> ermandouglas.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2. Cooperative Engagement Capability (CEC)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *NOTE:* USN is the only naval force in the world with credible CEC; all claims to the contrary are merely semantics of fanboys in Public discourses (bewakoof bana rahey hain). CEC is completely another level of sensor-netting in comparison to standard network-centric considerations in which all (enabled) assets can share and see the same battlefield picture. This is very expensive and difficult undertaking and majority of the countries do not have funds for the needful.
> 
> 3. Rapid interceptor launch capability of AEGIS-based platform (see above)
> 
> "The Defense Department is eyeing Raytheon's Standard Missile-6 as a counter-hypersonic interceptor, a weapon already effective against "advanced maneuvering threats" and now slated for a flight test against a hypersonic boost-glide target in fiscal year 2023."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DOD eyes SM-6 for counter-hypersonic mission, test against glide-vehicle target in FY-23 | InsideDefense.com
> 
> 
> The Defense Department is eyeing Raytheon's Standard Missile-6 as a counter-hypersonic interceptor, a weapon already effective against "advanced maneuvering threats" and now slated for a flight test against a hypersonic boost-glide target in fiscal year 2023.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> insidedefense.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HGVs are incredibly difficult to intercept but SM-6 class interceptors have (unspoken) potential against these threats.
> 
> If their are capability gaps in the present, these will be bridged in passing years.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Document Likely Shows SM-6 Hypersonic Speed, Anti-Surface Role | Aviation Week Network
> 
> 
> The terse reference in a written submission by Navy officials to the House Armed Services Committee on March 11 also likely offers the first proof that the SM-6 Block 1B remains in development.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aviationweek.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> **INTEL FACTOR*
> 
> USN did not reach the stage of having countermeasures for a wide range of increasingly sophisticated threats out of the blue. There is *decades* worth of background research* and surveillance techniques** involved in this matter (courtesy of the pressures of the Cold War), which helped shape industries and INFORM development of incredibly sophisticated A2/AD solutions which could make it possible to defeat a wide range of increasingly sophisticated threats in modern times.
> 
> *To achieve in-house capability to develop sophisticated missiles of all shapes and sizes.
> 
> **To monitor (and document) flight characteristics of all types of ballistic missiles tested and/or fielded by other countries in passing years with support of incredibly sophisticated Spaceborne assets such as DSP and SBIRS.
> 
> "In 2019, the SBIRS satellites were able to detect almost 1,000 missile launches, according to the company. McCormick said this is a two-fold increase as compared to the past two years."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Space Force Receives Fifth SBIRS Satellite
> 
> 
> Space Force Receives Fifth SBIRS Satellite
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.nationaldefensemagazine.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *SOFT-KILL TECHNOLOGIES*
> 
> AEGIS-compliant interceptors are not like bullets which are cheap to mass-produce; these are expensive technologies in short and simple terms.
> 
> Soft-kill technologies create a separate layer for defeating a wide range of increasingly complex threats as well, and significance of these technologies is vastly understated in Public discourses. There are numerous pointers in FIRST post of this thread. Do give it a read as well.
> 
> I am providing some pointers as well.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> American Destroyer Packed New Electronic Warfare System During Black Sea Mission
> 
> 
> Arguably a U.S. Navy surface combatant's most important weapon deals in electrons not high-explosives, and it's more important now than ever.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.thedrive.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *NEXT LEAP*
> 
> AEGIS-based platforms will receive a significant sensor package upgrade in the form of AN/SPY-6 radar systems.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Word is that AN/SPY-6 is much more sensitive than the already very impressive AN/SPY-1D(v) radar system.
> 
> *THE BOTTOM LINE*
> 
> This discussion is focused on AEGIS-mediated defensive applications of USN in large part but scope is limited to surface combatants. Following bloc diagram provided an overview of AEGIS-mediated functions and payload on surface combatants such as destroyers and cruisers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is much to say about offensive options of well-equipped surface combatants, incredibly sophisticated submarines and incredibly sophisticated aircraft (bringing different types of payload to the equation) but this discussion is for another time. There is much to say about tactics and exposure levels as well. There is much about USN that is not made public and will not be made public anytime soon; this is often mentioned in American military sources and talks.
> 
> I would simply say that picking fights with USN is (very) bad idea.


My brother u r right. However, 8t is not simple as written in the details shared by you. There r lots of if and buts involved.

R u suggesting that SM6 has capability to take out HGV at all ranges irrsepective of the stage involved ? A hardly thing there is any possibility of t


LeGenD said:


> Related discussion: https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/df-2...sile-for-pakistan.706779/page-2#post-13051550
> 
> 
> Fundamental consideration for a (credible) BMD solution is to ENABLE intercept possibilities for incredibly fast-moving targets in _time-constrained_ situations. It would not be much of a BMD solution otherwise.
> 
> I have discussed AEGIS at length below to help potential readers understand this system in a better way and draw realistic conclusions about it.
> 
> *RAPID INTERCEPTOR LAUNCH CAPABILITY*
> 
> Following footage disclose ACTUAL interceptor launch speed of an AEGIS-based platform:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WE merely blink and the interceptor is gone (well-up in the air in pursuit of a target).
> 
> SM-3 class interceptors have neutralized SRBM, MRBM, IRBM and ICBM class targets in various live-intercept situations and events thus far. I have highlighted two live-intercept events above in which an SM-3 class interceptor took care of a speedy SRBM class target (*FTM-21* and *FTM-25* respectively).
> 
> Easier job specially in intercontinental range missile due to availability of time? Bro, are you kidding me?
> 
> ICBMs = massive ballistic trajectory approaching extreme altitudes in Midcourse phase + incredibly fast in Midcourse phase through Terminal Phase.
> 
> ICBMs necessitate herculean levels of investment and technical efforts to counter them - only USA have managed to conceptualize and demonstrate BMD capability against ICBMs and it took many years to develop and hone interceptors for the needful.
> 
> GBI inventory = 44
> SM-3 Block IIA inventory = Classified
> 
> *MOTIVATION*
> 
> You might have knowledge of the fate of INS Eliat?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sinking Eilat destroyer – 50 years on
> 
> 
> Eilat was the first vessel to be sunk by a missile boat in wartime
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.egypttoday.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P-15 Termit (SS-N-2 Styx) – Missile Defense Advocacy Alliance
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> missiledefenseadvocacy.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It was the incident of INS Eliat that motivated *foundation* of AEGIS to help neutralize (maneuverable) threats in _time-constrained_ situations.
> 
> "One of the drivers for the development of SPY-1 was the need to address the low-altitude anti-ship cruise missile threat, which stresses the engagement time-line of the combat system because threats emerge from behind the Earth’s horizon at relatively short ranges from the ship." - O'Haver et al (2018)
> 
> AEGIS took over 10 years to develop and first AEGIS-based warship was rolled out in 1983:
> 
> "By 1981, the USS Ticonderoga (CG 47) became the Unites States’ first AEGIS-guided missile cruiser. It was a game-changer. Even new advances in Soviet missile technology could not keep pace with the new defensive capabilities of the AEGIS, providing the United States with a critical new asset in the all-important strategic chess game at sea. On January 22nd, 1983 when Ticonderoga was commissioned, the rallying cry was: “Stand by, Admiral Gorshkov, AEGIS is at sea!”" - Lockheed Martin
> 
> - with (revolutionary) *AN/SPY-1A *radar system at its core:
> 
> "The AMFAR demonstrator was conceived, designed, fabricated, and tested by APL between 1964 and 1969 and served as the advanced development model for technologies incorporated into the Aegis AN/SPY-1A radar. It brought all elements of the radar system together and demonstrated the feasibility of automatic detection and tracking with resistance to environmental clutter through computer control. Key technology areas addressed by the AMFAR program included tube-based transmitter design, planar phased-array design, electronic counter-countermeasures (now known as electronic protection) development, automatic detection and tracking, and computer control. The major experimental subsystems included a high-power transmitter, a phased-array antenna, a signal-processor system, and a computer control system." - O'Haver et al (2018)
> 
> O'Haver, K. W., Barker, C. K., Dockery, G. D., & Huffaker, J. D. (2018). Radar development for air and missile defense. _Johns Hopkins APL Tech. Digest_, _34_(2), 140-153.
> 
> But it wasn't the end of story.
> 
> *CONTINOUS MODERNIZATION*
> 
> AEGIS modernization efforts continued beneath the hulls in passing years.
> 
> Persian Gulf War (1991) motivated transformation of AEGIS into a BMD-capable A2/AD solution.
> 
> "During Operation Desert Storm (1991), Iraqi forces used ballistic missiles against military and civilian targets with sufficient effect to spur the U.S. Navy to pursue a BMD capability. Initial studies by APL verified the feasibility of modifying the Aegis Combat System, including the AN/SPY-1 radar and Standard Missile-2 Block IV, to add an Area BMD endo-atmospheric engagement capability to protect ports and forces ashore against ballistic missile threats such as the Scud variety seen in Desert Storm.
> 
> Key AN/SPY-1 advances necessary to support the new Area BMD mission included the ability to respond to cues from offboard sensors, increased sensitivity, new surveillance approaches for early detection of threats, new tracking approaches, and new functionality to discriminate ballistic missile warheads. APL worked closely in the early to mid-1990s with the Aegis prime contractor, Lockheed Martin, and the Naval Surface Warfare Center Dahlgren Division to incrementally design and field-test each of these capabilities." - O'Haver et al (2018)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What do you think *Common Source Library* is? Meaningful (classified) information about a wide range of (Foreign) offensive applications*** is stored in there to help INFORM _intercept possibilities_ against them.
> 
> *TERMINAL PHASE DEFENSES*
> 
> Terminal phase defenses of AEGIS have come a long way since 1983 as one of the outcomes of continuous modernization drive (see above).
> 
> Different types of targets were introduced to stress-test terminal phase defenses of AEGIS in passing years:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> However:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Obscure 23-Year Old Navy SAM Was So Ahead Of Its Time That It's Still In High Demand Today
> 
> 
> The SM-2 Block IIIB's dual-mode guidance system is still unique among the missiles the Navy's fleet uses to defend against aerial threats.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.thedrive.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Capability to intercept (maneverable) hypersonics was FIRST demonstrated in the *FTM-27 E2* live-intercept test which was carried out in *2016*. The target in this case was capable of replicating Flight performance and characteristics of the Chinese DF-21D ASBM*, and it was defeated in Terminal phase via SM-6 class interceptor(s). The target is assumed to be (very impressive) MRBM-T3c2 with classified MaRV.
> 
> *USA is remarkably well-versed in Rocket Sciences. They have developed some of the most sophisticated ballistic missiles and commercial-purpose rockets in the world. Just check the brochure of Northrop Grumman for instance - this company have produced numerous rocket motors (different types and specifications). And Northrop Grumman is but one American company involved in this business. Multiple American companies are involved in this business in fact. They can develop (any) kind of missile for "target practice." Keep this fact in mind.
> 
> Key enablers:
> 
> 1. Very impressive sensor fidelity of AEGIS of AN/SPY-D(v) radar system
> 
> "The Aegis Combat System is controlled by an advanced, automatic detect-and-track, multi-function three-dimensional passive electronically scanned array radar, the AN/SPY-1. The SPY-1 is a 6 megawatt radar that is able to perform search, tracking, and missile guidance functions simultaneously with a tracked object capacity of well over 100 targets at more than 100 nautical miles."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Aegis ballistic missile defense SM-3 Block IIA (RIM-161D)
> 
> 
> Aegis ballistic missile defense to attempt ICBM intercept SM3 Block IIA
> 
> 
> 
> ermandouglas.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2. Cooperative Engagement Capability (CEC)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *NOTE:* USN is the only naval force in the world with credible CEC; all claims to the contrary are merely semantics of fanboys in Public discourses (bewakoof bana rahey hain). CEC is completely another level of sensor-netting in comparison to standard network-centric considerations in which all (enabled) assets can share and see the same battlefield picture. This is very expensive and difficult undertaking and majority of the countries do not have funds for the needful.
> 
> 3. Rapid interceptor launch capability of AEGIS-based platform (see above)
> 
> "The Defense Department is eyeing Raytheon's Standard Missile-6 as a counter-hypersonic interceptor, a weapon already effective against "advanced maneuvering threats" and now slated for a flight test against a hypersonic boost-glide target in fiscal year 2023."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DOD eyes SM-6 for counter-hypersonic mission, test against glide-vehicle target in FY-23 | InsideDefense.com
> 
> 
> The Defense Department is eyeing Raytheon's Standard Missile-6 as a counter-hypersonic interceptor, a weapon already effective against "advanced maneuvering threats" and now slated for a flight test against a hypersonic boost-glide target in fiscal year 2023.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> insidedefense.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HGVs are incredibly difficult to intercept but SM-6 class interceptors have (unspoken) potential against these threats.
> 
> If their are capability gaps in the present, these will be bridged in passing years.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Document Likely Shows SM-6 Hypersonic Speed, Anti-Surface Role | Aviation Week Network
> 
> 
> The terse reference in a written submission by Navy officials to the House Armed Services Committee on March 11 also likely offers the first proof that the SM-6 Block 1B remains in development.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aviationweek.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> **INTEL FACTOR*
> 
> USN did not reach the stage of having countermeasures for a wide range of increasingly sophisticated threats out of the blue. There is *decades* worth of background research* and surveillance techniques** involved in this matter (courtesy of the pressures of the Cold War), which helped shape industries and INFORM development of incredibly sophisticated A2/AD solutions which could make it possible to defeat a wide range of increasingly sophisticated threats in modern times.
> 
> *To achieve in-house capability to develop sophisticated missiles of all shapes and sizes.
> 
> **To monitor (and document) flight characteristics of all types of ballistic missiles tested and/or fielded by other countries in passing years with support of incredibly sophisticated Spaceborne assets such as DSP and SBIRS.
> 
> "In 2019, the SBIRS satellites were able to detect almost 1,000 missile launches, according to the company. McCormick said this is a two-fold increase as compared to the past two years."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Space Force Receives Fifth SBIRS Satellite
> 
> 
> Space Force Receives Fifth SBIRS Satellite
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.nationaldefensemagazine.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *SOFT-KILL TECHNOLOGIES*
> 
> AEGIS-compliant interceptors are not like bullets which are cheap to mass-produce; these are expensive technologies in short and simple terms.
> 
> Soft-kill technologies create a separate layer for defeating a wide range of increasingly complex threats as well, and significance of these technologies is vastly understated in Public discourses. There are numerous pointers in FIRST post of this thread. Do give it a read as well.
> 
> I am providing some pointers as well.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> American Destroyer Packed New Electronic Warfare System During Black Sea Mission
> 
> 
> Arguably a U.S. Navy surface combatant's most important weapon deals in electrons not high-explosives, and it's more important now than ever.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.thedrive.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *NEXT LEAP*
> 
> AEGIS-based platforms will receive a significant sensor package upgrade in the form of AN/SPY-6 radar systems.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Word is that AN/SPY-6 is much more sensitive than the already very impressive AN/SPY-1D(v) radar system.
> 
> *THE BOTTOM LINE*
> 
> This discussion is focused on AEGIS-mediated defensive applications of USN in large part but scope is limited to surface combatants. Following bloc diagram provided an overview of AEGIS-mediated functions and payload on surface combatants such as destroyers and cruisers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is much to say about offensive options of well-equipped surface combatants, incredibly sophisticated submarines and incredibly sophisticated aircraft (bringing different types of payload to the equation) but this discussion is for another time. There is much to say about tactics and exposure levels as well. There is much about USN that is not made public and will not be made public anytime soon; this is often mentioned in American military sources and talks.
> 
> I would simply say that picking fights with USN is (very) bad idea.


Thanks for sharing such a detailed analysis however my opinion is still the same. There is always a difference between controlled testing environment and actual war situation. There r lots of its and buts involved. Just for AEGIS can take down HGV but whats the limit of maneuvring that can be incorporated and at what ranges ? Remember when a system is tested it is always tested within the limit of its capabilities but r the enemy missile systems are within that performance range ? HGV is anything that have a Mach 5 plus speed and is maneuvrable question is whats the limit of SM6? Which speeds it can take on and how much changes in path it can incorporate and what angles of attack it can incorporate ?


----------



## LeGenD

*Some of the full-stealth design planes, helicopters and drones.*






Panait, A. M. (2010). General principles of passive radar signature reducing: Stealth technology and its applications. _INCAS Bulletin_, _2_(1), 49-54.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## LeGenD

Related posts:









F/A18 Vs J-15


US Navy F/A-18s would 'destroy' China's J-15 carrier fighters in air-to-air combat today, but the future could be a different story F/A-18E Super Hornets F/A-18E Super Hornets. US Navy photo by Chief Mass Communication Specialist Shannon Renfroe China's carrier-based J-15 fighter jets have...



defence.pk










Turkey’s Air Force Is Obsolete, Warns New Study


also until 2025 Turkish Airforce will have air superiority unmanned Fighter Jet MIUS armed with AKDOGAN long range air to air missiles similar to METEOR + AESA Radar + data link What are you saying? Turkey does not have basic BVR missile with radar guidance and yet you claim that some random...



defence.pk










Turkey’s Air Force Is Obsolete, Warns New Study


turkey did huge mistake i will prefer f-35 over S-300 S400 S500 all of them . problem is not F35 or S400 The US Senate and PENTAGON always will block transfer of F-35s to Turkey , even if Turkey cancel S400 deal The problems between Turkey and the US are multilayered and very complicated...



defence.pk

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## khansaheeb

USAF B-52 bomber conducts simulated hypersonic kill chain employment


The US Air Force’s (USAF) B-52 Stratofortress bomber has demonstrated a simulated hypersonic kill chain employment.




www.airforce-technology.com






*USAF B-52 bomber conducts simulated hypersonic kill chain employment*
11 May 2021 (Last Updated May 11th, 2021 12:23)
The US Air Force’s (USAF) B-52 Stratofortress bomber has demonstrated a simulated hypersonic kill chain employment.
*Share Article*



A B-52 Stratofortress from Barksdale AFB sits on the ramp at Eglin AFB. Credit: US Army / Sgt Michael Parnell.
Carried out during the ongoing Northern Edge 21 exercise, the missile strike involved the use of targeting data from sensors positioned more than 1,000nm away.
During the nearly 13-hour sortie from Barksdale Air Force Base (AFB) to Alaska, US, and back, the B-52 was able to receive target data from sensors through the All-Domain Operations Capability experiment (ADOC-E).
Upon receiving the data from the ADOC-E, B-52 Stratofortress was then able to take a simulated shot of the target from 600nm using an AGM-183 Air Launched Rapid Response Weapon (ARRW).


The AGM-183A ARRW is a long-range hypersonic missile designed by Lockheed Martin for the USAF.
53rd Test Management Group deputy commander lieutenant colonel Joe Little said: “We were really exercising the data links that we needed in order to complete that kill chain loop, and then get the feedback to the players in the airspace that the simulated hypersonic missile was fired and effective.”

According to USAF, the missile strike was a successful showcase of beyond line of sight (BLOS) Kill Chain employment.
49th Test and Evaluation Squadron commander lieutenant colonel Matt Guasco said: “The team did an outstanding job effecting this event both in planning and execution.
“This is a win for the US Air Force and greater DOD as a whole but make no mistake, we are just getting started.”

USAF noted that the ADOC-E is a ‘joint team representing the operational-level “blue” training audience designed to experiment with synchronising joint functions in forward locations’.
Northern Edge 21 is a US Indo-Pacific Command exercise designed to provide ‘high-end, realistic warfighter training’ and is aimed at enhancing joint interoperability.
The exercise, which started on 3 May, is being conducted on and above the Joint Pacific Alaska Range Complex, the Gulf of Alaska, and temporary maritime activities area.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Love Love:
1


----------



## LeGenD

*RQ-180 *spotted recently.






It was operating at an altitude of 80,000 feet at the time.









Secret RQ-180 Stealthy Unmanned Spy Plane Spotted Over Area 51


This was the third photographic encounter with the mysterious RQ-180 flying wing drone, leaving little doubt as to its existence.




www.thedrive.com





Northrop Grunman provided minor glimpse of an *NGAD* prototype recently.






_It's very big, stealthy, and has no vertical tails. It also has a hell of a chine line that wraps around the airframe. Its dorsal intake is also a very stealthy attribute. It is hard to tell, but if there is just one and not another intake on the other side, with the spine behind the cockpit flowing into it, it looks a bit similar to the __Model 401 'Son of ARES'_









Glitzy Northrop Grumman Ad Teases Totally Notional New Long-Range Stealth Fighter (Updated)


While it doesn't give away sensitive details, the ad points to Northrop Grumman's ambition to build the next-generation air dominance tactical jet.




www.thedrive.com


----------



## F-22Raptor

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1511399603844825095


----------



## Viet

He is right. If coming to a blow, not tanks vs tanks, most probably sea battles, cruisers vs destroyers, aircraft carrier battles, dog fights, exchange of ICBMs, terror attacks on population centers (like Ukraine today)

Vietnam needs tanks.


----------



## Soldier35

A swarm of drones was shown by the US Army. The US Army held mock war games at the Fort Irvine National Training Center. The exercise showed the use of a swarm of drones. About 40 drones were involved in the exercise, and their number will grow over time. Swarms of drones, in the military operations of the near future, will become the main threat on the battlefield.


----------



## Soldier35

General Dynamics has demonstrated a new American Abrams tank. The tank is still used as a demonstrator of advanced technologies and is a transitional link from the current Abrams tanks to the next generation tank. The prototype is equipped with a hybrid diesel-electric power unit, which allows you to move in silent mode for a short period of time. The crew of the Abrams X tank was reduced to three people, weight and fuel consumption decreased. The machine will be equipped with many sensors and an active protection complex, and the 120mm XM360 gun will also be improved.


----------



## Soldier35

The American company General Dynamics showed a promising Stryker X infantry fighting vehicle. The vehicle will replace the Stryker infantry fighting vehicle, which has been in service for more than 40 years. The BMP is equipped with all-round sensors and provides the crew with a 360-degree view around. The soldiers inside the Stryker X are protected by an integrated active protection system. The vehicle was created on the basis of the Swiss Piranha III armored vehicle and is equipped with a hybrid diesel-electric power unit. The BMP is positioned as a reconnaissance vehicle with the maximum possible silent movement. The manufacturer does not provide technical data.


----------



## Skull and Bones

DARPA is funding projects that’s 10-15 years ahead of anyone’s comprehension.


----------



## LeGenD

Learn about the Stryker Family of Vehicles in following videos:


----------



## Super Falcon

Sikorsky S 97 legend is born

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Soldier35

The US Air Force has unveiled the new B-21 Raider bomber. The manufacturer positions the bomber as the world's only sixth-generation aircraft. According to Northrop Grumman, the aircraft is capable of reaching anywhere in the world, carrying nuclear and conventional weapons, and overcoming the most advanced air defense systems thanks to improved stealth technology. Since the introduction of the B-2 Spirit aircraft, the B-21 Raider has become the first new US Air Force bomber in 34 years. It is reported that using cloud technologies, you can create a "digital twin" of the aircraft, which will help track the performance of combat missions. The B-21 Raider bomber has evolved from the B-2 bomber and should incorporate all the best. As previously reported, the B-21 should become cheaper in terms of purchase and operation costs than its predecessor, the B-2. This should be achieved by reducing the size of the new bomber and its carrying capacity, as well as partial unification with other US Air Force aircraft. The B-21 has been given a more durable surface material for stealth, requiring less maintenance effort and minimizing operating costs and downtime. The price of the aircraft is $750 million. The first flight of the B-21 Raider bomber should take place in 2023. Detailed specifications of the B-21 are classified.


----------



## Soldier35

The V-280 Valor tiltrotor will become the main helicopter of the US Army. The V-280 won the tender, which also included the Defiant X helicopter, developed by Sikorsky and Boeing. The US will replace 2,000 Army UH-60 Black Hawk utility helicopters with one unified Bell V-280. The V-280 Valor tiltrotor was developed by Bell Helicopter and Lockheed Martin. The V-280 has an all-composite fuselage, superior flight performance and lower cost than the competition. The V-280 Valor does not have a removable rotary wing, which significantly reduces the weight of the machine, and there is no rotary engine - only the propeller rotor changes the position. By using dual motors with common drive shafts, both rotors can be powered by the same motor in the event of a mechanical failure. The tiltrotor crew consists of four people and can carry up to 14 paratroopers with heavy weapons. The tiltrotor has a cruising speed of 520 km/h, a service ceiling of 1800 meters and a combat range of up to 1480 kilometers.


----------



## najib2288

Soldier35 said:


> The US Air Force has unveiled the new B-21 Raider bomber. The manufacturer positions the bomber as the world's only sixth-generation aircraft. According to Northrop Grumman, the aircraft is capable of reaching anywhere in the world, carrying nuclear and conventional weapons, and overcoming the most advanced air defense systems thanks to improved stealth technology. Since the introduction of the B-2 Spirit aircraft, the B-21 Raider has become the first new US Air Force bomber in 34 years. It is reported that using cloud technologies, you can create a "digital twin" of the aircraft, which will help track the performance of combat missions. The B-21 Raider bomber has evolved from the B-2 bomber and should incorporate all the best. As previously reported, the B-21 should become cheaper in terms of purchase and operation costs than its predecessor, the B-2. This should be achieved by reducing the size of the new bomber and its carrying capacity, as well as partial unification with other US Air Force aircraft. The B-21 has been given a more durable surface material for stealth, requiring less maintenance effort and minimizing operating costs and downtime. The price of the aircraft is $750 million. The first flight of the B-21 Raider bomber should take place in 2023. Detailed specifications of the B-21 are classified.





This super duper flying yet?

Or jsut a super LEGO construct model to shock and awe USA friends and doggies.

Will this turn out to be another of USA electromagnetic rail gun 








The US Navy Just Canceled the Railgun. But Hypersonic Missiles Are Still On


The railgun didn't make the cut for the US Navy! Check out the challenges development may face in the future, and the promise of hypersonic missiles.




interestingengineering.com





_For now, the railgun party is over.
Futuristic weapons that fire projectiles at a velocity approaching seven times the speed of sound with electricity are just not in the cards for the U.S. Navy, which canceled its development program of the sci-fi weapon, according to an initial report from AP News. "The railgun is, for the moment, dead," said Defense Analyst Matthew Caris of the consulting firm Avascent Group, in the report.
_
_US Navy spent $500 million in railgun research and development_​_After more than a decade of development on the electromagnetic railgun, which officials considered installing on the stealthy new Zumwalt-class destroyers, the Navy has pulled the plug on the weapon that excited many. In its place, the Defense Department is pivoting its efforts to hypersonic missiles, with aims to catch both Russia and China up. Cutting funding to railguns implies that the Navy experienced flaws in the novel weapon, not just in implementing it on battlefiel_





and Littoral Combat ship?






What other super duper weapons USA go?

F35?











The U.S. Air Force Just Admitted The F-35 Stealth Fighter Has Failed


The U.S. Air Force’s chief of staff wants the service to develop an affordable, lightweight fighter to replace hundreds of aging F-16s and complement a small fleet of sophisticated F-35 stealth fighters. But an affordable, lightweight fighter is exactly what the F-35 was first conceived to be.




www.forbes.com






AFTER LOTS AND LOTS OF SMOKE AND MIRRORS
WE ARE USED TO USA BLOWING LOTS LOTS OF TRUMPET ON STUFF THAT DIDN'T WORK SUCH AS HOW GREAT
THEIR DEFENSE SHIELD WORKED IN KINGDOM OF SAUDI ARABI



 



_














_


The world see many overlapping_ safe covered _zones of defenses.

Yet the launching and hits were made by several missiles.

To date, records could not even find the tracks where the missiles came from , and if the installations not hit, might not even have existed.

_







https://www.reuters.com/world/middl...es-destroy-houthi-drones-state-tv-2022-03-25/_


*SO LET US WAIT IF THE B-21 ACTUALLY CAN FLY AND GET TO FLY IN FIRST PLACE.*


----------

