You don't understand the basics.
That is because I am a mindless wiki copy-paste keyboard warrior, no doubt. Try me.
I said the American Mach 2.5 SM-6 was useless against a Chinese Mach 6 VLRAAM, because the SM-6 cannot intercept the Chinese VLRAAM when it attacks a jet fighter.
So, SM-6 can intercept incoming ballistic missile warheads, but not a (admittedly fast) missile? Why exactly cannot a missile fired by A at B be shot down by C, if C is in the vicinity and the missile in question is in range?
You replied with a ridiculous citation saying that an American SM-6 was used to shoot down a faster anti-ship missile that came DIRECTLY at the Aegis destroyer. It is absurd to use the analogy of using a slow missile to shoot down a faster missile when it is coming RIGHT AT YOU. In a fighter jet engagement, the SM-6 CANNOT chase down a much faster Chinese VLRAAM missile.
I did not claim SM-6 can chase-down the Chinese VLRAAM, I said it doesn't necessarily need to chase it down.
I also did not claim SM-6 was used to down an antiship missile coming at a DDG.
I pointed to a test in which SM-6 was used to hit a ship at 200 nmi, which may be indicative of SM-6 having greater ranges than just 150 mi (note the difference between 200 nmi = 230 mi and 150 mi is 80 mi or 129km!).
"Defense Secretary Ashton Carter has confirmed the service was developing the anti-ship SM-6 in an effort to give Navy cruisers and destroyers a weapon capable of reaching such targets more than 200 nautical miles away."
"the official published SM-6 range is 150 miles"
http://www.popularmechanics.com/mil...efense-missile-into-a-supersonic-ship-killer/
I also pointed out Naval Integrated Fire Control Counter-Air (NIFC-CA) concept efforts. The reality is that:
"NIFC-CA can combine the targeting data from a Northrop Grumman E-2D Advanced Hawkeye and send targeting information to a SM-6 to intercept an air target beyond the [radar] range of the cruiser or destroyer firing the weapon.
https://news.usni.org/2016/02/04/se...nic-anti-ship-missile-for-cruisers-destroyers
Reality is that in the AEGIS context, OTH targets are up to 250 nmi out assuming focus on low flying targets, and over 250nmi with focus on air targets over 30k feet (10+km), which is where your VLRAAM would be used.
"Using the
Naval Integrated Fire Control battle network, an Aegis warship could engage over-the-horizon targets—including aircraft and missiles—by using targeting data from a
Northrop Grumman E-2D Advanced Hawkeye.
The physical radar horizon for a S-band radar like that of the Aegis is about 250 nautical miles for a target flying at about 30,000 feet. For target flying at lower altitudes, the radar detection range would be shorter—which is where the E-2D comes in. While the range for the SM-6 is classified, the weapons range could potentially be greater than 250 nautical miles."
http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/sinking-enemy-warships-the-us-navys-fiery-new-weapon-15132
That the NIFC-CA concept is working is proven by a recent test involving an F-35 detecting a target and relaying the info to a with an Aegis Combat System armed with a Raytheon Standard Missile-6, which subsequently shot down that target.
https://news.usni.org/2016/09/13/vi...test-points-expansion-networked-naval-warfare
As indicated, I have been discussing the situation in which the VLRAAM is launched against an E-2 Hawkeye AEW&C platform.
SM-6, which uses an AMRAAM derived seeker, is an all-aspect missile. An all-aspect missile is one which is able to track a target no matter which way the target faces relative to the missile. In other words, an all-aspect missile can be launched against a target in a tail-chase engagement, in a head-on engagement, in a side-on engagement, from above, from below, etc.
That means there are many possible scenario's other than tail-chase engagement by SM-6 of VLRAAM. The more toward a frontal aspect, the more 'head on' the engagement is, the less important the speed difference is.
If you are going to claim to be a Think Tank, you need to know what you are talking about.
TTA status is awarded, not claimed. I was given TTA status by forum management, I didn't ask for it. I'm perfecly willing to entertain all sorts of different explanations or claims, but I think your explanation/claim is lacking.
You have posted ridiculous objections in this thread that are JUST PLAIN WRONG.
No, your model assumptions were.
For example, I told you that an SM-6 did not have time to reach the fighter jet engagement. I did the calculation for you to show that it would arrive 32 seconds too late at a 100 mile distance. YET, YOU KEPT CLAIMING YOU WERE RIGHT. You need to stop insisting that you are right when I had already proved you wrong.
Your model assumptions were shown to be incorrect. So, you did not in fact prove me wrong.
In reality, actual combat air patrols to protect a carrier is 200 miles out. Also, the SM-6 has to climb 50,000 feet to reach the altitude of a jet fighter. There is NO WAY that an SM-6 can reach the Chinese VLRAAM in ANY REALISTIC SCENARIO.
SM-6 would not be engaging a jet fighter, it would be engaging a high-flying VLRAAM fired by a jet fighter at an AEWC asset.
As indicated, an AEWC asset would be behind the CAP, i.e. (substantially) less than 200 miles out.
So, any incoming VLRAAM would have to pass through/over/under/around the CAP before it gets to the AEWC asset. IMHO (and I can be wrong), there is engagement potential right there, using CAP's AMRAAMs. If the CP consists of F-35A/Bs, NIFC-CA would allow these fighters to cue SM-6 if any are nearby.
As indicated, the ships in a carrier group don't bunch together, they spread out. While the CAP may fly 200 mi out from the carrier, that doesn't mean they are 200 mi away from the nearest DDG that is part of the carrier screen, which may well be sailing up to 115 mi ahead of the carrier and from that position it is able to reach out with SM2ER Block IV aka
RIM-156 to 115 mi ahead of itself, so that it can touch targets 230 mi ahead of the carrier (while its Standard missile only has to fly 115 mi).
Standard SM-6 aka RIM-174 Standard ERAM has a range of at least 150 mi. So, go figure.
Also, there is no reason to assume that only the carrier and its screen of some 4 Burke DDGs are present in the area. There may well also be additional DDGs, e.g. those belonging to an ESF (expeditionary strike force), which is typically paired to a carrier strike group.
I get annoyed when someone trolls my thread.
Well, if you insist I'm trolling, please do use the report button to inform the moderating team. That would be standard forum procedure.
You were doing that by insisting that an SM-6 can be used to intercept a Chinese VLRAAM DESPITE the calculations and reasons that I presented to you. Your only piece of evidence (a citation for a shoot-down of an incoming anti-ship missile) is TOTALLY IRRELEVANT. This thread is a discussion of the Chinese very-long-range AIR-TO-AIR missile and NOT an ANTI-SHIP missile fired directly an an Aegis destroyer.
Well, since you are apparently not able to actually read what I post (hence e.g. your incorrect claim about me refering to some antiship missile test) .... I believe I have now explicitly stated several times that my scenario is of an E2 Hawkeye being fired at with a VLMRAAM and defending itself with SM-6. The ability of F-35 to use DDG's as SM-6 shooters against targets detected by the aircraft and over the radar-horizon of AEGIS has been proven in tests: the NIFC-CA concept works.
Since you don't know what you are talking about, kindly stay out of my thread and stop flooding it with nonsense. Go create your own thread and write whatever nonsense that you want. However, in my thread, I have to keep correcting your false claims and it gets annoying when you won't stop.
You have yet to show that my claim that SM-6 could be used by E2 Hawkeye in self-protection is false. So far, I'm sorry to say, I think your counterpoints have been flawed. If you had any idea of my 10+ year history at this forum, you would realize I do not normally post nonsense (unless when in a jolly mood and bantering). Please don't cry about 'your thread': a thread by definition is open and intended for (meaningfull) discussion in which different ideas and points of view meet.
Untill you last post, I was minding my own business since #79. So, it is you that is stirring things up again, thank you.
______________________________________________________________________
The SM-6 is basically the existing SM-2 anti-aircraft missile with the more capable guidance system of the AMRAAM air-to-air missile, as well as other improvements in the electronics and other components. The SM-6 is a 1.5 ton, 6.55 meter (21.5 foot) long, 533mm (21 inch) diameter missile. It has an official max range of 240 kilometers (150 mi) and max altitude of 33 kilometers (110,000 feet, 20.5mi). The older SM-2 is 1.35 ton, 8 meter (26.2 foot) long missile with a max range of 190 kilometers (118 mi) and max altitude of 24.4 kilometers (80,200 feet, 15 mi.).
http://www.popsci.com/china-new-long-range-air-to-air-missile[/QUOTE]
