Chinese version of SeaRam ?

[lcloo]

Can it differentiate between nearby friendly aircraft and enemy missiles?

I doubt any current heat seeking fire and forget type of missiles has IFF capability, especially a terminal defence missile.

 

[rcrmj]

I think you are missing my point. I'm not arguing that the HQ-7 is the only replacement of the FL-3000. The HQ-9 or HQ-10 is perfect for the job. You are right; modern aircraft launch stand off weapons at hundreds of kilometers away. However, what's a FL-3000 going to help against that? It can't shoot down heavy aircraft. It can't reach high altitude aircraft. And what if the enemy uses bombs instead of missiles, at 60 km away?

The FL-3000's fire and forget capability is rendered useless if it doesn't have enough range to hit enemy fast flying aircraft. Large missiles like the HQ-9 and HQ-10 are meant to destroy targets before they are in range of hitting the ship. FL-3000 is a terminal interception weapon; a last chance weapon, as one calls it. If it doesn't hit the target, then you are dead. However, if the HQ-9 misses its target (which is highly unlikely), it has another chance to fire.

FL-3000 destroys the incoming weapons. HQ-9 and such missiles destroy the source that's launching the incoming weapons.

FL-3000 is purposely designed for final stage missile interception, not medium nor high altitude, HQ-9 is up for first layer of the air defence, whereas HHQ-7's role is kind of vague (both incoming aircraft and missile) so that makes it not a perfect platform for neither second layer nor final defence`

 

[rcrmj]

Can it differentiate between nearby friendly aircraft and enemy missiles?

this is good question, the initial pach of us navy RAM didnt have the capability of dealing multipul targets in very small area, however in its later upgrade it enables RAM to have that sort of ability. but not very sure about FL-3000```there isnt much info about that

 

[Akasa]

FL-3000 is purposely designed for final stage missile interception, not medium nor high altitude, HQ-9 is up for first layer of the air defence, whereas HHQ-7's role is kind of vague (both incoming aircraft and missile) so that makes it not a perfect platform for neither second layer nor final defence`

The incoming aircraft that are targeted by the FL-3000 are limited. It's more suited towards enemy helicopters and low flying aircraft. The missile is suitable for small craft like patrol boats and such, but certainly not AEGIS destroyers like the Type 052 and Type 051 series.

 

[rcrmj]

The incoming aircraft that are targeted by the FL-3000 are limited. It's more suited towards enemy helicopters and low flying aircraft. The missile is suitable for small craft like patrol boats and such, but certainly not AEGIS destroyers like the Type 052 and Type 051 series.

? what? the RAMs and FL-3000 were purposly designed for intercepting sub/sup sonic cruise missiles`

check this out: RIM-116 RAM Rolling Airframe Missile

 

[S10]

The incoming aircraft that are targeted by the FL-3000 are limited. It's more suited towards enemy helicopters and low flying aircraft. The missile is suitable for small craft like patrol boats and such, but certainly not AEGIS destroyers like the Type 052 and Type 051 series.

Actually, FL-3000 offers better potential in intercepting multiple targets than Type 730. The number of targets that Type 730 CIWS can simultaneously engage is limited to one, not so for FL-3000. The Phalanx was replaced by SeaRAM, which provided evidence for this view.

 

[milvipes]

But the radar of Type 730 allows it to engage targets in adverse weathers.

 

[S10]

But the radar of Type 730 allows it to engage targets in adverse weathers.

The same radar could be installed on FL-3000 like SeaRAM, a non-issue.

 

[Akasa]

? what? the RAMs and FL-3000 were purposly designed for intercepting sub/sup sonic cruise missiles`

check this out: RIM-116 RAM Rolling Airframe Missile

Which proves my point. FL-3000 can't be used as an air defense weapon.

 

[Akasa]

Actually, FL-3000 offers better potential in intercepting multiple targets than Type 730. The number of targets that Type 730 CIWS can simultaneously engage is limited to one, not so for FL-3000. The Phalanx was replaced by SeaRAM, which provided evidence for this view.

Intercepting multiple targets won't help much when you can't even reach your target.

 

[S10]

Which proves my point. FL-3000 can't be used as an air defense weapon.

Simply because a system is designed primarily to engage incoming missiles, does not mean it cannot engage other targets.

Intercepting multiple targets won't help much when you can't even reach your target.

That's just a laughable notion. If FL-3000 is anything like SeaRAM, it would be able to engage targets from 9km+. Dutch Goalkeeper and Phalanx on the other hand, is limited to 4km in engagement range. If you have multiple missiles incoming, it makes FL-3000 all the more valuable as Type 730 would struggle to intercept them all.

 

[Akasa]

Simply because a system is designed primarily to engage incoming missiles, does not mean it cannot engage other targets.


That's just a laughable notion. If FL-3000 is anything like SeaRAM, it would be able to engage targets from 9km+. Dutch Goalkeeper and Phalanx on the other hand, is limited to 4km in engagement range. If you have multiple missiles incoming, it makes FL-3000 all the more valuable as Type 730 would struggle to intercept them all.

On your first point: the "other targets" do not include fast flying jet fighters, which will be the bulk of the enemy strike package.

On your second point: compare how many rounds a Type 730 carries and how many missiles a FL-3000 system carries. Then please do some research on the Exocet missile and the Brahmos. Note the speed of the Brahmos. If a FL-3000 can't get its first shot on target, then the crew will be drinking seawater.

 

[S10]

On your first point: the "other targets" do not include fast flying jet fighters, which will be the bulk of the enemy strike package.

Fighter jets moving into CIWS range (<10km) to drop bombs? Did you travel back to Falkland? How do you know FL-3000 cannot engage fighter jets? Are you the designer?

On your second point: compare how many rounds a Type 730 carries and how many missiles a FL-3000 system carries. Then please do some research on the Exocet missile and the Brahmos. Note the speed of the Brahmos. If a FL-3000 can't get its first shot on target, then the crew will be drinking seawater.

LOL!

You are assuming that Type 730's 30mm rounds would be able to hit incoming missiles with pinpoint accuracy, which is not the case. Gun type CIWS intercepts targets by firing a wall of projectiles. It does not move on to the next target until the current one has been destroyed. Also, the ammunition reserve is very limited and cannot be sustained in an extended engagement.

There is a reason why American navy did not adapt supersonic anti-ship missiles and retained the Harpoon. Here is a hint, it's not because they don't have the technology. It is also the reason why China gave up the development of such missiles in favour of subsonic ones. Simply put, Chinese and Americans were both not impressed with such weapons.

On the other hand, SeaRAM has been tested against both supersonic and subsonic targets. It has the ability to engage multiple incoming targets simultaneously unlike gun based CIWS. Two SeaRAM or more missiles can be launched against a single incoming missile, increasing the kill probability. It allows for greater engagement distance compared to Phalanx. If FL-3000 is anything close, it would be significantly more capable than Type 730.

&#8220;SEA RAM is a combination of elements of Phalanx CIWS Block 1B and the Rolling Airframe Missile Guided Missile System,&#8221; said John Eagles, SEA RAM Public Affairs Officer for Raytheon. &#8220;It uses the radar sensors of the 1B and the 11-round RAM Block 1 missile guide.&#8221; Like the modest demands of Phalanx, only power and cooling water will be required from the ship. Thus, it is a new combination of existing, proven technologies providing both better detection of incoming missiles and more firepower to destroy the threat at a much greater distance. SEA RAM is specifically designed to extend the inner layer battle space and enable the ship to effectively engage both existing and future high-performance, supersonic, and subsonic threats, especially in the crowded littoral warfare arena.

Untitled

April 12, 2006: The Phalanx anti-missile system is being replaced by SeaRAM. What's interesting about this is that SeaRAM is basically the Phalanx system, with the 20mm gun replaced with a box of eleven RAM (RIM-116 "Rolling Air Frame") missiles. The Phalanx was developed in the 1970s, and entered service in 1977. RAM was developed in the 1980s, and didn't enter service until 1993. RAM has a longer range (7.5 kilometers) than the Phalanx (two kilometers) and was originally designed to be aimed using the ships fire control systems. Phalanx, on the other hand, has its own radar and fire control system and, once turned on, will automatically fire at any incoming missiles. This was necessary, as some anti-ship missiles travel at over a 500 meters a second. With SeaRAM, you've got a little more time, and can knock down the incoming missile farther from the ship. This is important, because it was feared that a large, very fast anti-ship missile (which the Russians prefer, and sell to foreigners), even when shot up by Phalanx, might still end up having parts of it slam into the target ship. Since SeaRAM has eleven missiles ready to fire, it can also engage several targets at once, something the Phalanx could not do.

http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htada/articles/20060412.aspx

You make alot of claims, most of which are unsubstantiated.

 

[Akasa]

Fighter jets moving into CIWS range (<10km) to drop bombs? Did you travel back to Falkland? How do you know FL-3000 cannot engage fighter jets? Are you the designer?

Because anti-ship missiles aren't launched from 9 km away. You don't need an expert to tell you that this isn't the 1940s Pacific.
Again, I stress that I'm not arguing that the Type 730 or HQ-7 is the only replacement for the FL-3000. I'm stating that having the FL-3000 as the main air defense system is simply not sufficient.

LOL!

You are assuming that Type 730's 30mm rounds would be able to hit incoming missiles with pinpoint accuracy, which is not the case. Gun type CIWS intercepts targets by firing a wall of projectiles. It does not move on to the next target until the current one has been destroyed. Also, the ammunition reserve is very limited and cannot be sustained in an extended engagement.

There is a reason why American navy did not adapt supersonic anti-ship missiles and retained the Harpoon. Here is a hint, it's not because they don't have the technology. It is also the reason why China gave up the development of such missiles in favour of subsonic ones. Simply put, Chinese and Americans were both not impressed with such weapons.

On the other hand, SeaRAM has been tested against both supersonic and subsonic targets. It has the ability to engage multiple incoming targets simultaneously unlike gun based CIWS. Two SeaRAM or more missiles can be launched against a single incoming missile, increasing the kill probability. It allows for greater engagement distance compared to Phalanx. If FL-3000 is anything close, it would be significantly more capable than Type 730.

&#8220;SEA RAM is a combination of elements of Phalanx CIWS Block 1B and the Rolling Airframe Missile Guided Missile System,&#8221; said John Eagles, SEA RAM Public Affairs Officer for Raytheon. &#8220;It uses the radar sensors of the 1B and the 11-round RAM Block 1 missile guide.&#8221; Like the modest demands of Phalanx, only power and cooling water will be required from the ship. Thus, it is a new combination of existing, proven technologies providing both better detection of incoming missiles and more firepower to destroy the threat at a much greater distance. SEA RAM is specifically designed to extend the inner layer battle space and enable the ship to effectively engage both existing and future high-performance, supersonic, and subsonic threats, especially in the crowded littoral warfare arena.

Untitled

April 12, 2006: The Phalanx anti-missile system is being replaced by SeaRAM. What's interesting about this is that SeaRAM is basically the Phalanx system, with the 20mm gun replaced with a box of eleven RAM (RIM-116 "Rolling Air Frame") missiles. The Phalanx was developed in the 1970s, and entered service in 1977. RAM was developed in the 1980s, and didn't enter service until 1993. RAM has a longer range (7.5 kilometers) than the Phalanx (two kilometers) and was originally designed to be aimed using the ships fire control systems. Phalanx, on the other hand, has its own radar and fire control system and, once turned on, will automatically fire at any incoming missiles. This was necessary, as some anti-ship missiles travel at over a 500 meters a second. With SeaRAM, you've got a little more time, and can knock down the incoming missile farther from the ship. This is important, because it was feared that a large, very fast anti-ship missile (which the Russians prefer, and sell to foreigners), even when shot up by Phalanx, might still end up having parts of it slam into the target ship. Since SeaRAM has eleven missiles ready to fire, it can also engage several targets at once, something the Phalanx could not do.

Air Defense: Why SeaRAM is Superior to Phalanx

You make alot of claims, most of which are unsubstantiated.

The US Navy does not deploy supersonic anti-ship missiles, but guess what? There's a regional power to our south that does. They use a quite spectacular weapon which some of you might know as the "BrahMos". Ring a bell?

If you know all about anti-ship missiles, you might also know that an island called Taiwan also deploys the Hsiung Feng III, which travels at Mach 2.

And also hear this: we're not talking about terminal speeds of Mach 1.2 or Mach 1.6 here in regards to the BrahMos. We are talking about Mach 2.8.

The Type 730's high rate of fire allows it to have more chance of hitting the target and it doesn't give the target a time frame to fly unimpeded. The FL-3000, if it misses, will have to fire another missile, and the time gap between each missile launch makes a huge difference in the probability of the enemy missile hitting you. With supersonic missiles like the BrahMos or the Hsiung Feng III, it is essentially a one-shot deal. In short, the Type 730 can adjust their fire quickly. FL-3000 can't.

Some anti ship missiles also employ the ability to dodge and make quick trajectory adjustments. It would make it hard for the FL-3000 to register that in time, whereas a stream of shells from a Type 730 has more probability of hitting the missile simply due to its rate of fire and the number of shells that are put out.

You obviously didn't take into account that (1) there are a hell lot more anti-ship missiles than just subsonic ones, and that (2) IR guidance does not necessarily mean more probability of interception, especially at high speeds.

 

[S10]

The key assumption here is that FL-3000 is a similar system to the RIM-116 RAM.

Because anti-ship missiles aren't launched from 9 km away. You don't need an expert to tell you that this isn't the 1940s Pacific.

Again, I stress that I'm not arguing that the Type 730 or HQ-7 is the only replacement for the FL-3000. I'm stating that having the FL-3000 as the main air defense system is simply not sufficient.

How is Type 730 going to engage aircrafts flying outside of its considerably shorter gun range? Do you even know what function CIWS system is used for? They are used for point defence and that purpose only.

The US Navy does not deploy supersonic anti-ship missiles, but guess what? There's a regional power to our south that does. They use a quite spectacular weapon which some of you might know as the "BrahMos". Ring a bell?

If you know all about anti-ship missiles, you might also know that an island called Taiwan also deploys the Hsiung Feng III, which travels at Mach 2.

And also hear this: we're not talking about terminal speeds of Mach 1.2 or Mach 1.6 here in regards to the BrahMos. We are talking about Mach 2.8.

The United States has the technology for supersonic ramjet anti ship missile. It choose not to deploy them in operational service. Ask naval weapon system contractor and he'll be able to tell you why. They are far more prone to being detected and intercepted. It is also why China gave up the development of its own ramjet anti-ship missiles and went down similar path as the Americans.

NOT because they don't have the technology, but they found it inadequate. Americans have tested their fleet air defence against such systems. Only fanboys still think ramject anti-ship missiles are the Archilles' Heel for American navy. And for the record, SeaRAM is perfectly capable of engaging aircrafts, missiles and even surface ships.

RAM Block 1/1A

RAM has been continually improved to stay ahead of the ever-evolving threat of anti-ship missiles, helicopters, aircraft and surface craft. RAM Block 1 incorporated a new image-scanning seeker with the added capability of autonomous IR all-the-way guidance, thus countering advanced anti-ship missiles that do not employ on-board radar seekers. Enhanced digital signal processing further provides increased resistance to countermeasures and superior performance in severe IR background conditions. An advanced optical target detection device is incorporated to detect very low sea-skimming threats.

The Block 1A configuration incorporated additional signal processing capabilities to defeat helicopters, aircraft and surface craft. Block 1A is in rate production for the Consortium countries and the other countries procuring RAM.

RAM Block 2

Block 2, the next step in the spiral development of the Rolling Airframe Missile, is a kinematic and RF receiver upgrade. A larger, more powerful rocket motor and advanced control section make the missile three times more maneuverable with twice the effective intercept range. This provides the Block 2 missile with the capability to defeat high-maneuver threats as well as the ability to intercept crossing threats. An enhanced RF receiver allows detection of anti-ship missiles that employ low probability of intercept radars.
Raytheon Company: RAM

The Type 730's high rate of fire allows it to have more chance of hitting the target and it doesn't give the target a time frame to fly unimpeded. The FL-3000, if it misses, will have to fire another missile, and the time gap between each missile launch makes a huge difference in the probability of the enemy missile hitting you. With supersonic missiles like the BrahMos or the Hsiung Feng III, it is essentially a one-shot deal. In short, the Type 730 can adjust their fire quickly. FL-3000 can't.

Non-sense, pure and simple. You are working under the assumption that FL-3000 can only engage a single target. If it resembles the SeaRAM, then it is a fire-and-forget type of system with much greater range (~6 to 9km, therefore response time) than gun type CIWS. There is nothing preventing the system from launch two counter-missiles at a single target to ensure a higher kill probability. More importantly, FL-3000 can engage several targets at the same time.

On the other hand, Type 730 does not have the range (~3 to 4km) or fire-and-forget capability which allows for multiple simoutaneous engagements. When you are focused on that one target, others are closing in which there is little you could do with a gun type CIWS.

RAM is a supersonic, lightweight, quick-reaction, fire-and-forget missile designed to destroy anti-ship missiles. Its autonomous dual-mode passive radio frequency and infrared guidance design, requiring no shipboard support after missile launch, uniquely provide high-firepower capability for engaging multiple threats simultaneously.
Raytheon Company: RAM

Some anti ship missiles also employ the ability to dodge and make quick trajectory adjustments. It would make it hard for the FL-3000 to register that in time, whereas a stream of shells from a Type 730 has more probability of hitting the missile simply due to its rate of fire and the number of shells that are put out.

More non-sense.

Missiles from FL-3000 are capable of independently homing in on incoming targets, where Type 730 requires its fire control radar to provide guidance. That means Type 730 would have to track the target until it is destroyed before moving on to the next one. Also, IR trackers of the 21st Century are not the same as unreliable 1960's technology that it once was. In fact, 95% intercept capability is something only gun type CIWS can dream of.

The Rolling Airframe Missile has been fired in more than 300 flight tests to date, resulting in a success rate of 95 percent. This extremely high reliability is the culmination of years of development, testing and design improvements.
Raytheon Company: RAM

You obviously didn't take into account that (1) there are a hell lot more anti-ship missiles than just subsonic ones, and that (2) IR guidance does not necessarily mean more probability of interception, especially at high speeds.

No, it is you that failed to properly learn the capability in weapon system and did not realize systems such as FL-3000 and SeaRAM are the next evolution in CIWS system. Already NATO members are shifting from Phalanx to SeaRAM. I have even posted sources in which missile type CIWS successfully engaged and destroyed both subsonic and supersonic targets. Those that fail to evolve with the changing threat environment become victims of evolution themselves. In short, your knowledge is obsolete.