Clever Chinese strategy to deplete US naval defensive missiles

[Martian2]

By the way, the Qassam rocket is not much faster than an RPG.

Qassam rocket: 200 meters per second
RPG: 150 meters per second

Mach 2: 680 meters per second

Show me a real test against a supersonic cruise missile warhead.

You made the claim. Show me the proof.

In the real world, you have a lot of problems.

a. The supersonic cruise missile is traveling at 680 meters per second.
b. The laser device is on a ship in the ocean. There are waves on the ocean and stability of the device is an issue.
c. The supersonic cruise missile is coming at you head-on. You don't get to shoot at it lengthwise.
d. The supersonic cruise missile is in its terminal stage. You don't get to shoot it right after it ignites its engine.
e. The Chinese YJ-18 has a maneuverable warhead. You need continuous track and lock with the sensor and laser.
f. A thin coating of Space Shuttle tile material will require time to burn through.
g. You have three seconds to identify the target, lock, and sustain the burn on an ocean with waves.

Good luck.

 

[ptldM3]

Come on. That's baloney.

Show me a real world test.

It was a real world test, show me a source supporting your claim that it would take 2 minutes to burn through the skin of an ICBM.

Cruise missiles do not come flying at you sideways.

It does not matter, firstly lasers destroying aerial targets do not have to be the target themselves, in other words a land, sea or air based laser can destroy a cruise missile that is being directed at an entirely different target other then itself so yes a laser can destroy a target "flying at you sideways".

Take a good look at the Lockheed Martin video. The rocket was laid out length-wise. That will never happen in the real world. A contrived test. They might as well shoot it down on a laboratory bench.

See the above explanation.

Show me a video where they destroyed a rocket warhead coming at you.

It would not make a difference, in fact a head on target would probably be easier to destroy, if an ADAM laser can destroy a small target and focus its beam at exactly the rockets warhead while that rockets is moving perpendicular then it should be even easier to focus that beam at a much larger target such as a cruise missile that does not move in any direction other then parallel to the laser.

Also, the Qassam rocket has just launched. It was not supersonic.

It is not a Qassam, it only is meant to simulate it. Most likely it is a RIM-162 which is capable of mach 4+. Most air-to-air missiles can reach mach 3 within just seconds. The missile that the ADAM laser destroyed was airborne for 5 seconds . in 5 seconds missiles can break mach 3-4 without issue.

 

[Martian2]

Embedded media from this media site is no longer available

"US destroys missile with airborne laser for first time(RAW)

For the first time the U.S. military has shot down a ballistic missile with an airbourne laser beam. The experiment, conducted off the California coast, was to demonstrate the future of defence technology. From the moment the missile was launched, it took the jumbo-jet mounted laser, just two minutes to destroy. The revolutionary use of laser beams is seen as extremely attractive in missile defense, as it has the potential to attack multiple targets at the speed of light, and is far cheaper than current systems."
----------

Did you bother reading the description for the Lockheed Martin ADAM test that you posted? By the way, your posted video title is: "ADAM High Energy Laser Destroys Qassam-like Rocket Target"

It says:

"Published on May 8, 2013
The Lockheed Martin Area Defense Anti-munitions (ADAM) prototype laser weapon system successfully destroys a Qassam-like rocket target in an operationally representative free-flyer scenario at a range of 1.5 kilometers on April 22, 2013, replicating similar demonstrations conducted starting in March 2013."

 

[ptldM3]

By the way, the Qassam rocket is not much faster than an RPG.



You made the claim. Show me the proof.

No you made claims and have not backed any.

In the real world, you have a lot of problems.


b. The laser device is on a ship in the ocean. There are waves on the ocean and stability of the device is an issue.

Have you ever heard of fire control systems, how do tanks hit targets when they are moving over uneven terrain? The fire control computer keep the barrel steady while the ballistic computer calculates the trajectory.

c. The supersonic cruise missile is coming at you head-on. You don't get to shoot at it lengthwise.

Which is easier to hit.

d. The supersonic cruise missile is in its terminal stage. You don't get to shoot it right after it ignites its engine.

does not matter.

e. The Chinese YJ-18 has a maneuverable warhead. You need continuous track and lock with the sensor and laser.

The ADAM and many other lasers and none laser weapons can track fast moving targets that are continuously moving.

f. A thin coating of Space Shuttle tile material will require time to burn through.

Show me what cruise missiles use tiles

g. You have three seconds to identify the target, lock, and sustain the burn on an ocean with waves.

As long as the system is operation an ADAM or Tunguska can engage targets, there is no down time.

"US destroys missile with airborne laser for first time(RAW)

For the first time the U.S. military has shot down a ballistic missile with an airbourne laser beam. The experiment, conducted off the California coast, was to demonstrate the future of defence technology. From the moment the missile was launched, it took the jumbo-jet mounted laser, just two minutes to destroy. The revolutionary use of laser beams is seen as extremely attractive in missile defense, as it has the potential to attack multiple targets at the speed of light, and is far cheaper than current systems."
----------

Did you bother reading the description for the Lockheed Martin ADAM test that you posted? By the way, your posted video title is: "ADAM High Energy Laser Destroys Qassam-like Rocket Target"

It says:

"Published on May 8, 2013
The Lockheed Martin Area Defense Anti-munitions (ADAM) prototype laser weapon system successfully destroys a Qassam-like rocket target in an operationally representative free-flyer scenario at a range of 1.5 kilometers on April 22, 2013, replicating similar demonstrations conducted starting in March 2013."

Getting desperate? I specifically said it was not the Qassam, you just pointed out it was not a Qassam. I doubt that the US has Qassam rockets or that it would use them for the ADAM test. The rocket was most likely a RIM-162 or some other ground or sea based US rocket.

 

[Martian2]

Which part of your video, regarding QASSAM-LIKE ROCKET, did you not understand?

You showed me a subsonic target shot down under contrived conditions right after launch and lengthwise.

The target profile of the length of an entire missile is very different from the tiny head.

Your claim fails for the following reasons:

1. The discussion was about a supersonic target. You showed a subsonic Qassam-like target. Then you pretended you didn't know the video was about a subsonic Qassam-like target.

2. Qassam-like target was shot lengthwise and not in terminal phase.

3. Qassam-like target was shot immediately after launch. It is unlikely the Qassam-like target had achieved maximum speed.

4. The test was on land. It has to be on a boat. Anti-ship cruise missile warheads attack ships out at sea.

 

[ptldM3]

Which part of your video, regarding QASSAM-LIKE ROCKET, did you not understand?

It does not say it is a Qassam rocket. Period, i doubt that Lockheed would test its sophisticated lasers against some Palestinian made rockets.

Even if it were a Qassam it would still be traveling at a fairly high rate of speed.

You showed me a subsonic target shot down under contrived conditions right after launch and lengthwise.

Yet you posted a source where a laser shot down a ballistic missile, never mind it was an airborne target, the fact remains that you just discredited your own claims.

The target profile of the length of an entire missile is very different from the tiny head.

Go back and read what i said earlier or just go check the video i posted. The beam was focused on the warhead of the "Quassam like rocket" which is very small by the way. So if the ADAM beam can take a small target like a rocket and focus specifically on its small warhead then why do you think that it should be a problem for a laser beam to engage a much large cruise missile head on?

Your claim fails for the following reasons:

1. The discussion was about a supersonic target. You showed a subsonic Qassam-like target. Then you pretended you didn't know the video was about a subsonic Qassam-like target.

No the discussion came about when you made the claim that a laser does not have the capability to track a supersonic target. I corrected you and mentioned the ADAM as well as Tunguaska even thou it is not a laser. But that does not matter since you already disproved your own claim by mentioning the RAW laser which shot down a ballistic missile.

You then went on to show further proof of your ignorance by claiming a seaborne laser could not hit targets because of the waves. Ballistic computers coupled with stabilizers is obviously new to you.

2. Qassam-like target was shot lengthwise and not in terminal phase.

It's very clear that you simply do not read through everything i write or you simply do not understand. A laser can pinpoint a small area on a small target.

 

[gambit]

Exposed: China's Super Strategy to Crush America in a War | The National Interest

"Exposed: China's Super Strategy to Crush America in a War
Think missiles. Lots and lots of missiles. Welcome to Shock and Awe, Chinese-style.
Harry J. Kazianis
February 18, 2015
...
Consider the below when we apply the Chinese missile threat to just naval assets and get a little creative: if Beijing was really slick it could fire off older missiles that were not as accurate towards allied naval vessels— almost like decoys— just to shrink the number of available interceptors:

Think about it — could we someday see a scenario where American forces at sea with a fixed amount of defensive countermeasures facing an enemy with large numbers of cruise and ballistic weapons that have the potential to simply overwhelm them? Could a potential adversary fire off older weapons that are not as accurate, causing a defensive response that exhausts all available missile interceptors so more advanced weapons with better accuracy can deliver the crushing blow?"

Marty,

You and Mr. Kazianis are too late.

Lockheed Martin laser burns through truck engine a mile away - SlashGear

Lockheed Martin...

...just demonstrated how a laser with a 30-kilowatt punching force was able to stop a truck dead in its tracks by burning through the engine manifold in just a matter of seconds. And this was done, not at close range, but at a distance of more than a mile.

The truck's engine was running and from one mile away, a laser powerful enough to burn through the intake manifold, which is usually solid cast iron, if not aluminum, and stopped the engine in a few seconds.

Against airborne targets ? All we need to to do is burn through the skin and let aerodynamic forces do the rest -- make the inbound missile tumbled out of control.

A couple yrs ago on this forum, there were plenty enough who insisted that the US could never produce a laser powerful enough to burn through metal in defense. Now...???

It is always those who have no experience who continues to make absolute declarations about things they know nothing about.

 

[Martian2]

Marty,

You and Mr. Kazianis are too late.

Lockheed Martin laser burns through truck engine a mile away - SlashGear

The truck's engine was running and from one mile away, a laser powerful enough to burn through the intake manifold, which is usually solid cast iron, if not aluminum, and stopped the engine in a few seconds.

Against airborne targets ? All we need to to do is burn through the skin and let aerodynamic forces do the rest -- make the inbound missile tumbled out of control.

A couple yrs ago on this forum, there were plenty enough who insisted that the US could never produce a laser powerful enough to burn through metal in defense. Now...???

It is always those who have no experience who continues to make absolute declarations about things they know nothing about.

A truck doesn't move much compared to a supersonic missile.

The problem is the seconds lost in target acquisition and tracking of a supersonic warhead. Just to move the servo-motors to align the laser with a target will take time. The other problem is maintaining beam coherence on the same spot for a supersonic target.

Shooting a laser against a defenseless target is meaningless. They have to show that the laser will work against a likely laser-resistant missile. Obviously, the other side won't just sit there and leave their missiles defenseless. They'll add a heat-resistant coating. Additionally, a layer of ablative armor is likely to be added. Until these issues are addressed, I do not find the laser demonstration convincing.

For a Chinese YJ-18 anti-ship missile, it travels at Mach 3 during the terminal phase. You only have two seconds. The YJ-18 also conducts evasive maneuvers. Good luck trying to hit a weaving Mach 3 target.

 

[jhungary]

lol i like how he first claim if China expand all missile stockpile to overwhelm US Naval taret, then move on to abandon the whole theory and saying the latest YJ18 cannot even be defended by laser technology.

Well, if YJ18 cannot be effectively defended like you claim, then why would you need to overwhelm the US Navy Countermeasure system?

Still, I guess this is already one up, becuase last time this overwhelm theory does not come from an internet nobody, but from a PLAN admiral...

The answer is simple, Combat Efficiency Coefficient, this is a military term which may not be know to Internet nobody like @Martian2 here, but the PLAN admiral would most definitely heard of...so it kinda ludicrous coming out of a serving admiral...

Okay, what the hell is a Combat efficiency coefficient? Imagine you have a MBT, which will cost you 6 millions to make. Now imagine on the other hand, you uave a technical, worth $ 10,000, if you load it with a 90,000 dollar portable ATGM system, it only cost you 100,000 each, so, in reality, for the same price of a MBT, you can make 60 AGTM technical.

Now, a standard MBT at most will be loaded with 40 rounds of ammunition, so there are no way a single MBT can destroy all 60 technical, on paper, the 60 technical would win.

But in reality, you cannot have 60 technical firing at the same target, and also to service 60 technical, you will need a alot larger service crew than 1 MBT, and above all, the resouce you devoted would be exponentially increase for the 2nd MBT, 3rd MBT, to a point it would not be sustainable for a certain amount of technical to a certain mount of MBT.

That is why there are no country in this world would be stupid enough to build technical instead of building a MBT.

Now go back to the topic at hand, obselete missile still needed deployment, maintenance and support, its not simply you fire it up in the air and expect the enemy naval warship to deal with it. Its not like you just fire a missile of your table, you have radar, firing platform, targeting solution system and so much more involved, yes, it may still be "profitable" for a single ship incident, but what happened to the next ship? and the next ship? and the next ship?

 

[Martian2]

You rambled about a Main Battle Tank (MBT) in an anti-ship missile thread.

I didn't see a single relevant thought in your post regarding the problems in using a laser against a supersonic missile with a MARV warhead (and with likely laser counter-measures).

Also, you failed to address the two-second limitation. A Mach 3 YJ-18 warhead in its terminal phase will cover one mile (the current effective range of lasers) in under two seconds.

Basically, you said nothing related to the thread topic or ongoing discussion.
----------

My objections to a laser-based defense system are as follows:

1. The laser platform is on an unstable ship in the ocean. Servo motors are required to stabilize the platform. This requires time.

2. The laser has limited range of about 1.2 miles. This permits only a very narrow window for target detection and track.

3. The laser platform has to compensate for a second dynamic variable: a moving supersonic warhead. A third complication is the known evasive maneuvers of a YJ-18 MARV warhead.

That's three dynamic variables!

a. Bobbing laser platform
b. Maintaining beam coherence on the same spot on a supersonic warhead
c. Compensating for a weaving YJ-18 MARV warhead

If the servo motors for the laser platform require two seconds to make the mechanical adjustments for laser alignment, the YJ-18 MARV warhead has already struck.

4. By some miracle, if all three dynamic variables can be handled with reliability, the problem remains in trying to burn through the laser counter-measures.

Everyone knows a Space Shuttle tile or Apollo heat-shield protected the spacecraft through a burning descent through the atmosphere for about 120 seconds. Only a thin layer of heat-resistant material is needed to resist the relatively tiny heat energy of a laser for two seconds.

Ablative armor will easily buy two seconds as it's burned off harmelessly while protecting the missile warhead.

For these reasons, I don't believe laser defense is effective. I haven't heard a good reason to change my mind in the near future.

 

[jhungary]

You rambled about a Main Battle Tank (MBT) in an anti-ship missile thread.

I didn't see a single relevant thought in your post regarding the problems in using a laser against a supersonic missile with a MARV warhead (and with likely laser counter-measures).

Also, you failed to address the two-second limitation. A Mach 3 YJ-18 warhead in its terminal phase will cover one mile (the current effective range of lasers) in under two seconds.

Basically, you said nothing related to the thread topic or ongoing discussion.
----------

My objections to a laser-based defense system are as follows:

1. The laser platform is on an unstable ship in the ocean. Servo motors are required to stabilize the platform. This requires time.

2. The laser has limited range of about 1.2 miles. This permits only a very narrow window for target detection and track.

3. The laser platform has to compensate for a second dynamic variable: a moving supersonic warhead. A third complication is the known evasive maneuvers of a YJ-18 MARV warhead.

That's three dynamic variables!

a. Bobbing laser platform
b. Maintaining beam coherence on the same spot on a supersonic warhead
c. Compensating for a weaving YJ-18 MARV warhead

If the servo motors for the laser platform require two seconds to make the mechanical adjustments for laser alignment, the YJ-18 MARV warhead has already struck.

4. By some miracle, if all three dynamic variables can be handled with reliability, the problem remains in trying to burn through the laser counter-measures.

Everyone knows a Space Shuttle tile or Apollo heat-shield protected the spacecraft through a burning descent through the atmosphere for about 120 seconds. Only a thin layer of heat-resistant material is needed to resist the relatively tiny heat energy of a laser for two seconds.

Ablative armor will easily buy two seconds as it's burned off harmelessly while protecting the missile warhead.

For these reasons, I don't believe laser defense is effective. I haven't heard a good reason to change my mind in the near future.

dude, learn to read

Now go back to the topic at hand, obselete missile still needed deployment, maintenance and support, its not simply you fire it up in the air and expect the enemy naval warship to deal with it. Its not like you just fire a missile of your table, you have radar, firing platform, targeting solution system and so much more involved, yes, it may still be "profitable" for a single ship incident, but what happened to the next ship? and the next ship? and the next ship?

I used the MBT to ease in the point of Combat Effectiveness Coefficients, I did cover why if would also be a waste for missile.

And you dont need to convince me about the ALL MIGHTY Chinese missile that no one can stop, satisfied?

 

[j20blackdragon]

The truck's engine was running and from one mile away, a laser powerful enough to burn through the intake manifold, which is usually solid cast iron, if not aluminum, and stopped the engine in a few seconds.

A Mach 10 HGV can cover a mile in less than one second. Plus it's already heat resistant. And China will probably launch more than just one.

 

[Martian2]

1. Gambit. At least he stays on topic.
2. PTLDM3. He stays on topic too. He just argues me to death with a wall of text when I point out contrary information.
3. JHungary. Doesn't bother staying on topic. Ignores my factually-based views or reasons. JHungary talks about whatever unrelated stuff that he feels like. Thus, a discussion is not possible.

Not much I can do about #3.

A Mach 10 HGV can cover a mile in less than one second. Plus it's already heat resistant. And China will probably launch more than just one.

Mach 5 = One mile per second

Mach 10 would cover one mile in 0.5 second.

Reference: Miles Per Second to Mach Number | Kyle's Converter

 

[j20blackdragon]

Mach 5 = One mile per second

Mach 10 would cover one mile in 0.5 second.

Reference: Miles Per Second to Mach Number | Kyle's Converter

I already know what his counter argument is. He will declare that China has never tested a HGV against a moving target and thus doesn't work at all. It's pointless having a debate with these people.

 

[jhungary]

1. Gambit. At least he stays on topic.
2. PTLDM3. He stays on topic too. He just argues me to death with a wall of text when I point out contrary information.
3. JHungary. Doesn't bother staying on topic. Ignores my factually-based views or reasons. JHungary talks about whatever unrelated stuff that he feels like. Thus, a discussion is not possible.

Not much I can do about #3.



Mach 5 = One mile per second

Mach 10 would cover one mile in 0.5 second.

Reference: Miles Per Second to Mach Number | Kyle's Converter

lol okay, I talked about War Science, which military uses to fight war, in case you dont know, officer and general dont fight war with @Martian2 bible or about what any internet warrior said, you dont know about it and try to say I talk BS, fine. Well, I dont believe you do know anything about war anyway. And My post is not just for you.