To engineer the next-generation missile defence systems, Analytical Graphics and ANSYS are incorporating high-fidelity, multiphysics simulations with mission-level modeling into early stages of missile defense system development.

The U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) has made counter-hypersonics a priority. To rapidly find, track and eliminate these threats, systems for missile defense and their related command and control infrastructure must be upgraded and fully interconnected. According to the firms:

“High-fidelity, multiphysics engineering simulation is needed early in the design cycle to conduct critical architectural and mission analysis.” 

To satisfy this urgent national security need, AGI say it has embedded ANSYS’ high-fidelity, physics-based component models within its own expansive, multi-domain mission-level modeling. Providing an integrated system across key engineering and mission analyses will eliminate problematic engineering bottlenecks.

“Physics-based solvers expedite missile defense system development by more accurately predicting communication blackouts, forecasting vehicle trajectory and altitude control, calculating thermal field effects on antenna performance, and analyzing other scenarios.”

“Historically, system development has been compartmentalized, with components developed within black box silos. Counter-hypersonics requires the connection of these black box systems at design inception,” said Kevin Flood, vice president of engineering at AGI.

“AGI and ANSYS look forward to interconnecting these systems, incorporating a high level of engineering fidelity into their architecture analysis and mission analysis.”

“Engineering and modeling highly complex and integrated missile defense systems presents tremendous challenges,” said Joseph Cole, Vice President, Federal, Aerospace and Defense at ANSYS.

“AGI and ANSYS are helping both our DoD agency customers and their prime contractors address these challenges by incorporating ANSYS’ detailed multiphysics simulations within multi-domain mission models. With this partnership the same high-fidelity physics models that our customers use to reduce design time, enhance reliability and streamline maintenance operations can now be leveraged to increase the accuracy of mission level modeling and simulations as well.”

AGI and ANSYS will discuss their ability to incorporate high-fidelity, multiphysics engineering simulation into mission-level modeling at the Space and Missile Defense Symposium in Huntsville, Ala.

A similar demonstration will be featured in an August the 21st webinar.

George Allison
George Allison
George has a degree in Cyber Security from Glasgow Caledonian University and has a keen interest in naval and cyber security matters and has appeared on national radio and television to discuss current events. George is on Twitter at @geoallison
Twitter

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

25 COMMENTS

  1. Good. The Russians have edged out a serious lead in hypersonic tech over the west, for Europe the only hope seems to be Perseus/ the in-development US Scramjet. If it can counter scramjet-based hypersonics too, all the better. It’ll shut the tabloids up about Zircon!

    Also, I know LRASM is meant to be the US (maybe soon UK) counter to speedy missiles (via stealth), but if it turns like like the AGM-158’s (what it’s based on) capabilities in Syria, then it can’t be relied on independently.

    • BB wrote:
      “Good. The Russians have edged out a serious lead in hypersonic tech over the west”
      Whilst not a true Hypersonic weapon, the Israeli ‘ROCK’ missile is worth looking at. Air launched it goes straight up land then straight down onto its target like a Ballistic missile. However unlike a Ballistic missile it has been fitted with the target system of the Spike Missile making it extremely accurate. Apparently they have used it a number of times in Syria and is currently unstoppable.

  2. I’m more than a little wary of Russian claims to have – basically – developed and fielded major classes of invincible superweapons over a very few years in time. Yet they struggle to find an operational dry dock for their one carrier…

    The West is far wealthier than Russia which has the GDP of NYC… This is what happened during the end of the Cold War when the USSR was spent under the table by an alarmed West and collapsed trying to keep up. Today’s Russia is NO USSR…

    Then there’s this type of thing…

    https://news.usni.org/2019/08/08/russian-missile-test-site-explosion-kills-2-injures-8

    Cheers

    • Correct. When push comes to shove how good are the Russians? They make a big noise good for istances about S400. But really? My guess is that the Russians are more conning themselves about their high tech than they are frightening us.
      This missile test with “nuclear isotopes”… ‘oops watch it, Bang! Careful, no it’s all right, just keep your doors shut and don’t drink the milk.’ Come on, what is all that about?

  3. Surely this is one of the most technologically challenging tasks in defence. Intuitively, if we have a Mach 4 anti-ship missile, it should cost a lot less to ramp that up to Mach 5 that it would to similarly enhance the intercepting anti-missile missile. So are we looking at beam weapon defence and where are we with deflectors / force fields? I cannot see how hard-kill anti-missile missiles can keep pace.

  4. It’s astonishing how far and how fast we’ve come to these SF weapons and countermeasures. At this rate, SF writers will have nothing “far out” to write about or make movies of before the turn of the next century.

  5. Again with the Hypersonics…

    NATO has had to contend with Anti ship Missiles that are M3.5 to M4+ since the mid 60s. Some of the latest Russian missiles (AS4 Kitchen rebuilt as KH 32) are rebuilds of actual 1960 missiles. Some where high divers that flew higher than the radar coverage ( AS4 and AS6 was designed this way to beat Sea Dart and Standard) and dived at the last minute giving you only a few seconds to engage.
    Others where brute force sea skimmers tanking in at 10s of meters above sea level.

    Irrespective of how fast a missile flies the basic laws of Newtonian physics, trigonometry and materials science still apply.

    1. You need to be able to see what you are aiming at. If you cannot see it you may as well fire everything you have in a Shotgun attempt to hit something. A boost glide weapon could launch from tens of hundreds of miles away but you still need to get it into the seeker basket to hit the target. If you dont know where the target is it is a wasted shot.

    2. Skimmers at M5 + will be far shorter range and powered all the way. Down low in the thicker air friction and heating becomes a huge issue along with particles in the air and sea spray. Current anti air missiles have a lot of exotic heat shielding around sensitive areas such as the warhead, electronics and control actuators and they are only (!!) doing around M3- M4 . A current Standard 6 Missiles shielding needs to cope with temperatures of +1500 Degs C in certain areas and that is flying high against ballistic targets where the air is thin and friction is less.

    3. Homing systems are going to be RF or optical. At high M numbers both degrade significantly without careful design. Optical homing in the IR band relies on seeing thermal energy from the Target. A missile doing high M can have 2000 Deg + around its nose from friction which massively degrades IR homing.

    4. RF systems, be they active homers or ARM passive homers, need an RF opaque nose cone to transmit and /Or receive through. This limits the materials it can be made from . Metal is a none starter . GRP is not resistant enough to erosion. So the material chosen needs to be hard and sturdy enough to deal with 2000+ deg temperatures and the erosion it will experience of being hit by water spray , rain and solid particles in the atmosphere. That limits it to ceramics and certain Silicas. Even then a small particle, say a rain drop that weighs micro grams, when hit at High M is going to impart a lot of kinetic energy into a a radome. In a rain storm or sea spray the nose come is going to get eroded very quickly and could fail causing the missile to break up.

    5. Control electronics and control surfaces need to be super quick to react and guide at high M. Even a small movement of a control surface will impart a massive force on the missile. Aster AA missiles get around this by using PIF/PAF which uses small “rocket” jets dotted around the homing head to push the warhead onto the target. this may be the solution for high M homers.

    In short there are threats out there but dont believe all of the hype. Navies have being faced with these threats for over 50 YEARS and its just another thing to contend with. In my time it was Kingfish (AS6) then Sunburn (SSN 22), Shipwreck (SSN19), Kickback (AS16) and now its Bramos and Zircon. There are always going to be new systems and counter measures. its the nature of the beast.

    • Very insightful as always Gunbuster and good to remember that claims of radical technological advancement are not always as they seem and will suffer with significant challenges and limitations in the real world. Could you not start writing articles for George???
      Can I ask if you have any in depth knowledge of High energy electromagnetic field generators and room temperature super conductors lol, or is that a stretch too far even for you?

      • The specialisation clue is in the name! High EM fields and room temp superconductors is pinkie stuff not stuff that goes woosh and bang!

        In addition to that I snowed under fixing Grey ships …its a little busy out this way at the current time!

    • Very good points made here, just because something goes very fast in a straight line will get you the publicity, but how effective is it when it has to manoeuvre? It’s worth pointing out that HMS Glamorgan was hit by an Exocet in the Falklands, they actually got a SeaCat away at it, apparently it passed within lethal distance but without enough time for the fuse to arm. Those of us who served in Seacat ships knew it as a pretty agricultural bit of kit, but it got close to doing the job against a weapon that all the newspapers were portraying as close to doomsday. The point is that what will be needed is a good surveillance and targeting system, that can react very much faster than those we have today, and which seems to be what the article is saying is going to happen. The trick will be to translate the findings from the lab to real life, when a seasick tired sailor has to take a decision. Or will AI do it for us?
      The other problem is how to counter something coming at you at Mach 4+. The current weapon of last resort is Vulcan Phalanx or similar. I don’t know what the Max Effective Range is, 2000 yds? But if you can get a system that puts that out to say 6000yds you may get bits of missile coming inboard but they won’t do nearly as much damage as a warhead. Does any one know how good a Sea Ceptor/ Camms system is?

      • Goalkeeper had a longer range and better kinetic kill capability but even so that would not go out to 6K.
        Modern systems are hands off and run in full auto in war mode. You only intervene if you DONT want an engagement to happen. They are remarkably quick in picking up a target tracking and engaging it . Seawolf GWS 25/26 in Full Auto was around 4-5 seconds from the Surveillance radar seeing the target to allocating a tracker and shooting. Phalanx is a little quicker but at shorter range . Phalanx can , as Seawolf did, do its own target threat assessments and switch mounts to get the best kill probability and ignore targets that are outside the threat envelope.

        Seaceptor is good but I wont discuss its performance for obvious reasons.

        The best way to avoid a missile is to
        1. stay out of its range envelope. (In the gulf thats currently an issue because its a narrow waterway.)
        2. kill the shooter first such as long range bombers or surface ships.
        3. Kill the searcher or mid course guidance platform. If they cannot find you the shooters cannot shoot at you.
        The radar horizon is the limiting factor. If you are not on their radar screen then they cannot confidently shoot at you. If your vessel is stealthy that is also to your advantage by reducing their detection range . If you have LPI radars that limits the shooters ability to use EW to find you.

        • All really good points, but as a quasi-pinkie I can expand on some of the issues without giving too much away. The radars that Russian anti-ship weapons used in the past, even those used today, are not very intelligent. I can best liken them to the Exocet’s radar used during the Falklands war. They will generally go for the largest radar return. This is because of a number of factors. One is that the antenna size is limited by the missile body’s diameter, so will be relatively small. This limits the amount of power that can be transmitted, but more crucially limits the gain of the received signal. So when you amplify the received signal it you will generate a lot of noise thus limiting search range and target discrimination. Secondly, due to the missile’s size, the computer that does the signal processing will be relatively small and not very powerful and definitely not up to Western standards.
          The radars used are not modern PESA or AESA but pulse doppler or even continuous wave using a flat plannar antenna. Without active suppression, these generate a lot of sidelobe interference. Sidelobes are basically wasted transmitter power that is separate from the main beam. By targeting the sidelobes using jamming or spoofing seriously messes with the radar’s computer, as it tries to take the sidelobe generation in to account. The other method of dealing with these radars is using decoys such as chaff or deployable reflectors.
          As the unfortunate Altantic Conveyor found out, chaff isn’t always the best answer. The Exocets that were targeted at the Hermes were deflected off course towards her. This is because the Exocet’s radar was quite dumb and targeted the largest return i.e. the chaff bloom, which then dispersed leaving the AC in plain view to the Exocets radar.
          As far as the performance of SeaCeptor or Aster is concerned both have demonstrated their capability against multiple drone targets. Not sure the Seaceptor has been tested against anything above Mach 3 though. However, it has successfully engaged two “no-notice” supersonic sea skimming drones during the exercise at the Hebrides ranges. The Aster has been successfully tested against ballistic missiles though and multiple supersonic target drones.

          • Nice to know there is a Pinkie to expand on my Greenie Gunbuster’y ways!
            Side lobe jamming, spoofing, you’ll be doing range gate pull off next!
            As you said its always a challenge not to give to much away with regards to current systems but Seaceptor is, from the informal briefs I have had from maintainers, very very good.

          • I have some friends in QinetiQ and Defence Science, who have also said how good the SeaCeptor is. I think the next upgrade to the system should be to the radar. As good as the Artisan is at the moment, it will soon need replacing. The reason for this is that it uses a single array antenna rotating at 30 rpm. Therefore, there will always be a dead zone following the antenna as it rotates, which means you have to use memory to maintain the track. Unlike Sampson, which uses a second array facing backwards. It will struggle to correctly track very fast targets. So in the near future, I think Artisan will either be replaced or upgraded with a second antenna facing backwards like Sampson.
            The key to tracking very fast targets, is a very fast sweep rate with a smallish wavelength. Increase the height above sea level to push out the visible horizon to give you more time to search for the targets and thus giving you the capability to react.
            So the T45 with its Sampson placed as high as feasible will always have the advantage over say an Aleigh Burke in first detecting a low level high speed threat, as its visible horizon is further. But once the threat pops over the AB’s horizon, it will have the advantage due to its four fixed plannar arrays.
            Due to the speed of these weapons they must be detected at the earliest opportunity. The obvious answer would be to place a radar equipped aircraft above the ship, which will place the horizon even further out, thereby giving the ship more time to react. But aircraft can’t be aloft 24/7, so what’s the answer? I think it may come down to say 3 unmanned vessels acting as radar pickets controlled by the mothership. This will also push out the radar horizon but more importantly it can be operated 24/7.

          • Top-weight is the real killer isn’t it? Stupid question but why do AAW ships need to be a classic warship shape? Might something more tanker/support-ship shaped have more stability to allow it to hold a multi-fixed-panel array at least as high if not higher than Sampson? If/when directed energy weapons become more of a thing then the greatly increased internal volume might also be useful as space for energy storage stuff thus reducing the need to drive for maximum space-efficiency there plus the added mass in the ship itself might help with gyroscopic effects if flywheel storage is used in a big way. I’ve often said that running on the T26 production past the T23 replacement builds might be the natural path for T45 replacement UNLESS evolving technology meant that AAW vessels started needing very different hull types. I confess that it was more space for masses of energy storage that I was thinking about but maybe added stability for radar height might be another factor.

            Also, I don’t know how much stability margin is left on something like T45 but might high-low radars be an option? A 2-panel-rotating radar at Sampson height and then a 4-plane-fixed at a much lower height, probably lower than AB, if there was enough stability left. What I’m thinking is that the high radar could get early warning and a good enough track to cue decide to do the engagement, allocate missile(s), pop the hatch(es) on the VLS and get the intercepting missile(s) through their horizontal launch phase at which point, because we are by definition talking about stuff that’s coming in very fast, the target would probably by then be within range of the lower fixed-panel radar which could then guide the missile or maybe one day directed-energy weapon onto target. Other issues there I suppose are how low would the low radar need to be to maintain stability on T45-like hulls? Too low to have any sort of acceptable radar horizon? Go too low and I assume you also run the risk of microwaving matelots and/or sensitive near-deck equipment.

            I also worry about distance of any engagement from the ship which makes your picket-line idea appealing. With the amount of kinetic energy that hypersonic missiles will be carrying any intercept at too close a range might not prevent catastrophic or at least mission-kill levels of damage if too much debris from an intercepted missile still smashes into the ship.

          • The US Navy are looking at adding Mk41 VLS to some of their support ships, particularly those within a carrier support group. The idea being that a nearby Arliegh Burke, Tico or Carrier would use co-operative engagement capability (CEC) to control the anti-air missiles and thus increase the fleet’s anti-air capability. They are developing the CEC in to a new concept which is called naval integrated fire control-counter air concept (NIFC-CA). This expands CEC to include aircraft Link-16 data as well as the F35’s multi-function data link data. By including the aircraft data, over the horizon targeting is possible. A recent demonstration had a F35 search and then track a target, which was then successfully attacked using a SM6 missile using the F35’s data. So the capability is there, it just needs merging together. This is the quickest solution to low level/mid level hypersonic threats. The earlier you detect the threat the more time you can counter it. But, as I mentioned earlier, aircraft cannot be aloft 24/7, so another solution is required as part of the ship’s/fleet’s defensive layer.
            The problem with using a supply ship hull design is that they are slow and thus slows down the surrounding fleet or doesn’t have the speed to respond to an incident. I believe there is a length to beam ratio that is used for stability or speed. So to increase this type of hull’s speed, you would need to drastically increase the length of the ship to make it less “beamy”. The best method of increasing a ships stability would be by adding outrigger hulls i.e. trimaran. This will artificially increase the ship’s beam allowing the extra mast height. A T26 or T45 with outriggers might look a bit weird, but it would work.
            It’s interesting to look at how the Aussies are mounting their CEAFAR to their T26 (Hunter) design. Instead of the four large PESA/AESA panels that the Arleigh Burkes use. The Hunter’s CEAFAR uses multiple panels (at least 12) spread over a mast. With at least 6 sides rather than the traditional four to increase sweep speeds and redundancy. This enables it to be placed higher as there’s less concentrated mass. It’s not quite as high as a Sampson, but much higher than the AB’s SPY/6 radar.

  6. Why indulge in all this senseless dribble, just simply deal with the facts! In it’s relentless quest for world domination, the United States poses the greatest threat to world peace and human existence! At the end of the second world war while Europe was on it’s knee busy picking up the pieces and trying to rebuild itself, the United States was busy surrounding the world with military bases. Now, there are at least, 100 or more US military bases trategically, surrounding our planet! Besides, as the self-proclaimed leader of the “Not” so free world, the United States has never offered any sensible form of leadership whatsoever to the world simply, war destabilisation of other countries, regime change, more wars, sanctions, military intervention, economic blockade, verbal threats and dictate, war, war and more wars…..all of which, are based on this ridiculous warped minded belief of Exceptionalism..! More over, the United States needs to decide if it’s actually democracy, or a dictatorship parading itself as democratic! Threatening so- called friends and allies amount to dictatorship! Where to buy, who you can or cannot buy from, who you can or cannot have diplomatic relationship with should not be dictated by the United States or anyone else..!!! Simple, stop all military intervention, regime change, economic blockade, economic sanctions, dismantle (NATO) and move away from Russia’s borders! Stop spending billions of America’s tax payers?, on useless, hopeless ventures, close down the numerous money wasting US military bases surrounding the planet and restore some semblance of sanity and respectability to a otherwise, potentially great country America!!
    The abolitionist John Brown wrote,
    ” I John Brown, am now quite certain that the crimes of this guilty land, will never be purged away but with blood”

    Be Careful What You Wish For, Say..!!

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here