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.
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.
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
Agreed. Everyone needs to take a long look at past Russian claims.
But the Chinese…
Yes, then there is the Chinese, but Im more concerned by their use of non direct military power, they are already embedded in our utility systems, the nuclear power generation industry, our cell and telephone systems, the ports, the airports, our universities, the banks, and not to mention they produce most of the medications and drugs we need, including almost all the worlds insulin supply. Recent events in Australia with Chinese students intimidating HK students is just a mild for of the things the PRC will do to threaten and coerce. Sorry, Rudeboy, I know this is about Hypersonics but… Read more »
The Chinese ARE the threat. To the point that they are driving a major retrenchment of U.S. military doctrine and organization. The article below illustrates that. If you read it as I do, what the USN is saying here is: Large surface combatants are increasingly vulnerable and that concentrating so much combat power into a few baskets is no longer going to work. The future lies with a large number of smaller combatants and submersibles working in concert with UMVs.
https://news.usni.org/2019/08/08/navy-considering-more-advanced-burke-destroyers-as-large-surface-combatant-timeline-slips
Cheers
YES…. It IS The Mail…
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7340445/Putins-6-000-mph-hypersonic-missile-exploded-test-causing-radiation-spike-north-Russia.html
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?
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.
Bob,
With Hyposonic weapons wouldnt it be a lot easier simply to divert the missile away,
I hope so.
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.
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
Towed kites?
I think the German Navy did something similar during WW2 using a towed gyrocopter?
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… Read more »