Warships gather to shoot down missiles off Scottish coast

Aah beat me to it.

Are these towed behind the ships after inflating, or just float in position? If the latter, i would have thought that missile logic would reject a stationary target in favour of a moving one, however attractive…

Yes, Chinese and Russian hypersonic cruise and aeroballistic missiles will perform manoeuvres to bleed kinetic energy and speed, or the seeker will struggle to see through the superheated atmosphere around the missile.

The other choice, particularly for ballistic missiles like the DF21 is to remain at maximum speed and rely on inertial guidance. This is typically only effective against ships when using a nuclear warhead as the CEP will be too great to reliably target ships.

Theoretically, there also exists a speed where the leading edge of the missile will be coated in superheated plasma but the trailing edge will be cooler and data links with external guidance may be established. Though whether this is practical/possible is uncertain.

In terms of interception, it should be noted that later blocks of Aster (1) have proven successful at intercepting shorter range ballistic missiles.

We’ve had an exchange in the past about this. I’ll try to find a few links that i’ve come across in the past that might shed some more light on the subject. There is an interview maybe last year where a top US military personnel stated that the heated plasma that many theorized would have an effect on the ability of these missiles to find their target was not an issue. I’ll look those links up and add them to the thread.

I **guess** it is, as you previously posted, if I remember well, the targeting data is delivered by another vehicle broadcasting to the rear of the missile – so out of the plasma cone.

For Russian missiles, such as shipwreck, guiding each other in is not unknown. Although wether it ever actually worked on the Cold War versions is questionable.

Might be behind a paywall but the fear of the plasma sheath affecting targeting has not martialized during testing apparently.

https://www.flightglobal.com/fixed-wing/plasma-blackout-is-not-a-worry-for-usas-hypersonic-missiles-pentagon/138539.article

It appears that the general idea is for hypersonic weapons to use offboard targeting data from other assets, long range radar, satellites, drones to put them within range of their onboard sensors which it then uses for the terminal phase of an attack.

Of note, the US military first hypersonic weapon (LRHW) is on schedule to be operational in about 6 months. They recently revealed that it as a range of over 2775km. The USN is developing a variant of this same weapon to equip it’s ships and subs.

https://www.defensenews.com/land/2021/02/09/us-army-begins-equipping-first-unit-with-hypersonic-capability/

I think it helps to remember the basics; that Mach 12 at very high altitudes is not 12x the speed of sound at sea level because the speed of sound is a function of the density of the medium, air. And that a hypersonic missile has to slow down otherwise it’s seeker will jammed by the ionised layer that it itself is creating. Once it slows down it becomes vulnerable to interception and spoofing. At the moment I think hypersonic missiles are best considered as tactical GPS guided
nuclear weapons for land targets. Just my take on things

That is very true mate.

Why do we need all these extra toys now? what’s the threat? We have intelligence on pretty much everything that is happening around the world. What makes you think we need upgraded Aster so soon? when it’s already a world beater. Where does the money come from? what tasks do we have to give up to send ships back into refit to fit all these toys?. It’s never a simple answer mate.

T23 never had CIWS with Sea Wolf. It had proven capability against sea skimming and high fast targets.
Sea Ceptor is as good as Sea Wolf was so again a T23 doesn’t need a CIWS.
Ok so lets examine where will the CIWS go …noting that there are only two realistic positions now that the 911 trackers have been removed . Bridge roof will have limited firing arcs due to the missile farm fwd and the mast behind which also has Scot mounted on it. On the hangar where the aft tracker was will have restricted firing arcs as its off to one side not on the centerline. In addition a CIWS firing across a flightdeck is going to make short work of the flight deck crew and the aircraft due to sabots and pusher plates punching holes in everything. I saw the results of the trials involving Goalkeeper and mansize 12mm plywood backed targets (picture if you can shooting range targets) and various ally plates. In a real situation there would have been dead Woo’s, claret everywhere and a trashed aircraft. I haven’t even got to the part where you need to store upwards of 8000 rounds of 20mm ammo in a deep magazine and somehow work out how to manhandle it and get it from 4 deck to 03 deck via ladders, hatches and doors to load the things or the issues of mutual RF interference

CAMM down the side? Where exactly? There is no margin left inside on a T23. Bolting explosives onto the outside of warships is not recommended due to RATTAM ( Response to attack against ammunition). Shooting a 50 cal round into a missile canister is a quick win for a terrorist due to the resulting conflagration or partial detonation of the missile. Before you ask …Harpoon canisters are armour plated for just that reason. Exocet had big armour plates around the cannisters, torpedo tubes had big armour plates covering the warhead area, MTLS has big armour doors that stay closed until you are at sea. Silos are in the center of the vessel surrounded by compartments to reduce the chance of damage from the outside.

TLS on a T45…how do you get the torpedoes from the AW Mag situated at the rear of the hangar up two decks to load tubes? On T22 there was a dedicated weapon lift from 4-01 deck with stops in between, dedicated ramps for the trolleys, lifting frames and stowage for the accessories such as drouges, umbilicals, arming wires etc. On a T42 there was access to the tubes from the hangar, along 1 deck aft to fwd, 1 deck to 01 deck using a HIAB crane or a air driven hoist and a goose neck, then into the tube. It was not easy and in a seaway it was a nightmare evolution.
T23 has the tubes in the magazine so loading is easier and quicker but the tubes and systems in the mag take up a lot of space.

I have said it many times …
Weapon systems are not and never will be plug and play.
You cannot randomly bolt stuff onto a ship without first understanding and managing the consequences and risk.
If you don’t manage it you end up with another Nimrod incident, dead servicemen, grieving relatives and a Haddon-Cave inquiry.

The T44 has demonstrated an upgrade to track and intercept Ballistic missiles. The only difference between the ABM capable ASTER block 1 and the block o (the RN one), is a missile software update. Who is to say if this has not already been done on the quiet. This would give the same capability as the land based ASTER SAM.