marauder2048 said:
sferrin said:
Moose said:
The Navy is waiting for the Hypersonics programs to produce a workable configuration, then they'll jump into developing and fielding a hypersonic missile.

Considering how many failed high speed programs litter the US landscape, most killed practically in the cradle, I have zero confidence that they'll be able to make the jump from subsonic to hypersonic without doing a lot of leg work.

SM-6 (especially as it evolves through the planned increments) should be a credible ASBM threat to most surface combatants.

The Navy should also get over its allergy to liquid mono/bi-propellants missiles; there's no iron rule that says that hypersonics have to be air-breathers.

Hell, ATACMs unitary could make a scarey ASBM. Put a booster on it to fill the length of the cell and give it even more range. Might be too fat to fit in a Mk41 but it would certainly fit in a Mk57, and there's no reason they couldn't do something like the Tomahawk ABL, or even swap out a few of the Mk41 groups for Mk57 on the Flight III Burkes.
 
sferrin said:
marauder2048 said:
sferrin said:
Moose said:
The Navy is waiting for the Hypersonics programs to produce a workable configuration, then they'll jump into developing and fielding a hypersonic missile.

Considering how many failed high speed programs litter the US landscape, most killed practically in the cradle, I have zero confidence that they'll be able to make the jump from subsonic to hypersonic without doing a lot of leg work.

SM-6 (especially as it evolves through the planned increments) should be a credible ASBM threat to most surface combatants.

The Navy should also get over its allergy to liquid mono/bi-propellants missiles; there's no iron rule that says that hypersonics have to be air-breathers.

Hell, ATACMs unitary could make a scarey ASBM. Put a booster on it to fill the length of the cell and give it even more range. Might be too fat to fit in a Mk41 but it would certainly fit in a Mk57, and there's no reason they couldn't do something like the Tomahawk ABL, or even swap out a few of the Mk41 groups for Mk57 on the Flight III Burkes.

Exactly my thoughts, seems to be a lot of 'good ole' solid rocket solutions that could be available that could take you to M4-M5+ much sooner that an X-51 'type' system.
 
DSE said:
bobbymike said:
Exactly my thoughts, seems to be a lot of 'good ole' solid rocket solutions that could be available that could take you to M4-M5+ much sooner that an X-51 'type' system.

Remember it is not just Mach, but Mach, alt, range.

ATACMs (especially one with a booster) shouldn't have a problem handily exceeding Harpoon or even LRASM. And where it's not a ballistic missile it could do high G terminal maneuvering. Furthermore it would be a (relatively) simple modification compared to building a hypersonic cruise missile from scratch. Think of it as a bridge to the "what we REALLY want" missile.
 
DSE said:
bobbymike said:
Exactly my thoughts, seems to be a lot of 'good ole' solid rocket solutions that could be available that could take you to M4-M5+ much sooner that an X-51 'type' system.

Remember it is not just Mach, but Mach, alt, range.

If I had it my way I would be putting VPMs or the new Ohio Replacement CMC embedded in the decks of retired heli-carriers and loading them with D5's ;D :eek:
 
For the Phase-II, I have to wonder what exactly the USN is going for.

Presumably, the JASSM will retain its significant stand-off range as LRASM, ~300nm+, and, when attached to fighter platforms. It solves the need for immediate naval strike against an advanced fleet at stand-off distances.

If the USN needs a short range stealthy subsonic missiles, they can always buy the NSM, which is more advanced than JSOW or Tomahawk.

So what will Phase-II do?

If I were the USN, I'd look for a light weight lower cost 120 - 200nm high speed anti-ship missile, ideally with internal storage for F-35C. This can be used for high volume strikes against ships and land targets. Basically, this is the rocket boosted hypersonic boost glide variant. (Or make it available for rotary launch on a bomber, to really get the shot count up.)
 
DrRansom said:
For the Phase-II, I have to wonder what exactly the USN is going for.

Presumably, the JASSM will retain its significant stand-off range as LRASM, ~300nm+, and, when attached to fighter platforms. It solves the need for immediate naval strike against an advanced fleet at stand-off distances.

If the USN needs a short range stealthy subsonic missiles, they can always buy the NSM, which is more advanced than JSOW or Tomahawk.

So what will Phase-II do?

If I were the USN, I'd look for a light weight lower cost 120 - 200nm high speed anti-ship missile, ideally with internal storage for F-35C. This can be used for high volume strikes against ships and land targets. Basically, this is the rocket boosted hypersonic boost glide variant. (Or make it available for rotary launch on a bomber, to really get the shot count up.)
 

Attachments

  • F35C_Launch.jpg
    F35C_Launch.jpg
    10 KB · Views: 752
  • 54c834ed2285c_-_rattlrs_f18e_2_launch.jpg
    54c834ed2285c_-_rattlrs_f18e_2_launch.jpg
    28.2 KB · Views: 743
  • HyFly_zpsab459310.jpg
    HyFly_zpsab459310.jpg
    22 KB · Views: 745
DrRansom said:
For the Phase-II, I have to wonder what exactly the USN is going for.

Presumably, the JASSM will retain its significant stand-off range as LRASM, ~300nm+, and, when attached to fighter platforms. It solves the need for immediate naval strike against an advanced fleet at stand-off distances.

If the USN needs a short range stealthy subsonic missiles, they can always buy the NSM, which is more advanced than JSOW or Tomahawk.

So what will Phase-II do?

If I were the USN, I'd look for a light weight lower cost 120 - 200nm high speed anti-ship missile, ideally with internal storage for F-35C. This can be used for high volume strikes against ships and land targets. Basically, this is the rocket boosted hypersonic boost glide variant. (Or make it available for rotary launch on a bomber, to really get the shot count up.)

AARGM-ER is being designed for internal carriage on the F-35 A and C models. It might be able to hit the lower end of the range figure you mentioned.
 
http://defensetech.org/2015/05/15/navy-develops-autonomous-air-launched-missile-for-fa-18/
 
I don't see how AARGM-ER could be in internal to the F-35 as the AARGM is already too long for the bay.


They would have to completely redo the motor section in order to get it to fit.
 
JSOW fits internally in the F-35 and is very close to the same length as AARGM (most sources say AARGM is about 7cm longer). If that length is a factor, AARGM-ER has to change the entire rear section of the missile anyway, so it could shave a few centimeters off without too much trouble. IIRC, it's mainly the wingspan that keeps AARGM out of the F-35 bays, and it's easy enough to switch to clipped wings with AARGM-ER.
 
Felt this was an appropriate thread for this
 

Attachments

  • Grant_Anti_Ship.pdf
    824.6 KB · Views: 95
Cash boost for Lockheed’s anti-ship missile programme


The value of Lockheed Martin’s Long-Range Anti-Ship Missile (LRASM) development programme has been raised by $104 million to $306 million as the US military presses to have the autonomous, ship-killing missile integrated with the B-1B “Bone” bomber and F/A-18 Super Hornet by 2018 and 2019, respectively.

Lockheed and the US Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency are in the final stages of maturing LRASM technology ahead of the programme’s transition to an aircraft integration and testing phase with the navy and air force.

According to a June 2 contract announcement, DARPA has awarded the Lockheed-lead industry team, which includes BAE Systems as a large subcontractor, more funds to continue development efforts through July, 2016. The B-1B has already trailed the missile, and captive carry tests are due to start on the navy’s F/A-18E/F Super Hornet late this year.

If all goes according to plan, Lockheed will be on contract to start delivering production LRASM missiles to the navy and air force in fiscal 2017.

Lockheed spokesman John Kent says the extra funds build on a contract awarded last year for long-lead parts procurement and initial risk-reduction tasks. “This new contract definitization award further defines the scope of work to complete the original contract, but does not accelerate the current period of performance.”

“The program has been successful in all of its testing to date, and risk reduction of subassemblies is progressing as planned,” he says. “The activity under the current contract will lead into the upcoming integration and test contract which Lockheed Martin is currently proposing for the US Navy.”

LRASM – a maritime derivative of Lockheed’s extended-range Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missile (JASSM-ER) – begins filling what the US Defense Department describes as a “critical naval surface warfare capabilities gap in anti-ship missile technologies”. The department is fielding LRASM on the B-1B and F/A-18 as an “early operational capability” while the remainder of the programme matures.

LRASM had its third successful flight test from an air force B-1B bomber in February at the Point Mugu naval sea range in California.




http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/cash-boost-for-lockheeds-anti-ship-missile-programme-413113/
 
bring_it_on said:
Cash boost for Lockheed’s anti-ship missile programme


The value of Lockheed Martin’s Long-Range Anti-Ship Missile (LRASM) development programme has been raised by $104 million to $306 million as the US military presses to have the autonomous, ship-killing missile integrated with the B-1B “Bone” bomber and F/A-18 Super Hornet by 2018 and 2019, respectively.

Lockheed and the US Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency are in the final stages of maturing LRASM technology ahead of the programme’s transition to an aircraft integration and testing phase with the navy and air force.

According to a June 2 contract announcement, DARPA has awarded the Lockheed-lead industry team, which includes BAE Systems as a large subcontractor, more funds to continue development efforts through July, 2016. The B-1B has already trailed the missile, and captive carry tests are due to start on the navy’s F/A-18E/F Super Hornet late this year.

If all goes according to plan, Lockheed will be on contract to start delivering production LRASM missiles to the navy and air force in fiscal 2017.

Lockheed spokesman John Kent says the extra funds build on a contract awarded last year for long-lead parts procurement and initial risk-reduction tasks. “This new contract definitization award further defines the scope of work to complete the original contract, but does not accelerate the current period of performance.”

“The program has been successful in all of its testing to date, and risk reduction of subassemblies is progressing as planned,” he says. “The activity under the current contract will lead into the upcoming integration and test contract which Lockheed Martin is currently proposing for the US Navy.”

LRASM – a maritime derivative of Lockheed’s extended-range Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missile (JASSM-ER) – begins filling what the US Defense Department describes as a “critical naval surface warfare capabilities gap in anti-ship missile technologies”. The department is fielding LRASM on the B-1B and F/A-18 as an “early operational capability” while the remainder of the programme matures.

LRASM had its third successful flight test from an air force B-1B bomber in February at the Point Mugu naval sea range in California.




http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/cash-boost-for-lockheeds-anti-ship-missile-programme-413113/
When I read about LRASM launches form B-1s it harkens back to Cold War days of AS-4 armed Blackjacks and Backfires.
 
bring_it_on said:
How many LRASM's can the B-1 carry?


It has the same external profile as JASSM, so a B-1B could carry 24 rounds on three rotary launchers. Operationally, I'd think a mix of weapons might be preferred. Carrier-based surface CAP aircraft tended to carry a mix of Harpoon, LGBs, and cluster bombs, for example.
 
Actually, the use of B-1B's for surface strikes can be an interesting problem. A few months ago, Information Dissemination had a series on Soviet Naval Aviation tactics in WW3. The most striking rule was that the Naval Aviation would practically only launch a strike with visual confirmation of the target.

If we extend that experience to B-1B's operating on anti-surface warfare missions, one can expect that naval strike will be held closely until the target is confirmed. Given the risk to the B-1Bs from a strike mission and the high cost of LRASMs (with corresponding low magazine size), I don't think that a B-1B anti-surface warfare CAP would bring much benefit.

I guess here, too, we'd have to think of the benefit of a B-1B cap versus the chance of losing a bomber. Also, a large LRASM strike is an operationally decisive event, it will have strong controls around it.
 
DrRansom said:
If we extend that experience to B-1B's operating on anti-surface warfare missions, one can expect that naval strike will be held closely until the target is confirmed.

One doesn't need actual human eyeballs in visual range of a target to confirm it.

DrRansom said:
Given the risk to the B-1Bs from a strike mission and the high cost of LRASMs (with corresponding low magazine size), I don't think that a B-1B anti-surface warfare CAP would bring much benefit.

A plane with 24 very difficult to shoot down, 600 mile range, antiship missiles "wouldn't bring much benefit"? Uh, yeah, about that. . .[/quote]
 
sferrin said:
One doesn't need actual human eyeballs in visual range of a target to confirm it.

UAVs / ultra-long range optics (etc...) will help, but the principle may remain the same. Some person will have to confirm the target before launching the strike. If LRASMs cost on the order of a million+ each, the US military's weapon stocks will maybe in the range of a 1,000. Losing several dozen missiles to a decoy will be a waste.

(Incidentally enough, this is an important anti-ASBM tactic the US Navy will likely use. Give the Chinese a dozen targets to chose from and let the Chinese exhaust their arsenal in the ocean.)


sferrin said:
A plane with 24 very difficult to shoot down, 600 mile range, antiship missiles "wouldn't bring much benefit"? Uh, yeah, about that. . .

I said CAP, not B-1B with a lot of anti-ship missiles. Having a B-1B fly around in a circle until a target is found is a waste of fuel and airplanes. Leave the anti-shipping B-1B force on the tarmac until a sufficiently important target is found, then launch.
 
DrRansom said:
I said CAP, not B-1B with a lot of anti-ship missiles. Having a B-1B fly around in a circle until a target is found is a waste of fuel and airplanes. Leave the anti-shipping B-1B force on the tarmac until a sufficiently important target is found, then launch.

Oh, definitely agree. I'd also look at arming the B-1B with AIM-120Ds for self-defense. Big AESA upfront, maybe the forward bay with 8 LRASMs, mid bay with 4 LRASMs and a dozen AIM-120Ds, and a fuel tank in the aft bay. . .could be interesting.
 
sferrin said:
DrRansom said:
I said CAP, not B-1B with a lot of anti-ship missiles. Having a B-1B fly around in a circle until a target is found is a waste of fuel and airplanes. Leave the anti-shipping B-1B force on the tarmac until a sufficiently important target is found, then launch.

Oh, definitely agree. I'd also look at arming the B-1B with AIM-120Ds for self-defense. Big AESA upfront, maybe the forward bay with 8 LRASMs, mid bay with 4 LRASMs and a dozen AIM-120Ds, and a fuel tank in the aft bay. . .could be interesting.
I'd go even further and have B-1s loaded with modified air launched capable THAADs and Patriots or develop NCADE or a new Phoenix??

I think I posted in the F-X/6th Gen thread a comment from the CINC of Air Combat Command strongly hinting at cueing and targeting aircraft from space. He was discussing the latest Red Flag exercise about how they USAF cannot show all the classified technologies and methods of tracking and engaging enemy aircraft operating in an environment of total electronic silence but the aircraft still being able to see the entire battlespace (reference to future operations with F-22/35s)

I apologize I am going from memory trying to capture the gist of what he said.
 
THAADs and Patriots are too long for the B-1Bs weapons bays. If they removed the bulkhead between the forward bays (which they definitely should, as well as re-enabling the external hardpoints) they'd fit. I don't know what carrying THAAD would get you though, as you can't hit airplanes with it.
 
sferrin said:
Oh, definitely agree. I'd also look at arming the B-1B with AIM-120Ds for self-defense. Big AESA upfront, maybe the forward bay with 8 LRASMs, mid bay with 4 LRASMs and a dozen AIM-120Ds, and a fuel tank in the aft bay. . .could be interesting.

I'm not sure of the desirability of this. If we take the historical precedent, this would be equivalent to arming Tu-22's with R-33 missiles from the Foxhound. What good would that have bought the Backfire? There is a possible scenario where this does make sense. If the USAF requires that B-1B's get radar lock on the target, then those B-1Bs will want self-defense weapons. Otherwise...

Of course, we could dream about a boost glide missile on a supersonic cruising bomber, a la the tailless supersonic concept explored in the 2000s. Then the US would be the nation with the 21st century Backfire force.
 
DrRansom said:
What good would that have bought the Backfire?

I'm sure it would have thrown a wrench in the plans of the Tomcat defenders.
 
DrRansom said:
UAVs / ultra-long range optics (etc...) will help, but the principle may remain the same. Some person will have to confirm the target before launching the strike. If LRASMs cost on the order of a million+ each, the US military's weapon stocks will maybe in the range of a 1,000. Losing several dozen missiles to a decoy will be a waste.

(Incidentally enough, this is an important anti-ASBM tactic the US Navy will likely use. Give the Chinese a dozen targets to chose from and let the Chinese exhaust their arsenal in the ocean.)


Are you suggesting physical decoys made to look like naval ships to fool visual (EO UAV, satellite, etc) identification?


I imagine that's easier said than done, as naval ships do have particular shapes and sizes, and realistic operating speeds and possible active emissions that an observer would use to cross correlate whether a visual ID is a decoy or just a skeleton crewed empty hulk.


I can't visualize either side producing a bunch of convincing Burke or 052D look alike hulls to fool EO identification, let alone something as massive as a nuclear super carrier.
 
Blitzo said:
Are you suggesting physical decoys made to look like naval ships to fool visual (EO UAV, satellite, etc) identification?


In the crowded seas off the Asian mainland it is not as hard as you might think. In some cases the flat top of a supertanker can return a radar signature that looks like an aircraft carrier.
 
VH said:
Blitzo said:
Are you suggesting physical decoys made to look like naval ships to fool visual (EO UAV, satellite, etc) identification?


In the crowded seas off the Asian mainland it is not as hard as you might think. In some cases the flat top of a supertanker can return a radar signature that looks like an aircraft carrier.


Yeah, but DrRansom was talking about decoys to fool visual confirmation, not radar. That is to say, the only way to produce visual decoys against UAVs or satellites with EO sensors is by actually producing a physical convincing carrier that looks like a carrier, but also walks like a carrier (speed), and talks like a carrier (active emissions either by carrier itself or by surrounding escorts) as EO detection will likely result in radar and ESM cuing to confirm a visually identified target through its other properties namely speed and active emissions, not to mention possible associated radar contacts that may indicate fighters guarding the CSG.


Even a physical decoy of a carrier (say a supertanker modified with a CVN flight deck able to do 30 knots) won't be as effective if the opfor knows you are building a decoy in the first place (especially if such a decoy is built during peacetime it'll be reaaaally hard to hide), as HUMINT and peacetime surveillance will reveal all kinds of operational patterns of such decoys.




I'm not saying physical decoys fooling EO sensors won't work, but it'll be somewhat impractical to pull off convincingly.
 
Iran has a short range anti-ship missile - that's what scares me. Not a good idea to bring carriers into the gulf. -SP
 
sferrin said:
DrRansom said:
What good would that have bought the Backfire?

I'm sure it would have thrown a wrench in the plans of the Tomcat defenders.

Fair enough, but if you're launching from 500 nm +, I don't know if anybody can run a sustained CAP at that distance. I'd rather see more effort worked into a low altitude supersonic dash to firing range than trying to fight it out at long range against fighters.

About visual confirmation, what I meant was this. Apparently, it was the practice of Soviet Naval Aviation to not launch an attack against a carrier battle group without visual confirmation of the battlegroup's position. What this meant is that the possibility of electromagnetic decoys / satellite scanning was so great that the Soviets would not risk losing the Backfire force on a tenuous contact.

In the context of LRASM, I can see a similar system happening. Somebody will have to visually confirm, most likely through a UAV datalink, that there is indeed a Chinese battle group at the given place.

So the question isn't so much visual hiding as it is developing a CONOPs that reflects the B-1B anti-naval force is an important operational asset which should only be used at the most important targets.

For decoys, create a bunch of Unmanned surface vessels with radar reflections, emission generators, and wake enhancers to mimic a carrier and battlegroup. Visual decoys would be too expensive and, if the Chinese resort to visual confirmation, then this is a success for the counter-anti access strategy.
 
DrRansom said:
For decoys, create a bunch of Unmanned surface vessels with radar reflections, emission generators, and wake enhancers to mimic a carrier and battlegroup. Visual decoys would be too expensive and, if the Chinese resort to visual confirmation, then this is a success for the counter-anti access strategy.


Oh okay, so not visual decoys but rather EM decoys.


The effectiveness will definitely depend on how well the opposing C4ISR works and what the predominant mode of ID is. If EO sensors are more prevalent, then EM decoys will only be as effective until they are rejected by EO sensors.
 
Blitzo said:
The effectiveness will definitely depend on how well the opposing C4ISR works and what the predominant mode of ID is. If EO sensors are more prevalent, then EM decoys will only be as effective until they are rejected by EO sensors.

In this case, forcing the opposition to rely upon EO sensors is, in a sense, a win for the US. They will have less range than radar / electronic sensing capabilities and will require a fleet of long range reconnaissance UAVs, which can be attacked.
 
DrRansom said:
Blitzo said:
The effectiveness will definitely depend on how well the opposing C4ISR works and what the predominant mode of ID is. If EO sensors are more prevalent, then EM decoys will only be as effective until they are rejected by EO sensors.

In this case, forcing the opposition to rely upon EO sensors is, in a sense, a win for the US. They will have less range than radar / electronic sensing capabilities and will require a fleet of long range reconnaissance UAVs, which can be attacked.

Here is my pure speculation based on making some connections:

http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,23271.msg250392.html#msg250392

http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/archive/2015/June/Pages/AirForcetoBoostBudgettoPrepareforConflictsinSpace.aspx

Plus comments made by the CINC of Air Combat Command about space tracking and targeting.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I believe the US has/will have now/in the near future the ability to conduct complete kill chain operations (identify, track, target, destroy) from space while aircraft or weapon system remains completely electronically (or mostly) silent/quiet. This is where the bulk of 'black budget' expenditures have gone these last 20 years IMHO.

In the case of China, sats will know where every ship is at all times (see related SPF link I provided) tell the B-1 that info, relayed to the onboard LRASMs and BOOM.

China and Russia know this now we begin, as the other link provided attests, a 'quiet' arms race in space.
 
DrRansom said:
In this case, forcing the opposition to rely upon EO sensors is, in a sense, a win for the US. They will have less range than radar / electronic sensing capabilities and will require a fleet of long range reconnaissance UAVs, which can be attacked.


I was more thinking about EO satellites myself, but I don't think they're on station enough to be a permanently viable method.


Still, combined RCS, active emissions and wake generating decoys are interesting. Would RCS reflectors be effective against SAR though?
 
Long-range missile testing conducted in AEDC transonic wind tunnel


6/1/2015 - ARNOLD AIR FORCE BASE, TENN. -- Store separation testing of the Long Range Anti-Ship Missile for the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet was recently conducted in the 16-foot transonic wind tunnel (16T) at the Arnold Engineering Development Complex here.

The LRASM is a long-range subsonic cruise missile designed for better range and survivability than current anti-ship weaponry. It is carried with the wings and tail stowed and then deployed once released from the aircraft. This missile development program is a joint effort of the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, Naval Air Systems Command and the United States Air Force.

Dr. Richard Roberts, AEDC test manager for the Propulsion Wind Tunnel Facility, said engineers assisted NAVAIR in characterizing both the separation and carriage loads of the LRASM on the F/A-18E/F.

"The release of this missile is a coordinated effort taking into account the aircraft flow field, wing and tail deployments, as well as deployment timing," he said. "The goal is to determine the appropriate aircraft load out, wing and tail deployment timing, and flight conditions in order to obtain a safe and controllable release or jettison."

According to Roberts, the 16T Captive Trajectory Support system was used to collect aerodynamic loads on the missile.

"We combined these loads with ejector properties, missile mass properties, other initial conditions and aerodynamic corrections in order to simulate the actual trajectory of the missile," he said. "In the tunnels we do this in three steps. First we collect the free stream data, which is simply the aerodynamics of the missile outside of the aircraft flow field. Second, we calculate the trajectory, or path, of the missile as it leaves the pylon. Third, based on the trajectory, we collect grid data which compares the missile free stream aerodynamics to the missile aerodynamics seen in the aircraft flow field in order to determine the effect of the aircraft flow field on the missile behavior."

The second installation of the test article measured loads on the missile while it was still attached to the aircraft.

"This part of the test ensured that the loads on the missile over the intended flight regime do not exceed its structural limits," Roberts said. "This is accomplished by mounting the missile to the aircraft through a balance that uses strain gages to measure the forces and moments encountered as the aircraft is moved through certain test conditions."

These particular tests were a collaboration between AEDC test teams and NAVAIR, Boeing and Lockheed Martin.

Roberts mentioned that the test was similar to past tests, as the separation and loads of many types of missiles, bombs, pods, fuel tanks and other stores from this aircraft have also undergone testing at AEDC.

"NAVAIR has been a major partner in our wind tunnel testing mission for many years and continues to be."

The Super Hornet sports a total of 11 weapon stations. Its single-seat 'E' model and two-seat 'F' model perform a variety of missions that include fighter escort, close air support, enemy air defense suppression, day and night strikes with precision-guided weapons, and tanker.

http://www.afmc.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123449479
 
Blitzo said:
DrRansom said:
In this case, forcing the opposition to rely upon EO sensors is, in a sense, a win for the US. They will have less range than radar / electronic sensing capabilities and will require a fleet of long range reconnaissance UAVs, which can be attacked.


I was more thinking about EO satellites myself, but I don't think they're on station enough to be a permanently viable method.


Still, combined RCS, active emissions and wake generating decoys are interesting. Would RCS reflectors be effective against SAR though?


Back to the topic of EO satellites, does anyone know what the current highest (declassified I suppose) visible light resolution for a geosynchronous satellite is? Such satellites tend to be weather sats given their relatively low resolution, and from what I've read the US's next generation GOES-R weather satellites will have a resolution in the visible band of 0.5km.


I raise this question, because the Chinese Gaofen-4 is apparently a geosynchronous satellite meant to survey the western pacific and east asia... with a claimed resolution of 50m on the visible light band. I'd be interested to know how GF-4 may compare with the best geosynchronous EO satellites in operation.
Further to that, is a 50m resolution enough to detect and positively ID, say a 330m x 77m supercarrier? I think it goes without saying that a geosynchronous satellite constantly on station over an area with sufficient resolution to track moving naval targets would be a gamechanger, so while I'm not sure if GF-4 is good enough for that, it would still be great to know what the world's current best is. cheers


7Rm1OFe.jpg


2IkW2PY.jpg


WR3Xsgp.jpg


YQiRRA8.jpg
 
I was curious what a 34" telescope (what I guess would be needed for a 50 meter visible band resolution) would see from geostationary orbit so I modelled up a typical Schmitt with that aperture and gave it a carrier to look at. At normal scale it is buried in the diffraction blur. If you scale the carrier up to ~6000 feet length (along with the aircraft), then you can make it out. I set pixel size to 5um (smaller is better but real world is more like 7-10um).
 

Attachments

  • Carrier Image From Geo.jpg
    Carrier Image From Geo.jpg
    26.1 KB · Views: 278
fredymac said:
I was curious what a 34" telescope (what I guess would be needed for a 50 meter visible band resolution) would see from geostationary orbit so I modelled up a typical Schmitt with that aperture and gave it a carrier to look at. At normal scale it is buried in the diffraction blur. If you scale the carrier up to ~6000 feet length (along with the aircraft), then you can make it out. I set pixel size to 5um (smaller is better but real world is more like 7-10um).

What would it see if it had a 100 kw laser shining in it's face? (Would there be a way to filter out the laser and see anyway if you knew the lasers wavelength?)
 
sferrin said:
fredymac said:
I was curious what a 34" telescope (what I guess would be needed for a 50 meter visible band resolution) would see from geostationary orbit so I modelled up a typical Schmitt with that aperture and gave it a carrier to look at. At normal scale it is buried in the diffraction blur. If you scale the carrier up to ~6000 feet length (along with the aircraft), then you can make it out. I set pixel size to 5um (smaller is better but real world is more like 7-10um).

What would it see if it had a 100 kw laser shining in it's face? (Would there be a way to filter out the laser and see anyway if you knew the lasers wavelength?)






Dichroic edge filters or bandpass filters can reflect certain wavelengths while passing others. However, even leaking say 0.001% (reduction of 0.00001), you still get 1 Watt and that will blow away most sensors (they usually operate at 1000 times weaker signals). At a minimum, it would bleach/blind the sensor. 1 Watt focused down will also burn your hand and will do the same to most detectors. Only highly exotic coatings can take that kind of power and not suffer catastrophic failure. On a practical level, a 100KW beam arriving at a satellite will destroy it.
 
fredymac said:
I was curious what a 34" telescope (what I guess would be needed for a 50 meter visible band resolution) would see from geostationary orbit so I modelled up a typical Schmitt with that aperture and gave it a carrier to look at. At normal scale it is buried in the diffraction blur. If you scale the carrier up to ~6000 feet length (along with the aircraft), then you can make it out. I set pixel size to 5um (smaller is better but real world is more like 7-10um).


Great, thanks for the reply!


So with that kind of resolution, if one has other means of "confirming" a blur to be an aircraft carrier (for instance, using LEO satellites to positively ID a carrier homeported at yokosuka and cue the geosynchronous satellite to track the blur), it is conceivable to keep a near real time track of it, assuming fast refresh rate (and the necessary software and datalinks to support guidance of long range weapons).
Obviously, the best long term goal is for higher resolution to allow geosynchronous satellites to positive ID such vessels without need for supporting satellites to confirm a track.

Also, care to weigh in on what the current highest resolution EO visible band geosynchronous satellite is? My google fu has only yielded 500m... I assume that cannot be the highest resolution.
 
As far as I know, nobody has tried to put a surveillance satellite into geostationary orbit (discounting “Goresat”) due to the low resolution that would result. The only solution is a bigger telescope which is what the Darpa Moire project might accomplish (see the separate thread on that topic).
US weather sats tend to be in polar orbit and they use imaging radiometers which create pictures but are actually measuring the radiant energy in the atmosphere on a pixel by pixel basis. They are interested in what some small volume of air is doing based on the energy coming out of it.
I suppose you could put a SAR satellite at geo and let it sweep out an arc of sufficient length to simulate an aperture large enough to obtain decent resolution. But then you have that 22,000 miles of signal attenuation to worry about. Nobody has yet produced an optical SAR.
There is one other possibility: you could send up multiple optical satellites and have them formate into a multiaperture telescope. However, this requires submicron precision formation flying and I don’t think that will be possible without some really fancy station keeping sensor (linking the satellites by laser distance interferometers and feeding the drift into a fast acting control thruster). Nasa was looking into a system like this for direct exoplanet imaging. However, the constellation would be positioned away from any gravity perturbation sources. The US Navy may have had a program that used a similar idea only using radio emissions and even that was a lower orbit. They were doing the same thing: trying to keep tabs on naval movements.
 
http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/us-navy-begins-certifying-new-anti-ship-missile-on-super-415970/
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom