What's new

China's Mach 6 air-to-air missile (VLRAAM) at 200 miles successful | Popular Science

Are you really that stupid?
If you insist on being verbally abusive, I will lodge a complaint with the moderator of this thread. There is no reason or excuse for this

I will repeat myself one last time. An SM-6 CANNOT intercept an air-to-air missile that is fired at a distant American aircraft. Unless the American aircraft is flying very near the Aegis ship, an SM-6 cannot intercept a Chinese VLRAAM. However, it is pointless for American aircraft to fly next to American ships because it defeats the point of carrier air defense.
Which is presicely the flaw I pointed out:
A carrier group is not a point target but an area target: escorts will be many miles from the carrier. With 40 to 90 nmi / 74 to 167 km SM2MR and 65–100 nmi / 120–185 km range SM-2ER, they can still provide he carrier AAW coverage while at great distances from CVN. If you position yourself in a X- or Y-shaped formation, your front pair of destroyers can go out ahead 1x missile range while being able to reach out to another 1x missile range. Any E-2 Hawkeye aircraft will likely operate inside or - at worst - on the edge of the AAW bubble, and inside of a screen of tactical aircraft.
 
.
Come on. You didn't even read the Popular Science article.

"This is a big deal: this missile would easily outrange any American (or other NATO) air-to-air missile."

American AIM-120D AMRAAMs only have a range of about 100 miles.

China's VLRAAM has a range of 200-300 miles.

China's VLRAAM has a far longer range, much faster speed, and a much larger AESA radar (with backup infrared and optical sensors).

"Another key feature: its large active electronically scanned (AESA) radar, which is used in the terminal phase of flight to lock onto the target. The AESA radar's large size—about 300-400% larger than that of most long range air-to-air missiles—and digital adaptability makes it highly effective against distant and stealthy targets, and resilient against electronic countermeasures like jamming and spoofing."

China's VLRAAM clearly gives the Chinese Air Force a significant advantage.

The popular science article doesn't address the scenario I suggested, and I used it as reference for another specific point.

I don't know what your problem is but I posted about the possibility of using SM-6 in self-defence of E-2 Hawkeye.
I said NOTHING about US fighter against Chinese fighter.
You insist on following a different scenario.
You insist on ignoring how carrier groups deploy operationally.
You insist on ignoring that an AEWC asset will likely operate behind a screen of tactical aircraft and inside the AAW bubble of an Aegis equipped destroyer.
You insist on ignoring the possibility of a multi-layered defence of the AEWC asset, which can include using AMRAAM from tactical aircraft (i.e. a. against an incoming missile and - if they are closer and not yet detected - b. against shooters - which may be busy focussing on getting the AEWC aircraft.) and SM-6 from ships (i.e. against incoming missile).
If the VLRAAM missile is fired at a tactical aircraft, it isn't fired at the AEWC asset.
If it is fired at the AEWC asset, the tactical aircraft may be used to attempt to intercept the missile with AMRAAM to protect the AEWC asset. This does not imply direct combat between two fighters.
The AEWC asset may protect itself by directing or even controlling weapons carried by shooters, which may be tactical aircraft with AMRAAM and/or ships with SM-6

I have in no way disregarded Chinese capabilities. Don't become upset because someone points out possible, potential defences against this particular Chinese missile. However, in general, invincible superweapons don't exist.

However, as I have said repeatedly, the Chinese VLRAAM (which is an AIR-to-AIR missile) will be fired at an American aircraft and NOT a ship. The Chinese VLRAAM will not be coming directly at an Aegis ship. It is targeting an American AIRCRAFT.

Source: https://defence.pk/threads/chinas-m...l-popular-science.462963/page-5#ixzz4RJ7xkVxu
SM-6, like AMRAAM, is an all aspect missile. A frontal or oblique shot is viable. I can't really picture a tail-chase scenario here: if a DDG is present, it will already have used opportunities for a frontal or side aspect shot, before it comes into a tail-chase position. Whether this can be used, and will be effective, depends on the position of the AEWC asset relative to the SM-6 shooter (Burke DDG).

I never claimed a fool-proof defence.

In ballistic missiles defence, the incoming targets aren't necessarily aimed at the destroyer either....
 
. .
@Penguin Pls stop because you are not on the topic!
1. How is the defence against this missile by AEW&C assets off-topic? (See post #1:The VLRAAM's backup sensor is a infrared/electro-optical seeker that can identify and hone in on high-value targets like aerial tankers and airborne early warning and control (AEW&C) radar aircraft.). How is it less relevant than e.g. post #67 (Akash > revamped SA-6; Astra > R-77 equivalent), which doesn't prompt you to post?
2. Please address the other poster - who feels a need to insult people without provocation - too, thank you.
3. Since you otherwise asked politely, I will leave you all to it. Have a nice day.
 
Last edited:
.
1. How is the defence against this missile by AEW&C assets off-topic? (See post #1:The VLRAAM's backup sensor is a infrared/electro-optical seeker that can identify and hone in on high-value targets like aerial tankers and airborne early warning and control (AEW&C) radar aircraft.). How is it less relevant than e.g. post #67 (Akash > revamped SA-6; Astra > R-77 equivalent), which doesn't prompt you to post?
2. Please address the other poster - who feels a need to insult people without provocation - too, thank you.
3. Since you otherwise asked politely, I will leave you all to it. Have a nice day.
so US CBg is invincible?
 
. .
If you insist on being verbally abusive, I will lodge a complaint with the moderator of this thread. There is no reason or excuse for this


Which is presicely the flaw I pointed out:
A carrier group is not a point target but an area target: escorts will be many miles from the carrier. With 40 to 90 nmi / 74 to 167 km SM2MR and 65–100 nmi / 120–185 km range SM-2ER, they can still provide he carrier AAW coverage while at great distances from CVN. If you position yourself in a X- or Y-shaped formation, your front pair of destroyers can go out ahead 1x missile range while being able to reach out to another 1x missile range. Any E-2 Hawkeye aircraft will likely operate inside or - at worst - on the edge of the AAW bubble, and inside of a screen of tactical aircraft.
It is frustrating trying to discuss military technology with you.

You don't understand the basics.

I said the American Mach 2.5 SM-6 was useless against a Chinese Mach 6 VLRAAM, because the SM-6 cannot intercept the Chinese VLRAAM when it attacks a jet fighter.

You replied with a ridiculous citation saying that an American SM-6 was used to shoot down a faster anti-ship missile that came DIRECTLY at the Aegis destroyer. It is absurd to use the analogy of using a slow missile to shoot down a faster missile when it is coming RIGHT AT YOU. In a fighter jet engagement, the SM-6 CANNOT chase down a much faster Chinese VLRAAM missile.

If you are going to claim to be a Think Tank, you need to know what you are talking about.

You have posted ridiculous objections in this thread that are JUST PLAIN WRONG.

For example, I told you that an SM-6 did not have time to reach the fighter jet engagement. I did the calculation for you to show that it would arrive 32 seconds too late at a 100 mile distance. YET, YOU KEPT CLAIMING YOU WERE RIGHT. You need to stop insisting that you are right when I had already proved you wrong.

In reality, actual combat air patrols to protect a carrier is 200 miles out. Also, the SM-6 has to climb 50,000 feet to reach the altitude of a jet fighter. There is NO WAY that an SM-6 can reach the Chinese VLRAAM in ANY REALISTIC SCENARIO.

I get annoyed when someone trolls my thread. You were doing that by insisting that an SM-6 can be used to intercept a Chinese VLRAAM DESPITE the calculations and reasons that I presented to you. Your only piece of evidence (a citation for a shoot-down of an incoming anti-ship missile) is TOTALLY IRRELEVANT. This thread is a discussion of the Chinese very-long-range AIR-TO-AIR missile and NOT an ANTI-SHIP missile fired directly an an Aegis destroyer.

Since you don't know what you are talking about, kindly stay out of my thread and stop flooding it with nonsense. Go create your own thread and write whatever nonsense that you want. However, in my thread, I have to keep correcting your false claims and it gets annoying when you won't stop.
 
.
I hope Pakistan can get this missile on an ASAP basis to equip our JF-17. But let's be honest this missile would do much better with a flanker fighter like the J-11B with its powerful long range radar. We should do some kind of under-the-table deal with the Chinese where they will supply us with J-11's and these missiles Incase of hostilities with India breakout.
JH7 can also carry it.
 
.
You don't understand the basics.
That is because I am a mindless wiki copy-paste keyboard warrior, no doubt. Try me.

I said the American Mach 2.5 SM-6 was useless against a Chinese Mach 6 VLRAAM, because the SM-6 cannot intercept the Chinese VLRAAM when it attacks a jet fighter.
So, SM-6 can intercept incoming ballistic missile warheads, but not a (admittedly fast) missile? Why exactly cannot a missile fired by A at B be shot down by C, if C is in the vicinity and the missile in question is in range?

You replied with a ridiculous citation saying that an American SM-6 was used to shoot down a faster anti-ship missile that came DIRECTLY at the Aegis destroyer. It is absurd to use the analogy of using a slow missile to shoot down a faster missile when it is coming RIGHT AT YOU. In a fighter jet engagement, the SM-6 CANNOT chase down a much faster Chinese VLRAAM missile.
I did not claim SM-6 can chase-down the Chinese VLRAAM, I said it doesn't necessarily need to chase it down.
I also did not claim SM-6 was used to down an antiship missile coming at a DDG.

I pointed to a test in which SM-6 was used to hit a ship at 200 nmi, which may be indicative of SM-6 having greater ranges than just 150 mi (note the difference between 200 nmi = 230 mi and 150 mi is 80 mi or 129km!).
"Defense Secretary Ashton Carter has confirmed the service was developing the anti-ship SM-6 in an effort to give Navy cruisers and destroyers a weapon capable of reaching such targets more than 200 nautical miles away."
"the official published SM-6 range is 150 miles"
http://www.popularmechanics.com/mil...efense-missile-into-a-supersonic-ship-killer/

I also pointed out Naval Integrated Fire Control Counter-Air (NIFC-CA) concept efforts. The reality is that:
"NIFC-CA can combine the targeting data from a Northrop Grumman E-2D Advanced Hawkeye and send targeting information to a SM-6 to intercept an air target beyond the [radar] range of the cruiser or destroyer firing the weapon.
https://news.usni.org/2016/02/04/se...nic-anti-ship-missile-for-cruisers-destroyers

Reality is that in the AEGIS context, OTH targets are up to 250 nmi out assuming focus on low flying targets, and over 250nmi with focus on air targets over 30k feet (10+km), which is where your VLRAAM would be used.
"Using the Naval Integrated Fire Control battle network, an Aegis warship could engage over-the-horizon targets—including aircraft and missiles—by using targeting data from a Northrop Grumman E-2D Advanced Hawkeye.
The physical radar horizon for a S-band radar like that of the Aegis is about 250 nautical miles for a target flying at about 30,000 feet. For target flying at lower altitudes, the radar detection range would be shorter—which is where the E-2D comes in. While the range for the SM-6 is classified, the weapons range could potentially be greater than 250 nautical miles."
http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/sinking-enemy-warships-the-us-navys-fiery-new-weapon-15132

That the NIFC-CA concept is working is proven by a recent test involving an F-35 detecting a target and relaying the info to a with an Aegis Combat System armed with a Raytheon Standard Missile-6, which subsequently shot down that target.
https://news.usni.org/2016/09/13/vi...test-points-expansion-networked-naval-warfare

As indicated, I have been discussing the situation in which the VLRAAM is launched against an E-2 Hawkeye AEW&C platform.
SM-6, which uses an AMRAAM derived seeker, is an all-aspect missile. An all-aspect missile is one which is able to track a target no matter which way the target faces relative to the missile. In other words, an all-aspect missile can be launched against a target in a tail-chase engagement, in a head-on engagement, in a side-on engagement, from above, from below, etc.
That means there are many possible scenario's other than tail-chase engagement by SM-6 of VLRAAM. The more toward a frontal aspect, the more 'head on' the engagement is, the less important the speed difference is.

If you are going to claim to be a Think Tank, you need to know what you are talking about.
TTA status is awarded, not claimed. I was given TTA status by forum management, I didn't ask for it. I'm perfecly willing to entertain all sorts of different explanations or claims, but I think your explanation/claim is lacking.

You have posted ridiculous objections in this thread that are JUST PLAIN WRONG.
No, your model assumptions were.

For example, I told you that an SM-6 did not have time to reach the fighter jet engagement. I did the calculation for you to show that it would arrive 32 seconds too late at a 100 mile distance. YET, YOU KEPT CLAIMING YOU WERE RIGHT. You need to stop insisting that you are right when I had already proved you wrong.
Your model assumptions were shown to be incorrect. So, you did not in fact prove me wrong.

In reality, actual combat air patrols to protect a carrier is 200 miles out. Also, the SM-6 has to climb 50,000 feet to reach the altitude of a jet fighter. There is NO WAY that an SM-6 can reach the Chinese VLRAAM in ANY REALISTIC SCENARIO.
SM-6 would not be engaging a jet fighter, it would be engaging a high-flying VLRAAM fired by a jet fighter at an AEWC asset.
As indicated, an AEWC asset would be behind the CAP, i.e. (substantially) less than 200 miles out.
So, any incoming VLRAAM would have to pass through/over/under/around the CAP before it gets to the AEWC asset. IMHO (and I can be wrong), there is engagement potential right there, using CAP's AMRAAMs. If the CP consists of F-35A/Bs, NIFC-CA would allow these fighters to cue SM-6 if any are nearby.
As indicated, the ships in a carrier group don't bunch together, they spread out. While the CAP may fly 200 mi out from the carrier, that doesn't mean they are 200 mi away from the nearest DDG that is part of the carrier screen, which may well be sailing up to 115 mi ahead of the carrier and from that position it is able to reach out with SM2ER Block IV aka RIM-156 to 115 mi ahead of itself, so that it can touch targets 230 mi ahead of the carrier (while its Standard missile only has to fly 115 mi). Standard SM-6 aka RIM-174 Standard ERAM has a range of at least 150 mi. So, go figure.
Also, there is no reason to assume that only the carrier and its screen of some 4 Burke DDGs are present in the area. There may well also be additional DDGs, e.g. those belonging to an ESF (expeditionary strike force), which is typically paired to a carrier strike group.


I get annoyed when someone trolls my thread.
Well, if you insist I'm trolling, please do use the report button to inform the moderating team. That would be standard forum procedure.

You were doing that by insisting that an SM-6 can be used to intercept a Chinese VLRAAM DESPITE the calculations and reasons that I presented to you. Your only piece of evidence (a citation for a shoot-down of an incoming anti-ship missile) is TOTALLY IRRELEVANT. This thread is a discussion of the Chinese very-long-range AIR-TO-AIR missile and NOT an ANTI-SHIP missile fired directly an an Aegis destroyer.
Well, since you are apparently not able to actually read what I post (hence e.g. your incorrect claim about me refering to some antiship missile test) .... I believe I have now explicitly stated several times that my scenario is of an E2 Hawkeye being fired at with a VLMRAAM and defending itself with SM-6. The ability of F-35 to use DDG's as SM-6 shooters against targets detected by the aircraft and over the radar-horizon of AEGIS has been proven in tests: the NIFC-CA concept works.

Since you don't know what you are talking about, kindly stay out of my thread and stop flooding it with nonsense. Go create your own thread and write whatever nonsense that you want. However, in my thread, I have to keep correcting your false claims and it gets annoying when you won't stop.
You have yet to show that my claim that SM-6 could be used by E2 Hawkeye in self-protection is false. So far, I'm sorry to say, I think your counterpoints have been flawed. If you had any idea of my 10+ year history at this forum, you would realize I do not normally post nonsense (unless when in a jolly mood and bantering). Please don't cry about 'your thread': a thread by definition is open and intended for (meaningfull) discussion in which different ideas and points of view meet.

Untill you last post, I was minding my own business since #79. So, it is you that is stirring things up again, thank you.

______________________________________________________________________
The SM-6 is basically the existing SM-2 anti-aircraft missile with the more capable guidance system of the AMRAAM air-to-air missile, as well as other improvements in the electronics and other components. The SM-6 is a 1.5 ton, 6.55 meter (21.5 foot) long, 533mm (21 inch) diameter missile. It has an official max range of 240 kilometers (150 mi) and max altitude of 33 kilometers (110,000 feet, 20.5mi). The older SM-2 is 1.35 ton, 8 meter (26.2 foot) long missile with a max range of 190 kilometers (118 mi) and max altitude of 24.4 kilometers (80,200 feet, 15 mi.).

vlraam_study.png

http://www.popsci.com/china-new-long-range-air-to-air-missile[/QUOTE]
 
Last edited:
.
The operating freqs/bands are different, to start off.
...
I can go one more level down on why does a missile need a higher operating freq, but any lower and I would be treading on 'classified' information territory.
Google "radartuorial eu" - useful information site for the non-gambits among us.
...
Something to do with Claude Shannon?
 
.

Pakistan Defence Latest Posts

Pakistan Affairs Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom