Using Skyguard III to destroy a Hypersonic target

[rockstar08]

Can't a radar differentiate between stationary return and that from a hypersonic object ???


What has head-on interception got to do with shrapnel ??? In both cases the interception is head-on.

Haan haan Janab ab tou aap nai Post #3 parh li hai na !!!

nai janaab , kabhi school ke books nai pardhi tu apka post kia parhte ahahhahaha

 

[punit]

What are the assumptions? Is the radar able to track hypersonic missiles and in perfect conditions and 100% precise? This is a land based system, a CM type of an object may not be detected properly or in time for the system to make an interception as it may have difficulty in determining ground clutter and a super low flying object. Plus the processing capacity needs to be tremendous as hypersonic objects require a super fast firing solution calculated and implemented by the radar (one extra second means 3 KM worth of additional distance traveled by the incoming object). The bullets will have to hit the object at max distance out and entirely destroy it.
What's the range of interception in this scenario? Say at 2-3 km away, if the system intercepts properly and destroys the object, the debris and shrapnel will spray the area and can damage things within the area of impact. It is ground based so I can't imagine how the post explosion shrapnel would travel 2-3 km and hit the system. The gravity would pull most of these objects down but damage will happen in the area where the shrapnel would land.
But if the gun hits the object and fails to destroy it properly, then there are strong chances that the warhead will make it to the target or will explode rather close and could damage the system tremendously. At supersonic (or Hypersonic in this case), you don't really have much time due to supersonic speed. The kill probability or the hit to kill ratio needs to be like 100%.
This may be different if the interception took place at sea level. Then you'll get hit by shrapnel as the collision will be head-on.

what if a volley of 5-6 hypersonics are fired at a target !

 

[gambit]

Can't a radar differentiate between stationary return and that from a hypersonic object ???

Depends on the data processing.

Ever play 'chicken' ? That is when you and the other guy are on a head on collision course and the loser is whoever breaks the course out of fear. But while both of you are in that course, from each person's perspective, neither one of you are moving, at least laterally.

Likewise for the radar, if it is programmed to process only angular displacement, then even though the missile is approaching in a head on collision course, regardless of speed, the radar will see the missile as a 'stationary' body. No defense radar will be this limited, of course, because the intention is to intercept the attacker from as far away as possible. So in the event that the radar and the attacker is in a perfect head on collision course, how is the radar to calculate distance ? Via the Doppler component.

Doppler processing is an option in every radar system design. However, because military radar systems have to be as versatile as possible due to nature of threats, Doppler processing is pretty much standard built-in. So in the event that a radar and a body just happened to be in perfect alignment in a head on collision course, with no angular displacement echoes for the radar to tell if the body is moving or not, Doppler component processing is the last resort. As the missile and the radar approaches each other, Doppler frequency will increases which equals to decreasing distance, which equals to response time, or rather shortened response time.

This is why low horizon and high speed approaches are so difficult for the defenders. Not impossible, just extremely difficult.

 

[Commander Reinhardt]

I would have to say theoretically yes, if the target could be identified, tracked and the turrets rotate fast enough! There are several problems:

1. The radar is low to the ground, this gives a small horizon, at 4 meters this is 7KM.
2. Radar systems are directional, this means it has to be looking in the direction of the missile.
3. Even if the missile can be detected and the turrets rotated the missile might not be traveling straight towards it, but at an angle, at this speed it makes interception a real problem within this 7KM envelope, if it isn't traveling straight towards the turrets, so it could only intercept targets within a certain arch!
4. Even if the system can be intercepted, the warheaed destroyed, depending on how the warhead explodes there could still be a very heavy metal rod with alot of rocket fuel heading straight towards the target, the subsequent structural damage and fire alone may be sufficent to achieve their goals!
5. The missiles could potentially have their own radar systems, in this case they may detect your radar emissions and make a diversion

What potential solutions would I have:

1. Larger, higher, telescoping radar systems, perhaps as high as 10 Meters to give 11.3KM too horizon! Slightly greater because missile is not on ground.
2. Potentially include aerial based radar coverage, i.e. something akin to JLENS, and integrate this with air-defence which should track the missile in its high-altitude cruise phase before entering its terminal low altitude stage.
3. Replace at least some of the gun systems with actively guided missiles, which conviniently provides protection against air attack by helicopter/cas, preferably capable of running down the missile, these systems would look something like RIM-116 being able to rotate 360degrees as well as turning, thereby reducing the turret rotation time. This also allows them to deal with cruise missiles, potentially before they have dived really low.
4. Attempt to deal with cruise missiles before they enter ground skimming stages, depending on how long these missiles can ground skim for.

Ofcourse I think a missile traveling at such low altitude, at mach 10 for very long is not that feasible, but even slower missiles, mach 2 might be a problem for gun based systems, due to the limited range, if they are not traveling straight towards the system.