NS Military Realism Consultancy Thread Mk X Purps Safe Space

[Gallia-]

Is there a way to realistically take out a cruise missile after it's been launched,

Yes. Easily.

and how would I have to go about preparing defenses that can protect military assets from a cruise missile attack?

Short range air defense (MPADS or radar guided guns) near likely targets.
Use planes to intercept cruise missiles during their flights.
Radar altimeters are the easiest way to consistently track them.

That will probably be sufficient. Even the first one would be enough, though.

the missiles will hide behind things the radar can't see through till it's far too late to stop them

No, they won't.

Cruise missiles are overrated. They're really slow planes, which don't maneuver, and constantly emit radar light. You couldn't ask for a more perfect target.

STAFF tried his hardest

and for that he gets the participation award, and a low level feature in a video game

like so many other ultimately pointless military development projects

STAFF was the Ultimate Weapon in M1TP2 ):<

[Laritaia]

Cruise missiles are overrated. They're really slow planes, which don't maneuver, and constantly emit radar light. You couldn't ask for a more perfect target.

newer cruise missiles do maneuver and don't constantly radiate

not everything is a first Gen tomahawk

[Gallia-]

Cruise missiles are overrated. They're really slow planes, which don't maneuver, and constantly emit radar light. You couldn't ask for a more perfect target.

newer cruise missiles do maneuver and don't constantly radiate

not everything is a first Gen tomahawk

The vast majority are and any radiation is a threat.

The best cruise missile in the world doesn't exist anymore, either.

[NeuPolska]

So given I have short range air defense as well as air superiority which thus allows me to use jets against incoming missiles (or bombers for that matter), plus this:

I was thinking of ways to protect a large radar array (or really any important structure or asset that isn't on tracks or wheels) with mostly static defenses. I figure trenches and artillery as well as anti-air batteries should do a good job of holding enemy forces back, especially if armored and mechanized detachments are stationed close enough to be able to reinforce said array.

Would I be able to feel confident that my enemy would have to launch a serious offensive against those defenses in order to either capture or eliminate whatever structure/asset is of interest?

[North Arkana]

So given I have short range air defense as well as air superiority which thus allows me to use jets against incoming missiles (or bombers for that matter), plus this:

I was thinking of ways to protect a large radar array (or really any important structure or asset that isn't on tracks or wheels) with mostly static defenses. I figure trenches and artillery as well as anti-air batteries should do a good job of holding enemy forces back, especially if armored and mechanized detachments are stationed close enough to be able to reinforce said array.

Would I be able to feel confident that my enemy would have to launch a serious offensive against those defenses in order to either capture or eliminate whatever structure/asset is of interest?

Get bombarded.

[Laritaia]

newer cruise missiles do maneuver and don't constantly radiate

not everything is a first Gen tomahawk

The vast majority are and any radiation is a threat.

The best cruise missile in the world doesn't exist anymore, either.

i presume you're talking about SLAM

[Gallia-]

The vast majority are and any radiation is a threat.

The best cruise missile in the world doesn't exist anymore, either.

i presume you're talking about SLAM

SLAM is just Tomahawk with a huge ego. Mach 3 at 500 feet is nothing special to a modern air defense interceptor. Mach 3 at 70,000 feet is a bit more trouble, though.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AGM-129_ACM

VLO, nuclear, and no radar emissions.

[Laritaia]

so just like nuclear tomahawk but with LIDAR and some expensive paint

[NeuPolska]

So given I have short range air defense as well as air superiority which thus allows me to use jets against incoming missiles (or bombers for that matter), plus this:



Would I be able to feel confident that my enemy would have to launch a serious offensive against those defenses in order to either capture or eliminate whatever structure/asset is of interest?

Get bombarded.

By what exactly?

[The Technocratic Syndicalists]

The vast majority are and any radiation is a threat.

The best cruise missile in the world doesn't exist anymore, either.

Neither the JASSM, CALCM, or SLAM have radar TERCOM. The only really effective defense is AWACS/JSTARS and fighters and/or interceptors with look down/shoot down radars as ground based defenses have too short a time to react and are thus easy to overwhelm with saturation cruise missile attacks.

Speaking of the ACM why it was never converted into a conventional missile ala CALCM instead of being scrapped seems like such a waste, the USAF passed on something that could conceivably have had a conventional warhead 3 times as big as a JASSM with range of around 1400-1500km, comparable to block III TLAM (assuming the W80 of the AGM-129A is replaced with the 3,000 PBXN-111 warhead of the block IA CALCM and using the breguet range equation to estimate the new range).

[Gallia-]

SLAM invented TERCOM. It had a big radar spike for a reason. ALCM also had a radar altimeter. Laser altimeters/LIDAR didn't become a thing until the 1980s, which is a decade after any AGM-86. JASSM also has a radar altimeter, because it's a poor man's ACM and the Navy can't afford to give it a LIDAR (which is why LRASM uses a radar altimeter), plus I'm not sure how well a LIDAR would work over water but that might've been an actual reason too. I think the AGM-158A just has a gyroscope and a GPS receiver, because they couldn't even afford to give it TERCOM, or it's a radar. It's not really clear because no one really cares.

Try harder.

ACM was never converted to a conventional role because it was overbuilt for that and it was a new build rather than a conversion.

Too cool for this gay Earth.

Everyone else is a pretender to the throne because they all rely on emitting radar noise to see how high they're flying. Only ACM uses a LIDAR for its altimeter because it's 1980s cyber magic. It's also the last nuclear penetrator, which probably is why they were willing to splurge money on its emissions profile. Which meant its entire flight path was controlled by a LIDAR unit which monitored its altitude, location, and identified its terminal attack target.

Conventional weapons are a dime a dozen compared to the targets that nuclear weapons would need to attack, OTOH. It's OK if a couple get shot down or fall out of the sky because you're firing dozens at a time.

[The Corparation]

In terms of countering cruise missiles the way that real men do it is to fly along side in a fighter and use the airflow of your wing tip to knock them over so they lose control and crash.

[The Technocratic Syndicalists]

SLAM invented TERCOM. It had a big radar spike for a reason. ALCM also had a radar altimeter. Laser altimeters/LIDAR didn't become a thing until the 1980s, which is a decade after any AGM-86. JASSM also has a radar altimeter, because it's a poor man's ACM and the Navy can't afford to give it a LIDAR (which is why LRASM uses a radar altimeter), plus I'm not sure how well a LIDAR would work over water but that might've been an actual reason too. I think the AGM-158A just has a gyroscope and a GPS receiver, because they couldn't even afford to give it TERCOM, or it's a radar. It's not really clear because no one really cares.

Try harder.

ACM was never converted to a conventional role because it was overbuilt for that and it was a new build rather than a conversion.

Too cool for this gay Earth.

Everyone else is a pretender to the throne because they all rely on emitting radar noise to see how high they're flying. Only ACM uses a LIDAR for its altimeter because it's 1980s cyber magic. It's also the last nuclear penetrator, which probably is why they were willing to splurge money on its emissions profile. Which meant its entire flight path was controlled by a LIDAR unit which monitored its altitude, location, and identified its terminal attack target.

Conventional weapons are a dime a dozen compared to the targets that nuclear weapons would need to attack, OTOH. It's OK if a couple get shot down or fall out of the sky because you're firing dozens at a time.

I'm referring to the actual in-service SLAM, not the nuclear ramjet one. Also the CALCM conversion replaces the TERCOM unit of the AGM-86B with a GPS. The LRASM, not the JASSM, does have a radar altimeter but only for sea-skimming purposes, LiDAR isn't an option since it penetrates water up to a few dozen feet in depth (although this makes it useful for naval mine detection alike in the helicopter mine AN/AES-1).

And why wouldn't a "CACM" conversion not work? The CALCM is just a conversion of new built AGM-86Bs, as I understand it they replaced the fuel tank with the conventional blast/frag warhead and put a new, smaller fuel tank where the W80 used to be. I don't see why you couldn't do the same with the ACM unless it has some sort of bizzare internal layout (I can't find any cutaway drawings of it). I recall the AGM-129 being proposed for use as a SAR equipped submunition deploying TEL hunter for the thirsty saber/thirsty warrior program which seems much more complex than a simple unitary payload and and a GPS kit.

[Gallia-]

I'm referring to the actual in-service SLAM

No one cares about Harpoon.

Also the CALCM conversion replaces the TERCOM unit of the AGM-86B with a GPS.

Worthless.

The LRASM, not the JASSM, does have a radar altimeter but only for sea-skimming purposes,

Which means it's a target.

And why wouldn't a "CACM" conversion not work?

Because it was never discussed.

AGM-129C was new build.

The reasons for this are painfully obvious: "CACM" would require converting the active nuclear cruise missile force, which is asinine. Alternatively you could manufacture an excess of missiles but this would require recreating a production line for a very small run (~200) of missiles. CALCM was cheaper, and by your account, intended to be the Whiffle Bat of military missiles. CACM would be too serious an endeavour for too trivial a reason to entertain.

thirsty saber/thirsty warrior

Also new build.

[Srpskaia]

I'm referring to the actual in-service SLAM

No one cares about Harpoon.

Also the CALCM conversion replaces the TERCOM unit of the AGM-86B with a GPS.

Worthless.

The LRASM, not the JASSM, does have a radar altimeter but only for sea-skimming purposes,

Which means it's a target.

And why wouldn't a "CACM" conversion not work?

Because it was never discussed.

AGM-129C was new build.

The reasons for this are painfully obvious: "CACM" would require converting the active nuclear cruise missile force, which is asinine. Alternatively you could manufacture an excess of missiles but this would require recreating a production line for a very small run (~200) of missiles. CALCM was cheaper, and by your account, intended to be the Whiffle Bat of military missiles. CACM would be too serious an endeavour for too trivial a reason to entertain.

thirsty saber/thirsty warrior

Also new build.

P-270 ?

[Austrasien]

The ACM has a radar altimeter for TERCOM reference AND a laser doppler velocimeter for doppler navigation. While it could fly its mission without a TERCOM reference this would come at the expense of accuracy.

Laser altimeters would be very challenging to use for TERCOM-type guidance because their spot resolution is very, very high. The altitude profiles they produce will be very noisy compared to radar altimeters because they will accurately record the presence of even very small features. In principle this makes them more accurate but in practice the comparatively limited resolution of real altitude maps, which are mostly created by radar surveys, would be quite challenging to match. They also have issues operating over water because water the reflection from water is almost entirely specular, and the water moves, and it is also highly absorptive at all frequencies, so it can be almost random when it can actually register the sea surface.

There is no cruise missile without a radar altimeter as far as I know. Quite a lot of work has gone into making relatively covert radar altimeters though for this reason.

Hypothetically if TERCOM was ditched entirely and a forward looking camera was used for TERPROM-type guidance, with the altimeter only serving to measure current height and there was no requirement to operate for extended periods over water or it was acceptable to rely on something else like GPS for that part of the journey, it would be possible. But this describes a requirement that doesn't really exist.

[The Technocratic Syndicalists]

snip

My point is that instead of removing their W80 warheads and crushing them with an excavator the USAF should have converted at least some of them into "CACMs" the same way they converted nuclear AGM-86B into conventional AGM-86Cs instead of just destroying them. The decision to just destroy them clearly wasn't motivated just by nuclear politics, converting a nuclear cruise missile into a conventional one counts as a reduction of your nuclear reduction under START the same way destroying one does. The argument that it would be too expensive or technically complicated also doesn't seem true because the USN and USAF had no problems converting their TLAM-Ns and ALCMs (respectively) into conventional missiles, why would the ACM be any different? My guess is that with the TSSAM project the USAF felt it redundant to have two stealthy cruise missiles although I would challenge this by saying a conventional ACM, being twice as large and all, has a lot more growth potential in terms of range/payload compared to the TSSAM/JASSM. A stealthy cruise missile with a range somewhere in the 900-1500 nmi range with a 2,000-3,000 ib warhead sounds pretty enticing compared to the 1,000 ib warhead and 600 nmi of the JASSM-ER, no?

The ACM has a radar altimeter for TERCOM reference AND a laser doppler velocimeter for doppler navigation. While it could fly its mission without a TERCOM reference this would come at the expense of accuracy.

Laser altimeters would be very challenging to use for TERCOM-type guidance because their spot resolution is very, very high. The altitude profiles they produce will be very noisy compared to radar altimeters because they will accurately record the presence of even very small features. In principle this makes them more accurate but in practice the comparatively limited resolution of real altitude maps, which are mostly created by radar surveys, would be quite challenging to match. They also have issues operating over water because water the reflection from water is almost entirely specular, and the water moves, and it is also highly absorptive at all frequencies, so it can be almost random when it can actually register the sea surface.

There is no cruise missile without a radar altimeter as far as I know. Quite a lot of work has gone into making relatively covert radar altimeters though for this reason.

Hypothetically if TERCOM was ditched entirely and a forward looking camera was used for TERPROM-type guidance, with the altimeter only serving to measure current height and there was no requirement to operate for extended periods over water or it was acceptable to rely on something else like GPS for that part of the journey, it would be possible. But this describes a requirement that doesn't really exist.

The wiki page for the ACM just says that it uses its lidar to give highly accurate speed measurements which I presume would be used to correct the speed reading of the INS. According to designation systems the lidar on the AGM-129 is the AN/DSN-2 and it's referred to as a "Laser Doppler Velocimeter". Since I have a hard-on for the AGM-129 I used as the basis for my strat bomber launched cruise missile.In my case for my AGM-129 clone I have the LiDAR but not the radar altimeter since the missile is designed to penetrate at medium altitude, not NOE where you need the radar altimeter for ground obstacle avoidance reasons. I figured for cruising at 30k ish feet a low observable static port and differential GPS would be sufficient for altitude measurement purposes.

[Austrasien]

http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/290941/

It is covered here.

[The Technocratic Syndicalists]

http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/290941/

It is covered here.

Nice find, I'm kind of surprised it's not classified since I haven't be able to find any detailed info on the ACM through the usual channels like DTIC and AIAA. I've been under the assumption that the LRSO is going to basically to be an new build, slightly updated ACM so the DoD and USAF would have an interest in keeping the technical details of the original ACM "hush-hush" if you will.

[Gallia-]

The ACM has a radar altimeter for TERCOM reference AND a laser doppler velocimeter for doppler navigation. While it could fly its mission without a TERCOM reference this would come at the expense of accuracy.

ACM trash just like the rest of them.

So the laser was really just because they didn't want to/have GPS him I guess? Still better than JASSM.

Laser altimeters would be very challenging to use for TERCOM-type guidance because their spot resolution is very, very high.

TBH this was itching the back of my mind but I just assumed there was a super cool LIDAR camera for Army mapping planes or sth.

There is no cruise missile without a radar altimeter as far as I know. Quite a lot of work has gone into making relatively covert radar altimeters though for this reason.

RIP.

Just cover all water with dirt so that it is opaque to laser light.

Land is power.

http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/290941/

It is covered here.

This owns irl.

[Austrasien]

They probably do use LIDAR mapping but Russia isn't going to let them make maps

It is also expensive. A few hundred dollars per square mile.

[Gallia-]

They probably do use LIDAR mapping but Russia isn't going to let them make maps

VLO mapping aircraft.

Make it happen America.

Or just RQ-170s over Siberia.

e: Or satellites.

[Austrasien]

TERCOM is mostly a legacy technology now. Large scale scene matching will likely be used in the future as it is generally more practical than high resolution altitude profile matching.

[The Technocratic Syndicalists]

The paper makes the point that the ACM doesn't necessarily need to use its radar altimeter/TERCOM function for guidance, it can be programmed to fly purely inertial to the target using pre-programmed waypoints and only use the radar altimeter in the terminal stage to detonate at whatever reprogramming height of burst. In any case in terrain following TERCOM mode the radar altimeter is not continuously emitting and I'm guessing its sidelobes are small enough that no passive ECM system could reliably track it at useful range. I'm also quite positive that the CALCM lacks a radar altimeter as the entire TERCOM unit (which includes both a radar altimeter and a barometric altimeter) was replaced with a GPS. So it's possible to make a cruise missile that doesn't use TERCOM and/or lacks a radar altimeter. And from what I've heard the reason they're putting a radar altimeter in the LRASM (whichthey're considering adding to the JASSM-ER) is for sea-skimming flight profiles which is the only scenario in which it's really necessary.

[Austrasien]

The paper makes the point that the ACM doesn't necessarily need to use its radar altimeter/TERCOM function for guidance, it can be programmed to fly purely inertial to the target using pre-programmed waypoints and only use the radar altimeter in the terminal stage to detonate at whatever reprogramming height of burst. In any case in terrain following TERCOM mode the radar altimeter is not continuously emitting and I'm guessing its sidelobes are small enough that no passive ECM system could reliably track it at useful range. I'm also quite positive that the CALCM lacks a radar altimeter as the entire TERCOM unit (which includes both a radar altimeter and a barometric altimeter) was replaced with a GPS. So it's possible to make a cruise missile that doesn't use TERCOM and/or lacks a radar altimeter. And from what I've heard the reason they're putting a radar altimeter in the LRASM (whichthey're considering adding to the JASSM-ER) is for sea-skimming flight profiles which is the only scenario in which it's really necessary.

Doppler inertial navigation is significantly less accurate, especially given the missiles significant flight time to maximum range.