US Navy Releases Video Of System To Counter Russia And China 'Ship-Killer' Missiles

[Swordsmyth]

As China and Russia continue to build up their arsenal of “ship-killer” missiles, the United States Navy apparently has plans to counter the weapons. Officials have said that the Navy and numerous NATO partners are firing a new, high-tech ship defense weapon that can identify, track, and attack maneuvering anti-ship missiles.
https://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/inline-images/submarine-missile-e1528816621312_0.jpg
Using an active seeker which enables the missile to change course in flight, is the method of “attack” against the anti-ship missiles of the Chinese and the Russians, service officials have said, according to National Interest. (https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/china-and-russia-are-building-lots-ship-killer-missiles-navy-has-plans-counter-them-29257)

The Evolved Sea Sparrow Missile Block II, or ESSM, is a new version of an existing Sea Sparrow weapons system currently protecting aircraft carriers, destroyers, cruisers, amphibious assault ships and other vessels against anti-ship missiles and other surface and airborne short-range threats to ships.
The recent live-fire test follows the successful completion of two Controlled Test Vehicle flight tests in June 2017 and is the first in a series of live fire tests that will lead to the ESSM Block 2 missile entering production, Naval Sea Systems Command spokesman Alan Baribeau told Warrior Maven.-National Interest (https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/china-and-russia-are-building-lots-ship-killer-missiles-navy-has-plans-counter-them-29257)
https://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/inline-images/Screen-Shot-2018-08-21-at-4.45.21-PM.png
The ESSM Block 2 live-fire exercise was the first use of the weapon’s active seeker system.
https://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/inline-images/Screen-Shot-2018-08-21-at-5.23.18-PM-600x451%20%281%29.png
That’s the emerging technology which enables the missile to achieve improved flight guidance, which will help it target by both receiving and actively sending electromagnetic signals, Navy officials said.
https://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/inline-images/ESSM-Sea-Sparrow-17-April-2015.jpg
The ESSM also uses radar technology to locate and then intercept a fast-approaching target while in flight. Additionally, the use of what’s called an “illuminator” is a big part of this capability, Raytheon developers told Warrior Maven in prior interviews. (https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/china-and-russia-are-building-lots-ship-killer-missiles-navy-has-plans-counter-them-29257)
The hopes are that this defense weapon can combat the “ship-killer” missiles being developed and constantly advanced by the Chinese and the Russians.

The emerging missile has an “active” front end, meaning it can send an electromagnetic signal forward to track a maneuvering target, at times without needing a ship-based illuminator for guidance.
Also, the missile is able to intercept threats that are close to the surface by sea-skimming or diving in onto a target from a higher altitude, Navy officials explained. –National Interest (https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/china-and-russia-are-building-lots-ship-killer-missiles-navy-has-plans-counter-them-29257)
According to PEO IWS Public Affairs, the NATO Seasparrow Project is an international effort of 12 nations consisting of Australia, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Germany, Greece, The Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Spain, Turkey and the United States. Each nation contributes to engineering, development, production, and sustainment of the missiles and supporting equipment.

More at: https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-08-22/us-navy-releases-video-system-counter-russia-and-china-ship-killer-missiles

[r3volution 3.0]

I'll wager that the war plans still don't, and won't, involve putting a CVN within 100 miles of the Chinese coast.

As usual, the generals (or, in this case, admirals) are fighting the last war.

The carrier is done: useful as a mobile airfield for bombing unarmed goat herders.

The US has gone too long without a peer-level competitor: getting complacent.

...that and the fat contracts to build these modern battleships are politically tough to cancel.

[nikcers]

I'll wager that the war plans still don't, and won't, involve putting a CVN within 100 miles of the Chinese coast.

As usual, the generals (or, in this case, admirals) are fighting the last war.

The carrier is done: useful as a mobile airfield for bombing unarmed goat herders.

The US has gone too long without a peer-level competitor: getting complacent.

...that and the fat contracts to build these modern battleships are politically tough to cancel.

I think China and Russia both have "superweapons" involved maneuvering "missles" that exploit perceived gaps in our missile defense that are low, above water. This isn't a show of power, this is just a show of teeth.

[r3volution 3.0]

I think China and Russia both have "superweapons" involved maneuvering "missles" that exploit perceived gaps in our missile defense that are low, above water. This isn't a show of power, this is just a show of teeth.

They may have more advanced missiles than they appear to, entirely possible.

However, that's gravy. The death knell of the carrier is the advent of cheap, dumb missiles.

The way that a carrier group defends itself from incoming missiles is by firing its own missiles.

They only have so many of those missiles either loaded to fire or onboard at all.

All that an opponent has to do is fire enough dumb missiles to exhaust the anti-missile-missiles.

This is known as a "saturation attack," and it's fool proof.

At the end of the day, it's a matter of money.

If you can sink a $10 billion dollar CVN with $200 million dollars worth of missiles, you win.

Bright, young naval officers have been warning about this for decades.

The contractors admirals won't listen.

[nikcers]

They may have more advanced missiles than they appear to, entirely possible.

However, that's gravy. The death knell of the carrier is the advent of cheap, dumb missiles.

The way that a carrier group defends itself from incoming missiles is by firing its own missiles.

They only have so many of those missiles either loaded to fire or onboard at all.

All that an opponent has to do is fire enough dumb missiles to exhaust the anti-missile-missiles.

This is known as a "saturation attack," and it's fool proof.

At the end of the day, it's a matter of money.

If you can sink a $10 billion dollar CVN with $200 million dollars worth of missiles, you win.

Bright, young naval officers have been warning about this for decades.

The contractors admirals won't listen.

So where do keep your missles that you use to shoot down wave riding hypersonic missiles or nuclear powered rocket engine missles that can stay in the air indefinitely when you are surrounded by water? Do you want to shoot that shit down anywhere near the country or try to get it over the water?

[r3volution 3.0]

So where do keep your missles that you use to shoot down wave riding hypersonic missiles or nuclear powered rocket engine missles that can stay in the air indefinitely when you are surrounded by water? Do you want to shoot that shit down anywhere near the country or try to get it over the water?

You mean how would a CVN shoot down some of the exotic missiles which Russia/China allegedly have?

If that is the question, my answer is: I have absolutely no idea, maybe they can't, but it doesn't really matter.

Today's low-tech (and, crucially, low cost) missiles are sufficient to make the aircraft carrier irrelevant.

[goldenequity]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d6rBbLR0aks

[nikcers]

You mean how would a CVN shoot down some of the exotic missiles which Russia/China allegedly have?

If that is the question, my answer is: I have absolutely no idea, maybe they can't, but it doesn't really matter.

Today's low-tech (and, crucially, low cost) missiles are sufficient to make the aircraft carrier irrelevant.

Yeah but you are barking up the wrong tree here with your low cost, that isn't the goal at all. Just imagine if you are a scared voter, scared of these exotic missles that China and Russia supposedly have. And you see our so called defense, that is supposed to keep us safe, from these things that are unstoppable. How much are you going to be for cutting military spending?

[r3volution 3.0]

Yeah but you are barking up the wrong tree here with your low cost, that isn't the goal at all. Just imagine if you are a scared voter, scared of these exotic missles that China and Russia supposedly have. And you see our so called defense, that is supposed to keep us safe, from these things that are unstoppable. How much are you going to be for cutting military spending?

Well, if I were trying to get elected, I would just call for more spending, of course (doesn't matter what for).

But I thought we were talking about what the US military (navy, in particular) actually ought to be doing.

[nikcers]

Well, if I were trying to get elected, I would just call for more spending, of course (doesn't matter what for).

But I thought we were talking about what the US military (navy, in particular) actually ought to be doing.

We wouldn't need half the military we have if we were doing what we actually ought to be doing, as it is now they want to double it, add a space force, and they will get it too, we lost the election.

[r3volution 3.0]

We wouldn't need half the military we have if we were doing what we actually ought to be doing

Agreed


as it is now they want to double it, add a space force, and they will get it too, we lost the election.

That appears to be the situation.

[pcosmar]

They think this will help the Navy last longer than 15 minutes against Iran.

They are seriously intent on folly.