Stingers against Supersonic Cruise Missiles

[major_sam47]

Stingers against Supersonic Cruise Missiles

I am seeking the opinion of experienced military personnel on some questions I had regarding cruise missile defense methods. I’d greatly appreciate any time you could spare to respond.

1. How many stingers would be necessary to take out one or several cruise missiles moving between Mach 2.5 and 3.0 ?

2. How would the stingers have to approach the cruise to successfully destroy it – from behind into its propulsion unit ? Mid-section ? Head-on ?

3. What are the radar challenges in detecting low altitude cruise missiles ?

4. Could a low flying cruise missile be detected by a low altitude loitering UAV equipped with suitable stand alone radar sensors, and be able to transmit the cruise missile’s trajectory information to a stinger system on the ground ahead of the incoming cruise missile, to be able to destroy it in time ? If this is viable, how high would the UAV have to fly ? How could a gain in altitude of such a radar sensor equipped UAV enhance its detection abilities ? Would it be viable to arm the UAV with air to air stingers as well ?

5. If such a concept is viable, would there be interest from the Indonesian, Malaysian, Turkish, Pakistani, Central Asian militaries, Arab militaries, to procure such a system ? Who would be the decision makers in the country on the procurement of such systems – generals or ministry of defence ?

6. What simulation and CAD programs, by name, could be used to adequately test and develop the concept ? What software programs could be used to develop a prototype of the UAV ?

7. Could it be possible to develop a man-portable version of the UAV and the ground mounted stinger system ? – that is, weight and size effective enough for transport by infantry, without the aid of a vehicle ?

Thank you for your time.

 

[InsightDubai]

were stingers desinged to destroy cruise missiles? Cruise missile will remain undected to radars with terrain hugging capabilities at very high speed even in the near future. Stingers donot have the ability to manouver as as compared to the cruise missiles. Stinger missiles are heat seakers and cruise missile leave a very low heat signature making it even more hard to detect and destroy.

 

[TexasJohn]

Correct. Manpads are not the answer to cruise missiles. Better luck with a CIWs like the land based phalynx

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4897647549985392214

 

[Keysersoze]

Actually gentlemen there are several options to supersonic cruise missiles and MANPADS are one such system.
You are all thinking about tomahawk type missiles which travel at a low speed. Supersonic cruise missiles tend to generate a lot of heat (especially during it's "terminal phase" at low levels) so a all aspect MANPAD SAM would be capable of shooting down a supersonic cruise missile if the shooter knew it was coming. However there are better options such as the Rolling airframe missile system (that fits onto a existing CIwS platform) or SM2 and Aster missiles. Also the old fashioned phalanx system would suffice as a "goal keeper" system. Bear in mind doctrine for such missiles (developed by the Russians) involved firing a lot of these and overwhelming the air defence of the target.

Ok with detection it is simple......AWACS is the best place to start it is designed to spot low flying missiles and a fighter can intercept it with another missile. Next radars on CAP aircraft then ground based radars. There are also ground based, radar guided AA gun systems


If you are interested in UAV's you should check what the U.S. has developed with designs such as the Predator drone. For an example of what a drone can be used for.

 

[InsightDubai]

Correct. Manpads are not the answer to cruise missiles. Better luck with a CIWs like the land based phalynx

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4897647549985392214

Nice video, phalynx is the land version of vulcan which were designed for the naval anti missile close defence.

 

[InsightDubai]

Correct. Manpads are not the answer to cruise missiles. Better luck with a CIWs like the land based phalynx

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4897647549985392214

Nice video, phalynx is the land version of vulcan which were designed for the naval anti-ship missiles close defence.

 

[ucmicu]

cool idea!

stinger point defence!! -- wow!

anyhow, as per my calcs, yes it can be done -- quite cost effectively

yet y dont you replace the drone with a kite, and put a stinger or to upon it as well. in detection/guidance my vote would b doppler ir

b advised there exists a strong pro eifel tower group within pakistan that continue to vicously defend itself from kites. which is primarily why we have so many so expensive towers, especially communication, despite the kite technology being there. drones will be quite expensive. you should be able to reduce cost further by adding more cost effective missles. stingers, compared to there performance, are too expensive. speed for eg, matters far less than ppl often think -- in fact it takes your ability to target......

 

[PeaceForAll]

we are talking of supersonic cruise missiles here.. are u looking for defence against a misslie system like Brahmos from India?

 

[ucmicu]

we are talking of supersonic cruise missiles here.. are u looking for defence against a misslie system like Brahmos from India?

Targeting a faster incoming ufo only requires faster targeting and guidance. intercepting ufos NOT coming directly onto you can be left to the larger kites. Point defence is about intercepting incoming ufos -- only. Kites are the name of the game if you want to utterly control the air space. i am talking kites generating electricity -- consuming them in microwave guns (stimulated). Current 3-D targeting of such systems means there is no question of them being reflected, and if targeting over an acceptable range is consuming you -- cavity resonance proves to be have inherent 'guidance'. These systems (kites) are available in the Pakistani market. The US is developing something similar though they intend to keep it on ground.

 

[XYON]

There is not much one can do when a Cruise Missile is in-abound towards a target. However, a Crisue Missile can be knocked out of its path by having a GPS Jamming System in place in and around the intended target which can be initiated once the missile threat is imminent. The Cruise Missile electronics are designed not to detonate the missile in case it falls astray of the intended target. Case and point being the ship based US Tomahwaks fired during Clinton administration from the Arabian Sea to the Al-Qaeda camps in Afghanistan. Some of these missiles fell into Pakistani territory due to electronic failures and did not explode. Some of the fallen units were in very good shape.

 

[Munir]

Just check max speed stinger and time. to react if CM passes... Not very much chance

 

[ucmicu]

making the cruise missle jamming proof is childs play compared to paying its bill at purchase time! a jammer isn't saving anywhere from a missle costing so much. Indian cruise weapons are supersonic -- supersonic cruising is miles apart from subsonic cruising from the engineering point of view. supersonic cruise can't hide, make the subsonic from non-metallic material and it just about gaurantees success. Also, don't chase to destroy a supersonic cruise missle -- you have beam weapons for that. missles would only be cost effective for such infantry based point defence. their success probability should increase dramatically if you use a SLOWER missle.

 

[the saint]

Ok first of all stingers have a less speed as compared to a cruise msl , secondly manuverability of stinger is in compatible with a terrain hugging cruise msl. Thirdly why spend so much initially on stingers ( which no one is going to sell , especially in the present scenario ) and then spend plenty of money , time and effort on a detection radar. We need to buy a capable himad providing us some if not complete protection against both the threats i.e CMs and high alt bomber also countering in some ways the stand off threat

 

[Imran Khan]

we already work on this i thing HQ-9 selected but news will never come out

 

[ucmicu]

Ok first of all stingers have a less speed as compared to a cruise msl , secondly manuverability of stinger is in compatible with a terrain hugging cruise msl. Thirdly why spend so much initially on stingers ( which no one is going to sell , especially in the present scenario ) and then spend plenty of money , time and effort on a detection radar. We need to buy a capable himad providing us some if not complete protection against both the threats i.e CMs and high alt bomber also countering in some ways the stand off threat

I agree stingers are too expensive for the task, which is why i suggested a new missle. Anyhow, you have quite an impression of radars: they need not cost a fortune. The idea was that of point air defence by and for the infantry -- in which case taking out helicopters and armor should be more beneficial -- but then one could put such point defence on his own tanks!

summary is: low cost missles, detection and guidance -- is something quite generic in warfare. finds applications in too many scenarios. i recall some group was also working guided bullets!