Yuku free message boards

Wouldn't that rankle the PRC?

I suspect that this early de-comming is to do a few things:

-- free up fuel for the DDG-51s that need more at-sea time, increasing ASW work since the PRC and Russia appear to be upping their game
-- free up money and billets for cross-decking programs that might or might not be in the pipeline
-- free up money to throw at the DDG-1000s
-- set aside money to make up for shortfalls in the mandatory budget cuts/budget reduction
-- pay off early discharges and accrued leave for any "excess" billets and to cover for final travel or for duty reassignments related to the decomms

-- other stuff I am not visualizing, but others can definitely comment on...

sergeante wrote:

---

FreshAirSnipe wrote:

---

My information may be out of date, but isn't the Aegis version of ABM incapable of intercepting ICBMs?

In theater/short-medium range ballistic targets (scud type, etc.) only?

Incapable? It's a little bit more nuanced than capable/incapable. The theater ballistic missile requirement is about range and angle offset from the missile trajectory -- IOW the dynamics of the engagement envelope. The system has been demonstrated against a satellite in orbit, so target velocity is not the issue. It's just being where you can hit the target, which for SM-3 can't be more than about 300 nm from the launching ship.  

Say, Sergeante,

I that case, why cannot a down range ABM-capable DDG or even a shore station or even TACAMO-type aircraft be handed the contact control? Theoretically, then, the USN could hand off control 3/4 the way around the globe. Or, is the system software hard-coded just for Aegis? Supposedly, Aegis could take control of DD/DDG/CG-fired missiles and help extend the USN's hemispherical reach. That probably was just marketing, or too expensive to quarterly test and certify. If that's the case, I guess it's plausible that such testing and certification of ABM would ratchet up missile talks stresses...

Please enlighten me!

sergeante wrote:

---

daetaku wrote:

---

Say, Sergeante,

I that case, why cannot a down range ABM-capable DDG or even a shore station or even TACAMO-type aircraft be handed the contact control? Theoretically, then, the USN could hand off control 3/4 the way around the globe. Or, is the system software hard-coded just for Aegis? Supposedly, Aegis could take control of DD/DDG/CG-fired missiles and help extend the USN's hemispherical reach. That probably was just marketing, or too expensive to quarterly test and certify. If that's the case, I guess it's plausible that such testing and certification of ABM would ratchet up missile talks stresses...

Please enlighten me!

I don't know that much about it, just the basic physics. From what I've read, the SM-3 missile is being given guidance information all the way until final intercept, including telling the kill vehicle what direction to look for the target with it's IR seeker. That means Aegis has to have detailed knowledge about both the target and the kill vehicle trajectories, converged into a single tactical picture. It seems to me that for purely practical reasons, you need the firing ship to be the engagement director all the way through. 

  

That makes sense, but I was thinking that the firing ship could still manage the kill, but it could have the choice of receiving the big picture from linked-in ships, or elect to hand it off. If it can elect to keep control, then netting the firing ship to others that supply refined data means the firing ship should be capable of exceeding the some-300 nm limit. The problem will be to link up all the ships, and have them all in some passive pre-engagement mode with one designated ship in the controller roll, with the option to hand off the kill or terminal impact. That would be practical in the event the firing/killing ship has a local equipment casualty -- or worse, is threatened by some sub that lurks or by sudden weather pictures. Granted, at 300 nm, and at the speeds the kill vehicle will be moving, the whole firing order to tracking to launching to killing might not be a long period of time. Ten to 20 minutes of pre-engagement tracking to kinetic or prox kill?

So, I guess in that regard, you're definitely right that the firing ship -- being constrained to 300 nm -- should handle the whole engagement.