| 作者 |
 標題  |
|
|
Reinherd Von Hwang提督
我是老鳥
USA
9555 Posts |
 Posted - 12/28/2011 : 12:36:37
|
我最近好奇一個問題
就是過去有些人在提說要開發類似SL-AMRAAM的天劍二防空系統
(類似多年前台北航展的那套多功能發射系統)
用以取代鷹式飛彈對抗低空滲透目標
但是我覺得有一點很奇怪
就是現代化的高空防空飛彈不是也能打低空目標嗎?
例如說海軍的SM-2飛彈就能打低空掠海而來的反艦飛彈
美軍也測試過用PAC-3打巡弋飛彈目標
http://www.globalsecurity.org/space/systems/patriot-ac-3-fote.htm
"On 02 September 2004 the U.S Army conducted a successful intercept test flight of the Patriot Advanced Capability-3 (PAC-3) missile system at White Sands Missile Range, N.M., at approximately 7:15 Mountain Daylight Time. Preliminary test data indicates two targets were intercepted and mission objectives were achieved. Objectives of this mission included demonstrating the performance of a PAC-3 missile with hardware changes that improve producibility and reduce missile cost. The test also demonstrated the system's capability to detect, track, engage and intercept a short-range tactical ballistic missile target and a low-altitude cruise missile target. The targets for the mission were a Patriot-as-a-Target (PAAT), a Patriot legacy missile modified to represent a short-range ballistic missile (SRBM); and an MQM-107 subscale drone aircraft, representing a cruise missile. "
如果說是用來當作點防禦或是野戰防空我覺得還說得過去
(機動跟上野戰部隊 加上目前可以CAS遠距離丟JDAM)
但是真的需要用這個來彌補現有的PAC飛彈"低空罩門"嗎??
|
|
|
慎．中野
我是老鳥
27918 Posts |
Posted - 12/28/2011 : 12:41:44
|
如果成本效益比用PAC打低空更便宜，那就完全有必要。
俗語說：殺雞焉用牛刀？
所以你需要殺雞刀。
－－－－
「我乃是根據個人一向仰賴的研究方法而得出結論。我的方法就是：道聽途說加上斷章取義，然後歸納推理，最後忘掉訊息來源，開始強詞奪理，堅持我所言就是既定事實。」
史考特．亞當斯，《呆伯特之黃鼠狼當道》
 |
 |
|
|
toga
版主
Tajikistan
12758 Posts |
Posted - 12/28/2011 : 13:17:51
|
PAC-3單位總體成本兩三百萬美金一發，AMRAAM單位總體成本則是五十萬至一百萬美金一發∼在進行以彈制彈ATCM作戰時，何者能夠買得多撐得久，顯而易見。
一萌二PAK三聯閃，四代歐風五國潘，十全側衛百戰鷹，成千蟲隼萬國繁。 |
Edited by - toga on 12/28/2011 13:18:36 |
|
|
|
dasha
版主
41770 Posts |
Posted - 12/28/2011 : 16:05:14
|
AMRAAM或天劍二這種東西,基本上不能當成機動防空武器,至少行進間射擊還是有困難......
不過用這個取代鷹式,相對於愛國者Pac3或弓三,會有幾個優點:
1.生產量夠大的話,飛彈便宜得多.
2.雖然廠商都會號稱可以攔截低空目標,可是陸基防空飛彈還是要注意,低空容不容易一操作就因為轉彎半徑太大撞擊地面或地物之類問題,這方面飛彈越小則有效攔截目標高度會越低,因為轉向時的慣性之類比較小.
3.因為性能上不可能去攔截彈道飛彈,比較不會發生把六組飛彈都拿來拱衛首都,導致本來要保護的本土空域只好繼續由老系統保護這種鳥事...... |
|
|
|
Bryan C
路人甲乙丙
USA
1455 Posts |
Posted - 12/28/2011 : 17:47:37
|
I-HAWK batteries in Taiwan's service is mainly concern about medium altitude fighter/bomber targets. But I-HAWK's engagement ability of low altitude targets in ROCAF/ROC Army service is still questionable. Maximum range of the MIM-23B to M version's engagement envelope is 1.5km to 40 km (0.93 to 25 mi) in range at high altitude up to 18,000 m (59,000 ft), and 2.5 to 20 km (1.6 to 12 mi) at low altitude with minimum engagement altitude of 60 meters (200 ft). With 2 fire control channel, a battery can only engage against 2 bandits at any one time. Later Phase III upgrade batteries can engage 12 targets with reduce engagement range and within the same 60 degrees fan arc, but not all Taiwan's I-HAWK batteries are upgraded to PIP Phase III(with AN/MPQ-61 and AN/MPQ-62 radars), and don't think if any were upgraded to HAWK XXI(AN/MPQ-64 radar).
Then keep in mind with locations of the I-HAWK batteries in Taiwan, factoring in that most sites are not at the beach or has the line of sight to see low flying altitude targets over Taiwan Strait, and the low level engagement range is reduced down to just 2.5 to 20km. That's not much coverage to speak of. Then the fact the HAWK missile was originally only to able targeting aircraft, not cruise missiles, doesn't mean it can target incoming cruise missile that will have reduced RCS when compare with fighter or bomber size targets.....
That's why US Army and USMC gave the low level mission now to Avenger/Stinger. For Taiwan, stick with TC-1/Antelope(assuming ROC Army willing to buy CSIST/ROCAF's airbase defense stuff after they get the SAM mission back from ROCAF), get something else like TC-2 or SL-AMRAAM, or create something else. But those Avengers in ROC Army still barely has any sort of search radars in their units to deal with low level targets, since CSIST just now building them this year---after not buying PSTAR back in 1990s......
Also, PAC-3 missile's low level max engagement range against low flying cruise missile, currently is 15km..... And based on the 3 current PAC-2+/GEM bases around Taipei, that won't touch the sea.... |
Edited by - Bryan C on 12/28/2011 18:43:42 |
|
|
| |
標題 |
|
|
|
SL-AMRAAM 的定位
