Effectivement Ian est très intéressant ... J'extrais en décembre 2019 ( 14 au 17 )
"I would say that the Aster Block 2 and the EABMDI are the same missile. France probably measured the financial costs associated with the development of such a missile, and decided to make an Europe-wide proposal to share costs."
"Both sources talk about an europeean program proposed by France for the development of a new missile called the EABMDI (for European Air and Ballistic Missile Defence Interceptor).There is nothing online about this EABMDI, I guess this is because it is a new thing."
"In the last few years, MBDA has been completely silent about the Block 2. Regarding official interest, in the Aster Block 2, a report from the French senate written in 2011 states the importance of the missile in the BMD plans for Europe, but no further actions were suggested."
"OK, let’s discuss ballistic missile defense in Europe. I will not talk about the US plans for EU-based BMD, but about what the EU have in term of indigenously -developed BMD systems. And boys, there’s a lot a say."
"This is probably why the GroundFire300 was considered for the SAMP/T NG despite the performance gap between the Aster 30 Block 1 NT and the radar. It is likely that the EABMDI will be deployed on SAMP/T TELs as well as on the ships using A50/70 VLS."
"I found a low-quality video online showing the Aster Block 2 beeing fired from a SAMP/T system. If the EABMDI and the Block 2 are the same missile, this is likely how the system will be used." ( vidéo 14/12/2019 )
"Aster Block 2 BMD Missile" ==> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lQx8HDvtR9I&feature=youtu.be
"The Block 2 was described in MBDA slides as able to destroy IRBMs in the 3000Km range. I will try when I have time to do a performance analysis of an hypothetical two-stages, 45cm-diameter BMD missile. It will be interesting to try to approximate the size of the defendable area."
"In the meantime, I hope more information about the EABMDI will become available soon. BMD in Europe should be a priority given the new threats (Iskander, anyone?) we might be facing in the future."
"I found an interesting article from late November on Jane’s website ( https://janes.com/article/92789/mbda-positions-disruptive-interceptor-solution-for-twister-missile-defence-project…), and I wanted to discuss a few things about MBDA's EABMDI, MaRV and BMD interceptors."
"In this article about TWISTER, it is reported that MBDA is involved heavily (Hi @marcusmfk ) in designing a « disruptive » interceptor for the project. As it is unlikely that MBDA will develop two BMD missiles at the same time, I assume this interceptor is the EABMDI."
"Now, the question is, what does this « disruptive » term means? Well, there's something very strange going on there...All BMD missiles that I know about (PAC-3, 9M82/83, Sprint…) use conventional solid propulsion (see pictures)."
"However, on the picture MBDA sent to the press, the missile depicted is using an air-breathing engine, namely a ramjet. MBDA have been very committed to using ramjets on their products (the ASMP, the Meteor…), so if someone was to use one on a BMD missile, it would be them."
"Why would you want such a propulsion system on a BMD missile? I can see a few reasons. The main advantage of a ramjet vs solid propellant (yes, I know most missile ramjets are Solid Fuel Integrated Rocket Ramjets – SFIRR-, but you get the idea) is efficiency."
"Since a ramjet uses the oxygen from the air and doesn’t have to carry its own oxidizer, it can provide more thrust, or the same thrust for longer, than a solid fuel rocket of the same weight/dimensions."
"This means that, for a given missile size and weight, the ramjet can give you more range (through longer burn time at the same thrust level) or more speed (more thrust for the same duration)."
"In the case of a classic, solid-propellant missile, you usually have a short-duration propelled flight, then an unpowered coast flight. Once in non-propelled flight, each maneuver will cost the missile energy in the form of speed and/or altitude."
"At the end of the flight, that missile will be low on energy and will be unable to undertake significant maneuvers. When dealing with strictly ballistic targets, this isn't an issue: the endgame depends more on sensor and local maneuvering performances than anything else."
"The trajectory of the RV (or the whole missile, if it doesn’t have a detachable RV) is predictable enough that a carefully shot missile will get close enough of that predicted trajectory. In that scenario, you will not need to perform any major course alteration."
"This however changes dramatically if you’re dealing with a Maneuverable Reentry Vehicle (MaRV). MaRVs can alter their trajectory, to:
1 - Improve the precision of the warhead, to hit very specific targets (that’s the case for ballistic AShMs like the DF-21D, or for some more..."
"traditional ballistic missiles like the active radar terminal-guidance version of the Pershing II),
2 - Increase the size of the targetable footprint for multiple-MaRVs missiles,
3 - theoretically, defeat interception by undertaking evasive maneuvers."
"MaRVs are a major problem for BMD systems manufacturers, because solid fuel missiles have usually little ability to compensate for the large maneuvers MaRVs are capable of; once your engine shuts down, performing a significant change in trajectory comes with an important..."
"...energy penalty, a reduced range and a lower Pk. This problem can be mitigated by using a SFIRR interceptor: for the whole duration of the propelled flight, the missile can change trajectory easily, in a much more efficient fashion than a conventional solid fuel engine missile."
"This longer burn time also increases the maneuverability of the missile in the endgame, since your time-since-burnout will be shorter than with a solid fuel rocket engine, and your energy state will be better. This comes with a few drawbacks though."
"Since you’re using an air-breathing engine, you obviously need…air (crazy, I know). This means that, unlike other high-end BMD interceptors, you will be limited to endo-atmospheric interceptions."
"The consequence of this design choice is that your window of opportunity for an interception of a conventional RV will be very reduced (see picture - and I'm sorry for this lame illustration, I was too tired to do something better...)."
@hadriel l'image qui résume tout: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EL86wcHXsAAjExf.jpg
"This will put a tremendous strain on the tracking and datalink parts of the system. With such a reduced firing window, there will be no time for a shoot-look-shoot strategy. However, since the demands on radars and datalinks will already be a challenge when dealing with MaRVs..."
"...because of the need for a reliable target tracking and missile course updates during MaRV maneuvers, it is likely that the infrastructure will be designed to cope with that difficulty. Another limitation is that MaRVs will maneuver once they have enough air to generate lift."
"By intercepting outside of the atmosphere, you deny them the opportunity to maneuver. By opposition, the air-breathing missile will have to intercept them in the denser, lower atmosphere where they will be able to maneuver."
"(however, the defendable footprint of a solid fuel interceptor will be smaller the one of the ramjet interceptor, so the MaRV would have to reenter basically above your launch site –like a conventional RV– for that kind of interception to take place. An unlikely scenario)."
"Bottom line: the ramjet interceptor makes sense if you want to counter MaRVs, or if you want to use your missiles in a dual-use system (AAW and BMD). However, this will come at the cost of a reduced interception window against conventional RVs.
"Since most advanced countries are now developing MaRVs, these may become the main ballistic threat in the years to come, and designing interceptors specifically to deal with them might prove a good idea."
"Regarding the EABMDI, I think that the illustration depicting a ramjet-propelled missile intercepting a flat-body MaRV looking a lot like the Chinese WU-14 says a lot... :) It also means that I was wrong about the Aster block 2 and the EABMDI beeing the same missile..."
"A few more things that I should've said in the main thread:
1 - If MBDA plans on using a ramjet for its BMD missile, the GroundFire 300 radar from the SAMP/T NG makes sense. It will bring the needed range for MaRV tracking and motion analysis."
2 - I think I need to give more details about this obscure picture. This is the trajectory of an american MaRV (the AMaRV). The top line is the MaRV itself, entering the atmosphere at a steep angle then gliding towards its target. The second line is the booster's trajectory.
3 - I discussed here about MaRVs because they are already filded by some nations, but hypersonic gliding vehicules (HGVs) will present the same characteristics and challenges."