便宜无人机 可摧毁百亿神盾舰

来源:百度文库 编辑:超级军网 时间:2024/03/28 22:20:53
便宜无人机 可摧毁百亿神盾舰

世界新闻网/纽约综合报导  January 11, 2016, 8:46 am  

美国最先进、最贵的「神盾」军舰,遇到无人机以群峰战术攻击时,可能也没辙。

根据军事网站「defense tech」报导,美国海军模拟上百次无人机群峰战术攻击发现,即便是神盾舰,在遭遇8架无人机同时攻击时,平均会有2.8架无人机成功,印证用便宜的无人机,让造价上百亿元的神盾舰成为废铁是可行的战术。而守军用的则是世界上最好的防御系统「神盾」,整合了侦测、干扰、诱饵、武器射控、地对空飞弹甚至装配了2组方阵近迫砲,还有6挺重型机枪。不过经过上百次的模拟发现,平均每8架无人机发动攻击,会有2.8架袭击成功。

而且模拟让守军有更好的条件,例如加装更多的方阵近迫砲及重机枪,每一次至少都有一架无人机能突破火网完成攻击,若把攻击的无人机增加为10架、20架甚至50架,防御系统也只能打下来最开始的7架,接着就会被击溃了。

原因是,小型无人机在雷达上的截点甚小,距离又太相近使得5英吋砲或者地对空飞弹无用武之地,再来神盾上的干扰系统通常不是针对小无人机,当无人机很接近时,就靠方阵近迫砲及重型机枪。

然而面对无人机以每小时240公里速度飞来,守军的反应时间只有15秒,包括侦测及反击,守军只能挑中其中几架来攻击,而其他无人机顺利通过火网袭击成功。这次模拟再度印证,美国海军一直发展的低成本无人机群峰战术是可行的。




http://www.worldjournal.com/3655 ... &ismobile=false
北美世界日报
  便宜无人机 可摧毁百亿神盾舰

世界新闻网/纽约综合报导  January 11, 2016, 8:46 am  

美国最先进、最贵的「神盾」军舰,遇到无人机以群峰战术攻击时,可能也没辙。

根据军事网站「defense tech」报导,美国海军模拟上百次无人机群峰战术攻击发现,即便是神盾舰,在遭遇8架无人机同时攻击时,平均会有2.8架无人机成功,印证用便宜的无人机,让造价上百亿元的神盾舰成为废铁是可行的战术。而守军用的则是世界上最好的防御系统「神盾」,整合了侦测、干扰、诱饵、武器射控、地对空飞弹甚至装配了2组方阵近迫砲,还有6挺重型机枪。不过经过上百次的模拟发现,平均每8架无人机发动攻击,会有2.8架袭击成功。

而且模拟让守军有更好的条件,例如加装更多的方阵近迫砲及重机枪,每一次至少都有一架无人机能突破火网完成攻击,若把攻击的无人机增加为10架、20架甚至50架,防御系统也只能打下来最开始的7架,接着就会被击溃了。

原因是,小型无人机在雷达上的截点甚小,距离又太相近使得5英吋砲或者地对空飞弹无用武之地,再来神盾上的干扰系统通常不是针对小无人机,当无人机很接近时,就靠方阵近迫砲及重型机枪。

然而面对无人机以每小时240公里速度飞来,守军的反应时间只有15秒,包括侦测及反击,守军只能挑中其中几架来攻击,而其他无人机顺利通过火网袭击成功。这次模拟再度印证,美国海军一直发展的低成本无人机群峰战术是可行的。




http://www.worldjournal.com/3655 ... &ismobile=false
北美世界日报
  
U.S. Navy Plans to Fly First Drone Swarm This Summer

POSTED BY: DAVID HAMBLING   JANUARY 4, 2016

What happens when a swarm of slow, low-performance drones attacks a modern warship? With defense systems able to knock down supersonic cruise missiles and fast jets, small drones ought to be a turkey shoot. In fact, the situation plays out very differently.

The U.S. Navy is a leader in the area of swarm warfare, the threat has been analyzed in a number of papers from the Naval Postgraduate School analyze the threat. Some of these are classified, but a 2012 paper by Loc Pham, “UAV Swarm Attack”  is open and makes uncomfortable reading.

The paper posits a simple scenario: a Navy destroyer is attacked by five to ten drones simultaneously from all directions in conditions of good visibility. The drones are assumed to be made of off-the-shelf hobbyist components, controlled covertly from a nearby fishing vessel. Some of them are visually guided, others resemble the Israeli “Harpy” loitering drone which has radar guidance.

The defenders look well-prepared. The Aegis air defense system is one of the best in the world, with an integrated suite of sensors and weapons including jammers, decoys, Standard surface-to-air missiles, a five-inch gun and two Phalanx weapon systems, each with a multi-barreled 20mm canon spitting out seventy-five rounds a second. Aegis was assumed to be supplemented with six heavy machine guns on the deck.

The reason for the extra machine guns is that Aegis is not well suited to dealing with the threat. The small drones have a tiny radar signature, and by the time they are spotted they are too close to be engaged by missiles or the five-inch gun. The Aegis jammers are not designed to affect the drones’ control system and cannot affect them.  All the work has to be done by the Phalanx and the machine guns at close range. With the drones coming it at 155 mph, the defenders have just fifteen seconds between detection (at less than a mile) and impact.  It is vital that defenders pick a different target each, otherwise some drones take fire from several weapons while others slip through unscathed.

The team ran several hundred simulations, and found that on average 2.8 out of eight attackers got through. Even when the defenses were substantially upgraded — better sensors and more machine guns and Phalanx — at least one drone gets through every time. And that’s just with eight drones incoming. With a larger number — ten, twenty, fifty — the defenders would still only get the first seven or so.

This weakness means it makes sense to attack a ship with a large number of cheap drones than one missile costing the same, and that’s exactly what the Navy’s Low-Cost UAV Swarming Technology (LOCUST) program aims to do. The aim is to have thirty drones flying together without having to be individually controlled, maintaining separation safely like a flock of birds. They are different from any other drone in that the operator does not control an individual aircraft, but pilots the whole swarm as a single unit.

Dr. Lee Mastroianni, LOCUST’s project manager, believes the whole swarm can be made cheaper than a missile, and at $1.2 million for a Harpoon anti-ship missile he may be right. Locust is currently based on $15,000 Coyote drones. Of course these carry a much smaller warhead — but accurate targeting may be more important than the size of the warhead that hits. Knock out a ships’ radar, and it is a sitting duck for other weapons.

Mastroianni plans to have the his first swarm of 30 drones flying next summer.

The UAV Swarm Attack study highlighted the weakness of current defenses against swarms of drones. Timothy Chung, a scientist at the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey, is looking at defensive swarms to take out the attackers. His project’s official name is “A System-of-systems Testbed for Unmanned Systems Swarm versus Swarm Development and Research,” but Chung calls it “Aerial Combat Swarms.”

Chung is staging a contest for swarms of small drones carry out simulated battles as a way of evaluating tactics and technology. His basic scenario is a 50-versus-50 encounter in which the Blue defenders attempt to stop Red attackers from getting through. Nobody knows much about drone-versus-drone combat yet, especially on this scale. How much autonomy do the drones need? How can the swarm commander stay in control in a fast-moving action?  How do quality and quantity balance out in battling swarms?

With manned aircraft, the pilot’s life counts for a lot; but swarming drones are expendable and high “casualties” do not matter. This is a very different world to the dogfights we have seen before.

The battles will be fought with small drones even cheaper than those used in LOCUST, but the tactics they discover may shape the future of warfare.

When a swarm of drones heads for an American carrier some time in the future, they might be intercepted by a defensive swarm. What happens next — whether the aircraft on the carrier’s deck are destroyed, or whether the attackers are beaten off — will depend on which side has the best grasp of an entirely new form of warfare.


http://defensetech.org/2016/01/0 ... -swarm-this-summer/

  
忽悠,接着忽悠;自己还在拼命地建造中,更厉害的是2000年到2015接连服役了好几十条盾。
重点系你的无人机怎样才可以突破到?考的是后面的空天一体能力
在遭遇8架无人机同时攻击时,平均会有2.8架无人机成功,


也就是说,8枚鹰击83也足以穿过伯克的防御。。。
感觉这样的无人机跟掠海的蛋蛋没什么不同啊
无人机上航母,快快快!
纯粹就是说瞎话,无人机怎么能飞到舰队周边
这也不失为一个新发展方向
难度有点儿大
忽悠, 标准二一秒一发。几乎可以在100公里外秒杀8架无人机
时速几百的无人机比音速3-4倍的反舰导弹更难防,兔子放弃神马鹰击12-18吧,我大航母编队只怕无人机
时速240公里每小时,   雷达截面小又不代表看不见   飞的这么慢不是找打么     240公里/小时  15秒的时间 也就是1公里      太扯淡了,    1公里才能发现你这飞机进行反应??????

pengxiao 发表于 2016-1-12 06:49
纯粹就是说瞎话,无人机怎么能飞到舰队周边


舰队过海峡的时候,比如波斯湾

QQ图片20160112102513.png
QQ图片20160112102538.png
QQ图片20160112102635.png
pengxiao 发表于 2016-1-12 06:49
纯粹就是说瞎话,无人机怎么能飞到舰队周边


舰队过海峡的时候,比如波斯湾

QQ图片20160112102513.png
QQ图片20160112102538.png
QQ图片20160112102635.png
有点脑子的这么算下数据就知道是瞎讲了     美国战忽局水准远超中国,   局座退休后中国战忽局后继无力啊   
蜂群战术也许可行,关在在于航程和火力都足够的无人机的成本如何?
也就是说,8枚鹰击83也足以穿过伯克的防御。。。
这么说,22导弹艇可以1:1轻松干掉伯克了。


又是想当然

能够威胁到现代防空舰的“无人机”,便宜不了;
要么隐身掠海末端超音速、要么亚轨道高超音速;

其实就是高级反舰导弹,拽什么时髦名词“无人机”、“机器人”。

便宜、能够特大批量的“无人机”或者说大航模,性能之渣,没有丝毫威胁;
不过,对于以后小航模泛滥——包括城市中或者机场边上——保障空域安全高能激光可以发威了。

又是想当然

能够威胁到现代防空舰的“无人机”,便宜不了;
要么隐身掠海末端超音速、要么亚轨道高超音速;

其实就是高级反舰导弹,拽什么时髦名词“无人机”、“机器人”。

便宜、能够特大批量的“无人机”或者说大航模,性能之渣,没有丝毫威胁;
不过,对于以后小航模泛滥——包括城市中或者机场边上——保障空域安全高能激光可以发威了。
mrq3000 发表于 2016-1-12 08:41
忽悠, 标准二一秒一发。几乎可以在100公里外秒杀8架无人机
按这个思维,完全可以搞200架低成本大航程的攻击无人机去开干,但美帝有航母。
超音速无人机也许可以,现在的无人机飞的那么慢 怎么突袭?
zjjxwyf 发表于 2016-1-12 08:52
时速240公里每小时,   雷达截面小又不代表看不见   飞的这么慢不是找打么     240公里/小时  15秒的时间  ...
怎么感觉比高铁还慢呢~
幻影4000 发表于 2016-1-12 09:48
超音速无人机也许可以,现在的无人机飞的那么慢 怎么突袭?
不仅是慢,关键是能不能飞那么远,别飞一半就掉下来了~
mrq3000 发表于 2016-1-12 08:41
忽悠, 标准二一秒一发。几乎可以在100公里外秒杀8架无人机
估计都不用标准二,加特林就能打下来了,飞的这么慢,都赶不上大天朝的高铁~
canyuyige 发表于 2016-1-12 08:36
难度有点儿大
不是有点大,是非常大,简直就是意淫~
我脑子里出现了,小孩捅马蜂窝的画面,好像也挺有意思,能不能把超小型的自杀式无人机装反舰导弹里,在接近后释放蚂蜂,不求击沉,只求摧毁盾。
hakase 发表于 2016-1-12 04:29
也就是说,8枚鹰击83也足以穿过伯克的防御。。。
要穿过到中層防禦圈才成
pengxiao 发表于 2016-1-12 06:49
纯粹就是说瞎话,无人机怎么能飞到舰队周边
這个重点不說,純粹忽悠
冷风飘 发表于 2016-1-12 09:27
这么说,22导弹艇可以1:1轻松干掉伯克了。
原來伯克是不堪一擊的
如果是这样,美国佬还不赶紧把伯克给拆了。
对于一个客观事物,我们不光要听其言,还要观其行。一款武器装备的发展过程中也是这样。
mrq3000 发表于 2016-01-12 08:41
忽悠, 标准二一秒一发。几乎可以在100公里外秒杀8架无人机

你要知道的一点是,一旦无人机在海平面飞行,标准2也没办法在100公里外拦截无人机。
来自: 手机APP客户端
原来密集阵是摆设啊啊啊,原来相控阵雷达不照无人机的啊啊啊,原来无人机机载的100公斤或200公斤级的精确制导炸弹反舰那么猛啊啊啊,美国的造舰技术还不如二战啊啊啊,原来一孔双蛋防空蛋蛋都是摆设啊啊啊,原来神盾那么牛逼的干扰系统不能干扰无人机啊啊啊
才年初,别来那么高冷的笑话好吧~
需要满足的条件太多,现实中不太可能。
用哈比的方法对宙斯盾攻击就可以了

一两架长航时高中侦查,传递信号,四架低空掠海自杀攻击
或者搜索打击一体化,低高低飞行轨迹
还不如说买通一个大副在某些关键部位放个10kg  c4炸药呢
嘟嘟07 发表于 2016-1-12 10:16
怎么感觉比高铁还慢呢~
是啊  高铁都有300+      这媒体吹的太扯淡了   才15秒的反应时间太扯淡了  就算纯目测都远远不止15秒  
低空隐身无人机是有这个能力的,但是说美帝有了这个就不用宙斯盾那是一刀切的简单脑子,你近距离拿个匕首可以刺死狙击手,是不是就不用狙击手了?脑子不要太简单,超大不知什么时候开始多了很多天天就知道YY秀智商的。
无人机这玩意说白了近战无敌,远战废渣。

因为成本低,完全能靠数量堆死你;但是同样是因为成本低,飞不远的……更别提玩什么高难度掠海飞行了
我大730何在?当我是摆设吗.
无人机都挡不住,那上反舰导弹不是妥妥的了