The UK Starstreak anti-aircraft missile has 3 submunition darts to improve hit probability. There is nothing wrong with the idea per se, you can design around backfire. The Metal Storm gun has multiple munitions stacked in the same tube.
I figure the problem is more that it’s hard to scale down missiles to the point the plume would make economic sense.
One well-guided missile can be infinitely more effective than 1000 poorly-guided missiles.
Unless you are seeking a penetration aid against defenses, I don't see much point. There are far cheaper ways to deliver mass on target if you simply want to spam the enemy.
Depends on what you're defending against. Drones are effective because they're cheap so they can be sent in large numbers to overwhelm air defense even if each individual drone is an easy target.
“Cheap drone” doesn't need to be off the shelf quadcopter drone, fixed-wings custom drones like the Iranian Shahed 126 are still dirt cheap compared to typical anti-ship missiles.
But you don't need one sensor per drone, but one per swarm with the same target (and any kind of data link between members of the swarm). And by the time the swarm is within reach of the protection weapons of the target, it's probably close enough for the fairly basic sensors onboard of every drone to be able to work on its own if the target drone is destroyed (for instance: GNSS up to the last know position of the ship, and then just computer vision at close-range).
A ship isn't exactly a small target. You could probably track it just fine with a satellite and update the target GPS coordinate of the drones manually. An aircraft carrier only moves at 55 km/h maximum.
Nope. Ships are very small targets in very large oceans. Have you ever even been on a boat out of sight from land?
Reconnaissance satellites will be the first casualties in any future high-end conflict. Modern militaries have to plan around the expectation that their space-based platforms will be unavailable or severely degraded.
Radar ocean reconnaissance satellites can detect ships under any weather conditions but they are are large, heavy, expensive, and can provide only intermittent coverage. Smaller satellites with optical or IR sensors can potentially provide more coverage but are less effective at night or with clouds.
And sure, you need to wait for a clear day, but that doesn't seem like too big an obstacle. Also, while space-based platforms will be targets, it's unclear how effective counter measures are. Identifying targets is challenging and deploying replacements is worth the cost if you can eliminate a large portion of an adversary's naval power.
This is nothing new. The USSR was tracking US aircraft carriers via satellite since the 1960's. China is only now catching up.
Carriers are certainly vulnerable to an extent, but detecting one with a satellite is only one step in the kill chain. Carrier strike groups already carry some limited anti-satellite weapons that can hit targets in LEO. There is an active arms race underway by the superpowers to boost those capabilities, and also (as you stated) to develop a prompt launch capability to replace satellite attrition losses within hours rather than scheduling launches years in advance.
That's basically how most Anti-ship missile work: you give them GPS coordinate for the rough location and then the missile uses an active radar homing system for terminal guidance. (You want the missile to keep quiet as long as possible anyway, to avoid being detected and reducing the time the crew has to react to the threat).
Apparently, the oceans do a lot of radar scattering that makes it harder to spot ships from the guidance systems of missiles. Not sure what the state of the art is nowadays though.
Submunitions think ICBM or cluster bombs. There’s a tradeoff, because smarts means less room for the deadly bits.
Some kind of smart bomblets could be very effective vs traditional military bases which use sandbag walls to limit how effective traditional munitions are. Smarter drones could be more useful when trying to clear a forest.
Anti ship missiles on the other hand need large warheads to be effective. But launching multiple is preferred due to CIWS/point defense weapon systems.
Yea, though BAT is designed for armored vehicles not personal.
Military UAV’s are also huge. I assume when people are thinking drones they are downscaling to the 1-10kg range not full sized aircraft with a 50 foot wingspan.
Just being the overconfident random internet person with ideas:
launch 100 vehicles, slow flying, potentially with gliding capabilities, converging from all directions onto a target at the same time, ditching main wings and piston engine at the last minute, firing a rocket to gain speed, and overwhelm air defence by sheer numbers. Combine low-flying attack profiles with "dive-bomb from above". Large sensors can be mitigated with mesh-networking between vehicles and sensor fusion, maybe different kinds of sensors on different vehicles. Slow-flying means they can carry heavier warheads thanks to more lift and less drag.
If slowly circling at high altitude, you also tie up resources keeping track of them.
Quantity is its own quality, and all that...
this is all without even bringing "AI" into the mix, but if you could, you can give them "goals" instead of targets.
It is possible in principle to build a loitering cruise missile with those features. It will not be small or cheap, at least not if you want something with the range and endurance to seek out and attack a ship on the open ocean in any weather conditions. Add up the cost and weight for all of those components you listed.
As a point of comparison, the latest Block IV Tomahawk missiles already do most of what you described. They cost about $2M each and weigh about 1.5 tons. Only the largest warships can potentially carry 100 such missiles.
Russia has used small, cheap cruise missiles like the Iranian Shahed-136 drones with some limited success against Ukraine. In a naval conflict such drones could have some value as harassment weapons against surface vessels operating in the littorals. But those drones are useless against moving ships over the horizon.
Those Shahed drones are too small. I'm just thinking from first principles, if an ultralight plane has a range of 500km and has a 100kg pilot in it which could be subbed for a warhead, you could do an awful lot of damage with hundreds of such things in the air.
Your numbers are way off. Ultralight airplanes don't have ranges anywhere near 500km, nor do they have the payload capacity to carry the necessary sensors and associated electrical generator. Ultralights are also barely faster than surface warships, and are too flimsy to operate in severe weather. Seriously, you guys need to quit watching silly scifi cartoons and do some actual math.
The Sadler Vampire was/is 100 kg something dry, 250 kg loaded and a range of 500km. How much power do you need for sensors anyway? Even with 100 kg for fuel, that's a lot of weight left for warhead and electronics. That's for a straight conversion of a COTS design. I'm sure corners can be cut for something which will only run for a few hours and never fly again.
> One well-guided missile can be infinitely more effective than 1000 poorly-guided missiles.
Only true if it can target a high value unit or concentration of units which value exceed the missile cost.
Anti-air is a different scenario than artillery. Startreak targets are fast evading and employ countermeasures that attempt to trick the missiles target acquisition. I'm out of my depth but I believe the justification for the 3 missiles was improving the odds of hitting the target as that add redundancy and kind of triple the resolution of the targeting systems where a single missile with better electronics might be less effective and more costly.
The question I have is: can you scale down the well-guided missile? I thought guidance is mostly an issue of fast chips and well designed software. But perhaps you need big missiles if you want them to fly fast and have a lot of range.
Talking about anti-air of course. Lots of small missiles aren’t going to be effective against hardened ground targets.
Sensors matter a lot for guidance. In order to build an effective radar guided missile it needs a fairly large array. So in practice the minimum missile diameter ends up being something around 7 inches. Long range surface to air missiles have to be much wider than that.
Data links also make a big difference. So the missile needs another fairly large antenna to receive guidance cues from other platforms.
But perhaps you need big missiles if you want them to
fly fast and have a lot of range.
I'm just a layperson but this has always been my understanding. Modern air combat is all about firing from beyond visual range, so I think they optimize pretty strongly for that.
See my other answer, though - air to air missiles ARE generally (always) proximity fuzed. They don't need to precisely impact the target, they just need to get close.
More then that, air-to-air missiles generally are designed to blow a load of metal shrapnel through whatever they "hit": so there's a problem where if you're fleeing from a missile and it explodes behind you, even though it "missed" the payload can still hit the plane it was chasing if the plane doesn't change trajectory.
I figure the problem is more that it’s hard to scale down missiles to the point the plume would make economic sense.