No announcement yet.

Arrow 3's, THAAD's and SM-3's Kill Vehicles capabilites questions

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Arrow 3's, THAAD's and SM-3's Kill Vehicles capabilites questions

    The Arrow 3 Ballistic missile interceptor has 2 main things which set it apart form other exoatmoshperic interceptors: its movable seeker and the thrust vectoring.

    I know very well what are the advantages of thrsut vecoting (instead of a DACS), but I can't find or think of any disadvantages. Considering that the price of a DACS is much higher than the price of a thrust vectoring rocket motor, and is harder and costs more to maintain, I don't see a segnificant reason to use a DACS over a rocket motor with thrust vectoring. BUT.... Both raytheon and lockheed martin have used DACS in THAA D and SM-3. So, it must have an advantage... But what is it?

    In terms of the seeker, than the Seeker of the KV of the Arrow 3 is movable, in a way similar to the seeker of modern IIR air to air missiles.
    Here, I am not looking for a disadvantage, but rahter an advantage. And to know that I am trying to find an answer for this question:
    Do the KVs of THAAD and SM-3 cange their pitch and azimuth in order to have the ability to see the target with their seeker while moving to the intereption point, or that the course is set from the beggining to allow the seeker to aquire the target while keeping the heading the same? Yes yes yes, I know that this explanation is bad... (attached a photo trying to explain the quiestion)
    Which one of the questions is how the real thing happens? (or rather both of them?)
    In the first photo, the KV is facing to the re entry vehicle to be able to track it with the seeker, but it moves to the IP.
    In the second photo, the KV looks at the warhead and moves the same way.
    (note that the seeker of THAAD is facing to the side)
    (ofcourse only uncllasified info)
    Last edited by ouy; 13-09-2017, 09:42 AM.