Without this tech, a smaller projectile will have less range. To have more range, one should increase the weight divided by frontal area. The main way to do that is by increasing length while keeping density constant. But as you once pointed out, to keep the lengthened projectile stable in its flight, one must then either increase the spin rate or the diameter. Spin rate is usually maxed out so that leaves diameter increase.
Hence, 20-30mm projectiles are used even against missiles (where the damage of a 30mm explosive shell is overkill) because that’s the way to increase range, even if it comes at the cost of rate or fire or portability. This system maintains the range of a 30-some mm shell while keeping the projectiles quite numerous.
EAW have an importance far beyond their numbers.
Would anti-ship missiles (like the Harpoon) or cruise missiles (like the Tomahawk) equipped with frag or continuous-rod warhead have a fair shot against EAW planes, even if that’s different from their original designs?
That makes me think, are there aircraft which are equipped to shoot down AAM? Is airborne anti-missile capability limited to anti-ASM? How common is the latter, anyway?
Well, the reason that a lot of ASMs and SSMs can be shot down by SAMs is because they’re relatively large, slow and not all that stealthy (yet). The BOMARC missile I linked to was essentially a small aircraft, and even much smaller missiles like a Harpoon anti-ship missile are 15 feet long, 13" wide, and have a 3’ wingspan, and is going 500-ish MPH. Not exactly small. By comparison, an AIM-9 Sidewinder is 5" in diameter, 9’ long, and has a wingspan of 11" and travels at closer to 2000 mph.
So you go from trying to hit a 13" diameter object going 537 mph to trying to hit a 5" diameter object going nearly 2000 mph. AMRAAM (AIM-120C) are slightly larger at 7" diameter, but go faster (mach 4, or 3045 mph) from longer range.
You’d have to know that one was fired at you- nearly impossible for the Sidewinder (they’re passive IR tracking missiles), and harder, but not impossible for the AMRAAM. Then you’d have to find out where it was, and try and shoot it down. Not impossible, but not the sort of system you can easily put on an aircraft, where weight and size are at an extreme premium.
You’ve really combined / muddled attack and defense and also launching arena versus target arena. Some thoughts:
ASM/SSM have targets on the ground. So the defenses can be mounted on the ground. Which implies those defensive systems have advantages of large size, large power availability, a stable or non-moving launch platform, etc. Depending on the details the target can also be hardened. An appropriately designed concrete bunker is a perfectly good defense system against a ASM/SSM.
Conversely AAM / SAM have targets in the air. So the defenses must be mounted on an aircraft. Which implies those defensive systems have major limitations on size, power consumption, weight, a spherical attack axis to defend against , etc. And armoring is out of the question.
So the defense situation is much stronger against ASM/SSM.
On the attack side, AAM/ASM are launched from the air. Which implies a weight and size limitation on the missile much greater than the limitation on an SAM / SSM. And that also implies a sophistication limitation on the “brains” of the missile. and of the launching aircraft
On the attack side, SAM / SSM are launched from the ground. Which implies greater size, weight, brains, etc.
In general AAM are the most agile, and SSM the least. In general AAM have the greatest obstacles to smartness, whereas SSM have the least. Which is actually the smartest depends on how many dollars are applied. e.g. MLRS w GPS is dumber than AMRAAM. But ALCM is smarter than AIM-9.
etc.
I don’t think the whole topic is well-suited to simple “*this *is best, *that *is easiest.” type statements.
A few thoughts about countering missiles:
[ul]
[li]Can you detect it early enough? Modern IR and UV sensors used on aircraft are quite compact and can detect a missile launch at a fairly long range. Here SAMs are at a disadvantage compared to AAMs, since they need more energy just to get off the ground, and thus have larger IR signature. On the other hand, AMRAAM fired at a long range is a difficult target. The rocket engine has burned out long ago and flight in stratosphere has cooled down the missile body.[/li][li]Is your counter missile fast enough do intercept the incoming missile before it hits its target? This is easiest if you yourself are being targeted, but more difficult if you are protecting somebody else.[/li][li]Does the enemy missile know that it is being targeted? Modern ballistic missiles just assume that they are. The newest anti-ship missiles assume that the target has some sort of CIWS, but they have no way to tell that a fighter on CAP just fired AIM-9. All other missiles are focused on their target, and ignorant of everything else.[/li][/ul]