Serious problems of SAM system at Falkland conflict
Yu-Taek Seo
In the Falkland conflict, Royal navy fight violently with Argentina
airforce. As I know, that time was the first chance of Sea Dart
and Sea Wolf system in actual warfare. But, their operations were
not sufficent to defence their warship. HMS Sheffield was sunk
and other many ship were damaged seriously. I read the story at
"One Hundred Days" of Adam. Sandy Woodward and doubt about
the capability of the tracking radar. It could't lock on the
hostile target at necessary time.
For example:
At the day Argentia hit HMS Sheffield, HMS Glamorgan tracking
the exocet's way fast across the screen. Officer Hodinott ordered
his Sea Dart SAM system into action to shoot them down. But it
did not work. Unsuccessfully, the fire control radar could not lock
on to the small fleeting targets at that range.
In the battle of "Bomb Alley", a formation of three Daggers attack
HMS Brilliant, they drew a bead on Brilliant and positioned firmly
in the middle of anchorage. That time, the computerized limitations
of Brilliant's Sea Wolf system were exposed. His radar would not
lock on, would not recognize the target, approaching fast and
diagonally, because it was programed to fire straight.
Nowadays, I'm sure that previously mentioned problems were
overcome. Is it right?? and Why did these problems arise?? Please
tell me any info about these things.
Thanks in advance
Seo
Thomas Schoene
<7hh24p$ruk$3...@usenet.kreonet.re.kr>...
>
> In the Falkland conflict, Royal navy fight violently with Argentina
> airforce. As I know, that time was the first chance of Sea Dart
> and Sea Wolf system in actual warfare. But, their operations were
> not sufficent to defence their warship. HMS Sheffield was sunk
> and other many ship were damaged seriously. I read the story at
> "One Hundred Days" of Adam. Sandy Woodward and doubt about
> the capability of the tracking radar. It could't lock on the
> hostile target at necessary time.
> Nowadays, I'm sure that previously mentioned problems were
> overcome. Is it right?? and Why did these problems arise?? Please
> tell me any info about these things.
Basically two separate problems (remember that Sea Wolf and Sea Dart
shared no radars or other systems).
1) the Type 965 radar and Sea Dart missile were not well-suited to
engage low-level targets. They had been designed to deal with Soviet
bombers in open ocean, the threat they faced in the Falklands was
from small planes art low level and they were not ideal for the job.
This was compounded by the small size of the Type 42s, which exposed
their missile systems to a terrible beating from the elements.
2) The Sea Wolf system was also asked to do a mission for which it
was never intended. It was developed as a point defense system.
Asking it to defend other ships was a real stretch of its
capabilities.
--
--------------------------------------------------
TomSc...@worldnet.att.net
*Insert pithy quote here*
Paul J. Adam
<TomSc...@worldnet.att.net> writes
>1) the Type 965 radar and Sea Dart missile were not well-suited to
>engage low-level targets. They had been designed to deal with Soviet
>bombers in open ocean, the threat they faced in the Falklands was
>from small planes art low level and they were not ideal for the job.
>This was compounded by the small size of the Type 42s, which exposed
>their missile systems to a terrible beating from the elements.
And a glaring flaw of the system in that particular war - the
Argentinians owned it too, having two Type 42 destroyers of their
own, and were thus thoroughly familiar with its capabilities and able
to train to avoid its attentions.
--
There are four kinds of homicide: felonious, excusable, justifiable and
praiseworthy...
Paul J. Adam pa...@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk
Peter Nelson
>> overcome. Is it right?? and Why did these problems arise?? Please
>> tell me any info about these things.
>
>
>Basically two separate problems (remember that Sea Wolf and Sea Dart
>shared no radars or other systems).
>
>engage low-level targets. They had been designed to deal with Soviet
>bombers in open ocean, the threat they faced in the Falklands was
>from small planes art low level and they were not ideal for the job.
>This was compounded by the small size of the Type 42s, which exposed
>their missile systems to a terrible beating from the elements.
>
>was never intended. It was developed as a point defense system.
>Asking it to defend other ships was a real stretch of its
>capabilities.
Remember, his other question was whether these problems have been
fixed since then. This question should also apply to the
US systems.
I have serious reservations about whether US warships are
properly defended against aerial assault. Modern sea-
skimming missiles fly at supersonic speeds, pack a big
punch, and can be fired from aircraft platforms a great
distance away, before they can be engaged by the ship's
SAMs, and forcing any CAP to cover a lot of territory.
---peter
Brian
> I have serious reservations about whether US warships are
> properly defended against aerial assault. Modern sea-
> skimming missiles fly at supersonic speeds, pack a big
> punch, and can be fired from aircraft platforms a great
> distance away, before they can be engaged by the ship's
> SAMs, and forcing any CAP to cover a lot of territory.
US Warships have the worlds best SAM system hands down. They've got
range, accuracy, capability to hit targets at any altitude, can defend
against raids larger than any country today can muster. They are so
good, they REPLACE CAP stations. If there is anything the US Navy is
prepared against, it's an air assault. We have so much AAW capability
it's overkill.
Brian
> capability.
From experience I can tell you, US Warships are properly defended
against an aerial assault.
Peter Skelton
>Peter Nelson wrote:
>> I have serious reservations about whether US warships are
>> properly defended against aerial assault. Modern sea-
>> skimming missiles fly at supersonic speeds, pack a big
>> punch, and can be fired from aircraft platforms a great
>> distance away, before they can be engaged by the ship's
>> SAMs, and forcing any CAP to cover a lot of territory.
>
>US Warships have the worlds best SAM system hands down. They've got
>range, accuracy, capability to hit targets at any altitude, can defend
>against raids larger than any country today can muster. They are so
>good, they REPLACE CAP stations. If there is anything the US Navy is
>prepared against, it's an air assault. We have so much AAW capability
>it's overkill.
You really should read some of the mid-1930's staff reports on AA guns and
capability.
--
Peter Skelton
Skelton & Associates
613/389-1705
pske...@home.com
ran...@notatnetcom.com
<Witch**D...@usa0.0no0bulk0email0.net> wrote:
>Peter Nelson wrote:
>> I have serious reservations about whether US warships are
>> properly defended against aerial assault. Modern sea-
>> skimming missiles fly at supersonic speeds, pack a big
>> punch, and can be fired from aircraft platforms a great
>> distance away, before they can be engaged by the ship's
>> SAMs, and forcing any CAP to cover a lot of territory.
>
>US Warships have the worlds best SAM system hands down. They've got
>range, accuracy, capability to hit targets at any altitude, can defend
>against raids larger than any country today can muster. They are so
>good, they REPLACE CAP stations. If there is anything the US Navy is
>prepared against, it's an air assault. We have so much AAW capability
>it's overkill.
And the STARK was nearly destroyed by its superior AAW systems that
are better than those enjoyed by the Spruance Class destroyers? If
you would like some idea how screwed up American designs for NSSMS
defense are, look for articles on the advanced air defense scheme
implemented on a couple of the carriers. If my memory serves I'll
post them here tomorrow. It's a damning indictment of Raytheon and
illustrates how bogus much of the hype is. Of course us NCW warriors
know how bogus much of the NetworkCentricWarfare concept is.
Eliminating the friction and the fog of war in a byte age,
random
Peter Skelton
>Peter Skelton wrote:
>>
>> Brian <Witch**D...@usa0.0no0bulk0email0.net> wrote:
>>
>> >Peter Nelson wrote:
>> >> I have serious reservations about whether US warships are
>> >> properly defended against aerial assault. Modern sea-
>> >> skimming missiles fly at supersonic speeds, pack a big
>> >> punch, and can be fired from aircraft platforms a great
>> >> distance away, before they can be engaged by the ship's
>> >> SAMs, and forcing any CAP to cover a lot of territory.
>> >
>> >US Warships have the worlds best SAM system hands down. They've got
>> >range, accuracy, capability to hit targets at any altitude, can defend
>> >against raids larger than any country today can muster. They are so
>> >good, they REPLACE CAP stations. If there is anything the US Navy is
>> >prepared against, it's an air assault. We have so much AAW capability
>> >it's overkill.
>>
>> You really should read some of the mid-1930's staff reports on AA guns and
>> capability.
>
>From experience I can tell you, US Warships are properly defended
>against an aerial assault.
Come right off it - there is no experience base for such a claim. When was
a US ship attacked by more than one plane? They've made their best guesses
and done what we thought advisable based on analysis and exercises
(constrained by other needs and money, of course). They did the same in the
thirties.
All we know for certain is that there are errors.
Tibaht
defense but the ships involved. I would feel much more comfortable on an oiler
in a battle group than on my way back to port with only a FFG for escort.
Patrick Pemberton
Tibaht says:
You people knock FFG's way to easily...
Gary J. Mac Donald
Peter Skelton (pske...@home.com) writes:
> Brian <Witch**D...@usa0.0no0bulk0email0.net> wrote:
>
>>US Warships have the worlds best SAM system hands down. They've got
>>range, accuracy, capability to hit targets at any altitude, can defend
>>against raids larger than any country today can muster. They are so
>>good, they REPLACE CAP stations. If there is anything the US Navy is
>>prepared against, it's an air assault. We have so much AAW capability
>>it's overkill.
>
> You really should read some of the mid-1930's staff reports on AA guns and
> capability.
Sounds like he's quoting from them.
GaryJ
--
http://www.ncf.carleton.ca/~ar075
To build a community we must be able to communicate freely.
Brian
>
> On Sun, 16 May 1999 20:02:35 -0700, Brian
> <Witch**D...@usa0.0no0bulk0email0.net> wrote:
> >US Warships have the worlds best SAM system hands down. They've got
> >range, accuracy, capability to hit targets at any altitude, can defend
> >against raids larger than any country today can muster. They are so
> >good, they REPLACE CAP stations. If there is anything the US Navy is
> >prepared against, it's an air assault. We have so much AAW capability
> >it's overkill.
>
> are better than those enjoyed by the Spruance Class destroyers?
And their AAW system was shut down at the time which was a huge mistake.
I would consider the Spruances AAW system more capable that the Perry's
BTW. Better Low Alt engagement capability, superior EW suite (Spru's now
have SLQ-32(V)3's).
> If
> you would like some idea how screwed up American designs for NSSMS
> defense are, look for articles on the advanced air defense scheme
> implemented on a couple of the carriers. If my memory serves I'll
> post them here tomorrow. It's a damning indictment of Raytheon and
> illustrates how bogus much of the hype is.
NSSMS is a very good POINT defense missile system. It's not an area
weapon. With that being said, if the target is in range, it has an
excellent Pk.
Brian
> Come right off it - there is no experience base for such a claim. When was
> a US ship attacked by more than one plane? They've made their best guesses
> and done what we thought advisable based on analysis and exercises
> (constrained by other needs and money, of course). They did the same in the
> thirties.
The best we can do is run mock attacks and from being in a lot of those,
I can say the Navy's SAM systems successfully track and engage targets
at all altitudes and speeds. We've also done exercises where live
missiles were fired (and not just one) and came away with excellent
results.
Comparing todays SAM systems to the 1930's is a joke. Airplane
advancements were happening everyday in the 1930's. By the 1940's, most
30's aircraft were obsolete. We don't have the same situation now. Most
aircraft designs are over 20 years old. There hasn't been a
"revolutionary" technology introduced (well, Stealth, but we have that)
in a while.
Brian
That's because they deserve knocking. I too would feel much more
comfortable on an AOR than an FFG. Not that I wouldn't want the FFG
around...they'd make a good missile sponge. FFG's have miserable Air
Search capability. Their SAM system tries to be an area weapon but
doesn't have the legs to really reach out and hit anything before they
can do a weaps launch. Their MK92 system is all but useless against sea
skimmers. They have no ECM. Compare that to an AOR/AOE. Very good point
defense missile system, active ECM, 2 CIWS systems.
Peter Skelton
Nobody has compared todays SAM systems to the thirties. Technical progress
has moved from the airframe to the electronics. Would you care to suggest
that ten-year-old electronics are not obsolete?
OK, you do the exercises, you make your best guess, politics interfere,
different viewpoints develop, uncertainty as to mission results in illogic
in procurement and development. Everybody is doing his honest best
according to his training, understanding and belief. There hasn't been a
live-fire test between first-line militaries for a while - am I talking
about 1910, 1935, or 1999?
I'm not denigrating the USN's systems (an easy target - they've failed very
noticably a couple of times and nobody is allowed to talk about the
successes), they are probably as good as anybody's. How long they'll let
ships operate near shore-based air can only be tested by combat. I don't
want to know the right answer at that cost.
BTW the early WWII result for cruisers & up was that they could survive
until they ran out of AA, the wrong guess was about how long they'd have to
stay on station. The RN 4" twin from the twenties with RN fire control was
serious heavy AA in 1940.
Steve Ewert
Brian wrote in message <37402C...@usa0.0no0bulk0email0.net>...
An interesting paradox... you would be more comfortable on the very ship
that is higher on the priority list.....
yes... *some* AOR's do have better ASMD protection...but *anything* can be
defeated....an AOR is generally in the middle of the screen....one good old
cold war style "regimental badger raid" will nuke the whole lot...when it
comes to ASMD or ASW all bets are off.... its basic survival, because by the
time that you figgerout that you are detected....you life may be measured in
minutes.......
SE
<ping!>
Paul J. Adam
<Witch**D...@usa0.0no0bulk0email0.net> writes
>Peter Skelton wrote:
>> You really should read some of the mid-1930's staff reports on AA guns and
>> capability.
>
>against an aerial assault.
We thought that about RN ships in March 1982. By June we changed
our mind...
Brian
>
> In article <373F9D...@usa0.0no0bulk0email0.net>, Brian
> <Witch**D...@usa0.0no0bulk0email0.net> writes
> >Peter Skelton wrote:
> >> You really should read some of the mid-1930's staff reports on AA guns and
> >> capability.
> >From experience I can tell you, US Warships are properly defended
> >against an aerial assault.
> We thought that about RN ships in March 1982. By June we changed
> our mind...
There is always room for improvement but to say we are not properly
defended is wrong.
Brian
> >advancements were happening everyday in the 1930's. By the 1940's, most
> >30's aircraft were obsolete. We don't have the same situation now. Most
> >aircraft designs are over 20 years old. There hasn't been a
> >"revolutionary" technology introduced (well, Stealth, but we have that)
> >in a while.
>
> Nobody has compared todays SAM systems to the thirties. Technical progress
> has moved from the airframe to the electronics. Would you care to suggest
> that ten-year-old electronics are not obsolete?
10 yr old electronics are quite new in todays military. Look at
missiles, Exocet circa 1972, SS-N-22 circa 1982, Harpoon D circa 1988,
RBS-15 circa 1990. With that in mind, you have to understand that the
electronics in there have to be older than the IOC of the missile.
> OK, you do the exercises, you make your best guess, politics interfere,
> different viewpoints develop, uncertainty as to mission results in illogic
> in procurement and development. Everybody is doing his honest best
> according to his training, understanding and belief. There hasn't been a
> live-fire test between first-line militaries for a while - am I talking
> about 1910, 1935, or 1999?
Well, we've done about as much as we can IRT live fire. We've done live
fires at USN ships but under controlled conditions. For the type of
enemies the US faces, we are prepared to defend against air raids. Shit,
we designed the stuff for huge Russian waves of Backfires and AS-4/6's
coupled with SS-N-9's, SS-N-19s, etc. in the presence of heavy jamming.
Tell me what country or mix of countries could muster up that much
airpower? Hell, one CVN has more aircraft than most Air Forces.
> I'm not denigrating the USN's systems (an easy target - they've failed very
> noticably a couple of times and nobody is allowed to talk about the
> successes), they are probably as good as anybody's. How long they'll let
> ships operate near shore-based air can only be tested by combat. I don't
> want to know the right answer at that cost.
They can operate near shore based air. How many A/C can a country throw
at the USN? Not a whole lot. Even if one ship does start to run out of
SAM's, we replace it with another fully loaded crusier. We can do this
over and over to the point at which the enemy simply has no more
aircraft. Even the North Vietnamese did not challenge the USN and they
had the equipment and training to do it. No other opponent has had that
since.
Brian
>
> Brian wrote in message <37402C...@usa0.0no0bulk0email0.net>...
> >Patrick Pemberton wrote:
> >>
> >> Tibaht says:
> >>
> >> > As I understand the question, it's not whether or not the US has good
> air
> >> > defense but the ships involved. I would feel much more comfortable on
> an
> >> > oiler in a battle group than on my way back to port with only a FFG
> for escort.
> >>
> >> You people knock FFG's way to easily...
> >
> >That's because they deserve knocking. I too would feel much more
> >comfortable on an AOR than an FFG. Not that I wouldn't want the FFG
> >around...they'd make a good missile sponge. FFG's have miserable Air
> >Search capability. Their SAM system tries to be an area weapon but
> >doesn't have the legs to really reach out and hit anything before they
> >can do a weaps launch. Their MK92 system is all but useless against sea
> >skimmers. They have no ECM. Compare that to an AOR/AOE. Very good point
> >defense missile system, active ECM, 2 CIWS systems.
>
> An interesting paradox... you would be more comfortable on the very ship
> that is higher on the priority list.....
Yep. Because the fact is, the FFG is going to be the first boat to
absorb the volley of ASM's. Second, how are you going to pick targets
out? FFG's have a RCS that is huge, no ECM protection, etc. etc. The AOR
can at least belt out some blistering ECM, pop chaff, and make target
selection very very difficult. Once the missile locks onto a FFG...it's
all over.
> yes... *some* AOR's do have better ASMD protection
Actually, ALL US AOR/E's have (had) better ASMD protection.
>...but *anything* can be
> defeated....an AOR is generally in the middle of the screen....one good old
> cold war style "regimental badger raid" will nuke the whole lot...when it
> comes to ASMD or ASW all bets are off.... its basic survival, because by the
> time that you figgerout that you are detected....you life may be measured in
> minutes.......
I hope you decide to throw more than a bunch of old ass Badgers at a
CVBG because they won't make it past the F-14's at the Outer Air
Boundary to launch their missiles.
Patrick Pemberton
Brian says:
> Their MK92 system is all but useless against sea
> skimmers.
Since when? Even Mod 0 is pretty good compared to certain other platforms
in service, in terms of which ships turns the key first, and they're very
good against jamming. I'm also pretty sure the frigate RCS is smaller than
the AOR's and AOE's you're (strangely) worshipping, although I forget the
numbers...
> They have no ECM.
SLQ-32 - non jamming, but they do have ECM.
> Compare that to an AOR/AOE. Very good point
> defense missile system, active ECM, 2 CIWS systems.
I'd rather have my Mk 92 Mod 6, one CIWS, SLQ-32V(2), chaff and flares, and
SM-1.
Paul F Austin
Brian wrote in message <374098...@usa0.0no0bulk0email0.net>...
>Steve Ewert wrote:
>
>>...but *anything* can be
>> defeated....an AOR is generally in the middle of the screen....one good
old
>> cold war style "regimental badger raid" will nuke the whole lot...when it
>> comes to ASMD or ASW all bets are off.... its basic survival, because by
the
>> time that you figgerout that you are detected....you life may be measured
in
>> minutes.......
>
>I hope you decide to throw more than a bunch of old ass Badgers at a
>CVBG because they won't make it past the F-14's at the Outer Air
>Boundary to launch their missiles.
The Outer Air Battle is a thing of the past. The F-14 force is dialing down
with training concentrating on being the worlds most expensive Fast FAC.
It's a good thing that regiment-sized raids are improbable because we've
kinda lost the recipe for handling one.
The point of all this is contained in something Liddell Hart said: "An
important difference between a military operation and a surgical operation
is that the patient is not tied down. But it's a common fault of generalship
to assume that he is".
We've tested Aegis a lot more than the Navy progam office originally
intended, thanks to direct Congressional orders. In general, the Navy
exercises more than most other navies but in a real war, our enemies are
going to have a fair idea that motoring up to an Aegis ship is a
life-shortening exercise and will have tremedous motivation to think up
crafty, nasty methods of circumventing an air defense buzz saw. Potential
enemies will have lots of time to come up with counters to Aegis and a lot
of civilian electronics to draw from to do it.
"people of means-decent folk-should be given more votes
than drifters, whores, criminals, degenerates, atheists
and indecent folks-people without means."
Paul F Austin
pau...@digital.net
Peter Nelson
>Peter Skelton wrote:
>>
>From experience I can tell you, US Warships are properly defended
>against an aerial assault.
What can this possibly mean? The one time in recent history when a
US warship was attacked by a enemy aircraft (the Stark) it
was mission-killed.
---peter
Peter Nelson
Brian wrote in message <373F86...@usa0.0no0bulk0email0.net>...
>Peter Nelson wrote:
>> I have serious reservations about whether US warships are
>> properly defended against aerial assault. Modern sea-
>> skimming missiles fly at supersonic speeds, pack a big
>> punch, and can be fired from aircraft platforms a great
>> distance away, before they can be engaged by the ship's
>> SAMs, and forcing any CAP to cover a lot of territory.
>
>range, accuracy, capability to hit targets at any altitude, can defend
>against raids larger than any country today can muster.
This is nonsense. What about a sea-skimmer launched from the littoral?
Or what about air-launched sea-skimmers - by the time the ship's
radar picks up the aircraft, the aircraft can launch its missile. At
that point it doesn't matter if the SAM shoots the aircraft down -
the missile its already on its way.
---peter
Peter Nelson
Brian wrote in message <37402B...@usa0.0no0bulk0email0.net>...
>Peter Skelton wrote:
>> Come right off it - there is no experience base for such a claim. When
was
>> a US ship attacked by more than one plane? They've made their best
guesses
>> and done what we thought advisable based on analysis and exercises
>> (constrained by other needs and money, of course). They did the same in
the
>> thirties.
>
>The best we can do is run mock attacks and from being in a lot of those,
>I can say the Navy's SAM systems successfully track and engage targets
>at all altitudes and speeds.
This is irelevant. I don't doubt that we can "track and engage"
a sea-skimmer-carrying plane but our SAM's don't travel at
the speed of light. The enemy plane pops up over the horizon -
we illuminate it and fire a SAM, simultaneously it fires its anti-ship
missile. We dust the plane but there's still that missile coming
in at Mach 2. We have no weapon that can take it out. Do
the math: By the time the CIWS engages it, and keeping in mind
the muzzle-velocity of the CIWS rounds, by the time they hit the
missile it's very close to the ship. So even if you shred the
missile you still have a ton of scrap metal blasting into the
ship at Mach 2. There goes your phased-array system,
other antennas, maybe the 5" mount and the CIWS system itself.
Mission kill.
> We've also done exercises where live
>missiles were fired (and not just one) and came away with excellent
>results.
The live missile used in those tests are unrealistic. They are slower
than modern sea-skimmers and take no evasive action.
---peter
Peter Nelson
Brian wrote in message <374096...@usa0.0no0bulk0email0.net>...
>Peter Skelton wrote:
>10 yr old electronics are quite new in todays military. Look at
>missiles, Exocet circa 1972, SS-N-22 circa 1982, Harpoon D circa 1988,
>RBS-15 circa 1990. With that in mind, you have to understand that the
>electronics in there have to be older than the IOC of the missile.
Sea-skimmers have come a LONG way since the AM-39!!
And the thing you're forgetting is that to do anything useful
you have to operate in the littoral - which means the missiles
can be launched from land. What are you going to shoot down?
---peter
Brian
Did you think we'd sit 2 miles off the coast and wait to get ambushed?
And remember, somehow they have to target those missiles which means
coastal radar which we'd take out. Also remember radar technology has
advanced a lot, overland coverage is not a huge problem. I was on an NTU
cruiser and we operated off the coast of Sweden (probably THE toughest
littoral environment I've ever seen). We were able to detect Viggens
overland and over the water at insanely low altitudes. We were able to
spot their Norkoping PFB's coming out of the fjords ready to pop out
RBS-15s. Now, if we hung out at 5 miles from the coastline, we'd be
sitting ducks. Sit out a little further and we do pretty damn good.
Brian
>
> Brian says:
>
> > Their MK92 system is all but useless against sea
> > skimmers.
>
> Since when? Even Mod 0 is pretty good compared to certain other platforms
> in service, in terms of which ships turns the key first, and they're very
> good against jamming. I'm also pretty sure the frigate RCS is smaller than
> the AOR's and AOE's you're (strangely) worshipping, although I forget the
> numbers...
A common myth..The FFG's have a huge RCS and it's widely known. Size of
the object doesn't equate to smaller RCS. As for the MK-92, it sucks.
It's ok against fixed wing a/c but try hitting stuff down real
low...ain't gonna happen. Remember, it was a low cost Fire Control
system mounted on a low cost ship.
> > They have no ECM.
>
> SLQ-32 - non jamming, but they do have ECM.
What? Mk36 SRBOC? Chaff is great if you seed it prior to missile turn
on. Once that missile activates its seeker, it's too late. You've got
less than 30 seconds. SRBOC works wonders but it's not that good (I've
fired countless rounds of the stuff).
> > Compare that to an AOR/AOE. Very good point
> > defense missile system, active ECM, 2 CIWS systems.
>
> I'd rather have my Mk 92 Mod 6, one CIWS, SLQ-32V(2), chaff and flares, and
> SM-1.
I hope your DC Qualifications are up to date.
Brian
> >US Warships have the worlds best SAM system hands down. They've got
> >range, accuracy, capability to hit targets at any altitude, can defend
> >against raids larger than any country today can muster.
>
> This is nonsense. What about a sea-skimmer launched from the littoral?
> Or what about air-launched sea-skimmers - by the time the ship's
> radar picks up the aircraft, the aircraft can launch its missile. At
> that point it doesn't matter if the SAM shoots the aircraft down -
> the missile its already on its way.
We can shoot the aircraft and we can shoot the missile. It's not like we
never thought this might happen to us.
Remember, the aircraft has to find us first, then the pilot has to
target us. Throw out ECM and chaff, rubber ducks, etc. the task becomes
increasingly more difficult. He can try a bearing only launch but then
the missile has to gain altitude to see the ship. If the missile can see
us, we can see the missile.
Brian
>
> Brian wrote in message <37402B...@usa0.0no0bulk0email0.net>...
> >Peter Skelton wrote:
> >> Come right off it - there is no experience base for such a claim. When
> was
> >> a US ship attacked by more than one plane? They've made their best
> guesses
> >> and done what we thought advisable based on analysis and exercises
> >> (constrained by other needs and money, of course). They did the same in
> the
> >> thirties.
> >
> >The best we can do is run mock attacks and from being in a lot of those,
> >I can say the Navy's SAM systems successfully track and engage targets
> >at all altitudes and speeds.
>
> This is irelevant. I don't doubt that we can "track and engage"
> a sea-skimmer-carrying plane but our SAM's don't travel at
> the speed of light. The enemy plane pops up over the horizon -
> we illuminate it and fire a SAM, simultaneously it fires its anti-ship
> missile. We dust the plane but there's still that missile coming
> in at Mach 2. We have no weapon that can take it out.
What makes you think that?
> Do the math: By the time the CIWS engages it, and keeping in mind
> the muzzle-velocity of the CIWS rounds, by the time they hit the
> missile it's very close to the ship. So even if you shred the
> missile you still have a ton of scrap metal blasting into the
> ship at Mach 2. There goes your phased-array system,
> other antennas, maybe the 5" mount and the CIWS system itself.
> Mission kill.
Bullshit. You hit the missile, it explodes. It will send shapnel in all
directions not just forward. Add to that we have RAM which engages
targets at greater distances. Phased Array radars are pretty good at
absorbing damage. The Yorktown in 1984 pulled into Naples and a crane
went through a part of the phased array. The USN stuck plexiglass around
the hole and the radar was operational, even on the damaged side. And
then we have excellent ECM so the missile will have a tough time even
finding which target is the real one.
And if the threat from land based ASM carrying fighters is that much of
a threat, we always have CAP.
>
> > We've also done exercises where live
> >missiles were fired (and not just one) and came away with excellent
> >results.
>
> The live missile used in those tests are unrealistic. They are slower
> than modern sea-skimmers and take no evasive action.
Which represents 99% of all missiles in service today. How many
SS-N-22's have been exported? Few if any. And its not like the USN just
found out about the 22 and ANS.
Brian
> The Outer Air Battle is a thing of the past. The F-14 force is dialing down
> with training concentrating on being the worlds most expensive Fast FAC.
> It's a good thing that regiment-sized raids are improbable because we've
> kinda lost the recipe for handling one.
Regimental sized Badger/Backfire raids are a thing of the past so I'm
not too worried about it.
> We've tested Aegis a lot more than the Navy progam office originally
> intended, thanks to direct Congressional orders. In general, the Navy
> exercises more than most other navies but in a real war, our enemies are
> going to have a fair idea that motoring up to an Aegis ship is a
> life-shortening exercise and will have tremedous motivation to think up
> crafty, nasty methods of circumventing an air defense buzz saw. Potential
> enemies will have lots of time to come up with counters to Aegis and a lot
> of civilian electronics to draw from to do it.
I'm sure they will but they'd better come up with one hell of an idea.
It's not like we're going to allow them to try anything they wish. One
of the benefits of being a NATO Navy is that we get to see what
non-Aegis/NTU nations come up with to get around it. NATO has a hell of
a lot more electronic equipment at their disposal than any potential
adversary I can think of. Not that NATO hasn't thought of everything but
I'm sure we've covered our bases as much as possible in peace time. With
that being said, the Isreali's gave Aegis and NTU quite a work out when
we did a few ex's with them.
Paul F Austin
Brian wrote in message <3740CB...@usa0.0no0bulk0email0.net>...
>Patrick Pemberton wrote:
>>
>>I'm also pretty sure the frigate RCS is smaller than
>> the AOR's and AOE's you're (strangely) worshipping, although I forget the
>> numbers...
>
>A common myth..The FFG's have a huge RCS and it's widely known. Size of
>the object doesn't equate to smaller RCS.
Stealth-101: since detection range is a 4th root function of RCS, to reduce
detection range by half, you've got to have and RCS 6% of the "larger"
target. To reduce detection range to 10% of the larger target, RCS has to be
..01% as large.
Ship detection is a horizon range function rather than a RCS function.
Stealth measures for ships are probably a payoff in making decoys relatively
more attractive and (vide Sweden) help when you;re lurking among the rocks
and shoals.
Patrick Pemberton
Brian says:
> As for the MK-92, it sucks.
I know an FFG FCC and a few others who would disagree...you were on an AOR
and think it's great, peachy-keen for you. Mk 92 has turned out to be quite
adept at shooting down low-level targets, but I won't go into which hull
number it was faster on acquisition than in exercises against what missiles,
repeatedly.
Brian
> >They can operate near shore based air. How many A/C can a country throw
> >at the USN? Not a whole lot. Even if one ship does start to run out of
> >SAM's, we replace it with another fully loaded crusier. We can do this
> >over and over to the point at which the enemy simply has no more
> >aircraft. Even the North Vietnamese did not challenge the USN and they
> >had the equipment and training to do it. No other opponent has had that
> >since.
> You've chosen a very tedious way to agree.
In the history of warfare has there ever been a "live" trial of
anything? By your definition no. Don't get me wrong, there is always
room for improvement but we've tested our AAW about as much as one can
without going to war. What more do you want the USN to do?
Peter Nelson
Brian wrote in message <3740CE...@usa0.0no0bulk0email0.net>...
>Bullshit. You hit the missile, it explodes.
Hitting the missile doesn't guarantee it explodes. Even
if it does, do the math - a ton of missile has a lot of momentum
- a lot of that debris will hit the ship at supersonic speeds.
> It will send shapnel in all directions not just forward. Add to
>that we have RAM which engages targets at greater distances.
RAM?? The RAM has never been tested at a realistic target.
The fastest test target it has EVER been fired at was a subsonic
Exocet (this test was performed on Dec. 12, 1998 in a flight test
exercise was conducted from the USS Decatur Self-Defense
Test Ship off Point Mugu, CA. And that was under ideal conditions
where the Decatur's systems were not trying to engage multiple
targets.
---peter
Thomas Schoene
<qvl03.10502$kE6....@wbnws01.ne.mediaone.net>...
>
> Brian wrote in message <3740CE...@usa0.0no0bulk0email0.net>...
> >Bullshit. You hit the missile, it explodes.
>
> Hitting the missile doesn't guarantee it explodes. Even
> if it does, do the math - a ton of missile has a lot of momentum
> - a lot of that debris will hit the ship at supersonic speeds.
>
> > It will send shapnel in all directions not just forward. Add to
> >that we have RAM which engages targets at greater distances.
>
> RAM?? The RAM has never been tested at a realistic target.
> The fastest test target it has EVER been fired at was a subsonic
> Exocet
I'll have to dig up the exact date, but I know RAM took a high diving
supersonic Vandal target (ex-Talos) within the last couple of months.
I'm pretty sure it's also done live fire engagements against stream
attacks. These would both be this year sometime.
--
--------------------------------------------------
TomSc...@worldnet.att.net
*Insert pithy quote here*
B F Lake
missile in common use was whispered as having too big or wrong somehow fins
, so it would not be able to do a severe turn and it would stall out, so a
plane could dodge it. A later version of the missile was supposed to be
better, but what if you still had the old ones (which were quite new) ?
And did the new ones really work either? Maybe it was all rumour? And
what else do we know/not know? In the 30's the USN did not test its
torpedoes properly and look what happened. Today, missile testing is very
structured and costly- how good are these tests? Any better than the old
torpedo tests? They did test them, just not realistically. With the torps
one fault hid another. Suppose the missile misses and they decide it was
software and monkey with revs to the program and it was the shape of the
fins all along? In war you forget the budget and fire lots, then you find
out what works. In peace, nobody can afford to fire lots and lots . Do
the best and cross fingers, but some seem way over-confident.
My $.02 (FY99)
Barry
Peter Skelton
<s>
>They can operate near shore based air. How many A/C can a country throw
>at the USN? Not a whole lot. Even if one ship does start to run out of
>SAM's, we replace it with another fully loaded crusier. We can do this
>over and over to the point at which the enemy simply has no more
>aircraft. Even the North Vietnamese did not challenge the USN and they
>had the equipment and training to do it. No other opponent has had that
>since.
In other words, we don't know because there hasn't been a live trial.
You've chosen a very tedious way to agree.
ran...@notatnetcom.com
and a good thing too, since it's a piece of junk on a piece of junk.
It flunked the real test in spades and all exercises weighed in the
balance come up short. Even the frigate involved in the campaign to
exterminate boghammers and Iran civil air didn't think enough of its
own system to launch a strong and emphatic demur prior to Vincennes
attack. It also suffers from the minimalist theory of naval warfare;
it has zero redundancy. Having been "guarded" by frigates without
operational missile systems due to a single failure in the launcher, I
can say without prejudice that I would have preferred a great big fat
AO or AOE as escort since all self respecting radar and IR homing
missiles would have preferred them as a terminal impact zone. This is
why I enjoyed the late night, early morning "escort" from things like
Portland, Trenton, or big fat MSB like Hercules.
ran...@notatnetcom.com
<Witch**D...@usa0.0no0bulk0email0.net> wrote:
>
>And their AAW system was shut down at the time which was a huge mistake.
>I would consider the Spruances AAW system more capable that the Perry's
>BTW. Better Low Alt engagement capability, superior EW suite (Spru's now
>have SLQ-32(V)3's).
>
They were at a radar picket station in an active war zone. The CO
should have been crucified for taking his ship off condition 3 since
he was unmistakably in a war time steaming situation. As I understand
it, he did so because his AAW systems were too fragile to withstand a
standard BECCE cycle without damage. What kind of system is that to
put on a warship?
viz your comments on Spruance AAW systems, this may now be true now
that all the unmodified block 0 DD have been discarded. Since they
were the rule back then, your opinion is open to debate. The block 0
unmodified Spuance AAW systems were and remain worthless.
>> If
>> you would like some idea how screwed up American designs for NSSMS
>> defense are, look for articles on the advanced air defense scheme
>> implemented on a couple of the carriers. If my memory serves I'll
>> post them here tomorrow. It's a damning indictment of Raytheon and
>> illustrates how bogus much of the hype is.
>
>NSSMS is a very good POINT defense missile system. It's not an area
>weapon. With that being said, if the target is in range, it has an
>excellent Pk.
I direct your attention to the pk of RIM-7H. Yes, the RIM-7M is a
huge upgrade but saying that it is an upgrade almost obviates the fact
the the RIM-7H was a COMPLETELY worthless weapon system. Any follow
on capability to engage air contacts would seem a wondrous weapon of
almost awesome capability when compared with the SAM system in place
prior to the introduction of a working RIM-7m system. Getting there
wasn't easy and, in the ten years of 7H reign, a threat had made
itself known to the pathetic ESM or weapon systems of a Spruance, that
Spruance would likely have died in the knowing.
regards,
random,
FCO on DD-986,
admittedly a rotten destroyer by any definition.
Rcheung
>From: Brian <Witch**D...@usa0.0no0bulk0email0.net>
>Date: Mon, May 17, 1999 18:28 EDT
>Message-id: <374098...@usa0.0no0bulk0email0.net>
>
>Paul J. Adam wrote:
>>
>> In article <373F9D...@usa0.0no0bulk0email0.net>, Brian
>> <Witch**D...@usa0.0no0bulk0email0.net> writes
>> >Peter Skelton wrote:
>> >> You really should read some of the mid-1930's staff reports on AA guns
>and
>> >> capability.
>> >against an aerial assault.
>> our mind...
>
>There is always room for improvement but to say we are not properly
>defended is wrong.
The difference between the USN and their claims vs 1930's and pre-1982 RN is
the level and realism of the testing.
Without doubt, the USN facilities for testing their shipboard AA system are far
better and much more realistic (simulates real world) than those of either the
1930's and pre-1982 RN.
There are still limits - that's why you have the unmmaned ex-USS Decator for
the most realistic ("coming-at-ya") testing. Nevertheless, very realistic
stressing threat scenarios for live fire exercises can be carried out at
Roosevelt Roads or Barking Sands facilities.
These realistic threat scenarios allow the users of the facilities to test:
1. if the systems work (albeit under controlled trial conditions) ; eg will the
Mk92 mod 6 CORT system on the FFG-7's be able to successfully engage a sea
skimming Kormorant using SM-1 Blk6A - (yep!)
and
2. train operators in the most realistic environments.
The regular USN-FGN live fire exercises involving Kormorants and Exocets as
targets give a far more realistic "test" of capabilities than anything
available before.
If you're worried about Mach 2 sea skimmers, there's always the Vandal
(ex-Talos) which are regular participants at live the fire portions of RIMPAC.
I think we've come a long way since the RN Staff Reports of the 1930's. ( The
USN was just as "daft" back then.) And I don't mean just the "technology" but
rather the thinking behind what constitutes "realistic" assessment of
capabilities. (Gotta be careful not to learn the wrong lessons from history.)
BTW, the latest baseline Aegis may be cool but SSDS is pretty darned good.
Trials of the system on USS Ashland were VERY impressive! Picked out a stream
attack of two sea skimmers from a huge number of false contacts generated by
EA-6B jamming and splashed them with RAM. (Think datafusion!)
Add CEC to Aegis and SSDS and I think there would be real substance to some of
the earlier boasts re: USN AA capabilities ...
R.
ran...@notatnetcom.com
<Witch**D...@usa0.0no0bulk0email0.net> wrote:
>Peter Skelton wrote:
>>
>> Brian <Witch**D...@usa0.0no0bulk0email0.net> wrote:
>>
>> >Peter Nelson wrote:
>> >> I have serious reservations about whether US warships are
>> >> properly defended against aerial assault. Modern sea-
>> >> skimming missiles fly at supersonic speeds, pack a big
>> >> punch, and can be fired from aircraft platforms a great
>> >> distance away, before they can be engaged by the ship's
>> >> SAMs, and forcing any CAP to cover a lot of territory.
>> >
>> >US Warships have the worlds best SAM system hands down. They've got
>> >range, accuracy, capability to hit targets at any altitude, can defend
>> >against raids larger than any country today can muster. They are so
>> >good, they REPLACE CAP stations. If there is anything the US Navy is
>> >prepared against, it's an air assault. We have so much AAW capability
>> >it's overkill.
>>
>> You really should read some of the mid-1930's staff reports on AA guns and
>> capability.
>
>From experience I can tell you, US Warships are properly defended
>against an aerial assault.
Oh yes?!! You can say this after Stark and Vincennes? Are you
familiar with Jarret's response?
random
ran...@notatnetcom.com
<Witch**D...@usa0.0no0bulk0email0.net> wrote:
>Peter Skelton wrote:
>> Come right off it - there is no experience base for such a claim. When was
>> a US ship attacked by more than one plane? They've made their best guesses
>> and done what we thought advisable based on analysis and exercises
>> (constrained by other needs and money, of course). They did the same in the
>> thirties.
>
>The best we can do is run mock attacks and from being in a lot of those,
>I can say the Navy's SAM systems successfully track and engage targets
>at all altitudes and speeds. We've also done exercises where live
>missiles were fired (and not just one) and came away with excellent
>results.
>
>Comparing todays SAM systems to the 1930's is a joke. Airplane
>advancements were happening everyday in the 1930's. By the 1940's, most
>30's aircraft were obsolete. We don't have the same situation now. Most
>aircraft designs are over 20 years old. There hasn't been a
>"revolutionary" technology introduced (well, Stealth, but we have that)
>in a while.
I apologize to say that you sound naive. It may be that I read more
into your writing than you intend and if so, I apologize. As one of
the officers who designed AAW exercises against BQM-74 I have to
confess that I followed accepted standard navy practice and wrote the
scenario for the best anticipated outcomes (we shot down the target).
Oddly enough that demanded a very high closing speed on us with zero
CPA at a nice altitude. The faster the better, zed CPA meant it was
easy to compute intercept. Oddly enough, the system worked flawlessly
and produced a skin to skin kill with a telemetry bird. Why then am I
cynical?
The system has zero capability against crossing contacts.
The system could not begin to handle helo launched missiles at other
targets.
The system could not begin to be a realistic threat to multiple
vampires.
and finally. My system beat the statistical odds by a margin that
remains frightening to this day.
AAW and any other form of naval warfare should not remain in the realm
of myth, voodoo and legend. If science and NCW is good for something
it should first and foremost be good for resolving stupid ambiguities
like, "will the damned thing work this time?"
random,
the disgruntled FCO.
Thank you Flip for a great word in English......
ran...@notatnetcom.com
<Witch**D...@usa0.0no0bulk0email0.net> wrote:
Why welcome to the SOH!
Welcome to MIO in the NAG. We can use optimists. In fact, we have a
crying need for them after the last five disasters there.
regards,
random
ran...@notatnetcom.com
<Witch**D...@usa0.0no0bulk0email0.net> wrote:
>Peter Skelton wrote:
>>
>> Brian <Witch**D...@usa0.0no0bulk0email0.net> wrote:
>>
>> <s>
>> >They can operate near shore based air. How many A/C can a country throw
>> >at the USN? Not a whole lot. Even if one ship does start to run out of
>> >SAM's, we replace it with another fully loaded crusier. We can do this
>> >over and over to the point at which the enemy simply has no more
>> >aircraft. Even the North Vietnamese did not challenge the USN and they
>> >had the equipment and training to do it. No other opponent has had that
>> >since.
>
>> In other words, we don't know because there hasn't been a live trial.
>> You've chosen a very tedious way to agree.
>
>In the history of warfare has there ever been a "live" trial of
>anything? By your definition no. Don't get me wrong, there is always
>room for improvement but we've tested our AAW about as much as one can
>without going to war. What more do you want the USN to do?
Speaking as one who has tested it,
"LT your entire career depends upon a successful trial of the newly
installed RIM-7M do whatever it takes to accomplish a successful
trial!" I can say without doubt of contradiction that every parameter
of the "test" was designed to maximize the chance of success. I alone
was given responsibility for both determining all the characteristics
of the trial and for successfully overcoming them and achieving a
successful demonstration of the new weapon system. Even at the time
I felt like those ratbags at the Torpedo Test Facility in Rhode Island
between the wars who somehow demonstrated the total acceptability of
the worthless submarine torpedos fielded in WWII. Nevertheless, my
AAW demo went without a hitch. The bloody weapon was not even called
upon to demonstrate its warhead capabilities since it achieved a skin
hit.
Have you ever asked yourself why we even use fragmenting warheads when
it is possible to achieve contact kinetic kills? I've seen a demo of
ERINT in which a contact missile achieved a skin hit on a ballistic
missile. Why fool around with blast kills?
It would only require another trillion dollars on this insignificant
problem in order to ensure the death of all air contacts and an honest
bunch of independant pros working at OPTEVFOR to balance reality
against the hopes and expectations of congressmen.
Neither is at all likely so don't hold your breath.
random
Peter Skelton
>Peter Skelton wrote:
>>
>> Brian <Witch**D...@usa0.0no0bulk0email0.net> wrote:
>>
>> <s>
>> >They can operate near shore based air. How many A/C can a country throw
>> >at the USN? Not a whole lot. Even if one ship does start to run out of
>> >SAM's, we replace it with another fully loaded crusier. We can do this
>> >over and over to the point at which the enemy simply has no more
>> >aircraft. Even the North Vietnamese did not challenge the USN and they
>> >had the equipment and training to do it. No other opponent has had that
>> >since.
>
>> In other words, we don't know because there hasn't been a live trial.
>> You've chosen a very tedious way to agree.
>
>In the history of warfare has there ever been a "live" trial of
>anything? By your definition no. Don't get me wrong, there is always
>room for improvement but we've tested our AAW about as much as one can
>without going to war. What more do you want the USN to do?
The only time there's a live trial is when two wars come close enough
together that the last war's expereince is valid.
I want you (I'm quite certain most of the USN already has) to recognize the
limitations of testing. Understanding that problems can arise leads to a
becoming modesty, which helps get along with the other guys. When things
get tough, it leads to a flexibility in thought that will save lives. When
things are not tough, it helps keep the basics (alertness, training etc.)
on the front burner.
(Lots of military disasters happen bscause somebody got oveconfident and
forgot the basics. I'd just as soon the USN was not the next victim.)
Peter Skelton
<s>
>
>The difference between the USN and their claims vs 1930's and pre-1982 RN is
>the level and realism of the testing.
>
>Without doubt, the USN facilities for testing their shipboard AA system are far
>better and much more realistic (simulates real world) than those of either the
>1930's and pre-1982 RN.
In the '30's *lots* of effort went into siumulating real conditions where
it was thought to be important (check out Whale Island).
Meanwhile, various teams were checking out new developments. Some, like the
Norden bomb-sight tested perfectly and proved to be useless in the real
world. Others, like British fighter control, or American fleet logistics
were right on the money.
NOw we know how to do the assesment and testing better but we've also
learned a bit about weapons development. The only way to find out which is
winning is to play a few brisk rounds of you bet your ass.
<s>
>I think we've come a long way since the RN Staff Reports of the 1930's. ( The
>USN was just as "daft" back then.) And I don't mean just the "technology" but
>rather the thinking behind what constitutes "realistic" assessment of
>capabilities. (Gotta be careful not to learn the wrong lessons from history.)
<s>
I'm sure the USN is doing a good job against the threats and tactics it has
thought of. What are the ones it hasn't thought of?
(Suppose, for the sake of argument, somebody in Singapore figures out how
to get a chip from prototype to weapon in three years (I think it takes us
around eight), ignoring shielding perhaps, would that make a difference?
How would they use the capability? How would we find out what they'd done?
I'm not forwarding this as a real problem, but it represents the sort of
surprise you get when things get going.)
Brian
> I direct your attention to the pk of RIM-7H. Yes, the RIM-7M is a
> huge upgrade but saying that it is an upgrade almost obviates the fact
> the the RIM-7H was a COMPLETELY worthless weapon system.
All my experience with NSSMS has been with the 7M missile and we had
that way back in 1989 (AOR-5). 7H might have been bad but the SM-1 isn't
exactly a stellar performer.
Brian
> Oh yes?!! You can say this after Stark and Vincennes? Are you
> familiar with Jarret's response?
Nothing out there can save you from stupidity (USS Stark). And let's not
forget, the Vincennes hit the target, twice.
Brian
>
> I want you (I'm quite certain most of the USN already has) to recognize the
> limitations of testing. Understanding that problems can arise leads to a
> becoming modesty, which helps get along with the other guys. When things
> get tough, it leads to a flexibility in thought that will save lives. When
> things are not tough, it helps keep the basics (alertness, training etc.)
> on the front burner.
> (Lots of military disasters happen bscause somebody got oveconfident and
> forgot the basics. I'd just as soon the USN was not the next victim.)
I'm pretty sure we recognize the limits of testing. We don't have
crystal ball that can predict the future but let's not forget that the
other guy suffers from the same lack of realism that we do. They can
simulate fights against Aegis/SM-2's all they want but they won't know
for sure until the shit hits the fan. How many countries right now are
even doing live fire ASM tests? Personally I think our biggest threat
comes from new ARM missiles. If someone were able to produce a HARM
copy, it would be a bigger threat than any SSM IMHO.
TMOliver
('62-'65) and reserves ('65-late 80s) seeming forever ago, I'm
constrained to agree with random when it comes to an evaluation of the
"real" capacity of the USN's AAW capabilities, if for no other reason,
because they were overated then and seem in the grand scheme of things
to be no less so today.
For much of my career AAW was my interest and naval avocation. As an
Air Intercept Controller and in CIC billets and as a CV OOD, I was
introduced to both sides of the equation, but remain convinced that the
"for want of a nail the shoe was lost" theory is almost always
applicable.
For me, the classic tale involves a major air defense exercise off GITMO
involving carrier and land based a/c carried out in a highly controlled
and regulated environment, back when civil air traffic was so low in
volume as to not be a factor. Defended by the "cream of the fleet", a
DLG and a DDG, both sparkling with new paint and gear, and CAP
controlled by a picket and the carrier itself the carrier's flight deck
was visited by a low altitude pass (make that a buzz) from an ancient
SNJ (fortunately from a semi-friendly Carib. country) arriving
undetected right down the threat axis.
Certainly, equipment and weapons are better today. But the USN's
tendency to optimize expectations while minimizing the "if it can be
fucked up, it likely will be" factors leads to a youthful and exhuberant
level of confidence not always shared by old salts.
For relevance...
the Army's Apaches were dispatched to Albania to protect US troops in
the proximity of/in if necessary Kosovo. Now we learn that the Apaches
were not exactly a "quick reaction asset" and can not be operated
"alone" in a hostile environment, but require protection with ground
forces.
Believing one's own press releases can be harmful to one's health.
--
TMOliver, el pelon sinverguenza
From a small observatory overlooking McLennan Crossing
- VESPER ADEST IUVENES CONSURGITE -
Catullus
doug ventura
Peter Nelson wrote:
> Brian wrote in message <3740CE...@usa0.0no0bulk0email0.net>...
>
> RAM?? The RAM has never been tested at a realistic target.
> The fastest test target it has EVER been fired at was a subsonic
> Exocet (this test was performed on Dec. 12, 1998 in a flight test
> exercise was conducted from the USS Decatur Self-Defense
> Test Ship off Point Mugu, CA.
You are most definitely incorrect.
"Ace"
>
>
> ---peter
Bob Baal
Both the Stark and the Falkland conflict illustrate how systems that
perform well on the test ranges and in exercises fail in combat.
Claiming the shooting down of an airliner as an example of how
wonderful USN missile systems are seems strange to me after all we
have been able to hit civilian targets with SAM's since the 50's !
Note I am not saying there is anything wrong with the USN systems from
a technicial point of view just that using the Vincennes as a positive
example seems strange to me.
Brian
> Claiming the shooting down of an airliner as an example of how
> wonderful USN missile systems are seems strange to me after all we
> have been able to hit civilian targets with SAM's since the 50's !
We tagged a fair share of MiG's in Vietnam with Terriers and Talos
birds.
> Note I am not saying there is anything wrong with the USN systems from
> a technicial point of view just that using the Vincennes as a positive
> example seems strange to me.
There was nothing wrong with the system on the Vincennes, what was wrong
was the crew. You had inept people sitting in a position they had no
business being in. The system did not lie to them and performed as
advertised. Aegis never claimed to identify targets by just radar
return.
Bob Baal
<Witch**D...@usa0.0no0bulk0email0.net> wrote:
>
>> Note I am not saying there is anything wrong with the USN systems from
>> a technicial point of view just that using the Vincennes as a positive
>> example seems strange to me.
>
>There was nothing wrong with the system on the Vincennes, what was wrong
>was the crew. You had inept people sitting in a position they had no
>business being in. The system did not lie to them and performed as
>advertised. Aegis never claimed to identify targets by just radar
>return.
Yes I understand all of this - what I am trying to say ( and possibly
not being at all clear about) is that shooting down a civilian target
is so easy that using it as an example of the effectivenes of a Weapon
System is strange. Just about anything could have brought it down.
Drones used in the developement of SM-2 would have been harder to hit.
What you need in this argument is an example of a target being
sucessfuly engaged which other systems ( Sea Dart, SA-N-6 ,etc) could
not have managed.
Regards
Bob
Sun-Ho Beck
with them.
Please tell us more about it.
NATO, Israelis and Swedes, who was the toughest opponent?
Regards, Beck
Sun-Ho Beck
the
>Mk92 mod 6 CORT system on the FFG-7's be able to successfully engage a sea
>skimming Kormorant using SM-1 Blk6A - (yep!)
Would you tell us more about it please?
Regards, Beck
Per Andersson
IIRC an AJ37 Viggen managed to 'sink' an Aegis cruiser in a PFP
excercise in the Balitcs in 1995-ish. I recall some mild gloating
taking place in a few issues of the navy magazine.
Of course, we have a rather more substantial archipelago than the
Israelis, or just about anyone but the Norwegians...
Per Andersson
"Some kind of central planning seems to be the object of
most environmental activists. But why is a Politburo expected
to work better for plants and animals than it did for Russians?"
doug ventura
Perhap I can, Beck. Before applauding, consider the initial conditions
1. The environment is benign
2. Angle of arrival, launch time and raid density are known beforehand
3. Exhaustive training is conducted by Navy and Civilian specialists
4. External offboard cues are often available from other ships in the line
Similarly, given the right initial conditions.....ships like Stark would not be
infamous.
Don't get me wrong...Mod 6 is an improvement over Mod 2, Blk 6B over Blk 5,
etc. But with a relatively inexpensive stream raid of ASMs at the right time,
you'll have one hell of a coral reef....
"Ace"
Brian
>
> "Sun-Ho Beck" <foy...@unitel.co.kr> wrote:
> >>the Isreali's gave Aegis and NTU quite a work out when we did a few ex's
> >with them.
> >Please tell us more about it.
> >NATO, Israelis and Swedes, who was the toughest opponent?
> IIRC an AJ37 Viggen managed to 'sink' an Aegis cruiser in a PFP
> excercise in the Balitcs in 1995-ish. I recall some mild gloating
> taking place in a few issues of the navy magazine.
We almost got sunk in 1992 (NTU CG) but due to the fact that we were
placed too damn close to the shore. NTU has great overland coverage but
5 miles off the coast is suicide. With the SM-2(ER), we have a minimum
range problem so to be successful that close, we would have to auto fire
on just about anything going feet wet. When we were placed farther away,
we were quite successful. Still IMHO, the Swedish coastline provided for
the most difficult environment I'd ever experienced. Not a high volume
of threats but they fly lower than anyone and use a lot of tactics we'd
never experienced before. They were quite good at laying chaff to muck
things up.
Sun-Ho Beck
>you'll have one hell of a coral reef....
>
>"Ace"
Thanks for the reply.
Would you let me know "who did what where when" please? I thought it was the
Germans but a coral reef? Australia?
Thanks again. Beck
Sun-Ho Beck
Oops, I mean the Baltic Sea, not the German navy.
Regards,
Beck
doug ventura
evaluate its vulnerability by conducting exercises with its fleet
against real anti-ship missiles. Such a exercise, while providing
valuable data on ship capabilities, might have initial conditions which
would make such data somewhat optimistic.
"Ace"
Ken Young
(Bob Baal) wrote:
> Both the Stark and the Falkland conflict illustrate how systems that
> perform well on the test ranges and in exercises fail in combat.
This has been true since the invention of test ranges. For example in
the action of the Shah versus the Huascar the 9 inch MLR guns on the
Shah should have been able to penetrate the 4 inch armour on the
Huascar from target tests but no penetrating hits were scored.
On the other hand you can get systems that perform exactly to
requirements but are found to have the wrong requirements specified.
An example of that is the already mentioned Nordon Bomb Sight. It
fulfilled all the requirements for accuracy what was not remarked on
were the tactical limitations. First you had to be able to see the
target second the aircraft had to fly in a straight line at a constant
altitude for several miles which were ideal conditions for AA fire.
However weapon testing is essential. One of the main reasons the
Japanese torpedoes were so good was the extensive testing including a
large number of live fire tests on the service torpedoes including
some that had been in store for over six months. America on the other
hand apparently never tested their torpedoes with warheads. Another
example was the 1.1 inch gun this was issued after passing acceptance
checks which were apparently on a tool room model with no checks to
see if could be maintained or be combat effective at sea. For a brand
new weapon bristling with ingenious features this was a mistake.
Britain on the other hand upgraded an existing weapon with the pom
pom. While this was inferior in performance to a new weapon of the
same calibre (Bofors) it was at least reliable.
Ken Young
ken...@cix.co.uk
Maternity is a matter of fact
Paternity is a matter of opinion
Chris H Kostanick
>I'll have to dig up the exact date, but I know RAM took a high diving
>supersonic Vandal target (ex-Talos) within the last couple of months.
>I'm pretty sure it's also done live fire engagements against stream
>attacks. These would both be this year sometime.
I have a question or two about RAM. From what I've read here, RAM
will be a better replacement for CIWS, the idea being to engage
farther away so you get less damage from a close detonation. My question
is, "how far away can we detect sea skimmer type ASuW thingies?"
I thought that it wasn't very far, which is why the CIWS system
engaged so closely.
Also, how fast can you fire RAMs? If I was going to attack something with
RAM, I'd try to get multiple skimmers inbound at the same time from different
directions, so that the defense saturated and let one leak.
By the way, anyone have a good open source reference for SAM system data? I'm
particularly interested in cold war era homing methodology and turn performance.
There are some good chapters in one of the books edited by Ian Hogg, but
it is light on thrust, homing and turn ability.
Chris Kostanick
Jet Car Neutopian - Grays Sell Me Kerosene
J & K Gilbert
>
> ... My question
> is, "how far away can we detect sea skimmer type ASuW thingies?"
> I thought that it wasn't very far, which is why the CIWS system
> engaged so closely.
If you have airborne early warning (AEW) planes, you should be able to detect
the missiles in plenty of time. Of course, that won't always be the case, and
if you have a surprise attack on a lone ship (like STARK), chances are the ship
will be hit.
> Also, how fast can you fire RAMs? If I was going to attack something with
> RAM, I'd try to get multiple skimmers inbound at the same time from different
> directions, so that the defense saturated and let one leak.
That is the classic way to do it, of course. That is not easy for most nations
though. Argentina in the Falklands only had a half dozen or so air launched
Exocets. (Of course they had many more SHIP launched versions, but they only
saw use fired from trailers located on the shore.)
John Gilbert
Thomas Schoene
<7i94cq$3vl$1...@net.indra.com>...
> "Thomas Schoene" <TomSc...@worldnet.att.net> writes:
>
>
> I have a question or two about RAM. From what I've read here, RAM
> will be a better replacement for CIWS, the idea being to engage
question
> is, "how far away can we detect sea skimmer type ASuW thingies?"
> I thought that it wasn't very far, which is why the CIWS system
> engaged so closely.
I don't think the limit is on detection so much as on the effective
range of the gun.
In theory, you can detect inbounds as they come over the horizon, or
even sooner if you have a good IR Search and Track system. In
practice, the environment is going to affect this a lot. I wouldn't
even want to guess.
> Also, how fast can you fire RAMs? If I was going to attack
something with
> RAM, I'd try to get multiple skimmers inbound at the same time from
different
> directions, so that the defense saturated and let one leak.
No more than a second between launches from the same launcher in the
same general direction. The missile itself can accept up to about 10
degrees of angle-off, so it can deal with stream attacks in rapid
succession. The mount trains pretty fast too; it's originally a
modification of the Phalanx mount. A sensible installation will
consist of two or more launchers to deal with wide angle threats.
Any defense can be saturated, but RAM is better at this than a
radar-guided gun or missile because once the missile is on the way,
it doesn't need guidance and the launcher can move on to the next
target.
> By the way, anyone have a good open source reference for SAM system
data? I'm
> particularly interested in cold war era homing methodology and turn
performance.
> There are some good chapters in one of the books edited by Ian
Hogg, but
> it is light on thrust, homing and turn ability.
I can't think of one, but I'm no engineer. Thrust and turning
ability are key parameters in defining the engagement envelope of a
missile, so I suspect open source discussions of real-world missiles
are going to be few and far between.
--
--------------------------------------------------
TomSc...@worldnet.att.net
*Insert pithy quote here*
Brian
>
> Chris H Kostanick wrote:
> >
> > is, "how far away can we detect sea skimmer type ASuW thingies?"
> > I thought that it wasn't very far, which is why the CIWS system
> > engaged so closely.
>
> the missiles in plenty of time. Of course, that won't always be the case, and
> if you have a surprise attack on a lone ship (like STARK), chances are the ship
> will be hit.
The Stark wasn't a surprise. The Mirage was detected and a lookout
possibly saw the launch. After that they knew something was deadly
wrong. The problem with the Stark was that all of their defense systems
were down so even though they knew what was occurring, they were
powerless to do anything about it. The EW's picked up the seeker as
advertised but with no ECM all they could do was listen to it ride in.
D C Nelson
Brian <Witch**D...@usa0.0no0bulk0email0.net> wrote:
>
> The Stark wasn't a surprise. The Mirage was detected and a lookout
> possibly saw the launch. After that they knew something was deadly
> wrong. The problem with the Stark was that all of their defense
systems
> were down so even though they knew what was occurring, they were
> powerless to do anything about it. The EW's picked up the seeker as
> advertised but with no ECM all they could do was listen to it ride in.
>
With that much warning, and with their SLQ-32 on line, couldn't
they have fired chaff?
Doug Nelson
--== Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ ==--
---Share what you know. Learn what you don't.---
Rcheung
>From: D C Nelson <dcne...@my-dejanews.com>
>Date: Mon, 24 May 1999 02:13 PM EDT
>Message-id: <7ic4sj$b88$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>
>
>In article <37495F...@usa0.0no0bulk0email0.net>,
> Brian <Witch**D...@usa0.0no0bulk0email0.net> wrote:
>>
>> The Stark wasn't a surprise. The Mirage was detected and a lookout
>> possibly saw the launch. After that they knew something was deadly
>> wrong. The problem with the Stark was that all of their defense
>systems
>> were down so even though they knew what was occurring, they were
>> powerless to do anything about it. The EW's picked up the seeker as
>> advertised but with no ECM all they could do was listen to it ride in.
>>
>
>With that much warning, and with their SLQ-32 on line, couldn't
>they have fired chaff?
> Doug Nelson
>
>
By the time your ESM detect the Exocet's seeker, it might be too late. The
seeker might have locked on to the ship already.
For the last-ditch chaff "centroid" mode to work well you'd need to have the
chaff cloud envelope the ship and move relative to the ship drawing the missile
away. The usually requires maneuvring or a very favorable wind direction.
Stark wasn't ready to do any of that - IIRC there was a report that the SRBOC
were not even loaded at the time!
The only move she made to protect herself during the whole affair was to try
and lock-on to the Mirage with the STIR and prepare to engage it with the Mk-75
76mm gun.
Most important point is, she never detected the missiles with radar. SYS-2,
CORT and SPS-49(V)5 in the later FFG-7's could have made the difference but
Stark didn't have them. (Not all FFG-7's are created equal).
R.