Why are our ASMs smaller than theirs?
AlumsHubby
>> carrier?
>No, unless you happen to get lucky and initiate a magazine explosion.
US anti-ship missiles are just too small. You might luck into a
mission kill, but I'd say the odds are strong against.
Above from the "Future of the Navy" thread...
Why is it that we have smaller missiles? Does smaller imply less
mission-capable, or is there a tradeoff in reliability, battleworthiness,
speed, etc.?
Bill McClain (Alums...@aol.com)
--- "nomenclature is destiny" ---
Andrew C. Toppan
> Why is it that we have smaller missiles? Does smaller imply less
> mission-capable, or is there a tradeoff in reliability, battleworthiness,
> speed, etc.?
The idea that "we have smaller missile [warheads]" is not entirely true.
Yes, SOME foreign missiles - mainly Soviet/Russian types - have very large
warheads. But the vast majority of foreign missiles (i.e. the famous
SS-N-2 Styx and Exocet) have warheads considerably smaller than that of US
Harpoon.
The Soviets believed in very large warheads because of major differences
in the way they intended to wage war. Whereas the US would fight a sea
battle with carrier aircraft supported by surface ships, the Soviets had
no carriers. The offensive backbone of their fleet was surface ships
armed with BIG SSMs and backed by aircraft carrying BIG ASMs. They needed
the BIG warheads to mission-kill US carriers with only one or two hits.
Since we would have been attacking relatively smaller Soviet ships, lots
of smaller missiles were more appropriate than a few big missiles.
Even more fundamental is the role of the two Navies - the US Navy was a
defensive force to keep the Soviets out of the Atlantic, while the Soviet
navy was an offensive fleet intended to force its way into the Atlantic.
The different missions dicatated different weapons.
--
Andrew Toppan --- acto...@gwi.net --- "I speak only for myself"
=====>NEW ADDRESS ==> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ <== NEW ADDRESS <======
US Naval & Shipbuilding Museum/USS Salem Online - http://www.uss-salem.org/
Naval History, World Navies Today, Photo Features, Military FAQs, and more
Paul J. Adam
<alums...@aol.com> writes
>Why is it that we have smaller missiles? Does smaller imply less
>mission-capable, or is there a tradeoff in reliability, battleworthiness,
>speed, etc.?
The fUSSR had some huge shipkiller missiles (the SS-N-19 Shipwreck /
Granit comes to mind). But they also deployed a _lot_ of SS-N-2 Styx,
and a lot of ships armed with SS-N-14 (one of whose versions had an
antiship mode, but it made MM38 Exocet look lethal by comparison).
I'll offer a real-world example: in the space and weight needed for
maybe two SS-N-19, a Duke-class frigate can carry eight RGM-84 Harpoons.
In the real world, against the threats usually faced, which is more
useful?
The fUSSR had to produce huge shipkiller ASMs because they lacked the
means to kick back the enemy air defences except by saturation, and had
no shipborne aircraft able to loft-deliver 2000lb LGBs.
--
There are four kinds of homicide: felonious, excusable, justifiable and
praiseworthy...
Paul J. Adam pa...@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk
Per Nordenberg
Andrew C. Toppan wrote in message <6skbg7$dha$8...@noc1.gwi.net>...
>> mission-capable, or is there a tradeoff in reliability, battleworthiness,
>> speed, etc.?
>
>Yes, SOME foreign missiles - mainly Soviet/Russian types - have very large
>warheads. But the vast majority of foreign missiles (i.e. the famous
>SS-N-2 Styx and Exocet) have warheads considerably smaller than that of US
>Harpoon.
>Andrew Toppan
According to World Naval Weapon Systems the SS-N-2A and B versions of Styx
have a 500 kg (1100 lbs) large-diameter shaped-charge warhead (SS-N-2C even
a somewhat heavier), whereas Harpoon has a 221 kg (488.5 lbs) HE blast;
semi-armour piercing warhead. There have been moves by the Soviets/Russians
to develop smaller SSMs though with body and warhead comparable to Harpoon
in size - notably the SS-N-25 "Harpoonski".
Per Nordenberg
Per Nordenberg
Andrew C. Toppan
That'll teach me to post without opening a book. SS-N-2 has got a big
warhead, but relatively short range. For some reason I'd thought they
made the reverse trade-off, going for range instead of warhead. Anyway,
the idea remains the same - if those little FACs (OSA and the like) are
going to go after bigger prey (destroyers, cruisers, carriers, etc.), they
need a big, fast punch. Hence big warheads...
I would be interested to see how SS-N-2Cs would do against some old USN
ships in a SINKEX. We've got around 170 of said missiles lying about
somewhere, probably Pax River. Shooting 'em off might yield some
interesting results...
David Bofinger
> The fUSSR had to produce huge shipkiller ASMs because they lacked the
> means to kick back the enemy air defences except by saturation
I think there's a logical flaw here: if you want to saturate defences
you're better off using a small missile, not a large one.
The real answer to the question is that Western navies are, as a rule,
only willing to make a modest investment in anti-surface warfare. The
reason is that during the cold war (when these design trends evolved)
USSR/WP ships weren't really the crucial threat. Aircraft and submarines
were each more important, as, for that matter, they still are. And the
reason for that is that the people of the west are the people of the
sea: Apart from a brief, thoroughly redressed embarrassment in 1941-2 we
haven't even looked like losing a war at sea since the sixteenth century
(when the Ottomans gave us a hard time).
The Soviet Union, on the other hand, was fundamentally a land power.
Its navy was an afterthought, and expected to go down fighting in a
brief spasm of enormous violence. It it took with it as many as
possible of the western ships (preferably loaded with American tanks
bound for the defence of Germany) then it had done its duty. So
Anti-surface warfare was its main role, and the ships reflected that.
Now given the USN was willing to allocate 8 Harpoon's worth of missile
to a ship, it wouldn't have been very sensible to give it instead one
or two SS-N-22s. Also, it was hardly worth the bother of developing
such a missile, and the USN didn't. Instead it borrowed an air-launched
ASM and made it surface-launchable, and it made sure that its SAMs had
an auxilliary anti-surface role. For a weapon that was only ever going
to be a sidearm, that was sufficient.
But a Russian ship with an allocation of sixty Harpoon equivalents
might well thing that ten Sunburn were just the thing for cutting
through an Aegis screen. In the event that is exactly what they chose.
An interesting exception to this trend was Scandinavia, where western
navies developed ASuW-oriented ships. But being a fundamentally brown
water fleet they had small ships, and didn't find Sunburn-equivalents
appropriate.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
David Bofinger David.B...@dsto.defence.gov.au
----------------------------------------------------------------------
em...@olypen.com
alums...@aol.com (AlumsHubby) wrote:
> Why is it that we have smaller missiles?
>
> Bill McClain
Might have something to do with the size and protection of the anticipated
target. Why have to lug around a bigger missile with a bigger warhead than you
are going to need?
Michael
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum
dmb...@my-dejanews.com
David Bofinger <David.B...@dsto.defence.gov.au> wrote:
>
> I think there's a logical flaw here: if you want to saturate defences
> you're better off using a small missile, not a large one.
>
I'm not sure that there's a flaw - Cold War tactics appeared to
be Regiment-sized strikes on a well-protected CVBG, and if one
could only expect to leak one or two missiles through Aegis, etc.,
then it made sense to at least have a carrier-crippling warhead
leak through than some tiny pinprick.
It's a bit difficult to imagine the role of an fUSSR SAG in
the role of an interdictor to REFORGER - the chances of it
avoiding an Alpha strike on it's way into the sea lanes of
the Atlantic seem slim to me, not to mention the capital
units being torpedo magnets.
Oh, and given the BARCAP provided by F-14's, large missiles
would be necessary to provide a reasonable chance of survival
for the launch aircraft, as well.
David
Jussi Saari
>
> Paul J. Adam wrote:
>
> > The fUSSR had to produce huge shipkiller ASMs because they
> > lacked the means to kick back the enemy air defences except
> > by saturation
>
> defences you're better off using a small missile, not a large
> one.
But when your target is a well defended 90 000 -ton CVN (the big
Soviet missiles were after all very specifically built for that task...)
there simply isn't that option: you need a very big warhead to hurt it,
a fast missile to get it there, and long range to get the launch
platform to fire the missile before getting sunk / shot down. A small
missile just can't do all that...
Jussi
Per Nordenberg
David Bofinger wrote in message <35EE295C...@dsto.defence.gov.au>...
>An interesting exception to this trend was Scandinavia, where western
>navies developed ASuW-oriented ships.
This was certainly the case with the RSwN during the 50æ„€, 60æ„€ and 70æ„€,
but with frequent submarine intrusions in the early 80æ„€ the new small
surface attack ships was hastily fitted also with a significant ASW outfit.
They were called coastal corvettes, and although not true multipurpose
(lacking SAM) they are among the most capable ASuW/ASW ships that are for
their size. Also Denmark and Finland have lately built similar small dual
role vessels, whereas Norway seems to leave ASW to frigate sized vessels.
>But being a fundamentally brown
>water fleet they had small ships, and didn't find Sunburn-equivalents
>appropriate.
>
>David Bofinger
Actually I think the Sw RBS 15 as far as appearance has more in common with
Russian SSMs. I惴 pretty sure that it was not designed from the beginning to
fit into a torpedo tube as was the case with Harpoon and Exocet. It is of
course subsonic like all other Western SSMs, but it has much more of an
aircraft like appearance than most. This might have to do with RBS 15 being
a development of the old RB 08, a huge swept-wing aircraft like missile
which actually was a modified French CT 20 target drone. In spite of RBS 15
not being as compact as Harpoon and Exocet, it is still possible to fit a
battery of 8 to 200 ton FACs and still retain a couple of torpedo tubes as
well.
Per Nordenberg
Paul Lantz
sink a CV/CVN? Would a single large missile do it? Would it put it out of
action for a long time? Except for a few lucky hits I doubt that many large
warships were ever sunk by a single warhead (Italian battleship sunk by
German glider bomb (?) in WWII comes to mind).
Eric Pinnell
David Bofinger wrote:
> Paul J. Adam wrote:
>
> > The fUSSR had to produce huge shipkiller ASMs because they lacked the
> > means to kick back the enemy air defences except by saturation
>
> I think there's a logical flaw here: if you want to saturate defences
> you're better off using a small missile, not a large one.
>
> The real answer to the question is that Western navies are, as a rule,
> only willing to make a modest investment in anti-surface warfare.
The real reasons Russians went for big missiles had to do with
propulsion.They lacked the small, effficient turbofan engines like what were
found in the
Harpoon.
Further, Russian philosophy was one of hitting hard with as much punch as
possible, knowing that if the Surface ships did not take out their NATO
counterparts in a hurry, superior allied air power would waste the Soviet
surface fleet.
Eric Pinnell
Per Andersson
(snip)
>Why is it that we have smaller missiles?
Because you didn't have to hunt supercarriers with your missiles.
Having more than one missile, on a plane slightly smaller than a 767
is also a nice thing...
> Does smaller imply less
>mission-capable,
Only when you are trying to kill a supercarrrier or battleship...
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?"
Per Andersson
>An interesting exception to this trend was Scandinavia, where western
>navies developed ASuW-oriented ships.
Because our interest isn't sea control, but sea denial, the resoing
should be obvious.
> But being a fundamentally brown
>water fleet they had small ships, and didn't find Sunburn-equivalents
>appropriate.
IIRC the Swedish RBS 15 has a warhead twice as large as that of a
Harpoon...
Brooks A Rowlett
weapon was always airplanes flying from carriers, dropping bombs. The
Russians went to big missiles because they didn't have carriers with such
airplanes, and they wanted to defend from the shore. We designed our missiles
to fit on ships that already existed, or airplanes that were flown from
carriers. TASM came along because it seemed a worthwhile adaptation of a
missile developed for another reason. The Russians, contrariwise, designed
the ship and its missile, or the airplane and its missile, more or less at the
same time. This is especially noteworthy in Russian AAM's, but that's a tangent.
-Brooks A Rowlett
Paul J. Adam
>Paul J. Adam wrote:
>> The fUSSR had to produce huge shipkiller ASMs because they lacked the
>> means to kick back the enemy air defences except by saturation
>
>I think there's a logical flaw here: if you want to saturate defences
>you're better off using a small missile, not a large one.
Though if the defences are capable, you want long standoff (so your
platforms can launch and retreat without being destroyed), high speed
(to get through the danger space as fast as possible) and large warheads
(because if only one or two weapons reach their target, each must be
individually lethal). Which end up looking... remarkably like fUSSR
antiship missiles.
Thomas Schoene
> IIRC the Swedish RBS 15 has a warhead twice as large as that of a
> Harpoon...
>
RBS-15 has a "estimated 250-kg" warhead, per World naval Weapon
Systems, although a larger one is under consideration. Harpoon has
an approximately 220-kg warhead.
I doubt even the larger RBS-15 warhead would be twice the weight of
Harpoon's.
--
--------------------------------------------------
TomSc...@worldnet.att.net
*Insert pithy quote here*
Yama
> This was certainly the case with the RSwN during the 50´s, 60´s and 70´s,
> but with frequent submarine intrusions in the early 80´s the new small
> surface attack ships was hastily fitted also with a significant ASW outfit.
> They were called coastal corvettes, and although not true multipurpose
> (lacking SAM) they are among the most capable ASuW/ASW ships that are for
> their size. Also Denmark and Finland have lately built similar small dual
> role vessels, whereas Norway seems to leave ASW to frigate sized vessels.
Well, I think Finnish ships don't kinda fit to that picture, not having ASW
torpedoes for example. Instead they have Mistral's for point AD (read moral
boosting:). I am not sure about new Rauma 2000 but I don't think it has ASW
torpedoes either. I am actually wondering how Navy is going to improve our ASW
capability, which sucks, to put it very simply (someone knows? Jussi? Anyone?).
Of course, the whole purpose of our surface 'fleet' is to give enemy forces
something to shoot while our ML's are closing the straits, and mines are as (or
more) fatal to submarine than to surface ship.
To get more back to original subject, there is only so much tonnage Nordic
Navies can afford, and in Baltic it makes more sense to build ten 300tn FACs
than one 3,000 ton frigate. This of course puts limits to how big missiles you
can put your ships.
Jussi Saari
>
> The real reasons Russians went for big missiles had to do with
> propulsion.They lacked the small, effficient turbofan engines
> like what were found in the Harpoon.
"Small efficient turbofan" probably isn't the answer if question is
how to move a 1000kg warhead at 25km and Mach 2-3 for a distance of
500km or so...
> Further, Russian philosophy was one of hitting hard with as
> much punch as possible, knowing that if the Surface ships did
> not take out their NATO counterparts in a hurry, superior
> allied air power would waste the Soviet surface fleet.
Concentrated combined-arms stand-off strikes by AV-MF missile bombers,
surface ships and SSGNs launching near-simultaneously from multiple
directions was the soviet philosophy for anti-carrier strikes, followed
by SSNs mopping up the survivors. That strategy (and a huge target)
requires a big missile, whatever the propulsion technology. This was
also pretty much the only role the Soviets had in mind for all their
rocket cruisers, from Kynda to Kirov. They were never intended to make
their way into the Atlantic, first because they were probably realistic
enough to understand that it wouldn't succeed, and second because
especially in the early part of Cold War the Soviets weren't very
concerned with the Atlantic supply routes anyway: they were planning for
a short nuclear war and a "battle for the first salvo", not a prolonged
war of attrition like WWII.
Jussi
Yevgeniy Chizhikov
Brooks A Rowlett wrote:
Russians also have small anti-ship missiles that carried by a fighters and bombers.
Kh-35 and Kh-31. Both of them are smaller or equal to Harpoon in size have similar
range, and smaller warheads. While Kh-35 subsonic, Kh-31 is M3 missile. Russians also
have few missiles for air-to-surface missions that also can be used for anti-ship
missions. Kh-29T and Kh-29L, one is TV guided and another laser guided. Missile
weight about 700 kg, has 320 kg warhead, and range of 30 km, speed is about M3. There
had been in recant news information that range of TV-guided Kh-29 was extended to 90
km. One more missile in service is larger than Harpoon, but still is not grossly
overweight. It is Kh-59M, or AS-18. This missile is used for air-to-surface and
anti-ship missions. Missile does have weight of 920 kg, warhead is 320 kg, speed is
subsonic, range 120 km. Missile is carried by Su-24 and Su-34. There is also Kh-59,
or AS-13 which is similar but older than Kh-59M but does have similar
characteristics.
Yevgeniy Chizhikov.
Eric Pinnell
Jussi Saari wrote:
> "Small efficient turbofan" probably isn't the answer if question is
> how to move a 1000kg warhead at 25km and Mach 2-3 for a distance of
> 500km or so...
True. But AS-6 would have still been militarily effective if it had been a
seaskimming turbon fan as long as it could GO 500KM. Also, given its high
flying
profile, AS-6 is relatively easy to shoot down compared to a sea skimmer.
Eric Pinnell
Jets Moore
has two primary ASM in the fleet. Harpoon and Tomohawk. Harpoon is
designed to be small enought to mount a significant number (8) on the
smallest combatants with out taking up half the ship. Both the Harpoon and
Tomahawk can air, surface, or subface launched as well. Try that with your
average Russian ASM.
--
John Moore
je...@kos.net
em...@olypen.com wrote in article <6slssl$1ag$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
> In article <199809021929...@ladder03.news.aol.com>,
> alums...@aol.com (AlumsHubby) wrote:
>
> > Why is it that we have smaller missiles?
> >
> > Bill McClain
>
> Might have something to do with the size and protection of the
anticipated
> target. Why have to lug around a bigger missile with a bigger warhead
than you
> are going to need?
>
> Michael
>
Andrew C. Toppan
> I know there is (happily) no real world experience but what would it take to
> sink a CV/CVN? Would a single large missile do it?
Unless the missile had a nuclear warhead, no.
Greater detail depends on how large the "large missile" is, where it hits,
etc.
Chris Manteuffel
>It also is a factor of the commonality of your weapons systems. The USN
>has two primary ASM in the fleet. Harpoon and Tomohawk. Harpoon is
>designed to be small enought to mount a significant number (8) on the
>smallest combatants with out taking up half the ship. Both the Harpoon and
>Tomahawk can air, surface, or subface launched as well. Try that with your
>average Russian ASM.
Wasn't TASM retired in 1993? It might still be in some warehouses, but
I thought it was out of the fleet. And Tomahawk can not air launch. I
believe both these topics were covered recently in a thread on the
afghanistan\sudan strike.
Chris Manteuffel
em...@olypen.com
Jussi...@hepo.cc.lut.fi wrote:
> Concentrated combined-arms stand-off strikes by AV-MF missile bombers,
> surface ships and SSGNs launching near-simultaneously from multiple
> directions was the soviet philosophy for anti-carrier strikes, followed
> by SSNs mopping up the survivors. That strategy (and a huge target)
> requires a big missile, whatever the propulsion technology. This was
> also pretty much the only role the Soviets had in mind for all their
> rocket cruisers, from Kynda to Kirov. They were never intended to make
> their way into the Atlantic, first because they were probably realistic
> enough to understand that it wouldn't succeed, and second because
> especially in the early part of Cold War the Soviets weren't very
> concerned with the Atlantic supply routes anyway: they were planning for
> a short nuclear war and a "battle for the first salvo", not a prolonged
> war of attrition like WWII.
>
> Jussi
I'm afraid that most Americans have trouble owning up to just how defensive
the policy of the USSR was. This is understandably complicated by their plan
to overrun the NATO countries. But I think even that was intended to remove a
perceived threat rather than engage in simple conquest. After the devastation
of WW II, the Soviets were determined that the next war would not happen on
their territory.
Per Nordenberg
Thomas Schoene wrote in message <01bdd7a8$c3f60600$LocalHost@default>...
Do you happen to know if this larger warhead that you´re referring to (if
developed) will be fitted to the new 200 km Mk3 version scheduled for
delivery in 2002?
Per Nordenberg
Per Nordenberg
Yama wrote in message <35EFBABC...@paju.oulu.fi>...
>Per Nordenberg wrote:
>
>> This was certainly the case with the RSwN during the 50´s, 60´s and 70´s,
>> but with frequent submarine intrusions in the early 80´s the new small
>> surface attack ships was hastily fitted also with a significant ASW
outfit.
>> They were called coastal corvettes, and although not true multipurpose
>> (lacking SAM) they are among the most capable ASuW/ASW ships that are for
>> their size. Also Denmark and Finland have lately built similar small dual
>> role vessels, whereas Norway seems to leave ASW to frigate sized vessels.
>
>Well, I think Finnish ships don't kinda fit to that picture, not having ASW
>torpedoes for example. Instead they have Mistral's for point AD (read moral
>boosting:). I am not sure about new Rauma 2000 but I don't think it has ASW
>torpedoes either. I am actually wondering how Navy is going to improve our
ASW
>capability, which sucks, to put it very simply (someone knows? Jussi?
Anyone?).
Well, at least I think the Rauma class carries a towed array and Elma ASW
grenade launcher. It would be interesting to know if Elma or any similar
improved Sw ASW system will be deployed in greater numbers in the Finnish
navy. After all the Soviet MBU 1200 system is being withdrawn and a
replacement is needed. Also I believe the Super Puma helos in the
Borderguard can be fitted with an ASW outfit, right?
Per Nordenberg
Thomas Schoene
<hY8I1.548$084.7...@nntpserver.swip.net>...
>
> Thomas Schoene wrote in message
<01bdd7a8$c3f60600$LocalHost@default>...
>
> >Systems, although a larger one is under consideration. Harpoon
has
> >an approximately 220-kg warhead.
>
>
to (if
> developed) will be fitted to the new 200 km Mk3 version scheduled
for
> delivery in 2002?
Don't know, but I can find out. IDR had an extensive article on new
anti-ship missiles last month, including a lot of stuff on the Mk 3
(The LPI seeker is a scary concept.) I'll check on Tuesday (Monday
being a holiday out this way)
XsGerry
:I thought it was out of the fleet. And Tomahawk can not air launch. I
:believe both these topics were covered recently in a thread on the
:afghanistan\sudan strike.
Funny, I have a jpeg of a tomahawk being fitted to an aircaft.Fetch it from
http://members.aol.com/xsgerry/tomohawk.jpg. Also got anouther of B-52s
releasing one in flight. It's definitely not an AGM86 either.
Having said thet, I'm often wrong.. I seek to inform, not contradict matey.
XsGerry
:I thought it was out of the fleet. And Tomahawk can not air launch. I
:believe both these topics were covered recently in a thread on the
:afghanistan\sudan strike.
Tomohawks are air launched from B52s; to prove my assertion, you can download
a pic from http://members.aol.com/xsgerry/Cruise2.jpg
It's definitely not an AGM86 either, if that's what you're thinking
Thomas Schoene
<199809051314...@ladder01.news.aol.com>...
> :Wasn't TASM retired in 1993? It might still be in some warehouses,
but
> :I thought it was out of the fleet. And Tomahawk can not air
launch. I
> :believe both these topics were covered recently in a thread on the
> :afghanistan\sudan strike.
>
it from
> http://members.aol.com/xsgerry/tomohawk.jpg. Also got anouther of
B-52s
> releasing one in flight. It's definitely not an AGM86 either.
>
> Having said thet, I'm often wrong.. I seek to inform, not
contradict matey.
We beat this to death over the last few weeks. No one will deny that
there were tests of air-launched Tomahawks and Tomahawk derivatives.
However, none of these ever became operational and there does not
appear to be any residual capability to air-launch Tomahawk today.
Check Dejanews with the topic "Tomahawk Range."
Alan Minyard
Of course it is rather difficult to use ASM's or SSM's when your
launch platforms are rotting away on the field/at the dock due to a
lack of funds for crews and/or maintenance. Russia is no longer a
serious conventional military thereat (if it ever was).
Al Minyard
Chris Manteuffel
>:Wasn't TASM retired in 1993? It might still be in some warehouses, but
>:I thought it was out of the fleet. And Tomahawk can not air launch. I
>:believe both these topics were covered recently in a thread on the
>:afghanistan\sudan strike.
>
>Tomohawks are air launched from B52s; to prove my assertion, you can download
>a pic from http://members.aol.com/xsgerry/Cruise2.jpg
>
>It's definitely not an AGM86 either, if that's what you're thinking
Check Dejanews under "Tomahawk Range". This thread was covered in
detail. Both of my assertions were discussed. That TASM is no longer
in the fleet was undisputed. The disagreement centered bascially on
whether air-launched Thawk's had even been deployed. Others pointed
out that the air-launched Thawk was a modified one, shortened and
other changes. Follow the thread and see what fun occurs.
Chris Manteuffel
Andrew C. Toppan
> Wasn't TASM retired in 1993? It might still be in some warehouses, but
It's purely unofficial, but there's a good indication that all or most
TASMs were withdrawn in 1992-93 and converted to TLAMs.
Andrew C. Toppan
> Tomohawks are air launched from B52s; to prove my assertion, you can download
> a pic from http://members.aol.com/xsgerry/Cruise2.jpg
You're apparently dumb and blind. We went through this whole damn
argument a week ago. A few Tomahawks were air-launched for test/trials
purposes ONLY. BUT current Tomahawks cannot be air-launched, and the
hardware to strap them to a B-52 doesn't exist anymore.
So the statement that "Tomohawks[sic] are air launched" is rubbish.
But it's a pretty picture, if it isn't faked.
Per Nordenberg
Thomas Schoene wrote in message <01bdd8c8$f5aa9d20$46794e0c@default>...
>Per Nordenberg <per.nor...@swipnet.se> wrote in article
><hY8I1.548$084.7...@nntpserver.swip.net>...
>to (if
>> developed) will be fitted to the new 200 km Mk3 version scheduled
>for
>> delivery in 2002?
>
>Don't know, but I can find out. IDR had an extensive article on new
>anti-ship missiles last month, including a lot of stuff on the Mk 3
>(The LPI seeker is a scary concept.) I'll check on Tuesday (Monday
>being a holiday out this way)
>
>
>--
>--------------------------------------------------
>TomSc...@worldnet.att.net
Thanks. I would appreciate any recent info on the Mk3. The latest I have is
that it might be deployed on our subs as well (only question is how), and
that a land attack version is being studied.
Per Nordenberg
Yevgeniy Chizhikov
Alan Minyard wrote:
> Of course it is rather difficult to use ASM's or SSM's when your
> launch platforms are rotting away on the field/at the dock due to a
> lack of funds for crews and/or maintenance. Russia is no longer a
> serious conventional military thereat (if it ever was).
If you would had been reading my post, instead of trying to flame me, you would discover
than only one missile is ship based. All missiles are aircraft based and in service with
Russian Air Force and Naval aviation. Yes, Russian military forces are in terrible shape,
yet it is hardly have anything to do with Russian design. Article had NOTHING to do with
Russian military or it's current state. Article was about different design philosophy of
Soviet/Russian and Nato countries. I only point out that Russians produce not only huge
anti-ship missiles, but full set of small, medium, and large anti-ship missiles or
missiles that can be used for anti-ship missions.. In fact as I showed Russians produced
smaller missiles than Harpoon, through with longer range. All this missile are currently
operational and in fact being produced on export and sold to some countries whose hands
are itching to launch few of them on the US warship. For your information Russian
anti-ship missiles operate in a dozen different countries. In recant news, China had
purchased Kh-31 anti-ship missile, as well as couple destroyers with Yakhont. Sales of
Sunburn is also considering, including as test missiles for US Navy. India arming it's
ships with Kh-35, and Indian Air Force does have Kh-29s. Algeria also bought Kh-35.
Yevgeniy Chizhikov.
XsGerry
air launched. Geez, such venom; I've had so much flame I feel like I should be
served up at Burger King. Cool it guys.
Jets Moore
Chris Manteuffel <foxb...@aol.com> wrote in article
<35f0ceeb...@news.erols.com>...
> On Fri, 04 Sep 1998 23:38:57 GMT, "Jets Moore" <je...@kos.net> wrote:
>
> >Both the Harpoon and
> >Tomahawk can air, surface, or subface launched as well. Try that with
your
> >average Russian ASM.
>
>
> believe both these topics were covered recently in a thread on the
> afghanistan\sudan strike.
>
OOOpps doy me. I must have been thinking two lines ahead of my typing. My
point though about TASM was that althogh now removed from the fleet??, it
was designed to provide a common missile for a wide variety of platforms.
--
John Moore
je...@kos.net
Jets Moore
coverned ealier in the aformentioned threas. As far as I know, it was
never actively fielded although it was tested with a wide variety of
aircraft including the B52
--
John Moore
je...@kos.net
XsGerry <xsg...@aol.com> wrote in article
<199809051314...@ladder01.news.aol.com>...
> :Wasn't TASM retired in 1993? It might still be in some warehouses, but
> :I thought it was out of the fleet. And Tomahawk can not air launch. I
> :believe both these topics were covered recently in a thread on the
> :afghanistan\sudan strike.
>
Jussi Saari
>
> Jussi Saari wrote:
>
> > "Small efficient turbofan" probably isn't the answer if
> > question is how to move a 1000kg warhead at 25km and
> > Mach 2-3 for a distance of 500km or so...
>
> True. But AS-6 would have still been militarily
> effective if it had been a seaskimming turbon fan as long
> as it could GO 500KM.
Even if the Soviets could have built sea-skimmers in the sixties
(which they couldn't), it still wouldn't have worked very well for the
intended purpose. Low-altitude missile's radar horizon is not very far
away under most circumstances, and such missiles tend to go for the
first target they spot, which in a CVBGs case would most likely be a
small escort. The Soviets wanted to hit the carrier, not it's escorts,
and that required a missile that could "see" a wide area of ocean with
all the targets in the group, and then take it's pick and dive for the
selected target.
> Also, given its high flying profile,
> AS-6 is relatively easy to shoot down compared to a sea
> skimmer.
AS-6 is a lighter-weight version of the original Kh-22 (AS-4),
lightened for being carried by Tu-16s (all other missile carriers use
the original missile), and it apparently cruises a little lower than the
Kh-22. The logic behind the Kh-22's flight profile was that by making it
fly high enough the designers could make it almost invulnerable to most
defences: cruising at 23-27km takes it well above the effective
engagement envelope of SM-1 MR, puts it at the edges of SM-1 ER's and
SM-2 MR's capabilities, and is a relatively easy target only for the
SM-2 ER. Early Phoenixes would also have had much trouble with it, so
it really wasn't easy to shoot down at all...
Jussi
Alan Minyard
Sir
Actually, several of your friends (e.g. Iraq) have launched them at
U.S. ships. None of them hit.
Soviet weapons "technology" has not been successful since WWII.
Remember the vaunted T-72??
By the way, what part of Russia is csuohio located in???
Respectfully
Al Minyard
Jussi Saari
>
> Actually, several of your friends (e.g. Iraq) have launched
> them at U.S. ships. None of them hit.
As far as I remember Iraq has launched only French and Chinese
missiles at USN ships, of which the French missiles hit and the Chinese
ones were shot down by a British destroyer... (Actually I can't remember
a single occasion where anyone would have fired a Russian missile at a
US ship...)
Jussi
y.chi...@popmail.csuohio.edu
Jussi...@hepo.cc.lut.fi wrote:
> Even if the Soviets could have built sea-skimmers in the sixties
> (which they couldn't), it still wouldn't have worked very well for the
> intended purpose. Low-altitude missile's radar horizon is not very far
> away under most circumstances, and such missiles tend to go for the
> first target they spot, which in a CVBGs case would most likely be a
> small escort. The Soviets wanted to hit the carrier, not it's escorts,
> and that required a missile that could "see" a wide area of ocean with
> all the targets in the group, and then take it's pick and dive for the
> selected target.
Soviets could build large turbofan driven sea-skimming missiles, but in the
1980's. Soviet SS-N-19 Shipwreck missiles are turbofan driven, and can attack
in sea-skimming and high altitude attack, depending on mission, position of
the enemy ships, and so on. In 1960's technology was not available, and all
Soviet missiles were rockets.
> AS-6 is a lighter-weight version of the original Kh-22 (AS-4),
> lightened for being carried by Tu-16s (all other missile carriers use
> the original missile), and it apparently cruises a little lower than the
> Kh-22. The logic behind the Kh-22's flight profile was that by making it
> fly high enough the designers could make it almost invulnerable to most
> defences: cruising at 23-27km takes it well above the effective
> engagement envelope of SM-1 MR, puts it at the edges of SM-1 ER's and
> SM-2 MR's capabilities, and is a relatively easy target only for the
> SM-2 ER. Early Phoenixes would also have had much trouble with it, so
> it really wasn't easy to shoot down at all...
The best analogy would be with SR-71 Blackbird. I bet not many people here
believe that SR-71 can be shotdown. But Kh-22 in reality flying even higher
than SR-71 and almost as fast. Kh-22 is also much smaller target than SR-71.
At the end one can see that flight envelop of the Kh-22 is near the limit of
the MODERN SAM's, not speaking about SAM's build in 1960's.
Yevgeniy Chizhikov.
y.chi...@popmail.csuohio.edu
amin...@netdoor.com (Alan Minyard) wrote:
> Sir
>
> Actually, several of your friends (e.g. Iraq) have launched them at
> U.S. ships. None of them hit.
No, Iraq, or anyone else, never had launched Soviet anti-ship missiles
against US warships. Soviet anti-ship missile scored first known kill of the
ship. As I recall it was Israeli destroyer sunked by the Egyptian speed boats
armed with SS-N-2. India also sunk few Pakistani ships using SS-N-2.
> Soviet weapons "technology" has not been successful since WWII.
Questionable statement to say the least.
> Remember the vaunted T-72??
First of all, T-72 is 1970's technology which went against 1990's American
technology. If you think that downgraded for export T-72 with worn out engie
is the lattest in Russian weapon technology, I should disapoint you, it is
not. Comparison is unfair to begin with. Second, Iraqi did not had either
tungusten or DU ammunition. They were doomed to begin with.
> By the way, what part of Russia is csuohio located in???
It located in Cleveland, Ohio, USA :)
Alan Minyard
<Jussi...@hepo.cc.lut.fi> wrote:
>Alan Minyard wrote:
>>
>> Actually, several of your friends (e.g. Iraq) have launched
>> them at U.S. ships. None of them hit.
>
> As far as I remember Iraq has launched only French and Chinese
>missiles at USN ships, of which the French missiles hit and the Chinese
>ones were shot down by a British destroyer... (Actually I can't remember
>a single occasion where anyone would have fired a Russian missile at a
>US ship...)
>
>
>
>Jussi
Sir
The only instance of a French missle hitting a U.S. warship was the
sneak attack on the USS Stark, while the Stark was steaming in
international waters during peace time. Had the Stark been on a war
footing, the results would (in all likelyhood) been considerably
different.
The Silkworm was a derivative of a Soviet design.
Respectfully
Al Minyard
Paul J. Adam
<amin...@netdoor.com> writes
>Soviet weapons "technology" has not been successful since WWII.
T-72s firing steel TP ammunition, instead of tungsten APFSDS? Hardly a
fair comparison...
The Finns rather like the T-72... but they both bought decent ammo, and
train their crews thoroughly.
Tank for tank, I'd rather have Challenger II or M1A2s than T-72s, but if
I'm on a tight budget the Russian tanks are good value for money...
provided you train your crews and buy good munitions for their weapons.
--
There are four kinds of homicide: felonious, excusable, justifiable and
praiseworthy...
Paul J. Adam pa...@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk
Bertil Jonell
>
>TASMs were withdrawn in 1992-93 and converted to TLAMs.
To replace all the TLAM's (like >80% of inventory according to
open sources) popped off at Iraq presumably?
>Andrew Toppan --- acto...@gwi.net --- "I speak only for myself"
-bertil-
--
"It can be shown that for any nutty theory, beyond-the-fringe political view or
strange religion there exists a proponent on the Net. The proof is left as an
exercise for your kill-file."
Jack Love
wrote:
the Kh-22 you're talking about is a missile? Launched from a Tu-22M3?
>than SR-71 and almost as fast. Kh-22 is also much smaller target than SR-71.
The SR-71 is a man carrying *aircraft* with a very long range.
>At the end one can see that flight envelop of the Kh-22 is near the limit of
>the MODERN SAM's, not speaking about SAM's build in 1960's.
>
>Yevgeniy Chizhikov.
This appears to be your most serious case of apples vs persimmons
comparison using *soviet weapons*tm.
Yevgeniy Chizhikov
Jack Love wrote:
> the Kh-22 you're talking about is a missile? Launched from a Tu-22M3?
Yes.
> The SR-71 is a man carrying *aircraft* with a very long range.
Yes, but on this 500 km, Kh-22 flies at even higher altitude and the same speed. I
do not compare two of them, just an example for people like you to help grasp this
concept. For some reason people think that this missile is easy to shutdown, until
you point out that it fly like SR-71, and it is almost the limit of even the most
modern SA missile.
> This appears to be your most serious case of apples vs persimmons
> comparison using *soviet weapons*tm.
M3 at 27 km. Most of the SAM's are limited to 25 km altitude and at that altitude
they can not do anything close to 3M. The only missiles that do anything close to
3M above 20 km is SA-10.
Yevgeniy Chizhikov.
Yevgeniy Chizhikov
Alan Minyard wrote:
> The Silkworm was a derivative of a Soviet design.
...of 40 years old.
Yevgeniy Chizhikov
Brooks A Rowlett
1) USN claims a STYX was fired at USN ships off North Vietnam during May 72
period (same occasion when a MiG actually hit a US (FRAM) GEARING Class with a
bomb.). One of the DLG's (as they were then) is claimed to have shot it down.
2) USN claims an Iranian patrol boat fired a Harpoon (would have had to have
been nearly the last one left) at a US CG (as they were called by that time) -
it didn't hit but reason is not clear, may have never activated seeker; may
have been decoyed.....
Iran also believed to have sunk an Iraqi ALLIGATOR (IIRC?) with Harpoon(s).
Brooks A Rowlett
David Bofinger
> As far as I remember Iraq has launched only French and Chinese
> missiles at USN ships, of which the French missiles hit and the
> Chinese ones were shot down by a British destroyer... (Actually I
> can't remember a single occasion where anyone would have fired a
> Russian missile at a US ship...)
Silkworm's basically a reverse-engineered Chinese copy of a Styx,
isn't it? Could almost count as a Russian missile. (This is the one
the Type 42 got, right?)
Was the Eilat (sp: Israeli destroyer sunk in 1973) an ex-US ship,
or ex-British? If ex-US then that might half-count.
I once tried to get a complete list made up of all attacks by ASMs
on ships ever, starting in 1943. Didn't make much progress. Has
anyone else got a list like this?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
David Bofinger David.B...@dsto.defence.gov.au
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Thomas Schoene
<35f7eb84...@news.netdoor.com>...
> The only instance of a French missle hitting a U.S. warship was the
> sneak attack on the USS Stark, while the Stark was steaming in
> international waters during peace time. Had the Stark been on a war
> footing, the results would (in all likelyhood) been considerably
> different.
Of course, one could argue equally well that she was in a war zone
and damn well should have been paying attention, which she was not.
Sneak attack implies the Iraqis were deliberately attacking Stark.
The evidence seems to suggest the Iraqi pilot launched on the first
surface contact he got, which happened to be Stark rather than an oil
tanker as hoped.
Jussi Saari
>
> Jussi Saari wrote:
>
> Silkworm's basically a reverse-engineered Chinese copy of a Styx,
> isn't it? Could almost count as a Russian missile.
Pretty much yes. But I think Alan's point was that Russian missiles
have been fired at US ships without results and therefore Russian ASMs
are useless, which the shootdown of a single chinese copy of a
40-year-old Soviet missile doesn't IMO prove very well...
> (This is the one the Type 42 got, right?)
That's the incident I was thinking of, the missile was heading at a US
battleship, if I remember right...
> Was the Eilat (sp: Israeli destroyer sunk in 1973) an ex-US ship,
> or ex-British?
Don't know about Eilat, but the Iranian Navy at least had many US-made
ships that probably got fired upon by Iraqi Soviet-made anti-ship
missiles... does anybody know of any sinkings / hits / missile
shootdowns happening in the 1st Gulf War??
Jussi
Paul J. Adam
<d9be...@dtek.chalmers.se> writes
>In article <6srm2o$j32$2...@noc1.gwi.net>,
>Andrew C. Toppan <acto...@gwi.net> wrote:
>>It's purely unofficial, but there's a good indication that all or most
>>TASMs were withdrawn in 1992-93 and converted to TLAMs.
>
> To replace all the TLAM's (like >80% of inventory according to
>open sources) popped off at Iraq presumably?
Nothing like. 288 were fired at Iraq. I've read that at the time that
was something like ~20% of the current TLAM inventory, but procurement's
been running steadily since.
Paul J. Adam
<broo...@indy.net> writes
>Some points:
>2) USN claims an Iranian patrol boat fired a Harpoon (would have had to have
>been nearly the last one left) at a US CG (as they were called by that time) -
>it didn't hit but reason is not clear, may have never activated seeker; may
>have been decoyed.....
The _Joshan_, a Kaman-built missile boat, fired one Harpoon at the USS
Wainright, the USS Simpson and the USS Bagley: the ships deployed chaff
and manoevered, and the Harpoon was a clean miss. A volley of SM-1s
fired in return demolished the _Joshan_ so thoroughly that a Harpoon
following was unable to acquire the rapidly-sinking vessel.
Alan Minyard
Sir
While I do not question the earnestness of your posts, how is it that
you are privy to the most highly classified data on all weapon systems
belonging to both Russia and the United States?
While I concur that access to such information would greatly improve
the quality of discourse in this forum, I find it hard to accept that
you are not only in possession of such information, but willing to
freely disseminate it.
I assume (always a bad idea :-) ) that your information comes from
published sources. Published sources are not reliable in the field of
weapons performance. Since I (and my clearances) retired, I have been
amazed at the lack of information that can be reliably obtained from
published sources.
Respectfully
Al Minyard
Eric Pinnell
Andrew C. Toppan wrote:
> XsGerry (xsg...@aol.com) was seen to write:
> > Tomohawks are air launched from B52s; to prove my assertion, you can download
> > a pic from http://members.aol.com/xsgerry/Cruise2.jpg
>
> You're apparently dumb and blind. We went through this whole damn
> argument a week ago. A few Tomahawks were air-launched for test/trials
> purposes ONLY. BUT current Tomahawks cannot be air-launched, and the
> hardware to strap them to a B-52 doesn't exist anymore.
>
> So the statement that "Tomohawks[sic] are air launched" is rubbish.
>
> But it's a pretty picture, if it isn't faked.
>
> --
> Andrew Toppan --- acto...@gwi.net --- "I speak only for myself"
The picture looks fake to me.
Eric Pinnell
Per Nordenberg
David Bofinger wrote in message <35F33BBD...@dsto.defence.gov.au>...
>
>Was the Eilat (sp: Israeli destroyer sunk in 1973) an ex-US ship,
>
The correct spelling of this Israeli ship is (as far as I can figure it out)
"ELATH", and she was the ex-British Z-class destroyer ZEALOUS. She sank off
the Sinai coast on 21 Oct 1967 after the worlds first (?) missile boat
attack. BTW, only 3 months later the Israelis also lost the submarine DAKAR
(ex-Br TOTEM) in the Eastern Mediterranean. She might have been on her
delivery voyage from UK, but I don´t know for sure.
Per Nordenberg
Jack Love
<y.chi...@popmail.csuohio.edu> wrote:
>
>
>Jack Love wrote:
>
>> the Kh-22 you're talking about is a missile? Launched from a Tu-22M3?
>
>Yes.
>
>> The SR-71 is a man carrying *aircraft* with a very long range.
>
>Yes, but on this 500 km, Kh-22 flies at even higher altitude and the same speed. I
>do not compare two of them, just an example for people like you to help grasp this
>concept. For some reason people think that this missile is easy to shutdown, until
>you point out that it fly like SR-71, and it is almost the limit of even the most
>modern SA missile.
>
>> This appears to be your most serious case of apples vs persimmons
>> comparison using *soviet weapons*tm.
>
>M3 at 27 km. Most of the SAM's are limited to 25 km altitude and at that altitude
>they can not do anything close to 3M. The only missiles that do anything close to
>3M above 20 km is SA-10.
Let's not compare the uncompareable. An aircraft which overflies a
particular target at high speed and high altitude and returns to land
at a distant base may not be interceptible. A *missile* is useless if
it stays at high altitude....it doesn't get to the target. It *must*
come into range of a SAM in order to be useful. ergo you're full of
it.
>Yevgeniy Chizhikov.
News Admin for CLEAR Net
wrote:
>On Sun, 06 Sep 1998 21:11:23 -0400, Yevgeniy Chizhikov
><y.chi...@popmail.csuohio.edu> wrote:
>>M3 at 27 km. Most of the SAM's are limited to 25 km altitude and at that altitude
>>they can not do anything close to 3M. The only missiles that do anything close to
>>3M above 20 km is SA-10.
>>
>>Yevgeniy Chizhikov.
>Sir
>
>While I do not question the earnestness of your posts, how is it that
>you are privy to the most highly classified data on all weapon systems
>belonging to both Russia and the United States?
This sort of data can no longer be regarded as 'most highly classified
data'. Over the last couple of years much more information of this
kind has been placed into the public arena.
Its no longer the 60's where basic performance data was important
now days it more likely the waveform of the radar or signal processing
ECCM information that is withheld.
>
>While I concur that access to such information would greatly improve
>the quality of discourse in this forum, I find it hard to accept that
>you are not only in possession of such information, but willing to
>freely disseminate it.
Many people in this newsgroup have access to this sort of imformation
from mutiple sources its just not witheld like it once was.
>
>I assume (always a bad idea :-) ) that your information comes from
>published sources. Published sources are not reliable in the field of
>weapons performance. Since I (and my clearances) retired, I have been
>amazed at the lack of information that can be reliably obtained from
>published sources.
>
You must be looking at the wrong public sources.(no slur intended ) I
will agree that some of the information can be a bit 'rounded' i.e a
system will have a range 45k not 30K but even so you can tell that it
can't go 100K.
I have dealt with this sort of issue before people who have had/or
have various clearances have a mind set that says
"once secret always secret" and tend to forget that stuff does
eventually get declassified.
One fo my co-workers when I mentioned something shouted
' how do you know that its clasified' . My response was
1) the system was designed in 1965
2) you worked on it in 1975
3) it was retired in 1985
4) its 1987 !!!
of course it declassified now - but he could not accept it and thought
I must have stolen it somewhere.
For the sort of data that Yevgeniy Chizhikov is using is available
form many sources the system manufacture for example.
Regards
Bob
Alan Minyard
Sir
I do not dispute that such information is available. I do dispute its
accuracy. Ever hear of "disinformation"? While performance data on the
Nike Hercules or the SA4 is no doubt available, the systems being
discussed are not obsolete/out of production.
Respectfully
Al Minyard
ANDREW BREEN
Alan Minyard <amin...@netdoor.com> wrote:
>
>Actually, several of your friends (e.g. Iraq) have launched them at
>U.S. ships. None of them hit.
Chinese copies of the old Styx. Pretty much the Sea Slug generation.
I've not noticed any reports of anyone loosing off Kingbolts
or Shipwrecks at U.S. ships, and I dare say the U.S.N. is very
glad that this is the case. There was a posting to this group
a while back by someone who'd been on a ship shadowing a Soviet
air/sea exercise. He was impressed.
>
>Soviet weapons "technology" has not been successful since WWII.
>Remember the vaunted T-72??
>
Yes. The Finns chose it recently in preference to a variety of
western european and american offerings. Reports from its
users (some in this group) suggest they're very pleased with
it.
--
Andy Breen ~ Max-Planck Institut fur Aeronomie, Katlenburg-Lindau
"McLachtie was no Demosthenes, but what he said on that occasion
seems to have put an effective stop to any further records in
that direction" (David L. Smith)
Yevgeniy Chizhikov
News Admin for CLEAR Net wrote:
> For the sort of data that Yevgeniy Chizhikov is using is available
> form many sources the system manufacture for example.
It is true. I do not have ANY security clearance, for a simple reason that I never been
in military. Most information I take from sources that easily available to any person
here. One may be surprised what can be found in the public library :) The only
exception, that I also have some excess to the Russian publications and magazines,
which is out of reach for many people here, because they don't speak Russian. Today,
there is many magazines, specialized and not, who deal with military, equipment, and
military history. There is virtually unlimited amount information. Unfortunately I
rarely can get my hands on this publications, as I do not have any relatives in Moscow
:(
Yevgeniy Chizhikov.
Jussi Saari
>
<snip>
> Let's not compare the uncompareable. An aircraft which
> overflies a particular target at high speed and high altitude
> and returns to land at a distant base may not be interceptible.
> A *missile* is useless if it stays at high altitude....it
> doesn't get to the target. It *must* come into range of a
> SAM in order to be useful. ergo you're full of it.
I don't think Yevgeniy was trying to compare them as in "Kh-22 is a
better or as good system as SR-71", I think his point was that when the
altitude and speed of a Kh-22 _in the high-altitude cruise phase of it's
flight_ are rather similar to those of SR-71, it is illogical to say
that one is an easy target and other is impossible to shoot down.
That said, I don't think they're actually quite as similar as Yevgeniy
stated: the Kh-22 is not as fast as an SR-71 and I'm not sure if it
flies quite as high either. Additionally it has bigger RCS, and also
flying more or less towards the SAM platform helps in shooting it down.
But still (at least if publically available information is to be
believed) it's an impossible target for many SAMs, very hard for many
others, and easy target only for few of the newest, longest-ranged and
most advanced SAMs...
Jussi
Yama
Per Nordenberg wrote:
> Well, at least I think the Rauma class carries a towed array and Elma ASW
> grenade launcher. It would be interesting to know if Elma or any similar
> improved Sw ASW system will be deployed in greater numbers in the Finnish
> navy. After all the Soviet MBU 1200 system is being withdrawn and a
> replacement is needed.
This would be logical step, however though I don't favour Swedish FAC philosophy
'lets put it full of weaponry and then add some torpedoes too' *grin* I'd like
to see some vessels with lightweight torpedoes, now we just have some lousy
depth rockets and dept charges.
> Also I believe the Super Puma helos in the
> Borderguard can be fitted with an ASW outfit, right?
Yeah - all _three_ of them.
XsGerry
>> So the statement that "Tomohawks[sic] are air launched" is rubbish.
>>
>> But it's a pretty picture, if it isn't faked.
>>
>> --
>> Andrew Toppan --- acto...@gwi.net --- "I speak only for myself"
>
> The picture looks fake to me.
>
>Eric Pinnell
>
It better not be a fake, it was supplied by the Defence Visual Imagery agency
(part of the DoD), that well known bunch of practical jokers and pathological
liars :-))
Jussi Saari
>
> I do not dispute that such information is available. I do dispute its
> accuracy. Ever hear of "disinformation"? While performance data on the
> Nike Hercules or the SA4 is no doubt available, the systems being
> discussed are not obsolete/out of production.
But since there have been live Kh-22 firings within range of NATO
radars the flight performance is already known in the west, and both
sides know it. There would seem to be little point in keeping the real
numbers hidden from the public when everybody who could actually do
something with them already knows... (Not that it would automatically
mean the published figures would be correct, it would just seem that
there's a good chance they are.)
Jussi
Per Nordenberg
Yama wrote in message <35F54A90...@paju.oulu.fi>...
>
>
>Per Nordenberg wrote:
>
>> Well, at least I think the Rauma class carries a towed array and Elma ASW
>> grenade launcher. It would be interesting to know if Elma or any similar
>> improved Sw ASW system will be deployed in greater numbers in the Finnish
>> navy. After all the Soviet MBU 1200 system is being withdrawn and a
>> replacement is needed.
>
>This would be logical step, however though I don't favour Swedish FAC
philosophy
>'lets put it full of weaponry and then add some torpedoes too' *grin*
I admit that the Stockholm class maybe looks somewhat heavily laden with
weaponry, and that´s because the ASW gear was hastily fitted afterwards to a
surface attack design that was already developed. But the Göteborg class is
a very balanced design which was designed in accordance to all missions
anticipated, incl. ASW (diesels with waterjets, can carry full
missile/torpedo load without sacrifying anything else) and AAW (prepared to
take a SAM system instead of the 40 mm aft).
>I'd like to see some vessels with lightweight torpedoes, now we just have
some lousy
>depth rockets and dept charges.
There´s really nothing that prevents the Finnish Navy from buying and using
torpedoes now, is it?
Per Nordenberg
Yevgeniy Chizhikov
Jack Love wrote:
> Of course, the result of this, particular, Russian stupidity was that
> the US spent 2-3 years sweating bullets trying to come up with
> legitimate designs which could mass this *perceived* mission envelope
> and concluded that the Russians were better.
Actually, if Americans would do that, it would had been called clever
disinformation, yet if it Russians, it was stupidity?
> So, we did what we could
> and produced a set of aircraft, the F-15 and F-14, which could
> *almost* equal the Soviet science fiction. Thus setting the Russians
> hopelessly behind in aircraft performance for around 15 years. It
> was soooo smart to scare us.
You not familiar with Mig-31 :) Actually, Mig-25 even today, still UNMATCHED
in high altitude performance among fighter aircraft. Yes, 30 years latter,
F-14, Su-27, F-15 are firmly stuck in the dust. Mig-25 have AMAZING high
altitude acceleration, speed, and climb. Which aircraft gave the most
troubles to Americans in Gulf War? It was same good old Mig-25. Also, Mig-25
credited with only Iraqi kill in Gulf War, when Iraqi Mig-25 downed F-18.
There were also few stories, when Mig-25 made American pilots sweet, after
which Mig-25 easily outrunned bunch of F-16, F-15, and a dozen Sparrows.
> A spy friend of mine quotes the intelligence maxim "Nothing is ever as
> good, there (Russia), as it seems. And, nothing is ever as bad, here
> (US/West), as it seems.
Actually he is twisting well known proverb about Russia: "Russia is never as
good as it seams, Russia is never as bad as it seams." People who
underestimated Russia payed for it.
Yevgeniy Chizhikov.
Jack Love
And, as I've pointed out the comparison is irrelevant: the KH-22 MUST
come down to do its job, the SR-71 need not. Further the KH-22 500KM
range implies that at high altitude (though I haven't seen whether
it's made of plastic, or not) it is totally visible, and intercepts
can be prepared wherever one might like when it crosses into your SAM
envelope.
I can compare a bullet attempting to reach a particular point with an
armo(u)red personell carrier attempting to reach the same point...is
it a sensible comparison? No, the systems are doing entirely separate
things.
>Jussi
Jack Love
On the other hand, I'd like to remind you of the famous Mig-25
missions for a) high altitude; b) blazing fast speed, conducted in
full view of radars of the west (based in Turkey, I believe). The
missions were complete disinformation. The Mig-25 could not
*operationally* use either of the extrema. In particular, the speed
record resulted from a light weight version with a hot ****single
use***** engine.
Of course, the result of this, particular, Russian stupidity was that
the US spent 2-3 years sweating bullets trying to come up with
legitimate designs which could mass this *perceived* mission envelope
and concluded that the Russians were better. So, we did what we could
and produced a set of aircraft, the F-15 and F-14, which could
*almost* equal the Soviet science fiction. Thus setting the Russians
hopelessly behind in aircraft performance for around 15 years. It
was soooo smart to scare us.
A spy friend of mine quotes the intelligence maxim "Nothing is ever as
good, there (Russia), as it seems. And, nothing is ever as bad, here
(US/West), as it seems.
Yev's quoting of fUSSR science-fiction and super weapons is
entertaining but must be viewed with a substantial grain of salt.
You do remember, don't you, Yev's vaunted, satchel sized death weapons
powered by thermonuclear power supplies???
He is credulous in the extreme viewing Russia from the comfort of
Ohio...he should really talk to my friend whose parents are near
starving in St. Petersburg these days...and worried about freezing in
the winter. And, who can't be sent care packages from the US because
the ex-New Soviet Man steal everything of value that passes through
their mail.
>Jussi
Thomas Schoene
Per Nordenberg <per.nor...@swipnet.se> wrote in article
<6GhI1.786$084.1...@nntpserver.swip.net>...
> Thanks. I would appreciate any recent info on the Mk3. The latest I
have is
> that it might be deployed on our subs as well (only question is
how), and
> that a land attack version is being studied.
>
> Per Nordenberg
As promised, here's some more info from the September International
Defense Review.
Warhead is 200kg pre-fragmented blast warhead with a "penetrating
disk", whatever that is.
Current seeker is high-power Ka-band frequency-agile with home-on-jam
capability.
Saab is proposing a Frequency-modulated continuous-wave spread
spectrum seeker as a potential follow-on. The seeker would have an
output in milliwatts blending into the background noise, making it
very hard for ESM to detect. It would also dial back emitted power
after locking on. They suggest that if the ESM does not detect the
seeker on the initial search, it will never acquire it. The seeker
would also have some sort of SAR capability to identify targets on
the run in. There might also be on-board ESM/ECM to jam target fire
control radars!
Land attack is still being discussed. GPS and terrain referenced
navigation are possible, as is a penetrating warhead, flexible fuzing
for air bursts, a dual mode seeker with IIIR and radar, and a two-way
data link to update target information.
Andrew P Pavacic
Andrew C. Toppan <acto...@gwi.net> wrote:
>XsGerry (xsg...@aol.com) was seen to write:
>> Tomohawks are air launched from B52s; to prove my assertion, you can download
>> a pic from http://members.aol.com/xsgerry/Cruise2.jpg
>
>You're apparently dumb and blind. We went through this whole damn
>argument a week ago. A few Tomahawks were air-launched for test/trials
>purposes ONLY. BUT current Tomahawks cannot be air-launched, and the
>hardware to strap them to a B-52 doesn't exist anymore.
>
>
>But it's a pretty picture, if it isn't faked.
Is this a freak incident, or a phenomenon almost worth study?
There's a vast collection of pictures out there of airplanes and ships
during trials, at airshows, in port, in drydock, in freak aerobatic
paint jobs, instrumentless static displays, etc. I've been seeing
the same inflight picture of a prototype F-22 on magazine covers and
Windows backgrounds for years. About the rarest pictures out there
are of military vehicles actually performing operations, since by
definition this requires that the vehicles themselves move away from
wherever the crowds of photographers are.
To what extent can the oft-repeated "the whole Russian navy is rusting
away at the piers" be ascribed to the possible fact that the only pics of
the Russian navy outsiders ever get to see are of the part that's rusting
away at the piers? I saw a hospital ship once that looked ok.
-Andrew Pavacic
Jussi Saari
>
> And, as I've pointed out the comparison is irrelevant: the
> KH-22 MUST come down to do its job, the SR-71 need not.
Of course the Kh-22 must come down. But it comes down only in the
steep Mach 3 terminal dive to it's target, and the majority of time it
cruises at high altitude. Surely you understand that whether or not you
can shoot at it in the cruise phase is a rather important question when
you'll only get one opportunity to take a shot at it in the terminal
dive?
> I can compare a bullet attempting to reach a particular
> point with an armo(u)red personell carrier attempting to
> reach the same point...is it a sensible comparison? No,
> the systems are doing entirely separate things.
When someone says that thing A is easy to shoot down _because_ it flies
high, it doesn't seem irrelevant to me to point out that thing B,
whether it's built for sinking carriers, flying reconaissance missions
or peeling potatoes, flies in a similar manner and is considered to be
very, very hard to shoot down.
Jussi
Jussi Saari
>
<snip>
> The missions were complete disinformation. The Mig-25 could not
> *operationally* use either of the extrema. In particular, the
> speed record resulted from a light weight version with a hot
> ****single use***** engine.
I could be wrong since I don't have anything to check this from
anywhere at the moment, but wasn't the engine a normal, standard engine,
only handled in a manner that's dangerous, not allowed in normal
operations, and requires the engine to be replaced afterwards?
> Of course, the result of this, particular, Russian stupidity was
> that the US spent 2-3 years sweating bullets trying to come up
> with legitimate designs which could mass this *perceived* mission
> envelope and concluded that the Russians were better. So, we did
> what we could and produced a set of aircraft, the F-15 and F-14,
> which could *almost* equal the Soviet science fiction.
I'm sure MiG-25 had an effect on the F-15 design, but the F-15 was
still much more than a counter to the MiG... The F-14 on the other hand
was unlikely to meet any MiG-25s in it's role as a fleet defence
interceptor, but was needed to counter other high-altitude, high-speed
threats that could no longer be handled by the old Phantom.
> Thus setting the Russians hopelessly behind in aircraft
> performance for around 15 years. It was soooo smart to scare
> us.
I wonder if that really happened. Fighters like F-14 and F-15 are
maneuverable, long-ranged fighters with excellent BVR weapons systems,
but in simple aircraft performance the MiG-25 is still pretty much in a
class of it's own as far as fighters go, and the strengths of F-14/15
don't seem to be in areas that are relevant in countering MiG-25s. (I
know, they can handle that job too, but they hardly seem to be optimized
for it specifically.)
> A spy friend of mine quotes the intelligence maxim "Nothing is
> ever as good, there (Russia), as it seems. And, nothing is ever
> as bad, here (US/West), as it seems.
Still not every surprise about Russian weapons systems has been a
pleasant one for the west.
> Yev's quoting of fUSSR science-fiction and super weapons is
> entertaining but must be viewed with a substantial grain of salt.
I've noticed that Yevgeniy has a habit of finding the very best
performance figures a for anything from Russia and the worst ones for
western hardware and making a comparison with those, if that's what you
mean. But for the Kh-22 performance issue for example, the heights,
ranges etc. that appeared in the discussion were mostly the same as
those in this summers volume of World Airpower Journal. Whether they're
correct or not I know of course, but for the Russians to keep quiet
about the capabilities of the Kh-22 for almost thirty years and then
starting a disinformation campaign against the west would seem rather
strange to me...
The MiGs performance OTOH is a pretty old issue, and the fact is that
although unpleasant things may start happening above Mach 2.83, the
aircraft _can_ go beyond Mach 3, with regular engines. That'll be the
last flight of those particular engines, but that's another issue.
> He is credulous in the extreme viewing Russia from the comfort of
> Ohio...he should really talk to my friend whose parents are near
> starving in St. Petersburg these days...and worried about freezing in
> the winter.
And the sad fact is that St Petersburg is one of the best places to be
in Russia at the moment. A 1000km up north into Murmansk and problems
with winter and food take quite a different magnitude. But IMO Russia's
economical situation or the nationality of a person taking part in a
discussion is irrelevant. At rec.aviation.military about half the
message traffic currently seems to be about Yevgeniy and his more
obnoxious compatriot Venik, and I'd hate to see the same thing now
spread here as well. My suggestion is that let's keep the conversation
on-topic and leave the persons that participate in it outside the scope
of discussion. Surely a flame war is not in anybodys best interest.
Jussi
ag...@my-dejanews.com
acto...@gwi.net (Andrew C. Toppan) wrote:
> Unless the missile had a nuclear warhead, no.
>
An accurate shot would cause secondary explosions that would sink a cv.
During Viet Nam the USS Forrestal was out of service for 7 months
with out the 'Bad guys' firing a missile at her. Just think of
what could be done with an accurate shot; placing the warhead in a
Fuel or Ammunition bunker.
image of Forrestal on fire.
http://www.uss-salem.org/navhist/carriers/images/usa/cva59-3.jpg
Text From http://www.uss-salem.org/navhist/carriers/us_super.htm#cva59
On 29 July 1967 she was severely damaged by fire and explosion
of aircraft and munitions resulting from an accidental rocket
launch off Vietnam 29 July 1967. Fires burned for 13 hours,
totally gutting the aft section of the ship; bombs blew seven
holes in the flight deck. 21 aircraft were destroyed and 134 crew
died. Repairs required 7 months.
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum
Stephen Shepherd
>
> In article <6spiod$pj5$1...@noc1.gwi.net>,
> acto...@gwi.net (Andrew C. Toppan) wrote:
> > Unless the missile had a nuclear warhead, no.
> >
>
> An accurate shot would cause secondary explosions that would sink a cv.
<snip> examples of CV incidents in the '60s
Of course it has to hit in the right place. I think it was HMS
INVINCIBLE that had a fire in the forward anchor chain stowage area,
just as she was leaving Portsmouth going on global (or was at Far
East?). Put her out of action for quite a while. However, when HMS ARK
ROYAL got a bomb through the side (which fortunately didn't explode)
IIRC correctly she wasn't in any danger, and returned to service very
quickly. This may because proper damage control was applied very
swiftly; it was perhaps fortunate that she had just completed a work up
in preparation for an Adriatic deployment.
For those of you interested in how a bomb came to be there, an RAF
exchange pilot was doing a practice bomb run on the towed target. They
aim for the ship, but the software is supposed to ensure that the bomb
heads off towards the target. He did everything correctly, but an
unknown bug in the software meant that instead of a nice splash on the
target there was a nice prang into the CVS. Media reports only stated
"minor casualties". I've been told one sailor lost his hand.
Yama
Per Nordenberg wrote:
> Yama wrote in message <35F54A90...@paju.oulu.fi>...
>
> >I'd like to see some vessels with lightweight torpedoes, now we just have
> some lousy
> >depth rockets and dept charges.
>
> Thereæ„€ really nothing that prevents the Finnish Navy from buying and using
> torpedoes now, is it?
Yes there is...lack of money...:( Actually there never has been anything to
prevent that..I don't think Soviets would have considered multi-purpose coastal
corvettes as 'torpedo boats', ASW torpedoes or not.
em...@olypen.com
Jussi...@hepo.cc.lut.fi wrote:
> At rec.aviation.military about half the
> message traffic currently seems to be about Yevgeniy and his more
> obnoxious compatriot Venik, and I'd hate to see the same thing now
> spread here as well. My suggestion is that let's keep the conversation
> on-topic and leave the persons that participate in it outside the scope
> of discussion. Surely a flame war is not in anybodys best interest.
>
> Jussi
And I've noticed that people have a tendency to jump on every little thing
Yevgeniy says even when he's right, which does happen occasionally. That kind
of mindless hostility in turn tends to bring out the worst in him, as it
would indeed in me. It is certainly right to challenge Yevgeniy when he is in
error, as it is for any of us who post here, but there needs to be a rational
way to go about it. BTW, not all the credulity is on his side of the
argument.
Michael
ag...@my-dejanews.com
Stephen Shepherd <stephen_...@uk.ibm.com> wrote:
> ag...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> >
> > In article <6spiod$pj5$1...@noc1.gwi.net>,
> > acto...@gwi.net (Andrew C. Toppan) wrote:
> > > Unless the missile had a nuclear warhead, no.
> > >
> >
> > An accurate shot would cause secondary explosions that would sink a cv.
>
> <snip> examples of CV incidents in the '60s
>
> Of course it has to hit in the right place.
Is it really that hard to target the right place?
1. Ask Iraq about 'precision guided munitions'.
2. Have the 'Defence contractors' stopping reaserch
into better more accurate weapons since 91?
Laurence Doering
Per Nordenberg <per.nor...@swipnet.se> wrote:
>
>David Bofinger wrote in message <35F33BBD...@dsto.defence.gov.au>...
>>
>>Was the Eilat (sp: Israeli destroyer sunk in 1973) an ex-US ship,
>>or ex-British? If ex-US then that might half-count.
>
Well, actually, the *correct* spelling of the name uses the
Hebrew alphabet.
There is more than one way to represent Hebrew words using the
Roman alphabet. "Eilat" is the transliteration that's closest
to modern Israeli Hebrew pronunciation, whereas "Elath" suggests
the slightly different pronunciation of traditional European
liturgical Hebrew.
For what it's worth, "Eilat" is the transliteration that's
used in Israel for English-language maps and publications
(the destroyer was named after the city at the southernmost
tip of Israel, at the head of the Gulf of Eilat/Aqaba),
so "Eilat" is probably the best English spelling.
This is nothing compared to the difficulty of
transliterating Arabic into the Roman alphabet, though.
For example, think of the many variant spellings of noted
Libyan fruitcake Moammar El-Kaddafi's name floating around.
The problem here is that Arabic uses several sounds that don't
really exist in English, and there are several competing systems
for approximating them using Roman letters.
ljd
Per Nordenberg
Laurence Doering wrote in message <6t6atq$1...@mail.bcpl.net>...
>In article <BXWI1.1592$084.2...@nntpserver.swip.net>,
>Per Nordenberg <per.nor...@swipnet.se> wrote:
>>
>>David Bofinger wrote in message <35F33BBD...@dsto.defence.gov.au>...
>>>
>>>Was the Eilat (sp: Israeli destroyer sunk in 1973) an ex-US ship,
>>>or ex-British? If ex-US then that might half-count.
>>
>>The correct spelling of this Israeli ship is (as far as I can figure it
out)
>>"ELATH"...
>
>Well, actually, the *correct* spelling of the name uses the
>Hebrew alphabet.
>
>There is more than one way to represent Hebrew words using the
>Roman alphabet. "Eilat" is the transliteration that's closest
>to modern Israeli Hebrew pronunciation, whereas "Elath" suggests
>the slightly different pronunciation of traditional European
>liturgical Hebrew.
>
>For what it's worth, "Eilat" is the transliteration that's
>used in Israel for English-language maps and publications
>(the destroyer was named after the city at the southernmost
>tip of Israel, at the head of the Gulf of Eilat/Aqaba),
>so "Eilat" is probably the best English spelling.
Thanks for the spelling explanation. I just want to add that "ELATH" was the
way it was spelled in my JFS 1972-73.
Per Nordenberg
Paul Holloway
Jussi Saari wrote:
> I wonder if that really happened. Fighters like F-14 and F-15 are
> maneuverable, long-ranged fighters with excellent BVR weapons systems,
> but in simple aircraft performance the MiG-25 is still pretty much in a
> class of it's own as far as fighters go, and the strengths of F-14/15
> don't seem to be in areas that are relevant in countering MiG-25s. (I
> know, they can handle that job too, but they hardly seem to be optimized
> for it specifically.)
>
Minor point here. Comparing the -14 and -15 to the Mig-25 is like comparing
apples to oranges. To be very nit-picky, the Foxbat is not a "fighter", but
is an interceptor. It was designed to rapidly engage B-52s while they were
still on the USSRs periphery. Also it was seen as a counter to the SR-71.
I guess you could compare it to the Tomcat, as the Tom was designed
primarily as an interceptor, but the Tom is pretty maneuverable with its
swing wings, wheres as the Foxbat is primarily a "straight-line" design.
The Eagle evolved from the original Mach 3 requirement to counter the Foxbat
into the air-supreriority fighter it is today.
PDH
> Jussi
Brooks A Rowlett
>
> > I wonder if that really happened. Fighters like F-14 and F-15 are
> > maneuverable, long-ranged fighters with excellent BVR weapons systems,
> > but in simple aircraft performance the MiG-25 is still pretty much in a
> > class of it's own as far as fighters go, and the strengths of F-14/15
> > don't seem to be in areas that are relevant in countering MiG-25s. (I
> > know, they can handle that job too, but they hardly seem to be optimized
> > for it specifically.)
> >
Actually...there was an article in, of all things, READER'S DIGEST many years
ago (don't remember what the original may have been from ) that mentioned that
one of the Tomcat designers had a desktop model of a essentially a MiG-25
during the design phase of the Tomcat....
Also, IIRC, the Shah of Iran wanted tomcats in part because Tomcat/Phoenix was
advertized as capable fo defeating Foxbats - the Shah didn;t want the recce
MiG-25's coming into his terrain. Ironically, the Israelis are beleived to
have successfully shot down a recce Foxbat with an F-15 & Sparrow (by dint of
a launch-while-climbing look-up shoot down profile...)
-Brooks
Jack Love
<y.chi...@popmail.csuohio.edu> wrote:
>
>
>Jack Love wrote:
>
>> Of course, the result of this, particular, Russian stupidity was that
>> the US spent 2-3 years sweating bullets trying to come up with
>> legitimate designs which could mass this *perceived* mission envelope
>> and concluded that the Russians were better.
>
>Actually, if Americans would do that, it would had been called clever
>disinformation, yet if it Russians, it was stupidity?
>
>> So, we did what we could
>> and produced a set of aircraft, the F-15 and F-14, which could
>> *almost* equal the Soviet science fiction. Thus setting the Russians
>> hopelessly behind in aircraft performance for around 15 years. It
>> was soooo smart to scare us.
>
>You not familiar with Mig-31 :)
I said 15 years. I'm not familiar with current science fiction
concepts.
Actually, Mig-25 even today, still UNMATCHED
>in high altitude performance among fighter aircraft.
Yes, 30 years latter,
>F-14, Su-27, F-15 are firmly stuck in the dust. Mig-25 have AMAZING high
>altitude acceleration, speed, and climb. Which aircraft gave the most
>troubles to Americans in Gulf War?
To be exact? None of them.
> It was same good old Mig-25. Also, Mig-25
>credited with only Iraqi kill in Gulf War, when Iraqi Mig-25 downed F-18.
>There were also few stories, when Mig-25 made American pilots sweet, after
>which Mig-25 easily outrunned bunch of F-16, F-15, and a dozen Sparrows.
Note the operative part: running. Did they fight? No.
>> A spy friend of mine quotes the intelligence maxim "Nothing is ever as
>> good, there (Russia), as it seems. And, nothing is ever as bad, here
>> (US/West), as it seems.
>
>Actually he is twisting well known proverb about Russia: "Russia is never as
>good as it seams, Russia is never as bad as it seams." People who
>underestimated Russia payed for it.
Yep...they cheated the US of another $20Billion. Only as long as
their paid agent Bill Clinton is in charge will that go on.
>Yevgeniy Chizhikov.
Jack Love
<Jussi...@hepo.cc.lut.fi> wrote:
>Jack Love wrote:
>>
><snip>
>> The missions were complete disinformation. The Mig-25 could not
>> *operationally* use either of the extrema. In particular, the
>> speed record resulted from a light weight version with a hot
>> ****single use***** engine.
>
> I could be wrong since I don't have anything to check this from
>anywhere at the moment, but wasn't the engine a normal, standard engine,
>only handled in a manner that's dangerous, not allowed in normal
>operations, and requires the engine to be replaced afterwards?
It's been years since the book came out. But I thought it was a
special engine...you may well be right, however.
>
>> Of course, the result of this, particular, Russian stupidity was
>> that the US spent 2-3 years sweating bullets trying to come up
>> with legitimate designs which could mass this *perceived* mission
>> envelope and concluded that the Russians were better. So, we did
>> what we could and produced a set of aircraft, the F-15 and F-14,
>> which could *almost* equal the Soviet science fiction.
>
> I'm sure MiG-25 had an effect on the F-15 design, but the F-15 was
>still much more than a counter to the MiG... The F-14 on the other hand
>was unlikely to meet any MiG-25s in it's role as a fleet defence
>interceptor, but was needed to counter other high-altitude, high-speed
>threats that could no longer be handled by the old Phantom.
You failed, or probably weren't around, to read the 3 years of
Aviation Leak that I had the opportunity to when I was a kid. The
numbers of issues with performance envelope drawings as various
configurations of F-15 prototypes and F-14 prototypes were considered
was enormous.
It was pretty clear to *me* perhaps naively that if we couldn't figure
out a way to do it the Russians couldn't either. So it was quite
interesting when the Mig-25 finally became available through the
defection that the maskirovka (or stupidovka, as the case may be)
became really clear.
The fantasy performance had enormous impact. The Navy finally *did*
concede that they couldn't build the single aircraft needed to deal
with the problem and constructed the F-14/Phoenix combo which could
deal with it quite niceley.
>
>> Thus setting the Russians hopelessly behind in aircraft
>> performance for around 15 years. It was soooo smart to scare
>> us.
>
> I wonder if that really happened. Fighters like F-14 and F-15 are
>maneuverable, long-ranged fighters with excellent BVR weapons systems,
>but in simple aircraft performance the MiG-25 is still pretty much in a
>class of it's own as far as fighters go, and the strengths of F-14/15
>don't seem to be in areas that are relevant in countering MiG-25s. (I
>know, they can handle that job too, but they hardly seem to be optimized
>for it specifically.)
>
And, what does it do? If it doesn't engage in combat? It looks good
on individual spec sheets...it does have an impressive tube driven
radar.
>> A spy friend of mine quotes the intelligence maxim "Nothing is
>> ever as good, there (Russia), as it seems. And, nothing is ever
>> as bad, here (US/West), as it seems.
>
> Still not every surprise about Russian weapons systems has been a
>pleasant one for the west.
>
Nor have all of the 'deficient weapons systems' of the West been
pleasant surprise to the Soviets. Remember the first comment of the
Stavka type about the Gulf War: "It's a lie." The Russians thought
that the Iraqi's were good B- troops fighting a defensive war and
would "cause oceans of US blood."
>> Yev's quoting of fUSSR science-fiction and super weapons is
>> entertaining but must be viewed with a substantial grain of salt.
>Snip;. Whether they're
>correct or not I know of course, but for the Russians to keep quiet
>about the capabilities of the Kh-22 for almost thirty years and then
>starting a disinformation campaign against the west would seem rather
>strange to me...
The Russians are much more interested in how they look on paper.
Their current economic difficulties have given them an even scarier
inferiority complex than usual.
> The MiGs performance OTOH is a pretty old issue, and the fact is that
>although unpleasant things may start happening above Mach 2.83, the
>aircraft _can_ go beyond Mach 3, with regular engines. That'll be the
>last flight of those particular engines, but that's another issue.
>
>
>> He is credulous in the extreme viewing Russia from the comfort of
>> Ohio...he should really talk to my friend whose parents are near
>> starving in St. Petersburg these days...and worried about freezing in
>> the winter.
>
> And the sad fact is that St Petersburg is one of the best places to be
>in Russia at the moment. A 1000km up north into Murmansk and problems
>with winter and food take quite a different magnitude. But IMO Russia's
>economical situation or the nationality of a person taking part in a
>discussion is irrelevant. At rec.aviation.military about half the
Andrew P Pavacic
Jack Love <ja...@nwlink.com> wrote:
>On Sun, 06 Sep 1998 20:38:47 GMT, y.chi...@popmail.csuohio.edu
>wrote:
>>believe that SR-71 can be shotdown. But Kh-22 in reality flying even higher
>the Kh-22 you're talking about is a missile? Launched from a Tu-22M3?
>
>>than SR-71 and almost as fast. Kh-22 is also much smaller target than SR-71.
>The SR-71 is a man carrying *aircraft* with a very long range.
>
>>At the end one can see that flight envelop of the Kh-22 is near the limit of
>>the MODERN SAM's, not speaking about SAM's build in 1960's.
>This appears to be your most serious case of apples vs persimmons
>comparison using *soviet weapons*tm.
Yevgeny's point is extremely clear.
The SR-71 is claimed to be undownable by virtue of its altitude and
speed. The Kh-22 follows a similar flight profile, but is nevertheless
claimed to be easy to shoot down, by virtue of this very flight profile.
This points to hypocrisy and bias in arguments presented by those
who would both be admirers of the SR-71 and detractors of the Kh-22 at
once.
The suggestion that the pilot in the SR-71 makes this an "apples vs
persimmons" issue further contributes to Yevgeny's justified frustration
since the original argument that it is the SR-71's flight profile
that makes the difference has been subtly backtracked over.
This is by no means the first, last or most serious case of people
giving Yevgeny, Venik, or anyone else the conversational runaround
concerning Soviet weapons systems.
-Andrew Pavacic
David Bofinger
> The suggestion that the pilot in the SR-71 makes this an "apples vs
> persimmons" issue further contributes to Yevgeny's justified frustration
> since the original argument that it is the SR-71's flight profile
> that makes the difference has been subtly backtracked over.
I haven't followed the conversation enough to know who I support here,
but the pilot could well make a difference. Suppose both SR-71 and Kh-22
fly close to (but inside) the SAM's envelope. Then the SAM might be able
to intercept either, but only at a lowish speed with correspondingly low
manoeuvre-following ability. Enough to catch a non-manoeuvring missile
but not a manoeuvring aircraft.
In other words, it's not always possible to separate the profile from
other parameters of the target. Imagining a two-dimensional region
(x-axis is height, y-axis is manoeuvrability) then the two variables
are separable if and only if the kill zone is a rectangle. Which in
practice, for many parameter pairs, it usually isn't.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
David Bofinger David.B...@dsto.defence.gov.au
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Brian Varine
>
> In article <35f30290...@news.nwlink.com>,
> Jack Love <ja...@nwlink.com> wrote:
> >On Sun, 06 Sep 1998 20:38:47 GMT, y.chi...@popmail.csuohio.edu
> >wrote:
> >>believe that SR-71 can be shotdown. But Kh-22 in reality flying even higher
> >the Kh-22 you're talking about is a missile? Launched from a Tu-22M3?
> >
> >>than SR-71 and almost as fast. Kh-22 is also much smaller target than SR-71.
> >The SR-71 is a man carrying *aircraft* with a very long range.
> >
> >>At the end one can see that flight envelop of the Kh-22 is near the limit of
> >>the MODERN SAM's, not speaking about SAM's build in 1960's.
> >This appears to be your most serious case of apples vs persimmons
> >comparison using *soviet weapons*tm.
>
> Yevgeny's point is extremely clear.
>
> The SR-71 is claimed to be undownable by virtue of its altitude and
> speed. The Kh-22 follows a similar flight profile, but is nevertheless
> claimed to be easy to shoot down, by virtue of this very flight profile.
> This points to hypocrisy and bias in arguments presented by those
> who would both be admirers of the SR-71 and detractors of the Kh-22 at
> once.
If you're going against an Aegis/NTU ship, the SR-71 would be easy
pickins. It's fast but it ain't that fast. And it's not too high either.
I would say a SM-2(ER) ship would have little problems blasting one out
of the sky. When it was introduced, the SR-71 was undownable but over
time missiles evolved. An SA-12 or SA-10 would also stand an excellent
chance Vs. and SR-71.
Jussi Saari
>
> The fantasy performance had enormous impact. The Navy finally
> *did* concede that they couldn't build the single aircraft
> needed to deal with the problem and constructed the
> F-14/Phoenix combo which could deal with it quite niceley.
Everything that I have ever heard, seen or read about the
F-14 says that it's primary design goal was to be a good
bomber/missile interceptor and also have good maneuverability
for close-in dogfighting. I haven't read 30 year old magazines,
but if anything I'd expect the authors of more recent
publications to have a better chance of having real facts about
the development process available.
> > but in simple aircraft performance the MiG-25 is still
> >pretty much in a class of it's own as far as fighters go
>
> And, what does it do? If it doesn't engage in combat? It looks good
> on individual spec sheets...it does have an impressive tube driven
> radar.
It was a very good reconaissance platform until F-15s and Patriots
came along, and from Mach 2.8 speed and 24km altitude the BM version can
lob an ARM quite a long way. The interceptor version was pretty much a
response to the threat of high-speed, high-altitude intruders (Valkyrie,
Blackbird variants) and didn't make a good all-around fighter. But the
different versions could do what they were required to do.
> >> A spy friend of mine quotes the intelligence maxim "Nothing is
> >> ever as good, there (Russia), as it seems. And, nothing is ever
> >> as bad, here (US/West), as it seems.
> >
> > Still not every surprise about Russian weapons systems has been
> >a pleasant one for the west.
>
> Nor have all of the 'deficient weapons systems' of the West been
> pleasant surprise to the Soviets.
Goes both ways of course. I just pointed out that not everything the
Russians say is an exaggeration, they could play the disinformation game
the other way around as well. (Though mostly I suppose they just kept
silent about those systems they knew to be better than what was being
said about them in the west. And no, I DON'T think that on the average
Russian was better or even as good as in the Western.) (And BTW, if you
want to see grossly overestimated figures for Russian aircraft you don't
want to find a Russian source, you want DoD "estimates"...)
> >for the Russians to keep quiet about the capabilities of
> >the Kh-22 for almost thirty years and then starting a
> >disinformation campaign against the west would seem rather
> >strange to me...
>
> The Russians are much more interested in how they look on paper.
What do you mean? That they lie even to themselves and overstate
figures in technical manuals etc.? Not likely...
Jussi
Jack Love
<Jussi...@hepo.cc.lut.fi> wrote:
>Jack Love wrote:
>>
>> The fantasy performance had enormous impact. The Navy finally
>> *did* concede that they couldn't build the single aircraft
>> needed to deal with the problem and constructed the
>> F-14/Phoenix combo which could deal with it quite niceley.
>
> Everything that I have ever heard, seen or read about the
>F-14 says that it's primary design goal was to be a good
>bomber/missile interceptor and also have good maneuverability
>for close-in dogfighting. I haven't read 30 year old magazines,
>but if anything I'd expect the authors of more recent
>publications to have a better chance of having real facts about
>the development process available.
>
I see...so you're saying that the original source material has nothing
of consequence to say? Interesting attitude.
>> >for the Russians to keep quiet about the capabilities of
>> >the Kh-22 for almost thirty years and then starting a
>> >disinformation campaign against the west would seem rather
>> >strange to me...
>>
>> The Russians are much more interested in how they look on paper.
>
> What do you mean? That they lie even to themselves and overstate
>figures in technical manuals etc.? Not likely...
>
The Russians lie to themselves continuously, on all topics, economics,
history, foreign relations, technology and phone numbers. They've
lied to the West most recently and themselves most recently on the
issue of 'paying current accounts.' Why not 'spec sheets' released for
publication?
>
>Jussi
Yevgeniy Chizhikov
Jack Love wrote:
> On Thu, 10 Sep 1998 19:48:43 +0300, Jussi Saari
> <Jussi...@hepo.cc.lut.fi> wrote:
>
> >
> The Russians lie to themselves continuously, on all topics, economics,
> history, foreign relations, technology and phone numbers.
Questionable statement to say the least. One of the good old Cold War
propaganda, as it seams. I saw half a dozen old American made propaganda
movies in the library. They were all about Soviets leing. You appears to
be very simply guy, if you swallowed this piece of crap.
> They've
> lied to the West most recently and themselves most recently on the
> issue of 'paying current accounts.'
You had been lied that Gulf War was about democracy.
> Why not 'spec sheets' released for
> publication?
They are released. What are you talking about? Don't blame Russians for
personal lack of knowledge.
Like you seams to be high on truth. You probably had been living on the
moon, or you would heard about scandals in US in the last 50 years. All of
them were about lying.
Yevgeniy Chizhikov.
Tim Lynch
<y.chi...@popmail.csuohio.edu> wrote:
> You had been lied that Gulf War was about democracy.
Who lied? Saddam was poised to grab a significant percentage of the world
oil supply. Had he succeeded and affected world oil prices a worldwide
recession could have ensued. Thus he was removed.
Nobody ever claimed Saudi and Kuwait were democracies. They were however
sovereign nations and our allies so Iraq's attack was reversed. Nothing
more.
--
Tim
Jussi Saari
>
> On Thu, 10 Sep 1998 19:48:43 +0300, Jussi Saari
> <Jussi...@hepo.cc.lut.fi> wrote:
>
> > Everything that I have ever heard, seen or read about the
> >F-14 says that it's primary design goal was to be a good
> >bomber/missile interceptor and also have good maneuverability
> >for close-in dogfighting. I haven't read 30 year old magazines,
> >but if anything I'd expect the authors of more recent
> >publications to have a better chance of having real facts about
> >the development process available.
>
> I see...so you're saying that the original source material has
> nothing of consequence to say? Interesting attitude.
No, I didn't say they have nothing of consequence. Only that none of
the information available 30 years ago has suddenly become unavailable
for aviation journalists and authors in the 90's but the opposite may
sometimes happen. And frankly saying that the F-14 was designed to
counter the MiG-25 contradicts not only most public sources but common
sense as well, since a narrow-role PVO interceptor is hardly a
particularly important target for a fleet defence interceptor.
(From what I've read, the original Missileer was abandoned because the
navy wanted a fighter and not just a narrow-role bomber interceptor, and
the F-111B was abandoned for the same reason and also for not being well
suited for carrier operations. The F-14 was maneuverable and had the
F-111B's weapons system, but there's nothing particularly amazing in
it's speed/altitude performance. It was very good for it's role, and
good for killing MiG-25s as well, but you could put AWG-9 + Phoenix on
just about any aircraft and make it able to kill MiG-25s... And let's
not start saying that the AWG-9 was designed primarily against the
MiG-25...)
> > What do you mean? That they lie even to themselves and
> > overstate figures in technical manuals etc.? Not likely...
>
> The Russians lie to themselves continuously, on all topics,
<snip>
> Why not 'spec sheets' released for publication?
Lying for the sake of disinformation, or sometimes in attracting a
customer's interest (Kamov and Sukhoi in particular often seem to do
this), yes. In spec sheets without any particular purpose, not from what
I know/have heard. On the contrary they sometimes seem quite cautious in
what they put on paper as the official specs.
Jussi
Amitabh Dubey
> > You had been lied that Gulf War was about democracy.
>
> Who lied? Saddam was poised to grab a significant percentage of the world
> oil supply. Had he succeeded and affected world oil prices a worldwide
> recession could have ensued. Thus he was removed.
>
> Nobody ever claimed Saudi and Kuwait were democracies. They were however
> sovereign nations and our allies so Iraq's attack was reversed. Nothing
> more.
Tim,
Go back and read the (supposedly objective) US media in the months
leading up to the war. Read President Bush's speeches. It was about
freedom, democracy and the American way of life (just as, I am sure, the
strike on Sudan was!). The point is that you are unlikely to mobilize
support for 10,000 plus casualties (as were expected IIRC) to lower the
price of gas (hmmm.. now that I think about it, maybe...!).
Also, I've heard graduate ivy league students say things like Kuwait was
a democracy, so don't underestimate the strength of such propaganda. As
a highly attentive voter, you may not believe it. But propaganda is
aimed at the less attentive median voter/citizen, the so-called silent
majority.
Best,
Amitabh
Per Andersson
>Jack Love wrote:
>> The Russians lie to themselves continuously, on all topics, economics,
>> history, foreign relations, technology and phone numbers.
>Questionable statement to say the least.
Not really.
Soviet statistics have a completely awful, and rather well-deserved,
reputation among most scholars.
Russians, as individuals are probably no more untruthful than most
people, but the USSR managed to creat a political and official
environment where falsehood was rather more common than in a
non-authoritorian State. With most Russian political and economic
leaders being children of the Soviet system, changing this deep-set
attitude will take a long time.
(snip)
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?"
Yevgeniy Chizhikov
Per Andersson wrote:
> Soviet statistics have a completely awful, and rather well-deserved,
> reputation among most scholars.
Sort of true. Yes, Soviets overstate performance of their weapons, but it
happened REALLY REALLY rare. Mainly because the one simple reason, Soviets
DID NOT showed any statistics, period. I would advise you to go in the
library and look at some information about Soviet weapons from 1970's. Don't
be surprised if information provided not by Soviets, but ESTIMATED by some
"unbiased" people in Pentagon. Look at Mig-25. Did Soviets made such a big
hype about Mig-25? No, it was some bonehead in Washington "estimated" Mig-25
to be M3 MANUVERABLE fighter, with range of at least 3,500 km, and radar that
capable to track targets at least at 80 km. I doubt this bonehead simply made
mistake, it was trying to get more money for military. Look at many other
cases. Many such US GOVERNMENT organizations and Pentagon, displayed Soviets
weapons with much greater performance data than it was in reality. So, stop
blaming Soviets/Russians, in most cases it was US "experts" produced a hype
about Russian weapons to get more money from your pocket.
Yevgeniy Chizhikov.
skavar
>
> > You had been lied that Gulf War was about democracy.
>
> Who lied? Saddam was poised to grab a significant percentage of the world
> oil supply. Had he succeeded and affected world oil prices a worldwide
> recession could have ensued. Thus he was removed.
>
well, he wasnt removed...
ivan
> Nobody ever claimed Saudi and Kuwait were democracies. They were however
> sovereign nations and our allies so Iraq's attack was reversed. Nothing
> more.
>
> --
> Tim
--
for the sake of variety i bring you....
"Clearly Hennessy has one of the keenest minds
in Usenet today!" - The New York Times
"Witty and full of life" - Newsweek