And now for something completely different...RAAF chooses EE Lightning over Mirage.

Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title Sort in Reverse Order Posted

Pages: PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 NEXT

Aussiegunneragain GF 6/12/2009 4:24:52 AM

Terrier is longer than Tartar because of that first stage booster. It can reach out 50,000 + meters as an area defense SAM. To install it VERTICALLY, I need the space in C position that is DEEP.between the two engine rooms. The Tartar is short enough in missile length and good enough to replace SEACAT as a point defense missile. It reaches out about 20,000+ meters. Why two different missiles? Because I want more than 30 Seaslugs and 24 Seacats.and I want to blow a Badger out of the sky and then blow a Sverdlov into floating scrap in the same action. These missiles had PKs of 66% and 57% single shot respectively against SUPERSONIC targets. Not exactly worldbeating by present day standards, but if you have a Badger coming at you, wouldn't you start throwiung rockets at it before it casme close enough to bomb you? The long range rocket is for long range, the close in rocket is for close in? Why not do that? That is the whole point of a two zone missile defense.

IF you are going to hit a Badger you would want a Talos, not a Terrier. The later had a 17nm range and the AS-1 missiles carried by the Badger K's flown by Indonesia had almost a 50nm range. The Talos could have hit it though as it had a 50 to 100nm range depending on version. It also had a 300 lb warhead, very handy against surface ships. It would have been too big for a reasonable number on the Counties though so we would have had to settle for hitting the missiles. With that in mind I think that defending against any more than 1 Badger K would have been beyond the RAN at the time.

Quote Reply

Volkodav 6/12/2009 8:58:06 AM

With Talos you are back to a full cruiser.

It all comes down to priorities if you need to take out the launchers you need CAP with AEW which means (during the 60's and 70's) you also need a mininmum 35,000t carrier. The alternative is a minimum 15,000t CG or CAG equiped with state of the art radars and armed with something akin to the Talos. The USN could afford both, the RN could have and would have but for the Radical Review, the RAN would have to choose one or the other.

Quote Reply

Volkodav 6/12/2009 8:58:37 AM

With Talos you are back to a full cruiser.

Quote Reply

Herald12345 OInion versus Badger 6/12/2009 11:13:50 AM

Terrier is longer than Tartar because of that first stage booster. It can reach out 50,000 + meters as an area defense SAM. To install it VERTICALLY, I need the space in C position that is DEEP.between the two engine rooms. The Tartar is short enough in missile length and good enough to replace SEACAT as a point defense missile. It reaches out about 20,000+ meters. Why two different missiles? Because I want more than 30 Seaslugs and 24 Seacats.and I want to blow a Badger out of the sky and then blow a Sverdlov into floating scrap in the same action. These missiles had PKs of 66% and 57% single shot respectively against SUPERSONIC targets. Not exactly worldbeating by present day standards, but if you have a Badger coming at you, wouldn't you start throwing rockets at it before it came close enough to bomb you? The long range rocket is for long range, the close in rocket is for close in? Why not do that? That is the whole point of a two zone missile defense.

Indonesia flew some of the Badger B which was the only type Badger that I know which could carry Kennel. Only about 100 of that type Badger were ever made. I think about 20 Badgers were in Indonesian service, Were all of them Badger Bs?

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Tartar is the missile with the 17 nautical mile eange missile. (~25,000-30,000 meters).

Source.

Terrier

Data for RIM-2B/D/F:

	RIM-2B	RIM-2D/F
Length (incl. booster)	8.25 m (27 ft 1 in)	8.0 m (26 ft 4 in)
Wingspan	1.20 m (47.3 in)	0.61 m (24 in)
Finspan	1.03 m (40.5 in)	1.07 m (42.3 in)
Diameter	0.34 m (13.5 in)
Weight (w/o booster)	480 kg (1060 lb); booster: 584 kg (1290 lb)	535 kg (1180 lb); booster: 825 kg (1820 lb)
Speed	Mach 1.8	Mach 3.0
Ceiling	12200 m (40000 ft)	24400 m (80000 ft)
Range	19 km (10 nm)	RIM-2D: 37 km (20 nm); *RIM-2F: 75 km (40 nm)1**
Propulsion	Solid-fueled rocket booster Solid-fueled rocket sustainer
Warhead	100 kg (218 lb) controlled-fragmentation warhead; RIM-2D (BT-3A(N)): W-45-0 nuclear warhead (1 kT)

Main Sources

[1] Norman Friedman: "US Naval Weapons", Conway Maritime Press, 1983
[2] Bill Gunston: "The Illustrated Encyclopedia of Rockets and Missiles", Salamander Books Ltd, 1979
[3] James N. Gibson: "Nuclear Weapons of the United States", Schiffer Publishing Ltd, 1996

----------------------------------------------------------

*1 those are the missiles you use on the Adams/Perths (1960 onward) until the Standards come into service (1967-1970). These are also the missiles I use on the Counties, which of the first won't be ready for the RAN until 1963.amyway.....

Source for Terrier.

[6.2] KS-1 KOMETA (AS-1 KENNEL)

* Although the Soviet efforts to build improved derivatives of the V-1 and a heavy strategic cruise missile went nowhere, the Soviets were generally not lacking in persistence and had a number of other programs in motion that would pay off.

The OKB-155 design bureau led by Artem Mikoyan and Mikhail Gurevich, known by its famous acronym "MiG", was making great progress with jet fighter design in the postwar period. In late 1947, OKB-155 set up a branch under Alexander I. Beresniak, who had worked on rocket-propelled manned interceptors during the war, to use the same design concepts to develop a turbojet-powered cruise missile, designated the "Kometa". This effort was perceived as more promising than Chelomei's work on V-1 derivatives, and in early 1953 Chelomei's OKB-51 was disbanded, with the MiG OKB taking over its facilities.

Apparently one of the reasons the MiG OKB missile branch was favored was because one of the high officials in the group was Sergei Beria, the son of Lavrenti Beria, the powerful and feared head of Soviet security services. The missile offshoot of the MiG OKB would become an independent organization, surviving to this day as the MKB Raduga organization. The details of the evolution of the organization name are unclear, so it will simply be referred to here as the "Raduga" organization for simplicity.

As the Kometa emerged, it looked very much like a half-scale unpiloted MiG-15 fighter. Initially, the Kometa was to be powered by an RD-20 turbojet, a copy of the German BMW-003, but it wasn't powerful enough, and so a RD-500K, a copy of the British Rolls Royce Derwent V turbojet designed for expendable operation, was used instead. Three piloted versions known as "Analogs" were built for testing, with first flight in January 1951. The Analog looked something like a "toy" jet fighter, with a cockpit and canopy crammed into limited space, and bicycle retractable landing gear with wingtip outriggers. A single MiG-9 fighter was also modified to test the guidance system.

The test program went forward quickly and the type went into production in late 1952 as the "KS-1". It was initially built in an air-launched version, with one carried under each wing of a Tupolev Tu-16 "Badger" jet bomber. NATO assigned the type the codename of "AS-1 Kennel".

The KS-1 resembled a small jet fighter with swept wings and tail, and an engine intake in the nose. It was guided during midcourse flight by a K-2 radio control link, and was fitted with a K-1 active radar seeker for terminal attack. There was a pod at the top of the tailfin for the radio link, and a bulbous radome on the upper lip of the engine intake for the active radar seeker. The KS-1 could carry an 800 kilogram (1,765 pound) conventional warhead or a nuclear warhead.

   KS-1 KOMETA (AS-1 KENNEL):

_____________________   _________________   _______________________



spec                    metric              english

_____________________   _________________   _______________________



wingspan                4.9 meters          16 feet 1 inch

length                  8.29 meters         27 feet 2 inches

total weight            2,735 kilograms     6,030 pounds

warhead weight          1,000 kilograms     2,200 pounds

speed                   subsonic 

range                   100 kilometers      60 MI / 55 NMI

_____________________   _________________   _______________________

The KS-1 was also produced as a surface-to-surface weapon, designated "KFR-1" (NATO codename "SSC-1A Salish"), with an inertial guidance system; and as a coastal defense weapon, the "S-2 Sopka" (NATO codename "SSC-2B Samlet"), with a guidance system like that of the air-launched variant. Both were launched off a rail on a truck trailer using a single RATO booster.

Training missions for KS-1 launches were performed with a Badger bomber carrying a piloted MiG-17 fighter fitted with the KS-1 guidance system. (Some sources claim MiG-15s were similarly modified with the KS-1 system, but the evidence is lacking.) The fighter was carried into the air and released to fly a missile mission profile, up to shortly before "impact", when the fighter pilot took control back and went back home.

In the late 1950s, an improved version of the KS-1 was fielded, with folding wings and increased fuel capacity to stretch its range to 150 kilometers (95 miles). The KS-1 and its derivatives were exported to some Soviet client states, but by the late 1960s the type was obsolete, lacking in range as well as the speed and sophistication to penetrate adversary defenses, and it appears they were all out of service by the mid-1970s.

AS-1 Kennel data source

Well........You have thus primitive cruise missile. It needs to use SARH guidance which means the Badger has to illuminate the ship wuth its radar.. WINDOW came into being around 1943, the British and the Americans started using radar jammers and radio decoys about the same time. Wonder if they would have ships equipped for that and for threat detection?

Data Source.

Yes it appears they did. The point for those fighter directors on the Counties and the Rivers*2 (ASW frigates) is that the fighters are the first zone, Terrier is the second, and Tartar is the third. You want TALOS? Not practical on a County, Talos is HUGE..

The point of the Sea Vixen in the first place is to have that fighter in service that you carry to sea that will down the Badger before he reaches firing position. The rest of it is to stop those slow cruise missiles if your fleet air arm miss their intercepts. Same then as now. RTL RAN would have done better than you think.The Perths were designed to handle cruise missiles. Question is how would a Skyhawk catch something as fast as it was without its own intercept radart?? You need an interceptor. Before Phantom it has to be Sea Vixen or something like it.

Herald

Quote Reply

gf0012-aust 6/12/2009 6:58:11 PM

don't forget that during Konfrontassi we also had Bloodhounds in place. Badgers had to go continental if they intended to do a Pearl, and the only valuable property within their range was also within Bloodhound range.

Quote Reply

Aussiegunneragain 6/12/2009 9:40:26 PM

RTL RAN would have done better than you think.

I doubt it. We couldn't operate a carrier bigger than the Melbourne without unacceptable manning and financial costs, therefore making operating an interceptor (most likely Sea Vixen or F-8) out of the question for us. We also couldn't have afforded to operate a TALOS equipped cruiser. Therefore in practical terms Terrier SAM defences would have been our first line of defence and Tartar the second, and they would have only been able to hit a couple of missiles before being overwhelmed.

The EW approach might work but it really would depend upon the data that the RAN had about the frequencies that the Badgers operated on and on the reliability of the equipment to be effective. In the early to mid-60's the Badger K was reletively new so that couldn't be relied on. Don't forget that even 20 years later in the Falklands EW wasn't 100% effective and when you are talking about defending against an anti-shipping strike it has to be because the cost of failure is very high. EW is also pretty useless when you are defending merchant ships because the EW only protects the warships carrying it, if anything it is likely to draw a missile away from the warships towards the merchant vessel they are supposed to be protecting (like with the Atlantic Conveyer).

I used to be a fan of the idea that Australia could, can and should operate a comprehensive naval air defence system, but I've come to the conclusion that this was beyond us then and remains so now. The Melbourne and our other skimmers were useful convoy escort asset for Australia to contribute to the allied effort against Soviet submarines and surface raiders, but they couldn't have operated independently against more than an air threat constituting the odd TU-16 or TU-95 lobbing one or two ASM's.

Quote Reply

Aussiegunneragain GF 6/12/2009 9:41:50 PM

If they wanted to do a Pearl they would have done it at low level, below the Bloodhound's operational altitude.

Quote Reply

Aussiegunneragain Herald - Some Feedback 6/12/2009 9:48:10 PM

I'm enjoying the contribution that you are making to this conversation but would you mind not posting such large chunks of background material? It clutters up the thread and detracts from its readability, and it comes across like you are trying to overwhelm the reader with your argument. Sticking to a succinct summary of your main points and essential information with links to the material would add a lot.

Quote Reply

Herald12345 Badger K is the EW version. 6/13/2009 12:05:13 AM

RTL RAN would have done better than you think.

The problems the Russians had with their Badger was that while the bomber was okay the Kennel was a horrible missile with an equally horrible Kobalt N datalink. That cold operator who froze his arse off un the Badger missikew operators station, trying to steer the missile midcourse with a manual RGC correction, wasn't helping accuracy matters much. The Argon blob detector radar wasn't that good as a SARH support radar either. A CEP of 160+ meters before jamming and spoof was not too good goung in. The Kennel is probable the only Russian cruise missile we can say, that was actually more dangerous to the ship next to you than an Exocet o Styx!

The EW approach might work but it really would depend upon the data that the RAN had about the frequencies that the Badgers operated on and on the reliability of the equipment to be effective. In the early to mid-60's the Badger K was relatively new so that couldn't be relied on. Don't forget that even 20 years later in the Falklands EW wasn't 100% effective and when you are talking about defending against an anti-shipping strike it has to be because the cost of failure is very high. EW is also pretty useless when you are defending merchant ships because the EW only protects the warships carrying it, if anything it is likely to draw a missile away from the warships towards the merchant vessel they are supposed to be protecting (like with the Atlantic Conveyer).

Like everything you have to PRACTICE EW and look at what you need to do. Can't guarantee 100% eoither, but the Russian stuff at the time wasn't that good and we knew it. We kept a lot of that unformation away from the allies because we were finding that some of them, leaked knowledge like sieves. What was the use of ferreting out an enemy EW order of battleand develop CMs, if theCMs wound up as a headlune in der Spiegel? How do you think the Russians discovered how we cracked their missile telemetry in the 1950s before we had satellites to sniff it?

Well.........

After Eilat sank the Israelis wised up to EW in a hurry. INS Hanit for them, was like Sheffield, Glammorgan, Atlantic Conveyer for the British, and the Stark for the US, failures to use the present EW means at hand properly (for the US especially so) . Flares chaff, and radio decoys there were, just not used. Do I need to point out that the RAN was and is still a world leader in countermeasures, having pioneered many of the chaff, flare, radio jamming, and noise decoys used by the various western navies in the late 1950s and 1960s? That wasn't just Ikara that your research establishments worked to perfect.

DSTO

You need to think clearly about how you would fight Mister Badger (and Konfrontassi) in your AO, AGG. GF gave you some of it when he mentioned Bloodhound though I prefer Thunderbird for its mobility. Make him fight on your terms and commit himserlf to the wrong actions.

You have to lure Mister Badger into combat beyond his fighter cover and into your fighter/SAM defense.

Let's face something else, you don't put to see without some figbter defense as long as Mister Badger is around. Part of the point I harped upon earlier was that you have a severe budget and operations manpower limitation, so that you have to pick and choose carefully how you go about the Konfrontassi. Everything from submarine delivered commando raids to blow them up up in their aircraft shelters to counter airbase missions by Canberras to just plain sabotage to maybe trading in the Majestics for Centaurs to buying Swedish fighterts and land based attack aircraft as we've discussed to this point is geared to three systems objectives:

-active deterrence to show the Indonesian dictator that military confrontation is useless.

-the STICK (Teddy Roosevelt) to prevent that regime from embarking on adventurism in your areas of interest. (Solomons, Papua, New Guninea, etc.)

-naval reach to extend your influence and help- across to your friends and neutrals within the area and block his.

All of it we doscuss is geared so that you can outwait the dictator's regime while Australia uses diplomacy and economics to nudge Indonesia's successor government into a friendly relations posture, post dictator.

This is more or less what Australia actually did. But Konfrontassi was ramped up hypothetically so the respnnse has to be within the limits.

I am not in Volkadav's corner suggesting a fleet of Coumties, and a couple squadrons of Vulcans. I'm just trying to figure out how to give Darwin a TALOS battery, swap Majestocs for Centaurs find the men and money for a couple of Counties, four squadrons of Sea Vixens, at least four squadrens of Drakens and the NADGE*1 to go with it, and do a Canberra bomber upgrade. (Introduce the AGM 76 as a standoff missile for anti-airbase strikes.

AGM-76 This is a HUGE A2A FALCON rocket converted to an AGM It would have a Kerry's wallop at Mack 2+ and twice the effective range.

Herald

Quote Reply

gf0012-aust 6/13/2009 2:59:02 AM

If they wanted to do a Pearl they would have done it at low level, below the Bloodhound's operational altitude.

maybe not. they were gunshy and not too keen about travelling around without escorts - none of their fixed wing pointy jets could have gone the distance - and they had even less effective ground control of those aircraft. Even in the 60's we had a signal reach advantage over the Indons. they'd never done low level strike - Plus, even that silly claim that an ex indon aviation general made about flying over Alice Springs was caveated with them going high to avoid the Bloodhounds (even though there were none at Alice, and even though Alice served no strategic benefit so WTF would they even try to fly to it in the first place. :)

Quote Reply

Volkodav Vulcan???? 6/13/2009 9:35:32 AM

No not Vulcans.............!

Now Victors on the other hand.......My ideal alternate RAAF would have used Victors and derivatives there of as strike bombers, maritime patrol and strike, ELINT, defence supression and stand off jamming, as well as tankers.

Quote Reply

Volkodav Vulcan???? 6/13/2009 9:35:37 AM

No not Vulcans.............!

Quote Reply

Herald12345 Pretty plane. 6/13/2009 2:32:57 PM

No not Vulcans.............!

All flash and no cash as my pop used to say. The RAF was right to use them as tankers and recon birds. The Vulcan was the better bomber. Only thing that would have saved Victor as a bomber is something like Skybolt-which didn't work.

Quote Reply

Herald12345 You may find this a facinating sidebar. 6/13/2009 4:03:58 PM

Skybolt, Polaris, and Rule Britannia!

Aside from Skybolt not working properly (Douglas was just this close to fixing the climb-out yaw problem with a better vernier tail control system; the missile was prematurely canceled before Test Six), the root cause for that entire debacle, were those two prime idiots: Dean Acheson, and Robert McNamara. The failed PT boat commander didn't help matters, much, either. He was plainly outwitted by both DeGaulle and MacMillan.

Sometimes you have to shake your head at some of the idiots we, of the US, put behind that desk in the oval office.

Quote Reply

Volkodav 6/13/2009 11:20:35 PM

Herald to be truthful the RAAF would probably have been better off replacing the Canberras with the conventional strike derivative of the A5 Vigilante the was originaly selected prior to the government commiting to the F-111 instead.

It would have been available to enter service in the mid 60's, would have been substantially cheaper than the F-111 and could have been manufactured / assembled locally. While not as capable as the F-111 and likely not as long lived the Vigilante would have done the job required of it while freeing up funds for other capabilities that were ignored with the F-111 purchase. i.e. Tartar County DLG's and a new CVL capable of operating off the shelf fighters....F-8 anyone?

Quote Reply

Pages: PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 NEXT

	News As History - November 24, 2009
	Home News How to Make War Wars Around the World Austin Bay's On Point Dirty Little Secrets Features Al Nofi's CIC Prediction Market Wargames Measure of Respect On War and Warfare Videos Photos Jokes Community Military Discussion Boards Military Jokes Military Photos Military Book Reviews Military Movie Reviews Military Links Wargame Store StrategyPage Subscribe Login Feedback About Us Search Account Manager Advertise With Us