DropBear, not sure how that'll affect the E-10 production line. But it's a very handy tie-in into what gf brought up, which is that the technology is there, whether it's operationally possible is another issue. Seems Terrex is trying to argue that LACMs are fundamentally unstoppable. Now that's just damn funny.

GF, I'd agree that our land forces don't have a robust SAM or AAA defense against low altitude cruise missiles. In most situations, we don't need to, because we've decided the best defense in that situation was F-15Es with JDAMs or LGBs. Since we've been so successful with our preferred form of defense, we haven't bothered with producing a SAM or AAA solution. Displacedjim

http://www.navysite.de/ffg/FFG31.HTM "While deployed to the Arabian Gulf, the USS STARK is hit by two Iraqi Exocet missiles but only one of them detonates. Both missiles were accidentally fired by an Iraqi F-1 Mirage aircraft, killing 37 sailors and wounding 21 others. The pilot later claims that he had mistaken the STARK for an Iranian oil tanker. The STARK suffers heavy damage and could only be saved by the effective damage control efforts of the crew. After the incident a discussion about the efficiency of the Phalanx CIWS, the SLQ 32 and the Mk 92 Fire Control system started because none of the frigate's system detected the incoming missiles. An AWACS plane monitoring the area also did not detect the missiles but only the Iraqi fighter aircraft."

The Stark's SPS-49 air search radar acquired the aircraft at 2058. First Missile launch was at 2107. Target interrogation did not begin until 2108(radio). The SRBOC was not armed, Phalanx was off, and the .50cals weren't loaded. The ship essentially was not ready to fight. After radar contact, the SRBOC was being armed, the Phalanx was put on standby(not automatic). The ship did not turn broadside to the threat as it would have if expecting hostilities. The real problem was complacency. GQ wasn't even sounded until the first missile hit. The TAO did not act aggressively enough in the CO's absence. In contrast, 3 days prior, the DD Coontz was approached in a similar situation. They also radioed for identification, but also turned broadside, put a missile on the rail, and armed the SRBOC, which caused the Iraqi jet to break off. Most studies identify the problem as a situation that made it difficult to identify as peacetime or wartime. In other words, while they, in retrospect, should have been locked and loaded and ready to shoot, they weren't and were basically caught napping on the night watch(the .50 gunner actually WAS napping) by a night attack mission. The solution would have been a more aggressive mentality for the watch officers. I also wonder where the XO was during this, as they usually are senior officer present when the CO is "off." Not to mention...you're talking about an incident in the 1980's on a class that's being pulled from active service.

Not to mention...you're talking about an incident in the 1980's on a class that's being pulled from active service. By USN-MID -------------------------------------------------- So u r saying,the only country in the world that constantly upgrade their sensor and weapon is US? By the waythe USS stark incident is not abt slack or not.It is abt the sensor not picking up anything? If yr sensor is not picking up anything.Even the whole crew is in battle station mode will not help unless u expect a 0.5 gunner using visual contact to shoot down a cruise missile travelling at 0.9 mach! The ineffective of their so call sophisticated sensor is reinforced by the AWACS who was patrolling nearby failed to pick up the missiles.

"So u r saying,the only country in the world that constantly upgrade their sensor and weapon is US?" -- Terrex ---- No, not the only. For example, China has finally in just the last couple years upgraded their PLANAF to the point that they have some fighter aircraft that can launch anti-ship cruise missiles similar to Iraq's Mirage F1 and their Exocets. So China is finally where Iraq was in 1987, and the USN is where we've upgraded to in the 17 years since then. Displacedjim

"RE:Ground Based air defence not up to standard? USN-Mid 11/29/2004 9:47:15 AM GF, I'd agree that our land forces don't have a robust SAM or AAA defense against low altitude cruise missiles. In most situations, we don't need to, because we've decided the best defense in that situation was F-15Es with JDAMs or LGBs. Since we've been so successful with our preferred form of defense, we haven't bothered with producing a SAM or AAA solution. Displacedjim" I think where Terrex is missing the point, is that in the example he uses (Stark) it's indicative of a series of command and operational failures - not exclusively technical. If Stark had operated at a truly "all lights out" footing,and ipso facto was at a combat footing - then the outcome most probably would have been different. ditto for the concept of a silkworm being able to drop in unannounced on a shore facility. What he fails to grasp is that the lack of a response system (IADS/ADS) doesn't translate to an inability to deal with silkworms. If the situation had been in extremis, eg the threat levels have gone high enough to warrant an active defence, and if the location was deemed important enough to protect, then there was a clear capability to have a response system on ground, in place and able to deal with that kind of threat. What he ignores is the latent ability. To argue that the US had no counter to a modified silkworm is being a bit cavalier with the extrapolations.

I think where Terrex is missing the point, is that in the example he uses (Stark) it's indicative of a series of command and operational failures - not exclusively technical. If Stark had operated at a truly "all lights out" footing,and ipso facto was at a combat footing - then the outcome most probably would have been different. ditto for the concept of a silkworm being able to drop in unannounced on a shore facility. What he fails to grasp is that the lack of a response system (IADS/ADS) doesn't translate to an inability to deal with silkworms. If the situation had been in extremis, eg the threat levels have gone high enough to warrant an active defence, and if the location was deemed important enough to protect, then there was a clear capability to have a response system on ground, in place and able to deal with that kind of threat. What he ignores is the latent ability. To argue that the US had no counter to a modified silkworm is being a bit cavalier with the extrapolations. By gf0012-aust -------------------------------------------------- U seems to tell me US ship went for patrol nvr on their radar? The AWAC aircraft on patrol with radar on was suppose to pick up cruise missiles but failed.Yr comment is a assumption.So it is gf0012-aust theory? How reliable is yr words? To me,zero! From start until now,what u have reply to me all along is yr assumption? Yr assumption US air defense don't have low attitude and cruise missile defence during Gulf war 2 which is wrong,they have but failed to detect the HY-2 missiles(read my first thread link)! U say AWACS aircraft will have pick up a cruise missiles if deployed in Gulf war 2 which is hardly true as incident of Stark has shown ,not.Prove to me the reliability in war(link??) U say Phalanx system if fit on truck will defintely work against LACM so u r telling me actually this Phalanx for ground system does not exist at all and even not available for US air defense? Can I consider that as technology gap since it does not exist in the first place. Again it is yr assumption if the Phalanx ground system exist it will work well against LACM(Where is the proof? gf0012-aust theory again ,I think it will end up shooting it's own allies aircraft,LOL!). I seriously doubt such thing will work as DOD plan of upgrading their existing air defence is not going in these direction(see my first thread link)!

terrex, you seem to have a congenital inability to grasp some basic concepts. what I have tried to tell you all along, is that if you go and check Janes Weapons Systems, Janes Land Based Air Defence Systems and the associated Electronic Warfare Systems of the period 1985 -1991, you can see all the specs for themselves. You will see that the Phalanx is designed for low level combat, it's an autonomous system with it's own FCS, because it's non intrusive it can be placed on superstructures - it is not a below deck weapon system. The FCS for the Hawk and Patriot batteries were also able to be tuned for minimum altitude engagements - what bit don't you comprehend. All of this is verifiable. Again we go back and venture onto this mobius strip that you can't understand the simplest of things even when pointed out (politely) to you. I can but persist and hope that someone else is able to demonstrate patience to a "village" that is obviously missing core personnel. If you can "defroth" and actually read some of the other responses in here, you will see that there was systemic failure at the operator level. I can't seriously believe that someone can suffer such a massive cognitive disconnection and be still be prepared to continue on and go around in circles. I can only assume that you're being petulant out of pride and necessity. I'm also assuming that none of your ancestors were Spartans. ;) Your continual need to froth and appear smug is only serving to emphasise that you lose control when responding. As humorous as it is for some others (and especially me), you're embarassing yourself in a public place. You are brightening up my day though, and for that I am eternally greatful.

One thing that has become patently obvious to me is that you are one of the "bold and true" (but many) who source their knowledge from the Internet. Alas you will discover that the good stuff is not on the net, you will actually need to refer to the written word. Now, I'm going to hazard a guess and assume that you aren't in the military, so you won't have immediate access. In that case, you need to go to a reference library, a reference specialist or similar to obtain those sources yourself. Radar specs can also be obtained from the IEEE, articles about Cruise Missiles can be sourced from such notables as USNI Proceedings, JED, C4ISR, Bakers etc... Naval Forces and/or Military Technology by Monch Publications in Germany is also another source that is excellent but not on the web. another words - do some real homework. FAS and GlobalSecurity just don't cut it in a lot of areas. Real books for Real Info. ;)