Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Air Defense Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: US air defence not up to standard?
Terrex    11/28/2004 12:59:26 AM
I come across a news in janes website ---------------------------------------------------------------------- http://jdw.janes.com/ The US Army wants to flight test a low-cost anti-cruise missile interceptor meant to complement its current and emerging inventory of air defence systems. US defence officials said Operation 'Iraqi Freedom' showed that the US needs to do more to counter cruise missiles after Iraqi cruise missiles launched into Kuwait early in the conflict were not detected in time to be engaged. Along with efforts to mature overhead surveillance sensors ... 26-Nov-2004 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- The missiles used by Iraq r the HY-2 cruise missiles! The missile is design in the 60's and is consider obsolete but able to breach US Air defence in Gulf War 2! I got another link which shows the number of occasion of the missile attack by Iraq and how it happen. http://www.jfsc.ndu.edu/current_students/documents_policies/documents/jca_cca_awsp/Cruise_Missile_Defense_Final.doc The link also shows how US air defence is not capable of handling LACM and how US has prioritize development of air defence against LACM.Below is a abstract of from the link admiting US air defence is incapable against LACM. "DOD has acknowledged its lack of sufficient defense against cruise missile at-tacks, and is taking steps to correct the deficiency. Concurrently, enemies of the United States are also aware of this weakness, and can be expected to exploit it. The U.S. family of legacy systems to counter the LACM threat is not only inca-pable of handling the threat projected by 2010, it is also completely inadequate to work effectively against even the limited current threat. Even with enhancements to current systems, U.S. forces will not be able to provide a defense sufficient to protect key power projection access facilities such as ports and bases, and vital areas such as forward-based command and control centers." ---------------------------------------------------------------------- It seems US is handicapped against this obsolete but modified cruise missiles. I wondering how US going to stop more advance land and sea cruise missiles from Russian,PLA,Iran and North Korea? If any reader has knowledge of HY-2 missiles,it is a damm bulky missiles compare to Kh-35,C-802,Excoet and many many more which r own by the mention countries.By the way,these few missiles r not the most advance in their categories!
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: PREV  1 2 3 4 5   NEXT
gf0012-aust    US air defence not up to standard? - sources   11/30/2004 10:40:48 PM
Bill Gunston: "The Illustrated Encyclopedia of Rockets and Missiles", Salamander Books Ltd, 1979 Hajime Ozu: "Missile 2000 - Reference Guide to World Missile Systems", Shinkigensha, 2000 Bernard Blake (ed.): "Jane's Weapon Systems 1987-88", Jane's, 1988 Redstone Arsenal Historical Information Website There are numerous books available detailing the Hawk System. which was one of the primary SAM systems of the time. Finally, you appear to have difficulty establishing a relationship between the Radar System, FCS and the missile - hence one of the advantages of Phalanx was that it was autonomous. An all-up-package if you like, the precursor to the concept of an AUR. Once you begin to grasp the above - you might be able to progress a little further. As it is you are losing traction in the debate stakes, and as much as you seem to think that the sniff of victory is in the air, alas it aint so. You're still a little confused about competency, latency, capacity and finally delivery. Until you actually manage to wrap your intellectual digits around those conceptual sweets, then we're going nowhere fast.
 
Quote    Reply

Terrex    RE:Ground Based air defence not up to standard? USN-Mid - displacedjim   11/30/2004 10:54:20 PM
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. By gf0012-aust -------------------------------------------------- Errrr....U seems to be avoiding my questions?I'm questioning the reliability,not spec or their use!
 
Quote    Reply

Terrex    RE:Ground Based air defence not up to standard? USN-Mid - displacedjim   11/30/2004 11:18:52 PM
gf0012-aust! Do u know u r what? To me u r just like USS Vincennes! Pack with plenty of information,sophisticated and advance but make the wrong move to kill the innnocent! I think u r the type with too much info killing u! :)
 
Quote    Reply

gf0012-aust    am I exasperated?   11/30/2004 11:20:17 PM
"Errrr....U seems to be avoiding my questions?I'm questioning the reliability,not spec or their use" no, you appear to have changed from saying that the US was unable to deal with a modified 1960's era Silkworm, to a question of system reliability... subtle but blatant, and decidedly a shift in approach on your part. again you miss the tomes of information provided. it's a combination of Radar, FCS, Response System, now you'll excuse me if I wonder what part of the Hawk Battery, PAC-1 and Phalanx specs you haven't read. The reliability trials for Hawk are in the public domain, and I have been rather generous and given you hard copy sources as well - I hope you aren't expecting me to compensate for your indolence? I really think you are suffering from what we call "disassociative flecking" ie, you see my posts, fleck at the edges and automatically start typing without reading (or is it comprehending??) Take a couple of days off, go to a library and start some reading. Then come back and we canb start jousting all over again. You've got 4 days before I'm off on another little trip for work again.
 
Quote    Reply

Terrex    RE:am I exasperated?   11/30/2004 11:39:14 PM
The first article is abt US air defense not capable of handling LACM,it is no by me but by US DOD if u have read my first thread! My article abt USS Stark is abt reliability of those so call advance monitoring sensor which suppose to work against anti-ship missiles,not doing their job! Even if the FCS of Phalanx is turn on,I doubt the reliability! Understand? :)
 
Quote    Reply

gf0012-aust    Vincennes   11/30/2004 11:41:37 PM
"gf0012-aust! Do u know u r what? To me u r just like USS Vincennes! Pack with plenty of information,sophisticated and advance but make the wrong move to kill the innnocent! I think u r the type with too much info killing u! :)" Ah yes, my head is just expanding so much with all this information, I'll just have to go out and satisfy this unquenchable bloodlust - now, where's that damn missile?? actually, on subjects like these I defer to quite willingly to others who have the track record. Now if I'm wrong and displacedjim, or USN-Mid, mike-golf etc says I'm wrong, then I'll take it on the chin. I'm always quite open to learning. But if you think that all this learning is just going to convert me into some form of "bipedal Vincennes" then perhaps I should turn on the "ignorance" switch to preserve myself instead? Reminds me of that movie... "scanners"??? Actually, the Vincennes incident was a bit more complicated than that. But in the interests of compression i see that you've abbreviated it to something digestible for your good self to embrace.
 
Quote    Reply

gf0012-aust    tidal change   11/30/2004 11:46:10 PM
"Even if the FCS of Phalanx is turn on,I doubt the reliability! Understand?" I've yet to see any system that is totally reliable, thats why they have procedures and processes such as milspec quality and redundancy to start reducing the potential for failure. No system is bullet proof and 100% effective 100% of the time. Thats self evident. It's also a somewhat cavalier and recidivistic reappraisal of what your initial inference and intent was.
 
Quote    Reply

DropBear    RE:Vincennes - gf   11/30/2004 11:47:39 PM
I can see the causal link now - USS Vincennes (aka Robo Cruiser), shoots down Iranian airliner. Libyans destroy Pan Am flight over Lockerbie. Americans respond by insighting 9/11 terrorists and hey presto - Terrex has his chance to say "I told you so!" ;) Speciem scurrae habes!!. - Send in the clowns!! Solve lora infernis!!
 
Quote    Reply

Terrex    RE:tidal change   12/1/2004 12:29:28 AM
"Even if the FCS of Phalanx is turn on,I doubt the reliability! Understand?" I've yet to see any system that is totally reliable, thats why they have procedures and processes such as milspec quality and redundancy to start reducing the potential for failure. No system is bullet proof and 100% effective 100% of the time. Thats self evident. It's also a somewhat cavalier and recidivistic reappraisal of what your initial inference and intent was. By gf0012-aust ------------------------------------------------- Can u consider a gun which fire 6 rds and jam 5 times reliable?
 
Quote    Reply

rikopotomous    RE:tidal change   12/1/2004 1:04:44 AM
yah but you get it up to 95% reliable and youre doing great. you are not going to have one missile one radar one launcher covering 20 square miles. youre gonna have multiple batteries with 3 or 4 launchers in a battery and multiple missiles per launcher. ffs you are gonna have 100 missiles covering the area. and if anyone has enough balls to go toe to toe with the U.S. military theyre gonna have much bigger problems other than if a few of their run down 40 yr old non maintained piece of cruise missiles get off the launch pad much less in the front door of CENTCOM. btw I am against the war there is no need for it but I do have contempt for foreign "smart" weapons and their ability to maintain them
 
Quote    Reply
PREV  1 2 3 4 5   NEXT



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics