US air defence not up to standard?

Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
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? USN-Mid 11/28/2004 3:42:50 AM

yes well, I'm letting the US citizens answer this post as I'm accused of bias to US technology (mainly because I didn't do a handstand over a modified Silkworm) My response on another forum revolved around the fact that the failure of the US to intercept silkworms was based on operational issues rather than technical my logic being that: - the Phalanx is a non intrusive system - it has its own FCS - its designed to operate at a negative angle as well as a positive angle (depressed to high arc range - hence it can pick up incoming at sea level) - that the US could have countered with land based Phalanx as it would have given autonomous fire support, able to be placed on a truck (if necessary) and able to be integrated with land based radar - that the failure to bring an adaptive system into theatre was a command flaw - not a technical inability - as such, the US has had a low level respondent capability since the first day the Phalanx was deployed - and it could be used as a static defence system if people used lateral thinking - That the delimiters of wave clutter on Phalanx would not occur if it was land based all of the above logic failed to be within the comprehension limits of Terrex/Aegis apparently the PLA has the ultimate cruise missile (a modified silkworm) to take out US Forces on land as they can't counter it. he's been frothing at me ever since. I must be up for another "barking dog" award ;)

Quote Reply

DropBear RE: gf 11/28/2004 3:48:42 AM

Need you ask? You should have a darn good look at yourself in a mirror fella!! We have had to put up with your rabid pro-Yankie bluster for far too long. Terrex is a mild mannered, dare I say sweet individual, who wouldn't say boo or disregard your supposed knowledge/expertise in any way shape or form. I hereby call on you to apologise to that nice little poor sap misguided delusional muppet. You have been a very bad bad gf, picking on these poor technologically handicapped types. No more I say, no more!!!!!! ;) .

Quote Reply

DropBear RE:USN-MID 11/28/2004 3:53:42 AM

I agree. I actually berated a chap who had been woffling/naffing about harriers and I told him to "stop running off at the mouth". Only to realise that he was typing, not talking (doh!). The things we put up with in this crazy world. ;) .

Quote Reply

gf0012-aust mea culpa 11/28/2004 3:55:10 AM

I can't help myself, ever since my family came out to "gold mountain" we have been compromised by the seduction of capitalism. ;) I will now go out an alter my CV now that I've been exposed as a technical luddite.... btw sport, how about some technical opinion in here? I can't add anymore to this in case I'm accused of bias... USN-Mid, displacedjim? anyone??

Quote Reply

DropBear RE:mea culpa 11/28/2004 3:58:21 AM

technical advice/opinions?? Aaarrgghhh!!! I don't have a great deal of sources on said topic and being without sources is the AussieG equivalent of being caught mid-wedgie with your pants down! He has me scared and on the run. I am constantly looking over my shoulders to see if his Howitzers are rumbling my way. Yikes!!!!

Quote Reply

gf0012-aust mea culpa 11/28/2004 4:01:04 AM

time to invoke the ANZUS treaty, now where are those damn yanks when you need them?? ;)

Quote Reply

DropBear RE:mea culpa 11/28/2004 4:07:57 AM

You being a barking dog flunky and all that... Got me thinking. Didn't Kevin "Bloody" Wilson do a song similar to that?? ;) Perhaps we could change the lyrics from "Livin next door to Allen" to "Livin next door to barkin dog and his mate flunky muppet". It has a nice ring to it. I reckon either Shubert or Red Gum could make a go of it. ;) .

Quote Reply

USN-MID RE:US air defence not up to standard? 11/28/2004 4:49:29 AM

ANZUS? We're all sleeping mate. Well, we all SHOULD be seeing as how it's 0430 East Coast. A few nocturnal activities have thrown off my cycle. OK seriously, what's the issue Terrex is bringing up? Against naval targets? Ground targets? I can definitely say the Navy really isn't quite so worried about low alt cruise missiles. Honestly, mines and SSKs are a much bigger threat. AWACS can pick the missile out a long way out, and you've got to get through the CAP, the AEGIS guided SM-2s, then the Phalanx/RIM-7. Basically, the Navy's not too worried about it anymore. The ground guys might throw $hit fits due to ground clutter. Yeah, the main problem is SAMs would probably have hard times seeing and reacting fast enough. So the solution is the E-10. It's the next gen AWACS and it mixes the E-3 and E-8 JSTARS radars into one. With the massive datalinking the US military is doing, it picks out the incoming missile, relays that information to ground based SAMs or CAP flights. The US military studies have considered the hardest part of dealing with LACMs getting accurate timely information. That's why we're datalinking so much.

Quote Reply

DropBear RE:USN-MID - E-10 11/28/2004 5:04:19 AM

Is the E-10 still based on a B767-400 platform, or has the Boeing product been shagged, since the tanker lease scandal went down. Also, I thought the Boeing line for B767 is slowing or will run down completely due to lack of internat orders. Will this affect the E-10 program? How many E-10's are invisaged???

Quote Reply

gf0012-aust Ground Based air defence not up to standard? USN-Mid 11/28/2004 5:18:40 AM

Terrex's issue was that the US didn't have a technical capacity to deal with Silkworms/Modified Silkworms in 1991 at a ground forces level. Ie Iranians silks could be fired at US forces and not be challenged by any IADS. My argument is that the fact that no IADS force structure on the ground doesn't translate to an inability to have a solution - as the US did have technology available but not in theatre. At a local level, Hawk and Patriot systems were able to take out hi flyers, at lower level, the Phalanx is perfectly capable of being used as a fixed point defence ground weapon. The fact that it wasn't used as an emergency land based perimeter protector is due to an operational issue - not a technical one. Coastal facilities could have been protected by Hawk/Patriot and Phalanx as a stop gap solution. The fact that Phalanx is deck based and is also designed to go into negative firing angles means that it's more than capable of being used against a cruise missile (which is what the damn things were designed for). Mounting them on a deck, mounting them on top of a building is not an issue - and they have autonomous FCS. He fails to understand that it's not an issue of the US failing to have a response capability - its an issue that nobody adapted a system to work in an unfamiliar and dissimilar environment. The FCS for a Phalanx is going to work on low altitude targets irrespective of whether its mounted on a ship, on a building or on a large mobile platform. He also failed to comprehend that Silkworms are able to be picked up by AWACs, an EP-3 or any similar top down interrogator - so once the incoming is picked up by radar then the firing solution has just been enhanced anyway. Even without AWACs - the FCS of Phalanx is autonomous and able to find and shred. He is getting confused about what he sees as actual capability rather than accepting that the US had latent capability in 1991 to do the job anyway.

Quote Reply

PREV 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT