The Strategypage is a comprehensive summary of military news and affairs.
 News As History - November 8, 2009




New Strategy - Wargames at Discount Prices
1.Modern Air Power: War Over the Middle East
2.Commander: Napoleon at War
3.Close Combat: Watch am Rhein
4.Gallic Wars
5.Fast Action Battle: The Bulge

100+ Computer and Board games all with free shipping.
 
 
 
Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use
How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Air Defense Discussion Board
Sign In   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
----------------------------------------------------------------------
link
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.
link

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

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   NEXT
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

USN-MID    RE:Ground Based air defence not up to standard? USN-Mid   11/28/2004 5:43:50 AM
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.
 
Quote    Reply

displacedjim    RE:Ground Based air defence not up to standard? USN-Mid   11/29/2004 9:47:14 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
 
Quote    Reply

Terrex    RE:Ground Based air defence not up to standard? USN-Mid   11/30/2004 1:04:33 PM
link "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."
 
Quote    Reply

USN-MID    RE:Ground Based air defence not up to standard? USN-Mid   11/30/2004 1:58:52 PM
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.
 
Quote    Reply

Terrex    RE:Ground Based air defence not up to standard? USN-Mid   11/30/2004 2:07:07 PM
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.
 
Quote    Reply

displacedjim    RE:Ground Based air defence not up to standard? USN-Mid   11/30/2004 4:18:42 PM
"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
 
Quote    Reply

gf0012-aust    Ground Based air defence not up to standard? USN-Mid - displacedjim   11/30/2004 6:10:52 PM
"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.
 
Quote    Reply

Terrex    RE:Ground Based air defence not up to standard? USN-Mid - displacedjim   11/30/2004 9:44:45 PM
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)!
 
Quote    Reply

gf0012-aust    Ground Based air defence not up to standard? USN-Mid - displacedjim   11/30/2004 10:04:34 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.
 
Quote    Reply

gf0012-aust    US air defence not up to standard? - Terrex   11/30/2004 10:13:38 PM
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. ;)
 
Quote    Reply
Pages: PREV  1 2 3 4   NEXT



StrategyWorld.com© 1998 - 2009StrategyWorld.com. All rights Reserved. StrategyWorld.com, StrategyPage.com, FYEO, For Your Eyes Only and Al Nofi's CIC are all trademarks of StrategyWorld.com Privacy Policy