The Strategypage is a comprehensive summary of military news and affairs.
 News As History - December 1, 2008

Dunnigan's and Bay's Latest
Advertisement
New Strategy - Wargames at Discount Prices
1.Squad Battles: Winter War
2.Silent War
3.Manoeuvre
4.Gallic Wars
5.Fast Action Battle: The Bulge

100+ Computer and Board games all with free shipping.
 
 
 

Online Giving

Utah SEO Firm

Xango

Smiley Gifts for Babies
Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use
Surface Forces Discussion Board
Sign In   Return to Topic Page
Subject: Nice insight to debunk Herald rant an other time
french stratege    10/17/2007 9:08:23 AM
All professionals know that Aster is head and shoulder above SM2 (unless Herald lies or incompetence)
As usual I was right agaisnt amateurs of this site like Herlad and so on:
I found an interestig insight about unability for SM2 to cope with modern threat:
h*tp://www.gao.gov/new.items/d04112.pdf
We assessed the condition of the Standard Missile?2 as red because it failed to meet the asset readiness goal of 87 percent and only 2 of 5 variants achieved the goal in fiscal year 2002. The asset readiness goal is the missile equivalent of mission capable goals. The percent of non-ready for issue missiles (currently at 23 percent of the inventory) will increase because of funding shortfalls.
....
THE MOST IMPORTANT:
However, the most capable variant in the current inventory cannot handle the more sophisticated known airthreats. The Navy lost a capability to intercept extended range and ballistic missiles when development of the Block IVA variant was cancelled. The improved Block IIIB missiles will mitigate some risk until the SM-6 ERAM is deployed in 2010. Further, Navy officials stated that the Navy accepts an element of risk until the SM-6 is deployed because the threat is limited in both the number of missiles and the scenarios where those missiles would be employed. Officials also described the Navy?s anti-air warfare capability
as one of complementary systems and not singularly dependent on the
SM-2 missile.

No wonder why Royal Navy or Singapore chose Aster instead SM2
ROLFMAO.
 
Quote    Reply
 Latest
 News 		  Most
 Read 		  Most
 Commented		  Hot
 Topics

Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title     Sort in Reverse Order Posted
gf0012-aust       10/17/2007 10:57:39 AM


No wonder why Royal Navy or Singapore chose Aster instead SM2
ROLFMAO.
you questioned the competency of the singaporeans when they selected the F15 over the Rafale.....  are you suggesting that they continued on with this display of technical negligence by selecting ASTER?
 
Quote    Reply

RockyMTNClimber    FS: Source Please?   10/17/2007 11:00:02 AM
fs, you made the claim below on the "countdown to crying" thread and for some reason you missed my request for a source! Could you take the time to let me know what class of Red Flag this was and who the pilot was? This is an interesting story given the way Red Flag is organized and run. For any pilot to get 33 kills in one training cycle is quite remarkable (some might say impossible).
 
I would love to see a qualified source for this, Sorry to bug you but for some reason you seem to keep missing my request that you back this little totem up with some data.
 
Thanks for the help!
 
Check Six
 
Rocky


A French pilot has achieved a 33 to 1 ratio and all french pilots were in the top 12 pilots among 350 pilots including USAF or British..A legacy of M2000 C-RDI in the 1990-1994 period were it was unmatched.<fs
 
Very interesting. I would love to see a link on this and read that story myself. Excellence should be a universally celebrated thing and I would love to learn that guy's story. I know you must have at least the pilots name or which Red Flag class he attended so I can Google him up!
 
Looking forward to you providing this!
 
Check Six
 
Rocky
 
Quote    Reply

YelliChink       10/17/2007 11:01:10 AM
That was then. Now USN has SM-3, which is the reason that IVA got cancelled. SM-6 is only 3 years away from scheduled service, and I think it could be faster if it has higher priority (which it doesn't). The whole Mk.41/SM-2/SPG-62/SPY-1 system still out-perform Aster. What you don't understand, FS, is that the system comes with SM-2 is a full package to deal with air/surface/underwater threat. Clearly, there is not much airborne threat for USN to justify speed development of SM-6.
 
Quote    Reply

Herald1234       10/17/2007 11:41:25 AM

All professionals know that Aster is head and shoulder above SM2 (unless Herald lies or incompetence)
As usual I was right agaisnt amateurs of this site like Herlad and so on:
I found an interestig insight about unability for SM2 to cope with modern threat:
h*tp://www.gao.gov/new.items/d04112.pdf
We assessed the condition of the Standard Missile?2 as red because it failed to meet the asset readiness goal of 87 percent and only 2 of 5 variants achieved the goal in fiscal year 2002. The asset readiness goal is the missile equivalent of mission capable goals. The percent of non-ready for issue missiles (currently at 23 percent of the inventory) will increase because of funding shortfalls.
....
THE MOST IMPORTANT:
However, the most capable variant in the current inventory cannot handle the more sophisticated known airthreats. The Navy lost a capability to intercept extended range and ballistic missiles when development of the Block IVA variant was cancelled. The improved Block IIIB missiles will mitigate some risk until the SM-6 ERAM is deployed in 2010. Further, Navy officials stated that the Navy accepts an element of risk until the SM-6 is deployed because the threat is limited in both the number of missiles and the scenarios where those missiles would be employed. Officials also described the Navy?s anti-air warfare capability
as one of complementary systems and not singularly dependent on the
SM-2 missile.

No wonder why Royal Navy or Singapore chose Aster instead SM2
ROLFMAO.
I am aware of the SM-2s ABM shortcomings, cretin. It still works as designed which all your ranting above does not demonstrate that ASTER does at ALL. You condemn the apple for not being golden and then claim that a PoS which you proclaim is an apple is better than the apple? Well, an apple [STANDARD] is still an apple and a PoS [ASTER] is still a  PoS and  you continue your LYING  scholastic rhetorical tricks.;. The subject PoS is ASTER. It is not the apple, STANDARD. If you could prove that ASTER wasn't a PoS you would discuss ASTER as I do, when I discuss its shortcomings. However you would rather claim that ASTER is better because the French PoJ ships, the Laugh-it-ups come with the crap ASTER missile sold to Singapore; ASTER which fails even more miserably against the very same  GAO described threats as in NO ABM DEFENSE CAPABILITY AT ALL. At least STANDARD has SOME.


Now, cretin, let me call you a LIAR for the tenth time this week as you again demonstrate your basic intellectual dishonesty.


Was DCN  or THALES going to install a US rocket aboard a French warship?  No. Why? Ask yourself this question..................just how much is THALES or MBDA trusted by RAYTHEON? HMMMMMMMMMMMM?

You are incredibly stupid, FS.

I lay the banquet out and you just don't get it.

Bribes, technology theft, incompetence, thievery, POLITICS; you cannot ignore that when you bring up something WEAK like this.

Produce some actual science that shows that ASTER works; cretin, as I have that shows it does not.. Don't try your scholastic tricks on me. I am a better scholasticist as well as a better empiricist than you can ever hope to be googleboy.


And don't selectively quote either, liar.

Here is the text in FULL;


Appendix II
Assessments of Selected Equipment Items
Page 79 GAO-04-112 Military Readiness
Condition
We assessed the condition of the Standard Missile?2 as red because it failed
to meet the asset readiness goal of 87 percent and only 2 of 5 variants
achieved the goal in fiscal year 2002. The asset readiness goal is the missile
equivalent of mission capable goals. The percent of non-ready for issue
missiles (currently at 23 percent of the inventory) will increase because of
funding shortfalls.
Program Strategy
We assessed the program strategy for the Standard Missile-2 as yellow
because the Navy has developed a long-term program strategy for
upgrading the Standard Missile-2 inventory; however, the Navy?s strategy
mitigates risk with complementary systems as the SM-2 inventory draws
down and upgrades to counter known threats are cut from the budget. In
2002, the Navy cancelled production of the most capable variant at the
time, the SM-2 Block IVA. Currently, the most capable missile is the SM-2
Block IIIB, which is the only variant in production. This missile will be the
main anti-air warfare weapon on board Navy ships into the next decade.
Improved Block IIIB missiles will be available in 2004. The SM-6 Extended
Range Active Missile (ERAM) is programmed for initial production in 2008
and will be available to the fleet in 2010.
Funding
We assessed the funding for the Standard Missile-2 as red because
current and projected funding is not consistent with the Navy?s stated
requirements to upgrade the Standard Missile-2 inventory. There is a
$72.6 million shortfall for maintenance and a shortfall of approximately
$60 million for procurement in the current Future Years Defense Plan.
Wartime Capability While we did not have sufficient data to definitively assess the wartime
capability of the Standard Missile-2, Navy officials indicated that it
successfully fulfilled its recent wartime missions but with some limitations.
Block IIIB and improved Block IIIB missiles successfully counter the
threats they were designed to counter. However, the most capable variant
in the current inventory cannot handle the more sophisticated known air
Appendix II
Assessments of Selected Equipment Items
Page 80 GAO-04-112 Military Readiness
threats. The Navy lost a capability to intercept extended range and ballistic
missiles when development of the Block IVA variant was cancelled. The
improved Block IIIB missiles will mitigate some risk until the SM-6 ERAM
is deployed in 2010. Further, Navy officials stated that the Navy accepts an
element of risk until the SM-6 is deployed because the threat is limited in
both the number of missiles and the scenarios where those missiles would
be employed. Officials also described the Navy?s anti-air warfare capability
as one of complementary systems and not singularly dependent on the
SM-2 missile. The Navy successfully increased the deployment of these
missiles to the fleet for the recent operations in Afghanistan and Iraq, but
the growing shortage of ready-for-issue missiles in future years could
severely limit the Navy?s ability to meet future requirements.
Appendix II
Assessments of Selected Equipment Items
Page 81 GAO-04-112 Military Readiness

That is why I now refer to poseur1 as a KNOWN and PROVEN LIAR.

I have utter contempt for such.

Have a nice day, poseur1.

Herald
 
Quote    Reply

french stratege       10/17/2007 11:55:19 AM
you questioned the competency of the singaporeans when they selected the F15 over the Rafale.....  are you suggesting that they continued on with this display of technical negligence by selecting ASTER?
No.They have chosen F15 because alliance with USA and US support (plus lower price) matter more than to chose the best product on paper.And F15 has greater range and payload and use same weapons than rest of Singapore fleet.
It makes sense for me.
 
Now for Herald the incompetent liar I debunked
ht*p://www.gao.gov/new.items/d04112.pdf
Page 107
US navy contested assessment on Tomahowak or MV 22 but not on SM2.They even correct a simple date without importance like the 1993 delivery instead of 1994.But nothing on the crappy SM2.
Evry body knows that SM2 airframe is obsolete as it is not a fire and forget missile.
Who is the liar?
Our GAO assessment did not mention ASTER as a failure but sometime they have fired other programs.
Our GAO critic some programs like Leclerc reliability but nothing wrong in Aster
Your GAO critic SM2 while Navy does not contest it so Navy acknowledge it..
I conclude logically what I known already, that SM2 is obsolete (especially agaisnt supersonic sea skimmer missiles)
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

Phaid       10/17/2007 12:19:28 PM
It is interesting that Borat should conclude the SM2 is "obsolete against sea skimmers" when what the GAO report states is that the existing SM2 Block IIIB is not as capable as the Block IV against long-range threats or ballistic missiles.  Indeed, the GAO report makes absolutely no mention whatsoever of the SM2's ability against that type of threat.

It is also interesting that he should conclude Aster is superior, when Aster has no ABM or extended range (compared to a Standard) capability at all.

The real conclusions to be drawn from the GAO report regarding the SM2 are that: in 2002, funding for USN SAMs was insufficient, and that at that time the GAO believed the USN should have more ABM capability.
 
Quote    Reply

YelliChink       10/17/2007 12:28:08 PM


I conclude logically what I known already, that SM2 is obsolete (especially agaisnt supersonic sea skimmer missiles)
 

But your premises are wrong.
 
Sea-skimming threat has already been addressed in BLK IIIA.


link

link
 

"In early 2007, the U.S. Navy and Raytheon completed the development of a so-called "Maneuverability Upgrade" for the RIM-66M Block III B. The upgrade can be retrofitted to existing missiles, and gives the missiles a better maneuverability via improved steering, thrust-vectoring, and new software. These features are to enhance the SM-2's effectivity against supersonic sea-skimming anti-ship missiles."
 
Quote    Reply

StrategyWorld.com© 1998 - 2008StrategyWorld.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