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
gf0012-aust    tidal change - drop   12/1/2004 1:43:13 AM
"Can u consider a gun which fire 6 rds and jam 5 times reliable" and you want to consider a gun with 20 moving parts as a tech reference point against an electronic battlefield management system? lol get another straw - you'll end up choking on the one that you're using. ;) Magister Mundi sum!
 
Quote    Reply

DropBear    RE:tidal change - drop   12/1/2004 2:30:44 AM
Hang on, If it fires 6 rounds and jams 5 times, doesn't that mean one round found its mark?? Surely - one shot, one kill comes into play?? ;) "Opinio Sine Erudito" - Opinion without knowledge. Solve lora infernis!!
 
Quote    Reply

gf0012-aust    RE:tidal change - drop   12/1/2004 2:49:09 AM
careful drop, you run the risk of being a technical luddite... "Aequam memento rebus in arduis servare mentem"
 
Quote    Reply

USN-MID    RE:Ground Based air defence not up to standard? USN-Mid   12/1/2004 3:08:36 AM
you've all got amazing patience. It annoys that I wrote all that and he conveniently ignores everything but the part about the FFGs being pulled. The Stark info I got was from the official USN published case study on the subject. It shows the fact that they did not take action to enter the standard engagement profile, simply b/c the TAO was unwilling to take aggressive action when the US's biggest concern in theatre was avoiding international incident. When you turn all your friggin systems off, of course they're not going to work as they normally would. The Phalanx was trying to engage a target just outside it's firing arc b/c they didn't turn broadside to the threat. The significance of the FRIGATES being pulled is that being FRIGATES they have much less powerful RADAR than the Arleigh Burkes and Ticonderogas. Ya dig? Show me an incident where a DDG or CG had trouble picking out incoming antiship missiles, and then you'll make more sense. Another reason your being absolutely boneheaded is that you're looking at a platform that relied ENTIRELY on the Phalanx for defence. It simply didn't have the range to reach out and touch enemy aircraft. You're also very clearly unaware that the Phalanx CIWS is being replaced by the RIM-7 to fulfill CIWS duties.
 
Quote    Reply

Terrex    RE:Ground Based air defence not up to standard? USN-Mid   12/1/2004 5:42:20 AM
Actually,I wanted to dig up the Stark incident is to remind gf0012-aust not to rely too much hope on AWACS for cruise missles detention? As he early mention in Gulf war 2 that using it is a sure bet to defeat LACM. But one thing for sure,US air defense presently does not has a complete system to handle LACM.
 
Quote    Reply

gf0012-aust    comprehension not up to standard?   12/1/2004 6:07:28 AM
"Actually,I wanted to dig up the Stark incident is to remind gf0012-aust not to rely too much hope on AWACS for cruise missles detention? As he early mention in Gulf war 2 that using it is a sure bet to defeat LACM." everyone in here has spent an extraordinary amount of time talking about the concept of layered and integrated systems, and the fact that autonomous systems such as Phalanx, Hawk, PAC1-3 with their own radar can act in isolation if need be. Otherwise they will act as part of a land based IADS or a vessel response system. You persist in ignoring what is sound advice to pursue your own agenda. The fact that you cannot understand the above and still prattle on about system vulnerabilities just demonstrates how difficult it is to explain these things to domeone who is focussed on another their own issues. How you managed to extrapolate all those responses and come up with your last is a classical indictment on what your motivation is - not on the accuracy of your conclusions. My suggestion is that you do try and take some time out to work out what an IADS is. Once you can do that, then we'll at least have the basis to continue with this otherwise you're just wasting the valuable time of people who's intent is genuine. The frustration is that you either are making no attempt to read and absorb, you are being deliberately pernicious, or you are a technical luddite. There is no crime in being the last of those options. The first two stick you in the special place of forum purgatory where only your disciples respond.
 
Quote    Reply

Terrex    RE:comprehension not up to standard?   12/1/2004 6:26:53 AM
Sure,my first thread link did quite a comprehensive accessment of US IADS and even mention the weapon and equipment.I felt that u r the one not reading enough of that assessment. US IADS fails in Gulf war 2 against LACM. One conclusion,u r trying to tell me to let Phalanx, Hawk, PAC1-3 be stand alone platform and let them act on their own? It will make them shooting its own aircraft!
 
Quote    Reply

dark    RE:standard?   12/5/2004 4:38:56 PM
dare I ask what is up to standard, cruise missile defence system? Does anyone else have a better system ? As far as I've read the US is the only armed forces that have one which even works some of the time (1:4 is much better than 0:1). ;)
 
Quote    Reply

AlbanyRifles    RE:Ground Based air defence not up to standard?    12/8/2004 3:08:39 PM
The US land air defence network is a layered approach....i.e., sensors acquire targets (space based, air based, shipped based then hadn off to shooters. Fighters are first line of defence. Then the next layer is the highly capable Patriot PAC-3...which did shoot down missiles in OIF. The last part of the land is handled by the very capable Avenger firing the upgraded STINGER. We don't use guns on land. I will let someone else talk to naval.
 
Quote    Reply

vertical    RE:Ground Based air defence not up to standard?    12/29/2004 10:05:53 PM
Having read "Attacking the Cruise Missile Threat" mentioned by Terrex, I have to agree that the US does not have a viable defense against LACM's So who does? To me, "US air defence not up to standard?" in a mis-statement. That implies there is a highly reliable (read that as both high kill ratio and high in service rates) system in use. I accept "No US air defense against LACMs" Regarding the multi-tiered defense: "...three to five minutes (warning) are assumed for a cruise missile attack" and "...F-15 pilot, stated that a cruise missile could be shot down if it was detected soon enough" The problem is detecting it, "Several concepts exist in the employment of radars aboard wide-bodied aircraft to perform LACM detection and identification. One method would be to upgrade current E-3 AWACs and E-8 JSTARs aircraft with advanced radar systems capable of tracking LACMs." (all quotes from "Attacking the Cruise Missile Threat") I read that to mean AWAC and JSTAR can not detect LACMs
 
Quote    Reply
PREV  1 2 3 4 5



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics