Immermann Posted April 19, 2006 Posted April 19, 2006 Long but interresting paper. http://www.g2mil.com/thompson.htm A funny snippet from it. In October 2000, the smart-looking aircraft carrier USS Kitty Hawk was “mugged” by Russian SU-24 and Su-27 aircraft, which were not detected until they were virtually on top of the carrier. The Russian aircraft buzzed the carrier’s flight deck and caught the ship completely unprepared. To add insult to injury, the Russians took very detailed photos of the Kitty Hawk’s flight deck, and very courteously, provided the pictures to the American skipper via e-mail. A Navy spokesman said that the Kitty Hawk had not been surprised, that they knew the Russian planes were not going to attack, and that the Russian aircraft were tracked almost from the moment they took off. In other words, “We were on top of things, no need to intercept, and certainly no reason for alarm.” When the Russians over flew the Kitty Hawk, the carrier was “in the process of refueling and therefore was not going fast enough at the moment of the refueling to launch planes.” It took 40 minutes for the first American aircraft to be launched, and the Russian Air Force was delighted with the results: “‘For the Americans, our planes were a complete surprise,' said Gen. Anatoly M. Kornukov, the Russian air force's commander in chief. ‘In the pictures, you can clearly see the panic on deck. One more:) According to a 2001 paper by Colonel Everest Riccioni, USAF (Retired), “The long range US Navy Phoenix missile was fired twice in combat in 30 years and missed both times – a zero return on a large investment.”
Force_Feedback Posted April 19, 2006 Posted April 19, 2006 Sounds like them "engine failures". Creedence Clearwater Revival:worthy:
nscode Posted April 19, 2006 Posted April 19, 2006 In October 2000, the smart-looking aircraft carrier USS Kitty Hawk was “mugged” by Russian SU-24 and Su-27 aircraft, which were not detected until they were virtually on top of the carrier... And it wasn't the first time they did that... Never forget that World War III was not Cold for most of us.
D-Scythe Posted April 19, 2006 Posted April 19, 2006 According to a 2001 paper by Colonel Everest Riccioni, USAF (Retired), “The long range US Navy Phoenix missile was fired twice in combat in 30 years and missed both times – a zero return on a large investment.” Actually, I think it was fired 4 times, two missiles each in two separate occassions. In any case, the Iranians got a few kills with the Phoenix, so it's not exactly a "zero" return.
GGTharos Posted April 19, 2006 Posted April 19, 2006 This has been discussed before. No 'panic' can be seen on the deck in the picture provided. I suppose there are those who subscribe to the wishful thinking of the group's long-ranged search radars seeing nothing :D [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] Reminder: SAM = Speed Bump :D I used to play flight sims like you, but then I took a slammer to the knee - Yoda
ED Team Groove Posted April 19, 2006 ED Team Posted April 19, 2006 I dont want to go into politics but this sounds like "we can sink US CG whenever we want". Our Forum Rules: http://forums.eagle.ru/rules.php#en
S77th-konkussion Posted April 19, 2006 Posted April 19, 2006 I dont want to go into politics but this sounds like "we can sink US CG whenever we want". Yup, that's it. Go ahead and give it a try. [sIGPIC]http://forums.eagle.ru/attachment.php?attachmentid=43337&d=1287169113[/sIGPIC]
Romik Posted April 19, 2006 Posted April 19, 2006 >Russians took very detailed photos Would be much easier to just download some from internet.... ;-) Anyway, it's very old story and been discussed many times Athlon64 3500+; A8V-DX; 1Gig PC3200; Quadro4 980XGL; SCSI; Win2K3; MacBook Pro 17" X52 tweak: http://forum.lockon.ru/showthread.php?t=16972
Starlight Posted April 19, 2006 Posted April 19, 2006 It took 40 minutes for the first American aircraft to be launched, and the Russian Air Force was delighted with the results: “‘For the Americans, our planes were a complete surprise,' said Gen. Anatoly M. Kornukov, the Russian air force's commander in chief. ‘In the pictures, you can clearly see the panic on deck. How could you ever see panic on the deck from several thousand feet? According to a 2001 paper by Colonel Everest Riccioni, USAF (Retired), “The long range US Navy Phoenix missile was fired twice in combat in 30 years and missed both times – a zero return on a large investment.” Phoenix were intended to shoot down bombers at standoff range. No Phoenix was ever fired at bombers, they were just fired at fighters, which are not their intended targets. And Iranians got some kills anyway even against fighters. ;)
Frostie Posted April 19, 2006 Posted April 19, 2006 I don't buy it what kind of mentality would they be expressing by approaching a US carrier undetected. What if they'd been seen early enough, surely they're would have been a disastrous engagement risking world peace. "[51☭] FROSTIE" #55 'Red 5'. Lord Flashheart 51st PVO "Bisons" - 100 KIAP Regiment Fastest MiG pilot in the world - TCR'10 https://100kiap.org
GGTharos Posted April 19, 2006 Posted April 19, 2006 Phoenix were intended to shoot down bombers at standoff range. ... And supersonic, sea-skimming, maneuvering anti-ship missiles in the terminal pop-up phase. The Phoenix will happily attack anything you throw it at ... it did however has maintenance issues. [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] Reminder: SAM = Speed Bump :D I used to play flight sims like you, but then I took a slammer to the knee - Yoda
Alfa Posted April 19, 2006 Posted April 19, 2006 ... And supersonic, sea-skimming, maneuvering anti-ship missiles in the terminal pop-up phase. The Phoenix will happily attack anything you throw it at ... it did however has maintenance issues. Not quite true GG - the Phoenix was indeed developed quite exclusively with high alt bombers as its intended targets. I believe only the latest incarnation(modification) of the weapon is considered capable of intercepting low alt missile targets.....even then I would be very sceptical about its ability to intercept anything manouvering ;) . Cheers, - JJ. JJ
Cobra360 Posted April 19, 2006 Posted April 19, 2006 The AIM-54C and C+ were designed to target cruise missiles. And in early tests the AIM-54A recoreded 17G while engaging ''hard turning fighters''. Suppose 17G was good for a missile of it's size but not by modern standards.
ED Team Groove Posted April 19, 2006 ED Team Posted April 19, 2006 Russians have Kh-41 missile and US Navy accepted that they cant intercept it. Oh wait, i woke up from my dream... Our Forum Rules: http://forums.eagle.ru/rules.php#en
S77th-konkussion Posted April 19, 2006 Posted April 19, 2006 ... And supersonic, sea-skimming, maneuvering anti-ship missiles in the terminal pop-up phase. I'm thinking "Phalynx" for that- not Phoenix. Why would an anti ship missile be doing any serious manuevering? Adjusting & updating, maybe. [sIGPIC]http://forums.eagle.ru/attachment.php?attachmentid=43337&d=1287169113[/sIGPIC]
GGTharos Posted April 19, 2006 Posted April 19, 2006 Specifically because of what you named. They use terminal maneuvering to throw off CIWS. I had soemwhere - long time ago - read a quote, from the NAVY that the 54C was indeed capable and would be used to intercept a missile at this stage if an aircraft was on-station. [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] Reminder: SAM = Speed Bump :D I used to play flight sims like you, but then I took a slammer to the knee - Yoda
S77th-konkussion Posted April 19, 2006 Posted April 19, 2006 Well... yeah- all options are on the table... But still.. [sIGPIC]http://forums.eagle.ru/attachment.php?attachmentid=43337&d=1287169113[/sIGPIC]
D-Scythe Posted April 19, 2006 Posted April 19, 2006 I'm thinking "Phalynx" for that- not Phoenix. Why would an anti ship missile be doing any serious manuevering? Adjusting & updating, maybe. More like AMRAAM, SM-2 Block III/IV and ESSM for sea-skimming anti-ship cruise missiles. The AIM-54C should be capable of engaging such targets as well, but I'd imagine the F-14 crews would be more occupied with keeping the high altitude Tu-22M/Kh-22 threat busy rather than bother with targets flying 20 ft from the ocean. Anyone know if the RIM-116 RAM have been incorporated into U.S. Navy aircraft carriers and Aegis surface ships yet? They'd put up a pretty thick shield too, I'd imagine.
Pilotasso Posted April 19, 2006 Posted April 19, 2006 ...and then not having a carrier to return to ;) .
Cobra360 Posted April 19, 2006 Posted April 19, 2006 Now all they have is Phalynx, and possibly if they modify the SM-2 and Sea Sparrow missiles. No more Tomcat or 54 anymore. Just saw D-Scythe's post pop up now.:D.
D-Scythe Posted April 19, 2006 Posted April 19, 2006 Now all they have is Phalynx, and possibly if they modify the SM-2 and Sea Sparrow missiles. Why would the SM-2 Block III/IV need to be modified? They were designed *specifically* to attack sea-skimming cruise missiles. As long as the curvature of the earth is not an issue, I'd imagine they'd do their job exceptionally well.
Starlight Posted April 19, 2006 Posted April 19, 2006 The AIM-54C and C+ were designed to target cruise missiles. And in early tests the AIM-54A recoreded 17G while engaging ''hard turning fighters''. Suppose 17G was good for a missile of it's size but not by modern standards. Some AAMs can pull up to 30G, AFAIK. If you search on the Internet maybe you can have more precise data. The Phoenix was inteded since its early stage ("A" version) to be employed against ASM/SSMs. In the first test one of the drones was simulating such a threat. Of the six targets 5 were shot down, the sixth ceased to simulate the RCS of the intended target and the Phoenix lost track. Even if the Phoenix can engage fighters it was not designed to do that, so it's not believable that it can intercept a highly maneuvrable fighter turning at corner speed or pulling a lot of Gs. And also remember that 17Gs are high, but also speeds are higher in the Phoenix, so even at 17G the turn radius is probably wider than a fighter doing 9G at 400 kts.
Cobra360 Posted April 19, 2006 Posted April 19, 2006 Why would the SM-2 Block III/IV need to be modified? They were designed *specifically* to attack sea-skimming cruise missiles. As long as the curvature of the earth is not an issue, I'd imagine they'd do their job exceptionally well. I did not know about the current state of the SM-2 until I saw your post which only showed up for me after I posted mine. AFAIK they were still Block IIs. I don't stay that current with the latest Naval weapons.
D-Scythe Posted April 19, 2006 Posted April 19, 2006 I did not know about the current state of the SM-2 until I saw your post which only showed up for me after I posted mine. AFAIK they were still Block IIs. I don't stay that current with the latest Naval weapons. Block IIIs entered service in the 80s, IIRC. Block IVs with dual IR/radar seekers have been delayed, and although a few have been delivered, I think for the most part the program has been axed (not current on the Block IV really). Development has shifted to the SM-6 programme, whose main improvements include the AMRAAM's active radar seeker, the SM-2ER's extra range available to ships with VLS, and a two way datalink, I think. Someone who googles this can probably confirm. The Block III has a range about 75-90 km (varies depending on source). The Block IV and the SM-6 are IIRC are based on the SM-2ER, so range is likely to approach or exceed 250 km. With AEGIS, the F-35B, the F/A-18E/F, SM-2/6, ESSM and RAM, it would probably be even more difficult to attack a US CVBG even without Tomcats on patrol.
Recommended Posts