A couple of points about this thread:
> Your opponent forgot about blip enhance, and you forgot that you have
Not a problem in the least. The aircraft all got a radar hand-off from a
dedicated sensor platform probably at least a couple of hundred miles away
and in all likely hood "over-the-horizion" from all the action. SOP.
> Except for the Iowa's, no battleship has the capability to fire on an
Incorrect. The Iowa's have anti-air missiles, (Sea-sparrows as I recall)
with
15-20 mile range. As to the A-6 dropping a guided "bunker-buster" that
is what the Phalanx is for and it would have NO trouble ripping up an
free-fall
bomb. Especially a LGB, since it drops in a nice predictable pattern around
the laser beam. A quarter second burst and move on to the next one. Even if
the shell don't detonate the bomb, (in all likely hood not) they will destroy
the guidance unit, airfoils and probably the detonation train.
> and the last plane drops the LGB to detonate under the keel, between
Kinda hard. The LGB would hit the water and would go deep. It might, (Keyword:
Might) drop under the hull, then again, with all it's external
stuff torn off it might just tumble the other way. Even with a delay on it it
might not detonate "under the keel".
Randy
From: <ShldWulf@aol.com>
> Incorrect. The Iowa's have anti-air missiles, (Sea-sparrows as I
with
> 15-20 mile range.
Not according to my info. A quartet of Vulcan/Phalanx. Note that with
the early editions of this weapon, you can't have 2 firing on the same
bearing, they interfere with one another. At least, so says the unclass
literature.
As for an NSSMS (Nato Sea Sparrow Missile System), it's classified as a Point
Defence Missile System, not an Area Defence one. Early versions were called
BPMDS (Basic Point Defence Missile System)
and for good reason - it was a cheap, quick way to make a point defence
missile using existing parts ( ASROC launcher and AIM-7E). Later
versions,
the RIM-7H and RIM-7M had improved boosters, and much improved homing
and reliability, but the airfarme is the same. The Vertical Launch version is
improved yet again, but you can only get so much out of the basic design.
I've been exposed to classy data about this, and can't recall an unclas figure
to quote, but bear in mind the AIM-7E missile on which it's based has a
publically admitted range of about 20NM when fired at high altitude (where the
air is thin) and with a 400+ knot boost from the firer. You could
reasonably expect this range to be (very) roughly halved if fired at low level
from a stationary platform. Roughly half again if fired at a target that's not
a big, heavy and unamnouverable bomber, as you must have enough energy up your
sleeve to maneouvre. Add a bit (heck, double it) for improvements, then add or
subtract a bit depending on whether you think the public figure is on the high
or low side. You might do a bit better against an LGB, as the trajectory's
stable,
> ShldWulf@aol.com wrote:
> A couple of points about this thread:
Even if
> the shell don't detonate the bomb, (in all likely hood not) they will
Not according to any of the unclassified sources that I read. If there were
any SAM's on the Iowa's, they were shoulder fired. There was a suggested
conversion that would remove the aft turret and install facilities for harrier
jump jets and a VLS launcher, but it was never implemented.
The bunker buster (so I have heard) is a former 8" howitzer barrel with an
armor piercing nose and guidance. At best, the phalanx will degrade the
accuracy, as it only fires tiny shells for destroying fragile missiles and its
engagement
range is a tad short. You have a misconception about how semi-active
homing works. The only reason for the bomb to travel in a predictable path
around the beam is if it was dropped from the aircraft doing the target
illumination. For best results, you want the a different aircraft to designate
the target to give the bomber more freedom after the release. Your description
would be accurate for beam riding guidance, but that is another story.
> >and the last plane drops the LGB to detonate under the keel, between
I'll take your word on the Sea Sparrow, I only worked with the Aircraft end
of that bird. As I recall the land-based Chapperal was the same idea.
(Take and existing system, in this case the Sidewinder, mate it with an
existing launcher and use it till something better comes along.)
I seem to recall reading an article right after the Gulf War about an idea to
fit VLMS with Standard missiles on the BB's IF, (really big "if" even in the
article:o) the Navy kept them active.
Another few points:o)
> The bunker buster (so I have heard) is a former 8" howitzer barrel with
The ones in the Gulf were. The "new" ones are purpose made 2000 pounders with
armor/concrete/soil penatrating heads on them.
> At best, the phalanx will degrade the accuracy, as
20mm high velocity armor piercing shells, mixed with HE in a standard load.
As for range your looking at around 500-1000 yards. The phalanx corrects
each shell by moving the gun between shots to saturate the target area. As for
"degrading" the accuracy. The shells will rip all the guidence units to
shreds. Not to mention the impacts will play a bit of havoc with the
trejectory once it has done so.
> You have a misconception about how semi-active homing
Not really. I have a wonderful conception of how it works. It was my job for
15 years:o)
> The only reason for the bomb to travel in a predictable path around the
For best results, you want the a different aircraft to designate the target to
give the bomber more freedom after the release. Your description would be
accurate for beam riding guidance, but that is another story.<
Actually it's not. Laser Guided Bombs ARE beam riders. It doesn't matter if
the launching aircraft is painting the target or another one, the results are
the same. The seeker head HAS to spiral around the beam.. that's how the
system works. Bomber freedom just means the bomber doesn't have to move in a
predictable path while or over fly a heavly defended target. The plane can
drop and then peel away outside the targets anti-air envelope. The bomb
however does NOT do any radical menuvers or movement and after the first
couple of seconds takes up a nice spiral glide path down around the beam.
> It detonates under the keel, because it strikes the vessel between the
More likely inside then... but not all the way through. If it does however it
won't be under the keel but several hundred feet under the ship... and even
1000 pounds of explosives won't have that much effect that deep. Assuming it
doesnt' angle off somwhere once it exits. The reason bunker busters work so
well it they DON"T penatrate too well once they hit a certian resistance.
(Once that hardened steel nose mushrooms a bit, the drag causes the bomb to
slow enough for the detonation sequence to finish before it gets much further)
I was trying to figure how you'd time the bomb to hit the water and slide
under the ship:o) Now THAT would have an effect:o)
From: <ShldWulf@aol.com>
> I'll take your word on the Sea Sparrow, I only worked with the
(Take
> and existing system, in this case the Sidewinder, mate it with an
There's also Sea Chapperal, used by the Taiwanese Navy IIRC.
> I seem to recall reading an article right after the Gulf War about an
Much as I like BBs, and would think them to be really useful, it's not a goer.
Big Steam powerplants like those are really outrageously dangerous unless
maintained to Nuclear standards. The Asbestos problem is huge - the USN
unlike the Navy-formerly-known-as-Soviet doesn't consider a reduction in
lifespan of its crews of 2-5 years on average to be "acceptable".
There's a reason why it took us ages, and much $$ to get the two ex-USN
LSTs into RAN service. The Hulls were good. But much of the internals were
toxic waste. There's a reason why the USN gave them away.
Personally, I'd like to see the manufacture of new BBs. It'd only cost as much
as 5 Nimitz's to get the infrastructure in place, then less than a Nimitz
each.
For 4 BBs this would still be cheaper after 5 years than keeping the current
ones in service. The huge crew size required, the training in 1930s
> ShldWulf@aol.com wrote:
> Another few points :o)
I confess that I am only a spirited amatuer with military technology, but the
people on sci.military.naval claim that one of the phalanx's shortcomings is
that the large soviet missiles cover the 1000 yard range of the phalanx in
approximately one second, and the shells do not have enough HE to reliably
detonate it, nor the momentum to send it off course and it is far too late for
the missile to "go stupid" and miss, even if the guidance package is destroyed
and airfoils shredded.
> >You have a misconception about how semi-active homing
We have a terminology problem. From what I have read, beam riding is used for
missiles that do not have a sensitive seeker that can detect scattered energy
from the target. The tracking radar locks onto the target and the missile is
launched to enter the beam at a shallow angle, and it steers itself along the
beam (which is much easier to detect). As the beam shifts to track the target,
the missile shifts to stay in the beam. The warhead detonates when the
proximity fuse detects the target, or the tracking radar notices the missile
and target are at the same range. Needless to say, the warheads need to be
large, as accuracy is inversely proportional to range. It is impossible to use
beam riding guidance if the launchpoint and tracking radar are not on the same
platform (or at least very difficult) [source: An Illustrated Guide to the
Techniques and Equipment of Electronic Warfare].
Semi-active guidance homes in on radiation scattered off of the target.
The early missiles flew in spirals, because they used a spin scan algorithm to
locate the
rlbell@sympatico.ca (Richard and Emily Bell) said:
> We have a terminology problem.<
And how much of one I didn't realize till I read this post:o)
First of all we are talking a bomb not a missile. (We don't have any attack
missiles as big as 2000 lbs. Well, OK, one... but really the AGM
(Air-to-Ground-Missile)-130 is just a Laser Guided Bomb with a rocket
booster for increased range. It can't attack a target until after the rocket
burns out and it enters a descending glide path.)
Your pretty much correct about beam-riders vs Semi-active. With terms
defined
as such, then ALL current missiles and smart bombs are "Semi-active
seekers." Laser Guidance is basically both. The Seeker head is not accurate
enough to lock on a target at large angles so if the illuminating aircraft is
not THE launch aircraft, (usually not) then they aircraft have to approach the
target from the same area. The illuminator aircraft can orbit or stand off.
And
while the seeker CAN use a lot of scatter from the beam, this is only used as
a reference as the bomb steers to find the highest degree of radiation in the
sensor view area. The bombs tend to "spiral" around the beam because the
free-floating seeker head is constantly scanning for the beam and
rolling the bomb around the radius of the beam. This is the same technique
used with all tracking weapons at the present moment, excluding "Active"
weapons, for example the Phoenix, which have their own "illumination" sources
onboard.
My major point was, and is, that once released. a free fall bomb is an easy
target for Point-defense simply because it's path is so predictable.
Unless the release is at high velocity, (which presents it's own set of
problems) the bomb fly's a lot slower than the terminal velocity of most
missiles.
Speaking of missiles. You stated another communication problem we are having:
> Needless to say, the warheads need to be large, as accuracy is
OK, big difference here. Air-to-Air missiles, which are the type you are
pretty much discussing in your post do NOT have large warheads. The largest
current AIM (Air Intercept Missile) the AIM-120 only has about a 75
pound warhead. (I'd have to get my CDC's to be absolutely sure:o) It is not
"light" but while it takes 4 people to lift it and move it around, anyone
trying that with an AGM-65 Maverick would end up with a serious hernia.
The
AGM has a 500-or-1000 pound warhead on it I seem to recall off hand.
(Again
we could lump the AGM-130 in here :o)
Strictly speaking you could probably target a BB with an AIM-120... but
the ship would not even notice the detonation. Mavericks, Harpoons, and
Exocets are very much a danger due to their attack profiles which tend towards
low and fast, whereas an LGB needs either a higher altitude drop or requires
the aircraft to close to "pointblank" and drop the bomb as it overflies the
target. (In which case you wouldn't use and LGB but a stick of regular "iron"
bombs, and probably lose the aircraft as well:o)
[quoted original message omitted]
> ShldWulf@aol.com wrote:
> rlbell@sympatico.ca (Richard and Emily Bell) said:
(Again
> we could lump the AGM-130 in here :o)
The only beam riding missile that I have any data on is the SA-2
Guideline, which uses a 220 pound warhead, or more rarely, a small nuke. The
germans were experimenting with beam riding SAM's in WWII, but mercifully did
not provide the funding that could have had an operational system in time for
the daylight raids
of B-17's, to go along with the squadrons of ME262's with wire guided
air-to-air
missiles (which were also delayed for no good reason). The beam rider accuracy
problem comes from the fact that the width of the beam is a solid angle, so
the further away from transmitter, the broader the beam, and the missile has
to have a "dead zone" in its guidance algorithm to keep it stable in flight or
minimise amount of movement in its control surfaces. Long range beam riding
missiles must have large warheads to have any chance of damaging the target
(which is why they have fallen out of use, even though they are much cheaper
than
semi-active
systems).
BTW, it was never my intention to argue that the bomb does not fall in an
easily predicted path. The point was that looking at the illumination source
for
semi-active homer does not provide a firecontrol solution against
anything other
> Bif Smith wrote:
> A question is how much dammage would even a exocet do to the armour of
Very little, unless there was enough old paint on the Iowa to fuel a major
fire. A major fire on board the Iowa could cause the ship's loss, even if it
From: "Richard and Emily Bell" <rlbell@sympatico.ca>
> I confess that I am only a spirited amatuer with military technology,
> At 12:57 17/03/01 +0000, Bif wrote:
> A question is how much dammage would even a exocet do to the armour of
Actually the missile didn't sink the Sheffield, the crew fought the resulting
fire and won. It was the heavy seas a day or so later (?, have to look this
up) while the was under tow which sank the Sheffield.
From: "Richard and Emily Bell" <rlbell@sympatico.ca>
> The only beam riding missile that I have any data on is the SA-2
IIRC the Guideline is Command guidance, not a beam rider.
That is, there are 2 radars. One tracks the target, the other tracks the
missile. The data gets fed into a simple computer, which issues steering
commands to the missile.
Actually, there are 3 radars : there's the search/acquisition radar too.
Fan Song E IIRC.
Beam Riding missiles include the RBS-70 (laser beam), and IIRC the AA-1
Alkali,
a real first-generation Soviet system. Unreliable memory is sending me
signals
In a message dated 3/17/2001 9:46:29 AM Mountain Standard Time,
> rlbell@sympatico.ca writes:
<< The point was that looking at the illumination source for
semi-active homer does not provide a firecontrol solution against
anything other than the illuminator, and may not be indicative of where the
laser guided bomb is coming from. >>
Well in all actuallity it DOES tell you where the weapon is coming from
because by it's nature it is required to be coming from the same direction,
(about a 180deg arc granted:o) that the illuminator is coming from. Any
other angle is impossible.