Radar from the 60s

[Charles Talleyrand]

How good was shipborne radar in the 60s against a 2003 airforce? For example, could a 1964 ship detect an incoming modern strike
before the explosions began in the face of modern ACM.

I ask both because I'm curious about the past and because there are navies out
there using old-fashioned technology.

[Brian]

"Charles Talleyrand" > wrote in message
...
> How good was shipborne radar in the 60s against a 2003 airforce? For
example, could a 1964 ship detect an incoming modern strike
> before the explosions began in the face of modern ACM.

1960s radar suffers from problems at low elevations(among other things)
which is where ASCM's hang out. This is a major shortcoming.

> I ask both because I'm curious about the past and because there are navies
out
> there using old-fashioned technology.

[Mike Potter]

Charles Talleyrand wrote:

>How good was shipborne radar in the 60s against a 2003 airforce? For example, could a 1964 ship detect an incoming modern strike
>before the explosions began in the face of modern ACM.
>
>I ask both because I'm curious about the past and because there are navies out
>there using old-fashioned technology.
>
RN warships used 1960s air-search radar in the Falklands in 1982,
specifically RN radar Type 965. From descriptions in David Brown's book
The Royal Navy and the Falklands War, it appears that this radar could
not detect aircraft over land, or at least not above 30,000 feet. The
newer Type 1022 radar succeeded at that.

[TMOliver]

"Charles Talleyrand" > vented spleen or mostly
mumbled...

> How good was shipborne radar in the 60s against a 2003 airforce? For
> example, could a 1964 ship detect an incoming modern strike before the
> explosions began in the face of modern ACM.
>
> I ask both because I'm curious about the past and because there are
> navies out there using old-fashioned technology.
>
>

60s era air search radars were certainly well able to detect a/c at the
same ranges as current gadgets, although antenna design limited altitude
performance. Operators were certainly trained or experienced to provide a
higher level of "interpretation" than is required today. Certainly,
today's stealthy and semi-stealthy a/c would provide substantial detection
problems, but in some attitudes, A4s were stealthier than you might
imagine.

Obviously, low altitude/high speed missiles wpuld have been a problem then
(and are so now). Having nothing to shoot at them then, it hardly mattered
until Phalanx/CIWS came aboard.

The fire control radars of the 60s certainly lagged behind current
versions, but I suspect that the biggest gap was not "radar" but the
capacity to process, track and provide FC solutions, a "computer" problem.
We simply could not handle data at rates a 100 times less than today's
equipment.

TMO

[Richard Bell]

In article >,
Charles Talleyrand > wrote:
>How good was shipborne radar in the 60s against a 2003 airforce? For
>example, could a 1964 ship detect an incoming modern strike
>before the explosions began in the face of modern ACM.
>
>I ask both because I'm curious about the past and because there are navies out
>there using old-fashioned technology.
>
There are some things that the 60s era set will actually do better. Radar
jamming is harder against the older radars, as things like the range gate
and gain control were manually operated, so an operator could look for the
smaller, real returns that the jamming is trying to hide or realize that
he is subject to barrage jamming.

Not that I am recommending going back to manually operated tracking systems,
but that the only thing going for computers is their speed. Even the best
and most complex expert system is pathetically stupid.

Also, you should not judge a system by its antenna and transmitter, or you
could be surprised by a ship that has had the 60s era signal processors
removed and replaced 80s era stuff, or a general purpose P4 computer
(running linux) emulating the 80s hardware, for less money.

Third world countries, and by extension their navies, are poor, not stupid.
Underestimate them at your peril. It was bad enough when the manufacturing
jobs left North America, but the knowledge-based jobs are starting to leave
now, too.

[Red]

"TMOliver" > wrote in message
...
> "Charles Talleyrand" > vented spleen or mostly
> mumbled...
>
> > How good was shipborne radar in the 60s against a 2003 airforce? For
> > example, could a 1964 ship detect an incoming modern strike before the
> > explosions began in the face of modern ACM.
> >
> > I ask both because I'm curious about the past and because there are
> > navies out there using old-fashioned technology.
> >
> >
>
> 60s era air search radars were certainly well able to detect a/c at the
> same ranges as current gadgets, although antenna design limited altitude
> performance. Operators were certainly trained or experienced to provide a
> higher level of "interpretation" than is required today. Certainly,
> today's stealthy and semi-stealthy a/c would provide substantial detection
> problems, but in some attitudes, A4s were stealthier than you might
> imagine.
>
> Obviously, low altitude/high speed missiles wpuld have been a problem then
> (and are so now). Having nothing to shoot at them then, it hardly
mattered
> until Phalanx/CIWS came aboard.
>
> The fire control radars of the 60s certainly lagged behind current
> versions, but I suspect that the biggest gap was not "radar" but the
> capacity to process, track and provide FC solutions, a "computer" problem.
> We simply could not handle data at rates a 100 times less than today's
> equipment.
>
> TMO

I have to agree. Information processing was the really big shortcoming of
the 60 era radar. You can't argue with some of its successes though. One US
cruiser setting off N.Vietnam shot down two MiG from over 65 miles (105+ km)
with RIM-8 Talos SAMS.

Red

[TMOliver]

"Red" vented spleen or mostly mumbled...


>
> I have to agree. Information processing was the really big shortcoming
> of the 60 era radar. You can't argue with some of its successes
> though. One US cruiser setting off N.Vietnam shot down two MiG from
> over 65 miles (105+ km) with RIM-8 Talos SAMS.
>

.....At one point the big bedscreen SPS-43 was the best of air search
radars. It's tange of detection against Bears at Angels 20 or the
occasional Chromedome could awe the careless viewer (and I suspect was
better than today's shipboard examples).

On the other hand, bury me not with an SPS-8, rarely serviceavble, or
though more servicable, the SPS-30, a hell of a penalty in weight, space
and topside clearview.

TMO

[John Halliwell]

In article >, TMOliver
> writes
>60s era air search radars were certainly well able to detect a/c at the
>same ranges as current gadgets, although antenna design limited altitude
>performance. Operators were certainly trained or experienced to provide a
>higher level of "interpretation" than is required today. Certainly,
>today's stealthy and semi-stealthy a/c would provide substantial detection
>problems, but in some attitudes, A4s were stealthier than you might
>imagine.

I seem to remember a rumour during GWI that one of the RNs air defence
ships apparently managed to detect F-117As using some form of '50s long
wave radar.

--
John

[s.p.i.]

"Charles Talleyrand" > wrote in message >...
> How good was shipborne radar in the 60s against a 2003 airforce? For example, could a 1964 ship detect an incoming modern strike
> before the explosions began in the face of modern ACM.
>
> I ask both because I'm curious about the past and because there are navies out
> there using old-fashioned technology.

As far as US shipboard radars go, the SPY-1, SPS-48, SPS-49, and
SPS-55 radars all began their lives in the '60s. Its the "front end"
signal processing that has seen the dramatic improvements. Today's
operators are largely freed from the task of cognitively interpreting
analog video.
Its been a double edged sword though. Living by symbology alone has
caused problems. It was a factor in the Vincennes shootdown of the
Airbus, the collision of a DDG (can't remember which one) with a
backing down CV, and the expenditure of a Harpoon on exactly nothing
in the Gulf of Sidra by the Tico in '86.

[WDA]

In the 60s carrier based A-3 heavy attack bombers flying above 40,000 feet
often could approach a warship and not be detected on the air search radar
even when passing overhead.

WDA

end

"Charles Talleyrand" > wrote in message
...
> How good was shipborne radar in the 60s against a 2003 airforce? For
example, could a 1964 ship detect an incoming modern strike
> before the explosions began in the face of modern ACM.
>
> I ask both because I'm curious about the past and because there are navies
out
> there using old-fashioned technology.
>
>

[Elmshoot]

>I seem to remember a rumour during GWI that one of the RNs air defence
>ships apparently managed to detect F-117As using some form of '50s long
>wave radar.

No rumor, fact. Stealth is not invisible to all frequiencies. Some will detect
at longer ranges than others. Understanding radar therory and a close reading
of Aviation week will confirm the rumor. During DS the Hummers kept track of
the 117's for the Airfarce. What radars were destroyed by the snake eaters on
the opening salvo of DS?

Sparky

[TMOliver]

"WDA" > vented spleen or mostly mumbled...

> In the 60s carrier based A-3 heavy attack bombers flying above 40,000
> feet often could approach a warship and not be detected on the air
> search radar even when passing overhead.
>

As a 60s era carrier based Air Intercept Controller, I'll argue your claim
from two contrarian perspectives...

A. Unless some here can establish reasonable evidence to the contrary the
number of A3 strike sorties (or EA3 missions) routinely flown above Angels
40 will fit over in the slim and none category. Ops above 40 with any navy
a/c in the early 60s were simply not the norm, and even the most capable,
the F8s, were troubled by compressor stalls in certain attitudes.
Certainly, the advent of the F4 changed the picture, but F4s remained in
short supply until '64 or so.

B. I can't think of an aspect in which an A3 wasn't a well-painted target
(at least on the SPS-37 or 43, although I had no experience with low flyers
(but I knew few former A3 drivers who were happy flying low, them downward
firing seats lending little survivability to a low altitude mechanical
problem). I "learned" on an SPS-12, a gadget of lesser range, but there
were controllers who worked SPS-6s, high art and good intuitive skill
required.

TMO

[Chuck]

(TMOliver) wrote:
----
"WDA" > vented spleen or mostly mumbled...
'In the 60s carrier based A-3 heavy attack bombers flying above 40,000
feet often could approach a warship and not be detected on the air
search radar even when passing overhead.'

As a 60s era carrier based Air Intercept Controller, I'll argue your
claim from two contrarian perspectives...
A. Unless some here can establish reasonable evidence to the contrary
the number of A3 strike sorties (or EA3 missions) routinely flown above
Angels 40 will fit over in the slim and none category. <snip>
-
I disagree with "slim and none" but can't provide evidence except my
memories from VAH-1 and VQ-2.
-
B. I can't think of an aspect in which an A3 wasn't a well-painted
target (at least on the SPS-37 or 43, although I had no experience with
low flyers (but I knew few former A3 drivers who were happy flying low,
them downward firing seats lending little survivability to a low
altitude mechanical problem). <snip>
-
I'm assuming a bit of wry humor when you wrote "them downward firing
seats"?
Downward - correct; firing - nope. No ejection seats in any direction,
on the "All 3 Dead" (A3D). Maybe the least favorite nickname but often
heard, especially from the folks who had earlier been flying the AJ
Savages aka "The Widowmaker" also sans ejection seats.

Chuck




HEAVY ATTACK COMPOSITE (VC-5,6,7,8,9) WEBSITE
http://community.webtv.net/charles379/USNComposite

FAIRECONRON ONE AND TWO (VQ-1/2) CASUALTIES
http://www.anzwers.org/free/navyscpo4/Chuck_Huber_AirCrew.html

[s.p.i.]

TMOliver > wrote in message >...
> "WDA" > vented spleen or mostly mumbled...
>
> > In the 60s carrier based A-3 heavy attack bombers flying above 40,000
> > feet often could approach a warship and not be detected on the air
> > search radar even when passing overhead.
> >
>
> As a 60s era carrier based Air Intercept Controller, I'll argue your claim
> from two contrarian perspectives...

> B. I can't think of an aspect in which an A3 wasn't a well-painted target
> (at least on the SPS-37 or 43, although I had no experience with low flyers
> (but I knew few former A3 drivers who were happy flying low, them downward
> firing seats lending little survivability to a low altitude mechanical
> problem). I "learned" on an SPS-12, a gadget of lesser range, but there
> were controllers who worked SPS-6s, high art and good intuitive skill
> required.
>
> TMO


Just one niggle TM, A-3s had no ejection seats, but they did have a
chute on the bottom of the fuselage.
If WDA's memories were of ops in the MED, his post has some merit.
There were many, many times in the summer months the SPS-10 (surface
search) would paint aircraft at angels 33 (verified with SPG-55 and
mode c) and not paint the carrier at 15,000 yards, while the SPS-49
would paint dead cow carcasses and other floatsam and jetsam (depress
the antenna on the 49 and it would paint a periscope really well) on a
glassy sea surface and not show the first aircraft above angels 5.

[WDA]

Sorry, TMO, You got it all wrong!

What downward ejection seats in the A-3-3 are you talking about? The A-3
never had ejection seats!

Hell, we could get to 50,000 feet altitude in the FJ-3 in 1956!

A-3s flying back and forth over your black shoe radars without being
detected was so common off Pt Mugu that radar beacons had to be used to be
able to conduct ship's missile tests.

FYI, the A-3 probably had the most sophisticated ECM system in any USA
aircraft when the Vietnam "flail-ex" commenced. We took the ALQ-51 deception
repeaters out of our A-3s to install in A-4s flying over Hanoi. Later a
dozen other Navy.Marine a/c types also got the ALQ-51. We even had to cough
up fifty of them for Air Force photo recce a/c.

Meanwhile the USAF was putting the ALQ-76 "jamming pods on their F-4s.
"Protection" by that pod required their a/c to fly in rigid parade formation
to counter the Fansong radar. But if just one of the pod equipped planes
slid out of formation it was immediately tracked and nailed by Guidline
missiles. That was because the damned pods were actually beacons instead of
jammers!

CDR Dick Seymour [later the VADM commanding Naval Air Systems Command] took
a squadron set of ALQ-76 to Yankee Station with his A-4s but never put the
damned things on any of his aircraft going feet dry over NVN. He brought all
his pilots home safe.

Sorry, TMO, there's much more to the A-3 story than you are evidently aware
of.

WDA
VF-24, VA-192, 1955 - 1959

end
"TMOliver" > wrote in message
...
> "WDA" > vented spleen or mostly mumbled...
>
> > In the 60s carrier based A-3 heavy attack bombers flying above 40,000
> > feet often could approach a warship and not be detected on the air
> > search radar even when passing overhead.
> >
>
> As a 60s era carrier based Air Intercept Controller, I'll argue your claim
> from two contrarian perspectives...
>
> A. Unless some here can establish reasonable evidence to the contrary the
> number of A3 strike sorties (or EA3 missions) routinely flown above Angels
> 40 will fit over in the slim and none category. Ops above 40 with any
navy
> a/c in the early 60s were simply not the norm, and even the most capable,
> the F8s, were troubled by compressor stalls in certain attitudes.
> Certainly, the advent of the F4 changed the picture, but F4s remained in
> short supply until '64 or so.
>
> B. I can't think of an aspect in which an A3 wasn't a well-painted target
> (at least on the SPS-37 or 43, although I had no experience with low
flyers
> (but I knew few former A3 drivers who were happy flying low, them downward
> firing seats lending little survivability to a low altitude mechanical
> problem). I "learned" on an SPS-12, a gadget of lesser range, but there
> were controllers who worked SPS-6s, high art and good intuitive skill
> required.
>
> TMO

[TMOliver]

"WDA" > vented spleen or mostly mumbled...


>
> Sorry, TMO, there's much more to the A-3 story than you are evidently
> aware of.
>
>

I simply don't recollect the A3s or EA3s routinely operating above 40,000,
or presenting anything out of the ordinary as radar target. I do recall
pilots who had flown the FJ series claiming that its parameters greatly
exceeded those of the Demon which normally flew neither high nor long. In
the Med, the constraints against activating active ECM gear were almost
prohibitive.

It was not uncommon for low altitude A1 strikes to avoid detection (even
with their four paddled reflector), all of sudden popping up on the SPS-10C
which had to be finely adjusted to not mask snorkels in sea return.

TMO

[Red]

"WDA" > wrote in message
. net...
SNIP SNIP SNIP SNIP>
> Meanwhile the USAF was putting the ALQ-76 "jamming pods on their F-4s.
> "Protection" by that pod required their a/c to fly in rigid parade
formation
> to counter the Fansong radar. But if just one of the pod equipped planes
> slid out of formation it was immediately tracked and nailed by Guidline
> missiles. That was because the damned pods were actually beacons instead
of
> jammers!
> WDA
> VF-24, VA-192, 1955 - 1959

Ah Hah! Flying the infamous SAM box with the ALQ-76. (The ALQ-76's were
amplifying beacons). The theory was to keep a 800-1000 feet between
aircraft. The signal return (+amplification) would look like one aircraft
and the SAM would guide to the center of the blip. Therefore the SAM will
detonate between the aircraft missing each by 400-500 feet.

Would you trust this device?

Red

[Walt BJ]

I was flying USAF 86Fs and later 86Ds on Okinawa 54-57. I was told
Navy A3Ds would routinely cross overhead at 40+ on their way to and
from PI - Japan. Their cruising speed was high enough to give the Dog
fits trying to intercept them before running out of fuel.
Walt BJ

[Guy Alcala]

Red wrote:

> "WDA" > wrote in message
> . net...
> SNIP SNIP SNIP SNIP>
> > Meanwhile the USAF was putting the ALQ-76 "jamming pods on their F-4s.
> > "Protection" by that pod required their a/c to fly in rigid parade
> formation
> > to counter the Fansong radar. But if just one of the pod equipped planes
> > slid out of formation it was immediately tracked and nailed by Guidline
> > missiles. That was because the damned pods were actually beacons instead
> of
> > jammers!
> > WDA
> > VF-24, VA-192, 1955 - 1959
>
> Ah Hah! Flying the infamous SAM box with the ALQ-76. (The ALQ-76's were
> amplifying beacons). The theory was to keep a 800-1000 feet between
> aircraft. The signal return (+amplification) would look like one aircraft
> and the SAM would guide to the center of the blip. Therefore the SAM will
> detonate between the aircraft missing each by 400-500 feet.
>
> Would you trust this device?

Allow me to point out that the Air Force fighters used the ALQ-71 (nee'
QRC-160-1) and later the ALQ-87 (nee' QRC-160-8) noise jammers, not the
ALQ-76. And the USN suffered greater percentage losses to SAMs in Vietnam
than the USAF did, despite all the navy a/c being equipped with the ALQ-51.
Both types of jammers had their advantages and disadvantages; the USAF began
using the ALQ-101 (nee' QRC-335) combined noise/deception jammer from 1968, on
those a/c that by nature of their missions (MiGCAP, Wild Weasel) had to fly
more independently.

With regard to Bill Allen's statement that the Air Force pods were "actually
beacons instead of jammers," that's rather subject to fine print. Certainly
by 1972 the VPAF/ADF SAM crews were sometimes operating in a "jamming strobe"
mode, decreasing the gain to use the jamming strobe for direction/elevation,
and a separate radar (often in another band) to provide range data. But AFAIK
they never had the capability to use a true home-on-jam capability; the SA-2
was command guided (unlike the Sparrow), so how could they? The USAF noise
jamming pods were also modified to jam the missile beacons (transponders)
starting around the end of 1967, which proved extremely effective until the
VPAF/ADF (actually, their Soviet advisers) made some changes to the
transponders to make this type of jamming more difficult. This took effect no
later than 1972, and possibly a bit earlier (I'd have to check a few sources).

Guy

[ZZBunker]

"Charles Talleyrand" > wrote in message >...
> How good was shipborne radar in the 60s against a 2003 airforce? For example, could a 1964 ship detect an incoming modern strike
> before the explosions began in the face of modern ACM.

A ship with 60s radar is useless against a 2003 airforce, unless
you're talking about a Vietnamese Air Force.

The only radars ships had back then were air search and tracking,
surface search, and missle guidance.

But likewise 2003 Airforce Radar is equally useless against 2003 Navy Radar.


> I ask both because I'm curious about the past and because there are navies out
> there using old-fashioned technology.

All navies use some technology dating back to at least the 5th Century BC.
It wasn't until the mid 19th century that navies even started to
use anything other than sails, compasses, knives, swords,
spears, fish barrels, and knots as their primary weapons.

And there's also armies out there using 10th Century technology,
and some of them are still winning wars, even against 21st Air Forces.

[Walt BJ]

Guy, we carried SA2 missile beacon jammers in March of 72 et seq and
they were quite effective.
Walt BJ

[navyretired]

Come! Join us in the 21st century.

"Charles Talleyrand" > wrote in message
...
> How good was shipborne radar in the 60s against a 2003 airforce? For
example, could a 1964 ship detect an incoming modern strike
> before the explosions began in the face of modern ACM.
>
> I ask both because I'm curious about the past and because there are navies
out
> there using old-fashioned technology.
>
>

[Guy Alcala]

Walt BJ wrote:

> Guy, we carried SA2 missile beacon jammers in March of 72 et seq and
> they were quite effective.

I have no doubt they were effective sometimes, as not all of the North
Vietnamese SA-2s and Fan Songs were modified. However, I could swear I
read an official or semi-official (paraphrased) report in the last
couple of months, which stated that the later model SA-2s had been given
coded beacons of greater power, which rendered beacon jamming
ineffective (at the time at least). Damned if I can remember where
right now, so I could lay my hands on it and provide the quote. I'll
keep looking.

Guy

[Jaymes Littlehayles]

Alas, the bottom line answer to the original question is this...

Same equipment operated by operators who knew and cared about doing the job
correctly, are more likely then not to find anything... In late 70s, using
early 70s technology, the Knox/Hewes class Frigate I was on using SPS10C and
SPS40 series radar held contact on drone simulators as well as aircraft
simulators that ships with "better" equipment couldn't find, much less
track...

As to shooting down...

Same answer applies... Sure a Phalanx is "always on" ...

But with appropriate notice... a properly trained and interested 5"/54 or
3"/50 crew can knock things out of sky that too many folks say is
impossible... Just as the T-2 Buckeye driver of Viques Island who had the
sock destroyed with 2 rounds from our lowly little frigate on the first high
speed pass...

How about a Tornado from Uruguayan Air Force who got plinked at high
altitude/high speed as well as low altitude/low speed...

It isn't the equipment, it is the human designing and using it... Technology
is no substitute for intelligence...

And also... That ship is now the heaviest armed warship on active duty in
Africa, being the fagship of the Egyptian Navy as ENS Dumyat...


BTW ex-EW1(ESWS/AC/DV)

Tin Can Sailor forever



> > How good was shipborne radar in the 60s against a 2003 airforce? For
> example, could a 1964 ship detect an incoming modern strike
> > before the explosions began in the face of modern ACM.
> >
> > I ask both because I'm curious about the past and because there are
navies
> out
> > there using old-fashioned technology.
> >
> >
>
>

[Walt BJ]

Here's a couple factors, one plus, one minus.
The minus is that sea state would have a deleterious effect on low
altitude pickup to the point where a good pair of binoculars would
have greater range. By low altitude here I mean sea-skimming to where
the jet exhaust is blowing up spray.
The plus effect is that a direct vision cathode ray tube (actual radar
blips on the scope) adds about 3 db to the radar's effectiveness
because the human eye/mind integrates the information and can discern
targets below the noise peaks - because noise is random and the radar
blis are not. It takes some experience but it definitely works.
So a 60's type radar would still be fairly effective aginst aircraft
out of the sea return, effective enough for fire control purposes.
Against the extremely low altitude target - when the CV Eisenhower was
working up the PRANG A7s could get at it by such an approach.
Walt BJ

[Brian]

"Walt BJ" > wrote in message
om...
> The plus effect is that a direct vision cathode ray tube (actual radar
> blips on the scope) adds about 3 db to the radar's effectiveness
> because the human eye/mind integrates the information and can discern
> targets below the noise peaks - because noise is random and the radar
> blis are not. It takes some experience but it definitely works.
> So a 60's type radar would still be fairly effective aginst aircraft
> out of the sea return, effective enough for fire control purposes.
> Against the extremely low altitude target - when the CV Eisenhower was
> working up the PRANG A7s could get at it by such an approach.

Even with today's modern radar you need to be on the ball. Set the radar up
wrong and you'll be getting holes punched all over you. Some guys who worked
the system could really set up things well

[Fred J. McCall]

"Jaymes Littlehayles" > wrote:

:It isn't the equipment, it is the human designing and using it... Technology
:is no substitute for intelligence...

Or, as they taught us on a much smaller and more personal basis; There
are no deadly weapons. There are only deadly men.

--
The only easy day was yesterday.

[Brian]

"Jaymes Littlehayles" > wrote in message
.. .
> Alas, the bottom line answer to the original question is this...
>
> Same equipment operated by operators who knew and cared about doing the
job
> correctly, are more likely then not to find anything... In late 70s, using
> early 70s technology, the Knox/Hewes class Frigate I was on using SPS10C
and
> SPS40 series radar held contact on drone simulators as well as aircraft
> simulators that ships with "better" equipment couldn't find, much less
> track...

The 10 and 40 are no match for a modern ASCM. Operators can exponentially
improve a systems performance but those systems are just plain outdated.
Considering the Knox had a gun, you could attack it with impunity from
outside the range of the gun. A good operator might pick out a sea skimming
missile but he'd better be good and the missile will be very close (ie. too
late)

> As to shooting down...
> Same answer applies... Sure a Phalanx is "always on" ...
> But with appropriate notice... a properly trained and interested 5"/54 or
> 3"/50 crew can knock things out of sky that too many folks say is
> impossible... Just as the T-2 Buckeye driver of Viques Island who had the
> sock destroyed with 2 rounds from our lowly little frigate on the first
high
> speed pass...
> How about a Tornado from Uruguayan Air Force who got plinked at high
> altitude/high speed as well as low altitude/low speed...

Throw in an bit of countermeasures and plinking becomes very difficult,
though I've seen some pretty skilled SPG-53 operators. Tornado's and
Buckeyes have a pretty high RCS which helps considerably. An ASCM like an
Exocet is much more difficult to pick out of the weeds.


> It isn't the equipment, it is the human designing and using it...
Technology
> is no substitute for intelligence...

Improvements in todays equipment coupled with very skilled technicians makes
equipment today far more capable against the low angle threat.

> And also... That ship is now the heaviest armed warship on active duty in
> Africa, being the fagship of the Egyptian Navy as ENS Dumyat...
>
>
> BTW ex-EW1(ESWS/AC/DV)

BTW ex EW2;) Defected over to the Army Guard upon release.

[Pechs1]

Ballensr-<< What downward ejection seats in the A-3-3 are you talking about?
The A-3
never had ejection seats! >><BR><BR>

Navy Whale didn't but the USAF(B-66?) did....
P. C. Chisholm
CDR, USN(ret.)
Old Phart Phormer Phantom, Turkey, Viper, Scooter and Combat Buckeye Phlyer

[Doug Ventura]

Brian wrote:

> "Even with today's modern radar you need to be on the ball. Set the radar up
> wrong and you'll be getting holes punched all over you. Some guys who worked
> the system could really set up things well

Won't be an issue with tomorrows radar. Will say more when I can.

"Ace"

[Brian]

"Doug Ventura" > wrote in message
...
> Brian wrote:
>
> > "Even with today's modern radar you need to be on the ball. Set the
radar up
> > wrong and you'll be getting holes punched all over you. Some guys who
worked
> > the system could really set up things well
>
> Won't be an issue with tomorrows radar. Will say more when I can.

I'll believe it when I see it. You'll always need a good person behind
whatever it is you have. SPY-1 is thought by some to be perfect.....not
quite.