If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#51
|
|||
|
|||
"PENTAGON WORKING TO GIVE F-35 JSF NUCLEAR-STRIKE CAPABILITY"
On May 6, 6:54 pm, J wrote:
On May 4, 4:05 pm, Ed Rasimus wrote: 2.) Disabuse yourself from the notion that a CV is any sort of easy target. I spent a lot of years trying to successfully do just that in exercises. It is damn close to impossible. Ed, Were you ever successful? (To the extent you can say.) Thanks . . . J Ed's comment was directed to me on May 4th. I *think* he's suggesting a fighter attack on a CVN. Currently, cruise missiles and/or MRBM's, because of the wide spread availability of precision electronic guidance, basically has a CVN as equivalent to a heavily armored *blimp* in a fluid. IIRC, the last war where severe attacks were waged on CV's with a large defensive screen was off Okinawa, with kamikazes operating as missiles. Ken |
#52
|
|||
|
|||
"PENTAGON WORKING TO GIVE F-35 JSF NUCLEAR-STRIKE CAPABILITY"
"Ken S. Tucker" wrote in message ... On May 6, 6:54 pm, J wrote: On May 4, 4:05 pm, Ed Rasimus wrote: 2.) Disabuse yourself from the notion that a CV is any sort of easy target. I spent a lot of years trying to successfully do just that in exercises. It is damn close to impossible. Ed, Were you ever successful? (To the extent you can say.) Thanks . . . J Ed's comment was directed to me on May 4th. I *think* he's suggesting a fighter attack on a CVN. Currently, cruise missiles and/or MRBM's, because of the wide spread availability of precision electronic guidance, basically has a CVN as equivalent to a heavily armored *blimp* in a fluid. Neither MRBM's nor most cruise missiles are well suited to attacks on moving targets. The guidance systems on ballistic missiles are designed to hit a given set of co-ordinates and the flight dynamics make terminal manoeuvering very difficult even if you had sensors capable of penetrating the plasma around the vehicle. Cruise missiles have the problem of being targets in their own right and so typically fly low which makes searching for the target very difficult and makes for a high likelihood of attacks on the wrong vessel (see Atlantic Conveyor and Falklands) There are a few systems like the Russian Granit designed to operate in swarms where one missile will pop up to medium altitude to provide course correction information for the others but that of course leaves them open to spoofing and meaconing. IIRC, the last war where severe attacks were waged on CV's with a large defensive screen was off Okinawa, with kamikazes operating as missiles. Ken Okinawa was rather unusual. The CV's were tied to small area by the requirement to provide air cover for the invasion fleet. Worse still they were within range of the enemies (large) air force. That said such refinements as AEW radar rose directly from that experience. Keith |
#53
|
|||
|
|||
"PENTAGON WORKING TO GIVE F-35 JSF NUCLEAR-STRIKE CAPABILITY"
Ed Rasimus ha scritto:
That being said, I had a flight of four kill Indianapolis (thinking it was America until we were in the pop-up) in one exercise Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret) I can justapoxe (sp?) these two lines ? (wondering how happens to mix CVN and SSN blips...) Best regards from Italy, Dott. Piergiorgio. |
#54
|
|||
|
|||
"PENTAGON WORKING TO GIVE F-35 JSF NUCLEAR-STRIKE CAPABILITY"
On May 7, 12:32 am, "Keith Willshaw"
wrote: "Ken S. Tucker" wrote in ... On May 6, 6:54 pm, J wrote: On May 4, 4:05 pm, Ed Rasimus wrote: 2.) Disabuse yourself from the notion that a CV is any sort of easy target. I spent a lot of years trying to successfully do just that in exercises. It is damn close to impossible. Ed, Were you ever successful? (To the extent you can say.) Thanks . . . J Ed's comment was directed to me on May 4th. I *think* he's suggesting a fighter attack on a CVN. Currently, cruise missiles and/or MRBM's, because of the wide spread availability of precision electronic guidance, basically has a CVN as equivalent to a heavily armored *blimp* in a fluid. As a back-drop, 27 years ago, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exocet#Falklands_Conflict (Seems like yesterday). Neither MRBM's nor most cruise missiles are well suited to attacks on moving targets. The guidance systems on ballistic missiles are designed to hit a given set of co-ordinates and the flight dynamics make terminal manoeuvering very difficult even if you had sensors capable of penetrating the plasma around the vehicle. Things could have changed. I have a good idea of what's *technically* possible, I hope you're right. Cruise missiles have the problem of being targets in their own right and so typically fly low which makes searching for the target very difficult and makes for a high likelihood of attacks on the wrong vessel (see Atlantic Conveyor and Falklands) ditto. There are a few systems like the Russian Granit designed to operate in swarms where one missile will pop up to medium altitude to provide course correction information for the others but that of course leaves them open to spoofing and meaconing. It's a bit difficult to hide a CVN from a satellite. IIRC, the last war where severe attacks were waged on CV's with a large defensive screen was off Okinawa, with kamikazes operating as missiles. Ken Okinawa was rather unusual. The CV's were tied to small area by the requirement to provide air cover for the invasion fleet. Worse still they were within range of the enemies (large) air force. That said such refinements as AEW radar rose directly from that experience. I deviated the topic to F-35 (nuke able) for the navy is to be absolutely unnecessary and of nil usefulness. (The A-5 Vigilante again). I'll go further, all nuke weapons should be banned by treaty from international waters and air space. Ken |
#55
|
|||
|
|||
"PENTAGON WORKING TO GIVE F-35 JSF NUCLEAR-STRIKE CAPABILITY"
On Thu, 07 May 2009 19:02:12 GMT, Ed Rasimus
wrote: On Thu, 07 May 2009 18:59:39 +0200, "dott.Piergiorgio" wrote: Ed Rasimus ha scritto: That being said, I had a flight of four kill Indianapolis (thinking it was America until we were in the pop-up) in one exercise Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret) I can justapoxe (sp?) these two lines ? (wondering how happens to mix CVN and SSN blips...) Sorry. My mis-remembering. It was California--a guided missile cruiser, not a SSN. It was thirty years ago! Even on a good day, the F-4 radar wouldn't pick up many subs! You need Harrier radar for that. Peter Skelton |
#56
|
|||
|
|||
"PENTAGON WORKING TO GIVE F-35 JSF NUCLEAR-STRIKE CAPABILITY"
Even on a good day, the F-4 radar wouldn't pick up many subs!
You need Harrier radar for that. After the engine failed. |
#57
|
|||
|
|||
"PENTAGON WORKING TO GIVE F-35 JSF NUCLEAR-STRIKE CAPABILITY"
"Ken S. Tucker" wrote in message ... On May 7, 12:32 am, "Keith Willshaw" wrote: "Ken S. Tucker" wrote in ... On May 6, 6:54 pm, J wrote: On May 4, 4:05 pm, Ed Rasimus wrote: 2.) Disabuse yourself from the notion that a CV is any sort of easy target. I spent a lot of years trying to successfully do just that in exercises. It is damn close to impossible. Ed, Were you ever successful? (To the extent you can say.) Thanks . . . J Ed's comment was directed to me on May 4th. I *think* he's suggesting a fighter attack on a CVN. Currently, cruise missiles and/or MRBM's, because of the wide spread availability of precision electronic guidance, basically has a CVN as equivalent to a heavily armored *blimp* in a fluid. As a back-drop, 27 years ago, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exocet#Falklands_Conflict (Seems like yesterday). Delivered by aircraft as a standoff weapon, the target identification was down on board the aircraft. Neither MRBM's nor most cruise missiles are well suited to attacks on moving targets. The guidance systems on ballistic missiles are designed to hit a given set of co-ordinates and the flight dynamics make terminal manoeuvering very difficult even if you had sensors capable of penetrating the plasma around the vehicle. Things could have changed. I have a good idea of what's *technically* possible, I hope you're right. Cruise missiles have the problem of being targets in their own right and so typically fly low which makes searching for the target very difficult and makes for a high likelihood of attacks on the wrong vessel (see Atlantic Conveyor and Falklands) ditto. There are a few systems like the Russian Granit designed to operate in swarms where one missile will pop up to medium altitude to provide course correction information for the others but that of course leaves them open to spoofing and meaconing. It's a bit difficult to hide a CVN from a satellite. Sure but getting real time location from a satellite is difficult and VERY expensive 1) Any given low earth recon birds will only revisit any given spot at infrequent periods typically measured in daysor at best hours rather than minutes 2) Standard recon satellites use optical or infrared methods which limits their effectiveness in case of clud cover 3) Even if your satellite happens to fly over a CVN you have to have people analysing the data in real time. To get round the problems the Soviets launched a whole series of Radar satellites (RORSAT). These were BIG and typically powered by type BES-5 nuclear reactors. They weighed in at around 4 tons and to get decent coverage of even a fairly small part of the planet they had to launch a whole constellation of them at vast expense. AFAIK there have been no such satelllites in service for more than a decade. IIRC, the last war where severe attacks were waged on CV's with a large defensive screen was off Okinawa, with kamikazes operating as missiles. Ken Okinawa was rather unusual. The CV's were tied to small area by the requirement to provide air cover for the invasion fleet. Worse still they were within range of the enemies (large) air force. That said such refinements as AEW radar rose directly from that experience. I deviated the topic to F-35 (nuke able) for the navy is to be absolutely unnecessary and of nil usefulness. (The A-5 Vigilante again). I'll go further, all nuke weapons should be banned by treaty from international waters and air space. Ken There goes the US nuclear deterrent Keith |
#58
|
|||
|
|||
"PENTAGON WORKING TO GIVE F-35 JSF NUCLEAR-STRIKE CAPABILITY"
On May 7, 4:15*pm, Ed Rasimus wrote:
On the surface with the sail broadside at short range... On some attacks we were almost running in their environment! On that cruiser attack we had laid a chaff corridor with ALE-38 dispensers at 200 feet above the water and ran in the descending chaff the last 100 miles to the boat. Holy ****. I'd ask how terrifying that must have been but you were probably too busy to notice. Would that sort of approach present a FOD danger, BTW? I always assumed chaff went behind/between the attackers. |
#59
|
|||
|
|||
"PENTAGON WORKING TO GIVE F-35 JSF NUCLEAR-STRIKE CAPABILITY"
On May 7, 3:09*pm, "Keith Willshaw"
wrote: "Ken S. Tucker" wrote in ... On May 7, 12:32 am, "Keith Willshaw" wrote: "Ken S. Tucker" wrote in ... On May 6, 6:54 pm, J wrote: On May 4, 4:05 pm, Ed Rasimus wrote: 2.) Disabuse yourself from the notion that a CV is any sort of easy target. I spent a lot of years trying to successfully do just that in exercises. It is damn close to impossible. Ed, Were you ever successful? (To the extent you can say.) Thanks . . . J Ed's comment was directed to me on May 4th. I *think* he's suggesting a fighter attack on a CVN. Currently, cruise missiles and/or MRBM's, because of the wide spread availability of precision electronic guidance, basically has a CVN as equivalent to a heavily armored *blimp* in a fluid. As a back-drop, 27 years ago, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exocet#Falklands_Conflict (Seems like yesterday). Delivered by aircraft as a standoff weapon, the target identification was down on board the aircraft. Neither MRBM's nor most cruise missiles are well suited to attacks on moving targets. The guidance systems on ballistic missiles are designed to hit a given set of co-ordinates and the flight dynamics make terminal manoeuvering very difficult even if you had sensors capable of penetrating the plasma around the vehicle. Things could have changed. I have a good idea of what's *technically* possible, I hope you're right. Cruise missiles have the problem of being targets in their own right and so typically fly low which makes searching for the target very difficult and makes for a high likelihood of attacks on the wrong vessel (see Atlantic Conveyor and Falklands) ditto. There are a few systems like the Russian Granit designed to operate in swarms where one missile will pop up to medium altitude to provide course correction information for the others but that of course leaves them open to spoofing and meaconing. It's a bit difficult to hide a CVN from a satellite. Sure but getting real time location from a satellite is difficult and VERY expensive 1) Any given low earth recon birds will only revisit any given spot at infrequent periods typically *measured in daysor at best *hours rather than minutes 2) Standard recon satellites use optical or infrared methods which limits their effectiveness in case of clud cover 3) Even if your satellite happens to fly over *a CVN you have to have people analysing the data in real time. To get round the problems the Soviets launched a whole series of Radar satellites (RORSAT). These were BIG and typically powered by type BES-5 nuclear reactors. They weighed in at around 4 tons and to get decent coverage of even a fairly small part of the planet they had to launch a whole constellation of them at vast expense. AFAIK there have been no such satelllites in service for more than a decade. IIRC, the last war where severe attacks were waged on CV's with a large defensive screen was off Okinawa, with kamikazes operating as missiles. Ken Okinawa was rather unusual. The CV's were tied to small area by the requirement to provide air cover for the invasion fleet. Worse still they were within range of the enemies (large) air force. That said such refinements as AEW radar rose directly from that experience. I deviated the topic to F-35 (nuke able) for the navy is to be absolutely unnecessary and of nil usefulness. (The A-5 Vigilante again). I'll go further, all nuke weapons should be banned by treaty from international waters and air space. Ken There goes the US nuclear deterrent Keith Back when 'those were the days' the Soviets though nothing of putting up stuff weekly, even if it had to be replaced in a few months due to low orbits. Would even launch recon sats just for an exercise. Overfly this battle group or whatnot. Way different than how the US did it. But, our stuff was like the Energizer bunny, kept going and going and going.... cost real money too. No wonder the had a black budget. |
#60
|
|||
|
|||
"PENTAGON WORKING TO GIVE F-35 JSF NUCLEAR-STRIKE CAPABILITY"
On May 4, 5:16*pm, wrote:
On Mon, 4 May 2009 13:27:39 -0700 (PDT), BlackBeard wrote: On May 4, 1:05*pm, Ed Rasimus wrote: 2.) Disabuse yourself from the notion that a CV is any sort of easy target. I spent a lot of years trying to successfully do just that in exercises. It is damn close to impossible. Whoever attempts it will suffer severe losses in the process and even then may not succeed. Well, from the air or surface maybe... * Well, no. I've sat on many an SSN over the years. *They are tough to catch but I've yet to meat the submariner that's 7 feet tall, bullet proof, and immortal. *:-) Knew more than a few bubbleheads who thought the Naval Aviators weren't as invincible as they thought they were. Then again, you can count on one hand who could get within a carrier battle group. Us, Soviets at their prime. Maybe. But, like anything else, get enough of a wolfpack, somebody will cause a world of hurt. I was always amazed nobody ever tried to hit one of the charter aircraft we seemed to use a lot of to move troops. Or the civilian shipping. Either inability to do it or some sort of unspoken rule. Still..... |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
"Pentagon Wants Kill Switch for Planes" | Jim Logajan | Piloting | 24 | June 16th 08 03:27 PM |
Spinner strobing as a "Bird Strike Countermeasure" | Jim Logajan | Piloting | 259 | December 13th 07 05:43 AM |
Spinner strobing as a "Bird Strike Countermeasure" | Jim Logajan | Home Built | 212 | December 13th 07 01:35 AM |
"British trace missile in copter strike to Iran" | Mike[_7_] | Naval Aviation | 8 | March 10th 07 08:20 PM |
"Pentagon Command Shuffle Rekindles Equity Debate" | Mike | Naval Aviation | 1 | January 26th 07 03:04 PM |