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 |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
Guy, we carried SA2 missile beacon jammers in March of 72 et seq and
they were quite effective. Walt BJ |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
"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. |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
"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. |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
Ballensr- What downward ejection seats in the A-3-3 are you talking about?
The A-3 never had ejection seats! BRBR 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 |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
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" |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
B-52 crew blamed for friendly fire death | Paul Hirose | Military Aviation | 0 | March 16th 04 12:49 AM |
Ham sandwich navigation and radar failure | David Brooks | Instrument Flight Rules | 47 | December 31st 03 12:15 AM |
USAF = US Amphetamine Fools | RT | Military Aviation | 104 | September 25th 03 03:17 PM |
F15E Radar question. | Bill Silvey | Military Aviation | 5 | August 30th 03 06:17 PM |
Marine Radar in a plane? | Jay Honeck | Home Built | 31 | August 13th 03 06:56 PM |