jtgorman@cs.arizona.edu (J. Taggart Gorman) (12/07/90)
From: "J. Taggart Gorman" <jtgorman@cs.arizona.edu> With the potential threat of Iraq lobbing Scuds with chemical and biological warheads all over the Middle East, I was wondering what currently fielded weapons (defenses, take your pick) could shoot down an incoming warhead. I am talking battlefield systems here. I believe that the Patriot missile system has this capabilty and that the Israelis occasionly rattle their saber with their tests of their ABM, but what else is there to do this job? I am asking about the capabilities of all nations, not just the US. I think I once read the SA-10 can do it. Or how about a Standard on a Ticonderoga? If not, how does a carrier battle group defend itself from incoming warheads? Answers, anyone? | John Taggart Gorman Jr. | "I'm a no rust build up man myself." | | -Christian Slater | jtgorman@caslon.cs.arizona.edu | in 'Heathers'
henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) (12/09/90)
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) >From: "J. Taggart Gorman" <jtgorman@cs.arizona.edu> >... I was wondering what currently >fielded weapons (defenses, take your pick) could shoot down an incoming >warhead. I am talking battlefield systems here. Some of the best of the heavy SAMs, like Patriot and possibly some of its Soviet counterparts, have some antimissile capability. That's it. The first real tactical ABM, the Israeli Arrow, is still under development. Only the Soviets have true ABMs operational, and they are very non-mobile systems deployed for strategic defense of Moscow. There are a number of systems meant to stop cruise missiles, but by and large they are unlikely to be useful against ballistic missiles, which come in much higher and faster. >If not, how does a carrier battle group defend itself from incoming warheads? It doesn't. Nobody does. Everybody has very abruptly woken up to the fact that such a capability would be a good idea. -- "The average pointer, statistically, |Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology points somewhere in X." -Hugh Redelmeier| henry@zoo.toronto.edu utzoo!henry
swilliam@dtoa1.dt.navy.mil (Williams) (12/12/90)
From: swilliam@dtoa1.dt.navy.mil (Williams) >>If not, how does a carrier battle group defend itself from incoming warheads? > >It doesn't. Nobody does. Everybody has very abruptly woken up to the >fact that such a capability would be a good idea. Aircraft carriers have various "lines of defense" against anti-shipping missiles: First line of defense is about 300 miles from the aircraft carrier; F-14 Tomcats shoot down bombers carrying missiles. Tomcats are directed to enemy bombers by early warning aircrafts and ships. Second line of defense is about 100 miles from the aircraft carrier; guided missile cruisers shoot down bombers carrying missiles. Third, and last, line of defense is the CIWS (Close-In-Weapon-Systems) installed on aircraft carriers (and also other capital ships). CIWSs utilize Gatling machine guns to shoot down oncoming missiles. Of course, the best defense is to destroy the airfields where the bombers are based. This is the strategy that Japan used in the Pearl Harbor attack; the first targets were the airfields.
dave@viper.Lynx.MN.Org (David Messer) (12/13/90)
From: dave@viper.Lynx.MN.Org (David Messer) In article <1990Dec7.011307.474@cbnews.att.com> jtgorman@cs.arizona.edu (J. Taggart Gorman) writes: > >From: "J. Taggart Gorman" <jtgorman@cs.arizona.edu> > With the potential threat of Iraq lobbing Scuds with chemical and >biological warheads all over the Middle East, I was wondering what currently >fielded weapons (defenses, take your pick) could shoot down an incoming >warhead. I am talking battlefield systems here. > ... >... how about a Standard on a Ticonderoga? That is the primary mission of the Aegis Cruisers. I have heard that the USSR has similer capabilities although their radar is not as capable. >If not, how does a carrier battle group defend itself from incoming warheads? They also have the Phalanx point-defense guns as well as air-to-air missiles (Phoenix) for long range defense. -- How can you tell if Bush is lying? | David Messer dave@Lynx.MN.Org -or- Watch his lips... | Lynx Data Systems ...!tcnet!viper!dave
xrtnt@amarna.gsfc.nasa.gov (Nigel Tzeng) (12/13/90)
From: xrtnt@amarna.gsfc.nasa.gov (Nigel Tzeng) In article <1990Dec12.030935.9815@cbnews.att.com>, swilliam@dtoa1.dt.navy.mil (Williams) writes... ^ ^ ^From: swilliam@dtoa1.dt.navy.mil (Williams) ^ ^>>If not, how does a carrier battle group defend itself from incoming warheads? ^> ^>It doesn't. Nobody does. Everybody has very abruptly woken up to the ^>fact that such a capability would be a good idea. ^ ^Aircraft carriers have various "lines of defense" against anti-shipping ^missiles: ^ I believe that the previous posters meant ballistic type missiles. Hard to intercept when the things are comming straight down. The hard part for the shooter is finding out where the targets are and programming the missiles to get there in time. I also don't know of any "ballistic" type of missile with any sort of active terminal guidance. Any such weapon at this point would have to be nuclear to do much good. Of course this doesn't mean that someone won't (or hasn't) built a missile with multiple seeking warheads. If you can find the targets you can kill them from almost any distance. Interesting thought...a RORSTAT picks up a carrier group and gives the targeting info to a ICBM which launches and drops 10-20 warheads on it (assuming active terminal guidance that will find the carrier). How would you defend against that anyway? They could just be solid chunks of steel with some sort of seeker on it (back to the brilliant pebbles thingy). Would the launch window be long enough? The RORSAT will only cover that stretch of sea for x minutes. If we assume, say, a 20 min flight time would the position of the ships still be accurate enough to let the seekers find them? ^ First line of defense is about 300 miles from the aircraft carrier; ^ F-14 Tomcats shoot down bombers carrying missiles. Tomcats are ^ directed to enemy bombers by early warning aircrafts and ships. ^ ^ Second line of defense is about 100 miles from the aircraft carrier; ^ guided missile cruisers shoot down bombers carrying missiles. My impression is that the cruisers shoot down the incomming missiles rather than the bombers. The Soviets believe in big long range missiles (I think 250 nm for the Kingfish or whatever the thing is named?) that exceed the range of SAM coverage. I've seen articles that suggest that Tomcats (when unable to intercept the bombers for whatever reason) also serve as an intercept against missiles. ^ ^ Third, and last, line of defense is the CIWS (Close-In-Weapon-Systems) ^ installed on aircraft carriers (and also other capital ships). ^ CIWSs utilize Gatling machine guns to shoot down oncoming missiles. ^ ^Of course, the best defense is to destroy the airfields where the bombers ^are based. This is the strategy that Japan used in the Pearl Harbor ^attack; the first targets were the airfields. Hard to do...the range of the carrier based aircraft is much shorter than for Backfires. Also those bases are pretty well protected by SAMs, Migs and distance. Generally you hope to do enough damage to the incomming bomber force to make them a non-threat the next time around. You might get away with a TLAM attack that is so popular these days in stories and games but it is a risky venture. After all the multiple sub launches could be mistaken for a nuclear cruise missile attack...you'd never know until the first warheads hit. NT -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- // | Nigel Tzeng - STX Inc - NASA/GSFC COBE Project \X/ | xrtnt@amarna.gsfc.nasa.gov | Amiga | Standard Disclaimer Applies: The opinions expressed are my own.
arthur@Eng.Sun.COM (Arthur Leung) (12/13/90)
From: arthur@Eng.Sun.COM (Arthur Leung)
swilliam@dtoa1.dt.navy.mil (Williams) writes:
First line of defense is about 300 miles from the aircraft carrier;
F-14 Tomcats shoot down bombers carrying missiles. Tomcats are
directed to enemy bombers by early warning aircrafts and ships.
Second line of defense is about 100 miles from the aircraft carrier;
guided missile cruisers shoot down bombers carrying missiles.
Third, and last, line of defense is the CIWS (Close-In-Weapon-Systems)
installed on aircraft carriers (and also other capital ships).
CIWSs utilize Gatling machine guns to shoot down oncoming missiles.
there is one more layer between second and third for at least some
ships: NATO SeaSparrow and the new Rolling Airframe Missile (RAM).
the RAM has not been introduced yet (correct me if i'm wrong) to
fleet-wide service - does anyone know if it will be? also, is the
USN replacing SeaSparrow with CIWS (Phalanx)?
as long as the subject is up - what are the added capability of
barak missile under evaluation from israel? vertical launch?
thanks,
-- arthur
Disclaimer: if i knew anything, why would i be reading this newsgroup?tohall@mars.lerc.nasa.gov (Dave Hall (Sverdrup)) (12/13/90)
From: tohall@mars.lerc.nasa.gov (Dave Hall (Sverdrup)) In article <1990Dec12.030935.9815@cbnews.att.com>, swilliam@dtoa1.dt.navy.mil (Williams) writes... > > > installed on aircraft carriers (and also other capital ships). > CIWSs utilize Gatling machine guns to shoot down oncoming missiles. > My understanding is that most of the USN surface ships are being equiped with CIWS (also known as Phalanx).PI once interviewed with General Dynamics in Pomona CA, and got some interesting descriptions of the basic principles behind Phalanx. The ammunition is mostly standard (20 mm ?) with every 50th or so shell made of depleted Uranium to provide better tracking of outgoing trajectory. The rate of fire is phenomenal - something like 5000 rounds per min. The system employs 2 radars. One to track the incoming target, the other to track the outgoing bullets. The CIWS computer provides aiming to make the two trajectories intersect - presto! no more incoming target. Good in theory. Have there been any known cases where a ship was saved by CIWS? We know that the USS Stark did not have CIWS. My understanding is that ships in the Stark class have been retrofitted since then (this mod. was supposedly in work before the Stark disaster). Dave H.
malloy@nprdc.navy.mil (Sean Malloy) (12/14/90)
From: malloy@nprdc.navy.mil (Sean Malloy) In article <1990Dec12.030935.9815@cbnews.att.com> swilliam@dtoa1.dt.navy.mil (Williams) writes: >Aircraft carriers have various "lines of defense" against anti-shipping >missiles: > > First line of defense is about 300 miles from the aircraft carrier; > F-14 Tomcats shoot down bombers carrying missiles. Tomcats are > directed to enemy bombers by early warning aircrafts and ships. > > Second line of defense is about 100 miles from the aircraft carrier; > guided missile cruisers shoot down bombers carrying missiles. Second line of defense is about 100 miles from the aircraft carrier, where the SM2ER missiles launched from the CVBG can reach the missiles that the bombers started launching at about the time when the F-14s were intercepting them. Most of the ASMs that the Soviets would use against a carrier have ranges in the 250-300 nm range. [mod.note: I take it that in this case, "CVBG" means Aircraft Carrier Battle Group, not a new ship classification for "Large, Guided Missile- Armed Aircraft Carrier." - Bill ] The purpose of the F-14 screen at 300 miles is to a) shoot down incoming bombers before they can launch their missiles, and b) make the bombers launch before they can get in close enough to get a good target fix. Faced with a fully deployed air screen, there's no way in hell that the bomber pilots are going to go in another 200 miles against F-14 opposition just so that they can get shot at by the screening ships when their missiles will reach twice that far. Air-launched missile attacks against a battle group require large numbers of incoming missiles; because the BG knows they're coming, they can be ready to shoot as soon as the missiles come over the radar horizon (this is why the more modern an antiship missile is, the lower it flies; the radar horizon is closer, giving the BG less time to shoot at it). The principle is called 'rolling back defenses', and is based on the premise that if you can throw missiles at a target faster than it can launch missiles to knock them down, each successive intercept will be closer to the target, until a missile can reach the target before a SAM can be launched against it. > Third, and last, line of defense is the CIWS (Close-In-Weapon-Systems) > installed on aircraft carriers (and also other capital ships). > CIWSs utilize Gatling machine guns to shoot down oncoming missiles. Which eat ammunition like popcorn, and will run out of ammunition long before a _serious_ attempt to take out a carrier will run out of missiles. Sean Malloy | At any time, at any place, our Navy Personnel Research & Development Center | snipers can drop you. San Diego, CA 92152-6800 | Have a nice day. malloy@nprdc.navy.mil |
henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) (12/14/90)
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) >From: swilliam@dtoa1.dt.navy.mil (Williams) >>>If not, how does a carrier battle group defend itself from incoming warheads? >>It doesn't. Nobody does. Everybody has very abruptly woken up to the >>fact that such a capability would be a good idea. > >Aircraft carriers have various "lines of defense" against anti-shipping >missiles: The original question was about ballistic missiles, not cruise missiles. -- "The average pointer, statistically, |Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology points somewhere in X." -Hugh Redelmeier| henry@zoo.toronto.edu utzoo!henry
bobmcc@tcs.com (Bob McCormick) (12/14/90)
From: bobmcc@tcs.com (Bob McCormick) From: swilliam@dtoa1.dt.navy.mil (Williams) |> >>If not, how does a carrier battle group defend itself from incoming warheads? |> |> Aircraft carriers have various "lines of defense" against anti-shipping |> missiles: |> {description of defense zones deleted} Yes, the carriers have an elaborate system for defense againt anti-shipping missles, but these are usually air-launched or surface-launched (or sub-launched?) "medium-sized" missiles (my term). I think the original post concerned ballistic missiles, which are larger and launched from further away. Could a ballistic missile be accurately targetted at a ship convoy moving at 20-30 knots, even it it was travelling in a straight line? What is the set-up time for the missile targetting information? For example, if an airplane or small boat spotted a convoy, you could estimate the location of the convoy in the next hour or so, with a certain error, probability, which could be large. Could a missile be quickly re-programmed and fired in under an hour? Obviously, the missile could not be expected to hit the deck of a moving ship, i would think this scenario may be realistic only for nuclear-tipped missiles. Bob McCormick Teknekron Communications Systems bobmcc@tcs.com Berkeley, CA, USA
arrvid@hobbes.ncsu.edu (Arrvid Carlson) (12/15/90)
From: arrvid@hobbes.ncsu.edu (Arrvid Carlson) In article <1990Dec13.032732.18386@cbnews.att.com> xrtnt@amarna.gsfc.nasa.gov (Nigel Tzeng) writes: > >I believe that the previous posters meant ballistic type missiles. Hard to >intercept when the things are comming straight down. Wouldn't the rail/coil gun do this job quite nicely? <stuff deleted about lines of defense> >^ Third, and last, line of defense is the CIWS (Close-In-Weapon-Systems) >^ installed on aircraft carriers (and also other capital ships). >^ CIWSs utilize Gatling machine guns to shoot down oncoming missiles. Yes, but don't these only work against missles that come in "on the deck"? Sort of leaves you exposed to "death from above" don't it? -- /////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// // The future of the World depends on the creativity of todays people. // // arrvid@catt.ncsu.edu The Sword of Ragnorok // ///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
swilliam@dtoa1.dt.navy.mil (Williams) (12/15/90)
From: swilliam@dtoa1.dt.navy.mil (Williams) >Have there been any known cases where a ship was saved by CIWS? We >know that the USS Stark did not have CIWS. Correction: the USS Stark did have a CIWS when it was hit by an Exocet missile. The problem was that the CIWS was shut off out of fear that it might fire upon another ship that might come too near. Thus, a real opportunity to test the CIWS under real battle condition was lost. As far as I could remember, the Stark never had a chance to react to the missile even though a crewman on deck saw it coming just a few seconds before the impact.
conan@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Robert Faulkner) (12/15/90)
From: conan@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Robert Faulkner) >target. Good in theory. Have there been any known cases where a ship was >saved by CIWS? We know that the USS Stark did not have CIWS. My understanding >is that ships in the Stark class have been retrofitted since then (this >mod. was supposedly in work before the Stark disaster). The USS Stark does carry CWIS along with a 3 inch Gun and the ONE ARMED BANDIT Missile Firing System. I think you are a little mistake with your ship configurations. Along with all other PERRY class frigates the Stark was built with CWIS installed. The Crew did not have the Gun pplaced in a mode capable of aquiring and knocking the incoming missile (also known as Vampires, by sailors in training) down. -- Robert Faulkner conan@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu /// Recursion: Thinking \\\/// University of Texas about \\// Amiga Computers Thinking
conan@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Robert Faulkner) (12/15/90)
From: conan@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Robert Faulkner) > First line of defense is about 300 miles from the aircraft carrier; > F-14 Tomcats shoot down bombers carrying missiles. Tomcats are > directed to enemy bombers by early warning aircrafts and ships. Not all carriers fly the F-14, you are also looking at the F-18 and the Sea Harriers for the LHA and LHD class ships. Also, a serious threat is the LRM capability of the Soviet BEAR and BACKFIRES, which can strike from further out the 300 miles. And with todays radar and intelligence we would probably know when they were taking off from there home base. > Second line of defense is about 100 miles from the aircraft carrier; > guided missile cruisers shoot down bombers carrying missiles. Other class ships shoot down Aircraft, what about the KNOX and Perry Class Frigate along with several classes of Destroyers. And who is gonna knock out the SUB's who now can launch surface-surface anti-ship missiles. Third, and last, line of defense is the CIWS (Close-In-Weapon-Systems) installed on aircraft carriers (and also other capital ships). CIWSs utilize Gatling machine guns to shoot down oncoming missiles. There is also CHAF to prevent hits at the 200 yard range. I was just on the MIDWAY for 2 years and although we did have an alert 5 aircraft on deck and ready for strike (CAT LAUNCH) at anytime. The most available weapons platform was the LRM Missile coverage provided by the picket SHIPS. These are usually anywhere from 15 to 100 miles away from CV to provide missile ad aircraft coverage. You must remeber by the time you get the Alert aircraft launched, enemy weapons could already be fired. I am happy to reply to any enquiries. Robert G. Faulkner -- Robert Faulkner conan@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu /// Recursion: Thinking \\\/// University of Texas about \\// Amiga Computers Thinking
swilliam@dtoa1.dt.navy.mil (Williams) (12/15/90)
From: swilliam@dtoa1.dt.navy.mil (Williams) >My impression is that the cruisers shoot down the incomming missiles rather >than the bombers. I'm sure that it is a lot better, easier, and cheaper to shoot down a bomber carrying 1, 2, 3 or 4 missiles than to shoot down individual missiles. >>Of course, the best defense is to destroy the airfields where the bombers >>are based. This is the strategy that Japan used in the Pearl Harbor >>attack; the first targets were the airfields. > >Hard to do...the range of the carrier based aircraft is much shorter than for >Backfires. Yeah, and Pearl Harbor had B-17s and other bombers that had greater range than the Japanese carrier planes. The key here is the element of surprise. The Japanese achieved this. >Also those bases are pretty well protected by SAMs, Migs and distance. Yes, all of these makes it more difficult today. Yet, the Israeli had great success against the Syrian SAMs and MiGs a few years ago.
henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) (12/15/90)
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) >From: xrtnt@amarna.gsfc.nasa.gov (Nigel Tzeng) >... I also don't know of any "ballistic" type of missile with >any sort of active terminal guidance... The Pershing 2 had terminal guidance, actually, using a scene-matching system. And the guidance problems of attacking a warship are considerably easier than those of land attack, since the sea background is much simpler. There is some difficulty in doing this for really long-range missiles, however, because reentry velocities are high, which leads to dense plasma sheaths around the warhead and severe materials problems for windows. (Note: warheads and spacecraft are very different, because spacecraft work hard at decelerating at very high altitude where G-forces are manageable, while warheads try not to decelerate at all.) -- "The average pointer, statistically, |Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology points somewhere in X." -Hugh Redelmeier| henry@zoo.toronto.edu utzoo!henry
warack@dip.eecs.umich.edu (Christopher Warack) (12/15/90)
From: warack@dip.eecs.umich.edu (Christopher Warack) In article <1990Dec14.002807.27573@cbnews.att.com> bobmcc@tcs.com (Bob McCormick) writes: >From: bobmcc@tcs.com (Bob McCormick) >From: swilliam@dtoa1.dt.navy.mil (Williams) > >|> >>If not, how does a carrier battle group defend itself from incoming >warheads? >|> >|> Aircraft carriers have various "lines of defense" against anti-shipping >|> missiles: >|> > {description of defense zones deleted} > >Yes, the carriers have an elaborate system for defense againt anti-shipping >missles, but these are usually air-launched or surface-launched >(or sub-launched?) "medium-sized" missiles (my term). I think the original >post concerned ballistic missiles, which are larger and launched from >further away. > >Could a ballistic missile be accurately targetted at a ship convoy moving at >20-30 knots, even it it was travelling in a straight line? How about some blue sky here: stick a GPS receiver in it -- so it knows where it is; feed it a link from something like an AWACS or RORSAT that knows where the ship is; add maneuverability (and stir till thick :-). Still wouldn't be ultra-accurate given GPS errors at high speeds and any lag in a data link. Also, there would be ECM to contend with, maybe. Manueverable RV's are around (MARV's) but I don't know how much they can do. >What is the set-up time for the missile targetting information? >For example, if an airplane or small boat spotted a convoy, you could estimate >the location of the convoy in the next hour or so, with a certain error, >probability, which could be large. Could a missile be quickly re-programmed >and fired in under an hour? Theoretically, yes; given a big enough computer and a "hot link" to the ready missile. In reality, ???? >Obviously, the missile could not be expected to hit the deck of a moving >ship, i would think this scenario may be realistic only for >nuclear-tipped missiles. > >Bob McCormick Teknekron Communications Systems >bobmcc@tcs.com Berkeley, CA, USA Chris -- Christopher A. Warack warack@eecs.umich.edu Graduate Dept, EECS (313) 665-4789 University of Michigan
ab3o+@andrew.cmu.edu (Allan Bourdius) (12/17/90)
From: Allan Bourdius <ab3o+@andrew.cmu.edu>
>Not all carriers fly the F-14
The only US CV or CVN that doesn't carry the F-14 is the USS Midway
(CV-41)--it's deck is too small. Every other carrier from the USS
Forrestall upwards, is F-14 equipped.
Allanab3o+@andrew.cmu.edu (Allan Bourdius) (12/17/90)
From: Allan Bourdius <ab3o+@andrew.cmu.edu> >Other class ships shoot down Aircraft, what about the KNOX and Perry >Class Frigate along with several classes of Destroyers. And who is >gonna knock out the SUB's who now can launch surface-surface anti-ship >missiles. The Knox Class FF and the Spruance class DD are ASW ships only. The Perry Class FFG and the Charles F. Adams Class DDG are air-defense ships with a secondary (and very good) ASW mission. BTW, Current USN doctrine puts ASW as its top priority. The battle group's best defense against submarines are the 3-5 SSN's that are assigned to it... Allan
ab3o+@andrew.cmu.edu (Allan Bourdius) (12/17/90)
From: Allan Bourdius <ab3o+@andrew.cmu.edu> >That is the primary mission of the Aegis Cruisers. I have >heard that the USSR has similer capabilities although their >radar is not as capable. The Aegis system was designed to defend against cruise missiles and massed air attack. It has NO capability against ballistic missiles. >>If not, how does a carrier battle group defend itself from incoming warheads? >They also have the Phalanx point-defense guns as well as >air-to-air missiles (Phoenix) for long range defense. Ballistic missiles are not considered a threat to naval battle groups. Neither the CWIS (be it a Vulcan-Phalanx or a Goalkeeper) or the Phoenix has an anti-ballistic missile capability. The only weapon in the arsenal with a limited ABM capability is the Patriot. Allan ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- MIDN 3/C (PLC-JR) Allan Bourdius, Carnegie Mellon University NROTC "Come on you sons o'bitches, do you want to live forever?" ab3o+@andrew.cmu.edu The opinons expressed in this letter/posting do not, nor are they intended to, reflect the official policies/positions of DOD, DON, USMC, USN, NROTC, or CMU. Any information in this posting was obtained using unclassified material and/or personal intuition, analysis, or extrapolation.
megazone@wpi.WPI.EDU (MEGAZONE 23) (12/17/90)
From: megazone@wpi.WPI.EDU (MEGAZONE 23) In article <1990Dec13.032943.18680@cbnews.att.com> tohall@mars.lerc.nasa.gov (Dave Hall (Sverdrup)) writes: >saved by CIWS? We know that the USS Stark did not have CIWS. My understanding >is that ships in the Stark class have been retrofitted since then (this >mod. was supposedly in work before the Stark disaster). I thought the Stark DID have the CIWS, but that it was not activated. The System basically has off, stand-by, and on modes. It should be left in Stand-by when there is a chance of danger, radar needs to warm up. But in the case of the Stark it was 'off'. Does anyone remember for sure whether the Stark had CIWS or not? ############################################################################### # "Calling Garland operator 7G," EVE Email megazone@wpi.wpi.edu # # MEGAZONE, aka DAYTONA, aka BRIAN BIKOWICZ Bitnet Use a gateway. Sorry. # ###############################################################################
ntaib@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Nur Iskandar Taib) (12/17/90)
From: ntaib@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Nur Iskandar Taib)
>saved by CIWS? We know that the USS Stark did not have CIWS. My understanding
Hmm.. I though Stark did have a Phalanx
system, but only one and mounted at the
stern. The last maneuver the ship exe-
cuted before the missile hit was a sharp
turn to try to get the Phalanx gun into
firing position. They weren't fast enough.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Iskandar Taib | The only thing worse than Peach ala
Internet: NTAIB@AQUA.UCS.INDIANA.EDU | Frog is Frog ala Peach
Bitnet: NTAIB@IUBACS !jon@cs.washington.edu (Jon Jacky) (12/17/90)
From: jon@cs.washington.edu (Jon Jacky) tohall@mars.lerc.nasa.gov (Dave Hall (Sverdrup)) writes: > .... CIWS (is) also known as Phalanx .... Have there been any known cases > where a ship was saved by CIWS? > > We know that the USS Stark did not have CIWS. My understanding > is that ships in the Stark class have been retrofitted since then (this > mod. was supposedly in work before the Stark disaster). This is wrong. The Stark was equipped with Phalanx, which was never used during the incident in which it was struck by an Iraqi-launched French-made Exocet missile, resulting in much damage and many casualties. This was very widely reported and discussed. I remember news photos of the actual Phalanx turret on the Stark. There was a lot of questioning about why Phalanx was not used, since the Stark situation was exactly the situation that Phalanx was designed for. I vaguely recall something to the effect that the ship's superstructure was between the Phalanx turret and the incoming missile, and there wasn't enough time to bring the ship around. Surely some sci.military reader knows what the conclusion was. Or does "the Stark did not have..." comment refer just the CIWS electronics? - Jon Jacky, jon@gaffer.rad.washington.edu, University of Washington
ab3o+@andrew.cmu.edu (Allan Bourdius) (12/17/90)
From: Allan Bourdius <ab3o+@andrew.cmu.edu>
>also, is the USN replacing SeaSparrow with CIWS (Phalanx)?
In some cases, like the Knox class FF, Vulcan-Phalanx replaced Sea
Sparrow. In others, Spruance DD's, LPH's, LHA's, LCC's, and some
auxilliarys, Vulcan-Phalanx was just added.
I've heard talk about buying the VLS version of the UK's Sea Wolf to
replace Sea Sparrow as a point defense missile--it would take up less
space and cost less than the RAM.
Allan
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MIDN 3/C (PLC-JR) Allan Bourdius, Carnegie Mellon University NROTC
"Come on you sons o'bitches, do you want to live forever?" ab3o+@andrew.cmu.edu
The opinons expressed in this letter/posting do not, nor are they intended
to, reflect the official policies/positions of DOD, DON, USMC, USN, NROTC,
or CMU. Any information in this posting was obtained using unclassified
material and/or personal intuition, analysis, or extrapolation.ab3o+@andrew.cmu.edu (Allan Bourdius) (12/17/90)
From: Allan Bourdius <ab3o+@andrew.cmu.edu> >We know that the USS Stark did not have CIWS. My understanding >is that ships in the Stark class have been retrofitted since then (this >mod. was supposedly in work before the Stark disaster). All Perry (FFG-7) class frigates, including the USS Stark (FFG-31) were equipped with Vulcan-Phalanx from the dates of their commissionings. The Vulcan-Phalanx on the Stark was not turned on at the time of the Iraqi attack because the ship was not at General Quarters and the CIC watch officer did not believe that the vessel was under attack. If it's not turned on, it dosen't provide a very good defense ;-). Vulcan-Phalanx saw limited combat duty on the HMS Invincible during the 1982 Falklands conflict. I doubt if it ever had to fire on an incoming aircraft or cruise missile. Allan ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- MIDN 3/C (PLC-JR) Allan Bourdius, Carnegie Mellon University NROTC "Come on you sons o'bitches, do you want to live forever?" ab3o+@andrew.cmu.edu The opinons expressed in this letter/posting do not, nor are they intended to, reflect the official policies/positions of DOD, DON, USMC, USN, NROTC, or CMU. Any information in this posting was obtained using unclassified material and/or personal intuition, analysis, or extrapolation.
wcarroll@encore.encore.com (William Carroll) (12/18/90)
From: jake!wcarroll@encore.encore.com (William Carroll) >From arrvid@hobbes.ncsu.edu (Arrvid Carlson): > xrtnt@amarna.gsfc.nasa.gov (Nigel Tzeng) writes: > >> Third, and last, line of defense is the CIWS (Close-In-Weapon-Systems) >> installed on aircraft carriers (and also other capital ships). >> CIWSs utilize Gatling machine guns to shoot down oncoming missiles. > > Yes, but don't these only work against missles that come in "on the deck"? > Sort of leaves you exposed to "death from above" don't it? My impression was that the exact opposite was true. My brother has witnessed a number of Phalanx tests and from his accounts, they do the tests against targets at altitude because it does very well picking out targets silhouetted against the sky, but not so well picking out targets down on the deck. -- William R. Carroll (Encore Computer Corp., Ft. Lauderdale FL) wcarroll@encore.com uunet!gould!wcarroll "The brain-dead should not be allowed to operate motor vehicles!" - Me
d9bertil@dtek.chalmers.se (Bertil Jonell) (12/19/90)
From: d9bertil@dtek.chalmers.se (Bertil Jonell) In article <1990Dec17.050212.27963@cbnews.att.com> ab3o+@andrew.cmu.edu (Allan Bourdius) writes: >Ballistic missiles are not considered a threat to naval battle groups. >Neither the CWIS (be it a Vulcan-Phalanx or a Goalkeeper) or the Phoenix >has an anti-ballistic missile capability. To my knowledge, the two things that differentiates most SSM's and ballistic missiles are that ballistic missiles come in fast and from high elevations. But several SSM's are designed to come in from high elevations, for example those seaskimmers that use a final popup manuever or the various big russian anti shipping missiles who cruise at high altitude and make a steep dive towards the target. I would assume that the Phalanx is built to handle both those types, so the reason behind that it can't handle ballistic missiles must be their speed. Does anyone know how fast the warhead of a ballistic missile travel during the final phase? -bertil- -- "Words on the net aren't usually worth the paper they are written on."
cliffw%sequent.uucp@RELAY.CS.NET (Cliff White) (12/22/90)
From: Cliff White <cliffw%sequent.uucp@RELAY.CS.NET>
In article <1990Dec7.011307.474@cbnews.att.com> jtgorman@cs.arizona.edu (J. Taggart Gorman) writes:
%
%
%From: "J. Taggart Gorman" <jtgorman@cs.arizona.edu>
% With the potential threat of Iraq lobbing Scuds with chemical and
%biological warheads all over the Middle East, I was wondering what currently
%fielded weapons (defenses, take your pick) could shoot down an incoming
%warhead. I am talking battlefield systems here.
To rephrase the question:
As i recall, one of the reasons for accepting the ABM Treaty was the
difficulty of successfully intercepting a warhead in the terminal
part of the trajectory due to the high speeds and small targets
involved. The Air Force's Sprint system was nuclear tipped for this
reason (not a real practical system)
Is there a more recent, practical solution to this problem?
%Israelis occasionly rattle their saber with their tests of their ABM, but
%what else is there to do this job?
%If not, how does a carrier battle group defend itself from incoming warheads?
% Answers, anyone?
a couple more questions
how would the trajectory/speed of a IRBM compare with an ICBM?
(i'm talking over their respective normal ranges, of course)
-in the Gulf, is it possible for the US to 'see' the lanch of
a hypothetical Iraqi missle? Would it help any if they could?
%
%| John Taggart Gorman Jr. | "I'm a no rust build up man myself."
%| | -Christian Slater
%| jtgorman@caslon.cs.arizona.edu | in 'Heathers'
cliffw
--
cliffw
'If we can't fix it- we'll fix it so nobody can'- B. Gibbonsgeoffm@EBay.Sun.COM (Geoff Miller) (12/28/90)
From: geoffm@EBay.Sun.COM (Geoff Miller) In article <1990Dec17.044148.24866@cbnews.att.com> ab3o+@andrew.cmu.edu (Allan Bourdius) writes: >>Not all carriers fly the F-14 >The only US CV or CVN that doesn't carry the F-14 is the USS Midway >(CV-41)--it's deck is too small. Every other carrier from the USS >Forrestall upwards, is F-14 equipped. As I recall from newscasts during the Libya raid, the Saratoga (CV-60) also carries the F/A-18 instead of the F-14. I don't know whether the Saratoga is of the Forrestall class. Geoff -+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+- Geoff Miller + + + + + + + + Sun Microsystems geoffm@purplehaze.EBay.sun.com + + + + + + + + Milpitas, California -+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-