tek@CS.UCLA.EDU (05/20/89)
From: tek@CS.UCLA.EDU Upon reading the description of Operation Praying Mantis (the retaliatory action against Iranian oil platforms and the ensuing naval battles) in the USNI Naval Review, some questions came to mind. In that encounter, the Iranian ship PTG Joshan launched a HARPOON at a force of three USN ships steaming line abreast 13nm away. Chaff was launched. A helo also attempted to decoy the missile. The HARPOON passed close by the starboard side of USS Wainwright. Joshan was disabled and eventually sunk by return fire which included a HARPOON and SM2s in surface to surface mode. The magazine says the Joshan's HARPOON may have failed to guide properly. Is it possible, that HARPOON reliability is not too good? (The Joshan's missile was probably the earliest version. Apparently, a few HARPOONs got to Iran before the Shah fell.) I suppose, it is possible the Iranians did not properly maintain their equipment. The magazine does not really say if the helo or the chaff did any good or if ECM was employed. While the Joshan really had no chance, it still seems to me that the Wainwright crew was pretty lucky too. If the Joshan's HARPOON had guided properly, I wonder what would have happened. You would think the SM2s (which is supposed to have some sea-skimmer capability) maybe should have been fired at the HARPOON, instead of the Joshan. I wonder if SM2s were on the rails ready to go and the weapon director was in anti-air mode. I wonder if the USN ships had their Phalanx on. I also wonder about their orientation to the Joshan. I think the Wainwright's Phalanx guns point to the starboard and port sides. Another ship in the force (OH Perry class) has its one Phalanx mounted facing the aft arc. If they were going line abreast, someone was probably out of position. Given their range, they would not be able to turn in time to correct their firing arcs. Somebody had a lucky rabbit's foot. Ted Kim ARPAnet: tek@penzance.cs.ucla.edu UCLA Computer Science Department UUCP: ...!ucbvax!cs.ucla.edu!tek 3804C Boelter Hall PHONE: (213) 206-8696 Los Angeles, CA 90024 ESPnet: tek@ouija.board
tek@CS.UCLA.EDU (Ted Kim (ATW)) (05/23/89)
From: tek@CS.UCLA.EDU (Ted Kim (ATW)) Just an addendum to my own article: It seems I read things wrong. The Joshan was hit by SM1s (not SM2s) in surface-to-surface mode. But the Wainwright is also SM2 equipped. So you might ask, why were SM1s ready, but not SM2s? (when the target had potential sea-skimmer ASM capability). Some additional info, the US Force consisted of: Surface Action Group Charlie USS Wainwright (CG-28) (Belknap class) USS Bagley (FF-1069) (Garcia class) w/ a SH-2F USS Simpson (FFG-56) (OH Perry class) w/ a SH-60B and a UH-60 The Bagley apparently also has its Phalanx mounted facing the aft. Does anyone know why all the US frigates seem to have the Phalanx pointing towards the aft? It seems that might complicates things. You have to keep turning the ship around, whenever you want your CIWS to bear. Ted Kim ARPAnet: tek@penzance.cs.ucla.edu UCLA Computer Science Department UUCP: ...!ucbvax!cs.ucla.edu!tek 3804C Boelter Hall PHONE: (213) 206-8696 Los Angeles, CA 90024 ESPnet: tek@ouija.board
brianb@bu-cs.bu.edu (Brian Bresnahan) (05/24/89)
From: bucsb!brianb@bu-cs.bu.edu (Brian Bresnahan) I have combined the authors 2 articles into 1, so I could reply to both at the same time. +ARTICLE 1+ :From: tek@CS.UCLA.EDU : :Upon reading the description of Operation Praying Mantis (the :retaliatory action against Iranian oil platforms and the ensuing naval :battles) in the USNI Naval Review, some questions came to mind. : :In that encounter, the Iranian ship PTG Joshan launched a HARPOON at a :force of three USN ships steaming line abreast 13nm away. Chaff was :launched. A helo also attempted to decoy the missile. The HARPOON :passed close by the starboard side of USS Wainwright. Joshan was :disabled and eventually sunk by return fire which included a HARPOON :and SM2s in surface to surface mode. What distance is close? What was the range, what was the distance from the US ships to each other, and what was the range to the Iranian ship measured from? :The magazine says the Joshan's HARPOON may have failed to guide :properly. Is it possible, that HARPOON reliability is not too good? :(The Joshan's missile was probably the earliest version. Apparently, a :few HARPOONs got to Iran before the Shah fell.) I suppose, it is :possible the Iranians did not properly maintain their equipment. The :magazine does not really say if the helo or the chaff did any good or :if ECM was employed. While the Joshan really had no chance, it still :seems to me that the Wainwright crew was pretty lucky too. : I will have to go and take a look at the article myself. I am comment ig on your observations, without know all the details. :If the Joshan's HARPOON had guided properly, I wonder what would have :happened. You would think the SM2s (which is supposed to have some :sea-skimmer capability) maybe should have been fired at the HARPOON, :instead of the Joshan. I wonder if SM2s were on the rails ready to go :and the weapon director was in anti-air mode. :I wonder if the USN ships had their Phalanx on. I also wonder about :their orientation to the Joshan. I think the Wainwright's Phalanx guns :point to the starboard and port sides. Another ship in the force (OH :Perry class) has its one Phalanx mounted facing the aft arc. If they :were going line abreast, someone was probably out of position. Given :their range, they would not be able to turn in time to correct their :firing arcs. Somebody had a lucky rabbit's foot. The Phalanx, was only designed to be fired at missiled targeted at you. It would not be used for missiles going at another ships, since the gun has the potential to damage the ship. Also the hardware inside the CIWS was made to fire at a missile coming at you. I have also heard stories of ships leaving the Phalanx off while firing, since the gun is not very good at discriminating targets. +ARTICLE 2+ :From: tek@CS.UCLA.EDU (Ted Kim (ATW)) : :Just an addendum to my own article: : :It seems I read things wrong. The Joshan was hit by SM1s (not SM2s) in :surface-to-surface mode. But the Wainwright is also SM2 equipped. So you might :ask, why were SM1s ready, but not SM2s? (when the target had potential :sea-skimmer ASM capability). : Where did you get the information that says that the Wainwright has SM2 missiles, the last editions of Janes and other naval guides that I have seen indicate that the Belknap class are currently equiped with SM1 and not SM2. Also many of the advanced features of the SM2 are for use with AEGIS equipped ships. I do not think that the weapons directors(for the missiles that is) on that ship would be capable of tracking a seaskimmer effectively. The systems on that ship were originally designed to handle Talos and Tartar missiles and while upgraded, are not truly modern. :Some additional info, the US Force consisted of: : : Surface Action Group Charlie :USS Wainwright (CG-28) (Belknap class) :USS Bagley (FF-1069) (Garcia class) w/ a SH-2F :USS Simpson (FFG-56) (OH Perry class) w/ a SH-60B and a UH-60 : :The Bagley apparently also has its Phalanx mounted facing the aft. :Does anyone know why all the US frigates seem to have the Phalanx pointing :towards the aft? It seems that might complicates things. You have to :keep turning the ship around, whenever you want your CIWS to bear. The CIWS is in the rear, because the main gun of the ship is in the front. The gun can be fired at bow-on targets, the CIWS at Stern-on targets, and both can be fired at port and starboard targets. ---------------------------------------------------------- Brian Bresnahan brianb@bucsf.bu.edu engf0ic@BUACCA.bu.edu
tek@CS.UCLA.EDU (Ted Kim (ATW)) (05/25/89)
From: tek@CS.UCLA.EDU (Ted Kim (ATW)) In article <6843@cbnews.ATT.COM> bucsb!brianb@bu-cs.bu.edu (Brian Bresnahan) writes: >: ... >:The HARPOON passed close by the starboard side of USS Wainwright. >: ... > >What distance is close? What was the range, what was the distance >from the US ships to each other, and what was the range to the >Iranian ship measured from? All of this information is unspecified in the article. > ... >The Phalanx, was only designed to be fired at missiled targeted at you. >It would not be used for missiles going at another ships, since the >gun has the potential to damage the [other] ship. I suppose I was unclear here. I meant suppose the HARPOON had guided. Were the SAG Charlie ships ready to defend themselves from an attack? I did not mean to say that I was disappointed that the Phalanx did not shoot down a close by missile heading no where in particular. > ... >Where did you get the information that says that the Wainwright has SM2 >missiles, the last editions of Janes and other naval guides that I >have seen indicate that the Belknap class are currently equiped with >SM1 and not SM2. The article (which was written by one of the surface force commanders in Operation Praying Mantis) stated that the Wainwright is SM2 equipped. Also according to the article, the Wainwright fired SM2s later at an Iranian F-4 and scored hits, though did not shoot it down. > ... >Also many of the advanced features of the SM2 are >for use with AEGIS equipped ships. I do not think that the weapons >directors(for the missiles that is) on that ship would be capable of >tracking a seaskimmer effectively. The systems on that ship were >originally designed to handle Talos and Tartar missiles and while >upgraded, are not truly modern. This is certainly possible. I think Belknap CGs use SPG-55 directors instead of SPG-60 or SPG-62 to guide the SM2s. It's also possible the supporting CIC electronics are not up to par with more recent stuff. > ... >The CIWS is in the rear, because the main gun of the ship is in >the front. The gun can be fired at bow-on targets, the CIWS at >Stern-on targets, and both can be fired at port and starboard targets. I received another reply from someone from the Navy. It stated that the CIWS placement was mostly due to design tradeoffs with the limited space on board. But he noted that the rear mountings have a very wide field of fire. Thus, it is possible that it can cover an oblique approach to forward quarter targets. Ted Kim ARPAnet: tek@penzance.cs.ucla.edu UCLA Computer Science Department UUCP: ...!ucbvax!cs.ucla.edu!tek 3804C Boelter Hall PHONE: (213) 206-8696 Los Angeles, CA 90024 ESPnet: tek@ouija.board