 |
| |
|
|
Patroklos
|
 |
Back home in good ole Norfolk VA
Dec 2001
time: 05:37
|
|
quote:
Patroklos, your justifications for safety are based on a similar attitude to what got our military (versus civilian administration) in trouble with Iraq - they did not assume that Saddam was also engaged in planning a defense based on OUR weaknesses. |
No, I am basing them off the most effective weapon Iran has to offer, and the only one they have a chance of employing against us in a suprise/overwhelming scenario; the C-802.
And Iran is the most potent threat, because it is the only potential enemy state where we have to operate within the range of their shore based batteries.
The first nation that tries to deliver its ordinance on a US carrier fleet via aircraft over open water will learn the hard way what being 20 years more advanced than the next challenger actually means.
quote:
So we are going to assume that the most recent Soviet/Russian missiles have a 50% failure rate? Maybe some old Styx would, but I have serious doubts that their brand new missiles are that unreliable. Any stats specifically mentioning SS-NX-26 Yakhonts or the SS-N-22 Sunburn? |
If we are going off of Russian equipment, then I would raise that number far higher than 50%. Just because it is designed well does not mean it is built or maintained well. And of course the most important component of any weapon system is the people. You don't sell expertise with the system, and Russian can barely train its own people (and that is a generous assesment).
Sunburns are amazing weapons, but in all reality an impractical one for most nations to use. The only method of delivery that would not be a write off as soon as it is deployed is shore based batteries which are.
a). large and immobile.
b). ergo survive a few hours to a day after hostilities begin before falling victims to cruise missle/air strikes.
SS-NX-26 Yakhonts are also decent weapons, but again there is no effective delivery system. You are basically relying on us to simply wander into range for no good reason, while leaving all the infrustructure required to fire them intact. I can think of very few things our Navy would have to get within 20nm of shore to do in the first stages of a real war.
Of note, the most advance new Chinese warships, which amount to a Oliver Hazard Perry class frigate with a radar upgrade, do not even use these missiles you guys are drooling over.
quote:
Again, which missiles are those numbers germane for? The Exocet, against it's contemporary defense systems, did very well. It sank the HMS Sheffield, and damaged the HMS Glamorgan even though it did not detonate. Also remember the USS Stark, and the fact that's it's radar never did pick up the Exocets - they weren't prepared, but if the Iranians launched, would they necessarily warn us, or would they try a surprise attack? |
All of them, and even more so against active homing missiles that include almost all the ones that are a threat to us (eg Sunburn).
I don't see how you can use the HMS Shefield and Glamorgan as a counter to the SLQ-32s effectivness, as they didn't have it. If anything it just shows why you need it.
And both those ships are 70's vintage. I am not suprised that an exocet defeated a vessel without effective point defense, no AEGIS, no SLQ-32, no radar absorbing design features, no VLS, etc.
I would imagine that the Sheffield, launched in 1970, is a little different than the USS McFAUL, launched in 1996.
And of course the only reason the Argentines even got a missile off is because the British did not have adequate air coverage, a consequense of decommisioning their full size air craft carriers, to get back on topic.
Does anyone here honestly think that Iran would get more than a handful of planes off the ground, let alone defeating the prolific naval and airforce presence to mount an attack on ships?
quote:
My point is that our Navy is going to operating in an increasingly hazardous environment, and now that the Soviets are selling those damn missiles (and the Chinese may well improve them, and/or mass produce them), we may get a Stinger-Afghanistan scenario thrown right back in our laps. Neither Putin nor the Chinese will cry over US Naval losses, and those might well be as devastating as binTravkin posits. |
There is indeed risk. However, the Iranian missile theat is similar to the Iraqi artillery threat in GWI. As soon as they turn on their radars that will be almost instantaneously jamed, followed by an airstrike a few minutes later.
quote:
Even the US Navy doesn't think the Phalanx is going to be that effective against those newer Soviet Missiles. |
You are right, CIWS is useless agains the Sunburn, as are SM-2s (jamming is not). However, those are not a realistic threat as of right now, the C-802 is. The SM-3 will be out soon enough to deal with the next genreation of Russian/Chinese crap.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
shawnmmcc
|
|
Patroklos - thanks for the response. You'll note I was very cautious to state the Iranians are attempting to aquire the two newer Russian systems. The problem is that we don't know how many, if any, they have for sure. To assume that the Iranians are not aware of our survelliance and are not actively attempting to circumvent it, very possibly successfully, is the height of folly. I sincerely hope our naval planners are not doing that.
If the Iranians launch a mixed force of C-802's AND a mix of Sunburns and Yakhonts, that could get really ugly. The problem is we are dealing with "gap" scenarios here, as in who has which defensive/offensive hole in their technology/deployment. Making a mistake in that kind of area can cause you to have substantial losses - like your assumption that the Iranians did not learn from Desert Storm and are now deploying their land-based anti-ship missiles from portable launchers.
The point about the British, and US losses, to anti-ship missiles was to make the point that, given the technology of the time, the anti-ship missiles have the upper hand. That has largely been the case over the last 40 years, I can pull you out analysis if you want. I will grant your point, and in fact I already did with my comments about the Silkworm/Styx, that our defenses will work well against the previous generation missiles.
But the current generation missiles will almost always have an advantage, due to the nature of missiles versus countermeasures, cost issues, etc. My cautionary statement consists of the fact the Iranians are very actively trying to aquire them (the Russians even did demonstartions for them back in - I'd have to check, I think 2002 or 2003.) Can you say $60-$90 barrel oil?
Look at my sig. The Mullahs ARE going to do everything they can to aquire them, and they have the cash. To assume they do not have any, and will not soon have substantial numbers, is the height of folly. I agree with you that the chances are that they will not be maintained well, may not have been manufactured well, etc. But the problem is - chances. If we intervene and the analysis is wrong, you or Lonestar could end up dead. I really don't want to read that kind of headline in the near future.
Lastly, I didn't talk about the newest Chinese destroyers, I specifically am talking about their aquisition of Russian Sovremenny class ships, and the new advanced versions. The Chinese are probably reverse engineering the first ones right now. As I stated, and showed evidence, they have an excellent record in reverse engineering hardware, as in the HY-2 Silkworm actually outperforms the SS-N-2c Styx - both of which are based off the SS-N-2b Styx.
My entire point is that there are now enough variables to make operating in the Red Sea one of the riskiest naval environments in the world, if not THE riskiest. Do I believe, IMHO, that we have the edge? Absolutely. Do I believe that we could operate loss free against the Iranians - as in no hulls being destroyed? That is very much open to doubt. Do I believe that we would take horrendous losses, and it would be a bloodbath? Unlikely. But my point is unlikely does not equal it will not happen - and I don't want other people burying their family members unless it is conclusively warranted, as in Afghanistan harboring Osama bin Laden after it became obvious he had masterminded 9/11.
For that we don't need the current number of Carrier Groups. The current high levels of US military overseas deployment are due to meddling, the newest version of "white man's burden" - "We will spread democracy in the Middle East", and foreign adventurism. I would much rather you were at home helping American businesses compete abroad, IMHO that has been the major area of world conflict since call in the Korean WAR - economic. In that area we are not doing nearly as well. And if your economy slides while you are attempting to maintain Superpower status - look at the Soviet Union and the British Empire. What, you cannot because neither exists as a Superpower anymore! Exactly.
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:37.
Apolyton Time is 00:37. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
25-08-2005 18:27
|