Sea Jet
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: A Brit in Fort Worth, Texas
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Navaleye,
True, but what I was trying to comment on was the statement
"I see your point about missiles wandering around the sky choosing their own target. Less of a problem with asraam though which is largely WVR"
Why is ASRAAM less of a problem? at what range do you change from WVR to BVR.
True, but what I was trying to comment on was the statement
"I see your point about missiles wandering around the sky choosing their own target. Less of a problem with asraam though which is largely WVR"
Why is ASRAAM less of a problem? at what range do you change from WVR to BVR.
Suspicion breeds confidence
Lets use some public domain reference points - Ward's Sea Harrier over the Falklands (sorry Fidae - but have to admit its about the most up to date 
). He quotes about 4 miles (depends on the size and aspect of the target of course). I know asraam has a significantly longer range than that.
Over to you...
). He quotes about 4 miles (depends on the size and aspect of the target of course). I know asraam has a significantly longer range than that.Over to you...
Last edited by Navaleye; 1st Oct 2004 at 12:44.
Surely if you can not see it, you cannot shoot it. Some aircraft are harder to see head on than others, so what is visual range when dealing with aircraft x, might be beyond the limit of the Mk1 eyeball for another type..........
In case you're interested, the deployment of Invincible and her aircraft to the Med is so that they take part in the NATO Exercise Destined Glory 04. See here for more details.
Are our allies trying to tell us something?
In case you're interested, the deployment of Invincible and her aircraft to the Med is so that they take part in the NATO Exercise Destined Glory 04. See here for more details.
Are our allies trying to tell us something?
Join Date: May 2002
Location: fife
Posts: 41
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hey,
Some good reasoned arguements for once.....got to say that I believe proper WVR to be inside 0,5nm. Please don't get me wrong I'm not saying that a non-radar equipped ac with reasonable data could not fire outside that range and kill but if it's a real shooting war he has get that close to confirm a positive ID of "hostile". I regret to say I've seen too many people ID "hostile" at ranges outside 0,5nm and get its wrong. If you're going to fire on a bandit outside positive VID range without a radar you have got to be mega high risk or a cowboy.
Some good reasoned arguements for once.....got to say that I believe proper WVR to be inside 0,5nm. Please don't get me wrong I'm not saying that a non-radar equipped ac with reasonable data could not fire outside that range and kill but if it's a real shooting war he has get that close to confirm a positive ID of "hostile". I regret to say I've seen too many people ID "hostile" at ranges outside 0,5nm and get its wrong. If you're going to fire on a bandit outside positive VID range without a radar you have got to be mega high risk or a cowboy.
Suspicion breeds confidence
Fidae, fair point in the FI, the Shar pilots could engage anything that had a delta wing knowing it to be hostile - and had radar to guide them to it. Fleet air defence with the GR7/9 has taken us back to the 1950s. Why not bring back the Sea Venom? Oops I think that had a radar... what about the Vampire? That had 4 20mm guns. Features lacking in our new fleet defender. Well done the MoD.
Last edited by Navaleye; 2nd Oct 2004 at 10:37.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Lincs
Posts: 453
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you're going to fire on a bandit outside positive VID range without a radar you have got to be mega high risk or a cowboy.
Regards,
M2
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Stoke
Posts: 112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
According to the MBDA website, the seeker head of the ASRAAM can be used as an IRST (how pilots much long for the days of cooling the seeker heads on their Red Tops!) but I couldn't find out how it displayed data to the pilot or how detailed such information would be. I assume it's an imaging IR seeker on ASRAAM so could it be used to visually ID an unkown contact beyond "human" visual range?
.
.
Last edited by Pureteenlard; 2nd Oct 2004 at 12:54.
Suspicion breeds confidence
The IRST display would come with the full ASRAAM integration which the GR7/9 won't now get. Full integration, with SKW support would make the GR9 much more useful as an air to air platform. Anyone care to comment?
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Stoke
Posts: 112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Having done a little more research, I've found that the resolution of the ASRAAM seeker is 128 x 128 pixels - I would think that it's not high enough to give a useful visual recognition picture.
Navaleye, I'm pretty sure that the Black Buck chaps would have expected rather higher standards of a/c recognition from the Shar mates in the Malvinas war.....
Suspicion breeds confidence
True, but the Crabs only came out at night on pre-determined flight plans when the fleet was at weapons tight. So little or no risk to them. There was a near blue on blue between Ward and Mortimer and a flight of GR3s however. Close call by all accounts.
Last edited by Navaleye; 3rd Oct 2004 at 18:10.
Going back to an earlier point..........
Radars that are used in an air to surface role, for weapon targeting etc are not necessarily any good in an air to air role. An example is/was the Agave radar fitted to Exocet carrying aircraft like the Super Etendard.
If facing aircraft armed with anti ship missiles (which lots of nations have) the issue wouldn't be their radar, but keeping them out of firing range of your own forces. The only type of system that can do effectively is a carrierborne fighter, which may help explain why carriers and shipborne fighters are so popular with up and coming Navies.
Missiles can of course be launched from airborne platforms other than fast jets, namely Maritime Patrol Aircraft and helicopters. A number of helicopter types have been designed or modified to carry anti ship missiles. Some of these belong to nations that are less than 100% friendly. A couple of years ago there was an article in one of the defence/aviation publications that the Argentine Navy was converting a number of S61s (?) to carry Exocet, and base them on supply vessels, to make up for the fact that they no longer have a carrier of their own.
Helicopters do not need a runway, and therefore may pose a significant danger. Shipborne ones, used offensively, could pose a very serious hazard to our forces.
Some missiles are smaller, and therefore less dangerous, but may pose a threat still. As far as I know, the first anti ship missiles carried by Western helicopters were developed from wire guided anti tank missiles. Therefore a desperate enemy could use anti tank missiles from anti armour helicopters. Whilst this would probably result in very little damage and getting shot down if done against a warship, they could harass or damage unarmed merchant vessels. and such an attack would be particularly lethal against landing craft.
Radars that are used in an air to surface role, for weapon targeting etc are not necessarily any good in an air to air role. An example is/was the Agave radar fitted to Exocet carrying aircraft like the Super Etendard.
If facing aircraft armed with anti ship missiles (which lots of nations have) the issue wouldn't be their radar, but keeping them out of firing range of your own forces. The only type of system that can do effectively is a carrierborne fighter, which may help explain why carriers and shipborne fighters are so popular with up and coming Navies.
Missiles can of course be launched from airborne platforms other than fast jets, namely Maritime Patrol Aircraft and helicopters. A number of helicopter types have been designed or modified to carry anti ship missiles. Some of these belong to nations that are less than 100% friendly. A couple of years ago there was an article in one of the defence/aviation publications that the Argentine Navy was converting a number of S61s (?) to carry Exocet, and base them on supply vessels, to make up for the fact that they no longer have a carrier of their own.
Helicopters do not need a runway, and therefore may pose a significant danger. Shipborne ones, used offensively, could pose a very serious hazard to our forces.
Some missiles are smaller, and therefore less dangerous, but may pose a threat still. As far as I know, the first anti ship missiles carried by Western helicopters were developed from wire guided anti tank missiles. Therefore a desperate enemy could use anti tank missiles from anti armour helicopters. Whilst this would probably result in very little damage and getting shot down if done against a warship, they could harass or damage unarmed merchant vessels. and such an attack would be particularly lethal against landing craft.
Suspicion breeds confidence
If facing aircraft armed with anti ship missiles (which lots of nations have) the issue wouldn't be their radar, but keeping them out of firing range of your own forces. The only type of system that can do effectively is a carrierborne fighter, which may help explain why carriers and shipborne fighters are so popular with up and coming Navies
Last edited by Navaleye; 5th Oct 2004 at 10:36.
When is the T45 coming into service?
48 shots? Is that what the T45 wll have? I do know it will have a vertical launch system, unlike the Sea Dart system which only has two missiles ready to go at any one time, which makes me wonder about what would happen if it faced a salvo attack........
By the way, when the Argentines launched Exocet attacks against the task force did they have to come inside Sea Dart range? Ignore low flying and lobe pecking for the moment.
I don't know of any shipborne anti air missile that has a range comparable with a fighter.
48 shots? Is that what the T45 wll have? I do know it will have a vertical launch system, unlike the Sea Dart system which only has two missiles ready to go at any one time, which makes me wonder about what would happen if it faced a salvo attack........
By the way, when the Argentines launched Exocet attacks against the task force did they have to come inside Sea Dart range? Ignore low flying and lobe pecking for the moment.
I don't know of any shipborne anti air missile that has a range comparable with a fighter.
Suspicion breeds confidence
The T45 will be a much more capable anti-air vessel than the venerable T42. It will have a 48 cell VLS (sadly incapable of taking Tomahawk) and a combat system capable of taking out multiple threats below the traditional radar horizon courtesy of CEC and active missiles. One T45 in a battlegroup I would judge has the anti-air capability of three T42s. It still can't be in three places at once though and it won't be here till 2008.
They only flew at low level within 150 miles of task force. They were briefly detectable during the pop-ups, particularly the last one. However you have to realise that by the time it takes Sea Dart to get to that point in space 20nm away (assuming you can react quick enough to get a shot off and assuming your systems consider it a viable target - both unlikley btw), the Super E would have launched its missile and legged it. Having remained totally immune from anything but a Sea Harrier during the entire attack.
I hear the RN has cut back on life firing exercises for the T42s due to the age of the launchers and shortage of spares when they break down - usually after live firing exercises.
The Russians have a very long range weapon. I forget the name now. I think it brought down an airliner over the black sea a few years back. It makes the point that range without accurate guidance is worthless.
By the way, when the Argentines launched Exocet attacks against the task force did they have to come inside Sea Dart range? Ignore low flying and lobe pecking for the moment.
I hear the RN has cut back on life firing exercises for the T42s due to the age of the launchers and shortage of spares when they break down - usually after live firing exercises.
I don't know of any shipborne anti air missile that has a range comparable with a fighter.
Last edited by Navaleye; 6th Oct 2004 at 14:13.
They were briefly detectable during the pop-ups, particularly the last one. However you have to realise that by the time it takes Sea Dart to get to that point in space 20nm away .......
If the AEW Sea King had been in service - and they speed and position fed to the ship, what then? This is relevent as shipborne sensors have limitations due to antenna height.
I know Sea Dart can be fired unguided in a real brown trousers situation, but is this only in the surface to surface role or can it be done in an anti air mode - with data from external sources being used to ensure the right bit of sky is illuminated ready for the aircraft popping up?
If the AEW Sea King had been in service - and they speed and position fed to the ship, what then? This is relevent as shipborne sensors have limitations due to antenna height.
I know Sea Dart can be fired unguided in a real brown trousers situation, but is this only in the surface to surface role or can it be done in an anti air mode - with data from external sources being used to ensure the right bit of sky is illuminated ready for the aircraft popping up?
Suspicion breeds confidence
SA-5, that's the one.
Webf are we talking 1982 or now?
In 1982 Shars would have done the job. Now we have a situation where the Sea Dart system is being used to counter threats outside its design parameters.
It has limited low level capabilities, which disminish further with range. In a pop-up scenario you would most likely not have time for a 909 to get a lock on. Even if you did, the RWR detector on the a/c would alert the pilot and all he would have to do is lose height to break lock. Basic training stuff almost.
You can fire Sea Dart in an emergency (unguided) mode, but that gets you a £250k firework. No other radar AFAIK is capable of providing illumination for Sea Dart. So if the 909 can't see it, you can shoot it.
There has been lots of speculation about the adimp mods for Sea Dart and whether or not it now has an auto-pilot to allow time sharing of directors. Somehow I doubt it. Even if you had it you had it and got a bird in the air the attacking pilot would have to be very cooperative by flying straight and level at over a certain height to have a chance of a hit when your missile is almost out of energy. They are trained to do the opposite of course.
Webf are we talking 1982 or now?
In 1982 Shars would have done the job. Now we have a situation where the Sea Dart system is being used to counter threats outside its design parameters.
It has limited low level capabilities, which disminish further with range. In a pop-up scenario you would most likely not have time for a 909 to get a lock on. Even if you did, the RWR detector on the a/c would alert the pilot and all he would have to do is lose height to break lock. Basic training stuff almost.
You can fire Sea Dart in an emergency (unguided) mode, but that gets you a £250k firework. No other radar AFAIK is capable of providing illumination for Sea Dart. So if the 909 can't see it, you can shoot it.
There has been lots of speculation about the adimp mods for Sea Dart and whether or not it now has an auto-pilot to allow time sharing of directors. Somehow I doubt it. Even if you had it you had it and got a bird in the air the attacking pilot would have to be very cooperative by flying straight and level at over a certain height to have a chance of a hit when your missile is almost out of energy. They are trained to do the opposite of course.
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: somewhere quite near Brize Norton
Posts: 36
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I note in Air Forces Monthly that the Argentine AF is looking to replace its Daggers etc. with ex-FAF Mirage 2000's - starts to get interesting . . but I agree GR9+AEW & good old SA+tactics always wins the day.
My deepest respect to everyone involved with the Harrier - it is and always will be a fantastic aircraft.
ps. JF - nice rusks!
My deepest respect to everyone involved with the Harrier - it is and always will be a fantastic aircraft.
ps. JF - nice rusks!
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Lincs
Posts: 453
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Chaps,
Firstly, the old SA-5 is only land based. Although it is still one of the longest ranged SAMS around, it's big, static and an ideal target for night one of a war.
Scariest Russian naval SAM (Kipper/Bucc guys, feel free to correct me) is probably the SA-N-6 Grumble which is basically a variant of the superb land based SA-10 mounted on the Kirov and Slava classes. SA-N-6 has an (open source) range of 45nm.
The most capable naval SAM right now is undoubtedly the USN SM2ERs fitted to AEGIS Tikes and Arleigh Burkes which has a VERY impressive range. Unfortunately, I can't find any open sources with an unclass range. Shame we're not sticking SM2ER on the T45 rather than the wimpy little ASTERs.
As for CEC, it's not quite the panacea that it may appear. I'm sure that the Spams will keep throwing money at it until it works. However, it has some major technical obstacles and none of the other US services are planning to adopt it which raises some interoperability issues. I assume that they'll have to gateway CEC onto JTIDS/NCCT for everyone else.
Regards,
M2
I don't know of any shipborne anti air missile that has a range comparable with a fighter.
Scariest Russian naval SAM (Kipper/Bucc guys, feel free to correct me) is probably the SA-N-6 Grumble which is basically a variant of the superb land based SA-10 mounted on the Kirov and Slava classes. SA-N-6 has an (open source) range of 45nm.
The most capable naval SAM right now is undoubtedly the USN SM2ERs fitted to AEGIS Tikes and Arleigh Burkes which has a VERY impressive range. Unfortunately, I can't find any open sources with an unclass range. Shame we're not sticking SM2ER on the T45 rather than the wimpy little ASTERs.
As for CEC, it's not quite the panacea that it may appear. I'm sure that the Spams will keep throwing money at it until it works. However, it has some major technical obstacles and none of the other US services are planning to adopt it which raises some interoperability issues. I assume that they'll have to gateway CEC onto JTIDS/NCCT for everyone else.
Regards,
M2