NATO Sea Sparrow's capability against supersonic targets?

No mention of farts or IQs or lacking clues or braincell counts. It is called repect. He is treating me with respect and in return he has earned my respect.
In future I am more likely to listen to his opinions or views than say for someone I don’t respect…

Farts? Apparently the term “talking out of your ass” means something different in New Zealand than it does in the US. As far as respect if you want it I suppose you need to deserve it. Why would anybody respect an individual who freely admits to know little if anything about Western systems yet is right there at the front of the line to offer up criticism? Nobody cares if you hate western systems. Nobody cares if you know anything about them. However if you’re going to criticize something at least know what you’re talking about or you pretty much end up looking like a joke. Kinda hard to respect a joke.

If someone were to ask which is better an SS-18 or a Peacekeeper then yeah, you ought to know both sides if you want anybody but the newest of newbies to take you seriously. That would be self-evident to anyone with more than two brain cells firing.

This is a discussion group. If something stupid like “who has the best ICBM” thread pops up and someone asks about Soviet and Russian ICBMs I guess then I cannot enter that discussion as I don’t have an encyclopaedic knowledge of US, French, Chinese, etc ICBMs according to your opinion. Fortunately for me you have nothing to do with making the rules here so I care very little about what you think.

Sometimes I am wrong, sometimes I am mistaken, sometimes I am right about things. I really don’t care whether other people here, newbies or not believe anything I say or agree with any of my opinions. This isn’t high school. There is no “cool” here.

Whatever makes you feel better Garry

It is not about making me feel better. It is about intelligent conversation with people with some knowledge in the fields I am interested in, in an environment where comments like:

That would be self-evident to anyone with more than two brain cells firing.

Otherwise people are liable to think you’re a self-important blow-hard.

In other words “talking out my ass and don’t care who knows it”.

…are few and far between.

Danrh and I also disagree on many things regarding politics and other things… our interests are not exactly similar, but he is able to remain civil even when my comments quite clearly frustrate him:

Sigh! Okay then this really has nothing to do with the original topic so I’ll leave it alone. Should have known better than to get involved. Its interesting that care/don’t care threshhold for Western systems seems to coincide almost exactly with the “winning”/”losing” threshhold of an argument.

No personal insults. No mention of farts or IQs or lacking clues or braincell counts. It is called repect. He is treating me with respect and in return he has earned my respect.
In future I am more likely to listen to his opinions or views than say for someone I don’t respect…

You get very emotional don’t you!
Another reason not to have serious discussions with you.

Whatever makes you feel better Garry :rolleyes:

So anyone not interested in Soviet equipment can be ignored too? Yeah right… that is how it works… someone comes up with a question and only those who know everything about the topic… FROM BOTH SIDES… is the only person that replies. :rolleyes:

If someone asks how much an S-300V weighs or how much ammo an M-1 carries then obviously one doesn’t need to know BOTH sides. If someone were to ask which is better an SS-18 or a Peacekeeper then yeah, you ought to know both sides if you want anybody but the newest of newbies to take you seriously. That would be self-evident to anyone with more than two brain cells firing.

Okay then this really has nothing to do with the original topic so I’ll leave it alone.

Well I can understand you following up my comments… I mean they were inflamatory and just down right unecessary… I mean … look at them… I’ll even repeat them here so you can clearly see my wonton need for an arguement…

50 g manouver capability is only useful against subsonic targets. Supersonic targets that need to be intercepted by a weapon capable of pulling 50gs will only happen if you have very poor tracking information and need extra manouverability to make up for it…

I would expect it would be perfrectly capable of shooting down fighterbomber type aircaft at medium to high altitude, like most other medium sized AAM converted to the SAM role. Against a low flying small supersonic target is where many systems have problems.

Then I answered a few questions and then made the terrible mistake of saying:

Chapparal isn’t a wonderful system either. Perhaps it is a case that they rely on their air superiority too much?

Which was pounced upon, and meticulously ripped apart.

Its interesting that care/don’t care threshhold for Western systems seems to coincide almost exactly with the “winning”/”losing” threshhold of an argument.

No. It coincides with arguements by people who are just looking for arguements. For some the cold war isn’t over and they are still fighting the good fight. You might have time to debate for hours on topics you weren’t interested in till the discussion started, but I am not. I don’t care about the US’s armed forces… I repeat it over and over, but no one seems to listen.

Actually those were both NAVY systems that were adopted by the USAF.

Whatever. I don’t care.

Otherwise people are liable to think you’re a self-important blow-hard.

You get very emotional don’t you!
Another reason not to have serious discussions with you.

And yeah Garry if you want to compare Western to Russian systems you need to know about both if you want anybody to take you seriously.

So anyone not interested in Soviet equipment can be ignored too? Yeah right… that is how it works… someone comes up with a question and only those who know everything about the topic… FROM BOTH SIDES… is the only person that replies. :rolleyes:

I said:

Yeah. Two USAF systems that were adopted by the USN and US Army respectively… because the systems they (USN and US Army) were developing for themselves were rediculously expensive and in practise weren’t much better. Mauler anyone? How about perhaps?

They were a band aid patch at the time… a temporary solution because of a believe in airpower (their own) made them think they didn’t need any better.

Still really don’t care what the US spends its money on.
Reinforces my point that the US army relies on USAF for air defence.
The USN seems to put the same trust in its airpower.
Misplaced?
I don’t care.

Well good for them.

Sigh! Okay then this really has nothing to do with the original topic so I’ll leave it alone. Should have known better than to get involved. Its interesting that care/don’t care threshhold for Western systems seems to coincide almost exactly with the “winning”/”losing” threshhold of an argument.

Daniel

Yeah. Two USAF systems that were adopted by the USN and US Army respectively… because the systems they (USN and US Army) were developing for themselves were rediculously expensive and in practise weren’t much better. Mauler anyone? How about perhaps?

Actually those were both NAVY systems that were adopted by the USAF. The Army also adopted AIM-9 as Chaparral. Mauler had it’s own issues (mainly because I think they tried to stretch the state of the art to far with it). And yeah Garry if you want to compare Western to Russian systems you need to know about both if you want anybody to take you seriously. Otherwise people are liable to think you’re a self-important blow-hard.

I said:

The only navy thing the USAF bought would be the F-4.

To which you replied:

I guess you’ve never heard of AIM-7 Sparrow or AIM-9 Sidwinder. Oh yeah “yawn, Western systems, can’t be bothered, just let me keep shooting my mouth off and looking foolish”.

Yeah. Two USAF systems that were adopted by the USN and US Army respectively… because the systems they (USN and US Army) were developing for themselves were rediculously expensive and in practise weren’t much better. Mauler anyone? How about perhaps?

Well the US systems weren’t all that bad back in the 70s and 80s while the Soviet Union still existed as a threat.

They were a band aid patch at the time… a temporary solution because of a believe in airpower (their own) made them think they didn’t need any better.

The US and NATO could afford to rely somewhat more on static systems such as HAWK and Patriot given that as they would be fighting a defensive war mobile systems were not as critical.

But a defence needs to be even more mobile and responsive than an attack… WWII showed that. Static defences are bypassed and reduced easily. The majority of countries defeated in the initial part of WWII were defeated because they positioned their troops on the border, their lines were penetrated and they were encircled due to lack of mobility. The Soviets initially made the same mistake and paid for it with their heaviest loss of manpower and equipment in the war in the first 6 months of the war. The Soviets then got their act together and showed the Germans how to retreat and deny the enemy cover or material it can use. Called the Scorched Earth Policy. The Germans learned well and did the same all the way back to berlin, though they did it better because they continued to inflict losses on the Soviet forces as they retreated.

Once the Soviets and the Pact collapsed where exactly was impetus ……snip……..e lines of pork barreling, total waste of time and money, putting contractors ahead of the troops by buying high tech missiles instead of boots and bullet proof vests?

Still really don’t care what the US spends its money on.
Reinforces my point that the US army relies on USAF for air defence.
The USN seems to put the same trust in its airpower.
Misplaced?
I don’t care.

Fact is that now as the potential of a greater standard of opposition to the US is developing then now they are spending more on newer systems such as vehicle mounted stinger/gun (eg Linebacker) and Surface Launched AMRAAM, MEADS, and the collection of directed energy AD systems.

Well good for them.

You know it seems logical to me that to be able to suggest a superiority of one system over another one needs to have a faily well rounded understanding of both. Sound reasonable?

So I can’t say Tunguska is better than Linebacker unless I have completely analysed the Linebacker system? Strange because people who have little understanding or knowledge of Soviet and Russian systems make claims that this or that is the best all the time.

Still its interesting that a remark about the Army buying a navy system illicts a response about the Air Force buying Navy instead?

Like I said, it really doesn’t bother me… the Goblet/Goa was an error on my part. The Russian Airforce uses very few SAMs. Most are used by the PVO and the Russian Army.

OK. I’ll spell it all out again just for you.
I stated something that you have found was an error. It was not important to my point unless the US Army has spent billions and introduced Tunguska, Tor, and Buk equivelents that no body knows about.
I was stating that the US Army was lax in its own air defence and described the Chapparal as an example of its laxness.
The fact that it is no longer used by the US army is relevant as its withdrawl has made their air defence is actually worse…

Well the US systems weren’t all that bad back in the 70s and 80s while the Soviet Union still existed as a threat. The US and NATO could afford to rely somewhat more on static systems such as HAWK and Patriot given that as they would be fighting a defensive war mobile systems were not as critical. Once the Soviets and the Pact collapsed where exactly was impetus for the US to spend money on a raft of Army SAMs? Folks are quite happy to criticize the US for spending huge amounts of money on things like the F-22A when there appears to be no great threat requiring it so what would be said if the US Army had invested many billions of dollars in the systems you suggest so that they could have taken them to fight the wars they have fought in the last decade and a half? Something along the lines of pork barreling, total waste of time and money, putting contractors ahead of the troops by buying high tech missiles instead of boots and bullet proof vests? Fact is that now as the potential of a greater standard of opposition to the US is developing then now they are spending more on newer systems such as vehicle mounted stinger/gun (eg Linebacker) and Surface Launched AMRAAM, MEADS, and the collection of directed energy AD systems.

No, you are right, there is nothing I would find more interesting than to waste a day or two chatting to you a American Naval air defence policy and threat assessment. NOT.

But you’re quite happy to infer the many ways in which Russian systems etc are superior or have cracked the Western one. You know it seems logical to me that to be able to suggest a superiority of one system over another one needs to have a faily well rounded understanding of both. Sound reasonable?

The only navy thing the USAF bought would be the F-4. Otherwise they might as well be from two different countries. Russian naval systems on the other hand, I can only think of one Naval SAM system not related to a land based system… the SA-N-3 Goa.

Hmm now I could of course be missing some subtle inference here but I think we might be mixing up the SA-3/SA-N-1 Goa and the SA-N-3 Goblet. Re the USAF/USN crossovers we could add the A-7, the EA-3/B-66, ALQ-99 (althought this systems EF-111A implementation is of course a prime example of what you are suggesting), EA-6B (which is of course now operated jointly since the demise of the EF-111A 🙂 ) among some others. Of course these systems are the excpetion to the general rule and you are quite right in saying that the US services don’t really like to play together and are forced to compete heavily against each other for the taxpayers dollar. Still its interesting that a remark about the Army buying a navy system illicts a response about the Air Force buying Navy instead?

Daniel

The only navy thing the USAF bought would be the F-4. Otherwise they might as well be from two different countries. Russian naval systems on the other hand, I can only think of one Naval SAM system not related to a land based system… the SA-N-3 Goa.

I guess you’ve never heard of AIM-7 Sparrow or AIM-9 Sidwinder. Oh yeah “yawn, Western systems, can’t be bothered, just let me keep shooting my mouth off and looking foolish”.

In other words “talking out my ass and don’t care who knows it”.

OK. I’ll spell it all out again just for you.
I stated something that you have found was an error. It was not important to my point unless the US Army has spent billions and introduced Tunguska, Tor, and Buk equivelents that no body knows about.
I was stating that the US Army was lax in its own air defence and described the Chapparal as an example of its laxness.
The fact that it is no longer used by the US army is relevant as its withdrawl has made their air defence is actually worse…

In other words “uhhhh. . . . .”

Typical Garry.

No, you are right, there is nothing I would find more interesting than to waste a day or two chatting to you a American Naval air defence policy and threat assessment. NOT.

The Army was seriously considering Talos at one point back in the day. “Really? Don’t really care much about that.”

The only navy thing the USAF bought would be the F-4. Otherwise they might as well be from two different countries. Russian naval systems on the other hand, I can only think of one Naval SAM system not related to a land based system… the SA-N-3 Goa.

So they don’t use them now. Don’t really care much about that..

In other words “talking out my ass and don’t care who knows it”.

Can’t really be bothered…..

In other words “uhhhh. . . . .”

Typical Garry.

The army adopt navy missiles? Remember an Israeli proposal with vertical launch Barak missiles and Phalanx in a trailer system. Would want something a bit better than a 20mm gatling though… maybe that 25mm gatling they have, or a decent single barrel gun in 30mm calibre… 2-4 mounted in a turret.

Why not? The Army was seriously considering Talos at one point back in the day. “Really? Don’t really care much about that.”

And skip the trailer system. If it’s going to be mobile then be mobile and put it on a vehicle so it can fire on the move.

Do you know at what distance from the target the Sunburn starts evasive maneuvering?

Have not read of a certain figure, but knowing why it was designed the way it was I would guess at 4-2km range from the target.

The Sunburn entered service in the very early 80s and was designed to underfly the “Standard” Missile carried by AEGIS class cruisers. The only purpose for the terminal manouver is to make it hard for the Phalanx to get solid hits before it was hitting the ship it was protecting. (At mach 2.2 or so you are aiming about 5-600m in front of the missile, so when it gets to this range from the ship you have to stop firing or start hitting your own ship. Equally with what equates to a 50 cal slug of DU the Phalanx has a max effective range of about 1.6-1.8km. Firing at 4,500rpm or so with the target travelling at about 800m/s you can work out how many rounds the phalanx can fire before the missile is too close to hit… and it isn’t many.) Add terminal manouvering and the fact that targets flying below 7m are a dificult target for Phalanx due to ground clutter and you’d have to accept that more often than not the AEGIS class cruiser was only defended by its decoys and jammers… not great for the defender of the fleet!

“Beginning in 1990, the Army began to retire the MIM-72 from regular units, but Chaparral continued to be used by the Army National Guard. However, after 1994 it was decided to phase-out the MIM-72, and in 1998 the Chaparral was no longer in service with the U.S. Army. “

So they don’t use them now. Don’t really care much about that.

How in the world do you support the comment that they are geared more towards ballistic missile defense?

Can’t really be bothered…

I’d think it would be prudent for the army to field at least a short range MOBILE system as not every enemy airforce will fold right off. Maybe an ESSM with an AIM-120 seeker. RAM would probably be better in close but ESSM has a better range so overall I think it would be a better choice.

The army adopt navy missiles? Remember an Israeli proposal with vertical launch Barak missiles and Phalanx in a trailer system. Would want something a bit better than a 20mm gatling though… maybe that 25mm gatling they have, or a decent single barrel gun in 30mm calibre… 2-4 mounted in a turret.

The US Army uses Chapparal.

“Beginning in 1990, the Army began to retire the MIM-72 from regular units, but Chaparral continued to be used by the Army National Guard. However, after 1994 it was decided to phase-out the MIM-72, and in 1998 the Chaparral was no longer in service with the U.S. Army. “

Not mixing up. The US Army expects to operate under an umbrella of air superiority generated by the USAF. I am by inference suggesting that after spending trillions on carrier groups the navy might expect to have a similar umbrella present, which makes CIWS and short range SAMs less critical. I would suggest that US naval missile defence is gearing more towards stopping BMs rather than supersonic anti ship targets.

About the army you are right. Sad thing is politicians say something along the lines of “our army hasn’t been attacked by enemy air in over fifty years. What do we need F-22s for?” completely missing the point of WHY we haven’t been attacked. Even with the F-22 (even if we bought it in real numbers) I’d think it would be prudent for the army to field at least a short range MOBILE system as not every enemy airforce will fold right off. Maybe an ESSM with an AIM-120 seeker. RAM would probably be better in close but ESSM has a better range so overall I think it would be a better choice. The Marines use to have Hawk, which in the end was pretty good and had ATBM capability. Of course the Army does have Patriot, PAC-3, and Stinger. As for the Navy you are aware they use Standard SM-2, RAM, AND ESSM for defense against supersonic antiship targets right? Not to mention Phalanx. In the entire fleet they have maybe 20 SM-3s (if that). How in the world do you support the comment that they are geared more towards ballistic missile defense?

The point is that the faster the object is travelling the less a single g means as it takes more gs to change course than if you were travelling slower. Of course high speed also means that the interception problem is greater. If you try to intercept an object where it is now your interception missile will be where the missile was when your interception missile was launched but of course the target wont be there any more. To intercept you obviously have to extrapolate the targets position based on whether it is climbing or diving, turning left or right and of course its speed. Knowing how fast your missiles are you can work out where the target will be when your missiles get there. It might be 500m in front of a subsonic target, or 1.5km in front of a supersonic target. The point is that the faster the target flys the further ahead you have to aim. And of course a subsonic missile can turn much harder than a supersonic missile, but in effect because the Supersonic missile travels faster the area it could have moved to is much greater. This is an enormous problem for unguided projectiles as with CIWS like Phalanx or Goalkeeper, and is still a serious problem for guided interceptors like Sparrow or Klinok.

Do you know at what distance from the target the Sunburn starts evasive maneuvering?

Cheers,
Sunho

Chapparal???? Who the hell uses THAT? Or are you mistaking RAM for Chaparral?

The US Army uses Chapparal.

I assume Garry is mixing up the AIM-7 based RIM-7 Sea Sparrow with the AIM-9 based Chapparal.

Not mixing up. The US Army expects to operate under an umbrella of air superiority generated by the USAF. I am by inference suggesting that after spending trillions on carrier groups the navy might expect to have a similar umbrella present, which makes CIWS and short range SAMs less critical. I would suggest that US naval missile defence is gearing more towards stopping BMs rather than supersonic anti ship targets.

Chapparal???? Who the hell uses THAT? Or are you mistaking RAM for Chaparral? RAM has about as much in common with that as an SM-2 Block IIIB does with Tartar. As for Sea Sparrow maybe having problems at low altitude I’ve got videos of them using it to take out speedboats. If it can hit something ON the water it shouldn’t have a problem hitting something 5m above it. (Keep it mind it’s altitude we’re talking about not speed here). Franky with RAM’s demonstrated success rate against supersonic targets I think the only reason they keep RIM-7 around is to deal with things like speed boats and such. Why else have both systems on board?

Well actually the Taiwanese use the Sea Chapparal on some of their vessels. I assume Garry is mixing up the AIM-7 based RIM-7 Sea Sparrow with the AIM-9 based Chapparal. Re the retention of the Sea Sparrow on the US CVNs I assume its because the Sea Sparrow is better able to cope with legacy large, high flying AShMs that are still in Russian service and could find their way to other potential adversaries.

Daniel

Chapparal isn’t a wonderful system either. Perhaps it is a case that they rely on their air superiority too much?

Chapparal???? Who the hell uses THAT? Or are you mistaking RAM for Chaparral? RAM has about as much in common with that as an SM-2 Block IIIB does with Tartar. As for Sea Sparrow maybe having problems at low altitude I’ve got videos of them using it to take out speedboats. If it can hit something ON the water it shouldn’t have a problem hitting something 5m above it. (Keep it mind it’s altitude we’re talking about not speed here). Franky with RAM’s demonstrated success rate against supersonic targets I think the only reason they keep RIM-7 around is to deal with things like speed boats and such. Why else have both systems on board?

The point is that the faster the object is travelling the less a single g means as it takes more gs to change course than if you were travelling slower. Of course high speed also means that the interception problem is greater. If you try to intercept an object where it is now your interception missile will be where the missile was when your interception missile was launched but of course the target wont be there any more. To intercept you obviously have to extrapolate the targets position based on whether it is climbing or diving, turning left or right and of course its speed. Knowing how fast your missiles are you can work out where the target will be when your missiles get there. It might be 500m in front of a subsonic target, or 1.5km in front of a supersonic target. The point is that the faster the target flys the further ahead you have to aim. And of course a subsonic missile can turn much harder than a supersonic missile, but in effect because the Supersonic missile travels faster the area it could have moved to is much greater. This is an enormous problem for unguided projectiles as with CIWS like Phalanx or Goalkeeper, and is still a serious problem for guided interceptors like Sparrow or Klinok.

I’d think if RIM-7 was that bad they’d be getting them off CVNs ASAP. As it is they aren’t even installing ESSM on CVN-77. Won’t come on board until CVN-21 in some ten years.

Chapparal isn’t a wonderful system either. Perhaps it is a case that they rely on their air superiority too much?

Sunburn is said to be capable of making a 15G terminal manoeuver. If true, how much distance would the missile move from target axis while making this 15G turn?

Chreers,
Sunho

I wonder just how much manoeuvring does a Mach two missile need to do to generate a 15g loading.

Daniel