The US should learn from its historical defeats at the start of WWII in the Pacific, and at the hands of a poorly equiped People's Volunteer Army in Korea -- arrogance is dangerous!
The use of an airliner as a weapon could be done as a DECEPTION rather than as a hijacking. In that case "taking it over" is not an issue. And our ability to defeat EVERY use of cruise missiles from 1968 to 1972 in Viet Nam did not save Stark, even if she had better systems. [We designed the Phalanx, but she was not delivered for eleven years, and then only in the "war emergency" 20mm caliber, not the 30mm "peacetime" caliber we specified! Tests show the 20mm do NOT save the ship even when they work - the flaming mass STILL hits you!] Stark could not use her ECM or weapons because she didn't try. When you KNOW it is peacetime, you don't go to Condition I, II or III. I have seen Russian bombers run through an attack sequence, but the watch officer refused to change readiness - there was no way to tell they had not fired unless we tracked with fire control but, no, do not bring it up. As for finding a US task group, just use the TACAN interrogator on board every airliner and many warplanes - it provides bearing and range and identification in a fraction of a second. Not to mention modern airliners carry very nice modern radar, and they are now used as maritime search platforms in a number of nations. Then there are problems with rules of engagement - we actually shot down an airliner at least once - and captains are not going to be quick to do that again. The new PLAN and PLAAF doctrines focus on surprise attack, and they practice a number of forms of deception, some taught at USAF training exercises for the CHINESE during the Clinton Administration (in Alaska). We don't actually have a right to shoot down a plane that has not launched weapons or indicated a hostile intent. What if the plane itself if the weapon??? At what point do you conclude you need to engage it? And will you then have the time it takes? Only if you think it through very carefully ahead of time, without thinking your technology will save you - which it won't if you don't use it.
Slightly OT: kamikazes
Moderators: Joel Billings, Tankerace, siRkid
Parade is mispelled
Eclid,
I'm not going to argue with an "expert" but reading your other posts you seem to base a lot of your information on dated examples. Since the EW rate was created in the mid 80's and I'm not sure how long ago you actually were at sea, I can't understand why you seem so certain that the US Navy has never learned a lesson from its past. The USN is much different today than it was in Viet Nam where much of the equipment was left over from WW2. Stark was attacked by a friendly aircraft, that was identified as friendly. Stark's CIWS was prepared to engage the incoming Exocet but was not given weapons release due to environmental conditions in the Gulf that often caused false alarms in the early software version. Stark's ESM SLQ32 V1 has no ability to jam an incoming missle. Ship TACAN's are never used in high threat environments. CV/CVN's routinely due full launch and recovery operations in total EMCON. AEGIS cruisers/destroyers can fire and guide their missles using co-operative engagement and never light off a single emitter. Finally, I fly brand new 737-800's that are less than two years old and I can assure you our "modern radar" could not locate a ship, TACAN is used by the military only and it would take a highly skilled pilot to hit a ship with a big lumbering airliner. Airline traffic routes are well established and a airliner behaving abnormally (post Sept. 11th) would be dealt with accordingly. My airline has repeatedly warned our flight crews of this. So flame away as I suspect you will, but I don't share your cynical attitude about my USN and I know of a retired Senior Chief who roams this board that I bet would agree with me.
I'm not going to argue with an "expert" but reading your other posts you seem to base a lot of your information on dated examples. Since the EW rate was created in the mid 80's and I'm not sure how long ago you actually were at sea, I can't understand why you seem so certain that the US Navy has never learned a lesson from its past. The USN is much different today than it was in Viet Nam where much of the equipment was left over from WW2. Stark was attacked by a friendly aircraft, that was identified as friendly. Stark's CIWS was prepared to engage the incoming Exocet but was not given weapons release due to environmental conditions in the Gulf that often caused false alarms in the early software version. Stark's ESM SLQ32 V1 has no ability to jam an incoming missle. Ship TACAN's are never used in high threat environments. CV/CVN's routinely due full launch and recovery operations in total EMCON. AEGIS cruisers/destroyers can fire and guide their missles using co-operative engagement and never light off a single emitter. Finally, I fly brand new 737-800's that are less than two years old and I can assure you our "modern radar" could not locate a ship, TACAN is used by the military only and it would take a highly skilled pilot to hit a ship with a big lumbering airliner. Airline traffic routes are well established and a airliner behaving abnormally (post Sept. 11th) would be dealt with accordingly. My airline has repeatedly warned our flight crews of this. So flame away as I suspect you will, but I don't share your cynical attitude about my USN and I know of a retired Senior Chief who roams this board that I bet would agree with me.
Don't worry about the mice when the elephants are stomping on your head...
Just to add to the flames: (cause I'm just *that* kind of guy)
60 Minutes ran a piece tonight on the (in)famed Patriot anti-missile system tonight pointing out that the 100% kill rates that were claimed against SCUD missiles in the Gulf was actually a 0% kill rate.
They also had people point out that the tests of the new improved Patriot III system that has been deployed has failed completely in 7 tests to stop an inbound under test (certainly not war) conditions. The expected kill rate in reality is 20% under wartime conditions as best. Lets hope they are not needed.
I think we have a tendancy to overrate our toys at times simply because they are *our* toys. Seems to be a lot of that in UV with people having a tough time dealing with US aircraft being slaughtered wholesale until the second generation planes like the F6F & F1U show up.
On the other hand, the SPY-1D system has the power output to make sure your kids and your kids kids have 6 arms and 2 heads. They don't have to shoot you down, they just aim and fry you with the effective power output of sitting inside your microwave oven for 30 minutes on high!
60 Minutes ran a piece tonight on the (in)famed Patriot anti-missile system tonight pointing out that the 100% kill rates that were claimed against SCUD missiles in the Gulf was actually a 0% kill rate.
They also had people point out that the tests of the new improved Patriot III system that has been deployed has failed completely in 7 tests to stop an inbound under test (certainly not war) conditions. The expected kill rate in reality is 20% under wartime conditions as best. Lets hope they are not needed.
I think we have a tendancy to overrate our toys at times simply because they are *our* toys. Seems to be a lot of that in UV with people having a tough time dealing with US aircraft being slaughtered wholesale until the second generation planes like the F6F & F1U show up.
On the other hand, the SPY-1D system has the power output to make sure your kids and your kids kids have 6 arms and 2 heads. They don't have to shoot you down, they just aim and fry you with the effective power output of sitting inside your microwave oven for 30 minutes on high!
Just as an aside, color, that link you provided for the hit on Essex
has some interesting reading on Torpedo Squadron 4.
I have been reading about the training that these guys went through and found this quote quite funny :
"Then is when the fun begins. The leader sights a farm house and peals off into a dive. Each of the other planes peal off in order behind the leader. We dive about 4000 ft. and zoom the farms all over this country. Sure fun to watch chickens and dogs and cows scatter. I don't imagine the farmers like being dived on very much but they always wave at us as we zoom by. The other day all 18 planes dove on a car running along the highway. The driver run into the ditch, got out and ran across the pasture. He figured the Japs had attacked for sure."
has some interesting reading on Torpedo Squadron 4.
I have been reading about the training that these guys went through and found this quote quite funny :
"Then is when the fun begins. The leader sights a farm house and peals off into a dive. Each of the other planes peal off in order behind the leader. We dive about 4000 ft. and zoom the farms all over this country. Sure fun to watch chickens and dogs and cows scatter. I don't imagine the farmers like being dived on very much but they always wave at us as we zoom by. The other day all 18 planes dove on a car running along the highway. The driver run into the ditch, got out and ran across the pasture. He figured the Japs had attacked for sure."
Never give up, never surrender
-
Hard Sarge
- Posts: 22145
- Joined: Sun Oct 01, 2000 8:00 am
- Location: garfield hts ohio usa
- Contact:
Hi Mr Frag
Seems to be a lot of that in UV with people having a tough time dealing with US aircraft being slaughtered wholesale until the second generation planes like the F6F & F1U show up.
well to bring up the old posts again, show the numbers where the WildCat was Slaughtered by Zeros, then I won't feel so bad
by the by, I uninstalled and reinstalled the game to see if I had a screwed up patch, parts of what I was seeing before now seem to be gone
about the patroit missing so much, I remember right after that action, they were starting to say that, also, the Big Brass was saying we didn't knock out all them tanks either, that the guys out in the field, must of been dropping bombs on dead tanks over and over again, and mistakening them for new tanks
the Big Brass was so wrong about the outcome of the battle, they had to downplay how good it was ??????
HARD_Sarge
sorry back to ECM
Seems to be a lot of that in UV with people having a tough time dealing with US aircraft being slaughtered wholesale until the second generation planes like the F6F & F1U show up.
well to bring up the old posts again, show the numbers where the WildCat was Slaughtered by Zeros, then I won't feel so bad
by the by, I uninstalled and reinstalled the game to see if I had a screwed up patch, parts of what I was seeing before now seem to be gone
about the patroit missing so much, I remember right after that action, they were starting to say that, also, the Big Brass was saying we didn't knock out all them tanks either, that the guys out in the field, must of been dropping bombs on dead tanks over and over again, and mistakening them for new tanks
the Big Brass was so wrong about the outcome of the battle, they had to downplay how good it was ??????
HARD_Sarge
sorry back to ECM
Patriot
Just for the record the Patriot deployed to the Gulf was not designed to shoot down an incoming ballistic missile. It was such an excellent AAW sysem that it was sent there because trying was better than no defense at all. I have no experience to speak to the PAC3 generation Patriot that is now in the Gulf other than what the media reports. The tests you are talking about sound more like THAAD than PAC3 Patriot but you are probably right.
Don't worry about the mice when the elephants are stomping on your head...
-
Mike Solli
- Posts: 16109
- Joined: Wed Oct 18, 2000 8:00 am
- Location: the flight deck of the Zuikaku
One of my Uncles was a gunner on the bow 40mm mount of LST-66 throughout World War II. He was present at the invasion of the Philippines in 1944. For some reason, he was reassigned to the stern mount. Five minutes later a Kamikaze landed on the bow mount. According to his description, the front half of the ship was basically incinerated, everyone and everything. In addition, it blew a hole down to the bottom of the boat. LST-66 survived, barely. I don't know what type of plane hit her.
Created by the amazing Dixie
perhaps the captain didn't know
Stark's captian blaimed her loss on the fact search radar cannot see a cruise missile, which in fact it cannot. Our successful development of anti-missile tactics did NOT depend on search radar detection, but on ECM detection. Stark's captain didn't know that, and clearly never was trained to monitor the threat bands. So perhaps he also didn't know what he was talking about when he reported that all three of his AA weapons could not bear on the threat axis. Certainly he violated standing orders when he ran a full power engineering test not permitted except in transit far at sea, not near any threats (using up his ability to maneuver quickly). And, with the single exception of a single missile downed by USS Sterett, in four years of ASCM attacks EVERY missile was defeated by "old" ECM. There were two different kinds of systems used, and both were available to Stark, but I refuse to name them in this medium. Nether was used because the ECM station was not manned. And the Stark was not engaged by a "friendly" aircraft. A US manned Saudi AWACS detected the hostile (Iraqi) plane, and was unable to warn Stark because (then) the USN and USAF didn't have a common communications standard (this changed in 1991).
I note that you ignored the possibility an airliner might NOT be hijacked, even though I pointed it out. And if it is NOT hijacked, there is no reason it might not have the kinds of radar, or better ECM, gear used when such planes are used for maritime surveilance, which gear is now unclassified and sold openly. Further, there is no reason the aircraft might not be on a properly filed flight plan, and I find it patently unlikely that the USN is able to know the flight plan of every scheduled airliner and every charter on the planet, real time. If they shoot at every plane they don't have data on, there are going to be casualties! I also note you ignore the possibility that a kamakaze might use a warplane, purpose built as such, even though I also pointed that out. They don't have to be on airliner routes, and you can't be shooting them down just because they are flying around, even if you don't like their flight path. And if that was USN policy, there also would be casualties. As to TACAN, I hope you are right about it not being on - maybe we learned something - but you are wrong that it is never used by non-military aircraft. It has been sold commercially for decades.
Please do not accuse me of being cynical. I am a professional and a combat veteran. I have never lost my temper and I never will, so I do not 'flame.' The EW rating was first defined in 1968, not the 1980s, and before that there were "technician operators" in the form of ETs who went to what were then RD (today's OS) schools. According to the CNO (Adm. Thomas Moorer) "It normally takes 10-15 years to develop new equipment and tactics, from conception to operational deployment. We must do that in only five months because North Viet Nam will deploy the SSN-2 by August." It was conventional wisdom missile attacks "could not be defeated" - but we (uncynical) types did just that. Israel, which lost Elat to the same weapon in 1967, adopted our concepts, and defeated 54 of 54 attacks in 1973. We stopped every attack from 1968-1972, including the first missile to missile kill in history, made by Sterett, along with 2 MiGs, in 1972 (disclosed in Conways All the World's Fighting Ships). The peacetime Navy has a tradition of not doing its homework: until Elat went down no one would listen to the idea the cruise missile was a problem we were not prepared to handle. The AAW mission is hard because you must make decisions in a very short time with sometimes inadequate information. Watch officers tend to err on the side of not killing civilians, when in doubt, and properly so, for moral and political reasons. It is hardly wrong to point out that air threats are potentially dangerous ones. The more unexpected they are, the less likely they would be understood as such and engaged. It is not wrong to point this out. And if you cannot hit a ship with a 737, I invite you to come up to Seattle and use some of the flight simulators at Boeing. I bet it takes you less than a day to score 9 times out of 10.
I note that you ignored the possibility an airliner might NOT be hijacked, even though I pointed it out. And if it is NOT hijacked, there is no reason it might not have the kinds of radar, or better ECM, gear used when such planes are used for maritime surveilance, which gear is now unclassified and sold openly. Further, there is no reason the aircraft might not be on a properly filed flight plan, and I find it patently unlikely that the USN is able to know the flight plan of every scheduled airliner and every charter on the planet, real time. If they shoot at every plane they don't have data on, there are going to be casualties! I also note you ignore the possibility that a kamakaze might use a warplane, purpose built as such, even though I also pointed that out. They don't have to be on airliner routes, and you can't be shooting them down just because they are flying around, even if you don't like their flight path. And if that was USN policy, there also would be casualties. As to TACAN, I hope you are right about it not being on - maybe we learned something - but you are wrong that it is never used by non-military aircraft. It has been sold commercially for decades.
Please do not accuse me of being cynical. I am a professional and a combat veteran. I have never lost my temper and I never will, so I do not 'flame.' The EW rating was first defined in 1968, not the 1980s, and before that there were "technician operators" in the form of ETs who went to what were then RD (today's OS) schools. According to the CNO (Adm. Thomas Moorer) "It normally takes 10-15 years to develop new equipment and tactics, from conception to operational deployment. We must do that in only five months because North Viet Nam will deploy the SSN-2 by August." It was conventional wisdom missile attacks "could not be defeated" - but we (uncynical) types did just that. Israel, which lost Elat to the same weapon in 1967, adopted our concepts, and defeated 54 of 54 attacks in 1973. We stopped every attack from 1968-1972, including the first missile to missile kill in history, made by Sterett, along with 2 MiGs, in 1972 (disclosed in Conways All the World's Fighting Ships). The peacetime Navy has a tradition of not doing its homework: until Elat went down no one would listen to the idea the cruise missile was a problem we were not prepared to handle. The AAW mission is hard because you must make decisions in a very short time with sometimes inadequate information. Watch officers tend to err on the side of not killing civilians, when in doubt, and properly so, for moral and political reasons. It is hardly wrong to point out that air threats are potentially dangerous ones. The more unexpected they are, the less likely they would be understood as such and engaged. It is not wrong to point this out. And if you cannot hit a ship with a 737, I invite you to come up to Seattle and use some of the flight simulators at Boeing. I bet it takes you less than a day to score 9 times out of 10.
Re: Slightly OT: kamikazes
Originally posted by Grotius
I'm doing some research on kamikaze pilots, and I'm wondering if anyone can direct me to the most authoritative sources on them.
Also: are they modeled in WITP?
This is a view from the other side, there is a book on the USS Arron Ward, (I don't remember the name) the last one (there were 3 during WWII) was reclassified as a Destroyer Minelayer (DM 34) and was on picket duty in the Philliphines, when hit by, IIRC, four Kamikaze's and survived. But the book talks about the recieving end of the Japanese Kamikaze attacks.