USS Nimitz Forced Iran's Decision

Ticonderoga Class

they were/are deployed then as now as goalkeepers for carriers and are armed with SM-2 STANDARD , and was teh main defence in GW1 for the CBG.

also the were FFG-7`s (OHP class) on air defence as well.


somewhat more than a CIWS!

Originally posted by subz
There is no defence against Sunburn missiles that I know of.

Here we go with the "all powerful" sunburn missiles again.

Really, the U.S. Navy hardly seems to be afraid of any of iran's capabilities. And does anyone really think the U.S. Navy has not bothered to research the capabilities of the "all powerful" sunburn missile?

Give it a rest, really ...

Originally posted by centurion1211

Originally posted by subz
There is no defence against Sunburn missiles that I know of.

Here we go with the "all powerful" sunburn missiles again.

[snip]

Give it a rest, really ...

I'm sorry, do I know you?

Anyway...if the Sunburn is nothing to be afraid of then why was the US military trying (unsuccessfully) to purchase them?

Or are we to simply believe the omnipotent US military has some magical super weapon up it's sleeve that no one knows about. One that's been fitted to an aircraft carrier, that no one knows about.

If there was even a shred of evidence to back up the claim that Sunburn missiles could be intercepted I'd sure like to see it.

Just imagine for a second that the U.S. Navy doesn't want to share its technology with the media and the world population. I would be very suprised to find out that no defense to this missle has been installed on the CBGs and even more suprised to find detailed information on what exactly that system is. One of the keys to military supremecy is not giving away your secrets to your enemies. Additionally, the CBGs are well out of range of these missles at the moment. Don't underestimate the most powerful military in the world.

We seem to have a slew of military non experts chirping in here.

Now let see...

Originally posted by subz
There is no defence against Sunburn missiles that I know of.

Funny, there is not a single case where the Sunburn missile has been used in combat that I know of... Never mind used against the USN, AEGIS (SPY-1D(V), ESSM, (Sea) RAM, SM-2ER, ECM-ECCM-EW, Decoys, Conventional Countermeasures, Phalanx etc... There are plenty of defenses, some of which you and I still may not know of.

Originally posted by subz
These things go so fast that their punch is equivalent to a nuclear explosion but via conventional explosives and kinetic energy.

You're not serious right? Let's let that statement go... Anyway, it would take several cruise missiles just to get a misison kill on a super carrier, forget about sinking it.

Originally posted by subz
Both the Chinese and the Russians have these non-nuclear missiles and each missile is capable of downing an aircraft carrier.

Umm... no, you would need to get in close enough to launch a large salvo to ensure that one or even a few get through. Even then you will not sink the carrier, but you might cancel flight ops for a while. These missiles are not super duper wonder weapons, how they stand up in real combat against a sophisticated target, I have my doubts.

Furthermore, that's great for the Chinese and Russians. When, if, maybe, Iran gets these missile in more than an insignificant quantity and manages to fit them to several platforms other than coastal batteries, well talk...

[edit on 5-4-2007 by WestPoint23]

Originally posted by subz
I'm sorry, do I know you?

No, but I don't have to know you to be able to determine your total anti-U.S. agenda.

Anyway...if the Sunburn is nothing to be afraid of then why was the US military trying (unsuccessfully) to purchase them?

Gee, I'm not a "subject matter expert", or anything. To study them? To see what all the hype was about? But I have to wonder why you believe, and why we should believe that you have inside knowledge on what the U.S. military has purchased, or it's capabilities?

Or are we to simply believe the omnipotent US military has some magical super weapon up it's sleeve that no one knows about. One that's been fitted to an aircraft carrier, that no one knows about.

But you have no problem believing in the "magical" powers of the sunburn ...

If there was even a shred of evidence to back up the claim that Sunburn missiles could be intercepted I'd sure like to see it.

Like I said, I guess the U.S. military would tell you first.

And there have been improvements made to the SM-2, there are more Burke DDGs out there, they've improved the Aegis network, and they're replaced the Phalanx with upgraded weapon systems. And although not in service, the SM-6 will be fielded soon that will make the Aegis a much more potent weapon system.

As for Sunburn, yes it is a potent weapon, but the biggest way to stop it, is to stay out of range. Push your escorts out and expand the bubble around the CVN, fly air ops from farther out and use A2A refueling.

In GW1 a Silkworm was shot at a CBG - with its own AEGIS (SPY-1D(V), ESSM, (Sea) RAM, SM-2ER, ECM-ECCM-EW, Decoys, Conventional Countermeasures, Phalanx (quoted wp23) ships to defend it


and it took a british ship on the far side of the formation to down it.

phalanx missed and hit another ship as well!

and i would be more concerned about Yakhont than Sunburn.

[edit on 5/4/07 by Harlequin]

Originally posted by brigand
Just imagine for a second that the U.S. Navy doesn't want to share its technology with the media and the world population. I would be very suprised to find out that no defense to this missle has been installed on the CBGs and even more suprised to find detailed information on what exactly that system is. One of the keys to military supremecy is not giving away your secrets to your enemies. Additionally, the CBGs are well out of range of these missles at the moment. Don't underestimate the most powerful military in the world.

The disastrous consequences of facing an opponent who doesn't who doesn't appreciate one's ruthlessness can be summed up in a scene from Kubrick's classic Cold-War movie 'Dr.Strangelove' where Peter Sellers as Strangelove during phone dialogue with his Russian counterpart barks.."You Fools! A Doomsday-Machine isn't any good if you dont tell anyone you have it"

Originally posted by Harlequin
In GW1 a Silkworm was shot at a CBG...

Lets see what is left of that original list when you consider 16 years worth of technology development and upgrades...

...not a single thing...

The majority of the weapon systems I listed did not even exist in 1991. And the ones that did are no longer around in the same configuration. Because they share a similar name and or appearance does not mean it's the same system, lesson were learned and technology was developed...


[edit on 5-4-2007 by WestPoint23]

I am aware of the incident. And it led to upgrades to several systems on the missiles and on the Aegis itself. You don't seriously think that they haven't made ANY upgrades to the Aegis system since 1991 do you? They're constantly upgrading capabilities.

SM2 STANDARD is still deployed on USN ships now -

AEGIS (SPY-1D(V),

is a developement of SPY-1B for literoal ships starting in fiscal 98 (and ofc for the burkes)

majority of the systems deployed are SPY-1D which is a slimmer version of SPY-1B = slimmer meaning smaller to fit on a destroyer


they still haven`t deployed the AN/SPQ-9B to meet the threat of low level but fast threat yet.

ESSM - to replace sea sparrow - still has issues that the original has although it is getting better

ECM-ECCM_EW same thing as before just slightly tweaked

decoys etc

and?

they failed to detect it - that was the issue - the first thing was the CIWS opening up in automatic mode , missing then the silkworm being shot down by the brits


so yes you will hark on about technology - but the SM2 et all had allready been improved by lessons learnt by the british 9 years earlier as had training and doctrine and yet a missile of the same vintage of those exocet nearly got through.

The majority of the weapon systems I listed did not even exist in 1991.

actually everything you mentioned existed in 1991 - ESSM is just a fancy name for sea sparrow - the SPY is rehash of thr same kit - its not exactly `new` or they would give it a new name ecm etc all existed.

but that wasn`t the point i made - in 1991 those systems were considered `state of the art` and they still failed.

as the system seveolve so has the threat.

Yes the SM-2 is still deployed, but it's been upgraded since 1991. So has the SPY. They've made many software upgrades for detection of low flying threats since 1991, for all versions of the SPY-1.

In 1991 the SM-2 Block III was the standard. The Block IIIB/Block IV-IVA is the standard now. They have a vastly improved capability over the Block III.

The SPY-1 since 1991 has had several upgrades to the weapons director, and detection software. I'm not sure what the current version is, but it's more capable of detecting low flying targets than it was in 1991. Just because it's the same version of the radar, doesn't mean that there haven't been improvements made to the software, which is the key to detection.

Its more likely that it was a "swap", a certain Iranian diplomat who was captured by the US forces was released a day before, and the 5 captured Iranian soldies have been allowed consular access.

This is not a coincidence

Most of you posting on this thread have not addressed what is really going on in the Persian Gulf in my opinion. And at the risk of straying off topic for one post let me interject the following.

The US is going to do whatever Israel wants us to do to subdue the entire Middle East. For starters. And Israel is willing to sacrifice unlimited American lives and spend unlimited American dollars to accomplish this objective.

And we have a lot of our military commanders who know that. If the order comes down to attack Iran I don’t look for resignations. I look for full scale mutiny.

I think the presence of the Challes de Gaulle and British submarines, in addition to the US CBG's in the area also played in the back of their mind.

I think the Iranians know full well that the French won't be participating in any strikes against Iran. The UK may be firmly affixed to the US's posterior, the French are far less so.

The US spends some 500 billion dollars on its military and that isn't even counting the funding for Iraq. The US spends more on military R&D then Russia or china spend on their entire military. The US spends more on its military then Russias entire GDP...

To the person that said russia is on the same footing as the US military or better. That isnt the case now (if it ever was). Note that after the soviet union fell that it was found out that russia was some 10-15 years behind US military in technology. today it is more like 25-30 years. So that was a bogus claim on your part. Also after the fall of the soviet union the US went after many russian scientist and offered them lucrative contracts to come to america and work for the US military. So you can bet your ass that we know just what little odd trinkets the soviets had been working on. The USSR was all smoke and mirrors. Mainly because they couldnt keep pace with the US militarys advancements in technology. Which is one reason why they collapsed. They just couldnt keep up with the smaller, technologically superior US armed forces.

As far as US military not having defenses for its multi billion dollar ships that take up to a decade to build... I would disagree. The US already has developed THEL which is a laser turret defense system. They have a 747 outfitted with a laser as well. This system can lock on to numerous incoming missles at a time. And moving faster then the speed of light is more then a match to an object moving at mack 3. A carrier is more then large enough to house one of these lasers. So I wouldnt be surprised if they have one aboard.

Also I was mentioned that the US could US EMP type technology to disable incoming threats. They more then likely do. We already have the EMP bomb which can fry communication circuits as well as entire tank battalions. The Department of Defense budget request for 2007 includes about $30.1 billion in classified or "black" spending. The US has the funds and brains to counter such threats. That I assure you.

Originally posted by Harlequin
SM2 STANDARD is still deployed on USN ships now -

Umm... in name only, you seem to want to conveniently ignore the fact that significant improvements have been made to it. The RIM-156 Standard (SM-2ER Block IV) in use now is not the same missile as the one used in 1991. Heck, the ships in question did not even have any SM-2's at the time, of any version!

RIM-156A uses a completely new MK 72 booster, which is significantly shorter than the original SM-2ER booster, has no fins, and uses thrust-vectoring control. The missile itself is also improved, featuring guidance and control modifications, including an upgraded MK 45 MOD 10 TDD (Target Detection Device), for improved performance against high-performance, low-RCS threats in severe ECM environments. The Block IV is also a developmental step toward the Block IV A (see below), the forthcoming Navy Area Theater Ballistic Missile Defense (NATBMD) missile.

Source

Originally posted by Harlequin
AEGIS (SPY-1D(V),

is a developement of SPY-1B for literoal ships starting in fiscal 98 (and ofc for the burkes)

Why not mention the reason for the new design? The SPY-1 radar was originally developed for blue water operation. Given the cluttered environment one finds in the littorals in combination with a new generation of LO "sea skimming" missiles the SPY-1D(V) was developed because even the previous SPY-1B and D were not capable enough in these two categories.

The SPY-1D(V) radar upgrade is the newest improvement to the SPY-1D. The SPY-lD(V) littoral radar upgrade will supersede the SPY-1D in new-construction ships beginning in FY 1998, and will deploy in DDG 51 Flight IIA ships starting in approximately 2003. The third variant of this radar, known as the Littoral Warfare Radar, will improve the radar's capability against low-altitude, reduced radar cross-section targets in heavy clutter environments and in the presence of intense electronic countermeasures. The SPY-1D radar system is the multi-function, phased-array, three-dimensional (range, altitude, and bearing) radar which conducts search, automatic detection, and tracking of air and surface targets. The SPY-1D also provides mid-course guidance for the SM-2 missile, and has also demonstrated a capability to track theater ballistic missiles. The AN/SPY-1D(V), under development for installation in some Flight IIA ships, is an improved system with better performance against targets in clutter, additional moving target indicator (MTI) waveforms, and greater ability to counter deceptive Electronic Attack measures.

source

All Burkes will be updated with the SPY-1D(V) system and some Ticonderoga's received an updated radar suite which included the SPY-1D variant.

Originally posted by Harlequin
majority of the systems deployed are SPY-1D which is a slimmer version of SPY-1B = slimmer meaning smaller to fit on a destroyer

Most of the Burke's (Flight IIA +) have the SPY-1D(V) radar system now, and it is being retrofitted on the older ships of the class. Anyway the D variant had major improvements over the earlier A and B versions which is why it was retrofitted into the Ticonderoga fleet. Like the Burke's they (the radar) were built with the Falklands in mind, had the Burke class been in the Gulf War things might have gone slightly different.

Originally posted by Harlequin
they still haven`t deployed the AN/SPQ-9B to meet the threat of low level but fast threat yet.

They've put it on a few ships but have not fielded it yet on the Carriers or Destroyers.

Originally posted by Harlequin
ESSM - to replace sea sparrow - still has issues that the original has although it is getting better

The ESSM is essentially a new missile and it was designed with the low level threat in mind, it is significantly better than the Sea Sparrow.

Originally posted by Harlequin
ECM-ECCM_EW same thing as before just slightly tweaked

This might be the understatement of the day, compare electronic capability 16 years ago with that of today and you'll see why I think it's been more than "slightly tweaked" over the years.

Originally posted by Harlequin
they failed to detect it - that was the issue - the first thing was the CIWS opening up in automatic mode , missing then the silkworm being shot down by the brits

Oh come on, the only AAW US ship there was a Frigate (Perry class), at the time it did not have an AEGIS suite, no SM-2 (only SM-1), no Sparrow or ESSM, no (Sea) RAM and only the Phalanx Block 0. Hardly cutting edge even at the time, yet to compare it with today's Burke and Tico class is a little bit more than just intellectually dishonest.

Originally posted by Harlequin
so yes you will hark on about technology - but the SM2 et all had allready been improved by lessons learnt by the british 9 years earlier as had training and doctrine and yet a missile of the same vintage of those exocet nearly got through.

See above. The best radar at the time (AEGIS) and the SM-2, Sea Sparrow were not involved in this particular case. Which is why it's important to keep this into perspective, out of the whole conflict only one incident occurred, and even that involved less than state of the art US defenses.

Originally posted by Harlequin
actually everything you mentioned existed in 1991 - ESSM is just a fancy name for sea sparrow - the SPY is rehash of thr same kit - its not exactly `new` or they would give it a new name ecm etc all existed.

Here's that honesty I was talking about, you know damn well what you're saying is, well, crap. They did not have SPY-1(D)V, Block 1B Phalanx, (SM-2ER IV), ESSM, (Sea) RAM, and updated EW capabilities. They had other versions but not these, and they are more than just "new names" and "rehash" systems. It's like saying the F-16A is the same thing as the F-16C/D Block 50/52.

Originally posted by Harlequin
but that wasn`t the point i made - in 1991 those systems were considered `state of the art` and they still failed.
as the system seveolve so has the threat.

As I mentioned above, most of the US systems involved were not that "state of the art" given the Ticonderoga's and the Burke's which had just entered service. Still, one incident out of the whole conflict, the less capable systems failed once, your point is?

The countermeasure since taken to neutralize these missiles are more numerous and greater in degree than any offensive changes the missiles themselves may have undergone.

[edit on 5-4-2007 by WestPoint23]

jesus westy you sure no your #. You just got a way above from me.