"PENTAGON WORKING TO GIVE F-35 JSF NUCLEAR-STRIKE CAPABILITY"

On May 6, 6:54 pm, J wrote:
On May 4, 4:05 pm, Ed Rasimus wrote:

2.) Disabuse yourself from the notion that a CV is any sort of easy
target. I spent a lot of years trying to successfully do just that in
exercises. It is damn close to impossible.
Ed,

Were you ever successful? (To the extent you can say.)
Thanks . . . J

Ed's comment was directed to me on May 4th.
I *think* he's suggesting a fighter attack on a CVN.
Currently, cruise missiles and/or MRBM's, because
of the wide spread availability of precision electronic
guidance, basically has a CVN as equivalent to a
heavily armored *blimp* in a fluid.
IIRC, the last war where severe attacks were waged
on CV's with a large defensive screen was off Okinawa,
with kamikazes operating as missiles.
Ken

"Ken S. Tucker" wrote in message
...
On May 6, 6:54 pm, J wrote:
On May 4, 4:05 pm, Ed Rasimus wrote:

2.) Disabuse yourself from the notion that a CV is any sort of easy
target. I spent a lot of years trying to successfully do just that in
exercises. It is damn close to impossible.
Ed,

Were you ever successful? (To the extent you can say.)
Thanks . . . J

Ed's comment was directed to me on May 4th.
I *think* he's suggesting a fighter attack on a CVN.
Currently, cruise missiles and/or MRBM's, because
of the wide spread availability of precision electronic
guidance, basically has a CVN as equivalent to a
heavily armored *blimp* in a fluid.

Neither MRBM's nor most cruise missiles are well suited to
attacks on moving targets. The guidance systems on ballistic
missiles are designed to hit a given set of co-ordinates and
the flight dynamics make terminal manoeuvering very difficult
even if you had sensors capable of penetrating the plasma
around the vehicle.

Cruise missiles have the problem of being targets in their own
right and so typically fly low which makes searching for the
target very difficult and makes for a high likelihood of
attacks on the wrong vessel (see Atlantic Conveyor and Falklands)

There are a few systems like the Russian Granit designed to
operate in swarms where one missile will pop up to medium altitude
to provide course correction information for the others but that
of course leaves them open to spoofing and meaconing.


IIRC, the last war where severe attacks were waged
on CV's with a large defensive screen was off Okinawa,
with kamikazes operating as missiles.
Ken


Okinawa was rather unusual. The CV's were tied to small area by
the requirement to provide air cover for the invasion fleet.
Worse still they were within range of the enemies (large) air force.

That said such refinements as AEW radar rose directly from that
experience.

Keith

Ed Rasimus ha scritto:


That being said, I had a flight of four kill Indianapolis (thinking it
was America until we were in the pop-up) in one exercise
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)

I can justapoxe (sp?) these two lines ?

(wondering how happens to mix CVN and SSN blips...)

Best regards from Italy,
Dott. Piergiorgio.

On May 7, 12:32 am, "Keith Willshaw"
wrote:
"Ken S. Tucker" wrote in ...



On May 6, 6:54 pm, J wrote:
On May 4, 4:05 pm, Ed Rasimus wrote:

2.) Disabuse yourself from the notion that a CV is any sort of easy
target. I spent a lot of years trying to successfully do just that in
exercises. It is damn close to impossible.
Ed,

Were you ever successful? (To the extent you can say.)
Thanks . . . J

Ed's comment was directed to me on May 4th.
I *think* he's suggesting a fighter attack on a CVN.
Currently, cruise missiles and/or MRBM's, because
of the wide spread availability of precision electronic
guidance, basically has a CVN as equivalent to a
heavily armored *blimp* in a fluid.

As a back-drop, 27 years ago,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exocet#Falklands_Conflict
(Seems like yesterday).

Neither MRBM's nor most cruise missiles are well suited to
attacks on moving targets. The guidance systems on ballistic
missiles are designed to hit a given set of co-ordinates and
the flight dynamics make terminal manoeuvering very difficult
even if you had sensors capable of penetrating the plasma
around the vehicle.

Things could have changed. I have a good idea
of what's *technically* possible, I hope you're
right.

Cruise missiles have the problem of being targets in their own
right and so typically fly low which makes searching for the
target very difficult and makes for a high likelihood of
attacks on the wrong vessel (see Atlantic Conveyor and Falklands)

ditto.

There are a few systems like the Russian Granit designed to
operate in swarms where one missile will pop up to medium altitude
to provide course correction information for the others but that
of course leaves them open to spoofing and meaconing.

It's a bit difficult to hide a CVN from a satellite.

IIRC, the last war where severe attacks were waged
on CV's with a large defensive screen was off Okinawa,
with kamikazes operating as missiles.
Ken

Okinawa was rather unusual. The CV's were tied to small area by
the requirement to provide air cover for the invasion fleet.
Worse still they were within range of the enemies (large) air force.
That said such refinements as AEW radar rose directly from that
experience.

I deviated the topic to F-35 (nuke able) for the navy
is to be absolutely unnecessary and of nil usefulness.
(The A-5 Vigilante again).
I'll go further, all nuke weapons should be banned by
treaty from international waters and air space.
Ken

On Thu, 07 May 2009 19:02:12 GMT, Ed Rasimus
wrote:

On Thu, 07 May 2009 18:59:39 +0200, "dott.Piergiorgio"
wrote:

Ed Rasimus ha scritto:


That being said, I had a flight of four kill Indianapolis (thinking it
was America until we were in the pop-up) in one exercise
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)

I can justapoxe (sp?) these two lines ?

(wondering how happens to mix CVN and SSN blips...)

Sorry. My mis-remembering. It was California--a guided missile
cruiser, not a SSN. It was thirty years ago!

Even on a good day, the F-4 radar wouldn't pick up many subs!

You need Harrier radar for that.


Peter Skelton

Even on a good day, the F-4 radar wouldn't pick up many subs!

You need Harrier radar for that.

After the engine failed.

"Ken S. Tucker" wrote in message
...
On May 7, 12:32 am, "Keith Willshaw"
wrote:
"Ken S. Tucker" wrote in
...



On May 6, 6:54 pm, J wrote:
On May 4, 4:05 pm, Ed Rasimus wrote:

2.) Disabuse yourself from the notion that a CV is any sort of easy
target. I spent a lot of years trying to successfully do just that
in
exercises. It is damn close to impossible.
Ed,

Were you ever successful? (To the extent you can say.)
Thanks . . . J

Ed's comment was directed to me on May 4th.
I *think* he's suggesting a fighter attack on a CVN.
Currently, cruise missiles and/or MRBM's, because
of the wide spread availability of precision electronic
guidance, basically has a CVN as equivalent to a
heavily armored *blimp* in a fluid.

As a back-drop, 27 years ago,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exocet#Falklands_Conflict
(Seems like yesterday).


Delivered by aircraft as a standoff weapon, the target identification
was down on board the aircraft.

Neither MRBM's nor most cruise missiles are well suited to
attacks on moving targets. The guidance systems on ballistic
missiles are designed to hit a given set of co-ordinates and
the flight dynamics make terminal manoeuvering very difficult
even if you had sensors capable of penetrating the plasma
around the vehicle.

Things could have changed. I have a good idea
of what's *technically* possible, I hope you're
right.

Cruise missiles have the problem of being targets in their own
right and so typically fly low which makes searching for the
target very difficult and makes for a high likelihood of
attacks on the wrong vessel (see Atlantic Conveyor and Falklands)

ditto.

There are a few systems like the Russian Granit designed to
operate in swarms where one missile will pop up to medium altitude
to provide course correction information for the others but that
of course leaves them open to spoofing and meaconing.

It's a bit difficult to hide a CVN from a satellite.


Sure but getting real time location from a satellite is difficult and
VERY expensive

1) Any given low earth recon birds will only revisit any given spot
at infrequent periods typically measured in daysor at best hours
rather than minutes

2) Standard recon satellites use optical or infrared methods which
limits their effectiveness in case of clud cover

3) Even if your satellite happens to fly over a CVN you have to
have people analysing the data in real time.

To get round the problems the Soviets launched a whole series
of Radar satellites (RORSAT). These were BIG and typically
powered by type BES-5 nuclear reactors. They weighed in at
around 4 tons and to get decent coverage of even a fairly small
part of the planet they had to launch a whole constellation of
them at vast expense.

AFAIK there have been no such satelllites in service for more
than a decade.

IIRC, the last war where severe attacks were waged
on CV's with a large defensive screen was off Okinawa,
with kamikazes operating as missiles.
Ken

Okinawa was rather unusual. The CV's were tied to small area by
the requirement to provide air cover for the invasion fleet.
Worse still they were within range of the enemies (large) air force.
That said such refinements as AEW radar rose directly from that
experience.

I deviated the topic to F-35 (nuke able) for the navy
is to be absolutely unnecessary and of nil usefulness.
(The A-5 Vigilante again).
I'll go further, all nuke weapons should be banned by
treaty from international waters and air space.
Ken


There goes the US nuclear deterrent

Keith

On May 7, 4:15*pm, Ed Rasimus wrote:

On the surface with the sail broadside at short range...

On some attacks we were almost running in their environment! On that
cruiser attack we had laid a chaff corridor with ALE-38 dispensers at
200 feet above the water and ran in the descending chaff the last 100
miles to the boat.

Holy ****. I'd ask how terrifying that must have been but you were
probably too busy to notice. Would that sort of approach present a FOD
danger, BTW? I always assumed chaff went behind/between the attackers.

On May 7, 3:09*pm, "Keith Willshaw"
wrote:
"Ken S. Tucker" wrote in ...



On May 7, 12:32 am, "Keith Willshaw"
wrote:
"Ken S. Tucker" wrote in
...

On May 6, 6:54 pm, J wrote:
On May 4, 4:05 pm, Ed Rasimus wrote:

2.) Disabuse yourself from the notion that a CV is any sort of easy
target. I spent a lot of years trying to successfully do just that
in
exercises. It is damn close to impossible.
Ed,

Were you ever successful? (To the extent you can say.)
Thanks . . . J

Ed's comment was directed to me on May 4th.
I *think* he's suggesting a fighter attack on a CVN.
Currently, cruise missiles and/or MRBM's, because
of the wide spread availability of precision electronic
guidance, basically has a CVN as equivalent to a
heavily armored *blimp* in a fluid.

As a back-drop, 27 years ago,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exocet#Falklands_Conflict
(Seems like yesterday).

Delivered by aircraft as a standoff weapon, the target identification
was down on board the aircraft.



Neither MRBM's nor most cruise missiles are well suited to
attacks on moving targets. The guidance systems on ballistic
missiles are designed to hit a given set of co-ordinates and
the flight dynamics make terminal manoeuvering very difficult
even if you had sensors capable of penetrating the plasma
around the vehicle.

Things could have changed. I have a good idea
of what's *technically* possible, I hope you're
right.

Cruise missiles have the problem of being targets in their own
right and so typically fly low which makes searching for the
target very difficult and makes for a high likelihood of
attacks on the wrong vessel (see Atlantic Conveyor and Falklands)

ditto.

There are a few systems like the Russian Granit designed to
operate in swarms where one missile will pop up to medium altitude
to provide course correction information for the others but that
of course leaves them open to spoofing and meaconing.

It's a bit difficult to hide a CVN from a satellite.

Sure but getting real time location from a satellite is difficult and
VERY expensive

1) Any given low earth recon birds will only revisit any given spot
at infrequent periods typically *measured in daysor at best *hours
rather than minutes

2) Standard recon satellites use optical or infrared methods which
limits their effectiveness in case of clud cover

3) Even if your satellite happens to fly over *a CVN you have to
have people analysing the data in real time.

To get round the problems the Soviets launched a whole series
of Radar satellites (RORSAT). These were BIG and typically
powered by type BES-5 nuclear reactors. They weighed in at
around 4 tons and to get decent coverage of even a fairly small
part of the planet they had to launch a whole constellation of
them at vast expense.

AFAIK there have been no such satelllites in service for more
than a decade.



IIRC, the last war where severe attacks were waged
on CV's with a large defensive screen was off Okinawa,
with kamikazes operating as missiles.
Ken

Okinawa was rather unusual. The CV's were tied to small area by
the requirement to provide air cover for the invasion fleet.
Worse still they were within range of the enemies (large) air force.
That said such refinements as AEW radar rose directly from that
experience.

I deviated the topic to F-35 (nuke able) for the navy
is to be absolutely unnecessary and of nil usefulness.
(The A-5 Vigilante again).
I'll go further, all nuke weapons should be banned by
treaty from international waters and air space.
Ken

There goes the US nuclear deterrent

Keith

Back when 'those were the days' the Soviets though nothing of putting
up stuff weekly, even if it had to be replaced in a few months due to
low orbits. Would even launch recon sats just for an exercise. Overfly
this battle group or whatnot.

Way different than how the US did it. But, our stuff was like the
Energizer bunny, kept going and going and going....
cost real money too. No wonder the had a black budget.

On May 4, 5:16*pm, wrote:
On Mon, 4 May 2009 13:27:39 -0700 (PDT), BlackBeard
wrote:

On May 4, 1:05*pm, Ed Rasimus wrote:

2.) Disabuse yourself from the notion that a CV is any sort of easy
target. I spent a lot of years trying to successfully do just that in
exercises. It is damn close to impossible. Whoever attempts it will
suffer severe losses in the process and even then may not succeed.

Well, from the air or surface maybe... *

Well, no.

I've sat on many an SSN over the years. *They are tough to catch but
I've yet to meat the submariner that's 7 feet tall, bullet proof, and
immortal. *:-)

Knew more than a few bubbleheads who thought the Naval Aviators
weren't as invincible as they thought they were.
Then again, you can count on one hand who could get within a carrier
battle group. Us, Soviets at their prime. Maybe. But, like anything
else, get enough of a wolfpack, somebody will cause a world of hurt.

I was always amazed nobody ever tried to hit one of the charter
aircraft we seemed to use a lot of to move troops. Or the civilian
shipping. Either inability to do it or some sort of unspoken rule.
Still.....