Radar from the 60s

Guy, we carried SA2 missile beacon jammers in March of 72 et seq and
they were quite effective.
Walt BJ

Come! Join us in the 21st century.

"Charles Talleyrand" wrote in message
...
How good was shipborne radar in the 60s against a 2003 airforce? For
example, could a 1964 ship detect an incoming modern strike
before the explosions began in the face of modern ACM.

I ask both because I'm curious about the past and because there are navies
out
there using old-fashioned technology.

Walt BJ wrote:

Guy, we carried SA2 missile beacon jammers in March of 72 et seq and
they were quite effective.

I have no doubt they were effective sometimes, as not all of the North
Vietnamese SA-2s and Fan Songs were modified. However, I could swear I
read an official or semi-official (paraphrased) report in the last
couple of months, which stated that the later model SA-2s had been given
coded beacons of greater power, which rendered beacon jamming
ineffective (at the time at least). Damned if I can remember where
right now, so I could lay my hands on it and provide the quote. I'll
keep looking.

Guy

Alas, the bottom line answer to the original question is this...

Same equipment operated by operators who knew and cared about doing the job
correctly, are more likely then not to find anything... In late 70s, using
early 70s technology, the Knox/Hewes class Frigate I was on using SPS10C and
SPS40 series radar held contact on drone simulators as well as aircraft
simulators that ships with "better" equipment couldn't find, much less
track...

As to shooting down...

Same answer applies... Sure a Phalanx is "always on" ...

But with appropriate notice... a properly trained and interested 5"/54 or
3"/50 crew can knock things out of sky that too many folks say is
impossible... Just as the T-2 Buckeye driver of Viques Island who had the
sock destroyed with 2 rounds from our lowly little frigate on the first high
speed pass...

How about a Tornado from Uruguayan Air Force who got plinked at high
altitude/high speed as well as low altitude/low speed...

It isn't the equipment, it is the human designing and using it... Technology
is no substitute for intelligence...

And also... That ship is now the heaviest armed warship on active duty in
Africa, being the fagship of the Egyptian Navy as ENS Dumyat...


BTW ex-EW1(ESWS/AC/DV)

Tin Can Sailor forever



How good was shipborne radar in the 60s against a 2003 airforce? For
example, could a 1964 ship detect an incoming modern strike
before the explosions began in the face of modern ACM.

I ask both because I'm curious about the past and because there are
navies
out
there using old-fashioned technology.

Here's a couple factors, one plus, one minus.
The minus is that sea state would have a deleterious effect on low
altitude pickup to the point where a good pair of binoculars would
have greater range. By low altitude here I mean sea-skimming to where
the jet exhaust is blowing up spray.
The plus effect is that a direct vision cathode ray tube (actual radar
blips on the scope) adds about 3 db to the radar's effectiveness
because the human eye/mind integrates the information and can discern
targets below the noise peaks - because noise is random and the radar
blis are not. It takes some experience but it definitely works.
So a 60's type radar would still be fairly effective aginst aircraft
out of the sea return, effective enough for fire control purposes.
Against the extremely low altitude target - when the CV Eisenhower was
working up the PRANG A7s could get at it by such an approach.
Walt BJ

"Walt BJ" wrote in message
om...
The plus effect is that a direct vision cathode ray tube (actual radar
blips on the scope) adds about 3 db to the radar's effectiveness
because the human eye/mind integrates the information and can discern
targets below the noise peaks - because noise is random and the radar
blis are not. It takes some experience but it definitely works.
So a 60's type radar would still be fairly effective aginst aircraft
out of the sea return, effective enough for fire control purposes.
Against the extremely low altitude target - when the CV Eisenhower was
working up the PRANG A7s could get at it by such an approach.

Even with today's modern radar you need to be on the ball. Set the radar up
wrong and you'll be getting holes punched all over you. Some guys who worked
the system could really set up things well

"Jaymes Littlehayles" wrote:

:It isn't the equipment, it is the human designing and using it... Technology
:is no substitute for intelligence...

Or, as they taught us on a much smaller and more personal basis; There
are no deadly weapons. There are only deadly men.

--
The only easy day was yesterday.

"Jaymes Littlehayles" wrote in message
.. .
Alas, the bottom line answer to the original question is this...

Same equipment operated by operators who knew and cared about doing the
job
correctly, are more likely then not to find anything... In late 70s, using
early 70s technology, the Knox/Hewes class Frigate I was on using SPS10C
and
SPS40 series radar held contact on drone simulators as well as aircraft
simulators that ships with "better" equipment couldn't find, much less
track...

The 10 and 40 are no match for a modern ASCM. Operators can exponentially
improve a systems performance but those systems are just plain outdated.
Considering the Knox had a gun, you could attack it with impunity from
outside the range of the gun. A good operator might pick out a sea skimming
missile but he'd better be good and the missile will be very close (ie. too
late)

As to shooting down...
Same answer applies... Sure a Phalanx is "always on" ...
But with appropriate notice... a properly trained and interested 5"/54 or
3"/50 crew can knock things out of sky that too many folks say is
impossible... Just as the T-2 Buckeye driver of Viques Island who had the
sock destroyed with 2 rounds from our lowly little frigate on the first
high
speed pass...
How about a Tornado from Uruguayan Air Force who got plinked at high
altitude/high speed as well as low altitude/low speed...

Throw in an bit of countermeasures and plinking becomes very difficult,
though I've seen some pretty skilled SPG-53 operators. Tornado's and
Buckeyes have a pretty high RCS which helps considerably. An ASCM like an
Exocet is much more difficult to pick out of the weeds.


It isn't the equipment, it is the human designing and using it...
Technology
is no substitute for intelligence...

Improvements in todays equipment coupled with very skilled technicians makes
equipment today far more capable against the low angle threat.

And also... That ship is now the heaviest armed warship on active duty in
Africa, being the fagship of the Egyptian Navy as ENS Dumyat...


BTW ex-EW1(ESWS/AC/DV)

BTW ex EW2 Defected over to the Army Guard upon release.

Ballensr- What downward ejection seats in the A-3-3 are you talking about?
The A-3
never had ejection seats! BRBR

Navy Whale didn't but the USAF(B-66?) did....
P. C. Chisholm
CDR, USN(ret.)
Old Phart Phormer Phantom, Turkey, Viper, Scooter and Combat Buckeye Phlyer

Brian wrote:

"Even with today's modern radar you need to be on the ball. Set the radar up
wrong and you'll be getting holes punched all over you. Some guys who worked
the system could really set up things well

Won't be an issue with tomorrows radar. Will say more when I can.

"Ace"