Forum: Air Power

I was watching "SuperCarrier" last night, and I thought about something again that I discussed with a friend on friday night. In our discussion, we were wondering about all of the wasted AIM-54 inventory that is(or was) out there. While watching the show last night, they showed the Sea Sparrow defenses on the George Washington. Wouldn't having a Sea Phoenix system been a better thought when the powers that be decided to convert AIM-9s and AIM-7s into ground and sea based AA missiles? I mean, better range and guidance- why not?

F-16.net Sponsor

Expense, weight, requires a special radar to operate, more difficult to maintain...etc, etc.

The Navy also knew that the best way to counter the threat of the Phoenix's equipment falling into Iranian hands, was to place them in AMARG for their final disposition, i.e., scrapping the missiles.

Rest assured, there are plenty of defenses to the Carrier Battle Group and/or Task Force before a ship is required to use its self defense weapons, such as the Sea Sparrow or Phalanx CIWS.

Now they only need a system to keep Chinese submarines from popping up in the middle of a Carrier Battle Group. Razz

They do. It's called the P-3 Orion.

Not when this happened:
________________________________________________________________________

Chinese sub pops up during U.S. Navy exercises.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/liv...n_page_id=1811

The uninvited guest: Chinese sub pops up in middle of U.S. Navy exercise, leaving military chiefs red-faced

By MATTHEW HICKLEY

Last updated at 00:13am on 10th November 2007

When the U.S. Navy deploys a battle fleet on exercises, it takes the security of its aircraft carriers very seriously indeed.

At least a dozen warships provide a physical guard while the technical wizardry of the world's only military superpower offers an invisible shield to detect and deter any intruders.

That is the theory. Or, rather, was the theory.

American military chiefs have been left dumbstruck by an undetected Chinese submarine popping up at the heart of a recent Pacific exercise and close to the vast U.S.S. Kitty Hawk - a 1,000ft supercarrier with 4,500 personnel on board.

By the time it surfaced the 160ft Song Class diesel-electric attack submarine is understood to have sailed within viable range for launching torpedoes or missiles at the carrier.

According to senior Nato officials the incident caused consternation in the U.S. Navy.

The Americans had no idea China's fast-growing submarine fleet had reached such a level of sophistication, or that it posed such a threat.

One Nato figure said the effect was "as big a shock as the Russians launching Sputnik" - a reference to the Soviet Union's first orbiting satellite in 1957 which marked the start of the space age.

The incident, which took place in the ocean between southern Japan and Taiwan, is a major embarrassment for the Pentagon.

The lone Chinese vessel slipped past at least a dozen other American warships which were supposed to protect the carrier from hostile aircraft or submarines.

And the rest of the costly defensive screen, which usually includes at least two U.S. submarines, was also apparently unable to detect it.

According to the Nato source, the encounter has forced a serious re-think of American and Nato naval strategy as commanders reconsider the level of threat from potentially hostile Chinese submarines.

It also led to tense diplomatic exchanges, with shaken American diplomats demanding to know why the submarine was "shadowing" the U.S. fleet while Beijing pleaded ignorance and dismissed the affair as coincidence.

Analysts believe Beijing was sending a message to America and the West demonstrating its rapidly-growing military capability to threaten foreign powers which try to interfere in its "backyard".

The People's Liberation Army Navy's submarine fleet includes at least two nuclear-missile launching vessels.

Its 13 Song Class submarines are extremely quiet and difficult to detect when running on electric motors.

Commodore Stephen Saunders, editor of Jane's Fighting Ships, and a former Royal Navy anti-submarine specialist, said the U.S. had paid relatively little attention to this form of warfare since the end of the Cold War.

He said: "It was certainly a wake-up call for the Americans.

"It would tie in with what we see the Chinese trying to do, which appears to be to deter the Americans from interfering or operating in their backyard, particularly in relation to Taiwan."

In January China carried a successful missile test, shooting down a satellite in orbit for the first time.

StolichnayaStrafer wrote:

Not when this happened:
________________________________________________________________________

Chinese sub pops up during U.S. Navy exercises.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/liv...n_page_id=1811

The uninvited guest: Chinese sub pops up in middle of U.S. Navy exercise, leaving military chiefs red-faced

By MATTHEW HICKLEY

Last updated at 00:13am on 10th November 2007

When the U.S. Navy deploys a battle fleet on exercises, it takes the security of its aircraft carriers very seriously indeed.

At least a dozen warships provide a physical guard while the technical wizardry of the world's only military superpower offers an invisible shield to detect and deter any intruders.

snip.................

In January China carried a successful missile test, shooting down a satellite in orbit for the first time.

Sorry bud that was a load of $hite!

Cruiseing in peace time conditions is a hell of alot different from a CBG on a wartime footing. I wonder how manny bouey lines were out at the time? i wonder how many arrays had been droped? Boueys cost $400+ bucks a pop you know. I wonder how much organic or land based air was hunting at the time? Zilch, Zero, Nada ill betcha! Try that against a CBG on a war footing and see how long one of those rusty old 'boots last. Its about as scary as shooting down a weather satelite in a decaying orbit. It must be the end of SATCOM and orbital EO & ELINT. Rolling Eyes

Has about as much relevence to actual capability in a shooting war as the swiss guard...

Jeesh, just going by a story posted elsewhere- remember, don't shoot the messenger! Shrug

StolichnayaStrafer wrote:

Wouldn't having a Sea Phoenix system been a better

No, even with modifications the Phoenix Missile could not deal with anti-ship missiles that pull many "G's" as it nears its target.

StolichnayaStrafer wrote:

Now they only need a system to keep Chinese submarines from popping up in the middle of a Carrier Battle Group.

What you don't hear about is the US subs that tail PLAN subs. All the talk about Russian Oscar Class (SSGM -guided missile subs) shadowing US carriers at distances of 250 miles to 300 miles, that information was obtained by US subs tailing the PLAN missile sub from its port until it goes back to its port!
The first word the US Navy got about the undersea earthquake that caused the great tsunami in 2004 was from an SSN (radioed the word in) that was trailing a PLAN SSBM in the Indian Ocean!!

Its is a bunch of BS that the conventional powered sub (SSK) tailed the carrier from the area where the carrier exercise near Taiwan to the waters of Okinawa. Carriers sail around at around twenty to thirty knots. An SSK would drain its batteries in less than two hours if it traveled at eighteen knots or higher (if higher was possible! SSK's are in essence "mobile minefields!" The Soviet designed Kilo SSK can go 500 miles underwater if it travels at 3 knots!
Most all nuclear powered subs are not stealthy at speeds above eight knots nor can it 'detect' anything at speeds above fifth-teen knots due to the build up of the boundary layer near the front of the hull.
My theory is PLAN intell found out where the carrier was going and stationed a sub in a position where it was in the path of the carrier.

Adrian

Last edited by alaskanmarine1 on Aug 23, 2008 - 05:23 AM; edited 1 time in total

The Phoenix shoot in 1999, was when two MIG-25s penetrated the southern No-Fly Zone. Two VF-213 F-14Ds fired two AIM-54Cs at their maximum range when the MiGs turned and made a high speed run on the deck home. Actually crashing on the way back due to fuel starvation from making their high speed run. The reason the Tomcat has such few aerial victories, is that no one would challenge them, once the enemy received the radar detection, they would just turn and run as fast as they could.

alaskanmarine1 wrote:

The reason the Tomcat has such view aerial victories, is that no one would challenge them, once the enemy received the radar detection, they would just turn and run as fast as they could.

True, Iraqi pilots learned to respect the Phoenix due to the 79 F-14 Tomcats we sold to Iran back in the 70's right before the government was overthrown.

alaskanmarine1 wrote:

The Phoenix shoot in 1999, was when two MIG-25s penetrated the southern No-Fly Zone. Two VF-213 F-14Ds fired two AIM-54Cs at their maximum range when the MiGs turned and made a high speed run on the deck home. Actually crashing on the way back due to fuel starvation from making their high speed run. The reason the Tomcat has such few aerial victories, is that no one would challenge them, once the enemy received the radar detection, they would just turn and run as fast as they could.

Umm... that's actually a bad thing. If Iraqi MiG-25's can see you coming, then just about anything else can, too.

Besides, I thought the reason for the lack of kills in Iraq was because the Tomcats were held back due to insufficient IFF equipment.

Didn't the Iranians have a cheaper version of the early model AIM-54 Phoenix missiles? I also remember reading that Iran was prone to using their Tomcats as an expedient substitute for an early airborne warning radar system, more like an armed AWACS platform.

[quote="StolichnayaStrafer"]DidnYes, the Iranians did have a downgraded version of the AIM-54 Phoenix. And I believe they did use the F-14 as a kind of AWAC to cue their more numerous F-4 Phantoms. Osperypublishing.com might have more info "Iranian F-14 Tomcat Units in Combat" I believe is the name of one book (I can't vouch for it, I haven't read it). Shrug

I think I had read it in the old Air Power quarterly books from the UK by way of Connecticut in the issue that headlined the F-14. That was a great publication, too bad it went down the tubes. Shoot, that must be almost 8 years gone now! Shocked

Yeah, I liked those Air Power magazines too!

Forum: Air Power

AIM-54 Phoenix....why was it retired?