joey2

guys can you help me to have a list of anti missile system for ships on the order of their decreasing effectiveness.
after this barak mess i wanna know how good it is...

B.Smitty

Well I won't even try to rate them, but IIRC, Barak wasn't even online when that Sa'ar was hit.

No matter how good an anti-missile system is, if it's not turned on when the missile's inbound it's gonna have a 0% effectiveness.

joey2

but you see mr. smitty there has been a defence scam in india with former defence minister charged by SBI for a alleged scam...on barak deal.

now kalam wrote in a letter barak isnt tht much effective and stuffs.
thts y i was wondering without a missile defence ship how the heck can we survive from a salvo of babur missiles?is barak really tht uncapable?

one more thing there is a article where writtenn barak is made for israel navy who gets to sea for not long time while Indian navy who sails for days , barak is not much suited.
how true is this?

http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/NEWS/n...hp?newsid=7456 - Barak was not suited for India :| :| wtf?
man i hate this i just gope the navy knows best and it doesnt goes for a POS system...afterall.

highsea

Babur is a LACM, not an AShM. IOW, it has no radar to target shipping- it is designed to attack pre-programmed targets using GPS and Terrain Mapping.

It's Harpoons or Exocets you need to worry about...

__________________
My baby called me up. She said- Why don't you ever take me out? Pick me up in your brand new car....You shake the short change from the old fruit jar...

Anon

The Stark had the same problems IIRC. It's Phalanx or Standard wasn't working right or something either.

joey2

And they are definitely getting harpoons.. so a harpoon fired is impossible to intercept for the damn barak?

it seems like very few 100% sucessful anti-missile missile shields to protect ships are there where does barak stands in the list?

i just hope our politicians wont blacklist the company.. cuz we need the 60km barak2 more than anything.

afaik, a sub launched babur is under developement.so wont it be used as a Ashm too?

SnowLeopard

I won't rate them because in addition to OPSEC issues, though being out so long one wouldn't think so, there are various ways to view them. Ie, it may be a wonderful system at stopping missiles ......... but a maintainance nightmare, so where does one judge it to be a good system when rating it?

Besides, there is another issue. When I worked in electronic warfare training battle crews, my station would identify the radar, type it to the particular missile, and I would give angles for chaff launches ........... but those angles were rarely used. That is not to say they were ignored but the standard practice was not to go to a defensive stance but .........................

................................. turn the ship to unmask main missile batteries and shoot the darn thing down! (go offensive)

It's not just one particular system or that. It's how the crew fights the ship.
------------------------------------------
("Hold on, String, radar's locked on a target."--Santini
"Can you identify them?"--Hawke
"Well, they're either a flying advertisement for 'Missiles are Us' or they are pretty serious." Bop! Bop! (missiles launching) "Yep! They're pretty serious!", (w,stte), AirWolf "Day of Jeopardy")

SnowLeopard

It was a trifle bit more than that. The general feeling thru out the fleet at the time was that the crew was not operating as they should have been while in a war zone. Ie, the Captain failed to instill that proper mindset in them. Us junior officers, then, rather pictured a situation where it was "more important" to chew out someone than to listen to the reports from the sensors ....... and those on the sensors didn't dare want to interrupt with such Prima Donna's around ........ sort of like the helmsman in the Caine Mutiny when Bogart is chewing out someone and silences the helmsman as he tries to report that they are running over their own tow cable.

Ridiculous that a fictional movie could actually parallel possible realistic events? Perhaps but unfortunally, there are situations in reality where just that happens.
---------------------------------------------------------
(Pilot looks to his side and sees the Pegasus closing on them. "Sir, what about the other...?"
"Not now! I don't want to miss a moment of the destruction of the last battlestar."--Baltar
"Sir, I really think you ought to take a look at the other Battlestar.", (w,stte), Battlestar Galactica "The Living Legend")

avon1944

It is not really possible to rate anti-aircraft missile systems because none of them have seen any amount of combat. No two systems have seen the same situations. Bragging rights basically come from confidence in the particular navy and their weapon systems, not just the missiles by themselves. Confidence in the Barak is high because the Israeli Navy/Military has a reputation for quality weapons.


The INS Eilat when it was attacked off Lebanon had its system off because of Israeli fighters in the area. The USS Stark had its weapon systems on but, they were masked by the superstructure in the direction the incomming missiles were comming from. For some reason neither the Stark nor the aegis ship in the region considered the Iraqi F.1 a threat. When the F.1 lost altitude and popped up closer to the ship, illuminating it and launching the missile, no one thought there was any real threat. The ESM SLQ-32 had a distance to the horizon of 23nm, provided the first evidence the ship was under attack of which was responded to.
Yes, sometimes the US ships were used by the Iraqi AF as navigation 'way points' in their attacks on Iranian shipping. The USA sometimes worked with Iraq in its war against Iran. So, I guess the thought of an Iraqi attack was rather remote.


There is more confidence in the hard-kill than there is against soft-kills. Even though in the history of anti-ship missile warfare the large percentage of kills against incomming missiles have been soft-kills.

Thanx your information concerning the crew of the USS Stark's mental attitude.

Adrian

Tronic

Well India scrapped its own Trishul program for the Barak....

__________________
Nabha Sparasham Deeptam
-Touch The Sky With Glory

Galrahn

If military experience is the criteria, then Sea Dart is the best. As far as I know it is the only Naval missile system to engage an anti-ship missile at sea, with the HMS Gloucester shooting down an Iraqi Silkworm during the Gulf War.

I don't know what is going on in the Indian Navy, but I think whatever they do, they need to choose a SAM and stick to it. Trying to integrate Russian SAMs and Israeli/Rafael SAMs into an integrated air defense network for thier Navy has to feel like a nightmare.

Barak-2 should be about the same, maybe a little better range, than the SA-17 in terms of capability, the specs are very similar.

Barak-1 may be a bit behind the SA-19, as the SA-19 has been proven to engage as many as 6 targets at once, and was built to engage both air and surface targets.

Either way, India should go with one supplier and stick to them, because while some might debate one specific missile system over the other, or want take the best medium range SAM and point defense SAM based on some specific set of parameters, integration should be the most important parameter, because without a reliable and efficient defense network, specific missile won't make a bit of difference.

Personally, I think the Russian weapons are ahead of the Israeli weapons, but I also think the Israeli electronics are ahead of the Russians, so it comes down to which you think is more important over the life cycle of the equipment, and which system scales the best and will be upgraded most efficiently throughout the fleet.

avon1944

It is less of a feat than the Israeli Navy using the Oto Malera 76mm gun to shoot down Styx Missiles at ranges up to 10Km in the Yom Kippur War!!
AW&ST had a great series of articles on the Israeli Navy during that war and how tactics (developed with the US Navy), the 76mm gun, jamming, chaff and, 'chaff rockets' defeated the Styx Missiles. It was a revolution of anti-ship warfare with missiles. It was one war/conflict but, there were several battles.
NOTE:
Chaff rockets are different from 'rapid bloom chaff'. Chaff rockets are fly along a path and periodically release bundles of chaff. Heading towards the anti-ship missile, to fire a chaff rocket to either side of the incomming missiles, creating a corridor. Then the Israeli boats would turn and exit the corridor, leaving a wall of chaff between them and the incomming missiles.

During the Cold War you would be correct but, since then things have changed. Avionics is a acchilles heel for Russian aircraft which is why so many countries with Russian weapons get non-Russian avionics, ie. the Su-30 MKK and MKI.
You must keep in perspective that until the need for the MiG-29 and Su-27 things like HOTAS, complex radars were seen by the Soviet AF as needless 'western gold plating'!

Passing test and combat often are two different things. The Israeli Navy has more naval missile warfare experience than any other navy.

The international market place would disagree with you there. The Russians are good in aerodynamics, ramjet propulsion but, in electronics the Israelis are more advanced. One area Israel has made real money is on avionics upgrades on old Soviet fighters. Many other countries including Russia but have decided the Israeli avionics industry has "market share" in this field and there is not enough buisness for many countries to be in the market. Plus the world accepts Israeli avionics as being first rate.

Adrian

SnowLeopard

Another thing to add to the calculation. It is not really an antimissile system or a defense ..... but it is something that can keep the ship from being hit.

Extreme sea states. Essentially, when the missile arrives, the ship is in a trough while the missile is up on the crests and it flies right over and never sees the ship. Might be known as a "failed to acquired target" situation.

Now, the odds that the victim could time it right are probably low, but to the guy firing the missiles, who has only a limited number of missiles, it is something that he might need to keep in the back of his mind, even if the wind is with him.
----------------------------------------------------
("He flew past us without firing a shot!"--Sulu about the Klingon
"Spock?"--Kirk
"Obviously, he expected us to go into warp to engage him."--Spock
"Which had we done with that bomb in engineering, we would have blown up, simplifying the matter for him."--Kirk, (w,stte), ST:TOS "Elaane of Troyus")

Galrahn

The new stealth features used in ship designs have never been tested operationally, but I have worked with several people lately who swear by it.

In particular, the Visby class and La Fayette class have specifically been cited as being extreamly stealthy, to the point in the opinions of some I would label knowledgable, could be a major factor in the outcome of a battle.

An example. Based on EP-3C patrol testimony and other maritime surveillance using non-visual and visual methods, both the Visby and the La Fayette class are virtually impossible to find in open water, particularly in rougher seas when operating areas like the North Atlantic removed from other ships.

One of the most common debates I have enjoyed listening too over the past several years is the open ocean contest between a La Fayette vs a Sovremenny class, because it is said in a sea state of 4, not only will the Sovremenny class be unable to find the La Fayette on radar, but it is said to be highly unlikely the Sunburn missiles would be able to aquire a lock on the ship BVR either.

In a 1v1 in open seas, it is said the La Fayette would win 10 out of 10 fights, almost entirely because of its stealth.

Stealth is one thing I know very little about on warships, but I find the discussions interesting. If anyone has anything to add I'd be very interested.

Anon

Based on what? Yom Kippur?

That was a LONG time ago.