Jump to content

3rd WW, battle for the Arctic (Cold war period)


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 762
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

7 minutes ago, Perun said:

In 1980s AEGIS system had limitations, it wasnt same system like in 1990s and after. And no one consider what influence would had soviet EW. And AIM-54 didnt prove excellent nider

Which limitations? Aegis was more than capable of defeating a massed Soviet attack if enough ships were networked (which was the real limitation as the older DDGs lacked datalinks, not to speak about allies). Re AIM-54, it was combat proven, but not by the USN, and was capable enough, and getting improved by becoming digital.

Soviet ECM is a valid concern, but remember AIM-54 had a home on jam capability

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Perun said:

Aegis limitation was in number of targets that could be fired on and number of missile wich could be guided on targets

Ah, ok, but that wasn't Aegis, but the early Standard missiles, by the time Aegis was in service, this limitation had been overcome by the RIM-66C/D, which was only available for Aegis cruisers (no Burkes in service in the 80s) and the NTU ships (only a handful)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

West Germany:

From its original integration wihin NATO, The BundesMarine had a mission of coastal defense and Baltic operations and cooperation in sea-control operations in the North Sea. This mission rose to a new level in 1980 when West Germany lifted self-imposed restrictions on naval operations, north of 616 parallel. German control of the western Baltic and its approaches was integrated into the main NATO scheme of naval battles in the North Atlantic, in coordinations with operations in central Europe.

To control the Norwegian waterways a German mission was created, but associated with NATO's blue water navies, to assert naval superiority, protect reinforcement and supplies, as well as ASW and mine warfare. The German Navy developed and maintained for this area a mixed force of destroyers and frigates, submarines, plus long range maritime patrol aircraft and auxiliary ships to ensure the German North Sea SLOC terminals remained open. Strategy for this area was dependent on other European navies and the USN carrier battle group (CVBG) operations.

The two squadrons of F-104 fighter bombers were aptly replaced by Tornados, while the North Atlantic maritime patrol aircraft park underwent comprehensive modernization of their weaponry and sensors. With the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan the Bundesmarine took a greater part in the Norwegian Sea operations. But it was clear to anyone at NATO that the commitment of three US CVBGs were critical for this area. Because of USN redeployments (notably in the Mediterranean) a critical delaying role was to be played by European navies, waiting for reinforcements notably through minelaying actions. The Bundesmarine played her role in this expansionist naval policy, but by weakening her Baltic commitment.

https://naval-encyclopedia.com/cold-war/bundesmarine.php

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, RETAC21 said:

Ah, ok, but that wasn't Aegis, but the early Standard missiles, by the time Aegis was in service, this limitation had been overcome by the RIM-66C/D, which was only available for Aegis cruisers (no Burkes in service in the 80s) and the NTU ships (only a handful)

By the end of 1989. there were ~15 Ticonderoga cruisers, five of them had only 2 Mk26 launchers (four missiles) while ~10 had two Mk 41 vls with 122 missiles. Main shortcoming was that cruisers had only four AN/SPG-62 fire control radar with narrow bean and limited turning sector

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Perun said:

By the end of 1989. there were ~15 Ticonderoga cruisers, five of them had only 2 Mk26 launchers (four missiles) while ~10 had two Mk 41 vls with 122 missiles. Main shortcoming was that cruisers had only four AN/SPG-62 fire control radar with narrow bean and limited turning sector

Sure, but this limitation was overcome by giving the missile inertial guidance plus autopilot, so ilumination was only required in the last seconds of an engagement, allowing the time sharing of the iluminator radar

https://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/m-66.html

"SM-2 (Standard Missile 2) was developed as the missile component of the U.S. Navy's Aegis fleet air defense system. The SM-2 missile uses semi-active radar homing only in the terminal intercept phase, and has a new inertial guidance unit and a new programmable MK 2 autopilot to guide it near the projected point of intercept. On Aegis ships, this autopilot is command-guided to the target by the launching ship, which can track multiple targets with the Aegis' powerful AN/SPY-1 radar (current version is AN/SPY-1D). When used on earlier Tartar ships, SM-2 uses pre-launch settings and its inertial guidance system to find its way to the target. Not needing SAR guidance through all its flight-path, effective intercept range of the SM-2MR is 60 percent greater than for the SM-1MR. The command guidance allows a more energy-efficient flight path, and the illuminator radar (e.g. AN/SPG-62) can provide effective illumination at almost doubled target ranges (because illumination immediately after launch is especially power-demanding, when the radar beam has to travel all the distance from ship to target and back). A further improvement in the SM-2 is the new monopulse seeker for terminal homing, which provides better ECM resistance.

The RIM-66C designation applied to SM-2MR Block I missiles for Aegis ships. It had a MK 115 blast-fragmentation warhead. RIM-66C entered service in 1978 and was produced until 1983. RIM-66D is the SM-2MR missile for Tartar ships."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dutch navy:

The 1974 fleet plan

This year a plan was formulated, asking for 23 major surface ships in three task groups, plus a squadron of submarines (6), and MCM (mine warfare) crafts, 30 in three groups.
-The two main task forces comprised a flagship, new missile frigate (Tromp class), six standard ASW frigates, and a suport ship, to operate in the east Atlantic.
-An ASW task force headed with a single standard converted AAW frigate, and six Van Speijk class ASW frigates for the Channel command.
 The two mixed MCM groups would operate off the Netherlands coast and third group in the north sea under CINCHAN command.
In 1981, the plan was modified as two frigates were sold to Greece, while on the stocks. Due to the increasing aerial threat of the Soviet Union, the new two replacements asked for were planned as AAW frigates and soon joined by the new "M" class frigates tailored for the north sea.

https://naval-encyclopedia.com/cold-war/dutch-navy.php

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Norway:

During the cold war, the navy was optimized for sea denial in coastal waters to make an invasion from the sea as difficult and costly as possible. With that mission in mind, the Royal Norwegian Navy consisted of a large number of small vessels and up to 15 small diesel-electric submarines. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Norwegian_Navy

Naval Forces North Norway (NAVNON) was tasked with the defence of Northern Norway's coastal waters against Soviet naval incursions and amphibious landings. Operations in the ocean beyond Norway's coastal waters were under the command of NATO Supreme Allied Commander Atlantic's (SACLANT) Northern Sub-Area Command (NORLANT). Therefore NAVNON consisted of coastal artillery units and one fast attack craft squadron. The boats for the fast attack craft squadron were dispatched from units in Southern Norway on a rotational basis.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allied_Forces_North_Norway

Naval Forces South Norway (NAVSONOR) was tasked with the defence of Southern Norway's coastal waters against Soviet naval incursions and amphibious landings. Operations to the South of Norway's coastal waters were under the command of NATO's Allied Command Channel and Allied Forces Baltic Approaches. Therefore, most major naval units of the Norwegian Navy would have come under other NATO commands, with NAVSONOR retaining control of coastal artillery units and smaller coastal defense boats. NAVSONOR also dispatched a squadron of fast attack crafts to NAVNON on a rotational basis.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allied_Forces_South_Norway

Edited by Perun
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Canada:

Canadian Forces Maritime Command had its headquarters at CFB Halifax on Canada's Atlantic coast. It developed, trained and equipped Canada's naval forces. In wartime operational command would have been exerted by Commander Maritime Forces Atlantic (MARLANT) and Commander Maritime Forces Pacific (MARPAC) respectively. Commander of Maritime Forces Atlantic doubled-hatted as commander of NATO's Canadian Atlantic Sub-Area (CANLANT) command. CANLANT was an area command of Supreme Allied Commander Atlantic (SACLANT) and responsible to keep the Labrador Sea free from Soviet ships and submarines. As Soviet submarines passing under the ice of the Arctic Ocean and through the many channels of the Canadian Arctic Archipelago to reach the North Atlantic were seen as the biggest threat Canada's fleet fielded exclusively ships specialized in the anti-submarine role. Together with the US Navy Maritime Command operated a series the SOSUS underwater listening posts on the Atlantic Ocean's seabed to observe Soviet submarine operations in the Atlantic.

Air Command provided Maritime Command with a group of anti-submarine planes and helicopters. Maritime Command ships participated every year in NATO's Standing Naval Force Atlantic (STANAVFORLANT).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outline_of_the_Canadian_Armed_Forces_at_the_end_of_the_Cold_War#Maritime_Command

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Denmark:

Together with the German Fleet under the Flag Officer Germany (FOG), the RDN would have tried to keep the Warsaw Pact's United Baltic Sea Fleets, consisting of the Soviet Baltic Fleet, Polish Navy and East German Volksmarine bottled up in the Baltic Sea by blocking the Danish straits and thus ensuring NATOs unchallenged control of the North Sea. Additionally NAVBALTAP was to prevent amphibious landings on the Danish coast. To fulfill its mission the navy fielded a large number of minelayers and fast attack crafts. The first would have been used to mine all sealanes and potential landings beaches, while the latter would have harassed the enemy fleet with continuous hit and run attacks.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Danish_Navy#Royal_Danish_Navy_in_the_late_1980s

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Aegis

The US 3T family – Talos, Terrier and Tartar – is a good cross-section of these early missiles. These early missiles had much greater envelopes than the guns they replaced, but they weren’t perfect by any stretch of the imagination. Targets were acquired by rotating radars, which would take several seconds to complete a search. Each missile required a dedicated illuminator to provide the signal it homed in on. Due to electronic interference, only two illuminators could be installed on each end of the ship.2 So a ship could support a maximum of four missiles in the air at once. Due to the limited accuracy of early missiles, two missiles were fired at each target. In theory, it should be able to fire about two missiles/launcher/minute, but in practice it was usually limited by guidance channels. Long-range missiles might be able to get off 10 salvos/end, more normal systems about half that. So a heavy escort could kill maybe 20 targets, a normal one 5-10, assuming that the missiles actually worked.

 Let’s compare Aegis to the previous system. The main radar is the SPY-1 phased-array. It’s electronically scanned, which means that the array is fixed and looks in different directions using electronic witchcraft. It can search practically instantly across the whole area around the ship, and provide much more precise tracks. The missiles have autopilots, which are updated by radio from the ship. The SPY-1 is accurate enough to get them very close before they have to lock on to the target, so they only need an illuminator for the last few seconds of flight.3 The missiles are fired from a vertical launch system, which means that the rate of fire is now a missile every second or two per end.4 Now a ship can take out one target per end every 10 seconds or less, regardless of range. Oh, and the modern missiles are more accurate than the old ones, too. A Ticonderoga has four illuminators.

2-Some ships were single-ended, others double-ended. Each missile end usually had a twin launcher. Single-ended ships had guns, ASW weapons, and/or a helicopter pad on the other end. ⇑

3-Note that the autopilot also means that you can fly a more energy-efficient trajectory, approximately doubling range. ⇑

4-The first five Ticonderogas had Mk 26 twin-arm launchers instead, but they were retired in the mid-2000s.

https://www.navalgazing.net/Aegis

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, RETAC21 said:

Sure, but this limitation was overcome by giving the missile inertial guidance plus autopilot, so ilumination was only required in the last seconds of an engagement, allowing the time sharing of the iluminator radar

https://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/m-66.html

"SM-2 (Standard Missile 2) was developed as the missile component of the U.S. Navy's Aegis fleet air defense system. The SM-2 missile uses semi-active radar homing only in the terminal intercept phase, and has a new inertial guidance unit and a new programmable MK 2 autopilot to guide it near the projected point of intercept. On Aegis ships, this autopilot is command-guided to the target by the launching ship, which can track multiple targets with the Aegis' powerful AN/SPY-1 radar (current version is AN/SPY-1D). When used on earlier Tartar ships, SM-2 uses pre-launch settings and its inertial guidance system to find its way to the target. Not needing SAR guidance through all its flight-path, effective intercept range of the SM-2MR is 60 percent greater than for the SM-1MR. The command guidance allows a more energy-efficient flight path, and the illuminator radar (e.g. AN/SPG-62) can provide effective illumination at almost doubled target ranges (because illumination immediately after launch is especially power-demanding, when the radar beam has to travel all the distance from ship to target and back). A further improvement in the SM-2 is the new monopulse seeker for terminal homing, which provides better ECM resistance.

The RIM-66C designation applied to SM-2MR Block I missiles for Aegis ships. It had a MK 115 blast-fragmentation warhead. RIM-66C entered service in 1978 and was produced until 1983. RIM-66D is the SM-2MR missile for Tartar ships."

Cold War escorts: The average carrier had six escorts

Idealized escort force North Atlantic--
1975:
Leahy (x1) 80 SM-1ER
Belknap(x1) 40 SM-1ER
South Carolina(x1) 80 SM-1MR
CF Adams (x2) 80 mix RIM-24C and SM-1MR
FRAM II ASW Destroyer
--
Total SAM: 160 Medium range 120 long range
Number of targets Leahy 4, Belknap 2, SouthCarolina 4, CF Adams 2 total: 14

1989:
Ticonderoga Blk1 (x1) 68 SM-2MR Blk2 (20 ASROC)
Virginia NTU (x1) 48 SM-2MR (20ASROC)
Leahy NTU (x1) 80 SM-2ER Blk2
Spruance (x2) self defense only
OH Perry (x1) 36 SM-1MR Blk6
--
SAMs: 116 SM-2MR, 36 SM-1MR, 80 SM-2ER
Number of targets Tico: 16, Virginia @12, Leahy @12, Perry 2, total 42

Today:
Tico VLS (x2) 16 ESSM each, @100 SM-2MR Block 3 each
A Burke (x3) 16 ESSM each, @ 80 SM-2MR Block 3 each
OH Perry self defense only
Total missiles 440 SM-2MR Blk3, 80 ESSM
Targets: Aegis can do a lot more than 16 now, lets say 32 for my calculations: 160 total.

Review:
1971 280 missiles, max targets at once -- 14
1989 232 missiles, max targets at once -- 42
2007 520 missiles, max targets at once -- 160

 

The American cruisers and destroyers have the latest AEGIS system (capable of targeting 280 targets simultaneously).

The newer AEGIS system entering production now on the new Korean DDGs can track up to 480 targets at the same time, so all the missiles and aircraft could be tracked and targeted at the same time, and they probably would if the AEGIS went into emergency mode.

https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/warships1discussionboards/russian-saturation-attacks-vs-american-cvbg-t4818.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Perun said:

Cold War escorts: The average carrier had six escorts

1989:
Ticonderoga Blk1 (x1) 68 SM-2MR Blk2 (20 ASROC)
Virginia NTU (x1) 48 SM-2MR (20ASROC)
Leahy NTU (x1) 80 SM-2ER Blk2
Spruance (x2) self defense only
OH Perry (x1) 36 SM-1MR Blk6
--
SAMs: 116 SM-2MR, 36 SM-1MR, 80 SM-2ER
Number of targets Tico: 16, Virginia @12, Leahy @12, Perry 2, total 42


1989 232 missiles, max targets at once -- 42
 

https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/warships1discussionboards/russian-saturation-attacks-vs-american-cvbg-t4818.html

Nice forum you got there. I believe this is about right, but this is targets engaged at once, 2 engagements would take the number to 82, assuming a 70% success rate, that takes down 50 missiles (rounded down) leaving 30 for point defence systems and the Tomcats, in a 3 regiment vs 1 carrier engagement. if the fighters destroy 30% of the attacking force, the carrier group will survive, unless a nuclear tipped missile makes it through.

See here, but take it with a ton of salt

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

AIM-54 U.S. combat experience

On January 5, 1999, a pair of US F-14s fired two Phoenixes at Iraqi MiG-25s southeast of Baghdad. Both AIM-54s' rocket motors failed and neither missile hit its target.

On September 9, 1999, another US F-14 launched an AIM-54 at an Iraqi MiG-23 that was heading south into the no-fly zone from Al Taqaddum air base west of Baghdad. The missile missed, eventually going into the ground after the Iraqi fighter reversed course and fled north.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIM-54_Phoenix#U.S._combat_experience

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Perun said:

AIM-54 U.S. combat experience

On January 5, 1999, a pair of US F-14s fired two Phoenixes at Iraqi MiG-25s southeast of Baghdad. Both AIM-54s' rocket motors failed and neither missile hit its target.

On September 9, 1999, another US F-14 launched an AIM-54 at an Iraqi MiG-23 that was heading south into the no-fly zone from Al Taqaddum air base west of Baghdad. The missile missed, eventually going into the ground after the Iraqi fighter reversed course and fled north.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIM-54_Phoenix#U.S._combat_experience

https://backup.kjeks.io/Screenshots/Osprey Series/Osprey - Combat Aircraft Series/Osprey - Combat Aircraft 049 - Iranian F-14 Tomcat Units in Combat.pdf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Perun said:

I dont think that Iranian, or Iraqi sources are quite accurate

They may not be 100% accurate, but that doesn't mean they can be dismished as 0% accurate. Point is, the AIM-54 was being used successfully by the Iranians against targets that better replicate a Tu-22 (fast, non manoeuvering - because of poor ESM). Also, 2 cases don't trump the testing done on the missile.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Perun said:

I dont think that Iranian, or Iraqi sources are quite accurate

I regret I can't find the lecture where the Iranian F14 pilot claimed he shot down three Iraqi jets with the same Aim54. Thing is, he actually did. Then he later shot down a Mig29 with a Hawk missile. Before the Iranians purged the last American trained pilots, they were very good.

Tom Cooper used to hang out in this site. I'm not convinced by some of the stuff he wrote. Such as the Italian DC9 shootdown. But I'm not aware anyone has found anything to criticize In that book. Much of the stuff he writes about Iran seems to be good.

The Aim54 was viable against fighters, but I get the impression the sweet spot was 30nm or less. If you are plunking fighters at long range, particularly Its Iraqis, whom were absolutely terrified of the F14, it's not surprising this was a miss.

 

 

Edited by Stuart Galbraith
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cooper's problem is taking claims and stories he likes w/o cross checking them.

Edited by bojan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...