Jump to content

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


Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, bojan said:

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

But to give the devil's his due, as new information comes up, he amends his previous works, although it takes some persuasion. He has evolved from "F-14s carried all in front of them" (including the 3 MiG kill with one missile - no, it didn't happen) to a more nuanced view as a result of meeting the Iraquis, but also debunking some self made myths of the Iraquis (ie 14 kill ace, with just one confirmed kill)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 762
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

On 1/29/2022 at 12:59 PM, 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."

RIM-66G/H/J SM-2 Bl II had flight ceiling of 24.4 km, X-22 missile has cruise altitude of 22 (25) km and speed of 4000 km/h.

Rough calculation is that Ticonderoga has 23 seconds of defence:

a) that is 4 missile per launcher x 2 launchers (for Mk26 launcher) = 8 missiles, if we count two missiles per target that is 4 targets before salvo hits,

b) I dont know firing speed of MK41 vls launcher, I presume it at one missile per second, that is 23 missile, if we count two missiles per target that is 11 targets before salvo hits.

 

 

Edited by Perun
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, RETAC21 said:

But to give the devil's his due, as new information comes up, he amends his previous works, although it takes some persuasion. He has evolved from "F-14s carried all in front of them" (including the 3 MiG kill with one missile - no, it didn't happen) to a more nuanced view as a result of meeting the Iraquis, but also debunking some self made myths of the Iraquis (ie 14 kill ace, with just one confirmed kill)

The guy making the claim was seemingly the pilot, Asadullah Adeli. There was a very good lecture on youtube which im unable to find, where he described how it happened. One of the US pilots (whom whom shot down one of the fighters in the Gulf of Sidra incidents) said 'I heard about you!'. :D

If he was a bullshit artist, he was a very accomplished bullshit artist.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

The guy making the claim was seemingly the pilot, Asadullah Adeli. There was a very good lecture on youtube which im unable to find, where he described how it happened. One of the US pilots (whom whom shot down one of the fighters in the Gulf of Sidra incidents) said 'I heard about you!'. :D

If he was a bullshit artist, he was a very accomplished bullshit artist.

He doesn't need to be a bullshit artist to believe he downed 3 MiGs with one shot, just like most claims are made in good faith. But a fair appraisal would be note 35 on page 22 of this report 

https://csbaonline.org/uploads/documents/Air-to-Air-Report-.pdf

"Tom Cooper and Farzad Bishop interviewed IRIAF F-4 and F-14 aircrew and described their experiences in detail in IranIraq War in the Air 1980–1988 published by Schiffer Military History Press in 2000 and two Osprey Publishing books:
Iranian F-4 Phantom II Units in Combat (2003) and Iranian F-14 Tomcat Units in Combat (2004). These books are
not perfect—none are—and report some unlikely stories as fact, but most of the narratives are plausible and convincing,
making these books among the best unclassified sources on the largest air war fought anywhere in the world in the past
fifty years."

For some years, Tom was denying the existance of a Falcon business jet equipped to fire Exocet, until photos came out and he researched what happened and put together the history of the one-off that hit USS Stark. For several years, the acig forums harped about the real losses of the IDF in 1973, then it turned out that the BS was being turned out by the Egyptians about a massive air battle that never really happened, and then man tried to piece together what really happened that afternoon. 

So Bojan is right, he will take narratives as facts, but when opposing facts appear (and he's somewhat stubborn...) he eventually makes an effort to find what the other side has to say and confront both sides, which is, unfortunately, uncommon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Perun said:

To build as much realistic scenario as possible  :)

I Prefer Cold War period, especially late 80s

 

 

Me too. Ive just spent 2 months building one based on Able Archer for Operational Art of War IV, and I keep getting crashes. Much grinding of teeth ensues.

I would encourage having a look on CIA FOIA and Archive.org. They have a lot of DTIC stuff on there. I found Archive particularly useful when trying to make a scenario based on the 1973 naval standoff in the Med.

Anyway, good luck with what you are doing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know for that and other similar simulations but they are developed for gamers entertainment and they often are not so realistic as I want to be. I dont like simulations where my sub can sink and destroy evberything and then return to base for medal

Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, Perun said:

I know for that and other similar simulations but they are developed for gamers entertainment and they often are not so realistic as I want to be. I dont like simulations where my sub can sink and destroy evberything and then return to base for medal

Yeah, CMANO and CMO are that kind of sim. In fact its been bought by BAE for use in training applications. Probably with more accurate datasets, but as everything is modifiable, its possible to alter to create platforms that you want but dont exist.

https://command.matrixgames.com/?p=3885

TOAW is certainly an entertainment product. Though I do find if you put real world data in, you can come up with some interesting conclusions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, PCallahan said:

Yes, but you actually need the 1997 edition

https://www.amazon.com/-/es/Norman-Friedman/dp/1557502684

The 80s didn't have accurate information on Soviet systems and by the 2000s some elder Cold war systems had been phased out and been dropped. Google books used to have a preview with sonars and such, but no more.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You can find some stuff like noise output from Soviet boats on the CIA FOIA website, I think that was fairly accurate. And you can have a reasonably good guess the output of Soviet active Sonar's, because they were based on British Sonars from the Portland spies. :D

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

US Navy CV-s:

1) ‘Alpha Strike’: Somewhere between 20 - 40 minutes depends on the crew. An average would be 30 minutes.

The limiting factors are the number of catapults… four, and the launch cycle time…two minutes. If all four cats are in use, you can get the first four aircraft off in 30 seconds. The catapult sequence is usually 1…3…2…4 to avoid the overlap of “shot lines” (wing clearance) between cats 1 and 2, and similar concerns between cats 3 and 4.

After the surge of the first four, the rate slows to one aircraft every 30 seconds… due to that two minute cycle time split between four catapults. The most I ever saw was 54 aircraft in just over 30 minutes.

Something that is missing in all these answers is the time to do the prelaunch checks. Granted I retired from Naval aviation 25 years ago, but you needed time once the aircraft started to go through the prelaunch checks with the plane captain. In addition you needed time to align the aircrafts Inertial Navigation System to the ship’s via cable. Once the aircraft was at the catapult you needed to go through CAG arm/dearm so they could arm your aircraft’s weapons while pointed out to sea. All this takes time. I know this from my time as a plane captain, line PO, and line CPO on quite a few different carriers.

Normal ops are pretty much would you would get even in a scramble, which is 2 planes per 90 seconds, more or less. Most carriers have 70 planes (say a huge alpha strike), more or less. So it would be about a half hour to 45 minutes for a full cycle.

2) From the Island (Control Tower), the helmsman would steer the Carrier into the wind. The lee helmsman (Think co-pilot) would direct engine so that the Carrier maintains a healthy 20–25 knots upwind.

 

https://www.quora.com/How-fast-can-a-carrier-launch-all-its-aircraft-both-from-a-prepared-position-and-in-a-scramble-situation

Edited by Perun
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/30/2022 at 10:20 AM, RETAC21 said:

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

 

I watchet it now, interesting scenario but many components are missing, EW, fighter escort.. they sinked whole CV group and two regiments of Tu-22M was destroyed. 

CV was safest as far as they could be from Backfires reach

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It would be very rare Naval Aviation got fighter escort. And assuming they did, it's just going to be a missile sponge at best against F14's.

DCS lacks decent EW modelling, the worst handicap in what is an increasingly impressive sim. Besides, Phoenix has a home on Jan capability, or so I gather.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

It would be very rare Naval Aviation got fighter escort. And assuming they did, it's just going to be a missile sponge at best against F14's.

DCS lacks decent EW modelling, the worst handicap in what is an increasingly impressive sim. Besides, Phoenix has a home on Jan capability, or so I gather.

If they could send Su-27's from 10th PVO army to escort Backfires whay they wouldnt

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They didnt have that many Su-27's till the end of the cold war. They only started appearing in about 1982/83. They didnt really start appearing in numbers still the end of the decade. Have a look at WWW.WW2.DK and you can see what I mean.

Yes, PVO probably would have helped in that way, and in fact there was an increasing integration with PVO and the Air force that would certainly have allowed that to happen with Long Range Aviation Backfires. But I dont see the Su-15 doing much againt a carrier air group with 2 squadrons of Tomcats. Mig23? Well we saw what happened over the Gulf of Sidra.

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...