Russian and USA Aircraft Carriers in 1980

I don't have a clue where you're getting the impression that AEGIS was an untested or unreliable system. nothing could be further from the truth.

Originally posted by Travellar
I don't have a clue where you're getting the impression that AEGIS was an untested or unreliable system. nothing could be further from the truth.

I should probably have been more specific and said that they cheated on the initial testing

The question that now remains is: How has the US Navy managed to conceal all its glaring faults, bad policies, and weaknesses for all these years? Part of the answer is that the Navy has a history of not telling the full truth to Congress. It is well known that senior US Navy officers have a tradition of omitting information about the Navy’s weaknesses and deficiencies during public testimony. For example, in the early 1980s, wrote Scammell, Navy officers tried to conceal the shortcomings of the new Aegis system by using unrealistically easy operational tests, then by classifying the poor results: “An amalgam of sophisticated seaborne radar, computers, and surface-to-air rockets ten years in development, Aegis was built to simultaneously track up to two hundred aerial targets and to control thirty killer missiles. But in sea tests against sixteen easy targets – easy because they were lobbed in one after another instead of all at the same time, as they would arrive in combat – the supershield missed all but five…” Consequently, “The results of the sea trials were immediately classified, ostensibly for reasons of national security, and it was announced that the tests had been successful. When Congressional overseers eventually learned they had been duped –a gain because not everyone in the fiasco interpreted ‘patriotic duty’ as ‘staying silent’—the Aegis program was very nearly scuttled.” According to Representative Denny Smith, a Republican from Oregon and former F-4 fighter pilot, Navy officers deliberately deleted key passages from their initial test reports on the Aegis system to keep him in the dark on its failings.

This attempted cover-up was certainly not an isolated incident. Indeed, attempts by the Center for Naval Analyses to evaluate the Navy’s way of doing things have been subjected to political pressure not to let on about any “implied weaknesses in current hardware or doctrine,” said Shuger. And I suppose by now no one should be shocked to hear that in the mid 1990s, during tests of a new guided missile, the missile “melted its on-board guidance system. ‘Incredibly,’ an Army review said, ‘the Navy ruled the test a success.’”

www.g2mil.com...

But from wider reading on the technology in question i think investigation will show the shortcomings have never been completely rectified. That is just my opinion so feel free to force me to go do some more research.

Stellar

hmm, I can't seem to get the linked site to open. Anyhow, I'll do my best to work with the sections you've been so good as to copy an excerpt from. (And fill in the rest where I can).

Frankly, I'd have to do a bit of research myself about the earliest results of AEGIS, on the other hand, I can also assure you it's come a very long way since 1983. (Given the original question in this thread was about 1980, I guess it doesn't really matter, does it? )

The article is a bit flawed in claiming that 'in the real world, missiles wouldn't arrive like that'. very few weapons platforms have the capability to simoultaniously launch multiple missiles. (Even fewer in the early 80's) Given even a relatively short launch interval, shortened even further by launching from multiple platforms, the missiles themselves would have a tendancy to arrive in more of a line than all in one cluster. (Play Starcraft, use zerglings, observe the inability to get them all on target at the same time) If someone has say, 27 bombers, and can perfectly and precicely coordinate every action onboard each one of them, with missiles that all respond at precicely the same time, then there would be some argument that all the missiles should've arrived together, but that's not the real world.

Like I said, I'd have to do more research, but I'd also like to know what the author meant by "missed". If he was expecting skin to skin contact, than his definition of "Miss" isn't the same as "failing to shoot down". While saying the test was a success, detecting targets, engaging them, getting ammunition out of the launchers and heading towards the targets under active guidance are all pretty signifigant milestones that have to be met. If those were the objectives of the test, then I'd agree the test was successful.

Think of building a weapons system like building a brand new rifle from scratch. It's not as simple as putting the whole thing together and toteing it off to the local range, only to test it's success by the ability to hit a bullseye. The loading mechanism must be tested, the trigger/firing mechanism must be tested, heck, even the safety has to be tested. Then when you get to the range, your first shot can go as wide as you like (provided you don't hit the guy next to you), and you can still call it a successful test of your weapon as you did in fact get a loud noise and kick when you loaded it and pulled the trigger. After that, you can start worrying about setting the sights. Even if you missed the bullseye, you've got a hole somewhere downrange to use for data when setting those sights.