Sizzler to sizzle US Carriers?

I think doubtful the sizzler can be stopped, despite the RAM..

Of cource the Stark was supposed to be able to stop the old lowly exocet:
www.usswaddell.com...

they never did seem to figure out why the failure..

apparently many at the pentagon and congress are less than convinced of the navys ability to stop this weapon:

news.yahoo.com...

The Stark was sailing with her Phalanx turned off. Not to mention that at the ranges Phalanx engages it still would have done damage to the ship, even if it was turned on.

I see you've made a prodigial effort to st my physics in order..


By giving examples of tolerance limits and peak operating capacities:




thanks for the 'physics' lesson..

And now for your EMP device which would have a to have a directed blast cone(So as to not fry your own systems) with a peaking amplitude well before the missile acquires terminal sight lock (after which anything other than whacking it out of the sky won't help).

And if its INS-coupled with GLONASS feeds, well then your peak cone needs to be very very far out.

So I'm waiting for you numbers and equations..
Maybe its time to bring out your copy of Resnick & Halladay EME.

P.S: Russian equipment isn't so bad if used properly. Trust me, we know; tried and tested actually; against American equipment on many occasions.
Same with French stuff or British stuf.. works well if you know how to use itand use it within your own tested limits.

Somebody please provide evidence that the Iranians possess the Sizzler, or he Sunburn, or the S-300PMU for that matter..


AM-39 Exocet is the only thing they have for sure..
Everything else.. speculation

I'm not sure why some folks here are getting a wrapped up about a missile-based EMP warhead solution, because that is the least likely way the the USN will employ a microwave weapon to defeat an ASCM.

HPM weaponry is a logical extension and adjunct to existing phased array radar technology. Today's (and tomorrow's) phased arrays consist of hundreds of T/RIMMS, each capable of generation many, many watts of electromanetic energy which can be focused upon an airborn threat. Semiconductor technology using Silicon Carbide, Galium Nitride, and Galium Arsenide is sufficiently mature that HPM weapons are now a reality, even if they are currently being fielded under the guise of a phased array radar.....

One need not send anything "outbound" agaisnt an ASCM except a debilitating beam of focused HPM energy, which need only find the slightest of access to the inards of a Russian cruise missile to render it deaf, dumb, and blind.....

The Starks Phalanx system was not 'turned off'-thats ridiculous, why would they possibly be in such hostile waters, with any system turned off. US Navy captains are not morons..see below excerpt from article.

[The Stark was endowed with an impressive array of defenses -- an MK92 fire control system that could intercept incoming aircraft at a range of 90 miles; an OTO gun that could fire three-inch anti-aircraft shells at a rate of 90 per minute; electronic defenses that could produce bogus radar images to deceive attackers; and the Phalanx, a six-barreled gun that could fire 3,000 uranium rounds a minute at incoming missiles.

Brindel insisted that his ship's combat system was fully operational, but Navy technicians in Bahrain said the Stark's Phalanx system had not been working properly when the frigate put out to sea.]

I beleive the captain when he says the ship was fully operational not the unnamed navy technicians..in maritime history low level sailors have a tradition of stabbing the captain in the back after tragedy occurs.. there is no way he would have set sail with the system down, and there are warning systems that tell the crew if the systems are off-line.

at best these anti-missile systems are a crap shoot, they literally have NO real time record of success, they only work in 'tests' in the desert somewhere, but weather in the falklands or the gulf, everytime these antiship missiles have been launched, they have hit, and against the sunburn or sizzler..forget it.

Sea Wolf engaged and destoyed every exorcet that its actually fired at in the south atlantic.


and sea dart engaged a silk worm in 1991 GW1.

Sea Wolf missiles shot down fighter planes during the falklands war, not exocet missiles; it shot down F-4s that were sent to bomb British Warships, from what I know every or almost every exocet that was launched hit it's target until Argentina ran out of them, and they only had a few of them.

Sure the silkworm is ineffective but inferior to the exocet and much much inferior to sunburn and sizzler..US Navy can keep attackers at bay in the open seas no problem, but narrow waters (Persian Gulf) forget about it.

Argentina never had F-4's, they had Super Etendard's, Mirages, and A-4 Skyhawks.

IIRC there were no naval SAM aircraft kills in the Gulf War, just the Silkworm Sea Dart kill Harlequin mentioned.

Not that's it's really relevant, Sizzler is a whole different kettle of fish than the primitive Silkworm, it's kinda like comparing the Europfighter Typhoon to a Sopwith Camel.

[edit on 4/3/07 by xmotex]

You hae a semantics problem. The USS Stark's Plalanx was "operational", in that it was in good working order and not under CASREP. However, during the time of the incident, the gun mount was not combat ready. In fact, the firing key was not inserted into the LCP, the FCS was in standby, and the fixed pins were still inserted into the mount. The ROE at the time prohibited a "red and free" posture, which is a dangerous position to be in most of the time anyways, considering the Phalanx's proclivity to fire spontaneously, or at the wrong target.

BTW, a Navy Captain is always 100% responsible for everything that happens to his ship. There is no need for anyone to "stab" him in the back if something goes dramatically wrong. The Board of Inquiry will see to that.

The Faulklands was the only example of a large scale use of ASCMs versus modern naval combatants, and since these combantants were not equipped with point defense CIWS, you last statement is inaccurate at best.

Excuse me if I do not buy the standard line that there was something wrong with the ships defense system, of all times to not have the defense systems functioning correctly is when they are in the most hostile waters in the world and just happens to be when they come under attack. Supposedly it's not that the ships defenses were simply beat by the exocet, they want to tell you that the system just happened to be broken that day.

I believe what the captain said-that the defense systems were operating normally..the system clearly failed to detect the launching of the exocets in the first place, which made them immpossible to track. The radar only detected the planes, not the missiles. The problem is that in such narrow waters, potential enemy planes and boats are already too close, and in fireing range at the onset of hostilities, and once they let loose one of these sophesticated anti-ship missiles, it's a crap shoot at best to down it.

Perhaps you should all take a look at what the Navy itself is saying about the Sizzler - evidently they don't have much confidence that they could stop it, and for what it's worth, the World has not yet developed fire control software that can deal with a Mach 3 "jink".

www.bloomberg.com...

If Iran has this weapon, the carriers are in big trouble.

[edit on 7-4-2007 by Retseh]

And defenses have been MAJORLY improved since the days of the Stark. You have the SPY-1D(V) Littoral Radar system, the SM-2 Block IV, and many other defenses that are much more effective than the systems on the Stark. The Stark wasn't a dedicated air defense ship so they didn't have a lot of the big new radar systems mounted.

It says in the article that they can't "guarantee" that Aegis can detect/track/stop it. Well I can't guarantee that the plane that's been flying for 10 years will fly tomorrow when I get on it. The other thing is that it only goes supersonic within 10nm of the target, but the escorts are usually out beyond the 10 mile area from the carrier. So you will have ships that can PROBABLY intercept it in the subsonic range of its flight. Will they stop it 100% of the time? Of course not. It IS a deadly weapon, but it's not the end of the carriers as we know them because it's out there.

I don't think we're on the same page here, anyone just looking at the picture of the sunburn and the data posted can conclude that the sunburn or sizzler cannot be stopped under any circumstance. Even if these RAM/Phalanx systems work the projectiles will simply bounce off that hardened warhead. The US navy would have to fly jets out infront of the carrier in the open seas and desroy the frigate that carries the sunburn before that frigate gets into range (easily done). In the persian gulf the carriers or any other ship would be completly blown away if Iran has one and uses it.

The question is can the US navy stop the smaller exocet type missiles, again with the Stark, the awacs plane and stark fails to detect the launching of the missiles, but even if they do and the first exocet is engaged, what stops the second one, which was launched manually several seconds after the first one..and even if they get the second one, what if (3) or (4) missiles are launched by the small plane or boat that is already too close to the ships in the Persian gulf?

And again in 2006 Hezbollah launches an Iranian made C-802 anti-ship missile at an Israeli warship, and again the system fails to detect launch fails to track the missile, ship destroyed. Despite alleged repeated improvements from 1982, 1987, 2006, US,UK, western defenses still can't claim a single successful shootdown of a decent anti-ship missile.

www.fas.org...

I'd say that's an unwarranted assumption.

The US bought MA-31's and now the Orbital Coyote specifically to improve it's AAW systems against the new generation of supersonic sea-skimmers - I doubt we're incapable of taking out a Sunburn or Sizzler - on the other hand I wouldn't want to bet my life on getting every single one (because they would be launched in salvo's not singly).

Still long term, I think the terminally guided IRBM represents a greater threat to the carriers than AShCM's. A target moving at Mach 10 is a lot harder to take out than one moving at Mach 3.

I have looked at the Sunburn, and I don't see any "hardened warhead" and to be hardened enough to keep an SM-2 from damaging it, it would have to be insanely heavy, and it wouldn't be traveling at Mach 3. Even then, all the SM-2 would have to do is damage the BODY and it would cause it to crash.

I think one VERY important fact that everyone keeps ignoring with regards to Iran having these is that the CBGs don't operate inside the Persian Gulf. They operate in the PG area, but they don't transit through the Straits of Hormuz because they're too vulnerable in the PG and the Straits.

As for the IDF ship:


sweetness-light.com...

And yes, sometimes captains DO do stupid things like turn off the defenses, because they're overconfident, and KNOW things like that won't happen. It's called part of being human.

Actually the US navy was just conducting excersizes inside the persian gulf-with 2 carriers, and there are many frigates and supply ships that have to go through there everyday in route to Kuwait.

The MA-31 is just a 'target missile' so that the defense contractors can try to develop something to counter these missiles, it's nothing and it's inferior to the sizzler or sunburn, they now have to develope another 'practice' ASCM.

I'm talking about the warhead in the picture on this thread:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

This is clearly a hardened warhead, it's designed to puncture through the armour of the hull of a warship, then to explode inside the ship; the Phalanx is just a machine gun thing, on final approach those bullets & the tiny ram projectiles will just bounce off that thing at mach 3, and the chance that they even hit it are almost 0. The Phalanx and ram are only capable of stopping a smaller missile like the c802, and then they fail to do even that every frgin time. SM2 is another thing that has been around since 1986 and supposedly it's been improved over and over again; but the only way to stop a sea scimming missile further out is to hit it head on, nearly impossible especially since the anti-ship missiles anticipate this and swerve unpredictably. Also supposedly they 'test' these anti-missile weapons, but there is no data available on test results; but everytime they successfully test missiles that intercept ballestic (scud or icbm type) missiles they brag about the successful test and you can find a video on youtube.


The official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the information, said the missile detection and deflection system was not operating, apparently because the sailors did not anticipate such an attack.

And yes, sometimes captains DO do stupid things like turn off the defenses, because they're overconfident, and KNOW things like that won't happen. It's called part of being human.

Bvllsh1t they do! that was the same crap they said about the Stark, it's not working today, we forgot to turn it on, it hasn't been working right latley Why would you possibly be in a combat situation with missile defense "turned off"! Why would you EVER have it turned off-does it use too much AA sized bateries like a gameboy? when is the damn thing gonna ever work, can we atleast have 1 confirmed success for fcks sake!

The only reason they talk that BS is because they don't want to admit "[A military official said the ship is] one of the most technologically advanced in the Israeli fleet" can't stop a 3rd rate Iranian manufactured anti-ship missile. And your over here arguing that they can stop the sunburn or a sizzler! Gimme a break!

[edit on 8-4-2007 by corruptioninvestigator]

You need to learn the difference between an armor piercing warhead and a hardened warhead. If the Sunburn had a hardened warhead that could withstand anything, IT WOULDN'T GO MACH 3. It would be so damn heavy it couldn't even FLY.

So what, ship captains aren't human and capable of making mistakes? Oh sorry I forgot they're robots that never do anything wrong. And I'm sure the IDF captain left their missile defense system on because there were SO MANY Hezbollah missiles flying at their ships 24 hours a day. It's call OVER CONFIDENCE! I can't tell you the number of times a person in a COMBAT ZONE has suffered from it and screwed the pooch completely. Oh wait, they all must be lies, because according to you, military people aren't human and NEVER make mistakes.

They don't make mistakes that big, this was during the hez-israeli war, they were close to enemy territory and in combat operations, the defense system is automatic, it supposed to detect launch, track missile and intercept it. Of cource they know about anti-ship missiles and they would have been anticipating it-it makes no sense to ever have the system 'off', why would anyone believe this? and their excuse sounds similar to the USS Stark excuse-that the system was malfunctioing-even though the captain disputed that anything was wrong, everytime a ship is in combat operations they forget to turn on the anti-missile system-it's such a joke it's politics and too much defense contractor big business influence-their covering up the failure of these anti-missile systems and exagerating their capabilities.

whatever you consider "hardened" that huge warhead at mach 3 or mach 2.5 ain't stoppen from any bullets or small projectile on approach-thats just common sense.