Military.com Community
  • Jobs
  • Units
  • Buddy Finder
  • News
  • Home
  • Home
    • Military Pay
    • GI Bill Info
    • ASVAB Practice Test
    • Trivia
    • Military Videos
    • Military Transition
    • VA Loan
    • Buddy Finder
    • Forums
    • Unit Pages
  • Benefits
    • Military Pay
    • Education
    • VA Loan
    • TRICARE
    • Veteran Health Care
    • Military Resources
    • Legal Assistance
    • Veteran Benefits
    • Life Insurance
    • More
      • Life Insurance
  • News
    • News Home
    • Early Brief
    • Military Blogs
    • DefenseTech
    • DoD Buzz
    • Opinion
    • Podcasts
    • Warfighter's Forum
    • Legislative Center
    • Benefits Updates
    • More
      • Trivia
  • Off Duty
    • Entertainment Home
    • Movies
    • Games
    • Trivia
    • Military Videos
    • Military Fitness
    • Custom Rides
    • Travel
    • Gear Blog
    • Military Equipment
  • Join the Military
    • Join - Home
    • ASVAB
    • Service Choices
    • Eligibility Requirements
    • Military Jobs
    • Pay & Benefits
    • Visiting a Recruiter
    • Talk to a Recruiter
  • Education
    • Education Home
    • GI Bill Info
    • Credit for Service
    • Money for School
    • Scholarships
    • Find a School
    • College & University
    • Online Education
    • More
      • Certification Programs
  • Veteran Jobs
    • Jobs Home
    • Veteran Job Search
    • Security Clearance Jobs
    • Skills Translator
    • Resume Builder
    • Job Resources
    • Job Fairs
    • Veteran Career Network
  • Money
    • Money Home
    • Loans
    • VA Loan
    • Relocation
    • Small Business
    • Military Pay
    • Taxes
    • Banking & Finance
    • Retirement
    • Insurance
  • Deals
    • Deals Home
    • Discounts
    • Relocation
    • Travel
    • Military Gear & Surplus
    • Military Clothing
    • Medals & Ribbons
    • Classifieds
  • Military Family
    • Family Home
    • Discounts
    • Family Benefits
    • Deployment Prep
    • SpouseBuzz Blog
    • Spouse Careers
    • Relocation
    • Military Bases
  • Community
    • Community Home
    • Profile
    • Messages
    • Friends
    • Groups
    • Spouse Network
    • Discussions
    • Classifieds
    • Military Bases
Military.com    Military.com Forums  Hop To Forum Categories  Hot Topics & Current Events  Hop To Forums  US and China    USN: No Defense against Russian/Chinese "Sizzler" Missile

Moderators: 21yrsUSCGUSCS, OldArmyLove, Silent_Surface, TerryTCT, pipedreamsandbabies
Go
New
Find
Notify
Tools
Reply
  
Admin
New PM!
Personal Zone»
Military.com Forums»
Profile
Buddies
Ignore List
Groups
Permissions
Private Messaging
Notifications
Karma
Preferences
Favorites
More...
Discussion
Poll
Private Message
Photo Album
Keyword Search
  
Search current forum only
Advanced Search
New Since your Last Visit
Active Topics in this Category
Add to My Favorites
Printer Friendly Format
Help
Manage Topic
Manage Content in This Topic
Manage Members
Online Now
Control Panel
USN: No Defense against Russian/Chinese "Sizzler" Missile
 Login/JoinWelcome, [Logout] 
Enssantor
Member
Posted
Oh...Oh...It appears that the US Navy lacks a defense against this Russian-designed missile used by the Chinese.

If the USN 7th Fleet intervenes in a Chinese invasion of Taiwan, one of the most likely future flashpoints, the PLAN/Chinese Navy may have a way of destroying the carrier battlegroup...

Definitely something to worry about...


http://news.yahoo.com/s/bloomberg/20070323/pl_bloomberg/ako7y_orw538

quote:
Navy Lacks Plan to Defend Against `Carrier-Destroying' Missile

by: Tony Capaccio
Fri Mar 23, 12:18 AM ET



March 23 (Bloomberg) -- The U.S. Navy, after nearly six years of warnings from Pentagon testers, still lacks a plan for defending aircraft carriers against a supersonic Russian-built missile, according to current and former officials and Defense Department documents.

The missile, known in the West as the ``Sizzler,'' has been deployed by China and may be purchased by Iran. Deputy Secretary of Defense Gordon England has given the Navy until April 29 to explain how it will counter the missile, according to a Pentagon budget document.

The Defense Department's weapons-testing office judges the threat so serious that its director, Charles McQueary, warned the Pentagon's chief weapons-buyer in a memo that he would move to stall production of multibillion-dollar ship and missile programs until the issue was addressed.

``This is a carrier-destroying weapon,'' said Orville Hanson, who evaluated weapons systems for 38 years with the Navy. ``That's its purpose.''

``Take out the carriers'' and China ``can walk into Taiwan,'' he said. China bought the missiles in 2002 along with eight diesel submarines designed to fire it, according to Office of Naval Intelligence spokesman Robert Althage.

A Pentagon official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said Russia also offered the missile to Iran, although there's no evidence a sale has gone through. In Iranian hands, the Sizzler could challenge the ability of the U.S. Navy to keep open the Strait of Hormuz, through which an estimated 25 percent of the world's oil traffic flows.

Fast and Low-Flying

``This is a very low-flying, fast missile,'' said retired Rear Admiral Eric McVadon, a former U.S. naval attache in Beijing. ``It won't be visible until it's quite close. By the time you detect it to the time it hits you is very short. You'd want to know your capabilities to handle this sort of missile.''

The Navy's ship-borne Aegis system, deployed on cruisers and destroyers starting in the early 1980s, is designed to protect aircraft-carrier battle groups from missile attacks. But current and former officials say the Navy has no assurance Aegis, built by Lockheed Martin Corp., is capable of detecting, tracking and intercepting the Sizzler.

``This was an issue when I walked in the door in 2001,'' Thomas Christie, the Defense Department's top weapons-testing official from mid-2001 to early 2005, said in an interview.

`A Major Issue'

``The Navy recognized this was a major issue, and over the years, I had continued promises they were going to fully fund development and production'' of missiles that could replicate the Sizzler to help develop a defense against it, Christie said. ``They haven't.''

The effect is that in a conflict, the U.S. ``would send a billion-dollar platform loaded with equipment and crew into harm's way without some sort of confidence that we could defeat what is apparently a threat very near on the horizon,'' Christie said.

The Navy considered developing a program to test against the Sizzler ``but has no plans in the immediate future to initiate such a developmental effort,'' Naval Air Systems Command spokesman Rob Koon said in an e-mail.

Lieutenant Bashon Mann, a Navy spokesman, said the service is aware of the Sizzler's capabilities and is ``researching suitable alternatives'' to defend against it. ``U.S. naval warships have a layered defense capability that can defend against various missile threats,'' Mann said.

Raising Concerns

McQueary, head of the Pentagon's testing office, raised his concerns about the absence of Navy test plans for the missile in a Sept. 8, 2006, memo to Ken Krieg, undersecretary of defense for acquisition. He also voiced concerns to Deputy Secretary England.

In the memo, McQuery said that unless the Sizzler threat was addressed, his office wouldn't approve test plans necessary for production to begin on several other projects, including Northrop Grumman Corp.'s new $35.8 billion CVN-21 aircraft-carrier project; the $36.5 billion DDG-1000 destroyer project being developed by Northrop and General Dynamics Corp.; and two Raytheon Corp. projects, the $6 billion Standard Missile-6 and $1.1 billion Ship Self Defense System.

Charts prepared by the Navy for a February 2005 briefing for defense contractors said the Sizzler, which is also called the SS-N-27B, starts out flying at subsonic speeds. Within 10 nautical miles of its target, a rocket-propelled warhead separates and accelerates to three times the speed of sound, flying no more than 10 meters (33 feet) above sea level.

Final Approach

On final approach, the missile ``has the potential to perform very high defensive maneuvers,'' including sharp-angled dodges, the Office of Naval Intelligence said in a manual on worldwide maritime threats.

The Sizzler is ``unique,'' the Defense Science Board, an independent agency within the Pentagon that provides assessments of major defense issues, said in an October 2005 report. Most anti-ship cruise missiles fly below the speed of sound and on a straight path, making them easier to track and target.

McQueary, in a March 16 e-mailed statement, said that ``to the best of our knowledge,'' the Navy hasn't started a test program or responded to the board's recommendations. ``The Navy may be reluctant to invest in development of a new target, given their other bills,'' he said.

`Aggressively Marketing'

The Sizzler's Russian maker, state-run Novator Design Bureau in Yekaterinburg, is ``aggressively marketing'' the weapon at international arms shows, said Steve Zaloga, a missile analyst with the Teal Group, a Fairfax, Virginia-based defense research organization. Among other venues, the missile was pitched at last month's IDEX 2007, the Middle East's largest weapons exposition, he said.

Zaloga provided a page from Novator's sales brochure depicting the missile.

Alexander Uzhanov, a spokesman for the Moscow-based Russian arms-export agency Rosoboronexport, which oversees Novator, declined to comment.

McVadon, who has written about the Chinese navy, called the Sizzler ``right now the most pertinent and pressing threat the U.S. faces in the case of a Taiwan conflict.'' Jane's, the London-based defense information group, reported in 2005 in its publication ``Missiles and Rockets'' that Russia had offered the missile to Iran as part of a sale in the 1990s of three Kilo- class submarines.

That report was confirmed by the Pentagon official who requested anonymity. The Office of Naval Intelligence suggested the same thing in a 2004 report, highlighting in its assessment of maritime threats Iran's possible acquisition of additional Russian diesel submarines ``with advanced anti-ship cruise missiles.''

The Defense Science Board, in its 2005 report, recommended that the Navy ``immediately implement'' a plan to produce a surrogate Sizzler that could be used for testing.

``Time is of the essence here,'' the board said
 
Posts: 1297 | Registered: Tue 18 October 2005Reply With QuoteEdit or Delete MessageReport This Post IP
Digital_Warfare
Member
Picture of Digital_Warfare
Posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by Enssantor:
Oh...Oh...It appears that the US Navy lacks a defense against this Russian-designed missile used by the Chinese.

If the USN 7th Fleet intervenes in a Chinese invasion of Taiwan, one of the most likely future flashpoints, the PLAN/Chinese Navy may have a way of destroying the carrier battlegroup...

Definitely something to worry about...


http://news.yahoo.com/s/bloomberg/20070323/pl_bloomberg/ako7y_orw538

quote:
Navy Lacks Plan to Defend Against `Carrier-Destroying' Missile

by: Tony Capaccio
Fri Mar 23, 12:18 AM ET



March 23 (Bloomberg) -- The U.S. Navy, after nearly six years of warnings from Pentagon testers, still lacks a plan for defending aircraft carriers against a supersonic Russian-built missile, according to current and former officials and Defense Department documents.

The missile, known in the West as the ``Sizzler,'' has been deployed by China and may be purchased by Iran. Deputy Secretary of Defense Gordon England has given the Navy until April 29 to explain how it will counter the missile, according to a Pentagon budget document.

The Defense Department's weapons-testing office judges the threat so serious that its director, Charles McQueary, warned the Pentagon's chief weapons-buyer in a memo that he would move to stall production of multibillion-dollar ship and missile programs until the issue was addressed.

``This is a carrier-destroying weapon,'' said Orville Hanson, who evaluated weapons systems for 38 years with the Navy. ``That's its purpose.''

``Take out the carriers'' and China ``can walk into Taiwan,'' he said. China bought the missiles in 2002 along with eight diesel submarines designed to fire it, according to Office of Naval Intelligence spokesman Robert Althage.

A Pentagon official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said Russia also offered the missile to Iran, although there's no evidence a sale has gone through. In Iranian hands, the Sizzler could challenge the ability of the U.S. Navy to keep open the Strait of Hormuz, through which an estimated 25 percent of the world's oil traffic flows.

Fast and Low-Flying

``This is a very low-flying, fast missile,'' said retired Rear Admiral Eric McVadon, a former U.S. naval attache in Beijing. ``It won't be visible until it's quite close. By the time you detect it to the time it hits you is very short. You'd want to know your capabilities to handle this sort of missile.''

The Navy's ship-borne Aegis system, deployed on cruisers and destroyers starting in the early 1980s, is designed to protect aircraft-carrier battle groups from missile attacks. But current and former officials say the Navy has no assurance Aegis, built by Lockheed Martin Corp., is capable of detecting, tracking and intercepting the Sizzler.

``This was an issue when I walked in the door in 2001,'' Thomas Christie, the Defense Department's top weapons-testing official from mid-2001 to early 2005, said in an interview.

`A Major Issue'

``The Navy recognized this was a major issue, and over the years, I had continued promises they were going to fully fund development and production'' of missiles that could replicate the Sizzler to help develop a defense against it, Christie said. ``They haven't.''

The effect is that in a conflict, the U.S. ``would send a billion-dollar platform loaded with equipment and crew into harm's way without some sort of confidence that we could defeat what is apparently a threat very near on the horizon,'' Christie said.

The Navy considered developing a program to test against the Sizzler ``but has no plans in the immediate future to initiate such a developmental effort,'' Naval Air Systems Command spokesman Rob Koon said in an e-mail.

Lieutenant Bashon Mann, a Navy spokesman, said the service is aware of the Sizzler's capabilities and is ``researching suitable alternatives'' to defend against it. ``U.S. naval warships have a layered defense capability that can defend against various missile threats,'' Mann said.

Raising Concerns

McQueary, head of the Pentagon's testing office, raised his concerns about the absence of Navy test plans for the missile in a Sept. 8, 2006, memo to Ken Krieg, undersecretary of defense for acquisition. He also voiced concerns to Deputy Secretary England.

In the memo, McQuery said that unless the Sizzler threat was addressed, his office wouldn't approve test plans necessary for production to begin on several other projects, including Northrop Grumman Corp.'s new $35.8 billion CVN-21 aircraft-carrier project; the $36.5 billion DDG-1000 destroyer project being developed by Northrop and General Dynamics Corp.; and two Raytheon Corp. projects, the $6 billion Standard Missile-6 and $1.1 billion Ship Self Defense System.

Charts prepared by the Navy for a February 2005 briefing for defense contractors said the Sizzler, which is also called the SS-N-27B, starts out flying at subsonic speeds. Within 10 nautical miles of its target, a rocket-propelled warhead separates and accelerates to three times the speed of sound, flying no more than 10 meters (33 feet) above sea level.

Final Approach

On final approach, the missile ``has the potential to perform very high defensive maneuvers,'' including sharp-angled dodges, the Office of Naval Intelligence said in a manual on worldwide maritime threats.

The Sizzler is ``unique,'' the Defense Science Board, an independent agency within the Pentagon that provides assessments of major defense issues, said in an October 2005 report. Most anti-ship cruise missiles fly below the speed of sound and on a straight path, making them easier to track and target.

McQueary, in a March 16 e-mailed statement, said that ``to the best of our knowledge,'' the Navy hasn't started a test program or responded to the board's recommendations. ``The Navy may be reluctant to invest in development of a new target, given their other bills,'' he said.

`Aggressively Marketing'

The Sizzler's Russian maker, state-run Novator Design Bureau in Yekaterinburg, is ``aggressively marketing'' the weapon at international arms shows, said Steve Zaloga, a missile analyst with the Teal Group, a Fairfax, Virginia-based defense research organization. Among other venues, the missile was pitched at last month's IDEX 2007, the Middle East's largest weapons exposition, he said.

Zaloga provided a page from Novator's sales brochure depicting the missile.

Alexander Uzhanov, a spokesman for the Moscow-based Russian arms-export agency Rosoboronexport, which oversees Novator, declined to comment.

McVadon, who has written about the Chinese navy, called the Sizzler ``right now the most pertinent and pressing threat the U.S. faces in the case of a Taiwan conflict.'' Jane's, the London-based defense information group, reported in 2005 in its publication ``Missiles and Rockets'' that Russia had offered the missile to Iran as part of a sale in the 1990s of three Kilo- class submarines.

That report was confirmed by the Pentagon official who requested anonymity. The Office of Naval Intelligence suggested the same thing in a 2004 report, highlighting in its assessment of maritime threats Iran's possible acquisition of additional Russian diesel submarines ``with advanced anti-ship cruise missiles.''

The Defense Science Board, in its 2005 report, recommended that the Navy ``immediately implement'' a plan to produce a surrogate Sizzler that could be used for testing.

``Time is of the essence here,'' the board said



With the current technology we have I believe that their is absolutely no defense against this type of attack. common phalanx or the experimental metal storm would prove to be very maleficent. But there was a rumor back in the day anyways that may prove to be absolute against a variety of smart weapons. That would be a ranged field generated EMP(RFGEMP). We already have extensive EMP technology. It's just the matter of if we can work out the control and bugs. EMP shielding is mandatory for most naval vessels against nuclear attack now anyways. Even a half hacked short burst EMP would shut it down(but put it out of control and may cause more c lateral damage than worth use of the defense). You would have to combine it with a high intensity focused microwave field to be really effective. Which we already have that technology also. maybe 5-10 years out for a defense I would say.

I would keep an eye out for the same guys that tested the army's new hummer mounted microwave ray gun. They are a smart bunch of jerks.
 
Posts: 308 | Registered: Sun 04 February 2007Reply With QuoteEdit or Delete MessageReport This Post IP
Ignored post by Digital_Warfare posted Show Post
OneChinaPolicy
New Member
Posted Hide Post
one question! ""Sizzler" Missile?
what kind? c-803 or other Russia made missiles?
 
Posts: 5 | Registered: Sun 01 April 2007Reply With QuoteEdit or Delete MessageReport This Post IP
Ignored post by OneChinaPolicy posted Show Post
PhoenixDark
Highly Experienced Member
Picture of PhoenixDark
Posted Hide Post
SS-N-27B is the designation of the missile, codenamed "Klub" or "Sizzler" depending on if you use Russian or NATO designation.
The weapon is a complement to the SS-N-22 "Sunburn" supersonic anti-ship missile system.

PS - I think we got a poser in "OneChinaPolicy" - O-10 Air Force General huh?

How is deployment and testing on the J-10 and FC-1 coming along?
 
Posts: 10419 | Registered: Sat 22 July 2006Reply With QuoteEdit or Delete MessageReport This Post IP
Ignored post by PhoenixDark posted Show Post
dudestrum
New Member
Posted Hide Post
Yes, the SS-N-22 "Moskit" or "Sunburn", which was sold to CHina by the RUssians. It goes mach speeds, and its terminal flight maneuver consists of randomized turns pulling several Gs and eventually hitting its target. with the time of detection of launch to the time of it hitting its target is not enough time to put in a fire control solution to defend against. However I heard we have one of these types of missiles as well, only it has more range. Good thing to...
 
Posts: 32 | Registered: Sat 07 April 2007Reply With QuoteEdit or Delete MessageReport This Post IP
Ignored post by dudestrum posted Show Post
Legohaiden
Member
Picture of Legohaiden
Posted Hide Post
China is truely our biggest threat. With practically unlimited resources, and the fact they are a communist nation, they could easily overpower Our oversea's militaries quickly and without many problems.

But i dont see China doing this, We make China too much money... and like here in america, the people with the money get to decide what goes on and when.
 
Posts: 355 | Registered: Wed 30 May 2007Reply With QuoteEdit or Delete MessageReport This Post IP
Ignored post by Legohaiden posted Show Post
onibattousai
Member
Posted Hide Post
I wouldn't say China is the biggest threat right now. China is however one of the challenges to the US when it comes to economic.

Just because China is a communist/socialistic nation, it doesn't automatically make them bad. They are however not the best political party in the world right now, but it has to do with the government structure more than the political theory behind it.

It is the people in control who set the tone and image of the country. Take Bush for example. many political historians already saying that Bush may be the worst president of the US in the last couple of hundred years.

However, that image will soon be a piece of the history after 2008. Which is the beauty of the short term ruling and the two terms limitation.
 
Posts: 876 | Registered: Mon 05 February 2007Reply With QuoteEdit or Delete MessageReport This Post IP
Ignored post by onibattousai posted Show Post
VCP63
suspended
TMC_SW_RET
Posted Hide Post
What would prevent US Fast Attack Submarines from tracking these Chinese subs and taking them out before they could launch? Similar to the way the US tracked the Russian boomers.

Are these missles launch on the surface or underwater?
 
Posts: 877 | Registered: Wed 07 February 2007Reply With QuoteEdit or Delete MessageReport This Post IP
Ignored post by VCP63 posted Show Post
s002wjh
Member
Posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by VCP63:
What would prevent US Fast Attack Submarines from tracking these Chinese subs and taking them out before they could launch? Similar to the way the US tracked the Russian boomers.

Are these missles launch on the surface or underwater?


russian boomer is nuclear, chinese sub are diesel, which is very quiet. US has alot trouble tracking diesel sub
 
Posts: 554 | Registered: Thu 13 April 2006Reply With QuoteEdit or Delete MessageReport This Post IP
Ignored post by s002wjh posted Show Post
birddog
I'm not a LtCol like my bio says, just a wannabe troll.
Posted Hide Post
Not all diesel subs are quiet. Some are quite noisy, some are stealthy.

Now on the sizzler and the threat to carriers, does anyone know what its supposed range is?
 
Posts: 27 | Registered: Wed 04 July 2007Reply With QuoteEdit or Delete MessageReport This Post IP
Ignored post by birddog posted Show Post
JohnJ2010
Mouthy Youngster
Posted Hide Post
Surely out of the 300 million people that live in America, one of them could build a weapon to fit all needs of warfare :-)
 
Posts: 181 | Registered: Fri 23 February 2007Reply With QuoteEdit or Delete MessageReport This Post IP
Ignored post by JohnJ2010 posted Show Post
WHATSREALLYUP
30 day warning for posting hot links.
8 Nov
Gypsysnipe
Posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by birddog:
Not all diesel subs are quiet. Some are quite noisy, some are stealthy.

Now on the sizzler and the threat to carriers, does anyone know what its supposed range is?
Range is 300km
 
Posts: 157 | Registered: Wed 04 July 2007Reply With QuoteEdit or Delete MessageReport This Post IP
Ignored post by WHATSREALLYUP posted Show Post
00Q
A Riddle Wrapped In A Mystery Inside An Enigma
Picture of 00Q
Posted Hide Post
I ripped this from my favorite military data website:
quote:
Moskit SS-N-22 Sunburn
Moskit is the aircraft variant of the naval missile 3M80 (SS-N-22 Sunburn, the designation 3M80 apparently referring to the Mach 3 speed of 1980 weapons) used on "Sovremennyy" destroyers (eight missiles on each) and on "Tarantul [Tarantula] III patrol ships (four missiles on each). The 3M82 "Mosquito" missiles have the fastest flying speed among all antiship missiles in today's world. It reaches Mach 3 at a high altitude and its maximum low-altitude speed is M2.2, triple the speed of the American Harpoon. When slower missiles, like the French Exocet are used, the maximum theoretical response time for the defending ship is 150-120 seconds. This provides time to launch countermeasures and employ jamming before deploying "hard" defense tactics such as launching missiles and using quick-firing artillery. But the 3M82 "Mosquito" missiles are extremely fast and give the defending side a maximum theoretical response time of merely 25-30 seconds, rendering it extremely difficult employ jamming and countermeasures, let alone fire missiles and quick-firing artillery.

The aircraft version, officially called ASM-MMS and apparently also Kh-4, is intended specially for Su-27K (Su-33) carrier-based fighter aircraft. It was for the first time shown to the CIS leaders in February 1992 in Machulishche and then to the public in August 1992 at the Moscow Air Show in Zhukovskiy.

The missile is propelled by a dual (rocket-jet) engine operating by the same principle as the Kh-31 engine. The missile, suspended under the aircraft, has a folding wing. The missile is guided by an autopilot during the initial fight stage, with possible correction by the aircraft pilot, and by active radar during the final flight stage.

Specifications
Contractor
Entered Service
Total length 9.745 m
Diameter
Wingspan 2.10 m
Weight 4500 kg
Warhead Weight 320 kg
Propulsion
Maximum Speed Mach 3
Maximum effective range 250 km
Flight Altitude 20 meters above sea level
Guidance mode active radar
Single-shot hit probability




Uhhhh... NO DEFENSE against it? Ummm maybe the Navy doesn't but the USAF does! Or maybe the NAVY does have one after all?
 
Posts: 1334 | Registered: Sun 24 July 2005Reply With QuoteEdit or Delete MessageReport This Post IP
Ignored post by 00Q posted Show Post
WHATSREALLYUP
30 day warning for posting hot links.
8 Nov
Gypsysnipe
Posted Hide Post
Those antiship missiles have "Officialy" rendered Aircraft Cairriers "obsolete"
 
Posts: 157 | Registered: Wed 04 July 2007Reply With QuoteEdit or Delete MessageReport This Post IP
Ignored post by WHATSREALLYUP posted Show Post
00Q
A Riddle Wrapped In A Mystery Inside An Enigma
Picture of 00Q
Posted Hide Post
Uhhh... so I guess that's why the USS George Washington was sent to Venezuela as part of a carrier task force just 1-year ago and may again soon. And of course let's not forget the Persian Gulf off the coast of Iran and the others in the western Pacific all just "hanging out" to "party-hardy" IF the "need for speed" arises...

The same military data web site indicates that the "Axis of Evil" (sounds like its from a Fantastic Four comic book) has this Russian/Chinese Mosquito missile in its arsenal. That would be Iran, Syria, and some others. Be happy our side has ABL platform and the SEALITE system operational - well sorta' if Congress would pay for 'em.
 
Posts: 1334 | Registered: Sun 24 July 2005Reply With QuoteEdit or Delete MessageReport This Post IP
Ignored post by 00Q posted Show Post
WHATSREALLYUP
30 day warning for posting hot links.
8 Nov
Gypsysnipe
Posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by 00Q:
Uhhh... so I guess that's why the USS George Washington was sent to Venezuela as part of a carrier task force just 1-year ago and may again soon. And of course let's not forget the Persian Gulf off the coast of Iran and the others in the western Pacific all just "hanging out" to "party-hardy" IF the "need for speed" arises...

The same military data web site indicates that the "Axis of Evil" (sounds like its from a Fantastic Four comic book) has this Russian/Chinese Mosquito missile in its arsenal. That would be Iran, Syria, and some others. Be happy our side has ABL platform and the SEALITE system operational - well sorta' if Congress would pay for 'em.
I don't think that ABL will be able to stop Su-27's attacking Carriers with Multiple SS-22's
 
Posts: 157 | Registered: Wed 04 July 2007Reply With QuoteEdit or Delete MessageReport This Post IP
Ignored post by WHATSREALLYUP posted Show Post
tmorrison
New Member
Picture of tmorrison
Posted Hide Post
Hello 00Q..fellas
ABL has long ways to go. And we haven’t done much in development in anticipation of its arrival.
This threat is and issue, It's our own fault
Its what happens when you put all the eggs in one golden basket.
The ground/ship laser technology to deal with anti ship missile is not there either.
I can say
I recently designed some tooling for a test I assume could be associated to a ground system.
But I still have doubt in a laser system for this application, As 00Q points out this is a fast missle.
It takes time to put enough energy in to a missile to self implode, How much time???? It’s in seconds How many seconds???
In knowing what they know how many will they give us
This threat has been near and dear to my heart for 15 years now.
Nothing but 15 years of frustration and disappointment.
Politics / Incompetence
 
Posts: 24 | Registered: Wed 10 January 2007Reply With QuoteEdit or Delete MessageReport This Post IP
Ignored post by tmorrison posted Show Post
tmorrison
New Member
Picture of tmorrison
Posted Hide Post
So not to tear down without a positive suggestion.
Be warned my immediate solution may seem antiquated or taking a step backward.
So naysayer’s skeptics, please enlighten me.
Prove me wrong .
Factual evidence only please:
And to anyone with the ability to exploit and navigate the political hurdles…Do you country a favor and examine my suggestion.
Or at least correct my assumptions.
We need to go back to GUNs until we get a system that works.
I would suggest General Dynamics is in the best position to accomplish this task as they are the producers of the current Phalanx system.
1. Good system with current upgrades but “little bullets”
2. In the early 80s GD lost out to Ford Aeronutronic on an air defence system call Divad “sorry again politics”
3. I happen to be a senior design engineer on the Ford system.
4. At Fords demise of the contract, they did do some usability/feasibility studies prior to putting 150 full up systems in the trash compactor.
5. One of the studies they took a turret and mounted it to a ship and evaluate its target acquisition ability.
6.Outcome……Astonishing….Very Successful.
7. Why was it not pursued…Politics …General Dynamics already had that spot on the Boat Phalanx had already been deployed.
Biggest issue at the time was. Just as we now think Lasers hold all the answers and missiles are in the back seat. In the 80s missiles were our kill all and Guns were old technology.
8. So since Ford know longer exist GD still exist, once built the same system with twin 30mm in a turret, I might add in our shoot off the GD system never missed not once.
Like I said Politics.
So anyone at GD still active that knows what I am talking about.
Please enlighten me why is my simple solution not simple.
 
Posts: 24 | Registered: Wed 10 January 2007Reply With QuoteEdit or Delete MessageReport This Post IP
Ignored post by tmorrison posted Show Post
hybenamon
Member
Posted Hide Post
Dear Members,

If anyone is interested this is just released photos of the air launched SIZZLER releasing its high speed terminal attack missile. Click link below.

Jack E. Hammond


SIZZLER PHOTOS
 
Posts: 2456 | Registered: Fri 22 February 2002Reply With QuoteEdit or Delete MessageReport This Post IP
Ignored post by hybenamon posted Show Post
Sgt_Schlappy
Super Member
Picture of Sgt_Schlappy
Posted Hide Post
"We goin to Sizzler, we goin to Sizzler..."

Thanks for sharing.


 
Posts: 24107 | Registered: Mon 22 April 2002Reply With QuoteEdit or Delete MessageReport This Post IP
Ignored post by Sgt_Schlappy posted Show Post
  Powered by Social Strata  
 Please Wait. Your request is being processed...
 Reply  
 

Military.com    Military.com Forums  Hop To Forum Categories  Hot Topics & Current Events  Hop To Forums  US and China    USN: No Defense against Russian/Chinese "Sizzler" Missile

Contact Us | Military.com | Privacy Statement | Terms of Service
 
  • Channels: Military Benefits | Military News | Off Duty | Join the Military | Military Education | Veteran Jobs | Military Money | Military Deals | Military Family | Military Community
  • Military.com Network: Military.com | CinCHouse | MilBlogging | Defense Tech | DoD Buzz | Line of Departure | SpouseBuzz | Fred's Place | Armees | HMForces
  • Services: Army | Marine Corps | Navy | Air Force | Coast Guard | National Guard | Military Spouse
  • About Military.com: About Us | Press | Monster Network | Advertise With Us | Affiliate Program | Help | Feedback | Privacy Policy | User Agreement | Mobile | Site Map
View $GS_USERNAME's Public Profile
View $GS_USERNAME's Personal Zone Page
Add $GS_USERNAME to my Buddies
Add $GS_USERNAME to my Ignore ListRemove $GS_USERNAME from my Ignore List
Invite $GS_USERNAME to a Private Topic
View Recent Posts by $GS_USERNAME
Notify me of New Posts by $GS_USERNAME
Quick Reply to: USN: No Defense against Russian/Chinese "Sizzler" Missile
Guest Name  
Close  |  Use Full Posting Form  |  Quick Quote


New Since your Last Visit
Active Topics