Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!lll-winken!ncis.llnl.gov!helios.ee.lbl.gov!pasteur!ucbvax!decwrl!labrea!rutgers!att!cbnews!malloy@nprdc.arpa
From: malloy@nprdc.arpa (Sean Malloy)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: Are Aircraft Carriers Obsolete?
Message-ID: <3294@cbnews.ATT.COM>
Date: 20 Jan 89 05:09:10 GMT
References: <3201@cbnews.ATT.COM>
Sender: military@cbnews.ATT.COM
Organization: Navy Personnel R&D Center, San Diego
Lines: 46
Approved: military@att.att.com


In article <3201@cbnews.ATT.COM> military@att.att.com (Bill Thacker) writes:
>>How about HMS Sheffield and Gen. Belgrano?  
 
>Sheffield showed that the British antimissile defense was imperfect; it
>remains to be seen whether the American system is any better (Sheffield
>didn't have Phalanx, while Stark's wasn't turned on when it was hit).
>You can hardly construe this incident as the death knell of surface ships.

After all this time, there is still misinformation about the loss of
the Sheffield. At the time the Sheffield was hit, her captain was
conducting an unauthorized satellite communication, which was causing
mutual interference with the radar systems, so the radar systems
were turned off. You can't spot a missile you're not looking
for. If the Sheffield _had_ had her radars operational, the Exocet
would have been detected far enough out for the Sea Wolf (I think that
is the SAM system the Sheffield class carries) to be used against it.

In fact, the actual direct cause for the sinking is weather. The
British had the Sheffield in tow, but were unable to put a damage control
team aboard her due to a storm, during which the ship broke in two and
sank. Certainly the Exocet caused the damage which resulted in the
sinking, but, had not the storm intervened, the Sheffield would have
been able to be repaired, just as the Stark was.

The above information is from Lt. Lane, RN, who served aboard HMS Coventry
until about fifteen minutes before it sank after being bombed by an
Argentinian aircraft during the Falklands conflict.

The Exocets the Argentinians used also point out a major problem in
missile warfare: Of all the Exocets fired by the Argentinians, the
only missiles that actually detonated properly on impact were
land-launched. The MM-38 (-39, -40) Exocet (the ground-launched
version) is stored in its launch container in an inert environment,
and requires no maintenance. The AM-38 (-39, -40) Exocet (the
air-launched version) must receive maintenance by weapons techs at
periodic intervals, particularly immediately before takeoff. It
requires skilled labor to maintain missile systems properly; lack of
proper maintenance severely degrades the performance of the system
where it remains capable of function at all.


	Sean Malloy
	Navy Personnel Research & Development Center
	San Diego, CA 92152-6800
	malloy@nprdc.arpa