Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!att!cbnews!military From: tek@CS.UCLA.EDU (Ted Kim (ATW)) Newsgroups: sci.military Subject: Re: Praying Mantis Message-ID: <6870@cbnews.ATT.COM> Date: 25 May 89 03:08:45 GMT References: <6746@cbnews.ATT.COM> <6802@cbnews.ATT.COM> <6843@cbnews.ATT.COM> Sender: military@cbnews.ATT.COM Organization: UCLA Computer Science Department Lines: 63 Approved: military@att.att.com From: tek@CS.UCLA.EDU (Ted Kim (ATW)) In article <6843@cbnews.ATT.COM> bucsb!brianb@bu-cs.bu.edu (Brian Bresnahan) writes: >: ... >:The HARPOON passed close by the starboard side of USS Wainwright. >: ... > >What distance is close? What was the range, what was the distance >from the US ships to each other, and what was the range to the >Iranian ship measured from? All of this information is unspecified in the article. > ... >The Phalanx, was only designed to be fired at missiled targeted at you. >It would not be used for missiles going at another ships, since the >gun has the potential to damage the [other] ship. I suppose I was unclear here. I meant suppose the HARPOON had guided. Were the SAG Charlie ships ready to defend themselves from an attack? I did not mean to say that I was disappointed that the Phalanx did not shoot down a close by missile heading no where in particular. > ... >Where did you get the information that says that the Wainwright has SM2 >missiles, the last editions of Janes and other naval guides that I >have seen indicate that the Belknap class are currently equiped with >SM1 and not SM2. The article (which was written by one of the surface force commanders in Operation Praying Mantis) stated that the Wainwright is SM2 equipped. Also according to the article, the Wainwright fired SM2s later at an Iranian F-4 and scored hits, though did not shoot it down. > ... >Also many of the advanced features of the SM2 are >for use with AEGIS equipped ships. I do not think that the weapons >directors(for the missiles that is) on that ship would be capable of >tracking a seaskimmer effectively. The systems on that ship were >originally designed to handle Talos and Tartar missiles and while >upgraded, are not truly modern. This is certainly possible. I think Belknap CGs use SPG-55 directors instead of SPG-60 or SPG-62 to guide the SM2s. It's also possible the supporting CIC electronics are not up to par with more recent stuff. > ... >The CIWS is in the rear, because the main gun of the ship is in >the front. The gun can be fired at bow-on targets, the CIWS at >Stern-on targets, and both can be fired at port and starboard targets. I received another reply from someone from the Navy. It stated that the CIWS placement was mostly due to design tradeoffs with the limited space on board. But he noted that the rear mountings have a very wide field of fire. Thus, it is possible that it can cover an oblique approach to forward quarter targets. Ted Kim ARPAnet: tek@penzance.cs.ucla.edu UCLA Computer Science Department UUCP: ...!ucbvax!cs.ucla.edu!tek 3804C Boelter Hall PHONE: (213) 206-8696 Los Angeles, CA 90024 ESPnet: tek@ouija.board