Eficácia dos mísseis anti-navios
Moderador: Conselho de Moderação
O uso do SEA SPARROW como míssil anti-navio: ataque do USS Saratoga ao destróier turco Muavenet, 1992
During the fall of 1992, the United States, Turkey, and several other NATO members participated in "Exercise Display Determination 1992," a combined forces naval exercise under the overall command of Admiral J.M. Boorda of the United States Navy. The forces of participating nations were assigned to either of two multinational teams. Vice Admiral T. Joseph Lopez of the United States Navy led the "Brown Forces," which included the United States aircraft carrier Saratoga. The opposing "Green Forces," including the Turkish Destroyer TCG MUAVENET (Muavenet), were under the direct control of Admiral Kroon of the Netherlands.
During the "enhanced tactical" phase of the training exercises, the Brown Forces were to attempt an amphibious landing at Saros Bay, Turkey against the resistance offered by the Green Forces. Admiral Boorda ordered the units comprising each force to actively seek and "destroy" each other. Both task force commanders had full authority to engage the enemy when and where they deemed appropriate and to use all warfare assets at their disposal to achieve victory. Needless to say, all confrontations were intended to be simulated attacks.
On October 1, 1992, the Combat Direction Center Officer aboard the Saratoga decided to launch a simulated attack on nearby opposition forces utilizing the Sea Sparrow missile system. After securing the approval of the Saratoga's Commanding Officer and the Battle Group Commander, the Combat Direction Center Officer implemented the simulated assault plan. Without providing prior notice, officers on the Saratoga woke the enlisted Sea Sparrow missile team and directed them to conduct the simulated attack. Certain members of the missile firing team were not told that the exercise was a drill, rather than an actual event.
As the drill progressed, the missile system operator used language to indicate he was preparing to fire a live missile, but due to the absence of standard terminology, the responsible officers failed to appreciate the significance of the terms used and the requests made. Specifically, the Target Acquisition System operator issued the command "arm and tune," terminology the console operators understood to require arming of the missiles in preparation for actual firing. The officers supervising the drill did not realize that "arm and tune" signified a live firing. As a result, the Saratoga inadvertently fired two live Sea Sparrow missiles at the Muavenet. Both missiles struck the Muavenet, resulting in several deaths and numerous injuries.
On September 29, 1994, some of the Turkish Navy sailors serving aboard the Muavenet instituted this action by suing the United States under the Public Vessels Act, 46 U.S.C.App. §§ 781-790, and the Death on the High Seas Act, 46 U.S.C.App. §§ 761-768. The present action encompasses 2 wrongful death claims and 299 personal injury claims arising out of the inadvertent missile firing. On September 22, 1995, the United States filed a motion for summary judgment, contending that this case presents a nonjusticiable political question. The district court granted the motion by order issued January 2, 1996. [1] On appeal, Appellants contend that the district court erred by dismissing its claims under the political question doctrine.
During the fall of 1992, the United States, Turkey, and several other NATO members participated in "Exercise Display Determination 1992," a combined forces naval exercise under the overall command of Admiral J.M. Boorda of the United States Navy. The forces of participating nations were assigned to either of two multinational teams. Vice Admiral T. Joseph Lopez of the United States Navy led the "Brown Forces," which included the United States aircraft carrier Saratoga. The opposing "Green Forces," including the Turkish Destroyer TCG MUAVENET (Muavenet), were under the direct control of Admiral Kroon of the Netherlands.
During the "enhanced tactical" phase of the training exercises, the Brown Forces were to attempt an amphibious landing at Saros Bay, Turkey against the resistance offered by the Green Forces. Admiral Boorda ordered the units comprising each force to actively seek and "destroy" each other. Both task force commanders had full authority to engage the enemy when and where they deemed appropriate and to use all warfare assets at their disposal to achieve victory. Needless to say, all confrontations were intended to be simulated attacks.
On October 1, 1992, the Combat Direction Center Officer aboard the Saratoga decided to launch a simulated attack on nearby opposition forces utilizing the Sea Sparrow missile system. After securing the approval of the Saratoga's Commanding Officer and the Battle Group Commander, the Combat Direction Center Officer implemented the simulated assault plan. Without providing prior notice, officers on the Saratoga woke the enlisted Sea Sparrow missile team and directed them to conduct the simulated attack. Certain members of the missile firing team were not told that the exercise was a drill, rather than an actual event.
As the drill progressed, the missile system operator used language to indicate he was preparing to fire a live missile, but due to the absence of standard terminology, the responsible officers failed to appreciate the significance of the terms used and the requests made. Specifically, the Target Acquisition System operator issued the command "arm and tune," terminology the console operators understood to require arming of the missiles in preparation for actual firing. The officers supervising the drill did not realize that "arm and tune" signified a live firing. As a result, the Saratoga inadvertently fired two live Sea Sparrow missiles at the Muavenet. Both missiles struck the Muavenet, resulting in several deaths and numerous injuries.
On September 29, 1994, some of the Turkish Navy sailors serving aboard the Muavenet instituted this action by suing the United States under the Public Vessels Act, 46 U.S.C.App. §§ 781-790, and the Death on the High Seas Act, 46 U.S.C.App. §§ 761-768. The present action encompasses 2 wrongful death claims and 299 personal injury claims arising out of the inadvertent missile firing. On September 22, 1995, the United States filed a motion for summary judgment, contending that this case presents a nonjusticiable political question. The district court granted the motion by order issued January 2, 1996. [1] On appeal, Appellants contend that the district court erred by dismissing its claims under the political question doctrine.
O SEA SPARROW foi usado como arma anti-pessoal, e não anti-navio. Contra a estrutura do navio, poderia apenas causar danos estéticos.
"O correr da vida embrulha tudo,
a vida é assim: esquenta e esfria,
aperta e daí afrouxa,
sossega e depois desinquieta.
O que ela quer da gente é coragem."
João Guimarães Rosa
a vida é assim: esquenta e esfria,
aperta e daí afrouxa,
sossega e depois desinquieta.
O que ela quer da gente é coragem."
João Guimarães Rosa
-
Carlos Mathias
Anti-Ship Missiles You've Heard About…
April 12, 2005: Anti-ship missiles have become the primary means for
attacking surface vessels. This was made very clear in 1967, when
Egyptian Komar-class missile boats fired Styx missiles that sank the
Israeli destroyer Eliat. Many more anti-ship missiles have been
designed and put into service since then. Which of those with a
combat record is the best?
The Russian SS-N-2/P-15 Styx was the first missile to prove the
concept in actual combat. Four missiles were fired against the
Eliat – and three hit. The Styx was designed to bypass the
formidable anti-aircraft armament on the ships of the era. Five-inch
and three-inch guns with variable time or proximity fuses had proven
unable to stop Japan's slower kamikaze aircraft (in essence, the
first anti-ship missiles). In its ultimate incarnation, the SS-N-2C,
the Styx had a range of 83 kilometers, a speed of Mach 1.3, and
delivered a 1,100-pound high-explosive warhead onto its target. The
system has seen service with not only Arab navies, but also India,
which used the Styx to sink a Pakistani destroyer and minesweeper,
while also using it successfully against targets on land, and to
damage another Pakistani destroyer and three tankers. The Styx,
though, was quickly countered with electronic devices that spoiled
their aim, or set off the warhead prematurely. In 1973, over fifty
anti-ship missiles were fired at Israeli forces. None did much
damage to speak of. Today, the Styx is still manufactured, since it
is simple, reliable, and cheap. But these days, the Styx little more
than bait for today's surface-to-air missiles.
The Israelis soon developed their own surface-to-surface missile,
the Gabriel. The surface-to-surface Gabriel has a range of 40
kilometers, used radar guidance, and in 1973, became the scourge of
the Arab navies, sinking nine vessels. This missile has probably had
some of the most extensive combat usage in the world, and has
performed well. It has been progressively improved to the point of
becoming an air-launched weapon as well, with a range of 60
kilometers.
The French Exocet is probably the most famous of these anti-ship
missiles. The original version was short-ranged, able to reach
targets 42 kilometers away. It could deliver a 364-pound warhead to
its target, and could fly as low as 3 meters above the ocean. This
makes it very hard to hit. Exocet is arguably the "movie star" of
anti-ship missiles – but for good reason. The Exocet earned its
reputation in the Falklands War of 1982, where it sank the modern
(at the time) destroyer HMS Sheffield. The missile also sank the
merchant ship Atlantic Conveyor in a second attack. Five years
later, the Exocet was used in an attack that left the USS Stark
badly damaged. What is not known is that the Exocet achieved this
record despite at least two of the four hits (one of the hits on
Stark and the hit that sank Sheffield) were duds. This missile has
performed for the most part against the two best navies in the world
(the U.S. Navy and the Royal Navy), sinking two ships and badly
damaging a third. It has earned its spurs the hard way.
Finally, the last of the anti-ship missiles that has seen extensive
combat is the Harpoon. This is probably the most capable of the anti-ship missiles. Early versions had a range of 110 kilometers. Newer
versions push that figure up to 275 kilometers. The early versions
of the Harpoon had a 500-pound warhead. The SLAM-ER, a derivative of
the Harpoon, can carry an 800-pound warhead. Harpoon's first real
combat test came during the 1986 Freedom of Navigation exercises in
the Gulf of Sidra. The Harpoon sank or heavily damaged three Libyan
patrol craft. In 1988, after an Iranian mine hit the Samuel B.
Roberts, the Harpoon was tested again during Operation Preying
Mantis. An Iranian Harpoon (bought in the 1970s) missed an American
vessel, but American Harpoons sank the Iranian frigate Sahand.
Of these missiles, the Harpoon is clearly the most capable. It has
the longest range, allowing the ships and aircraft firing it to
mostly avoid taking fire from enemy aircraft or missiles, and it has
proven to be highly versatile, not only becoming the premiere anti-
ship missile in the world, but also a superb-land attack missile
(the SLAM and SLAM-ER). Most of its attacks have succeeded, and have
not involved duds. The Harpoon has, unlike the Styx, aged like a
fine wine. It is going to remain the premiere anti-ship missile for
the foreseeable future. – Harold C. Hutchison (hchutch@...)
http://www.strategypage.com/fyeo/howtom ... efault.asp?
target=HTSURF.HTM
April 12, 2005: Anti-ship missiles have become the primary means for
attacking surface vessels. This was made very clear in 1967, when
Egyptian Komar-class missile boats fired Styx missiles that sank the
Israeli destroyer Eliat. Many more anti-ship missiles have been
designed and put into service since then. Which of those with a
combat record is the best?
The Russian SS-N-2/P-15 Styx was the first missile to prove the
concept in actual combat. Four missiles were fired against the
Eliat – and three hit. The Styx was designed to bypass the
formidable anti-aircraft armament on the ships of the era. Five-inch
and three-inch guns with variable time or proximity fuses had proven
unable to stop Japan's slower kamikaze aircraft (in essence, the
first anti-ship missiles). In its ultimate incarnation, the SS-N-2C,
the Styx had a range of 83 kilometers, a speed of Mach 1.3, and
delivered a 1,100-pound high-explosive warhead onto its target. The
system has seen service with not only Arab navies, but also India,
which used the Styx to sink a Pakistani destroyer and minesweeper,
while also using it successfully against targets on land, and to
damage another Pakistani destroyer and three tankers. The Styx,
though, was quickly countered with electronic devices that spoiled
their aim, or set off the warhead prematurely. In 1973, over fifty
anti-ship missiles were fired at Israeli forces. None did much
damage to speak of. Today, the Styx is still manufactured, since it
is simple, reliable, and cheap. But these days, the Styx little more
than bait for today's surface-to-air missiles.
The Israelis soon developed their own surface-to-surface missile,
the Gabriel. The surface-to-surface Gabriel has a range of 40
kilometers, used radar guidance, and in 1973, became the scourge of
the Arab navies, sinking nine vessels. This missile has probably had
some of the most extensive combat usage in the world, and has
performed well. It has been progressively improved to the point of
becoming an air-launched weapon as well, with a range of 60
kilometers.
The French Exocet is probably the most famous of these anti-ship
missiles. The original version was short-ranged, able to reach
targets 42 kilometers away. It could deliver a 364-pound warhead to
its target, and could fly as low as 3 meters above the ocean. This
makes it very hard to hit. Exocet is arguably the "movie star" of
anti-ship missiles – but for good reason. The Exocet earned its
reputation in the Falklands War of 1982, where it sank the modern
(at the time) destroyer HMS Sheffield. The missile also sank the
merchant ship Atlantic Conveyor in a second attack. Five years
later, the Exocet was used in an attack that left the USS Stark
badly damaged. What is not known is that the Exocet achieved this
record despite at least two of the four hits (one of the hits on
Stark and the hit that sank Sheffield) were duds. This missile has
performed for the most part against the two best navies in the world
(the U.S. Navy and the Royal Navy), sinking two ships and badly
damaging a third. It has earned its spurs the hard way.
Finally, the last of the anti-ship missiles that has seen extensive
combat is the Harpoon. This is probably the most capable of the anti-ship missiles. Early versions had a range of 110 kilometers. Newer
versions push that figure up to 275 kilometers. The early versions
of the Harpoon had a 500-pound warhead. The SLAM-ER, a derivative of
the Harpoon, can carry an 800-pound warhead. Harpoon's first real
combat test came during the 1986 Freedom of Navigation exercises in
the Gulf of Sidra. The Harpoon sank or heavily damaged three Libyan
patrol craft. In 1988, after an Iranian mine hit the Samuel B.
Roberts, the Harpoon was tested again during Operation Preying
Mantis. An Iranian Harpoon (bought in the 1970s) missed an American
vessel, but American Harpoons sank the Iranian frigate Sahand.
Of these missiles, the Harpoon is clearly the most capable. It has
the longest range, allowing the ships and aircraft firing it to
mostly avoid taking fire from enemy aircraft or missiles, and it has
proven to be highly versatile, not only becoming the premiere anti-
ship missile in the world, but also a superb-land attack missile
(the SLAM and SLAM-ER). Most of its attacks have succeeded, and have
not involved duds. The Harpoon has, unlike the Styx, aged like a
fine wine. It is going to remain the premiere anti-ship missile for
the foreseeable future. – Harold C. Hutchison (hchutch@...)
http://www.strategypage.com/fyeo/howtom ... efault.asp?
target=HTSURF.HTM
-
talharim
- Sênior
- Mensagens: 9831
- Registrado em: Sex Mai 07, 2004 11:40 pm
- Localização: Santos-SP
- Agradeceram: 212 vezes
Sobre o Harpoon tenho um coisa a dizer.
Na última vez que fui visitar navios da MB no porto de Santos,o marinheiro que estava de acompanhante na visita no navio era do COC.
Aí eu perguntei sobre a eficácia dos novos Exocet MM-40 da MB e ele respondeu de uma forma bem simples:
- "É um míssil muito bom,a melhor arma da MB atualmente"........................"Se um Exocet for lançado em um alvo até 20 km de distancia garanto 100% de acerto porque pelas características de velocidade e engajamento o Exocet é letal"
Agora sobre o Harpoon ele me disse o seguinte:
- "Esse míssil é praticamente indestrutível depois de lançado,NENHUM DOS NAVIOS DA MB teria condiçoes de interceptar um míssil desses depois de lançado contra nossas escoltas"............."Tem que rezar para ter uma morte rápida",ele brincou........
Na última vez que fui visitar navios da MB no porto de Santos,o marinheiro que estava de acompanhante na visita no navio era do COC.
Aí eu perguntei sobre a eficácia dos novos Exocet MM-40 da MB e ele respondeu de uma forma bem simples:
- "É um míssil muito bom,a melhor arma da MB atualmente"........................"Se um Exocet for lançado em um alvo até 20 km de distancia garanto 100% de acerto porque pelas características de velocidade e engajamento o Exocet é letal"
Agora sobre o Harpoon ele me disse o seguinte:
- "Esse míssil é praticamente indestrutível depois de lançado,NENHUM DOS NAVIOS DA MB teria condiçoes de interceptar um míssil desses depois de lançado contra nossas escoltas"............."Tem que rezar para ter uma morte rápida",ele brincou........
-
Vinicius Pimenta
- Site Admin
- Mensagens: 12007
- Registrado em: Seg Fev 17, 2003 12:10 am
- Localização: Rio de Janeiro - RJ - Brasil
- Agradeceram: 131 vezes
- Contato:
Enfim você encontrou algum militar que estivesse disposto a falar a realidade e que não faz questão de esconder a situação. Geralmente falariam. "É um míssil fantástico, o melhor do mundo e as nossas escoltas coseguiriam interceptar qualquer míssil em nossa direção." 
Vinicius Pimenta
Você é responsável pelo ambiente e a qualidade do fórum que participa. Faça sua parte.
Você é responsável pelo ambiente e a qualidade do fórum que participa. Faça sua parte.
-
talharim
- Sênior
- Mensagens: 9831
- Registrado em: Sex Mai 07, 2004 11:40 pm
- Localização: Santos-SP
- Agradeceram: 212 vezes
Eu fiquei surpreso sim com a atitude dele Vinicius.....Ele nao foi nenhum pouco comedido nas palavras.............."É morte na certa"...................
Cade os Bofors 40mm interceptadores de misseis de cruzeiro FOX
Em off eles falam abertamente.Se fosse na TV diriam outra coisa vc sabe...........
Falows,
Cade os Bofors 40mm interceptadores de misseis de cruzeiro FOX
Em off eles falam abertamente.Se fosse na TV diriam outra coisa vc sabe...........
Falows,
-
Vinicius Pimenta
- Site Admin
- Mensagens: 12007
- Registrado em: Seg Fev 17, 2003 12:10 am
- Localização: Rio de Janeiro - RJ - Brasil
- Agradeceram: 131 vezes
- Contato:
-
LEO
- Sênior
- Mensagens: 3469
- Registrado em: Sáb Fev 22, 2003 6:07 pm
- Localização: Campinas/SP
- Contato:
Preocupante isso.
Mas na minha opinião de leigo, acho que com recursos de Guerra Eletrônica seria possível fazer algo para evitar um possível impacto dos mísseis contra a esquadra. Talvez dizer que o Harpoon é "indestrutível" seja um pouco precipitado.
Mas na minha opinião de leigo, acho que com recursos de Guerra Eletrônica seria possível fazer algo para evitar um possível impacto dos mísseis contra a esquadra. Talvez dizer que o Harpoon é "indestrutível" seja um pouco precipitado.
"Veni, vidi, vinci" - Júlio Cesar
http://www.jornalopcao.com.br/index.asp ... djornal=43
Every time you feed a troll, God kills a kitten. Please, think of the kittens
http://www.jornalopcao.com.br/index.asp ... djornal=43
Every time you feed a troll, God kills a kitten. Please, think of the kittens
-
LEO
- Sênior
- Mensagens: 3469
- Registrado em: Sáb Fev 22, 2003 6:07 pm
- Localização: Campinas/SP
- Contato:
Para mim, este artigo apresenta-se altamente tendencioso para com o Harpoon. Não desmerecendo a qualidade do AGM-84, mas já que se citou as versões mais recentes do Harpoon, deveria também falar sobre os novos mísseis russos, sobre o RBS-15F, etc.
"Veni, vidi, vinci" - Júlio Cesar
http://www.jornalopcao.com.br/index.asp ... djornal=43
Every time you feed a troll, God kills a kitten. Please, think of the kittens
http://www.jornalopcao.com.br/index.asp ... djornal=43
Every time you feed a troll, God kills a kitten. Please, think of the kittens
talharim escreveu:Cade os Bofors 40mm interceptadores de misseis de cruzeiro FOX
Um pouquinho de respeito seria bom, né, pois acho que aqui não tem nenhuma criança!
Pergunte a um oficial do EB qual a capacidade do sistema Bofors 40mm! Se você ainda não teve a oportunidade de confessar com uma pessoa habilitada a utilizar esse sistema, problema e seu, pois eu já tive (PAMA-SP, 10/2003), é não estou falando nenhuma abobrinha!
Reportagem da revista Tecnologia & Defesa, N°101:
Trinity Mk3
“Estes canhões de 40mm são fabricados pela Bofors constituem, hoje, em uma opção de vários paises para assegurar a defesa de ponto como alternativa a outros CIWS de calibre leve. Exemplo disso é o caso do Brasil, que escolheu para armar a corveta Barroso e ao modernizar as suas fragatas classe Niterói, instalando a bordo dois canhões Trinity. Derivado do Bofors 40mm/60 Model 1936, as mais recentes versões incorporam algumas novidades, entre as quais maior cadência de tiro e redoma protetora cujo desenho permite uma reduzida assinatura radar. De emprego multifunção está equipado com radar Doppler que mede continuamente a velocidade inicial dos projeteis (munição 3P – Programável, de Proximidade e Pré-Fragmentada), opera automaticamente a partir do COC (Centro de Operações de Combate), dirigido através de alça optrônica ou radar. A cadência de fogo chega aos 330 tiros por minutos e tem um alcance de até 10.000 metros contra alvos em terra, embora como CIWS seja eficaz apenas até aos 3.000 metros contra mísseis do tipo “sea-skimming”.
Você sabe o que é um míssil sea-skimming?
Parte de um artigo oficial do Exercito Brasileiro:
Sistema 40mm FILA-BOFORS
“Do ponto de vista técnico-operacional é um dos sistemas de DAAe de baixa altura mais avançados do mundo, tendo o EDT FILA tecnologia digital e MPE compatíveis com a atual ameaça. O Can 40mm BOFFORS é de constituição robusta, possui boa precisão e sua munição, constituída por espoleta de proximidade e balins de tungstênio, possibilita elevado índice de acerto e compensa sua baixa cadência d tiro (300 tpm)”.
“O sistema 40mm ainda é considerado o mais moderno em uso na AAAe do EB e, por suas características peculiares, poderia ser empregado contra os temíveis mísseis de cruzeiro, ameaça aérea largamente empregada nos últimos conflitos”.
Site Naval Technology
"Bofors 40 and 57 Mk3 Naval Guns have a rapid switch capability between optimised ammunition types, including programmable 3P ammunition, and are extremely flexible weapon systems for use against a range of different targets including hostile ships, attack aircraft, anti-ship missiles, and in the littoral scenario helicopters and ground troops".
Site do fabricante (Bofors Defence)
Bofors 40 Mk3 Naval Gun
"Bofors Defence 40 mm Mk 3 is a versatile system for use as an air defence gun on larger naval vessels or as the main armament on smaller craft for combating both surface and aerial targets.
The digitized and computer controlled gun, which is constructed largely of non-magnetic materials to reduce weight and magnetic signature, has full remote control as well as a local control back-up mode.
The 101-round magazine contains more than enough ammunition for ten engagements, ensuring the Mk 3's high level of endurance.
And with the Bofors Defence round it has the ability to defeat anti-ship missiles, attack aircraft and helicopters as well as surface targets and on-shore targets".
http://www.boforsdefence.com
E ai, o que você tem para falar agora!
Antes de falar bobagem (o que já se tornou rotina), conte até três, respire fundo, pesquise e só depois comente a sua opinião!
Para não perder o costume..................
Menos talharim, menos................................
Editado pela última vez por Fox em Dom Jul 10, 2005 11:01 am, em um total de 6 vezes.
Bandeira que é o nosso espelho!
Bandeira que é a nossa pista!
Que traz no topo vermelho,
O coração do Paulista!
Guilherme de Almeida
Bandeira que é a nossa pista!
Que traz no topo vermelho,
O coração do Paulista!
Guilherme de Almeida
-
Slip Junior
- Sênior
- Mensagens: 3291
- Registrado em: Seg Fev 17, 2003 6:00 pm
- Agradeceram: 1 vez
LEO escreveu:Para mim, este artigo apresenta-se altamente tendencioso para com o Harpoon. Não desmerecendo a qualidade do AGM-84, mas já que se citou as versões mais recentes do Harpoon, deveria também falar sobre os novos mísseis russos, sobre o RBS-15F, etc.
Leo, o artigo é apenas sobre mísseis anti-navio já usados em combate.
Abraços
-
Carlos Mathias
-
FinkenHeinle
- Sênior
- Mensagens: 11930
- Registrado em: Qua Jan 28, 2004 4:07 am
- Localização: Criciúma/SC
- Agradeceram: 19 vezes
- Contato: