charles talleyrand

How good was shipborne radar in the 60s against a 2003 airforce? For example, could a 1964 ship detect an incoming modern strike
before the explosions began in the face of modern ACM.

I ask both because I'm curious about the past and because there are navies out
there using old-fashioned technology.

brian

example, could a 1964 ship detect an incoming modern strike


1960s radar suffers from problems at low elevations(among other things)
which is where ASCM's hang out. This is a major shortcoming.

mike potter

RN warships used 1960s air-search radar in the Falklands in 1982,
specifically RN radar Type 965. From descriptions in David Brown's book
The Royal Navy and the Falklands War, it appears that this radar could
not detect aircraft over land, or at least not above 30,000 feet. The
newer Type 1022 radar succeeded at that.

tmoliver

"Charles Talleyrand" <rappleto@nmu.edu> vented spleen or mostly
mumbled...


60s era air search radars were certainly well able to detect a/c at the
same ranges as current gadgets, although antenna design limited altitude
performance. Operators were certainly trained or experienced to provide a
higher level of "interpretation" than is required today. Certainly,
today's stealthy and semi-stealthy a/c would provide substantial detection
problems, but in some attitudes, A4s were stealthier than you might
imagine.

Obviously, low altitude/high speed missiles wpuld have been a problem then
(and are so now). Having nothing to shoot at them then, it hardly mattered
until Phalanx/CIWS came aboard.

The fire control radars of the 60s certainly lagged behind current
versions, but I suspect that the biggest gap was not "radar" but the
capacity to process, track and provide FC solutions, a "computer" problem.
We simply could not handle data at rates a 100 times less than today's
equipment.

TMO

rlbell

There are some things that the 60s era set will actually do better. Radar
jamming is harder against the older radars, as things like the range gate
and gain control were manually operated, so an operator could look for the
smaller, real returns that the jamming is trying to hide or realize that
he is subject to barrage jamming.

Not that I am recommending going back to manually operated tracking systems,
but that the only thing going for computers is their speed. Even the best
and most complex expert system is pathetically stupid.

Also, you should not judge a system by its antenna and transmitter, or you
could be surprised by a ship that has had the 60s era signal processors
removed and replaced 80s era stuff, or a general purpose P4 computer
(running linux) emulating the 80s hardware, for less money.

Third world countries, and by extension their navies, are poor, not stupid.
Underestimate them at your peril. It was bad enough when the manufacturing
jobs left North America, but the knowledge-based jobs are starting to leave
now, too.

red

I have to agree. Information processing was the really big shortcoming of
the 60 era radar. You can't argue with some of its successes though. One US
cruiser setting off N.Vietnam shot down two MiG from over 65 miles (105+ km)
with RIM-8 Talos SAMS.

Red

tmoliver

"Red" vented spleen or mostly mumbled...

.....At one point the big bedscreen SPS-43 was the best of air search
radars. It's tange of detection against Bears at Angels 20 or the
occasional Chromedome could awe the careless viewer (and I suspect was
better than today's shipboard examples).

On the other hand, bury me not with an SPS-8, rarely serviceavble, or
though more servicable, the SPS-30, a hell of a penalty in weight, space
and topside clearview.

TMO

john halliwell

In article <Xns93EF717797DF6olivers@206.127.4.21>, TMOliver
<olive@FIXTHIScalpha.com> writes


I seem to remember a rumour during GWI that one of the RNs air defence
ships apparently managed to detect F-117As using some form of '50s long
wave radar.

--
John

sidthefltrspoofr

As far as US shipboard radars go, the SPY-1, SPS-48, SPS-49, and
SPS-55 radars all began their lives in the '60s. Its the "front end"
signal processing that has seen the dramatic improvements. Today's
operators are largely freed from the task of cognitively interpreting
****og video.
Its been a double edged sword though. Living by symbology alone has
caused problems. It was a factor in the Vincennes shootdown of the
Airbus, the collision of a DDG (can't remember which one) with a
backing down CV, and the expenditure of a Harpoon on exactly nothing
in the Gulf of Sidra by the Tico in '86.

wda

In the 60s carrier based A-3 heavy attack bombers flying above 40,000 feet
often could approach a warship and not be detected on the air search radar
even when passing overhead.

WDA

end


example, could a 1964 ship detect an incoming modern strike