Harpoon II chosen for Indian Air Force Jaguars

[TomCat111]

Please read the post above to see the point.......

I did. Now, why don't you explain?

 

[Keysersoze]

The answer was not for you.......Hence. I did not aim it at your level....

As for explaining it to you.........I do not teach nursery school....

I will not waste any more time on you.......

 

[TomCat111]

The answer was not for you.......Hence. I did not aim it at your level....

As for explaining it to you.........I do not teach nursery school....

I will not waste any more time on you.......

Nice try… Sweetheart, you cant intimidate me.

I know you don’t believe in being polite to others, but I would like you to explain if in message 13 you were as usual belittling another forum member or you thought Exocets were better than Harpoons?

 

[zraver]

2 exocets hit the Stark only one exploded, a similar 50% failure rate was observed during the Falklands war. Luckily for the US the Stark was steel not an allumanium alloy and so did not do a shake and bake like the Royal Navy did in the South Atlantic.

Also prior to the tanker war Iran was the dominant naval power in the Gulf minus the UAN and Russian sqaudrons there. She had several frigates built near my home town.

 

[Keysersoze]

2 exocets hit the Stark only one exploded, a similar 50% failure rate was observed during the Falklands war. Luckily for the US the Stark was steel not an allumanium alloy and so did not do a shake and bake like the Royal Navy did in the South Atlantic.

Also prior to the tanker war Iran was the dominant naval power in the Gulf minus the UAN and Russian sqaudrons there. She had several frigates built near my home town.

Well in regards to the Exocet warhead failures. I am sure they have corrected whatever issues that were present in earlier models. But the point remains that they did defeat the countermeasures of two modern warships from strong naval nations. (even if they didn't explode)

And whilst the Iranian navy was regionally strong it was not very strong compared to even a fraction of western navies. I believe that one of the ships was struck by a old fashioned iron bomb and another was scuttled by marines.

Both missiles have operational use and have been successful. The only exception is the Russian one.

 

[Keysersoze]

MISSILE RELIABILITY

Analysis of the comparative military utility of missiles and aircraft must also take into account their operational reliability. The frequent claim of assured mission success by ballistic missiles overlooks the problem of mechanical failures, which can account for losses of missiles of the same magnitude as losses of aircraft to defenses.

In practice, at least 10% of ballistic missiles must be assumed to fail prior to reaching their targets. American strategic missile systems such as the Poseidon and Minuteman are reported to suffer failure rates of at least 5% to 10%.(37) The American Harpoon medium range cruise missile has demonstrated a reliability approaching 90%, following almost 50 test flights which initially demonstrated a 50% reliability.(38) And strategic nuclear exchange calculations use failure rates as high as 20%(39)

Space launch vehicles, many of which are derived from strategic rockets, also provide an indication of probable ballistic missile failure rates. These systems typically suffer approximately 10% failure rates, with 5% failure rates being unusually good, and 20% certainly not being unusually bad.(40)

Mechanical unreliability is not limited to missiles, of course. The probability that an aircraft will successfully attack a target is a function of both the probability of penetrating air defenses, as well as the reliability of the aircraft itself. While this later factor is poorly documented, the American raid on Libya provides some indication of the magnitude of aircraft reliability. Of the total of 83 aircraft participating in the raid (including 28 KC-10s and KC-135s, 24 F-111s, 5 EF-111s, 14 A-6Es, 6 A-7s and 6 F/A-18s), all but 7 completed their assigned missions, suggesting an 8% failure rate.(41) But 2 of the 14 A-6Es and 5 of the 18 F-111s that attacked Libya (the other 6 were unused spares) suffered mechanical problems that led to mission aborts, suggesting failure rates of between 14% and 28%.


from the following article....
http://www.fas.org/spp/aircraft/part03.htm

 

[zraver]

I wouldn't call the RN in the early 80's a fleet with modern warships. The 70's and 80's were probalby the saddest time of the RN out side of the loss of tonnage after the Washington Naval Treaty. British ship design and naval doctrine was driven by endemic recession and flawed thinking. the RN scrapped/sold their fleet carriers and built flammable ships that lacked close in defenses: despite the lessons learned by the Israelies in the 73 war vs the Oska class boats and thier early soviet missiles.

The Falklands was very much a moment when the famous British tenacity and doggedness overcame both Argentina and a totally bulloxed naval doctrine.