As a point of interest, The last large scale naval battle between two protagonists using advanced but untried Equipment was the Falklands. The one thing that struck me was the amount of equipment failures in combat, exorcets failing to connect , sea wolf and sea sparrow experiencing numourus techniqual difficulties. The only kit that work as planned was the Harriers, and I think there air to air missiles had only a 50% kill rate.
I'm not sure the Falklands War is representative of present technology and equipment. Both Sea Wolf and Sea Dart used were a 1960's vintage systems, the latter using vaccum tubes. And the radars used were 1950's vintage. Very early days for missile and sensor technology. As an analogy, Vietnam era Sparrows are not indicative of the efficiency of current air to air missiles.
The Sea Wolf could probably handle Exocet at the time, but IIRC never got the chance to engage one, as it was only deployed on two ships.
Also, the human factor and lack of situational awareness played a huge part in an Exocet striking
HMS Sheffield.
So, IMHO not representative of todays capabilites (or threats).
Was the Sea Sparrow used at the Falklands War?
As a sidenote, the importance of airborne sensors were underlined in this war.
I tend to view the fantastic intercept rates of the USN with a large amount of skeptisism, and I imagine on its best days, employed against a undefended target, the sunburn would connect at least half the time.
First massed employment of smart bombs in 91, had a hit rate of 10% to 15%
I'm sure on the bombing range they were scoring 90%.
Fair enough. However, going by the reports, both the Standard and the ESSM seem to do very well in very complex tests. But as usual, the proof is in the pudding - we will only know if they are used for real against a supersonic missile swarm...
Btw, IIRC the hit rate of PGM during GW1 was 85%. Have never heard about the 10%-15% number, unless you're thinking of Mavericks hitting sand berms and thus hitting the target in the geometric sense, but not disabling it.
The numbers in the public domain are all we have to go on, but i dont think they really take into account the stress of real combat, humans are not automotons, and I do believe that the more complex a system is the more it will balls up in real combat.
That's why automation is good. Falklands might be an example. The more complex the system is the more automation one can expect, and I think it will work. However, this discussion is perhaps more philosophical - it's hard to discuss.
Modern naval systems are among the most complex weapons we have ever built, but as yet are untried. Tank designers in WW2 were getting real time data back from the front and could tailor there designs accordingly. Modern Naval designiers dont have that luxury.
The one thing that worries me is the fact that the USN has never had to employ those systems. They are unproven in combat, that would make me very nervous. A tank is one thing, a big gun and good armour and away you go. Intercepting a missle with another missile one traveling at mach 2.5 the other at mach 4, is a different proposition.
Yeah, I certainly wouldn't expect a Pk above 0.9 in operational condition. On the other hand, as I just found out, a single Burke can let so many missiles fly that even a lower Pk will see it through.
Which I suppose is why the USN approch is to hit the launcher.
I think in a naval conflict in the Gulf this will become much more problematic.
Yes, delivery platforms, sensors and C2. Simpler and more assured.
Anyway I guess I dont have the same faith in the high tech to win wars that I should!
I am of the impression that air-air and surface-air is the best managed aspects of warfare in the sense that technology yield control.
Depend on perspective.
