What's new

Aegis defense system helped stop missile attack on USS Mason

F-22Raptor

ELITE MEMBER
Joined
Jun 19, 2014
Messages
16,980
Reaction score
3
Country
United States
Location
United States
WASHINGTON – In about 90 seconds Wednesday, the Navy’s Aegis Combat System proved its value and saved the USS Mason from a missile strike.

During the attack, the ship’s defense system detected, tracked and intercepted the incoming cruise missile and destroyed it, two Pentagon officials told Stars and Stripes on the condition of anonymity.

“We actually saw an explosion,” one official said, relaying what has been reported to the Pentagon from the Mason.

The incident took place about 6 p.m. local time Wednesday off the coast of Yemen, where the Mason and the USS San Antonio, an amphibious transport dock ship, were cruising the Bab el Mandeb strait, a narrow waterway that connects the Red Sea to the Gulf Aden.

Since March 2015, Yemen has been controlled by Iranian-backed Houthi rebels who are fighting a Saudi-led coalition getting logistical assistance from the United States.

Subsequently, the strait had seen several strikes during the last two weeks.

On Oct. 1, a HSV-2 Swift, a catamaran-like fast moving littoral ship owned by the United States and leased by the United Arab Emirates, was badly damaged by a cruise missile fired from Yemen.

On Saturday, an airstrike killed at least 140 civilians and wounded hundreds more at a funeral in Sanaa, Yemen’s Houthi-controlled capital. Saudi Arabia denied responsibility for the strike. Pentagon Press Secretary Peter Cook said Thursday that the United States did not assist in Saturday’s funeral strike.

On Sunday, the Mason was again cruising the strait when its defense system detected two cruise missiles fired from a Houthi-controlled coastal area of Yemen, Pentagon officials said Wednesday.

The Mason’s AN/SPY-1D radar detected the incoming missiles launched from a site in Yemen about 30 miles from the Mason and the Aegis system fired missiles in response. The Mason was not hit by either missile. But the Navy is not certain whether its defense system stopped the first incoming missile or it just fell into the sea about 12 miles from the ship. The second missile fired at the Mason fell about nine miles from the ship, one of the officials said.

On Wednesday, during the second attack on the Mason, the Aegis system detected and tracked the missile and the ship’s crew responded and destroyed it, the officials said.

In general terms, as soon as radar identifies an object moving toward the ship as an inbound missile, the Aegis system provides options to the ship commander.

“You have about 90 seconds from saying ‘yes, that’s a missile,” and launching a response, one of the officials told Stripes.

The cruise missile was about 8 miles away from the Mason when it was destroyed Wednesday, the official said.

The effectiveness of Aegis on Wednesday provided a battle test for the defense system, proving it can defend ships, the official said.

“There’s a lot more faith, a lot more confidence in the ability of Aegis,” he said.

http://www.stripes.com/news/aegis-defense-system-helped-stop-missile-attack-on-uss-mason-1.433974
 
On Oct. 1, a HSV-2 Swift, a catamaran-like fast moving littoral ship owned by the United States and leased by the United Arab Emirates, was badly damaged by a cruise missile fired from Yemen.
How inaccurate.

The USN chartered the catamaran Swift from INCAT from 2008-2013. Upon return (lease end), the catamaran came into UAE ownership with the UAE's National Marine Dredging Company.
http://www.janes.com/article/64274/uae-s-swift-hit-by-anti-ship-missile

Swift is a wave-piercing catamaran FERRY
 
Last edited:
I know @Penguin will tell you the same thing, but the bolded part is the part that isn't legit. It's pure BS.
http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/navy-responds-to-claim-ship-was-scared-off-by-russian-j-1708178476
i read about su-24 carrying electronic warfare equipments did a low pass by the destroyer and employed their electronic warfare mechanism that disabled all radar, sensors etc on uss donald ... couldnt find the original article on another site ... but here is a piece
 
penguin... what do you think? this is legit? last time i heard about aegis was when russian jets flew over with emp to disable US ship.
Pure fiction.

http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/navy-responds-to-claim-ship-was-scared-off-by-russian-j-1708178476
i read about su-24 carrying electronic warfare equipments did a low pass by the destroyer and employed their electronic warfare mechanism that disabled all radar, sensors etc on uss donald ... couldnt find the original article on another site ... but here is a piece
Two Russian Sukhoi Su-24 attack aircraft perform multiple low-level passes over the USS Donald Cook (DDG-75) April 12, 2016. The following day, a pair of KA27 Kamov Helix helicopters orbited the ship taking photos in what officials called a “simulated attack profile” in several press reports.
https://news.usni.org/2016/04/13/video-russian-fighters-buzz-uss-donald-cook-in-baltic-sea
570ecc86c3618808558b460a.jpg


This close, a hand operated 25mm can take the jet out.
WNUS_25mm_mk38_pic.jpg


Russian Fighter Buzzes U.S. Destroyer in Black Sea
April 14, 2014
A Russian fighter spent 90 minutes making low-level passes near a U.S. ballistic missile defense (BMD) guided missile destroyer on station in the Black Sea, a defense official told USNI News on Monday.
The incident occurred on Saturday when a Sukhoi SU-24 Fencer flew as close as 1,000 yards from USS Donald Cook (DDG-75) at an altitude of only 500 feet, the official said.
The fighter made up to 12 passes on the destroyer after not responding to several attempts by the ship to contact the Fencer via radio. There was a second SU-24 in the region but did not engage Cook.
https://news.usni.org/2014/04/14/russian-fighter-buzzes-u-s-destroyer-black-sea
 
Last edited:
Pure fiction.


Two Russian Sukhoi Su-24 attack aircraft perform multiple low-level passes over the USS Donald Cook (DDG-75) April 12, 2016. The following day, a pair of KA27 Kamov Helix helicopters orbited the ship taking photos in what officials called a “simulated attack profile” in several press reports.
https://news.usni.org/2016/04/13/video-russian-fighters-buzz-uss-donald-cook-in-baltic-sea

160412-N-00000-008.jpg


This close, a hand operated 25mm can take the jet out.
WNUS_25mm_mk38_pic.jpg


Russian Fighter Buzzes U.S. Destroyer in Black Sea
April 14, 2014
A Russian fighter spent 90 minutes making low-level passes near a U.S. ballistic missile defense (BMD) guided missile destroyer on station in the Black Sea, a defense official told USNI News on Monday.
The incident occurred on Saturday when a Sukhoi SU-24 Fencer flew as close as 1,000 yards from USS Donald Cook (DDG-75) at an altitude of only 500 feet, the official said.
The fighter made up to 12 passes on the destroyer after not responding to several attempts by the ship to contact the Fencer via radio. There was a second SU-24 in the region but did not engage Cook.
https://news.usni.org/2014/04/14/russian-fighter-buzzes-u-s-destroyer-black-sea

from the Video posted above what anyone can see that Even a CIWs can Neutralize the Plane or Helicopter it wanted too .. they are flying very close to American Ship .. my question is that any Warning is Issued by American Ship to those Aircrafts to change course or they will take counter measures ? from the looks of how low they were flying it was very aggressive move by the Russians ..
 
Sailing in international waters, in peacetime, what do you expect to US ship to do? Shoot down SU-24s just because they make simulated attack runs (i.e. respond in the same unprofessional and dangerous manner).

SPY-1 detection range claim that it can detect a golf ball-sized target at ranges in excess of 165 km, a range at which the 240 km (130 nm) Standard SM-2ER block IV can still reach out and touch. A golf ball-size (1.68 inches diameter) sphere corresponds to radar cross section of about 0.0025 m2 at 3.3 GHz. Scaling to a radar cross section more typical of a ballistic missile warhead (0.03 m2 at 3.3 GHz) gives a range of at least 310 km.

Does the Su-24 carry anything that can jam/disable from that distance? Even so ESM would still give information, and to greater than radar ranges if the aircraft was emitting in the first place.

https://mostlymissiledefense.com/20...-defense-the-aegis-spy-1-radar-august-3-2012/



Su-34 with ECM modules "Khibiny" on the wing tips

The system is designed for radio direction-finding and probing signal source irradiation allowing it to distort reflected signal parameters. This helps to
  • Delay aircraft detection;
  • Mask the true subject against false reflections;
  • Cause range finding difficulties, namely in speed and angular positions;
  • Degrading Maintenance Mode "on the aisle" when scanning antenna beam radar;
  • Increase the time and difficulty of capturing an object during real-time active scanning.
...

In 2014, the Russian state-run news media outlets ran stories that claimed that in April 2014 a Su-24 equipped with Khibiny had disabled the Aegis Combat System of the USS Donald Cook, a U.S. Navy Arleigh Burke-class guided missile destroyer, then deployed in the Black Sea. The jamming claims were never directly refuted by the U.S. military and ignored by Western mainstream media; in February 2015, Khibiny jammer's Russian manufacturer KRET' website claimed that Khibiny had not been installed on Su-24 fighter jets.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khibiny_(electronic_countermeasures_system)

NOT ON SU-24 but ON SU-27 and variants
Khibiny-M electronic warfare complex Primary onboard equipment
Radioelectronic suppression enables:
- recognition of various types of radar
- identification and indication of the most dangerous radar;
- emission control device and shooting of false thermal targets;
- radioelectronic suppression of the enemy;
- suppression of infrared homing missiles;
- Information exchange with other aircraft regarding missiles with passive radar homing;
- use of Kh-31P rockets with passive radar homing
http://kret.com/en/product/hibiny/about
= a radar jammer, nothing more or less. It doesn't hinder electro-optronic sensers e.g. those employed on Phalanx CIWS or 25mm Bushmaster

a22093b6a4504b1dfe640b51e90b5e24.jpg

See also http://www.spacewar.com/reports/Navy_orders_more_electro-optical_gun_sensor_systems_999.html

By the way, nowadays Khibiny is being installed on Su-30, Su-34 and Su-35, so the famous April attack in the Black sea on USS Donald Cook by Su-24 bomber jet allegedly using Khibiny complex is nothing but a newspaper hoax. The destroyer's buzzing did take place. This EW system can completely neutralise the enemy radar, but Khibiny are not installed on Su-24.
http://kret.com/en/news/3669/

ON SU-24:
KS-418E electronic warfare complex
This complex is designed for the individual protection of aircraft. The station automatically works offline and can simultaneously resist several radioelectronic means of attack. The radar station works in conductions, pulsing, and semi-continuous modes.
http://kret.com/en/product/ks418e/about

burke-infographic1.png
 
from the Video posted above what anyone can see that Even a CIWs can Neutralize the Plane or Helicopter it wanted too .. they are flying very close to American Ship .. my question is that any Warning is Issued by American Ship to those Aircrafts to change course or they will take counter measures ? from the looks of how low they were flying it was very aggressive move by the Russians ..

Baltic case
"The fighters ignored repeated communications from the American ship"
"The Russian fighters did not respond to multiple radio communications from the American ship to "query them while they were still many miles away," the official said, noting that the commander of the USS Donald Cook called the Russian moves 'unsafe and unprofessional'."
http://abcnews.go.com/International...-navy-destroyer-close-range/story?id=38364404

Baltic video https://news.vice.com/article/navy-...arship-in-the-baltic?utm_source=vicenewsfbads

Black Sea case
"The U.S. warship issued several radio queries and warnings using international emergency circuits but the Russian aircraft, which was flying at about 500 feet (150 meters) above sea level, did not respond."
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...Sea-90-minutes-getting-close-1-000-yards.html

Black Sea video https://news.usni.org/2015/06/02/vi...rs-chased-off-destroyer-uss-ross-in-black-sea

What may be relevant is this:
Russian Su-24M communications equipment blamed for shootdown
Reuben F Johnson, Kiev - IHS Jane's Defence Weekly
27 November 2015
The crew of the Russian Sukhoi Su-24M 'Fencer' strike aircraft downed by Turkey on 23 November may not have been able to hear radio warnings issued by the Turkish Air Force, Russian sources tell IHS Jane's .

Turkish authorities have stated that the aircraft was warned 10 times within a five-minute period. However, the surviving crewmember told Russian media on 25 November that he and the aircraft commander, who was shot from the ground while parachuting, did not receive the signal.

Russian specialists familiar with the R-862 model VHF radio installed on the Su-24M say it requires an optional add-on receiver module in order to receive emergency channel transmissions in the ultra-high frequency (UHF) and very high frequency (VHF) bands.
http://www.janes.com/article/56295/russian-su-24m-communications-equipment-blamed-for-shootdown
 
Baltic case
"The fighters ignored repeated communications from the American ship"
"The Russian fighters did not respond to multiple radio communications from the American ship to "query them while they were still many miles away," the official said, noting that the commander of the USS Donald Cook called the Russian moves 'unsafe and unprofessional'."
http://abcnews.go.com/International...-navy-destroyer-close-range/story?id=38364404

Baltic video https://news.vice.com/article/navy-...arship-in-the-baltic?utm_source=vicenewsfbads

Black Sea case
"The U.S. warship issued several radio queries and warnings using international emergency circuits but the Russian aircraft, which was flying at about 500 feet (150 meters) above sea level, did not respond."
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...Sea-90-minutes-getting-close-1-000-yards.html

Black Sea video https://news.usni.org/2015/06/02/vi...rs-chased-off-destroyer-uss-ross-in-black-sea

What may be relevant is this:

http://www.janes.com/article/56295/russian-su-24m-communications-equipment-blamed-for-shootdown

is there any sop to deal with such cases ?? i mean if US also shoot down those Aircrafts it will be escalation ..
 
is there any sop to deal with such cases ?? i mean if US also shoot down those Aircrafts it will be escalation ..
The Russian actions violated the terms of a bilateral agreement signed during the Cold War in 1972 by then Navy Secretary John Warner and Soviet Admiral Sergei Gorshkov. The pact prohibits "simulated attacks against aircraft or ships, performing aerobatics or dropping hazardous objects near them." The two military superpowers drew up the agreement after a "series of close calls."
https://news.vice.com/article/navy-...arship-in-the-baltic?utm_source=vicenewsfbads

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S.–Soviet_Incidents_at_Sea_agreement
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_for_Unplanned_Encounters_at_Sea
 
The Russian actions violated the terms of a bilateral agreement signed during the Cold War in 1972 by then Navy Secretary John Warner and Soviet Admiral Sergei Gorshkov. The pact prohibits "simulated attacks against aircraft or ships, performing aerobatics or dropping hazardous objects near them." The two military superpowers drew up the agreement after a "series of close calls."
https://news.vice.com/article/navy-...arship-in-the-baltic?utm_source=vicenewsfbads

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S.–Soviet_Incidents_at_Sea_agreement
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_for_Unplanned_Encounters_at_Sea

Thanks Buddy for the Information :tup:
 
http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/navy-responds-to-claim-ship-was-scared-off-by-russian-j-1708178476
i read about su-24 carrying electronic warfare equipments did a low pass by the destroyer and employed their electronic warfare mechanism that disabled all radar, sensors etc on uss donald ... couldnt find the original article on another site ... but here is a piece

There are a handful of rather notable reasons why this incident and the claims being made aren't true. let's take a look at them:

1. It was claimed all 27 crew members of the Donald Cook resigned - https://warisboring.com/russia-claims-its-bomber-jammed-u-s-destroyer-8b58c9b56515#.99tvjy30z

12575548911979493245kejetv.png


Russian Radio stated that after the alleged jamming, Donald Cook “rushed into a port in Romania.”

“There, all the 27 members of the crew filed a letter of resignation,” the Website claimed. “It seems that all 27 people have written that they are not going to risk their lives.”

That's all well and good, except an Arleigh Burke Class Destroyer has 280 crew members and this no evidence to support the notion that even one crew member resigned, let alone 27.

2. It was claimed that the Cook's computers went dark - https://warisboring.com/russia-claims-its-bomber-jammed-u-s-destroyer-8b58c9b56515#.99tvjy30z

however-i-found-some-online-and-this-is-precisely-how-one-wall-of-the-cic-looked-on-the-uss-barry.jpg


Donald Cook’s Aegis system tracked the Su-24 approaching, when suddenly the ship’s sensor displays went blank, according to the Russian Website. The swing-wing Su-24 flew over the destroyer, turned and performed a simulated missile attack.

How exactly would the Russian's know that without being in the ship? With jamming, only the jammed party knows it's jammed. The jammer is just trusting their equipment. The Russian's do not have a way of verifying this.

3. The Khibiny jammer wasn't even installed in the SU-24 involved in the incident, so the claim about that isn't true either - https://warisboring.com/russia-claims-its-bomber-jammed-u-s-destroyer-8b58c9b56515#.99tvjy30z

p1633945.jpg


The Russian Khibiny jammer that allegedly took down Aegis is named for a mountain range on Russia’s Kola Peninsula. “Khibiny is the newest complex for radio-electronic jamming of the enemy,” Russian Radio explained. “They will be installed on all the advanced Russian planes.”

4. This will be more difficult for you to verify, but SPY-1 is very, very powerful. Powerful enough that if it was one and an SU-24 was flying as close as the picture above, it's internal systems would be damaged. Because of its power output, SPY-1 is difficult to jam as it "burns through" jamming attempts by simply overpowering them.

There are exclusion zones on SPY-1 equipped ships to prevent crew members from being too close to the radar systems.

Even the smallest of the SPY-1 series, the "f" model is rather powerful:

tkfnanR5820.t5260f8b2.m800.x97148798.jpg


Now Khibiny might be able to jam the SPG-62 illuminators, and that'd negatively effect guidance for SM-2, the primary fleet defense missile of the United States Navy, but again, the Russian's wouldn't know if it was jammed or not:

lmh-hing013.t52be9322.m800.x34688232.jpg


5. NATO nations regularly undergo what are called NEMO trials - NATO Electro Magnetic Operations Trials - that are designed to test the ship's system's ability to operate in an EM heavy environment.

During NEMO trials ships are subjected to electronic attack from air, sea, land and subsurface threats:

VOH_NEMO2016_DAY02_20160607_22.t575852a2.m800.x762436e1.jpg


VOH_NEMO2016_DAY03_20160608_4.t57585a32.m800.x21324a54.jpg


In this photo, Norwegian, Spanish and Danish ships are involved in a NEMO operation.

VOH_NEMO2016_DAY04_20160609_8.t57596edc.m800.x83925b3b.jpg


The NATO Navies train against electronic attack regularly and know how to respond against any real or perceived threats.

Put simply, the story surrounding the USS Donald Cook and its reported jamming isn't true. It's a fabrication on top of an exaggeration. It's also worth noting the original claims aren't coming for official channels, rather from an obscure Russian publication.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
There are a handful of rather notable reasons why this incident and the claims being made aren't true. let's take a look at them:


1. It was claimed all 27 crew members of the Donald Cook resigned - https://warisboring.com/russia-claims-its-bomber-jammed-u-s-destroyer-8b58c9b56515#.99tvjy30z

12575548911979493245kejetv.png


Russian Radio stated that after the alleged jamming, Donald Cook “rushed into a port in Romania.”

“There, all the 27 members of the crew filed a letter of resignation,” the Website claimed. “It seems that all 27 people have written that they are not going to risk their lives.”

That's all well and good, except an Arleigh Burke Class Destroyer has 280 crew members and this no evidence to support the notion that even one crew member resigned, let alone 27.

2. It was claimed that the Cook's computers went dark - https://warisboring.com/russia-claims-its-bomber-jammed-u-s-destroyer-8b58c9b56515#.99tvjy30z

however-i-found-some-online-and-this-is-precisely-how-one-wall-of-the-cic-looked-on-the-uss-barry.jpg


Donald Cook’s Aegis system tracked the Su-24 approaching, when suddenly the ship’s sensor displays went blank, according to the Russian Website. The swing-wing Su-24 flew over the destroyer, turned and performed a simulated missile attack.

How exactly would the Russian's know that without being in the ship? With jamming, only the jammed party knows it's jammed. The jammer is just trusting their equipment. The Russian's do not have a way of verifying this.

3. The Khibiny jammer wasn't even installed in the SU-24 involved in the incident, so the claim about that isn't true either - https://warisboring.com/russia-claims-its-bomber-jammed-u-s-destroyer-8b58c9b56515#.99tvjy30z

p1633945.jpg


The Russian Khibiny jammer that allegedly took down Aegis is named for a mountain range on Russia’s Kola Peninsula. “Khibiny is the newest complex for radio-electronic jamming of the enemy,” Russian Radio explained. “They will be installed on all the advanced Russian planes.”

4. This will be more difficult for you to verify, but SPY-1 is very, very powerful. Powerful enough that if it was one and an SU-24 was flying as close as the picture above, it's internal systems would be damaged. Because of its power output, SPY-1 is difficult to jam as it "burns through" jamming attempts by simply overpowering them.

There are exclusion zones on SPY-1 equipped ships to prevent crew members from being too close to the radar systems.

Even the smallest of the SPY-1 series, the "f" model is rather powerful:

tkfnanR5820.t5260f8b2.m800.x97148798.jpg


Now Khibiny might be able to jam the SPG-62 illuminators, and that'd negatively effect guidance for SM-2, the primary fleet defense missile of the United States Navy, but again, the Russian's wouldn't know if it was jammed or not:

lmh-hing013.t52be9322.m800.x34688232.jpg


5. NATO nations regularly undergo what are called NEMO trials - NATO Electro Magnetic Operations Trials - that are designed to test the ship's system's ability to operate in an EM heavy environment.

During NEMO trials ships are subjected to electronic attack from air, sea, land and subsurface threats:

VOH_NEMO2016_DAY02_20160607_22.t575852a2.m800.x762436e1.jpg


VOH_NEMO2016_DAY03_20160608_4.t57585a32.m800.x21324a54.jpg


In this photo, Norwegian, Spanish and Danish ships are involved in a NEMO operation.

VOH_NEMO2016_DAY04_20160609_8.t57596edc.m800.x83925b3b.jpg


The NATO Navies train against electronic attack regularly and know how to respond against any real or perceived threats.

Put simply, the story surrounding the USS Donald Cook and its reported jamming isn't true. It's a fabrication on top of an exaggeration. It's also worth noting the original claims aren't coming for official channels, rather from an obscure Russian publication.

Absolutely love the way members like you and Penguin thoroughly destroy propaganda with facts, rationality and logic :tup:
 
Back
Top Bottom