OT - Kidd class destroyers..?

Anyone served on one of these ships? Taiwan just got 2 of them from the USA and Im wondering, how good are they??
Also if anyone's flown a fighter, how the heck does a plane know if a missile is tracking them? do they have some kind of system that "knows" if a missile is locking onto their heat signature or is all this all hollywood bluff?
-- TAI FU

  Quoted Text Here  
Oh man, you should have ordered 3, cuz then you get a free eggroll.
  Quoted Text Here  
The electronics suite can tell when an enemy's radar system is scanning them, and the proper countermeasures (signal jamming, chaff, pooping in pants) can be engaged. For an infrared seeking missile, the plane's sensors detect the heat plume coming up from the ground, then the countermeasures guy can release flares. Plus, the pilot can kill the engine and put the transmission in neutral (or just push the clutch in, if it's a manual transmission) then coast until the missile loses lock.
Mostly though, the newer U.S. planes are so fast that the pilots are in bed, passed out drunk on top their friend's wives, by the time the bombs they've released have reached their targets and killed this month's quota of innocent civilians. AMERICA! F*** YEAH! :-P

Another technique that worked back in the 60s and 70s was to fly fast and low to the ground once you detected a IR missile on your 6. The heat from the ground would oftentimes confuse the missile much the same way radar guided missiles can be confused by ground clutter. Now days though, I would imagine that first class nations have equipment that can defeat such simple maneuvers.

All US fighter aircraft have radar. All radar tracking missiles emit a radio wave. In the case of heat seekers (many of which are also radar targeted), the targeted acft must pick it up either visually or on radar. To ascertain whether or not the missile is "locked" requires that either 1) the missile emit a seeker radar that stops sweeping side to side and up and down after making solid contact or 2) the targeted acft detects that the missile is following the acft's every move and correction with what will ultimately be an intersecting course by detecting it on the target acft's radar or 3) the REO/pilot get a visual track. There is also a 4th possibility. If the acft is being directed by an interceptor WDtech or Combat Controller either on the ground or in an AWACS, that "scope dope" can track both the missile and the acft and warn the crew of an impending intercept.
Now as to destroyers, I don't know spit. But 7 years in the USAF and a whole lot of it on NORAD bases, kinda makes me "in the know" about intercept stuff.

Reece Talley wrote:
  Quoted Text Here  
Not necessarily. The MA-1, MG-10, and MG-13 AWCS could display visual imagery of infrared point-source targets.(i.e., jet engines) While radar was often used as a backup for target acquisition, all of these systems were capable of IR target acquisition independent of radar.
MA-1 (on the F-106) would continue to sweep radar after IR lockon. This was to fool the bomber's countermeasure operator into thinking the interceptor was still looking for him.
Always nice to meet another Air Defense weenie. Somebody had to protect SAC.
Bill Sullivan

Bill, have you and I met? The name seems familiar. I was a Weather Obs assigned to 24th NORAD at Malmstrom and to the ADC up at Tatalina AFS.

Reece Talley wrote:
  Quoted Text Here  
I doubt it. I was stationed at Minot AFB (5th Fighter Sq.) in 1971-1972, spent a year in Thailand waging peace with honor, and spent 1974-1977 atTAyndall AFB (Air Defense Weapons Center) with several TDY's to Lowry AFB for tech school. I was an MA-1 tech.

Let's put it this way, just one of them accompanied by a single Harrier, could take out Taiwan's entire military in about 15 minutes.
The Scout Troop 214 (16 ten yearolds) would swoop in and establish a new government.
; )
Randy www.vernarockets.com

  Quoted Text Here  
While I appreciate the stark contrast between the US military and others such as Taiwan's (and hence enjoy the humor) I'm under the impression that while Taiwan's military may be small, that they are in fact quite effective. Is that right? Or am I all wet?
Doug

  Quoted Text Here  
Defense always has the advantage,I believe it is something like 5:1,you need 5 invaders to overcome one defender.

That all depends on the objective of the ivasion or what you may wish to do. A quick trip from say Wyoming in 30 minutes or less and mushrooms delivered free and double your order if not enough glowing shrooms. No invaders at all just two lonely guys doing college classes in a hole on the prairie.
  Quoted Text Here  

  Quoted Text Here  
You seem to believe that the US would throw nukes at China over Taiwan,and I seriously doubt that would happen.

Jim that was not my point at all. If one wants to waste the time and trouble and waste lives to take a hill just to give it back again ala Vietnam and numerous other places then have at it. If one wants to destroy an objective for whatever reason or just kill the enemy then a special delivery is in order. Our agreemants with the ROC are pretty clear that we shall help defend them. To what extent that defense is is up to the political/social/economic situation of that time. (and don't forget Halliburton much see a profit in it.) I was just makin comment on your comment on the 5 to 1 ratio you quoted. Of course with proper air/artillery/naval gunfire support this can and usually is much higher. Nothing quite like a Spectre or an Iowa class BB to learn some peoples the true meaning of respect.
  Quoted Text Here  

  Quoted Text Here  
Except that the US does not HAVE any naval gunfire ships anymore;all the ships in the current inventory each only have one or two 5" guns,nothing bigger,and none of those ships carry enough (expensive)missiles. The Iowa class BBs are no longer in service,have not beem maintained,and no crews to man them. AC-130 gunships can only fly in fair weather conditions.
And as far as the "political situation",no neighboring country,some allies of ours,would appreciate the fallout from nuclear weapons,nor would our military leadership use them without a direct threat to the US.
BTW,the Red Chinese generals have made statements about sacrificing millions of their own citizens in order to secure Taiwan,it doesn't bother them in the least,due to their over-population problems.

  Quoted Text Here  
Maybe I missed something - did Dubyah leave office last night?

  Quoted Text Here  
You know,the chances of any opponent messing with the US are greater with leadership that is more reluctant to act in our own defense,like the Defeatocrats.Note how under Carter,Iran invaded our embassy,held them hostage for over a year,and when Reagan entered office,they quickly freed them.They knew Carter was a pussy,and that Reagan would act decisively.Under Clinton,there were REPEATED attacks against the US by Al- Queda,and they miscalculated about Bush,but have made only one attack,and have suffered severe setbacks.

  Quoted Text Here  
Yes but mt point is that I doubt that Dubya would hesitatle to lob a nuke over Taiwan (or anyone else) if he wanted to hit China.

Phil Stein wrote:
  Quoted Text Here  
I think it would be better if he wanted to hit Iran.
Ted Novak TRA#5512 IEAS#75

  Quoted Text Here  
Iran is next. Once W hits Iran, he'll have all three in a row, and can start building houses and hotels.

kaplow snipped-for-privacy@encompasserve.org.mars (Bob Kaplow) wrote in writes:
  Quoted Text Here  
Actually,I believe Bush does NOT want to have to war with Iran,that he's thinking that a democratic Iraq would get the Iranian people to dump their mullahcracy.(as an example;"why can't we do that"...) Iran is a much larger,much more difficult country to war against. Bush is also trying to build a UN effort to press Iran to drop the nuke program.(and people wrongly think he only acts unilaterally)