DOCSLIB.ORG

Ship Self Air Defense Analysis for Different Operation Conditions Via Simulation

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Ship Self Air Defense Analysis for Different Operation Conditions Via Simulation SHIP SELF AIR DEFENSE ANALYSIS FOR DIFFERENT OPERATION CONDITIONS VIA SIMULATION by Mustafa KUMEK Submitted to the Graduate School of Engineering and Natural Sciences in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science Sabancı University Spring 2007 SHIP SELF AIR DEFENSE ANALYSIS FOR DIFFERENT OPERATION CONDITIONS VIA SIMULATION APPROVED BY: Assist. Prof. Dr. Tonguç Ünlüyurt (Thesis Supervisor) ………………………….. Assist. Prof. Dr. Kemal Kılıç ………………………....... Assist. Prof. Dr. Burçin Bozkaya ..………………………….. DATE OF APPROVAL: I © Mustafa Kumek 2007 All Rights Reserved. II To my wife Nurgül and my beloved daughter Betül; III ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to thank my thesis advisor Assist.Prof. Dr. Tonguç Ünlüyurt for his encouragement; motivation and considerable time he spent from beginning to end of my thesis. I thank to graduate committee members of my thesis. Assist. Prof. Dr. Kemal Kılıç, Assist Prof. Dr. Burçin Bozkaya for their worthwhile suggestions and remarks. IV SHIP SELF AIR DEFENSE ANALYSIS FOR DIFFERENT OPERATION CONDITIONS VIA SIMULATION Mustafa Kumek Industrial Engineering, MSc Thesis, 2007 Thesis Supervisor: Assist. Prof. Dr. Tonguç Ünlüyurt Keywords: Defense, Ship, Threat, Missile, Simulation. ABSTRACT Rapid changes in defense technology have increased the importance of Anti-Air warfare for the naval battles. The increasing complexity of threats, such as anti-ship missiles, urges to develop new techniques and tactics against these threats. This thesis developed simulation models with respect to different operational conditions so as to aid decision makers in ship air defense. We analyzed the effects of different combat systems with simulation models. Different firing policies in different situations were considered. In these situations, various SAM (Surface to air missile) types were used against particular types of threats. The results of these simulation models indicate that use of these models provides good insight for the decision makers and leads them to appropriate decisions about selecting the best firing policy under varying operational conditions. V ÇE ŞĐ TL Đ HAREKAT ŞARTLARINDA GEM Đ HAVA SAVUNMASININ SĐMÜLASYONLA ANAL ĐZĐ Mustafa Kumek Endüstri Mühendisli ği, Yüksek Lisans Tezi, 2007 Tez Danı şmanı: Yrd. Doç. Dr. Tonguç Ünlüyurt Anahtar Kelimeler: Savunma, Gemi, Tehdit, Güdümlü Mermi, Simülasyon. ÖZET Son dönemlerde savunma teknolojisi hızla geli şmekte ve Hava Savunma Harbi gemiler için çok önemli bir hale gelmektedir. Gemilere kar şı kullanılan güdümlü mermi gibi geli şen karma şık tehditler, bu tehditlere kar şı yeni teknik ve taktiklerin geli ştirilmesine sevk etmi ştir. Bu tezin amacı farklı harekat şartlarına gore simulasyon modelleri geli ştirmek, gemi hava savunmasında karar mercilerine yardımcı olmaktır. Simulasyon modellerinde farklı sava ş sistemlerinin etkileri analiz edilmektedir. Farklı durumlarda farklı atı ş politikaları dikkate alınmaktadır. Bu ko şullarda çe şitli SAM türleri kullanılmakta ve muhtelif tehditler gözönüne alınmaktadır. Simulasyon modellerinin sonuçları, bu modellerin karar vericilerinin karar verme konusunda iyi bir şekilde yönlendirdi ği ve farklı harekat şartlarında en iyi atı ş politikasını seçmeye yardımcı oldu ğunu göstermektedir. VI TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Purpose.................................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Background............................................................................................................. 2 1.3 History of Anti Air Warfare.................................................................................... 3 2. LITERATURE REVIEW ...................................................................................... 5 2.1 Military Simulation................................................................................................. 5 3. SHIP AIR SELF DEFENSE SYSTEM..................................................................... 9 3.1 Single Ship Air Defense (SSAD) System............................................................... 9 3.2 Ship Air Self Defense ............................................................................................. 9 3.3 Anti Ship Missile Threat....................................................................................... 12 3.4 Elements of the Single Ship Air Defense (SSAD) System................................... 13 3.4.1 Radar.............................................................................................................. 13 3.4.2 IFF (Identify Friend or Foe)........................................................................... 14 3.4.3 ESM (Electronic support measures) System ................................................. 14 3.4.4 Chaff System.................................................................................................. 15 3.4.5 Active Radar Decoys ..................................................................................... 15 3.4.6 Thermal Decoys............................................................................................. 16 3.4.7 Fire Control System....................................................................................... 16 3.4.8 Launchers....................................................................................................... 17 3.4.9 Surface to Air Missile Systems...................................................................... 17 3.4.10 Gun Systems ................................................................................................ 17 3.4.11 CIWS (Close In Weapon Systems).............................................................. 18 3.5 Actual Systems Modeled In the Simulation Scenarious....................................... 18 3.5.1 Exocet Anti-Ship Missile............................................................................... 19 3.5.2 Harpoon Anti-Ship Missile............................................................................ 20 3.5.3 HARM (High-speed antiradiation missile).................................................... 22 3.5.4 Sea Sparrow Surface to Air Missile............................................................... 23 3.5.5 Standard Missile (SM-1)................................................................................ 24 4. SIMULATION MODELS.................................................................................... 26 4.1 Assumptions.......................................................................................................... 26 4.2 Comparative Analysis........................................................................................... 27 4.3 Parameters Used In SSAD Simulation Model...................................................... 27 4.4 General Situation in Scenarios.............................................................................. 29 VII 4.5 Scenarios............................................................................................................... 33 4.5.1 Scenario 1 (SM-1 SAM)................................................................................ 35 4.5.2 Scenario 2 (Seasparrow SAM) ...................................................................... 37 4.5.3 Scenario 3 (Limited SM-1 SAM) – Scenario 4 (Limited Seasparrow SAM) 37 4.5.4 Scenario 5 (SM-1 SAM and Hostile aircraft) – Scenario 6 (Seasparrow SAM and Hostile aircraft) ................................................................................................ 38 4.5.5 Scenario 7 (SM-1 SAM and S-S-L firing policy) – Scenario 8 (Seasparrow SAM and S-S-L firing policy) ................................................................................ 41 4.5.6 Scenario 9 (Limited SM-1 SAM and S-S-L firing policy) – Scenario 10 (Limited Seasparrow SAM and S-S-L firing policy).............................................. 42 5. COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS FOR MEASURE OF EFFECTIVENESS.......... 44 5.1 Comparative Analysis for Average Number of Expended Missiles and Average Number of Leaker Missiles for Different Scenarios................................................... 44 5.2 Comparative Analysis for Kill Range of Threats for Different Scenarios ........... 51 5.3 Comparative Analysis for the Effects of Kill Probability Improvements in Combat System Types ................................................................................................ 54 5.4 Comparative Analysis for the Effects of Maximum Kill Range Improvements in Combat System Types ................................................................................................ 58 6. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER STUDIES . 61 6.1 Conclusions........................................................................................................... 61 6.2 Recommendations for Further Studies ................................................................. 63 References...................................................................................................................... 64 Appendices Appendix A: 1 CD-Arena Models VIII LIST OF FIGURES Figure 3.1 Targeting methods of ASMs ......................................................................... 10 Figure 3.2 Flight and Attack profile of Exocet missile .................................................. 10 Figure 3.3 Air Surveillance Radar ................................................................................. 13 Figure
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Three Simulation Models of Naval Air Defense
    Three Simulation Models of Naval Air Defense LTJG Baris Ozkan, Neil C. Rowe, LT Sharif H. Calfee, and John E. Hiles Institute for Modeling, Virtual Environments, and Simulation (MOVES) and Computer Science Department U.S. Naval Postgraduate School 833 Dyer Road, Monterey, CA 93943 [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected] ABSTRACT Naval air defense is a critical facility for ship survivability and has been subject of a number of studies. We investigate here three different approaches to modeling it with computer software. One approach focuses on the problems of information processing and communication for the air-defense team, and is good for analyzing its efficiency. Another approach focuses on the inference of the nature of observed tracks, and is based on the novel psychological theory of conceptual blending. A third approach uses an expert-systems approach that can learn from experience and be more substantially automated than the other two approaches. Each approach has its own advantages: The first provides insights for organizing and managing air-defense personnel, the second provides insights into cognitive biases in analysis that should be examined during training, and the third suggests a way to mostly automate the air-defense process to save money. This work suggests the value of multiple simulations of the same process when that process is important to understand. BACKGROUND Naval air warfare is rapid and serious, and is a major focus of the operations of ships (Mairorano, Carr, and Bender, 1996). Air-defense teams of "watchstanders" must train extensively in search, detection, and classification of all aircraft and surface vessels within the operational area of a ship's "battle group" (coordinated group of ships).
    [Show full text]
  • The Uss Vincennes Incident
    92 HDR 2020, Nr. 2, 92–101. 1st Lt Viola Vincze THE USS VINCENNES INCIDENT A case study involving Autonomous Weapon Systems DOI: 10.35926/HDR.2020.2.6 ABSTRACT: The objective of the paper is to introduce the facts of the USS Vincennes incident in 1988 and examine how the deployment and use of an Autonomous Weapon System has influenced military decision-making in the specific case. As a result of misidentifi- cation of the contact and confusion on board, Vincennes (a Ticonderoga-class guided missile cruiser outfitted with the Aegis Combat System) fired two radar-guided missiles and shot down a civilian airliner from Iranian territorial waters (in Iranian airspace) only minutes after the airliner’s take-off. Not one from the 290 passengers and crew on board survived. Several contradictory articles have been written on the incident from legal, political and scientific vantage points and this article attempts to strip these accounts of the emotional tone and look into the facts in order to establish how personnel and machine interacted during the events that eventually led to the tragedy and how similar incidents involving AWS could be avoided. KEYWORDS: International Law, Law of Armed Conflicts, Autonomous Weapon Systems, case study, scenario fulfilment, responsibility INTRODUCTION Today we can witness a lively, although not always well-informed debate on the deploy- ment of lethal Autonomous Weapon Systems (AWS) during international armed conflicts (IACs). Their supporters and opponents are invoking various arguments regarding their use, but more often than not they tend to focus on the analysis of the Law of Attack1 as contained in the Law of Armed Conflict (LOAC), most notably in Protocol I additional to the 1949 Ge- neva Conventions2 (Additional Protocol I), while paying less attention to the assessment of NATO documents and national military manuals on targeting, although these can be regard­ ed as the direct translations of the Law of Attack into the language of daily target selection and engagement.
    [Show full text]
  • Winter 2020 Full Issue
    Naval War College Review Volume 73 Number 1 Winter 2020 Article 1 2020 Winter 2020 Full Issue The U.S. Naval War College Follow this and additional works at: https://digital-commons.usnwc.edu/nwc-review Recommended Citation Naval War College, The U.S. (2020) "Winter 2020 Full Issue," Naval War College Review: Vol. 73 : No. 1 , Article 1. Available at: https://digital-commons.usnwc.edu/nwc-review/vol73/iss1/1 This Full Issue is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at U.S. Naval War College Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Naval War College Review by an authorized editor of U.S. Naval War College Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Naval War College: Winter 2020 Full Issue Winter 2020 Volume 73, Number 1 Published by U.S. Naval War College Digital Commons, 2020 1 Naval War College Review, Vol. 73 [2020], No. 1, Art. 1 Cover Two modified Standard Missile 2 (SM-2) Block IV interceptors are launched from the guided-missile cruiser USS Lake Erie (CG 70) during a Missile Defense Agency (MDA) test to intercept a short-range ballistic-missile target, conducted on the Pacific Missile Range Facility, west of Hawaii, in 2008. The SM-2 forms part of the Aegis ballistic-missile defense (BMD) program. In “A Double-Edged Sword: Ballistic-Missile Defense and U.S. Alli- ances,” Robert C. Watts IV explores the impact of BMD on America’s relationship with NATO, Japan, and South Korea, finding that the forward-deployed BMD capability that the Navy’s Aegis destroyers provide has served as an important cement to these beneficial alliance relationships.
    [Show full text]
  • Uss "Vincennes"
    S. Hao, 100-1085 INVESTIGATION IfTO THE DOWNING OF AN IRANIAN AIRLINER BY THE U.S.S. "VINCENNES" HEARING BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES UNITED STATES SENATE ONE HUNDREDTH CONGRESS SECOND SESSION SEPTEMBER 8, 1988 Printed for the use of the Committee on Armed Services U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 90-853 WASHINGTON : 1989 For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, Congressional Sales Office U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC 20402 03o -" COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES SAM NUNN, Georgia, Chairman JOHN C. STENNIS, Mississippi JOHN W. WARNER, Virginia J. JAMES EXON, Nebraska STROM THURMOND, South Carolina CARL LEVIN, Michigan GORDON J. HUMPHREY, New Hampshire P)WARD M. KENNEDY, Massachusetts WILLIAM S. COHEN, Maine JEFF BINGAMAN, New Mexico DAN QUAYLE, Indiana ALAN J. DIXON, Illinois PETE WILSON, California JOHN GLENN, Ohio PHIL GRAMM, Texas ALBERT GORE, JR., Tennessee STEVEN D. SYMMS, Idaho TIMOTHY E. WIRTH, Colorado JOHN McCAIN, Arizona RICHARD C. SHELBY, Alabama ARNOLD L. PuNARO, Staff Director CAu M. SMrm, Staff Director for the Minority CHRISTINS COWART DAUTH, Chief Clerk (II) CONTENTS CHRONOLOGICAL LIST OF WITNESSES Page Fogarty, Rear Adm. William M., USN, Director of Policy and Plans, U.S. Central Command, and Head of the Investigation Team accompanied by Capt. George N. Gee, USN, Director, Surface Combat Systems Division, ice of the Chief of Naval Operations and Capt. Richard D. DeBobes, Legal Adviser and Legislative Assistant to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of S taff . .......................................................................................................................... 4 Kelly, Rear Adm. Robert J., USN, Vice Director for Operations, Joint Staff ..... 17 (III) INVESTIGATION INTO THE DOWNING OF AN IRANIAN AIRLINER BY THE U.S.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Overwhelmed by Technology: How Did User Interface Failures on Board the USS Vincennes Lead to 290 Dead?
    Overwhelmed by Technology: How did user interface failures on board the USS Vincennes lead to 290 dead? Luke Swartz Background On July 3, 1988, the 290 passengers and crew of Iran Air Flight 655 were seemingly distant from the bitter and prolonged Iran-Iraq war. Many of the passengers were ultimately bound for Mecca, making their sacred pilgrimage as prescribed in the Koran. However, at 10:24 AM, seven minutes after the Airbus took off from Bandar Abbas Airport for Dubai in the United Arab Emirates, the United States Navy guided missile cruiser Vincennes fired two missiles at the plane, destroying the hapless target and its civilian occupants with horrific precision. What Went Wrong? Immediately after the tragedy, the US quickly blamed Iran for letting the plane fly over the combat situation below; then-Vice President Bush explained to the UN Security Council that the Vincennes “acted in self-defense,” thinking that Flight 655, after failing to respond to seven warnings, was “an Iranian military aircraft…approaching with hostile intentions.” Iran’s foreign minister charged the US with intentionally downing the plane, adding, “This was a premeditated act of aggression against the integrity of Tehran…a massacre.” While few objective observers think that the Vincennes’ action was intentional, and fewer still believe that its shooting down the civilian airliner was correct, numerous experts have debated what went wrong that fateful day. Many theories deal with aspects of the situation and the key players both on the Vincennes and in the cockpit of Flight 655. Failure to Respond? We may never know why Flight 655 failed to respond to the Vincennes’ repeated warnings, as its “black box” flight recorder could not be recovered.
    [Show full text]
  • MAPPING the DEVELOPMENT of AUTONOMY in WEAPON SYSTEMS Vincent Boulanin and Maaike Verbruggen
    MAPPING THE DEVELOPMENT OF AUTONOMY IN WEAPON SYSTEMS vincent boulanin and maaike verbruggen MAPPING THE DEVELOPMENT OF AUTONOMY IN WEAPON SYSTEMS vincent boulanin and maaike verbruggen November 2017 STOCKHOLM INTERNATIONAL PEACE RESEARCH INSTITUTE SIPRI is an independent international institute dedicated to research into conflict, armaments, arms control and disarmament. Established in 1966, SIPRI provides data, analysis and recommendations, based on open sources, to policymakers, researchers, media and the interested public. The Governing Board is not responsible for the views expressed in the publications of the Institute. GOVERNING BOARD Ambassador Jan Eliasson, Chair (Sweden) Dr Dewi Fortuna Anwar (Indonesia) Dr Vladimir Baranovsky (Russia) Ambassador Lakhdar Brahimi (Algeria) Espen Barth Eide (Norway) Ambassador Wolfgang Ischinger (Germany) Dr Radha Kumar (India) The Director DIRECTOR Dan Smith (United Kingdom) Signalistgatan 9 SE-169 72 Solna, Sweden Telephone: +46 8 655 97 00 Email: [email protected] Internet: www.sipri.org © SIPRI 2017 Contents Acknowledgements v About the authors v Executive summary vii Abbreviations x 1. Introduction 1 I. Background and objective 1 II. Approach and methodology 1 III. Outline 2 Figure 1.1. A comprehensive approach to mapping the development of autonomy 2 in weapon systems 2. What are the technological foundations of autonomy? 5 I. Introduction 5 II. Searching for a definition: what is autonomy? 5 III. Unravelling the machinery 7 IV. Creating autonomy 12 V. Conclusions 18 Box 2.1. Existing definitions of autonomous weapon systems 8 Box 2.2. Machine-learning methods 16 Box 2.3. Deep learning 17 Figure 2.1. Anatomy of autonomy: reactive and deliberative systems 10 Figure 2.2.
    [Show full text]
  • SAFE WINGS Flight Safety Magazine of Air India, Air India Express and Alliance Air Issue 38, JULY 2015
    SAFE WINGS Flight Safety Magazine of Air India, Air India Express and Alliance Air Issue 38, JULY 2015 This issue… BAGHDAD DHL A-300 ATTACKED BY MISSILE PROTECTION TO CIVIL PASSENGER AIRCRAFT AGAINST SHOULDER- FIRED MISSILE (SFM) THREAT * For Internal Circulation Only July Edition 38 SAFE WINGS 1 | P a g e Flight Safety Magazine of Air India, Air India Express and Alliance Air July Edition 38 SAFE WINGS BAGHDAD DHL A-300 ATTACKED BY MISSILE n the Morning of 22nd November 2003 European Air Transport/DHL A300B4 O arrives in Baghdad from Bahrain earlier. Locally the weather and visibility is good and, on the ground, work to turn the aircraft around begins quickly. The cargo is unloaded and aircraft reloaded with about 7 tons of general cargo for the trip back to Bahrain. At take-off the aircraft's weight is only 105 tons, the maximum allowable take-off weight is 165.9 tons. The crew taxi the A300 out to runway 15L for take-off. Because of the light weight and the need for a maximum-angle climb from lift-off to gain as much height as possible before reaching the airfield boundary, the selected configuration is "slats only" - no flap - and full power. Climb is to be straight ahead to waypoint LOVEK. The crew consisted of 38 year old Belgian Captain Eric Gennotte with 3300 hrs flying experience, 29 year old Belgian First Officer Steeve Michielsen with 1275 flight hours and 54 year old scot Flight Engineer Rofail with 13423 hours flight experience. As the aircraft powers up through 8,000ft an explosion rocks the aircraft, a cacophony of aural warnings erupts and lights flash for multiple systems.
    [Show full text]
  • Lessons from Air Defence Systems on Meaningful Human Control for the Debate on AWS
    MEANING-LESS HUMAN CONTROL Lessons from air defence systems on meaningful human control for the debate on AWS Ingvild Bode and Tom Watts Published February 2021 Written by Dr Ingvild Bode, Centre for War Studies, University of Southern Denmark and Dr Tom Watts, Department of Politics and International Relations, Hertfordshire University Catalogue of air defence systems available on: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4485695 Published by the Centre for War Studies, University of Southern Denmark in collaboration with Drone Wars UK, Peace House, 19 Paradise Street, Oxford OX1 1LD, www.dronewars.net Acknowledgements Research for this report was supported by a grant from the Joseph Rowntree Charitable Trust and by funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme (under grant agreement No. 852123). We want to express our thanks to the following readers for providing invaluable feedback for previous drafts of this report: Maya Brehm, Justin Bronk, Peter Burt, Chris Cole, Aditi Gupta, Hendrik Huelss, Camilla Molyneux, Richard Moyes, Max Mutschler, and Maaike Verbruggen. We would also like to thank Julia Barandun for her excellent early research assistance. About the authors Dr Ingvild Bode is Associate Professor at the Centre for War Studies, University of Southern Denmark and a Senior Research Fellow at the Conflict Analysis Research Centre, University of Kent. She is also the Principal Investigator of an ERC-funded project examining autonomous weapons systems and use of force norms. Her research focuses on processes of normative change, especially in relation to the use of force, weaponised Artificial Intelligence, United Nations peacekeeping, and United Nations Security Council dynamics.
    [Show full text]
  • The Evolution of the US Navy Into an Effective
    The Evolution of the U.S. Navy into an Effective Night-Fighting Force During the Solomon Islands Campaign, 1942 - 1943 A dissertation presented to the faculty of the College of Arts and Sciences of Ohio University In partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree Doctor of Philosophy Jeff T. Reardon August 2008 © 2008 Jeff T. Reardon All Rights Reserved ii This dissertation titled The Evolution of the U.S. Navy into an Effective Night-Fighting Force During the Solomon Islands Campaign, 1942 - 1943 by JEFF T. REARDON has been approved for the Department of History and the College of Arts and Sciences by Marvin E. Fletcher Professor of History Benjamin M. Ogles Dean, College of Arts and Sciences iii ABSTRACT REARDON, JEFF T., Ph.D., August 2008, History The Evolution of the U.S. Navy into an Effective Night-Fighting Force During the Solomon Islands Campaign, 1942-1943 (373 pp.) Director of Dissertation: Marvin E. Fletcher On the night of August 8-9, 1942, American naval forces supporting the amphibious landings at Guadalcanal and Tulagi Islands suffered a humiliating defeat in a nighttime clash against the Imperial Japanese Navy. This was, and remains today, the U.S. Navy’s worst defeat at sea. However, unlike America’s ground and air forces, which began inflicting disproportionate losses against their Japanese counterparts at the outset of the Solomon Islands campaign in August 1942, the navy was slow to achieve similar success. The reason the U.S. Navy took so long to achieve proficiency in ship-to-ship combat was due to the fact that it had not adequately prepared itself to fight at night.
    [Show full text]
  • Naval Accidents 1945-1988, Neptune Papers No. 3
    -- Neptune Papers -- Neptune Paper No. 3: Naval Accidents 1945 - 1988 by William M. Arkin and Joshua Handler Greenpeace/Institute for Policy Studies Washington, D.C. June 1989 Neptune Paper No. 3: Naval Accidents 1945-1988 Table of Contents Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 1 Overview ........................................................................................................................................ 2 Nuclear Weapons Accidents......................................................................................................... 3 Nuclear Reactor Accidents ........................................................................................................... 7 Submarine Accidents .................................................................................................................... 9 Dangers of Routine Naval Operations....................................................................................... 12 Chronology of Naval Accidents: 1945 - 1988........................................................................... 16 Appendix A: Sources and Acknowledgements........................................................................ 73 Appendix B: U.S. Ship Type Abbreviations ............................................................................ 76 Table 1: Number of Ships by Type Involved in Accidents, 1945 - 1988................................ 78 Table 2: Naval Accidents by Type
    [Show full text]
  • Agora: the Downing of Iran Air Flight 655
    AGORA: THE DOWNING OF IRAN AIR FLIGHT 655 INTRODUCTION How quickly one forgets. On Sunday, July 3, 1988, an Iran Air A300 Airbus, with 290 persons on board, was shot out of the sky by two surface- to-air missiles launched from the U.S.S. Vincennes, a guided-missile cruiser on duty with the United States Persian Gulf/Middle East Force. The first reports from Washington were that the Vincennes had acted in self-defense against hostile Iranian aircraft.1 Some 12 hours later, the Pentagon admit­ ted that the Vincennes had made a mistake, that the aircraft it saw approach­ ing was a wide-bodied airliner on a regularly scheduled flight, not an F-14 Tomcat with hostile intent and capability. There were, of course, tense times in the Persian Gulf in early July 1988. Iraq had been conducting air strikes against Iranian oil facilities and ships, Iranian F-14s (sold by the United States to the Iran of the Shah a decade earlier) had retaliated, and small boats launched from Iran were challenging ships approaching the Strait of Hormuz. No doubt every American ship's captain in the Gulf remembered the episode a year earlier when an Iraqi missile had—it was said, by mistake—blown a hole in the frigate U.S.S. Stark, with the loss of 37 lives. Still, the shooting down of Iran Air Flight 655 was clearly a tragic error. Within a few days, President Reagan announced his country's regrets, and promised that the United States would make an ex gratia payment to the families of the victims.
    [Show full text]
  • The Iran-Iraq War - Chapter XIV 05/01/90 Page XIV - 1
    The Iran-Iraq War - Chapter XIV 05/01/90 Page XIV - 1 XIV. THE TANKER WAR AND THE LESSONS OF NAVAL CONFLICT 14.0 The Tanker and Naval Wars The Iran-Iraq War involved two complex forms of naval conflict: Iraq's attempts to weaken Iran by destroying its ability to use tankers to export oil, and a U.S.-led Western naval presence in the Gulf that was intended to ensure the freedom of passage for tankers to Kuwait and the overall security of shipping to and from neutral Gulf countries. Both forms of conflict led to substantial escalation. Iran reacted to Iraq's tanker war by putting increasing military and political pressure on the Southern Gulf states to halt their support of Iraq. The U.S. and Western European presence in the Gulf led to growing clashes with Iran that escalated steadily to the point where they were a major factor in Iran's decision to agree to a ceasefire. The history of these two naval conflicts, and their overall impact on the war, has already been described in some detail. The naval fighting involved the use of a wide range of naval, air, missile, and mine warfare systems, however, and presents a number of interesting lessons regarding the use of these systems in naval warfare. It also provides important insights into the effect of strategic air attacks on naval shipping, and the problems of conflict management and controlling escalation. The key lessons and issues raised by the war may be summarized as follows: • The tanker war was the most important aspect of the fighting at sea, but it never produced a major interruption in Iran's oil exports.
    [Show full text]