|
Styles Bitchley posted:Respectfully disagree, whatever that is, I think it looks fine and i'd love to have one. Requesting details! To each his own I guess. You're looking a the Volvo L3314, known in Sweden as Personlassterrängbil 903 (that's translated to "All-terrain personnel carrier vehicle"), Its powered by a Volvo B18A 64 horsepower engine and runs on leaded gasoline. Has seats for six, weighs about a ton and half and can carry 650 kg of cargo. Max speed is 45 mph on road, 20,5 mph off road. And you're in luck - a respectable number did find their way out on the civilian markets. There's even a website that can guide you: http://www.c303.de/c303-en/buy-c303.htm Barring that, there's the Volvo C202 produced in Hungary which is a cheaper, civilian version:  Less armor, probably easier to get your hands on. Based on the number of German hits I got searching for it, I'd say you and the krauts have similar tastes. I can promise you one thing: they weren't kidding with calling it all-terrain: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=It84WUeqjp4
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2012 02:01
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 00:02 |
|
|
Stroh M.D. posted:
Greece has 200 modern-ish fighters (F16 and Mirage 2000) plus another 100 F4s and A7s. To be fair they are preparing for an Inter-NATO war. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2012 02:04
|
|
|
Throatwarbler posted:Greece has 200 modern-ish fighters (F16 and Mirage 2000) plus another 100 F4s and A7s. To be fair they are preparing for an Inter-NATO war. Ah, good point. They actually have a ludicrous 308 fighters for a population of 11 million giving them a score of a sweet 28. I think we can give them that win. They need it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2012 02:11
|
|
|
Volvos own (Best thing from the movie "Crazy People") Also: 
priznat fucked around with this message at 02:15 on Feb 27, 2012 |
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2012 02:12
|
|
|
Throatwarbler posted:100 F4s Greece's F4s are ancient compared to 4.5 and 5th gen fighters, but they're not the same F4 that was retired from the USN / USAF in the 90s. Their F4s, along with Turkey's F4E-2020 Terminator have been updated with full glass cockpits and HUDs, along with the smokeless engines the latter USAF F-4Es and USN F-4Ss had. Granted, they're still a 3rd-gen plane, but much like the F-4F ICE and its AIM-120s, they can use modern weaponry.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2012 02:26
|
|
|
Stroh M.D. posted:To each his own I guess. You're looking a the Volvo L3314, known in Sweden as Personlassterrängbil 903 (that's translated to "All-terrain personnel carrier vehicle"), Its powered by a Volvo B18A 64 horsepower engine and runs on leaded gasoline. Has seats for six, weighs about a ton and half and can carry 650 kg of cargo. Max speed is 45 mph on road, 20,5 mph off road. I NEED one of these.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2012 02:28
|
|
|
BlueDiablo posted:Any chance of any cold-war experts doing a post on French Cold War doctrine? I mean, I know that after, what, '58 DeGaulle buggered out of NATO, but considering if the Red Army poured through the Fulda Gap, wouldn't the French have to contribute? Would their forces just have stuck to the French frontier and not moved an inch beyond? Effort post will have to wait because I'm on a lovely Army LSA connection, but the short version is that there were secret contingency plans for the French to reintegrate militarily with NATO if no poo poo the Soviets came through the Fulda Gap. Remember, there were French forces stationed in West Germany for the duration of the Cold War, even after they officially pulled out of NATO. Really the only time where this had any significance were the few years after DeGaulle pitched his snit fit over the French not getting an "equal footing" in NATO (whatever that means...basically the rest of the alliance told them to gently caress off when they asked for help keeping Algeria from being independent) and there were some mutterings in some parts of the French government about attempting to reach a separate peace should the Eastern Bloc invade West Germany (and of course moving SHAPE from France to Belgium, and removing all the U.S. forces from France).
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2012 02:31
|
|
|
Reminds me of the Pinzgauer
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2012 02:37
|
|
|
co199 posted:I think the big thing to take away here is the mindset of both countries. The United States has never really had a "for the greater good" mindset, although I think a short period during World War 2 would count (gas sacrifices, rubber, etc). It's always been a very me-first attitude and it only makes sense our military recruiting ads would focus on how badass you can be. Look at these sweet fighter jets, or this wicked destroyer, or all these cool guns. Without getting too LF on this, throughout the Cold War American soldiers were routinely serving (and often dying) in the defense of people who weren't American citizens. It's not a very me-first stance; the Me-Firsters tended to pooh-pooh military service while enjoying the common good of stability provided by strong American defense. (As for shiny toys, the runaway number one reason recruits give for joining the US military is money for college.) The exploitation of the common good relates to my earlier comment on this on a national scale; European nations had their defense budgets effectively subsidized (and for the most part were spared the tremendous expense of nuclear programs) by the American umbrella. Post-Cold War this trend has accelerated as Euro nations have slashed defense budgets with the expectation of American or NATO (i.e. American) military backup. As Stroh points out, Britain, France and Germany have abnormally low air force sizes; Britain and France had a rather poor showing maintaining op tempo in Libya as a result. You can, of course, reduce your quantity of needed equipment by scaling back your appetite for international force projection; it will be interesting to see how this plays out, for instance, with British handling of the current Falklands flareup. If you're looking at big Volvo trucks there's also this AI thread: http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3428752
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2012 02:40
|
|
|
Throatwarbler posted:What's the SAM situation in Sweden? If you're going to go to the trouble develop a specialized defensive tank, you would think that large numbers of SAM batteries would be integral to the strategy as well, since SAM batteries are a bit easier to man with conscripts than fighters, but according to Wikipedia it doesn't seem to be very heavily emphasized at all. Was the air force expected to just fight off the VVS entirely in the air? Realized that I went off on that fighters per capita tangent and forgot to answer this question. Silly me. Sweden did have SAM - they purchased the Bristol Bloodhound mkII in a limited amount to be installed around key installations.  The army also purchased the american low-range Hawk for their AA needs. Neither system was long lived, they were not installed until 1963-65 and the Hawk was scaled back less than five years later. The Bloodhound remained until 1978, but was only deployed in half a dozen or so sites. You also has to remember the part with the Soviets flying over the Baltic: this means that you could position navy vessels with AA guns and missiles close to strategic points, such as Stockholm itself or the island of Gotland. Land based SAM and AA was never a top priority in Sweden. The country is simply too big to be covered and flight times for Soviet strike craft over the Baltic would always give the air force ample of time to prepare a response. Finally, most areas were considered somewhat expandable - the military was designed to be capable of operating from a vast network of small supply centers scattered across the country. This even included the air force, which had supplies of fuel and missiles hidden all over the place, in proximity to special stretches of road that had been widened and carefully maintained to allow a fighter to land on them. Special care had also been taken to make refueling and rearming of the fighters so simple that a team of conscripts could do it in a short amount of time. This doctrine never went away, although the supply centers aren't that well maintained today. Even so, Gripen fighters can still land and take off from the roads: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6N9To90e-7s Sorry about the crappy techno. I think the clip is from the 90s, but I also think it's an actual official SAAB production. EDIT: Forgot about the navy. Stroh M.D. fucked around with this message at 03:04 on Feb 27, 2012 |
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2012 02:46
|
|
|
Snowdens Secret posted:Without getting too LF on this, throughout the Cold War American soldiers were routinely serving (and often dying) in the defense of people who weren't American citizens. It's not a very me-first stance; the Me-Firsters tended to pooh-pooh military service while enjoying the common good of stability provided by strong American defense. (As for shiny toys, the runaway number one reason recruits give for joining the US military is money for college.) Color me corrected; it sounds like I have a lot of reading to do. Do you have any books in particular you'd recommend? Most of my knowledge concerns primarily Naval aviation in the 70s and 80s, so I have to admit my experiences with ground actions is limited. I made the statement earlier in terms of modern recruiting; there's no longer the threat of a Red Horde pouring through the Fulda Gap, so recruiting can assume different shapes. I was aware of the college funding being the primary reason for joining - I was mostly making commentary on the difference in the two ad campaigns.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2012 03:00
|
|
|
Stroh M.D. posted:
I wonder if it could be a profitable line of business for SAAB to get into. Surely the market for advanced AA systems much be larger than the one for fighters, they are purely "defensive" weapons so you would think they are a bit less politically problematic and unlike NATO/Russian Sweden probably isn't worried about having to bomb that country later on.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2012 03:40
|
|
|
Throatwarbler posted:I wonder if it could be a profitable line of business for SAAB to get into. Surely the market for advanced AA systems much be larger than the one for fighters, they are purely "defensive" weapons so you would think they are a bit less politically problematic and unlike NATO/Russian Sweden probably isn't worried about having to bomb that country later on. SAAB, through the subsidiary SAAB Bofors Dynamics, are probably trying to do just that with the RBS 23 "Bamse". The system is built around an Ericsson GIRAFFE "3D surveillance radar" and is capable of engaging targets up to 20 kilometers away flying at an altitude of up to 15 000 meters. The system is capable of covering 1500 square kilometers. It's specifically designed to be effective against fast targets such as attack missiles, JDAMS, UAVs and cruise missiles. Production began in 2000 and Sweden is as of yet the only buyer.  Than there's the RBS 70, a rather capable laser guided MANPAD. It can engage targets between 250 meters and 8 kilometers up to an altitude of 5000 meters. Being laser guided, it's essentially immune to standard chaff and evasive maneuvers - if you can see it, you can paint and kill it. The system has already been exported to 19 countries besides Sweden, including Germany, Australia, Finland, Norway and - Iran. It should be mentioned that the system has been in existence since 1977 and most of the mentioned are probably earlier versions. It's the later upgrades, especially the 2003 BOLIDE upgrade, that makes the current system so deadly. Several RBS 70 can now also cross-link with one or several GIRAFFE radars, creating a vast SAM network with an almost undetectable footprint. The BOLIDE upgrade earned it a spot on the Discovery show "Future Weapons". 
Stroh M.D. fucked around with this message at 04:34 on Feb 27, 2012 |
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2012 04:24
|
|
|
Throatwarbler posted:I wonder if it could be a profitable line of business for SAAB to get into. Surely the market for advanced AA systems much be larger than the one for fighters, they are purely "defensive" weapons so you would think they are a bit less politically problematic and unlike NATO/Russian Sweden probably isn't worried about having to bomb that country later on. The modern SAM market definitely exists, but it's tipped pretty heavily in favor of US, Russian, Israeli, and Norwegian systems and would prove challenging to break into, I would imagine. I mentioned Norway, because they built NASAMS which the US uses for the DC region. It's basically a ground-launched AMRAAM, something the US was working on recently, but has shelved for now. edit: when JLENS gets off the ground (harhar), I imagine there will be a massive and problematic rush to work the any sensor any shooter game, and that could give international arms makers with the proper foreign disclosure agreements, know-how, and development speed a big opportunity to make some money. mlmp08 fucked around with this message at 04:32 on Feb 27, 2012 |
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2012 04:29
|
|
|
Stroh M.D. posted:Well now you done it. I never get to talk early Cold War history of the Swedish military - over here in Sweden, even giving the appearance of celebrating military power is akin to advocating genocide in the circles I socialize in. Megapost incoming! Scramble fighters, run for shelter! This is why I paid $10. That post owned. Had no idea Sweden developed all that hardware, the S Tank in particular is  as gently caress. Thanks for posting that.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2012 05:01
|
|
|
Surely the Norwegian and Israeli missiles (AMRAAM and Arrow, I guess?) are dependent on American technology? I imagine the US can easily cut off access to either easily, so really it's just the US and Russia that are in the game. If the Swedes can come up with their own completely indigenous missile I think there would be lots of....non-aligned countries lining up.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2012 05:04
|
|
|
Stroh M.D. posted:Than there's the RBS 70, a rather capable laser guided MANPAD. How do you keep the laser pointed at a fast moving target? Like say an angry A-10?
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2012 05:08
|
|
|
FrozenVent posted:How do you keep the laser pointed at a fast moving target? Like say an angry A-10? Beats me, but the video I linked implied some kind of computer assistance. Presumably, you aim at the target and the computer does the fine tuning for you. The team in the video did manage to down a simulated cruise missile, after all, which is both much smaller and faster than an A-10. There was also some talk about allowing it to lock and engage on automatic when linked to a GIRAFFE. These are not really things that the corporations explain in detail. They love to talk about what their stuff can do, not so much exactly how it does it. And if the A-10 is angry at you? Better just high-tail it, no matter what MANPAD you got lying around. This is more for the case were you spot an aircraft or attack helicopter that hasn't spotted you yet.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2012 05:17
|
|
|
FrozenVent posted:How do you keep the laser pointed at a fast moving target? Like say an angry A-10? A-10s aren't that fast. I don't think it would work too well using only laser guidance against a really fast jet, but are any MANPADS very good against really fast jets? I didn't even know laser guided SAMs were a thing until now, which is pretty sad because my own army (Canada) apparently uses one.  I knew ADATS existed but I always thought it was some kind of radar guided deal, since the thing has a radar dish and all.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2012 05:20
|
|
|
Hey man ADATS is built by the Swiss so you know it's good! The Brits have a laser beam riding MANPADS too iirc.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2012 05:26
|
|
|
FrozenVent posted:How do you keep the laser pointed at a fast moving target? Like say an angry A-10? One other thing is that the laser you're shooting out doesn't necessarily have to be focused on a single point. You could have a wider angle beam so that instead of keeping a pencil sized dot on a target you're dealing with keeping part of a large circle on top of the target.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2012 05:49
|
|
|
priznat posted:Hey man ADATS is built by the Swiss so you know it's good! There's a version of the Rapier that uses laser guidance, that might be what you are thinking of. The Starstreak uses a laser for terminal guidance of its submunitions, as well.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2012 05:55
|
|
|
Starstreak, yeah that was the one. Tungsten penetrators up the wazoo.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2012 06:30
|
|
|
priznat posted:Starstreak, yeah that was the one. Explosive tungsten penetrators going Mach 3.5 on a SAM seem like such overkill.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2012 06:47
|
|
|
priznat posted:Tungsten penetrators up the wazoo. PHRASING! Subject Related - Anyone have some good sources for information about the Berlin Wall and folks getting over/through/around/under it? These have always been some of my favorite Cold War stories. Like the two brothers with the ultralights painted like Soviet aircraft that video taped their whole trip.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2012 06:47
|
|
|
Throatwarbler posted:Surely the Norwegian and Israeli missiles (AMRAAM and Arrow, I guess?) are dependent on American technology? NASAMS uses AMRAAMs, so obviously US tech, and the upgraded NASAMS will use upgraded sentinel radars, which are US. I'm sure there is some US/Israeli overlap for Arrow, but the Arrow interceptors aren't in the US inventory, and it uses the Green Pine radar, which the USA does not use and did not develop.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2012 06:56
|
|
|
Throatwarbler posted:A-10s aren't that fast. I don't think it would work too well using only laser guidance against a really fast jet, but are any MANPADS very good against really fast jets? If you're facing off against an F-16 doing CAS vs. an A-10, yeah, the A-10 will be slower but not drastically so. Now, if you're talking about MANPADS being used against a jet that is actually doing a supersonic deep strike, good loving luck. Stingers are described as revenge weapons for a reason. You either put them in nooks and crannies you think aircraft will use to evade radar far in front of your defended assets and murder aircraft on the way in to their target as they fly over the MANPADS troops, or you put them amongst troops, because it's better to shoot down the jet that just strafed you than to totally ignore it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2012 07:01
|
|
|
priznat posted:Starstreak, yeah that was the one. loving hell, look at this thing. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2012 07:16
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:NASAMS uses AMRAAMs, so obviously US tech, and the upgraded NASAMS will use upgraded sentinel radars, which are US. The Arrow is definitely a joint project...the U.S. ponied up the majority of the money, MDA has been gathering all sorts of technical data from the tests, and Boeing is one of the primes (along with IAI). In fact, the U.S. actually prevented Israel from selling the missiles to India, although the Green Pine portion of that deal did go through (e: probably because the U.S. didn't fund it and therefore didn't have "veto" rights). There's been some mention of possibly buying some and deploying it somewhere in Europe to tie in with the planned deployment of the SM-3 capable AEGIS ships as a more politically palatable alternative now that the Polish/Czech based GMD is dead. iyaayas01 fucked around with this message at 08:05 on Feb 27, 2012 |
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2012 08:02
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:If you're facing off against an F-16 doing CAS vs. an A-10, yeah, the A-10 will be slower but not drastically so. Now, if you're talking about MANPADS being used against a jet that is actually doing a supersonic deep strike, good loving luck. They are revenge weapons in a conventional battlespace where there are well-defined concentrations of troops. I think for national defence in an asymmetric conflict, their true role is similar to landmines. Deny areas, set ambushes (which you touched on), and have a persistent threat that cannot be easily subjected to SEAD strikes. Are there MANPADS that can be emplaced and armed to autonomously launch on anything that flies through their sensor window?
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2012 08:20
|
|
|
Stroh M.D. posted:To each his own I guess. You're looking a the Volvo L3314, known in Sweden as Personlassterrängbil 903 (that's translated to "All-terrain personnel carrier vehicle"), Its powered by a Volvo B18A 64 horsepower engine and runs on leaded gasoline. Has seats for six, weighs about a ton and half and can carry 650 kg of cargo. Max speed is 45 mph on road, 20,5 mph off road. I love these to bits, they're called "Volvovalp" in Norwegian for some reason, meaning "Volvo puppy"  They are ridiculously mobile, even while the rather underpowered engine makes them somewhat interesting to drive on the highway. I used one of these to pack up my poo poo when I moved between dorms I can't believe we have all this Swedeposting without the ULTIMATE gently caress-you-too weapon: the Bandkanon 1.  This, my friends, is a magazine-loaded artillery piece. Yes. Not one magazine, but two, each of seven rounds. With fourteen in da clips and one in da hole, it can fire (theoretically) fifteen rounds in fourty-five seconds. Then a well-drilled crew can reload the magazines in two minutes using a built-in crane. There's nothing like this when you're doing a fighting retreat. Empty a fistful of high-explosive 155mm shells, then gently caress off before counter-fire comes in. Likely the rate of fire would be less than this by choice to reduce barrel wear, but still it is an amazing amount of firepower available. Needless to say, they were stationed in the far north of Sweden, reassuringly close to Northern Norway (you got our back guys, right? Right?  )Fighting retreats is basically the sum of Norwegian Cold War ground doctrine, and it's still practiced today on excercises. Norway stockpiled enormous amounts of M72 LAW rocket launchers, even manufacturing them ourselves at Raufoss, intending for them to be used on light anti-tank patrols ("Panservernpatrulje") that would flank advancing motorized columns and force them to a halt, buying time. One particular tactic to use against lightly or non-armoured columns like supply trains was to determine a suitable ambush point with good ditches to take cover in, then blow up the leading vehicle and wait for the crews and passengers of the trucks to take cover in the ditches...before detonating the charges dug down in the ditches. Another Cold War-related concern that both Sweden and Norway shared was their responses to the Soviet emphasis on deep special forces operations in the early stages of the war. Rumours of Spetsnaz capabilities began to circulate in earnest during the sixties and seventies. The Swedes left the job of hunting Spetsnaz teams to special platoons of the Military Police, whereas the Norwegians relegated the job to the Home Guard which established special units of its otherwise rather under-equipped and poorly-trained (at the time) ranks.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2012 10:21
|
|
|
Sjurygg posted:One particular tactic to use against lightly or non-armoured columns like supply trains was to determine a suitable ambush point with good ditches to take cover in, then blow up the leading vehicle and wait for the crews and passengers of the trucks to take cover in the ditches...before detonating the charges dug down in the ditches.  that's ice cold, but sensible. Much like Norway!Approximately what % of winter defense involved cross country skis? I am guessing "all of it"
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2012 10:42
|
|
|
Sjurygg posted:Fighting retreats is basically the sum of Norwegian Cold War ground doctrine, and it's still practiced today on excercises. Norway stockpiled enormous amounts of M72 LAW rocket launchers, even manufacturing them ourselves at Raufoss, intending for them to be used on light anti-tank patrols ("Panservernpatrulje") that would flank advancing motorized columns and force them to a halt, buying time. One particular tactic to use against lightly or non-armoured columns like supply trains was to determine a suitable ambush point with good ditches to take cover in, then blow up the leading vehicle and wait for the crews and passengers of the trucks to take cover in the ditches...before detonating the charges dug down in the ditches. Considering that the Russians would probably have to go through hostile Finland with their old Winter War strategy and heavily armed Sweden just to get to that bit of hell, I guess the Nordic countries were hoping that the Soviets would just either all die or be too depressed to continue.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2012 10:47
|
|
|
Sjurygg posted:I love these to bits, they're called "Volvovalp" in Norwegian for some reason, meaning "Volvo puppy" Fun fact about Bandkanon 1 (AKA the Bka1): it's based on the chassis to a competitor to the S-tank, the Landsverk KRV, which lost out due to cost. The chassis was then retrofitted with S-tank suspension. And now that you mentioned it, I feel almost compelled to write a short post about its spiritual successor, even though it's not Cold War era: the Archer Artillery System.  Development began in 1995 as a joint Swedish-Danish project, but the Danish abandoned the system 2006, at which point Norway stepped in. Considering our shared doctrine and terrain, maybe this was for the best. Mass production and force integration is to begin this year. Sweden and Norway has ordered 24 units each. Croatia ordered another 24 but had to suspend their order due to the financial crisis. Canada and India are evaluating the system. The Archer is taking the concept of the Bka 1 to its logical extreme. The main gun has been changed from the older 155mm Bofors m/60 to a derivative of the ubiquitous Bofors 155mm Field Howitzer 77, allowing it to fire advanced munitions such as the XM982 Excalibur GPS-guided smart shell. The magazine has been upgraded to hold 21 rounds, with another 20 stored in the back for quick reloading. Firing rate is 8-9 per minute which is step down from the Bka1, but the Archer counters with adaptability - it can maintain a sustained rate of fire of 75 rounds per hour, intensive fire of its 21 rounds in less than 2,5 minutes or a salvo rate of 5 rounds in 15 seconds. In return effective range has been improved from the 25 km in the Bka1 to 30 km with conventional shells or a full 50 km with the Excalibur round. Accuracy has also increased significantly - the Archer can achieve a MRSI (Multiple Rounds Simultaneous Impact) of up to six rounds and can engage targets in visual range up to 2 km with an accuracy of a few feet. Keeping in the spirit of the Bka1, its main advantage, however, is its mobility - the system is mounted on the Volvo A30D 6x6 which can travel at speeds up to 43 mph on roads and is still capable of traversing a meter of snow with ease. It is serviced by a crew of 4 - 1 driver and 3 operators - but in a pinch, it can be crewed by just 2. In theory you could probably operate it all by your lonesome as long as you alternate between driver and operator. Oh, and a goon bonus - you operate the gun with what can only be described as a military rip-off of the Xbox 360 controller. This is because the system is capable of a fully automated deployment. Once you park, raising the gun takes less than 30 seconds and no-one has to even exit the vehicle. Lowering the gun takes another 30 seconds. This means that the unit can deploy, fire a salvo of five rounds for MRSI and redeploy In less than a minute and a half. You will be long gone before the shells even hit the ground enemy counter-artillery is no concern. It's the ultimate shoot-and-scoot. If you suffer horribly bad luck and are somehow discovered by infantry during that time, you will still be protected by the fragmentation and bullet proof cockpit, and you have your very own 7,62mm BAE LEMUR Remote Weapon System to keep them at bay for the few seconds you need to make your escape. This BAE presentation video is pretty nice, it's even HD: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2D5DRdsRCyA The Archer also caught the attention of "Future Weapons". Look, I'm not trying to push the show as any kind of authority, but they do manage to get some unique and well presented video, so that's always a plus.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2012 13:59
|
|
|
Frozen Horse posted:They are revenge weapons in a conventional battlespace where there are well-defined concentrations of troops. I think for national defence in an asymmetric conflict, their true role is similar to landmines. Deny areas, set ambushes (which you touched on), and have a persistent threat that cannot be easily subjected to SEAD strikes. Are there MANPADS that can be emplaced and armed to autonomously launch on anything that flies through their sensor window? SAAB claims the RBS 70 can operate autonomously when linked to a GIRAFFE radar and it comes with a tripod, so I'd wager it could probably be made to do that. Still, no corroboration - the system is designed to be manned, after all, both to sort through targets in the GIRAFFE and to reload fired tubes. But if you're willing to treat the tubes as one shot weapons and isn't too concerned about friendly fire, you should be able to simply run a program through the GIRAFFE targeting computers to "TREAT ALL AS HOSTILE - ENGAGE AT WILL" and have it all run truly on auto. Automatic function mentioned here: http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/finnish-army-buys-more-rbs70-manpads-02971/ "In a complete air defense system configuration, up to 9 RBS-70 firing tripods can be connected to a surveillance radar like Ericsson’s Giraffe 75, enabling all C3I functions. If the missile firing positions are set 4 km apart, the resulting networked VSHORAD (Very SHOrt Range Air Defense) battery protects an area of 175 square kilometers. A number of radar options are available for the RBS-70, including automatic threat evaluation, autonomous operations, et. al." EDIT: The RBS 70 probably shouldn't even be considered a MANPAD in this set-up as much as a really small and lightweight short range SAM network. The main drawback of MANPADs against super-sonic targets is normally target acquisition, low missile speed and short range; the target will be long gone before you get a chance to get a shot off. The GIRAFFE allows early target acquisition and the BOLIDE is capable of doing Mach 2 in a range of 8 km up to 50 000 feet - you probably won't see that many supersonic targets downed, but it's certainly in the realm of possibility. Compare this to the Stinger which, while capable of Mach 2.2, has to be aimed manually, has an effective range of 4,8 km and has infrared guidance, making it less effective against approaching aircraft and making it vulnerable to flares. Add a Tactical Defense Alert Radar and you get easier acquisition at longer ranges, but you get limited to the radars 10 000 foot detection ceiling and still have to fire it manually. The HMMWV-based Avenger system added additional capacity, but now you've gone way beyond what can be called a MANPAD and into the land of light AA vehicles. Stroh M.D. fucked around with this message at 14:35 on Feb 27, 2012 |
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2012 14:10
|
|
|
FrozenVent posted:How do you keep the laser pointed at a fast moving target? Like say an angry A-10? Same way a fast-moving fighter keeps a laser designator spot on the target it's dropping bombs on. Sjurygg posted:
Meh.  Des Moines-class heavy cruiser. Those are autoloading 8"/55-caliber guns. One round every six seconds, per gun. That's 90 8" rounds per minute, altogether. Okay, granted, that doesn't do you much good if you're more than about 15 miles inland, but it's still pretty ridiculous. Phanatic fucked around with this message at 17:48 on Feb 27, 2012 |
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2012 17:38
|
|
|
My favorite Saab aircraft is the Saab-18. It looks very much like the German Ju-88, and was designed during the war. As an example of the delicate situation the Swedes found themselves in, versions of this aircraft used both American radial engines and German inline engines. It served during the 1950s as a maritime patrol aircraft, and I am facinated by the idea of something that looks so much like a WW2 German plane being intercepted by a mig-21.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2012 19:33
|
|
|
It says 'Do-17' more than 'Ju-88' to me, personally 
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2012 19:39
|
|
|
Armyman25 posted:I visited an old Swedish training base/museum last time I was there. It was pretty interesting. Is that an official Swedish military jukebox? The SA-27 ABBAtron?
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2012 20:11
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 00:02 |
|
|
Ygolonac posted:Is that an official Swedish military jukebox? The SA-27 ABBAtron? They gotta cram the words "Carl Gustav" in there too someplace.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2012 20:13
|
|