|
B4Ctom1 posted:Oh no, the SA-7 's only weakness does not appear in that video. the SA-18 and SA-24 would like to have a word.
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2015 18:37
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 13:40 |
|
|
Crescendo posted:I agree with you, but surely even a modern jet flying that same profile would be susceptible to all manner of IR threats. It would. Which is why low 'n' slow gun runs aren't the go to for CAS anymore in anything other than a completely permissive environment. It's amazing what you can do lobbing GBU-54s in from a stack at 15,000 ft. drzrma posted:I think seeing a real MANPADS in action would change some opinions too, though probably not any meaningful ones. You see the max speed listed in the specs for the missile, but it's always a surprise to me just how fast they are compared to stuff flying low and slow. I guess some of the apparent speed may be the fixed launch point as opposed to coming off a relatively fast moving rail on something, but still there's so little travel time in that video there can't be much time to react for most of those. This does assume it all works as advertised, but that one sure as hell did and I wouldn't want to bet everything on shoddy manufacturing. That's why you see jets on a low altitude run almost always expend flares as a standard practice when rolling off target, you often won't have time to react to a MANPADS launch in that envelope. brains posted:the SA-18 and SA-24 would like to have a word. Yup. MANPADS have progressed just a bit in the last 20 years. The A-10 has also been upgraded...but it's been upgraded with things that allow it to stay out of that envelope in the first place (1760-bus capability, for example).
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2015 19:31
|
|
|
iyaayas01 posted:The A-10 has also been upgraded...but it's been upgraded with things that allow it to stay out of that envelope in the first place (1760-bus capability, for example). Yet not with the ability or equipment to use high-altitude Hellfire (or Griffin) missiles because that'd make too much sense. I'm surprised that they were able to finagle adding racks (and targeting equipment) for Hellfires and SDBs to AC-130s, but there will always be more drones than AC-130s. Fun fact about the Griffins, on the AC-130s that carry them, they're not slung, they're pooped out the back from (supposedly) replenishable racks: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mk1Me_AKxxU BIG HEADLINE fucked around with this message at 23:24 on Feb 16, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2015 23:18
|
|
|
BIG HEADLINE posted:Yet not with the ability or equipment to use high-altitude Hellfire (or Griffin) missiles because that'd make too much sense. I'm surprised that they were able to finagle adding racks (and targeting equipment) for Hellfires and SDBs to AC-130s, but there will always be more drones than AC-130s. Yeah which is the whole reason that Reapers are the real future of AF air support in a permissive environment. And that's the Harvest HAWK kit (which is basically what AFSOC appropriated for the AC-130W retrofit and the AC-130J procurement.)
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2015 23:31
|
|
|
drzrma posted:I think seeing a real MANPADS in action would change some opinions too, though probably not any meaningful ones. You see the max speed listed in the specs for the missile, but it's always a surprise to me just how fast they are compared to stuff flying low and slow. I guess some of the apparent speed may be the fixed launch point as opposed to coming off a relatively fast moving rail on something, but still there's so little travel time in that video there can't be much time to react for most of those. This does assume it all works as advertised, but that one sure as hell did and I wouldn't want to bet everything on shoddy manufacturing. No doubt. That thing was on top of that plane like it was standing still. I can't begin to imagine how fast it was moving. brains posted:the SA-18 and SA-24 would like to have a word. Its cool, the wikipedia page even has pics of A-10A that flew home after IGLA hits.*brushes dirt off shoulder*
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2015 23:55
|
|
|
iyaayas01 posted:And that's the Harvest HAWK kit (which is basically what AFSOC appropriated for the AC-130W retrofit and the AC-130J procurement.)
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2015 00:47
|
|
|
The A-10 is perfectly capable for the mud war we're about to resume. IMO the level of risk is acceptable for a while (eventually those advanced MANPADS will trickle down in sufficient numbers to change that math). I wouldn't put it anywhere near eastern Europe for anything but a saber rattle, though. But in the meantime we're flying the wings off our jets, so if we're going to continue operating in an environment like Iraq, why not use the cheap one that's gonna head for the boneyard anyway? If it were 2020 right now, I wouldn't be bothering because the F-16s are next on that list, but for the foreseeable future we're not going to be buying any more of them and they're going to continue to fall apart or lawn dart themselves into shrapnel, so let's save the airframe hours. UNLESS, it is legitimately more expensive per hour than the F-16. I've seen such wildly varying numbers in recent months that I have no idea what's accurate. But if the A-10 is cheaper or they're close, fly the wings off the Hogs.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2015 00:51
|
|
|
Especially since the A-10s just started getting new wings!
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2015 00:54
|
|
|
B4Ctom1 posted:Its cool, the wikipedia page even has pics of A-10A that flew home after IGLA hits.*brushes dirt off shoulder* Gulf War Air Power Survey posted:
Dead Reckoning fucked around with this message at 01:21 on Feb 17, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2015 01:19
|
|
|
What's the law on US government officials owning, say, half a mil of Boeing then suggesting the taxpayer throw a bunch of money into acquiring their latest defence toy? Same for military officers in charge of testing/approving the product as fit for purpose? I'd guess it's a no-no, but I realised that I don't actually know.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2015 01:36
|
|
|
simplefish posted:What's the law on US government officials owning, say, half a mil of Boeing then suggesting the taxpayer throw a bunch of money into acquiring their latest defence toy? Same for military officers in charge of testing/approving the product as fit for purpose? There's no set rule for congressmen outside of the catch-all "you can't use your position for personal gain". It is adjudicated a case-by-case basis by the ethics committee so there's some real good oversight and no chance of conflicts of interest or politicking there at all. Government officials and military have some sort of limitation on stock they can own in a participating contractor, something like $10k. I've never heard of this being an issue, that's quite bit of money for a military guy or bureaucrat to have in a single stock. If you come into a position with competing contractors and you own a lot of stock in one you have to disclose it and then either recuse yourself from the competition or alternatively your agency can force you to divest.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2015 01:52
|
|
|
Generally speaking, contracting officials are not wealthy enough to speculate on defense company stocks, and the acquisitions process is political enough that a Captain or Major writing evaluations and recommendations can't bank on their preferences being respected by the DoD and Congress. Now, full-bird Colonels, Generals and people at the OSD level like Darleen Druyun actually can move programs, but in their case the money flows the other direction: it's understood that if they steer an acquisition program one way or the other, there will be a cushy advisory job waiting for them when they get out. This has the advantage of being basically impossible to prove unless you get them on record communicating with the company before they get out.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2015 02:04
|
|
|
e:Dead Reckoning posted:My understanding was that it was the other way around: Harvest HAWK was based on AFSOC's work on the AC-130W. They were developed around the same time but I'm 99% sure Harvest HAWK came first and SOCOM stole it for the PSP add-on to the MC-130W fleet (which are now of course AC-130Ws), and then the AF stole the basic concept for the AC-130J a few years later. bewbies posted:There's no set rule for congressmen outside of the catch-all "you can't use your position for personal gain". It is adjudicated a case-by-case basis by the ethics committee so there's some real good oversight and no chance of conflicts of interest or politicking there at all. Really senior officials (talking Cabinet level or just a little below) will usually go through a mass sell-off of any sort of defense/whatever industry they've going to be involved with stock right before they take office just to avoid the appearance of any impropriety, but yeah, generally speaking the dudes making the nuts and bolts level decisions don't make near enough money to own a significant portion of stock for it to matter. Generals/SES's like Darleen Druyun and the like operate on a whole different level and it's a different game. fake edit: Every time I read about her I realize I keep forgetting that she was literally the number two executive in the entire service for acquisitions. iyaayas01 fucked around with this message at 02:21 on Feb 17, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2015 02:18
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:The odds don't look quite so good when you start to include all the ones that never made it back to be photographed. Except there are no data points that indicate how many missiles total were launched to get 7 kills and 3 damages.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2015 03:18
|
|
|
Another well timed article for the thread, AC-130J this time: https://www.airforcetimes.com/story/military/tech/2015/02/12/afsoc-adds-cannon-new-ac-130j-gunship/23299727/ Basically the AFSOC commander wants (and is getting) the 105 back in on the upcoming Js, which would make it the most well armed ship of the entire series when you count the 30mm, requested 105, tail ramp griffin/viper strike, and a synthetic aperture radar for SDB-II off the wing pylons. The SDBs in particular give the Ws and up some real standoff capability. They also want 37 of them. I assume AFSOC is under SOCOM so I further assume they have the funds to actually follow through. B4Ctom1 posted:Except there are no data points that indicate how many missiles total were launched to get 7 kills and 3 damages. It was a combination of AAA and IR missiles, so it wasn't like they were flying over Hanoi. These things have pretty limited range. Mazz fucked around with this message at 04:09 on Feb 17, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2015 03:51
|
|
|
B4Ctom1 posted:Except there are no data points that indicate how many missiles total were launched to get 7 kills and 3 damages. There ARE data points on what DIDN'T get shot down though at similar sortie rates. A-10s and ground attack Tornadoes took big losses and were the reason of the 10k ceiling in Desert Storm.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2015 04:26
|
|
|
1991 Iraq had the best IADS in the world outside of Moscow and maybe Beijing. Hardly a fair comparison to 2015 Iraq. Also A-10Cs are capable of weapons delivery outside the MANPADS envelope just as well as a Viper.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2015 05:14
|
|
|
Godholio posted:Also A-10Cs are capable of weapons delivery outside the MANPADS envelope just as well as a Viper. Welllll, that depends. Do you want the ordnance there quickly, or do you want ordnance carrier around for longer than five minutes?
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2015 05:30
|
|
|
Alaan posted:There ARE data points on what DIDN'T get shot down though at similar sortie rates. A-10s and ground attack Tornadoes took big losses and were the reason of the 10k ceiling in Desert Storm. Uh. The RAF lost six Tornadoes in Desert Storm. Granted, this was 10% attrition for the force they deployed, but it wasn't a high absolute number or even a major percentage of the RAF's overall Tornado fleet. Of the six, maybe three were shot down by IR SAMs, one was destroyed by command guided SAMs, and the remaining two flew into the ground. The official report doesn't say it, but I heard (secondhand) from a Tornado pilot that they probably flew into the ground while evading SAMs at low level. e: and that's not a ding on them, that's just how it is. Flying for your life over very unfamiliar territory at night is only survivable through intensive training and even then, well, if there's only a couple hundred feet between you and the ground, that's a split second's worth of mistake at 500 knots.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2015 05:35
|
|
|
Mazz posted:They also want 37 of them. I assume AFSOC is under SOCOM so I further assume they have the funds to actually follow through. Pretend I posted the gif of Tom Cruise from Tropic Thunder making it rain, because that's basically SOCOM fake edit: quote:"I want to have two guns," AFSOC Commander Lt. Gen. Bradley Heithold told reporters TWO GUNS SIX BOOBS https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oBdpssq4hEA mlmp08 posted:Welllll, that depends. Do you want the ordnance there quickly, or do you want ordnance carrier around for longer than five minutes? "This is
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2015 05:38
|
|
|
bewbies posted:There's no set rule for congressmen outside of the catch-all "you can't use your position for personal gain". It is adjudicated a case-by-case basis by the ethics committee so there's some real good oversight and no chance of conflicts of interest or politicking there at all. One exception: former contractors who go government without thinking to divest their employee stock options...usually a case of stupidity than criminal intent, but happens more often than you'd expect. Of course, going the contractor to government route is probably self-selecting for the sort of folks that would make those types of mistakes...
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2015 06:03
|
|
|
Terrifying Effigies posted:Of course, going the contractor to government route is probably self-selecting for the sort of folks that would make those types of mistakes... lol
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2015 06:05
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:Welllll, that depends. Do you want the ordnance there quickly, or do you want ordnance carrier around for longer than five minutes? Just wait...I predict further hilarity when it slips out that the F-35 can't do more than 350 kts with a useful air-to-ground load.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2015 07:55
|
|
|
Mazz posted:They also want 37 of them. I assume AFSOC is under SOCOM so I further assume they have the funds to actually follow through. That's gonna make for the most rad elephant walk photo ever
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2015 16:23
|
|
|
Godholio posted:1991 Iraq had the best IADS in the world outside of Moscow and maybe Beijing. A stupid nitpick but Koesj fucked around with this message at 16:44 on Feb 17, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2015 16:41
|
|
|
I didn't say they had the only one, just the best.
Godholio fucked around with this message at 20:35 on Feb 17, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2015 20:32
|
|
|
Godholio posted:I didn't say they had the only one, just the best. They had good equipment for the time, but lovely and vulnerable C3I (evidently they ran data cables shallowly buried in desert sand over ludicrously long distances) that was more tuned for fighting against their contemporaries in the region, not a first-world military with massive Cold War stocks of HARMs that otherwise would've just deteriorated in European storage bunkers.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2015 20:42
|
|
|
Godholio posted:I didn't say they had the only one, just the best. BIG HEADLINE posted:They had good equipment for the time, but lovely and vulnerable C3I (evidently they ran data cables shallowly buried in desert sand over ludicrously long distances) that was more tuned for fighting against their contemporaries in the region, not a first-world military with massive Cold War stocks of HARMs that otherwise would've just deteriorated in European storage bunkers. I don't believe it was 'the best'. Not only was their C3 setup less than optimal, but on a systems level the Iraqi IADS didn't compare that well to upgraded NIKE, HAWK, and Patriot units that were at the time still active in Germany as part of the top-level NATO effort, as well as the assorted national capabilities that had been proliferated throughout ground units during the 70s and 80s . Of course those forces hadn't been on the knife's edge since 1989/1990, but a lot of the Cold War physical and human infrastructure was still in place compared to Desert Shield/Storm era Iraq. Hell you could even go as far as factoring in Soviet forces still stationed Central Europe if we're talking about 'top' air defense capabilities. Sure they were selling their uniforms for booze, but the on-paper ADA capability of even the remaining army units was pretty large - from S-300s to Buks to Tunguskas all the way down to Igla teams at company level.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2015 23:52
|
|
|
brains posted:the SA-18 and SA-24 would like to have a word. Arent the 14, 16, and 18 still vulnerable to flares? The 24 is the only one with substantial resistance it seems like. Probably about on par with the FIM-92F?  There seems to be a pretty big disparity between warhead weights for the Stinger and alot of the pre-Grinch Russian MANPADS. In practice, was this an issue or concern from the Soviets? Or was it related to the Stinger having a contact fuse, so more HE room? Dandywalken fucked around with this message at 01:25 on Feb 18, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2015 01:19
|
|
|
Here's a rare sight, an F-35 with its engines actually working: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_cctyhfFrPw
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2015 01:33
|
|
|
Dandywalken posted:Arent the 14, 16, and 18 still vulnerable to flares? The 24 is the only one with substantial resistance it seems like. Probably about on par with the FIM-92F? Probably not something you'll get a satisfactory answer to unless someone feels like going to jail or you're happy with open source Jane's articles.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2015 01:37
|
|
|
Is there any gauge for how lovely the first-generation MANPADS really were, in regards to IR-rejection? Was it more or less "Sees a flare, flare is hotter, go for flare" in the earliest incarnations (aka nonexistant)? poo poo like the Redeye and SA-7's original model are what Im wondering about. Were the stories like "If it sees the sun, its gonna chase the sun instead of the target" exaggerations? Dandywalken fucked around with this message at 01:48 on Feb 18, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2015 01:40
|
|
|
There's apparently a new Russian MANPAD hotness, as well, the 9K333 Verba. I've been trying to find a NATO reporting name, since I live in the west, and grew up in the eighties and nineties, but so far, I've failed.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2015 01:46
|
|
|
Dandywalken posted:My bad then. Hopefully this is a bit less lovely a question then :P They weren't designed for IR rejection, period. They chased after the hottest thing, whether that was a jet engine, a flare, or the drat sun. That's why flares actually worked pretty well for a while.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2015 01:47
|
|
|
Party Plane Jones posted:Here's a rare sight, an F-35 with its engines actually working: And still slower than a bag of bricks.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2015 01:53
|
|
|
At least it's reported to be loud as all hell, which is great for those of us that get to see them a handful of times per year. Bring on the ribcage rattle, tia. EDIT: Also, the difference between the max posted speed of an F-35 and a clean F-16 is 100 mph at the moment. 1200 vs 1300 as per open sources. Even less of a difference between the F-35 and the Rafale. The F135 has as much dry thrust as the F110 does in full afterburner, it's just carrying a shitload more weight. Is there any decent sources that really indicate it's that slow? Because it doesn't seem that bad. I know it seems like I'm taking over for Grover at this point, I'm just a little bit tired of making GBS threads all over the F-35 considering we really don't have much of a choice anymore. Lords knows I'd prefer to just restart the 22 line with a C model or something. Mazz fucked around with this message at 03:36 on Feb 18, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2015 03:08
|
|
|
crosspost from the space thread because if this isn't cold war i don't know what isCollateral Damage posted:Shaped-charge nuclear warheads? DeusExMachinima posted:Yes, the Casaba Howitzer. choice bits: quote:About this time the representatives of the military (who were funding this project) noticed that if you could make the plume a little faster and with a narrower cone, it would no longer be a propulsion system component. It would be a nuclear directed energy weapon. Thus was born project Casaba-Howitzer. ahh, the 60s. when space-based pumped lasers and nuclear energy weapons were being seriously considered to kill commies 
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2015 04:30
|
|
|
B4Ctom1 posted:Except there are no data points that indicate how many missiles total were launched to get 7 kills and 3 damages. Mazz posted:It was a combination of AAA and IR missiles, so it wasn't like they were flying over Hanoi. These things have pretty limited range.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2015 05:08
|
|
|
Mazz posted:At least it's reported to be loud as all hell, which is great for those of us that get to see them a handful of times per year. Bring on the ribcage rattle, tia. They're absurdly loud. I happened to be at Eglin AFB to see some -15s -16s and a -35 land and take off, and the -35 doesn't compare at all. Super noticeable to me, even though I'm not really an airplane guy.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2015 06:45
|
|
Yes, it's like a lava lamp.
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 13:40 |
|
|
Countdown until we see articles touting the F-35 as having a state-of-the-art, cutting-edge, less-than-lethal Sonic Threat Deterrence capability? 
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2015 06:50
|
|