|
karoshi posted:Am I missing some other use for a HARM? There's no such thing as being invisible. It's all about detection range and aspect versus intercept capability and timeline. That's why even stealth planes have use for standoff weapons, even if the standoff weapons aren't stealthy.
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2014 21:27
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 08:33 |
|
|
So I'm reading the F-15E article on Wikipedia and saw this paragraph of its accounting in Desert Storm:quote:On the opening night of the war, an F-15E tracked a MiG-29 and fired an AIM-9 Sidewinder, which failed to hit its target. Other F-15Es simultaneously tried to engage the lone MiG-29, but were also unsuccessful, although the MiG was eventually brought down by a missile of unknown source.[45][46] The same night another flight was attacked by a MiG-29. A low altitude engagement ensued and the MiG-29 hit the ground.[citation needed] On 18 January, during a strike against a petrol oil and lubricant plant near Basrah, an F-15E was lost to enemy fire, the pilot and WSO were killed. F-15E crews described this mission as the most difficult and dangerous of the war as it was heavily defended by SA-3s, SA-6s, SA-8s and Rolands as well as by anti-aircraft artillery. Two nights later, a second and final F-15E was downed by an Iraqi SA-2; the crew survived and managed to evade capture for several days and even made in contact with coalition aircraft, but rescue was unable to be launched due to security issues, one airman failed to identify himself with proper codes. The two airmen were later captured by the Iraqis.[47] Anyone know any good reading material about the two shootdowns? quote:Following Desert Storm, two no-fly zones over Iraq were set up, and enforced typically by US and UK aircraft. In one incident, an attack on up to 600 Kurdish refugees by Iraqi helicopters at Chamchamal, northern Iraq, was observed by a flight of F-15Es. As they were not allowed to open fire, the F-15E pilots chose to conduct several high speed passes as close as possible to the Iraqi helicopters to create severe wake-turbulence, while aiming lasers at the helicopter's cockpits of the Iraqi helicopters in an attempt to blind their crews; this limited intervention caused the crash of one Hind. Afterwards, USAF leadership ordered F-15Es not to fly below 10,000 feet (3,000 m) to deter a repetition.[49] Or about this one?
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2014 22:33
|
|
|
karoshi posted:And I would expect the F-22's radar/ELINT systems to pinpoint an enemy radar within one inch and feed that positions to the SBDs. Then the pilot flies undetected at 50k (greater glide range) to the SBDs launch envelope, farts some SBDs, closes the bomb bays and rubs one out out of boredom. Won't being undetected (vs. a normal wild weasel cockpit disco party) negate the need for standoffs homing weapons like the HARM ? Am I missing some other use for a HARM? Why do we need guns? Missiles can engage far enough away that guns can even be used.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2014 23:07
|
|
|
Godholio posted:Why do we need guns? Missiles can engage far enough away that guns can even be used. F4 in vietnam didn't have them and when we did equip them they got better. So the air force always wants guns now.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2014 23:50
|
|
|
Pretty certain godholio was being facetious
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2014 23:53
|
|
|
Godholio posted:Why do we need guns? Missiles can engage far enough away that guns can even be used. You style my post bro
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2014 02:10
|
|
|
wargames posted:I see where the other 2 SDBs are the picture just doesn't show all four of them clearly in the background. Of course, for all I know, it could just be that nobody in a position to do so thought to slap a couple on a F-35 yet.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2014 03:36
|
|
|
karoshi posted:And I would expect the F-22's radar/ELINT systems to pinpoint an enemy radar within one inch and feed that positions to the SBDs. Then the pilot flies undetected at 50k (greater glide range) to the SBDs launch envelope, farts some SBDs, closes the bomb bays and rubs one out out of boredom. Won't being undetected (vs. a normal wild weasel cockpit disco party) negate the need for standoffs homing weapons like the HARM ? Am I missing some other use for a HARM? If the radar isn't radiating, it's hard to pinpoint it. Half the point of Wild Weasel is to just clonk your brass balls on the table and say "c'mon I dare you to illuminate me" and then wreck them with an ARM or some other thing that goes bang as soon as they do. I'm sure there's more to it than that but it's not like a Raptor or anything can magically pinpoint a radar which is off and probably mobile while it's off. or ... can it 
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2014 03:57
|
|
|
Helter Skelter posted:Even if it could fit (length is probably not a significant issue, but wingspan on the HARM is ~1.1 meters while AIM-120s are 530mm and JDAMs top out at 640mm), there's also things like the software and interfaces on the plane potentially not supporting the thing. Can't the F-35 carry it as external stores? ATK's press releases indicate F-35 is in the pipeline. http://www.reuters.com/article/2009/01/21/idUS152956+21-Jan-2009+PRN20090121 That's the AARGM though, the next iteration.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2014 04:39
|
|
|
Psion posted:If the radar isn't radiating, it's hard to pinpoint it. Half the point of Wild Weasel is to just clonk your brass balls on the table and say "c'mon I dare you to illuminate me" and then wreck them with an ARM or some other thing that goes bang as soon as they do. There's plenty of poo poo that's either not mobile, not easily mobile, is mobile but hasn't moved in 20 years, or is/isn't mobile but we used satellites to take pictures of the operator's micropenis while he took a leak next to it a couple of hours before the mission. Any of those are good situations for HARM shots or other ordnance. We still have other capabilities besides F-22s and F-35s to gather info. Rivet Joint, AWACS, JSTARS, etc.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2014 05:18
|
|
|
NightGyr posted:Can't the F-35 carry it as external stores? From what I last read, yes. There was a post in this thread about it when I was making fun of the F-35 for being unable to do SEAD worth a poo poo without external stores until some jerk (probably iyayaas with his "facts") brought up the SDB which I'd forgotten about. So if you can get positional data (see post above) then sure I guess it can do it with internal carry. Psion fucked around with this message at 05:29 on Sep 27, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2014 05:26
|
|
|
Godholio posted:There's plenty of poo poo that's either not mobile, not easily mobile, is mobile but hasn't moved in 20 years, or is/isn't mobile but we used satellites to take pictures of the operator's micropenis while he took a leak next to it a couple of hours before the mission. Any of those are good situations for HARM shots or other ordnance. We still have other capabilities besides F-22s and F-35s to gather info. Rivet Joint, AWACS, JSTARS, etc. It seems awkward sending an airliner-based sensor platform against a modern SAM system. But I guess taking out planes from 30k feet and 100 miles range is a lot harder than whacking an airliner directly overhead.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2014 06:05
|
|
|
NightGyr posted:Can't the F-35 carry it as external stores? ATK's press releases indicate F-35 is in the pipeline. AARGM is basically a HARM thats been gutted and replaced with a bunch of new stuff. I went out to ATK's offices in Woodside for a couple briefings on it and helped write some CONOPS. Its a pretty neat system. Too bad the Air Force decided to stick with HARM  In fairness HTS (Harm Targeting System, what F-16CJs use) makes it a somewhat better weapon. But once it leaves the jet its just HARM, with all the inherent limitations.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2014 06:58
|
|
|
The name also perfectly mimics the noise I'd imagine a theater commander would utter when he's just been told he's lost all his radar and air defense assets.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2014 08:32
|
|
|
I remember someone in this thread mentioned a looooong while ago that there was a confirmed Harrier kill while on VTOL mode against an Argentinian fighter during the Falklands. Googling around in Spanish/English doesn't get me any references to this incident, and maybe one of you guys knows what I'm talking about?
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2014 09:14
|
|
|
The PEO for F-22, some 3-star, just went on NPR to explain why we started using them in Syria. He basically said "it's just in case". Also: "So general, how much do these things cost?" "90 million dollars." "Isn't that 20 million more than the Indian spacecraft orbiting Mars?" "Well, that's just how much these things cost."[silence]
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2014 13:21
|
|
|
Isn't the Indian spacecraft orbiting Mars pretty much just a proof of concept that shows they can actually successfully make a launch and get it into orbit up there, as opposed to carrying any real useful scientific payload? I mean, being one of only 4 countries to have that capability is a big deal, but I'm getting tired of this "1/10th the cost of MAVEN" line.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2014 13:26
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:Isn't the Indian spacecraft orbiting Mars pretty much just a proof of concept that shows they can actually successfully make a launch and get it into orbit up there, as opposed to carrying any real useful scientific payload? Yeah but isn't using the F22 in syria a proof of concept that shows they can actually successfully be used in combat? I mean we don't really need them for what they are doing right?
|
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2014 14:21
|
|
|
Well, that depends. Syria has competent SAM systems. Now, sure Assad struck a deal with the Russians to allow American strikes overhead without engaging the aircraft...but he also struck a chemical weapons disposal deal, remember? So, do you want to trust him and all his certain-to-be-trustworthy subordinates down the system operators and send in vulnerable aircraft, or do you just go ahead and use the tools that were designed SPECIFICALLY to get past these systems? Keep in mind, it's only a problem if Syria shoots one down, in which case it's probably a good thing we weren't using F-16s. I guess my question to anyone who thinks using the F-22 was the wrong choice would be: Why? NightGyr posted:It seems awkward sending an airliner-based sensor platform against a modern SAM system. But I guess taking out planes from 30k feet and 100 miles range is a lot harder than whacking an airliner directly overhead. That's why we don't do that. EM radiation can travel a pretty long ways, and the cool thing about collecting vs broadcasting is if you're broadcasting you have to send it to the target and back. To collect you can basically sit twice as far away to detect the same signal strength as the actual emitter. All you need is line of sight. Godholio fucked around with this message at 15:38 on Sep 27, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2014 15:33
|
|
|
http://www.roadrunnersinternationale.com/roadrunner_blog/?p=188 Because this is why the thread exists
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2014 15:36
|
|
Godholio posted:Well, that depends. Syria has competent SAM systems. Now, sure Assad struck a deal with the Russians to allow American strikes overhead without engaging the aircraft...but he also struck a chemical weapons disposal deal, remember? So, do you want to trust him and all his certain-to-be-trustworthy subordinates down the system operators and send in vulnerable aircraft, or do you just go ahead and use the tools that were designed SPECIFICALLY to get past these systems? Ah, I guess I figured even our previous generation stuff would be plenty good enough to use against whatever Syria was operating but I do not know much about this like you guys.
|
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2014 15:40
|
|
|
Well it probably is, but why take unnecessary risk? The F-22 was specifically designed to defeat the exact systems Syria has, among others.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2014 16:47
|
|
|
Godholio posted:Well it probably is, but why take unnecessary risk? The F-22 was specifically designed to defeat the exact systems Syria has, among others. Praying we don't have a repeat of the F117 laziness and lose a F-22.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2014 17:57
|
|
|
simplefish posted:http://www.roadrunnersinternationale.com/roadrunner_blog/?p=188 Altitude Airspeed Luck Three things every pilot needs.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2014 18:32
|
|
|
Complacency is always a concern, but that incident burned itself into a lot of the minds involved in tactical planning.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2014 18:32
|
|
|
mllaneza posted:Altitude Well it's an Blackbird so no problem on the first two. When the plane literally disintegrates around the two crew... well, that's the third one coming heavily into play. Not to mention Chopper Cowboy when they hit ground.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2014 18:50
|
|
|
Breaky posted:Ah, I guess I figured even our previous generation stuff would be plenty good enough to use against whatever Syria was operating but I do not know much about this like you guys. Just to play devil's advocate I'd point out that Israel has shown the ability to repeatedly penetrate Syrian airspace with 4th-gen strike craft and perhaps some unusual ECM, but certainly no diplomatic permission. They also did this before the civil war in 2007 to bomb the Box On the Euphrates, presumably when Syrian anti-air power was a lot stronger (albeit when Syria's diplomatic strength was at a much lower point.) Also given the size of Syria and depending on the location of strike targets and allied airspace agreements, the US can hit pretty much anywhere there with standoff weapons, if needed. This still opens up a role for F-22s spotting for Tactical Tomahawks.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2014 19:01
|
|
|
Psion posted:It seems weird that the USAF is banking on basically nothing but the SDB so far as A2G but I guess if you can really plant it on target every time you don't always need ~1000 pounds of boom. I wouldn't say they're banking on it, as far as big boom direct attack weapons JDAMs are still a thing and will remain a thing for a very long time (now we even have laser JDAMs). SDBs are getting a big press because they give you such a big boost in capacity with very minimal modification...any bomb rack that is 1760 capable and can carry at least a Mk 83/GBU-32 can carry a BRU-61 with 4 SDBs. wargames posted:I see where the other 2 SDBs are the picture just doesn't show all four of them clearly in the background. Others already hit on it but that diameter is just the missile body, it doesn't count the fins. The fins on a HARM are particularly gargantuan and make the missile way too big for the bay. Fins is always what gets you with internal carriage, it's why the USAF had to put clipped fins/wings on the AIM-120C, otherwise it wouldn't fit in the Raptor's internal bay. vulturesrow posted:AARGM is basically a HARM thats been gutted and replaced with a bunch of new stuff. I went out to ATK's offices in Woodside for a couple briefings on it and helped write some CONOPS. Its a pretty neat system. Too bad the Air Force decided to stick with HARM This is the service that got rid of its only dedicated jamming capability without a replacement. Does that really surprise you? Azran posted:I remember someone in this thread mentioned a looooong while ago that there was a confirmed Harrier kill while on VTOL mode against an Argentinian fighter during the Falklands. Googling around in Spanish/English doesn't get me any references to this incident, and maybe one of you guys knows what I'm talking about? Wasn't VTOL as in literally hovering, but the RN Harrier guys used viffing quite frequently in combat over the Falklands. Viffing (vectoring in forward flight) is basically a bastardized form of the dedicated thrust vectoring that jets like the Raptor have. The Harrier is actually a pretty sub-par dogfighter due to its high wing loading. If it got into a turning fight with Argentine Mirages, it would lose quite regularly because it's going to bleed energy a lot faster than the Argentine fighter. However, viffing allowed the Harrier to put its nose on the Mirage much quicker than the Mirage can react. Viffing bleeds energy big-time, but as long as the Harrier pilot makes good on the opportunity to shoot down the Mirage first that doesn't matter. That's one of the reasons why the all-aspect and improved reliability Lima Sidewinders that the US sent to the Brits mattered.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2014 20:34
|
|
|
Snowdens Secret posted:Just to play devil's advocate I'd point out that Israel has shown the ability to repeatedly penetrate Syrian airspace with 4th-gen strike craft and perhaps some unusual ECM, but certainly no diplomatic permission. They hit targets very close to the border with Lebanon, with Lebanon bitching that the Israelis were using their air space to hit Syria. That's not quite the same as flying planes wherever.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2014 23:42
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:They hit targets very close to the border with Lebanon, with Lebanon bitching that the Israelis were using their air space to hit Syria. This was pretty drat deep into Syria: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Orchard
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2014 23:47
|
|
|
Craptacular posted:This was pretty drat deep into Syria: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Orchard Still, a surprise attack against one target is not the same as ongoing operations. I would wager that if Israel flew in again the next day, it wouldn't have gone so smoothly. Unrelated, I saw a MiG-17 aerobatic demonstration today. Very cool.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2014 00:04
|
|
|
Beqaa Valley was a pretty ballsy operation, in Lebanon, but it may as well have been Syria at the time; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Mole_Cricket_19
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2014 01:29
|
|
|
Azran posted:I remember someone in this thread mentioned a looooong while ago that there was a confirmed Harrier kill while on VTOL mode against an Argentinian fighter during the Falklands. Googling around in Spanish/English doesn't get me any references to this incident, and maybe one of you guys knows what I'm talking about? http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/1984/DWF.htm Start reading at "A Harrier War." "The Mirages coordinated with Argentine radar on the Falklands as they approached the islands. Falklands radar identified enemy aircraft four times enroute and each time the Argentine aircraft passed above the Harriers. Captain Gustavo Cuerva and his wingman, ler Ten. Carlos Perona, were the first of their flight to encounter the British aircraft. Their description of the battle has previously been related (see Footnote 16). They fired two MATRA R.530 missiles which missed their targets. The British Sidewinders were more successful, destroying both Argentine aircraft. As a result of the action on May 1, the Canberras, like the Mirage III's, found the maneuvering against the Sea Harriers to be beyond their capability. EDIT: This claims one kill by a Sea Harrier, the other to friendly fire: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argentine_air_forces_in_the_Falklands_War#Casualties_and_aircraft_losses BIG HEADLINE fucked around with this message at 11:22 on Sep 28, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2014 03:10
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2014 04:06
|
|
|
Pentagon to deploy 12 A-10s to Middle East Isn't this just making it harder to retire these totally unnecessary planes? I don't understand why they're sending in such an outdated and obsolete aircraft when the F-22 has already been employed. I mean, I assume the announcement of complete and utter victory after that is just being held up in some sort of administrative delay...
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2014 01:38
|
|
|
Wingnut Ninja posted:Pentagon to deploy 12 A-10s to Middle East Well they never would have been deployed unless we were able to ensure air supremacy by using the SIXTH GEN STEALTH Raptors to shoot down ISIS's air force. E: Serious question, how hard would it be to make a ground-attack craft using the F-35's airframe? That lift fan cavity could hold one hell of a magazine for an Avenger or similar type cannon. Fender Anarchist fucked around with this message at 01:48 on Sep 29, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2014 01:41
|
|
|
I will put money down those planes aren't going anywhere near Syria. Also, going to be interesting to see where they end up basing them.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2014 01:46
|
|
|
Oh please let this lead to some video of gun runs on ISIS T-55s 
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2014 01:47
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:I will put money down those planes aren't going anywhere near Syria. Also, going to be interesting to see where they end up basing them. It would not surprise me if there is some Top Secret behavioral study that shows that even if the big A-10 gun kills very few enemies, ground troops behave like super soldiers after they hear it, regardless of race, creed, or religion.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2014 01:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 08:33 |
|
|
Fucknag posted:E: Serious question, how hard would it be to make a ground-attack craft using the F-35's airframe? That lift fan cavity could hold one hell of a magazine for an Avenger or similar type cannon. Dammit, watch your mouth, you're going to summon Grover and get 10 pages on why a laser cannon is the ideal CAS weapon.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2014 02:03
|
|