|
Suicide Watch posted:What did West Germany use for their helicopter gunships during the Cold War? US, France, Britain all had something, was it just not a part of the German doctrine? Seems unlikely due to their tactical situation (Fulda Gap) though. Don't trigger me with throwaway Fulda Gap references  Gatac posted:The Bo-105 PAH. Not a gunship per se, more of a pure anti-tank machine. Nimble as hell, though: From a systems point of view the Brits, French, and Germans went for pretty similar solutions: Lynx/Gazelle/Bo-105 utility or scouting helicopters armed with TOW/HOT wire-guided missiles. Their deployment strategy shouldn't have differed that much either. With the Bundeswehr they were held at Corps level while the UK had them at Division level, but whether or not those helos were to be massed or parceled out in smaller packets, they were to function as a highly mobile but ultimately non-persistent anti-tank reserve. Throatwarbler posted:But are they primarily reacting to/being tasked and controlled by the commanders of frontline ground units as a supporting arm, or are they generally sent out on specific missions against specific targets? I was under the impression that it was the latter, and that they operated as a mobile anti-armour force that can be dispatched against massed armoured breakthroughs. IIRC the changeover from the J- to the H-series TO&E was when US armored and mech Divisions had their attack and scouting helicopters pooled and added into a separate fourth Brigade, so the 'end state' divisional rotary strength of US Cold War forces was really really high compared to other countries. I'd say it was way more dependent on what that those Brig and their Div commanders wanted to achieve with that strong a force, than some kind of unified doctrine that'd have had to apply to all kinds of different situations (units still running AH-1s, III Corps in Northern Germany, Divisions still running the old organizational structure, etc.) I want to say that the most integrated solutions were probably done by the Cav Regiments?
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2015 13:55
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 02:59 |
|
|
BIG HEADLINE posted:Sounds an awful lot like this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XM501_Non-Line-of-Sight_Launch_System Someone posted another system in this thread earlier that used those bomblets that hung on parachutes which then shot a penetrator down at the top of a tank, I think. It probably had some kind of anti personnel load too. Those things look neat but not man portable, so I guess the current state of miniaturization probably isn't there yet.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2015 13:58
|
|
|
Cat Mattress posted:I believe West Germany's Cold War doctrine was "die, because the Russians are throwing nukes at us to pass through, while the French are throwing nukes at us to block the Russians". I believe the apocryphal NORTHAG joke was that, upon hearing about the Soviets invading, the Britisn commander went "welp, back to the river", the Belgian went "welp, into the woods", the Dutchman wasn't even there yet, and the German commander was already halfway towards liberating Berlin.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2015 14:02
|
|
|
Warbadger posted:The only people with SA-17s and SA-22s are the Russians. Why don't you tell Israel and Turkey that.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2015 15:12
|
|
|
Or the Russians themselves even, since they lost planes to Georgian Buks in 08. Which Warbadger knows of course, since he discussed it in this very thread  e: VVV rich emiratis will buy anything bling Koesj fucked around with this message at 15:24 on Mar 7, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2015 15:18
|
|
|
poo poo, IIRC, part of the reason the SA-22 even exists is that the UAE helped fund it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2015 15:20
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:poo poo, IIRC, part of the reason the SA-22 even exists is that the UAE helped fund it. Yep, they got the very first prototype off the line. I was in UAE when it got there and after all the ooohing and aaahing some general or prince or something asked "how does this talk with the Patriots we are buying", which turned all eyes to me and I smiled and shrugged. edit - I should add that, at least to my outsider's eyes, it is one heck of a system. We'll be very lucky if IFPC does as well. bewbies fucked around with this message at 15:48 on Mar 7, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2015 15:44
|
|
|
haha, did they really think the two systems would integrate?
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2015 16:26
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:Why don't you tell Israel and Turkey that. Syria is a fair point, both they and Egypt both have the Pantsir and the Buk M2 in limited numbers. I was under the impression they still hadn't had the Pantsir delivered, but it seems things eventually got pushed through. Not that it has kept them from being bombed on occasion by the Israelis. Georgia has neither, they're still using a few old Buk M1 (SA-11)s they purchased from Ukraine. That was a case of Russia losing a bunch of planes to early 80s era SAMs. Warbadger fucked around with this message at 21:01 on Mar 7, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2015 20:55
|
|
|
Suicide Watch posted:Anti-tank missile systems like the TOW and Hellfire are rotary-wing/aircraft mounted and the Javelin and TOW are man-portable. It seems like both the Hellfire and Javelin were intended to supplant the TOW. Is there any reason why the TOW is still in use? As said, it's cheap in comparison, the TOW-2A/B/H still work well against nearly 100% of the things they are shot at (which often aren't tanks), and we've mounted them on lots of things that see general use (see M966s/M1045s). The TOW isn't likely to go anywhere even if the Javelin and Hellfire come down in price, it's still very useful in its niche. At least it won't until we directly replace it with something, which I doubt is a remotely high priority at the moment. Raytheon got another contract for 6,700 more TOWs as recently as 2012, and still throws out new variants and ideas for it regularly. It's worth noting that basically every US helo application for it has been superseded by the Hellfire though, including the Marines. Sitting still for the entirety of missile flight is not a good trait for helicopter fires. On a side note, It turns out that HEAT is somewhat useful in an low collateral environment because the blast/effect is pretty contained to the area in the front of the contact. I read a story somewhere a long time ago, in Afghanistan I think, that the Abrams crews would often use HEAT rounds in place of spraying .50 at concealed targets, not for additional effect, but because the .50 rounds would travel several rooms or buildings further then what they wanted in soft-walled structures. I can't find that story anymore or I'd love to link it. We still added in tons of thermobaric options for the Hellfire/TOW/etc over the last decade though, so it's not like HEAT was great at it either. Suicide Watch posted:What did West Germany use for their helicopter gunships during the Cold War? US, France, Britain all had something, was it just not a part of the German doctrine? Seems unlikely due to their tactical situation (Fulda Gap) though. The Tiger was supposed to supplant the 105(PAH-1) in the anti armor role in the 80s, and give them a real multi-role attack helicopter. That program went to poo poo for like 15 years though, not really hitting its stride until the 2000s. Throatwarbler posted:Someone posted another system in this thread earlier that used those bomblets that hung on parachutes which then shot a penetrator down at the top of a tank, I think. It probably had some kind of anti personnel load too. Those things look neat but not man portable, so I guess the current state of miniaturization probably isn't there yet. I know I've seen some similar concept come up somewhere, but really there's not much money to be spent anymore on something that is so static in nature. The Javelin basically does everything you'd ask that thing to do but you can move around with it. It makes sense fighting off a massed attack but it assumes you know exactly where your enemy is going to be and lots of other stuff that isn't guaranteed. You can get that same massed fire idea from DPICM MLRS with a lot more reach. Mazz fucked around with this message at 22:08 on Mar 7, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2015 21:46
|
|
|
Cat Mattress posted:I believe West Germany's Cold War doctrine was "die, because the Russians are throwing nukes at us to pass through, while the French are throwing nukes at us to block the Russians". You forgot 'copious amounts of CW' that would've almost undoubtedly preceded the nukes.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2015 23:32
|
|
|
VikingSkull posted:haha, did they really think the two systems would integrate? These are individuals whose entirety of military knowledge basically consists of "marching I learned at Sandhurst," "whatever basic technical knowledge I picked up at a 2 month training I went to in the US (which probably is zero because I spent the entire time getting shitfaced at titty bars)," "meaningless doctrinal bullshit from my year at Army War College," and "throw money at problem." So yes, I'm sure they completely thought that.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2015 23:48
|
|
|
Warbadger posted:Georgia has neither, they're still using a few old Buk M1 (SA-11)s they purchased from Ukraine. That was a case of Russia losing a bunch of planes to early 80s era SAMs. Ah okay that's true.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2015 00:14
|
|
|
iyaayas01 posted:These are individuals whose entirety of military knowledge basically consists of "marching I learned at Sandhurst," "whatever basic technical knowledge I picked up at a 2 month training I went to in the US (which probably is zero because I spent the entire time getting shitfaced at titty bars)," "meaningless doctrinal bullshit from my year at Army War College," and "throw money at problem." Which is vastly better than most of our decision makers.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2015 05:22
|
|
|
Godholio posted:Which is vastly better than most of our decision makers. Military or civilian?
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2015 05:24
|
|
|
Moreso civilian, but there have been times where I'd apply it to both.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2015 07:00
|
|
|
Godholio posted:Which is vastly better than most of our decision makers. lol Well I just came back from a conference where a O-6 sent the very not so subtle message of "hey DT/OT, quit writing DRs against my pet program because if you don't I'll look stupid and won't get my awesome contractor gig when I retire." So yeah, sounds about right.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2015 07:05
|
|
|
iyaayas01 posted:lol Given that it takes a good amount of apple-polishing to make O-6 unless you're in a ~chosen one~ field and haven't appreciably hosed up or made any flag-rank enemies during your career, you'd think he'd have that buttoned up.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2015 10:05
|
|
|
I would not be surprised if the O-6 was an aviator put in charge of a bunch of project managers and specialists from other fields, because that is the natural order.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2015 10:16
|
|
|
Is it possible to become an O-7 in the air force without being a pilot?
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2015 18:30
|
|
|
Yes. Technically most of the slots are for rated officers, which is pilot/nav/abm. Probably 80 of rated officers are pilots though. But yeah, there are a few non-rated general slots.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2015 18:34
|
|
|
 Air Force of the '50s looks rad as hell.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2015 20:33
|
|
|
I didn't realize all of those bomber types were active at the same time (even the RB-45!)
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2015 22:23
|
|
|
New bombers were coming on line every few years, there was a lot of overlap until the B-52 became the backbone.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2015 23:13
|
|
|
 
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2015 01:38
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2015 01:42
|
|
|
Right? Having trouble finding video of the event, though. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2015 01:46
|
|
|
I love the F-22's angle of attack.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2015 01:50
|
|
|
I love the one where the B-17 is beside an F-15 and you can see how large the eagle actually is.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2015 04:55
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2015 07:22
|
|
Yes, it's like a lava lamp.
|
Not air power related, but still amusing. Besiege - A-10 Warthog with Missiles and Bomb and Simulated GAU-8 Not exactly real, but still - clearly its armoured enough to withstand the archers firing at it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2015 08:36
|
|
|
So some Spanish Eurofighter Typhoons made a low fly-over of Tallinn yesterday. Modern jet fighters are *LOUD*. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2015 11:34
|
|
|
OhYeah posted:So some Spanish Eurofighter Typhoons made a low fly-over of Tallinn yesterday. Modern jet fighters are *LOUD*. Lack of high bypass turbojets is the basic reason why. I *think* most modern fighters use low bypass turbofans.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2015 14:42
|
|
|
block51 posted:Lack of high bypass turbojets is the basic reason why. I *think* most modern fighters use low bypass turbofans. countdown to turbojet/turbofan/bypass questions in 3...2...
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2015 14:48
|
|
|
Surprise!
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2015 17:11
|
|
|
That dude climbing on his plane....
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2015 17:14
|
|
|
Not no more he ain't
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2015 18:17
|
|
|
simplefish posted:countdown to turbojet/turbofan/bypass questions in 3...2... I was thinking that, but I wasn't about to type up a big post. Color me lazy! Wikipedia has a ok-ish explanation.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2015 19:50
|
|
|
Party Plane Jones posted:
 This picture owns so hard. Imagine if this pic would be like 4k resolution. Oh boy.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2015 23:42
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 02:59 |
|
|
Scratch Monkey posted:Not no more he ain't don't matter, they didn't stop him from getting airborne
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2015 00:35
|
|