OT: Archer&Aphid turning SAM

[4c Hajduk Veljko]

Actually, it's been used operationally for quite some time (NASAMS).

Little OT. You need to be nominated for the weakest computer on this forum!

 

Cheers my friend!

[GGTharos]

Ah good point - thanks for reminding me :)

[4c Hajduk Veljko]

When launched from the ground all AA IR short range missiles (chaparral uses Uprated Sidwinders) have their range basicaly halved. You cant do much with 3 miles range.

Yes you can. You create a 3 miles (4.8 km, app 16 000 feet) bubble that your ground units might be able to operate within.

 

Next, that 3 miles range might not be enough to hit the target, however, it might be enough to force the target to maneuver, loose his speed, and put it into a dangerous situation. Where the second or the third IR missile could hit him.

[Pilotasso]

Yes you can. You create a 3 miles (4.8 km, app 16 000 feet) bubble that your ground units might be able to operate within.

 

Next, that 3 miles range might not be enough to hit the target, however, it might be enough to force the target to maneuver, loose his speed, and put it into a dangerous situation. Where the second or the third IR missile could hit him.

 

Not quite, because an LGB or a Maverick or a GPS weapon can destroy it from much further away. Therefore the bubble simply does not exist for standoff weapons such as these. heck, even an iron bomb can do it providing it will be precicely aimed or be a 2000 pounder to hit it.

[Dudikoff]

Ah good point - thanks for reminding me :)

 

Interesting system, to say the least. It's well distributed so an attacking aircraft could find itself over a launcher without ever knowing it because the launcher can be 25 km away from the "fire distribution center". Now, I don't know how far away can the radar be from this FDC.. With the increasing range of the ARMs you need all the separation you can get ;)

[Dudikoff]

Next, that 3 miles range might not be enough to hit the target, however, it might be enough to force the target to maneuver, loose his speed, and put it into a dangerous situation. Where the second or the third IR missile could hit him.

 

I doubt that the attacking aircraft would even see the incoming missile even if the pilot is not too busy making it's attack run. That's why it's a common procedure to drop flares in regular intervals in these situations.

 

Not quite, because an LGB or a Maverick or a GPS weapon can destroy it from much further away. Therefore the bubble simply does not exist for standoff weapons such as these. heck, even an iron bomb can do it providing it will be precicely aimed or be a 2000 pounder to hit it.

 

Considering that systems like this one are passive (and can be made into dismountable units) I think it's rather safe from stand-off weapons which is not what you can say for the units it's protecting ;)

[Dudikoff]

Little OT. You need to be nominated for the weakest computer on this forum!

 

Cheers my friend!

 

I have to admit that it's not true, actually. I just thought another A64@2.7GHz, etc. wouldn't bring anything refreshing to this forum..

 

Unless there is a possibility of some charity action and donations in which case it's all true!! ;)

[GGTharos]

Interesting system, to say the least. It's well distributed so an attacking aircraft could find itself over a launcher without ever knowing it because the launcher can be 25 km away from the "fire distribution center". Now, I don't know how far away can the radar be from this FDC.. With the increasing range of the ARMs you need all the separation you can get ;)

 

What sort of radar are they using? If it's an electronically scanned array like the sentinel it might be a little less vulnerable to ARMs :)

[Dudikoff]

What sort of radar are they using? If it's an electronically scanned array like the sentinel it might be a little less vulnerable to ARMs :)

 

Good point. But I think they're a bit ahead of you (check NASAMS II)

 

http://www.deagel.com/pandora/nasams_pm00229001.aspx

 

Ever thought about a career in weapon system design? I know I have ;)

 

As in

 

"Look at arson - I mean, how many of us can honestly say that at one time or another he hasn't set fire to some great public building. I know I have." (MP)

[4c Hajduk Veljko]

Not quite, because an LGB or a Maverick or a GPS weapon can destroy it from much further away.

However, only AFTER the target location is known. And there are reliable data and tons of evidence that NATO did not know where Yugoslavian ground units were in Kosovo and elsewhere in Yugoslavia.

Therefore the bubble simply does not exist for standoff weapons such as these.

From the evidence and facts from war over Yugoslavia we know that the BUBBLE existed. Hence 15 000 feet deck for A-10’s.

heck, even an iron bomb can do it providing it will be precicely aimed or be a 2000 pounder to hit it.

Heck, even the cruise missile fired 500 miles away can precisely hit IT. However, where is IT?

 

To answer “IT” question, we would have to talk about subjects that many on this forum are not ready to talk about. Without broad understanding of Yugoslavian tragedy and brave open mindness, that discussion could be interpreted as political, and I just don’t want to go there.

[Pilotasso]

Considering that systems like this one are passive (and can be made into dismountable units) I think it's rather safe from stand-off weapons which is not what you can say for the units it's protecting ;)

 

However, only AFTER the target location is known. And there are reliable data and tons of evidence that NATO did not know where Yugoslavian ground units were in Kosovo and elsewhere in Yugoslavia.

From the evidence and facts from war over Yugoslavia we know that the BUBBLE existed. Hence 15 000 feet deck for A-10’s.

Heck, even the cruise missile fired 500 miles away can precisely hit IT. However, where is IT?

 

If you put 1 of these SAM's (chaparral, R-60/73 truck) to protect a column of tanks these will stand out on A-G radar maping like a sore thumb, and be attacked anyway. What has hapened in that particular conflict was that military units were not traveling in convoys and could be mistakened by civilian tractors, so they were mostly left alone. Another factor that prevented tanks from being hit was the fact that there were many decoys arround. Another factor was that the terrain was montanious, so if you want to place SAM's of any type arround they will suffer from small line of sight as well.

 

Point is these systems are only usuable alone if the enemy has already established air superiority or worse, so it wont keep intruders out, but just to provoke attrition casualties as some sort of high tech gerrilla war.

These types of SAM's are usefull in conjuction with larger more powerfull sytems with overlaping umbrellas.

If you dont have longer ranged systems or they are turned off, the short range types will inevitably be destroyed or forced to leave the area they are protecting wich will leave essential infra structures out in the open to be destroyed.

By this time anything that is not moving has been destroyed and the situation will be a loosing trend.

[GGTharos]

However, only AFTER the target location is known. And there are reliable data and tons of evidence that NATO did not know where Yugoslavian ground units were in Kosovo and elsewhere in Yugoslavia.

 

Not only this, but, if we ignore the Yugoslavian situation and look at air defense in its theoretical employment, the medium and high altitude SAMs like SA-6/10/11, HAWK, HUMRAAM, Patriot, those are all supposed to push you down into the Shorad where those improvised weapons will be effective. :)

 

From the evidence and facts from war over Yugoslavia we know that the BUBBLE existed. Hence 15 000 feet deck for A-10’s.

Heck, even the cruise missile fired 500 miles away can precisely hit IT. However, where is IT?

 

The main concern was of course AAA and MANPADS, but the AAMs are better because they have the prox fuze, even if their range is not superior.

[nscode]

And AAA even if inefective in the visualy aimed form mostly used here is sayed to have a much larger psy factor on the pilot than SAMs.

[4c Hajduk Veljko]

If you put 1 of these SAM's …

What IF you don’t? Get it? “What IF’s” are speculations. Usually you will hear these on TV news and other political shows where there are no more arguments, and then the participant in a discussion is trying to spin and speculate. So, we know that Yugoslavians “DID NOT” (the IF stuff), and you clearly explained why they DID NOT in the text following your “IF” statement.

Point is these systems are only usuable alone if the enemy has already established air superiority…

Why do you need “these systems” if you established air superiority? What you are saying is, Aviano NATO air base needed these system to protect against Yugoslavian J-22’s? It does not make sense.

If you don’t…

What if you do? See the fist paragraph of this post.

[aimmaverick]

 

To answer “IT” question, we would have to talk about subjects that many on this forum are not ready to talk about. Without broad understanding of Yugoslavian tragedy and brave open mindness, that discussion could be interpreted as political, and I just don’t want to go there.

 

You must be crazy. Your country did ethnic cleaning on Kosovo eradicating population there! Either you have been brainwashed by your violent national propaganda or you are just a typical idiotic Serb. Sorry, I know your kind. Very proud people taking care only for themselves, claiming one big Serbia. They dont give a shit for other ppl, in persuing their ultimate goal-even if others must pay with lives for that! What Yougoslavian tragedy? :wallbash: :disgust:

[GGTharos]

Ahem ... who invited you to start a political discussion? Are you trying to get the thread locked?

[Force_Feedback]

You must be crazy. Your country did ethnic cleaning on Kosovo eradicating population there! Either you have been brainwashed by your violent national propaganda or you are just a typical idiotic Serb. Sorry, I know your kind. Very proud people taking care only for themselves, claiming one big Serbia. They dont give a shit for other ppl, in persuing their ultimate goal-even if others must pay with lives for that! What Yougoslavian tragedy? :wallbash: :disgust:

 

He also asked to NOT post such replies, in this thread he's been quite neutral and, I guess fairly objective. There is propaganda everywhere, for example, my country says it's free and very tolerant of everyone's opinions, that is offcourse not true, but many do believe that, and yet agree for further restrictions of their means to express their opinions and views of the world, in favor of security. Well, I don't think anyone can be that brainwashed by the fear of the 'new enemy' (the one that has been around for litterally centuries) to agree for such measures. They try to make the people fear the goverment, and some wanker goatherders with aks, in term threatening to blow something up. So it's a vicious circle, with the average Joe having to pay for it all, and give up some rights. As someone once said, the people should not be afraid of their goverment, the goverment should be afraid of their people. (which isn't entirely true, as the goverment should represent the majority of people and make concessions towards the minorities, and that hasn't occured once in human history).

So, politics are f-ed up, and I hate them, can't believe I wasted so much time on them, and now I'm doing it again, just by talking about it. Damn u, troll dude. :|

 

 

Okay, back on topic, I'm afraid I can't find the photos. All I do remember is that they were fairly HQ (beyond 1200x1600) and had pics of a modern-ish looking green truck, with and R-73, with a booster consisting of 5-6 S-5 (S-8?) rocket motors, in one drum, and fixed stabilization fins. Please help me find those pics, I found them on the net during my aviation related googling (I believe I was searching for reliable R-73 specs).

[tflash]

You are right GGTharos, back to topic for it is to late. It is a very important discussion about current CAS. The A-10 was supposed to be replaced by F-16 precisely on the grounds that planners thought an A-10 was to slow and low-flying and thus dead meat in a Manpad situation or a situation without air superiority.

 

The latter is probably true, but the first is certainly dubious. In fact, it is my view that the A-10, precisely because it flies low, in direct contact with ground troops and with very good SA on the ground situation, is probably better placed to avoid an inbound manpad than a fast jet obliged to do CAS strafing runs.

 

Using LGB's from medium and safe altitude is OK against armour, but is not proficient against technicals and hidden, merged weaponry from the typical militant.

 

Again, the A-10 is planned to be replaced by this time the F-35, on the same grounds. My guess is the kind of improvised weapons systems nscode is showing are more a threat to a self-assured F-35 then they are to a well seasoned A-10 driver.

 

The A-10, which has as buzzwords simplicity - survivability - ruggedness - direct attack - man-in-the-loop - and foremost of all my gun is bigger than yours is in my view WAY better adapted to these novel threads than the shining computerlab product tailored to Pentagon spreadsheet boys. O yeah they thought of everything like the useless goons at our central university's administration with their MBA degrees.

 

It's like who is going to live longest in the Bronx: a seasoned local police officer or some graduate from police academy turned Robocop?

[nscode]

Here's one more

 

Few others at http://www.airserbia.com/slike/galerija/sajam_naoruzanja2005/index.htm

(end of first and begining of second page)

[Force_Feedback]

Here's one more

 

Few others at http://www.airserbia.com/slike/galerija/sajam_naoruzanja2005/index.htm

(end of first and begining of second page)

 

Yes, those were the vehicles, but the fotos I saw were not during an exposition, but had the same vehicles, and lots of close-ups, of the r-60/73-booster connection, the missiles themself, the launch rail, etc. I'm so sorry I couldn't find the pics :(

 

 

I SEE AN EJECTION SEAT ROCKET PACK, W00t

 

[GGTharos]

Seriously, those are like Mr. T trucks :D

[D-Scythe]

You are right GGTharos, back to topic for it is to late. It is a very important discussion about current CAS. The A-10 was supposed to be replaced by F-16 precisely on the grounds that planners thought an A-10 was to slow and low-flying and thus dead meat in a Manpad situation or a situation without air superiority.

 

The latter is probably true, but the first is certainly dubious.

 

Probably true? Absolutely not. An A-10 would be FINE operating over a MANPADS-defended area, so long as it sticks to the basics and the tactical plan. That would mean: no lonewolfing, having flights of A-10s operating with other flights/strikers, minimizing time spent in the enemy's MEZ (i.e. below angels 10), popping flares when necessary, etc.

 

Again, this argument that an A-10 is dead meat against IR SAMs is stupid. Sure, if they're operating alone, the MANPADS dudes will shoot a good chunk of the Hogs down. But the point is to NEVER operate alone. You will never have *just* A-10s hopping the fence by themselves - it's a tactically unrealistic scenario. It will NEVER happen.

 

You guys might as well start saying that bombers are obsolete cause they're vulnerable to fighters on their own.

 

In fact, it is my view that the A-10, precisely because it flies low, in direct contact with ground troops and with very good SA on the ground situation, is probably better placed to avoid an inbound manpad than a fast jet obliged to do CAS strafing runs.

 

Good SA? Even the best pilots aren't gonna see the guy hiding behind a bush with an Igla, in an A-10 or a Viper. It's *impossible* to have that kind of SA.

 

If the A-10 flies low too much, it's dead meat, whether they're in contact with ground troops or not. Being in a fast mover is infinitely safer than being in an A-10 in such a situation.

 

Using LGB's from medium and safe altitude is OK against armour, but is not proficient against technicals and hidden, merged weaponry from the typical militant.

 

It is if you have FACs finding and designating the target for you. All you have to do is get within range and release the bomb, which seems pretty proficient to me.

 

The A-10, which has as buzzwords simplicity - survivability - ruggedness - direct attack - man-in-the-loop - and foremost of all my gun is bigger than yours is in my view WAY better adapted to these novel threats than the shining computerlab product tailored to Pentagon spreadsheet boys. O yeah they thought of everything like the useless goons at our central university's administration with their MBA degrees.

 

Correction: the A-10 is probably more adapted to deal with these novel targets, not threats. An insurgent technical is hardly a threat to any jet.

[4c Hajduk Veljko]

It is if you have FACs finding and designating the target for you. All you have to do is get within range and release the bomb, which seems pretty proficient to me.

And here we are. It was inevitable to get to this point on this thread. Earlier, I suggested that finding “IT” may bring discussions that can easily be judged as political.

 

Those who can find and mark targets (“IT’s”) are Forward Air Controllers.

 

Forward Air Controllers (FAC)! With them on the ground any airplane would successfully hit MARKED target. In my belief, strike aircraft such as F-16 would do the job better then A-10, because A-10 is just more vulnerable. This answers GGTharos question about of which airplane would do the job better.

 

Now it is obvious why Yugoslavian army had to defeat KLA as fast as possible. And all hell that broke loose in the news when Yugoslavian army defeated KLA and disabled Forward Air Controllers to be employed.

[GGTharos]

Actually A-10's did better as AFACs due to training and experience, but I won't deny that certain equipment onboard the fast jets would be a lot of help (the IR cameras and so on)

 

But the A-10C is getting those too now ... :)

[tflash]

 

 

Good SA? Even the best pilots aren't gonna see the guy hiding behind a bush with an Igla, in an A-10 or a Viper. It's *impossible* to have that kind of SA.

 

If the A-10 flies low too much, it's dead meat, whether they're in contact with ground troops or not. Being in a fast mover is infinitely safer than being in an A-10 in such a situation.

 

 

Maybe there are two different scenario's. A scenario with clear separation of friendly and enemy ground forces, and the friendly provide FAC or even lasing guidance. then a fast jet has good view on situation, stays medium level and drops guided weapon (now mostly GBU-12 or GBU-38, or AGM-65E in the case of Navy Hornets)

 

Another, more "Afghan" scenario, has the bandits REAL close, merged with the troops in eye-to-eye contact. It is to close for a 500 lbs weapon, and the real option is the gun.

 

I think in such circumstances the A-10, whichis moving slower, will have a better awareness of the situation. Making a strafing pass in a fast jet is a very stressful situation, narrowing your field of view to tunnel vision since you really have to take care how you fly to point the gun (or rockets).

 

If then some roque fighter fires a manpad, you won't be seeing it coming.

 

The slow moving, very well controlled and manoevrable A-10 will have more time to look into the situation and maybe even see the igla guy on the rooftop.

 

So, for Very Close CAS, I think the A-10 might have an advantage in "SA".