tflash Posted February 25, 2009 Posted February 25, 2009 http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_channel.jsp?channel=defense&id=news/REVEAL022409.xml It seems a clear trend that high-end cold war radarguided weaponry, based on databases with radar signatures of enemy vehicles, are now complemented with more direct, man-in-the-loop attack systems like rockets, guns and laser-guided weapons. In a way, the Su-25T/Ka-50 are very modern; most of the Longbow Apaches in Iraq do not carry their radar dome and use laser-guided versions of the Hellfire instead of the radar-guided variant. The same with UK's Brimstone missile, initially a radar-guided, all-weather weapon, now with its dual-mode seeker meant to be used primarily as a laser-guided weapon. I guess the warfighter does not like radars and computer databases "identifying" targets and prefers to see what he is shooting at, like we do with the Schkval system in LO/DCS. There are no databases to my knowledge that can discriminate a Toyota truck filed with militants from a family picknick. Another goodie of laser-guided weapons (though this does not hold for rockets which are way to fast) is that when the operator sees a woman with child in the front seat of the Toyota he can divert the weapon, something you cannot do with a launched maverick missile. [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]
CE_Mikemonster Posted February 25, 2009 Posted February 25, 2009 Afghanistan is very much a war and very very conventional (for the infantry lads fighting it out) but the enemy doesn't have armour or air support (mortars, automatic fire and recoiless rifles yes). I think it's basically target ID, you really need a good solid pair of eyes (or a targeting pod with a person looking out of the canopy as well). No point risking a blue on blue if the enemy doesn't have BVR weapons anyway - I'd like to show myself if I was in an Apache, Harrier or Tornado and let them know they're in for it. I believe the Apaches get really close, but haven't read anything specific. Laser guidance allows Brimstone to be guided directly by an FAC as well I suppose, or possibly a lower threat UAV? - but it does have the IR seeker in case a tank column happens to pop up all of a sudden like in Rambo. I think as for diverting weapons, you'd only fire them if you were 100% certain in the first place. Does anyone know how many times targets were engaged after being pinpointed by the radar in The Second Gulf War? Too many cowboys. Not enough indians. GO APE SH*T
nscode Posted February 25, 2009 Posted February 25, 2009 It's always nice to have a choice. As for diverting, read about Grdelica train attack. Never forget that World War III was not Cold for most of us.
CE_Mikemonster Posted February 26, 2009 Posted February 26, 2009 A terrible thing to happen, but the AGM-130A used is able to retarget in-flight. http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/smart/agm-130.htm Too many cowboys. Not enough indians. GO APE SH*T
nscode Posted February 26, 2009 Posted February 26, 2009 Yes, he was by all means able to divert the weapon. The fact that he didn't is a matter of a criminal investigation, and I won't get into that here or now. But as you can see, there are cases where you need to be able to abort the attack. Never forget that World War III was not Cold for most of us.
CE_Mikemonster Posted February 26, 2009 Posted February 26, 2009 He was able to divert, but did not - so the facility is not as useful as it may appear. There seems no point to have the choice if in the one circumstance it should be used it was not used. Too many cowboys. Not enough indians. GO APE SH*T
nscode Posted February 26, 2009 Posted February 26, 2009 It was his error for not using it, so his ass is on the line. If you were the designer and made the assumption that a feature is not needed, but that circumstances arise where the feature is needed. Then it's your ass. That is why it's called an assumtion. ;) Never forget that World War III was not Cold for most of us.
CE_Mikemonster Posted February 26, 2009 Posted February 26, 2009 I suppose we don't know how many times the function was used, to be honest. Too many cowboys. Not enough indians. GO APE SH*T
nscode Posted February 26, 2009 Posted February 26, 2009 There's a video with half a dozen cases showing Israel avoiding collateral damage. Too lazy to find it now :D Never forget that World War III was not Cold for most of us.
CE_Mikemonster Posted February 26, 2009 Posted February 26, 2009 By changing the bomb/missile's target during-flight? Too many cowboys. Not enough indians. GO APE SH*T
nscode Posted February 26, 2009 Posted February 26, 2009 (edited) Yup ok... it's just 3 :D Edited February 26, 2009 by nscode Never forget that World War III was not Cold for most of us.
CE_Mikemonster Posted February 27, 2009 Posted February 27, 2009 (edited) Very good link, thanks bud. Extremely debatable use of that sort of weaponry (which we won't debate!), but undeniably it is good to have the choice :) I was thinking in the wrong frame of mind - this is exactly the reason 'fire and forget only' is not a great idea sometimes. For instance I can fully imagine the same thing happening if a Brimstone was launched at a pickup in Afghanistan. Thanks for teaching me :thumbup: EDIT: Oh btw can I copy the link into another thread on the Israeli's being 'disappointed' at the enormous destructive power of the Maverick? Textbook example of why bigger is not always better.. Edited February 27, 2009 by CE_Mikemonster Too many cowboys. Not enough indians. GO APE SH*T
nscode Posted February 28, 2009 Posted February 28, 2009 No problemo :) Don't know who u're asking about copying... I don't mind, it's not my video :D I actually saw it here somewhere I think.. Never forget that World War III was not Cold for most of us.
CE_Mikemonster Posted February 28, 2009 Posted February 28, 2009 Hahaha fair enough, no ©nscode 2009 then lol. Just didn't want to take credit for your findings hehe Too many cowboys. Not enough indians. GO APE SH*T
Recommended Posts