The Military Thread

Tbh I'm all for the US putting more effort into a way to eliminate the nuclear threat. I'd rather risk conventional war than blowing up the planet.

Rods of God will make nukes obsolete anyway, DARPA says they think they can make it happen by 2028, not terribly far away.

I'd rather risk not having a war at all because some utter mad men seem to think that getting yourself and everyone around you killed and crippling the economies of various nations is worthwhile so that they can move tanks around.

We call them politicians/generals.

Stealth bombers are stealthy to radar, but not the human eye. To stop a B-2 all it takes is a MiG pilot with a good set of eyes and a good aim with his gun (since missile lock is unlikely). B-2s cannot outrun or outturn fighters. (at least anything built since 1947.)

In order for said MiG to do so, Early Warning/Over The Horizon (OTH) radars (probably even typical air defence radars) would have to detect the B-2 and scramble interceptors. Now, that isn't feasible currently (I predict in the future that stealth will become less and less useful as more sophisticated radars appear) because unless you like to spam SAMs and waste huge amounts of money just to find one bomber or you think that you will stumble upon it either through sheer dumb luck or a clever modification, then it is effectively improbable that you will detect it.

As well, it is kind of foolish to say that in any hypothetical air launched nuclear delivery that they wouldn't send more than one weapon platform (bombers/nuclear capable aircraft) because they're not going to chance a mission/attack's success on one aircraft's wellfare.

In the event of a foreign power sending bombers to drop nukes on you, they're going to send swarms of wild weasel aircraft to devastate your air defense system first. Unfortunately a lot of people seem to be unaware that wild weasel strikes even exist.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wild_Weasel

Basically if you build a SAM or radar system, these aircraft can blow it up, and they're cheaper and more expendable than strategic bombers.

edited 1st May '10 12:41:18 PM by WoolieWool

That's why the #1 rule of aerial warfare dictates you have an air force.

The best weapon against any enemy aircraft is not a SAM or AAA battery, it's another fighter.

Fail that rule and you deserve to lose aerial supremacy over the combat theatre.

Ah yes, the classic Wild Weasel mission. Most other countries refer to it as Supression of Enemy Air Defenses (SEAD).

Wild Weasel is no grantee of suppression though. Man Pads and mobile AA platforms are a lot harder to supress.

Wild Weasel Relies on Fighter Support Just like Bombers. Nothing is also stopping a enemy from putting up phony AA station that would designed to draw the wild weasel's fire while the real stations remain hidden until needed.

edited 1st May '10 5:26:47 PM by TuefelHundenIV

SEAD sounds like a job for UAVs.

Except all current (and immediate future) designs for UAVs put them slower and less maneuverable than any SEAD aircraft already. Sure they might be harder to hit with a ZU-23 or ZPU-4 anti-aircraft battery (or other AAA sources) but they are easy prey for Iglas, Stingers, and any number of surface to air missiles.

To say nothing that most UAVs could be shot down easily by other aircraft.

The US Air Force has already proven that. (A USAF F-16 intercepted and shot down an Iranian UAV deep over Iraqi airspace in 2008.)

edited 2nd May '10 11:14:28 AM by MajorTom

If it was designed properly a UAV could out perform a piloted aircraft because you don't have to build limiters in to keep the pilot from going squish.

They do have Jet powered UAV's and this is the general direction they have been trying to push the technology. As a general replacement for manned aircraft.

edited 2nd May '10 12:28:24 PM by TuefelHundenIV

If I remember correctly, most aircraft converted for SEAD purposes are already fighters, which means that in a pinch they probably could defend themselves (or at least evade enemy air power). But for the most part, yeah, they do need escorts.

The important thing to realise about SEAD is that it was never meant to be used against MANPADS. If it was against a mobile AA system, then they might (I guess) chance a few attacks on it. However, if said mobile system is a SAM, then as far as I know they usually have to stop in order to actually fire (because you have to set up the tracking radar, the fire control radar, and the actual system itself).

If you were going to construct a false AAA or SAM, then you'd likely have to fit a radar to it (considering that for the most part the aircraft flying the SEAD may not spot said system because they often detect the sites in the first place either through their radar emissions or because the site actually engaged them first). And to be honest, if you've fitted a fully functioning radar to it, then you might as well go the whole hog and make it an AAA/SAM site in its own right.

Or it could also be your early warning radar system. that way your not just wasting the radar space. You could rig it to look like a AA site. If it suddenly goes silent you know they are probably doing a SEAD mission. Silence your other AA sites and scramble fighters to intercept.

Aren't also most MANPADS IR targeting? I know some are Radar Seekers like the Strela-2. If your getting Pinged by radar MANPAD system from a fortified position wouldn't it be worth to fire on it with a SEAD on site instead of leaving them to engage your forces later?

The SEAD would have a harder time pegging the MANPAD but those missiles are meant to take out enemy buildings or mobile AA sites. The missile will probably kill the operator and possibly blow any spare AA missiles they have.

I was thinking the Mobile Anti-Air Gun PlatformsLike these Or the American Stinger Humvee's. I know there are the mobile AA sites though like the one that uses the Vulcan system or the Patriot Missile Batteries, or the Rapier. The mobile battery ones would be vulnerable to the Wild Weasel as it takes time to tear down and get mobile again.

From what I have picked up they could operate solo but were not armed for Air to Air engagement. They relied on fighter cover to keep enemy fighters off their backs while they rand their missions.

The concept of suppressing radar using air craft is as old as WWII apparently.

Or it could also be your early warning radar system. that way your not just wasting the radar space. You could rig it to look like a AA site. If it suddenly goes silent you know they are probably doing a SEAD mission. Silence your other AA sites and scramble fighters to intercept.

Seems like a reasonable way to do it. If I remember correctly, one technique SAMs use is to only have one transmitting while a group of others have their radar off. When it picks up an enemy aircraft, the transmitting SAM acts as bait, but it also provides data to other anti-air systems. At the last possible moment the others come online and launch a missile at the aircraft.

Aren't also most MANPADS IR targeting? I know some are Radar Seekers like the Strela-2. If your getting Pinged by radar MANPAD system from a fortified position wouldn't it be worth to fire on it with a SEAD on site instead of leaving them to engage your forces later?

Yes, that's why MANPADS are so dangerous for low-flying aircraft. The RWR is completely useless.

If it's from a fortified position, it might be worth attacking it, especially for the reason you stated but you'd probably want to be absolutely, positively sure that you can nail it on the first pass, preferably with something like unguided rockets (so you have at least some maneuvering room if the system fires).

I was thinking the Mobile Anti-Air Gun Platforms Like these Or the American Stinger Humvee's. I know there are the mobile AA sites though like the one that uses the Vulcan system or the Patriot Missile Batteries, or the Rapier. The mobile battery ones would be vulnerable to the Wild Weasel as it takes time to tear down and get mobile again.

Ah, I thought so. The mobile system might still stop if the gunner (for some reason) is finding it difficult to get a bead on the aircraft. For some of the larger batteries (usually designed for targets at high altitude) it can take up to an hour to set up and get ready to move again! So if you catch them on the hop they're vulnerable.

From what I have picked up they could operate solo but were not armed for Air to Air engagement. They relied on fighter cover to keep enemy fighters off their backs while they rand their missions.

The concept of suppressing radar using air craft is as old as WWII apparently.

I will assume that you know better than me in the regard of escorts. Might have been especially prevalent in Vietnam (what with missile technology still in its infancy, etc.).

Interesting that you state it's as old as WWII. I'm assuming there were aircraft that had special jamming equipment onboard?

The Vulcan Air Defense system is actually quite useless. Most helicopter and aircraft fired missiles can fire outside its effective range (3000m) and it's rounds have very low strike power against modern heli armor. (Seriously, Hinds, Havocs, (Super)Cobras and Apaches are all resistant to anything 23mm or lower.)

It's why it hasn't seen use in the US Military since like 1992. (Even then the VADS was mostly an anti-ground platform.)

The ZU-23-2 is better than it owing to further range at the cost of fire rate. (The old ZPU-4 as seen in Modern Warfare is all but useless against non-helicopter aircraft)

The successor to the VADS in US service are two vehicles the LAV-25AD (Air Defense) armed with a 25mm Gatling cannon and Stinger missiles and the Avenger. (Current Avengers are being modified for more multi-role stuff like firing Javelin missiles alongside Stingers.)

But that is just short range defense. You need larger stuff for longer ranges which are vulnerable to SEAD missions.

Excerpt From the Other wiki.

''The F-105F did not utilize radar jammers since its purpose was to provide a decoy target, protecting the strike flights, and encouraging SAM launches that generated enough bright smoke to make possible seeing the SAM site for immediate dive bombing attack. With multiple incoming missiles in visual sight it was possible to dive abruptly or sharply break to avoid them. Failure to see the missiles approaching at three times fighter cruise speed would result in the destruction of the aircraft and failure of the mission.

Post-Vietnam tactics developed "Hunter-Killer" teams, where a F-4G Wild Weasel would be teamed with one or more conventional F-4E Phantoms. The Wild Weasel would destroy missile radar emitters, clearing the way for the F-4E's to destroy the rest of the missile site using cluster munitions.

A tactic used during Operation Desert Shield was known as "Here, kitty kitty", wherein one Weasel would get the attention of a SAM or anti-aircraft artillery site while other Weasels would then sneak up behind the site and destroy it.''

You were spot on for the counter to batteries. They would fly in as mixed ordinance for ground targets. Id imagine that once they started flying in more organized groups it would be feasible for some to have air to air armaments to fend off attacks.

Major Tom I think your under estimating the kill power of the 20mm rounds. First sure against a standard 20mm ball ok. But against a 100, 200? And the 20mm tends fire things like armor piercing, incendiary, explosive ammo mixes. The system effectively hoses the target. A helo that gets close enough to be engaged by that system even a hind is not going to be having a good day. The shells can kill the pilot and gunner, damage rotors, hit the gear box, or the tail rotor system. Any of those are knocked out the Helo Unit is going down.

The super cobras are not as tough as you think they are. They have narrow head on profile for ground fire support to reduce the chance of a successful ground fire hit. Ie RPG's, machine guns etc.

The Key to Helo survival is the ability to fly low and hide behind cover and pop up and fire off your shot and hide again. So the idea is to not be seen or exposed to fire. Apaches are harder to kill due their armoring but its not impossible. If the 20mm rounds were so obsolete we still would not be using them as aircraft's gun systems.

The 25mm and up rounds are intended to engage things like tanks or heavily armored targets (Heavy APC's tanks etc) or targets in hard cover. 30mm Weapons are pretty much designed to smack the target out of the air in as few hits as possible increasing the chance of a kill from a even one or two hits. Yes that makes it a better system but does not make the 20mm obsolete or any less dangerous to targets that enter its engagement envelope.

Edit: I am going to say that the WWII radar hunting/suppression is unlikely I can not find anything on it. The only feasible thing I could think of was some sort of modified night bomber designed pick up radar signatures.

edited 2nd May '10 9:06:45 PM by TuefelHundenIV

I think you were talking to Major Tom not Raw Power.

-Face Desk- SON OF A MONKEY

What the hell is wrong with me getting so mixed up lately.

Fixed It

edited 2nd May '10 9:07:00 PM by TuefelHundenIV

It's the alzheimers setting in.

@Major Tom: The reason why the Hind is resistant to 20mm is because the bugger's built like a fucking tank! That doesn't save it from missiles, though.

A tactic used during Operation Desert Shield was known as "Here, kitty kitty", wherein one Weasel would get the attention of a SAM or anti-aircraft artillery site while other Weasels would then sneak up behind the site and destroy it.''

Weirdly enough, I've always thought that would be an excellent way to deal with them (this was before you told me they did it in real life).

By the way, there are some recordings of "Wild Weasel" missions on wikipedia or somewhere related to it (perhaps wikimedia?). Although they're long, they're actually rather fascinating (apparently SAM batteries would send a false "launch" signal to scare the aircraft, although I think (from what I heard from one recording where a WSO says "Hold your fire" (or something similar) when this happens) certain Wild Weasel aircraft can differentiate between a true launch and a fake one).

You probably would want to get rid of the radars, because then the system is effectively blind and incapable of launching (although various types, such as the S-300 Grumble and SA-2 Guideline have alternate guidance systems).

edited 3rd May '10 8:29:32 AM by Flanker66

^ And the Hind is partially the reason (that and the 20mm round on the Vulcan was really fucking old) US Air Defense on the ground abandoned the 20mm as triple A. Prior to the Stinger and the Avenger, the short range air defense from the ground was going to be covered by the M247 Sergeant York and its 40mm Bofors L/70 x 2. (That project failed due to cost overruns and idiocy.)

The 20mm today only has use on older fighter aircraft (with the exception of the F-22) and ship based CIWS. Even then new fighter aircraft designs like the F-35 are going to 25mm or better. Even ships aren't immune. There's an intermediary CIWS defense called the Rolling Airframe Missile that can strike enemy aircraft and missiles WITHIN 20MM RANGE! It also has a further range which is why the CIWS guns (especially on carriers) are being coupled with the RAM.

edited 3rd May '10 9:38:29 AM by MajorTom

I can confirm that the F-35 all use Equalizers.

We didn't put guns on our planes once. That was F-4. They quickly began slapping gun pods on. Since every fighter plane we have made except the A-10 (30mm) and the latest Variant Harrier (25mm) has had 20mm Gun.

Two Reasons, Its light and you can store more ammo for it on board. The F-35 Is made to replace the Harrier and has the larger 25mm but only 150 rounds. The British Harrier has two 30mm Gun pod mounts though

So unless its a ground support fighter its probably going to have a 20mm until we find a better system for our air to air fighters.

I forgot to ask which version of the Hind we are talking about some are more tank like then others. yeah lots of variants It is one of those vehicles they keep the general design and tweak for their needs. First Gen Hinds not that scary.

Second Generation Hind Gunship Configuration are shit brickers. Improvement in armor and armament, and fuel consumption made them something to worry about.

Edit I know we have replaced the vulcan with some interesting new battery system. It has radar, can't remember if it was two or three 30mm gun units and Missile pod. Anyone know what this one is? We needed to swap out the old 20mm CIWS not powerful enough to slap down a threat with a hit.

Ninjad :P

edited 3rd May '10 11:56:56 AM by TuefelHundenIV

^ The US Army does not field an anti-aircraft artillery of any kind. (Excepting the M2 Browning .50 mounted on vehicles.)

Like US Army, the US Air Force does not field AAA.

The US Marines only have the 25mm armed LAV-25AD. And I think that variant is no longer in service.

The US Navy mainly has the Phalanx CIWS. I don't know if any Bofors 40mm variants are still in service in that regard.

Short ranged air defense is handled by the Avenger and MANPADS Stingers on land. Medium to long ranged air defense is handled by the MIM-104 Patriot. Anything else not covered on the ground is better dealt with by F-16s, F-15s, F-18s, and F-22.