phil@brahms.AMD.COM (Phil Ngai) (04/30/91)
From: phil@brahms.AMD.COM (Phil Ngai) Artillery now likes to shoot and scoot to avoid counterbattery. When are we going to see SAM systems that do the same thing? Is there such a thing as spread spectrum radars that are hard to detect? If SAM systems shoot down flying objects, why can't they shoot down Tacit Rainbow and HARM type things? Isn't that the whole idea behind Navy AEGIS/Standard Missile type systems? How about an RPV/helicoptor/AWACS on a cable type of thing for SAM systems? Could the RPV be cheap enough that you could put up a bunch of them, making it harder for Wild Weasels to completely blind you? They could shoot down one or two or three, but you've got two dozen RPVs up. -- I'm the NRA.
saxman@matt.ksu.ksu.edu (Ken Delaughder) (04/30/91)
From: saxman@matt.ksu.ksu.edu (Ken Delaughder) phil@brahms.AMD.COM (Phil Ngai) writes: >If SAM systems shoot down flying objects, why can't they shoot >down Tacit Rainbow and HARM type things? Isn't that the whole >idea behind Navy AEGIS/Standard Missile type systems? I've been concerned with the vulnerability of Air defense systems myself. I know that alot of the newer soviet systems use infra-red backups, so that the missles aren't completely useless when the radar goes. Just seems like the Weasels are good at their job! What about the feasibility of a CIWS (Close In Weapons System), aka Phalanx, for ground radars similiar to those aboard Navy ships? It seems to me that such a system would at least give the radars a chance, and might not be too expensive (less expensive for example that say an AWACS). Anyone got any ideas on if such a system has ever been considered, if it might work, etc? [DIVAD was an utter disaster, wasn't it? --CDR] -- Ken DeLaughder <saxman@ksuvm.ksu.edu> <saxman@matt.ksu.ksu.edu>
fcrary@lightning.Berkeley.EDU (Frank Crary) (05/01/91)
From: fcrary@lightning.Berkeley.EDU (Frank Crary) phil@brahms.AMD.COM (Phil Ngai) writes: >Artillery now likes to shoot and scoot to avoid counterbattery. >When are we going to see SAM systems that do the same thing? Many SAM launchers ARE able to fire and move. These include the Soviet SA-13 Gopher, SA-9 Gaskin, SA-8 Gecko, SA-6 Gainful and the shoulder fired SA-7 and SA-14. American mobile SAM units include the Patriot, Hawk, Avenger, Chaparral and Stinger launchers. Most of these systems are IR not radar guided. In general the radar guided launchers take some time to set up and/or move. They could not, for example, "dodge" a Wild Weasle-type aircraft or a HARM missile. They can, however, be moved between recon aircraft or satillite overflights. I think, after the losses in the Gulf of Iraqi fixed and slow but mobile launchers, more emphasis may, in the future be placed on the ability of a launcher to rapidly shift its location. >If SAM systems shoot down flying objects, why can't they shoot >down Tacit Rainbow and HARM type things? Isn't that the whole >idea behind Navy AEGIS/Standard Missile type systems? HARM and (I think) Tacit Rainbow are much smaller than aircraft, heavy anti-ship missiles or ballistic missiles. They also travel very fast (>3 Ma) while most aircraft and anti-ship missiles are subsonic. This makes HARM (and also IR anti-air) missiles much more dificult to shoot down. By the way, does anyone know the current funding status of the Tacit Rainbow system? Frank Crary UC Berkeley
quimby@rpi.edu (Tom Stewart) (05/01/91)
From: quimby@rpi.edu (Tom Stewart) (more post-storm thoughts on SAM and AAA) I think it's a safe bet that the presence of a few thousand radar decoys in Iraq would've made destroying their air defence system much more complex. A combination of decoys and highly mobile SAM's probably would have made mid and high level flight dangerous for a long time, requiring visual ID to knock out each mobile SAM site. Given that most ground attack aircraft don't carry a whole lot of armour -- even the A-10, as I understand it, has armour only for pilot protection -- wouldn't it make sense to field some smaller, lighter, faster AA guns? Swapping an M3 or M60 for a 7.62 or 5.56 minigun would raise the rate of fire 4-16 times, with little if any weight gain. With groundfire, even from rifles, seemingly such a threat to low level flight, I'm surprised it hasn't received more attention from the sending end. quimby@mts.rpi.edu, quimby@rpitsmts.bitnet
fcrary@typhoon.Berkeley.EDU (Frank Crary) (05/03/91)
From: fcrary@typhoon.Berkeley.EDU (Frank Crary) saxman@matt.ksu.ksu.edu (Ken Delaughder) writes: >myself. I know that alot of the newer soviet systems use infra-red >backups, so that the missles aren't completely useless when the radar >goes. Just seems like the Weasels are good at their job! As well as IR back-up several systems have optically guided (e.g. TV guided remote, I think) back-ups. > [DIVAD was an utter disaster, wasn't it? --CDR] Although the American DIVAD or "Sgt. York" program was a real mess, there are modern, radar controled systems similar to what DIVAD should have been. The German "Gepard" system comes to mind. Frank Crary UC Berkeley
Robert_Bell@mindlink.bc.ca (Robert Bell) (05/05/91)
From: Robert_Bell@mindlink.bc.ca (Robert Bell) I used to be sam technician in the British Army and i have yet to see a low level sam system better than the British Aerospace RAPIER system. It comes in towed and tracked versions and is very accurate. We used to test fire them against towed drones which were approximately the same size as HARM missiles and achieved kill rates in the upper 90% range. Rapier uses radar to locate the target but can also use optical and thermal tracking, in fact the radar can be switched off completely and the target acquired optically by a helmet tergeting system. Tracked Rapier is highly manouverable,it takes less than a minute from coming to a complete standstill to get off the first missile. There are also newer version coming out like Rapier 2000. These systems also tend to be backed up by the javlin shoulder launched sam and 7.62 gpmg's. -- Robert Bell uunet!van_bc!rsoft!mindlink!a1076 Benndorf-Verster a1076@mindlink.uucp Vancouver Canada voice 604-853-5870
fcrary@lightning.Berkeley.EDU (Frank Crary) (05/08/91)
From: fcrary@lightning.Berkeley.EDU (Frank Crary) In article <1991May7.062324.12399@amd.com> Robert_Bell@mindlink.bc.ca (Robert Bell) writes: >I used to be sam technician in the British Army and i have yet to see a >low level sam system better than the British Aerospace RAPIER system. It >comes in towed and tracked versions and is very accurate. We used to >test fire them against towed drones which were approximately the same >size as HARM missiles and achieved kill rates in the upper 90% range. Although the RAPIER is a very nice SAM system, but I doubt it could shoot down a HARM is flight. Most target drones are subsonic, while the AGM-88 HARM missile flys at greater than 2.5 Ma. Other anti-radiation missiles are also very supersonic. This makes them VERY hard to hit. Frank Crary UC Berkeley
walker@sulu.usc.edu (Walker J. Seestedt) (05/09/91)
From: walker@sulu.usc.edu (Walker J. Seestedt) In article <1991May2.040007.19776@amd.com> quimby@rpi.edu (Tom Stewart) writes: >Given that most ground attack aircraft don't carry a whole lot of >armour -- even the A-10, as I understand it, has armour only for >pilot protection -- wouldn't it make sense to field some smaller, >lighter, faster AA guns? Swapping an M3 or M60 for a 7.62 or >5.56 minigun would raise the rate of fire 4-16 times, with little >if any weight gain. With groundfire, even from rifles, seemingly >such a threat to low level flight, I'm surprised it hasn't >received more attention from the sending end. I believe that the reason that most AAA is of greater caliber is for range purposes. Smaller arms such as the 5.56mm and 7.62mm while having a greater rate of fire do not have really enough range to do damage to airplanes flying at medium altitude. After all, if you put more oomph in the cartridge pushing the shell it will go higher, and have enough velocity to damage vital airplane parts once it is there. When my dad flew in Vietnam, they would climb higher to get out of small arms range (only to face SAM's, oops.) He says they could see the tracers of .50 cal machine guns tooling lazily up toward his plane. (Okay, so they were going about mach 1 or so, but they looked like they were taking their time what with the distance they had to travel to get to them. ;-) Steven Coonts also addresses this in _Flight_of_the_Intruder_. The A-6 would climb higher to get out of small arms range, and you could watch the tracers arc up and head back down. Although smaller, faster firing AAA would be good for low flying airplanes, I am sure that ground forces would be quite willing to give up rate of fire for the versatility of being able to engage higher flying airplanes without using expensive SAMS ;-). -- Walker J. Seestedt. USC Aerospace Engineering (213) 740-4303. Dod #0081 Internet: walker@spock.usc..edu | Uucp: ...uunet!usc!spock!walker Bitnet: swalker@uscvm.bitnet Standard disclaimers apply. Internal use only. Violators will be persecuted.
bxr307@coombs.anu.edu.au (Brian) (05/09/91)
From: bxr307@coombs.anu.edu.au (Brian) fcrary@lightning.Berkeley.EDU (Frank Crary) writes: >From: fcrary@lightning.Berkeley.EDU (Frank Crary) >In article <1991May7.062324.12399@amd.com> Robert_Bell@mindlink.bc.ca (Robert Bell) writes: >>I used to be sam technician in the British Army and i have yet to see a >>low level sam system better than the British Aerospace RAPIER system. It >>comes in towed and tracked versions and is very accurate. We used to >>test fire them against towed drones which were approximately the same >>size as HARM missiles and achieved kill rates in the upper 90% range. >Although the RAPIER is a very nice SAM system, but I doubt it could >shoot down a HARM is flight. Most target drones are subsonic, while >the AGM-88 HARM missile flys at greater than 2.5 Ma. Other anti-radiation >missiles are also very supersonic. This makes them VERY hard to hit. I think that if the Rapier system was using the Blindfire engagement system, it would have a very good chance of intercepting the HARM. However as the original poster was not attempting to imply that it could, I don't see the point of this criticism. BTW Blindfire and Sea Wolf use elements of each other and have been cross fertilising each other's programs. I would presume that it would not take very much effort to upgrade Rapier to a very good, last ditch CIWS system for larger SAM's and radars. But then why not team a Phalanx with each radar to protect it from the ARM's? [Tread lightly in the fields of speculation, please. --CDR] -- Brian Ross
Eric_S_Klien@cup.portal.com (05/12/91)
From: Eric_S_Klien@cup.portal.com >Given that most ground attack aircraft don't carry a whole lot of >armour -- even the A-10, as I understand it, has armour only for >pilot protection Wrong, the A-10 has armor all over, the cockpit does get the most armor though. Think of the A-10 as a flying tank, it is invulnerable to AAA, but vulnerable to SAMs. (SAMs are very similar to anti-tank missiles.) Eric Klien
tkogoma%triton.unm.edu@ariel.unm.edu (Taki Kogoma) (05/15/91)
From: tkogoma%triton.unm.edu@ariel.unm.edu (Taki Kogoma) Eric_S_Klien@cup.portal.com writes: >Wrong, the A-10 has armor all over, the cockpit does get the most >armor though. Think of the A-10 as a flying tank, it is invulnerable >to AAA, but vulnerable to SAMs. (SAMs are very similar to anti-tank >missiles.) Invulnerable to AAA? I'd think that some radar-guided 100mm would mess up a Hog no problem. As for SAMs being like ATGMs, no way. I believe a good number of SAM designs have proximity detonated warheads (which send several thousand ball-bearings into the airframe. Maybe IR-guided SAMs are contact detonated, but even then I don't think they utilize shaped charge warheads (like ATGMs). Of course, I'm only an interested layman. I could very well be wrong. ;-) -- Taki Kogoma tkogoma@triton.unm.edu