moudgill@svax.cs.cornell.edu (Mayan Moudgill) (01/23/91)
From: moudgill@svax.cs.cornell.edu (Mayan Moudgill) Here's a bunch of answers to some questions re: iraq Railways: The iraqi railways have been buying rolling stock from india. I _dont_ know how useful this info is, but $0.02 Napalm: White phosphorus + aluminum powder + liquid soap + oil (+ oxidizer, if you want to be real nasty) OV-10 Bronco: Observation aircraft, used for arty spotting etc. If I remember right-- it's been 3 yrs since I last looked at the specs-- it's two people sitting side by side in a huge transparent dome, twin prop plane. Some questions: AMM: What other (than patriot) amms are there. Of course there's the Nike-X (X= Hercules, Ajax) ABLM and the russian equivalent. I believe the (british) sea wolf has some AMM capability. Also, I seem to remember that the Israelis were working on a vertically launched very high maneouverability missile with AMM capabilities. Can anyone confirm/deny? Runway Penetration Bombs: Does the American arsenal have any? I think that there was a time when the only NATO anti-runway bomb was the Durandals (I _think_) which the tornadoes could carry. I'm kinda wondering, since the news reports seem to indicate that the tornadoes were operating against runways. Sparrow vs Sidewinder: Again a vauge recollection of somebody saying that sparrows, for all their range, were no-good for attack fighters, and that pheonixs were worse. I'm not sure, but I think the agility of the sparrow is low. Can anyone confirm? ZSU 3-23 (or is it 4-23?): Any idea how many Iraq has? (Jane's AFV anyone?) And how serious a threat they'd be when the ground attack started? [mod.note: My old Jane's shows Iraq as possessing both ZSU-23-4's and ZSU-57-2's. Quantity is not stated. - Bill ] Copperhead: I read somewhere a report that the Army was using copperhead rounds. I thought that they were as big a joke as the Sgt. York. Any comments, anyone? :) mayan
com259h@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au (01/24/91)
From: com259h@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au In article <1991Jan23.040415.5172@cbnews.att.com>, moudgill@svax.cs.cornell.edu (Mayan Moudgill) writes: > Runway Penetration Bombs: > Does the American arsenal have any? I think that there was > a time when the only NATO anti-runway bomb was the Durandals > (I _think_) which the tornadoes could carry. I'm kinda wondering, > since the news reports seem to indicate that the tornadoes > were operating against runways. There is a British developed anti-runway ordinance consisting of hundreds of bomblets ejected from a carrirer pod attached to the belly of a Tornado. Once released the bomblets use a parachute to stabilise their flight and explode when they hit the ground. I did see some footage of a test of this system and the area where the bomblets hit was litterally shredded. The advantage of this system is that it tears up a long strip of the runway, whereas the Durandal makes one localised (albeit large) crater per missile/bomb. Bull@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au OR com259h@monu1.cc.monash.oz Alias: Gareth Bull, The Opal Dragon All opinions expressed are the result of paranoid delusions!
dvlssd@cs.umu.se (Stefan Skoglund) (01/24/91)
From: dvlssd@cs.umu.se (Stefan Skoglund) In article <1991Jan23.040415.5172@cbnews.att.com> moudgill@svax.cs.cornell.edu (Mayan Moudgill) writes: >Some questions: >Runway Penetration Bombs: > Does the American arsenal have any? I think that there was Answer : The Durandal is a member of the american arsenal. Carried by mostly F-111. The F-111 wing at Cannon tested it some years ago. They tried to simulate an airfield. they dropped some and then they tried to guess : what if it had been some real concrete. They couldn't test as much as they wanted to because then you must have access to real runways and nobody wanted his to be blown up. >Sparrow vs Sidewinder: > During the vietnam war they found that if you fired a sparrow in anger it didn't hit. Most of the problem is this : you must light up the enemy with your radar for the sparrow to hit. The sparrow searches on the radar return. Sidewinder is a shot-and-forget weapon in that sense what it is purely passive. It homes on the targets heat. Firing sequence : Missile enable. It starts to home. Target found, Sound a little signal. Hotter target = high signal. The pilot fires. Missile free. Flying with mach3 towards the target. Hit. The Phoenix has it own auto-pilot and a little radar for the final run. >Copperhead: Answer : The copperhead works fine as least as I now. The main problem was the intended way of getting the laser to bear. They constructed a rpv the Aquila and equipped it with a TV-camera with a target-designator laser. All the operator had to do was keep the laser on the target and he would get a hit. Now we have the problem : To get a good and jam-secure earth-datalink they couldn't get enoug data-speed out to get a good picture. In the end it looked like this : The screen refreshed, wait 2 seconds, the refreshed again. Remember that the main target for the copperhead was tanks. To kill a tank with a arty round you must put it right on. Impossible then you think about this : A tank at full speed moves easily 35 m in 2 seconds. Forget the idea. But if you can get something like a GI, OV-10 or a Kiowa, equip them with a laser designator and then get them near enough then you will have a good weapon. The only problem is this : the Copperhead is expensive. A little story about F-105G. During the Vietnam war all American fighters were ordered to wear Jamming epuipment the ALQ-87. Including the F-105G. F-105G was one of the early Wild-Weasel aircraft. The pod took one weapon-station and what was bad because if they put it on it would jam the RHAW gear and they wouldn't have the faintest idea where the enemy radars were. Needless to say they didn't used it so much. Stefan Skoglund, dvlssd@cs.umu.se ps Flame me in swedish. ds
arthur@Eng.Sun.COM (Arthur Leung) (01/24/91)
From: arthur@Eng.Sun.COM (Arthur Leung) moudgill@svax.cs.cornell.edu (Mayan Moudgill) writes: >OV-10 Bronco: > Observation aircraft, used for arty spotting etc. > If I remember right-- it's been 3 yrs since I last looked > at the specs-- it's two people sitting side by side in > a huge transparent dome, twin prop plane. i think what you just described is the OV-11 (?) Mohawk. the Bronco has been described previously, so i'll skip that. -- arthur
tada@athena.mit.edu (Michael J Zehr) (01/24/91)
From: tada@athena.mit.edu (Michael J Zehr) >From: moudgill@svax.cs.cornell.edu (Mayan Moudgill) > Also, I seem to remember that the Israelis were working > on a vertically launched very high maneouverability missile > with AMM capabilities. Can anyone confirm/deny? CNN reported that Israel was given some SDI money to work on an AMM which I think was called an 'arrow' missile. However, they reported that completion was at least 5 years away. Anyone have something more accurate to add to this? -michael j zehr
adrian@cs.heriot-watt.ac.uk (Adrian Hurt) (01/27/91)
From: Adrian Hurt <adrian@cs.heriot-watt.ac.uk> In article <1991Jan23.040415.5172@cbnews.att.com> moudgill@svax.cs.cornell.edu (Mayan Moudgill) writes: >Runway Penetration Bombs: > Does the American arsenal have any? I think that there was > a time when the only NATO anti-runway bomb was the Durandals > (I _think_) which the tornadoes could carry. I'm kinda wondering, > since the news reports seem to indicate that the tornadoes > were operating against runways. I expect the Tornado could carry a Durandal if the RAF wanted, but they have their own weapon. The Hunting JP233 scatters lots of small bomblets to either side of the aircraft. I imagine the best way to use it is to fly straight along the runway, scattering bomblets as you go. That way you tear up the whole runway, rather than just cutting it in half. Of course, flying in a straight line makes you easier to hit; maybe that's why we've lost so many Tornados. The JP233 also throws out some delayed action mines, to upset anyone who comes to fill in the holes. >Sparrow vs Sidewinder: > Again a vauge recollection of somebody saying that sparrows, > for all their range, were no-good for attack fighters, and > that pheonixs were worse. I'm not sure, but I think the > agility of the sparrow is low. Can anyone confirm? It's not just a matter of agility. The Sparrow is Semi-Active Radar, which means it has a radar receiver but not a transmitter. The firing aircraft has to keep its radar pointing at the target until the missile hits. By contrast, the Sidewinder is Infra-Red Homing. It doesn't need a transmitter; it homes in on a heat source, e.g. a jet engine. That means you can fire it, then run away. It also means that if someone has fired a Sparrow at you, you fire a Sidewinder back and turn away. He's got two choices; try to evade your missile (and lose radar lock, so his missile definitely won't hit you), or keep pointing at you, and get hit himself. "Keyboard? How quaint!" - M. Scott Adrian Hurt | JANET: adrian@uk.ac.hw.cs UUCP: ..!ukc!cs.hw.ac.uk!adrian | ARPA: adrian@cs.hw.ac.uk
A.G.Poole@newcastle.ac.uk (A.G.Poole) (02/04/91)
From: A.G.Poole@newcastle.ac.uk (A.G.Poole) adrian@cs.heriot-watt.ac.uk (Adrian Hurt) writes: >I expect the Tornado could carry a Durandal if the RAF wanted, but they have >their own weapon. The Hunting JP233 scatters lots of small bomblets to either >side of the aircraft. I don't theink the Tornado *can* carry the Durandal... however, it has a total of 32 weapons stores options, so I could be wrong... I've been told the F-16 can carry it, but they're only being used in an escort role at present... all this is second hand, I'm quite prepared to be corrected if wrong. Did you know the Tornado is the first aircraft ever to have its cannon deisgned specially for it??? All others adapted existing weapons.... > "Keyboard? How quaint!" - M. Scott hmmmm..... Alex