Brian Ross (bxr307@coombs.anu.oz) (12/15/89)
From: Brian Ross (bxr307@coombs.anu.oz) munnari!gara.une.oz.au!pmorriso@uunet.UU.NET (Perry Morrison MATH) writes: In article <12171@cbnews.ATT.COM>, henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes: [Stuff about Israeli A4 exhaust pipe extensions] >I believe that when the sam-7 was first used in vietnam, it was highly >effective against helicopters (especially CH-47's) and that many choppers >had a "stove-pipe" added to their exhaust so that the missile warhead would >mostly destroy a piece of pipe rather than turbines, people etc. Same > principle I guess. The "stove-pipes" applied in Vietnam where for a different purpose. If you look closely at those applied to choppers they actually curve upwards. This was an early anti-IR measure which directed the exhaust into the rotor downwash in an effort to mix it with cool air and mask it from IR guidance systems. Its interesting though that this discussion about MANPADS has only spoken briefly about the other methods of guiding such a missile to its target. The RBS-70 with its laser beam guidance is an interesting example. It is perhaps the only real "all-aspect" MANPADS and is totally unjammable. It is also the only system fitted with an IFF (Identify Friend or Foe) system on the mount. Something which will be crucial in the next one if the digger on the ground is not going to shoot down his own side's aircraft. All the gunner has to do is keep is cross-hairs on the target and the guidance impulses are transmitted up the laser beam to the missile which then reacts to them (note the laser beam does not illuminate the target. It is simply a means of transmitting guidance messages to the missile). The system is relatively simple and fool proof. In addition training costs are reduced as the gunner only has to train with a laser beam, not a missile. Simulator training costs are also reduced. >On A-4s, the Israelis did very neat mods including avionics refits and >a nifty smoke diffuser that electrostatically diffused exhaust smoke. This is >a problem on many A-4s and makes them easier to track (F-4s are even worse). >On the issue on Sam effectiveness, there's no doubt that (amongst >other air defences) they help provide a threat environment that forces CAS >aircraft to go low and fast, thereby minimising their effectiveness. The answer >is to use expensive aircraft with terrain following radar or other navigational >capabilities that allow them to come onto a target and hit it first time, low >and fast (e.g. the PAVETAC system on F-111s). The problem is of course that >these planes are very expensive and losses in CAS are very high-every now and >then even a stray round will bring one down and at say $40m per unit, that >gets mighty expensive mighty fast. >This is an issue we face in Australia. We operate 75 F/A 18s and >the most likely threat (from where?) is low level- squads of people hiding >in the bush and blowing up the occasional thing.Are we really going to use >F/A 18s to hit the odd truck/person? Sounds like a classic technology >differential. Ah! Then you have never closely studied the Australian Government's 1986 Dibb Report or 1987 White Paper on defence have you? The F/A18, like the Navy have been tasked with attempting to defeat an enemy before he can reach our shores. If he manages to do so then the Army is to destroy him. In addition both papers called for the establishment of two squadrons of light ground attack aircraft. At the moment that has been placed on the back burner to fund other acquisitions which are more pressing. However the lead contenders are at the moment the BAE Hawk 100, the Dornier/Aerospatiale Alpha Jet and the Pilatus PC9 trainer (which has just entered service). If/when the aircraft enter service the main task of the F/A18's will most probably become primarily air-superiority (which it already is) and then maritime strike, and finally CAS. The smaller, lighter and cheaper future LGA will be employed as a CAS for missions within Australia. Where their relatively low speed and long loiter times will be used to advantage for the scenarios being planned against. _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_ -_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_- | Brian Ross |Snail Mail:- "Bill Bracket the self-made man who came| in a packet" | Brian Ross ----------------------------------------| Sociology Dept.R.S.S.S. E-Mail Addresses:- bxr307@coombs.anu.oz | Australian National University | CANBERRA,A.C.T.,2601, bxr307@csc.anu.oz | AUSTRALIA | _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_ -_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-
tek@CS.UCLA.EDU (Ted Kim (Random Dude)) (12/18/89)
From: tek@CS.UCLA.EDU (Ted Kim (Random Dude)) In article <12360@cbnews.ATT.COM> Brian Ross (bxr307@coombs.anu.oz) writes: > ... >The RBS-70 with its laser beam guidance is an interesting example. It >is perhaps the only real "all-aspect" MANPADS and is totally >unjammable. > ... I suppose it depends on your definition of "MANPADS". Stinger, Grail and the like consist of little more than a launch tube. They can be setup quickly and carried by a single man. RBS-70 consists of a large launch tube, control unit and seat for the operator on a pedestal. Its setup is more lengthy and its "man portability" is less due to its size and weight. Most people would not want to try to carry one alone. -ted Ted Kim UCLA Computer Science Department Internet: tek@penzance.cs.ucla.edu 3804C Boelter Hall UUCP: ...!{uunet|ucbvax}!cs.ucla.edu!tek Los Angeles, CA 90024 Phone: (213) 206-8696
pmorriso@uunet.UU.NET (Perry Morrison MATH) (12/18/89)
From: munnari!gara.une.oz.au!pmorriso@uunet.UU.NET (Perry Morrison MATH) > From: Brian Ross (bxr307@coombs.anu.oz) > munnari!gara.une.oz.au!pmorriso@uunet.UU.NET (Perry Morrison MATH) writes: > > >I believe that when the sam-7 was first used in vietnam, it was highly > >effective against helicopters (especially CH-47's) and that many choppers > >had a "stove-pipe" added to their exhaust so that the missile warhead would > >mostly destroy a piece of pipe rather than turbines, people etc. Same > > principle I guess. > > The "stove-pipes" applied in Vietnam where for a different > purpose. If you look closely at those applied to choppers they > actually curve upwards. This was an early anti-IR measure which > directed the exhaust into the rotor downwash in an effort to mix > it with cool air and mask it from IR guidance systems. Surely the effect would have been the same? The hottest piece of the chopper would have been the stove-pipe which would have taken the brunt of a hit. The rotor dissipation is new to me, but i'm sure you're right. > > Its interesting though that this discussion about MANPADS > has only spoken briefly about the other methods of guiding such a > missile to its target. The RBS-70 with its laser beam guidance > is an interesting example. It is perhaps the only real > "all-aspect" MANPADS and is totally unjammable. It is also the only > system fitted with an IFF (Identify Friend or Foe) system on the Would some of the other problems discussed with other manpads also apply here: short reaction time for low, fast aircraft, small warhead size (although isn't the Bofors design a 2 man team with pedastel mount, so presumably it could be a larger missile?). The all-aspect capability helps, but would its effectiveness as well as IFF be rather limited with low fast targets? > All the gunner has to do is keep is cross-hairs on the > target and the guidance impulses are transmitted up the laser > beam to the missile which then reacts to them (note the laser > beam does not illuminate the target. It is simply a means of > transmitting guidance messages to the missile). The system is > relatively simple and fool proof. In addition training costs are > reduced as the gunner only has to train with a laser beam, not a > missile. Simulator training costs are also reduced. What would be the time-of-flight for a typical missile shot? I recall that saggers (soviet wire guided anti-tank missiles) took 10-30 seconds and that this was a significant disincentive (to use an economic term) to gunners in the face of artillery and other forms of attack. In a co-ordinated force of arms attack would not the effectiveness of all manpads be limited while operating teams shelter from opposing fire? I know that many of these things can be operated remotely, but even so, it would take some gumption to stick your head up and keep a laser on target while shot and shell threaten to take it off. As I understand it, the initial surprise of the saggers in the Yom Kippur war were reversed when the Israelis co-ordinated armour and artillery attacks with infantry. > > We operate 75 F/A 18s and > >the most likely threat (from where?) is low level- squads of people hiding > >in the bush and blowing up the occasional thing.Are we really going to use > >F/A 18s to hit the odd truck/person? Sounds like a classic technology > >differential. > > Ah! Then you have never closely studied the Australian Government's > 1986 Dibb Report or 1987 White Paper on defence have you? The F/A18, like > the Navy have been tasked with attempting to defeat an enemy > before he can reach our shores. If he manages to do so then the > Army is to destroy him. In addition both papers called for the > establishment of two squadrons of light ground attack aircraft. > At the moment that has been placed on the back burner to fund > other acquisitions which are more pressing. However the lead > contenders are at the moment the BAE Hawk 100, the > Dornier/Aerospatiale Alpha Jet and the Pilatus PC9 trainer (which > has just entered service). If/when the aircraft enter service > the main task of the F/A18's will most probably become primarily > air-superiority (which it already is) and then maritime strike, > and finally CAS. The smaller, lighter and cheaper future LGA > will be employed as a CAS for missions within Australia. Where their > relatively low speed and long loiter times will be used to advantage for > the scenarios being planned against. Thanks for the fineprint, but I'm not sure that the argument is changed. Are even light attack aircraft (let alone F/A-18s) an economic option in the pursuit of small groups of people stretched out over thousands of kms? Factoring in costs: fuel, training, maintenance, potential losses against likely benefits- a couple of dozen dead people and a few vehicles, it doesn't seem to be an economic prospect. Mind you, I don't know how you do deal with geurilla tactics of this sort, except to go israeli and bomb their home ports/bases. Now that would be an appropriate task for an F/A-18. Perhaps the other tactic is Sth African- equally small groups of people roaming around and looking for these enemy bands. In any case, as previous postings have mentioned, the application of hi-tech to such a lo-tech scenario is probably not justified. For a higher level conflict where an enemy has landed in Australia in significant force, then numbers of light attack aircraft might be justified. In this case, there are likely to be sufficient targets and materiel to justify their application and associated risk. <end-of-rave> __ _______________________W_(Not Drowning...Waving!)___________________________ Perry Morrison Ph.D, V.D (and scar). SNAIL: Maths, Stats and Computing Science, UNE, Armidale, 2351, Australia. perrym@neumann.une.oz or pmorriso@gara.une.oz Ph:067 73 2302
bxr307@csc.anu.oz (12/20/89)
From: bxr307@csc.anu.oz From: tek@CS.UCLA.EDU (Ted Kim (Random Dude)) In article <12360@cbnews.ATT.COM>> Brian Ross (bxr307@coombs.anu.oz) writes: >> ... >>The RBS-70 with its laser beam guidance is an interesting example. It >>is perhaps the only real "all-aspect" MANPADS and is totally >>unjammable. >> ... >I suppose it depends on your definition of "MANPADS". Stinger, Grail >and the like consist of little more than a launch tube. They can be >setup quickly and carried by a single man. RBS-70 consists of a large >launch tube, control unit and seat for the operator on a pedestal. Its >setup is more lengthy and its "man portability" is less due to its >size and weight. Most people would not want to try to carry one alone. To create an effective weapon capable of destroying a sophisticated aircraft today does not necessarily mean that is has to be small. MANPADS is by definition a MAN Portable Air-Defence System. If its crew-served or not does not enter into it. If the missile is to be small enough to be carried by one man then you must trade off against its ability to destroy its target with a single hit (smaller warheard) and its ability to mount a useful attack system (IFF). A good point is a quote in a recent Aviation Magazine (AIR International September 1989) which quoted the designer of the SU-25 Frogfoot at the Paris air-show. He, in the spirit of Glasnost, was describing the experience gained with operating the Frogfoot in Afganistan. He said that the small warhead of the Stinger (and its IR guidance system which means that it attacks the tailpipe rather than other parts of the fuselage) was defeated by increasing the armour around the tailpipes, a new sheet of armour between the engines inside the fuselage (to prevent the spread of fire) and a fire suppresion system. They also added more flares to the dispensers. After these addition he claimed that no more Frogfoots were lost to Stingers. This is similar to the Isreali experience with SA-7's and SA-14's. They increased the length of the A4's tailpipe and added a better fire suppresion system. The RBS-70 on the other hand has a larger warhead (because its bigger! :-), has an IFF system and is unjammable/undecoyable. It can also strike the target from any angle so increased armouring of the tailpipes/engines will not necessarily be a great boon. While its bigger, heavier and needs more men to operate/carry it. I think the trade offs are justified. _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_ -_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_- | Brian Ross |Snail Mail:- "Bill Bracket the self-made man who came| in a a packet" | Brian Ross ----------------------------------------| Sociology Dept.R.S.S.S. E-Mail Addresses:- bxr307@coombs.anu.oz | Australian National University | CANBERRA,A.C.T.,2601, bxr307@csc.anu.oz | AUSTRALIA | _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_ -_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-
frank0@ibmpcug.co.uk (Frank Dunn) (12/21/89)
From: Frank Dunn <frank0@ibmpcug.co.uk> Saggers like most first and second generation guided anti tank missiles are strictly sub sonic unlike MANPPADS. Most AT missiles fligt time is measured in tens of seconds. Unlike MANPADS they have to negotiate terrain and carry a heavier warhead. Plus the targets usually have no one signature that makes a simple guidance system feasible. It could be argued of course that the move to gas turbines in MBTs makes tanks highly susceptible to IR and thermal guidance and thus MANPADS guidance systems? -- Automatic Disclaimer: The views expressed above are those of the author alone and may not represent the views of the IBM PC User Group.