mayse@cs.uiuc.edu (Chip Mayse) (12/08/89)
From: Chip Mayse <mayse@cs.uiuc.edu>
In the "Yom Kippur War" of 1973, the Israeli Air Force experienced a number
of incidents in which infrared-homing SAM-(7's, I think) struck the tailpipes
of IAF McDonnell Douglas A-4's. Often all that happened was that the SAM
blew a hole in the tailpipe, which probably decreased total engine thrust
a bit but nothing more. If the SAM is to be fairly portable and handy,
it can't have a very heavy warhead, so its lethality is thereby limited.
Henry's point (about missile-launch reaction time) is well taken, too. I've
seen USAF test footage (taken at Eglin AFB) of high-speed (about 550 knots),
low-altitude weapon deliveries against ground targets. From the time the
planes (F-100's and 105's, mostly) appeared as dots on the horizon until the
entire vicinity of the camera was plastered with napalm and fragmentation
bombs was typically only two or three seconds. If this becomes a common
ground attack mode--as it can with weapons-delivery systems which use
accurate target- and aircraft-positioning data--the effectiveness of
small SAM's should be diminished. They're probably most effective against
planes loitering about and looking around, rather than making quick, well-
planned runs.
Chip Mayse
cmayse@ncsa.uiuc.educlallen@rodan.acs.syr.edu (Charles L Allen) (12/09/89)
From: clallen@rodan.acs.syr.edu (Charles L Allen) I have recently seen some tape where the narator suggested that the Mujahadeen had considerable problems with the Stinger missile, mainly because it had an annoying tendancy to never launch when the trigger was pulled, Does anyone else know anything about this??? Is the narrator wrong, or perhaps overblowing a couple of incidents?? CHAz-- CLALLEN@rodan.acs.syr.edu RSCLA@suvm.bitnet
henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) (12/11/89)
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) >From: Chip Mayse <mayse@cs.uiuc.edu> >In the "Yom Kippur War" of 1973, the Israeli Air Force experienced a number >of incidents in which infrared-homing SAM-(7's, I think) struck the tailpipes >of IAF McDonnell Douglas A-4's. Often all that happened was that the SAM >blew a hole in the tailpipe, which probably decreased total engine thrust >a bit but nothing more... Which is why modern Israeli A-4s have extended tailpipes! They've also offered this simple survivability mod commercially; I've been rather surprised that none of the other Skyhawk operators have taken it up. It's a trifle unsightly, but it's an effective way to keep the missile warhead just a bit farther away from the engine. Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu
pmorriso@uunet.UU.NET (Perry Morrison MATH) (12/12/89)
From: munnari!gara.une.oz.au!pmorriso@uunet.UU.NET (Perry Morrison MATH) In article <12171@cbnews.ATT.COM>, henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes: > > > From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) > >From: Chip Mayse <mayse@cs.uiuc.edu> > >In the "Yom Kippur War" of 1973, the Israeli Air Force experienced a number > >of incidents in which infrared-homing SAM-(7's, I think) struck the tailpipes > >of IAF McDonnell Douglas A-4's. Often all that happened was that the SAM > >blew a hole in the tailpipe, which probably decreased total engine thrust > >a bit but nothing more... > > Which is why modern Israeli A-4s have extended tailpipes! They've also > offered this simple survivability mod commercially; I've been rather > surprised that none of the other Skyhawk operators have taken it up. > It's a trifle unsightly, but it's an effective way to keep the missile > warhead just a bit farther away from the engine. 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. 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 follwing radar or other naviagational 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.
wdstarr@athena.mit.edu (William December Starr) (12/13/89)
From: wdstarr@athena.mit.edu (William December Starr) In article <12171@cbnews.ATT.COM>, Henry Spencer said: > > [discussion of SAMs detonating on tailpipe impact rather than engine > > impact and thereby doing only cosmetic damage.] > > Which is why modern Israeli A-4s have extended tailpipes! They've also > offered this simple survivability mod commercially; I've been rather > surprised that none of the other Skyhawk operators have taken it up. > It's a trifle unsightly, but it's an effective way to keep the missile > warhead just a bit farther away from the engine. I think you just answered your own question: the world's full of procurement officers who wouldn't be caught dead purchasing any aircraft that came with mods that made it look less cool...