military@cbnews.ATT.COM (William B. Thacker) (12/04/89)
From: uswat!sunpeaks!cadnetix.COM!waynea (Wayne Angevine)
This is a subject which has intrigued me for some time, and has come
to my attention again with reports from El Salvador. Let me put forth
a deliberately somewhat hyperbolic hypothesis and see what discussion
it brings out.
I hypothesize that the shoulder-launched anti-aircraft missle makes
much of the modern air force obsolete. The major reason is the cost
differential. Secondary considerations are size and portability.
In short, any airplane you can build, I can shoot down for much less
cost and from pretty much any position.
What do you think?
Wayne Angevine Internet: waynea@cadnetix.com
Daisy/Cadnetix Corp. UUCP: cadnetix!waynea
5775 Flatiron Pkwy. {uunet,boulder,nbires}!cadnetix!waynea
Boulder, CO 80301jln@Portia.stanford.edu (Jared Nedzel) (12/05/89)
From: Jared Nedzel <jln@Portia.stanford.edu> In article <11927@cbnews.ATT.COM> you write: > > >From: uswat!sunpeaks!cadnetix.COM!waynea (Wayne Angevine) >This is a subject which has intrigued me for some time, and has come >to my attention again with reports from El Salvador. Let me put forth >a deliberately somewhat hyperbolic hypothesis and see what discussion >it brings out. > >I hypothesize that the shoulder-launched anti-aircraft missle makes >much of the modern air force obsolete. The major reason is the cost >differential. Secondary considerations are size and portability. >In short, any airplane you can build, I can shoot down for much less >cost and from pretty much any position. > >What do you think? Just like the development of radar-guided SAMs in the '60s made planes obsolete. :-/ No, the missiles don't make aircraft obsolete. Just look at Afghanistan. The Soviets were obliged to change their tactics and add countermeasures (flares, exhaust shielding and mixing, NOE flying, etc) but they did not ground their aircraft. As for being able to shoot-down a plane from "pretty much any position," I can't agree with you here. The man-portable missiles have severe limits in maximum range and I don't believe any of them are "all-aspect." (i.e. they can only acquire the target when inside a limited cone extending rearward from the target). Man-portable missiles are just another threat that has to be dealt with. They are not the end of aircraft. > Wayne Angevine Internet: waynea@cadnetix.com -- Jared L. Nedzel --------------------------------------------------------------------- e-mail: nedzel@cive.stanford.edu jln@portia.stanford.edu
tek@CS.UCLA.EDU (Ted Kim (Random Dude)) (12/05/89)
From: tek@CS.UCLA.EDU (Ted Kim (Random Dude)) In article <11927@cbnews.ATT.COM> military@cbnews.ATT.COM (William B. Thacker) writes: > ... Let me put forth >a deliberately somewhat hyperbolic hypothesis and see what discussion >it brings out. There are lots of possible things to discuss here, but let me bring up a few points. >I hypothesize that the shoulder-launched anti-aircraft missle makes >much of the modern air force obsolete. Certainly, you mean just those aircraft which have to expose themselves to such fire, like CAS aircraft. Aircraft on air superiority missions or ones using stand-off weapons against high-value targets are not likely to enter the engagement envelope of light SAMs. >The major reason is the cost >differential. Obviously, one SAM costs less than a CAS aircraft. But, the cost differential must of course be matched to average number of shots necessary to bring an aircraft down and the damage the aircraft is doing in the meantime. >Secondary considerations are size and portability. >In short, any airplane you can build, I can shoot down for much less >cost and from pretty much any position. A large range of factors goes into the effectiveness of a weapon. The Stinger was very effective in Afghanistan when introduced. But lately, from recent press reports, it seems the Stinger has lost much of its effectiveness due to improved tactics on the Afghan Air Force. -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
jb7m+@andrew.cmu.edu (Jon C. R. Bennett) (12/06/89)
From: "Jon C. R. Bennett" <jb7m+@andrew.cmu.edu> > I hypothesize that the shoulder-launched anti-aircraft missle makes > much of the modern air force obsolete. The major reason is the cost > differential. Secondary considerations are size and portability. > In short, any airplane you can build, I can shoot down for much less > cost and from pretty much any position. Not so, you need to be able to aquire your target, unless you are on an open plane you can't (trees in the wat.) Even on an open plane you whould need to be very fast to get a supersonic overflight. An the planes that are taking slow passes over you are quite often shooting back :-) Jon C. R. Bennett jcrb@cs.cmu.edu
gwh%typhoon.Berkeley.EDU@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (Intelsat VI right thruster cluster) (12/06/89)
From: gwh%typhoon.Berkeley.EDU@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (Intelsat VI right thruster cluster) In article <11927@cbnews.ATT.COM> military@cbnews.ATT.COM (William B. Thacker) writes: [mod.note: A misattribution. That's why I include the extra From: line. - Bill ] >This is a subject which has intrigued me for some time, and has come >to my attention again with reports from El Salvador. Let me put forth >a deliberately somewhat hyperbolic hypothesis and see what discussion >it brings out. > >I hypothesize that the shoulder-launched anti-aircraft missle makes >much of the modern air force obsolete. The major reason is the cost >differential. Secondary considerations are size and portability. >In short, any airplane you can build, I can shoot down for much less >cost and from pretty much any position. I don't think so. I-Sam's have about a one persent chance of hitting in most situations. Economically, yes, that's still less than the cost of the plane, but the end effect is that you just cause attacks to be aborted rather than killing planes. [they see sams and evade, don't some back]. Note that the Fabundo Marti haven't hit anything yet. ***************************************************************************** George William Herbert UCB Naval Architecture [On schedule? at UCB? Yes!] gwh@ocf.berkeley.edu gwh@soda.berk... maniac@garnet.berk... ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- "And what if I Don't?" "Then, You will die, the Girl dies, everybody dies..." -Heavy Metal |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
shaig%shum.Huji.AC.IL@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU (Shai Guday) (12/06/89)
From: shaig%shum.Huji.AC.IL@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU (Shai Guday) In article <11927@cbnews.ATT.COM> military@cbnews.ATT.COM (William B. Thacker) w rites: % %I hypothesize that the shoulder-launched anti-aircraft missle makes %much of the modern air force obsolete. The major reason is the cost %differential. Secondary considerations are size and portability. %In short, any airplane you can build, I can shoot down for much less %cost and from pretty much any position. % %What do you think? Yes and no. To a certain extent, shoulder launched AA missiles can be a factor in a confrontation, however they would not necessarily be a deciding factor. The guidance mechanisms for these missiles is simple, their range is relatively limited, and I am not at all sure of the effectiveness. >From my experience in Lebanon, the only aircraft that had to worry were the Sikorsky troop carriers, and they had the means to fool the missile guidance control systems. Of course I was in the infantry, and it just may be that the pilots sweated a bit more than we knew ;-). % Wayne Angevine Internet: waynea@cadnetix.com % Daisy/Cadnetix Corp. UUCP: cadnetix!waynea % 5775 Flatiron Pkwy. {uunet,boulder,nbires}!cadnetix!waynea % Boulder, CO 80301 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ______ __ __ ______ _ : Shai Guday / / / / / : / / / / / / : Computer Science Dept.
henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) (12/06/89)
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) >From: Jared Nedzel <jln@Portia.stanford.edu> >Man-portable missiles are just another threat that has to be dealt with. >They are not the end of aircraft. As witness a most amusing reconnaissance photo from the Falklands War: looking almost sideways from a low-level Harrier, one sees a scattering of Argentine soldiers... one of them struggling to get a Blowpipe missile pointed at the Harrier! Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu
tek@CS.UCLA.EDU (Ted Kim (Random Dude)) (12/07/89)
From: tek@CS.UCLA.EDU (Ted Kim (Random Dude)) In article <11963@cbnews.ATT.COM> jln@Portia.stanford.edu (Jared Nedzel) writes: >... > The man-portable missiles have severe limits > in maximum range and I don't believe any of them are "all-aspect." (i.e. ^^^^^^^^^^ While I don't think it is officially confirmed ... I believe most people attribute all-aspect capability to the Stinger (FIM-92). But, of course, all-aspect is not the same as "equally effective in all directions". It simply means it is realistic to try shooting at a closing target. As for other IR guided light SAMs, Grail (SA-7) and Redeye (FIM-43) are probably not all-aspect, though Gremlin (SA-14) may be. Of course, optically-guided light SAMs like Blowpipe and Javelin can also be considered all-aspect, though certainly not fire-and-forget, since they depend on operator to guide the missile during its flight. -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
cperlebe@encad.Wichita.NCR.COM (Chris Perleberg) (12/07/89)
From: cperlebe@encad.Wichita.NCR.COM (Chris Perleberg) In article <11927@cbnews.ATT.COM> military@cbnews.ATT.COM (William B. Thacker) writes: >I hypothesize that the shoulder-launched anti-aircraft missle makes >much of the modern air force obsolete. The major reason is the cost >differential. Secondary considerations are size and portability. >In short, any airplane you can build, I can shoot down for much less >cost and from pretty much any position. While the cost differential is there, I think your assessment is premature. Such missiles are, by necessity, small, and there is an upper limit on big they can get. This limits both the warhead and the propellant. Also, line of sight considerations limits their usefulness, as does copious use of decoys. I think the real purpose of such missiles, aside from damaging the occasional aircraft, is to force attacking aircraft to fly at a higher altitide, making them vulnerable to other, more deadly missiles. A missile like the SA-7 can't even hit an aircraft until after it has passed overhead and presumably made its attack. On the other hand, the Stinger worked fairly well in Afghanistan, by all accounts, but then it is an all-angle missile. The Blowpipe (laser or optical guidance, I forget) didn't work as well in the Falklands, nor did the SA-7 work very well against the Israelis in 1973 or against the US/RVN in Vietnam. Are there any other examples of small SAM usage out there? Chris Perleberg cperlebe@encad.wichita.ncr.com
waltm@maxzilla.UUCP (Walt Mattison) (12/11/89)
From: waltm@maxzilla.UUCP (Walt Mattison) In article <12062@cbnews.ATT.COM> tek@CS.UCLA.EDU (Ted Kim (Random Dude)) writes: > > >From: tek@CS.UCLA.EDU (Ted Kim (Random Dude)) > >In article <11963@cbnews.ATT.COM> jln@Portia.stanford.edu (Jared Nedzel) writes: >>... >> The man-portable missiles have severe limits >> in maximum range and I don't believe any of them are "all-aspect." (i.e. > ^^^^^^^^^^ >While I don't think it is officially confirmed ... > >I believe most people attribute all-aspect capability to the Stinger >(FIM-92). But, of course, all-aspect is not the same as "equally >effective in all directions". It simply means it is realistic to try >shooting at a closing target. As for other IR guided light SAMs, Grail >(SA-7) and Redeye (FIM-43) are probably not all-aspect, though Gremlin >(SA-14) may be. > >Of course, optically-guided light SAMs like Blowpipe and Javelin can >also be considered all-aspect, though certainly not fire-and-forget, >since they depend on operator to guide the missile during its flight. I won't talk about U.S. weapons but the Soviet SA-14 is considered "all-aspect" in it's capabilities to down aircraft. It can engage aircraft pulling up to 8 gs and can engage at ranges of up to 13000ft. It is also assumed that the SA-16 is all aspect but that is uncomfirmed. The problem with hand held IR guided SAMs is that you must expose yourself to fire not only from the target but to any other fire in the area.( Note; U.S. cas aircraft are typically deployed in trios to cause disruption of effective target aquistion from the ground) The SAM also needs open line of sight to target to get green light for launch, the ir seeker takes several seconds to get lock, how often, other than on a n nice clean firing range will a target present itself for this sort of abuse? Hand held SAMs exist for several reasons, 1. To give ground troops some comfort level about getting rid of pesky aircraft. 2. To disrupt a pilots target run, maybe get him to fly into the ground... 3. Force nervous pilots to higher altitudes where they can be dispatched more effectively by better SAMs. 4. They are most effective against rotary wing aircraft, ( great against troop ships) However since the Soviets have over 9000 SAM launchers deployed with their Army they could be a factor. They have also exported over 20000 SAMs to third world nations, these could be a real joy in the hands of some of the quacks running most of the worlds countries. Walt Mattison
henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) (12/11/89)
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) >From: tek@CS.UCLA.EDU (Ted Kim (Random Dude)) >Stinger was very effective in Afghanistan when introduced. But lately, >from recent press reports, it seems the Stinger has lost much of its >effectiveness due to improved [aircraft] tactics... It is very difficult to assess the effectiveness of a weapon when the opposition is aware of it and sufficiently worried about it to accept handicaps to avoid it. The Sea Dart heavy SAM looked pretty ineffective in the Falklands, until you realize that *it* was the big reason why the Argentine pilots insisted on bombing from wavetop altitude, where their accuracy was poor and their improperly-fuzed bombs often failed to explode. The Maginot Line would not be a laughingstock of military history if it had been extended to the North Sea coast as originally intended, because going around it was the only way the Germans could deal with it. The main reason for the near-absence of big battleship engagements in World War I was that a head-on clash between British and German fleets would unquestionably have resulted in the total annihilation of the German fleet, and the Germans knew it. In Afghanistan, the "improved tactics" basically consist of staying at higher altitudes, which massively reduces the effectiveness of the *aircraft*. The onset of the "improved tactics" was the point at which the Afghans stopped slowly losing and started winning. Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu
tek@CS.UCLA.EDU (Ted Kim (Random Dude)) (12/12/89)
From: tek@CS.UCLA.EDU (Ted Kim (Random Dude)) In article <12170@cbnews.ATT.COM> henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes: > ... >In Afghanistan, the "improved tactics" basically consist of staying at >higher altitudes, which massively reduces the effectiveness of the >*aircraft*. The onset of the "improved tactics" was the point at which >the Afghans stopped slowly losing and started winning. The LA Times printed an article in which they had excerpts of an interview with an Afghan CAS pilot. He claimed that the Stinger had a flaw in its guidance in part of its engagement envelope. He went on to claim special evasion tactics designed to exploit this flaw are now used by the Afghan air forces. So maybe, in this case, there is more to "improved tactics", than just the standard fly higher, expose yourself less type tactics. -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